First  United States
Conference on
Municipal Solid
Waste Management
Solutions for the 90s
Proceedings
Volume I
June 13 • 16, 1990
(Wednesday p.m. - Saturday p.m.)

Ramada Renaissance Tech World
Washington, D.C.
Sponsored by
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
  of Solid
vvEPA
Printed on recycled paper

-------
                 Proceedings of
               First United States
Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management:
              Solutions for the 90s
                June 13-16,1990
                Washington, D.C

-------
                                    Foreword
The ILS. Environmental Protection Agency is pleased to present the proceedings for the
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management:  Solutions for the 90s. The
Agency particularly wants to thank all of the speakers who took the time to prepare and
present papers for this national conference.

The Conference consisted of three plenary sessions:  Opening Session, Reporters' Plenary:
Solid Waste and the Media, and International Plenary. Conference sessions were organized
around seven topic areas:
                      Integrated Planning
                      Source Reduction
                      Recycling and Composting
                      Combustion
Land Disposal
Public Education
Special Wastes
Separate proceedings have been developed for each of the seven topic areas  and are
Available for purchase at cost from the conference management organization, GRCDA, P.O.
Box 7219, Silver Spring, MD  20910, telephone 301/585-2898.
 The two-volume set of the entire conference proceedings may also be purchased at cost

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                               First United States
                 Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management:
                               Solutions for the 90s
Integrated Planning Session
                                                                          Page
Accepting Out-of-State Waste:  Truth and Consequences
      By, Steve Greenwood, Oregon Department of
      Environmental Quality 	      1

Border Wars:  Interstate Transportation and Disposal of
Solid Waste
      By, John L. Kraft, Esq., Kraft and McManimon  	      17

Communicating Risks Associated with Existing and New
Municipal Solid Waste Facilities
      By, William L. Owens and W. David Conn, University
      Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials
      Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
      University	      33

Design and Analysis of New York City's Waste Composition Study
      By, Alex Prutkovsky, Debra Stabile and Valeria
      Scioscioli, Department of Sanitation, City of
      New York  	      47

Economic Incentives and Trends for Regionalization of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
      By, Deems Buell, Kevin Dietly, Ron Burke, Patricia
      Robertson, Sara Rasmussen, Temple, Barker & Sloane,
      Inc. and Economic Analysis Staff, Office of Solid
      Waste, U.S. EPA  	      71

Estimates of the Volume of Municipal Solid Waste Discards
      By, William E.. Franklin and Robert  G. Hunt, Franklin
      Associates  	      95

Evaluation of New York State's Returnable Container Act
      By, Robert S. Amdursky, Esq., Willkie  Fair and
      Gallagher	      97

Full Cost Accounting in Solid Waste Management
      By, Joseph A Vonasek, Governmental  Consulting
      Services	     Ill

-------
Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act of 1990
      By, James E. Kundell, Carl Vinson Institute of
      Government, University of Georgia	    125

A Hauler's Perspective of Problems and Procedures in
Connection with Interstate Transportation and Disposal
of Solid Waste
      By, Theodore A Schwartz, Esq., Schwartz, Tobia
      and Stanziale, Counsel for Waste Management of
      North America, Inc	    143

Integrated Solid Waste Management:  Incentives for
Reduced Waste Generation, Increased Recycling and
Extension of Landfill Life
      By, Dr. Haynes C. Goddard, Department of Economics,
      University of Cincinnati and Risk Reduction
      Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency	    151

Integrated Solid Waste Planning for a Regional Area
      By, Nicholas S.  Artz, Franklin Associates, Ltd. 	    177

International Experiences with Economic Incentives for
Solid Waste Management
      By, Reid J. Lifset and Marian R. Chertow,
      Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale
      University	    199

Major Economic Issues of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Proposed Materials Separation
Requirement for Municipal Waste Combustors, The
      By, Brian J. Morton, Christine D. Ellestad and Diana
      K. Long, Research Triangle Institute and Thomas
      G. Walton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      OAQPS	    201

A Model for Calculating the Costs of Disposal
      By, Steve Greenwood, Oregon Department of
      Environmental Quality 	    205

Public Participation in Facility Siting:  A Decision
Technique
      By, John Rogers and Jed Campbell, Rogers, Golden
      and Halpern	    221

Recycling  in Rhode Island: A Blueprint for Success
      By, Victor Bell, Department of Environmental
      Management	    231

-------
Seattle:  A Case Study in Integrated Planning
      By, Diana H. Gale, Seattle Solid Waste Utility ...................    243

Solid Waste Management Planning: Lessons for the 90's
      By, The Honorable Alfred B. Del Bello, DelbeUo
      Lynch Associates .........................................
Solid Waste Wars: Siting A MSW Composting Facility
      By, Brian R. Golob, DPRA Incorporated and Chuck
      Davis, Wright County Department
Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
      By, Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D., Sound Resource
      Management Group, Inc ....................................    283

Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Cost Model
      By, Christopher J. Lough, DPRA Incorporated and
      Ron Burke, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................    311

Use of Solid Waste Quantification and Characterization Data
to Plan an Integrated System in Mercer County, New Jersey
      By, Donald J. Birnesser, P.E., STW Environmental
      and Lauren H. Moore, Mercer County Improvement  ..............    331

Using Basic Economic Decision Models for Integrated Solid
Waste Management Planning
       By, Loch McCabe, Resource Recycling Systems  ..................    355

Waterloo Pilot Curbside Project, The
       By, R. L. (Bob) Armstrong, Advanced Recycling
       Systems, Inc .............................................    361
 Source Reduction Session

 Canada's National Packaging Protocol:  An Achievable
 Plan for Waste Reduction
       By, D J. Hay, A. Finkelstein, and L. Losier,
       Environment Canada  	    369

 Cleaning Up the Wastestream
       By, Michael Bender, Central Vermont Regional
       Planning Commission  	    385

 Degradable Plastics:  An Illinois Tool Works Perspective
       By, Fred A, Kish, ITW Technology Center	    393
                                       111

-------
Honda's Regulatory Requirements for Degradable
Materials
      By, Julie Gissendanner, Florida Department of
      Environmental Regulation	    409

Food Packaging and Planning for Solid Waste Management
      By, Lisa H. Nowell, Buzz L. Hoffmann, and Michael C
      Harrass, Food and Drug Administration	    415

Local Policy Initiatives: Environmentally Acceptable Packaging
      By, Karen L. Meyer, City of Minneapolis	•    419

Materials Use Policy:  Is There a Need for a National
Effort?
      By, William L. Kovacs, Partner,  Dunn, Carney, Allen,
      Higgins and Tongue, U. S. Environmental Protection
       A
      Agency	

 Packaging Functions and Source Reduction and Reuse
      By, Susan E. Selke, Michigan State  University  	    437

 Plastics: Part of the Solid Waste Solution
      By, Donald B. Shea, The Council for Solid Waste
      Solutions	    451

 Societal and Research Environment of Enhanced
Degradable Plastics, The
      By, Walter E. Grube, Jr., U. S. Environmental
      Protection Agency	    459

Solid Waste (Source) Reduction in Minnesota Counties
      By, Pamela Winthrop  Lauer, Minnesota Office of
      Waste Management	    473

Source  Reduction Strategies
      By, Howard Levenson, U. S. Congress	   485
 Recycling and Composting Session

 Advances in Collecting Plastics
             By, Janet Keller, RI Department of Environmental
             Protection  	      491

 Co-Marketing in DuPage County, Illinois
             By, Miriam C. Foshay, Recycling Management,
             Inc	      509
                                       IV

-------
Composting of MSW in the USA
            By, Luis F. Diaz and Clarence G. Golueke,
            Cal Recovery Systems, Inc	       515

Composting Plants in Mexico: A State of the Art, The
            By, Arturo Davila, Mexican Society for the
            Control of Solid and Hazardous Waste	       537

A Critical Examination of the Relationship Between Convenience
and Recovery Rates hi Residential Recycling Programs
            By, Mack Rugg and Sanjay Kharod, Camp Dresser &
            McKee, Inc	       553

Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio's Integration of Recycling into
Solid Waste Collection
            By, Patricia J. Smith, Waste Options  	       565

Design of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
            By, George M. Savage, Cal Recovery Systems,
             Inc	       569

Developing Road of Material Recovery Facilities in
Municipal Solid Waste Management, The
             By, Mitchell  Kessler, Resource Integration
             Systems, Ltd	      581

Economic Feasibility of Recycling in die Midwest:
Recycling Alternatives in Oklahoma
             By, Robert E. Deyle and Bernd F. Schade,
             University of Oklahoma   	      589

Federal Facilities Recycling
             By, Gail Miller Wray, Jim Nelson, Elaine Suraino and
             Ruth Vender, United States Environmental
             Protection Agency	      615
Financing A Recycling Program: Landfill Diversion
Credits
             By, Miriam Foshay, Recycling Management,
             Inc	       619

Innovative Commercial & Apartment Recycling Programs
             By, Craig H. Benton, Sound Resource Management
             Group Inc	       625

 Integrating Curbside Collection Cost-Effectively
             By, Ronald A. Perkins, Waste Control Systems,
             Inc	       635

-------
Involving the Corporate Citizen in Recycling
            By, Dale Gubbels, Resource Integration Systems,
            Inc	       641

Local Government Recycling Program Design Integrating
Existing Recyclers
            By, Deanna L. Ruffer and Susan Schaefer, Roy F.
            Weston, Inc	       653

Making it Work:  Trends for Handling Landscape Waste
in Illinois
            By, Deborah Havenar and Allen Bonini, Illinois
            Department of Energy and Natural Resources  	       659

Market Development and Buying Recycled Products:
Prospects for the 1990s
            By, Richard Keller, Northeast Maryland Waste
            Disposal Authority  	       661

Municipal Solid Waste Composting in West Germany:
Three Case Studies
            By, Henry R Boucher, Camp Dresser &
            McKee Inc	       669

New Jersey Market Development Programs
            By, Althea Spang, New Jersey Department of
            Environmental Protection  	       681

Recovery and Recycling of Post-Consumer Plastic Film
            By, John B. Nutter, American Recovery
            Corporation  	       683

Stimulating Markets for Recycled Products
            By, Joan Bradford, Illinois Department of
            Energy and Natural Resources	       697

United Kingdom Market Barriers and Opportunities for
Recycling Materials from Domestic Waste
            By, J.R. Barton, Warren Spring Laboratory  	       707

Use of Incentives in Solid Waste Planning:
Seattle as a Case Study, The
            By, Diana H.  Gale, Seattle Solid Waste
            Utility	       721

Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Approaches for
Providing Incentives for Recycling and Waste Reduction
and A More Efficient Solid Waste System
            By, Lisa A. Skumatz, Synergic Resources Corporation	       731
                                      vo.

-------
Zoning for Recycling
            By, Patricia H. Moore, Moore Recycling
            Associates
 Flexible and Enforceable Resource Recovery Performance
 Guarantees for Mass Burn Projects
             By, Trudy Richter Gasteazoro, Richardson, Richter &
             Associates, Inc. and John W. Matton, Combustion
             Engineering, Inc
 Implementation of Guidelines for Air Emissions from
 Existing Municipal Waste Combustors
             By, David F. Painter, U.S. Environmental
             Protection Agency
Combustion Session

Challenge of Compliance with EPA's New Municipal
Waste Combustor Regulation
            By, LJ. Compton  ..................................      775

Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustion Ashes
and Leachates: Results of Two Field Studies
            By, Haia K. Roffman, AWD Technologies, Inc .............      777

Environmental Auditing of Resource Recovery Facility
            By, Dinesh C. Patel, New Jersey Department of
            Environmental Protection ............................      787

Financial Impact of the Emissions Guidelines on
Akron, Ohio's Recycle  Energy System, The
             By, Ray Kapper, City of Akron ........................
 Minimization of Trace Metal Leachings in Seawater from
 Stabilized MSW Incineration Ash
              By, Chih-Shin Shieh and Yung-Liung Wei, Florida
              Institute of Technology ..............................      839

 Proposed Air Pollution Emission Rules for Municipal
 Waste Combustion Facilities
              By, Walter H. Stevenson  and Michael G. Johnston,
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................      855

 Sales of Electric Power Using Municipal Solid Waste
              By, Freddi L. Greenberg, Attorney ......................      865
                                    vii

-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency Municipal
Waste Combustion Residue Solidification/Stabilization
Evaluation Program, The
             By, Carlton C. Wiles, U.S. Environmental Protection
             Agency, David S. Kosson, Rutgers University and
             Teresa Holmes, US Army Corp of Engineers	      883

Utilization Applications of Resource Recovery Residue
             By, Dr. Richard W. Goodwin	      897

Vitrification of Municipal Solid Waste Combustor Ash
             By, Ray S. Richards, Associated Technical Consultants
             and Gary F. Bennett, University of Toledo	      917

Addendum:

Conversion of MSW Incineration Ash into Construction
Aggregate Meeting Federal Drinking Water Standards
             By, Frederick H.  Gustin and Hugh P. Shannonhouse,
             Municipal Services Corporation	    917-A
Land Disposal Session

Communication, Community Participation and Waste Management:
An Examination of Public Opinion, Citizen Participation,
Education and Communication Strategy in the Siting Process
      By, Cynthia-Lou Coleman and Clifford W. Scherer,
      Department of Communication, Cornell University	    931

Considerations in the Design of Liners for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
      By, Charles D. Miller, PJB., Rogers, Golden and
      Halpern	    955

Controlled Landfills: A Systematic Approach to Solid
      Waste Disposal
      By, Frederick G. Pohland, Department of Civil
      Engineering, University of Pittsburgh	    969

Design and Construction of Solid Waste Containment Systems
      By, Steven D. Menoff, P.E., Chambers Development
      Company, Inc.  	    939
                                     viii

-------
An Environmental Assessment of Recovering Methane from
Municipal Solid Waste by REFCOM Anaerobic Digestion Process
      By, Philip R. O'Leary, Ph.D., Department of Engineering
      Professional Development, College of Engineering and
      James C. Converse, PhD., Department of Agriculture
      Engineering College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
      University of Wisconsin-Madison	   1013

Landfill Remediation
      By, Gregory N. Richardson,  Ph.D., P.E.,
      Westinghouse - EGS	   1035

Case Study:  Leachate Containment in an Old Landfill
Springfield Road Landfill - Henrico County, Virginia
      By, Donald O. Nuttall, P.E., Draper Aden Associates  	   1049

Managing Our Solid Wastes: Developing an Effective
Siting Framework
      By, Michael J. Regan, Research Triangle Institute and
      R. Gregory Michaels, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      OPPE   	   1065

Midway Landfill
      By, Bruce D. Jones, P.E., Seattle Solid Waste
      Utility		   1073

Closure of the City of Boynton  Beach Landfill Using Very Low
Density Polyethylene  (VLDPE)
      By, Robert Mackey, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc	   1081

Puente Hills Energy Recovery from Gas (PERG) Facility
      By, John Eppich, John Cosulich, and Hsin-Hsin Hsu
      Wong, Los Angeles County  Sanitation District  	   1093

Stabilized Foam as Landfill  Daily Cover
      By, A.J. Gasper, 3M Company	   1113

A Study on Leachate Treatment by Means of Fenton Method
      By, Sue-Huai Gau, Ph. D., Department of Civil
      Engineering, Tamkang University	   1123

Urban Landfill Siting Studies: A Case History
      By, Thomas Kusterer, Montgomery County (Maryland)
      Government Department of Environmental Protection  	   1145

Use of Geosynthetics in Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, The
      By, Robert E.  Landreth, Risk Reduction Engineering Research
      Laboratory, U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency	   1155

-------
Public Education and Outreach Session

Aluminum Recycling:  America's Environmental Success Story
      By, Barry Myer, the Aluminum Association  .....................   1163

Association Between Education and Feedback Interventions
and Recycling Attitudes and Beliefs, The:  The Future
Generation
      By, Linda M. Goldenhar, University of Michigan,
      School of Public Health ............................... ----   1173

A Comprehensive Program for Providing Solid Waste
Management Education
    .  By, Patrick Walsh, Philip O'Leary, and Robert Ham,
      University of Wisconsin ....................................
 Consumer Purchasing Behavior of Environmentally Responsible
 Products
       By, Jacquelyn A. Ottman, J. Ottman Consulting ..................   1207

 County Recycling Information and Education Programs
       By, James J. Hogan, Westchester County Department of
       Public Works Solid Waste Management ........................   1227

 Design and Evaluation of a Junior High School Science and
 Social Science Curriculum for Studying Environmental
 Impact in Municipal Solid Waste Management, The
       By, Albert P. Nous, University of Pittsburgh ......... . ...........   1231

 Developing a Taxonomy of Behavior Change Techniques for
 Environmental Protection
       By, E. Scott Geller, Lawrence D. Needleman, & Kim
       Randall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
       State University  ............... . .........................   1261

 Educating Students and the General Public on Solid Waste:
 A Model  for Public-Private Partnerships Involving
 University Centers
       By, Michael William Mullen, Center for Environmental
       Research and Service, Troy State University .....................   1287

 Glass Container Industry Overview
       By, Glass Packaging Institute ................................   1301

 Green Consumer in Europe and Canada,  The:  A Model for
 the U.S.?
       By, Jane Gilbert, Karen Blumenfeld,
       Arthur D. Little, Inc .......................................   1307

-------
Hannaford Bros. Co. Environmental Action Program
      By, Ted Brown, Hannaford Bros. Co	   1323

How Minnesota Scored in Consensus Solid Waste Policy
Development:  Governor's Select Committee on Recycling and
the Environment (SCORE)
      By, Bill Dunn, Minnesota Office of Waste
      Management	   1331

Industry Perspective and Update on Pet Recycling
      By, Alan Giles,  The National Association for Plastic
      Container Recovery  	   1343

Lay Person's Guide to Public Education
      By, Susie Harpham, Keep America Beautiful, Inc	   1347

Moderator's Session Introduction
      By, Marc A. Breslav,  Public Relations and Marketing
      Consultant  	   1351

Myriad Paths to Landfill Siting, The: A Case for
Public Participation
      By, Jeffrey T. Crate, P.G., Draper Aden Associates	   1357

Nature of Compost, The
      By, William  D.  Gibson, Resource Systems Corp	   1367

"Other" Market Development, The:  How to Use Market
Research to Develop Customer Education that Works
      By, Ticiang Diangson, Seattle Solid Waste Utility	   1373

Promoting Recycling Collection Programs
      By, Craig H. Benton, Sound Resource Management
      Group, Inc	   1387

Public Education Programs on Reducing, Reusing and Recycling
      By, Marie Hammer, Cooperative Extension Service (CES),
      University of Florida, and Jo Townsend, CES, Orange
      County, and Alicia Homrich, CES, Orange County	   1391

Recycling Education:   Wisconsin and Beyond
      By, Joel L. Stone, Wisconsin Department of Natural
      Resources	-	   1405

Recyclus (sm):  National Recycling Superhero
      By, Marc A. Breslav,  Public Relations and Marketing
      Consultant  	.'	   1411
                                    XI

-------
Solid Waste Issues and Excellence in Education
      By, David Landis, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
      Division of Litter Prevention and Recycling .....................   1417

Steel Can Recycling: The Steel Industry Commitment to
Solid Waste Solutions
      By, Kurt Smalberg, Steel Can Recycling Institute  .................   1441

Using Focus Groups to Determine Citizens' Attitudes
About Recycling
      By, Ester R. Bowring, Montgomery County Government
      and Nancy Petersen, Stratton/Petersen Publishing
      and Public Relations, Inc ...................................
 Utilizing Survey as Community Participation Mechanisms:
 Toward a Citizen Empowerment Strategy
       By, Michelle Berry and Clifford Scherer, Department
       of Communication, Cornell University  .........................   1481

 Addendum:

 Consumers and Solid Waste in an Age of Envrionmentalism
       By, Edward (Ted) Byers, Cambridge Reports /Research
       International ............................................ 1481-A

 Public Opinion About Proposed Host Community Benefits
       By, Clifford W. Scherer and Napoleon K, Juanillo, Jr.,
       Cornell University ........................................ 1481-B

 Special Wastes Session

 A Loaded Cocktail - Used Oil in Your Backyard
       By, Janet Graham, University of Alabama ......................   1493

 Alternatives to Hazardous Household Products
       By, Kathryn Betzhold, League of Women Voters
       of Albany County . .......................................   1507

 Doing it Better: Medical Waste Management in
 Switzerland, West Germany and Sweden
       By, Allen Hershkowitz, The Natural Resources
       Defense Council  ...................................... ...   1517

 Full Service Regional  Medical Waste Disposal Systems
       By, John E. Joyner, Consumat Systems, Inc ......................   1545

 Household Batteries as Household Hazardous Waste
       By, Marie Steinwachs, Household Hazardous  Waste
       Project ...... ........... . ..............................   1559

-------
Incentives for Solving the Scrap Tire Problem
Through Existing Markets
      By, Haynes C. Goddard, University of Cincinnati 	   1569

Innovative New Technology for the Treatment of Hospital Wastes
      By, John L. Cusack, ABB  Environmental Services,
      Inc	   1591

Latex Paint Recycling
      By, Christine Luboff, Seattle Solid Waste Utility	   1593

Markets for Scrap Tires
      By, Hope Pillsbury, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency and Jacob E. Beachey, Franklin Associates,
      Ltd	   1601

State Incentives for Private Sector Scrap Tire
Recycling: The Oklahoma Project
      By, Thomas  E. James, University of Oklahoma and
      Richard Brooks, Oklahoma Department of Health  	   1631

Used Motor Oil Recycling in New Jersey: Developing a
Comprehensive Management Approach
      By, Ellen Bourbon, New Jersey Department of
      Environmental Protection  	   1655
                                        Xlll

-------
  SOURCE
  REDUCE
  LANDFILL
COMBUSTION
INTEGRATED PLANNING

-------
              ACCEPTING OUT-OF-STATE WASTE:
                 TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES

                           by
                     Steve Greenwood
                   Solid Waste Manager
       Oregon Department  of Environmental Quality
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990

-------
When your state is chosen  as  the receptacle for another state's
garbage, the first question you ask is, "How could this happen?"
The answer is not as simple as some would believe, and is directly
related to a number of extraordinary changes taking place in solid
waste management.  Consider this:

*    Seven years ago, Oregon pioneered the unheard-of concept of
     requiring curbside collection of recyclables.  Today,
     curbside collection is commonplace, and participation is
     mandatory in many states.

*    Five years ago,  disposal rates in some parts of the eastern
     seaboard inched toward $60 per ton.  Oregon and the rest of
     the country,  with average disposal fees of less than $10 per
     ton,  were horrified.   Today,  disposal rates have almost
     tripled and some parts of the  country are  paying disposal
     fees of more than $150 per ton.
*
     Four years ago, less than five percent of Oregon's municipal
     landfills had any bottom liner or leachate collection,  a
     condition typical of most other states in the country.
     Today, composite lining systems,  with leak detection,  are the
     standard for new construction.   In addition,  gas  and
     groundwater monitoring will likely be required at all
     landfills by new federal regulations.

-------
*    Three years ago, transport of garbage 35 miles for disposal



     was considered almost too far.  Today, Portland, Oregon,



     ships its garbage 140 miles by truck to a regional landfill



     in eastern Oregon.  A proposed landfill in New Mexico may



     begin receiving waste from Maryland, over 2000 miles away.








These examples suggest a fundamental shift in the way we think



about and manage our solid waste.  An integral, often



controversial aspect of that shift is the trend toward



regionalization and interstate transport of solid waste.  This



paper discusses the larger context within which the interstate



transport of garbage is taking place, as well as some of the



consequences to the receiving states.  It is intended to provide a



perspective from the regulatory agency, in this case the Oregon



Department of Environmental Quality.







THE SOLID WASTE REVOLUTION







What is happening here?  What are the reasons for the



extraordinary changes taking place in solid waste management?








     1. A Disposal Capacity Problem.  The problem starts with



     garbage.  We produce a lot of it.  And, unfortunately, our



     rate of producing garbage is going up, not down.  In 1960 the



     average U.S. citizen produced 2.65 Ibs. per day of solid



     waste.  By 1986, according to EPA, that figure had grown to

-------
3.85 Ibs. per day, and  is expected to increase to nearly
4 Ibs. per day by the year 2000.

We're also running out  of places to put it.  EPA estimates
that one-third of the municipal landfills operating in 1987
will be closed by 1993.  75% will be closed by the year 2000.
Growing public concerns about landfill impacts, whether it be
NIMBY  (not in my back yard) or NIMFE (not in my front yard
either), make replacement of lost capacity difficult, if not
impossible.

2.  Environmental Problems - Groundwater Contamination.  We
have learned more about the environmental impacts from
landfilling of garbage, and we have found past practices to
be  wanting.  Old landfills were built in the wrong place,
•were designed and built with inadequate environmental
controls, and were operated with little concern for the
environment.  Consequently, 200 of our national superfund
sites are old solid waste landfills.

3.  increased Environmental Liability.  One of the major
forces driving the cost increases in solid waste management
is  environmental liability.  We have made a societal decision
to  protect our groundwater resources not just for present
uses, but also for use  by future generations.  We are
therefore prepared to spend vast sums to protect it or clean
it  up,  in some cases spending tens or even hundreds of

-------
millions of dollars.  Consequently, landfill operators now



look at potential environmental liability as a major cost



consideration in their operations.








4. New Environmental Standards for Disposal Sites.  Because



of the concern for groundwater and other environmental risks



at landfills and incinerators, new state and federal



standards have been proposed or adopted that represent a



great leap forward in environmental protection, as well as



disposal costs.  In 1988 EPA proposed its Subtitle D



regulations for municipal solid waste landfills.  Although



not finalized, these proposed regulations would require



minimum standards for landfill design and operation.  Many



states, tired of waiting for EPA to finalize the Subtitle D



regulations, are already requiring new landfills to meet



standards as high or higher than proposed by EPA.







These new standards involve construction of liners, leachate



collection systems, gas collection, groundwater monitoring,



and better financial assurance; all of which add



significantly to the cost of construction and operation.  In



addition, there is a new emphasis on siting landfills in



appropriate locations that provide good natural environmental



protection.  In the past, landfill location was more a



function of convenience.  Today, location is dictated by



potential impacts to people and the environment.

-------
Rather than a political  response by urban areas to ship their
garbage "away" to rural  areas, the increase in interstate
transport of waste can be  seen largely as a natural consequence  of
these combined changes.  Transportation costs are rendered less
significant in light of  higher disposal costs.  Disposal costs are
skyrocketing not only because of new construction standards, but
also because of the cost of cleanup of older problems.  New
federal and state regulations designed to prevent such problems  in
the future are causing many older landfills to close down,
requiring transport to more distant sites.  Private landfill
operators are looking to decrease their liability and amortize
their large capital costs over a longer period by siting larger
facilities in fewer, better, and dryer locations.

The bottom line?  There  is both good news and bad news for the
general public.

First, these changes will result in better environmental
protection.  Groundwater, surface water,  and air quality will be
better protected.

Second, the era of cheap disposal is over.  Environmental
protection comes at a cost, and disposal costs will continue to
escalate for the foreseeable future,   in Oregon,  for example, the
average disposal cost has doubled in the last two years,  and is
expected to double again within the next three years.
                                6

-------
Third, with disposal costs higher, waste reduction and recycling



will continue to increase and become an important component of our



society.








Last, a natural consequence of the changes discussed above is a



continued move to regionalization and interstate transport of



waste.  This regionalization in turn adds significantly to the



cost of disposal.  It also brings a host of new issues for state



regulatory agencies.







INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF WASTE TO OREGON







The state of Oregon faces the unenviable prospect of being on the



receiving end of the interstate transport of garbage.







Oregon has two large regional landfills (one in operation and one



under construction) in the arid, eastern region of the state,



which are actively seeking waste from outside Oregon.  One site is



approximately 2000 acres in total size, and the other is 1000



acres.  These landfills are located in an area with 9 inches of



annual rainfall and a minimum depth of 200 feet to groundwater.



They both employ state of the art technology (composite lining



systems, leachate collection, and leak detection systems).







These landfills are located in communities with small populations



and depressed local economies and were both developed with the



strong support of the local governments.  Although the landfills

-------
(and the local governments) are now competing with a third large
regional landfill being developed across the Columbia River in
eastern Washington state, a substantial amount of Washington's
solid waste has recently been committed to these landfills.  The
City of Seattle, Clark County, and Snohomish County have all
indicated at least a strong interest in sending waste to one of
these regional landfills in Oregon.

The total amount of waste from other states currently being
considered for transport to. Oregon is 700,000 tons per year, or a
40% increase over what is currently generated in Oregon.  Because
both of Oregon's regional sites are located along the Columbia
River and major east-west rail lines,  the long term potential for
importation from other states could make that total much higher.

What has been Oregon's response?

Many states faced with similar circumstances have started with
the question, "How can we keep this waste out?"  So far, with
waste coming primarily from the adjacent state of Washington,  the
Oregon legislature and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
have asked a different set of questions:

     (1)  What are the potential impacts to the state of Oregon?

     (2)  How do we protect the environment?
                                8

-------
     (3)  How do we protect the residents and taxpayers of Oregon?



          (Should, for example, Oregon be compensated for



          accepting these wastes?)







In asking and answering these questions, Oregon has taken neither



a passive approach to allowing the importation of solid waste, nor



have we given in to parochial interests to "just say no."  During



the 1989 legislative session, Oregon passed three important laws



relating to out-of-state waste.







          Establishment of a Solid Waste Regional Policy



          Commission, to identify the benefits and costs of



          importing solid waste into Oregon for disposal.







          Establishment of a per-ton surcharge on out-of-state



          waste, to cover the costs associated with accepting



          out-of-state waste.







          A requirement that communities sending wastes from



          outside Oregon be subject to similar waste reduction and



          recycling standards as applied to Oregon communities.







This legislation will not by itself "solve" the problems of



interstate transport of waste, but it is a start.  The Oregon



Department of Environmental Quality has also been working with



the Region X office of EPA to identify and address some of the



problems.  EPA prepared a Municipal Solid Waste Needs Assessment






                                9

-------
in September 1989 which  identified a number of issues related to
interstate transport of  waste.  By July of this year EPA should
complete a Region X study of the costs and benefits of interstate
transport of solid waste.

REGULATORY AND PLANNING  ISSUES

In attempting to answer  the three questions listed above, the
Oregon DEQ has attempted to steer a safe policy course between the
expected political clamor to keep waste out of Oregon and the
Federal constitutional protection of the right to interstate
commerce.  In trying to  protect both Oregon's environment and the
interests of its citizens, a number of specific issues have
surfaced.

1.  Impact on the Local  Community.   To the local community, these
large regional landfills are often seen as economic development
for what had been a depressed agriculture-based local economy.
However, the landfills are not without potential impacts or costs
to the local community.  Environmental impacts,  liability,  and
image have all been concerns.   Oregon has addressed these concerns
through three statutory requirements:

          First, any regional site accepting waste from outside
          the local jurisdiction must pay a "host fee" of up to
          $1.25 per ton to the host local government.   The revenue
          from this fee can be used for any purpose.
                                10

-------
          Second, a local citizens advisory committee is required



          to review the construction and operations of the



          landfill and report its findings to the Department of



          Environmental Quality.








          Third, special financial assurance requirements prevent



          a regional landfill operator from leaving a local



          government stuck with the bill for closure or



          environmental cleanup.







2. Land Use Impacts.  With the tremendous size of these large



regional landfills, there are land use impacts which need to be



addressed.  Oregon has a goal of preserving agricultural land in



the state, and has passed a law requiring extensive waste



reduction programs for communities in-state or out-of-state who



are sending their waste to a landfill located in an Exclusive Farm



Use zone.  In addition, any proposed landfills must obtain land



use approval, requiring public hearings and analysis of potential



land use impacts.
                                11

-------
 3.  Impact on State Disposal Capacity and Planning.   How does the
 state measure the cost of the disposal capacity lost from the
 receipt of waste generated out-of-state?  Does the  state have any
 claim to privately owned landfill space as a public resource?  Or,
 as  some would argue,  is that capacity no more a state resource
 than the widgets produced by a privately-owned factory?

 Regardless of the whether the landfill  capacity is public or
 private,  the economists would tell us that the  cost  of the lost
 capacity is the public cost of going  through  a  planning  and  siting
 process to replace that disposal  capacity.  The politicians  would
 tell us that siting a  new landfill or incinerator is neither easy
 or  predictable.   It is not clear  what the  actual costs of
 replacement would be,  or even if  replacement  is possible.  And  who
 can put a price  tag on the political  pain  and suffering
 experienced by all sides in a siting  process?

 One method of  estimating the  cost of  replacing the lost disposal
 capacity  has been proposed by Oregon  DEQ and borrows from models
 used by the energy industry during the energy crisis of the late
 1970's.   In effect, it assumes that one way of replacing lost
 disposal  capacity is through recycling and waste reduction,
 thereby extending the existing disposal capacity by reducing the
waste stream.  The cost of "replacing" that capacity used by out-
of-state waste can therefore be estimated by calculating the cost
of increasing recycling and waste reduction programs.
                                12

-------
Another concept that Oregon and other states are beginning to
explore is a "convenience fee" that exporting states or
communities would pay for the convenience of sending their wastes
to another state.  This convenience fee essentially would take
into account the financial benefit to exporting states of not
having to plan and site new disposal facilities.  Some have
proposed a Federal statutory change to allow states to establish
such a fee, providing a basis for interstate agreements that would
adeguately compensate receiving states.

4. Impact on Solid Waste Planning.   Most Oregon laws related to
solid waste planning and permitting were written during a time
when each county had at least one disposal site to serve the
needs for its citizens.  Consequently, each county was
responsible for ensuring adequate disposal capacity,  and each
county was more or less independent from others in terms of solid
waste management.

This system of independent county solid waste plans does not work
in an era of regionalization and interstate transport of waste.
As the 1989 EPA Region X Needs Assessment conducted by Ross and
Associates states, "No longer is any community an 'island'  with
respect to municipal solid waste management".  Impacts of the
movement of waste are felt across city, county, and state
boundaries.  Flexibility of solid waste planning becomes limited
as the number of disposal sites is reduced, and disposal is
subject to controls from other states or communities.  Yet no
                                13

-------
overall state or regional planning mechanism currently exists.

5. The Need for Inter-state Coordination.  With the interstate
movement of large volumes of solid waste, the differences in
regulations or regulatory standards can play a strong role in
dictating the flow of waste.  This has been particularly true
with no minimum federal design and operational standards for
municipal solid waste.  Adoption of Subtitle D regulations by EPA
should reduce that problem, but there are other state regulatory
differences.  For example, infectious waste is considered
hazardous in California but not in Oregon, providing an incentive
for infectious waste to be transported from California to Oregon
for cheap disposal.  In 1989 Oregon passed a rule which prohibits
waste classified as "hazardous" in the state of origin from being
disposed in municipal solid waste disposal facilities in Oregon.

6. Added Environmental Risk.  Any solid waste disposal site, no
matter how well designed or built, represents a potential
environmental risk.  Adding significant volumes of waste from out
of state to that disposal site adds correspondingly to the
environmental risk.  How should the receiving state best protect
itself from incurring additional environmental degradation or
liability?

The best way, certainly, is to ensure that regional disposal sites
are located, designed, and operated with the highest environmental
standards.  In addition, a thorough monitoring program should be

                                14

-------
implemented to ensure that any problem that does occur is
identified and addressed before it gets too big.  Third, any
disposal site receiving significant amounts of out-of-state waste
should be required to provide environmental insurance or some
other form of financial assurance that environmental problems will
be addressed quickly.

Oregon has done each of these with respect to its regional
landfills.  However, even that may not be enough.  Why?
Environmental risk is a funption of both the possible magnitude of
cleanup costs and the probability that a problem will occur.  Each
increment of solid waste from out of state adds to both the
probability and the potential magnitude of the problem.  If the
actual cost of cleanup or environmental damage exceeds the amount
of financial assurance, Oregonians may end up paying for a
problem created in part by another state.

Further inequities exist in preventing those problems from
occurring in the first place.  Oregon has a tax credit program
that provides tax credits of up to 50% for facilities such as
landfill liners that prevent air and water pollution.  This tax
credit works out to an equivalent "expenditure" by Oregon
taxpayers, through lost income tax, of 15 cents for every ton of
garbage disposed of.  This represents an Oregon subsidy to out-of-
state users of the disposal facility potentially totaling millions
of dollars over the life of a facility.
                                16

-------
SUMMARY

I have attempted to describe some of the reasons for the increase
in interstate transport of solid waste, and some of the
consequences to the receiving state.  I have suggested that
determining the "right" public policy involves asking tough
questions about impacts to the environment and the citizens of
the receiving state, rather than just saying "no."

Most of all, we must ensure that no state becomes that magical
"away" that people send their garbage to, without taking
responsibility for waste reduction,  for the consequences of their
disposal, or for the costs of proper environmental protection.
SW\SK2758
                               16

-------
         BORDER WARS:  INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
               AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

                   John L. Kraft, Esq.
                    Kraft & McManimon
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990
                               17

-------
          BORDER WARS:   INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
                AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
         I.   INTRODUCTION
         An  increasing number of  states are taking  actions to
close  the  door  to garbage  imports  from other  states.   States
that  house landfills and other disposal  facilities  are seeking
to  limit out-of-state  trash  shipments  by forcing states to take
                          «
care  of their own solid waste problems  and not rely  on  other
states.    Consequently,   "NIMBY"   has   taken   on   interstate
dimensions.
         In  response  to  these actions,  exporting  states  have
accelerated  efforts to  reduce garbage  exports through  source
reduction,  recycling and incineration.   However,  such  efforts
are not enough to  satisfy the  immediate  need for waste disposal
capacity.   The  need  to  export waste  still  remains  because  a
number  of  states  are still  dependent on  landfills  and  other
disposal  facilities in  other  states.   Thus,  actions  to  close
the  door   to  garbage  imports  pose serious  problems  for  these
states.
         This paper will discuss the actions taken  by receiving
states   to   limit  the   import   of   solid   waste   and   the
constitutional issues  that have been raised  by  exporting  states
in support of their actions.
                               18

-------
         II.  OVERVIEW    OF    DISPOSAL    ARRANGEMENTS    WITH
              OUT-OF-STATE FACILITIES

         Many solid waste  collectors  and solid waste facilities

which  export waste  out-of-state  have  entered  into  long-term

contracts with  facilities in  the  receiving state  for  disposal

of the waste.

         The contracts  often are between  the  owner/operator  of

a  transfer  station,  who  processes  the  waste  for  export  or  a

solid waste  collector  and the out-of-state  facility  owner.  In

most  cases,  the  out-of-state  disposal  facility  is  a  sanitary

landfill.

         The disposal contract gives  the transfer station owner

or collector the  right  or  a  license  to dispose of certain types

of waste at  the  disposal  facility for a  set period  of  time and

a  specified fee.   In   essence,  the   transfer  station owner  or

collector reserves  capacity or  air   space  at  the  facility for

disposal of that state's waste.

         Disposal contracts  may  require  a guarantee of  delivery

of a  minimum and sometimes  a  maximum average  tonnage  of waste

to the  facility.   These contracts require  the transfer station

owner  or collector  to pay  a minimum  charge  to  the  disposal

facility in  the  event  the  transfer   station owner  or collector

delivers  less  than  the   minimum  tonnage   required  under  the

contract.
                               19

-------
         III. OVERVIEW OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE



         Article  I,  §8 of  the  U.S.  Constitution,  the  Commerce



Clause,  grants  to the  Congress the  power  and  authority  M[t]o



regulate commerce...among  the several states..."   The  Commerce



Clause  not  only  operates  as  a  grant   of  power  to  regulate



interstate commerce,  but  also operates as a restriction  on the



authority of  the  states to  regulate  interstate trade.   However,



this  does  not  mean  that  states are absolutely  barred  from



erecting certain barriers to interstate trade.



        • The  U.S. Supreme  Court  has  held  that  if  a  statute



regulates evenhandedly  to  effectuate a legitimate  local  public



interest  and  its  effects  on  interstate   commerce  are  only



incidental,  the  statute  will  be  upheld.   The  extent  of  the



burden  that will  be  tolerated  depends   on  the  nature  of  the



local  interest  involved  and on whether it could  be promoted as



well with a  lesser impact on interstate activities.



         The U.S.  Supreme Court  has  expanded this analysis when



reviewing  state  statutes   that  ban  the  importation  of  solid



waste.    Specifically,   an   additional   inquiry   is   raised



concerning  whether the legislation  is designed  to  protect the



state's  environment  or  is  motivated  by  financial  concerns or



economic  protectionism.   If  the statute  promotes  the  economic



isolation  of  the state  by  discriminating  against  interstate



commerce  in favor of  local interests, the  statute will  be per



se  unconstitutional.   Thus,  a  state cannot isolate  itself and
                               20

-------
place  the  full  burden  of  conserving  its  remaining  landfill



space on out-of-state commercial interests.



         The Supreme  Court's approach in  determining  whether a



solid   waste  statute   violates   the   Commerce  Clause   was



established  in the  1978  landmark case,  City  of Philadelphia v.



State  of  New  Jersey,  437  U.S.   617   (1978).    In  Citv  of



Philadelphia,  a  New  Jersey law  prohibited the  importation of



most  solid  or  liquid  waste  from  out-of-state.   While  the



statute permitted four categories of waste to  enter  the  state,



it  excluded all other  waste.  Operators  of  private  landfills



and  cities   from other  states  that  had agreements with  state



landfill  operators  filed suit  against  New  Jersey and the  New



Jersey  Department  of  Environmental  Protection  arguing,  among



other  things,  that   the  New  Jersey  law  was  unconstitutional



because it discriminated against interstate commerce.



         The trial  court struck  down the  statute  as  violative



of  interstate  commerce  but   the   New   Jersey  Supreme   Court



reversed  the  decision  finding  that  the   legislation  advanced



vital  health and environmental objectives  and did not  unduly



burden  interstate  commerce.    However,  on  appeal,  the  United



States  Supreme  Court ruled  that  the  law  was unconstitutional.



First and foremost,  the  Court  held  that  the interstate movement



of   solid   waste   constituted   commerce   for   constitutional



purposes.    Secondly,  the   Court  ruled   that,   even   if   the



legislation  was designed to protect New  Jersey's  environment or
                               ZL

-------
was motivated  by financial concerns  or  economic protectionism,
the state must  advance  some reason other than the origin of the
waste  to  prohibit  its  importation.   Thus,  a  statute  that
overtly  blocks  the  flow of  interstate  commerce  at  a  state's
borders will be  deemed unconstitutional.
         Citv of Philadelphia,  is  clearly  an  important Commerce
Clause  case.   It establishes  the  Court's   position  that  the
Commerce  Clause  protects  all  states  from the  efforts  by  one
state  to  isolate itself from problems shared  by all.   However,
the case  expressed  no  opinion with respect to a state's power,
consistent  with  the  Commerce  Clause,  to  restrict'  to  state
residents access to  state-owned resources  or  a state's power to
spend  state  funds   solely  on  behalf of  state  residents  and
businesses.
         This  issue  was  raised in a  1987 case, Lefrancois  v.
State  of Rhode  Island.  669  F. Supp.   1204  {D.R.I  1987).   In
Lefrancois.  a  Rhode Island statute imposed  criminal  sanctions
upon  any individual found dumping out-of-state waste  at  the
state-subsidized landfill.  A commercial handler of  solid  waste
challenged the statute on Commerce Clause grounds.
         The statute was subsequently upheld  because  the  state
of Rhode  Island was deemed to  be   a market participant  because
it provided  landfill  services  for a  fee.  It  accepted waste,
compacted  it,   and   covered  it with  soil so  that   its  final
disposal  complied with all applicable environmental and health
                               22

-------
laws.  The court  determined  that  when a state acts as a "market

participant" in the  solid  waste  disposal market as opposed to a

"market   regulator",   the  state   is  not   subject   to   the

restrictions of  the Commerce  Clause.    The Court  said  a  state

has  a   right   to  deal  with  whomever   it   chooses  when  it

participates  in  the market.  The  state  has  a  proprietorship

right  to  conserve  these   resources  for   the  benefit  of  the

State's  citizens.   The Court  also determined  that  the  statute

did not  preclude  any party  from  purchasing  property  upon  which

to construct a  sanitary landfill  open  to  all  waste,  regardless

of  origin.   Thus,   the court  held  a  state   may  discriminate

against   out-of-state   waste  if   the  facility   involved   is

publicly-owned.

         IV.  RECENT  STATE  ACTIONS  TO  BAM OUT-OF-STATE  WASTE
              AMD CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES RAISED

         Many receiving states have  stepped up  efforts to  limit

the  amount   of  waste  crossing  their  borders.   These  efforts

usually  involve  legislation  which prohibits  the  importation  of

all solid waste,  limits or  restricts the amount of  waste  that

an   in-state   facility  can  receive  from   out-of-state,   or

prohibits or  restricts the  acceptance and/or  review  of permit

applications for  landfill  use  or expansion  in  the  receiving

state.    These  state actions  and  others which  involve resource

conservation, inevitably face Commerce Clause  challenges.   Few

Contract Clause challenges are raised.   However,  the  impairment

of contract issue will have  to be  addressed.
                               23

-------
         A  recent  action occurred  on October  28,   1989,  when
Pennsylvania's  Governor Casey signed  an  Executive Order,  which
imposed  an  interim moratorium on  new or expanded landfills in
his  state.   The moratorium required the Pennsylvania Department
of   Environmental  Resources   ("DER")  to   immediately  cease
reviewing applications  or issuing  new permits for new municipal
waste  landfills unless  the  applicant  demonstrates  a  need  for
additional  capacity and  could  show  that  at  least  70% of  the
municipal  waste proposed to be  received at  the facility  was
generated  in Pennsylvania.  The  Executive  Order also  provided
that  an  applicant  for  expansion  of  an  existing  permitted
municipal waste  landfill  facility  had to  demonstrate a  need  for
additional capacity and  show that  at  least 70% of the municipal
waste proposed  to  be  received at the  facility was generated in
Pennsylvania.
         The  Pennsylvania Executive   Order  had  the  immediate
effect  of  restricting  the  importation  of  out-of-state  solid
waste,  because  the DER  has  stopped  reviewing  applications  for
permits  for  new  landfills to accept such waste  and  will  not
grant  modifications  to  existing   permits  to  permit  existing
landfills to expand their capacity to accept  out-of-state waste.
         On   January   5,   1990,    the   National  Solid   Waste
Management   Association   ("NSWMA")   filed  an   action   in   the
Commonwealth  Court of  Pennsylvania  challenging the  Executive
Order.   National Solid  Waste Management  Association v.  Robert
                               24

-------
P. Casev. et  al.   Members of the  Pennsylvania Chapter of NSWMA



operate  state  permitted  municipal  waste   landfill  operations



that receive out-of-state waste.



         NSWMA  argues,  among  other  things,  that  the  Order



discriminates  against  the  interstate  flow  of  an  article  of



commerce as a  result of the DER's action  in not  processing and



issuing permits for municipal waste landfills.



         The  Commonwealth( of  Pennsylvania  filed  preliminary



objections  to  the  action  raising issues  such as  standing  and



jurisdiction  of  the  court.   Oral argument  on the preliminary



objections is scheduled for early May,  1990.



         Another   recent   state   action   involves   legislation



passed  in  Alabama,  in September, 1989.   The  legislation,  Act



No. 89-788, which  is known as the "Holley  Bill"  amends Alabama



Code  Section  22-30-ll(b)  1975.    The  Act prohibits  commercial



hazardous waste treatment  or  disposal  facilities  from accepting



hazardous   waste   generated  in   states   which  prohibit   the



treatment,  storage or  disposal  of hazardous  waste  within  its



own  borders  or  which  refuse  or  fail  to  comply  with  the



provisions   of   the   Comprehensive   Environmental   Response,



Compensation  and  Liability  Act,  42  U.S.C.  s9604(c)(9)  (the



"Act").  The  Act  reguires  each state  to adeguately  treat  and



dispose  of  all  hazardous  waste  reasonably  expected  to  be



generated within  that  state over  the next  twenty  (20)  years



through  the establishment  of  a  hazardous  waste  treatment  or
                               25

-------
disposal  facility  within the  state or  through the  use  of  a
hazardous  waste treatment or  disposal  facility located outside
the   state  in  accordance  with  an  interstate  agreement   or
regional agreement  or  authority.
         The  waste  management  industry  challenged  the Act   on
Cpmmerce Clause grounds  because it placed restrictions on waste
moving  throughout   interstate  commerce.   The  District  Court
upheld  the law  as  constitutional  for several  reasons.   First,
the  District Court  determined  that  the  ban,  while  prohibiting
importation  of  hazardous waste  from some  22  states and  the
District  of  Columbia,  nevertheless  affected  less  than  three
tenths  of  one  percent  (.3%)  of  the waste previously  disposed  of
in Alabama.   Second, the Court, having  scrutinized  the Alabama
statute,   opined   that  the  Alabama   law was  directed   to  a
legitimate state concern which  was  an effort  to comply with the
twenty-year  capacity  assurance  directive and  more  importantly
to assure  that  all  hazardous waste  buried in  Alabama is treated
and  disposed of in the  most environmentally  protective  manner
as is the hazardous waste  generated instate.  Thus,  the  Court
held  that  the  law was  not an effort  to  isolate Alabama from the
national economy.
         According  to  the Court,  the effect  of the  Act was  not
to confer  a  significant  benefit on instate economic  interest  or
impose  a  significant burden on  out-of-state  economic  interest.
Rather, the  ban was directed   toward protection  of  health  and
                               26

-------
welfare  of  ttie people  and preservation  of the  environment by



preventing Alabama  from becoming  the  dumping  ground  for those



states  that  refused to  clean up  their  act under  federal  law.



Also/  the Alabama  statute did  not  close  its  borders  to  all



out-of-state waste  but only  to  out-of-state waste  from states



that were not  in  compliance with federal  law.   Accordingly,  the



borders  of Alabama  would be  open  to those  states  as  they came



into compliance.  Therefore,  its  impact  on interstate commerce



was  incidental  and not  excessive  in  relation to   the  local



benefits.



         The Alabama  case  is currently  pending  appeal  in  the



Federal  Appeals Court  in Atlanta.   The U.S.  Justice Department



has  joined  the waste  management  industry  in  this  action.   In



addition, eleven  states  (Arizona,  Illinois, Indiana,  Louisiana,



Nebraska,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,   North  Carolina,  Ohio,  South



Carolina  and  Utah)  filed  a  motion to  participate  which  was



granted on March 27, 1990.



         The Justice Department  maintains  that  the  Alabama  law



should  be  overturned  to protect  the free  interstate  market in



products and services  and  prevent  Alabama from interfering with



interstate commerce.   The Justice Department  believes  that if



the Alabama  law is  allowed  to stand, other states will also  ban



out-of-state waste  and the effect will  be the "Balkanization"



of  the  national  market  in  hazardous  waste  disposal.   The



government further  argues  that  Congress  amended Superfund  in
                               27

-------
1986  to  foster  a  national waste  management  system and  not to
give  the state's  unilateral  power  to regulate  waste  disposal
within  their borders.   Thus,  Alabama's ban  imperils  Superfund
because  it  prohibits  the  use  of  a  waste  management  site in
Alabama  that  is  important from a nationwide perspective.
         The  State  of  Ohio  also  has aggressively pursued  action
to  stem the  flow  of out-of-state  waste  into its  borders.   In
1988  Ohio passed HB-592, which was intended  to  stem the flow of
out-of-state  waste,  particularly  from  Pennsylvania,  New  York
and   New  Jersey.    The  legislation   mandates   statewide   and
regional  waste  management  planning  and  specifically  mandates
the formation of single- or multi-county  solid  waste management
districts, each  of  which is responsible for  comprehensive solid
waste   management   and   planning  within   their   respective
jurisdictions.   Each district  must adopt a  district-wide solid
waste management plan, which may  include, among  other things,  a
limit or prohibition on waste from outside  its  district.  Ohio
intends  to stop  the flow of out-of-state waste  to its  landfills
through  this  process.
         On  January 26,  1990  Ohio's Attorney General  testified
before  a congressional  committee  that states  have  developed
strong  solid waste  management  plans  assuring   future  capacity
for  their  own  waste  are  in  a  good  position  to   prohibit
out-of-state  waste.  He  asked the  Committee  to  pass legislation
to  fortify  a  state's  ability  to  limit  the  importation  of
                               28

-------
foreign  waste or  out-of-state  waste that  would  override  the




Commerce Clause.   He argued  that  Congress is not  bound by the



restrictions   applicable   to  states  and   thus,   if  Congress



authorized   state   restrictions  on   long-haul   waste,   such



restrictions  would  withstand   the  waste  industry's  Commerce




Clause challenges.



         The  State  of  Kentucky  has  recently  attempted  to limit



the  importation  of  waste   from  other  states  by  increased



disposal   costs.    Kentucky  has  witnessed   increased  public



opposition    to   the   importation   of   out-of-state   trash,



particularly   since   the   landfill   industry   is   an  emerging



business   in   that   state.    Disposal  costs  are  expected  to



increase   as   a   result   of   new   solid   waste   regulations.



Specifically,  Kentucky  will  require  new landfills to  have  two



plastic  liners  with  a  3-foot-thick clay   layer  in  between.



Until  recently only  one   liner  and  a  2-foot-thick  clay layer




were required.








         Finally,   a   recent  New   Jersey   case  presents  the



out-of-state  disposal   issue from  another  perspective.   In  re



Lona-Term  Out-of-State  Waste  Disposal   Agreement  Between	the



County  of  Hunterdon  and Glendon  Energy  Company of  Glendon,



Pennsylvania.  237  N.J.  Super. 516  (App.  Div.  1990),  the County



of  Hunterdon  had submitted  a  contract  between Hunterdon County



and   the   Glendon   Energy   Company  to  the  Department   of
                               29

-------
Environmental   Protection  (the   "DEP")   for  approval.    The
contract was for  twenty  years  and  called  for  Glendon to provide
for disposal of solid waste generated in Hunterdon  County at a
proposed  resource recovery incinerator  which Glendon  intended
to build in Pennsylvania.  DEP disapproved the contract.
         Hunterdon  County  filed  an  appeal   of   the  agency's
decision with  the Appellate Division  in New Jersey and asserted
several  challenges  to the DEP  action.   One challenge  was that
the  DEP's  disapproval  of  the  contract  violated  the  Commerce
Clause.
         The   DEP maintained   that   the  use   of   out-of-state
disposal  facilities  was inappropriate  as  a  long-range  solid
waste  management  option  because these facilities are subject to
control  by a  range of  state,  regional and local  agencies over
which   the  state  has   little  influence  and  no   regulatory
control.   Further,  DEP  maintained that  there is  considerable
uncertainty    regarding   reliance    upon  the    capacity   at
out-of-state   disposal   facilities   for   short-,    medium-   or
long-term  use.   Although  the  DEP   acknowledged  that  it  has
allowed  several districts to  rely  on out-of-state  facilities as
a  short-term option  it argued that it is  crucial  that districts
which   do  rely  on   out-of-state   disposal  capacity  secure
enforceable  assurances  from those  facilities  in order to ensure
continued  use  until in-state  facilities can be brought on line.
                               30

-------
         The Appellate Division  agreed  with  the DEP.   Also, the



Court found  no violation  with  respect  to the  Commerce Clause



challenge.  The  Court said  states  retain significant  power to



regulate  in the  areas of environmental  protection  and resource



conservation.   Also, the Court held  that this  was  not a case of



economic  protectionism  or  patent  economic  discrimination.   In



fact, the DEP  policy effectuated  legitimate  local  interests,



subsumed  by the  police  powers and invoked to  ensure  health and



safety.   Thus, the  thrust of  New Jersey's policy was  to protect



the environment over the  long term by ensuring the  existence of



an essential public service  -- solid waste disposal  -- when the



critical  time  and  need  arrives.   The  DEP's  policy  did  not



burden  citizens  of  other   states   in  any  way   nor  did  it



discriminate  against  others.   The  Court  further  stated  that



reasonable  local  regulation  of   solid  waste  disposal will  be



upheld in the  face  of Commerce Clause  claims  where  the failure



of state government to act would result in a crisis.



         VI.  CONCLUSION



         The law appears to  be well-established that  states may



not  ban  the   importation   of   out-of-state  waste.    However,



receiving states  continue  to take  actions to  limit  the amount



of  waste   entering  their   borders.    States  apparently   are



encouraged by  recent  court decisions which  have upheld states'



actions   in  some  cases   based upon  legitimate  state  concerns.



Thus, one can  probably  anticipate more  states  enacting barriers
                              31

-------
to  importation of solid  waste.   Therefore,  states  that  export



waste must  take actions  to provide  for their own  disposal  and



reduce  exports   to   other  states   through   source  reduction,



recycling,  incineration  and landfill  development  and not  rely



on other states.  Each state must see to its  own  solution.
                              32

-------
  COMMUNICATING RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING & NEW
              MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITIES

               William L. Owens & W. David Conn
University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies
         Virginia  Polytechnic Institute and State University
                 Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0113
                        Presented at the

    First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                        June 13-16,  1990
                             33

-------
INTRODUCTION

     In part because of inappropriate practices in the past, and despite more sophisticated con-
trols in recent years, there are risks associated with both existing and new municipal solid waste
(MSW) facilities. Some existing landfills, for example, are considered so hazardous - generally
because of their contamination of water - that they have been declared Superfund sites. Despite
increasingly stringent controls, even the most modern waste combustion units cannot be consid-
ered fail-safe; unanticipated variations in the incoming waste stream, mechanical failures, and
human errors are among the possible causes of emissions that may be harmful to human health
and the environment.  In recent years, citizens have developed a growing awareness of, and
concern for, a variety of environmental risks, including those assoicated with solid waste facilities
Given this concern, experience has shown repeatedly that failure lo provide risk information is
likely to lead to resentment, distress, and resistance to future proposals
     This paper explores several  aspects of risk and risk communication relevant to the manage-
ment of MSW. We begin by briefly discussing the "expert" view of risks associated with solid
waste facilities and the techniques used to reduce these risks. We then consider how public con-
cerns might differ.  Finally, we describe an approach that may be effective in addressing public
concerns about solid waste risks.

EXPERT ASSESSMENT &  PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT SOLID WASTE RISKS

    As discussed in a later section, it is not clear that members of the public in practice neces-
sarily base their concerns regarding an existing MSW facility or to a  proposed new facility on the
results of formalized risk assessments performed by "experts"; nor (some would argue) is it self-
evident that they should. Nevertheless, we shall locus initially on the process involved  in risk as-
sessment and some of the results obtained tor MSW facilities. Although there are other risks
associated with these facilities (such as those resulting from truck traffic, contaminated runoff,
landfill gas. disease transmission by rodents, etc.), the principal concerns of the public appear to
relate in large part to the potential health effects of /eachafe from landfills and of atmospheric
                                         34

-------
emissions and residual ash from combustion units. Consequently, we shall focus on these partic-



ular risks.



    A risk assessment typically seeks, in a systematic manner: (1) to identify the potential haz-



ards (here, the release from MSW facilities of health-threatening pollutants); (2) to assess the



likely exposure (taking into account, for example, the potential for the release of these pollutants




into the environment, their transport and fate once released, and the doses ultimately received



by humans); and (3) to estimate the impact of these doses on human health. A number of such



assessments have been performed on leachate from landfills as well as on flue gas and ash from



combustors







ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTION OF RISKS








Leachate from Landfills: Prior to the 1980s, relatively little attention was paid to potential leachate



problems in the siting, design,  and operation of most landfills. At that time, also, it was not un-



common for a variety  of hazardous wastes to be deposited in municipal landfills, which almost



certainly contributed to the toxic constituents in the leachate. In many instances, contaminated



leachate was allowed  to seep out  and degrade ground and/or surface waters.  One result is that



many of the sites presently on  the Superfund National Priorities List are old MSW landfills



     The extent of the  risk actually posed by leachate from old MSW landfills is impossible to de-



termine because groundwater has been monitored at only about 25 percent of them.  However,



based on a model predicting the release, transport, fate, and impacts of eight  pollutants typically



found in leachate, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that 5.5% of ex-



isting MSW landfills pose a lifetime cancer risk of between 1 in 10.000 and 1 in 100,000, while the



estimate for 11.6% of  the landfills lies between 1 in 100,000 and 1 in 1.000,000  The level normally



used by EPA as a "trigger" for  regulation is 1 in  10,000 (EPA  1988;  OTA 1989)



     A move toward tighter leachate controls at  the federal level began with the issuance of san-



itary landfill criteria in 1979; much stricter controls appear in new federal  regulations that are



currently  pending  In  the meantime, many new  landfills have been constructed to stricter stand-



ards imposed by states or as a pre-condition to obtaining local siting permission  In general,
                                            35

-------
 landfills constructed today are likely to be sited in more suitable locations than those often used
 in the past, and to incorporate a variety of engineering controls intended both to minimize the
 amount of leachate generated (by keeping moisture out of the landfill) and to prevent any leachate
 from seeping out (by trapping and collecting it). A greater effort is likely to be made to keep (or
 to take) hazardous  constituents out of the incoming waste stream.
     Nevertheless, some leachate-related risk still remains. Hazardous wastes are still likely to
 enter the landfill, both legally (since in many states, hazardous wastes from households and very
 small quantity generators are not excluded)  and illegally (due to imperfect enforcement of existing
 controls). It has been suggested lhat natural anerobic processes may convert some nonhazardous
 wastes (such as lignin in paper) into hazardous substances. Even in the absence of substances
 specifically identified as 'hazardous,' leachate from an MSW landfill is likely to be a potent
 pollutant, generating many times the Biological Oxygen Demand of settled sewage
     In  addition, mechanical failure of the engineered controls may occur; for example, a synthetic
 liner may ultimately degrade, particularly  after a long period of exposure to contaminated
 leachate within the  landfill. Human error may also cause a failure of the engineered controls: the
 liner may be inadequately installed;  the leachate collection/treatment system may be operated
 improperly; inadequate safeguards may be taken  at closure; or there may be subsequent dis-
 turbance of the site. It may be noted that  the very success of the controls in reducing risk in the
 short- to medium- term may extend the time over which the risk remains significant, since the
 absence of moisture tends to slow down the rate at which the waste undergoes natural degrada-
 tion.
     Although all of these possibilities are recognized, it  is virtually impossible to develop a pre-
 cise estimate of the resulting risk. All that can be  said is that the risk (al least in the short- to
 medium- term)  is likely to be considerably less than it was in the past, when few if any leachate-
 related  precautions were used.

Atmospheric Emissions from Combustors: Uncontrolled flue gas from an MSW combustor is likely
to contain many different substances, some potentially very hazardous. These substances may
be uncombusted residues of wastes  entering the furnace or products formed during or after
                                           36

-------
combustion itself. The substances typically of greatest concern are (1) toxic metals such as



cadmium, lead, and mercury (e.g., from batteries, plastics, and newsprint) and chromium, tin, and



zinc (e.g., from surface coatings, galvanized metals, and solders), and (2) complex organic mole-



cules present in the incoming waste or formed from partially combusted organics, especially the



polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorodibenzofurans (PCDFs), as well polynuclear



aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)pyrene.  Based largely on laboratory studies involving



•animals, the PCDDs and PCDFs are thought by many people to include some of the most highly



toxic compounds  in existence. (Washburn, 1989; OTA 1989)



     It  is widely acknowledged that older, uncontrolled MSW incinerators have relatively high



emissions of these and other pollutants, although some have been retrofitted successfully, re-



ducing dioxin emissions by as much as two orders of magnitude. Exposure to these emissions



may take place directly (eg.,  by inhalation) or indirectly (e.g., by ingestion of contaminated milk



or other food). Based on analyses of-direct exposure via inhalation, EPA (1987) estimated that the



upper  risk limits are about 2 to 40 additional cancers per year in populations exposed to PCDD



an  PCDF emissions from all existing MSW incinerators, corresponding to a maximum individual



lifetime cancer risk that falls between 1 in  1.000 and 1 in 10,000. The cancer risks due to metals



in existing MSW incinerator emissions were thought to be much less  Because of reductions in



emissions due 1o the introduction of stringent controls, it would be expected that considerably



lower  risks would be associated with combustors built today, assuming proper operation These



estimates, however, do not take into account exposure to the emissions  via indirect pathways,



which  some people argue are at least as important as the direct pathways (epecially in view of



the possibility of bioaccumulation).








Residual Ash from Combustors:  Various hazardous substances, including metals and organics



such as  PCDDs and PCDFs, have been identified  in the ash from MSW combustors.  Fly  ash by it-



self almost always fails the EP toxicity test for lead and/or cadmium, while combined fly and bot-



tom ash often fails this test. Wastes failing the test are normally classified as "hazardous waste"



under RCRA Subtitle C (meaning that they should be disposed of in specially permitted facilities)



but there remains some ambiguity about the residues from combustors burning only MSW since






                                            37

-------
it is claimed that they are excluded from regulation as "waste derived from households."  It is
expected that Congress will ultimately resolve the issue by declaring these residues to be "special
wastes," subject to controls somewhat less stringent than those imposed on hazardous wastes;
in practice, they will probably have to be reused in some manner or deposited in specially con-
structed monofills (as many of them already are).
     Human exposure to the pollutants in ash may result from ingestion of groundwater contam-
inated by leachate from the ash; inhalation, ingestion in food crops, or dermal exposure may also
result from airborne and waterborne transport of ash during handling or land disposal.  However,
according to OTA (1989), quantitative risk assessments regarding ash do not exist.

PUBLIC CONCERNS REGARDING  SOLID WASTE RISKS

     As previously mentioned, it is not clear that the public's concerns about an existing or pro-
posed MSW facility are necessarily determined solely or even at all by the results of a formalized
risk assessment, if available. There are at least three possible reasons; (1) the public may not
know or understand the results of the risk assessment; (2) the public may dispute the assumptions
used in the assessment; and/or (3) the public may know and understand the results, but may
choose to be moved by concerns that, to the experts who prepared the assessment, may seem
to be "irrational.*  If the first reason applies, the potential role of risk communication is obvious:
to effectively communicate the results of the assessment so that the public can use these results
- if it chooses - in determining its reaction. The second and third reasons require a little more
discussion.

Disputed Assumptions: Most risk assessments on MSW facilities have been performed with in-
complete data and inadequate knowledge about the processes that produce the hazardous
pollutants, about the mechanisms for their release to the environment, about the pathways that
ultimately lead to human exposure, and about the human response to the exposure.  Risk
assessors have had to rely heavily on predictive models  as well as on a variety of assumptions
needed  to run the models. Typically, the  models are programmed to determine a "worst-case"

                                          36

-------
scenario involving a "maximally-exposed" individual (that is, someone exposed to high concen-




trations of a given pollutant over a 70 year lifetime). Some people consider that this is an overly




conservative approach, while others — in view of the uncertainties and what is at stake (human




lives) - consider it appropriate (OTA, 1989).




     Some important assumptions may be especially difficult for the public to accept,  particularly




in view of certain well-publicized incidents that have threatened or produced environmental




damage in the past (e.g., the accident at Three Mile Island, the Valdez collision, etc.). Risk  as-



sessments performed to date on proposed MSW facilities have typically been  based on technolo-




gies constructed precisely to design specifications, undeteriorated by the passage of time,  and




operated without human error In practice, both mechanical failure and human error are  likely to




decrease performance and increase risks. The control of atmospheric emissions and ash gener-




ation in MSW combustors, for example, requires a high degree of maintenance and -operational




vigilence. It  has been reported that dioxin emissions have increased by 5 to 50 times  in a test in-




volving the non-optimal operation of a combustor (OTA, 1989).  Furthermore, although some  states




impose their own requirements, there presently exist no federal regulations requiring specific




training or certification of even the most essential  workers in an MSW combustion facility




(Hershkowitz, 1989).  Even without the potential for human error, the ability of new combustors to




achieve low levels of emissions over a twenty year period is presently unknown.  Adding  to the




complications is that, due to its heterogeneity, MSW is a "bizarre" fuel, over whose composition




(and resulting combustion products) the facility operators have little or no control.




     The observation that "experts" frequently disagree among themselves presents an additional




difficulty to the public. For example,  in a dispute over the proposed  construction of a new MSW




combustion  facility at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the consultants  hired by the New York  City De-




partment of Sanitation estimated that the plant would result in  6 excess cases of  cancer per




million people exposed over a lifetime to the projected dioxin emissions. An expert hired  by those




opposed to the facility, however, produced an estimate of the cancer risk that was three orders




of magnitude higher (1430 excess cases)  The difference, it appears, was largely attributable to




different projections of the rate of dioxin emissions from the plant, which in turn resulted  from
                                           39

-------
different assumptions about those existing facilities at which comparable emissions might be ex-



pected. (Konkel, 1987)








Alleged Irrationality: It is widely recognized that different people, having been presented with the



same information about a particular risk, may appear to see that risk very differently. Proponents



seeking to gain approval for a new MSW landfill or combustion unit have often expressed frus-



tration over their seeming inability to assuage public concerns over risks (such as those associ-



ated with  leachate,  atmospheric emissions, or residual ash) which - according to the risk



assessment experts - may be small in relation to other risks voluntarily accepted by many



members of the same public each day.



     Although the public is sometimes accused of being "irrational" in this situation, there are



several reasons why the descriplion may be totally inappropriate. Psychologists and others have



suggested that the way in which a risk is perceived is a function not only of the risk's magnitude



(even if this is thought to be determined "objectively") but also of a variety of other factors — such



as whether the risk is voluntary, whether it invokes dread, etc., - that Sandman has labelled col-



lectively as  "outrage.* More generally, it seems to be a mistake to assume that people can con-



sider the  magnitude of a risk in  isolation from its cultural and social context. One researcher has



even offered the intriguing suggestion that the passion for cleanliness displayed by many Ameri-



cans is a factor in determining how they view the risks posed by a facility handling "dirty" garbage



(Simon quoted in Michaels, 1988).



     Some members of the  public also believe, it seems, that the task which risk assessors set



out to achieve - seeking to take account of every possible contingency - is intrinsically so fraught



with difficulty that they have little or no confidence in the results It is not simply that they question



particular assumptions; rather, given the fundamental uncertainty involved, they lack faith that the



numbers can ever be reliable. To the contrary, some would argue, they may create an impression



of reliability that is  undeserved.  At a meeting reported by Ehrenfeld (1989). an environmental



representative commented  that deficiencies are "so significant that that risk assessments are



'meaningless,' and  that 'quantitative risk assessment is just a fancy way of developing a standard.



It's an  esoteric form of magic."






                                            40

-------
ADDRESSING PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE





RISKS






    In developing an approach to addressing public concerns regarding risks associated with



solid waste facilities, an important consideration is what might be called the context of risk com-



munication.  That is, risk communication efforts should be part of a larger risk management



strategy that includes vigorous efforts to reduce risk.  The challenges of communicating informa-



tion about risk are so substantial, however, that it is possible to  lose sight of the idea that risk



reduction goes hand-in-hand with risk communication.  Those municipal solid waste planners and



managers who do lose sight of this idea may unwittingly project the image that they believe all



of the risk issues associated with solid waste can be resolved by providing more and better in-



formation. The community, however, may well  be looking for further risk reduction in addition to



risk information.



    Viewing risk communication as closely related  to risk reduction can also avoid the problem



of equating risk communication with correcting  misperceptions.  Indeed, as  noted earlier, con-



cerns about risk may be well-informed, but based upon a perception of the acceptable level of risk



that is different from the experts.  In such instances, the only effective and appropriate response



may be to provide for a higher degree of protection. For example, as part of the siting process in



Fulton County, New York, the decision was made to include monitoring wells even though the



hydrogeological study concluded that there was no risk of groundwater contamination. (EPA 1990



P22)



    The approach to risk assessment procedures can also  help to  create an appropriate context



for risk communication; in this sense, risk assessment can be an important first step in risk com-



munication.  If the risk assessment process does not provide for adequate community information



and involvement, it may be poorly received for  reasons quite apart  from its technical



charactersitics. For example,  in 1986 five Philadelphia area physicians, appointed  by the mayor,



supervised a trash-to-steam plant risk assessment conducted by a Washington, D.C.-based  con-



sulting firm.  The team of physicians, none of whom were from the section of Philadelphia where



the proposed facility was to located, lacked experience with environmental protection and com-
                                           41

-------
munity participation; and community and environmental groups were excluded from the risk as-
sessment process.  These factors apparently contributed to the rejection, by some segments of
the community, of the risk assessment results. (Nash)
     Individuals charged with the task of communicating information about the risks associated
with solid waste facilities face several recurring problems.  One is that some of the substances
involved have (and justifiably so) a frightening reputation.  Dioxin, for example, as discussed
earlier, is present in measurable quantities in the ash from combustion facilities; and some people
believe that any amount of dioxin is unacceptable. Another problem that communicators of risk
information face is that risk assessment experts often disagree with each other and frequently  do
not provide hard and fast answers.  Risk communicators must therefore often address a public —
hungry for straight talk - with equivocal statements.
     Given these challenges, municipal solid waste planners and managers are well-advised to
plan a risk communication program. Ideally, this should be done as early as possible to avoid the
weakness inherent in a hastily constructed response to a confrontational situation.  In planning a
program, it is frequently important to obtain assistance from communication experts.  Those  who
have mastered the demanding technical skills necessary to manage municipal solid waste prop-
erly may not also be experienced communicators. In obtaining assistance, a special effort should
be made to enlist the help of individuals who have experience facilitating an interactive exchange
of risk information.  Such assistance is increasingly available in the private sector,  as well as in
government agencies and universities.
     Coordination of the planning effort among the various  segments of the community can also
be important. Local government, community organizations, and environmental groups may want
to play a part in determining how risk issues will be discussed.  In some communities there may
also be an ongoing  risk communication program, perhaps  addressing risks associated with haz-
ardous materials or natural disasters.  Organizers of such  a program could provide valuable  as-
sistance.
     Among the characteristics of a well-planned solid waste risk communication effort is that it
is tailored to the unique characteristics of the community in which it is to be carried out.   Risk
communication activities that are unsuccessful in certain areas because of a tradition of lack of
                                           42

-------
concern for environmental issues, could very well be successful in communities that have high



levels of concern for these issues and a tradition of environmental activism.  By the same token,



risk communication activities that have proven to be successful in one community might prove to



be less than successful in another.



    One factor that should be considered is the nature of the community organizations. It is im-



portant to know not only what organizations exist in a community and the extent of their mem-



bership, but also what their traditions are in terms of becoming involved with controversial



matters — especially matters of environmental concern. Another factor to consider is the cus-



tomary level of citizen participation  in the community.



    In considering the characteristics that make a community unique, it may be necessary to use



particular avenues of communication in order to reach the community.  For example, it may be



important to use local doctors in order to communicate certain types of health effects information



(as compared to using public officials or doctors from outside the community), or to combine the



comments of solid waste industry spokespersons with  those of experts  who might be regarded



as more objective.



    A risk communication program should also be responsive to the patterns of activity and



communication in a community.  For example, when it is important to discuss risk issues with a



broader segment of the community  than those residents who live near  an existing or proposed



facility, it may  be necessary to focus some of the communication efforts in areas of community-



wide significance. If many residents in the community  tend to frequent a certain commercial area



on Saturdays, an information booth  could be set up in that area. If churches are an important part



of the community's life, risk communicators could work with churches and church groups  Simi-



larly, understanding which newspapers, radio stations, or TV stations are most commonly read



or viewed by the general public is important in determining where to place effective advertise-



ments or announcements.



    Public forums are generally  an important  component of a  risk communication program.  In-



formation about the presence of environmental risks often evokes significant emotional reactions



(Wandersman  et al., 1989).  People  may feel fear, frustration, concern about what to do, and even



anger that they and their families have been, or may be. exposed to some danger. For this rea-






                                            43

-------
son, information about risk is usually best delivered in a forum format rather than through the
media, in fliers, in speeches, or in any other format that involves only one-way communication.
In a forum, there are opportunities: (1) to quiet fears  based on misunderstandings, by answering
questions, (2) to put a human face on the problem by giving the messenger a chance to express
empathy and to show understanding, (3) for members of the community to offer each other social
support as they face difficult choices, and (4) for the community to begin the process of problem-
solving as participants think collectively of ways to respond to the dangers rather than facing
these risks in isolation.
     Those who present information at a forum should be persons skilled in communication and
not merely technical experts.  It is important to reduce information to terms that lay persons will
understand, and to present it in a manner that stresses its  relevance to citizens. Highly technical
discussions will transmit little information and will not hold citizens' interest.
     There are a number of important points regarding the way these meetings should be organ-
 ized and conducted. It may be necessary to set up a series of meetings since a fairly large volume
of sometimes complicated information may have to be covered.  Any given meeting should pres-
 ent only the amount of information that a citizen can  absorb well  in a reasonable amount of time.
 and still allow enough time for discussion. In practice this may mean holding one meeting to
 discuss the condition of or proposed plans for a solid waste facility in general terms, while ad-
 dressing in another meeting the  nature and extent of risk to environmental and human health.
     In designing these meetings, it is important to take into consideration well established prac-
tices for making them as effective as possible. The meetings normally should be scheduled for
 early evening during the week or on Saturday morning, and should not take longer than two hours
 (at the very most). They should  be held in convenient locations,  and should be organized so that
 attendees will  be confident that the meeting organizers are interested in hearing their questions
 and comments as well as providing information. It is essential that these meetings allow for
 meaningful question-and-answer sessions.
     Advertisements for these types of meetings should make it clear to members of the commu-
 nity that they will obtain information at the meeting that (1) is directly relevant to them, and (2)
 will assist them to understand the nature of the risks associated  with solid waste management in

                                            44

-------
the community.  Direct mail may well be an effective strategy for this, but it can be very expensive



and time consuming. Other possibilities include working through community organizations such



as the Parent Teachers Association, civic organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the



League of Women Voters.




    As part of a risk communication program, an effort should be made to designate and adver-



tise sources of risk information.  While it may not be possible or advisable to designate one indi-



vidual or organization as the sole source of risk information, it can be important to identify those



sources for the  media and the public.



    Finally, a mechanism for addressing concerns  about risks associated with municipal solid



waste management should be ongoing. Even where the risk communication program is initially



established as part of an effort fo sile a new facility, the importance of that program extends be-



yond the siting decision because during the course  of operation some members of the community



will almost certainly be concerned about risk  An ongoing risk communication program can serve



as a forum for discussing those  concerns and for considering new proposals for further risk re-



duction.









BIBLIOGRAPHY






    Conn, W. D., W. L. Owens, R. C. Rich, and J. B. Manheim (1990), Communicating With  the



Public About Hazardous Materials: An Examination  of Local Practice. EPA-230-04-90-077.



Washington. DC US EPA.



    Ehrenfeld, J R., E  P. Craig, and J  Nash (1989), "Waste Incineration: Confronting the Sources




of Disagreement," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 9, 305-315.



    Hershkowitz, A. (1989), "Worker Training and Waste Incineration," Environmental Impact As-



sessment Review, 9, 239-245.



    Kellermeyer, D. A. and S. L Stewart (1989), "Environmental Impacts and Managemenl Alter-



natives of Municipal Waste Combustor Ash," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 9, 223-238



    Kilgroe, J.  D. (1989), "Combustion Control of Trace Organic Air Pollutants from Municipal



Waste Combustors." Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 9, 199-222
                                           45

-------
    Klapp, M. (1988), 'Challenges from Smart Publics,* The Environmental Professional, 10,
189-197.
    Konkel, R. S. (1987), "Risk Management in the United States:  Three Case Studies," Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Review, 7, 37-55.
    Michaels, M. (1988), 'How Landfills Look to the Public Mind," World Wastes.
    Nash, J. (1987), 'Assessing the Health Risks from Municipal Waste Incineration: An Example
from Philadelphia," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 7, 249-252.
    Owens, W. L., W. D. Conn, and W. Muller (forthcoming). Public Involvement in Municipal Waste
Management: A Guidebook for Virginia Localities. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University.
    Santoleri, J. J. (1989), "Incineration: Introducing the Technical Issues," Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 9. 163-180.
    Siskind, E. and L. E. Susskind (1989), "The Incineration Conflict: Addressing Public Concerns."
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 9, 317-329.
    US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989), Facing America's Trash: What Next for
Municipal Solid Waste? Washington, DC: OTA.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1987). Municipal Waste Combustion Study.
EPA-530-SW-87-02. Washington, DC: US EPA.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1988), Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the
United States, EPA-530-SW-88-011, Washington. DC. US EPA.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Sites for Our Solid Waste: A  Guidebook for Ef-
fective Public Involvement, EPA 530-SW-90-019. Washington, DC: US EPA.
    Wandersman. A., W. Hallman, and S. Berman (1989). "How Residents Cope With Living Near
a Hazardous Waste Landfill." American Journal of Community Health, 17.
    Washburn, S. T., J. Brainard, and R. H. Harris (1989). Environmental Impact Assessment Re-
view, 9. 181-198.
                                           46

-------
"DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK CITY'S WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY"

     Alex Prutkovsky. Debra Stabile and Valeria Scioscioli
           Department of Sanitation.  City of New York
                       Presented at the

   First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                        June 13-16. 1990
                              47

-------
The Context of the Study

    At 2.4 Ibs per capita per day. New Yorkers discard 3.1
million tons of waste per year;  an additional 3.5 million tons
per year are discarded by the commercial and institution
sectors of the city.  Waste reduction and recycling are at the
top of New York City's and New York State's waste management
strategies.  By providing data on the discard behavior of all
waste generators, the Waste Composition Study is the primary
tool for the planning process and for the formulation of
alternatives.

    Historically, waste composition studies have been driven by
the needs of their users (see Exhibit 1).  In the 1970s and
early 1980s, emphasis on incineration required data on the
physical characteristics of waste components.  In the mid to
late 1980s, emphasis shifted to recycling.  This required data
on the concentration of recyclable materials in the municipal
solid waste.   In  the 1990s, comprehensive waste management
strategies will require ever more accurate data on waste
generation and composition at a great degree of detail in order
to identify problems: relationships between quantities of waste
and groups of  generators; applicable standards of waste
generation and reduction needs in light of existing and planned
facilities and their costs.
                               48

-------
The complexity of waste management requires the  integration of



analytical methodologies and of deterministic and probabilistic



models (i.e.. input/output analyses and sampling).








    The comprehensiveness of the Input/Output approach lends



itself to macro and to micro studies.  The relevant data are



estimated by the Commerce Department, but the calculations are



very cumbersome.  As a consequence.  the data are available with



a considerable delay.  In addition, the aggregation of such data



may be ill-suited to the specific  requirements of individual



waste management plans.







    Waste composition  studies based on direct sampling can be



random or stratified.  In the first case, relevant information



on relationships between waste and waste generators is largely



lost: we will know our waste, but  we will have very little



ability to plan, except at the most aggregated level, through



trend analyses for entire cities.







    Stratified sampling is the approach  followed by the NYC



Department of Sanitation  (DOS):  quantity and  composition of



waste are related to specific population groups  generating it.



thus  tracing back relationships  between  specific groups of waste



generators and specific waste, even  at the  block level.  The



degree of detail is  considerable and  can be  tailored  to



individual needs and
                                49

-------
plans.  Waste management plans can be formulated for the  short-
and long term.  Forecasts of waste generation and composition
will be integrated with economic forecasts and predictions  of
demographic shifts, the drivers of consumption and discards.

Purposes of the Study

    The project relates waste generation and composition  to the
economics and demographics of the city.  Specifically,  the
assumptions of the Study hold that household waste reflects
consumption patterns which vary by socio-economic group;  that
different institutional categories generate different
proportions of waste according to their activities;  that waste
generated by commercial and industrial establishments reflect
their  sizes and types of business; and that waste and its
components grow at different rates as the demographics  and the
economics of the city evolve.

    The quantification of such relationships in a stratified
sample and the configuration of the discard patterns of the
city's major waste generators will allow short- and  long  term
planning of waste management.
                              50

-------
Short term planning.  The quantity of waste collected is at its



peak early in the week and declines thereafter.  Further, many



waste components (the most obvious being yard waste and school



waste) are clearly seasonal; others, primarily hazardous waste.



are more volatile.  The classification of waste components by



relevant characteristics, the determination of their



concentration in the waste stream and the quantification of



their weekly and season fluctuations will allow smoother



operations and cost savings citywide.







Long term planning.  Assuming that the discard habits and



lifestyles of different socio-economic groups change only slowly



over time, the estimates of the waste composition study will be



used to evaluate waste management alternatives encompassing



primarily recycling, waste reduction, landfilling and resource



recovery.







    The materials selected for the Study  (see Exhibit 2) reflect



the goals above and the relative data needs.  Therefore, the



selection was dictated by the following criteria:   a) high



concentration of the materials in the city's waste  stream;  b)



consideration for inclusion in our  recycling programs;  c)



consideration for inclusion in waste reduction plans;  d)



threats to general  health  (for hazardous  waste).
                               51

-------
Residential Samples.







The indicators selected for the demographic samples are median



household income and housing density, from the 1980 Census of



Population  (see Exhibit 3).







   • Income  is assumed  to be the major determinant of spending



patterns and. as a  consequence, of discards.  It is also a



"proxy" for a variety  of demographic characteristics, primarily.



age.  education, and professional status.  Population density -



in the  Study, number of persons per acre - allows to determine



the relationship between growth in waste and growth in



population, and whether such relationship is linear.  Together.



income  and  population  density  provide a compact profile of the



different areas of  the city that can be easily related to waste



production.







    Having  stratified  the  residential sector into nine



categories, the 20  Census  Tracts included in the sample (two for



each  stratum except for the medium-medium group, which includes



four  Census Tracts  to  enhance  the overall accuracy of the model)



were  picked according  to the rules listed above.
                               52

-------
Institutional Samples.








    The sectors of the institutional samples reflect the



respective sizes; the parameters reflect the activities of the



individual institutions (see Exhibit 4).








    The institutions sampled include public and private



secondary schools, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, public



offices, universities and colleges, correctional facilities and



transportation hubs.  Such categories were picked because they



produce the majority of the waste collected by Department of



Sanitation in the sector.  Examples of the sampling des-ign are



reported below for schools and hospitals.







Schools.  Only schools serviced by DOS were considered for



inclusion in the sample.  The schools themselves were broken



down into two broad categories - public and private.  By grade



level, public schools were further grouped into elementary,



junior high and senior high.  Private schools were stratified in



two categories: kindergarten through 8th grade, and 6th through



12th grade.
                               53

-------
    The sample's parameters belong in two distinct groups



number and demographic characteristics of students - providing  a



representative profile of the schools' characteristics.







Hospitals.  Considered for inclusion in the sample were all the



hospitals serviced by DOS.  The hospitals themselves were



grouped in the following categories: teaching; municipal;



psychiatric and not-for-profit.







    The variables originally considered in the sample design



included: number of certified beds; in-patient days; number of



deliveries; outpatient visits; emergency visits and total



employment.  They were all found to be highly inter-correlated.



Quantity of waste per bed was the parameter eventually selected.







    In the second step, distribution of tonnage by method of



collection  and by hospital categories were estimated to ensure.



for each category in the sample, representativeness proportional



to waste tonnage produced, and also to determine the number of



stops per category, to be equal to the number of hospitals  in



the respective group.
                               54

-------
Commercial/Industrial Samples








    Given the high degree of diversification of New York City's



economic base, the selection criteria for the individual sectors



dictated that:  a) the sectors themselves be large and healthy,



and  b) their waste be representative of discards from sectors



not included in the Study.  This resulted in the selection of 10



groups: FIRE (finance, insurance and



real estate), business and professional services, (all grouped



in the offices sector), the hospitality industry (hotels, motels



and eating places), food and general retail, the entire



wholesale industry, and printing, publishing and clothing in the



manufacturing sector  (see Exhibit 5).  According  to our



preliminary estimates, these sectors account for 80% of all the



waste generated by the aggregated industrial/commercial industry,








    In the Study, waste is related  to sector-specific



employment; however,  projections will be based  on the evolving



configuration of  the  individual  sectors and  on  their underlying



economics, as mentioned above.







    Private haulers  collect waste generated  in  the  for-profit



sectors; therefore.  DOS selected the  categories for  the Study



but not  the  individual  establishments, which were picked by
                                55

-------
cooperating haulers instead.  Consultants hired for the purpose
are ensuring that we get as representative and random a sample
as possible, given the constraints.  The sample will be done
this coining June.

The Sampling Procedures.

    The sampling procedures were designed so as to provide an
unbiased and comprehensive representation of the city's waste
suitable for short- and long term planning.  Accordingly,  the
sampling design is based on a number of rules, as follows:

*   equal number of loads in each residential stratum,  except
    for the medium/medium group;

*   separate samples for the winter, spring, summer and fall
    seasons of the selected institutions and Census Tract areas,
    to remain unchanged throughout the study;

*   in each load sample and stratum, separate count for bulk
    waste;

*   sampling removed from major holidays;
*   within each demographic stratum, selection of those Census
    Tracts that:
                               56

-------
    a)  have equal frequency of waste collection.



    b)  do not straddle across different DOS sections.



    c)  have no recycling programs through the end of the samples



    of  the Study (spring 1990).








*   within the individual segments of the project, simultaneous



    sampling, with sampling loads collected throughout the week



    so  as to capture changes in waste quantity and,  possibly,



    composition in different days of the week;








*   within each sample, a number of sorts adequate to measure



    the statistical significance of the samples at the desired



    (90%) confidence levels.








*   sorting of waste collected by DOS trucks performed in DOS



    facilities.







Preliminary Results.







       For each of the sampled categories, we derive the



following information:



*      Amount of waste generated daily and weekly - total and



       scaled by relevant factors ( e.g., number of housing



       units, enrolled students, number of patients, etc);
                               57

-------
*   Composition of such waste by major categories - paper,
    plastics, organic materials, yard waste, glass, ferrous and
    non-ferrous metals, and hazardous waste - and by relevant
    sub-categories, with particular emphasis on  materials that
    DOS has targeted for its recycling programs;
*   Changes in the quantity and composition of waste during the
    week and in the course of the four seasons in each of the
    sampled categories and strata:
*   Variability of the quantity and composition of waste
    produced by the different populations sampled, reflected in
    the quantity and composition of waste in different areas of
    the city (see Exhibit 6);

    The analyses will be refined so as to identify the
determinants of waste generation and composition according to
relevant economic and demographics events.  As mentioned
previously, analysis of these findings will allow DOS to plan
operations in the long - and short run, and by suitable
geographic areas.

    Based on broad aggregates, paper and organics are the two
largest groups of materials found in the waste stream, followed
by plastics, metal and glass, yard waste, bulk waste, inorganic
materials and hazardous waste (see Exhibit 7).  The composition
                               58

-------
of plastics, metal and glass is of major interest to DOS for the



market and waste reduction potential of these materials;



therefore, in the course of the Study, special subsorts in



representative geographic areas were made to determine their



concentration in the MSW.  Plastics are a major packaging



material, as such, a potential target for waste reduction



policies.  The high concentration of mixed glass and metals



increases the costs of separation at our IPCs and of



processing;  however, such costs may be justifiable if markets



are available or can be created.








    Turning to waste generation in the residential segment of



the Study (see Exhibit 8). it is highest in the high income/low



density stratum; the lowest rate appears in the medium



income/high density stratum.  Spring and summer are the peak



waste "producing" periods of the year.







    Analogous comparisons in the institutional segment are of



limited significance, given the heterogeneity of the sectors



sampled:  in this segment, the revealed generation and



composition rates need to analyzed individually.







Residential Segment.  Newspapers, magazines and mixed paper.



food, miscellaneous organics. yard waste and bulk are the most
                               59

-------
seasonal components of the waste stream (see Exhibit 9).
although the seasonality factor varies widely among different
materials and may turn out to be negligible for some of them.
For instance, the high rate of newspaper discards in the fall
may have reflected intensified newspapers' purchases at the time
of local elections; the discards of mixed paper, purchases for
the approaching holiday season.

    Food, newspapers, mixed paper and plastics are the biggest
waste categories for all demographic groups.  At this early
stage,  we have not yet determined whether income or population
density is  the driving force.  This topic is. actually, the
thrust  of the Study.

Institutional Segment  (See Exhibit 10).  Paper is the dominant
material virtually across the board.  Organics dominate in
nursing homes and are the second most important category in
hospitals,  schools and correction facilities.  As in the
residential  sector, the seasonal factor varies widely by
subcategories of materials, however.  We would have expected  the
seasonal factor  in waste generation to  be strongest in  schools
because of  their periodic holidays and  their  closure or vastly
reduced activities in  summer.  As  it  turned  out. waste
generation  from  hospitals and  nursing homes  also revealed a high
degree  of seasonality.
                                60

-------
Commercial Sector.  As mentioned, the commercial samples will be



carried out at the end of this month.








Conclusions








    The Waste Composition Study reflects DOS concerns that



anticipated Local 19 enacted in Spring 1989. requiring DOS to



recycle 700 tons per day in 1990. a quantity to rise gradually



to 4.250 tons per day by 1994.  Concurrently. New York State



mandates the implementation of a solid waste management plan



calling for 8 to 10 percent waste reduction; recycling of 50



percent, and the construction of environmentally sound waste -



to - energy plants for waste that cannot be recycled, all by



1997.







    As we deepen our expertise in waste management, there is



little doubt that future legislation will be even more



encompassing than at present.  Merely monitoring current waste



quantity is not sufficient for systematic and cost-efficient



waste management.  We must be able  to forecast  the  growth of



waste following economic and demographic growth and shifts, and



following technological growth also, for the latter will



eventually  introduce new products in consumer markets and new



materials in the  products we buy.   We anticipate that, in the



not  too distant future, the government will work with industrie_s



in  the  design of  more environmentally manageable products.






                                61

-------
    In the process, properly designed waste management  schemes



may give birth to entirely new industries in the city itself  and



contribute to economic growth through job creation and  the



enlargement of the tax  base: according to many experts,



recycling and all activities related to the'defense of  the



environment will give birth to the growth industries of the



1990's, replacing the electronics of the 1980's.







Acknowledgements







    Edward Leibnitz provided very helpful assistance in the



statistical analysis of the results and in the preparation of



this  paper.  He also estimated the descriptive statistics and



prepared  the exhibits together with Reina Beza. Donna Doty, and



Debora Levine.
                               62

-------
                                             EXHIBIT I
METHODS
DETERMINISTIC
STOCHASTIC
 APPROACHES
HETHODS OF WASTE COMPOSITION STUDIES

                EVALUATION CRITERIA
    PLANNING HORIZON  COSTS      ACCURACY  LEVEL
SUPPLY/MACRO
DEMAND/MICRO
RANDOM SAMPLING
STRATIFIED SAMPLING
    MEDIUM-LONG
    MEDIUM-LONG
    SHORT/MEDIUM
    SHORT/MEDIUM
MEDIUM     LOW
MEDIUM     LOW
LOW        MEDIUM
MED./HIGH  HIGH
STATE AND UP
CITY
CITY
CITY BLOCK
                                     EXAMPLE
FRANKLIN ASSOC. (1988)
MARKETING STUDIES
RHODE ISLAND, 1989
NEW YORK CITY, 1989-90
                                          EXHIBIT II

                             MATERIALS  IN WASTE  COMPOSITION STUDY
PRIMARY CATEGORIES

PAPER
HETALS
ALUMINUM
CLASS
PLASTICS
        SUBCATEGORIES

        CORRUGATED
        NEWSPAPERS
        OFFICE PAPER
        MAGAZINES
        BOOKS
        NON CORRUGATED
        MIXED PAPER

        METAL"CONTAINERS
        OTHER

        ALUMINUM CONTAINERS
        BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
        MISC. CONTAINERS

        CLEAR
        CREEN
        BROWN
        MISC. GLASS.
        CLEAR HOPE
        COLOR HOPE
        LOPE
        FILM
        GREEN PET
        CLEAR PET
        PVC
        POLYPROPILENE
        POLYSTYRENE
        MISC. PLASTICS
                      PRIMARY CATEGORIES

                      ORGANICS
                      YARD WASTE
                      INORGANICS
                      HAZARDOUS WASTE
                              SUBCATEGORIES

                              LUMBER
                              TEXTILES
                              RUBBER
                              FINES
                              DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
                              FOOD WASTE
                              MISC. ORGANICS

                              GRASS AND LEAVES
                              BRUSH

                              BIMETAL CONTAINERS
                              CERAMIC
                              MISC. CONTAINERS

                              PESTICIDES
                              NON PESTICIDES
                              PAINT
                              DRY CELL BATTERIES
                              MEDICAL WASTE
                              MISC. HAZARDOUS
                                                          63

-------
                                  EXHIBIT  HI

                 STRATA SAMPLED IN THE  WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
                              DEMOGRAPHIC  SEGMENT
STRATUM
INCOME/DENSITY
LOW/1 OW
LOW/MED
LOU/HIGH
NED/LOW
MED/MED
MED/HIGH
HIGH/LOW
HIGH/MED
HIGH/HIGH




MED. INC. $(K) DENSITY
10 -
9 -
8 -
13 -
13-
13 -
17 -
16 -
17 -
11
11
9
15
16
16
19
18
18
32 -
62 -
123 -
42 -
66 -
150 -
29 -
89 -
109 -
43
64
176
46
94
171
49
98
124

WOP.
4
9
10
6
10
7
12
5
3

#CT
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2

JfLOAOS
16
16
16
16
36
16
16
16
20

^SAMPLES
124
117
150
129
260
132
134
114
139
 INSTITUTIONAL
 SEGMENT
                    EXHIBIT IV

INSTITUTIONS SAMPLED IN THE WASTE  COMPOSITION  STUDY


                                                     NO.
 HOSPITALS
 PUBLIC AND PRIVATESECONDARY SCHOOLS
 COLLEGES
 NURSING HOMES
 CORRECTION FACILITIES
 MUNICIPAL BULDINGS
 TRANSPORTATION HUBS
NO.
INST.
98
592
28
48
9
91
6
IINST.
WASTE
9
53
2
4
1
8
1

PARAMETER
BEDS
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
RESIDENTS
RESIDENTS
SQUARE FEI
COMMUTERS
                                                        1758
                                                       32846
                                                       15345
                                                        1369
                                                        1387
                                                      168000
                                                        N/A
LOADS    SAMPLES
36
60
12
20
16
28
21
302
361
 87
108
 92
132
138
                                           EXHIBIT V

              COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL  SECTORS SAMPLED IN THE WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
SECTOR
OFFICES
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS
FOOD RETAIL
GENERAL RETAIL
APPAREL AND TEXTILES MANUFACTURES
PAPER. PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
WHOLESALE TRADE
HOTELS AND MOTELS
                         SIC*
                                              t EMPL.

                         60 - 67,73.81,86,89     35
                                        5812      4
                                         54       2
                             52,53,56,57.59      5
                                       22.23      4
                                       26,27      3
                                       50.51       7
                                          70      1
1 COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
WASTE
13
11
14
16
3
• 2
5
2

NUMBER
ROUTES
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
41190
                                                  64

-------

-------
                     f'APC H 14.
 Pt A3HC 9
ORGAN)OS 3ft fifl
  EXHIBIT  7
   RESIDENTIAL
                                                METAL
                     Y*nfl 3 01

         MAJOR


           F-IIM S4.3
                              I      orHf H METAL
                               COyPOSITION
                                   CLEAR     59
 MSCiiNE i'- fir
                            «BENP£T 1,43
                            I'LYPRVt 1,48
                            f'VC 1.8
                           LOPE 1.87
CLARPET 1,90


 =' 5,91
                                          4.22
                                                          QHUWN
         TO) HfifT « !>/
         PLASTICS
        GF1EEN GLASS


       _ 1 Q _
         J. y  '
                                                       COMPOSITION

-------
C9
                             EXHIBIT 8
              WASTE GENERATION BY RESIDENTIAL STRATA
           LBS/UNIT/WK
70 i
   1
60 j


50 -

40 ,_.,
      I
30

20

10 !
         0 -i-"h--i '••
            L/L
L/M
               L/H

M/L
M/H
H-
H/L
                                                   -j
                                                     ..
                                   • 1
                                       ll

  . > A.

H/H
                            3 FALL   L— I WINTER   F. 3 SPRING
                              - 20 -

-------
                   EXHIBIT  9
                   RESIDENTIAL
20-
   NEWSCORGMAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HAZD
                      SUMMER DATA
        BB LOW/LOW      MED/MED  l-'-^l HIGH/HIGH
20-1
15-
10- ^
   NEWS CORG MAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HAZD
                      FALL DATA
        •1 LOW/LOW  B9 MED/MED  LH3 HIGH/HIGH
  NEWS CORG MAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HAZD'
                     WINTER DATA
        •B LOW/LOW      MED/MED   EEi HIGH/HIGH
                          68

-------
                   EXHIBIT 10
                  INSTITUTIONAL
20-1
15-
   NEWS CORG MAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HA2D
                   SCHOOLS - (no colleges)
               SUMMER   llilFALL   \	J WINTER
10-
   NEWS CORG MAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HAZD
                     HOSPITALS
           •1 SUMMER  HBFALL  ED WINTER
  NEWS CORG MAGZ MIXD METALGLASS PLST FOOD YARDMSORGBULK HAZD
                   MUNICIPAL BUILDING
           •1 SUMMER   IHFAU.   I^Tl WINTER
                               69

-------
         ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND TRENDS FOR REGIONALIZATION
                   OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
       Deems Buell, Kevin Dietly, Ron Burke, Patrick Robertson, Sara Rasmussen
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. and Economic Analysis Staff, Office of Solid Waste, US EPA
                                Presented at the

             First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                               June 13-16, 1990
                                     71

-------
        ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND TRENDS FOR REGIONAUZATION
                   OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Overview

       This paper provides an economic explanation for the declining number and

potentially increased size of municipal solid waste landfills (landfills) and discusses

economic incentives that will reinforce those trends as more and more landfills close

and communities design new  municipal waste disposal systems.  Disposal costs have

increased substantially in the  past decade as the number of landfills has diminished.

One reason for the  increase is the recognition mat landfills have traditionally been

underpriced (i.e., users have not paid the full life-cycle costs of building and operating

a landfill). A second is mat  siting new  facilities has become extremely difficult and

expensive. The economic manifestations of the "not in my backyard" or NIMBY

syndrome appear as extensive site selection processes, high permitting costs, and long

lead times in design and construction. Finally, more stringent state regulatory

requirements  are already driving up costs in many states and soon EPA will promulgate

revised federal criteria for landfill design and operation that will increase costs even

further.

       Rather man focusing on the magnitude of these costs, we take those costs as

given and analyze the incentives for regionalization (Le., consolidation of disposal

capacity from more numerous, smaller landfills to fewer, larger units) mat the costs

provide.  First we discuss trends in the number of landfills and then introduce several

economic and demographic factors that affect future landfill planning decisions.  Next

we  model these factors to estimate the magnitude of incentives to regionalize  and
                                        72

-------
project future shifts in the number and size of landfills.  While these shifts have
consequences for the total cost of disposal (e.g., gains in economic efficiency) and may
affect human health and the environment, these effects are not addressed.

Landfill Trends
       In this section we describe the declining number of landfills and then  identify
several factors that are responsible for the pattern of landfill size and distribution,
principally the low cost of landfills in the past and the increasing costs evident today.
Trends in the Number of Landfills
       The trend toward larger, regional  landfills has been quite evident over the past
decade.  In 1977 Waste Age magazine reported 18,539 municipal waste disposal units in
the United States (as of 1974) including  sanitary landfills and open dumps.1  Over the
next several years, the estimates declined.  A 1984 estimate placed the number of
landfills at 10,467* and a census  of state Subtitle D programs in 1985  found  7,645.J
By 1986, that number had dropped to just over  6,000 landfills, and the number
continues to drop today because the number  of landfills closing each year continues to
far exceed the number of new units.4
       At the same  time, the volume of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills has
 held steady, increasing only four percent between 1980 and 1986.5 This means that the
 average amount of waste handled per landfill is climbing and regionalization is
 occurring as communities share a dwindling  number of facilities.
                                         73

-------
Factors Behind These Trends
       The initial, large number of landfills was the result of economic signals that
promoted the location of landfills (or dumps) according to convenience.  The cost of
making undesirable land into a dump or open burning area was very low, and, by
comparison, the cost to transport waste to that facility was  large.  In order to minimize
that transportation cost, dumps were common.
       In 1979 EPA promulgated criteria for  landfills restricting open burning and
forcing the closure of dumps that did not  comply with the  criteria.  At that time,
disposal cost became more of a factor in siting and planning because compliance with
the criteria cost communities money and shut down a large number of facilities.  Today
disposal costs continue to increase as the number of landfills declines and the supply of
landfill capacity shrinks.
       Regulatory compliance costs are continuing to increase as many states strengthen
their  landfill regulations to require more stringent monitoring at landfills, better designs,
and extended care and maintenance after closure.  Federal regulations will soon add to
disposal costs as  welL
       Evidence of increasing costs is everywhere and has  been well publicized. Even
though particular regions have been more  affected than others, even national estimates
show significant increases.  For example the  annual tip fee survey conducted by Waste
Age «npg*»»iM» indicated a nominal increase of 52 percent in landfill tip fees between
1986 and 1987 and 32 percent between 1987 and 1988.'
       One way for communities to mitigate the increasing disposal costs is to take
advantage of the economies of scale in the design and operation of landfills (i.e., the
                                         74

-------
principal that larger operations are more efficient and can handle waste for a lower cost

per ton).  Landfill costs exhibit these scale economies because fixed costs associated

with the construction and operation of a landfill can be spread across more users as the

scale of the  operation increases.   In  addition, more efficient equipment and operating

practices are possible for larger units leading to significant positive returns to scale.

       Given these positive returns to scale, communities may have an incentive to  haul

waste longer distances (pay more for transportation) and pay less for disposal.  The

tradeoff between transportation costs and disposal costs is illustrated in Figure 1.  The

figure shows the underlying patterns in disposal and transportation  cost as hauling

distance increases.  Transportation costs climb  steeply at first as collection vehicles  or

private citizens incur substantial costs as they are called upon to transport waste a

 longer distance. Eventually, the  rate of increase slows as transfer facilities become

 economical  "depots" for waste collection; transportation from transfer facilities is

 typically much more efficient than collection, so the transportation costs  increase more

 slowly.
                             Economic Model tor Regionafaation
                                      8«3*C*M
                              cn««x» imnna » R»gton«ia»

-------
       The shaded line in the figure represents the total cost of waste management (the

vertical summation of the transportation and disposal costs) across distance.  A

community would ideally locate its disposal facility to minimize these total costs (i.e.,

at the minimqm point on this curve).  Shorter distances imply higher costs  because of

high unit costs of disposal while longer distances imply that landfill scale economies

are overwhelmed by increasing transportation costs.

       If disposal costs increase (for the reasons described earlier), longer hauling

distances and use of larger landfills can help offset the increase.  In Figure 2, increased

disposal costs shift the optimum point on the total  cost curve to the right (suggesting

that a longer hauling distance is appropriate).  Because the cost increases also reflect

positive returns to scale, the disposal cost curve shifts up further  for small landfills and

a reallocation between disposal and transportation costs reduces total outlays.  The next

step of the analysis is to model the cost and distance factors to demonstrate the

strength of the incentives to shift to larger,  regional landfills.

                                      F19M2
                           Economic Model tor Regionafeaiion
Vfcn »
                                          76

-------
Modeling Incentives  to Regionalize




       When a landfill approaches its capacity, the communities it serves must plan



how they will manage municipal solid waste when the unit closes.  We compiled data



on a sample of landfills, transportation and disposal costs, and communities served by



these landfills to model the decision rules  that communities might use to decide



whether to site a new facility of the same size in the same general area or to shift to a



lower-cost, larger facility at higher transportation costs.  We assumed that a community



would face this  decision only when the remaining life of its existing landfill was



exhausted The decision rule analysis assumes that when a landfill is going to close



the communities  determine whether the existing transportation arrangements  and the



landfill size are  appropriate given the  potential savings available from shifting to a



larger landfill.  The costs of the new landfill includes the full cost to construct, operate,



and close the facility including compliance costs with applicable regulations plus the



appropriate transportation costs.



Model Inputs



       The model inputs include data  on the area served by landfills, transportation



costs,  and disposal costs.  We analyzed landfill  size data to arrive  at seven  model sizes



of landfills ranging from 10 tons per day (TPD) to 1,500 TPD.' We also categorized



population density by compiling data on population density in jurisdictions  across the



country and computing five representative  densities (the 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 90th



percentiles).'  We conducted the decision rule analysis based on combined landfill size



and population density scenarios that represent the range of cases found in  the United



States.
                                         77

-------
       Areas Served try Landfills

       The area served by a landfill is a function of the unit's size, the population

surrounding it, and the cost to haul waste to that landfill.  In order to estimate service

areas, we assumed mat landfills were located at the center of a circle and that the

population served was  distributed uniformly within this circular service area.   Given a

fixed and uniformly distributed population density, the only way to increase the amount

of waste generated to support a given landfill  size was to increase the area surrounding

the landfill.  The  average distance traveled from the landfill to individual households

within the circular area (for transportation costing) is defined  mathematically.  The

average distance to the center of a circle equals the radius of an inner circle that

circumscribes exactly one half the area of the  entire circle (see Figure 3).  This gives

an  average distance to the landfill of 0.707 times the radius of the entire circle.

                                       Flgu»3
                     Computing Average Distance Traveled in a Defined Area
EnUnAmC-AnaA
   An»B.R, » Amrag
                                                        Traveled
                            An* A « Ana B When «, » .707 «
                                           78

-------
       The next step was to combine landfill size, the area served, and the average

distance traveled so we could define the size of an area large enough to support any

landfill size as a function of population density.  The area served by a landfill of a

given size is a function  of population density and the distance traveled.  We can

therefore  express the size of landfills in terms of distance traveled (the average distance

as defined above) and population density.  Relatively short average hauling distances

can  be found at a wide  range of landfill sizes depending on the population density in

the landfills' service areas (see Figure 4).  If population  density is very high, landfill

size increases very rapidly with distance.   In rural  settings, however, it is difficult to

support a large landfill without long hauling distances.   The result of this analysis was

a table of average transportation distances associated with each model landfill size and

each population density category.
                        Distance That Must Be Travelled to Reach LandM
                               Slas m V*ytag Pqputttan Dmstues
                                            79

-------
       Once these distances were computed, we were able to calculate the increase in
the average distance traveled if a community shifted  up to a larger landfill to save on
disposal costs.  As the size of the hypothetical new landfill increases, transportation
distances increase  as well. We completed these calculations using the following
formula:
       Average distance traveled   = [SQRT(TPD/DENS/0.002565/3.1415)]  * 0.707
       Where:
       TPD                      = Model landfill size for new  facility
       DENS                     = Population density (people per square  mile)
       0.0026                    = Average tons waste  generated per person per day
       3.1415                    = Value of Pi
       0.707                     = Average distance factor calculated earlier
Finally, we subtracted the average distance to the current  landfill from this new distance
to compute the additional distance that waste would be hauled to reach a new, larger
landfill
       Transportation Costing
       We compiled transportation costs from several different sources.  Hauling costs
were estimated from a report prepared for presentation at  the 1986 Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board (referred to here as the Arizona State study).9  For
both long and short haul transportation, the report estimated the costs to replace,
maintain, and operate vehicles given standard assumptions about the size and operating
parameters of bom collection and long-haul vehicles.  The study also estimated  costs
per mile for each  type of truck.
                                        80

-------
       We subsequently modified the short-haul estimates to reflect two operators per



vehicle and waste density of 700 pounds/cubic yard in the truck.  This cost per mile (in



1986 dollars) is approximately $4.40. Given a collection vehicle capacity of 35 cubic



yards,  we computed the cost per ton-mile as $0.36.10 We derived transfer vehicle costs



directly from the study at $2.00 per  mile.  Given a 72 cubic yard capacity for an open



top trailer and  a waste density of 1,000 pounds/cubic yard, the cost per ton-mile is



$0.06.



       Transfer station costs were estimated from two different sources.  The Arizona



State study  reported costs for transfer stations of between 600 and  3,200 tons per day



based  on feasibility studies  for cities in  Arizona. We used the capital costs provided in



the study and annualized them using a 3 percent real discount rate (to be consistent



with the landfill cost estimates) and  a 20-year operating life.  Operating costs were



taken directly from the report  The  final step for these large transfer stations was to fit



a curve to the  point estimates and read  off costs for the model sizes of landfills.  We



used a log-log  transformation of the  curve and used linear regression to fit a curve



across  a range  of sizes. We used this equation to estimate costs per ton for the four



largest landfill  sizes; the 175  and 375 TPD  facilities were based on extrapolations.  The



costs per ton are reported in Table 1.



       For smaller transfer  stations, we  used estimates from SEA Consultants from



December  1987."  This study reported engineering  cost estimates (a low and a high



estimate) for transfer stations of 5, 20, 65, and  150  TPD.  To estimate consistent costs



per ton (in  1986 dollars), we amortized equipment over 20 years at a  3 percent rate,
                                          81

-------
averaged the low and high estimates, and interpolated between the data points.  The
results are shown below.

                                      Table 1
                               Transfer Facility Costs
                              (Annualaed Costs per Ton)
TPD
10
25
75
175
375
750
1500
S/Ton
$27.01
21.62
10.63
7.59
5.67
4.36
3.35
Source
SEA Consultants (note 7)
if
il
Regression from Arizona State (note 5)
it
n
it
       For comparison, recent estimates validate these estimates fairly well.  Costs for a
600-TPD transfer station have been estimated to be $4.48/ton.u  Also, estimates for a
range of sizes showed $16/ton for a 50-TPD facility, $9/ton for a 200-TPD facility, and
$8Aon for a 400-TPD facility."
                                        82

-------
       Disposal Costs



       We computed the cost of disposal for each model landfill size using a cost



model devised for EPA by DPRA, Inc. (Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Cost



Model) and used as the basis for the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of the revised



Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria.14   The model computes the full cost



of designing and operating landfills including the cost of land; designing and planning



(including permitting); site preparation; capital expenditures for equipment, buildings,



monitoring equipment, containment systems, leachate  collection, and closure; operating



costs  for monitoring, fuel, labor, and appropriate engineering, contingency, quality



control, and profit fees.  All capital costs are amortized  over 20 years using a 3 percent



discount rate.



       The total costs reflect the full cost  of building a  new landfill once the  new



federal criteria are in place.  The costs of compliance with proposed federal criteria



were  taken from the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis cited above and averaged for



each model size. Total costs used here are approximations of actual costs facilities will



incur  in the future.  Individual landfills may experience  costs well below or well above



these  averages once the criteria are promulgated, and costs associated  with the



promulgated criteria may differ from the 1988 proposed rule.



       The final step was to compute the incremental disposal cost savings available



when shifting from the existing landfill size up  to a larger one.  Figure 5 portrays the



incremental cost savings available for shifts to larger size landfills.  By far the largest



savings are available for small landfills that can become part of a  much larger, regional



landfill:   disposal savings of over $60 per ton could  result
                                          83

-------
                                       Figures
             Total Costs: Incremental Dollar Per Ton Savings from Shifts to Larger LanoliOs
   par Ion
   otton
   SMtog
                                                                     SbaSMtedlb
 2S  E373
ITS  DTSO
 ITS D i.soo|
                                                           j-TL
                                                                    750
Modd Operation
       As  an existing landfill reaches its closure date, the owner/operator faces a build-
or-shift decision that is tied to the full cost of rebuilding a new landfill of the same
size, or shifting to a lower cost, larger landfill and paying additional transportation
costs.  We used the additional average distances associated with shifts to larger landfills
to calculate an incremental cost per ton transportation (net of current distance traveled)
both with  and without the use of  a  transfer station.  Because transfer stations allow
                                           84

-------
jurisdictions to employ more cost-effective long-haul transportation, they are often



attractive options if the cost of the transfer station can be covered by the cost savings.



Because we could not determine a priori whether transfer stations would be economical



or not,  we modeled transportation costs both ways.



       To include transfer station costs, we computed its size midway between the



starting size of the old landfill and the size of the new landfill.  This calculation



addresses cases in which several small landfills close, combine to  support a single



transfer station close  by, and use a larger regional landfill.13



       The model scenarios were computed on  a spreadsheet and an excerpt of the



model is  reproduced  as Exhibit 1.  The first column shows the size of the current



landfill while the third column shows the larger sizes available.  The incremental



savings available in disposal costs are shown in the fourth column.  Since these savings



are only dependent on size, they are the  same for any population density scenario.



       The population density  column reports the assumed density category modeled.



For the <17  category, the midpoint density of 8.5 is used to compute the current



average distance traveled to the landfill (8.54 miles).  Column five (MILES) calculates



the additional average distance required to encompass a large enough population to



serve each larger landfill size.   For example, the average hauling distance to serve a



 175-TPD landfill if the current landfill is 10 TPD  and density is 8.5 people per square



mile is 35.74 miles (8.54  currently plus an additional 27.20).  We computed the hauling



costs without transfer from the average cost per ton mile for short-haul transportation



 and the incremental distance.  For hauling with transfer, the cost is the sum of the cost



 of the  transfer station and the  cost of long-haul transportation to the landfill.
                                          85

-------
00
Exhibit 1
Sample Output
TOTAL
INCREMENTAL
POPULATION
LFSIZE DENSITY
10 <17
10 8.5
10 10
10 8.54
10
10
10 17-40
10 28.5
10 10
10 4.67
10
10


NEWSIZE
25
75
175
375
750
1500
25
75
175
375
750
1500
CTON
(LF SAVINGS)
$25.03
38.84
51.76
57.37
60.48
61.73
25.03
38.84
51.76
57.37
60.48
61.73

MILES
4.97
14.86
27.20
43.78
65.46
96.11
2.71
8.11
14.85
23.91
35.75
52.49
W/O
TRANSFER
$3.58
10.70
19.58
31.52
47.13
6920
1.95
5.84
10.70 £
1721
25.74
37.79

TOTAL
($21.45)
(28.14)
(32.18)
(25.85)
(13.35)
7.47
(23.08)
(33.00)
(41.06)1
(40.16)
(34.74)
(23.94)
TRANSFER
FACTOR (.50)
W/
TRANSFER
$24.91
$20.60
$20.56
$21.59
$23.54 [
$26.71
$24.64
$19.79
$19.08
$19.21
$19.97
$21.48

TOTAL
($0.12)
(18.24)
(31.20)
(35.78)
(36.94) |
(35.02)
(0.39)
(19.05)
(32.68)
(38.16)
(4051)
(4025)

-------
       The TOTAL columns compute the savings by subtracting disposal savings from



incremental transportation costs.  The first total column shows savings if no transfer



station is used and the second total column assumes use of transfer facilities.  Positive



values in the total columns indicate that no savings would result from a particular shift



Negative values in the total columns indicate a cost savings by shifting and the greatest



savings are highlighted to represent the best decision within a specific landfill  size and



population density category.  In the two size and density scenarios in Exhibit 1,



landfills that close will always shift to larger landfills.  In the first case, the most



economical choice is to shift to a 750-TPD landfill and to use a transfer facility.  In



the second example, the greatest savings  results from a shift to a 175-TPD landfill and



no transfer station.








Resulting Shifts in Landfill Size




       Aggregating results across all the  landfill size and population density scenarios,



we projected shifts for all landfills smaller than  125 TPD and for most landfills smaller



than 275 TPD.  The optimal shift for each scenario is shown in Table 2.  A 10-TPD



landfill will shift to between a 175-TPD  landfill and a 750-TPD landfill
                                          87

-------
                                       Table 2
                        Projected Shifts to Regional LandfUls


Landfill Size (TPD) < 17
10 750 T
25 750 T
75 750 T
175
375
750
1,500
T = Transfer station
POPULATION DENSITY
(People per Square Mile)
17-40 40-90 90-235 > 235
175 375 375 750
750 T 375 375 750
750 T 1.500 T 375 750
750 T 1.500 T 375 750
750



depending on population density and will only use transfer stations in areas that are
sparsely populated.  A 25-TPD facility with a population density less than 40 persons
per square ""ift will utilize transfer stations and will shift to 750-TPD facilities.  Other
25-TPD facilities will shift to  375-  and 750-TPD facilities, without using  transfer
stations. The largest landfills  affected will be  375 TPD, but only  in urban areas.
Larger 1a"dPHs are not projected to regionalize further.  This is because the  unit cost of
disposal (economy of scale) flattens out considerably for larger landfills.  If all landfills
                                          88

-------
shifted according to the decision rules, the smallest landfill, once all existing small
landfills closed, would be 175 TPD.
       In  order to translate the model results into effects on actual landfills, we
combined the decision rules resulting from the model with data on the expected closure
date of landfills in the EPA survey database. If a landfill projected a closing date prior
to 2010, we  "replaced" that closed landfill with a larger one according to the decision
rules.  If  no shift was projected, we assumed that the closing  landfill was replaced with
another unit  of the same size. While this approach oversimplifies the problems
associated with siting (i.e., it  minimizes the  effect of noneconomic factors that may
dominate  siting concerns), this analysis emphasizes  the economic tradeoffs and
incentives available given the siting costs incorporated into the disposal cost estimates
already.
       We project a dramatic drop in the number of landfills, especially in  the smaller
size categories.  Figure 6 compares the number of landfills in each of the seven size
categories as of 1986 and projected for 2010. The number of landfills in the smallest
size category drops 80 percent  The percentage decline decreases to only 28 percent
for 375 TPD landfills and no change is projected for larger units.
       Given these projected  declines, the total number of landfills by 2010 would be
 1,755, a 71  percent drop compared with 1986.  The effect on total landfill  capacity is
 not nearly as significant, however, because the small landfills account for such a small
 share of  the total waste handled. In fact, based on projections of MSW disposal in
                                          89

-------
                      Current and Projected MSW LandM Size Distribution
 Number of
    MSW
                                                                  Q AOJHM20H)
2010 (see note 5), the new population of landfills will have more than sufficient

capacity to handle MSW after recovery of materials and combustion are taken into

account

       These shifts assume that economic factors are the only ones driving the siting

decisions.  In fact, political factors profoundly affect the ability to site any waste

management facility, regardless  of the economic arguments for the facility. Our

projections are based solely on  the economic incentives that would encourage continued

regjonalization of landfills jn  the future.
                                          9O

-------
Conclusion




       The trend toward fewer and larger landfills is likely to continue for the next 20



years as existing landfills reach capacity  and new waste disposal arrangements are



developed  Higher costs of disposal at all landfills create an incentive to increase the



size of landfills, which will save on disposal costs per ton (because of economies of



scale)  but will increase transportation costs.   In the case of most small  landfills (smaller



than 275 TPD), the  comparative costs of transportation and disposal provide  an



economic incentive to shift to larger landfills farther from the individual communities



served by the landfill.  The analysis we conducted indicated that the 6,034 landfills that



operated in  1986 might be reduced to 1,755 units by 2010 with only a limited impact



on  overall capacity.



       While  siting  costs are  built into the disposal cost estimates (e.g., costs of



preparing and defending a permit application), local siting complications would affect



the projected profile of future landfills.  Because of opposition to facility siting and



other non-economic  considerations, the economic factors we have identified may play



an  inconsequential role in determining where replacement landfills are ultimately sited.



Instead, logistical and political factors may control siting decisions.  Logistical factors



could  include a desire to site landfills in areas with naturally impermeable soils or easy



transportation access.  Political concerns  stemming from NIMBY may force landfills to



locate in remote areas or in jurisdictions willing to accept compensation for agreeing to



host the facility. Nevertheless, the incentives for regionalization that result from



potential savings in  total disposal costs are already in place and will be increased by



upcoming federal landfill criteria revisions.
                                          91

-------
   Disclaimer

         The information contained in this paper does not necessarily reflect the views

   and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.



   Endnotes



1. Waste Age, January 1977.

2. Association of State and Territorial. Solid Waste Management Officials, "National Solid
   Waste Survey,"  Washington, DC, 1984.

3. Census of State  and Territorial Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Programs, US EPA,
   1986.

4. EPA 1986 Solid Waste (Municipal) Survey, conducted by Westat, Inc. for U.S. EPA.

5. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update
   1988), Final Report, Franklin Associates, Ltd., March 30,  1988.

6. CL. Perm, "Tip Fees Up More Than 30% in Annual NSWMA Survey," Waste Age,
   March 1989. p.101.

7. landfill size data  were drawn from the 1986 EPA Survey of Municipal Solid Waste
   Tamifillc

8. Population density data were derived from the 1982 Census of Governments compiled
   by the Bureau of  the Census, U.S. Department of Commen
9. AJE. Radwan and KJ). Pijawka, "The Economics of Transporting Solid Wastes,"
   Arizona State University, unpublished.

10. Costs of $0.21 per ton mile were estimated in Transfer Trends," Waste Age, February
   1980, but the costs assumed a smaller truck (25 yds vs. 35 yds) and lower wages ($9
   versus $12).

11. Anthony Quena, SEA Consultants, Waste Age, December 1987.

12. R. Peluso and E. Ruckcrt m, "How Much Will  Transfer Cost?", Waste Age, May 1989.

13. L Gordon, "How to Think About Waste Transfer," Waste Age, February  1988.
                                         92

-------
14. "Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Revisions to Subtitle D Criteria for
   Municipal Solid Waste Landfills;" prepared for Economic Analysis Staff, Office of
   Solid Waste, U.S.EPA; prepared by Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc., August 5,  1988.

15. Assuming that the transfer  station was the same size as the current landfill or the same
   size as the new, larger landfill would have  understated the benefits associated with a
   longer haul to the regional landfill when transfer stations serving other communities
   were available. In addition to analyzing costs of transfer stations half way between the
   current landfill and the larger one, we also  analyzed costs of transfer stations 25
   percent and 75 percent of the way between the two.  The 0.25 factor resulted in little
   change in the  resulting costs while 0.75 caused most facilities to shift to very large
   landfills via transfer stations.
                                             93

-------
                        Summary of

                ESTIMATES  OF  THE VOLUME OF
             MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE  DISCARDS

                           By

                   William E. Franklin
                           and
                      Robert  G.  Hunt

                Franklin Associates, Ltd.
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16, 1990
                            95

-------
     While characterizations of municipal solid waste by weight
have been available for some time, reliable estimates of the
volume of MSW have been lacking, although there have been many
"guesses."  There is a strong demand for this information,
however, because wastes are collected and landfilled on a volume
basis.  This paper presents the findings of the first
comprehensive, systematic study relating volume and weight of the
components of MSW.  The research, sponsored by the Council for
Solid Waste Solutions, was performed by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
and The Garbage Project at the University of Arizona.

     Estimates of MSW components by weight were based on the EPA
characterization report prepared by Franklin Associates.  Samples
of materials and products in MSW were obtained by The Garbage
Project and were subjected to pressure in a machine designed for
the purpose.  Weight-to-volume density measurements thus obtained
were used to calculate the volumes of materials and products in
MSW, using the categories as published in the EPA report.
Density factors were calculated for materials in the trash can
(uncompacted) and compacted in a landfill.  Landfill densities
were determined for 22 different common waste components; the
relationship of weight percent to volume percent was also
determined.

     Copies of the full report on this subject are available free
of charge upon reguest in writing to Franklin Associates, Ltd.,
4121 West 83rd Street, Suite 108, Prairie Village, KS 66208.
                               96

-------
             EVALUATION OF NEW YORK STATE'S
                RETURNABLE CONTAINER ACT
                Robert S. Amdursky, Esq.
                Willkie Farr & Gallagher

                         © 1990
                    Presented at the

First U.S.  Conference on Municipal  Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                            97

-------
                EVALUATION OF NEW YORK STATE'S
                   RETURNABLE CONTAINER ACT
                                           Robert S. Amdursky

I.  Introduction
         New  York's   Returnable   Container  Act   (McKinney's
Environ. Conser. L.,  Article 27, Title 10)  (Act)  took  effect on
September  12,  1983.   Its  purposes are  to reduce  litter,  ease
the burden on  solid  waste disposal  facilities, and  encourage
recycling activities.
         To accomplish these goals, the Act  imposes a  mandatory
deposit value of 5 cents  on  virtually all beer  and soft drink
containers  sold  in  New  York  State  (State).    Specifically,
distributors  (generally,   beer  wholesalers  and   soft  drink
bottlers)  charge  retailers the  deposit  value  of  returnable
containers  —  in addition  to  the market  price  of  the  beer or
soft  drink —.when the  retailers  purchase the  containers  from
the distributors.  Upon  resale to  consumers,  retailers collect
the deposit value from the consumers.
         Consumers return the  "empties"  to retailers,  who repay
the deposit value to the  consumers.   Retailers,   in  turn,  are
reimbursed  for  the deposit value,  plus a statutorily mandated
handling fee of  1.5  cents  per  container.   If a  consumer fails
to  redeem  a returnable  container,  the distributor  is permitted
under present law to keep the unclaimed deposit.  See Figure  1.
                                 98

-------
                                                      Figure 1
                                              Material  and Deposit Flow
              Salea  Cvcle
                                          Redemption Cycle
                                                                                                       Ccle
                                                                Third Party Svahema
CO
CO
          Bear
        Brewers
 Beer
Whole-
salers
  Soft
 Drink
Bottlers
               Retailers/
                Beverage
                 Centers
                                              Customers
                                              Redemption
                                                Centers
Retailers/
 Beverage
 Centers
                                              Soft Drink
                                              Bottlers/
                                             Beer Whole-
                                                salers
                                                  Material Flow

                                                  Deposit Flow
                                                                      Customers
Retailers
                                                             Soft Drink
                                                              Bottlers/
                                                             Beer Whole-
                                                               salers
                                          Third
                                          Party
                                         Systems
        (Peat Marwick Management Study)

-------
         The  Act,   to  a  large   extent,   has   achieved  its
purposes.   Since  its  inception,  litter  in  the State  has been
reduced by  about  72  percent  and solid waste by  about  5 percent
by  weight  and  8  percent by volume.   It  has  success-  fully
encouraged the redemption of  beverage  containers:   for 1988-89,
the  State   Department  of   Environmental   Conservation  (DEC)
reported a statewide redemption rate for  all  containers of 71.8
percent; upstate that rate was 90 percent.
         Redemption  rates,  however,  are  declining.    The 71.8
percent  statewide  redemption  rate reflects  an  8  percentage
point decline from the 80.1 percent  redemption rate  reported in
1984-85.

II.  Background
         A.  The Moreland Act Commission
         On  September  14,  1989, Governor Mario  M.  Cuomo issued
an  executive  order  creating  a  Moreland  Act  Commission  to
Investigate the Returnable Container Act (Commission).
         The  executive   order  charged  the  Commission  with
investigating and  determining (1) the  extent to which the Act
is not  working  effectively and  fairly,  (2) methods to improve
the  efficiency  of  the  Act,  and  (3)  the  adequacy   of  State
enforcement.   The  Commission  also  was  charged  with  making
recommendations for  improving the effective,  fair,  and orderly
implementation,    operation,    and   enforcement   of   the   Act,
including statutory and regulatory changes.
                                100

-------
         The Governor appointed  as  members  of the  Commission:   a
trustee of  the Natural  Resources  Defense Council;  the executive
director of  Consumers  Union  of  United  States,  Inc.;  an  elected
County Executive; the president  of  a national food processor that
sells to  retailers;  and, as  chairman,  a partner  in a major  New
York City-based law firm.
         B.  Commission's Methodology
         The Commission  began  its  investigation  by holding public
hearings in the State's  five most populous  areas.   These  hearings
were  designed  to allow  all  interested  parties to  present  their
perspectives on  the  operation and  effectiveness of  the Act.   In
addition,  the  members   of  the Commission undertook a series  of
site  visits  in  order  to  gather  firsthand  knowledge  of  the
operations of the various industry groups affected by the Act.
         The  operation  of  Bottle  Laws   in  other  states  was
analyzed.  Comparisons were made of the comprehensiveness and the
effectiveness  of  other   states'  programs  and  of  the  relative
merits of their various  administrative structures.
         Finally, the Commission retained KPMG Peat Marwick (Peat
Marwick)  to  undertake a management  study.   The  study involved an
analysis  of  (1)  the efficiency  of the  Act;  (2) the  reasons  for
the  lower than  expected statewide  rate of  redemption,  i.e.,  72
percent;  (3) the existence  and types,  if any, of disincentives to
redemption by  distributors or retailers or  both;  and (4)  options
to improve the effectiveness of  the  Act  and its enforcement, with
                                101

-------
arguments in favor and against each option.
         The Management  Study  consisted  of  three  phases.   The
first involved one-on-one interviews  with a representative cross-
section of each affected segment of the beer  and soda industries,
and  the  food  retailers,   as   well   as  third-party  recyclers,
redemption    centers,    consumers,     and    environmentalists.
Representatives  of  DEC  also  were interviewed.   The  individual
interviews were  followed by a  group  session in  which all  those
who  had  participated  in a  one-to-one  interview were  invited to
analyze,  as  a  group,  the reaction of each affected  industry to
proposed  changes   in  the Act   and  its  enforcement.   Finally,  a
representative sample of 2400 consumers was surveyed by telephone
to ascertain their buying and  redemption patterns,  their views on
the Act,  and recommendations on how it might be improved.
III. Commission Findings and Recommendations
         Based on  the  public hearings,  site visits,  the telephone
survey and the Peat Warwick  Management Study, the Commission made
the  following  findings and  offered the  following recommendations
to the Governor.
         A.    Subsidize  Redemption   Centers    and  Third-Party
Recyclers
         In  large  measure,  convenience  —  or  more  properly
stated,   inconvenience  —  appears   to   account   for   the  low
redemption rate in the New  York City area.   Factors  such as lack
of  storage space, difficulties in transporting  empty containers
                               1O2

-------
to  retailers,  and  the  reluctance of  many  retailers to  redeem
containers  have  created  a  climate  that  discourages  consumer
redemption.
         Therefore  the  Commission  recommended  that  the  State
provide   subsidies   for   redemption   centers   and   third-party
recyclers.  The Commission was  convinced that the Act cannot work
effectively  in  large metropolitan areas  —  and particularly  in
New  York  City  —  without  a  network  of  redemption  centers  and
third-party recyclers.
         Redemption centers would provide an additional  site  for
large-volume  redeemers   —  those who  seek  to  raise  money  by
redeeming  containers,  including  the  City's scavaging  poor.   The
economics   of   establishing  and  operating   such  centers   in
metropolitan areas  — the lack  and high cost of  space,  labor  and
transportation,  etc.  —  have  precluded  redemption centers  from
realizing enough income to attract private capital for investment.
         Third-party recyclers  collect  returned containers  from
retailers  and  redemption centers and  transport  them  to  storage
and recycling facilities.  In addition,  they monitor  returns  and
provide  billing .services  between  retailers  and  distributors.
Upstate, third-party systems have been quite successful.   But  in
the New  York City  area,  given such problems as  picking up from a
multitude  of  small  retailers,  there  are  only  a   few  successful
operations.
                                1O3

-------
         B.   Do NOT Increase the Amount of the Deposit
         Perhaps  the   proposal   most  frequently   made  to  the
Commission for  improving  redemption rates  was  to  increase  the
deposit  value  of  containers.   The assumption  underlying  this
proposal  is   that  an   increase  in  the  deposit  would  motivate
consumers to alter  their  behavioral patterns  and  return  their
empty containers.
         The  Consumer   Survey demonstrated  that  the  consumers'
failure  to  redeem  is  best explained by  lack  of  storage  space,
difficulties  in transporting empty  containers to  retailers,  and
inconvenience at the retailer in effecting redemption.  .There was
little  evidence to suggest that  increasing  .he deposit  value to
$.10  or  even  $.25  would  change  redemption  patterns  in  any
meaningful way.
         Furthermore, the  Commission determined that unintended,
adverse  consequences were  likely  to occur  if the  deposit  value
was  increased  in  the  State.   A  difference  between the  deposit
value  in New York  and  that in neighboring deposit  states  in all
probability would  increase  the number of  containers  crossing the
border  into the State  for  redemption; New York distributors would
be forced to bear  the burden of paying an increased dollar amount
in redemptions without having collected the supporting deposits.

IV.  Creating Industry Incentives
         A.    Retailers
         The  Commission recommended that the  handling  fee paid
                                104

-------
to  retailers  be  increased  from  1.5   cents   to  2  cents  per
container.
         At  the  public  hearings,  retailers  repeatedly made  the
claim  that  their  costs  substantially  exceeded the  1.5  cents
handling fee mandated  by the Act.   The Commission requested that
Peat Marwick  investigate this claim,  and they  confirmed  that the
actual  handling  cost  appears  to  range  from   1.95  cents  per
container  (for  the most  efficient)  to   a high  of 5.97 cents per
container.    In  all  cases,  retailers   are paid   the  statutorily
mandated 1.5 cents  per container handling fee which reduces their
net cost of compliance under existing law  to  a  range  of .45 cents
to 4.47 cents per container handled.
         B.  Beer Distributors
         The Commission recommended that the process  of  deposit
initiation  should  be  transferred  from  the  distributor  to  the
brewer.
        . New York  State  has a distinctive four-tier  distribution
system  that  includes brewer,  franchise  wholesaler,  nonfranchised
distributor/beverage  center,  and  retailer.   While  this  system
provides distinctive benefits to  the  consumer  — traditionally,
beer prices  in New  York have been comparatively low  —  it has
also  created  a  disincentive  to  comply with   the  Act.   That
disincentive is transshipment.
         Transshipping  is  a  legal  and competitive tool  by which
nonfranchised  distributors purchase beer  in  one  market and ship
                                105

-------
it to another market  for  sale to retailers.  Partially because of
transshipment,  metropolitan  New York has  one of the  lowest beer
prices in the country.
         However,    transshipment    can    create    significant
disincentives for  redemption.  A  prime example is  one-way beer.
In  this  case,   a  transshipper  purchases  beer  in  one  market
(typically upstate  or out-of-state) and ships  it  to metropolitan
New York where it is sold at below-market  prices.   The prices are
set with  the understanding that the empty containers  will  not be
returned to the  originating  (upstate) distributor.   Rather, these
containers  are  returned  to   local  distributors  (i.e.,   those
located   in   metropolitan   New  York).    Because  these   local
distributors did not originate the deposit  on  these  containers,
they  must  assume  what  the   Commission   determined   to  be  an
unwarranted burden.   They must  overredeem, i.e., redeem a greater
number of containers than they originated.
         By  moving the origination process  from  the  distributor
to the brewer, the brewer, rather  than  the distributor, initiates
and  holds the  deposits until  the containers  are  redeemed.   No
distributor  will  be  penalized  by  overredemption  because  the
brewer  would pay  each distributor the  deposit  value  of every
container it returns to the brewer.

V.  Educational Programs
         The Commission concluded that  if  the Act  is to work
more effectively — and if  the residents  of New York  State are
                                106

-------
to  understand  the  importance  of  recycling  —  a much  greater
educational effort is needed.
         A.   Public Sector
              1.  The Department of Environmental Conservation
         DEC is mandated  by the Act to provide information to the
public on  the  various  aspects  of the Act.  In  fact, however,  DEC
has   done   little   to   educate  the   public.     The   Commission
recommended  that  DEC  should  do  more,  including  for  example
integrating  facts  about  the  Act  in  its  educational  efforts
surrounding  mandatory   source   separation  and   throughout   its
publications.
              2.  State Consumer Protection Board
         The Commission  also recommended that  the State Consumer
Protection   Board   become   actively   involved   in   promoting
recycling.    In  keeping with its mandate  to protect the consumer,
it should  promote  a  state-wide  Consumer Bill  of  Rights.   Equally
important,   it  should  take  a  leading  role  in  educating  the
consumer about the  importance  of  waste reduction,  reuse,  and
recycling — and the public's role in each.
              3.  State Department of Education
         In  order  to promote understanding of the importance of
recycling,  the  Commission recommended  that  the  State  Department
of Education include information about the Act  and  recycling in
its environmental syllabus.
                                107

-------
VI.  Enforcement of the Act
         Everything  the   Commission  heard  —   at  the  public
hearings, interviews  and  the Management  Study —  indicated  that
DEC  has failed  to vigorously,  or  even  adequately,  enforce the
Act.  The major  reasons  for this  failure appear to  be two-fold:
lack of resources and inadequate penalties.
         A.  Redistribution of Enforcement Response
         Given  the inadequacy  of DEC  resources,  the Commission
recommended   that   DEC   be    relieved    of   its   enforcement
responsibilities,  and the  responsibilities  for  enforcement  be
redistributed.
              1.  Department of Sanitation
              The   Commission   recommended    that   enforcement
responsibility  in New York  City  be given to  the New York  City
Department of Sanitation.
              The  Department of Sanitation already  has existing
staff  patrolling and enforcing  related  regulations  in  the  same
areas  where  the  bulk of  enforcement work  on the Act  is needed.
Moreover,  the Department  of Sanitation  has  offered  to  provide
approximately  50  sanitation enforcement  officers  whose  primary
duty would be to enforce the Act.
              2.  Department of Agriculture and Markets
              The   Commission   recommended    that   enforcement
responsibility  in the  remainder  of the State  be given  to the
Department of Agriculture and Markets.
                               108

-------
              The  Commission recognized  that  the Department  of
Agriculture and Markets also suffers  from inadequate  manpower and
financial  resources.   Nevertheless,  its  broad  mandate  —  to
protect the health and safety of the  State's  food  supply — takes
its  inspectors,  on a regular basis,  into retail  food stores.  In
addition,  because the  administrative arm  of  the Department  of
Agriculture   and   Markets  is  each   county's  Consumer  Affairs
Department  or  Sealer  of  Weights   and Measures,  the  Commission
determined  that Agriculture and Markets  would have  an acceptable
number of enforcement officials in the appropriate locations.
         B.  Penalties
         A  shift  in  the enforcement  system alone, the Commission
recognized,  will  not solve  the enforcement  problems  plaguing the
Act.   It was  the judgment  of  the   Commission  that   the  current
penalties  for violations  of the  Act send the message that the
State  does not consider  these  violations serious.   As  a  result,
the  Commission recommended  that  penalties for violations  of the
Act  be significantly increased as  follows:
               1.   Increase  the maximum  fine for each violation
                   from $500 to $1O,OOO,  per day;
               2.   Create   a private  cause   of  action  against
                   defaulting    retailers,    distributors,    and
                   bottlers  —  so that   any  citizen  who has met
                   with  noncompliance  of  the Act   can  initiate
                   action;  and
                                109

-------
              3.    Make  it  a  violation  to  sell  a  returnable
                   container without  a  proper deposit  marking or
                   without collecting a deposit.

VII.  Development of End-Use Markets for Recycled Materials
         The Commission  recognized that  the success of  the Act,
as. well as  all recycling programs,  depends upon  the availability
of markets for the raw materials generated by recycling.
         Therefore,  the  Commission  recommended  that  the  State
Department  of  Economic  Development  be  directed to aggressively
foster  and  promote   the  expansion   of  markets   for  recycled
materials.

VIII.  The Act and Solid Waste Management
         The Act  is widely  regarded to  be the cornerstone  of  the
State's recycling program and  a critical part of its strategy for
solid waste management.   Nevertheless,  the  Commission  considered
the  argument  that on  September  1,  1992,   with  the  advent  of
mandatory state-wide source separation including  the recycling of
all  containers  (McKinney's  Gen. Mun.  L. S  120aa),  the Act  may
become redundant.   However,  mandatory curbside  source  separation
will not be  fully in  place until 1992,  and its effectiveness will
not be established for some years after that.
         As  a  result,  the Commission recommended that  the status
of  the  Act  should be  reviewed in  1995 — three years  after
state-wide  source separation becomes mandatory —  to see whether
the Act should be further amended or repealed.
                                no

-------
         FULL COST ACCOUNTING
    IN  SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

                 Joseph A. Vonasek
           Governmental Consulting Services
                  Presented at the

First U.S. Conference, on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                 June 13 -16,1990
                         in

-------
                 Full Cost Accounting In
                Solid Waste Management
      Solid waste programs have historically been funded and operated in the
same manner as their other governmental social  service programs: as a
function of direct expenditures.  Time and circumstances have progressed to
place solid  waste management  under an  increasing regulatory responsibility
with the ultimate impact being higher costs. In this time of economic pressures,
managerial science is being  called on  to transition these governmental
programs to a basis where their operating budgets can be used to uniformly
analyze program productivity and cost effectiveness.

      In the State of Florida, this is being accomplished through statutory
mandate.  The 1988 Florida Legislature passed Chapter 88-130, which has
become known as the  Florida  Solid Waste Management Act of 1988.  In
addition to broadening and enhancing the powers of the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the Act requires that all Florida  governments
providing solid waste management services annually compute and report the
"Full Cost" of these services to both the State and the service users.  Thus, the
challenge has been placed on local governments to know and  report the costs
of their services exactly as though they were businesses.  While this is sure to
cause governmental managers  concern at first, natural selection will, as it
always does,  allow the quick and knowledgeable to use this information to
improve the planning and management of their operations.
                                  112

-------
      What follows is a short discussion of the history and application of Full
Cost Accounting as well as the State of Florida's requirements. The reader will,
hopefully, be able to come away with an understanding of the principles which
are broadly presented and apply them to their own operations.

                 What is "Full Cost  Accounting"?
      Full Costing is  an accounting buzzterm which,  because of manager's
needs to differentiate from traditional  accounting, has become  an  accepted
term. The differences between traditional  accounting and cost accounting are
clear when their goals are seen. Traditional accounting's principal goals are to
accurately track  expenditures by an organized and consistent method which
allows   management   to   determine    total   expenses,   units
produced/received/shipped, etc. for comparison against total revenues or units
sold/delivered and other benchmark data.  Cost accounting's goal  is to take the
information generated by traditional accounting and create management tools
for performance measurement.

      Phoenician and Arab traders of biblical times employed "clerks."  These
were the first accountants.  Merchants often kept clerks at both the,beginning
and end points of trade routes to determine if there  was any  loss enroute.
Treasure hunter Mel  Fisher used the records of Spanish clerks to identify the
wreck location and even the treasure which made him famous.

      History  progressed  into the industrial age and organizations began to
accept that the benefits of specialization of labor extended to those parts of the
organization which supported the production function.  The industrialists began
                                   113

-------
the development of pricing theory, which included the assignment of the costs of
these support functions  to their products proportional with their use.  This
functional application gave birth to "Full Cost Accounting."

      Full Cost Accounting, then, is the inclusion of ail costs  of producing  a
product or service. To accomplish this objective in solid waste, all inputs to the
services must be identified and charged to their production.

      As we will see throughout this discussion,  the Rules for  Florida Statute
403.7049 generally follow the principles of  full cost accounting and, in some
ways, makes the computation of full cost easier than it might have been.

      Rule  17-708 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)  requires the
inclusion of all costs and their allocation between the collection, disposal and
recycling functions of the government.  This process, however, does avoid
requiring the iteration of  centra! services and other costs received by central
service departments downward to receiving programs.

             The Florida Full Cost Reporting  Rules
      17-708 F.A.C. has been constructed to  include in full  cost all major
components of service provision. Throughout the construction of the Rule, the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) and its advisors were
very open  to input from those about to be regulated and the  professional
community. The Rules,  while being  loosely written, should accomplish the
objectives while allowing local governments to decide what information is most
pertinent in their service area.
                                   114

-------
      Rule 17-708 requires,  at the minimum, that the full cost reported must
include rates for service charged to end users plus:

      A. Any direct and indirect costs required by the service, regardless of
        its inclusion in the service budget.
      B. All costs billed directly to end users by an outside contractor.
      C. Tipping fees where not included in any  other billing.

      These  cost must be categorized  into residential and non-residential and
reported separately for collection, disposal and  recycling.  All workpapers and
source documents must be  kept  on file and treated as  public information for
three years.  Governments must annually inform all users of their share of the
cost, on an average basis, which may be expressed in an appropriate measure
or on an individual basis. Costs provided through an interlocal agreement must
be included in the receiving government's annual report.   Where a countywide
assessment for service is used, the providing government  reports the costs of
the service provided; the receiving government does not.  Full cost  must be
reported for residential and non-residential categories of collection,  disposal
and recycling.

      Public  Disclosure requirements can be fulfilled through either direct mail
or publishing  a display ad in a newspaper of general circulation. A copy of the
public disclosure must be sent to FDER on governmental  letterhead.

      17-708 F.A.C. does not require that an audit be performed of solid waste
programs to determine full cost.  As any CPA will tell you, the cost of certifying
the computations required for the "Disclosure" would be significant. As well, an
accurate  computation of  full  cost is more  dependent  upon a thorough
organizational analysis and  use  of  an appropriate allocation base than any
                                    115

-------
differences which might be found between the annual Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report audit required by Florida Law and a special audit.  As was
noted earlier, the Rule does require that the documentation and workpapers be
maintained for three years and be made available to both the public and FDER.

      Relating to audits, 17-708 F.A.C. does not require that contractors or
franchisees be audited to determine the costs of the services they provide. The
contractual costs of their services are accepted as being the full cost.

      Further, 17-708 F.A.C. does not require any specific allocation  base be
used for the Disclosure's computations. Due to the critical  nature of this aspect
of full costing, this in itself is likely to raise more questions concerning accuracy
than lack of a special audit.

     Where Does "Full Cost" Vary  From "Budgeted Cost"?
      To accomplish the Full  Costing  of solid waste services all costs of
operation,  whether provided directly by the solid waste division or some other
organizational division, must be accounted for.  Generally, such costs may be
classed as Direct Costs, Incoming Costs and indirect Cost

      The costs of all services and materials  used specifically in providing solid
waste services are termed "Direct Costs." To differentiate between costs which
are directly controlled by solid waste division managers and  costs which may
not be, we term the cost of services  used in production  but coming  from an
organizational unit outside the solid waste program  "Incoming Costs." As an
example of the differences between Direct and Incoming costs; the wages of a
compactor operator at the landfill are generally considered a Direct Cost
                                    116

-------
whereas the cost  of wages paid to an engineer in the road maintenance
division for services performed for the landfill would generally be considered an
Incoming Cost.  The controlling factor is that the engineer's salary is not found in
the solid waste division's budget but the service performed is directly related to
production of the service.

      An appropriate allowance for the support services utilized by solid waste
services must also be charged.  These support services are not related to the
actual production of service but are as essential to operation as the compactor
operator's services.  Examples of support  services are finance/accounting,
personnel, and legal services.  Organizational analysis is used to identify these
support services. The proportion used by the solid waste services must then be
allocated to the  respective services.

      Thus,  Full Cost, is equal  to the  budgeted  direct costs of service
production plus the unbudgeted incoming costs of service production  plus the
unbudgeted costs of support services.

        Full Costing in a Fund Accounting  Environment
      Fund  Accounting, the system which most local governments use, is a
system designed to more  readily track direct operating  expenses. Within the
Fund Accounting System, three basic operating cash sources are found:
      General   Fund   Accounts:  where costs  of operation are
        underwritten  by the  tax  base revenues collected by  the  local
        government.
      Enterprise  or  Revenue  Fund  Accounts:  where  costs  of
        operation  are underwritten by revenues  received from  charges for
        services.
                                   117

-------
      Internal Service Fund Accounts:  where costs of operation are
        underwritten  by intra-organizational transfers  from other fund
        accounts for a service provided.

      Solid waste operations in Florida have traditionally been funded through
the General Fund of local governments.  While the budgeting policy may vary
from organization to organization, my experience  has been that GF solid waste
operations rarely contain all direct and incoming  costs of operation, much less
the indirect costs.

      Enterprise/Revenue Funds have, in many cases been organized around
services which have  been leveraged for start-up capital  purchases or the
provision of service under an interlocal agreement. Thus, more of the direct and
indirect expenses are likely to be found charged to the  budgets of these
activities.

      While solid waste operations may use services provided by an internal
service fund department, ISPs are not usually formed to  accommodated solid
waste operations.  Some examples of services this type  of fund is created
around are fleet management, data processing and  building  maintenance.
Where an internal service fund is found, it is generally because costs of services
are being charged back to the user departments.

      17-708 F.A.C. specifically defines an Enterprise Fund as meaning  ".... a
fund used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a manner
so that all direct and indirect costs .... are primarily financed by revenue(s)
received...."   As discussed earlier,   budget  policy  may  vary between
organizations but generally even enterprise funds will fall  short of being a fully
costed funding environment.  This is mainly due to local government's not

-------
applying a managerial analysis to their entire operation.  Thus, Enterprise Fund
accounts should also be reviewed to identify the completeness of the charges
for  direct,  incoming and indirect expenses.   Where they're  found  to  be
incomplete, the  same conversion process as for general fund operations is
required.
      1.  A review of the solid waste program's organizational asset usage
        must be accomplished to identify all inputs into service production.
      2.  A comparison of the budgeted activities must be made with the
        results of the review.
      3.  Unbudgeted services and assets used in service production must
        be appropriately  allocated and program budgets adjusted for these
        amounts.

      Some governments annually prepare a full cost allocation plan for all of
their operating divisions.   In such cases, the allocation to the solid  waste
services should be reviewed to determine if the allocated  amounts were
appropriate and then the  plan's allocation must be distributed among  the
respective categories of solid waste services identified by 17-708 F.A.C.

        Cost  Allocation for Fund Accounts:  An Example
      In presenting a simplified and brief example of full cost, the key point of
the exercise, organizational analysis, must be taken as a given. Thus, when
referring  to Exhibit I, the example which follows, we have already determined
that the only  operating service provided to the "Myth County Landfill" program
from an unbudgeted source is engineering services.  As well, Exhibit I  shows
that the  number and  type of central  services  provided  are  limited  to
Administration, Finance, Personnel, and Purchasing.  In practice, it  is unlikely
that this limited a number of Incoming and Indirect costs would be found.
                                   119

-------
      Once the sources of inputs to services are determined, the value of
services must be determined.  Operating budgets must be adjusted to remove
the influence of uncharacteristic costs.  This can be accomplished through
adjustments such as removal of budgeted costs for capital purchases or the
corresponding addition of an allowance for capital asset depreciation.  Another
addition to the cost of services provided can also be the allocation of the indirect
and incoming costs which these programs receive. When the cost adjustment
process is completed, allocation to the landfill program can begin.

      An appropriate allocation  base must be selected for each input source.
The allocation base used must reflect an  equitable measure for the service
provided.  In support of this, it is obvious that while a value can be placed on the
services received from the Personnel Department by assigning a value equal to
the respective proportion of Landfill personnel to total personnel,  the same
measure cannot be used to determine the value of services  received by the
Landfill from the Finance Department.

      Other cost adjustments must also  be accomplished to the Landfill's
budget.  Current year capital  purchases must be removed and an allowance
added back for capital asset depreciation; as they were in the valuation of
inputs to the  Landfill  program.   Costs of debt amortization and escrow
requirements for site closure and  long - term maintenance are cost factors
which are often contained in budgets or accounts apart form landfill operating
budgets.  These too must be adjusted into the full cost equation.

      The Summary of Costs shown on the final page of Exhibit I graphically
depicts  the 27.2% Increase over the operating cost which is  caused by
                                    120

-------
adjustments which bring the Landfill program to full cost. As a final note to the
exercise,  the  size of the net increase does not  reflect a typical outcome.
Generally, in an operating program the size  of the example, the indirect cost
factors would  be much  higher. As was noted earlier, the number of central
services applied to the example were extremely limited.
                                    121

-------
       EXHIBIT I: Cost Allocation With  Fund
                              Accounts
Kevs to Identifying Full Cost of Service:
  A. Organizational analysis to identify source of inputs to service provision.
  B. Determine the total cost of inputs.
  C. Selection of allocation base.
  D. Allocation of inputs to Solid Waste services.
  E. Determination of Full Cost.
Location:   Myth County, FL
         Operating Budget: $985,000
Central Svc
Depts.
Administration
Finance
Personnel
Purchasing
Subtotal:
Adjusted
Budget
$250,000
$600,000
$185.000
$85.000
$1,120.000
Amt Allocated
Landfill
$16.217
$17,397
$12,007
$1.666
$47.287
Amt Allocated
Other
$233,783
$582,603
$172,993
$83.334
$1,072,713
Incoming Services
             Engineering         $218,000      $13,026     $204,974
             Grand Total:
$1,338,000
$60,313     $1,277,687
    Allocation of Administration:Myth County, FL
                 1
             Allocation Basis: Number of Personnel
             Total BCC Personnel: 185
             Total Landfill Personnel: 12
             Amount to Allocate: $250,000

             12/185=6.49%
             6.49%*$250.000=$16,217
       Allocation of Finance: Myth County, FL
             Allocation Basis: Number of Financial Transactions
             Total Transactions: 1,422,944
             Landfill Transactions: 41,257
             Amount to Allocate: $600,000

             41,257/1,422.944=2.90%
             2.90%>$600.000=$17.397	
                                        122

-------
        Allocation Basis: Number of Personnel
        Total BCC Personnel: 185
        Total Landfill Personnel: 12
        Amount to Allocate: $185,000

        6.49%*$185,000=$12,007
Allocation of Purchasing: Myth County, PL
        Allocation Basis: Number of Purchase Orders
        Total Myth Co. P/O's: 11,122
        Total Landfill P/O's: 218
        Amount to Allocate: $85,000

        218/11.122=1.96%
        1.96%*$85,000=$1,666
Allocation of Engineering: Myth County, PL
         Allocation Basis: Billable Hours
         Total Billable Hours: 4368
         Total Hours of Landfill Engineering: 261
         Amount to Allocate: $218,000

         261/4368=5.98%
         5.98%*$218.000=$13,026
   Other Landfill Costs: Myth County, t-L
         Capital Purchases:*
         Bond Retirement:
         Reserve for Closure:

         Total Other Costs:

         •Amortized Value
 $39,300
$119,000
 $48,500

$206,800
                                    123

-------
Summary of Landfill Costs: Myth County, FL
         Operating Budget:
         Central Svc. Allocations:
         Incoming Costs:
         Other Costs:

         Full Cost Total:

         Tons Disposed:

         Operating Cost/Ton:
         Full Cost/Ton:
 $985,000
   $47,287
   $13,026
 $206,800

$1,252,113

    36,145

    $27.25
    $34.64
                                                               Operating
                                                               Budget

                                                               Central
                                                               Services

                                                               Incoming
                                                               Costs
                                                               Other Costs
                                       124

-------
GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990

                     James  E.  Kundell
           Carl Vinson Institute of Government
                  University of Georgia
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16, 1990
                            125

-------
   GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT  OF  1990

     Georgia's principal solid waste management statute was
enacted in 1972.*  As with  other states,  the focus of this law
was to phase out open dumps in favor of "sanitary landfills."
During the 18 years since its passage, the situation in
Georgia has changed dramatically, while the law has remained
virtually unchanged.  The result is a significant increase in
the amount of municipal solid waste generated and an increase
in opposition to siting facilities that can effectively manage
that waste.  The state and its local governments were thus
faced with addressing the solid waste problems of the 1990s
with the waste management law of the 1970s.

Ground Work
     Although Georgia has problems with municipal solid waste,
they are not-generally as severe as the problems faced by a
number of other states.  Consequently, Georgia has had the
luxury to learn from the efforts of these states and to adopt
solutions that, though effective in Georgia, might prove
ineffective where pressures are even more intense.
     As concern over solid waste management mounted, four
factors contributed to the effective development and enactment
of Georgia's solid waste management legislation.   First, a
number of pieces of legislation designed to address specific.
                              126

-------
generally siting, concerns were introduced in the Georgia
General Assembly in 1988 and 1989.  These bills did not
address the overall policy problems related to municipal solid
waste but, rather, served to demonstrate what a contentious
public policy arena solid waste management could be.  Second,
a waste round table was created through the Southeast
Negotiation Network at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
This round table allowed for open membership and served as a
forum .to share ideas and to meet others involved in the solid
waste field.  Participants included representatives from
environmental organizations, business and industry, state and
local governments, and academia.  Meetings generally entailed
a report or presentation and an open discussion on that topic
as well as others of concern.  The round table, in hindsight,
accomplished two things: it provided an opportunity for the
development of rapport among individuals with different
perspectives on solid waste management and it spawned a
realization that there was general consensus on what needed to
be done and focused discussion on how to effectively reach
those goals.
     A third factor contributing to the development of
Georgia's solid waste policies was the creation of a joint
task force by the Association County Commissioners of Georgia
and the Georgia Municipal Association.  This task force
allowed local governments to participate throughout the
                               127

-------
process and it enabled cities and counties to present unified

support for legislative efforts.

     A fourth factor was a 1989 policy study of the solid

waste management situation in Georgia which identified a

number of issues that would need to be addressed if municipal

solid waste was to be effectively managed.2  This study

focused attention on those issues the state was in a position

to address and made specific recommendations for resolving

municipal solid waste problems in Georgia.


Legislative Action

     As these efforts collectively produced an understanding

of the policy problems and built support for addressing them,

legislative action was called for.  In 1989, the Georgia

General Assembly passed Senate Resolution 103 which created

the Joint Study Committee on Solid Waste Management.  The 15

member study committee composed of three Senators, three

Representatives, three agency heads, and six individuals

appointed by Governor Harris from environmental interests,

industry, local governments, and academia* labored during the

1989 interim to draft SB 533, the Georgia Comprehensive Solid

Waste Management Act.3
     *  The author of this article was appointed to the study
committee as the representative from academia.
                               128

-------
     The study committee divided into five subcommittees:
waste reduction and education, recycling, incineration,
landfilling, and legislation.  The first four subcommittees
explored the substantive issues related to their areas of
interest and the legislative subcommittee considered the
existing law and how that might be revised.  The subcommittees
met on numerous occasions to determine the nature of the
problems and the alternatives for resolving them.b  The
process was open in order to address the concerns of the
affected interests before the legislation was introduced.
     In December, 1989, the study committee released its
report* and a draft piece of legislation.   Based on comments
received, the legislation was perfected prior to the beginning
of the legislative session and incorporated into the
Governor's legislative package.  The bill was introduced as an
administration bill in both the Senate and House in identical
form, SB 533 and HB 1364, respectively.0  A joint hearing
before the Senate Natural Resources Committee and the House
Environment and Natural Resources Committee on January 25,
1990, resulted in support for the legislation being voiced by
     b  In fact, some fifty meetings were held between June,
1989 and January, 1990 by members of the study committee to
perfect their recommendations and legislation and to share
ideas and obtain input from interest groups.
     c  Since the bill was considered first by the Senate,  it
was SB 533 that was  acted upon.
                               129

-------
every person that made a statement. The changes in SB 533
recommended by those testifying tended to be minor in nature.
The legitimate concerns raised at that hearing were
incorporated into an amendment adopted by the study committee
on February 1 and adopted as a committee substitute by the
Senate Natural Resources Committee on February 5.  The bill
was then unanimously passed by both the Senate and the House
and signed by Governor Harris on March 30, 1990.
     The result of the study committee's efforts is a well
thought out, comprehensive bill that received the endorsement
of all affected parties, an accomplishment that is unique for
an issue as controversial as solid waste management.

Major Components of the Bill
     The Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act is
responding to the two major thrusts apparent in solid waste
management today.  First, due to environmental concerns,
federal and state standards for disposal facilities are being
increased.  These new standards will result in greater
assurance that environmental quality will be protected but
also in higher costs associated with solid waste management—
in some cases three to five times greater than current levels.
Second, because of these higher costs and the difficulty of
siting new facilities, there is considerable interest in
reducing the amount of waste entering disposal facilities.
                              13O

-------
Solid Waste Education
     If municipal solid waste is to be effectively managed, it
is essential that the public support and participate in the
effort.  Consequently, solid waste management education is an
integral part of the comprehensive bill.  Senate Bill 533
calls for the expansion of the Georgia Clean and Beautiful
Program, a statewide affiliate of Keep America Beautiful, to
increase and coordinate public education efforts on solid
waste.  The bill creates a thirty member advisory committee to
serve as a forum on solid waste management education and an
interagency council to coordinate state solid waste management
activities.5

Paving for the Service
     One of the most effective ways of educating people about
the need to reduce the solid waste they generate is to let
them know how much it is costing them individually to dispose
of that waste.  The bill requires the development of full cost
accounting procedures by local governments and the
notification of the public annually of these costs.6
     Along with full cost accounting, the study committee felt
it was important to attach a fee mechanism to the disposal of
waste and to earmark this money for solid waste management
purposes.  Although from an education standpoint the optimum
fee would be for the full cost of the service provided.
                               131

-------
instituting a tipping fee at disposal facilities that reflects
the full cost of solid waste management would result in
"Sticker Shock.*  To go from what many in Georgia perceive as
a free service to paying $20.00 to $50.00 per ton would be
politically difficult and potentially counterproductive.  The
bill requires, however, that a minimum fee of $1.00 per ton be
charged at the disposal facility and that these funds be paid
into a local restricted account.7   This money is to be  used
for solid waste management purposes, including education.
Although this is a modest beginning in connecting the full
cost to the service, it is an important step toward effective
solid waste management in Georgia.

Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling
     Senate Bill 533 establishes the state goal of reducing on
a statewide per capita basis the amount of solid waste
received at disposal facilities in FY 1992 by 25 percent by
1996.8  The study committee  believes  this  to  be  a realistic,
reachable goal.  The goal itself,  however, is only important
in forcing a change in behavior.  Once our mind set is altered
from that of a "throw-away society" to one that consciously
attempts to reduce and recycle waste, the goal will likely be
surpassed.  One concern,  however,  is the date of 1996;  why not
sooner?  The problem the study committee faced was in not
knowing how much waste is currently being generated.  To
                              132

-------
determine this, scales must be installed at disposal
facilities or alternative mechanisms for weighing the waste
must be instituted in order to quantify the amount of waste
received.  The earliest that scales could be required is FY
1992.  Thus, that year would serve as the baseline year for
measuring waste and 1996 would be the target date for reaching
the 25 percent reduction goal.
     The Georgia law does not attempt to mandate recycling
since it is not possible to do so.  State and local
governments can mandate the separation and collection of
certain items in the waste but if there are no markets for
those items, they will not be recycled.  The separated
materials may then be taken to the landfill at additional
cost.  Until those recovered materials are turned into useful
products and reused, recycling is not complete.  Senate Bill
533 recognizes, however, that recycling is an important
mechanism for reducing waste and puts in place mechanisms to
facilitate and encourage recycling without requiring it.
       To encourage markets for recyclables, SB 533 creates
the Recycling Market Development Council to study the market
situation and to make recommendations to the Governor and
General Assembly on what the state can do to expand these
markets.9  One important step the state can take to expand
markets for recycled materials is for state agencies to
purchase these materials.  Senate Bill 533 requires the
                               133

-------
Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services to
analyze the current state procurement requirements and to
report to the Governor and the General Assembly on what the
state can do to increase the amount of recycled materials
purchased.10
     The study committee felt that it was important for the
state to assume a leadership role in recycling.  Senate Bill
533 requires that the General Assembly and state agencies
establish collection programs for recovered materials
generated as a result of agency operations, including
aluminum, high-grade office paper and corrugated paper.11

Solid Waste Management Planning
     If solid waste is to be effectively managed, planning is
essential. The state of Georgia, however, has lagged far
behind most states in growth related planning and
coordination.  Rapid growth in the state and the difficulties
faced by local governments in effectively managing this growth
spurred Governor Harris in 1987 to create a blue ribbon Growth
Strategies Commission.  Legislation resulting from the
commission's work was enacted in 1989 that established a
comprehensive planning process and mechanisms for coordinating
state, regional and local efforts.12
     Solid waste planning is a component of comprehensive
planning and thus must be integrated with the process
                              134

-------
established by the growth strategies legislation.  Senate Bill
533 creates a solid waste planning requirement that each local
government, independently or in cooperation with other local
governments, develop or be included in a solid waste
management plan.13  The plan must stipulate, among  other
things, how the local government intends to reduce its solid
waste consistent with the state reduction goal.  Thus, the law
provides flexibility for local governments to plan what
options would work best for them to reduce the waste they
generate.
     Under the growth strategies legislation, the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) is the lead state agency for
overseeing the comprehensive planning process.  DCA
establishes the criteria for local plans and provides
technical assistance to local governments through the 18
regional development centers (RDCs).  The RDCs review and
confirm that local plans are consistent with the state plan.14
     Criteria to be met by local government solid waste plans
are established in the state solid waste management plan which
is to be jointly developed by DCA and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) in cooperation with the Georgia
Environmental Facilities Authority and local governments.15
Once the state plan is completed and the criteria established
for local plans, local governments are to develop their solid
waste management plans in conjunction with their comprehensive
                              135

-------
planning effort.  Those local governments who are facing
urgent solid waste problems will be fast-tracked through the
comprehensive planning process.
     Active participation by local governments in reducing
their solid waste is accomplished through tying the planning
process and the permit, grant and loan processes together.
After July 1, 1992, no permit, grant or loan for solid waste
facilities will be issued that is not consistent with the
local or regional solid waste management plan.16  In
determining if a permit should be issued for a facility, DNR
must determine if: (l) the facility for which a permit is
being sought complies with local land use and zoning
requirements; (2) the facility meets the ten-year capacity
needs identified in the local or regional solid waste
management plan; and (3) the jurisdiction is actively involved
in, and has a strategy for, meeting the statewide goal for
reducing solid waste disposal.17  This process allows local
governments the flexibility to determine what options would
work best for them to meet the state goal and ties the
issuance of permits,  grants and loans to the existence and
active implementation of the reduction strategy.
     Monitoring progress by state and local governments is
accomplished through the reporting requirements included in
the law.  Local governments must report annually to DCA on,
among other things, their progress in reducing solid waste.18
                              136

-------
In turn, DCA must compile the local government  data and report
annually to the Governor and General Assembly on progress
toward meeting the state goal.19

 Protecting Environmental Quality
     New federal standards for disposal facilities are
currently being developed.  Under the existing  state law and
incorporated into SB 533 is the directive for the Board of
Natural Resources to promulgate rules and regulations that are
consistent with the federal requirements.20   Consequently,
these criteria are not included in the law.  In conjunction
with the new standards, the study committee  recommended that
operators of solid waste disposal facilities be provided
training and certified that they can carry out  their
responsibilities.21
     Mechanisms for addressing certain troublesome items such
as tires22 and lead acid batteries23  are  included in the
legislation. The legislation also prevents the  siting of a
regional landfill in significant ground water recharge areas.2*

Conflict Resolution
     Two mechanisms for resolving conflicts  are incorporated
in Georgia's solid waste legislation.  First, conflict may
arise among local jurisdictions with attempts to site regional
facilities.  These multijurisdictional conflicts are to be
                               137

-------
resolved through the mediation process included in the growth
strategies legislation."
     The second mechanism for resolving conflict relates to
the concerns of local residents and land owners whenever a
specific site for a facility is identified.  People are
concerned about solid waste facilities partly because of
potential environmental impacts and partly because of their
effect on property values and the creation of nuisance factors
such as noise and truck traffic.  Environmental concerns are
addressed through the standards incorporated into the
permitting process for solid waste facilities administered by
DNR.  Until now, however, there has not been a mechanism in
Georgia to address the nonenvironmental concerns associated
with solid waste management facilities. Senate Bill 533
creates a facility issues negotiation process through which
local residents and land owners can negotiate with the permit
applicant to resolve issues.26  Concessions agreed upon are
adopted by the local government in the form of a resolution.
There is no arbitration mechanism for issues that can not be
resolved through the negotiation process nor does nonagreement
on any or all issues prevent the facility from being sited.
Consequently, this process reduces but does not preclude the
need for litigation.
                               138

-------
Regional Solid Waste Management
     As previously mentioned, the new regulatory requirements
for solid waste disposal facilities will have two results:  (1)
greater assurance that environmental quality will be protected
and (2) the costs associated with waste management will
increase.  Some local governments will find that they can no
longer afford to be in the solid waste management business and
will look for alternatives for providing the service.  One
option may be privatization.  The decision to privatize solid
waste services is a local government decision, not a state
policy issue.  Consequently, SB 533 is silent on
privatization.
     Regionalization is another alternative.  Due to the
economies of scale, local governments may find that
collectively they can offer a service that individually they
can not afford.  Under Georgia law, local governments have the
authority to enter into contracts with each other to provide
services and a few local governments have used this authority
to manage solid waste on a regional basis, generally two or
three counties.
     For larger regional efforts, it is important to provide
local governments with a structure for creating regional
authorities to manage solid waste.  Language is included in SB
533 that authorizes local governments to voluntarily create
regional solid waste management authorities.27
                               139

-------
  Conclusions

       SB 533  is  a  comprehensive piece  of  legislation.  It  was

  developed through a process that produced  consensus before the

  legislation  was introduced in the General  Assembly.   It

  assures that solid waste disposal facilities will be  designed

  to stringent standards; that they will be  operated by

  certified individuals; that state and local governments  will

  plan and coordinate their solid waste management efforts;  and

  that public  participation will occur  throughout the process.

  It does not  resolve all the issues related to municipal  solid

  waste  in Georgia  but  it does create the  foundation upon  which

  these  issues will be  addressed in the future.



                             ENDNOTES


1.     O.C.G.A. 12-8-20.

2.     James E. Kundell. Municipal Solid Waste Management  in
       Georgia: Policy  Alternatives. Carl  Vinson Institute of
       Government,  University of Georgia,  Athens, Ga.,  1989.

3.     Georgia Acts of  1989, Act No. 1106.

4.     "Report of the Solid Waste Management Study Committee,"
       Georgia General  Assembly, Atlanta,  Ga., December, 1989.

5.     O.C.G.A. 50-8-7.3.

6.     O.C.G.A. 12-8-39.2.

7.     O.C.G.A. 12-8-39.

8.     O.C.G.A. 12-8-21 (c).

9.     O.C.G.A. 12-8-33.
                                 14O

-------
10.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-35.




11.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-36.




12.    Georgia Acts of 1989, Act No. 634,




13.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.1.




14.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.1 (c) .




15.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.




16.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.1 (e) .




17.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.1 (e).




18.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31.1 (d).




19.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-31 (d).




20.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-23.




21.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-24.1.




22.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-40.1.




23.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-28.




24.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-25.3.




25.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-32.




26.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-32.




27.    O.C.G.A.  12-8-50-59.1.
                                 141

-------
                A HAULER'S PERSPECTIVE OF
                 PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURES
      IN CONNECTION  WITH INTERSTATE  TRANSPORTATION
               AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
              Theodore A. Schwartz, Esquire
               Schwartz, Tobia & Stanziale
   Counsel for Waste Management of North America, Inc.
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference On Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16, 1990
                          143

-------
                             (1)
             IMPACT OF FEDERAL AND STATE WEIGHT
              LIMITATIONS ON THE TRANSPORTATION
                       OF  SOLID WASTE
    A lack  of  uniformity exists in the  standards established
for federal and  state highway  vehicle weight limitations.  In
states such as New Jersey,  for instance,  gross vehicle weight
is  the   standard  used   for   weight  limitation   on  state
highways.   However,   under   federal  law,   the  applicable
restrictive  standard  for  federal  highways   is  the  "bridge
formula", which  utilizes  the  criteria of  rear  axle  weight.
Unfortunately,  certain  vehicles  commonly  employed in  solid
waste collection and  transportation are manufactured  so that
their weight  is  disproportionately  centered  in  the  rear  of
the  vehicle.   This  has  resulted  in the  situation  arising
where the waste hauler  can be in  compliance with  state law
requirements and travel  state roads, yet  on the  same trip
carrying the same size load he is nevertheless unable to meet
the divergent requirements of  federal law and is thus unable
to use federal highways or state highways in adjoining states.
                                144

-------
    In  addition to  the  normal  transportation concerns,  as



expressed above, solid waste  vehicular traffic has become the



subject of concern of  solid waste regulators,  local officials



and the  affected public.   Thus,  in some  states,  solid waste



regulators  and  local  officials   are  imposing  permitting



requirements that address  the routing of solid waste vehicles



in the utilization of solid waste disposal facilities.







    An actual case history will be reviewed,  illustrating the



effect  of these  variant  weight limitations  upon  the solid



waste  hauler's  operation  when juxtaposed  against both  the



need   for  efficient   utilization   of  such   vehicles   and



compliance  with  mandatory  routing   requirements  for  the



utilization of  solid waste  disposal  facilities.
                                 145

-------
                             (2)
              EFFECT OF VARYING STATE-TO-STATE
      WASTE  CLASSIFICATION  PROCEDURES  AND REQUIREMENTS
    A  lack  of  uniformity  also  exists  in  the classification
from state to  state of various types of  waste thus affecting
interstate disposal  practices.   The same waste that  would be
classified a certain way in  one  state may receive a different
classification  in  another  state.   The  ramifications  extend
beyond mere  definitional  confusion, however.   The procedural
requirements for  disposal  of the  same  waste  will  often vary
from  state  to  state.   A  waste  whose  disposal  would  be
unrestricted  in one  state  may  require  special  approval  in
another  state.  A  case  in  point  is  medical or  infectious
wastes, which  have  varying permitting  (and  in some instances
tracking) requirements from  one  state to  the  next.   other
prevalent  waste  types  subject  to   differing   degrees  of
restriction  (or prohibition)  include,   for  example,  asbestos,
sludges,  fly  ash,  incinerated  ash and  contaminated  soils.
These  types   of  issues  affect  the   solid  waste  hauler's
activities  relative   to   the  generators   served.    Various
concerns  are  presented relative to  potential liability for
environmental  damage or regulatory liability under applicable
state and/or federal laws (CERCLA).
                              146

-------
                              (3)
               IMPACT OF U.S. DOT REGULATIONS
               ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FLEETS
    Because waste haulers  are  deemed  to fall within the scope

of  authority  of  the   Federal   Motor  Carrier  Safety  Act,

49 U.S.C.  2501  et  seq.  as  for-hire  carriers operating  in

interstate commerce, they  are  subject to a panoply of federal

regulations  promulgated by  the  Department  of Transportation

(DOT).    (See   Federal   Motor  Carrier  Safety  Regulations,

49 C.F.R.  385  et seq.)    These regulations mostly  pertain  to

reporting and  recordkeeping  requirements in regard to traffic

violations,  accidents,   licensing,  vehicle  maintenance  and

inspection,  driver  testing  and  insurance  coverage.    The

hauler's  entire  trucking  fleet   and  corps   of  drivers  are

subject  to  these  regulations   regardless  of  whether  the

particular   vehicle   or   driver   is    actually  deployed   in

transport  across  state  boundaries.    The  Federal  Highway

Administration  conducts spot  compliance inspections  and  has

authority   to   bring    enforcement   proceedings   to   compel

compliance  and  seek   civil  penalties.   Violators  may  be

subject  to  civil  penalties  of  $500  per  violation  and  an

additional $500  for each day the violation  continues  up to a

maximum of $2,500 per violation.
                               147

-------
                             (4)
                    BACKHAULING PRACTICES:
           POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL AND STATE
                     REGULATORY CONTROLS
    Congress   is   currently  in   the  process   of  enacting

legislation  (HR 3386  and S  2393) aimed  at prohibiting the

practice  of "backhauling" waste.   The  legislation generally

seeks to  eliminate  the practice in which raw  food or produce

carriers, rather  than returning home empty upon  delivery of

their  food  product,  haul   waste,   sometimes   hazardous  in

nature,  to  a  disposal facility.  After minimal  cleanout of

the trailer, the same  vehicle will then once again carry food

products  to   a   destination.     Essentially,   the   pending

legislation prohibits  food products from being  carried in any

vehicle  that  has  previously carried  unacceptable,  non-food

products  unless such  vehicle has been decontaminated.   Not

surprisingly,   waste  materials   are  included   within   the

definitional scope of  "unacceptable,  non-food  products."  The

legislation also requires the Secretary of  Transportation to

promulgate     standards    for     proper    and    sufficient

decentamination.
                                148

-------
    This legislation  could  have a spiralling  effect  upon the
transportation of solid waste,  particularly  in those  areas of
the country  where longhaul  transportation is  utilized,  such
as the  Northeast.   Additionally, waste  haulers may  feel the
impact of the  legislation principally in  the  area  of leasing
and resale  of trailers  that have been  dedicated  to hauling
waste and would  necessarily be restricted in  any  future use
outside of waste  hauling.  The increase in  leasing costs and
decrease  in  resale value of  owned  trailers  will  ultimately
result in these costs being passed on to the customer.
                              149

-------
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:  INCENTIVES FOR REDUCED
  WASTE GENERATION, INCREASED RECYCLING AND EXTENSION OF
                       LANDFILL LIFE
                   Dr.  Haynes C.  Goddard
                  Department of Economics
                 University of Cincinnati
               Cincinnati, Ohio  45221-0371
                       513/556-2621

                            and

           Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Cincinnati,  Ohio  45268
                       513/569-7685
                     Presented at the
 First U.S.  Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16, 1990
                            151

-------
Introduction ;     Economic  Causes   of   the   Solid  Waste   Crisis

      As the U.S. EPA turns its attention again to the problem of residential
solid waste management after eight years  of neglect during  the Reagan
administration,  it has adopted a useful  set of  objectives to guide policy
making in the area.  It has proposed  a hierarchy  of policies and  solid waste
management practices to make  the handling of the flow of  solid  wastes more
efficient  from a social point of view:  waste reduction,  recycling,  energy
recovery and landfill- In this appropriately named "integrated  solid  waste
management"  system,  ocranunities should first seek to  reduce  the amount  of
material entering the waste stream,  to  recycle that   portion which is  not
reduced, to  incinerate with some form of energy   recovery  for that portion
which cannot be  recycled  and to landfill  the incineration residuals.   In
contrast,  the current practice in  most communities is to  incinerate  or
landfill virtually everything, practices  that are leading to much  conflict in
many communities.
      Because a tanbfr*'ai'»t'-i**i number of cconunities in large metropolitan
around the country are  facing rapidly diminishing  landfill  capacity for  a
number of  reasons, and because it has become increasingly difficult  to  site
new landfills  and incineration facilities,  the NIMBY  ("not in my backyard")
syndrome, many have started recycling programs in the last two or three years.
Unfortunately  , there  are  some disquieting  signs  that the recycling programs
may not  be as successful as planned because the  secondary 7ryyfaaTirO-'g markets
have not been able to  accept large increases in supplies, particularly paper,
without  a large decline in the prices paid for recycled materials.   For those
ccnnunities facing very high tipping fees at the landfills, the costs avoided
                                      152

-------
by not  landfilling  still justify running  recycling programs at a  loss.
Nonetheless,  for most communities,  the reduced prices for secondary materials
will likely mean that they will opt instead for  landfill  until the associated
tipping fees  at the landfills become intolerable.   In  virtually  all
communities, the first step in EPA's policy hierarchy, waste reduction,
receives only lip service,  as local communities  do not believe they have much
ability to influence it.
      Waste Reduction Ignored.  The position taken in this paper is that the
solid waste crisis is the result of a solid waste management failure, or of a
crisis  in  solid waste management.  Inadequate conceptions of the problem and
how to deal with  it have caused  management and research responses to be
focused on engineering (or supply side) solutions  to the near total neglect
of  the incentive mechanisms  (demand  side—waste  reduction) that are required
for the engineering responses to  be properly supported.    This  failure of
understanding and implementation is the true source of the solid waste crisis
and until  it is rectified,  solutions that the public will be willing to pay
for will elude solid waste managers.  As a result, solid  waste management will
remained unintegrated until the economic context which governs materials flows
through the economy  is explicitly  included  in solid waste management
practices.

      An economist's view of the solid waste problem could be summarized as
follows:   if all scarce  resources dedicated to managing the nation's solid
wastes,  including  landfill  capacity,  were  properly priced  in competitive
markets,  then  EPA's suggested hierarchy  (waste reduction, recycling,
                                      153

-------
incineration and l«nr»p-mi)  would  be more effectively  implemented in  all
sectors of the  economy.   This would be  so because in general the hierarchy
would become broadly consistent with the  least cost method of solid  waste
aanageaent in whatever form it may take.  However, under  conditions present
today in most conrainities,  a  case  cannot be wiflp that the solid waste "market"
is well  functioning; rather  it is heavily biased against  waste  reduction.
That bias is created principally and precisely by local solid waste management
policies which  ignore how the  marketplace for newly produced materials  and
products functions with respect to materials and packaging choices.

      A logical consequence of these policies is  that the household  and
commercial sectors are given incentives to  present too much  waste  for
recycling, incineration  and landfilling.  This situation unnecessarily
aggravates  the price  declines  in the secondary Tn*'*'**r™T« markets, in turn
leading to  too many  efforts  to site  incinerators,  causing  unnecessary
community conflict and reduced  landfill life.   This  form of "market failure"
as economists refer to it results from the  fact that the price system is being
prevented from working properly.  In this case, this is due not so much due to
governmental interference in the price mechanism as local governmental choices
of solid waste management  policies that operate outside of the marketplace by
attempting to use inappropriate methods to  "close11  the materials cycle.  These
methods  are incineration and landfill and their "inappropriateness"  lies in
exclusive reliance upon them.  The samp can be said for those ccnsnunities that
pin all  of their expectations on  recycling as the  way to reduce the landfill
crisis they face.

       As  a result, current recycling efforts underway around the  nation  are
destined for  failure at  worst or ineffectiveness and high cost at best.
                                        154

-------
Communities across the nation are  embracing recycling only, generally
ignoring  waste  reduction,  even while  the  structure  of prices in  the
marketplace  stimulate  the manufacturing  sector of the  economy  to  gear its
operations principally to the use of virgin materials and  once-through
materials flows,  thereby increasing waste generation.  Packaging designers and
manufacturers still do  not design  or  choose packaging material s with final
disposal in mind, mainly because  they receive  no signals from the price and
market  mechanisms  to  indicate that  traditional  methods  of solid  waste
management are  increasingly expensive  and  inappropriate  and should be
substituted by other methods. This  situation is beginning to change as some
communities, notably Seattle,  move aggressively against some specific consumer
products.

      This situation results from a classic problem in economic analysis:  the
market  mechanism fails  to perform properly precisely because some  resources
necessary to complete the materials use cycle in a socially acceptable manner
remain  either  totally unpriced or  underprioed:  in the case  of solid waste
management,  the  unpriced  resources  are those fl*fli"at-.fld  to   collection and
disposal,  landfill  capacity and the air  to receive  incineration emissions.
Note  that we indicate that these  resources  are unpriced  in the market, not
that  they are unpaid for  or  not financed (although the  external costs they
generate represent uncompensated costs).  The principal solid waste management
problem, as we shall develop more fully in this article,  stems precisely  from
the fact  that the nexus between pricing and  finance is broken by local solid
waste management practices.  (Parenthetically,  Seattle does  close the price
system properly through  an  appropriate choice of management  methods, as
discussed below.)
                                       155

-------
      The fundamental  cause then of  the solid waste  problem in the  U.S is
governmentally instigated "market failure".  Governmental production of goods
and services nearly always  politicizes the delivery of the service, visually
resulting in the substitution of equity considerations  for efficiency (maximun
net benefit to the  cxiumunity)  in policy and management decsions.  Local solid
waste management has been no exception to this rule. This is of course exactly
the cause of the economic chaos in the Soviet Union  and other communist
countries: government  seeks  to allocate resources  without the  use  of  the
marketplace and as a consequence usually creates economic and social problems.
Alternative Measures  to Rationalize  Solid  Waste  Management  Practices

      In the 1970's at the height of intellectual ferment over the environment
there were numerous proposals to correct the bias of the economy toward virgin
materials versus recycled materials.   Ihese proposals among  others  included
removing tax advantages  for virgin materials  (e.g.   depletion  allowances),
altering railroad freight rates biased against secondary raw materials, bottle
legislation (deposits), and most camprehensively,  fees levied at the national
level on materials contributing in  a major way to the solid waste problem
(such as packaging),  to be distributed to  local  communities to help defray
solid waste management costs.   There have  been some  adjustments to freight
rates and some bottle bills  have been adopted around the nation.  The waste
content fee, however, not only presents an easy target  for industry lobbyists,
but would  be exceedingly  cumbersome to  administer,  if not  impossible.  This
proposal died  in Congress in  the 1970's.  The  ultimate obstacle to federal
connection  of  distorted  markets for materials,  however,  is  that  the  U.S.
                                      156

-------
Congress is inappropriately structured to deal with environmental fees, as too
many confused members  of Congress have  insisted on calling them taxes.   Of
course, the climate in Congress for new taxes is never hospitable.

      Economic Incentives for Solid Waste Management.  Integrated solid waste
management is a set of policies to be implemented by local governments. It is
a fair question to ask what  incentive mechanisms, are available to local
governments to reduce the magnitude of their waste problems. Neglected in both
past and current discussions and analyses of the problem  is the possibility of
closing the price system  at the end of the materials flow,  i.e.  at  the
consumer level or at the local level.   This would occur simply by explicitly
charging,  as  is already done  in a  few communities, a  fee based on volume
and/or weight  for collecting and disposing  of the residential  solid wastes.
After  all,  it is principally consumer waste that is the cause of the solid
waste  crises confronting many communities.   In  virtually  in any  normally
functioning market, if there is an increased scarcity of a resource essential
to the production and use of a product, the price of the scarce will  rise and
an  incentive  created to economize  on its  use.    We  have virtually  no such
mechanism operating in the solid waste arena,  and it should come  as no
surprise that  there is a  solid waste "crisis".  It is the textbook  case of
"excess demand" when markets are forced to operate at disequilibrium prices.
In fact, under the tax financed and flat rate charge systems  (a monthly charge
not related to the amount of waste presented for collection), consumers have
no reason  to choose waste reduction and recycling activities and equally as
important, neither does the manufacturing sector, as it receives virtually no
market signals that there  exists any  scarce resource for which they  are
already not paying (labor, materials, etc.).   We argue here that the failure
                                        157

-------
of local  government to ensure that  solid  waste management is appropriately
prioad is the cause of the solid waste crisis that afflicts many communities.

      The  potential  advantages  of local user charges for  solid  waste
management are many:  solid waste management institutions are already in place
virtually everywhere and no particular  industry  will have  its product
specifically  singled  out by  the  federal  government for special  measures,
avoiding that political obstacle.   In fact, one could argue that the problem
of perverse incentives in this area can be best resolved at the local level,
not  the national or even state levels, precisely because the extent  of the
problem varies considerably from community to community,  especially as between
rural and urban areas, as well as from state to state.   It may make little
sense to subject Idaho and Montana to the same  federal incentives designed to
solve the problems on Long Island,  e.g.  Flexibility and the ability to tailor
the  policy to local conditions indeed  is the principal reason markets  do a
better  job of allocating resources than does central control.

      Lest we appear too optimistic  about the potential for these  user
charges,  it  is important  to note that  by no means  do we  have  enough
information on the behavioral  effects of the charges on all of the dimensions
of the problem.   What evidence there  exists is quite suggestive  of the
potential  for user charges,   but  because the U.S. EPA has not  studied the
problem very much, we are still without all the  information required to make
confident predictions.  Presented  next  is a brief discussion of what is known
and  of  the expected effects.

Expected     Effects    of     Volume     Based     User      Charges
                                      158

-------
      There are a  number of favorable effects  that can be  expected  to flow
from the institution of user charges for solid  waste management.   These are:
1) stimulation of  a  long term interest in households  in waste reduction and
recycling,  including composting,  thereby lengthening landfill  life;  2)  a
reduction in  the cost of solid waste management;  and 3) resolution of the
NIMBY problem by the creation of a self-contained mechanism for  compensating
those near landfills and  incinerators.   Included with 1)  would be a stimulus
to local and state  governments to be entrepreneurial in waste reduction
efforts, effectively creating a national but not federal solution  to a problem
local to each community  but national in scope.  We also will argue that the
introduction of  user charges will ameliorate the  contentious problem of the
export  of solid wastes  across  state  boundaries  to be  landfilled  in  other
states. We discuss each of these in turn.
      Waste  Raducticn.  There  is accumulating  evidence  of a definite waste
reduction  response to  user charges,  specifically to  the variation  in the
charges.   Econometric evidence  (drawn from the author's research and various
small studies  over the  last 15 years)  suggests that a 10% increase in volume
based  charge,  in  the absence  any organized  waste  reduction or recycling
effort, will lead  to  a reduction of waste presented of about 2%, or in other
words, a  100%  increase  in the charge would lead to a 20% reduction in waste.
Economists refer  to  this  as  the price  elasticity being equal  to 0.2. The
author's evidence  is  drawn from the experiences of Tacoma, Washington, and  is
consistent  with  the fragmentary  evidence  presented over  the years  in
professional economic journals.
                                       159

-------
      Just how does waste reduction occur as currently practiced and hew might
it proceed if it were an explicit ocnanunity objective?   First it needs to be
emphasized that not enough is yet known  about the totality of the effects of
different financing mechanisms to be able to predict the effects confidently
in new or "changeover" situations.   For example, Taccraa has had a user charge
system for over 50 years,  so any measured response today to variations in the
charges will  understate by an unknown amount the household waste reduction
response.  Also, since the residents are charged on the basis of the number of
cans, as well as the distance to the curb and the number of flights of stairs
to be traversed, some of the  "waste reduction"  probably is not actually less
physical waste, but increased stuffing of the cans. This has been observed in
Seattle and f*»fr*-**^ the "Seattle Stomp".   Thus the  volume but not the weight is
reduced.  Now, volume reduction is  cost  reducing  in that it saves labor time
and  motion in the  collection phase, but  it probably contributes little if
anything to increased landfill life.

      What is important about this finding is that there is an household
response.  What may appear to be  a modest and commonsensical finding (at least
to economists) is nevertheless a fundamental finding, because there have been
many who believe that there will  be a zero response to variations in price for
collection and disposal, despite all that we know about demand  responses or
behavior in private markets.  This waste reduction effect should be viewed as
continuous and not simply  the result of a  community  campaign to  heighten
awareness. The  effects  of information campaigns  can be expected to  be only
temporary in duration if the effort to change attitudes is not backed up with
appropriate incentives to reinforce changed behavior. The effect would be more
pronounced  in  the  presence  of  local  entrepreneurship  to  households
                                        160

-------
continuously aware of waste reduction possibilities.
      Organized Waste Reduction.   These observations naturally raise the
question of what magnitude of the waste reduction response would be if local
communities were  to promote it.   Unfortunately, there is  not yet any
information available on  this aspect of the  problem.  For those commmities
facing severe landfill capacity problems, the  customary first response to the
need to  reduce the flow  of  solid waste to the  landfill  is to institute  a
recycling program rather than to experiment with incentives and programs for
waste reduction; as we have  seen,  these recycling efforts have run directly
into inadequate demand and capacity in the secondary materials markets.  The
important point to note here is that user charges for  solid waste are  a
necessary part of the waste reduction and recycling effort,  and that campaigns
to raise consciousness are not a substitute for them—user charges, recycling-
and  education campaigns are complementary. This has  been  exactly the
experience in Seattle.

      The typical local  solid waste manager is a sanitary engineer with
seemingly  little  to no  appreciation  of the  possibilities  of  organizing  or
stimulating a local waste reduction "market"; such duties never have been part
of the job description.   Furthermore,  it is  clear  that the typically small
local solid waste management district can have little impact on the quantity
of waste generation flow from the  commercial  and household sectors  such  as
packaging waste,  for example.  The same is  not true for the very large
districts, however, as in the case of Seattle which recently banned the use  of
foam containers in the fast food sector within the  municipality.  These
                                       161

-------
observations have in^n j cat Ions for  AAH n^ g^-pafci'ma staf f ing  in solicl  waste
       k-i 'if. Off JOBS.
      Furthermore, from a national perspective, if the adoption of waste
reducing incentives such as the user charge and other measures were widespread
such that  a significant proportion of the national commercial  and household
sector were affected,  then a  de facto national waste reduction policy would be
in effect and it could have very  significant impacts on important parts of the
waste  stream.   For example,  it is abundantly  clear that the design  and
manufacture of  packaging is driven  nearly wholly by product protection  and
marketing considerations, with virtually no concern for the disposal problem.
If a significant percentage of the national supermarket industry found itself
pressured  by consumers,   state and local governments  to reduce  packaging
waste, it  is reasonable to expect  that  changes  in packaging  configurations
would be  relatively quickly  adopted by the grocery products industry.  This
industry receives virtually no to weak effective  signals today on the impacts
of packaging  on solid waste  management,  and  furthermore is able  to mobilize
itself effectively against federal  and state actions  that  single  out
particular products and/or packaging,  as in  the  case of deposit legislation
for non-returnable drink containers.
      The point is then that fuller use could be 7*** of the market mechanism
for reducing the waste content and changing waste generation practices in the
retail sector  of the economy, and this would  likely be much more  effective
than the command and control approaches being imposed at the federal and state
levels.   As an  example,  the state of Pennsylvania  in conjunction with  the
Pennsylvania  Resources  Council  and the  Pennsylvania  Food  Merchant's
Association have begun a "environmental shopping" campaign by which  consumers
                                       162

-------
are given information on the waste content of various packages in an effort to
get supermarkets involved in waste reduction.  This very laudable step in the
right direction is destined to be ineffective in the long run if consumers and
producers do not find continuous reinforcement in the marketplace for changed
shopping behavior—that  reinforcement has  to  be economic  in part.   Volume
based user charges would provide that incentive.

      Education and information campaigns are necessary but not sufficient to
rationalize waste generation practices.    There  are relatively recent
parallels in other sectors of the economy from which to derive useful lessons.
Witness the  roller coaster demand for  small and large automobiles  over the
last 15 years.  The seeming consumer fickleness for small cars was exactly a
function of the rise and fall  of the real  price of  gasoline over the period.
All retailers know that consumers are fickle.  What  this means specifically is
that consumer behavior is  variable,  leading to uncertainty.  Producers and
retailers will be adverse to making  the necessary investments in their
operations unless  they can be reasonably  sure  that they will recover  their
costs, including a normal  profit.   Any campaign that appeals solely to  non-
economic motives  such as  the environmental ethic  is destined  to  lose its
mcroentum in the long run. What is required is to make institutional changes so
that the marketplace continuously  reinforces and supports that ethic.   It is
in  fact easier to  change people's economic behavior  than  it is their
preferences or attitudes, although many doubt it.
      What specifically might  a local solid waste management authority do to
 stimulate the local waste reduction market?  First we note that the temptation
                                       163

-------
will always be  great to act legally  against  particular constitutent of the
waste stream as the first attack on the problem, such as did Seattle against
foamed  containers.   And  while legal proscriptions may occasionally be
warranted, it is  usually  best from  an efficiency  standpoint  (maximum net
social benefit or least social  cost) to let the market find those segments of
the  waste stream most susceptible  to change,  i.e., where  lower  waste
substitutes can be more easily  and economically found.

      •Hie process can  be  envisioned to work along these lines:   a  local
community institutes  a volume  based user  charge system and  with the
information gained from a  prior  survey, informs  households in general that
the  packaging waste content of  their solid waste is X% and that the percentage
can  be reduced by pressuring the grocery chains to make  available lower waste
alternatives. With the  local price structure of waste management now changed
by the presence of the user charge, consumers (waste generators) will now find
that waste  reduction  is  in their long term economic  interest,  causing
retailers and producers in turn to realize that it is also  in their long term
economic interest to adjust to  the new situation.  Therefore they will be more
likely to make both manufacturing and retailing changes  that facilitate waste
reduction.  This is because consumers would now have a mechanism in place that
continuously  reinforces  waste  reduction purchasing  behavior  and the
uncertainty that producers face concerning consumer behavior will be reduced.
This increases the likelihood that the producers can recover their investments
in waste reduction plus a normal return.  Continuous information flows are a
necessary part of the waste reduction process.

     As an example, many of the  chains already make  available bulk purchase
items—these could be expanded.  Pouch packaging for both liquid and dry  foods
                                       164

-------
could be extended. Hi countries where paperboard packaging is expensive,  such
as in  Mexioo,  wide use  is marip  of pouch packaging—virtually all  powdered
laundry detergent is so packaged  there.   The development of such information
on alternative packaging configurations and  its dissemination to  local solid
waste management districts would be a proper function for the Office  of Solid
Wastes of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Ihe districts  would in
turn prepare flyers to the wate generating public to be  distributed  with the
bills. The Pennsylvania experiment already contains several of these elements,
although not the user charges.
      cost  Reduction.   We think that  the scope for waste reduction is
substantially greater than  is current appreciated.  Nonetheless,  it is
critical for public decision making on this  issue  to note that it is not so
much the  quantity or  volume  of the  waste reduction response but  the cost
dimension of the problem that  is relevant  to the discussion.  That is,  a 20%
reduction in waste generation  that night  be expected  from  a 100% increased in
user fees can be  very significant in  those communities that  confront
disappearing landfill capacity and strong public resistance to site additional
landfills or incinerators.  This means  that there is a potential to reduce
local  solid waste management costs significantly.   If the marginal  or
incremental costs of landfill  are  rising rapidly,  the cost reduction effect
will be greater than 20%.  Much more is involved than simply changing the type
of financial mechanism  from  taxes to user charges,  since with  the user charge
waste  generators have an incentive  to  engage  in waste  and cost  reducing
practices,  whereas  systems  that simply  finance collection and  disposal  do
nothing to motivate waste generators  to  economize  on resources dedicated to
                                       165

-------
solid waste
      We do not yet have available firm information on the cost savings
obtainable in user charge based solid waste management systems versus systems
with tax or flat rate finance,  although the  Seattle experiment will provide
some.

      Becycling.  In my community, as in many facing  landfill capacity
problems, a comprehensive recycling program was initiated during the summer of
1989.   In a matter of just a  few weeks,  the price paid  by secondary paper
brokers plummeted and now the recyclers will not  accept newsprint — it instead
goes to the landfill.   This situation is commonplace, but it still makes good
economic sense  in those communities  confronting acute  landfill capacity
shortages to pay waste paper brokers  to accept the newsprint.  This situation
raises two important questions: 1) how much should be  paid to secondary
materials brokers and 2)  out of what funds is  the  subsidy to be paid?

      The answer to the first question  is simple:   a oommmity is better off
if  it has to pay anything less than the cost of the next best alternative,
typically landfill ing. This is the avoided cost  concept.  The answer to the
second question, out of what funds should  the subsidy  be paid,  is  more
complex.   In a community with special solid waste taxing districts,  the
question has to  be put to the voters.  In flat rate communities,  the  average
charge for solid waste management would have to by raised to all, but again if
the cost  of paying the  subsidy  is  less than the  landfill  alternative,  the
community is better off.  Administrative feasibility  is not  a problem,  but both
tax and  flat rate finance create  questionable  cross  subsidies  in  the
community, in particular from low income groups and the low waste generating
                                       166

-------
elderly,  for example,  to higher income and waste generating classes  and
families,  a situation not generally viewed as equitable.

      A more fundamental problem with financing the subsidy out of these
traditional financial mechanisms  is  that they do nothing to stimulate  waste
reduction activities by the  waste generators since they  do  not perceive  any
direct reward  for doing so.  That is  the  critical distinction  between user
charges on one hand and tax or flat rate finance on the other.

      With a user charge system in place the larger waste generator would pay
more  of the required subsidy  (generally referred  to as a tipping  fee)  to
secondary materials  brokers.   Therefore both the  problem  of  financing  the
subsidy and the equity problem would  be resolved.    Furthermore,  the larger
waste generator would have a correspondingly greater incentive to seek out and
employ waste reduction measures such as composting and pressuring supermarkets
directly  (and  indirectly through government) to offer more goods with reduced
packaging content.   The larger household waste generators tend to be the more
educated and politically aware and thus most likely to follow though on waste
reduction efforts.
The  NIMBY Problem.   "Not in My Backyard"  is the bane of all solid  waste
managers, making it nearly  impossible  to site  additional  landfill capacity
and/or recycling technologies such as energy recovering incinerators.  Much of
the  resistance is well founded,  based  on the unfortunate  history of poorly
managed  landfills that contribute to water  pollution.   Further,  most people
object to the  increased  traffic of heavy  trucks required to  transport the
                                        167

-------
waste, all without being compensated for suffering the increased disamenity.
          NIMEY problem can be  reduced substantially in two ways through the
adoption of a user charge mechanism,  both in the short run and the long term.
In the short run, the user charge system provides a logical source of finance
to  indemnify those who  would live  near such  facilities and  the increased
traffic.  Indemnification could take the form of reductions in or exemptions
of property taxes, for example,  sufficient to offset any reduction in property
value  occasioned by  the waste  related activity.    The finance  for  tax
abatements would  come  totally from within the user charge  mechanism  and not
include funds raised through  taxes,  it would be  considered as fair  and
equitable because those causing the waste would be paying the indemnification
and those who generate little waste would pay little.   Ihis fact should make
it  easy to stave off attempts to use  the public  f isc as a mechanism to finance
other publicly caused  disamenities,  such as traffic  noise and air pollution.
Of  course, implementation of such a mechanism may well require state enabling
legislation.

      In the long run, the NIMBY problem would be reduced due to the  waste
reduction    stimulated by the  incentive to  economize  on  traditional  waste
disposal practices,  i.e., landfilling and  incineration.    This means  that
landfill capacity will be longer lived  and the need to  site  new facilities
will be correspondingly reduced.
      Interstate Transport of Solid Waste.  Several states, principally on the
east and west coasts, have been transporting solid waste beyond their borders
for landfill ing as their own landfill capacity rapidly flimintshes and as they
                                       168

-------
find it nearly impossible to site new facilities within their own communities.
Receiving states frequently are less than enthralled with this situation, but
the courts have been interpreting attempts   to restrict the inflow of wastes
as a  restraint of interstate  commerce.   Ihe question  facing  the recipient
states is how to reduce this problem  legally.   The following comments do not
represent legal advice, but perhaps the economic rationale presented here can
serve  as a  firmer  conceptual  basis  on which to  predicate restrictive
legislation that can withstand a  legal challenge.

      We argue that states can diminish the flow of out-of-state wastes in two
ways:

      1.  Sending  or exporting states should be charging  their own citizens
for solid waste management services  using  the mechanisms outlined  in these
pages.  If they do not, and most  do not, then it can be easily argued that the
exporting jurisdictions are in fact encouraging their citizens to be wasteful
of scarce landfill capacity at home and elsewhere.   That is,  they are causing
citizens in other  (receiving)  states  to incur costs  on the waste generator's
behalf; in other words,  they cause receiving states to subsidize the public
services in the generating states.  This follows  because  if exporting
jurisdictions do not price properly, they encourage overuse of landfilling as
measured by the disparity between the incremental  costs  and incremental
benefits of solid waste management.   Recall  that tax finance is not pricing;
furthermore, flat  rate prices (i.e.  fixed  monthly charges,  independent of
waste quantity) in increasing landfill cost jurisdictions also lead to overuse
and  to out-of-state  subsidies for solid waste management in  another.  Ihis
means that  the exporting state  is  generating too much  waste,  recycling too
                                        169

-------
little, incinerating too  little,  prematurely exhausting its  scarce  landfill
capacity and  not siting enough additional  riic%y«ai  capacity within its  own
borders.

      2.  Receiving states should also be pricing solid waste management
services to their own  citizens, so that no case can be made by  an  exporting
state that the receiving state is using pricing to discriminate against  it  and
thus violate the interstate commerce clause.

      Level of User Charges.   These points  raise  the  question of at what
level should the charges to receive out-of-state wastes be set.  There are  two
arguments possible here.

      a.   Importing states should  set  the  level of charges  to  reflect  all
current and future costs.   Future  costs would include  remediation of leaking
landfills that  lead to ground water contamination.   The future  costs  are
actually expected  costs,  i.e.,  probabilistic,  and while  these can  be
estimated, they are necessarily uncertain in magnitude.   This uncertainty may
be an unavoidable issue of legal contention.  That there will be  future costs
is  a virtual certainty given the  imperfect state  of the art for  landfill
construction—it is the magnitude and the timing of the  costs  that  is
uncertain.

      If the citizens of both   the inserting as well as exporting states have
to  pay these costs  through  the pricing mechanism,  then it  should  be more
difficult to argue a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

      b.  Being forced to accept unwanted wastes means that  a receiving
                                      170

-------
state's scarce resource  (landfin  capacity)  is being depleted by outsiders.
Ihis in turn means that  future  citizens of the  importing state will incur
future costs that the current exporting state citizens do not pay.  It can be
argued that they should have to  pay.   That is, the future costs, certain to
occur, will have to be borne  by the  citizens of the  receiving state.
Therefore,  charging a higher price  now to other states than to the citizens of
the receiving state could be viewed as proper and fair.
Barriers  to  the  Adoption  and   Implementation  of  User  Charges

      The tenor of the arguments presented here  is that the promise of user
charges in rationalizing the solid waste management problem is high, at least
high enough to warrant serious consideration and experimentation.  There are,
nonetheless,  barriers that need to be surmounted before user charges can be
offered as an important tool in managing the nation's wastes  and before there
will be wide enough acceptance at the local  level for it to become a national
solution to the solid waste management problem.

      The  barriers  are essentially two:    1)  insufficient knowledge of
household waste generation and reduction behavior and of the cost rela-
tionships  (supply factors)  to be able to make reasonably accurate predictions
about waste  reduction  and costs,  efficiency  and effectiveness of  incentive
based solid waste management systems;  and 2) insufficient understanding at the
local governmental   of  the economic  principles involved, complicating the
"selling"  of an integrated  program  to  local  voters—this is  a  problem of
communication and persuasion.
                                       171

-------
      With respect to the first barrier,  it has to be  readily admitted that
the knowledge base on which to predicate fully confident and reasonably
certain predictions of the effects of user charges on waste  generation,
recycling, etc.  is extremely limited.  There is a serious need to develop this
information.  The U.S. EPA should have funded this work over the last ten years
and it should do so now.  Especially needed are measures of consumer response
in a "change-over" situation—going  from tax and flat rate methods of finance
to user charges.  Also needed are measures of the costs and benefits of making
such a change-over; local communities need to know how much money can be saved
under one management systems vs another.

      Given the very large statistical difficulties that exist in extracting
the  requisite  information from existing  data,  the  greatest  promise in
obtaining  the needed information in the least amount of  time  and with the
least number of methodological difficulties is to do so within an experimental
context.   That  is,  a community which is contemplating a major change  in its
approach to solid waste management could be selected as an "experiment". This
proposal  is much  less revolutionary  that it sounds, as most  communities
undertake these experiments all the  time,  frequently with little proper
preparation and understanding—exactly  this is occurring with the great
recycling "experiment" underway across the nation.  Proper experimentation re-
quires  careful measurement of the  baseline situation,  and  a planned
introduction of changes so that  the responses can be  properly and carefully
measured.  A properly conceived program would take about four years to
initiate and complete.


      Local governments typically do not have the human resources to undertake
                                        172

-------
such programs by themselves and neither are they to be found  in  the typical
engineering or management consulting firms that serve local governments.   This
research should be undertaken by the Office  of Research and Development of the
U.S. EPA, perhaps in conjunction with the National Science Foundation.

      A  second problem,  for  which there are no  readily  implementable
solutions, is perhaps more fundamental.  Years  of involvement in the  solid
waste  area have  convinced this  observer  that  a  fundamental impediment  to
inplementation of  the basic economic principles lies  in  the  simple  lack of
appreciation of these principles by a significant number of the professionals
working  on solid  waste  problems at  all levels  of government.   In the  first
instance, this means that looking for violations of basic economic principles
referred to here in local governmental management is not the first instinct of
these professionals.   It  surely is not by accident or coincidence  that
engineering solutions to the  solid  waste problem are always the  first to be
chosen by the  civil and  other engineers who  constitute the majority of
technical professionals in all levels of government.

      Additionally, this generalized lack of understanding and appreciation of
economic  (vs. engineering)  efficiency in government means that local officials
are usually poorly equipped to  "sell" such  programs  to the voters.  Proposing
an  engineering "solution" often seems much more  palatable politically.
Perhaps now that advice is changing, given the generalized opposition to more
incinerators and landfills.   Part of this opposition is fueled by the  NIMBY
syndrome,  but much of  the opposition  comes from a reasoned position  that
engineering solutions only are inappropriate.
                                      173

-------
      A properly conducted experiment will do ouch to fill in the information
lacunae that exist in this area—it is the thesis of this article that it will
show that user  charges  have an important and necessary role  in  modern solid
waste management.
Conclusions

      While much information on the effect of user charges is lacking due to
little governmental attention to developing the  needed information  and
knowledge base, the conceptual analysis of the role  of user charges  in  local
solid  waste  management  indicates that  such charges are a necessary component
of a successful and efficient integrated solid waste management system.
Engineering  systems will of course always play a critical role in solid  waste
management,  but it is clear today that  they are destined to fail  if pursued as
the only approach to waste management.  Waste reduction and recycling programs
will always  be problematical without the continuing incentive that  the user
charge mechanism provides.

       The  available  empirical  information is  not firm enough to be able to
provide  clear guidance  on the  appropriate  structure of  a local  incentive
mechanism  for solid waste management.  A major research  program  is in order.
Identification of and assistance to a  community desiring to change over to a
user charge  system,  providing all of  the necessary  evaluation and technical
advice,  will provide the most expeditious way in which to develop the needed
information  on waste generation relationships  and the associated  costs.  This
approach is preferable to attempting  to uncover  the  relationships with
historical studies on incomplete and fragmented data.
                                      174

-------
      Volume based prices  fear solid waste collection and disposal alone will
not automatically lead to a resolution of the solid waste crisis.   It is the
set • of behaviors that  are subsequently and consequently stimulated that will
lead to  long run community  willingness^to participate actively in  waste
reduction and  recycling programs  and provide  the financial  wherewithal to
ensure their success.    User  charges  will provide  the proper  signals,  now
lacking,  to local solid waste managers and  engineers  to guide them in making
correct decisions about the type and size of the technologies needed to handle
the waste flows, avoiding the current tendency to overdesign these facilities.
It carries  the potential to  provide a truly national  solution  to  the solid
waste crisis.
                                         175

-------
             INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE PLANNING



                   FOR A REGIONAL AREA



                     Nicholas S.  Artz



                Franklin Associates, Ltd.



                     Presented at the



First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management



                     June 13-16,  1990
                            177

-------
                INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE PLANNING



                      FOR A REGIONAL AREA







INTRODUCTION







  Municipal  solid waste management  planning  today must  address



a number of waste management alternatives.  It is no longer



enough to just find another landfill site.  Suitable sites are



not that easy to find, strong public resistance accompanies



virtually any siting attempt, and landfill regulations and



costs are increasing.  Additionally, there is increasing



recognition that valuable resources are lost with a landfill-



only approach.







  Public  officials  are now looking  toward an integrated solid



waste management approach to solve their community's solid



waste problems.  Waste reduction, recycling  (including



composting) and incineration (with or without waste-to-energy)



are all being considered as alternatives to reduce



landfilling.







  Many  counties and communities, particularly those  in  less



than major metropolitan areas,  are joining together in a
                               178

-------
regional solid waste management planning effort.  These
regional approaches are being taken for the following reasons:

        To  better manage the complexities of choosing,
        implementing,  and  operating an integrated system
        To  achieve "economies of scale" with larger waste
        management facilities
        To  share risk
        To  reduce facility siting needs.

   This paper includes a discussion of social and political,
technical, economic, and  implementation  issues attendant to
planning integrated solid waste management  for a  regional
area.   Many  of  these issues are important in waste management
planning in  any area.   Some, however,  are particularly
important  or specific to  regional  planning.

SOCIAL/POLITICAL ISSUES
Needs  and  Goals of Communities
   The needs and goals of the communities included in the
planning process must be  determined at the  outset.   Often, the
planning process begins only after a  disposal crisis appears
imminent.  Where several  counties  or  communities  are planning
jointly, there  will  likely  be different  degrees  of  immediate
                               179

-------
need and different goals.  For example, one community may be
facing a near-term landfill closing, whereas others have the
luxury of more time.  Some may wish to consider waste-to-
energy alternatives, whereas others may strongly oppose any
consideration of incineration.

   Obviously,  the more communities  included in  the  planning
process, the greater the challenge of finding mutually
satisfactory solutions.   It is vitally important for public
officials and their consultants charged with finding these
solutions to understand the different needs and desires of the
participant communities.

Public Input Process
   An often underestimated part of  developing an acceptable
solid waste management plan is the public input process.
Perhaps the surest road to failure is to leave the public out
of the planning process.  Even if a viable solid waste
management plan has been developed, the public may well be
suspicious if they have not been involved.

   EPA's new Decision-makers Guide  to Solid Waste Management
urges involvement of the public early in the planning
                              180

-------
process (1).  This is mutually beneficial in that the public
becomes better educated as to the problems and realities of
managing their wastes and decision-makers become better
attuned to the public's concerns and desires.  This will lead
to a better planning process with the best potential of
arriving at mutually satisfactory solutions with the needed
public support for implementation.

   The larger the geographical area included in solid waste
planning, the greater the difficulty in obtaining
representative public input.  Public involvement in a region
that  includes several counties may be assisted through
establishing groups of citizen representatives.  These citizen
groups can be responsible for acting as liaison between those
planning solid waste management solutions and the remaining
citizenry.  The  citizen representatives must be carefully
selected to represent the wide range of public interests.  In
addition, public meetings and hearings should still be made
available to the general public to obtain added public input.

   Obviously,  the public input process can be important in
determining the  needs and goals of the participant
communities.  Public input is usually critical to obtaining
the support to implement a solid waste management plan.
                               181

-------
Intergovernmental Cooperation



   Establishing and  operating a planned regional solid waste



management system may require substantial intergovernmental



cooperation.  For example, financing capital-intensive waste



management facilities for joint use by numerous communities



will require assurances of waste delivery to the facilities.







   Intergovernmental agreements may be  used  to  empower local



governments to act as a single  (regional) entity in planning



and implementing the collection, transportation, recovery, and



disposal of solid waste (2).  Such agreements have been



enacted in some areas designated for regional solid waste



management planning.







Need for Regional AGency







   Formation of a  regional agency with  authority to  provide for



regional solid waste management implementation may be



necessary and can be accomplished through an intergovernmental



agreement.  The necessary powers of the agency, as provided by



the agreement, might include the following:
                               182

-------
       To operate or cause to be  operated  solid waste



       management services and  facilities



       To enter into contracts



       To levy fees for payment of  services



       To borrow money and issue  evidence  of  indebtedness for



       the purpose of financing regional services and



       facilities



       To regulate the flow of  solid waste to regional



      ' facilities.








  Clearly, such powers must be  exercised prudently and care



should be taken in structuring the regional agency.   It may be



advisable to assign the agency one priority task initially,



and conduct reviews of the agency's success and needs to



accomplish succeeding tasks.   For example,  a first priority in



some regions could be the development of a landfill.   The



regional  authority could be assigned this effort prior to



undertaking others.   A drawback to this approach is the



potential delay of other needed elements in the solid waste



management plan.
                              183

-------
TECHNICAL ISSUES







  The following are among technical issues that should be



considered in choosing between waste management alternatives:







        Mutual  comparability



        Environmental impacts



        Reliability/longevity



        Land use requirements/resource  conservation



        Facility siting



        Regulatory compliance



        Implementation timing.







   In an integrated system it is important that waste



management alternatives be chosen and designed to complement



one another  (3).  For instance, mixed waste processing or



waste-to-energy should be sized and designed to account for



the degree to which source separation of materials for



recycling will occur.  Recycling (including composting) and



waste-to-energy are compatible if they are not designed to



process the  same wastes.  In  fact, it has been shown that



municipal solid waste (MSW) remaining after recovery of



recyclables  can have a higher per ton heat energy value than



MSW before recovery  (4)(5).
                              184

-------
  Environmental  impacts with modern waste disposition
alternatives, including incineration and landfilling, are
expected to be minimal.  However, waste reduction and
recycling are still judged as preferable 'to disposal
alternatives in avoiding environmental harm.  In addition,
waste reduction and recycling conserve energy, materials, and
land.  Waste-to-energy is also an energy conservation measure
that helps reduce the use of fossil fuels and landfill space.

  Reliability and lifetime factors need to be considered in
planning an integrated system.  The more complex the system,
the greater the potential for problems.  A landfill-only
system of waste disposition has the greatest reliability.
Recycling and waste-to-energy facilities will sometimes have
mechanical failures that may necessitate by-passing
processible wastes to a backup component in the system.
Decisions will need to be made as to the degree of redundancy
to design into each component of the system to prepare for
both component downtime and seasonality changes in waste
quantities.  The  landfill will always be the element of last
resort and may need to be designed  for considerably greater
waste quantity fluctuations than in a landfill-only system.
                               185

-------
   Land use requirements are highest with a landfill-only



system.  The lack of available land for new or expanded



landfills is one of the driving forces behind today's greater



emphasis on integrated solid waste management.  Diverting



wastes from landfilling is maximized when waste reduction,



recycling, and incineration are all used in a solid waste



management system.  Although of varying local interest,



conservation of other natural resources may also be maximized



by using these waste management alternatives.







   While siting new landfills is usually  very difficult,  siting



any facility that processes MSW can meet with varying degrees



of public resistance (6).  The regional system approach can be



an advantage in dealing with this issue since fewer facilities



may be needed.  However, a regional system may allow the use



of certain options not otherwise affordable in smaller



communities.  For example, a materials recovery facility (MRF)



may not be economically viable in a community of 10,000, but



such a facility serving several such communities will be far



more cost effective.  Thus, more types of facilities may



require siting with a regional approach.   The number of



facility sitings may still be fewer if different facilities



can be located together.
                              186

-------
   Regulatory compliance increases in complexity with
increasing use of waste management alternatives and
facilities.  Obtaining necessary permits for a solid waste
management system that includes a MRF, waste-to-energy
facility, and landfill will require considerable effort and
time.

   Since,  at  least,  some solid waste  from an integrated  solid
waste management system will ultimately be landfilled, this
may have a bearing on implementation scheduling.  Assuring the
availability of a landfill meeting regulatory requirements is
of first priority.  It may be advisable to proceed next with
system components that can be effective in the near
term—e.g., yard waste composting is of comparatively low
technical complexity and can potentially be implemented
quickly.

ECONOMIC ISSUES
System Costs
   Choosing between  waste management  alternatives almost
certainly involves cost considerations.  In some instances,
costs are the only criteria used in making these choices.
Both capital costs (i.e., long-term investment costs) and on-
going operating and maintenance costs must be considered.
                              187

-------
   Capital  investment for waste management facilities can vary



substantially depending upon the size and type of facility.



At one end of the spectrum, waste-to-energy facilities may



require an initial investment of $100,000 per ton of daily



capacity or more (7).  At the other end, landfills require a



much smaller initial investment.  Although capital investment



costs can often be financed through borrowing, financial risk



increases directly with the amount of investment and the



period required to retire the investment.  Thus, the risk



attendant to high capital costs can impact choices of waste



management alternatives .that appear cost effective.







   Adding annualized capital  investment  costs  to  annual



operating and maintenance costs provides total annual costs



for a waste management alternative.  Subtracting any revenues



from the sale of recovered materials or energy results in a



net cost for the facility.  The net cost may be converted into



a cost per ton of waste processed at the facility for



comparison purposes.
                              188

-------
Factors Impacting Costs

   It is important in assessing the costs of various waste
management alternatives to account for their impact on the
entire solid waste management system.  For example, a
recycling program that includes separate collection of
recyclables has an impact on the collection, transportation
and disposition of wastes.  Thus, in determining the cost
effectiveness of materials recovery for recycling, the costs
of separate collection and processing of recyclables must be
compared with resulting avoided waste collection and disposal
costs.  Unfortunately, the avoided collection and disposal
costs,  in most cases, are not linearly proportional to the
reduction in waste quantity.

   A cost advantage with regional solid waste management  is the
potential to achieve cost savings through the use of larger
waste management  facilities.  Most such facilities, from
materials recovery facilities  (MRFs) for processing
recyclables to waste-to-energy  facilities and landfills, offer
"economies of scale" that result in savings with larger sizes
(7).  Of course,  the savings with larger facilities must be
weighed against increased transportation costs.
                               189

-------
  Markets  for recovered materials  and energy are vitally
important to the feasibility of resource recovery  (including
recycling).  The net costs of recycling programs and waste-to-
energy are highly dependent upon the revenues from recovered
products.  Since the prices for materials and energy can vary
markedly over time, as well as geographically, care must be
taken in planning resource recovery facilities.  It is
important to negotiate price commitments for recovered
products to the extent that they can be obtained.  Larger
quantities of potentially recoverable materials and energy
from regional facilities may result in more favorable market
opportunities.

   Methods  used to finance waste management  facilities  can
impact costs significantly where large capital expenditures
are required.  With current financing options, municipal bonds
may be the least cost (8); interest on municipal government
bonds are tax exempt, which results in lower interest rates.
Using municipal (i.e., public) financing requires public
ownership of the financed facilities.  With privately owned
facilities, tax-exempt financing can sometimes be secured
through the use of private activity bonds (PABs).  However,
limits (or caps) on the use of PABs for financing privately
                               190

-------
owned facilities often prevents their use for financing waste
management facilities.

   Implementation decisions with respect to ownership,
procurement, and operation can also impact system costs.  In
addition to affecting financing options, implementation
decisions will have cost implications with respect to
operation efficiencies, allowances for profits, etc.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

   If waste management facilities are to be established,
choices must be made relative to facility ownership,
procurement, and operation.  A general description of the
choices and interrelationships between these implementation
factors and their potential impacts follows.

Ownership

   Waste management facility ownership may be either public or
private.  Public ownership normally means that a municipal
governmental unit, authority, or agency  owns the facility.
Private ownership may be through a private corporation,
partnership, or sole proprietorship.
                               191

-------
  Public versus  private  ownership  dictates available options
for procurement,  operation, and financing, and may impact
facility control as well.  Private ownership of capital-
intensive waste management facilities (e;g., waste-to-energy)
has sometimes been chosen to avoid public agency involvement
and risk in an unfamiliar area.  Also, the tax
benefits of private ownership were substantial prior to the
Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 and were often judged to result
in a lower cost operation.

   Currently,  public  ownership  of capital-intensive waste
management facilities is often recommended as the most cost-
effective and practical approach.   Public ownership projects
are reported to require less time to finance and implement and
may involve little if any additional public risk.  The
financing of such privately owned projects usually requires
risk sharing such that ownership,  per se, may have little
impact on risk allocation.

Procurement and Operation

  Waste-to-energy and other waste  management facility
procurement options include the following:
                               192

-------
        Architectural/Engineering  (A/E)
        Turnkey
        Full  service.

   The A/E procurement method  is the standard method that
 governmental bodies use to build most public facilities.  A
 consulting engineer is retained by the governmental entity to
 prepare the facility design.  a contractor is hired through a
 bidding process to build the facility, which is publicly owned
 and usually publicly operated.

   With a turnkey arrangement,  a contractor will be responsible
 for both designing and building the facility.  Turnkey
 procurements, typically, involve public ownership.  The
 completed facility may be operated either publicly or
, privately.  .Private operation may be by the turnkey contractor
 since he is intimately familiar with the facility design and
 construction.

   A full service procurement  involves one private entity
 accepting responsibility for design, construction, and
 operation of the  facility.  This form of procurement is
 normally considered mandatory for private ownership of a
                                193

-------
waste-to-energy facility, but may be used with public



ownership as well.







   Most waste management facility procurements follow one of



the three basic options described above or close variations



thereof.  Either of these options may be used with public



facility ownership while full service would usually be the



only acceptable procurement for private ownership.  Also, it



seems doubtful that a public owner would wish to use an A/E or



turnkey procurement if private operation were desired; a



private operator would be more inclined to accept risk if he



were thoroughly familiar with the facility by virtue of having



designed and constructed it.







   The accompanying table is used to  summarize solid  waste



management facility procurement and operation options



available with public and private ownership.  Financing



options, comparative public risk, and implementation time with



each form of ownership is shown as well.







SUMMARY







   Many factors that may be  assessed  in  integrated MSW



management planning are important to any planning area.
                              194

-------
Technical and economic comparisons of solid waste alternatives

will always be considered in the planning process.

Determining and responding to community needs and goals, and

decisions on how and when to implement needed waste management

alternatives will be important also.

                             Table

          FEATURES OF PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
             OF  SOLID  WASTE MANAGEMENT  FACILITIES
Procurement options
Financing options
Operation
 Public  risk

 Implementation  time
Public Ownership

A/E
Turnkey
Full service

G.O. bonds
Municipal revenue
  bonds
Federal/state
  grants
Public funds

Public (typically)
  with A/E or
  turnkey
Private with full
  service

Similar I/

Less than with
  private
  ownership
Private Ownership

Full service
Private activity
  bonds (PABs)
Taxable bonds
Private party loans
Equity from vendor/
  third party

Private
Similar I/

Greater than with
  public
  ownership
 I/ Applies primarily to waste-to-energy facilities financed
   with large bond issues.

 Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
                               195

-------
  Regional planning introduces a few additional



considerations.  More communities will mean different degrees



of needs and goals to address.  Intergovernmental cooperation



will be necessary to implement a regional solid waste



management system; a regional authority with specific powers



may be needed.  In addition, planning a solid waste management



system for a large geographical area will increase the



complexity of comparing system costs.  More waste management



options may be feasible with greater waste guantities, but the



"economies of scale" with larger facilities must be balanced



against increased transportation costs.







  Despite the difficulties  that may be encountered  in planning



and implementing regional solid waste management systems, they



can be  beneficial in many areas.  The trend toward regional



solid waste management in these areas is expected to continue.
                               196

-------
                          REFERENCES

1.     Lowrance,  S.K.   "Help for Decision Makers."   Waste Age.
       February  1990.
2.     Franklin  Associates,  Ltd.,  et  al.   Big Lakes Regional
       Council Area Solid Waste Study,  Final Report.   Prepared
       for  Big Lakes Regional Council.   Manhattan,  Kansas.
       July 1989.
3.     The  Solid Waste Dilemma:  An Agenda for Action.   Office
       of Solid  Waste.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.
       February  1989.
4.     Franklin  Associates,  Ltd.,  et  al.   Kalamazoo County
       Solid Waste Management Study,  Final Report.   Prepared
       for  Kalamazoo County,  Michigan Council of Governments.
       June 1988.
5.     "Integrated Resource Recovery."   Waste Age.   April
       1990.
6.     Facing America's Trasb:  What  Next for Municipal Solid
       Waste? Summary.  Congress of  the U.S., Office of
       Technology Assessment.  October 1989.
                               197

-------
7.     Visalli,  J.R.   "A New Conceptual Framework for Planning
       Integrated Municipal  Waste Management Systems."
       Presented at the Municipal Solid Waste Technology
       Conference.  San Diego,  California.   January  30 to
       February  1,  1989.
8.     Hilgendorff, C.C.   "Emerging Trends  in Solid  Waste
       Finance." Solid Waste & Power.   April 1989.
                             198

-------
          INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
             Reid J, Lifcet and Marian R. Chertow

        The Project on Solid Waste and the Environment
            Institution for Social and Policy Studies
                       Yale University
                      Presented at the

   First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                      June 13-15, 1990
                                199

-------
                          INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH
                ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
I. Introduction
       A. The value of economic incentives for solid waste management
       B. The state of national and international information about economic incentives for solid waste
       management

II. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Economic Incentives
       A Costs and benefits with respect to household waste behavior
       B. Impacts on  the disposal solid waste management system
               1.  Financial costs arising from the variability of the waste stream
               2.  Transaction costs for administering the programs

III. Case Studies of Communities Employing Quantity-based User Fees
       A European experiences: Germany, Switzerland and Sweden
       B. Japanese experiences

IV. Program Comparisons
       A. Differences in program design
       B. Program effectiveness
               1. Impact on  waste stream
               2. Financial consequences

V. Conclusion
       A.Maximizing effectiveness of economic incentives
       B. Topics  needing further investigation
       C Implications for U.S. policy
                                               200

-------
      THE MAJOR ECONOMIC ISSUES OF THE
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
PROPOSED MATERIALS SEPARATION REQUIREMENT
      FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
                  Brian J. Morton
              Research Triangle Institute

                 Thomas G. Walton
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS

                 Christine D. Ellestad
              Research Triangle Institute

                   Diana K. Long
              Research Triangle Institute
                   Presented at the
  First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management
                  June 13-16,1990
                          201

-------
                        Tbe Major Economic Issues of the
                     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
                   Proposed Materials Separation Requirement
                        for Municipal Waste Combustors

Introduction
      Description of separation requirement
      Goals of study:
             Estimate national diversion by material
             Estimate national cost of separation requirement
             Capture range of behavioral and market responses

Household Response
      Determinants of household participation in recycling program
      Determinants of household capture rates
      Estimating cost to household of its recycling activity

Municipal Response
      Potential separation programs
             No household separation
             One-stream
             Two-stream
             Multiple separation
      Determinants of program choice
             Demographic characteristics of municipalities
             Compliance requirements
                                       202

-------
             Costs
             Environmental concerns
      Modeled communities and modeled programs
             Materials separated
             Costs
      National aggregation issues
             Choice of program by community
             Scaling up from modeled communities and programs to nation

Secondary Market Response
      Materials separated
      Supply shift
      Price response (and impact on community's net costs)
      Partial equilibrium multi-market model of newspaper
                                      203

-------
                 A MODEL FOR CALCULATING
                  THE COSTS OF DISPOSAL

                     Steve Greenwood
       Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                                    205

-------
                         A MODEL FOR CALCULATING
                          THE COSTS OF'DISPOSAL
The Need for Cost Information



     As public officials examine important policy questions on solid

waste management options for the 1990s, a key factor will be cost.  In

evaluating landfills and other waste management options, the comparative

cost of these options will be important.



     The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has developed

an easy-to-use microcomputer model of the "true cost" of solid waste

landfilling, which is also useful in estimating the "avoided costs of

disposal" when comparing landfilling to various waste reduction options.

The model attempts to measure the "true social costs" of landfilling, with

the assumption that historic "tipping fees" at the local landfill may not

provide an accurate or fair comparison to the costs of recycling.



     The Oregon Opportunity to Recycle Act, passed in 1983, provides that

all communities in Oregon with a population of more than 4,000 people

shall be provided with curbside collection of recyclable materials.   The

list of "recyclable materials" is based primarily on an economic test,

which compares the cost of recycling (including the revenue received) to

the avoided costs of pick-up and disposal.  In the absence of the other

data, the comparison is based upon current tipping fees at the present

landfill, which do not reflect the potential environmental risk posed by
                                    2O6

-------
historical methods of landfilling, nor the cost of the next landfill with




increased environmental protection features.









     The 1985 Oregon Legislature took action to formulate a comprehensive




solid waste program for the Portland metropolitan area, which contains




half of the state's population.  This program was to be based on an




aggressive waste reduction program that went beyond the requirements of




the Opportunity to Recycle Act.  Policy options included recycling,




material recovery, and the use of alternative technologies such as




composting and incineration.  Once again, the Oregon Legislature brought




costs into the analysis by stating that waste reduction measures must be




"economically feasible."  One way to determine economic feasibility is to




compare the costs of waste reduction to costs of land disposal.









     The easiest, and most obvious, measure of disposal costs is to take




the existing "tipping fee" at the landfill.  Indeed, this is how most of




the disposal costs have been estimated in performing the economic test for




recyclable materials under the Oregon Opportunity to Recycle Act.  Many




recyclers and environmentalists, however, are quick to point out that




these tipping fees -do not always reflect the true "societal" costs of




landfilling.  What about the "external costs" of environmental risk or




damage that are not accounted for in the tipping fee?  Many of our present




landfills will soon be full.  What about the costs of the next landfill,




which will require a much higher level of environmental controls?  Are we




under-valuing the cost of landfilling by not looking at the replacement




cost of the landfill space we're using up today?






                                    207

-------
Developing the "True Cost" Model









     In 1986 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hired




ECO Northwest, economic consultants, to develop a model for estimating the




true social cost of landfilling solid waste.  Working with ECO Northwest




were Brown and Caldwell, consulting engineers, who supplied technical cost




data.  ECO Northwest developed a micro-computer model of landfill costs




using Lotus 1-2-3, requiring an IBM-PC compatible computer with enough




capacity to run Lotus 1-2-3.  Other hardware requirements include a




compatible printer.  The model is expressly designed to be used by




planning and engineering professionals who are familiar with solid waste




management, and who have a basic understanding of micro-computers and




Lotus 1-2-3.  It is very easy to use, and does not require expertise in




either computer programming or micro-economics.









     The model incorporates data that is entered into a Lotus spreadsheet




under the following categories:









     Baseline Data:  Characteristics about an existing or proposed




     landfill site, such as size, depth of fill, number of tons per year,




     etc.









     Pre-Development Costs:  Costs of siting,  environmental impact




     studies.
                                     208

-------
     One-Time Capital Costs:  Costs of initial construction and related




     facilities such as roads, property acquisition, leachate treatment




     facilities, etc.









     Periodic Capital Costs:  Divided into heavy equipment purchases,  and




     cell preparation and closure.









     Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs:  Operating costs such as




     personnel, daily cover, insurance, etc.









     Closure Costs:  Primarily legal costs, since the landfill is assumed




     to close on a cell-by-cell basis.









     Annual Post-Closure Costs:  Calculated for a 30-year post-closure




     period, includes costs of monitoring and leachate treatment.









     Other Environmental Costs:  This optional category was included for




     potential impacts to property values.   However, it was not utilized




     (see discussion below).









     Transportation Costs:  An optional section, can calculate either




     direct haul costs, or transport from transfer stations.









     In each category, a number of cost factors are listed.  After




entering the appropriate data, the model provides a total cost for each




factor, then for each category.  Finally, the model summarizes the totals
                                    209

-------
for each category and provides  a cost-per-ton figure for each category and

for the total  landfill.


     The following example will help illustrate how the model works:


     Pictured  below is  some of  the baseline  data  from the model's

spreadsheet, for a landfill with an annual capacity of 650,000 tons:
                            •1. BASELINE DATA-
              CATEGORY (UNIT)

     1.  LIFE Of LANDFILL
     1.1 Today's Date
     1.2 Pre-development Beginning Date
     1.3 Construction Phase Beginning Date
     1.4 Fill Operations Beginning Date
     1.5 Closure Phase Beginning Date
     1.6 Post-Closure Care Beginning Date
     •1.7 End-of-Care Date
           TOTAL PROJECT LIFE (YRS, MOS)

     2.  SITE SIZE/CAPACITY
     2.1 Annual Waste (000 Tons/Year)
     2.2.Depth of Fill (Feet)
     2.3 Buffer (Feet Fro* Edge of Fill)
     2.4 Tons/Cubic Yard, Compacted

     3.  DATA DERIVED FROM ABOVE ENTRIES:
     3.1 Lifetime Capacity (000 Tons)
     3.2 Operating Area (Acres)
     3.3 Buffer Area (Acres)
     3.4 Total Site Area (Acres)
 947
 136
 865
0.60
                                                   ENTRIES
MONTH
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
NA
YEAR
1986
1986
1989
1990
2037
2038
2068
NA
YRS.
NA
3
0
47
1
30
NA
81
MOS
NA
0
9
0
0
0
NA
9
     DERIVED  TOTALS
         44540
           340
           374
           714
      Later  in the spreadsheet,  under one-time capital costs  (see below),

the  user enters data  for the cost of land  acquisition.   Notice that  the

spreadsheet user has  the option of using a unit price (multiplied by

number of units) or a lump sum  ("L.S.") figure for  each cost factor.
                                       210

-------
                                 A. ONE-TIME COSTS
               CATEGORY (UNIT)

     1.   LAND COST
     1.1  Off-Site ROW Land ($/Acre)
     1.2  Other Land  <$/Acre)
     1.3  On-Site Land Cost ($/Acre)
          SUBTOTAL  (Or Enter  Lump Sum)
  J/UNIT   ffUNITS   L.S.   TOTAL $
   5000
   2000
   5000
     NA
 50
 43
714
807
2086
 250
2086
3569
5905
      Finally,  cost totals for  each category,  and  an overall  cost are

summarized at  the end  of the spreadsheet  (see below).   The left-hand

column provides  the total amount (in thousands of dollars),  and the right-

hand  column provides a cost per  ton.  The lifetime capacity  is also listed

in  thousands of  tons.
                TOTAL SITE ACREAGE
                REAL DISCOUNT RATE
       LIFETIME CAPACITY (000 Tons)
   714
   3.OX
 44540

1986 DOLLARS IN THE FIRST
   YEAR OF OPERATION
 1990               1990
$(000)             S/TON
PREDEVELOPMENT COSTS
CAPITAL COSTS
Land
1-Time Construction & Equipment
Periodic Equipment
Periodic Cell Development
Periodic Cell Closure
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
FINAL CLOSURE COSTS
POST-CLOSURE COSTS
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
TOTAL COSTS
LESS BASE-CASE TOTAL COSTS
4010

6038
27975
8492
49852
4488
96844
73146
37
6168
0
93261
273465
71465
SO. 09

$0.14
SO. 63
$0.74
$4.35
$0.39
$6.24
$6.38
$0.00
$0.14
$0.00
S8.14
$20.99
$7.32
                                        211

-------
Society's Cost Versus the "Tipping Fee":  What are the "True" Costs?









     The landfill cost model developed by ECO Northwest provides a




structured format for easily entering data, which the model then uses to




calculate total and per-ton cost estimates.  However, because of the




Department's belief that there may be costs to society not captured in a




tipping fee, the model had to be more than a standard accounting of costs




directly experienced by the landfill operator.









     In constructing this economist's view of the cost of landfilling




solid waste, a number of important questions were addressed:









     1)   How do you account, for costs occurring over time -  and what




          about inflati on?









          In calculating the "true" cost to society,  we first put all




          costs in terms of present (1986) dollars.   In order to do this,




          we first assumed that all goods and services would, over time,




          experience a similar inflation rate.  We,  therefore, assumed




          away inflation in our analysis and put everything in what




          economists call "constant" dollars.









          Secondly, because people have a preference  for consumption now,




          rather than later, a "real" annual discount rate of 3% was used




          to devalue costs occurring in future years.  This discounting of




          future costs is commonly used by economists and financial
                                    212

-------
     analysts to make costs (or benefits) that occur In different

                                                      1
     years comparable.  A 3% discount rate, for example, assumes that


     a person would just as soon have 97 cents today as a dollar next


     year.  While the 3% discount rate was recommended, this rate can


     be easily changed.




     It is important to note that by assuming away inflation,  the


     model also does not incorporate financing costs (i.e., interest)


     but rather assumes the total cost of an item when it is


     experienced or purchased.  Once again, this differs from the


     accountant's view of landfill costs.




2)   How do you account for the potential (or real) environmental


     damage caused by landfilling?




     The "true" social costs of landfilling are assumed to be the sum


     of costs reflected in the tipping fee ("internal" costs in the


     economist's jargon) and the "external" costs of environmental


     damage or degradation not incorporated into the tipping fee.


     The question is, how do you calculate the cost of environmental


     damage?  Considerable attention was given to this most critical


     issue in developing the "true cost" model.  Several alternatives


     were considered.




     The principal environmental risks from landfilling include:


     a) groundwater contamination from leachate, b) risk of methane
                               213

-------
gas migration to nearby structures, and c) air quality problems




from particulates and air emissions from the landfill.  One way




of calculating the costs is to conduct a direct estimate of the




value of the damage, or potential damage.  This method was not




considered feasible because of the tremendous effort involved,




and the potential for inaccuracy.









A better approach, and the one utilized in the model, is to




calculate the costs of preventing the environmental damage.   In




effect, determine the measures that will effectively reduce the




risk of environmental damage to a negligible level (close to




zero).  This approach has two advantages.  First, it is a figure




that is much easier to accurately calculate.  Second, when




comparing future policy options, it is more important to




consider future actions and expenses, rather than previous




experience.









It should be noted, however, that this technique can be used to




evaluate the cost of existing landfill facilities as well as




proposed facilities.  For example, an existing landfill may have




limited design features for groundwater protection.  To estimate




the environmental cost of that landfill, one would calculate the




cost of liner systems and leachate collection that would




effectively prevent any groundwater contamination.
                           214

-------
     Interestingly,  some of the assumptions made about "tipping fees"




     versus "social" costs when the model was developed in 1986 may




     now,  in some cases, be reversed.  Requirements for environmental




     controls,  nuisance abatement, host community fees, buffering,




     and (most  importantly) the cost of cleaning up environmental




     problems at older disposal sites,  are causing what were




     previously external environmental  costs to be internalized in




     the costs  of siting, constructing, operating, and closing a




     sanitary landfill.  In some communities now, the tipping fee at




     the landfill is actually higher than the true societal cost of




     current disposal.









3)   How do you account for nuisance effects of landfilling?









     There are  a number of less tangible environmental costs,




     "nuisance  costs," associated with landfills, that are impacts to




     the quality of life for nearby communities.  These impacts




     include litter, noise, odor, and visual impacts of a landfill.




     It is those "environmental disamenities" that prompt a large




     portion of the public's resistance to the siting of landfills.









     If these disamenities carry an associated social "cost,"




     economists would argue that these costs should be reflected in




     property values, particularly for nearby residential property.




     Substantial research has been conducted on property value




     impacts of landfills, with most of the research indicating that
                               215

-------
impacts are generally negligible or non-existent, beyond




distances of 1,000 feet from the landfill.  One study indicated




that the size of a landfill influences these impacts, and that




large sites may have an effect.









Once again, however, the method chosen for measuring these




nuisance costs is by measuring the cost of design and operation




measures which effectively eliminate these impacts:  a buffer




area for visual and noise screening, daily cover of the waste,




litter patrols, gas collection systems, etc.  In a well-




buffered, well-designed and operated landfill,  these formerly




"external" costs (difficult though they were to measure) are now




internalized into the cost of new landfill facilities.   Where




facilities do not incorporate these features,  the cost model




allows the user to calculate the costs as if it did.









How do you account for the loss of valuable materials buried




through landfilling?









Many recyclers believe that an additional cost of landfilling is




the loss of materials (glass, metals,  etc.) buried in the




ground.  This is certainly true, although the "loss" is reduced




by the cost required to retrieve,  separate, market, and process




these materials.
                         216

-------
          When comparing the cost of landfilling to waste reduction




          strategies, however, including the loss of recyclable materials




          in the cost of landfilling is to count the value of these




          materials twice.  Their value is already incorporated (as a




          positive benefit) into the cost of recycling.  To engage in this




          double-counting is to distort the analysis.









          A similar argument is often made with respect to the value of




          the land used to dispose of garbage.  "What about the future




          value of that land?" many ask.  The economists (and real estate




          professionals) will tell us that the potential future value of




          land is a factor incorporated into today's market valuation of




          that land, which is already incorporated into the cost model.




          Therefore, to separately calculate the future value of land




          resources would be another example of double-counting.









Limitations of the Model









     The biggest problem in using the model to compare the costs of




landfilling to waste reduction options, is that the cost of those other




options is often calculated with different assumptions.  For example, the




cost of financing and inflation are often included in recycling or waste-




to-energy analyses.  One therefore was the risk of making apples-to-




oranges comparisons which may unfavorably distort the analysis of waste




reduction options.  A recent financial analysis of a proposed landfill in
                                    217

-------
Oregon added in the costs of inflation and financing to the cost model,




which resulted in cost figures that were nearly 100% higher by the  fifth




year of analysis.









     Second, we have found in Oregon that when using this model to  compare




solid waste landfills, that the comparisons need to be made over a




comparable period.  Or, if that is not possible, the differences in




facility-life should be accounted for in the comparison.  This is true




primarily because of the reduced value of a dollar over time.   Without




accounting for these time differences, the analysis will be distorted in




favor of the option which has been discounted over a longer period  of




time.









     A third limitation of the model is that it does require accurate




estimates of costs for each item, and therefore requires review by  persons




knowledgeable in landfill design and operational cost.   As the saying




goes, "garbage-in, garbage-out."









     A fourth and related limitation is that environmental risks and other




design requirements will differ from site to site and between geographic




areas.  There are always some unique features to each landfill site.




Therefore, it is important that these site specific features be included




into the analysis when comparing sites, rather than relying on the  generic




model.
                                  21B

-------
Conclusion









     The model developed by ECO Northwest and the Oregon Department of




Environmental Quality represents an attempt to include both private costs




and "external" environmental costs associated with landfilling.  With some




limitations, this kind of model can be useful for policy-makers faced with




difficult choices on how to deal with solid waste.









SW\SK2774 (5/90)
                                   219

-------
Public Participation in Facility Siting








      A Decision Technique
                By








         John Rogers and



           Jed Campbell








    Rogers, Golden and Halpern



         1216 Arch Street



      Philadelphia, Pa.  19107
               221                                 Rogms, Golden * Halpern

-------
ABSTRACT

    Local  governments,  utilities,  and  private industry  often  confront  chaos
when  implementing  plans  for  new  solid  waste  disposal  facilities.    In  the
face of  this chaos, Rogers, Golden  and Halpern  has  developed a  method to
successfully  site  facilities  by  incorporating meaningful  public  involvement
in the decision-making process.

    Each  facility  siting  effort  is  tailored  to  the  unique  attributes  of  the
particular  area,  but  includes  two  basic   elements:  a  regional  screening
process  to  identify  candidate  sites,  and a  structured  decision-making
methodology  with  an  advisory  committee   to  rank  the  sites in  order  of
preference for development.

    The methodology, known as the Nominal Group Technique (NOT), is favored
over  less  structured  practices because it  incorporates diverse  viewpoints  of
the  advisory  committee members, thus  fostering  problem  solving.    In  and  of
itself,   the   committee  provides  broad  geographic  and   interest-group
representation,  which  enhances the   unbiased,  repeated  value-setting  and
participant discussion and interaction that are hallmarks of the Technique.

    Members participate  in  a  series  of  meetings  and  tours  to  learn  about
facility  design,  construction,  and  operation.   During  the  course  of  the
meetings,  they   transform  their  concerns  about waste  management  facilities
into actual criteria by which the candidate sites will be ranked.

    The NGT includes  a series  of "weighting" exercises wherein concensus is
reached  about  the  relative  importance  of  these  criteria.   The  values  are
then  applied to  the  actual  sites  and  arithmetically  scored,  and  then  the
sites  are  ranked.    The locations  of  the  sites  are  kept  confidential  until
the  final  ranking  is  complete,   enabling participants  to  make  siting
decisions  based  on  objective,  quantified   data   rather  than  on  arbitrary
opinion or conjecture.

    This  process has been  used  successfully  by  RGH  for  major  solid  waste
facility  projects  in  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,   Maryland,  Indiana,  and
Virginia.
                                                                        RogMs, Golden fc Half*"1
                                     222

-------
    Local  governments,  utilities,  and  private  industry  often  confront  chaos



when  implementing  plans  for  new  solid  waste  disposal  facilities.   In  the



face of this  chaos, Rogers, Golden  and Halpern  has  developed  a method to



successfully  site  facilities  by  incorporating meaningful  public  involvement



in the decision making process.   This  method  combines  regional  screening for



candidate  sites  with  a  public  decision  making  technique  to rank  the



candidate sites in order of preference for development.








    Many  of  us  who  have  been  involved  in  facility  siting  are  familiar with



this  scenario: The  project  manager  has met   with  the  client  and  has



thoughtfully  performed  a  detailed scope  of work,  all of  the data collection



tasks  are  performed  in a thorough manner,  the  technical  investigations are



completed, thousands  of dollars have  been  spent  to  determine  the  best  site



location  and   a   well-intentioned   announcement   is made  to   the  public.



Instead  of  informed,  rational  debate  something  else  happens -  all  hell



breaks loose.








    Experience has shown  that public  opposition to  proposed locations of the



entire range  of  solid  waste  facilities  can   scuttle   otherwise  technical



suitable  sites.     For   this   reason,  solid  waste  planners sometimes  refer to



the  80/20 rule.   This  rule  of thumb  equation  says that facility  acceptance



is  only   about   20  percent  technical   merit,   and  really  80  percent



socio-political consideration.
                                        223                            Rogers, Golden It Halpern

-------
    Solid  waste  planners,  facility  developers  and  municipal  officials  must



realize  that  solid  waste  facility  siting  is  really  a   balancing  act.   This



balancing  act  must  obviously address  technical  considerations  very  carefully



and  accurately,  but  must  also  bring  into   the  decision  process  social,



economic,  and  political considerations.   We  must  also  recognize that certain



environmental and  regulatory  considerations  may  exist  outside  of  the



permitting process.     With  these  considerations in  mind,  RGH tailors each



facility  siting   effort  to  the  specific attributes  of  the particular  area  and



facility  type.    However,  each  study  contains   the  following  consistent



elements:








    o   regional  screening  using   exclusionary  criteria   to  identify



         candidate sites;



    o   development of evaluative criteria;



    o   structured public decision-making to rank candidate sites.








    The   regional  screening  process  involves  the   identification  of



exclusionary  or limiting  criteria  from  federal  state  and  local  policy.  These



criteria  may  include  such  areas  as  protected  farmland,   public  recreation



areas, airport   restrictions,  wetlands,  unique  natural features  and  developed



land.    Once  the criteria  are determined the  appropriate   data is  collected



and overlay  maps are  developed  to identify candidate areas.   Several  mapping



scales may be used to move from  the  candidate  areas  to  the identification of



specific candidate sites.
                                     224                                Rogws, Golden * Help**

-------
    As  far as  the  regulatory  process  is  concerned,  a  particular study  area's



candidate  sites  may  all  be  equal,  as  far  as  the public is  concerned,  they



may not  be.   It  is  important to acknowledge and discuss with the public  the



fact  that  there  is  no  perfect site.    The  selection  process will  involve  a



series of tradeoffs and  a decision method  must  be used which can account for




these  tradeoffs.   Two  hypothetical  examples   can illustrate  the  concept  of



tradeoffs:   a  large  buffer  for a  candidate  site  may  be desirable,  but  the



conditions of a  study  area  may  necessitate  the  use  of  a  haul route  which



produces  an  unacceptable  level  of  truck  traffic  in  a   particular  area;   or



minimal   disturbance  to  farmland  or  forest   may  be   desirable,  but   this



consideration  may  place  sites unacceptably  close  to  high density residential




areas.








     Because  these  tradeoffs  reflect  value  judgements,  RGH  uses  public



advisory   committees  to  develop  a  seperate   set  of  evaluative criteria  to



reflect   their  concerns  about  the  facility  being  sited.    The   criteria



developed by  these  advisory committees  generally fall  into  three  categories:




environmental, social or economic.








     To   develop  the criteria,  the  committee members  first  participate in  a



series of educational  workshops where  they  learn detailed  information  about



facility   siting,   design,  operation,  end   use  and  other concerns  such  as



geology  and risk  assessment.    Committee  members  also  participate  in  a



Saturday  field  trip   to  existing  facilities  to   gain  a  first  hand



understanding  of facility  operations and   their  potential  impacts to   adjacent




communities.








                                      225                                Rogers, Golden & Holpam

-------
    The  specific  evaluative  criterion  begin  as  concerns  raised  during  a
committee meeting.  The concerns  may address  such things as surface water
protection,  single  source  aquifers,  truck  traffic  or  facility  end  use.
Through  a series  of  meetings,  these concerns  are refined  into  measurable
criteria  which  can  distinguish  between  sites.     The  objective  of  each
criterion  is  mutually  agreed  upon  as  well  as  the data  sources  and  data
collection  methods.    Data  categories  are developed  for  a  range  of
conditions, with  a  uniform  numerical  scale  used  for  consistency between
criterion.

    Once  the  criteria   have  been   developed, agreed  to  by  the  Advisory
Committee and  the appropriate  data collected, a  structured  decision process
is needed to objectively  rank  the candidate sites.  The process  that  RGH  has
used  successfully  to  establish  the  relative   importance  (weights)  of
different  environmental,  socioeconomic  and engineering  cost  criteria is
called  the Nominal Group Technique.  This  decision  making technique  has
several advantages:

    o     incorporation of variety of viewpoints;
    o     unbiased value setting;
    o     ample discussion and interaction among participants;
    o     highly defensible.
                                                                        Bogns, Golden & Holpwn
                                      226

-------
    The objective  of this  process  is  to arrive at a  group  statement  on  the
relative importance  of  various  issues  related to  the   construction   and
operation  of  a  solid  waste  facility.  To  maintain  the  objectivity  of  the
advisory committee members,  to  focus  their   attention  solely  on  the  criteria
- the locations of the candidate sites are kept confidential.


    The advisory  committee participates  in an all day  Saturday  workshop  in
which  they  individually  assign   weights  to  the criteria   based  on  each
criterion's  relative importance.   Several  rounds  of  discussion  and  weighting
take  place  until the   committee  is  satisfied  that  they  have thoroughly
discussed each criterion, (see figure one)


    To  rank  the  candidate sites in order  of  preference  for  development,  the
weights given  to  each  criteria   must  be   multiplied  by  the  site's  data
category rating.   Scores for the criterion are  then summed  to  give  each  site
a  total  site  score.  We use a computer to calculate  the results and  rank  the
sites from best to worst, or highest to lowest score, (see figure two)


    A  sensitivity   analysis  is   performed  for  the  criteria  to   help
participants  understand  how  the  criteria   influenced  the  ranking.    For
example,   does  the  ranking   of  the  candidate sites  change  if  only  the
environmental  criteria  are  used?    Which  criteria  influenced  the  ranking
process most heavily?   How does  the  site ranking appear  if only the  top  ten
ranked criteria are  used?    This  type of analysis  builds  further
understanding  of  the decision  process  and  greater  confidence in its  results.
                                                                        Bogus, Golden & Holpern
                                     227

-------
    Site  confirmation  is  the  final  step  in  the  process.  Because  the  data
used  for the  ranking process  is based on  available  printed  information  only,
field   investigations  are  necessary  to  evaluate  the   sites  for  inconsistencies
in  published  data.  These inconsistencies,  if  they  exist, are  noted  and  the
decision makers may decide  to allow  the  information to re-rank the  candidate
sites.

    To  conclude,  our  experience  has  shown  that public participation  is  only
one  element  in  successful   facility  siting.  The  first   essential  element  in  a
successful   effort  is a  clearly  defined  need  for  the  project.    This  is
followed  by  the  need  for  a  strong  lead agency,  or  champion,  to  maintain
project  momentum  and  keep  the  efforts on  track.    Tested technologies  are
necessary  which  match  technically  suitable and  appropriate candidate  sites.
A  clearly   defined  decision  process  which  incorporates  public  involvement
must  be combined  with a willingness  on the part of  the  decision-makers  to
listen  and  negotiate.    Finally,  the  project  must  be  accompanied  by
incentives  which  can be  viewed  as  a method  of  sharing the  benefits  the
facility will  have  on  the larger society with the community that  bears  the
perceived risks of hosting the facility.
                                                                          Rog*n, Golden t. Holp*"
                                      228

-------
                                     Figure 1
First Round
Round*
1 Discuss
  all issues
  and  their
  components
                  3 Statistical
                    Analysis
                  4 Data
                     returned
                     to group
                  5 Group
                     discussion
 7 Statistical
   Analysis
 8 Data
   returned
   to group
                                                                  *
9 Group
  stability
*
•J0lssue
   weights as
   decided by
   NGT parti-
   cipants
2  Each participant
   proposes criteria
   weights
                                  Each participant
                                  proposes criteria
                                  weights
             * Number of rounds optional-
               Group stability signals
               end ol process
                                         229
                                                                                  Rogers, Golden & Holperr

-------
                             Figure 2
    Examine
    Site
    Conditions
Apply
Mutually
Exclusive
Data
Categories
Suitability
Rating    .   Criterion*   Weighted
(1-5)         Weight      Ratings
Criterion
   A
                 R   )x (  W  )  -
Criterion
   B
          —(   R    )X(  W  )  =
Criterion
   C
4_
3_
2_
1
  R   )x(  W  )  -
                                                   SUM = TOTAL
                                                         SITE
                                                         SCORE
                              'Developed through the NGT process
                                230
                                         Rog*n. Golden * Holp««

-------
                RECYCLING IN RHODE ISLAND
                 A BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS

                       Victor Bell
         Department of Environmental Management
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                               231

-------
              RECYCLING IN RHODE  ISLAND

                            A Blueprint for Success

                                      Victor Bell
   Chief, Rhode Island's Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling Program (OSCAR)

                        Department of Environmental Management
                                      83 Park Street
                                  Providence, RI 02903
                                      (401) 277-3434



 FOREWORD

       The nation is facing two powerful and converging forces. Waste generation is increasing while
 the supply of waste disposal facilities is declining. As the pressure to handle growing tonnages of gar-
 bage intensifies, traditional waste management methods—landfill and incineration—are becoming
 more costly.  Environmental concerns make it almost impossible to site new facilities, even though
 one-half of the country's existing landfiD capacity will be exhausted in ten years.

       The solid waste disposal crisis is most acute in the populous northeastern states, where few
 major landfill facilities have been sited for a decade. But the problem is evident to some degree from
 coast to coast. Governments at all levels are facing pressure to adopt waste management solutions that
 are both cost-effective and environmentally benign.

       In Rhode Island, with the passage of the 1986 Solid Waste Management Law, the first statewide
 mandatory recycling law in the country went into effect. Rhode Island's program is characterized by
 strong state leadership and a centralized structure for implementing recycling programs. This com-
 prehensive approach has given the  state the opportunity to develop and test programs, gather infor-
 mation, and measure results in a timely and systematic way.

      With this in mind, the Council of State Governments, in cooperation with Rhode Island's
 Department of Environmental Management (DEM), and its Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling staff
 (OSCAR), is presenting this review  of Rhode Island's program. We believe that Rhode Island's experi-
 ence, and the lessons it has learned, will provide valuable insight for everyone concerned with devel-
 oping workable options for solid waste management.
      We wish to acknowledge the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation, Resource In-
 tegration Systems, Ltd., Coca-Cola USA, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and FitzGerald
 & Company, Inc. (Cranston, Rhode  Island) for their assistance in producing this document.
Shelley Dresser-Gagnon                    !	~	~	~	~
Diteaor ofEnergyEmrinmment Programs     u\ think that the most valuable insights that other jurisdic-
Council of Stale Governments              flons might gain from a review of our program relates to our
Victor Bell                           experiences to date. There are plenty of experiments in gov-
Chief, Rhode Island's Ocean State            ernment today, which makes the ones that truly work that
Cleamtp and Recycling Program            much more important and interesting. In Rhode Island, our
                                   experience is that recycling is working."
                                       Brad Gorhom, Minority House Leader, past chairman of
                                       special legislative committee on solid waste and current
                                       chairman of Rhode Island Source Reduction Task Force.
                                             232

-------
 THE   OVERVIEW
       When Rhode Island lawmakers set out to solve the state's solid waste management problem,
 their goal was to maximize recovery of recyclable materials and reduce the amount of waste going to
 landfills.

       In 1986, lawmakers passed a far reaching solid waste management bill.  Its focus was manda-
 tory recycling for every business and municipality in the state. The bill made it state policy to reduce
 the amount of waste going to landfills, re-use items that were once tossed out, and to incinerate non-
 recyclable waste and convert it to electricity.

       Implementing the mandatory recycling bill was no small task. So, lawmakers chose an inte-
 grated and comprehensive approach.
                       1986 SOLID WASTE ACT AMENDMENTS
                                      KEY POINTS
            •Established statewide priorities:
             Reduction, Recycling, Energy
             Recovery.Landfilling.

            • Set goal to recycle a minimum 15
             percent of Solid Waste, (residential,
             commercial/government agency)

            • Required construction of recycling
             facilities at or near all state disposal
             facilities.

            • Required garbage to be separated
             into recyclable/non-recyclable com-
             ponents prior to disposal at solid
             waste facilities.
•Set subsidized fee for disposal of
 separated solid waste.

• Required municipal recyclables to be
 tipped at no charge.

•Required state to fund all reasonable
 additional costs for municipal recy-
 cling during first three years of the
 program.:       .:          :

1 Required state to provide technical
 assistance for all waste generators.

1 Required state to give preference in
 state bids and contracts to vendors
 of recycled paper.
THE APPROACH
       Rhode Island's mandatory recycling program is operated by the state, and applies to everyone
from homeowners to big businesses.

   The Department of Environmental Management's Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling
(OSCAR) program works in partnership with the Solid Waste Management Corporation, the Rhode
Island Department of Administration, municipalities and businesses to reduce the amount of waste
placed  in state landfills.

       This comprehensive and integrated statewide approach eliminates the problem of working
with recycling programs that differ from town to town. Because the waste management program op-
erates within one system, it is possible for the state to achieve management efficiency and economy of
scale.

       Through this cooperative statewide effort, Rhode Island has become the first state in the coun-
try to mandate collection of a broad range of recyclables. The state not only recycles the most common
and marketable products, but also recycles such items as steel cans, plastic milk containers and plastic
soft drink bottles.
                                             233

-------
WHY RECYCLE?

       Until recently, recycling was viewed only as a way to make money, and was considered a
failure if it didn't produce substantial revenue. Rhode Island has put recycling in a different context.
The state treats recycling not as a way to make money, but as an economical and environmentally ac-
ceptable way to manage solid waste.
     •" Recycling reduces the cost of waste disposal, and provides the cheapest option available for
solid waste management.  Each day, hundreds of tons of waste are diverted from Rhode Island
landfills. Recycling has become a key component in a comprehensive and integrated strategy to
conserve existing land space and reduce the amount of garbage entering the waste stream/

                             SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
                                 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
                R.I. General Assembly creates Solid Waste Management Corpora-  \ -1974
                tion (SWMC) to build and operate solid waste facilities.           '

                Litter Control and Recycling Act is adopted. Ocean Stale Cleanup
                and Recycling Program (OSCAR) established and funded through a  ) 1984
                broad-based litter tax.
                Brown University awarded grant from OSCAR lo study role of recycling
                in solid waste management. In Sate 1985. study recommends strate-
                gies for implementing recycling programs.

                Waste-to-Energy and Flow Control legislation WITHOUT
                mandatory recycling is killed.

                Special House Commission studies Resource Recovery and
                Solid Waste Management.

                Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Bill, including mandatory
                recycling, passes.
               Rhode Island Source Reduction Task Force is established.
               Pilot recycling program begins. Includes more than 4,500 households.         | - „„_


               Municipal recycling program adds more than 112,000 households and           ,
               305,000 residents.                                                J1988

               January 1 — commercial recycling regulations go into effect. Rhode Island disposal "\
               facilities cannot accept wastes containing more than 30 percent recyclable materials  j 1989
               by weight.                                                       )
               "To some extent, recycling as a waste management option has been ham-
               pered in other jurisdictions because of its history as on activity people did to
               make money.  Now, it's starting to be understood for its full value as an
               essential waste management tool."
                                                Victor Bell, Chief, OSCAR program
                                             234

-------
MUNICIPAL RECYCLING

       The programs seek to maximize recovery of materials in order to divert the greatest amount of
waste from the landfill and to keep collection costs under control.

How It Works:
       Programs are designed in consultation with each community in order to be compatible with the
existing solid waste collection and disposal system.  As a class-one program*, all recyclables, with the
exception of newspapers, are placed in one bin by the resident and set out for curbside collection on
the same day each week as garbage pickup. Newspapers are bundled separately and placed next to
the recyclables container.  The containers are provided by the state, one to a household. The truck
operator places the mixed materials in one compartment of the truck and newspapers in another, then
transports the items to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for further sorting and processing.
       Recycling trucks are designed to promote collection efficiency and accommodate high-volume
items such as plastic milk containers and soda bottles. Each large capacity vehicle has a dedicated
closed body so no trailers are necessary. Rexible compartments can be moved around if the amounts
or types of materials collected changes.  Each truck has easy loading, automatic unloading, a low-entry
cab, and can be operated by one driver.
                                                               Bl  will be taken to a landfill
                                                               or resource recovery facility.
               ,,..                 ,
               atparated Into Jhr«* categori
'  Glass & metal
 food & beverage        i    ~^—.—
   containers, s  '       >      Pf  >
 other aluminum     n „*    :;'  tl
 andplaslbfioda    U       Evarythins
' bottles i milk jugs Newspaper ;    >«w* .,
w          ft           v  -5Sw  v   ^ :

          The separated trash will be
         brought to the curb for pickup
                                                                                 'CD
                                               »*  .•.. via**  Brown-*-
      	       will be delivered to
      the Material Recovery Facility
                                                                  Separating categories

                                                            Aluminum- baled- new aluminum
                                                           •feetcan*
                                                                              d_^ New
                                                                         separately  glass
                                                                  Milk jugs- granulated
                                                           Ptasllcs*             .   Products
                                                                  Soda bottle*
                                                    Newspaper  baled  -
                                                             newspaper
New paper
products
Material Recovery
    Facility
  Materials are
separated mechan-
jcaJly and by hand
  into the follow-
 ing categories...
                                                            C 1887 Th» Providence Journal Co. uud w£h p«rnvubn

          *A class-one program means that multi-materials are included in the recycling program and that collections
   in urban areas are made weekly at curbside on the same day as garbage pickups. Class one also means that special
   set-out containers are provided, one to a household. In rural areas, municipalities establish drop-off centers.
                                               235

-------
       These features contribute to efficient and cost-effective collection.
       The Department of Environmental Management's OSCAR program and the Solid \Yaste Man-
agement Corporation work together to help cities and towns prepare for recycling.
       OSCAR is responsible for writing the regulations, preparing start-up schedules, defining the
list of recyclables, administering state funds, and providing technical assistance to municipalities.
Technical assistance is an important part of OSCAR's work because the success of recycling depends
on cooperation and a clear understanding of how the program works.  Services include helping local
officials to develop planning studies, write ordinances, and train recycling coordinators. In general,
the OSCAR staff acts as a resource wherever necessary.
       The Solid Waste Management Corporation funds all reasonable additional costs of recycling
during the first three years of the program in each  town and city. The Corporation provides a Materi-
als Recovery Facility at or near each state solid waste disposal facility, where municipal!ties may
deposit mixed  recyclables free of charge.
                                      Continued on page 7
       ""typically, state agencies have the capability and experience in providing centralized
                                                                                 'ties
                                                                         irbage collec-
                                         ipal recycling program works welll>ecause there
       is no requirement for any of the players to change the current nature of their operation.
       The state has also reduced risks for municipalities considerably by arranging to handle the
       final preparation, shipment and sale of materials to markers."
                    •                          Ken Payne, Former Director of tfie
                                              Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns
          Capture Rates of Recyclable Materials (percentage by weight)
                    ALUM.*   GLASS
TIN
HOPE
NEWS
                                                    Discarded     January, 1989
   This capture rate for aluminum does not include the aluminum recovered through buy-back centers.

                                          236

-------
Municipal Recyclable*
• Newspaper
• Glass, food and beverage
   containers
• Tin-coated steel cans and
   steel cans
• Aluminum cans
• Plastic milk containers
   (HDPE)
• Plastic soft drink containers
   (PET)
                                                            Facts about Rhode Island:
                                                             • population: 1 Million
                                                             • 1,049 square miles
                                                             • 943 persons/square mile
                                                             • 1 Million tons of solid waste
                                                                  created per year
                                                               Municipal Recycling
                                                                    Schedule
                                                                   On line as of:
                                                                               1988
                                                                               1989
                                                                               1990
Facts about Recycling:
• 112,000 households on line
• 305,000 people on line
• 85% participation rate
• 14% of all solid waste is
   diverted from the landfill
            As of January, 1989
                                          237

-------
Continued from page 5
       Cities and towns must separate solid waste into recyclables and non-recyclables before disposal
in state-owned facilities. Charing the first three years of their programs, municipalities must meet the
same percentage of separation achieved  by similar communities in the mandatory recycling program.

Results
       Today, more than 112,000 households (305,000 residents) are participating in recycling. Partici-
pation rates have averaged more than 85%, and over 14% of all residential waste is now diverted from
landfills. The result has meant substantial savings in local solid waste management and hauling costs.
Recyclables are accepted free of charge at Materials Recovery Facilities, so ever)' ton tipped represents
an $11 per ton savings to communities.
                         FUTURE MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROJECTS

               January, 1989—On-truck densification study with NAPCOR.
               Spring, 1989—Pilot project for mixed rigid plastic collection and separation.
               Spring, 1989—-Household'battery separation and collection within the blue box pilot.
               Early 1990—Leaf and yard waste added to list of recyclables.
                                                                 .  January. 1989
                        Percentage of Recyclables (by volume)
                   Collected by the State of Rhode Island  to date
                   33%
                                  Automatically Loaded Closed Body Recycling Truck
                                              238

-------
COMMERCIAL  RECYCLING

       In studies of Rhode Island's commercial waste stream, the state found large amounts of recy-
clable materials were being disposed of in landfills at high tipping fees (currently $49 per ton), when
these same materials could have been sold and recycled. The state has targeted marketable recyclables
which can be collected in large quantities. Industry, commercial establishments and large apartment
complexes must segregate recyclable materials from their solid waste before it is delivered to a solid
waste disposal facility. (Apartment complexes must begin recycling no later than six months after the
municipal recycling program begins in their community.) Starting January 1,1989, Rhode Island dis-
posal facilities cannot accept waste containing more than 30 percent of listed recyclable materials by
weight. In 1990, waste must contain less than 20 percent listed recyclables to be accepted for disposal.
        Rhode Island's plan for commercial recycling
  Before Jan. 1, 1989: Companies dump their trash into one dumpster which is taken, for a fee, by private waste haulers to
  the State Central landfill.
   After Jan, 1,1989:
   Method 1 - Companies separate recyclable materials themselves and either drop them off or have £ private hauler take
   them to the recyclers. The remaining trash is hauled to the dump.


   fi


II
  Option 2 - Customers of large haulers may continue to dump all trash into one dumpster. Trash is hauled to a transfer station
  where the recyclable material is separated and taken to the recyclers. The remaining trash is hauled to the dump.
                                           239
                                                    & 1988 The Providence Journal Co. used wilh permissior

-------
 Commercial Recycling: How It Works
       The first phase of the commercial recycling program requires businesses to recycle listed mate-
 rials. These targeted materials are the easiest to identify, separate and market. The Department of En-
 vironmental Management provides a list of regional markets. Because prices in the private sector
 recycling market fluctuate, creating a climate of uncertainty for commercial generators, the Solid
 Waste Management Corporation has agreed to serve as a "market of last resort" for listed recyclable
 materials. Should no other market exist, the SWMC will accept any of the listed materials at the state's
 Materials Recovery Facility for a payment of 1/4 of the commercial tipping fee per ton.
       At any time, a company may petition the state to add a commodity to the list of recyclables.
 The company must guarantee a market for the commodity and demonstrate  an economical collection
 system. The state is currently reviewing several commodities for possible addition to the list of re-
 cyclables.
      . The second phase of the commercial recycling program requires businesses, beginning with the
 largest employers in the state, to submit detailed waste reduction and recycling plans to the Depart-
 ment of Environmental Management.  Every business with more than 500 employees must submit a
 plan for reduction and recycling of solid waste no later than June 30,1989. Subsequently, employers of
 251 to 500 people must submit plans before December 31,1989, and businesses with 101 to 250  em-
 ployees must submit plans before June 30,1990. In preparing these plans, each business will be re-
 quired to conduct a waste audit, prepare a detailed analysis of the solid waste streams, and propose
 methods for effectively reducing and recycling waste.
 Roles
       In addition  to writing the regulations, defining recyclable materials, and keeping the list of re-
 cyclables updated,  the Department of Environmental Management provides  technical assistance to
 help businesses meet recycling requirements.  DEM offers on-site consultations and provides copies of
 The Handbook for Reduction and Recycling of Commercial Solid Waste, and A  Guide for Preparing  Commercial
 Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Plans. Other public information and education materials are being
prepared.
      The Solid Waste Management Corporation is responsible for enforcement of regulations at
state-owned facilities. In addition, the SWMC provides information and technical assistance to solid
waste haulers and generators.
                              Commercial Recyclables

                              • Newspaper
                              • Glass, food and beverage
                                containers
                              • Tin-coated steel cans and steel
                                cans
                              • Aluminum cans
                              • Plastic milk containers (HDPE)
                              • Plastic soft drink containers
                                (PET)
                              • Corrugatedcardboard
                              • Sorted, colored ledger paper and
                                white office paper

                                             240

-------
 FUNDING

       Over a six-year period, the Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWMC) of Rhode Island is
 expected to provide approximately $30 million (roughly $5 per capital per year) to municipalities in
 the form of three-year grants. Under the SWMC funding program, municipalities will be reimbursed
 for a period of three years for reasonable additional costs which are incurred in operating their recy-
 cling programs. SWMC also provides the Department of Environmental Management's OSCAR pro-
 gram with funds to administer municipal recycling.
       OSCAR operates on an annual budget of approximately $1*.5 million which is funded through a
 broad-based litter and solid waste tax. OSCAR operates municipal and commercial recycling pro-
 grams, as well as a variety of other programs in litter control, cleanup and hazardous waste.
                             Other OSCAR Programs

                             Youth Litter Corps Program

                             Litter Control Grants

                             Prisoner Highway Cleanup Program

                             Used Oil Program

                             Hazardous Waste Reduction Program

                             Educational Programs

                             Compost Grants

                             Vehicle Battery Recycling Law

                             Adopt-a-Spot
CONCLUSION
      Rhode Island's mandatory recycling program has been in operation for almost two years. Dur-
ing that time, the state has had the opportunity to continually test and improve the program. Rhode
Island's experiences with recycling have resulted in eight "lessons" which may be applicable to other
states, countries or regions.
      First, recycling is an effective waste management tool.  Results from recycling have been pre-
dictable and reliable. In addition, recycling has had important benefits such as reduced environmental
damage and preservation of landfill capacity.
      Second, a broad-based statewide program which includes everyone, achieves economies of
scale in design, in operations of the recycling system, and in the processing and marketing of recy-
clable materials.
      Third, strong state or regional leadership is very important for achieving a comprehensive
effort. For example, in the municipal recycling program, cities and towns have been able to follow a

                                      241

-------
 clear and easy road map. The state prepared the basic program design, and provided a uide range of
 technical assistance. This has allowed municipalities to focus on operating their recycling collection
 programs.
       Centralized leadership has also prevented costly and confusing duplication of efforts. By
 providing a consistent definition of recyclables, constructing a Materials Recovery Facility, and com-
 mitting to market the recyclables if no one else does, the state has built a recycling system which is
 comprehensive and uncomplicated. This has minimized risk for participants and built confidence in
 the ability of the state to operate successful recycling programs. State leadership in providing capital
 and three-year operating funds to municipalities has also minimized initial uncertainty.
       Fourth, programs must be flexible and adaptable  to ensure success.  The most important thing
 is to get started, then adapt. For example, pilot testing of the Rhode Island municipal recycling pro-
 gram was a critical step in convincing skeptics  that recycling could work. Initial opposition from some
 municipalities was quickly resolved when public works personnel were given the opportunity to "kick
 the tires" of a real-life program. In commercial recycling, several large corporations began pilot pro-
 grams before state regulations went into effect. Their solutions to common recycling problems have
 helped other businesses plan recycling programs.
       Fifth, it is very important to evaluate all potentially recyclable material to allow for future
 expansion of recycling programs.  Some recyclable materials cannot be retrofitted into an existing
 recycling program, but must be included in the initial program design. For example, plastic milk
 containers and soda bottles, which were included in Rhode Island's municipal pilot programs, influ-
 enced the size and design of recycling trucks.
       Sixth, it is important to examine the waste stream and concentrate on eliminating materials
 which are major sources  of solid waste. In Rhode Island, office paper and corrugated cardboard
 occupied an inordinately large part of the state's landfill.  By recycling these materials, Rhode Island
 expects to divert significant amounts from the waste stream.
       Seventh, recycling must be convenient for residents. Rhode Island has made recycling easy for
 residents by providing containers for recyclables, requiring only minimal separation of recyclables
 from solid waste, and by providing curbside pickup.  Convenience has been a key to high recovery
 rates.
       Eighth, extensive  public information and education have resulted in high public awareness,
 understanding, and support for the programs.
       Rhode Island has  learned how to make recycling work as a solid waste management tool.
Future plans are to continue to judiciously increase the list of recyclables as markets for these re-
cyclables are identified and secured.
       The Rhode Island program has come a long way in showing what can be done in recycling,
source reduction and solid waste management.  We are happy to share the lessons we have learned
with other communities.
       Please feel free to contact us at any time if you would like more specific information about our
progress.


              The Rhode Island experience has shown that recycling can work effectively as
              an integral part of a solid waste management system. We have been particu-
              larly pleased with our progress in establishing markets for recyclable materials
              such as plastic milk containers, soda bottles and newsprint.  Currently, the
              Solid Waste Management Corporation is exporting paper at the rate of 60
              tons per day to European markets.  Needless to say, me results have been
              very gratifying.

                               Tom Wright, Director of the Solid Waste Management Corporation
                                           242

-------
      SEATTLE:  A CASE STUDY IN INTEGRATED PLANNING





                 Diana H. Gale, Director



               Seattle Solid Waste Utility







                     Presented  at  the



First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management



                     June 13-16, 1990
                            243

-------
Seattle has experienced  a  renaissance in solid waste management.
Three years ago, the City's Solid Waste Utility (SWU) was in chaos
and economic crisis; today, it is leading the nation in recycling
and a year ago  initiated an entirely new collection and disposal
system.  The crisis and economic distress forced public attention
to  focus  on  garbage;  the  renaissance is  the result  of  system
planning and  excellent staff work.   Seattle's  experience  can be
duplicated by other cities.

Seattle's system relies heavily on waste reduction and recycling,
the  most  effective  and  cost-efficient forms  of  solid  waste
management today.  Getting  the public to reduce or recycle waste
requires a  behavior change;  getting a behavior  change requires
getting people's attention.  Both the sense  of crisis and economic
distress  are  factors  necessary  to   force  public and  political
attention on  the problem.    For  decades garbage  collection  and
disposal has been a "silent service."  A citizen puts garbage out
(usually in unlimited amounts) and it diappears during the day for
little  cost  or free  (i.e.,  garbage  is  often  paid for  in one's
property tax).   As long as a citizen receives low  cost,  silent
service, there is no incentive to change behavior.  Seattle's is a
story of how garbage became one  of the top  four public issues in
the  Puget  Sound  region;  first  because  it was  a problem;  then
because recycling was such a success story.

BACKGROUND

The Seattle Solid Haste Utility  (SWU) contracts  out collection,
manages two transfer stations, is closing two landfills, and uses
the county  landfill  for disposal.   Seattle has a population of
490,000 and  a collection  base  of 150,000  customer  units.   Our
transfer  stations accept  residential and  commercial  self-haul
waste.  In addition, the commercial  haulers collect  225,000 tons
per year of commercial tons which are taken to private transfer
stations.    These tonnages  have  been dropping dramatically as  a
result of the  total  set of  solid  waste  programs.   The SWU is  a
Division of the Engineering Department but has an enterprise fund,
which means  it  is  run  like a  small business where rates  and
revenues have to match expenditures.  The  annual budget  of  the
Utility is  between $45  and $50 million  for operations with  an
additional $5-10 million a year for capital  expenses  depending on
what aspect of the landfill is currently under construction.

In 1987 the SWU was in crisis.   Rates had skyrocketed.   They  had
gone up more than 82% over the previous two years.   Both landfills
were closed with  no  other  disposal option  other than  the  county
landfill.   As part of the contract governing use of its landfill,
the county had given the city the opportunity to leave the  county
system if it had  its  own disposal option.   The city was given  a
                              244

-------
total of  six years to  select a disposal system,  get the system
permitted and complete any construction necessary on the selected
site.   At  the  time  the most likely  disposal  option was  an
incinerator.

PLANNING PROCESSES

In 1987, the SWU initiated four planning processes simultaneously.
The first was a comprehensive planning process  for future disposal
options.  This process had two pieces, one of which was called the
Recycling Potential Assessment (RPA).  The concept behind doing the
RPA  was that  the  City should  be willing  to  pay  as much for
recycling as it would spend for an  incinerator.   The Council asked
the question that if we were willing  to spend that much, how much
recycling could we achieve.  The second part of  the comprehensive
plan was a Disposal Options Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
We first did a Programmatic EIS and then a site-specific EIS with
four sites  selected for potential incinerator projects.   In the
Disposal Options EIS, we considered landfill options, incinerator
options and continuing  in the County  landfill.

The second piece of the planning process was to develop a curbside
recycling program.    We developed a  Request  for Proposals  (RFP)
which was performance-based in which we described the frequency of
collection,   the  type   of   collection,   and  put   the   major
responsibility for the design of the system on the private sector.
We also expected in that Request for  Proposals for the Contractor
to do all processing and all marketing of materials.

The  third part  of  the planning  process was  a redesign  of our
garbage collection  system.   Again, we used an RFP  for getting a
contractor  to  design a curbside  system.   Seattle  residents had
previously been using a backyard collection system.  With the new
collection contracts we moved the  City from backyard to curbside
service and we added a yard waste collection program.  We asked for
certain other services like "bulky item" (white goods, sofas, etc.)
pickup.

The  fourth  piece of  the  planning process  was  to design  a  rate
structure that  would complement our  recycling goals.   We  had in
place a variable can rate,  but we wanted the  system to further
encourage  and  support  recycling  and  complement the  new garbage
collection system we were going to have in place.  As part of the
rate structure, we gave customers a choice of  the level of service
they wanted from a  mini-can to three or  four  cans  and  then we
charged them according to the size of  can they selected.  The rate
structure was designed  so that rates  would go up steeply thereby
encouraging  customers  to  recycle more.   Recycling programs were
offered free and yard  waste  programs  were at a very low price as
                              245

-------
further incentive to divert waste from the garbage system.

As part of the comprehensive planning process,  we developed what we
call the  RPA (Recycling Potential Analysis)  model.   This  was a
model that was to predict for us how much waste reduction we could
achieve for various programs  that we might put in place.  The model
was based on electric forecasting models from the electric utility.
The model starts with  a prediction of waste stream composition and
estimates of growth rates in  various elements  of the waste stream.
The model analyzes a  range of different  recycling  programs,  how
fast they would come into operation, how much  they would cost,  and
what components of the waste stream  they would  reduce.   This
information  is  then fed  into a system  cost analysis which  can
predict  the  impact  selected  recycling  programs  will  have  on
collection,  transfer,  and disposal.  Finally, the  fourth step in
the model is to  determine how the system costs  transfer into a rate
structure.  Once rates are established,  they are iterated back into
the original projections  to  see  the impact they have on garbage
production  and  generation.   A second piece of  the  comprehensive
plan analysis  was to  do  comprehensive waste stream  composition
studies.  We have spent about $100,000 each year for the last three
years to test and measure what is in our waste stream.   This year
we are also  doing composition studies on the recycling waste stream
to see how well the data we get from our contractors matches what
we find in the recycling stream.

GOALS

As a result of these planning processes,  the City made a decision
to establish a  goal  of 60%  for recycling by  1998.   In  order to
achieve this  goal, there were specific  goals for specific City
programs.   Curbside recycling was to achieve  7.8%;  the  self-haul
dump-and-pick program a reduction of 4.8%; curbside yard waste,  a
reduction of  4.8%; apartment recycling  program,  a reduction of
2.4%; source reduction programs, a reduction  of 1%;  and backyard
composting,  a reduction of 2%.  In addition,  in order to achieve
the 60% recycling, we had to hold on to the 24%  private  recycling
which had been going on previous to the time we initiated curbside
recycling and we would have  to achieve an additional 10% of  new
commercial sector recycling.

In achieving a 60% recycling goal by 1998, we would still need to
dispose of  40%  of our waste.  50% of our waste would be about a
thousand  pounds  a day.   The City decided  to select a  landfill
option instead of an incinerator option.  We put our a Request for
Proposals for  landfill space  in Eastern  Washington or  Eastern
Oregon to get the benefits  of the dry, arid  climates which were
thought to be environmentally benign for a landfill.   Waste would
be put into compacted  containers at the transfer station,  taken to
                             246

-------
a railyard and loaded on rail  cars and long-hauled to the selected
site.  The site chosen was a site in Gilliam County, Oregon, that
is managed by Waste Management, Inc.

In addition to bringing all of these programs on line, the SWU has
other  recycling  and   disposal  programs  that  constitute  the
Comprehensive Integrated Waste Management System.  The City has had
a  history of  strong  private recycling  efforts.   The  private
recyclers  have  both  drop-box  and buy-back  centers  and  then
charitable organizations hold extensive  drives.  By  1986, the City
was  at 22%  recycling through  private efforts;  when the curbside
program  started  in  1988,  private  recycling was  at about  24%.
Currently, private recyclers still have buy-back centers and drop
boxes,  although  the  City's   collection  program  has   led  to  a
reduction in the quantity of the materials they collect.

Another  thrust of  Seattle's  system  was to  create a  permanent
household hazardous  waste  shed.   One shed is sited at  the South
Transfer  Station; a  second shed is currently being sited  in the
north end of the  City.   In  1989,  the shed collected  953 barrels of
materials,  of which  47%  was  latex  paint.    Of  the  materials
collected at the  shed,  63% are  recycled.   Some of them are solvents
that  are turned  into  different kinds  of  fuels  at a  chemical
processing plant.

The Utility also maintains active recycling centers at the transfer
stations.    The  transfer  stations  can  collect   all  the  items
collected in curbside recycling programs, which include glass, tin,
newspaper, plastic,  aluminum  and mixed  wastepaper.   In addition,
they collect cardboard, bulky items  such as refrigerators, stoves,
waterheaters, motor oil,  wood waste, and we have been experimenting
with a mattress recycling program.

It has been important to Seattle to  keep very current and accurate
data on the markets.   We make monthly projections of the markets
for  all the  items we are collecting.   In writing a contract with
one  of  the curbside recyclers,  we  agreed to share market risk.
Consequently,  we have  created an index of  the  historical  market
price for each product; and when price for the material goes either
10% above or below an index,  we begin to share the revenue or loss
for that particular product.   Seattle still has reasonable markets
for most of its materials.  Aluminum, glass and tin all have strong
collection points in the northwest.  Plastic is  being  picked up
through  a  local  branch  of  a  national  plastics corporation.
Newspapers are collected and deinked in  the northwest.  Most mixed
paper is sent abroad to Asia.  The mixed paper and newspaper prices
have  taken the largest dips.   Otherwise,  prices  have remained
relatively stable.
                              247

-------
To  support  and  back up  all of  these programs,  Seattle  has  a
variable can rate.  The variable can rate may be the critical piece
to all  the  programs because  it  gives a rate signal  by allowing
customers to have a choice over their level  of service, but charges
them for  the amount of  garbage they  produce.   A  customer will
select a size can and then pay by the volume.  For a mini-can (20-
gallon) a customer pays $10.70 per month for weekly pickup; 1 can
(30-gallons) is $13.75  per month; 2  cans (60  gallons) are $22.75 a
month;  and 3 cans (90 gallons) are $31.75 a  month.  In addition, if
a customer  selects  backyard service,  s/he pays a 40%  premium in
addition to these can rates.  Customers who  are unable to get their
cans to the curb because  they are handicapped or elderly are given
backyard  service at curbside  rates.    Low  income  customers  get
special reduced rates.  The City currently has 85% of its customers
on one can  or less.  In  1981, the average  number  of cans was 3.5
per each household,  so  there has been a tremendous response to the
variable can rate.

Overall, Seattle's programs  have  been highly  successful.  To date,
each of the programs we  have initiated is  performing at expected
levels  or  higher.   The  yard waste  and  curbside  programs  are
exceeding projected estimates for the first  few years of operation.
Our overall tonnage disposed was 22% less in 1989 compared to 1988.
The curbside garbage collection system also meant  that the City's
total cost  for garbage collection was less than it had been under
the backyard service system.

Although  most of  the  elements  of  Seattle's  programs could  be
adapted in  one way or another to most communities,  each community
is going to have its unique characteristics which  will affect how
those programs take hold and what levels of participation customers
will have in them.   There are certain elements about Seattle which
have made our success  in recycling  happen so quickly.   First of
all, there  is a  very strong concern about  the  environment.   This
means that for years citizens have been concerned about recycling.
They started recycling  in the  '70s and there was a strong recycling
business.    When we began  our  program in 1988, we  were already
achieving 24% recycling.   So we started with  a very strong base of
recycling before we began to initiate the  SWU programs.  A second
characteristic of Seattle which helps in encouraging recycling is
the large number of single family houses.   It is easier to send a
price signal to a family which pays  a garbage bill.   It is easier
to communicate with single family households,  especially when there
is a strong sense of neighborhood and  community.  We expect that
our multi-family programs will be much harder to initiate and much
harder  to achieve  the levels of recycling  we  have achieved  in
single  family houses.    So  the  preponderance  of single  family
structures  has helped  us achieve high recycling rates.   A third
aspect of our programs  which we have felt were important in making
                            248

-------
them successful  is to make  them convenient.   For  the recycling
programs we gave all customers who signed up a bin; for the garbage
collection system, again we gave all customers a wheeled bin.  If
you  are  asking  customers  to  do  so  much  additional  work  in
separating managing their  waste stream, then  it  is important to
make the collection programs as convenient as possible.  A fourth
element of  our program was  a  strong emphasis on publicity.   We
believe that it is essential to market and publicize  your programs.
We have spent a considerable amount of money on public information,
market  analysis,  and market  surveys to  determine  how  to  focus
future programs.  A final element of Seattle's programs which has
helped achieve high recycling  rates  has been the rate structure.
The  variable  can rate  undoubtedly  is  important  to  affecting
customer behavior.  When customers have to  pay by  the amount of
waste they produce, they become more conscious and attentive to the
amount of waste they are producing.  As a result, they will eagerly
seek out and participate  in alternatives such as recycling and yard
waste which reduce waste  from their garbage can. At  the point that
one puts a steep  inverted rate structure into effect,  however, it
is also important to have decision alternatives available so that
customers don't exhibit behavior such as illegal dumping.

In summary,  what  Seattle presents  as a model of integrated waste
management system is  a goal  toward which communities  can aspire.
However,   it  will  take  time   for  communities  to   get  the
infrastructure  in  place  to   make   high  levels  of  recycling
achievable.  We in Seattle believe our 60% goal is reasonable and
achievable.  We  are currently  exceeding projections on an annual
basis.  However, we started ahead because we had a strong private
recycling system in place, and a well  developed environmental ethic
in the community.
                              249

-------
 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING — LESSONS FOR THE 90's
              The Hon. Alfred B.  Del  Bello
                DelBello Lynch Associates
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16, 1990
                           251

-------
                         INTRODUCTION



     In the early 1970's, after the first Federal Clean Air Act



went into  effect,  many  municipalities  throughout this  nation



were confronted  with the  choice of either  closing their  old



incinerators or  spending a great deal  of money to bring  them



into  compliance by adding  the  necessary  pollution  control



equipment.   In  most cases,  the age  and condition  of these



facilities did not justify further investment and many were put



out of operation. It was in this context that elected  officials



and others responsible for solid waste  policy, particularly in



densely populated urban  areas,  first began to make systematic



determinations  regarding  short  term  and   long  term  waste



disposal.



     The   short  term disposal  option usually meant the local'



landfill.  However,  because of the  rapid rate at which these



landfills  were reaching  their  capacity  as  a result  of   the



additional waste being  added to  them  and,  in  light  of   new



environmental  concerns  being expressed over  the operation  of



these older unlined  landfills,  the identification of new  long



term  solutions  became   imperative.     In  many  communities



engineering consulting firms were called in to help.  Sanitation



people with hands on experience were often enlisted as well as



government officials and  planners with  no   real  solid waste



experience.  Indeed, there were very few solid waste management



professionals as we know them today.  Most people were  learning



on  the  job,   exploring  a  very  limited  number of   disposal



alternatives with limited  operating experience.   Vendors  were



selling experimental technologies and true recycling was  on the
                            252

-------
distant horizon.   It was in this environment that  solid waste



management planning as we know it today, was born.



     Lacking  the more  sophisticated tools  now available  for



analyzing waste composition and measuring and projecting future



waste and  recyclable volumes,  these early efforts  resulted in



plans which were often  inadequate.  They  succeeded,  however, in



one  area  where modern waste  management  plans  often  fail.



Reflecting  the  home grown,  broad  based community  involvement



which created them, these plans reflected the unique political,



economic and  demographic elements  of the community.   Although



controversial, support  for these early plans was garnered from



the  public more easily because the plans  emanated from  the



community  and its  elected officials rather than being  imposed



upon a community.



     As a  result of these initial  pioneering efforts  and with



the  passage of  nearly  twenty years,  our knowledge  and  skills



have been  significantly enhanced.   We  can  now measure  waste



composition  with more  accuracy  and project  future waste  and



recyclables  generation  rates.    We  can  examine  the  actual



operating  histories  of  systems  and  technologies  and  more



reliably  evaluate  future  performance.    Our understanding  of



environmental impacts has  progressed most dramatically  and we



have regulations and standards  in law  to  act as  guideposts.



Consultants are more knowledgeable and informed and the science



of  solid  waste  management  planning has  been  advanced  in  all



respects.



     With  this  progress has developed an interesting  problem.



Our  solid  waste  management planning efforts  are becoming rigid






                              253

-------
and predictable. As solid waste management analytical tools and
procedures have become  more standardized within the  industry,
solid waste  management plans  are  reflecting less  and less  a
community's unique circumstances.
     With the computers of solid waste advisors loaded with data
and plans  from  other  areas, a solid waste plan can emerge  by
merely  retrieving  the  standard  model   and  entering   the
predetermined variables.   This modern planning effort is  far
more removed from public input than those of the past.  We must
seek to renew the primacy of each  community's unique historic,
political, demographic and geographic factors into solid  waste
management planning in  order  to  assure  that these  plans  will
not just  sit idle in  city  hall.   We must once again develop
plans that the majority within a community will embrace and wish
to have implemented.
       There is also a great tendency today to avoid innovative
solid  waste  solutions because  they  are  nontraditional  and
perceived  to be  difficult for  regulators  to  accept.    This
attitude has caused consultants to  dictate solutions to locally
elected officials even though these elected officials  know that
the  plans,  as  outlined,   may  not be   practical  for   their
communities.
     The  solid  waste  management planning  process  needs  to  be
improved in a number of ways. There are  two improvements  which
are most  imperative.    First,  we  need  to  be more  willing  to
innovate in order to bring new solid waste management techniques
into practice.  Secondly,  technologies and systems must reflect
the unique circumstances of  a particular community as opposed to

                            254

-------
forcing  a  community  to  accept  a plan  that  for political,
demographic  or environmental  reasons  is not  and  cannot  be
embraced by the people.
     A solid waste management planning process which is targeted
toward  the  creation  of  a plan which  will  be  successfully
implemented  because it  reflects the unique characteristics  of
the  community requires  three  chronological  steps:  Community
Specific Research; Conceptualization; and Detailed Planning.
                              255

-------
                 COMMUNITY SPECIFIC RESEARCH
     Many recent solid  waste management planning efforts  have
focused  their  research  and  data  gathering  efforts   either
exclusively or predominantly on the community's historical and
current waste disposal and recycling activities.  This data is
clearly a necessary building block of any plan.
     Its primary value,  however,  is in  assuring that the  future
systems  and  facilities recommended  within the plan  will  fit
mechanically into existing structures.  The ability to  implement
the plan, however, will   require a broader understanding  of  a
community and an appreciation of certain specific factors  that
determine the  peoples'  response  to the recommendations of  a
solid waste management plan.
     Identifying the centers  of  power  and leadership within  a
community  is  an  important  early  step  in  the  solid  waste
management  planning process.    In  addition  to  the elected
officials at the state,  county and local level,  key individuals
within  the  press,  regional   and local  environmental groups,
business  and  neighborhood organizations and  local   political
party organizations must be identified and their unique concerns
and  interests  accounted  for.    Since  the time  necessary  to
research, plan and  implement a  solid waste  solution  almost
always exceeds the  term of office of some key elected officials,
the likelihood and impact of a change  in leadership during the
process must be assessed.  Too many municipalities have learned
the  hard way  that it  is essential to keep  the  solid waste
management  planning process out  of  the  political  elective
process by approaching the issues on a bipartisan basis from the
                             256

-------
start.



     Once the relevant centers of community leadership have been



identified, it is useful to review their recent history.  Issues



which have played a  role in the  evolution of the  leadership



structure have elements in common with those that will impact a



solid waste  management plan.   Understanding how these  issues



have been  resolved in the recent  past will help identify  the



elements  necessary  to be  able  to  implement a  solid  waste



management plan.



     Another valuable goal  of  the community specific  research



phase is  to identify  the  "personality"  of the community.  The



rural New  England  "Yankee" community,  for  example, sees  itself



as strongly independent.  Newer, innovative  solutions  to solid



waste  problems are  welcome whereas  "cookie  cutter"  answers



imported  from  other  states  or  regions  are  often  met  with



skepticism.   In order to understand how a community  looks  at



itself, what it feels about itself and where it thinks it wants



to be  in  the future,  one must  examine its history  from birth



through various periods of growth and restructuring.



     Of particular importance   is  a review  of the history  of



major public work  projects.   Did they achieve what  the  public



expected of them,  or  are they viewed as  failures?  How has the



community historically viewed the  ability  of the  public  sector



to deliver services effectively  and what has been its  experience



with major private sector service providers?



     Finally,   the  public's   sensitivity  toward   perceived



environmental  and  aesthetic impacts varies greatly from  one



community  to  the  next.   The important  issue  here  is to  what






                           257

-------
extent is a community willing to  incur  higher service costs or
other inconveniences in exchange for perceived environmental or
•aesthetic  benefits?   We  are  all  aware  of  the  dramatically
heightened  concern  for  environmental  issues which  is  being
experienced nationwide.   Nevertheless,  an examination of  how
local  issues  with  significant  environmental  and  aesthetic
implications have been resolved recently in a specific community
can provide clues as to which solid waste management options are
apt to be found acceptable.
     Another  important  aspect  of the  research phase  is  the
identification  of   relevant  zoning  and   land  use  planning
guidelines.  Conforming to land use and  planning  guidelines can
be a more difficult task than it first appears.   In addition to
complying with technical zoning and planning constraints,  other
egually important issues regarding the appropriateness of a site
for a solid waste management facility must be addressed.   It is
difficult, however,  to  address  these issues other than in  the
context of a specific community because  dramatic  differences in
siting  appropriateness  emerge  depending,  for  example,   upon
whether  the community  is predominantly  rural,  agricultural,
suburban or urban.
     An important element in determining the appropriateness of
a  site  is  the  impact  upon  traffic   patterns  and  related
transportation  issues.   Research in  this  area must go beyond
road patterns  and traffic  surveys.   The  residents'  views  of
their transportation system must also be identified.   Perceived
traffic congestion  is highly subjective and  dependent, again,
upon the rural or urban nature of the community.

                             258

-------
     The extent and  probable nature of citizen involvement  in



solid waste issues must also be considered during  the  research



phase.   The  emergence in  some  communities of  the  Citizens



Advisory Committee   (CAC)  as an important and regular player  is



simply the latest evidence of the  important and  growing role  of



citizen  involvement  in  the  solid  waste  planning  process,



nationwide.  Citizen involvement will be  generated from,  among



others, residents  who  live near  potential  facility sites and



from  local,  regional and national  environmental   groups  whose



primary concern relates to the impact of solid waste facilities



on the environment.



     Even the most technically sound solid waste plan will fail



in the implementation stage if the  positions  and activities  of



citizens groups have not been correctly anticipated.



     In the research stage,  an examination of how citizens have



organized and reacted to previous  issues and  events may suggest



what  to  expect  regarding  solid  waste  issues.    During the



research  phase,  efforts should be  made  to  determine  whether



citizen involvement  is apt to be on an  ad hoc basis or whether



identifiable   entities,   such   as   taxpayer  organizations,



neighborhood groups  or  specific  environmental groups,  will  be



involved.    Specific  individuals  within the  community who



historically play important  roles as interested citizens must  be



identified  and  their particular  interests  and concerns  taken



into account.



     Finally,  the community  specific  research phase of the



planning  process  must  identify  the  public's attitude  toward



solid waste and other environmental issues.





                             259

-------
     Numerous national and regional surveys have documented the



public's  deep  concern for  the environment and in some  cases



their willingness to incur higher prices and  inconvenience for



environmental benefits.



     The  public's  support   for  various  waste  reduction  and



recycling  programs  such  as  reusable  containers and  curbside



separation  is   one  of  many  examples.    However,  within  any



particular community there may be important attitude differences



that must be known and understood.



     Leading private sector  developers of solid waste  systems



and  facilities  are  beginning to  utilize  community  specific



attitude  surveys  or  polling  in the  project  evaluation  and



development  process.    Public sector  solid  waste management



planners  should  incorporate  well  designed,   professionally



executed local attitude surveys into the research phase of  their



solid waste  planning  efforts in order to  reveal the public's



attitude towards various  solid waste issues and  to  identify how



the public thinks their  officials  should  be reacting to  them.



The results are often enlightening  and at  times surprising.



     The   public's   attitude   towards   regionalization    and



intergovernmental  cooperation should also be tested.  Creating



an efficiently scaled region for solid waste management planning



can render significant benefits by capturing certain  economies



of scale and allowing for more advantageous siting choices.
                            260

-------
                       CONCEPTUALIZATION



     Armed  with a  thorough  and  clear  view of  the  specific



community at hand,  planners can now begin to conceptualize  an



appropriate solid waste management plan.



     Perhaps the  most important  aspect of  this  phase of the



planning process is  to build as broad a consensus  as  possible



among the  public,  various  interest  groups,  elected community



leaders and planners regarding the objectives to  be met by the



solid waste management system.



     To  fully  identify  these  objectives,  numerous  distinct



issues  must be addressed.    One  is  the extent  to which the



community wishes to  devise a solid waste management system which



relies   totally  or   largely  upon   facilities   within  its



jurisdiction  as opposed  to  a  system  which relies,  to some



degree,  upon out-of-region  facilities.   More and more states,



counties and cities  are  imposing restrictions or prohibitions



upon the importation  of waste.   As a result, some  communities



may make waste  management  self  sufficiency an important solid



waste management objective.   Others may be  willing to rely upon



some out-of- region facilities.



     The  ability  to  achieve  solid  waste  management  self



sufficiency can be greatly increased through the regionalization



of the  planning process.    Many  attempts  to develop  regional



plans have  failed,  however, because they  have  not achieved a



broad  based  consensus  regarding  system   objectives  before



addressing  the  more potentially  divisive  issues  of  site and



technology.  By approaching the  solid  waste planning process  on



a regional  basis, more community resources  can  be brought  to





                             261

-------
bear  in a cooperative  manner to  solve  difficult solid  waste
management problems.
     During the delineation of the solid waste system objectives
it is also  important  to establish which portions of the  waste
stream  are  to  be addressed  by  the  plan.    Attention may  be
focused  primarily upon  that portion  of the residential  and
commercial waste  stream  that is  currently being landfilled  or
incinerated  or  upon  the   community's  entire  waste stream
including  tires,  white  goods,  commercial,  industrial   and
household hazardous waste.
     Closely related to this issue is the community's  objectives
regarding recycling.  Rapid  advances have been achieved in  the
area  of  recycling   planning  and  implementation  and  many
communities  are well  on  their  way  to  achieving   aggressive
recycling target rates of  25% -  50%.   Given the rapid rate  of
technological innovation occurring in this field,  and  the strong
support   for  recycling   efforts   among   residential  waste
generators,   an ever  growing portion  of the  residential  and
commercial waste  stream may  be  recycled.   Since some of  the
disposal technologies to  be examined  in the detailed  planning
phase  of  the  waste  planning  effort  can  accommodate  the
uncertainty  of future  recycling  better than  others, it   is
important in  the  conceptualization phase to  define recycling
objectives as clearly as possible.  A recycling objective may be
to simply  meet recycling  requirements set by  the  regulatory
agencies, or it may be to minimize total  solid waste management
costs by avoiding  high disposal fees, or it can be to  recycle  to
the maximum extent possible, regardless of cost.

                              262

-------
     Another important issue which must be addressed during the



conceptualization phase  is how  the  community views  tradeoffs



between expected waste  management costs, perceived  and  actual



environmental  impacts and the  nature  and  magnitude  of  the



various system risks which must be borne by the community.   For



example, if a newer,  non burn  disposal  or recycling technology



avoids some of the undesirable environmental  impacts of  older,



more proven technologies,  is the  community willing to accept the



incremental  higher  system performance  risks  or  potentially



higher total system costs?  The  issue  of waste importation can



also be addressed in this context.  Will the  community consider



importing waste for processing and disposal  if this additional



volume will allow it  to mitigate  the potential for higher  future



disposal costs that may result from greater levels of recycling



activity or lower rates of generation?



     Finally, without referencing specific potential facility



sites or technologies,  does the community generally  recognize



the appropriateness  of host benefits  to be provided from the



revenues of the  solid waste  system to  localities which  are



selected as sites for transfer stations,  recycling or disposal



facilities?



     A  number of  important  results  should  emerge  from  the



conceptualization phase  before specific sites  or technologies



are considered.



     First, a broad understanding must emerge that the community



is facing or may soon face a serious crisis  if the tough solid



waste management choices  are  not addressed in  a  timely  manner



and an  appropriate  solid waste management plan  identified and
                             263

-------
agreed upon.  Second, it should recognize that certain difficult



tradeoffs  must  be  made  within  the  plan  to  balance   the



potentially  competing  concerns  regarding  cost  of  service,



environmental  and  aesthetic  impact,  system  performance  risk



allocation and future flexibility.  A well designed and executed



solid  waste public education  and information  program  should



begin by communicating these concepts clearly to the public.



     In addition, a consensus must emerge regarding the specific



criteria to be applied  in evaluating  and selecting  specific



sites  and  technologies.   The  relative  importance  of  these



evaluation  criteria must be  established in order to  reconcile



potential conflicting solid waste plan implications.



     For example, many communities have recently  begun examining



commercial   scale  mixed   waste  composting  systems  as  an



alternative to burn based technologies.  While the  composting of



organic  waste is  by  no  means  a  new  idea  or practice,   the



consideration  of  a  compost  based  system for  the  long  term



management of a community's mixed municipal solid waste  stream



is.   The sudden emergence of MSW composting as  an  important



technology  option  has  resulted  to  some  extent   from   the



widespread resistance by community groups  to the siting of  burn



facilities.    In   addition,  the  recent  development  of  this



technology by  system vendors  who possess sufficient  financial



and technical strength  to offer project  development  support and



system performance  guarantees equivalent to those offered  by the



older  and  larger  vendors  of  burn  technologies,  has greatly



enhanced the  appeal of  these  alternatives.   Nevertheless,   the



limited  operating  experience  of such systems in  the U.S.   may





                             264

-------
place greater  system  performance risks upon a community  which



chooses this technology.



     If the  planners  involved in  selecting between these  two



technology options have, during  the conceptualization  phase of



its planning  process,  developed a  consensus regarding how to



handle the tradeoff between the benefits of utilizing a non burn



technology and the potentially  higher  performance risks of  a



less well proven system, then this technology choice may proceed



more easily.



     One  effective way  some communities  have  addressed  the



tradeoffs involved in technology selection before  digging into



the specifics  of systems and vendors is by  establishing a list



of  evaluation  criteria and assigning  a numerical ranking  to



each.   This numerical ranking reflects a  consensus agreement



regarding the  relative importance of the criteria.



     Finally, a thorough conceptualization phase should  identify



a methodology to be utilized in the detailed planning phase.  A



properly  detailed  procedure for the  selection  of a  facility



site(s) is  a particularly  important preliminary step  to this



most controversial aspect  of a solid waste plan.  Based upon  the



knowledged  gleaned from  the community specific  research,  a



methodology  which  involves   a   broad  spectrum  of  public



representatives  in the  formulation of site  selection  criteria



should be defined.



     At this point in  the planning process a number of important



goals will have  been achieved.   In  addition, public confidence



in the solid waste decision making process  will be  strengthened



through  an  appreciation  for the thoroughness  and   logical






                            265

-------
sequence  of  steps  taken  up  to  this  point.   By  addressing



technology  and  site  selection  only  after  completing   the



community specific research effort and after detailing relevant



management issues such as technology evaluation  criteria,  site



selection methodology and  consensus  building,  the solid waste



planning process  will  be  management  driven.  This  will  help



avoid  the  pitfalls  of  plans  which  are  created  through  a



technology or site driven process.



     Only upon achieving the objectives in the conceptualization



phase can planners expect  to  succeed in the detailed planning



phase and subsequent implementation of the plan.
                            266

-------
                                PLANNING
     In the  detailed  planning phase of the process,  extensive



technical and  financial data  is  assembled.   Each  alternative



waste collection,  processing, marketing  and residue  disposal



technology  or  system  under consideration must be  thoroughly



detailed.



     For  each  of  the  solid  waste management  options  under



consideration,   three  important   elements;  life  cycle  costs,



environmental  impact,  and  risk  allocation  must  be  clearly



identified  in   order  for   community  specific  objectives  and



criteria to be applied.



     Comparing the life cycle costs  of each alternative involves



a  full   projection   of  all  capital  costs,  operating  and



maintenance costs,  residual disposal costs, tip fee revenues and



product or energy sales revenues.



     Within this life cycle cost  analysis, different  levels of



capital costs will be reflected through differing debt service



schedules.   Care  must  be  taken  to  utilize  consistent  and



reasonable assumptions regarding interest rates, debt to equity



ratios  (if  a  facility  is  to be  privately owned)  and  debt



maturity and structure.



     The  time  value  of money is  reflected within  the  cost



analysis  either  by calculating an  average  system cost  over  a



specified period of time or by  calculating the total net present



value of  costs  utilizing a reasonable and consistent  discount



rate.



     Through this process  a clear and  objective comparison can



be made regarding the total system  costs of each alternative.




                              267

-------
     Similarly,  a  thorough  comparative  evaluation   of   the



environmental and aesthetic impacts of alternative  solid waste



management options  must be undertaken.   Some aspects  of  this



process, such as comparing the air emission  standards  of,  say,



two different mass burn technologies,  will lend itself  to clear



quantification.  Others will require subjective judgements.   The



environmental and aesthetic impact of each alternative  must be



as fully identified as possible.



     Other issues must also be detailed  in  this phase of  the



planning  process.    An evaluation  of  alternative financing



options including public vs private ownership, taxable  vs  tax-



exempt  debt  and variable  vs fixed  interest  rates  must  be



undertaken.  Additionally,  alternative procurement methods  must



be evaluated.  In some  cases, local or state  law may require a



public RFP or bidding process.  If the planning entity  faces a



choice of procurement methods, the time,  cost and other  aspects



of each alternative must be identified and evaluated.



     The   purpose   for  this  detailed   identification   and



quantification of community  specific  objectives and selection



criteria is to finally  select the correct detailed  elements of



the plan.



     It  is not  uncommon  for those  involved  in  the planning



process  to  revisit  the  decisions  made   earlier regarding



objectives   and  criteria    once   the   technology  specific



implications of these choices start to become clear.



     In  fact, at  this point in the  planning process,   the



defining  and redefining of  system objectives  and evaluation



criteria  and  the  development  of an ever  greater  level  of





                             268

-------
financial  and technical  detail  regarding the  options  under



consideration should become a dynamic, ongoing process.



     Under the guidance  of  an individual or firm with  a  broad



knowledge  of all  aspects of  solid waste  management  and  who



maintains senior responsibility for the  overall  development of



the  plan,  the  highly  specialized  expertise  of   consulting



engineers, financial  advisors  and the legal community must be



drawn upon.  The  consulting engineers must assure that each step



of the  solid waste chain (generation, collection,  processing,



product  marketing,  and  residual  disposal)   is mechanically



integrated  within  the  detailed  plan being  developed.    The



attorneys  must  assist   in  the  procurement,   negotiation  and



contracting with private  sector vendors  and system  users,  and,



of course, in the permitting process.  Financial advisors  must



participate to assure that the revenues necessary to  support the



costs  of  the  system  are structured  in  a manner  that  will



guarantee access to the capital markets for financing.



      The  role  of  engineering,  legal   and  financial   experts



should  not be to identify the  "best"  solution,  but rather to



properly   identify   the  strengths   and  weaknesses  of   the



alternatives in  light of  the objectives  and selection  criteria



unique to that community.



     Finally, the most difficult aspect of the detailed  planning



effort must  be addressed...facility siting.



     The potential divisiveness of this issue  will have already



been significantly  lessened if the  solid waste planners  have



achieved  the  objectives  of the research  and  conceptualization



phases of the process.  Notwithstanding  the participation  of a






                             269

-------
broad  spectrum  of community  representatives  in  the  siting



process, however, and the development of a  consensus  regarding



site selection criteria and methodology, the actual selection of



a facility site must be the decision of the elected officials.



Since even the most ideal of  solid  waste  facility sites  will



encounter some level of community opposition,  elected  officials



must impose upon themselves  the obligation  to move forward  in a



timely manner even in face of some site opposition.



     The correct structuring of a host community benefit program



can play  an  important role in determining  the success of  the



siting procedure.  All too often planners assume that   monetary



benefits alone will adeguately address  the  concerns of the  host



community.  The fact is that many communities may  prefer  to pay



not to have a facility.



     By  correctly  researching  and  understanding   the   most



pressing  needs of the host  community and  structuring a  host



community package accordingly,  planners and elected leaders can



bring a valuable element  of creativity to the siting process.



     Host community benefits may take the form  of  up-front  and



annual  cash  payments or  the  provision  of  recreation,   law



enforcement, educational  or  other facilities and programs which



the community needs.  Since neighborhood leaders from within the



host community most clearly understand their  own unigjue needs,



creating a process by which they help specify the  elements  of a



host benefits package can be most effective.
                             270

-------
                          CONCLUSION



     The science  of solid waste  management planning has  made



several important  advances  in the past decade.   This progress



has, however,  been accompanied by  a  standardization of  solid



waste  solutions  which increasingly fail  to reflect  important



unique aspects of the communities they are  meant  to serve.   By



preceding the examination of alternative  technologies  and  sites



and  other  elements  of  the  detailed  planning  process  with  a



thorough program of community specific research and solid  waste



plan conceptualization,  detailed  plans will emerge which  more



fully integrate important unique aspects of the community.



     As a result more of  the plan's elements will achieve timely



implementation  and greater  progress  can  be  made  in  meeting



America's solid waste management challenges in the '90's.
                             271

-------
                         SOLID WASTE WARS:
                SITING A MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY
Brian R. Golob                                   Chuck Davis
DPRA Incorporated                               Wright County Department.
E-1500 First National Bank Building                 of Planning and Zoning
332 Minnesota Street                              10 N.W. Second Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101                          Buffalo,  Minnesota 55313
                              Presented at the

                        First United States Conference
                     on Municipal Solid Waste Managment

                              June 13-16, 1990

                              Washington, D.C.
                                    273

-------
                              INTRODUCTION






    Wright County, Minnesota's Solid Waste Task Force concluded a four-year planning



phase by completing and adopting a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in



July, 1987.  The Plan indicated that the County was to initiate yard waste composting,



recycling, waste reduction, and public education programs.  In addition to those low



technology programs, the County is also actively planning for a state-of-the-art secondary



material/solid waste composting facility which will manage the vast majority of its solid



waste.








    The Solid Waste Task Force recommended to the Board  of Commissioners that a



Project Management Team (PMT) be established to plan and guide the implementation



of the composting project. The PMT consists of five members from the Task Force;



two members are County Commissioners and represent the Board, while the others are



County residents.  Technical and Financial advisors assist the PMT.








    The first and most difficult task which the PMT addressed was selecting a location



for the proposed 165-TPD processing facility.  The PMT has been working on this task



since October, 1987.
                                    274

-------
                          SITE SELECTION PROCESS






   The first step in the siting process involved compiling, selecting, and prioritizing a




set of siting  criteria  which  are  presented  in Table  1.   PMT members assigned




environmental issues to the lowest priority because they could be mitigated or controlled



through careful planning and proper engineering.   The PMT decided to  assign the




criteria of feasibility and haul distance the highest priority; cost and population density



the second highest priority; odor control and water quality/hydrology/geology the third




highest priority;  and  visual,  agriculture,  noise, zoning, planning, fish  and  wildlife,



recreation, and historical/archaeological the fourth highest priority.








   The next major step involved assigning definitions  to four  siting criteria:  haul




distance, cost, population density, and zoning. A preliminary search encompassing area



approximately 160 square miles was established by using the definition for haul distance.



The  definition was used to demarcate (identify) the preliminary search area because it




placed the proposed facility close to the County's population center (minimizing future



collection  costs) and  to the largest sanitary  landfill  operating within the  County




(minimizing transportation costs provided the landfill received facility rejects; and some



compost distribution costs.)   In addition  to  haul distance, the PMT also considered



population density which is  directly related  to municipal waste  generation and cost,



limiting the search to a 7-, 9-, or 10-ton road.
                                      275

-------
                                   TABLE 1
                                 Siting Criteria
                SITING CRITERIA

  preferred sites have a minimum of ten to twelve
  acres for facility development and a potential
  for expansion

  preferred sites minimize haul distance from
  major sources of waste generation to the
  facility and from residuals to the landfill
- preferred sites minimize operational costs

- preferred sites minimize cost of constructing
  water, sanitary services, and other utilities

- preferred sites minimize construction or
  upgrading of roads for safe access to a 9- or
  10-ton road

- preferred sites are located in areas of
  lower population density
  preferred sites allow for adequate air flow
  for odor dispersion

  preferred sites minimize impacts on surface
  and underground water quality
  preferred construction sites are not located
  in a floodplain

  preferred sites minimize drainage or
  run-off to water courses and channel
  modification
PRIORITY# 1

Feasibility



Haul Distance



PRIORITY #2

Cost
Population Density
                                                            PRIORITY #3
Odor Control
Water Quality/
Hydrology/
Geology
                                      276

-------
                            TABLE 1 (continued)
                                Siting Criteria
              SITING CRITERIA

preferred sites are not located in
geologically unstable areas (e.g., sink
holes, peat soils)

preferred sites minimize negative visual
impacts on residences

preferred sites minimize consumption of
prime agricultural land

preferred sites do not significantly increase
noise in residential areas (once construction
is completed)

preferred sites minimize impacts on
local zoning

preferred sites minimize impacts on known
historical and archaeological resources

preferred sites minimize impacts on rare,
endangered and threatened plant and animal
species

preferred sites minimize impacts on federal,
state, county or local recreation
PRIORITY#4
Visual


Agriculture


Noise



Zoning
Historical/
Archaeological

Fish and Wildlife
Recreation
                                    277

-------
   After establishing the preliminary search  area which encompassed approximately
160 square miles, the PMT needed to narrow the area down to a manageable size.  To
do this, the  PMT used definitions for cost,  population  density,  and  zoning and
established seven search corridors along State  and County roads encompassing an area
about 14 1/2 square miles.

   Each search corridor was inspected by PMT members, County staff, and its technical
advisor. The goal  was to eliminate unsuitable portions within the search  corridors or
possibly eliminate a search corridor itself; and establish an inventory of working areas
which would subsequently be evaluated for potential sites. All of the search corridors
were evaluated using individual or combinations of siting criteria presented below. PMT
members formulated questions such  as the following  when they assessed the search
corridors.

   o      Feasibility/Water Quality/Hydrology/Geology - Does the working
          area contain at least one usable ten to twelve acre site which,  if
          designated, would  not pose any adverse affect on the environment
          (e.g., wetlands, or  floodplains)?
   o      Haul distance - Which working areas are closer to the landfill?
   o      Cost- How much will it cost to provide safe access  to a 9- or 10-
          ton road at each working area relative to the others?
   o      Population Density/Visual/Noise - Relative to other working areas,
         will more residential dwellings and  homeowners be  affected?

   During the search corridor evaluation, the PMT identified 13 working areas; two
of the working areas were County owned parcels, while the remainder were privately
owned.  The PMT compared  each working  area to one another in relation to  the
previously established siting criteria.  To complete the assessment, existing  information
                                     278

-------
such as U.S. Geological Service topographic maps, soil maps, residential well logs, HUD



Flood Plain Maps, DNR wetland maps, aerial photographs, and field inspection notes




were used to describe and characterize each working area.  Existing land  use  and




proposed residential or commercial development within and surrounding each working




area was also taken into consideration. Topographic features such as wetlands, drainage




ditches, lakes, ponds, and wooded areas were also noted.








    A detailed list of advantages and disadvantages was compiled for each working area.




Advantages included items such as:   immediate access to a 9- or 10- ton road, a



relatively  flat area,  no  residential dwellings located  within the  working area,  low




population density in the surrounding area, no surface water or wetlands on or  adjacent



to the working area, and some potential for visual screening. Disadvantages included



items such as: increased site development costs due to terrain, the need for right or left



turning lanes, homes located within working areas, 15 or more property owners within




1,000 feet  of a working area,  wetlands or ponds located within a working area, lakes



located one-quarter  mile or less  from a working area, an open field with little or no




naturally occurring vegetation, and private property.








    PMT  members  thoroughly  debated the advantages and disadvantages  of each



working area. They objectively and critically assessed the merits, and discussed existing



or potential problems associated  with each working area.  The PMT also developed a



methodology which was used to objectively compare and rank the working areas to one
                                      279

-------
another. Following extensive discussion, the PMT decided that the four highest scoring



working areas had the greatest prospect of containing a potential site.








    The next step involved selecting potential sites within the working areas.   After



careful  and thoughtful consideration of many factors, such as a 20 acre parcel  with a



minimum width of 660 feet, proximity to residences, surrounding land use, potential for



visual screening, access to a 9-ton road, and distance to utilities; the PMT selected five



potential facility sites within four working areas.








    After each site was selected, the PMT decided to proceed with a two phase site



evaluation process.  The Phase I work effort consisted of three tasks. The first task



involved preparing a detailed description for each site. To complete this task, each site



was jointly inspected by Wright County staff and a geologist from the County's technical



advisor. During each site visit, observations were made concerning the following items:



topography, drainage, vegetation, screening potential, electrical  utility line location,



surrounding land use, and sight lines from public roads and residences. Other sources



of readily available information were also reviewed for the site descriptions.  For



example,  to assess subsurface conditions six groundwater studies were reviewed.   In



addition to local geology and hydrogeology studies, real estate abstracts were reviewed



for evidence of past land uses which could have resulted in contamination of  soil or



groundwater.   Second, a preliminary cost analysis was conducted for the sites.  The



analysis included estimating and comparing site development costs (i.e., land acquisition,
                                      280

-------
public road upgrade, utility installation, site access road, and grading and dozing) and




two operating expenses (transporting facility rejects and groundwater monitoring) for




each site.  Finally, subsurface conditions (geology and hydrogeology) at the sites were



assessed based on readily available and reliable information.








    The PMT reviewed and assessed the information presented in the Phase I report.




After considerable discussion and debate, PMT  members decided on the following




actions.  First, they decided to eliminate one of the  potential sites from further active



consideration: and second, to proceed with  the siting work effort by continuing the




investigation at the remaining four sites.








    The Phase II evaluation consisted of visually inspecting and completing soil borings



at each site  to  characterize  the soils for construction suitability.  Soil borings were



completed using a hollow-stem auger.  A standard penetration test (which  is commonly




used  to estimate the bearing capacity of a soil), and split-spoon sampling procedures




were  completed for each boring from 0 to 5 feet in depth, and then at 5-foot intervals




until  termination of the borings.  One or two borings were taken at each  site.








    In addition to the truck-mounted borings,  one or two hand auger borings were




completed at each site in low areas or swales peripheral to the assumed construction
                                       281

-------
site. The purpose of these borings was to determine shallow soil characteristics, and



correlate these characteristics with those noted as a result of the truck-mounted auger



borings.








    Upon completion of the Phase II evaluation, the PMT had sufficient information



to make an informed decision regarding the selection of a preferred site. The members



reviewed previously  drafted reports  and memoranda, and selected  one of the four



parcels as the primary site and another to serve as an alternate facility site.
                                     282

-------
SOURCE SEPARATION vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
                         Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.

                  Director of Economic & Econometric Analysis
                   Sound Resource Management Group, Inc.
          7220 Ledroit Court SW, Seattle, Washington 98136 • 206/281-5952
                            Presented at the

       First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                           June 13 -16,1990
                                283

-------
                                         CONTENTS
                                 1. Introduction & Summary  ...  1

                                    2.  Model Description  ...  3

               3.  Results for a Large Urban Area with Ready Access to Markets  ...  7
                    A. Sensitivity of Optimal System to Disposal Cost Variations  ...   9
                    B. Sensitivity of Optimal System to Market Price Variations   ...   12

                  4. Diversifying Materials Collected to Reduce Price Risk  ...  16

              5. The Impact of Lower Housing Density on Curbside Collection  ...  16

                    6. Results for Suburbs, Small Towns, and Rural Areas  ...   17
                         A. Analysis of Cost-Effective Integrated Systems  ...  20
                                 B.  Impact of Waste Quantity  ...  20

                   7. Material-Specific Net Avoided Costs for Source Separated &
                           Unseparated Waste Recycling Methods  ...  21

                        8. Appendix for Net Avoided-Cost Formulas  ...   25
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Portions of this paper appeared as Section C, "Separation Analysis," in Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste,
  Volume III, Statewide findings & Recommendations, prepared by The Matrix Management Group, el al, for the Office of
   Waste Reduction and Recycling, Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 88-33C, January 1989.
Research for that portion of this paper was funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology under a contract with
      Matrix Management Group, who in turn subcontracted that work to Sound Resource Management Group.

                           The author received substantive data and review from:
Charlie Scott of the Matrix Management Group; Allen Fitz of R.W. Beck & Associates; Wayne Rifer and Rich McConaghy
  of RIS/RCC; Jay Shepard and Christine Chapman of the Washington State Department of Ecology; and Jan Allen of
Sound Resource Management Group. Todd Peterson of R.W. Beck & Associates labored to edit the portions of this paper
that appear in the Washington State Department of Ecology study. Russell Beebe of Sound Resource Management Group
                     performed the final edit, produced the graphics and typeset the paper.
                            The author remains responsible for any inaccuracies.

                                    Copyright © 1989 Jeffrey Morris
                             Originally reproduced on Simpson Recycled Bond
                                               284

-------
     SOURCE SEPARATION vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
                            1. Introduction & Summary
    As  waste management systems evolve
toward reliance on reduction and recycling in-
stead of disposal for handling municipal solid
waste, communities will need to make choices
among a wide variety of possible methods for
achieving their waste diversion goals. One cen-
tral issue will be the extent to which a commu-
nity emphasizes source separation versus proc-
essing unseparated waste, or both, as the central
strategy for its recycling plan. Source separation
is attractive as a way to minimize both contami-
nation and the amount of handling required to
prepare recyclable materials to meet market
specifications. On the other hand, source sepa-
ration may be less convenient for waste genera-
tors than having unseparated waste sorted at a
centralized mixed waste processing facility.
    Although economic cost is not the only cri-
teria used in developing a recycling strategy
and choosing a specific recycling plan, it is cer-
tainly a major factor. This paper describes an
economic optimization model called CurbCon-
serve (developed by Dr. Morris) that uses waste
management  system cost minimization as the
criteria for selecting  among source  separation
and unseparated mixed waste recycling meth-
ods, as well as for determining what amount of
waste should simply be sent to disposal.
    Because CurbConserve is an optimization
model, in addition to being an interactive spread-
sheet model,  it can evaluate relative costs for
various waste management methods and deter-
mine the cost-minimizing integrated combina-
tion for a particular community. Full account is
taken of avoided disposal costs, additional col-
lection costs that may be associated with curbside
recycling, and waste stream composition im-
pacts as waste materials filter through various
waste management methods  from generator
source to their final disposition. CurbConserve
automatically searches among the multitude of
possible combinations of specific management
methods to find that particular integrated com-
bination that  minimizes systemwide costs for
managing a community's solid waste.
    Results are reported in this  paper that
demonstrate  CurbConserve's application  for
single-family residential waste from urban, small
town and rural communities in Washington state.
An extensive  analysis of avoided costs for the
urban type community is given as the last sec-
tion of this paper and precise formulas for com-
puting net avoided costs are developed in the
Appendix to this paper. These formulas illus-
trate some of the complexities involved in actu-
ally calculating recycling's avoided  costs.
    The menu of specific waste management
methods considered by the CurbConserve model
for inclusion in the integrated system for Wash-
ington state residential waste  stream applica-
tions was:
       /
    • Existing privately operated buy-back and
     drop-site recycling systems.
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management
                                       285

-------
    • Weekly curbside collection of recyclables
      separated into three 11-gallon containers
      that are distributed to participating house-
      holds.

    • Biweekly collection of yard waste set out
      in containers that are provided by house-
      holds.

    • Weekly collection of food waste set out in
      5-galIon tightly lidded containers that are
      distributed to participants.

    • Weekly collection of refuse set out in 60-
      gallon containers that are provided to all
      households.

    • Self-hauling of refuse by households.

    • Mixed  waste processing at a centralized,
      capital-intensive facility to recover recy-
      clables and compostables.

    • Labor-intensive, mostly hand-pick central-
      ized processing to recover only recyclables.

     For the three Washington state residential
 community types, analysis of the cost-effective
 integrated combinations of waste management
 and recycling methods yielded a number of inter-
 esting conclusions. For multi-family residential
 or for commercial waste streams, for collection
 systems using either different containers or pick-
 up frequencies, or for method menus that in-
 clude other waste management and recycling
 programs, one  would expect CurbConserve  to
 yield optimal results that perhaps differ. For the
Washington state single-family residential waste
 examples  the generalizations about optimal
systems are:

    •  In the presence of existing buy-back and
      drop-site recycling that recovers about 10
      percent of waste, curbside collection of re-
      cyclables and lawn and garden waste can
      divert from disposal an additional 40 per-
      cent of single-family residential household
      waste—about half from source separated
      recyclables and half from source separated
      lawn and garden waste.      v

    •  Where  recyclable materials prices are
      strong, or disposal costs are high, source
      separation and processing of unseparated
      mixed waste are complementary, not com-
      petitive, recycling methods. However, if a
      community expects both materials prices
      and disposal costs to be low in the long
      run, then a choice between source-sepa-
      rated and unseparated waste recycling
      methods may be required.

    • Curbside methods for collection of single-
      family residential recyclables  and yard
      waste are most economical in urban areas
      near major recyclable materials markets.
      Curbside collection on a weekly basis for
      recyclables and biweekly for yard waste is
      less economical in smaller urban commu-
      nities and rural areas, but may still be op-
      timal given high disposal costs.

    • Lower cost-effectiveness of curbside col-
      lection in smaller towns and rural areas is
      primarily a function of waste quantity.
      However, cost-effectiveness of curbside
      methods also depends on materials prices,
      processing costs for recyclables  versus
      mixed waste, the portion of refuse self-
      hauled, and waste composition. Housing
      density is not critical.

    • Regionalprogramsforcollectingandproc-
      essing source separated recyclables and
      for processing unseparated mixed waste
      are most cost-effective.

    • To be most cost-effective, curbside collec-
      tion programs that use separate trucks
      should maximize the total quantity being
      collected at each curbside stop, including
      low-value materials such as mixed waste
      paper. Diversifying types of materials also
      reduces price risks.

    • The cost-effectiveness of both yard waste
      collection and mixed waste processing is
      dependent upon avoided disposal costs.
      Also markets must exist for compost prod-
      ucts.
    Besides computing the most cost-efficient
integrated combination of methods for manag-
ing solid waste, the CurbConserve model also
                                                        Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                            286

-------
allows the detisionmaker to vary input parame-
ters (such as disposal costs, materials prices or
participation rates) for determining whether the
combination of cost-effective methods changes
as an input parameter varies. For example, as
reported later in this paper, market price vari-
ations during the past decade are used to meas-
ure the risk that "market gluts" could result in
some source separation recycling methods be-
coming too costly relative to processing or dis-
posing unseparated waste. These price variations
also illustrate how revenues from materials sales
fluctuate less when more materials are targeted
by a community's recycling programs.
    It should be noted that CurbConserve yields
steady-state projections for long-run waste man-
agement costs using properly sized facilities, as
compared with the twenty-year time period lon-
gitudinal costs that are often used for solid waste
planning. The steady-state projection is believed
preferable for two reasons:
    1) It minimizes confusion about start-up
costs for new programs  and wind-down costs
for old or oversized methods. The projected
steady-state allows for straightforward compari-
sons of long-run cost for different integrated
waste management systems, as well as compari-
sons of disposition of the different waste materi-
als under each system.
    2) While issues about public versus private
ownership of facilities, life of existing facilities,
impacts on existing landfill capacity, and financ-
ing methods often require the twenty-year lon-
gitudinal analysis, decisions about overall waste
management strategy and comparisons of sys-
tem alternatives are more effectively focused by
examining the steady-state, long-run economic
implications.
    Finally, it is important to emphasize that
the projected costs yielded by CurbConserve do
not account for expenses associated with modi-
fying existing waste management systems and
starting up new recycling or composting pro-
grams. Rather, CurbConserve is used  to project
costs once the new integrated system is in  place
and fully operational.
                                2.  Model Description
    CurbConserve is a linear programming opti-
mization model that uses as inputs: 1) a menu of
specific waste management methods, 2) opera-
tional assumptions and 3) financial parameters
and costs, including amortization for capital
facilities needed by each particular waste recy-
cling or disposal method.  Basically,  the linear
programming technique is a systematic method
of searching for "that one" integrated combina-
tion of given waste management methods (among
the many possible combinations from the selec-
tion menu) and "that one" combination of mate-
rials to collect (for  source separation recycling
methods) in minimizing the net cost of manag-
ing a community's solid waste. Here, net cost is
defined to include revenues (both positive and
negative) from materials sales.
    The CurbConserve model is built on a Lotus
1-2-3* spreadsheet The general program for linear
optimization is What's Best!* developed by
General Optimization, Inc. to run in conjunction
with Lotus 1-2-3* spreadsheets. Numerous in-
put parameters (or assumptions) and a menu of
waste management methods provide the infor-
mation used by CurbConserve to find the least-
cost integrated waste management system. In-
put parameters for the example of a larger urban
area in Washington state are listed on Tables 1
and 2. The menu of specific waste management
and recycling methods for this example was de-
scribed above in the introduction and, as well, is
defined by the heading on Table 1, some of the
input parameters on Table  2 and the column
headings on Table 3.
    Table 1 lists residential single-family sub-
waste stream composition data and existing pri-
vately operated  buy-back/drop-site recycling
rates for the Puget Sound waste generation area
(WGA)  in Washington state in 1987. The table
also lists projected separation efficiencies for
materials source separated by households for
collection at the  curb. These efficiencies repre-
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Sofid Waste Management

                                         287

-------
CQ
r~
        CURBCONSERVE MODEL VERSION:  Weekly Recyclable*, food and Refuse Collection; Biweekly Tard Watte Collection
                                    US,000 Single family Urban Resldences<1-4 faoillles Per Building) In the Puget Sound WGA


                                                                              TABLE 1

                                  Wast* Stream Competition and Quantity Data,  Separation Parameters,  and Material  Price  Parametera
                                                                                                    1987 PgtSnd     Collection Truck
                                                                                                    Residential  Waste Oenslty(0/cu yd)
                                                                                                    Sngle Family




Watt* Component
Newsprint
Crgtd Cardboard
High Grade Paper
Mixed Waste Paper
ftflble Glat* Cntrws
Othr Rcyclbtt Qlatt
Alum Bevrge Cntnra
Tin Food/Bevrge Cns
ferrous Metali
Moo Ferrous Metals
Whit* Goods
PET Bottles
HOPE Bottles
Piste Pkgng/Ftln
Other P last let
Tires
Oth Rubber Product*
food
Lawn I Garden Watt*
Wood Waste
Cnst/Demo(Exct Wd)
Other Organic Watt*
Oth Inorganic Wit
1987
Resident!*!
Drop Off I
Buy Back
•.eyeing Rate
64X
29X
OX
ox
6SX
15X
26X
2X
54X
29X
B9X
OX
OX
OX
OX
OX
OX
OX
ox
ox
ox
Recyclable*

Separation Efficiency Compost

Hone Srtlng Mixed Waste
for Crbsld*Process(MWP)
Collection
	 	 K%
85X
BSX
85X
SOX
SOX
asx
40X
ox
ox
ox
SOX
SOX
35X
OX
ox
ox
90X
90X
75X
OX
ox ox
ox
OX
Sorting
15X
SOX
1SX
15X
60X
60X
60X
SOX
eox
40X
asx
2SX
2SX
ox
ox
75X
ox
ox
ox
2SX
2SX
ox
ox
Process
Hand Pick Capture Rate
Only During MWP
Sorting Sorting
15X 70X
SOX 35X
OX 70X
OX 70X
60X OX
60X OX
60X OX
OX OX
40X OX
40X OX
85X OX
25X OX
25X OX
OX 1SX
OX 1SX
75X 5X
OX 20X
OX 95X
OX 90X
25X 6SX
25X 10X
OX 90X
OX 30X
laste Comp* Rcycl
11. 6X
5.2X
0.3X
10. 4X
0.7X
5.9X
O.BX
1.9X
1.5X
0.4X
1.7X
0.3X
0.4X
4.4X
0.9X
0.4X
0.2X
8.2X
26. 9X
1.6X
0.7X
9.2X
6.2X
Trek Refuse
500
150
500
150
400
400
75
150
650
400
400
40
24
50
50
500
400
750
415
300
800
600
600
Truck
$60
600
900
700
1000
1000
150
300
750
500
400
300
300
300
300
500
600
1000
415
600
1000
900
750
                                                                                                           100.OX
         *  Includes  11.7X of Self Hauled Waste.
Source
Separated
Materials
Mkt Price
Per Ton
$45
$65
sioo
$25
1116
$40
$1.000
$49
$65
MOO
»20
$160
$200
$160
SO
$0
SO
SO
S5
$5
SO
SO
so
Material*
Sorted from
Mixed Waste
Mkt Price
Per Ton
S23
S33
$50
S13
$12
S12
$750
$37
$49
$400
$10
$48
$60
$48
SO
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
SO
SO
$0
MUP
Composted
Materials
Mkt Prlet
Per Ton
$0
SO
$0
SO
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
SO
$0
SO
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
                                                                                                                                                     $38
         Source for  torting  efficiencies and watte densities: Washington State Department of Ecology Best Waste Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste,
                                                             Volume  III, January 1989

-------
<=
<"

!
§
I
JV
JP
s
f
                                                                                                      TABLE 2

                                                                Truck tout* ind Collection Coit Parametert; Proceiflng and Disposal Cost Parameter!
                                                                                                           Truck Data
                                                                                                                                                                           Dally Collection Information
           Daily Watt* Volu»t
-------
sent the percentage of material from each waste
stream category that a curbside collection par-
ticipant will keep separate from mixed house-
hold waste to set out for recycling collections.
    The projected recydables separation effi-
ciencies for mixed waste processing (MWP) and
hand-pick sorting indicate the portion of each
waste material that will be pulled out of mixed
household  waste by, respectively, a capital in-
tensive, mixed waste processing facility (using
both mechanical and manual sorting) or a labor
intensive, mostly hand-pick processing facility
    The compost process capture rate (or com-
postables separation efficiency) is that portion
of each waste material that will be separated out
for composting by  a capital intensive, mixed
waste processing facility. The total amount of a
particular waste material that will be diverted
from disposal by a capital intensive facility de-
signed for sorting and composting unseparated
residential solid waste depends on the sum of
the mixed waste processing recyclables separa-
tion efficiency and the compostables separation
efficiency. In the case of newsprint, for example,
the equation from Table 1 is: 15% + 70% = 85%,
indicating  that  85 percent of newsprint in un-
separated waste will be diverted.
    Finally, Table 1 lists CurbConserve parame-
ters for waste materials densities when loaded
on a recycling or refuse truck, in addition to the
market price parameters for recovered materi-
als. These price parameters are based on 1988
Puget Sound WGA market  prices and reflect
deductions for costs involving transportation
from processing facilities to resale markets.
    Table 2 lists the following collection system
parameters:

    • Waste stream quantity in tons per work-
     ing day.

    • Residential household solid waste genera-
     tion rate in pounds per week.

    • Efficiency of the collection system includ-
     ing housing density (measured as number
     of single-family residences per road mile)
     and cubic yard capacity of collection ve-
     hicles.

    • Participation rates for all collection meth-
     ods and set-out rate for weekly recyclables
     collection.

    • Collection stop times and truck unload-
     ing (tipping) times.

    • Average truck speeds  and distances be-
     tween truck base, truck routes, and proc-
     essing or transfer/disposal sites.

    Table 2 also lists the real interest rate used to
compute constant-dollar collection container and
truck amortizations, processing and disposal costs
per ton, collection container and truck costs, truck
operation and maintenance costs, and truck labor
and administrative costs, as well as a summary
of daily collection information for the optimal
integrated combination  of waste management
and recycling methods. These latter data are
discussed in Section  3. Except for the optimal
system truck requirements, all other data  on
Tables 1  and 2 provide the basic information
used together with the menu of recycling, com-
posting and disposal method alternatives  by
CurbConserve to determine the cost-minimizing
integrated combination  of waste management
and recycling methods.
6
                                          290
        Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing

-------
        3.  Results for a Large Urban Area with Ready Access to Markets
    Table  3 lists 23  waste  categories and
CurbConserve's recommended  integrated com-
bination of methods to manage each of them
economically in a large urban area in the Puget
Sound WGA which has ready access to recydables
markets. Existing, privately operated buy-back
or drop-site recyclers are projected to continue
to handle about 47 tons, or 9 percent, of the 500-
tons-per-working-day waste stream. This is a
decrease from the 59 tons that existing recyclers
handled in the absence of curbside recycling.
The 12-ton decrease in drop-site recycling is
caused  by  a projected diversion of recyclables
from drop  sites into curbside  recycling  due to
curbside's  greater convenience. The CurbCon-
serve model specifies an operational hierarchy
for diversion programs that gives buy-back pro-
grams first  opportunity to divert waste, followed
by curbside recycling programs, then drop-site
programs and finally mixed waste sorting meth-
ods.
     About 41 percent of newsprint, or 24 tons,
and 25 percent of aluminum cans, about one ton,
are recycled through buy-back operations. A total
of about 22 tons of newsprint,  corrugated card-
board, refillable and other recyclable glass con-
tainers,  ferrous and non-ferrous metals and white
goods are recycled through drop sites.
     Curbside recyclables amounting to  almost
97 tons, or 19 percent of daily single-family resi-
dential waste, are collected by the weekly three-
container collection system. CurbConserve's op-
timization  procedure chooses  the materials to
include in curbside recyclables  collection as well
as whether or not to use this source separation
method. Materials included in the large urban
Puget Sound WGA area program are all types of
recyclable paper;  glass, metal  and plastic food
and beverage containers; and plastic packaging
and films.
    Biweekly yard waste collection is also cost-
effective. This program diverts about 109 tons,
or 22 percent of daily waste.
    The only source separation program that is
not cost-effective  is separate collection of food
wastes.  The amount of food waste available at
each household is too small to warrant a truck
and weekly route for its separate collection. In
fact, as shown on Table 2, recycling, yard waste
and refuse trucks collect an average of 19 to 21
pounds at each household. Only a little over 3
pounds of food waste are in each household's
weekly waste stream — too little to justify a sepa-
rate collection. On the other  hand, applying
CurbConserve to a commercial waste stream has
suggested that separate collection of food waste
from restaurants is cost-justified, given enough
restaurants in a service area to warrant a  sepa-
rate route.1
    The most intriguing result from the large
urban  area example is CurbConserve's  finding
that mixed waste processing to recover recyclables
and compostables is economical even when about
50 percent of the single-family residential waste
stream has been previously removed by source
separation methods — i.e., by buy-back and drop-
site recyclers, by weekly home collection  of re-
cyclables, and by bi-weekly home collection of
lawn and garden waste. Processing the remain-
ing unseparated waste that is collected or self-
hauled as refuse diverts an additional 177 tons,
or 35 percent, of residential waste from disposal.
    Recovering compostables is critical to this
result. Hand-pick sorting without compostables
recovery is not economical because the recovery
rate for just recyclables from mixed residential
waste is too low downstream from extensive
source separation recycling to justify the expense
of going through every ton of mixed refuse, even
at the relatively low unit cost for hand picking.
Thus a market for mixed solid waste compost
products is essential for mixed waste processing
methods. In Washington state residential waste
applications, it was assumed that mixed waste
compost would generate no revenue, but that it
could all be diverted to productive uses if sold at
a zero revenue price.
1. See Technical Memorandum to Work on Waste,
Avoided Cost Analysis for St. Lawrence County, New York,
Using Source Separation of Recyclable Material b Mixed Waste
Processing, Sound Resource Management Group, Inc., June
1989.
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                                           291

-------
          03
          t-
          m
                                                                                     TABLE 3

                                                         Sunmary of Optimized System Waste Allocations, Costs and Revenues
                                                                               Dally Tons  Nanaged  Through  Indicated Method
                       Waste Component
CO
 Newsprint
Crgtd Cardboard
High Grade Paper
Nfxed Waste Paper
Rflble Glast Cntnrs
Othr Rcyclble Glass
Alum Bevrge Cntnrs
Tin Food/Bevrge Cns
Ferrous Metals
Non Ferrous Metals
 White Goods
 PET Bottles
HOPE Bottles
Piste Pkgng/FUm
Other Plastics
Tires
Oth Rubber Products
Food
Lawn & Garden Waste
Wood Waste
Cnst/Demo(Excl Wd)
Other Organic Waste
Oth Inorganic Wst

            Total Daily Tons

Costs and Revenues Per Ton

  Collectiondncluding Container Costs)

  Processing

  Disposal

  Less:Revenue

       Net Cost

Memo:Total Daily Cost

Memo:Annual Cost Per Household
Buy Back Crbsd Rcyc Crbsd Yrd/fd Drop Site
24
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
8)



to
$0
$0
22
17
1
33
1
11
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
6
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
97
$91
$22
SO
$70
$43
$4,151
$9

















0
109




109
(60
$23
$0
$5
$78
$8,518
$18
3
3
0
0
1
3
0
0
4
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22




$0
$0
$0
MUP Hand Pick Disposal Total Tons
8
6
0
16
0
9
1
5
3
1
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
39
23
7
1
42
9
177
$65
$56

$8
$113
$20,051
$42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0

$0
$0
$0
$0
1
1
0
3
0
6
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
14
4
0
1
2
3
1
2
5
22
70
$65

$50

$115
$8,048
$17
58
26
2
52
3
30
4
9
7
2
9
1
2
22
5
2
1
41
135
8
4
46
31
500
$63
$29
$7
$17
$82
$40,768
$65

-------
    This leaves only about 70 tons, or 14 per-
cent, of the residential waste stream that requires
disposal. In a large residential urban area with
ready access to markets for all recyclable paper,
glass, metal, plastics and organics, a residential
recycling rate of 86 percent is achieved through
a combination of source separation and mixed
waste processing methods. The annual integrated
system cost per household for this high recov-
ery rate is indicated on Table 3 to be a projected
$85 per household and $82 per ton.
    In this example, the existing private buy-
back and drop-site system is specified to have
no cost. The same assumption was made for col-
lection costs for self-hauled refuse.  Of course,
households pay directly in terms of transporta-
tion and tipping costs for hauling recyclables to
private recyclers  and waste to disposal  sites.
However, the objective in this application of
CurbConserve was to minimize public sector costs
of managing residential solid waste. Here the
public sector included all waste management
and recycling collection, processing and disposal
methods, except for the self-hauling of refuse to
public disposal sites,  the self-hauling of re-
cyclables to private buy-back and drop-site re-
cyders, and the private buy-back and drop-site
operations themselves. In other applications,
these methods could be given non-zero  costs
and judged for inclusion in the optimal waste
management system on that basis.
    For comparison, Table 4 lists volumes and
costs when the waste management system does
not use curbside collection of recyclables or yard
waste. In this case private recyclers divert about
59 tons, or 12 percent, of residential waste from
disposal. Mixed waste processing diverts an ad-
ditional 339  tons, or 68 percent, for an overall
system recovery rate of about 80 percent. An-
nual cost per household is  $94, or about 11 per-
cent more than for the more complete source
separation plus centralized mixed waste proc-
essing system.
    However, collection costs are about 21 per-
cent less without the extra collection routes for
recyclables and yard waste. Without these source
separated materials home  collection routes, 46
refuse trucks are needed to pick up an average
35 pounds of waste from each of the 118,750
households that choose to use weekly refuse
service. This compares with the 32 refuse, 27 re-
cyclables, and 16 yard waste collection trucks (a
total of 75 vehicles) used for the source separa-
tion system.
    As a final comparison, if mixed waste proc-
essing is also excluded, the cost per household
rises another $4 per  year to $98. The overall
recovery rate from residential waste in this case
falls dramatically to just 12 percent because only
recovery by private sector recyclers remains as a
disposal diversion method.
    A few additional observations may be made
about the collection system necessary to accom-
plish collection of both recyclable materials and
yard waste, as well as unseparated refuse  (see
Table 2). First, a greater portion of each day is
spent actually collecting yard waste  than  col-
lecting recyclables due to the larger trucks used
to collect yard waste and the greater density of
in-truck  yard waste materials versus that for
recyclables. About 75 percent of the working
day is spent on the lawn and garden waste col-
lection route; the remainder involving driving
to and from facilities and unloading. This com-
pares with about 55 percent route time for the re-
cyclables truck, due to the necessity of making a
midday trip to unload at the recyclables proc-
essing center. Second, the ability to compact refuse
also yields a greater amount of actual route time
for refuse collection, equalling about 72 percent.
Finally, about 25 percent of the working time in
each day on all route  types is spent driving to
and from the collection route, to and from the
unloading site, and end-of-day emptying.
   A.  Sensitivity of Optimal System to
         Disposal Cost Variations

    The disposal cost input parameter was varied
and the CurbConserue model was used to check
for any resultant changes in the cost-effective in-
tegrated combination  of waste management
methods. Disposal costs were set at $50 per ton
for the initial results reported in the previous
section, and then varied downward in $5 incre-
ments for this sensitivity analysis. Disposal costs
are assumed to include transfer and transport of
first U.S. Conference on Municipal SoRd Waste Management

                                            293

-------
     CO
     r-
                                                                                 TABLE 4
                                                     System Waste Allocations,  Costs  and  Revenues Without  Curbside Recycling Methods
                                                                           Daily Tons  Managed  Through  Indicated  Method
                   Waste Conponent
8
B
 Newsprint
Crgtd Cardboard
High Grade Paper
Mixed Waste Paper
Rflble Glass Cntnrs
Othr Rcyclble Glass
Alum Bevrge Cntnrs
Tin Food/Bevrge Cns
Ferrous Metals
Non Ferrous Metals
 White Goods
 PET Bottles
HOPE Bottles
Piste Pkgng/FIlm
Other Plastics
Tires
Oth Rubber Products
 Food
Lawn & Garden Waste
Wood Waste
Cnst/Demo(Excl Wd)
Other Organic Waste
Oth  Inorganic Wst

            Total Daily Tons

 Costs  and Revenues Per Ton

   Collection(Including Container Costs)

   Processing

   Disposal

   Less:Revenue

       Net  Cost

 Memo:Total  Daily Cost

 Memo:Annual Cost Per Household
Buy Back Crbsd Rcyc Crbsd Yrd/Fd Drop Site
24
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
ts>



$0
to
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
io
$0
$0
$0
$0
8
8
0
0
2
4
0
0
4
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 34
$0
$0
to
SO
$0 $0
to to
to to
MWP Hand Pick Disposal Total Tons
23
16
1
44
1
15
2
7
3
1
1
0
0
3
1
2
0
39
121
7
1
42
9
339
t57
t52

$3
1101
t34.238
t71
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
to

to
to
to
to
4
3
0
8
0
10
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
19
4
0
1
2
13
1
2
5
22
101
t57

tso

t107
$10,833
$23
58
26
2
52
3
30
4
9
7
2
9
1
2
22
5
2
1
41
135
8
4
46
31
500
$50
t35
$10
t5
$90
$45,071
$94

-------
              Figure 1: Effect of Disposal Cost on Recovery Methods & Total Recovery Rate
                               125,000 Urban Residential Single-Family Households
o
c;
3D
rn
700%-i Percent
 00%-f Recovered
 80%-
 70%-
 60%-
 50%-
 40%-
 30% J     29%
 20%
 10%
  0%
     $0
                                                          86%
                                            51%
                                                           35%   Mixed Waste Processing
                                                                  for Recyclables and
                                                                  Recovery of Compostables
                              n
                                             IT
                                             22%  Source Separated Lawn & Garden Waste
                                                   Collection & Recovery (bi-weekly)
               12%
9%  Private Drop-Box / Buy-Back System
          $5
             $35
$50
                                $55  $60   Disposal Cost ($/ton)

-------
refuse to the disposal site whenever that site is
further than 15 miles on average from collection
routes (see Table 2). Increases in disposal costs
above $50 would not change CurbConserve's
optimal combination. However, increases in dis-
posal costs would offset the effects of reduced
materials prices. A sensitivity analysis for mate-
rials prices is discussed in the next subsection.
    The effect of varying disposal cost is shown
graphically on Figure 1. The first recovery method
to become uneconomical when disposal costs
fall below $50 is mixed waste processing. Table 3
showed that processing unseparated refuse cost
$56 per ton of recovered recyclables or com-
postables. This is because mixed waste process-
ing costs $40 per ton of refuse handled, yet it can
recover only about 72 percent of  waste proc-
essed. The remaining 28 percent requires dis-
posal.
    Average revenue for materials recovered is
$8 per ton, for a net mixed waste processing cost,
excluding collection, of $48 per  ton. Thus when
disposal costs drop to $45, mixed waste process-
ing is no longer economical.
    When disposal cost drops to $30, home
collection and centralized composting of lawn
and garden waste ceases to be cost-optimal. At a
disposal cost of $30 or less per ton, the savings
realized by collecting yard waste  with refuse
(rather than separately) are no longer offset by
avoided disposal costs.
    Finally, at 1988 prices for curbside collected
recyclable materials, disposal costs must drop to
near zero before home collection of source sepa-
rated recyclables is not optimal At a disposal
cost of at least $5 per ton, avoided refuse collec-
tion and disposal costs plus the net revenue from
selling recyclables are greater than the expenses
of providing household recycling containers, op-
erating a reading truck and preparing recyclables
for market.
    To summarize the results  of the disposal
cost sensitivity analysis for a large urban area in
the Puget Sound WGA:

    • At 1988 PugetSound WGAmaterials prices,
      curbside collection of recyclables is cost-
      effective even at near-zero disposal costs.
    • Curbside collection of lawn and garden
      waste is economical at disposal costs above
      $30.

    • Mixed waste processing is cost-effective as
      a supplement to source separation meth-
      ods at disposal costs above $45 per ton.

    • Annual savings from public sector recy-
      cling programs depend on disposal cost.
      At disposal costs of $5 to $30 per ton, sav-
      ings of $1 to $5 per household per year are
      realized from weekly curbside collection
      of source separated recyclables. At disposal
      costs of $35 to $45 per ton, savings from
      home collection of both recyclables and
      yard waste are $6 to $10 per household per
      year. At disposal costs of $50 and up mixed
      waste processing can be combined with
      both source separation methods to increase
      annual  savings to $13 or more per house-
      hold.
   B.  Sensitivity of Optimal System to
         Market Price Variations

    Sensitivity of CurbConserve results for a large
urban single-family residential area in the Puget
Sound WGA to change in market prices was
also investigated. Prices shown on Table 1 above
were varied in 5-percentage-point increments
for all materials. Variation of prices for just a few
materials would have less impact than the same
relative increase or decrease of all prices. In fact,
as discussed below, prices are unlikely to all
move simultaneously in the same direction at
the same rate. A recycling program that diversi-
fies and includes more materials thus reduces
price risk. However, to simplify the price sensi-
tivity analysis, it was assumed that all prices do
change proportionately.
    The 1988 Puget Sound WGA prices shown
on Table 1 yield an average value of $38 per ton
for waste having the composition of waste gen-
erated  by residential single-family households
in 1987 (also shown on Table 1). Home collection
of recyclables and yard waste, as well as proc-
essing  of mixed refuse remaining after source
separated materials are removed, are all cost-
12
        Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                         296

-------
effective recovery methods at these 1988 price
levels. Given the efficiency parameters listed on
Table 1 and the participation rates listed on Table
2, the CurbConserve model shows these three
public sector sponsored programs recovering
about 77 percent  of the 500-ton-per-working-
day single-family residential waste stream.
    Mixed waste processing is most sensitive to
lower material prices. If prices drop just 25 per-
cent below their 1988 level to an average per-ton
value of about $28, mixed waste processing
becomes uneconomical. This result is depicted
in Figure 2. It is also computable from Table 3
which shows that a reduction of the revenue
yielded by mixed waste processing from $8 to $6
per ton leaves that method's net cost, excluding
collection costs, equivalent to the $50  cost of
disposal.
    Public sector recovery drops from about 77
to 41 percent when mixed waste processing is
removed as a diversion method. The recovery
figures given on Figure 2 exclude private recy-
ders' recovery which accounts for about 9 per-
cent diversion whenever home recyclables col-
lection is offered  as a public  sector recovery
method, and about  12 percent when curbside
collection is not offered. Adding the appropriate
private recycling rate to the public sector rates
on Figure 2 will yield total recovery rates consis-
tent with those shown on Figure 1.
    An interesting result of the price sensitivity
analysis is that removing materials from curbside
collection as prices fall is not practical. Removal
of any material present in the recyclables con-
tainers in significant quantity reduces the pounds
collected per stop to an average that makes re-
cyclables  collection too expensive relative to
refuse collection. This result is consistent with
the implication already mentioned that to be
most cost-effective a weekly curbside program
using a separate collection truck needs to target
low-priced but high-waste-quantity materials
such as mixed waste paper, in addition to the
usual newsprint and container glass and metals.
    At about 50 percent of 1988 prices curbside
recycling becomes inefficient relative to mixed
waste processing, as depicted on Figure 2.  At
prices 40 to 50 percent of 1988 levels,  the  re-
cyclables that come back  into the unseparated
refuse stream when curbside recycling is not
available add enough value to the mixed waste
to make processing it for recyclables and com-
postables recovery again economical, even when
it would not be cc "t-effective to do so  down-
stream from home collection of source separated
recyclables.
    At lower materials prices this tradeoff be-
tween source separation and mixed waste proc-
essing recovery methods is not surprising. At
$50-per-ton disposal costs and strong materials
price levels such as those experienced in 1988,
the methods are complementary rather than com-
petitive. But when materials prices are half their
1988 level, CurbConserve's optimization calcula-
tion suggests that the methods do become com-
petitive. This means that expected  future mate-
rials prices might be a critical factor in choosing
source separation or mixed waste processing for
a community's main recovery strategy.
    Materials prices in 1988 averaged about 20
percent above their average level over the past
ten  years, according to U.S. Department of La-
bor Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price
Indices for three wastepaper types—newspa-
per, corrugated cardboard and mixed papers;
steel scrap; nonferrous scrap; and for aluminum
used beverage can scrap. However, by the end
of 1988 these materials prices for the most part
had fallen to their ten-year average level. In ad-
dition, materials prices fell below 50 percent of
their 1988 average level less than 10 percent of
the  time over the past ten years. Based  on his-
torical experience, then, one would not expect to
encounter low materials prices in the long run
that would make a community choose between
source separated and unseparated waste recy-
cling methods. Rather, rising disposal costs will
dictate a phased approach to bringing first source
separated and then unseparated waste recycling
methods both on line.
    Finally, Figure 2 shows that home collec-
tion of lawn and garden  waste is  cost-optimal
even when compost products yield no revenue
net  of transportation-to-market costs. This re-
covery method is driven solely by disposal cost-
avoidance and is  essentially independent of
market revenues.
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Sotid Waste Management

                                           297
                                        13

-------
     a?

     «i


     t'.S
8
00
  JP
  *,
  fl
  5
n

 u
                                 2: Effect of               on

                                                                     «•*«»•
                           Rale
                              I   •*-  ;    +
                                            $30             $45

 $38 = 1908            WG/l Fate



+       +
                          a

                          *                    i

                          s Ltwn &                  i

-------
                          3:                                 for

                                     19801§ April 1189            I98S = 100)
250-
200-








!




**
«**" *
* *
» i
» f









»
f
t
t
t
*
***
*
#
*
* *%»
* / _1
                   ;
 100'
    0
                           $t ^^^l*1^ WW
                                              (Ncvxptmi C'oiffffj-f'ffofj Cwdbofird. Mwrt      Papot,
                                              Aluminum ficwwy ContMws, Tin food ^        Cans,
                                              ftvrwis Afoto/", flo« FwroW)
                                                                                                *  t
                                                                                                 f  I
                                                                                                 » f
                                                                                                  » «
                   **
                   r*
                   I *7U I       i %/C/t,
I9a4     19^5      isao
1957

-------
            4.  Diversifying Materials Collected to Reduce Price Risk
     Figure 3 shows monthly price indices for
recycled newspapers and recycled aluminum
beverage cans for the period January 1980 through
April 1989. These are Bureau of Labor Statistics
Producer Price Indices with their reference month
computed to be December 1986 equals 100.
     Figure 3 also shows a price index for seven
recyclable materials—newsprint, corrugated
cardboard, mixed waste paper, aluminum bev-
erage containers, tin food and beverage cans,
ferrous metals, and non-ferrous metals. This
combined index is based on a weighted average
of the BLS indices  for recycled news, recycled
corrugated, recycled mixed papers, carbon steel
scrap, nonferrous scrap, and aluminum used
beverage can scrap. The weights are calculated
from the relative tonnages recycled shown on
TableS.
     What the price indices on Figure 3 show
quite dearly is that revenue fluctuations for a re-
cycling program can be reduced by targeting
 more materials for diversion. The markets for
 different recyclable materials are not all driven
 by the same economic forces at the same time, so
 that prices for different recyclables move in dif-
 ferent directions and magnitudes at any given
 point in time. This diversity allows a commu-
 nity to reduce the revenue risk in its recycling
 program by targeting a multiplicity of recyclables
 rather than just a few materials for its recycling
 systems.
     Average revenues from materials sale will
 be reduced when lower value materials such as
 mixed waste paper are  targeted by recycling
 programs. But the savings in cost due to efficien-
 cies of scale in collection, the avoided refuse col-
 lection and disposal costs, and the reduction in
 revenue fluctuations over time will compensate
 a community for the reduction in average per-
 ton revenues received from its recycling  pro-
 grams.
        5. The Impact of Lower Housing Density on Curbside Collection
     The households-per-road-mile density pa-
rameter, listed on Table 2 at 125 houses per mile,
was varied to test whether the integrated resi-
dential waste management system that is most
cost-effective for an urban Puget Sound WGA
area would change as a result. To conduct this
analysis it was assumed that daily waste vol-
ume is 50 tons per working day and that collec-
tion truck speeds increase to some  extent as
household density decreases. All other parame-
ter data listed on Tables 1 and 2 remained con-
stant—except for number of collection trucks of
various types, truck cost per ton collected, and
other collection system characteristics determined
by CurbConserve's optimization calculations.
    Table 5 lists the various household density
and associated truck speed assumptions used to
determine the impact of housing density on the
cost-effectiveness of source separation and home
collection recovery  methods. The table shows
the results of the test of housing density on annual
cost per household, both with and without home
collection of source separated recyclables and
yard waste as an adjunct to mixed waste proc-
essing.
    Reducing household density from 125 house-
holds per mile, or about 85 front feet per lot, to
20 per mile, or 528 front feet per lot,  does in-
crease the annual cost of managing solid waste.
Further, collection costs for home collection of
only refuse go up by less than they do for the
integrated system that includes home collection
of recyclables and yard waste. But the increase
in source separation collection costs is not great
enough to completely offset the additional re-
cyclables recovery revenue and disposal cost
avoidance savings from home collection of re-
cyclables and yard waste.
    A density of 20 households per road mile
could be associated with as few as 40 house-
16
        Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                            3OO

-------
Households Per Road Mile   125
80
                                     TABLE 5
Effect of Varying Household Density
40    20
Truck Speed (MPH)
Between Stops
To/From Routes & Tipping
Annual Cost Per Household
With Source Separation
(% Recovered)
Without Source Separation
(% Recovered)
10
30
$88
(86%)
$94
(80%)
10
30
$90
(86%)
$95
(80%)
15
45
$90
(86%)
$95
(80%)
20
50
$94
(86%)
$96
(80%)
holds per square mile (16 acres per dwelling)—
for example, a rural area that has roads spaced
one  mile apart. Thus the results exhibited in
Table 5 suggest that household density is not the
principal determinant for cost-effective  collec-
tion  of source separated materials. The next sec-
tion  of this paper explores this issue in greater
depth.
               6. Results for Suburbs, Small Towns, and Rural Areas
     Up to this point, CurbConserve model para-
meters have reflected the waste composition,
collection and processing characteristics of a larger
urban area, as shown on Tables 1 and 2.  Waste
composition and materials prices for the Puget
Sound WG A were used to specify these parame-
ters for a large urban area. This paper now con-
siders optimum integrated waste management
methods for smaller urban areas, small towns,
and rural areas. To do this the Washington State
Northwest and North Central WGA1987 single-
family residential subwaste stream compositions
and 1988 materials prices were used—the North-
west WGA to characterize smaller urban areas,
suburbs and small towns; the North Central WGA
to characterize rural areas.2
     Tables 7 and 8 show waste composition,
private recycling rates and prices for the North-
west and North Central WGA's. The most sub-
stantial difference from the Puget Sound WGA
in waste composition is that newsprint com-
prises 6 to 7 percent of residential waste  rather
than 12 percent. Table 6 details major differences
in private  recycling rates and materials prices.
Table 6 also lists other comparisons for 50-tons-
per-working-day waste quantity service areas
in the three residential community types.
2. See Washington State Department of Ecology, Best Man-
agement Practices Analysis for Solid Waste ,Volume T. 1987 Re-
cycling and Waste Stream Survey, January 1989, for all sub-
waste stream composition detail used in this paper.
                                                                                       TABLE  6
                     Comparison of Parameters & Optimum System Costs
                     WGA
                                 Large Urban Small Urban   Rural
                                    Puget    Northwest    North
                                    Sound              Central
                     Waste Quantity
                       (tons/working day)
                                      50
                                 50
                     Household Density
                       (units/road mile)
                                      125
                                  80
                     Disposal Cost
                                     $50
                                 $50
                     Average Materials Price     $38
                                               $35
                     Refuse Self-Haul Percent    5%
                                               5%
                     MWP Optimal
                                      Yes
                                 Yes
 50
 40
Truck Speed (mph)
Between Stops
To/From Route

10
30

10
45

10
45
$50
                                         $23
                     Private Recycling Rate
                       WithCurbside           9%        4%      4%
                       Without Curbside        12%        5%      4%
                                         20%
                     Processing Costs (assumes regional facilities)
                       Mixed Waste            $40       $40      $40
                       Recydables              22        33      $33
                       Yard Waste              23	30      $30
 No
                     Source Separation
                       Yard Waste Optimal       Yes        No       No
                       Recydables Optimal	Yes	No	No_
                     Recovery Rate
                       With Source Separation   86%       84%      44%
                       Without Source Sep.      80%       78%      4%
                     Annual Household Cost
                       With Source Separation    $88       $105     $105
                       Without Source Sep.	94	102	98_
                     Number of Collection Trucks
                       With Source Separation      898
                       Without Source Sep.         5	5	4
 First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                                             301
                                                                                             17

-------
09
rn
N
CUKIMKM MOO. VERSION* UMk)y fcryrlfklM, F«od Md M*t» Colltctlnt) llNttlily Yard Uiitt follfrtion
                        12,500 Sln|1t Fwlly fcfarten or IM|| TOOT ftttidmtill-4 F«iliM Pw Mldino.) in tht *rth-f*t UGA
                                                                                       TflRE 7

                                                UMtt StrtM Coapotltiwi ind Duntlty D.U,  StfMritlon Pirutttrt, ind MittrUi (VIct PirHtttri
Mutt taponmt
                                 1*7
                              IttldtnUil
                               Ivy Itch I Hew «rttn| Hiitd Uutt  Hud Pled
                                Drop Off for Crbtldt PNcMtlNUP)   Only
                                  fttqrctiblt* ttpiritlon Efficltncy  Cohort
                                                                 Promt
                                                                C«pt«rt R«tt
                                                                 Durln, MM>
                              ieyclrf lUlt UllfctlM   leHtnt     8ertln«    Sortlni
NMprlnl
Crftd Unlbo*rd
Hl|h Aridt Ptptr
Ml >td Ibttt Piptr
Rflblt dm Ditnrt
Othr KcyelMt Blm
Alt* l»vr|t Cntiri
Tin Foed/lrvrft CM
Ftrrovt Hrtilt
Non Ftrraw Milt
Wiltt Soodt
PCI MUM
HVC lottltt
PUte Pkn/Flli
Mhtr Plutln
Tlrtt
Oth INbtar Pr«d Ton
i*0
Ml
«M
19
194
429
*9K
t«
«3I
«7K
46
1115
ttss
4131
40
40
40
40
»
«
40
40
40
HittrUlt
Scritd fro*
HI ltd Htftt
Wit Prlct
PwTon
4W
431
444
43
19
49
4740
432
438
4393
43
435
447
4«l
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Mf>
topottid
Hittrlili
Nkt Prlct
PIT Ton
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
                                                                                                                100.0*
 • InelvdM tt.lt of fclf Hnlfd HnU
                                                                                                                                                            433

-------
CUBCONSfAt HXa «»IWi Uttkly RccyclablM, Food and Rtfti* Colltctieni Uwtkly Yard Haiti Colltction
12,500 8ln|lt Fully Rural ftt*idmt«f(l-4 FwlllH Ptr Building) In tht North Ctntnl MM
TMU 1
Uattt Btrtia Cnpnltlon and Quantity Data, Stparatlm Parutti
1917 RKycliblN StptratlM Efriclttcy CMpwt



Uaitt Cwponent
NtMprlnt
O|td Cardboard
Hi |)i ft-adt P»ptr
Mi ntd Uaitt Paptr
Rflblt Slaw Cntnn
Othr Rcyclblt Blau
Alia Btvrjt Cntnrt
Tin Food/Vtvrgi CM
Firrowi MttaU
Non Ftrroul Nttall
UMtt Seed*
PET BotllM
HDPEBottln
Plate Pktnf/Fili
Othtr Plntlei
Ttm
Oth Rvbbtr Product*
Food
Lam 1 Gardtn U»tt
Uood Uaitt
Cntt/DMotEircl Ml
Othtr Orianlc Uaitt
Oth Intrianic Uit
•H > Includn 12. OK of
CD
Co
RnldtnUal
*uy lark 1 HUM
Dr«pOff for


t Srtlnf Ml»td Uaitt
Crtaldt ProcMilM<>)
Rcyclnf (Utt Colltction
29K
(K
OK
OK
(OK
2K
4W
OK
39K
IK
OK
OK
OK
M
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Stlf Hail id Uaitt.


ISK
BSK
UK
tSK
SOK
30K
ISK
40K
OK
OK
OK
SOK
SOK
35*
OK
OK
OK
90K
90K
TSK
OK
m
OK



Sortinf
IM
SOK
ISK
ISK
60K
(OK
(OK
•OK
•OK
40K
UK
23K
2SK
OK
OK
TSK
OK
OK
OK
25K
23*
W
OK




Promt
Hand Pick Captw* Ratt
Only
Eortini
ISK
SOK
OK
OK
(OK
(OK
(OK
«
40K
40K
UK
2SK
25K
OK
OK
75K
OK
OK
OK
2SK
25K
OK
OK



Durin| MUP
Sortlni
70K
35K
70K
70K
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
M
OK
OK
15K
ISK
5K
2M
95K
9W
(SK
IM
90*
30K



I9«7 frthcnt    Colltction  Truck
RMidmtiiJ  Uutt Dmtitxll/ri yd)
Sn|lt Folly
Utitt Cwp«  Mcycl Trek RtfM*
(.OK
4.«K
0.4*
10. M
I.3K
5.3K
l.OK
I.9K
2.3K
o.«
0.5K
0.3K
0.4K
4.5K
I.IK
0.5K
0.3K
».4K
2S.TK
t.lK
I.7K
10. m
7.9K
500
ISO
500
ISO
400
400
75
ISO
650
400
400
40
24
50
50
500
400
730
415
300
BOO
(00
(00
900
(00
900
700
1000
1000
ISO
300
750
500
400
300
300
300
300
500
(00
1900
415
(00
1000
900
750
      100. OK
  Source   Hattriali
Stparattd  Sorttd froi
NattrlaU  Niitd Uaitt Mattrlalf
Kkt Prlct   Mkt Prict  Nkt Prin
 Ptr Ton    Ptr Ton    Ptr Ton
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            W
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            M
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
                                                                            to
145
ttS
1100
IT
176
131
I9M
139
m
»7BI
II
<«sn
imi
to
to
to
to
ts
ts
to
to
to
t23
133
tso
t4
19
19
1738
ta9
135
t39l
II

-------
       A. Analysis of Cost-Effective
            Integrated Systems

    As Table 6 shows, residential source sepa-
ration is not strictly economical for small urban
and rural areas with characteristics as specified
by Tables 6,7 and 8. When smaller communities
and rural areas have lower material prices, more
self-hauling of waste to disposal facilities, higher
processing costs and reduced quantities of cer-
tain recyclables such as newsprint, as well as
lower housing densities, then home collection
methods for source separated recyclables and
yard waste increase annual public sector waste
management costs. These integrated system costs
exceed regular collection and disposal costs by
$3 to $7 per household. Of course other consid-
erations, such as increased diversion from dis-
posal, might still make source separation a de-
sirable waste management practice.
     Three further observations should be noted.
First, the weekly curbside recycling system used
in the CurbConserve model versions described in
this paper is quite likely one of the more expen-
sive methods for collecting source separated re-
cyclables. By reducing collection frequency, al-
ternating refuse and recyclables collection, com-
bining refuse and  recyclables collection on the
same vehicle, orcomminglingrecydablesin fewer
than three containers, a small community might
still find source separation a cost-effective waste
management method.3
    Second, the processing costs shown on Table
6 are based on the assumption that processing
facilities are shared with other communities. The
quantity of recyclables or yard waste that can be
source separated from a 50-tons-per-working-
day waste stream  is  too small to permit their
being processed alone at a reasonable cost in
new capital intensive facilities of the type as-
sumed for processing large quantities from a
500-tons-per-working-day waste stream.*
3. For example, see Bullock, Dave, and Burk, Debbie,
"Commingled vs. Cuibside Sort," Biocyde, June 1989, pp.
35-36.
          i
4. See Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste,
Volume III, Section C,RgureC-3,for some data gathered by
Jan Allen, RE., Sound Resource Management Group, Inc.
     Third, mixed waste processing is not opti-
mal for the rural area, primarily because of low
materials prices. In addition, processing costs
would be higher than $40 per ton if a 50 tons per
working day waste management system built
its own facility. As with recyclables and yard
waste processing costs, the $40 cost parameter
assumes new regional facilities shared with other
waste management service areas.
       B. Impact of Waste Quantity

     The results reported on Tables 5 and 6 sug-
gest that quantity of waste managed is more sig-
nificant in determining the economic viability of
source separation methods than is household
density. To examine this issue further CurbCon-
serve was run for a community having small
town characteristics as given in Table 7, but waste
quantity was reduced to 8.3 tons per working
day.
     At 8.3 tons of waste, just one refuse truck is
needed to collect waste when no home collec-
tion of source separated materials is offered. How-
ever, three trucks (one for each type of home
collection) are necessary if both recyclables and
yard waste are source separated and collected at
the curb. This raises the annual cost per house-
hold from $108 to $120, or $12 per household.
     In comparison, the 50-tons-per-working-day
system needs 5 trucks for refuse only, versus 9
trucks (3 recycling, 2 yard waste, and 4 refuse) to
manage source separated materials. In a system
of this size, the extra home collections increase
annual costs by only $3 per household.
     The conclusion from this analysis and the
analysis of household density effects seems to
be that waste quantity is much more important
than household density in determining whether
source separation and home collection is eco-
nomically viable. As is the case with processing
costs and facility size, collection costs for source
separation systems are also  subject to some
economies of scale. Expansion of service areas
through cooperative agreements may thus make
source separation economical in more remote
areas or smaller communities where it would
otherwise be too costly.
20
         Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                           304

-------
          7. Material-Specific Net Avoided Costs for Source Separated
                     & Unseparated Waste Recycling Methods
    "Avoided cost" is a concept that is increas-
ingly being used to justify waste reduction and
recycling programs. For example, in New York
state it has been memorialized into a general
statewide municipal law which requires com-
munities by September 1,1992 to adopt a law or
ordinance requiring that waste left for collection
or delivered  by the generator to a solid waste
management facility should be separated into
recyclable, reusable  or other components for
which economic markets exist. Economic mar-
kets are defined by the law to exist whenever the
full avoided costs of proper collection, transpor-
tation and disposal of source separated materi-
als are at least as great as the cost of collection,
transportation and sale of said material minus
the amount received from the sale of the mate-
rial.
    Based on laws and regulations such as this
New York state general municipal law, one can
expect a good deal of inquiry into proper calcu-
lation of avoided costs for various recycling
methods versus various disposal methods.
Because CurbConserve is an optimality model, it
implicitly uses avoided costs to determine the
least-cost integrated waste management and
recycling system that can be selected from the
input menu of various specific waste manage-
ment and recycling programs. Further, the lin-
ear programming technique used  to find this
cost-minimizing integrated combination has, as
part of its explicit output, what are called "shadow
prices." For recycling programs, these shadow
prices for waste stream materials managed by
that recycling program are intimately related to
avoided costs. Each shadow price represents the
effect on total system costs of being able to re-
cycle one more ton  of any given material by
means of that recycling program, whether home
collection of  source separated materials or re-
covery through processing of unseparated ref-
use.
    However, there are two differences between
shadow prices and avoided costs. The first is
that as indicated in the New York state law
recycling's avoided cost refers to savings in ref-
use collection, transportation and disposal costs
when a ton of some waste material is kept out of
garbage cans and is instead recycled. To obtain
these savings in handling refuse, a recycling pro-
gram incurs its own collection, transportation
and processing costs, as well as obtaining some
revenue from the sale of recyclable materials.
    On the other hand, the shadow price for the
waste material in question would be the net of
the avoided garbage costs,  the recycling
program's costs, and the market revenue. Be-
cause it is this net cost which determines whether
recycling a  waste material would reduce a
community's waste management system costs,
the term "net avoided cost" (NAC) will be de-
fined here to mean this net sum of avoided ref-
use costs plus recycling revenues minus the re-
cycling program's costs. (The Appendix to this
paper contains precise formulas for net avoided
costs for both curbside and mixed waste proc-
essing recycling methods.)
    The second difference  between shadow
prices and avoided costs, as well as the differ-
ence between shadow prices and net avoided
costs, is that for a recycling method such as mixed
waste processing (which has both recovered
materials and compost as its outputs), both
avoided cost and net avoided cost would be
stated in terms of a ton of the material (for ex-
ample, newsprint) managed by (input into) the
mixed waste processing method. Alternatively,
the shadow price for mixed waste processing is
the value in terms of reduced waste manage-
ment costs of one more ton of material (for ex-
ample, newsprint) actually recycled by (output
from) the mixed waste processing method. The
difference between the two measures of net
value—shadow price and net avoided cost—is
thus a multiplicative factor, given in the example
of mixed waste processing  by the recyclable
material's separation efficiency in the mixed waste
process sorting operation.
First U.S. Conference on Muntctpal Solid Waste Management
                                                                                      21

-------
     For other recycling methods, such as
curbside collection of source separated recyclable
materials, that do not convert input waste mate-
rial into both recovered materials and compost,
net avoided costs and shadow prices are the
same. For all types of recovery methods, any
difference  between shadow prices and net
avoided costs would  involve a multiplicative
factor. Amultiplicativedifferencedoesnotchange
the decision as to whether a particular material
should be recycled, regardless of whether the
criteria is based on its having a positive net
avoided cost or a positive shadow  price. The
analysis in the remainder of this paper will be
conducted  using net avoided cost to provide
comparability with use of the avoided cost con-
cept in the literature on recycling.
     Table 9 lists material-specific public sector
net avoided costs for both source separated and
unseparated waste recycling methods for the
Puget Sound WG A urban single-family residen-
tial subwaste stream  discussed earlier in  this
paper. The table also  lists in the first two col-
umns the public sector marginal cost for addi-
tional refuse. The first column gives additional
cost for managing an extra ton of household
garbage when that ton is not run through a mixed
waste processing facility but is instead directly
disposed. The second column lists the added
system costs for an extra ton  of waste when
mixed waste processing is involved prior to
disposal.
    When an extra ton is taken straight from the
garbage can to disposal, the added public sector
cost is the same $103 for all waste stream mate-
rials. This $103 is related to the net cost for dis-
posal of $115 per ton shown on Table 3 above in
that the difference reflects the $12 per ton annual
cost for the refuse container supplied to each
family. In the examples reported in this paper,
the CurbConserve model takes the household's
refuse container costs as fixed. The additional
costs of an extra ton of household refuse are,
then, the $50 disposal cost (which includes any
transfer and transportation expenses), plus the
$56 per ton collection truck cost (shown on Table
2), which is reduced to $53 per average ton dis-
posed by households because 5 percent of house-
hold refuse is self-hauled to the disposal facility.
     When unseparated waste is run through a
 mixed waste processing facility, added cost for
 an additional ton of some material is a function
 of the material's recovery efficiency as a recy-
 clable, the rate at which the unrecycled portion
 can be converted into compost and the market
 value of the recovered material. For a material
 such as cardboard which has a high rate of sepa-
 ration into recyclables and a high rate of conver-
 sion into compost for the remaining portion, or
 for a material such as aluminum which has a
 high rate of recyclables separation and a high
 price for those recovered materials, the reduc-
 tion  in cost by using mixed waste processing is
 substantial, as shown by the differences between
 the marginal costs in the first two columns on
 Table 9.  In fact  an extra ton of aluminum in
 household waste would actually reduce total
 public sector waste management  system costs
 by $337 through its recovery in the mixed waste
 sorting facility.
     The third column of Table 9 explicitly lists
 the net avoided costs for mixed waste process-
 ing that account for the differences between
 columns one and two. For a few materials which
 have low combined recyclables and compost
 separation efficiencies, or which have low prices
 for recovered recyclables, net avoided costs are
 negative. However, because mixed waste proc-
 essing operates on the entire unseparated waste
 stream, the decision to use this recycling method
 is not made on a  material by material basis. It is
 the weighted average net avoided cost that de-
 termines whether the method is cost-effective.
 This weighted average is in turn dependent on
 waste stream composition and the extent of source
 separation recycling, because the weights used
 are the tons of each material in unseparated ref-
 use.  For the material specific net avoided costs
 for mixed waste processing given on Table 9,
 weighted average net avoided cost is $2.
    Table 3 showed that the net cost per ton for
mixed waste processing was $113, with process-
ing costs averaging $56 per ton diverted from
disposal and revenue from the sale of materials
averaging $8. The net of these two averages is
$48, which makes mixed waste processing slightly
preferable on a cost basis to disposal at $50 per
ton. This cost savings of $2 per ton is the same as
22
        Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                          306

-------
                                                                      Table 9

                           Material  Specific Net Avoided Costs for Source Separation and Unseparated Waste Recycling Methods


                                                              Marginal Benefit/(Cost) of Extra Ton Managed By Indicated Method
                 Waste Component

                 Newsprint
                 Crgtd Cardboard
                 High Grade Paper
                 Mixed Uaste Paper
                 Rflble Glass Cntnrs
                 Othr Rcyclbte Glass
                 Alum Bevrge Cntnrs
                 Tin Food/Bevrge Cns
                 Ferrous Metals
                 Non Ferrous Metals
                 White Goods
                 PET Bottles
                 HOPE Bottles
                 Plate Pkgng/Film
                 Other Plastics
                 Tires
                 Oth Rubber Products
                 Food
                 Lawn & Garden Waste
                 Wood Uaste
                 Cnst/Dero(Excl Wd)
                 Other Organic Waste
                 Oth Inorganic Ust

                   Weighted Average
Curbside Refuse Mixed Waste Curbside Program Added to Curbside
Processing
Without MUP With MWP
($103)
($103)
($103)
<*103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($103)
($97)
($84)
($93)
($99)
($106)
($106)
$337
($74)
($64)
$37
($92)
($119)
($116)
($135)
($136)
($103)
($133)
($96)
($98)
($98)
($126)
($98)
($128)
(MUP) Without MWP With MWP Without MWP With MWP
$6
$19
$10
$4
($3)
($3)
$440
$29
$39
$140
$11
($16)
($13)
($32)
($32)
$0
($30)
$8
$5
$5
($23)
$5
($25)
$20
$33
$98
$23
$47
$23
$997
$45



$158
S198
$158




$25




$16
$20
$88
$19
$48
$25
$563
$16
$8
$768

$174
$211
$191




$20
$3










($10)
$669









($2)



$2
00
r—
rn

-------
the weighted average net avoided cost for mixed
waste processing computed from the data on
Table 9.
     The last four columns on Table 9 give mate-
rial-specific net avoided costs for home collec-
tion of source separated waste materials. The
first of the four columns lists curbside recycling's
net avoided costs versus disposal for items col-
lected in the three recycling bins or in the bi-
weekly yard waste pick-up. The second column
gives net avoided costs versus processing the
unseparated waste before it goes to disposal.
The third and fourth columns show net avoided
costs versus disposal and mixed waste process-
ing, respectively, for materials that might be added
to the home collection system, assuming no
change would be needed in the containers pro-
vided to households already participating in the
program.
     The net avoided cost of curbside recycling
for a specific waste stream material depends on:
1) the price received when a source separated
material is processed and marketed; 2) its collec-
tion and processing costs; and 3) the refuse col-
lection and disposal costs saved when the mate-
rial is put into recycling bins rather than garbage
cans. When there is drop-site recycling, the pub-
lic sector cost credit to  curbside recycling for
avoided refuse collection and disposal is reduced
by the percentage of drop-site recycling diverted
into the curbside program. Similarly, when there
is self-hauling of refuse, curbside's public sector
cost  credit  for avoided refuse  collection is re-
duced by the percentage  of  mixed waste that
generators take to the disposal site in their pri-
vate vehicles.
    The difference between  net avoided costs
for curbside recycling with and without mixed
waste processing reflects the effect that utiliza-
tion of mixed waste processing has on both the
avoided cost savings from curbside and the loss
for that portion of drop-off recycling that is dis-
placed by curbside recycling.
    First, when unseparated mixed refuse is
being processedforrecydables and compostables,
the net avoided cost of an additional ton of some
waste material being recycled at curbside is
reduced for those materials having a positive
net avoided cost for mixed waste processing.
 Those materials that have a negative mixed waste
 processing net avoided cost shown in the third
 column of Table 9 yield greater curbside net
 avoided costs.
     For example, the value of an extra ton  of
 corrugated being set out for curbside recycling
 pickup is not as great if there is a mixed waste
 processing system that acts as a safety net for
 cardboard that is mixed in the refuse container
 rather than being source separated. On the other
 hand, the value of an extra ton of PET bottles set
 out for curbside recycling is greater when a mixed
 waste processing program is also in place. The
 low recyclables and compostables  separation
 rates for mixed waste processing of PET cause a
 synergistic cost savings for sorting mixed waste
 when a ton of PET is moved out of the refuse can
 and into the recycling containers.
     Second,  availability of mixed waste proc-
 essing has an effect on the magnitude of in-
 creased public sector costs when curbside recy-
 cling supplants a portion of private drop-site re-
 cycling. This  effect arises because the displace-
 ment of drop-site recycling is valued  at the
 marginal cost of an extra ton of refuse as shown
 in one of  the first two columns of Table 9. For
 example, when a ton of corrugated cardboard is
 added to curbside recycling, 29 percent of that
 ton is drawn from drop-site recycling.  Thus,
 increased  waste management system costs are
 29 percent of $103 in the absence of mixed waste
 processing, versus 29 percent of $84 when a mixed
 refuse sorting facility is operational.
     The 29 percent figure is an estimate for the
 Puget Sound WGA of the  proportion  of
 corrugated's drop-site recycling displaced by the
 curbside program. The 29 percent comes from
 the assumption that  curbside would supplant
drop-site recycling at the same percentage rate
as drop-site's recycling rate  before curbside re-
cycling was available (see footnote 5). In another
community the substitution rate would depend
on the extent to which curbside and drop-site re-
cycling compete for each given material in that
community.
    The materials included in the home collec-
tion of recyclables and lawn and  garden  waste
all have positive net avoided costs. Except for
non-ferrous metals, the waste categories excluded
24
         Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing
                                           308

-------
from home collection cannot be added on a cost-
effective basis when unseparated waste is being
processed for recovery of recyclables. For ex-
ample, the combined recyclables and com-
postables separation efficiencies for wood waste
in mixed waste processing make it more cost-
effective to leave wood in the refuse container
(at least for residential wastes that have less wood
than commercial wastes) rather than source sepa-
rating it. In the case of non-ferrous metals, some
restriction on size would probably be necessary
to fit  them into the three 11-gallon containers
used in the specified weekly curbside collection
system. They were excluded from curbside be-
cause they were assigned separation efficiencies
of zero for home separation  for curbside (see
Table 1).
                    8.  Appendix for Net Avoided-Cost Formulas
    For the quantitatively oriented reader, this
appendix lists the formulas used to produce the
net avoided costs in Table 9.
    The public sector waste management sys-
tem marginal cost  (MC) of an extra ton in the
refuse can for disposal is given for each waste
material by:

(1)  MC = (1 - h) Td + MCd

where the variable T is truck collection cost per
ton; the variable MC is marginal cost; the variable
h is the refuse self-haul rate; and the subscript d
represents the disposal  method  for managing
municipal solid waste. MCd is thus the marginal
cost of disposal, e.g., the disposal cost of $50
shown on Table 2.
    For mixed waste processing, material spe-
cific net avoided costs (NAC) are given by:
where P is market price; S is separation effi-
ciency; e is the compost process mass reduction
rate; the subscripts m, c and d refer respectively
to mixed waste processing for recyclables, mixed
waste processing for compostables, and disposal;
and the subscript mwp on NAC and MC refers to
the mixed waste processing method. For example,
Se is the compost process capture rate (or sepa-
ration efficiency) given on Table 1 for a  given
•waste stream material; Pm is the price given on
Table 1 for a material sorted as a recyclable from
mixed waste; and MC   is the marginal cost or
processing cost for mixed waste, e.g., the $40 per
input ton shown on Table 2.
    The marginal cost  of an extra ton in the
refuse can when mixed waste processing occurs
prior to disposal is then given by:
(3)  MC(mwp) = MC - NAC
                          mwp
where (mwp) refers to the presence of mixed
waste processing in the integrated waste man-
agement system.
    For curbside recycling, material specific net
avoided costs when mixed waste processing is
not available as a safety net are given by:

(4)  NACr = Pr - Tr - MCr + (1 - h) Td + MCd

    -Sd$MC

where the new subscripts are r for curbside recy-
cling and ds for drop-site recycling programs.5
    Substituting from equation (1) for MC gives:

(4') NACr=Pr-Tf-MCr+(1-Sds)MCd

    + (1-h)d-SJTd

    The net avoided cost of curbside recycling
for a specific waste stream material depends on

5. Drop-site recycling rates (or separation efficiencies) in the
Washington state examples were assumed equal to the resi-
dential buy-back and drop-off recycling rates shown on
Tables 1, 7 and 8, except for newsprint and aluminum
beverage cans. For those two materials, buy-back recycling
upstream of drop-site recycling was assumed to involve 65
percent and 95 percent, respectively, of total residential
buy-back and drop-off recycling. Buy-back recycling was
assumed not to occur for other recyclable materials.
first U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                                            309
                                                                                          25

-------
three factors: 1) the market price for that mate-
rial; 2) its collection and processing costs; and 3)
the collection and disposal costs saved when the
material is put into recycling bins rather than
garbage cans, where the extent to which public
sector refuse collection and  disposal costs are
saved depends on the drop-site recycling rate
(S^) and the refuse self-haul rate (h).
    For curbside recycling backed up by a safety
net of mixed waste processing, curbside's net
avoided costs are given by:

(5) NACr(mwp) = NACr + S^ [MC - MC (mwp)]
     -NAC,
           mwp
    But MC - MC(mwp)
tion (3) above, so that:
                                 from equa-
 (51)  NACr(mwp) = NACr- (1 - SJ NAG,
                                    mwp
    That is, the net avoided cost for curbside
recycling with mixed waste processing as a
backup disposal diversion program is NACr
reduced by mixed waste processing's net avoided
cost for that portion of a ton that would not
otherwise be recycled through a drop-site pro-
gram. For materials that are very valuable to a
mixed waste processing program, such as alu-
minum in absolute terms or wood waste in rela-
tive terms, the reduction in net avoided costs for
curbside  can be considerable when its value is
measured relative to mixed waste processing
rather than disposal. For example, wood waste
has a positive $3-per-ton curbside net avoided
cost when mixed waste processing is not a sup-
plemental diversion possibility, versus a nega-
tive $2-per-ton curbside net avoided cost up-
stream of a mixed waste processing facility.
26
                                            aio
                                                       Source Separation vs. Centralized Processing

-------
SUBTITLE D MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST MODEL
      Christopher J. Lough                       Ron Burke
      DPRA Incorporated                        U.S. EPA
      E-1500 First National Bank Bldg.             Office of Solid Waste
      332 Minnesota Street                       401 M Street S.W.
      St. Paul, MN 55101                        Washington, D.C.  20460
                         Presented at the

      First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management


                         June 13-16, 1990
                                 311

-------
     SUBTITLE D MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL COST MODEL








An interactive computer cost model was developed for the U.S. Environmental



Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste/Economic Analysis staff which, estimates



the cost to design, construct, operate, close, and provide post-closure care for Subtitle



D municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) under a  variety of regulatory and



technical options.  The model was used in the development of EPA's proposed



revisions to the Subtitle D criteria for MSWLFs to analyze the costs of regulatory



alternatives as presented in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis.  The model is not



EPA-approved and its results have not been extensively peer reviewed. The cost



model is currently being converted to an IBM-compatible PC version for use by



outside parties.  It is very  flexible and easily modified to accommodate a wide variety



of landfill design and operating configurations. The user specifies such input



variables as waste  throughput, operating life, type  and depth of fill operation, number



of phases of construction,  containment and cover system options, waste density,



environmental monitoring and control options, post-closure period, and a variety of



unit  costs and fees for construction and operation  of the facility.  Based on these



input variables, the cost model calculates the active area required, capital costs,



operating and maintenance costs, closure costs, and post-closure costs of the facility.



In addition, the model assigns these costs to specific years during the operating life



and  post-closure period of the facility and conducts a present value analysis to



compare costs of technical options.  A user's guide also is being developed for the



PC version of the cost model.
                                  312

-------
I.  BACKGROUND








   A.    Basis for Model Development








                The municipal landfill cost model was developed to estimate



                baseline and incremental compliance costs at existing and new



                facilities under proposed Subtitle D rules and regulatory alternatives



                considered by the Agency








   B.    Model Capabilities








         1.     Presents detailed design, operating, and closure/post-closure



                parameters, output specifications, and cost results.








         2.     Interactive, flexible, easily modified and updated.








         3.     Provides present value analysis for comparison of different facility




                designs.
                                      313

-------
II. MODEL FEATURES, VARIABLES, AND RESULTS








   A.    Model Overview








         1.     Up to 20 different user-specified facility designs and capacities.








         2.     Use of default database or development of new input design



                parameters and unit costs.








         3.     Calculation and reporting  of facility dimensions, areas, material



                volumes, operating features,  and equipment requirements.








         4.     Presentation of direct and indirect capital,  operating and



                maintenance, closure and post-closure, and annualized costs.








   B.    User-Specified Input Parameters








         1.     Waste characteristics: quantity (1-8000 tons/day), density, and



                operating life (1-50 years).








         2.     Operating features:  landfill type, number of phases, depth, and



                slopes.
                                      314

-------
      3.     Containment and cover specifications:  drainage systems,




             intermediate cover, final cover materials and thicknesses (up to 10




             layers and 16 material  types), containment system materials and




             thicknesses (up to 10 layers and  16 material types), leachate



             detection, collection, and treatment systems, and gas migration




             controls.








      4.     Monitoring options:  landfill gas, ground water, and surface water.








      5.     Over 50 unit costs for construction, materials, operating, and closure




             variables.








      6.     Model "flags" user to prevent specifying parameters outside




             acceptable range.








C.    Model-Defined Parameters








      1.     Landfill unit is square.








      2.     Operating equipment package, required buildings, and service roads.








      3.     Operating labor requirements.
                                     315

-------
D.    Model Outputs








      1.     Detailed summary of facility design and operating configuration




             specified (Exhibit 1).








      2.     Listing of unit costs specified (Exhibit 2).








      3.     Summary of facility design and operating configuration results



             (Exhibit 3).








      4.     Itemized summary of cost results (Exhibit 4).








      5.     Summary of annual costs (Exhibit 5).








E.    Model Limitations








      1.     Model is not EPA-approved.  Model results have not been



             extensively peer reviewed or field validated.








      2.     Unit costs based on national averages-adjustments for regional or



             local differences may be necessary.








      3.     Costs may be overestimated for very small landfills ( < 10 tons/day)
                                   316

-------
                due to fixed expenses.








          4.     Certain permitting and site related activities such as EIS




                preparation, legal fees, and public involvement costs are excluded.








          5.     Facility costs, not prices (tipping fees) are estimated.








          6.     Simplifying assumptions versus site-specific conditions (e.g., square



                shape with identical slopes on each side).








          7.     Costs for corrective action are not estimated by the model but can



                be input by the user.








III. MODEL APPLICATIONS








          State and local government officials and facility owner/operators may find



          the cost model a useful analytical tool for estimating total, incremental, or



          selected regulatory component costs of various design configurations








   A.     Regulatory Analysis and Development








          1.     Examination of facility compliance costs based on state or federal



                standards.
                                       317

-------
      2.     Isolation of regulatory component costs (e.g., environmental



             monitoring, containment system, cover configuration, leachate



             management, etc.).








      3.     Estimation of closure/post-closure costs to assess financial



             assurance.








C.    Sensitivity Analyses of Facility Costs








       1.     Model effects of variations in environmental settings, design and



             operating characteristics, and unit costs.








      2.     Model changes in interest rate and operating life to analyze



             financing alternatives.








D.    Input to Comparative Cost Analyses








      1.     Compare municipal solid waste landfill costs ($/ton basis) with cost



             estimates for MSW alternatives (e.g., composting, recycling, source



             separation, combustion) as part of integrated solid waste



             management planning.
                                   318

-------
         2.     Measure cost effects of reducing community landfill requirements




               resulting from implementation of MSW alternatives.








IV. MODEL ACCESS








   A.    Development of PC Version  of Model








         1.     Conversion to IBM-compatible PC system software currently




               underway.








         2.     Availability anticipated by December 1990.








         3.     Updated unit costs  (1990 $) and default database.








   B.    Model Validation and Documentation








          1.    Conducting comparison of model  design/operating features, unit




               costs, and cost results with empirical cost data.








         2.    Preparing model documentation and user's guide for PC version of




                model.
                                      319

-------
                                  EXHIBIT 1

                 EXAMPLE OF A DETAILED FACILITY SUMMARY
           FACILITY  1
           10 TPD
                                                                B202
OPERATION TYPE	  COMBINATION FILL
                                  10.00 TONS/DAY
                                 667.00 KG/CU M
                                     20 YEARS
WASTE CAPACITY	
COMPACTED WASTE DENSITY	
OPERATING LIFE	
NUMBER OF LANDFILL PHASES	
POST CLOSURE MONITORING PERIOD
DEPTH OF FILL BELOW GRADE	
PERCENT OF FILL BELOW GRADE...
BELOW GRADE SIDE SLOPE(RUN:RISE)
BERM TYPE	
GAS MIGRATION CONTROL	  EXTRACTION WELLS
WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS	  GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE  WATER
                                      1
                                     30  YEARS
                                   4.57  METERS
                                  82.00  PERCENT
                                    1.00
                                  NONE
FIRST YEAR OF WATER MONITORING
WATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY	
GAS MONITORING IS USED
FIRST YEAR OF GAS MONITORING..
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBTITLE D CLOSURE
CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE PLAN INCLUDED
PRECONSTRUCTION PLANS ADJUSTMENT

CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
                                      1
                                      2/YEAR

                                      1
                                      0.  DOLLARS
LAYER  1 CONSISTS OF SLOPE & EARTH FILL
     DEPTH OF LAYER  1	3050  METERS
LAYER  2 CONSISTS OF GEOTEXTILE  FILTER FAB
LAYER  3 CONSISTS OF SAND
     DEPTH OF LAYER  3	3050  METERS
LAYER  4 CONSISTS OF  30 MIL HOPE
LAYER  5 CONSISTS OF ON-SITE CLAY
     DEPTH OF LAYER  5	6100  METERS
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM IS USED
LEACHATE VOLUME COLLECTED	     3.00 IN/YEAR
TRUCKED OFF-SITE LEACHATE TREATMENT  IS USED
LEACHATE DETECTION SYSTEM NOT USED

INTERMEDIATE COVER
INTERMEDIATE COVER CONSISTS OF  SLOPE  &  EARTH FILL
INTERMEDIATE COVER VOLUME	     2.00  PERCENT  OF  LANDFILL
B203
B204
B205
B206
B207
B208
B209
B210
B211
B212
B213
B214
B215
B216
B217
B218
B219
B220
B221
                                                                C301
                                                                C302
                                                                C301
                                                                C301
                                                                C302
                                                                C301
                                                                C301
                                                                C302
                                                                C303
                                                                C304
                                                                C305
                                                                C307
                                                                D401
                                                                D402
                              320

-------
                             EXHBIT 1

            EXAMPLE OF A DETAILED FACILITY SUMMARY (Continued)
FINAL COVER

FINAL COVER LAYER  1  CONSISTS OF
     THICKNESS OF LAYER  1....
FINAL COVER LAYER  2  CONSISTS OF
FINAL COVER LAYER  3  CONSISTS OF
FINAL COVER LAYER  4  CONSISTS OF
     THICKNESS OF LAYER  4..
FINAL COVER LAYER
FINAL COVER LAYER
     THICKNESS OF LAYER  6....
FINAL COVER SLOPE (R1SE:RUN)..
TOE SLOPE(RUN:RISE)	
COVER DRAINAGE PIPE  USED
STORMWATER CONTROL SYSTEM IS  USED

POST CLOSURE OPERATION
5 CONSISTS OF
6 CONSISTS OF
SLOPE & EARTH FILL
 .3050 METERS
GEOTEXTILE SUPPORT FAB
 30 MIL PVC
SAND
 .3050 METERS
GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB
TOP SOIL
 .1520 METERS
 .0350
  2.00
POST CLOSURE OPTIONS CHOSEN:
     ANNUAL INSPECTION & CONTINUED  MONITORING
     CONTINUED LEACHATE COLLECTION
     NUMBER OF YEARS OF LEACHATE  TREAT.      5  YEARS
     LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
     SLOPE MAINTENANCE
CORRECTIVE ACTION

CORRECTIVE ACTION IS APPLIED
     INITIAL COST OF CORRECTIVE  ACTION.
     FIRST YEAR OF CORRECTIVE  ACTION...
     ANNUAL COST OF CORRECTIVE ACTION..
     NO. OF YEARS OF CORRECTIVE  ACTION.
                     $ 100000.00
                              28
                        10000.00 $/YR
                              10 YEARS
E501
E502
E501
E501
E501
E502
E501
E501
E502
E503
E504
E505
E506
                                             F601
                                             F602
                                             F603
                                             F604
                                             F605
                               G701
                               G702
                               G703
                               G704
                               321

-------
                                EXHIBIT 2

              EXAMPLE OF A LISTING OF UNIT COST INFORMATION
         LISTING OF UNIT COSTS



LABOR COSTS

OPERATOR COST	    30.50 $/HR
MANAGER COST	    35.00 $/HR
CLERICAL COST	    15.50 $/HR
UNSKILLED LABOR COST	    14.50 $/HR
PROFESSIONAL LABOR COST	    50.00 $/HR
TECHNICIAN COST	    25.00 $/HR


CAPITAL COSTS

LAND COST	  5000.00 S/ACRE
CLEARING AND GRUBBING COST....  5495.00 $/ACRE
HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY COST	 20000.00 S/ACRE
PAVED ROAD COST	    87.34 S/METER
TEMPORARY ROAD COST	    24.45 S/METER
FENCING COST	    33.14 S/METER
PARKING COST	   393.00 S/CAR
BUILDING COSTS
     OFFICE BUILDING	   807.00 $/SQ M
     MAINTENANCE BUILDING	   603.00 $/SQ M
     STORAGE BUILDING	   124.00 $/SQ M
CITIZEN DISPOSAL BOX COST	 13940.00 $/BOX
EXCAVATION COST	     4.45 $/CU M
BERM CORE TRENCHING COST	     6.05 $/CU M
DIVERSION DITCH COST	     6.82 S/METER
CLAY COSTS
     ON-SITE -CLAY	    12.83 $/CU M
     OFF-SITE CLAY	    27.27 $/CU M
SOIL COSTS
     TOP SOIL	    19.26 $/CU M
     SLOPE AND EARTH FILL	     7.56 $/CU M
SAND COST	    16.70 $/CU M
GRAVEL COST	    14.94 $/CU M
SYNTHETIC LINER 'COSTS
      20 MIL PVC	     2.35 $/SQ M
      30 MIL PVC	     3.00 $/SQ M
      30 MIL HOPE	     3.75 $/SQ M
      40 MIL HOPE	     4.50 $/SQ M
      60 MIL HOPE	     6.45 $/SQ M
      80 MIL HOPE	     7.85 $/SQ M
     100 MIL HOPE	     9.15 $/SQ M
GEOTEXTILE COSTS
      SUPPORT FABRIC	     1.50$/SQM
      FILTER FABRIC	      .80 $/SQ M
SYNTHETIC DRAINAGE NET COST...     2.35 $/SQ M
H801
H802
H803
H804
H805
H806
H807
H808
H809
H810
H811
H812
H813
H814
H815
H816
H817
H818
H819
H820
H821
H822
H823
H824


H825
                               322

-------
                             EXHIBIT 2

         EXAMPLE OF A LISTING OF UNIT COST INFORMATION (Continued)
INSTALLED PIPE COSTS
     LEACHATE BRANCH PIPE	    13.61 S/METER
     LEACHATE HEADER PIPE	    29.81 S/METER
     COVER DRAINAGE PIPE	    10.47 S/METER
MANHOLE COST	   720.44 S/EACH
MANHOLE EXTENSION COST	   282.81 S/METER
WET WELL AND SUMP	 10700.00 S/EACH
GAS MIGRATION TRENCH COST	   157.06 S/METER
GAS EXTRACTION WELL COST	  6125.00 S/WELL
EXTRACTION WELL EXTEN. COST...   205.00 S/METER
BLOWING STATION COST	 75000.00 S/EACH
GROUNDWATER WELL CLUSTER COST.  9200.00 S/CLUS.
GAS MONITORING PROBE COST	   312.50 S/PROBE
REVEGETATION COST	  1375.98 S/ACRE
TREE COST	    52.00 S/TREE


0 AND M COSTS

RODENT AND BIRD CONTROL COST..   200.00 S/YR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COST....     6.88 S/ACRE
TRUCKED OFFSITE TREATMENT COST    .0330 S/GAL
SEWERED OFFSITE TREATMENT COST    .0040 S/GAL
SEWER COST	   111.55 S/METER
MONITORING COSTS
     GROUNDWATER MONITORING...    60.00 S/SAMPLE
     SURFACE WATER MONITORING.    60.00 S/SAMPLE
LICENSE COST	 10000.00 S/YEAR
ELECTRICITY COST	0700 S/KWH
PROPANE COST	    4.550 S/MBTU


FEES AND ESCALATORS

ENGINEERING FEE	    10.00 PERCENT
INSPECTION & TESTING FEE	     5.00 PERCENT
CONTRACTORS FEE	    10.00 PERCENT
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY	     1.00 PERCENT
CONSTRUCTION & FIELD EXPENSES.     5.00 PERCENT
CONTINGENCY FEE	    10.00 PERCENT
QUALITY ASSURANCE	    15.00 PERCENT
EQUIP. CAPITAL COST ESCALATOR.      .00 PERCENT
EQUIP. 0 8 M COST ESCALATOR...      .00 PERCENT
LEACHATE TREATMENT EQUIP ESCAL      .00 PERCENT
GENERAL ESCALATOR	      -00 PERCENT
DISCOUNT RATE	     3.00 PERCENT
H826
H827
H828
H829
H830
H831
H832
H833
H834
H835
H836
H837
H838
H839
H840
H841
H842
H843
H844
H845
H846
H847
H848
H849
H850
H851
H852
H853
H854
H855
H856
H857
H858
                                323

-------
                                        EXHIBIT 3

                EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN CONFIGURATION
                RESULTS
OOOOOOOOOOODESIGN  RESULTS<><><><><><><><><><><><>
                        FACILITY   1


              10 TPD


         GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

         OPERATING AREA	       4.29 ACRES
         OPERATING VOLUME	     90211. CUM
         SURFACE LENGTH  AND WIDTH	     131.73 METERS
         BOTTOM LENGTH AND WIDTH	     122.58 METERS
         TOTAL HEIGHT OF WASTE ABOVE GRADE.       2.47 METERS
         TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME	     97064. CU M

         CONTAINMENT SYSTEM:
         LAYER  1 CONSISTS OF SLOPE & EARTH FILL
              VOLUME OF  LAYER  1	      5645. CU M
         LAYER  2 CONSISTS OF GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB
              SURFACE AREA OF LAYER  2	     18622. SQ M
         LAYER  3 CONSISTS OF SAND
              VOLUME OF  LAYER  3	      5724. CU M
         LAYER  4 CONSISTS OF  30 MIL HOPE
              SURFACE AREA OF LAYER  4	     18921. SQ M
         LAYER  5 CONSISTS OF ON-SITE CLAY
              VOLUME  OF  LAYER  5	     11722. CU M

         NUMBER  OF  LEACHATE BRANCHES	          2
         LEACHATE  COLLECTION	     239.07 METERS
         LEACHATE  HEADER	     227.12 METERS
         CONTAINMENT  SYSTEM THICKNESS	       1.22 METERS
         TOTAL LAND  AREA	       9.24 ACRES
         FENCE LENGTH	      801.6 METERS
         PAVED ROAD  LENGTH	       96.3 METERS
         TEMPORARY  ROAD  LENGTH	      395.2 METERS
         OFFICE  BUILDING AREA	      16.00 SQ M
         MAINTENANCE  BUILDING AREA..	        .00 SQ M
         STORAGE  BUILDING AREA	      34.19 SQ M
         PUBLIC  DISPOSAL BOXES	          0
                                        324

-------
                               EXHIBIT 3

       EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN CONFIGURATION

       RESULTS (Continued)
SURFACE WATER CONTROL  AND ENVIRONMENTAL  MONITORING

DIVERSION DITCH LENGTH	     559.84  METERS
SETTLING BASIN VOLUME	     43450.  GAL
GROUNDWATER WELLS	          15
GAS MONITORING PROBES	          26
GAS EXTRACTION WELLS	          17

ANNUAL 0 & M

OPERATOR LABOR	     544.86  HRS/YR
MANAGER LABOR	      120.00  HRS/YR
CLERICAL LABOR	       60.00  HRS/YR
UNSKILLED LABOR	       30.00  HRS/YR
INTERMEDIATE COVER VOLUME	         90.  CU M/YR
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES	          30  NO./YR
GAS MONITORING SAMPLES	         104  NO./YR
LEACHATE VOLUME	    349315.3  GAL/YR
ELECTRICITY	        600.  KWH/YR
PROPANE	         65.  MBTU/YR

CLOSURE

COVER SYSTEM:
LAYER   1 CONSISTS OF SLOPE & EARTH FILL
     VOLUME OF LAYER  1	       5364.  CU M
LAYER   2 CONSISTS OF GEOTEXTILE SUPPORT  FAB
     SURFACE AREA OF LAYER  2	      17793.  SQ M
LAYER   3 CONSISTS OF  30 MIL PVC
     SURFACE AREA OF LAYER  3	      17793.  SQ M
LAYER   4 CONSISTS OF SAND
     VOLUME OF LAYER  4	       5487.  CUM
LAYER   5 CONSISTS OF GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB
     SURFACE AREA OF LAYER  5	      18197.  SQ M
LAYER   6 CONSISTS OF TOP SOIL
     VOLUME OF LAYER  6	       2780.  CU M

SURFACE AREA OF FINAL COVER	      18395.  SQ M
LENGTH  OF COVER DRAINAGE PIPE	      525.57  METERS
                                325

-------
                                          EXHIBIT 4

                   EXAMPLE OF AN ITEMIZED SUMMARY OF THE COST RESULTS
OOOOOOOOOOOOCOST RESULTSOOOOOOOOOOOO
                       FACILITY   1

         10 TPD

         TYPE OF OPERATION:  COMBINATION FILL
         TOTAL WASTE DEPOSITED	    2358.70 M TONS/YR
         OPERATING LIFE	         20 YEARS
         NUMBER OF PHASES	          1
         OPERATING AREA	       4.29 ACRES
         CONTAINMENT SYSTEM IS  1.22 METERS THICK,
                                     CONSISTING OF  5 LAYERS
         COVER SYSTEM IS   .76 METERS THICK,
                                     CONSISTING OF  6 LAYERS
         VOLUME OF LEACHATE COLLECTED	    349315.  GAL/YR
         POST-CLOSURE PERIOD	         30 YEARS


         CAPITAL COSTS

         LAND PURCHASE COST	 $      46187.
         STUDIES, DESIGNS AND PLANS COST... $     110366.
         SITE DEVELOPMENT COST	 $      82521.
         EXCAVATION COST	 $     431934.
         BUILDING COST	 $       8340.

         CONTAINMENT SYSTEM:
         COST OF CONTAINMENT LAYER  1
         SLOPE & EARTH FILL	 $      42675.
         COST OF CONTAINMENT LAYER  2
        GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB	 $      14897.
        COST OF CONTAINMENT LAYER  3
         SAND	 $      95583.
        COST OF CONTAINMENT LAYER  4
         30 MIL HOPE	 $      70953.
        COST OF CONTAINMENT LAYER  5
        ON-SITE CLAY	 $     150394.

        TOTAL CONTAINMENT  SYSTEM  COST	 $     374503.

        BERM COST	 $          0
        LEACHATE COLLECTION  COST	 $      24084.
        LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEM COST.... $      15718.
        LEACHATE DETECTION SYSTEM COST.... $          0.
        GROUNDWATER WELL  COST	 $      46000.
        GAS DETECTION COST	 $       8425.
        GAS MIGRATION CONTROL COST	 $     115895.
        PUBLIC DISPOSAL BOX  COST	 $          0.
                                       326

-------
                                EXHIBIT 4
       EXAMPLE OF AN ITEMIZED SUMMARY OF THE COST RESULTS
        (Continued)
STORMWATER CONTROL SYSTEM COST.... $       4356.
EQUIPMENT COST	 $     154619.
ENGINEERING FEE	 $     131258.
INSPECTION, TESTING AND QA	 $     115377.
OTHER INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS	 $     351570.

TOTAL CAPITAL COST	 $ ""2021154!


0 & M COSTS

MANAGERIAL COST	 $      84000.
OPERATOR COST	 $     332365.
CLERICAL COST	 $      18600.
UNSKILLED LABOR COST	 $       8700.
MAINTENANCE LABOR COST	 $      36513.
EQUIPMENT COST	 $     147935.
INTERMEDIATE COVER COST	 $      13640.
UTILITIES COST	 $      12755.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COST	 $     103800.
LEACHATE COLLECTION & TREAT.  COST. $     118706.
LICENSES, FEES AND PERMITS COST... $     200000.
RODENT AND BIRD CONTROL COST	 $       4000.

TOTAL 0 & M COST	 $    1081014.


CLOSURE COSTS

OTHER CLOSURE COMPLIANCE COSTS.... $       1130.

FINAL COVER SYSTEM:
COST OF COVER LAYER  1
SLOPE & EARTH FILL	 $      40555.
COST OF COVER LAYER  2
GEOTEXTILE SUPPORT FAB	 $      26690.
COST OF COVER LAYER  3
 30 MIL PVC	$      53380.
COST OF COVER LAYER  4
SAND	 $      91629.
COST OF COVER LAYER  5
GEOTEXTILE FILTER FAB	 $      14557.
COST OF COVER LAYER  6
TOP SOIL	 $      53552.

TOTAL COVER SYSTEM COST	 $     280362.
                               327

-------
                               EXHIBIT 4

       EXAMPLE OF AN ITEMIZED SUMMARY OF THE COST RESULTS
        (Continued)
COVER DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST	  $       5503.
REVEGATATION COST	  $       6256.
ENGINEERING COST	  $      29212.
INSPECTION, TESTING AND  QA  COST...  $      58424.
OTHER INDIRECT CLOSURE COSTS	  $      92715.

TOTAL CLOSURE COSTS	  $     473602.


POST-CLOSURE COSTS

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COST	  $     115200.
LEACHATE COLLECTION & TREATMENT CT  $      57637.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COST	  $       1877.
SLOPE MAINTENANCE COST	  $       3210.
ANNUAL INSPECTION COST	  $       2352.
ADMINISTRATION COST	  $      18028.

TOTAL POST-CLOSURE  COSTS	  $     198304.


CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS

INITIAL CAPITAL COST	  $     100000.
0 & M COST	  $     100000.

TOTAL CORRECTIVE ACTION  COST	  $     200000.
                                328

-------
                                           EXHIBITS

                       EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL COSTS
*«£*#*****#*************************************************
                       FACILITY   1
        10  TPD
        TYPE  OF  OPERATION:   COMBINATION  FILL
        TOTAL WASTE  DEPOSITED	     2358.70 M  TONS/YR
        OPERATING  LIFE	          20 YEARS
        NUMBER OF  PHASES	           1
        OPERATING  AREA	        4.29 ACRES
        CONTAINMENT  SYSTEM  IS   1.22  METERS  THICK,
                                     CONSISTING  OF   5 LAYERS
        COVER SYSTEM IS    .76  METERS THICK,
                                     CONSISTING  OF   6 LAYERS
        VOLUME OF  LEACHATE  COLLECTED	     349315. GAL/YR
        POST-CLOSURE PERIOD	          30 YEARS
        DISCOUNT RATE  IS  3.00  PERCENT
fRESENT VALUE

 YEAR
   0
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   8
   9
   10
   11
   12
   13
   14
   15
   16
   17
   18
   19
   20
 CAPITAL

1975280.
1807082.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
  12400.
      0.
   6000.
      0.
      0.
  12400.
      0.
      0.
      0.
   6000.
  12400.
      0.
      0.
      0.
  12748.
  0 & M OR
POST-CLOSURE

     912676.
          0.
      48115.
      48903.
      49509.
      50116.
      50723.
      51330.
      51936.
      52543.
      53150.
      53756.
      54363.
      54970.
      55576.
      56183.
      56790.
      57397.
      58003.
      58610.
      59217.
      59823.
CLOSURE

 255103.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
      0.
  32133.
                                                             ANNUAL
                                                              TOTAL
3143058.
1807082.
  48115.
  48903.
  49509.
  50116.
  50723.
  63730.
  51936.
  58543.
  53150.
  53756.
  66763.
  54970.
  55576.
  56183.
  62790.
  69797.
  58003.
  58610.
  59217,
 104705.
                                       329

-------
                                      EXHIBIT 5

                   EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL COSTS (Continued)
LAST YEAR  OF  FACILITY OPERATING LIFE IS YEAR  20
   21
   22
   23
   24
   25
   26
   27
   28
   29
   30
   31
   32
   33
   34
   35
   36
   37
   38
   39
   40
   41
   42
   43
   44
   45
   46
   47
   48
   49
   50
152124.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
100000.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
     0.
16216.
16216.
16216.
16216.
16216.
4689.
4689.
4689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
14689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
4689.
441469
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
609809.
 16216.
 16216.
 16216.
 16216.
  4689.
  4689.
104689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
 14689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
  4689.
                                       33O

-------
USE OF SOLID WASTE QUANTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION DATA
 TO PLAN AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM IN MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY

        Donald J. Birnesser, P.E., Project Manager,
              STV/Environmental,  Pottstown,  PA

           Lauren H. Moore, Director of Planning,
      Mercer County Improvement Authority, Trenton, NJ
                      Presented at the

 First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                      June 13-16, 1990
                              331

-------
        USE OF SOLID WASTE QUANTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION DATA
         TO PLAN AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM IN MERCER COUNTY,  NEW JERSEY

Donald J. Birnesser, P.E., Project Manager,  STV/Environmental, Pottstown, PA
Lauren H. Moore, Director of Planning,  Mercer County Improvement Authority,
                                Trenton, NJ
Introduction

     This paper discusses the approach used in developing and revising
quantification and characterization data to plan an integrated solid waste
management system in Mercer County, New Jersey.  The county's integrated
system will include recyclable material collection, processing,  and
marketing, resource recovery processing, and landfill  disposal.

     The same basic approach could be adapted for use  by a municipal entity
in planning its own integrated system.

Background

     In Mercer County, the Mercer County Improvement Authority ("The
Authority") is responsible for implementation of the county solid waste
management plan. STV/Sanders & Thomas, the parent firm of STV/Environmental,
was retained by The Authority in 1986 to perform a study to determine the
quantity and character of the solid waste generated within Mercer County.

     In order to prepare these estimates, STV/Environmental performed the
following three tasks:
     Reviewed existing s^id waste collection data.
           ^ "i- ^ — i                i — — i.. ....  . .    ^

     The major  piece of information available was the total daily collection
     vehicle volume that disposed of residential waste at nearby GROWS
     Landfill around Morrisville, Pennsylvania, which is owned by Waste
     Management, Inc., for the previous three years.  While only five of the
     13 municipalities in Mercer County participated on a continuous basis
     during the previous three years, the five municipalities comprised
     nearly 75  percent of the county's population and were a suitable
     sampling for the entire county's waste disposal practices.

     This data  also indicated the seasonal variation of waste collection
     vehicle volume during the year.

     Conductjed  a two-season^ (summer and _ winter) two-week, six-dav-per-week
     weighing program to establish the weight and collection vehicle volume
     of material going to GROWS Landfill .                            ~~
                                    332

-------
     Nearly all  collection vehicles traveling to GROWS Landfill  from Mercer
     County were weighed on a commercial scale prior to entering the
     landfill.   Pertinent information such as collection vehicle volume,
     origin of waste collected,  and types of waste constituting  the load
     were recorded to establish a relationship between the total volume of
     the collection vehicles and typical total weight of solid waste,  as
     well as daily total weights for each community and for the  county,  as a
     whole.  For each vehicle not weighed on the scales, weights were
     estimated either by applying a bulk density to the vehicle  volumes for
     the appropriate vehicle type or by using additional information
     provided by a hauler survey to complete the data base.

     Conducted two five-day sorting programs to establish the composition of
     the solid waste for Mercer County.

     A single collection vehicle was selected each day from a different area
     of Mercer County to deposit material in an enclosed area where a group
     of people sorted two- to four-ton loads of waste into 16 categories  of
     material.

     Analyzing the five-day summer and winter data allowed the composition
     of the waste within Mercer County to be predicted for a typical  year.

     To project annual -and seasonal quantities of waste within the county,
two pieces of information developed during the study were analyzed:

     The collection vehicle volume of residential waste delivered to GROWS
     Landfill on a daily basis for three years; and

     The collection vehicle volume and weight of waste delivered to GROWS
     Landfill for two,  two-week weighing periods.

     If additional analysis would correlate these two pieces of  information,
it would be possible to predict how much waste could be collected for a
given month.

     The two additional pieces of information that allowed these two sets of
data to be correlated were:

1.   the in-vehicle solid waste bulk density developed during the weighing
     program; and

2.   the volume of collection vehicles that entered GROWS Landfill during
     the two-week weighing period versus during the entire month.

     By using these data, the total waste quantity collected in  Mercer
County was estimated.
                                    333

-------
     Based on  its  projections of population growth,  and  the quantity and
composition  of solid  waste which were generated  by  the county,
STV/Environmental  had prepared projections of the allocation of this waste
quantity to  the various proposed county solid waste management  facilities
and the resulting  composition of that waste.  The information had been
derived from the "Mercer County Solid Waste Quantification  and
Characterization Study" dated March 1988  ("March 1988 Study"),  which was
been prepared  by STV/Environmental and to which  reference  should be made for
more complete  information.

     In February 1988,  The Authority executed a  long-term  contract with
Waste Management,  Inc.  to dispose of raw waste and  resource recovery residue
for 25 years at GROWS and Tullytown Landfills.   On  May 1,  1988,  also the
effective date for the  landfill disposal agreement,  The  Authority
established  a  data management and monitoring system, based  on truck volume
in cubic yards delivering Mercer County's waste  to  GROWS Landfill.

Transfer Station Scale  Data

     On November 10,  1988, a private operator under contract to the
Authority initiated operation of the Mercer County  (former  City of Trenton-
Ewing Township)  Transfer Station.  The Authority operates  the scale and uses
a data monitoring  system based on net weight in  tons of  vehicles delivering
solid waste.       '

     In January 1990,  STV/Environmental and The  Authority  evaluated the
scale data  from the Mercer County Transfer Station  for calendar year 1989.
The purpose  of this evaluation was (1) to analyze the solid waste quantity
projections  considering the first 12 months of actual transfer  station scale
data rather  than extrapolating the two-season, four-week weighing program in
July  1986  and January  1987 and (2) to analyze the  solid waste  composition
and higher  heating value considering the recently approved  Modified Mercer
County Recycling Plan.   In July 1989, the Mercer County  Board of Freeholders
adopted the  Recycling Plan and passed an ordinance  to enforce its
requirements.

     This evaluation  indicated that in 1989, 390,279 tons  or a  daily average
of 1,069 tons, were generated in the county and  delivered  to the transfer
station.  This does not include an estimated additional  14,612  tons of yard
waste being  composted at home and by municipalities at local facilities.
The estimated  annual  and average daily quantities to be  collected at the
Mercer County  Transfer Station for each category of waste  are:

                              Percent Total  Average3                .
                              Height       Daily      Annual  Per Capita
            Type                 (%)	 (tons)     (tons)  (pounds/day)
            10 - Residential          50.3       537      196.038     3.17
            10 - Commercial/          31.7       339      123,852     2.00
                Institutional
            13 - Bulky               16.5       177      64,423     1-04
            23 - Vegetative            0.0       0         53     0.00
            27 - Dry Industrial        1.5       16      5,913     0.10
                TOTAL              100.0     1,069      390,279     6.30
                Footnotes:
                ? Ton per day based on a 7-day week
                 Based upon estimate 1989 Mercer County population of 339,300.

                                    334

-------
     Since long-term populations by municipality were not available in 1986,
STV/Environmental developed population projections for use in estimating
solid  waste generation in Mercer County.  The per capita waste collection
rate of 6.30 pounds per person per day was maintained throughout the
projection period.

     Table 1 presents the amount of solid waste by type delivered monthly to
the Mercer County Transfer Station for the calendar year of 1989.  Table 2
defines the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) solid
waste types.  The monthly scale data from the Mercer County Transfer Station
during January through December 1989 was analyzed.  During the 12-month
period, the total amount of solid waste received was 390,279 tons.

     During this 12-month period, the amounts of processible versus
unprocessible waste received were estimated for Type 10, 13, 23, and 27
wastes using the results of the previous two-season weighing program from
the March 1988 Study.  Since the amount of Type 23 waste received at the
Mercer County Transfer Station during 1989 was so minimal, it was combined
with Type 13 waste.  The following processible and unprocessible contents
for the three waste types were applied to estimated annual tonnages:
     NJDEP
     Waste
     Type

      10
      13 and 23
      27
Processible Unprocessible
Content     Content
   95.6
   26.8
   52.1
 4.4
73.2
47.9
     Using the same assumptions from the March 1988 Study, small amounts of
unprocessible waste (which is combustible but too large to feed into the
combustor) in mixed loads would be reduced in size by the shear and burned
at the mass burn resource recovery facility.  This quantity represents
approximately 20 percent of the unprocessible waste collected.  This
assumption reduces the portion of unprocessible waste collected to
13 percent.

     In 1990, The Authority expects to expand their data monitoring at the
Mercer County Transfer Station scale to  identify the processibility of the
solid waste received for use in future projection updates.  Processible
solid waste is defined as material that  can be burned at a resource recovery
facility as-received or with slight size reduction.

Solid Waste Recycling Projections

     1991  is the first full year that Mercer County will be required to
recycle 25 percent of its 1988 Type 10 solid waste quantity in accordance
with the 1987 Statewide Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act.  1994
is expected to be the first full year of commercial operation for the Mercer
County Resource Recovery Facility.  Also,  1994 may be the first year that
the materials separation requirements of the recently proposed USEPA New
                                    335

-------
                                                         Table  1
                                  1989 MM SCALE DATA BY HASTE TIPS M fflECIR COMTY TR4HSFEE SliTIM (TOSS)
TYPE ia
        MOUTH
TYPE 13
iTQNS)
MMi
'EBIUABT
SiECH
AFJIL
NIT
J1I
JlilT
K533T
SEPTEMBER
OCT3BH
mam
IICfiffiB
MiXyAL TOTAL

24483
23636
27475
25S61
31722
38E17
27961
26563
25989
26436
25177
2166"
319898
e2.es
1966
2128
339*
6453
6418
3575
6461
sees
5981
6S52
4762
34S7
64423
16.51
TYPE 23
i TOSS I

     8
 e

24
                                                                                   TYPE 25
                                                                                   (TOSSi
                                     TYPE 27
                                       (TOSS!

                                       278
                                       263
                                       398
                                       26*
                                       253
                                       644
                                       m
                                       14s
                                       22"
                                       i i»,
                                       1682
                                       325
                                                  TOTiL
                                                  (TQiiSi

                                                   2S648
                                                                                                                      31275
                                                                                                                      32615
                                                                                                                      38387
                                                                                                                      34554
                                                                                                                      36"2i
                                                                                                                      32196
                                                                                                                      S1555
                                                         Table  2
                                         WOEF SOLID MASK  IDENTIFICATIONS  AND DEFINITIONS
                           SOUP HASTE TYPES
                           10 - MUNICIPAL
                               (household, commercial,
                               and Institutional)
                           13  - BULKY HASTE
                           23 - VEGETATIVE WASTE
                          ?5 - ANIMAL AKO FOOD PROCESSING WASTE
                          21 . DRY INDUSTRIAL HASTE
            DtriNlTlONS

Waste originating  in the conraunity
consisting of  household waste from
private residences. co»»crc ial  »astc
•hich originates  in »holesdle,  retail or
service estabHshaents, such as.
restaurants, stores, markets, theatres,
hoteJs. and warehouses, and institutional
xaste material originalinq in schools,
hospitals, research institutions, and
public buildings.

Large tins of waste material,  such as,
appliances, furniture, "hole trees.
branches,  tree trunks, and stimps.  Also
included are waste building materials and
rubble resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition
operations on houses, comcrciat
buildings, pavements, and other
structures. Discarded autonoblles,
trucks, and trailers and large  vehicle
parts, and tires arc included under this
category.

Haste materials from farms, plant
nurseries, and greenhouses that are
produced from the raising of  plants.
This waste includes such crop residues as
plant stalks, hulls, leaves,  and tree
wastes processed through a «oo
-------
Source Performance Standards are in effect.  This proposed regulation will
require Mercer County to recycle 25 percent of processible waste collected
and yard waste collected and composted.  For these reasons, the following
data analyses focus on the years 1991 and 1994.  Since the recycling goal
during 1989 was only effective from May 26th when the Mercer County
Recycling Plan was approved and the residential curbside collection program
began September llth, capture of recyclable components was expected to be
considerably lower in the partial year of 1989 than the subsequent full
years.  Also, participation in the recycling program is predicted to
steadily increase after 1989 as experience is gained.

     Table 3 presents the solid waste composition and component amounts
without recycling for processible and unprocessible Type 10, Types 13 and
23, and Type 27 categories during the year 1991.  Analyses similar to
Table 3 were prepared for the years 1989, 1990, and 1994.  The values for
the Type 10 component distribution were derived from the solid waste
characterization program results of the March 1988 Study.  STV/Environmental
reviewed the comments from the field records of the previous weighing
program and estimated the processible composition of Types 13 and 23, and
Type 27 wastes.  Also, Table 3 presents the estimated amount of white goods
collected, an unprocessible Type 10 residential waste component, that are
recyclable.

     Based on our experience with other more recent solid waste
characterization programs in Delaware County and York County, Pennsylvania,
we made the following assumptions:

1.   Newsprint is 95 percent recyclable, which allows for inserts that are
     not recyclable and contaminated newsprint.

2.   For the Type 10 residential sector, 15 percent of the other paper are
     magazines, which are recyclable.

3.   For the Type 10 commercial/institutional sector, 30 percent of the
     other paper is high grade paper, which is recyclable.

4.   40 percent of rigid plastics are high density polyethylene  (HOPE)
     containers which are recyclable and 90 percent of the polyethylene
     terepthalate (PET) plastic  containers are recyclable.

5.   Glass is 90 percent glass containers  (bottles and and jars), which  are
     recyclable.

6.   Ferrous metals are 40 percent bimetal and tin-steel cans, which are
     recyclable.

7.   Aluminum  is 65 percent beverage and food  cans, which  are recyclable.
                                     337

-------
                             Table 3
                 1991 Sffi.!3 WSTl OK!! HCICUK «! T!?I 11 8KCB COUT!
m
mm
BXtiJiiLi '*'
oexi
IBSPIir 5.41
OBBHTK ^-^
STIR Hffi -7-71
TT H?U 43.S1
r;j 3.51
Kill- ---J
?r '-31
!C! ?US?;2: f-8

TIT'.'J K!SB. 1 liOU 4 tt
ijr iiT-j s.st
cc *•-*
IB;- HiTi i*.n
airr'.K "-'l
5JJT5!t-CaB!!i!:sJ 85-81
W-SKISTiEI

SISi ^-S
fSHlS 3.3
taw ••«
;:s: an: *.»
TT: rarms; r^ i.a
!«;a. sse:: 3.«

rtt ?&cc3::a i«.«
rae spKtcus'iiJ S2.n
T7TL W?U2CS;3J 1M.B

OOKMB!
^wsgr •
liUfci

25726
!T595
".ME
79«t
945
193:3

iiH5
14:;:
2'*"*
22452
- '**•


18E5S
1M3E
442"
53:
5*6*
nn:
449K

31£23T
M3
1KC
ll«
•pj: TT?l ••"'
12 1 23 "
COB?OIIIT ras?Q»r COBPOIIIT COBPWIBT COKPQHT
ill !TO«5' il- i^3151 'J:

i « 5.51
* .
IB :^ 3« "3: "•*
w ^«t ^X 30fc :t.3i
535: '.«« c.7t
( 151 S6E 3.31
( ( 1.31
f i e.3l
i 565 5 .51

it- " 7l
! 1 5.31
sn '«« 3B :u: ^ ^
" * « 3-«
t S t-51
2514* 35K «-3


. i ^
*C* ' £*
13S- 51 !Sif
t - * •'
! e :.5i

51 133" * ?•»
27« 185 -i.81
1~4 '<* 81

« « n * ,:•?!
1HI Kir. I"* ^64 9:.sl
INI M112 !«« B" !MIJ

COgPOIHT

29^25
25114
14659:
11634
7?85
S
-------
     An analysis of Type  10  residential solid waste recycling was performed
considering source separation of newsprint, magazines, rigid plastic
containers, PET plastic containers, glass containers, tin-steel and bimetal
cans, and aluminum cans.  Recycling of plastics from the residential sector
was not initiated in the  analysis  until 1990.  Magazines from the
residential sector were added to the components designated  in the Modified
Mercer County Recycling Plan.  An  analysis of Type 10
commercial/institutional  solid waste recycling was performed considering
source separation of newsprint, corrugated paper, high grade paper, glass
containers, tin-steel and bimetal  cans, and aluminum cans.  Rigid plastic
containers, PET plastic containers, and tin-steel and bimetal cans from the
commercial/institutional  sector were added to the components designated in
the Modified Mercer County Recycling Plan.  The additions were necessary to
meet the state-mandated 25   percent recycling goal.

     Table 4 presents the total Type 10 solid waste composition, total
component quantities, recyclable component percentages and  amounts non-
recyclable component quantities, recyclable component capture rates, total
component capture rates,  recycled  component quantities, and component
quantities landfilled or  processed at  a resource recovery facility, for the
total Type 10 waste during the year 1991.  Analyses similar to Table 4 were
performed for the years 1989, 1990, and 1994.  Table 4 reflects the analysis
of recycling the combined residential  and commercial/institutional sector
components that are specified in the recently approved Modified Recycling
Plan for Mercer County  and the additional ones listed above.

     The proposed solid waste component recycling program satisfies the
Statewide Mandatory Source Separation  Recycling Act of 1987 and the recently
proposed United States  Environment Protection Agency  (USEPA) Emission
Guidelines:  Municipal  Waste Combustors  (New Source Performance Standards),
dated December 20,  1989.  The intent of the material separation requirements
of the USEPA regulations  is  to reduce  the processible waste including yard
waste that is to be burned by 25 percent.   In  1994., the amount of material
recycled and yard waste composted  are  estimated to be 94,000 tons, which  is
about 27 percent of the processible waste generated, thus exceeding the
USEPA requirements.

Solid Waste Quantity  Projections

     Table 5 presents  the annual  solid waste quantity projections  by
categories for Mercer  County during years  1989 through 2013.    Table  5
presents the annual  tonnages for  the  following 22  categories:

1.   Total Waste Generated  - Amount of waste generated  in the  county  which
     is  the  sum  of  total  waste  collected,  and  yard waste  collected  and
     composted.
                                    339

-------
                                     Tab]e  A
                                      1991 TOiL TTPI It SOLID UST1 IICiaiK II O1CH COWTT

win c
noossitu
** — "-•»»•«•
CONSTIIU
wsnin
comuTm
BUB MPU
TDTPiPC
na
HOT
m
KB FUSTICS
rariti. ram, 4 LUTSK
WOD wsn
woe
lucusn
SHIPIKS
SBTOil-COBBSTlJU
M-ooaosTim
cuss
mm
Wim
»;s: aril
TO! BiraKKS KU
Hid. cna;c
S!STeTlL-KII-C«B!!STIKJ
naiMooswi
«ITUOOD5
TOttl WWCESIBU
mu
MmtaFT
(TMS)


2S726
21166
87598
138512
11166
79I€
945
19923
12«5
3«991
1423!
325T2
22453
:7133!

18656
1M36
4427
632
m
W752
449K
316231
N3
N3
UCTOilU
COffNOT
(I)


95t
INS
211
491
n
4«
911
2*1
n
n
K
«
«
26J

9n
481
65:
81
5TJ
n
53S
38J
INS
INS
(ICTCUIU
COHPMBT
I TOt)


28248
21186
1S395
67823
8
3162
654
4*16





71848

167S2
4174
267t
8
2578
8
23644
95664
M3
H3
M-UCTCUSU
ctemuT
!TMS)


1485
8
69282
71686
11466
4744
95
15987
1J649
31991
14231
32572
22453
19949:

196*
6261
1558
622
ilK
18752
2186:
22*553
8
1
UCICL4JU
CiFTDU
UTl
(Si

581
63S
MS
m
n
9IS
98S
981
8S
It
IS
II
81
62S

98S
981
98S
n
JM
8S
9n
64S
INI
INS
WTAL
cmw
UTl
il!

861
631
191
481
81
361
en
181





221

811
361
591
es
5U
IS
461
2il
INt
INI
mcraw
cotmiir
(TMSi


25416
13346
16556
55328
8
284E
766
3615
8
t
8
8
8
56935

15113
;75'
:5S*
8
2598
8
21468
68395
M3
H<
UIDF1LUP
coworar
(TMS)


4318
7848
71842
. 83191
im
5168
168
16388
12649
3499!
14231
32572
22453
212396

2545
667S
153-
632
247«
18752
23446
235842
1
»
     T0Tti
317141
K487    22*553
                               MS
                       261
                                            61198
255842
STV/ENVIRONMENTAL
                                       34O

-------
2,   Yard Waste Collected and Composted - Amount of yard waste composted is
     the leaves that are delivered to the nine municipal composting centers
     throughout Mercer County.  In 1988, the municipalities reported to The
     Authority that approximately 14,400 tons of leaves were composted.  The
     1988 annual quantity of yard waste composted in the county was
     escalated by county population growth for subsequent years.

3.   Total Waste Collected - Amount of total waste collected is the sum of
     Type 10 residential/commercial/institutional waste collected, Type 13
     and 23 bulky and vegetative wastes collected, and Type 27 dry
     industrial waste collected as measured at the Mercer County Transfer
     Station during the 12 months of 1989 as shown in Table 1,

4.   Type 10 Residential/Commercial/Institutional Waste Collected - Amount
     of Type 10 solid waste including recyclables collected from the
     residential and commercial/institutional sectors.  It was estimated to
     be 82 percent of the total waste collected as measured by the Mercer
     County Transfer Station scales during 1989 as shown in Table 1.  The
     residential sector was estimated to be approximately 61 percent of the
     Type 10 waste collected, while the commercial/ institutional sector
     represented the balance of 39 percent as measured during the previous
     two-season weighing program.

5.   Types 13  and 23 Bulky and Vegetative Wastes Collected - Amount of Type
     13 and 23  solid wastes collected.  It was estimated to be 16.5 percent
     of the total waste collected as measured by the Mercer County Transfer
     Station scales during 1989 as shown in Table 1.

6.   Type 27 Dry Industrial Waste Collected - Amount of Type 27 solid waste
     collected  from the industrial sector.  It was estimated to be 1.5
     percent of the total waste collected as measured by the Mercer County
     Transfer  Station scales during 1989 as shown in Table 1.

7.   Processible Waste Collected - Amount of processible waste collected is
     the  fraction of total waste collected  including recyclables that will
     be processed at the Mercer County  Recycling  Facility and Mercer County
     Resource  Recovery Facility, or landfilled.   After  the unprocessible
     waste percentage of the total waste collected was  determined, the
     processible waste percentage was calculated  to be  87 percent by
     difference.
 8.
Unprocessible Waste Collected - Unprocessible waste collected is the
fraction of total waste collected including recyclables that will  be
recycled or landfilled.  The amount of unprocessible waste collected
was determined by applying the unprocessible contents of the Type 10,
13 and 23, and 27 wastes as measured during the previous two-season
weighing program to the quantities of these three waste types received
at the Mercer County Transfer Station.  It was estimated to be
13 percent of the total waste collected.
                                     341

-------
9.   Unprocessible Waste Recycled - Unprocessible waste recycled is white
     goods,  which are major household appliances such as refrigerators,
     ranges, dishwashers,  freezers, and air conditioners,  that are separated
     to be recycled from the Type 10 residential sector.  Amount of white
     goods received was estimated based our experience for other similar
     projects.  It was estimated to be about seven percent of the
     Unprocessible Type 10 waste collected.

10.  Unprocessible Waste to Landfill - Amount of Unprocessible waste
     landfilled is the Unprocessible waste collected less  the Unprocessible
     waste recycled.

11.  NJDEP Recycled Materials Goal - In accordance with the Statewide
     Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act of 1987 and recent
     discussions by The Authority with the NJDEP Office of Recycling, the
     annual recycling goal shall be calculated using the 1988 Type 10 waste
     quantity as the basis.  The 1988 Type 10 waste quantity of 316,000 tons
     was estimated by a ratio of the two annual  county populations times the
     annual 1989 Type 10 waste quantity.  The amount of 1988 Type 10 waste
     was estimated since scale data from the Mercer County Transfer Station
     were available only for the last two months of 1988.   For the year
     1989,  the recycled material goal was 15 percent of the 1988 Type 10
     waste  from May 26th to the end of the year.  For the  year 1990, the
     recycled material goal is the sum of 15 percent of the 1988 Type 10
     waste  from January 1st to May 25th and 25 percent of  the 1988 Type 10
     waste  from May 26th until December 31st.  For the year 1991 and
     subsequent years, the recycled material goal is 25 percent of the 1988
     Type 10 waste.

12.  Projected Recycled Materials - Projected recycled materials are the
     results of total solid waste recycling analyses for the year 1991  in
     Table  4.  Amount of projected recycled materials for  each subsequent
     year was increased by county population growth.

13.  Processible Waste Recycled - Amount of processible waste recycled is
     the projected recycled materials less the Unprocessible waste recycled.

14.  Commercial/Institutional Materials Recycled by Others - Commercial/
     institutional materials recycled by others are the result of
     commercial/institutional solid waste recycling analyses that were
     performed for the years 1989 through 1991 and 1994.  Amount of
     projected recycled materials for each subsequent year was increased by
     county population growth.

15.  Residential Materials to Recycling Facility - Amount  of residential
     materials to recycling facility is the processible waste recycled less
     the commercial/institutional materials recycled by others.  During 1989
     and 1990, the recyclable residential materials have been delivered to
     the Mercer County Transfer Station.  After 1991, the  residential
     recyclable materials will be delivered to the Mercer  County Material
     Recovery Facility.
                                   342

-------
16.   Recycling Process Residue to Landfill - From years 1991 through 2013,
     amount of recycling process residue landfilled due to contamination and
     glass breakage is estimated to be five percent of the processible waste
     recycled based on our experience for a mature recycling program and a
     we!1-operated recycling facility.

17.   Processible Waste to Resource Recovery Facility - In July 1993 the
     Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility is expected to commence
     commercial operation in July 1993.  During the year 1993, therefore
     one-half of the processible waste collected less the processible waste
     recycled will be processed at the facility.  The remaining items are
     calculated using this assumption. From years 1994 through 2013, amount
     of processible waste delivered is the processible waste collected less
     the processible waste recycled.

18.   Allowable Rejected Waste from Resource Recovery Facility - From July
     1993 through the year 2013, maximum amount of allowable rejected waste
     is 1.5 percent of the processible waste delivered to Mercer County
     Resource Recovery Facility in accordance with the service agreement
     with Westinghouse Resource Energy Systems Division.

19.   Waste Processed at Resource Recovery Facility - From July 1993 through
     the year 2013, amount of total waste processed is the processible waste
     delivered to the Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility minus the
     allowable rejected waste.

20.   Ferrous Recovered at Resource Recovery Facility - From July 1993
     through the year 2013, amount of ferrous recovered at the Mercer County
     Resource Recovery Facility is total waste processed times 3.09 percent,
     the percentage of ferrous remaining in the processed component (tons)
     in Table 5D, times 80 percent recovery efficiency, in accordance with
     the service agreement with Westinghouse Resource Energy Systems
     Division.

21.   Resource Recovery Process Residue - From July 1993 through the year
     2013, amount of process residue produced is total waste processed at
     the Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility times 22.63 percent, in
     accordance with the service agreement with Westinghouse Resource Energy
     Systems Division less ferrous recovered.

22.   Residue and Waste to Landfill - From year  1989 through June 1993,
     amount of waste and residue landfilled is  unprocessible waste  to
     landfill plus processible waste collected  less processible waste
     recycled plus recycling process residue to landfill.  From July  1993
     through the year 2013, amount of waste and residue landfilled  is the
     sum of unprocessible waste to landfill, recycling process residue to
     landfill, allowable rejected waste from resource recovery facility, and
     resource  recovery process  residue.   Since  May 1, 1988, when the
     landfill disposal agreement began with Waste Management,  it was  assumed
     that  250,000 tons of capacity was consumed during the eight-month
     period.   Landfill capacity consumed  during the year  1988  is considered
     in the 25-year total.
                                     343

-------
N,
m
50
O
m
2
                                                                                       Table  5
                         SOLID KASTI QUANTITT  PMJICTIOIS (TONS/TIAR) FOR KIRCH COUNTT  (TIARS  1969-2(13)
         TIAR
8
                        (1)
1989
199(
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1996
1999
2(((
2((l
2((2
2((3
2((4
2((5
2((6
2((7
2((B
2((9
2(1«
2(11
2(12
2(13
4(4.689
4(9,636
414,783
419.731
424,661
429,634
434,588
439,545
444.5(3
449,464
454,428
459.393
464,361
469,332
474,3(5
479, 28(
484,256
469,236
494, 22(
499,2(5
5(4,193
5(9,164
514,177
519,174
524,216
                       (2)
        TOTAL
11,619,625
14,611
14,791
14,968
15,146
15,33«
15,514
15,7((
15,869
16,(79
16,272
16,467
16,665
16,865
17,(67
17,272
17,479
17,669
17,9(2
16,116
16,334
16,554
18,776
19,6(2
 I9,23(
 19,466

423,161
                      (31
                      (4)
                       (51
                                                                                                                            (61
                                                                                                                                               (7)
                                                                                                                                                                    (6)
                                                                                                                                                                                        (9)
                                                                                                                                                                                       (It)
  39(,279
  395,147
  399,815
  4(4,583
  4(9,351
  414,12(
  416,888
  423,656
  428,424
  433,192
  437,961
  442,726
  447,496
  452.264
  457,(32
  461.8(1
  466,569
  471,337
  476.1(4
  48(,672
  465,64(
  49(,4(6
  495,176
  499,944
  5(4,758

11,187,444
TTPI 1(
RISIDINTUL/
CONNIRCIAL/
1ISTITUT10IAL
HASTI
COILICTID
319, B9»
323,799
327,7(7
331,615
335,523
339,431
343,339
347,248
351,156
355,(64
356,972
362, 6B«
366,788
376,696
374,6(4
376,512
362. 42(
366,329
39(,236
394.144
396, (52
4(1, 961
4(5,868
4(9,776
413,722
TTPIS 13 I 23
BULIT AND
VIGITAT1VI
VASTIS
COLLICTID

(4,47t
65,264
66,(51
66,839
67,627
68,415
69,2(2
69,996
7(,778
71,565
72,353
73,141
73,929
74,716
75,5(4
76,292
77, (79
77,667
76,655
79,442
8(,23(
81, (18
81,8(5
82,593
83,366
5,913
5,985
6, (57
6,13(
6,2(2
6,274
6,346
6.419
6.491
6,563
6,635
6,767
6,78(
6,852
6,924
6,996
7, (69
7,141
7,213
7,285
7,358
7,43(
7,5(2
7,574
7,647
339,651
343,8(1
347, 95(
352, (99
356,249
36(,399
364,549
368.696
372,846
376,997
381,147
385,297
389,446
393,596
397,745
4(1,895
4(6, (44
4K.194
414,342
416,492
422,641
426,791
43(,94(
435, (9(
439,279
9,169,731
                                                                                                   1,848,221
                                                                                                       169,493
                                                             9,736,181
  66.828
  51,247
  51.865
  52,464
  53.1(2
  53,721
  54,339
  54.958
  55.576
  56.195
  56,813
  57.432
  58.(5(
  58.669
  59.287
  59,9(6
  6(,524
  61,143
  61,761
  62,388
  62,996
  63,617
  64,235
  64,854
  65,478

1,451,264
                                                                                                                                                                     313
                                                                                                                                                                     635
                                                                                                                                                                     8(3
                                                                                                                                                                     812
                                                                                                                                                                     822
                                                                                                                                                                     632
                                                                                                                                                                     841
                                                                                                                                                                     851
                                                                                                                                                                     66(
                                                                                                                                                                     87(
                                                                                                                                                                     879
                                                                                                                                                                     889
                                                                                                                                                                     699
                                                                                                                                                                     9(6
                                                                                                                                                                     918
                                                                                                                                                                     927
                                                                                                                                                                     937
                                                                                                                                                                     947
                                                                                                                                                                     956
                                                                                                                                                                     966
                                                                                                                                                                     975
                                                                                                                                                                     985
                                                                                                                                                                     994
                                                                                                                                                                                      21,835
  5O15
  56,612
  51,662
  51,672
  62,266
  52,689
  53,498
  54,1«7
  54,716
  55,325
  55,934
  56,543
  57,151
  57,761
  68,37(
  56,979
  59,586
  68,196
  66,665
  61,414
  62,(23
  62,632
  63,241
  63,856
  64,465

1,429,429
                                                                                                                                                                                      (It)
TOTAL
KASTI
GINIRATID
(2»3)


TARD VAST!
COLLICTID AND
COHPOSTID



TOTAL
KASTI
COLLICTID



TTPI l(
Risiomuu
COHHIRCIAL/
INSTITUTIONAL
KAST1
COLLICTID
TTPIS 13 I 23
BULIT AND
VIGITAT1VI
VASTIS
COLLICTID

TrPI 27
DRT INDUSTRIAL
VAST! COLLICTID



PROCISSIBLI
HASTI
COLLICTID



UNPROCISSIBLI
VASTI
COLLICTID



UNPROCISSIBLE
VASTI RICTCLID



UNPBOCISSIBLI
HASTI TO
LANDFILL
(8-9)


NJDIP
RICTCLID
NATIIIAL
(•All
GUAIi


  28,568
  66,443
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996
  76,996
  78,996
  76,996
  76,996
  76,996
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996
  76,996
  78,996
  78,996
  76,996
  78,996
  78.996
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996
  78,996

1,911,919

-------
  m
  Z
o
z
2
m
z
H
>
             mt
CO
>b
O)
             TOTAL
  (12)

PROJECTED
RECYCLED
MATERIALS
2.216,887
                                                            Table  5   (Cont'd)

       SOLID HASTE QUANTITY  PROJECTIONS (TONS/TEAR! FOR MERCER COUHI! (YEARS 1989-2813)

   (13)                (141               (15)               (16)             (17)
                                                                                                              (18)
                                                                                          (19)
PROCEfiSIBLE         COMMERCIALS       RESIDENTIAL
   HASTE           INSTITUTIONAL      MATERIALS TO
 RECYCLED         HATERIALS RECYCLED RECYCLING FACILITY
  112-91             BT OTHERS           (13-14)
I9B9
1996
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
199B
1999
2m
2661
2««2
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2«ll
2111
2612
2113
29,719
66,618
81,198
82,166
83,134
84,163
85,871
86,646
B7,«6B
87,976
88,945
89,913
96,681
91,656
92,818
93,786
94,755
95,723
96,691
97,659
98,628
99,596
166,564
161,533
162,511
29,466
67,984
86,395
81,353
82,312
83,271
84,236
65,189
86,146
87,167
88,665
69,«24
89,982
96,942
91,966
92,859
93,618
94,776
95,735
96,694
97,653
96,611
99,57»
166,529
HI, 497
13,316
31,662
37,967
38,446
38,893
39,346
39,799
46,252
46,765
41,156
41,611
42,664
42,517
42,976
43,423
43,876
44,329
44,782
45,235
45,688
46,141
46,594
47,647
47,566
47,956
16,689
36,322
42,467
42,913
43,419
43,925
44.436
44,936
45,443
45,948
46,454
46,966
47,465
47,971
48,477
46,983
49,489
49.994
56,566
51,«66
51,511
52,617
52,523
53,«29
53,539
  2,189,651
1,633,296
1,155,751
                                     RECYCLING
                                      PROCESS
                                      RESIDUE
                                    TO UNDP ILL
                                     (13*5))
                                                                                                 164,583
                                   PROCESSIBLE
                                    HASTE TO
                                  RESOURCE  RECOVER?
                                    FACILITY
                                  1993  (7-13)«5ei
                                  1994-2813 (7-13)
  ALLOHABLE          HASTE
  REJECTED HASTE  PROCESSED AT
  TO RESOURCE   RESOURCE RECOVER!
RECOVERY  FACILITY  FACILITY
   (17M.5I)        (17-181
6
,626
.668
,116
,164
,212
.259
,367
,355
,463
.451
.499
,547
,595
.643
,691
.739
,787
,835
,883
,931
,979
5,626
5,675



136,966
277,126
266.319
283,569
286,766
289,891
293,682
296,272
299,464
362,654
365,845
369,635
312,226
315,418
318,667
321,798
324,969
326,179
331,376
334,561
337,782
                                                                                        6,285,797
2,655
4,157
,205
,253
,361
,348
,396
,444
,492
,546
,588
,636
,683
,731
,779
,827
,875
4,923
4,971
5,618
5,667
134,914
272,971
276,114
279,257
282,466
285,542
288,685
291,828
294,972
298,114
361,257
364,466
367,543
316,686
313,828
316,971
326,114
323,257
326,466
329,542
332,716
                                                                                             94,287
                                                                                       6,191,516
                                                                                                                                                  (26)
                                                                                                                                (21)
  FERROUS         RESOURCE RECOVERY
 RECOVERED  AT     PROCESS RESIDUE
RESOURCE RECOVERY  (19«22.63*-26t
   FACILITY
 (19»3.«9X«BMI
                                                                                             3,334
                                                                                             6,745
                                                                                             6,823
                                                                                             6,901
                                                                                             6.978
                                                                                             7,856
                                                                                             7,134
                                                                                             7,211
                                                                                             7.289
                                                                                             7,367
                                                                                             7,444
                                                                                             7,522
                                                                                             7,666
                                                                                             7,677
                                                                                             7,755
                                                                                             7,832
                                                                                             7,916
                                                                                             7,968
                                                                                             8,665
                                                                                             8,143
                                                                                             8,222

                                                                                           152,995
                                                       1,248,144
   (22)

  RESIDUE*
  HASTE TO
  LANDFILL
1989-1992   (7H6-13H6)
1993 (56X1(7-131*16+16418*21)
1994-2113   (16*16»18m)


27,197
55,«28
55,662
56,295
56,929
57,562
58,196
58,836
59,463
66,697
6«,736
61,364
61,997
62,631
63,264
63,898
64,532
65,165
65,799
66,432
67,672
366,566
326,428
322,637
326.466
222,616
116,238
117,576
118,914
126,253
121,591
122,929
124,268
125,686
126,944
128,283
129,621
13«.959
132,297
133,636
134,974
136,312
137,651
138, 9B9
146,327
141,679
                                                                                                                                                                                                         « 4,367,775
             «  IICUIDES 256,666  TOSS OF DISPOSAL CAPACITY USED BY MERGER  COUNT?
             DURING 8 HONTHS OF  1988 IN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR LICENSING AGREEMENT HITH HASTE MANAGEMENT.

-------
     A table similar to Table 5 was prepared to present the average daily
solid waste quantity projection on a seven-day-per-week basis for the same
22 categories for Mercer County during years 1989 through 2013.

Recyclable Materials Collection, Processing, and Marketing

     Tables 6 presents the average daily on a six-day-per-week basis and
annual amounts of the Type 10 recyclable materials, that are source-separated
from processible waste and collected by commingled (plastics, glass,
ferrous, and aluminum) and paper (newsprint, corrugated,  magazine,  and high
grade) components for processing and marketing during the years 1989 through
2013.  For the year 1989,  the average daily values are based on 186 days
remaining in the year since May 26th, which is when the Mercer County
Recycling Plan was approved by NJDEP, and 96 days remaining in the year
since September llth, which is when the residential recyclable materials
curbside collection program began in the county.

Processible Waste Composition

     Table 7 presents estimated processible solid waste component
percentages and amounts by sector and type for use as a fuel in Mercer
County during 1994.

     The residential and commercial/institutional/bulky/industrial  sector
amounts from Table 7 were used to determine its percentage of the total  as
follows:

                                                   Percent Tgtal Weight
          Sector                                   	[£}	

          Residential                                      56.5

          Commercial/Institutional/                        43.5
          Bulky/Industrial

     These values were used to weight the sector proximate and ultimate
analytical composite values in Table 8 to calculate the sector - weighted
total values.  In 1990, The Authority expects to expand its data monitoring
at the Mercer County Transfer Station scale to identify the source of solid
waste weighed by the two sectors for use in future updates.

Solid Waste Component Proximate and Ultimate Analyses

     Proximate and ultimate analyses were performed on the individual
combustible waste component samples for each sector (residential and
commercial/institutional/bulky/industrial) from the sorting program.
Proximate and ultimate analyses were performed on the composite combustible
waste component samples for each sector from the sorting program.  Since
                                    346

-------
/ENVIRON
9 YEAR
Z
Table 6
ANNUAL PROCESSIBLB TOTAL TYPE 16 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS COLLECTED (TONSI IN MERCER COUNTY (YEARS 1989-2613)
AVERAGE DAILY ANNUAL
(TONS/DAY) ( TONS/YEAR 1
COMMINGLED

H
J> (m ( 186 DAYS! 38
r~ (96 DAYSI 73
1999
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
M 1997
^ 1998
"^ 1999
2(66
2661
2»62
2(63
2664
2665
2666
2667
2»68
2««9
2618
2611
2612
2613
65
66
61
62
83
84
85
66
87
88
69
96
91
92
93
94
95
96
91
98
99
1(6
166
161
PAPER
NEWSPRINT
56
169
72
81
62
83
84
85
66
87
68
89
96
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
166
161
162
163
CORRUGATED
31
66
38
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
49
56
56
51
51
52
52
53
53
54
MAGAZINE
n
32
2(
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
26
28
28
28
29
HIGH GRADE
11
32
23
36
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
31
38
38
38
TOTAL
121
234
152
177
179
182
184
166
188
198
192
194
196
196
261
263
265
267
269
211
213
215
211
226
222
224
TOTAL

156
366
218
258
261
264
267
276
213
276
279
282
285
288
291
295
298
361
3«4
387
316
313
316
319
322
325
COHKIHGLID

6963

26435
25674
25373
25672
25972
26271
26576
26869
27166
27467
27766
26665
28364
28663
28962
29261
29566
29859
36158
39457
36756
31655
31354
31656

NEWSPRINT
18475

22323
25416
25719
26622
26325
26628
26931
27235
27638
27841
28144
28447
28756
29653
29356
29669
29962
36266
39569
38872
31175
31418
317B1
32687
PAPER
CORRUGATED
5791

11724
13348
13568
13667
13626
13965
14144
14363
14463
14622
14781
14946
15699
15259
15418
15577
15736
15895
16(55
16214
16373
16532
16691
16852

HIGH GRADE
3678

7276
9461
9573
9686
9799
9912
18825
16137
16256
1«363
16476
16589
16762
16814
16927
11848
11153
11266
11379
11491
116(4
11717
11836
11944

MAGAZINE
3978

6232
7695
718(
7265
7349
7434
7518
7663
7688
7772
7857
7942
6626
8111
8195
8266
8365
8449
8534
8618
8763
8788
8872
8958

TOTAL
22423

47549
55326
55986
56646
57299
57959
58619
59279
59938
66598
61256
61918
62577
63237
63897
64556
65216
65876
66535
67195
67655
68515
69174
69841
TOTAL

2906

67984
8(395
81353
82312
83271
84236
85188
86147
871(6
88(85
89(23
89982
9(941
91986
92859
93817
94776
95735
96693
97652
96611
99576
1(6528
161496
NOTES:

1.  MINIMUM  AVERAGE DAILY AND ANNUAL RECYCLABLE HATERIALS COLLECTED  FOR  THE  PARTIAL TEAR  1989 ARE BASED ON
    96 OPERATING  DAYS REMAINING IN THE TEAR SINCE SEPTEKBER  11.

2.  MCTCWD HATJRU1, OUAH1TIBS DO HOT CONSIDER RESIDUE LOSSES  IN  COLUMN 16  OP TABLE 5.

-------
Table 7
X
m
Z
0
z
5
m
Z
— I
>
wmm
~






S>
CD















SECTOR
HASTE TfFE
1S94 PROCISSIBLE SOLiC MCTI COBP05IT10II BT SECTOR ASP TTPE AS A FUEL !«
RENEWAL rOHIIER^l/IIISTIT'JTim.'B'JUiy/ilie'JFWAL
TTPS
16
8I3IDHTIAI


IMPM!
CORRUPTED PAPER
OTHER PAPS;
TOT PAPIR
FIUI
RIGID
PIT
TOT PLASTICS
mill. RUBBER. I LIATHIP.
FOOD W.STE
HOOD
TA8D HASTI
SHSIPKGS
SUBTOTAL-COKBUSTIBII
WI-COIIBIISTiBLl
CLASS
HRRO'JE
iUMliniH
(S'.SC MTU
TOT mmWK STIS
BRICK, CERAMIC
SUBTOTAL-ra-COHBIISTlBLI
TOTAL PROCESSIBLI
COHPOIHT
iti
2.31
4.21
3«.ll
36.61
5.11
l.Bt
e.n
7.6t
5.91
9.2t
1.71
19. 41
8.91
9!. 71

1.41
2.71
B.Tt
9.31
l.lt
3.21
8.31
lee.ei
CMIPCIMT
iTOKSi
2572
E584
47898
57245
8825
2882
131
11636
9171
14445
7378
36364
13954
143587

2263
4151
1142
524
1666
5812
13631
156618
T»PE

COKHESCIAL/IISTITUTIOIAL
COHWIIIIIT
It)
!.6t
l.'l
38. 2t
33.81
3.9t
2.7t
(.It
6.71
4.5t
28.lt
8.4t
3.8t
16,61
67.21

i.n
3.21
8.9t
t.'it
l.6t
7.81
12.81
166.61
MKPOKEIIT
I70IISI
693
1536
26494
28923
3439
2358
56
5854
3931
17655
7376
3374
9362
76489

1469
2767
761
13!
892
6125
11253
87661

T!PIS 13 4 23
COBPONEIIT COBPOHEh'T
It' (TM3I

l«t 2*94
261 5788
8682
8
P
8
6
8
8
661 17364
6
6
26646

e
51 1447
6
9
8
5t 1447
2894
18et 25948

TTPl 27
OTPOHEHT CONWKW
It) ITODSI
e
set in:
15V 586
P5?
i5i 5?e
6
8
566
51 195
6
3?1 1173
6
«
3714

8
51 . 195
e
(
6
A
195
39f9
BE3CE8 OTH

TCI
CMPOIIH:
:«l
8.71
4.51
27. Jt
32.71
C-.31
2.8t
8.91
5,31
3.4t
14.71
21.51
2.81
•.7t
8f.:t

:.2i
M
6.61
8. It
8.71
6.3t
11.91
!6».9t
TOTAL

AL
COHPONFJT
.TONS)
r93
5663
32868
39364
4825
2358
56
6446
4126
17655
25987
33'4
9362
I86169

1469
44?9
76!
131
892
7572
14342
I28518


COHPO»EHT
ft!
'..61
4.4t
28.91
34.9)1
4.31
1.91
e.it
f.n
4.31
11.61
12.81
12.21
8.41
98.lt

1.31
3.11
8.71
9.21
8.91
4.51
9.91
166.61


COHPOKINT
(TOSS!
4465
1213"
79958
95669
12856
5248
187
17478
13297
32169
33277
3373B
23256
243756

3672
?569
1963
655
2556
12584
27373
27712?

-------
surface moisture and combustible content of the non-combustible waste
components are negligible, those waste components were not analyzed.

     The proximate analysis serves to define the combustion parameters of
solid waste as a fuel.  A proximate analysis determines the level of
moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash and the higher heating
value in Btu per pound of solid waste.  Moisture content and higher heating
value are required information in the design of a solid waste combustion-
steam generation unit in a mass burn resource recovery facility and
predicting its performance.  The design parameters of the unit are sensitive
to moisture content and the heat release or input of solid waste, which
changes due to seasonal variations in the nature of the fuel.  The fixed
carbon and ash contents are used to estimate the amount of residue (bottom
ash and fly ash) produced by the entire system.

     An ultimate analysis serves to define the levels of carbon,  hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine in solid waste.  This elemental
analysis is used to calculate the mass and volume of both combustion air
needed and resulting combustion/flue gas in the solid waste combustion-steam
generation unit and air pollution control device.  Some of the elemental
levels are used to estimate the concentration of certain pollutants in the
flue gas prior to the air pollution control device.  Nitrogen content is
used to predict the concentration of nitrogen oxides in the flue gas.
Sulfur and chlorine contents are used to estimate the levels of acid gases
in the flue gas, such as sulfur oxides and hydrogen chlorides.  In an effort
to relate the chlorine derivatives that may be deleterious in a combustion-
steam generation unit, it has been generally concluded that the chlorine
atoms which are insoluble in water are those of particular concern.  The
theory is that at the temperatures usually encountered in the furnace
section, the insoluble forms of chlorine will vaporize and, therefore, have
the opportunity to readily combine with other elements and become chemically
aggressive to components in the unit.

     Proximate and ultimate analyses on an as-received basis from laboratory
analyses from the March 1988 Study for the processible combustible waste
components by residential and commercial/institutional/bulky/industrial
sectors were used as the starting point to determine the composite sector
and total proximate and ultimate analyses.

Composite Sector and Total Proximate and Ultimate Analyses

     Table 8 presents the proximate and analyses by weight of the
residential sector, commercial/institutional/bulky/industrial sector, and a
sector-weighted total on as-received, dry, and moisture- and ash-free bases.
The proximate and ultimate analyses of the individual components on an as-
received basis for a particular sector were weighted by the sector
processible waste composition in Table 10 to calculate the composite sector
values in Table 8.  The sector-weighted total was determined by weighting
the composite sector value with the sector processible waste ratio that was
calculated from Table 7.
                                    349

-------
PIOI 32
Table  8
X
m
Z
55
0
z
m
Z
>


i





COtPOSITI PIOIIMTI MB OITIUTI UAITSIS IT SICTOI fOt 8IICII COWTT
nOIIWTI HlltSIS OILTIUTt UlllSIS
Hinii
WUTILI tlllD HIATIIG
SICTOI HOISTWI ami cuioi isi ituii wisnni cum HTDIOGII OUCH itnocn
	 Ill II) III III 
-------
     The value of remaining solid waste processed as a fuel with 25 percent
recycling during 1994 is predicted to be approximately 5,150 Btu per pound
on an as-received basis.  This value is well within the design range of
4,200 to 6,000 Btu per pound as indicated in the service agreement with
Westinghouse Resource Energy Systems Division.

     The other proximate and ultimate analytical values seem to be
reasonably close in comparison to other published reference data.

Waste Flow Control and Enforcement

     Supply of solid waste to waste management facilities has historically
been a concern to public officials and an issue raised by opponents.
Without a secure solid waste flow, the revenues needed to financially
support a solid waste management project become questionable.

     Recognizing the importance of waste flow control, the The Authority
decided to obtain a franchise for the solid waste generated within the
county's borders to reinforce the existing waste flow directives.  Since
Mercer County direct hauls to an out-of-state landfill facility, the county
was not eligible to apply for a franchise.  To be eligible the county needed
to develop and operate a solid waste facility.  Since this planning effort
was ultimately directed towards ensuring waste flow to Mercer's long-term
waste management facilities, the county decided to plan and develop a
transfer station.  With an operational transfer facility, the county was
able to secure a franchise and the additional enforcement abilities
associated with  it.

     The Mercer  County Transfer Station, franchise, and the NJDEP's waste  as
well as flow  directives now provide the mechanism for controlling the waste
flow an additional level of confidence for  flow of solid waste to our long-
term waste management  facilities.  To ensure  proper implementation  of the
waste  flow control mechanisms.  The Authority established  an enforcement
department which monitors  solid waste hauling activities in Mercer  County.

     The more rigorous  enforcement of waste  flow  regulations since  the
start-up  of  the  county transfer station  and  the  rise  of  tipping  fees  at
competing out-of-county disposal  facilities  have  virtually  eliminated the
 "leakage" of  Mercer  County's waste  from  the  system.

Transfer  Station

     The  development  of the Mercer  County  Transfer  Station was  not  for
transfer  to  distant  landfills,  but  rather  as a  mechanism for gaining  control
of the waste  flow and  to  assist  in  the  quantification of the waste  stream
 for long-term planning efforts.   The  transfer facility  has been  in  operation
 since  November 1988  and only  transfers  residential  solid waste.   The_
 facility acts as a control  point  for commercial  waste accounts  by weighing
 these  vehicles and rerouting  them directly to the landfill.
                                     351

-------
Resource Recovery Facility

     In 1994, the anticipated first full year of operation for the Mercer
County Resource Recovery Facility, it is expected that annual total solid
waste collected before recycling in Mercer County would be about 414,100
tons per year 1,135 tons per day7 (seven-day week).  Of these figures,
approximately 360,400 tons per year 987 tons per day7 would be considered as
processible waste without recycling.  With recycling at the 25 percent
minimum level of 1988 Type 10 waste amount under the State Recycling Act
requirements, the amount of processible waste available to be burned would
be reduced to about 277,100 tons per year or 759 tons per day-,.

     Using the processible waste quantity projections in Table 5, an assumed
minimum annual operating availability factor of 85 percent,  and an expected
20-year operating life for the Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility, the
minimum average daily and annual processing capacities were calculated for
years 1993 through 2013 as presented in Table 9.

     Based on this analysis, a rated processing capacity of 975 tons per day
was selected for the Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility.  Initially,
three  325-ton-per-day combustor-boiler units will be installed,  and the
addition of a fourth unit will be needed in the year 2002.

     In May 1988, The Authority entered into a service agreement  with
Westinghouse Resource Energy Systems Division, who is responsible to prepare
part of the environmental permitting and approval applications,  design,
construction, start-up, acceptance testing, and long-term operation of the
Mercer County Resource Recovery Facility.  All environmental  permits and
approvals for the facility are expected to be obtained in late 1990.  Then
construction of the facility would begin in early 1991.   Anticipated initial
date of commercial operation for the facility is mid-1993.

Recycling and Material Recovery Facility

     With the requirement of mandatory recycling in the State of  New Jersey,
The Authority used the solid waste quantification and characterization data
to plan,  design,  and implement a county-wide recycling program for both the
residential and commercial/institutional sectors.  These data were also used
to demonstrate compliance with the state's mandatory recycling goals and for
the planning of a material recovery facility to be co-located at  the site of
the resource recovery facility.

     The quantification data was used to project the amount of designated
recyclable* expected to be collected through the residential  curbside
collection contract.  This data was provided to bidders to assist in
determining equipment needs under the contract scope.  This information was
also used to design an interim recycling facility which was constructed to
transfer the commingled material to a distant market.  The interim recycling
facility was constructed at the county transfer station site  to take
advantage of the existing scales and scale house.  Mercer County's curbside
program services approximately 91,000 units in 13 municipalities.
                                    352

-------
                                              Table  9

                     MINIMUM AVERAGE DAILY AND ANNUAL BASTE PROCESSING CAPACITIES (TONS)
                     FOR THE MERCER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY (YEARS 1993-2013)
                                               AVERAGE DAILY
                       YEAR                     (TONS/DAY)                     (TONS)

                      1993                        744                         136.968
                      1994                        "?59                         277,126
                      1995                        765                         280,319
                      1996                        777                         263,505
                      199^                        785                         286, "68
                      1996                        794                         269,891
                      1999                        883                         293, 682
                      2m                        612                         296,272
                      2081                        820                         299,464
                      2
-------
     Commercial and institutional  establishments are required to corrugated
and high grade paper in addition to the materials designated for the
residential sector.  The results of the solid waste quantification and
characterization program revealed  that in order for Mercer County to achieve
compliance with the state's recycling goals,  the commercial/institutional
sector must recycle additional components.   In absence of the waste
quantification and characterization program,  the county would have been
unable to demonstrate compliance with the state-mandated recycling goals.

     As with the planning with any solid waste recycling or processing
facility, project participants must know the  quantity and character of the
material to be processed.  With the quantity  and character of the material
known, The Authority is planning a 120-ton-per-day material  recovery
facility that will be operational  in 1991.  When completed,  this facility
will process commingled recyclables collected through the county's curbside
residential program.
                                   354

-------
USING BASIC ECONOMIC DECISION MODELS FOR INTEGRATED
       SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
                     Loch McCabe
               Resource Recycling Systems
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                        355

-------
                  Using Basic Economic Decision Models for
                Integrated Solid Waste Management Planning

      Community planners and decision makers are faced increasingly with the
 challenging task of developing an integrated solid waste management strategy that
 best meets the community's short- and long-term waste recovery and disposal
 needs.  This task usually requires a balancing of different waste management
 approaches (i.e. recycling, composting, landfilling and incineration).   Achieving this
 balance in a technically and economically optimal manner requires three steps:

      1.  Determine the Alternative Waste Management  Strategies.
      2.  Maximize the Cost-effectiveness of Each Strategy.
      3.  Choose the Most Cost-Effective Strategy.

      Upon completing this decision process, planners should have  the
 information they need to build the type, size and number of waste recovery/disposal
 collection and processing systems which are most cost effective in the short- and
 long-run.

      Step 1: Determine the Alternative Waste Management Strategies. Given a
 certain volume and composition  of solid waste, select the alternative waste
 management strategies which may potentially meet  the community's needs.  Some
of the most common options, and their components, include:

Sample Strategies	Strategy Components	
Bury Only                          Landfill all solid waste.

Burn All,  Bury Ash                  Burn all solid waste, then landfill ash.

Recycle Some, Burn Rest, Bury Ash    Recycle glass and metal, burn organic organic
                                    waste, then landfill ash.

Recycle Some, Bury Rest              Recycle paper, cardboard, plastic, metals,
                                    glass, then landfill residual waste.

                                    356

-------
Recycle/Compost Most, Bury Rest     Recycle paper, cardboard, plastic, metals,
                                     glass, compost yardwaste and remaining
                                     organics, then landfill residual waste.

The strategies which are selected will generally be chosen based on a variety of
technical, political and fiscal criteria.

      Step 2: Maximize the Cost-effectiveness of Each Strategy. Once an alternative
strategy has been selected, determine how it might be implemented most cost-
effectively.  That is, identify the optimal operating level and scale for each
component which minimizes the net costs of the approach.

      For example, say the planner is developing a "Recycle Some, Bury Rest"
strategy. First, determine  the portion of the waste stream which would be recycled,
or the operating level of the recycling system. Then evaluate the cost effectiveness
of different scales (sizes) of recycling collection/processing systems to handle the
desired volume of materials (q*). Avoid choosing a scale which is too small
("undersizing"), a scale of production which  is too large ("White Elephant"
syndrome).  It is most desirable to choose an "optimal" scale, one that will produce
the appropriate quantity at the lowest possible price.
               $
                                      Small
                                                   Medium
                                                   Scale
                                        4           Quantity (Tons)

In the above case, a medium scale would be chosen.  Then, use a similar process to
determine the most cost-effectiveness scale for burying the residual waste.
                                     357

-------
      Once the most cost-effective scale of recycling and the most cost-effective scale
of residual landfilling (1*) have been identified, add these components together to
determine an overall cost for the strategy.
                  Recycling
                                Medium
                                Scale
                            Tons
Landfill
            Tons
Through this process, the planner will determine the right mix of components to
ensure that the overall waste stream is managed in the most cost-effective manner
given for the desired strategy.   It is recommended that this be done for several
different operating levels and scales of the components to ensure that most cost-
effective combination of components  is found.

      Step 3:  Choose the Most Cost Effective Strategy. Once the strategies have been
identified in their most cost-effective  form, evaluate their cost-effectiveness over
time.  To do this, first identify the nominal costs of implementing each strategy over
a given time period.
                                                    Landfill Only
                                                    Recycle Some,
                                                    Bury Rest
                                                   Years
                                    358

-------
In all likelihood, the relative costs of the strategies will change over time.  If this is
true (as shown above), it will then be necessary to determine the net present value
(NPV) of each strategy over the time period.  The present value for a cost in a
particular year may be determined with this  formula:

Present Value =    Future Nominal Value        where: d = discount rate, r = inflation rate,
                      (1 + d + r) l                  t = time (in years)

      The net present value can then be calculated by adding the present value of
the net costs over the time period.

   NPV =   CQ  +   _Cj_ +  £2 + . .  .  +  Cj
             where    Q is the nominal cost of the strategy in Year t
                       t = 0, 1, 2, . . . T (end of project)

The planner would choose the strategy with the greatest net present value.

      As community planners, managers, and politicians consider a range of
interdependent waste management alternatives, using these standard economic
models to determine the most cost-effective strategy may lend critical assistance to
the solid waste management decision making process.
                                     359

-------
           THE WATERLOO PILOT CURBSIDE  PROJECT
            AUTHOR:   Mr.  R.  L.  (Bob)  Armstrong
                     Advanced Recycling Systems,
                     527  Wildwood Road
                     Post Office Box  1796
                     Waterloo.  Iowa  50704
                     (319)  291-6007
Inc.
      PRESENTED BY:   Mr.  R.  L.  (Bob)  Armstrong

                               And

                     Mr.  Michael D.  Nordstrom
                     Advanced Recycling Systems,  Inc.
                     214  South Iowa Avenue
                     Post Office Box 49
                     Washington, Iowa  52353
                     (319)  653-5491  (Voice)
                     (319)  653-2256  (Facsimile)
                     Presented at the

First U. S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                             361

-------
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to tell
you something about our company.

Advanced Recycling Systems is a manufacturing and marketing
firm who targets municipalities and end-users of products
used in recycling programs throughout the United States.

Although our roots are in Iowa, our product knowledge and
expertise in curbside recycling reach national boundaries.
I hope that each of us can benefit and learn from the
experience's found in all the presentations at this exciting
conference.

What you are about to see is a demonstration into the most
efficient and effective pilot program ever recorded to date

The objective of this project was to:

     1.  Determine the educational effort that would be
     required to maximize the participation.

     2.  Compare equipment used in other programs and test
     the effects that each would have in the short term and
     long term plans in Waterloo, Iowa.

     3.  Implementation and documentation of productive
     levels for each system type and their effect on the
     overall collection process.

Using this criteria as a guide. The City of Waterloo, The
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Waste Management
Authority, and Advanced Recycling Systems, entered into a
cooperative agreement which would provide this specific
data that would assist in the decision making process for
future curbside recycling in Waterloo.

The Waterloo Pilot Recycling Project tested and compared
two separate and distinct methods of separation.

     (1)  One unit tested was the single container system
     in three different sizes by three different
     manufacturers.   The purpose was to co-mingle
     recyclable materials with final separation by
     collection crews at the curb.
                                  362

-------
     (2)   The second method was using the Residential
     Recycling Cart Kit by Advanced Recycling Systems in
     Waterloo.  This system used the concept whereby each
     container was designated for each commodity that
     would be extracted from the waste stream using the
     waste generator as the labor force for separation
     at the point of generation.

     The cart system containers were designated for paper,
     plastics, clear glass, brown glass, green glass, and
     metals.  A severe disadvantage to the Waterloo Project
     would be that Iowa is a deposit can and bottle state,
     so the generation of beverage containers would be
     limited, or non-existent.
The Waterloo Pilot Project encompassed five different
areas in five different geographical locations of the
metro area.  Each area was demographically chosen to
include participants from low income through middle and
upper middle income to high income.  Truly, there was a
wide cross section of participants involved.

Education played an important role and was a key element
into the success of this program.  Public meetings were
held and "How To" books were distributed.  A "Recycling
Hotline" was established for those participants who
required answers to specific questions.

The Waterloo Pilot Recycling Program was conducted over
a 17 week period.  The first five weeks was dedicated to
weighing trash that was being generated by each home
within the pilot areas.  This would provide data on
average weights generated prior to the pilot recycling
program and act as a basis for comparison in a "before
and after" case scenario.  The City of Waterloo's special
projects coordinator recorded all data to insure the
accuracy of figures in the final reports to the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources.

During this five week, pre-recycling study, a total of
81,740 pounds of material was placed out for collection.
The average number of participants was 272  households
out of a possible 322 in the pilot areas.   The compilation
of data  indicates that each home placed  an  average of over
300 pounds of material out during  the  five  week and that
is equal to over 60 pounds per household per week.
                                  363

-------
The fifth week of the pilot project, recycling equipment
was issued to all participants.  This equipment included
the residential recycling cart kit or the single container
system and each participant was issued a bio-degradable
6* corn starch based landfill bag, and for those
participants who placed compostable materials out to the
curb, several 40 gallon bio/photo-degradable, 6* corn
starch based compost bags were distributed.

The purpose for the issuance of one landfill bag was to
test the effects by these large generators of refuse
materials to recycle at a maximum effort and reduce the
amount of non-recyclable materials that would be placed
into the single 30 gallon landfill bag.

The single container system and the residential recycling
cart kits were strategically placed across from each other
with one side of a street receiving one system and the
other side of the street receiving the other.   The
purpose of this alternate placement was to develop
communications between neighboring families and share
success stories or discuss problem areas with either of
the systems.  Subsequently, this information would be
conveyed to the Waterloo Department of Public Works for
action and final disposition.

It is important to note that because of locating these
systems in the alternate placement configuration, 178
single containers were issued and 133 residential
recycling cart kits for a total issuance of 311 total
systems.

The following week, the recycling effort would begin.

Now, I would ask you to remember that this would be the
first week of the pilot recycling project with participants
who had never recycled prior to this program.  People who
had heard of recycling elsewhere in the country, but had
never been involved in the process.

In the first week of the actual recycling project (or
week 6), the single container system extracted over 38
percent (including compost materials) from the residential
pilot areas.  Without compost materials, the single
container extracted over 30 percent.  The participation
rate for week 6 was in excess of 88 percent for single
container users.
                                 364

-------
The same week, the residential recycling cart kit
participants extracted nearly 60 percent (including
compost materials) and the figure excluding compost was
over 48 percent.  Participation percentages for the
residential recycling cart kit was nearly 84 percent.
We feel that this lower rate was attributed to the higher
capacity volume of the cart system, so the need to place
the cart out for collection each week was not necessary.

Totally, for week 6, the combination of both systems
extracted over 48 percent with compost materials and over
37 percent without the compost materials included.
Average participation rates in week 6 was in excess of
86 percent.

The educational process was on-going.  As the program
progressed, less calls from those participating were
received.  The participants were beginning to feel
comfortable with the recycling effort.

The percentages throughout the next 11 weeks were
outstanding.  The participants using the single container
system  during the entire program was over 53 percent
 (including compost materials) and nearly 37 percent
excluding compost materials.  Participation rates
exceeded 86 percent with an average of 154 homes out of
a  possible 178  participating.

The participants  using the residential recycling cart
kit diverted  70 percent from  the solid waste stream
 (including compost materials) and 59 percent excluding
compost materials.  Participation rates  for the cart
exceeded 90*  and  the average  number of homes participating
was 120 of a  possible  133  carts  issued.

 I  would like  to add  that the  residential  recycling cart
kit,  working  with a  45 home disadvantage (178  single
 containers and  133  carts)  extracted  10,500  pounds  more
 material  than the single container system.

 Time  studies  throughout  indicated  that  it took nearly  four
 times longer  to separate materials at  the curb from the
 single container  than  it  did  to  empty  six containers from
 the cart  system.

 The final  synopsis  figures indicate  that a total  of 158,322
                                  365

-------
 pounds  of  Material  was placed out for collection.   The
 recycling  percentage of both systems, overall,  was over
 61  percent with compost materials and nearly 48 percent
 without compost materials.

 The participation percentage rate was 88 percent overall
 during  the 12 week  pilot recycling project.

 These figures are very impressive by anyone's standards,
 but there  is one thing that  I haven't related to you yet.
 These high percentages of recyclable materials  were done
 without the use of  any ordinance  or mandated legislation
 of  any  kind.  It was a VOLUNTARY  PROGRAM with areas chosen
 by  Mr.  John Meyer,  Director  of Public Works  for the City
 of  Waterloo.

 The voluntary program was administered as if it were a
 mandated program with the exception of enforcement
 procedures.  Originally,  the decision was made  that if
 recyclables were placed in a bag  that had a  landfill
 destination, the bag would not be collected.  The mayor
 and city council received many negative  responses to this
 policy  and the procedure was soon abandoned.

 Some participants wanted to  recycle to their fullest
 capability, but some would not participate under any
 circumstance.   We do feel that the  numbers could have
 been several percentage points higher, had everyone been
 required to participate.  As well,  the recycling
 percentages been higher had  this  pilot program  been
 conducted  in a state that did not have the can  and
 bottle deposit law  in place.
IN CONCLUSION, The City of Waterloo, The Iowa Department
of Natural Resources. Waste Management Authority in
Des Moines and Advanced Recycling Systems compiled much
data from this project.  In fact, 1458 pages of
documentation in the final report.

We learned that a 70* extraction was possible, even in a
voluntary program and that a majority of the people are
receptive to re-learning skills that will benefit their
environment through a comprehensive recycling effort.

We learned that personal habits and lifestyles change.
New habits in purchasing are developed, and the attitudes
                                  366

-------
became more positive toward waste reduction and recycling
as the project continued.

We've learned that there are three distinct subjects
that will motivate a recycling program.  In order, they
are:

     1.  Education, in direct or indirect methods and the
         willingness to learn about solid waste disposal
         and recovery.

     2.  Incentives that will conform and adjust to a
         volume related base rate whereas the large
         waste generators will pay more than those who
         generate less.  And, finally,

     3.  The proper equipment that will increase
         participation, thus, increasing the percentages
         extracted from the solid waste stream.

Education, Incentives and the proper equipment.  These
required subjects will insure the success of any program
in nearly every instance, and in nearly every local.

A limited number of the executive summary's of the Waterloo
Pilot Recycling Project are available.  If you would leave
me your card at the end of this session, I will see that it
is given every consideration on being sent to you.

I would like thank you for your attentiveness and I hope
to see you again.

Thank you.
                                 367

-------
SOURCE REDUCTION

-------
         CANADA'S NATIONAL PACKAGING PROTOCOL:

        AN ACHIEVABLE PLAN FOR WASTE REDUCTION

          D.J. Hay, A. Finkelstein, L. Losier
                  Environment Canada
               Waste Management Branch

                  Presented at the
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management
                  June 13-16, 1990
                             369

-------
 Background.

      Haste Management is an urgent and pressing problem In Canada.  Each
 year Canadians generate 35 to 40 Billion tons of waste, of which about
 16 Billion tons 1s from household and commercial sources.  For the year
 1989, on a per capita basis, Canada produced more waste than any other
 country in the world: 1.7 kilograms per person per day (figure 1).
 Overall, Canadians spend over SI.5 billion per year on waste
 management.
                       PER CAPITA WASTE GENERATION
                                  (1989)
                        COUNTRY
CANADA 4 Ijt7
AUSTRALIA -j
UNITED STATES -j
!]l6
Of
WEST GERMANY -4 [] ^
SWITZERLAND 4 [j la
NETHERLANDS -j H „
UM/TFO KINGDOM -\ fj Qi
JARW -|
SH«JEW-|
CMIW4 -1
Go*
DO*
	 (Jos
                                     0.5
                            •oincf i VUMUKTOH *ium» COUP.
                               «»m TUL/COMMI A
                                 FIGURE
     The contribution that  packaging makes  to  Canada's waste management
problems Is substantial.  The per  capita  consumption of packaging 1n
Canada stands at an estimated one  ton of  packaging  per family per year.
                                    37O

-------
In total, packaging in Canada consumed  TOTAL PACKAGING USED
                                                   IN CANADA
                                                      1988
                                                  TOTAL PACKAGING
                                                 6.6 MILLION TONNES
                                                    FIGURE #2
6.6 million tons of material in 1988,
most of which is disposed of at a
great environmental and economic
price.  Roughly 80 per cent of
Canadian packaging is ultimately
managed by disposal rather than by
recycling or reuse (figure 2).  Some
5.7 million tons of packaging material
is landfilled or incinerated annually, at an estimated cost in excess of
$100 million.
     In order to come to grips with this problem, in May,  1989, the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)--a body composed
of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial ministers  of the
environment—commissioned a National Task Force on Packaging to develop
national policies for the management of packaging.   After preparing an
extensive technical data base on packaging and conducting  a Canada-wide
consultation program, the Task Force produced the National Packaging
Protocol.
     The Protocol sets out six policy statements with supporting
actions, establishes three packaging waste reduction milestone targets
and puts forth two implimentation recommendations.
                                   371

-------
             The 1992 target of a 20 per cent
        reduction from 1988 levels will  reduce
        annual waste collection and disposal
        costs by $50 Billion. Further targets
        of  a 35 per cent reduction by the end
        of  1996 and a 50 per cent reduction by
        the year 2000 will bring total savings
        to  almost $1 billion (figure 3).
PACKAGING DISPOSAL
     COST  SAVINGS
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
       1992     1996
          YEAR
200
                                                    CH ANNUAL
                CUMMULATIVE
                                                    WVSTE DISPOSAL AT $30 PER TONNE
                                                             FIGURE #3
         The  Canadian Packaging Industry.
       Packaging  is nade to contain, transport, protect and market  goods,  and to
provide  product  Information.  It 1s commonly composed of paper or  paper
products, plastics, wood, glass, steel  and  aluminum.  These were the  six  most
common groups of packaging materials used in Canada in 1988, and it is projected
that these same materials will still dominate packaging in the year 2000  (figure
4).
                               PACKAGING DISTRIBUTION
                                      BY MATERIAL
                                       1988 - 2000
                          PLASTICS >»»
                                       AlUMINLM 1%
                                      /STEEL T%
                                     WOOD <6% pL»5TiCS JJ*
                                19S8
                                        FIGURE #4
                                          372

-------
Packaging composites are composed of two or more types of materials,  and
are frequently used.  Typical forms of packages include pallets,  boxes,
bottles, cans, jugs, drums, wrappers, etc.
     The packaging industry is a major factor  in the Canadian  economy.
More than 52,000 persons are employed by the Canadian packaging sector.
The total value of packaging produced in Canada in 1988 was over  $7
billion (figure 5), while the indirect value of packaging, the worth  of
the protection that packaging affords an almost infinite variety  of
products, is incalculable.
                               PACKAGING INDUSTRY
                                    STATISTICS
                                       (1986)
                       INDUSTRY
                       PAPER (26,600)
                      PLASTIC (10.000)
                        METAL (8.270)
                        GLASS (6,000) JjJ
                        WOOD (3.000) Jj ;
The Protocol Process.
                                 01234
                                            $ BILLIONS
                            PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN PACKAGING 0
                                       FIGURE #6
     Canada's National Task Force on Packaging was a broadly based
"multi-stakeholder'1 group.  Its members came from government, the
manufacturing, shipping  and retail  sectors of industry,  environmental
and consumer organizations.   It drew upon their experience  and interest
in packaging to obtain a broad basis of input for the development of the
National Packaging Protocol.  Six regional meetings were  held in various
geographical areas across Canada.
                                   373

-------
     Task Force Members were particularly prompted by public demand for
packaging which Is sensitive to the environment (I.e., which Is
compatible with waste reduction and with the wise use of energy, water
and other resources).  The Task Force was also aware of the fragmented
approach to packaging in the United States, which has led to undesirable
economic consequences for industry and, ultimately, for the consumer.
In general, the work of the Task Force was governed by the need for a
national approach to packaging waste minimization through reduction,
reuse  and recycling.
     The Task  Force agreed that the Protocol would concentrate on
industrial, household and commercial packaging, and would be developed
in consultation with key stakeholders from federal, provincial,
territorial and municipal governments, and from industry, environmental
and consumer groups.  The Task Force focused on the management of
packaging through source reduction, reuse and recycling.  It did not
consider disposal options such as incineration.  Neither did it consider
the effects that disposal techniques such as incineration and landfill
have on package design.  Concurrent with the development of the
Protocol, the  Task Force commissioned a wide variety of technical
reports on all aspects of packaging.  These included such topics as
packaging design and manufacturing, consumer uses and attitudes,
environmental  and economic considerations, and legislative initiatives.
                                    374

-------
The National Packaging Protocol.

     The National Packaging Protocol consists of six recommended
packaging policies for Canada.
     Policy Number 1.   All packaging shall have minimum effects on the
environment.
     The environmental impact of packaging extends beyond the effect of
its disposal; the quality of packaging waste is not the only issue.
Resources and energy are consumed to produce and transport packaging.  A
consideration of broader environmental consequences should be included
in an assessment of the impact of packaging.
     The Protocol will address these broader consequences by encouraging
the preparation of environmental profiles for each type of package.
Where appropriate, this would be followed up by product and/or package
design or redesign to minimize adverse environmental impacts.  The
Protocol will stimulate research and the development of new packaging
products and technology which have minimal effects of the environment.
     To attain these ends, government and industry will work together.
The federal government, in consultation with a multi-stakeholder group,
will develop methodologies and guidelines to be used in drawing up
environmental profiles of packaging, and which will allow consumers to
compare packaging choices.   Industry will carry out packaging profiles
in accordance with the federal guidelines, to identify the environmental
impacts caused by the manufacture, use and post-use management of
                                   375

-------
packaging.   Industry will then use this profile data to prepare action
plans and schedules to minimize environmental impacts and manage
packaging through  source reduction, reuse and recycling.
     Policy  Number 2.  Priority will be given to the management of
packaging through  source reduction, reuse and recycling.
     The federal government, in consultation with industry and the
multi-stakeholder  group, will establish a "Code of Preferred Canadian
Packaging Practices", to guide industry in the design of products and in
the selection and  design of packaging according to the following
hierarchy of desirability:

1.   No packaging
2.   Minimal packaging
3.   Reusable packaging
4.   Recyclable packaging and packaging containing recyclable material.

     Policy  Number 3.  A continuing campaign of information and
education will  be  undertaken to make all Canadians aware of the function
and environmental  impacts of packaging.
     Responsibility for the management of packaging is a shared
responsibility.  Achievement of the National Packaging Protocol targets
requires the combined resources of government, industry, consumer and
special interest groups.  Education programs are necessary both to
inform and motivate purchasers to make appropriate choices, and to
support the development of a conserver society.  A national program will
                                   376

-------
be developed to inform all Canadians of the functions and environmental
inpacts of packaging, and to encourage environmentally sound purchasing
practices.
     Policy Number 4.  These policies will apply to all packaging used
in Canada, including imports.
     It is important that the National Packaging Protocol be applied to
all packaging, both domestic and imported.  Regardless of its country of
origin, all packaging used in Canada has the potential to require
management in Canada.  Policy Number 4 will ensure a level playing field
and prevent any packaging product from gaining a competitive advantage
at the expense of the environment.  Efforts must be undertaken to ensure
effective monitoring of border markets against the entry of non-
complying products.
     Federal, provincial and municipal governments will, with
sensitivity to the needs of local industries, establish standards and
regulations to apply the National Packaging Protocol to all packaging
used in Canada, including imports.  The federal government will act as
liaison with other countries to promote the policies of the National
Packaging Protocol in the arena of international trade.
     Policy Number 5.  Regulations will be implemented as necessary to
achieve compliance with these policies.
     Monitoring the progress achieved through voluntary initiatives may
indicate a need for regulatory measures to ensure that the effects of
the National Packaging Protocol are felt equally, and that targets are
met.  Federal and provincial governments will, with the participation of
the multi-stakeholder group, enact regulations which are compatible
                                   377

-------
across Canada.  These will specify perfornance requirements, targets  and
deadlines for achievements consistent with the National Packaging
Protocol.
     Policy Number  6.  All government policies and practices affecting
packaging will be consistent with these national policies.
     In the environnental and other public policy areas, existing and
new government policies will be reviewed to ensure consistency with the
National Packaging  Protocol.  Health, safety, technical and other
factors will need to be assessed in order to identify conflicts or
barriers to the achievement of the objectives of the National Packaging
Protocol.
     Government policies and practices which impede the objectives of
the National Packaging Protocol will be identified and, where possible,
removed or modified.  Government policies and practices such as
procurement will be developed and implemented to support the achievement
of  the objectives of the Protocol.

Implementation.

     Canada's National Packaging Protocol will be implemented by a broad
range of actions that will address the many facets of packaging issues.
As has been indicated above, implementation actions will be closely
linked to the six specific statements that make up the Protocol.  The
Protocol's implementation will be carried out through five main
initiatives; these  initiatives might frequently overlap into areas
touched on by more  than one of the six policy statements.
                                   378

-------
1.   A  Code of  Preferred  Canadian Packaging Practices  will be developed
     with  government  and  industry participation.   This Code  will guide
     industry  in the design of products and in the selection and design of
     packaging.  Standards will be established for packaging that will take
     into  account  health,  safety,  performance,  consumer  and  regional
     requirements.   Industry and governments will work together to develop
     infrastructures  that will foster the recycling and reuse of packaging
     materials, and to develop markets for recycled packaging materials.
2.   The  Canadian Council of Ministers  of the Environment have  announced
     that  they will  proceed  with the drafting  of regulations that  will
     ensure  the  achievement  of  the  goals  of  the  National  Packaging
     Protocol.   The Protocol is a voluntary  and cooperative effort, which
     has  set flexible targets; thus,  industry is free to  choose the most
     effective  means to meet those targets.  However, should the voluntary
     approach  not work, or prove to  be too slow, the CCME  ministers have
     decided  that 1t would  be desirable to  have an effective  regulatory
     package  ready for use if necessary. At the  same time, the Task Force
     will  be consulting with the  packaging industry to analyze  Its needs
     and  to determine the most effective incentives to which that industry
     will respond.
3.   A  Canada-wide coordinated data collection and monitoring network will
     be set up to provide needed data as the National Packaging Protocol is
     Implemented.   The  data  collection network  will prove  particularly
     helpful   in  monitoring  progress  towards  the   attainment  of  the
     Protocol's milestone targets.  Indeed, the first target date, December
     31, 1990, mandates the day by which all provinces must have in place a
                                    379

-------
     nationally coordinated data collection program.
4.   Long  and short  terra  comnuni cat ions plans will   be developed by  all
     parties  participating 1n  the Protocol.    The short  term plans  will
     concentrate on explaining what the Protocol Is and how It will benefit
     Canadians  and  their  environment.   Long   term   strategies  will get
     concrete Information out to Individuals and businesses alike regarding
     practical   things  that  can  be  done  to  reduce  packaging  waste.
     Communication  plans will stress the concept  of  shared responsibility
     to all sectors of Canadian society — governments, the private sector,
     consumers,  environmental organizations,  etc.  Special efforts will be
     made  to inform  school children  about what  can be  done to  improve
     packaging behaviour.
5.   A  national reduction, recycling and reuse   infrastructure will be put
     in  place across  Canada.   In Canada, waste  disposal is primarily  a
     provincial and municipal responsibility,  and at present a wide variety
     of  waste disposal  and  recycling programs exist  across the country.
     The National Packaging Protocol will build  upon these already existing
     systems  and help the main participants,  the provincial  and municipal
     governments,  and Industry, strengthen and  improve their recycling and
     reuse practices.
                                   380

-------
Milestone Targets

     The  National  Packaging  Protocol  has  set  a  series of  targets as
cumulative  national goals.  These targets are designed  to be flexible; in
some  provinces, initial targets may be higher than  in others, in order to
correspond  to differing  provincial  waste management goals.   As has been
noted,  regulatory frameworks will be developed so  that they will be ready
to be implemented quickly in the event that targets sre not met.
     The  National  Packaging  Protocol has  established a  series of  four
milestone targets:
     By  December 31, 1990, all  provinces must have in  place a nationally
coordinated  data collection program to make possible the monitoring of the
following targets.
     By  December 31, 1992, packaging sent for  disposal in Canada shall be
no more than 80 per cent of the amount sent in 1988.
     By  December 31, 1996, packaging sent for  disposal in Canada shall be
no more than 65 per cent of the amount sent in 1988.
     By  December 31, 2000, packaging sent for  disposal in Canada shall be
no more than 50 per cent of the amount sent in 1988.
     The  Protocol  also  dictates  that  50 per  cent of  the decrease  in
packaging  shall be achieved  through new source  reductions and new  reuse
initiatives.   Recycling  programs  will  make  up  the  remainder  of  the
decreases.
                                    381

-------
      Specific  targets will  be established for  various Industry sectors, in
 order  to  achieve  Protocol goals.    It  is   incumbent on  those industrial
 sectors unable to meet Protocol  requirements  to provide adequate supporting
 documentation  and alternative targets, one   year  in advance of  prescribed
 deadlines.
      Since  Protocol targets are  to  a certain   extent adaptable it  may be
 possible  to  exceed  performance  standards  and  deadlines;   however, the
 possibility  exists  that  some  shortfalls   may  occur.  Nonetheless,  the
 Canadian   Council  of  Environment   Ministers   firmly believes  that  the
 Protocol's targets and deadlines are  realistic  and attainable;  every effort
 will be made to achieve them.

 The Next Stage.
     The work of drafting the National
Packaging Protocol  is over; the work
of implementing  the Protocol and
actually reducing,  recycling and
reusing packaging is just beginning.
Work has already started to make the
Protocol's goals a  reality.
     The National Packaging Task Force
and its multi-stakeholder group remain
In existence, and have begun drafting
the Code of Preferred Canadian
Packaging Practices.  Likewise, long
   ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE


1
DATA j
BASE

CODE
OF
PRACTICE



1
INFRA-
STRUCT
URE

COMM




1
REGS

GOV.
P & P




TECH
 * * f - POLICIES AND PRACTICES
 MM - M1ATI-JJXKEHOI.OIH QROUf
COUM - COMMUNICATIONS

            FIGURE #6
TECH - TECHNOLOGY
BEO» - REOULATIONS
                                   382

-------
and short term communications plans are also being developed.   Working
groups have been or will be set up to implement Protocol policies
regarding the creation of a data base, an infrastructure for reduction
recycling and reuse, government policies and practices, the drafting of
regulations and packaging technology (figure 6).
     Most of these working groups will be established and operational by
the fall of 1990.  It is anticipated that the first milestone target,
the creation of a Canada-wide data collection network by December 31,
1990, will be met.
     The process that will lead to the attainment of the National
Packaging Protocol's milestone targets in now under way.  Canada's
people and environment will be the big winners.
                                    383

-------
              CLEANING UP THE WASTESTREAM

                      Michael Bender
       Central Vermont Regional  Planning  Commission
                     Presented  at  the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990
                           385

-------
     For many, waste disposal  is an  "out  of sight, out  of  mind"



process.   Common  practice  has  long  been to  treat household



toxics as normal trash.  This can  mean dumping hazardous  waste



down the drain,  into the trash, or  on to the ground.  Until now,



most Vermonters  have not had environmentally sound alternatives.



     So many  household  products contain  potentially hazardous



substances that  the American shopping  bag  is a toxic waste dump



in the  making.   Household hazardous  waste (HHW)  differs  from



other household  wastes  in  that it exhibits characteristics that



are either  toxic,  corrosive,  caustic,  flammable,  reactive,  or



explosive.  A Congressional study identified more  than .100  types



of hazardous chemicals  in  household  products.   Examples  include



such common  products as paint and  paint products,  mothballs,



insect  and   roach  sprays,  motor   oils,   antifreeze,   wood



preservatives, rust removers, metal  polishes,  batteries,  weed



killers, drain cleaners, pool acids, hobby products, bleaches,



gasoline, kerosene, oven cleaners, nail polish remover,  and car



waxes.




     The mismanagement  of hazardous  chemicals  has  turned  into



one  of  the  environmental  nightmares   of  the  past   decade.



Although  factories  are  consistently blamed for  producing  and



inadequately  disposing   of  hazardous   wastes,    unregulated



hazardous wastes  from  both the home  and the work  place  have



steadily  been adding to the problem.   Only  recently  have  we



begun to  understand the nature  and extent of  the   unregulated
                              386

-------
  hazardous  waste  problem  coming from small quantity generators.

        Small  quantity generators  (SQGs) of  hazardous  waste  are

  currently  permitted  to dispose  of up to 220 pounds per month in

  Vermont's  landfills.   SQGs include  auto  repair shops, cleaning

  services,    woodworking,   service   stations,   printing   and

  photography  shops,  construction operations,  farms,  schools,

  government entities  and others.   They produce such  wastes  as

  used  oil,   solvents,   paints,   pesticides,   inks,   and   photo

  chemicals.    A  report recently  completed  by the  Environmental

  Law  Foundation   for  the  Central  Vermont  Regional  Planning

  Commission (CVRPC)  estimated  that  Vermont's  small  businesses

  generate  5,000  tons  of unregulated hazardous  waste;  more  than

  twice recent State estimates  in  a report  to  the Legislature.1

       When  yearly households and SQGs waste amounts are combined

  together,  the  total  is  more than  one-third of  the  hazardous

  waste  generated  in  Vermont.    CVRPC's  study  found  that  the

  majority of  the  SQGs dump  their hazardous wastes into landfills

  or down drains.   When  rainwater drains through hazardous waste

  in landfill, it  creates a  toxic liquid called leachate that may

  contaminate  groundwater and endanger human health.  In addition,

  municipal  sewage treatment plants receive unknown quantities of

  hazardous  wastes. Much of the  hazardous waste entering treatment

  plants remains hazardous after being discharged into a river or
     1   "How Much Unregulated Hazardous Waste," Biocycle Magazine,
April,  1990.
                                 387

-------
lake,  because  these  plants  are  not  designed  to  treat most



hazardous chemicals (nor are  homeowner's septic  tanks).



     A 1988 Texas A&M study  found  that at least 113 different



toxics  drain  through municipal  landfills,  including  32 that



cause  cancer,  13 that cause birth  defects  and  22  that  cause



genetic  damage.     Compared   to   hazardous  waste  landfills



(including the one in Love  Canal, N.Y.),  the runoff was  just  as



toxic,  the study concluded.    New,   state-of-the-art,   lined



landfills  are  designed to  capture   leachate,  but  are not



foolproof.  Flaws  in  design  and construction,  adverse  weather



conditions  and  chemical  attack can  all cause  the  liner   to



breech, according to  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



Both  the  EPA  and the  landfill  industry concede  that  lined



landfills  will eventually leak.



     Although  improper  disposal of  hazardous  waste  can have



damaging consequences, it  can  be  minimized  or  avoided.    Small



businesses  generating  similar  kinds  of   waste  can   share



information and ideas about ways to further reduce toxic  use and



properly  manage residues.      In  the  home,  toxic use  can  be



reduced  and sometimes  avoided  by  using  alternatives that are



often  safer and cheaper.    Ask  your  solid  waste  region   or



district or county health department for a list of non-hazardous



alternatives.   If consumers don't purchase hazardous  chemicals,



manufacturers  won't  make as  much,  and the leftover  quantities



needing  disposal will decrease.
                             388

-------
     An  excellent  example  of  a   safer   alternative   is   to




substitute latex paint in place of oil based paint.  After waste




oil, paints make up the largest quantities of  liquids  generated




by households entering landfills.  Compared to oil-based  paints,



(water  based)  latex  has  considerably  less  impact  on  the



environment.  There are only a  few instances where latex is  not




a good substitute for oil based paint,  and your paint  retailers



can  provide  the  necessary information.   Where  there  are  no



alternatives, buy  only what you need,  and  use it up.   Rather




than throwing leftovers  out,  give  what is left to a  friend  or



neighbor,  or  save for  proper disposal.



     At present, there are few  convenient ways to safely  dispose




of the majority of these wastes inexpensively.  We realize that



we  can't  say "don't  do  this"  without presenting  a  reasonable



alternative.    However,  there are  opportunities  to  plan  and



develop programs for  both  the  short  and  long  term, but  require




public  input  to be  successful.



     Alternatives have been  springing  up  all  over the country.



Beginning  in  1979, a simple brochure entitled "Toxic Substances



in  Your Home" was  credited with prompting  citizens to  start a



toxic-cleanup movement in Seattle.   With  over  2,000 clean-up



programs  held over past  ten  years  without any  lawsuits being



filed,  unregulated  hazardous waste management programs are seen



by  many as a  responsibility  that  can be  safely implemented.



      Closer to  home,  Vermont's  first  Paint  Drop  and Swap  was
                              389

-------
held last September in Montpelier with over 500 Central Vermont



residents bringing  1500  gallons  of  paint that was  handled by



over 50 volunteers.  About half of the paint was useable (around



750   gallons),   and  was   bulked   by   Sherwin-Williams  for



distribution  to  area  schools,   community  organizations,  and



theatre groups.  A number of HHW Collection Days, Paint Drop and



Swaps, and educational  awareness events  are  scheduled to occur



in Vermont this spring.   In addition,  several communities are



planning permanent  acceptance centers for unregulated hazardous



waste. One of the main objectives behind these  programs  is to



get past  people's basic  anxieties and  demonstrate  that  proper



management of hazardous waste does not present a problem  to the



community; it's the mismangement of  these wastes that presents



the problem.



     The bargain our modern society  has struck in exchange for



convenience  and  consumer  comfort  requires   re-evaluation  in



light of new  evidence presented  by a number  of  studies.   Over



the past  40  years,  we've substituted toxic  products  for non-



toxic ones, but we  have continued to use the old technology for



disposal.    New  liner   technology  is   a step   in  the  right



direction, but isn't a cure-all.  Instead of continuing  with the



"out  of sight,  out of  mind"  phenomenon,  we need  long term



comprehensive solutions.  By cleaning up the wastestream,  we can



further minimize the risk of groundwater contamination and leave



a cleaner environment for future generations.
                             390

-------
                                      MSW DILEMMA
                                 HOW  MUCH
                              UNREGULATED
                    HAZARDOUS  WASTE?
        rHE  NUMBER  of small  busi-
        nesses in Vermont generating un-
        der 100 kg (220 Ibs.) of hazardous
        waste may be more than double
        current estimates. A study done
        by the Environmental Law Foun-
        dation for the Central 'Vermont Re-
 gional Planning Commission (CVRPQ iden-
 tified some 658 small quantity generators
 BQG) in Central Vermont, compared with
 151 such generators presently on file with
 the \fermont Agency of Natural Resources.
 Under current Federal and state guidelines.
 toe businesses are exempt from many of
 the regulations governing disposal of larger
 mounts of hazardous waste. Although ap-
 proximately half the gr^at] quantity genera*
 tors in Vermont are believed to use accept-
 able methods of hazardous waste disposal, it
 a unknown how much of thi« waste actually
 enters local landfil^
 "Disposal of hazardous wastes in unHned
 bndfills presents a serious threat to human
 health and the environment by contaminat-
 ing ground water, soil and surface waters."
 according to the Central Vermont study. And
 •wen lined landfills may not be safe A 1988
 «port. "Compatibility of Flexible Membrane
 uners and Municipal Solid Waste Leach-
 ttes" (EPA, 68-03-3413). notes that when
 •nail quantity generators and households
 QK lined l«m/lfiT)« for hazardous waste dis-
 posal  the integrity of Uners becomes ques-
 tionable over tinv
 The small businesses studied, ranging
 from auto dealers and  marhrna shops to fu-
 neral parlors and photography labs, produce
 aetcess of 725 tons of hazardous waste per
 year in the district. The survey did not in-
 ehde farms, schools or government entities.
 Byproducts generated include waste oils
 B93 tons per year), solvents and degreasers
 (199 tpy), antifreeze {70 tpy), paint


BwCrcix
	——      '^^^^^^"^^^^••^••••••••BBBI
A new Vermont
study focusing on
small quantity
generators of
wastes such as
cleaning
compounds, used
oil) paint thinner,
and antifreeze
reveals larger
amounts and a
need for
education.
(50 tpy), and photographic chemicals (13
tpy). Data on paint residues, lead-acid batter-
ies, corrosives, pesticides and printing ink
wastes were  not  available and so were not
taken into account. Extrapolated statewide,
these figures indicate production  of over
5,000 tons per year of hazardous waste from
small quantity generators, compared to the
2.000 tons for SQG estimated in the state's
recent report to the legislature.
  "We think the study shows the scale of the
unregulated hazardous waste problem," says
Michael Bender, a Solid Waste Planner with
CVRPC. "Ws hoped to alert the state to reex-
amine their own data and see if this study
applies to the rest of Vermont as we think it
does."
  Another finding in the CVRPC study is
lack of understanding on the part of many
small businesses interviewed as to which
substances they use are hazardous to the en-
vironment and why. "The major recommen-
dations focus primarily on developing educa-
tional and n^anaa-mmt programs with area
small businesses." says Bender. "We want to
extend our hand and give the small business
community the lead time that they'll need to
help us keep volatile organic* and other un-
regulated hazardous waste out of landfill^ "
  On March 2, the Natural Resources and
Energy Committee released a Bill in Ver-
mont's House of Representatives dealing
with a range of hazardous waste concerns.
One section stipulates that regional and solid
waste management districts include a com-
          391
ponent for the management of unregulated
hazardous wastes in their plans by July,
1991. Funds also would be made available to
survey small quantity generators in all
regions or districts of the state. Before
becoming law the Bill (H733) must pass
votes in both the full House and the State
Senate.                      D.R. •
                                                                                  APRIL 1990

-------
                   DEGRADABLE PLASTICS
           AN  ILLINOIS  TOOL  WORKS  PERSPECTIVE
                       Fred  A.  Kish
                  ITW Technology Center
                     Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990
                           393

-------
                      DEGRADABLE PLASTICS
            AN ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. PERSPECTIVE
The return of the errant barge, MOBRO, to Islip combined with
the US EPA's premature closing of several hundred landfills
and several other factors, seemed to have sparked a resurgence
in the media's and, in turn, the public's interest in solid
waste disposal and identifying it as a "crisis."

For two years now, the media, the Congress, multiple federal
agencies, some 7,500 state legislators and innumerable  state
regulators have pursued several avenues for addressing  this
issue and inherent problems.  A review of the plethora  of
legislation offered as solutions clearly places both the blame
for this situation and the responsibility for its resolution
on the shoulders of the private sector, particularly packaging
manufacturers.

Industry has been prodded, pulled, and punched into taking
actions that it might not otherwise have ever taken. In some
cases, these actions have resulted in benefits.  In others,
the commitment and expenditure of resources has, in some
cases, been wasted.

It is a common public perception that industry can simply push
a button,  alter feedstocks or spend a few dollars to affect
change.   Critics accuse us of being recalcitrant and myopic.
However,  as many in this room can probably attest,  such
changes require time,  effort, and investment without any
guarantee of return.
                             394

-------
My presentation today is intended to provide you with a look
at how a corporation responds to these accusations and
challenges.

ITW has been asked to participate in this session to discuss
our response to calls for the application of degradable
enhancing technologies to our plastic packaging products.  For
purposes of this discussion today we will focus on four of
these products: the Hi-Cone carrier, the Minigrip resealable
bag Mima stretch film and Signode's Contrax strapping.

Illinois Tool Works Inc. is a Chicago-based international
manufacturer of industrial components and packaging systems
with 1989 sales of $2.2b.  ITW is a very decentralized
organization with some 70 operating divisions utilizing some
120 facilities in twenty-five states.  The Company employs
approximately 15,000 men and women in the United States and 30
countries.   There is little you might buy in a store that
bears our name; but there is little you come in contact with
on a daily basis that has not been touched by ITW.  Our
history of responding to environmental challenges can be
traced back some 20 years.

In the early 1960's ITW introduced a revolutionary means of
multi-packaging beverage cans with a 20 mil sheet of
polyethylene full of holes.  This product, known today as
"Hi-Cone Carrier" represented a significant decrease in the
amount of material used to package these cans, as well as
providing bottlers and consumers with a significant cost
savings.  Soon after the introduction of this product, ITW
determined the carrier, along with its competition, was likely
to be littered.  In an effort to mitigate the effects of
                              395

-------
improper disposal which, at than time, were limited to
aesthetic degradation, ITW initiated a search to enhance the
degradability of the polyethylene.  By 1972, Hi-Cone
introduced its ECO carrier, 5 years ahead of any state law
requiring devices and materials used to multi-pack beverage
cans to be degradable.

Of late, particularly in light of the data presented by the
Center for Marine Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife and
other responsible environmental advocacy organizations along
with that proffered by NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the EPA, ITW has become increasingly sensitive to
the possibility of its products being improperly disposed in
the marine environment.  Though none have been specifically
identified, generic references to strapping, sandwich bags and
film cause us concern.

In early 1988, the ITW Technology Center embarked on a program
to identify products likely to be discarded or found in the
marine environment and to determine the efficacy of applying
any of the commercially available and developing plastic
technologies intended to enhance the degradability of these
products.  Our goal was to develop products which would
degrade in a fashion as to maintain integrity for the useful
life of the product then degrade in the environment in a
timely yet somewhat predictable manner.

In examining the environment where these products were likely
to be found and pose a danger to wildlife, it became very
clear to us that in order to address the issue of litter and
animal entrapment,  the solution to the problem lay in a
photodegradable material.   Currently all products which are
                              396

-------
considered enhanced degradable and produced by ITW utilize
proven photodegradable material.

At the outset, let me say all plastics degrade.  Furthermore,
everything degrades.  However, the rate at which products
degrade is the subject of this discussion.  If we look at
degradation rates, plastics, per se, are considered very
stable elements of our material society.  For a plastic to
change its characteristics upon exposure to the environment,
depending upon a variety of factors, lifetimes fall anywhere
from 1 to 30 years.  You have seen published comment or have
heard that plastics take 400 years to degrade.  Well, that's
quite a supposition since plastics have only been around with
us for some 80 or 90 years.

Today, when one talks about degradable plastics, one implies
an accelerated rate of degradation, typically thought of in
terms of months or years.  This is an area which is fraught
with difficulties where legislators, regulators, environmental
advocates and even plastics engineers are trying to define
"acceptable degradation."  The school of thought you associate
with, your industry, your product mix and/or the side of the
fence you choose to sit on influences your definition of
degradation.

Further complicating the issue of enhanced degradability and
degradability mandates is the fact that there are multiple
technologies and methods to achieve degradation.  As was noted
earlier, ITW has concentrated its efforts in applying enhanced
photodegradable traits to selected products.  For the record,
however, there are other types of degradation of materials
                               397

-------
which are talked about by various industry groups, namely
chemical and biodegradation.

What is photodegradation?  Photodegradation is the mechanism
wherein a plastic material when exposed to sunlight
disintegrates.  Disintegrate per Webster, is "to break up, to
crumble into pieces, to be resolved into elements, a gradual
breaking up".  That is in our case when exposed to the
elements of sunlight.

Each and every polymeric system includes an antioxidant and/or
stabilizer package for converting this material into a
finished product.  The antioxidant and stabilizer are, often
times, unique to the polymeric system so that what works in
one will not work in another.  Also,  that which is necessary
in one grade to be utilized on a given piece of equipment will
be different than that utilized in a  very similar material but
processed on a different kind of equipment.

If one accepts the premise that all plastics are, without
antioxidants or stabilizers, naturally degradable, albeit very
slow, enhancing their degradability requires the addition of
an accelerator(s).  These are materials which are being
investigated to see if they can enhance the degradability of
materials via various chemical reactions which are possible
under a select set of circumstances.

For example, processing history affects the degradation rate
of a given material and/or product.  For example, if a
material is processed at 100 Ibs. per hour it requires a
certain accelerator additive package  as well as the product
will have certain categories, certain characteristics
                              398

-------
associated with it representing the slow speed at which this
product has been formed.  However, if a similar product is
formed at 5,000 Ibs. per hour, which is not uncommon, it will
require different resin characteristics to take care of the
increased processing speeds  (which are usually carried out at
a much higher temperature).  Therefore, the product produced,
while physically appearing the same, may have different
chemical sensitivities.

Second, the degradation of a product in any environment is
highly dependant upon the overall physical nature of the
product.  A thin product obviously will degrade at a much
faster rate overall, than a thick product.  This is because
the surface to volume ratio of a thin product is much greater
than any thick product.  So the overall bulk changes in
properties of the material are much greater given a equal
percent degradation rate.

Third, there are other characteristics which are unique to a
given set of processing parameters.  How material is processed
can effect the internal strains and stresses in a product
which can have orders of magnitude effects upon how a product
will ultimately degrade.

Aside from material characteristics, the other, though
probably the most variable factor which effects degradation of
a given material, is the environment to which it is exposed.
There are two basic constituents of the environment which have
an impact upon photodegradation.  The first being time and the
second, location.
                              399

-------
When we consider time, we must ask, "At what time of year  is
the product being exposed to the environment?".  For example,
summers are hot and winters are cold, summers are sunny and
winters are dreary, summer days are longer and shorter in  the
winter.  We know from data produced from a variety of sources,
the amount of ultra violet radiation available to affect
photodegradation varies with the weather.  Within the time
component, we have to consider the duration of exposure.  We
have other factors to take into account:  location (latitude
and longitude), temperature, humidity and physical forces  in
the vicinity.

Overall ITW has internally established a criteria that we  use
to judge degradation — performance.  Performance of the
product under a given set of circumstances where the product
will stand up to the riggers of its useful life and then,  if
carelessly disposed, will not become a detriment to the
environment.

In most cases we consider a product to be fully degraded when
it has reached an absolute level of elongation where
embrittlement occurs and the product no longer performs its
intended purpose.  Furthermore, as the product reaches
ultimate elongation, a little mechanical action causes the
product to break into smaller particles where it can no longer
be considered litter nor possess enough strength such that it
can endanger animal life through entrapment.

We have carried this philosophy through and applied
photodegradation technologies to four different of products:
the Hi-Cone's carrier,  Signode's Contrax strapping,  Minigrip's
bags and Mima's stretch wrap film.
                              40O

-------
For the Hi-Cone ECO carrier we have developed proprietary
resin system which is produced to our specifications by two
major resin companies.  This product has the inherent
photodegradation mechanism built into the polymer chain.  It
is therefore very controllable, very reproducible and has been
proven over the years to degrade within mandated parameters.
It was developed in 1972, it has been produced on a commercial
basis since approximately 1975.  Currently, the majority of
Hi-Cone's carriers are made with photodegradable ECO resin
technology.  It should be noted that Hi-Cone is not the only
manufacturer of six-pack rings.  However, the photodegradable
carrier can be identified by the little diamond which is
embossed on the carrier.

Attached for your information is a chart identifying those
states that have enacted laws to require connecting devices
and material to be degradable.  Also, in 1988, the Congress
enacted PL 100-556 which requires all manufacturers of plastic
ring devices to use only degradable material in their
production.  The EPA  is in the process of proposing rules to
implement and enforce this statute.  This statute, by the way,
does not preempt more restrictive state laws.

Signode's photodegradable Contrax  (polypropylene) strapping
has only recently been made commercially available.  Like the
Hi-Cone ECO carrier,  the additive system utilized in the
manufacture of the degradable version of Contrax is
proprietary.   The reason for going this route was that we
could not technologically incorporate, as we did with the ECO
carrier, the photodegradable sensitive material directly into
the polymer backbone.   This product represents the
                              401

-------
culmination of two years of rigorous and lengthy experiments
and testing of the product, both internally and externally, to
verify that we indeed had a product which would meet our
criteria for degradation.  Again,  criteria for degradation is
product performance.  The target here was to develop a
material which would degrade at rates comparative to those of
the Hi-Cone ECO carrier after exposure to similar
environmental conditions.  Currently this material is
available from Signode on an as needed basis.

ITW Minigrip has initiated a program to develop a degradable
resealable bag.  After nearly eighteen months of work and
experimentation with a variety of resin formulations, we have
concluded, for a variety of reasons, that a photodegradable
bag provides us with the best properties both as a product and
in its afterlife.  It appears the ECO system,  when applied to
our manufacturing processes, will also meet our degradation
criteria; that is, similar to that of the Hi-Cone carrier.  As
was noted earlier, the thickness of the product governs its
degradation rate to a very large extent.  The Hi-Cone carrier
is anywhere from 4 to 16 times thicker than a typical Minigrip
resealable bag.  We therefore must still determine formulation
consistency and characteristics so the product can routinely
provide uniform degradation when exposed to environments
similar to that as seen by the Hi-Cone carrier.

Mima stretch wrap film is a little different animal.  First of
all,  it is a linear low density based material with the
inherent characteristic,  because of the thinness, of being
photodegradable.   Typical maximum thicknesses of this product
is < 1 mil.   However,  in end use applications, prior to its
application to a palletized load,  it is stretched some 200%
                             402

-------
thereby reducing its thickness even further.  Our tests have
shown, upon exposure to UV, under a variety of conditions,
will completely photodegrade within 4 months, regardless of
the time of the year.

In summary, ITW and "why degradables" - we got into them
because of the likelihood of improper disposal, potential harm
to the aesthetic and marine environment, animal entrapment and
our experience with legislative backlash.  Though we expect
customers and downstream users of these products to be
cognizant of the effects their improper disposal can have on
the environment, we nonetheless, also expect some to find
their way into parks and coastal waters. In an effort to
mitigate the consequences of someone else's irresponsible
actions and our fear of "shoot from the hip" governmental
backlash, we chose to anticipate rather than wait.

Now, many here today are curious about the effect degradable
plastics will have on the municipal solid waste stream.  Well,
I have given you a story as to why we offer our customers
degradable enhanced products, and why we feel they are
beneficial in limited markets.   We do not, by any means,
believe degradable plastics are the answer to the need to
better manage our solid waste.  iTW's position continues to be
that there are appropriate, albeit limited, applications for
proven degradable plastics.  Over the years, there has been an
ongoing effort to learn more about enhanced degradable
plastics and to develop technologies that can be proven and
where the testing can be replicated.  ITW encourages this work
and will continue to work with all who are involved in this
process.
                              403

-------
ITW's position on the question of proper solid waste
management, though we are probably the worlds largest producer
of proven degradable plastic products, is recycling.

Surely, everyone here has herd that degradable plastics
contaminate the recycling process.  While I cannot speak to
so-call biodegradable or chemodegradable technologies, I can
address the question as it relates to photodegradable
plastics.  The accusation is simply and clearly false.  We
will stand by our position that the ECO resin is recyclable.

To begin with, when we sell the Hi-Cone ECO carrier to a
customer, we are, in a sense, selling holes.   If you look at
this product and remember that we are extruding it in sheet
form, punching out the part that will not be used and then
selling a skeleton, we have an awful lot of material which has
to be in-plant recycled.  Typically, 70% of the material that
is extruded winds up getting reused within the plant.
However, we do not consider this recycling in the sense that
it has an effect upon municipal solid waste.

In order to demonstrate the recyclability of the ECO carrier,
we have launched two demonstration projects.   In one, several
Coca Cola bottlers in New England and Wisconsin have begun
returning carriers from their vending routes where they would
otherwise be discarded.  These carriers have been processed
back into new carriers with no indication of integrity loss.
In the other, the Naperville (IL)Area Recycling Center, which
operates a voluntary curbside program for some 12,000
households, has included the carrier among the materials they
will accept for collection.   For this project, the ITW
Technology Center is developing technology to separate, clean
                              404

-------
and reprocess^this material into a form that, when mixed with
virgin ECO, can be used in the manufacture of new carriers.

Recycling is not new to ITW.  Nearly 4 years ago, in an effort
to cut costs, ITW Signode, the world's largest manufacturer of
steel and plastic strapping and the attendant application
systems, began to experiment with alternate feedstock for our
polyester strapping lines.

Today, Signode is the nation's second largest user of post-
consumer soda bottles.  In light of the problems inherent in
the supply side of this material, Signode is expanding its
roll in the recycling of this material to include material
sourcing, secondary processing and enhancement of the material
for its own use.

Other ITW units such as Plastiglide,  Extruded Products,  High
Performance Plastics, Mima, Minigrip and Buildex have all
commenced research on using post-consumer material as
feedstock, retrieving their own materials from the waste
stream or identifying post-consumer markets for the material.
However, as is the case for most everybody, a major stumbling
block for these and other ITW units is the lack of expansive
collection programs and secondary processing capability in the
United States.

Finally, ITW, as the world's largest producer of products
which have enhanced photodegradability in them, believe that
there is a market to be served and a need for these products
in the market place.  However, we feel that this is a very
limited market, and must be judged very carefully on its very
specific needs prior to rushing whole heartedly into
                              405

-------
degradable plastics.  Secondly,  the materials we are using, we
believe and have demonstrated that the biggest volume product
that we use is recyclable, and has no detrimental effect upon
the current recycling stream.
   Thirdly,  as we  further  expand our recycling of our
degradable materials, we will expand this to other degradable
materials in our line, so as to provide for a continuous loop
of these products and provide for a better environment.
Lastly, we feel that recycling is the best way to go for a
majority if not 99.9% of the plastics that are currently being
used in this country to have their most beneficial  effect upon
the reduction of municipal solid waste and its disposal
problems.

Thank you.
                             406

-------
STATE LAWS REQUIRING DEGRADABLE CONNECTING DEVICES
Bfective
Date 	
1/1/77
1/1/78
W7B
ltyi/81
11/1/82
1/15/83
1/17/83
flZ/83
Mfl/84
#1/86
7/1/87
W/88
1/1/89
fl/89
1/1/89
W89
n/89
1/1/90
1/1/90
1/1/91
1/1/90
1/1/91
1/1/91
1/1/91
Excerpted
State
Vermont
Maine
Oregon
Alaska
California
Delaware
Massachusetts
Mew York
Connecticut
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Michigan
Florida
Iowa
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Missouri
North Carolina
Nebraska
Louisiana
South Dakota
from state laws
'Type of Device

"plastic rings or similar devices"

"plastic rings or other plastic holding device"

"plastic rings or other material"

"plastic rings or similar plastic devices"

"plastic rings or similar plastic devices with holes
more than 1 and !/2 inches"

"plastic rings or similar devices"

"plastic rings or any other device or material"

"device constructed of plastic"

"device constructed of plastic rings or material"

"device made of  plastic"

"any device  constructed of plastic"

"plastic rings or similar plastic connectors"

"polyethylene beverage rings or plastic material"

"device constructed of plastic rings"

"device constructed of plastic rings or any
other device"

"device constructed of a material which is not
biodegradable or photodegradable"

"plastic rings"

"device constructed of a material which does not
decompose  by photodegradation or biodegradation"

"plastic connecting devices"

"plastic rings or other plastic holding devices"

"yoke or ring-type holding device"

"device constructed of a material which is not
biodegradable or photodegradable"

"plastic rings"

"device constructed of material that is not
 biodegradable or photodegradable"

                  407
                                                                                 Coverage

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 Metal beverage containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers


                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers

                                                                                 Metal beverage containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers


                                                                                 Beverage containers


                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers


                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers


                                                                                 All containers

                                                                                 Beverage containers

-------
ITW Hi-Cone ECO® Carriers
Effective Solid Waste Management
                                       82.7#
                                22#
                      Weight: Amount of packaging necessary
                      for 1000 6-Packs of 12 oz. cans

                        ECO    Shrink    Paper-
                               Film    board
                                                              1.80ft3
                                                 .17ft
                       03
                       O
Volume: Amount of packaging necessary
for 1000 6-Packs of 12 02. cans

   ECO   Shrink  Paper-
          Film   board
Paperboard
 rtwHi-Cone

-------
FLORIDA'S REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR DEGRADABLE MATERIALS

                    Julie Gissendanner
      Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
                     Presented at the

 First U.S.  Conference on Municipal  Solid Waste Management

                     June 13-16, 1990
                               4O9

-------
Overview  of  the  1988  Solid  Waste Act  and  Degradability
Requirements

A.   Florida's 1988 Solid Waste Act  is the most comprehensive
     solid waste legislation in the country.

     2.   The Wall Street Journal called the Act,  "the most
          ambitious attack on solid waste yet attempted in any
          state."

     3.   In the February edition of Waste  Age.  Pete Grogan
          said  Florida's Solid  Waste  Act  is "perhaps  the
          boldest mandatory  state  recycling  legislation  to
          date."

     4.   An overall 30% recycling  rate must be  achieved by
          the end of 1994.

     5.   Over 50%  of  the  aluminum cans, glass,  newspaper,
          and  plastic  bottles  sold in  the  state must  be
          recycled by 1992.

     6.   Six grant and  two award programs  were  established
          by  the  Act  with  $30  million  appropriated  for
          recycling, recycling education, innovative recycling
          projects,  used   oil   management,   waste   tire
          management,  and litter control.

     7.   The Act also includes  major  provisions addressing
          the  management   of   special  wastes,   training,
          education, research  and  development,  and  several
          other areas.

B.   Litter is a key Florida concern.

     1.   Trash  on the  roadsides  and  beaches  are  major
          problems.

     2.   Wildlife entanglement  and harm  from litter are a
          growing public concern.

C.   Litter receives major emphasis in the Solid Waste Act by:

     1.   The creation of the Clean Florida Commission which
          is  responsible for coordinating  statewide  litter
          prevention program;

     2.   The  creation  of  Keep  Florida  Beautiful, Inc.,  a
          nonprofit grassroots organization;

     3.   Grants for litter  prevention programs  and  public
          awareness; and
                              410

-------
          4.    New and tougher litter control laws.

     D.    The  Solid  Waste  Act  prohibits   packaging   that  is
          considered to be litter,  health, wildlife entanglement
          and pollution problems:

          1.    Beverage containers with detachable metal rings (pop
               tops);

          2.    Containers    made    with    fully    halogenated
               chlorofluorocarbons;

          3.    Plastic ring connectors and similar devices unless
               they will degrade in  120 days;

          4.    Polystyrene foam and  plastic coated paper products
               used in conjunction  with food  unless they  will
               degrade in 12 months; and

          5.    Plastic retail bags unless they will degrade in 120
               days.

     E.    In  summary,   the  SWA  is   a  comprehensive  legislative
          package in which  degradability plays a role  in litter
          control and wildlife protection.  The Department does not
          view degradability as a solution to  the landfill crisis.

     F.    Due to the controversial nature of degradability and the
          lack of  uniform standards, the Department  developed a
          rule on degradable materials.


II.  Development of the Degradable Materials Rule

     A.    The  first step was  to  determine  if  there  were  any
          existing standards.

          1.   States with degradable requirements were contacted.

          2.   DER met with  over twenty industry representatives
               and talked to many more by phone.

          3.   We obtained reports  from  federal agencies  (EPA and
               GAO) .

          4.   Research data from universities was reviewed.

          5.   The American  Society for  Testing and Materials was
               contacted  and  it  was  from  ASTM members  that we
               received most of the technical assistance.
                               411

-------
B.   Next,  the  major  issues  were  addressed  and  policy
     decisions were made.

     1.   The   legislative   intent   of   the   degradable
          requirements was determined to be litter, wildlife
          protection, or both.

          a.   We  were unable  to  find  litter  data  that
               differentiated  between  different  kinds  of
               plastic products.

          b.   However, the legislature had clearly targeted
               litter prone items.

     2.   Three types  of  testing  would be performed  on end
          products (rather than additives):

          a.   An exposure test to simulate outdoor
               element;

          b.   A rate of degradation test to  measure change
               in  a  physical  or chemical  property  during
               exposure; and

          c.   Toxicity tests to detect toxic  compounds that
               might be released during degradation.

     3.   A number of product specific decisions  were made
          including:

          a.   Which  container connector  devices  must  be
               degradable;

          b.   Definition of retail bag; and

          c.   Definition of  "certified as safe  by FDA" and
               "available in commercial quantities".

C.   The rulemaking schedule was as follows:

     1.   The first draft was available May 1989;

     2.   A technical panel reviewed the first draft in June
          1989;

     3.   Two public workshops were held in July and September
          1989;

     4.   The Environmental Regulation  Commission adopted the
          rule in Nov. 1989;

     5.   The final draft was available in Dec.  1989; and
                           412

-------
          6.   The rule went into effect in Jan. 1990.
III. Requirements of  the Degradable Materials  Rule,  Chapter 17-
     707, Florida Administrative Code

     A.   The intent  of  the  rule,  is to implement the law and to
          establish standards and criteria by which materials are
          determined  degradable.

     B.   The rule defines  "ASTM",  "brittle point", "degradable"
          (statutory), "heavy metals",  "photodegradable plastic",
          "polyolefins", and "retail outlet"  (statutory).

     C.   The following  test criteria apply to the degradability
          of polyolefins (ring connectors and bags):

          1.   Shall  be exposed to ultraviolet radiation according
               to one of four ASTM test standards; and

          2.   After  exposure must reach the brittle point  (0-5%
               elongation)  as  demonstrated   by an ASTM standard
               test method.

     D.   General test criteria are also included for demonstrating
          the degradability  of  other materials (PS foam, plastic
          coated  paper,  etc.).    While  specific tests  aren't
          required,   test  data  must demonstrate  a relationship
          between the rate of degradation and a physical property
          of the material.

     C.   The rule includes  test  criteria for toxicity.

          1.   For heavy metals manufacturers  can choose between
               one of the  following  options:

               a.   Performing   an   extraction  procedure   (EP)
                    Toxicity Test; or

               b.   Certifying  that the  product  has  not  been
                    formulated with  heavy metals.

          2.   To detect unknown toxic compounds a chronic toxicity
               bioassay  test must be performed on  the  components
               remaining after  degradation.

     D.   The rule contains general  criteria for test  samples.

          1.   Test   samples must  be representative of the  final
               product  and  contain  same base  polymer,  pigments,
               printing  inks and additives.
                                413

-------
          2.   Certain conditions and exemptions are included for
               example:

               a.   The thickest part of the product is tested;

               b.   Internal pigments are exempt  from  testing if
                    they comprise  1%  or less  of the  product by
                    weight;  and

               c.   Printing inks are exempt from testing if they
                    cover less than 25% of  the surface  area.

     E.   The remainder of the rule contains requirements specific
          to each product type.


III. Current Activities

     A.   In the past six months over 70 bag manufacturers and two
          container connector manufacturers  have    received
          temporary   approval   based   on   a   temporary   self
          certification process to use their products in Florida.
          In order to receive permanent approval,  these
          manufacturers will have to submit the test data required
          by the rule.

     B.   Several companies  are in the process of testing PS foam
          in  an effort  to  start  the  clock  on the  legislative
          requirement to make the products  degradable.

     C.   The Legislature is currently  in session and while no new
          degradable requirements are expected, there are lobbying
          efforts to modify  existing requirements.


IV.  In Summary, Florida's degradability requirements are part of
     a statewide comprehensive solid  waste management  program.
     Degradability can be viewed as one answer  to litter control
     and Florida's regulatory requirements reflect  that  point of
     view.
                               414

-------
 FOOD PACKAGING AND PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

  Lisa H. Novell, Buzz L. Hoffmann, Michael C. Harrass
              Environmental Impact Section,
      Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
               Food and Drug Administration
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                            415

-------
          FOOD PACKAGING AND PLANNING FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT



I.   Food Packaging

     A.  Benefits to society

     B.  Contribution to the nation's solid waste problem

     C.  Role in solving the nation's solid waste problem


II.  FDA and Food Packaging

     A.  Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and food safety
         considerations

     B.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental
         review of agency actions


III. Role of FDA in Solid Waste Management

     A.  Use of recycled materials for food contact

         1.  Paper

         2.  Polymers

     B.  Use of degradable polymers and degradation-enhancing adjuvants
         in contact with food

     C.  Environmental review of new food-packaging materials and
         components for potential impact on solid waste management


IV.  Environmental Review Process for Food Additive Petitions

     A.  NEPA responsibilities

     B.  Environmental review process
V.   FDA's Current Approach to Considering Solid Waste Impacts in
     Environmental Review

     A.  Effects on solid waste management strategies:  source reduction,
         recycling, incineration, landfilling

     B.  Effects may be beneficial or adverse
                                   416

-------
    C.  Effects may be significant  or  not  significant

    D.  Consideration of  disposal  impacts  is  not  a new development

    E.  Setting/context is  new

    F.  Information we request from petitioner about a proposed
        food-packaging material varies depending  on:

         1.   Market volume

         2.   Potential  for being recycled

         3.   Potential  for competition  with and replacement of materials
             currently  being recycled

         4.   Potential  impact on incineration of solid waste

         5.   Potential  impact on land disposal of  solid waste

         6.   Degradability


VI.  Hypothetical Examples of Information Requested  from Petitioners
     Regarding Potential  Solid Waste Impacts

     A.  Colorant used in rigid PET containers

     B.  New polymer that is recyclable

     C.  New polymer for use in rigid multilaminate  containers

     D.  Chlorinated polymer that produces acid gases  during incineration

     E.  Degradable polymer


VII. What FDA Does if Information Suggests There  Are Potential Adverse
     Impacts

     A.  Try to mitigate  adverse impacts.

     B.  Determine "significance" of potential impacts;  threshold of
         significance.

     C.  If  adverse impacts cannot  be  mitigated and are significant,
         prepare  an environmental  impact statement.

     D.  Balance  environmental considerations with other factors in
         decision-making.
                                    417

-------
     E.   Relatively few petitions  have potential solid waste
         considerations.
VII. Conclusions

     A.   FDA is committed to  advancing  recycling goals.   We support the
         use of recycled resins  in food provided that food safety is not
         compromised.

     B.   To fulfill its  NEPA  mandate, FDA must  consider  potential solid
         waste impacts for some  petitions involving food packaging
         materials/components.

     C.   Premarket environmental review by  FDA  is one of many factors
         operating today that encourage manufacturers to consider solid
         waste management in  design of  packaging products.
                                  418

-------
                LOCAL POLICY INITIATIVES:
          ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE PACKAGING

                     Karen L. Meyer
                   City of Minneapolis
                    Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                                419

-------
                            LOCAL POLICY INITIATIVES:
                      ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE PACKAGING
     On  March  31,  1989 the Minneapolis City Council  passed  the  Environmental
Preservation:   Environmentally Acceptable Packaging ordinance.   This  ordinance
has  been  acclaimed  as  the most comprehensive local   effort  to  regulate  the
fastest-growing component in the solid waste stream:  product packaging.   It  is
intended  to  make  more than a statement;  its purpose  is  to  discharge  local
government's  responsibility  to  manage solid waste in  an  environmentally  and
economically sound manner.   While regulating packaging would be best handled  at
the federal level, the solid waste crisis faced by localities is urgent and we we
cannot sit around and wait for direction from Washington.

     Discarded  packaging from foods and beverages constitutes a significant  and
growing portion of the municipal waste stream.   Regulation of food and  beverage
packaging,  therefore,  is a necessary part of addressing the problem at the  top
end  of  the  solid  waste management hierarchy:   source  reduction,  resue  and
recycling.   Siting new disposal facilities is politically unpopular and  frankly
expensive.    More   sophisticated  and  technical  means  of   landfill ing   and
incinerating waste means higher costs for the consumer.

     The  "environmentally acceptable packaging"  ordinance will have  two  major
effects in Minneapolis.   First, it will launch plastics recycling in our area as
a shared public and private responsibility.   Second by regulating the  packaging
of  food  and  beverages in the city's food establishments,  the  ordinance  will
encourage  packaging  design  which  is  more  benign  to  the  environment  when
discarded.
                                           420

-------
     The  ordinance  targets  the  retail  food  industry  within  the  City   of

Minneapolis by prohibiting food establishments from selling products in packaging

that is not considered environmentally acceptable.   "Environmentally acceptable"

is defined by the ordinance as packaging which is:*


     - returnable:   "food or beverage containers or packages,  such as,  but not
       limited  to,  soft drink bottles and milk containers that are  capable  of
       being returned to the distributor,  such as but not limited to dairies and
       soft drink bottlers,  for reuse as the same food or beverage container use
       at least once;" or

     - recyclable:  "packaging  made  of materials that are separable from  solid
       waste  by  the  generator or during collection  and  which  are  currently
       designated   for  collection  for recycling in an organized  manner  in  a
       municipally  approved  program.   Packaging made  of  either  polyethylene
       terepthalate (PET) or high density polyethylene (HOPE) shall be considered
       to  be  recyclable if and when it is collected for recycling in  teh  same
       manner as here stated."


     Exemptions were made in the ordinance for some types of packaging such as:

     - flexible packaging of ten (10) mils or less in thickness unless
       disapproved by the commissioner*;

     - packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes;

     - paper, cellophane or other cellulose-based packaging that is coated with
       plastic;

     - packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is
       no commercially available alternative.


     Industry  responded  to the ordinance on several fronts.   First,  a  public

campaign was launched to convince consumers that the ordinance would remove their

favorite foods from the grocery shelves.  These efforts backfired when the public

responded strongly in affirmation of the ordinance,  thus the public campaign was

aborted.   Efforts then turned to the Minnesota State legislature where lobbyists

pressured legislators to apply a statewide preemption of local efforts to
     *  Originally  "degradable"  was included as an  environmentally  acceptable

package but was amended to be an exemption to de-emphasize this item.

                                           421

-------
regulate packaging.   A preemption amendment was added to a state recycling bill.
However,  when this bill was finally passed in the 1989 fall session, it included
language which preserved  the Minneapolis effort.   As a third strategy to  oppose
the  ordinance,  industry  representatives threatened to  legally  challenge  the
ordinance  on  the  Constitutional grounds of  undue  limitations  on  interstate
commerce.   However,  Minnesota has a history of tough packaging laws which  have
withstood constitutional challenge,  so litigation has not occured,  although the
potential still exists.

     The  ordinance  has  prevailed  and  continues  to  be  a  key  element   of
environmentally  sensitive  solid waste management efforts in  Minneapolis.   The
ordinance  created an Advisory Committee on Environmentally Acceptable  Packaging
with  membership from local food retailers,  plastics  manufacturers,  restaurant
managers,   local  and  national  environmental  groups,  local  governments  and
citizen's  groups.   This  Advisory Committee served as the  forum  for  creative
ideas,  discussions,  challenges and solutions.  Its charge was to determine what
types of packaging were affected by the ordinance and how to achieve  compliance.
A final report was submitted to the City Council in January of 1990.

     In  the meantime,  the Council for Solid Waste Solutions  (CSWS)  approached
Hennepin County and Minneapolis to develop three plastic recycling pilot projects
to  help  determine cost-effective approaches to  recycling  plastics.    Plastic
packaging which becomes part of the City's curbside recycling program will become
"environmentally  acceptable"  under  the  terms of  the  ordinance.   The  pilot
projects  will  be conducted for six months each beginning in April  and  May  of
1990.   A citywide recycling program based on the results of the  pilot  projects
should be in place by January 1, 1991.
                                         422

-------
     The  first  pilot will collect PET pop bottles and HOPE milk  bottles;   the



second  will collect all plastic bottles;  and the third will collect  all  rigid



plastics  containers.   CSWS has provided a viable market outlet for the  plastic



collected in the pilots as we 1.1 as the equipment necessary for collection.   They



also  developed  promotional  and  education materials  which  were  provided  to



households   participating  in  the  pilots.    The  City  and  CSWS  will   work



cooperatively  to secure a long-term commitment to the purchase and -processing of



the plastic containers that will be collected on a city-wide basis.







      In  order  to  facilitate  proper monitoring and  evaluation  of  the  pilot



projects  the Minneapolis City Council amended the original ordinance  to  extend



the effective date from July 1, 1990 to January 1,  1991.   Additional amendments



permitted  the  Commissioner  of  Health,  who  is  charged  with  enforcing  the



ordinance,  to issue temporary administrative exemptions to allow a  phase-in  of



enforcement  procedures.    Upon  the  January  1,   1991  effective  date,   the



Commissioner may  issue  the following temporary exemptions:







      1)  six months for product groups identified as producing very high  volumes



of  solid waste.   Product examples include:   milk,  carbonated  beverages,  ice



cream/frozen desserts, yogurt and noncarbonated water.







      2)  nine  months  for product groups  for  which  "environmentally  acceptable



packaging"   is currently available.    Examples  include:   pasta sauces,  mustard,



syrups,  peanut  butter, honey, coffee  whiteners, preserves/oppings,  edible oils,



bouiloon/spices,  vinegar, BBQ  sauce, ketchup.







      3)  twelve  months for  product  groups for which  "environmentally  acceptable



packaging   was   used   in   the  past  and is  still  commercially  available.   Such



products might  include:   individual  serving  containers  and  soft margarine.





                                          423

-------
     4) twelve months for product groups for  which  there is a probable  packaging
alternative that is degradable.  Examples include:   cottage cheese,   eggs,  meat,
whipped toppings, sour cream and substitutes,  and produce trays.

     5) twelve months for products used in the food service/deli  industry.   This
includes products consumed on premises or off premises  as well  as those used  for
catering.

     The  Minneapolis  City Council has directed the Commissioner of  Health  to
develop  detailed  rules and regulations for  the enforcement  of   the  ordinance.
Public  comment on such rules will be sought  at hearings to be  conducted  in  the
Fall of 1990.

     The  pilot  recycling  projects  and an   enforcement  program  are  directly
related.  The more succssful and extensive the citywide plastic recycling program
the more limited will be the scope of enforcement.    One key reason  the effective
date was moved to Jaunary 1,  1991 was to allow these efforts to  be  more  closely
coordinated.

      The  success of a city-wide plastics recycling and regulation  program  will
depend on the cooperative efforts of citizens, industry and governments.  Dealing
with  plastics  in  the solid waste stream is a timely  and  worthwhile  effort.
Through source reduction,  reuse and recycling, Minneapolis — and  other  cities
across the country — can minimize landfilling and  incineration problems.   These
goals  ~ and the costs that are incurred as  we pursue  them — must  be shared  by
public and private interests.   Designing packaging and encouraging  recycling and
reuse are not just trendy; these efforts are  critical to managing the solid waste
crisis.
                                           424

-------
                          June 14, 1990
                        William L. Kovacs
         Partner,  Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins & Tongue

                Municipal Solid Waste Management:
                     Solutions for  the  90's
 MATERIALS USE POLICY  —  IS  THERE  A  NEED  FOR A NATIONAL EFFORT?


I.   INTRODUCTION


    1.   Greater  recycling  can  only  be  accomplished  through

         greater industrial use of recyclable materials.

    2.   Society  is  at a  crossroads as  to  how it will  use its

         material  and  energy resources  and how it  will produce

         goods and what goods it will consume.

    3.   Recycling  is  not  just  about  landfill  capacity  and

         environmental harm  from improper waste disposal -- it is

         about materials  management,  the efficient use of energy

         resources,   industrial  production,   tax  policy,   the

         movement  of  goods  and waste in  commerce and virtually

         every product we purchase in our daily lives.

    4.   Recycling    impacts   industrial   capacity   and   the

         competitiveness of  our domestic  industries.

    a.   The  decrease  in disposal capacity will eventually limit

         our  ability to produce goods.

    b.   Conversely,  the efficient  use of  energy and  materials

         will make the U.S.  more competitive, e.g., number 1 and

         2  exports  from Port  of  New York are  scrapsteel and

         paper.   Pacific  Rim nations use

         recyclable materials as  their  raw material  supply in
 1  - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                                 425

-------
         manufacturing  because  they  are  cheap  materials  and

         energy efficient,  thus  allowing them  to make  the same

         products as from virgin  goods,  only cheaper.

5.  In  short,  the  economics  of recycling involve  a  conflict

    between a society that rewards consumption  and a society that

    structures its laws to  reward conservation  and the efficient

    use of its materials and energy.  If  it is  cheaper to waste,

    more waste will  occur.   If society rewards  conservation and

    savings, then conservation and recycling will occur.

6.  To  make recycling an  efficient economic  activity,   we must

    understand:

    a.   Waste is expensive and the  public has  been shielded from

         this reality for too long;
    b.   Easy solutions are gone;  only difficult ones  remain;

    c.   Most  of what  the  public  thinks  is  recycling  (source

         separation,  collection,  processing)  is not  recycling.

         Recycling  occurs  only when the processed material  is

         reused to make a new product;  and

    d.   To make recycling work,  you must create markets, and the

         only  market   is   the  industrial   use   of   recyclable

         materials  as its  raw  material supply  in  making  new

         products and  the  commercial,  governmental and  consumer

         purchase of items  made  from recyclable materials.   This

         can occur  either  by an  increase in industrial  capacity

         because  more  goods  are   being  produced,   thus,  the

         utilization of more materials,  or by the substitution of

         recyclable  materials   for  virgin  materials   in  the
2 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                                426

-------
         industrial process.   In the later  case,  the recyclable

         material is  a substitute  for  the  virgin  material,  and

         those industries  that rely  solely on  virgin  materials

         will be impacted.
II.  EASY FORMULA, DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT
1.  Barriers  to   recycling  exist  throughout   public  policy,

    including social attitudes that products made from recyclable

    materials  are  not  as  good  as  products made  from  virgin

    materials.

2.  To  increase levels  of  recycling,  significant  changes  must

    occur in  tax policy,  disposal costs and the way the consumer

    perceives packaging.

3.  In  effect,  to  increase  recycling,  there  must be a change in

    the market  share in the use  of  industrial raw materials, or

    jump in new industrial capacity.

4.  Many  vested  interests  have  a  stake   in   the  failure  of

    recycling.

5.  Change is possible, but it will be  difficult.
III. HISTORICAL


1.  Prior  to 1975,  little activity  nationwide in the regulation

    of  solid waste  or recycling  activities.    All  efforts were

    local.   RCRA House  Report discusses  this issue.
3  - SPEECH OUTLINE   (WLK053)

-------
    2.   RCRA  -

        a.   EPA

              i.   Regulator, Government Procurement;  and

              ii.  Tech Asst &  Info, state plans,  T.A.  Panels

        b.    Commerce

    3.   DOE/NECPA

    4.   1976-1988 —  12  years of  federal  inaction  made  the

        problem worse  and placed the entire burden  on state and

        local government.
IV.   RESULTS OF FEDERAL INACTION


    1.    Statistical

    a.    78% of waste still is disposed  in  landfills;

    b.    This nation has lost a majority of its landfills in last

         ten years;

    c.    75% of  all  existing landfills will  close  in next  15

         years;

    d.    By year  2000,  there will be a 56 million ton  per year

         shortfall in disposal capacity;

    e.    This  shortfall represents  serious  problems  for  this

         nation's industrial capacity,   thereby  driving  local and

         state governments  to enact product bans and taxes; and

    f.    Because states would not site  new  landfills and have had

         difficulty  constructing  and   permitting  new  waste-to-

         energy facilities, they turned to  recycling as something

         they thought they  could sell to the public.


4 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                                428

-------
   2.   State  activity:  2000 bills  last session,  more than on
        any other issue
        a.  6 states enacted mandatory recycling  (all collection
        statutes);
   b.   Landfill taxes;
   c.   grants - limits;
   d.   26   states  have  preferential   procurement  laws   for
        products made  from recovered materials
        i.   price  preferences;  and
        ii.  quotas;
   e.   tax  incentives;
   f.   packaging  taxes  & bans;  and
   g.   packaging referenda  in Oregon  and Massachusetts.
3.  Recent Federal  Activity
   a.   EPA's  Agenda for Action
        i.    25% recycling;
        ii.   information distribution;
        iii. recycling council  and planning; and
         iv.   no new ideas;
    b.   Congress
         i.   25% recycling/50% recycling goals;
         ii.   required new state plans and if states do not enact
              plans  then the  federal government will  and will
              bill the state;
         iii. little discussion of markets;
         iv.  It will  take  the  EPA three years to promulgate new
              regulations and the regulations will be subject to
               litigation for three years; and
 5  -  SPEECH OUTLINE   (WLK053)
                                429

-------
         v.    Federal  legislation  will  kill  recycling  for  a
              decade.
    c.   Single biggest threat to recycling  gains  made by states
         is federal legislation that places new demands on states
         without any funding.
4.  California  -  the  Most   Comprehensive   Market  Development
    Package
    a.   Mandatory   minimum   recycled   content  standards   for
         newsprint sold in state.
    b.   Integrated waste management approach, including resource
         recovery,  recycling,   compost  and  market  development
         activities.
    c.   Attempts  to   promote  changes  in   manufacturing   and
         consumption habits and to improve markets for recyclable
         materials.
         i.   created Source Reduction Advisory Commission;
         ii.  created  Recycled  Markets  Development  Commission
              (direct   liaison   with   private   manufacturing
              industries  to  promote  increased  utilization  of
              recycled feedstock in manufacturing process;
         iii. created market development zones;
         iv.  mandated  government   purchases  in   printing  and
              writing paper,  compost,  plastics,  retreaded tires
              and lead acid batteries;
         v.   technical assistance;
         vi.  plastic recycling assistance;
6 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                                 43O

-------
         vii. assessment  of costs  of waste  management options;
              and

         viii.Office Paper Recovery Program.

    d.   Mandated state recycled paper purchase requirements  (35%
         of  the  total  dollar of paper purchases  in 1992 must be
         of recycled paper and it will rise to 50%  in 1996).
    e.   Tax credits ($250,000 limit).

    f.   Created markets  for recycled oil by requiring state and
         local   agencies   to  purchase   lubricating  and  other
         petroleum products made from recycled oil.
    g.   Purchase   of   paving   materials  made   from   recycled
         materials.

    h.   Authorizes  use  of  industrial  development  bonds  to
         facilitate   acquisition  by   private   enterprises   of
         property  used to process  or manufacture  products made
         from recyclable materials.
    i.   Implementation of a "Buy-Recycled campaign" to encourage
         business,  industry  and  consumers to purchase items made
         from recycled materials.
V.  DEFICENCIES IN FEDERAL AND STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION
    1.   Markets  generally   absent  from  discussion   in  most
         legislation.     Government-based   false   belief  that
         materials make  markets.   Compare  CA market development
7 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                                431

-------
         efforts  with   federal  legislation  which   considers
         recycling to be the collection,  separation & processing
         of materials for reuse.   The federal  legislation never
         addresses  the   reuse  by  industry  of  the  reprocessed
         materials which is  the market for recyclable material.
    2.   Quality requirements  are  absent  from the  legislation.
         In fact, in  those  states  with mandatory  recycling,  the
         quality of recyclables actually decreased.
    3.   Failure  to  understand mills  of  the  world  are  the
         markets.   Consider  the use  of  recycled materials  by
         Pacific Rim nations and the impact of avoided  costs on
         national competitiveness.
    4.   Tendency to displace  private  sector  dealer network with
         government operation.
    5.   Failure to understand interrelationships  of system:  all
         states compete  with each other for a limited market
         a.   relationship between  the export market of East/West
              coasts;
         b.   How  one  state  can   displace  another's  recycled
              materials  in the market place; and
         c.  impacts if  East Coast  goes avoided costs.
VI.  SUGGESTIONS TO CREATE MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
1.  Kill the Myths, which are that:
8 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)
                               432

-------
        a.  Materials  create markets;
        b.  Packaging  bans and/or packaging taxes create markets
         (see   Atlantic    Monthly  article   on   archaeological
         findings ) ;
         c.  That easy solutions are available; or
         d.  The  nation can recycle its way out of solid waste
              problem .
2.  Mills are  the markets  for recyclable  materials;  therefore,
    the  focus  must  be on  mills  using more  recycled  materials;
    conversely,  there  must be more demand for products made from
    such materials.   To  increase the use of recyclable materials
    by mills:
3.  Let disposal costs rise — benefits recycling, requires waste
    to pay the real  cost;
4.  Re- focus tax incentives;
5,  Non-discrimination;
6.  Minimum content  requirements  (Cal.,  Pa.,  Conn.);
7.  Tax  credits  for new  equipment for making recycled  products;
    and
8.  Government  procurement 2O%  GNP,  purchases   7%  of all  paper
    products;  must get away  from absolute  terms,  e.g.   50%  post-
    consumer  waste,  and  be more conscious of technology -  maybe
    get  20%   post-consumer  waste  or printer's waste.    Lower
     quality standard,  e.g. less brightness;
 9.  Let industry petition  government.
 10. States Must Act As Regions (Key to recycling as an industrial
     policy) :
 9 - SPEECH OUTLINE   (WLK053)

-------
         a.   Uniform procurement requirements;


         b.   Create larger markets;  and


         c.    Greater economic  base to attract  industry  and  to


              supply its needs.


11. Inventory:


         States must know what  the  industries in  its  region need


         or can use; what materials  the  state can supply industry


         and  it  must  meet  industry's   quality  requirements.


         Government must understand  industry.


12. Clean Japan Center  — A Prototype for Change and  to provide


    technology transfer and act  as a catalyst.


13. States/regions  must  take  lead   in  siting  new  disposal  and


    industrial capacity and must share  burdens and  benefits  of


    this new capacity.


14. National Benefits From This Approach:


         a.  Energy and materials savings;


         b.  Costs less to build recycle plant than virgin plant;


         c.   More competitive internationally,  e.g.  Japan/Korea


              steel industry; scrap no.  1 export out of New York;


              and


         d.   extend  landfill  supply and  create  new  capacity


              while creating new markets for recycled goods.
VII. CONCLUSION




    Recycling  as  industrial policy will require many changes,  but


    if  we can undertake them,  the nation  will better manage  its




10  - SPEECH OUTLINE   (WLK053)    ._.
                                 434

-------
   resources   and   be  more   internationally  competitive  and



   recycling will be a cost-effective process.
11 - SPEECH OUTLINE  (WLK053)     435

-------
   PACKAGING  FUNCTIONS  AND  SOURCE REDUCTION  AND  REUSE

                      Susan  E.  Selke
                   School of Packaging
                Michigan State University
                     Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990
                            437

-------
ABSTRACT
     Packaging is recognized as a major component of the
municipal solid waste stream.  There is a perception that much
of this packaging is not necessary and that there is therefore
a substantial amount of packaging which could be removed from
solid waste with ease, thereby reducing disposal problems.  In
fact, though significant reductions in packaging can be made,
there are, in many cases, costs associated with these
reductions which are not fully appreciated.  These costs may
include monetary costs associated with the package and its
distribution, environmental costs other than solid waste, and
impacts on lifestyle of consumers, among others.  Evaluation
of source reduction and reuse opportunities in packaging, to
be accurate, must include these costs.  An evaluation based on
an understanding of the basic packaging functions served by
the current packaging system will be more likely to include
these hidden costs.  A classification of packaging functions
into protection, communication, and utility can be used as a
guideline for selection of source reduction and reuse
opportunities.  Examples are presented.
                               438

-------
I.   Introduction
     Current estimates of municipal solid waste generation in
the United States put the total in excess of 180 million tons
per year.  Of this, packaging is the largest single category,
accounting for about 31% by volume and  34% by weight  (1,2).
Therefore efforts to reduce solid waste generation and
disposal requirements frequently target packaging as
representing a large potential for source reduction,  both
because of its major contribution to waste, and also  because
of  the perception that a substantial portion of the packaging
we  use is unnecessary, and can therefore be eliminated with
relative ease.
      In  actuality,  the situation  is considerably more complex.
There are examples  where  "excess  packaging" can be reduced
with few costs,  but unfortunately the  more  common situation  is
 that changes which  reduce  packaging  have  associated with  them
 a  variety of effects,  some positive  and some  negative, whose
 costs are frequently not appreciated or evaluated.
 Recognition of real opportunities for source reduction must
 take into account these hidden costs,  as well as the  more
 obvious waste  reduction benefits.
      Evaluation of the true costs of changes in packaging can
 best be guided by an understanding of  the functions the
 package system is designed to perform.  While various
 authorities have promulgated long lists of packaging
 functions, they can all be accomodated by a classification
                               439

-------
into three simple categories, protection, communication, and
convenience, which can then be used to evaluate the effects of
changes in design.

II.  Packaging Functions
     The protection function of packaging encompasses both
protecting the product from the environment to which it is
exposed, and protecting the environment from exposure to the
product.  It includes aspects as diverse as limiting the
escape of carbon dioxide from a soft drink container,
maintaining the oxygen and moisture levels within a food
package, and protecting a computer from mechanical or
electrostatic damage during transportation and handling.
Furthermore, it includes protection aspects that at first
thought are less evident, such as child-resistant features on
aspirin, prescription drugs and other products to protect
children (part of the environment) against harm from the
product; and the oversize card on a tiny watch battery, to
protect the product from harm resulting from shoplifting.
     The communication function of packaging has a variety of
aspects.  It includes all the legally required information
about a product, such as product and manufacturer
identification, quantity of contents, required warnings,
nutritional information, etc.  It also includes the "buy-me"
features of retail packages, such as bright colors,
distinctive logos, recipe information, etc.  Such information
                              44O

-------
as how to open the package, how to use the product, etc., are
also part of the communication function.
     The third packaging function is to provide convenience.
This includes dispensing features, such as the flip-top  cap on
a tube of toothpaste, packages in a variety of sizes to  suit
consumer desires, packaging for ready-to-eat meals, etc.  The
convenience feature may be for the consumer, or for the
retailer, the shipper, or some other user of the package.  It
includes such aspects as a cut-out hole in the package to
provide for rack display, hand-holds for carrying, bundling of
articles in convenient size groups, packages which hold
several components which are commonly purchased and used
together, etc.
     It should be emphasized that the relative importance of
each of these packaging functions is dependent on the product,
the distribution system, and even the opinion of the person
doing the ranking.  Further, many packaging features perform
more than one of these functions simultaneously.

III.  Evaluation of Source Reduction Opportunities
     We can now look within these basic functions for
opportunities to identify excess packaging, or overpackaging -
packaging which is not needed and can therefore be eliminated
without loss.  This excess packaging is, then, an obvious
target for source reduction.
     If more protection is provided for the product (or
                              441

-------
environment) than is needed, this represents an opportunity
for waste reduction.  For example, one often hears a complaint
like "I just bought a new TV and I had half a box of styrofoam
to throw away!"  Appropriate design of products for
durability, design of packages for optimum protection, and
accurate testing of products and packages to determine
protection requirements and package performance, can result in
selection of an appropriate degree of product protection
without excessive packaging.  There are at least three factors
involved here, however, that complicate design for source
reduction.  One is our lack of knowledge about just what a
product is likely to be exposed to and how damaging that
exposure may be.  Another is that even when the product's
potential environment is well-understood, it is inherently
variable - each individual product will be exposed to a
somewhat different set of distribution environments.
Therefore the manufacturer of that TV set had to make some
estimates about the severity of the environment, and then had
to package the products to survive something between the worst
and the best of the expected conditions.  In doing so, the
manufacturer attempted to maximize profits by minimizing
expenses, both those due to packaging and those due to package
failure (product damage, loss of consumer good will,
transportation costs for returned goods, etc.).  For a costly
product such as a television set, the product would be
packaged to survive something close to the worst expected
                              442

-------
conditions.  Therefore in one sense most of the TV sets would
be "overpackaged."  For instance they may be packaged to
survive a 20 inch drop when actually most of them were only
exposed to a 15 inch drop or less.  For a less costly product,
more damage could be tolerated and therefore the package would
not be as protective, hence there would be less
"overpackaging."  This type of "overpackaging" is necessary to
the efficient  functioning of our distribution systems, and
therefore cannot be eliminated without increasing the costs of
consumer goods.  To be sure, there are cases where the proper
balance between  the amount  and type of packaging and the
distribution  system has  not been achieved, where there are
opportunities for  source reduction.   It  should be kept in mind
that  the product manufacturer has  a vested  interest in not
using excess  packaging,  simply because  it costs  extra money.
Therefore  the normal  industry tendencies towards cost-cutting
and maximizing profits will usually result in this  type  of
source reduction in the long run.   In fact,  changes of  this
type  are frequently made, often without the consumer  being
aware of any changes.  Plastic milk bottles, steel  food cans,
plastic bags, glass bottles,  and many other packages  are being
made lighter, with thinner walls,  than they used to have,  thus
 conserving both resources and landfill space, while saving
 money for manufacturers.
      The communication aspects of a package are, in general,
 more vulnerable than the protection aspects to charges of
                               443

-------
excess packaging.  It is easy to look at packages and say we
do not need the bright colors, the fancy pictures, etc.
However these aspects of the package rarely add significantly
to the volume of packaging material to be disposed of.  More
significant is packaging designed to increase the space the
product occupies, and hence its visibility.  In a free
enterprise system such as ours, with our self-service style of
merchandising, a package that does not communicate effectively
to the consumer is unlikely to survive in the marketplace.
Therefore decisions that increase the amount of packaging and
its cost, but increase sales to a greater extent, are
economically sound decisions for the packager.  Regulatory
action or voluntary cooperation by industry is needed to
achieve source reduction of this type.  It should also be
mentioned that costs  are associated with fa lure of effective
communication.   Product misuse can lead not only to waste
generation, but  in some cases to serious detriment to the
health and well-being of consumers or the general public.   For
example, it was  a package  communication failure that  led to
PBB being inadvertently mixed with cattle feed a  number of
years ago in Michigan, resulting in  tremendous economic,
social, and environmental  costs.
      The convenience  aspects  of packaging  are also  likely  to
yield examples  of excess packaging.  We can survive without
dispensing  caps  and  no-drip spouts,  for instance.   It is
certainly true  that  much more packaging is used  to  contain ten
                               444

-------
or so frozen microwave-ready roast beef dinners than to



package a beef roast, a sack of potatoes, and some green



beans.  However, if we were to outlaw such packaging (and,



thereby, at least sometimes such products), the consumer



outcry would be enormous.  As a society we demand convenience



products, and we demonstrate this demand by our willingness to



pay for that convenience with higher prices.  In fact, instead



of rebelling against such packaging, trend analysis shows our



society is demanding more and more of it.  We can live without



many convenience features of packaging, but doing so may



demand significant changes in lifestyle, changes which the



majority of the population will probably not tolerate at the



present time.  Industry is, however, beginning to offer



products which sacrifice some convenience with the goal of



waste minimization.  Laundry detergent in a refill pouch is



currently in test market in the U.S.  The user is expected to



cut open the pouch and pour it into the previously purchased



plastic bottle for dispensing and use.  Significantly less



material is reg^iired for the pouch than the bottle, but it is



less convenient to use.  This concept has had some success in



Europe, but it remains to be seen whether it will work here.



Convenience for users of the package other than the retail



customer, such as that provided for merchants and



transporters, often cannot be eliminated without adding



significant costs.  For example, a production facility which



makes a large variety of sizes of products is likely to use
                              445

-------
only a few standard size.  of corrugated boxes for product
distribution.  This can easily result in larger packages for
some products than is actually required.  However, stocking a
larger variety of sizes of packages will require more
warehouse space, a larger cost in handling this larger variety
of sizes, and probably a larger purchase price for the boxes
since each size will be purchased in smaller numbers.

IV.  Reuseable Packaging
     Reuseable packages can offer a large potential for
reducing the volume of waste requiring disposal, but also
illustrate some of the difficulties with, and costs of,
translating these opportunities into action.  In contrast to
source reduction, packages designed to be reusable are
generally larger and heavier than those designed to be
disposed of after a single use.  The extra strength is needed
to provide adequate performance through multiple use cycles.
This means, obviously, that there is a larger investment in
material and in energy than in a disposable package, so if the
package is not reused, there are environmental and economic
losses, along with a larger contribution to solid waste.
     Reuse of packages requires a reverse distribution system
to be in place, to achieve the return of the containers.  This
results in energy expenditure along with economic costs.  At
least some cleaning of the containers will probably be
necessary.  For some types of packages, this cleaning will be
                             446

-------
very extensive.  Cleaning typically will involve the use of
water and detergents, and will result in emission of detergent
and product residues which will increase demands on sewage
treatment systems.  Reuse of packages involves significant
loss in convenience compared to disposables.  Implementing
such systems and running them successfully can be blocked by
resistance at any point along the reverse distribution
channel.  An inability to gain the cooperation of grocery
retailers, for example, is reportedly the major factor in
blocking the wider use of refillable plastic milk bottles.
Failure of consumers to return refillable glass beverage
bottles has been cited as the major factor in the slow demise
of these containers (though the success of bottle deposit
legislation calls this interpretation into question).
Adoption of reuseable containers has been most successful for
distribution packages, rather than retail packages, since the
distribution channel is shorter and more controllable.  The
most success has been obtained where the ultimate destination
of the distribution package is owned or at least partially
controlled by the original packager, and therefore where the
avoided cost of disposal can directly impact the decision to
use a reuseable package (3).

IV.  Other Environmental Impacts
     It is important in evaluating the costs and benefits of
source reduction and reuse opportunities to include
                               447

-------
environmental impacts other than solid waste.  Changes in
packaging systems often have very widespread effects, which
can be easy to overlook and very difficult to evaluate.
Energy effects are those other than solid waste most likely to
be evaluated.  For example, a switch from disposable to
refillable glass beverage containers will require more initial
investment in energy for the refillable, but the equation will
favor the refillable if_ (and only if) it is actually refilled
some minimum number of times.  Combining this information with
the number of fills actually obtained will allow a conclusion
to be drawn about which of these alternatives is the most
energy efficient.  However an evaluation of total
environmental impact should also include, for example, the air
emissions during manufacture of those containers.  Here again
the emissions will be larger originally for the heavier
refillable, but will be less in total for the refillable if it
achieves some minimum number of refills.  Where the situation
would get very complex is if, for instance, by an energy
standard the obtainable refills were not enough to balance the
initial excess energy cost, but by air emissions the
refillable container was preferred.  Then we are in the
situation of somehow balancing air emissions with depletion of
energy resources in determining overall environmental benefit.
Of course, we should not leave solid waste considerations out
of this equation, either.  In practice, these comparisons can
easily become even more complicated by adding in the potential
                              448

-------
for switching from one material or combination of materials to
another.  Then in addition to solid waste  amount and energy
consumption, we may have to balance not only  air emissions but
the relative importance of different  types of air emissions.
We may have to try to balance depletion of relatively scarce
natural resources with water pollution, soil  erosion with
energy use, etc., etc.  The methodology for dealing with these
life  cycle issues of packaging  is  not yet  well developed, and
may always unavoidably contain  a good deal of subjective
judgment, yet  these  issues cannot  be  ignored  if we wish to
make  decisions which are  truly  environmentally sound.
      On a  final  note,  good decisions  about packages  cannot be
made  independently  from  decisions  about  the  products they
contain.   Just as environmental impacts  encompass more  than
just  solid waste, environmentally sound design encompasses
both  products and packages.   Packages are designed  to perform
certain functions for the products they contain.   Product
design can place larger or smaller demands on packages.   For
 instance,  products which are more robust require less
 protection from packages.  Both products  and packages affect
 solid waste generation,  as well as many other aspects of our
 environment.  An environmentally sound approach to product
 design which encompasses but is not  limited  to environmentally
 sound packaging design would benefit us all.
                                449

-------
References:

1.   Franklin Associates, Characterization of Municipal Solid
     Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (Update 1988),
     Franklin Associates, Prairie Village, Kansas, 1988.
2. "Plastic in Landfills Is 18% By Volume, 7.3% by Weight,"
     Recycling Times, 1(18):1, 1989.
3. Twede, D., "Factors Influencing the Reduction of
     Distribution Packaging Waste," Proceedings of the 1988
     Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials
     Policy, New York State Legislative Commission on Solid
     Waste, Albany, New York, pp. D11-D13, 1988.
                              450

-------
     PLASTICS: PART OF THE SOLID WASTE SOLUTION

                     Donald B.  Shea
          The Council for  Solid  Waste Solutions
                    Presented  at  the
First U.S.  Conference on Municipal Solid Waste  Management
                   June  13-16,  1990
                            451

-------
      I have been  asked to provide the plastics  industry's perspective
 on materials  use  policies.   The plastics industry believes that  plastics
 should  be used whenever possible.   Thank  you.

      Seriously, though, it  is difficult to discuss materials use policies  as
 the  representative  of a material rather than a  particular product.   But
 the  question  we're  addressing  today is  the  effectiveness  of  materials
 use  policies as waste management practices, so let me  share the
 experiences  of  the  plastics  industry  with  you.

      As  you are all, no doubt, aware, the plastics industry has taken a
 lot of heat on the solid waste  issue.  As Americans grow increasingly
 concerned about  the  environment, more  and more  consumers  are
 willing  to adopt materials use policies of their own.   Far too many times,
 those policies come down to one thing: avoid plastics.   But the
 consumer's reasoning is  rarely based on factual information.

      Consider: a shopper  wanting to be environmentally conscious will
 probably  choose a paper sack  rather than plastic  at the  grocery  store
 check-out line.    But that paper sack, in my community  at least, is not
 being recycled.  It goes into a landfill ~ where  80 to  85 percent  of our
 waste still goes — and takes up five times more space than its plastic
 alternative would  have.  That paper sack probably won't  degrade
during the working-life of the landfill.

      My point here is that materials use policies  are only  as good as the
information that goes  into making  them.  You folks in  the waste
management  industry  have  to  remember that  the vast  majority  of
Americans ~ including American  policymakers — never thought  about
solid waste management until a couple of years  ago.   But now  we're
running out  of  landfill space  and  everybody is  running around trying  to
find  waste  management  alternatives  — working  from  an information
base that  is  incomplete, at best.
                                   452

-------
      Consider the  lack  of information at the Federal agency responsible
for much of our  nation's environmental policies.   The Department of
Interior recently  called  for a halt  to  polystyrene  use in its  cafeterias  and
by  concessionaires  in  the nation's  park service,  noting  that  polystyrene
recycling is  not  yet widespread.   But  the alternatives to polystyrene  —
you know what  they are  — are not  currently being recycled anywhere.
And, again,  those alternatives  — like all  other materials —  do not
degrade  rapidly  in  a modern  sanitary  landfill.

      So why  did the Department  of  Interior ban polystyrene?  Because
it  was politically necessary  to take some kind of action, and polystyrene
was a relatively  easy  target.  The emergence  of the quick-fix approach
to  solid  waste management — bans,  degradability  requirements  and  the
like -- posed a real threat to  our  progress  in  developing an  effective
long-range  approach to  waste management.

      The ban mentality  undermines  efforts  to  expand recycling.  It
produces no real waste  management  progress  because it is  based on
public opinion research  rather than scientific research.   And it can  have
the  effect of eliminating the best  material for a  given application.

      With the tremendous  emphasis being  placed on the solid  waste
issue,  it is easy  to lose  sight  of the fact that disposal considerations are
just one  factor in the materials  use decision process.   Safety, durability,
energy  efficiency - all  of these must be considered, as well.

      In  1988, concerned  companies  in the  industry formed  The Council
for  Solid Waste  Solutions to address  the  role of plastics in the waste
stream  and stem  the spread of the quick-fix mentality.   But more than
that, the Council was  charged with taking a leadership role  in
developing long-term  solutions  to America's  waste  management  needs,
building  on the   EPA's four-part approach to solid  waste  management:
source  reduction, recycling, waste-to-energy  incineration and
landfilling.

                                     453

-------
      The  Council's  Government Affairs  Department  works  to  rally
legislative  support for this  integrated approach.  Our Technical
Department develops the technology to back  it up.  And our
Communications Department is  working  to make  sure the  public
understands  and is ready  to  participate  in  integrated waste
management.

      But  we know that recycling is where we need  to  put  our work.
Plastics recycling has to happen  now  and it has to happen fast.
Therefore,  our  primary  goal is to make  plastics the most recycled
material — by  application  —  by the year 2000.

      We  understand  that all  the good intentions  in  the world  aren't
going  to make  recycling work unless there is a marketable  use for
recycled materials.  That means  our industry needs to make  it a  policy
to use  recycled materials whenever possible, and  to  help others  use
them,  as well.

      Fortunately,  plastics  are a particularly  versatile family of
materials and, therefore, a  wide variety  of  markets already exist for
recycled plastic resins.   The Council's  member companies are in  the
forefront of this  effort and their research and  development
departments  are committed  to finding new  ways  to  incorporate  recycled
plastics into their products.  Procter  & Gamble, for example, uses
recycled plastic  in  their Spic 'n'  Span Pine bottles and in many of their
detergent  bottles.

      PET,  the  type of  plastic used  in  soft drink bottles, and high density
polyethylene,  used  in  milk  and juice jugs, are in high demand  as
recycled resins  in making a variety  of other products, as well.   Carpets
are being made from  soft drink  bottles, trash  cans  from  milk jugs and
office products  from recycled  polystyrene  foam, to  list just a few
examples.
                                   454

-------
      As  more  and  more  manufacturers appreciate the cost benefits of
using recycled plastic  resins as  a feedstock,  the  variety of recycled-
content plastics products  will  continue to expand.   Manufacturers  are
also beginning  to  recognize the  marketing appeal  of recycled-content
products.

      The  plastics  industry believes  it can  assist in developing  those
markets in  two ways.   First, we can help identify  potential markets for
recycled plastics.   Second, we can work to improve plastics recycling
technology  at all steps  in  the process  — from collection to end-use —  to
improve  cost-efficiency.

      The  Council  is therefore working to develop  a framework for the
plastics industry's recycling efforts -- a blueprint,  if you  will  — piecing
together the progress that has already  been  made  in  order  to identify
what has  yet to  be done.  We expect  to  have our  Blueprint completed
this  summer, and we will share  what  we  have learned with all
communities  and entrepreneurs  interested  in  taking  part  in  plastics
recycling.

      Already, we  have identified certain  barriers  that will benefit from
the industry's technical  expertise.  For example,  it  is clear that  plastic
containers  have  a  comparatively low  weight-to-volume ratio  — which
can result  in  higher  collection  costs.   The Council  is therefore pursuing
possible ways to compact plastics,  ranging   from  truck-mounted
compactors to consumer  education  programs encouraging  recycling
households  to stomp on their  milk and  soda  bottles  before  putting  them
out to  be collected.

      The  Society  of the  Plastics Industry provided a solution  to another
challenge  in plastics recycling  by establishing a  coding system for  the
six most common plastics  resin types.   So far, recycling in America tends
                                    455

-------
to rely on hand sorting, so the SPI codes facilitate  the  recovery  of
specific  resins.

      Already,  the majority of plastic  bottles and containers you find on
your  grocery store shelves carry these codes.   And, because 22  states
have  now  adopted the system  as law,  we'll be  seeing these  codes on
nearly all  plastic products very  soon.

      The  future  of recycling,  of course, is in automated  sorting, and  the
Council  is supporting a number  of research  programs on that front.

      But  recyclability  is  not  the  only waste management  attribute
plastics have going for  them.   Nor can recycling alone solve the solid
waste problem. That's why the Council and  its  member companies are
working to  utilize plastics' full  potential  in  integrated  waste
management.

      Fact: plastics  can  ease the burden on  landfills through source
reduction.   The EPA credits thin walling and light weighting  efforts with
decreasing containers  and  packaging as a  percentage of municipal solid
waste over the  last few  years.   For example,  a  milk jug weighed 95
grams in the early '70's.  Today, a milk jug  with the same  volume
weighs only  60 grams.   The thickness  of  plastic grocery bags has
decreased  by more than 50 percent in the last  five years  alone.

      Plastics can also  replace heavier, bulkier  materials in  a  wide
variety  of  applications.   Diapers  are now  being  packaged  in  a plastic
pack  which  produces  50% less waste  by  volume than  the  paperboard
box it replaced.

      Fact: plastics  are  a  valuable fuel for  waste-to-energy  incinerators.
Plastics have the highest stored  energy value of any commonly  used
material, and can be safely burned  in modern  incinerators  equipped
with  pollution control devices.  Don't just  take it from me; this  was the
                                   456

-------
conclusion  of a blue-chip  international  panel of  scientists  and experts
convened by  the U.S.  Conference of  Mayors  last fall.

      Fact: plastics  are  extremely stable in landfills.  It's somewhat
ironic  to list this  among plastics' positive attributes because this fact is
often used against  plastics.  But the truth of the matter  is that plastics
are  much  less  likely  to break down and  release potentially  dangerous
materials into the environment.   They can be  thought of as inert
materials,  much like  glass.

      When it  comes  to developing  materials use policies, the criteria
ought  not be limited  to  "is this  material  recyclable?" or  "is this  material
safe for incineration?"  The  criteria  ought to be:  "can this material
contribute  positively  to  waste management  efforts  regardless  of the
specific disposal option  used."

      Clearly, plastics offer  that flexibility.

      The  plastics  industry believes  that plastics should  be used
whenever  possible.   Thank you.
                                     457

-------
          THE SOCIETAL AND RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
                           OF
              ENHANCED DEGRADABLE  PLASTICS
                  Walter E. Grube, Jr.
           Office of Research and Development
          U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                 Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
                    Presented at the

First U.S.  Conference  on Municipal  Solid Waste Management

                    June 13-16, 1990
                          459

-------
    Current political, social,  and technical  concern  for the  degradability



of plastics in the environment  is  heavily  swayed  by adverse ecologic



effects of terrestrial and aquatic litter.   Widely publicized data  show



that plastics comprise 6 - B% of landfilled  wastes.   Observations are



documenting that plastic materials, along  with  many other material



compositions, appear to remain  un-degraded after  many years of landfill



burial.  Industrial producers and  plastic  product users  are concerned  about



retention of useful material  properties  and  product utility,  balanced



against ecological desires for  discarded plastics to  decompose in a  short



time after discard.








    Along with unresolved clear definitions  of  "degradable plastics",  there



is concern for a rapid rate of  decomposition  of material  discarded as



litter.  Plastics degradable in the environment should comprise a different.



set of materials and user-products  from those  materials  earmarked  for



waste recycling systems.  The fate of a  plastic material  and  product must



be clearly specified so that it can be considered in  the  formulation of the



plastic material.  Compounds included as part of  a plastic material  to



impart useful properties significantly impact decompositional  rate and may



affect environmental properties of degradation  byproducts.








    This paper states the current  societal,  industrial,  and regulatory



concerns about degradable plastics, and  their relationships.   The status of



product availability and usage, and research  studies  are  cited.  Needs for
                                  460

-------
credible and reliable information that is unique to this relatively young



field of environmental concern are identified.








BACKGROUND








    The rate of decomposition of plastic consumer items is an area of



primary concern to industry, consumers, environmental organizations, and




the regulatory community.  The impact of plastics degradation rate on



societal and scientific approaches to characterization of plastics and



usage of plastic products will be addressed in the following outline.








    The photo-catalyzed and biologically-catalyzed  degradation of plastic



polymers used  in commerce has been studied almost since the first.




formulation of these materials.








    At  least 20 years ago, the plastics raw materials industry began to



provide raw polymer  formulations, or resins, which either "lacked additives




to  preserve against  natural deterioration, or contained polymer



modifications  or different blends of chemical compounds which enhanced the



breakdown  of the plastic after its intended commercial use.








     Newly  developed  polymers were introduced by manufacturers to meet the



demand  for "environmentally acceptable plastics".  Although numerous



plastic materials claimed to be " degradable" are now in the marketplace,
                                   461

-------
standard criteria or methods to  quantify the rate and extent *f



degradation have not yet been widely accepted by the scientific community.







    Imposed upon this relatively young area of objective determination of



meaningful  degradation properties of plastics, their decomposition rate and



environmental  impacts of the products, is a social  urgency declared by



ecologic organizations and legislators.   Responses  from polymer scientists



and engineers are evidenced by the extensive citations within the recent



reports noted in the bibliography of this paper.







SOCIETAL CONCERNS







    Uncontrolled discard of plastic materials results in litter found both



in soil & water environments.   EPA, 1990 reported that one-third  of all



plastics sales for 1987 was for packaging use.







    The significance of a decrease in plastics wastes placed  into landfills



is being argued in environmental  and industrial  publications.  Industry,



environmentalists, and governmental bodies are beginning to  recognize that



landfills designed and constructed according to modern technologies are



expected to be unreactive containment structures.







    Degradability of plastics in the environment has not been clearly



defined.  There appears to be a broad desire for plastic litter to be



harmless to flora and fauna.
                                  462

-------
    Recyclability of enhanced degradable plastics has only recently begun



to be examined.   Post-consumer reuse of uncleaned wastes and complex




formulations usually pose more difficult recoveries (Fig. 2).








    Convenient and easy-to-use plastic consumer products must be low-cost




and economical.   Changes in the composition of plastics from current



formulations, or substitution of other materials such as paper or metals,




will result in cost differences.








    Consumers and environmentally-concerned citizens alike appear to demand



honesty from the producing and marketing industries.  Regulatory agencies




are looked upon to provide unbiased conclusions regarding the environmental




impacts of the fate of plastics in the environment.








INDUSTRY CONCERNS








    Economic production and distribution of products are desired by



consumers.   Manufacturers have a natural reluctance to change the formula



of  plastics which have a proven commercial success  record.








    A major 'actor in choice of plastics for a product is the performance



o*  the material during the expected use  and lifespan. Preprogramming of



degradation initiation and processes  into plastic formulations has been



claimed by  several manufactuers of enhanced degradable plastics.
                                   463

-------
    Growth of plastics and packaging trade organizations has been joined by



formation of new societies and councils.   The ASTM Subcommittees D-20.95 on



Recycled Plastics and D-20.96 on Degradable Plastics are currently working



with industry in developing standardized  methods and practices.








REGULATORY CONCERNS








    Current environmental policies emphasize that products and materials



that enter the waste stream conform to the four-stage approach:  Waste



minimization, recyclability, treatment or destruction, landfill disposal of



final residues.








    The hazard or toxicity  from ingestion, mechanical  entanglement,  or



chronic exposure to degradation products  of all  waste materials is a  major



concern.








    To date, at least 26  states have enacted legislation dealing with the



degradation of plastics in the waste stream; 21  states specifically



require degradable six-pack beverage carrier rings.   Two states have



adopted technical criteria to define and  support enhanced degradability



requirements.  All  other  aspects of the known state  regulations only



superficially address definitions, measurement methods or criteria, or



other decision points.
                                  464

-------
    There appears to be essentially no concern about enhanced degradable



plastics by Congress in current waste management reauthorization bills.



This is in concert with the USEPA's position of seeking a substantial



credible base of data before embarking on far-reaching regulation.   The




EPA's Office of Research and Development has for many years emphasized the




requirement for sound quality assurance in the conduct of data-gathering



studies, and in credible peer-review of findings before public release.








DEFINITIONS








    The current consensus definition of degradable plastics by ASTM is, "A



plastic that, by design, undergoes a change in its chemical structure  under



specific environmental  conditions that results in a loss of properties'1)



in a specified length of time^'. Superscripts (1): loss in properties as



measured by ASTM tests, and (2): as agreed upon by the interested parties."



Additional definition of "biodegradable" and "photodegradable" types is




still in the discussion stage, with expected consensus by the time  of  the



July, 1990 ASTM Subcommittee meeting.








STANDARD TESTING METHODS








    Test measurements to identify the amount of degradation, deterioration,



decomposition, or other mode of chemical or physical  breakdown of plastics



have normally used methods published by the American Society ^or Testing



and Materials.  At the present time, ASTM Committee D-20.96 has drafted
                                  465

-------
seven Standard Practices and four Test Methods to evaluate degradable



plastics.








    At least ten U. S. universities are investigating biological, bioassay,



or bioassessment test methods for applicability to enhanced degradable



plastics.








    Widely reported findings from examination of excavated landfills fail



to emphasize quantitative approaches to stating the extent of deterioration



of materials found and studied.   As can be seen in many fields of technical



study where new materials or processes are evaluated, available procedures



that are related but not specifically validated are first applied.   Initial



findings are quickly followed by development of specific procdures  for the



new materials at hand.  This young stage of development and verification of



methods uniquely applicable to enhanced degradable plastics is the  present



condition for these materials.








CURRENTLY USED SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTS








    Agricultural mulch films have been made and successfully used for many



years.   These types of plastics  appear to be good candidates for use in



bags to contain homeowners'  yard wastes destined for composting.  At least



75 communities in the U. S.  are  now known to be actively pursuing



composting as a means to decrease the load to their municipal  waste



landfills.
                                   466

-------
    Manufacture of 6-pack beverage carrier rings from plastics modified for



more rapid decomposition in open air environments has been common for two




decades.







    Some plastic formulations  specifically synthesized  for rapid



decompostion after product use are currently available  but too expensive



for high-volume use.   Formulas such  as  PHBV are  in  use  for medical devices



implanted after surgery.








RECENT  RESEARCH AND  RESULTS







    Scientific  and  technical  publications *rom polymer  researchers have



 reported  on  plastics degradation  for many decades.   Current  development



 efforts are  aimed  toward specific  biodegradable polymers including poly-



 lactic  acid  copolymers,  enzyme enhancement, additives,  aliphatic  polyesters,




 and modifications  of starch additives.







     The U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency's Office  of Research and



 Development has initiated several  studies to provide a sound data base for



 the Agency's regulatory activities.   One study is identifying and assessing



 degradation test parameters recently or currently in use.  Methods used in



 reported studies have mostly been industry-standard techniques for



 measuring physical  properties such  as  strength, brittleness, and similar



 engineering parameters.  However, with the wide variety of industrial  and



 academic approaches  to  evaluating the  properties of a  variety of plastics
                                     467

-------
claimed to be environmentally degradable, each individual study possesses



unique products and their requisite test method adaptations.  One goal of



this research project is to provide a basis for comparing results of



studies already reported in technical literature.








    Another project will focus on exposure of several types of



commercially-available degradable plastics to several different soil and



aquatic environments.  Subsamples will be examined periodically to assess



extent of degradation.  The two major types of plastics with enhanced



degradability--bio and photo—will be included in this work.  Equipment



will also be set up to capture physical  and chemical  products of



degradation for use in bioassessment testing.  Test methods both currently



included within the ASTM standard methods, and those under final



development by ASTM Committees for particular application to enhanced



degradable plastics will be applied.








    In another study, selected commercially available degradable plastics



will be mixed into plastics recycling processes in known proportions.



Adverse or complementary effects on the properties of resulting products



from mixed plastics will be measured.  These latter two projects are just



beginning the field-exposure stage, following a lengthy experimental design



and quality assurance review process.








    Rate of degradation of a plastic product after its normal use by



consumers constitutes an area  that has not been well  defined or addressed
                                   468

-------
by either scientists or society.  Each major type of product disposal




scenario requires definite useful product lifetime and quite different



rates of decomposition after the product has been discarded.








    Societal and environmental activists need to provide objective input to



researchers indicating their temporal goal  for the various  fates of used




materials.  Both scientists and  production  engineers can provide the



compromise  product specifications which result in plastics  which retain



their useful and practical properties, yet  meet reasonable  and practical




goals for ultimate fate.








CONCLUSIONS








    The  bibliography  *or  this  paper  provides a wealth of background



resources.  Numerous  data may  be found among the 285 citations contained in



USEPA,  1990.    SPI, 1987, and  IWDM,  1989,  report the majority of technical



studies  which describe the performance of  enhanced degradable plastics.








    To  meet environmentally conservative waste management  goals, design and



implementation  of  integrated  systems  of material production, use, and



disposal  are  needed---indeed  for not  only  plastic but also paper, metals




and  other materials of commerce.








     Plastics  have  many physical  and  chemical  properties  in common with



metals.   Refining  of  ores into useful metallic  products  not found in  nature
                                    469

-------
may be considered a process similar to converting raw hydrocarbons  into



refined plastic polymers.  The thermodynamic energy put  into converting  ore



into metals or hydrocarbons into plastic polymers will  inevitably be



released as metals revert back to oxides and plastic polymers naturally



degrade.  People with intense environmental concerns desire a more  rapid



rate of degradation of plastics than will naturally occur.  A rapid



degradation rate and the nature of degradation products  that are



environmentally acceptable have not been  well  defined or even clearly



stated.  Thus the plastics producing industry and regulatory bodies are



caught in a dilemna to guess the optimum plastics degradation rate and



endproduct composition which is most acceptable to the greatest number of



concerned consumers and voters.








BIBLIOGRAPHY








IJSEPA. 1990.  Methods to Manage and Control Plastic Wastes—Report to



Congress, EPA/530-SW-89-051.  avail, from NTIS as No.  PB90-163106.








Sadun, A. G., T. F. Webster and B. Commoner. 1990. Breaking Down the



Degradable Plastics Scam, prepared for Greenpeace, 1436 !J St.  NW,



Washington, DC 20009. 97pp.








GAO. 1988.  Degradable Plastics: Standards, Research and Development,



GAO/RCED-88-208.   Report  to  Senator Glenn, Chairman, Committee on



Governmental  Affairs.   U. S. General Accounting Office.
                                   47O

-------
Guillet, J., ed. 1974.  Polymers and Ecological Problems.  Plenum Press,



New York.








ISDSP. 1974. International Symposium on Degradation and Stabilization of



Polymers. Brussels.








IWDM  1989.  First  International Scientific  Consensus Workshop on Degradable



Materials, Abstracts,  avail, from S. Barenberg, Baxter Healthcare, Round




Lake, IL 60(T3.








Potts,  et. al.  1972.  An  Investigation of the  Biodegradability of Packaging



Plastics, EPA-R2-046.  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.








SPI.  1987.  Proceedings of the SPI  Symposium on Degradable  Plastics.  The



Society  of the  Plastics  Industry,  Inc., 1275  K St., NW, Washington, DC




20005.







ASTM. 1989. Subcommittee  D-20.96 on  Oegradable Plastics.   American  Society




for  Testing and Materials.  Philadelphia,  PA.
                                    471

-------
  SOLID WASTE  (SOURCE)  REDUCTION IN MINNESOTA COUNTIES

                  Pamela Winthrop Lauer
          Minnesota  Office  of Waste Management
                     Presented at the

First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management

                     June  13-16,  1990
                            473

-------
The Minnesota Office of Waste Management (OWM) established a



model county project for solid waste reduction.  The project and



preliminary results are described below.







Based on this project, the OWM developed guidelines for counties



to address solid waste reduction in their solid waste management



plans.  The plans have been required to address waste reduction



since their inception, but it was felt until recently that



counties had little ability to affect waste reduction except



through citizen education.  The new guidelines are part of the



OWM's County Implementation Manual/Solid Waste Reduction and



Recycling Programs published May 1990 to help counties comply



with the new Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling (SCORE)



legislation which passed in September 1989.  The chapter "Waste



Reduction Strategies" appears below.







The Itasca County Solid Waste Reduction Pilot Project has three



overall goals:



     »>To show that waste reduction is a realistic goal and waste



     reduction practices can make a difference in the amount of



     waste generated, at a specific location;



     *To provide decision-makers an opportunity to see what waste



     reduction is, and to see waste reduction in action; and



     ••To show that actions, and not only education, can be used



     to reduce the generation of solid waste.
                                474

-------
These goals are being accomplished through working together with



staff at each facility to




     "choose and evaluate waste reduction measures to implement



     in county government and other facilities;



     "implement those measures; and



     "evaluate and document their success.








This work has been completed in the county courthouse and Road



and Bridge Department garages, and is in progress at the county



hospital and nursing home.  Several local businesses will be



added to the project this summer.







A committee is established at each facility and has the following



goals:



     "To reduce waste generated in the  facility;



     »-To help measure the amount of waste reduced by specific




     methods; and



     "To identify  for other counties the problems encountered and



     solutions found in  putting waste reduction methods to work.







The  steps  followed by each committee are described in the "Waste



Reduction  Strategies" paper.  Below is  a summary of waste



reduction  practices  implemented since January  1990 in the Itasca



County  Courthouse  and Road and Bridge Department garages.
                                 475

-------
                             WASTE REDUCTION PRACTICES IN
                          THE ITASCA COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND
                              ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT

Note: New hard data on air fitters, paper, junk mail and hand towels will be available in June.

* Reusable air filters in furnaces and air conditioners.

Materials Conserved:
There are about 60 furnace and air conditioning filters in road and bridge garages and about 50 in the
courthouse.  They are changed an average of once  a week, more frequently in winter, less in summer.
That adds up to more than 5700 disposable filters per year. If you took all the filters we threw into the
landfill last year and stacked them flat, they'd reach  higher than the IDS tower in Minneapolis - over
57 stories high.  By switching to reusable filters, we reduce waste and save money.  The reusable air
filters are  made of stainless steel and are washed with high-pressure water hoses. They cost more
but are expected to last at least ten years.

Cost Savings:
Over  10 years, the use of reusable filters will save $86,000, a savings of $8,681 per year, over cost of
disposable air filters. Disposable filters cost $1.56 each,  and stainless steel reusables cost $10.58.
Our estimate compared the cost of 110 disposable filters, replaced an average of once per week, to
the cost of 220 reusable filters, each lasting over 10  years.

*• Reusable coffee cups instead of disposable ones
The Neutral Comer coffee shop loans ceramic coffee cups for meetings and washes them afterward.
Employees who attend the waste reduction seminar  receive a ceramic mug. To further encourage
employees to avoid disposable cups, the coffee shop charges 5 cents extra for coffee in a disposable
cup.

Materials Conserved:
If one out of every three county employees (100 people)  each use one disposable cup each day,
that's 500 cups thrown into the landfill every week, 25,000 per year.

Cost Savings:
Estimating 15 cups per meeting, 10 times a week, the savings is $4.20 per week or $218 per year.
This estimate uses six-ounce styrofoam cups, which  cost $1.40 per pack of 50, or 2.8 cents each.  If
100 courthouse staffers use one every day (five days a week, 50 weeks a year), that's about $700 per
year that could be saved.

" Reducing Junk mail by sending pre-printed postcards asking to be taken off mailing lists.

Cost:
A thousand printed post cards costs $23, and postage costs $150, for a total of $173 per 1000 cards.

* Reducing office paper waste by
Photocopying on two sides of a sheet of paper.
For big jobs, the Human Resources Department's copier is available.  It will duplex automatically.
Using scratch pads made out of paper used on one side only.  Made in-house or sent to printer for
gluing and backing.
                                             476

-------
Materials Conserved:
Right now in the Human Services Department, about 50 percent of the 75,000-100,000 copies per
month are 2-sided. If we can increase two-sided copying from 50 to 80 percent, we will save 22 and a
half reams of paper per month, or 270 reams per year.

Cost Savings:
If we increased two-sided copies to 80 percent, we would save about $78 a month, or $942 a year,
based on a conservative paper price estimate of $3.49 per ream of 500 sheets.

Using scratch pads made out of paper used on one side only will save 30 to 50 cents per 50-cent
pad. The average price of a new 100-page scratch pad is 50 cents. The Human Resources
Department staff saves paper and makes pads.  The Social Services Department has used-paper
pads professionally glued and cut at a cost of about 20 cents per 100-page pad, plus a $2.00 cutting
charge for every 1000 pages.

> Purchasing long-lasting, repairable products, with standard brands used to promote
repairability through interchangeable parts.
This process was  in place long before our waste  reduction project began, but it is still a part of our
model.  Diesel fuel injectors are remanufactured over and over, reusing the main portion of the
injector.  The Road and Bridge Department 'remans' about 10 sets of eight injectors each year.

Cost Savings:
The particular example of diesel engine fuel injectors saves over $2500 per year. Remanufacturing 80
injectors costs $29.04 per injector, or $2323 a year. Buying new injectors would cost $62.37 each or
$4986 a year, a cost savings of $2666.

*• Purchasing cleaners and other products in reusable 5-gallon pails (and finding uses for those
pails when they are empty.)
This is another practice that has been in place at the courthouse for a long time. Cleaning products
vary as to the amount needed for a job.  Often, the product in the pail is in concentrated form and can
be diluted with water in a reusable spray bottle, while the product in the can is already diluted with
propellent.  Even though we can't compare directly, we avoid excess packaging by purchasing
cleaning products for the courthouse in five-gallon pails instead of aerosol cans or throw-away plastic
jugs.

Cost Savings:
Significant savings, but difficult to quantify.  As a  generic example, a 24-lot case of cleaner costs
about $50, while a five-gallon pail of the same product  costs about $25.  Usually, the product in the
pail is in a concentrated form, then diluted with water for  use, while the product in the can is already
diluted with propellent. Although we can't compare costs directly, buying in bulk five-gallon pails
clearly saves money.

» Replacing paper towels with cloth hand towels in restrooms.

Materials Conserved:
When we used paper towels in the courthouse, we used  -- and  landfilled - a case  of paper towels
every week - over 1400 pounds of waste paper each year. The cloth towels can be washed and
reused  more than 100 times. When the cloth towels wear out, they will be recycled into rags.

Cost Savings:
This will save $287 a year.  Until recently, the courthouse used one case of disposable paper towels
each week at a cost of $2065 a year.  Fifteen to 18 rolls of cloth towels provides the same number of
servings as a case of 12 paper towels. Based on the most conservative estimate, 18 rolls of cloth, the
cost is $1778 a year, a savings of $287.
                                            477

-------
GOOD WASTE REDUCTION IDEAS THAT DIDNT WORK OUT

»• Pop Machine With Reusable/Refutable Bottles.
             No longer available.

* Cloth Rags in Road and Bridge Department Garages.
             Wastewater treatment system doesn't handle grease and      oil very well.

•• Make Scratch Pads Out of Computer Paper Used on One Side.
             Too much paper. Recycling makes more sense in this case.

•• Use Bulk Spray Paint Instead of Throw Away Cans for Marking Timber.
             Washing out containers and using more paint or ink may limit waste reduced.
             Inconvenience = low acceptance by foresters.
                                            478

-------
IL    REVIEW OF WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
1. Definition of waste reduction

Waste reduction is the first priority among waste management options because it has
few if any negative environmental effects, conserves resources, and does not require
new facilities to process waste.

The Waste Management Act defines waste reduction as:

      an activity that prevents generation  of waste including reusing a product in its
      original form, increasing the life span of a product, reducing the material used in
      production or packaging, or changing procurement, consumption, or waste
      generation habits to result in smaller quantities of waste generated. Minn. St.at.
      § 115A.03, subd. 36a.

It is important to distinguish between waste reduction and other waste management
methods.  Recycling and other waste management methods are processes used to handle
products and materials that no longer serve the purpose for which they were designed.
In contrast, waste reduction occurs before waste is generated, and requires forethought
by the consumer.  For example, replacing disposable products with reusable products or
procuring long-lasting, repairable items instead of shorter-lived, non-repairable  items
are waste reduction practices.

Buying recycled and recyclable products result in stronger markets for recycled
products; they do not result in smaller quantities of waste.
2. Requirements under SCORE

The SCORE law goes beyond the current county planning rule by requiring that local
governments institute solid waste reduction measures.  Under the new legislation,
counties have the following waste reduction responsibilities:

          Political subdivisions, educational institutions, and other public agencies shall
          aggressively pursue  procurement practices that encourage solid waste
          reduction.

          Each county shall include in its solid waste management plan mechanisms
          for providing financial incentives to solid waste generators to reduce the
          amount of waste generated.

The SCORE legislation states that the highest priority use for SCORE pass-through funds
                                       479

-------
is "to reduce the amount of solid waste generated." The Waste Management Act also
identifies waste reduction as the highest priority "waste management" practice.  Minn.
Stat. § 115A.02, item (b).
3.    Implementing solid waste reduction at the local level

In the past, most counties have equated waste education with waste reduction in their
county plans believing local governments could do little else. It is now clear that local
governments can actively affect and promote solid waste reduction.

Actions that local governments can take to encourage solid waste reduction fall into
four categories:

          Implement waste reduction measures in government facilities (including
          procurement practices to reduce waste);

          Implement volume-based garbage collection fees (required by SCORE
          legislation);

          Educate the public specifically  on waste reduction; and

          Provide  assistance to local businesses and institutions on  how to reduce the
          amount  of waste generated.
      a.  Implementing waste reduction measures in government facilities

The major benefits of implementing waste reduction measures in government facilities
are:

          citizens and staff see clear examples of waste reduction in action;

          the amount of waste generated at government faculties is reduced, resulting
          in cost savings and landfill abatement; and

          staff members can transfer experience in identifying and evaluating potential
          waste reduction measures to other government facilities or private
          businesses.

The OWM and Itasca County are currently working on a pilot project demonstrating
how a county can implement solid waste reduction measures.  As of January 1990, the
Itasca County staff has implemented several successful waste reduction measures in the
courthouse and in the County's road and bridge department.  These measures have
                                      480

-------
saved money and reduced waste.  Appendix C  describes the project and gives
information available so far. The county hospital and nursing home have recently
joined the effort and information from these institutions and local businesses will
become available later in the year.

Here are recommended steps for implementing waste reduction programs in government
facilities.

      1.  Identify a facilitator to oversee the project.  The facilitator can be the county
          solid waste officer, the county (or city) recycling coordinator, or anyone else
          who can be authorized to use work time to  facilitate the project.  The
          facilitator should have a clear understanding of waste reduction and have
          several examples of waste reduction methods. (OWM can provide these.)

      2.  Form a committee of interested  staff members representing various
          departments within the facility.  The custodial/ maintenance and purchasing
          departments are particularly important.

      3.  Make an informal survey of waste generated in the building.  This may
          consist of simply looking in wastebaskets  and storage rooms or setting aside
          a day's waste from the building  and going over it at the landfill or waste
          management facility.  Provide this information to the committee  along with
          an estimate of disposal costs for the building. This information can be used
          to identify priorities for waste reduction.

      4.  Hold  a committee "brainstorming" meeting to generate ideas on how to
          reduce waste in  the building. Members draw on their knowledge of waste
          generated in their own departments and information from the informal waste
          survey.

      5.  Have each committee member investigate several of the ideas generated in
          the brainstorming session to discover what work may be required and what
          costs  or savings  may result from implementing the measures. Keep in mind
          that some ideas  that may reduce waste in one way may cause pollution in
          another.

          For example, the Itasca County  project found that switching to cloth rags
          instead of disposable rags in county garages would have caused pollution
          because local laundry facilities could not properly handle grease and oil in
          the rags. In areas served by specialized laundry services the idea may have
          been  feasible.

      6.  Have Committee evaluate waste reduction ideas based on members' findings
          about each measure and decide  which practices to implement.
                                        481

-------
      7.  Committee members implement chosen waste reduction measures and record
          the amount of materials conserved and money saved by each practice
          implemented.

      8.  Committee members individually and collectively educate all the facility's
          staff about waste reduction and the waste reduction actions taken.
      b. Implementing volume-based garbage collection fees

A volume-based garbage collection rate is one where the generator is charged on a per
can, per bag, or a weight basis.  Typically commercial generators are charged in this
way but many residential generators are not.  Experience in Seattle, Washington has
shown that volume-based fees encourage the general public to reduce waste.  Section N
of this chapter contains information regarding financial incentives for waste abatement.

      c. Educating the public on waste reduction

Education is an important component of any waste reduction program.  County waste
education campaigns should single out waste reduction, explaining what it is and why it
is important, and giving specific examples how citizens can reduce waste.  Leaving grass
clippings on the lawn is a waste reduction example.
Counties can also publicly recognize  businesses that implement programs to reduce
waste.  This recognition creates  an incentive for other businesses to reduce waste and it
informs the public about waste reduction.
      d.  Providing assistance to local businesses and institutions on how to reduce the
          amount of waste they generate

Counties should be prepared to provide information and give referrals to local
businesses and institutions interested in reducing waste.  The OWM has a variety of
materials that provide examples of waste reduction in businesses. In addition, counties
may be able to assist local businesses in identifying waste reduction opportunities.

For help in reducing industrial waste and hazardous wastes, counties can refer
generators to the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) at  (612) 625-4949
or toll-free in Minnesota at 1-800-247-0015.  See Appendix D for additional information
on MnTap.
                                      482

-------
4. Measuring the results of waste reduction

Although it is important to measure the success of a waste reduction program,
measuring waste that is not generated presents a problem.  Money spent on
measurement may be better spent on implementing additional waste reduction
programs.
Waste reduction can be successfully measured on a small scale in discrete situations
such as the Itasca County example discussed earlier.  Itasca County is using purchasing
records and abatement estimates to project waste reduction savings.

Large-scale waste reduction is more difficult to measure but here are two possible
methods:

          Perform detailed waste sorts to measure specific materials, and compare
          these levels over time.  Many materials  must be measured to account for
          possible substitutions of one material  for another (e.g., plastic for glass
          bottles.)  This method is very expensive.

          Use professionally-designed attitude surveys to assess the extent to which
          sectors have incorporated the various aspects of waste reduction into their
          activities.  This method may be the most feasible for measuring large scale
          waste reduction, but  it will not provide hard numbers on the amount of
          waste reduced.
 5.     Additional information

 The OWM's Waste Education Clearinghouse has an extensive collection of materials
 available on waste reduction, including fact sheets, checklists, examples of business
 waste reduction, guidelines for initiating programs, case studies, and bibliographies.

 The Clearinghouse provides these materials free of charge upon request.^  To learn more
 about what is available or to request information call the Clearinghouse's toll free
 number (1-800-877-6300) or call (612-649-5482).
                                        483

-------
          SOURCE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
                 Howard Levenson
           Office of Technology Assessment
                   U.S. Congress
                  Presented at the
First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management
                  June 13-16,1990
                        485

-------
                      SOURCE REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) touches every thread of social fabric
    - everybody can relate, because generated just about everywhere
    - example of how industrialized societies treat natural resources

Fundamental question is how to reduce amount and toxicrty of MSW that we generate in
    first place
    - means considering entire MSW "system"
       - extraction of virgin materials (e.g., from mines and forests) and
          secondary materials (e.g., from MSW)
       - product design and manufacturing
       - distribution and merchandising
       - actual purchase and use

MSW Source Reduction
What does it mean?
    - whose definition to use?
    - dual aspects of toxicrty and volume
    - manufacturers and consumers

How will we know when it happens?
    - need to know current situation and how to measure deviations
       - therefore need standardized techniques for measuring generation and
          reduction, at both national and local levels
       - are Franklin estimates sufficient for national measurements?
                                    486

-------
    - need existing baselines for specific toxic constituents
    - need existing baselines for specific product categories, yard wastes

Are we focusing on the right things?
    - many small actions probably will be way source reduction is achieved,
       so everything matters in long-run
    - but are first efforts focusing on most important components?

For toxic constituents:
    - are we identifying most important risks?
       - some good data on 3 metals, little on organic chemicals
    - much attention to identifying products that contribute Cd, Pb, Hg
       - are we seeing major changes in levels of these in consumer products?
           - e.g., trend for Cd in plastics?
           - e.g., trend for Pb in plastics, inks, etc.?
           - e.g., trend for Hg in fluorescent light bulbs?
       - should substitutes be publicly identified?
           - e.g., what is substitute for Hg in household batteries?
           - is actual risk reduction occurring?

For products and yard wastes:
    - biggest components in general are  paper, yard waste, plastics
    - lots of attention to packaging (which covers many materials)
       - toxicity and recyclability, reduction to some extent
       - CONEG guidelines
    - lots of attention to disposable diapers
    - what about backyard composting?
                                      487

-------
    - what about paper products in general?
       - oversized newspapers?
           - would you pay more for a smaller newspaper (i.e., fewer ads)?
       - direct mail, packaging from catalog shopping
    - what about Americans' general appetite for products of all types?

National Policies
Provisions in proposed legislation:
    - Federal agencies to have reduction policies; waste reduction officer
    - clearinghouse at EPA
    - packaging and product design, labels in general
       - variations on theme: special commission to study, or National
           Packaging Institute,  or Products and Packaging Advisory Board
       - national packaging standards?
       - national seal/logo?
           - West German and Canadian programs
           - ASR's Green Seal program
           - difficult to develop procedures/criteria for assessing most products
            on basis of lifecyde environmental costs
           - credible information needs to be available and easy to interpret
            if consumers are to make informed purchasing decisions
   • public education campaign
   - EPA Office of Waste Reduction/Minimization
   - identification and regulation (including possible bans) of toxics
       - ban on non-essential uses of cadmium
   - tax on virgin materials (more for recycling, revenue raising than for
       reduction)
                                     488

-------
    - what about awards?
    - what about Federal procurement of "reduction" products?

What if these aren't enough? What then?
    - (recall we won't know this without better measurement protocols)
    - could forget about source reduction
       - but reduction popular idea now
       - probably irresponsible, given implications for natural resources and
           international environmental policy in general
    - note most proposed provisions involve incentives (with some
       exceptions, e.g., possible packaging standards, cadmium ban)
    - should we consider sequence of deadlines (based on progress towards reduced
    toxicity and volume)??
       - beginning primarily with positive incentives
       - moving over time to more prescriptive measures
           - regulations on product design
           - mandatory labeling
           - bans on additional substances
           - taxes or fines for categories showing no progress
Concluding Remarks
On local and personal scale, individuals can make changes in how they design and
    consume products, and use energy and materials
    - sum of these actions can be important
    - from broader perspective, these efforts provide lessons for larger issues
       - e.g., demands for "environmentally friendly" products highlight links
                                      489

-------
      between system, mounds of waste discarded daily, and other problems
      (induding energy use, global climate change)
  • larger issues seem overwhelming at times
ethic that drives individual actions, if expressed politically, can spur
  national policies and international action
as individuals and as a nation, we can choose to move in a new direction,
  towards better materials and energy use
                                49O

-------