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
------- |