Second United States
Conference on
Municipal Solid
Waste Management
Moving Ahead
Proceedings
June 2-5, 1992
Tuesday — Friday
Hyatt Regency Crystal City
Arlington, Virginia
I J
Sponsored by
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
ICE OF SOLID WASTE
S-EPA
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Proceedings of
Second United States
Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management:
Moving Ahead
Arlington, Virginia
June 2-5, 1992
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pleased to present the proceedings for the Second
U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management: Moving Ahead. The Agency
particularly wants to thank all of the speakers who took the time to prepare and present papers
for this national conference. This is not a complete publication of all papers that were presented
at the conference, but copies of those papers that were received.
The Conference consisted of an Opening Plenary, concurrent plenaries on Present and Future
Markets in Recyclables and Implementing Effective Solutions to Regional Solid Waste
Management, and a number of concurrent sessions organized around eleven topic areas:
•a 1111
Combustion
Composting
Economics
Integrated Planning
Land Disposal
Market Development
Non-Hazardous Industrial
Waste
Public Involvement,
Education and Outreach
Recycling
Source Reduction
Special Wastes
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•|TLE PAGE
A Computer Model for Examining Recycling System Life Cycle Economic Costs
Philip Zach, University of Pennsylvania 1
A European Evaluation of Biowaste Collection and Composting: The Positive
Impact of the Wastepaper Fraction
Luc De Baere, O.W.S. Inc., Richard Tillinger, O.W.S. Inc., and Willy
Verstraete, Univerity of Gent 13
A Planner's Tool for Solid Waste Management in Small Communities
C.W. Cross, Jr., University of Dayton Research Institute, LT.
Swartzbaugh, PhD., University of Dayton Research Institute, and E.
Barm, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 25
Anaerobic Bioconversion of Tuna Processing Wastes with MSW
Christopher J. Rivard, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and
Nicholas J. Nagle, National Renewable Energy Laboratory 27
Artists' Strategies for Waste Management
Angela Babin, M.S., Center for Safety in the Arts 37
Calculating a Community's Maximum Recycling Potential
John F. Williams, HDR Engineering, Inc., and Jeremy K. O'Brien, HDR
Engineering, Inc 43
Case Studies: Siting Municipal Solid Waste Facilities
Sarith Guerra, International City/County Management Association 49
-------
Collection and Composting of Yard Trimmings
L.F. Diaz, CalRecovery Inc., G.M. Savage, CalRecovery Inc., L.L.
Eggerth, CalRecovery Inc., and C.G. Golueke, CalRecovery Inc 51
Communication and Conflict Resolution in Siting a Solid Waste Facility
Thomas Kusterer, Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection 65
Comparison of Visual and Manual Classification Techniques to Estimate Non-
Residential Waste Stream Composition
John Savage, SCS Engineers, and Stacey Tyler, SCS Engineers . 77
Composite Liner Systems Utilizing Bentonite Geocomposites
Kurt R. Shaner, Chambers Development Co., Inc., and Steven D«
Menoff, Chambers Development Co., Inc 87
Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling: New Solution to an Old Problem
Christine T. Donovan, C.T. Donovan Associates, Inc 101
Costs of Solid Waste Management - 1986, 1991 and 1996
Harvey W. Gershman, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc 113
Developing a Solid Waste Financial Information System
Thomas Kusterer, Mongomery County Department of Environmental
Protection, and Richard Dimont, Montgomery County Department of
Environmental Protection 133
Development of a Full-Cost Accounting Law in Indiana
Norman Crampton, Indiana State University 145
Economic Aspects of Florida's Pilot Hotel/Motel Recycling Program
Jonathan F.K. Earle, PhD, PE, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Jo M. Townsend, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, and Marie S.
Hammer, Florida Cooperative Extension Service 159
Economic Boon or Environmental Nightmare: Two Perspectives on Interstate
Waste Disposal
Catherine A. Wilt, University of Tennessee 169
-------
taster Recyler/Composter Program in Montgomery County, Maryland
Madeleine Greene, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension
Service, Peggy L. Preusch, Montgomery County Master
Recycler/Composter Program, Linda Bell, Master Recyers, and John D.
Dougherty, Master Recyclers 295
Measuring the Achievement of Recycling and Reduction Goals
Jamie Prillaman, The Resource Development Group 299
Measuring the Effect of Media Use in Recycling Education/Information Programs
Raymond A. Shapek, PhD., University of Central Florida 309
Metals Concentrations in Compostable and Noncompostable Components of
Municipal Solid Waste in Cape May County, New Jersey
Mack Rugg, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., and Nabil K. Hanna, P.E.,
Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority 321
Opportunities and Constraints in Solid Waste Policy: Waste Prevention in New
York City
Reid J. Lifset, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and
Marian R. Chertow, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies 333
Overview of EPA's Municipal Solid Waste Toxics Reduction Program
Eugene Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Lynda Wynn,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 337
Potential Alternatives to Soil-Based Daily Cover
Manoj Mishra, PRC Environmental Management Inc., and Brian
Thornton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 341
Public Education - The Key to Successful Solid Waste Management
Gail L.C. Andersen, Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency 351
-------
Financing Solid Waste: How Governments Cope
Mark A. Ryan, Standard & Poor's Corporation, and Timothy Tattam,
Standard & Poor's Corporation 175
From Landfill Operations to an Integrated Solid Waste Management System
Teree Caldwell-Johnson, Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency 183
Fueling the Ash as Hazardous Waste Debate: Seventh Circuit Says Yes, Second
Circuit Says No
Kirn Maree Johannessen, Foster Pepper & Shefelman 195
How to Establish an Enterprise Fund System for Solid Waste Which Will Attract
Wall Street
Robin D. Depot, Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, and J.
David Rush, Public Resources Advisory Group 207
How Waste Management Organizations Are Adapting To and Resisting Change
Josefina Maestu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 217
Industrial Waste Management
John C. Dembach, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources 225
Inspection Techniques for the Construction of Clay and Geomembrane Liners
Robert E. Landreth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 235
Landfill Gas Utilization - Options, Benefits, and Barriers
Susan A. Thorneloe, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 243
Landfill Mining Feasibility Study
Joanne R. Guerriero, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., and David E. Vollero, York
County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority 253
Landfill Reclamation: Findings of the Edinburg Project
John Morelli, P.E., Rochester Institute of Technology 265
Landfill Siting Conflict Resolution Based on Mandatory Negotiation Between
Local Governments and Landfill Developers
C. Zieve, Institute for Environmental Studies 277
-------
Ranking Consumer/Commercial Products Based on Their Potential Contribution
to Indoor Air Pollution
Christina Cinalli, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jim Dan, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and Pauline Johnston, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 357
Reaching Higher Recycling Goals: Think About Preschool Public Education
John F.Williams, HDR Engineering, Inc 361
Recycling Never Takes a Vacation
Aletha Spang, Desvernine and Spang 365
Recycling on Every Level
Susan Whyte, Prince George's County 377
Results of the U.S. EPA Research on Municipal Waste Combustion
Carlton C. Wiles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 379
Scrap Tire Management: NEWMOA's Approach
Carole J. Ansheles, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
(NEWMOA) 391
Solid Waste Management Planning Decision Model
Theodore S. Pytlar, William F. Cosulich Associates 401
Source Reduction
Allen Perry, IBM 419
Successful Measurement of Source Reduction
Kenneth W. Brown, Minnesota Office of Waste Management 423
Synergistic Programming Model in Solid Waste Management: An Approach for
National Implementation
Marie S. Hammer, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, and Jonathan
F.K. Earle, PhD, PE, Florida Cooperative Extension Service 425
-------
Teaming Up in the Southeast: An Approach to Regional Decision-Making
Kathi A. Mestayer, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc 431
Technical Options for Construction Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling
Robert H. Brickner, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc 441
The Beneficial Co-Existence of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Technology with
Recycling and Environmental Protection Goals
R.M. Hartman, ABB Resource Recovery Systems, and M.L. Smith, ABB
Resource Recovery Systems 457
The Design and Operation of a Leachate Recycle System at a Full-Scale
Operating Landfill
Timothy G. Townsend, University of Florida, and W. Lamar Miller,
University of Florida 475
The Help and Multimed Models: Applications for Designing Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
Samuel P. Figuli, Science Applications International Corporation, and Sue
Stokes Du Bose, Science Applications International Corporation 487
The Portland Compost Facility
Jeep Reid, Metropolitan Service District 495
The Research Library for Solid Waste's "Grants" Database in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Fred T. Friedman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 503
The Thermal Treatment of Leachate Utilizing Landfill Gas
David F. Fees, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Pasquale S. Canzano,
P.E., DEE, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, and N.C. Vasuki, P.E.,
DEE, Delaware Solid Waste Authority 507
"Wee Recyclers is Our Name; Recycling, Reusing is Our Game!"
Joel Stone, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Georgine
Price, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 515
-------
What Motivates People to Recycle?
Regina Desvernine, Desvemine and Spang 517
Why Is True Cost an Important Element of Solid Waste Management?
Diane Martin, The Resource Development Group, and Ron Roche, The
Resource Development Group 521
Yard Debris Management and Source Reduction Program: An Overview of
Fairfax County, Virginia
Richard W. Boes, Fairfax County Department Public Works 531
Yard Waste Composition and Effects on Compost and Mulch Production
James V. Ragsdale, Jr., City of St. Petersburg Sanitation Department,
Michael J. Rudd, Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste
Management, Joan Bradshaw, Pinellas County Cooperative Extension
Service, and Peter Stasis, HDR Engineering, Inc 537
Author Index 557
-------
A COMPUTER MODEL FOR EXAMINING RECYCLING SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE
ECONOMIC COSTS
Philip Zach
Department of Systems Engineering
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Introduction
The E.P.A.'s Hierarchy of Integrated Waste Management ranks recycling and composting
below only source reduction (and ahead of incineration and landfilling) as a favored
municipal solid waste (MSW) management alternative (3). However, while the 'religion' of
recycling has won public support over the years, recycling's economic viability has not
developed as quickly, due primarily to a lack of front-end planning of recycling systems.
The purpose of this effort is to facilitate planning and encourage economic viability by
summarizing the experiences of recycling professionals in the form of a computer model.
The Recycling Model
The model provides local decision makers with a way to plan a complete recycling program
from inception to implementation by selecting from among various waste streams, collection
alternatives and processing technologies. The decision maker can study the life cycle
economic costs associated with the proposed recycling system and compare them to the costs
estimated for other systems. The computer program is written in Lotus 1-2-3 22 and is
almost completely menu-driven, thus requiring little or no computer knowledge to operate.
This paper will first identify the factors which affect a recycling system's economic viability,
and how they are modeled in the computer program. Next, system life cycle cost parameters
are characterized, along with their quantification in the program. Finally, a description of
the computer program's architecture will be presented.
-------
Components of an Effective Recycling Program
Unlike other forms of municipal solid waste management, successful recycling programs are
not mirror images of one another (1). In order to design a system for maximum cost
effectiveness, a recycling coordinator must pick and choose from among the many
alternatives available for collection and processing of recyclable materials. The cost
effectiveness of each option will vary according to the jurisdictional characteristics to be
designed for.
Before any recycling program can be designed, substantial research must be done to
determine the extent to which a recycling program is feasible, not only under current
conditions but in the future as well. The four parameters that are of primary importance
in determining economic viability are administrative structures and traditions, market
availability, waste quantity and composition, and citizen interest (2).
Administrative Structures and Traditions
This is one of the first activities decision makers should undertake during the planning
process" (3). Some of the important factors that will need to be taken into account:
• Political Setting - Political interests, business and labor groups, citizens
organizations, elected officials, the news media...all have input into the
potential for success of the program.
• Economic and Fiscal Concerns - financing options such as user fees, taxes, and
the like should be explored for possible use in funding the program.
• Institutional Factors - waste handling techniques vary widely from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. In addition, the availability of resources to the program must
be taken into account
Other factors, such as the local procurement process, liability, and possible degree of private
cooperation should also be explored. In short, there are a whole host of local, regional,
state, and federal concerns which must be addressed before any work begins on the program
itself. Adequate preparation must be the initial step in the design process if a recycling
program is expected to be viable in the long term (3). Those factors which can be
quantified are modeled in various regions of the computer program.
-------
Availabilit
M. Chertow defines recycling as "the process by which materials otherwise destined for
disposal are collected, recovered, and reused" (2). Thus, even though a material is
identified, collected, and processed, it must still be disposed of if some use can't be found
for it. "If public agencies intend to collect materials for recycling, they must make sure that
markets are available to absorb these new supplies" (1).
Three types of channels exist to facilitate the reuse of secondary materials: brokers, end-
users, and internal markets.
• Brokers serve as middlemen in the secondary materials markets, buying large
quantities of materials when they are available, then reselling them to end-
users when they feel the time is ripe. Scrap dealers are good examples of
brokers.
• End-users are those private enterprises that actually use the secondary
material to produce consumer goods. ALCOA, through its Beverage Industry
Recycling Programs (BIRPS), is a good example of an industry that will be
good money for secondary materials.
• Internal markets, such as federal, state, and local governments, may be
required to use items made partially or entirely out of recycled materials.
Glasphalt (asphalt made with recycled glass) and tires used in playgrounds are
two examples of governments entering the marketplace as buyers (3).
Market availability may be considered a function of location as well. One of the reasons
Seattle, Washington's recycling program is doing so well is the access they have to the large
Pacific Rim market On the other hand, one of the reasons many newspaper recycling
programs have foundered is because they were too far away from the nearest deinking plant
to make recycling economically feasible. Market availability must be determined before a
recycling program is begun.
Market availability is determined at the beginning of the model. A procedure written by
the author allows the user to input data for each material market and for each of the
parameters mentioned above. Market demand for each material type is then calculated and
the information stored for later use.
-------
Waste Opqptjty and(popipogitlgp
Characterizing the local waste stream is the next step in the effort to recycle municipal solid
waste (3). Factors which have been shown to have an impact on municipal solid waste
generation include:
• Seasonality - more paper may be generated just after Christmas, for instance,
as gift wrapping is disposed of. On the other hand, most grass clippings will
be generated during the spring and summer, while most leaves will be
collected in the fall (1).
• Demographics - areas will produce different quantities of different types of
wastes according to the relative affluence of their inhabitants.
• Density - solid waste from rural areas is more likely to be high in organics,
while those in cities might be higher in industrial debris.
• Climactic Variations - areas where the climate doesn't show much variation
throughout the year may also not show much variation in the type of wastes
it produces, while a jurisdiction which experiences seasonality (see above) amy
experience peaks for several different materials throughout the year (3).
Other factors that may have an effect on waste stream composition include:
residential/commercial waste generation distinctions, the state of the economy, levels of
source reduction, and local deposit laws (3).
In the computer program, compositional variation is modeled by dividing the municipal solid
waste stream into six individual waste streams: residential, or single family, multifamily,
rural, institutional, commercial, and special. Decision makers can opt to include as many
of these individual waste streams in a design as is deemed necessary.
A number of commonly recycled materials have been modeled in the computer program.
Residential waste stream constituents include newsprint, mixed paper, glass, plastics,
corrugated cardboard, yard waste, aluminum, tin, organic waste and ferrous metals.
Commercial materials include office paper, computer paper, mixed paper, cardboard,
construction debris, masonry, and clean fill. Special waste categories include used motor
oil, tires, automobile and household batteries, and white goods (large appliances such as
refrigerators or washing machines). As conditions change, this list may be modified by those
with programming knowledge.
-------
Citizen Interest
Public participation in recycling can either be the result of a positive response to a proposed
recycling program, or a negative response to an alternate from of waste management, such
as incineration or landfilling (2). The extent of citizen participation is reflected in the
computer model in the form of separation coefficients (see Separation Practices below),
while the costs of citizen education are modeled under the heading of Promotional Costs.
Other facets, such as participation in decision making and institutional investment in
promotional and educational programs, are also integral parts of a successful recycling
program (3).
Recycling System Cost Factors
Recycling system life cycle costs can be expressed as the sum of collection and processing
costs as well as other system costs (administrative, promotional, overhead, etc.) minus the
economic benefits of recycling (sale of recovered materials, avoided costs, grants, etc.).
Collection Costs
Collection practices can take many forms, but can be modeled as one of three cases: active
collection (i.e., curbside collection, corner collection, etc.), passive collection (i.e., drop-off
sites and/or transfer stations (2)), or no collection (i.e., buy-back centers). These three
cases are modeled in the computer program as collection coefficient components. Each
material type is assigned a coefficient component for each collection practice. Thus, if 17%
of separated residential newsprint is collected using buy-back centers, and the remaining
83% using curbside collection, the coefficients for these two collection practices would be
0.17 and 0.83, respectively. The coefficient component for the drop-off centers would be
zero. In waste streams where no collection is normally provided, such as is the case with
the commercial waste stream, no attempt at modeling collection practices has been made.
Program estimation of collection equipment needs employs a slightly modified form of the
iterative procedure proposed by Garrison (8), combined with elements from Denison (1) and
Dezzi (4). In it, the user may model the requirements for five different types of collection
equipment: yard waste collection vehicles, regular recycling trucks, drop-off bins, household
containers, and transfer trailers. The model can also handle a blend of new and previously
owned yard waste and regular recycling vehicles. Calculations for bins, containers, and
trailers use parts of the Garrison procedure to estimate capacity requirements and use a
procedure written by the author to estimate units required.
-------
The estimation of the various capital, labor, and O&M costs associated with a given
collection program are modeled on the procedure proposed by Denison (1), with elements
from a study by Resource Conservation Consultants (RCC) for the Glass Packaging Institute
(6). Backup (or safety) factors for each of these cost factors are also included in the model.
Processing Costs
Processing facilities modeled in the computer program include Material Recovery Facilities
(MRFs) and yard waste composting facilities. Mixed waste processing, though apparently
well established in Europe, has a much less well established track record in the U.S. and
thus reliable data on costs was hard to come by. However, the architecture of the program
allows for inclusion of such a module at a later date if such information becomes available.
Material Recovery Facilities consolidate and improve the purity materials collected from all
waste streams before they are sent to markets (2). Costs associated with MRFs include
siting, building, and operation, process residue disposal, and material storage and shipping
(2). The computer model offers the user a choice of procedures (2,5) to estimate MRF
facility capital and operating costs. In addition, revenues from the sale of materials are
estimated using information derived earlier in the model and a procedure developed by the
author.
Yard waste composting facilities take advantage of the natural processes of decomposition
to produce a stable and potentially valuable soil amendment (2). Costs associated with yard
waste composting facilities are similar to those associated with MRFs. They include siting,
labor and operation, as well as storage and shipping of finished materials and disposal of
residues (3). As with MRFs, the computer model offers a choice of procedures to estimate
the costs associated with yard waste composting facilities. The procedures used to estimate
revenues in the MRF model (2,5) are used here as well.
Other System Costs
Costs and benefits not directly associated with either collection or processing that must be
considered in any economic life cycle analysis. The user is given the choice of estimating
program management, promotion and overhead costs using the cost ranges set forth by
either Deyle & Schade (5) or RCC (6). Finally, extrapolation of life cycle costs over the
system's life is accomplished by using a modified version of the procedure set forth by
Denison (1).
-------
System Economic Benefits
System economic benefits can accrue from the sale of recovered materials, which is itself
a function of market demand, processing efficiency (both described above) and separation
efficiency. Other funding sources include payments, grants, surcharges, and landfill diversion
credits.
The amount of material segregated from the municipal waste stream is a function both of
waste stream composition and citizen participation. The percentage of material "i" in waste
stream "j" is modeled in the program as a composition coefficient. Thus, if newsprint makes
up 10% of the local residential waste stream (by weight), the residential composition
coefficient for newsprint would be 0.10.
The Decision Maker's Guide defines participation rate as "a measure of the number of
people participating in a recycling program compared to the total number that could be
participating" (3). Associated with participation rate is the efficiency with which those who
do participate separate out recyclables from their individual waste streams. In the computer
model, the product of these two factors is modeled as a separation coefficient
Avoided costs (or landfill diversion credits) are calculated using the procedure proposed by
M. Foshay (7). The program calculates avoided labor, equipment and overhead costs, then
integrates these values to produce an overall value for avoided cost. Other system benefits
(payments, grants, surcharges, and landfill diversion credits) are calculated using RCC's
methodology (6).
Program Architecture
The computer program is laid out in a series of four levels, with each level representing a
successive stage in the development of a recycling system (see Fig. 1). In addition, each
level is further divided into modules, each of which represent a particular area of concern
to the decision maker. Different modules and levels are accessed by the use of command
modules, which give the decision maker the choice of which recycling component to design
next.
Each successive level in the program makes use of the information developed in preceding
levels to generate life cycle economic cost data. This information is passed between levels
by the use of data files, which have been given different names according to the type of
information they contain.
-------
Figure 1: Computer Model Flowsheet
Level One: Development
Level Two: Separation and Collection
Level Three: Processing
Level Four: Integration and Extrapolation
8
-------
Level One (Development) contains the Market Identification and Quantification module,
which allows the user to identify and quantify market demand for specific secondary
materials. This information is saved by the user as an MFile and is later retrieved for use
in determining revenues from the sale of recovered materials.
Level Two (Separation and Collection) consists of several modules (residential, multifamily,
rural, institutional, commercial, and special) which quantify the amount of material
separated from the waste stream and collected by the municipality, along with associated
costs. These modules also furnish the user with the option to retrieve default information
about waste composition. Default data is stored in the CFile coefficient data bank, and may
be retrieved either explicitly or through a filename constructed from a short questionnaire.
Data about the quantity of recovered material is saved in an RFile, while information on
collection costs is saved in a TFile.
Level Three (Processing) consists of modules which model the costs (and benefits)
associated with the processing of recovered materials. They use the MFile generated in
Level One and the RFiles from each module in Level Two to determine the revenues
generated from sale of recycled materials. This data, along with information about facility
capital and operating costs, are saved in PFiles for use in Level Four.
Level Four (Integration and Extrapolation) contains the Life Cycle Cost Analysis module
where all the costs and benefits taken into account in the program are integrated and
extrapolated over the system's projected life, both in units of total annual costs and annual
cost per ton. A flowchart of the economic factors used in this module is presented in Figure
2.
The computer program also offers the user the ability to compare the net costs of one
recycling system with those of an alternate system. Both the life cycle cost analyses and cost
comparisons can be saved as well in the form of LCFiles and LCCFiles (see Fig. 2),
respectively. Finally, each module provides the user with hard copy of the system economic
analysis. Thus, a paper trail of each portion of the recycling system is assembled during the
program run, useful in comparing different recycling scenarios.
-------
Figure 2: Life Cycle Economic Cost Analysis
TFila
* Households
Generation Rile
Collection Cipiul Costs
Collection Operuing Costs
Collection Labor Cosu
1
r
TFile / PFile Import Procedure
1
Financial Factors Worksheet
PFiles
Processing Capital Costs
Processing Operation Cosu
Revenue from Material Sale
Interest Rate
Inflation Rates:
Vehicles & Equipment
Machinery & Equipment
Labor
Fuel & Utilities
Model Period
Life Cycle Collection Cost Analysis
Capital Costs
Amortized Capital Cosu
Annual Operating Cosu
Total Annual Cosu
Total Annual Costs per Recycled Ton
LJ
Life Cycle Program Revenues Analysis
Material Sales Avoided Cosu
Grant Funds Contracted Services
Taxes & Surcharges
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Collection Cosu Revenues
Processing Costs Total Annual Cosu
Mgnu, ect. Cosu Total Annual Cosu / ton
LCFile
Life Cycle Processing Cost Analysis
Capital Cosu
Amortized Capiul Cosu
Annual Operating Cosu
Total Annual Cosu
Total Annual Cosu per Recycled Ton
Life Cycle Administrative Cosu Analysis
Management Cosu
Promotion Cosu
Overhead Cosu
Life Cycle Cost Comparison
LCCFile
10
-------
References
1. R. Denison and J. Ruston. Recycling and Incineration: Evaluating the Choices, p. 68,
Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.
2. M. Chertow, Garbage Solutions: A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and
Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies. National Resource Recovery
Association for The United States Conference of Mayors .
3. Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (530-SW-89-072), November 1989.
4. A. Dezzi,"Initial Evaluation of Household Collection of Recyclable Materials", City
of Philadelphia Recycling Office, September 1989.
5. R. Deyle and B. Schade,MEconomic Feasibility of Recycling in the Midwest: Recycling
Alternatives in Oklahoma", Proceedings of the First U.S. Conference on Municipal
Solid Waste Management, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 13-16, 1990.
6. "Comprehensive Curbside Recycling: Collection Costs and How to Control Them",
Resource Conservation Consultants, for the Glass Packaging Institute, Washington
D.C, 1988.
7. M. Foshay,"Financing a Recycling Program: Landfill Diversion Credits", 1990.
8. R. Garrison/Curbside Collection Service: Estimating Equipment Needs", Resource
Recycling, August 1988.
11
-------
A EUROPEAN EVALUATION OF BIOWASTE COLLECTION AND COMPOSTING
THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF THE WASTEPAPER FRACTION
Luc De Baere
O.W.S. Inc.
Dayton, Ohio
Richard Tillinger
O.W.S. Inc.
Dayton, Ohio
Willy Verstraete
Laboratory of Microbial Ecology
Center of Environmental Studies
University of Gent
Coupure Links 653
B-9000 Gent, Belgium
INTRODUCTION
A strong trend towards source separation and composting of biowaste has developed in
Europe over the last couple of years. Proposed legislation in several E.E.C.-countries
will force municipalities to implement biowaste collection programs before 1995. Both
the E.E.C. and most member countries are targeting for a 50% recycling rate by the year
2000, of which at least half of the 50% recycling rate will have to come from biowaste
composting. This means that 25 to 40% of the municipal solid waste must be collected
as biowaste and recycled as compost to the soil.
The trend towards biowaste collection has been particularly strong in the Netherlands,
the German-speaking countries and parts of Scandinavia, whereas it has been less
pronounced in England and Southern Europe. Already hundreds of municipalities have
experimented with biowaste collection and much has been learned. Positive results have
been mainly in the area of high public participation and purity of the compost obtained
from biowaste. The main problems associated with biowaste center around the fact that
biowaste has been too narrowly defined as only kitchen and yard waste, resulting in
moisture, odour and other related collection and treatment problems. By expanding the
13
-------
definition of biowaste to include non-recyclable or soiled paper, most of these problems
can be remediated without changing the way compostable waste is collected and
processed.
BACKGROUND
In the Netherlands, biowaste collection was first initiated in the late seventies and early
eighties. This development came in the wake of negative experiences at that time with
mechanical sorting of mixed waste in full-scale composting installations. It also resulted
from the negative image of the municipal solid waste compost that was marketed in the
Netherlands and in other parts of Europe. Mechanical sorting systems were not capable
of meeting the stringent regulations on heavy metals that were proposed in Europe. Table
1 gives an indication of some of the acceptable limits of heavy metals in compost in
Europe vis-a-vis the American standards. It is clear that European standards are
considerably more rigorous. Residual inerts, such as glass and plastics, and high heavy
metal concentrations made the option of building mixed solid waste plants politically
unattractive. No city or municipality wanted to build a mixed waste composting plant
and then discover that the compost would be unmarketable because of new compost
quality regulations issued by the government.
From the mid-eighties onwards, many biowaste collection projects were set up by
municipalities, especially in the Northern parts of Europe. In Germany alone,
approximately 30 small-scale projects were initiated prior to the end of 1986. The main
purpose of these projects has been to evaluate the feasibility of source separation of the
biowaste from various standpoints, such as the participation of the public, quality of the
compost, biowaste definition, type and frequency of collection, geographical differences
and quantity of biowaste.
POSITIVE RESULTS OF BIOWASTE COLLECTION
The positive results of biowaste collection programs in Europe can be seen in three areas
: public participation, compost quality and biowaste quantity.
1) Participation:
Public acceptance and participation has been very high. Results indicate that 85 to 95%
of the public cooperates with biowaste collection programs, especially in the rural and
suburban areas. A lesser degree of participation is observed in the inner city, especially
in high-rise apartments. Source separation rules will have to be adapted to meet the
specific needs of these areas. High-rise apartment buildings will require more frequent
collection of the waste due to the lack of storage space. In various European cities,
garbage is collected twice a week, so that compostables and the remaining fraction should
be collected alternately during the course of the week.
14
-------
Table 1. Standards and actual values for heavy metal concentrations in compost
(rag/kg total solids)
Element
1) Standards:
The Netherlands
Germany
(voluntary standard)
Switzerland
U.S.A.
(Proposed NDAEN for
composted sludge)
2) Results in compost:
Compost of mixed MSW
(Selle, 1988)
Compost of mixed
MSW,
U.S.A. (Kuniholm,
1990)
Compost of mixed
MSW,
U.S.A. (Epstein, 1991)
Dutch biowaste
(Brethouwer, 1991)
Zn
280
400
500
1000
1570
1010
563
170
Pb
120
150
150
500
513
913
261
100
Cu
90
100
100
450
274
190
194
35
Ni Cd
20 1
50 2
50 3
200 10
45 5.5
33 4.8
29 3.5
9 0.75
2) Quality:
The quality of the compost from biowaste clearly exceeds the quality of the compost
derived from mixed waste composting plants, as far as contaminants are concerned.
Non-degradable components typically represent less than 5% of the collected biowaste
on a wet weight basis, while mixed waste contains 25 to 45% of non-degradable
materials before any kind of treatment. Results in the Netherlands indicated a pollutant
level in the biowaste fraction of a few tenths of a percent for the sum of glass, metals
and plastics (Kreuzberg, 1989). Rutten (1991) also reports an impurity of less than 1%
for the Diepenbeek project in Belgium. For the German projects the quality was less,
with a mean value of 95% organics, with most of the 5% of impurities being plastics
(Selle, 1988). Compost from biowaste will meet the stringent European requirements for
15
-------
heavy metal concentrations most of the time. It is also expected that improved
elimination of household chemical waste and the decreased use of metal-based inks and
dyes in packaging will even further diminish the heavy metal concentrations in biowaste.
3) Quantity:
A substantial quantity of waste can be diverted away from the landfill and recycled as
compost through biowaste collection. The exact amounts of biowaste depend mainly on
the definition of the biowaste. Data from the Netherlands, where biowaste is defined as
only yard and kitchen waste without the addition of paper products, show that the
biowaste quantity in suburban areas is approximately 40% of the total waste. This
figure, however, includes 50% and up to 80% of yard waste. Inner-city and high-rise
buildings, due to the lack of yard waste, generate a biowaste fraction of only 20%
(Kreuzberg, 1989). This figure of 20% corresponds with the results determined for
apartments in Copenhagen (Jespersen, 1989), while Frederikssund, a much smaller
Danish town, had 40% of the total waste in the biowaste fraction due to the inclusion of
soiled paper in the biowaste. The broader biowaste definition was also the basis of
difference between two German projects, Witzenhausen and Mainz-Bingen (inclusion of
cardboard and newspaper), where biowaste accounted for 29 and 50% of the total MSW,
respectively (Selle, 1988).
MAIN PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT BIOWASTE COLLECTION
Even though the large majority of the European municipalities found great benefits in
biowaste collection and continue to expand the implementation of biowaste collection
programs, a number of problems related to biowaste collection are becoming apparent
and will have to be addressed.
1) High moisture:
The most reported problem of biowaste is its high moisture content. Biowaste will
typically represent the more moist fraction of the MSW, especially when the definition
of biowaste is narrow. Dry matter contents of 25 % or even less are not uncommon and
special precautions must be taken. Storage, transport and treatment of wet biowaste as
such causes problems. In Medemblik, the Netherlands, the public and collectors
complained about water leaking out of the biowaste container. About 50% of the public
were dissatisfied by the collection performance (Kreuzberg, 1989). In the inner-city of
Solln, Germany, the biowaste had a total solids content of 23%, resulting in leakage
during transport (hauling trucks with compaction systems). The collection had to be
interrupted to unload the truck, resulting in an unloading frequency greater than planned.
Finally, the bottom of the truck was sealed and a 200 1 tank installed to collect the
leachate (Don, 1990).
16
-------
The high moisture content of the biowaste not only causes collection problems, but the
high moisture also affects the composting process itself. Large amounts of bulking
agents are required during the composting of wet biowaste to absorb the moisture and
prevent leachate. In Table 2, some aerobic composting systems treating Dutch biowaste
are mentioned together with the amount of bulking agents needed to obtain adequate
absorption of the moisture in the waste. This means that besides the biowaste, which
already contains a large fraction of yard waste, 20% of wood chips by weight or 10%
of wood chips plus 80% of recycled compost must be added.
Table 2. The need for bulking agents in aerobic composting of biowaste (Haskoning,
1991)
System
Bulking Materials
BIOCON Park waste, wood cuttings,
recirculation of medium- fraction after
screening ofthe compost
BAV-tunnel composting 1 ton of biowaste is mixed with 100
kg of wood chips and 800 kg of
recycled compost
BUHLER, closed hall composting 1 ton of biowaste is mixed with 175
kg of 250 kg of wood chips
2) Odour problems:
Closely linked to the high moisture content in the biowaste are the problems encountered
with odours, both in the homes and during treatment. The biowaste is highly putrescible
and will generate odours, especially during the summer months. This causes public
discontentment. In several cases, people were allowed to use newspaper in which to
wrap the kitchen waste or to put paper on the bottom of the container to absorb moisture
and prevent odours. During the composting process, the wet biowaste requires large
amounts of bulking agents to prevent souring of the compost piles and to make adequate
aeration of the decomposing material possible. This increases handling and composting
costs.
3) Seasonal variations:
Large seasonal variations presented problems with collection and treatment capacity.
Projects in Germany reported about 3 times less waste in the biowaste fraction during the
winter months, compared with the peak season in spring and fall (Selle, 1988). An
example of this variation can be seen in the project of Witzenhausen, Germany (Figure
17
-------
1).
Not only the amount of the biowaste, but also the quality varies over the seasons. The
biowaste is mostly limited to kitchen waste in the winter and is therefore extremely moist
(less than 25% solids). In order to counter this problem, the project of Bingen in the
area of Mainz is focusing on the addition of wastepaper in order to minimize seasonal
fluctuations. People are recommended to put more of their wastepaper in the biowaste
fraction during the winter months in order to compensate for the high water-content and
the low production of biowaste. The paper content rose from 18% in the fall to 32% in
the winter (Selle, 1988).
Figure 1. Seasonal fluctuations of biowaste in
Witzenhausen (Selle, 1988)
t G=s=.-tq=vich£.
.. i .... i .... i Woe lie P.
i • • • • ,-••-.
25 40 C5 50 55
Jan. Harz
4) Amount of biowaste:
The inclusion of yard waste in the biowaste definition has caused a significant increase
in the amount of waste produced by the households. For example, in the rural areas
around Gottingen in Germany, it was observed that the total household waste production
rose on the average 39% because the participants of the biowaste program made good
use of the bin for disposing of yard waste (Selle, 1988). This additional waste would
normally have been left in the yard or composted by the people themselves. In
Diepenbeek, Belgium, it was estimated that the amount of biowaste forecast on the basis
of previous waste production, was actually doubled once source separation of biowaste
started. In order to discourage the public from including too much yard waste, the
18
-------
Flemish Public Waste Authority intends to decree a maximum container size of less than
140 1 instead of the normal 2401 bin commonly used in the Netherlands. The significant
increase in household waste is in direct opposition with the policy of reducing waste
production at the source.
A narrow definition of biowaste tends to the production of a small percentage of the
municipal solid waste as the biowaste fraction. Cities focusing on pure food waste in
their biowaste will typically collect 10 to 20% of their waste as the biowaste fraction.
This makes collection costs go very high, going up to 600 $ per ton. The public is asked
to expend a major effort with a minimum of result.
5) Compost quality:
Even though the quality of the compost from biowaste with regard to inerts and heavy
metals has been greatly improved through biowaste collection, other compost quality
parameters have been affected negatively.
First, the salts content tends to be high, which is a limiting factor for compost usage.
From Table 3 it can be seen that biowaste must contain approximately 20% of paper in
order not to exceed the maximum level of 2 g of salt/liter (expressed as NaCl). Secondly,
the organic matter content of the compost obtained from source-separated waste has been
quite low and in various cases too low to qualify the biowaste compost as an organic soil
amendment. The compost from biowaste in Germany has an organic matter content of
26% on the total solids (Selle, 1988). In many countries, a minimum concentration of
30 to 40% is required. Higher organic matter concentrations are obtained in the projects
where paper is allowed in the biowaste fraction. The biowaste program in Mainz-
Bingen, for example, yielded a compost with 34% organic matter. Both the high salt
contents and the low organic matter content have largely been due to the omission of
paper products from the biowaste.
Table 3. Salt content and organic matter content in 16 week old compost derived
from biowaste and biowaste with addition of paper (Fricke, 1990)
Parameters
Salt
content
(g NaCl/1)
Organic
matter
(% on total
solids)
Biowaste + 10%
paper
2.53 2.09
31 30.5
+ 20%
paper
1.78
35
+ 30%
paper
1.59
36
1.9
-------
ADVANTAGES OF WASTEPAPER ADDITION IN BTOWASTE COMPOSTING
Biowaste collection experiments have shown that separate collection of biowaste can
circumvent many of the problems commonly associated with the quality of compost
derived from municipal solid waste. Problems encountered with biowaste collection and
treatment focused mainly around the low and variable quantity of biowaste that can be
diverted away from the landfill, and the high moisture with resulting odour nuisance in
the homes and during treatment.
Most of the problems facing biowaste collection and composting can be alleviated by the
addition of non-recyclable paper products and soiled paper to the kitchen and yard waste.
The expansion of the definition of biowaste to include non-recyclable paper products and
soiled paper has several advantages :
1) Absorption of excess moisture :
Wastepaper and disposable paper products are usually drier and will therefore absorb
excess moisture coming from the kitchen and yard (grass) waste. This will prevent
odour formation in the homes and make it feasible to collect the biowaste less frequently.
In Table 4, results of a composting test are reported whereby shredded dry wastepaper
was added to the biowaste. A paper addition of 10% reduced the amount of leachate
water during the first three weeks of composting by more than 85%. An addition of
20% of wastepaper resulted in no leachate water being formed.
2) Optimization of C:N ratio :
The incorporation of wastepaper in the biowaste fraction corrects the carbon to nitrogen
(C:N) ratio of the biowaste. Typical values of biowaste range from 15 to 20, which
significantly slows down the composting process. The inclusion of wastepaper will
increase the C:N ratio to 25 or more, which is an optimum ratio for biodegradation.
Also, less odour problems will be generated with a more optimal C:N ratio. Jespersen
(1991) reported that the addition of wastepaper to the biowaste fraction was beneficial
because the higher C concentration minimizes ammonia volatilization at the composting
plant.
3) Minimization of yard waste:
The increase in the total amount of household waste generated as a result of the
implementation of biowaste collection should be avoided. Yard waste is often included
in the biowaste stream due to the need for bulking materials for the composting process.
Kitchen and organic wastes are normally wet and heavy. This makes it difficult to aerate
and subsequently causes acidification with the resulting odour problems and a decreased
rate of biodegradation. A good substrate chosen for composting will not require the
20
-------
addition of large amounts of bulking agents. Wastepaper gives structure to the biowaste,
enabling the air to pass through the piles. Wastepaper should be included in the biowaste
fraction while the public should be encouraged to compost yard waste at the homes.
Table 4. Amount and quality of leachate originating during the first three weeks
of composting of biowaste in piles during the summer (Fricke, 1990)
TS (%)
1 of leachate per
ton
COD (mg Oj/1)
BOD5 (mg 02/1)
Pure
Biowaste
35
13.5
33100
19000
Biowaste
+ 10%
paper
37
1.6
30200
19000
Biowaste
20% paper
39
0
-
-
Biowaste
+ 30%
paper
41
0
-
-
3) Minimization of yard waste:
The increase in the total amount of household waste generated as a result of the
implementation of biowaste collection should be avoided. Yard waste is often included
in the biowaste stream due to the need for bulking materials for the composting process.
Kitchen and organic wastes are normally wet and heavy. This makes it difficult to aerate
and subsequently causes acidification with the resulting odour problems and a decreased
rate of biodegradation. A good substrate chosen for composting will not require the
addition of large amounts of bulking agents. Wastepaper gives structure to the biowaste,
enabling the air to pass through the piles. Wastepaper should be included in the biowaste
fraction while the public should be encouraged to compost yard waste at the homes.
4) Seasonal variations in biowaste:
The addition of disposable paper and wastepaper has the effect of tempering seasonal
fluctuations, as far as both the quality and the quantity of the biowaste are concerned.
This makes compost facilities more economically feasible because it is less complicated
to design and operate a plant on a fairly steady wastestream, in contrast to a wastestream
with highly fluctuating quantities and/or qualities. Including paper in the biowaste also
makes both streams, the compostable fraction and the remaining fraction, roughly equally
important, so that bi-weekly or alternating collection is more feasible. Logistical
problems are reduced if the two fractions are roughly equal in volume and in weight.
Adding paper increases the percentage of the waste that goes to biowaste to close to 50%
on a wet weight basis and makes the density of the biowaste more similar to the
21
-------
remaining non-compostable fraction.
CONCLUSIONS
Separate collection of biowaste from the household waste stream will certainly cause one
of the most sweeping changes in the waste management industry in Europe in the
nineties. One can expect that in the most industrialized and environmentally conscious
countries of Europe, 20% to 50% of the household waste will be diverted away from
landfills and converted into high quality compost through biowaste composting by the
year 2000.
Most current problems with biowaste are related to a biowaste definition that is too
restrictive and can be resolved by allowing the addition of disposable paper products and
wastepaper into the biowaste fraction. Biowaste should be redefined, away from the
notion of "wet" waste because of collection and composting problems, and away from
"yard" waste because of a significant increase in household waste generation. Rather,
it should be defined towards those products that are "compostable".
If separate collection of biowaste in the U.S. would be based on the narrow definition
of biowaste, only a very minor portion of the total collected municipal solid waste,
between 10 and 15%, would be collected as biowaste. Besides the moisture and odour
problems, this low quantity would make biowaste collection impractical. Such an
approach certainly would not promote a philosophy of maximum material recovery and
diversion from landfills. Biowaste definition in the U.S. will have to include all of the
compostable, non-recyclable paper. American MSW typically contains 35 to 40% paper
and cardboard, of which usually about 50% can be recycled. Nbn- recyclable and
disposable paper products could more than double the amount of the compostable
fraction.
Biowaste collection including non-recyclable paper products, would furthermore
encourage industry to develop and utilize products that can be disposed of by natural
microbiological processes. When this can be achieved, composting of the biodegradable
fraction of municipal solid waste will play a major part in managing solid waste in the
nineties, and also well into the next century.
REFERENCES
Brethouwer, T. (1991), "Kwaliteit van GFT-afval en GFT-compost in Nederland",
Syllabus studiedag 7 maart, 1991. Verwerkingsmogelijkheden en scheidingsregels van
groente-, fruit- en tuinafval, Koninklijke Vlaamse Ingenieursvereniging (K.V.I.V.).
Doh, W. (1990), "Biologische Verfahren der Abfallbehandelung", EF-Verlag.
22
-------
Epstein, E. (1991), "Human and environmental health", Proceedings Norhteast Regional
Solid Waste Composting Conference, Albany, New York, June 24-25,1991, Solid Waste
Composting Council.
Haskoning (1991), "Conversietechnieken voor GFT-afval", NOH, 53430/0110.
Jespersen, L. (1991), "Source separation and treatment of biowaste in Denmark",
Syllabus studiedag 7 maart, 1991. Verwerkingsmogelijkheden en scheidingsregels van
groente-, fruit- en tuinafval, Koninklijke Vlaamse Ingenieursvereniging (K.V.I.V.).
Jespersen, L. (1989), "Grdnne kompostprodukters kwalitative egenskaber",
arbejdsrapport fra Miljdstyreljen N° 1.
Kreuzberg, G., Reijenga, F. (1989), "Handboek geschei-den inzameling groente-, fruit-
en tuinafval". Provinciale Waterstaat Noord-Holland.
Kuniholm (1990), "Composting, a literature study", M.M. Dillon Ltd. and Cal Recovery
Systems, p. 40.
Rutten, J. (1991), "Gescheiden inzameling en verwerking van GFT-afval teDiepenbeek",
syllabus studiedag 7 maart, 1991, Verwerkingsmogelijkheden en scheidings-regels van
groente-, fruit- en tuinafval, Koninklijke Vlaamse Ingenieursvereniging (K.V.I.V.).
Selle, M., Kron, D. und Hangen, H.O. (1988), "Die Biomullsammlung und
Kompostierung in der Bundesreplublik Deutschland, Situationsanalyse 1988".
Schriftenreihe des Arbeidskreises fur die Nutzbarmachung von Siedlungsabfallen (ANS)
e.v., Heft 13.
23
-------
A PLANNER'S TOOL FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SMALL COMMUNITIES
C.W. Cross Jr., J.T. Swartzbaugh, Ph.D.
University of Dayton Research Institute
Dayton, Ohio
E. Barth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio
Introduction
SW-Options is a computer software package, developed cooperatively by the University of Dayton
Research Institute and the U.S. EPA Center for Environmental Research Information. SW-Options
is an abbreviation of "Solid Waste Management Options for Municipal Planners." It was developed
specifically for planners of small communities whose responsibility it is to evaluate and select
municipal waste options, regardless of their previous experience in solid waste issues. SW-Options
is not meant for large municipalities.
Background
Communities across the country are actively seeking new alternatives for handling municipal solid
waste. Furthermore, many states are requiring communities to produce waste diversion plans. Often
these plans must be developed by officials that do not have the necessary technical background to
properly evaluate the options and arrive at the best solution for the community and its neighbors.
Using SW-Options
As you use SW-Options, you will be asked to enter information which describes your community
and the waste management practices you wish to explore. While this may
sound complicated, it is actually quite simple because SW-Options explains everything in a timely
and thorough fashion. SW-Options not only teaches you about solid waste management, it also
describes the effects your responses would have on the waste stream and the costs required if they
were implemented.
-------
Some of the choices you will make involve the following topics:
o Material Recovery (including selection of specific recyclable materials and selection
of collection methods)
o Composting (including selection of which waste materials are to be composted along
with selection of composting method and collection method)
o Energy Recovery (including incineration with heat recovery for steam or electricity
markets and production of refuse-derived fuel)
o Incineration only for volume reduction (with the option of reconsidering heat
recovery)
o Special Waste Collection (including household hazardous waste, tire collection, pallet
collection, engine oil, and construction/demolition debris)
Some of the software features which make SW-Options easy to use are:
o built-in tutorial
o minimal user input required
o user-friendly design
o context-sensitive HELP
o meaningful default values
o well-organized screen layouts
Acquiring SW-Options
SW-Options operates on DOS-based IBM-compatible personal computers (80286, 80386 or 80486)
with a hard disk, EGA or VGA color, and 640K of RAM (random access memory). SW-Options
can be acquired in either of the following ways:
1. Download the file called SWOP.ZIP from the ORD Electronic Bulletin Board System
2. Send a blank, high-density diskette (5.25" or 3.5") to:
USEPA/CERI
Software Distribution Center
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
ATTN: SWOP
-------
ANAEROBIC BYCONVERSION OF TUNA PROCESSING WASTES WITH MSW
Christopher J. Rivard and Nicholas J. Nagle
Applied Biological Science Branch
Alternative Fuels Division
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
Summary
Tuna processing wastes generated on Tutuila Island, American Samoa, represent both an ongoing
disposal problem as well as an emerging opportunity for use in renewable energy production.
We investigated the biological conversion of the organic fraction of this waste and the co-
digestion with municipal solid waste (MSW) to useful products including methane and a fertilizer
grade residue. Tuna processing waste is concentrated by dissolved air floatation with a total
solids content of 8%- 14%. The majority of the total solids are volatiles with protein/oil and
grease accounting for greater than 90% of the volatile component. Initial batch anaerobic
fermentation studies conducted with an anaerobic consortium, adapted to a domestic MSW
feedstock, revealed inhibition of the microbial population with addition of tuna processing waste.
However, this inhibition was quickly overcome and with appropriate adaptation, vigorous
anaerobic biodegradation of the tuna processing wastes occurred. Fermentation studies were
carried out utilizing conventional low solids anaerobic reactor systems operated at mesophilic
temperatures. The data revealed a stable fermentation, with total anaerobic bioconversion
approaching 80%- 90% of the theoretical values for chemical oxygen demand (COD) loadings.
The results from these studies will provide information for the design of a pilot plant facility.
Introduction
Disposal practices for municipal solid wastes (MSW) generally involve conventional landfill
operation. However, because of a critical shortage of available land and cover materials on
Tutuila Island, American Samoa, the landfill cannot be operated in the traditional "sanitary"
method. Additionally, because of the lack of appropriate equipment and limited area, the landfill
is not effectively compacted, resulting in an unstable roadway for refuse disposal vehicles.
27
-------
Tuna canneries on Tutuila Island produce the second major waste stream in the form of tuna
sludge from processing operations. Presently, the tuna sludge is disposed of through ocean
dumping under permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1). However, because
of uncertain ocean currents and trade winds, there is a potential for shore line contamination.
Previously, interruption in ocean disposal of tuna sludge has resulted in the cessation of work
for approximately 37% of American Samoa's wage earners (2). Additionally, the cost for ocean
dumping of the large quantities of tuna sludge produced is significant.
Biological conversion processes such as anaerobic digestion has for centuries been employed in
the disposal of organic wastes such as municipal sewage (3-5). Furthermore, the anaerobic
digestion process has the potential for the production of two useful products: a fuel gas
(methane) and a compost quality soil amendment. Combining the MSW and tuna sludge wastes
and subjecting this feedstock to anaerobic bioconversion has the potential for producing a
renewable fuel and quality top soil on an island which lacks both.
This study evaluates the potential for anaerobic bioconversion of tuna sludge, as well as a
combined MSW and tuna sludge feedstock.
Materials and Methods
Feedstocks.
Tuna processing wastes (sludge) was obtained from Pan Pacific Fisheries, Inc, Terminal Island,
California. During cannery operations, tuna processing wastes are partially dewatered using
dissolved air floatation (DAF) to produce a sludge for disposal. Tuna sludge from the DAF was
shipped frozen to our laboratory and maintained at -20°C in freezers until use.
The MSW feedstock used in this study was obtained from Future Fuels, Inc., Thief River Falls,
Minnesota. The MSW was processed using a combination of mechanical and manual separation.
The MSW feedstock was obtained in two fractions, which included the food/yard waste fraction,
as well as the paper and paperboard materials (also referred to as refuse-derived fuel [RDF] in
the form of densified pellets). The food/yard waste fraction was stored at 4°C until it was
blended with the RDF-MSW fraction. The food/yard waste was screened using a 3/4-in. tray
sieve and plastic materials were removed by hand. The RDF-MSW was size-reduced from the
storage pellets using a knife mill (All Steel, Inc., Brunswick, New Jersey) equipped with a 3/8-
in. round hole rejection screen. The materials were weighed separately and added to a 20 cu
ft. cube blender at 180 Ib total weight (50%-50% mix) and blended with forty 5-in. ceramic
balls for approximately 48 h. The mixed MSW was again screened using the 3/4-in. tray sieve
before it was packaged into plastic drum liners for storage. The mixed MSW was stored at
-20°C until use.
28
-------
Previous research on anaerobic byconversion of MSW feedstocks identified the need for nutrient
supplementation to ensure robust biological activity (6). Therefore, for comparison purposes
some fermentations were performed with a nutrient solution as previously described (6). The
addition of tuna sludge, nutrient solution, or tap water to the MSW (depending upon the
fermentation protocol), allowed for adjustment of the moisture content of the digester feed.
Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) Analysis.
The BMP assays were performed as previously described to determine the ultimate yields of
conversion of the feedstocks by the anaerobic consortium (7). Studies were conducted in 155-
mL serum bottles at 37°C and mixed using a orbital shaker. Biogas production was measured
using a pressure transducer equipped with a 22-gauge needle for penetration into and subsequent
over-pressure release from the serum bottle.
Low Solids Digester Operation.
Four anaerobic digesters with 3.5-L working volumes and semi-continuous stirring (15 min of
each 1/2 h) were constructed and operated as previously described (8,9). The digesters were
maintained in a 37°C constant temperature warm room. The anaerobic reactors were batch-fed
daily a volume of MSW plus nutrient supplement slurry to maintain a 14-day retention time.
In the batch feeding protocol, a volume of effluent equivalent to the volume of feed added was
removed daily to maintain the reactor sludge volume at 3.5 L. In the operation of the reactors,
the solids retention time was equivalent to the hydraulic retention time.
Feedstock/Digester Effluent Analysis.
The solids concentrations of both feedstocks and digester effluent samples were determined using
1-g aluminum weigh tins. A 20- to 30-g sample was loaded into preweighed tins and dried for
48 h at 45°-50°C. The dried sample was then cooled to room temperature in a laboratory
desiccator and weighed using a Sartorius balance (Model 1684MB). The percent total solids
(TS) was calculated on a weight/weight basis, and the percents volatile solids (VS) and ash were
determined by combustion of the dried samples at 550°C for 3 h in a laboratory-scale furnace.
Feedstock materials were analyzed for levels of carbon oxygen demand (COD) as previously
described (10). The COD assay employed the micro-determination method with commercially
available "twist tube" assay vials (Bioscience, Inc., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania).
Levels of volatile organic acids (C^Q iso- and normal-acids) were determined by gas-liquid
chromatography (GLC). A Hewlett-Packard Model 5840A gas chromatograph equipped with
a flame ionization detector, a Model 7672 A autosampler, and a Model 5 840A integrator (all
from Hewlett-Packard) were used. The chromatograph was equipped with a glass column
packed with Supelco 60/80, Carbopack C/0.3%, Carbowax 20M/0.1% H3PO4 for separations.
29
-------
The feedstocks were also analyzed with respect to specific polymer content as determined by the
standard forage fiber analyses of acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF)
as previously described (11).
Gas Analysis.
Total biogas production in low solids CSTR systems was determined from calibrated water
displacement reservoirs. The composition of the biogas produced was determined by gas
chromatography as previously described (12). For this analysis, a Gow-Mac (Model 550) gas
chromatograph equipped with a Porapak Q column and a thermal conductivity detector with
integrating recorder was used.
Theoretical Methane Yield.
The theoretical methane yield for the various feedstocks tested was calculated as previously
described (7) from the feedstock COD content. The ratio of the actual methane yield for a given
anaerobic fermentation system to the theoretical methane yield calculated from the feedstock
COD value is a direct reflection of the organic carbon conversion of the substrate added.
Results
Because of the remote location of the canneries in American Samoa, local (California) tuna
sludge was procured for this study. The compositional characteristics of both tuna sludge and
MSW are compared in Table 1. The data indicate a high moisture content for the tuna sludge
as compared to the MSW, although both waste materials were substantially high in volatile solids
content, analysis of feedstock polymer content revealed the tuna sludge was composed primarily
of protein, fat, oil, and grease, whereas the MSW contained predominately cellulose (due to the
high paper and packaging content).
Initial anaerobic digestibility assessments conducted with the tuna sludge waste as determined
by the BMP protocol using low solids digester sludge adapted to a MSW feedstock, is shown
in Figure 1, at various feed addition levels for the first 30 days of incubation (the BMP analysis
was conducted for a total incubation time of 90 days). The data indicates that when the tuna
sludge feedstock was added at volumetric loadings greater than 0.5 mL (for this assay protocol)
the anaerobic microbial consortium was inhibited. The inhibition of the microbial consortium
was transient, lasting from 18-28 days, after which active anaerobic biodegradation occurred
(denoted by cumulative biogas production above zero). Total methane yields from the BMPjo
resulted in an anaerobic bioconversion for the tuna sludge feedstock of 89%- 98% of the
theoretical yields (as determined by feedstock COD content) for all of the organic loadings
tested.
30
-------
Table 1. Compositional analysis of Tuna Sludge and MSW feedstocks.
Total Solids (%)
Volatile Solids (% of TS)
Ash (% of TS)
COD (mg/g wet weight)
Protein/fat/oil/grease (% of VS)
Hemicellulose (% of VS)
Cellulose (% ofVS)
Lignin (% of VS)
Tuna Sludge
11.3 ± 0.7
81.4 ± 1.4
18.6 ± 1.4
213.7 ±4.2
96.8 ± 0.3
0.6 ± 0.3
0.8 ± 0.1
4.1 ± 2.1
MSW
72.7 ± 1.8
87.5 ± 1.6
12.5 ± 1.6
727.0 ± 4.7
16.4 ± 1.0
4.4 ± 1.3
62.5 ± 2.5
13.7 ± 1.2
Addition
-•-0.5 ml
-*-1.0mL
-+-1.5mL
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (days)
Figure 1. BMP analysis of the anaerobic bioconversion of tuna sludge at
increasing volumetric loadings for the first 30 days of incubation. The data
points represent the average of triplicate determinations and are net (control
subtracted).
-------
Subsequent to the information gained from the initial BMP conducted with the tuna sludge
feedstock, a low solids anaerobic digester was initiated on a 30% tuna sludge, 70% MSW
combined feedstock (based on VS content) in order to adapt the anaerobic consortium a
combined waste. This adapted anaerobic consortium was then utilized in BMP assays to evaluate
the effects of increasing the tuna sludge content of the combined feedstock. The data as shown
in Figure 2, indicates that the onset of anaerobic biodegradation is most rapid with the addition
of the 100% MSW feedstock. In fact, as the level of tuna sludge in the combined feedstock is
increased, the onset of anaerobic bioconversion is delayed.
TSR-MSW Ratio
-*-TSR 100%
•*• MSW 100%
-*-70%-30%
50%-50%
40%-60%
10 15 20
Time (days)
25 30
Figure 2. BMP analysis of the effects of increasing tuna sludge (TSR) content of
the combined feedstock. Data represent the average of triplicate determinations
and are shown for the first 30 days of incubation.
The analysis of the effect of tuna sludge content in the combined feedstock on the resulting
methane yield (i.e., compared to the theoretical yield determined from the feedstock COD
content) is shown in Figure 3. The data indicates that increasing the tuna sludge content of the
combined feedstock results in increased overall anaerobic bioconversion.
-------
100
100 70 60 50 40
% Tuna Sludge in Combined Feedstock
Figure 3. Effects of increasing tuna sludge content in the combined feedstock on
the methane yields as determined from the BMPso assay. Data represent the
average of triplicate determinations.
The effects of the addition of tuna sludge to the MSW feedstock was evaluated using
conventional laboratory-scale low solids continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) systems.
These digesters were operated at an organic loading rate of 4 grams volatile solids per liter
sludge per day and a retention time of 14 days. The data as shown in Figure 4, indicates that
the level of anaerobic bioconversion is substantially enhanced when the MSW feedstock is
supplemented with tuna sludge over a laboratory study defined nutrient solution or without
nutrient addition. The level of anaerobic conversion of the tuna sludge/MSW combined
feedstock (50%/50% based on VS content) obtained is approximately 120% of that determined
for the BMPro assay.
33
-------
Discussion
Preliminary assessments of the anaerobic bioconversion potential for tuna sludge wastes
indicated that following adaptation of the anaerobic microbial consortium, this waste was
amenable to bioconversion. Additionally, increasing the level of tuna sludge in a combined tuna
sludge/MSW feedstock also required adaptation in of the microbial consortium but ultimately
resulted in increases in the methane yield and thus extent of anaerobic bioconversion.
Therefore, the addition of tuna slu.dge not only served to supply nutrients required for effective
MSW bioconversion, but in fact enhanced the bioconversion of the MSW portion of the
feedstock substantially.
100
.2 80
CO
o
o
o
CD
o
la
2
o
CO
60
40
20
MSW Alone
MSW/Nutrient Soln
Feedstock
MSW/Tuna Sludge
Figure 4. Effects of MSW feedstock additions on the anaerobic bioconversion in
low solids CSTR systems. Bars represents the average of data collected over a
4 week period at steady state.
In summary, the anaerobic bioconversion of tuna sludge with MSW appears promising. In this
preliminary study, tuna sludge addition to MSW serves to enhance the overall bioconversion.
This result will effect the process by increasing the yield of the methane energy produced and
ensure a quality residue which is more stable to further bioconversion in its use as a soil
amendment.
34
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was co-funded by the Waste Management Program of the U.S. Department of
Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Territorial Energy Office of the
Government of American Samoa, and the American Samoan tuna canneries (Star-kist Samoa
Inc., and VCS Samoa Packing Co.). The authors thank Mr. Bert Yungen and Mr. Ian
Boatwood of Pan Pacific Fisheries, Inc., for facilitating the procurement of tuna processing
wastes (sludge).
35
-------
REFERENCES
1. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of an Ocean Disposal Site off
Tutuila Island. American Samoa for Fish Processing Wastes. February 1989, US E.P.A.
Region 9, San Francisco, CA.
2. Honolulu Advertiser. Sect. C, p.l, August 4, 1990.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (1979), Wastewater Engineering: Treatment. Disposal. Reuse.
New York: McGraw-Hill
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (1979), Process Design Manual for Sludge
Treatment and Disposal. EPA 625/1-79-011, Cincinnati, OH: Environmental Research
Information.
5. Arora, M.L. (1980), Water and Sewage Works. 127, 24.
6. Rivard, C.J., Vinzant, T.B., Adney, W.S., Grohmann, K., and Himmel, M.E. (1990)
Biomass 23. 201.
7. Owen, W.F., Stuckey, D.C., Healy, J.B., Young, L.Y., and McCarty, P.L. (1979)
Water Res. 13, 485.
8. Rivard, C.J., F.M. Bordeaux, J.M. Henson, and P.H. Smith, (1987) Appl. Biochem.
and Biotech. 17, 245.
9. Henson, J.M., F.M. Bordeaux, CJ. Rivard, and P.H. Smith, (1986) Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 51, 288.
10. Greenberg, A.E., Conners, J.J., and Jenkins, D. (eds.) In Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, (1981).
11. Goering, H.K., and Van Soest, PJ. (1970) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Handbook £379
(1970).
12. Rivard, C.J., Himmel, M.E., and Grohmann, K. (1985) Biotech. Bioeng. Svmp. 15,
375.
36
-------
ARTISTS' STRATEGIES FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
Angela Babin, M.S.
Director, Art Hazards
Information Center
Center for Safety in the Arts
New York, NY
Introduction
The Art Hazards Information Center answers about 12,000 inquiries per year from
artists, performers, teachers, parents, schools, museums, health professionals and
government agencies. These questions range from firstly, the identification of chemical
hazards of products - to secondly, recommendations for safety precautions such as
ventilation - to finally, safe waste management options for unwanted or "used-up"artist
waste.
Artists and Artists' Chemicals
The actual numbers of people who use and must manage unwanted art materials are
quite large. Unpublished tabulations from the Department of Labor for 1989, show
about 232,000 artists in major categories (1). Many people do some kind of art, although
they don't consider their main activity to be art. A 1975 poll commissioned by the
Associated Council on the Arts, found that about 55% of the population is involved in
woodworking, weaving, pottery, ceramics, painting, drawing, sculpture or other arts and
crafts (2). This percentage represented almost 80 million people over 16 years of age.
Artists use a great variety of chemicals in many different processes. A handout of a list
of some of these chemicals, reprinted from Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies (3,4) is
available. While many artists "use-up"much of the material they work with, they also
produce waste materials needing waste management. Understanding ingredients of art
materials, and how they are used - and used-up is crucial to knowing how to categorize
them as wastes.
37
-------
Determining Hazardous Constituents
The critical step in waste management options is understanding materials and the
determination if the materials are indeed hazardous. To know what ingredients are in
artists' materials, one must either read the label, or consult the manufacturer and get the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). With the passage of the "Labeling of Hazardous
Art Materials Act" (amending the Federal Hazardous Substances Act), by Congress in
October 1988, it is in effect as of November 1990, and labels should now give more
information on ingredients with chronic as well as acute hazards. The MSDS may still
be the most informative way to go.
Individual artists often generate amounts and types of waste that are consistent with
household hazardous waste generators, and many are thus exempt from specific
regulations under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA). Some artists
do generate larger amounts of hazardous waste. While many artists do work in their
home, some have separate studios, and a few generate income that would make them
ineligible for exemption as a household hazardous waste generator.
Recommendations for Artists
A hierarchical arrangement of the waste management options - starting with the most
desirable is as follows: waste elimination or reduction at the source; waste separation
and concentration; waste exchange; energy and material recovery; incineration or
treatment; and finally, secure land disposal. The following discussion will concentrate
only on the first three methods of waste management In the poster presentation, slides
or actual artworks, that in some way demonstrate these waste management efforts, are
available for viewing.
Waste Elimination or Reduction
The best way of managing hazardous waste is to actually eliminate or minimize its
production. The first step is to understand the hazards of the materials used. Then,
artists, or even schools and teachers, can investigate the substitution of lesser toxic
materials. In a certain sense, waste elimination and minimization pay particular
attention to reducing the environmental toxicity - which is often reflected in the health
hazards of the materials. Substituting lead-free glazes instead of leaded glazes results in
the elimination of lead that enters the environment, via kiln fumes (health and air
hazard), and also in discarding unwanted or waste material (as hazardous waste). Also,
lead-glazed pottery is not foodsafe, and lead glazes cannot be donated to many art
programs because of the hazards involved. At the display area are two ceramic pieces,
one glazed with a leaded glaze, and the other glazed with lead-free glazes.
-------
Another example of waste elimination is the alteration of processes resulting in the
removal of methods requiring hazardous materials or processes. The first slide shows
small brass and copper sculptures that have been riveted together with miniature bolts,
rather than using solders. Under the RCRA regulations, if one discards materials made
with toxic solders, they are not regulated, but scraps inevitably generated in working the
pieces are. This artist has eliminated the generation of scrap solder.
Both the actual artwork and slides of a series of three paintings that directly compare
pigments are presented next. The first painting uses typically seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century colors, including: lead white; vermUlion (mercuric sulfate); gamboge
(tree resin); red lake; red iron oxide; and smalt (blue). The painter chose not to work
with samples of realgar, a popular color of that time that is a sulfide of arsenic. The
second painting of this series utilizes nineteenth- and early twentieth-century colors,
including: cadmium reds; cadmium yellows; cobalt blue; cobalt green; and Prussian blue.
The third painting shows twentieth-century synthetic organic colors, that are generally
much safer including: naphthol reds; Hansa yellows; new phthalcyanine greens; new
phthalcyanine blues; and dioxazine purple. Similarly, an abstract painting done with
synthetic organic pigments is included to show different qualities of these water-based
paints.
The final artistic example of waste minimization is the use of water-based photoetching
materials instead of solvent-based ones. Photoetching involves coating a metal or other
surface with a light-sensitive, acid-resistant layer. The most common resists contain
methylene chloride, butyl cellosolve, and naphtha. After exposure to light, an acid-
resistant photographic image remains. Acids (commonly nitric, which requires careful
handling, storage, and disposal) etch the surfaces not covered with resist Displayed is
an etching that is made with a technique that uses no solvents, and utilizes ferric chloride
instead of nitric acid. Ferric chloride isn't actually an acid, until it becomes a solution.
It significantly less toxic and corrosive than nitric acid.
Waste Separation and Concentration
If one cannot reduce the actual amount of hazardous waste being produced, the next
step is to keep hazardous waste from "contaminating" regular garbage. In this way, the
these different waste streams remain separated. An example of this is keeping separate
used and unwanted solvent-based and water-based paint Sometimes wastes can be
combined in an advantageous manner. For example, mixing dilute solutions of spent
photographic developer (basic pH) with dilute solutions of spent photographic stop baths
(acidic pH) can result in neutralization of both.
39
-------
Waste Exchange and Recycling
One of the most exciting methods of waste management is exchange and recycling of
products. There are two types of recycling methods, which can be described as internal
or external approaches.
Internal Recycling
Internal recycling involves individual re-use of material. Mineral spirits and other
solvents used for thinning, washes, and cleanup in oil painting can be allowed to settle,
strained and decanted through a cheesecloth (to remove the solids), and finally, be re-re-
used. Internal recycling is usually going to be extremely cost-effective.
External Recycling
External recycling involves actually passing unwanted materials on to someone else who
can use them. What is refuse to one may be sustenance to another. For example,
leftover art materials can be donated to an art center or secondary school. Note that
hazardous materials should never be donated to elementary schools, and highly toxic
materials like lead glazes should not be recycled.
The next slide shows a large-scale installation, placed at an abandoned site of an iron
ore factory. This environmental piece consists of the construction of red-hued mounds,
of iron-rich and unwanted earth that visually contrast and complement with the green
mountainous surroundings.
Many Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs (HHWCPs) have set up paint
and other material collection and exchanges. For example, an HHWCP in Santa
Monica, California operates a materials exchange service in which the participants can
take usable products that have been collected, such as paints, thinners, adhesives,
etchants, etc., for free. The environmental coordinator reports that individual artists, art
cooperatives and performance art groups "clean out the city facility weekly." The final
slide depicts a facility that has been totally repainted with spray paints that have been
donated to that program.
Conclusion
Center for Safety in the Arts recommends:
* substitution of less hazardous chemicals (e.g. water-based instead of solvent-based)
* minimizing the volume of waste generated
* using existing recycling programs
40
-------
* lobbying for recycling programs if none exist
* using household hazardous waste collection programs when eligible
* safe methods of neutralization and other treatments
These suggestions will result in both a healthier work environment, and reliance on the
less hazardous and more ecologically aware types of waste management (e.g. recycling
rather than disposal in solid waste landfills. This is but a brief introduction to the
chemicals used, and the waste management options possible with respect to art
processes. Source reduction of hazardous chemicals will result in less reliance on waste
management techniques such as disposal in landfills or incineration. There are many
opportunities for waste elimination, minimization, recycling, and other options for safer
and more efficient hazardous waste management.
References
(1) National Endowment for the Arts: "Artist Employment in 1989." Research Division
Note No. 33, Washington DC, 1990. Unpublished tabulations for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
(2) Associated Councils on the Arts: "Americans and the Arts. A Survey of Public
Opinion." New York, 1975.
(3) Goldfrank's Toxicological Emergencies. Eds. Lewis Goldfrank et al, 4th edition,
Appleton and Lange, 1990.
(4) M. McCann: Artist Beware: The Hazards and Precautions in Working with Art and
Craft Materials. New York, Watson-Guptill, 1979.
41
-------
CALCULATING A COMMUNITY'S MAXIMUM RECYCLING POTENTIAL
John F. Williams
Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.
White Plains, New York
Jeremy K. O'Brien
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
Introduction
As various state and municipalities continue to adjust regulatory goals for recycling, it is
becoming more of a challenge to assemble a local program with technical elements that will
satisfy the higher goals. Early reports from New Jersey indicate that the state's current goal of
25 percent recycling will likely be increased to 60 percent. Under California's Assembly Bill
939, the new solid waste legislation sets forth requirements that the cities and counties prepare
a plan for the reduction of refuse landfilled by 25 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000.
Those communities that do not submit final plans by July 1, 1991, are subject to a $10,000 per
day fine. The rest of the country is likely to follow suit with their recycling goals.
These goals are likely to lead to major changes in the solid waste industry and specific public
works programs. A 60 percent recycling goal will not be easily achieved. Clearly, experience
has shown that the most successful source separation programs barely approach a 30 percent
level. In order to progress beyond the limits of existing source separation programs,
communities must choose from a menu of recycling technologies that can be mixed and matched
to achieve their maximum recycling potential (MRP).
Every community has its own MRP. Depending on local conditions that include the
characteristics of the waste streams, developmental constraints, level of waste flow control,
environmental regulations, financial capabilities, material markets, and public and political
acceptance, it is possible to calculate MRP. While decisions relative to solid waste management
should not be oversimplified, public officials may utilize MRP as a tool in examining the
available options.
43
-------
The calculation is highly dependent on an understanding of the municipal waste stream, including
the level of recyclable materials present and reasonable rates of recovery.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of MRP and how to calculate the MRP for
a community. It is important to note that the MRP does not include waste reduction~an
important element of any solid waste management program that should not be overlooked.
Also important to note is the fact that the MRP addresses only the recycling potential of the
municipal solid waste stream and does not account for the recycling potential of existing or
planned private sector recycling programs.
Calculating the MRP for a Community
There are three basic steps to calculating the MRP for your community:
Step 1—Determine the makeup of the community's waste stream
Step 2—Estimate the likely recovery rates of each recycling program
Step 3-Calculate the recycling potential of each and all programs
tep 1—Determine the Makeup of Your Community's Waste Stream
Much of the confusion about the recycling percentages being achieved by various communities
is related to the differences in the makeup of a community's waste stream. Municipal solid
waste, for a typical community, consists of:
• Residential Waste-consisting of garbage and trash from homes and residences;
• Commercial Waste-waste generated by small businesses, restaurants, convenience stores,
and the like; and
• Construction/Demolition Waste-consisting of waste materials from land clearing, building
demolitions, and the like.
Other additional waste streams are often also considered to be part of the municipal waste stream
in many areas. These include wastewater sludges, abandoned autos, and, in some cases, certain
industrial and agricultural wastes.
The relative proportions that these three waste streams contribute to the municipal solid waste
stream, on a weight basis, in a typical community are as follows:
44
-------
• Residential Waste - 50%
• Commercial Waste — 40%
• Construction/Demolition Waste — 10%.
The first step in determining the MRP for a community is to determine the quantities of waste
managed by the local government and the major waste streams that comprise municipal solid
waste in the area. The local solid waste department should be able to readily supply this
information.
Step 2-Estlmate the Likely Recovery Rates of Each Recycling Program
Recycling programs available to local governments can generally be classified into three major
types:
• source separation of materials;
• source separation/composting of yard wastes; and
• mixed waste processing.
Source Separation of Materials. Commonly known as curbside recycling, this approach
involves the separation of certain recyclable materials at the source—either at the residence or
business. These materials are then collected for processing and recovery.
Source Separation/Composting of Yard Wastes. Yard waste is being banned from landfill
disposal in many locations. This approach involves the resident or business keeping yard waste
separate from the waste stream for separate collection and processing through composting.
Mixed Waste Processing. This approach involves the processing of either the entire mixed
waste stream or select loads of mixed wastes for the recovery of recyclables. Mixed waste
processing generally involves a combination of mechanical processes and hand sorting stations
at a central facility, which can either stand alone or serve as a "front-end system" to a materials
conversion process such as composting.
Published information on the recovery rates achieved through each of these program alternatives
is becoming available. The best source of such information is generally the trade journals and
magazines such as Biocvcle and Waste Age.
It is important to note that other technologies, such as mixed waste composting, may also be
considered depending on local marketing and regulatory conditions. The inclusion of additional
technologies could substantially increase the MRP of a community.
45
-------
Step 3~Calculate the Recycling Potential of Each and All Programs
The recycling potential of each program can be calculated as follows:
Targeted Waste Stream Fraction x Program Recovery Rate = Program Recycling Potential
The targeted waste stream fraction is the portion of the total municipal solid waste stream
contributed by the specific waste stream targeted for recycling.
The targeted waste stream fraction must, in some cases, be adjusted by subtracting the recycling
rate of programs instituted "upstream" of the particular recycling programs. For example, mixed
waste composting generally targets residential and commercial wastes from which source
separated materials have been removed.
The calculated recycling potentials for each program and waste stream are then summed to derive
the MRP for the community.
Maximum Recycling Potential--An Example
An example of how to calculate the MRP for a sample community is provided in Table 1. In
this example, the municipal waste stream is seen to consist of residential waste (50 percent),
commercial waste (40 percent), and construction/demolition debris (10 percent).
Using ballpark recovery rates, the MRP for this hypothetical community is calculated to be 40
percent. Calculating the MRP, in this case, indicates a number of important insights.
• High Performance Programs-The MRP indicates that source separated yard waste programs
for residential waste and mixed materials processing programs for commercial waste can
potentially yield higher results than traditional, curbside recycling programs.
• Importance of Addressing All Waste Streams-Commercial waste recycling is seen, in this
case, to yield a higher MSW recycling potential (20 percent) than residential recycling (14
percent).
-------
Table 1. Calculating A Community's Maximum Recycling Potential
Waste Stream
Residential Waste
Residential Waste
Residential Waste
(after source separation)
Subtotal:
Residential Waste
Commercial Waste
Commercial Waste
Commercial Waste
(after source separation)
Subtotal:
Commercial Waste
Percent of
Total Waste Program
(A) Alternative
50%
50%
38%
50%
40%
40%
34%
40%
Source Separation
- Materials
Source Separation/
Compost.-Yard Waste
Mixed Waste Processing
Source Separation
- Materials
Source Separation/
Compost.-Yard Waste
Mixed Waste Processing
Source Separation
- Materials
Mixed Waste Processing
Program
Recovery
Rate (B)
15%
5%
10%
5%
40%
Construction/Demolition 10% Source Separation 10%
Waste
Construction/Demolition 9% Mixed Waste Processing 50%
Waste (after source separation)
Subtotal:
Construction/Demolition 10%
Waste
MAXIMUM RECYCLING POTENTIAL (SAMPLE COMMUNITY)
Program
Recycling
Potential
4%
2%
14%
2%
14%
20%
1%
5%
6%
40%
47
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The MRP is directly related to the types of solid waste streams in a community and their relative
contribution to the overall solid waste problem. Historical diversion rates for three major
recycling alternatives—source separation, yard waste composting, and mixed waste processing-are
supplied to each waste stream, as appropriate, to calculate program recycling potentials. These
programs recycling potentials are then summed to derive the MRP for a community. Calculating
the MRP for a community can help focus and prioritize recycling programs as well as indicate
the level of difficulty which will be required to meet either mandatory or self-imposed recycling
goals.
48
-------
CASE STUDIES: SITING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Sarith Guerra
Project Manager
International City/County Management Association
Washington, D.C.
For some communities, the siting of landfills, incinerators or even recycling drop-off
centers can create vocal opposition from the public. It may take months, sometimes years,
for negotiations and public hearings take place. Some communities however, are quite
successful in siting their facilities. What is it that makes it possible for some communities
to site facilities without incident, while it takes other communities painstakingly long just to
build public support?
To assist local government managers in gaining insight on what it takes to successfully site
a facility, EPA's Office of Solid Waste funded the International City/County Management
Association's (ICMA's) Environmental Programs to conduct ten case studies in municipal
solid waste facility siting, illustrating successful and unsuccessful attempts by state and
local governments and solid waste agencies.
The case studies serve as a reference for state and local managers involved in siting
municipal solid waste facilities, preparing them for potential problems, and providing
knowledge and expertise from experienced managers familiar with the complex siting
process.
The following is an outline of what will be presented at the Second United States
Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management:
I. Introduction
a. How the research for the case studies was conducted, criteria for selection
b. Format
c. General topics covered in each case study
• conditions leading up to the siting episode
• nature of controversy
• major parties involved
• siting strategy employed
• extent of public involvement
• time frame of siting episode
• final outcome
• lessons learned
II. Synopsis of each case study
a. Washington County, OR - landfill — unsuccessful
b. Lincoln, NE - landfill ~ successful
c. Fairfax County, VA - recycling drop-off center -- successful
49
-------
d. The Des Moines Metro Area Solid Waste Agency - permanent
Yard Waste Facility - unsuccessful
e. New Hampshire/Vermont Waste-to-Energy & Ash Monofill
- successful
f. Suffolk, VA (Southeastern Public Service Authority) - Regional
landfill - successful
g. Arlington County & Alexandria, VA Waste-to-Energy Facility -
successful
h. Columbia County, WI - MRF & Co-composting facility -
successful
i. Pasco County, FL - Waste-to-Energy Facility and Associated
Landfill and Ashfill -- successful
j. Maricopa County, AZ - landfill -- successful
III. Lessons Learned
a. Active involvement of the public in every stage of the siting process
b. Clearly demonstrated need for the new facility
c. Negotiation with the public from the onset to determine technically sound
site selection criteria and facility design
d. Use of news releases, conferences, public service announcements, and
other informational tools to educate the public about solid waste
technologies and future disposal needs
e. Accurate and open communication of potential risks, expressed in a
nontechnical, understandable manner
f. Dissemination of available technical information
g. A demonstrated willingness to respond to community concerns and to
mitigate negative impacts on the community
h. Genuine concern for public health and safety
i. A clear readiness to provide adequate compensation to host communities
j. Planning for a new waste management facility five to seven years in
advance
IV. Conclusion
50
-------
COLLECTION AND COMPOSTING OF YARD TRIMMINGS
L.F. Diaz, G. M. Savage, L.L. Eggerth, and C.G. Golueke
CalRecovery Inc.
Hercules, California
Introduction
Recently there has been a tremendous surge in the number of composting programs to treat yard
trimmings. The surge can be attributed to: 1) regulatory developments involving recycling and
banning the disposition of yard trimmings in landfills, and 2) the concern about the reduction
of land suitable for the siting of new landfills.
One of the main objectives of this presentation is to provide information regarding key factors
that must be considered in determining the technical and financial feasibility of incorporating
composting of yard trimmings in a community's collection of solid waste management options.
There are some critical criteria which determine the feasibility of the waste management options
that may be considered by a community. With only a few exceptions, these criteria are the same
whether the option be for method of waste treatment and disposal, (e.g., landfill, incineration,
composting) or for type of waste to be treated and disposed (e.g., sewage sludge, organic
fraction of mixed municipal solid waste, yard trimmings).
The first critical criterion is suitability of the treatment or disposal method for the waste under
consideration. Other critical criteria include: siting, technology, environmental impacts,
operation and maintenance requirements, and costs. The type of waste to be treated brings about
differences in the application of the key criteria to allow for peculiarities of the specific type of
waste.
In this presentation, we discuss these key criteria only in terms of composting yard trimmings.
In addition, we attempt to provide representative data for the criteria. The attempt is only to
the extent possible with a waste treatment method and a waste type as variable and responsive
to local conditions and circumstances as are composting and yard trimmings. The limitation is
increased by the fact that such data are influenced by a close interrelation between all the
criteria. Consequently, the information presented herein must not be considered precise for all
the criteria and for every type of yard trimming. The information provided in this presentation
should, therefore, only be considered as general guidelines.
51
-------
Generation and (flection of Yard Trimmings
This section discusses amounts and rates of generation of yard trimmings. In addition, we
discuss the collection, preparation and use of the material as a feedstock for the composting
process.
Generation
The results of waste characterization analyses have demonstrated that the quantity and
composition of the waste stream is affected by a number of factors. Some of these factors
include climate, ethnic make up of the community, and economic conditions. Some of the
results of waste characterization studies conducted by the authors are presented in Table 1. As
shown in the table, the concentration of yard trimmings in residential waste varies from about
8.9% in Berkeley, California to 29.9% in San Antonio, Texas during the spring. In the
summer time, the concentration of the material varied from 20.7% in Berkeley to 26.2% in San
Antonio. In addition to actual quantities of materials generated, other factors must be considered
in the design and implementation of yard trimmings management programs. For example,
residents of the City of Berkeley generate yard trimmings throughout the year. In addition, the
City has been affected by drought conditions for several years thus impacting the amount of yard
trimmings generated. Obviously, ignoring these factors can lead to under designing both the
collection system as well as the composting facility. Reported annual averages for yard
trimmings disposed at the landfill (in terms of weight percent) range from about 8% to as much
as 30% to 40%. In some parts of the country, the contribution of yard trimmings to the MSW
stream can be substantially higher on a seasonal basis. On a per-capita basis, the generation of
yard trimmings can range between 0.2 and 0.7 Ib per day. The variation in composition of the
yard trimmings also is very wide. Typically, composition is described in terms of brush, leaves,
and grass. The relative concentration of each one of these materials not only varies from city
to city but it also varies from season to season. In addition, the types of brush and leaves vary
between localities. Therefore, it is essential that a community seriously considering composting
its yard trimmings, begin the planning and design processes by determining generation rate and
amount for each season i.e., winter, spring, summer, and autumn. This is particularly important
in regions that experience pronounced climatic changes. In other regions, the determination of
composition during the "wet" and "dry" seasons would be sufficient. The same rationale applies
to the determination of composition.
52
-------
TABLE 1
Average Concentration of Yard Trimmings in Residential Waste as a Function of Season
Concentration
(wt. %)
Location Spring Summer
Berkeley, California 8.9 20.7
Broward Co. Florida 19.4 26.5
San Antonia, Texas 29.9 26.2
Source: References 1, 2, and 3
Collection
Yard trimmings can be collected by several means The material may be delivered directly to
the composting site by the generators (landscape contractors, nurseries, homeowners) or may
be collected by way of curbside collection. Self-haul, particularly by homeowners, relies on the
individual's ability to transport the material to the processing site and therefore, this method
generally has relatively low participation rates. The collection of source-separated yard
trimmings at the curb is more convenient to the user and thus can achieve higher participation
rates than self-haul. In curbside collection, the waste may be stored in paper sacks, in a
conventional container (32-gallon garbage can), in an oversized container (e.g., 90-gallon can)
or simply stacked in a heap or pile (loose on the street). Any time plastic sacks are used, the
overall process must incorporate a method to remove the plastic from the yard trimmings. The
presence of plastic fragments can detract from the quality of the compost product. Paper sacks
have the advantage of being degradable and thus they do not have to be removed from the
wastes. Sacked waste has the advantage of using conventional methods of collection. Both
plastic and paper sacks can be punctured by branches. Opaque containers or containers that are
similar to those normally used to store refuse, require close monitoring by collection crews for
materials that would contaminate the finished product or that would affect the normal operation
and maintenance of the equipment.
Waste that is placed loose on the street lends itself to mechanical collection by means of devices
such as mechanical scoops (e.g., front-end loader equipped with a special bucket, or the
force-feed loader) and vacuum-machines. The mechanical devices are especially suitable for
collecting leaves and brush. Front end loaders equipped with a conventional bucket are not
particularly well suited for performing this function. Front end loaders are used because, in
general, they are readily available. Front end loaders can be outfitted with a special attachment
or "pincer". The capacity of these types of attachments vary from about 0.5 to 2.7 cubic yards.
53
-------
In addition, these units can be used in conjunction with a conventional rear loading collection
vehicle thus eliminating the need to purchase specialized collection vehicles. The force-feed
units utilize a series of paddles to push the material onto a conveyor belt. The belt, then
transports the material into the collection vehicle. The method of collecting the yard trimmings
loose obviously requires that the wastes be placed on the street at a predetermined distance away
from the curb. In this case, the wastes can be visually inspected for contamination prior to
collection. Obviously, this method of collection may not be feasible in areas with parking
restrictions, heavy traffic, or with narrow streets. Concern has been expressed over the potential
damage to pavement and curbs by the mechanical devices. This method of collection has also
been criticized for leaving relatively high concentrations of residues on the streets and thus
should be followed by street sweeping. Another point of concern regarding the collection of
yard trimmings loose on the street is the potential clogging of the storm drains as well as the
contamination of the water. None of these concerns has been conclusively demonstrated. Costs
for the attachment to the front end loader range from about $2500 to $12,000. The force feed
loader costs about $100,000. Vacuum units apply negative pressure to collect yard trimmings
through a hose and blow them into a collection unit. This unit is particularly effective in the
case of leaves. The price for vacuum collectors ranges from $6,000 to $25,000.
Nutritional Characteristics and Quality
Yard trimmings are particularly suitable to composting because of three main facts. These facts
are: 1) The material is entirely biodegradable. 2) Yard trimmings contain the full microbial
complement needed for biological degradation. 3) It is a satisfactory substrate for the microbial
populations responsible for the composting process. Yard trimmings also have the three main
elements (N, P, K) which are basic to microbial nutrition. Although these elements may not
always be found in optimum concentration levels and ratios (especially C/N). Dry leaves and
grass, as well as woody shrub and tree trimmings are low in nitrogen. Consequently, the C/N
generally is high. On the other hand, the nitrogen content of fresh grass clippings is relatively
high. In some instances the concentration of nitrogen in fresh grass clippings is so high that the
C/N becomes unfavorably low and should be corrected.
Deficiencies in carbon and nitrogen can be corrected by adjusting the proportions of the
high-nitrogen components (e.g., grass clippings, green plant debris) with high-carbon
components (dry leaves, hay, etc.). During the performance of the calculations for adjusting
the proportions of C to N, it should be kept in mind that not all of the carbon in the woody
fraction of the trimmings and in the hay and dry leaves is immediately or readily available to
the bacteria. In practice, this means that the allowable Carbon to Nitrogen ratio can be as high
as 30/1 to 40/1 without having a negative impact on the rate of decomposition (i.e., composting
rate). Mixing of these materials also has the advantage of the components having a high C/N
serve as excellent bulking agents. Adding leaves to grass clippings and mixing them serves to
provide bulk the clippings. Grass clippings have the tendency to mat. Woody trimmings
constitute an excellent bulking agent for several other types of wastes including sewage sludges.
54
-------
Preparation
In situations in which duration of the composting process is not a limiting factor (i.e. ample
area, low population density, etc.), process efficiency and especially, retention time are not
critical. In those situations and in programs facing serious economic constraints, preparation
of the yard trimmings for composting merely involves the removal of objectionable contaminants
(rocks, rubbish), separation of oversize items, and sorting incoming material and stacking it in
windrows.
Ideally, tree and shrubbery trimmings, large plants, and leaves should be size reduced. The
degree of size reduction should be to about 1 inch. Since woody trimmings breakdown relatively
slowly, it is advisable that they be reduced to about 1/2-inch particle size. The consequence of
not size reducing woody components is their accumulation and the eventual conversion of the
composting site into a series of piles of trimmings that are space-consuming, unsightly, and
constitute fire hazards.
Unfortunately, available equipment designed to shred the wastes which are both rugged and
operate with a minimum of down-time is costly. One of the most common types of equipment
used for size reducing yard trimmings is the "tub grinder". The tub grinder essentially is a
small hammermill equipped with a rotating cylindrical hopper. Large tub grinders that have
their own power units (i.e., self-powered) cost between $150,000 and $250,000. There are tub
grinders that can use a power take-off (PTO) as a source of power. The price for these units
ranges from $20,000 to $40,000. Conventional hammermills generally are more rugged and
have a capacity much higher than tub grinders. The cost for hammermills varies between about
$25,000 and $400,000. One of the disadvantages of using conventional hammermills is the fact
that they require installation of foundations. Wood chippers can be used to size reduce some
of the yard trimmings. The cost of wood chippers specifically designed for size reducing shrubs
and branches ranges from about $6,000 to $312,000.
Preparation of the feedstock for composting generally involves the use of screens. The trommel
screen is the type most commonly used. The capacities of trommel screens range from as low
as 15 cu yd/hr to 400 cu yd/hr. The capacity, of course, is a function of the diameter and
length of the unit as well as the size of the screen openings. The range of costs for trommel
screens is relatively wide and varies from $15,000 to $350.000.
Technology
The primary function of the technology in composting yard trimmings is to provide optimum
conditions for the compost process without having negative impacts on the environment or
endangering the public health. In modern composting technology, these requirements are meant
by providing and maintaining aerobic conditions throughout the composting material. One
important condition is that the selected technology not become a burden on the technological and
economic resources of the community.
-------
Available technology for composting ranges from the relatively simple to the fairly complex.
One of the most simple technologies is windrow composting. On the other hand, one of the
more complex technologies involves in-vessel composting. Financial practicality typically limits
yard waste composting to simple and inexpensive technologies and consequently windrow
composting becomes the preferred method. Fortunately, if properly carried out, windrow
composting does not pose a threat to public well-being and to environmental quality.
WindrowComposting
Windrow composting involves stacking the wastes in windrows. The two main types of
windrow composting are classified on the basis of method of aeration. One type of windrow is
called "turned" windrow", and the second is called "static" or "forced aeration" windrow.
Site Preparation
Site preparation is essentially the same for both types of windrows. Ideally, site preparation
involves the establishment of a hard surface on which to build the windrows. The surface should
be capable of supporting movable equipment during rainy weather. It also should also have a
low permeability and be contoured such that drainage and runoff can be properly managed. The
composting surface should be sufficiently large to store the material during the entire composting
process and allow sufficient space for maneuvering aeration and other equipment. Typically we
recommend that the composting material be protected from rain and snow and high winds by
means of a simple structure at least during the active stage of the process.
Turned Windrow: The dimensions of a turned windrow are dictated by two major factors: 1)
the need to maintain aerobic conditions in the composting material, and 2) the height and width
of the turning equipment. In order to maintain aerobic conditions, the pile should not be
excessively high so that it interferes with the maintenance of the "porosity" of the stacked
material. The height of the windrow should be such that compaction is kept at a minimum. The
maximum allowable height, therefore, depends upon the structural strength of the particles. In
all cases, the recommended width of the windrows depends upon the maneuverability of the
turning equipment.
Turning Equipment: Turning is carried out by tearing down and rebuilding the windrows such
that the concentration of atmospheric oxygen in the voids is replenished. Although in
small-scale operations turning can be accomplished manually, turning in large-scale programs
must be carried out by machine. The machine used for the turning may be either a general
purpose unit, or one that is specifically designed for that purpose.
56
-------
All-Purpose Machine^
Bulldozer — Turning by means of a bulldozer can be satisfactory as long as it is done carefully.
It is important to note that it is not sufficient to simply push the windrow to a new position. The
material in the windrow must also be redistributed. A method that has been found effective by
the authors involves tearing down the pile and spreading the material in a 1- to 2-ft layer, and
then stacking the layered material into a new windrow. An experienced heavy equipment
operator can use other approaches as long as the material on the outside layer is placed in the
middle of the pile upon reformation.
Front-end Loader ~ Turning with the use of a front-end loader involves three successive steps:
1) tear down the windrow; 2) spread the material to form a 1- or 2-ft layer; and 3) work the
layered material to form a new windrow.
Rototiller - The rototiller is an excellent mixing device for small-scale (2 to 5 tons/day)
operations. Its utility as a mixing device in waste composting was demonstrated at a few
wastewater treatment plants in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1950s. (Unfortunately,
the work was not reported in the literature.) In a study conducted in the late 1970s, we found
the rototiller to be an efficient device for mixing sewage sludge with the organic fraction of
MSW in preparation for composting.
Because of their limited capacity and efficiency with respect to turning, the technical feasibility
of using one of the preceding three machines for an operation larger man about 20 to 40
tons/day would be open to question. On the other hand, the financial feasibility of using a
specially designed turning machine would also be debatable.
Mechanical Turner?
Among the earliest of mechanical turners was one developed for the mushroom industry in the
1950's. The design utilized a modified Barber-Greene self-propelled, over-cab loader.
Some of the basic types of mechanical turners currently available on the market include: 1) Units
equipped with a horizontal drum along which are placed a series of tines. As the machine
advances through the windrow, composting material is turned, mixed, and reformed into a
windrow; 2) Machines equipped with a moving, elevated face provided with sharp teeth to turn
the piles; and 3) Units equipped with a series of paddles to move through and work the
composting material. The first type is the most common.
Turners are either self-powered or are powered by a PTO and are pushed or pulled by a tractor.
The costs for self-powered units range from about $100,000 to $220,000. Units that are
powered by a PTO cost from $50,000 to $70,000. Among the manufacturers are Brown Bear
Corp., Eagle Crusher Company (Cobey), Kolman-Athey, Lindig Manufacturing, Resource
57
-------
Recovery Systems of Nebraska, Scarab Manufacturing, Scat Engineering, and Wildcat
Manufacturing Company.
Mechanical turners have several advantages over the general purpose machines such as front end
loaders. Some of these advantages include: more effective turning with respect to thoroughness
of aeration, a greater daily throughput, and significantly lower space requirements for conducting
the turning. On the other hand, the capital costs as well as the operation and maintenance costs
for the machine are higher.
Frequency: The frequency at which turning is carried out is a function of the oxygen demand
of the active microbial populations. Therefore, the frequency of turning would be greatest
during the active stage of composting and would substantially decrease at the end of the curing
stage. In practice, frequency would be dictated by oxygen demand, composition and condition
of the yard trimmings, and a variety of economic factors. Examples of turning frequency range
from once every three days to once each week or two during the active stage, and from once
each two-weeks to once each month or even each two months during the curing stage. There
is a tradeoff between frequency, area requirement, and costs. The general relationship is that
as the frequency decreases, the retention time increases. On the other hand, it may be necessary
to find a compromise since frequency may make the difference between equipment and labor
needs.
Forced Aeration: In this particular type of technology, the windrowed material is aerated by
either forcing or drawing air through the composting mass. A forced-air windrow is underlain
by a network of air ducts laid on a pad. In some instances, the pad is covered with a layer of
compost. The network consists of inexpensive metal or plastic piping connected to a blower.
The portions of the pipe that are underneath the windrows are perforated.
An advantage of drawing the air through the composting mass is the ability to control the
gaseous emissions in the air exiting the composting material prior to discharging it into the
surrounding environment.
Even when the forced aeration process is used, it is advisable - if not necessary - to
mechanically turn the composting mass occasionally so as to ensure uniform decomposition and
the destruction of pathogenic organisms in anaerobic "pockets" as well as reduce odor problems.
Turning a forced-air windrow almost invariably damages the duct network. If plastic piping is
used, this would require the replacement of the damaged network. The benefit that would be
attained from avoiding the damage problem by inserting the ducts in channels covered with a
protective grating, all too often is counteracted by clogging of the channels and grating with
fines and other debris. The clogging is not limited to protected networks. Air duct orifices in
forced-air systems have the tendency to become clogged.
The required rate and volume of air flow depend upon the oxygen demand.
58
-------
The cooling effect of aerating a windrow often is used as a means of preventing the development
of undesirably high temperatures, particularly during the active stage.
In-Vessel Composting
Conceivably, circumstances could arise in which it might be economically preferable to resort
to in-vessel technology for composting yard waste despite the usually higher costs. Types of
in-vessel systems include the rotating horizontal drum which may or may not be
compartmentalized, the vertical tank, etc.
An example of a relatively straightforward and simple system and which is basically an
adaptation of the METRO system is the following: The system consists of a horizontal,
rectangular bin equipped with an especially designed mixing device. The device travels on an
endless conveyor belt mounted on wheels. The wheels ride on tracks placed on the bottom of
the tank. As the belt moves, it picks up and deposits composting material. The bin can have
perforations at the bottom to allow aeration of the bin contents. Retention time in the tank is
on the order of two to three weeks. Thereafter, the composting material is stacked in windrows
and allowed to cure over a six to eight-week period.
Area and Site
Site
The selected site should be readily accessible to prospective users and their equipment and
vehicles. Ideally, it should not be encumbered with problems related to public acceptance and
local and state regulations. Despite the fact that yard trimmings generally are regarded as
environmentally and hygienically innocuous, the materials do share, albeit minimally, the stigma
of being a waste. More importantly, there is the reality of increased vehicle traffic and other
activities in an around the compost operation. Dust generation and the very strong possibility
of generating objectionable odors are objects of public concern.
Site and area are closely related in that the amount of area available for the compost operation
depends upon the location of the site, characteristics of the neighborhood (economic and
demographic) surrounding the site, the site's geology and hydrogeology, and topography. In
addition, site and area are controlled by pertinent zoning restrictions, and local, county, and state
regulations.
A large part of the problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs can be avoided by selecting
as a composting site, either a completed landfill or the completed portion of an on-going landfill.
The rationale is that a landfill site obviously is a properly permitted solid waste management
facility. Additionally, composting yard trimmings would not involve an encroachment upon land
59
-------
beyond the landfill site. Furthermore, yard trimmings are less environmentally and hygienically
objectionable than are the sewage sludges, the mixed municipal wastes, and the other materials
buried in the fill.
The use of a completed fill as a composting site has some limitations. Some of these limitations
include settling, low bearing capacity, and the possibility of methane accumulation. The
problem due to settling is aggravated by the tendency for uneven settling. Settling is a matter
of concern since it is important to maintain the integrity of paved areas (i.e., those intended for
the composting process). Low bearing capacity basically precludes or complicates the
construction of permanent structures. The potential problem due to methane accumulation can
be controlled through a number of methods. Most of the methane control methods involve
introduction of liners, provisions for adequate ventilation, and appropriate design of structures.
Regardless of whether or not the site is a completed fill, operations involving turned or static
windrows require that an area paved with asphalt or other hard surface be set aside for the active
stage of the composting process and possibly for the curing stage. The dimensions of the paved
and surfaced area required for the windrows depend upon retention times and hence vary with
compost method.
The site should include provisions for intercepting and controlling leachate and runoff. In some
cases, regulations may allow that the liquid be collected and used to provide moisture to the
composting material. Other provisions would include: 1) a source of water for maintaining
adequate moisture in the windrows, as well as for protection against fire and for meeting other
needs; 2) a source of power; and 3) roadways properly designed to accommodate the number
and type of vehicles expected to use the site. The need for and size of structures and other
facilities would depend upon the size of the operation and the number of personnel.
Area
Technology places limits on the space requirements for a yard trimmings operation. However,
area is not only a key element, it is a major determinant. Thus, if an abundance of land is
available at a reasonable cost and constraints on its use are minimal or not burdensome, then die
simpler technologies are satisfactory. Here, availability not only means that the particular site
is readily accessible to all individuals and equipment involved in a compost operation; but also
that it be open to acquisition at a relatively low monetary outlay and be subject to a minimum
of restrictions regarding use. On the other hand, the degree of sophistication (i.e., complexity)
of technology required increases to the extent at which the conditions are not met. For example,
high cost of land would dictate short retention times and hence an increase in mechanization of
system, — and conceivably render composting economically inadvisable.
60
-------
Additional area is required for structures, equipment storage and maintenance. Since the
dimensions of this area are functions of the number, size, and design of the structure or
structures and of those of the equipment, the area requirement would vary from operation to
operation.
Because composting yard trimmings is a waste treatment and disposal activity, the operation
must be buffered from the surrounding area. For all operations larger than a few-tons-per-day,
the width of the buffer strip should be on the order of 200 to 300 yards.
Manpower
Excepting unusual circumstances such as emergencies, one 8-hr daytime shift per day is
sufficient. The need for manpower will be seasonal even in regions that have only the wet and
dry seasons. In those regions, the generation of yard trimmings during the wet season usually
decreases because the growth rate of plants is slowed due in part to lower temperatures and
reduced insolation. Additionally, the soil is too wet to permit access by workers and equipment.
In regions that have the four seasons, for obvious reasons, yard waste generation during winter
is negligible (except for a post-yuletide influx of discarded Christmas trees). Yard waste
generation accelerates with the advance of spring and includes a short surge due to spring
cleanup. It plateaus at peak production during the summer. Excepting the usual autumnal
massive input of dry leaves, generation gradually declines as winter approaches.
One full-time employee and a part-time equipment operator are sufficient for a small
"unsophisticated" operation i.e., up to about 20-tons per day and only occasional turning is
involved. The employee complement of a large operation would consist of: 1) a gatekeeper to
regulate, monitor, and record incoming traffic; 2) a one- or two-person office staff; 3) an
individual charged with supervising the unloading activities, — including the important task of
monitoring the wastes being discharged; 4) equipment operator or operators who also would be
entrusted with maintaining the equipment; 5} a foreman in charge of the day-to-day activities.
Characteristics of the Finished Product
The results of analysis performed on composts produced from yard trimmings are presented in
Table 2. These are results of analysis conducted on compost produced from relatively clean
yard trimmings collected in one area of the country. Furthermore, the composting process was
carried out following recommended procedures. As shown in the table, the results indicate that
the average concentration of nitrogen is 0.77%, the phosphorous concentration is 0.15%, and
the average concentration of potassium is 0.70%. Based on this information, the NPK of this
particular compost is about 1.62%. In addition, the concentration of sulfur is 0.23%. The data
61
-------
TABLE2
Characteristics of Compost from Yard Trimmings
Parameter
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sulfur
CEC
Organic Matter
pH
Bulk Density
Moisture Content
Mercury
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Calcium
Sodium
Iron
Aluminum
Zinc
Units
%
%
%
%
meq/lOOg
%
Ib/cu yd
%
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Average Value
0.77
0.15
0.70
023
27.5
65.9
6.9
660.0
48.6
0.07
0.80
22.9
21.9
722
10,400
200.0
14,300
7,400
160.0
-------
in the table also show that compost from yard trimmings has an average Cationic Exchange
Capacity (CEC) of about 27.5 meq/lOOg. Other pertinent information in the table show that the
concentration of organic matter in the compost is about 65.9% and the pH is nearly neutral at
6.9. In addition, the bulk density of the material is about 660 Ib/cu yd at a moisture content of
about 49%.
The information in Table 2 also present the results for total metals in the compost(obtained
through acid digestion). As expected, the concentration of heavy metals in the compost
produced from yard trimmings is relatively low. In addition, the concentrations of other
elements, such as calcium, iron, and aluminum ranged from low to acceptable levels. The
concentration of sodium is 200 ppm.
Odors
Odors are generated in composting through the loss of both organic and inorganic compounds.
These compounds are produced as the result of decomposition of organic matter and generally
are not present in the feedstock. Odors from composting processes primarily are in the form
of gases. Although aerosols may be produced, the majority are trapped by the composting mass.
Organic as well as inorganic compounds can be malodorous. Two of the most common
inorganic odorous compounds in composting facilities are hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Organic odorous compounds are due to the presence of low-molecular weight, volatile
compounds. Biological decomposition of carbohydrates under anaerobic conditions lead to the
formation of a group of organic acids generally classified as volatile fatty acids. These acids
are characterized by rancid smells. Another source of odors in composting is brought about by
the decomposition of amino acids through the volatilization of organic nitrogen and organic
sulfur compounds. Grass is well known to have a relatively high concentration of nitrogen and
can be a major source of unpleasant odors in composting yard trimmings. Once formed, the
odoriferous compounds can undergo additional biological, chemical, or physical reactions or can
go into aqueous phases. Typically, simple organic acids are metabolized into carbon dioxide
under aerobic conditions. Ammonia has a residence time of 7 days in the atmosphere and has
the tendency to react with other compounds. There are several factors that affect the production
of odors. Two of these factors are temperature and oxygen concentration. The volatility of
odorous compounds increases as the temperature increases. In addition, the solubility of oxygen
in water decreases as the temperature increases. In aerobic composting, the availability of
oxygen determines, to a large extent, whether or not the products of chemical or biological
decomposition will be reduced or oxidized. In several instances, odors associated with
composting are due to other steps in the process such as inappropriate storage of the raw wastes,
improper mixing, inadequate management of wastewater, and other related activities. Thus, one
of the first steps in the development of an odor control plan is the identification of the source.
63
-------
Odors can be managed by process control and by treatment of the emissions. Process control
would involve such items as thorough mixing, sufficient aeration, proper moisture content,
optimum C/N, and temperature control. On the other hand, treatment involves various types
of physical and chemical processes.
References
1. CalRecovery, Inc., Waste Characterization Study for Berkeley. California - Final
Report, prepared for the City of Berkeley, California, December 1989.
2. CalRecovery, Inc., Broward County Resource Recovery Project Waste Characterization
Study, prepared for Broward County, Florida, February 1988.
3. CalRecovery, Inc., Waste Characterization for San Antonio. Texas, prepared for City
Public Service and the City of San Antonio, Department of Public Works, San Antonio,
Texas, June 1990.
64
-------
COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SITING A SOLID WASTE
FACILITY
Thomas Kusterer
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection
Rockville, Maryland
Introduction
When Montgomery County (Figure 1) selected a new landfill site in spring 1990, it was with
the idea of providing a 20 year waste disposal site for its burgeoning population of 750,000 plus.
Siting solid waste facilities like landfills is a distinctly problematic issue, with opposition by
communities near proposed facilities weighing as heavily as any siting constraint. Community
response seems independent of the proposed facility, and opposition mounts against a landfill or
a recycling center (1,2). Nevertheless, the issue of municipal solid waste, and what to do with
it, remains a central social and environmental concern. Local governments provide
services including waste management often on the basis of 'the greater good' with some
local communities possibly affected by the location of facilities or centers for these services.
This process is no different in Montgomery, and the landfill site selected after a 15 month study
of 16 sites will have an effect on a local community. The county initiated a public participation
effort at the beginning of this process. The process has continued over the span of the project,
with the current focus to help empower an affected community in establishing a partnership,
through public participation, that leads to a negotiated agreement. This paper discusses
communication techniques and negotiation means that hopefully allow an equitable solution to
facility siting, with particular emphasis on current efforts.
Background
The county prides itself on an ambitious waste management approach that includes recycling that
should reach a 27% rate in 1992; a waste-to-energy facility for which construction should soon
begin; and a municipal solid waste landfill that has served the county for the last ten years.
Because the county grew rapidly over the past few years, the landfill's expected capacity needed
to be increased. A permit to expand the landfill was issued, but the county also thought it was
65
-------
Figure 1. Montgomery County, Maryland, shown in the shaded area. The District of Columbia
is at the southeastern edge of the county.
66
-------
an opportune time to plan for a new landfill. The county was also losing possible landfill sites
at a fairly good clip, due to urbanization.
A compelling factor in Montgomery County's decision to enter a public partnership in this siting
effort was past facility siting history that did not include active public participation. Siting the
county's currently active landfill in the early 1980's resulted in a number of citizen initiated
lawsuits against the county. Litigious issues were resolved through a formally mediated
agreement in 1983, one year after the landfill became operational. In retrospect, many of the
mediated issues hours of operation, ground water monitoring frequency, and availability of
monitoring data for public review, to name just a few appeared resolvable before the landfill
opened. This 'before* approach could possibly have saved thousands of dollars spent in lawsuits
and spared much hard feeling.
Similarly, siting and permitting a yard waste compost processing facility a few years later also
resulted in a post facto agreement with the nearby community, with the state's environmental
programs office providing mediation help. Large or small the existing landfill sits on a 540
acre site near a relatively populous town, and the compost facility consists of about 50 acres in
a rural area with very few nearby residents the results were the same. The facilities opened
but only through paths that conceivably could have been easier. The empowerment approach
allows the community and other affected parties a non-litigious means to influence the design
and operation of such a facility. Montgomery County initiated this approach for siting its new
landfill
Political Process
Because solid waste management is a premier local government issue, it's essential that elected
officials become involved in solid waste siting issues. This involvement, among other benefits,
helps mitigate some aspects of public opposition. County elected officials made a measurable
difference in the structure and pace of choosing a candidate site.
In Maryland, each county must have a comprehensive solid waste management plan that
identifies how each county manages their waste. The plan and any amendments must be
approved by appropriate elected officials. As early as summer 1987, county officials amended
the solid waste management plan to state the need for a new landfill. Among the reasons
prompting this site search was the opportunity to plan for a landfill in a non-crisis atmosphere.
Subsequently, in spring 1988, after two public hearings on the matter, elected officials
reaffirmed the need to find a new landfill by approving 16 sites for consideration. This action
also included 25 criteria by which to measure the sites, with all criteria of equal value in an
effort to avoid ranking relative importance.
Staff and elected officials kept in close touch during the study's course. Staff briefed the county
executive about the study's schedule, expenditures and progress. The executive visited the
candidate sites several times before finalists sites were recommended. Periodic updates about
67
-------
the study were provided to the county council. This kind of communication and involvement
helped the process move forward. At the end of the study, the decision makers knew the
process and rationale for site recommendations.
Public Outreach
The selection of a landfill site has become a demanding process, and well should be. The
selected site must be defendable and credible. Furthermore, the process of selection and site
justification has to be made known to the public. This communication has to occur in such a
way that, while they may disagree, the citizens understand the process and have some measure
of respect for the fashion in which the selection occurred. In our study, there were a number
of challenges to meet in order to accomplish these communication goals.
The site study began in 1989. Prior to that, the county's Solid Waste Advisory Committee
(SWAC) created by law in 1975 and charged to advise the county on solid waste
issues reviewed draft siting criteria and candidate sites. There were workshops and public
hearings that explored the need for a new landfill before the course was set, with public review
and comment helping the process. When the study began, county staff held several meetings
with community groups in and about the candidate sites. Themes regarding site suitability,
environmental degradation, property values, public health and community preservation
continually emerged. During these meetings, the landfill was discussed in the context of the
solid waste management plan. Most communities were very pro-recycling, with some locally
successful recycling programs. Our approach was to note that the county was committed to
source reduction and recycling as the preferred methods of waste management, but that a landfill
was indispensable for handling non-recyclable wastes. The meetings were usually volatile and
did not allow much exchange of information. However, it was important to go into the
community in order to let citizens express their feelings and know who we are. An outgrowth
of these meetings was the formation of a landfill working group. Communities were asked to
designate a representative to serve on the committee and to discuss issues important to the
community. There were a dozen members on the group, which met in summer and autumn,
1989. Notice of meetings were mailed to members, community association leaders, reporters
following the study and citizen advisory groups. The value of the group was its citizen
participatory role; its size, which allowed better discussion of issues; liaison to the community;
and their ability to make a difference.
Among the group's major concerns was the effect of the landfill on the fanning community and
its possible role in undermining agriculture. One candidate site contained two large farms whose
owners entered into a county-sponsored agricultural preservation program; another site held a
farm whose acreage was dedicated in an environmental trust; and a third site contained a large
farm held in the same family for 150 years. Because of these concerns, the group focused on
ways to re-examine the application of the study criteria. The land use criterion now included
a way to evaluate agricultural preservation by including an assessment of how much agricultural
land at a candidate site was placed in preservation programs. Similarly, several other
-------
criteria: site screening, groundwater protection, historical resource preservation and forest
resources were recast to reflect community concerns.
Working group members also provided site-specific information that was not necessarily
available through existing documents or field testing. Information regarding a site's history,
unnoted cemeteries and hydrogeologic features were some of the data the group provided. The
framework of having a relatively small group also made it easier to digest the information and
use it accordingly. Members also accompanied staff and consultants during field investigations
of the sites. Property owners also accompanied us on these investigations.
The working group also helped because citizens are sophisticated and knowledgeable about waste
management issues and have valid observations about the process and methodology. Another
benefit was that the group in effect neutralized the obstacle of communities claiming they had
hosted more than their fair share of public projects. There were several small communities
within the area containing most of the sites. Each community on its own laid claim to having
been overburdened with such projects. Having representatives from these communities come
together sublimated the refrain. Additionally, the active role that the work group played in the
site study helped dispel, to a degree, the notion about "Government will do whatever they want
in spite of what we say."
County staff also maintained close communication with other citizen advisory groups, routinely
briefing SWAC (which also had representatives on the landfill working group) about the study's
progress. On a number of occasions, staff met with the county's Agricultural Preservation
Advisory Board and the citizens' advisory group for the area where most of the candidate sites
were located. An outgrowth of these discussions was that SWAC and the citizens' advisory
board jointly sponsored two public information meetings. These meetings were subsequent to
the study report's publication and staff site recommendations, but prior to the public hearings
held by elected officials in March 1990. Meetings were advertised in newspapers and
community leaders notified about the meeting dates and times. The meetings provided citizens
an opportunity to question us about the study's findings and recommendations. The merit of the
public information meetings was that it again demonstrated the openness of the site study. In
a practical sense, however, the meetings did not resolve questions from property owners on or
near the recommended finalist sites. The same questions answered in the information meetings
arose again at the public hearings. We then re-answered those questions, providing copies of
the written responses to citizens and elected officials.
Providing answers to these and other questions helped the credibility of the study. It
demonstrated responsiveness, as did incorporating the recommendations of the landfill working
group into the evaluative criteria. Another measure of maintaining credibility was refusal to
eliminate sites before the study was complete. There were various jurisdictional and citizen-
mounted efforts to have sites dropped during the study. All sites were evaluated as part of the
study.
69
-------
Written communication also played a major role in a study of this type. Property owners on
or adjacent to the candidate sites were notified as soon as the study began. Staff also wrote to
these individuals about the results of the study's stages, when field reconnaissance was scheduled
at the sites, when public hearings on the finalist sites were scheduled and about the decision of
the elected officials on the recommended site. Staff responded to hundreds of letters concerning
the study. Each of the study's two stages generated a report, with citizens informed about their
availability.
Post Siting Communication
Experience from the siting phase suggested that a small working group was the most effective
means to understand public concerns, disseminate information and attempt to reach negotiated
solutions. The amendment to the county's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan that
established the location of the new landfill in 1990 also directed formation of a Landfill Working
Group.
Currently there are 10 group members, with monthly meetings held at a location near the
neighboring community. The group selected a chairperson, adopted parliamentary rules, and
explicit goals. None of these efforts was easy.
Group selection and representation probably plays as key a role as any element. Immediate
questions about selection that arose were
• group size
• affiliation of participants
• representational balance
• structural framework
The group was to be a subcommittee of the county's SWAC and consist of SWAC members
and individuals from the nearby community. The provision further stated that the group's
purpose was to lessen the effect of the landfill on the community but beyond that stated no other
directives, with the intent that the group should be a self-directed entity on questions of
organization and process. County staff immediately began discussions with SWAC and local
community groups about the working group's composition.
The original suggestion proposed nine members, four from SWAC and five from the nearby
community. This suggested representational balance soon proved to be a sticking point.
Advertisement and press releases were placed in local newspapers to solicit community member
applications (SWAC members would be appointed by the committee's chairman). One obvious
difficulty in suggesting a group size limit before membership solicitation was the uncertainty of
application responses. Our experience with a working group during the siting process, and the
informal discussion with local community members noted earlier, did give us a sense of
70
-------
expectation in the matter, however. Elected officials selected the group members.
To strike both perceived and actual balance in the group, issues regarding representation and
affiliation needed resolution. Even before the first formal group meeting, these issues became
contentious, with community members indicating there should be a proportionately higher
community to SWAC representation. Both group and county strove to be sure there was
adequate balance and representation. Memberships for affiliations such as community
associations, nearby towns, residents near the site, and a company with large land holdings near
the site were all represented. Equally important, the group included representatives from
organizations opposing the landfill site. The group handled this task at the first meeting by
requesting representation by two more segments with interests in the community, bringing the
group to 11 members. The group did not preclude future expansion, but indicated that group
size allowed adequate representation and a chance for individual expression.
The structural framework caused early uneasiness, and there is still some residual feeling. Some
community members chafed about being a SWAC subcommittee, and not an independently
created group. There were valid arguments for both camps, and fortunately, the language to
form the group can be liberally interpreted so that the group is the equivalent of being
independently created and directed.
Group Dynamics
These issues of representation and framework give a glimpse of group dynamics. A key lesson
learned from the landfill siting group was that while needs are at the root of negotiation, they
are not the same for all negotiating parties. Each party is entitled to its priorities. A central
issue then becomes to focus on areas where each group's priorities overlap or suggest an area
of compromise. In the early stages, there was as much uneasiness among group members as
there was directed towards county representatives staffing and providing information to the
group. This divisiveness led to assertions by some group members that others were not working
in the best interest of the neighboring community, but wanted the landfill permitting process to
proceed as quickly as possible. There was a certain logic for some group members to delay the
permitting process, since a number of external factors were influencing the group dynamics.
Some group members belonged to associations attempting to stop the project, alternative waste
management strategies were being explored by county decision makers, and several companies
expressed interest in managing portions of the county's waste stream.
It was necessary to forge some common ground to let the group progress. Finch et al (3) notes
that one set of events leads to another that will keep the members involved at a distance from
each other, each guarding its own interest. In this pattern, the best that can happen is that the
members involved will reach some sort of truce in which they agree to disagree. These
conditions perpetuate and often extend the attitude of suspicion; hostility, and dissociation. To
assuage this possibility, county staff quickly prepared a draft of group rules, mission statements,
goals and objectives. This 'straw man' mechanism a mechanism that worked well in the
71
-------
very early months when group process was not clear helped the group focus on meaningful
issues, without any perceived faction introducing these elements.
Establishment of these group guidelines also facilitated agreement by members opposing the
landfill. These members now acknowledged there was a need to fashion the safest, low impact
facility possible, assuming the project continued and was permitted.
Group dynamics also tilt along a techrdcal/non-technical axis. While it is essential to provide
regular, incremental information as the process unfolds rather than do this with a few massive
doses of information, presentation of too much information can become frustrating (4).
There was an early decision to provide the group draft field data as it became available.
Discussion of these data dominated some sessions, rather than the questions of what was the
contextual significance of the information and how these data might affect design. McQuaid-
Cook (5), among others, notes in a siting effort that provision of site specific information is a
double-edged sword that allows opponents to refute such information when it is not imparted in
sufficient context to the audience. Staff and consultants now try to prepare one or two page
cover sheets that synopsize the data packages, de-emphasizing jargon and emphasizing what the
tests and results mean in terms of the proposed landfill. Ideally, this allows group members who
are not technically oriented to understand the issues more clearly. Another result has been the
willingness of group members to steer discussion from intensively technical issues, per se, either
to their contextual significance, or to other agenda items after sufficient, but not belabored,
discussion.
Decision Process and Progress
Expectations can be a powerful determinant of frustration. This is equally true of public
involvement in siting solid waste facilities, where in maintaining and facilitating relations, the
public's role in decision making should be crystal clear. Ideally, this occurs through joint efforts
of proponents and the public. Explicit expectations help to avoid future conflict and permit a
better understanding of the community's concern and the decisions in which they want to be
involved (6).
Montgomery's landfill working group fleshed out a list of concerns (Table 1), adding more to
those suggested by county staff and using the flexibility in the language of the solid waste plan
provision creating the group.
72
-------
Table 1. Stated issues of concern
o groundwater protection
o soil types in the disposal area
o soil permeability
o geologic strata and profiles
o depth to bedrock
o depth to seasonally high water table
o development of groundwater maps
o groundwater transmissivity
o well protection
o water monitoring program
o surface water protection
o leachate control
o leachate collection and disposal
o soil cover budget analysis
o liner type and design
o soil subbase analysis
o general design review
o quality assurance/quality control
o performance standards
assessments
o transportation
o compliance with regulations
o waste composition control
o closure and perpetual care
o data management and reporting
o education and public relations
o human factors; matters of
management policies, practices
and staff training
The group's action was a positive sign demonstrating independence. Conversely, inclusion of
several concerns the group felt merited focus has led to some frustration after attempts to
negotiate these items. For example, the quality assurance/quality control issue has been spurred
by plans to landfill ash from a county-planned Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). The county
has proposed two synthetic membrane liners for the landfill, with separate cells solely for ash
disposal. The working group has pressed for periodic testing of the ash, with the proviso that
ash be rejected for disposal if some of its constituents exceed certain parameters.
Ash from combustion of municipal solid waste is a municipal solid waste. The impasse in this
issue stems from a desire to create a protocol independent of state regulations, and yet rely on
state permitting requirements to assure they are enforced. This, among other issues, has led to
some group frustration.
The core of the group's most tangible accomplishments actually appears to incorporate both
elements of action and reaction. In this kind of dynamic the group proposes a mitigative
approach to an issue, county and consultants respond with a number of options for this approach,
with a review of these options and group recommendations following. This process was evident
in selecting a haul route from the RRF site to the landfill, a distance of about two miles.
The group indicated that landfill-related traffic should be minimal on nearby public roads and
ideally, the county would use dedicated roads only (trains will haul waste from the county's
transfer station to the RRF). Consultants then proposed several haul options, including a
dedicated road option crossing creating an easement on privately held land. Assessment also
included estimated road lengths, costs, environmental considerations, and properties affected.
73
-------
The group evaluated these data, and recommended a dedicated road haul route. Negotiations
to establish a road easement on the privately held land are nearing completion.
The process has developed a tendency for negotiation rather than for debate. An increased
willingness to listen actively, followed by efforts to search for common goals and interests, has
evolved in analyzing concerns. Compromises remain difficult to affect, but the process leading
to compromise has become less trying. Providing more than one possible solution to a concern
has been an effective method for resolving these concerns at least to some degree.
Developing alternatives forces the county and consultants to explore a variety of possible
solutions to a concern. Analysis and review by the working group offer flexibility in
recommending solutions, or enable the group to synthesize an independently preferred approach.
The group charts a task-status matrix for issues of concern and the matrix is periodically
updated. This matrix allows easy tracking of when a concern was discussed, what progress has
occurred and where issues now stand, as well as what the group perceives must yet be done.
Its additional benefits include focusing the group and county on the tasks at hand and providing
a low-key mechanism that shows agreement and progress have occurred.
The matrix also reflects the group and county heuristic, a sort of controlled trial and error,
approach to negotiating issues of concern. This iterative process usually produces a consensus,
but the process can be arduous, sometimes leading to frustration and impatience (7).
Making progress, even through small accomplishments, then becomes especially important in
building trust and perseverance. Building on small accomplishments the county agreed to
provide draft permit application reports for review before their submission to regulatory
agencies, for example can produce the confidence needed so that bigger issues can be
decided.
Conclusions
Public participation is necessary in both siting and permitting a solid waste facility. However,
public participation is not a panacea, nor an assurance of a favorable outcome. Additionally,
conflict is unavoidable in negotiating, with obstacles including confrontation, tendencies to
debate rather than negotiate, undefined issues and unwillingness to compromise. Effective
means to resolve these conflicts include active listening, searching for common interests and a
willingness to compromise.
Groups working with proponents during the permitting phase have more immediate concerns
than do siting groups. These concerns tend to be more specific and relate directly to satisfying
issues that may not be governed by regulatory requirements. To promote maximum benefit of
this shared experience
• the group should include all necessary 'publics'
74
-------
• the group should be task oriented
• proponent and group goals and functions must be explicit
• there is a need for mechanisms to chart decisions and agreements
There is also a need for a formal, binding agreement after concluding negotiations. The
instrument can be in the form of a contract or an agreement entered into court records, as were
the two mediated agreements mentioned in this paper. These types of instruments give added
weight to the commitments made by the negotiating parties. Formalizing agreements also gives
a future recourse for the parties if and when difficulties arise.
References
1. S. Guerra, "Municipal Solid Waste Facility Siting: Case Studies," in Proceedings of the
1991 National Solid Waste Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste Management. Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. Las Vegas, 1991, pp 397-408
2. M. Regan and R. Michaels, "Managing Our Solid Wastes: Developing an Effective Siting
Framework," in Proceedings from the Land Disposal Sessions. First United States
Conference on Municipal Solid Waste Management. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp 1065-1071
3. F. Finch, H. Jones, and J. Litterer, Managing for Organizational Effectiveness: An
Experiential Approach. McGraw Hill, New York, 1976, pp 238-239.
4. C. Konheim, C. N. Reiss, and F. Hassehiss, "Get Citizens Involved in Siting - and Do It
Early," Waste Age 19 (3): 37 (1988).
5. Cook, J. "Siting a Fully Integrated Hazardous Waste Management Facility with Incinerator
and Landfill Swan Hills, Alberta," J. Air Waste Management Assoc.. 36 (9): 103
(1986)
6. Edenburn, M. "Getting the Nod for Waste Disposal," American Citv and County. 103
(11): pp 60-66 (1988).
7. Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior. McGraw Hill, New York, 1977, pp 350-355.
75
-------
COMPARISON OF VISUAL AND MANUAL CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES TO
ESTIMATE NON-RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM COMPOSITION
John Savage, Staff Scientist
Stacey Tyler, Associate Staff Scientist
SCS Engineers
Reston, Virginia
INTRODUCTION
Detailed knowledge of a waste stream's composition is necessary for effective waste management
planning, facility development, and financial decision-making. Specific information on the types
and quantities of refuse present in the waste stream allows for development of programs
designed to handle this material efficiently. One of the most reliable and valid methods for
estimating waste composition is the performance of a manual sorting and weighing program.
Due to the time and resources necessary to characterize in a statistically-valid fashion, manual
sorting may be an inappropriate method, particularly for small communities and or specific waste
streams. An alternate method of waste characterization entails visual estimation techniques
during vehicle discharge at a landfill facility or at a transfer station.
Data presented for this paper were gathered by SCS Engineers (SCS) during a study for the
Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) during Autumn 1990 and Spring 1991. The purpose
of the study was to characterize the components of the non-residential solid waste stream
delivered to the Cherry Island Landfill, located in Wilmington, Delaware.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to discuss and compare results obtained from manual sorting of
refuse components versus visual estimation techniques. The comparison includes field methods,
composition results and sampling frequency, and costs to conduct these field programs.
77
-------
FIELD METHODS
Three major non-residential waste types - Light Industrial, Commercial, and Construction wastes
• were selected for detailed sampling to estimate composition. Other waste types such as
residential waste, mixed residential and commercial wastes, and self-hauled loads were not
sampled. The composition of the waste stream was estimated through a manual classification
program and a visual characterization program. The study was performed over the course of
two 1-week seasonal efforts during Autumn 1990 and Spring 1991.
Manual Classification Program
The manual classification program consisted of two elements: sample acquisition, and manual
sorting and weighing of samples for selected waste components.
Sample Acquisition -
The sampling program was based on the systematic random selection of incoming refuse
vehicles. Incoming refuse vehicles were targeted by arrival increments so that one vehicle was
selected approximately every 20 to 30 minutes. Generally, 12 vehicles were targeted for
sampling each day.
Targeted vehicles were identified sequentially in the field and vehicle loads were discharged in
designated areas. After refuse discharge, a front-end loader was used to grab an approximate
200- to 300-pound refuse sample from the target load. The grab sample was placed into a 30
cubic yard roll-off container. This process was repeated over the course of the day resulting in
a single daily composite sample comprised of 12 refuse samples from 12 vehicles, totaling over
3,000 pounds. At the conclusion of the day's sampling, the roll-off container with the composite
sample was taken to the landfill maintenance garage for detailed manual sorting and component
characterization.
Manual Sorting and Weighing -
The daily composite sample was sorted manually into 30 predetermined categories. Only 18 of
these manually sorted categories were compared to visually characterized categories. Major
components included Paper, Plastics, Organics, Glass, Metals, Inorganics, and Other Wastes.
Generally, the sorting of bulky items such as crates or corrugated cardboard were removed from
the roll-off container. The remaining material, including bagged and loose wastes, were spited
into the designated categories using trained laborers. Separation, identification, and weighing
of components occurred similarly each season and in accordance with prescribed field procedures.
78
-------
VisualCharacterization Prograpi
Concurrent with the sample acquisition activities for the manual classification program, incoming
refuse vehicles were targeted for visual characterization in order to estimate the composition of
the waste materials by volume. Visual classification consisted of examining the discharged load,
estimating the percent composition by volume for each material and recording the capacity (in
cubic yards) of the vehicle of origin.
Visual characterization efforts resulted in a percent by volume composition estimate. During
the two-season study, 453 visual characterization estimates were recorded.
RESULTS
Field results and findings for the manual and the visual classification programs are presented
below for the combined seasonal field activities.
Manual Classification Program
The manual classification program randomly selected vehicles entering the landfill and obtained
a sample from the vehicle's load. For the two seasons, refuse samples were obtained from 121
incoming vehicles comprised of vehicles of Light Industrial, Commercial, and Construction
origin.
Summary results from manual sorting efforts are presented in Exhibit 1. The major components
of the Cherry Island Landfill waste stream were Mixed Inorganics (28.4 percent), Wood/Lumber
(22.8 percent), and Corrugated Cardboard (15.0). Other components in the waste stream were
present at less than 5 percent by weight, with the exception of Mixed Paper (at 7.7 percent) and
Ferrous Metal (6.1 percent).
Visual Characterization Program
Visual characterization estimates were based on random observations of refuse vehicles
discharging at the Cherry Island Landfill. Estimation of waste composition by this method,
required the volume estimates to be converted to weight estimates. Percent by volume estimates
were transformed to a percent by weight estimate using density conversion factors for each
material type characterized. Density estimates for each material type are presented in Exhibit
2.
79
-------
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY OF VISUAL CHARACTERIZATION AND MANUAL SORTING *
TWO SEASON SUMMARY
WASTE CATEGORY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION MANUAL SORTING
C*) (%)
COMBUSTIBLES
Bagged Wastes (plastic bags) 11.4 +
PAPER
Corrugated Cardboard / Kraft 22£ 15.0
Office Paper 0.3 0.8
Othar Papar 3.8 9.2
TOTAL PAPER 26.3 25.1
PLASTICS
Rim Plaatiea 1.2 3.9
Polystyrene 0.2 0.7
PVC 0.0 0.1
Othar Plaatiea 1.2 3.4
TOTAL PLASTICS 2.6 8.1
ORGANICS
Wood/Lumber 27.7 22.8
Textile* 2.1 2.4
Yard Waste 3.4 1.8
FoodWaata 1.9 0.9
Othar Organic* • 2.4
TOTAL ORGANICS 35.1 30.3
NON-COMBUSTIBLES
METALS
Ferrous Metal 1.6 6.1
Aluminum 0.1 0.1
Othar Metal * 0.7
TOTAL METALS 1.7 6.9
GLASS
Glass 0.4 0.6
TOTAL GLASS 0.4 0.6
INORGANICS
Sheet Rock 6.5 +
Masonry 2.1 +
Asphalt/Roofing Material* 4.2 +
CeHing Tiles 0.8 +
Fiberglass Insulation 0.2 +
Dirt/Dust/Ash 3.4 +
TOTAL INORGANICS 17.2 28.4
BULKY ITEMS 5.3 +
OTHER WASTES • 0.6
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
* - Percent by Weight
• - Categories not included in Visual Characterization
+ •> Categories not included in Manual Sorting
BO
-------
EXHIBIT 2
MATERIAL DENSITY FACTORS
MATERIAL DENSITY FACTOR SOURCE*
(POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD)
COMBUSTIBLES
Bagged Wastes (plastic bags) 220 2
PAPER
Corrugated Cardboard / Kraft 100 1
Office Paper 150 1
Other Papar ISO 1
PLASTICS
Rim PlaatJcs 15 1.3
Polystyrene 15 1,3
PVC 25 1,3
Other PtaatJe* 30 1,3
ORQANICS
Wood/Lumber 300 1
Textiles 250 1
Yard Waste 300 1
Food Waste 800 1
NON-COMBUSTIBLES
METALS
Ferrous Metal 150 1
Aluminum 50 1
GLASS
Glaaa SOO 3
INORGANICS
Sheet Rook 900 3
Masonry 4.0OO 1
Asphalt/Roofing Materials 1.4OO 1
Catling Tiles SOO 3
Fiberglass Insulation 60 3
Dirt/Dust/Ash 1,500 2
BULKY ITEMS 320 2
* SOURCES:
1. Steve Apotheker. "Volume-to-weight factors: recycling's manifest density,*
AMOIOTB* Recycling,
November 1991.
2. David G. Wilson, 'Handbood of Solid Waste Management.'
Van Nostrano Reinhold, 1977.
3. SCS Engineers field observations.
81
-------
Exhibit 1 presents a summary mean for the percent by weight estimates. The predominant waste
components observed were Wood/Lumber (27.4 percent), Corrugated Cardboard/Kraft (21.0
percent), and Bagged Wastes (14.3 percent). Other significant components included Sheet Rock
(6.2 percent), Bulky Items (5.1 percent), and Asphalt/Roofing Materials (4.1 percent).
The results of the two classification methods are presented graphically in Exhibit 3.
Comparison of Manual Classification Versus Visual Classification
Analysis of Results —
Based on data presented, visual characterization estimates do not approximate manual
classification estimates for all waste components discharged at the Cherry Island Landfill.
However, for certain major components such as Paper, Glass, and Organic, visual
characterization estimates approximated manual classification estimates. Exhibit 4 depicts a
comparison of the major components identified by each method. Estimates for Total Plastics,
Total Metals and Total Inorganics by each method were dissimilar.
The similarity of waste composition estimates by each method was associated with the density
of the material. Major components estimated to have a density within a range of 100 to 500
pounds per cubic yard were more likely to have similar visual and manual compositional
estimates. However, if the component density was less than 100 pounds or greater than 500
pounds, the composition by weight estimates were underestimated with visual characterization
techniques. For example, the Total Paper estimate was
approximately 25 percent by both methods. The three components of Total Paper -
Corrugated/Kraft, Office Paper, and Other Paper - had estimated densities of 100 to 150 pounds.
A similar relationship was observed for Total Organic and Total Glass.
The visual characterization study was limited in that the same sorting categories were not used
for both methods. As shown, bagged waste (11.4 percent of total) was not included in the visual
characterization comparison.
Sample Size by Program —
Due to the time consuming effort required to manually sort refuse samples, the number of
samples that can be sorted is limited. In this study, only 12 samples could be manually sorted
each day. Even though results of the manual sort provided a detailed composition of the waste
stream, the small sample size may have decreased the confidence of
-------
EXHIBIT 3
VISUAL CHARACTERIZATION AND MANUAL SORTING RESULTS *
TWO SEASON SUMMARY
PAPER
26.2%
PLASTIC
2.7%
ORGANIC
35.1%
BULKY
5.4%
BAGGED
11.4%
GLASS
0.4%
INORGANIC
17.2%
METAL
1.7%
PLASTIC
8.1%
ORGANIC
30.2%
PAPER
25.1%
METAL GLASS
6.9% 0.6%
OTHER
0.7%
INORGANIC
28.4%
VISUAL CHARACTERIZATION
MANUAL SORTING
BASED ON PERCENT BY WEIGHT
-------
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
B
Y
W
E
I
6
H
T
EXHIBIT 4
VISUAL VERSUS MANUAL CLASSIFICATION
COMPARISON OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
TWO SEASON SUMMARY
PAPER
PLASTIC
ORGANIC
METAL
GLASS
INORGANIC
VISUAL
MANUAL
-------
composition estimates. On the other hand, visual characterization allows time for more samples
to be evaluated. Moreover, the entire waste load is characterized rather than just a sample.
This method may be more suitable for estimating the waste stream composition for major
components such as Paper, Plastic, Organics Metals, Glass, and Inorganics. However, the
visual characterization method cannot accurately estimate the smaller components of the waste
stream.
Cost Analysis by Program -
The associated costs from performing each classification effort are varied. Based on this study,
it was determined that the cost per sample for field sorting activities was almost eight times
higher for manual sorting versus visual. Based on this study, the manual sorting program cost
approximately 25 percent more than the visual program. The cost per sample for field activities
was eight times higher for manual sorting versus visual. This is due to the higher number of
samples which can be characterized visually (approximately 450 samples) versus manually
(approximately 120 samples). For visual classification efforts, one trained site manager is
required. Conversely, manual sorting requires five to six laborers and a site manager.
CONCLUSIONS
Field methods employed during the Cherry Island Landfill Waste Characterization Study allowed
for direct comparison of results obtained from visual characterization and manual classification
of non-residential waste. This comparison indicates a high degree of variability based on
sampling method, most likely due to limitations of the visual classification method. Analysis
of data revealed that visual characterization required less effort and approximated the
compositional data of manual sorting for certain major components. Visual techniques appear
best suited for estimation of specific waste streams, such as construction/demolition, and less
reliable for mixed waste streams, such as residential or commercial wastes.
Despite these limitations, visual characterizations is a useful tool for estimating components
present in the waste stream. One advantage of visual classification is that Meld work can be
performed by one trained person . Another advantage is that many vehicle loads can be
observed and classified in a day. Approximately 40 to 45 incoming loads were visually
characterized per day versus 12 samples per day manually. Visual characterization is most
appropriate for determining the composition of major components such as Paper, Plastic,
Organics, Metals, Glass, and Inorganics provided they are of medium density. Waste
components that are very light or very heavy are more difficult to visually characterize and thus
composition estimates based on weight are more error prone.
ab
-------
On the other hand, accurate classification of detailed component categories through manual
sorting can be labor intensive and requires the use of trained work crews. Usually a smaller
portion of the waste stream is sampled; however, the use of prescribed procedures and repetitive
sampling supports a statistical analysis of the data. The number of samples is usually sufficient
to predict within defined limits the composition of the whole waste stream. In addition, field
results can be obtained for many of the waste components that are present in the waste stream
in small quantities, such as office paper, HOPE plastics, etc.
B6
-------
COMPOSITE LINER SYSTEMS UTILIZING
BENTONITE GEOCOMPOSITES
Kurt R. Shaner
Senior Staff Engineer
Steven 0. Menoff
Vice President - Environmental Management
Chambers Development Co., Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ABSTRACT
As composite liner systems become the minimum standard containment system across
the country, areas lacking sufficient quantities of natural clayey soils are seeking ways
to meet the containment requirements using manufactured or prefabricated materials.
Bentonite geocomposites are one of these alternative materials. As a result of this
renewed attention, these materials have become the subject of renewed evaluation for
their ability to replace the soil component of a composite liner system. This paper
presents laboratory testing and successful field installations of these types of materials.
The results of the laboratory testing and findings through the field installations to date
have indicated that, with proper design and construction considerations, these materials
provide an excellent means of containment for solid waste disposal facilities.
INTRODUCTION
With the 9 October 1991 promulgation of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills have become a
two-foot-thick, compacted soil layer with a maximum permeability of 1O'7 cm/sec overlain
by a 30 mil flexible membrane liner (Reference 1). This requirement has the potential to
create financial hardship for certain areas of the country. This is due to the fact that these
areas do not possess natural soil deposits of sufficient quantity and/or quality to provide
the required low permeability soil liner material. Recognizing the costs associated with the
importation of soil materials, alternatives to these materials are receiving increased
interest.
Bentonite geocomposites are materials comprised of a geosynthetic layer to which a layer
of bentonitic clay is attached. As a manufactured product, a large degree of uniformity can
be achieved throughout the material. This uniformity in conjunction with the natural
properties of the bentonitic clay (low permeability and highly expansive) allows the
87
-------
necessary thickness of the composite to be greatly reduced as compared to natural soil
layers. The reduced thickness allows the composite material to be transported
economically to most locations. Bentonite geocomposites are, therefore, desirable
substitutes for natural soil liner materials.
With the first installation of a bentonite geocomposite at a municipal solid waste
containment facility having occurred in 1985, several field installations have been
evaluated. Additionally, laboratory testing programs have been performed to address
concerns regarding the performance of the geocomposites. Both of these sources of
information are summarized within the following sections.
BENTONITE GEOCOMPOSITE PRODUCTS
At present, there are four bentonite geocomposite products available in the United States.
The manufacturers are Colloid Environmental Technologies Company; James Clem
Corporation; Gundle Lining Systems, Inc.; and Terrafix Geosynthetics, Inc. Their
respective products are similar in that they all utilize a geosynthetic material onto which
a layer of granulated bentonite is secured. The products differ in the geosynthetic
material(s), bentonite, and the method used to secure the bentonite to or between the
geosynthetic(s). These differences may make the individual products more or less suitable
for certain applications.
Bentomat*. the product manufactured by Colloid Environmental Technologies Company,
consists of two layers of non-woven geotextile between which granulated sodium
bentonite is placed. The composite material is then bonded by needlepunching the
geotextiles through the bentonite. The geotextiles used can be altered to suit specific field
conditions.
The James Clem Company manufactures a product called Claymax*. Claymax* is
composed of two geotextiles between which granulated bentonite is placed and adhered
with a watersoluble glue. The composite material is then heat dried to form one composite
material. The geotextiles used can be altered to suit field conditions.
Gundseal*, the product manufactured by Gundle Lining Systems, Inc., is composed of a
20-mil, high-density polyethylene (HOPE) geomembrane onto which a layer of granulated
bentonite is adhered using a proprietary water-based glue. The product can be
manufactured with a light geotextile above the bentonite side and the geomembrane can
be changed to various mtllages. The polymer composing the geomembrane can also be
changed to a very low-density polyethylene or a coextruded material.
Bentofix* was developed in 1987 by Naue-Fasertechnik GmbH & Co., KG. Currently,
Bentofix* is available in the United States through Terrafix Geosynthetics, Inc., located
88
-------
in Rexdale, Ontario. The product is composed of two needle-punched, non-woven
geotextiles between which the bentonrte is placed. The geotextile layers are then needle-
punched together through the bentonrte to form a composite material. This product has
only recently become available in the United States.
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
In municipal solid waste disposal facilities, bentonrte geocomposites are used in
conjunction with geomembranes to form composite liner systems. This approach to
constructing composite liners is utilized in both single- and double-lined facilities, with
bentonite geocomposites being used to create primary and secondary composite liners.
To date, over 25 waste disposal facilities have used bentonite geocomposites as one
component of the liner system.
The use of bentonite geocomposites to form a primary composite liner in a double-lined
system provides an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the primary composite
liner since the secondary liner acts to collect potential leakage. In a study of flows from
secondary leachate collection layers, Bonaparte and Gross (Reference 2) found that
double-lined landfills having a layer of compacted soil as the soil component of a
composite primary liner almost always exhibited flows. These flows, ranging from 20-840
Iphd, were attributed to consolidation water. They also found that only very small flows
were observed from the secondary systems of sites with a primary composite liner
composed of a bentonite geocomposite. Therefore, leakage from primary liners would
be more easily identified as such in liner systems composed of bentonite geocomposites.
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The impetus for using bentonite geocomposites in lieu of more traditional natural clay
components is primarily economically based. The economic benefit is realized in several
ways. First, bentonite geocomposites are available in all regions of the country, whereas
natural clays are not available in certain regions without significant costs incurred due to
transportation. Second, the reduced thickness of the bentonite geocomposites allows
additional airspace to be used for the disposal of waste. Third, installation does not
require compaction nor the control of moisture content and can be completed in cold
weather. This eliminates many of the problems associated with the construction of
natural soil liners and, therefore, reduces installation costs and improves the quality of an
installation.
Environmental benefits resulting from the use of bentonite geocomposites are significant
as well. First, the montmorillonite clays which compose bentonite swell upon hydrating.
This swelling is believed to make the bentonite geocomposites more effective at sealing
89
-------
leaks in overlying geomembranes when compared to the generally less expansive natural
clays. Second, the bentonite clays can be altered for specific chemical compatibility,
which can be advantageous in certain installations. Third, since no compaction is required
as part of the installation, potential damage to underlying liner system components (such
as secondary liners) is minimized. Fourth, as a manufactured product, the quality of the
liner is more consistent and can be monitored in a setting with a controlled environment
TECHNICAL CONCERNS
The use of bentonite geocomposites has generated several concerns. These concerns
center on the physical and chemical durability of the bentonite geocomposites and how
the engineering properties may be affected. Specific engineering properties of concern
are shear strength, hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity. Physical and chemical
durability concerns involve possible variations in the engineering properties due to the
geocomposites1 reaction to freeze-thaw cycles, desiccation-hydration cycles, and
exposure to leachate. These concerns have been raised due to the adverse effects they
have on the performance of compacted soils in the same applications.
Each of these concerns is addressed in conjunction with the testing performed to evaluate
the concern in the following sections. Additional sections discuss testing to evaluate the
composite action observed when the geocomposites are overlain by a geomembrane and
testing to evaluate the integrity of the seams between panels of the geocomposite.
LABORATORY EVALUATIONS
In the following sections, the results of several diversified laboratory testing programs
performed to evaluate the performance of bentonite geocomposites are presented. The
results are presented with a description of what the test was intended to evaluate, a brief
description of the test methodology, a general presentation of the test results, and general
conclusions drawn from the results. The references cited for each individual test should
be consulted for a more complete interpretation of the test and its results.
Permeability/Chemical Compatibility
Compatibility testing on the bentonite geocomposites was performed using the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 9100 SW-846, Revision 1,
1987. The purpose of the testing was to evaluate the effect of leachate on the hydraulic
conductivity of the bentonite geocomposites. The test procedure consisted of saturating
the bentonite geocomposites with de-aired tap water and determining a base line
permeability with this permeant. The permeant was then changed to leachate and
90
-------
permeation was performed for 30 days, during which time the hydraulic conductivity was
monitored. The specific conditions of the test are presented in Reference 3.
The results of the test are summarized m Table 1. The hydraulic conductivities
determined in the test are approximately equivalent to the baseline values. However, a
slight increase in permeability can be observed. This increase is within the daily
fluctuation of the results and the variation between products. Furthermore, the values
remain two orders of magnitude below the 10'7 cm/sec established as a standard.
Therefore, there is not believed to be a significant effect on the hydraulic conductivity of
the bentonite geocomposites due to exposure to leachate, and the performance of the
geocomposite has been shown to be capable of limiting the flow of leachate.
TABLE 1
EPA9100RESULTS(1)
-
Bentomat*
Claymax*
Gundseal*®
Base Line Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/sec)
2.0 E-9
2.0 E-9
9.0 E-10
Leachate Hydraulic
Conductivity (cm/sec)(3)
2.5 E-9
2.5 E-9
1.0 E-9
1. Consult Reference 3 for a complete presentation of test methods and results.
2. The Gundseaf product used In this testing was manufactured with a perforated geomembrane backing to allow evaluation of
the bentonite portion of the composite.
3. Hydraulic conductivity values shown are approximate stabilized values during the 30 day test period.
Composite Action
Composite action between a geomembrane and a soil layer is thought to be achieved
when the radial spread of liquid flow through a defect in a geomembrane is minimized.
The intimacy of contact between the geomembrane and soil, the confining stress applied,
and the configuration of the defect are the significant factors in achieving efficient
composite action. In particular, concerns have been raised with regard to the geotextile
on the surface of some bentonite geocomposites which would be in direct contact with
the geomembrane and whether this geotextile becomes a corridor for the lateral spread
of flow.
The efficiency of the composite action achieved when bentonite geocomposites are used
as the soil component in a composite liner system has been evaluated using two
methods. The first method (Reference 3) utilized a 4-inch-diameter, rigid wall
permeameter and consisted of measuring flow across a composite liner system under 12
91
-------
inches of head. The composite liner system was composed of a 60 mil HOPE
geomembrane underlain by a bentonite geocomposfte.
The results are shown on Figure 1. A 0.04 inch (1.0 min) hole was cut in the HOPE
geomembrane to induce leakage. The flow through the defect was substantially reduced
within 1 hour and stabilized within 10 hours. The test probably did not fully evaluate the
lateral spread of flow around the defect due to the limited size of the apparatus and the
lack of control of the confining pressure. Also, the test was not of sufficient duration for
flow (outflow) to be observed. An attempt to measure the lateral spread of flow was
made by measuring the water content in concentric circles around the defect. A decrease
in water content with distance from the defect was observed for both products. The
Gundseal* displayed a distinct drop in water content which indicates that a seal was
formed. The Bentomat* displayed a more gradual decrease in water content and lateral
flow was believed to be limited by the apparatus.
Figure 1
Composite Action
1.0E+01
1.0E»00
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
FLOW RATE (OPD)
BENTOUAT
GUNDSEAL (2)
10
20 30
TIME (HRS)
40
1,C0fwM Rofwvnct 3 tof • cotnpicM pfVMntMon ortwt mMAods •nd
i to Mow •rakuuon of ow bMoM* portion arm*
Flow M* mM*ur*4 M Mow to ff» lyiMm. No outflow occurred.
The second method used to evaluate the composite action of bentonite geocomposite and
a geomembrane (Reference 4) utilized a 4-foot wide by 8-foot long test apparatus to
-------
measure flow through a composite liner system under 12 inches of head. The test
consisted of placing a geomembrane over a bentonite geocomposite. The geomembrane
was made defective by perforating it with two 3-inch-diameter holes, three 1-inch-diameter
holes, and three 2-foot by 0.04-inch slits. The geomembrane was then overlain by gravel
to generate 1.1 psi of confining stress. Flow through the defective composite was
compared to flow through a bentonite geocomposite alone, which served as the control
for the test.
The results of this second method of evaluation are shown on Table 2. The results for
Gundseal® indicated that no outflow occurred and that the geocomposite only hydrated
in the vicinity of the defects. This seems to indicate that good composite action was
achieved. The Bentomat* and Claymax* results also showed no substantial increase in
flow across the liner system. However, the entire surface of the bentonite geocomposite
was found to be hydrated.
Table 2
Composite Action'1'
BENTOMAT*
CLAYMAX*
GUNDSEAL*
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM/SEC)
CONTROL
4.0 E-10
7.0 E-9
NO FLOW
TEST
6.0 E-10
7.0 E-9
NO FLOW
COMMENTS
ENTIRE SURFACE OF GEOCOMPOSITE
HYDRATED
ENTIRE SURFACE OF GEOCOMPOSITE
HYDRATED
GEOCOMPOSITE HYDRATED ONLY IN
VICINITY OF DEFECTS
1. Conwft ftatorane* 4 lor • <
i at MI mMMOi and mutt.
Neither of the methods accurately model field conditions since this is difficult to do in the
laboratory setting. However, the methods do provide some insight into the functioning
of composite liner systems. The first test procedure involved immediately placing 12
inches of head across the system which would drive liquid into the interface rapidly. This
may not have allowed the bentonite sufficient time to hydrate and form a seal with the
geomembrane. In actual use, flow would be introduced more gradually allowing the
bentonite time to hydrate. Also, confining stresses present during actual use would be
larger than the 1.1 psi used in the tests, especially after waste placement has occurred.
Both of these factors may improve the quality of the composite action achieved during
actual use. It is also worthwhile to note that all of the bentonite geocomposite materials
93
-------
were capable of hydrating to form an effective seam between panels as discussed in the
next section.
At the time of this writing, tbere are no tests which evaluate the composite action of
compacted soil liners and geomembranes. It is logical to assume that, as a less
expansive material, the compacted solid would form less of a seal with an overlying
geomembrane.Seam Integrity
The integrity of the seams formed by the overlapping of the bentonite geocomposite
panels was evaluated by Estornell (1991) (see Reference 4). Testing consisted of
comparing flow through a continuous panel of bentonite geocomposite to flow through a
panel with a seam. The test- was conducted with a bench-scale apparatus 4-feet wide
by 8-feet long. The seams were first constructed to the manufacturers' specifications and
tested, then the test was repeated with the seams constructed to a width one-half as wide
as recommended by the manufacturer.
The results of the test (see Table 3) show that the manufacturers' recommended seam
width provides a seal of sufficient quality to maintain the same hydraulic conductivity as
a continuous panel of material. A seam width of one-half the manufacturers'
recommended width was also found to be capable of forming a low permeability seam.
It is concluded that the seams of the materials are found to be capable of forming a low
permeability seal between panels and that the manufacturers' recommended seam
overlap and construction is acceptable.
Table 3
Seamability™
%
BENTOMAT*
CLAYMAX*
GUNDSEAL*
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (CM/SEC)
CONTROL
4.0 E-10
8.0 E-9
NO FLOW®
6* SEAM
4.0 E-10 *
9.0 E-9 *
NA
3- SEAM
1.0 E-9
1.0 E-8
NO FLOW *<*>
1.5" SEAM
NA
NA
NO FLOW*5*
1. CanMKR*fmnc»4tor«eafflptotedMc
2. NA fl«now« »•« tft« «•!• to not «ppBc»W«.
3. • OonoMi mnuteduran- raeammndM tMitiwD
4. Iwt eondMMd wtt • eenflnmt tOmt eH.1 prt.
S. No flow (• dtAnod M no nwosmbto flow.
of IM& proodum wttf fMuNs.
94
-------
Transmissivtty testing of geonet drainage systems overlain by bentonite geocomposltes
was performed over a variety of gradients and normal stresses. This testing was
performed for a variety of geotextiles and bentonite geocomposites to evaluate the
effectiveness of the various geotextiles and to assess any differences due to the different
bentonite geocomposites. The details of the testing are presented in Reference 10 and
typical results shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Transmissivity
10
UNIT FLOW RATE (gpm/ft)
0.1
0.01
0.001
TYPiGM. DEBI9M VkLUEt (UPPER BOUND)
TYPICAL DEBiaM VILUE8 (LOWER BOUND)
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4
GRADIENT (ft/ft)
0.6
0.6
i ox/By HBBt BondBd 12 ox/ay N*Bdl«punoh
10 ox/By NBBdlBpuitoh
1. Com* Rrtoranc* to toroompM* awertpOon cTMft precaom Md nwka
As discussed in Reference 10 and shown on Figure 2, the minimum flows for all three
separator geotextiles are well in excess of the flows typically required for secondary
systems. Therefore, secondary drainage can be effectively provided by a geonet overlain
by a separator geotextile and a bentonite geocomposite.
95
-------
Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Freeze-thaw cycles are known to detrimentally affect the hydraulic conductivity of
compacted soil layers. During and following the installation of compacted soil layers
(prior to placement of insulating heights of waste), the layers must be protected from
freezing (Reference 5). The same concern was raised with regard to bentontte
geocomposttes, recognizing that their reduced thickness would make them more
susceptible to freezing.
The effect of freeze-thaw cycles on the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonfte
geocomposites was evaluated by measuring the hydraulic conductivity through the
geocomposite after successive cycles of freezing and thawing. The testing was
completed in accordance with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) D 560,
Standard Methods for Freezing-and-Thawing Tests of Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures.
From the results listed in Table 4, it can be concluded that the hydraulic conductivities
determined for the cycles of freezing and thawing are not significantly different from the
initial values. Therefore, bentonite geocomposites were not found to be detrimentally
affected by freeze-thaw cycles under the conditions tested.
Table 4
Freeze-Thaw Effects
BENTOMAT»(1)
GUNDSEAL*(1)
CLAYMAX»(3)
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (CM/SEC)
INITIAL
3.0E-9
1.0E-9
2.0E-9
CYCLE 1
3.0E-9
1.0E-9
3.8E-9
CYCLE 2
2.0E-9
8.0E-10
NA
CYCLES
1.0E-9
1.0E-9
NA
CYCLE 4
6.0E-9
1.0E-9
NA
CYCLES
NA
NA
2.2E-9
1. Coma Rtfmnoo J tar • <
i o» MM pocMwM and «MU*I.
I CorniM IMwwiM « lor • eempM* dMetipaon el tte M pnndww «M imUU.
4. T1» OundBMf* product UMd to tt* MMtog WM nvnutaOmd wim • pwtonMd eMm
efclng to Mow •vMNHonMlMbMonN* portion e(llMeon
-------
The effect of desiccation-hydration cycles on the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonHe
geocomposites was evaluated by measuring the hydraulic conductivity of material after
each of four cycles (see Reference 3). The test was conducted in accordance with ASTM
D 559, Standard Methods for Wetting-and-Drying Tests of Compacted Soil-Cement
Mixtures. The results of the test are shown in Table 5. As can be seen, no appreciable
affect on the hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite geocomposite was observed.
Tables
Desiccation Hydration
\.
BENTOMAT*(1)
GUNDSEAL»{1)
CLAYMAX*(3)
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (CM/SEC)
INITIAL
3.0E-9
1.0E-9
1.7E-9
CYCLE 1
2.0E-9
2.0E-9
1.9E-9
CYCLE 2
3.0E-9
5.0E-10
1.7E-9
CYCLE 3
1.0E-9
7.0E-10
1.8E-9
CYCLE 4
2.0E-9
7.0E-10
NA
1. CorauB Rrfwwm 3 for cempM* dwcrtption 01 twt mrthM* and mutt.
2. 7M OundtMl* product u«d Hi this Mttne MM muHA»ctunO wNti * pwforalid gconwnbnn* McUng to «ltow MkMUon of m» twntoM* poraon of Vw oompotlM.
4. NA OMXXM tM* t>w 0*U fc not mtt*M*.
Shear Strength (Internal Friction^
As an expansive clay, bentonite has a relatively low shear strength, especially when
hydrated under small confining stresses. The shear strength of a bentonite geocomposite
is often the critical component in the stability of a waste mass which significantly affects
the design of landfills. Underestimating the shear strength limits the airspace generated
on a lined area. Overestimating the shear strength causes the calculated factor of safety
to be higher in slope stability evaluations.
Two factors which affect the shear strength of a hydrated bentonite geocomposite are the
liquid which hydrates the bentonite and the confining stress under which the hydration
occurs. These factors were evaluated by Koerner (1991) as detailed in References 7,8,
and 9. The evaluation consisted of performing direct shear tests for the bentonite
geocomposite products under various confining stresses, with distilled water, and a typical
landfill leachate as the hydrating liquids.
The results are presented in Table 6. As shown, the shear strength parameters are
consistently higher when leachate was the hydrating liquid and when the hydration was
constrained. This indicates that, in order to maintain the highest shear strength possible,
it is important to complete the installation of the geocomposites in a non-hydrated
97
-------
condition. Also, the rapid placement of overlying materials (such as soil or waste
material) is important as this induces normal stresses which confine the geocomposite
during hydration and help to maintain the shear strength at as high a value as is possible.
Table 6
Shear Strength Parameters
J
CONSTRAINED
FREE SWELL
CONSTRAINED
FREE SWELL
PERMEANT
f
DRY
DISTILLED WATER
DISTILLED WATER
LEACHATE
LEACHATE
BENTOMAT*
phi
42°
37°
23°
39°
25°
C(P*>
2.0
0.8
0.7
1.2
2.0
CLAYMAX*
phi
37°
15.7°
0°
24°
4°
Co*)
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.5
GUNDSEAL*
phi
26°
19°
0°
18°
13°
C
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In assessing the performance of bentonite geocomposites as the soil component in a
composite liner system, the fpllowing conclusions were drawn based on the information
presented above:
• Exposure to the test leachate did not significantly affect the hydraulic
conductivity of the hydrated bentonite geocomposite.
• The bentonite geocomposite acts effectively to limit flow through a defect
in an overlying geomembrane. However, swelling of the bentonite to fill the
defect was not observed for all products.
• The manufacturers' recommended seams between panels of bentonite
geocomposites achieve the same permeabilities as the unseamed portions.
• Freeze-thaw cycles do not significantly affect the hydraulic conductivity of
the bentonite geocomposites.
• Desiccation-hydration cycles do not significantly affect the hydraulic
conductivity of the bentonite geocomposites.
• Shear strength in the bentonite geocomposites is not decreased due to
hydration by leachate. However, the placement of cover soils to induce
small confining stresses is necessary.
• Adequate transmissivrty through underlying geonets can be achieved with
the inclusion of a separator geotextiie.
• Actual field performance data indicates that secondary leachate collection
system flows are lower from primary composite liners utilizing bentonite
geocomposites than from composite liners using a compacted soil layer.
1. 40 CFR Part 258 - Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, federal Register.
Volume 56, No. 196, Oct. 1991, pp 51016-51119.
2. Bonaparte, R., and Gross, B A, "Field Behavior of Double-lined Systems," Waste
Containment Systems: Construction. Regulation, and Performance. ASCE Special
Publication No. 26, 1990, pp. 52-83.
99
-------
3. Geosyntec Consultants, Geomechanics and Environmental Laboratory, report to
Chambers Development Co. Inc., "Laboratory Testing of Bentonite Mat Products,"
dated 13 June 1991.
4. Estornell, P. M. (1991), "Bench-Scale Hydraulic Conductivity Tests of Bentonitic
Blanket Materials for Liner and Cover Systems," M.S. Thesis, University of Texas
at Austin.
5. Daniel, D. E., and Estornell, P. M. (1990), "Compilation of Information on
Alternative Barriers for Liner and Cover Systems," EPA Publication Number 600/2-
91/002, prepared under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-815546-01-0.
6. Shan, H.Y. (1990), "Laboratory Tests on a Bentonitic Blanket," M.S. Thesis,
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
7. Geosynthetic Research Institute, (1991), untitled letter report to American Colloid
Company, dated 18 April 1991 RE: Hydration and Shear Data Utilizing Distilled
Water and a Domestic Landfill Leachate.
8. Geosynthetic Research Institute, (1991), untitfed letter report to Gundle Lining
Systems, Inc., dated 18 April 1991. RE: Hydration and Shear Data Utilizing
Distilled Water and a Domestic Landfill Leachate.
9. Geosynthetic Research Institute, (1991), untitled letter report to James Clem
Corporation, dated 18 April 1991. RE: Hydration and Shear Data Utilizing Distilled
Water and a Domestic Landfill Leachate.
10. Shaner, K. R., and Menoff, S. D.,(1991), "Impacts of Bentonite Geocomposites on
Geonet Drainage," Proceedings of the 5th Geosvnthetics Research Institute
Seminar.
OTHER RELEVANT READINGS
1. Schubert, W. R. (1987), "Bentonite Matting in Composite Lining Systems,"
Proceedings of June 1987 ASCE Conference.
2. Eith, A. W., Boschuk, J., and Koerner, R, M. (1990), "Prefabricated Bentonite Clay
Liners," Proceedings of the 4th Geosvnthetics Research Institute Seminar.
100
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE RECYCLING: NEW SOLUTIONS TO AN
OLD PROBLEM
Christine T. Donovan, President
C.T. Donovan Associates Inc.
Burlington, Vermont
From used paving material to concrete from demolished buildings to wood construction scraps,
the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition (C/D) waste is a growing industry in the
U.S. and Canada. Skyrocketing tipping fees, enforcement crackdowns on "midnight dumping",
and new markets for the material are causing an increase in C/D waste recycling businesses.
Until recently, construction and demolition waste reduction, recycling, and management
opportunities were often not addressed in state and local waste management plans. Typically,
private businesses and, in some cases, transportation agencies in large urban areas have taken
the initiative and incurred the risk in developing C/D waste processing facilities.
HOW MUCH WASTE IS THERE?
Growing interest in C/D waste has caused several states, such as Rhode Island, Vermont, New
York, and Ohio, to fund statewide C/D waste analyses.
"When the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources funded a statewide analysis to look at end use
markets for C/D waste, we were surprised at the magnitude of the waste available," says Paul
Markowitz, Chief of the Recycling Section. "We estimate that about 320,000 tons per year of
municipal solid waste are currently disposed of in Vermont. Based on the C/D study, additional
nearly 300,000 tons per year of C/D waste are discarded in the state."
While the exact amounts vary among states and provinces, the Vermont study and reports from
C/D haulers throughout North America indicate that the portion of solid waste accounted for by
C/D waste is significantly higher than once thought. In addition, the material is bulky and, at
times, difficult to haul and to discard.
No one knows for certain the total amount of construction and demolition waste generated and
discarded in the U.S. and Canada. Franklin Associates Limited did not include per capita
generation data for C/D waste in the 1990 update of their report, "Characterization of Municipal
101
-------
Solid Waste in the United States" published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Apparently EPA does not include C/D waste in their definition of municipal solid waste. In
addition, according to Betty Wycoff at Franklin Associates, "Hie more we looked into it, the
more we concluded there are, in our opinion, no dependable figures or accurate information
regarding generation or disposal rates [of C/D waste] at the national level."
In general, C/D waste is generated from the construction, renovation, and demolition of
buildings, roads and bridges, docks and piers, and other structures. The amount generated and
needing
disposal depends on the:
The extent of growth and overall economic development, and the resulting'level
of construction, renovation, and demolition;
Periodic special projects, such as urban renewal, road construction, and bridge
repair programs;
Unplanned events, such as Hurricane Hugo that severely damaged portions of the
U.S. Virgin Islands and the southeastern U.S. in September, 1989;
Availability and cost of hauling and disposal options;
Local, state, and federal regulations concerning separation, reuse, and recycling
of C/D waste; and
Availability of recycling facilities and the extent of end use markets.
There is no full-proof technique for determining the precise amount of C/D waste generated in
a specific community. However, it is possible to estimate generation and disposal by
researching building permits, interviewing building contractors and demolition companies,
visiting waste disposal facilities, and talking with existing salvage and recycling companies.
In 1989, the Toronto Home Builders Association completed a waste audit to determine the types
and amounts of waste generated during construction of a three bedroom, 2,500 square foot
wood-framed residence.
In addition, William F. Cosulich Associates has estimated the construction and demolition waste
stream for a variety of counties and towns in New York. According to the firm, approximately
14 to 25% of the waste stream is construction and demolition waste. According to Cosulich,
approximately 50% of C/D waste is rubble-based material, 25% is wood, and 25% is other
waste, such as metals, tar-based materials, plaster, and potential contaminants.
102
-------
RECYCLING CONCRETE WASTE
Concrete is another major component of rubble from construction and demolition waste.
Concrete is made from a combination of cement and aggregate. The aggregate consists of either
crushed stone or a combination of stone, sand, and grit. Concrete waste is generated by a
variety of activities including constructing and repairing bridges, pouring building foundations,
building or repairing sidewalks, and creating structural supports for large commercial and
industrial buildings.
Generation of concrete waste depends on the extent of building construction and on the level of
funding available for road and bridge improvements. As with asphalt waste, a single policy
decision to increase or decrease funding for road construction or bridge repair can dramatically
affect the amount of concrete waste produced.
Recycled Concrete Characteristics
A primary use of crushed concrete is as gravel used for roadbase material. A primary use of
aggregate made from recycled concrete is in asphalt paving. This saves on disposal fees for
concrete contractors, reduces the expense of buying new gravel, and decreases the cost of
making asphalt paving material.
According to Douglas Griswold of S.T. Griswold, a concrete company based in Burlington,
Vermont, specifications concerning the use of concrete are usually based on national standards.
The specifications primarily address aggregate in concrete, which determines the strength of the
material. One of the tests concrete must pass is the "California Wear* density test This test
determines the strength per cubic foot (or per cubic yard) of the material. The aggregate must
also be tested before it is mixed with cement to form concrete. This is referred to as the "FM"
test, or the Fines Modulus test. This test measures the size of material in the aggregate.
The use of recycled concrete may increase in the future, as familiarity and experience with the
product grows. According to a concrete contractor in New Jersey, recycled concrete can be
used for many applications that virgin concrete is used for, such as foundations or the concrete
layer used below the cold and hot mixes on highway bridges.
Concrete Recycling Techniques
At least two different approaches can be used to recycling concrete. One involves crushing old
concrete on-site during major road or bridge repair projects. The crushed concrete is then used
as gravel underneath roadbase material. This helps decrease the amount of waste produced at
the site that must be disposed of in some way. It also helps offset the cost of otherwise having
to purchase gravel. Typically, mobile crushing units are used at the site to grind and crush the
concrete into gravel.
103
-------
The other approach is to develop concrete recycling facilities. A concrete recycling facility
operates by accepting concrete waste on one end of the plant and producing gravel or recycled
aggregate at the other end. Many facilities accept and process other waste in addition to
concrete, such as asphalt, brick, and mixed demolition rubble.
How Concrete is Recyclgj
The first step is to deliver used concrete to a facility for processing. Concrete is typically
delivered in dump trucks and visually inspected at the gate and again once the material is
unloaded inside the site. Rejected loads are sent away for disposal.
Accepted materials are loaded with a grapple or front-end loader onto a conveyor belt and
transported to an impact crusher. The crusher is used to break the material into smaller, more
uniformed sized pieces. Once crushed, the material is referred to as aggregate. The crushed
concrete (or aggregate) on the conveyor is transported from the crusher to a large electromagnet.
The magnet is used to separate ferrous metal, such as rebar used as reinforcement in concrete.
The ferrous metal is either sold to scrap metal dealers or discarded.
The aggregate then passes through a series of screens that size the material to determine what
grade material it is. There are three grades of aggregate, determined primarily by the size of
the material. Aggregate sized at 3 inches in diameter is classified as Grade A material and is
primarily used in foundations. Aggregate sized at 1 1/2 inches in diameter is classified as Grade
B material and is primarily used for sidewalks and other applications exposed to weather.
Aggregate sized at 3/8" in diameter is classified as Grade C material and is used as sub-base
material (such as for footings in foundations).
Recycled aggregate can be stored in indoor or outside piles until being loaded onto a truck and
transported to end use markets. If stored inside, the material can be stored indefinitely.
Minimal residuals are produced from recycling concrete waste. Residuals primarily include
metal (such as rebar) and other material physically separated during the recycling process.
End Use Markets
New, unrecycled aggregate sells for $12 to $20 per ton (in 1991 dollars) in the northeast U.S..
Recycled aggregate sells for $7 to $9 per ton, depending on the grade of the material and
whether additional crushing is needed prior to mixing the aggregate with cement to produce
concrete. End use markets for recycled aggregate include state transportation agencies,
municipalities, and concrete contractors.
104
-------
RECYCLING C/D WOOD WASTE
Wood waste is produced by nearly every type of construction and demolition activity. Wood
is a major component of many residential buildings, commercial, and industrial buildings. Wood
is used as framing material and for foundation molds during bridge construction. (In addition,
wood is also generated from other activities, such as forest harvesting, milling lumber, and
manufacturing furniture. These types of wood waste are not included in this discussion.)
Recycled Cfl) Wood Characteristics
Overall, wood is a benign material that has many uses. Some construction and demolition
activities produce wood waste that is free of non-wood materials. An example is waste produced
when a building is framed using pine 2 by 4's. Other C/D activities produce wood waste that
is mixed with non-wood material. An example is the renovation or demolition of an older
building containing lead-based paint, asbestos pipe insulation, and asphalt roofing shingles.
Recycled C/D wood has different characteristics and uses, depending on the types and amounts
of non-wood material included in it.
Some wood waste contains non-wood material that can be physically separated. Examples
include wood waste containing pieces of plastic, shingles, fiberglass, glass, linoleum, and other
materials. These materials are relatively easy to separate, either manually or by using
mechanized sorting processes.
Other wood waste contains non-wood material that is chemically
contained in the wood. Examples include wood treated with paints, preservatives, and glues.
Chemically-contained material is more difficult to separate from wood waste than is physically
separable material. Depending on the end use, processors of C/D wood may require that loads
of material delivered to the facility contain minimal, if any, potentially "contaminated" wood
waste.
Wpod Recycling Technique^
Wood waste from construction and demolition activities can be processed and recycled in a
variety of ways. The material can be chipped with a mobile chipper or grinder at the site where
the waste is produced. The material can be hauled to a processing facility that only accepts and
processes wood waste. Or, the material can be hauled to a full service processing facility that
processes multiple types of C/D waste.
How Wood is Recycled
The first step is to separate non-wood material from the waste. This may be done through
source separation by the waste generator or by the hauler. If plant operators accept mixed loads
of multiple types of C/D waste, separation may also be done after wood is delivered to the
105
-------
facility. When material is delivered to a recycling facility, it is visually inspected at the gate.
Rejected loads are sent away. After materials are inspected on a truck at the entrance, they are
unloaded for closer inspection. Rejected material is loaded back on the truck and sent away.
At some facilities, accepted materials are loaded into a flotation tank in which wood material
floats, while other material sinks. The flotation tank also provides the opportunity to rinse dirt,
dust, and other material from the wood, prior to processing.
Accepted materials are then loaded with a grapple or front-end loader onto a conveyor belt. In
some systems, the conveying system is designed to vibrate. Materials to be processed later are
put in storage piles adjacent to the unloading area.
Materials loaded onto the conveyor are visually inspected and manually sorted as they move
along the conveyor. This allows the inspection process to continue and provides the opportunity
to remove wood that may be mixed with non-wood materials that should not be processed.
Materials on the conveyor are transported through a large magnet
to separate out metal, such as nails, staples, and bits of flashing. Once through the magnet,
materials move along an in-feed conveyor into the top of a hammermill. Materials are processed
by a hammermill similar to those used in lumber and wood products industries. This creates
small, uniform wood chips from multiple sizes and shapes of wood waste material. Materials
pass from the base of the hammermill through a second magnet that removes any remaining
ferrous metal.
The processed material then passes through a double-decker
vibrating screen that separates over-sized pieces (the "overs") and under-sized pieces (the
"fines") from the processed material.
The processed material travels from the shaker screen to a conveyor that loads the processed
wood into a truck, or into a storage hopper. The materials are then transported to end users or
stockpiled for future markets.
End Use Markets
There is substantial opportunity to increase the reuse and recycling of wood waste generated
during construction and demolition. End use markets for C/D wood include landscaping mulch,
boiler fuel, and animal bedding. New markets in the process of developing include landfill
cover, MSW and sludge composting, and manufactured building products, such as particle
board. Typically, wood waste is processed and sold to the highest price market. From highest
to lowest prices, potential end uses are generally landscaping, fuel, and animal bedding.
106
-------
Woodfuel Markets
Research conducted by C.T. Donovan Associates in ten northeast states, greater Toronto, and
greater Montreal indicates that one of the largest potential markets for recycled wood is fuel.
This is especially true for "clean" wood waste, such as pallets, framing lumber, and landclearing
debris. This is often not true for potentially "dirty" wood waste, such as painted, stained, and
treated wood, commonly found in construction and demolition waste.
In fact, in many states and provinces it is unclear whether future wood-fired facilities will be
permitted by regulatory agencies to burn C/D wood. A few facilities currently use the material
for fuel. However, many proposed facilities are struggling to receive the required air emissions
and ash disposal permits. Examples of wood-fired power plants that bum at least some
construction and demolition wood include: Hubbard Sand & Gravel, Inc., in Bayshore, New
York; Ultrapower Rocklin in Lincoln, California; and Ajax Energy Corporation in Ajax,
Ontario, Canada.
A nationwide wood waste research and testing program began in early 1991 funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Canadian Department of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Coalition of Northeastern Governors, New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, and a variety of state energy offices. The project is being conducted by
Environmental Risk Limited in Bloomfield, Connecticut and C.T. Donovan Associates Inc.
The purpose of the project is to identify the contents of air emissions and ash produced from
burning different types of wood waste. The project is expected to provide data for federal and
state regulators that will assist in their evaluation of this issue. In the meanwhile, regulators in
many states and provinces indicate that there is an absence of readily available data on these
issues. Many regulators operate under the "worst case
scenario" and assume that existing air permit conditions can not be met.
Emerging Markets
Landfill cover, composting, and manufacturing end use markets are just beginning to develop
and prices vary. According to Dufresne Henry, an engineering firm that has designed
composting facilities in Springfield, Vermont and Claremont, New Hampshire, neither facility
uses (or plans to use) wood from C/D waste. This is due to concern that non-wood materials
may be contained in the wood. Currently, the Springfield facility uses wood chips harvested
from forestry operations as a bulking agent. The Claremont facility uses ash from wood-fired
power plants in New Hampshire as a bulking agent.
Numerous solid waste management districts are investigating the potential of developing MSW
and/or sludge composting facilities in die future. If developed, these facilities could potentially
use wood waste as a bulking agent during the composting process.
107
-------
fibre Fuel Products. Inc. Case Study
Fibre Fuel Products, Inc. of Azuza, California has been a steady supplier of woodfuel processed
from the waste stream since 1983. Located twelve miles from downtown Los Angeles, Fibre
Fuels is nestled against the San Gabriel mountains adjacent to six major landfills serving the
greater Los Angeles basin.
"The proximity of a waste processing facility to the landfills was the key consideration in site
location," according to Fibre Fuels President Richard Clark. He notes that the Azuza-Irwindale
region also supplies about 90% of the sand and gravel to the Los Angeles basin. The excavation
has made the area a prime target for
landfilling, and thus recovery of wood from the waste stream.
With twenty employees and annual sales of roughly $3 million, Fibre Fuels churns out
approximately 110,000 tons per year of processed wood waste. Over 85% of their product is
destined for seven woodfuel power plants located in the central San Joaquin valley, some as far
as 200 miles away. The woodfuel is processed to be a consistently dry chip from between the
"size of your thumb" up to four inches in size. Smaller sized chips, called "fines", of less than
one-quarter inch make up the difference and are sold as fertilizer or soil amendment.
Fibre Fuels is situated on 10 acres that contain a 7200 square foot building (120 feet long) used
for wood processing and a smaller shed used for truck unloading. All of the processing
equipment was custom-built by Fibre Fuels. The equipment includes a shredder, conveyor line
with magnetic separation equipment, and picking and screening station. Due to the often arid
and windy conditions in southern California, the facility also uses an extensive dust control
system.
Commenting on his maverick approach to technology, Clark said he could not find reliable
equipment during his start-up years in the early 1980' s. Therefore, he was forced to innovate.
Since then Clark has likened his situation to the views of a popular UCLA basketball coach who,
to paraphrase, said, "...they didn't need to know the other team's techniques as long as they won
the games!"
Fibre Fuels accepts "any dry wood". However, the wood must arrive at the site relatively free
of metal, non-wood construction
debris, or toxic material. They do not accept, for example, wood treated with creosote or
copper napthalene. Although they visually inspect each load, Clark says he does not have to
police wood delivery. He has been in business long enough to develop a mutual understanding
with his wood haulers.
Processed woodfuel is sold for about $35 dollars per ton,
depending on distance and fuel quality. According to Clark, the economic ceiling for processed
wood waste used by most California wood energy plants is around $40 per ton. Fibre Fuel's
108
-------
dry fuel is typically mixed with wetter agricultural residue to provide an even moisture content
for the boilers they serve. Thus far, Fibre Fuel has experienced no major shortages in either
wood waste supply or in finding markets for their products.
CONCLUSION
There is substantial opportunity to increase the reuse and recycling of construction and
demolition waste in the U.S. and Canada. This will help decrease the amount of solid waste
needing to be disposed of in some way and will provide new sources of "raw" material and
consumer products.
The private sector is responding fairly quickly to C/D recycling opportunities. This is
particularly true for portions of the waste stream that already have a relatively high value in end
use markets.
However, given the emphasis on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling in many states and
provinces, it is important that federal, state, and provincial solid waste agencies assist public and
private entities in developing and financing certain types of recycling facilities. This could be
accomplished through a variety of techniques, such as tax incentives, reduced rate loans and
risk-sharing programs.
At least 17 state governments are encouraging recycling through a variety of tax incentives,
including income tax credits, sales tax exemptions and property tax exemptions. Experience in
other states may provide guidance for similar efforts in other locations in the future.
In Virginia, for example, individuals and corporations may receive an income tax credit worth
10% of the purchase price of any machi- nery and equipment used for processing recyclable
materials. The credit also applies to manufacturing plants that use recycling products.
The State of Florida offers a sales tax exemption on recycling machinery purchased after July
1, 1988. Tax incentives are also
offered to encourage affordable transportation of recycled goods from collection points to sites
for processing and disposal.
In Kentucky, property tax exemptions are offered to businesses and industries that recycle
materials, as an incentive for attracting recycling facilities to the state.
Presently, an important potential market for recycled C/D wood is for use as fuel. Despite this,
the processing of wood waste for fuel often does not qualify towards publicly mandated recycling
goals. Some energy and solid waste experts question whether this makes sense. It may be time
to revisit this issue and to develop a strategy that is more consistent with what real-world
markets are indicating the value of recycled wood really is.
109
-------
The C/D waste recycling industry is relatively new and involves a variety of innovative
approaches to waste processing and management. It should be expected as new and innovative
recycling facilities develop, that time and effort will be needed by planning and regulatory
agencies to determine how best to encourage, effectively monitor, and regulate the facilities.
In Vermont in 1990, for example, the regulatory agency responsible for reviewing a wood waste
processor's permit application was not sure how to review the mobile recycling unit. At the
time, there ere no guidelines or regulations specific to a mobile recycling unit. Because of this,
the guidelines were developed as the permit application was processed.
The mobile wood waste processor was also one of the first (if not the first) potential recycling
facilities in Vermont that intended to process C/D waste that includes both treated and untreated
wood.
After review and discussion with the Solid Waste Management Division, the permit given to the
processor did not allow the company to accept or process any treated wood. This includes wood
classified in Vermont as hazardous waste, such as railroad ties. It also includes non-hazardous
wood, such as plywood and particle board. These permit conditions substantially limit the
processor's opportunities for recycling wood from C/D waste.
Given the relatively large amount of wood waste generated by C/D activities that is currently
discarded in many areas, it is time for waste planners and regulators to review existing policies
and regulations to determine how effective and appropriate they are relative to C/D waste.
Ideally, the planning and regulatory process should encourage, not constrain, development of
economically viable and environmentally acceptable C/D waste recycling businesses.
Specific suggestions of initiatives and programs that could stimulate further reuse and recycling
of construction and demolition debris include:
Create financial incentives for investments in recycling facilities and for
individuals, businesses and industries that purchase and use recycled products.
These should include tax incentives, reduced rate loans and risk sharing
programs.
In consultation with agencies effected by this, establish specific goals for the
purchase and use of recycled materials by public agencies. An example is
establishing a goal for the percentage of asphalt waste that should be recycled and
use by public transportation agencies for paving projects.
Develop waste exchanges for a variety of commercial and industrial wastes,
including construction and demolition debris.
Encourage, or mandate, local government and private paving companies to
increase the crushing and recycling of waste asphalt and concrete for use in
110
-------
paving projects.
Encourage the use of processed wood waste as a bulking agent in future MSW
and sludge composting projects.
Stay up-to-date on research concerning the contents of wood waste, especially
wood recycled from treated wood. Review and change state policies and
regulations regarding the processing and use of treated wood waste, if they
become out-of-date.
Review the criteria used for determining whether a recycled material, such as
processed wood waste used for fuel, counts towards publicly mandated recycling
goals.
Monitor the efficiency and overall effectiveness of the permitting process for C/D
waste recycling facilities. This should include monitoring the permitting of
disposal facilities for materials that can not be recycled and for other residuals.
It is essential that individuals and businesses that invest in the first facilities are
satisfied with the permitting process and that they are able to provide words of
encouragement for future potential recyclers.
-------
COSTS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - 1986, 1991 AND 1996
Harvey W. Gershman, President
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Falls Church, VA
Introduction
Many factors affect the real costs for solid waste management. In order to understand what they
used to be, currently are, and forecast what they will be, one must understand many factors that
go into the solid waste management cost equation.
Currently, citizens tend to look at solid waste management as a simple service for which we
either get for "free" or pay a "fee". However, the fee which waste generators pay their hauler,
or municipality may not include all the costs associated with storage, collection through disposal.
There are many reasons for this. Historically, local governments initiated waste management
systems to protect the public health. The costs were paid out of tax revenue. However, as
changing regulations were implemented to protect air, water, and land use, greater levels of
funding have become necessary. In many cases, this is more than local government can afford
to pay for out of its tax supported revenues. Additionally, fees paid in the past were not sized
to pay for closing old landfills to meet current requirements or to maintain them in the future.
We have realized that waste recovery and recycling can be preferable alternatives to disposal of
these wastes. However, there is no free lunch. The markets for the recovered products
(materials and energy) and their value over time are primarily a function of global, national, and
to a lesser extent regional economics. Macro economic factors do impact solid waste
management and continue to be in flux as we build out a national recycling infrastructure.
This presentation will review the cost elements for solid waste management, covering storage,
collection, transfer, processing/marketing for recyclables and yard waste, solid waste
composting, waste-to-energy, and landfilling, as they were in 1986, are today in 1991 and are
projected to be in 1996. The projection assumes that RCRA reauthorization is passed by
Congress, Clean Air Act requirements and regulations promulgated by EPA for landfills is put
in place by 1996. In so doing, the presentation will comment on the performance that can be
expected from the various methods and technologies being applied in today's integrated solid
waste management system. I will summarize by saying that communities should plan/implement
their capacity now, all at once, and regionally, if possible, if they want to have some control as
to where their costs will be going.
113
-------
Factors Which Affect Cost
There are several definitions and cost philosophies that first need to be reviewed:
• "System" means generation through disposal. The cost for the solid waste management
system is often not accounted for in the "Tipping Fee", i.e., the charge at a gate for
getting into one facility in the system.
• "Revenues" do not equal "Profit". Pictures of public officials getting checks for sale of
a recyclable presents an incomplete picture of profit. The cost to collect/process/market
the product needs to be included.
• The public sector amortizes, i.e., takes a part of the capital cost as an expense while the
private sector depreciates capital invested on its IRS tax filings according to a prescribed
schedule. Both serve to conserve cash by expensing the use of the asset over its useful
life. The expense doesn't really occur, but hopefully, the funds are set aside. Generally,
the expense helps build reserve funds in the public sector and improve cash flow in the
private sector.
• "Enterprise Accounting" - All revenues and costs go to a cost center. Revenues don't
go to the General Fund, debt service isn't paid for by Finance, benefits by Personnel,
or fuel by Transportation Department, etc., which is often the case when solid waste is
part of a municipality's operation - this has been evolutionary. Future post-closure costs
and sinking funds are established in enterprise accounting, and it is possible to tell the
cost for solid waste service and charge for it - by the ton, by the household, by the
business address, etc. Enterprise Accounting methods take us closer to full cost
accounting.
• "Risk Reward" — Assigning risk to a private party costs money; if it doesn't, and the
risk not paid for happens and the private party is responsible, your private contractor will
reduce the level of service and/or go out of business.
• "Force Majeure/Uncontrollable Circumstances" — Events that are beyond control of
anybody. The service recipient pays for this either now or later. Strikes, hurricanes,
hazardous waste are among events commonly targeted.
• "Avoided Costs" - Only happens when you purchase service on a unit basis, or you can
reduce your own costs as waste quantity decreases. This is widely misunderstood.
The population and demographics present affect cost - the larger the population, the more that
have to be served. Absolute cost, the total amount of money expended, is greater in the City
of Chicago than certainly in the City of Gary. However, the per ton or per household costs are
something else. Consumer purchasing trends affect trash generation. Consumer purchasing
trends are affected by the socio-economic characteristics of an area. The cost of trash collection
114
-------
(not necessarily disposal) is greater in rural areas than in a typical 1/4 acre suburban subdivision.
Apartment buildings have numerous configurations (tenement, garden, high-rise) requiring
different types of collection systems and specialized recycling programs. The mix of
commercial/industrial/institutional residents also affect cost. Commercial waste and the amount
of recyclables in it wall go up and down with economy.
Laws and Regulations affect costs in a big way. The landfill that was an open dump, first went
to daily cover, then natural liners and now to synthetic liners to protect groundwater — all has
increased cost. Worse yet, the inability to site a new landfill has required purchasing out-of-
jurisdictional disposal capacity. In some cases, the tip fee changes appear to reflect market
pricing. The Tax Laws, prior to 1986 Tax Reform Act, were favorable toward pollution control
and energy investments. Tax-exempt financings, investment tax credits, and accelerated
depreciation, encouraged privatization of solid waste facilities/services especially waste-to-
energy. Current tax law is not as favorable, adding perhaps $10 per ton to financing and
ownership costs. At one time, the tax benefits of ownership allowed for 20-25% of installed
capital cost to be contributed with contractor equity, now its tough to get even 10%. This drives
financings to be publicly owned, and in so doing long-term service contracting can be limited
to 5 years. So, if you want to buy technology: MRFs, solid waste composting, waste-to-
energy, or landfills with long-term contracting in order to shift performance risk to the private
sector, i.e., privatization, this can only be obtained with private ownership structures, which cost
more.
Air pollution protection measures from both mobile and stationary sources affect cost. Increased
traffic patterns may require added road improvements. Adding "Best Available Control
Technology" to waste-to-energy facilities and complying to new Clean Air Act Amendments
have and will add $10 to $30 per ton to service fee charges.
State recycling laws and public pressure have caused a landslide of adding drop-off centers and
separate curbside collections for recyclables — perhaps 2 or 3 extra collections per week. This
adds more cost to the system for both the collection and processing/marketing services. Costs
are further impacted if new recycling requirements take away waste/recyclables from facilities,
waste-to-energy and/or landfills, sized prior to these new recycling legal/regulatory
requirements.
The manner in which collection of waste and recyclables is controlled affect cost significantly.
The more control on the collection, the less the cost because there are greater opportunities for
efficiency in delivering the service. In "open" market collection systems, there can be unlimited
haulers to choose from. Their fees have to be high to support being in competition with each
other for the same business. In residential settings, we have seen this to be twice as expensive
than in a more controlled situation, e.g., with contract collection. Having control of the waste
or recyclables is important if your jurisdiction wants to have facilities/services it provides
supported with the flows present. If control isn't achieved and tonnages go down, revenues
(usually collected on a per ton or per household basis) will not be adequate to cover costs.
Economic control works, too. If a region has a competitive tipping fee everywhere, or zero
lib
-------
tipping fee - the waste generally stays in the area. (It is easier to enforce keeping waste
recyclables out than it is to enforce keeping waste/recyclables in a jurisdiction/ region.) In this
situation, tipping fee revenues must come directly from generators or the jurisdictions
participating in the regional system.
The sale of marketable products, materials and energy products, has become an increasingly
important element of system cost. Various factors come into play in determining the
marketability of a product and its "net" value to the solid waste management system. For
example, a steam customer who uses coal for fuel will not pay as much as one using oil or
natural gas. Quantity and quality are important factors in securing and selling to a market,
especially for material products. As recyclables flood the market, the higher quality products
will hold onto their customers, as the lower quality products get pushed aside. Since markets
in essence become part of the solid waste management system, securing long-term contracts for
the purchase of products would give a solid waste system more comfort if it were from stable,
significant, and long-term suppliers. For reference, a listing of products that can be recovered
from solid waste and their respective values is provided in Exhibit 1.
Political cooperation affects costs both positively and negatively. If you need state legislation
for establishing an authority, granting waste flow control, or preserving a tax-exempt bond
allocation, hopefully, your elected officials have good relationships at the State level. The
conflicts between cities and counties are classic. However, there are such compelling arguments
for cooperation in siting, capacity planning and administering that parochial differences need to
be set aside. Regional authorities, although adding an administrative layer, can offer much
greater savings due to economies of scale, centralized management, and faster decision making
since their management is more sheltered from the typical two-year election cycle than are
municipal officials.
Selecting a site for any solid waste facility public input, takes time, sophisticated analysis and
cost money. Adding onto existing solid waste facilities may offer the least resistance. NIMBY
and NIMTOO's cause delay, no siting, out-of-jurisdiction disposal, and use up valuable in-
jurisdiction space. The bottom line is that costs are increased. When starting a siting process,
there must be a commitment to site IMTOO (In My Term of Office)! The host community often
requires special funding in lieu of taxes, especially for public-benefit type facilities. This can
be $1 to $5 per ton and can be significant to a small town if the facility serves a large
population.
Three (3) procurement methods are commonly applied to solid waste management: the A/E,
turnkey and full service approaches. The more complex the technology and its operation,
including marketing of products, the more often full service contracting should be selected.
There are many examples of A/E or turnkey procurements that have gone astray because the-
design didn't work, and the owners (the public) weren't able/willing to deal with it. When
technology doesn't work, cost go up. If a plant that cost $5 or $50 million gets built
mechanically correct but doesn't perform the intended functions, should the public pay off debt
service? Who pays for higher processing/disposal costs while that plant is getting fixed? Who
116
-------
pays for the fixes? Say the plant works fine for 2 years, then suddenly doesn't. What do you
do? These are risks. To get someone to take these risks, costs money. If a contractor takes
risk, make sure the contractor has resources to back its operation — either a parent company,
a letter of credit, or a sinking fund - otherwise, don't saddle him up with risk.
The adage "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" cannot apply in solid waste management today
because we need both borrowers and lenders since capital costs are more significant than in the
past. The "pay as you go" days may be referred to as the "good ole days". General obligation
financing for capital requirement is least expensive if the debt capacity exists. Project financing
gets around the debt limit, if you can dedicate a flow of revenues from electricity/steam sales,
user fees, or "put of pay" provisions. However, materials and compost revenues are not counted
since too uncertain, no track record, and thus not "bankable". There are nuances you wouldn't
believe in financing. For example, a letters of credit can allow for a variable rate financing with
very low interest rates on the bonds — but the paperwork is very demanding.
Hidden costs or "surprises" cause havoc when they hit your system. A force majeure event can
cause out-of-jurisdiction hauling-disposal, a bad economy coupled with recycling requirements
can reduce your tonnages and put you below "put-or-pay" obligations, and a change in the waste
stream's assay due to consumerism, product bans, or deposit legislation can give you less
revenue to offset costs. The availability and cost of the next landfill is a big hidden cost - its
location equally as critical as the regulations it has to be designed for. Closing landfills cost
money, too, adding to the capital burden landfill owners or inheritors face. The availability and
cost of the next landfill is a big hidden cost. The jurisdiction should be more concerned where
the location of the next landfill will be.
Changes in Cost
Costs have changed over-the years. Let's start from 1986 and try to look into the future. First,
remember, costs do not necessarily equal tipping fees. NSWMA has been doing a tipping fee
survey of private landfills nationwide to see what the charge is at the door to tip. See Exhibit
2. The costs in 1986 were less than $10 to $20 per ton. Then, most facilities were probably
in the same jurisdiction where waste was generated. In 1988, NSWMA found a dramatic rise
in the northeast U.S. due to stricter regulations on landfills and probably some "market"
pricings. The range increased to less than $10 to greater than $60 per ton. In 1990, costs
continue to show increase as the regulatory effect on landfills cause closures and improved
designs. .The cost range now goes from $11 to $65 per ton. Many regions are still "enjoying"
cheap landfill-based disposal, using natural liners. There, costs are below $20 per ton.
In order to see what facilities/services have been and will be part of your solid waste
management system, various sources were surveyed, to provide their data at filling out a matrix
of different types of installations in place in 1986, 1991 and in 1996. Exhibit 3 presents this
data, shows that curbside collections, MRFs, and yard waste composting have proliferated.
Meanwhile, the number of waste-to-energy facilities have leveled off while the number of
landfills appear to have shrunk. Solid waste composting facilities also show an increase, with
117
-------
a significant jump to 60 facilities in 1996 projected by the Solid Waste Compost Council. No
data was found on transfer stations, but intuitively the number must have increased.
The data in Exhibit 3 has helped determine what facilities/services would be in the different
1986,1991 and 1996 systems. For each of these years, a "base" system has been selected along
with an alternate. The "alternate" system represents what is in place in that year in a significant
number of locations. A diagram depicts the system for each year. "Alternate" elements are
shown in dashed boxes. The costs for each function cost is presented along with a factor which
represents the portion of the waste stream that applies to the particular function. The cost matrix
includes a column for the "base" system, i.e., the one which was most typical, and a column
for the alternate system are included, i.e., the one which was less typical. The alternate
system's cost and factor are shown in boxes. Cost data used is based upon generic analysis GBB
commonly uses from its data base of costs on solid waste facilities/services.
Exhibit 4 shows the likely solid waste system in 1986. It minimally had collection and a
landfill. It may have also had a transfer station or waste-to-energy facility. The cost matrix for
1986 is shown in Exhibit 5. The costs total up to $65^* per ton for the "base" system to $88,,,
per ton for the alternate system.
In 1991, the system changes as shown in Exhibit 6. In 1991, many communities have added
separate curbside collection of recyclables, yard waste, processing/composting, and a materials
recycling facility to their system. Also, the 1991 system may include a waste-to-energy facility,
while a few may have implemented solid waste composting facilities as well. In 1991, the
effects of greater regulations on landfill designs are also making landfill costs rise in many
states. Furthermore, in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, mid-West, and the West, waste is starting
to be transferred to distant landfills. As shown in Exhibit 7, the costs have risen in the base
system to $94,^ per ton and $156^ per ton for the alternative system.
Exhibit 8 depicts the integrated solid waste management system of the future. In 1996, many
more separate collections of recyclables and yard waste, coupled with more efficient and
redesigned trash collection systems, widespread installation of materials recovery facilities. The
waste stream has become very fractionalized, several separate collections, but with mixed waste
processing/composting and waste-to-energy still in the alternate system. Wet/dry collections may
then be part of some systems interested to expand the supply for compostables. Moreover,
waste-to-energy facilities, already in operation, are projected to require retrofit, if not already
meeting advanced pollution control emissions standards. Additionally, more extensive
commercial recycling efforts are also projected in places where disposal capacity is not available
within a community and transfer of waste to a distant landfill is required. The costs for 1996
are shown in Exhibit 9. The base system is up to $146^ per ton and the alternate up to $195,,,
per ton.
*Mid-point(mp) values of the range shown in the cost exhibits are presented in the text which
follows.
118
-------
A summary of the costs for 19.86, 1991, and 1996 are shown in Exhibit 10. The costs start at
$65., per ton in 1986 and rise to $146.,, per ton in 1996 for the base systems. The alternate
systems range from $88^ per ton in 1986 to $195^ per ton in 1996. On a per household per
month basis, the cost goes from $7.65,^ per month in 1986 to $17.39^ per month in 1996, i.e.,
a cost closer to the base fee for cable TV service.
Summary
A community should approach implementing its future solid waste management system
comprehensively, not in a piecemeal fashion. Communities should plan for providing capacity
to collect, process, recover, and market the various products that make sense while still
providing for reliable disposal capacity, preferably, within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Collection of waste and recyclables needs.to be made very efficient and controlled to a greater
extent to assure that waste and recyclables go to where capacity has been provided for.
Communities should keep abreast of emerging trends in collection that could result in cost
savings. Enterprise accounting and regional solid waste management should be pursued. This
will enhance achieving economies of scale and the marketing of products. The private sector
should play a major role in providing services for the necessary facilities and/or services that
local governments and regional authorities will require. In so doing, local governments will
need to apply skilled management resources to procure, negotiate, develop and oversee as these
facilities and services get implemented. Governments (and regions) which implement long-term
capacity for processing/ disposal within their boundaries will enjoy lower costs generally than
those which rely on processing/disposal capacity outside its jurisdiction. There are many
challenges ahead for local governments in implementing cost efficient and comprehensive solid
waste management systems, especially in siting the necessary facilities.
119
-------
EXHIBIT LIST
Solid Waste Products and Values Exhibit 1
Average Tip Fee by Region Exhibit 2
The Changing Numbers of U.S. Waste Management
Facilities/Services Exhibit 3
The 1986 Solid Waste Management System Exhibit 4
Costs ... 1986 Exhibit 5
The 1991 Solid Waste Management System Exhibit 6
Costs ... 1991 Exhibit 7
The 1996 Solid Waste Management System Exhibit 8
Costs... 1996 Exhibit 9
Costs ... Summary (System: Collection through Disposal) Exhibit 10
About the Speaker
HARVEY W. GERSHMAN (President; B.S., 1971, Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern
University): Mr. Gershman has been active in the solid waste management field as an adviser
to government and industry for more than 19 years. Since he co-founded GBB in 1980, he has
managed market studies, feasibility analyses, contracts development and negotiations, contractor
procurements, and project financing activities. Mr. Gershman has been an adviser in
successfully implemented projects representing 5,275 TPD of installed capacity, and has been
instrumental in designing and conducting training and technical assistance programs for such
organizations as the National Center for Resource Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U.S. Department of Energy. Recently, Mr. Gershman has been elected to the
International Board of Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and the Board of
Directors for the National Recycling Coalition (NRC).
About GBB
GBB is a national consulting firm that specializes exclusively in solid waste management.
Headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, with regional offices in Minnesota and Pennsylvania,
we offer services in all aspects of solid waste, including full-service planning and procurement
for resource recovery facilities; planning, design, and implementation of recycling systems;
design of solid waste collection and transportation systems; planning of state-of-the-art
environmentally sound landfill operations; and facilities construction and operations monitoring.
Over the past 11 years, GBB has prepared more than 100 comprehensive solid waste
management plans and feasibility studies leading to the successful implementation of several
modern waste processing, disposal, and recycling systems.
With a staff of over 50 professionals consisting of engineers, economists, environmental
scientists, market analysts, computer scientists, and recycling and community relations specialists
- we can easily assemble project teams to assist communities with all types of solid waste
management projects. GBB has helped numerous communities across the nation identify their
120
-------
waste management needs and develop and implement progressive solutions to those problems.
Our strategies are action-oriented and GBB has been instrumental in the successful start-up and
operation of several modem waste processing, disposal, and recycling systems. The combination
of competent staff, extensive project experience, and a national outlook, enables GBB to develop
solid waste management alternatives from concept to reality.
121
-------
Exhibit 1
Solid Waste Products and Values
Energy
Electricity
Steam
Quantify or
% of Waste Stream
350-500 kWh per ton
5,000 - 6,000 Ibs.
Recyclables
Ferrous metal
Aluminum cans
Newspaper
Other paper
OCC (Corrugated)
Glass
Plastic
Yard waste compost
Textiles
2-4
0.3 - 0.5
6-10
25-35
5-10
3-6
0.5-2
5-10
0.5-2
Value ($/ton)
8.75 - 30 @ $.025 to .06
per kilowatt-hour (kWh)
20 - 48 @ $4.00 to $8.00
steam per ton per 1000
pounds of steam
$0 - $60
$300-$1000
$(15) - $20
$(15) - $100
$15 - $20
$0 - $50
$0-$180
$0-$10
$100 - $200
GBB
-------
ExhiMt 2
Average Tip Fee by Region
Region 1986
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
South
Mid-West
West Central
South Central
West
17.57
21.41
11.86
11.75
6.21
8.71
11.10
1988
61.11
33.84
16.46
17.70
8.50
11.28
19.45
1990
64.79
40.75
16.92
23.15
11.06
12.50
25.63
Source: Waste Age, December 1991.
GBB
-------
Exhibits
The Changing Numbers of U.S. Waste
Management Facilities/Services
November 1991
Year Curbslde Transfer
Collection of Stations
Recyclables and/
or Yard Waste
1986
1988
1990
1991
1996
400(2)
1,0000)
2,700 G)
3,000-3,600(2)
-
Materials
Recovery
Facilities
-
©19(3)
92(3)
-
-
Yard Waste
Composting
-
700(3)
1,407(3)
-
-
Waste-to-
Energy
23(5)
136 (3)
164 (3)
169 (5)
-
Solid Waste/
Composting
2(1)
6(3)
13(3)
19(1)
60(1)
Landfills
6,034(4)
7,924 (3)
6,326(3)
-
-
- Indicates no data found.
Sources: (1) SWCC, (2) NSWMA, (3) BioCycle,
(4) University of PA, (5) GBB
-------
Exhibit 4
The 1986 Solid Waste Management System
Consun
Genera
xSSSS^JmfcS!
Reus
-I-1
Source Separated
Waste
I
MRFs
Redemptions
C & D
Scrap Proc.
Drop Offs
I
iers « %
tors
-------
Exhibit 5
Costs... 1986
(1986 $ per ton)
Function
Cost
Collection
Solid Waste
Transfer Station
Waste-to-Energy
Landfill
TOTALS
31-70
[lo]
HI
15
Factor
1.0
o,[To1
Oj 0.75 |
1.0,[0.25j
Base
System
31-70
-
-
15
46-85
Alternate
System
31-70
10
23.25
3.75
68-107
to
en
GBB
-------
Exhibit 6
The 1991 Solid Waste Management System
Waste
I
Consumers « |
Generators "* |
1
-*^*«f*fes|»' 1
Reuse
1 r | ' i r
Retailers
Wholesalers
Commercial
)arated _ Mixed
B Solid Waste
_i
m
V
m
1
Product
Manufacturers
A A ,
1
^>
.^«,
k
Raw Material
Energy
Suppliers
4 Virgin
* Resources
i MRFs
I
to
i DropOHs
VVasta-
. i. 1
i rrocflssmgr i
i Cornpostifio i
•
*
rp
Landfill(s)
• MSW
• Monofils - Ash
• Hazardous Waste
1
Intermediate
Processors/
Brokers
solid waste/residue
for landfill disposal
solid waste/product flows to
processing/markets/consumers
opportunities for
source reduction
GBB
-------
Exhibit 7
Costs ... 1991
(1991 $ per ton)
Function Cost Factor Base Alternate
System System
Collection
Solid Waste
Recyclables
Yard Waste
Transfer Station
MRF
Yard Waste Composting
WTE/Solid Waste Composting
Landfill
TOTAL
40-90 1.0,1-0* 40-90 40-90
133 0, .15
67 o|Tl5
i - 20
i - 10
[ 1
-------
Exhibits
The 1996 Solid Waste Management System
Source Sepa
Waste
i
Mnrl •,-,-« fmfim
•1_j__i_li___ afiiw ww
HMenipuons Umtuhr
O MA t\ f-HJJUI-furtfU* «»*n»W"
L» Of U lXMIflU9Uil|| SDftd
Scrap PtXKX &JMrCr
Drop Oils **"*
1
^ ? *. ^ r
/
A i
Landfill(s)
Consumers ^ %
Generators ^ %
%
Reuse
^>T-*
Retailers
Wholesalers
Commercial
rated 0 $**? t
Solid Waste
t ir
ratortteankxaVVtoto i ? i
ildHminfc)u»W«st« | Processing^ ' i
, . u
1
1 4
•MSW
• Monofis-Aah
• Hazardous Waste
_*___
Wast*-
11
i r
J
__i
J
1
Product
Manufacturers
t '
^
.,
.
t flows to
/consumers
source reduction
era
-------
Exhibit 9
Costs ... 1996
(1996 $ per ton)
Collection
Solid Waste
Recyclables
Yard Waste
Transfer Station
MRF
Yard Waste Composting
WTE/Solid Waste Composting
Landfill
TOTAL
Function Cost Fact
70-121 0.7
160 0.1!
80 0.1!
30 0, 1.
35 0.1!
35 0.1!
1 79-103 0,|0.
47 0.7, (
or Base Alternate
System System
. 49-85 49-85
5 24 24
> 12 12
0] - 30
> 5.25 3J5
? 5.25 3-75
?] - 39.50-51.50
).2 32.90 9.40
128.40 - 164.40 171.40 - 219.40
-------
Exhibit 10
Costs... Summary
(System: Collection through Disposal)
1986
$ per ton
$ per household*
$ per household per
month
46 - 107
55.20-128.40
4.60 - 10.70
1991
59 - 194
70.80 - 232.80
5.90 - 19.40
1996
128.40 - 219.40
154.08 - 263.28
12.84-21.94
* Assumes 1.2 tons per household.
GBB
-------
DEVELOPING A SOLID WASTE FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
Thomas Kustercr
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection
Rockville, Maryland
Richard Dimont
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection
Rockville, Maryland
Introduction
The cost effectiveness of any municipal solid waste management plan and its component
elements has to be of paramount concern. In order to support, and even direct choices in such
a system, there has to be a workable solid waste financial information system that serves as a
sound basis for management choices. Montgomery County, Maryland (Fig. 1) is developing a
financial information system to enhance available information for its solid waste management
fund. The fund has generated approximately $40,000,000 to $60,000,000 in annual revenues
over the past few years. Revenues primarily stem from a disposal tip fee and support all solid
waste management activities. Both expansion of existing and planned activities have created
more demand on the fund.
This paper discusses Montgomery County's efforts to establish a solid waste financial
information system, with cost effectiveness its primary underpinning. The system is primarily
a set of spread sheets that are easily developed on a personal computer. The county's system
relies on hard data such as tonnage figures from its transfer station and residential recycling
tonnages from its materials recovery facility, as well as available data on cost estimates and
waste composition. While the county's plan includes waste to energy and municipal landfilling
components, the system's focus is the implementation of the county's 40% recycling goal by the
year 2000. The information system relies heavily upon
• cost analysis, particularly unit costs
• generator specific data
• available applicable data
• customer oriented demand analysis
133
-------
«A» .Xrt
Figure 1.
9 . f3
Montgomery County, Maryland shown in the shaded area. The District of
Columbia is shown at the southeastern edge of the county.
134
-------
This quantitative approach also provides a facile basis for sensitivity analyses that assess program
activities and the revenues needed to sustain them.
Background
Probably no phrase in die recent past typifies governmental approaches to trash and what to do
with it more than the phrase 'integrated waste management' Combining ways to handle discrete
elements in the waste stream is the focus of this philosophy, with source reduction, recycling,
waste-to-energy, and landfilling its key components. All components have been demonstrated
to work satisfactorily. The challenge for any entity using this philosophy then is not so much
what components to choose, but in what proportions to use the components.
All should receive consideration in planning and factors such as jurisdictional size, population
density, environmental concerns, waste projections and political sensitivities help fashion the
ultimate outcome of proposed waste management solutions. Perhaps most importantly, however,
the issues of cost, cost analyses and cost effectiveness should drive choice selection in managing
waste.
Recycling, for example, is a politically correct method for managing wastes, with benefits accruing
to disposal methods (1). Recycling saves landfill space, and in areas such as the northeastern
United States, where available landfill space is limited, this avoidance can measurably extend a
landfill's expected life. But even with the avoided cost of landfilling. recycling revenues are
generally limited and recycling may not provide optimal revenue and cost allocation (2). It is also
possible that customers in a waste disposal service may not realize any economic relief from
increased recycling. For example, the state of Delaware— among others—added a recycling charge
to its landfill tip fee. The charge provides funds to assure that recycling costs are recovered.
The basis for choosing among various management options then has to be rooted in cost, and has
to be cost rooted in a business sense. Perspectives must be from a long term approach. While the
mission of a government cannot be that of a business—to maximize profit—it can adopt an
approach to maximize long term cost effectiveness. Costs for a preferred alternative should equal
or be less than the next possible alternative. These kinds of cost decisions can also be part of a
marginal analysis approach—will customers pay more for a certain service, and if so, by how
much? Long range planning also allows governments greater flexibility. Recycling programs can
endure short run avoidable costs that may not seem cost effective if predicted long term avoidable
costs suggest they will be cost effective.
This approach also suggests a level playing field, with no hierarchy of choices. Intuitively, source
reduction and recycling should top the list. Obviously, occurrences where there is less waste to
135
-------
manage are attractive outlets. These, however, do not indicate why such occurrences arose nor what
the cost implications are.
Similarly, these factors suggest decentralization of the trash market place, with no indication that
service providers can control at least some market forces. For example, data suggest that almost
50% of nearly all U.S. cities provided principle trash collection 20 years ago. Now, estimates
suggest that as much as 80% of the refuse collected nationwide is through privately held companies
(3). Government must determine its proper role in terms of collection, processing and marketing
its waste stream materials so that efficiency of costs are realized.
Centralising economic factors then requires a fairly sound understanding of demand, customer
preferences and needs, generation rates, amount and availability of discrete waste elements, as well
as the potential fate of these waste elements. Simply put, in order to plan a cost effective and
efficient solid waste management system, it is necessary to have basic and adequate information.
Cost Analysis
The information system, which in effect is a solid waste management business plan, should be
customer oriented. To learn the most about customers, one recommended approach is to orient
information gathering at a generator level. Data should be tracked by generator type and material
type. Reliance on generation and composition provides a more detailed analysis of institutional
commercial and industrial sectors by generator type. It also provides an easy distinction betw^v
single family residential and multi family residential waste streams. An information system based
on generation and composition data can measure all waste management options by cost comparison,
provide solid rationales for tip fees and wastes for which to change fees, assist in deciding whether
to privatize waste management programs, and create a system with the rich potential to allow
sensitivity analyses for decision elements. Source specific information is a key to understanding the
waste stream. This information system advocates use of available data, but also stresses the need
to know specifically where wastes originate, their elements and their constituents. The cost/benefit
potential of these efforts should yield a significant return.
Program costs should be fairly discernible. That is, elements for curbside recycling, landfllling, and
multi-family recycling—to name a few programs— include identifiable costs for contractual
services, equipment costs, administrative costs, labor costs and perhaps capital costs, all of which
are set by die market. Costs can be set for a base year, assuming a certain level of attainable or
desired service (e.g., having a target goal of 15% residential recycling). Existing estimates can well
serve as surrogates for costs of programs. As an example, curbside recycling estimates of
approximately $40 per household per year for collection and approximately $10 per household per
year for processing recyclables are found in the literature (4,5). These estimates are very close to
Montgomery County's actual incurred costs for providing weekly curb-side collection to each of the
County's 200,000 plus single family dwellings and the anticipated operating expenses at the county's
136
-------
recently opened materials recovery facility. Capital costs for a materials processing facility can
range from about $200 to $225 per square foot Additional operating costs, if any, (e.g., salaries,
overhead) should easily be established
Fairly accurate estimates of the cost per ton for curbside recycling then can be generated by dividing
annual curbside tonnages that are assumed capturable by the aggregated collection, processing,
amortized capital, and other operating expenses. These costs should be net of any anticipated
revenues from marketing the recyclables. Costs per ton should be derived from available data.
Continuing the example of curbside recycling, recycling tonnages can be gauged from hauler
records, scale house records at processing facilities, or subtracting residential tonnage disposed from
residential tonnage generated (assuming flow control) from demographically similar jurisdictions.
Percent recycling goals multiplied by the total residential waste generated should also yield a useful
approximation of tonnages to be captured. These kinds of exercises can be conducted for any
existing or proposed solid waste management program.
It becomes a fairly straightforward exercise to project costs for a number of years to determine
efficiency of the program, and whether short run costs dampen so that long run costs look more
attractive. It is critically important to assess short run versus long run costs in assessing whether
to begin or increase any waste management program. This approach allows establishment of a long
run average cost It also allows planning for establishing an economy of scale.
These baseline data then also serve as a pro-forma statement for projecting future costs and revenues
dependent on levels of desirable services. Similarly, a pro-forma approach can provide information
about estimates for specific line items within the revenue and cost categories. A shortcut to
projecting costs consists of determining program costs as a percentage of current revenues or
allocated funds and projecting future costs as this percentage of anticipated future revenues or fund
allocations. While this is a quick method, its principle flaw is that program costs are assumed to
vary with generated revenue, and can then overestimate costs, some of which are fixed. The method
does, however, provide a quick and conservative way of forecasting.
Table 1 suggests a template for a pro-forma statement Line items can be tailored to specific
program activities, either planned or existing. Operating expenses can be projected through a
percent of projected revenue basis or through an inflation basis. A key input for developing these
kinds of projections is the allocation of anticipated funding or revenues for solid waste activities.
If revenues are based on tip fees, it is a relatively straightforward exercise to calculate revenues
based on waste projections and the expected tip fee. For government programs based on
appropriation of general funds, there is an historical basis for projections. There are several
sophisticated forecasting techniques, but this level of detail is unnecessary.
While adequate data is a necessity for planning efficient and effective solid waste management
programs, it is not necessary to have data whose accuracy exceeds other program planning
parameters of the program development process (6).
Revenue/funding projections also link back to the need for understanding the composition of waste
137
-------
and waste generation rates. Some assessment of a community's waste stream is needed to
understand what waste elements occur and who are the sources of these wastes in the st
Forecasting also provides an estimate of whether maintaining a market position in a waste stream
element is desirable. For example, predictions about costs, cash flow and return on investment are
necessary to determine if it is worth starting a mixed paper recycling program.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between forecast residential commingled and old newspaper
tonnages and the county's capacity to handle such materials at its material processing facility. The
two lower curves show the relationship between the capacity under current operation and recyclables
captured using current rates, with adjustments for future total tonnage increases. Under these
assumptions, capacity would not be approached until 1998, when estimates suggest the county's
waste stream will include about 500,000 tons of residential waste. The two upper curves show
plant capacity and predicted maximum tonnages of commingled and old newspaper in the
waste stream. Maximum availability already exceeds mprimnm capacity. This kind of forecasting
analysis helps to determine if efforts should increase to boost curbside recycling, if it is
economically worthwhile to expand plant capacity and whether it makes sense to include some
amount of commercial recycling to reach some optimum economy of operating scale.
Waste Composition Analysis
More than cost information is necessary to develop these kinds of decision models. There mnnahr
basic data available about the composition of the waste stream and rates of generation for dis^K
producer elements, such as single family generation rates, multi-family generation rates, and
commercial generation rates. Within the last element, it's especially helpful to have generation rates
by industry type or standard industrial code classifications. These rates can provide delineation
about what businesses and what waste materials can be most efficiently targeted for individual waste
management programs.
Basic alternatives for developing composition and generation data consist of a do-it-yourself
approach or reliance on existing data for extrapolation. The do-it-yourself approach is more
accurate. It also allows delineation of specific waste types in the stream, since son sampling can
be structured the way the sponsoring community or business wants. Downside features to this
approach include relatively high costs to conduct the study, arranging logistics for the actual tip and
sort, and time. Typically, a four season tip and sort is necessary to provide statistically meaningful
data for interpreting the waste stream. Other limitations include a lack of differentiation among
generators (e.g., single-family versus multi-family residential) and generation rates; what types of
businesses are best able to implement recycling programs; and, what waste importation or
exportation is occurring in a jurisdiction.
While the alternative of using non-community specific data also has limitations—imprecision
associated with similar, but not site-specific data, and inapplicability of some assumptions in other
characterization studies—it has the decided advantages of being quicker and cheaper.
138
-------
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest residential municipal waste composition may be
comparable for communities with similar economic, demographic and size traits (7). Table 2
illustrates a comparison of residential waste composition among four disparate jurisdictions. All
have somewhat similar demographic features. Additionally, all have fairly similar proportions in
the composition of their elements. Reliance on existing data such as these for extrapolation enables
a community to avoid conducting its own field study. Montgomery County relied on other
jurisdictional data for its 1990 composition assessment Montgomery County had conducted earlier
studies in 1982 and 1986.
There is also the advantage for access to a large data base derived from other studies mat may
reduce the probability of large errors based on comparable studies. Desktop analyses can also afford
verification methods—information from local haulers, aggregate tonnages from landfills and
processing facilities, and hard data about community population and economic characteristics, all
at an economy less than that required for a community specific tip and sort
Data from other waste stream characterizations can also be assessed statistically (e.g., Student's t-
test) to measure suitability for adaptation.
Demand Analysis
Customers paying for waste management services in effect pay for some ultimate outcome of how
their waste is managed. Demand analysis should measure the price a customer will pay for a
particular waste management service or service at a particular level. To determine this, estimates
are necessary for projected
• total tonnages
• achievable recycling tonnages
• allocated funds/revenues from fees
• program costs
These components are already estimated as part of the cost analysis and composition work.
The basic law of demand states that as the price of a good or service increases, demand for that
good or service decreases. There is a negative relationship between the two marginal parameters
assuming non-price determinants stay the same.
Intrinsic to the concept of recycling is its potentially favorable effect on one or more individuals,
shifting disposal costs charged by haulers. Recycling participants in effect should reduce disposal
charges for all community members, since there is less total disposable waste.
Thus, collectors have reduced volumes, on the whole, to collect, which suggests less time per
collection stop and possible crew reduction. These kinds of external economies often occur in
government projects that provide benefits to many individuals, such as constructing an airport or
implementing a recycling program. Production of public goods can mean that its widespread
benefits exceeds the benefits intended for delivery to the direct recipients of the good. Public goods
139
-------
in the case of recycling can, however, become diseconomies where recycling participation
reach a mimm^im sustainable level. For the sake of efficiency, government spending for pu^w
goods should occur where benefits equal or exceed estimated costs. The most apparent method to
calculate the efficiency is a cost-benefit analysis of each proposed program. In Montgomery
County's case, pro-forma projections; composition analyses; and an assessment of captured
recyclables compared to potentially achievable recyclables suggested that spending for public goods
(in this case, recycling) did not create a situation where benefits exceeded costs. The use of a
financial information system suggested that in approximately five years, the solid waste management
fund would be operating at a deficit One alternative under consideration is a recycling surcharge
per single family household per annum. Current efforts of the information system include a more
discrete determination of potential dollar surcharges and their effect on recycling rates.
Discussion
Financial information systems enable all parts of an integrated solid waste management program to
be neutrally evaluated by cost This level playing field approach provides an unweighted ranking
system for contributing to management decisions. At a practical level, it is possible to develop and
maintain a solid waste information system by a government or business. The system can rely on
both jurisdictional specific data and available data that approximates jurisdictional conditions. A
system's format should include budget statements that provide forecasting capability. Forecasting
will allow enough time to adapt to projected economic variables. Information systems allow a more
dispassionate approach to waste management This approach provides for orienting services to
customers on a basis that makes monetary sense both to provider and customer.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Lynn Wulff, Babette Johnson and Susan Browning for then- excellent
preparation of this paper.
References
1. Ryan, M.A. " How Solid Waste Costs Affect Credit Ratings." Proceedings of the 1991
National Solid Waste Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste Management. Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, Las Vegas, 1991,pp. 348-355.
2. Reynolds, J. "Recycling: Is It Really the Answer?" Cato Institute. Washington, D.C.,
December 10, 1991, pp. 1-18.
3. Peters, Dean M. "Can Cities Afford It?" MSW Management 1:22 (1991).
4. Stevens, Barbara J. "How to Finance Curbside Recycling," Biocvcle 30:31 (1989).
140
-------
5. The Biocvcle Guide to Collecting. Processing, and Marketing Recvclables. The J.G.
Press, Emmaus (Pennsylvania), 1990, pp. 33-40.
6. Stevens, Barbara J. "Financial Information System Solid Waste and Recycling Planning
for Montgomery County Maryland— Review of Waste Composition Studies," August,
1991.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Decision Makers Guide to Solid Waste
Management. Environmental Protection Agency/530-SW-89-072, 1989, pp. 23-30.
141
-------
Table 1. Pro Forma Statement Example
Assumptions Needed: Tonnages Generated; Tonnages Less Recycling; Tip Fee/Funding
Line Item Revenue Expenditure
Tip Fee Revenues +
Recycling Revenues +
Investment Income +
Fund Balance Carryover +
Administrative Costs (including Salaries) ()
Recycling Costs ()
WTE Service Payments ()
Disposal Costs ()
Capital Improvement Costs ()
Reservation For OP ()
Debt Service ()
Fund Balance +
142
-------
Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Residential Waste Composition Among Four Jurisdictions
Material
PAPER
Corrugated
Newspaper
Other
Plastic
Organics
Glass
Aluminum
Ferrous/
Bimetal
fcorganics
Other Waste
Total
Yard Waste
Mont Co.
1990
7.80%
14.99%
24.77%
7.19%
24.94%
10.04%
1.10%
4.61%
2.96%
0.60%
100.00%
29.73%
San Diego
1990
10.08%
11.99%
26.98%
9.40%
21.39%
6.27%
0.82%
3.81%
926%
0.00%
100.00%
25.70%
Philadelphia
1990
8.00%
8.50%
24.60%
9.30%
19.90%
10.80%
1.40%
3.70%
4.70%
8.30%
99.20%
San Jose
1987
10.71%
17.40%
25.44%
3.61%
21.15%
11.38%
0.94%
2.68%
6.69%
0.00%
100.00%.
25.30%
Average
9.15%
1322%
25.44%
7.35%
21.84%
9.62%
1.06%
3.70%
5.90%
225%
99.53%
26.91%
143
-------
Figure 2.
MRF CAPACITY COMPARED TO CURRENT
AND THEORITICAL CAPTURE OF RECYCLABLES vs.
RESIDENTIAL SW GENERATED
TONS RESIDENTIAL RECYCLED
1 UUUUU
1 Afinnn
I *f UUUU
1 ofinnn
I iiUUUU
i fififififi
1 UUUUU
onnfifi
ouuuu
60000
yinnnn
4UUUU
onnnn
/% «,—• O'" O"-^"'^
f^....>g)' ^O "O""
-
-
^ — ^ — & — -AA-A — A — A A-A-A-A
^0 + it* — • — • — • ^ ^"^
i i i i i
400000 420000 440000 460000 480000 500000
TONS RESIDENTIAL GENERATED
520000
CAPTURED CMGLD
MRF CAPACITY (CMGLD&ONP)
THEORICAL AVAILABILITY FUTURE MRF CAPACITY (CMGLD&ONP)
O
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF A FULL-COST ACCOUNTING LAW IN INDIANA
Norman Crampton
Indiana Institute on Recycling
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, Indiana
Introduction
Local governmental units (LGUs) within the State of Indiana are required annually, beginning
July 1, 1992, to calculate and publicly report the full direct and indirect costs associated with
solid waste management services provided or controlled by the LGU. Thus, the public agency
costs of collecting and disposing of refuse; of special related services, such as removal of
illegally dumped refuse; and of recycling programs all are to be reported. The Indiana Institute
on Recycling, a public agency, initiated the action leading to adoption of this reporting
requirement. The Institute also is responsible for developing the reporting methodology and will
be the collecting point and repository of all reports. Selected pages from "State of Indiana Solid
Waste/Recycling Full Cost Report Form" are reproduced at the end of this paper.
Background
Research by the Indiana Institute on Recycling and other agencies indicates that the general
public is not aware of all the costs associated with publicly provided solid waste management
services. A survey of 25 Indiana LGUs found that fewer than half presented the costs of waste
and recycling services in the form of a separate charge to taxpayers. Although many
jurisdictions include a solid waste service charge in the monthly water utility bill, the prevailing
practice is to bundle the cost of waste and recycling services with general municipal service
costs, such as street maintenance and fire and police protection. The majority of local residents
never see a "garbage bill" as such, and lacking experience with waste management charges,
many are inclined to think of-the services as "free." During a period of rapidly rising costs of
collection and disposal of solid waste, such a misperception makes it difficult for local
governmental leaders to present and defend proposals to institute user charges-for example, to
fund the cost of a proposed new recycling program. Moreover, building consensus for long-
range waste management plans, a difficult process under best circumstances, grows even more
difficult when comprehensive, reliable cost data are lacking.
145
-------
The Indiana Law
The Indiana law mandating the reporting of solid waste management costs (1C 36-9-30-36)
directs that all LCDs—cities, towns, counties-that provide solid waste collection or disposal
services "shall by March 1 of each year calculate both the full and per capita cost to the unit for
solid waste collection and disposal for the proceeding year." All costs, direct and indirect,
associated with each aspect of service -collection, disposal, recycling, other-are to be shown
separately. Rates charged by the service provider also are to be reported. All the findings are
to be made public and a copy of the report filed with the Indiana Institute on Recycling. The
law relies on voluntary compliance—it does not contain any penalties for failure to report.
Development of the Reporting Methodology
Indiana is not the first state to enact such a cost reporting law. Florida Administrative Code 17-
708 (1989) requires all local governments to determine the full cost of solid waste management.
Georgia produced "Solid Waste: Full Cost Accounting Manual" in May 1991 and has required
annual reporting since January 1, 1992. As in Indiana, reporting in Florida and Georgia is
voluntary, but strongly encouraged. Florida requires approximately the same kinds of cost
information to be reported as Indiana, but it does not specify a reporting form or format.
Georgia provides up to eight required forms to capture various kinds of costs, calculate
depreciation, and perform analyses.
Indiana determined to take a middle-course by developing one standard cost reporting form-
Form A in the attached materials. An LGU discharges its reporting responsibility by preparing
Form A, publishing it locally, and filing the form with the Indiana Institute on Recycling. But
Indiana also has prepared extensive instructions and worksheets to assist filers. All of these
materials were developed in field tests performed with 10 cooperating LGUs—three counties and
seven cities or towns. For technical guidance, Indiana also was in touch with officials in Florida
and Georgia, and draft forms were subjected to peer review. The principal outside consultant
to the project was the Government Services Division of KPMG Peat Marwick. Major
underwriting was provided in a grant from the Office of Solid Waste of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Difficulties Encountered in Field Test;
Varieties in services. Local government responsibilities for solid waste management range from
none to many. In one town, services might be provided entirely by the private sector, without
any involvement of local government (such a place would be exempt from Indiana reporting
requirements). In another town, all services, including final disposal, might be provided by
public employees using publicly owned equipment and facilities, and some of the same
employees and equipment might also be used in unrelated services, such as street repair. In
another place, the LGU might provide waste management services by awarding a franchise to
a private company—managing and paying for a public service but with limited direct involvemerfl
146
-------
in providing that service. Accommodating these many variations in one form is one of the more
difficult aspects of establishing a uniform cost reporting method.
Unfamiliar approach to cost management. LGUs do not necessarily classify the costs of solid
waste management under the headings presented in Form A. In general, Form A asks for more
data than most LGUs routinely track and report. Typically in small communities of Indiana, the
fund for sanitation services comprises direct costs of labor, fuel, and maintenance essential to
daily operations. On the other hand, such items as capital expenditures for plant and equipment,
future known costs of landfill closure, and indirect costs for services provided from other parts
of local government may not be reflected as costs of garbage collection and disposal. Form A
represents a new approach, designed to respond to a particular law and a particular need. It
remains to be seen during the initial reporting years how well local Indiana governments are able
to respond with reliable, timely reports.
Controversial Areas
Accounting for the program effects of recycling. When recycling is added to waste management
services, other service costs change. Overall program costs probably increase due to the
expense of additional labor and equipment required by the recycling program. Yet the added
cost of recycling frequently is justified by beneficial effects on other costs. For example, if the
recycling program diverts a ton of material from the refuse stream, that ton does not have to be
collected or disposed by other programs in the waste management system, at some expense. The
accounting method being developed in Indiana separates the program benefits of recycling from
the statement of costs. Thus, Line 7 of Form A, "Disposal costs avoided by recycling," is
prominently displayed but below the bottom-line statement of full cost, on Line 6.
Indirect costs. The Indiana law requires reports to reflect the cost of services provided to the
waste management program by other departments of local government. Common illustration are
legal services, data processing services, and executive management and oversight services by
municipal officials. Form A asks for a statement of these costs, and the report package provides
a method to make the calculation. It may develop, however, that indirect costs are small enough
to be regarded as not material to overall program costs—not greater than 5 %, for example. If
that proves to be the case, it might be well to recommend a change in the reporting law,
removing indirect costs.
Costs That Cannot Be Measured
Opportunity costs. When a public waste management facility occupies land that might otherwise
be on the tax rolls, a certain opportunity to generate tax revenue has been lost. However,
because of many unknowns, it is not possible to express this lost opportunity in terms of a
current program cost.
Potential environmental costs. The operation of a solid waste management facility may
147
-------
adversely impact local water quality and air quality, with attendant costs. Though it is easy to
imagine what those adverse impacts might be, it is impossible to express them as costs until an
actual event occurs, such as legal judgment against a city for allowing landfill gas to migrate into
private property, causing an explosion. (Even so, it is doubtful the dollar costs of such a
judgment would be recorded as waste service cost.)
Anticipated Benefits
The primary objective of the State of Indiana Solid Waste/Recycling Cost Report Form is to
provide LGUs with new management tools; namely, more comprehensive and reliable
information about the costs of public services in waste management and recycling. The
secondary objective is to begin gathering such cost data from across the state and developing
performance guidelines.
It is expected that local community leaders, simply by going through the process of accounting
for cost of these services, will learn certain things that have not been evident before, for
example: that day-to-day operating costs do not equal full costs; that landfills and waste-to-
energy plants must eventually be closed, at some predictable expense; and that avoided cost
grows in significance each day as part of the whole picture.
146
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
FORMA
FULL COST SUMMARY REPORT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 19
Local Governmental Unit (LGU) Name:
Population:
Full Cost for Calendar Year
(From Worksheets 1 & 2)
a
Collection of
Solid Waste
Disposal of
Solid Waste
c
Recycling
Other/Special
Services
e
Totals
1 Direct costs
2 Indirect costs
3 Annual amortization of future landfill
closure costs
4 Total direct, indirect and amortization costs
5 Sales of disposal by-products or recydables
6 Total full costs
(Subtract lint S from line 4)
7 Disposal costs avoided by recycling
££0111 Fees and Charges For Service
8 Total full costs (FromSna 61
9 Total fees and charges for service
1 0 Excess {surplus) of costs exceeding
fees and charqes (tna a lest lino 9)
Collection of
Solid Waste
Disposal of
Solid Waste
Recycling
Other/Special
Services
Totals
[jSHnlCost Per Household
1 1 Collection of solid waste
1 2 Disoosaf of solid waste
13 Recycling
14 Other/special services
1 5 Total cost per household (Md Unas 1 1 through u)
Cost per
Household
Reporting Deadline: Annual reports ait due by March !si
following the calendar yean Please moil the completed reports
I0: INDIANA INSTITUTE ON RECYCLING
Room 921
Scnoof 01 couctfton
Indiana SMK UnMnity
Twn Haul*. InOana 47009
For assistance, telephone: 1-800-242-4467
149
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
INSTRUCTIONS
FORM A and FORM B
The Slat* of Indiana Sold Waste Cost Accounting
Report has been issued to guide Indiana Local
Governmental Units (LGUs) In reporting cost of services
relating to solid waste and recycling programs. The
report Is required by House Enrolled Act No. 1123 and
calls lor LGUs to report annual costs of:
• Collection.
• Disposal, and
• Recyclng.
The law further requires the reporting of receipts
collected as part ol providing these services and a
computation ot costs per household.
Two forms have been provided to assist you in compiling
your solid waste cost accounting report. Completion of
these forms is required to meet the provisions ot the taw.
A brief description of these forms follows:
• Form A • Full Coal Summary Report This form
holds the summary ot all financial information to be
compiled for collection and disposal of solid waste.
recycling and other/special services. The form is
organized into three parts as described below.
Part I; Full Cost tor Calendar Year The tul COS) is
determined by computing the net cost of: direct costs.
indirect costs, annual amortization of future landfill
closure costs and sales of recyclable items and disposal
by-products. Disposal costs avoided by recycling also
are to be reported.
Part II- Fe»s and Charges for Service This part
determines (he extent that fees and charges tor service
cover the total full cost.
• Part III: Cost Per Household The cost per household
for collection, disposal, recycling and other/special
services is computed in this part.
Note: Part I is supported by a worksheet that may be
optionally used by the LGU.
• Form B - Program Information This form
collects information about the services provided by your
LGU to allow for a better understanding of your solid
waste programs.
Note: Some of the information requested on these
forms may require estimates by you based on the best
available information It specific instructions are not
provided to guide you through tois estimate, you srto.d
rely on your best professional judgment
Instructions for Form A
Enter whole dollar amounts only
PART I - Full Cost for Calendar Year
Summarize aO costs related to collection and disposal y
so6d waste and recycling. If a cost covers more than o*e
acivrty, (e.g., collection and Disposal) you should
estmate the percentage that should be applied to ear
actvity and then distribute the total cost to each active.
by that percentage.
Line 1
Direct Costs
Direct costs include all expenditures made during the
calendar year lor collection and disposal ol solid waste
recycling and other/special services. This includes:
personal services and benefits. suppfes, other services
and charges, and other expenditures.
Users should account tor the cost of capital through
annual depreciation allowances. As such. It your LGUs
accounting records are maintained on a cash basis, casi
disbursements for capital equipment, buildings and
improvements should be deducted from the direct cos
amount since these costs are more accurately
recognized through annual depreciation over the use*J
Bfe ot the asset.
Also included in the direct cost amount are interest
expenditures relating to debt used to purchase capita
assets relating to sold waste activities. For example, f
bends were issued to purchase new solid waste
cc.'-ection vehicles, the annual interest expense on
these bonds would be included as a direct cost The
purchase cost of the trucks would be divided by the
number of estimated useful years and that amount
appfcabie to the current year would be included as a
direct cost for depreciation. Worksheet 1 • Direct Cos
Worksheet, included with this packet has been proviort
150
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
for optional use by the LGU In calculating the direct cost
amounts.
Line 2
Indirect Costs
Include on this Sne indirect costs from central services
that are applicable to the sold waste and recycling
programs. You may use an existing methodology tor
Indirect cost computation or refer to WORKSHEET 2 •
Indirect Cost Worksheet lor a summary indirect cost
approach. The tola/ Indirect costs- applied to sow waste
should be distributed to the sold waste activities
(collection, disposal, recycBng and other) based on the
percentage of each activity's direct costs to the total sold
waste direct costs.
Line 3
Annual Amortization of Future Landfill Closure
Costs
If your LGU owns a landfill and reserves a portion of fund
balance or sets aside annual cash operating revenues for
future closure liabifitles. this amortization should be
entered here. Actual expenditures for landlill closure
funded from prior year reserves should be excluded from
reporting of direct costs on ine 1 of this form. However.
if landfill closure expenoitures are made in excess of prior
years' reserves, the amount in excess of the reserve
should be reported as direct costs on Ene 1 of this form.
Line 4
Total direct, Indirect and Amortization Costs
Addinesl,2and3.
Line 5
Sates of Disposal By-products or Recyclabln
Any revenue received from sale of recydables. steam, or
electricity should be included here in the recycing or
disposal columns.
Line 6
Total Cost Adjustments
Subtract line 5 from line 4.
Line 7
Disposal Costs Avoided by Recycling
Recycling can provide cost savings by reducing
quantities of waste sent 10 disposal. Reduced disposal
costs are most evident if disposal fees are paid to a
private vendor or third party lor each ton of waste
delivered, ft your LGU owns a landfill or waste-to-energy
plant, savings from recycling can result from avoiding or
delaying future costs of adding disposal capacity. The
following provides examples of avoided costs.
• Disposal by third party Your cost savings from
recycing equals the total-tonnage of materials diverted
from the waste stream times the average price paid lor
each ton ot waste disposed.
• Disposal at LGU facility Recycling can delay or
avoid future costs of adding dteposal capacity, which
represents a benefit (or future cost saving) to your LGU.
The value of these costs can be estimated from either of
two methods, as follows.
• Annual Cost Method Under this method the
following computation would be used:
a. Total cost of facility operation for last fiscal year.
b. Total tonnage ol waste disposed In facility or
related to the cost of operations (a).
e. Cost/ton of waste disposed (a ofwiderfo/1>)
d. Tonnage ot materials recycled or diverted from
disposal for last year.
e. Avoided cost (c times d)
• Caoacttv Method Under this method the following
computation would be used:
a. Estimate the costs of a new landfill or disposal
faciity to serve your LGU (this may be
approximated by updating the costs ol your
existing facility to current dollars).
6. Estimate the total tonnage capacity over the Ha
ol the facility.
c. Calculate cost per ton of capacity (a ofoxfed by t>)
d. Tonnage of materials recycled or diverted from
disposal for last year.
e. Calculate cost savings (c times 0)
PART II Fees and Charges For Service
Line 8
Total Full Costs
Enter the amount from line 6 of this form.
Line 9
Total Fees and Charges For Service
Summarize all fees and charges for service related to
soKd waste, recycling and other/special services, It a fee
or charge covers more man one activity (e.g.. collection
and disposal) you should estimate (he percentage mat
should be applied to each activity and then distribute me
total revenue to each activity by that percentage.
Line 10
Excess (Surplus) of Costs Exceeding Fees
and Charges
Subtract line 9 from fine 8.
151
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Part III Cost Per Household
Line 11
Collection of Solid Wast*
The collection cost per household Is calculated by taking
the tun cost of collections (ine 6. column a ot this form)
and dividing it by the number of household units served.
Any nonresidentfal costs associated with collection (e.g..
If your LGU is providing pickup for commercial customers)
should be subtracted from the total collection costs.
Line 12
Disposal of Solid Wast*
The disposal cost per household Is calculated by first.
determining the cost per ton of disposal. This is done by
taking the fuU cost ol Disposal (line 6. column b of this
form) and dividing it by the total tons disposed. This cost
per ton should then be multiplied by the average tons of
waste generated per household. If you are unable to
calculate this average, use the figure of 2 tons ot waste
per household per year.
Line 13
Recycling
The recycfing cost per household is calculated by taking
the fuO cost of recycling (line 6. column c of this form) and
dividing it by the number ot household units served by
your LGU recycing programs. If your LGU provides only
drop-oft centers, estimate the number of household
units within your LGU that use these drop-off centers.
Line 14
Other/Special Service*
The other/special services cost per household is
calculated by taking the full cost of other/special services
(fine 6, column d of this form) and dwiding it by the
number ot household units served by the other/special
services provided by your LGU.
Line 15
Total Cost Per Household
Add lines 11 through 14 and enter on this line.
General Instructions for Form B
This worksheet collects information about the programs
handled by your LGU to allow for a better understanding
of your solid waste programs. It is designed to be self
explanatory. The following provides additional
background information to assist the LGU in completing
this form.
General: Leave Wank any Items on the Soon that are
not appicabte to the LGU's programs.
Part I Names and Addresses
Line 1
Enter the name and address of the LGU ctiaf elected
official responsible for preparing the State cf Indiana
Solid Waste Cost Accounting Report
Line 2
Enter the name and address of the LGU official who
prepared this report.
Part It • Collection
Line 3
Self explanatory
Line 4
Self explanatory
Line 5
Self explanatory
Part III • Recycling
Line 6
SeH explanatory
Line 7
This line allows the LGU to indicate what, if any, recydng
programs am being provided by the LGU.
Line 8
Self explanatory
Part IV - Disposal
Line 9
Self explanatory
Line 10
Two areas of information are requested on tnis ine,
including: (1) total tons collected and sent :a the disposal
facility used by your LGU and (2) If you own a disposal
facility, the total tons brought to that facility including
solid waste from your LGU and solid waste srougnt from
other LGU(s).
152
-------
WORKSHEET 1
DIRECT COST WORKSHEET
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 19
Local Governmental Unit (LGU) Name:
CO
umil Direct Costa for Solid Waste Programs
Direct Cost Items -''•
(distribute to appropriate column)
1 Personal services and benefits
2 Supplies
3 Other services and charges
4 Other disbursements
5 Depreciation (S»» lnsinxtion$)
6 Interest on long-term debt
7 Total direct costs (AM tnet 1 through 8.
Enter «/so on Form A. lint 1)
,'', a : ,
Total Amount
For Solid Waste
b
Collection o(
Solid Waste
c
Disposal of
Solid Waste
d
Recycling
e
Other/Special
Services
£!
81
qp
I
i
-------
WORKSHEET 2
INDIRECT COST WORKSHEET
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 19
I Calculation of Total Central Services Costs
Central Services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Buildina operations supporting central services
Executive
Financial accounting and pavroH/k>0rsonnel
Legal
Purchasing
Data processing
Records management
Other:
Other:
Other:
other:
I otal central services costs
(add lines 1 through 11)
Total
Operating
Budget
I^HlUi Calculation of Central Services Costs To Be Applied
To Solid Waste Activities
1 3 Total LGU disbursements of alt budgeted funds
14 Total Solid Waste direct costs
(From Worksheet 1. Una 7a)
1 5 Percentage of Solid Waste to total LGU
Operating Budget line 14 dMOed by fna 13)
1 6 Indirect cost to be applied to total Solid
Waste (Enter the product olSne tS times ling 12)
17 Description of alternative indirect cost method:
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
INSTRUCTIONS
WORKSHEETS 1 and 2
Two worksheets have been provided to assist you
in calculating the financial information requ'red on
FormA- FulCostSummaryReport. YourLGUb
not required to use these worksheets. They am
provided orty as an optional guide » assist the
LGU in ootecsng the desired information.
• Workshttt 1 • Full Cost Worksheet
TWa worksheet supports Form A, Part I and is
used to compute the net direct costs (or sold
waste activities.
• Worksheet 2 • Indirect Cost
Worksheet Provides an optional summary
approach (or you to use in computing and applying
indirect costs to your soW waste and recycling
programs.
Note: Some of the information requested on
these forms may require estimates by you based
on the test available information. If specific
instructions are not provided to guide you through
this estimate, you should rely on your best
professional judgment.
Instructions lor
Worksheet 1
DIRECT COST WORKSHEET
Direct Costs for Solid Waste Programs
Expenditures (or solid waste collection, disposal,
recycling and other/special services (or the
reporting calendar year are to be summarized and
entered in this worksheet H a single expenditure
serves more than one soW waste activity (e.g.,
collection and disposal) (he LGU should estimate
the percentage assignable to each activity and
distribute cost based on those percentages. K the
solid waste administrator is responsible (or
collection, disposal, and recycling activities, the
administrator should estimate the percentage ot
time spent on each activity, and related salary and
benefits should be distributed accordingly.
Each soBd waste activity is isted as a separate
column on the torn. The following defines what
direct costs should be included within each
activity.
a. Total Amount tor Solid Waste The total
column has been positioned first (to the ten)
because many LGUs win determine the total cost
and then distribute to the respective sold waste
activity columns based on a percentage.
b. Collection of Solid Waste Alt direct costs
related to the pick-up and transport ol soRd waste
to the disposal faciity. Collection of recydabtes
and yard waste should be reported under the
Recyclng activity.
e. Disposal ot Solid Wast* All direct costs
related to the Disposal ol sold waste. This would
include tipping tees paid, landfill operations.
incinerator operations, and other disposal costs.
Non-soBd waste disposal costs such as snow
removal or deiting ot roads should not be
Included.
d. Recycling All direct costs relating to the
collection, processing and transport of recyclable
materials. Costs ol yard waste programs should be
Included here.
e, Other/Special Services All direct costs
relating to other/special services provided by the
LGU. As examples, this would include costs for
illegal dumping pick-up, special event clean-up
and dead animal pioK-up.
For each of the above activities, the form provides
separate lines to enter the different objects ol
expenditures. The following describes the types
ol expenditures to be classified within each object.
Line 1
Personal Services and Benefits
This includes salary/wages and benefits
disbursements tor supervisory, operational and
administrative personnel providing service within
the solid waste activity. Directly related supporting
service such as public information and education is
included here.
155
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Line 2
Supplies
Disbursements tor materials and supplies used to
support the solid waste activities would be entered
here.
Line 3
Other Service* and Charges
Disbursements tor contractual services supporting
the sofid waste activities would be entered hem.
Lin* 4
Other Disbursement*
This Includes disbursements that do not relate to
the disbursement objects listed on Dne» 1 through
3.
Line 5
Depreciation
Enter the amount of annual depreciation Irom
lumHure. fixtures, equipment, buildings, and
building improvements that are directly related to
the solid waste activities. Capital assets should be
depreciated over the useful He of the asset. H
your LGLTs accounting records are maintained on i
cash basis, cash disbursements lor capital items
should be deducted Irom the direct cost amount
as these costs are more accurately recognized
through annual depreciation over the useful file of
the asset.
Line 6
Interest On Long Term Debt
Represents the annual interest on outstanding
debt issued for capital improvements or other
needs within the soBd waste program. Interest
payments lor revenue bonds or bank notes for the
sold waste program areas should be included. If
any general obligation bonds were issued by your
LGU, part of which were for sold waste services.
that portion of the bond debt interest lor the
calendar year should be included here.
Line 7
Total Direct Costs
Add Bnes 1 through 6. Enter also on Form A, ine
1.
Instructions For
Worksheet 2
INDIRECT COST
WORKSHEET
The Indirect Cost Worksheet provides a method
tor the LGU to assign or allocate infract costs
relating to the LGlfs central services to the solid
waste programs. H We LCy has in place an
alternative method to that provided in this
worksheet, this alternative method may be used to
compute indirect costs and should be explained
on ine 17 ol this term.
The Indirect Cost Allocation Worksheet is
organized into two parts. Instructions lor each part
are provided below.
Part I - Calculation of Total Central
Services
Total annual cash disbursements for central
services are compiled in this part of the form. For
each central services activity, the total
disbursements should be indicated including
salary and benefits, supplies, other services and
charges, and capital. The following describes the
types of disbursements that are to be classified
within each ine.
Line 1
Building Operations Supporting Central
Services Enter total disbursements lor rent,
building maintenance, utilities and other costs
used by the central services activities.
Line 2
Executive
Enter total disbursements for the LGLTs elected
officials, including: mayor, city council, county
commissioners and administrative support staff.
Line 3
FlnanciaJ Accounting and
payroll/personnel
Enter total disbursements lor the general
accounting and payroll/personnel functions. This
would include city controller, clerk/treasurer and
payrolLpersonneloffices: and in the case ol a
county, the auditor and treasurer.
156
-------
State of Indiana
DRAFT FORM-PQR DISCUSSION ONLY
Line 4
Ltgil
Enter disbursements relating to legal services
provided by either LGU attorneys or through
contract with outside attorneys.
Line 5
Purchasing
Enter disbursement relating to the central
purchasing function. It is not necessary to report
purchasing costs on this fne K they are included
within another central services activity (e.g.. in the
case o) a county, as part of the county auditors
office).
Line 6
Data Processing
Enter total disbursements tor data processing in
support ot the central services activities. R is not
necessary to report data processing costs on this
fne (I they are included within another centra)
services activity (e .g.. in the case ol a county, as
pan of the county auditors office). Data
processing support (or non-central services
activities (e.g., courts or police department) should
not be included within this activity.
Line 7
Records Management
Enter total disbursements relating to central
services records management and archiving.
Lines 8 through 11
Other
Enter disbursements lor other central services that
are not identified within lines 1 through 7. Please
describe the type ol central service.
Line 12
Total Central Services Costs
Addlnes t through 11.
Part II - Calculation of Central
Services Costs To be Applied To
Solid Waste Activities
This part ol the indirect Cost Allocation Worksheet
is used to calculate the percentage and amount ot
central services indirect costs to be applied to solid
waste activities.
Line 13
Total LGU Disbursements of All Funds
Emer the total LGU isOursemems tor ari
budgeted lunds.
Line 14
Total Solid Waste Direct Costs
Enter the total direct soW waste costs from
Worksheet!, line 7.a.
Line 15
Percentage of Solid Waste to total LGU
Operation Budget
Enter the results ol Ene 14 Divided by in« 13. This
is trie percentage ol soSd waste activities to that ol
aB LGU operations supported by the cereal
services.
Line 16
Indirect Cost to be Applied to Total Solid
Waste
Ener the resuXs ol i ne 15 times ine 12. This
amount will also be entered on ine 2 of Form A •
Fuii Cost Summary Report. The total indirect costs
appted to solid waste should be distributed to the
sett waste activities (collection. Disposal, recycling
and other) based on the percentage of each
acSvjtys direct costs to the total so W waste direct
cost.
Line 17
Description ot Alternative Indirect Cost
Method
Enter a description ct the alternative ind rect cost
a'tocation basis usea by your LGU. If tr« method
provided on this Wc-xsheet was used, -eave this
ine blank.
157
-------
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF FLORIDA'S PILOT HOTEL/MOTEL RECYCLING PROGRAM
Jonathan F.K. Earle, PhD, PE
Associate Professor, Waste Management
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Jo M. Townsend
Energy Extension Agent
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Marie S. Hammer
Associate Professor, Home Environment
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Introduction
Approximately 19.4 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) were generated in the state
of Florida during 1990 (1). It is estimated that the commercial sector was responsible for 38%
of this waste. The hotel and motel industry in the state includes over 5,000 licensed properties
of varying sizes. These properties have a total of some 350,000 rooms, and cater to about 40
million visitors annually. A high proportion of the properties have kitchens, restaurants,
lounges, laundries, and conference facilities which contribute large volumes of waste to the
waste stream. As a result, the industry is considered to be a significant contributor to the
amount of MSW generated annually in the state. Over 400 of these properties with a total of
76,000 rooms are located in the Orlando area.
Through its statewide network of offices and personnel, the Cooperative Extension Service
(CES-UF) of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, has been
involved in solid and hazardous waste management programs since 1987. In 1988, CES-UF
was written into the State of Florida Solid Waste Management Act (SB 1192), under which
authorization, solid waste education and demonstration programs were developed and conducted
statewide.
159
-------
Early in 1990, solid waste was declared a State Major Program area by CES-UF, resulting in
an increase in activities in this area. Among the many solid waste demonstration programs
conducted by CES-UF was the Pilot Hotel/Motel Recycling Project, a joint effort between the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), Central Florida Hotel and Motel
Association (CFHMA), and the University of Florida. Other participants were Clean Florida
Commission, through its Keep Florida Beautiful program, Florida Business Industry Recycling
Program, numerous associations, manufacturers and equipment suppliers, waste haulers, and
recycling companies.
The Project
The project, involved six hotels and motels in the Orlando area of Florida, with a combined total
of 3,753 rooms. Property sizes ranged from 291 to 924 guest rooms. Support for the project
was in the form of a $75,000 grant made to the CFHMA by the FDER, most of which was used
to provide recycling equipment and containers for the participating properties. Co-funding was
provided by the University of Florida, through provision of project personnel and facilities. The
six participating properties were:
a) Altamonte Springs Hilton and Towers (325 rooms)
b) Comfort Inn at Lake Buena Vista (640 rooms)
c) Hilton at Walt Disney World Village (813 rooms)
d) Holiday Inn International Airport (291 rooms)
e) Hyatt Orlando (924 rooms)
f) Twin Towers Hotel and Convention Center (760 rooms)
Primary objectives of the project were the development of a program to:
a) reduce the hotel/motel industry's contribution to the solid waste stream
b) test recycling procedures, containers, and equipment in different types of
hotels/motels
c) provide employees with recycling materials for use in organizing recycling
programs
d) increase guest sensitivity to the importance of recycling.
A waste audit conducted prior to commencement of the project, indicated that waste generation
in guest rooms in the Orlando area varied from 1/2 pound to 28 1/2 pounds per day. This was
influenced by the number of occupants and type of property. Most of the waste materials
comprised recyclable items such as cans, bottles, newspapers, magazines, and computer paper
Other departments in the hotels were observed to generate large quantities of recyclable plastics,
160
-------
corrugated paperboard, aluminum and steel cans, glass, and cooking oil. One large convention
property which was audited generated 7 to 8 1/2 tons of waste materials per day. This included
construction and demolition debris, and yard trash. Such rates of generation will be affected by
the season, type of property, occupancy, and level of remodeling or upgrading activities being
undertaken.
Project Results
Over a period of 11 months, approximately 365 tons of MSW were recycled at the participating
properties (TABLE 1). For various reasons, only three of the six hotels had fully implemented
their recycling programs during the first six months of the project; however, five of the six
properties had initiated some kind of recycling activity by the end of this period (2). During the
first two months of the survey, the program was in operation in only one property.
The 729,684 Ibs (364.8 tons) of recyclables removed from the solid waste stream at the six
properties over the period of 11 months (TABLE 2) represent an average 13% of the MSW
generated at these properties during this period. For the first 5 months of the program, only
192,708 Ibs, representing 26% of total recyclables were collected. Of the total amount of
recyclables collected, paper and paper products accounted for 533,320 Ibs, or 73% of the
recyclables. Other recyclables collected were 146,505 Ibs of glass; 13,750 Ibs of plastic; 25,599
Ibs of metal (aluminum and steel cans); 3,031 Ibs of soap pieces; and 7,479 Ibs of used cooking
oil and grease from the kitchen. During this same period, 5,637,924 pounds of solid waste
(excluding construction and demolition debris and yard trash) were generated in the properties
(TABLE 3).
With the exception of the Hyatt, recycling rates were fairly similar for the participating
properties (TABLE 3). In all cases, corrugated paper was the principal item recycled.
However, note should be taken of the fact that 3,000 pounds (1.5 tons) of soap pieces were
diverted from the landfill. Only three of the properties were involved in this aspect of the
project, the largest of the three recycling over 1,800 pounds of this item. The soap was made
available to organizations for the needy. Another notable item is the 6,823 pounds (3.4 tons)
of oil/grease from the kitchens, which were sold to a re-processor.
The observed variation in recycling rates in the project properties, is directly related to the
degree of success which was achieved in obtaining employee participation at the individual
properties. Involvement of employees in developing such programs is a key ingredient in the
establishment of a successful recycling program in this environment.
Economic Impact of the Project
The project was successful in reducing the number of weekly pulls from those properties which
161
-------
used compactors (5 of the 6 properties in the project), and in eliminating one of the 8-yard trash
dumpsters at the sixth property. With pull fees ranging from $95 - 145 per pull, estimates of
savings in haulage costs alone range from $300 per month in one of the smaller properties, to
over $3,200 per month in one of the larger properties.
This cost impact is demonstrated in the following examples. At the Altamonte Springs Hilton
and Towers, the number of pulls (at $145 each) was reduced from 8-12 per month to four per
month (one per week). There was thus a reduction in haulage cost ranging from $580-1160 per
month. To this would be added the avoided tipping fee for the materials diverted from the
landfill. Sale of the recyclables also provides a small income which can be used to offset some
of the operating costs. Average recycling rate at this property for the period of the study was
15 percent.
The Hilton at Walt Disney World Village ($100/pull) also experienced a significant reduction
in the number of pulls, the number being reduced from 20-28 ($2,000-2,800) per month to 4-6
($400-600) per month. This resulted in significant saving in haulage costs each month. Average
recycling rate at mis property for the period was also 15 percent. These recycling percentages
compare favorably with the overall average project recycling rate of 13 percent.
Against these cost savings would be placed the cost of removing the recyclables. Pull fee for
the compartmented 20-yard roll-off recycling containers ranged $110-125 per pull. Average puM
of at the properties was one per month. In addition, there were recycling containers for
newspaper, and office paper which were picked up without charge by the intermediate
processors. Baled cardboard was also picked up without charge.
Average rate of waste generation in the project properties during the survey ranged from 132.7
pounds/room/month for the Comfort Inn, the only motel which participated in the study, to
220.3 pounds/room/month in the up-scale Hilton at Walt Disney World Village. This rate was
influenced by a number of factors including occupancy rate, property type, and facilities
available at the property. For the project period, the average monthly occupancy rate for the
Hilton was 72%, and for the Comfort Inn it was close to 100%.
If for projection purposes, an average rate of 150 pounds per room/month was used, the waste
generated monthly by the hotel/motel industry in Florida would amount to approximately 25,000
tons. If tipped at the state average rate of $20 per ton, tipping fees alone would amount to
$500,000 per month or $6 million per year. Assuming a 20 cu. yd compactor is used for waste
hauling, average weight per pull would be 4 tons, requiring 6250 pulls per month, which at an
average of $100 per pull would cost the industry $625,000 per month or $7.5 million per year.
Thus the total current cost of waste hauling and disposal in the hotel/ motel industry is estimated
to be about $13.5 million per year.
Assuming diversion of 30 percent (state mandated) of the solid waste stream from the landfills,
there would be a reduction of approximately $150,000 per month in tipping fees and $187,500
162
-------
per month in haulage costs, to produce a total saving of $337,500 per month or $4.05 million
per year in solid waste disposal cost. This amounts to an average of $12 per room per year.
A properly planned and executed program could result in even greater savings, without
considering the returns from the sale of recyclables.
Principal recyclables at all project properties were paper (corrugated, newspaper, office paper)
glass, plastic, and metal. In addition, items such as left-over soap pieces which were normally
discarded and sent to the landfill, were removed from the waste stream and distributed to needy
groups. Through removal of the bulky items such as cardboard and plastic, the interval between
pulls was increased at all properties.
Characterization of the waste stream in participating properties indicates that, with an aggressive
recycling program, there is the potential to recycle in excess of 50 percent of the waste being
generated. Such a program may be coupled with other action such as reducing the amount of
non-recyclable containers, e.g. waxed cardboard, which are being used for packaging of certain
items. During the project, it was clearly demonstrated that vendors were willing to cooperate,
and readily complied with the wishes of the property managers. One of the project properties,
the Twin Towers Hotel and Convention Center, initiated a very aggressive program to purchase
items made from recycled materials, and to involve vendors in the recycling loop. This
approach is crucial to the success of solid waste recycling.
It should be noted that no additional staff was employed by the hotels and motels for this project,
although in one of the larger properties, most of one employee's time was dedicated to the
coordination of the in-house recycling program. This worked out very well for this property.
Conclusions
To date, most of the MSW recycling programs in the state of Florida have focused on the
residential sector. Recycling in the commercial sector is now being actively promoted. This
program has demonstrated that implementation of an aggressive, well-coordinated, solid waste
recycling program in the hospitality industry, could have a significant impact on solid waste
management in the state, while reducing the cost of waste disposal for participating properties.
In such programs, properties should be encouraged to remove recyclables from the waste stream,
prior to disposal, as well as to purchase and use as many items as possible which are made from
recycled materials. In addition to the cost savings from reduced pulls and avoided tipping
charges, and the environmental impact of these efforts, the industry would be contributing to a
most important aspect of recycling which is "closing the loop".
Following completion of this study, the Florida Hotel and Motel Association has initiated action
to develop and implement a statewide program of recycling in the hospitality industry. The pilot
project was structured in such a way that it could be very easily modeled by other interested
parties. Using the training materials and videos developed as a part of this program, other
163
-------
properties, or states, will be able to implement similar recycling programs. This will assist them
in their effort to reduce waste disposal costs, while contributing to the mitigation of
environmental problems created by the disposal of municipal solid waste.
This demonstration program was highly successful in reducing the amount of waste sent from
the participating properties to the landfills. As a result, with only a 13 percent average recycling
rate, there was diversion of recyclables equivalent to 35 truckloads of garbage. In addition, the
project demonstrated the potential to achieve considerable reduction in the cost of waste disposal
in the hospitality industry, through implementation of an effective recycling program. Greatest
impact was achieved through the removal of paper and paper products.
References
1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Solid Waste Management in
Florida: 1990 Annual Report. March 1991.
2. J.F.K. Earle and J. M. Townsend. Florida's Pilot HoteyMotel Recycling Project.
Final Report; 194 pages. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida. November 1991.
164
-------
TABLE 1
Total Amount and Percentage of Waste Recycled Monthly
at Project Properties
Month
Total
Recyclables (Pounds)
Percentage of
Total Waste (wt.%)
1990
August
September
October
November
December
1991
6,380*
6,415*
52,139
71,124
56,642
12*
12*
9
12
11
January
February
March
April
May
June
94,163
93,283
99,366
84,140
89,481
76,551
12
14
17
13
15
16
TOTAL
729,684
13
* One property
165
-------
TABLE 2
Recyclables Removed from the Waste Stream of Project Properties
Material
Paper
Glass
Plastic
Metal (Cans)
Soap
Oil/Grease
Total Amount Recycled
(Pounds)
533,320
146,505
13,750
25,599
3,031
7,479
Percentage of
Recyclables (wt.%)
73.0
20.2
1.9
3.5
0.4
1.0
TOTAL 729,684 100.0
166
-------
TABLE 3
Solid Waste Generation in Project Properties
Project
Property
Total Waste Rate of
Generated Waste
(Pounds) Gener.*
Altamonte Springs 544,222* 167.5
Hilton & Towers
Comfort Inn
Hilton - WDW
Holiday Inn
Airport
Hyatt Orlando
Twin Towers
TOTAL
679,543* 132.7
1,611,718s 220.3
311,0334 178.1
1,386,449s 166.7
1,104,959* 161.5
5,637,924
Waste Percent
Recycled Recycled
(Pounds) (wt.%)
81,052 15
97,543
243,658
57,273
109,169
140,989
729,684 13
14
15
18
8
13
1325 rooms over 10 months *291 rooms over 6 months
2640 rooms over 8 months *924 rooms over 8 months
3813 rooms over 9 months *760 rooms over 9 months
"Generation rate - pounds/room/month
167
-------
ECONOMIC BOON OR ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE: TWO PERSPECTIVES ON
INTERSTATE WASTE DISPOSAL
Catherine A. Wilt
Energy, Environment and Resources Center
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
" We do not want to be nor will we calmly allow ourselves to become the
Land of Disenchantment and the Land of Encashment. A trash and
garbage state is hardly conducive to long-term economic and
environmental health. Twenty thousand tons per day of trash and garbage
transported into New Mexico per dump site is an outrageous act of
interstate rape. This cannot have been the intent of our forefathers and we
as the governing forefathers of tomorrow must protect and keep secure our
country of tomorrow."1
This statement is indicative of the types of sentiments expressed in regard to interstate
solid waste disposal. There is a great "fear factor" to be overcome when citizens are
faced with taking waste from areas other than their home community; residents often
feel that waste from out-of-state will contain hazardous or toxic constituents and
irreparably damage the surrounding environment However, as the costs of solid waste
disposal increase, communities with increasingly constrained budgets are often forced
to look to options that include some form of regional cooperation, with or without the
involvement of private waste management companies.
While many communities have entered into cooperative agreements which include large
disposal facilities accepting out-of-state waste, there is a great deal of debate as to
whether such agreements are always fair to the home community. An overwhelming
majority of landfills and other LULUs (locally unwanted land uses) are located in
economically depressed areas, often with a proportionally high racial or ethnic
population. While wealthier communities can pick and choose what types of facilities
they will accept in their community, poorer communities often have to bargain for
economic benefits in any form available, and are often the recipients of LULUs in terms
of "dirty" industries and various types of disposalAreatment facilities.
169
-------
In response to the real and perceived inequities of interstate solid waste disposal, many
states have enacted legislation aimed at limiting or controlling out-of-state waste. State
laws have used a variety of mechanism to inhibit waste imports. These include:
1) differential surcharges, taxes and manifests (IN, OH, GA, Wl, OR, SC );
2) exclusion based on capacity assurance planning ( NJ, OH, AK, TN, KY, Ml);
3) exclusion based on equivalent waste management criteria ( Wl, OR );
4) volume-based exclusions ( PA, AK, WV) and
5) publicly-owned facilities ( MA, DE ).2
Briefly, the logic of each of these methods is as follows. Manifest systems are to ensure
that only municipal solid waste is being imported; if any hazardous, infectious or
unpermitted waste is found, the waste may be refused and persons involved with the
transport of the waste may be held liable in civil or criminal proceedings. Differential
fees, if reasonable, can be justified on the basis of additional administrative and
regulatory costs of assuring the health, safety and welfare of the state accepting the
waste. States can require their sub-units of government (generally counties) to complete
capacity assurance plans that detail the disposal needs of the community over a set
planning horizon. If the acceptance of waste from other in-state or out-of-state
communities would disrupt the planned capacity, the county could refuse to accept
waste from outside the county. The use of equivalent waste management criteria fli
exclude out-of-state waste requires that the exporting state meet the same waste
management criteria as the state in which the waste will be disposed. This can entail
anything from requiring basic capacity assurance plans to meeting rigorous waste
reduction and recycling goals. States have also used volume-based exclusions; this
limits the amount of waste that will be accepted into any facility based on percentage
of overall volume. Finally, publicly-owned facilities are not subject to Commerce Clause
restrictions and can be used strictly for disposal of the waste of the community that owns
the facility.
As opposed to focusing on the variety of individual state attempts to limit interstate solid
waste disposal (and, in many cases, the resulting legal challenges), this paper will center
on the perspective of one state which is seeking to actively discourage out-of-state
waste, countered with the example of a community which has benefited from
development of a large, regional landfill that imports waste.
Kentucky: A case for limiting interstate waste
In 1990, more than 693,000 tons of out-of-state waste was landfilled in Kentucky. While
this figure pales in comparison to quantities of waste generated in urban centers, it
170
-------
accounted for almost 15% of the state's waste. Waste was imported from Illinois,
Indiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. However, the
greatest contributor of the waste was New Jersey, which sent 360,000 tons to the
Bluegrass state.3
Kentucky was facing a precarious disposal situation with its own state's waste. The state
had 75 landfills, many of which were without basic clay or shale liners, and over half of
the existing landfills are expected to close by July 1, 1992. Many of the landfills were
polluting groundwater that over one million Kentucky residents depend on for drinking
water. Further, as in much of the rural southern United States, over two-thirds of the
counties in Kentucky had no existing collection system at all, leaving 20% of Kentuckians
without access to a solid waste collection system.4
In February, 1991, Kentucky passed Senate Bill 2, providing an ambitious program for
solid waste management across the state. Local governments are required to do
capacity assurance plans for five-, ten-, and twenty-year planning periods. The county
waste management plans must address disposal, open dump cleanups, pollution
prevention and public education. By 1994, all 120 counties must have a "universal
collection system" for household and commercial solid waste; this assures that all
citizens have access to a collection system. By 1997, all counties must show a 25%
reduction in waste landfilled, which can be accomplished through a combination of
waste "reduction, recycling and composting. Growth of new landfills is capped at 5%
until all new waste management standards are in place.
In addition to requiring a new responsibilities for solid waste management planning in
Kentucky, Senate Bill 2 also places several restrictions on the importation of waste. The
permitting of new facilities is linked to needs identified in the capacity assurance plan.
Before the State Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet can issue a
permit for constructing or expanding a disposal facility, the affected local jurisdiction
must make written comment that the permit is consistent with the area's solid waste
plan. Kentucky also passed a consent-to-service law that requires all persons involved
with the transport of out-of-state waste to file a document with the state in which they
consent to the jurisdiction of Kentucky's courts for any civil or criminal proceedings
relating to the waste.
The state of Kentucky is in the process of implementing a new level of solid waste
management planning in the state. While Senate Bill 2 also has a number of
mechanisms to limit out-of-state waste, these deterrents are meant to give counties the
opportunity to develop a system for responsible management of solid waste. Only then
can Kentucky consider options for the disposal of waste from other states.
171
-------
Charles Citv County. Virginia-- A partnership that works
Several years ago, the poor, rural county of Charles City County, Virginia found itself in
a difficult but increasingly common position. The county had to close its landfill, the
state had enacted new landfill regulations that were more stringent and costly, and the
county also needed to build a new school. With a population of slightly over 6,000 the
county already had one of the highest property tax rates in Virginia, totalling $1.8 million
in tax revenues annually. The choices of building a transfer station to send their own
waste elsewhere or developing their own disposal facility would both have required
increases in the property tax to a level that citizens simply could not meet. In response
to the tough budget issues facing them, Charles City County issued a request for bids
for a new landfill.*
Chambers Development Company, Incorporated, of Pittsburgh responded to the bid, and
throughout the process of design and permitting met the specifications of the citizens
and the state of Virginia. The facility, consisting of 289 acres on a 1,100 acre site, is
permitted to accept up to 5,000 tons of waste per day. The tipping fee is currently $38
per ton. The landfill has two synthetic liners and one clay liner, two leachate collection
systems and eighteen groundwater monitoring wells. Leachate is transported to a
sewage treatment facility in Richmond.6 To ensure that only municipal solid wastes, and
not any hazardous or toxic wastes, enter the landfill, Chambers designed a 24-hour
security and surveillance system. In addition to random truck inspections, all vehicles
entering the landfill are videotaped. The tapes are reviewed on a daily basis by security
personnel, who match trucks with their computerized weighbills. Electronic sensing
devices are also used to detect chemical vapors in loads of garbage. If any hazardous
substances are detected, the load will be sent back to its point of origin.7
Chambers is also compensating Charles City County for hosting the facility. In addition
to free disposal of waste for the lifetime of the facility, the community has a guaranteed
host fee of $1.4 million annually. For every ton of waste disposed of between 1,200 to
3,699 tons per day, Charles City County receives an additional $5.50 per ton; the county
receives $6 per ton from 3,700 to 5,000 tons per day. Of the 40 employees at the
facility, 35 are county residents.8 Chambers also agreed to build deep drinking water
wells for anyone living within 5,000 feet of the site. Further, Chambers set up three
funds to assure the safety of the landfill. The first is a $100,000 annual fund to be used
to hire an independent engineer to oversee the operation of the facility. The second is
a mitigation and remediation fund of $2 million which is available to the county in case
of an accident or lawsuit. Finally, a third fund was set up to cover the costs of closure
in the case of a default by Chambers. This fund is available to Charles City County
through a letter of credit with the State of Virginia.9
172
-------
The Charles City County landfill is an example of how a community and private industry
can work together to create a mutually beneficial situation. Charles City County is now
in the process of building a new, eight-building educational facility (at an estimated cost
of $17 million) and is developing a computer system to speed their economic
development.10 Chambers Development has a state-of-the-art facility which can take
waste from other states. While there are still citizen opposed to the facility taking
interstate waste for disposal, many of these citizens are on the Landfill Advisory
Committee, where they have input in the decisions related to operation of the facility.
Conclusion
States across the nation are encountering mounting fiscal constraints as solid waste
management issues compete with other budget items. The costs of solid waste
education, meeting recycling deadlines and developing facilities that meet Subtitle D
landfill criteria are making states and communities more protective of their existing
disposal resources. For these and other reasons interstate solid waste disposal is a
topic which often leads to groundswells of public opposition and lengthy court battles.
Legislation restricting interstate waste in several states, including Indiana, Ohio,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Oregon, has already gone through at least one level of court
activity. The Supreme Court is in the process of deliberating on two cases that may
affect the legality of controlling out-of-state waste disposal. Further, after two years of
haggling over amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Congress
has still not issued any definitive legislation that would allow states to restrict or ban
interstate solid waste.
States and communities are facing similar dilemmas as Kentucky and Charles City
County while waiting on Congress and the Supreme Court to make the ultimate decision
regarding out-of-state waste. Whereas Kentucky's stage of solid waste management
planning is representative of many rural states, the same cannot be said of Charles City
County, Virginia. While their initial predicament is all too common, the solution that
arose from their alliance with Chambers Development is a rare accomplishment. Until
the jury is in on the constitutionality of restricting waste flows, states need to continue
planning for self-sufficient solid waste management and communities need to pursue
innovative disposal options and public-private partnerships.
173
-------
1. Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous
Materials, Serial No. 101-124, December 11, 1989.
2. Wilt, Catherine. " Interstate Waste Battle Rages," Recycling Today-Municipal
Market Edition. September, 1991. pp. 66-69.
3. Conversation with Charlie Pearl, Kentucky Division of Solid Waste. March 21,
1991.
4. Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. "Summary of Senate Bill 2."
March, 1991.
5. Conversation with Bill Britton, Planning Director and Economic Development
Director, Charles City County, Virginia. May, 1992.
6. Conversations with Kathleen Aigner, Office Administrator for the Charles City
County Landfill, Chambers Development Co., Inc. May, 1992.
7. Keams, Denise. " Cooperation Helps Build A Hi-Tech Landfill." Management of
World Wastes. July, 1990.
8. Conversations with Bill Britton, May, 1992,
9. Keams, Denise. "Cooperation Helps Build A Hi-Tech Landfill." Management of
World Wastes. July, 1990.
10. Conversation with Bill Britton, May, 1992.
174
-------
FINANCING SOLID WASTE: HOW GOVERNMENTS COPE
Mark A. Ryan
Assistant Vice President
Standard & Poor's Corporation
Municipal Finance Department
New York, NY 10004
Timothy Tattam
Senior Vice President
Standard & Poor's Corporation
Municipal Finance Department
New York, NY 10004
Already underpressure from today's tight fiscal environment, municipalities are struggling with
the rising costs of solid waste collection and disposal. Although it rarely represents a large
percentage of municipal budgets, solid waste management is challenging governments because
costs are often difficult to control.
Disposal costs for solid waste have been rising and will continue to rise in the face of regulatory
requirements that force cities to improve current and new disposal sites. Collection costs are
driven by labor costs and have historically increased at about the rate of inflation.
State-mandated recycling is also raising the costs of solid-waste management. As compliance
dates approach, many localities nationwide are feeling the impact of the costs of their new
recycling programs. In the Northeast, cost reduction pressures have prompted towns to cut back
or discontinue recycling programs. For example, Connecticut and New York communities have
been eyeing state funding sources to meet state-mandated goals, but it is unlikely that the states
— themselves under fiscal pressure — will fund recycling programs. As a result, programs
based on mandated levels that are not cost effective could be delayed or canceled, endangering
the ultimate success of recycling in this country.
These pressures are increasing at a time when municipalities' general funds are already under
pressure. Their own revenue-raising capabilities have been reduced by economy-driven
175
-------
stagnant taxable assessed value and strong anti-tax sentiment. The expenditure side of the budget
has seen costs increasing
faster than the inflation rate for social services, education, and public safety. In the face of
these constraints, municipalities will find that a major source of financial flexibility will be
tighter cost management.
Solid waste costs are generally financed in one of three ways:
(1) A user fee paid by each resident and business to the municipality, either into
general fund or a separate enterprise fund,
(2) A user fee paid by each resident and business directly to a private company,
which provides the collection and disposal services, or
(3) As part of a resident or business property tax bill, with the municipality providing
for solid waste collection and disposal from monies appropriated from the general
fund.
The third method (tax bill) is the most popular, and the first (user fee) is the least used. Yet
service provided as part of the property tax bill poses the greatest financial challenge. Munici-
palities using this method are most vulnerable to the impact of rising solid waste costs because
of the difficulty in raising revenues and/or their inability to control the method and means of
collection and disposal.
Like other fiscal challenges, the impact of solid-waste expenses varies according to each
municipality's budget and financial operations. To date, the largest cost increases have occurred
in large urban/suburban areas on the East and West coasts. Some municipalities do not provide
solid waste service at all, protecting themselves from direct financial impact of rising costs. In
light of these differences, the impact on each municipality and its credit rating must be evaluated
on an individual basis. The following examples of five cities' experiences and methods of
managing solid-waste costs highlight the different approaches cities across the country are taking
in dealing with this problem.
GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN
Grand Rapids (1990 Census: 189,126) collects and disposes of 59,000 tons of residential refuse
and provides financial support for trash reduction programs. It maintains a full-time staff of 35.
Revenues come from a combination of property taxes and mandatory sales of disposal bags
(bag/tags), and are kept in a separate special revenue fund. Bag/tags have been sold in the city
since the early 1970s, and revenue from the sales has increased as a percentage of refuse
collection revenues. Bag/tags accounted for 53% of revenues in fiscal 1991, and a fiscal 1992
rate adjustment will increase this percentage to 56%.
176
-------
Nearly all refuse collection is residential, since commercial/industrial properties generally use
private waste collectors. Through 1989, the city disposed of its waste at the county landfill.
Kent County's resource recovery facility began operations in 1990, and the city now dumps there
at a disposal cost of about $41 per ton.
There is no recycling mandate in Michigan now. However, recent legislation requires yard
waste recycling by 1994. Grand Rapids is implementing a voluntary pilot program for yard
waste collection to determine what equipment and manpower will be needed when mandatory
yard waste recycling begins. The county provides voluntary recycling centers for glass, cans,
and newspapers.
LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles (1990 Census: 3,485,398) operates a solid waste management department, which
has collected and disposed of residential trash since 1961. Historically, costs have been paid
through the city's general fund. City trucks and employees collect residential trash for disposal
at one city-owned landfill and two privately owned landfills.
Combined costs have increased from $78.3 million in fiscal 1987 to $124 million in fiscal 1991.
Disposal costs have risen faster, increasing from $8.3 million to $41.7 million over the same
period. Budgeted solid waste disposal costs jumped from $41.7 million to $62.1 million for
fiscal 1992, due to remediation work at the city's landfill and its impact on operating costs. As
a result, disposal costs represented 33% of total waste management costs, compared to only
10.6% in fiscal 1987.
The city expects solid waste expenses, especially disposal costs, to grow even faster over the
next five years because of landfill capacity expansion plans and operation of the city-wide
recycling program.
In July 1983, the city council established a sanitation equipment charge — a fee charged to
residential property-owners — to acquire and repair equipment, primarily vehicles. The initial
fee, $1.50 per month for all single-family residences, netted $11.2 million for the city. In 1990,
the law was amended to allow this revenue to be used to acquire refuse containers as well. The
equipment charge then increased to $3 per month for residential homes. The city has pledged
the charge for repayment of an $82 million bond issue (rated AA) whose proceeds funded the
purchase of trucks and containers for a citywide recycling program.
The city council has resisted a user charge for solid waste service (4.5 % of total general fund
expenditures in fiscal 1987, growing to 5.5% in 1991). However, the sanitation equipment
charge has helped finance growing capital needs of the solid waste management department.
177
-------
NEW YORK CITY
New York City collects municipal solid waste from residential properties and some commercial
properties with a full-time staff budgeted at approximately 12,800 in 1991. Many commer-
cial/industrial properties hire private carting companies to collect their waste. The city operates
one major landfill (Fresh Kills, on Staten Island) with a useful life estimated at five years, and
several incinerators located at various locations in the city's five boroughs. At the landfill and
the incinerators, the city disposes of almost all the waste it collects, and much of the privately
collected waste as well.
For several years, the city has been planning the siting and construction of five resource
recovery facilities to replace incinerators and provide disposal capacity after the Fresh Kills
landfill has exhausted its useful life. Community group opposition to the facilities — along with
the city's financial difficulties — is delaying construction of these facilities. No other options
have been proposed, and a crisis looms as landfill space shrinks and the city runs out of
alternatives it could implement in time to replace the landfill. If the city cannot implement
alternative disposal options before Fresh Kills is closed, the city would have to negotiate market
rate contracts with other disposal operators, including transportation costs to sites out of the city,
and/or dispose of the waste on the spot market at potentially exorbitant rates.
Disposal cost in New York is a tiny portion (a fairly constant 1.5% of budget) of the city's $28
billion general fund budget. Since the city owns the landfill, the largest cost variable is salaries
and benefits for sanitation workers. In recent years, sanitation workers' wage increases have
remained closely in line with total budget growth.
The city has had more difficulty trying to implement and enforce recycling because of the city's
many multifamily and commercial properties. Some recycling has been started on a neighbor-
hood basis, but sanitation department budget cuts have delayed expansion of the program.
PHILADELPHIA
The cost of refuse, garbage, and sludge disposal for the city increased from $5.1 million in fiscal
1985 to $63.9 in fiscal 1989 — a 1,153% increase. Total garbage costs rose from $85.4 million
in 1986 to $128.1 million in 1989 — a 50% increase. The decrease in total costs to $118.3
million in 1990 was due to the city's cost-saving initiatives, such as early retirement incentives
for collection workers to lower collection costs. Philadelphia (1990 Census: 1,585,577) does
not charge a separate garbage fee, financing operations out of the general fund. City employees
collect residential and small commercial businesses' solid waste. Privately owned facilities
outside city limits provide disposal capacity.
Disposal costs have been managed to date with a five-year contract with private entities expiring
in 1994. The fixed-price contract helps the city budget expenditures for these fiscal years.
Recently, the city council adopted a solid waste management plan, that directs the city to pursue
178
-------
a seven year disposal contract when the current contract expires. The city hopes to lock in
lower prices for excess disposal capacity in landfills and resource recovery plants that were
developed in response to previous shortages. This should stabilize costs while the city pursues
recycling and other disposal technology advances.
In fiscal 1990, net disposal and collection costs were $118.3 million, or 5.89% of general fund
expenditures. According to a solid waste study, the city's cost per ton for fiscal 1990 was
$170.15. Although this seems high, a calculation of a monthly household cost ranges from $20
to $25 per month. This amount is still reasonable — about the same as other essential services.
Although Philadelphia has studied user fees, politics have removed this alternative from the list
of possibilities.
Over the past few years, the city has emphasized trash collection productivity improvements.
As a result, staffing has been reduced and collection costs have been increasing less than
inflation. The reduced staffing and the city's financial crisis have slowed expansion of recycling
at a time when both city and state laws require it to be expanded citywide.
TACOMA. WASHINGTON
Tacoma (1990 Census: 176,664) is unusual because it has operated a municipal solid waste
collection and disposal system as an independent utility since 1929. The refuse utility collects
and disposes of all waste-residential, commercial, and industrial—within the city limits. The
city charges a monthly user rate to residential customers, collected with the city's sewer, water,
electric, and storm drainage charges. Entirely supported by user fees, the utility is separate
from the city's general fund. Although total operating expenses have risen from $7.6 million
($38 per ton) in 1986 to $13.3 million ($65 per ton) in 1990, the utility has covered the
increased costs by raising the monthly charge from $4.65 a month in March 1986 to $8.05 a
month in 1991.
Collection fees (58% of total costs in 1990) have increased 24% during the last five years.
These costs rose more slowly than inflation because of effective management of labor costs and
investment in automated collection vehicles.
Disposal costs (up 198% over five years) account for the largest part of the increase in total
garbage costs. Factoring in recycling expenses, which the system began to incur in 1990, the
increase is 312%. Total disposal costs (including recycling) have increased from 17% of total
operating expenses in 1985 to 42% in 1990. Although Tacoma owns all its disposal facilities,
it has faced expenses of mitigation and regulatory work at its landfill and development of a
resource recovery plant, as well as introduction of a recycling program. The utility may
consider contracting to use disposal sites it does not own. In considering this option, the utility
must weigh the benefits and liabilities of ownership against the lack of price control.
179
-------
CHOICE OF METHODS
No collection, disposal, or revenue-raising method is necessarily superior to others. A local
government's goal should be to develop a predictable method that helps manage the budget and
capital spending. As a rule, large cities with billion-dollar operating budgets tend to fund refuse
collection and disposal through property tax levies. In these cases, the budget size and level of
services limit refuse collection and disposal costs to a relatively small percentage — generally
under 5% — of the general fund expenditure budget. In Los Angeles, however, while costs of
collection and disposal rose above 5% of general fund expenditures in fiscal 1989, the sanitation
equipment charge distinguishes Los Angeles from other cities and provides it with greater
flexibility to meet its solid waste costs.
Philadelphia has been unable to develop city owned disposal sites or gain a favorable long term
contract with disposal operators. As a result, it is vulnerable to market price swings, making
disposals rise more rapidly than other costs. Active management of controllable labor costs has
helped bring total costs down to 5.7% of budget in 1991 from 6.4% in 1989.
Surprisingly, supply and demand pressures do adjust disposal costs under certain circumstances.
While Philadelphia is a seller's market, Boston and Houston both have reduced costs because
of economic conditions requiring increased revenues and reduced supply of waste. Boston has
benefited from poor economic and financial conditions of state and local governments, which
have lifted some restrictions on disposal sites, thus increasing capacity and reducing costs.
Houston's depressed economy after the 1986 oil price collapse reduced waste generation and thus
lowered costs. However, changing market conditions make it difficult to budget and therefore
limit managements* ability to control costs.
USER FEES
User fees and revenues other than property tax revenues are used less frequently than property
taxes, although many cities we reviewed have studied them. User fees enable cities to match
costs of services to fees charged. Because user fees highlight waste management costs, they also
tend to prod cities to focus on those costs and keep them under control.
Although user fees in Tacoma and Grand Rapids give those cities financial flexibility, switching
to this method could have pitfalls. Some localities find that user fees for trash service provide
significant financial flexibility.' Others resist user fees out of concern that such fees would make
residents more resistant to property tax increases. Losing the ability to raise property taxes
would offset the benefits of financial flexibility, such localities reason. Despite the political risk,
however, user fees should be considered seriously when a city — like Philadelphia - has few
financial alternatives.
180
-------
DISPOSAL AND COLLECTION COSTS
Cities owning old landfill space have minimized disposal cost. Los Angeles illustrates this point.
However, it faces large capital expenditures to meet regulatory requirements at new or existing
sites. Los Angeles has its sanitation equipment charge to help fund needed capital expenditures.
New York City is studying the creation of a separate authority to bond out its capital needs. In
light of regulatory requirements and the capital expenditures associated with them, cities should
weigh the benefits of owning the disposal site against the benefits of contracting for it. Tacoma
is currently considering the issue; Philadelphia shows how a city that does not own a disposal
site loses control over costs.
Collection costs in some cities with municipal collection crews — New York and Philadelphia,
for example — are often high because union rules drive up labor costs. Cities can control
collection costs by automation, as in Tacoma (although this may not be possible in some cities)
or by contracting for the service, as in Boston. Privatization of collection services through a
contract can also effectively control costs — Phoenix is often mentioned for its successful
privatization of solid waste services. Cities that solicit competitive bids on collection service
from both municipal and private companies may offset the influence of union work rules on
costs. Philadelphia is a likely candidate for this strategy, but is trying first to improve efficiency
of municipal collection crews to ensure true competition rather than easy profits for the private
contractor.
Successful management of solid waste costs depends on:
• level of services provided (each case reviewed here is a full-service city)
• ownership of disposal facilities
• regulatory and political impediments to ownership and construcion of disposal
facilities
• limits on the ability to increase property taxes and revenues
Even though municipal solid waste costs are often less than 10% of a city's total expenditures,
solid waste competes with public safety services, health and welfare, and educational services
for limited funds. Taming its growth rate is one of the keys to maintaining stable financial
operations and supporting basic municipal services.
181
-------
FROM LANDFILL OPERATIONS TO AN INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Teree Caldwell-Johnson
Director - Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
Des Moines, Iowa
Introduction
The Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency was established in 1969 to provide for
disposal of solid waste on a regional basis within the Des Moines metropolitan area.
A quasi-governmental entity, the Agency membership consists of 16 municipalities and 1 county.
Prior to 1988, the Agency operated two facilities: a 1,400 TPD landfill and a 400 TPD transfer
station. As Iowa's largest solid waste disposal facility, the Metro Park East Sanitary Landfill
is composed of 600 acres and handles nearly 400,000 tons of solid waste annually. This figure
equates to approximately 20% of all waste generated in the State of Iowa.
Today, the Agency is implementing several solid waste management activities including
residential curbside and drop-off recycling, yard waste composting, commercial recycling, public
education programs, and management of special wastes (tires, white goods, batteries, oil, and
other household hazardous materials). The Agency sets tipping fees, accumulates funds for
capital projects, and works independently of other governing bodies in the region assuring itself
of the autonomy and decision making authority necessary for implementing the ambitious
integrated solid waste management system currently being pursued.
The purpose of this paper will be to present the planning, implementation, financing, and
evaluation strategies used in development of the Agency's integrated solid waste management
system.
Background
The Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency was established in 1969 to provide for
disposal of solid waste on a regional basis within the Des Moines metropolitan area.
A quasi-governmental entity, the Agency membership consists of 16 municipalities and one
county encompassing 686 square miles and representing nearly 400,000 residents.
183
-------
The Agency currently operates three facilities: a sanitary landfill; a transfer station, and a yard
waste processing facility. The landfill, known as Metro Park East Sanitary Landfill, is located
about 15 miles east of the Des Moines city limits. The majority of solid waste generated by
member municipalities, business, and industry is delivered directly to Metro Park East. As
Iowa's largest landfill, Metro Park East is composed of 600 acres and handles nearly 400,000
tons of solid waste annually. This figure equates to approximately 20% of all waste generated
in the State of Iowa.
The transfer station, known as the Metropolitan Transfer Station, is located in the northeast
portion of the City of Des Moines and handles only residential solid waste. The transfer station
services municipal and private collection vehicles from the suburban communities and handles
nearly 300 tons per day.
The Metro Compost Center is located adjacent to the Agency's landfill and is sized to handle
15,000 tons of yard waste per year. Another site for yard waste processing, located on the
western side of the Agency's service area, is currently tied up in a siting battle including three
separate pieces of litigation. That NIMBY battle and other issues related to this facility will be
discussed later in this paper.
In addition to these facilities, the Agency has, over the past one to two years, operated a
residential and commercial recycling program, a special waste program, a household hazardous
materials program, a volume reduction program, and an extensive public information and
education program.
Legislative Mandates
In 1988, Metro Solid Waste was at the crossroads. Over the past 20 years, the Agency had
concentrated its efforts on operating an environmentally safe and sound landfill whose tipping
fees had been among the lowest not only in Iowa but in the nation. In doing so, the Agency had
really paid little attention to actively pursuing any other solid waste disposal options or the
planning and anticipation necessary in accommodating the eminent changes in the regulatory
environment. With changes in State and Federal regulations, the Agency found that it must
begin to not only determine the feasibility of volume reduction, recycling, and waste-to-energy
but also determine what option or combination of options would best serve the needs of the Des
Moines metropolitan area and put those systems into place.
There were two major legislative initiatives that changed the face of solid waste management in
Iowa:
• The 1987 Ground Water Protection Act
• The 1989 Waste Reduction and Recycling Act
-------
With these legislative changes, the Agency quickly came to the realization that a system change
was eminent. For this reason, the Agency, 1988 contracted with the solid waste management
firm of Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) of Falls Church, Virginia to complete a full
evaluation of the Agency's landfill and transfer station operations and to complete the Agency's
required Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. - Phases I and n
In essence, GBB was to begin to chart the Agency's course and analyze not only the current
operation but those viable and permitted solid waste disposal alternatives that could be utilized
in the future.
The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan analyzed the following areas as delineated
in the planning guidelines developed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
1. Overview of Planning and Implementation Authorities and Activities
2. Past Local and Regional Planning Activities
3. Waste Generation and Composition Analysis
4. Volume Reduction at the Source
5. Recycling and Reuse
6. Combustion With and Without Energy Recovery
7. MSW/Sludge Co-disposal Processes
8. Specific Wastes
9. Preliminary Transfer Station Evaluation
10. Comparative Cost Analysis
Upon completion, the Plan not only addressed solid waste management strategies for each
element of the hierarchy but it also included a series of recommendations for development of an
Integrated Solid Waste Management System for the Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency. Those recommendations were as follows:
• Implement a Public Education Program aimed at educating the general populous regarding
their role and responsibility in the solid waste disposal dilemma.
• Implement programs to meet the State recycling goals.
- 25% reduction by 1994
- 50% reduction by 2000
• Begin pre-procurement planning for a waste-to-energy facility.
• Procure a new transfer station to service the west side of the Agency's service area.
• Continue development efforts for a Regional Tire Processing Facility.
185
-------
• Complete facilities upgrades and phased development at Metro Park East.
• Implement a system-wide tipping fee to cover all costs of operation.
Given this series of recommended actions and an aggressive plan to address the solid waste
disposal needs of the Des Moines metro area, the Metro Board of Directors began the process
of developing an Action Plan for implementation of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan recommendations. That Action Plan delineated program objectives and program
components addressing each element of the hierarchy and waste stream. Specific dates and time
frames were identified for each of the program components and served as the long-range
planning and budgeting tool for the Agency board and staff.
Armed with the Action Plan, the Agency set about the task of program implementation. In the
spring of 1990, the Agency began the implementation of its Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan.
Residential Recycling
The first area of the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented was the residential recycling
program. The position of Recycling Coordinator was developed to implement and coordinate
all residential and commercial recycling programs.
Because the Agency's service area is both urban and rural, a pilot program was designed to
evaluate both curbside and drop-off recycling, as well as the types of materials collected, and
processing and marketing needs and services. 10,000 homes located in seven of the Agency's
member municipalities were selected for the curbside program while the other municipalities
were served by the drop-off program. RFP's were developed to procure services for the
program. Browning Ferris Industries (BH) was selected to provide services for the curbside
program. Waste Management of Iowa was selected to provide services for the drop-off program
and also to provide processing and marketing services for all materials collected in both
programs.
Both programs collected four types of materials:
• Newspaper: to include advertising supplements
• Glass bottles and jars: separated into green, brown, and clear
• Plastics: HDPE No. 1 and PETE No. 2 only to include milk jugs and water jugs,
detergent bottles, shampoo bottles and vinegar bottles
• Metals: tin foil, aluminum pie pans, and mixed metal and aluminum containers.
The pilot curbside and drop-off programs were implemented for a one-year period which allowed
the Agency sufficient time to collect data and evaluate the best method for providing recycling
for the service area. In both programs, we had a good mix of urban and rural communities, east
186
-------
and westside communities, and small and large communities. The programs kicked off in July
of 1990, and the results were unbelievable.
In the curbside communities, we averaged 75% to 80% participation and an average collection
cost per ton of $137.00. The total avoided landfill costs for the curbside communities was
$23,710.50. We collected a total of 1,437 tons in the curbside recycling program. For the
drop-off program, we averaged $48.00 per ton collection costs with the total avoided landfill
costs of $37,850.67.
The average net processing cost per ton for both programs was $12.50. The processing contract
signed with Waste Management of Iowa provided the Agency with 50% of the revenues from
the sale of materials collected. Through the end of June 1991, 4,071 tons of materials were
collected with revenues of over $45,000.00.
Through our evaluation of the pilot recycling programs, we were able to determine some of the
advantages and disadvantages of the program. It is clear that recycling is not an isolated activity
but rather a component of a well-designed and managed integrated solid waste management
system. Based on our evaluation of the programs, the Agency expanded its drop-off recycling
program to a county-wide system with 22 sites. This drop-off system allows us to be responsive
to the needs of our more rural areas while holding the line for total program implementation
costs. Many communities that were participating in the curbside program continued curbside
collection. However, the cost associated with those programs is now borne by either the
individual residents or the city itself. For fiscal year 1992-93, the Agency's annual recycling
budget is $906,228 covering the cost of operating 27 drop-off sites collecting over 10,000 tons
of materials.
Commercial Recycling
The Agency's commercial recycling program was designed to encourage and promote
commercial solid waste generators to recycle and reuse all items appropriate for recycling.
Understanding that nearly 70% of all of the waste generated in the Agency's service area was
commercial and industrial waste, the participation of business and industry in the Agency's
programs was going to be critical to the its ability to meet the mandated 25% and 50% volume
reduction goals.
The Agency began to immediately facilitate the development of commercial recycling systems.
Working in conjunction with the commercial recycling industry, the Agency provides technical
assistance to business and industry as they develop and implement their recycling and reuse
programs. The Agency has developed a commercial recycling kit and also a commercial
recycling pilot program that identified six business and industrial generators to serve as test sites
for commercial recycling.
187
-------
For the pilot participants, the Agency completed waste audits; planned the commercial collection
program; and assisted in identification of collection areas, markets, and developed and provided
public information and education materials. The commercial recycling pilot kicked off in early
1991, and the results of the commercial activity were shared with other area business and
industry when the Agency had its first annual Commercial Recycling Workshop in October,
1991.
Since the Recycling Workshop, we have completed 50 waste audits and have developed a
publication for business and industry promoting local business and industry initiatives undertaken
in response to the Agency's call for action.
Yard Waste Processing
The Agency's yard waste composting program was developed in response to the statewide
banning of yard waste from landfills in January, 1991. The initial site selected for the yard
waste processing facility was a 160 acre farm owned by the Agency located in the western most
portion of the Agency's service area. There was heavy NIMBY opposition to this proposed yard
waste site in anticipation of a lengthy siting battle with one of our own member communities.
The Agency began its yard waste compost operation at a site on the Agency's landfill property.
Currently, there are three individual pieces of litigation that are outstanding relative to the
development of the westside yard waste facility addressing the issues of annexation, road weight
embargo, and conditional use/zoning.
Since October 1990, the Agency has received 11,247.80 tons of yard waste at the landfill's yard
waste processing facility. Leaves and grass are windrowed, and brush is chipped and made
available to residents free of charge. Once grass and leaves are processed and the usable
compost is developed, the material is utilized at the landfill for daily cover and also to encourage
vegetative growth on filled portions of the facility.
All waste must be delivered to the facility either in bulk or in 20 gallon kraft paper bags. For
fiscal year 1992-93, the Agency's annual yard waste processing budget is $740,906.
Special and Specific Wastes
The Agency's special and specific waste program was developed to provide appropriate
management and disposal services for components of the waste stream which create special and
specific handling problems.
The first area upon which the Agency focused its efforts was household hazardous materials.
In the fall of 1989 the Agency conducted its First Annual Toxic Cleanup Day. The Agency
serviced over 2,500 vehicles and collected 86,000 loads of hazardous materials. The toxic
cleanup day activity has become an annual event with growth of the event occurring each year.
188
-------
A second Toxic Cleanup Day was held in October of 1990. That event was larger than the first
in that it serviced over 6,800 vehicles and collected 90,000 Ibs. of material. The Agency
developed extensive public information and education programs to promote proper disposal of
household hazardous materials.
A third Toxic Cleanup Day was held in October, 1991. That event serviced 5,500 vehicles and
collected 97,506 Ibs. of material. In addition, we were able to recycle 205,046 Ibs. of
antifreeze, latex paint, motor oil, oil filters, car batteries, and cardboard.
The Agency is currently undertaking the planning necessary for the development of a permanent
household hazardous materials facility for its service area. State funding is available for the
development of regional facilities throughout the State of Iowa, and the Agency plans to
complete its facilities plan and apply for state funding of its facility.
In addition to the one-day Toxic Cleanup Day event, the Agency has also developed satellite
sites for the collection of paint, used motor oil, oil filters, antifreeze, and lead-acid batteries.
These satellite sites are available to the public one Saturday a month and are located throughout
the Agency's service area to better serve the needs of its residents. For fiscal year 1992-93, the
Agency's budget for special and specific wastes is $610,508.
Program financing
Now, you're probably wondering how the Agency has financed the aggressive implementation
of its integrated solid waste management system.
When I came to the Agency in 1988, the Annual budget was $2,650,000 with a tipping fee of
$4.50. We have experienced a steady and somewhat dramatic increase of the Agency's
operating budget and tipping fees over a five-year period. With the implementation of the
programs in the Comprehensive Plan which took place in 1989-90, you can see the first dramatic
rise in not only the budget but also the tipping fee.
There were three things the Agency did to provide the financing and capital to implement its
system. We established a capital projects sinking fund, received bank financing for yard waste
equipment acquisitions, and developed a system-wide tipping fee.
The sinking fund was established in 1989-90. An annual allocation of $2 million was provided
to cover the costs of major capital requirements at our landfill. With state mandated ground
water monitoring systems, leachate control systems, methane gas recovery systems, and our own
landfill Phase I expansions, funds were required to complete these systems. All of these
facilities and upgrades, as well as new and replacement equipment costs, are financed through
monthly allocations to the Sinking Fund. The balance in the account at the end of each fiscal
year is carried forward to add to the subsequent year's allocation and utilized to cover the capital
costs incurred in that year. This method of capital projects financing has provided the Agency
189
-------
with an effective means of accumulating funds necessary to finance capital projects. The Agency
has developed an enterprise fund financing system to pay for its capital improvements thereby
avoiding the long delays and political complications of issuing debt.
A bank loan was secured for the acquisition of equipment for the yard waste compost facility
at an interest rate of 6.8%. RFP's were completed and sent to area banks.
And finally, a system-wide tipping fee was established to cover the costs of the Agency's
facilities and programs. Prior to 1990, the Agency had separate fee structures for the use of the
landfill and for use of the transfer station. The transfer station was an enterprise fund, and the
costs of the operation were charged back to the users of the facility which made the costs of the
use of this facility higher than the charge for the use of the landfill. As such, area haulers had
no incentive to utilized the transfer station when transportation costs for direct haul to the landfill
including the tipping fee were a little cheaper than the use of the transfer station. Understanding
that other components were to be added to the system, and payment based on the actual cost per
ton for recycling and composting would not allow those activates to be competitive.
Understating this and the need to bring some equity to the total system, a system-wide tipping
fee was instituted for the purpose of funding all Agency activities. Tables attached to this
document reflect how the annual budget and tipping fee are broken out by program.
Conclusion
Over the last 4 years, the Des Moines Metro Area Solid Waste Agency has undertaken an
ambitious program and schedule to achieve the full and complete development of an integrated
solid waste management system. Although the landfill and tipping fees generated from the use
of this facility sustain all components of the Agency's system, the focus from a pure landfill
system has changed drastically as the Agency has diversified its system to address all of the
elements of the solid waste management hierarchy.
An evaluation of the Agency's programs was undertaken in the fall of 1991. Based on the new
programs, the total Agency reduction is estimated to be 49,691 tons or a 12.89% reduction. The
Agency staff has just updated and revised its Comprehensive Plan as required by law for
submission and approval by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This plan delineates
an aggressive commercial recycling program, the expansion of materials collected in the drop-off
recycling program to include corrugated cardboard and mixed paper, landfill bans of certain
materials, and continued emphasis on public information and education.
There are numerous social, political and economic factors that affect a system change and impact
the development of an integrated system. The Metro Solid Waste experience from a social
perspective indicates that successful programs require a populous that understands their role and
responsibility in the solid waste dilemma and the achievement of legislated volume reduction
goals. Politically, we have quickly come to understand the need to work closely with policy
makers to assist in framing the discussion and making a number of critical decisions that will
190
-------
impact program development, facilities construction, siting, and fee structures. The commitment
of elected and appointed officials to the system as well as their willingness to compromise and
understand the varying needs and concerns of all is a key to the process. Economically, we
know that the cost of environmental protection and system implementation will carry with it
increased collection and disposal costs. As such, our goal must be the development of a system
that will not only meet the legislated goals and requirements but also pass the test for economic
effectiveness and efficiency.
In the coming years, the Agency will continue to evaluate its programs and their effectiveness
in meeting the waste reduction and recycling goals. Recommendations will be developed on
future programming designed to cost effectively attain those goals and to continue striving to
meet all environmental constraints associated with operating the largest solid waste management
system in the State of Iowa.
191
-------
1992-93 BUDGET DETAIL BY PROGRAM
DBS MOINES METRO SOLID WASTE AGENCY
(1992-1993 Annual Budget - $9,836,303)
LANDFILL 47%
$4,666
TRANSFER SWION 5%
$499,396
SPECIAL PROJECTS 6%
$610,508
RECYCLING 9%
$906,228
ADMINISTRATION 8%
$813,170
STATE SURCHARGE
$1,604,500
VOLUME REDUCTION 1%
YARD WASTE 8% $94,800
$740,906
-------
1992-93 TIPPING FEE
DES MOINES METRO SOLID WASTE AGENCY
$20.00 PER TON TIPPING FEE
BREAKDOWN BY PROGRAM
LANDFILL $8.82
CO
TRANSFER STATION $0.94
SPECIAL PROJECTS $1.16
ADMINISTRATION $1.54
STATE SURCHARGE $4.25
RECYCl ING $1.71
YARD WASTE $1.4
VOLUME REDUCTION $0.18
-------
Annual Budget & Tip Fee Escalation
Des Moines Metro Area Solid Waste Agency
Tip Fee (per ton)
$25
I
r
s
to
$20
$15--
$10
$5
$0
$6.50,
Annual Budget
$11
$0,836,303
$6,811,328
$20.00
096
.830
$2,812,587
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
$9
$7
$6
$5
$4
$2
1994
I
--$10 I
i
o
--$8 n
s
o
f
I
I
a
r
s
-*- Series 1 —*- Series 2
Tip Fee Annual Budget
-------
FUELING THE ASH AS HAZARDOUS WASTE DEBATE:
SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAYS YES, SECOND CIRCUIT SAYS NO
Kim Maree Johannessen1'
Chair of Environmental Practice Group
Foster Pepper & Shefelman
Seattle, Washington
INTRODUCTION
Over the last several years, there has been an ongoing debate over the proper classification of
ash produced by resource recovery facilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended
by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,42 U.S.C. § 6901 fij seq. ("RCRA").
Following recent conflicting decisions by two Circuit Courts of Appeals, it appears for now that
the issue is a draw.
Thus far, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has taken conflicting positions
with respect to whether incinerator ash is exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste, and has
looked to Congress and the courts for clarification. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air
Act to preclude EPA from regulating incinerator ash pursuant to Section 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act for a period of two years. Congress took such action presumably to allow a
judicial or legislative resolution of die issue.
Since that time, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have issued
conflicting decisions on whether Congress intended to exempt incinerator ash from regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA. With the EPA's hands tied until at least November, 1992, the issue
Maree Johannessen is chair of the Environmental Practice Group of Foster Pepper &
Shefelman, a Northwest regional law firm with offices in Seattle and Bellevue, Washington and
Portland, Oregon. Her practice focuses on hazardous waste and solid waste management, with
specific emphasis on siting, permitting and regulatory compliance. She also has extensive
experience representing both private and municipal clients in environmental enforcement, cost
recovery and insurance coverage negotiations and litigation. Prior to joining the firm,
Ms. Johannessen was senior associate with the environmental law firm of Wright & Mbehrke
in Boston, where she represented members of the solid waste and hazardous waste industry in
the siting of waste storage and disposal facilities, transfer stations and resource recovery
complexes. She graduated cum laude from Boston College Law School in 1986.
195
-------
will be left either to Congress to clarify its intent when it reauthorizes RCRA or to the U.S.
Supreme Court if certiorari is granted. In the meantime, municipalities and the solid waste
industry will have to sift through the federal courts' conflicting interpretations and await the final
outcome.
RCRA AND THE HOUSEHOLD WASTE EXCLUSION
Subtitle C of RCRA "establish[es] a 'cradle to grave' regulatory scheme governing the treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste." Environment^ Defense Fund v. EPA. 852 F.2d
1316, 1318 (D.C. Cir. 19881. cert, denied. 109 S.Ct 1120 (1989). Generators of hazardous
waste are subject to a host of regulatory requirements, including but not limited to:
(1) Obtaining an identification number from EPA before engaging in
the treatment, storage, transportation or disposal of hazardous
waste;
(2) shipment pursuant to a hazardous waste manifest;
(3) transportation by licensed hazardous waste transporters;
(4) packaging, labeling, marking and placarding requirements;
(5) disposal at licensed hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal
("TSD") facilities;
(6) storage in approved containers and limitations on accumulations;
and
(7) strict recordkeeping requirements.
Solid waste not classified as hazardous is regulated under Subtitle D of the statute, which
imposes significantly less stringent requirements than Subtitle C. Pursuant to RCRA, EPA
promulgated regulations dealing with the classification of solid waste as either hazardous or non-
hazardous. Certain wastes are listed as per se hazardous, 40 CFR § 261.30-261.33(f), while
others are deemed such only if they exhibit certain characteristics, 40 CFR § 261.21-261.24, and
are not otherwise exempt, 40 CFR § 261.3(a)(l).
In May, 1980, EPA implemented a so-called "household waste exclusion", which provides:
The following solid wastes are not hazardous wastes:
196
-------
(1) household waste, including household waste that has been collected,
transported, stored, treated, disposed, recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) or
reused. "Household waste" means any waste materials (including garbage, trash
and sanitary wastes in septic tanks) derived from households (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels).
45 Fed.Reg. 33,120 (May 19, 1980) (codified as amended at 40 CFR § 261.4(b)(l)).
In the preamble to the 1980 household waste exclusion, EPA stated that ash residue produced
as a by-product of the incineration of household waste was exempt from regulation under RCRA
Subtitle C:
The Senate language makes it clear that household waste does not lose the
exclusion simply because it has been collected. Since household waste is
excluded in all phases of its management, residues remaining after treatment
(e.g., incineration, thermal treatment) are not subject to regulation as hazardous
waste. Such waste, however, must be transported, stored, treated and disposed
in accord with applicable state and federal requirements concerning management
of solid waste (including any requirement specified in regulations under Subtitle
D of RCRA)
Sfig 45 Fed. Reg. 33,098 (May 19, 1980).*
In 1984, Congress amended RCRA to clarify the applicability of the household waste exclusion
to municipal solid waste ("MSW"), including non-hazardous industrial and commercial waste.
It enacted § 3001(i) which provides:
(i) Clarification of household waste exclusion
A resource recovery facility recovering energy from the mass burning of
municipal solid waste shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of,
or otherwise managing hazardous wastes for the purposes of regulation under this
subchapter if —
I'On October 9, 1991, EPA published the Final Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, which
set minimum national standards for municipal solid waste landfills. See 56 Fed. Reg. 50978
(1991) (codified at 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258).
197
-------
(1) such facility -
(A) receives and bums only —
i) household waste (from single and multiple
dwellings, hotels, motels and other residential sources), and
ii) solid waste from commercial or industrial sources
that does not contain hazardous waste identified or listed
under this section, and
(B) does not accept hazardous waste identified or listed under
this section, and
(2) the owner or operator of such facility has established contractual
requirements or other appropriate notification or inspection procedures to
assure'that hazardous wastes are not received at or burned in such facility.
See. Section 3001(i), 42 U.S.C. § 6921(i).
In commenting on the amendment, the Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works stated:
The reported bill adds a subsection (d) [sic] to Section 3001 to clarify the
coverage of the household waste exclusion with respect to resource recovery
facilities recovering energy through the mass burning of the municipal solid
waste. This exclusion was promulgated by the [EPA] in its hazardous waste
management regulations established to exclude waste streams generated by
consumers at the household level and by sources whose wastes are sufficiently
similar in both quantity and quality to those in households.
Resource recovery facilities often take in such "household waste" mixed with
other common non-hazardous waste streams from a variety of sources other than
"households," including small commercial and industrial sources, schools, hotels,
municipal buildings, churches, etc. It is important to encourage commercially
viable resource recovery facilities and to remove impediments that may impair
their development and operation. New Section 3001(d) [sic] clarifies the original
intent to include within the household waste exclusion activities of a resource
recovery facility which recovers energy from the mass burning of household
waste and non-hazardous waste from other sources.
198
-------
All waste management activities at such a facility, including the generation.
transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of waste shall be covered by the
exclusion, if the limitations in paragraphs (1) and (2") o_f_subsection (d) Fsic] are
met. (Emphases added).
See S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 61 (1983), which accompanied the proposed
amendment.
Provided the facility does not accept hazardous waste for incineration and has in place the
appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that such waste is not accepted, it appears to have been the
intent of Congress to exempt residue ash from regulation as a hazardous waste. At issue within
EPA and in the cases recently decided by two federal appellate courts is whether the ash residue
may be disposed of in a Subtitle D disposal facility and regulated as a solid waste under
Subtitle D, regardless of whether the ash might otherwise qualify as a hazardous waste.
According to the petition for a writ of certiorari filed in response to the decision in
Environmental Defense Fund v. City of Chicagor 948 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1991) ("City of
Chicago")r the financial stakes are high:
For example, charges for disposing of a ton of waste at a Subtitle D landfill in
the Midwest averaged $23.15 per ton. . . A conservative 1990 average cost for
required stabilization and disposal of waste at a Subtitle C landfill is $210 per
ton, nearly ten times as much ... For the City's Northwest Facility, which must
dispose of between 110,000 and 140,000 tons of ash annually . . . , the increased
cost for disposal alone could amount to more than $20 million each year. In
addition, the City almost certainly would have to shoulder increased costs for
transportation of the ash because transporters would have to comply with
Subtitle C requirements.
Cirv of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 91-1328, petition filed on
February 18, 1992, at fn. 3, p. 9 (citations omitted).
EPA's INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3001 fi)
In 1985, EPA promulgated regulations that mirrored Section 3001(i). See 40 CFR
§ 261.4(b)(l). However, in its preamble, the Agency expressed doubt that Section 3001(i)
exempted ash exhibiting hazardous characteristics from regulation as a hazardous waste:
EPA does not see in this provision an intent to exempt the regulation of
incinerator ash from the burning of non-hazardous waste in resource recovery
facilities if the ash routinely exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
199
-------
However, EPA has no evidence to indicate that these ash residues are hazardous
under existing rules. EPA does not believe the [Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984] impose new regulatory burdens on resource recovery
facilities that burn household and other non-hazardous waste, and the Agency has
no plans to impose additional responsibilities on these facilities. Given the highly
beneficial nature of resource recovery facilities, any future additional regulation
of their residues would have to await consideration of the important technical and
policy issues that would be posed in the event serious questions arise about the
residues.
SfiS 50 Fed. Reg. 28,725-726 (July 15, 1985).
Subsequently, in 1987, the EPA official responsible for implementing RCRA questioned his own
Agency's views on whether Section 300l(i) exempts residue ash:
Currently, EPA's regulations merely restate the statutory language. In the
preamble codifying this statutory language, however, EPA advanced an
interpretation of the statute that would subject ash residue's [sic] from energy-
recovering MWC's [Municipal Waste Combustors] to Subtitle C regulation if the
ash exhibited a characteristics of hazardous waste. The Agency has reexamined
that interpretation and now concludes that may have been in error. The Agency
believes that the language and legislative history of Section 3001 (i) were probably
intended to exclude these ash residues from regulation under Subtitle C.
It seems clear that Congress' interest in Section 3001(i) was to encourage energy
recovery. Under the section, the reach of the household exclusion was to be
extended for facilities that recover energy. The Agency's prior interpretation of
the section would restrict the exclusions with respect to ash residue for facilities
that recover energy as well as those that do not. This appears inconsistent with
the reach of the household exclusion itself (which clearly covers ash). It also
appears inconsistent with the expressed legislative intent that 'all waste
management activities of such a facility, including the generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of waste shall be covered by the exclusion. . . .'
S. Rep. at 61.
Testimony of J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response ("OSWER"), before the Senate Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste and
Toxic Substances of the Committee on Environmental and Public Works (December 3, 1987),
at 16-17.
200
-------
In March, 1988, EPA prepared a draft guidance on municipal waste combustion ash. The draft
guidance was intended to provide state and local officials with general information on the
generation and composition of ash from incinerated MSW and to provide some recommendations
for the design and operation of new or expanded disposal facilities. According to EPA,
however, that guidance was neither finalised nor intended for public distribution. Since that
time, EPA has not issued any further policy or guidance documents pertaining to ash residues.
Although the failure to issue further policy statements would indicate a retreat from EPA's
previous position regarding the regulation of incinerator ash as hazardous waste, EPA continues
to look to Congress and the courts for clarification of a statute which it regards as ambiguous:
With regard to [incinerator] ash. . ., we said in a 1985 notice that the ash
generated by these facilities which exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste
must be managed as hazardous waste. We continue to follow that 1985 policy,
and that is our current interpretation. We are in litigation challenging the EPA's
interpretation of section 3001(i). We believe the law is ambiguous given it is
silent with regard to treatment of ash under that section. We do believe it needs
to be clarified.
Testimony of Sylvia Lowrance, then Director of EPA's Office of Solid Waste, before the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2 (May 11,1989), at 33. Any future regulatory action
by EPA, however, has been constrained by recent amendments to the Clean Air Act.
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
In late 1990, Congress adopted extensive amendments to the Clean Air Act, which were signed
by the President on November 15, 1990. Section 306 of the amendments temporarily defuses
the ash management dispute by imposing a two-year moratorium on new efforts by EPA to
regulate ash:
For a period of 2 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, ash from solid waste incineration units burning municipal
waste shall not be regulated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Such
reference and limitation shall not be construed to prejudice, endorse or otherwise
affect any activity by the Administrator following the 2-year period from the date
of enactment of the [Amendments].
Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, 2584 (1990).
201
-------
The Conference Committee's only comment pertaining to the moratorium with respect to
incinerator ash was contained in the House Conference Report which accompanied the bill:
The conferees do not intend to prejudice or affect in any manner ongoing
litigation, including Environmental Defense Fund v. Wheelabrator. Inc.. 725 F.
Supp. 758 (2d Cir.) and Environmental Defense Fund v. City of Chicago. Appeal
No. 90-3060 (7th Cir.), or any State activity regarding ash.
House Conference Report No. 101-952, at p. 342. It appears that Congress thus intended
to delay EPA from further interpreting Section 300 l(i) until such time as the court cases are
finally resolved or it takes up the ash issue during the next RCRA reauthorization debate.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT CASES
At the time the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted, two appeals were pending
before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding
the regulation of incinerator ash as a hazardous waste. In Environmental Defense Fund. Inc.
v. Wheelabrator Technologies. Inc.. 725 F. Supp. 758 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York reviewed the foregoing RCRA provisions and i
legislative history at length. In a 52-page opinion issued on November 21, 1989, the coun
concluded that, at the time of its passage, Congress intended Section 3001 (i) to exempt ash from
regulation as a hazardous waste.
The plaintiff, Environmental Defense Fund ("EDF"), argued that Section 3001(i) does not
exempt resource recovery facilities from those regulations governing the generation of hazardous
waste, but merely from those regulations concerning the management of hazardous waste (i.e.,
they are exempted from regulation as a TSD facility). EDF argued that since Section 300 l(i)
does not specifically mention either the term "generation" or ash residues in its discussion of
hazardous wastes, those ash residues that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic are not
exempt from the regulations governing the generation and disposal of hazardous waste.
The district court was persuaded by the fact that Section 300 l(i), when it was enacted in 1984,
was explicitly termed a clarification of the 1980 household waste exclusion, which clearly
applied to incinerator ash. It rejected EPA's interpretation of the statute because it "is in direct
conflict with the expressed intent of Congress as that intent is manifested in the legislative
history." 725 F. Supp. at 766.
Further, the court was unimpressed by the conflicting positions taken by EPA with respect to
incinerator ash:
202
-------
Although the EPA's official positions arguably remain unchanged since the
Agency first interpreted the exclusion in 1985, the Agency has certainly called the
validity of its own views into doubt, calling for legislative clarification of the
issue....In these circumstances, an additional reason for rejecting the Agency
interpretation urged upon this Court by EDF is the "inconsistency of the positions
the [EPA] has taken through the years."
725 F. Supp. at 768-769 (citation omitted).
Although the district court's opinion set forth the judge's findings and conclusions on the issue,
he delayed entry of final judgment pending further discovery to determine whether the*
defendants actually accepted hazardous wastes at its facility. Subsequently, on April 16, 1990,
final judgment in favor of the defendants was entered.
On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals summarily stated:
After carefully reviewing Judge Haight's thorough and well reasoned opinion, we
agree with his analysis of the legal issues. Accordingly, we affirm the April 16,
1990 judgment of the district court for the reasons stated by Judge Haight in his
opinion dated November 21, 1989. (citations omitted)
Environmental Defense Fund v. Wheelabrator Technologies. Inc.. 931 F.2d 211, 213-214 (2d
Cir. 1991).
With respect to the Clean Air Act Amendments which were enacted while the appeal was
pending, the Court stated:
The plain import of the [conference report] statement is that Congress consciously
made a decision not to express an opinion regarding the instant case and a
companion case being litigated in the Seventh Circuit . . . Moreover, the
statement is consistent with a congressional intention to see that the applicable
regulatory scheme currently in existence is not rendered null and void as it relates
to the regulation of incinerator ash. Finally, by imposing a two year moratorium
on any new EPA regulatory activity concerning incinerator ash, Congress simply
may have desired to maintain the status quo pending judicial resolution of the
issues presented here and in City of Chicago. Once the courts have spoken,
Congress will be in a better position to evaluate its options regarding the
treatment of incinerator ash and to direct its future legislative efforts accordingly.
931 F.2d at 213 (emphasis in original).
203
-------
Following the Second Circuit's decision on April 24, 1991, EDF filed a petition for certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was denied on November 18, 1991.
A day later, on November 19, 1991, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the City of
Chicago case, which had been similarly decided at the district court level. In Environmental
Defense Fund. Inc. v. City of Chicago. 727 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. HI. 1989), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois held, based on the language of the statute and its
legislative history, that Congress intended to exclude incinerator ash from Subtitle C regulation.
It had also concluded that EPA's 1985 interpretation of Section 300l(i) was not entitled to
deference because it rested on a questionable reading of the statute and had been strikingly
inconsistent.
In what certainly came as a surprise to the solid waste industry, the Seventh Circuit reversed the
lower court, holding that ash generated from municipal resource recovery facilities is subject to
regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C.
In sharp contrast to the Second Circuit's view, the Seventh Circuit disagreed that the legislative
history was explicit on the ash question. The Court cited two letters dated October 2, 1987
which were sent by six Senators and Representative Florio to Lee Thomas of the EPA. The
Senators' letter urged EPA to refrain from issuing any legal interpretations on the ash
management issue, stating:
In our view, Section 300l(i) of [RCRA], as amended in 1984 does not exempt
owners or operators of municipal solid waste incinerators from their obligations:
(1) to determine whether the ash residues generated by the incineration process
are hazardous waste, and (2) to handle ash exhibiting hazardous waste
characteristics as hazardous wastes in accordance with the requirements of
Subtitle C of RCRA. Thus, we concur in the agency's statement in the preamble
to the July 15, 1985 codification rule that in the 1984 amendments Congress did
not 'exempt the regulation [sic] of incinerator ash from the burning of non-
hazardous waste in resource recovery facilities if the ash routinely exhibits a
characteristic of hazardous waste.'
City of Chicago. 948 F.2d at 349, citing Regulation of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators:
Hearings on H.R. 2162 before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials of
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 101 St. Cong., IstSess. 1-2 (May 11, 1989).
The Court also placed great emphasis on statements made by Congressman Luken, then
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, on the
statutory ambiguity surrounding the regulation of incinerator ash. Concluding that the "varying
interpretations, a foggy legislative history, and a waffling administrative agency" (948 F.2d at
350) deserve no weight in considering the statute's plain language, the Court held tha
204
-------
Section 3001 (i) does not exclude the "generation" of ash from regulation under RCRA
Subtitle C:
Congress was well aware of the EPA's position on ash when it enacted
Section 3001(i). Although tossed around, the word 'generation' was not used in
the final product. Why should we, then, rely upon a single word in a committee
report that did not result in legislation? Simply put, we shouldn't. The actual
words of the statute — the end product of the rough-and-tumble of political
process — are the definitive statement of congressional intent.
at 351.
The Court refused to accept the City's assertion that the terms "otherwise managing" and
"generating" are co-extensive terms. It went on to review the individual definitions in RCRA,
noting that the term "management" is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 6903(7) as the "collection, source
separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal of hazardous
waste." The court examined the definitions of "treatment" and "disposal" in 42 U.S.C.
§ 6903(34) and 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3), respectively, and found that neither included the term
"generation". RCRA separately defines "generation" as the "act or process of producing
hazardous waste." See 42 U.S.C. § 6903(6). Concluding that there is no overlap between
hazardous waste "management" and hazardous waste "generation", the Court held that the plain
language of Section 3001(i) limited the exclusion to "management" activities of resource
recovery facilities, thus subjecting "generating" activities to Subtitle C regulation.2'
The effect of these conflicting court decisions remains to be seen. As pointed out in the City
of Chicago's petition for certiorari filed on February 18,1992,-' the decisions have "destroy[ed3
the uniformity necessary to the effectiveness of environmental policy." Petition at p. 9. The
result is that resource recovery facilities in the Second Circuit may manage the ash as a
non-hazardous waste, while facilities in the Seventh Circuit must manage the ash as a hazardous
waste under Subtitle C. Moreover, facilities in other circuits will face great uncertainty over
how to manage their ash:
[T]he 97 resource recovery facilities outside of the Second and Seventh Circuits
and the numerous waste disposal facilities in those 44 states must now choose
^Circuit Judge Ripple dissented, stating that he would affirm the lower court for the reasons
stated in the opinions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
J/As of the date of this publication, the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to grant
or decline review of the Seventh Circuit's decision.
205
-------
among incurring the very significant costs of treating the ash as a hazardous
waste,. . . facing harsh RCRA penalties if they guess wrongly about how the ash
should be treated in their circuit, or shipping wastes to the Second Circuit for
incineration. Such a situation is intolerable.
Petition at p. 11.
RCRA REAUTHORIZATION
If the Supreme Court declines review of the City of Chicago case, the-issue may be left to
Congress to resolve during the upcoming RCRA reauthorization debate. The latest proposed
legislation in the House of Representatives is the Swift Bill (HR 3865), which approaches 300
pages in length. The draft bill proposes to add Section 4202 to RCRA, which explicitly provides
that the management, handling, storage, treatment, transportation, reuse, recycling and disposal
of ash is subject to Subtitle D and not Subtitle C. The proposed bill also imposes numerous
requirements for the disposal of ash in landfills and requires that, five years after the
amendments' enactment, ash be disposed of in monofills only.
It remains to be seen whether the Swift Bill will actually make its way out of full committee.
For now, it appears that, if RCRA is reauthorized during this legislative session, the ash issue
will be resolved in accordance with the Second Circuit's decision. Given the difficulties and
delays inherent in the political process, however, the swiftest decision may come from the
Supreme Court.
"A proposed amendment to the Swift Bill, known as the Boucher Amendment, seeks to grant
veto authority over the acceptance of out-of-state waste in local governments where the receiving
landfills are located. The amendment has generated a great deal of controversy throughout the
solid waste industry as well as among the states, thus raising a question whether a RCRA
reauthorization bill will pass before the end of this legislative session.
206
-------
HOW TO ESTABLISH AN ENTERPRISE FUND SYSTEM FOR SOLED WASTE
WHICH WILL ATTRACT WALL STREET
Robin D. Depot
Deputy Director
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
Baltimore, Maryland
J. David Rush
President
Public Resources Advisory Group
New York, New York
I. Introduction
Municipal Governments are facing critical funding needs for a variety of social service and
infrastructure needs. These funding needs have been dramatically increased over the last
decade due to (i) a decrease in state and federal funding of local programs, (ii) an
increase in state and federal mandates for the provision of programs at the local level
without commensurate funding levels and (iii) an aging of local infrastructure.
One area which has had a severe cost impact on local budgets has been solid waste
disposal. Both the federal and state government have substantially increased environmental
and liability requirements on the providers of solid waste services. These increased
requirements have directly increased the costs of the provision of solid waste services
throughout the United States. For those units of local government which provide solid
waste services to their citizens, these costs have become an increasing part of the local
government's budget Indeed, for some communities on Long Island, the cost of solid
waste disposal represents over 50% of the municipal budget.
As costs of service provision increase, citizens become more aware of the cost burden of
the service being provided and begin to question the distribution of the costs to the citizen
base. For solid waste services, the increasing costs have raised the concerns of citizens
regarding the equitable distribution of costs and have forced many governments to
thoroughly review and revise their charging mechanisms for solid waste services to assure
that, within reason, the users of the service are paying for the service or the service being
provided (i.e. recycling) has a social value which merits an inequitable cost recovery
mechanism.
207
-------
In order to assure cost recovery and an equitable distribution of costs of solid waste
services, many governments have removed their solid waste operations from the General
Fund and started accounting for solid waste services as a separate enterprise fund.
Effectively, governments have started viewing solid waste services as a separate "cost
center" with its own capital program and system of fees and charges to allow for the "cost
center" to operate on a stand alone basis. This change in accounting and management
philosophy from a General Fund based solid waste system to a "cost center" (or enterprise
fund) based solid waste system is very similar to what governments did in the 1960's and
1970's with their wastewater systems.
In the 1960's and 1970's local government's cost of the provision of wastewater services
rose dramatically, primarily due to federal and state mandates to install secondary
treatment and industrial pretreatment As the citizenry became aware of the increased
costs of wastewater services, there was a concomitant awareness and outcry for an
equitable system to recover the costs of wastewater treatment For wastewater systems the
federal government took the lead in developing a framework for an equitable charging
system and many governments implemented this framework using an enterprise fund
accounting system. Because of the federally mandated charging structure (i.e. flow and
strength charges coupled with a no free service requirement), many local governments were
able to structure their wastewater enterprise fund to provide easy access to the capital
markets by issuing revenue bonds. While there are tremendous similarities between tbr
historical development of wastewater enterprise funds with the ability to access the capil
markets and the current development of solid waste enterprise funds with ability to access
the capital markets there are also tremendous dissimilarities.
One should not assume that because a local government was successful in establishing a
strong enterprise fund for wastewater with easy access to the capital markets through the
issuance of revenue bonds, it will be successful in developing a strong enterprise fund for
solid waste with similar ease of access to the capital markets. In developing solid waste
system enterprise funds, which will have easy access to the capital markets, there are
several difficult issues which the sponsoring government must address. These include:
• A system of fees and charges which are equitable and have the ability to
provide sufficient funds to pay all costs of the solid waste system;
• A system of assurance that sufficient solid waste will be delivered to the local
government's facilities to assure the collection of revenues in sufficient
amounts to pay all costs of the sob'd waste system;
• A financial plan which assures that sufficient revenues and facilities will be
available to handle all waste delivered at a cost which will not encourage
"system leakage";
208
-------
• A capability to report historical operating results and performance and
provide for audited financial statements; and
• A management team which has the training to manage sophisticated
environmental facilities.
If a government can meet all of these constraints, then it should be able to develop a solid
waste enterprise fund which has the ability to access the capital markets.
While, on the surface, it may seem that it is easy to meet these four constraints, in practice
it is quite difficult and many governments may decide to not implement a solid waste
enterprise fund system with the ability to issue revenue bonds because the public policy
implications of meeting these constraints are too negative. The ability to meet these
constraints is further complicated by the "credit crunch" of the 1990's which requires a
more rigorous financial plan with conservative, financial projections, a history of
commitment to solid waste management and a flexible management and financial plan to
meet future changing conditions.
II. Why Develop an Enterprise Fund for Solid Waste
An enterprise fund is effectively an accounting arrangement whereby the revenues and
expenses of a specific service are segregated and accounted for on a "stand alone" basis.
Governments can develop an enterprise fund without impacting its current governmental
organizational structure, but most governments which create enterprise funds typically
reorganize the management and reporting structure to have personnel and management
directly responsible for the operation of the enterprise fund.
With the establishment of a solid waste enterprise fund, a governmental entity has the
ability to provide at least two new types of service. These are:
• The ability to account for all operations of the solid waste services as a single
unit with the allocation of all costs and revenues associated with solid waste
and the ability to directly determine if revenues of the solid waste system are
covering all costs; and
• Assuming the governmental entity can properly address the five issues
outlined above, the ability to issue revenue bonds to secure any borrowing
associated with solid waste service.
The first item summarized above can provide management of the government with the
proper tools to manage the solid waste system. Many governments, while charging a
tipping fee for solid waste services do not know if such tipping fee directly covers all costs.
With the development of an enterprise fund, all costs become known and a governmental
manager has the financial tools necessary to make proper management decisions regarding
209
-------
management of the solid waste system and recovery of costs.
The second item summarized above provides additional flexibility for the governmental unit
in terms of its overall access to the capital markets. From a credit perspective, a critical
statistic in determining the cost of funds for a governmental entity is Net Direct Debt
Net Direct Debt is defined as the debt of a governmental unit which is directly payable
from the general fund or has a general fund subsidy to pay a portion of the debt By
establishing an enterprise fund, a governmental entity can remove the debt associated with
its solid waste system from its Net Direct Debt For many governmental entities this is
a big advantage and can overcome any increased costs of revenue debt financing.
HI. Development of Fees and Charges
The current practice in the solid waste industry for those governments which operate solid
waste systems as a "cost center" is to have a system of tipping fees and collection fees
which attempt to equate the cost of service with the service provided. By operating the
solid waste system as a cost center, the government can attribute the entire cost of solid
waste disposal to the users of the solid waste system. There are, however, two areas
where public policy appears to override this system of equitable charges. These are (i)
recycling and (ii) hazardous waste disposal.
Many governments currently subsidize the costs of recycling and household hazardoi
waste by placing surcharges on tipping and collection fees for solid waste. This subsidy
tends to increase the cost of solid waste disposal above that which is theoretically
equitable. If charges for solid waste disposal are too high, then regardless of the method
of control of the waste stream, credit analysts wfll view the solid waste system as not as
credit worthy as a system with lower fees. There needs to be a careful balance between
those services for which charges are made and those services which receive subsidies.
From a credit quality perspective, the best charging system is a charging system which
charges for all services with no obvious subsidies.
One area of charging for solid waste services which currently does not appear to be in use
in the solid waste industry is the capacity charge (or facilities charge). This system charge
is a charge to new customers based on their "buying in" to the currently available capital
facility. This type of charge has a long and substantial history for both water and
wastewater systems. While from a credit perspective, use of a capacity charge for new
customers is not a credit strength, from an equity perspective, such charges would provide
for a more equitable system of fees and charges.
For example, if a resource recovery facility is constructed with 10% additional capacity for
growth, the base users of the system (i.e. those users who participate in the resource
recovery facility upon its inception) are paying a higher tipping fee to carry the additional
capacity for future users. If a new user enters the system four years after the resource
recovery facility begins operations, without a capacity charge, the current system users have
210
-------
provided a four year subsidy to the new user (i.e. the carrying cost of the additional
capacity for a four year period). Without a capacity charge, solid waste system users are
subsidizing growth.
All-in-all, management of a solid waste system which desires access to the capital markets
to finance solid waste facilities based on the strength of the solid waste enterprise fund
must develop a system of fees and charges which are equitable and can react to changes
in technology, environmental law, waste stream attributes and waste stream amounts.
While the strong system of fees and charges are necessary for a solid waste system to
access the capital markets, they are not sufficient
IV. Waste Control
An important criteria in developing capital market access for a solid waste system is the
degree of control the system has over its waste stream. Effectively, there are three types
of controls a solid waste system can place on its waste stream. These are (i) legislative
flow control, (ii) legislative revenue control and (iii) economic flow control.
Legislative flow control can be established by the governmental entity passing a law which
requires all solid waste disposers to use specific components of the solid waste system.
Historically, this type of waste stream control has been viewed as extremely strong, so long
as the user fees and charges are reasonable and somewhat competitive with alternate
disposal systems. Recently, the concept of legislative flow control has been challenged in
Rhode Island. This challenge was, in part, based on the high cost of disposal in Rhode
Island when compared to disposal costs of systems in other states. In combination with
a competitive tipping fee (both current and projected), a solid waste system manager
should be able to rely on legislative flow control as sufficient control of the waste stream
to access the capital markets.. However, if the tipping fee is substantially higher than other
systems, the credit markets may not accept a solid waste enterprise fund revenue bond
borrowing even with legislative flow control.
Legislative revenue control can be established by the governmental entity passing a law
which requires all users to pay a fee for solid waste services regardless of whether or not
the users use the service. Typically, such laws affect only the residential users of the
system with commercial user's waste being controlled by some type of legislative flow
control or other means. The key to implementing a revenue control based waste control
system is to establish that the fees charged to users are equitable. A negative to this type
of waste control is that it does not encourage waste reduction without adding to the
revenue control some type of control on the amount of waste. Some solid waste systems
have dealt with this issue by implementing a per bag system or limiting the number of
garbage containers a hauler can pick up.
In theory, it should be possible to implement a type of waste control based on the offering
of services at a competitive price (economic flow control). This can be difficult however
211
-------
if neighboring jurisdictions have lower component cost (e.g. lower cost of land, etc.), or a
private entrepreneur develops a large disposal facility which can take advantage of
economies of scale. One way to resolve this problem is to collect revenues according to
the costs for each service within the system. For example, charge for the expenses of
recycling services should not be aggregated with charges for transfer station and landfill
which will result in a combined high tipping fee.
Another potential problem with capturing the waste stream with an economic, competitive
pricing structure is that governments typically want to build facilities to take all of their
solid waste plus some room for growth. This initial "oversizing" of facilities tends to
increase the costs of disposal services higher than possible competitors who can build a
system for a specific amount of waste and reject any waste above the system capacity. In
general, while it may be possible for the credit markets to accept a system based on a
competitive tipping fee structure, it will be quite difficult to get the credit markets to
accept such a plan. To date, there appears to be no solid waste project sponsored by
government which has financed its facilities based on a competitive fee structure to capture
waste.
V. Financial Plan
A third component of developing a solid waste system with access to the capital markets
is the development of a financial or business plan. As in the corporate finance arena, i
order to secure financing for a project or a system, investors must access the long ter
viability of their investment This requires the solid waste system to develop a detailed
financial plan.
The components of the financial plan should include (i) a projection of the quantity and
quality of the waste stream, (ii) a projection of the fees and charges and other revenues
necessary to meet all system requirements, (iii) a projection of all expenses of operation
of the system and (iv) a capital plan projection. The financial plan should be extremely
detailed for a five year projection and should be updated annually. The financial plan
should also include a less detailed projection for a minimum of 20 years. Before accessing
the capital markets with revenue bonds, the financial plan should be "expertised11 by having
an outside, independent party review the plan and attest to its feasibility.
Waste Stream: In developing the financial plan, a solid waste manager must make
a projection of the waste stream with a detailed breakdown of the projected
components of the waste stream. These components should include source of waste
(i.e. residential, institutional and commercial) and type of waste (i.e. recyclables,
combustibles, compostables and hazardous waste). Additionally, in determining the
components and amounts of the waste stream, the solid waste system should detail
exactly what controls and economic realities will allow the waste to be delivered to
the system.
212
-------
Revenue Components: Once the solid waste system has determined its waste
stream, a detailed analysis of the revenue to be generated from the waste stream
must be performed. Historically, from a capital markets perspective, tipping fees
are viewed as high quality revenues whereas revenues from the sale of recyclables
or compost are viewed as low quality revenues. In developing a system of fees and
charges and other revenues for the financial plan, the solid waste system cannot rely
too heavily on revenues from the sale of recyclables and compost In fact, most
credit analysts will assume that such revenues are nil and will analyze the impact
on system financial performance under such assumptions. In addition, if a
government decides to institute a capacity fee as described above, a good rule of
thumb is that such capacity fees should not be greater than 20% of overall system
revenues.
A critical element in developing revenue projections is the ability of the system to
collect such revenues based on competition. Even though a solid waste system may
formally have control of its waste through either flow control or revenue control,
the fees developed as part of the revenue components should not be substantially
higher than local competition allows. Credit analysts will discount a portion of fee
revenues if they are substantially higher than other competing facilities even though
the solid waste system has flow or revenue control.
ExpenseComponents: Fixed costs include current debt service, operation of existing
facilities and administration. New facilities must be added to the system as they are
expected to be financed. The manager must remember to add programs and
infrastructure to meet legislated and mandated goals, i.e. the cost of meeting
recycling goals which may change over time. In addition, the manager must
anticipate ever changing environmental regulations and laws and the associated
expenses for these programs. Variable costs must be anticipated, and most
importantly, an inflation factor included to reflect increasing costs for wages,
benefits, supplies, permits and monitoring. The credit community will not only
scrutinize compliance with current environmental legislation, but will be interested
in pending legislation and trends in the solid waste industry.
Capital Components; As part of the development of the financial plan, a solid
waste system must incorporate a capital facilities plan which details the types of new
facilities and major maintenance and repair required of older facilities to show that
there will be sufficient infrastructure in place at all times to allow the system to
provide disposal services. The key component of any capital facilities plan is a
landfill for the ultimate disposal of processing residues and solid waste. A capital
facilities plan should include all planned components which will allow for future
growth in solid waste and must be sufficiently flexible to deal with changes in waste
flows and waste streams.
213
-------
A critical component of the capital facilities plan is the development of a financing
plan to assure sufficient funds to construct the facilities. Typically, the source of
funds used to implement new facilities or make major repairs or upgrades to current
facilities include revenues raised from fees and charges and proceeds of debt The
amount of debt used in a capital facilities plan will determine the system leverage
and, in general, the amount of debt should not exceed five times the amount of
equity in the system. If a system's capital facilities plan results in debt greater than
five times the amount of system equity (as defined on the system's balance sheet),
credit analysts wfll view the system as "over leveraged" and will penalize the system
in terms of interest rates it receives* for its bonds.
Once all of the components of a financial plan have been developed, it is important that
the solid waste system be able to demonstrate the impact of various changes in
assumptions on the system's financial integrity. For example,, if waste flow is less than
currently projected, wfll the concomitant increase in tipping fees make the system
substantially more expensive as a disposal option when compared to competing facilities.
In general, a financial plan must be structured to withstand changes in assumptions of
approximately 10%.
VI. System Financial Reporting
In order to properly assure potential investors as to the integrity of the solid waste system
and to provide credit analysts with the certain tools necessary to analyze the credit quality
of the solid waste enterprise fund, the solid waste enterprise fund must be able to provide
a record of financial performance which can be audited in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. This requirement dictates that a governmental entity be
able to produce a balance sheet, a statement of revenues and expenses and a statement
of changes in financial position on an annual basis.
In establishing an enterprise fund for the first time, the most difficult financial report to
prepare is typically the opening balance sheet The difficulty typically arises in the
development of the system of fixed assets associated with the enterprise fund. Many
governments have not kept proper records of historical fixed assets and find it difficult to
provide a statement of the depreciated value of the current capital facilities in service.
One method of determining the depreciated value of current capital facilities which has
been used in the past to provide for an opening balance sheet is to engage an engineering
or accounting firm to survey the current facilities and make an estimate of the depreciated
value of such facilities. While not technically a correct method of developing the fixed
asset portion of the opening balance sheet, both accounting firms and credit analysts have
accepted this approach.
The enterprise fund will have to develop a reporting mechanism for its financial statements
and, from an investor relations perspective it is good to develop a mailing list of investors
and credit analysts so the enterprise fund can send the audited financial statements to
214
-------
investors and credit analysts on an annual basis.
VII. System Management
System management requires a team effort among the public works, environmental
compliance, finance, budget and legal departments. This is a public sector version of
corporate strategic planning. Strategic planning becomes more important as lenders and
investors become sensitive to the correlation between management and credit risk. Once
the financial plans have been developed, it must be explained to the elected officials and
the public. A citizen/business advisory group may be of assistance with this effort The
solid waste agency wfll be expected to correlate die five year plan with the budget
Vin. Conclusion
As can be seen by the discussion in this paper, there are many advantages for a
government to establish an enterprise fund for solid waste. As the cost of solid waste
services increase, there should be more governmental entities establishing enterprise funds
for solid waste services. Unfortunately, the establishment and development of a solid
waste enterprise fund in itself does not necessarily result in the ability to issue revenue
bonds. The key to gaining access to the capital markets for revenue bonds issued by solid
waste systems is to develop a well managed system with control of waste and a series of
fees and charges which are competitive with surrounding jurisdictions.
215
-------
HOW WASTE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE ADAPTING TO AND RESISTIN
CHANGE
Josefina Maestu
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Abstract
The paper looks at how waste management organizations are adapting to and resisting changes
in policies and new ideas about waste management; Organizations in waste disposal management
have normally centered their activities on landfill and transfer/transportation of municipal refuse.
Some have become very good at this, whether as publicly owned companies, in partnership with
the private sector, or as private companies. We are asking for a lot of changes from these often
highly efficient organizations. They are being asked to take on policies generated by other
bodies, and to become part of the process of generating new solutions / new ideas towards the
challenge of "moving ahead". Organizations tend to be dynamically conservative and here they
must become "learning organizations" if major changes in environmental practices are to be
achieved. If they don't show the capacity to learn they will simply be replaced by new types of
organizations.
I discuss this in the light of the practices of three different waste management organizations in
three different countries (Spain, U.K. and Holland). They are a Regional Government
Department, an Independent Authority and a Public/Private partnership.
Introduction
The Organizations I am studying are typical of a particular kind. They are public or semi public
and each serve populations of about 1 million people. Some are focusing on the more
conventional running of transfer stations and landfill sites, whilst others represent a more
"advanced" stance in the debate about environmental sustainability, focusing in running
separation plants and the like. The three agencies studied have introduced new practices. Some
217
-------
of the practices introduced are more conventional such as improved designed of containers, or
new annex chambers in transfer stations. Other practices are more "interesting", such as
introducing public opinion campaigns or new separation processes of paper and plastics, or the
plans for separated plastic to be sold as bullets to the plastics industry. There are lessons of
interest in both types of examples which may help us understand why some practices are more
likely to be introduced than others in this type of agency. I will describe why some proposals
faced more resistance than others and what might be the options to improve the ability of
organizations to adopt new programmes.
The introduction of conventional and nonconventional practices in Spain, the U.K. and Holland
The Regional Environmental Agency that I am studying in Spain has been highly successful. The
Agency has closed the 500 tipping sites, existing in 1986, and it has built alternative transfer
stations and landfill sites to which the municipal refuse collection services bring the solid
waste.Tnrowing money at problems has been an effective way to dramatically improve services
in a very short period of time. The Agency is responsible, today, for running the landfill sites
and transfer stations. The Agency owns the sites (sometimes in partnership with one
municipality), the buildings and the plant. The facilities are run by private firms subcontract
for the job.
The Agency has become very specialized in running the engineering operations, and has
implemented three types of improvements:
o In landfill management systems. Substituting high density by medium density and daily
covering with soil more appropriate in the Spanish climate.
o In the design of the transfer stations in order to reduce waiting time of municipal refuse
collection lorries. There are two of interest here: first, the design of a track that allows
the sideways movement of containers and the placement of a second one without having
to wait for a crane lorry to lift the first one up. This device speeds up the process and
allows for a more efficient use of the compacting machines. The second one is the
creation of an annex chamber next to the compacting chamber were municipal refuse
collection lorries can tip the refuse, doubling the receiving capacity of a single
compacting machine.
218
-------
Issues of ecological sustainability and pollution, however, were a major feature of the socialist
regional government's agenda. This concern, the Executive Director of the Agency brought with
her to the job in 1986. She introduced new "soft" programmes:
o Programmes such as glass recycling and special short public awareness campaigns.
The Autonomous Public Authority of a major city that I am studying in the U.K. took over the
running of three transfer stations after the dismantling of the Metropolitan Government in 1988.
The Authority inherited massive transfer stations, which could be seen as monuments to
engineering. They are seemingly overdesigned in terms of capacity and based on the notion that
waste production will grow into the future. The Authority owns and runs the transfer stations.
The employees of the stations are on its Payroll. It has long term contracts with British Rail and
Landfill Owners which are extremely advantageous. The members of the Board (councillors
from 6 municipalities) want to keep running costs down in order to reduce the amount of Poll
tax the citizens pay. The 1991 Environmental Protection Act sets up the scene for the future of
the Authority. The general intention is that most public utilities should be privatized and that
those that remain public should tender in the open market for the provision of municipal
services.
The agency is centered on the objective of running the transfer stations as economically as
possible. They are not prepared to get involved in programmes that "do not pay for themselves".
They have introduced some new practices to meet this objective:
o Rescheduling work shifts to insure that trains always run at full capacity.
o Systems to increase compactation of waste. These include: improved design of train
containers to allow greater and heavier loads, and the computerization of the
compactation process to allow for higher compactation of refuse.
A public private partnership was created for the operation of a waste separation plant in northern
Holland. The public partner is a waste management organization dependent on central
government, which has been in the forefront of implementation and experimentation in recycling,
incineration, composting, and waste reduction in Holland. The private partner is an important
private engineering firm whose Waste Management Sub-Branch runs various landfills in
Holland. The separation process has been contracted to the PPP by a group of municipalities
for a period of ten years. The public partner provided the management experience of a number
219
-------
of pilot projects of separation plants in Holland and they have a composting plant which provides
a "market* for the organic fraction resulting from the separation process. The engineering firm
provided financing to build the plant although the costs of the loans are recovered in the
monthly bills to the municipalities. The PPP agreement included that the public partner will take
charge of administrative and accounting issues and that the private partner would take charge
of direct management where it was felt they could have a close impact on the economic results
of the project
The PPP has been experimenting with new processes in the last few years. These are:
o New separation processes of paper and plastics. Using the idea of the drum, plastics will
be separated but this time by using water. The water will damp the paper which will
adhere to the walls of the drum and the plastic will remain loose in the drum.
o The plans for the processing in the plant of separated plastic to be sold as bullets to the
plastics industry.
These last two examples of Holland are perhaps the most interesting new practices mentioned
because they are non conventional. Most of the others seem "uninteresting" because they are
quite common and familiar to all those involved in waste management. This can be deceptive
, however, because some of the conventional practices may be more interesting on further
investigation. This is the case of the organization studied in the U.K., which previously
introduced new practices aimed at providing the "best public service" understood as "making
sure that all demand was served" and reflected in the construction of overdesigned transfer
stations. Today's new practices are aimed at providing the best possible cost-effective service.
The redesign of containers and the computerization of the compactation process symbolize an
important change in values and there might be some lessons here about how and under which
circumstances an organization's members can change values so radically.
Explaining the success and the resistance to the introduction of "conventional" and "non-
conventional" practices:
This type of organizations can be best understood as being made up of two groups. "Top
Management" and "Operations Management". Top management positions are often occupied by
political appointees with a technical background but a limited length of tenure. Operation
220
-------
managers are the permanent structure of the organization. Bach group is different in terms of
their interest, their skills, their concerns and the groups with which they are related. For
example, operation managers have to deal with the problems and demands of subcontractors and
workers. They need to serve the organization, defending its need to maintain agreed standards
and policies. They have to keep the contractors "happy" and their own work life manageable.
Those at the top tend to define their task in a way that is relevant to the political world, in terms
of a political agenda that needs to be assumed by the organization. They maintain strong links
with top political appointees from other agencies and feel strongly connected to them. At the
same time they defend the interests of the organization in their dealings with other agencies.
There are a number of obvious and not so obvious reasons that I found to explain why it was
relatively "easy* to introduce new conventional practices in the agencies studied and why it was
difficult to introduce "non-conventional" practices. These are:
Some of the most obvious ones would be:
1.- New conventional practices such as the design of a track to allow the sideways movement
of containers, or the design new containers, are within the realm of practice and background of
existing personnel. The technical engineers are familiar with and see quickly the advantages of
this type of improvement. The organizations have in-house or can hire consultants with the
necessary skills to implement this type of practice efficiently.
Non-conventional practices can also be easier to introduce if they draw on existing experiences
in the organization. This is the case in Holland where the plant manager has been designing a
system for separating plastics from paper, which was presently a problem in the separation plant,
using the idea of a drum which is currently used for separating the organic fraction.
2.- Collaboration between top management and operations management tends to be difficult for
the reasons presented above. Some of these new conventional practices, such as the design of
an annex chamber next to the compacting chamber, discussed above, can be introduced without
the often conflictive collaboration or approval process of top management. If they can be
introduced through the technical design process of facilities already funded and when top
management don't usually need to be involved.
Other, not so obvious reasons are:
221
-------
3.- Conventional new practices do not challenge the existing balance of "interests" in the
organizations because they are merely a continuation of existing types of practices. They do not
challenge the relative importance or the jobs of, for example, operation managers or workers
as a policy of source reduction might be perceived to do. If top management can effectively
think about conventional, familiar, practices that are responses to "new values", there might be
less resistance to change.
Non-conventional practices might, however, challenge existing "interests". The Executive
Director in Spain, for example, saw that the waste disposal functions of the environmental
agency she was appointed to run needed to go beyond facility construction and management.
She introduced, as discussed, other types of policies such as glass recycling and increased
public awareness campaigns. She found resistance in the agency and a lack of
understanding about the importance of these programmes. She increasingly leaned towards
the planners in the Agency and concentrated in dealings with top managers of other
agencies, in order to implement some of her policies. She separated the job of supervising
the running of the facilities under a new director and retained the planning and the new
programmes she was implementing.
4.- In some cases, the introduction of new practices might be facilitated by the fact that they a
a solution to both a political and a technical problem. This was the case of the change of tl.~
landfill system in Spain. The operation managers managed "to convince" top management of the
need for a change only after a fire started in one of the sites. This coincidence of concerns for
different reasons, of the two major groups in the organization, made collaborative change
possible. It resulted in an operational and a political problem solved.
5.- The introduction of new practices in the case of the U.K. might happen in parallel with
major changes in society's values about public services (brought about by the Poll Tax debate
in the U.K.) which facilitated the change of values and the introduction of cost-cutting concerns.
The reschedulling of the work shifts and the heavier work loads in the agency would have been
unlikely or extremely difficult under other circumstances.
6.- The uncertainty about the long term survival of contracts built-into existing organizational
structures such as that of the PPP in Holland might be an incentive to adopt new practices
and concentrate on new solutions, such as the possibility of changing the task of the
organization, even if this challenges the interest of those in the organization as explained
above. The survival of the PPP depends upon the ability of the partners to present a viable
interesting alternatives to the municipalities, for the future.
222
-------
Options about how organizations mav adapt to new changes
Some of the obvious lessons from the analysis presented above are:
1.- It would be easier to implement practices that can draw on the existing strengths of the
organization in terms of knowledge, experience and skills.
2.- It would be easier to implement those practices that do not challenge the existing balance of
interests. Effective strategies of translating and packaging proposed new practices might be key
to obtaining the collaboration necessary for implementing practices according to "new values".
3.- Changes external to the organization and brought about by campaigns to change existing
values about running public services or in other cases about "environmental sustainability" are
important to influence members of organizations to adopt new practices.
4.- Collaboration is always difficult in waste management organizations. The introduction of new
practices that do not require collaboration is easier.
5.- It is easier to introduce new practices if they are simultaneously a solution to both political
and operational problems. Strategies to transform or design practices that meet this requirement
might make practices more easily adopted.
6.- Built-in uncertainty might be an important catalyst for change.
223
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
John C. Dernbach
Bureau of Waste Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
"Nonhazardous" industrial waste is a much larger problem than is commonly recognized.
Although the Federal Government and most states have adopted hazardous waste programs and
have developed or are developing programs for managing municipal waste, industrial waste has
received little attention. This paper discusses the major policy issues involved in developing an
industrial waste regulatory program. Pennsylvania's perspective is important because it has a
large population and industrial base, a history of significant problems from improper
management of industrial waste, and a waste management statute that specifically addresses
industrial waste. Industrial waste management presents states with significant opportunities to
rationalize their waste management programs, to build on what they have learned from municipal
and hazardous waste management, to address environmental protection on a multi-media basis,
and to promote pollution prevention.
The Problem of Industrial Waste
About 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste are generated and disposed on-site annually, compared
to 211 million tons of municipal waste and approximately 300 million tons of hazardous waste.
Industrial waste thus represents at least 94% of the municipal, industrial, and hazardous waste
generated annually in the United States.(2,3) In Pennsylvania, industrial waste represents more
than 62% of the total waste stream. About 16 million tons of industrial waste are generated
annually, compared to 9 million tons of municipal waste and 0.8 million tons of hazardous waste
(6). The state figures do not include industrial waste impoundments, however, and thus
understate industrial waste generation. In fact, more than 95% of industrial waste is managed
at impoundments, and about one-third of these have discharge permits (2).
Industrial waste is highly diversified in type and in its potential for harm to public health or the
environment when improperly managed. In general, industrial waste can be classified into the
following categories: combustion residues, metallurgical process waste, sludges and scales,
chemical waste, generic waste, special waste,
construction/demolition waste, and industrial equipment and scraps.
225
-------
This diversity in types of waste is matched by a diversity in the type of facilities at which
industrial waste is currently managed. We estimate that more than 387 facilities in Pennsylvania
are permitted to dispose or process individual industrial wastes. These include 109 industrial
waste landfills, 168 facilities for the agricultural utilization of industrial waste, 43 incinerators,
a significant number of disposal impoundments, and a handful of other types of facilities. In
addition, some 45 municipal waste landfills are authorized by permit to accept different kinds
of industrial waste. The majority of the industrial waste appears to be disposed on-site. Another
1,000 or so facilities, mostly small, do not have permits.
The improper management of industrial waste presents a range of environmental and public
health risks. On one hand, food processing waste, bricks, gypsum board and certain other
debris from construction or demolition of industrial facilities present relatively little risk to
human health or the environment. On the other end, significant amounts of industrial waste are
nearly hazardous waste, or would be hazardous waste if they were not expressly excluded under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Sections 6901-6992k). In
addition, the hazardous/nonhazardous distinction in RCRA has been undermined by two
subsequently passed federal statutes. The scope of liability under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. Sections
9601-75) extends to hazardous substances, a term which includes but is much broader than the
definition of hazardous waste under RCRA. In Pennsylvania, for example, about one fourth of
the federal NPL sites were used primarily for industrial waste. In addition, the Toxics Releas
Inventory (TRI), compiled from data submitted in response to the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S.C. Section 11023), applies to toxic chemicals, a term
that includes contaminants that are not hazardous under RCRA. The Pennsylvania list of toxic
chemicals, according to a preliminary evaluation by DER staff, is comprised mostly of chemicals
that are probably not hazardous under RCRA. More basically, perhaps, annual industrial
generation is 36 times greater than annual hazardous waste generation. It is, then, entirely
possible that the overall human health and environmental risks associated with industrial waste
outweigh the overall risks of hazardous waste. (1)
Pennsylvania's Program
Although Pennsylvania has had a solid waste management program since 1968, the Solid Waste
Management Act of 1980 (35 Pa. Stats. Sections 6018.101-. 1001) creates three categories of
waste that require regulation by the Department of Environmental Resources (DER). These are
hazardous waste, municipal waste and residual waste. The first category, hazardous waste,
received the bulk of DER's and the public's attention in the early 1980s, largely as a result of
Pennsylvania's responsibility to implement the federal hazardous waste program under RCRA.
In 1988, as Pennsylvania was facing a significant municipal waste landfill capacity crisis, the
State began devoting a significant measure of its attention to municipal waste by implementing
a stringent set of municipal waste regulations and a statute requiring mandatory recycling across
the State as well as county planning.
226
-------
The third category, residual waste, generally consists of waste from industrial, mining and
agricultural operations and includes non-hazardous sludges from an industrial, mining or
agricultural waste treatment or pollution control facility. A significant reason for Pennsylvania's
attention to residual waste is the fact that the Solid Waste Management Act of 1980 specifically
identifies residual waste as a separate category that requires regulation. The Act requires DER
to administer a permit program for two types of residual waste management activities-disposal
and processing. While both the Pennsylvania and state or hazardous waste Federal law require
permits for disposal and define disposal similarly, the state and Federal requirement that
treatment activity be covered by a permit is handled differently for industrial waste under the
Solid Waste Management Act. Pennsylvania law instead requires a permit for industrial waste
processing, which is defined to include the reduction in volume or bulk of industrial waste or
the conversion of part or all of such waste material for off-site reuse. Unlike treatment,
processing does not include waste neutralization or rendering waste safer for transport.
Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations were published for proposed rulemaking on February
24,1990. These regulations represent a comprehensive revision of the State's existing residual
waste regulations, which have not been amended since 1977 (5) After two separate comment
periods, the final regulations were approved in January, 1992. They will be published and take
effect in early July, 1992.
Pennsylvania is by no means the only state addressing industrial waste, and there are certainly
legitimate and different ways of handling the issues discussed in this paper. Because we have
a statute that requires separate treatment for industrial waste, however, we have had an
opportunity to think about the regulation of industrial waste by itself. The issues Pennsylvania
faces are, for the most part, issues that other states will also face. Some of the most important
issues are described below.
Definition of Waste
The definition of "waste" and related terms represent a significant departure from the Federal
definition of "waste" and related terms under Subtitle C of RCRA. The definition of "waste"
in the final rulemaking is much simpler and more straightforward than the Federal rule. The
complexity of the federal definition makes it difficult to understand and use (5). DER concluded
that the best way to define waste is to tie the definition to the process or manner in which it is
generated. As a result, a waste is defined to include byproducts; expended materials; materials
that are abandoned or disposed, including products or co-products, and contaminated soil,
contaminated water, or other residue from the dumping, deposition, injection, spilling or leaking
of a material into the environment.
The term does not include materials that are directly recycled or reused on-site in an ongoing
manufacturing or industrial process by the generator of the material, without treatment,
processing or release into the environment. In American Mining Congress v. EPA, 824 F.2d
1177 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the court held that EPA lacked authority under RCRA to regulate such
materials. Because the structure and language of the Solid Waste Management Act differ from
227
-------
RCRA on this issue and because federal law does not govern industrial waste management,
Pennsylvania is not bound by this decision. This exclusion is nonetheless in the regulations
because such activities seem to pose minimal risks to human health and the environment.
In addition, the term does not include co-products unless they are abandoned or disposed. In
general terms, a co-product is defined as a material generated by a manufacturing or production
process 1) mat has a physical character and chemical composition that is equivalent to an
intentionally manufactured product or produced raw material and 2) if the use of the material
presents no greater threat to human health and the environment than the use of the product or
raw material.
The term "co-products" applies only to materials that are to be transferred in good faith as a
commodity in trade, without processing, or are to be used by the manufacturer or producer in
lieu of an intentionally manufactured product or produced raw material, without processing that
is in addition to that required for the product or raw material. A waste may become a
co-product after processing if it would otherwise qualify as a co-product. This means that the
processed waste may automatically be "dewasted."
A person producing or using a co-product has the burden of proving that the material is actually
a co-product and not a waste. The burden of proof requirement stems from the fact that tfr
co-product exception will be largely self-regulated. No DER review or determination is need<
before a material is a co-product. If there is a problem or complaint, DER wants the responsible
persons to have reliable information in hand about the nature of the material.
The practical effect of the co-product exclusion is to concentrate DER's resources on those
industrial waste recycling activities that present the greatest potential risks to human health and
the environment. By including conversion of waste for off-site reuse, the statutory definition
of processing puts DER in the business of regulating recycling. The co-product exclusion means
that DER will be regulating only those recycling activities that involve non-equivalent or higher
risk substitutes or which are not ultimately used for recycling. In general, these are the
recycling activities that have created environmental problems under the RCRA scheme for
hazardous waste.
Relative Risk
A second significant departure from RCRA in this rulemaMng is that the level of regulatory
control varies with the relative risk presented by a facility. The least regulated facilities-permit
by rule facilities-include those where captive processing occurs on the theory that captive
processing of waste presents a relatively small risk to the environment. Individual processing
facilities are subject to significantly less regulatory oversight than disposal facilities. Disposal
facilities, in turn, may require two liners, one liner, or in some cases no liners, depending on
the degree of risk presented by the waste disposed of at the facility. The substantial variatio
in waste toxicity within the very large industrial waste category made these kinds of distinction
228
-------
seem appropriate. By contrast, waste that is regulated under RCRA Subtitle C is generally given
the same level of regulatory attention regardless of the kind of facility at which it is treated,
disposed of or stored.
Approaching waste regulation based on risk is preferable to basing waste regulation on the origin
of waste. The leaching characteristics of coal ash, for example, vary considerably based on the
coal being burned, the efficiency of the power plant, the air pollution control system being used,
and the pH of the ash. In fact, virtually all other industrial wastes show the same kinds of
variation. DER therefore resisted claims by the regulated community to develop separate
regulations for each category of waste, or at least the largest categories.
Relationship to Municipal Waste Management
Pennsylvania's municipal waste regulations, which were developed after extensive public
involvement over many years, include design and performance based standards for siting,
construction, operation, monitoring, and closure of facilities. An important feature of these
regulations is that all municipal waste landfills must have a double liner system. The primary
liner must be made of a synthetic material, and composite liners are optional.
Historically, Pennsylvania authorized the disposal of industrial waste at municipal waste
landfills. Because virtually all Pennsylvania's 43 municipal waste landfills are now operating
with a double-liner and leachate collection and treatment system that is comparable to that for
hazardous waste facilities, DER believes that the disposal of such waste at municipal waste
landfills is not ordinarily a cause for concern. Realizing that industrial waste has various
chemical constituents, DER began requiring detailed chemical analyses, which included leaching
analyses, in the late 1970s. Based on these analyses, DER has allowed the co-disposal of certain
industrial waste streams through permit modifications. Even with a double liner system, DER
continues to require chemical and leaching analyses of wastes before they can be approved for
disposal at municipal waste landfills, to ensure that the waste is compatible with the liner system
and leachate treatment facility, and for related purposes.
An important difference between the design of industrial waste landfills and municipal waste
landfills is the number of liners required. A risk-based waste classification system should be
protective of human health and the environment but should not be more protective than necessary
to achieve these results. Municipal waste landfills typically receive a variety of wastes,
including small quantities of hazardous waste, and a double liner system was thus considered a
necessity. Industrial waste landfills, however, are often located behind a manufacturing plant
or take only one type of waste. It is thus possible to consider a system in which landfill design
is based on the leaching characteristics of the waste.
The industrial waste regulations recognize a diversity of management options, as do those for
municipal waste. The industrial waste regulations authorize three different types of industrial
waste landfills; three types of land application of industrial waste (agricultural utilization, mine
229
-------
reclamation, and land disposal); transfer facilities; composting facilities; incinerators; and other
processing facilities. Apart from basic necessity, the diversity of management options reflected
in the regulations is intended to encourage generators to consider alternatives to disposal.
Finally, unlike the municipal waste regulations, the industrial waste regulations authorize the
disposal of liquid industrial waste in impoundments if the waste is solidified as a concurrent part
of the disposal process and if other requirements are met. This difference stems largely from
the fact that many industrial wastes are generated and transported as liquids, and from a desire
to require solidification at the impoundment, where it can be more closely monitored and
properly closed. Historically, impoundments have been used for the storage and disposal of
industrial waste generated by air and water treatment facilities. It is worth observing that 96.6
% of industrial waste goes to impoundments for treatment, storage or disposal(2). Storage and
disposal impoundments are required to have a groundwater monitoring system and one or two
liners depending on the leaching characteristics of the waste. Liners and groundwater
monitoring for storage impoundments may be one of the most environmentally protective
features of the regulations.
Waste Classification System
A system in which there are different landfills for different kinds of wastes requires a waste
classification system to assign wastes to specific types of landfills. The waste classificatio
system uses the results of leaching analyses that are performed as part of the permit application.
This system is based largely on relatively simple rules that can be mechanically applied, rather
than complex rules, rules that require painstaking site-specific analysis, or judgment rules. This
should help ensure uniformity in DER decision-making and also help expedite permit reviews.
The more complicated and difficult the waste classification rules, the longer it would take to
review each request to dispose or process waste at a particular facility. The additional time
would be multiplied for permit applicants that are waiting in line. This system also contains
some margin of room for error, and therefore should be protective of public health and the
environment.
The waste classification system for industrial waste borrows basic ideas from the federal system
for designating a waste as hazardous based on the toxic characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP). Under that system, a waste is hazardous if it leaches more than 100 times the federal
drinking water standard for 36 contaminants.
Under Pennsylvania's waste classification system, for example, industrial wastes are assigned
to a double liner landfill if they contain contaminants that leach more than 50 times the
groundwater parameter. The groundwater parameter for contaminants regulated under the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 300f to 300j -11) is based on the non-zero
maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), primary MCLs, or secondary MCLs under that
act For other contaminants, the regulations include a formula for deriving a drinking water
standard from health data contained in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
230
-------
Groundwater Clean-up Levels
The regulations reflect Pennsylvania's position that background groundwater quality should be
sought in clean-ups from residual waste management facilities. This occurs in two ways. First,
a groundwater assessment is required if groundwater monitoring shows increases from
background. If the assessment shows more groundwater degradation than would be predicted
from operation of the facility, abatement of the degradation is required. Second, final closure
certification at a facility—the last formal DER action required before the bond can be released—is
possible if there is still groundwater contamination. However, that can only occur when it is
not feasible to restore groundwater to background, when the operator has reduced groundwater
contamination as close to background as possible, and when these levels will be protective of
human health and the environment. During a ten year period following final closure
certification, the Department may require additional remediation if new measures become
technologically feasible during that time.
These provisions reflect the position that DER has taken in its superfund program. Perhaps for
that reason, industry generally was not critical of them during the comment periods. More
generally, they reflect DER's position that industry should seek alternatives to disposal
whenever possible, not only to protect the environment but also to avoid liability.
Source Reduction
The huge volume of industrial waste is in itself an argument for source reduction. The
regulations require each generator of more than one metric ton of industrial waste per month to
develop a source reduction strategy. In addition to basic information, the strategy must identify
how much waste a generator will reduce, and must identify the means and timetable that will
be used within the next five years to achieve that goal. No particular percentage of waste
reduction or "maximum feasible reduction" type of requirement is included because waste
reduction is intensely site specific and because DER lacks the personnel to ensure compliance
with such requirements. If the generator is not willing or able to show any reduction at all, the
strategy must include a description of the options that were looked at and the reasons they were
rejected. This source reduction strategy is submitted to DER only with a request by a particular
facility operator for DER authorization to dispose of or process waste at its particular facility.
Beneficial Use
Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act has been amended twice in the last five years to
encourage the beneficial use of industrial waste. In 1986, the Act was amended to provide for
the beneficial use of fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from the combustion of coal (coal ash).
The regulations authorize theseuses of coal ash: structural fill, soil substitute, soil additive, fill
material at certain surface mining sites, the manufacture of concrete, anti-skid material, raw
material for products with commercial value, and for mine subsidence control and related
purposes.
231
-------
For waste other than coal ash, the Legislature in 1989 authorized the development of regulations
for general permits for the beneficial use or processing of such waste. The regulations carry out
the legislative will by including a general permit system. A general permit is a permit that
applies on a state-wide or regional basis to a particular category of industrial waste that is
beneficially used or processed. DER may issue a general permit, for example, for the use of
fuel contaminated soil for the manufacture of asphalt or the use of foundry sand in concrete for
highway construction. DER may issue a general permit on its own initiative or upon the
application of any person. Once the general permit has been issued, however, it is applicable
to other persons or municipalities using the same waste for the same purpose. Persons using the
waste specified in the general permit for the use specified in the general permit are only required
to file a registration with DER or to file a request for a determination of applicability.
Transition
In Pennsylvania, the transition to a new regulatory program involves two sets of problems.
First, many of the 387 existing facilities that are permitted to dispose of or process industrial
waste do not meet the standards set out in the new regulations and will need to be upgraded if
they are to continue for a substantial period of time. Second, and perhaps most basically, there
are as many as 1,000 unpermitted industrial waste disposal or processing facilities currently in
existence. DER's enforcement strategy has been to enforce the permit requirements at larger
industrial waste facilities, and to concentrate more generally on hazardous waste and municipa
waste facilities. As a result, most of the unpermitted facilities for industrial waste are likely to
be relatively small.
The transition system for existing facilities is thus two tiered. In general, the primary focus of
the transition system is to bring unpermitted facilities into compliance with the Solid Waste
Management Act and these regulations, either by issuing a permit to operate in accordance with
the Act and regulations, or by closing the facility. The transition system includes a number of
steps, but in general a facility must either have a complete permit application filed or be closed
within three years after the effective date of the regulations. For existing permitted facilities,
a five year transition period is set out, by which time a facility must either have a complete
permit application filed and under review, be operating under a new permit or be closed.
An important complication for the transition system is created by impoundments. Persons
operating storage or disposal impoundments must file a notice, providing DER with basic
information about whether the impoundment is actually a storage or disposal facility. As part
of the notice, the operator is required to identify the frequency with which the impoundment is
cleaned out and to state whether the operator believes that the facility is a storage or disposal
impoundment. DER will make an independent determination, based on information provided
in the notice and other information, whether the facility is a storage or disposal impoundment.
Under the Solid Waste Management Act, a facility is presumed to be a waste disposal facility
if it stores waste for more than one year. However, this presumption can be rebutted by
contrary evidence. Some "storage" impoundments have had sludges and other material settled
232
-------
in them for many years. While these will be presumed to be disposal impoundments, the
operator may rebut that presumption in certain cases. Disposal impoundments will have roughly
five years in which to be operating under the new regulations. Because of the very large number
of storage impoundments in Pennsylvania, there is a transition period of up to ten years for
upgrading to comply with liner system and groundwater monitoring requirements.
Conplusion
We are all going to hear a lot more about industrial waste over the next decade. States have
industrial waste regulatory programs that have varying degrees of depth, sophistication and
protectiveness. And while it is unclear whether Congress will address industrial waste in this
round of RCRA reauthorization, states will continue to be faced with the problem of regulating
these wastes. In many states, including Pennsylvania, the regulation of industrial waste is bound
together in varying ways with municipal waste. If the regulation of industrial waste presents
potential costs, it also presents significant opportunities. Not the least of these is the opportunity
for significant progress in environmental protection.
References
1. J. Dernbach, Industrial Waste: Saving the Worst for Last? 20 Environmental Law Reporter,
Vol 20, pp. 10283 ff (July 1990).
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Solid Waste Disposal in the United
States (2 vols.) (1988).
3. Environmental Protection Agency, The Waste System (1988).
4. General Accounting Office, Nonhazardous Waste: Environmental Safeguards for Industrial
Facilities Need to be Developed (1990).
5. S. Johnson, Recyclable Materials and RCRA's Complicated, Conflicting, and Costly
Definition of Solid Waste, 21 Environmental Law Reporter, Vol 21, pp. 10357 ff (July 1991).
6. Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board, Proposed Industrial Waste Management
Regulations, Pa. Bull., Vol. 20, pp. 1107 ff (Feb. 24, 1990).
233
-------
INSPECTION TECHNIQUES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLAY AND
GEOMEMBRANE LINERS
Robert E. Landreth
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
INTRODUCTION
The design and construction of liners, both natural soils and geosynthetics, require an
understanding of the basic material properties and the design limits of these properties.
Once understood, the construction of the liners must be evaluated at intervals necessary
to ensure that the end result of the construction process is what the designer intended
and that this will indeed perform the function specified in the design. The inspection of
soils and geosynthetic materials used for liners will be the focus of this discussion. Data
from operating units clearly show that when a QA/QC program is used during the liner
construction, there are fewer and smaller leaks. The goal, obviously, is to have zero
leakage. We believe that as improved inspection techniques are developed and
inspectors are trained in these inspection techniques, the goal can be achieved.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to support the development
of QA/QC documents. These documents are generally developed by consensus. Groups
such as private consultants, academicians, owner/operators of waste management
facilities, geosynthetic manufacturers, installers and fabricators review the draft
documents. EPA also supports the certification of geosynthetic and natural soil liner
inspectors through the National Institute for Certification of Inspectors (NICET).
GEOSYNTHETIC FIELD SEAMING METHODS
The fundamental mechanism of joining polymer geomembrane sheets is to temporarily
reorganize the polymer structure of the two surfaces in a controlled manner (i.e. melt or
soften) that results in the two sheets being bonded together after the application of
pressure and after the passage of a certain amount of time. This bonding results from an
input of energy that originates from either chemical or thermal processes. These
235
-------
processes may involve the addition of extra polymer in the bonded area.
Ideally, seaming two geomembrane sheets would result in no net loss of tensile strength
across the two sheets and the joined sheets would perform as one single geomembrane
sheet. However, due to stress concentrations resulting from the seam geometry, current
seaming techniques may result in minor tensile strength loss compared to the parent
geomembrane sheet The characteristics of the seamed area are a function of the type
of geomembrane and the seaming technique used. These factors, such as residual
strength, geomembrane, type, and seaming type, should be recognized by the designer
when applying the appropriate design factors of safety for the overall geomembrane
function and facility performance.
It should be noted that the seam can be the location of the lowest tensile strength in a
geomembrane liner. Designers and inspectors should be aware of the importance of
seeking only the highest quality geomembrane seams. The minimum seam tensile
strengths (as determined by design) for various geomembranes must be predetermined
by laboratory testing, knowledge of past field performance, manufacturers literature,
various trade journals or other standard setting organizations that maintain current
information on seaming techniques and technologies.
The commercially available methods of seaming at the time of the printing of the
technical guidance document 3 and discussed herein are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Fundamental Methods of Joining Polymeric Geomembranes
Thermal Processes: Chemical Processes:
Extrusion Chemically Fused:
• Fillet • Chemical
• Flat •- Bodied Chemical
Thermal Fusion Chemical Adhesive
•• Hot Wedge
• Hot Air
23b
-------
Within the entire group of thermoplastic geomembranes that will be discussed in this
paper, there are four general categories of seaming methods: extrusion welding, thermal
fusion or melt bonding, chemical fusion and chemical adhesive seaming. Each will be
explained along with their specific variations to give an overview of field seaming
technology.
Extrusion Welding: Extrusion welding is presently used exclusively on geomembranes
made from polyethylene. A ribbon of molten polymer is extruded over the edge of, or in
between, the two surfaces to be joined. The hot extrudate causes the surfaces of the
sheets to become hot and melt, after which the entire mass then cools and bonds
together. The technique is called extrusion fillet seaming when the extrudate is placed
over the leading edge of the seam, and is called extrusion flat seaming when the
extrudate is placed between the two sheets to be joined. It should be noted that
extrusion fillet seaming is essentially the only method for seaming polyethylene
geomembrane patches and in poorly accessible areas such as sump bottoms and around
pipes. Temperature, pressure, and seaming rate all play important roles in obtaining an
acceptable bond; too much melting weakens the geomembrane and too little melting
results in inadequate flow across the seam interface and in poor seam strength. The
polymer used for the extrudate is also very important and is usually the same
polyethylene compound that was used to make the geomembrane. The designer should
specify acceptable extrusion compounds and how to evaluate them in the project
CQC/COA Documents.
Thermal Fusion: There are two thermal fusion or melt-bonding methods that can be
used on all thermoplastic geomembranes. In both of them, portions of the opposing
surfaces are melted. As with extrusion welding, temperature, pressure, and seaming rate
all play important roles in that too much melting weakens the geomembrane and too
little melting results in poor seam strength. The hot wedge or hot shoe method consists
of an electrically heated resistance element in the shape of a wedge that travels between
the two sheets to be seamed. As it melts the surface of the sheets being seamed, a shear
flow occurs across the upper and lower surfaces of the wedge. Roller pressure is applied
as the two sheets converge at the tip of the wedge to form the final seam. Hot wedge
units are automated as far as temperature, amount of pressure applied and travel rate.
A standard hot wedge creates a single uniform width seam while a dual hot wedge (or
"split" wedge) forms two parallel seams with a uniform unbonded space between them.
This space can be used to evaluate seam continuity of the seam by pressurizing the space
with air and monitoring any drop in pressure that may signify a leak in the seam.
The hot air method makes use of a device consisting of a resistance heater, a blower,
and temperature controls to blow hot air between two sheets to melt the opposing
surfaces. Immediately following the melting of the surfaces, pressure is applied to the
237
-------
molten area to bond the two sheets. As with the hot wedge method both single and dual
seams can be produced. In selected situations, this technique will be used to temporarily
"tack" weld two sheets together until the final seam or weld is accepted.
Chemical Fusion: Chemical fusion seams make use of a liquid chemical applied between
the two geomembrane sheets to be joined. After a few seconds to soften the surface,
pressure is applied to make complete contact and bond the sheets together. As with any
of the chemical seaming processes to be described, a portion of the two adjacent
materials to be bonded is transformed into a viscous phase. Too much chemical will
weaken the adjoining sheet, and too little chemical will result in a weak seam. Bodied
chemical fusion seams are -similar to chemical fusion seams except that 1-10% of the
parent lining resin or compound is dissolved in the chemical and then is used to make
the seam. The purpose of adding the resin or compound is to increase the viscosity for
slope work and/or adjust the evaporation rate of the chemical. This viscous liquid is
applied between the two opposing surfaces to be bonded. After a few seconds, pressure
is applied to make complete contact.
Chemical Adhesive: This seaming process makes use of a dissolved bonding agent (an
adherent) which is left after the seam has been completed and cured. The adherent thus
becomes an additional element hi the system. Contact adhesive? are applied to both
mating surfaces. After reaching the proper degree of tackiness, the two sheets are
placed on top of one another, followed by roller pressure. The adhesive forms the bond
and is an additional element in the system.
PREPARATORY PROCEDURES
Certain procedures and precautions are followed for all the seaming methods. For
example, there must be a minimum overlap of the sheets to form the seam: 4 in. (10.2
cm) for the two extrusion seams, 3 to 5 in. (7.6 to 12.7 cm) for the hot wedge seam and 6
in. (15 cm) for both chemical fusion and chemical adhesive seams. If the overlap is
insufficient, the installer should allow air beneath the geomembrane so it can be floated
into position. If the overlap is too great, trim the lower sheet; if this is not possible,
use a shielded blade (or hook blade) to trim the top sheet, trimming from beneath if
possible. Prepare and cut odd-shaped pieces at least 50 ft. (15.3 m) ahead of the
seaming operation so that the seaming can proceed with as few interruptions as possible.
Check the geomembrane materials where the two pieces are to be joined to make sure
they are acceptable-no scratches, blemishes, flaws, etc. Check to make sure that neither
the upper nor the lower sheet has more slack than the other; this can create "fishmouths"
that must be trimmed, laid fiat, and reseamed via a patch. Depending on the
238
-------
temperature, time the georaembrane will be exposed, and location, there may be
designed-in-slack. The plans and specifications must be project-specific on this amount
of slack and its orientation.
The overlapped areas to be seamed must be clean and free from moisture. Wipe dirty
areas with dean, dry rags, and use air blowers to dry moist seam areas. Seaming should
not be done during rain or snow unless precautions are taken to ensure a dry seam. The
soil surface cannot be saturated or frozen; both conditions attract water to the area
where the joining will be done. The sheet temperature should be above freezing but
below 122 °F (50 °C). In cold weather, take precautions to maintain proper seaming and
curing temperature.
A small, rubber-tired, electric generator with sufficient extension cord is needed so that
an entire seam can be completed without interruption.
Actual Seaming Process
The manual discusses in detail the procedures required by each seaming process. These
details should be reviewed before initiating any field activities. The manual also
discusses procedures and precautions to be used when unusual weather conditions exist.
NATURAL SOIL LINERS
A very important component of the composite liner is the natural soil. Often referred to
as a clay liner, is generally composed of clayey materials that are placed and compacted
in lifts. The material is obtained from borrow pits. These pits must be of size to
provide sufficient material for the liner component of the facility.
Issues that require attention include the suitability of the- materials to meet the intended
design, proper placement, compaction and proper protection of the liner when
completed. Proper protection after completion usually does not need elaboration and
will only briefly be discussed. The other two issues will be the focus of this paper.
Material Selection
The desired end result of a soil liner is a low hydraulic conductivity. This may require
that restrictions such as liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, percent fines and
percent gravel may have to be placed on the type of soil used. If these restrictions are
met, then the material is almost certain to produce the required hydraulic conductivity.
239
-------
In general the process of selecting soils for a liner include the location of a borrow pit.
The pit is surveyed for size and representative samples are taken and tested to determine
liquid limit, plastic limit, etc. Once the construction process is started, continued
sampling and testing of the borrow pit material is necessary to ensure the suitability of
the material being removed. After soil placement, additional tests may be required to
verify the suitability of the soil.
Preprocessing of soil may be required before placement. This may involve wetting soil
that is two dry or drying soil that is too wet, removal of over size material, pulverizing
soil clods, homogenizing the soil, and perhaps the addition of clay mineral (bentonite).
Once processed the soil material must be placed in lifts of sufficient thicknesses that the
bottom of the lift receives adequate compactive energy. The surface of the compacted
lift should be scarified before die next lift to prevent horizontal seams between any two
lifts. The surface of the liner must be properly compacted and smoothed to serve as a
foundation for the overlying geomembrane or other component of the design. The final
compacted soil liner must be protected from the desiccation or freezing temperatures.
Test Pads
Test pads should be used to provide a Link between the laboratory testing and the actual
liner construction. This test pad will usually have minimum dimensions of 45 feet (15m)
by 75 feet (25m) in length, with a thickness no greater than the thickness of the full-scale
compacted soil liner (approximately 2 to 3 feet (0.6 to 0.9m)).
Test pads will verify that the materials used and the methods of construction will
produce a soil liner that is required by the design. In-situ hydraulic conductivity on the
test pad will identify construction or material concerns that cannot be identified by small
laboratory tests. Test pads are also used to establish the QA/QC procedures to be used
on the full-scale liner. The test pad will also provide some assurance that if the full-scale
liner is constructed to standards that equal or exceed those-used in the test pad, the full-
scale will meet the performance objectives.
Actual Field Tests
The manual discusses in detail the standardized tests to be used in determining that the
soil material will meet the project design objectives. Also included are field procedures
used to improve the quality of the materials, i.e. blending, wet/dry reducing clod size,
etc.
240
-------
INSPECTORS' CERTIFICATION
The EPA along with Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) are in the final stages of
developing programs for certifying inspectors for natural (soil) and geosynthetic materials
used in waste management facilities. The EPA and GRI reviewed various certification
programs before selecting the National Institute for Certification in Engineering
Technologies (NICET). NICET was selected because they keep abreast of technology,
manpower application practices, and educational trends. NICET has an established and
recognized program that evaluates the qualifications of those who voluntarily apply for
certification, administer written tests, and provides a schedule for attaining different
levels of achievement.
The program has been supported by other Federal Agencies, States, consultants and
waste management firms. Testing will be initiated in early 1992 with full implementation
expected in the 1995 - 1996 time frame.
SUMMARY
The EPA is convinced that good third party QA/QC programs for the construction of
waste management facilities will improve performance of these units. Included in these
programs are Agency developed manuals detailing personnel, inspection and testing
requirements. The Agency is also supportive of programs that would certify inspectors
for construction procedures.
-------
1. Bonaparte, Rudolph and Gross, Beth A. "Field Behavior of Double-Lined Systems".
Proceedings: Waste Containment Systems: Construction. Regulation and
Performance. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, Edited by Rudolph
Bonaparte, November 1990. pp 52-83.
2. Bonaparte, Rudolph and Gross, Beth A. "LDCRS Flow Data From Operating Units
— Technical Support for Proposal Liner/Leak Detection System Final Rule", report
prepared for the U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. To be published.
3 Environmental Protection Agency 1991. Technical Guidance Document: Inspection
Techniques for the Fabrication of Geomembrane Field Seams EPA/530/SW-
91/051, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, May 1991.
4. Environmental Protection Agency 1986. Technical Guidance Document:
Construction Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities,
EPA/530/SW-86-031 OSWER Policy Directive No. 9472.003, NTIS PB87-132825
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, October 1986.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cooperative Agreement No. CR818531, Dr.
David Daniel, University of Texas at Austin, and Dr. Robert Koeraer, Drexel
University, Principal Investigators.
6. National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-2715.
242
-------
LANDFILL GAS UTILIZATION - OPTIONS, BENEFITS, AND BARRIERS
Susan A. Thomeloe
Global Emissions and Control Division (MD-63)
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Introduction
Of the more than 6,000 active municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the United States (U.S.),
there are 114 LFG to energy projects. This paper describes the different options for landfill gas to
energy projects and provides statistics on the U.S. LFG industry. This paper also provides an
overview of the benefits associated with LFG utilization and identifies some of the current barriers
in the U.S. that affect LFG utilization. The support for this research is from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Global Climate Change Program on emissions and
mitigation from landfills and other waste management facilities that produce greenhouse gases
(Thorneloe, 1991). EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) has
responsibility for EPA's research on emissions and mitigation for the major sources contributing to
global climate change. Landfills are considered a significant contributor of methane (CJLO
emissions and are being considered for control in negotiations regarding global climate change.
(U.S. EPA, 1989).
Energy Utilization Options
Landfill gas results from the anaerobic decomposition of landfilled waste and can be a source of
pollution as well as a resource. The composition of LFG is typically 50 to 55% QHU, 45 to 50%
carbon dioxide (COi), and <1% nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs). The concentration of
NMOCs can range from 240 to 14,300 ppm (U.S.EPA, 1991). LFG can also contain chlorinated
and fluorinated compounds, paniculate, water vapor, and occasionally air. Air infiltration is
minimized because it (1) can kill the anaerobic bacteria that are needed to decompose organic
refuse, (2) can cause landfill fires, and (3) dilutes the gas which increases the cost of recovering
energy from the gas.
The average heating value of LFG ranges from 17 to 20 MJ/dscm (450 to 550 Btu/dscf). Laidlaw
Technologies, Inc., with responsibility for 12 LFG energy recovery projects, estimates that
between 1,250 and 1,600 kWe of energy is generated from 28,000 scmd (1 million scfd) of LFG
at 17 MJ/scm (450 Btu/scf) (Jansen, 1992). Consequently LFG is recovered to take advantage of
the energy potential. This results in reducing emissions of CHt, NMOCs, and toxics. In addition,
emissions are reduced at coal-fired power plants, and global resources of fossil fuel are conserved.
The EPA's AEERL initiated a project in 1991 to document the options for LFG utilization. This
work included gathering data on the operating and maintenance requirements, the financing and
243
-------
contractual arrangements, and "lessons learned" from the six sites included as case studies. A
summary of this work (Thorneloe, 1992) includes a list of U.S. LFG to energy projects. The final
report being prepared by Emcon Associates will contain detailed information for six U.S. LFG to
energy projects including capital and operating costs, process flow diagrams, and data regarding
the environmental benefits of LFG utilization. This section provides a brief overview of the
options for LFG utilization and a summary of the results of the EPA survey of LFG to energy
projects.
The EPA survey identified 114 LFG to energy projects in the U.S.(Thorneloe, 1992). Detailed
results of this EPA survey are scheduled to be published this fall. This survey was conducted in
coordination with the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). Figure 1 provides a
breakdown of the types of LFG to energy projects in the U.S. Most of the projects (i.e., ~75%)
generate electricity which is either used on-site or sold to a local utility. Of the projects generating
electricity, approximately 344 MWe of power is being produced with 61 projects using internal
combustion (1C) engines, 21 projects using gas-fed turbines, and 3 projects using steam-fed
turbines. Pipeline quality gas is produced at six sites, and one site is processing LFG to produce
diesel fuel. The most economical options for LFG utilization tend to be direct uses such as for
process heat and as boiler fuel. Direct use of LFG as medium-heating value fuel is occurring at 21
sites.
Figure 2 provides a breakdown of the U.S. LFG to energy projects by state indicating the number
of projects for states where there are at least three active LFG utilization projects. California has
the largest number of LFG to energy projects partially due to state and local requirements resulting
in the collection and control of gas. However, many LFG to energy projects have been initiated
because of attractive economics particularly in the early 1980s when the price of energy helped
make this more economical. Waste Management of North America has installed gas collection and
controls as pan of their operating policy. Waste Management has LFG to energy projects at 25
sites with plans to start new projects at 5 additional sites (Markham, 1992). The Clean Air Act
regulations proposed May 30,1991, are expected to result in additional LFG utilization projects.
Direct-Gas Use fMedium-Heating Value). The options for medium-heating value LFG [i.e., -19
MJ/ "dry" scm (-500 Btu/dscf)] include use as boiler fuel, space heating and cooling, and
industrial heating/cofiring applications. The most typical use is as boiler fuel to produce steam.
The majority of the 21 sites selling LFG for direct use are supplying fuel for boilers. This is a
particularly attractive option since conventional equipment can be used with relatively little
modification. In addition, boilers tend to be less sensitive to LFG trace constituents and
consequently less gas cleanup is required compared to the other alternatives. A limitation in the
selection of this option is that a LFG customer must be relatively near, typically less than 1,600 to
3,200 meters (1 to 2 miles) is considered desirable to avoid excessive costs and difficulties
obtaining access.
The other options for medium-heating value gas include industrial applications such as lumber
drying, kiln operations, and cement manufacturing. An advantage of many industrial applications
244
-------
~_ 1C Engines
.2
N Mcd Healing-Value Gas
Ir, Turbines
Q. High Healing-Value Gas
61
10 20 30 40 50
Number of LFG Projects
60
70
Figure 1. Number of U.S. Landfill Gas Projects by Energy Utilization Option
15 20 25
N umber of LFG Projects
30
35
40
Figure 2. Number of U.S. Landfill Gas Projects by State
for those States with Three or More Projects
245
-------
is that fuel is required continuously, 24 hours per day. LFG can also be used as a supplemental
fuel that meets a portion of the total demand. LFG to produce space heating is in limited use
primarily due to piping costs and difficulty in matching up the LFG energy output with nearby user
needs. Depending on climate and other factors, heat energy supplied by 14,000 scm/d (500,000
scf/d) LFG corresponds to heating needs of a 18,600 to 93,000 m* (200,000 to 1,000,000 ft2)
facility. The main difficulty with space heating is that loads tend to be variable over time, both
during the day and by season.
Electricity Generation. Of the 114 U.S. LFG to energy projects, 61 projects generate electricity
using 1C engines and 24 projects generate electricity using turbines. Of the 344 MWe of electricity
produced at these sites, 51% is generated using turbines and 49% is generated using 1C engines.
The type of equipment is generally determined by the volume of gas available and the air pollution
requirements of the area in which the project is located. The rule of thumb for the selection of
engines versus turbines is that engine projects are typically used at sites where gas quantity is
capable of producing 1 to 3 MWe. Turbines arc typically used at sites producing more than 3 MWC
(Jansen, 1992). Typically there are 3 to 5 engines per project and 1 to 2 turbines per project The
distribution of U.S. LFG to energy projects based on gross output is:
Number of Projects Using:
MW» Turbines 1C Engines
1-5 12 54
5-10 10 3
10-15 1 3
15-20 0 1
20-25 0 0
25-30 0 0
30-35 0 0
35-40 0 0
40-45 0 0
45-50 1 _Q
TOTAL 24 61
Reciprocating 1C engines drive electrical generators to produce electrical power which is typically
sold to the local electric utility. Engines used in this application are sold by three manufacturers -
Caterpillar, Cooper-Superior, and Waukesha. Each of the 3 manufacturers has in place more than
20 engines at U.S. landfill sites (GRCDA, 1989). These manufacturers design engines that are
specific to LFG applications (i.e., corrosion resistant). Typically, warranties that guarantee engine
performance require the operator to agree to certain conditions regarding engine operation and
maintenance.
Reciprocating engines used for LFG applications may be either stoichiometric combustion or lean
combustion engines. The "lean-burn" engines are turbocharged and bum fuel with excess air. The
stoichiometrically carbureted or "naturally aspirated" engines have air in the fuel/air mix just
sufficient to burn the fuel. The lean-bum engines are typically used where nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are of concern. Stoichiometric combustion can result in
relatively high NOX emissions which can vary widely due to carburetor setting and other variables.
Another factor to consider is that there is a trade-off between low NOX emissions and the reduction
of NMOCs.
246
-------
Gas-fed turbines are also used at landfills to generate electricity. Gas turbines take large amounts
of air from the atmosphere, compress it, bum fuel to heat it, then expand it in the power turbine to
develop shaft horsepower. This horsepower can be used to drive pumps, compressors, or
electrical generators (McGee and Esbeck, 1988). Gas turbines are used at 21 U.S. landfills to
produce 108 MWe of power. Waste Management of North America, Inc. has found that gas-fed
turbines typically have parasitic energy losses of 17% of gross output as compared to 7% for 1C
engines. A factor to consider is that turndown performance is poor in comparison to that of 1C
engines. Turbines perform best when operated at full load, and difficulties can occur when
operated at less than full load. In addition, trace constituents have been reported to cause
corrosion, combustion chamber melting, and deposits on blades. However, these difficulties can
be overcome as demonstrated by Waste Management of North America (Schlotthauer, 1991).
Steam-fed turbines are in use at three sites to produce 64 MWe of power. The largest LFG to
energy plant is the Puente Hills Energy Recovery from Gas facility (PERG), located at the Puente
Hills Landfill in Whittier, California. This site began recovering LFG for energy utilization in
November 1986. It is operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. The facility
consists of twin Zurn Industries, Inc. gas-fired steam generators. Each of the units fires 420,000
scmd (10,300 scfm) of LFG, producing 95,340 kg (210,000 Ib) of steam per hour at 9.3 MPa
(1350 psig), heated to 540°C (1000°F). This steam drives a Fuji Electric Co. Ltd turbine that
generates approximately 50 MWe net, that is sold to Southern California Edison (Valenti, 1992).
High-Hearing Value Gas. Seven sites in the U.S. upgrade LFG to pipeline quality. This option
was considered more attractive in the early 1980s when the price of oil and natural gas helped make
this more economical. The sites that are producing pipeline quality gas were initiated in the early
1980s when gas prices on a heating-value basis were comparable with those of oil. These sites
have an average LFG flow rate of 142,000 scmd (5 million scfd) with the lowest gas flow rate
being 31,150 scmd (1.1 million scfd) and the highest being 269,000 scmd (9.5 million scfd).
Stringent cleanup technology is applied to purify the gas to pipeline quality by removing the trace
constituents and COi- Similar to the medium-heating value applications, a nearby natural gas
pipeline is needed. The largest operator of facilities producing pipeline quality gas from LFG is
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Low natural gas prices in the late 1980s forced several previous
projects to shut down, and continue to inhibit the development of new high-heating value projects
in the U.S. However, sites in the Netherlands are finding more favorable economics (Scheepers,
1991).
A site that began operation last year in Pueblo, Colorado, is producing liquid diesel fuel from
LFG. This site is operated by Fuel Resources Development, Inc. and began producing commercial
product in January. A second site in the U.S. may be used to produce vehicular fuel from LFG.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has awarded a contract to demonstrate a process
for producing methanol from LFG. The site selected for this demonstration is the BKK landfill,
where there was co-disposal of hazardous and municipal waste. TeraMeth Industries is
responsible for the demonstration, and research is being coordinated with the EPA. The
demonstration is anticipated to begin in 1993.
Other Options for Landfill Gas. Fuel cells are a potentially attractive option for LFG because of
higher energy efficiency, availability to smaller as well as larger landfills, and recognition for
minimal byproduct emissions. Other advantages include minimal labor and maintenance, and
(because there are no moving parts) the noise impact is minimal. Hydrogen from the landfill gas is
combined electrochemically with oxygen from the air to produce dc electricity and by-product
water. The fuel cell is designed for automatic, unattended operation, and can be remotely
247
-------
monitored. The EPA's AEERL initiated a project in 1991 to demonstrate the use of fuel cells for
LFG application. The type of fuel cell being demonstrated is a commercially available 200 kWe
phosphoric acid fuel cell power plant. The 1-year full-scale demonstration is scheduled for 1993.
The major issue associated with this demonstration is designing a LFG cleanup process that will
remove the trace constituents from the LFG and at the same rime not be cost prohibitive. Since the
composition of LFG varies over time, designing a process that can allow for this variability is
difficult. A cleanup process has been proposed and is to be evaluated later this year. The fuel
pretreatment system incorporates two stages of refrigeration combined with three regenerable
adsorbent steps (Sandelli, 1992). It is hoped that, if the EPA demonstration of the use of fuel cells
is successful, more landfill owner/operators will consider fuel cells as an option for LFG
utilization. Given the higher energy efficiency and potential for minimal byproduct emissions, fuel
cells may be the most attractive option for areas where there are stringent requirements for NOX and
CO emissions.
Benefits of Landfill Gas Utilization
The five major health and welfare effects of air emissions from MSW Jandfills are (1) explosion
hazards, (2) global warming effects from CH4 emissions, (3) human health and vegetation effects
caused by ozone formed from NMOCs, (4) carcinogenicity and other possible noncancer health
effects associated with specific MSW landfill emission constituents, and (5) odor nuisance. In the
U.S., 40 cases of. The first concern, the explosive potential of LFG, has resulted in 40 cases of
gas migration which have resulted in explosions and fires. Of these 40 cases, 10 resulted in
injuries and death (U.S.EPA, 1991). The second concern is the contribution of landfill methane
methane to global warming. Landfills are a significant source of CH4, ranking third in
anthropogenic sources after rice paddies and ruminants (Peer et al., 1992, Khalil and Rasmussen,
1990). A third concern is the contribution of NMOCs to tropospheric ozone which affects human
health and vegetation. The EPA has estimated that roughly 1% (i.e., 260,000 Mg/yr) of the
NMOC emissions from stationary sources in die U.S. are emitted by MSW landfills. Toxic
constituents typically found in LFG include vinyl chloride, toluene, and benzene which may
contribute to possible cancer and non-cancer health effects. The fifth concern is the odor nuisance
associated with LFG. Because of the health and environmental concerns, the EPA has designated
"MSW landfill emissions" as a pollutant to be regulated under Sections lll(b) and lll(d) of the
Clean Air ACL The EPA has proposed Emission Guidelines for existing landfills and New Source
Performance Standards for new landfills (Federal Register, 1991). The regulations are scheduled
to be promulgated this Fall.
The regulatory alternative proposed by the dean Air Act regulations would result in requiring 621
landfills to collect and control MSW landfill emissions, (p. 24480, Federal Register, 1991).
Although the rule does not require utilization of the gas, it is hoped that the sites affected by these
regulations will consider LFG to energy as opposed to flaring the gas. The use of energy recovery
for the control of MSW landfill air emissions will result in decreased emissions of CH
-------
There are also benefits associated with the development of an alternative source of energy which
results in decreased emissions at coal-fired power plants, conservation of fossil fuel resources, and
reduced dependence on imported oil. In addition, LFG utilization can result in a substantial cost
savings to public entities that own the landfill as well as royalty payments. For example, Pacific
Energy - who has developed 25 LFG energy projects - has paid put $13 million in royalties,
mostly to public entities. On average, Pacific Energy's projects are in the sixth year of operation
under anticipated twenty-year project lives (Wong, 1992). Other economic benefits include the
purchase of goods and services. In 1991, Pacific Energy purchased over $4 million in outside
goods and services to support its LFG projects plus a payroll of >$3 million. LFG to energy
projects tend to be capital intensive and are typically built on what is considered undevelopable
acreage. Pacific Energy's eight LFG to energy projects in California pay >$350,000 per year in
property taxes in California and require few public services (Wong, 1992).
Barriers to Landfill Gas Utilization
A major factor in helping to encourage LFG to energy projects is the Public Utility Regulatory
Policy Act (PURPA). It guarantees that utilities purchase power that was generated from landfills
at a price related to the costs that utility would experience to produce the same amount of power.
Although this guarantees a purchaser for the power, the power sale revenues may be low if the
utilities' own generating costs are low. In addition, tax credits have been available that also
encourage renewable energy projects, such as LFG utilization. However, current trends are
toward lower energy prices, reduced tax incentives, and increasing environmental liability.
Although there arc more than 6000 landfills in the U.S., there are less than 120 LFG to energy
projects. During the oil crisis in the 1970s/1980s when the price of oil increased from $6-8 per
barrel to $35 per barrel, there was much more interest in developing alternative sources of energy
including utilization of landfill gas. With the current prices of energy, it is much more difficult to
find projects that are economical. More than 30 U.S. projects have had to cease operation due to
economics. Many of the projects that were upgrading to pipeline quality are no longer in operation
primarily due to economics. The pipeline cost can be excessive which is why sites tend to not
transport the-gas farther than 1,600 to 3,200 meters (1 to 2 miles).
Laidlaw Technology Inc. suggests that "successful" LFG projects need to be over 1 MWe and have
an electrical price of at least $0.06-0.07/kWh including any capacity payments. Royalties should
not exceed 12.5% at this energy pricing (Jansen, 1992). Laidlaw also suggests that, if higher
royalties are offered, the percentage should be a function of energy pricing over and above the base
energy rate as inflation occurs. The early LFG projects were based on an established firm price for
net energy which provided a substantial degree of security to developers. Contracts for many LFG
projects do not allow for fluctuations in energy rates and costs. Revenues for energy sales are
usually based on prices of the "competition" of equivalent energy sources (e.g., petroleum
products). Since the value of the energy base commodity can fluctuate, this can impact profit.
Administration and development costs have increased as revenues have decreased. Administrative
and development costs include legal fees, permit applications, and contract negotiations including
gas lease agreements and power purchase agreements. These costs may vary widely depending on
the environmental issues, development considerations, and regulatory requirements. John Pacey
of Emcon Associates has found that these costs can vary from $30,000 to $1,000,000 per kWh for
a 1 MWe LFG energy project.
249
-------
Tax credits are benefits proportional to gas energy delivery which were legislated by Congress
(Section 29 of the IRS Code) in 1979 to encourage non-fossil fuel use. These credits are a direct
offset to taxes and can only be used to offset a profit. The tax credits will extend to the year 2003
and are allowable for extraction systems installed prior to the end of the year 1992. However, the
most recent version of the tax bill being considered by Congress does not provide an extension for
these tax credits. Robert F. Hatch of Cambrian Energy Systems - whose company has been
involved in arranging financing for many U.S. LFG to energy projects - thinks that many of the
projects would not be in existence if the tax credits were not available. Some projects today are
financed only because of the tax credits since energy prices are relatively low. The tax credits help
promote the development of a domestic resource as opposed to using foreign oil (Hatch, 1991).
These tax credits help to encourage LFG to energy projects and also help municipalities defray the
cost of environmental regulations.
Another barrier to LFG utilization can be environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the overall
environmental benefit of utilizing LFG is not necessarily considered, let alone energy and
economic benefits. George Jansen of Laidlaw Technologies is finding that the cost of condensaie
disposal is becoming a major expense. The condensate is formed when the gas is compressed.
The LFG condensate is being classified as a hazardous waste which requires disposal at a Subtitle
C facility. This cost ( i.e. 18 0/1 (~70 2/gal)) can be significant for a site where lean-burn engines
or turbines are used as compared to the use of flares where minimal condensate is collected [3,800
I/day (1000 gallons per day (gpd)) for lean-burn engines or turbines versus 760 I/day (200 gpd) for
flares]. (Jansen, 1992)
Some LFG energy industry experts have found that the air, water, and solid waste agencies
conflicting goals. LFG energy projects have been, forced to shut down due to concerns for by-
product emissions of NOX and CO. In California last year, 48 pieces of state legislation affecting
solid waste were enacted (SWANA, 1992). Priorities often appear in conflict. There has been
extensive coordination between the EPA Offices responsible for the Subtitle D regulations (i.e.,
Office of Solid Waste) and the proposed CAA regulations (Le., Office of Air Quality Planning
Standards) for MSW landfills to ensure that these regulations are complementary. However,
additional effort appears needed to evaluate what can be done to help encourage and promote LFG
to energy projects.
Conclusions
U.S. LFG to energy projects are currently recovering approximately 1.2 million tonnes of CHj
and producing 344 MWe of power. The proposed CAA regulations for MSW landfill air
emissions are expected to result in additional emission reductions ranging from 5 to 7 million
tonnes of CH*. Utilization of LFG for those sites affected by the proposed CAA regulations has
the potential to result in increased benefits to our economy, energy resources, and global
environment. The utilization of alternative energy sources such as LFG extends our global fossil
fuel resources. Not only are emissions directly reduced when LFG is collected and recovered for
utilization, but emissions are also indirectly reduced when secondary air emission impacts
associated with fossil fuel use are considered.
References
1. Federal Register. Vol56. No. 104. May 30, 1991, pp. 24468 - 24528.
250
-------
2. GRCDA/SWANA. "Engine and Turbine Panel Presentations." Proceedings from the
GRCDA 9th International Landfill Gas Symposium, 1989.
3. Hatch, R.F. "The Federal Tax Credit for Non-Conventional Fuels: Its Status and Role in
the Landfill Gas Industry." Proceedings from SWANA's 14th Annual International
Landfill Gas Symposium, 1991.
4. Jansen. G.R. "The Economics of LFG Projects in the United States." Presented at the
Symposium on LFG/Applications and Opportunities in Melbourne, Australia, February 27,
1992.
5. Khalil, MA.K., and R-A. Rasmussen. "Constraints on the Global Sources of Methane
and an Analysis of Recem Budgets." Tellus, 42B, 229-236,1990.
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Climate Change - The IPCC Scientific
Assessment." World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment
Programme. Edited by J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins, and J.J. Ephraums, 1990.
7. Markham, M.A.. "Landfill Gas Recovery to Electric Energy Equipment: Waste
Management's 1991 Performance Record." Proceedings of SWANA's 15th Annual
Landfill Gas Symposium, 1992.
8. McGee, R.W. and D.W. Esbeck. "Development, Application, and Experience of
Industrial Gas Turbine Systems for LFG to Energy Projects." Published in the
Proceedings of GRCDA's llth Annual International LFG Symposium. March 1988.
9. Peer, R.L., S.A. Thomeloe, and D.L. Epperson. "A Comparison of Methods for
Estimating Global Methane Emissions from Landfills." Chemosphere, 1992 (In Press).
10. Sandelli, G.J. "Demonstration of Fuel Cells to Recover Energy from Landfill Gas." EPA-
600-R-92-007 (NTIS PB92-137520), January 1992.
11. Scheepers, MJ.J. "Landfill Gas in the Dutch Perspective." Published in Proceedings of
the Third International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, October 1991.
12. Schlotthauer, M. "Gas Conditioning Key to Success in Turbine Combustion Systems
Using Landfill Gas Fuels." GRCDA/SWANA's 14th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium in
San Diego, CA. Published in the Proceedings from the Symposium, March 1991.
13. SWANA. List of Solid Waste Legislation Enacted in 1991. 1992.
14. Thomeloe, S A. "Landfill Gas Recovery/Utilization - Options and Economics." Published
in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference by the Institute of Gas Technology on
Energy from Biomass and Wastes. March 1992.
15. Thomeloe, S.A. "U.S. EPA's Global Climate Change Program - Landfill Emissions and
Mitigation Research." Published in Proceedings of the Third International Landfill
Symposium, Sardinia, October 1991.
251
-------
16. United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Air Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills - Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines." EPA-
450/3-90-01 la (NTIS PB91-197061), March 1991.
17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation. Policy Options for Stabilizing Global Climate. Draft Report to Congress.
February 1989.
18. Valenri, M. "Tapping Landfills for Energy." Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 1,
January 1992.
19. Wong.RP. "Alternative Energy & Regulatory Policy: Till Death Do We Part" Presented
at AWMA Conference on "Cooperative Clean Air Technology - Advances through
Government and Industrial Partnership" in Santa Barbara, CA, March 21 - April 1,1992.
252
-------
LANDFILL MINING FEASIBILITY STUDY
Joanne R. Guerriero,
Senior Project Engineer
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
David E. VoUero,
Manager, Engineering/Operations Division
York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority
Introduction
With many landfills scheduled to dose and decreasing land area available for waste disposal,
municipalities and industries are developing a multiphase approach to solid waste
management, including waste minimization, recycling, resource recovery, composting and
landfilling. Additionally, some are considering landfill mining, an innovative approach for
maximizing utilization of landfill space. Landfill mining, or reclamation, may have many
beneficial results:
• extend the life of existing landfill sites and reduce the need for siting new
landfills
• decrease the area requiring closure
• remediate an environmental concern by removing a contaminant source
• reclaim marketable recyclables
• capture energy through waste combustion
The feasibility of landfill mining depends upon site-specific factors as well as the project
goals. As a case in point, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. conducted a landfill mining feasibility study
for the York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority in Pennsylvania, to consider the
environmental, technical and economic feasibility of mining the oldest unlined portions of
the municipal landfill to reclaim landfill space and reduce the potential for groundwater
contamination by removing the contaminant source.
253
-------
Project Background and Setting
York County is situated along the southern border of Pennsylvania, just north of Baltimore,
Maryland. The York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority (the Authority) was
established in December 1971 in an effort to ensure the proper disposal of solid waste in
York County. In 1974, over 100 potential landfill locations were evaluated by the Authority
and it was determined that the Hopewell site on Plank Road met the necessary criteria.
Land use within the site boundaries was primarily agricultural and a portion was zoned
residential. Surrounding the site, land use is still primarily agricultural with a residential
district located south of the site and a commercial district located southeast of the site.
The landfill was constructed during the summer of 1974 and began receiving waste at the
end of that same year. The Hopewell Landfill is owned and operated by the Authority and
was permitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) to
accept mixed municipal and commercial non-hazardous waste. In 1989 the Authority
received a permit amendment allowing the disposal of resource recovery ash residue at the
Hopewell Landfill site from the York County Resource Recovery Center (RRC).
Today, the site encompasses approximately 300 acres with lined and unlined landfill areas.
The lined, active portion of the landfill is approximately 45 acres in size and is composed
of three cells; Cells Al and A2 which are closed, and Cell A3 which is now accepting as
from the Authority's RRC. The area investigated during this feasibility study was the
unlined, inactive portions of the landfill, approximately 135 acres in size and divided into
three phases; I, n and IHA. These phases were filled between 1974 and 1985 by the trench
and fill method. The topography of the study area consists of slightly to moderately rolling
hills. Phase n and KIA are open grass-covered fields while the surface area of Phase I is
currently being utilized as a soil preparation area containing several soil stockpiles and
processing machinery.
Although the facility was operated in compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and with PADER approval, ground water contamination consisting of low
levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) beneath the site was confirmed in 1983.
Corrective actions were implemented including installation of a ground water contamination
extraction and treatment system, and initiation of alternative water supplies to nearby
residents. The site was promulgated to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 22, 1987. A remedial investigation (RI)
has been conducted on the site and, at the time that this feasibility study was conducted, the
RI was under review by PADER and EPA.
The Authority undertook the landfill mining feasibility study for two primary reasons: to
assess the potential for attaining additional landfill capacity and to remove a potential
ground water contaminant source. At the time of the study, Cell A3 was projected to reach
capacity by the mid-year 1996. The Authority does have an existing agreement with a
254
-------
private landfill for disposal of nonprocessibles from the County and ash residue from the
RRC when Hopewell landfill reaches capacity. This agreement guarantees disposal
capacity to the Authority until the end of the year 2000, with a ten-year extension option.
However, development of new landfill capacity would maintain disposal activities under the
Authority's control.
The Authority was also considering the potential environmental benefits of landfill mining.
Mining the site eliminates the solid waste as a source of ground water contamination and
may decrease the time period required for operation of the ground water treatment system.
In addition, reutilization of this site as a landfill, as compared to development of a new site,
is advantageous since ground water monitoring and remediation systems are already hi
place. Detailed hydrogeologic evaluations have been conducted and subsurface conditions
at the site are defined.
Waste Characterization
A waste characterization field investigation was conducted by Haley and Aldrich, Inc. for
Malcolm Pirnie, to identify and characterize the components of the landfill. This
investigation included a test pit exploration program for waste characterization and
quantification, and chemical analyses of landfill refuse, humus, underlying soils and leachate.
Test pits were excavated at twenty-two locations distributed over the three landfill phases
using a Caterpillar 225LC excavator. Cover soil from each test pit location was excavated
and segregated prior to excavation of the waste. Test pits were dug to the bottom of waste
or 20,5 feet, whichever came first, and ranged in depth from 13.5 to 205 feet. After
characterization of the test pit components and sample collection, the waste was returned
to the test pit and cover soil reappHed to the surface.
A Health and Safety Plan was prepared for the field investigation to establish appropriate
safety measures to adequately safeguard on-site personnel. Work was performed in Level
D protection with provisions for upgrade if required. A contingency plan was developed in
the event that materials posing a serious health hazard were encountered. Elevated
concentrations of VOCs or combustible gas were not detected in the breathing zone,
however, garbage-like odors were detected during the field operations.
Landfill waste removed from each test pit was screened with a Read Screen-All Model RD
90B fitted with four-inch openings on the upper screen and one-inch openings on the lower
screen. The screening process divided the landfill waste into two components, humus and
refuse. Humus is defined as soil, decomposed waste and waste which passed, the one-inch
screen. Refuse is the remaining material which did not pass the one-inch screen. The
percent by volume of humus and refuse observed in the test pit excavations was fairly
consistent throughout the study area, ranging from 30 to 40 percent humus and 60 to 70
percent refuse. The majority of the refuse observed within the test pits (43 to 48 percent)
255
-------
was paper products, such as newspaper, wallpaper, packaging, food containers and computer
paper. Other refuse encountered in smaller percentages consisted of plastic, textiles, metaJ,
yard waste, wood, glass, tires, concrete and bricks (see Fig. 1).
Since the chemical quality of the mined materials may impact disposition of the site
components, samples of humus, refuse and underlying soil were obtained from each test pit
excavation for field and laboratory analyses. Sample collection and analysis followed
appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures including decontamina-
tion of sampling tools, proper sample packaging, chain of custody procedures, and collection
of QA/QC samples. All humus and subsurface soil samples were screened for VOCs via
the headspace analysis. Samples were submitted to a laboratory for analysis by the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and VOCs. A water sample was collected from
one test pit where a sufficient quantity of perched water was encountered for analysis of
VOCs.
Results of the headspace analysis indicated that the humus and underlying soil were
expected to contain VOCs. The laboratory analyses confirmed this expectation. The humus
sample contained on the order of 75 to 100 parts per million (ppm) of VOCs while the
underlying soil contained minimal quantities of less than 1 ppm. Results of the TCLP
analysis indicate that these materials would not be characterized as hazardous wastes based
on toxicity characteristics. In addition, field observations indicated that these wastes were
not likely to be deemed hazardous via the remaining three RCRA hazardous waste
characteristic tests (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity). The water sample had total VOCs
of less than 0.5 ppm. The water sample met EPA drinking water standards (MCLs) for
applicable parameters tested except benzene, (where it exceeded the MCL by one part per
billion). The concentrations for three compounds detected for which MCLs are not
established (chloroethane, methylene chloride and 1,2-dichloroethene) ranged from 22 to
89 ppb.
Paper 30%
Plastic 12%
Refuse 69%
Humu»31%
Other 8%
Textiles 6%
Metal 0%
Yard Waste 7%
Humus 31%
Fig. 1 Landfill Composition
256
-------
The refuse was analyzed for moisture and BTU content to determine its suitability for
disposal in the Authority's Resource Recovery Center (RRC). Results ranging from
approximately 4200 to 5900 BTU per pound, with an average of 5085 BTU per pound, as
received, indicated an acceptable higher heating value range for the RRC.
Technical Analysis
The technical analysis evaluated the factors to be considered in implementation of a landfill
mining project including the mining operation itself, disposition of mined materials and
reuse of the site. Information developed during this portion of the study was subsequently
utilized in the economic analysis portion of the feasibility study.
To excavate and transport the materials to the processing equipment, the mining operation
would utilize standard equipment similar to that used for sand mining operations, such as
excavators, pan scrapers, loaders, backhoes, and off-road dump trucks. Once excavated, the
materials would be passed through the on-site processing equipment to segregate the
reclaimed materials into oversized materials, humus and commingled refuse. The processing
system typically consists of an infeed hopper and conveyor, a trommel with a two- to three-
inch screen, and outfeed conveyors.
Oversized materials, such as mattresses, furniture, lumber, white goods, and scrap metal,
would be segregated at the processor entrance because of their size. Materials from the
infeed hopper would then flow up a conveyor and into the trommel for initial separation of
humus from the refuse. Commingled refuse, including paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, wood,
aluminum and metal, would be too large to pass through the trommel screen. These
materials would remain on top of the screen and pass onto an outfeed conveyor. This
outfeed conveyor could be equipped with a magnetic drum to separate ferrous materials
from the refuse. Humus would pass through the trommel and onto a different outfeed
conveyor. The humus could be screened further as required for reuse.
Results of the field investigation were utilized to estimate the volumes and tonnages of
humus and refuse to be excavated during mining and to investigate the potential disposition
of the mined material. An integrated approach to material disposition would be required
in order to reuse or dispose the excavated materials in the most appropriate manner. Data
gathered from the field observations, laboratory analyses, market interviews and information
available on other mining demonstration projects directed the options available for each site
component. The options evaluated include reutilization of humus and recyclable materials,
incineration of processible materials and disposal of the remaining materials in a lined
landfill
Reutilization of any material excavated from the landfill would be dependent upon the
available markets and material quality. Certain materials are generally considered
recyclable when found in the municipal waste stream. However, markets appeared
257
-------
concerned about the quality of excavated materials. Based on field observations of material
quality during the test pit investigations, segregated ferrous material appears to have the
most market potential. It was estimated that one-half of the ferrous metals could be
separated and delivered to market.
Certain oversized material, specifically tires, concrete and brick, were in marketable
condition. However, a large-scale tire market could not be identified at the time of the
study and due to the cost of transport and disposal of tires at market, tires were considered
as nonprocessibles in this analysis. Concrete and brick can often be crushed and sized for
use in aggregate. This is not typically a revenue-generating outlet Concrete and brick could
be stockpiled for reuse on-site in the construction of haul roads, should a landfill be
constructed in the future.
The presence of VOCs in the humus would most likely limit its use to daily/intermediate
cover material for a new on-site landfill, with appropriate disposal of the remainder. The
processible refuse, including oversized materials, would be burned at the Authority's RRC.
Nonprocessible refuse, which is not accepted at the RRC, would be landfilled. In addition,
a contingency plan would be required for the secure disposition of hazardous wastes, should
any be found on-site during the excavation process.
Since Phases I, n and IDA of the Hopewell Landfill were operated as trench and fill landf
cells, the area remaining after landfill mining would be a low-lying area or hole. To use this
area for anything other than a landfill would require extensive backfilling and regrading.
In addition, detailed hydrogeologic studies have already been conducted on the site and
environmental control features for groundwater monitoring and remediation are already in
place. It would be advantageous to reutilize this site for disposal of bypass/nonprocessibles
and ash residue rather than to develop a new landfill site. Therefore, this study addressed
the future use of this site as a landfill.
Preliminary analyses were conducted by Dunn Geostience Corporation (DUNN) to
determine the impacts of landfill mining on ground water quality. The intent was to
evaluate if there would be a decrease in the time period required for ground water
extraction and treatment with landfill mining. The analyses were based on the persistance
of one compound, PERC, in the aquifer after a remedial action is taken and were
performed for two cases: mining of the site with reuse as a lined landfill and capping of the
site without mining, Results of the analyses were equivalent for both cases, resulting in a
time period for cleanup longer than the project planning period. Therefore this factor was
not considered hi the economic evaluation. However, removal of the waste would serve to
cease flow of additional contaminants to the ground water and therefore will still serve as
an environmental benefit.
258
-------
Economic Analysis
The Authority is currently implementing a multiphase solid waste management program for
York County encompassing recycling, resource recovery and landfill disposal. The RRQ if
operating at full capacity with allowances for scheduled downtime and maintenance only,
has excess capacity available after processing waste from York County. The Authority is
entertaining contracts with other municipalities and waste haulers to fill this excess capacity.
Cell A3 of the Hopewell landfill is currently accepting ash residue from the RRC. At the
time of this study, it was projected to have sufficient capacity until June 1996. Existing
agreements with FADER and the local municipality stipulate that the Hopewell Landfill
cannot be operated beyond July 31, 1994, unless the Authority is unable to find an
alternative site. The Authority has a ten-year agreement through the year 2000 (with the
potential for a ten-year extension) with a private landfill in York County for disposal of
nonprocessibles and ash residue when the Hopewell landfill ceases operations.
To assist the Authority in considering the feasibility of landfill mining at the Hopewell
Landfill, the technical information discussed hi the previous section was utilized for an
economic evaluation of landfill mining. Two mining scenarios were developed to represent
two limiting levels of operations for such a project: a full-scale operation which would
proceed at a maximum rate of mining and would take six years to complete; and a long-term
mining operation which would proceed on a pan-time basis extending 17 years to complete.
Cost estimates for mining, disposition of site components and construction of new landfill
capacity were generated for each scenario and compared to the cost estimate for a "no
action" scenario. Existing solid waste disposal practices within the County and contracts held
by the Authority were integrated into each scenario.
The criteria and features selected for the full-scale scenario reflect a conservative approach
which maximizes the potential costs of implementing this project, while the long-term
scenario considers an optimum approach for minimi/ring costs. If implemented, the actual
mining project would most likely incorporate criteria and features from both scenarios with
the resultant costs falling within the range generated by these two scenarios. Table 1
summarizes the factors included in each scenario. The two factors that have significant
impacts on costs for this analysis are the disposal of processibles at the RRC and airspace
utilization for disposal of nonprocessibles and ash.
The full-scale scenario assumes a maximum mining rate of approximately 200 tons per hour,
which is the capacity of the processing equipment Allowing 20 to 25 percent downtime of
equipment, and potential delays due to weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances, the
full-scale scenario would continue for six years. This scenario requires purchase of all
required equipment since existing Authority equipment would not be available on a full-time
basis. Approximately 139,400 tons per year (tpy) of processibles would be generated for the
259
-------
Table 1
Comparison of Landfill Mining Scenarios
Item
Mining and Processing
Operations
Disposal of Mined Materials:
Non-Processibles
(including tires)
Ferrous
Processibles
Ash
New Landfill
Time Period
Full-Scale Long-Term
6 years
1" year at private landfill,
Remainder at new landfill
Market
RRC
Cell A3 til June 1996,
Remainder at new landfill
20 years capacity
Conservative Design
110-acre footprint
17 years
Private landfill
Market
RRC
Cell A3 til June 1996,
Private landfill til mid 2000,
Remainder at new landfill
years capacity
Optimal Design
28-acre footprint
RRC. Since this quantity of processible waste may displace revenue-generating waste at the
RRF, the cost of disposal is considered to be the tip fee at the time of this study of S45/ton.
The full-scale scenario only utilizes the available disposal capacity in the private landfill for
nonprocessibles until a new landfill is developed at the Hopewell site. It was assumed that
the new landfill would be available one year after mining commences. It would accept
nonprocessibles and ash when Cell A3 reaches capacity. Also, the new landfill capacity (for
at least a 20-year planning period) utilized a conservative design encompassing the entire
site and in accordance with site development limitations in the existing agreement with, the
local municipality. Therefore, airspace utilization was not optimized.
The long-term scenario was based on the incremental excess capacity available at the RRC
under existing operating conditions, that is, the quantity of waste that can be accepted at the
facility during periodic, and seasonal lags in waste deliveries without interfering with
acceptance of out-of-County waste. It was estimated that the- RRC can accept 50,000 tpy
260
-------
with minimal impact on capacity. This equates to a seventeen-year mining period with
mining operations conducted for an average of two hours per day, five days a week. Since
there would be no loss in revenue, a nominal tip fee of $7.50/ton was considered for
disposal of processibles. The long-term scenario would only require purchase of the
screening equipment, since Authority equipment, such as scrapers and front end loaders,
could be used for mining on a part-time basis.
For the long-term scenario, all nonprocessibles generated during the seventeen-year mining
operation would be disposed at the private landfill (assuming the contract would be
continued beyond the current expiration date in mid-2000). After Cell A3 reaches capacity,
ash would also be disposed at the private landfill until the existing contract expires (mid-
2000). Then, ash filling would commence in the new landfill at the Hopewell Site.
Therefore, the landfill was designed to serve the Authority's ash disposal requirements
commencing in mid-2000. The conceptual design maximized airspace utilization and
therefore minimized the landfill footprint, by assuming the maximum height and slope
allowable under the PADER regulations.
For the "no action" scenario, the Authority would continue their current waste disposal
practices and may need to implement remediation activities for the unlined portions of the
Hopewell landfill Since the new landfill will not be available, ash residue generated by
the RRC would be disposed at the private landfill beginning in July 1994. The scope of the
remediation activities required was not defined at the time of this study, however, one
potential requirement was site closure with a state-of-the-art geosynthetic cap, and drainage
control structures.
Costs for the full-scale mining scenario range from approximately S21.9 million in 1998 to
$10.1 million in 1993, and is highest during the six-year mining operation. While the annual
cost for the actual mining activities would be approximately $1.8 million, the annual cost
of disposal of the processibles generated from the mining operation at the RRC is estimated
at approximately $7 million. Development of the new landfill is another large expenditure
for this scenario, with annual debt service and O&M costs of approximately $11.5 million.
The costs for the long-term mining scenario range from $1.6 million in 1993 to $9.9 million
in 2015, with a mgyimnTTn. value of S10.1 million in 2009. These costs are considerably lower
than those estimated for the full-scale operation, primarily due to two factors. Since
processibles taken to the RRC would utilize the incremental available capacity at the facility
and would not displace revenue-generating waste, the annual disposal cost would only be
approximately $0.6 million. Costs for development of the new landfill for the long-term
scenario are less due to the smaller footprint required for the facility.
The costs for the "no-action" scenarios range from $0.8 million to $16.4 million without
closure and $3.4 million to $17.8 million with closure. For both cases, the cost is primarily
due to use of the private landfill for disposal.
261
-------
A comparison of the costs associated with each of the scenarios described above is
presented in Fig. 2. Although the full-scale landfill mining operation was shown to be more
costly than continuation of present disposal activities, it was based on conservative
assumptions regarding existing disposal practices. Implementation of landfill mining over
17 years (the long-term scenario) was estimated to be economically feasible when compared
to the "no-action" scenarios. If implemented, the actual mining project would most likely
incorporate features from both scenarios with the resultant costs failing within the range
generated by these two scenarios.
Additional Considerations Regarding Landfill Mining
In addition to the technical and economic considerations, there are environmental,
regulatory, contractual and administrative issues to be addressed in implementing landfill
mining. For example, approvals and/or concurrence from PADER and US EPA are
required for undertaking activities at an NPL site. Any activities undertaken at an NPL site
must be in accordance with OSHA regulations and be part of the Record of Decision issued
for the site. Approvals from PADER are also required for implementation of the mining
operation and construction of a new landfill at the site.
The excavation of wastes should be conducted in a manner which would be safe for the
workers and protect the environment During the excavation of any MSW landfill, leachat
may be created when excavated material is exposed to rainfall. The excavation is likely to
cause release of methane, as well as odors, trace organic compounds and dusts that naturally
occur hi all MSW landfills. Techniques to control these releases and a health and safety
plan would have to be developed before implementation of the mining operation.
i
30
25
20
10
VWmCtaum
1803 1908 2000 2004 2001 2012 2015
Fig. 2 Comparison of Costs for Mining and "No-Action" Scenarios
262
-------
There are several contractual and legal issues to be coordinated on the local level for
implementation of landfill mining at the Hopewell landfill. Concurrence from the local
municipality would be required for landfill mining to proceed on the site and for use of the
site as a disposal facility into the 21th century. The York County Solid Waste Management
Flan would require an amendment to include landfill mining and reuse of the Hopewell site
as future disposal capacity. Contracts pertaining to the RRC and the private landfill will
require review to determine if any amendments or changes are necessary to allow and/or
facilitate disposal of the mined materials at the appropriate facilities. If performed by a
private contractor, implementation of mining operations would require contract negotiations
among the various contractors and the Authority with respect to excavation of waste,
responsibility for the waste once it is excavated and for managing extenuating circumstances.
Summary
There are technical, economic, legal, regulatory, financial, and environmental considerations
to be addressed prior to implementation of landfill mining. However, none at this time
appear to preclude a landfill mining project at the Hopewell T^nrifill. The benefits to
landfill mining at this site include availability of future landfill capacity under the Authority's
control and removal of a potential source of ground water contamination. Results of the
feasibility study illustrate that landfill mining could be economically viable depending on
project implementation as well as the status of current solid waste disposal activities in the
County at the time the project is implemented. Since it is a large site, it may be advanta-
geous for the Authority to proceed on a pilot-scale basis to give the Authority the
opportunity to adjust and revise the operations and perhaps to pursue available markets
more rigorously before proceeding with full-scale mining of the entire site.
References
Dunn Geoscience Corporation, correspondence from W. Konrad Cvist, April 4, 1991.
Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Report on Subsurface Investigations and Waste Characterization for
Landfill Mining Feasibility Study, Hopewell landfill, Stewartstown, Pennsylvania, prepared
for Malcolm Piraie, Inc., May 1991.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Landfill Mining Feasibility Study for York County Solid Waste and
Refuse Authority, September, 1991.
263
-------
LANDFILL RECLAMATION: FINDINGS OF THE EDINBURG PROJECT
John Morelli, P.E.
Chairman, Department of Environmental Management
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, New York
INTRODUCTION
Landfill reclamation is a process of excavating and separating landfilled materials to recover
resources and restore the value of the land itself. If economically developed as a viable solid
waste management strategy, landfill reclamation potentially could diminish siting difficulties for
new solid waste management facilities, upgrade existing facilities, increase landfill capacity,
mitigate environmental problems, and provide a better return on the enormous amount of
resources now being directed toward conventional closure activities. This paper discusses the
findings of a one-acre landfill reclamation research, development and demonstration project as
they relate to the viability of the technology and its potential benefits.
BRIEF HISTORY
Landfill reclamation originated at the Naples landfill in Collier County, Florida, when in 1987
the County decided to investigate the potential of reclaiming soils for use as daily cover and
combustibles for use in a planned waste-to-energy incinerator. Using conventional excavation
equipment and a three-tiered vibrating-bed screen, the exhumed material was separated easily
into a screened soil-like fraction and an oversize, largely combustible fraction. Although the
incinerator never was built, the County was successful at producing an acceptable cover material
for significantly less than it was paying to import soil for the same use. Collier County
continues to investigate and test technologies that may separate the reclaimed materials more
effectively.
In 1988, building upon the Collier County experience, New York State's Energy Research and
Development Authority (the Energy Authority) and Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) initiated a research, development and demonstration program in New York State to
develop procedures and equipment usages for reclaiming landfilled materials. The Town of
Edinburg, located in the northwest corner of Saratoga County, New York, was selected as the
host site for a demonstration project. Representatives of the Adirondack Park Agency, the New
York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) joined the Energy Authority and NYSDEC on a Landfill
Reclamation Advisory Committee to assist the Town in reclaiming one acre of its five-acre land-
265
-------
fill.
The Town wanted to reduce, to the extent possible, the area of the landfill "footprint" required
to be capped, vented, vegetated, maintained and monitored under a State-mandated landfill
closure plan. To achieve this goal the following objectives were identified: (1) reclaimed soil
would have to be declassified as solid waste and non-soil materials segregated and evaluated for
recycling, energy recovery and volume reduction; (2) reclaimed land would have to be excluded
from the landfill footprint; (3) worker safety and environmental protection would have to be
ensured; and (4) the entire process, at a minimum, would have to be economically competitive
with the costs of conventional closure. Strategies for achieving these objectives were developed
and set forth in the project's Work Plan, Health & Safety Plan, and Contingency Plan.
All project objectives were met successfully and, in November 1991, New York State approved
the Town of Edinburg's applications to declassify the reclaimed soils and redefine the landfill
footprint to exclude the reclaimed one acre area.
LANDFILL DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
The Edinburg Landfill is a five-acre, publicly owned municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal
facility serving a rural, residential community within the Adirondack Park in northern New York
State. The landfill began operating in 1969 and stopped accepting waste in November 199]
It is an uniined facility located in well-drained sandy soil and the bottom of the waste is loca
above the groundwater table. Sandy soil also was applied generously as cover material. The
landfill only accepted residential and commercial waste, with construction and demolition debris
diverted to a separate fill area.
In December 1989, USEPA Region n provided contracted technical services to determine the
areal and vertical extent of the fill, the ratio of soil to non-soil materials, and the amounts of
residual wastes. Five test trenches were excavated and several borings advanced over the five-
acre site. Approximately 100 cubic yards of material excavated from the trenches were
separated using four-inch, two-inch and one-inch vibrating flat-bed screens. Oversize materials
rejected from the two-inch and four-inch screens were hand-sorted and characterized as to type
and amount. Information developed during this study and available from historical records and
interviews with relevant individuals was used to develop solicitation specifications for procuring
a landfill reclamation contractor.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulatory authority to conduct the work was granted under a modified NYSDEC Order on
Consent to the Town to close the landfill.
Declassification of the soil screenings involved petitioning NYSDEC for a "Beneficial Use
Determination" for that material. Approval was contingent upon: (1) developing acceptable
266
-------
monitoring protocol and evaluation criteria; (2) identifying an appropriate beneficial use for the
material; and (3) successfully demonstrating that the criteria could be met.
Exclusion of the reclaimed land from the landfill footprint involved a second petition to
NYSDEC and required: (1) developing appropriate monitoring protocol and evaluation criteria
for the soils remaining below the excavated waste; and (2) demonstrating that the criteria could
be met.
RECLAMATION METHODOLOGY
The first steps were to develop a detailed Health & Safety Plan, Contingency Plan, and Work
Plan for this project.
The Health & Safety Plan established work zones, site entry procedures and controls, personal
protection equipment requirements, emergency medical procedures, and other operating
requirements and procedures.
Requisite monitoring equipment included:
• a combustible gas meter;
• a photoionization meter;
• a radiation survey meter;
• personal asbestos monitors; and
• personal organic vapor monitors.
In addition to conventional construction apparel and equipment, all work was performed in
USEPA Level C personal protective equipment, including:
• full-face, air-purifying respirators with combination high-efficiency particulate/organic
vapor cartridges;
• tyvek coveralls; and
• chemical-resistant boots and gloves.
All full-time excavation workers had completed the 40-hour Hazardous Waste and Emergency
Response Operations training as set forth in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part
1910.120. Compliance with this training requirement was not mandated by federal regulation
but, in view of the potential for uncovering potentially hazardous materials, was considered
warranted for this work.
The Contingency Plan set forth procedures to be followed in the event that:
Health & Safety Plan action levels or permissible exposure limits were exceeded;
buried drums or other potential hazardous waste-bearing containers were unearthed;
an unanticipated releases of potential pollutants occurred;
an emergency situation occurred (e.g., fire, explosion, or injury); or
any other situation occurred that in the opinion of the site Health & Safety Officer or
267
-------
appropriate designee, might jeopardize the worker's health and safety or threaten the
environment.
The Work Plan specified the methodology to be used for excavating, separating, storing,
evaluating and disposing of the landfill materials.
Reclamation equipment used on site included:
• a tracked excavator with a 2'A-cubic-yard bucket capable of reaching a maximum depth
of approximately 25 feet;
• two rubber-wheeled loaders with 2'A-and 4-cubic-yard buckets;
• two 20-ton dump trucks;
•• two vibrating-bed screens fitted with tiered sets of parallel rods (finger screens) set three
inches apart on the primary screen, and one-half inch apart on the secondary screen;
and
• a 6-foot-diameter by 10-foot-long rotating trommel screen with openings set at two
centimeters by three centimeters preceded by a nine-inch traveling grate for removing
large materials.
Two process trains were evaluated, one using the finger screens and one using the trommel.
Excavation began at the outermost limit of the filled area and proceeded inwards toward the
landfill center. Excavated material was fed directly to the primary ringer screen or the traveling
grate of the trommel, depending upon the process train in use at the time. Rejects from both
were stored in separate "oversize" piles for later evaluation.
A loader was used to feed the secondary finger screen with the material that passed through the
primary finger screen. Rejects from the secondary screen were stored in segregated "reject"
piles for later evaluation.
Screenings from the trommel's traveling grate passed directly into the trommel. Material that
passed through the grate but was rejected by the trommel screen was stored in a segregated
"reject" pile for later evaluation.
Soil screenings from both the secondary finger screen and the trommel were routinely sampled
during production and then stored off site in anticipation of declassification as solid waste.
Reclamation activities were conducted during December 1990 (Fall Phase) and June 1991
(Spring Phase). The Fall Phase excavation was conducted in an approximately 12-year-old.
section of the landfill averaging 20 feet deep and reaching a maximum depth of 22 feet. The
section excavated during the Spring Phase was approximately 20 years old and averaged 8 feet
deep with depths ranging from 2 to 20 feet. A total of approximately 15,000 cubic yards was
excavated and separated.
The excavated acre was left free of waste to provide access for post-reclamation testing to
268
-------
support a petition NYSDEC to exclude the reclaimed land from the defined footprint of the
landfill.
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
The excavator was very effective at removing landfilled materials. Excavating from the top of
the landfill was much neater than working from the bottom of the waste, providing the operator
with improved control and ability to segregate and sort out individual, potentially problematic,
waste components such as drums, batteries, etc. The depth that could be excavated in one pass
was limited by the reach of the machine. Deeper landfills will require either several passes or
alternative excavation equipment
Finger screens are a variation and an improvement of the conventional vibrating flat bed (VFB)
screen. The problem with the conventional VFB screen is that it doesn't provide enough
tumbling action and, as a result, a considerable portion of the fines such as sand and small
stones is carried off the screen on top of larger waste components such as tiles, shingles and
sheet goods. As an alternative to the conventional wire-mesh or punched-plate bed of
rectangular openings, the finger screen bed (as designed and provided by the Read Corp. of
Middleboro, MA) comprises three partially overlapping tiers of parallel steel rods (fingers). The
fingers are approximately 10 to 12 inches long and attached only at one end. Agitated by a cam,
they produce a springing action that tends to tumble the waste and improve separation efficiency.
The distance between the rods can be adjusted and each screen can be fitted with two finger
screen beds.
The primary finger screen at the Edinburg project had a single finger screen bed configured with
three-inch openings. Larger openings resulted in bridging and clogging and smaller openings
produced excessive carry-off of fines. The secondary screen had two screening beds; the upper,
a finger screen set to one-inch openings, and the lower, a wire mesh screen with openings
approximately 3/4-inch square. Effective separation of the soil and residual components ranged
from 50% to about 88%. The material rejected by the primary screen (i.e., the material larger
than three inches) contained over 12% soil by weight, and that from the secondary screen (i.e.,
smaller than three inches but larger than 3/4 inch) consisted of almost half soil.
The trommel used at the site (the REMU Screen, distributed by the American Recycling
Equipment Corp. of Parlin, NJ) was more effective than the finger screens at separating soil
from residual materials. The one trommel unit replaced both finger screens and eliminated the
need for the second loader. Its built-in conveyors allowed direct discharge of screened materials
to a waiting dump truck.
The traveling grate consisted of a series of three-foot-long steel rods, spaced approximately nine
inches apart along a moving track that fed the trommel hopper: Oversize material was rejected
by the grate. The grate had an automatic reversing mechanism that would engage whenever the
grate jammed, helping to free the blockage.
269
-------
The trommel used in Edinburg was unique in its ability to be adjusted to different screen
openings. The openings in the six-foot-diameter by 10-foot-long drum are defined by a series
of removable rods running the length of the drum and cables encircling the circumference. The
machine arrived set at approximately 1-inch by 1'A-inch openings. It worked well at this setting
and no adjustments were made during the one week that the equipment was available.
Problems included occasional jamming of the traveling grate and an increased amount of broken
glass (resulting from the tumbling action) in the finished soil.
Other trommel variations that were discussed but not tried include using: a longer trommel
screen to improve soil/residual separation; sequential trommel sections with increasing opening
sizes to provide additional size differentiation; concentric trommel screens to improve separation
and increase differentiation in a more compact unit; a smaller-diameter trommel to reduce glass
breakage by reducing the Ming distance; and the same trommel unit without the traveling grate
to reduce jamming.
Reclamation rates for excavation and screening ranging from 125 to 150 cubic yards per hour
appear reasonable, based upon this work. Both process trains evaluated are suitable for
reclamation activities.
MATERIALS EVALUATION
Hazardous Materials. Drums, containers and suspicious-looking materials were separated by the
excavator as they were encountered. Using appropriate monitoring equipment, the Health and
Safety inspector evaluated these materials. The project contingency plan established a
segregation area and special handling procedures should materials of concern be encountered.
However, no significant quantities of hazardous materials were unearthed. Several drums
contained residual materials that registered initially as volatile organic compounds but quickly
volatilized and became undetectable. The project construction contractor was a qualified "24-hr
spill response firm" and thus was capable of performing the required special handling
procedures, if needed.
Soils. The materials excavated from the landfill were separated principally into "soil" and non-
soil components. On the average, 75% of the total volume excavated was made up of materials
smaller than one inch in size - the "soil" component. This number will vary with different
methods of operation. The section of the landfill excavated during the Fall Phase was relatively
thick and approximately 58% of the volume of the material excavated was soil. The Spring
Phase operation, however, was along a very shallow edge of the landfill where as much as 80%
was soil. Another consideration is the local availability of cover materials. The Edinburg
Landfill is located in a soil-rich area and cover material was applied generously. By comparison
in Collier County, Florida, where cover soil has to be imported, it is used more sparingly. Soil
content in the excavated Florida landfill averaged approximately 55% of the total volume.
270
-------
Far and away the most significant contribution of the Edinburg project was the close examination
of both the soil recovered from the landfill and that remaining below the excavated area. Unlike
other landfill reclamation operations, the soil excavated from the Edinburg Landfill will not be
used on site as landfill cover. This is an important distinction because the Edinburg Landfill,
like the majority of landfills in the country today, is under order to close. Unless the recovered
soil could be declassified as solid waste, it would have to be treated as solid waste and the area
it occupied would have to be closed in accordance with the very costly requirements of a State-
approved closure plan. The fact that, typically, the soil component accounts for over half the
landfill volume makes its final disposition a major concern.
In order to evaluate the soil for potential reuse, it was important to identify what the parameters
should be, how they should be measured, how frequently should they be measured, and to what
the results should be compared. The selected parameters and the rationales for their selection
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Soil Testing Parameters and Rationales'
Parameter
Rationale
Results
Asbestos
Analyzed because of its common occur-
rence in construction and demolition
debris waste and its potential health and
safety problems.
Results of ail soil samples analyzed for
asbestos content were reported to be
below asbestos detection limits using
polarized light microscope methodology.
PCB
Pol/chlorinated bipfaenyls (PCB) were
analyzed due to extensive use in the past
in electrical components.
Soil samples met the PCB levels allowed
for compost materials as set forth in Part
360 of Title 6 of the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations.
BOD/COD
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD) were
selected to help assess the degree of
biodegradan'on/stabilization and treatment
requirements of the waste.
BOD/COD ratios were very low, indicat-
ing a well-degraded waste. However,
the absence of comparative data from
other reclaimed material samples limits
the usefulness of this data.
TCLP
The toxic characteristic leaching proce-
dure (TCLP) was performed to evaluate
the potential that contaminants might
leach from the soil. TCLP parameters
include specific metals, volatiles, semi-
volatiles, pesticides and herbicides as set
forth in Part 261 of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 261).
All of the results reported were less than
the detection limits of the testing proce-
dure except for barium and selenium.
However, barium and selenium were
well below their respective regulatory
levels.
271
-------
Table 1 - Soil Testing Parameters and Rationales'
Parameter
Rationale
Results
TCL
Targeted compound list (TCL) parameters
were included to determine total concen-
trations of any contaminants **"** may be
present in the soil. TCL parameters
include metals and volatiles (EPA Method
8240), semi-volatiles (EPA Method
8270), and pesticides and PCB (EPA
Method 8080).
The TCL metals exhibited generally low
levels in ail soil samples. Calcium, lead
and zinc levels appeared slightly elevated
above background levels and typical
ranges. The volatile compound analysis
indicated the presence of chloroform,
methylene chloride and acetone at 18, 26
and 200 micrograms per kilogram, re-
spectively. These were suspected to
represent laboratory contamination and
methylene chloride was, in fact, detected
in the laboratory blank. Most TCL
parameters were below detection limits.
Parameters that were detected were then
analyzed for in the TCLP extract.
Class I&H
Compost
Compost parameters were analyzed to
determine the usefulness of the soil as
compost material. They are regulated
under Part 360 of Title 6 of the New
York Code of Rules and Regulations.
Soil sample analyses results were well
below ail compost criteria.
Pathogen Screen
Pathogenic microorganisms were screened
for from a health and safety standpoint as
well as to indicate the potential for future
use of the soil.
No pathogens were identified in the
samples that would indicate that excavat-
ing landfilled materials should be consid-
ered to be a hazardous activity.
Pathogen
Reduction
Pathogen reduction testing was performed
to determine if pathogenic organisms
could be eliminated or reduced in the soil
samples. This procedure is set forth in
proposed regulation 40 CFR 503.
All parameters were reported to be with-
in the limits set forth in the proposed
regulation.
TCL
Constituents in
TCLP Extract
No regulatory limits exist for contaminant
constituents in the soil. In order to assess
how "clean" the soil materials were,
testing was done on the TCLP extract of
the soil samples and the results were
compared to groundwater standards. In
addition, analyses were performed on
background soils and the results were
compared to those obtained from
reclaimed soil.
All parameters were reported at low
levels and most were reported as being
less than the detection limits of the test
procedures. These results met State
groundwater standards with the exception
of a few elevated parameters that gener-
ally were consistent with background soil
levels.
1. Modified from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Draft Final Report,
"Town of Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project" (the "Edinburg Report").
272
-------
These results were presented to NYSDEC in two separate petitions: (1) to declassify the
reclaimed soil as solid waste and permit its use off site in public works projects as construction
fill in non-surface applications; and (2) to redefine the footprint of the landfill to exclude the
reclaimed portion. Both petitions were approved.
Non-soil Ma,te.rjals. The non-soil component of the excavated material, on average, made up
about 25% of the volume, although the deeper sections contained as much as 40%. This
material appeared to be relatively well decomposed. With the exception of a few corn husks,
no food products were identified and only some more recalcitrant organics persisted. Enough
newspapers were found to date the excavation area, most in unbroken plastic garbage bags.
Recovered non-soil materials were hand-sorted in both the Fall and Spring Phases. Plastics,
paper, ferrous and the "other" (partially unidentifiable) categories comprised the bulk of this
material. Percentages of each sorted component are presented in the third column of Table 2.
To evaluate the degree of decomposition of the reclaimed materials, the amount of each
component was compared to the Franklin Associates 1980 estimates of MSW generation using
plastics as a baseline (under the assumption that they don't degrade in landfills). The results are
presented in Table 2.
The recovered non-soil materials were evaluated as potential recycling feedstocks. Tires, white
goods and some ferrous materials were separated and recycled. The rest were re-landfilled on
the site. Although it was estimated that over 50% of the non-soil materials were recyclable, the
considerable amount of soil still intermixed with the "non-soil" components made them
economically unfeasible to process.
The material also failed as a potential energy product for use at a waste-to-energy incinerator.
Again, the failure was attributed to the high soil and rock content in the waste. During the
same time, however, Pennsylvania's Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority began
excavating an 18-acre landfill containing 16-month-old waste. Lime is added to the waste to
mitigate the substantial odor problems associated with this relatively "raw" waste. The material
is being separated using a much longer trommel with Vi-inch openings and incinerated for energy
recovery, producing a net revenue of $15,800 from energy sales and reclaiming landfill space
valued at $41,650 every week.
273
-------
Table 2 - Evaluation of Decomposition Based on Assumed Amounts
of Initial Waste and Residual Analysis (by weight)1
Waste
Component
Plastic
Paper
Yard
Food
Wood
Glass
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other
Total of 1980
MSW est. to
contain 21.9
Ibs plastic2
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
378 Ibs x
Percentage
of each
component
in MSW
5.8 «
31.7 -
20.4
9.8 -
3.6 =
10.5 -
8.3 -
1.1
8.8 =
1. Modified from the Edinburg Report.
2. From Franklin Associates' Study: plastic =
21.9 Ibs, then X = 378 Ibs.
Amount
expected
without
degradation
21.9
119.8
77.1
37.0
13.6
39.7
31.4
4.2
33.3
Recovered
from 100 Ibs
of reclaimed
residuals
21.0
21.9
0
0
4.8
9.0
15.7
2.2
25.0
Percent
missing
0%
82%
100%
100%
65%
77%
50%
48%
55%
Comments
Baseline
High
Decomposition
Complete
Decomposition
Complete
Decomposition
Partial
Decomposition
High breakage
rate, ends up
in soil
Partial remov-
al with over-
size fraction
Insignificant
deviation
Partial
decomposition
5.856 of 1980 MSW, thus if 5.8% of X Ibs of MSW =
The Energy Authority is planning to examine methods to "clean up" recovered materials from
older landfills so that they may provide economic feedstocks for materials recycling and energy
recovery processes. The Lancaster County operation will be examined as part of this effort.
274
-------
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cost estimates for full-scale production are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 - Landfill Reclamation Costs'
1. Supervision
Position
Project Engineer
Health/Safety Inspector
Crew Supervisor
Hourly Rate
$50
50
45
Avg # Hrs/Week
24
50
24
Supervision Total
Monthly Rate
$5,200
10,800
4.700
$20,700
2. Health & Safety Equipment
Equipment
HNu Meter
Radiation Survey Meter
Combustible Gas Meter
Other Meters
Personal Protection
Health & Safety Equipment Total
(for supervisory staff) Personal Protection Total
Health & Safety Total
Monthly Rate
$1,900
$2.000
$3,900
3. Excavation and Separation Equipment
Finger Screens
Equipment
1 - 3-inch finger screen
1 - 1-inch finger screen
1 - 3 cu yd excavator
2 - loaders
1 - dump truck
1 - utility vehicle
1 - office trailer
4 - operators
fuel
personal protection
Monthly Cost
$11,000
9,500
14,500
17,000
7,000
1,500
500
24,000
6,000
4.SQQ
$95,500
Total Monthly Cost Using Finger Screens $120,100
Trommel Screen
Equipment
1 - trommel
1 - 3 cu yd excavator
1 - loader
2 - dump trucks
1 - utility vehicle
1 - office trailer
4 -operators
fuel
personal protection
Monthly Cost
$19,000
14,500
8,500
14,000
1,500
500
24,000
5,000
4.500
$91,500
Total Monthly Cost Using Trommel ... $116,100
4. Cost per cubic yard (basis: 100-150 cu yd/hr, 8-hr days, 5-days/wk, 4.3 wk./mo.)
Finger Screens $4.55 - $6.98/cu. yd. II Trommel Screen $4.50 - $6.75/cu. yd.
1. Modified from the Edtnburg Report. All costs represent middle-range estimates.
275
-------
At $4.50 to $7.00/cu. yd., landfill reclamation can compete with the cost of conventional closure
in relatively shallow landfills. In making such comparisons, it is essential to recognize that
while landfill closure cost, for the most part, is a function of the landfill's area, landfill
reclamation is a function of its volume. A 15-foot-deep landfill contains approximately 24,000
cubic yards of material. At $5.00/cu. yd., it will cost $120,000 to reclaim. Depending on
local conditions and closure requirements, reclamation may or may not be a desirable option.
Conventional closure of a 30-foot-deep landfill will cost no more than for one that is 15 feet
deep, but reclamation costs will be doubled.
Landfill reclamation economics are enhanced by the avoidance of long-term post-closure
maintenance and monitoring costs required with conventional closure. There also is value in
avoiding the risk of future remediation costs at landfills being "closed" today. If the reclaimed
landfill is to be upgraded and reused as a modern, permitted solid waste management facility,
a very substantial economic benefit may be realized. At a $50-per-ton tipping fee for disposal
of new municipal solid waste (MSW), reclamation of 18,000 cu. yd. of landfill capacity (starting
with an acre containing 24,000 cu. yd. of material and achieving 75% reduction in volume) will
accommodate approximately 11,000 tons of MSW and generate revenue of $550,000/per acre.
Finally, the very likely potential for material and energy recovery further amplify the benefits
of landfill reclamation. Lancaster County is realizing a net benefit from energy sales of
approximately $4.70 per cubic yard of excavated material or $8.31 per ton of reclaimed MSW
incinerated.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND ATIQNS
The results of the Edinburg project and other ongoing efforts in Florida and Pennsylvania
provide ample evidence of the viability of this landfill management strategy. The decision to
reclaim a landfill should be based primarily upon economic considerations, although some of the
economic factors, particularly those associated with potentially avoided long-term costs, will be
hard to define and subject to debate. Landfill reclamation can be used to: (1) completely remove
an existing landfill; (2) reduce the size of the landfill required to be "closed"; (3) upgrade an
inadequately lined landfill; (4) create additional landfill capacity in appropriately lined facilities;
(5) mitigate adverse environmental impacts; (6) avoid siting difficulties for new solid waste
management facilities; (7) recover potentially valuable material and energy resources; and (8)
periodically inspect, repair or replace faulty liners, leachate collection utilities and leakage
detection systems. Any evaluation of landfill reclamation as a potential landfill management
strategy should investigate the benefits and costs of all applicable strategies and include a
detailed site investigation to identify the areal and vertical extent of the landfill, characterize the
nature of the landfilled materials, and investigate the subsurface conditions at the facility.
John MoreUi, P.E., chairs the Department of Environmental Management at Rochester Institute of Technology. Formerly
Senior Project Manager with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and originator of the
Edinburg Landfill Reclamation Project, he continues to set-Teas a consultant for the Energy Authority's Landfill Reclama-
tion Program.
276
-------
LANDFILL SITING CONFLICT RESOLUTION BASED ON MANDATORY NEGOTIATION
BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND LANDFILL DEVELOPERS
C. Zieve
Institute for Environmental Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin
INTRODUCTION
Each year Wisconsin disposes of 6.5 million tons of waste in 850 licensed landfills. Within a
short time most of these landfills will either be closed or filled to capacity. Wisconsin has a
unique statutory provision which gives the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources the
authority to waive local approval for landfill facilitates which meet strict environmental criteria.
A provision in the law requires the landfill applicant to negotiate with local citizens about social
and economic issues. If the applicant and the Local Negotiating Committee cannot reach agree-
ment, the law provides for mandatory, binding, final-offer arbitra- tion by a governor appointed
Waste Facility Siting Board. Of the fifty five contracts been negotiated to date only three
required arbitration.1
Public policy analysts are interested in Wisconsin's statute as an appropriate procedure for siting
other unpopular land uses.
THE CURRENT LANDFILL SITING LAW1
The current landfill siting law, enacted in 1981, involves two parallel procedures:2
1 Copies of the actual contracts are available for copying costs from the Wisconsin Solid
Waste Facility Siting Board,
132 E. Wilson, Madison, Wi. 53703.
2 See Appendix I for full text of Wi. Statute 144.445
277
-------
1. The feasibility and permitting process deals with the technical and environmental aspects
of the site and is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources [DNR].
2. Economic and social issues are addressed through a negotiation and arbitration procedure
administered by the Waste Facility Siting Board [WFSB]. The WFSB, created by the
state to resolve impasse issues in the negotiation process, ultimately serves as an
arbitration panel.3
The intent of the law is dual: (1) to set aside arbitrary actions of local governments that block
the siting of waste facilities; (2) to provide an effective means of addressing the "legitimate
concerns of nearby residents and affected municipalities."
The first negotiated agreement between Marinette Landfill Co. and the Town of Grover in
Marinette County is dated June 1983 and is relatively brief. The twelve page agreement includes
13 items.
A more recent agreement between Emerald Park, Inc. and the City of Muskego dated April,
1991 contains 27 items and is 40 pages long with an additional 27 page appendix. It is evident
that each new case allows applicants and LNC's to craft their proposals to include relevant issues
gleaned from studying prior agreements.
THE NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION PROCESS
The developer and affected municipalities must enter negotiations to resolve or mitigate
economic, social, environmental, and other impacts associated with the proposed landfill.
Concerns of the local municipality are dealt with by a Local Negotiating Committee [LNC].
The LNC includes representatives appointed by each interested township, city, village or county.
Negotiations between the developer and the LNC continue until there is agreement on all the
issues or until the parties are at impasse at which point they must both submit final offers to the
Waste Facilities Siting Board [WFSB].
Table I summarizes the most commonly negotiated issues included in 34 of the 55 cases
concluded to date. The remainder of the cases were not included because the agreements did
not contain any significant social or economic issues.
3. The Waste Facility Siting Board is an impartial body of seven members chosen from the
following Departments: Agriculture; Trade and Consumer Protection; Development, Industry,
Labor and Human Relations; and Transportation. There are also two elected town officials and
one elected county official appointed by the governor and subject to ratification by the Senate.
278
-------
TABLE I
NEGOTIATING ISSUE PRIORITY ORDER
1. Negotiating Expenses [85%]*
2. Roads and Traffic [85%]
3. Well Monitoring [79%]
4. Debris/Vector/Dust/Odor Control [79%]
5. Waste Restriction: Type/Area/User [79%]
6. Hours and Days of Operation [76%]
T. Town Indemnification [74%]
8. Screen Planting [74%]
9. Fences/Gates [65%]
10. Post Closure Plans [65%]
11. Fire and Other Special Services [62%]
12. Relinquish Future Legal Action [59%]
13. Loss of Property Value/Enjoyment [59%]
14. Security/Manager on Site [50%]
15. Transport Vehicle Requirements [50%]
16. Direct Payments to Town/County [47%]
17. Replacement of Degraded Water Supply [44%]
18. Surface Water Control [41 %]
19. Monitoring Committee [41%]
20. Insurance Bonds Environment/Health [41 %]
2 U Landfill Privilege
22.. Payment to Town per Ton [35%]
23. Waste Recycling Requirement [24%]
24. Leachate Care [24%]
25. Air Pollution and Noise Control [18%]
26. Lighting Requirements [12%]
27. Landfill Liner/Cap Design [12%]
28. Mud Tracking Control [9%]
29. Medical Examinations [3%]
*Numbers in Parentheses indicate the percentage of the 34 cases that included these issues.
279
-------
While there is no limit to what can be negotiated there are limits to what the WFSB will
consider for arbitration. The eight arbitrable items set forth in the law include:
1. Compensation for substantial economic impacts which are a direct result of the
facility including insurance and damages.
2. Reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by the LNC relating to negotiation,
mediation and arbitration activities.
3. Screening and fencing related to the appearance of the facility.
4. Operational concerns including, but not limited to, noise, dust, debris, odors and
hours of operation.
5. Traffic flows and patterns resulting from the facility.
6. Uses of the site after closing the facility.
7. Economically feasible methods to recycle or reduce the quantity of waste coming
to the facility.
8. The applicability or nonapplicability of any pre-existing local approvals.
The WFSB has wide discretion to choose whichever of the two final offers it deems more
reasonable. It must choose one offer or the other; it cannot pick and choose terms from each,
nor can it "split the difference." It can delete items that it considers outside of the legislative
intent and policy.
THE ARBITRATION PROCRSS
Three cases have failed to reach agreement through negotiatu- jid have submitted final offers
to the WFSB. Case No. 1 was decided on the basis of monetary issues while prior local zoning
entered into the final offers of cases No. 2 and No. 3.
Case No. 1. Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill, Inc. of Mayville, Wisconsin and Dodge County
Local Committee of Juneau, Wisconsin.
From December, 1986 until June, 1989 the Dodge County Local Committee and Hechimovich
Sanitary Landfill, Inc. attempted without success to negotiate a written agreement for the
proposed solid waste facility. This was the first case to go through the arbitration process. The
positions of the parties on these issues are contained in their respective offers. See Footnote 1.
The WFSB determined that U issues were similar in the parties final offers and did not consider
these issues further. The remaining issues were found to be significant and relevant to the
disposition of the Hechimovich case. The arbitration award was decided in favor of
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
280
-------
ARBITRABLE HECHIMOVTCH ISSUES
1. Designated Roadways
2. Indemnification
3. Surety Bond
4. Road Maintenance & Repair
5. Property Value Diminution
6. Compensation for County Administrative Expenses
7. Final Use and Expansion
8. Registration Forms for Agents & Authorized Transporters
9. Disclosure
10. Well-Testing
11. Legal Fees
Case No. 2. Madison Landfills, Inc. and Vondron Landfill Negotiating Committee of Dane
County, City of Madison and Town of Blooming Grove, Wisconsin.
From April, 1986 until February, 1990 the Vondron Landfill Negotiating Committee and
Madison Landfills, Inc. attempted without success to negotiate a written agreement for the
proposed solid waste facility. This was the second case to go through the arbitration process.
In this case the applicability or nonapplicability of pre-existing local approvals came to the
WFSB for the first time. The WFSB arbitration award stated as follows:
The Board recognizes both the authority of local governmental bodies to create
local approvals as defined by sec. 144.445(3)(d), Wi. Stat. and the authority of
the Board to set aside those arbitrary or discriminatory actions of local
governments which obstruct the establishment of solid waste disposal facilities,
sec. 144.445 (2)(a), Wi. Stat. Here the Board finds that the pre-existing zoning
ordinance is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and is a reasonable use of local
authority to encourage planned and orderly land use development.
If the pre existing zoning was disallowed following are the conditions that Vondron Landfill
Negotiating Committee proposed in its final offer:
1. Transportation
a. Designated Routes
b. Methods of Hauling
c. Debris Pickup
d. Road Reconstruction
e. Identification of Transporters of Solid Waste
2. Operations at the Solid Waste Facility
a. Landfill Cap and Liner Design
281
-------
b. Source of Waste
c. Hours of Operation
d. Odor Abatement
e. Dust Abatement
f. Blowing Debris Control
g. Landfill Vector Control
h. Screening
i. Mud Tracking
j. Lighting
k. Drainage and Erosion control
1. Landfill Operator Training
m. Emergency Planning
3. Financial Requirements and Compensation
a. Indemnification and Insurance
b. Municipal Liability Insurance
c. Compensation of LNC Expenses
d. Compensation to Water Utility
e. Compensation for Lost Tax Revenue
f. Compensation to Adjacent Residential Property Owners
4. Final Use
5. Environmental Monitoring
The final offer of the Vondron Landfill Negotiating Committee was accepted. The matter of
prior zoning was then assigned to the County zoning board. The applicant subsequently sold the
property so that this case is no longer under consideration for development as a solid waste
facility.
Case No. 3. Madison Landfills, Inc. and Libby Landfill Negotiating Committee of Dane
County, City of Madison and Town of Dunn.
From August, 1985 until April, 1991 the Libby Landfill Negotiating Committee and Madison
Landfills, Inc. attempted without success to negotiate a written agreement for the proposed solid
waste facility. This was the third case to go through the arbitration process.
The DNR had already determined that the site is environmentally safe and landfill space is
needed. The final offer of Madison Landfills, Inc. was adopted by the WFSB except that the
arbitration award deleted several items which were not consistent with legislative findings and
intent. Of special interest is the following item dealing with Local Approvals.
The Board deletes section 4, that reads: "Any and all pre-existing local approvals
shall be deemed not applicable." The legislature intended the negotiation-
arbitration process, to assure, among other things, that "arbitrary or
discriminatory policies and actions of local governments which obstruct the
282
-------
establishment of solid waste disposal facilities...can be set aside." The
legislature's declaration allows the Board to set aside arbitrary or discriminatory
local approvals that obstruct the establishment of solid waste facilities. Thus it
follows that the Board lacks authority to set aside local approvals that are neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory. Here the Board finds the local zoning regulations
applied to this case at this time are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
The test of whether a proposal for landfill construction can possibly override local zoning
appears to rest on whether or not the zoning was in force prior to the applicant's proposal. The
WFSB decided that the applicant should have determined at the outset of negotiations if the
county zoning board would waive prior local zoning - then the WFSB could have considered
prior zoning an arbitrable issue.2
If the zoning were approved following are the conditions that Madison Landfill, Inc. proposed
in its final offer:
1. Limitations on the Source and Types of Incoming Waste
2.. Waste Reduction and Recycling
3. Roads and Traffic
a. Route Identification
b. Traffic Signals
c. Methods of Hauling
d. Debris Pickup
e. On Site roads
4. Operations
a. Hours of Operation
b. Odor Abatement
c. Dust Abatement
d. Blowing Debris control
e. Landfill Vector Controls
f. Screening
g. Mud Tracking
h. Lighting
i. Drainage and Erosion Control
j. Landfill Operator Training
5. Environmental Monitoring
6. Closure - Final Use - Zoning
7. Long Term Care
8. Emergency Planning
9. Insurance and Indemnification
The Dane County Board on April 2, 1992 voted against a zoning change needed for the landfill
site. Madison Landfills, Inc. has undertaken legal action to set aside the County board denial
283
-------
of rezoning and the WFSB decision to delete the item dealing with Local Approvals in the final
offer of Madison Landfills, Inc.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE3
A particularly complex issue included in many of the siting agreements involves compensation
to property owners near the landfill site for reduced market value of their property. While each
negotiated agreement is slightly different the following summary is indicative of how the process
works.
Compensation involves two separate notions:
I. Loss of property value because of proximity to the landfill.
II. Loss of enjoyment of property because of proximity to the landfill. Payments for
this loss could be a mitigating factor in terms of payment for loss of property
value.
Diminished Property Value
Terms are agreed to during the negotiation-arbitration procedure.
Negotiated Provisions
1. Owner collects compensation to reflect the difference between the selling price and the
pre-landfill assessed value if the property is sold.
2. Owner collects for loss of property value whether or not the property is sold [value same
as above].
3. Owners have a limited time option to sell to the developer at the "without landfill price."
4. The developer is required to buy the property if it does not sell in 150 days at a price
fixed by assessment and indexing set by the Wi. Dept. of Revenue.
The properties that qualify for compensation because of loss of property value, the amount of
compensation, and the party responsible for appraisal fees are determined by negotiations
between the LNC and the landfill developer. Typically a certified real estate appraiser estimates
the property value with and without the landfill. If the appraisal is not accepted by both parties
a second appraisal can be obtained. In some cases a third appraisal is requested. Appraisal fees
are usually paid by the landfill developer. The difference between the pre and post landfill value
of the property is the compensation amount.
284
-------
Impact on Quality of Life
The properties that qualify for compensation because of impact on the quality of life are
determined by negotiations according to distance, visibility, noise, traffic and possible ecological
values. These payments can be made periodically or in one lump-sum and are handled by the
township.
Lump-Sum Payments Up Front
These agreements include a list of persons by name, or of properties by parcel number, with the
amount each is to receive. There appears to be no formula for arriving at the amount of
compensation. In one case both parties proposed graduated payments to property owners
according to the distance from the site.
Periodic Payments During Operation
In certain cases periodic cash payments are made to compensate property owners for decrease
in the quality of living. The properties that qualify for such compensation are determined by
negotiations between the LNC and the developer.
There is considerable difference between these types of agreements.
1) A small annual payment is to be determined by the township. Over the life of the
landfill the total amount paid will be between $500 and $1,000. The money is to come
out of a fixed, lump-sum payment fay the operator to the township. The effect is that the
township pays instead of the landfill operator. Any monies remaining can be spent by
the township as it sees fit.
2) The township will rebate part or all property taxes of named property owners. The
township determines how much to pay each property affected by the landfill. The
township can decide how to spend the balance of a lump-sum payment by the operator.
3) Cash payments are made over the life of the landfill to "affected owners" who can see
the landfill from their homes, whose property abuts the access road, or whose property
is crossed by a watercourse that is downstream from the landfill. Payments add up to
25% of the equalized assessed value of residential improvements (but not land) as of the
date on which the agreement was signed. Not many owners qualify for this type of
compensation but their payments could be substantial.
4) A case filed in April 1991 listed 52 residential property owners who were given the
option of accepting either $0.21 per ton of waste deposited or $300,000 spread over 15
years. These payments amount to 15% of the sum that the landfill operator
agreed to pay to the City. The city handles the disbursement of these payments to the
property owners.
285
-------
In the first two methods listed above it is unlikely that the amount paid to affected property
owners will fairly represent the actual impact of the landfill on the quality of life. It has become
apparent in specific cases where Town Board members live far from the site, the impacts on
neighbors tend to be ignored, while benefits for the Town are considered more important. In the
third and fourth cases, the amount of compensation was fixed by the negotiators.
AMENDING THE LAW
Some of the shortcomings in the present bill identified in an earlier study are:4
Local communities have nothing to say about the location of a proposed landfill. The LNC
would like the opportunity of proposing an alternative, more acceptable site.
1. The present law does not work to distribute landfills fairly in the state. Some
counties have an unusual number of large landfills,
2. There are no provisions in the law that allow consideration of the appropriateness
of the site. There is nothing in the law that requires a landfill site be
commensurate with the best achievable environmental and economic standards.
The site is merely required to meet DNR standards.
3. Land use decisions should occur at the outset of the siting procedure.
4. Post closure tax gain/loss should be considered in the negotiations.
5. The list of arbitrable items should be expanded.
Issues number 3, 4 and 6 and are addressed in Wisconsin 1991 Assembly Bill 871. The bill
proposes to amend the statute to expand the list of arbitrable issues and require an initial site
report for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of the site and
Many agreements do not include payment to a town by the applicant in exchange for the
privilege of putting in a landfill against their wishes. This is the case in the agreement between
Adams County and the Town of Strongs Prairie LNC. This calls into question the willingness
or ability of small towns to retain legal counsel to guide the LNC through the negotiation
arbitration process. The applicant is always willing to engage counsel for this purpose. This
difference between willingness and/or ability to spend money on the process results in more
favorable agreements for municipalities with ample resources.5
CONCLUSIONS
The Wisconsin Waste Facility Siting Law, in its present form, has assured the state of sufficient
landfill capacity. The negotia-
tion/arbitration procedure prohibits municipal veto power over landfill development at the same
time it provides a means to address economic and social issues. Some aspects of the law could
be amended to streamline the process and make it more equitable.
286
-------
REFERENCES
1. This section taken from C. Zieve and A. Sacks. 1990.
Wisconsin's Landfill siting Lav. Paper prepared for the
Center for Environmental Policy Studies of the Institute for
Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
2. Private conversation with WFSB director Patti Cronin.
3. This section is taken from J. Strasma and C. Zieve. Dealing
with Impacts in Siting Wisconsin Landfills: The Mandatory
Negotiation/Arbitration Process. Paper presented at the
Fourteenth Annual Madison Waste Conference, Sept. 25-26, 1991.
Dept. of Engineering Professional Development, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
4. C. Zieve and A. Sacks. 1990. See Reference a.
5. Private conversation with Strongs Prairie Committee member
Lynn Hoernke. April 8, 1992.
287
-------
APPENDIX I
289
-------
144.444 WATVI, SCWAOK, fttPUSK, MININO AND AW POLLUTION
Wis. Stats.
the department shall issue a new operating license if the
previous licensed is no longer connected with the operation of
the facility, if the new licensee meets all requirements speci-
fied in the previous license, the approved plan of operation, if
any. and the rules promulgated under s. 144.62. if applicable.
(2) Any person having or acquiring rights of ownership in
land where an approved facility, as defined under s. 144.441
(I) (a), was previously operated may not. after termination of
the owner's responsibility for long-term care of the facility
under s. 144.441 (2), undertake any activities on the land
which interfere with the closed facility causing a significant
threat to public health, safety or welfare.
HOTT* I9T7 c. 2TT; 19tl c.J74; 19131.410 u. 6L 2331 Illk Suu. I«B J
L 144.444.
SOTIMUIO 1*440. ouB| Kelly. 67 MLR «9t (I9S4).
144.445 SoHd and hazardous wral* faeJIIHM: negotiation
and •rWtrailMk (1) LEGISLATIVE nNDiNCS. (a) The legislature
flnds that the creation of solid and hazardous waste is an
unavoidable result of the needs and demands of a modem
society.
(b) The legislature further finds that solid and hazardous
waste is generated throughout the state as a by-product of the
materials used and consumed by every individual, business.
enterprise and governmental unit in the state.
(c) The legislature further finds that the proper manage-
ment of solid and hazardous waste u necessary to prevent
adverse effects on the environment and to protect public
health and safety.
(d) The legislature further finds that the availability of
suitable facilities for solid waste disposal and the treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous waste is necessary to
preserve the economic strength of this state and to fulfill the
diverse needs of its citizens.
(e) The legislature further finds that whenever a site is
proposed for the solid waste disposal or the treatment.
storage or disposal of hazardous waste, the nearby residents
and the affected municipalities may have a variety of legiti-
mate concerns about the location, design, construction, oper-
ation, closing and long-term care of facilities to be located at
the site, and that these facilities must be established with
consideration for the concerns of nearby residents and the
affected municipalities.
(0 The legislature further finds that local authorities have
the responsibility for promoting public health, safety, conve-
nience and general welfare, encouraging planned and orderly
land use development, recognizing the needs of industry and
business, including solid waste disposal and the treatment.
storage and disposal of hazardous waste and that the reason-
able decisions of local authorities should be considered in the
siting of solid waste disposal facilities and hazardous waste
facilities.
(g) The legislature further finds that the procedures for the
siting of new or expanded solid waste disposal fatalities and
hazardous waste facilities under s. 144.44. 1979 stats., and s.
144 64. 1979 stats., are not adequate to resolve many of the
conflicts which arise during the process of establishing such
facilities.
(2) LEGISLATIVE INTENT, it is the intent of the legislature to
create and maintain an effective and comprehensive policy of
negotiation and arbitration between the applicant ibr a
license to establish either a solid waste disposal facility or a
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility and a
committee representing the infected municipalities to assure
ihai:
(3) Arbitrary or discriminatory policies and actions of
local governments which obstruct the establishment oi solid
waste disposal facilities and hazardous waste faciii
set aside.
(b) The legitimate concerns of nearby residen
fccted municipalities can be expressed m a public Con
negotiated and. if need be. arbitrated with the applicanti
fair manner and reduced to a written document that is leg:
binding.
(c) An adequate mechanism exists under state law 10 ass
the establishment of environmentally sound and econo:
cally viable solid waste disposal facilities and hazardc
waste facilities.
(3) DEFINITIONS. In this section:
(a) "Applicant" means a person applying for a license
or the owner or operator of a facility.
(b) "Board" means the waste facility suing board.
(c) "Facility" means a solid waste disposal facility or
hazardous waste facility.
(d) "Local approval" includes any requirement for
permit, license, authorization, approval, variance or exce
lion or any restriction, condition of approval or other restn
tton. regulation, requirement or prohibition imposed by
charier ordinance, general ordinance, zoning ordinance, re
olution or regulation by a town, city, village, county
special purpose district, including without limitation becau
of enumeration any ordinance, resolution or regulatic
adopted under s. 59.065.59.07,59.083.59.97.59.971.59.97
60.10.60.22.60.23.60.54.60.77,61.34.61J5.61.351.61J5
62.11. 62.23. 6Z23!. 62^34, 66.01. 66.052. 66.24 (8). 87.3
91.73. 144.07, I96.58.236.45or J49.l6orsubch. VIII of c
60.
(e) "Local committee'* means the committee appoinu
under sub. (7).
(0 "Participating municipality" means an aflecte
pality which adopts a siting resolution and appoints
to the local committee.
(fm) "Preexisting local approval" means a local approv
in effect at least 15 months prior to the submission to a
department of either a feasibility report under s. 144.44 (2) <
an initial site report, whichever occurs first.
(g) "Siting resolution" means the resolution adopted by i
affected municipality under sub. (6) (a).
(4) RULES. The board may promulgate rules necessary fc
the implementation of this section.
(5) APPLICABILITY OF LOCAL APPROVALS, (a) The establui
mem of facilities is a matter of statewide concern.
(b) An existing facility is not subject to any local approv
except those local approvals made applicable to the factlii
under pars, ic) to (g).
(c) Except as provided under par. (d), a new or expande
facility is subject to preexisting local approvals.
(dl A new or expanded facility is not subject to an
preexisting local approvals which are specified as mappiic;
ble in a negotiation agreement approved under sub. (9) or a
arbitration award issued under sub. (10).
(e) Except as provided under par. If), a new or expande
facility is not subject to any local approvals which are nc
preexisting local approvals.
(0 A new or expanded facility is subject to local approva
which are not preexisting local approvals if they are specific
as applicable in a negotiation agreement approved under sut
(9).
(g) This subsection applies 10 a new or expanded facilit
owned or operated by a county m the same manner it apolie
so all other new or expanded facilities.
(6) SITING RESOLUTION, la) Mumcwai paritcioat
affected municipality may participate in the negotiation am
arbitration process under this section if the governing boo
290
-------
2513 87-88 Wis. Suts.
WATVt, SBWAOI, MPUSI. MINING AND AIR POLLUTION 144440
adopts a siting resolution and appoints mem ben 10 the local
committee within 60 days after the municipality receives the
written request from the applicant under s. (44.44 (Im) (b)
and if the municipality sends a copy of that resolution and the
names of those members to the board within 7 days after the
municipality adopts the siting resolution and appoints mem-
ben to (he local committee. The suing resolution shall state
the affected municipality's intent to negotiate and. if neces-
sary, arbitrate with the applicant concerning the proposed
facility. An affected municipality which does noi adopt a
siting resolution within 60 days after receipt of notice from
the applicant may not appoint members to the local
committee.
(b) Notification of participation. Within S days after the
board receives copies of resolutions and names of mem ben
appointed to the local committee from all affected municipal-
ities or within 72 days after all affected municipalities receive
the written request under s. 144.44 (Im) (b). the board shall
submit a notification of participation by certified mail to the
applicant and each participating municipality identifying the
participating municipalities and the members appointed to
the local committee and informing the applicant and partici-
pating municipalities that negotiations may commence or. if
no affected municipality takes the actions required to partici-
pate in the negotiation and arbitration process under par. fa).
the board shall notify the applicant of this fact by certified
mail within that 72-day period.
(c) Reined notification of participation. If the board issues
a notice under par. (b) and subsequently it is necessary for the
applicant to submit a written request under s. 144.44 (1m) (b)
to an additional affected municipality because of an error or
changes in plans, the board may issue an order delaying
negotiations until that affected municipality has an opportu-
nity to participate in the negotiation and arbitration process
by taking action under par. (a). Within 5 days after the board
receives a copy of the resolution and the names of members
appointed to the local committee by that affected municipal-
ity or within 72 days after that affected municipality receives
the written request from the applicant under s. 144.44 (Im)
(b). the board shall submit a revised notification of participa-
tion by certified mail to the applicant and each participating
municipality stating the participating municipalities and
members appointed to the local committee and informing the
applicant and participating municipalities that negotiations
may recommence or if the additional affected municipality
does not take the actions required to participate in the
negotiation and arbitration process under par. (a), the board
shall notify the applicant and other participating municipali-
ties of this fact by certified mail and informing them that
negotiations may recommence.
(d) Rescission. A siting resolution may be rescinded at any
time by a resolution of the governing body of the municipality
which adopted it. When a siting resolution is rescinded.
individuals appointed by the governing body of the munici-
pality to serve on ihe local committee are removed from
membership on the local committee.
(e) Prohibition on participation bv municipality which is also
applicant. An affected municipality which is ulso the appli-
cant or which contracts with the applicant to construct or
operate a facility may not adopt a stung resolution.
if) Failure in participate. If no affected municipality takes
the actions required to participate in the negotiation and
arbitration process under par. la), the applicant may continue
to seek state approval of the facility, is not reuuircd to
negotiate or arbitrate under this section and the 1'acilttv is not
subject to any local approval, notwithsianutne sub. i5)
(g) Extension for filing. If the governing body of an affected
municipality adopts- a siting resolution under par: (a) or (b).
and if the. affected municipality does not send a copy of the
siting resolution to the applicant and the board within 7 days.
the board may grant an extension of time to allow the affected
municipality to send a copy ot the siting resoluuon to the
applicant and the board, if the board determines that:
I. The municipality failed to send the siting resolution
through mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect: and
2. The granting of an extension will not create a significant
hardship for other parties to the negotiation and arbitration
process.
NOTE: WWWh. AcH2fOTn4KMMRMJifeMitocmiiMafpir.it>
)«». ItM *T Act 1 a III ••••HI >••«•«» «•«»»>»•, to t>x4 or *»nt»mim*u
*r*. 144.44 (Im) tlttr J-IS-H.
(7) LOCAL COMMITTEE, (a) Appointment ot'memben. Mem-
bers of the local committee shall be appointed by the gov-
erning body of each affected municipality passing a siting
resolution, as follows:
1. A town, city or village in which all or pan of a facility is
proposed to be located shall appoint •* members, no more
than 2 of whom are elected officials or municipal employes.
1 m. A county in which all or pan ol°a facility is proposed to
be located shall appoint 2 members.
2. Any affected municipality, other than those specified
under subd. I or Im. shall appoint one member.
(b) Disclosure of private interests. Each member of a local
committee shall file a statement with the board within 15 days
after the person is appointed to the local committee specify-
ing the economic interests of the member and his or her
immediate family members that would be affected by the
proposed facility and its development.
(c) Failure to disclose private interests. If a person fails to
file a statement of economic interest as required under par.
(b). he or she may not serve on the local committee and the
position to which he or she was appointed is vacant.
(d) Removal: vacancies. A participating municipality may
remove and replace at will the members it appoints to the
local committee. Vacancies on the local committee shall be
filled in the same manner as initial appointments.
(e) Chairperson. The local committee shall elect one of its
members as chairperson.
(0 Quorum. A majority of the membership of the locaJ
committee constitutes a quorum to do business and a major-
ity of that quorum may act in any matter before the local
committee. Each member of the local committee has one vote
in any matter before the committee and no member may vote
by proxy.
Igj Open meetings. Meetings of the local committee are
subject to subch. IV of ch. 19.
(7n) ADDITIONAL MUNICIPAL PARTIES, u) Agreement loadd.
Upon the wntten agreement of all parties to a negotiation
and arbitration proceeding commenced under this section, a
municipality which does not qualify as an affected municipal-
ity under s. 144.43 (I) may be added as a party to the
proceeding.
(b) Siting resolution. If a municipality is added to the
negotiation and arbitration proceeding under par. (a), u shat
adopt a suing resolution under sub. negotiate with respec
to any subject except:
1. Any proposal to make the applicant's responsibility
under the approved feasibility report or plan 01 operation les
stringent.
291
-------
144^446 WATKR, SBWAQE, REFUSE, MINING AND AIR POLLUTION
87-88 Wi$. Stats. 2514
2. The need Tor the facility.
(b) Only the following items are subject to arbitration
under this section:
I. Compensation to any person for substantial economic
impacts which are a direct result or the facility including
insurance and damages not covered by the waste manage-
ment fund.
Im. Reimbursement of reasonable costs, but not to exceed
520.000. incurred by the local committee relating to negotia-
tion, mediation and arbitration activities under this section.
2. Screening and fencing related to the appearance of the
facility. This item may not affect the design capacity of the
facility.
3. Operational concerns including, but not limited to.
noise, dust, debris, odors and hours of operation but exclud-
ing design capacity.
4. Traffic flows and patterns resulting from the facility.
5. Uses of the site where the facility is located after closing
the facility.
6. Economically feasible methods to recycle or reduce the
quantities of waste to the facility. At facilities for which the
applicant will not provide or contract for collection and
transportation services, this item is limited to methods pro-
vided at the facility.
7. The applicability or nonapplicability of any preexisting
local approvals.
(9) NEGOTIATION, (a) Commencement of negotiation. Nego-
tiation between the applicant and the local committee may
commence at any time after receipt of notification of partici-
pation from the board under sub. (6) (b). The time and place
of negotiating sessions shall be established by agreement
between the applicant and the local committee. Negotiating
sessions shall be open to the public.
-------
1515 87-88 Wts. Stats.
WATER, SKWAQK, RWUSK. MINING AND AW POLLUTION 144^4*
appropriate governing bodies consist of the governing body
of each town, city or village where all or a portion of the
facility is to be located wiih mem ben on the local committee.
If the local committee does not include members from any
town, city or village where all or a portion of the facility is to
be located, the appropnate governing bodies consist of the
governing body of each participating town, city or village.
(k) Approval. If the local committee includes members
from any town, city or village where all or a ponion of the
facility is to be located and if the negotiated agreement is
approved by resolution by each of the appropnate governing
bodies, the negotiated agreement is binding on all of the
participating municipalities but if the negotiated agreement is
not approved by any appropriate governing body, the negoti-
ated agreement is void. If the local committee does not
include members from any town, aty or village where all or a
ponion of the facility is to be located and if the negotiated
agreement is approved by resolution by all of the appropnate
governing bodies, the agreement is binding on all of the
participating municipalities but if the negotiated agreement is
not approved by all of the appropriate governing bodies, the
negotiated agreement is void.
NOTE: fm. it) le 4k> «• *••• •§ albeit* iy I9U Wit Act Ui A.
t«rtirr »mi«*»i«i e( nt. (D | UH »> I9O Wta. Act ISitaw
Uowm. St* neuron ntt M 6 U> of IW Preface.
(I) Submission of agreement to board and department. The
applicant shall submit a copy or notice of any negotiated
agreement approved under par. (k) to the board and the
department by mail within 10 days after the agreement is
approved.
(10) ARBITRATION, (a) Joint petition for arbitration. If
agreement is not reached on any items after a reasonable
penod of negotiation, the applicant and the local committee
may submit a joint written petition to the board to initiate
arbitration under this subsection.
(b) Unilateral petition for arbitration. Either the applicant
or the local committee may submit an individual written
petition to the board to initiate arbitration under this subsec-
tion but not earlier than 120 days after the local committee is
appointed under sub. (7) (a).
(c) Decision concerning arbitration. Within 15 days after
receipt of a petition to initiate arbitration, the board shall
issue 3 decision concerning the petition and notify the appli-
cant and the local committee of that decision.
(dl Order to continue negotiation. The board may issue a
decision ordering the applicant and the local committee to
continue negotiating for at least 30 days after the date of the
notice if. in the jud'gment of the board, arbitration can be
avoided by the negotiation of any remaining issues. If the
board issues a decision ordering the applicant and the local
committee to continue negotiation, the petition to inmate
arbitration may be resubrnitted after the extended penod of
negotiation.
(e) Decision to deiav arbitration pending submittal of feasi-
bility report. The board may issue a decision to delay the ini-
tiation of arbitration until the department notifies the board
that u has received a feasibility report for the facility pro-
posed by the applicant. The board may decide to delay the
initiation of arbitration under this paragraph if (he applicant
has not made available information substantially equivalent
to that m a feasibility report. The petition to initiate
arbitration may be rcsubmittcd after ihe feasibility report is
submitted.
(Pi Order lor final alters. The board may issue a decision
ordering the applicant and the local committee to submit
(heir respective lina! offers to the board within -0 Uavs alter
the date oi" the notice.
(g) Failure to submit final offer. If the local committee fails
to submit a final offer within the time limit specified under
par. (0. the applicant may continue to seek state approval of
the facility, is not required to continue to negotiate or
arbitrate under this section and the facility is not subject to
any local approval, notwithstanding sub. (5). If the applicant
fails to submit a final offer within the time limn specified
under par. (0. the applicant may not construct or operate the
facility.
(h) Final offers. A-final offer shall contain the final terms
and conditions relating to the facility proposed by the appli-
cant or the local committee and any information or argu-
ments in support of the proposals. Additional supporting
information may be submitted at any time.
(i) Issues and items in final offer. A final offer may include
only issues subject to arbitration under sub. (8). A final offer
may include only items offered in negotiation except that a
final offer may not include items settled by negotiation and
approved under sub. (9) (k).
(j) Continued negotiation: revised final offers. Negotiation
may continue dunng the arbitration process. If an issue
subject to negotiation is resolved to the satisfaction of both
the applicant and the local committee and. if necessary, is
approved by the department under sub. (9) (0. it shall be
incorporated into a written agreement and the final offers
may be amended as provided under par. (n).
(k) Public hearings. The local committee may conduct
public hearings on the proposed final offer prior to submit-
ting the final offer to the governing bodies under par. (I).
(I) Submission for approval. The final offers prepared by the
local committee are required to be submitted for approval by
resolution of the governing body of each participating munic-
ipality before the final offer is submitted to the board.
(m) Public documents. The final otiers are public docu-
ments and the board shall make copies available to the public.
(n) Amendment of offer. After the final offers are submitted
to the board, neither the applicant nor the local committee
may amend us final offer, except with the written permission
of the other party. Amendments proposed by the local
committee are required to be approved by the participating
municipality to which the amendment relates. If the gov-
erning body of any participating municipality fails to approve
the final offer prepared by the local committee, the applicant
may amend those portions of his or her final offer which .
pertain to that municipality without obtaining written per-
mission from the local committee.
(o) Public meeting. Within 30 days after the last day for
submitting final offers, the board shall conduct a public
meeting in a place reasonably close to (he location of the
facility to provide an opportunity for the applicant and the
local committee to explain or present supporting arguments
for their final offers. The board may conduct additional
meetings with the applicant and the local committee as
necessary to prepare its arbitration award. The board may
administer oaths, issue summonses under s. 788.06 and direct
the '.aking of depositions under s. 783.07.
(p) Arbitration a\\urd. Within 90 days after the last day foi
submitting final oilers under par. (D. the board may issue an
arbitration award with the approval 01 a minimum of 5 boarc
members. If the board tails to issue an arbitration aware
within this penod. the governor shall issue an arburaiior
award within 120 davs after the last dav for suomitting ftna.
offers under par. ill The arbitration award shall adopt
without modification, the final offer of either the applicant o:
the local committee except that the arbitration award shal
delete those items which arc not suotect to arbitration unde
sub. iSt or.are not consistent with the iecislamc lindings am
293
-------
f 44AW WATOt, SEWAGE, REFUSE, MININQ AND AIM POLLUTION
87-88 Wis. Stats. 2516
intern under sabs. (I) and (2). A copy of the arbitration
award shall be served on the applicant and the local
Dovn in the dump* anU watud; The M* teunmuuon in Uw Wi
UfldfUl Mini praeai. IM7WLRM3.
(q) Award is boding; approval not required. If the applicant
constructs and operates the facility, the arbitration award is
binding on the applicant and the participating municipalities
and does not require approval by the participating
municipalities.
(r) Applicability of arbitration statutes. Sections 788.09 to
788.15 apply to arbitration awards under this subsection.
(s) Eiirironimiuai impact. An arbitration award under this
subsection is not a major state action under s. I.I 1 (2).
(11) Succasofts m INTEREST. Any provision in a negotiated
agreement or arbitration award is enforceable by or against
the successors in interest of any person directly affected by the
award. A personal representative may recover damages Tor
breach for which the decedent could have recovered.
(12) AmJCAHUTY. (a) Solid waste disposal facilities. I.
This section applies to new or expanded solid waste disposal
facilities for which an initial site report is submitted after
March 15. 1982. or. if no initial site report is submitted, for
which a feasibility report is submitted after March 15. 1981
2. This section does not apply to modifications to a solid
waste disposal facility which do not constitute an expansion
of the facility or to a solid waste disposal facility which is
exempt from the requirement of a feasibility report under ss.
144.43 to 144.47 or by rule promulgated by the department.
(b) Hazardous waste factlititi. 1. This section applies to all
new or expanded hazardous waste facilities for which an
initial site report is submitted after March 15.1982. or. if no
initial sue report ts submitted, for which a feasibility report is
sufamttted after March 15. 1982.
2. Except as provided under subd. 1 and par. (c), only subs.
(3) and (5) (a) and (b) apply to a hazardous waste facility
which is in existence on May 7. 1982. which has a license, an
intenm license or a variance under s. 144.64 or the resource
conservation and recovery act and which complies with all
local approvals applicable to the facility on May 7. 1982.
3. Only subs. (3) and (5) (a) to (c) and Ijnofill nefotuiiun/trenranon iuiuic Ruud an: Suu. 1913 1. U4 795: I9U».53>». 158: Sun. 1983
L 14444*.
144.447 Acquisition of property by condemnation. (1)
DEFINITION. In this section, "property" includes any interest
in land including an estate, easement, covenant or lien, any
restriction or limitation on the use of land other than those
imposed by exercise of the police power, any building.
structure, fixture or improvement and any personal property
directly connected with land.
(2) PROPERTY MAY BE CONDEMNED. Notwithstanding s.
32.03. property intended for use as a solid or hazardous waste
facility may be condemned if all of the following conditions
are met:
(a) The entity proposing to acquire the property for use as
a solid or hazardous waste facility has authonty to condemn
property for this purpose.
(b) The property is determined to be feasible for use as a
solid or hazardous waste facility by the department if that
determination is required under s. 144.44 (2).
(c) The property is acquired by purchase, lease, gift or
condemnation by a municipality, public board or commis-
sion or any other entity, except for the state, so as to bring the
property within the limitations on the exercise of the general
power of condemnation under s. 32.03 within:
I. Five yean prior to the determination of feasibility if a
determination of feasibility is required for the facility under s.
144.44 (2).
2. Five years prior to the sen-ice of a junsdicnona) offer
under s. 32.06 (3) if a determination of feasibility is not
required for the facility under s. 144.44 (2).
I9SI c. 374.
144.448 Dutlt* ol metallic mining council. (1) The metallic
mining council shall advise the department on the implemen-
tation Of SS. 1 44.43 5. 1 44.44. 1 44.44!. 1 44.442. 1 44. 44-1.
144.445. 144.60 to 144.74 and 144.SO to 144.94 as those
sections relate to metallic mining m this state.
(2) The council shall serve as an advisory, problem-solving
body to work with and advise the department on matters
relating to the reclamation of mined land in this state and on
methods of and criteria for the location, design, construction
and operation and maintenance of facilities for the disposal
of metallic mine-related wastes.
(3) All rules proposed by the department relating to the
subjects specified in this section shall be submitted to the
council for review and comment prior to the time the ruiesare
proposed in final draft form by the department. The depart-
ment shall transmit the wnitcn comments of all members of
the council submitting written comments with the summary
of the proposed rules to the presiding officer of each house of
the legislature under s. 127.19 (2).
(4) Written minutes of all meetings of the council shall be
prepared by the department and made available to all inter-
ested panics upon request.
Khun: l<»79c. '!!: IV8I c. 374, 143. HS3 i. 410 \ ":: US): IMS i
182.
294
-------
MASTER RECYCLER/COMPOSTER PROGRAM IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Madeleine Greene, C.H.E.
University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service
Derwood, Maryland
Peggy L. Preusch, Coordinator of Volunteers
Montgomery County Master Recycler/Composter Program
Linda Bell
John D. Dougherty
Master Recyclers
Beginning August 1991 and extending to January 1992, Montgomery County phased in
weekly curbside recycling of newspapers, glass, cans, plastic bottles, grass clippings and
leaves, becoming the first county in the State of Maryland to provide this level of collection
services to all single-family and townhouse residents. The residential recycling program
was implemented in stages, as different areas of the county received blue bins and pick-up
of recyclables. As of January 1992, all areas of the county were recycling. It had been
estimated that 80% of residents would recycle. However, when the figures were added up
they showed that 4500 tons/month of materials (commingled glass, bimetal cans,
alurninum cans an(j ^ ^y^ piastjcs #1 3^ #2, newspapers, and yard waste) were being
processed through the recycling facility, with a participation rate of 90%.
The Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has prepared
numerous news releases, and articles about the recycling program have appeared in the
Montgomery Journal, the County Connection, the Gazettes and the Washington Post. In
addition, recycling guides were distributed along with the blue bins to help residents
prepare materials that go in the blue bins. However, experience has shown that this is not
the end of the story. As with many things in life, little goes as planned and much goes
awry, e.g., someone didn't get their blue bin; someone got their blue bin but didn't get the
recycling guide; someone wants to know why she is supposed to put in #2 plastic bottles
but not #2 yogurt and margarine containers; someone wants to know why he is supposed
to put in only newsprint, so why is he told he can also include the glossy inserts; someone
wants to know if it is okay if she can put in three years' worth of People magazines;
someone who wants to know what to do with household batteries and a garage full of
partially used paint cans; someone who wants to know where she can recycle her husband
(this is an actual case). It became obvious that by asking residents to change a lifetime of
personal habits in how they deal with their "trash," and by giving those residents a bit of
295
-------
information on how the County wants them to deal with it now, the County opened a
virtual Pandora's box and, as a result, the phones have been ringing off the hook.
To deal with the enormous public response and to ensure a high level of recycling, an
extensive educational effort was necessary. A task force, consisting of the County's
Departments of Environmental Protection, Family Resources, and the Cooperative Extension
Service (CES), was created to explore the idea of using volunteer services to achieve that
goal. The task force set the following objectives for the volunteer effort:
* To educate citizens about recycling and to ensure their participation in
recycling, composting, grasscycling, waste reduction, household
hazardous waste and other related issues.
* To assist county staff with the increased workload by providing
information and community outreach.
The result of that cooperative effort is the Master Recycler/Composter program, modeled
after the CES Master Gardener program and a Master Recycler program in Seattle,
Washington. The basic tenet of the Master Recycler program is that citizens in the
community represent a tremendous resource upon which to draw to carry out the extensive
education effort required to ensure that residents have sufficient information to properly
recycle their household materials. To ensure that residents receive a correct and complete
picture of what they must do, volunteers must undergo comprehensive training on all
aspects of recycling and solid waste management. The first phase of the Master Recycler
program consists of classroom sessions at which information on the various aspects of
recycling is presented. During these training sessions, Master Recyclers learn the various
steps of the recycling process, beginning with how residents are to prepare the materials
that the County recycles. Master Recyclers build upon that basic knowledge by attending
training sessions where representatives from the County, from industries that manufacture
the materials and from the companies that are the next step in the recycling equation
(processors and fiber remanufacturers) talk about their respective roles.
The initial training was held in late June 1991, while the first comprehensive training was
held in September 1991. In the comprehensive training, classes were held three times a
week for two weeks. The fifteen people who attended this session have formed the core
group of active volunteers. To accommodate those individuals who were unable to attend
the training during the week, another comprehensive training was initiated and divided
into six segments, and presented on one Saturday of each month. To date, 204 people
have undergone 124 hours of training.
296
-------
To complement the verbal presentations, a training manual was developed to give the
volunteers an overview of the Montgomery County solid waste stream and the recycling
program. Volunteers also listened to speeches from recycling businesses, universities
involved in solid waste research and individuals knowledgeable about various aspects of
recycling. To ensure that the volunteers keep up to date, a bimonthly newsletter
containing information related to ongoing and upcoming volunteer activities is sent to
them.
The comprehensive classroom training is only the beginning. Once a volunteer has
completed this phase, the on-the-job training begins. This typically means working on the
recycling hotline, where the questions often come fast and furious and the volunteer has
to combine his/her classroom training with the materials in the hotline office to answer
the caller's question. This experiential training is most effective, and since there are often
one or two other volunteers working on the hotline, there is the opportunity to pass the
information along to those other volunteers, or possibly consult them in the first place
when the hotline materials are not sufficient to answer the caller's question.
Volunteers also make field trips to the County recycling center and solid waste transfer
station, landfill and composting facility, as well as processors of recycled materials such as
Chesapeake Paperboard, Polysource and Southeast Recycling. The knowledge gained on
these field trips is useful in educating residents about subsequent phases of the recycling
loop.
After the initial training in July 1991, a recycling hotline was set up at the CES and
volunteers began answering questions. At the Montgomery County Fair, volunteers worked
with residents alongside DEP staff to answer "blue bin" questions. Although the program
was in it's infancy, the County now had the assistance of an active group of volunteers to
deal with the problems and solutions associated with gearing up and putting into effect its
ambitious recycling initiative.
The Master Recycler/Composter volunteers have been actively involved in the public
outreach efforts. As of April 1992, volunteers had spent 1030 hours answering 6322
telephone calls from Montgomery County residents on Monday-Friday from 1:00-4:00 p.m.
Fair booths about recycling were staffed by volunteers in the summer and fall of 1991. In
September, a grand opening day of festivities was well attended (about 5000 people) and
volunteers assisted in setting up and running the event. Some volunteers assisted in the
collection of telephone books, and were also active at the collection of household
hazardous waste in October. Volunteers have spent a total of 351 hours working at special
recycling related events. They also have made presentations to school groups at the
recycling center and at schools throughout the county. Speakers' bureau meetings have
been held monthly to encourage an exchange of ideas and experiences among the group
297
-------
members. Also, some 200 volunteer hours were spent giving 47 presentations to school
groups, civic associations and garden clubs.
The volunteers in the Master Recycler program have assisted thousands of county residents.
The hotline receives requests daily from residents for information about recycling other
materials such as phone books, magazines, yard waste and household hazardous waste.
The volunteers also frequently get calls from offices and businesses looking for a place to
recycle their office and computer paper, as well as "waste" generated by retail and
wholesale businesses such as wooden pallets and plastic wrapping. There are no answers
to some of these questions in Montgomery County or possibly anywhere in the U.S. The
volunteers work very hard to answer questions accurately and are disappointed if they
cannot find a place to take these materials.
A large percentage of the volunteers are genuinely and deeply concerned about recycling
as many materials as possible. Most are relieved that Montgomery County has succeeded
in implementing a program that removes glass, plastics (#1 and #2), bi-metal and steel
food cans, aluminum cans, aluminum foil and trays, newspaper and yard waste from the
waste stream that had been up to now landfilled at the Oaks Landfill in Laytonsville,
Maryland. However, the volunteers are anxious for more materials to be added to the
program. The training program has helped the volunteers to see waste disposal problems
from different perspectives and adjust their expectations of what can really happen. They
come equipped with skills from a wide variety of professions. They also can be grouped
according to age and therefore life experience. The views and experiences of the young
"Save the Earth" high school students are quite different from the volunteers who lived
through World War II, the "Fifties", the " Sixties", etc.
Although the Master Recycler program has been in existence less than one year and has
already accomplished a great deal, it is expanding and broadening its focus to more
effectively assist the County in making recycling a success. Volunteers are staffing
community festivals and celebrations such as "Earth Day" which enables them to have a
visible presence outside the hotline while offering graphic educational displays representing
various aspects of recycling and solid waste management. Volunteers are also becoming
versed in recycling technology and markets, which they can then pass on to residents. This
educational aspect has a feedback loop to the training, providing the impetus to bring in
speakers from industry, such as Polysource and Mobile Oil Company. In effect, the Master
Recycler program itself is a cycle-the volunteers become trained and then use that training
to answer questions posed by residents, which in turn often turns up new information or
insight into an issue, which then is incorporated into the training.
298
-------
MEASURING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF RECYCLING AND REDUCTION GOALS
Jamie Prillaman
The Resource Development Group
West Palm Beach, Florida
Introduction
Waste reduction and recycling measures have been mandated by 60 % of the state legislatures
primarily since 1988. Thirty states (and Washington D.C.) have comprehensive recycling laws
requiring detailed comprehensive statewide plans and/or provisions to stimulate recycling.
Twenty-seven states have set recycling goals, many of which exceed the EPA goal of 25% (1).
Recycling and/or waste reduction goals established by states range from 25% to 50% or more.
The increase in mandated reduction/recycling goals represents a significant policy change within
the last 10 years. In The Practice of State and Regional Planning copyrighted in 1986, the
chapter on solid waste management describes "utilization of recovered resources" and discusses
Oregon's legislation to require recycling levels of 25% and 90% in 3 and 10 years, respectively.
It is evident that Oregon, a leader in implementing recycling legislation, was consequently the
first state to be forced to address the recycling measurability issue. In its effort to meet the
federally specified objective to achieve "environmentally sound management and disposal of solid
and hazardous waste, resource conservation, and maximum utilization of recovered resources",
the state found that the recycling level figures "had no scientific data base for measurement, and
the Department of Environmental Quality subsequently had to qualify its objectives by stating
that the 25% figure should be regarded as a substantial move toward recovery and 90% as the
maximum obtainable given present technology'"(2).
The measurability of success toward reduction and recycling goals continues to be an issue
today. Part of the difficulty in measuring comes from the ambiguity over what is being
measured. Solid waste management programs have similar policy objectives, and usually include
the following:
• improve the environment by reducing the use of land disposal for solid
waste because it has a history of being a water-contaminating disposal
method that uses a diminishing resource;
• decrease the use of virgin natural resources; and
• protect human health, safety and the environment.
299
-------
Goals typically contained in state solid waste legislation include statements on promoting
reduction, recycling, reuse or treatment of solid waste in lieu of disposal, conducting public
education programs and training of solid waste professionals, encouraging or mandating
development of waste reduction and recycling programs and markets; and conducting solid waste
management in general in a cost-effective manner based on financial feasibility.
The methods for measuring the success of solid waste policy objectives can be varied. One can
measure acres of polluted land that is cleaned up; how much waste is disposed of in landfills;
the amount of materials collected for recycling; the amount of waste generated; the amount of
materials that are reused. Frequently the measurement used is how many types of materials and
how much of each type is collected in recycling programs. This measurement is being
scrutinized as more states pass legislation mandating recycling rates. It has been determined that
the measurements for recycling rates are inconsistent and incomparable across the states. The
standardization of recycling measurement is being addressed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Recycling Coalition. The incomparability of recycling rates
stems from the variety of methods determined by state legislatures and state environmental
regulatory agencies as each instituted its solid waste management program. The primary
difficulty with recycling rates and reduction rates, however, is that the methods do not measure
whether the policy objectives are being achieved. A high recycling rate does not necessarily
mean waste reduction is occurring, nor does it indicate the amount of natural resources saved.
Measurement begins with clarifying what is to be accomplished. It is a basic tenet of planning
that the planning process is to establish goals and objectives, and to develop and implement
policies to achieve the goals and objectives. Then, the second half of the planning process is
to determine whether the policies as implemented are achieving the goals and objectives
established. Measurements are made to determine the rate of progress toward the goals. Then,
the goals can be readjusted or the measurements can be adjusted to accurately reflect the real
world events that are occurring. If the evaluation and adjustment process does not take place,
there is little purpose in planning because plans are developed to aid in the intelligent evaluation
of alternatives form which to make management and implementation decisions. At this point in
the evolution of solid waste management, evaluation of goal measurement and the methods by
which those goals are measured needs to be evaluated. This paper reviews examples of
definitions and program structures used and proposes an approach for local and regional solid
waste management planning within the context of the ambiguities that exist.
Measurement Impediments in Legislation
In 1989, the USEPA published "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action" in which
the national strategy on solid waste was set out (3). The national goals are to increase source
reduction and recycling, increase disposal capacity and improve secondary material markets, and
improve the safety of solid waste management facilities. In the same document, the USEPA
established a 25% national source reduction and recycling goal to be achieved by 1992.
300
-------
One of the difficulties in establishing a consistent measure for recycling and reduction goals is
determining what is being measured. A recent survey conducted by Waste Age concluded that
states have "...a myriad of ways to count their recycling effort, but few of them match up or
produce consistent, reliable data" (4). The study also stated that some states' recycling rate
figures are outright guesses.
As solid waste management has evolved, states have set reduction and recycling goals of 25%
or more within a time frame of two to ten years. The measurements of reduction goals however,
has lagged behind the measurement of recycling.
In today's legislation, the statement of objectives are ambiguous, particularly in the terms
"reduction" and "recycling". The two terms are often used interchangeably in statements of
goals, objectives and policy. When there is no overt contradiction between the terms in
statements of objectives, there frequently is a lack of definition in the legislation or ambiguity
in the definitions between the two terms.
The ambiguity of reduction and recycling measurements is presently being understood and
acknowledged by some states. Many have begun to implement separation programs and to
gather data on the amount and type of waste generated and collected. It is clear that a consistent
and understandable measurement needs to be developed. The many differing policies of the
states have set the stage for confusion over what is to be recycled or reduced.
The reasons for the lack of consistency and reliability in measurement have been given as the
following:
• the stated objectives are ambiguous and contradictory;
• essential terms are defined differently in each state and ambiguities
between the terms' definitions exist regarding what is to be measured; and
• reporting methods are inconsistent because:
•• most program structures do not allow for database
development,
•• reporting methods vary or are nonexistent between states
and within states.
Furthermore, measurement methods for reduction/recycling activity at the state level raises the
question of measurement validity, predominantly caused by ambiguous and contradictory
definitions within a specific state program.
The first place the definitional ambiguity can be seen is in that objective statements are muddled.
There is a difference between waste reduction and recycling. Statements of objectives do not
301
-------
always establish that difference. For example, one state's definition for "recycling" is "any
process by which solid waste, or materials which would otherwise become solid waste, are
collected, separated, processed and reused or returned to use in the form of raw materials or
products" (5). A "recyclable material" is "those materials which are capable of being recycled
and which would otherwise be processed or disposed of as solid waste" (6). "Resource
recovery" is "the process of recovering materials or energy from solid waste excluding those
material or solid waste under control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission" (7). Here
"recycling" means the material is reused. "Resource recovery" is collecting recyclables or
deriving energy from garbage. No definition for reduction or reuse is included in this set of
definitions. However, in setting its recycling goal, the Florida legislation states:
A county's solid waste management and recycling programs shall be designed to
provide for sufficient reduction of the amount of solid waste generated within the
county and the municipalities within its boundaries in order to meet goals for the
reduction of municipal solid waste prior to the final disposal or the incineration
of such waste at a solid waste disposal facility. The goals shall provide, at a
minimum that the amount of municipal solid waste that would be disposed of in
the county and in the municipalities within its boundaries is reduced by at least
30 percent by the end of 1994 [Emphasis added] (8).
In this statement, "reduction" and "recycling" are used synonymously and the definitions of
"resource recovery" and "recycling" overlap. In addition, there is nothing to differentiate
between waste reduction and/or waste recycling. There is no base year in which the amount of
waste generated or the amount of waste disposed of is to be established. Although the
development of reduction and recycling measurement methods does not need a base year, per
se, it is necessary to have a clearly measured amount of waste from which reduction and/or
recycling will be deducted. This measurement often is waste disposed of at the local municipal
waste landfill because it is either available or can be estimated. But without consistent reporting
methods from the landfills, the figure will be a guess. The total base amount of waste must be
periodically adjusted for for population growth or shrinkage and for changes in per capita
generation.
Regardless of how soft the initial measurement, the amount of total municipal solid waste
reduction is the easiest amount to measure because quantifiable amounts go to the disposal
facilities. The amount of recyclables collected-and the method of measuring is problematic.
Municipal solid waste definitions also are inconsistent and ambiguous. In measuring, therefore,
it is often unknown what municipal solid waste consists of and how much is included in the
recycling measurement. For example, some municipal solid waste definitions do not include
sludges, other definitions include items not normally found in the definition of municipal waste
or in the measurement of municipal waste, but are included in the measurements of types of
materials recycled. Tires, automobiles, wastewater treatment sludge, white goods, yard waste
302
-------
and composting are included in some recycling measurements, while they are not included in
the definition of municipal solid waste.
It is imperative in developing a solid waste management plan to address the inconsistencies
within the definitions and to clarify how the plan will compensate for them. At this point, it is
the managers who must implement the plans, and for whom the information is the most valuable
as a tool, who will have to synthesize the ambiguities into meaningful measurements. Those
measurements will have to serve state reporting requirements and in-house management and
financial requirements.
Program structure is another area where muddy language in definitions can hinder development
of valid measurements. In this example, the definition of "solid waste" is the following:
'Solid waste' means any garbage, refuse, or sludge from a waste treatment
facility, water supply plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded
material, including solid liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and
from community activities. This term does not include solid or dissolved material
in domestic sewage, recovered materials, or solid or dissolved materials in
irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject of
NPDES permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or
the...or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1964, as amended. Also excluded from this definition are
application of fertilizer and animal manure during normal agricultural operations
or refuse as defined and regulated pursuant to the ...mining act, including
processed mineral waste, which will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment (9).
The significant issue here is that the goal of this state is clearly to reduce the "municipal solid
waste stream" per capita by 30% in two years. There is no ambiguity exists between recycling
and reduction. In establishing the solid waste objectives, however, waste reduction per capita
is being measured by weight of waste disposed of at landfills and incinerators. In meeting the
reduction goal, it further states no more than 50% of the following can be counted: yard waste,
white goods, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, and land-clearing debris—none of
which are contained in the definition of solid waste, and all of which are defined separately in
the legislation. "Municipal solid waste stream" is not defined. The overlap and deficiencies of
these definitions can be addressed in developing a solid waste management plan at the local and
regional level. The task is made easier with the clarity of the goal being a reduction of waste
disposed of instead of ambiguity over whether these materials are to be reduced at the source
or recycled.
Another piece of clarity in this example is that the base year against which reduction will be
measured is established (1993) and, in the years preceding that base year procedures for data
303
-------
collection and reporting is to be established. A base measurement to determine the success of
reduction or recycling goals is easier when a time frame for achieving the goal is phased in.
For example, if legislation requires recycling programs to be established within the first year of
the legislation becoming effective, but also requires landfills to implement scale systems in the
same year, it is impossible to collect valid and reliable data on the amount of waste disposed.
Thus, a reliable information system on which to base real numbers is not required to be created
until after the program has been implemented. There is no way to identify whether 30 percent
of a waste stream is being recycled without quantifiable data. For a state beginning a recycling
program, the recycling goals need to be phased in. It is a common planning mechanism to
adjust the program throughout its implementation to reflect actual events or changes. Typical
goals for recycling are 30% in a specific number of years. What has been happening is that
counties that are responsible for implementing the program are not properly planning the steps
toward implementation, but are attempting a shotgun approach. Delays in the programs also
have existed because of funding difficulties and a clear understanding of the stated goals.
Frequently there is no base year or base figure from which to begin measuring. For example,
if legislation mandates the initiation of a recycling program in the same year it requires all
disposal facilities to install scales, it will be impossible to collect reliable data the first year on
how much waste is being disposed. (That is assuming the entities operating the landfills are able
to comply with the requirement to install scales in the first year.) In this example, measurement
of the recycling program should be phased into the second year of the program using the first
year to complete the database design and implementation.
Another measurement problem is few managers know what is being disposed of, i.e., what is
the composition of their waste. It is common for counties and states to estimate waste generation
figures and to use national studies for waste composition. Therefore, when data is collected,
the amount of waste generated statewide may be valid, but the estimates of what materials
comprise that waste may not be valid.
Consequently, collecting data on the amount of materials recycled can result in a variety of
inaccurate data that may end up in a comparison of apples and oranges as far as interstate
comparisons are concerned. The same data collection and comparison problem afflicts intrastate
comparisons of reduction and recycling in regions or counties because of the lack of consistent
and reliable measurements and reported data. Some states do not require waste disposal facilities
to report on the amount of material they receive. Where reports are filed, the definitions for
what items constitute municipal solid waste vary greatly. Within a particular state, the data
collected for recycling often varies depending on the program, even though each program is in
compliance with state laws and regulations.
Reaching a definitional consistency, and measuring consistency across the states is being
addressed by The National Recycling Coalition, which has held seminars on the topic, and the
USEPA which has contacted some states to develop a protocol for recycling figures. Further,
J. Winston Porter has developed a recycling index for the U.S. Conference of Mayors to
304
-------
encourage cities to used a standard counting mechanism. Given the number of definitions of
municipal solid waste, the differences in the structures of state programs and the investment
states have in their individual programs, the recycling figures currently being used are
incomparable and are likely to remain so in the near future.
The Implications for Solid Waste Management Planning
In developing a solid waste management plan to consider alternatives to reduce the total amount
of waste disposed of and to recycle one-third to one-half of the waste generated, the
measurements between the two are often confused. The amount of waste disposed of is often
the measure used for recycling calculations. The recycling rate calculation of the amount of
materials recycled (or collected) divided by the amount of materials disposed is often erroneously
termed the "reduction" rate, also.
The inconsistency of measurements and definitions throughout the states has led to a movement
for a standard method of measurement and definition for federal planning and for interstate
comparisons. Since many states that have developed their own methodologies and
measurements, a conversion to a national standardized method of measurement will not be quick
or easy.
This state of confusions should not stop local and regional planning manager from using
initiative to develop clear and measureable solid waste management plans. Sixty percent of the
states have laws requiring solid waste management plans. It is in these plans, that some clarity
can be brought to the present situation.
In some of the plans, an inventory of the amounts and types of solid waste currently being
disposed of at solid waste disposal facility is required. These inventories are typically required
at the beginning of the reduction/recycling program. However, these plans usually have a 10-
to 20- year planning horizon. In that amount of time, the plans will need to be updated to
reflect changing methods, changing markets, changing economic realities. An inventory
conducted for a specific region is not limited to the requirements of the state plan. And, as long
as items can be collapsed into the state definitions of various waste types, it does not have to be
limited to the state waste definitions.
In developing a solid waste management plan that is going to be useful as a management tool
to achieve the state and national objectives for waste reduction the data should be empirical, and
measurements must be valid and reliable. And since planning is a dynamic process, the studies
should be ongoing.
The first step toward a solution within each state is a need to clarify whether the goal to be
measured is reduction, recycling or both. Each of these terms must be carefully defined. In
addition, definitional consistency should be exppanded within each state as to what is municipal
305
-------
solid waste. If the goal is to reduce the municipal solid waste stream, and municipal solid waste
is not defined, there cannot be an accurate measurement of the goal.
The solid waste management plan should be as clear and as useful a management document as
the managers can make it. Each plan should identify the goals and objectives, and each plan
should clearly state the definitions of terms used in the measurement methods. In addition, the
quality of the plans can be improved by improving the quality of the studies used to develop
them. A biannual waste generation and composition study, done with a consistent set of
measurements, will provide data for comparisons over time and within states. These studies
should state their purpose; assure that methodologies that are consistent with their purpose; be
based on empirical data; include population categories; seasonal variation; hauler information
(for descriptions on sample selection); and moisture content analysis.
Only with reliable basic data on the total amount of waste there is in the planning area, and what
that waste consists of, can comparisons of alternative treatment and disposal methods, and their
attendant costs (and therefore rates charged to citizens) be valid, reliable, and defensible.
Furthermore, this approach is vital to accurately determine the rate of success in meeting the
solid waste management goals for reduction and recycling.
306
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Solid Waste Management Association, "Recycling in the States, Mid-Year
Update 1990", 1992.
2. Conn, W. David, "Solid Waste Management", The Practice of Stale and Regional
Planning, Frank So, et all, editors, American Planning Association, Chicago, 1986.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER, The Solid Waste Dilemma: An
Agenda for Action, EPA/530-SW-89-019. February 1989.
4. Meade, Kathleen, "Recycling Rates: How States Count," Waste Age, April 1992, 71.
5. Florida Statutes, Chapter 403.703 (6)
6. Florida Statutes, Chapter 403.703 (5)
7. Florida Statutes, Chapter 403.703 (9)
8. Florida Statutes, Chapter 403.703 (4)
9. South Carolina Solid Waste Policy and Management Act of 1991, Section 44-96-40.
10. Meade, Kathleen, "Recycling Rates: How States Count," Waste Age, April 1992, 80.
307
-------
MEASURING THE EFFECT OF MEDIA USE IN RECYCLING
EDUCATION/INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Raymond A. Shapek, Ph.D.
Department of Public Administration
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
This research is based on a continuation project funded by the Florida Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management entitled, Incentives for Recycling in Florida, Gainesville,
Florida: University of Florida (Final report, July, 1990). The second year funding resulted in
a document entitled, Creating Public Education and Information Programs for Recycling: A
Manual and Guide, (October, 1991). The data was collected via mail and telephone survey,
December 1990-March 1991.
Introduction
Because of the fragile nature of the ecological system and aquifer sub-structure, the solid waste
problem in Florida is even more acute than in many other states. Solid waste generation is
higher than the national average of 3.58 pounds per capita. Solid waste is generated at a per
capita rate that has increased from approximately 7 pounds/person/day or 44,500 tons per day,
and 16.3 million tons per year in 1988 to 8.3 pounds/person/day or 53,000 tons per day and
19.4 million tons per year in 1991 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER),
1991). This increase is in part due to the more accurate collection of waste disposal information
(mandated by law), but is also related to the nature of Florida's "service" economy, a high rate
of tourism, growth and construction. Given population and tourism growth projections, the total
amount of waste discarded is continuing to increase, despite recycling programs and waste
reduction efforts (3,4). Effective recycling education/information programs are one means of
offsetting these increases.
In 1988, Florida passed the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Act (SB 1192) which has
become landmark legislation and a model for other states. Each of Honda's 67 counties was
mandated to reduce it's waste stream by 30 percent by 1994. The legislation included provisions
for advance disposal fees for tires, newspaper and lead-acid batteries. Each county received
state funding for a recycling program, 20 percent of which was designated by statute to be used
to educate and inform the public about resource conservation, reuse and recycling. After the
first two years of start-up funding, every county has some type of recycling program with an
309
-------
information/education component (4).
Florida county resource/recycling program recyclable material collection decisions take many
forms. They include the use of curbside collection, drop-off centers, buyback centers, on-call
collection, commercial recycling, and a variety of yard waste collection and composting
programs. Collection is by city or county owned vehicles or by contract carriers. The type of
materials collected varies by county, and sometimes by community within a county, as does the
type of separation employed, and whether the program is voluntary or mandatory, although most
counties are moving toward mandatory separation and collection requirements. Distribution and
sorting of collected recyclables varies. Materials collected are primarily paper (ONP), glass
(three colors), plastic (PET and HDPE) and aluminum. Several counties are expanding
collection to include steel cans. State law imposes an advance disposal fee for the disposal of
used tires, which are currently shredded and used for landfill cover; some are burned. A
beverage container or "Bottle Bill" deposit fee and a household battery law is currently being
considered by the state legislature. Used oil and hazardous or toxic materials generated by
households are voluntarily brought to landfills on amnesty days, but accepted anytime if and
when they are brought to the landfill or designated collection points. Counties utilize source
separation, or material recovery facilities (MRF's) to sort and recover recyclables. Many
employ transfer stations to assist in distribution or hauling. Collectors or customers sort
recyclables, or utilize hand separation of materials at the landfill site, or some other point. A
recent Florida survey of county recycling programs identified 22 of 44 respondents that employ
source separated recycling systems, 13 use commingled collection. For counties using
commingled systems, four sort recyclables at a MRF and nine at curbside. Curbside recycling
is employed by 17 of 28 county programs. Transfer stations are used by 18 programs. Only
nine of the reporting counties have programs for commercial sources of recyclable material
generation (7).
Florida Expenditures for Recycling Education/Information
In the two years following passage of the Waste Management Act, Florida counties received
$41,660,626 in state grant assistance (based on county population) to develop recycling and
waste reduction programs. The total amount expended by counties for recycling
information/education was $7,552,109 in 1989 and $9,410,112 in 1990, for a two year total of
$16,962,221 (funding from all sources) or an amount equal to 40.7 percent of state grant funds
received. The annual mean county expenditure was $118,001 and $147,033 respectively. Of
the total amount expended, sixteen counties received or contributed $509,007 in 1989 and
$1,175,430 in 1990 from other sources (e.g., general funds, assessments, and grants from the
state tire, and/or oil trust funds).
In 1988-89, 26 counties spent or gave local school districts $168,735 for primary and
secondary (K-12) recycling education programs. County recycling education grants for K-12
increased considerably in the second year of funding. Twelve additional counties began to
fund recycling education programs in local school districts in 1989-90 (bringing the total to
310
-------
38) for an increase to $504,223, or 198.8 percent.
Not all state recycling grant funds were spent in the first or in the second program year. As
each county developed a recycling or other waste reduction program, the way funds were
spent for public information/education changed. Changes in recycling programs, staff
turnover, increases in staff expertise, and changes in the use of advertising media effected
recycling rates. Many counties added recycling coordinators.
Recycling Program Use of Media
Recycling education expenditures were commonly for hotlines, speaker's bureaus,
public workshops, recycling displays in public places, brochures, leaflets, doorhangers,
direct mailings, bill inserts, newsletters, stickers, newspaper, radio and TV advertising
and press releases, billboards, and a host of gadgets (such as refrigerator magnets, Tee
shirts, book jackets, stickers, etc.). Some funds were used for program administration and
equipment. Thirteen counties utilized the services and expertise of the University of
Florida's Cooperative Extension Service agents; 30 counties hired or paid consultants to
develop public education campaigns or recycling programs.
The use of various media for public information dissemination on recycling were used at
different levels of program evolution. New recycling programs were publicized using mass
media, such as through newspapers, radio, and television. Counties sponsored public
hearings to initiate programs and citizen's advisory panels to help define program
parameters. General information, or items of significant public interest, were also
disseminated by mass media advertising, such as through paid and public service advertising,
and high visibility, county sponsored events, such as Earth Day or Recycling Fair programs.
Personal contact was emphasized through the use of hotlines, speaker bureaus, and
workshops. Logos, slogans, themes and symbols were used by every county and were
delivered by billboard advertising, printed matter, signs, posters, stickers or other gadgets.
Thirteen counties (generally, the more urbanized, populated counties) targeted specific groups
or delivered individualized messages once publicity campaigns evolved beyond initial
program announcements . Specific messages, technical information, or instructions were
delivered via printed media, such as handouts, utility billing inserts, and direct mailings (42
counties). One county developed messages for disabled residents; several others in the native
language of resident ethnic groups.
Problems in Data Collection and analysis
County respondents were surveyed on current recycling rates, and expenditure patterns by
media for recycling education in the first two years of their programs (1988-89 and 1989-90).
Because of differing accounting procedures and variations in when funds were spent, some
counties could not identify actual expenditures by media, or had not kept accurate records
311
-------
on the specific uses of these funds. This information was not required by the Florida DER
as a requisite to the allocation of grants. Some county recycling education advertising was
done through a central public relations coordinator and not the recycling office. No county
evaluated the public education program impacts or costs vs. benefits of the $19 million spent
for recycling education/information.
In a few cases, the figures reported for recycling or program participation rates were guesses
or estimates. Although the DER had established a formula for determining recycling rates,
calculations varied by county. This same problem exists in other states (1,2, 8-10). Florida
counties reported set out rates, percentage of participants, average percentaged, figures
provided by contract carriers, or some other estimate of recycling rate. Several county
programs were combined (Baker, Bradford and Union counties formed one recycling effort)
and several were too new to evaluate. Some programs were beginning county-wide recycling
programs, had pilot programs, or were initiating programs in only portions of the county.
Many municipalities developed their own recycling programs independently. Municipal rates
may and may not have been included in county rates. There were a variety of materials
collected, means of collection and sorting requirements, stages of recycling program
maturity, and various types of yard trash collection efforts. The media used in consultant-
managed programs was not identified.
Correlation
Of the 63 counties responding to the survey (94 % of all counties), 50 indicated a positive
increase in second year recycling rates as a result of public education efforts. County
strategies in media choice appeared to have an impact on citizen participation and hence
recycling rates, that is, spending by media was correlated with recycling rates (Table 1).
Recycling rates were those reported by counties to the Florida DER for the first two program
years. The various media were grouped into 10 categories most frequently reported.
Recycling rates were most highly correlated with the use of radio, newspapers (including
news conferences and press releases), direct mailings (including newsletters and billing
inserts), county sponsored events and the use of other printed matter (including displays,
brochures and stickers). A lower correlation was found in the use of hotlines, TV
advertising, billboards and consultants. The use of specific media were significantly related
to recycling rates, but may not have caused a higher or unchanged rate. No county reported
reduced recycling rates in the second program year.
312
-------
Table 1
Correlations Between County Reported Recycling Rate and Education
Strategies
^Factors
Hotlines
TV
:Newspaper(l)
Direct Mail(2)
Billboards
County Sponsored Events
Consultants
Other-Printed Matter(3)
I
.15
..53
.10
.59
.49
.25
.45
.002
.42
(1)
(2)
(3)
•T
S'*
•N
Includes News Conference! and Press Releaiei.
Includes NewjleUers «nd Billing Insert.
Includes Recycling Displays, Brochures, and Slickers.
-«= Conviction
»= .Significance level
•— Number of respondent*
sis, .H
.000025 61
.000009 61
.000014
.000006
.000007
.000031
.000007
..000002
.000007
61
61
61
61
61
61
The changes from the first year (1988-89) to the second year (1989-90) in dollars
spent by counties for media used in recycling education are indicated in Tables 2 and 3.
Hotlines had the greatest percentage increase (77.9%) in dollars spent, although only a
minimal dollar increase ($25,534). The greatest change in dollar spending was the increase
in the funding of direct mailings, a 50.8 percent increase, from $258,316 to $389,554 (26
counties regularly or occasionally publish a newsletter). TV provided the next greatest
change in dollar spending with an increase of $73,184. Newspaper advertising (including
news conferences and press releases) showed the greatest percentage decrease (47.3%) in
dollars spent. Counties reduced expenditures in this media by $82,697. The second largest
decrease was in county sponsored events, with reduced expenditures of $29,266. Consultant
funding was relatively consistent, with a decrease of only .5%, from $794,508 in 1989 to
$798,262 in 1990.
Part of the increase in spending by media is explained by an overall increase in recycling
information/education expenditures of $1,858,003 between 1988-89 and 1989-90. State
funding for recycling programs increased by 24 percent during this period. This increase
emphasizes the magnitude of the decrease in spending for other media (newspaper
advertising, county sponsored events, and consultants). Because public education program
313
-------
funding began in 3fS8B-B9('at a time when many recycling programs were initiated, the shift
in funding was .consistent with program maturity.
Table 2
Bercent Change in Dollar Amount Spent Between 1988-89 &
a«89-90 for Forms of Media Used
1988-89 1989-90 % Chance
Hotline 32,197 58,331 77.9
Radio 166,043 173,897 4.7
jrV: 190,846 264,030 38.3
?NewspaperPJ) 174,767 92,070 (47.3)
DirectSiMailJS) 258,316 389,554 50.S
Billboards 46,310 57,352 23.8
County Sponsored cEvents 289,745 260,479 (10.1)
Consultants 794,508 798,262 (0.5)
Other Priou3BtkLtter<3) 426,350 429,549 0.8
TotaliStatefflmiisateceived 17,958,210 22,262,473 24.0
/Population 12,616,534 12,967,189 2.8
{1} itariudg Nowt Conference and Preit Vjclaua.
(2) iUBWMttowteuera snd Billing Intent.
<3) JJB»tiriti'>iryLliiigPtipUyi,;Brochurtt,-«nd Slickers.
The changes in nnsiiEa >use in the second program year indicated changes in dollars spent by
media, and strifes rin ortedia advertising emphasis (Table 3). Media use followed program
development Nawerrprograms typically staged high visibility events and utilize mass media;
established programs rprovided .more detailed public information .and program results to
.encourage addaamal participation. Media changes may have been related to greater
knowledge aboEtilBcal larger audiences, and media effectiveness. Printed matter, such as
recycling displays, tacochures, and stickers were used by 79.4 percent of all counties, while
county sponsored aBsc^Ting related events decreased by 46.1 percent. The use of paid radio
and newspaper a&wrtfesing decreased at the next highest percentage (16.9 percent and 17.4
percent respeo&wsiy:). The next few years should reflect a continuation of these same
trends.
314
-------
Table 3
Forms of Recycling Publicity that Counties Used.
1989 1990
:Number Percent Number Percent
Hotline 9 14.3 10 15,9
jRadio 31 49.2 21 32.3
TV 33 52.4 27 42.9
;Newspaper:Cl) 46 73.0 35 55.6
3>irectMail:(2) 48 76.2 42 .66.7
Billboards 11 17.5 9 14.3
County Sponsored Events :50 79.4 21 33.3
Consultants 30 47.6 29 46^0
Other-Printed Matter (3) 53 84.1 50 79.4
•(N--.63)
'Decrease in all forms of media used except hotlines which increased.
Appears diversion of funds used to buy equipment, set up MRF facilities and/or
given to schools.
1989 = 168,735
1990 •- 504,723
198.8% INCREASE
(1) Includes News Conferences and Picas Releases.
(2) Includes Newsletters »nd Bitting linsens.
(3) -includes Recycling Displays, Brochures, and Slickers.
Perceptions of Media Effectiveness Versus Actual Spending
To determine the effectiveness of actual media spending and media use as opposed to
perceived effectiveness on recycling rates, county recycling coordinators were asked to rank
order their perceived effectiveness of media. Media categories were ranked from one to
nine, with one as the most effective. These rankings and the data from Tables 1,2, and 3
are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 indicates the following: Column one - media counties
perceived to be the most effective; Column two - the correlation between media use and
recycling rates; Column three - the percentage change in dollars spent on each media for the
two year period; and, Column four - the percentage and number of counties changing their
315
-------
use of media.
Table 4
Comparison of County Media Rankings, Correlations, Spending and the Number Using
Media From 1988 to 1990
Media
Hotline
Radio
TV
Newspaper1
Direct Mail3
Billboards
County SpooMwd
Evenu
Consultants
Other Printed Mroer
Sank
5.61
3.11
2.75
4.54
4.76
5.76
5.67
4.81
5.13
Correlation
between Recycling
Rate & Media Ue
.15
.53
.10
.59
.49
35
.45
.0023
.42
Percent Change in S's
Spent
77.9% $58,280
4.7% 5175,857
38.3* $264,030
•47.3% S92.044
50.8% $389.535
23.8% $57,300
-10.1% S260.479
-03% $798 ,230
0.8% S429.549
•% Change in
Media U«« and
•:ff ft Comities that
ased Media
li.2*(IO)
-34.4KQ1)
-18.1 %G7)
-23.856(35)
-12.5%(42)
-18.3«<9)
-58.1 %(2!)
.4%a9)
-5.6*(SO)
1 . iuiudw News Conferences and Press Releases
2 • factories Newletters and Bill Inserts
The Inconsistency Between Perceptions and Actual Media Use
The media perceived to be most effective by the counties (Table 4, Column 1) was not consistent
with media used by counties in the second year of the program (Table 3). The top three media
perceived and ranked by county recycling coordinators to be the most effective were TV, radio
and newspapers (includes news conferences and press releases). Newspapers, radio and direct
mail were the most highly correlated with recycling rates (Table 1). The type of recycling
publicity media 50 counties used most in 1989-90 were other printed matter (includes recycling
displays, brochures, and stickers), direct mail (includes newsletters and billing inserts was used
by 42 counties, and newspaper advertising by 35 counties. Billboards were used by only 9
counties (Table 3), The largest dollar expenditures for media in 1989-90 were for consultants
(specific media use not identified - 29 counties), other printed matter (SO counties), and direct
mailings (42 counties) (Table 2).
Apart from perceptions of effectiveness, three media (radio, direct mailings and billboards -
Table 5) were found to be statistically significant predictors of the 1989-90 county recycling
rates.
316
-------
Table 5
Media Predicting Second Year Recycling Rates
REGRESSION/VARIABLE P-VALUE SIGNIFICANCE
-Radio .01 99%
-Direct MaO .13 87%
-Billboards .07 93%
This model suggests that even given the weakness of the data, useful program results may be
possible. Comparison of perceptions of media effectiveness, actual media use and spending
patterns from year to year to the three media found mathematically to be predictors of second
year recycling rates (radio, direct mailings and billboards) indicated more inconsistencies. Radio
advertising (with a ranking of 3.11) was the only media type matching county perceptions.
However, the media most often used by counties was other printed matter (used by 79.4 % of
the counties). Direct mail was used by 66.7% of the counties, and billboards by only 14.3%
of the counties. Of the three media perceived as most effective (TV, radio, newspaper), none
received the largest amount of funding in either the first or second program years.
The second year of program funding also indicated a large decrease in county use of radio (from
31 counties to 21 counties), as well as a slight decrease in the use of direct mail (48 counties
to 42 counties) and billboards (11 counties to 9 counties). The county recycling education
spending patterns indicated a low but positive increase in total expenditures for radio (4.7%),
a significant increase in expenditures for direct mail (50.8%), and a modest increase in
expenditures for billboards (23.8%), although two fewer counties utilized this media.
Lessons Learned
There are a number of possible explanations for the apparent discrepancies between
perceptions of effectiveness and spending patterns. One explanation is that counties did not
gather data on media spending patterns as well as a number of other program variables. Some
counties had advanced programs, others had pilot programs or were beginning county-wide
programs. Additionally, advertising program priorities shifted with time and experience. There
were changes in recycling personnel, recycling programs expanded and matured. The use of
consultants and the inability of counties to report consultant use of media effected the findings.
Finally, in some cases, because of a lack of record keeping, media costs as well as recycling
rates were estimates. The lack of data collection and analysis despite media expenditures of over
$19 million in the first two program years indicates the need for cost-benefit comparisons.
The results of this survey raises several interesting questions for further research:
* Recycling coordinator perceptions were not related to actual media use or
effectiveness. Why were specific media selected and for what program
317
-------
The reasons for changes in dollar expenditures for each media should be
reexamined. Who determines which media to utilize, and how is this decision
made?
What Is the effectiveness of the costly use of printed matter and direct
mailings on recycling behavior? Brochures, recycling displays and stickers
«re ffigylifnt reminders and devices to spread information about recycling,
but as the counties* largest recycling advertising expenditure, is it cost
effective or does it end up discarded tike junk-mail?
Are there hidden environmental or other good will benefits from the use of
and gadgets that are used in recycling education/information
; that justify these costs?
Can the dollar value of public service messages and the cost savings be
accnratdy reported and evaluated against the effect of paid advertising?
Should PSA's be substituted for paid media advertising?
Are consultants cost effective? What controls or evaluations are performed
to measure the effectiveness of consultant recommendations for media use?
These questions suggest other data needs to determine the cost-effectiveness of recycling
education/informatian programs. Collection of program data and further analysis may provide
valuable information on media use and their effect on recycling rates. For example, if the
correlations between radio and newspaper advertising (the highest correlations) and recycling
rates are valid, without other variables effecting this relationship, increases, or decreases in
spending should lead no corresponding changes in recycling rates. The overall lack of county
advertising strategies (emphasizes the need to assess the impacts of media spending on recycling
rates in recycling education program design.
Concluding Remvfts
This research revested that local governments are not collecting enough data to evaluate the
effectiveness of recycling programs, or the public education/information components of these
programs. Where «ta collection systems exist, programs are evaluated by the tons of recycled
material collected tin- recycling rates (measures of efficiency). Accurate figures on rates and
public education strategies should be linked to program changes. Recycling rates should be
consistently defined across state programs to facilitate comparisons. Is recycling rate the set-out
rate, participation SZB&, pounds or tons of material recycled, or tons diverted from the landfill?
Who keeps the recorafe - county staff, the recycling material collectors, the MRF or the landfill
operators? How are records compiled - by a minimum wage hourly employee with a pencil and
spreadsheet, by cumiirpitgj, by estimates based on truck loads? How is the disposal of special or
hazardous waste recorded. How is data on construction debris, yard trash, used oil, white
goods, and scrap tines recorded? Are special collection centers, drop-off centers, igloos, school
and neighborhood sponsored recycling drives, beach clean-up programs, etc., included in the
recycling rate calculation? How is commercial recycling tallied when it is not picked up by
318
-------
county carriers? Without basic information, recycling data is inaccurate and it will be nearly
impossible to calculate the effects of a recycling information/education program. Evaluation
must be planned in advance, and data collection and calculation methods must be accurate and
consistent.
References
1. CJ. Benton. "Promoting Recycling Collection Programs." Proceeding From the Public Education
and Outreach Sessions of the First U.S. Conference on Municipal Solid Waste. Washington, D.C., June
14, 1990, 1387-1390.
2. City of Seattle. Recycling Behavior and Motivation in the General Seattle Population and the SORT
Area Residents. Seattle, Washington, 1979.
3. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Solid Waste Management Section. Solid Waste
Management in Florida, 1989 Annual Report. Tallahassee, Florida, October 1, 1989.
4. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Solid Waste Management Section. Solid Waste
Management in Florida, 1990 Annual Report. Tallahassee, Florida, March, 1991.
5. D. H. Folz. Recycling Program Design, Management and Participation: A National Survey of
Municipal Experience. Public Administration Review., 51(3), May/June, 1989, 222-231.
6. D. H. Folz and J.M. Hazlett. A National Survey of Local Government Recycling Programs.
Resource Recycling. 2(12), December, 1990, 83-85.
7. R. M. Hawkins, C.F. Casey, and J.O. Bryant Jr. Solid and Hazardous Waste Collection, Disposal,
Recycling and Public Education in Florida. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management, 1991.
8. Office of Waste Management and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Community Waste
Education Manual. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Waste Education Coalition, July 1991.
9. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Conducting a Recycling Program Publicity Campaign.
Portland, Oregon, 1985.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Operating a Recycling Program: A Citizens Guide.
(EPA/SW-770). Washington, D.C, 1979.
319
-------
METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN COMPOSTABLE AND .NONCOMPOSTABLE
COMPONENTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
IN CAPE MAY COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Mack Rugg
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Edison, New Jersey
Nabil K. Hanna, P.E.
Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority
Cape May Court House, New Jersey
Concentrations of toxic metals are among the primary concerns regarding compost derived from
municipal solid waste (MSW). To better understand the potential impact of toxic metals on the
quality of MSW compost, the concentrations of these metals in the compostable and
noncompostable components of MSW need to be quantified. Data developed during a waste
characterization study in Cape May County, New Jersey indicate that metals concentrations in
noncompostable MSW are much higher than those in compostable MSW. Therefore, the Cape
May results suggest that minimizing the presence of noncompostable materials in solid waste
compost will also tend to minimize concentrations of toxic metals in the compost.
As part of the permitting process for a solid waste facility, the Cape May County Municipal
Utilities Authority (CMCMUA) retained Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) to perform a four
season waste characterization study. The field work for the study began in the summer of 1990
and concluded in the spring of 1991. In each season, samples of residential and commercial
MSW were collected and sorted into 25 categories to estimate component composition. From
the sorted material, composite subsamples of each waste category were collected for laboratory
analysis, including analysis for total concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel and zinc.
A complete report of the procedures and results of the Cape May study is provided in
reference 1 (see the list of references on the last page of this paper).
Field Procedures
Field work for this study was performed during one week of each season of the year at the
landfill maintained by the CMCMUA. Over the four seasons, a total of 254 samples of MSW
321
-------
with an average weight of 229 pounds were manually extracted from loads dumped at the
working face aftiie .landfill. Loads of bulky waste were not sampled.
Temporary workers supervised by CDM personnel hand-sorted each sample, piece by piece, into
containers. Upon inspection and approval, each container was weighed by CDM personnel.
After weighing, line CDM project manager took material for the composite laboratory
subsamples ftwnitiie. 'containers of sorted material.
All composite Moratory samples except those for PET bottles and HDPE bottles contained
material from stJsffit 30 sorted samples, and half of the laboratory samples contained material
from at least SO sratsd camples. The samples for PET and HDPE contained material from at
least 20 sorted
MSW
The estimated ccimposition of the waste characterized during the study is shown in Table 1. The
estimated moistajrefaontent of each waste category is also shown. The composition and moisture
contents are uscdineestimating the metals concentrations of groups of waste categories based on
the dry-basis cranBBntffitions reported for each category (see "Results of Laboratory Testing"
below).
The waste categories in Table 1 are grouped as compostable and noncontestable. Although
wood is biodegradable in the long term, it is largely unaffected by standard composting
processes. Thertffemt, wood is classified as noncompostable in this paper. Detailed definitions
of the waste cas^ories in Table 1 and the other tables in this paper are provided in reference 1.
The component (oranposition shown in Table 1 represents unrecycled MSW only. During the
period of the sttidy., tme recycling rate in Cape May County for the residential and commercial
MSW represesasd toy lable 1 was approximately 31 percent. The recycling program reduced
the percentage wFrawspaper, corrugated cardboard, kraft paper, office paper, magazines, yard
waste, PET andlHOSKEijoJtles, glass containers, tin cans, and aluminum cans in the waste sorted
during the study.. Conversely, of course, the recycling program increased the percentages of all
other materials in tihe .sorted waste.
Most of the waatte (BBSgories in Table 1 are fairly self-explanatory, but a few are not The
"fines" category includes some inorganic material but is primarily coffee grounds and other
small bits of food waste. "Household batteries" includes alkaline and carbon-one batteries only.
Carbon-zinc batteries include those sold as "general purpose," "heavy duty," and "classic."
Nickel-cadnuBtm ibatteries were included in the "other nonferrous" category. "Other organics"
is a default cx&gory that includes two somewhat distinct groups of materials. First, this
category includes an odd mixture of carbon-based materials that did not fit any of the other
categories. The® nrmtrrials included roofing shingles and felt, composite floor coverings,
automotive air 2Bte&, soap, light vacuum cleaner bags, and plastic-lined absorbent pads of
various kinds, mhe&sxmd group of materials in this category, larger than the first, was
322
-------
TABLE 1
Estimated composition and moisture content of MSW in Cape May County
Percentage of Moisture
total—by weight content
Waste category (a) (b)
Compostable
Newspaper 4.1% 30.2%
Corrugated cardboard 3.4% 23.7%
Kraft paper 1.9% 29.4%
High-grade paper 0.6% 11.5%
Magazines 1.1% 10.4%
Other paper 23.3% 34.3%
Yard waste 4,9% 45.9%
Food waste 15.8% 63.9%
Disposable diapers 4.0% 66.2%
Fines 2.3% 40.9%
Other organics 4.5% 46.1%
Total or overall— 66.1% 43.6%
compostable
Noncompostable
PET bottles 0.3% 3.2%
HDPE containers 0.4% 8.0%
LDPE bags and film 3.0% 20.3%
Other plastic 7.8% 16.1%
Textiles/rubber/leather 5.3% 17.4%
Wood 3.8% 16.6%
Glass containers 3.6% 0%
Tin cans 1.3% 0%
Household batteries (c) 0.1% 0%
Other ferrous 3.6% 0%
Aluminum cans 0.6% 0%
Other aluminum 0.9% 0%
Other nonferrous 0.1% 0%
Other inorganics 3.1% 0%
Total or overall— 33.9% 10.2%
noncompostable
Total or overall— 100.0% 32.3%
combined
(a) Based on the sorting of 254 samples ofMSU averaging 229pounds in the
summer and fall of 1990 and the winter and spring of 1991.
(b) Values greater than zero based on laboratory results for four seasonal
composite samples of each waste category. Inorganic materials assigned
moisture values of zero for purpose of calculating overall values.
(c) Alkaline and carbon-zinc batteries only. Nickel-cadmium batteries in
"other nonferrous."
323
-------
materials left cm the screen in the sorting box after sorting was deemed complete. These
materials were either loo small or too mashed together to be sorted efficiently. They consisted
primarily of miscellaneous paper and food waste. Although this category contains a significant
proportion of noaoompastable material, it is classified as compostable in this paper to avoid
possible understatement of the metals concentrations in the compostable waste.
I^abpratorv Procedures
Three different laboratories performed metals testing during the study, and each used a different
method to prepare the field samples for testing. The first set of samples, collected in the
summer, was tested by the SCS Analytical Laboratory in Long Beach, California. SCS tested
for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury but not for copper, nickel, or zinc. The
SCS laboratory grinds aH MSW samples, including ferrous metal, in a hammermill that reduces
most materials to purrs of one eighth to one quarter of an inch. A subsample of these pieces
is randomly chosen for the actual testing procedure.
Subsequent sample sets were divided between SSM/Laboratories of Reading, Pennsylvania, and
the Schwarzkopf MLcroanalytical Laboratory of Woodside (Queens), New York. Chemically
organic waste categories (including plastics and other synthetics) were tested by SSM, and
inorganic waste categories were tested by Schwarzkopf. These laboratories also tested most of
the first set of samples for copper, nickel, and zinc.
SSM prepares MSW samples for testing using a Wiley mill, which achieves a finer grind than
the hammermill used by SCS but is not suitable for grinding inorganics, especially metals. The
Schwarzkopf laboratory prepares inorganic materials for testing by hand, consciously working
to prepare a representative subsample.
The results reported by the three laboratories during the Cape May study do not provide a
sufficient basis on which to make a comparative evaluation of the different sample-preparation
procedures used. Logically, the SSM method of random subsampling from finely ground
material should yield superior results for the carbon-based materials for which it is suited. The
SCS method of random subsampling from coarsely ground material probably has greater
potential to produce variable results because a smaller number of particles from the sample are
actually tested. In addition, coarse grinding often yields a relatively broad range of particle
sizes, which leads to differential settling within the mass of ground material. This complicates
the task of obtaining a small but representative portion of the ground material for use in the
actual testing procedure. The Schwarzkopf method of conscious subsample preparation has the
potential to produce a more meaningful single result than the SCS method; however, the
conscious involvement of the tester in the selection of the material to be tested has the potential
to bias the results.
After sample preparation, all three laboratories performed the testing for total metals
concentrations using acid digestion and atomic absorption spectrophotometry, following standard
ASTM procedures,
324
-------
Results of Laboratory Testing
The results of testing 85 composite samples of the 25 waste categories are summarized in
Table 2. With the exception of the concentrations for mercury, copper, and zinc in household
batteries, each metal concentration for each individual waste category is the average of the
results for several samples. Results for the individual samples were reported in reference 1.
The values for copper and zinc in household batteries are from a report prepared by Arthur D.
Little, Inc. in 1988.2 The value for mercury in household batteries is the result of a single test
performed by the Schwarzkopf laboratory on batteries discarded in the fall of 1990. Batteries
discarded today probably have lower concentrations of mercury.3
Table 2 also contains estimated overall concentrations for the compostable MSW, the
noncompostable MSW, and the two combined. The overall concentrations were calculated based
on the component compositions and moisture values in Table 1.
Despite the use of different laboratories during the study, the results were generally consistent
from season to season. Only two of the significant concentrations in Table 2 are averages of
widely variant individual results. The concentration of arsenic in wood is primarily attributable
to a result of 120 ppm reported by the SSM laboratory for the winter sample. The relative
concentrations of arsenic, chromium, and copper in the sample strongly indicate the presence
of copper-chromium arsenate (CCA), the most common wood preservative in current use.
The value of 5,998 ppm for chromium in "other ferrous" is the average of a concentration of
194 ppm reported by the SCS laboratory and concentrations of 8,800 ppm and 9,000 ppm
reported by the Schwarzkopf laboratory. Substitution of the SCS result for the average of the
three results would reduce the overall chromium concentration to 138 ppm for the
noncompostable waste and 65 ppm for the MSW as a whole-still many times the estimated
concentration for the compostable waste.
For the summer season the SCS laboratory reported arsenic concentrations of 261 ppm in
aluminum cans and 744 ppm in other aluminum. For the fall and winter seasons the
Schwarzkopf laboratory reported no detectable arsenic in either of these waste categories.
Because no confirmation of the SCS results could be found in the literature of metallurgy or
geology, the Schwarzkopf results are used in Table 2. Substitution of the SCS results would
raise the overall arsenic concentration to 33 ppm for the noncompostable waste and 15 ppm for
the MSW as a whole. The overall arsenic concentration for the compostable waste would be
unaffected.
The lead concentrations in Table 2 reflect the fact that no motor-vehicle batteries were found in
the 29 tons of waste sorted in the course of the Cape May study. In fact, no vehicle batteries
were observed in loads dumped at the landfill during the study. Disposal of vehicle batteries
at the Cape May landfill is prohibited, and the system for recycling vehicle batteries in Cape
May County and in New Jersey as a whole is highly developed. Refuse haulers will generally
not pick up vehicle batteries unless they want them for their scrap value. It should noted that
325
-------
TABLE 2
Average metal concentrations detected in MSW components—dry basis (in parts per million)
Samples
Waste category tested Arsenic
Compos table
Newspaper
Corrugated cardboard
Kraft paper
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Yard waste
Food waste
Disposable diapers
Fines
Other organics
Overall compostable
Noncompos table
PET bottles
HOPE containers
LDPE bags and film
Other plastic
Text . /rubber/leather
Wood
Glass containers
Tin cans
Househ. batteries (c)
Other ferrous
Aluminum cans
Other aluminum
Other nonferrous
Other inorganics
Overall noncompost.
Overall — combined (d)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
44
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
41
85
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
1.7
0.3
0.3
4.3
2.4
0.8
ND
0.2
0.6
0.5
1.0
40.3
ND
4.4
7.0
11.4
ND
ND
7.3
1.2
6.2
3.3
Cadmium
ND (a)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2
2
0.2
ND
ND
ND
10
23
ND
ND
16
53
14
ND
ND
391
ND
10
4.5
Chrom.
ND
ND
7
ND
4
7
8
ND
4
24
17
5.9
16
57
125
8
469
62
ND
527
45
5,998
72
62
128
21
830
377
Copper
25
17
15
8
52
79
18
25
5
303
186
66
31
15
31
10
30
38
ND
375
8,400
157
107
251
223,300
13
1,106
534
Lead Mercury
ND
24
22
ND
ND
14
26
ND
ND
462
54
31
61
229
565
23
58
129
84
350
236
163
30
23
38,529
50
301
152
0.41
0.22
0.19
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.26
0.05
0.05
0.31
7.94
0.7
0.08
0.11
0.15
0.05
0.33
2.58
0.19
0.78
2,900
0.68
0.74
0.87
ND
0.93
12
5.8
Nickel
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
5
6
ND
30
25
4.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
6
ND
ND
133
NA (b)
320
54
43
5,126
5
71
34
Zinc
83
73
43
31
99
88
165
56
83
596
274
116
22
63
151
83
806
246
ND
145
180,000
1,100
80
109
26,700
21
1,146
579
(b) NA =* no sample analyzed" for the metal indicated,
c) Concentrations for copper and zinc are literature values. Single test result for mercury.
d) Based on the composition and moisture values in table 1. Zero substituted for ND in calculations,
-------
in areas whore the recycling' rate for vehicle batteries is lower the overall concentration of lead
in MSW may be much higher. The average vehicle battery contains approximately 18 pounds
of lead/ Therefore, one average vehicle battery would have added more than 300 ppm of lead
to the waste sorted during the Cape May study, tripling the overall combined lead concentration
in Table 2. Again, however, the lead concentration for compostable MSW would not be
affected.
Distribution of Metals Among Waste Categories
Table 3 shows the estimated percentage of each metal contributed by each waste category. The
percentages in Table 3 are based on the composition and moisture values in Table 1 and the
metals concentrations in Table 2. Table 3 indicates that all of the metals were concentrated in
a few waste categories. In fact, a single waste category (though not the same one in each case)
accounts for half or more of seven of the eight metals. Wood accounts for 58 percent of
arsenic, household batteries for 89 percent of mercury and 55 percent of zinc, "other ferrous"
for 85 percent of chromium and half of nickel, and "other nonferrous" for 85 percent of copper
and 52 percent of lead. Though no waste category accounts for more than one third of the
cadmium, a total of 88 percent of the cadmium is attributable to four waste categories:
textiles/rubber/leather, "other plastic," "other ferrous," and "other nonferrous." Every waste
category that accounts for a substantial percentage of any metal is a noncompostable waste
category.
Table 3 also shows the estimated percentages of each metal accounted for by compostable waste
and noncompostable waste. At least 86 percent of each metal is attributable to noncompostable
waste categories.
Summary and Comparison to Compost Standards
Table 4 summarizes the results of the metals characterization performed in the Cape May study.
Table 4 also provides illustrative metals concentrations for finished compost based on the Cape
May results and lists several sets of standards for maximum concentrations of metals in compost.
The summary section of Table 4 shows overall metals concentrations for compostable and
noncompostable MSW on a dry basis (as in table 2) and on an as-received basis. "As received"
refers to the condition of the waste upon arrival at the landfill or at the laboratory, prior to
drying. Since there are no metals in moisture, drying concentrates the metals. Therefore, the
as-received concentrations are lower than the dry-basis concentrations. Regulatory standards are
invariably expressed on a dry basis.
The metals characterization summary in Table 4 also includes ratios of the concentrations in the
noncompostable waste to the concentrations in the compostable waste. For every metal, the
estimated concentration in the noncompostable waste is at least 7 times greater on a dry basis
and at least 12 times greater on an as-received basis. The dry-basis ratios are smaller because
327
-------
TABLE 3
Distribution of detected metals among MSW components (a)
Waste category Arsenic Cadmium Chromium
Compos table
Newspaper
Corrugated cardboard
Kraft paper
High-grade paper
Magazines
Other paper
Yard waste
Food waste
Disposable diapers
Fines
Other organlcs
Total compostable
Noncompostable
PET bottles
HDPE containers
LDPE bags and film
Other plastic
Text . /rubber/leather
Wood
Glass containers
Tin cans
Household batteries
Other ferrous
Aluminum cans
Other aluminum
Other nonferrous
Other inorganics
Total noncontestable
0,21
0.4*
0.3%
0.21
0.2%
4.3%
2.0%
0.8%
0.2%
2.6%
2.7%
13.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.4%
2.0%
58.0%
0.0%
2.6%
0.4%
18.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.7%
86.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
1.9%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.8%
32.8%
0.0%
0.0%
7.1%
2.1%
16.4%
0.0%
0.0%
17.9%
0.0%
97.1%
0.01
0.0*
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.9%
0.0%
0.1%
1.2%
0.2%
8.0%
0.8%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
85.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
99.1%
Copper
0.21
0.11
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
3.3%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
1.1%
1.3%
6.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.0%
1.4%
2.8%
1.6%
0.2%
0.6%
85.4%
0.1%
93.2%
Lead Mercury
0.01
0.61
0.3*
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
6.1%
1.3%
11.1%
0.2%
0.9%
12.9%
1.5%
2.5%
4.0%
3.0%
4.5%
0.3%
5.8%
0.2%
0.2%
51.7%
1.5%
88.9%
0.31
0,21
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
5.0%
6.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
2.1%
0.2%
0.3%
88.9%
0.6%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.7%
93.7%
Nickel
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
1.6%
0.0%
1.8%
2.6%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
7.5%
0.0%
49.8%
1.3%
1.6%
30.4%
0.7%
92.5%
Zinc
0.61
0.91
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
3.5%
1.1%
0.8%
0.3%
2.1%
1.7%
11.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.9%
1.4%
9.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.5%
55.0*
10.2%
0.1%
0.2%
9.4%
0.2%
89.0%
(a) Based on tables 1 and 2.
-------
TABLE 4
Metals concentrations In MSW and hypothetical compost compared to compost standards
(all values in parts per million except ratios)
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper
Lead Mercury Nickel
(a) Based on tables 1 and i.
(b) Value for noncompostable waste divided by value for compostable waste.
(c) Based on 30-percent reduction of dry compostable matter during composting.
(d) Proposed for sludge, under consideration for MSW compost.
Zinc
Summary of metals characterization (a)
As-received
Compostable
Noncompos tab le
Ratio (b)
Dry basis
Compostable
Noncompos table
Ratio (t>)
Hypothetical scenarios
0% noncompostable
5% noncompostable
10% noncompostable
Compost standards
Proposed USEPA (d)
Ontario (Canada)
Florida
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
North Carolina
0.46
5.6
12
0.82
6.2
7.6
for
1.2
1.4
1.7
___
10
—
—
—
—
—
™—
0.13
8.7
65
0.24
9.6
41
3.3
745
226
5.9
830
142
finished compost — dry
0.3
0.8
1.3
25
3
15
10
10
10
10
10
8.4
49
90
3,000
50
—
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
37
993
27
66
1,106
17
basis (c)
95
145
196
1,200
60
450
1,000
500
1,000
1,000
800
17
270
16
31
301
9.8
44
57
69
300
150
500
700
500
500
250
250
0.4
11
29
0.66
12
18
0.9
1.5
2.1
20
0.15
--
10
5
10
10
10
2.6
64
24
4.7
71
15
6.7
9.9
13
500
60
50
200
100
200
200
200
65
1,029
16
116
1,146
9.9
165
214
264
2,700
500
900
2,000
1,000
2,500
2,500
1,000
"NOAEL" standards. Subject to revision.
Commonly referred to as the
These values are from reference 5 (Chaney, 1991).
-------
drying increases the concentrations in compostable MSW more than it increases the
concentrations in noocompostable waste.
The middle section of Table 4 shows three illustrative scenarios for metals concentrations in
finished compost. All three scenarios are based on 30 percent of the dry mass (solids content)
of the compostable material being lost during composting. Since the lost mass contains no
metals, composting increases metals concentrations. After a 30-percent reduction in dry mass
the metals previously associated with the lost 30 percent are added to the remaining 70 percent.
Therefore, the metals concentrations in the remaining 70 percent are increased by 30 divided by
70, or 43 percent.
The three scenarios in Table 4 are for finished compost containing no noncompostable material,
finished compost containing 5 percent noncompostable material, and finished compost containing
10 percent noncompostable material. For the purpose of these illustrative scenarios it is assumed
that the noncompostable waste materials are present in the compost in proportion to their
abundance in the noncompostable fraction of the waste. The three scenarios show that as
noncompostable material is added to the finished compost the metals concentrations increase
substantially-a simple mathematical consequence of the much greater metals concentrations in
the noncompostable material.
The third section of Table 4 shows maximum metals concentrations allowed in municipal solid
waste compost in six slates of the United States and the Canadian Province of Ontario. Where
the jurisdiction has different sets of standards for different grades of compost, the more stringent
standards are shown. The proposed USEPA standards for composted sewage sludge are also
shown because their application to municipal solid waste compost is being considered. The
proposed USEPA standards are referred to as the "NOAEL" standards because they are based
on "no observed adverse effect levels" developed in health-risk-assessment studies.
A comparison of the three scenarios for finished compost with the compost standards indicates
that compost derived from MSW similar to that characterized in Cape May County should have
little problem complying with any of the U.S. (federal or state) standards listed in Table 4,
provided separation of noncompostable waste from compostable waste is reasonably effective.
However, the Ontario standards are much more stringent because they are based on background
levels in soil rather than on the risk assessment models generally used to develop standards in
the United States.6 Compost derived from MSW with the characteristics estimated for Cape May
County would have difficulty complying with the Ontario standards for copper and mercury.
It should be noted, however, that approximately 78 percent of the mercury attributed to
compostable waste in this paper can be traced to one of the four samples of "other organics."
As described above, much of this category consisted of the litter of material left on the screen
in the sorting box after sorting was deemed complete. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely,
that the mercury in the one sample of "other organics" came from a broken thermometer, a
mercuric-oxide button battery, broken fluorescent tubes, or some other noncompostable source
(see reference 3 for further discussion of this question).
330
-------
Even so, it appears that Ontario's mercury standard of 0.15 ppm would be very difficult to meet,
as would the copper standard of 60 ppm.
Conclusion
The metals characterization performed during the Cape May County study indicate that metals
concentrations are much higher in noncompostable MSW than in compostable MSW. Although
the mercury and copper standards adopted in the Canadian Province of Ontario may not be
attainable, compost with low percentages of noncompostable material should generally be able
to meet the risk-based metals standards adopted or proposed in the United States.
References
1. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Edison, NJ. Cape May County Multi-Seasonal Solid Waste
CorgpositioT) Study. Performed for the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority,
Cape May Court House, NJ. August 1991.
2. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Marketing Development Strategies for Recyclable Materials.
Prepared for the NJ Dept. of Envir. Prot. & Energy, Div. of Solid Waste Mgt, Trenton,
NJ (1988).
3. Rugg, M. and Hanna, N. K., "Mercury Concentrations in Municipal Solid Waste
Components in Cape May County, New Jersey." Proceedings of the SWANA 7th Annual
Waste-to-Energy Symposium, Minneapolis, MN, January 28-30,1992, pp. 193-198. Solid
Waste Association of North America, Silver Spring, MD.
4. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Prairie Village, KS. Characterization of Products Containing
Lead and Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1970 to 200Q.
USEPA, January 1989.
5. Chancy, R. L., "Land Application of Composted Municipal Solid Waste: Public Health,
Safety, and Environmental Issues." Proceedings of the Solid Waste Composting Council
1991 National Conference, November 1991, pp. 61-83. Solid Waste Composting Council,
Arlington, VA.
6. Telephone conversation with Tom Richard, Dept. of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, March 1992.
331
-------
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS IN SOLID WASTE POLICY:
WASTE PREVENTION IN NEW YORK CITY
Reid J. Lifset
Program on Solid Waste Policy
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
New Haven, Connecticut
Marian R. Chertow
Program on Solid Waste Policy
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
New Haven, Connecticut
In preparing a waste prevention plan for New York City, a team of consultants led by
Marian Chertow and Reid Lifset confronted the need to find tangible and tractable
approaches to reducing waste generation in one of the countries largest and most complex
solid waste management systems. In developing plans for source reduction and re-use, the
team emphasized the need to change the structure of the solid waste management system to
improve the incentives for making less waste. This presentation examines the long term,
systemic issues central to New York City's ability to pursue effective waste prevention
measures and the policies needed to bring about those changes. This document provides an
outline of the issues addressed in the presentation.
Systemic Issues in Local Waste Prevention Policy
In developing a strategy for waste prevention in New York City, a set of seven key systemic
issues emerged. Only if those issues were successfully addressed would the narrower and
more concrete programmatic initiatives typically discussed in the context of waste prevention
have an impact on waste generation. The systemic issues include:
• the need for and constraints in establishing quantity-based user fees in a dense
urban environment;
• capturing savings from waste prevention in collection and disposal in the
commercial sector in the absence of a vigorously competitive carting market;
333
-------
• integrating waste prevention into management decision making through
decentralization of decision making and changes in accounting and performance
evaluation;
• the complexities of ensuring that materials substitution pursued in the service of
waste prevention actually produces environmental improvement;
•• the mixed incentives facing manufacturers to produce waste preventive-products;
• altering marketing and distribution patterns in favor of waste prevention; and
• integrating waste prevention with collection, processing and disposal practices.
Some of these concerns reflect New York's role as an operator of a solid waste system.
Others reflect its status as a jurisdiction with policymaking powers. As such, many of these
concerns are typical of all state and local governments working to make waste prevention
happen.
Less] and Political Constraints and Or>t»ortunities in Waste Prevention Policvmakinp
Because waste prevention involves stimulating changes in product design, production and
distribution, many of the decisions that can bring about a reduction in waste must occur
outside of New York City. Many, if not most, of the manufacturers of goods and materials
that could be made "waste-prevention friendly" are not located in New York. This implies
waste prevention inevitably involves policies through which a local government attempts to
influence businesses and organizations operating outside its jurisdiction. Attempts by New
York City to reach beyond its borders to effect waste prevention are shaped by two sets of
factors: legal limitations and political feasibility.
Legal limitations include:
• constitutional challenges as unreasonable interference with interstate commerce
• constitutional challenges as violations of the equal protection clause
Political feasibility is more complex. The difficulties in enacting laws that impose burdens
on producer groups to stimulate reduction, re-use or recycling are well known. Ironically,
local bans, taxes on goods and materials and recycled content mandates can be more
politically feasible than policies imposed at the state or federal level. Where the targets of
334
-------
waste prevention efforts are not manufactured locally:
•• bans, taxes and mandates do not impose significant costs on local constituencies;
• local jobs are not impacted; and
• tax revenues do not decline.
There are other ways that local regulations can be effective. In the case of New York City,
the sheer size of the market makes national and international producers responsive to
demands for changes in product designs that incorporate waste prevention considerations. In
a related vein, the threat of inconsistent regulation across local jurisdictions (and the
production and marketing costs that such inconsistency imposes) forces manufacturers to take
notice of local waste prevention policies. New York City possesses substantial political
leverage in these respects that can bring producers to the negotiating table in a way that is
not true of smaller local jurisdictions.
335
-------
OVERVIEW OF EPA'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TOXICS REDUCTION PROGRAM
Eugene Lee, Source Reduction Section
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Lynda Wynn, Chief, Source Reduction Section
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Background
The Office of Solid Waste's (OSW) Source Reduction Program has as its primary goal a
reduction in the amount and toxicity of municipal solid waste (MSW). This goal is consistent
with EPA's strong preference for pollution prevention and source reduction as an alternative to
downstream pollution control and waste management. Currently, our efforts are focused on
promoting voluntary reductions in industry, communities, and government through a combination
of research, education and outreach, grants, and collaboration with other EPA offices and
government agencies. Program activities are coordinated whenever possible with other Agency
offices, such as the Office of Research and Development and the Office of Toxic Substances.
To date, OSW's toxics reduction program has focused on three heavy metals flead, cadmium,
and mercury) due to concern over the presence of these metals in combustor ash and emissions.
EPA issued a report in 1980 on the sources of lead and cadmium in MSW and reports on
sources of mercury in MSW and a preliminary analysis of potential substitutes for lead and
cadmium in products found in MSW were published this year and are now available. As a
follow-up to these activities, EPA hopes to initiate a dialogue with the affected industries to
explore realistic source reduction actions and timetables for reducing the use of lead, cadmium,
and mercury. EPA is encouraged by some of the significant reductions in the use of these
metals, such as the reduction by the battery industry of mercury used in household batteries and
the removal of mercury compounds from interior and exterior paints.
Current OSW Efforts in Toxics Reduction
In an attempt to broaden the scope of our toxics work, the MSW program has begun to consider
other potential compounds to target for source reduction. Much of the summer of 1991 was
spent developing a framework for identifying additional candidate compounds for toxics
reduction. Relying heavily on information found in existing EPA reports, we developed a list
of compounds being released from MSW facilities. Given the long list of potential compounds
we could address, it made sense to limit our initial efforts to compounds that appear to be
337
-------
entering the environwent via MSW facilities.
Our approach was tto document the following types of releases from MSW facilities: MSW
landfill leachate, MSW landfill volatile gas emissions, incinerator ash (bottom, fly, and
combined), incmerattrr ash monofill leachate, and incinerator emissions. Although these may
not all be considered release points in terms of actual emissions to the environment, they give
a good indication of toxic constituents in MSW. A study on air emissions from a materials
recovery facility (MRF) was also reviewed. However, since the data in this study was limited
in its characterization of MRFs, it was not used in the development of the preliminary list of
compounds of conocncu
The next step was ID roughly rank each compound for each release point based on a function of
its median concentration and the relevant environmental or human health standard. This gave
an indication of the magnitude of the potential effect of the release relative to other releases.
It must be emphasized that our ranking method did not utilize formal risk assessment measures.
rather, the analysis mas merely an effort to roughly rank these compounds based on the amount
being released and lite relative hazard indicated by the standards. The purpose of ranking the
compounds was ID feblp us choose a subset to target for source reduction efforts. Data were
screened prior to Tanking for sampling inadequacies, lack of relevant standards, or if the
compound was presumed to be a natural decomposition product.
From this research of releases from MSW facilities, a preliminary list of 29 potential compounds
to target for source reduction efforts was developed. The compounds are grouped in three main
categories; chlorinated alkyl compounds, aromatic solvents, and metals. The methodology and
list of compounds has gone through internal Agency review, and comments from the review
process are now being addressed. It is anticipated that this initial list will be narrowed to a
handful of compounds on which we will focus our resources in the near term. Wherever
possible, compounds will be clustered when it appears that they are coming from similar
products or sources. At some point, an external review group may be convened to discuss the
utility of lists, screening criteria, and compounds of concern.
Once a set of compounds is identified and an investigation of sources is underway, a number of
strategies to promote voluntary reductions of these compounds will be pursued. Research into
potential substitute compounds and technologies for significant uses of targeted toxics may be
conducted. Outreach and education efforts will be undertaken which actively promote toxicity
and volume reductions through workshops, presentations, and "success story" documents.
The potential for unking efforts with the Office of Toxic Substance's 33/50 Industrial Toxics
Project (TTP) wfll be explored. It is worth noting that 16 of the 17ITP compounds were present
on our preliminary list of 29 compounds (the exception being methyl isobutyl ketone).
Other EPA Efforts to Reduce Toxics in Products
While OSW's toxics reduction program is developing a target list for source reduction, other
EPA offices have programs whose activities may also reduce toxic compounds found in MSW.
The Office of Toxic Substances has a project researching consumer products and their potential
338
-------
for introducing pollutants to indoor air. Depending on the results, their data could be used to
negotiate with affected manufacturers to reduce compounds in commercial 'products. Another
closely related OTS project is the Indoor Air Cluster Project which is collecting data on
commercial products that could be sources of indoor air pollution and data on chemicals found
in residential indoor air. This information is housed in the Indoor Air Chemical Sources (LACS)
database, which contains data on over 300 compounds used in consumer and commercial
products. EPA's Office of Research and Development has several projects which address toxics
in MSW. The "Clean Products" Case Studies Project documents toxic constituents and a range
of possible substitutes in consumer products. Changes in production processes are also
documented. Another ORD project analyzes contaminant levels in MSW composting, which
may be used to identify target compounds for reduction.
Possible Directions - RCRA Reauthorization
In the legislative arena, with RCRA reauthorization looming, many draft bills are emerging on
a broad range of MSW issues including toxics use and source reduction. Some of the ideas
being considered could directly affect toxics in MSW, while others, particularly those targeting
industrial toxics, could result in a trickle-down effect to MSW as use of toxic compounds by
industries decreases, causing a reduction of toxic compounds in products and less generation of
conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste which enters MSW facilities.
One idea being considered on the national level that is directly linked to MSW is a mandatory
reduction of heavy metals in packaging based on the Council of Northeast Governors (CONEG)
model legislation. Another possibility is the establishment of an EPA research center to develop
and demonstrate methods for toxics use and source reduction. Ideas being considered which
may result in indirect effects on MSW include a requirement for all Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) facilities to prepare a toxics use and source reduction plan, and a requirement that EPA
develop accounting practices for hazardous substances and set reduction goals for each segment
of the manufacturing industry.
Regardless of regulatory developments, our program sees great opportunity to make progress
by actively promoting toxics reduction through outreach and education. The incentives for
manufacturers to implement toxics reduction strategies within their firms continue to grow.
Companies implementing toxics reduction programs can benefit in many ways, including reduced
purchase costs, reduced disposal costs, reduced liability, and increased acceptance of a product
by consumers. Indeed, with the heightened sensitivity of consumers to environmental concerns
and rising costs of waste management, environmental stewardship is becoming an integral part
of many business decisions. EPA will continue to promote and encourage these sound
environmental decisions. Our active interest in toxics reduction extends to work progressing at
the state and local levels. We are always interested in hearing about ongoing work and new
ideas for promoting toxics reduction.
339
-------
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO SOIL-BASED DAILY COVER
Manoj Mishra
Environmental Engineer
PRC Environmental Management Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Brian Thornton
Environmental Protection Specialist
Solid Waste Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
San Francisco, California
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, contracted with PRC-
Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC), to research materials that can be used instead of the
6-inch-thick layer of soil currently used as daily cover at municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLF). These alternative daily cover materials (ADCM) are being used at landfills that lack
adequate soil to provide a 6-inch-thick layer as daily cover, or where operators wish to save
landfill space. This EPA project is intended to provide information on ADCMs to government
agencies and operators of landfills.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) mandate covering solid waste disposed of in a MSWLF
with 6 inches of soil at the end of each working day or at more frequent intervals, if necessary
[see 40 CFR Subparts 257.3-6 (a)1, 257.3-6 (c) 4, and 258.21 (a)]. This daily cover is intended
to control disease vectors, fire, odor, blowing litter, and scavenging. The federal regulations
also allow the use of ADCMs at MSWLFs [see 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 (b)], if approved by the
director of a state regulatory agency that has an EPA-approved MSWLF permit program.
'- Regulations provided by 40 CFR Subparts 257.3-6 (a) and 257.3-6 (c) 4 would be applicable only
through October 9, 1993; after that regulations provided by 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 would become
effective.
341
-------
The information jamuiatu] in this paper does not constitute EPA's endorsement or
recommendation of any product, nor is it intended as an overall ranking of ADCMs. Likewise,
the discussion of ADCMs presented here does not imply EPA's regulatory approval of any
ADCM. ADCMs must be approved by state regulatory agencies, and those agencies should be
consulted for approval to use ADCMs. In addition, the information in this paper does not
address the use of ADCMs as an intermediate or final cover or at disposal facilities other than
MSWLFs.
ADCMs discussed m UK paper are divided into two categories: indigenous and commercial.
Indigenous ADCMs are developed by the individual landfill operators and are not commercially
available. Commensal ADCMs are developed by businesses that make them commercially
available to landfill o^wattus. Except under certain conditions, ADCMs discussed in this paper
appear to perform fee enactions of daily cover described in 40 CFR Subpart 258.21 (a). The
discussion of each ADCM below highlights its cost, possible difficulty in its application, and any
special equipment roecdzaE for its preparation and application. Because published information on
ADCMs is scarce, ifce information presented in this paper is based on interviews with users and
manufacturers of ADCMs and with regulatory personnel familiar with ADCMs.
2.0 Indigenous ADCMS
Most indigenous ADCMs aze based on materials conventionally disposed of in landfills as waste,
such as ash from mm^n^ waste incinerators and utility companies, municipal solid waste, and
agricultural waste. Accepting materials such as ash for disposal is often a source of revenue to
landfill operators. Such materials are applied as daily cover by using conventional earth-moving
equipment available st most landfills. Therefore, the application equipment needed and the cost
of application aze not affivnwri for indigenous ADCMs.
2.1 Ash
Bottom and fly ash from sources such as utility companies and municipal waste incinerators are
both used for daily cover, either separately or in combination. Ash is also used by itself or in
combination with sludge, soil, and lime. The thickness of ash-based daily cover varies from 3
inches to 6 inches, rfpjM'iMfing primarily on the local regulations and the availability of the ash.
Ash-based materials wet reported to perform well only when damp. Dry ash may pose dust-
related problems and msy allow scavenging. Wood and coal ash-based ADCMs may contain
partially burned material that may help sustain a landfill fire, especially if the fire is started
when the ash is dry. Bramy contaminants may be present in ash, some ash may be regulated
as a hazardous waste and barred from disposal or use as an ADCM at MSWLFs.
342
-------
2.2 Automobile Recycling Fluff
Automobile recycling fluff (ARF) is obtained by shredding nonmetallic automobile components.
ARF consists primarily of pieces of foam, rubber, and plastic from automobile upholstery and
insulation. ARF is usually delivered to landfills in a moist state, and it performs well as an
ADCM until it dries. The following problems have been reported by users of ARF: (1) small
pieces of foam in ARF may catch on the application equipment, which may then disperse them
to areas outside of the working face, and (2) sharp objects in ARF may increase the wear on
tires of equipment used on the working face.
Automobile recyclers often put home appliances in the trunk of automobiles before crushing and
shredding them. In such cases, any polychlorinated biphenyls in the appliances may contaminate
the ARF. Asbestos in the brake pads of some automobiles may also contaminate the ARF.
Contaminated ARF may be regulated as a hazardous waste and barred from disposal or use as
an ADCM at MSWLFs.
2.3 Compost
Compost is used by itself as an ADCM, or in combination with sewage sludge or wood waste.
The material may not be acceptable as an ADCM if it produces odors. Using compost as an
ADCM may be costly if it must be purchased by the landfill operator. In such cases, the landfill
operator may consider producing its own compost for use as an ADCM.
2.4 Petroleum-Contaminated Soil
Petroleum-contaminated soil from sources such as gasoline stations is used at some landfills as
an ADCM. It performs as a conventional soil-based daily cover. Depending on the types and
concentrations of contaminants in the contaminated soil, the soil may be regulated as a hazardous
waste and barred from disposal or use as an ADCM at MSWLFs.
2.5 Dredged Material
Dredged material obtained from surface water bodies is drained for 10 to 48 hours before it is
used as an ADCM. Dredged material performs well as an ADCM, except that it may attract
birds if it contains worms and insects, and it may become slippery during rains. It may also
produce odors if it is dredged from benthic deposits and used without sufficient drying. Using
dredged material as an ADCM may be costly if it is normally marketed for other uses. For
example, dredged material is often marketed as a soil conditioner, in which case the cost of
using it as an ADCM would be high.
343
-------
Dredging itself may cause environmental degradation, and dredging operations may be regulated.
If the dredged material is contaminated with hazardous constituents, it may be regulated as a
hazardous waste and barred from disposal or use as an ADCM at MSWLFs.
2.6 Foundry Sand
Foundry sand is the said generated when a foundry discards used dies. Some landfills have used
it successfully as an ADCM. Depending on the metals used for casting and their concentrations
in the foundry sand, foundry sand may be regulated as a hazardous waste and barred from
disposal or use as an ADCM at MSWLFs.
2.7 Green Waste
Green waste, such as Jawn clippings, leaves, and tree branches, performs well as an ADCM
after it is shredded to less than 5 inches in size. One potential problem with green waste is that
high temperatures dry it out and make it susceptible to fires. In addition, one landfill operator
reported that using green waste as an ADCM increased the fly count in hot weather; however,
this observation was not supported by other operators who conducted experimental studies.
2.8 Shredded Munitapal Waste
Shredded municipal waste is not used as an ADCM. However, disposal of shredded waste
eliminates many problems that necessitate using a daily cover (1). The State of Florida allows
landfills to dispose of shredded waste without a daily cover. Canada and several European
countries also permit the disposal of shredded waste without daily cover.
2.9 Sludge
Several landfills use municipal sludge treated with lime and ash or mixed with soil for daily
cover. A recent study of the suitability of sewage sludge-based daily cover found it to be an
acceptable ADCM (2). Sludge-based ADCMs may be regulated under 40 CFR Part 257. In
addition, the use of sludge as an ADCM may be regulated by state and local regulations.
2.10 Other Indigenous Materials
Rice husks, fine-sized construction and demolition debris, shredded tires, discarded carpets, and
grit from wastewater treatment plants are other indigenous ADCMs identified in this research.
344
-------
However, little information is available regarding the use and performance of these ADCMs.
3tQ Commercial ADCMS
Commercially developed ADCMs have been available for nearly a decade. Currently available
commercial ADCMs include clay-based, foam-based, geosynthetic, and paper fiber-based
products. These four types of ADCMs are discussed below. Any information available
regarding an ADCM's cost and special equipment needs has been included in the discussion.
For each ADCM discussed below, a manufacrurer contact name and number have also been
provided. The cost of materials is the average cost experienced by users, when the ADCM is
applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations; actual material costs experienced by
individual users may vary from the average cost presented here.
3.1 Clav-Based Product
Land-Cover Formula 480 from Enviro Group [David Fisher, (313)930-0761] is a liquid, clay
concentrate manufactured from clay and proprietary polymers. The product is diluted before
application and is applied using a hydroseeder. It is applied to form a 1/8-inch-thick layer and
dries in 1 to 1-1/2 hours. The average cost of a 1/8-inch-thick layer is 3 cents per square foot
(C/ft2). Because hydroseeder is currently not sold by the Enviro Group, its cost is not included
in the cost estimate presented here. According to the Enviro Group, Land Cover Formula 480
performs well for several months. It can be applied during light rains, but not during heavy
rains; the cured product, however, is not affected by heavy rains or high wind. No users were
identified or available for comment on mis ADCM.
3.2 Foam-Based Products
The following foam-based products are used as ADCMs and are discussed below:
• AC^645 and AC-900 foams, manufactured by Rusmar Inc. [Scott Butville,
(215)436-4314]
• SaniFoam™ and Vapor Suppressing Foam, manufactured by 3M [Bruce Spoo,
(612)736-4236]
• TenaFoam™, manufactured by Chubb National Foam [William Swayne,
(215)363-1400]
• TopCoat™, manufactured by Central Fiber Corporation [Ravi Bhaskar,
(800)654-6117]
AC-645, SaniFoam™, TerraFoam™, and TopCoat™ are used at sanitary landfills; AC-900 and
Vapor Suppressing Foam are used at hazardous waste landfills.
345
-------
3.2.1 AC-645
AC-645 is supplied asm concentrate that must be diluted with water. It is applied in a 3-inch-
thick layer using pupuelaiy equipment from Rusmar Inc. The average cost of AC-645 is 6
to TC/ft2, and the application equipment costs between $85,000 and $290,000. The product is
reported to perform well for up to 10 days, except in rains and high winds. Rain and wind
adversely affect the integrity of the daily cover formed by AC-645. The application equipment
requires a 2- to 3-day mining course for operators. The equipment does not need to be cleaned
after each use, and it is reported to be easy to use and trouble free.
3.2.2 SaniFoam*"
SaniFoam™ consists of two components: a foaming agent and a foam stabilizer. The
components are mixed together and diluted with water in 3M's proprietary application
equipment. Compressed air is used to apply the mixture forming a 1-inch-thick layer. The
average cost of SaiiiFoBin™ is about IOC/ft2, and the application equipment costs between
$43,000 and $128,000. SaniFoam™ users reported that it performes as a daily cover for 10 to
20 hours after its application. It then starts disintegrating and completely disappears in about
1 week. It can be applied in light to moderate rains, and once applied and cured, its users
report that it can withstand moderate to heavy rains and moderate wind. Some users of
SaniFoam™ expressed concerns about difficulties in cleaning the application equipment.
3.2.3 TerraFoam™
TerraFoam™ is a natural protein-based foam concentrate that is diluted with water before
application. It is applied to form a 6-inch-thick layer using proprietary application equipment
available from Chubb National Foam. The average cost of TerraFoam™ is ISC/ft2, and the
application equipment costs between $30,000 and $350,000, depending on its size and features.
According to the nanufaanirers, TerraFoam™ can be applied during moderate to heavy rains,
and it is resistant to wind. After application, it stays moist but begins degrading by evaporation;
however, it stays effective for 8 hours to 9 days, depending on the climate. No users were
identified or available for comment on TerraFoam™.
3.2.4 TopCoat™
TopCoat™ is a recently introduced product consisting of two components supplied in solid form.
Both components are diluted with water before application. They are then mixed together in the
spray nozzle and applied with a modified hydroseeder sold by Central Fiber Corporation. The
product is applied on the working face as an aqueous liquid. It begins foaming within 30
seconds and cures to a. thickness of 3-1/2 to 4 inches in about 1 minute. The projected cost of
346
-------
TopCoat™ is lie/ft2, and the application equipment costs between $12,000 and $25,000.
According to its manufacturer, TopCoat™ releases carbon dioxide gas during the foaming
process. User's comments on TopCoat™ are not available, because the product is not yet
available on the commercial market.
3.3 Geosvnthetic Products
Geosynthetic products from a number of vendors are being used as ADCMs; however, only
some products are specially manufactured for use as an ADCM. Airspace Saver™ from Wire
Rope Specialists [Marlon Yarborough, (800)673-1570]; Fabrisoil™ from the Phillips Fibers
Corporation [Gerald Barry, (708)382-9666]; and Typar® from Reemay, Inc. [William Hawkins,
(800)321-6271], are three geosynthetic ADCMs discussed below. These ADCMs are produced
in panels that are deployed at the working face of the landfiE. The panels are applied at the end
of each working day and are removed the next day. Users have reported reusing the same
panels for many months. The average cost of the geosynthetic ADCMs discussed below
represents the cost of purchasing the ADCM; the daily cost per square foot of the ADCM will
depend on the number times it can be reused. Geosynthetic ADCMs are applied either manually
or by earth-moving equipment available at most landfills; therefore, the cost of application
equipment is not included in the following discussion.
3.3.1 AirspaceSaver™
Airspace Saver™ is a woven, polyethylene fabric panel. It is available in 48-foot by 50-foot
panels, and its average cost is 40C/ft2. Multiple panels can be connected to cover large working
faces. Panels are held in place on the working face by tires or sand bags. As an option, the
manufacturer will sew 3/8-inch-thick steel chains to the panels to hold them down in high winds.
The cost of the steel chain is $2.00 per foot.
3.3.2 Fabrisoil™
Fabrisoil™ panels are fabricated from nonwoven, polypropylene staple fibers. Its average cost
is 220/1^. The maximum size of a panel is 120 feet by 120 feet, and multiple panels can be
used to cover a large working face. Panels are held in place on the working face by tires or
sand bags. In addition, Fabrisoil™ panels have sleeves on all sides where chain or rope can be
inserted to facilitate their handling. Several users of Fabrisoil™ have reported that the panels
absorb water and become difficult to handle after heavy rains.
347
-------
3.3.3 Tvpai*
Typar* is a theimalry-spunbonded material made from polypropylene fibers. It is available in
the following three weights: 3.3, 3.9, and 5.8 ounces per square yard. On an average, it costs
4.5, 5.5, and fi.TC/ft2, respectively. Typar® is sold in large rolls. The Typar* panels are
unrolled and held in place with tires and sand bags on the working face of the landfill. No users
were identified or available for comment on Typar9.
3.4 Paper Fiber-Based Product
ConCover™, from Newastecon, Inc. [Tim Johnson, (419)837-2686], is a fiber-based ADCM.
Some of its fibers are derived from recycled newspapers. It comes in a solid form and is mixed
with water to form a slurry. The slurry is applied on the working face of the landfill with
proprietary application equipment. The sprayed slurry dries in about 1 hour and forms a 1/8-
to 1/4-inch-thick crust. The average cost of ConCover™ is about 70/ft2; the application
equipment costs between $16,000 and $40,000, depending on its size. ConCover™ cannot be
applied during heavy rains. However, once it has dried to a crust, it performs well for several
months and can withstand heavy rains and high winds.
3.5 Other Conrmerria] Products
Commercial products other than those discussed above are also available. However, these
products, such as Naturite and Naturfill from Chemfix Technologies, Inc. [Lisa Kistler,
(805)654-1900], are available only in limited geographical regions and, therefore, their details
are not discussed in this paper.
4.0 Summary
Various types of ADCMs are currently being used at MSWLFs. Some ADCMs are indigenously
developed by individual landfill operators, and some are commercially available from the
manufacturers. Indigenous ADCMs generally do not cost anything because they are obtained
from materials conventionally disposed of in landfills, and they are applied with available landfill
equipment. Commercial ADCMs and their application equipment, if any, are purchased from
manufacturers or distributors. Some ADCMs, such as Land-Cover Formula 480 and
ConCover™ can perform well over a wide range of climatic conditions, whereas others, like
ash-based ADCMs, can perform well only under limited conditions. Therefore, identifying a
single ADCM that would perform well throughout the year at a given landfill is difficult. A
more useful approach may be to identify a combination of indigenous and commercial ADCMs
that would perform well throughout the year.
348
-------
References
1. The Suitability of Treated Sewage Sludge for Daily Landfill Cover, BKK Landfill, 2210
South Azusa Ave., West Covina, California, Georesearch, 1990.
2. JJ. Reinhardt and R.K. Ham, Solid Waste Milling And Disposal On Land Without
Cover. Vol. 1, NITS No. PB-234 930, 1974.
349
-------
PUBLIC EDUCATION - THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Gail L.C. Andersen
Public Information Coordinator - Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
Des Moines, Iowa
Introduction
It seems difficult these days to avoid the fact that America is facing a greatly growing garbage
problem. Whether reading the morning paper or watching the evening news, we are being
continually reminded of the need to do something to put a lid on this crisis.
A few years ago, we didn't think more than a few seconds about our trash — usually about the
time it took to take it to the curb once a week for pick-up. Since then, things have dramatically
changed. Not only are people thinking about it more, but many have had to make sudden
lifestyle changes in the way they generate and dispose of it. Here in Iowa, we are no exception.
Created under a 28E Agreement by 17 area governments more than 21 years ago, the Des
Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (the Agency) has been responsible for the
management and disposal of solid waste generated in our service area. For the first 20 years,
Agency operations consisted of managing an environmentally safe landfill and transfer station.
Up until a few years ago, garbage was simply generated, collected, and buried. But with the
passage of the 1987 Iowa Groundwater Protection Act and the 1989 Waste Volume Reduction
and Recycling Act, the Agency's mission and the public's garbage disposal habits would greatly
change.
The Groundwater Protection Act meant a new solid waste management hierarchy which included
waste volume reduction at the source, reuse and recycling, incineration, and finally, landfilling.
The new laws also set guidelines for reducing waste entering landfills; 25 percent reduction by
1994 and 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. Even more, many items such as yard waste,
motor oil, whole tires, etc. were permanently banned from landfill disposal.
The Agency was at a crossroads. But after careful study, a Comprehensive Plan was developed
which called for the implementation of new solid waste management programs including both
residential and commercial recycling, yard waste processing, household hazardous waste
programs, and special waste programs. However, there was one element critical to each new
program ~ public education. After all, with all other program components intact, these new
programs meant a relentless change in people's attitudes and habits. Each new program would
351
-------
require the public's^operation and participation. While most people want to do the right thing,
change can often te difficult. Ultimately, the Agency viewed public education as the key to
successful solid waste management.
The purpose of tins 'paper is to address the issues regarding the necessity of public education
programs. It will ads®.address the critical elements of an effective program and how to utilize
community resources an launching a successful program.
Identifying Your Am5ience
The first step to dewilnprng an effective public education strategy is to identify target audiences
within the service asm. The Agency identified several target audiences including the following:
Board of Directors Environmental Organizations Educators
Elected officials City Managers and other personnel Libraries
Media Civic and Business Organizations Individuals
Business/Iwatetry
Understanding the nrahc-up of your public is essential in determining what types of public
education to develop. After all, each target audience requires a specific form of public education
in order to receive ihe message effectively. It is also important to identify target audiences
because many of ttenn could ultimately serve as information links for disseminating program
information.
Identifying Your ftrffa'fty- ffflucation Formats and Planning a Budget
The second step is to identify the many forms of public education medium available. The
Agency identified flte following formats:
News Releases Direct Mail Public Meetings
Brochures Fact Sheets Newsletters
Curriculum Advertisements Speaking Engagements
Electronic Masfe Displays Information Booths
PSA's
After careful examhiatiDo of the options, the Agency's next step was to develop a budget.
Knowing how iropmnaKi public education would be in attaining successful programming, the
Agency included in is 1589-90 budget one full-time position of Public Information Coordinator
and committed appnndixnstely one percent of the annual budget toward the public education
program. Since ten, and as additional programming was added to the Agency's initial
activities, a half-time waste reduction specialist was also added.
352
-------
Putting Public Education to Work - Residential Recycling
Over the past two years, the Agency has developed a very successful public education program.
At the start-up of a one-year curbside and drop-off center recycling pilot project, the Agency
conducted four public meetings, issued news releases, produced seven billboards, and with the
assistance of the recycling contractors, provided informational brochures to all participating
residents. Radio, television, and newspapers provided extensive coverage of the pilot project
both at the start-up of the project and throughout the one year. A feet sheet describing the
program was developed and distributed to new residents who moved into the area and to those
who called the office for more information. Fact sheets were also placed at city halls and
libraries for distribution.
Toxic Cleanup Days
The Agency has launched three highly successful Toxic Cleanup Days between 1989-1991.
From event to event, our public education efforts became more focused. The first year saw
newspaper ads, news releases, billboards, waterbill stuffers and a detailed brochure describing
what to bring, where to take it and when. Naturally, because it was a first time event in the
area, there were a multitude of media interviews. The following two events, the j>ublic
education and publicity campaign included some similar outreach efforts with the exception of
billboards which were replaced with bus billboards. Agency staff felt that bus billboards were
much more cost effective and gained much more exposure. As a result of heightened awareness
about household hazardous waste, many more speaking engagements were performed by Agency
staff during the 1990 and 1991 events. During all three events, the newspapers, television and
radio provided extensive coverage including results and co-sponsorship of the event.
Education regarding household hazardous waste does not end with Toxic Cleanup Day. In an
effort to meet the needs of the Agency's service area with regard to safe disposal of these items,
the Agency has developed a portfolio of eight fact sheets on safe disposal of the most common
household hazardous wastes. It also provides information on less hazardous alternatives to some
of these products. A directory provides the public with information on retail stores that will
recycle common items such as motor oil, lead-acid batteries, antifreeze and automobile oil filters
on a daily basis.
Commercial Recycling
With 70 percent of the waste stream being created by business and industry, the Agency focused
significant attention to this area beginning in 1991. An environmental newsletter designed
specifically for business was developed and is circulated on a quarterly basis. The purpose of
the newsletter is to provide important solid waste management information to businesses on a
regular basis.
353
-------
The establishment of a commercial recycling pilot program involved working with several area
businesses to develop recycling programs and to educate employees. Posters, informational
flyers, .public education meetings and articles put in company newsletters were generated. The
pilot program provided the Agency with useful information on how to effectively incorporate
solid waste management programs into businesses. Once the pilot project was up and running,
the Agency hosted a commercial recycling workshop entitled, "Recycling is Everybody's
Business" which saw 150 area businesses in attendance. The Agency supplied each participant
with a user-friendly manual which explained how to conduct a business waste audit, set up a
recycling program and how to reduce waste at the office. The manual also discussed the critical
issue of "buying recycled" and provided a list of paper and other recycled product vendors.
For two years, the Agency has presented an Environmental Excellence Award to businesses who
have undertaken outstanding programs in response to the need for environmental protection. The
award is presented each year at the Agency's annual board dinner. News releases announcing
the winner is also sent to the press in an effort to educate other businesses about the benefits of
solid waste management.
General Public Education
In addition to specific programs, the Agency has undertaken general public education including
the development and circulation of a general environmental information newsletter. A brochure
entitled, "H.O.M.E— Hints and Opportunities for Maintaining our Environment" teaches an
individual how to conduct a home waste audit. The Agency also has a permanent display that
travels to environmental fiairs. schools and libraries. We have also prepared a comprehensive
recycling directory which is updated on a regular basis. Public speaking engagements continue
to be a popular education tool. They serve as one of the Agency's most effective means of
disseminating information.
Youth Education
The Agency's greatest achievement, however, is it's youth environmental education program.
It's highlight is an illustrative mascot, the Environmental Dragon whose message is, "Quit
Draggin' Your Waste Around." The Dragon is actively performing speaking engagements to
schools, youth groups, boys and girl scouts, as well as public events such as parades, guest
speaking at libraries and the local science center, and media appearances. An environmental
education newsletter has been developed and circulated throughout the entire youth community.
Additionally, a curriculum series has been developed and heavily utilized by educators in our
area and throughout the state. The Agency hosts an Earth Day Message competition with area
school children and also recognizes an Environmental Educator of the Year.
354
-------
As part of a educational grant from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the Agency has
developed an environmental resource center in the administrative offices. Currently, it is the
only one of its kind in the area and includes a multitude of journals, curriculum, adult and
children's books, audio and video tapes, games, technical documents and more. The center is
designed for use by not only educators and students but the general public as well.
Evaluating Your Efforts
The last but critical step to developing an effective public education strategy is to monitor and
evaluate efforts. To date, the Agency has done some monitoring and evaluation of its public
education efforts including surveys and phone interviews conducted during the pilot recycling
project. The results revealed that the top two most effective public education tools used were
mass media (newspapers, radio, television), and direct mail such as flyers. A survey completed
by 98 percent of the residents who participated in the 1991 Toxic Cleanup Day indicated that
mass media, flyers and grocery bag printing provided them with the most useful information.
Often when Agency newsletters are distributed, we include information that can be requested
free-of-charge. We have been able to evaluate the effectiveness of each newsletter by the
number of requests received for the free publications. Additional evaluation tools that have been
used to evaluate public education include surveys which accompany our curriculum, and
telephone responses to paid advertisements.
One good method of evaluating public education efforts is to develop a small focus group who
has been affected by the tool and get their comments about it. The Agency has utilized this form
of evaluation specifically with its curriculum. Several teachers were asked to provide comments
on its effectiveness as well as to supply information that could assist Agency staff with
improvements. Following the environmental excellence award competition, the judging panel
was asked to provide suggestions on improving the judging format. Those suggestions were
compiled and will be incorporated into the judging process next year. This method could be
used to evaluate a number of different public education tools.
Public Education Often Not Seen as High Priority
Often times, public education is low on the priority totem pole within solid waste management
entities. At times, its importance is under-estimated as a critical element in overall solid waste
management. In most cases, if it is included in program development, it is severely
underfunded. If funding becomes an unavoidable issue, it is important for entities to know about
community resources that are available to them that require minimal or no funding at all yet
have proven to be extremely effective tools.
355
-------
Maximizing Assets and Community Resources
Utilizing news releases can gain significant coverage by newspapers, radio and possibly
television. Public meetings allow citizens an opportunity to ask critical questions. Existing
community and business newsletters are an ideal way to print an article without having to
generate excess paper, printing and mailing costs. Speaking engagements are an effective way
of disseminating information. Also, working with utilities and city halls to disseminate
information through failings can guarantee 100 percent coverage. Each of these methods can
cost you little or notiuRg, yet, they provide useful information to the public.
Often times, staff time is required to accomplish a public education project. Large mailings,
brochure development, rawsletter editing, and project coordination are labor-intensive. Consider
using sheltered workshops or retired volunteer senior citizen groups for simpler tasks. More and
more, high schools and colleges are requiring internships for their students. Hiring interns is
beneficial to you and the student because you are providing them with a learning opportunity
while also completing your project on a minimal budget. Student interns can be retained for
more difficult tasks.
Summary
As the garbage crisis continues to mount, changes in the way we generate and dispose of
garbage will continue. Along with change will inevitably be confusion. Public education
remains the critical fay to successful solid waste management since the success of new
programming directly depends on people's participation. If given the correct information in an
effective format, people will ultimately do the right thing when it comes to environmental
protection. For public education to be most effective, it needs to be introduced at the start of
any new program.
Its seems apparent thai public education has played a critical but also a successful role in all of
the Agency's new programs. We are continually enthused by the growing participation levels
in all of our programs. Participation in residential recycling is well beyond what we had
originally anticipated. Our Toxic Cleanup Days have been nationally recognized as not only
some of the largest in the nation, but some of the most successful as well. It is safe to say that
four years ago, not many people in the our service area new that the Agency existed let alone
what it did. Four years later, the Agency has become a strong and highly recognized
organization in the community receiving media coverage on a regular basis.
There is no question thai waste management is everyone's responsibility. Through cooperation
and the quest to give and receive education, we can all make sound, well-informed decisions
toward successful solid waste management.
356
-------
RANKING CONSUMER/COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS BASED ON THEIR POTENTIAL
CONTRIBUTION TO INDOOR AIR POLLUTION
Christina Cinalli, Jim Darr
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Washington, DC
Pauline Johnston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Washington, DC
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified indoor air as a major pathway
of human exposure to numerous chemicals. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Research and Development are collaborating on an
Indoor Air Source Characterization Project (IASCP) that will attempt to better define the
exposures and risks encountered in indoor air. The overall goal of the IASCP is to support
actions in the area of testing, risk management and pollution prevention. A major component
of this effort is the development of a Source Ranking Database (SRD). The purpose of the SRD
is to provide a mechanism for systematically reviewing a large number of potential indoor air
source categories and assigning priorities for further evaluation. The basic elements of the SRD
will include:
• A product classification scheme
• Exposure-related data such as:
- Chemical specific or total emission rates
- Amount of product used per person
— Populations exposed
~ Duration and frequency of exposure
— Environment/environmental characterization
• Hazard information such as:
— Qualitative judgements of effects of concern
- Benchmark values like reference dose, unit risk, irritant level
357
-------
• An approach for combining hazard and exposure elements to arrive at an
overall ranking for the product categories.
Indoor air sources are defined broadly and may include any building materials,
consumer/commercial products and furniture and fixtures that are used in indoor environments.
The indoor air environments of concern include single and multi-family residences, schools,
hospitals, nursing homes, office buildings, public-access buildings, hotels, restaurants, and mass
transit and personally operated vehicles. The product classification scheme will focus on product
categories as the units of primary interest. For example, under the floor covering classification,
carpets, wood floors, and vinyl sheet goods, among other product categories, would be
identified. It is believed that this approach of product comparisons based on a usage
classification scheme would allow for a substitute analysis to be accomplished when the data are
available.
For each category, currently available information will be entered into the SRD and analyzed
to determine, on a screening level, the exposures/risks that may occur from the use of that
product category in indoor air. Initially, actual data will be sought out and placed into the
database; however, it is expected that data may be scarce for many parameters. Default
estimates or assumptions will be developed and used to fill data gaps. Population and individual
exposures will be approximated using a standard indoor air model along with activity patterns
to obtain estimates of both annual average and peak exposures. Population exposures will be
estimated by multiplying an estimate of the annual average exposure by the size of the exposed
population.
The exposure/risk assessments will be performed for both the total emissions and for specific
chemical components of the products. Working with specific chemical components will add
complexity to the process, but may also allow the discovery of potential components of concern.
This approach will necessitate a more detailed evaluation of health hazards from the specific
components. In order to complete the final ranking, the relative risk of exposures from different
types of health effects (cancer vs. irritancy) and to different types of emissions (total VOCs vs.
total particulates) will be evaluated, when data are available.
During the development of a source ranking database, interior architectural coatings were
selected for immediate source characterization since they are liquid products used frequently in
large quantities in most of the indoor environments listed above. Seven test methods which have
been used by various EPA program offices to test architectural paints and coatings as well as
other consumer/commercial products have been identified.
A testing program has begun that will test an alkyd and a latex paint using all seven
methodologies to develop the information necesary to select a method(s) for the characterization
of interior architectural coatings as well as to assess the comparability of the data generated by
each test method.
358
-------
If the test method results compare well, the wealth of data already generated by these methods
may be used to fill data gaps in the SRD for emissions data. Product categories that rank high
will undergo further assessment to characterize risk and to define specific data gaps. The theme
of this approach is the identification of risks from groups of products with common use and
exposure patterns. This will allow EPA to make decisions on specific products that are of
concern within these product groups. Decisions on product categories may lead to a variety of
follow-up activities such as:
• Emissions testing to measure VOCs or specific chemicals
• Toxicologic testing of component chemicals
• Initiation of an industry "Dialogue" to encourage emissions reduction and
substitution of less hazardous chemicals.
359
-------
REACHING HIGHER RECYCLING GOALS
THINK ABOUT PRESCHOOL PUBLIC EDUCATION
John F. Williams
Vice President
HDR Engineering, Inc.
White Plains, New York
Are 40, 50, or even 60 plus percent recycling goals in your future? If the answer is yes, you
are part of a growing number of public officials that are committing their communities to major
changes in solid waste management practices. Many communities are gearing up for recycling
and program expansions. Achieving higher recycling goals will take major capital expenditures,
potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. This investment will take the form of residential,
commercial, and construction and demolition debris recycling programs. It will mean the
development of material recovery plants and transfer stations; yard and possibly municipal solid
waste composting facilities; household hazardous waste programs; white goods collection and
recovery; residue disposal facilities; ancillary buildings; and trucks, loaders, and other
miscellaneous equipment.
Aside from the obvious financial stretch, the infrastructure challenge is relatively clear and
technically attainable. A more significant challenge exists in changing public attitudes. In order
for the infrastructure to work, residents and businesses will have to be convinced that individual
participation in the solid waste management system is essential. Easier said than done.
To date a large portion of public funds and attention has been focused on equipment purchases
and infrastructure development. While excellent educational material has become available, it
must compete for limited space in school curricula as well as limited funds for other forms of
dissemination. It is safe to say that the public, in general, is interested in recycling. However,
little evidence is available to indicate a presence of recycling "attitudes." Without action to back
up public opinion on the local level, our recycling programs will fall short of projected
expectations.
Two rural counties in upstate New York recently completed a planning process that could be
viewed as typical. Their 20-year solid waste management plan, published in December 1990,
makes projections through the year 2010. Conclusions of the plan will be used to guide the
development of an overall waste disposal system.
361
-------
The plan shows that the combined counties achieved a recycling/reduction rate of 8 percent in
1990. By the year 2010 recycling/reduction efforts are expected to increase to 59 percent or
nearly 650 tons per day. To achieve this rate residents and businesses must increase their
individual efforts by almost 800 percent.
A 59 percent ultimate recycling goal is being used to determine landfill capacity requirements
and also the fate of an existing waste-to-energy facility. Capital investments necessary to support
the program approach $100 million.
Progress short of the goal will result in premature consumption of waste disposal capacity. Local
residents could be faced with serious financial and developmental ramifications.
Projections for reduction and material recovery used in our example are not unusual. They arc
in fact more and more typical of waste planning efforts underway. Communities are working
hard to align recycling infrastructures with market requirements.
Many communities have made, substantial commitments to educational programs. Funds are
limited however, and mere is a need to gain maximum benefit from available resources.
With maximum return on funds in mind, HDR conducted research to identify the "ideal" window
in psychological development during which education should begin. After examining work in
cognitive development and social learning theory by renowned experts, including Swiss
psychologist and biologist Jean Piaget, Ulric Neissis and others, we concluded that preschoolers
ages two to four should be the focus of initial educational efforts. Much of our thesis was based
on the assumption that in learning there is a distinct advantage to starting at the beginning with,
in essence, a "clean slate."
Since knowledge is acquired on a cumulative basis, the key to education is to provide the proper
"building blocks" as a starting point An objective for recycling education should be to avoid
contributing to or encouraging disposal habits that will have to be broken later. Retraining is in
many cases only partially successful and potentially a wasteful use of public resources.
Children are ready to receive information about recycling during what Piaget described as the
preoperational period of intellectual development Between the ages of two and four children
begin to use symbols to represent objects that are not present They can engage in symbolic
thought as their mental world expands rapidly.
Many public officials are faced with growing pressure to rapidly implement or expand recycling
programs. The voting public is eager to learn how it can participate. At the same time, dollars
for education must compete with the financial needs of other critical services. How can public
362
-------
officials launch an education program designed to start "at the beginning" of the learning
process?
To gain the most benefit from educational programs, they must be audience appropriate.
Effective communication efforts are linked to an understanding of the interests, needs and
abilities of the target audience. Recognizing the need for inexpensive, readily available material
our earlier research was expanded to identify existing programs designed for preschoolers.
During the course of that effort a major void in the environmental education movement was
revealed. This critical period in child development had almost been totally overlooked. Literally
thousands of programs are available for grades K through coDege, however none had been
specifically designed to serve as a basis for learning during the initial years of development.
In 1989 HDR began to work with Family Communications, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation
headed by Fred Rogers of public television. An educational package was developed that included
a segment of MISTER ROGERS' NEIGHBORHOOD in which ways to recycle and conserve
resources were discussed. In addition to the half-hour videotape, a 24-page printed activity guide
for preschool teachers or "care givers" was developed.
The 1989 effort was the first major initiative aimed at carrying a recycling "lesson" to very
young children. Aired on nearly 300 stations of the Public Broadcasting System, more than 14
million households tuned in to view the program.
Fred Rogers is a powerful example to young children eager to learn. The videotape shows Mister
Rogers asking his viewers to think about what we really need before we buy, and think about
other things we can do with waste material before we throw it away. Mister Rogers' suggestions
have major significance. Preschool children love and respect Fred Rogers. A recent poll by
Playskool (a manufacturer of educational and developmental toys) asked preschoolers in five
American cities what famous person should be the next president--45 percent said Mister Rogers.
The material featuring Mister Rogers is now available to the general public for any
noncommercial application. Rights to the videotape were purchased by HDR and donated to the
general public. The activity guide was developed under an HDR grant. Both the videotape and
guide are available at minimal cost through local affiliates of Keep America Beautiful, Inc. or
by calling (402) 399-1010. Under agreement with Family Communications, Inc., no profit may
be taken on the sale or distribution of the material. No commercial endorsements are made.
Through television and Mister Rogers, a mechanism is in place to reach a majority of the nation's
preschoolers this year and for years to come. A program was launched in 1990 to distribute the
material on a nationwide basis. Preliminary data indicates that over 14 million households have
been reached via television. Nearly 100 municipalities have distributed copies of the material.
If the effort were expanded and sustained through the 20-year waste planning cycle, roughly 25
363
-------
percent of the UJS. population would receive recycling education from Mister Rogers at the
beginning of their Eves. The residual effect of children and their influence on siblings, friends
and relatives is difficult 10 estimate but it would no doubt reach millions of others.
By the year 2010, when communities are expecting to reach their maximum recycling potential,
nearly 76 million Americans could have been exposed to the program. Today's four-year-olds
will be 25 and at a point when they start raising their own children. By 2010, both parents and
Mister Rogers wsuki foe setting a good example.
Americans are in esenoce betting the future of generations to come on the ability to change public
attitudes about wane management. People working on recycling programs in upstate New York
and across the caumay need help in increasing recycling levels by hundreds of percent Preschool
public education pomades assurance that the necessary attitudinal changes can occur.
364
-------
RECYCLING NEVER TAKES A VACATION
Aletha Spang
Desvernine and Spang
Warren, NJ
INTRODUCTION
With the implementation of mandatory recycling in New Jersey, all of the State's 567
municipalities have developed recycling programs for their residents. However, how does a
municipality manage a program when this residential population increases by a factor of 10 for
three months of the year? How do you plan your program - your collection system and your
processing facility for these wide swings in amounts of material? How do you publicize the
recycling requirements to a transient population? And, how do you educate them, if they are
not recycling at home, that they must now recycle on vacation?
It is generally accepted that certain steps should be followed to develop publicity and education
programs. Publicity is defined as capturing the attention of the audience through the use of mass
media and promotional techniques. Education sustains this public interest and may include
formal classroom instruction, informal presentations and written instructional materials. Most
educational manuals will not include enforcement measures as educational tools. However, how
many of us learn the hard way, that if you speed, you may get a ticket, and if it happens often
enough, you may lose your license to drive? Enforcement of any law becomes a teaching tool.
Similarly, enforcement of the recycling law is a strong tool, and is, therefore, included in the
discussion of educational methods used in the selected programs.
The steps taken to develop publicity and education programs are:
• Identify the audience
• Develop the message
• Select various approaches
• Implement program
This paper will provide case studies of selected New Jersey programs and follow the steps they
have taken to not only develop programs and educational materials for their year round
residents, but to successfully cope with the additional population for three months of the year.
365
-------
Tourism is New Jersey** second largest industry, and four of the State's 21 counties contain
many ocean-front communities which are heavily impacted by the influx of tourists. Countywide
programs in both Atlantic and Cape May Counties will be presented. Since .neither Monmouth
or Ocean County have countywide programs, two municipal programs, one in each county, will
be examined. Map (Figure 1) shows the location of the area being studied.
BELMAR, MONMOUTH COUNTY
If recycling can work in Belmar, it can work anywhere is a statement often heard. Belmar's
population does increase tenfold, and along with the residential population, Belmar attracts
many, many people who come to the shore for the day, either on their boats or to use the beach.
Belmar is convenienfly located, a little more than an hour from New York City, and the railroad
runs through the town with the station being walking distance from the beaches. It is also easily
reached by major east-west and north-south roadways. The borough is small, only 1 square mile
and they have 1 mile of boardwalk. In addition, they have a large marina on the bay side of the
borough which holds many pleasure boats and many large charter boats. Summer and winter
population and summer and winter tonnage of recyclables are shown, (Figure 2a).
However, in spite of all these obstacles Belmar's recycling program works. It works because
they have used a successful combination of the "carrot" and "stick". Bottles and cans are
commingled and collected at the curb as is newspaper. Plastic containers, magazines .and junk
mail are also mandated but are collected at the dropoff center which is open 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. While this is a convenience for the residents, it presents a problem as it must be
cleaned at least once a day. However, this convenience is very likely one of the key elements
to the success of the program.
The audience thai the program must reach is boaters, daytrippers and renters. They are
provided recycling instructions when they purchase their beach tag and when they receive their
licenses which arc required for all property rentals. Recycling schedules are posted at the marina
and at the pavilions on the boardwalk.
Although enforcement measures may not technically be listed as methods of education, they do
send a strong message which serves as an educational tool. While the local ordinance places
responsibility for recycling on the homeowner, if summons are given they are served on the
tenant - and they are used. The first year of the program, they issued 150 summons - the local
ordinance allows for & maximum fine of $500. The message is obviously getting out because
the last two summers, the number of summons given was negligible. A second type of
enforcement is also used - if recyclables are found in the trash, crews leave the trash with a
warning notice on it,(Rgore 3). Simple, but effective.
According to the recycling coordinator, the worst problem area and most difficult to handle was
the marina area. This created particular problems because of illegal dumping of trash. The
solution to this was to remove the large dumpsters and require each boat owner to place their
366
-------
trash at the curb for pickup by municipal crews. Containers are also provided for recyclables
and signs are prominently placed explaining recycling requirements, with warnings of fines if
they are not followed. It should.be added that a tank for the collection of used motor oil is also
provided at the marina.
This is definitely a low-budget program as far as educational materials. They have not provided
color-coded containers as some towns have, or created glossy brochures to sell the program.
What they have done is to make the program simple and convenient for participants, provided
clear and simple instructions for preparing materials and enforced for non-compliance.
CAPE MAY COUNTY
"Don't Take a Vacation from Recycling"
If Belmar's program could be said to be minimal as far as educational activities, Cape May's
program, runs the gamut from flying airplane banners to billboards to promotional items to
newspaper ads. Cape May County is the southernmost county in the State, and consists of 16
municipalities (8 of which are oceanfront communities located on a barrier island). Their
population in the summer is at least 6 times more than the winter. The county is 265 square
miles and contains 49 miles of beach front. The municipalities range from ocean communities
to bay communities to extremely sparsely populated rural communities. In addition, they have
over 40 privately owned campgrounds in the county. Summer and winter populations as well
as summer and winter tonnage of recyclables are shown in Figure 4a.
All communities collect commingled glass, tin, aluminum and plastic at the curb as well as
mixed paper. These materials are brought to the county processing facility at no charge to the
municipalities. Private contractors as well as municipal crews provide the collection.
While there are some daytrippers to Cape May, it is a distance from the population centers and,
because of this, visitors tend to come for at least a weekend. The audience that this program
needs to reach is boaters, renters, hotel/motel guests and campers. They reach out to this
population through a variety of methods. They buy TV commercials on local stations and cable
stations and place ads in local newspapers. They put signs advertising recycling on trams and
jitneys that service the island communities. They provide basic information to campground
owners which is then customized on campground letterhead. A mylar sticker was developed for
use in hotels and motels which can be placed either on the mirror or on the back of the door.
It advises guests that they are required to recycle. For the boating population, "A Boaters'
Guide to Recycling" was developed.
The county coordinator states that the most difficult audience to reach is the "short stay
vacationers". In other words, those who come for a weekend or for a week. The best way to
reach them is via "The Vacationers Guide to Recycling" (see Figure 5). This is distributed
directly to the real estate agents who distribute it with the key to the rental units. It contains the
367
-------
basic information of *dhy, what, how, and when.
I would also lite to ircggftsT that .the success of the program is related to the dedication of the
county staff who spend many weekend hours with their "Summer Road Show". This consists
of a display, handout materials and staff who answer questions on a one to one basis.
Promotional materials such as foam beverage insulators and magnets are distributed at these
events. The road stow appears at events ranging from the county 4-H Fair to boardwalk
festivals to environmental and craft fairs.
The program is enforced through inspections of municipal solid waste at the county landfill. If
more than 5% iccydatotes are found the hauler is fined S289/ton. At the local level, all
municipalities have ordnances and can levy fines on residents and businesses, and many
municipalities have inspectors who inspect the waste.
This program is exsremely successful because they have the funds and the imagination to
undertake a myriad of educational activities. The businesses in the county have been assisted
in the implementation of their programs, and have been given materials to educate their summer
population. The program is being enforced both at the curb and at the disposal site. It should
also be noted thai ttoe collection program is simple" for the residents - they only need to sort their
materials into two categories, and the collection is efficient.
SURF CITY, OCEAN COUNTY
The Borough of Surf Qty is one of the seven communities located on Long Beach Island. Long
Beach Island is 14 mate long and its width ranges from as much as two miles to a few blocks
wide. It is connected to the mainland by one bridge, and is a very popular tourist area. Surf
City is located in the middle of the island, and is one of the first communities which you reach
after you come over the bridge. The municipality is 1.5 square miles and has slightly less than
one mile of beadifeonnL The summer and winter populations and summer and winter tonnage
of recyclables cdtocflBfl are shown in Figure 2b.
Municipal crews coileet commingled glass, tin and aluminum at the curb. They also collect
newspapers, and connotated boxes and cardboard bundled together. This municipality, like
Belmar has not spottt Barge amounts on glossy brochures, or promotional materials.
Surf City consists mm$y of single family homes and small businesses. Large numbers of these
homes are rented for a! or pan of the summer. Therefore, the audience, this program must
reach is the homeowner; and particularly the renter. While there are some tourists who come
for the day, they arc inmost likely visiting in a rental home.
The recycling inforanaifian is disseminated through the real estate agents who provide information
to the renters as they pick up their keys. It is also distributed when beach badges are purchased
and close to 100% Gtftihe tourists do purchase them. Information is placed at the main entrance
366
-------
of the borough hall.
The municipal Code Enforcement Officer provides a critical element of this program. This
officer may issue warnings and summons, however, the officer also provides recycling brochures
and stickers for the recycling containers. In other words, the code officer becomes an important
part of the educational process - by informing, when necessary and by warning, when necessary
and by issuing summonses if that should become necessary.
The recycling coordinator states that the most difficult audience to reach is the "young" adults
who are usually at the beach to "have a good time". They have found that the most effective
way to reach this audience is by the Code Enforcement Officer.
It should also be noted that Ocean County has provided igloos to its municipalities for the
collection of mixed bottles and cans. These igloos have been placed in prominent places on
Long Beach Island, along the median strip of the main north-south road, at marinas and at
certain beach locations. In addition, each municipality provides trash containers as well as
recycling containers at each entrance to the beach - in other words, at the end of each east-west
street.
ATLANTIC COUNTY
"Recycling is a Shore Thing"
Atlantic County has five oceanfront towns located on the barrier island. The remainder of the
towns are fairly sparsely populated and some of them contain very rural areas. While the
oceanfront towns do have some increase in their population during the summer, this county is
the home of Atlantic City and more than a dozen casinos. The casinos have had a dramatic
influence on the population of Atlantic City, and of the surrounding towns where many of the
employees live. Because of this, their solid waste stream does not show large seasonal swings,
although the amount of recyclables collected does increase somewhat in the summer, (see Figure
4b).
Like the Cape May County program, Atlantic County has a countywide program. However, in
the case of Atlantic, the Utilities Authority also provides a collection program for the 23 towns
in the county. The material is then taken to the county processing facility where it is sorted and
marketed. In addition, to collecting from the county residences, the authority is expanding its
collection program to include county businesses.
The materials which are mandated by the county are plastic containers, glass containers,
newspapers, aluminum cans, tin cans, household batteries and telephone books, junk mail and
magazines. Residents are asked to place plastics in one container, and glass, aluminum and tin
in another container. Corrugated and newspaper and magazines and junk mail are collected in
separate bundles.
369
-------
Atlantic County's program works because they have made the program simple; they collect an
inclusive list of materials and reliable collection is provided by Utilities Authority crew. Bottles
and cans as well as paper products are collected commingled. The county has also produced an
extensive number of educational and promotional materials - from-rulers and pins to litter bags
to brochures for businesses and general brochures for residents. They have also developed a
brochure for tourists and arranged to have it placed in the tourist information centers on the
major New Jersey highways (see Figure 6).
Probably the most successful educational tool which they have used to promote their program
has been to develop a character, the only one of the ocean counties to do this. Supercan visits
pre-schools, day camps, and local fairs and festivals. In addition, Supercan spends weekends
walking the beaches and talking with visitors and residents, explaining the program to them and
encouraging them to recycle.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarize, these very different municipal and county recycling programs all seem to have
been successful at reaching that transient population which wants to come to the shore and have
fun, and forget their responsibilities.
The following similarities are noted (and indeed, these similarities most likely occur in all
successful programs, whether or not they must deal with large swings in population):
• SIMPLICITY. All these programs collect commingled cans and bottles.
• EFFICIENCY. All the programs collect material at least weekly, and
most of them provide a place to dropoff materials if collection has been
missed.
• TARGETED EDUCATION. All the programs provide materials which
explain why, what, where and when in simple language. These materials
are targeted where the transient population is found - rental offices,
beaches, campgrounds, etc.
• SELECTED ENFORCEMENT. Each program works for compliance
and enforces, when necessary - at the curb and at the disposal site -
through the use of warnings and actual summons.
370
-------
NEW
JERSEY
_ NION
OMERS
MIDDLESE
Belmar
Surf City
Figure 1
371
-------
BELMAR, NJ
Population
Winter Summer
R»cyrJ.d
Winter Summer
Figure 2a
SURF CITY, NJ
•O.KM
10100
Poputeboci
Winter Sumnwr
Summer
Figure 2b
-------
N2 701
BELMAR OFRCE OF RECYCLING
WARNING
Your garbage was not collected
today because recyclable materials
were mixed in.
Your garbage will be collected on
your next regular trash day, once the
recyclables have been removed.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL
RESULT IN A SUMMONS
D Aluminum
D Glass
D Grass
D Tin Cans
Bi Metal
House No.: _
Date:
Officer:
Date:
D Newspapers
D Leaves
D Motor Oil
D Card Board
House No.:
-N?
701
D Aluminum
n Glass
D Grass
D Tin Cans
Bi Metal
D Newspapers
D Leaves
D Motor Oil
D Card Board
Figure 3
373
-------
CAPE MAY COUNTY, NJ
Population
Winter Summer
» 3 nan
*~ 2.000
Summi
Figure 4a
ATLANTIC COUNTY, NJ
Rccyctofi
VMnter Summ»r
Figure 4b
-------
1991 Vacationers
Guide To Recycling
Welcome to Cape May County! Enjoy your
stay at the seashore. While on vacation,
please obey our local laws on ...
MANDATORY RECYCLING
IT'S EASY.'. . . IT'S FAST!. . .
WHAT:
PiPiA (newspapers, nagaztnes. junk nail,
cardboard and corrugated; DO NOT recycle
food contaminated or wax and plastic coated
paper or cardboard.
CLASS (food and beverage bottles and jars)
STIC CONTAINERS (food ind beverage.; soap.
detergent and bleach containers) DO NOT
recycle cottage eheeme, yogurt, *eur creaa
containers; motor oil, antifreeze or other
automobile fluid bottles.
ALUMINUM. TIN } BJ-ME7AL CANS (*od». beer,
fruit, vegetable, pet food, and other food
and beverage cans)
HOW:
?i?iS; Place in a paper grocery bag.
?:*£3. ?'.*£?::, A.jaisun. T:N s a--asri:
CiS3• Place these recyelables together in
one bucket marked "ftecyclables." If a
bucket is not provided, any type of reusable
container is acceptable.
DO NOT place recyelables in plastic bags!
(See other side for collection schedules)
Proouced by.
CAPE MAT COUNTY
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
AUTHORITY
When to
5O&7 37 OU7
before you
SS717 OU7.
IN THE WILDWOOD S
NORTH WILDWOOD (Weekly)
Thu. - Angel sea thru 8th Avenue
Fri. - 9th thru 17th Aves.
Wed. - 18th thru 26th Aves.
QUESTIONS? 522-2030
WILDWOOD (Weekly)
Tue. - 26th to WIIAraod Aves.
Wed. - Oak to Young Aves.
Thu. - Roberts to Taylor Aves.
Fri. - Rio Grande to Cresse Aves.
QUESTIONS? 522-2942
WILDWOOD CREST (Twice Weekly)
Beginning May 27, 1991
MON & WED - Cresse to Fern Roads
TUE i THU - Palm to Monterey Roads
WED S FRJ - St. Paul to Jefferson Rds.
QUESTIONS? 522-7788
WEST WILDWOOD (Weekly)
All streets every Monday.
QUESTIONS? 522-4845 „...
Figure 5
-------
Welcome to
Atlantic County where
Is a
SHORE THING!
in Atlantic
County is now
and your participation
is important to us!
•It's Quick and Easy
-Conserves Natural Resources .
•Protects our Fragile Environment
•Everyone Benefits!
While vacationing in Atlantic County,
please enjoy your visit and
RECYCLE!
Simie tlmius are Ino uoodlo waste •
C1 C?
Sponsored by (he Atlantic County Utilities Authority
ri'illlr'ift'n l«vvf /'•«/ fii/'-'r
Figure 6
376
-------
RECYCLING ON EVERY UEVEL
Susan Whyte
Prince George's County
Office of Recycling
Landover, Maryland
"RECYCLING ON EVERY LEVEL" begins with placing the emphasis on the "R". We all
know the three "r's"-"Reading, Riling, and Rithmetic." Now it is time to talk about a parallel
usage-'Reduce, reuse, and recycle." Using this metaphor is made easier by adding a final "R",
for relate. Now we will be able to open the door of understanding for our youth.
Our youth are faced with a number of growing social issues that will directly affect them as
adults. By educating our youth on these issues, today, before the issues become a problem
tomorrow, gives us the opportunity to ensure their future will be better. One such issue is the
environment.
We are a wasteful people. We are victims of our own prosperity. Everyday we throw solid
waste materials into receptacles without ever considering where it will go. Once it leaves our
possession we continue with our daily routine not realizing that the article we have discarded is
destined for the landfill or some other type of facility. We must make our children aware of
what happens to their waste.
Where is that test paper I have just discarded and disregarded going? Am I responsible for it's
destination? Yes!
We are in a position to teach our youth that the disposal of the aluminum can, glass bottle, steel
& tin food container, plastic jug and paper products will have a direct impact on their future and
their quality of life. Nobody wants to live next to a landfill.
In order to reach the student, we have established the initial relationship of how the solid waste
management issue affects their future. Now we have to make it appealing. Simply, recycling
is clean, healthy and prosperous. Recycling saves natural resources, landfill space, time, energy
and money and it enhances our environment.
Showing our youth that they are responsible for their own environment; from their bedroom, to
their classroom, to the street they live on, county they live in and then the world, gives them
a sense of involvement. The youth can now see how their participation is an important
component in the "Save the Environment" effort.
So, now we have established the relationship "R" by appealing to and directly involving the
377
-------
youth. At this point we iriust give them the information to support the issue. Visual aides as
well as lectures and demonstrations seem to impress our youth. Developing props such as
recycling series that can be handled by the students allows them to see as well as hear what
happens to solid waste.
Making paper in the classroom from used paper that has been thrown in a trash receptacle-
demonstrates: saving time, energy, natural resources, and landfill space-right before their eyes.
You support your argument. Supplying plastic chips along with old and new plastic bottles
shows die recycling cycle. Showing the actual process as well as talking about it makes it
conceivable. Videos are another tool that is effective in developing interest as long as the videos
are bright, fun and do not last too long.
Once you have captured their interest and proven your points, you can now develop and
introduce the solutions and the role of our youth. Why should we recycle? And how can I
make a difference?
Recycling is easy! We have given them the proper receptacles to discard their valuable material.
And now, they no longer consider it waste. It means something to them. We tell the students;
Instead of throwing that valuable piece of white "highgrade" paper in the trash, throw it in the
box provided for white paper. The same with the aluminum can and the materials they recycle
at home. All they have to do now is RECYCLE!
Tt is also important to make it a positive assignment. Not another chore that relates to taking
out the trash or making the bed. But, profess that by throwing it in the bin/box instead of the
ordinary trash can means "1 am doing something positive for myself."
We cannot make children recycle in the same way we make them clean their room. It will only
be perceived as a burden. Make it fun, interesting and self rewarding. Best results come from
adhering to the youths need to feel important. The same level of importance that is needed to
"SAVE THE EARTH."
378
-------
RESULTS OF U.S. EPA RESEARCH ON MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION
Carlton C. Wiles
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio
Abstract
During the past several years, US EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio has supported research on the characterization, testing, treatment, and utilization of
residues from combustion of municipal solid waste. These research projects include the
evaluation of several solidification/stabilization (S/S) processes to treat the residues from a
modem waste-to-energy facility. An array of physical and leaching tests were applied to
evaluate the effectiveness of the S/S processes. Other research investigated the effects of MWC
ash leachates on clay and geo-membrane liners. Leachates were used to evaluate the potential
degradation to the liners as tested by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods
9100 and 9090. Results from these research projects and others will be summarized in this
paper. In addition, the paper will discuss issues associated with utilization of the residues and
the current research and demonstrations being conducted to resolve the issues.
Introduction
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), Office of Research and Development
(ORD), USEPA is conducting research to evaluate alternatives for the disposal, treatment, and
utilization of residues from municipal solid waste combustion (MWC). The manner in which
this waste should be managed (i.e., as a special waste under Subtitle D or as a hazardous waste
under Subtitle C of RCRA) continues to be a controversial issue among the regulators, the
regulated, and the public. While Congress has initiated several legislative actions to specifically
address this issue, none have been enacted. However, MWC residues where exempted from
requirements of Subtitle C for 2 years in the latest amendment to the Clean Air Act. ORD has
been proactive in conducting research in anticipation that RCRA reauthorization or other
legislation will be enacted which will require the EPA to promulgate rule making and guidance
regarding the disposal, management, and utilization of MWC residues. This paper summarizes
some of this research.
379
-------
Summary of Seleqgd |flWC Residue Research Projects
This section summarizes five (5) MWC residue research projects supported by KREL, these are:
• The U.S. EPA MWC Ash Solidification/Stabilization (S/S) Evaluation Program
•• Effect of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Monofill Leachate on Selected
Containment Barrier Components
• The Namre of Lead, Cadmium, and other Elements in Incinerator Residues and
their Stabilized Products
• Mobility of Dioxins and Furans from Stabilized Incinerator Residues in Seawater
• Municipal Waste Combustion Residue Utilization Demonstrations
The U.S. EPA MWC Ash Solidification/Stabilization Evaluation Program
In this program, vendors of S/S technologies treated MWC residue under controlled conditions
and observation by U.S. EPA technical personnel. The objective was to evaluate the
effectiveness of the technologies to treat the residues. In addition to a basic portland cement
process control, four vendor S/S processes were evaluated. These were portland cement and a
polymeric additive (Process 1), portland cement with soluble silicates (Process 2), quality
controlled waste pozzotons (Process 3), and a soluble phosphate process (Process 4). Residues
used were collected from a state-of-art municipal waste combustion (MWC) mass burn facility
with energy recovery, semi-dry scrubbers and fabric filters. The residues treated were the
bottom ash, fly ash with scrubber residue, and combined ash. (1)
Treated and untreated residues were subjected to a series of physical and chemical tests to
evaluate the treatment process. Leaching protocols included the Toxicity Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) as well as leaching tests designed to evaluate target constituent
release in varied pH conditions and over long time periods. These included a serial distilled
water leach test, acid neutralization capacity (ANC), total availability leach test, and a monolith
leach test. Physical tests included unconfmed compressive strength (UCS), UCS after emersion,
wet/dry weathering, freeze/thaw weathering, and permeability determinations. (2,3)
Because of the large number of data generated, only selected results are provided in this paper.
All untreated and treated bottom ash and combined ash samples passed the TCLP extract
concentration criteria. Untreated Air Pollution Control (APC) residue exceeded the TCLP
criteria for lead and mercury. The treated APC residue, however, passed TCLP criteria. Target
contaminant release during the monolith leach test can be compared to the total concentration
in the sample (total chemical analysis) and the amount available for leaching as determined by
the availability leach test. Figure 1 is an example, in this case for combined ash treated by
process 2 and the target constituents Na, Cl, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn. Effective diffusion
coefficients (pDe) are also indicated for the target constituents. The larger the pDe, the slower
the release of the constituents from the matrix. Note that for this example, data from the
380
-------
Fig. 1 Contaminant release during the monolith teach test compared to the total and available
contaminant content.
COMBINED Ash
PROCESS 2
I10*
o
J
UI
to 1O'
tu
£E
Na .*•••"•" *
. . • '
•••''«
A
pO«-9.71
10 11
1U'
1O"
10"
10
30 0
_ CL
. '6
. - - A
••' *
* pO«-«.«1
i
11 10 1C
1U
10'
10'
10°
10"
Cd
A ... A •••*"
*••••*""* pD«->16.S
TU*
10"
10*
101
1O\
Cu
..•••••*"'
..••"'' *
pt>»-13.07
10
100
10
1OS
1O"
103
10s
1O'
10°
in-'
Pb
A A .. A ••'*"'
A «•••••
pO«-16.83
Legend: A A
ID
100
1O3
10'
10'
10s
10V
Zn
. . . . v,- • • • i" '
•••••»" * pD»" 16.64
10 100
TIME (DAYS)
Monolith leach test data
Diffusion based leaching model
_ _ _ Availability (transformed from availability leach test)
Total (transformed from total chemical analysis)
381
-------
monolith leach test generally match release rates predicted by the diffusion base leaching model.
In general, the data rfrom the monolith leach test are consistent with data from total analysis and
the availability teach test. Total concentration was the greatest value, .availability was somewhat
less than the total concentration, and the cumulative monolith release did not exceed either the
total concentration or the available concentrations. Examples of cumulative elemental and
species release after 64 days of leaching by the monolith leach test is provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CBrmflztive elemental and species release after 64 days leaching, using the
monolith leach test Values reported for untreated residues are 32 day release values
transformed to provide estimates of release after 64 days for comparison purposes. All release
values are in units of Jmg/m2].
Ash type: COMBMBDAsti
Release Utwneated Process 1
Process 2
Process 3
Process 4 CONTROL
Aluminum
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
. Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Nickel
Nitrate
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Zinc
3,400
680
13,000
M>
21D/000
MEQ.OQD
«57
130
570
14
59
1,800
110
USD
2SO£>OD
5,400
260,000
1,8DD
C,70D
95
4,500
190
7,900
0.40
77,000
560,000
16
67
310
10
20
540
17
460
160,000
2,300
170,000
660
28,000
.39
53.000
6.8
17,000
0.53
6,300
820,000
130
280
280
34
130
110
12
1,300
170,000
12,000
1 ,800,000
69
760,000
130
6,300
200
1 3,000
ND
49,000
1 ,200,000
9.2
160
71
22
210
180
17
130
940,000
4,500
280,000
610
130,000
24
16,000
580
6,000
ND
1 20,000
380.000
ND
100
85
6.6
30
110
ND
120
82,000
1,000
79,000
640
15,000
36
7,200
890
14,000
0.87
180,000
900,000
8.8
110
210
11
92
320
12
290
310,000
2,600
260,000
1,700
13,000
34
The final report far fins effort is currently in preparation and will provide many more sets of
data. From data oro release rates, however, the following summary is provided. Data from the
monolith leach test provides substantial information beyond that obtained from existing
regulatory tests fcrr predicting long-term leaching effects and usefulness in making a product
quality improvemeaa. The application of a modified monolith leach test to determine intrinsic
leaching properties for granular materials also appears to be very consistent and data are
comparable with resotes from other type of diffusion measurements.
Results evaluating tine physical retardation in the stabilized APC residues for all of the vendor-
processes indicated Html very limited or no physical retardation was achieved. At present, a
comparison with the untreated residue is not possible but it is unlikely that any physical
382
-------
retardation will exist in this material. This leads to the conclusion' that little improvement in
physical retention was obtained by stabilizing the APC material. Only a small physical
retardation effect was observed for the stabilized bottom and combined ash. The results for the
phosphoric acid process (Process 4) indicated a higher physical retardation than any of the other
processes.
The chemical retention in the untreated bottom and combined ash in some cases was greater than
in the treated material. This must be due to changes in the chemical properties of the material
after addition of binders (cement or other). A few typical differences between the processes
were observed. In Process 2, the addition of process additives resulted in increased release of
the aluminum and sulfate. However, the vendor additives include sulfates. The mobilities of
barium, calcium, and strontium were significantly decreased as a consequence of the higher
sulfate mobility. It appears that in Process 3, the highest pH levels are occurring in the
porewater, based on the sensitivity of magnesium mobility to pH. The higher Mg retention in
Process 4 also may be attributed to the formation of new mineral phases. In Process 4, an
increase in the aluminum release was noted, which may indicate the mobilization and subsequent
precipitation of alumino phosphates. The retention values for individual elements in the products
from the different processes are rather consistent, other than the mentioned differences. This
indicates systematic trends dictated by the major element chemistry in the product matrices,
which does not appear to differ significantly between the different vendor processes, except
Process 4. For cases where the monolith remained structurally intact, mobility of the metals of
concern (e.g., Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, etc.) where very low with pDe greater than 14.
The major contaminants released from APC residue are salts. In view of the high salt content
in APC residue of up to 30% of the total mass, the release of salts will proceed rather rapidly
and leave large voids, which ultimately lead to the deterioration of the material. The stabilized
APC residue after leaching was highly porous. The release pattern initially reflects (24-48 hr.)
diffusion control, then the voids open up due to loss of mass by dissolution, and ultimately the
release levels off through depletion of leachable salt. Clearly, the treated APC residues should
not be regarded as truly stabilized matrices. All APC products showed either breakdown of the
product matrix or substantial wear during the testing period of 2 months. In view of the high
salt load, attention should be focussed on the release of these constituents. Release of large
quantities of salts may substantially impact drinking water supplies through migration to
groundwater. A judgement based on concentration in leachate is clearly inadequate in this case,
as the ultimate release based on the size of the disposal site is far more important in judging the
acceptability of this type of "stabilized" waste in a landfill.
Effect of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Monofill Leachate on Selected Containment Barrier
Components (4)
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of municipal waste combustion (MWC)
ash monofill leachate on natural and synthetic lining components which may be used in
construction of MWC monofills. Leachate was collected from a monofill containing ash from
a modern state-of-the-art MWC facility (Site A). This facility had a scrubber, and the monofill
383
-------
contained bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber residue. Site B was a monofill containing ash from
an older MWC facility without a scrubber. This monofill contained bottom ash and fly ash.
The following generic geomembrane types were tested: high-density polyethylene (HDPE),
reinforced chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE-R), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). One
filtration/separation geosynthetic was tested: a nonwoven polyester geotextile. Three compacted
soils (Illinois, Lufkin, and Nacogdoches) were evaluated to determine their resistance to the
leachates collected from both monofills.
The chemical resistance of the three geomembranes and nonwoven polyester geotextile exposed
to the ash leachates was investigated in accordance with EPA Method 9090 and associated
supplementary guidance by determining whether the chemical and physical properties of these
materials were adversely affected by exposure to the two leachates. In addition, a series of
pouch tests was performed in which samples of the two leachates were sealed in the pouches
prepared from the three respective geomembranes.
Tests were performed on the unexposed and exposed geomembranes. This testing protocol
conformed to the testing requirements of Method 9090 (U.S. EPA, 1986). U.S. EPA Method
9090, which was specifically designed to assess the chemical resistance of geomembranes and
waste liquids, is divided into two parts; the first part deals with the exposure of geomembrane
samples to a waste liquid, and the second part is concerned with the specific tests performed on
the geomembranes before and after exposure. In this test, slab samples are immersed for up to
4 months at 23c and 50°C in a representative sample of the waste liquid or leachate that would
be contained by the geomembrane. Analytical and physical tests are performed on the
unexposed geomembranes for baseline data and on samples exposed to the waste liquid for 30,
60, 90, and 120 days.
The results of the chemical resistance test of the three geomembranes and the nonwoven
polyester geotextile at both 23° and 50°C indicated that, within the 4 months of exposure to the
two MWC ash leachates, the changes in analytical and physical properties were comparatively
small. Results for the HDPE geomembrane and the polyester geotextile indicate that neither of
these materials were affected by the immersion. The CSPE-R geomembrane showed essentially
no change in strength characteristics; however, the analytical properties which relate to the
CSPE coatings showed slight increases in volatiles and weight and a decrease in extractables.
The observed weight increase (7.4 per cent) resulted predominantly from water absorption. The
values of all three of these properties were continuing to change at the end of the 4 months of
exposure. Also, there was a slight trend downward in ply adhesion. During the 4 months of
exposure, the PVC geomembrane also exhibited little change in properties, indicating short-term
compatibility. During the last 2 months of exposure, however, the PVC showed a trend that
could indicate long-term lack of chemical resistance. To determine whether this trend is
continuing, testing is underway with results expected in July 1992.
384
-------
The study also determined any changes in the hydraulic conductivity of the compacted soils
exposed to MWC leachate. The purpose was to determine if the selected compacted soils are
chemically resistant ..to MWC ash. leachate. Samples of the soils were compacted to 90 percent
of proctor compaction (ASTM D 693) in double-ring permeameters. The compacted soils were
then permeated with a standard leachate (0.005 N CaSO4), followed by the MWC ash leachates,
to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Permeability changes to clay soils upon
exposure to the two ash leachates were assessed using SW 870's Appendix IE C method, "Test
Method for the Permeability of Compacted Clay Soils" (U.S. EPA, 1983),
The pore volumes of leachate that passed through the soil samples and the time increments over
which the leachate was collected were recorded for each compartment (inner and outer rings)
of the double-ring permeameters. The collected data were used to calculate both the total pore
volume of leachate that passed through each soil sample and the hydraulic conductivity of each
sample. Electrical conductivity (EC) was used as an index parameter to document the
breakthrough of the leachate through the soil samples. Leachate that permeated the soil samples
was collected and divided into two 15-mL aliquots. EC measurements were made of the
saturated paste extract of each soil type, the water used in the study, and each of the MWC ash
leachates.
The passage of more than two pore volumes of MWC ash leachate (from Sites A and B) through
three compacted soil samples (Illinois, Lufkin, and Nacogdoches) showed no significant changes
in hydraulic conductivity of these soils. Because the hydraulic conductivity values of the three
soils to both MWC ash leachates did not significantly increase over the values to water, the soils
were considered to be chemically resistant to both MWC ash leachates used in the study.
Results from the tests conducted on the selected natural and synthetic lining components exposed
to MWC ash monofill leachate indicate that with proper engineering considerations, carefully
selected materials can be expected to perform as designed.
The Nature of Lead, Cadmium, and Other Elements in Incineration Residues
and Their Stabilized Products (5)
The principal focus of this study has been to identify the chemical speciation of elements in the
solid phases and in their stabilized products. The information obtained from the solid phase
studies is being integrated with leaching studies and geochemical thermodynamic equilibrium
modeling to better understand solid phase dissolution or change in dissolution potential. This
will improve the understanding of the environmental availability of the metals in the residues and
the potential effects of S/S on residue leachate quality.
The investigators are using a variety of fractionation techniques, bulk analysis and surface
microanalysis techniques, and geochemical modeling (MINTEQA1) of leaching of residues to
ascertain residue mineralogy, elemental speciation and bonding, and solid phase dissolution. The
residues under investigation are a hazardous waste bottom ash (HWBA) and hazardous waste dry
385
-------
lime scrubber residue (HWSR) from a U.S. rotary kiln hazardous waste incinerator; MSW
bottom ash (USBA) and MSW dry lime scrubber residue (USSR) from a U.S. mass burn
combustor; and MSW ESP ash.(CESP).and MSW dry lime scrubber (CSR) from a Canadian
mass burn combustor. The residues are size reduced (<300 /xm) and characterized for acid
neutralizing capacity as well as total composition using neutron activation analysis (NAA).
Fractionation schemes employing magnetic separation (isodynamic separation) density gradient
separation (1,1,2,2-tetrabromeoethane, <2.95 g/cm3 or > 2.95 g/cm3), and acid etching are used
to concentrate phases into magnetic fraction, glassy fractions, low density solid solutions, and
higher density metal oxide, carbonate, sulfate, and chloride fractions. Specimens are analyzed
in powder form, petrpgraphic 30pm thin sections, or thin foils.
The materials are being characterized with petrography, X-ray microprobe (XRM) in SEM or
STEM modes, X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). Element
bonding and valency are being investigated by electron energy loss spectrometry (EELS) and
extended x-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS).
Preliminary results on NAA-based composition and XRPD-based mineralogy have been
completed for all the various ashes. Detailed studies are now underway on fractionated HWBA.
The bottom ash is approximately equal parts magnetic/high density, non-magnetic/low density,
and non-magnetic/high density material. Isodynamic fractionation concentrates the tectosilicate-
based quartz and feldspars from the magnetic mineral phases. The quartz and feldspars are
believed to originate from combusted waste soils. XRPD confirms the presence of these major
mineral constituents plus mineral phases present in lower concentrations (e.g. complex oxides,
silicates) for many other dements (e.g. Pb, Zn, Cu). Petrographic analysis shows complex solid
phases containing metal alloys, quartz and feldspar. Additionally, highly porous (pumice-like)
amorphous particles are present with mineral inclusions and crystal precipitates in the pores.
XRM work shows high degrees of metal heterogeneity.
Mobility of Dioxins and Furans from Stabilized Incineration Residues in Seawater (6,7)
The objective of this research was to determine the fate of organic contaminants, particularly
dioxins and furans, in aquatic environments and whether or not they pose a threat to the
environment. This research was partially supported by RREL as an adjunct to research by
Roethel, et al (8) which confirmed that stabilization significantly reduced potential release of
metals from the residues when placed in seawater. U.S. EPA was interested in determining the
fate of organics in the MWC ashes to more fully characterize the potential environmental affects
of the residues under different management alternatives.
During the study, MWC residue was stabilized by Portland cement into cylinders for testing.
The stabilized specimens, after curing, were subjected to compressive strength measurements
and generally exceeded 1300 psi. Selected specimens were submerged in glass tanks of distilled
386
-------
water or seawater at a 4:1 liquid-to solid ratio. Solutions in each tank was constantly mixed
using a magnetic stinrer. The pH of each tank was monitored and adjusted with dilute nitric acid
to pH 7.9-8.2 for seawater and pH 7.0-7.3 for distilled water. After 10 months of submersion,
the stabilized ash specimen and control specimens (stabilized sand-gravel) were removed-and the
water from each tank analyzed for dioxins and furans. All samples, including the cement, sand,
and gravel, were analyzed for dioxins and furans prior to the tests.
As a component of the investigation approximately forty blocks of stabilized combined ash were
fabricated at a local cement block plant. These blocks, along with identical control blocks
fabricated using standard aggregates, were submerged in the waters of Long Island Sound to
construct two independent artificial reefs. For two years following placement, divers returned
to examine the site, remove blocks and collect selected marine organisms to assess if PCDD's
and PCFD's, associated with the stabilized ash blocks, were leaching into the sea and being
incorporated within the animals tissue.
The two year investigation determined that the PCDD/PCFD's associated with the ash blocks
were not being leached into the marine environment. Concentrations of these organic
compounds remained nearly unchanged over the duration of the experiment. Marine organisms
that attached themselves to the blocks surfaces were removed from both the ash blocks and
concrete controls. Analyses showed no enrichment of PCDD's or PCDF's within the tissues of
the organisms removed from the ash reef when compared to the control structure.
As a final assessment, the blue mussel, Mytilus edidis, used worldwide as a tracer for marine
pollution, and shown in laboratory experiments to bioaccumulate these compounds, were placed
into the crevices of each reef by divers. Following months of exposure the mussels were
retrieved from both artificial habitats and analyzed for the presence of PCDD's/PCDF's. The
results confirmed these earlier observations that leaching and uptake of dioxins and furans
associated with stabilized blocks of MSW ash does not occur in the marine environment.
The results from this study suggest that dioxins and furans associated with incinerator ash are
not mobile in untreated or stabilized ashes placed into distilled water or seawater. The
investigators recommended that further investigations should be conducted to better define how
stabilization affects the binding of these compounds to the ash. Whether or not this is important
is uncertain, since data from sampling and analysis of leachates from MWC combined ash
disposed in monofills has generally shown levels of toxicity equivalent of dioxins and furans to
be well below any limits established as potentially of any environmental concern. (9, 10, 11)
MWC Residue Utilization Demonstration - Issues and Research
There are several issues associated with and which affect the implementation of MWC residue
utilization (1). Among them is a concern that utilization will result in uncontrolled management
of the residues which could result in adverse consequences to human health and environment.
387
-------
This is mainly bccmase the heavy metals (i.e., Pb, Cd) in the residues if not removed, will still
be present after the useful life of the product containing the ashes. This assumes that they are
•not -mobile and released .to the .environment-during utilization.. While considerable data is
available which indicates that release over short term is not a problem under routine conditions,
the long term fate is unknown. Other issues include available markets for the residues, liability,
uncertain regulatory status, and similar factors which may or may not hinder utilization. The
current research program is emphasizing the evaluation of environmental performance of MWC
residues in alternative uses (e.g., roadbeds, construction, marine application, etc.). The
approach being ateec is to leverage the limited resources by cooperating with MWC ash
utilization deraomstrsctions planned by others. Resources would be provided to assist in
evaluating the environmental emissions and fate of target constituents in the MWC residues when
utilized for different purposes. This effort is just beginning and candidate demonstrations are
being compiled and evaluated for inclusion in the program. As part of this effort, information
is being compiled on MWC residue utilization demonstration projects in the United States and
internationally. (12)
Summary
During the past sevens] years, our MWC residue research has emphasized the characterization
of the residues and evaluation of S/S treatment techniques. Our current emphasis is on better
understanding the form and fate of target constituents in the residue prior to and after treatment
and on providing field data on the environmental behavior of the ashes when applied in
alternative uses, in addition to the research summarized, we are also evaluating glass melting
(vitrification) as a treatment technique, evaluation of the boathouse constructed of stabilized
MWC residues at "flue State University of New York, and investigating the fate, and form and
affects of target Ksrac constituent in MSW on the combustion process and the quality of the
residues (in coopeaatkwi with Environment Canada). The objective of this research is to better
characterize factors which control the performance of the residues over time under different
conditions. This wfflS tthen provide a better means to evaluate and predict expected environmental
behavior and affecas on human health which can be used to develop appropriate strategies for
managing the MWC residues.
388
-------
References
(1) C.C. Wiles, Kosson D.S., Holmes T., The U.S. EPA Program for Evaluation of
Treatment and Utilization Technologies for Municipal Waste Combustion Residues,
Proceedings of WASCON '91 Conference (Environmental Implications of Construction
with Waste Materials), Maastricht, The Netherlands, November 10-14, 1991, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V.
(2) D.S. Kosson, et al, Leaching Properties of Untreated and Treated Residues Tested in the
USEPA Program for Evaluation of Treatment and Utilization Technologies for Municipal
Waste Combustion Residues. IBID
(3) T.T. Holmes, Kosson D.S., Wiles C.C., A Comparison of Five
Solidification/Stabilization Processes for Treatment of Municipal Waste Combustion
Residues -Physical Testing. IBID
(4) D. Carson, Janszen T., Effect of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash Monofill Leachate
on Selected Containment Barrier Components. In Proceeding, 18th Annual Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)Research Symposium, EPA/600/R-99/028,
pages 81-85. RREL, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH,
April, 1992
(5) University of New Hampshire, The Nature of Lead, Cadmium, and Other Elements in
Incineration Residues and Their Stabilized Products, Cooperative Agreement CR818157-
01, RREL, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, Project Officer: Patricia M. Erickson
(6) M. Maertz Wentz, Mobility of Dioxins and Furans from Stabilized Incineration Residue
in Seawater, Special Report No. 95, Reference 91-18, Marine Sciences Research Center,
The University at Stony Brook, NY 1991
(7) State University of New York at Stony Brook, Investigations of the Mobility of Dioxins
and Furans from Stabilized Incinerator Residue, Cooperative Agreement CR815239-01,
RREL, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, Project Officer: Charles Mashni
(8) F. Roethel, et.al., The Fixation of Incineration Residues - Marine Sciences Research
Center Working Paper No. 26, "State University of
New York at Stony Brook, 1986
(9) U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), August 1989, "Municipal Waste
Combustion Ash and Leachate Characterization, Monofill, Baseline Year", Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, DC
389
-------
(10) H. Rofftnan, Cambotti, AWD Technologies, Municipal Waste Combustion, Ash, and
Leachate Characterization; Monofill - Third Year Study, Woodburn Monofill, Woodburn,
OR, October 199.0
11) U.S. EPA, Coalition on Resource Recovery and the Environment (CORRE),
"Characterization of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash, Ash Extracts, and Leachates",
EPA 530-SW-90-029A, March 1990
(12) F. Hoffman, Kosson D., Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Residue Utilization
Demonstration Project Summaries - Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, (In
preparation) RREL, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH, Project Officer: Carlton Wiles
390
-------
SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT: NEWMOA'S APPROACH
Carole J. Ansheles
Solid Waste Program Manager
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA)
S. Portland, ME and Boston, MA
L GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) is a nonprofit interstate
association whose membership is composed of the hazardous and solid waste program directors
for state environmental agencies in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York (hazardous waste only), Rhode Island, and Vermont. NEWMOA was
established by Governors in the New England States as an official interstate regional organization
in accordance with Section 1005 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and in 1986
was formally recognized by the US Environmental Protection Agency. In the hazardous waste,
solid waste and pollution prevention areas, NEWMOA is a forum for the member states to
increase communication and cooperation and develop unified positions on various issues and
programs; NEWMOA also is a source of research and training for its member states.
The NEWMOA solid waste directors requested that the NEWMOA Solid Waste Workgroup
provide an overview of the current scrap tire situation and recommendations, if any, for further
efforts. The subsequent report "Scrap Tire Management in the NEWMOA States," was
completed in May, 1991. It provided information on federal and NEWMOA state activity in
several areas of a scrap tire management program. This paper summarizes that report's
information on components of a scrap tire management program, the status of NEWMOA state
activity in those areas and NEWMOA's current efforts to follow-up on some of the report's
recommendations.
3L PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The scrap tire problem must be addressed with a comprehensive program that includes the
following basic elements: legislation and solid waste management plans; stockpiles; regulations;
procurement and reuse; and fees, special programs and resources. To clean up existing
stockpiles beyond on-site shredding will require affordable and available reuse applications. To
comply with Federal requirements, States will need to expand their recapping programs. To
promote reuse applications, research, development and incentives are necessary. To promote
391
-------
compliance and use of processors, educational efforts are needed. To develop the overall
regulatory prognun rod related aspects, additional resources must be made available.
While comprehensive development and implementation is preferable, states must recognize that
some activities must toe conducted before others can be addressed. More importantly, current
state budgetary and staff constraints may mean that the problem will have to be addressed in a
piecemeal fashion. Therefore, recommendations for developing and implementing the multiple
aspects of the progomn were ranked; Exhibit 1 displays this information.
EXHIBIT 1
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRIORITIES
HTGH PRIORITY
Inventories -
Abatement -
Regulations -
Reuse -
Fees -
Resources -
MEDTUM-TO-
Develop approach; conduct inventory and analyze data
Develop abatement plan and cost recovery approach
£>evdop disposal ban and facility and transporter requirements
jfavestigate and implement reuse applications
Determine fee; collect funds (or obtain appropriations)
Determine and allocate resources
State Laws -
Abatement -
Recapping -
Reuse -
Incentives -
MEDIUM PRIORITY
Procurement -
Procurement -
Recapping -
Outreach -
Resources -
LOW-TO-MEDIUM PSBORTTY
Review, develop recommendations and direct information to appropriate entities
Conduct abatement and cost recovery actions; publicize successes (priority depending on
amatory ranking)
lEsuhlidi contracts; make widely available
Develop and distribute lists of recycled tire processors and product vendors
develop and implement program
foovide price preferences and content specifications
JfYovide for proper disposal or other reuse in state contracts
DeweJop and implement preventive maintenance program
Bweiop and distribute outreach materials.
. overall scrap tire management program director
National laws -
SW plans -
Regulations -
LOW PRIORITY
Health Research-
Recapping -
Review, develop recommendations and direct information to appropriate entities
incorporate scrap tire management approach
investigate requirements for retailers, including joint liability
Communicate with state health research staff
Investigate retreaded passenger car tires
392
-------
A. LEGISLATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
L. Legislation
Generally, specific legislation authorizes, requires or instigates regulatory development. In
addition, laws are needed if special fees are to be assessed or special appropriations made.
Legislation should authorize states to: declare sites as uncontrolled, issue emergency orders and
undertake abatement and cost recovery actions; develop regulations for storage, recycling and
disposal facilities, transporters and possibly retailers; institute special procurement policies;
develop incentive programs; impose special tire fees (in the absence of special appropriations);
and use fee revenues to hire staff, conduct studies, and develop and implement the various
aspects of a comprehensive scrap tire management program.
2L Solid Waste Management Plans
States and the public rely on the state solid waste management plan to provide the overall
priorities and framework for responses to state solid waste problems. Consequently, the state's
approach to scrap tire management should be addressed in its solid waste management plan.
B. STOCKPILES
L. Health and Safety Research
While there has been some examination of the health effects of tire stockpiles (regarding
mosquito breeding), additional work and continued oversight would be desirable. For instance,
health hazards from and proper firefighting techniques for burning stockpiles should be
determined more completely. In addition, health professionals could contribute their knowledge
in ranking stockpiles sites for abatement actions.
2t Inventories
Before any clean up work can begin, the extent of the existing problem must be defined. This
will help to determine the amount of resources needed for stockpile abatement and to devise an
approach for conducting that effort. Formal inventories specify the locations and sizes of
stockpiles and lead to assessments of current and potential health and safety problems. States
will also need to locate owners and operators and assess their ability to finance clean ups.
Reliable information on the numbers and sizes of stockpiles is needed to determine the extent
of the problem and the amount of funds necessary for abatement actions (which will also help
determine the size of any special fee). Ranking factors should be developed, since abatement
actions will have to be phased-in to address concurrently the minimization of acute
environmental hazards and the avoidance of processing and recycling overloads. Such ranking
factors should be considered at the start of any inventory actions. Basic factors should include:
number of tires; site size; environmental aspects (wetlands, floodplains, drinking water sources,
393
-------
proximity to populated areas, etc.); names, addresses and financial status of site owners and
operators; and other appropriate factors.
Finally, states will need to determine the best and least-cost method for conducting the
inventory. Required reporting by site owners and operators evokes a higher response rate than
voluntary programs. States may wish to seek cooperation and assistance from local governments
and other state agencies with staff in the field (such as Fish and Wildlife, Agriculture, etc.) or
even citizens as a result of program publicity.
2L Abatement
Once an inventory has been conducted, follow up actions must be taken. States can develop a
generic remediation/abatement plan and tailor it to specific sites. States should explore various
cost recovery approaches and implement the most feasible. A crucial element is the availability
and cost of exiting processing and end-use markets. Finally, states could publicize successful
cleanups to heighten compliance and make the public aware of the environmental benefits of the
state's activity and funds use.
C. REGULATIONS
Regulations for disposal, facilities and transportation are needed to govern both site clean ups
and ongoing operations. Whole tire disposal bans seem inevitable, and other disposal aspects
must be addressed. States should develop regulations for disposal, storage and recycling
facilities and transporters; states may want to regulate tire dealers as well. Tracking of scrap
tire transportation would encourage an end to illegal dumping. States may also wish to impose
some type of liability on tire retailers.
At a minimum, such regulations should address: storage; chipping; fire control, equipment and
response access; contingency plans and procedures; financial assurance for removal costs; and
tracking of the tires received, processed, shipped, and disposed. In particular, states should
cooperate in developing an interstate mechanism to track scrap tire shipments, lest a particular
state become a favored target for illegal disposal. Finally, states should investigate imposing
requirements on tire retailers (along with transporters and facility owners and operators) such
as joint liability or mandatory acceptance of used tires.
D. PROCUREMENT AND REUSE
JL Procurement
States can influence the recycled product markets through their procurement policies, which may
either provide a price preference or content specification for state purchases of products from
recycled materials. Procurement specifications or procedures that unfairly eliminate products
incorporating scrap tires must be changed. In addition, states must also ensure proper tire
disposal by contractors who handle scrap tires from state fleets, and encourage the reuse of those
394
-------
tires, such as separation of fecappable tires from whole lots of scrap tires.
2* Recapping
States and local governments will save money by following the federal procurement guidelines
on recapped tires. Truck tire recapping has been conducted for years; it saves state funds and
reduces the waste stream. Contracts for recapping should be accessible to, or provided as
models for all state agencies and regional and local governments. States may also want to
investigate the use of passenger tire retreads that meet the GSA standards. Finally, states should
properly maintain their state vehicle tires to lengthen their useful life. The exchange of
information and experiences with states who have established recapping programs should make
implementation straightforward.
2r Other Reuse
Additional research and development of alternative scrap tire uses is critical to the success of
any scrap tire management system. The types, cost and availability of alternative reuses must
be examined and then appropriately utilized to the extent feasible. States should determine what
scrap tire processing or recycling businesses are located within the state, gather information on
technologies, amounts of tires used, products, and costs. With this information, states can then
compile and distribute lists of known scrap tire processors and recycled-products vendors for use
by state agencies, the private sector and the general public. States should also track research
and development activities conducted by other entities, and support promising approaches.
E. FEES, SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES
Clearly, additional revenues are essential in most states to enable implementation of any new
program. The states' current financial constraints exacerbate the need for those resources.
Personnel cutbacks have resulted in much larger workloads for existing staff and priorities may
not currently include improvements to scrap tire management programs. Consequently, it is
imperative that states either increase appropriations to the environmental agencies (which appears
highly unlikely for the near term) or impose a special tire fee, with funds directed to the tire
program.
If a fee program is selected, they should be imposed at the point-of-purchase rather than the
point-of-disposal, to discourage illegal dumping of tires. Fees should be time-limited and
dedicated to the tire problem. This will lessen opposition to increased costs, ensure funds are
available for this problem and reflect the goal of avoiding the creation of new stockpiles through
proper ongoing management practices. The fee amount should be based on an analysis of the
extent of the problem and the size of the funding source. Funds will be needed for: staff and
expert assistance in regulatory and enforcement areas; stockpile cleanups; reuse research,
development and incentive programs; and educational and outreach efforts.
395
-------
If a point of purchase 3fee is imposed, it should be noted that the annual generation of scrap tires
is far less than the amount of existing stockpiles, in most states. Many stockpiles owners or
operators are unteaceable or without financial resources. In addition, shredding or disposal costs
are about $l/tite in -many-areas. Since shredding is only one part of abatement activity .(which
itself is only one pan of £ comprehensive scrap tire management program), and since timely
progress is a goal, litseems likely that a point-of-purchase fee will need to be larger than $l/tire.
2^ Incentives
Improvements are toeing made in both scrap tire reuse technology and product markets. Given
the need for ciaan aromt numerous, sizeable stockpiles, the development and implementation of
an incentives jjrajgjam (for research, pilot projects, capital purchases, etc.) could hasten the
development of ausih markets. Since some approaches appear to be on the way to widespread
use (e.g., tire-derived fuel) given existing economics, these incentives should be targeted to
those that: make use of significant quantities of tires, do not promote environmental degradation
in the process and have existing or developing markets for the various products. The incentives
(loans, grants, tax .credits, etc.) should also be time-limited so that artificial economic stimulation
is not maintained
-------
HI. NEWMOA STATE ACTIVITY
Although none of the seven NEWMOA solid waste states currently has a scrap tire program in
place that reflects the NEWMOA report's recommendations, all have made progress in managing
scrap tires, as summarized in Exhibit 2.
A. LEGISLATION AND SOLED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Five states have enacted legislation that addresses scrap tires, in a partial or comprehensive
fashion. Maine's legislation was adopted in 1989 and 1991; New Hampshire's in 1989, New
Jersey's in 1981 and 1987, Rhode Island's in 1989, and Vermont's in 1990.
Four states (ME, MA, NH, VT) have specifically addressed scrap tires in their current solid
waste plans.
B. STOCKPILES
Two states have examined health aspects of tire piles. Connecticut's study in 1987 examined
tire breeding at several sites, including the Hamden Tire Pond, several landfills and used
tire/junk dealer sites. New Hampshire conducted a health risk assessment of the Danville tire
pile in January, 1989.
C. REGULATIONS
Five states (CT, ME, NH, NJ, RI) have final regulations specifically addressing scrap tires
facilities; two states (ME, NH) have final regulations for transporters. The degree of detail in
these regulations varies significantly. Two states (MA, VT) have guidance or policy for
facilities.
D. PROCUREMENT AND REUSE
Four states (CT, MA, NH, VT) have pricing preferences or content specifications for purchases
involving materials made of recycled tires. Pricing preferences are 10% (CT, MA) and 5%
(VT); content specifications are used in NH.
Three states (CT, ME, VT) have programs to recap tires from state vehicles; CT has
documented savings of $43,785 with the recapping of 626 tires. ME has documented savings
of $136,300 with the recapping of 860 tires. VT has not documented savings, but has
substantially decreased its purchasing of new tires. Two states (NH, NJ) are developing a
recapping program.
All NEWMOA states have conducted research regarding reuse of scrap tires and have some level
of private sector scrap tire processing or recycling taking place.
397
-------
EXHIBIT 2
fJEWMOA STATES' SCRAP TIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Laws?
SWM Plan?
Health Research?
Inventories?
Facility Regs?
Transport. Regs?
Procurement?
Recapping?
Reuse?
Fees?
Incentives?
Outreach?
Resources?
£E
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
ME
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
MA
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
u
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
ffi
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
El
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Vj
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Four states (MA, NH, NJ, VT) have conducted some type of stockpile inventory.
New Hampshire completed the Danville pile clean up effort in June, 1991 at a cost of $1,342,350 to remove 13,505
tons of scrap tires.
398
-------
E. FEES, SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES
Two states (ME, RI) have special fees. Maine imposes a $l/tire charge at the point of retail
sale. Rhode Island's "hard-to-dispose" tax includes a fee of $.50/tire and $5 on cars with new
titles.
One state (NJ) has incentive programs to stimulate the reuse of scrap tires. The program
includes tax credits, low interest loans, loan guarantees, and sales tax exemptions for various
scrap tire management activities and equipment.
Four states (ME, MA, NH, NJ) have some outreach/educational programs for citizens and
businesses regarding various aspects of scrap tire management.
There are no NEWMOA states with dedicated scrap tire management units.
TV. NEWMOA REPORT FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITY
The finding and recommendations of the May, 1991 report were presented to the NEWMOA
directors, who then determined that NEWMOA should initially pursue follow up actions in two
major areas - regulations and abatement. Consequently, NEWMOA is currently working on a
two-phased project. In addition, NEWMOA coordinates with the Northeast Recycling Council,
which has its own projects regarding scrap tire markets.
The first phase of the NEWMOA effort is the development of model legislative and regulatory
language, along with a supporting document for the approaches reflected in the model language.
The model legislative and regulatory language will address state authorities (to declare hazards,
conduct abatements and recover costs), bans, fees, storage requirements (chipping, pile sizes,
etc), facility standards (fire control, contingency plans, financial assurance, etc.), reporting
requirements, and penalties. The final version of these materials is scheduled to be completed
by September, 1992.
The second phase is the development of a model stockpile abatement approach to inventory and
rank existing stockpiles. The model inventory approach will investigate methods to conduct
comprehensive inventories, rank sites for abatement action, implement clean ups (public and
private approaches), and recover costs from responsible parties. The final version of these
materials is scheduled to be completed by January, 1993.
Upon completion of each phase, NEWMOA will present the approaches to the Directors for
their concurrence. NEWMOA will then assist its member states with adoption and
implementation of the model language. States which already have pieces of the project in place
will select and implement only those aspects lacking in their own programs. The benefits to the
NEWMOA states of this approach are several: development of a model approach by a
cooperative interstate effort, which dramatically lowers the costs individual states would have
399
-------
otherwise incurred; NEWMOA's implementation assistance, which will be aware of the other
states1 activities and status and, most importantly, the uniform approach, which enables all
participants to be aware of and comply with the same requirements.
REFERENCES: Uris paper is based on "Scrap Tire Management in the NEWMOA States,"
May, 1991 and updated information provided by NEWMOA-member states' staff. The 100-page
1991 report (plus coosacts and appendices) and an update sheet are available from NEWMOA.
The cost is $20 for the public sector and $40 for the private sector. A request for a copy, along
with payment, should be sent to: Lois Makina, NEWMOA, 85 Merrimac Street, Boston, MA
02114.
400
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING DECISION MODEL
Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr.
Senior Associate
William F. Cosulich Associates
South Plainfield, New Jersey
William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C. (WFC), in its solid waste management and planning efforts
in the states of New York, California, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Missouri and West Virginia, has
developed a solid waste decision model designed to assist clients in clarifying the issues of cost
and effectiveness in the development of solid waste management scenarios. An overview of the
model is provided in Figure 1.
The model begins by estimating the quantification and characterization of the waste stream for
clients who have not conducted detailed field analyses (see Figures 2 and 3). Once the nature
of the waste stream is established, WFC consults with the client to determine types of waste
processing scenarios that will be evaluated. The number of scenarios and their configurations
(Figure 4) are based upon material recovery goals (see Figure 5) and economic considerations.
The facility analysis includes capital and operating costs for the lifetime of the project. The
costs are also projected on an annual net cost and per ton basis. The facilities evaluated include
(See Figure 6) materials recovery, organics recovery (yard waste and source separation based
composting), wood recovery, rubble recovery, mixed bulky waste recovery and mixed refuse
processing (energy recovery, refuse derived fuel, mixed refuse composting). The weighted
average tipping fees per ton for each scenario are then determined.
The establishment of the facility configurations determines the collection alternatives that must
be evaluated. The collection evaluation is based upon municipal characteristics, material
recovery rates, vehicle loading analyses, time per stop, off-route time, work time, vehicle needs
and labor costs (See Figures 7 through 14). This data is used to determine the vehicle and labor
needs which constitute the collection alternatives cost summary on a per ton and per household
basis (See Figure 15). The results of the collection analyses are then combined with the facility
scenario costs for a total system cost.
The cost information is then incorporated into a system evaluation module that provides a
scoring mechanism for other factors such as maximum recycling, waste reduction, toxics
removal, reliability and environmental impact and safety. This evaluation is then the basis for
the system recommendations.
401
-------
The model consists of a series of integrated spreadsheets compiled with SuperCalc®5 (revi-
sion C). It is wrc's opinion that a solid waste management planning model should not be costly
but yet be capable -of yielding outputs containing a high level of detail and project specific
emphasis necessary to thoroughly identify and evaluate all applicable alternatives. Therefore,
WFC developed its own model which can accommodate variables and input specifically relevant
to a given region's circumstances. This model provides current and projected estimates of
waste quantity and composition, materials throughput to various processing or disposal facilities,
recyclables recovery potentials, individual facility economics, collection economics and overall
system economics for 3-10 alternative scenarios.
The WFC is not "canned." Our approach is to sit down with the decision makers, discuss the
alternatives to be considered, identify the inputs and specify the collection, processing and
marketing scenarios to be modeled. We then return to our offices, conduct the analyses and
report the results to the client. This often takes the form of meetings with staff members and
formal presentations to local elected officials and advisory committee members. We use our
economic modelling capabilities to assist our clients in making critical planning decisions.
Once the analyses have been completed, we will train the client in utilizing the model we have
customized for them through this interactive process.
This model has proven highly accurate in predicting facility and collection costs in several solid
waste management projects across the country. It will be especially useful to planning units
involved in solid waste planning in states or regions with aggressive recycling mandates which
will require the development integrated programs involving multiple facilities and drastic
alterations in collection practices.
402
-------
Figure 1
Overview of Decision Mode!
Waste
Quantification
Waste
Characterization
_L
Materials Recovery
Projections
I System
i Alternatives
Facility
Allocation/Sizing
Collection
Economics
1
Facility
Economics
Scenario
Economics
Scenario
Evaluation
T
Program
Recommendations
403
-------
Figure 2
Overview of Waste Quantification Module
POPULATION
J_
DEVELOPABLE LAND
ESTIMATES
JL
POPULATION DENSITY
(Net of undevelopable land)
JL
WASTE GENERATION
RATES—1980
(Lb/cap/day net of C & D
medical waste and sludges)
JL
PROJECTED WASTE
GENERATION RATES
(Tons per day net of C & D
medical waste and sludges)
JL
C & D, MEDICAL WASTE
AND SLUDGE ESTIMATES
T
PROJECTED WASTE
GENERATION RATES
(Tons per day
gross waste stream)
_L
SCALE RECORDS
CROSS CHECK
404
-------
Figured
Overview of Waste Characterization Module
FIELD STUDIES
• Project Specific; or
• Average
j
LOCAL DATA
• Sludge
• C & D
1
\
t
COMPONENT BREAKDOWN
• 50 Categories
• Total Waste Stream
i
Estimated Tons Per Day
Per Component
405
-------
•CINANIO A
•CIHAMIO •
*l»* Wflit C0«*.
SCtNAPIIO C
* Low Itch ' «H f
SCCNAMIO tf
**Mifh fieti tviit
Ml**d Bulk.
BCCNAhIO 9
• u i .»d DU i ' y
5?
Dl
•o
n>
v>
I
(D
01
S:
(D
V)
5
I
I
6
-------
figures
Materials Recovery Projections
Tons Per Day
Per Component
SECTOR ALLOCATION
• Residential • Organic
•• Nonresidential • Miscellaneous
Participation Rates
Per Material
Separation Rates
Per Material
Recovery Rates
Net of Processing Efficiency
407
-------
Recovery Rates
Net of Processing
Efficiency
1
Materials Directed
to Appropriate
Facility
Nondlrected
Materials
Commer-
cial
Recycling
Materials
Recovery
Facility
Organics
Recovery
(Composting)
C & D
Recovery
Mixed
Bulky Waste
Recovery
Mixed
Refuse
Processing
I I I I I
RESIDUES RESIDUES RESIDUES RESIDUES RESIDUES RESIDUES
I I
Landfill
!
O
0
&)
O
£
o
o
-------
!
Alternative
Separation
and Setout
Approaches
MUNICIPAL
CHARACTERISTICS OATA
• Set-out Rates
• Off Route Time
fc
CO
Material
Recovery Rates
Per Household
Vehicle
Loading
Analysis
Time Per
Stop
Number ol
Vehicles
Needed
Labor
Needs
Collection
Alternatives
Cost Summary
Alternate
System
Economics
O
O
(D
a
6
m
o
§
o
8
-------
Was If
Character-
ization
•»
Participation
Rale* /
Separation
Efficiencies
»
Recovered
Ton a
Per Day
•+
Recovered
Pounds
Per Day
Recovered
Cubic Yards
Per Day
ft*
M
o
Total
Households
Cubic Yards
Per
Household
Per Day
21
(D
31
ID
O
§
I
I
o
0)
0)
o
5
-------
I
to
Total
Housing
Units
Total
Land Area
(Square Mile)
Housing
Density Per
Square Mile
Housing
Units
Per Mile
Distance From
Central
Facility
Unloading
Time
mm*
O.
•5
S.
O
0>
3
3
-------
BASE DENSITY
N3
HOUSING UNITS
PER MILE
(From Municipal
Characteristics)
DENSITY FACTOR
ADJUSTED TIME
PER STOP
(Town by Town)
=!
(D
g
-------
COMPARTMENT
VOLUME
(From Input)
W
CUBIC YARDS
RECOVERED PER DAY
(From Material Recovery
Rates Per Household)
CUBIC YARDS PER
HOUSEHOLD PER DAY
(From Material Recovery
Rates Per Household)
SETOUT RATES
(From Input)
Loads Per
Day / Week
Maximum
Households
Per Load
I
w*
O
(0
0)
a
3
ta
o>
w
-------
3
LOADS PER WEEK
TOWN BY TOWN
(From Vehicle
Loading Analysis)
MAXIMUM HOUSE-
HOLDS PER LOAD
(From Vehicle
Loading Analysis)
TIME PER STOP
(From Time Per Stop)
UNLOADING TIME
(From Municipal
Characteristics)
SET OUT RATE
(From Input)
Collection
Time
Per Load
Work Time
Per Load
Total
Work Time
to
-------
TOTAL WORK TIME
(From Work Time)
WORK TIME PER
PER TRUCK
(From Input)
Number of Trucks
f
«4
CO
Annualized
Capital Cost
ANNUALIZED COST
PER TRUCK
(From Input)
O & M FACTOR
(From Input)
Annual
Operation and
Maintenance
£
3-
o
(5
z
-------
HOURS PER PAY DAY
(From Input)
WORKING DAYS
PER YEAR
(From Input)
Total Annual
Hours
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
(From Vehicle Needs)
0>
CREW SIZE PER TRUCK
(From Input)
Crew
WAGE
(From Input)
Annual
Labor
Costs
er
o
—%
O
o
-------
en
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL COSTS
(From Vehicle Needs)
ANNUALIZED OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE
(From Vehicle Needs)
ANNUAL LABOR COSTS
(From Labor Costs)
Total
Annaul
Expense
Tj
M
o
I
-------
SOURCE REDUCTION
Allen Perry
IBM
San Jose, California
The IBM corporate definition for packaging source reduction is as follows: "Maximum source
reduction occurs when the least amount of resources are consumed for the life of the product or
program."
When working on a packaging design one of the first questions that needs to be asked is: "Can
a reusable loop be implemented?" Many times the answer to this question is: "No, it can not
be done." When investigated, however, the reasons for the "no" prove to be vague or
misleading.
When working on a project, reusable containers offer the packaging engineer the opportunity to
put more money into the design. The container needs to be sturdier in order to survive multiple
shipments. Extra features (such as ramps, handles, clasps, etc.) can also be added since the cost
will be divided by the number of shipments the package will be used for. The overall cost per
reusable shipment will most probably be less than a disposable design, due to the ability to
spread the cost over many shipments. The actual cost to return a package is not as high as most
people would think (a large 300 Ib wooden crate is less than $50 from any point in the U.S. to
San Jose, CA). After five trips the cost would be 1/5 of the initial cost plus return shipping.
When estimating your cost savings include the avoided cost in disposal fees and duty charges
for the value of the packaging materials when making international shipments.
Disposal packaging has always been convenient for manufacturing, purchasing, packaging
engineers, customers, etc. Reusable containers do require extra effort. The hardest part of
implementing a reusable container is convincing all parties involved that it is worthwhile to
spend the time and energy making the extra effort.
EXAMPLE 1
Last year I had a project to design packaging for sending several electronic components to
Mexico. Mexico would assemble a part from the components and send the assembly to IBM in
San Jose.
419
-------
The BAU approach would be to simply design disposable bulk packaging for sending the parts
to Mexico and the same, for the assembly shipped back to the U.S.
The source reduction approach was to see if a reusable packaging system could be implemented.
If a package could be designed that would work for both the components and the assembly, then
a reusable system should be easy to implement. In order to withstand many return trips I
utilized plastic corniigalr.fl material for the unit load shipper. The program has been in place for
over a year and so far the packages have worked very well. Some of the added benefits are
labor savings due to no packaging set up time which would have been about 15 minutes per
shipment. Custom duty charges are waived for the value of the packaging materials because it
is classified as 2. leasable ^container. The overall cost savings per year is approximately
SI,000,000 and the amount of packaging waste avoided from entering the landfills is over
28,000 cu ft per year.
EXAMPLE 2
A fellow engineer needed to design a package for a very delicate disk drive product. The
machine could vary in -weight from 800 Ibs to 1700 Ibs depending on the quantity of drives in
the machine. A disfsosable package would have been very expensive and difficult to dispose of
due to the size and weight of a large wooden crate. The engineer decided on a reusable
container even though the logistics were very complicated, with shipments covering all parts of
the U.S. and Canada.
The reusable container would start at the frame vendor, be shipped to IBM and then remain
around the frame for assembly (removable doors allowed access for each assembly operation).
A contract was made with the carrier to unpack the machine at the customers site, repack the
empty containerand return itto the frame vendor. Even though the initial cost for each reusable
container was quite expensive, the many uses (frame shipper, assembly handling device and
machine package) plus the reusability, made the actual cost per shipment much lower than a
disposable version.
The amount of packaging waste avoided from entering the landfills is over 12,000 cu. ft. per
year. The total cost savings is over $170,000 per year.
CONCLUSION
I have found that there are many obstacles in implementing a smooth reusable system. Each
person or department involved with the container must see a benefit. If it is perceived as just
extra work, the system will fail. By educating all the people involved, explaining the cost and
the environmental benefits, a reusable packaging system can work. Since you have more money
to invest in the package design, include extra features that will also help sell the reusable system.
Cost savings is a very important part of selling a reusable system, to upper management. When
420
-------
looking for cost savings, include any possible labor savings (many-times a reusable container
is easier to pack and unpack). Estimate the material savings and calculate all the savings over
a year or life of the program. Estimate the volume of waste if it were disposable and calculate
the savings. As disposable costs rise throughout the country, reusable containers will be easier
to justify. Include the environmental benefits along with any other non cost related benefits
(such as ergonomics, aesthetics, etc.) and you will have an excellent chance for getting approval
it implement a reusable system.
421
-------
SUCCESSFUL MEASUREMENT OF SOURCE REDUCTION
Kenneth W. Brown
Solid Waste Source Reduction
Minnesota Office of Waste Management
St. Paul, Minnesota
SUMMARY
MnOWM developed a successful strategy for implementing and measuring source reduction
programs. This was initially accomplished through pilot projects at four different facilities.
A hotel-convention center, county government, hospital and business were selected because of
varied waste streams and to test the methodology across a wide spectrum of generators. The
source reduction projects demonstrate that with any product change, the cost, volume and weight
changes can be documented.
For example, the hospital used over 16,000 single-use bed pads each year. After changing to
reusable bed pads, waste decreased by 28 cu. yds. (5,700 pounds). After taking into account
all related costs, a $4,700 yearly savings resulted. The projects show that reduction is readily
measurable on a product-by-product basis and that source reduction can be effectively used as
a waste management tool.
In addition to product-by-product measurement of waste, it is also possible to assess packaging
waste. To accomplish this, MnOWM purchased and measured packaging waste from an array
of grocery products. The question asked was this, "What does different packaging of the same
product mean in terms of waste and cost to the consumer?"
Factors that must be in place to assure a successful reduction program are identified.
Implementation of reduction programs must overcome problems such as conflict with recycling,
motivation and a bias against source reduction measurement.
The methodology used to develop reduction programs is transferable. MnOWM is now
sponsoring other projects that will measure reduction. For example, the Minnesota Hospital
Association is expanding the hospital study to other hospitals. Information developed through
the government study is being expanded upon by other county governments. A pilot project to
measure reduction on a facility basis, in addition to product-by-product, is also currently in
423
-------
progress.
As a result of these programs, educational materials have been developed. Case studies, a video
on "How to Implement Source Reduction Program," and consumer education materials are
available from the MnOWM's Waste Education Clearinghouse.
-------
SYNERGISTIC PROGRAMMING MODEL IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT:
AN APPROACH FOR NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
Marie S. Hammer
Associate Professor, Home Environment
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Jonathan F.K. Earle, PhD, PE
Associate Professor, Waste Management
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
The complex issue of waste management cuts across the boundaries and domains of many
institutions. Partnerships and networks are necessary approaches to address this societal issue.
The Florida Cooperative Extension Service (CES) serves as a catalyst and synergistic model for
networking with the public and private sectors. Internal networks in the Land Grant System and
external networks with government agencies, businesses and industries have been the hallmark
of the University of Florida's CES major program thrust in solid waste management. These
networks foster teamwork and interdisciplinary approaches to problem solving and therefore
multiply program effectiveness.
The Florida CES is an organizational network which is comprised of research and teaching
faculty at the University of Florida and Extension faculty located in every county of the state.
Specialties of county faculty include agriculture, marine, natural resources, community
development, home economics and youth development.
Research generated at the University of Florida is integrated with information developed
nationally and internationally and transferred by a systematic process throughout the state CES
network. The cornerstone of this network is its research and public education link. This link
also provides the basis for building innovative educational and technical networks and
partnerships.
Throughout Florida, the key players in this partnership have been the CES, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), local governing boards and business and
industry. This team effort derives strength from collective creativity and shared responsibility
425
-------
toward addressing the problem. The synergy of the partnerships helps to educate solid waste
leaders and the citizenry to make more informed decisions regarding the solid waste issue. An
example of this team effort in Florida includes the DER, the Governor's Energy Office, the
Energy Extension Service, the Hotel/Motel Association, Keep Florida Beautiful, business and
industry all working ajoperatively in the jfqtel/Motel Recycling Project spearheaded by the
Florida CES. Studies were conducted in analyzing the waste stream and in designing systems
for recycling in the hospitality industry in Orlando, which boasts more than 70,000 guest rooms.
The Hotel/Motel Recycling Project serves as a model for increasing the scope of a project
through partnerships. So successful has this research/education cooperative venture been that
it is now being expanded statewide jointly by the CES and the State Hotel/Motel Association to
impact the 300,000 goest room Florida hospitality industry. There is also a strong interest in
utilizing this model neionally to address source reduction/recycling in the commercial sector.
This partnership, as with other CES state and county efforts, utilizes the resources and
expertise of each of the cooperators which in turn results in a net effort far exceeding
individual contribttftees.
At the state and county levels, CES is working closely with 26 academic disciplines and 80
external entities. Ute program targets government planners, city and county commissioners,
solid waste and enviraurroental managers and the general public as both cooperators and clientele
groups. In three years, the program has reached 350,000 people in 57 counties through direct
contact and 80% of ihe state's 13 million population through media and public information
sources.
At the local level, sdifl waste public education and technical solutions are geared to meeting
community needs. Through coordination of solid waste and environmental faculty at the
University of Florida, the research base and technical expertise in the University are directed
to local problems fry the county Extension offices. The CES, as the educational arm of local
governments, can spearhead networking efforts to explore the technical options for managing
waste and the procedmass and decision making options for choosing among these options.
Extension offices tawe the capability of providing information on all aspects of waste
management including environmental, regulatory, economic and legal issues. County CES
faculty can coonffissBte community approaches through various networks from the initial
exploration of options ao the development of public awareness and education programs to assist
with program impilnmmtarion.
Examples of dynamic programs that contribute to solving the waste management problem in
Florida and the nation aere described. In all cases, the emphasis is on solving local county
problems with dasseraraclian of the process and results to assist others in addressing the issue
by implementation
-------
In rural Flagler County. Florida a public education program was launched under the leadership
of the CES to prepare citizens to recycle in order to meet the county's 30% recycling goal by
1994. CES, working with a local advisory committee, prepared a recycling education proposal
for county government targeting 15 agencies in the county to direct educational efforts for
recycling and source reduction.
CES assumed the responsibility to provide leadership for designing and implementing the
program and evaluating the results. The program targeted schools and the general public and
provided technical.assistance to county government.
A curriculum was designed for grades one through five in the county, a speaker's bureau was
organized, a recycling survey was sent to 750 citizens of the county, an educational tabloid was
mailed to two-thirds of the population, and a kick-off program launched curbside recycling and
the Amnesty Days Hazardous Waste Collection program. Exhibits were designed for use in the
county fairs, schools and libraries. Three commercial billboards promoting recycling were
placed where 40,000 cars traveled daily.
The Solid Waste and County Managers obtained technical assistance from the University Waste
Management Team about landfill siting. To utilize yard waste, a processing site was established
for distribution of mulch to county landscapers and the public. In part, due to the success of
the total program, the Flagler County government, the School Board, the ITT Palm Coast
Development and the CES are exploring a project to test the benefits of compost on home
development sites, athletic fields, park lawns and golf courses. It is believed that compost
amended soils will retain more moisture and nutrients, reducing the requirements for irrigation
and fertilizer.
The CES faculty in Pasco County. Florida is providing leadership for joint planning and
problem solving with the Solid Waste Department and the Citizens' Advisory Committee for
Solid Waste. Cooperators include the School System, the Girl and Boy Scouts, the League of
Women Voters, the Federation of Garden Clubs, the CES volunteer network, Pasco County
Parks and Recreation Departments and Florida Power and Light. The targeted audiences are
the general public, public and private school systems, government, community and health
agencies, civic organizations, women's clubs, churches and homeowner associations.
Special source reduction programs include the collection of used motor oil, Christmas trees,
batteries and office paper. Recycling and source reduction is highlighted at annual community
events including the Rattlesnake Round-Up, the County Fair, Earth Day and Coastal and Water
Waste Clean-Up Week. In one year's event, 10,560 pounds of trash was collected from the gulf
coast and 1,580 from the lake area of the county. An additional 600 pounds of clean recyclables
were recovered at the clean-up. These materials helped launch the Curbside Recycling Program
for the county.
427
-------
In order to reach ywrfh, training was provided to 2,000 teachers in. implementing a solid waste
curriculum in private/public schools. In one year alone, 8,000 residents were reached through
direct teaching efforts. A quarterly newspaper "Recycle Today" is sent to 4,000 consumers.
Six hundred ten volunteers work with the CES on an annual basis to implement this program.
The county has reached a 15% recycling rate towards a 30% goal set for 1994.
The Environmental Horticulture agent in Pinellas County. Florida (St. Petersburg) established
a county wide yard waste mulch research, education and marketing project which included
monitoring and evaluating the process and the product to create a stable medium and to help
generate markets for the mulch product.
A centralized yard waste collection., processing and windrow site was established in 1989 near
the county landfilL In cooperation with the University Department of Environmental
Horticulture, studies were conducted to determine yard waste composition, the most effective
equipment, grinding processes, optimal temperatures and levels of pesticide/herbicide residues.
A data base was established on segregated residential yard waste, mixed and commercial
collection.
To date, over 34,000 tons of yard waste has been collected, processed and reused in the county.
Sixteen drop-off sites have been established for public use and over 40 businesses, 10
municipalities and eight county and state organizations are utilizing recycled yard waste mulch.
This program was publicized through public awareness and educational efforts and is being
conducted in partnership with the Pinellas County Environmental Management, Division of
Forestry, the County Parks and Highways Department, and the County Solid Waste Department.
Yard waste in the high peak growing months accounts for up to 40% of the daily waste pickups.
A plan to commercially produce and market mulch helps to turn the potential waste into a
valuable county resource. This program has been utilized as a state model for production and
marketing of mulch with the Horticulture agent serving as an expert for the DER training of
County Recycling Coordinators.
In the Florida Panhandle, CES faculty, with a number of cooperators in Okaloosa County
utilized a state energy grant and a county recycling grant to design and install a-permanent
exhibit in the county museum showing the relationship of waste to energy. The goal of this
community project is to help educate adults and youth about the importance of. managing
waste/energy for a belter environment. The permanent exhibit on recycling, energy and waste
management was installed in the F.O.C.U.S. Science Center (Families in Okaloosa County
Understanding Science). The exhibit titled "Wasteland" includes information panels and
computer displays on recycling and landscaping for energy savings as well as a demonstration
of photovoltaic cells to generate solar energy. A computer program "Don't Throw It All Away"
was created in the county and utilized in the display. The museum is used by the school system
as an education center. The CES, working with the school system, co-sponsored an in-service
training program for elementary school teachers representing all schools in the county. Four
428
-------
hundred teachers and 25,000 students were exposed to the "Wasteland" exhibit in its first year.
Volunteers promoted the exhibit and source reduction at the county fair, reaching 30,500 people.
In addition, three eight page newspapers, "Recycling News," were produced by CES to support
the exhibit and waste minimization. Each were distributed to 72,000 local households.
In order to plan and implement this program in the county, the CES worked with the Board of
County Commissioners, Okaloosa County School District, Department of Solid Waste, Keep
Florida Beautiful, Junior Service League, and the League of Women Voters. In addition the
garden clubs, the CES volunteer network, the Kiwanis and the Officer's Wives from Eglin Air
Force Base supported the projects.
Broward and Palm Beach County CES Programs joined forces to provide the leadership to
develop a 4-H curriculum on recycling/source reduction for their school systems. "Recycling
Adventures", a program of instructional materials and activities including skits, puppets and
games was developed and distributed in both counties with local government funds. Due to the
local success, funding was obtained to pilot the project in 40 counties throughout Honda. After
a year, the program attracted major funding and was incorporated into a 4-H core environmental
curriculum and offered to all 67 counties in Florida. The Florida Energy Extension Service, the
Broward and Palm Beach County Solid Waste Departments, the County School Boards, the
National 4-H Council and Waste Management, the U.S. Sugar Company and the state CES
faculty all joined forces with the local faculty to create the momentum for promoting youth
programming in solid waste management.
The Alachua County Yard Trash Composting Demonstration is a University, private sector,
state and local government cooperative project. Cooperators with the CES include
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Alachua County Solid Waste
Department, the City of Gainesville and Wood Resource Recovery, Inc. Initial funding was
provided by the state legislature to pilot a state of the art yard trash composting project. Local
government contributed to its support. Aerobic composting experts and plant scientists from the
University of Florida helped the project gain recognition throughout the state and become a
model operation for other counties to study. The strategy was to refine the yard trash into the
highest and best use for each fraction. Success on this and other similar Florida projects
encouraged cooperators to provide funding to support research and demonstration projects
throughout the state on utilizing composts to minimize the use of water in agronomic,
horticultural and silvicultural applications.
The strength of the project rests with the assemblage of cooperators from the University, private
sector and state and local government bringing their individual competencies and perspectives
to bear on a complex problem.
As a state/county Initiative, core Enviroshopping materials were initially produced at the
University of Florida. County CES faculty utilized these materials for a myriad of local action
429
-------
groups. Funding directly from local governments or indirectly from the State's Department of
Environmental Regulations further enhanced the materials. A grant from the Extension
Service/United Stales Department of Agriculture enabled the faculty to develop a conceptual
framework and synthesize the materials into a mutually compatible module including leader's
guides, lessons and teaming activities. The teaching module was reviewed by CES professionals
throughout the United States to assure wide adaptability. This is an example of a project that
gained momentum by networking with local action groups; and then was developed into a
comprehensive teaching module distributed statewide and nationally through the CES System,
thus helping consumers become better informed.
The Florida CES Solid Waste Management program is designed to promote an integrated
approach to waste management emphasizing waste reduction and recycling and the amelioration
of environmental stress caused by improper management of solid waste in Florida. Synergistic
programming is derived from partnerships with local governments, business and industry and
the private sector who analyze the local situation, determine alternatives, tap resources, plan,
promote and evaluate appropriate programs to address the issue.
Through its county, state and national network, the CES is poised to be a dynamic force in
utilizing internal and external networks to provide leadership for effective public education and
technical programs built on a strong foundation of reliable research in solid waste. There are
strong incentives for adapting and implementing the program throughout the system.
430
-------
TEAMING UP IN THE SOUTHEAST: AN APPROACH TO REGIONAL DECISION-
MAKING
Kathi A. Mestayer
Project Scientist
Malcolm Pimie, Inc.
Newport News, Virginia
This is a time of challenge and transition for local governments throughout the Southeast.
At the forefront of those challenges is solid waste - a combination of programs, facilities,
and services that have increasingly captured the attention and budgets of decision makers.
The causes of this transitional period include:
• RCRA Subtitle D regulations for landfill facilities.
• State solid waste planning requirements and waste-reduction goals.
• Increased public awareness of recycling.
• Rising costs of meeting state and federal environmental standards.
Local governments serve a diverse group of citizens in Southeast; they vary from large,
densely populated metropolitan and suburban areas to rural, agricultural, and sparsely
populated ones. This often presents different kinds of solid waste problems, such as
varying degrees of difficulty in providing long-term landfill capacity. But, as our
experience has shown throughout the Southeast, even strikingly diverse areas can benefit
from those differences when local governments pool their resources to provide solid
waste programs as a region.
Local governments face difficult challenges in solid waste disposal, including the problem
of siting facilities, the changing role of the private sector, the difficulty of evaluating
proposals from system vendors, challenges in funding the increasing cost of solid waste
programs, and increasing public awareness of recycling, among others. Finding the
answers requires balancing policy, legal, and environmental issues with hard data on the
cost of solid waste projects.
431
-------
Southeast states encourage the development of regional cooperation on solid waste
programs. But focal governments need more information in order to evaluate
regional options. That information is a combination of data on costs and scale
economies «kmg with an understanding and analysis of the trade-offs and
implications of ir-frrnwig up with other jurisdictions on solid waste programs.
CRITICAL ASPECTS OF REGIONAL DECISION-MAKING
A useful deeffiHDB^making approach is one that balances quantitative and qualitative
aspects of dec&nm making, because the feasibility of local government projects is not
simply a theoRetical, numerical exercise. In fact, the feasibility of various alternatives
is often driven as much by law and public policy, history, and geography as it is by
the numbers. As a result, an effective decision process incorporates both kinds of
analysis.
Of equal importance in these situations is incorporating local, special conditions.
When dealing with a number of alternate solid waste system configurations and
technologies, a good decision must be informed as to what pathways are likely to
bear fruit; generating alternatives, such as large waste-to-energy facilities in an area
in which tiame ore no viable markets and no support from elected officials, is only
useful on atthearctical plane.
te Economies
Because i™«sgtvfng is, and will remain, the foundation on which solid waste systems
are planned amd built, many local governments devote special attention to available
landfill senile economies. Using data on the cost of Subtitle D landfills of various
sizes, .a iaaflHn -scale economies chart shows the cost of landfills at various size
classifications.
Region Save Money?
The transfer sod hauling cost and landfill scale economy components must then be
combined tto ofeasnnine whether the cost savings from building a regional landfill
outweigh tfte cost of hauling to a regional facility. The cost savings realized by
building a raguaoal landfill (or other facility) must be weighed against the cost of
hauling soUuS \waaste from all corners of the region (either by direct haul or transfer
432
-------
system). If the savings are greater than the cost, there is a cost incentive to
regionalize. (See Figures 1 and 2).
The Region's Goals and Objectives
In order to focus the process of exploring regional alternatives, region-specific goals
must be determined. Each region will have a slightly different set of priorities,
depending on local factors. The user will be assisted in considering and stating goals,
such as:
• Meeting state waste reduction/recycling goals.
• Minimizing cost through scale economies.
• Maximizing revenue flow.
• Minimizing local government risk.
• Landfill avoidance (for example, where siting is very difficult for politi or
hydrogeological reasons).
• Environmental impacts.
• Providing long-term solutions (ten years and beyond).
Completing this exercise provides a solid basis for considering regional waste
management programs and services.
What Happens Next?
The final step is to explore regions further by identifying implementation issues.
Those next steps include the following:
• Institutional issues
• Legal issues
• Organization and staffing
• Possible use of an advisory committee
• Planning
433
-------
iiiig privatization
Regional team members' roles and contributions
and revenue flows
Full ronsftdenffiian of all of these factors - economies, qualitative issues, goals and
objectives mad implementation steps can provide a local government (or
governments) with a valuable framework for evaluating formation of a regional solid
waste effort
A simplified grftcw"*''' diagram of the decision process described above is included
as Figure 3. The dotted lines at the top of the chart illustrate that consideration of
regional options is a continual process; as costs and other factors continue to
develop, periodir le-evaluations are in order.
CASE s
COASTAL RfflfifftNAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. NC
The Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority (CRSWMA) consists of
Carteret, Qrarcmand Pamlico Counties. Long before the idea of a regional authority
was floated, XL maste-to-energy feasibility study was conducted for the Neuse River
Council of Governments, of which the CRSWMA Counties are members.
Following thai study, Carteret, Craven, and Pamlico Counties continued to explore
collective sotarions to their solid waste problems. The concept of a regional
authority as a medianism was raised, and the support of the legislature was sought
State Representative Beverly Perdue sponsored Senate Bill 58, passed both state
legislative houses during the summer of 1990. Shortly after its passage, the three
counties fanned tfae Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority, the first
hi the state.
Regional LjttuBffift jpfl Transfer Stations
During the pastyear, the Authority has continued to move forward with planning and
implementing regional programs. One such effort is the regional landfill, which is
planned for a site adjacent to Craven County's current landfill facility. Design and
permitting for die landfill, borrow area, and leachate collection and treatment
systems is m»»gnriy underway. Transfer stations are planned for Carteret and
434
-------
Pamlico Counties, to defray the cost of hauling solid waste from outlying areas to the
regional landfill. Permitting and design are in progress for those facilities, as well.
Consolidation of Collection Services
Craven County has undertaken an independent initiative to consolidate collection
services by providing, through a private contractor, countywide curbside pickup. This
has necessitated extensive discussion of fee structures, appropriate service levels, and
potential impacts on the other Authority counties of such a consolidation in Craven
County.
Solid Waste Plan
The Authority has also developed a comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. It includes the
full range of technologies and programs that will enable the three-county area to
provide solid waste service to its residents and meet the State waste reduction goal
of 25 percent by 1993.
System Revenue Bond Issues
In June, 1991, the CRSWMA completed its first system revenue bond issue, which
included funds for planning, design, permitting, procurement, and land acquisition for
regional facilities. This Phase 1 financing included the preparation of an Engineer's
Report for the bond rating agencies and the State Local Government Commission,
and the execution of intercounty service agreements. Phase 2 is already underway,
and will require flow control through interlocal agreements with municipalities in the
service area. Phase 2 activities include the regional landfill and transfer stations, and
yard waste processing programs.
VIRGINIA PENINSULAS PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY
The Virginia Peninsulas Public Service Authority (VPPSA) consists of twelve
jurisdictions (counting the recent addition of Gloucester County) on the middle and
lower peninsulas of eastern Virginia, covering an area of approximately 1,500 square
miles.
Shortly after its formation in March, 1990, a Solid Waste Management Plan was
developed to guide the Authority in its choice of initiatives. Those efforts included
the development of a recycling plan, one component of which is a regional Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF). The 150 ton per day facility is designed to handle
recyclables from all member jurisdictions, which currently generate 450,000 tons of
435
-------
MSW annually. As RFP for design and operation of the MRF was developed and
disseminated and proposals evaluated.
VPPSA has recently completed the evaluation of proposals for curbside and drop-off
center collection of recyclables for over 100,000 households in the service area, and
a regional plan for yard waste composting.
CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
In 1989, tine Richmond Regional Planning District Commission developed a
Recycliiig implementation Plan for the Region, to evaluate the possibility of creating
a regional soid waste authority to serve the area. Formation of an Authority was
recommended in the report, and the Central Virginia Waste Management Authority
was created in 1990.
Currently, Stoat Authority is coordinating regional recycling programs, joint bidding
of collection services, and consideration of waste-reduction technologies.
STATE OF GEORGIA
The State of Georgia, is an effort to promote and encourage regional efforts in solid
waste, has cranammssioned the construction of a regional decision model. The model,
which wfll imdnatie cost components as well as qualitative, local and implementation
issues, win UK for the use of local governments in deciding whether and how to
pursue regional projects.
436
-------
HINDS-MADISON-RANKIN COUNTIES SERVICE DISTRICT
TRANSFER STATION ASSESSMENT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
COST ($/TON)
Packer Truck (25 cy)
Transfer Vehicle *
0 50 100 150
MILES
• Includes Transfer Station Cost ($12/Ton)
200
250
a
c
TO
-------
FIGURE 2
VIRGINIA PENINSULAS PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY
LANDFILL ECONOMIES OF SCALE
75 ,
70
u
35
200 400 600 800 1,000
INPUT RATE - TONS/DAY
1,200 1,400
CO
REGIONAL LANDFILL ECONOMIES
4.07
3.32
2.17
COST OF SINGLE
COUNTY LANDFILL
j ; COST OF REGIONAL
_i LANDFILL
1.13
CRAVEN COUNTY
CARTERET COUNTY
PAMUCO COUNTY
438
-------
SIMPLIFIED DECISION TREE
SOLID WASTE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT
Re-aseess perkxfeaiy
'FUTURE
.CAPACITY,
*
ill
DEVELOP
LONG-TERM
CAPACITY.
RECYCLING
•»
1
ASSESS
STATUS
•
i
INTEREST IN
EXPLORING
REGIONAL
OPTIONS?
YES
NO
Re-assess periodically
REGIONAL
WASTE-DIVERSION
GOALS
TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS
AVAILABLE
MARKETS
FIT?
DEVELOP
LOCAL
SYSTEM
NO
YES
MEET TO
DISCUSS
REGIONAL
EFFORTS
ORGANIZATION
^PRIVATE SECTOR,
LANDFILL
SCALE
CONOMIES
REGIONAL
WASTE-DIVERSION
GOALS
TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS
=^=
AVAILABLE
MARKETS
MEET TO DISCUSS
REGIONAL LANDFILL *
TRANSFER, OTHER
REGIONAL EFFORTS
D
C
-------
TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION WASTE
AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING
Robert H. Brickner
Senior Vice President
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
Falls Church, Virginia
Introduction
In many communities, no data exists on construction waste and demolition debris (C&D waste)
generation because it is handled outside the solid waste management system. However, as part
of a community's overall solid waste management strategy, it is possible to conduct a feasibility
study on the recycling potential of C&D waste received at local sanitary landfills or demolition
landfills. The initial activity would involve information-gathering and review of the local C&D
waste situation.
Such data should include a review of the existing construction waste conditions at local landfills;
review of nearby demolition landfills, if any; current C&D waste-handling methods; and the
potential for improvement of those methods. If merited and economically justified, a
construction waste generation characterization survey could be carried out at the local landfill.
Based on the information gathered, preferred waste-handling methods, process technologies, and
waste-handling systems can be identified for their appropriateness to the study area.
In addition, prior to selecting the technological options such a report should identify the
potentially recyclable materials from the C&D waste stream. Based on the materials available
for recycling, a discussion and evaluation of economic markets and the alternatives for handling
all or a portion of the C&D waste stream should be examined.
Based on GBB's experience with C&D waste from five sources (Le., Excavation, Roadwork,
Building Demolition, Construction Waste/Building Renovation, and Site Clearance),
approximately 20 individual materials found in C&D waste have been examined for their
potential reuse. These materials are, by nature, low in economic value; otherwise, they would
not have been discarded. The fact that these materials are mixed helps to lower their value as
a recovered material. However, the identified materials, when separated or when combined into
subgroupings, have, at times, been found to have potential value. Given the style of C&D waste
generation and its composition, five principal recoverable products have been identified: (I)
441
-------
asphalt pavement; (2) aggregate; (3) dirt-like; (4) ferrous metal; and (5) shredded wood. Each
of these products axe recoverable and reusable when properly processed to user (market)
requirements.
The five recoverable products presented above can be aggregated into three basic categories of
recoverable materials which, depending upon the nature of the C&D waste generating base, have
been shown in at least one study to comprise more than 95 percent of the local C&D waste
stream. These categories are:
• Inert granular material (aggregate, asphalt, and dirt-like);
• Shredded wood products; and
• Ferrous meal
In many parts of the country, no companies are commercially recycling C&D wastes.
Depending upon state regulatory controls, C&D landfills, if permitted differently from
conventional sanitary landfills, are typically faced with less stringent environmental regulations.
Consequently, there may be no established uses of commercially recycled C&D waste materials,
and, therefore, no identifiable established markets. The markets discussion may then focus on
identifying potential markets and potential market values versus fitting into a more well-
established product mete (e.g., the aluminum beverage can recycling programs associated with
residential waste stream recyclables). The objective must be, therefore, to add maximum value
to the products removed from the overall waste stream during the processing of as much of the
overall material as deemed to be economically viable. Some recovered products will have higher
intrinsic value than others; however, this value will only be realized if the market for the product
exists within economic transport distance, and if the incremental cost of producing the higher
value product is less than the incremental higher value of the virgin material being displaced.
C&D Waste Processing Alternatives
1. Introduction
In highlighting tcrhnifal alternatives for this paper, the review will focus on the design of C&D
waste processing technologies that have been designed to produce distinct product streams from
a heterogeneous C&D waste stream. Many modern facilities of this sort exist as solid waste
processing plants in the United States and in Europe, including the Fresh Kills Landfill
crushing/screening plant on Staten Island, New York; the Star Recycling Facility in Brooklyn,
New York; and the Basoray Plant in Basel, Switzerland. The principal C&D waste processing
plant techniques covered in this paper consist primarily of the following two plant types:
• Rock/Concrcte/Asphalt crushing and screening plants; and
• Mixed C&D waste.
442
-------
2. Rock Crushing Plants
The two principal size-reduction unit processes used at typical rock crushing plants are jaw
crushers and cone crushers. The jaw crusher is the most universally applicable primary crusher.
As a general rule, discharge material is twice the size of the crusher setting; the output gradation
is also changed by closing or opening the discharge setting. Cone crushers have the same
universal acceptance for secondary crushing as jaw crushers do for primary work. Standard
cone crushers with a reduction ratio of 6-8 to 1 can reduce material to a minimum size of less
than 3/4 inch.
The use of rock-crushing and sizing equipment is known and proven around the world, and a
plethora of equipment manufacturers have years of experience with the equipment to draw upon.
Several complementary pieces of equipment (e.g., the primary crusher feeder, magnetic
separator, vibrating screens for product sizing, and several belt conveyors) form a rock-
processing system. The existence of hundreds of rock quarries in the United States provides
local and experienced equipment owners and operators in most regions of the country.
Based upon the waste quantification and characterization data completed by GBB on a recent
C&D waste recycling study, approximately 30 percent of the Excavated Material category was
classified as rock, accounting for more than 45 percent of the total rock identified in th-j five
waste categories that were selected. Based upon the data that may be collected during C&D
waste-characterization activities, it may be possible to target the processing of only the
Excavated Material waste fraction. In the above-cited example, this allowed processing access
to almost half of the total rock quantity projected to be available in the entire C&D waste stream
of the study area.
3. Concrete Crushing Plants
The popularity of concrete recycling has continued to rise throughout most of the developed
world. Three primary benefits are stimulating this interest: (1) saving landfill space; (2)
conserving virgin materials that are being depleted in some areas (these have some unique
product applications); and (3) saving money.
The process flow of a concrete recycling plant which, is similar to that of the rock processing
plant, is shown in Figure I1. Depending upon the type of concrete demolition taking place, the
thickness of the concrete slabs, the shape of the concrete pieces, and the amount of non-concrete
contamination will vary. The demolition of major old concrete highways, for example, could
have very large surface area slabs, but at a predictable thickness. However, a concrete-
reinforced building replacement may encounter a myriad of thicknesses and shapes. Depending
1 Figures 1-6 are located at the end of the text
443
-------
upon the physical sfaqpes of the products, additional downsizing (using jackhammers) may be
needed. Additionally, vast crusher systems have a special-purpose jackhammer mounted at the
feeder/crusher interface point to enhance reduction of large concrete pieces that were missed
during the initial vissot inspection and have infiltrated the feeder system. The plant operator,
typically, is positioned to see the choke point jam and to jackhammer the concrete piece at that
point.
Most concrete rccydmg plants use jaw crushers as their primary crushers. The reasons for this
are: high reliabiJiSy, flow maintenance costs, and greater particle size control. A secondary
crusher (e.g., a cone crasher) may be used for more precise and fine product sizing at concrete
recycling plants. If* secondary machine is not used, a conveyor, used to carry back or recycle
the oversized soeaned products, is employed to control the product's top size (see Figure 1).
The overall data coJBBBd on concrete and reinforced concrete availability in the five waste
categories classified at x recent GBB C&D waste recycling study activity indicated that, based
upon quantification SttE characterization data, approximately 40 percent of the weight of the
Roadwork Material category was concrete, accounting for approximately 20 percent of the total
non-reinforced oraaraequantity identified in the five waste categories. The Building Demolition
waste category had x. nominal 25 percent reinforced concrete content, amounting to
approximately 75 peroeM of the available reinforced concrete in the total C&D waste stream.
4. Asphalt Rczycffintg Plant
In some areas, Has etenand for new asphalt products allows for economical recycling of old
asphalt material, However, due to the presence of asphalt in landfills, it is generally
acknowledged that amcaD of this material is being recycled. This situation could be caused by
specifications that are not updated, no incentive (e.g., asphalt plant owned by the virgin
aggregate producer), or cost factors. The quantity of asphalt that may be hauled to a special
purpose C&D iecydiiB& facility will be greater determined by the existence of other local asphalt
batch plants that nay be able to use such material in their process.
The overall data coffiteeffid on asphalt availability in the five waste categories of a recent GBB
C&D waste recydfiffl* study indicated that approximately 20 percent of the weight of the
Roadwork Material zaegory waste was asphalt, accounting for approximately 75 percent of the
total available aspitato identified in the five waste categories quantified at the landfill.
5. Mixed C&D Waste Processing
Due to the high costs of waste disposal in most urban areas of the world, contractors involved
in processing bmBaffimg rabble have, at times, tried to produce high-quality products to be
competitive with affinal aggregates. The rubble has been extensively processed for rock and
444
-------
asphalt aggregate, as well as steel reinforcing, wood, and other materials. Since most mixed
C&D waste recycling facilities are privately owned, the disposal fees and product revenues must
cover all system costs and company overhead, and provide a profit. However, regardless of
product sales prices, sometimes customers prefer natural aggregates for a variety of reasons
(e.g., building material specifications often require the use of virgin material).
Depending upon the markets being addressed, the mixed C&D waste delivered may be sorted
rather than processed at the plant, particularly if a load consists primarily of only one constituent
(e.g., concrete or asphalt mixes, rock, or wood).
In considering mixed C&D waste processing systems as shown in Figure 2, several existing
plants use mechanical separation devices (e.g., trommel screens and disc screens), in conjunction
with air or wet processing separators. These dry or wet processes are, typically, applied for the
separation of materials of organic or mineral nature. In the dry processing systems with air
separators, a cyclone baghouse or bio-filter control system needs to be installed to properly treat
and dispose of dust. In wet processes, the heavy fraction, rich in inorganics, sinks to the bottom
of the wet quench tank, whereas the organic materials tend to float and are removed in the wash
water. When only water is the separation media, these units are commonly referred to as float-
sink tanks.
6. Representative Facility Recommendations
Many technology systems and C&D processing devices have been introduced into the waste
industry and reviewed by GBB staff based upon the type of material and quantity of C&D waste
flows expected to be available. As a result of this review, several different system
configurations have been deemed to be technically applicable and have the capability to be
reasonably proficient in reducing C&D waste material going to local landfills, as well as
providing products for local use.
Option 1
Option 1 focuses on C&D waste materials that could be diverted from landfUIing immediately
by using processing equipment readily available from many vendors in the United States. The
material selected for processing might be the inert portion of the C&D waste stream (consisting
of concrete, rock, dirt, sand, etc.). This Option .1 concept allows for the production of an
aggregate for fill at "clean fill" or reclamation sites and a dirt-like product. Ferrous metal would
also be recovered.
The typical equipment needed for Option 1 (depicted schematically in Figure 3) are delineated
as follows:
445
-------
• Tracked Front End Loader - Separates non-processible material and moves surge piles.
• Front End Loader - Loads feeder/screen from nearby surge piles.
• Feeder/Screen - Vibrating grizzly screen designed to pass sand, dirt, and small rock.
• Crusher - Set to crush material 8 inches and larger.
• Feed Conveyor - Moves oversized material from the feeder and the crusher to the screen.
• Magnetic Separator - Removes reinforcing rod and other ferrous metal.
• Double Deck Screen - Vibrating screen with two decks to produce three products:
oversized (for recycling back to crusher), middling • an aggregate material, and fines -
dirt-like material.
• Recycle Conveyor - Moves oversized material from the screen to the crusher.
• Middling Conveyor - A two-part belt conveyor (short fixed discharge conveyor and a
stacking conveyor) for discharge of the aggregate fraction.
• Fines Conveyor - A two-part belt conveyor (short fixed discharge conveyor and a
stacking conveyor) for discharge of the undersize (fines) fraction.
• Front End Loader - Loads products into trucks for removal and reuse.
Based upon the C&D waste to be processed this equipment has been specified to process up to
a nominal 250 tons per hour. Technically, the system can be expected to operate on a two-shift
basis, at an expected availability of 85 percent, taking into account both scheduled (preventive
maintenance) and unscheduled (failure) outages.
Option 2
Option 2 is a Mixed C&D Waste Processing Option. This concept focuses on identifying mixed
C&D waste material that can be diverted from landfiliing. The raw material infeed would
consist of: (a) certain building demolition waste; (b) renovation waste; and (c) mixed site
clearance waste materials. Generally, except for oversized materials that are screened initially,
for economic viability, most of the products from this processing system should be useable to
reduce the ultimate disposal costs of residue materials. The material products would be the inert
portions of C&D waste, consisting of concrete, rock, din, sand, etc., processed to produce an
446
-------
aggregate and a dirt-like product. Additionally, ferrous and shredded wood products could be
generated.
Under this concept (depicted in Figure 4), trucks with loads of small-sized, inert material would
be diverted by a spotter at the scalehouse for processing, along with mixed C&D waste loads
noted above. Option 2 would not include a rock/concrete crusher system; therefore; only
material that is less than 8 inches in diameter and falls through the disc screen is processed
further. Option 2, as depicted, would not address the processing of larger inerts, nor the
processing of roadwork material and excavated material. The oversized product is assumed to
be landfllled as a rejected material.
The typical equipment required for Option 2 is as follows:
• Track Loader - Moves dumped material near to feed area; develops surge pile; and
separates any large pieces of rock or concrete material.
• Front End Loader - Loads feed conveyor and separates large inert material.
• Disc Screen - Horizontal disc screen designed to eliminate material greater than 8-10
inches in size.
• Magnetic Separator - Removes ferrous metal.
• Trommel Screen - Set to screen dirt and fines - dirt-like material.
• HandpicMng Station - Sort out non-recoverable contaminant materials (e.g., plastic pipe)
that might otherwise float and be carried over to the wood processing system.
• Float/Sink Tank - Designed to separate heavy inert fraction (e.g., rocks, concrete) from
the lighter floatable fraction (e.g, wood). The heavy inert fraction would be available
for use as fill at reclamation sites.
• Hammermill - Shreds the float fraction - primarily wood.
For purposes of developing data for this paper, Option 2 equipment has been specified to process
up to a nominal 150 tons per hour. Based on location and permit conditions, the system can
also be operated on a two-shift basis, and has an expected availability of 85 percent for both
scheduled (preventive maintenance) and unscheduled (failure) outages.
447
-------
Option 3
Option 3 is tiie combination of Option 1 and Option 2, and is designed to handle most, if not
all, of the infeed waste categories presented within the overall C&D waste stream that are
generally delivered to a landfill. This concept is designed to: (a) identify material that can be
diverted from Jandfilling by rock/concrete crusher equipment that is readily available (e.g.,
excavated material, sroadwork material, and certain building demolition waste); and (b) interface
a mixed C&D waateprocessing system for the separation of the more organic-laden loads (e.g.,
renovation waste and mired site clearance waste). Inherent in the design is the assumption that
the recovered products are marketable.
To illustrate tins combined system for purposes of this paper, this equipment is assumed to be
specified to process up to a nominal 400 tons per hour. The material selected for the
rock/concrete crusher system is the inert portion of the C&D waste stream consisting of
concrete, rock, 'dirt, .sand, etc., as well as the oversized inert material separated from the mixed
C&D waste stream. This -would produce an aggregate and dirt-like product. Under Option 3,
trucks with loads oaf inert material (or primarily inert material) would be diverted by a spotter
at the Rock/Canorete scalehouse for processing at the crusher plant, whereas organic loads
would be sent so rthe mixed C&D waste processing system.
The concept far Option 3 is presented in Figure 5, and the equipment is graphically presented
in Figure 6.
Cost Estimating
GBB staff merates faave had discussions with several manufacturers for each representative type
of plant discnaad {herein. Very preliminary capital costs, the costs of mobile equipment,
exclusive of tend costs, engineering, permitting and buildings (open air operations were
assumed), are as idiows:
Option 1: Barak/Concrete Crushing Plant $ 1,800,000 - 2,200,000
Option 2: Mixed C&D Waste $ 2,000,000 - 2,250,000
Option 3: Qnriamed System $ 4,000,000 - 4,500,000
Due to the extremely variable nature of local labor rates, fuel costs, finance interest rates,
recovered prodnct stalces, etc., this paper will not attempt to present the annual operations costs
for each tcchnicd -option discussed. It should, however, be noted that, when conducting a life
cycle cost model, at & minimum the following seven major parameters should be covered: (1)
annual C&D veHtetquamities; (2) recovered material quantities and unit sales prices; (3) product
transportation Bests; (4) operation costs (capital, operating, and maintenance); (5) projected
tipping fee revenues; <6) disposal cost of nonrecyclables; and (7) landfill savings.
44B
-------
The economic models are sensitive to the prices received for reusable products. These
parameters could be explored by sensitivity runs of the model to identify the full range of cost
or profit expected from the implementation of C&D waste recycling facilities.
Summary
A C&D waste recycling project is designed to turn waste products into reusable, marketable
products. The operator must not only be mechanically proficient, but must have the appropriate
marketing expertise to maintain a long-term, daily commodity movement at competitive prices
to ensure a profitable business venture. The demonstrated capability of prospective vendors to:
(1) efficiently and effectively operate the proposed technology; and (2) implement the marketing
plan for the products generated should be of key concern to the public sector. A delicate
equilibrium may ultimately be established between (a) the local landfill use and its associated
costs and cash flows, and (b) a local C&D waste recycling system throughput and its costs. Due
to the separation and diversion .of tipping fee revenues, this could be an economic issue to a
local landfill if a publically owned local contractor were running the public landfill and also
.happened to be the private C&D waste Tecycling operator. Depending upon waste stream mix,
these two systems could, ultimately, be competitive processes, and must be evaluated carefully
in a project feasibility study.
449
-------
Oversized Material
r
Segregated
Concrete
Loads
Unloaded
for
IUI
Inspection
. w
w
Grizzly
Feeder
b
W
urusner
w
f
kJlacfnat
ivicigi ic i
Multiple
Deck
Screen
Unacceptable
Material
Undersized Material
Product A
Ferrous Metal
Product B
Not to Scale
sow
Representative Concrete Recycling Plant
Process Flow
-------
Slurry
1
Unloading
&
Crawler
Crushing
k
W
Feed
Conveyor
*
i
Unacceptable
Material
Disc
Screen
4
Hand
Picking
of
l»
r
fUldcfnot
FVTaKy Id
r
Trommel
"
Hand
Picking
r
Float/
Sink
Tank
± X ±
9
Ferrous Metal Dirt and Rejects c
Rnes OT
i
Floats
^
Hammermlll
^
Shredded
Wood to
r Curing
Wood
Oversized
Metal
Rock, Concrete,
Asphart, etc.
Rock Rejects
SOD V*SIE
Mixed Consruction Waste
Process Flow
Figure 2
-------
Rock and
Concrete
Tractor
Dozer
Grizzly Feeder
i— Crusher
Feeder
Loader
>8 - Inch
Recycle
Oversized
Material
Conveyor
Multiple
Deck
Screen
Discharge Conveyor
— Magnet
I -4 Ferrous loadout Container
<%-lnch
Product Stockpile
Belt Conveyor —,
Transfer
Conveyor
Radial Stockpile
Conveyor
Products
Loader
SiSx^Si^^S. <8 - Inch
I^$$:w:i88^&.. Product Stockpile
Rock/Concrete Crushing and Screening Plant
Option 1
CCNSUWJ1S
Figure 3
-------
Elevating Feeder
— Disc Screen
Wet Slurry
Loadout Container
Mixed
Construction
Waste Stockpile
Tractor
Dozer
<8 - Inch Heavy Materials
(Rock, Concrete, Asphalt, etc.)
Products
Loader
Oversized Material
Discharge Conveyor
&*&«i*i$ft ** * 'nc*' '"ted"' Storage
•Xv'X&v! and Loadout Area
•*%:$•$•?* (Oversized Material)
<8- Inch Material
Dirt and Fines
Lo admit Area
f~J Ferrous Loadout Area
Hand Picking Area
Products Loadout
Wood Waste
Material Loadout
Sink/Float Tank
Wood and Bark Grinder
•,#>, ....,
''^i'^fc'r'
tOUD VMkSTE
Mixed C & D Waste Recycling Plant
Option 2
-------
Raw Material
infeed
• Certain building
demolition waste
• Renovation waste
• Mixed site
clearance
Mixed
Waste
Processing
System
Crushing
System
Raw Material
Infeed
* Roadworlc
material
• Excavated
material
• Certain building
demolition waste
Product Outputs and Usage
<8 - inch rock, concrete, and other heavy inorganics
(available for delivery to reclamation site, landfill, or
marketed as products)
Shredded wood waste material
Ferrous material product
Mixed organics and rejects to landfill
Dirt and fines material for soft fill
WASTE
Option 3
Integrated C & D Waste Recyling Option
-------
Building Demolition, Renovation Waste
and Mixed Site Clearance Stockpile
Dirt and Fines
Loadout Area
<%-Inch Product
Stockpile
<8 - Inch Heavy Materials
(Rock, Concrete, Asphalt, etc.)
Wood Waste
Material Loadout
SOU) VKSIE
Integrated C & D Waste Recycling System
Option 3
-------
THE BENEFICIAL CO-EXISTENCE OF REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY
WITH RECYCLING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOALS
R. M. Hartman, M. L. Smith
ABB Resource Recovery Systems
Windsor, Connecticut
INTRODUCTION
The vast majority of the solid waste we generate ends up in landfills. But, as the environmental,
economic, and political costs of landfilling climb, reduction, reuse, recycling, and incineration
(municipal waste combustion, (MWQ) grow more attractive as solid waste management
alternatives.
While debate continues on the best role each of these will, or should, play in future solid waste
management, few argue that to some degree the integration of several of these alternatives will
be needed in order to solve the solid waste management problem.
This paper focuses on one type of MWC technology with features that help make MWC and
recycling compatible with one another in an environmentally acceptable manner. That
technology is refuse derived fuel (RDF) municipal waste combustion.
RDF technology was developed in the U.S. in the early 1970's. The first RDF facilities were
based on firing RDF in coal-fired utility boilers. There were many technical and economic
problems that had to be overcome, and the technology evolved slowly to where it is today; i.e.,
the coupling of RDF preparation with new combustion systems designed exclusively for firing
RDF. In the last five years, ABB Resource Recovery Systems (ABB-RRS), the leading vendor
of RDF technology, has brought on line three large RDF facilities demonstrating that RDF
technology is now a proven and reliable technology. Greater than 5.4 million tons of MSW
have been processed at these three facilities.
The initial reason for processing municipal solid waste prior to combustion was to remove a
large fraction of the non-combustibles and to size the RDF so some of it could more readily burn
in suspension. The original economic trade-off of RDF technology was primarily based on the
capital and O&M cost savings of smaller boiler and air pollution control systems versus the
added capital and O&M cost of the processing equipment. Also, RDF offered potential benefits
457
-------
for: 1) load following to enhance revenues by maximizing output during peak periods and 2) the
ability to use excess RDF system capacity to burn coal when not needed for RDF burning.
While an early potential for recycling was identified with RDF technology, the initial focus was
largely on developing efficient, cost-effective combustion technology.
Today, the focus is different. The present demands on municipal solid waste management are
for integrated systems technologies that also provide lower pollutant emissions, more
environmentally secure disposal of residues and recovery of materials for recycling.
In this respect, RDF technology may have some added benefits, although not acknowledged or
fully developed and utilized to date. These new benefits are what this paper is about. The new
benefits relate to improving the processing of waste prior to combustion so that greater amounts
of recyclables can be removed, and to use that removal, plus certain characteristics of the
combustion process, to achieve low air emissions and produce a clean bottom ash amenable to
reuse. These benefits are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
INTEGRATED RECYCLING CAPABILITY OF RDF FACILITIES
Potential for Increased Recycling
Recent surveys show RDF plants are operating in 23 locations and handling about 28,000 TPD
of municipal solid waste. This is about one third of the total MSW handled by waste-to-energy
plants and about 5% of U.S. municipal solid waste production.
Most RDF plants presently employ magnetic separation of ferrous metals and screening of small
metals, glass, and yard waste in addition to size reduction. The ABB-RRS plants use the RDF
processing steps shown in Figure 1.
RDF plants provide % natural basis for stepwise development of integrated recycling systems in
waste-to-energy plants. Most RDF plants have been designed to improve MSW fuel quality as
a higher priority than recovery of reusable material.
Figure 2 shows an integrated systems approach to municipal solid waste recycling and processing
based on refuse derived fuel. Most existing RDF plants could be modified to operate as shown
in that Figure. The facilities identified in Figure 2 might be sited at one location or on nearby
sites and serve as the hub for community recycling and resource recovery efforts. Simply put,
the facilities could be designed to handle curb side sorted or blue bag collected recyclables and
the balance of mixed residential, commercial, and nonhazardous industrial solid waste. Various
beneficial interfaces exist between RDF and Material Recovery Facilities. RDF receiving and
storage areas can provide opportunity for floor inspection and sorting. Sorted products with
salvage value can be passed to a Materials Recovery Facility or to a bulky materials processing
building and returned to the tipping floor. Shredded tires can be metered onto RDF fuel outfeed
458
-------
conveyors. Nonrecyclables from a material recovery facility can be passed to the RDF tipping
floor.
Opportunity for Waste Stream Inspection and Sorting
In addition to scale house and tipping floor inspection, MSW processed in RDF plants commonly
passes a secondary picking station where final sorting of unprocessable material is accomplished.
This unprocessable material, some of which might occasionally contain hazardous substances,
can be returned to bulky waste processing for additional inspection, sorting, preprocessing, and
proper disposal.
Bulky and nonprocessable waste usually amounts to about 1 - 3 % of the municipal solid waste
stream and will include bulky waste, large automobile and industrial machinery parts, concrete
blocks, cable, truck tires, large rolled carpets, bed springs, and occasionally, concentrated
quantities of wood waste, automobile tires, and specialized industrial waste, such as computer
tape and trim from gasket and industrial strapping manufacture. Containers of combustible,
corrosive, and toxic liquids and potentially explosive items are also periodically identified and
removed. This material is technically a hazardous waste which should not be in MSW but
occasionally shows up anyway. Identifying and removing such material gives an opportunity
to track down where it came from for possible enforcement action.
By proper secondary picking and processing in specialized equipment, most of this material can
be screened or crushed into manageable sizes and sorted for salvage or refed to the RDF plants.
Equipment such as picking grapples, vibrating screens, crushing augers, and shear shredders can
be used for this purpose.
Separation of Metals and Other Materials Ahead of Burning
As RDF is processed, there is opportunity for magnetic separation of iron and steel, screening
to remove yard waste and small heavy wet organics such as food waste and glass, sand, and dirt.
Experience has shown that much of the nonferrous metals, ferrous metal not removed by the
primary magnets, and small dense objects, including batteries tend to be concentrated in size
fractions which can be screened. Most household batteries are in metal casings. This fraction
can be 'further separated magnetically. The technology for nonferrous metal separation using
eddy current magnets is now well developed in the auto shredder industry and can be used to
recover nonferrous metal. Air knives have been used effectively to remove glass and stone from
screened residue. Ferrous and nonferrous metals separated during RDF processing can be
directed to the recyclable stream and scrap processors.
Removal and Recycling of Yard Waste
Screened process residue contains most of the easily compostable organic material in MSW.
Screening also removes yard waste, a source of much of the sulfur (essential for plant growth)
459
-------
and nitrogen, and some of the chloride in MSW. Processing to remove this organic compostable
material will cause some energy loss, but the fuel quality, including the ash content, will be
improved, and less SO2 and NOX emissions will occur.
Compostable material from an RDF facility could be handled in simple landfill compost
facilities, with the final product used as intermediate landfill cover and as construction fill.
There can, then, be a positive synergy between recycling and RDF processing. For example,
Wisconsin recently initiated (1991) a state-wide recycling program, and one Wisconsin city is
diverting about 18% of the municipal solid waste stream (not including yard waste). The
materials separated for recycling include:
Aluminum Cans
Steel Cans
Mixed Color Glass
Plastic Milk Cartons (HDPE)
Plastic Soft Drink Bottles (LDPE)
Newspapers
Corrugated
Removal of both recyclables (about 18%) and yard waste (about 22%) in Madison Wisconsin
has so .far reduced the city's MSW deliveries to the Madison RDF plant in 1992 by about 35%.
The City has had a long-term newspaper recycling program, which had previously diverted 5%
from the RDF plant.
The net impacts of such removals from the MSW at the Madison RDF plant have been:
Waste deliveries to the RDF plant which previously experienced swings from 0.7
(winter) to 1.3 (summer) of the annual average are now almost level throughout the
yeara>a>
Moisture and the higher heating value of MSW are almost level throughout the year.
The Madison RDF, already a clean low ash (10%) fuel, has not changed substantially in
heat value remaining in-the range of 6000 BTU/lb.a) (This can be attributed to the fact
the plant magnetically separates iron and steel and screens and removes glass and yard
waste during processing. Now the percent of iron and steel, separated at the RDF plant,
and glass, and yard waste in the Madison RDF plant residue is reduced from the levels
which existed before the expanded recycling program.)
It appears that curb side recycling or blue bag separation of recyclables, at the levels indicated,
and elimination of yard waste will have major impact on the quantity on MSW received but will
460
-------
not significantly affect the fuel heating values at many RDF plants, since metals, glass, and yard
waste are routinely separated at most plants anyway. Removal of recyclables and yard waste
will improve RDF fuel quality, whichever methods of recyclable separation are used. As
municipal waste management plans are developed, consideration should be given to the
inspection, sorting, and recycling capabilities of RDF facilities to further optimize and reduce
the cost of recycling.
Rubber Tire Shredding
RDF plants provide a natural location for processing and disposal of automobile tires. Tires,
which make up about \lh% of municipal solid waste, are often mixed with loads of MSW. If
quantities are small, the tires are processed with other MSW. If concentrated loads are received,
special tire shredding equipment may be justified. Inspection and sorting facilities at many RDF
plants commonly remove automobile tires with rims and large truck tires.
A variety of equipment is available to shred automobile and truck tires, with the most common
being low speed shear type shredders.
Automobile tire shredding and the use of shredded tires as supplemental fuel is bee Tiing
popular in many regions of the country with large electric utilities and industries such as c nent
manufacturers.
There are at least two factors influencing this:
(1) The high cost of disposal in landfills; $150 or more per ton if tires are recognizable.
(2) Increasing efforts by utilities and other industries to reduce costs and stay competitive in
light of rising environmental compliance costs.
Shredded tire fuel may contain an average of about lVi% sulfur by weight; however, the higher
heating value of tires, 13,300 BTU/lb0), makes them a medium range sulfur fuel with about 1.1
Ibs of sulfur per million BTU. This compares to about 0.3 Ib sulfur per million BTU of MSW
(excluding yard waste). Shredded tire fuel can be combined with RDF. Minor cost increases
will occur in flue gas cleaning.
THE AIR EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS OF RDF TECHNOLOGY
EPA/Environment Canada Studies of Mid-Connecticut
Prior to 1988, not much was known about RDF emission characteristics except that older
generation RDF facilities were generally higher in carbon monoxide (CO) and dioxin (PCDD,
PCDF) emissions than mass burn facilities. Such general comparisons, however, were based
461
-------
on facilities with only hot ESPs for emission control.
In 1988, U.S.EPA and Environment Canada decided to investigate the emission characteristics
of a state-of-the-art RDF facility. The facility they chose for one of the most comprehensive
emission investigations ever undertaken was the Mid-Connecticut RDF facility in Hartford,
Connecticut. This facility, owned by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority and
designed and constructed by ABB Resource Recovery Systems, has three ABB spreader-stoker
boilers (each at 231,000 Ibs/hr when firing 26 tons/hr of RDF with an average heating value of
5,785 BTU/lb) and each boiler is equipped with an ABB spray dryer absorber and fabric filter
baghouse (SDA/FF). See Figure 3 for a cross section of one of the units also showing where
emission sampling occurred.
The U.S. EPA/Environment Canada $1.5 million testing program investigated the performance
of ABB boiler and flue gas cleaning equipment under varying operating conditions. A series of
13 different performance tests under different steam loads, scrubber operating and combustion
conditions was performed. For each test, emissions of various acid gases, toxic organic and
trace metal pollutants were simultaneously measured in a) the RDF, b) at various locations in
the flue gas, and c) in ash emissions. Such data allowed calculating the removal efficiencies
of pollutants across the air pollution control system and performing an overall input/output
calculation for organics and trace metals.
Distribution and Removal of Toxic Organics
Although the full test report is still not published, the principal findings of the extensive study
have been reported in several published papers. For example Brna and Kilgroe's(4) paper
discussed the removal of dioxins and furans and other toxic organics from the flue gas and its
distribution in the RDF ash residues. The conclusions in their paper regarding dioxin emissions
from this RDF facility were:
(1) There is no correlation between the CO concentration and uncontrolled dioxin emissions
when the CO concentration is around or below 200 ppm ( 7% Oj) whereas CO above
200 ppm did show positive correlation with dioxin emissions.
(2) The net destruction efficiency for a range of -organic pollutants (P.CDD, PCDF,
chlorobenzenes (CB), chlorophenols (CP), PAHs and PCBs) ranged from approximately
90% for poor combustion conditions (CO >200 ppm) to 96% for good combustion,
(3) The average uncontrolled concentrations of PCDD, PCDF, CB, CP, PAHs and PCBs in
the flue gas tended to increase as combustion conditions became worse (CO increased).
(4) The PCDD/PCDF removals in the SDA/FF system exceeded 99.9% while PM removal
exceeded 99%.
462
-------
(5) Organic pollutant removals in the SDA/FF appeared to be independent of the boiler or
scrubber operating conditions. In other words even with low lime concentrations and
high uncontrolled levels of organic pollutants, high organic removal efficiencies still
occurred.
(6) PAH and CP were the major classes of organic pollutants in the RDF. Both were also
the main components in the stack gas but at values substantially below those in the RDF.
(7) The major fraction of organics leaving the combustor were in the fabric filter ash. The
organics in the bottom ash and economizer ash were very low, even lower than in the
stack gases.
The H-POWER RDF facility in Honolulu Hawaii is a 2,000 ton per day facility. It has two
ABB spreader stoker RDF boilers about the same size as at Mid-Connecticut, but each is
equipped with a dry-scrubber ESP instead of a dry-scrubber/baghouse. This difference in air
pollution control systems does not appear to make a very significant difference in air emissions,
however. For this facility, PCDD/PCDF flue gas emissions average 6.4 ng/dsm3 @ 12% C02
versus <1.0 ng/dsm3 @ 12% CO2 for Mid-Connecticut. The H-POWER bottom ash
PCDD/PCDF averaged 0.108 ng/g versus 0.08 ng/g for Mid-Connecticut bottom ash and H-
POWER fly ash averaged 13.5 ng/g versus 159.9 ng/g for Mid-Connecticut fly ash. This
limited H-POWER PCDD and PCDF data would tend to show slightly lower removal efficiency
than Mid-Connecticut but confirms the low levels of PCDD/PCDF in bottom ash.
Trace Metal Removal
Unlike organics, metals are not changed significantly by combustion. Processing to remove
noncombustibles prior to combustion has been shown to reduce the quantity of trace metals. G.
L. Boley's(5) paper, "Partitioning of Elements by Refuse Processing," evaluated the effectiveness
of two different RDF plants in reducing Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg concentrations in the incoming
MSW when producing RDF for combustion. Cadmium was shown to be reduced on average
by 45% in RDF processing to produce an RDF with cadmium in the range of 1.3 to 5.0 pg/g.
Chromium was shown to be reduced on average by 43 % to produce RDF with chromium in the
range of 11 to 120 ^ug/g. Lead was shown to be reduced in RDF on average by 40% to the
range-of 63 to 289 jig/g. Finally, mercury was shown to be reduced on average by 36% to
produce RDF in the range of 0.034.-^g/g 10 0.257 pcg/g. These reductions in trace metals-were
accomplished with RDF processing designed to maximize BTU recovery where the RDF
produced equals 80% to 85% of the incoming MSW. Improvements in source separation,
recycling, and RDF processing as described earlier in this paper, while recovering fewer BTUs,
may further reduce trace metal concentrations in the RDF.
The EPA/Environment Canada testing of the Mid-Connecticut facility showed consistent 99+ %
removal efficiency for all trace metals except mercury from the flue gas. However, the lowest
mercury removal efficiency was still 96% even when the scrubber outlet temperature was
463
-------
allowed to incraseito 331 °F instead of operating in the more normal range of 250-280T.
Table 1 shows thesaverage emissions in Ibs/hr and Ibs/ton RDF for cadmium, lead, and mercury
in both ash and flue .gas emissions. It is obvious that ash is the emission medium where trace
metals go following municipal waste combustion for plants with scrubber baghouses.
Mercury is a tswic'trace metal which bioaccumulates. For the past three years, efforts have been
made to reduce mercury-bearing components in the MSW stream. These programs center
primarily arouwd/household battery collection programs which generally have had very limited
success in terms o>f citizen participation.
RDF processing,*astpointed out in G. L. Boley's paper, removes approximately one-third of the
mercury prior no (combustion. Because the vapor pressure of mercury is so low, essentially all
the mercury in refuse is thought to be volatilized when combusted. When the flue gas from an
RDF facility is >cooled in -a scrubber to temperatures in the range of 300-250 °F, and then
paniculate matter is collected in either a baghouse or FJSP, very high mercury removal
efficiencies iir.theTange of 86-99% results. Such high removal efficiencies occur naturally in
RDF facilities, white.other types of combustors must add activated carbon to achieve such high
levels. The explanation for the higher mercury removal efficiency in RDF facilities, as pointed
out by G. G. Bierce^stpaper on this topic (6) is the higher levels of carbon in RDF flyash, which
results when KHSF'rbums in suspension. Most of the unburned carbon in other types of MWC
facilities is comainsdiin bottom ash and is thus unavailable for adsorption of volatile trace metals
in the flue gas.
Nitrogen Oxide jEmysstons
In modem MWCs there is an intent to produce better mixing and higher combustion
temperatures with tgreater excess air rates in order to reduce CO and organic emissions.
However, the higher temperatures and excess air rates also lead to higher NOX emissions.
Figure 4 illustrates '.the trade-off between CO and NOX emissions at an RDF facility. Note the
plots are not linear, *but hyperbolic. For an RDF facility somewhere around 170-180 ppm, NOX
emissions appear to xoincide with low CO emissions of 100 ppm or less. The reasons for the
low NO, levels in 1KDF boilers is the low level of excess air, and the reduction in grass clippings
and other yard ^esste "material that occurs during RDF processing. Yard waste particularly grass
clippings are loktively high in nitrogen. .
THE BOTTOM 'ASH .RDF CHARACTERISTICS FOR REUSE
Because RDF facilities magnetically remove a high percentage of the large metal objects prior
to combustion and .because of the quench water used and the low level of chlorides and sulfates,
the bottom asft tproiiuced following combustion is easier to clean up and tends to be more
insoluble than %assti. Furthermore, except for lead, most of the volatile trace metals, as well
as the organics, ttrailttDie in lower concentration than in mass burn bottom ash. The proportion
of bottom ash BDtomlaesi is typically about 65%. It is estimated that about 30% of the RDF
464
-------
bottom ash consists of metal pieces that could be recovered leaving a course sandy material.
Bottom ash is high in silicon oxides, aluminum oxides, and iron oxides. The trace metal and
organic leachability of bottom ash is much lower than for fly ash. Attached as Figure 3 is two
years' of TCLP data (and 2 EPA Method SW924 tests) for the combined ash from ABB's H-
POWER facility for lead. Lead is the trace metal with the greatest potential to exqeed EPA's
TCLP limits, and as can be seen from Figure 5, the results of combined ash average a factor
of 10 below the EPA TCLP limits. Figure 6 shows how low the solubility of RDF bottom ash
is compared to fly ash.
Thus, it would appear that RDF bottom ash is very amenable to reuse applications. The 30%
metal pieces in bottom ash can be easily removed and cleaned up to sell for scrap. The
remaining 70% has the capability to be used as road base, to be pelletized to produce aggregate
for road construction, or to even be used as a partial replacement for sand and cement in various
concrete products. Bottom ash needs to be recognized as quite different than fly ash,
particularly at RDF facilities. Realizing RDF bottom ash is very low in trace organics and
leachable trace metals, it is logical to focus on this material's environmentally safe reuse
characteristics.
NEW PENDING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS WHICH RDF CAN HELP MEET
There are four separate regulatory developments which relate to some of the technical attributes
of RDF technology. These are: (1) Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments which will
impose new standards on MWC's for air emissions of dioxin and furans, cadmium, lead,
mercury, and nitrogen oxides; (2) Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments which
impose acid rain controls on the electric utility industry and allow credit for emissions avoided
through use of renewable energy (MWC) and reductions in SQ and NO, by burning RDF
instead of coal; (3) proposed revisions to RCRA that Congress is considering regarding setting
national recycling goals and classifying MWC ash as a subtitle D waste with provisions allowing
for limited reuse; and (4) the recent EPA Administrator Remand decision re the Brooklyn Navy
Yard project and BACT control for NO, (PSD Appeal No. 88-10) in which separation of yard
waste prior to incineration must be considered in addition to nonselective catalytic reduction
(NSCR) for NOX control.
As pointed out above, RDF facilities employing dry scrubbers with either baghouses or ESPs,
have very high removal efficiency for dioxin, furans, cadmium and mercury. This is due to
preprocessing and high levels of carbon in the fly ash. Our current understanding of the pending
MACT standards, which are to issue later this summer, leads us to believe that few, if any,
alterations or additions to our RDF technology will be needed to meet the new standards.
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act created certain incentives for the electric utility industry
which could cause utilities to consider co-firing coal and RDF. This is because RDF, unlike
MSW, can be co-fired in some utility boilers, and RDF is lower than coal in sulfur and nitrogen
and, thus, tends to reduce S02 and NOX emissions. Furthermore, there is an EPA reserve of
465
-------
300,000 ions of SO; emission allowance provided for energy conservation and use of renewable
energy. Since RDF is classified by DOE as a renewable energy source, co-firing or converting
a utility boiler to burning 100% RDF could make this special S02 emission reserve available as
a credit.
Should Congress amend RCRA to establish national recycling goals, RDF technology could be
modified to recover certain recyclables from the mixed refuse stream after source separation has
occurred. Thus, this technology would be a further aid to recycling. Furthermore, as pointed
out, the bottom ash produced from RDF technology is small in quantity and particle size. This
means it is relatively easy to recover metals as well as use the remaining product in various
applications to further help in meeting recycling objectives as well as lower the cost of waste
management.
Finally, all EPA regions, under the case-by-case BACT analysis, must now consider the viability
of source separation of nitrogen-containing components of the waste stream in addition to
nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) technology for nitrogen oxide control. RDF technology
currently removes yard waste and some other nitrogen carrying materials and can help
accomplish this NO, control measure cost effectively. The current RDF technology being
employed works to control nitrogen emissions through processing and using low excess
combustion air. NO, emissions from RDF facilities may be as much as 40% lower than some
MWC. NOX can be lowered even further if RDF technology is combined with source-separation
programs for garden waste, grass clipping, etc. As pointed out by the EPA Administrator in
his Spokane and Brooklyn Navy Yard decisions, as information about source separation or
recycling in conjunction with incineration becomes available, showing that both are economically
feasible and result in reduced emissions, then such technology combinations must be considered
in individual BACT determinations.
CONCLUSIONS
While an early potential for.recycling was identified with RDF technology, the initial focus was
largely on developing efficient, cost-effective combustion technology. Today, the focus is
.different. The present demands on municipal solid waste management are for integrated systems
technologies that also provide environmentally safe combustion, safe disposal of residues, and
recovery and recycling of materials.
Refuse derived fuel {RDF) municipal waste combustors have certain design and operating
characteristics useful in meeting objectives in both recycling and waste combustor emission
control.
The separation process provides opportunity for easy interface with community recycling
programs and opportunity to provide back-up and enhancement of these programs.
For municipalities with curb side recycling programs, RDF processing can still extract some
remaining metal, glass, and yard waste from the nonrecyclable mixed waste stream.
466
-------
For municipalities with limited recycling programs, RDF processing can help save money on
separate curb side collection by removing many recyclables in an improved RDF process that
is integrated with a materials recycling center.
RDF provides a means of improving waste prior to combustion and producing a clean bottom
ash, low in leachable organics and amenable to reuse.
As shown by extensive studies by the USEPA, Environment Canada, and others at Mid-Conn,
RDF technology can achieve very low air emissions compatible with what we understand EPA
may be considering for the New Clean Air Act MACT standards without possibly adding
additional air pollution controls.
Solid waste management plans should consider the various benefits of RDF technologies for
meeting recycling goals and new environmental air and solid waste standards.
REFERENCES
(1) M. L. Smith, "Study of RDF Markets for the City of Madison Wisconsin," June 1982.
(2) M. L. Smith, Private conversation with officials at the City of Madison, Wiscor; i.
(3) J. Makarai, Tires-to-Energy Plant Takes Highroad in Managing Discharges," t. >ver
Magazine. April 1992, pp 152-156.
(4) T. G. Bma, J. D. Kilgroe, "Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin and Dibenzo
furansrRemoval from Flue Gas and Distribution in Ash/Residue of a Refuse-Derived Fuel
Combustor," llth International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related
Compounds, Research Triangle Park, NC, Sept. 1991.
(5) G. L. Boley, "Partitioning of Elements by Refuse Processing," Municipal Waste
Combustion Conference, Tampa, FL, April 1991.
(6) G. G. Pierce, "Controlling Mercury Emissions from RDF-Facilities," Municipal Waste
Combustion Conference, Tampa, FL, April 1991.
467
-------
Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 1
Municipal Solid Waste Processing - Single Line
INSPECTION/
REMOVAL
£ MSW
& RECEIVING
FERROUS
METAL
MAGNETIC
SEPARATION
PRIMARY
TROMMEL
SECONDARY
SHREDDER
PRIMARY
SHREDDER
RESIDUE
SECONDARY
TROMMEL
RDF
STORAGE
-------
ABIE*
Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 2
Potential For Adding Integrated Materials Recovery To
RDF Plants
Waste Streams
Recydables
Materials
Recovery
Facility
JBIUI
•RR
«.»
Municipal Solid Waste
S
MSW Receiving
and
Sorting
Construction & Demolition
Bulky Material and
C&D Processing
fires
Compostibles
MSW Processing
and
Fuel Storage
Tire
Processing
tl
Compost
Facility
Residue
Power Block
Still
Ash System
Ash
Processing
End Products
Corrugated
Steam
Electricity
Ash Products
Rubber Products
Compost
Landfill
-------
Jl
Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 3
Mid-Connecticut RDF Traveling Grate Stoker Boiler
With Spray Dryer Absorber/Fabric Filter
ECONOMIZER
SUPERHEATER
X
not DISTRIBUTORS
FRONT
OvEflFIRE AIR
AIR HEATER
SAMPLING
(ORGANICSl INLET SAMPLING AND CEMt
—OVERFIRE AIR FAN
COMOUSTon
OUTLET SAMPLING
AND
MIDPOINT C£M»
11111
FABRIC FILTER IflAGHOuSU
5MZV
O» nf ? I OM
OEM = Continuous Emission Monitors
-------
Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 4
Mid-Connecticut Facility Test Average CO Versus NOx
QOO-
800-
700-
600-
? .
8 4OQ.
100.
"300-
A>
V
0
>
V
/v
^
oo
^ Aws
^
A
V
"l40 150 160 170 180 190 200
NOx (ppm)
R2 = 0.60
Values corrected to 12% CO2
File 6 • 38
-------
Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 5
HPOWER Monthly TCLP and SW924 Leachate Analysis
Based on the Mean of 14 Test Samples analysed each month
100.0
Lead
10.0
EPA Standard
1.0
0.1
0 Test per EPA method SW924
—- Mean of 14 samples
— 90% confidence upper bound
0.01
Dec Feb Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Dec
89 90 91
-------
JL!i!i Resource Recovery Systems
Figure 6
Average Cumulative Total Fraction Of Solids
Dissolved During The Sequential Batch Extraction Procedure
w
0)
J>
O
U)
w
b
c
g
•«—>
o
cd
\_
LL
0
E
u
O
40
30
20-
0
BA/GS Ash
EC Ash
FF Ash
i
4
Cycle
-------
AU Resource Recovery Systems
Table 1
Lbs/Hr And Lbs/Ton Distribution Of Cd, Pb And Hg
In RDF, Various Ash Fractions And Flue Gas
(Data from soon lo be published joint EPA/Environment Canada MId-Connecilcul Test Program)
RDF'
Bottom
Ash
Grate Sittings
Ash
Economizer
Ash
Fly
Ash
Fabric
Filler
Outlet
CADMIUM
Ibs/hr 668.36
Ibs/tons/RDF 21.9
78.67
2.58
5.4
0.177
0.57
0.02
583.5
19.13
N.D.
N.D.
LEAD
Ibs/hr 46575
IbsAons/RDF 1528
23982
786.53
5177
169.8
74.65
2.49
17341
568.74
0.0136
0.00044
MERCURY
Ibs/hr 209.32
Ibs/tons/RDF 6.85
1.97
0.064
0.64
0.02
0.0016
0.00005
206.5
6.77
0.0027
0.000088
* RDF Emissions in Ibs/hr Produced by Adding the Ash and Fabric Filler Oullel Emissions Rates.
This is noC the same as the Measured Levels in Table 2.
-------
THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF A LEACHATE RECYCLE SYSTEM AT A
FULL-SCALE OPERATING LANDFILL
Timothy G. Townsend, W. Lamar Miller
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Introduction
Sanitary landfills remain the principal means of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) disposal in
the United States, accounting for an estimated 80% of the MSW disposal in 1990 (1). In
Florida, a state heavily dependent on groundwater resources for drinking water,
approximately 70% of the MSW generated in 1990 was deposited in sanitary landfills (2).
In light of the continued reliance on land disposal of MSW, alternative technologies for
landfill design and operation are being pursued throughout the country to ensure that
adequate environmental protection is provided. One emerging concept involves operating
landfills as bioreactors, rather than storage facilities, through the use of technologies such
as. leachate recycle. A leachate recycle system (LRS) was installed and operated at an
experimental bioreactor landfill in Florida. This paper reviews the performance of the LRS
during the first 17 months of operation.
Leachate Recycle at MSW Landfills
Modern, engineered landfills are equipped with liners and leachate collection systems to
intercept and remove leachate. Collected leachate requires proper management, and usually
necessitates some form of treatment prior to disposal. The process of leachate recycle
involves recirculating collected leachate back to the landfill for infiltration into the solid
waste.
A number of advantages may be gained by the use of leachate recycle. One immediate
benefit is that leachate equalization capacity is provided through the utilization of the MSW
for moisture storage. Depending upon climatic and site-specific operational conditions, the
need for additional leachate treatment and disposal may be delayed for a number of years,
and possibly entirely.
475
-------
Another advantasgeoDf .leacbate recycle develops as a result of enhanced biological activity
in the landfill. An 'increase in MSW moisture creates an environment favorable for the
growth of anaerobic micro-organisms. These micro-organisms decompose (stabilize) the
biodegradable fraction of the waste. The enhanced moisture content promotes an
accelerated stabilization of the landfill. Recirculated leachate facilitates the distribution of
micro-organisms amd ;nutrients, and returns organic matter present in the leachate to the
landfill for degradation by the active biological population. Inorganic leachate constituents
such as heavy metakimay precipitate or be sorbed on the waste, and be removed from the
leachate.
Accelerated ifltyfffli stabilization shortens the period during post-closure when the landfill
is most active, making gas recovery for energy more attractive and providing potential reuse
opportunities for the landfill itself.
Leachate recycle -has "been shown to be successful for the treatment of leachate and the
acceleration of waste stabilization in laboratory and pilot-scale landfill studies (3,4,5). The
application of such .information to the design and operation of leachate recycle systems at
full-scale, operating iJandSUs is difficult. The results of a few full-scale landfills have been
documented (6,7$), tout detailed information regarding the engineering design and operation
of a LRS is minimal fat .best A number of full-scale .landfills have utilized or continue to
practice leachate raoycle. In a 1991 survey, 16 Florida landfills reported having used
leachate recycle to ^ome extent, with 6 of the landfills utilizing leachate recycle as the
primary method *af .leachate management (9).
A number of rasBhwds are available to recirculate leachate at landfills. These methods
include spray irrigation, .-surface application, and subsurface injection into the landfill. Spray
irrigation promotes .enhanced evaporation, but aerosol drift onto workers and equipment,
and downtime dicing wet weather conditions have been cited as limitations (7,8). Surface
application has most rcommonly been accomplished by ponding leachate in a bermed or
depressed area ©f mfre Igndfill. Leachate evaporation occurs, but wet weather operation
remains limited amd *krge sections of the landfill must be dedicated as pond area. The most
common form of subsurface application has been injection through vertical recharge wells.
Recharge wells may tot .operated during inclement weather, but the return of leachate to the
collection system ^accelerated (8) and the distribution of moisture is questionable.
When mismanaged, ?a URS may pose a threat to the surrounding environment Lack of
control and improper idesign and operation have often resulted in the regulatory disfavor of
leachate recycle. Issachate recycle systems have most often been implemented after the
completion of IsoxSUll (design and construction, without up-front consideration of leachate
recycle as an engineered part of the landfill management system. This is primarily a result
of the minimal <»jfflBm°"''TS data available for the design and safe operation of such systems.
476
-------
Site Description
The Alachua County Southwest Landfill (ACSWL) is located approximately 15 miles
southwest of the town of Gainesville, in Alachua County, in North-Central Florida (Fig. 1).
The site consists of a number of landfill units, including two older, capped and unlined units,
and the currently operating lined unit (Fig. 2). MSW disposal in the lined unit began in
April 1988. The landfill currently receives approximately 330 tons of MSW per day.
The 25-acre operating landfill unit is equipped with a composite clay/HDPE liner and a
leachate collection system. The drainage layer of the leachate collection system consists of
two feet of sand with a hydraulic conductivity greater than IxlO"3 cm/sec. A leachate
treatment plant was constructed to manage leachate. The treatment system includes lime
precipitation and basin aeration. Pre-treated leachate is hauled off-site by tanker truck for
ultimate disposal at a Gainesville wastewater treatment plant
Incoming MSW is compacted in lifts 10 to 20 feet high at an approximate in-place density
of 1200 lb/yd3. Average lift width is approximately 100 feet. On-site borrow sand, the same
as used for the leachate collection system, is used as daily and intermediate cover material.
LRS Construction and Operation
A 2-HP stainless steel well pump was installed in an equalization basin of the leachate
treatment plant. A piping system (3-inch PVC) was installed from the pump to the surface
of the lined landfill. A flow meter was placed in the line to monitor the raw leachate
(untreated) volume pumped to the LRS infiltration area.
An infiltration pond system was selected as the initial LRS. Early experiments in the
summer of 1990 using shallow, surface infiltration trenches proved unsuccessful. The
leachate application rate exceeded the infiltration rate into the MSW, Infiltration ponds
provided a large leachate storage capacity with continuous exfiltration. Ponds were judged
the least difficult system to construct and monitor, and were therefore desirable for the
initial LRS research.
The first percolation pond began operation in September, 1990, 29 months after the first
waste deposition. Through the course of the study, three additional ponds were constructed
and operated. Figure 3 presents the layout of the infiltration pond LRS at ACSWL in
October, 1991. A section of the landfill was reserved as a control area for an additional
research project (10).
Ponds 1 and 2 were constructed by excavation to depths of 5 to 6 feet into the MSW using
on-site earth moving equipment Ponds 3 and 4 were constructed by compacting lifts of
solid waste to form the pond walls. The construction of these walls entailed directing the
incoming MSW to a specific location where the MSW was deposited, compacted and
477
-------
Fig. 1. Site Location (Alachua County)
Lnchau
Treatment
Facility
I I I I I
I mrA, OpenUB| 25-aoc
Diipcual Ana
Qcaed, Capped 11-aoc
Ditpoal Ana
Qo*ed, Capped 30«CR
Fig. 2. Site Layout
478
-------
Composite Lined Slopes
Stonn-wmier
Collection
Sump
Lined Bottom Are*,
2-ft Minimum ^«^H
Storm-water Diversion Dike
Collection
Sump
Active Wa*te PliormfDl Area
Treatment
Plant
Previous Locution
of Pond 1
LRS Piping System
100ft
Fig. 3. Leachate Recycle System (October 1991)
479
-------
covered with 6 to 12 inches of cover soil. The base of tbe walls were a minimum of 30-ft
wide. The bottom of^ond 1 was lined with 1-inch rock while ponds 2, 3, and 4 were lined
with on-site cover sand. Pond 4 was additionally lined with wire fence material to prevent
waste floatation.
Ponds were equipped with individual inlet lines so that leachate could be routed to a
specific pond. Each-pond was equipped with a staff gage for measurement of pond water
level. Level measurements were recorded each morning, after pumping, and at the end of
each operating criay. .A weekly water balance was performed on all of the ponds to
determine infiltration. Rainfall was measured on-site and published pan evaporation data
for the area-wasmsed-to estimate evaporation from the ponds.
The daily voluanefdfileachate pumped from the leachate collection system to the treatment
plant and the volume of treated leachate hauled off-site for disposal were recorded by the
LRS operator.
Leachate "Recycle System Results
The method of (construction, performance of the pond-bottom material, and the infiltration
rates of the TOrious^ponds were evaluated.
Pond operation. The excavated ponds (1 and 2) were constructed over periods of one
to two days :by ^a ssingle operator. The constructed wall ponds, in contrast, demanded
considerable •>6mie*and effort from the entire landfill operating crew. A high degree of
coordination among;all of the landfill personnel was required to ensure proper placement
and compaction fof rthe incoming waste to form pond walls of the appropriate size and
dimensions.
Seepage through rtbe MSW pond walls was noted, but was not a major problem. Some
leachate did sesp, through the cover sand at points where the level of the waste was lower
than the water -level of the pond. This occurred only with heavy rainfall events. Leachate
outbreaks were Jimited and were contained to the immediate infiltration area. Seepage was
remedied by compacting an additional MSW lift around the pond, and by increasing the
freeboard in the pond. Ponds that were constructed by excavation, into the solid waste and
maintained at Jevels ijelow that of the surrounding waste posed the least problems with
seepage.
Pond lining. Oftthetthree pond-bottom materials evaluated, only the 1-inch rock failed to
keep waste flotation omder control. Buoyant materials and trapped landfill gas resulted in
substantial waste dotation in the first pond. Waste flotation became progressively worse in
pond 1 after sgaproximatety six months of operation. The pond was eventually drained and
filled-in with wrote. A layer of 4 to 6 inches of on-site cover sand was found to sufficiently
control floating waste. No additional advantage was gained by lining pond 4 with fence
480
-------
wire.
Recycled leachate volume. During the 17-month period from September, 1990 to January
1992, approximately 6,400,000 gallons of leachate were recycled to the landfill. At times
during the study period, leachate treatment and off-site disposal were required. Based on
the recorded volume of leachate pumped from the leachate collection system, 77% of the
leachate was recirculated to the landfill. The monthly leachate budget for the project period
is presented in Table 1. The size of the leachate treatment plant allowed as much 300,000
gallons of leachate to carried over from month to month as storage. A larger volume of
water was removed from the treatment system than the volume of incoming leachate. This
was largely the result of water added to the lime precipitation treatment process. Based
upon total water discharged from the treatment plant, 62% of the leachate was recycled.
Leachate infiltration. A primary objective in monitoring the performance of the l.RS
infiltration ponds was to determine the leachate infiltration rate into the compacted M W.
No information of this nature is currently available in the literature. As more landfill are
operated as engineered treatment systems, data regarding the design and opera- of
leachate recycle systems will be necessary.
The rate of infiltration into any medium will depend upon the characteristics of the m- am,
and to some extent the characteristics of the infiltrating moisture. Leachate infiltra; : at
landfills varies as a function of waste composition, size, and compaction. The heterogeneity
of MSW ensures that infiltration will vary somewhat even at the same site. The ACSWL
is typical of well-operated MSW landfills today and leachate infiltration was considered to
be representative of similar landfills.
A number of factors were considered in the water balance of each pond to determine
weekly infiltration. Leachate infiltration rate was calculated as:
RecycledLeachate+P-ET+SW+ A Volume
We t tedBottomArea» A Time
where P refers to precipitation, ET refers to evaporation, and SW refers to storm-water.
Leachate infiltration rates were characterized by large infiltration during the first few weeks
of operation as the pond-bottom soil lining and the relatively dry MSW absorbed a large
amount of moisture. Infiltration then slowed to a somewhat steady rate (Fig. 4). The
depths of the ponds did not have a great influence on the rate of leachate infiltration. The
average infiltration rate in ponds 2, 3, and 4 ranged from 0.16 to 021 gallons/day-ft2 (1.7
to 2.4 inches/week). The infiltration rate was somewhat higher in pond 1, where the
presence of a gas vent in the middle of the pond created a more permeable conduit for
leachate travel. The complete development and calculation of the infiltration data, as well
as an analysis of the physical phenomena and the change in infiltration with time is
481
-------
1.2
^ 1-
8" 0.8-
¥ a6~
I oJ
|
0.2-
Week 1 Began April 2,1991
Infiltration Measurements Stan on Week 2
\/
10 15 20 25 30
\Mmm\f
Mvun.
Fig. 4. Leachate Infiltration: Pond 3
35
presented elsewhere (11). See Table 2 for a summary of characteristics of ponds 2, 3, and
4.
An infiltration pond leachate recycle system was successfully operated over a 17-month
period. Approximately 77% of the leachate pumped from the landfill's leachate collection
system was retirculated to the landfill. A portion of the leachate did require treatment and
off-site disposal The necessity of off-site disposal was largely a result of two factors: the
limited infiltration into the MSW and heavy storm events the produced large volumes of
water that required handling.
The lined unit at ACSWL is operated in a conservative manner to minimize pollutant
migration outside the landfill. Whereas many landfills route surface runoff off-site,
essentially all of the water that contacts the active unit remains in the landfill system. This
creates a large volume of water that must either .be recycled or treated. Liner construction
during the expansion of the system in the spring of 1991 created additional runoff into the
leachate collection system.
The rate of leachate infiltration into the MSW was slower than expected. The original
trench system failed because leachate application exceeded infiltration. Throughout the
course of the study, additional ponds were added in an effort to provide more capacity. The
depths of the ponds were increased at times by adding lifts of compacted MSW.
Although a surface ponding LRS permits the reduction in leachate volume through
482
-------
Table 1
Leachaie Volume Budget Dunne 17-Month Studv
Leachate Volume (gallons)
Month
September 90
October 90
November 90
December 90
January 91
February 91
March 91
April 91
May 91
June 91
July 91
August 91
September 91
October 91
November 91
December 91
January 91
Raw
Leachate
402006
389831
269878
192760
362748
35367]
785266
575594
517409
465400
870236
769186
502680
591935
403016
381016
465642
Recycled
Leachate
434200
270300
265600
265600
177100
281200
74200
580800
612900
577800
682300
367700
322200
267300
225500
498500
485500
Treated
Leachate
168000
96000
84000
0
132000
258000
878200
186000
0
0
0
696000
366000
486000
0
0
0
Sum
8298276
6388700
3350200
Table 2
Infiltration Pond Characteristics
LRS Pond
Dates of Operation
Maximum Surface
Area (sq.ft)
Maximum Depth (ft)
Total Recycled
Leachate (gallons)
Average Infiltration
Rale (pal/dav-sq.ft)
2
Oct. 1990to
Jan. 1991
15.000
63
890.000
0.18
3
Apr. 1991 to
Oct. 1991
21,000
7.8
1350.000
0.16
4
July 1991 to
Oct. 1991
23,000
6.1
1,100,000
021
Note: Ponds 3 and 4 Connected in November 1991, Pond 4 and 2 Connected in January 1992
483
-------
evaporation, in areas where rainfall exceeds evaporation, such as Alachua County, a net
increase in pond water results. Despite the below average rainfall at the site during the
study period, storm-water runoff into the ponds after heavy rainfall events decreased pond
capacity. Depending on the slope and elevation of the area surrounding a pond, a large
volume of run-off may enter a pond after an intense rainfall, thereby diminishing the pond
volume available for recirculation. A subsurface injection LRS with the same capacity as
a pond LRS, would in reality allow a greater volume of leachate to be recirculated, despite
the absence of evaporation.
Despite the difficulties encountered, LRS infiltration ponds do provide advantages that other
LRSs do not It is unlikely that a subsurface injection LRS could provide the same
equalization capacity of a pond. The rate of subsurface injection will be limited by the
volume of the subsurface conduit and the rate at which the pumped leachate infiltrates into
the solid waste. Leachate recirculation to a pond is limited only by the available capacity
(storage volume) of the pond. The availability of such an equalization capacity during times
of heavy rainfall when large volumes of leachate are generated is a very real advantage.
The distribution of moisture from a pond essentially covers the entire waste mass beneath
the pond and some distance radially outward. The distribution of moisture from subsurface
systems is largely unknown,
LRS infiltration ponds may be safely employed at landfills, providing that appropriate
engineering and operational controls are implemented. Construction of a pond by
excavation into the solid waste, rather than simply berming off an area of the landfill with
cover soil, minimizes the possibility of leachate seepage and contaminated runoff. The pond
must be lined with a suitable material to prevent waste from floating while allowing leachate
infiltration. Cover sand such as that used in the drainage layer of leachate collection
systems was demonstrated to be an effective pond-bottom material. A system that safely
diverts storm-water from the pond will greatly add to the LRS capacity.
A possible LRS design for future landfills could include infiltration ponds to maximize
storage capacity and equalization, subsurface injection for operation during dry periods, and
spray irrigation to enhance evaporation. During dry weather, leachate would be recirculated
via all methods, but with a goal of maintaining a defined capacity in the pond system.
'During wet weather conditions; the surge of leachate would be routed to the pond system.
Upon the return of dry weather conditions, the pond level would be allowed to drop to the
point that capacity for future events is again provided.
Conclusions
As landfills remain the dominant means of MSW disposal, alternative technologies such as
leachate recycle for the treatment of leachate and solid waste, will become more widely
utilized. A leachate recycle system was successfully operated at the Alachua County
Southwest Landfill using infiltration ponds. Over 6,000,000 gallons of leachate were
484
-------
recirculated to the landfill in a 17-month period.
In the design and operation of LRS infiltration ponds, adequate consideration must be
provided to pond construction, pond-bottom lining, daily and intermediate cover material,
rainfall and storm-water contributions, and leachate infiltration rates. Leachate infiltration
into modern well-compacted landfills is slow and was observed at ACSWL to be in the
range of 0.16 to 0.21 gallons/day-ft2 at leachate depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet Despite
slow infiltration, ponds provide the best means of equalization of large leachate surges that
often occur following rain events.
Continued research into the design, operation, and performance of leachate recycle systems
is warranted. The physical phenomena controlling the distribution of leachate in an LRS
merits further investigation. A close examination of leachate recycle systems is a necessary
step in the evolution of landfills from storage sites to active treatment facilities.
Acknowl edgements
This work was supported by the Alachua County Department of Public Works and the
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. The authors wish to thank
the management and personnel at the Alachua County Southwest T .andfilj for their support,
interest, and dedication,
Bibliography
(1) Franklin Associates 1988. "Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United
States 1900-2000 (Update 1988)." EPA/530-SW-88-03. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D. C..
(2) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 1991. "Solid waste management
in Florida: 1990 annual report." FDER, Tallahassee, FL.
(3) Leckie, J. O., J. G. Pacey and C. HalvadaMs 1979. "Landfill management using
moisture control." Journal of Environmental Engineering. ASCET 105 (EE2), 337-
355.
(4) Pohland, F. G. 1980. "Leachate recycle as a management option." Journal of
Environmental Engineering. ASCE. 106 (EE6) 1057-1069.
(5) Tittlebaum, M. E. 1982. "Organic carbon content stabilization through landfill
leachate recirculation." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 54 (8),
428-433.
(6) Robinson, H. P. and P. J. Marris 1985. The treatment of leachate from domestic
4S5
-------
waste in landfill sites." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 57 (1), 30-
38.
(7) Natale, B. R. and W. C. Anderson 1985. "Evaluation of a landfill with leachate
recycle: Preliminary report." Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D.C..
(8) Watson, R. P. 1987. "A case study of leachate generation and recycling at two
sanitary landfills" in Proceedings from the Technical Sessions of the GRCDA 25th
Annual International Seminar. Equipment Services, and Systems Show. Vol. 1,
August 11-13, Saint Paul, MN.
(9) Miller, W. L, M. P. Hanrahan, W. C. Huber, and J. P. Heany 1992. "Qualitative
and computational methods for evaluating leachate and storm-water management
practices at Florida municipal solid waste landfills." Report NO92-2, Florida Center
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, FL, 223 pp.
(10) Miller, W. L, J. F. K. Earle, T. G. Townsend, C. W. Bartlett, H. Lee 1991.
"Leachate recycle and the augmentation of biological decomposition at municipal
solid waste landfills." Report NO91-3, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, Gainesville, FL, 181 pp.
(11) Townsend, T. G. 1992. "Preliminary assessment and conceptual design of an on-site
leachate treatment system using leachate recycle, membrane separation and land
application," thesis presented to the Department of Environmental Engineering,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Master of Engineering.
486
-------
THE HELP AND MULTIMED MODELS: APPLICATIONS FOR
DESIGNING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
Samuel P. Figuli
Science Applications International Corporation
Falls Church, VA
Sue Stokes Du Bose
Science Applications International Corporation
Falls Church, VA
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the composite landfill design, as specified in
recently promulgated regulations for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, for a variety of locations
in the U.S. and to determine if the HELP and MULTIMED models, when used together, are
useful tools for evaluating landfill designs. The models were run to determine if contaminants
leaching from a landfill would exist at concentrations below the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPAs) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) at a compliance point located
hydraulically downgradient from a landfill. The approach used reasonably conservative chemical
and landfill design assumptions for a range of climatic and hydrogeologic settings.
Introduction
As a result of the recently promulgated regulations for the design of Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (1), permitting agencies and landfill owners/operators require tools to evaluate the
performance of landfill designs. Permit reviewers and owner/operators are required to
determine if contaminants leaching from a landfill will exceed the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPAs) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for certain hazardous constituents at
a compliance point located hydraulically downgradient from a landfill. The purpose of this study
was evaluate the applicability of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
487
-------
modd (2) and the Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model, MULTIMED (3) to the evaluation
of landfill designs. The HELP model was used to compute infiltration and recharge rates for
various locations. The output from HELP was used as input to the MULTIMED model, which
computes chemical dilution and attenuation in groundwater, to determine the concentration of
a hazardous chemical at a compliance point.
The HELP model was used to compute infiltration (leaching) and recharge rates for a specific
landfill design. The F^.P model contains climate and soils dam for over 100 cities across the
U.S. It allows the user'to design a landfill by specifying the number of layers and the soil (or
•waste) characteristics of each layer. The assumptions and parameter values used in our HELP
model analyses to cafc"ktp infiltration and aquifer recharge rates are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 - Modeling Assumptions Used by the HELP model to Compute Infiltration and Recharge Rates
for a Composite Landfill Design.
foput Parameter Value
Landfill ares 3 acres
Layer 1 landfill cover layer 2 ft
soil type sandy loam
hydraulic conductivity 7,2 x 10"1 cm/s
Layer 2 waste layer 5 ft
hydraulic conductivity 2.0 x 10"* cm/s
Layer 3 lateral damage layer 0.5 ft
soil type sand
hydraulic conductivity 5.8 x 10° cm/s
Layer 4 flexible membrane liner 30 ml
clay liner 2 ft
hydraulic conductivity 1.0 x 10"7 cm/s
Liner leakage rates 1 gal/acre/day*
10 gal/acre/day
20 gal/acre/day
100 gal/acre/day
* corresponds to roughly a 1 %, 10%, 20% and 100% failure rate, respectively for a 1 x 10"' cm liner soil.
The landfill area, infiltration rate, and aquifer recharge rate computed by HELP were used as
input to MULTIMED. A range of input values were used for the hydrogeologic parameters to
436
-------
examine the effect of various hydrogeologic scenarios on the output of MULTIMED, the
dilution/attenuation factor (DAF). The assumptions and parameter values used in the analyses
were based default values provided with the models, information given in the user manuals, and
assumptions used for the development of RCRA regulations. To select parameter values for
which no defaults or design specifications were provided (e.g., aquifer thickness, hydraulic
gradient and hydraulic conductivity), we chose national mean values provided in the
MULTIMED manual.
MULTIMED contains a preprocessor, PREMED, that can be used to set up input data files for
MULTIMED. One of the options offered in PREMED, the Subtitle D Landfill option, is
provided for evaluating nonhazardous Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and contains default
values for several input parameters. This option was chosen for the composite landfill design
analyses. While the Subtitle D option contains many default values, several parameters must
be input by the user, such as hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and dispersivity. The
assumptions used in the MULTIMED analyses to compute DAFs include the following:
o nondegrading chemical (no biodegradation, adsorption, or hydrolysis of the
chemical)
o steady-state contaminant source (the concentration of the contaminant in the
leachate remains constant over time)
o no unsaturated zone (the unsaturated zone has no affect if assuming nondegrading
chemical and steady-state source)
Values for each of the user supplied hydrogeologic parameters used in MULTIMED are listed
in Table 2. These values were based on mean values provided in the MULTIMED manual.
Table 2 - Input Data for the MULTIMED Analyses of the Composite Landfill Designs (for
parameters for which no default or Subtitle D values are provided).
Input Parameter Value
Particle size .00063 cm
Bulk density 1.67 g/cc
Aquifer thickness 78.6 m
Aquifer material sandy loam
Hydraulic conductivity 3.15 m/yr
Longitudinal dispersivity 15.2 m
Transverse dispersivity 5.1m
Vertical dispersivity .851 m
Aquifer temperature 14.4 °C
pH 6.2
Fraction organic carbon (F.J 1 x 10"*
Distance to receptor well 152 m
489
-------
HELP/MULTIMED Applications
The composite landfill design described in Table 1 was evaluated using the hydrogeologic data
listed in Table 2. Climate and soils data were selected from locations that are representative of
a range of climate and soils encountered in the US: Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Seattle, Miami and
Boston. Seattle and Miami were selected to represent locations with high annual precipitation
rates. Las Vegas was selected as the location with the lowest annual precipitation. Boston and
Pittsburgh were selected to represent eastern and northeastern population centers.
Table 3 lists the values input to MULTIMED (output from HELP) and the resulting DAFs
computed for a composite landfill design with a 10% failure rate (roughly 10 gal/acre/day) in
the clay liner. These DAFs indicate that the landfill location does not have a significant effect
on the DAF. The DAFs also indicate that the composite landfill design may be acceptable,
using the acceptance criteria specified in the MULTIMED user's manual (i.e., a DAF greater
than 100 is acceptable).
Table 3 - Examples of HELP/MULTIMED Analyses of the Composite Landfill Design for
Selected U.S. Cities.
City
Pittsburgh
Miami
Boston
Seattle
Las Vegas
Infiltration
Rate
(m/yr)
0.00346
0.00345
0.00356
0.00359
0.00314
Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
(m/yr)
0.273
0.237
0.405
0.472
0.0028
Dilution/
Attenuation
factor (DAF)
337
336
340
343
346
Sensitivity Analyse;
Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate ranges of each parameter for which the user
must specify an input value (parameters for which no default values are provided). This allowed
the identification of the most sensitive parameters (parameters that have the greatest effect on
the output). For example, if the failure rate of the flexible membrane liner is set at a worst case
of 100% (i.e., the infiltration rate is equal to the clay permeability of 1 x IQr7 cm/s) the DAFs
for each location decrease by a factor of 10 (DAFs range from 34 to 38) and are below the
acceptance criteria. Changes in some of the other input parameters could also result in a DAF
below 100. These parameters and their effect on the DAF are discussed below.
490
-------
For the HELP model, the results of the sensitivity analyses indicate that the most sensitive
parameters are:
o leachate infiltration rate - if increased by a factor of 10, the DAF decreases by
a factor of 10
o landfill area - if increased by a factor of 10 (from 3 to 30 acres), the DAF
decreases by roughly 1/2
o soil liner failure or leakage rate - if increased from 10% to 100%, the leachate
infiltration rate increases by a factor of 10 and the DAF decreases by roughly a
factor of 10.
For the MULTIMED model, the sensitivity analyses indicate that the most sensitive parameters
are:
o hydraulic conductivity - if decreased by 1/2, the DAF would decrease ->y roughly
1/2.
o hydraulic gradient - if decreased by a factor of 10, the DAF would c :rease by
roughly a factor of 10.
The parameters which appear to have had little effect on the results for the scenarios evaluated
include bulk density, aquifer temperature, pH and fraction organic carbon.
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria recommended in the MULTIMED manual, a DAF greater than 100,
must be taken into consideration when evaluating landfill designs. For example, a 100-fold
dilution of a landfill leachate (DAF of 100) could still result in contaminant concentrations
greater than the MCL. For example, if the concentration of arsenic in a leachate is 50 ppm and
it experiences 100-fold dilution, the compliance point concentration would be .5 ppm, which is
significantly greater than the MCL of .05 ppm for arsenic.
Alternatively, a landfill design reviewer could use the leachate concentration, if available, divide
it by the DAF computed with MULTIMED and compare to the MCL. If the leachate
concentration is not available, which would most likely be the case for the majority of landfills,
the reviewer may need to assume a leachate concentration based on national data or a reasonably
conservative scenario.
The options available to landfill design reviewers for specifying acceptance criteria are
491
-------
summarized here:
1) Use the cutoff of a DAF greater than 100 recommended in the MULTIMED
users manual. If the scenario evaluated using HELP and MULTIMED indicate
a DAF greater than 100, the design would not be acceptable.
2) Use actual leachate concentration data, if available, divided by the DAF computed
with MULTIMED and compare to the MCL.
3) Use national, state or regional averages of contaminant concentrations in landfill
leachate. Divide these leachate concentrations by the DAF produced by
MULTIMED and compare to the MCL.
4) Develop reasonably conservative estimates of contaminant concentrations in
leachate (based on actual data). Divide these leachate concentrations by the DAF
produced by MULTIMED and compare to the MCL.
Summary
The results of the preliminary analyses presented in this paper indicate that the HELP and
MULTIMED models can be applied to screening level evaluations of landfill designs. While
default values for the majority of input parameters are provided with each model, careful
consideration must be given to selection of the user-supplied parameters. In addition, the user
must be aware of possible interactions between these parameters and when to instruct the model
to derive parameters (such as dispersivity) and when to input site-specific data, if available.
Finally, the user must clearly define the criteria that will be used to determine if a landfill design
will be acceptable, taking into account any applicable state and Federal requirements.
492
-------
References
(1) 56 Federal Register 50979, October 9, 1991.
(2) P. Schroeder, J. Morgan, T. Walski, A Gibson, The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Technical Resource Document, June, 1984, 256 pp.
(3) S. Sharp-Hansen, C. Travers, P. Hummel, and T. Allison, A Subtitle D Landfill
Application Manual for the Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model (MULTIMED),
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
493
-------
THE PORTLAND COMPOST FACILITY
Jeep Reid
Senior Engineer
Metropolitan Service District
Portland, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
Much has been written about the municipal solid waste compost facility in Portland, Oregon,
in recent months. Presented here is an overview of the facility; the developmental history, a
description of the plant, the operating history, the current situation, and what the future holds
for this plant.
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORTLAND COMPOST FACILITY
The Metropolitan Service District (METRO) is a regional government established by the Oregon
State Legislature. It has solid waste management authority for a three-county area which
includes Portland and a number of nearby cities. A recently passed State law (SB66) requires
that the three-county area recycle 45% of all waste by the year 1995. Of the 45 %, five percent
may be recycled by composting. By the year 2000, the recycling rate must be 50%. To reach
such an ambitious goal requires vigorous pursuit of all recycling methods, including
composting. Metro is firmly committed to these goals and considers composting an essential
element in our solid waste management system. This commitment was not developed overnight.
It is the outcome of a long process.
In August of 1985, Metro held a Resource Recovery Symposium to search for new solid waste
technologies that would recover materials, recover energy, or both. Volume reduction of
landfilling was also a consideration. Three such technologies emerged as viable options. These
were mass incineration, refuse derived fuel, and mass composting. Metro Council subsequently
authorized a procurement process to select the alternative technology which best suited Metro's
needs. (1)
A Request for Qualifications/Information (2) was issued for suppliers of mass composting
systems in March of 1986. This was followed by a Request for Proposals (3) in October of the
495
-------
same year. Proposals for incineration were received along with proposals for two different
composting technologies. Riedel Environmental Technologies (RET), proposed using the Dano
technology. After reviewing the proposals and after an extensive public involvement process,
composting was the alternative selected and negotiations were opened with Riedel Environmental
Technologies. These negotiations led to a Memorandum of Understanding (4) which described
the basic technical and the contractual agreements that later became fully detailed in a Mass
Composting Facility Service Agreement (5). The agreement was signed in July, 1989.
Under the agreement,. RET would design, construct, own, and operate a mass composting
facility for 20 years. Metro would supply solid waste in the minimum amount of 185,000 tons
per year for each of the 20 years. For every 100 pounds of incoming waste, 5 pounds of
valuable material was to be recycled, 35 pounds of noncompostable material would be landfilled,
and 60 pounds would be processed into compost. The performance characteristics of the plant
were formalized, as was performance testing, in accordance with certain performance standards.
Financing of the project was through the sale of 26.6 million dollars of tax exempt, variable rate
demand bonds and through an equity contribution by RET of 3.2 million dollars. A large bank,
Credit Suisse, lent its financial strength to the project with a Letter of Credit to underwrite the
bonds. The bonds, which received a AAA rating, will be retired using the fee which Metro pays
for processing solid waste into compost. That fee (6) is calculated using five factors; Debt
Service, an Operations and Maintenance Expense, and Pass Through costs are the first three
factors. Debt Service is the actual cost of servicing the debt whereas the Operation and
Maintenance Expense is an allowance that began with a fixed amount per year and is inflation
protected by association with the Consumer Price Index. The third factor, Pass Through Costs,
include the cost of taxes, insurance, hazardous waste processing costs, transportation and
disposal of unacceptable waste, transportation and disposal of residue up to 35%, and a
transportation allowance for delivery of compost product to market. Revenues from the sale of
recovered materials and from the sale of compost are to be shared by Metro and the owner. The
fee reduces the risk of investment by assuring a revenue source over the life of the project, pays
the costs of transporting the product to market, and offers both parties the opportunity to share
in the revenues from recovered materials and from the sale of compost product.. The fee is
inflation protected. It is expected to range from approximately $46 per ton the first year to $78
per ton in the twentieth year.
A Notice to Proceed with construction was issued effective December 12, 1989. By April 7,
1991 construction was sufficiently completed to permit delivery of waste and to begin plant
shakedown operations.
B. FACILITY DESCRIPTION
A description of the facility seems appropriate at this juncture. The plant was designed to
process mixed municipal solid waste (mixed MSW) at an annual throughput of 185,000 tons per
year. That equates to 600 tons per day. This represents approximately one sixth of the tonnage
496
-------
generated per year within the Metro solid waste management system. As mentioned before, the
plant was guaranteed to produce not more than 35% residual and to recover 5% of the
throughput as recyclable materials.
Waste hauler trucks deposit their loads on a tipping floor. Unacceptable material is separated
out and sent to a landfill or given special handling. Tires, batteries, hazardous waste and large
pieces of recoverable materials such as wood and metal are examples of items requiring special
handling. The remainder of the waste is carried by two conveyor belts to picking lines. The
hand picking lines recover recyclable materials from the waste stream before it enters two Dano
drums which are the heart of the proprietary process.
The Dano drums are 12 feet in diameter and 80 feet long. They are mounted horizontally and
are rotated by hydraulic motors at speeds up to 5 revolutions per minute. The function of the
drums is to reduce the size of the putrescible fraction of solid waste and to mix and
homogeneous the waste into a compostable material. Particle size reduction increases the surface
area and, therefore, the number of sites where bacteria may flourish. Mixing distributes the
available bacteria throughout the mass. Water is added to the drum until the moisture content
is between 50 to 60 percent. These drums perform their task similar to the way a household
clothes dryer performs its task. Rigid metal arms protrude radially inward from the inside
perimeter of the slowly rotating drums. These catch the waste and tumbles it back upon itself.
A trommel on the end of the drum separates material into two streams; greater than, and less
than 1 3/4 inches. The stream of large panicle sizes goes to a final picking line for material
recovery then on to trucks that deliver the residual to a landfill. Magnetic separators were also
employed on this waste stream to extract ferrous metal. The design does not employ eddy
current separators, air classifiers, or ballistic separators.
The stream of small sized particles goes to the aeration bed. The bed is housed in two separate
buildings, each of which has a roof and is enclosed on two sides. One day's production, at 600
tons per day throughput, creates a pile approximately 6 feet high by 24 feet wide by 150 feet
long. The daily piles are not separated from one another into discrete windrows. Instead, they
are laid down one against the next in a nearly continuous pile. Air is blown up from vents in
the floor and through the piles of decomposing material. This was designed to provide oxygen,
remove decomposition gasses, and to promote optimum temperatures for decomposition. This
processing step was designed to achieve pathogen kill by allowing the temperature to rise to 55
degrees Celsius (131 degrees F) for a minimum of 3 consecutive days. No mechanism is
provided for turning the piles or for adding moisture.
The design residence time on the aeration bed is 21 days. From the aeration bed the "fresh
compost" is moved by wheel loaders to the maturation bed for another 21 days of
decomposition. The maturation bed, like the aeration bed, is divided into two separate buildings
having a roof and enclosed on two sides. Unlike the aeration bed, the maturation bed occupies
approximately one half the square footage, and is not aerated. The design anticipated that
497
-------
mechanical turning machinery would be necessary on the maturation bed.
The last processing element in the system is magnetic separation of small pieces of ferrous metal
and size classification by final screening. The matured compost passes over a traveling wave
screen where it is separated into three sizes. Oversized material, haviag particle sizes greater
than 1.0 inches (25 mm), goes to the landfill. Material with particle sizes between 3/8 inch (10
mm) and 1 inch (25 mm) is termed Class II compost. Class I compost is 3/8 inch minus (less
than 10 mm).
"Compost product" is the term given to both Class I and Class n snajsnsA product provided it
meets certain other quality tests. Class I may be used on food chain craps and other agricultural
and horticultural uses. Class II compost is restricted to use as landfill cower and for horticultural
and agricultural uses not involving the food chain, as approved by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. The Agreement anticipated that the demand for the Compost Product
would not keep pace with its production. Consequently the Agreement requires the contractor
to provide storage for the first five years of production. Revenues from the sale of compost
product were, likewise, not expected to be significant during the early years. In spite of these
assumptions, commitments were received from potential buyers which equaled the entire first
year's production. The principal use anticipated by these commitments was in sylviculture
(Christmas tree farms) and sod farms.
The land area served by the composter is approximately 140 square miles (7) of urban and
suburban residential area. The housing density varies from dense tartan to single family
suburban, and down to dispersed suburban on large acreage lots. The area served also includes
a small amount of land zoned for commercial and light industrial activities. The population
served is approximately 265,000 people.1
C. OPERATING HISTORY
The rate of waste delivery to the facility began at 200 tons per day (IPD) on April 7, 1991.
The owner requested deliveries at the rate of 400 TPD during the second week, and 600 TPD
during the third and all subsequent weeks. This proved to be an inapprofmale rate of throughput
to bring the plant on line and a major hindrance to successful complejk» of the performance
tests.
The owner requested performance testing to begin on May 6; scaiody one month after
commencing plant shakedown. The standards of performance were contained in the service
agreement between Metro and RET (8). The plant was required, to process waste for a
continuous 21 day period at the guaranteed throughput of 600 tons per day. The definition of
Based on 256,933 people generating an estimated 4 pounds of waste per pesson per day, delivered to the
Composter. to yield tfa edesign throughput of 185,000 per year.
498
-------
"process" included all processing steps up to and through final screening. Since the waste
received on the twenty-first day of testing would not become compost for an additional 42 days,
the overall length of the performance test was 63 consecutive days.
Performance testing did not go smoothly. On more than one occasion test data had to be
discarded and the 63 day clock had to be restarted. Formal performance testing was suspended
by the owner during the 17th week after testing originally began. The plant continued to
operate, at 600 tons per day, so the owner could resolve a number of problems. The problems
included leveling of the load on the input conveyor belt, breaking open plastic garbage bags,
difficulties in hand picking, low material recovery rates (except glass), odor control, excessive
amount of residual sent to the landfill, temperature control in the decomposition process, and
elevated lead content in the compost product. Magnetic separators were installed but were
turned off because they extracted film plastic and other materials entangled in the ferrous metals.
Metals recovered in this manner had a low value in a market where "clean" metals were
available.
As stated earlier, excessive throughput before performance testing began was one identifiable
root problem. At full design capacity, individual elements of the processing system could not
be optimized. Consequently, the entire process could not be optimized. The end result was a
plant that did not achieve steady state operations and did not manufacture a product of uniform
quality. Performance testing was started prematurely.
Odor from the plant caused vigorous complaints from residential areas some distance from the
plant. The owner of an industrial property adjoining the composter filed a law suit against RET
alleging damages due to odors from the composter. The State of Oregon, Department of
Environmental Quality, and RET, entered into a Stipulation and Final Order (9) five months
after the plant began receiving waste. The order would have imposed fines of 51,500 per day
and escalating to $10,000 per day if the odor nuisance was not halted. It further provided that
the owner could erect facility modifications to stop the nuisance and thereby avoid the fines.
Under this provision of the order, RET proposed that the aeration and maturation beds be
enclosed and that the process air be collected and treated before releasing it to the atmosphere.
This was a very expensive proposal. The initial estimate of $2.5 million escalated upward as
the design and construction implications became apparent.
Unfortunately, RET experienced economic difficulties and was financially unable to modify the
plant to control odors. RET subsequently requested that all waste deliveries to the plant be
suspended on January 31, 1992 . All plant operations were suspended shortly thereafter. On
February 14, the plant was purchased by Credit Suisse, the bank which had provided financial
backing of the project.
During 10 months of operation, more than 139,000 tons of mixed MSW was delivered to the
plant. Of that tonnage, some 83,000 tons was made into compost that did not meet
specifications. Fortunately, the substandard compost, when blended with imported soils, was
499
-------
usable as fill material. Metro used this mixed fill to raise the grade of an old landfill toward
its final elevation. This benefited Metro because it stretched the dollars spent on imported soils.
RET transported the material at their own expense over the short haul to the old landfill. Metro
did not charged RET to unload the material there. The net result was that both RET and Metro
mutually enjoyed some benefits. Perhaps the greatest benefit was the space saved in an
operating landfill to which the substandard compost might otherwise have gone.
D. CURRENT SITUATION
A caretaker force remains on site. The bank's engineering firm, Brown and Caidwell,
Consultants, superintends the caretaker force which is engaged in cleaning up the plant. They
have removed all malodorous material such as unprocessed solid waste and substandard compost.
Wash down and painting operations are ongoing. With no material to generate odor, and no
equipment running, this is seen as an excellent opportunity to establish baseline odor and noise
measurements. The bank indicates it will take advantage of this opportunity.
Credit Suisse is currently examining the options to bring the facility back into operation. The
firm of Scully Capital Services, Inc., has been retained to evaluate proposals by various
companies interested in the plant. Credit Suisse has assured Metro, and the community at large
that they remain committed to the concept of composting solid waste, and to this facility in
particular. They have also assured Metro that the process of selection a new owner/operator will
be carefully done to assure the success of the project, including resolution of the odor problem.
The time required to accomplish this process cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty.
The feeling I get is that it will take a matter of months as opposed to weeks.
E. THE FUTURE:
How, when, and under what conditions the composter will achieve full and successful operations
are unknowns in this complex equation. One can, however, list the actions necessary to reach
this goal. Those actions are; solution of the problems encountered to date (of which odor is the
first and most important), resumption of waste processing, achievement of steady state
operations, and performance testing. Until the process is stabilized there can be no hope of
manufacturing a product of consistent quality. Without consistent quality there is no benefit to
be gained from performance testing. Performance testing, therefore, should be the last activity
undertaken to bring this plant into productive operation.
Preceding these activities will be a negotiation process between Credit Suisse and those firms
interested in becoming owners/operators. No doubt those firms will have questions for Metro
and we look forward a dialogue. We have every expectation that the bank will select an
exceptionally well qualified firm that can bring all the loose ends together and make the
composter work.
500
-------
F. SUMMARY
The Portland Compost Facility was conceived and developed over a long period of time to serve
as one element of an integrated solid waste management system. It was one of the first facilities
to be built in the United States. It was designed to process 600 tons of mixed MSW per day,
to reject not more than 35 % of the throughput to a landfill, and to extract 5 % of the waste
stream as materials recovered for recycling. Although performance testing was truncated and,
therefore, inconclusive, it did bring certain problems into focus. Financial adversity caused the
owner to stop operations and sell the plant. All odor producing solids have been removed from
the site and a caretaker force continues to perform maintenance and clean up tasks.
Metro's experience has broadened our understanding of composting technology and its
importance to an integrated system of solid waste management. It has fortified our belief that
composting can and will play a major role in achieving our recycling goals. Finally, this
experience has strengthened our resolve to encourage solutions to the technical problems of this
plant, and to see it resume full and beneficial operations.
501
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Metro Council Resolution No. 86-689-A, Adopted September 25, 1986.
(2) Metropolitan Service District, Resource Recovery Project, Request for
Qualifications/Information, Issued March 14, 1986
(3) Metropolitan Service District, Resource Recovery Project, Request for Proposals
(RFP#2), Issued October 24, 1986.
(4) Metropolitan Service District, Resource Recovery Project, Memorandum of
Understanding, Mass Composting Project, June 1988.
(5) Mass Composting Facility Service Agreement, Metropolitan Service District and Riedel
Environmental Technologies, Inc., July 1989
(6) Exhibit K, Calculation of Tip Fee, Mass Composting Facility Service Agreement, July
1989.
(7) Computer based Regional Land Information System, Department of Solid Waste, Waste
Reduction Division.
(8) Exhibit L, Performance Standards, Mass Composting Facility Service Agreement, July,
1989.
(9) Stipulation and Final Order, Case No. SW-NWR-91-191, Multnomah County,
Environmental Quality Commission of the State of Oregon, signed September 16, 1991.
502
-------
THE RESEARCH LIBRARY FOR SOLID WASTE'S "GRANTS" DATABASE IN U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 1
Fred T. Friedman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Boston, MA
The Research Library for Solid Waste is operating a grants locating service for all seekers of
nonhazardous waste management opportunities -individuals, inventors, consultants, businesses,
nonprofit agencies, municipal governments, regional governments, educational institutions -
whose ideas will either not get off of the ground or will not continue without influxes of capital.
The two basic limitations on the grants locating service are that it only collects and disseminates
this information for recipients in EPA Regions 1 and 2, and that the vast majority of
grantmakers about whom information is collected can be very capricious about whom and what
they will fund, change their priorities frequently, and do not usually limit their funding interests
to solid waste management.
There are three principal areas of solid waste management about which grantmaking information
has been collected. These areas are based on the availability of funding for these purposes. The
areas are: recycling, pollution prevention, and waste management education. Each area has
some degree of overlap with the other two, and with the more minor areas of waste management
policy formation, waste management publications and meetings, etc.
The Research Library for Solid Waste has collected information on grantmakers from the public
sector and from the private sector. It has put this information on a dBaselV database which is
searched by the Research Librarian after conducting an interview with a grantseeker who calls
the Library. A maximum of three leads is then given to the grantseeker based on potential
'match' between what is sought and the information available about the grantmaker which
includes:
- Grantmaker funding priorities for the current time period;
- Grantmaker funding history, especially recent history;
- Grantmaker restrictions on eligible grantseekers;
- Grantmaker restrictions on eligible projects;
- Grantmaker typical funding amounts in line with grantseeker needs.
503
-------
The database has been assembled from published sources of information in the literature of
grantmaking, development, waste management, and public affairs. The Research Librarian has
conducted data collecting research trips and continues to visit
libraries which specialize in some of these literatures in Regions 1 and 2. Grantmakers have
been contacted selectively, and a file of their publications is gradually being added. At present
in excess of 90 Foundations and 10 non-EPA governmental entities are represented in the Grants
Database. While the database mostly charts grant opportunities, loans and other forms of
material assistance are included as well.
The database is by no means complete, but due to the apparent need for the information
contained within it, based upon heavy use and referrals, it is operating while in the process of
being developed.
Since its inception in October, 1991, more than 220 requests have been received. Two selective
means of evaluating the effectiveness of the service are also in place but not yet capable of
generating results.
Funds are not readily available for nonhazardous solid waste management activities. In several
notable cases, what is really required is a concerted push by the waste management community
to alert Foundations to many of the specific needs of municipalities and for-profits especially,
but also nonprofits and grassroots groups. Historically, Foundations have supported
conservation activities a great deal more than other environmental activities, and they have
supported 'sexy' environmental activities, a great deal more than they have supported activities
which 'take out the garbage.' Additionally, the lion's share of Foundation monies which have
supported nonhazardous waste management and education during the period of 1989-1991, have
been given to established, national, non-profit organizations. Foundations will typically not fund
activities by for-profits, public/private partnerships, or municipalities which are deemed as
having other 'natural' sources of revenues. This may or may not be as it ought to be.
Foundations have the right and privilege of restricting who they wUl fund. Individual applicants
are also rarely eligible for Foundation funding.(1)
With the Northeast having entered an economic depression (2), the challenge facing waste
management activities that began during the current wave of interest is to sustain themselves.
Recyclers can easily close up shop for lack of ongoing markets, due to seasonal fluctuations in
supplies of recyclable materials. Pollution prevention activities which took months to craft and
years to implement can fall by the wayside due to social priorities at the local or regional level,
having to turn elsewhere. Budgets can be redone which shut out innovative programs or
projects, and, in fact, it has to be anticipated that this will happen. Planning and total quality
management is made of planning for economic hard times as well as economic good times. This
is the basic challenge that faces all waste management activities and all innovations.
It therefore is a reasonable activity for the Research Library for Solid Waste, which normally
disseminates information about all aspects of integrated solid waste management to assist the
504
-------
search for funding that will enable normative as well as creative waste management activities
to be sustained.
The grants database will be maintained by quarterly updating at least for the duration of the
national economic recession, and possibly for the duration of the regional economic depression.
The database has been publicized both by word of mouth, by news releases to the principal
periodicals of waste management, by news releases to and through the auspices of the Northeast
Waste Management Officials Association, and the Northeast Regional Council of the Council
of Northeast Governors.
Though the Grants Database will be useful only to grant-seekers in the Northeast, through my
experience in establishing this database for EPA Region 1, as well as through my experience in
finding grants for seekers in other fields through a non-profit research company, I can assist
other regions in setting up similar services.
Notes
(1) Two publications in particular chronicle these trends. The Foundation Grants Index
Quarterly by The Foundation Center (NY, NY) and The National Guide to Funding for the
Environment and Animal Welfare by The Foundation Center (1st ed., March, 1992).
(2) The question of whether we are currently experiencing an economic depression is at least
a reasonable and debatable proposition. Currently, the national news media and the federal
government resist using the term. The New York Times has referred to the existence of a
depression in the Northeast, particularly in New England at least twice in the last six months.
There can, however, be no debate over the fact that recyclables1 prices have been depressed, that
unemployment figures are still quite high (Massachusetts figures for March, 1992 put
unemployment at 9.2% of the employed or still seeking work force). Historically, I believe the
current situation would have been termed a depression had it occured prior to 1945.
505
-------
THE THERMAL TREATMENT OF LEACHATE UTILIZING LANDFILL GAS
David F. Fees
Project Engineer
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Dover, Delaware
Pasquale S. Canzano, P.E., DEE
Chief Operating Officer
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Dover, Delaware
N.C. VasuM, P.E., DEE
Chief Executive Officer
Delaware Solid Waste Authority
Dover, Delaware
Introduction
The Delaware Solid Waste Authority's (DSWA) sanitary landfills are designed and
constructed to collect leachate generated from the landfilled solid waste. Leachate collected
from the DSWA's sanitary landfill at the Central Solid Waste Management Cereter
(CSWMC) in Kent County, Delaware is currently sent to a U.S. EPA permitted treatment
facility. The DSWA sought cost-effective, on-site leachate disposal alternatives to off-site
disposal. In an effort to utilize landfill gas (LFG) currently being collected and flared, the
DSWA contracted with PSC Environmental Services, Inc. (PSC/ES) to perform a pilot plant
test of a thermal treatment process.
Project Background
The CSWMC has been accepting municipal solid waste since 1980. A closed landfill cell,
known as Area A/B, stopped receiving waste in October of 1988. The active cell, Areas C,
began accepting waste at that time. Both cells employ a gravity drained leachate collection
system above a single 30-mil (0.76 mm) PVC liner.
Leachate is recirculated in the landfill through the use of recharge wells and leach fields.
In 1989, leachate generation from Areas A/B and C exceeded the capacity of the wells and
507
-------
fields. Since a sewer line to a nearby wastewater treatment plant is unavailable at the
CSWMC, the DSWA began hauling the excess leachate to a U.S. EPA permitted treatment
facility for disposal. Over four million gallons (15 million liters) of leachate were sent to
this facility in 1991.
A gas extraction and flare system was installed on Area A/B in 1990. The LFG, containing
about 50% methane and 550 Btu/ft3 (16.4 KJ/m3), was considered a potential fuel source
for a thermal leachate treatment process. The DSWA intended to evaporate and/or
incinerate the leachate and generate a small quantity of solid residue suitable for landfill
disposal.
As this process has yet to be proven on a commercial scale, the DSWA requested proposals
from qualified firms to perform, under contract, a pilot plant test of their proposed
technology. Any thermal technology could be proposed as long as it utilized the LFG and
addressed the DSWA's objectives. The selected proposer would have to perform the pilot
plant test at the CSWMC, and the results would be used to determine whether or not the
DSWA would pursue the implementation of a commercial facility.
The DSWA received three proposals and selected PSC/ES as the most responsive proposer.
PSC/ES teamed with T-Thermal, Inc. as their technology vendor. PSC/ES proposed to use
a compartmentalized Raschig ring-filled rotary kiln evaporator, known as the PR
Concentrator (PRC), followed by a fume incinerator to treat the leachate. PSC/ES
proposed to perform the pilot plant test in two stages. Phase I would be performed at T-
Thermal's facility under controlled conditions using natural gas and leachate from Area C.
The pilot plant unit would then be shipped to the CSWMC where Phase II would be
performed using LFG.
Objectives
While the DSWA was interested in the thermal treatment of leachate using landfill gas, no
commercial process existed capable of achieving the DSWA's objectives. The major
objectives to address in the pilot plant test were to:
(1) achieve zero-liquid discharge,
(2) generate a non-hazardous solid residue,
(3) maintain the process at steady-state conditions, without clogging or fouling,
(4) comply with Federal and State air emission regulations,
(5) minimize the energy input per unit volume of leachate,
(6) determine the operability of the process burners using LFG, and
508
-------
(7) apply the results of the pilot plant test for scale up to a commercial design
configuration.
Methodology & Setup
The pilot plant test, as proposed by PSC/ES, was performed :n two stages. Phase I was
conducted at T-ThermaTs facility in December 1991. Phase II was performed at the
CSWMC in January 1992.
A. schematic of the pilot plant unit is provided in Fig. 1. An impeller-agitated 55-gallon
drum is used as the feed tank. Leachate is introduced into the PRC below the landfill gas
burner combustion chamber. Dilution air is also introduced below the combustion chamber
for the purpose of evaporating the water in the leachate. The PRC operates under a
negative pressure caused by a downstream blower. The leachate, which falls to the bottom
of the horizontally-aligned rotary kiln, wets the Raschig rings. Each successive compartment
of wetted rings is then brought in direct contact with the heated air as the kiln rotates.
The leachate is concentrated as the water and volatile organics are transferred to the air
stream. The solids are powdered near the PRC outlet vestibule by the agitation caused by
the rings impacting the sides of the kiln and each other. The solids are removec through
a rotary valve at the bottom of the outlet vestibule. The gas stream leaves the PRC and
passes through the cyclone and into the fume incinerator.
The cyclone is used to remove particulates entrained in the gas stream. Solids captured in
the cyclone are removed through a manual slide gate at the end of each testing day. The
gas stream, after leaving the cyclone, passes through the blower into the incinerator. A
burner maintains the incinerator temperature at the desired set point. The gas stream
containing the volatiles is subjected to a temperature of 1400°F (760°C) for a minimum of
one second before exiting through a stack. A sampling port is located in the stack for the
purpose of testing the exiting flue gas stream.
Gas sampling ports at the outlet of the PRC and in the flue stack allowed continuous
emission monitoring of oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, hydrocarbons, and hydrochloric acid. A computer was used to monitor and compile
temperatures, pressures, mass flows, and volumetric flows throughout the process for the
purpose of developing mass and energy balances of the process.
Computer process control was used to adjust, monitor, and record process parameters.
Feedback control loops were used to adjust and maintain several important set points for
the following controlled parameters.
509
-------
FIGURE 1 - LEACHATE THERMAL TREATMENT PILOT PLANT PROCESS
AIR
LANDFILL GAS
COMBUSTION ,,
AIR
FUME INCINERATOR
LEACHATE
DILUTION
AIR
COMBUSTION
AIR
m
FEED DRUM
PR CONCENTRATOR
TO
STACK
CYCLONE
RESIDUE
-------
Controlled Parameters Controlling Parameters
(1) PRC inlet gas temperature, °F Dilution air, cfm
(2) PRC outlet gas temperature, °F Leachate flow, Ibs/min
(3) PRC vacuum, in. we PRC outlet gas flow, cfm
(4) Incinerator outlet Natural/LFG, cfm
temperature; °F
Test Activities - Phase I
Phase I was performed at T-Thermal's facility and lasted ten (10) testing days.
Approximately 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of leachate from Area C were shipped to T-
Thermal and placed in 55-gallon drums for storage. The first three days were spent
operating the system at various PRC outlet temperatures from 300 to 550°F (149 to 288°C)
and at kiln rotational speeds of 15 and 30 rpm while processing approximately 18 gal/hr (68
liters/hr) of leachate. A wet solid or slurry was obtained at PRC outlet temperatures less
than 400°F (204°C). A charred solid was obtained and hydrocarbon levels in the PRC outlet
gas stream increased at temperatures greater than 450°F (232°). A study was performed to
determine the relationship between rotational speed and decibel level. High decibel
readings are assumed to be an indication of high impact and agitation of the rings and thus
will ensure the production of free-flowing solids.
The remaining seven days were spent processing 9 gal/hr (34 liters/hr) of leachate. The
PRC outlet temperature was set at 400°F (204°C) and the kiln rotational speed was set at
30 rpm. The reduced leachate flow rate increased the residence time of the leachate in the
PRC and increased the air to leachate ratio. Thus, a consistently dry, unburaed residue was
obtained from the PRC. While holding the PRC conditions constant, the incinerator
temperature was increased from 1400 to 1800°F (760 to 982°C) in about 50 degree
increments over a period of seven hours to determine the effects of CO, NOx, SOx, HC1 and
hydrocarbon emissions.
Several paniculate sampling runs were performed after steady state was reached. Sampling
was performed before the cyclone and in the stack to quantify paniculate mass flow and
particle size distribution. All tests were performed according to U.S. EPA test methods.
Residue samples were analyzed for moisture, volatile matter, and ash content. In addition,
a composite residue sample was analyzed using the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) and was determined to be non-hazardous.
511
-------
Test Activities - Phase II
Phase H was performed at the CSWMC and lasted four (4) testing days. Approximately 550
gallons (2,082 liters) of leachate from Area C were processed during Phase II. The pilot
plant unit was trailer-mounted and transported to the CSWMC.
PSC/ES' project team spent the week prior to Phase n of the test connecting all piping,
monitoring and sampling equipment, electrical service, analyzers, computers, leachate feed,
and LFG feed. Leachate and LFG samples were taken for laboratory analysis. Coupons,
made of Cor-Ten®; carbon steel, and stainless steel (304 and 316), were placed hi the PRC
outlet duct in an attempt to observe any corrosive effects of the gas stream on these
materials.
The first two days of the test were performed at the optimal operating conditions
determined during Phase I, i.e. PRC outlet temperature of 400°F (204°C), of kiln rotational
speed of 30 rpm, incinerator temperature of 1400 to 1450°F(760 to 790°C), and leachate flow
of 9 gal/hr (34 liters/hr). The system burners were adjusted to accommodate the use of
LFG. After steady-state conditions were achieved, paniculate and acid gas samples were
taken at the stack to confirm the test results of Phase I. Residue samples were analyzed for
moisture, volatile matter, and ash content. In addition, a composite residue sample was
analyzed and found to be non-hazardous based upon the TCLP results.
The last two days of the test were spent operating the PRC under conditions which yielded
a concentrated leachate slurry instead of a dry solid. The slurry was mixed with cement-kiln
dust (CKD) and fly ash in various ratios to generate a cake-like solid. The advantage of
operating the system to generate a slurry is the conservation of energy. The disadvantage
is that more residue is generated and additional solids handling equipment is necessary to
prepare and cure the mixture. The PRC outlet temperature was varied between 245 and
220°F (118 and 104°C) and the leachate feed rate between 15 and 25 gal/hr (57 and 95
liters/hr). Slurry samples were analyzed for moisture and solids content. In addition, a
composite slurry/CKD sample was analyzed using the TCLP and was found to be non-
hazardous.
Summary of Results
All the main objectives of the pilot plant test were met. The pilot plant unit operated in
the field successfully at steady-state conditions without clogging or fouling while utilizing
LFG as the only fuel source. A non-hazardous, free-flowing residue was generated which
contained an average of 4% moisture. Approximately 60 pounds (27 Kg) of residue would
be generated per 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of leachate treated with a 100% particulate
capture.
A concentrated leachate slurry was generated, which required 40% less energy input than
was required for generating a dry residue. There were no participates captured by the
512
-------
cyclone. A 3:1 per volume mixture of CKD to slurry produced a friable, cake-like, non-
hazardous solid. This method would generate approximately 225 gallons (852 liters) of
slurry per 1000 gallons (3,785 liters) of leachate treated. The slurry/CKD mixture would
generate 7,750 pounds (3,515 Kg) of residue per 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of leachate
treated.
The median particle size was found to be 8 microns according to the particle size
distribution analysis prior to the cyclone. The gas stream leaving the PRC was strongly
malodorous. However, all detectable odors were eliminated in the incinerator and no odor
was detected at. the stack outlet
The organic content of the leachate earned the material within the PRC to pass through a
viscous phase requiring additional residence time to reach the free-flowing powder phase.
Consequently, the throughput was reduced to 37% of the anticipated pilot plant capacity of
25 gal/hr (95 liters/hr).
The radiant heat losses from both the PRC and the incinerator resulted in a loss of one-
third of the heat input. The small scale of the pilot plant unit coupled with uninsulated
equipment operating outdoors during the winter contributed to the high heat loss. The kiln
seal air leakage contributed to reduction in throughput as well as the thermal inefficiency
of the unit. Corrosivity tests indicated that the evaporated leachate may be moderately
corrosive to carbon steel and mildly corrosive to stainless steel.
Conclusions
The pilot plant unit performed at acceptable steady-state conditions utilizing landfill gas to
generate a non-hazardous, free-flowing solid residue while achieving zero-liquid discharge.
The paniculate emissions suggest that a baghouse would replace the cyclone for paniculate
removal. The preliminary air emission data suggest that a commercial facility could be
designed that would comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations.
PSC/ES will evaluate the technical feasibility of a commercial facility in terms of process
and equipment design, air emissions, scale up, and materials of construction after fully
reviewing the test data. A commercial facility design configuration will be presented by
PSC/ES in their final report to the DSWA and will include project costs.
The DSWA will review the test report and evaluate the technical and economic feasibility
of a commercial facility compared to current disposal options. A parallel investigation into
the amount of landfill gas which can be recovered at the CSWMC will provide the
remaining input to the economic evaluation, since the gas would provide "free" fuel to the
system. The DSWA staff expects to make a recommendation on whether or not to proceed
with the implementation of a commercial facility by mid-summer 1992. Any
recommendation would require the approval of the DSWA's Board of Directors.
513
-------
Acknowledgments
PSC Environmental Services, Inc.
649 North Lewis Road
Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468
T-Thermal, Inc.
Brook Road
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428
514
-------
"WEE RECYCLERS IS OUR NAME; RECYCLING, REUSING IS OUR GAME!'
Joel Stone
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Georgine Price
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
Recycling is a simple game of saving, matching and sorting. The recycling
because the rules are easy to understand and follow. Everyone can play and
is a winner. Unfortunately, we have forgotten how to play the recycling ga:
paced, high-tech world of disposables, we have become a "throw-away" sc
has taken to the attitude of "It's O.K., throw it away." Young children car.
re-learn the recycling game in order to solve our growing solid waste
:me ;
.he e
. Liv
sty; a
us
to play
veryone
n a fast-
ety that
ance to
In 1990 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources worked with severa. Head Start and
preschools to develop recycling and waste reduction education materials for early child care
programs. Wee Recyclers is the end product of this endeavor. Early child care programs are
ideal for teaching children the skills for, and importance of, recycling and reusing. The skills
needed for recycling activities coincide with many developmental skills already taught in these
programs. In Wee Recyclers activities, children sort, match and compare recyclable items and
learn to separate some items by number and color. The activities introduce the alphabet as well
as recycling words and symbols. Children learn environmentally sound ideas and behaviors as
appropriate social behaviors. Wee Recyclers also has many creative ideas for reusing materials
in craft projects, games, dramatic play and pretend play.
All young children who care about the earth and the things living on it can become Wee
Recyclers. As Wee Recyclers, children develop an understanding that by reducing, reusing and
recycling, they are helping to preserve our natural resources and to prolong the life of landfills.
Wee Recyclers also learn that nature has set an example we need to follow for recycling.
515
-------
Wee Recyclers program materials consist of an activity guide and a set of support materials.
The Wee Recyclers Activity Guide is intended to help teachers in early child care settings teach
their children how to become Wee Recyclers. The activities in this guide are simple, entertaining
and hands-on. Each activity requires little preparation time and contains teacher background
information, easy to follow directions and suggestions for additional related activities. In addition
to teacher-directed activities, this guide includes: stories and plays, songs, crafts, games, take-
home recycling ideas, a complete glossary and a list of resources.
Wee Recyclers Resources, a packet of supplementary materials, complements the Wee
Recyclers Activity Guide. It includes posters, a set of recycling labels, stories, reproducible
handouts, props and patterns.
Wee Recyclers materials are designed for use with 3-5 year olds in early child care settings.
However, the activities can be modified for use with other age groups. Educators are encouraged
to tailor the activities to meet their childrens' needs.
On your mark, get set, gol Recycle now, here's how!
516
-------
WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO RECYCLE?
Regina Desvernine
Desvernine and Spang
Warren, NJ
INTRODUCTION
In New Jersey, recycling is now a way of life - thanks to a little magic worked upon tht .5
million residents in an aggressive State sponsored program.
ACT I - THE NEW JERSEY RECYCLING ACT
In 1981 the Recycling Act created a funding source - in the form of a landfill tax - to provide
a comprehensive state recycling program. The tax, of $. 12 per cubic yard created a budget of
approximately $4 million dollars, allowing for grants, loans, public education and essential
administrative costs. While solid waste planning is the responsibility of New Jersey's 21
counties, recycling collection is a municipal function - and there are 567 towns and cities in this
strong home-rule state. It was said that it would take magic to make all of New Jersey recycle -
and that's what the state used!
Applying some proven marketing techniques, along with some government muscle, the state
campaign geared up to get everyone into the (recycling) act and lead to a statewide mandatory
recycling program.
The following techniques were employed:
REWARDS
FINANCIAL
State competitive grants
Tonnage grants
Avoidance of disposal fees
Sale of recyclables
RECOGNITION
Press coverage
StateNcounty excellence awards
517
-------
PUBLIC EDUCATION
PROFESSIONAL MARKETING
State contract for professional public relations firm
Campaign theme of Magic and Mr. R.E. Cycle, magician
Community relations, meetings, technical assistance
Advertising,, billboards, TV & radio, P.S.A.'s
Publicity, news releases, photos
SCHOOLS
Curriculum
Classroom materials
Mr. R. E. Cycle Environmental assembly
ALLIANCE BUILDING
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
County coordinators meetings, info-exchange
Municipal meetings, updates, mailings
State agencies, authorities cooperative programs
BUSINESS, TRADE AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
State, local chambers of commerce, trade groups
Big business, industry into the act
Match money and resources to assist communities
TRAINING
Courses for recycling coordinators
Workshops for businesses
Manuals, resource directories
ACT H - MANDATORY RECYCLING
The NJ Mandatory Recycling Act became effective in 1987, requiring a minimum recycling rate
of 25%.
Building on the base of techniques described above, the state, counties and municipalities
accelerated programs with a concentration on creating convenient, reliable and simple-to-do
systems.
518
-------
Continue all of the above, and provide:
PROGRAM METHODS
CONVENIENT COLLECTION
Source separated, commingled
Collect frequently, and on regular basis
Provide containers, if possible
MORE COMMUNICATIONS
Provide clear, concise directions
Frequent reminders, publicity
Schools hands-on recycling programs
ACT m - UP THE AVERAGES
In 1990, the NJ Governor's Task Force reviewed progress and problems in recycling and the
management of solid waste, and determined a new goal of recycling a minimum of 60%.
While the State continues to provide basic support services and guidance, the 60% goal is to be
planned, implemented and achieved by each county. Building on the base of almost a decade
of recycling history, recycling coordinators, governments and related industries are establishing
plans and accelerating programs.
In addition to increasing the recycling goal from 25% to 60%, more emphasis is being placed
on reducing, reusing and other forms of waste reduction. Commonly known as the "new 3 R's"
- Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, variations crop up every day (see Figure 1). To achieve results,
however, this will take an enormous amount of public education.
In "selling" the 3 R's, the following areas will be the focus:
Waste audits and programs for businesses
Updating media, continuing publicity
Strengthening networks among recycling coordinators
Providing training
Developing markets
FINALE - EVERYONE INTO THE ACT !
The key ingredient to the success of recycling in New Jersey has been the aggressive State
program, designed to educate the total population and involve all sectors of government,
industry, media, schools and community organizations.
515
-------
THREE IXSFOR
THE ENVIRONMENT
Help to reach the MAGIC NUMBER
of 60% RECYCLING!
NEPUCE
Buy recycled products
Shop for recyclable packaging, bulk sizes
Use Both sides of paper
Serve on real tableware, not disposables
Pack lunch/drinks in reusable containers
E-U$E
Mr. R. E Cycle
• Packaging - refill grocery bags, plastic and glass jars
• Clothing - alter, sell or donate
• Appliances - fix if possible, paint or re-surface
• Old equipment - sell, donate or swap
• Borrow or rent things needed only occasionally
ECYCLE
Clean, separate cans, bottles, plastic, paper, etc.*
Remove all batteries from trash
Save toxic household cleaners, paints for collection
Take used motor oil to auto shop
Compost yard waste, cut grass and leave it on lawn
frwi hall or cou
office for local information
RECYCUNG UNLIMITED
Dcsvcrnintf & Spang
Warren, NJ
Figure 1
520
-------
WHY IS TRUE COST AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT?
Diane Martin, Ron Roche
Partners
The Resource Development Group (TRDG)
West Palm Beach, Florida
Many local governments account for solid waste in the General Fund which makes identifying
the total cost of solid waste operations difficult. As a means of identifying these costs, some
have convened to enterprise operations within the local government unit. In recent years several
states have- mandated full cost disclosure and recommended the establishment of enterprise funds
for solid waste operations as a means to inform the citizens of the actual cost of providing solid
waste services. And, the various methods for determining full cost have been the subject of
many papers and presentations. But, while the establishment of an enterprise fund to account
for solid waste operations can allow for full cost accounting, it does not necessarily result in the
identification of true cost. The true cost concept goes beyond the accounting process of
gathering and reporting historic costs; true cost includes planning, actively monitoring and
constantly re-evaluating current operations and all available alternatives based on identifying
current operational costs plus the socioeconomic and environmental impact of the alternatives.
An example of the true cost concept would be identifying the cost of landfilling a type of
recyclable when there is no market for the sale of that product. The true cost concept would
recognize that collection and processing costs are compounded by the loss of revenues from the
sale of the goods and, possibly, by the cost of disposal. The true cost concept would also
include the effect on disposal operations when recyclables are removed from the disposal stream.
While the true cost of solid waste management is not as immediate a concern to the operations
manager as is the efficient operation of the solid waste facilities and the identification of the
proper mix of disposal methods, it must be a concern for measuring the degree of success of any
major capital expenditure or individual aspect of a solid waste program in the long term.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss several true cost concepts and the importance of
integrating the true cost concept into any comprehensive solid waste management plan. Those
concepts are 1) the difference between true cost and full cost; 2) true cost utilization in private
industry; 3) true cost as a solid waste management tool; and 4) true cost as an important element
of citizen education.
The basis of full cost disclosure is the separate accounting for the collection, disposal and
recycling costs that have been incurred to support solid waste operations. The full cost
521
-------
disclosure concept has evolved as a result of the rising costs of governmental services. The
states that have mandated the disclosure of the full cost of solid waste services to the users of
the system have done so for two reasons: first, to help the local governments to be aware of the
rising costs they are incurring and second, to force those governments to inform the users of the
system as to what those costs really are.
From the solid waste manager's perspective, identifying the historic costs that have been
incurred for collection, disposal and recycling is only the first step toward enabling him to
provide these services as efficiently and economically as possible within the ever-increasing
legislative constraints that are being imposed at the state and federal levels.
True cost considers not only the historic costs of collection, disposal and recycling, but
introduces into governmental management a concept that has been utilized by private industry
for years: the need to determine the complete costs of each aspect of current operations and the
costs of alternative operations. The true cost concept considers, in addition to the conventional
cost elements, the effects that departmental decisions have on overall operations. True cost also
considers whether a specific change in operations can obtain citizen acceptance.
The full cost concept has expanded the approach to solid waste management both horizontally
and vertically as shown in Figure 1 (page 3). The traditional cost centers for collection, disposal
and recycling are joined by a new major cost component, composting. This, however, is only
the first level of cost elements. Each can be expanded vertically as follows:
• Collection is no longer just picking up garbage. The emergence of different
processing and disposal methods often requires the separate collection of garbage,
horticultural trash and bulk items (white goods). The collection of recyclables is
also a separate cost, but is usually included under the major cost center for
recycling.
• Disposal is a cost center with sub-categories for each separate processing method
and for land management which is further subdivided into closure, final cover and
post-closure care.
• Recycling is subdivided into categories by recyclable product. The number of
categories used here will vary based-on each government's recycling program and
the applicable legislative requirements.
• Composting can be sub-categorized in two different ways. In the instance where
the only composting activity consists of windrowing horticultural trash, the only
sub-categories may be processing, storage and marketing. But if more than one
type of composting is being conducted, the sub-categories could expand to include
yard waste, yard waste/sludge, and/or municipal solid waste (MSW), as
applicable.
522
-------
Figure 1
A TYPICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Garbage
COLLECTION
Horrcuftural
Trash
Whitff
Goods
Processes
DISPOSAL
Land Management
Horticultural
Trash
Glass
RECYCLING
i
Aluminum
Plastics
Paper
Garbage
COMPOSTING!
Horticultural Trash
Sludge/
Horticultural Trash
523
-------
The depth of the level of sub-categories required to identify cost is directly proportional to the
breadth of the solid waste program being managed. The cost of each major solid waste
management program should be the accumulation of all costs associated with each area of
operations, along with the effect that each area has on the overall program. True cost includes
consideration for future costs, loss of revenues and the effect each has on overall operations.
As an example, an indirect effect associated with recycling is that tipping fees must typically
increase when fewer tons of solid waste are being disposed of (e.g landfilled or incinerated)
because the operational costs associated with the disposal facility do not decrease proportionally
to the increase in tonnage being recycled. Adequate revenues must be generated to fund the
expense of a disposal facility. If fewer tons are generated, the only way to acquire the required
funds is through a increase in disposal fees. While this is not a cost of recycling in the
accounting sense, it is a ultimate cost increase to the citizens. Under the full cost concept, this
increase in tipping fees would be identified historically; that is after it had been incurred. Under
the true cost concept, this increase would be identified and considered during the planning
process. The decision to recycle would then be made in light of the knowledge of the cost effect
it would have on all other aspects of the solid waste operations.
It is easy to understand the environmental issues that the public is demanding that the legislature
address, but it is much more difficult to convey to the public, the cost of the effects of resultant
legislation. While full cost is an adequate approach to disclosing the historic costs of solid
waste, it falls short of giving the users of the system the total picture of the true cost oT
providing the service.
For years private industry has used true cost as both an accounting and management tool. The
approach is to first identify a customer need, or in some instances, create a need in the minds
of the consumers. Then the accountants and production managers identify the true cost of filling
the need. Costs are accumulated and analyzed for research and development; the equipment
needs, materials, labor and overhead are identified; advertising and promotion costs are
estimated and an acceptable profit margin is added. At this point, management makes its first
decision: whether it is viable to market the proposed product or service. Once the decision is
made to proceed with marketing a product or service, corporate accountants constantly weigh
revenues against production costs and marketing managers monitor customer response and
acceptance of the product or service and to determine at what cost customer acceptance is
achieved. The process of comparing costs and revenues and monitoring customer response
allows management to make timely and economically advantageous decisions regarding the
continuance or conclusion of a marketing effort. The importance of this concept is evidenced
by the success of the large corporations that follow the true cost approach and by the number
of businesses that are no longer in existence, presumably because they did not monitor costs,
revenues and customer satisfaction.
Why compare a government service to private industry? Private industry strives to accommodate
its owners by keeping costs low in order to increase profits. Government has the same
responsibility to its owners, the citizens. The only difference is that government does not include
524
-------
profit as an element of the cost of operations. And, if there is no way to operate a solid waste
collection or disposal business economically, why do we continue to see the success and growth
of large corporations in this field?
The need for a comprehensive solid waste management program may be socially, if not
legislatively, mandated as opposed to being profit oriented. But, the necessity of the proper
management approach to the implementation of a any solid waste program is no different in the
government arena than in private industry. The true cost approach to solid waste management
will afford the solid waste manager the same ability to define the true cost of each operational
component and to use that information to identify and investigate alternatives before they become
full cost realities.
Figure 2 (page 6) illustrates a typical true cost decision model for the recycling component of
a solid waste management operation. As previously discussed, the first level of cost centers
depicts the typical recyclabies to be handled; aluminum, high-density polyethylene containers
(HDPE), paper and glass. Each of these products has specific costs for collection, processing,
storage, marketing, and, possibly, disposal. Consider that recycling is mandated for each of
these materials. Managers must consider how they should offer the product to the market: what
the market price is; whether there is a continual market for the product, and what effect
recycling will have on disposal fees. Prior to the implementation of the recycling effor ir any
product, these questions must be addressed.
If there is no market for newsprint, why incur the cost of separate collection? Is it
cheaper to sort it at the processing facility rather than at the curb? Add to that cost what it will
cost to store the newspaper if it is unmarketable, the cost to have it taken away or .possibly, the
additional cost to landfill or incinerate it.
Or, consider the recycling of aluminum. Historically the market has been strong for this
product, therefore it may be determined that it is cost effective to collect and market aluminum.
However, what if the market becomes soft due to an oversupply of typical recyclable aluminum
products? How does a solid waste manager gain advantage over other governmental agencies
that are recycling the same product? Private industry would look further into the marketing
characteristics and specifications before having entered the market and would continue to
monitor the program and adapt it to the changes in the market. This would entail, initially,
looking at what the competition is doing. In the case of governmental recycling activities, the
aluminum product most often offered to the market is cans, and in some instances flattened cans.
An additional step, in order to enhance the market options might be to consider the production
of aluminum ingots. This may not only result in a better market price, but allow for a greater
market penetration. As with private industry, benefit must match or exceed cost and demand
must be equal to or greater than supply. If the additional processing of a recyclable makes
economic sense, will the supply of the required recyclable remain constant? Additional factors
that should be considered in addition to the economics are the buying habits of your citizens,
possible legislative changes, and changes in manufacturers* requirements. Any of these could
525
-------
Figure 2
TRUE COST DECISION MODEL
lor the Recycling element of a solid waste management plan
RECYCLING
Glass
Aluminum
Collection
Plastics
Paper
Processing
Storage
Marketing
All. Disposal
Curbsjde
Drop-oil
Separa|ecJ
p°f
L-, «iSi
Curbside
Sort
1
Facility
Sort
Ocvsite
Sort
Facility
Sort
-------
cause an interruption or the need for a redirection of the flow of processable materials. While
not all of these considerations involve dollars and cents, each has the potential to affect the true
cost of the product. Once all costs have been identified, the solid waste manager is much better
equipped to plan for and react to changes. If an upward trend begins, a plan can be in place to
meet that market demand. And better, still, when a downward market trend emerges, the'
manager can be prepared to deal with it in the most economical and efficient manner.
Figure 3 (page 8) gives an example of what can occur when the full cost approach is used
exclusive of the true cost concept. The figure shows a sample annual budget established for
each the disposal and recycling portion of operations. Historic figures for annual generation and
the number of units receiving recycling service are used to calculate the tipping fee and monthly
recycling rate required to fund the operations for disposal and recycling. Two possible scenarios
are given for what could occur at year end. The first scenario is based on the premise that 1
the sample government unit achieved its 30% recycling goal; and 2) disposal revenues amounted
to only $70,000 instead of the projected 5100,000. In this scenario, the decrease in tonnage
received at the landfill, and the associated shortfall in disposal revenues, is determined to be the
direct result of the 30% of solid waste that was recycled. As previously stated, the reduction
in tonnage processed at a landfill, or other type of disposal facility, is not necessarily directly
proportionate to the cost savings that are incurred.
The second scenario depicts the results that could occur when the anticipated recycling market
does not prevail throughout the year. As in scenario 1, disposal revenues are down, but the
actual disposal revenues received are not reflective of the tonnage that was disposed of. The
scenario assumes there was no inter-departmental billing to recycling for the tonnage that was
landfilled in the absence of a market for those recyclables. Also, the actual recycling costs
incurred are greater than budgeted because downward market trends resulted in less revenue
from the sales of certain recyclables than was anticipated. These examples are not meant to
indicate or suggest that the entire disposal revenue shortfall should be allocated to recycling.
They are presented only to illustrate the possible effects of not integrating the overall system
planning and budgeting approach of the true cost concept.
There is one other advantage to using the true cost concept. Managers are better equipped to
explain the costs of operations and the costs of future programs to their immediate supervisors,
the city or county Board of Commissioners, and to the citizens.
The only effective way to justify the increasing costs of solid waste management is through
communication and education. Why have our children insisted that we not smoke? And why
are they coming home and asking "Where is the recycling container"? The answer is simple.
Today they are taught, in school, what is and is not environmentally acceptable. We understand
that they cannot be taught all they need to know by attending classes once or twice a year. They
attend school regularly. And they learn! Why, then, should we assume that an occasional
newspaper article or an annual full cost disclosure statement will fully inform our citizens of the
intricacies and costs of managing solid waste?
527
-------
Figure 3
ANNUAL BUDGET
Disposal
Landfill Operations
Debt Service
Escrow
Total.Budget
Annual Generation
Tipping Fee
Scenario 1. -
Disposal
Projected revenues
Tipping fee revenue
(70 tons received)
Revenue Shortfall • from
loss of tonnage
Scenario 2. -
Disposal
Projected revenues
Tipping fee revenue
(90 tons received)
Revenue Shortfall
Due to:
Loss of tonnage
Recyclables landfilled at NC
70,000
20,000
10,000
100,000
100 tons
$10
YEAR END
Recyclinq
Collection, Processing
& Marketing
Admin & Education
Revenues
Total Budget
Recycling Units
Monthly Rate / household
RESULTS
50.000
30,000
(8.000)
72,000
5.000
SI ,20
30% Reduction Goal is met!
100,000
70,000
/•so rinnv.. .
Recyclinq
Projected Revenues
Actual Revenues
Per Month under charge
$0.50
72,000
72,000
0
•> 30,000
30,000
/household
Recycling market is not as expected
100,000
80,000
(20,000)
in nnn . .
1 0 000 -
Reeyclinq
Projected Costs
Actual Costs
Revenue Shortfall
72,000
77.000
5,000
•> 10,000
••> 10,000
25,000
Per Month under charge
SO.42 /household
528
-------
Most citizen outcry comes from a misunderstanding of the available alternatives for managing
solid waste, or from a lack of understanding of, or information about, the true cost of those
alternatives. The key to establishing and accomplishing a common goal is through education and
citizen feedback. And, when information and alternatives are presented correctly and
completely, the feedback can be beneficial. Feedback from uninformed or misinformed parties
can create a misguided program. The true cost concept provides you with the information you
need to properly educate your citizens.
In conclusion, the cost of solid waste management will continue to escalate and the components
of solid waste management will continue to multiply. These factors provide one good reason
for the importance of identifying the true costs of a solid waste management program and its
components. The best reason for adopting this approach is one word that has been presen* n
almost every paragraph of this paper. That word is customers. Government's customers are
the citizens and those citizens drive the system, just as in private industry. The ?vstem cannot
drive the customer. Figure 4 (page 10) illustrates this point. Local governmen. nay contend
that its alternatives for addressing solid waste disposal and recycling are ma; ited by the
legislature, but the citizens ultimately drive the legislature. We can also contend t: the market
determines what revenues we can obtain from recycling, but again let us not i ^et that the
market for recyclables is driven by the demand for recycled products whic is directly
determined by the customer. And, the smooth operation of any solid waste lanagemem
program is achieved only through the understanding, acceptance and willingness, ±e citizens
to both participate in and to fund the program.
If legislators do not successfully communicate their positions to their constituents, they do not
return to office. If private companies do not provide the products that customers demand, or
that customers have been successfully convinced that they should buy, the companies cease to
exist.
Solid waste managers must be equipped with adequate and complete information and must
provide the required information to the citizens in order to receive positive citizen feedback and
obtain citizen acceptance for the solid waste management plan. The true cost concept gives them
the information they need today.
529
-------
Figure 4
a
o
Laws
Reports
Legislature
Incentives
Laws
Votes &
Lobbying
Citizens
Local
Government
Purchase Materials
Industry
-------
YARD DEBRIS MANAGEMENT AND SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM: AN
OVERVIEW OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Richard W. Boes
Program Manager
Fairfax County Department Public Works.
Division of Solid Waste Collection and Recycling
Fairfax, Virginia
BACKGROUND
Fairfax County, Virginia is an urban county located in the Washington, D.C. area. The county
covers 400 square miles and is home to more than 830,000 residents and the headquarters of
many national companies. The residents of Fairfax County are affluent and educated. The
median family income in 1987 was $61,953 with over 67 percent having a family income in
excess of $50,000.
Only about 13 percent, or 36,600 homes in Fairfax County are served by County Refuse
Collection; we are the second largest solid waste collector in the county. The remainder of
citizens are served by 30 private solid waste collection companies.
A recent study of the municipal solid waste stream indicates that approximately 17.7 percent of
the solid waste stream is yard debris. In FY 1991 that amounted to almost 182,000 tons.
GENERAL YARD DEBRIS PROGRAM
The County set a goal to recycle 37,900 tons of yard debris in FY 1992. As of the end of
March, 1992, 9 months into the fiscal year, 31,900 tons of material have been diverted. Fiscal
year 1993 goal is for a total of 52,000 tons of yard debris to be recycled.
In order to achieve this, starting March 30, 1993 it will be mandatory that yard debris be
collected separately for recycling. This material will be composted at two private composting
facilities in adjacent Loudoun County.
531
-------
BRUSH CHIPPING AND MULCHTNG
Tn March 1989, the County began a brush chipping and mulching operation at two County
facilities. After 4 months of operation, over 1,900 tons of brush were shredded. The amount
of brush shredded increased to 8,400 tons in FY 1990 and over 17,000 tons last year. All of
the mulch is given to citizens free of charge.
Fairfax County implemented a ban on the disposal of brush at County sanitary disposal facilities
on January 1, 1991, but enforcement did not begin until April 1, 1991 in order to allow haulers
time to develop procedures for separate collection of brush. Private haulers and municipal
collection operations are required to provide separate collection of this material. A reduced
tipping fee of S20 per ton is paid for loads of brush. The brush tipping fee is less than half the
usual tipping fee of S43 per ton for refuse (this goes to $45 per ton in FY 93). Additionally,
County citizens may deliver brush to the two County shredding facilities free of charge where
they can pick up shredded brush mulch.
Within the County collection areas we switched from weekly commingled special collection to
alternate special collection of brush one week and other bulky material the next. As a result we
have been shredding nearly 300 tons per month from County collections alone. Currently, over
2,000 tons of brush are shred each month countywide.
LEAF COLLECTION AND MULCHTNG
The County has operated a vacuum leaf collection program since 1967. This program currently
operates in about half the County refuse collection areas (approximately 18,000 homes).
Neighborhoods must petition the County to participate in the program and participants are
charged $0.03 on each $100 of their assessed property value (e.g., $90 for a home assessed at
$300,000). Collection occurs at three scheduled times during the Fall (November through
December). Leaves collected in this program are delivered to the County leaf mulching facilities
at a centrally located County Park.
During the fall of 1990, a pilot kraft bag leaf collection program was operated in a portion of
the County's Refuse Collection areas which did not receive vacuum leaf collection. This
program affected approximately 6,000 single family homes, and yielded approximately 600 tons
of leaves.
In addition, three community homeowners associations convinced their private haulers to
participate in the program. The County provided kraft bags to the citizens. One community that
could not obtain cooperation from their hauler established a community leaf drop-off site for
recycling.
Leaves obtained from the collection programs were deposited at designated locations at either
of the two Countyfacilities. Additional leaves were obtained from landscape companies or from
County citizens who self haul their leaves to these facilities.
532
-------
The leaves were ground into mulch, which was then available to County citizens free of charge
either at the two County Yard Debris Recycling facilities or local park sites to which the mulch
were transported.
The leaf season of the Fall of 1989 yielded a total of 8,650 tons of leaves which were shred into
mulch. As a result of self haul and the pilot collection program, the following two yean yielded
a significant increase in leaves recycled when over 12,500 tons of leaves each year were
mulched.
CHRISTMAS TREE RECYCLING 1990-1991 HOLIDAY SEASON
A pilot Christmas tree collection and mulching program was conducted during the 1990/1991
holiday season. The program was co-sponsored by Fairfax County, the Hechinger Company (a
local hardware/lumber retailer), and Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). Ten collection sites
equipped with 30 cubic yard roll-of containers were located at local Hechinger stores on the first
two week ends in January. BFI provided containers and hauled the trees to either of the two
County brush recycling centers. Hechinger provided an added bonus by offering a 10 percent
discount coupon to residents using collection sites at their stores and the S20 per ton brush
tipping fee was not charged for the trees collected during the pilot program.
Citizens also were able to deliver their trees directly to the County Brush Recycling Centers 7
days a week, free of charge.
Over 350 tons of trees were recycled through the drop-off and collection programs,
approximately 145 tons of which came from the Hechinger drop-off sites. This was estimated
to represent approximately 25 percent of the available Christmas trees in Fairfax County.
During the 1991-1992 holiday season, this program was expanded to include voluntary
chipper/shredded crews located at the Hechinger stores. These crews came from 11 private
companies, the Fairfax County Park Authority, Virginia Department of Transportation, the
Cities of Fairfax and Falls Church, the Town of Herndon, and the Reston Association (a
homeowners group).
Approximately 10,400 trees were shred at the Hechinger stores alone.
Because of the brush ban, all solid waste collectors were required to collect trees curbside.
Those collectors who did not charge customers extra for the service were not charged the usual
$20 per ton brush tipping fee. The final tally was that a total of 979 tons of Christmas trees
were recycled last year, or two thirds of the available Christmas trees.
533
-------
INTEGRATED SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAM
This program is cosponsored by the Department of Public Works and the Department of
Extension and Continuing Education
In the Fall of 1991 the County launched a new Yard Debris Management/Source Reduction
Program called YIMBY, "Yes In My Back Yard!" YIMBY is designated as the rallying cry for
this program and was specifically developed as a positive counter attitude to the common
syndrome of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
The goal of the County's YIMBY program is to educate residents in the reduction of yard debris
placed out for refuse collection. The County is using seminars and literature, as well as hands-
on yard debris demonstration projects. The program provides citizens information on how to
view yard debris as a resource, rather than as waste requiring collection and disposal.
The YIMBY Options are:
o landscape alteration;
o mulching of grass clippings, leaves, and brush;
o back yard composting;
o grasscycling and aerating - leaving grass clippings on the lawn.
At full implementation it is estimated that this new source reduction program will divert as much
as 20,000 tons of leaves, grass clippings, and brush from the waste stream.
Landscape Alteration - The most important consideration in establishing a new landscape is
planning. Citizens are told that they should draw a simple diagram to determine what they have
and what they want the end result to be. Yard debris reduction can be achieved easily as long
as it is well thought out, while at the same time it provides a healthier, more trouble-free
landscape.
The following are a few suggestions that residents can use to create a new landscape:
Plan the view, visualize it - screen out undesirable views.
Plant in beds.
Use native plants.
Consider the land formation and plant appropriately for sun, shade, wet, etc.
Naturalize as much as possible.
Plant for the future.
These are just a few considerations. Fairfax County publishes an easy to read brochure which
goes into greater detail.
Landscape Alteration is a long range Option that can easily be undertaken at the same time as
the other options. A key item here is that it won't happen over night but it can be achieved as
a result of good planning, patience and determination.
Mulching - Leaves, grass clippings and brush can be used throughout the yard as mulch. Some
of this material requires a little more preparation, e.g. chipping brush or shredding leaves, but
534
-------
the resulting mulch is very beneficial. One suggestion that we make is for
Neighborhoods/Associations to get together and rent equipment and share the work and cost.
Composting - The backyard composting program was the first element of the YIMBY program
to be established.
It was co-sponsored by the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and the County
Department of Extension and Continuing Education. The program was initiated in the Spring
1990 when three composting workshops were held for County residents. Currently three
workshops are held during the Fall and three in Spring. A "how-to" packet on backyard
composting and mulching is made available through the County's Division of Solid Waste
Collection and Recycling.
The seminars encourage residents to engage in yard maintenance practices that produce less
waste. The motto, "YIMBY - Yes! In My Backyard," is used to encourage citizens to manage
yard debris in their own yard. Advance publicity for seminars included public speaking,
newspaper articles, radio and television public service announcements, posters, flyers, mailings,
and word of mouth. The seminars are well publicized; experience with the back yard
composting seminar is that they drew up to 50 or 60 interested citizens at each session.
Fairfax County is very fortunate in that there are a number of organizations which have
established composting demonstration sites and provide training. The American Horticultural
Society displays over 60 different composting systems. They are as simple as a pile of leaves
with bamboo poles imbedded in them for the purpose of shaking and thus aerating (no turning
no special equipment required) to a solar driven turning unit.
Then there are the private citizens who have built very elaborate three bin turning systems.
Something like this is great if you have a few extra bucks to spend and have a large volume of
material.
What we do not want people to do is put leaves, grass clippings, or brush in totters for disposal
the sanitary facilities.
We provide citizens plans for building composting systems. One popular item is a turning bin
made from old shipping pallets. Here we achieve two recycling elements, composting and
recycling pallets. In Fairfax County we are developing a list of companies willing to allow
citizens to come to their facilities and take pallets away. In addition to the County's backyard
composting program, several local organizations (public and private sector) have developed
seminars, training programs, and demonstration sites aimed at educating and encouraging local
citizens to compost their own yard debris. For example, the community gardens in Reston have
implemented composting programs for debris generated from gardening activities at each site.
As was noted earlier, the American Horticultural Society, located on the Potomac sponsors a
master composters program and is setting up a demonstration site of over 60 composting
devices. The County and Regional Parks sponsor composting seminars and the Cities of Fairfax
535
-------
and Falls Church have built composting demonstration areas and training facilities.
Grasscycling - A new term but by no means a new concept is grasscycling - leave the grass
clippings on the lawn. Grass clippings cut by a mower with a mulching blade are very short.
This results from the grass being cut a number of time by this special blade.
The deck of the mulching mower, working with the special blade permit the grass clippings to
be suspended in the air currents for multiple encounters with the blade.
In Northern Virginia, the soil condition is such that one activity that must be added to a grass
cycling program is aeration. The recommended type of machine is one that removes plugs of
soil or a spoon type that digs a hole. If the machine drives a spike into the ground, the soil is
compacted and defeats the purpose of aerating. Aerating will also help reduce fungus growth,
stimulates growth, reduces watering needs as well as generally promoting a healthier lawn.
Compost bins are given to the citizens attending the YIMBY residential symposia, as well as the
composting seminars.
At the same time citizens are asked to complete a questionnaire designed to allow estimating the
volume of yard debris being generated at an average Fairfax County residence. Currently, we
have developed estimators for grass clippings and leaves. The average Fairfax County YIMBY
practitioner recycles 381 pounds of leaves and 881 pounds of grass clippings a year. This
amounts to 0.63 tons of yard debris that never goes to the curb.
A set of estimators were developed for a "typical Fairfax County residence". These values are
based on a number or studies conducted around the country and Fairfax County developed
values. As more in-house data is collected the estimators will be fine tuned.
Private lawn equipment sales dealers have volunteered to display various equipment geared
toward source reduction. Mulching mowers, chipper/shredders, and standard mowers are
displayed. In addition to residential symposia, we are conducting symposia targeted to the
commercial sector.
We point out that a regular lawn mower can be used to grass cycle and that they do not have
to go out and spend a lot of money to get started.
The symposia feature technical experts from the Department of Fjctension and Continuing
Education or from the private sector to give basic information on "How To" be a YIMBY
practitioner.
In summary, a key element in Fairfax Counties recycling program is Yard Debris Management.
We have gotten a good start, but we still have a long way to go.
536
-------
YARD WASTE COMPOSITION AND EFFECTS ON COMPOST AND
MULCH PRODUCTION
James V. Ragsdale, Jr., Mulch Recycling Coordinator
City of St. Petersburg Sanitation Department
St. Petersburg, Florida
Michael J. Rudd, Assistant Director-Operations
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management
St. Petersburg, Florida
Joan Bradshaw, Extension Agent II - Urban Horticulture
Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service
St. Petersburg, Florida
Peter Stasis, Senior Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Tampa, Honda
I. Introduction
Pinellas County, Florida is a 280-square mile peninsula located on the central west coast of the
state. It is the smallest and most populated county in the state with a population density of 3,042
people per square mile. The 1991 population of more than 851,659 is expected to reach 934,000
by 1994. With rapid increase in population growth, there is an increasing demand on natural
resources and disposal of solid wastes.
Growing population densities, coupled with limited land for more traditional disposal methods
of solid waste, impelled the County to seek out alternative waste disposal methods. Solid Waste
Management for Pinellas County includes resource recovery, landfilling, waste reduction and
recycling. Prior to 1988, 85% of the solid waste was being incinerated with the remaining 15%
being landfilled.
A comprehensive one year waste composition study performed in 1989-1990 indicated that 22%
of the waste stream delivered to the County System was yard trash. A yard trash to recycled
mulch project was considered to be a viable option for maximizing landfill life and regaining
capacity at the Resource Recovery Facility. Many uses exist for recycled yard mulch. Yard
trash not only can be removed from the municipal solid waste stream, but it can be economically
' turned into a mulch product for use by residents, park departments, government and commercial
537
-------
horticulture enterprises. Landscape contractors and home gardeners utilize mulch for functional
and aesthetic purposes. Mulch applications provide the additional benefits of:
1. decreasing water evaporation from the soil surface.
2. helping prevent soil erosion loss by wind or water
3. helping control weed invasion
4. providing thermal stabilization by keeping soil cooler in hot weather and wanner in cool
weather, Ashworth, S. and Harrison, H. (1983).
5. dust suppression
II. Demographics
A. General
1. Yard Trash History in PineLlas County
In 1986 the City of St. Petersburg investigated the potential of using yard trash as a boiler fuel.
After an extensive feasibility study, this alternative was abandoned when development was
shown to have economical prohibition. The City of St. Petersburg subsequently initiated a
recycled yard waste mulch program. The Pinellas County Recycled; Yard Trash Mulch pilot
project, modeled after the City of St. Petersburg's program, was initialed in August of 1989,
The Pinellas County project was established on a 4.70 acre site at the Bridgeway Acres Landfill
and was a cooperative effort between the St. Petersburg Sanitation Department, Pinellas County
Department of Solid Waste Management, Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) and 11 municipalities.
The following goals were identified to obtain maximum yard trash reduction:
1. To reduce the volume of municipal solid waste by minimizing the amount of yard trash
entering local landfills
2. To establish a county wide yard trash recycling project in Pinellas County
3. To monitor and evaluate the process equipment and project variables necessary to create
a stable product which can be effectively utilized by residents, municipalities and
horticultural agencies
4. To create market opportunities for the resulting mulch product
5. To educate potential consumers of the value of utilizing the mulch product
2. Regulatory/Economic Incentives
In 1988, the Florida Legislature passed the Solid Waste Management Act which requires each
county to recycle 30% by weight of the solid waste generated by 1994. This law further
specified that yard trash represent no more 15% of the 30% goal. At the passing of this Act,
Florida became one of a dozen states that would prohibit the disposal of yard trash in lined
landfills. The prohibition became effective January 1, 1992.
538
-------
To implement the mandates established by the Solid Waste Management Act, 27 million dollars
in grant funds were allocated for disbursement over a five year period to establish county wide
recycling programs throughout the state. The City of St. Petersburg sought and obtained the
approval of the Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management to implement a county
wide pilot project to explore recycling and marketing yard trash mulch on a county wide scale.
Participation in the project by municipalities was encouraged with incentives and conditions
including:
1. The adoption of a $15.00 per ton grinding fee. The City of St. Petersburg provided the
services of their private grinding contractor and collected the fee for the material
delivered by participating cities. The normal disposal fee at the County landfill is S37.50
per ton. The resultant savings of $22.50 per ton to participating cities helped to offset
any additional collection costs for separate curbside collections of segregated yard trash.
2. The cost for labor and equipment for windrow processing, reject disposal, and mulch
distribution was paid out of State of Florida recycling grant monies. These additional
costs resulted in an overall cost of $22.00 a ton to process and distribute up to 400 tons
per day of yard trash mulch.
3. Participation in the pilot project was limited to sanitation collections departments in the
municipalities.
4. A 4.7 acre project site was developed at the centrally located County landfill. A weekly
volume limit of 400 tons was established due to the limitation of the project site size.
B. Definition of Terms
Compost: Defined under Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Rule 17-709.200(2)
as a "solid waste which has undergone biological decomposition of organic matter, and has been
disinfected using composting or similar technologies, and has been stabilized to a degree which
is potentially beneficial to plant growth and which is used or sold for use as a soil amendment,
artificial top soil, growing medium amendment or other similar uses."
Fines: Finished material with a particle size under 1 inch.
Mulch: Sized fibrous organic material, 2 to 4 inches in length, resulting from grinding of yard
trash. These materials are applied at a rate of 2 to 4 inches to the soil surface to prevent
excessive evaporation of moisture from the soil and control dust, erosion, and weed invasion
(Viell et al, 1989). Mulch is not defined under Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Rules. It is exempted from composting regulations under Rule 17-709.300(10). The processing
of yard trash into other usable materials such as mulch is not considered composting and is not
regulated by this rule.
Processing: A horticulturally stabilized yard waste mulch process incorporating inspection of
deliveries, stockpiling in staging area, grinding, screening, transporting material, building
539
-------
windrows, rotating windrows, irrigating, monitoring windrows for thermophilic kill
temperatures, transporting finished product and delivery of product to public distribution sites.
Windrow: An elongated formation of ground yard trash material where the dimension of
construction, the particle size and the mean of rotation provide a state of controlled biological
decomposition which is manipulated by introduction of water and oxygen to cause sufficiently
high temperatures to "sanitize" the material making it safe for public distribution.
Yard Trash: Vegetative material influenced by the Florida climate where there is a
predominance of grass clippings, brush, shrubbery trimming, palm fronds, leaves and tree
cuttings. Land clearing debris including tree stumps and logs over 10 inches in diameter or 6
feet in length is processed separately from residential yard trash due to equipment limitations
established by manufacturers and the additional cost of processing.
C. Situational Analysis
1. Generation Rates
In maintaining home landscapes, residents of Pinellas County produce enough yard trash during
the growing season (March through October) to account for a significant amount of the daily
waste collected. A 1989-1990 waste characterization study determined that yard trash
represented up to 260,000 tons a year or 22% of the solid waste stream disposed at the Pinellas
County Resource Recovery Facility and Landfill. Presently 29,000 tons of yard trash per year
is recycled in the County representing a capture rate of 11 % of the total yard trash stream. The
County is projecting a capture rate of 25% in the future for a total of 60,000 tons.
In one study of yard trash generation rates from single family dwellings, the City of Belleair
recycled on average 1,460 pounds a year of mixed yard trash (leaves, grass, brush, tree cuttings
and palm fronds) from a lot sized between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet.
2. Source Reduction Program
In addition to on-site mulching and composting efforts, a "Don't Bag It" educational program
was initiated by Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service and funded by the Department
of Enviromental Regulation in the fall of 1989. The goals of this project were to: (a)
demonstrate the positive effects of not bagging grass clippings; (b) promote yard waste source
reduction; and (c) collect data on bagging versus non collection of grass clippings. The "Don't
Bag it" demonstration program was designed to enlist 200 citizens of Pinellas County to
participate in a demonstration and research project on bagging versus not bagging grass clippings
and to determine the environmental implications. Participants were instructed in methods of
proper mowing, fertilizing and watering techniques for maintaining the home landscape.
Data generated from the "Don't Bag It" program indicated that during 7 months of active
540
-------
growing season (May through November) 86 bagging volunteers collected a total of 118,995
pounds of grass on a total turf area of 485,450 square feet. On average, the single family
residences generated 1,383 pounds of grass from a 5,640 square foot lot during this primary
growing season.
An independent study carried out in 1989 prior to the "Don't Bag It" program and other source
reduction efforts indicated that about 6 out of 10 Pinellas households (54%) maintain the
landscape around their dwellings and 36% let their grass clippings remain on their lawn. A
1991 followup study indicated that 56% of the residents now leave grass clippings on the lawn,
with 22% disposing grass clippings in the household solid waste, 16% putting it in a compost
pile and 3% taking it to a brush transfer site for recycling (Suncoast Opinion Survey, 1991).
These case studies show that source reduction yard trash recycling programs such as residential
on-site grass clipping recycling, back yard composting and on site mulching are viable methods
of recycling yard trash in the solid waste stream.
3. Horticulture Description
Often called Florida's most important natural resource, the climate is usually pleasant and
uniform through the year. Pinellas is a peninsular county which has the additional benefit of
having its climate modified by the Gulf Stream and the Gulf of Mexico. General climatic
conditions of Pinellas range from a zone of transition between temperate and subtropical
conditions. Summers throughout the state are long, warm, and relatively humid while winters
fluctuate with periodic invasions of cool to occasionally cold air.
As a result of relatively warm adjacent sea waters, rainfall is abundant with an average annual
rainfall of 52.29 inches. Florida's mild climate coupled with ample rainfall make it an ideal
climate for growing lush landscapes during 9 months of the year. Research indicates the average
single family residential landscape in Pinellas is approximately 7,000-8,000 square feet with
5,000 square feet of turf, 125 ground covers, 75 shrubs, 6 shade trees, 3 palms and 3 fruit trees.
4. Collection
The yard trash processed at the County project was collected by both curbside collection systems
and drop off centers. City wide segregated curbside yard trash collection from single family
dwellings was carried out a minimum of once a week. The most common vehicles used were
rear loading compaction trucks and crane trucks. Yard trash was debagged curbside.
Acceptable material size of yard trash was limited to 10 inches in diameter and 6 feet in length.
5. Markets
To date, the project has processed 33,000 tons of recycled mulch and has distributed 24,000 tons
throughout Pinellas County. Public awareness and education efforts resulted in 75 percent of
541
-------
the total tonnage from a 9 month study period being distributed to governmental agencies
including; parks and recreations areas, highways, municipalities, and goif courses. Recycled
mulch was utilized in the following ways: landscape border along a 47 mile linear hiking and
bike trail, erosion control barriers on roadways and landfill cell slopes,, beautification projects
along interstate mediums as well as soil stabilization along highways.
Recycled yard trash mulch was also marketed for residential landscape use. Data from the 9
month study indicates that 25 percent of the mulch product was used by residential and
commercial landscapes. A county-wide free mulch program was initiated with 19 distribution
sites for self loading. Usage at these sites averaged 48 tons a week, approximately 25 % of
average production output. A 1991 survey of Pinellas County residents indicated that 7% or
74,800 home landscapers have used Pinellas County recycled mulch (Suncoast Opinions Surveys,
1991).
III. Characterization Strategies
A. Rationale for Characterization Study
A yard trash composition study was undertaken to determine the composition of the yard trash
to be recycled and the predominance of the yard trash categories including grass, leaves, tree
cuttings, shrubbery, palm fronds and brush. Earlier surveys showed some reluctance for mulch
use due to product sizing inconsistency and an unappealing darker color. Efforts were made to
determine the summer seasonal volume of grass, determined as the culprit in the darker colored
mulch, as a percentage of yard trash. The characterization study daia assisted in the selection
of correctly sized production equipment engineered to economically process the predominant feed
stock material and was instrumental in determining the economics of the program. The study
also sought to assist in facility design considerations according the space requirements for
windrowing and storage. The final goal of the characterization study was to determine levels
of contamination, the amount of oversized non-processible material and the level of generation
of fines disposed in order to determine the most effective solution for reject disposal.
B. Sampling Analytical Protocols
During the yard trash composition study, random samples of yard trash, totalling 18.2 tons,
were taken from commercial, mixed commercial, and residential odkctions. The residential
curbside yard trash was commingled with both grass and brush. Participating cities were
selected that provided 100% available city wide curbside collection; of segregated yard trash.
Separating efficiency was estimated to be about 78% due to grass being commingled with
household solid waste. Yard trash selected for the study was delivered to a prepared paved
surface for hand sorting. Cone and sectioning procedures were followed to produce a
manageable sample size.
Commercial and mixed commercial sources of yard trash were targeted and identified by
542
-------
interview prior to the composition study. Vehicles transporting yard trash were inspected to
assure content of load, size and contamination level, and to determine if the hauler was engaged
in a commercial enterprise.
The following equipment was utilized during the study: 1 roll off truck; 4 roll off containers;
front end loader with clamshell bucket attachment; 500 pound scale; 44 gallon buckets;
pitchforks; shovels; safety equipment and wooden caliper measuring tools.
C. Generator Categories
1. Residential Curbside
This component of the study was comprised of project participants that provide 100 percent
residential curbside collection of segregated yard trash material that was collected a minimum
of once a week. The target collection routes were those only in residential neighborhoods where
yard trash was segregated on collection day. Yard trash from this source represented an 80%
capture rate from four cities. Based on collection policies that permit grass to be comingled with
household solid waste it was estimated that 78% of the yard trash was separated at the source
resulting in 27.97 tons of yard trash. This sample represented 28.21 % of the total tons delivered
to the yard trash recycling project on the day of the study. The 27.97 sample size was coned
and sectioned into a test sample section of 4.01 tons. A team of 6 required 6 hours to classify
the 4.01 ton sample.
2. Mixed Commercial
This component of the study represented commercial landscapes, lawn maintenance enterprises,
as well as materials received from residential dwellings. The yard trash source consisted of 68%
single family dwelling, 26% commercial and business, and 6% from multi-family dwelling.
Participants of the study consisted of 53% commercial lawn maintenance enterprises and 47%
residents of single family dwellings. A sample size of 8.82 tons of the total 32 tons delivered
to the county landfill were diverted on the day of the study, representing a capture rate of 27%.
Once the material had been screened and directed to the designated area, contents of the entire
load were studied for composition of materials. A team of 8 required 7 hours to classify the
8.82 ton sample.
3. Commercial
The component of this study represented enterprises served by lawn care companies and lawn
maintenance companies that predominantly serviced commercial accounts. Approximately 90%
of this material was derived from commercial enterprises and 10% from governmental facilities.
A total of 5.38 tons of the 21.83 tons delivered to the landfill on the day of the study were
diverted to the study area for sizing and classification, representing a capture rate of 24.64%.
543
-------
A team of 7 required 5 hours to classify the 5.38 ton sample.
D. Results
Results of the yard trash composition study are shown in Table I.
TABLE 1
PINELLAS COUNTY YARD WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY
Waste Group
Breakdown
Grass
Tree Cuttings
Over 6' long
Logs
Over 10" diameter
Tree Cuttings
4" to 10" diameter
Tree Cuttings
0" to 4" diameter
Brush &
Shrubbery
Palm Fronds
Small Vegetative
Debris (leaves, pine
needles
Contamination
Total
SOURCE
Commercial
30
0
0
3.4
3.8
28.4
20.5
11.4
2.5
100
Mixed
Commercial
35
2.6
0.7
3.8
7.4
25
6.2
14.0
5.3
100
Residential
Curbside
51.5
0
1.3
0.9
5
32.7
8
0
0.6
100
Composite
Average
38.8
0.9
0.6
2.7
5.4
28.7
11.6
8.5
2.8
100
NOTE: Small debris (less than 1") and grass are 47% of total weight.
The yard waste composition study showed that our climate produces significant quantities of
tropical palms, dense oaks and grass, and in sufficient amounts to impact tub grinder production
levels to between 10 and 20 tons per hour, about 50% of manufacturer's advertised capacity.
Demonstration tests were performed at the landfill to achieve the following standards:
544
-------
1. A minimum production rate of between 14 and 18 tons per hour on average over a trial
period.
2. A maximum limit on end product size after grinding to either 3 or 4 inches in length.
The results of the test demonstrations and of the current equipment used at the yard mulch
facility are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2
TUB GRINDER DEMONSTRATIONS
Desisn Features
• Loading
• Tub
Diameter
• Power Plant
• Mill
• Screen
Productivity
Size of
End Product
0-1 inch
1-2 inch
2-3 inch
3- over
4- over
5- over
Cost per Ton
DEMO TEST
NO. 1
Front end loader
14 feet
850 HP diesel
28 hammers, 70 Ibs
each
Full screen, two
sections
5x3 inch openings
5x1 1/2 inch
openings
19 TPH on average
72%
17%
11%
0
—
—
$12.15
DEMO TEST
NO. 2
Self loading grapple
10 feet
360 HP diesel
40 hammers
Full screen, two
sections
4 inch round
openings
9. 10 TPH on
average
—
-
—
—
1.5%
—
S16.97
CURRENT
GRINDING UNIT
Hydro fork c- ne
12 feet
503 HP diei.
72 hammers
Full screen with
5 inch round
openings
17 TPH on average
58%
20%
9%
11%
—
2%
$9.64
545
-------
IV. Processing Method Evaluation
A. Mulching
A cost-effective, horticulturally stabilized process was developed to convert yard trash into a
mulch product by a grinding and screening action performed by a Jones "Mighty Giant" mobile
tub grinder. The tub grinder utilizes a high speed rotating hammer mill powered by a 503 HP
diesel engine. The grinder is equipped with a 28-foot hydro-fork that loads yard trash material
into the tub grinder. The tub rotates to assist feeding the material into the hammer mill. The
production output of this machine will vary from 15 to 25 tons of material per hour based on
the age, type, and size of feedstock.
This equipment can be fitted with several screen sizes to obtain a desired product size and
consistency. Each change in screen size directly affects the production rate, with a smaller
screen size resulting in a lower production rate per hour. The grinding process demonstrated
a 30% to 50% volume reduction with a 5 inch diameter screen.
The processed yard trash is transported from the grinding area through the use of a model 624
John Deere front end loader equipped with 3.75 cubic yard Tink roll out bucket with an
extended arm and a 40 yard roll-off container truck. A clam shell attachment on the bucket
provides a 4.5 cubic yard bucket load capacity.
The front end loader is provided with an enclosed operator compartment with air filtration air
conditioning system which is required to isolate operators from work site noise, dust and
airborne microbial organisms that could contribute to respiratory allergic reactions.
The ground yard trash is placed in windrows 24' wide, 10' high and 120* long. Each windrow
contains approximately 350 tons of ground materials. The 4.7 acre site contained a maximum
of 15 windrows or a total windrow capacity of 5,250 tons. In the first 12 weeks the windrowed
mulch volume is reduced an additional 20% to 30%. A 2 to 1 reduction in volume can be
achieved during processing under optimum conditions.
The windrow is rotated laterally with a front end loader which takes one-half the time compared
to a side-to-side windrow shift. Water is applied at a rate of 20 gallons per cubic yard to obtain
an average moisture level of 35 to 40 percent.
Temperatures are monitored weekly with a three foot temperature probe is inserted one-third the
distance from the base of the windrow at 20 foot intervals. The temperatures are averaged and
entered in a tracking chart to monitor the temperature history of the windrow from formation
to removal.
546
-------
B. Composting for Landfill Cover
Due to the high number of fines identified in the yard trash characterization study and further
generation by decomposition, it was suggested after a demonstration screening using a 1 3/4 inch
x 3/8 inch triple shaker on 15 month old material that 60 to 70 percent by weight of the material
could be utilized for landfill cover. The screening would segregate the 40% or less oversized
material from the fines and thus provide a product suiteable for daily and intermediate cover in
the landfill. The material could also be used as a final cover if blended in with top soil at a ratio
of 4 to 1. This process offers a lot of potential for dealing with excess yard waste while
avoiding the cost of processing or product development for the purpose of public marketing.
Further degradation over a 20 to 24 month period through periodic rotation and exposure to
natural elements could bring the processed yard waste to the point where the predominate
characterization of the material would meet State prerequisites for use as landfill cover. The
State's acceptability of a material for use as daily and intermediate cover is based on the
prerequisites that the material will (1) act as a fire barrier (2) control litter (3) control vectors
and (4) reduce rainfall infiltration.
The advantages of a compost quality landfill cover material are cost avoidance benefits for cover
dirt, strategic placement adjacent to further landfill operations and reduced processing costs.
The limitations are the considerable length of time (15-20 months) is takes for enough
decomposition to provide a sufficient amount of fines/humus material for use as a cover and the
requirement to tie up or occupy land for such a long period of time before it can be utilized.
The process is considered to be low tech and could be beneficial to the County for managing
excess ground material while offsetting some of the dirt requirements of the landfill. It is
estimated that the cost for grinding, loading, transporting, and windrowing material designated
for future landfilling and utilization is approximately $5.00 less per ton than processing for
marketable mulch.
V. Environmental Impact and Contamination Testin£
A. Sampling Protocol
In an attempt to ensure quality of the mulch product, efforts were made to closely monitor
windrows throughout processing. The main objective of the monitoring and quality control
efforts was to evaluate process and product variables necessary for producing a safe marketable
landscape mulch. In order to accomplish this goal, samples were collected at the beginning of
windrow formation, following windrow rotation and at the end of the windrowing process. The
time interval from beginning to end of processing ranged from 45 to 90 days. Samples were
removed from surface level to 12 inches of depth from the windrow. Random samples were
collected at various heights along the entire outer perimeter of the windrow. A one cubic foot
547
-------
random sample of the mulch was abstracted from a 700 cubic yard windrow representing on
average about 0.005 percentage of the windrow volume. Composite reduction of the sample
involved a coning and sectioning procedure resulting in a one pound laboratory sample.
Windrow tracking tests occurred during the spring and summer growing season and data
represents 6 months of processing with minimal monthly turning of windrows.
1. Nutrient Properties
Laboratory testing consisted of analysis for macro and micro nutrients essential for plant growth.
The extraction method used was a-modified Morgan Extractant Procedure measured in parts per
million. Those elements tested included:
Macro nutrients: N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S
Micro nutrients: Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, B.
The results of the soil nutrient analysis indicated that levels of nitrogen from initial processing
through finished product ranged from low levels to very low levels. While nitrogen remained
consistently low, other macro elements and micro elements remained in the medium to high
range at the end of processing. Copper, the exception, remained very low. The pH level at
onset of processing averaged 6.9 and at completion of processing (3 months) it ranged between
8.0 and 8.4.
Pinellas County Recycled Yard Trash is processed and marketed as a mulch product to be
utilized as a soil top dressing. Recycled yard trash mulch is not intended to be used as a soil
amendment for the following reasons:
Phytotoxima harmful to seed germination, are present at their highest levels 3 weeks after
initial processing resulting in a 50% nongermination rate. Although after 12 weeks of
processing and turning, only 10% of the seeds did not germinate due to phytotoxity,
recycled yard mulch is not recommended as a seed germinating medium (McConnell and
Shirapour, 1990).
To be considered a compost, sufficient decomposition and reduction of organic content
is essential to serve as a stable soil amendment. Nitrogen deficiency and plant stress
results when mulch is utilized as a soil amendment and placed next to plant roots in the
soil. Microbial activity which breaks nitrogen into available forms for plant use is
diverted to break down organic matter in mulch. Consequently, the recycled yard mulch,
by itself, is also not recommended as a potting medium.
Data indicates that Pinellas County mulch has a 60/1 Carbon to Nitrogen (C to N) ratio at the
beginning of processing and a 45/1 C to N ratio at the end of processing, which is higher than
the optimal balance of 25/1 for soil amendments.
548
-------
2. Pathogens
Presently state guidelines stipulating maintenance temperatures for mulch production do not
exist. The project subsequently adopted a modified version of the State of Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation Compost rule for compost disinfection. This rule is based on the
EPA regulation specified in the Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) found in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 257 which requires that material in windrows maintain a minimum
temperatures of 131 degrees Farenheit (°F) for 15 consecutive days with a minimum of five
turnings. Based upon these standards, the University of Florida Institute of Food and
Agricultural Science (IFAS) established the following windrow temperature guidelines: The
processor must establish and maintain a minimum average temperature of 131°F at 3 feet of
depth for 72 hours after the formation of windrow and after each of the 2 rotations of the
windrow formed (McConnell and Shirapour, 1990). The windrow should stay in place a
minimum of 2 weeks after each formation or rotation for a total of 45 days to complete the
processing. Irrigation is required to obtain minimum temperatures. When yard trash is
windrowed, turned and temperatures are maintained at 131CF, plant pathogens such as
Phytophthora spp., Pythium spp.m, and Fusarium solani are destroyed. Through the destruction
of these plant pathogens, recycled yard mulch can effectively be used without causing ill effects
to plants.
3. Petrochemicals
Chemicals selected for laboratory analysis included those which had been previously banned,
contribute to ground water contamination or had been found to be persistent in the soil due to
long life. Lab analysis were conducted for soil fumigants, chloracetamindes, dinitroanalines,
phenoxys, thicarbamates and triazines. Laboratory test method CG-ECD was utilized for the
organochlorine and organophosphate screen and the GC-NPD method was used to test the
herbicides, phenoxys. Lab analyses indicated insignificant or nondetectable levels for the
majority of the compounds tests. Chlordane, Dieldrin, Heptachlor Epoxide, and 2,4,5-TP
(Silvex), compounds previously banned or withdrawn from the market, have been detected in
some incoming materials. Data indicates that exposing yard trash to the windrowing process
where there is exposure to thermophilic temperatures and/or microbial activity has reduced the
detectable levels of persistent organic pesticide compounds. In two field studies pesticide
compounds were tracked through the stages of windrow processing which showed a reduction
in levels from beginning to end of processing.
4. Weed Seed
To ensure a weed free mulch product, weed seed destruction studies were carried out on
Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia, J.R. Forst and G. Forst), Brazilian Pepper (Schinus
terebinthifolius, Raddi), Punk tree (Melaleuca Leucadendron), Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum),
Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosim, Schwartz, D.C.) Yellow nutsedge (Cyprus
esculentus), ragweed (Ambrosia mexicana), and Hybrid tomato (Lycopersicon Lycopersicum).
549
-------
Results of these studies indicate that seeds exposed to Laboratory temperatures of 140°F were
rendered nonviable after 3 hours. Data also indicated that the most Jam resistant seeds such as
beggarweed, failed to germinate when exposed to 131°F for 48 hours. AfiMitional field tests with
Brown top Millet seed demonstrated that destruction of seeds is directly related to depth found
within the windrow. The seeds at the cooler outside surface of the pile have a greater survival
rate than those located in the warmer core of the pile. Data indicated; that seeds placed on the
surface of the pile had a 92 % survival rate beyond 24 days. However,, at 1 foot of depth it took
24 days to kill all seeds. At 2 feet of depth it took 7 days to render ai seats inviable. At 3 feet
of depth within the pile, 1 % of the seeds remained viable enough to gectmroaie after 3 days. The
importance of windrow turning, exposing as much of the product as possible to thermophilic
range, cannot be overemphasized.
5. Heavy Metals
Heavy metals selected for test in the Pinellas County project included; cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc. The tests results indicated that municipal yard trash is 95% below the threshold
regulatory level limitation for level 1 unrestricted distribution and marketing. Test results for
detection of heavy metals are summarized in Table 3.
Tests were also conducted to determine levels of mercury present in najniiinpally collected yard
trash. EPA regulatory levels for mercury in yard trash have not yet been established, however,
state standards from New York and Minnesota stipulate acceptable levels ©f 10.00 ppm and 5.0
ppm, respectively. Test results for Pinellas County Recycled Yard taas& mulch indicated that
0.11 per million were present.
TABLE 3
HEAVY METAL DETECTION TEST RESULTS*
Measured
Concentration
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Heavy Metals
(ppm)
0.9
18.4
38.2
5.8
66.5
Threshold %
3
2
3.8
5.8
3.6
Level #1 Regulatory
Lwiw'htji toom j
<30
<9QO
-------
in yard mulch, none of these pests were found. By assessing the insect populations at different
depths and temperatures it was determined that a few species such as springtails (Collembola:
Entomobryidae), an almost microscopic algae eating insect and beetle larvae (Coleoptera:
Tenebrionidae and Staphylinidae) were present.
Data collected on actively managed recycled yard mulch windrows indicated the population of
insects were found near the surface of pile between 0 and 6 inches of depth where temperatures
ranged from 80°F to 105°F. All insect populations cease to exist between 6 and 9 inches where
temperatures range between 105°F and 115*?. It has been shown that intensive management of
windrow significantly reduces insect populations where windrows are turned at least once a
month, constructed to a height of 9-10 feet of height and temperatures of at least 130°F (Smith,
C., 1991).
VI. System Cost Evaluation
To date, Pinellas County continues to process, market and distribute yard mulch to the
community where participating cities pay a tip fee of S15 per ton. Recycling Grant monies from
the State of Florida contribute an additional $7 per ton toward labor and equipment for windrow
processing, reject disposal and mulch distribution to cover the overall cost to the County of $22
per ton.
The County continues to study the option of contracting yard trash recycling service; 10 private
companies as yard trash projections increase beyond the existing labor and equipment capabilities
of the Solid Waste Department.
An estimated budget was prepared to evaluate the incremental yard mulch production costs on
a per ton basis for private contracting. The results of this budget development are shown on
Table 4. The $29.94 cost per ton was estimated on a production rate of 25,000 tons per year.
Key elements to the budget include County administrative costs, labor, O&M costs, replacement
costs, contractor equipment rental, contractor disposal of rejects, contractor profits, and mulch
distribution.
551
-------
TABLE 4
INCREMENT COSTS OF PRODUCTION
BASED ON PROJECTED VOLUME OF 25,000 TONS PER YEAR
Cumulative
Costs Per Ton
in_Dollars_.
0.79
10.50
12.56
20.47
21.37
22.79
23.32
24.07
27.68
29.94
Process Costs per Ton in Dollars
0.79 - Monitor for Rejects at Delivery
9.71 - Tub Grinder
All Material Handling Costs in Staging Area (labor, equipment, O&M,
capital costs)
2.06 - Trommel Screen 11,000 Tons/yr., 37% of volume
7.92 - Windrow Formation and Turning To Meet IF AS Guidelines for
Safe Public Distribution
Material Costs to build, turn, irrigate and remove (labor, equipment,
O&M, capital costs)
0.90 - Distribution 2,500 Tons/yr. 10% volume
1.42 - Contractor Administrative
0.53 - Equipment Contingency Plan
0.75 - Reject Disposal 3% Volume
3.61 - Contractor Profits (15%)
2.26 - County Administrative
Note: 1. Site development costs are excluded.
VII. Conclusions
Two years after the project initiated in August 1989, more than half of due 11 participating Cities
expanded to curbside collection of segregated yard trash. This can be attributed to significant
552
-------
savings from avoided disposal costs and public acceptance of the mulch product.
The yard trash composition study and grinding equipment demonstration tests were beneficial
in that they enabled the County to examine its yard trash waste stream and effectively select and
optimize its processing equipment, operations and windrow techniques, evaluate potential
marketable products and onsite landfill cover opportunities, manage the reject stream, assess
environmental impacts and estimate overall production costs for both public and private sectors.
A comprehensive grass management policy was developed to reduce the quantity of incoming
grass. The "Don't Bag It." program emphasizes recycling of grass clippings at its source, the
lawn. The program has been effective with excellent results in the first years.
Excess fines generated or introduced as grass in the production of yard mulch are detrimental
to marketability. Fines tend to darken the color of the product, making it unappealing to the
landscapes looking to satisfy customers with a lighter and brighter color bed material. Fines
also tend to encourage growth of existing weeds in plant beds where the mulch is applied and
finally it works its way into the soil where application of additional mulch is more frequent,
increasing costs for transportation. The management of fines is critical for success and source
reduction is the first and most important step.
Yard Mulch Production has turned out to be an effective management tool for recycling yard
trash in an economical, environmentally safe, and regulatory driven climate.
553
-------
VIII. References
LITERATURE CITED
Ashworth, S. and Harrison, H. 1983. Evaluation of mulches for use in the home garden. Hort
Science 18(2): 180-182.
McConnell, D. and Shiralipour, A. 1990. Effects of compost heat and phytotoxin on
germination of certain Florida weed seeds. Proc. Soil and Crop Sci Soc. of Fla. 5:26-
28.
Smith. C. 1991. Additional observations of landfill site similar to that proposed for nine mile
road. Report prepared to County Commission, St. Augustine Airport Authority, St.
Augustine, Florida.
Suncoast Opinion Surveys, Inc. 1991. Pinellas County recycling survey. Annual report for
Pinellas County Department of Solid Waste Management Recycling Program. 7-9.
Will, M., Nordstedt, R., and Smith W. 1989. Backyard composting of yard trash. Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Agr. Eng. Ext. Report 89-12, SS-AGE 908, University
of Florida, Gainesville.
554
-------
YARD WASTE COMPOSITION AND EFFECTS ON
COMPOST AND MULCH PRODUCTION
OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. DEMOGRAPHICS
A. General
1. Yard Waste history in Pinellas County
2. Regulatory/Economic Incentives
B. Definition of Terms
C. Situational Analysis
1. Generation Rates
2. Source Reduction Program
3. Horticultural Description
4. Collection
5. Markets
in. CHARACTERIZATION STRATEGIES
A. Rationale for Characterization Study
B. Sampling Analytical Protocols
C. Generator Categories
1. Residential Curbside
2. Mixed Commercial
3. Commercial
D. Results
555
-------
IV. PROCESSING METHOD EVALUATION
A. Mulching
B. Composting for Landfill Cover
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT & CONTAMINATION TESTING
A. Sampling Protocol
1. Nutrient Properties
2. Pathogens
3. Petrochemicals
4. Weed Seed
5. Heavy Metals
6. Insects
B. Results
VI. SYSTEM COST EVALUATION
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Vin. REFERENCES
556
-------
AUTHOR INDEX
NAME PAGE
Andersen, Gail L.C., Public Education - The Key to Successful Solid Waste
Management 351
Ansheles, Carole J., Scrap Tire Management: NEWMOA's Approach 391
Babin, M.S., Angela, Artists' Strategies for Waste Management 37
Boes, Richard W., Yard Debris Management and Source Reduction Program: An
Overview of Fairfax County, Virginia 531
Brown, Kenneth W., Successful Measurement of Source Reduction 423
Caldwell-Johnson, Teree, From Landfill Operations to an Integrated Solid Waste
Management System 183
Cinalli, Christina, and Darr, Jim, and Johnston, Pauline, Ranking
Consumer/Commercial Products Based on Their Potential Contribution
to Indoor Air Pollution 357
Crampton, Norman, Indiana State University, Development of a Full-Cost
Accounting Law in Indiana 145
Cross, Jr., C.W., and Swartzbaugh, PhD., J.T., and Barth, £., A Planner's Tool
for Solid Waste Management in Small Communities 25
De Baere, Luc, and Tillinger, Richard, and Verstraete, Willy, A European
Evaluation of Biowaste Collection and Composting: The Positive
Impact of the Wastepaper Fraction 13
Depot, Robin D., and Rush, J. David, How to Establish an Enterprise Fund
System for Solid Waste Which Will Attract Wall Street 207
Dernbach, John C., Industrial Waste Management 225
Desvernine, Regina, What Motivates People to Recycle? 517
Diaz, L.F., and Savage, G.M., and Eggerth, L.L., and Golueke, C.G., Collection
and Composting of Yard Trimmings 51
557
-------
Donovan,- Christine T., Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling: New
Solution to an Old Problem 101
Earle, PhD, PE, Jonathan F.K., and Townsend, Jo M., and Hammer, Marie S.,
Economic Aspects, of Florida's Pilot Hotel/Motel Recycling Program 159
Fees, David F., and Canzano, P.E., DEE, Pasquale S., and Vasuki, P.E., DEE,
N.C., The Thermal Treatment of Leachate Utilizing Landfill Gas 507
Figuli, Samuel P., and Du Bose, Sue Stokes, The Help and Multimed Models:
Applications, for Designing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 487
Friedman, Fred T., The Research Library for Solid Waste's "Grants" Database in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 503
Gershman, Harvey W., Costs of Solid Waste Management - 1986, 1991 and 1996 ... 113
Greene, Madeleine, and Preusch, Peggy L., and Bell, Linda, and Dougherty, John
D., Master Recyler/Composter Program in Montgomery County,
Maryland 295
Guerra, Sarith, Case Studies: Siting Municipal Solid Waste Facilities 49
Guerriero, Joanne R., and VoHero, David E., Landfill Mining Feasibility Study 253
Hammer, Marie S., and Earle, PhD, PE, Jonathan F.K., Synergistic
Programming Model in Solid Waste Management: An Approach for
National Implementation 425
Hartman, R.M., and Smith, M.L., The Beneficial Co-Existence of Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) Technology with Recycling and Environmental
Protection Goals 457
Johannessen, Kim Maree, Fueling the Ash as Hazardous Waste Debate: Seventh
Circuit Says Yes, Second Circuit Says No 195
Kusterer, Thomas, and Dimont, Richard, Developing a Solid Waste Financial
Information System 133
Kusterer, Thomas, Communication and Conflict Resolution in Siting a Solid
Waste Facility 65
Landreth, Robert E., Inspection Techniques for the Construction of Clay and
Geomembrane Liners 235
55B
-------
Lee, Eugene, and Wynn, Lynda, Overview of EPA's Municipal Solid Waste
Toxics Reduction Program 337
Lifset, Reid J., and Chertow, Marian R., Opportunities and Constraints in Solid
Waste Policy: Waste Prevention in New York City 333
Maestu, Josefina, How Waste Management Organizations Are Adapting To and
Resisting Change 217
Martin, Diane, and Roche, Ron, Why Is True Cost an Important Element of Solid
Waste Management? 521
Mestayer, Kathi A., Teaming Up in the Southeast: An Approach to Regional
Decision-Making 431
Mishra, Manoj, and Thornton, Brian , Potential Alternatives to Soil-Based Daily
Cover 341
Morelli, P.E., John, Landfill Reclamation: Findings of the Edinburg Project 265
Perry, Allen, Source Reduction 419
Prillaman, Jamie, Measuring the Achievement of Recycling and Reduction Goals .... 299
Pytlar, Theodore S., Solid Waste Management Planning Decision Model 401
Ragsdale, Jr., James V., and Rudd, Michael J., and Bradshaw, Joan, and Stasis,
Peter, Yard Waste Composition and Effects on Compost and Mulch
Production 537
Reid, Jeep, The Portland Compost Facility 495
Rivard, Christopher J., and Nagle, Nicholas J., Anaerobic Bioconversion of Tuna
Processing Wastes with MSW 27
Rugg, Mack, and Hanna, P.E., Nabil K., Metals Concentrations in Compostable
and Noncontestable Components of Municipal Solid Waste in Cape
May County, New Jersey 321
Ryan, Mark A., and Tattam, Timothy, Financing Solid Waste: How Governments
Cope 175
Savage, John, and Tyler, Stacey, Comparison of Visual and Manual Classification
Techniques to Estimate Non-Residential Waste Stream Composition 77
559
-------
Shaner, Kurt R., and Menoff, Steven D., Composite Liner Systems Utilizing
Bentonite Geocomposites 87
Shapek, PhD., Raymond A., Measuring the Effect of Media Use in Recycling
Education/Information Programs 309
Spang, Aletha, Recycling Never Takes a Vacation 365
Stone, Joel, and Price, Georgine, "Wee Recyclers is Our Name; Recycling,
Reusing is Our Game!" 515
Thorneloe, Susan A., Landfill Gas Utilization - Options, Benefits, and Barriers 243
Townsend, Timothy G., and Miller, W. Lamar, The Design and Operation of a
Leachate Recycle System at a Full-Scale Operating Landfill 475
Whyte, Susan, Recycling on Every Level 377
Wiles, Carlton C., Results of the U.S. EPA Research on Municipal Waste
Combustion 379
Williams, John F., and O'Brien, Jeremy K., Calculating a Community's
Maximum Recycling Potential 43
Williams, John F., Reaching Higher Recycling Goals: Think About Preschool
Public Education 361
Wilt, Catherine A., Economic Boon or Environmental Nightmare: Two
Perspectives on Interstate Waste Disposal 169
Zach, Philip, A Computer Model for Examining Recycling System Life Cycle
Economic Costs 1
Zieve, C., Landfill Siting Conflict Resolution Based on Mandatory Negotiation
Between Local Governments and Landfill Developers 277
560
-------
|