\
I REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
Using Solid Waste To
Conserve Resources
And To Create Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
RED-75-326
-------
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548
B-166506
To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
This is our report entitled "Using Solid Waste to Con-
serve Resources and to Create Energy."
We made our review pursuant to the Budget and Accounting
Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act
of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).
We are sending copies of this report to the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; the Secretaries of Defense
and the Interior; the Chairmen of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the Federal Maritime Commission; and the
Administrators of General Services and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
1L,
Comptroller General
of the United States
This report is printed on recycled paper
-------
Contents
Page
DIGEST i
CHAPTER
RESOURCE RECOVERY: WHAT IT IS AND
WHY IT IS IMPORTANT 1
The solid waste problem 1
The material resources problem 4
Resource recovery and recycling 5
Legislation a
2 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT HAS
BEEN SLOW 9
Demonstration grants 9
Studies and investigations 15
Recommended guidelines 16
Congressional concern over EPA’S slow
progress in implementing the 1970 act 16
Other EPA—funded demonstration grants 17
Conclusion 22
Agency comments 26
3 MAJOR ISSUES CONFRONTING RESOURCE
RECOVERY, RECYCLING, AND REUSE 29
Freight rates 29
Federal procurement 35
Taxes 37
Product controls 39
Conclusion 41
Agency comments 41
4 ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SOLID WASTE 43
Potential use of solid waste as fuel 44
Projects featuring energy recovery 45
EPA’s energy recovery research project 46
Waste oil as an energy source 47
Conclusion 47
-------
Page
CHAPTER
5 THE FEDERAL ROLE IN ASSISTING STATES
AND LOCALITIES IN ESTABLISHING
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROGRAMS 49
Federal assistance provided to State and
local governments 49
State legislation and programs directed
at resource recovery 53
How the States view the Federal role in
resource recovery 56
Conclusion 59
Recommendation to the Administrator of
EPA 60
Agency comments 61
6 SCOPE OF REVIEW 62
APPENDIX
Letter dated October 31, 1974, from EPA to
GAO 63
II Description of certain EPA—funded demon-
stration projects 67
III Principal EPA officials responsible for
activities discussed in this report 69
ABBREVIATIONS
CPU Combustion Power Unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FMC Federal Maritime Commission
GAO General Accounting Office
GSA General Services Administration
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
0MB Office o Management and Budget
-------
COMPTROLLER GENERAL’ S
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
DIGEST
WILY THE REVIEW WAS MADE
Recovery of materials and energy
from solid waste (i.e., resource
recovery) is becoming the rocal
point for attacking the mount-
ing solid waste problem in the
Nation’s cities. Resource
recovery reduces the volume of
wastes requiring disposal and
helps conserve dwindling
material resources.
In view of the increasing public
and congressional concern over
solid waste disposal problems,
GAO examined steps taken toward
resource recovery with Federal
assistance since the passage of
the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Solid waste threatens to become
the number one environmental
problem in cost if not public
concern.
Many major urban areas are, or
soon will be, no longer able to
use landfill and incineration for
waste disposal because landfill
space is being exhausted and
incineration is being restricted
due to resulting air pollution.
Although the thrust of the Federal
Government’s solid waste manage-
ment activities was redirected
from disposal to resource recovery
by the 1970 act,. progress has been
slow. Several major unresolved
issues hindered the development
of resource recovery.
lear Sheet . Upon removal, the report
cover date should be noted hereon.
•1-
USING SOLID WASTE TO CONSERVE
RESOURCES AND TO CREATE ENERGY
Environmental Protection Agency
The Federal role in assisting
States and local communities to
establish resource recovery
systems needs to be expanded.
Implementation of the
Resource Recovery Act
The Environmental Protection
Agency was slow in implementing
the resource recovery provisions
of the 1970 act, generally,
because of delays in becoming
effectively organized. The
Agency has since made
improvements.
A major provision of the act
provided for Federal grants to
finance the demonstration of
resource recovery systems. In
the fall of l972--2 years after
the act was passed--grants of
about $20.4 million were
awarded for four resource
recovery demonstration projects
to
--Lowell, Massachusetts;
--San Diego County, California;
-—Baltimore, Maryland; and
--the State of Delaware.
These were the only demonstration
grants awarded under the 1970
act.
The first of the four projects is
expected to begin operations in
1975——the last in 1979.
(See pp. 9 to 11.)
RED-75-326
-------
The fourth and iargest grant--
$9 million--was awarded to the
State of Delaware and was for
a project which would princi-
pally produce humus, an
agricultural-horticultural
product used in growing plants
and crops. Its principal use
in this instance was for
mushrooms.
The project had been rejected
twice previously by the
Environmental Protection Agency
because
--it was considered to be
uneconomical,
--purchase commitments were not
obtainable for the humus, and
--it appeared the system would
have little applicability
nat i o nw ide.
These reasons were in accordance
with criteria established by the
Agency as a requisite for grants.
Subsequently, the project was
approved when additional funds
were made available.
EPA officials told GAO that the
project was approved because it
would demonstrate technology
different from that being
demonstrated by other funded
projects. The Delaware project
ran into problems with the
health aspects of humus produc-
tion because of anticipated
high levels of mercury and lead
concentrations in the humus.
The Environmental Protection
Agency thereupon encouraged the
State to change the project to
principally an energy recovery
project. As of early January
1975, an amended grant agree-
ment was being finalized.
Agency officials told GAO that
due to inflation the total cost
of the Delaware project had
increased to over $17 million.
To insure the State of 75 per-
cent Federal funding, the
officials are supporting
Delaware’s attempt to receive
a grant of approximately
$4 iil1ion from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency’s waste
water treatment construction
grant program to cover the sewage-
sludge portion of the project.
Thus the Environmental Protection
Agency will be providing about
$13 million in Federal funds for
the Delaware project.
Similar systems are operating or
are planned. For example,
Bridgeport, Connecticut, is plan-
fling to construct a system without
Federal funds where waste will be
burned as fuel in oil-fired
boilers--as is to be done in the
Delaware project. The Bridgeport
system is expected to be operat-
ing in 1977, 2 years before the
Delaware project. (See pp. 11
to 15.)
The Environmental Protection
Agency should make every effort to
arrange with the parties involved
in the Bridgeport project for an
evaluation of their system. Such
an arrangement would provide the
Agency with necessary data at an
earlier date and at substantially
less cost than the Delaware
project. The information obtained
could then be used to assist other
communities throughout the Nation
in solving their solid waste and
energy problems.
(See pp. 22 and 26.)
The Environmental Protection
Agency had funded--before the
1970 act--two successful
-------
resource recovery demonstration
projects:
--St. Louis and a local utility
are cooperating to demonstrate
the feasibility of burning
shredded residential waste as
a supplementary fuel to pro-
duce electricity in coal-fed
boilers.
--In Franklin, Ohio, a wet-
materials recovery process is
being used to recover fiber
for use in roofing materials.
The system also is capable of
producing energy and is to be
used in a larger community
where a 2,000 ton per day
plant is to produce steam for
electricity.
(See pp. 17 to 22.)
Other provisions of the act are
discussed on pages 15 and 16.
Major issues confronting
resource recovery
Three specific issues affecting
the economics of resource
recovery involve the Federal
Government. These are
--possible discrimination in
freight rates, a major cost
element for recovered
(secondary) materials;
--Federal procurement policy
toward products containing
recovered and recycled
materials; and
--taxes which favor virgin
materials over secondary
materials. (See p. 29.)
Both the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the National
Commission on Materials Policy
have taken the position that
discrimination in favor of virgin
materials over secondary materials
appears to exist in railroad
freight rates.
There are also at least two formal
complaints concerning possible
discrimination in ocean shipping
rates. There is disagreement,
however, about whether such dis-
crimination exists and about what
constitutes discrimination.
The Interstate Commerce Commission
and the Federal Maritime Commis-
sion are responsible for railroad
and ship freight rates, respec-
tively, and are looking into the
alleged discrimination.
(See pp. 29 to 35.)
Federal regulations in the past
favored the purchase of products
containing virgin materials.
However, the President in March
1970 directed Federal agencies to
undertake measures needed to
direct their policies, plans, and
programs to meet national environ-
mental goals. For details of
Federal Government efforts in this
area see pages 35 to 37.
Some tax benefits, principally
depletion allowances, are
applicable to the virgin—materials
industry and not to the secondary-
materials industry. In its second
annual resource recovery report to
the Congress, the Environmental
Protection Agency recommended that
consideration be given to reevalu-
ating such tax provisions.
(See pp. 37 to 39.)
Policies directed at regulating
the volume of sales or physical
characteristics are discussed on
pages 39 to 41.
Resolution of these issues will
continue to require a cooperative
Tear Sheet
1-1 1
-------
--generate energy; and
effort on the part of the
Environmental Protection
Agency and Federal agencies
responsible for these matters.
(See p. 41.)
Solid waste as energy
Until recently little attention,
if any, was given to the pro-
auction of energy from solid
waste such as trash, garbage
or junk. Once processed, these
wastes can either be fed
directly into boilers and used
to supplement primary fuel
sources or they can be converted
into other forms of energy
including oil.
in 1974 energy recovery projects
were under consideration, being
planned, or under construction
in at least 18 comunities, and
an additional 20 were making
preliminary evaluations.
The price of and demand for
imported raw materials has
increased dramatically and the
United States’ reliance on for-
eign sources of raw materials
is steadily increasing.
Resource recovery systems which
use organic waste to generate
energy and recover and recycle
inorganic waste--primarily
metals and glass--can help make
the United States more self-
sufficient.
Resource recovery systems provide
assistance in four important
ways. These systems
--reduce air pollution;
--dispose of waste without using
quanties of scarce land,
particularly in urban areas;
--recover material resources,
particularly the nonrenewables
like iron and aluminum.
In addition, resource recovery
and recycling help to conserve
energy because in virtually every
instance the use of secondary
tcria1 in production requirec
less energy than does virgin
materials. The National Commis-
sion on Materials Policy esti-
mated that about 2 percent of the
Nation’s energy demand could be
saved by recycling available
steel, aluminum, and paper waste.
Approximately 80 percent of the
total annual municipal waste is
combustible and could be used to
generate energy if recovery were
practiced in all major urban
areas.
The energy produced would be
equivalent to:
—-About 1.5 percent of the
Nation’s total energy
consumption.
--The Nation’s entire energy con-
sumption for residential and
comercial lighting.
——More than one-half of the 1972
direct oil imports from the
Middle East.
--Almost one-third of the energy
that will be delivered by the
Alaskan pipeline.
The Environmental Protection
Agency should continue to promote
development of materials-energy
recovery systems.
(See pp. 43 to 47.)
iv
-------
State and local assistance
The Environmental Protection
Agency has provided some assist-
ance to State and local govern-’
merits under 3 solid waste
programs--planning grants, the
Mission 5,000 project (objective
of closing 5,000 open dumps
j L. ,
WrllCii was major
technical assistance.
Some of the States GAO visited
have already taken steps to
provide local governments with
State-financed assistance.
New York State has begun finan-
cial assistance to local gov-
ernments for resource recovery
projects with the award of
$21 million to New York City and
$9 million to Monroe County.
Connecticut has established a
comprehensive statewide resource
recovery plan with the principal
element being the processing of
solid waste into fuel. Under
the plan the 10 facilities to be
constructed throughout the State
during a 10-year period are to
process about 84 percent of the
State’s waste. The first
facility is being constructed in
Bridgeport. (See pp. 49 to 56.)
The National League of Cities,
the United States Conference of
Mayors, and the Council of State
Governments all have pointed to
a need for more Federal
assistance. All the State offi-
cials GAO talked to believed
that Federal financial and non-
financial assistance is
warranted. (See pp. 56 to 60.)
RECOMMENDATION
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency should
provide expanded assistance to
States and local communities to
solve their solid waste problems
through establishment of resource
recovery systems. (See p. 60.)
AGENCY ACTIONS AND UNRESOLVED
ISSUES
The Environmental Protection
Agency stated that, although it
accepted responsibility for the
early delays in implementing the
resource recovery program, it
felt the program currently has a
strong technical base, is well
organized, and is moving ahead
positively. (See p. 26.)
The Agency also stated that it
completely agreed with GAO’s
recommendation to provide
expanded assistance to States
and local communities.
(See p. 61.)
GAO questioned the need for spend-
ing $9 million on the Delaware
project and suggested that EPA
attempt to obtain the data from
the Bridgeport project necessary
to evaluate the burning of solid
waste in oil-fired boilers.
In commenting on this matter,
EPA maintained its position that
funding for the Delaware project
was justified. The State of
Delaware took a similar position.
(See p. 26.)
EPA stated the value of the proj-
ect to be the demonstration of the
(1) burning of solid waste in oil-
fired boilers, (2) composting of
sewage sludge with solid waste to
produce a pathogen—free humus, arid
(3) maximum recovery to reduce
landfilling to a minimum. An EPA
official told GAO that the purpose
of the humus recovery was to
demonstrate the marketability of
Sheet
V
-------
humus and that the technology had
been sufficiently demonstrated.
(See pp. 26 and 27.)
Connecticut’s resource recovery
project at Bridgeport will use
solid waste as supplementary
fuel in oil—fired boilers and is
expected to become operational
about 2 years before the Oelaware
project.
Connecticut officials told GAO
that they would be receptive to
entering into an agreement
whereby the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency could obtain the
data necessary to assess the
technical and economic feasi-
bility of such a system.
(See p. 27.)
Company officials at the compost-
mci pilot plant for the Delaware
project told GAO that they
believed the marketability of the
compost has been demonstrated.
(See pp. 27 and 28.)
GAO believes that the maximum
recovery of energy and material
and minimum landfilling has
already been demonstrated at
resource recovery operations
in St. Louis, Missouri, and
Franklin, Ohio, and will be
demonstrated at other facil-
ities before operation of the
Delaware project. (See p. 28.)
MATTERS FOR CONSIDEP 4TION BY
THE CONGRESS
Information contained in this
report will be useful to the
Congress in determining the
dimensions of future legisla-
tion concerning solid waste
disposal, recovery of resources
from solid wastes, conservation
of resources, and energy
development.
The Congress will also be inter-
ested in the observations
presented in this report regard-
ing EPA’s decision to finance a
$9 million demonstration project
before determining that the nec-
essary economical and technical
data cannot be obtained from
another source.
Elhis report is printed on recycled paper.]
v i
-------
CHAPTER 1
RESOURCE RECOVERY: WHAT IT IS
AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT
Resource recovery is the recovery of materials and
energy from solid waste. In this report we discuss the En—
vironmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’S) actions to implement
the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 3251), the
benefits of resource recovery and the major issues confront—
ing it, and States’ and cities’ activities in this area and
their views on actions needed to increase resource recovery.
The EPA organization responsible for implementing the act is
the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
Solid waste can be defined as any waste that does not
go “up the stack” or “down the drain.” It is the residue of
production and consumption——the most conspicuous examples
being (1) the contents of the household garbage can which
includes bottles, cans, and paper, (2) automobiles and appli-
ances that have served their useful life, and (3) general
litter. Solid waste also includes wastes from agriculture,
animals, and mineral processing.
The volume of solid waste is huge and rapidly increas-
ing. EPA estimated that in 1973 it amounted to over 4 billion
tons——up almost 1 billion tons since 1967. Underlying this
increase are some basic economic factors: rising population,
increasing affluence, and trends towards convenience pack-
aging and disposable products. Also, increasingly stringent
air and water pollution control measures cause wastes that
previously were burned or dumped into our Nation’s waters to
accumulate or to be disposed of in other ways.
Although waste collected from homes and businesses——
known as postconsumer and municipal waste——amounted to only
134 million tons in 1973, its management requires large and
continuous efforts because it is highly visable, is generated
in areas with limited storage or disposal space, and, if not
efficiently managed, presents a threat to public health. In
our review we emphasized this category of waste because of
its impact on people and the environment and also because of
its potential for conversion into useful materials and energy.
(See photographs on pp. 2 and 3 showing municipal disposal.)
Presently, most industrial wastes (wastes resulting
from industrial operations and scrap derived from products
or structures which have served their useful life) are al-
ready being recycled. Any significant increase in the supply
1
-------
V
It - ‘
b
V — — . , —
4
At
I
L ts e *1 j 4 -2r
! ‘‘tf’%y ‘i* : s-’t7 r a n S
V ‘ - , -
S
___ . ,
_______ _____________ S
Solid waste disposaE outsiae r’iew iork t ity. Note t.mpire State building in background.
i 14tt:
S q
a
a
N )
k
‘ S
f
a.,
S
CREDIT: The Record, Hackensack, New Jersey
-------
New York City garbage being towed to sea from the East River.
CREDIT: EPA-Documerica, Gary E. Miller
•Ii j4 i!fiit;
1%
r
3
-------
of secondary materials is expected to come from mixed munic—
ipal refuse.
Many of our Nation’s larger cities are already spending
more for solid waste management than for air and water pol-
lution control; solid waste management often ranks as the
third largest expenditure, funded solely from local revenues.
EPA estimated that in 1973 the Nation was spending about
$3.35 billion a year to collect and dispose of municipal
solid waste——an average of $26 per ton. EPA also estimated
that by 1985 these costs would increase by at least 50 per-
cent.
The most common method of disposing of solid waste in
the United States today is by landfill. Incinerators have
long played a significant role in extending the life of land-
fills because they can consume up to 95 percent of waste in-
put by volume. Ultimately, about 90 percent of all collected
wastes are disposed of in some sort of land disposal opera-
tion, ranging from open dumps to sophisticated sanitary land-
fills.
Major urban areas, such as New York City where it costs
almost $43 a ton to collect and dispose of solid waste, are
rapidly running out of nearby landfill spaces. Also, many
cities may be required to shut down their incinerators in the
future because they are not appropriately equipped to meet
air pollution control standards; some already have done so.
THE MATERIAL RESOURCES PROBLEM
The United States, with about 7 percent of the world’s
population, consumes almost half of the world’s industrial
materials. In an April 1972 report, the National Commission
on Materials Policy, which was established by the Resource
Recovery Act of 1970, stated that it was becoming increasing—
ly evident that the gap between our Nation’s materials re-
quirements and the remaining easily accessible world supplies
was widening. The Commission stated that as a result, our
Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of raw materials was
steadily increasing. A 1973 Department of the Interior re-
port noted that our Nation’s trade deficit for such materi-
als——which in 1972 was $6 billion——could grow to nearly
$100 billion a year by the year 2000.
According to the Department of Interior’s report, in
1972 the United States imported all of its requirements for
platinum, mica, chromium and strontium; more than 75 percent
of its cobalt, tantalum, aluminum, manganese, fluorine,
titanium, asbestos and tin; and more than 50 percent of its
bismuth, nickel, columbium, antimony, gold, potassium,
mercury, and zinc. The Commission stated that, as our
4
-------
Nation’s needs continue to grow and as per capita consumption
of materials in other countries increases at an even faster
rate than ours, it will become increasingly difficult for the
United States to fill its ever growing needs by importing.
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING
Resource recovery is simply the recovery of useful mate-
rials and energy from solid waste. Recycling involves using
recovered resources. Examples of recycling are using waste
paper in making new paper, crushed glass in making new glass,
and scrap iron in making steel. (See pp. 6 and 7 for photo-
graphs of scrap and a product made from it.) Recycling also
involves using recovered materials for other purposes, such
as to produce steam to generate electricity or to produce
gases and oil for fuel.
The two primary advantages of resource recovery and re-
cycling are (1) reducing the volume of wastes otherwise re-
quiring disposal and (2), more importantly, conserving scarce
natural resources. Other advantages included:
——Reduced energy requirements and reduced environmental
impact in the making of new goods because generally
the use of secondary materials in production generates
less air pollution, water pollution, and mining and
process wastes and requires less energy than does the
use of virgin materials.
——Alleviating balance of payments problems and depend-
ency on foreign sources of supply by reducing the
volume of materials that are imported.
——Reduced scenic blight, land pollution, and health
hazards that result from improper disposal methods.
——Reduced cost of waste disposal and related problems.
Resource recovery systems are of two basic types. One
is referred to as a front—end or a materials—recovery system
which separates the inorganic from the organic portion of
wastes; the inorganic portion is further separated into its
major components, ferrous and nonferrous metals and glass.
(Ferrous metals are those that contain iron and therefore
can be magnetically separated.)
The second type of recovery system is called a back-end
system, designed to use the organic portion of wastes prima-
rily through energy recovery. By using both systems almost
total resource recovery can be achieved.
5
-------
Scrap bundles on left, shredded scrap on right.
CREDIT: Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel
. t ‘4
-------
Concrete being poured on top of steel rods made from shredded cars.
CREDIT: EPA-Documerica, Bill Shrout
•
I ,
r
,. -
t: j c’
-;
7
-------
LEGISLATION
The Solid Waste Disposal Act (Act) (42 U.S.C. 3251),
the first major Federal legislation to deal with the solid
waste problem, authorized a program to develop an efficient
means of collecting and disposing of the millions of tons
of solid waste generated by our society each year. The
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, enacted on October 26, 1970,
amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act to redirect the thrust
of waste management from disposal to resource recovery and
recycling and provided authority for the program until
June 30, 1973. Public Law 93—14, enacted on April 9, 1973,
provided a 1—year extension to June 30, 1974. Public Law
93—324, enacted on June 30, 1974, provided appropriations
for fiscal year 1975.
The major amendments to the Act were the addition of
section 208 which provides for grants to State and local
agencies to demonstrate resource recovery systems and the
addition of section 205 which requires EPA to conduct studies
and investigations of issues relating to resource recovery.
The act defined a resource recovery system as a solid waste
management system which provides for collecting, separating,
recycling, and recoverying solid wastes and disposing of non—
recoverable waste residues.
8
-------
CHAPTER_2
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS
OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY ACT HAS BEEN SLOI
The Solid haste Disposal Act of 1965 provided for tech-
nical and financial assistance to States, local governments,
and interstate agencies to plan, develop, establish, and
conduct solid waste disposal programs. It also provided the
basis for a program of research to develop and apply new and
improved methods of solid waste disposal.
Although considerable progress was made in State and
local planning under the 1965 act, the Congress believed that
additional efforts were needed. In its report on the bill to
extend the act, the Senate Committee on Public Works stated
that the only long—term solution to the solid waste problem
was a shift from the use—and—discard approach to a closed
cycle of use, salvage, reprocess, and reuse. The Resource
Recovery Act of 1970 was passed to emphasize this approach.
The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 had an initial 3—year
authorization. The Congress intended to review the activi-
ties carried out under the act after it had been in existence
for about 2 years before deciding whether it should be ex-
tended in its present form or modified. However, because of
delays in becoming effectively organized, EPA was slow in
implementing the resource recovery provisions of the act.
EPA has since made improvements in carrying out these
provisions. The act was extended from June 30, 1973, and
June 30, 1974, to provide additional time for the Congress
to determine the future of the program. The act has now
been extended to June 30, 1975. New legislation making major
modifications to the current program is being developed and
is expected to be enacted during the extension period.
DEMONSTRATION GRANTS
Section 208 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
provides for grants to finance the demonstration of resource
recovery systems. It was not until the fall of l972——2 years
after the act was passed—-that EPA awarded grants for demon-
stration of four resource recovery projects. The technology
to be used in two of the projects was ready to be demonstrated
at least 1 year earlier, according to officials involved in
the projects. The first ot these four demonstration proj—
ects——which received the only grants awarded under the amended
act——is estimated to become operational in 1975 and the last
in 1979.
9
-------
Before the grants were awarded there had been consid-
erable interest in demonstrating resource recovery systems
as ev.idenced by letters of intent to apply for and/or pro-
posals for grants. By .June 1971 EPA had received over 80
such letters of intent which by October 1971 had increased
to 144.
The Office of Management and Budget (0MB), Executive
Office of the President, required EPA to complete state of
the art studies before releasing the $11.5 million initially
appropriated for demonstration projects. According to an
EPA official, 0MB sought assurance that technology was avail-
able for demonstrating resource recovery systems.
Upon establishing EPAtS resource recovery division in
December 1971, six people were assigned to the program, and
work on developing procedures and criteria for funding dem-
onstration grants was accelerated. No staff had been exclu-
sively assigned to do this work before. The division direc-
tor met with 0MB officials at that time, and they agreed that
the demonstration grant funds would be released on the basis
of criteria being developed for funding the demonstration
grants.
In March 1972 this work was approved and EPA publicly
requested preproposals for resource recovery demonstration
systems. The deadline for submitting preproposals was May 8,
1972. On April 4, 1972, 0MB released the demonstration grant
funds. EPA reviewed 65 preproposals which resulted in EPA’s
consideration of 17 final proposals. On September 8, 1972,
EPA awarded almost all of the $11.5 million——the total amount
appropriated——for three demonstration grants for projects in
Lowell, Massachusetts ($2.4 million); San Diego County,
California ($3 million); and Baltimore, Maryland ($6 million).
When the Congress appropriated an additional $15 million for
the demonstration grant program for fiscal year 1973, EPA
selected a fourth project from the final proposals and awarded
a $9 million grant to Delaware on October 26, 1972.
EPA had requested a total of $4.1 million in demon-
stration grant funds for fiscal years 1971—73. However, the
Congress appropriated $26.6 million, of which approximately
$20.4 million was obligated for the four demonstration pro-
jects.
The Baltimore project is scheduled to be fully opera-
tional in 1975 and the waste is to be used to generate
steam. At Lowell solid waste incinerator residues——steel,
nonferrous metals and glass——are to be recovered and sold
beginning in 1976. In 1976 construction is to be completed
on a project in San Diego County where wastes are to be
processed into oil and used as a supplementary fuel by a
10
-------
local utility company. A description of these projects is
in appendix II.
The Delaware project has had difficulties which required
a change in its scope. As of early January 1975 an amended
grant agreement was being finalized. Pertinent aetails of
the problems surrounding the project are below.
Delaware project
In response to EPA ’s March 1972 solicitation for pre—
proposals for resource recovery demonstration projects,
Delaware submitted an application proposing a project whose
principal product was to be humus, an agricultural—horticul-
tural product used in growing plants and crops. Delaware
proposed to market the humus principally for use in growing
mushrooms. The process was also intended to recover ferrous
and nonferrous metals, glass, and carbon and to produce fuel
to operate the driers used in producing humus.
In a letter dated June 15, 1972, EPA notified the State
not to invest its time and effort in submitting a formal
application. EPA took that position primarily because the
proposed system was considered economicaijy unfeasible for
the area served because (1) purchase commitments were not
obtainable for the humus product and (2) the system would
have little nationwide applicability due to its lirnitea pro-
duct marketability. These reasons were in accordance with
EPA’s criteria for awarding resource recovery demonstration
grants.
Nevertheless, Delaware submitted a formal application
which EPA reviewed with the 16 other formal applications.
EPA ranked the Delaware project 13th in comparison with the
other applications. On September 8, 1972, EPA notified the
State that it was unable to approve its application basically
because ot the relatively unattractive economics of the pro-
posed system and because it appeared the system to be demon-
strated could not be duplicated in communities throughout
the country.
On this same date——September 8, 1972—--EPA awarded three
resource recovery demonstration grants for projects to
Lowell, San Diego County, and Baltimore. The award of these
three grants obligated $11.4 million of the $11.5 million
appropriated for the demonstration grants. On August 22,
1972, a bill had been enacted which appropriated an addi-
tional $15 million for demonstration projects, and in October
1972 0MB released $9 million in demonstration grant funds.
On October 20, 1972, the Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Categorical Programs, sent a memorandum informing
11
-------
the EPA Administrator of the decision to award the grant.
The memorandum stated that throughout the history of the pro—
ject EPA strongly opposed Delaware’s pursuit of a resource
recovery facility built around the technology of composting
for the principal reason that facilities producing compost
had a history of failure. The memo also stated that EPA’S
reasons for turning down the Delaware application had been:
(1) the type of facility proposed had no national applicabil—
ity, (2) the capital and operating costs of the facility
were among the highest proposed, and (3) the facility was
basically a compost plant making use of technology which was
well known and already demonstrated. On October 26, 1972,
EPA awarded a $9 million resource recovery demonstration
grant to Delaware for the project which it had previously
rejected. The total cost of the project was estimated to be
$13.8 million.
We met with the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste Management Programs and the Director of the Resource
Recovery Division on November 2, 1972, to obtain the ration-
ale for awarding this grant. These officials told us that
they believed the $11.5 million which had been appropriated
in fiscal year 1972 to fund section 208 demonstration pro-
jects was sufficient to fund all of the technology which
they felt appropriate to demonstrate. They said that, when
the additional $15 million was appropriated, the decision
was made to demonstrate technology different from what they
were planning to fund under the other three grants which was
basically technology for the recovery of materials or energy
through some form of combustion. These officials also said,
of the final applications received, composting was the only
process that was different from the projects being funded.
There were only two composting projects submitted and one
was too small for demonstration. Therefore, the Delaware
project was selected.
A condition to the grant agreement required Delaware
to satisfy EPA that no adverse health effects would result
from using the humus product in growing mushrooms; no con-
sideration was to be given to funding the project beyond
the design stage until this condition was resolved.
In August 1973 EPA informed the State that the Food and
Drug Administration of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, upon analyzing preliminary data received from
Delaware, was particularly alarmed by the high levels of
mercury and lead concentrations that would be in the humus.
EPA further stated that the use of humus as a mushroom corn-
post ingredient faced many obstacles and its use in any
agricultural market may be questionable.
12
-------
EPA stated that the demonstration of the use of compost
as a fuel as suggested by the State was unacceptable and that
if the State wanted to market waste as a fuel the system
under use by St. Louis which used shredded waste as a fuel
(see p. 17) should be considered instead of an expensive
composting system.
EPA felt that the State had three options. One option
was for the State to further analyze the health aspects of
the humus before proceeding any further with the project.
The second option was for the State to proceed with the de-
sign of the project and conduct comprehensive health—effects
testing. Both of these options woulu require additional
expenditures by the State without assurance of subsequent
EPA funding.
The third option provided for EPA funding and was
accepted. EPA informed the State that it could change the
scope of its project to demonstrate a solid waste fuel re-
covery system similar to the St. Louis project’s and EPA
could fund the project at 75 percent of the total cost——
maximum allowed under the grant program——or million,
whichever was less.
In an April 1974 discussion with EPA’s Chief, Grants
Operations Branch, Grants Administration Division, we pointed
out that the three previous demonstration grants were based
on evaluations of competitive proposals and the need to dem-
onstrate previou sly undemonstrated resource recovery systems.
Since the Delaware project had evolved into a project similar
to the successful St. Louis project which is being actively
considered for adoption by other municipalities, we ques-
tioned whether the continued funding of the project would
eftectively further the objectives of the resource recovery
demonstration grant program.
We were informed that EPA planned to go ahead with the
funding of the $9 million demonstration grant to L)elaware
tor the revised project. EPA officials stated that the only
significant change in the project was the shift from pro-
duction of humus to production of energy. In addition, any
humus that will be produced will not be used in connection
with food products.
EPA officials informed us that due to inflation tne
total project cost had increaseU from an estimated l3.8
million to over $17 million. To insure 75 percent funding
of the project EPA agreed to support Delaware’s attempts to
obtain an EPA water construction grant of approximately S4
million to fund the sewage sludge portion of the facility.
At the time of the original award, the project’s sewage
sludge system would have been funded from the $9 milliOn
13
-------
demonstration grant. EPA is finalizing an amended grant
agreement for the Delaware project containing special con—
ditions which the State must meet to insure Federal funding.
According to EPA grant documents, the estimated cost
of the project has increased from $13.8 to $17.4 million
and we have been advised it probably will go higher. Al-
though EPA’s solid waste funding has not increased, the
Federal share tias by the proposed use of $4.1 million in
municipal waste water treatment construction funds. This
brings EPA’S total estimated share to S13.l million. How-
ever, the State’s contribution of the eligible costs nas
decreased from $4.7 to $4.4 million. EPA officials said
that the State was to pay for all cost overruns. The ex-
ception would be the cost attributable to any overruns on
the water construction grant, which is to be for the sewage—
sludge portion of the facility. Any overruns on that grant,
which the State anticipates receiving, would be shared between
EPA——75 percent——and the State——25 percent.
The EPA project officer acknowledged that the Delaware
project (as amended) was similar to the on—going, EPA funded
St. Louis project in that prepared solid waste will be used
to supplement fuel in existing steam—electric boilers. How-
ever, he stated that a major difference between the two proj-
ects was that the boilers in St. Louis burn coal and the
boilers in Delaware burn oil. He believes that, because most
utilities in the Northeast burn oil and because the Northeast
has a critical solid waste disposal problem, an evaluation of
such a system would be valuable.
The project officer also believes that the proposed
Delaware project will be valuable because it will have the
capability of coinposting sewage sludge with solid waste to
produce a pathogen—free humus at a lower cost than that of
other available sludge disposal alternatives. Finally, he
believes that the project will demonstrate maximum recovery
of materials and energy which will reduce the amount of
residue to be landfilled.
Connecticut and others are planning to implement systems
similar to the Delaware project’s where waste fuels will be
burned in oil—fired boilers. A.n example is a planned project
for Bridgeport, Connecticut, being designed, constructed, and
operated by a private contractor. The Bridgeport system is
expected to be operating in 1977, 2 years before the Delaware
project. Therefore a question arises whether EPA should pro-
ceed further with the Delaware contract at this time in the
absence of definite knowledge that appropriate arrangements
cannot be made to obtain the pertinent data from the Bridge-
port project.
14
-------
iowever, EPA is proceeding with the Delaware project
without making any effort to determine whether pertinent data
on the Briageport system could be obtained from the parties
involvea to enable it to determine the technical and econ-
omical feasibility of such systems. We believe that if such
an agreement were successful it would provide EPA with an
evaluation of the system at an earlier date and at substan-
tially less cost to the Federal Government.
While EPA is finalizing the amended grant agreement for
the Delaware project——over 2 years after the original award——
Delaware is in the process of preparing a Request for Proposal
to select a contractor for the project.
STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS
The secona major provision of the 1970 act, is contained
in section 205 which requires EPA to undertake studies of
important issues relating to resource recovery and recycling.
These issues include
——changes in current product characteristics and pro-
duction and packing practices which would reauce the
amount of solid waste;
——methods of collection, separation, and containeri-
zation;
——the use of Federal procurement to develop market
demand for recovered resources;
——recommended incentives and disincentives to accelerate
the reclamation or recycling of materials from solid
wastes;
——the effect of existing public policies, including
subsidies ana economic incentives and disincentives;
and
——the necessity and method ot imposing disposal charges
or other charges on manufactured goods.
The section also requires EPA to submit an annual report to
the President and the Congress on the results of such studies
and investigations.
The Resource Recovery Incentives Branch of the Resource
Recovery Division——responsible for section 205 studies and
investigations——was not established until April 1972. EPA
did not provide adequate staff to carry out this section
of the act until September 1972, 2 years after enactment.
15
-------
According to an EPA official, 21 studies have been
undertaken which met the requirements of section 205. Two
of these studies were initiated before enactment of tne law,
2 in fiscal year 1971, 1 in fiscal year 1972, 11 in fiscal
year 1973, and 5 in fiscal year 1974. As of January 1975,
17 studies had been completed and 15 final reports had been
issued to EPA.
EPA has issued two annual reports. The initial annual
report, with primary emphasis on the recovery of materials
and energy from mixed municipal wastes and other pcstconsumer
wastes, discussed the many questions surrounding the complex
subject of resource recovery. The second report summarized
EPA’S findings from its studies and contained recommendations
on the issues of freight rates, Federal procurements, and
taxation policies which give benefits to virgin materials.
(These aspects are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.)
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES
Under section 209 of the Act, as amended, EPA is required
to develop guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection,
separation, and disposal systems. Although these guidelines
were to be issued to activities outside the Federal Government
on an advisory basis, section 211 of the act required that
they be obligatory standards for federally operated, licensed,
or permitted activities. In its report on the act, the Senate
Committee on Public Works stated that it expected such guide-
lines to be issued promptly for conventional solid waste
management techniques such as sanitary landfill, incineration,
and dumping.
In April 1973 EPA published proposed guidelines for land
disposal of solid waste and thermal processing of solid waste
and issued the final version in August 1974. In addition,
EPA officials informea us that draft guidelines were being
prepared for resource recovery and related methods of collec-
tion, separation, and disposal of solid waste. Officials
stated that they expected final guidelines to be issued in
October 1975.
CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN OVER EPA’S SLOW
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 1970 ACT
The act’s legislative history shows that the Congress
intended to review the program approximately 2 years after
enactment before deciding whether the program should be ex-
tended as is or modified. The Congress had criticized EPA’s
slow progress in implementing the 1970 act-—particularly with
respect to demonstrating resource recovery systems and con-
ducting the studies and investigations required by the act.
16
-------
During 1971 hearings by the Senate Committee on Appro-
priations on EPA’s fiscal year 1972 budget request, a Corn—
mjttee member stated that the demonstration of resource
recovery systems should move ahead more rapidly than at the
rate of two projects a year that EPA had proposed. de
further stated that such a plan woula be “woefully insuffi-
cient” in developing the answer for hanaling our Nation’s
solid waste. Again in March 1972 when the Senate Committee
on Appropriations was holding hearings on EPA’s fiscal year
1973 budget request, the same Committee member said that
demonstration grants were simply inadequate when the Nation
was faceä with a $5 billion a year solid waste cost.
In August 1972 the Subcommittee on Air and water Pollu-
tion, Senate Committee on Public t orks, held a flearing on the
implementation of the 1970 act. The presiding Committee
member pointed out that, although the act was nearly 2 years
old and the results of the required studies and investigation
were to be reporteci annually to the Congress, no guidance
from EPA had been received on the crucial issues involved.
He further stated that effective and progressive action was
needed immediately and that delay in these studies as well as
in the requesting ot necessary funds was inexcusable.
In a September 1972 letter to EPA, the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Public Works stated that he recognized
some delay in developing strategies for implementing the 1970
act may have been occasioned by the reorganization of the
solid waste program. But he said he could not overemphasize
the importance of the reports required under the act as an
aid to the Congress and to others in developing solutions to
critical solid waste problems. He further stated that it
was essential that EPA move more vigorously to implement the
policy directives which the Congress adopted in the 1970 act.
OTHER EPA-FUNDED DEMONSTRATION GRANTS
Although EPA was slow to implement the 1970 act, EPA had
funded, before enactment of the act, two successful resource
recovery demonstration projects now in operation. Municipal-
ities have shown considerable interest in these systems. One
project is in St. Louis, Missouri, where shreddea waste is
being used as a coal supplement by the local electric company;
the other is in Franklin, Ohio, where municipal waste is pro-
cessed into paper fiber which is used by a local roofing manu-
facturer. Metals are recovered at both projects and glass is
also recovered at the Franklin project.
St. Louis project
The St. Louis project originated from a study initiated
by the City of St. Louis in 1968 with Federal financial
17
-------
assistance. This study, completed in 1970, showed that it
was feasible to recover energy by burning shredded residen-
tial solid waste as supplementary fuel in boilers. The
initial demonstration grant was awarded in July 1970 and the
project became operational in April 1972. Project costs nave
amounted to $3.9 million, of which the Federal share was 2.6
million.
The system consists of a refuse processing plant and, at
a local utility company, fuel receiving and firing facilities.
(See photograph and diagram on pp. 19 and 20.) The wastes
are shredded at the processing plant to a particle size no
larger than 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 inches. A magnet tnen removes the
ferrous metals ana the remaining wastes are transported by
truck to a nearby utility plant where they are used as sup-
plementary fuel in coal—firea boilers to produce electricity.
The processed waste has about 45 percent of the energy content
of coal by weight.
Although the plant was designed to process 300 tons of
waste in an 8—hour shift, it has operated at this capacity
only on a few occasions, usually burning an average of 100
tons a day. The primary reason for this is an abrasion prob-
lem in the bends of the pipes which feed the waste into the
boilers. The problem is caused by pieces of glass and non-
ferrous metals in the refuse.
To correct this problem, in May 1973, EPA awarded a
grant to assist in procuring additional equipment designed to
remove nonmagnetic inert materials from the waste. The heavy
ingredients in the waste are to drop through an air classifier
and then pass by the magnet. At this point, about two—thirds
of the heavy fraction——primarily glass, nonferrous metals,
dirt, and wood——is to fall out and be disposed of in a land-
fill. The remaining one—thira is largely ferrous metals which
are to be passed through a ring—type shredder mill. Contami-
nants are to be iemoved by a vacuum and the remaining non-
ferrous metals (consisting almost entirely of aluminum) or
particles attached to the ferrous metals are to oe separated
by passing these metals by a second magnet. The St. Louis
project officer believes that both the ferrous and nonferrous
metals recovered will be of relatively high quality.
EPA financial assistance has been proviãed only for the
processing and fuel receiving facilities. The utility com-
pany has funded all of the equipment and related improvements
necessary to burn the shredded waste in its boilers. In
return the company receives the processed waste at no cost.
This project is presently helping the city dispose of
only a small percent of the approximately 1,000 tons of
residential wastes which are collected each day. A city
18
-------
H
This composite photograph shows the shredding facilities at St. Louis. The hammer mill where the
garbage is shredded is at the right. The shredded garbage is then moved onto a vibrating conveyor
where it is fed onto an incline-belt conveyor leading to a storage bin. Magnetic separation is
done in the building in the left portion of the photograph and the residue is then conveyed into
the packer trucks for transportation to Union Electric’s Meramec plant.
-J
1 Th
I *11 1!I1
JI
CREDIT: city of St. Louis
-------
‘Boiler Furnace
To Precipitator
SCHENA TIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SUPPLENENTARY REFUSE FUEL RECEIVING AND FIRING FACILITIES AT THE
UNION ELECTRIC NERAIIEC PLANT
At the power plant processed refuse is fed pneumatically to center openings of tangential burners
in each corner of Meramec furnace.
Self-unloading Transport Truck
Receiving Bin
urge Bin
0
Blower
Belt
Pneumatic Feeder
B lower
Pneumatic Feeder
Bottom Ash
-------
official told us that, once the system has been fully tested
and proven, he hoped that an entire new facility will be
built to dispose of all residential refuse. The utility
company which is participating in this project has several
other powerplants in the area, and on the basis of interest
expressed by this company there should be ample markets for
the processed waste.
Franklin project
The Franklin project was constructed with the assistance
of a Federal solid waste demonstration grant awarded in March
1969. The plant became operational in June 1971. Project
costs have amounted to about $3.1 million, of which the
Federal share was about 2.l million.
All incoming wastes, except for large bulky items, are
mixed with water and pulped into a slurry by a system called
a hydrapulper. Heavy objects are ejected from the bottom of
the hydrapulper and passed through a magnetic separator which
recovers ferrous metals.
An optical sorter is used to separate the glass into
three color categories——clear, green, and amber. Glass com-
panies have shown a great deal of interest in the outcome of
this aspect of the demonstration. Several of the companies
will be evaluating the glass from the project.
The principal product of the system is long paper fiber
which is sold to a nearby firm for making roofing materials.
The fiber is transported underground, in liquid slurry form,
through a pipe directly from the Franklin plant to the firm.
At the time of our discussions with city officials, the 1974
sale price for paper fiber was $60 per ton and $30 per ton
for ferrous metals.
The composition of refuse received at the plant is ap-
proximately 30 percent paper (only half of which is long
fiber and recovered), 30 percent water, 7 percent ferrous
metal, 11 percent glass and aluminum, and 22 percent miscel-
laneous (dirt, wood, plastic, rubber, rags, fooo, etc.).
Miscellaneous wastes and short paper fiber, amounting to
about 37 percent of total incoming waste, are burned in a
fluid bed reactor (incinerator device). This reactor reduces
these wastes 98 percent by volume and 85 percent by weight.
The residues are landfilled.
A unique feature of the plant is that, in addition to
recovering useful resources from mixed municipal refuse and
disposing of waste residues in an environmentally acceptable
manner, it also disposes of municipal sewage sludge. Adjoin-
ing the plant is a regional waste—water treatment plant.
21
-------
The purified effluent from this plant provides trie water
supply for the solid waste plant, and the sludge from tne
municipal clarifier is mixed with the nonrecyclable organic
wastes of the plant and burned. In turn, the waste water
from the solid waste plant is treated in the water treatment
plant, and the ash from the solid waste plant is used as a
settling agent in the treatment plant’s industrial clarifier.
(See photographs and diagram on pp. 23, 24, and 25.)
The plant was designed to operate at a capacity of 150
tons per 24 hour day. The plant has been averaging less than
50 tons per day, however, due to a lack of refuse. According
to Franklin project officials, the reason for tnis is that
landfill sites in the area have lower disposal fees than the
plant. The city of Franklin is the largest single source of
refuse——providing about 25 tons a day.
As time passes and landfill sites are either forced to
close or the cost to use them increases, tne wastes brought
to the plant are expected to increase. The plant was designed
to accommodate the waste generated by Franklin and tne sur-
rounding communities of Carlisle and Springboro through l 9U.
Operating at full capacity, it is expected that the net oper-
ating costs will be about equal to the $6.50 per ton disposal
fee. At present operating levels, the net operating cost is
about $10 to $11 per ton.
The company which designed and operates the system for
Franklin and the city manager believe that the plant has been
a technical success from the day it first started operating.
The plant has processed 9 tons per hour which snows that it
is capable of exceeding the design capacity.
CONCLUSION
Although EPA has been slow in implementing the resource
recovery provisions of the amendea act, improvements have
been made, particularly with respect to the required studies
and investigations. The results of the studies should enable
EPA to provide the Congress with information which will be
helpful in deciding the future Federal role in attacking the
problems arising from solid waste. However, it will be some
time before resource recovery systems funded under the amended
act are demonstrated and the results analyzed. Thus the
Nation is somewhat restricted in proceeding with resource
recovery systems that will effectively deal with the solid
waste problem and at the same time recover material and energy
resources.
The three initial resource recovery demonstration grants
were based on the need to demonstrate previously undemonstrated
resource recovery systems. EPA is proceeding with the Qemon—
22
-------
VENTURI US8EN
RECYCLE TER TANK
CONVEYOR
FERROUS METALS
RECOVERY
MAGNETIC CONVEYOR
(AJ
SUPPLY
TANK
HYORADENSER
(THICKENER 1
TIPPING FLOOR
TO RECOVERY OF ’
ALUMINUM
SMALL FERROUS METALS
GLASS (BY COLOR)
HYDRASPOSAC/ FIBRECLAIM
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING SYStEM
FRAJICLINONSO, FACILITY.
Dy flACK CLAWSON FIDNECLA1M,NIC. NEW YONC, N.Y.
-------
Unloading collected waste.
CREDIT: city of Franklin, Ohio
• •
•..,•
-------
Fluid bed reactor where the organic wastes and sewage sludge are burned at 14000 and 1500° F.
CREDIT: city of Franklin, Ohio
N)
01
-------
stration grant to Delaware for a project which is similar to
a planned system for Bridgeport, Connecticut. Since the
Bridgeport system is scheauled to be operating 2 years before
the Delaware project, we believe that EPA should contact the
parties involved in the Bridgeport project to arrange for
obtaining the information necessary to determine the economy
and efficiency of such a system. Such an arrangement would
provide EPA with the necessary data at an earlier date, and
at a substantially lower cost than the Delaware project. The
information obtained could then be used to assist other com-
munities throughout the Nation in solving their solid waste
and energy problems.
AGENCY cOMMENTS
In an October 31, 1974, letter commenting on our report,
EPA stated that, while it accepted responsibility for the
initial delays in implementing the resource recovery program,
it felt the program currently has a strong technical base, is
well organized, and is moving ahead positively. (See app. I.)
In commenting on our questions regarding the need for the
Delaware Project and our suggestion that EPA attempt to obtain
the data from the Bridgeport project necessary to evaluate the
burning of solid waste in oil—fired boilers, EPA reiterated
its position that the funding was justified. EPA stated that
it did not feel that any of the changes to the grant agreement
warranted a resolicitation of proposals to award competitively
the $9 million originally awarded to Delaware. The changes
cited by EPA were:
——A change in project schedule caused by the 2 years’
delay due to negotiations over the Grant Agreement
Special Conditions.
——The use of EPA water program funds for a substantial
amount of the project costs.
——Modifications in the technology.
EPA added that such changes were essentially routine and
typical of any arge—sca1e solid waste demonstration project.
EPA stated that the Delaware project was clearly an ex-
tension of the state of the art of resource recovery beyond
both the EPA St. Louis demonstration and the State project
in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In commenting on this report the
State of Delaware took a position similar to EPA’s saying that
the funding of the project was justified.
26
-------
EPA stated that the project’s value would be to deinon—
strate the
—-burning of solid waste in oil—fired boilers,
——composting of sewage sludge with solid waste to pro-
duce a pathogen—free humus, and
——maximum recovery of energy and materials to reduce
residue requiring landfilling to a minimum.
EPA stated that the Delaware project will demonstrate
the burning of solid waste in a utility company’s oil—fired
boilers. But the estimateu date for this operation is 1979,
while the Bridgeport project is estimated to demonstrate
this technology in 1977. We have discussed with Connecticut
officials the possibility of EPA obtaining data necessary to
assess the technical and economic feasibility of such a
system. These officials told us that EPA had not contacted
them in this regard and that they would be receptive to
entering into such an agreement with EPA.
One of EPA’S requirements for resource recovery demon-
stration grants was that there be purchase commitments for
at least 50 percent of the saleable materials generated by a
resource recovery project. According to EPA documents, the
Delaware project will generate 192 tons per day——over 50 per-
cent of the project’s output of saleable materials——of shred-
deci waste which will be burned in a local utility company’s
oil—fired boilers as a supplementary fuel. However, the
letter from the utility company shows that it intends to use
100 tons per day of humus——not shredded waste. The solid
waste fuel tested in 1972 for the project was humus. There-
fore it is questionable that there is a commitment to use the
principal product of the Delaware project——192 tons per day
of shredded waste as a supplementary fuel.
The second of three major values for the project, as
stated by EPA, is that it will demonstrate composting of
sewage sludge with solid waste to produce a pathogen—free
humus. EPA ’s project officer said that the purpose of the
humus recovery in the Delaware project was to demonstrate the
marketability of humus and that the technology had been
sufficiently demonstrated.
We discussed the marketability of the humus with offi-
cials of the Altoona, Pennsylvania, plant-—the pilot plant
for the humus system of the Delaware project. The plant at
Altoona has a capacity of 50 tons per day. According to
these officials, there is no problem in marketing the humus.
27
-------
They saic tue u i u o ewage sludge increases tue ntar—
ketability of the nuinus because it contains nitrogen, protein,
ana potash. There are plans to buil a new 150 tons per oay
humus facility at Altoona ana letters of intent have been
obtained inaicating that the plant’s entire output will ce
solu. These officials stated that they coulu have the new
facility operating witnin id months of the time city otfi—
cials guarantee a supply of waste.
The last value stateô by EPA for the project is tnat it
will demonstrate maximum reccv ry of energy and materials to
reauce residue requiring landfilling to a minimum. This is
a value of any resource recovery system and rias been demon-
strated at St. Louis, Missouri, and Franklin, Ohio, and will
be deii tonstrated at other facilities prior to the completion
of the Delaware project. The Altoona plant officials told
us the amount ot material requiring landfill is 5 percent of
the plants input capacity.
According to available information, EPA may well spend
over l3 million and 7 years on a project tne value oi which
has been or will be demonstrated before the project oegins
operating.
28
-------
CHAPTER 3
MAJOR ISSUES CONFRONTING - RESOURCE RECOVERY,
RECYCLING, AND REUSE
Economics is the major element in the success or failure
of attaining widespread resource recovery and reuse. Three
major issues affecting the economics of resource recovery
which involve the Federal Government are (1) the question of
discrimination in freight rates, a major cost element for
recovered materials, (2) Federal procurement policy toward
products containing recovered and recycled materials, and (3)
taxes.
Another issue is the use of product controls to promote
resource recovery. Product controls may be defined as public
policies directed at regulating either the volume of sales or
the physical characteristics of products. Resource recovery
could be promoted through such policies by providing fiscal
incentives for using products containing recovered materials
or by requiring containers to be made of certain materials
which would be easily (economically and physically) recovered.
We are presenting in this chapter pertinent information
on the above issues which we believe should be considered in
determining the future Federal role in resource recovery,
recycling, and reuse. We believe that these issues need to
be resolved through a cooperative effort on the part of EPA
and the various Federal agencies responsible for these matters.
FREIGHT RATES
Freight rates represent a major part of the cost of using
some secondary material as evidenced by an EPA study which
showed the transportation cost to be a significant percentage
of the delivered price——31 percent for scrap iron, 37 percent
for wastepaper, 44 percent for glass cullet, and 78 percent
for scrap rubber. This high transportation cost can be attri-
buted to the fact that secondary materials are generated
throughout the Nation and frequently must be transported long
distances to locations where they are reprocessed.
The cost of transportation often determines whether re-
cycling can be economical. Virgin materials have an inherent
advantage because they are generally transported shorter
distances to processing centers. This advantage is compounded
when, as stated by EPA, evidence shows that the rate structure
discriminates against some secondary materials in favor of
virgin materials.
There is, however, disagreement about whether the freight
29
-------
rates charged by the Nation s railroads and steamship com-
panies actually discriminate against secondary materials.
Also there is disagreement about what constitutes discrirni—
nation.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created,
under the Act to Regulate Commerce of 1887 (49 U.S.C. 1),
to regulate carriers in interstate surface transportation.
ICC is responsible for regulating rates insuring that they
are not unreasonable or discriminatory. Part of the exer-
cise of this responsibility arises in the filing of new and
changed rates. Tariffs filed by carriers regulated under the
act automatically become effective 30 days after they are
filed with ICC unless they are questioned by ICC, shippers,
or other interested parties and such questioning (protest)
results in suspension of the rates for a 7—month period,
during which time a full investigation concerning their rea-
sonableness is conducted. In actual practice a very small
number of rates are questioned and subject to such an in-
vestigation.
The Chairman of ICC has stated that the existing rate
structure permits rail carriers to operate with reasonable
economy and that it does not unduly discriminate against or
hamper the free flow of secondary materials. ICC believes
that so—called rate disparities stem from, among other things,
differences between the transportation characteristics of pri-
mary and secondary materials. For example, scrap is generally
less dense than virgin material, requires considerably more
handling effort, and is usually tendered and handled in single
car rather than multicar lots. (See pp. 31 and 32 for photo-
graphs of scrap loading operations.) According to ICC, these
characteristics, among others, result in different service
costs, which are reflected in the freight rates. ICC believes
that in general such differences in rates do not appear to
constitute undue discrimination as defined by the Interstate
Commerce Act.
In excess of 300,000 tariffs (each containing many in-
dividual rates) are filed each year with ICC; all but a few
of which become effective. According to the Chairman of ICC,
the sheer volume of the filing enables the agency to check
in depth only a small percentage——about 5 percent.
Organizations representing secondary materials industries
have on several occasions challenged rates which they felt
were discriminatory. One example cited in hearings before
the Senate Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Commerce,
in June 1973 involving the intercity movement of scrap showed
that the case was still pending after taking almost 2 years
to get to the review board stage. According to ICC, much of
this process time stems from procedures, appeals, and other
30
-------
Railroad crane loading freight car with scrap.
(A)
CREDIT: Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel
-------
Conveyor belt loading freight cars with scrap.
CREDIT: Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel
(.&)
N)
-------
actions available to contending parties uncier tne provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551).
In addition to individual rate increases, these Organi-
zations have consistently protested new general rate in-
creases. The organizations believe that the present aiscrirn—
inatory rates are only being compounded by new general rate
increases.
In December 1970 ICC initiated a comprehensive investi-
gation of the entire railroad rate structure in a proceeding
known as Ex Parte No. 270. As part of this study, ICC is
looking at how its previous actions may have affected tne
environment. In a November 1971 preliminary report, ICC
stated that it will develop detailed information on the re-
lationship between the rates charged and the cost of service
both among and within commodity groupings. It will examine
alleged cases of economic discrimination to determine the
reasons for rate differences and the effect of traffic volume
and revenue contributions to rate changes. The Chairman of
ICC testified before the Congress in June 1973 that this
study will require at least 2 and perhaps 3 more years to
complete.
The complexity of the rate setting procedure does not
yield itself to being readily understood. In reference to
railway freight rates, the National Commission on Materials
Policy, which was established under title II of the Resource
Recovery Act, stated in its final report of June 1973 that;
“Any discussion of rail rates must be prefaced
with the caveat that hard and fast statements
here are indefensible. The regulatory structure
administered by the ICC Consist literally of trillions
of posted, but not indexed, rates, many for hauls
that never occur. The rate setting system defies
analysis. Also the process by which rates are
changed is confusing. Carriers or shippers petition
the Interstate Commerce Commission for changes,
which then are evaluated on an ad hoc basis.
“Decisions are not geared solely to the cost of
providing the transportation service. Factors
enter that have little to do with economic effi-
ciency, either when rates are set or when they
are aniendea.”
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is responsible,
under the Shipping Act of 1916 (46 U.S.C. 801), for reau—
lating (1) activities of competing carriers and (2) common
carrier treatment of the shipping public. The act requires
steamship lines or conferences of steamship lines serving
33
-------
U.S. domestic commerce and foreign trade as common carriers
to file their tariffs with FMC and only those rates on file
can be charged. FMC has the authority to aisapprove any rate
wnich, after hearings, it finds so unreasonably high or low
as to be detrimental to the commerce of the United States.
FMC has two formal proceedings underway on the higher
rates charged for the transportation of wastepaper than for
virgin woodpulp from the west coast of the United States to
Australia and the Far East. The first case arose from a
complaint of discriminatory freight rates by a shipper of
wastepaper in 1971 while the second case was instituted in
1972 as a result of a complaint by the National Association
of Recycling Industries. The association maintained that
more equitable or preferential rates would result in increased
shipment of wastepaper. The proceeding on the rates to
Australia is being hela in abeyance at the request of the
association, which is the primary complainant, pending initial
decision on the rates to the Far East. At the time of our
fieldwork testimony was still being received in the Far East
proceeding.
FMC has stated that a rate structure which favors wood—
pulp over wastepaper may have a significant environmental
impact. Exporters may be encouraged to ship woodpulp instead
of wastepaper in situations where properly recycled wastepaper
could serve the same purpose as the woodpulp. This could
result in a continuing depletion of our Nations forests and
could have a negative impact on solid waste management.
FMC also has a formal proceeding underway and is recei-
ving preliminary information concerning the movement of non-
ferrous scrap metal and nonferrous virgin metal from U.S.
east coast ports to ports in the Far East. It has been
alleged by the National Association of Recycling Inaustries
that the rates on nonferrous scrap metal are unjustly dis-
criminatory when.compared with the rates on virgin metal,
thereby discouraging these scrap metals from being competi-
tive.
Both EPA and the National Commission on Materials Policy
have taken the position that discrimination appears to exist
in railroad freight rates. This has reinforced the position
long taken by the secondary materials industries and other
organizations that inequitable transportation rates do exist
which limit the demand for recyclable materials.
An EPA study of transportation rates for competing
secondary and virgin materials was undertaken to determine
whether the differences found are justified by differences
in the cost of moving these materials. It indicated that
railroads generally make a proportionately higher profit from
34
-------
the shipment ot ferrous scrap, glass cullet, and reclaimed
rubber than from competing virgin materials. Although EPA
concluded that these cases were discriminatory, EPA believes
that there is not a consistent pattern of discrimination
against all secondary materials.
In other studies EPA has concluded that a change in
price relationships between virgin and secondary materials
can affect the short—term marginal consumption of some
secondary materials. Also, these studies indicate that the
relative costs of materials affect industry’s long—range
capital investment decisions. For example, the price of
scrap in relation to iron ore would influence a decision
whether to buy an open-hearth furnace which can use a maximum
of 50 percent scrap or an electric furnace which can use up
to 100 percent scrap.
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
According to EPA, in the past Federal regulations fa-
vored the purchase of products containing virgin materials,
requiring that in certain cases they be purchased over com-
peting products containing secondary materials. In March
1970 the President directed Federal agencies to “initiate
measures needed to direct their policies, plans and programs
so as to meet national environmental goals.’ 1 The General
Services Administration (GSA) responded by instituting a pro-
gram which emphasizes to the maximum extent feasible the pro-
curement of products containing secondary materials.
The GSA program is primarily directed at paper and
fiberboard products because they offer potential for resource
recovery and recycling. GSA is responsible for 136 specifi-
cations for paper—based products which during fiscal year
1973 resulted in procurements totaling $92.6 million. Under
the GSA program the specifications for 86 of these products
have been adjusted to require a percentage of reclaimed
fibers ranging from 3 to 100 percent. These products include
writing paper, roofing materials, toilet tissue, towels, and
shipping boxes. These specifications accounted for $66.5
million or about 72 percent of total procurements of paper—
based products. GSA determined that other specifications
for paper—based products had very limited potential for being
adjusted to require use of secondary materials.
Other GSA efforts in this area include changing product
specifications to either require or permit the use of re-
claimed materials in the manufacture of thermal insulation,
plastic pipe, and pneumatic tires. GSA officials said they
believed that their program has increased the public’s aware-
ness of the potential of recycling.
35
-------
In response to a request from the Council on Environ-
mental Quality to participate in a Government—wide program
to promote recycling, in June 1971 the Department of Defense
requested some of its procuring activities to review the
supply classes for which they were responsible to aetermine
those which appeared to offer the greatest potential for
using recycled materials. These activities were encouraged
to promote recycling where practical. while the response
by some of these activities recognized the potential for
using secondary materials in the products they purchased,
most contended that defense procurements were not susceptible
to promoting the use of large amounts of secondary materials.
However, there were areas with apparent potential for
recycling. The Defense Supply Agency, which procures motor
oils for all civil and military departments in accordance
with specifications established by the U.S. Army Materiels
Command, recommended in a 1972 study that the Department
of Defense
——take steps to acquaint members of the re—refining
industry with the various petroleum products pro-
cured by the Government that are not restricted
to use of virgin base stocks;
——initiate a program to develop specifications for
an automobile lubricating oil containing re—refined
stocks and, upon completing the specifications,
demonstrate the use of the oil at a military
installation; and
——initiate a program to determine the physical
characteristics of waste oil generated by vehicles
operating on unleaded gasoline and low—ash oil
and demonstrate the feasibility of using crankcase
drainings as a heating oil feedstock.
The study noted that the Defense Supply Agency had already
initiated contacts with re-refiners and other interested
parties and had provided specification data, bidding instru-
ctions, and related guidance.
The Department of the Army was esponsible for followiiig
through on the remaining recommendations. In a December 19,
1973, letter to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health
and Environment), it was noted that a plan had been prepared
for developing specifications for an automobile engine lubri-
cating oil containing re—refined stocks and for a demonstration
project to prove the feasibility of using the oil. It would
take approximately 3 years to complete implementation of the
plan. In addition, the Army is conducting a program demon-
strating the feasibility of using crankcase drainings as a
heating oil supplement.
36
-------
The Department of the Army’s tire—retreading program was
initiated after v or1d ar II, and the present goal is to re-
tread 75 percent of the tires used. Significant progress has
been made toward achieving this goal; the percentage of tires
retreaded from July to December 1973 was 72.2 percent.
EPA has stated that there has not been widespread use of
secondary materials on federally purchased products. One
reason is a lack of technical data on the performance of pro—
ducts containing secondary materials. According to EPA,
another reason is that Federal supply agencies rely heavily
on industry in setting product specifications and do not know
the extent to which industry can or will produce products
with a secondary materials content. Industry in turn bases
its response on factors such as whether it has the capacity
to use these materials, the extent to which the materials are
readily available in a usable form, and whether it can produce
products containing them at a reasonable price.
While the Federal Government is the largest single pur-
chaser of many U.S. goods and services, it consumes less than
4 percent of gross domestic output and a similarly small per-
cent of most materials in relation to their total national
consumption.
EPA views the use of Federal procurement as an effective
means of establishing the technical and economic equivalency
of waste—based products. EPA believes that Federal procure-
ment has potential for creating demand for products contain-
ing secondary materials and has concluded that the wide
circulation by GSA of Federal specifications has tended to
encourage State and local governments to duplicate these
specifications and thereby promote the widespread use of these
materials.
TAXES
The National Commission on Materials Policy has stated
that over the years the Federal Government has developed tax
policies that encourage extractive industries——the suppliers
of virgin materials. The Commission’s 1973 report stated
that capital gains treatment for profits, depreciation
schedules, depletion allowances, and other tax writeoffs for
extractive industries favor use of virgin materials. The
Commission stated that these allowances are incentives to use
these resources instead of secondary materials.
EPA, in its second annual resource recovery report,
stated that the various provisions of the Federal tax code
benefit the economy’s virgin—material production sectors as
opposed to the secondary—material sector. According to EPA,
some tax provisions, such as accelerated depreciation,
37
-------
investment tax credits, and deduction of State and local
taxes, apply equally to both the virgin—material anci
secondary—material industries. However EPA identified
several tax provisions, such as depletion allowances,
capital gains treatment, and expensing of capital expend-
itures, that are available only to virgin—material indus-
tries and, in effect, subsidize virgin material use.
Foreign tax credits also benefit the virgin—materials
industry.
As shown in the table below, EPA has estimated that tne
virgin—material production sector enjoyed a significant
benefit of over $2 billion in 1970 as a result of these tax
provisions. The estimate was made for the following virgin
materials: timber/wooäpulp (which wastepaper could replace);
oil, gas, and coal (which energy from recovered solid waste
could help replace); iron ore (which steel from obsolete auto-
mobiles or metal cans coulci replace); primary aluminum (which
aluminum from discarded beverage containers and other pack-
aging could replace); and sand (which discarded glass could
replace).
The estimates of tax benefits are as follows:
Total value
Unit value of tax benefit
Product of tax benefit for 1970
Paper S0.899 per ton $ 37,750,000
Petroleum 0.350 per barrel 1,350,000,000
Natural gas 0.022 per 1,000 ft. 450,000,000
Iron ore 0.748 per ton 96,640,000
Coal 0.142 per ton O,590,000
Bauxite (used for
aluminum) 1.496 per ton 20,960,000
Sand 0.082 per ton 860,000
Total
In its second resource recovery report to the Congress,
EPA recommended that, in light of the national goal of re-
source conservation, consideration be given to reevaluating
triese tax provisions, many of which were instituted in the
past when national emphasis was on industrial development
through exploitation of raw material supplies.
The American Iron and Steel Institute is a trade associ-
ation representing about 70 domestic iron and steel producers.
An institute official told us that the Federal Government
should play a major role in encouraging the steel industry to
recover solid waste. Such things as tax incentives, subsidies
for shipping scrap from remote places, and low—interest
38
-------
Government loans to develop better methods of recovery shoula
be considered. He said that incentives would oe necessary to
°really get the ball rolling.’
The National Association of Recycling Industries is a
trade association representing approximately OU members tnat
are dealers, processors, and wholesalers of nonferrous metal,
paper, plastics, and textile scrap. Association officials
told us there should be a two—part tax incentive effort to
equalize the use of virgin and secondary materials. The
first part would be a recycling tax deduction or credit ex-
tended to manufacturers on the basis of a percentage of trie
cost of recycled materials purchased. The percentages would
vary according to the type of recycled material involved and
would be based on the percentage needed to remove the com-
petitive disadvantage a recycled material has because of tax
advantages given to the corresponding virgin material.
The second part of the tax change would be to proviue a
5—year amortization of recycling facility costs which would
promote the building or expansion of recycling facilities.
During Senate hearings on resource conservation and re-
cycling held by the Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on
Commerce, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy,
Treasury Department, testified that the main objective of the
tax system was to raise revenue for general Government expend-
itures. He said that any additional uses should be few in
number and selected only after the most stringent evaluation,
otherwise the tax system could become so extensive and so
complex that taxpayers would be unduly burdened. The Treasury
official said that if tax credits were used too lavishly the
Federal Government could be building a bigger and bigger tax
administration to collect less and less revenue.
The Assistant Secretary further stated that, as virgin
material and energy become scarce and more expensive, an in-
centive will be created to dispose of more, used materials
through the recycling process, to use fewer virgin materials,
and to conserve the use of energy.
PRODUCT CONTROLS
Product control may be defined as any public policy di-
rected at regulating the volume of sales or physical charac-
teristics of products. Various fiscal and regulatory product
control measures have been proposed as a means of increasing
the recyclability of products, conserving resources, reducing
the burden of solid waste disposal, and including the cost of
solid waste disposal in the product cost.
39
-------
These proposals include (1) a tax based on tne weight of
consumer goods (for example, a penny—a—pound tax), (2) taxes
and/or bans on specific types of plastics, (3) bans on pull—
tab beverage cans, (4) bans on cans containing more than one
basic metal, (5) restrictions on using copper in automobiles,
(6) development of standards for durability of consumer
appliances, (7) bans or taxes on throwaway convenience items,
(8) environmental degradability standards for certain goods,
(9) regulations governing the minimum recycled material con-
tent of products——typically paper products——and (10) manäatory
deposit requirements for beverage containers.
EPA has considered product controls in two separate but
related contexts——resource recovery and source reduction.
Resource recovery can involve improving the recyclability of
products or increasing secondary material content of products
to enhance both technical and economic feasibility of recov-
ery. Source reduction has been defined as the reduction in
the amount of solid waste generated by a consumer either by
altering the basic design, lifetime, or use pattern of
particular consumer goods or by changing the composition of
sales to reduce the waste volume.
EPA has identified four major mechanisms to achieve
source reduction. These mechanisms are taxes or charges,
deposits, bans or quotas, and design regulations. A product
tax or charge could be levied on the basis of a product’s
weight (to provide an incentive for weight reduction), life-
time, or material content. Determining the appropriate level
of the charge and predicting effectiveness and impact are
complex and difficult tasks. Deposits such as those on
beverage containers are designed to encourage product reuse
but are only of value when a return and reuse system exists.
Bans could be used only if product substitutions are desirable
and available. Design regulation could be applied to extend-
ing the expected life of a product, designing products for re-
use, or decreasijig the material and energy consumed in making
the product.
Product control approaches for resource recovery could
increase the recyclability of products by making it easier——
less costly to separate and recover high quality secondary
materials——and could establish product specifications requi-
ring the use of secondary material inputs. Controls for re—
cyclability are concerned with eliminating materials or pro-
duct configurations that inhibit recycling or increase the
cost of resource recovery. Products whose recyclability is
a particular problem include the bimetallic (steel—aluminum)
can; rubber tires with tungsten studs, which do not separate
by magnetic means; and aluminum rings around glass bottles.
In March 1974 EPA saia that there was insufficient information
to evaluate the necessity or desirability of product control
40
-------
measures and that it was studying the subject to obtain this
information.
CONCLUSION
There is no simple, complete means available for solving
the dual problem of solia waste disposal and resource avail-
ability. Resource recovery can provide a primary tool to
help alleviate these problems, but even here the question re-
mains as to how this tool can be effectively implemented.
The key is economics. e have discussed the subject of
freight rates, procurement, taxes, and product controls——all
of which affect the success of resource recovery.
There appear to be several actions the Federal Govern-
ment can take to make secondary materials more attractive for
resource recovery. However, still to be answered are:
——which suggested actions should be taken?
——what effect a combination of such actions would have
on secondary materials?
——what would the overall effect on the other aspects of
our economy be?
GSA actions requiring a percentage of reclaimed fibers
in paper products is a positive step in promoting resource
recovery. Such actions help demonstrate to industry and the
public the capability of products containing recovered mate-
rial and the availability of a market for such products.
Product controls can also be used with procurement, tax,
and freight rate policies in providing incentives to promote
the use of secondary materials. However, the consideration
of proposals designed to improve the economic standing of
resource recovery should include an evaluation of the poten-
tial adverse effects of such actions on other elements of our
economy.
Solutions to the problem areas set forth in this chapter
will require the continued efforts of EPA together with other
concerned Federal agencies. For example, freight rates con-
cern ICC and FMC, Federal procurement policy concerns GSA,
and taxes concern the Treasury Department.
AGENCY cOMMENTS
In its October 31, 1974, letter commenting on this re-
port, EPA stated that it had made specific recommendations to
the Congress on Federal policy issues which include (1.) a
formal investigation of Federal rate—setting practices to
41
-------
determine if discrimination against recycled materials exists,
(2) a determination in all future rate adjustments that such
adjustments do not discriminate against recycled materials,
and (3) establishing guidelines for Federal procurement of
products containing recycled materials to the maximum extent
practicable.
EPA stated that emphasis should be placed on the impor-
tance of source reduction or reduction in the consumption of
materials and products to conserve resources and reduce waste.
According to EPA, its efforts in this area are small but
active. In addition, EPA advised us that it testified before
the Congress on the need for Federal legislation providing
for mandatory deposits on beverage containers to promote re-
use and recycling of such containers.
The various aspects of resource recovery are under con-
sideration by the Congress. Over a dozen pieces of legisla-
tion have been introduced that deal with resource recovery.
42
-------
CHAPTER 4
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SOLID WASTE
Nonrenewable fossil fuels——coal, oil, and natural gas——
from domestic and foreign sources provide 96 percent of the
economy’s total energy. The remaining 4 percent is from
water power (hydroelectric power) and nuclear power. The
U.S. annual energy consumption is expected to almost double
from 1970 to 1985 and to increase by an additional 50 per-
cent from 1985 to 2000. According to Government officials,
the Nation’s reliance on imported energy sources——estimated
to be 50 percent of our oil needs by 1985——could adversely
affect our economy and security.
Until recently little consideration was given to using
solid waste as a source of energy. As an example of this
potential, EPA has a research project underway which if
proven successful is expected to supply 5 percent of an
average community’s electric requirements and at the same
time recover metals and glass.
The organic portion of solid waste——which amounts to
over half of the total solid waste generated each year——has
considerable potential for conversion into energy in various
forms, thereby helping to meet our energy needs.
EPA has estimated that municipal waste has approximately
50 percent of the energy value of coal and that approximately
80 percent of the total municipal waste could be used to
generate energy.
According to EPA, if energy recovery were practiced in
all major urban areas, the energy produced would be equivalent
to:
——About 1.5 percent of the Nation’s total energy con—
sumpt ion.
——The Nation’s entire energy consumption for residential
and commercial lighting.
——More than one—half of the 1972 direct oil imports from
the Middle East.
——Almost one—third of the energy that will be delivered
by the Alaskan pipeline.
Once processed these wastes can either be fired uirectly
into boilers and used to supplement primary fuel sources or
they can be converted into other forms of energy, including
43
-------
oil. In 1974 energy recovery projects were under consider-
ation, being planned, or under construction in at least 18
cities. According to EPA, at least 20 additional cities were
making preliminary evaluations of energy recovery systems.
The price of and demand for raw material has increased
dramatically and our Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of
raw material supplies has steadily increased. Resource re-
covery systems which use organic wastes to generate energy
and recover and recycle inorganic wastes——primarily metals
and glass——help make our Nation more self—sufficient. Such
systems
——reduce air pollution;
——dispose of waste without using up quantities of scarce
land, particularly in urban areas;
——generate energy; and
——recover material resources, particularly the nonre-
newable type like iron and aluminum.
Resource recovery and recycling also help to conserve
energy since in virtually every instance the use of second-
ary materials in production requires less energy than does
the use of virgin materials. For example, only one—fourth
as much energy is needed for an electric furnance using 100
percent scrap as for a basic oxygen furnance using primarily
virgin iron ore to produce the same amount of steel.
The National Commission on Materials Policy estimated
that about 2 percent of the total U.S. energy demand could
be saved by recycling available steel, aluminum, and paper
waste.
POTENTIAL USE OF SOLID WASTE AS FUEL
The Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior, performs
research pertaining to the processing, use, reuse, and dis-
posal of mineral fuels. The Bureau estimates that ttie total
amount of organic wastes generated annually in the 1’ ation ex-
ceeds two billion tons, at least 880 million tons of which
are dry organic solids which have potential for conversion
into clean energy. Of this 880 million tons, 136.3 million
tons are concentrated at locations, such as cities, cattle
feedlots, and sawmills, where disposal efforts are presently
required. The Bureau estimates that a city and its suburbs
witn a population of 1 million would generate 1,750 tons per
year. A single cattle feedlot with 100,000 head of cattle
would produce about 410 tons of dry organic solids per day,
or about 150,000 tons per year.
44
-------
The following table, prepared by the Bureau, shows the
estirnatea amount of dry organic wastes generated and avail-
able by source in a year.
Generated Available
Dry organic wastes (millions of tons per year)
Manure 200 26.0
Urban refuse 129 71.0
Logging and wood manufacturing
residues 55 5.0
Agriculture crops and food wastes 390 22.6
Industrial wastes 44 5.2
Municipal sewage solids 12 1.5
Miscellaneous organic wastes 50 5.0
Total 880 136.3
The Bureau has been working on a process to transform
organic materials in solid waste into a low—sulphur oil which
could be further processed into refineu products or used as a
fuel to generate electricity without further processing. The
Bureau has also considered a method of converting organic
wastes into a fuel similar to natural gas. It estimates that
this method could produce at least 5 cubic feet of methane
gas from each pound of urban refuse which is free of metal
and glass.
According to the Bureau, the oil potential trom available
organic wastes is 170 million barrels a year. This is rougnly
equivalent to 47 million tons of low—sulfur coal and would
have amounted to 3 percent of our Nation’s 1971 crude oil
demand. The waste, if converted into gas, could have satis—
fied about 6 percent of our Nation’s natural gas demand in
1971.
PROJECTS FEATURING ENERGY RECOVERY
In one of the demonstration projects funded by EPA, St.
Louis and a local utility company are cooperating to demon-
strate the feasibility of burning shredded residential waste
as a supplementary fuel to produce electricity. In Franklin
material recovery is being demonstrated by using a wet
separation process. The system is also capable of producing
energy. The company which designed and built the project
has held discussions with another city to construct a 2,000
ton per day plant to recover steam which in turn will power
a turbine to produce electrical energy.
EPA is funding projects in Baltimore and San Diego which
will demonstrate the recovery of energy through pyrolysis—-the
conversion of organic matter to gases through intense heat.
45
-------
In the Baltimore project the gases will be used to produce
steam which will be sold to a local utility company for
heating purposes in the downtown area. The San Diego pro—
ject will produce oil to be used as a supplementary fuel by
a local utility company. The Baltimore project is scheduled
to become fully operational in 1975 and the San Diego pro—
ject is to be completed in 1976.
Energy recovery systems are being considered, planned,
or constructed in at least 18 cities, including Bridgeport
(the initial facility of the Connecticut system discussed in
chapter 5), Chicago, Ames, Boston, Detroit, Albany, Hempstead,
New York, Akron, Memphis (in cooperation with the Tennessee
Valley Authority), and Nashville. According to EPA, at least
20 other cities are evaluating the potential of energy re-
covery systems.
EPA S ENERGY RECOVERY RESEARCH PROJECT
EPA has sponsored a research project called the Combus-
tion Power Unit (CPU) —400 which is aimed at converting solid
waste into usable energy. It began with a feasibility study
in June 1967, and contracts awarded in support of this pro-
ject totaled about $7.7 million as of the end of June 1974.
The pilot plant, located in Menlo Park, California, has
an input capacity of approximately 100 tons per day which,
after shredaing and separation operations, reduces to about
80 tons of combustible materials. Processes and facilities
employed in the pilot plant’s operations include:
——A receiving area where municipal wastes are pushed
onto a conveyor which carries the wastes directly to
shredders.
——An air separation system which takes out high density
materials such as metals and glass and directs them
to a material recovery module. (Light materials are
conveyed to a storage container from which they are
fed into the combustion unit.)
——Three separation units to remove particulate matter
from the combustion gases betore they flow through
the 1,000 kilowatt turbine.
it is expected that each full—scale CPU—400 would be
capable of consuming 400 tons of solid waste per day——the
amount of solid waste generated by a community of 200,000 to
250,000. For larger communities a network of CPU—400 units
could be located near load centers to supplement power sup-
plied by local utility companies; the units would be capable
of supplying around 5 percent of an average community’s
electric power requirements.
46
-------
Several problems, however, have been experienced in the
pilot plant testing to date. Deposits in the system’s tur-
bine have prevented continuous testing and an improved par-
ticulate remover is being developed to correct this problem.
The project’s contract was amended in June 1974 to provide
an additional $1.2 million. The project is to be completed
in March 1976. The following page contains a drawing of the
CPU—400 pilot plant.
WASTE OIL AS AN ENERGY SOURCE
Waste oil——automobile and metalworking lubricants, ani-
mal, and vegetable oils, and residues from petroleum refin-
ing——is a significant energy source having essentially the
same energy content as virgin oil. EPA estimates that 50
percent of the automotive lubricating oils and 30 percent of
the industrial oils are not consumed during use.and end up
as waste. This results in an estimated 1.1 billion gallons
of lubricant materials being available for recycling into
energy or petroleum products.
EPA funded a study to determine the feasibility of using
waste crankcase oil as a fuel for solid waste incinerators
which currently use heating oil as a fuel when burning wet
refuse. Preliminary results indicate that this oil has the
required energy content and incineration equipment is avail-
able which can use it. Additional work must be done to re-
move the lead in waste oil before burning because the lead
may enter the atmosphere and cause an air pollution problem.
Other research work is being done at the Aberdeen Prov-
ing Ground in Maryland where a mixture of virgin fuel and up
to 10 percent waste oil is being tested to determine its
effect on combustion equipment.
CONCLUSION
Until recently little attention was given to developing
a process to produce energy from solid waste, particularly
frOm what is referred to as trash, garbage, or junk. But
today such a process is a reality and has the potential to
assist in alleviating energy, material resource, and solid
waste problems. There is an urgent need to create efficient
and economical resource recovery systems of this type through-
out the country, particularly in urban areas where the prob-
lems are the most critical. We believe that EPA should con-
tinue to promote the development of systems that recover
meta 1s and glass from solid waste and convert the remaining
waste into energy.
47
-------
cpuioo ,‘tor t vr
10 StORAGE
SOLED WASTE STORAGE
00
CONSUSTOR
SOLID WASTE
PROCESSING STATION
BAG TYPE
lEtTER
GAS
CONTROL ROOM
-------
CHAPTER 5
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN ASSISTING STATES AND LOCALITIES
IN ESTABLISHING RESOUR _ REç9VE PROGRAM
Regardless of how, where, or in what quantities solid
waste is generated, local governments usually have to col-
lect, dispose of, or recycle it. The National League of
Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the
Council of State Governments have pointed to a need for more
Federal assistance. EPA’S role has been to provide specific
assistance to State and local governments primarily through
planning grants and technical assistance.
Some of the States we visited have already begun as—
sisting local governments. New York State has awarded $21
million to New York City and $9 million to Monroe County for
resource recovery projects. Connecticut has established a
comprehensive statewide resource recovery plan with the
principal element being the processing of solid waste into
fuel. Under the plan facilities are to be constructed
throughout the State to process about 84 percent of the
State’s waste.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
EPA had three programs directed toward assisting State
and local governments in solving their solid waste problems.
Planning 9rants
The planning grants program provided grants of up to 75
percent of the costs incurred by State, regional, and local
government agencies to survey solid waste disposal practices
and problems and to develop and revise solid waste disposal
plans. These plans were to provide for recycling or recover-
ing materials from wastes whenever possible, and applications
for grants were to indicate the feasibility of regional dis-
posal and resource recovery programs. As of July 1974r 49
States, the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, Puert .’
Rico, and the Virgin Islands had received planning grants
under this program, and all had a completed plan or a draft.
Also about 40 local and regional planning grants had been
awarded——25 of which were to be completed by the end of
fiscal year 1973.
EPA recognizes that many of the plans developed under
this program were too general and were not implemented. In
January 1973 the EPA Administrator expressed disappointment
about this program because he believed that there was not
49
-------
sufficient initiative being demonstrated, particularly at the
local level, to solve the problems identified. As a result
EPA terminated local—regional planning at the end of fiscal
year 1973. We were told that most of the plans were con-
cerned with collecting and disposing of solid waste and that
little attention was given to resource recovery.
EPA officials said, however, that support for States
with planning grants has served to alert the public to the
solid waste problem and to create an interest in the proper
management of wastes. They told us that the level of
awareness of solid waste problems and actions taken to
correct them has increased from virtually nothing in 1966 to
where, today, about 46 States have solid waste laws arid 40
States require disposal permits or have site-approval pro-
grams. In addition, there are 42 States that have rules
governing solid waste management and regulatory powers to
enforce environmentally sound systems.
Mission 5000
Mission 5000, an EPA project, had an initial goal of
closing or converting to sanitary landfills 5,000 open dumps
by June 30, 1972. (See photograph on p. 51 showing the use
made of a sanitary landfill.) This goal was not attained,
but EPA extended the program because some progress was made.
L3y January 1973, 3,155 dumps had been closed or converted.
Since EPA has no regulatory authority to force the
closing of private or municipal dumps, the operators of the
dumps were encouraged to close them voluntarily. EPA region-
al personnel offered technical assistance to facilitate tne
closing of these dumps and then publicized their success to
encourage others to take similar action. By November 1973
EPA reported that 5,529 dumps had been closea, and at the end
of 1973 EPA terminated the Mission 5000 project. An EPA
official stated that, during the 3 years that the project was
operating, prob b1y as many or more open dumps nad been added
to the national total, so the net result represented no sub-
stantial reduction.
Major technical assistance
EPA ’s major technical assistance program involves ef-
forts to apply existing technology and know—how to increase
the effectiveness of local solid waste management practices.
In response to requests for assistance, EPA sends a team
having technical expertise in engineering, operations re-
search, finance, and management to study and recommend
solutions to the problems these communities are facing.
50
-------
Denver’s mile-high stadium was constructed on a sanitary landfill.
CREDIT: EPA-Documerica
c i,
—I
r
-------
EPA has cited its assistance to Akron, Ohio, as an out-
standing example of this program’s success. Akron was pro—
viding garbage collection to its residents, while the col—
lection of trash had to be contracted with a private hauler
separately. The cost to the individual residents of having
two collection systems was between $4.50 and $5 per month.
Akron had experimented with making its system more efficient
and, consequently, asked EPA to develop a collection plan for
the city. EPA recommended a plan of combined collection by
the city, and the plan was accepted. The new cost to the
city’s residents is $1.93 per month. The productivity of the
municipal sanitation crews which had been collecting 2 tons
per day (garbage) has increased to 10.7 tons per day (mixed
waste). with a city—wide participation rate of about 72 per-
cent, the overall savings to city residents is projected to
be $1.6 million in the first year.
However, not all dollar savings accrue to a city in this
manner. In Hot Springs, Arkansas, the savings from improved
productivity were used to increase the quality of service and
offset the cost of a new incinerator. Portland, Maine, also
redesigned its collection routes for maximum efficiency while
changing from bimonthly pickup of dry refuse only to once a
week combined collection. Even with the higher level of
service and an extension of service to households not pre-
viously served, Portland has saved $23,000 a year. A 1974
report by the National Commission on Productivity asserted
that
n***for the United States as a whole improved col—
lection productivity could mean $200 million per
year in direct savings, forestalled cost increases,
expanded service, improved service quality or
higher benefits to employees.”
The technical assistance program has been used primarily
to help municipalities (1) improve their collection produc-
tivity and (2) improve their overall managerial decision
making. The technical assistance program now is emphasizing
assistance requests in the areas of land disposal, leachate
control, ground—water protection, special waste disposal,
and procurement methods for capital intensive systems.
Furthermore, what started as a program directed entirely
toward municipal waste management practices has become part
of the program strategy of the entire Office of Solid Waste
Management so that technical assistance is now available in
the areas of resource recovery and hazardous—waste manage—
ment.
In reviewing this program, the National League of Cities
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors in their March 1973 report
stated that they found consistent evidence of measurable
52
-------
impact and, in many instances, imniediate savings.
EPA assistance for
resource recovery systems
An EPA official informed us that EPA did not have a
large—scale technical assistance program for resource re-
covery systems. Principally EPA answers inquiries and
occasionally provides technical assistance but only to a
limited degree because of personnel limits. EPA is plan-
nirig to provide technical assistance to Daae County,
Florida, on a wider scale than previous assistance but
does not have the manpower to provide this degree of as-
sistance to more than one community at a time. This
official said that before a community makes a commitment
to resource recovery, a feasibility study should be made.
In view of the limited nature of the technical assist-
ance provided by EPA to local governments for resource re-
covery systems, it appears that an expanded technical as—
sistance program would be warranted. Assistance could be
provided in a number of ways such as:
——Determining whether a resource recovery system would
be appropriate for a particular community (generally
a resource recovery system is not appropriate in
rural areas).
——Selecting a particular system.
——Obtaining markets for a system’s products (probably
glass, metals, and energy).
——Getting a number of communities to jointly parti-
cipate in a system.
——Providing assistance in the initial operating
phase of a system.
STATE LEGISLATION AND PROGRAMS
DIRECTED A RESOURCE RECOVERY
All of the States we visited——California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Oregon——were interested
in improving solid waste management and had agencies charged
with varying degrees of responsibility for solid wastes.
Also, each of these States has passed legislation to regu-
late, control, and assist in managing these wastes. All had
demonstrated some interest in resource recovery and most
were actively considering it as an alternative to disposal,
53
-------
These States Lad all completed statewide solid waste
management plans between June 1970 and July 1973. The plans
were funded under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and
and most were in varying stages of implementation.
Examples of programs and legislation in some of the
States we visited in our review follow.
Connecticut
Connecticut passed a law in 171 requiring its Depart—
merit of Environmental Protection to develop a statewide plan
for managing solid wastes. This plan was to provide for a
system which was to be:
——Environmentally sound, fostering the recovery of
materials and energy.
——Economically feasible, tapping the initiative and
resources of industry whenever possible.
——Technologically flexible, welcoming innovation with
minimum disruption of services.
According to Connecticut’s Director of Solid Waste nan—
agement Programs, the plan was completed and approvea in July
1973. Approximately $1 million was spent on designing the
plan, half of which was funded by industry. The plan calls
for 10 recovery facilities, 45 transfer stations, and 18
landfills to be constructed over the next 10 years. The
facilities are expected to cost approximately S250 million;
however, the contractor who prepared the plan estimates that
its implementation will save from $50 to $100 million by
1985. Other estimated benefits include
——a 70 percent reduction of air pollution from refuse
disposal;
——a reduction in landfills from 144 to 18 by 1985; and
——substantial elimination of underground water con-
tamination, due to landfills accepting only inert
residues from the recovery facilities.
The Director of Solid Waste Management Programs stated
that the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, which is
responsible for implementation and maintenance of the plan,
is in full operation. The authority has acquirea the funds
necessary to implement the plan through a $250 million State
bond issue.
54
-------
The authority awarded a contract for the first resource
recovery facility. The facility will be built in the Greater
bridgeport area and is expected to be operating by 1977. A
second facility is to be located in the Greater Hartford
area. According to Connecticut’s Director of Solid waste
Management Programs, the authority expects to build 1 new
resource recovery facility each year until all 10 have been
completed. The refuse handling capacities of these facilities
will range from 1,300 to 2,200 tons per day.
New York
Recognizing that changes from traditional solid waste
management methods were necessary to conserve resources and
protect the environment, New York’s Office of Recovery, Re-
cycling, and Reuse was established in 1970 to promote systems
for managing waste which would minimize the loss of resources.
New York, in its August 1972 Program Plan for SoliQ
Waste Management, estimated that the ultimate goal for waste
management to be reached in stages over the next 10 to 15
years would be about 200 centralized facilities using resource
recovery methods. This plan is based on the premise that the
State’s role in solid waste disposal should be one of regu-
lation, enforcement, and financial assistance.
In November 1972 New York passed the Environmental
Quality Bond A ct which provides the initial funding necessary
to implement these plans. The act allocates $175 million for
municipal solid waste management projects to cover up to 50
percent of the cost of resource recovery systems and 25 per-
cent of the cost of systems which provide for the environ-
mentally sound disposal of wastes. An additional $100 million
was authorized for air quality improvement projects, most of
which involve upgrading incinerators to meet clean air
standards.
The State has appropriated $21 million as its share of
a project in New York City where shredded waste is to be
used as a fuel supplement. Also, $9 million has been appro-
priated for a project in Monroe County where paper is to be
extracted from solid waste and sold and the remaining waste
is to be shredded and used as a fuel supplement.
Oregon
Oregon enacted legislation in 1971 consolidating solid
waste management responsibilities in the Department of En-
vironmental Quality and providing for a permit system tor
establishing and operating solid waste disposal sites. The
legislation also authorized the Department of Environmental
Quality to acquire disposal sites.
55
-------
An Oregon Department of Environmental Quality official
informed us that the State’s Solid Waste Management Action
Plan, when completed, will consist of detailed regional
plans prepared at the local government level. The official
explained that the statewide plan will include such short—
range planning objectives as the closing of 124 open dumps;
the setting up of programs designed to handle wood residues,
automobile hulks, oils and other special wastes; and the
construction of 36 new regional processing, recycling, and
disposal facilities to accommodate at least 25 percent of
total solid wastes collected. Long—range objectives to be
accomplished by 1982 will provide for at least 90 percent
of total collected wastes to be processed through the major
recycling centers.
In 1972 Oregon passed the Minimum Deposit Act, commonly
known as the “bottle bill, ’ to control beverage container
litter. Under this law beverage containers sold in the State
are to have a refund value of not less than 5 cents, and it
encourages standardized packaging by setting a lesser refund
value of not less than 2 cents on certified beverage con-
tainers——those which can be used by more than one manufac-
turer. It also bans the sale of cans with pull—tab or flip—
top openers.
EPA’S analysis of the effects of the bottle bill after
the first 6 months showed that the beverage container por-
tion of litter decreased by at least 49 percent and the bill
resulted in an initial loss of 142 jobs in the can industry.
However, new jobs may be created in the bottling industry to
offset these losses.
According to a report released October 4, 1973, by the
Oregon Environment Council, the State has virtually solved
its beverage container litter problem. This report states
that for every 100 soft drink and beer cans and bottles which
were discarded as litter before the bill went into effect,
only 10 are now being discarded as litter——a full 90 percent
reduction. Also 7 of the 10 were either purchased before
the bill went into effect or were bought outside the State.
Thç report concludes that any additional improvement will
come about only as other States adopt similar legislation.
HOW TUE STATES VIEW THE FEDERAL
ROLE IN RESOURCE RECOVERY
Officials in the States included in our review believed
that Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance was
warranted. The type of assistance varied but included:
——Providing financial assistance to State and local
governments for planning and implementing resource
recovery projects.
56
-------
——Providing technical assistance to State and local
governments.
——Coordinating overall research.
——Participating in Statewide planning for resource
recovery.
——Continuing the existing program for research and
demonstration.
——Concentrating on developing markets for recovered
materials and recycled products.
In March 1973 the National League of Cities and the
United States Conference of Mayors issued a report entitled
‘Cities and the Nation’s Disposal Crisis. ’ The report stated
that almost half of our cities would run out of current dis-
posal capacity in 1 to 5 years and that America’s urban areas
faced an immediate disposal crisis. The crisis is twofold:
the skyrocketing volume of solid waste and the sharp aecline
of available urban land for disposal sites. The problem is
serious throughout the country where in the last 50 years the
volume of solid waste per person has doubled; the problem is
critical in the cities, where the volume has doubled in only
20 years.
According to the report, cities are already bearing the
national burden of increasing disposal costs. Of the total
direct solid waste expenditures for Federal, State, and
selected large local governments in fiscal year 1971, 98
percent came from local governments. The report further
pointed out that the 48 largest cities are spending nearly 50
percent of their environmental budgets for solid waste man-
agement, while the federally proposed budget at the time of
the report earmarked only 1 percent of the Federal environ-
mental dollar for solid waste. The report highlights were
summarized as follows:
——Solid waste management problems are national in scope
and interjurisdictional and interstate in character.
——The reduction of solid waste at its sources is a
national responsibility.
——Progress in meeting the solid waste challenge requires
an expanded Federal role.
——The Federal Government shoula adjust its discrimi-
natory freight rates, its depletion allowances for
virgin materials, and its procurement practices to
to provide positive incentives for increased use
of recycled materials.
57
-------
——Collection is primarily a local responsibility.
——At the local level many municipalities need to cease
open dumping, convert to sanitary landfill practices,
and upgrade collection productivity. Others need to
consolidate their disposal needs into central multi—
jurisdictional landfill operations. Still others are
in a position to consider recycling and energy re-
covery options if they can get financial assistance
and see evidence of sure markets.
——States should implement performance guidelines and
solid waste management plans in keeping with any
Federal regulations and do so in consultation with
local governments.
Also in 1973 the Council of State Governments issued a
report entitled “The States’ Roles in Solid Waste Management.’
The report stated that, because most local governments are
presently incapable of providing for or sustaining improved
solid waste collection and disposal services, strong State—
level actions will be necessary to assist these governments
to improve their capabilities. Effective State actions
oriented toward modernizing local governments ana stimu-
lating general public responsiveness to such efforts are
generally not provided but are needed. Although much
technical information for improving these necessary services
also will be required, workable solutions will necessitate
fundamental long—range efforts with joint participation from
the Federal Government and the States.
The report also pointed out that the State governments
are obligated to insure that local governments provide for
efficient, environmentally sound solid waste services for
their inhabitants. The States cannot be satisfied with
only a regulatory role; they must provide various forms of
aid (administrative, managerial, financial, and technical)
necessary to assist and encourage local governments to ex—
pand and improve services.
The Council said that State governments must take a
positive role in assisting local governments to solve their
solid waste management problems and require new administrative
and legislative actions directed toward:
——Establishing a State commitment with a strong State
policy to develop the means to provide solid waste
services in an environmentally safe manner.
——Broader forms of assistance to local governments to
improve administrative structures and management
capabilities.
58
-------
—-Strengthened, but regionally flexible, regulatory
functions to show differing problems and needs in
local areas.
——i4ore direct involvement in locating facilities and
sites essential for providing this necessary service.
——Considering direct State actions to provide for
necessary services in areas where local governments
cannot be modernized.
The Council concluded that the States cannot accomplish
major changes in existing solid waste management practices
without substantive Federal assistance, including:
——A strong, national policy directed toward a com-
mitment to assist the States to develop the means
to provide adequate solid waste services in an
environmentally safe manner.
——Expanded pure and applied research to be engaged
in jointly by the Federal Government and the States
to solve existing problems that impede improvement
of services. The joint research effort should
include environmental, economic, and other forms of
research needed to develop solutions within the
context of the States’ institutional framework.
——The establishment of minimum Federal performance
standards or quality standards for the sate disposal
of solid waste in a manner that can give direction
to the States in their program development efforts.
——A Federal regulatory role limited to the common
national problems associated with handling and
disposing of very hazardous wastes.
——A national commitment to develop the manpower
capabilities needed at all levels of government to
administer, manage, and perform necessary services
or activities related to these services.
CONCLUSION
The solid waste disposal problem occurs where the waste
is generated——in the towns, cities, and counties of America;
and it is these local communities that have the burden of
solid waste disposal. Resource recovery can help to solve
the problems of energy consumption and natural resource
conservation, but, most importantly, it can contribute
greatly to solving the problem of solid waste disposal.
59
-------
Some States, notably Connecticut and New York, are help-
ing local communities establish resource recovery systems.
But States and local communities are looking to the Federal
Government for technical and financial assistance in solving
trieir solid waste problems. EPA should give increased
emphasis to the furnishing of resource recovery technical
assistance to States and local communities to help provide
efficient and economical resource recovery systems through-
out the country. Communities need EPA’s technical assistance
to insure that the system adopted is in accordance with the
communities’ neeos ana will have the best opportunity tot
success. To have a successful effort, E2A should coordinate
its activities with other governmental entities that have an
interest in this area. The solution to the solid waste prob-
lem will require a long—range, cooperative effort of all
parties involved.
The Federal Government has provideã some technical as-
sistance and funds for planning grants and a few demonstra-
tion projects. On the basis of information obtained during
our review, State ana local governments believe that the
Feaeral Government should, as a minimum, continue to provide
assistance in solid waste matters, particularly with respect
to resource recovery. However, it appears that the States
and local governments believe that the Federal role shou! 3
be expanded beyond that conducted under the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act as amended by the Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EPA
To enhance the effectiveness of the Federal role in as-
sisting States and local communities to solve their solid
waste problems through the establishment of resource recovery
systems, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA provide
expanded assistance in such ways as:
——Deter nining whether a resource recovery system would
be appropriate for a particular community (generally
a resource recovery system is not appropriate in
rural areas).
——Selecting a particular system.
——Obtaining markets for a system ’s products (probably
glass, metals, ana energy).
——Getting a number of communities to jointly partici-
pate in a system.
——Providing assistance in the initial operating phase
of a system.
60
-------
f&C 7 ENC COi 1MENTS
statea in its comments on this report that it com-
pletely agreed witn our recommendation to provide expanded
assistance to States and local cciuimunities.
61
-------
criAPTER 6
SCOPLO RE IE
we reviewed the progress made by EPA in the tield ot
resource recovery and recycling since the passage ot tne
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, the procedures used oy EPA
in awarding demonstration grants, and resource recovery
activiti b ifl several States. We also revieweo the legis-
lative nistory of the Resource Recovery Act of 197u and
important issues confronting resource recovery.
Our review was made at EPA headquarters in v ashington,
D.C., and at EPA facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. We held
discussions with officials of various Federal agencies,
including GSA, Department of the Interior, ICC, FMC, and the
Department of Defense. we visitea six States——California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Oregon—-where
we met with State, local government, and industry officials
ana visited various resource recovery and solid waste uis—
posal facilities.
We reviewed documents, reports, records, Shu files na
held discussions with officials of various inc.iustry associ-
ations an groups interested in resource recovery and re-
cycling.
0
-------
APPENDIX I
0 Sr 4
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D .C. 20460
OCT31 1974
Mr. Henry Eschwege
Director, Resources and Economic
Development Division
U. S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Eschwege:
We have reviewed your draft report on resource recovery and
recycling and are in complete agreement with your recommendation to
provide expanded assistance to states and local communities through
the establishment of resource recovery systems. The following
comments address the other portions of the report.
Federal Policy Is sues
The report does not mention that EPA has made specific
recommendations to the Congress on Federal policy issues. In 1973,
the Agency proposed the Hazardous Waste Management Act which
among other things would require that:
1. A formal investigation of Federal rate-setting practices
be carried out to determine if discrimination against recycled materials
exists.
2. In all future rate adjustments a determination be made that
such adjustments do not discriminate against recycled materials.
3. Guidelines be established for Federal procurement of
products containing recycled materials to the maximum extent practicable.
Source Reduction
The report should emphasize the importance of source reduction
or the reduction in the consumption of materials and products in order
to conserve resources and reduce waste. EPA currently has a small
63
-------
APPENDIX I
but active effort which includes studying changes in product designs,
providing information and assistance to consumers and industry
environmental assessment studies and analyzing Federal incentives
and regulatory measures. In addition, we have testified before
Congress on the need for Federal legislation providing for mandatory
deposits on beverage containers in order to promote reuse and recycling
of such containers.
Delaware Demonstration Grant
Regarding the resource recovery demonstration project in
Delaware, three points are raised in the report:
1. Confusion over the reasons for the original funding of the
project.
2. A question as to whether the proposed modifications to the
project are consistent with the competitive award of the other three
resource recovery grants.
3. An uncertainty of the value of the project in light of its
similarity to the on-going St. Louis EPA demonstration project and
the similarity to the State-financed facility planned for Bridgeport,
Connecticut, that would be available for evaluation two years before
the Delaware project.
We have made detailed comments to GAO on this subject in an
August 1974 letter. I would just like to summarize our position.
Justification for Funding . The funding of Section 208 demon-
stration grants followed an orderly process consisting of solicitation
for preapplications, receipt of preapplications, solicitation for formal
application, evaluation of the formal applications against criteria, and
selection of projects.
Of the 17 applications, only three were recommended for funding
because no additional funds were available. The Delaware project was
not one of these although it did meet the criteria published in the initial
solicitation. The rejection of the Delaware application did not indicate
a value judgement on the project per se.
64
-------
APPENDIX I
In October 1972, the Office of Management and Budget released
an additional $9 million in Section 208 funds. At this point an additional
(fourth) demonstration grant application was selected for funding, the
Delaware Reclamation Project.
The Delaware grant clearly met all the legal and programmatic
requirements for funding, although it was not as attractive as the first
three projects selected. However, it was selected from among the 14
projects not funded initially. Of the remaining applications, only three
were found to be good condidates at the time when additional funds were
released. These three projects were in Delaware; Malden, Massachusetts;
and Mount Vernon, New York. Both the Mount Vernon and Malden
projects were similar to the Delaware project having high costs; both
were energy recovery projects; and both had been initially disapproved
for this and other reasons. Maiden also presented an additional problem
in that, under Section 208, care must be taken to ensure distribution of
funds among states, and a project in Lowell, Massachusetts had already
been approved.
No formal decision process was followed in selecting the
Delaware project, as had been followed in the initial recommended
actions, but both prograrnmatically and legally the choice was correct.
Project Modifications . The proposed modifications of this project
are:
1. A change in project schedule caused by the two years’ delay
due to negotiations over the Grant Agreement Special Conditions.
2. The use of EPA Water Program Funds for a substantial
amount of the State’s share of project costs.
3. Modifications in the technology.
The modification to the technology involves adding an air classifier
to the system to separate some combustible material to be used as fuel in
electric utility boilers. The remaining combustible material would be
composted as originally proposed. The modified plant would produce
about 70 tons per day of compost for agricultural markets and 200 tons
per day of classified solid fuel.
We do not feel that any of these changes warrant a resolicitation
of proposals to award competitively the $9 million originally awarded to
65
-------
APPENDIX I
the grantee. Such changes are essentially routine and typical of any
large-scale solid waste demonstration project. Schedules, budgets,
and specific unit processes must be flexible for these innovative
systems.
Value of Project . The value of this project is:
I. It will denionstrate burning of solid waste in oü-fired
boilers.
2. It will demonstrate composting of sewage sludge with
solid waste to produce a pathogen-free humus.
3. It will demonstrate maximum recovery of energy and
materials to reduce residue requiring landfilling to a minimum.
This is clearly an extension of the state-of-the-art of resource
recovery beyond both the EPA St. Louis demonstration and the State
project in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
While we accept responsibility for the initial delays in the
implementation of the resource recovery program, we feel the program
currently has a strong technical base, is well organized and is moving
ahead positively. Your report reflects this progress and we appreciate
having had the opportunity to review it.
Sincerely yours,
Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator
for Planning and Management
66
-------
APPENDIX II
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN
EPA-FUNDED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS
This project will use an incinerator residue recovery
process developed by the bureau of Mines. The principal
objective will be to demonstrate that the components of in-
cinerator residue can be separated and economically recov-
ered.
The plant will be designed to handle 250 tons of in-
cinerator residues in 8 hours, using a series of screens,
shredders, classifiers, and other equipment. It is expected
that the plant will extract annually more than 40,000 tons
of products——ferrous and nonferrous metals and glass——from
the incinerator residues.
The total cost of the system is about $4.4 million; the
Federal share of the system is approximately $2.4 million.
Design work began in February 1973 and construction of the
facility is expected to be completed by March 1976.
EPA believes that the reliability and efficiency of the
material separation system must be validated and that the
product quality and marketability will have to be demon-
strated. Further, the success of the project depends on the
availability of a sufficient supply of incinerator residues
from Lowell and several neighboring communities to enable
the processing plant to run at designed capacity.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
The San Diego County project is to feature a flash
pyrolysis process. (Pyrolysis is the conversion of organic
matter to gases through intense heat.) Municipal wastes
will be shredded to a 3—inch particle size and then separa-
ted into two fractions: (1) a light fraction consisting of
paper and plastic and (2) a heavy fraction consisting of
glass, metals, wood, and stones. The light materials will
be dried and shredded to a very fine particle size (practi-
cally a powder) before being pyrolyzed at a temperature of
about 900 degrees fahrenheit. An oil—like liquid with a
heat value of about 75 percent of that of number 6 fuel oil
will be produced and used as a supplementary fuel by a local
utility company.
The heavy waste fraction will be processed further to
separate ferrous metals and glass. Ferrous metals will be
separated by an electromagnet. Glass will be separated as
a mixed—color glass cullet by a flotation process.
67
-------
APPENDIX II
The total cost to construct the 200’ tons per oay plant
is expected to be approximately $8.9 million, the F ederal
share will be about $3.6 million. The revenue from the
products produced by the system——oil, ferrous metal, and
glass——is expected to amount to l0.l2 per ton, leaving a
net cost of $13.42 per ton to operate the plant. Design
work began in April 1973 and the plant was initially expected
to be operating by November 1974. Because of various delays,
however, construction is not expected to be completed until
May 1976.
EPA believes that this system will have national appli-
cability because it will produce a storable, transportable
fuel and will require no external fuel to operate. A draw-
back of the system is that it requires costly shredding of
raw waste to a “vacuum cleaner dust” particle size.
BALTIMORE
The Baltimore project is being designed to handle mixed
municipal waste. All incoming waste will be shredded to a
4—inch particle size and then conveyed to a rotary pyrolysis
furnace. Gases produced by the furnace will be combusted in
an afterburner; exhaust gases will pass through waste—heat
boilers which will generate 200,000 pounds of steam per hour.
This steam will be sold to a local utility company for heat-
ing in the downtown area. -
Residue from the furnace will be water quenched, and
ferrous metals will be separated. water flotation and
screening processes will separate the residue which must be
lan Ifj1led and the remaining fraction——glassy aggregate——will
be sold for use in street construction.
The facility will have a capacity of 1,000 tons per
day——about 50 percent of Baltimore’s municipal wastes. The
total cost to cQnstruct the facility is expected to be about
$16.2 millio and the Federal share will be $6 million.
The revenu from the sale of the steam, ferrous metal, and
glassy aggregate is expected to be about $4.35 per ton,
leaving a net cost of $6.15 per ton to operate the plant.
The facility has been completed and is expected to be fully
operational in 1975.
EPA believes that there is little technological risk in-
volved in this project due to the simplicity of the process.
The marketability of the steam is limited, however, because
it cannot easily be stored or transported over long distances.
EPA recognizes that this system uses over 7 gallons of fuel
oil per ton of incoming waste, but this is more than offset
by the steam generatea which will conserve about 39 gallons
of fuel oil per ton of incoming waste.
68
-------
APPENDIX III
‘RINCIPAL EPA OFFICIALS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIVITIES
DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT
ADMINiSTRATOR:
Russell E. Train
John R. Quarles, Jr. (acting)
Robert W. Fri (acting)
William D. Ruckeishaus
ASSISTANT ADMINiSTRATOR FOR AIR
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT:
Roger Strelow
Charles Elkins (note a)
David Dominick (note a)
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS (note b):
Arsen Darnay
Samuel Hale, Jr.
Hugh Connolly (acting)
Richard Vaughn
Leo Weaver
Wesley Gilbertson
aBefore January 1974 the title of this position was
Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs.
bThe Office of Solid Waste Management Programs was
transferred from the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare on December 2, 1970.
Tenure of Office
From -
Sept.
1973
Present
Aug.
1973
Sept. 1973
Apr.
1973
Aug. 1973
Dec.
1970
Apr. 1973
Apr.
1974
Present
Oct.
1973
Apr. 1974
Jun.
1971
Oct. 1973
Oct.
1973
Present
Oct.
1971
Oct. 1973
Sept.
1971
Oct. 1971
Aug.
1967
Aug. 1971
Jan.
1967
Aug. 1967
Dec.
1965
Dec. 1966
69
------- |