RESOURCE RECOVERY
ALTERNATIVES FOR RURAL
NEW ENGLAND
Prepared for:
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Presented By:
GORDIAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 405
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 828—7300
June, 1980

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements
Introduction •.....................................es.s...•...•.. 1
Summary •...................s..s..............•••••••••••• •. 1
cone lu a tons • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • , , , • • • 2
Planning ................e........e.e...s..s...ss•s•e•••e•ee•eeeu
Determining Local Needs ... ..... ..... ...... . see.... •.... .. .. 4
Preliminary Market Analysis •.. ......,,,.,,,,.,..,....,,,.,, 6
Institutional Considerations ...............................
Resource Recovery Alternatives ............ ....... ...... ......... 12
Materials Recovery ....... •,•.... .. ... ...... . . ..... •.... •, •. 12
Energy Recovery .. .............. ............ . •.......... •. •. 21
Implementation ....................••.•.•.••••••• •e............ •• 25
Alternative Waste Management Approaches ......................... 27
Baling .... •......................Ss.S ..e... .e .•ssesseeS •. •. 27
Shredding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • 28
Incineration ..... ... .. .. ..... ....... . . •.. . . . .. .... .. .. . •.. • 29
Codisposal .ss.e....sesseeeeee•eesss••s••e .. •........... •.•. 29
Appendix A: Recycling in New England
Appendix B: A Summary of Three New England Source Separation Projects
Appendix C: Glossary
Appendix D: Bibliography

-------
Public Law 94—580 — Oct. 21, 1976
RESOURCE RECOVER? AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel,
including Federal, State, and local employees or contractors (hereinaf-
ter referred to as “Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels”) to pro-
vide Federal, State and local governments upon request with technical
assistance on solid waste management, resource recovery, and resource
conservation. Such teams shall include technical, marketing, finan-
cial, and institutional specialists, and the services of such teams
shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Region I EPA
Technical Assistance Project Officer, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men-
tion of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
EPA Region I Project Manager: Conrad 0. Desrosiers

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Charles 7• Peterson and
Thomas N. Barnett under the direction of Harvey W. Gersh an
of Gordian Associates Inc. As noted in the introduction to
this report, some background niaterial and data for the case
studies was supplied by CSI Resource Systems Group, Boston,
MA. The authors also wish to acknowledge the valuable assis-
tance provided by the EPA project officer, Conrad Desrosiers.

-------
INTRODTJCT ION
In October 1978, a workshop was held in Concord, New Hampshire to
present alternative approaches to resource recovery in rural areas of
New England. That workshop was prepared by CSI Resource Systems Group,
under the auspices of EPA’s Technical Assistance Program. The reaction
of workshop attendees, who were mainly representatives of Northern New
England Communities, indicated that there was strong interest in refin-
ing the data presented and incorporating it into a “how—to” type docu-
ment. That reaction provided the impetus for this report.
The original workshop material was largely based on data from
specific case studies of projects in several rural New England communi-
ties. This report has incorporated that data into a more generalized
form so that the experiences can have wider applicability. The case
studies themselves have been summarized and included as an Appendix to
this report. The purpose of this report is to serve as a planning and
decision—making tool for local officials, town managers and public
works directors. The report persents an overview of the important
issues involved in deciding whether resource recovery is a viable op-
tion for a rural community (defined here as less than 30,000 popula-
tion) and discusses in some detail the mechanics of the applicable
alternative approaches. The report also includes Appendices containing
information regarding existing recycling efforts in New England, a
glossary of solid waste/resource recovery terms, and a comprehensive
bibliography.
A summary of the major sections of the report are presented
below.
SUMMARY
The report is divided into four sections: Planning; Resource Re-
covery Alternatives; Implementation; and Alternative Approaches.
The Planning section discussed the information that the community
needs to develop in order to make a sound decision regarding resource
recovery, or any other solid waste management alternative. It is very
important to accurately ascertain the community’s current and future

-------
2
needs, including the costs of existing systems and the quantity and na-
ture of the waste stream. Equally important in evaluating resource re-
covery is determining the existence of potential markets for recovered
energy or materials and analyzing the community’s ability to procure
and implement a complex, capital intensive facility.
If the preliminary indications are positive then an analysis of
available resource recovery approaches should be performed. The Re-
source Recovery Alternatives section of the report presents discussions
of some of the more proven recovery alternatives that are applicable to
rural (small—scale) situations. The major approaches involve either
materials recovery through source separation or mechanical processing,
or energy recovery in the form of a refuse—derived fuel or steam from
refu e combustion. Detailed costs are not provided since the case—by—
case needs of different communities cannot be assessed. Rough costs
are provided in some cases to point Out the relative differences be-
tween approaches or alternatives.
The next section briefly examines the steps that must be taken in
order to implement the preferred resource recovery system. The key is-
sues are finalization of the markets and financing commitments, and
then selecting a procurement approach that will efficiently satisfy
local needs.
The final section of the report looks at some solid waste manage-
ment options that should be considered as alternatives to resource re-
covery. These include means of extending landfill life through shred-
ding or baling, and alternative high technology options such as conven-
tional (non—energy recovery) incineration or the codisposal of refuse
and sewage sludge.
CONCLUSIONS
Communities need to be aware that there are no “cookbook” solu-
tions to solid waste problems — each situation has a unique set of con-
ditions which usually require unique solutions. However, this report
does point out several general conclusions that have widespread appli-
cability for rural situations:

-------
3
• There is a basic set of data that should be developed by any
community that is re—evaluating its solid waste management sys-
tem, regardless of whether resource recovery is the specific
goal or not. At a minimum, this data should include the costs
of existing systems and quantities of waste generated.
• The single most critical element in determining the feasibility
of resource recovery is the existence of firm markets. Without
revenues from the sale of recovered products (energy or materi-
als), most resource recovery systems are too expensive to com-
pete with the more conventional alternatives. Identification
of markets is an essential early step.
• One of the most serious obstacles to resource recovery in rural
areas is the small quantities of waste that are typically in-
volved. Most resource recovery approaches experience signifi-
cant economies of scale and are more attractive economically
and technically at higher volumes. For this reason, rural com-
munities considering resource recovery should thoroughly ex-
plore the possibility of regional cooperation in order to con-
solidate and thereby increase the waste quantities involved.
• Because of the relatively small scale involved, resource re-
covery options with realistic chances for success are limited
in rural areas. Source separation is one approach which has
demonstrated potential. Another is energy recovery through
modular incineration. Although they have not been proven to be
infeasible, most of the other approaches should be considered
speculative at this time.
• Finally, resource recovery implementation is a long, difficult
process. It is by no means the universal panacea for any com-
munity experiencing solid waste disposal problems. For rural
areas especially, which by definition often have large tracts
of undeveloped land nearby, potentially low cost alternative
options based on land disposal should be very thoroughly ex-
plored.
• Due to the hydrogeologic conditions found in the rural areas of
New England, and the cost of constructing and operating a sani-
tary landfill which meets the federal criteria for land dispos-
al (or more stringent standards developed by the states), the
true cost of sanitary ].andfilling as an alternative is quite
high.

-------
4
PLANNING
Prior to selection and operation of any resource recovery system,
attention must be given to local conditions and needs, including the
solid waste situation, markets, and institutional factors. This initial
planning will help to insure that the system selected will be best suited
to the interested coimnunity. A flow chart for this phase is presented in Fig. 1.
As a first step in the planning process, a manager, who has over—
all responsibility for the project, must be designated. An advisory
group comprised of various community interests also needs to be ap-
pointed. Inclusion of divergent interests assures these viewpoints
will be presented to the project manager in the initial phases of a
project rather than at a later point where serious conflicts could de-
lay or end the project. It is important to include a balanced mixture
of skills within the membership of such a committee. For example, a
Ipreponderance of technical people on the group might bias system selec-
tion (e.g., central processing rather than source separation) or over-
look legal and economic issues important to the project’s success.
As a complement to the advisory group, a public participation pro-
gram should be developed to inform citizens of the issues under consid-
eration. A viable program will enable the manager to disregard options
which are unacceptable to the community. Without such information an
unacceptable recovery option might be selected, thus causing serious
conflict. In some areas of New England, the town meeting might serve
as the necessary public forum. Additional meetings could be needed if
the project is progressing rapidly.
DETERI4INING LOCAL NEEDS
Generation rates, composition, and collection and disposal prac-
tices and costs are important factors to consider in an evaluation of
the local solid waste situation. These factors are a major determinant
of the type and size of system, if any, which is appropriate for a com-
munity.

-------
Figure 1: THE INITIAL PLANNING PHASE FOR
RESOURCE RECOVERY/SOURCE SEPARATION PROJECTS
AM Vfl MII ?Nt
• OUaAYUI *IN M(NY
• ft vIv
• Nt Sa w.,s,, IItuIV
•
• S NVVM N
• CU tIUft 0 SNMII
Mt UU*I1
ICNP ?AILID (NINQY
MARIE? ANAl VII I
• •IN?$V I MV SII
• DIP IMUIV UA
a.*ar!,rnsT,
• ANAL II C A,MAflY
MtN tV
• I,N ,uAl WIlMA MALMA
• UfllUsWM IWS1
COIDIUCI MATERIAL MARkET
ANAL VI II
• flANO *LI WAN
• WAV’MAPIWmN
• 1 1*111 1 WYUTIIL ANVORMS
• TU IATuU
• I.m..W TIWST
WRIONMINIMICIAL LEGAL ANfl
INIIITU?IONAL ANAL 101
• n, iv
•
• WI IUIWU?IINW
• •M*NCIUO Wt
• MA
• WIMOIIOIIATNU
Adapted From:
Resource Recovery Management Model
U.S. EPA, October 1979
ANAIYZU ImITMA
DI O!A( OP?IOIW
• MATW CiMUT liSTEN
• A1C 1?IMUIY
W cIlulut ,,uti
• IAMAII.I IlATIN
- l i l l iAN aIANWMAL I
— WUNUTIAN c iOANi
• IMMWMA ARIA
MANMA •IcWARTAN
LAMA III PUIMUAN
• IDIAN DMCM(
PROJICT INITIATION
• IILICT PRO*CT DIRECTOR AND
PROJECT MANAGER
• ORGANIZI PROJECT TEAM
• DEVELOP
- PUILIC INPONMAUOR PROCIU
- POLICY. GOAlS. AND GUIDILSUII
— PINAL SIlDOIT TON THIS PNAU
• OSTAIN PUNOINO
• SECURE REDUIRID NEPOURCES
1
ANøI
I
1
1
I
RPAN*TIOII ESANSILITY
• UMAVi UCTMA
!UACT1CII k . .
• LIC1KUIDIU(I NN*
• 11 11111 IDIUTIPICAPIAN
ANiiU lAL Nil alit
• WilliS CiSli . 1W ilVIUMI
L i ’

-------
6
To determine the scale of a recovery system, approximate average
tonnages, as well as seasonal- fluctuations, must be developed. Season-
al variation is important because, if significant, cost effective re-
covery under high and low solid waste generation rates will be diff .—
cult. Equipment and personnel needed to process waste under the high
operation rate conditions will be under utilized in the low situation.
Of course, this condition will exist to some extent with any waste man-
agement system. Decision—makers in rural New England coumaunities,
where tourism is a major business, should give special attention to
seasonal variation in waste quantities. In addition to current genera-
tion rates, information should be developed on future waste quantities.
This information will enable a recovery system to meet projected growth
in the waste stream.
Composition data, both average and seasonal, is another important
factor. Knowledge of composition, in addition to generation rate, will
indicate the quantity of material which could be recovered. Another
important aspect is the effect future changes might have on a recovery
system. Institution of beverage container deposits would remove sub-
stantial quantities of ferrous, aluminum, and glass from the waste
stream. Deposits have been proposed for every state in New England and
currently exist in Vermont, Maine and Connecticut.
Current and projected solid waste disposal costs provide a basis
upon which to evaluate the cost effectiveness of recovery. Disposal
practices should be examined to determine if alternatives to current
operations and recovery might be the preferable choice. Data on col-
lection practices, equipment, and costs will be important if a co=uni—
ty elects to recover materials via source separation. Costs, however,
should be projected for operating a facility which satisfactorily meet
state regulations and federal criteria.
PRELIMINARY M&RKET ANALYSIS
Advance commitment for the purchase of recovered products is the
most important step in resource recovery planning. Commitments provide
municipal managers with financial assurances, and the specifications
accompanying the commitments determine the type of recovery system to

-------
7
be selected. A recovery plant must be designed and operated to produce
products which meet the specifications of the market commitments.
Otherwise the economic success of the plant will be unlikely.
A market survey should be designed to achieve two objectives:
(1) locate potential buyers and (2) determine the conditions — price
and quality — under which they will purchase recovered products. This
is the first step towards selection of a recovery system. Only those
systems which produce marketable products need to be given serious con-
sideration. Three factors which determine marketability are:
• economic transportation,
• ability to meet purchase specifications, and
• satisfactory price estimate.
• An important first step in taking a survey is determining the area
to be searched. Obviously, the survey area should be limited to areas
where the recovered materials can be shipped economically. Recovery
costs, shipping rates, and market value will determine cost effective
transportation distances. However, these figures will only be esti-
mates at this point, so potentially attractive markets in the marginal
area should be included in the survey.
Transportation distance, in terms of the market survey, is really
a concern for secondary materials. Some of these materials (e.g.,
aluminium) can be cost effectively shipped for several hundred miles.
Recovered energy (e.g., steam), conversely, can be transported only
about a mile, so that a recovery system would have to be located near
the buyer.
For secondary materials, perhaps the best market is scrap process-
ors. Information on these organizations can be obtained easily by us-
ing the yellow pages of telephone directories within the survey area.
Scrap processors are listed under headings such as wastepaper and scrap
metals. Another approach is to contact user industries directly.
These industries typically demand higher quality products than scrap
dealers, who upgrade the materials they receive. While materials can
be upgraded as part of the recovery process, the added revenue from

-------
8
such activities must be weighed against increased costs. Information
on both scrap dealers and user industries also can be obtained from
other recovery projects in New England, and State and Federal solid
waste offices. This information is listed in Appendix A.
Consumers of recovered energy on a small scale will very likely be
located only in the community where the solid waste is generated. The
market survey, therefore, should concentrate on the energy needs of lo-
cal industrial and institutional users.
Specifications : Potential buyers identified in the previous step
should be contacted to determine their quality requirements and poten-
tial price. The quality of recovered products must meet potential
buyers’ specifications or be able to be upgraded to their requirements
Buyers will tend to be reluctant to purchase small quantities of recov-
ered products if upgrading is necessary. Energy users are particularly
reluctant to consider energy sources which fail to complement their ex-
isting system.
Prior to contacting prospective energy buyers, relatively detailed
information on the quality and quantity of energy estimated to be
available should be calculated. Prospective energy buyers are likely
to be unfamiliar with recovered energy and how it can fit into their
energy system.
Letter of Intent : A Letter of Intent (LOl) is an agreement be-
tween the seller and buyer of recovered products which states that the
buyer intends to purchase specific products if they are offered. It is
the culmination of the market survey and the financial underpinning of
-the recovery system.
Length of commitment, quality and quantity of material, delivery
schedule, termination conditions and price are the fundamental condi-
tions to be included in an LOl. Depending on the products recovered
the relative importance of the conditions and terms will vary. Commit-
ment length, for example, is very important if energy in the form of
steam is recovered. If a buyer sought to discontinue purchase of
steam, another buyer within serviceable distance of the recovery plant

-------
9
might be unavailable. For this reason, length of coitment for energy
buyers usually is well defined prior to construction of an energy re-
covery facility.
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Study of institutional factors should be considered as important
to the success of a resource recovery project as the identification of
markets and selection of a recovery system. These factors include the
organizational, legal, and financial aspects of the project, which in-
fluence a co=unity’s ability to plan, procure, finance, and operate a
system.
organizational
Rural areas, especially in New England, typically do not have ex-
tensive public administrative structures already in existence. This
means that organizing for a potentially complex project such as re—
éource recovery can in itself present a formidable obstacle.
As noted in the Planning section, it is important to establish a
project manager as early as possible. This can be done informally in
the preliminary stages. The main point is to have someone, in either
the public or private sector, who can provide the driving force for the
investigation of feasibility.
A potentially more significant problem is created by the need for
rural communities to joint together in order to increase the quantities
of waste involved. This consolidation is dictated by the significant
economies of scale associated with resource recovery. The multi—
jurisdictional approach also necessitates some form of regional organi-
zation so that costs and risks can be fairly allocated. Possible or-
ganizational approaches that have worked previously in New England
include use of Regional Planning Commissions to take the lead in early
planning stages, or developing solid waste authorities such as the
Union Municipal District in Rutland County, Vermont. The important or-
ganizational issues that need to be defined involve methods of financ-
ing, allocating costs, risks, responsibilities, and establishing suffi-
cient powers so that operations of the eventual administering body will
not be hampered.

-------
10
Le gal
In order to ensure that the administering body is adequately em-
powered, a thorough legal review of relevant State and local statutes
should be performed. This review should focus on identifying and de-
veloping means of removing any legal barriers that would affect a pub-
lic administering body’. ability to incur long—term indebtedness or en-
ter into long—term contracts; raise money by levying charges; gain re-
venues through sale of products; or procure services through negotiated:
bid procedures.
An equally important legal issue stems from the communities’ need
to secure control of the waste stream. Control of the waste stream is
essential to the development of a resource recovery system since a re-
liable, relatively unvarying inflow of waste is an economic and techni-
cal prerequisite. In most rural areas, waste collection is performed
by individual households or private entrepreneurs. Local government
typically has little involvement and experience has shown that, under
such conditions, it may be difficult to direct the waste to a parti-
cular disposal Bite.
Alternative public strategies for gaining control of the waste
stream include: licensing or franchising of private haulers, including
a specific final disposal site as a contractual condition; providing a
tipping fee at the resource recovery facility that is cheaper than
available alternatives; or implementing a local law which specifies
that refuse is public property. The legality of this latter approach
is currently being tested in the courts. However, it appears that any
legal questions surrounding this strategy are removed if the State
specifically delegates waste control powers to the local administering
body. The important point here is that, for resource recovery to
succeed, the communities involved must somehow develop a mechanism for
guaranteeing a steady supply of waste to the project.
Financial
The amount of money required to plan and build a resource recovery
system is naturally dependent upon the size and technological complexi-
ty of the proposed project. For the purposes of this brief discussion,

-------
11
costs will be grouped in three categories: planning, capital and oper-
ating.
The costs involved with planning and preparing the feasibility
study are very often underestimated in resource recovery projects.
Since the success of the final system is a direct function of the thor-
oughness of planning that went into it, economizing on the front end
can prove to be very inefficient. There are currently several Federal
programs that can provide assistance in the planning stage. EPA can
make available technical assistance through the Regional Panels con-
tractors or through the peer—matching program, and there is a possibil-
ity that the President’s Urban Grant Program (which provides planning
money only) may be continued in the future. Regional EPA representa-
tives can provide more information about these programs.
Capital costs vary according to the resource recovery approach
selected. Low technology systems such as source separation or compost—
ing often can be financed Out of general funds or through issuance of
general obligation bonds. More complex systems, such as modular incin-
erators, typically require higher levels of capital and may necessitate
alternative financing plans such as selling State or municipal revenue
bonds, or industrial development bonds. This is especially true if the
private sector (either the system contractor or market) is involved in
the ownership and! or operation of the system. For complex or costly
systems, debt service can be a significant portion of the community’s
annual systems costs and it is therefore advisable to secure the ser-
vices of an experienced financial consultant to ensure that the lowest
interest rates are obtained.
Operating costs are typically defrayed through tipping fees
charged at the disposal facility and revenues from sale of recovered
products (energy and/or materials). If tipping fees must be held to a
specified ceiling (e.g., for waste control purposes), any remaining
costs may have to be subsidized through general tax funds or special
charges directly to households within the jurisdictions composing the
administering body.

-------
12
RESOURCE RECOVERY ALTERNATIVES
A variety of approaches for the recovery of materials and/or ener-
gy from municipal solid waste have been designed and operated over the
last ten years. From an economic perspective, many of these systems
were designed to operate most efficiently on a large scale (250 TPD and
over). How these materials and energy recovery processes operate and
the cost of the systems, as well as their applicability to rural New
England, are reviewed in this section.
MATERIALS RECOVERY
Materials can be recovered from municipal solid waste using any of
three different approaches: (1) source separation, (2) mechanical re-
covery, and (3) composting. The suitability of these approaches to
rural solid waste management needs, particularly in New England, is ex-
amined in this section.
Source Separation
Separate collection and recycling (“drop—off”) centers are the two
basic types of source separation programs. They are relatively simple
to develop and can have a low cost to construct.
Separate Collection
With separate collection from residences, householders place sep-
arated recyclable materials usually at curbside for collection. These
programs generally are conducted, or at least endorsed, by local
governments.
Participant rates tend to be higher when programs are designed for
simplicity and convenience. An important factor in this area is mini-
mizing the storage requirements placed on householders. Consequently,
frequency of collection is an important factor in planning a separate
collection program. Householder inconvenience also is minimized ini-
tially by beginning programs with the separation of a single material.
As participants adjust to separating recyclabies, other materials can
be added to the program without requiring a dramatic shift in their

-------
13
personal habits. To hold storage requirements to a minimum under a
multi—material program, several materials (e.g., cans and bottles) can
be stored together. These materials can be segregated later by an in-
termediate processer, see review under mechanical recovery.
Collection programs in most communities concentrate on newspaper
only. Regular collection vehicles either used separately from general
refuse collection or fitted with racks for paper storage are the basic
equipment needs for a newspaper collection program. In a few cases,
trailers attached to the regular collection truck are used.
In New England, 78 municipal separate collection programs were re-
ported in operation during 1978—1979 (see Appendix A). Fifty—nine of
these programs were in towns with less than 50,000 population. How—
ever, only five of the separate collection programs are in the three
northern New England states. This scarcity of programs reflects the
lack of local refuse collection, rather than an absence of markets.
Multi—material collection programs were operating in 37 (47 percent) of
the communities with separate collection.
Cost to operate a separate collection program tends to vary over a
wide range. No recent cost data programs in New England were avail-
able. A recent study for EPA found the net cost of a multi—material
separate collection program to be $8.16 per ton of solid waste gener-
ated. This figure is based on a participation rate of 30 percent and
includes the cost of separate collection plus the disposal cost for the
nonrecyclables.
-3
Recycling Centers : Recycling, or drop—off, centers are the second
approach to source separation. As with separate collection programs,
participants must separate their recyclables from their other discards.
However, unlike separate collection programs, participants must deliver
the separated materials to the recycling center.
Participation rates are usually low because of the additional ef-
fort, energy, and time required of householders. Some centers pay for
the materials which are delivered. Those centers which pay have higher
participation rates than those which do not pay. Even so, recycling

-------
14
centers tend to have a minimum impact on the quantity of local solid
waste for disposal.
Contrary to the normal pattern, recycling centers in several nor-
thern New England towns have managed to significantly reduce the amount
of waste for landfill. Refuse in these conmunities coi zonly must be
taken to a dump by residents for disposal, since household collection
service is uncOmmon. Consequently, participation is easier under this
condition because the only requirement is separation and storage of the
refuse in the home. Very high compliance (e.g., 95 percent) with these
programs has been reported in towns with mandatory ordinances. 2
Private, non—profit organizations usually staffed by volunteers
are one category of recycling centers. Other types of centers include
commercial enterprises and those operated by local government. Most of
the recycling centers operating in rural New England are government op-
erated. A fourth category is centers which are financed and/or operat—
:ed by beverage container companies. Aluminum, which is the material in
solid waste with the highest value, is generally the focus of these
centers.
As of 1978—1979, 143 recycling centers were operating in New
England (see Appendix A). Most of these centers were multi—material
programs. These centers do not include those operated by industries
such as aluminum can recycling centers.
Cost data on the operation of recycling centers in New England is limi-
ted. Some costs are presented in tI’e case studies (Appendix B). Costs
vary considerably depending on the approach taken. Low—cost centers
normally have unsupervised bins for the materials being collected. Par-
ticipants must place their recyclables in the proper bins. Additional
costs are incurred with more elaborate systems. Centers with attendants,
however, do generate higher quality, and thus more valuable, materials.
Mechanical Recovery
Mechanized processing of mixed materials into recyclable cate-
gories is implied by this approach. In rural areas, two forms of

-------
15
mechanical recovery are potentially viable: (1) intermediate process-
ing and (2) small—scale systems.
Intermediate Processing : Intermediate processors serve as a mid-
dle step between source separation programs and materials manufactur-
ers. In this role, they provide important marketing and upgrading ser-
vices for both groups. Emergence of intermediate processors can be
traced to growth in the supply of post—consumer recyclables from source
separation programs. They fulfill a need to assure quality control and
provide a reliable supply to manufacturers.
Two approaches have evolved towards intermediate processing. One
approach has been towards low volume processing, which emphasizes
color—sorting of glass plus separation of metals. This method has en-
abled cot unities to institute mixed material (e.g., cans and bottles)
separate collection programs. Storage requirements are minimized under
iuch a program, thus encouraging participation. Curbside collection
also is simplified, as fever materials categories must be picked—up and
stored during collection. Low volume processors have been able to pro-
duce a consistently high quality product from a mixed feedstock. Cul—
let and aluminum are separated by hand picking, while ferrous are mag—
netically recovered, see Figure 1. Hand sorting of glass is possible
because the majority of bottles remain unbroken after collection and
initial processing. Many of the bottles which have broken are in
large, recoverable pieces, so that only a small amount of the incoming
glass is discarded. Also included in the discards are ceramics and
plastics, as well as other non—recyclables. Low volume processors in
New England are shown in Appendix A.
High throughput is the second approach to intermediate processing.
To achieve high volume processing, however, relatively uncontaminated
sources of materials are sought. Industrial, coimnercial, and clean
community sources are typical supply sources. Recycling centers are
the usual clean community sources to high volume processors. A flow
diagram for high volume processors is shown in Figure 2. Appendix A
lists the high volume processors in New England.

-------
16
Figure 2
Low Volume Intermediate Glass Processor
Flow Diagram
Ferrous
Aluminum
Crush and Screen
— Clear Cullet
— Amber Cullet
- Green Cullet
Mixed Cans and Bottles
Crush and Screen
Crush and Screen
Rej

-------
17
Figure 3
High Volume Intermediate Glass Processor
Flow Diagram
Color — sorted Glass and Mixed Cans
Large Objects .Aluminum
Small Objects — Rejects
[ Magnetic Separator j—. - —- —--—— Ferrous
Cilet

-------
18
Small—Scale Systems : Various methods for the mechanical recovery
of paper, metals and/or glass from mixed municipal solid waste have
been designed. The economic viability of these systems depend on their
ability to process significant quantities (over 500 tons per day) of
solid waste.
Rural cousnunitities because of their size (under 30,000 population
as defined in this report) generate relatively small quantities of
solid waste (less than 100 tons per day). Consequently, the options
for the economic mechanical recovery of materials are very limited. In
fact, only one option — magnetic separation — could be potentially eco-
nomically viable and then only under very specific circumstances.
To magnetically separate ferrous from MSW, the refuse must first
be e hredded. General MSW is transformed by shredding into waste having
relatively even consistency and uniformity of size. These factors are
important in the recovery of ferrous. Shredding, however, is an expen-
sive operation both in terms of capital of operational costs. These
costs have been justified in some communities because shredding in-
creases refuse density, thus reducing the landfill vol e requirements.
In areas where landfill costs are high, these savings way be sufficient
to offset the cost of shredding. See section on shredding in chapter
on alternative solid waste management approaches. Communities which
have installed a shredding facility usually find the addition of magne-
tic separation equipment to be economically justifiable. Revenue from
the sale of recovered ferrous metals should cover the cost of magnetic
separation. As with any recovery operation, markets must be available
for the recovered metal.
Two shredder/magnetic separation units have been installed in New
England. Both units have a rated capacity of 30 tons per hour, or 240
tons per 8—hour day. The units are located in Ansonia, Connecticut and
Lewiston, Maine.
Compost ing
Composting is the biological decomposition of organic solid waste
under controlled conditions. Use of organic wastes that are simple in

-------
19
structure are more desirable in the composting process because a great-
er variety of biological species will attack the waste, resulting in a
more rapid rate of decomposition. Food waste is a good example of a
simple organic waste. This renders typical municipal solid waste un-
suitable for composting. The poor quality of municipal solid waste as
measured by the carbon—nitrogen (C—N) ration can be improved by the ad-
dition of sewage sludge, or other simple organic wastes that are high
in nitrogen. Adding these materials creates a favorable C—N ratio,
thereby allowing more rapid and efficient rates of decomposition of the
waste.
Compost projects typically are classified by oxygen use. Aerobic
composting takes place in the presence of oxygen and is the type com-
monly associated with the term composting. Anaerobic composting, which
occurs in the absence of oxygen, generally is referred to as methane
digestion.
Aerobic Composting : The end—product of the aerobic coinposting
pvocess is a humus—like material used almost exclusively as a soil con-
ditioner. The two technologies utilized in aerobic coinposting are:
(1) the windrow system, and (2) the mechanical method.
There are no windrow projects currently in operation in the United
States using municipal solid waste as a feedstock. This type of corn—
posting has been attempted several times, but has proven economically
infeasible.
Mechanical systems, the more popular alternative, is designed for
frequent turning and aeration by air suction. A mechanical system is
in operation in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and one is under construction in
Key West, Florida.
The economic outlook for aerobic composting is poor. The most
significant problem is the lack of markets for compost. Compost is
classified as a soil conditioner rather than a fertilizer because its
NPK (nitrogen, phospherous, potassium) content is too low to legally
term it as a fertilizer. Because nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium
are present in compost in such small amounts, the value of application

-------
20
of compost to the land is generally viewed as negligible as compared to
the cost of application itself.
The net system cost of mechanical digester aerobic compost plant
with ferrous recovery is about $28 per ton. 3 The annual capital and
operating costs per ton are $18 and $10 respectively. Although markets
for composting are poor, there are potential markets for compost as a
topsoil substitute. Even so, composting does not appear to be a viable
recovery option in New England.
Anaerobic Composting (Methane Digestion) : Methane and carbon
dioxide, along with a small quantity of hydrogen sulfide, are the gas-
eous products of the composting method. Methane is the primary con—
stituent of natural gas. To improve the value of methane gas, the
other gases must be separated.
Methane digestion of sewage sludge has been practical for many
years in various parts of the world. Rovever, anaerobic composting of
MSW has never been done on a co ercial scale. A 100 TPD demonstration
plant using both )ISW and sludge currently is in operation in Pompano
Beach, Florida. The plant is operated by Waste Management, Incorpor-
ated and was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Until methane digestion of MSW has been proven successful, this
option cannot be considered viable. Successful demonstration in Flori-
da, however, still does not indicate the suitability of anaerobic comp—
osting in New England. To maintain digestion the mixture must be kept
at a warm temperature. In colder climates this means that the digester
unit must be heated. Depending on the location in New England, consid-
erably more energy could be required to maintain composting operations
than would be produced.

-------
21
ENERGY RECOVERY
Modular incineration, refuse—derived fuel (RDF), and waterwall in-
cineration are three approaches to recovering the potential energy in
solid waste. The acceptability of these approaches to rural solid
waste management needs in New England is examined in this section.
Modular Incineration
Steam, hot water, and hot air are those forms in which energy can
be recovered from waste with modular incinerators. This recovery op-
tion is designed for simplicity of operation. The first step is the
unloading of refuse, which then is moved into the charging hoppers us-
ing small tractors. Normally, the oniy processing done is the removal
of bulky items. A heat exchanger or boiler is used to capture the en-
ergy from the hot gases produced during combustion. Newer, larger un—
its have the capability to automatically and continuously remove the
residue from the combustion process. Thus, 24—hour operation is possi-
ble. However, older designs and some current units require a cool—down
period each day. Ashes then can be removed either mechanically or man-
ually before the unit is re—ignited.
Air pollution is a concern with any combustion process. Entrain-
ment of particles is minimized in modular incinerators through use of
the starved air concept. Afterburners in the secondary chamber provide
additional control in the reduction of particulate emissions. Gaseous
emissions (e.g., nitrous oxides, and metalized salts) also are con-
trolled because of the low bed temperature in the combustion chamber.
Even so, the data are incomplete on the ability of these incinerators
to consistently meet air quality standards. Tests are being conducted
to determine the stack emissions from these units. Stricter regula-
tions at the federal level may necessitate additional controls in the
future, even if modular incinerators are able to meet current local
standards.
Individual heat recovery modular incinerators are available with
capacities ranging from 1 to 50 TPD. Units are often installed in

-------
22
groups of two, three, or four (or more) to provide adequate capacity
and backup. Units above 3 TPD may be designed for 24—hour operation.
The incinerator unit typically is located close to the user of the
energy. The shorter the distance between the two, the lower the trans-
mission loss and the higher the economic benefit for the incinerator
operator. Steam may be transmitted in excess of 1.5 miles; it is gen-
erally not economical to do so. Probable uses for the recovered energy.
are industrial processes, and a connection with an existing steam loop,
augmenting the steam generated in a central boiler. These situations
may be present in hospitals, prisons, airports, office buildings, and
garden apartment complexes.
Depending on local regulations, the operation of these units may
not require the presence of a full—time stationary engineer but suc-
cessful operation of an incinerator does require the presence of
trained personnel.
In general, a net cost of $11.68 per ton of input refuse at 100
TPD has been estimated for modular incineration. 4 Value of the re-
covered energy will vary depending on the value of comparable energy.
Using the example above, the energy was valued at $8 per input ton.
A modular incinerator with energy recovery capability currently is
operating in Groveton, New Hampshire (pop. 1,597). Reported capacity
of this unit is 30 TPD. In addition to MSW, non—hazardous industrial
wastes also are incinerated. Another unit is under construction at
present in Auburn, Maine (pop. 24,000). Expected start—up date is the
fall of 1980. A regionalized solid waste plan will provide the incin-
erator with sufficient refuse to make full use of the 150 TPD rated
capacity. Two other towns — Rutland, Vermont and Claremont, New
Hampshire — also are seriously considering modular incineration with
heat recovery. Several towns in New England have installed modular
incinerators but without energy recovery capabilities. These units are
used to simply reduce this volume of solid waste prior to landfill.

-------
23
Refuse—Derived Fuel (RDF )
Refuse—derived fuel is an energy source produced from the combust-
ible fraction of solid waste. Three basic types of RDF can be pro-
duced: fluff, dust, and densified. Shredding, separation of the com-
bustible and noncombustible fractions of waste by air classification
and secondary shredding of the combustibles are the basic steps in RDF
production. Specific production methods for these types varies, as do
the burn characteristics and markets.
Market acceptance of RDF currently appears uncertain. Users of
RDF must modify storage, handling and combustion practices to burn the
material in existing boilers. Similarly, uncertainty of future supply
and quality control makes boiler owners wary of coitments to this
type of fuel.
An estimate of the net cost per input ton at a 100 TPD facility
was $l3.l5. Revenues from this plant were placed at $6.00 per ton
FOB the recovery facility. The high cost of combustion and market un--
certainty make RDF production a nonviable recovery option in rural ar-
eas.
Two facilities are producing RDF in New England — Bridgeport,
Connecticut and East Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Both operations are
large in scale: 1,800 and 550 TPD respectively.
Waterwall Incinerators
This approach to energy recovery is somewhat similar in principle
to modular incineration. In both cases, unprocessed refuse is fed into
a unit for burning. The resulting hot combustion gases are used to
generate steam. Actual conditions under which incineration takes place
are different, however. Waterwall units burn solid waste with the ad-
dition of excess air, while modular incinerators usually operate under
starved air conditions. Use of excess air during combustion causes the
refuse to burn faster and hotter. More refuse can therefore be incin—
erated, and steam temperature and pressure also are higher. Entrain-
ment of particulates, however, also is greater in waterwall incinerator
combustion gases. Control of the particulates necessitates the addi-
tion of pollution control equipment (i.e., precipitators) to the incin—
erator.

-------
24
Waterwall incineration traditionally is considered to be economic
only with large quantities of refuse (over 500 TPD). A facility for
processing 80 TPD, however, began operation at the Norfolk Navy Ship-
yard in Portsmouth, Virginia in late 1977. Economic data from this fa-
cility still are preliminary. Using this data, the operating cost and
revenue from steam sale the first year were $17 and $13 per ton for a
net cost of $4 per ton of solid waste. 6 Capital costs were $4.2 mil-
lion. Until reliable economic data are available, waterwall incinera-
tion in rural communities should be considered inappropriate.
Two waterwall incinerators are operating in New England. These
incinerators are in Braintree, Massachusetts (250 TPD) and Saugus,
Massachusetts (1,200 TPD).

-------
25
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of a resource recovery system can begin once the
plannng stages for recovery have been completed. Planning stages in-
clude analysis of market feasibility and recovery processes and econom-
ics.
Formalization of markets is the first step in the implementation
phase. Firm contracts for recovered products based in the Letter of
Intent should be signed. Energy recovery systems are especially depen-
dent on these contracts. These systems typically will be dedicated to
supplying energy to one buyer. Without firm assurances that the user
will purchase energy for an extended period, there is no reason to be-
lieve there will be a market for the energy. Since generated energy in
the form of steam or hot water can be transported only limited distan—
es (e.g., usually less than 1.5 miles) alternative buyers generally
would be restricted. Consequently, a contract with a buyer is negoti-
ated for the life of the recovery facility.
For secondary materials, contracts are important but for different
reasons from energy recovery. A contract with a materials buyer pro-
vides assurance of a base price, which would be important in the event
of a slump in demand for recovered materials. Unlike energy recovery
contracts, materials contracts are negotiated for much shorter periods
of time. So that if a contract is not continued after the expiration
period, other buyers can usually be found. Secondary materials can be
transported economically over relatively long distances.
In conjunction with formalizing the market contracts, procurement
of the capital equipment necessary to operate the desired recovery pro-
cess also can begin. Formal advertising procedures should be followed
in the procurement of equipment and facilities. Overall, the procure-
ment process should be relatively easy since the types of recovery sys-
tems applicable to rural coimnunities generally are not high capital
cost items. Furthermore, existing source separation equipment might
meet the needs of the project. So no additional equipment would need

-------
26
to be purchased. Capital needs should be determined in the planning
phase so that purchase can proceed with minimum disruption.
As the implementation process proceeds, attention needs to be giv-
en to other factors which are essential to smooth completion of this
phase. These factors include final agreement on any regional coopera-
tive arrangements, public education, and enactment of any necessary or-
dinances. Depending on the approach selected, these factors will be
more or less important. If a separate collection system is to be im-
plemented, for example, more emphasis must be put on public education
than if a modular incinerator is to be installed.
- With completion of the purchase and installation of any capital
equipment, the system can then enter the shakedown phase. Problems
with the system are worked Out at this time so that when full operation
begins the process is ready. By the time shakedown begins the market—
ng and other implementation factors should be completed. Public edu—
cation is the only exception. Particularly with separate collection,
public education should be viewed as an ongoing activity. The level of
activity will decline once the project begins, but education on a con-
tinual basis is necessary to maintain participation.

-------
27
ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
A scarcity of land suitable for sanitary landfill might cause a
counity to initiate a program to reduce the volume of solid waste re-
quiring land disposal. Resource recovery is one option a town might
select. However, resource recovery might not be feasible because of
lack of markets or prohibitive costs. If recovery is not feasible,
other alternatives (baling, shredding, incineration) exist which will
reduce the volume of refuse for disposal. Unlike recovery, these vol-
ume reduction methods do not conserve natural resources.
BALING
High density compression of solid wastes is accomplished through
the use of a series of hydraulic rams which subject the wastes to
weighing approximately 2,500 lbs. with dimensions of 3’ x 4’ x 3’, are
automatically tied and ejected onto appropriate transportation equip-
ment for transfer to the land disposal site. In this manner compacted
waste densities of approximately 1,800 lbs. per cu. yd. are achieved;
approximately 80 percent greater than the compaction density of 1,000
lbs. per cu. yd. achieved in an efficiently operated conventional land-
fill.
The higher compacted density obviously extends the useful capacity
of the receiving landfill by a corresponding amount. Economic benefits
include transportation cost savings as well as lower landfilling costs
due to the reduced quantities of cover material required. Landfill op-
erations are also facilitated with baled wastes, due to the reduction
in blowing litter, dust, vectors, fires, and traffic.
The primary disadvantages of baling are the high capital costs in-
volved and the fact that baling precludes any form of resource recovery
once the bale is formed.
Based upon experience across the country to date, in order to
achieve economics of scale baling as a waste volume reduction technique
appears feasible (total cost per ton less than or equal to $10) only

-------
28
for areas with populations in excess of 50,000 with solid waste tonnage
exceeding 100 -tons per day.
SHREDDING
Shredding is another method to size—reduce municipal solid waste
prior to Land disposal. The density of shredded refuse is 25 to 60
percent greater than with conventional land disposal depending on whe-
ther daily cover is applied. Depending on hydrogeological conditions
daily cover may be unnecessary. In addition, to reduce landfill volume
requirements, shredded wastes have been demonstrated to not attract
vectors, not support combustion, have less objectionable odors, and re—
duck littering problems associated with normal sanitary landfills.
Several disadvantages have been identified with shredders. Two
problem areas are the material handling aspect of feeding the mill and
component wear. Significant improvements supposedly have been made
during the past few years toward improving these problems. Perhaps a
more serious problem, though a less constant one, is the threat of ex-
plosion. Most shredder explosions are very minor causing little or no
damage. However, some explosions can cause major equipment damage and
harm to employees. An explosion at the City of Lewiston shredder dur-
ing the first year of operation caused about $25,000 worth of damage.
As mentioned earlier, shredders are currently operating in two New
England cities with less than 50,000 population: Lewiston, Maine and
Ansonia, Connecticut. These units are rated at 30 tons per hour, or
240 tons per eight—hour day. Although regional solid waste plans are
in effect in both communities, only 175 TPD and 250 TPD are being pro-
cessed in Lewiston and Ansonia, respectively.
Costs of the Lewiston operation (shredder only) were estimated to
be $6.50 per ton in 1978, while the Ansonia shredder operation cost, in
a recent EPA report 7 , was estimated to be $6.75 per ton for a 100 TPD
operation.

-------
29
INC INERATION
Small modular units are the type of incinerator which would be ap-
plicable to rural communities. As indicated in the previous chapter,
modular incineration has received much attention lately because of the
capability to connect waste heat to useful energy. Pram an economic
and natural resource conservation perspective, the preferable option
includes incineration. However, lack of markets way preclude heat re-
covery. Nodular incineration might still be beneficial to a Community
from the perspective of refuse volume reduction. Reductions of 80 to
90 percent of the total volume of municipal .olid waste, and 98 to 99
percent by weight of the combustible portion are possible through in-
cineration. Incinerator residue, which consists of non—combusted
materials, requires disposal. Compaction of this residue results in
further volume reduction so that solid waste processed in an incinera-
tor and then compacted in a landfill may occupy only four to ten per—
tent of its original volume.
Several towns in rural New England have installed modular inciner-
ators without energy recovery, including Nottingham, Plymouth and Mere-
dith, New Hampshire and Windham, Maine. No data was available on the
cost to operate these units. An approximate cost estimate for inciner-
ation is $16 per ton at a daily rate of 100 tons.
CODISPOSAL
Codisposal is an integrated solution to the disposal of two or
more waste streams, typically solid waste and sewage sludge. Although
cod isposal usually involves some form of energy recovery, in this re-
port it is being considered separately as an alternative approach be-
cause of its limited applicability in rural areas. This is because
most codisposal technologies are economically and technically feasible
only when the quantity of sludge involved is large enough to create
problems with conventional disposal approaches such as landfilling or
landspreading. This is rarely the case in rural situations. However,
for communities with significant amounts of sludge, either from a cen-
tralized waste water treatment plant or an industrial generator, codis—
posal may be viable and merits thorough investigation.

-------
30
Most codisposal technologies are based on utilizing solid waste as
a fuel for the incineration or drying of sewage sludges. Waste heat
from this process can be recovered for sale to energy markets. Another
approach is to employ processed solid waste (RDF) as a bulking agent
for the composting of sludge to produce a potentially marketable soil
conditioner. The feasibility of either of these approaches is very de—
pendent upon the specifics of the local situation but public officials.
should be aware that codisposal is a technically and economically via-
ble approach under the right conditions.

-------
31
FOOTNOTE S
1. Peterson 1 C., E. Bouring, C. Mitchell and B. West. Small—scale and
Low Technology Resource Recovery Study . U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1979, P. 71.
2. Tichenor, R.L. and E.F. Jansen, Jr. “Recycling As An Approach to
Solid Waste Management,” New Hampshire . University of New
Hampshire, Durham. July 1978, p. 1—2.
3. Peterson, C., et al. Small—scale and Low Technology . p. 206.
4. Ibid . P. 60.
5. Ibid . P. 56
6. CollLns, J.P. and T.C. WLsehart. “U.S. Navy Reports on Its Newest
Mass—Fired Refuse—to—Energy Facility.” Solid Waste Management .
22(6):62. 1979.
7. Peterson, C., et al. , Op. Cit. . p. 219.

-------
APPENDIX A
RECYCLING IN NEW ENGLAND

-------
FEDERAL AND STATE CONTACTS
U.S. EPA
Hr. Staves Levy
U.S. Environnentsl Protection Agency
Office of Solid Vests
Stile Proirasa and P.saourcs
lacovery Division
lesourcs lecovery Iraich (WH—S63)
C C I N Street SW.
Washington, D.C. 20660
(202) 733—9140
Connecticut
Oiarlss lurker, Director
SoUd Waste Management Unit
D.part..nt of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
P75 S —641—36fl
00. (203) 566—3612
Mains
Ion loves, is1
Division of Solid Waste Hens 5 ot
Control
Bureau of lend Quality
D.psrtsent of Environmental ?rotscli on
Slits House • Station 17
Augusta, Mains 06333
OiL (207) 289—2111
Maw Hanashire
Thomas L. Svesoey. Oust
Bureau of Solid Ws.ts
Department of Health arid W.lfsre
Stats Laborstory Building
Sagan Driva
Concord, New Na atuire 03301
00. (60)) 21 1—6610
U.S. EPA. leaton 1
Mr. Conrad Deetoslirs
U.S. Environasntal Protection Agsocy
Waste Management Stench,
Solid Waste ProSra.
Air and liaeardous Material. Division
John F. lennedy Building, Boos 1903
Boston, MA 02203
(611) 223—5715
Stephen Hitchcock, Director
Industrial A liasardous Material.
Management Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
Ff5 0—641—5166
00. (203) 566—5166
Nassachusetti
Willis. Gaughas, Director
Sursau of Solid Waste Disposal
Department of Eov ironmsntal
Management
loom 1905
Leverstt Saltonstall Building
100 Casbridga Strset
Boston, Massachuaatts 02202
Oil. (617) 121—4293
Shod. Island
John S. Quinn, Jr., Quiet
Solid Waste Man.Iesent Program
Department of Environmental
Management
205 Health Building
Davis Street
Providsncs. Shod. lelend 02905
00. (601) 217—2808
U.S. Depart.snt of Ensrgy
Mr. Donald I. Walter
U.S. Dspartnsnt of Energy
Counity Technology Systeme Irauch
Con.srvation and Solar Energy (111-031)
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Waahiogton, D.C. 20563
(202) 252—9391
Joh. J. Housasm, Quiet
Hesardous Materiel. Mana s.ent
Industrial & hlaserdous Materials Ngst.
Departeent of Environ.antal Protection
Stat. Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
P15 S—641—57l2
0 11. (203) 566—5712
Solid Waste Psiulatory
Vaflkss I. laraian. Oulef
Solid Wssts Branch
Division of Air and Hasardoua
Materiela
Department of Environmental Quality
Engine.ring
600 Weshington Streat, Boo. 320
Boston. Msssachusstts 02111
CML (611) 721—2650
Lou David. Jr. Etscutivs Director
Rhode I.lsnd Solid Waste Corp.
39 Pike Strest
Providencs, Rhode Island 02903
Oil. (401) 031—4640
llatardoua Wasps Bsaulatoci
lussel L. Brenne.an, President
Connecticut lesources Recovery Authority
*19 Allyn Street, Suits 603
Professional Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
00. (203) 549—6390
Glenn Gilmere, Chief
Hasardous Waste Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
110 Trenont Street
Boston, Maesachuaette 0210$
OIL (611) 127—3835
lichsrd A. Yal.ntinettl, Ouisf
Air and Solid Waste Pro raea
Agency of Environmental
Conaervst ion
State Olfic. Building
Nontpei isr, Vermant 03602
P15 8-832-3)95
CML (802) 828—3395

-------
SEPARATE COLLECTION -
NEW EGLAND 1, 2
Connecticut
Berlin North Haven
Bloomfield Norwalk
Cornwall Oxford
Durham—Middlefield Rocky Bill
East Hartford Seymour
East Lyine Shulton
Enfield South Windsor
Goshen Stamford
Greenwich Tewkesberry
Groton. Waterbury
Hartford Waterford
Manchester West Hartford
Meriden Westbrook
New Hartford Wethersfield
New London Winchester
Newington
Maine
Brunswick
Massachusetts
Agawan Fitchburg
Andover Greenfield
Amherst Hamilton
Arlington Haverhill
Bedford Lexington
Beverly Littleton
Braintree Ludlow
Brookline Marblehead
Cambridge Newton
Chelinsford North Andover
Chelsea Peabody
Dartmouth Petersham
Cohen, D. N. A National Survey of Separate Collection Programs .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., July 1979,
pp. B—i.
2 A New England Recycling Directory . U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Public Awareness, Washington, D.C., April 1979,
pp. 5—27.

-------
Massachusetts
(continued)
Pittsfield Springfield
Princeton Stoughton
Reading Topsfield
Salem Waltham
Somerville Weymouth
South Hadley Williamstown
New Hampshire
Hampton
New Market
Rhode Island
Barrington
Lincoln
Tiverton
Vermont
Northfield
Shraftsbury

-------
RECYCLING CENTERS -
NEW ENGLAND
Connecticut
Avon North Haven
Berlin Norwalk
Bridgewater Old Lyme
Bristol Orange
Cheshire Oxford
Chester Redding
Cornwall Ridgefield
Danbury Salisbury
East Granby Seymour
East Hartford Simsbury
Farmington Southbury
Glas tonbury Southing ton
Goshen Stamford
Granby Suf field
Greenwich Thomaston
Grisuald, Jewelt City Torrington
Groton Union
GuilE ord Vernon
Hartford Wallingford
Hebron Waterford
Madison Watertown
Marlborough West Hartford
Meriden Westbrook
Middlebury Weston
MilE ord Westport
Morris Wethersfield
New Fairfield Windsor
New London Wilton
New Mil ford
Maine
Brunswick Lincoln Co mty
Farming ton Orono
Massachusetts
Acton Arlington
Amesbury Barnstable
Amherst Belmont
1 A New England Recycling Directory . U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Public Awareness, Boston, April 1979, pp. 5—27.

-------
Massachusetts
(continued)
Boxborough Natick
Brewster Needham
Brookline North Adams
Carlisle North Andover
Charlestown Northhampton
Cheshire Orleans
Cohasset Paxton
Concor Pembroke
Dartmouth Raynham
Dedham Reading
Dennis Rockport
Dwcbury Scituate
Easthaxn Sharon
Falmouth Sheffield
Fitchburg Somerville
Foxborough Springfield
Granby Watertown
Greenfield Wellesley
Hampden Wellfleet
Hanover West Boylston
Hingham Westboro
Ipswick Westford
Lexington Westwood
Lincoln Weymouth
Ludlow Williamston
Manchester Woburn
Marblehead Worchester
Mattapoisett Worthington
Maynard Yarmouth
New Hampshire
Antrim Meredith
Durham Plymouth
Hanover Svanzey
Lebanon Windham
Rhode Island
Barrington Pawtucket
Glochester South Kingstown
Little Cotnpton Woonsocket
Vermont
Bennington Shraftsbury
Burlington Woodstock

-------
INTERMEDIATE PROCESSORS
NEW ENGLAND 1
Approx. Monthly
Processor Location Tonnage
Barrett Trucking Burlington, Vermont 800
Maine Beverage Containers Portland, Maine 1,500
Maine Recycling Corp. Topsham, Maine 1,500
Recycling Enterprises, Inc. Oxford, Massachusetts 3,000
Resource Recovery Systems,
Inc. Branford, Connecticut 300
Tiverton Recycling Tiverton, R}iode Island 1,000
Waste Central White River Junction,
Vermont 100
‘Weiss, D.B. “Intermediate Glass Processing,” NCRR Bulletin The
Journal of Resource Recovery , 9(3):56. 1979.

-------
MARKETS FOR RECYCLED MATERIAL IN NEW ENGLAND’
Following is a listing of the names and addresses (and where available, the phone numbers) of markets for recycled
paper, glass, and metal that EPA is currently aware of for New England. As stated earlier, this list is not complete and
other sources should be referenced if necessary.
Before your recycling program begins accepting materials, be sure to check with your buyer to ensure that the materials
you collect meet the buyers specifications. For example metal rings may have to be removed from bottles or glass may
have to be separated by color
A New England Recycling Directory, Office of Public Awareness, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts, April, 1979,
p. 29—42.

-------
LEGEPI Ii
MATERIAL TYPES
CONTRIBUTORS
CONNECTICUT
Paper
Glass
Metals
N
Newsprint
C
Clear
F .
. .
Ferrous
I
Individual;
C. .
..... Corrugated
6
Green
N.F
.
Non .Ferrous
0
Orqani,atsons
L
Office Ledger
A
Amber
B .
. .
Bulky Metals
C
Contractors
M
Mixed Paper
M
. .
Mixed Metals
0
Other
S .
..
Scrap Metals
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
TYPES
FROM
PIC IC.UP
CONTAINERS
CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
(see legend)
(see legend)
AVAILABLE
PROVIDED
AVAILABLE
Tri .Clty Recycling
Paper
N C I M 0
I 0 C
YES
YES
YES
655 Christian Lane
Berlin, 06037
(203) 223.3601
Atlas Scrap & Recycling Co.
Paper
N C L M 0
I 0 C
YES
YES
P. 0. Box 624
Glass
IOC
NO
YES
YES
Bloomfield, 06002
Metals
F N.F B MS
10 C
YES
YES
(203) 242.6251
Southern CT Resource Recovery
Glass
0 C
YES
YES
YES
Center, Inc.
.
Metals
F N F
0 C
YES
YES
50 Maple Street
Branford , 06405
(203) 481.2325
Glass ContaIners Corp.
Glacs
I 0 C
NO
NO
YES
Route 101
Dayville, 06241
(203) 774.9636
Camerota Scrap Recycling
Metals
F N.F B S
I 0 C
YES
YES
245 Shaker Road
Enf,eld 06002
(203) 763-0436

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERI L
MATERIALS TYPES FROM PICK.UP CONTAINERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (see legend) (see legend) AVAPLABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
Columbia Poly Pack Co. Paper N I 0 C YES YES YES
15 Ashton Street
Hartford, 06106
(203) 522-4943 or 1.800842-1456
Automated Material Handling Paper N C L M YES YES YES
260 Tolland Turnpike Metals B M C YES YES
Manchester, 06040
(203) 643-9636
M. Wilder & Son, Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES NO YES
569 North Colony Street Metals F N-F S I 0 C YES NO
Meriden, 06450
(203) 235-4225
E. H. Wentworth Metals F B M S I 0 C YES YES
221 Faith Road
Newington, 06111
(203) 667-0644
Vulcan Scrap Metal Co. Metals F N-F S I 0 C YES YES
60 Taff Avenue
Stamford, 06905
(203) 357-1720
Data Security Corp. Paper N L I 0 C YES NO YES
9 Willow Stream Drive
Vernon, 06066
(203) 875-2341
S & T Industries 1 Inc. Meta’s F B M I 0 C YES YES
21 Willow Stream Drive
Vernon, 06066
(203) 875.2384
B. Swirsky & Co., Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES YES
260 Railroad Hill Street Glass I 0 C YES YES YES
Waterbury, 06708
Marcus Paper Company, Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES YES
93 Wood Street
West Haven, 06516
(203) 934-6351

-------
LEGEND
MATERIAL TYPES CONTRIBUTORS
Paper Glass Metals
N . . . . . . . Newsprint C Clear F . . . Ferrous I Individuals
C Corrugated G Green N-F . Non-Ferrous 0 Orqanizations
L Office Ledger A Amber B - .. Bulky Metals C Contractors
M Mixed Paper M . . Mixed Metals
0 Other S . . . Scrap Metals
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
TYPES
FROM
PICK-UP
CONTAINERS
CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
(see legend)
(see legend)
AVAILABLE
PROVIDED
AVAILABLE
MAINE
Isadore T. Miller Co. Metals F N-F M S I 0 C YES YES NO
Old Hotel Road
Auburn, 04210
(207) 783-8371
Tom Sawyer, Inc. Paper N C L M I 0 C YES YES NO
RFO 2
Bangor. 04401
(207) 862-4200
Aroostock Paper Recycling Co. Paper C I 0 C YES NO YES
8 Second Avenue Metals M I 0 C YES NO
Fort Kent, 04743
(201) 834.3846
William Goodman & Sons, Inc. Paper N C L M I 0 C YES NO YES
81 -87 Marginal Way
Portland, 04104
(207) 773-4709 or 7734700
Barry N. Springer, Inc. Paper N I 0 C YES YES
36 Greene Street
Sabattus, 04280
(207) 375-4279 or 783-6672

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES FROM P ICK.UP CONTAiNERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (sea legend) (see legend) AVAILABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
Waldron Scrap Iron & Metal Metals F N.F B M S I 0 C YES
Box 917. Rt. 1
Scarboro. 04074
(201) 883.9921
Rich Insulation Co. Paper N I 0 C NO NO
Rt.302
So. Windham, 04082
(207) 892.2191
Keyes Fibre Company Paper N I 0 C NO NO
College Avenue
Waterville. 04901
(207) 873.3351

-------
LEGEND.
MATERIAL TYPES
CONTR IBUTORS
MASSACHUSETTS
Town of Brookline
333 WashIngton Street
(617) 23 9000
Bay State Paper Recycling Corp.
98 Taylor Street
Dorchester, 02122
(617) 445.3900
Shatter Paper Fibres, Inc.
98 Taylor Street
Dorchester, 02122
(617) 825-9040
Suffolk Services, Inc.
98 Taylor Street
Dorchester, 02122
(617) 825-9045
Bird & Son, Inc.
Washington Street
E. Walpole , 02032
(617) 668-2500
NCL
CGA
NM
F N-F B
NCLMO
NCLMO
C G A 3 0/A
F N-F B MS
NCM
lOC
10
IOC
10
IOC
IOC
IOC
OC
IOC
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
Paper
Glass
Metals
N
Newsprint
C
Clear
F -
- .
Ferrous
I
Individuals
C
L
Corrugated
Office Ledger
G
A
Green
Amber
N-F
B -
.
. -
Non-Ferrous
Bulky Metals
0
C
Organizations
Contractors
M
Mixed Paper
M
. .
Mixed Metals
0.......
Other
S
...
ScrapMetals
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
TYPES
FROM
PICK-UP
CONTAINERS
CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
(sea legend)
(see legend)
AVAILABLE
PROVIPED
AVAILABLE
Kern ble Waste Co., Inc.
27 Kemble Street
Roxbury, 02119
(617) 445-5758
NO
NO
Paper
Glass
Paper
Metals
Paper
Paper
Paper
Glass
Metals
Paper
NCLMO
C
NO

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES FROM PICK.UP CONTAINERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (see legend) (see legend) AVAILABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
Resource Recovery Corp. — Paper C I 0 C YES YES YES
Browning Ferris Industries
115 Washington Street
Holliston. 01746
(617) 429.6150
Sonoco Products Company Paper N C L M I 0 C YES NO YES
P. 0. Box 631
Holyolce, 01040
(413) 536.4546
Essex Waste Paper Co., Inc. Paper N C I M I 0 C YES
207 Marston Street Metals F N.F B M S I 0 C YES
Lawrence. 01841
(617) 682.5226
B. Greenblatt & Co.. Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C NO NO NO
231 Tanner Street
Lowell, 01851
(617) 453.5111
Owens.IIlinois. Inc. Glass C G A I 0 C NO NO
241 Francis Avenue
Mansfield, 02048
(617) 339 9321
Foster Forbes Glass Co. Glass C I 0 C NO YES
National Street
Milford, 01757
(611) 478.2500
A. W. Martin, Inc. Metals F N.F B M S I 0 C YES YES
1200 Shawmut Avenue Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES
New Bedford, 02746
(617) 993.4359
Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Co. Metals N.F I 0 C YES NO NO
50 Rear Tower Road
Newton Upper Falls, 02164
(611) 965.1350

-------
A CEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES FROM PICK UP CONTAIk RS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (see legend) (see legend) AVAILABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
No. Adams Junk Co. Paper N I NO NO
327 Ashland Street
No. Adams. 01247
(617) 663.3185
P. AlIen & Son 1 Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES
P. 0. Box 27
Easthampton Road
Northampton. 01060
(413) 584.3040
Recycling Enterprises, Inc. Glass C G A 3 GIA I 0 C YES YES YES
Old Webster Road Metals F N.F I 0 C YES YES
P. 0. Box 269
Oxford. 01540
(617) 987.2700
North Shore Recycled Fibres Corp. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES YES
53 Jefferson Avenue
Salem. 01970
(617) 289.9400
Martel Plant Dismantling & Metals B I 0 C YES NO
Recycling. Inc.
29 Elmwood Avenue
Saugus. 01906
(617) 233.2908
Acme Metals & Recycling, Inc. Paper N C 10 I 0 C YES YES YES
Rear 64 Napier Street Metals F N.F B M S I 0 C YES YES
P. 0. Box 514
Springfield. 01101
(413) 737-3112
Harry Goodman 1 Inc. Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES YES
203 Tremont Street Metals F N-F B M S I 0 C
Springfield, 01104
(413) 785-5331

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES EAOM PICK-UP CONTAINERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (ice legend) (i.e legend) AVAILABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
Springfield Goodwill Industries Glass C G A I 0 C NO NO
285 Dorset Street
Springfield. 01101
(413) 7886981
MidCity Scrap Iron and Salvage Paper N C I M 0 I 0 C YES YES YES
548 State Road Metals F N-F B M S 0 C YES YES YES
Westport. 02790
(617) 675-7831
Babco Metals Corp. Glass I 0 NO YES
2 Kansas Street Metals F N-F C NO YES
Worcester. 01610
(617) 756-3001

-------
LEGEND
MATERIAL TYPES
CONTRIBUTORS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CPM Inc.
East Ryegate VT Division
Claremont 1 03743
(603) 542-2592
Valley Recycling Inc.
Corner Maple and Plains Road
Claremont, 03743
(603) 542-9392
J. Schwartz Motor Transportation, Inc.
185 Woodland Avenue
P. 0. Box 4333
Manchester, 03108
(603) 6274191
Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc.
Spaulding Avenue
No. Rochester, 03867
(603) 332-0940
Paper 0
Paper
NCLMO bC
YES NO
YES NO
Paper
I
Glass
Metals
N .
C
Newsprint
Corrugated
C
G
Clear
Green
F
N-F
Ferrous
Non-Ferrous
I
0
Individuals
Orqanuzat,ons
L
Office Ledger
A
Amber
B
Bulky Metals
C
Contractors
N
Mixed Paper
M
Mixed Metals
0
Other
S
Scrap Metals
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
TYPES
FROM
PICK-UP
CONTAINERS
CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
(sna legend)
(se. legend)
AVAILABLE
PROVIDED
AVAILABLE
George Wool, Inc.
Kingston Road
Exeter, 03833
(603) 772-5857
C
NO
CLO
lOC
YES
YES
YES
NCLM
IOC
YES
YES
YES
CGA
0
NO
YES
N-F
IOC
YES
YES
Paper
Glass
Metals
Paper
Paper N C
CO
YES
NO
NO

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES FROM PICK-UP CONTAINERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (see legend) (see legend) AVAIkABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
Harding Metals Inc. Metals F N-F B M S I 0 C YES YES NO
Rte.4
Northwood, 03261
(603) 942-5513
1. Weinstein & Sons Inc. Paper N C I 0 NO NO
10 Wallace Street
Rochester, 03667
1603) 332-3704

-------
LEGEND •.
MATERIAL TYPES
CONTR IBUTORS
Glass
C Clear
G Green
A Amber
F....
N.F
B....
M...
S....
. Ferrous
Non.Ferrous
Bulky Metals
Mixed Metals
Scrap Metals
Individuals
• Organizations
Contractors
RHODE ISLAND
National Bottle Mfg. Co.
Route 117
Coventry, 02816
(401) 397-3371
American Waste Paper
B Webb Street
Cranston, 02920
(401) 781-2666
Metals Recycling, Inc.
P.O. Box 1226
Johnston, 02919
(401) 831.7799
Eastern Scrap Co.
655 Roosevelt Avenue
Pawtucket, 02860
(401) 724.2200
United Paper Stock Company
33 India Street
Pawtucket, 02860
(401) 724.5700
Metals N-F M S
Metals F N-F B M S
IOC
IOC
IC
IOC
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
N
C
L . . . .
0
Paper
Newsprint
Corrugated
Office Ledger
Mixed Paper
Other
Metals
0....
C....
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
TYPES
(see legend)
FROM
(see legend)
PICK-UP
AVAILABLE
CONTAINERS
PROVIDED
CONTRACT
AVAILABLE
Glass CG
Paper NCLMO
Paper NCLMO
YES

-------
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL MATERIAL
MATERIALS TYPES FROM PICK-UP CONTAINERS CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED (see legend) (see legend) AVAILABLE PROVIDED AVAILABLE
A. Ba2ar & Son, Inc. Paper N C L I 0 C YES NO NO
32 Thurbers Avenue
Providence. 02905
(401) 181-5150
Cove Metal Co. Metals N-F M 1 0 C YES YES
P. 0. Box 29
Providence. 02901
(401) 724.3500
Ralph Shuster, Inc. Metals F N-F B M S I 0 C YES YES
P. 0. Box 2762
Providence, 02907
(401)781-2435
Valley Paper Stock Co., Inc. Paper C L M I NO YES
118 Valley Street
Providence, 02909
(401)438-1810
Tiverton Recycling Co. Glass C G A I 0 C YES NO YES
20 Cornell Road
Tiverton, 02818
(401) 624-4454

-------
LEGEND
MATERIAL TYPES
CONTRIBUTORS
VERMONT
F
N-F
B
M .
S.
Ferrous
Non-Ferrous
Bulky Metals
Mixed Metals
Scrap Metals
0
C
Burlington Paper Stock Co.
111 Archibald Street
Burlington, 05402
(802) 862-9641
Burlington Waste & Metal Co.
North Winooski Avenue
Burlington, 05402
(802) 862-5333
Gates Salvage Yard, Inc.
Rt. 14
Hardwick, 05843
(802) 472.5794 or 472.5058
Donahue Salvage Co.
32 Allen Street
Rutland, 05701
(8021 773.7630
Rutland Waste & Metal Co.
246 West Street
Rutland, 05701
(802) 773-2877
NCL
F N-F MS
IOC
IOC
NO
NO
N
C
I.
M....
0
Paper
Newsprint
Corrugated
Office Ledger
Mixed Paper
Other
C
G
A
Clear
Green
Amber
Metals
Individuals
Organizations
Contiactors
ACCEPTS
MATERIAL
MATERIAL
MATERIALS
TYPES
FROM
PICK-UP
CONTAINERS
CONTRACT
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ACCEPTED
(see legend)
(see legend)
AVAILABLE
PROVIDED
AVAILABLE
Paper
NO
Metals
Paper
0
Metals
F N-F
Metals
F N-F B M S
I 0 C
YES
YES
Metals
F N-F
I
.
Paper
Metals
N
F N-F M
C
I 0 C
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO

-------
APPENDIX B
A SUMMARY OP THREE NEW ENGLAND SOURCE
SEPARATION PROJECTS

-------
CASE STUDIES
In order to reduce the voli.une of solid waste disposed through
landfilling, rural communities in New Hampshire have implemented pro-
jects which rely on recovery of materials through recycling. Some re-
covery projects have utilized incineration in order to increase volume
reduction. Three rural New Hampshire resource recovery projects were
selected for case studies of the implementation process. Suary in-
formation on these projects in Meredith Plymouth, and Swanzey, New
Hampshire is presented in this appendix.
Each of these projects was undertaken in response to passage in
1972 (by the New Hampshire Legislature) of an act requiring closure of
all open burning dumps by July 1974. (A July 1974 amendment to this
legislation extended the deadline for closing to July 1, 1976 and pro-
vided a mechanism for administratively determined extensions beyond
that date.)
Figure 1 illustrates the diversity among the three projects.
Meredith and Plymouth successfully imposed mandatory recycling whereas
Swanzey relies upon voluntary participation in its recycling program.
Although Meredith and Plymouth both have mandatory recycling, the scope
of materials required to be recycled is far greater in Plymouth. The
Swanzey project has minimal volume reduction and relies primarily upon
landfilling as a means of disposal. Only one project (Meredith) was
forced to deal with a large influx of summer residents. All three pro-
jects have about the same year—round population, and, although Meredith
has a significantly higher tax base (total assessed valuation) than
Plymouth or Swanzey, all three possess a substantial tax base. Two
projects (Meredith and Swanzey) involve interlocal agreements for dis-
posal, but with different sets of circumstances and sponsorship.
Care should be taken in evaluating the capital costs and the net
disposal fees shown in Figure 1. For example, in Swanzey the capital
costs are only for the construction of a small recycling building be-
cause the transfer station is leased from and operated by a private
contractor. In the case of Meredith and Plymouth, the capital costs
are for different years and the size of the Plymouth facility is larger

-------
because: a) it was designed to house all materials processing and
handling inside, whereas the Meredith facility was not; b) the building
was designed to permit handling of larger volumes of solid waste and
recovered materials than generated within the town; and c) the Meredith
facility is undersized with respect to the tonnage of solid waste which
must be processed from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The net disposal
costs differ not only because of differences in revenues received from
recycling due to differences in tonnage and composition of materials
recycled, but in the case of Plymouth, capital costs are being amor-
tized over a relatively short period of 10 years compared to the 20
year amortization period in Meredith.
While not shown in Figure 1, there are substantial differences
among the projects in the amount of time involved from the beginning of
planning to the start of facility operations. The reasons for these
differences are varied, but can be explained in part by the fact that
those undertaking these projects were among the pioneers in the imple-
mentation of rural resource recovery. From the start of planning to
the start of facility operation, the following time periods were re-
quired:
• Meredith — 46 mouths
• Plymouth — 34 months
• Swanzey — 28 months
A brief discussion of each of these projects follows. More de-
tailed information in relation to these case studies is available
through the Region I Office of EPA.

-------
TAX 8*38 (1977)
(Total Assessed Valuation)
STATUS
(Winter 1978)
ANNUAL TONNAGE
P )CESSED (1977)
!U)NONICS MID
FINANCING
MEREDITh
POPULATION
FIGURE 1
!L.Tl SMfuI
SWANZET
SYST I
3,775 (1977) Pereanent
5,330 (1976)
4.800 (1976)
$62,224,450
$33,348,657
$38,442,441
Facility In Operation 1 Year
Facility in Operation 2 Tear.
Facility in Operation 2.75 Yr..
• Two Kelley Incinerators:
2.5 Tone/Hour Capacity.
• Mandatory Separation of
Glass by Color.
• Recycling: Glass, Can.,
Newspapers, Cardboard,
Natal Container., White
Goods B Tirea.
• Peper B Cardboard Baler:
800 lb. Bales.
• Incinerator Ash Landfill.
• Stumps, Brush Disposal at
Old Dump.
• One Coabuetlon Engineering
Incinerator: 1.6 Ton/flour
Capacity.
. Mandatory Separation and
Recycling of: Clas, by
Color, Cane, Metal Con—
tamer., Nevapapera. Card—
board, White Goods, Scrap
Metal.
• Paper & Cardboard Baler:
1,700 lb. Bale..
• Cane & Glaas Crusher.
• Tirea Stockpiled.
• Incinerator Aeh Landfill.
• Stumps, Brush. Construc-
tion Di.poee l Site.
• One Compactor—Transfer
Station.
• Voluntary Separation.
• Recycling: Clase by Color.
Cane, Newspapers, and Card
board.
• Paper and Cardboard Baler:
800 lb. Bales.
• All Solid Waste not Re-
cycled i. Landlilled.
3,082 TPY
2,008 TPT
2,550 Yfl
$232,343 Capital Cost (1976)
FIrMA 20 Yr. Loan: $200,000
Federal Rev. Sharing: $25,143
Tmin Revenues: $1,200
Net Disposal Cost: $18.49/Ton
(1977) $ 0.96/Tax
Rate
$345,663 Capital Coat (1975)
FWIA 10 Yr. Loan: $300,463
RC&D Grant: $45,200
Net Disposal Coat: $42.63/Ton
(1977) S 2.57/Tax
Rate
$32,000 Capital Cast (1976)
General Revenue Financed
Net Disposal Coat: $12.96/Ton
(1917) $ 0.86/Tax
Rate
: $31.41/Ton
for Waste Handled by Transierl
Recycling Canter Only.
• Canter Harbor (Waste
Disposal).
• Recycling F.ntsrprlsea
(Glass and Cans).
• Ilogue—SpraRtle
(Cardboard).
• Recycling Enterprises
(Gln e and Cane).
• City of Keene (Landfill
Disposal).
• Recycling Ehierprisee
(Claee and Cans).
• Springfield Paper Stock
(Newspaper and Cardboard).
KEY 0NTRAC S

-------
THE INCINERATOR AND RECYCLING PROJECT OF MEREDITH, N.H.
Meredith, located on the northwestern shore of Lake Winnipesaukee,
is situated in one of the major water resort areas of New Hampshire.
As a result its population sharply increases in the suer from an
estimated 3,775 permanent residents (July 1977) to an estimated 15,000
persons. The increase in population places an inordinate demand upon
the town’s services, particularly in the case of solid waste disposal
where tonnage increases from a winter average of 25 to 30 tons per week
to around 80 tons per week during the suer season. The
characteristics of the solid waste alter as well, because si er
residents tend to consume more foods and beverages packaged in glass
and can containers. Meredith, therefore, has an unusual problem: How
can capacities for solid waste disposal be both reliably estimated and
increased in the st er at the least cost when landfilling is no longer
a viable option? Its implementation of an incinerator/recycling
project is of interest because it:
• Demonstrates how a viable alternative to an open dump can be
created in a situation where sanitary landfilling is not
geologically and environmentally possible;
• Demonstrates the ingredients of effective planning and
implementation for a small town and the importance of local
leadership in that process;
• Indicates the importance of mandatory source separation;
• Illustrates the cost to a small town undertaking a project on
its own;
• Illustrates some of the problems of determining facility size
and materials handling requirements;
• Illustrates some of the problems of determining facility size
and materials handling requirements.
• Points to the importance of competent personnel for operating
the facility; and
• Offers significant operating and capital cost information and
experience to other communities.

-------
Planning Phase
The planning phase began with creation of a Solid Waste Disposal
Committee at a March 1973 Town Meeting. During its first year the Corn—
inittee focused on finding a sanitary landfill site because of reCommen-
dations made by the Lakes Region Planning commission.
As a result, it made field investigations of 25 potential sites
located in Meredith and/or Center Harbor. Much of this activity of the
Committee was undertaken jointly with representatives of Center Harbor.
The conclusion of the Committee was that no suitable sites existed in
either town because of bedrock or high water table conditions.
In early September 1974 Meredith sponsored a meeting to learn more
about recycling and what other towns were doing to solve their solid
waste disposal. problem. During the fall, town officials spent consid
erable time investigating incinerators. One selectman developed a lay-
out and built a small—scale model of an incinerator building for Mere-
dith. Because available data concerning solid waste generation and the
vol e of recyclables was inadequate, it was difficult to determine the
appopriate size and layout of the building. Therefore, the preliminary
design and projected costs for a proposed incinerator plant had to be
based upon very rough estimates.
Despite the lack of a critically needed data base, sufficient pro-
gress had been made on the incinerator and recycling concept that the
Selectmen were willing to hold a public meeting on the subject in mid
December 1974. One week before the scheduled public meeting the
Selectmen launched a multi—media publicity campaign which ran for the
entire week. The theme of the campaign is best illustrated by one of
the local radio spot announcements — “It’s about garbage but it’s not
garbage. Tour money is involved.” The results of that public meeting
confirmed the belief of the Meredith Selectmen that conventional incin-
eration combined with some form of mandatory recycling, especially of
glass, was the best route. With assistance from the Town Engineer, the
design of the building was improved and more realistic cost estimates
were developed.

-------
In April 1975 the Selectmen reported to the State Air Pollution
Control Coimnias ion the results of the Town Meeting and advised that a
tentative site had been selected and that incinerators made by three
companies were being considered for possible purchase.
System Procurement Phase
By the beginning of 1975 the Selectmen had chosen equipment,
developed firm cost estimates, and determined that the best financing
route was through the Farmers Home Administration. In late February
the Selectmen, responding to a counique from the Governor’s office,
advised that they could not meet the legislatively set deadline of July
1, 1976 for the closing of its burning dump because they would not by
then have an alternative disposal method. They also pointed Out that
while some work had been accomplished on arrangements for the bond is-
sue and preparation of site plans and construction specifications there
was still a long implementation process involved, since they had to ob—
t&in State approval of their plan.
In June 1976 Town officials notified FmHA of its intent to apply
for a loan for $200,000 and to meet all required conditions. In the
latter part of that month they also complied with requirements of the
State Clearinghouse which is responsible for coordinating all requests
for Federal funds. In September 1976 the Town issued $200,000 in bond
anticipation notes to pay for construction and equipment. Site work
and construction proceeded rapidly as did delivery and installation of
the two Kelley—Hoskinson incinerators. As a result, the facility was
ready for the start of operations on January 4, 1977.
The Town was fortunate in being able to hire as plant manager an
employee of the Kelley—Roskinson dealer for New Hampshire. As a re-
sult, Meredith’s plant manager was completely familiar with the opera-
tions of the incinerators.
On March 22, 1977 the Selectmen of Meredith and Center Harbor
(year—round resident population of 640 persons) entered into an agree-
ment permitting Center Harbor to dispose of solid waste at the Inciner-
ator/Recycling Facility. In December 1976 Meredith executed a one year
contract (effective January 3, 1977) with Hooley and Rice Tire Co. in

-------
Derry, New Hampshire for the monthly removal of retreadable automobile
tire carcasses. In late May or early June the Town executed a contract
with Recycling Enterprises, Inc. for the sale of glass and cans. Fin-
ally, in early November 1977 the Town executed a memorandum of under-
standing with a Charles Elliot of Meredith for maintenance an4 clean up
of the heavy metal disposal and for removal, no less than twice weekly,
of accumulated materials.
Due to the inability of the incinerators to adequately process the
high tonnage of solid waste generated by the influx of suer residents
and tourists, the Town decided to remove cardboard, bale it, and sell
it. The Town, therefore, installed a Maren Vertical baler in late sum-
mer. While no contract appears to exist, the Town sells, on a regular
basis, baled cardboard to Hogue—Sprague located in West Hopkinton, New
Hamp sh ire.
Operating Phase
- In early February 1977 the Selectmen held a public hearing on
ai,ard, by the Selectmen, of the $200,000 bond issue to FmHA at par val-
ue and accrued interest. The bonds were issued February 10, 1977, the
seine date as the public hearing. Iediately following the public
hearing, the Selectmen passed a resolution awarding the sale of the
bonds to FmRA.
With the start of incinerator opertions in January, the Selectmen
wisely decided not to implement the mandatory glass separation ordi-
nance approved by the 1975 Town Meeting. Rather, they relied upon a
voluntary program until they could establish how successful it would be
and the extent of the impact on incinerator opertions. (Early in their
investigations of incineration, manufacturer representatives had made
the Selectmen keenly aware of operating problems caused by glass in
small, noncontinuously operated incinerators.) Town officials estima-
ted that prior to Memorial Day, about 40 percent of the residents par-
ticipated in the voluntary recycling program. Despite this high parti-
cipation, glass did create substantial operating problems due to slagg—
ing. With the influx of suer residents on Memorial Day, the Select-
men realized that they had to institute mandatory separation and
depositing of glass. Prior to actual implementation on July 5, 1977

-------
the Selectmen provided citizens information on the need for glass re-
moval. Town officials attribute the extremely positive response to
imposition of the mandatory requirement to the education/information
program and to the fact that many suer residents came from towns in
Massachusetts where recycling programs existed.
During the a er of 1977, the Town used the CETA program to em-
ploy teenagers to direct traffic at the recycling area and to assist
persons in depositing glass and cans into the appropriate compartment.
Even with traffic direction and disposal assistance the recycling area
became a major traffic bottleneck resulting in long queues on the major
road to the facility.
The volume of glass and cans deposited in the 30 cubic yard con-
tainer was so great during the suer months that substantial over
flows occurred between pick—ups by Recycling Enterprises. The unsitely
over flows created a considerable maintenance problem and caused some
Townspeople to question the adequacy of the operation.
- The Town has developed a new layout for the glass and can recy-
cling area which would greatly improve the traffic flow. However, this
layout has not been implemented since it would involve an estimated ex-
penditure of $13,000. This summer the plant manager intends to assign
one person responsibility for the deposit of glass and cans in appro-
priate compartments. Recycling Enterprises, if it picks up containers
of badly contaminated glass, deducts what it would have paid the Town
for acceptable tonnage from payments due the Town.
The decision by the plant manager to designate one employee re-
sponsible for the glass recycling area during the summer months repre-
sents an attempt to reduce the level of glass contaminationto an ac-
ceptable level. Most households have difficulty in understanding the
economic importance of keeping pieces of ceramics, plastics, and other
nonglass items out -of the separated glass and for keeping colored glass
separated from clear glass. Therefore, by inspecting each load of
glass before it is deposited in the appropriate compartment, the plant

-------
manager hopes to improve the quality of recyclable glass hence, reve-
nues to the Town.
One unexpected and serious operating problem has occurred which
other waterfront communities should take into account when considering
an incinerator project. Because Meredith is located on Lake Winnipe—
saukee, there is a large power boating population during the summer
months. While there are special disposal tanks provided at the various
marinas for pumping out boat toilets, there is a $3 charge -for the use
of euch facilities. As a result, a pattern has developed over the
years whereby boat operators have placed fecal matter in plastic bags,
placed those bags in larger plastic bags containing refuse, and depos-
ited this mixture of refuse and fecal matter in publically provided
trasji barrels located at the Town pier for the convenience of si er
residents living on nearby islands. The plant manager has notified the
Selectmen that if this situation is not corrected by this coming sum-
mer, he will not permit the incinerator building to be operated.
In 1977 during the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day, both
incinerators were operated 7 days per week. Each incinerator was oper-
ated an average or 19.2 hours per day. Because the approximately 5
hours was allowed for cooling down which was insufficient, the inciner-
ators were cleaned out while ash was still smoldering.
The volume of refuse was so great during the summer of 1977 (80
tons per week) that on many days the skid steer could not be used to
load the incinerators. As a result, the operators had to hand shovel
the waste into the automatic loading bin. The plant manager reported
that on some days refuse was piled up to the eaves of the building.
This condition resulted due to adequate information on the summer resi-
dent population and the per capita solid waste generation rate. This
lack of information led the Town to undersize the building by an esti-
mated 20—30 feet in length. Correction of this situation would be
costly because located outside at one end of the building is the fuel
storage tank and at the other the septic system. Furthermore,
extension of the building length would result in the incinerator
loading areas being located so that materials handling owuld be -
considerably less efficient. The Town, therfore, has decided to live
with the •tmmer overload problem.

-------
In auary, the Incinerator/Recycling Facility handled the follow-
ing tonnages in 1977:
PERCENT
TONS DISTRIBUTION
Incinerator 2,762.5 89.6
Recyclables 319.4 10.4
Cardboard 73.9 2.4
Glass 228.0 7.4
Cans 17.5 0.6
TOTAL TONNAGE 3,081.9 100.0
Although tonnage data on white goods, other heavy metals, and
tirçs is unavailable, an estimate based upon the pricing formula for
heavy metals and certain assumptions about the average price per ton
suggests that about 310 tons were sold during 1977.
Financing and Economics
The total capital cost of the Meredith facility is $225,143. The
Town Engineer prepared the final design of the incinerator building and
prepared the construction bid specifications. The value of this in—
house service is estimated to be $7,200 which has been added to actual
capital outlays. Thus, the estimated total capital cost of the facili-
ty (including equipment) is $232,343. In addition, the Town has appro-
priated $6,200 from general revenues for restoration of the old dump.
Project costs were financed through a 20 year low interest loan of
$200,000 from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). The FmHA loan is
secured by a 20 year general obligation bond issued by the Town in
March 1977. The terms of the bond provide that the annual principle
payment is $10,000 and that interest is at 5 percent on the unpaid bal’-
ance. The balance of the project cost was paid for from Revenue Shar—
lug funds ($25142.94) and in—house services (estimated at $7,200).
The imputed debt service for 1977 was estimated to amount to $23,234.30
(as opposed to actual debt service on the $200,000 bond issue of
$20,000). The imputed debt service accounts for the value of funds
used from Revenue Sharing and general appropriations and, thus, pro-
vides a more accurate assessment of real project costs.

-------
Operating costs were estimated to amount to $43,313 in 1977 which
differs from the reported Town expenditure of $37,745. The reason for
this difference is due to adjustments made to account for omissions
from the operating accounts for the cost of fringe benefits paid to em-
ployees and exclusion of the cost of ETA employees which were charged
to another budget account. Inclusion of these two items was necessary
in order to establish the true operating cost of the facility. In this
connection it should be noted that in the Town’s 1978 budget these two
items have been included as part of the cost of operation for the
facility. It also should be noted that under the terms of the Disposal
Agreement with Center Harbor the omitted and excluded costs could be
accounted for by Meredith in establishing the disposal charge to be
paid by Center Harbor.
The combined 1977 imputed debt service and adjusted operating cost
of $66,547 was reduced by net revenues of $9,561. Cross revenues were
generated through recycling ($4,576) and the Center Harbor disposal
service charge ($5,409), but reduced by recycling costs of $423. Thus,
annual net costs in 1977 amounted to $56,986, or $18.49 per ton pro-
cessed at the facility. In terms of the impact on the tax rate, solid
waste disposal amounted to $0.92 per $1,000 of total assessed valuation
and accounted for 3 percent of the total tax rate.

-------
TOWN OF MEREDITH, N.H.
I. CAPiTAL COST
INCINERATOR/RECYCLING PAC ILIT!
A. LAND
B. SITE DEVELOPMENT
C. BUILDING
Not Applicable
$ 40134.00
$ 50,678.33
Block Building
Building
Plumbing
Electric
Platforms and Ladder
Fuel Tank
Septic System
Water Main Extension
Shower Room
D. EQUIP? NT
82.10
30,857.00
1,172.22
3,050.83
6,068.88
5,488.15
450.00
1,807.51.
1,701.64
$132,621.28
2 Incinerators & Stack Extensions
Rake
Baler
Steam Cleaner
Skid—Steer Loader
Recycling Bins
E. ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION 1
F. MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
II. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
115,429.45
184 88
7,042.79
2,106.26
7,529.75
328.15
$ 500.75
$ 1,208.58
980.00
154.82
73.76
$225,142.94
A. BOND ISSUE (20 yrs. @ 5% on unpaid balance)
B. REVENUE SEARING FUNDS
C. IN—R JSE ENGINEERING SERVICES 2
D. ACTUAL DEBT SERVICE
E. D ’UTED DEBT SERVICE 4
( md. In—House Cost 6 Rev. Shar.)
$200. 000 . 00
$ 25,142.94
$ 7,200.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 23,234.30
Signs
Bulletin Board
Other

-------
TOWN OF MEREDITH, N.H.
INC INERATOR/ RECYCL INC FACILITY
III. OPERATING COSTS (1977)
A. LABOR
5
Manager 6
Operators
B. UTILITIES
Electricity
Telephone
Water
C.. FUEL
No. 2 Oil for Incinerators
Propane for Skid Steer
Gasoline
D. MAINTENANCE
Equipment
E. PARTS AND SUPPLIES
Stock Parts
Sm. Tools & Equip.
Operating Supplies
Uniforms
Build. Maint. & Supplies
(Primarily Pest Control Chemicals)
F. INSURANCE
G. OTHER
Dump Maintenance
TOTAL OPERATING COST
IV. ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (Imputed)
V. TOTAL ANNUAL COST (Operating & Debt Serv.)
$ 25,021.07
12,432.11
12,588.96
2,495.71
2,090.66
405.05
Not Available
$ 7,556.22
6,168.50
1,387.72
$ 1,511.87
1,511.87
$ 5,307.53
3,274.65
713.91
286.67
423.05
609.25
$ 717.12
$ 703.46
703.46
$ 43,312.98
$ 23,234.30
$ 66,547.28

-------
TOWN OF MEREDITH
INC INER.ATOR/ RECYCLING FAC ILITY
VI. REVENUES
A. REVENUES
Cardboard
Heavy Metals
Can
Glass
Tires
Batteries
B, OTHER
Center Harbor Service Fee
TOTAL REVENUES
Less: Recycling Transportation Costs
TOTAL NET REVENUES
VII. NET ANNUAL COST (Total annual cost less net revenue)
A. PER TON OF SOLID WASTE (3,081.9 TPY) 7
B. PER CAPITA (4,425 persons mci. CIH.)
C. AMOUNT ON TAX RATE PER $1000 TAV
$ 4,575.65
1,867.60
620.74
87.68
1,804.43
190.20
5.00
$ 5,409.03
5,409.03
$ 9,984.68
423.08
$ 9,561.60
$ 56,985.68
18.49
12.88
.92

-------
TOWN OF MEREDITH, N.H.
INCINERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
NOTES:
1. The total of $500.75 excludes the cost of engineering services. Engi-
neering design and preparation of construction bid specifications was
performed by the Town Engineer. Engineering costs whether performed by
a Town engineer or consultant represents a real project cost which should
be included in determining project economics. See Note 2 for the imputed
value of in—house engineering services.
2. The imputed cost of engineering services performed by the Town Engineer
was estimated at 8 percent of the combined capital cost for the building
and site development. Eight percent represents a typical engineering
consultant fee.
3. Actual debt service is for 1977, and is comprised of $10,000 for
principal repayment and $10,000 for interest. Interest payments will
decline in succeeding years per terms of the bond which requires that
interest will be applied to the unpaid balance of the bond issue. Thus,
for example, in 1978 interest will amount to $9,500.
4. In order to determine the full debt service that should apply to the
Incinerator/Recycling facility and imputed debt service was estimated
based upon inclusion of Revenue Sharing funds used for construction of
the facility and inclusion of the imputed cost of the Town Engineer’s
services. The total capital cost used to compute the imputed debt service
was $232,342.94. Imputed principal and interest were each estimated to be
$11,617.15. Inclusion of the Revenue Sharing funds and the estimated
TownEngineer’s costs appears to be consistent with the formula used to
establish the charge to Center Harbor for disposal at the Incinerator/
Recycling facility.
5. The 1977 cost of the facility manager was inflated to account for the
omission by the Town of fringe benefits in its accounts for the facility.
Also added to the cost of the facility manager was a pro rata share of
overtime expenses reported by the Town.

-------
TOWN OF MEREDITH, N.H.
INC INERATOR/RECYCL INC FACILITY
6. Operator labor costs were inflated to account for the omission of
fringe benefits in the Town accounts for the facility as well as pro
rata share of reported overtime expenses. In addition, an estimated
cost of suer help was added to the operator labor cost. In the
summer of 1977 the Town employed teenagers to direct traffic at the
recycling area of the facility and to assist in the disposal of color
sorted glass into the appropriate compartments of the roll—on— roll—off
container provided for glass and cans. The suer employee payroll was
charged to a different account as funds came through the Summer Youth
Corps program of the U. S. Department of Labor. The estimate for summer
teenage employment was estimated on the basis of 1978 budget requests
for facility operation which included summer employment. The amount
estimated for s mmier employment in 1977 amounted to $3,788.70.
7. The total tonnage of solid waste includes 2,762.5 TPY of trash which
was incinerated and 319.4 TPY of recyclables. The net cost for incin-
eration amounted to $20.48 per ton of refuse.
(Note: The cost associated with the closing of the old dump is
excluded from the economic analysis of the facility. In 1977 the
Town appropriated $4,200 for this work, but it was unexpended and
carried over to the 1978 budget.)

-------
THE RECYCLING PROJECT OF SWANZEY, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Located in• the southwest corner of the State of New Hampshire,
just south of Keene, Swanzey is a small community with an estimated
1976 population of 4,800. It serves as a bedroom community of eene
and its finances are beset with traditional problems of this type of a
community, particularly large numbers of children in school and rising
costs of services • It is dependent upon the traditional town meeting
and elected Selectmen. The recycling project in Swanzey leads to the
following insights:
• Mandatory recycling is important if a project is to be success—
fu 1.
.. When a co nunity depends upon another community’s facilities,
its solid waste solutions are subject to the conditions set by
the other community.
• Small communities may require technical and planning assistance
when developing solutions to their solid waste problems.
Planning Phase -
Planning began with a search for a landfill site in the community.
Because all investigated sites had environmental and/or neighborhood
problems, Swanzey opted to take advantage of Keene’ s decision to open
its landfill operation to adjacent communities. The interesting aspect
of this project is Swanzey’s relationship with Keene.
System Procurement Phase
Swanzey has contracted to send its solid waste to eene, except
for that portion recycled, and wood, brush, whitegoods and tires. It
pays Keene $4.26 per ton, delivered to Keene; Community Sanitation,
Inc. hauls waste from the recycling/transfer center to the ICeene site
at a cost of $762 per month, In addition, there are private commercial
haulers in the town who also haul solid waste directly to the Keene
facility. Svanzey pays Keene $4.26 for each ton these haulers deposit
as well. Private hauler pick up and transportation costs are paid by
the individuals. For recycled goods, contracts have been let with Re-
cycling Enterprises for glass and Springfield Paper Stock for paper and
cardboard.

-------
The town in its 1974 town meeting appropriated a total of $70,000
for the recycling center. Of this amount, $32,000 was expended and the
center opened in July 1975. Swanzey has financed the process through-
out, without federal assistance.
All of the technical planning work was performed by the selectmen
and the road agent. The building was contractor—built without the sex—
vices of an architect.
Operating Phase
The recycling center opened on July 1, 1975. The dump was closed
at that time except for open burning of wood. It has slowly been
cleaned and leveled by the Department of Public Works.
The facility is located immediately adjacent to the highway de—
par ment and is supervised by the road agent for the town. In 1977,
approximately 2,500 tons of waste were generated in Svanzey, about
2,400 of which were deposited at the Keene landfill. Only 704 tons of
this waste were processed through the recycling/transfer center and
transported to Keene by Community Sanitation, Inc. In this same year
approximately 73.4 tons of paper and corrugated board and 38.8 tons of
glass were recycled and sold for a revenue of $2,215.53.
The recycling facility is utilized for the baling and storage of
paper and the storage of cans. Residents color separate glass in
marked bins by the entrance, drop off cardboard, paper and cans in sep-
arate bins, then deposit the remaining solid waste in a compactor/coir
tamer supplied by Community Sanitation. White goods, tires and brush
are deposited approximately 200 yards behind the building. No adequate
arrangements for selling white goods, tires and cans has been made.
The one employer, who works thirty hours per week, maintains the
facility, bales and stores paper, and runs the compactor for Community
Sanitation. The operation is relatively simple; the major problem has
been inadequate resident participation in the separation of recyclable
materials. Many citizens send unseparated waste with private collec-
tors to the Keene landfill.

-------
This situation suggests mandatory recycling would be advisable in
Swanzey. Because it is not required, residents can elect to go outside
the system to meet their solid waste needs. This and the need to fur-
ther develop alternatives for solid waste disposal are the greatest
problems facing Swanzey. The current dependence on Keene represents a
partial and unsatisfactory solution for Swanzey. If Keene decides, for
example, to extend the life of its landfill by reserving the site ex-
clusively for its own waste, Swanzey would have no recourse. Further-
more, Keene’s landfill will be saturated in approximately six years.
These problems are compounded by the fact that Swanzey appears to lack
both the resources and the planning capacity to fully develop solutions
for its solid waste disposal problems, while the need to develop solu-
tions has been mandated by the state.
Currently, two options are being discussed, both involving region-
al solutions using waste to produce energy. Developing adequate solu-
tions will not be easy for a coi unity the size of Swanzey, and it is
possible decision—makers would benefit from state or federal assistance
in assessing and developing options.
ncin
The metal building, including foundation, electrical systems, and
town water cost the town $24,200. Additional capital costs involved a
$5,000 baler and a second—hand forklift worth $2,800. Capital costs
were financed directly from the Town’s annual budget. Out of the
$70,000 originally voted for this purpose, only $32,000 was expended.
Table 1 illustrates total costs for all solid waste disposal in
Swanzey and also shows the costs attributable to the recycling center.
Table 2 indicates the income received from the recycling center for
1977 (1976 figures are not available): $10 per ton was paid for glass;
$30 for newspaper; $10 for mixed paper; and $20 for corrugated board.

-------
TABLE ONE: COSTS OF SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL, SWANZEY, NEW HANPSHIRE
1976 and 1977
1976
Recycling Center
Total Only
Recycling Center
Total Only
1977
Salaries
$ 4,873.58
$
4,873.58
$
5,015.56
$
5,015.56
Group Insurance
——
995.28
995.28
Withholding
269.90
269.90
327.70
327.70
PICA
252.90
252.90
709.50
709.50
Fuel
1,373.23
1,373.23
1,284.39
1,284.39
Telephone
195.88
195.88
175.46
175.46
Electricity
481.03
481.03
542.51
542.51
Pest Control
37.00
37.00
50.00
50.00
Repair Parts
339.76
339.76
Signs
287.89
287.89
Refuse Removal
9,144.00
9,144.00
9,906.00
9,906.00
Rental of Keene
Landfill
10,379.00
2,999.04*
10,672.36
2,299.04*
Insurance
—
—
1,472.00
1,472.00
Total
$28,204.17
$20,824.41
$31,459.28
$23,786.06
* For portion of solid waste generated by recycling center only.

-------
TABLE TWO
INCOME FROM SWANZEY RECYCLING CENTER FOR 1977
February 28 Springfield Paper Stock $ 259.61
Nay 5 Springfield Paper Stock 260.81
June 1 Recycling Enterprises 253.90
July 5 Springfield Paper Stock 317.50
July 13 Recycling Enterprises 134.70
July 22 Springfield Paper Stock 389.35
September 7 Norman Buf fun 60.00
September 28 Springfield Paper Stock 292.46
November 30 Recycling Enterprises 247.20
Total $2,215.53

-------
TOWN OF SWANZEY, N . H.
RECYCLING/TRANSFER FACILITY
1. CAPITAL COST
A. LAND
B. SITE PREPARATION & BUILDING
C. EQUIPMENT
Paper Baler
Skid Steer Loader (used)
D. ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
IMPUTED ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1
Financed for 10 years @ 5 percent interest
11. OPERATING COSTS (1977)
A. LABOR
Manag r (imputed) 2
Labor
B. UTILITIES
Electricity
Telephone
Water & Sewer
C. FUEL
Fuel for Skid Steer
D. MAINTEN&NCE
Pest Control
E. PARTS AND SUPPLIES
Repair Parts
Strapping for Baler & Signs
Rental Equipment (Compactor)
F. INSURANCE 4
Not Applicable
$24,200.00
7,800.00
5,000.00
2,800.00
Not Applicable
$32,000.00
4,072.92
$ 7,658.42
1,500.00*
6,158.42*
676. 91*
481.03
195.88
Not Available
$ 1,373.23*
1,373.23
$ 37.00*
37.00
$ 1.197.65*
339.76
287.89
570.00
$ 736.00*

-------
C. OTHER
TOWN OF SWANZEY, N.H.
RECYCLIN( /TRANSFER FACILITY
Refuse Removal
Rental of Keene Landfill
TOTAL OPERATING COST
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (Imputed)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Operating and Debt Service)
V. RECYCLING REVENUES
A. PAPER
News
Mixed
Corrugated
B. GLASS AND CANS
C. MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL REVENUES
ANNUAL COST (Total annual cost less revenues)
PER TON OF SOLID WASTE (2550.2 TPY)
PER CAPITA (4,800 persons)
AMOUNT OF TAX RATE PER $1,000 TAV
RECYCLING/TRANSFER FACILITY ONLY (816.2 TPY)
$ 1519.73
1, ilL 40
248 .65
159.68
635.80
60.00
$ 2,215.53
$33,059.60
$ 12.96
6.89
.86
31.41
III.
IV.
$19,523.00
9,144.00*
10,379.00
$31,202.21 ($23,783.26)
$ 4,072.92*
$35,275.13 ($27,856.18)
VI. NET
A.
B.
C.
D.
($25 ,640 .65)

-------
TOWN OF SWANZEY, N.E.
RECYCLING/ TRJJINSFER FACILITY
NOTES :
1. The Town financed all capital expenditures out of general appropria-
tions. In order to prc,vide comparison with all the other facilities
in New Hampshire, an imputed debt service was assigned to the facility.
Because other facilities in New Hampshire have been financed over a
ten year period, the imputed debt service was calculated on the assump-
tion of a ten year financing at an interest rate of 5 percent. It
also should be noted that use of an imputed debt service gives a more
realistic picture of the annual cost of solid waste disposal.
2. The Town does not assign the supervisory time of the Highway Agent to
the Recycling/Transfer Facility, but rather includes the cost of the
Highway Agent to the Highway Department budget. In order to estimate
the true annual cost of disposal, an allocation of an estimated $1500
for management was made to the annual operative cost of the Facility.
This estimate assumed that only 10 percent of the Highway Agent’s time
was involved in supervision of the Facility because of the location
of the Highway Department office and the Facility.
3. In 1977, the Town did not show any expenditure for group insurance for
the employee at the Recycling/Transfer Facility. However, it did re-
port an expenditure in 1976 for this item. Therefore, an estimate was
made for 1977 based on the proportion group insurance was to total
salaries and fringe benefit expenditures in 1976.
4. In 1977, the Town did not show any expenditure for insurance. However,
in 1976, the Town spent $1,472 for insurance. It was assumed that half
that amount represented premium payment for 1977.
5. Values in parentheses apply to Recycling/Transfer Facility. The compo-
nents of cost identified by an asterisk (*) represent those which are
applicable to the Facility per se. To derive the total cost and net
annual cost for the Facility, the total payment to Keene for disposal

-------
TOWN OF SWANZEY, N.H.
RECYCLING /TRA1 SFER FACILITY
at the landfill was apportioned on the basis of the proportion of total
solid waste tonnage landfil].ed accounted for by the tonnage hauled from
the transfer operations at the Facility.
(Note: The cost for final grading and closing of the open dump is not
included in the above cost figures. It was impossible to break-
out the cost for dump closing from the Highway Department
budget.)

-------
TH.E INCINERATOR AND RECYCLING PROJECT OF PLYMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Plymouth is located about 30 miles north of Concord, the state
capital of New Hampshire, and about 126 miles north of Boston. The
town is situated in the lakes region of the state, but unlike many of
its neighboring towns does not contain a lake affording recreational
opportunities and attractions. As a result Plymouth is not subject to
a large influx of suer tourists and residents. In 1976, the
estimated population of the town was 5,330 persons. Of this total,
about 2,300 persons were students at Plymouth State College. Town
officials estimate that si er residents offset the loss of students
during that season, thus providing a stable year round population
level. In addition to being a college town, Plymouth has a substantial
business center which serves a trading area containing a population of
approximately 20,000 persons.
The Plymouth incinerator/recycling project is of interest because
it:
• Demonstrates how a viable alternative to an open dump can be
created in a situation where sanitary landfilling is not
geologically and environmentally possible;
• Demonstrates how an effective implementation process can be
carried out by small towns;
• Illustrates the cost which must be borne by a small town when
it must “go it alone” because of the lack of willingness by
neighboring towns to cooperate in a regional solution to solid
waste disposal;
• Contributes to the realization that with careful planning
mandatory recycling can work and make a positive contribution
to solving the overall solid waste disposal problem faced by
small towns;
• Has significant operating experience and data from which other
small towns contemplating a similar project can learn and
benefit; and
• Illustrates some of the problems in materials handling which
can arise when a project is not designed from a systems point
of view.

-------
Plannin _ g _ Phase
In response to the legislation requiring its open dump to close,
Plymouth created the Regional Refuse Disposal Committee at its 1973
Town Meeting. (All cotmnittee meetings were open to the public and
media was invited. At least one Selectman was present at each meet-
ing.) During the first year of the Regional Refuse Disposal Committee a
thorough study was made to locate sanitary landfill sites within the
Town as veil as to establish a regional landfill solution with the
neighboring towns of Compton, Rumney, Holderness and Ashland. Using
soils maps, four potential sites were selected, all of which were later
rejected. The effort to seek a regional solution also failed, because
none of the neighboring towns wanted to host a regional sanitary land-
fill and none was currently under pressure to close their burning
dumps. Because these communities were likely to cease operation of
their burning dump within a few years, Plymouth officials remained
resolute in their belief that a regional approach would ultimately
materialize. This belief affected decisions on incinerator selection
and facility design.
Very early the Coimnittee tentatively concluded that incineration
was probably the best solution to the town’s disposal problem. To
learn more about incineration the Committee invited a number of manu-
facturers to provide equipment information, and the Committee and
Selectmen visited incinerator installations and spoke with individuals
associated with the projects. Both the Committee members and Selectmen
became convinced as a result of their visit to the installation in
Welifleet, Massachusetts that incineration was highly feasible in Ply-
mouth.
In April 1974 Selectmen requested from the Air Pollution Control
Conmiission a one year extension in the date for closing the burning
dump. The Commission notified the Town in late June that it was grant-
ing a variance only until January 1, 1975 contingent upon submission of
a favorable report of progress being made within the first three month
period of the six month extension. Also in April representatives from
the Solid Waste Management office of the Department of Public Health
and Welfare visited the dump site and advised the Selectmen that in
their opinion part of the Town dump could be safely used for the dis-
posal of incinerator residue.

-------
During their many deliberations on incineration the Committee and
Selectmen came to appreciate the role recycling could play not only as
part of the overall management of solid waste disposal (because of its
contribution to reducing the volume of material to be ultimately land—
filled) but through improvement in incineration operation, especially
if glass were removed. However, Committee members and Selectmen were
highly doubtful that recycling would be acceptable to residents,
especially if it were mandatory. Despite this uncertainty with respect
to recycling, the Coi ittee and Selectmen proceeded to develop a facil-
ity concept involving substantial processing of recyclable materials—
baling of cardboard and newspapers, separation of tin and aluminum
cans, separation of glass, crushing of glass and cans, and substantial
indoor storage areas for each of these various materials. Central to
thei approach was the need to make it as easy as possible for resi-
dents to deposit each type of separated material, in order to encourage
participation in a recycling program. Thus, they developed a concept
of a one stop area adjacent to the incinerator operation at which resi—
d nts could simply and quickly deposit their recyclables.
In addition to carefully developing a recycling concept, town of-
ficials also explored the possibility of producing steam for sale to a
local user. Because of severe space limitations faced by local indus-
try, the only potential user apeared to be Plymouth State College. The
timing seemed propitious since the college had an old boiler which it
needed to replace; however, for a few reasons, the college rejected the
concept and as a result it was clear that an incinerator/recycling
facility would have to be located at the existing dump site.
By mid sun er the Committee and Selectmen had narrowed their
choice of incinerator equipment down to that supplied by one vendor.
As a result, the Selectmen held a public meeting on August 12, 1974 at
which Combustion Engineering Company was invited to give a presentation
on the incineration of refuse. ThiS meeting was held about 6 weeks
prior to the Town Meeting rescheduled for September 24, 1974. The
reason for selection of Combustion Engineering was:
• Their installation at Welifleet was working well, whereas at
other incinerator installations visited the equipment had not
been operating properly or had broken down.

-------
• The bombay door feature for ash removal and ram loading whereas
the Kelley equipment they had seen required manual loading and
manual removal of ash. (Note: It is understood that sometime
in 1976 Combustion Engineering withdrew from the manufacture
and sale of small municipal incinerators.)
• The company guaranteed the equipment would meet air pollution
control standards and if after state testing the state did not
issue the Town a certificate for operation the company would
remove the equipment at its cost and the Town would not have to
pay for the purchase.
The October 3, 1974 Emergency Town Meeting voted (in secret bal-
lot) an overwhelming 87 percent in favor of the article to finance for
$25,000 an incinerator and recycling facility. Town officials believe
that in addition to information on the success in welifleet the follow-
ing factors accounted for the high support given to the project:
• Documentation that sanitary landfill sites did not exist within
the Town, and there was no likelihood of a regional landfill
solution.
• The facility would be located at the existing dump—site.
• Recycling had advantages in that it would produce some income
as an off set against operating cost; would contribute to re-
ducing the volume of material to be landfilled, thus extending
the useful life of the area to be set aside at the dump for ash
disposal; and the removal of glass through recycling would im-
prove the operating efficiency of the incinerator.
• A negative vote by the Town Meeting would permit the State to
come in and build the plant and bill the Town over a period of
20 years. (It was argued that this would be more costly than
if the Town issued its own bonds for the facility.)
At the Emergency Town Meeting, the Committee discussed the fact
that consideration had been given to establishment of a fee system to
pay for the operating cost of the facility. This payment method had
been investigated primarily as a means of collecting from Plymouth
State College its fair share for the use of the incinerator/recycling
facility. In the end, however, it was decided to rely on taxation as

-------
the method of payment even though the college could not be taxed. The
reason for this decision was that it was felt that a fee system could
prove to be most complicated. Although the Town does not collect from
the college for its use of the facility, it did work out a very satis-
factory arrangement. The college agreed to assign one of its employees
to work at the facility on a full time basis, and to cover salary and
fringe benefits for this person.
System Procurement Phase
In late October 1974 the Selectmen (following interviews with
representatives from several firms) retained the services of a local
area consulting engineer to undertake preparation of the design of the
facility, to select equipment and materials, to prepare plans and
spec ification for building construction and site development, to assist
the Selectmen in obtaining and evaluating bids and awarding contracts,
and to provide construction supervision. Also in late October the
Selectmen entered into an agreement to purchase a Model 2000 Coinbustall
incinerator from The Air Preheater Company (a subsidiary of Combustion
Engineering, Inc.) for a price of $95,000. The Selectmen also in
October notified the Air Pollution Control Commission of the Town Meet-
ing to vote on the bond issue and the purchase agreement for the incin-
erator, and requested an extension of its variance with respect to the
January 1, 1975 date to cease open burning at the dump. (Extension to
July 1, 1975 was granted by the Air Pollution Control Coi iission in
mid—January 1975.)
In late March 1975 the consulting engineer filed a permit applica-
tion for the incinerator with the Air Pollution Control Agency, and a
few days later filed Site Operations Plans for the Incinerator/ Recyc-
ling Facility along with soil data with the state Department of Health
and Welfare.
In mid April the Department approved the use of the existing dump
as the site for the Incinerator/Recycling Facility subject to the con-
ditions on the following page.

-------
• No open—burning (of stumps and brush) was to occur except as
authorized by the Air Pollution Control Agency.
• The existing dump must be properly closed.
• The site could only be operated in accordance with the Site
Operation Plan.
• Only incinerator ash could be landfilled at the site.
All construction work was to be completed within 180 days, or by
December 1,1975. It was particularly important that site work, founda-
tions, and the building shell (at least for refuse disposal) be com-
pleted in July, since the Town was anticipating delivery of its incin-
erator that month.
During the early summer the Town advertised for the purchase of a
paper baler, truck scales, travelling can and glass smasher (crusher/
mutilator), and a skid steer with a lifting capacity of 1700 pounds.
Orders for this equipment were placed in late August.
As construction progressed it became clear that actual costs would
xceed the original $250,000 approved by the Emergency Town Meeting.
Revised estimates prepared in early August 1975 indicated that local
project costs were likely to amount to slightly under $301,000. This
increase in costs resulted from construction change orders and the need
for additional site work, such as the Town’s share of the dump face
resurfacing and paving of the access to the facility. With respect to
the cost for restoring and refacing the old dump, the Selectmen decided
that $4,000 would be spent Out of the capital account, and the remain-
ing $5,200 cost would be taken out of general revenues. The reason for
this decision was that restoration work would be spread over a 2 to 3
year period following the start of operation of the Incinerator/Recyc
ling Facility. Because the Town had not been required to pay the full
purchase price of the incinerator until certification by the State, the
Selectmen decided to wait until the next regularly scheduled Town meet-
ing to obtain approval for the additional expenditures. During the
fall, the Selectmen also determined that they could secure another FmHA
low interest loan for the additional $50,000.

-------
Prior to completion of construction, the Selectmen became con-
vinced that mandatory recycling would be necessary in order to be suc-
cessful. However, they decided that it would be best to start recyc-
ling on a voluntary basis in order to get townspeople accustomed to a
change in behavior.
Operating Phase
The incinerator/recycling facility began operating on February 1,
1976. The facility provides for combined incineration and recycling
processing operations under one roof. The facility is equipped with
one incinerator capable of processing up to 12.5 tons per day (TPD) of
municipal refuse at a continuous charging rate of 8 hours per day. The
capacity of the incinerator is in excess of the daily tonnage of solid
waste generated by the Town. Because of excess capacity, the incinera-
tor is operated only 4—5 days per week. Ash from the incinerator is
removed once every three days. The incinerator is physically located
outside the building on an elevated concrete platform. The incinerator
has an automatic rem loading device and is equipped with bombay doors
which permit ash to drop directly into an ash bin located directly
beneath the incinerator. Refuse is dumped on an enclosed tipping floor
comprising about half the total floor area of the building. Refuse is
moved by a skid steer loader from the tipping floor via a ramp to the
automatic ram loading hopper of the incinerator.
All vehicles bringing refuse for incineration are weighed on 30
ton capacity truck scales before entering the tipping floor area. The
dumped refuse is inspected by the facility staff to determine that it
is relatively free of materials mandated to be separated from refuse by
households and commercial, institutional and industrial enterprises.
Based upon scale recordings an estimated 1500 tons per year are pro-
cessed through the incinerator.
When the facility opened, the Selectmen established a voluntary
recycling program which was well received by Townspeople. Taking
advantage of the positive response, Selectmen held several public
hearings on the subject of a mandatory program. At these hearings the

-------
Selectmen pointed out the effect of glass and cans on the operations of
the incinerator——slagging, increased auxiliary fuel consumption due to
non—combustible material in the refuse to be incinerated, the need to
daily remove incinerator ash, the advantage of reducing the volume of
incinerator ash and landfill requirements through removal of recyc—
lables, and the increase in revenues from the sale of recycled materi-
als which could help offset annual operating costs. Wisely, the
Selectmen also used these public hearings to obtain reactions from
residents as well as their suggestions for implementing a mandatory
program. As a result of this public education and information process
the Selectmen were empowered by the Town Meeting to institute a manda-
tory recycling program. A copy of the ordinance La presented following
this discussion.
.In May, 1976, the Town entered into a two year agreement with
Recycling Enterprises, Inc. of North Oxford, Massachusetts for the pur-
chase of glass and cans. Although a formal agreement does not appear
to exist for the sale of newspaper and corrugated cardboad, the Town
sells these recovered materials on a regular basis to Haverhill Box—
board in Massachusetts. It has also made some sales to a boxboard com-
pany in Canada. Contracts for the sale of white goods and other large
scrap metal items do not exist. These materials are stored outside and
perodically sold to a scrap metal dealer. Other bulky items, such as
used furniture, are stored and sold to town residents through a contin-
uously run “yard sale.” Discarded automobile tires currently are
stored at the facility site. However, the Town is optimistic that the
recent opening of a tire processing operation which will produce tire
based fuel pellets as a supplemental fuel for the New Hampshire Public
Service Company will provide a market outlet.
Recyclable materials processing involves baling of newspapers and
corrugated into 1,700 pound bales, and the use of an automatic can and
glass crusher to increase the density of materials for transport to Re-
cycling Enterprises, Inc. A special entrance and tipping area is pro-
vided for trucks delivering paper products. Inside storage is provided
for approximately 40 bales. A special entrance is provided for access
by truck (and the 30 cu. yd. roll—on—roll off container) to pick up the

-------
bales. Some 42—54 tote bins are used to store crushed glass and cans.
These bins are periodically dumped into a 30 cu. yd. roll—on—roll off
container supplied by Recycling Enterprises.
One attractive feature of Plymouth’s recycling operation is the
one—stop area for deliveries of glass, cans, newspapers, corrugated
cardboard and mixed paper products delivered by automobile. Vehicles
stop on one side of the building and the vehicle operator then depos-
its, through a series of specially marked windows, each of the recyc-
lable materials. Facility staff carefully inspect the glass for con-
taminants, such as ceramics, plastics and bottletops, and to make cer-
tain that brown and green glass containers are not mixed in with the
clear glass, all contaminants are removed by hand. Glass and cans are
manually shoveled separately into an automatically controlled, travel
ling crusher/mutilator. Crushed materials are deposited into tote bins
which once filled are pushed to a special storage area. Once this area
is filled other tote bins are stored outside on one side of a 35 foot
long loading dock.
Annually, the tonnage of recovered materials processed through the
facility in 1977 was:
Newspaper & Corrugated Tons
Glass and Cans 183.26
324.64
In addition, an estimated 15—20 tons of white goods and scrap metal and
approximately 50 tons of tires were stored at the facility as of April
1978. The Town also operates a so called “yard sale” where residents
can buy old furniture, radios, TV’s, picture frames, etc. left by other
residents.
In summary, annual tonnage processed through the facility (exclus-
ive of white goods, heavy metals, tires and yard sale items) in 1977
was:

-------
Percent
Tons Distribution
Refuse 1500.0 74.7
Recyclables 507.9 25.3
Total 2007.9 100.0
Despite the advantage and success of the recycling operations, the
Plymouth facility has experienced some problems. The ramp from the re-
fuse disposal portion of the building to the incinerator loading bin
ices up in the winter complicating skid steer operations. The skid
steer purchased by the Town did not have sufficient capacity to lift
the 1700 pound bales of paper, therefore, it was necessary to rent a
skid steer for much of the time during the first year. The can/glass
crusher also presented problems — delivery was delayed, and then fre-
quent jaimning occured. Because of the layout of the facility’s recyc-
ling portion, it was difficult to get the 30 cubic yard container pro-
vided by Recycling Enterprises into and out of the building. Town of-
ficials admit this is an example of the price they have had to pay due
to lack of experience in materials handling.
Financing and Project Economics
The total cost of the Plymouth project was $351,463. Of this
total, $300,463 represents the cost of building construction, equipment
purchase and installation, engineering, legal and administrative costs
and a small outlay for closing the dump and its reclamation. The
balance of $51,000 represents the remaining cost for restoration of the
dump.
Project costs are financed through a 10 year low interest loan
from the Farmers Rome Administration (FHA) for $300,463. Because the
maximum size of any one FHA loan is $250,000, it was necessary for the
Town to file two loan applications at different time periods. As a re-
sult, each loan bears a different rate of interest. The combined an-
nual debt service (principal and interest) on the two loans amounts to
$45,000. Loan repayment funds are raised through local property taxes.
The $51,000 cost for resurfacing the old dump face, trench work and

-------
/
planting is split between the Town ($5800) and the North Country Re-
source Conservation and Development Project, Inc., (NCRCDP) ($45,200).
The Town has treated its share as an operating cost of the incinerator!
recycling facility. Funds for the NCRCDP portion of the dump reclama-
tion work were supplied through the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Operating costs are included as part of the Town’s budget. Annual
operating costs (including the salary of one man currently paid for by
Plymouth State College) amounted to $42,006 in 1976 and $50,737 in
1977. The 1977 increase in operating costs over those for 1976 is
largely accounted for by the fact that the Town found it necessary to
trade in its front end loader (used to feed MSW into incinerator??) (to
lift recycled paper) for a new one with a greater lift capacity.
The combined debt service and operating cost of $95,737 was re-
duced by revenues of $11,962 generated through recycling and (to a
minor extent) through fines charged for non—compliance with the manda-
tory recycling requirement. Thus, annual net costs in 1977 amounted to
$85,150, or $16.06 per capita. Based on annual tons of solid waste
processed at the facility, annual net costs in 1977 amounted to $42.63
per ton. The 1977 annual net cost per ton in Plymouth (while high) is
expected by Town officials to decline modestly because there will be no
inclusion of a one—time cost for a new front end loader and the cur-
rently high insurance premiums on the facility should decline substan-
tially when a Town water main is extended to the facility in 1978 for
fire protection purposes.

-------
TOWN CF PLThIOUTH, N.H.
INCINERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
I. CAPITAL COST (1975)
A. LAND Not Applicable
B. SITE DEVELOPMENT $ 47.304
General Conditions 7,455
Excavation & Site Work 20,536
Fencing 3,050
Seeding & Mulching 2,700
Reface Slopes of Dump & Close 4,000
Pave Access Road 9,563
C. BUILDING 109,713
Foundation & Masonry 45,253
Building Structure 39,405
Mechanical 8,736
Electrical 16,319
D. EQUIPMENT $129,139
Incineration Equipment 95,000
Truck Scale 10,500
Skid—steer Loader 9,000
Crusher 5,579
Paper Baler 6,560
Container, tools, etc. 2,500
E. ENGINEERING, LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION $ 12,740
F. CONTRACTOR’S BOND $ 1,567
TOTAL COST FINANCED $300463
II. CAPITAL COST FINANCING
A. BOND ISSUE
10 years @ 4.3% interest $250,000
10 years @ 5.0% interest 50,000
B. ACTUAL DEBT SERVICE
Principal $ 30,000
Interest 15,000
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $ 45,000

-------
TOWN OF PLYMOUTh
INC INERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
III. OPERATING COSTS (1977)
A. LABOR $ 25,835.00
Manager 2 10,935.00
Laborers 14,900.00
B. W ILITIES $ 2,488.00
Electricity 1,871.00
Telephone 545.00
Water & Sewer 72.00
C. FUEL $ 6,027.00
Gas for Skid Steer 1,171.00
Gas for Incinerator 47.00
Fuel f or Incinerator 4,809.00
D. MAINTENANCE $ 3,879.13
Case Uni Loader 328.84
Incinerator 1,665.20
Can Crusher 757.82
Baler -
Building and Grounds 783.27
Scales 35.00
Mowing 28.00
Work by Highway Dept. 118.00
Construction & Sitework 163.00
E. PARTS AND SUPPLIES $ 1,695.00
Tires 26.00
Ties for Baler 166.00
Tools 116.00
Parts (crusher incinerator) 1,226.00
Rental of Front End Loader 161.00
F. INSURANCE 3 $ 3,771.00
C OThER $ 7,490.00
Miscellaneous 4 643.00
Net Purchase of Case Uni 6,800.00
Loader
Travel 47.00
TOTAL OPERATING COST $ 51,185.13

-------
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH, N .11.
INC INERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Operating & Debt Service)
VI. REVENUES (1977)
A. RECYCLING
Paper 5
Cans & Glass
Scrap Metal
Yard Sale
B. OTHER
Separation Fees (Fines)
Scale
Permits
Insurance Refunds
TOTAL REVENUES
TRANSPORTATION COST OF RECYCLABLES
Paper
TOTAL
VIII. NET ANNUAL COST
(Total annual costs less
revenues plus transportation costs)
A. Per Ton of Solid Waste 6
(mel. recyclables)
B. Per Capita (5,330 Persons md.
College)
C. Amount on Tax Rate per $1000 TAV
$ 10,096.00
6,665.00
2,525.00
552.00
354.00
$ 1,866.00
1,530.00
66.00
30.00
240.00
$ 11,962.00
IV.
V.
$ 45,000.00
$ 96,185.13
VII.
$ 1,375.00
1,375.00
$ 85,598.13
$ 42.63
$ 16.06
$ 2.57

-------
TOWN OF PLYMOUTh, N.H.
INCINERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
NOTES:
1. Only $4,000 of the total cost to the Town of $9,200 was included in
the bond issue. The balance of $5,200 will be paid out of general
revenues, and thus treated as an operating cost, since work on re-
surfacing the face of the dump planting and landscaping is being
done over several years. The total cost of dump resurfacing is
$55,100 of which $45,200 is being paid for by a grant from the
North Country Resource Conservation and Development Project, Inc.
2. Includes the cost of $8400 per year for the laborer supplied by
Plymouth State College at no cost to the Town.
3. The cost of insurance on the facility is expected to decline sub-
stantially during 1978 as a result of a water main being extended
to the facility and a hydrant being located at the facility.
4. The Town decided to purchase in May 1977 a new front end loader
because the one originally purchased was unable to lift the bales
of paper weighing 1700 lbs. to sufficient height for stacking.
Following a competitive solicitation, the Town purchased a Case
18455 Uni Loader for $13,290 with a trade—in allowance of $6,490
for its 1976 Melroe Bobcat Skid Loader, or a net price of $6,800.
5. Revenues for cans and glass are net of transportation and processing
costs borne by the buyer of these materials. Transportation costs
are understood to include round trip mileage between North Oxford,
Mass. and Plymouth, N.H. as well as transportation costs for
delivery of glass to Dayville, Conn. and tin cans to Elizabeth, N.J.

-------
TOWN OF PLYMOUTH, N . H.
INCINERATOR/RECYCLING FACILITY
6. Tons of solid waste processed through the incinerator and recycling
facility amounted to 2007.9 tons in 1977. The high cost per ton is
due to several factors: a) amortization of the debt service over
10 years rather than 20 years; b) the coat for replacing the skid
steer; c) the high insurance premium due to lack of a hydrant at
the facility. If the $300,000 bond issue had been amortized over
20 years, annual debt service would have been $17,413 less than
that required for the 10—year amortization period. This would
have reduced annual cost by $8.67 per ton of solid waste processed
through the facility. If the skid steer had not had to be pur-
chased, but the high maintenance and parts cost experienced in
1976 been expended in 1977, the Cost per ton would have been re-
duced by $2.59. Despite these factors, Plymouth does pay an
unusally high cost for disposal as a result of having to go it
alone.

-------
1. HOURS
TOWN OF PLYMOUTh
INCINERATOR—RECYCLING FACILITY
ORDINANCE
be separated into the following categories:
(1) COLORED GLASS SHALL MEAN ANY BROWN OR GREEN
EMPTY GLASS CONTAINERS
(2) CLEAR GLASS SHALL MEAN ANY EMPTY TRANSPARENT
GLASS CONTAINERS OR GLASS PRODUCTS THAT ARE
NOT COLORED
(1) All metal containers under 5 gallon size
(2) White goods such as refrigerators, etc.
(3) Scrap metal such as pipe, car parts, cast
iron, etc.
(4) Other metal such as wire, metal strapping,
metal containers containing grease or other
inflsimm bles shall go to the incinerator.
SHALL BE CLEAN AND DRY. PAPER BAGS AND
MAGAZINES SHALL BE KEPT SEPARATE FROM
NEWSPAPERS. -
SHALL MEAN ALL CORRUGATED CARDBOARD WHICH
IS CLEAN AND DRY
The Incinerator—Recycling facility will be open for use by Plymouth
residents and non—resident property owners during the following days
and hours under the following conditions:
A. Admission to the facility will be by permit or stickers issued
by the Selectmen.
B. The facility will be open:
9:00 - 5:00 Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday
9:00 — 12:00 Saturday
9:00 — 2:00 Sunday
2. SEPARATION
All material shall
A. GLASS ___________
B. METAL
C. NEWSPAPERS
D. CARDBOARD

-------
E. TREE LIMBS, BRUSH, WOOD BUILDING MATERIAL, LAWN AND GARDEN
WASTE SHALL BE PLACED AT LOCATION DIRECTED BY MANAGER.
TRUCK LOADS OF CLEAN BRUSH AND LIMBS SHOULD BE DELIVERED
TO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT.
F. GARBAGE SHALL MEAN ANY OTHER HOUSEHOLD WASTE
WHICH IS NOT LISTED ABOVE.
G. CLEAN, NON—FLAZ*IABLE BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTER BOARD,
BRICKS, CONCRETE BLOCKS, SHALL BE SEPARATED AND DUMPED IN
LANDFILL AS DIRECTED BY MANAGER.
There shall be a one penny a pound fine for trash which is not separated
into above categories. These fines shall be assessed at the facility and
paid to the Town of Plymouth.
3. SUPERVISION
A. The Incinerator—Recycling Manager shall have the right to refuse
the use of the Plymouth Incinerator—Recycling facility to any
citizen who is misusing said facility.
B. There shall be a minimum fee of five dollars ($5.00) for any
monthly bills not paid.
4. BURNING
All outside burning at the facility shall be at the direction and
supervision of the District Fire Warden.
Tires and tubes will be accepted if separated from other materials.
There will be no burning of tires and inner—tubes: it is illegal.
5. SHOOTING
Shooting is prohibited at the facility.
6. NON—RESIDENT RUBBISH COLLECTORS
Non—resident rubbish collectors will be permitted to use the Plymouth
facilities for materials, etc., collected within the limits of
Plymouth township only.
7. COMMERCIAL HAULERS
All persons engaged in the commercial hauling of rubbish materials,
etc. will be charged a fee of $10.00 per year and shall furnish a
$1,000.00 bond or a deposit of $500.00 cash.
All commercial containers shall be kept water tight and dry.

-------
A charge will be made for all commercial dumping of materials, such
as brush (no tree stumps accepted), clean building materials, etc.,
as follows:
Truck loads of up to seven yards — $5.00 per load
Truck loads of more than seven yards — $10.00 per load
Repeated pick—up loads will be based on an accumulative basis.
A record of the charges will be given to the driver of the truck
dumping such materials at the time of dumping. Weekly payment
of Dump Use Fee to the Selectmen of the Town of Plymouth will
be required.
8. The gate will be locked at all times when the dump is not open to the
public. Anyone apprehended inside the dumping area when it is
supposed to be locked will be charged with violation of the above
ordinances and be subject to a maximum fine of $50.00.
9. Any previous ordinances shall be considered void upon the passage of
this ordinance.
10. - Effective date of this ordinance will be the 1st day of August 1978.
Date: ____________________ ____________________________
PLYMOUTH BOARD OF SELECTMEN

-------
APPE1 DIX C
GLOSSARY

-------
Reprinted with permission from the November 1978 Resource Recovery Briefs.
GLOSSARY
of Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Like any emerging technology, resource recovery and modern solid waste management have developed a iargon all the ” own —
often leaving the layman puzzled by. maze of incomprehensible terminology. “What’s pyrolysis’ What’s the difference between a
dump and a sanitary landfill’”
In this new edItion of the Glossary, the National Cnter for Resource Recovery. Inc.. provides brief definitions for some of the
more commoply used — but frequently misunderstood — terms. The definitions were prepared for lay readers, and Should hOt be
considered technically complete Emphasis was placed on interpreting word meanings in me context of resource recovery and solid
waste management, so mat an interested reader without e technical background will find the terms to be helpful, understandable
and relevant
Aerobic Digestion: The utilization of organic waste as a
substrate for the growth of bacteria which function in the
presence of oxygen to reduce the volume of the waste The
products.of this decomposition are carbon dioxide, water and
a rerriain er consisting of inorganic compounds and any un-
digested organic material
Air Classifier A unit process In which mixed material is sn
Jected into a forced air stream and separated according to the
size, bulk, density and aerodynamic drag of the pieces
Aluminum: * light, strong, sliver-colored metal, and the
most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust. it Is de-
rived chief ly from the mineral bauxite.
Aluminum Magnet See Eddy Current Separator
Anaerobic Digestion: The utilization of organic waste as a
substrate for the growth of bacteria which function In the
absence of oxygen to reduce the volume of waste. The bacteria
consume the carbon in the waste as their energy source and
convert It to gaseous products. Properly controlled, anaerobic
dsgestion will produce a mixture of methane and carbon diox-
ide, with a sludge remainder consisting of Inorganic com-
pounds and any undigested organic material.
uBack.EndII System: Jargon for any of several processes
for recovering resources from the organic portion of the waste
stream (Front-end processes separate and recover the in-
organic portion from the Incoming refuse.) Back-end system
Operations include refuse-derived fuel recovery, conversion to
oil or gas, fiber reclaim, composting, conversion to animal
feed, etc.
Ballistic Separator A mechanical separation system In
which the mixed material Is elected with a horizontal velocity,
and segregated by the respective ballistic path or arc of each
piece according to its mass and drag.
Beneficlation: The concentration, enhancement or
upgrading of waste materials In a resource recovery process-
ing system so that they may be more readily used as secondary
materials. (See Secondary Materials.)
Biodegradable Material: Waste material which is c,p.hle
of being broken down by bacteria into basic elements. Most
organic wastes, Such as food remains and paper, ate bio-
degradable.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): A measure of
the amount of oxygen used by microorganisms to break down
organic waste materials in water.
Collection Center * place or facilIty designed to accept
waste materials from individuals This is usually for such
specific items as glass bottles or cans. The term may also be
used to mean a central receiving point for waste material col-
lected by a government or private agency
Color Sorting of Glass: A techniQue for sorting by color
glass reclaimed from solid waste Two experimental methods
have been developed: (1) Optical sorting which compares light
reflected from each piece with light reflected from a
background standard Successive passes, with different light
source filters and standards, could be color selective (2)
Magnetic sorting which utilizes high-intensity magnetic forces
on small glass pieces to sort the clear glass from the colored
glass (which contains iron compounds)
Combustibles: Various materials In the waste stream
which are burnable, Such as paper, plastic, lawn clippings,
leaves and other light, organic materials
Commercial Waste: Waste material which originates in
wholesale, retail or service establishments, such as office
buildings, stores, markets, theaters, hotels and warehouses
Composting: The natural conversion of most organic
materials to humus Dy microorganism activity. Commercial
methods speed up the action of aerobic microorganisms by
mechanical mixing and temperature control, aeration and
acidity. Composting Is not effective on plastic and rubber,
Consumer Waste: Matenals which have been discarded by
the buyer, or consumer, as opposed to “in-plant waste,” oi
waste created In the manufacturing process.
Cover Material: Send end dirt used to cover compacted
waste ins sanitary landfill,
Cuilet Scrap glass, usually broken up into small, uniform
pieces,
Cyclone Separator * mechanical separator which uses a
swirling air flow to sort small particles according to their size
and density.
Deinklng: A process in which most of the ink, filler and other
extraneous material is removed from printed waste paper or
broke This produces pulp which can be used along with vary-
ing percentages of virgin paper in the manufacture of new

-------
paper, including high quality printing, writing and office papers
as well as tissue and toweling
Densif led Refuse-Derived Fuel (d-RDF): A refuse-
derived fuel which lies been compressed or compacted
through such processes as pelletizing. briquetting or ax-
truding. causing improvements in certain handling or burning
characteristics. (See R.luse-D.rsv•d Fuel)
Dewatering: The removal of water by fIltration. centrifuga-
lion, pressing, coagulation or other methods Dewatering
makes sewage sludge suitable for disposal by burning or land.
filling. The term is also applied to removal of water from pulp.
Dump: An opn land site where waste materials are burned.
left to decompose, rust or simply remain. Because of the prob-
lems which they create, such as air and water pollution, un-
sanitary conditions. and general unsightliness. dumps have
been declared illegal (with varying moratorium dates) in all
states.
Eddy Current Separator: A type of equipment used to
separate aluminum and other non-magnetic metals through
the use of electrodynamic induction ci a magnetic field; i.e.. an
alternating current is passed through a piece of metal in a
specified manner causing the metal temporarily to become
magnetic and making it possible to deflect it and separate it.
Also referred to as “aluminum magnet” and electrodynamic
separator.
Effluent: Solid, liquid or gas wastes which enter the envn’on-
meni as a by-product of chemical or biological processes,
usually from man-oriented processes
Electrodynamic Separator: See Eddy Current Separator.
Electrostatic Precipitator: A system for removing un-
wanted colloidal particles from a solution by passing the par-
ticles through an electrostatic field and then collecting the
charged particles on collecting plate or pipe Sometimes used
in incinerators, furnaces and treatment plants to collect or
separate duet particles.
Elutriatlon: The separation of finer, lighter particles from
coarser, heavier particles in a mixture by means of a usually
slow upward stream of fluid so that the lighter particles are car-
tied upward.
Energy Recovery: A form of resource recovery in which the
organic fraction of waste is converted to some form of usable
energy Recovery may be achieved through the combustion of
processed or raw refuse to produce steam (e.g.. as a sup-
plemental fuel in electric utility power plant boilers or as the
primary fuel in incinerators), through the pyrolysus of refuse to
produce oil or gas, and through the anaerobic digestion of
organic wastes to produce methane gas
Ferrous: Metals which are predominantly composed of iron.
Most common ferrous metals are magnetic. In the waste
materials stream, these usually include steel or “tin” cans.
automobiles, old refrigerators, stoves, etc.
Fluid Bed Incinerator: An incinerator in which the waste
is maintained in suspension in air by an upward controlled flow
of the air. The bed of solids acts like a fluid when the upward
air flow has sufficient velocity to float some of the solids. One
such incinerator confines combustion within a bed of waite
and sand supported on a perforated plane. Air is blown upward
through the plate which churns the waste and sand into a tur-
bulent mass. Volatile gases are collected above the bed.
Fly Ash: Small solid particles of ash and soot generated
when burning coal, oil or waste materials With proper equip-
ment, fly ash is collected tO prevent it from entering the at-
mosphere. Fly ash can be used in building materials, such as
bricks, or disposed of in s landfill.
Fossil Fuels: Fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, which
are the remains of ancient plant and animal life.
“Front-End” System: Jargon referring to processing of
municipal solid waste for recovery of materials e p.. metals,
glass and paper). A front-end system also prepares the organic
portion in a form readily usable in energy recovery, or back-end
systems.
Froth Flotation: A process frequently used in the minerals
Industry whereby one type of finely divided solid may be
separated from another by immersing them in a tank of water
with an appropriate chemical surface active agent and in-
troducing air bubbles at the bottom of the tank The agent im-
parts to one material or the other a greater affinity for air than
water, causing it to rise with the bubbles to the surface where
it can be collected This method is used to recover small par-
ticles of material such as sand-sized pieces of glass by
separating them from rock and stone
Furnace: An enclosed refractory or water wall structure
equipped with grates The furnace is the area in an incinerator
where the preheatirig. drying, igniting and most of the burning
of refuse takes place.
Giasphalt : A highway paving material in which recovered
ground glass replaces some of the gravel normally used in
asphalt.
Glass: Vitreous material from the fusion of sand and soda
ash, with adluvanl ingredients, common glass is impermeable,
transparent, sanitary and odorless. Clear bottle glass is made
basically by melting almost pure silica sand in furnaces at
2700F. with burnt lime or limestone and Soda ash Crushed
glass (cullet) has traditionally been added to make the mixture
of raw materials more workable Colored glass is usually ob-
tamed by adding small amounts of selected metals, salts or ox-
ides such as iron salts or chromia.
Gravity Separation: The collection of substances
immersed in a liquid by taking advantage of differences in
density.
Hammermill: A type of crusher used to break up waste
materials into smaller pieces or particles, which operates by
using rotating and flailing heavy hammers.
Hazardous Waste: Waste materials which by their nature
are dangerous to handle or dispose of These materials include
old explosives, radioactive materials, some chemical and some
biological wastes, usually produced in industrial operations or
In institutions Plot meant to imply that other wastes are non,
hazardous.
Heavy Media Separator: * unit process used to separate
materials of differing densities by “floatlsink” in a colloidal
suspension of a finely ground dense mineral This suspension,
or media, usually consists of a water-suspension of magnetite,
ferrosulicon or galena.
Home Scrap: Scrap that is utilized within the plant where it
originates. (See en-Plant Waste.)
Hydrolysis: * type of chemical reaction in which water acts
upon another substance to form one or more entirely new
substances Hydrolysis is usually catalyzed by the presence of
an acid or alkali. An example is the breakdown of cellulose to
carbohydrates, or, further, to glucose. The products of the
hydrolysis of cellulose may be fermented to produce ethanol.
Hydrapulpei°: A large mechanical device used primarily in
the paper industry to pulp waste paper or wood chips and
separate foreign matter The effect of pulping is to suspend
finely divided cellulose fibers (and other matter) in water This
process has been incorporated in certain resource recovery
systems.
Incinerator: A plant designed to reduce waste volume by
combustion. Incinerators consist of refuse handling and
storage facilities, furnaces, subsidence chambers, residue
handling and removal facilities, chimneys and Other air pollu-
tion control equipment.
Industrial Waste: Those waste materials generally dis-
carded from industrial operations or derived from manufactur-
ing processes.
Inorganic Refuse: Waste material made from substances
composed of matter other than plant, animal, or certain
chemical compounds of carbon. Examples are metals and
glass. (See Organic Refuse.)
In-Plant Waste: Waste generated in manufacturing proc-
esses. Such might be recovered through internal recycling or

-------
through a salvage dealer (See Home Scrap, Prompt lnduitrs&
Scrap)
Institutional Waste: Waste materials originating in
Schools hospitals, research institutions and public buildings
The materials include packaging materials, certain hazardous
wastes, food wastes, disposable products, etc
Jigging: a process used to segregate presized solid
materials of different densities and operated by periodic pulsa
hen of a liquid, usually water, through a bed of the mixture of
Solids, which tends to float the lighter solids
Leachate: A liquid containing decomposed waste, bacteria
and other noxious and potentially harmful materials which
drains from landfills and must be collected and treated so as
not to contaminate water supplies
LIttsr Solid waste discarded outside the established
Collection-disposal system (Solid waste properly placed in
containers is often referred to as trash and garbage. uncon-
tainerized, it us ref erreø to as litter Litter accounts I or about
two percent of municipal solid waste
Magnetic Separator Equipment usually consisting of a
belt, drum or pulley with a permanent or electro-magnet end
used to attract and remove magnetic materials from other
materials (See Separation)
Manual Separation: The separation of waste materials by
hand Sometimes called hand-picking, manual separation is
done in the home or office by keeping newspapers separate
from garbage. or in a recovery plant by picking out Certain
materials (See Separation.)
Materials Recovery: The initial phase — front-end — of a
resource recovery System where recyclable and reusable
materials are extracted from waste for sale (See “Front-End”
System)
Methane: An odorless, colorless, flammable gas which can
be formed by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste
matter or by Chemical synthesis It is the principal constituent
of natural gas.
Microorganisms: Generally, any living thing microscopic
in size including bacteria, yeasts, simple fungi, some algae,
slime molds and protozoaris They are involved in the stabiliza-
tion of waste materials (composting) and in sewage treatment
processes
Mixed Paper Waste paper of various kinds and quality,
usually collected from stores, offices and schools.
Modular Combustion Unit: A small, self-contained in-
cinerator designed to handle small quantities of solid waste
Several “modules” may be combined in a plant, as needed.
depending on the quantity of waste to be processed. (See In-
c,nerat ion.)
Municipal Solid Wastes: The combined residential and
Commercial waste materials generated in a given municipal
area The collection and disposal of these wastes are usually
the responsibility of local government.
Newsprint The kind or type of paper generally used for
printing newspapers,
NonferTous: Metals which contain no Iron. In waste
materials these are usually aluminum, copper wire, brass,
bronze, etc.
Obsolete Scrap: Scrap denved from products which have
completed their useful economic life.
Organic Refuse: Waste material made from substances
composed of chemical compounds of carbon and generally
manufactured in the life processes of plants and animals.
These materials Include paper, wood, food wastes, plastIc, and
yard wastes.
Packaging Materials: Any of a varIety of papers, cardS
boards, metals, wood, paperboard and plastics used In the
manufacture of containers for food, household and industrial
preduc t a.
Paper In a general sense, the name for all kinds of matted or
felted sheets of fiber formed on a fine screen from a water
suspension More specifically, paper is one of two broad sub-
divisions (the other being paperboard) of the general term
paper. Paper, usually lighter in basis weight, thinner and more
flexible than paperboard, Is used largely for printing, writing,
wrapping and sanitary purposes,
Paperboerd: Relatively heavier in basis weight thicker an
more rigid than paper There are three broad classes of paper
board (1) container board. (2) boxboard and (3) special types
such as automobile board, building board, tube board etc
Paperstock: A general term used to designate waste papers
which have been sorted or segregated at the Source into
various recognized grades It is a principal ingredient in the
manufacture of certain types of paperboard
Particulates: Suspended small colloidal size particles of
ash, charred paper, dust, soot, or Other partially incinerated
matter carried in the products of Combustion
Plastics: Man.made materials, large molecules called
“polymers,” containing primarily carbon and hydrogen wiTh
lesser amounts of oxygen or nitrogen Frequently corn
pounded with various organic and inorganic compounds as
stabilizers, colorants, fillers and Other adluvant ingredients
Plastics are normally Solid in their finished state, but at some
stage in their manufacture, under adequate heat and pressure.
they will flow sufficiently to be molded into desired shape
Thermoplastics. such as polyethylene, polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC). polystyrene and polypropylene, become soft when ex
posed to heat and pressure and harden when cooled ‘flier-
mosetting plastics, such as phenolics and some polyesters,
are set to permanent shapes when heat and pressure are ao-
plied to them during forming, and reheating will not soften
these materials
Primary Materials: Virgin or new materials used for
manufacturing basic products Examples include wood pulp,
iron ore, silica sand and bauxite
Prompt Industrial Scrap: Waste which is generated dur-
ing a manufacturing operation. (See In-Plant Waste)
Putrescible: Subject to decomposition or decay Usually
used in reference to food wastes and other organic wastes
Pyrolysis: The process of chemically decomposing an
organic substance by heating it in an oxygen-deficient at-
mosphere. High temperatures and closed chambers are used
The major products from pyrolysis of solid waste are water,
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Some processes produce an
oIl-like liquid of undetermined chemical composition The gas
may contain hydrocarbons and frequently there is process
residue of a carbon char. All processes leave a residue of in-
organic material. The gaseous products cannot be mixed with
natural gas in principal distribution systems unless there is ad-
ditional chemical processing Applied to Solid waste, pyrolysis
has the features of effecting major volume reduction while pro.
ducing storable fuels.
Recycling: A resource recovery method involving the collec-
tion and treatment of a waste product for use as raw material
in the manufacture of the same or a similar product, e g.
ground glass used In the manufacture of new glass. (See
Trans formation.)
Refractory Material: Incinerator lining material which
resists the abrasion, spallung, and slagging effects due to heat
and refuse material movement which are present in incinera-
tion.
Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF): A solid fuel obtained from
municipal solid waste as a result of a mechanical process, or
sequence of operations, which improves the physical, me-
chanical or Combustion characteristics compared to the
original unsegregated feed product or unprocessed solid
waste (See Densihed Refuse-Derived Fuel.)
Residential Waste: Waste materials generated In houses
and apartments. The materials Include paper, cardboard,
beverage and food cans, plastics, food wastes, glass conS
tatners, old clothes, garden wastes, etc.
Residue: The materials remaining after completIon of a
Chemical or physical process, such as burning, evaporation,
distillation or filtration. (See Sludge.)
Resource Conservation: The reduction of the amounts of
solid waste that is generated, reduction of overall resources
consumed, and utilization of recovered resources.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976:
This law amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and ex-
pands on the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 to provide a pro-
gram to regulate hazardous waste; to eliminate open dumping:
to promote solid waste management programs through finan-
cial and technical assistance; to further solid waste manage-
ment options in rural communities through government grants;

-------
and to Conduct research, development and demonstration pro-
grams for the betterment of solid waste management. resource
conservation and recovery practices.
R.sow’c. Recovery: a term describing the extraction and
utilization of materials and values from the waste stream
Materials recovered, for example, would include metals and
glass which can be used as raw materials” in the manufacture
of new products Recovery of values including energy recovery
by utilizing components of waste as a fuel or feedsiock for
chemical or biological conversion to some form of fuel or
steam. (See Recycling. Translormatiofl.)
Rising Current Separator: A unit process utilizing a form
of elutriation which separates by a counter-Current flow of
water (or other fluid).
Rubber An elastic substance obtained by coagulating the
latex of various tropical plants and prepared as sheets ano
dried. It can then be modified by chemical treatment to in-
crease Its useful properties (toughness and resistance to wear)
and used in tires, electrical insulation, stc.
Rubble: Waste materials made up mainly of fragments or
pieces of rock or masonry, sometimes containing lumber or
other construction materials.
Sanitary Landfill: A method of disposing of refuse on land
without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safe-
ty. Careful preparation of the fill area and control of water
drainage are required to assure proper landfilling. To confine
the refuse to the smallest practical area and reduce it to the
smallest practical volume, heavy tractor-like equipment Is used
to spread, compact, and usually cover the waste daily with at
least six inches of compacted dirt. after the area has been
completely tilled and covered with a final two- to three-foot
layer of dirt, &nd has been allowed to settle an appropriate
period of time, the reclaimed land may be turned into a recrea-
tional area Such as a park or golf course. Under certain highly
controlled Conditions the land may be used as a plot on which
some types of buildings can be constructed.
Scrap: Waste material which Is usually segregated and
suitable for recovery or reclamation, often after mechanical
processing
Screening: A sieve-like device used to separate pulverized
waste material Into various sizes. Two or more stages of
separation may be used, each stage having a different hole size
In order to separate material by size. (See Separation,)
Scrubber A device for removing unwanted dust particles
from an air stream by spraying the air stream with a liquid
(usually water) or forcing the air through a series of baths. (See
Electrostatic Precipitator.)
Secondary Materials: au types of materials handled by
dealers and brokers that have fulfilled their useful function and
usually cannot be used further in their present form or at their
present location, and materials that occur as waste from the
manufacturing or conversion of products.
Separation: To divide waste Into groups of similar materials,
Such as paper products, glass, food wastes and metals. Also,
used to descnbe the further sorting of materials into more
specifIc categones, such as clear glass and dark glass. Separa
tion may be done manually or with specialized equipment.
Settling Chamber A mechanical collector which removes
coarse particulate matter when the force of gravity pulls the
dust to the bottom of the chamber. The air Is introduced Into
the chamber at a very low velocity to allow the particulate to
fail out more effectively.
Shredder a mechanical device used to break up waste
materials into smaller pieces by tearing and impact action.
Sludge: Waste materials In the form of a concentrated
suspension of waste solids In waler. One type of sludge is pro-
duced from the treatment of sewage.
Solid Waste: Discarded solid materials. includes
agricultural waste (C 9., animal manure, crop residues), mining
waste (e p • mine tailings). Industrial waste (e.g.. manufacturing
residues) and municipal waste. (See Industrial Waste,
Municipal Solid Waste, Residential Waste, Waste Materials.)
Solid Waste Management: Conduct and regulation of
the entire process of generation, storage, collection, trans-
portation, processing, recovery and disposal of refuse.
Source Separation: The segregation and collection of In-
dividual recyclable components before they become mixed
into the solid waste stream (e g.. bottles, cans, newspapers,
corrugated containers or office papers)
Spiral Classifier a mechanical device for performing two
types of wet separation of fine Solids (1) large solids are
separated from small solids of approximately the same densi.
ty. (2) higher density solids are separated from lower density
solids of the same approximate size The large or denser solids
are delivered up the spiral, somewhat drained
Steel: Commercial iron that contains carbon in any amount
up to about 1.7 percent as an essential alloying constituent It
Is distinguished from cast iron by its malleability and lower
carbon content
Tin-Free Steel (TFS) Cans: Cans made from low-carbon
steel with a very thin anti-corrosion coating of chromium oxide
rather than tin
Transfer Station: a place or facIlity where waste materials
are taken from smaller collection vehicles (e.g., compactor
trucks) and placed in larger transportation units ie.g.. over-the.
road tractor trailers or barges) for movement to disposal areas,
usually landfills In some transfer operations, compaction or
separation may be done at the station.
Transformation: a resource recovery method involving the
collection and treatment (other than by biological or chemical
means) of a waste product for use as raw material in the
manufacture of a different product, e.g., ground glass used to
make brick. (See Recycling.)
Trash: Waste matenals which usually do not include garbage
but may include other organic materials, such as plant tnm.
mings
Trommel: A perforated, rotating horIzontal cylinder which
may be used in resource recovery facilities to break open trash
bags, remove glass in large enough pieces for easy recovery
and remove small abrasive items such as stones and dirt
Trommels have been used to remove steel cans from in-
cinerator residue
Urban Waste: a general term used to categorize the entire
waste stream from an urban area. It is sometimes used in con-
trast to “rural waste.”
Vibrating Screen: a mechanical device which sorts
material according to size The vibration serves to prevent clog-
ging of the screen and to accomplish outfeed. Mechanical
screens are used wet or dry, in single or multiple decks.
Virgin Materials: Any basic material for industrial proc-
esses which has riot previously been used, e.g., trees, iron ore,
silica sand, crude oil, bauxite (Sea Secondary Materials.
Primary Materials.)
Volume Reduction: The processing of waste materials so
as to decrease the amount of space the materials occupy
Reduction is presently accomplished by three major proc-
esses’ (1) mechanical, which uses compaction techniques
(sanitary landfill, etc.) and shredding; (2) thermal, which is
achieved by heat (incineration and pyrolysis) and can reduce
volume by 80-90 percent; and (3) biological, in which the
organic waste fraction is degraded by bacterial action (com’
posting, etc.). (See Biodegradable. Composting, Incinerator,
Pyrolysis, Sanitary Landlsll Hammermili, Shredder)
Voluntary Separation: The separation of glass bottles,
food and beverage cans or newspaper by hand by individuals or
groups of individuals, at home or in local collection centers.
Waste Materials (Solids): a wide variety of Solid
materials that may even include liquids in containers, which
are discarded or reiected as being spent, useless. worthless, or
in excess. Does not usually include waste solids found in
sewage systems, water resources or those emitted from
smoke stacks.
Waste Pulper a pulping system designed specifically for
waste material processing.
Waste Stream: A general term used to denote the waste
material output of an area, location or facility.
Water-Wall Furnace: Furnace constructed with walls of
welded steel tubes through which water is circulated to absorb
the heat of combustion. These furnaces can be used as in-
cinerators The steam or hot water thus generated may be put
to a useful purpose, or simply used to carry the heat away to
the outside environment.
Yard Wastes: Grass clippings, pruning, and other discarded
material from yards and gardens.

-------
APPENDIX D
BIBLIOGRAPHY

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Action for Bridgeport Community Development. The economics of recycling by
source separation and its application for Fairfield County . Bridgeport,
Connecticut, 1976. 83 p.
Advances in Small—Scale Refuse Incinerators; Seminar Proceedings . Environ-
ment Canada, Ottawa, 1976. 107 p.
Allen, 3. “Treatment of industrial wastes at source.” In: Collection,
Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a
Seminar , Hamburg, Germany, September 1—6, 1975. Economic Commission
for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland. 2:25—42.
Alter, H. “European materials recovery systems.” Environ. Sci. Technol. ,
11(5):444—448, May 1977.
Alter, H. “Processes for the recovery of aluminum from municipal solid
waste.” In: Official Proceedings, Workshops, International Waste
Eauipment and Technology Exposition , Los Angeles, California, June 18-
21, 1975. National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington,
D.C., 1975. pp. 161—169.
Alter, H., and K. L. Woodruff. Magnetic separation: recovery of saleable
iron and steel from municipal solid waste . EP—SW—599, National Center
for Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C., March 1977. 30 p. NTIS
PB—266 114.
Alter, H., S. L. Natoff, K. L. Woodruff, and R. D. Hagen. The recovery of
magnetic metals from municipal solid waste . National Center for
Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Alvarez, R.J. “Study of conversion of solid waste to energy in North
America.” In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Con-
ference , Boston, Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York. pp. 163—174.
American Paper Institute. How to recycle waste paper . New York, 1977.
American Paper Institute. Paper Stock Conservation Committee. Waste paper
recycling: a proven way to reduce solid waste . New York, 1975. 12 p.
American Paper Institute. Paper Stock Conservation Committee. Waste paper
recycling: for civic and charitable groups . New York (n.d.)
American Paper Institute. Paper Stock Conservation Committee. Waste paper
recycling: how commerce and industry can improve profits by reducing
disposal costs . New York (n.d.). 12 p.

-------
Ananth, K. P., L. J. Shannon, and M. P. Schrag. Environmental assessment of
waste—to—energy processes; source assessment document . Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, August 1977. 81 p.
NTIS PB—272 646.
Ananth, K. P., and 3. Shum. Fine shredding of municipal solid waste . Mid-
west Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, July 1976. 71 p.
NTIS PB—257 105.
Arella, D. C., and Y. M. Garbe. Mineral recovery from the noncotnbustib]e:
fraction of municipal solid waste . U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
December 1975. 20 p. NTIS PB—261 048.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Study of the feasibility of Federal procurement of
fuels produced from solid wastes . Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1975.
256 p. NTIS PB—255 695.
Austin, E. “The role of local authorities in the recycling of domestic
wastes in the UK.” Resour. Pol. , 1(5):295—297, September 1975.
Avers, C. E. “Technical—economic problems in energy recovery incineration.”
- In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference , Boston,
Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, New York. pp. 59—66.
Bailie, R. C., and D. M. Doner. “Evaluation of the efficiency of energy
resource recovery systems.” Resour. Recovery Conserv. , 1(2):177—187,
October 1975.
Bailly, H. C., and H. S. Vaccaro. “Source separation: a cost effective low
technology resource recovery option.” In: Present Status and Research
Needs in Energy Recovery from Wastes; Proceedings of the 1976 Conferences .
New York, September 19—24, 1976. R. A. Matula, ed. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1977. pp. 103—124.
Baker, 3., 14. Bowlin, C. Eansburger, and P. Hanson. Analysis of alternatives
to refuse disposal . Boise Center for Urban Research, Idaho, 1977.
104 p. NTIS PB—272 129.
Baruiske, L., and W. Schenkel. “Entwicklungsstand der MuellverbrennuflgSafl-
lagen mit Waermeverwertung in der Bundesrepublik Deutsch].and.’ t In:
Conference Papers, First International Conference on Conversion of
Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 91—96.
Bassalo, C. “Beneficiation of organic matter contained in household refuse
for agricultural use: position in France.” In: Collection, Disposal,
Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar ,
Hamburg, September 1—6, 1975. Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva,
2:167—177.

-------
Bechtel Corporation. Fuels from municipal refuse for utilities: technology
assessment., , San Francisco, California, March 1975. 184 p.
NTIS PB 242—413.
Benziger, 3. B., and B. 3. Bortz. Resource recovery technology for urban
decision makers . Columbia University, New York, 1976. 117 p.
Bever, N. “Recycling in the materials system.” Technol. Rev. , 79(4):23—3].,
February 1977.
Bever, N. B. “The recycling of metals. II. Nonferrous metals.” Conserv..
Recycling , 1:137—147, 1976.
Bingham, T. A., 3. A. Olsen, and 3. M. Daber. Yosemite National Park
beverage container deposit experiment: final report . EPA/SW—142c,
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
April 1977. 50 p. NTIS PB—270 266.
Black, D. 0. Energy recovery from solid waste; a review of current tech-
nology . Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development,
Springfield, 1976. 59 p. NTIS PB—260 633.
Blobaum, R. “China recycles her wastes by using them on land.” Compost
Sd. , 16(5):16—17, Autumn 1975.
Boner, N. C. Questionnaire survey of Atlanta Metropolitan Region to deter-
mine feasibility of programs: wastepaper separation and recycling in
the residential sector . Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,
1975. 87 p.
Bopardilcar, N. V., and R. T. Doshi. “Optimum utilization of compost in
India.” Compost Sci. , l7(5):22—23, Winter 1976.
Bourcier, C. P., and K. H. Dale. “The technology and economics of the re-
covery of aluminum from municipal solid wastes.” Resour. Recovery
Conserv. , 3:1—8, March 1978.
Branch, B. S. “Returnable vs. nonreturnable beverage containers; an eval-
uation in the light of recent experience,” Atl. Econ. Rev, ,
26(3):28—34, May—June 1976.
Breidenbach. A. W. Composting of municipal solid wastes in the United States .
EPA/SW—47r, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, November 1975. 360 p.
NTIS PB—261 047.
Brown, C. K., F. 3. Hopton, and R. C. W. Laughlin. Energy analysis of re-
source recovery options; final report . Ontario Research Foundation,
Sheridan Park, Ontario, 1976.

-------
Burg, N. C. Reclamation of energy from solid waste, theory and practice;
a selected, annotated bibliography . Council of Planning Librarians,
Monticello, Illinois, 1977. 37 p.
“Burning waste for heat in Horicon, Wisconsin.” Solid Wastes Manage. ,
19(6):24, June 1976.
“Can coimnunities afford recycling center or separate collection systems.”
Solid Wastes Manage. , 19(12):32
Cheremisinoff, P. N., and R. A. Young. “Incineration of solid waste.”
Pollut. Eng. , 7(6):20—27, June 1975.
Chereznisinof I, P. N. “Resource recovery status report.” Pollut. Eng .,
8(5):40—41, Nay 1976.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. “Sanitary effects of urban garbage
and night soil composting.” Chin. fled. 3. , 16(5):16—17, Autumn 1975.
Christensen, H.F. “Major Scandinavian cities incinerate refuse for heat
and power.” Solid Wastes Manage. , 20(8):34—36, 64—66, August 1977.
“Choice of a system for domestic refuse precollection.” Tech. Sd. Municip. ,
(11):463, November 1976.
Chum, 3. A., and C. R. Loper, Jr. “Recycling technology: can it be taught.”
66(8):806—809, May 1976.
Cities mine solid waste piles in search for wasted profits.” ws
Record , 199(11):20—22, September 15, 1977.
Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. Waste paper; a new
look at recycling . Washington, D.C., 1976. 88 p.
Clark, C. S. “Laboratory scale composting: techniques.” 3. Environ. Eng .
Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 103(5):893—906, October 1977.
Cohen, D. N. Separate collection recycling programs in the United States .
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1977.
(Unpublished report.)
“Compact incinerator for solid and liquid wastes.” ! .ssin, 22(5):33,
May 1976.
“Compost: from waste to resource.” Compost Sd. , 17(2):26—27, March—April
1976.
Conn, V. D. European developments in the recovery of energy and materials
from municipal solid waste . University of California, Los Angeles,
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, May 1977. 53 p. NTIS PB—270
219.

-------
“Critical assessment of waste conversion to energy.” Presented at IES
Energy and Environmental Conference, Anaheim, California, April 14—16,
1975.
Cutler, H. “Municipal solid waste and resource recovery.” Waste Age ,
6(5):24—28, May 1975.
DeCesare, R. S. “Recovering resources from urban refuse by the Bureau of
Mines processes.” In: Energy and the Environment; Proceedings of the
Third National Conference , Hueston Woods State Park Lodge, Ohio,
September 29—30, October 1, 1975. E. 3. Rolinski, ed. American In—.
stitute of Chemical Engineers, New York. pp. 112—117.
DeZeeuw, R., E. B. Haney, and R. B. Wenger. “Shredding: solid wastes
shredder facilities in the U.S. and Canada.” Solid Wastes Manage. ,
19(4):22+, April 1976.
Diamond, H. L. “Recovery and reuse: two modest proposals.” Recycling
Today , 14(12) :65—68, December 1976.
“Does the solution of the energy problem lie in the use of process waste as
fuel?” Paper Trade 3. , 159(26):46 , November 15, 1975.
Dubach, P. “Energieersparnisse durch Weiderverwetung von Altostoffen.”
In: Conference Papers, First International Conference on Conversion
of Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. Insti-
tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. pp. 48—58.
Duckett, E. 3. Organic contaminants and the reuse of magnetic metals re-
covered from municipal solid waste . National Center for Resource Re-
covery, Washington, D.C.. August 1977.
Duncan, R. C. “An economic garbage collection and recycling service.”
Compost Sal. , 17(l):12—17, January—February 1976.
Duncan, R. C. “The “ORE Plan” for recycling household solid waste; an
alternative garbage collection system.” Compost Sci. , 16(l):24—32,
January—February 1975.
“Dusseldorf roll grate system as well as various possibilities for utiliza-
tion of heat generated by refuse incineration.” Energ. Atomtech. ,
28(3):120, March 1975.
The economic impact of a proposed mandatory deposit on beer and soft drink
containers in California; an analysis of Assembly Bill 594 of the
1973—74 Session . Legislative Analyst, State of California, Sacramento,
October 1975. 136 p.
“Economic use of waste paper helps grass grow along roads.” Better Roads ,
46(6):30, July 1976.

-------
Edwards, 3. R. “Recycling waste paper.” In: Solid Wastes; Origin, Collec-
tion, Processing and Disposal . Wiley, New York, 1975. pp. 883—891.
Eggen. A. C. W., and R. Kraatz. “Gasification of solid wastes in fixed
beds.” 98(7):24—29, July 1976.
“Energy recovery from municipal refuse: the technology and its relationship
to socio—economic environments.” Presented at IES Energy and Environ-
ment Conference, Anaheim, California, April 14—16, 1975.
“Energy recovery from solid waste considerations for determining national
potential.” Nat. Solid Waste Manage. Assoc. Tech. Bull. , 6(lO):l—6,
1975.
Enhorning, B. “Recycling of useful raw materials from Swedish household
waste by means of separation.” In: Collection, Disposal,- Treatment
and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar , Hamburg,
çermany, September 1—6, 1975. Economic Coimnission for Europe, Geneva,
Switzerland. 2: 120—133.
Environmental Action Foundation. All’s well on the Oregon Trail . Washington,
D.C., 1976.
Erlandason, K. I. “Using solid waste as fuel.” E ., 29(5):131—134,
December 11, 1975.
“EPA tracks progress of resource recovery facilities.” Solid Wastes Manage. ,
20(3) :48+, March 1977.
“EPA’s program in environmental research in wastes—as—fuel.” Presented at
Conference on Clean Fuels, Orlando, Florida, January 27—30, 1976. In-
stitute of Gas Technology, Chicago.
Fan, D. N. “On the air classified light fraction of shredded municipal
solid waste. 1. Composition and physical characteristics.” Resour.
Recovery Conserv. , 1(2):141—150, October 1975.
Farley, C. E. “Composting used to extend life of a landfill site.” Public
Works , 106(3):68—70, March 1975.
Feber, R. C., and N. 3. Antal. Synthetic fuel production from solid wastes .
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, 1977.
Fenton, R. “Current trends in municipal solid waste disposal in New York
City.” Resour. Recovery Conserv. , l(2):167—176, October 1975.
Ferber, N. “Registration and collection of waste paper in a big city.” In:
Collection. Disposal. Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Pro—
ceedings of a Seminar . Hamburg, Germany, September 1—6, 1975. Economic
Commission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland. 2:104—111.

-------
Fernandes, 3. H. “Converting refuse to energy at the point of generation.”
In: Official Proceedings, Workshops, International Waste Equipment
and Technology Exposition , Los Angeles, California, June 18—21, 1975.
National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D. C.
pp. 87—100.
Fernandes, 3. H. “Design and operating factors for burning waste materials
in industrial boilers.” 29(13):83—85, June 26, 1975.
Fernandes, 3. H. “It’s time to take a fresh look at using waste materials
as industrial fuel.” a En., 29(1l):59—61, May 29, 1975.
Finstein, 14. S., and 14. L. Morris. “Microbiology of municipal solid waste
composting.” Adv. Appi. Microbiol. , 9:113—151, 1975.
Franklin, W. E., D. Bendersky, W. R. Park, and R. C. Hunt. “Potential
energy conservation from recycling metals in urban waste.” In: The
Energy Conservation Papers . R. H. Williams, ed. Ballinger, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1975. pp. 171—218.
Freeman, R. E., B. A. Donahue, S. E. Kloster, G. V. Schanche, and E. D.
Smith. Cost of recycling waste material from family housing . CERL—TR—
- N—29, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois,
• September 1977. 61 p. NTIS AD—A045 42.
Funk, H. D. and A. 0. Chantland. “Solid waste for power generation fuel in
a small city.” In: Conference Papers, First International Conference
on Conversion of Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5,
1975. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.
pp. 268—273.
Gaby, W. L. Evaluation of health hazards associated with solid waste/sewage
sludge mixtures . EPA—670/2—75—023, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, Department of Health Sciences, April 1976. 56 p.
NTIS PB—241 810.
“Garbage power.” md. Week. , 189(3):38, April 19, 1976.
“Garbage power: a proven concept.” Electr. Light Power , 54(8):51
August 16, 1976.
General Electric Company. Solid Waste Management Technology Assessment .
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975. 348 p.
Gershman, H. W. “An approach to determining the economic feasibility of
refuse—derived fuel and materials recovery processing.” In: Proceeding
of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference , Boston, Massachusetts,
May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
pp. 1—12.
Gershowitz, H. “Resource recovery systems — an endangered species.” Waste
, 7(5):53—56, May 1976.

-------
Golar, M. “Use of municipal waste for fuel.” In: Energy and the Environ-
ment: Proceedings of the Third National Conference , Hueston Woods State
Park Lodge, Ohio, September 29—30 and October 1, 1975. E. J. Rolinski,
ed. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York. pp. 34—39.
Goldman, S. B., F. R. Best, and M. W. Golay. Energy production by solid waste
incineration . Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, Department of Engineering, April 1977. 34 p. NTIS AD/A—043 039.
Golueke, C. C. “The biological approach to solid waste management.” Compost
Sci., 18(3):4—9, July—August 1977.
Golueke, C. C. “Domestic cellulose waste.” Compost Sci. , 16(l):16—19,
January—February, 1975.
Gordon, R. S. “The marvellous resource recovery machine.” Scrap Age , 34(1):
40—42, January 1977.
Grahax, V. 0. “Marketing and equipment design: municipal solid waste ferrous
metal recovery.” In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing
Conference , Boston, Massachusetts, Nay 23—26, 1976. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York. pp. 385—407.
Greco, J. R. “A projection of trends likely to occur in storage, collection,
processing, recovery and disposal.” Waste Age , 7(5):66+, Nay 1976.
Gutt, V. H., and 11. A. Smith. “Aspects of waste materials and their potential
for use in concrete.” Resour. Recov.Conserv. , l(4):345—367, June 1976.
Haatta, R. “Recovery and re—utilization of municipal solid waste.” In:
Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings
of a Seminar , Hamburg, Germany, September 1—6. 1975. Economic Commission
for Europe. Geneva, 1:110—130.
Hampton, R. K., E. R. Kaiser, and C. 0. Velzy, eds. Incinerator and Solid
Waste Technology , 1962—1975. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 1975. 415 p.
Hansen, P. “Alternate methods of residential paper recovery.” Public Works ,
(9) :127—128, 1977.
Hansen, P. Residential paper recovery, a municipal implementation guide .
EPA—SW—l55c, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975. 29 p. NTIS PB—259 454.
Hansen, P. H. “Resource recovery through multi—material source separation.”
7(1O):30+, October 1976.
Hansen, P. H., and 3. Ramsey. “Demonstrating multi—material source separation
in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts.” Waste Age , 7(2):26—27,
February 1976.

-------
Hathaway, S. A. Design features of package incinerator systems . Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, 1977. 30 p.
NTIS AD/A 040 743.
Hathaway, S. A. and 3. P. Woodyard. Technical evaluation study: solid
waste as a fuel at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina , Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, March 1976. 99 p.
Hathaway, S. A., and R. 3. Dealy. Technical evaluation of army scale waste-
to—energy systems . Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, -
Champaign, Illinois, 1977. 84 p. NTIS AD/A—042 578.
Baynes, B. V., S. L. Law, and V. 3. Campbell. Metals in the combustible
fraction of municipal solid waste . RI 8244, Bureau of Mines, College
Park, Maryland, College Park Metallurgy Research Center, 1977. 20 p.
Hecklinger, R. W. “Relative value of energy derived from municipal refuse.”
In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference , Boston,
Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York. pp. 133—140.
Heine, H. J. “Recycled steel cans——phoenix from the ashes.” Foundry , 103(6):
121—125, June 1975.
Henstock, H. E. “Materials recovery and recycling in the U.S.A.” Resour.
Policy , 1(3):171—l75, March 1975.
Heron, N. “How successful are separate collection systems for recyclable
wastes?” Solid Wastes Manage. , 19(4):40+, April 1976.
Hickman, V. B. “Storage and retrieval of prepared refuse.” In: Proceedings
of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference , Boston, Massachusetts,
May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
pp. 453—462.
Hill, C. A. and C. B. Lee. Recycling of compost in Dane, Green, and Rock
Counties, Wisconsin by application to land . University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1975. 33 p. NTIS PB—247
ill.
Hoberg, H., and E. Schulz. “Das Aachener Verlahren zur Hausinuell—ufbereitung.”
Arbereit—Tech. , 18(1):l—5, January 1977.
Hofmann, R. E. “Controlled-air incineration — key to practical production of
energy from wastes.” Public Works , 107(9):72—79, 136, 138, September
1976.
Bolinan, 3. P., and R. A. Razgaitis. Fluidized vortex incineration of waste .
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, Department of Civil and
Mechanical Engineering, August 1976. 337 p. NTIS PB—258 071.

-------
“How much energy and material from waste and bioinass?” Energy l(3):9—14,
Spring—Summer 1976.
“How one woman is trying to get one small city off the d1n e and onto re-
source recovery.” Resour. Recovery Energy Rev. , 3(6):8—lO, November—
December 1976.
Hovsenius, G. “Coinposting and use of compost in Sweden.” 3. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. , 47(4):74l—747, April 1975.
Huang, C. I. Energy recovery from solid waste. Vol. 2. Technical report: .
University of Houston, Texas, April 1975. 242 P. NTIS N75—25292.
Huffinan, C. “Solid fuels.” In: A Conference on Capturing the Sun through
Bloconversion , Washington, D.C., March 10—12, 1976. Washington Center
for Metropolitan Studies. pp. 454—484.
Humphrey, C. R., R. 3. Bord, 11. N. Hammond, and S. H. Mann. “Attitudes and
conditions for cooperation in a paper recycling program.” Environ.
Behav. , 9(l):lO7—124, March 1977.
Hundemann, A. S. Incinerator studies. Vol. 2 1975—April 1977 . NTlSearch,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, April
1977. 181 p. NTIS PS—77/0330.
Hundemann, A. S., and E. 3. Lehinann. Synthetic fuels from municipal, in-
dustrial, and agricultural wastes; a bibliography with abstracts .
NTlSearch, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia, 1975. 36 p. NTIS PS—7710112.
Hunter, V. L. Steel from urban waste . RI 8147, Bureau of Mines, Albany,
New York, Albany Metallurgy Research Center, 1976. 19 p.
Interrante, C. G. Report on the Ferrous Metals Workshop . National Bureau
of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1975. 7 p. NTIS PB—245 966.
Ito, K., and Y. Hirayama. “Semi—wet selective pulverizing system; a feasi-
bility study.” Resour. Recov. Conserv. , ].(1):45—53, Nay 1975.
Jackson, F. R. Recycling and reclaiming of municipal solid wastes . Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975. 342 p.
Jeris, 3. and R. Regan. “Optimum conditions for composting.” In: Solid
Wastes: Origin, Collection, Processing, and Disposal . C. L. Mantell,
ed. Wiley, New York, 1975. pp. 245—254.
Johnson, A. L., Jr. “Biomass energy.” Astronaut. Aeronaut. , 13:64—70,
November 1975.

-------
Kalketenidis, E., and L. Szabo. “Recovery and re—use of municipal solid
waste and other mixed wastes.” In: Collection, Disposal, Treatment
and Recycling of Solid Wastes: Proceedings of a Seminar , Hamburg,
Germany, September 1—6, 1975. Economic Coimnission for Europe, Geneva.
2:134—149.
Kaufman, J. A., and A. H. Weiss. Solid waste conversion: cellulose lique-
faction . Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts, Department
of Chemical Engineering, February 1975. 216 p. NTIS PB—239 509.
Kinsey, R. D. “Garbage power: the renewable energy resource.” Catal.
Environ. Qual. , 5(2):2l, 24—26, 1976.
Kirov, N. Y., ed. Waste Management, Control, Recovery, and Reuse . Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Inc., 1974. 240 p.
Kleinhenz, N., and H. G. Rigo. Operational testing of a controlled air in-
cinerator with automatic ash handling . Systech, Xenia, Ohio, 1976.
19 p. NTIS AD/A—O44 337.
Koebler, J. Recycling in the Waste Management Program of the West German
Government . Bundesininisterium des Innern, Bonn, 1975.
Koáski Engineers. Evaluation of shredding facilities, Rock Cut Road Plant
No. 1, Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority, Onondaga County,
New York . Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority, Syracuse,
New York, 1975. 148 p. NTIS PB—245 672.
Kreiter, B. G. “Research into the recovery of some components from munici-
pal waste.” In: Collection, Disposal. Treatment and Recycling of
Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a Seminar , Hamburg, Germany, September
1—6, 1975. Economic Coimnission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland,
2:178—188.
Landinann, W. J., and W. .1. Darmstadt. “Energy recovery from solid waste.”
In: Conference Papers, First International Conference on Conversion
of Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. In-
stitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York. pp. 589—595.
Larderec, .1. A. de, V. Coskuner, and D. E. Sexton. “Reduction and treat-
ment of municipal and industrial solid waste at source.” In: Collection,
Disposal, Treatment and Recycling of Solid Wastes; Proceedings of a
Seminar , Hamburg, Germany, September 1—6, 1975. Economic Commission
for Europe, Geneva. 1:58—85.
Lewis, C. R., R. E. Edwards, and N. A. Santoro. “Incineration of industrial
wastes.” Chem. Eng. , 83(22):115—121, October 18, 1976.
Lindsley, E. F. “Alcohol power, can it help you meet the soaring cost of
gasoline?” Pop. Sd. , 206(4):68—72, April 1975.

-------
Liss, C. B. Solid waste disposal: a plan of action; final report . Newark
Department of Engineering, New Jersey, December 1975. 294 p. NTIS
P3—263 678.
Los Angeles County, California, County Sanitation District. Report on status
of technology in the recovery of resources from solid wastes . Report
No. 31R—1O.lO. Whittier, California, 1976.
Loube, N. Beverage containers: the Vermont experience . EPA—SW—139, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975. 16 p.
Lowry, E. F., T. W. Penner, and R. N. Lowry. Disposing of non—returnables:
a guide to minimum deposit legislation . Stanford Environmental Law
Society, California, January 1975. 132 p.
Maddox, K. P. “Energy analysis.” Color. Sch. Nines Miner. md. Bull. ,
18(4):l—16, July 1975.
Mafrici, D., K. Goldbach, and A. Katell. “Is resource recovery a reality?
Yes, in New York State it is.” 7(3):2—4, March 1976.
Nakar, H. V., R. S. Kaplan, and L. Janowski. Evaluation of steel made with
ferrous fractions from urban refuse . RI 8037, Bureau of Mines, College
Park, Maryland, College Park Metallurgical Research Center, 1975. 28 p.
Martin, T. 1.. “A total package concept for solid waste management.” Public
Works , 106(4):66, April 1975.
Martin, W. J., and H. Weland. “Refuse incineration with heat recovery;
typical design and practical experience.” In: Conference Papers,
First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy ,
Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, New York. pp. 97—104.
Matula, R. A. Present Status and Research Needs in Energy Recovery from
Wastes; Proceedings of the 1976 Conference , September 19—24/76.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
NcEwen, L. B. Waste reduction and resource recovery activities; a nation-
wide survey . EPA—SW—432, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1977. 78 p.
McKewen, T. D. “Maryland Resource Recovery Facility.” Waste Age , 7(9):80-
83, September 1976.
Meyers, S. “EPA and municipal resource recovery.” NCRR Bull. , 6(3):62—65,
S .=er 1976.
Meyers, S., and D. B. Sussman. “The utilization of solid wastes for the
generation of electric power.” In: Energy Development III: IEEE
Power Engineering Society Papers . Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineers, New York, 1977. pp. 30—33.

-------
Michaels, A., A. Murray, and J. J. Spinelli. “Source separation recycling —
a test program.” Public Works , lO7(4):62—65, 99, April 1976.
Michaels, E. L., K. L. Woodruff, W. L. Freyberger, and H. Alter. “Heavy
media separation of aluminum from municipal solid waste.” Trans. Soc .
AINE, 285(l):34—39, March 1975.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Residential paper recovery .
EPA—SW—533, Washington, D.C. (n.d.) 20 p.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. Residential paper recovery; p
cotimiunity action program . Environmental Protection Publication SW—533,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1976. 20 p.
National Research Council Co=ittee on Mineral Resources and the Environ-
ment. Mineral Resources and the Environment. Supplementary Report:
Resource Recovery from Municipal Solid Wastes . National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1975. 416 p.
Naveau, H. P., and R. Binot. “Influence of separate collection on calorific
power of urban solid wastes.” In: Conference Papers, First Interna-
tional Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzer-
land, November 3—5, 1975. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
: Engineers. pp. 56—60.
New energy sources: dreams and promises . Energy Research Group Report,
March 1, 1976.
New York State Senate Task Force on Critical Problems. No deposit, no re—
turn; a report on beverage containers . Albany, February 1975. 134 p.
1977 National Conference on Composting of Municipal Residues and Sludges ,
August 23—25, 1977. Information Transfer, Inc ., Rockville, Maryland,
1978. 172 p.
“1977 Survey of resources recovery and energy conversion practices.” Waste
, 8(3):66—73, March 1977.
Nunley, 3. W. “A farm—scale composting method in Oregon.” Compost Sci. ,
l7(2):20—22, March—April 1976.
Nuss, C. R., W. E. Franklin, D. Rahlin, W. Park, and N. Urie. Baseline f ore—
casts of resource recovery, 1972—1990 . Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri, March 1975. 386 p. NTIS PB—245 924.
Olivieri, 3. B. et al. Waermerueckgewinnungassysteme. Heat Recovery Systems .
F. R. Mueller, Karisruhe, Germany, 1975. 24 p.
“The Organic Waste Resource System.” University of Oklahoma Science and
Public Policy Program Report, May 1975. pp. 1-10.

-------
Ostrowski, E. 3. “The bright outlook for recycling ferrous scrap from solid
waste.” Presented at American Institute of Chemical Engineers Meeting,
Boston, Massachusetts, April 1975. (Unpublished paper.)
Parker, C. 3., and 3. A. Green. “Domestic waste recovery by local authorities
in the U.K.;” a background to the Green Paper Resourc. Po].. , l(5):277-
283, September 1975.
Patrick, P. K. “Operational experience in energy recovery through incinera-
tion.” Presented at International Symposium on Energy Recovery from.
Refuse, University of Louisville, September 1975.
Payne, 3. “Energy recovery from refuse — state—of—the-art.” 3. Environ.
Eng. Div.. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. , 102(EE2):28l—300, April 1976.
Peaker, A. “Resource savings from the re—introduction of a returnable system
9 f beverage containers; a case study of experience in Oregon.”
Resourc. Policy , 1:266—276, September 1975.
Pennsylvania Department of Counity Affairs. Reclamation of energy from
solid waste; theory and practice; a selected annotated bibliography for
Pennsylvania local government officials . Harrisburg, November 1976.
: 32 p. NTIS P3—267 800.
Peterson, C. “Stopping waste before it starts.” Technol. Rev. , 79(4):42,
1977.
Phung, H. T. “Soil incorporation of municipal solid wastes.” Public Works ,
108(l1):76—78, November 1977.
Pierce, C. Untrashing. “Yosemite Park.” Reprint from EPA Journal , October
1976.
Poole, A. 3. “The potential for energy recovery from organic wastes.” In:
The Energy Conservation Papers . R. H. Williams, comp. Ballinger,
Cambridge, Mass., 1975, pp. 219—308.
Proceedings Fifth Annual Coniposting and Waste Recycling Conference. Compost
Sd., 16(3), May—June 1975.
Proceedings, Fifth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and Re-
source and Energy Recovery , Dallas, Texas, December 7—9, 1976. EPA—
SW—22 p, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C.,
1977.
Proceedings, Fourth National Congress on Waste Management Technology and
Resource Recovery , San Francisco, California, November 14—15, 1974.
EPA—SW—8p, National Solid Waste Management Association, Washington, D.C.,
1975. 386 p.

-------
Proceedings of Conference on Waste Reduction held at Washington, D.C., on
April 2—5, 1975. EPA-SW—7p, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. 161 p.
NTIS PB—285 157.
Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference , Boston, Massa-
chusetts, May 23—26, 1975. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
595 p.
Przewalski, Z. “Versatile incinerator system provides for heat recovery
and clean emission.” md. Heat. , 43(3):48—50, March 1976.
“Pushing paper for profit.” Environ. Action , 8(19):6, February 12, 1977.
Rao, G. P. Economic analysis of energy and employment effects of deposit
regulation on non—returnable containers in Michigan . Michigan Public
Service Conunission, Lansing, October 1975. 461 p.
Rasch, R. “Refuse preparation and incineration.” Aufbereit. Tech. ,
18(1):6—9, January 1977.
Rasch, R. “Zentrale Abfallbehandlung mit Energiegewinnung in Kambination—
sanlagen.” In: Conference Papers, First International Conference on
Conversion of Refuse to Energy , Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5,
1975. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York.
pp. 299—303.
“Recent advances in the treatment of solid wastes.” Presented at IAEA
Symposium on Radiation for a Clean Environment, Munich, Germany, March
17—21, 1975.
“Reclaiming and recycling secondary metals.” Eng. Mm. 3. , 176(7):94—98,
July 1975.
“Recovery and utilization of energy.” AWARE , 59:6, August 1975.
“Recycling begins at home.” New Sci. , 67(958):152, July 17, 1975.
“Recycling of organic wastes with processing system that precisely controls
heat and flow.” md. Heating , 39(lO):1924—1929, October 1972.
“Recycling refuse in energy.” Civ. Eng. , 46(9):86, September 1976.
“Recycling using municipal waste for your new facilities——Part 1”. Area
Dev., 1O(9):14, September 1975.
“Recycling will be big business-—and a new source of raw material.” Mod.
Plast. , 52(lO):56—58, October 1975.

-------
Reed, J. C., F. V. Frank, L. Weitzman, and C. N. Click. “Environmental and
technical considerations concerning energy recovery from refuse con-
tamination.” In: Energy and the Environment; Proceedings of the Third
National_Conference, September 29—30 and October 1, 1975, Hueston Woods
State Park Lodge, Ohio, E. J. Rolinski, ed. American Institute of
Chemical Engineers, New York. pp. 106—111.
Reindl, J. “Examining disposal and recycling techniques for solid wastes.”
Solid Wastes Manage. , 20(5):66+, May 1977.
Research Triangle Institute. Energy and economic impacts of mandatory de-’
posits . Durham, North Carolina, 1976. 1 vol. NTIS PB—258 638.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. A comparison of the energy expenditures
and returns of three solid waste disposal alternatives . Draft. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1978.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems; an
overview . Cambridge, Massachusetts, December 1977. 68 p.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems: case
study of Geneva—Cheneviers (Switzerland) . Cambridge, Massachusetts,
May 1977. 41 p. NTIS CONS/2].03—2.
Research Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems: case
study of Koersor, Denmark . Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1977. 37 p.
NTIS CONS/2103—3
Research Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems: case
study of Munich: Munich North la and ib, Munich North II, Munich South
IV and V . Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 1977. 92 p. NTIS CONS/2103-4.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems: case
study of the Thermal Complex of Brive, France . Cambridge, Massachusetts,
June 1977. 37 p. NTIS CONS/2103—5.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. European waste—to—energy systems: case
study of the Thermal Complex of Toulouse—Le Mirail (France) . Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Nay 1977. 45 P. NTIS CONS/2103—1.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Solid waste recovery programs in Somer-
ville and Marblehead, Massachusetts: monthly reports, January—October
1977 . Draft. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Solid waste recovery programs in Somer-
ville and Marblehead, Massachusetts: waste composition analysis;
interim report . Draft. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Pa].]. 1977.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. Source separation: the conunity aware-
ness in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts . EPA—SW—55]., Cambridge,
Massachusetts, November 1976. 92 p. NTIS P8—260 654.

-------
Resource Planning Associates, Inc. State of Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation_solid_waste management and resource recovery plan. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1973. 76 p. NTIS PB—235 319.
Resource Recovery Implementation: Engineering and Economics; Proceedings
of an Engineering Foundation Research Conference , Rindge, New Hampshire,
July 29—30, 1976. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.,
1977. 223 p.
Ricci, L. J. “Scavenging of wastes promises a gas bonus.” Cheni. Eng. , 82
(24):128—132, November 10, 1975.
Rigo, H. G., and B. A. Rausfeld. Development of alternative approaches to
a small scale solid waste transfer/resource recovery station for navy
installations . Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Ruenenie, California,
1977. 176 p.
Robinson, W. D. “Shredding systems for mixed municipal and industrial solid
wastes.” In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference ,
Boston, Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York. pp. 249—260.
Rofe, R. “Research needs in waste utilization.” In: Proceedings of 1976
National Waste Processing Conference , Boston,Massachusetts, May 23—26,
1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. pp. 13—18.
Rogers, H. V., and S. J. Butte. Solid waste shredding and shredder selection .
EPA/530/SW—140, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Office
-of Solid Waste Management Programs, March 1975. 87 p.
Ross Hoffman Associates. Evaluation of small modular incinerators in muni-
cipal plants . Coral Gables, Florida, 1976, 155 p. NTIS PB—251 291.
Russell, T. W. F., and N. V. Swartzlander. “The recycling index.” Cheintech ,
6(l):32—37, January 1976.
St. Clair, C. V. “Municipal solid waste management alternatives.” In:
Energy Awareness; Proceedings, Sympositnn for Public Awareness on Energy ,
Knoxville, Tennessee, February 24, 1977. pp. 42—64.
St. Clair, C. V. “Resource recovery — a review.” 6(6) :102—107,
June 1975.
“Sample documents for separate collection programs.” Solid Wastes Manage. ,
19(12) :52
Savage, G., L. F. Diaz, and C. 3. Trezek. “The Cal recovery system: a
resource recovery system f or dealing with the problems of solid waste
management.” Compost Sci. , 16(5):18—21, Autumn 1975.

-------
Savage, C., and C. J. Trezek. “Screening shredded municipal solid waste.”
Compost Sd. , 17(1):7-ll, January—February 1976.
Schulte, H., P. N. Sullivan, and F. E. Walker. Characterizing combustible
portions of urban refuse for potential use as fuel . RI 8044, Bureau of
Mines, Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, 1975. 26 p. NTIS PB—244 780.
Schulz, R. L. Industrial development based on resources recovery (The
Vallingford Project) . Fourth Sink Management Group, Inc.,Kattskill
Bay, Wisconsin.
Schwieger. R. C. “Power from waste.” Power , 119(2):S1—S24, February 1975.
SCS Engineers. Evaluation of a compartmentalized refuse collection vehicle
for separate newspaper collection . EPA—SW 126c, Long Beach, California,
May 1976. 94 p. NTIS PB—257 969.
SCS Engineers. Evaluation of the San Diego separate newspaper collection
program . Long Beach, California, March 1976. 56 p.
SCS Engineers. Experiment on source segregation of solid waste at Navy shore
installations . Long Beach, California, June 1977. 113 p.
SC Engineers. Solid waste management master plans. Marine Corps Air Sta-
tion, Cherry Point, North Carolina, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina . Reston, Virginia, September 1977.
SCS Engineers. Test analysis work plan; Phase I, Solid waste source separa-
tion, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California . Long Beach, California,
April 1977.
Selby, E., and N. Selby. “Can this law stop the trashing of America.”
108(647):69—73, March 1976.
Selby, E., and N. Selby. “The lobby that battles the bottle bill.” Read .
B . 108(649):237—245, May 1976.
Selby, E., and N. Selby. “The whys behind a bottle bill.” Read Dig. ,
108(65l):l69—174, July 1976.
Seldman, N. N. Garbage in America: approaches to recycling . Institute for
Local Self—Reliance, Washington, D.C., 1975. 49 p.
Seidman, N. W. “High technology recycling: costly and still wasteful.”
Compost Sci. , 17(2):28—29, March—April 1976.
Sheng, B. P., and H. Alter. “Energy recovery from municipal solid waste and
method of comparing refuse—derived fuels.” Resour. Recovery Conser. ,
l(l):85—93, Nay 1975.

-------
Shiga, N. “Separate collection of household refuse in Tokyo.” In: Con-
ference Papers, First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse
_ rv, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York. pp. 61—66.
Shulatad, R. N., and 3. A. Bogart. Solid waste disposal in Arkansas; charac-
teristics and costs . University of Arkansas, Payetteville, 1977. 42 p.
Sittig, N. Resource Recovery and Recycling Handbook of Industrial Wastes .
Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 1975. 427 p.
Skinner, 3. H. “The impact of source separation and waste redu tion on the
economics of resource recovery facilities.” Resour. Recovery Energy
Rev., 4(2):22—26, March—April 1977.
Small—scale and low technology resource recovery study . 13. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 210 p.
Smith, L. T., F. K. Tsou, and R. A. Matula. “Emission standards and emissions
from small scale solid waste incinerators.” In: Proceedings of 1976
National Waste Processing Conference , Boston, Massachusetts, Nay 23—26,
1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. pp. 202—213.
Smith, L. T., F. K. Tsou, and R. A. Matula. Emission standards, source
testing, and emissions from small scale solid waste incinerators .
Report No. DUCK—751, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
April 1975.
Smith, N. P. Solid waste reclamation and recycling (a bibliography with
abstracts). Part 1. Packaging and containers . NTlSearch, National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, September 1978.
107 p. NTIS PS—78/0761.
Smith, N. F. Solid waste reclamation and recycling (a bibliography with
abstracts). Part 3. Metals . NTlSearch, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia. August 1977. 236 p. NTIS FS?78 0763.
Smith, N. P. Solid waste reclamation and recycling (a bibliography with
abstracts). Part 4: Class . NTlSearch, National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia, August 1977. 94 p. NTIS P 5 —77/0669.
Smith, N. P. Solid waste reclamation and recycling (a bibliography with
abstracts). Part 5. Paper . NTlSearch, National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia, September 1978. 149 p. NTIS
PS—78110765.
Smith, P. I. S. Recycling Waste . Scientific Publications, Broseley,
England, 1976.
Soimnerblad, R. E., and R. B. Pai. “Refuse, the world’s wasted energy
source; the quality control approach.” Beat Eng. , 74(3):34, June—
August, 1975.

-------
“Source separation of recyclable wastepaper.” Presented at Israel Ecologi-
cal Society 6th Scientific Conference, Tel—Aviv, June 4—5, 1975.
Spencer, D. B., and E. Schloemann. “Recovery of non—ferrous metals by means
of permanent magnets.” Resour. Recovery Conserv. , l(2):151—165, October
1975.
Spencer, D. B., and E. Schloemann. “Recovery of non—ferrous metals by means
of permanent magnets.” 6(lO):32—41, October 1975.
Spendlove, N. 3. Bureau of Mines research on resource recovery, reclamat on
utilization, disposal, and stabilization . Bureau of Mines Circular
8750, College Park Metallurgy Research Center, Maryland, 1977. 104 p.
Spohn, E. “Recent developments in composting of municipal wastes in Germany.”
Compost Sci. , 18(2):25—32, March—April 1977.
Stearns, R. P. “Economics of separate refuse collection.” In: Energy from
Solid Waste Utilization; Proceedings of the 6th Annual Northeast Regional
Antipollution Conference , University of Rhode Island, Kingston, July 8—9,
1975. Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut, 1976.
pp. 23—44.
Stone, C. E., C. C. Wiles, and C. A. Clemons. Composting at Johnson City:
final report on joint USEPA—TVA project; composting project with opera-
tional data, 1967 to 1971 . Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, November 1975. 360 p.
NTIS PB—26 147.
Stone, P. L. Energy utilization of solid waste at small naval bases — an
economic decision model and comparison of two types of systems . Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneine, California, 1976.
Straub, H. “Refuse composeing — the most rational method of disposal.”
Umwelt , 3:56—61, March—April 1976.
Sullivan, P. M., and B. V. Makar. “Quality of products from Bureau of
Mines resource recovery systems and suitability for recycling.” In:
Proceedings of the Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium , Chicago,
Illinois, April 12—14, 1976. E. Aleshin, ed. lIT Research Institute,
Chicago. pp. 223—233.
Sullivan, P. N., M. H. Stanczyk, and N. 3. Spendlove. “Pilot plant analyzes
value of urban refuse.” Actual. speciE. Eng. , 33(5):77—80, May 1975.
Sundberg, A. P., and C. Tayart de Borms. “Solid waste treatment and resource
recovery in the European Economic Recovery (EEC); a status report.”
In: Proceedinas of 1976 National Waste Processing Conferenee Boston,
Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York. pp. 447—451.

-------
Sweeney, P. 3. An investigation of the effects of density, size, and shape
upon_the_air_classification of municipal type solid waste. Report No.
CEEDO—TR—77—25, Civil and Environmental Engineering Development Office,
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, July 1977. 167 p. NTIS AD/A—045 045.
Systems Technology Corporation. Small Nodular Incinerator Systems with Heat
Recovery; a technical, environmental, and economic evaluation . U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, SW—177c. 254 p.
Taylor, P. Bottles and sense . The Environmental Action Foundation,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
Taylor, W. W., E. 3. Khowry, and E. L. Dunnehoo, Jr. Feasibility study on
combined resource recovery systems for the city of Lake Charles and
Calcasieu Parish . Lake Charles—McNesse Urban Observatory, Louisiana,
May 1977. 29 p. NTIS PB—271 525.
Tello, 3. “Sanitary aspects of composting in Mexico.” Compost Sci. , 17(2):
30—32, March—April 1976.
Thoeznen, X. H. “The incineration of domestic refuse: experiences in Ger-
many.” Chart. Mech. Eng. , 23(11):50—52, December 1976.
Thomas, C. A., and 3. R. Holmes. “The choice between reclamation and the
recovery of energy from waste.” In: Conference Papers, First Inter-
national Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy , Montreux,
Switzerland, November 3—5, 1975. Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, New York. pp. 164—172.
Tichenor, R. “The Nottingham system for resource recovery.” Compost Sci. ,
17(1): 20—25, January—February 1976.
Tietzen, C. “The potential of composting in developing countries.” Compost
Sci., 16(4):6—7, August 1975.
Tiliman, D. A. “Fuels from recycling systems.” Environ. Sci. Technol. ,
9:418—422, Nay 1975.
Treat, N. L. Net energy from municipal solid waste . Oak Ridge Associated
Universities, Tennessee, Institute for Energy Analysis, February 1977.
42 p. NTIS ORAU tEA M77 5.
Treathaway, V. “Energy recovery and thermal disposal of waste utilizing
fluidized bed reactor systems.” In: Proceedings of 1976 National
Waste Processing Conference , Boston, Massachusetts, May 23—26, 1976.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York. pp. 117—124.
Trezek, C. 3., and C. Savage. “Results of comprehensive refuse conmzinution
study.” Waste Age . 6(7):49—55, July 1975.

-------
Trezek, C. J., and C. Savage. Significance of size reduction in solid waste
management; final report . EPA/600/2—77/l31, University of California,
Berkeley, July 1977. 167 p. NTIS PB—272 096.
Tsou, F. K., L. T. Smith, and R. A. Matula. Review of the technology asso-
ciated with small scale solid waste incinerators . Report No. DUCK—752.
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1975.
Twichell, E. S. “Magnetic separation equipment for municipal refuse.” Pre-
sented at the 104th Annual American Institute of Mechanical Engineers
Meeting, New York, February 17—29, 1975. (Unpublished paper.)
U. S. Bureau of Mines. Recycling trends in the United States; a review .
Information Circular 8711, Washington, D.C., 1976. 25 p.
U. S. Bureau of Domestic Commerce. The impacts of national beverage container
legislation . Washington, D.C., October 1975.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Materials recovery: solid waste
management guidelines for source separation.” 41(8):
16950—16956, April 23, 1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource recovery and waste reduc-
tion; third report to Congress . EPA—SW161, Washington, D.C., 1975.
133 p. NTIS PB—255 141.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resource recovery and waste reduc-
tion; fourth report to Congress . EPA—SW—600, Washington, D.C., 1977.
142 p.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions and answers on returnable
beverage containers for beer and soft drinks . Washington, D.C., July
1975. 13 p.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Solid waste management guidelines
for beverage containers.” ! i •’ 41(1894):41202—4l205, September 21,
1976.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Yosemite test of beverage container
refund . Washington, D.C., July 1976. 2 p.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. A New England recycling
directory . EPA—SW—638, Boston, Massachusetts, 1977. 50 p.
U. S. General Accounting Office. Policies and programs being developed to
expand procurement of products containing recycled materials . Report
PSAD—76 139, Washington, D.C., May 1976. 26 p.
U. S. Naval Facilities. Engineering Coimnand. Recovery and reuse of refuse
resources progrem . 1975.
Von Heidenstam, 0. “Swedish experience in separation at source.” Solid
Wastes , 67(8):284—295, July 1977.

-------
Walter, C. E. “Practical refuse recycling.” 3. Environ. Eng. Div., M i.
Soc. Civ. Eng. , 102(1):139—148, February 1978.
Waste Management Technology and Resource and Energy Recovery; Proceedings
of the Fourth National Congress , Atlanta, Georgia, November 12—14,
1975. EPA—SW—8p., National Solid Wastes Management Association, 1976.
382 p.
“Waste materials.” Annu. Rev. Energy , 1:257, 1976.
Weinstein, N. 3., and R. F. Toro. “Control systems on municipal incinera-
tors.” Environ. Sci. Technol. , 1O(6):545—547, June 1976.
Weinstein, N. 3., and R. F. Toro. Thermal Processing of Municipal Solid
Waste for Resource and Energy Recovery . Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Ann Arbor,Nichigan, 1976. 179 p.
Wentwbrth, M. Resource recovery: truth or consequence . Environmental
Action Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1977. 77 p.
“What gives the National Center for Resource Recovery its clout?” Resour.
Recovery Energy Rev. , 4(3):4—9, Summer 1977.
Williamson, W. “In Ontario, a major resource recovery system to fight a
major waste disposal problem.” Eng. 3. , 58(l):36—41, March—April 1975.
Williamson, W. “Ontario’s resource recovery program.” Scrap Age , 33(6):
176—180, June 1976.
Wilson. D. C. Nonferrous—scrap separation by induction: Universities
attack the resource recovery problem . National Center for Resource
Recovery, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Wilson, E. N., and H. N. Freeman. “Processing energy from wastes.” Environ.
Sci. Technol. , 1O(5):430—435, May 1976.
Wilson, N. 3. “Maximizing resource recovery from solid waste.” Build. Syst .
72(3):l1—15, April—May 1975.
Wilson, H. 3., and D. V. Swindle, Jr. “The markets for and the economics of
heat energy from solid waste incineration.” Resour. Recovery Conserv. ,
1(3):197—206, April 1976.
Woodruff, K. L. “Preprocessing of municipal solid waste for resource re-
covery with a Troimnel.” Trans. Soc. Mm. Eng. AINE , 260:201—204, 1976.
Young, R. A. “Efficient in—house handling of solid waste.”
7(1O):43—45, October 1975.
Youiig, R. A., and I. 0. Risk. “Kodak disposes of waste in s?$tem that helps
pay its way.” Pollut. Eng. , 8(9):48—49, September 1976.

-------