Unitea Ststes Region VIII
Environmental Protection 'S60 Lncoln Street MAY, 1902
Agency »* . Z nver, Colorado 30255
Solid Waste
•&EPA A TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM REPORT
CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOURCE
RECOVERY OPTION IN COLORADO
-------
A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANELS PROGRAM REPORT:
CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTION
IN COLORADO
Prepared for:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regi on VI11
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Market Center
1320 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
May, 1982
-------
rnwcinFRtTinN of thf rf^oiirpf RFrnvFRY OPTTON IN COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII
Missoula
• Mils* C
-------
Public Law 94-580 - October 21, 1976
Technical assistance by personnel teams. 42 USC 6913
RESOURCE RECOVERY AND CONSERVATION PANELS
SEC. 2003. The Administrator shall provide teams of personnel, including
Federal, State, and local employees or(Contractors (hereinafter referred to as
"Resource Conservation and Recovery Panels") to provide States and local gov-
ernments upon request with technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation. Such teams shall include techni-
cal, marketing, financial, and institutional specialists, and the services of
such teams shall be provided without charge to States or local governments.
This report has been reviewed by the Project
Officer, EPA, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial, products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
Project Officer: William Rothenmeyer
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER I - BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Introduction - 1
Background of the Study 2
Perspective of this Report 4
CHAPTER II - OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
OPTIONS IN COLORADO
Characteristics of the Solid Waste Stream 8
Landfilling Operations in Colorado 11
Waste Management System Costs 18
Statewide Resource Recovery Operations 22
Studies and Efforts Pertaining to Resource
Recovery Alternatives 27
Representative Communities 30
Denver 30
Loveland 37
Montrose 41
Vail 43
CHAPTER III - CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTION
Consideration of Resource Recovery as a Viable Option 48
Factors Affecting Resource Recovery Feasibility ¦ 50
Resource Recovery Option Comparison 55
Source Separation 59
Incineration with Energy Recovery 61
Combination of Source Separation and Incineration 63
CHAPTER IV - COMPARISON OF LANDFILL AND RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
Rationale and Basis for Analysis 69
Resource Recovery as a Partial Solution to Both
Solid Waste and Energy Problems 70
Land Savings through Landfill Diversion 74
Cost Comparison of Options 75
Resource Recovery Scenarios 76
Analysis of Scenarios 78
CHAPTER V - POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
Potential State Government Roles 92
i i i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Potential County and Municipal Government Roles 99
State Commitment to Resource Recovery 100
CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions 103
Recommendations 104
APPENDICES
I. Costs and Returns of Solid Waste
Disposal in Sanitary Landfils 105
II. Further Sources of Resource Recovery Information Ill
III. Environmental Compliance of Waste-to-Energy
Facilities in Colorado 117
IV. Nottingham, New Hampshire Framework for Developing
The Costs of Recycling 133
V. Glossary of Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery 142
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Selected Waste Generation Rates 9
2 1980 Estimated Average Solid Waste Composition 12
3 Estimated Colorado Landfill Costs 19
4 Resource Recovery Organizations in Colorado 24
5 Residential Solid Waste in the City and County
of Denver 32
6 Denver County Waste Generation 34
7 Refuse Collected by the City of Loveland in 1980 39
8 Montrose Total Waste Generation (1981) 42
9 Solid Waste Generation in Vail, Colorado 44
10 Resource Recovery System Rating Criteria 57
11 Resource Recovery System Rating 58
12 Factors Affecting Source Separation
and Incineration Potential in Colorado 66
13 BTU and Fuel Savings Adjustment Factors 73
14 Recycling Scenarios 77
15 Potential Energy Savings and Revenues from Recycling
the Maximum Practical Percentage of Solid Waste
in Four Communities 79
16 Vail or Montrose Drop-Off Center Cost Analysis 81
17 Loveland Aluminum Buy-Back/Drop-Off Cost Analysis 82
18 Cost Analysis for a 450 Ton per Day Denver Waste-to-Energy
Facility 87
19 Cost Analysis for a 25 Ton per day Incineration Facility 89
20 Summary of Resource Recovery Analyses 91
21 Effect of Various Incentives on Decision-Making 95
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure Page
1 Economic Development and Resource Recovery Cycle 3
2 Colorado Regulatory Framework for
Landfilling 16
3 Projected Costs of Landfilling vs. Resource
Recovery 21
4 Seasonal Variation of Three Communities' Waste
Streams 33
5 Environment Conducive to Resource Recovery 49
6 Factors Affecting Resource Recovery Implementation 51
7 Relative Significance of Identified Impediments
to Waste-to-Energy Facilities 56
8 Heat Value of Selected Waste Stream Components 71
9 Financial Comparison of Recycling Systems in California 85
vi
-------
I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Solid waste management has traditionally received a low priority in budgets
and planning processes throughout the country. Considered to be an "out-of-
sight, out-of-mind" problem, labor, capital and other resources of local govern-
ments have generally been allocated to other needs and services.
The solid waste problems of the nation have begun to be recognized over the
past few years with the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and associated regulations. While some of these solid (non-hazardous)*
waste problems are now recognized, they are still difficult to deal with because
of the increasing emphasis on lessening government intervention into services
and products which can be regulated primarily by market (price, supply and
demand) considerations. The nature of many solid waste management problems
(such as environmental, health and other concerns related to siting and opera-
tion of landfills) are, however, insidious. They may not be immediately evident
and/or they may be more serious than appearance alone indicates. This is
especially true in the urban areas of the country where the scope of the problem
is especially significant; however, less densely populated and rural areas
cannot be overlooked in recognition of the overall problem. In Colorado, 99
percent of the estimated 6,000 tons of garbage generated per day is disposed of
in landfills. In many instances, Colorado local governments do not have the
financial or technical resources to resolve or avoid waste management problems.
Awareness of current difficulties and the potential for future problems has
led to the consideration of resource recovery as an alternative to traditional
* RCRA primarily addresses the management problems and issues of hazardous
wastes. RCRA does, however, establish several important solid waste initia-
tives in Subtitle D such as the upgrading of inadequate disposal sites and
minimum national solid waste standards to be regulated at the local and state
government levels. This study is concerned only with solid (non-hazardous)
waste problems.
1
-------
waste management techniques such as landfilling. Resource recovery is a term
used in resource and energy management to describe the retrieval of economically
usable energy or materials from wastes (see Figure 1). The two principal
approaches to resource recovery consist of conversion (e.g., the recovery of
resources through the conversion of wastes to energy -- heat and fuel) and recy-
cling (e.g., the separation of a waste material which can then be reused). Pri-
mary benefits of resource recovery include:
o conservation of valuable and scarce energy and material resources;
o reduction in the quantity of solid wastes which must be disposed by a
community;
o reduction in the environmental problems of solid waste disposal such as
surface and groundwater contamination, odors, the use of land for dispo-
sal sites, methane gas hazards, and aesthetic considerations; and
o energy conservation through substitution of recycled materials for vir-
gin materials (less energy is required to produce most industrial mate-
rials from scrap than from virgin sources).
However, resource recovery consideration and/or implementation has not been
successful in many situations. This has been due to a variety of factors
including:
o inadequate information on which to make decisions;
o failure to consider resource recovery as a management alternative; and
o the number and diversity of factors affecting resource recovery
feasibi1i ty.
Background of the Study
In an attempt to better understand some of the issues, concerns and plan-
2
-------
FIGURE 1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CYCLE
RAW MATERIALS
AND
s. ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
f RESOURCE >
RECOVERY FACILITY
SOLID WASTE
SOURCE SEFARATIOli
SOURCE: U. S. Conference of Mayors
3
-------
ning considerations of resource recovery, the State of Colorado Department of
Health has requested assistance through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's (EPA) Technical Assistance Panels Program. This program makes expertise
and assistance available to State and local governments in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, Section 2003. EPA has
directed Fred C. Hart Associates, the EPA Region VIII panels contractor, to con-
duct a study of solid waste managment in the State of Colorado and an assessment
of the potential for incorporation of resource recovery strategies into the man-
agement system. The scope of the study was limited to consideration of solid
wastes issues and is not meant to include an analysis of similar hazardous waste
concerns. Recovery and secondary use of waste oil was also specifically
excluded from the study.
Objectives of this analysis include:
o to survey the current solid waste management system in the State (see
Chapter 2);
o to identify and analyze factors that affect resource recovery feasibil-
ity and to discuss resource recovery operations that can be used in
Colorado (see Chapter 3);
o to compare landfill disposal with resource recovery in terms of costs
and other factors (see Chapter 4); and
o to evaluate some of the potential roles and implications of State and
local government involvement encouraging resource recovery (see
Chapter 5).
Perspective of this Report
Several factors affecting the perspective and scope of this report should
be noted. Because of limited resources, this analysis is based almost exclu-
sively on the use of existing information. Original research and analysis to
fill data gaps was not possible within the scope of this project. Information
4
-------
which is current, relevant and specific to Colorado on the above-described top-
ics, however, is very limited. One of the primary restraints on consideration
of resource recovery as a solid waste management option is the lack of even the
most basic information upon which to base decisions. This study is not meant to
be a statewide market survey or a series of feasibility studies; it is, rather,
an attempt at understanding the problem and identifying those issues which limit
the timely consideration of resource recovery as a solid waste management
option. Resource recovery is not a solid waste management panacea; it is clear-
ly not appropriate in every situation. However, it should be evaluated as a
possible alternative to landfilling of wastes. In this regard, resource recov-
ery should be considered as one facet of the overall goal of extending landfill
operations by diverting wastes from the landfill. It should, ideally, be part
of a comprehensive program which includes:
o minimizing waste generation (source reduction);
o litter control;
o recycling;
o reclaiming; and
o proper design, maintenance and operation of landfills for those materi-
als that must be thrown away.
In addition to the two general resource recovery approaches of recycling or
conversion of solid wastes, there are two somewhat conflicting philosophical
viewpoints on the proper application and implementation of resource recovery.
One approach can be termed the ethical, environmental philosophy in which the
prevailing belief is that resource recovery is an important environmental goal,
and that it should be encouraged and implemented to a wide extent (as much of
the solid waste stream as possible) even if government subsidies are required to
provide an economic stimulus to the private market. The other approach could be
termed the entrepreneurial philosophy, in which resource recovery should be
implemented and can only be justified when market forces allow. The latter
approach generally shuns government aid or assistance and would stress the
5
-------
importance of a commodity-by-commodity, case-by-case perspective on which
materials within the waste stream are appropriate for resource recovery at a
particular point in time. There is validity in both approaches.
Government, as the provider of basic and necessary public services, has the
responsibility to make appropriate solid waste management decisions which are in
the realm of social goals such as public health protection and resource manage-
ment. Additionally, government must be concerned with the costs, benefits and
risks of maintaining existing wasteful practices. If a portion of the waste
stream is diverted from the landfill today, less land will be needed in the
future when land costs are very high. The private sector, however, has the key
role in determining the allocation of resources in a capitalistic economy. This
report will not pursue this issue but will reflect the attitude that a balance
between the two approaches can and must be made.
6
-------
II. OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS IN COLORADO
This chapter will provide an overview of existing solid waste management
practices in the State of Colorado. In the first section, data regarding per
capita waste generation rates in different counties of the State are summarized
and a general characterization of waste composition is provided. Per capita
waste generation rates and waste composition are both important components of a
solid waste management assessment, since they affect such factors as landfill
operation costs and, hence, the viability of resource recovery alternatives.
In the next section, landfilling of solid wastes in Colorado is examined.
Current and future issues associated with this method of solid waste management
are identified. Included in this discussion is a brief outline of the
regulatory framework and policy considerations affecting current landfilling
practices.
The third section consists of a general discussion of solid waste manage-
ment costs, an obvious major influence on the waste management options
considered by decision-makers. The cost trends which should encourage the con-
sideration of resource recovery are identified and discussed.
In the fourth section, existing resource recovery operations throughout the
State are summarized.
In the final section, a general characterization is provided of current
solid waste management operations for four types of communities in Colorado: an
urban area; a medium-sized city; a typical town; and a resort community. These
representative communities are Denver, Loveland, Montrose, and Vail, respective-
ly. These areas were chosen for specific examination of solid waste issues for
several reasons. Each is an example of a characteristic type of community which
exists in Colorado and each has a somewhat different set of conditions which
affect solid waste management. They were also chosen because, in contrast to
many locales, information concerning solid waste volumes, collection and costs
was available. Also, the four communities exhibited characteristic geographical
and topographical variation that is a significant factor in attaining a clear
7
-------
picture of solid waste issues in Colorado. These particular situations can
clarify issues and identify potential possibilities and problems under similar
condi tions.
Information provided in this chapter is based on a review of the limited
data available from existing literature sources. To the extent possible, tele-
phone interviews were used to provide estimates in areas where data were scarce
or nonexistent. An attempt has been made to identify major data gaps which
significantly impede a comprehensive and responsible waste management planning
process. For the purposes of this study, general assumptions have been made, as
necessary, or average national figures utilized to overcome any data gaps that
would prevent the assessment process.
Characteristics of the Solid Haste Stream
Waste Generation. The weight and volume of waste is typically estimated
based on the population, with a separate estimate of special wastes determined
more by the specific locale or economy. Waste generation is an important factor
affecting disposal costs and options in any solid waste management system. Per
capita waste generation rates refer to the average amount of solid waste (usual-
ly expressed in pounds) generated per person per day in a specified area. This
rate commonly accounts for all waste from the three major waste categories
commercial, industrial, and residential waste streams. Typically, estimates of
per capita waste generation do not include demolition or bulky wastes, since
there is significant variability both in the weight and volume of these wastes
from locale to locale and on a seasonal basis.
Table 1 provides a summary of estimated per capita waste generation rates
for the nation as a whole and for specific counties and communities in Colorado
for which data were available. These rates, which are based on waste generated
from all three waste categories (residential, commercial, and industrial) vary
from a low of 2.8 lbs./person/day in Vail, Colorado to a high of 6.5
1bs./person/day in urban Denver. Such figures reflect the widely accepted
principle that per capita waste generation increases with population density,
due to the concomittant increase in commercial and industrial activities
associated with urbanization.
8
-------
TABLE 1
SELECTED WASTE GENERATION RATES
Waste Generation
Rate (lbs./capita/day)
Area
Character of Area
2.8
Vail , Colorado
Resort
3.0
Teller County, Colorado
Rural
3.5
United States1
Inclusive
3.9
Eagle County, Colorado^
Rural-Resort
4.0
Hinsdale County, Colorado
Rural
4.0
Archuleta County, Colorado
Rural
4.1
Clear Creek County, Colorado
Rural
4.4
Denver Metropolitan AreP
Urban
4.7
Boulder County, Colorado
Urban
5.0
Larimer County, Colorado
Urban
6.5
Denver County, Colorado
Urban
Source: 1. USEPA
2. Resource Recovery Feasibility Analysis for Eagle County, Co.
Franklin Associates, Ltd., July 1980
3. 1975 estimate. Feasibility Analysis for Resourse Recovery from
Solid Waste. The Ralph M. Parsons Company, March 1976
Sources for all other figures: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1981.
9
-------
The data that is summarized in the table also indicate that two of the low-
est per capita waste generation rates (exclusive of the national average), 2.8
and 3.9 1 bs./person/day for Vail and Eagle County respectively, occur in resort
areas which typically experience tremendous seasonal fluctuations in their popu-
lation. For example, the population including tourists in Vail ranges from a
total of 20,000 people during the ski season to 15,000 during the summer months
and dwindles to 9,000 in the Spring and Fall. Low per capita waste generation
rates for resort areas often disguise seasonally high generation periods, which,
when coupled with a small permanent population, can create unique solid waste
management problems.
The Vail estimate of 2.8 1 bs./person/day was developed by dividing the
yearly total amount of solid wastes by a weighted average of Vail residents
(permanent plus tourists) on a seasonal basis. The weighted average of approxi-
mately 13,200 was derived from a population of 9,000 for half a year, and 20,000
and 15,000 for one-quarter year each. Another technique for determining per
capita daily waste generation for comparative purposes is to consider tourist-
generated solid waste separately as commercial solid waste. In this case the
total amount of waste would be attributed to the permanent-resident population
of the area (assumed to be 9,000) as a component of the municipal waste stream
as in Denver and other areas. In Vail, this method of calculating daily per
capita waste generation results in a waste generation rate estimate of 4.0 lbs.
Waste generation rates as depicted in Table 1 are affected by demographic
and economic factors including population density (urban/rural), and the degree
of commercial, industrial and recreational activities.
Finally, it must be emphasized that accurate waste generation estimates are
often difficult to develop, due to the limited amount of reliable data regarding
such key factors as total waste volumes and the population of a solid waste ser-
vice area. Total waste volume estimates are undependable since few landfills in
Colorado have scales and few public or private collection services keep compre-
hensive and accurate records. Moreover, a large portion of the waste deposited
at landfills is hauled by individuals, and no records exist regarding the number
of users and volumes of these wastes. The variety of options regarding waste
collection -- municipal collection services, private collection services, and
individual haulers -- creates obstacles to accurate record keeping.
10
-------
Waste Composition. Waste composition is another important factor in char-
acterizing the solid waste management system. Composition figures provide esti-
mates of the amounts and types of materials in the waste stream. This is signi-
ficant in assessing the viability of resource recovery. Waste composition esti-
mates provide information on the potential for source reduction, recycling and
energy conversion. Identification of the components of the solid waste stream
may suggest appropriate resource recovery options such as methane recovery from
landfills containing a high proportion of organic wastes.
Waste composition, as with waste generation, differs significantly with the
degree and type of commercial/industrial activity in an area. Urban areas which
support greater population densities and concurrently a greater variety of com-
mercial and industrial activities will generate a more diverse waste stream than
areas which are more homogeneous in terms of economic activities (such asrural-
agricultural areas). However, the complexity of rural waste streams resulting
from special wastes such as septic tank pumpings and agricultural wastes (pesti-
cide containers, dead animals, etc.) causes difficult disposal problems.
Unfortunately, there are no quantitative studies on local waste composition
within Colorado. Consequently, national waste composition figures were used for
this initial planning effort. Table 2 presents the most recent national figures
regarding solid waste composition.
Landfilling Operations in Colorado
Overview. At the present time, 99 percent of all solid waste generated in
Colorado is disposed by landfilling. Colorado's citizens, businesses, and
industries create an estimated 6,000 tons of solid waste per day, requiring at
least 12,000 cubic yards of space for land deposition. In 1981, there were 206
public sanitary landfills in active operation, versus an estimated 300 to 400
landfills or dumps in operation 10 years ago. These met the needs of a State
with significantly less industrial and commercial activity and a population 31
percent smaller than that of the present.
11
-------
TABLE 2
1980 ESTIMATED AVERAGE
SOLID HASTE COMPOSITION - PERCENT BY HEIGHT
Components
Paper Products
31.9
Ferrous Metals
7.5
Non-ferrous Metals
1.3
Glass
9.7
Plastic
4.0
Ya rd
18.0
Food
16.7
Wood
3.9
Mi seellaneous
7.0
100.0
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. based on calculations made annually for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
12
-------
The significant decrease in the number of landfills is primarily a result
of increased Federal and State regulation of solid and hazardous waste manage-
ment. Enactment of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
and the State Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act of 1972 mandated
stricter environmental controls which resulted in the closure of numerous
sites. Moreover, the higher operational and maintenance costs associated with
increased regulation increased a trend towards larger, centralized solid waste
management facilities which could economically support the necessary equipment
and facilities for effective operation.
Moreover, as the number of available sites decreased, waste disposal at the
remaining sites has greatly increased, placing a heavy strain on existing sites
and a consequent reduction in each of those site's overall lifetime expectancy.
As a result, landfills throughout the State are rapidly reaching maximum capa-
city. The Denver Metropolitan area, Colorado Springs, Fort Morgan, Grand Junc-
tion, Silverton, Pagosa Springs, Estes Park, Boulder, and Eagle County, as well
as many other locations, face closure of one or more major solid waste disposal
sites within one to five years.
In addition, many current sites are still experiencing serious operational
problems. Of the 61 landfills in Colorado serving over 5,000 persons, 21 sites,
or 35 percent, were in violation of State and Federal requirements at the time
of their last inspection. Of the 145 sites serving less than 5,000 people, 94,
or 65 percent, were found to be out of compliance. Where problems are severe or
costly, many of these sites may opt or be forced to close as a result of their
failure to meet government regulations and growing local opposition to environ-
mental contamination or degradation. Moreover, many of those landfills current-
ly in compliance will close in the near term due to exhaustion of their capa-
city.
Constraints to Siting. As the number of available landfills dwindles,
numerous siting problems impede the expeditious progress of finding suitable,
new sites. These problems are primarily caused by increased use of land for
residential and commercial purposes creating strong competition for available
land space; physical and climatological constraints which render much available
land unsuitable for siting; and rapidly growing public opposition to the devel-
opment of sites near residential communities of any size.
13
-------
For example, in such densely populated locations as the Denver metropolitan
area with tremendous waste volumes and disposal needs, limited suitable land is
available for landfilling activities, costs are high, and strong public opposi-
tion is a common ingredient in siting attempts. Residents nearby prospective
sites complain of lowered property values, and voice strong concerns regarding
proper operation and management, as well as numerous health, safety, and aes-
thetic issues. Air contamination, blowing litter resulting from high winds,
fires, odor problems, vectors, unsightly views, and greatly increased vehicular
traffic are all commonly cited problems. Residents in areas far from a landfill
site object to the potential for contamination of groundwater and public water
supplies.
In rural or smaller communities, problems range from siting constraints
imposed by mountainous terrain and severe winter weather which make available
land unsuitable, to economic constraints arising from the inability of low
population densities to support the costs associated with solid waste management
operations.
Recent Landfill Trends. Due to the combination of constraints and forces
described above, two noteworthy solid waste management trends should be
discussed:
o the regionalization and centralization of landfills; and
o the location of landfills at greater distances from the population
center they serve.
These interrelated trends have occured through:
o the ability to take advantage of economies of scales with a greater
waste volume in both collection and disposal;
o the avoidance of waste management inefficiencies caused by duplication
of equipment, labor and other resources at individual landfills;
o the avoidance of waste management problems such as siting and environ-
mental constraints associated with a larger number of separate, inade-
quately operated facilities.
Additionally, Federal guidelines and Colorado law and regulations encourage
these trends in recognition of these benefits.
14
-------
State Regulatory Framework for Landfilling Practices. The State Health
Department and the municipal and/or county government share the responsibity for
solid waste management according to Colorado's Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act (see Figure 2). Under this legislation, the Health Department is
responsible for assuring safe location, design, construction and operation of
sites and facilities. In accordance with State land use policies and laws, most
of the siting decision and analysis authority is held by the county. The
responsibility for land use (through zoning and other mechanisms) belongs to
local government. Additionally, assurance that disposal capacity of landfills,
incinerators or recycling operations is adequate to process the solid waste
stream is generally perceived by the public as a local government respon-
sibility.
State of Colorado legislation pertaining
facilities is found in Title 20, Article
Siting of a facility requires:
to the siting of solid waste disposal
20, Part 1 and associated regulations.
o engineering, geological, hydrological and other studies of the pro-
posed facility and its relationship to the existing environment;
o consideration of the effects on surrounding properties;
o convenience and accessibility; and
o consideration of county land use planning.
Legal operation of any public landfill in Colorado requires the issuance of
a certificate of designation by the County Commissioners. Application materials
submitted by the prospective operator to obtain this certificate include the
above listed information, plus:
o description of the proposed facility (including design, construction,
and operation considerations); and
o hours of operation, management data, and rates.
15
-------
FIGURE 2
COLORADO RE6ULAT0RY FRAMEWORK FOR LANDFILLING
LEGISLATION: RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (Federal )
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES ACT (Colorado)
Colorado Department of Health
(Responsible for: Planning and implementa-
tion of Solid Waste Management Program.
Waste Management Division
-technical advice and service
-report and plans review
-monitoring
-surveillance and inspection
-enforcement
-coordination with other Divisions
within the Department
Muncipal and/or County Government
(Responsible for: Land use ap-
proval , adequate capacity, re-
source recovery planning, solid
waste control).
Board of County Commissioners
-issue Certificate of Designation
-hold public hearings
Air Quality Control Division Water Quality Control Division
-site inspections
-standards
-permits
-site inspections
-standards
-permits, NPDES, etc.
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
16
-------
Other information can be required by the County Commissioners as they deem
necessary. The County Commissioners must submit the application materials to
the State Health Department for review and for recommendation as to approval or
disapproval. Before a certificate can be issued by the county, the application
must be approved by the State Health Department. Information must be presented
at a public hearing to allow for appropriate community and public participa-
tion. Once granted, the Certificate of Designation can be suspended or revoked
for violation of minimum standards. The State Health Department also partici-
pates in this area, to the extent that it provides inspections of landfills and
has the authority to take action to mitigate threats to public health or the
envi ronment.
When a landfill site is within the limits of a city or incorporated town,
the facility must be approved and designated by the city or town as well as the
State Health Department and the County Commissioners. The governing body of any
city or incorporated town may designate and approve by ordinance a solid waste
disposal site within its corporate limits as its exclusive waste disposal site
and facility.
Local governments are allowed to establish solid waste districts under
current law but to date no districts have been formed. Funds from taxes or
direct charges levied by a district may be used for solid waste planning and
operations. The State, through the budgetary process, can allocate funds to
levels of government (primarily for technical assistance) although the possibil-
ity of securing these funds is very limited at present.
The Colorado Department of Health (CDH) is guided in its solid waste man-
agement activities by Colorado's Management Plan for Solid and Hazardous
Wastes. This plan identifies management goals and demonstrates for the U.S. EPA
the State's successful fulfillment of certain RCRA requirements.
The plan has two main goals pertaining to solid waste management. The
first goal is to assure the proper siting and operation of solid waste sites by:
minimizing threats to the public health and environment, especially groundwater;
excluding hazardous materials from sites unless sites are specifically approved
for such disposal; restricting land use of closed sites for several decades; and
17
-------
preventing methane gas hazards. Authorization to attain this goal is provided.
The Solid Waste Act directs the CDH to prohibit the establishment of open dumps
and to inventory and classify existing sites and improve or close those
considered to be open dumps.
Waste Management System Costs
The major operational components of a solid waste management system are
collection, transportation, and disposal. Of the three components, resource
recovery (as an alternative waste disposal option) compares most directly with
disposal (e.g., at the landfill). For this reason, landfill and resource
recovery costs are important for the evaluation of the competitiveness of
resource recovery. Accurate landfill costs, however, are difficult to obtain in
most situations.
Figures presented in Table 3 are the estimated costs to disposers not to
landfill operators. The cost of disposal for landfill operators cannot be
accurately determined from the tipping fee charged. The tipping fee is the fee
charged to the user for disposing of wastes. Variables such as solid waste
density, actual landfill operating standards and proportions of compacted,
uncqmpacted and bulk wastes would have to be known. Additionally, landfill
costs estimates are complicated by:
o Accounting practices: Accounting manipulations often prevent specific
breakdowns of costs. In the public sector, equipment, personnel and
materials used in landfill management may be shared by different depart-
ments or sites. Private companies consider cost information to be
confidential.
o Subsidized Operations. Landfilling operations can be subsidized through
a variety of intentional and/or unintentional mechanisms: the accounting
discrepancies referred to above; inappropriate tipping fees; or, use of
public land at a reduced cost, among others;
18
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED COLORADO LANDFILL COSTS
Landfill Tipping Fee ($/yd.3) $/ton*
Adams County
Landfi 11, Inc.
2.50
7.15
Tower Disposal
2.00
5.70
Denver - Arapahoe
1.40
4.00
Arapahoe County
Lowry
1.60
4.60
Boulder County
Marshal 1
1.60
4.60
Longmont
1.60
4.60
Douglas County
Larkspur
.85
2.45
Colorado Disposal
1.20
3.45
Castle Rock
.85
2.45
Swayback
.85
2.45
Parker
.85
2.45
County Line
1.60
4.60
Eagle County Landfill
1.10
3.15
Garfield County Landfill
1.00
2.85
Jefferson County
Rooney Road
1.00
2.85
Leyden
1.00
2.85
Jefferson County Landfill
1.75
5.00
Larimer County
Larimer County Landfill
1.25
3.60
Wellington
1.25
3.60
Estes Park
1.25
3.60
Montrose County Landfill
1.50
4.30
Pitkin County Landfi11
1.25
3.60
Summit County Landfill
1.05
3.00
Weld County
Colorado Landfill
1.60
4.60
* Based upon an average waste weight of 700 lbs/cubic yard.
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
19
-------
o Regulatory Costs. Operations which are not in compliance with solid
waste management regulations would not reflect the future costs of land-
filling. Cost can be expected to increase when landfill siting, design,
and operating regulatory criteria are applied to non-compliant opera-
tions.
Collection and transportation costs are also important in examining the
feasibility of resource recovery. Because these costs are typically 75 percent
of overall waste system costs, a reduction in this cost category could be impor-
tant in comparing waste management options. It should be noted that recent
increases in transportation costs due to rising energy costs have been especial-
ly significant.
Generally, current disposal costs in Colorado are estimated to range from
$2 to $10 per ton. Collection costs are dependent upon specific local condi-
tions. These costs are estimated to range from $10 to $50 per ton. The data
base is so limited that it is impossible to determine if these cost estimates
reflect actual costs. It should be emphasized again that costs used in this
report may not be directly comparable because of the differences in accounting
practices and other constraints. A more thorough analysis (site visits, exten-
sive interviews, review of local records, etc.) of waste system costs would be
nessary to establish a realistic basis for comparison of waste management
options (including resource recovery) within Colorado communities.
Currently, $80 million per year are spent on solid waste management in the
State predicated on an average cost of $30 per ton for collection/transportation
and $7 per ton for landfilling. Figure 3 illustrates the typical projected
trends in costs of traditional (landfilling) disposal methods and waste-to-
energy systems. This figure is based on a feasibility study performed for
waste-to-energy options in Fargo, North Dakota, and would be representative of
the situation faced by most communities in Colorado and other lower population
density States where landfilling costs have been relatively low and where there
exists little pressure to change traditional waste management procedures. If
solid waste management costs continue to rise as expected, this will encourage ~
consideration of resource recovery as a management option. With realistic
assumptions of:
20
-------
FIGURE 3
PROJECTED COSTS OF LANDFILLING vs. RESOURCE RECOVERY
14.00-
13.00-
12.00-
11.00-
10.00-
9.00-
q 8.00-
ui
o
u ' w*
S £ 7.00-
z
6.00-
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00-
1979
Landfill
Steam Recovery
1985
1990
1995
Year
Source: Market Study for Recovered Energy and Materials
Products in Fargo, North Dakota 7 Gordian Associates.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, 1979.
21
-------
o real operating costs for landfill and resource recovery systems
escalating at two percent per year ("real" cost or price escalation is
defined as an increase exclusive of inflationary factors—inflation is
excluded from the analysis); and
o real energy prices increasing at five percent per year through 1985, and
one percent per year thereafter;
o solid waste generation rates increasing at two percent per year;
Figure 3 shows that the resource recovery option will be economically viable
soon after 1985. The important factors, then, encouraging the consideration and
implementation of resource recovery include:
o increasing landfill costs;
o increasing revenues accruing
energy;
o
Statewide Resource Recovery Operations
from the sale of recovered materials or
a savings realized from the diversion of waste from the landfill which
can be used to offset the cost of resource recovery.
Overview. While resource recovery activities currently account for less
than 1 percent of the State's solid waste management operations, widespread
interest in the development of resource recovery alternatives exists. Through-
out the State, a variety of profit, non-profit, and governmental organizations
are involved both in active resource recovery operations as well as feasibility
studies and educational programs. Private and volunteer organizations have
tended to focus on material recovery and recycling programs, while governmental
and research-oriented programs focus almost exclusively on energy recovery, with
or without separation of recoverable materials. Financial support for these
organizations ranges from corporate, independent, and government funding to
donor and al1-volunteer support.
22
-------
Motivating factors for these organizations are extremely diverse. Legisla-
tive mandates, and ethical and conservation considerations provide a framework
for governmental as well as volunteer and non-profit organizations. In addition
to such considerations, profit incentives and the assurance of commercial raw
material supplies may encourage recycling efforts of private businesses and
larger companies.
Materials Recovery. Table 4 summarizes current materials recovery
operations in the State. Scrap metals form the backbone of existing recovery
activities statewide, with paper, glass, and compost materials recovery
activities operating at a smaller scale. An estimated 200 recycling centers in
Colorado currently accept at least one material, most commonly aluminum cans. A
very small number of organizations are "comprehensive" and accept virtually all
recyclable materials including various grades of paper, cardboard, glass, alumi-
num, steel, waste oil and sometimes tires and plastics. Most of these facili-
ties function as collection or pre-processing centers which ship recovered
materials to other centralized facilities where actual recycling is performed.
Non-profit, comprehensive recycling groups in the State of Colorado formed
the Colorado Recycling Cooperative Association (CRCA) in 1976. The purposes of
the cooperative are to share expertise and equipment, and to develop a viable,
integrated recycling system statewide. At the present time, there are only
three active members: Eco-Cycle (Boulder); Recycle Something (Fort Collins),
and the Summit Recycling Project (Breckenridge). Of those, Eco-Cycle handles
the greatest volume, has the highest funding', and has the best equipment. Eco-
Cycle is one of two organizations in the State that has a curbside pickup
program. As such, Eco-Cycle has achieved a 25 percent participation rate among
Boulder households and is capturing 5 to 9 percent of Boulder's waste stream.
Eco-Cycle hopes to attain 50 percent participation following some organizational
changes. Because Recycle Something and Summit Recycling rely primarily on drop-
off centers to collect materials, they cannot accurately estimate participation,
but it is thought to be less than 5 percent. These two organizations also make
pick-ups from cooperating businesses and institutions. Recycle Something and
Summit Recycling Project are suffering from a cut-off of CETA funds and general
economic hardships. Group directors doubt that comprehensive recycling can pay
for itself under current conditions, but they point out that landfilling has no
23
-------
TABLE 4
RESOURCE RECOVERY ORGANIZATIONS IN COLORADO
I. Materials Recycling - Private
Organization
Action Oil Company
Aero Oil Company
Albertsons
All Aluminum Recycling
Associated Grocers
Atlas Metal and Iron Corp.
Ben Franklin Manufacturing
City Waste Paper Co.
Colorado Service Station
Operators Assn.
Coors Distributing Companies
Esterberg, Fritz
E.L. Trucking Company
Freidman and Sons
Golden Goats
Golden Recycle Company
K-2
King Soopers
Lindsay L W and Sons
Milt Adams, Inc.
McNeill, Hubert
Mountain Chemicals, Inc.
Muscular Dystrophy Assn.
Natursoil
Neiman Salvage and Junk
One Stop Recycling
Optimum Art Glass
Osco Company
Pikes Peak Waste Oil Pick-up
Refinoi1
Remelt Metals
Reynolds Aluminum Buy Back Center
Safeway
Star Industrial Supply
Sunbelt Recycling
Sundstrand Corp.
Thoro Products
Tri-R Systems
V.M. Irvin Inc.
Western Scrap Processing Co.
Location Commodity
Longmont
Oil
Denver
Oil
33 Colorado Locations
Aluminum cans
Colorado Springs
Alumi num
Many Locations
Aluminum cans
Denver
Scrap metals
Gol den
Oil
Colorado Springs
Papers
State-wide
Oil
Several Locations
Beverage con-
tainers
Deer Trail
Oil
Golden
Oil
10 Locations
Paper
20 locations-Denver area
Aluminum cans
Golden
Beverage Con-
tainers
Ft. Collins
Newsprint
53 Colorado locations
Aluminum cans
Denver
High grade
paper
Adams City
Oil'
Loveland
Cardboard
Golden
Solvents
Englewood
Oil
Denver
Organic
wastes
Denver
Scrap metals
Denver
Comprehensive
Greeley
Glass
Adams City
Solvents
Denver
Oil
Cli fton
Oil
Denver
Automobiles
21 Locations
Aluminum cans
106 Colorado locations
Aluminum cans
Denver
CI othing
Colorado Springs
Glass, alumi-
num
Denver
Plati ng
solutions
Gol den
Solvents
Denver
Comprehens ive
Canon City
Oil
Colorado Springs
Metals
24
-------
TABLE 4 (cont.)
RESOURCE RECOVERY ORGANIZATIONS COLORADO (cont.)
11. Materials Recycling-Non Profit
Organization
Boys Club
Eco-Cycle
Environmental Center
Everitt Junior High
Ft. Carson Recycling
Girl Scouts
National Park Service Recycling Shed
Park Hill Recycling Network
Recycle Something
San Juan Basin Resource
Recovery Coop.
San Luis Valley Senior Citizens
Summit Recycling Project
Tri-Cycle
Location
Greeley
Boulder
Boulder
Wheatridge
Colorado Springs
Greeley/Ft. Collins
Estes Park
Denver
Ft. Collins
B reck en ridge
16 Locations
Commodity
Ccmprehens ive
Comprehensive
Comprehensive
Comprehens ive
Comprehensive
Comprehensive
Beverage
containers
This is not presented as an exhaustive list of non-profit recycling
organizations in the State. Many more organizations of various scales
and activity levels exist; however, no catalog of these organizations
has yet been compiled.
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. 1981.
25
-------
payback possibilities either from a cost or community service standpoint.
Despite good community participation, a dedicated volunteer staff and a desire
to become full-scale, it appears some funding is necessary if organizations such
as these are to remain functional. The other curbside pick-up program involves
a small area in the Park Hill neighborhood in Denver through which approximately
200 tons of goods were recycled last year.
A relatively new concept in Colorado is being developed by the Natursoil
Company which utilizes yard and other organic wastes to produce a high quality
garden compost and potting soil. In addition, Natursoil has been working with
the City of Northglenn to assess the level and economics of yard waste
recovery. The firm's owner believes that yard waste recycling has tremendous
opportunities for expansion in the Denver area and that the outlook is good in
terms of economics as well as from a waste management/resource recovery stand-
poi nt.
Among private recyclers, there are two comprehensive "buy-back" recyclers.
Tri-R Systems and One Stop Recycling accept all commonly recycled materials and
some unusual items. Materials accepted include all types of paper, all grades
of aluminum, copper and brass, auto batteries and radiators, cardboard,
negatives, and photographic fixers.
It is estimated that industrial scrap metals; are almost totally recycled
although scrap markets are characteristically erratic in terms of price and
demand levels. In light of this situation, industrial scrap does not enter the
waste stream and is not a factor in waste composition calculations. Therefore,
when metals are discussed in this study, it is primarily residentially and
commercially generated metal wastes such as aluminum and steel cans, to which
reference is made.
Recycling the metals that are found in the household and commercial waste
stream is much more difficult than recycling industrial scrap due to the small,
dispersed quantities. Beverage manufactuers and distributors in the State have
taken an active role in the collection and recycling of beverage containers. In
1973, the beverage industry formed Tri-Cycle which currently has 15 drop-off
centers in the Denver metropolitan area. Aluminum is purchased from a wide
26
-------
variety brokers and middlemen by Reynolds or Alcoa to produce new aluminum
sheet for beverage cans, although these firms do not maintain local processing
facilities. At the present time, a tremendous oversupply of aluminum cans has
resulted in local collectors being placed on allocation. However, the decreased
price of recycled aluminum resulting from an oversupplied market is leading to
the consideration among manufacturers of an increase in processing capacity.
The relative percentage of glass and paper recycled in Colorado is lower
than metals recycled as the glass and paper markets are less stable and less
developed. A small market for glass currently exists. The Golden Recycle Com-
pany is in the process of establishing a market for glass in the Denver area for
use in new glass bottles. The company currently accepts container glass and
intends to triple its present demand capacity from 30 tons of glass per day to
100 tons per day.
Similarly, only a limited number of organizations are involved in paper
recycling. Newsprint, office paper, corrugated cardboard, and computer paper
are most often recycled of the 41 identified grades of paper. Currently, recy-
cling of paper is hampered by the absence of nearby markets. Transportation
costs may make recovery of such materials permanently or seasonally uneconomic
(i.e. the demand for newsprint is highly seasonal, therefore, transportation
costs can only be offset during high demand/high price periods) for Denver recy-
cles. Recycled newspaper is used in the production of new newsprint, toilet
paper, cellulose insulation, and roofing materials; the last two items are sig-
nificant in the highly seasonal demand for recycled newspaper.
The Garden State Paper Company in Denver occasionally buys small amounts of
newsprint. However, the major newsprint buyers are located on the West Coast,
East Coast, and in Texas and Mexico. The transportation costs for such rela-
tively low cost commodities are often of such magnitude as to almost eliminate
any potential for profit.
Studies and Efforts Pertaining to Resource Recovery Alternatives
Several resource recovery feasibility studies or plans have been recently
completed or are in progress in Colorado. Often alternatives are being consid-
ered in areas where severe landfil1-associated problems have been experienced or
27
-------
are anticipated.
For example, in Summit County, the Forest Service (which leases the land-
fill property to the County) mandated a 50 percent reduction in solid waste vol-
umes deposited in the landfill. As a result, the Citizen's Committee on Volume
Reduction and Recycling prepared a report considering various alternatives to
meet that goal. The committee recommended that the county support a full scale
recycling program to achieve the Forest Service requirement. At this time,
action has not been taken on their proposals.
In Colorado Springs, following heated public opposition to expanding an
existing landfill (which is anticipated to reach capacity within approximately 5
years), the City-County Waste Disposal Resource Recovery Task Force was formed.
The Task Force has compiled solid waste data necessary for detailed analysis of
present and future solid waste management options.
Larimer County has also examined the potential for resource recovery. The
county has a functioning recycling organization so waste-to-energy was consider-
ed as a partial alternative to landfilling. The 1982 feasibility study
conducted by Fred C. Hart Associates concluded that a waste-to-energy facility
was not economically feasible at present due to the lack of a suitable energy
consumer. However, the potential for future development is favorable.
Waste-to-energy resource recovery was also studied by Fred C. Hart
Associates for Boulder, Colorado in 1981. Preliminary figures have strongly
suggested that solid waste conversion would be economically competitive with
landfilling costs. Interest in" the City and the County is high. No further
steps have been taken at this time.
In Eagle, Colorado, the town received grant monies to study the feasibility
of burning municipal solid waste, construction waste, and sewage sludge to
recover energy. Following initially optimistic projections, the primary energy
consumer had to be dropped from further consideration. The study concluded that
the economics of the project were not favorable.
28
-------
The most immediately promising project is the Denver Energy Utilization
System. The City and County of Denver is in the process of planning for a
waste-to-energy facility with a capacity of around 450 tons per day. The econo-
mics of the project appear to be good. The project team is still in the process
of developing detailed planning projections.
Methane recovery is a form of resource recovery applicable to completed
landfill sites. Several large landfills are being studied as sources of methane
which can be used as a fuel. Recent State legislation authorizes such uses and
federal energy funds are available to develop and use landfill methane as fuel.
A demonstration project is under development in Adams County. The possibility
of methane recovery is also being seriously considered in Larimer and Jefferson
Counties.
Some public-interest and professional groups also have organized subcommit-
tees to study the resource recovery issue and participate in educational
programs. A list of these groups is included in Appendix 2 as well as some
additional information sources.
State Policy Considerations of Resource Recovery. A major goal that is
identified in Colorado's Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is to
encourage resource recovery whenever practicable for both solid and hazardous
wastes. According to the plan, The Department of Health will provide technical
assistance to local governments to encourage resource recovery. The general
approach is to encourage both material and energy recovery from solid waste
streams. The CDH does not have funding to directly subsidize or support
specific recycling programs, at the present.
The CDH also oversees the Resource Recovery Subcommittee of the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee. In November 1981, the Subcommittee adopted a set of re-
source recovery goals for Colorado and strategies or areas for implementation
were also identified. The goals are as follows:
o To promote and assist industrial and commercial roles in resource
recovery.
29
-------
o To develop a general information base on resource recovery.
o To encourage public involvement and participation through programs
designed to increase awareness of resource recovery.
o To seek legal/legislative remedies for existing deficiencies.
This study represents a part of the process whereby the State is evaluating
resource recovery as a solid waste management tool and developing an information
base.
Representative Communities
Denver. Denver, the capital city of Colorado, is the largest and most
densely populated urban area in the Rocky Mountain Region. As such, it is an
important area for study of resource recovery potential. The Denver Metropoli-
tan Area encompasses large portions of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Doug-
las, Gilpin and Jefferson Counties. According to the 1980 census, the area's
residents account for 55 percent or 1.6 million of the state's 2.9 million
people. The City and County of Denver had a 1980 population of 491,000 or
approximately 17 percent of the total state population. The majority of the
regional population growth has occurred in the counties surrounding the City and
County of Denver. Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties have led the region in rate
of growth with population increases of 81 percent and 58 percent, respectively,
between 1970 and 1980. During the same time period the population of the City
and County of Denver declined by 4.5 percent. The Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRC0G) expects the population of Denver to grow in the next twenty
years, reversing this trend, as downtown neighborhoods are revitalized.
Land use in the City and County of Denver is varied. The central business
district portion predominantly consists of high density commercial buildings.
High and very high density mixed commercial residential areas surround the cen-
tral business district.
30
-------
City personnel from the Department of Public Works collect refuse from
residential housing of seven units or less. Private commercial haulers collect
solid waste from multi-unit housing, business and industries. Table 5 presents
tonnage figures for municipal and private collection of residential solid waste
in the City and County of Denver. As shown in the table, city crews collected
approximately 63 percent of the residential solid waste. Although private col-
lection figures for 1980 were not available, it was assumed that the proportion
of private collection remained constant, and figures developed for Table 5 were
calculated on that basis.
The percentages shown in Table 5 refer only to solid waste tonnage; not
necessarily the percentage of people served. The City collection system serves
less than 63 percent of Denver's 491,000 people; however, since this includes
single family detached dwellings, this population probably generates proportion-
ally more than multi-unit housing residents served by commercial haulers due to
the yard waste component.
Variation in yard waste is typically thought to be the major factor in sea-
sonal variation (aside from seasonal population fluctuations). In areas where
there is significant commercial and industrial activity, the seasonal variation
in the total waste stream (including these components) is usually much reduced.
Twenty-five percent above or below average is an accepted maximum figure. The
1980 seasonal variation of Denver's residential waste stream can be seen by
examining Figure 4. The residential waste load was 26 percent below the average
in February (no yard wastes) and 46 percent above average in May (large amounts
of yard wastes associated with spring yard work).
Based on the tonnages presented in Table 5, the residential waste genera-
tion rate in Denver is 3.5 lbs. per person per day. The City and County of Den-
ver weigh their compactor trucks as they enter the landfills; however, landfill
operators do not require that other vehicles be weighed. Private haulers who
handle commercial and industrial waste disposal also do not limit collection to
City boundaries. Consequently, figures which quantify the total waste load of
the City and County of Denver in 1980 are not available. In 1976, a study of
the Denver Region reported the waste generation rates shown in Table 6. It is
31
-------
TABLE 5
RESIDENTIAL SOLID HASTE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
(Tons Per Year)
Number of
Collection Housing Units 1978 1979 1980
Agent Per Residence Tons Percentage Tons Percentage Tons Percentage
City Seven or less 166,722 63% 197,981 63% 196,305 63%
Private Eight or greater 97,099 37% 115,304 37% 115,290* 37%*
TOTAL
263,821
100%
313,285
100%
311,585*
100%
* Only the tonnage collected by the City in 1980 is actually known. It was assummed that the propor-
tions remained consistent from previous years so these two figures were extrapolated on that basis.
Source: City and County of Denver.
32
-------
FIGURE 4
SEASONAL VARIATION OF THREE COMMUNITIES' WASTE STREAMS
100%
90% -
Denver, 1980
801
Love land, 1980
70S
60%
50% -
40X
30%
20%
10%
10%
/
20%
30% _
40%
50%
NOV
JAN
FEB
AUG
SEPT
MAR APRL
JULY
OCT
JUNE
DEC
MAY
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
33
-------
TABLE 6
DENVER COUNTY WASTE GENERATION
(In Tons Per Day - TPD)
Collection Source 1975 1980
Municipal Residental 515 536
(Multiple and Single Unit)
Private Multiple Unit Residential 121 315
Commercial 560 560
Industrial 178 178
TOTAL 1,374 1,589
AVERAGE PER CAPITA 5.1 6.5
(lb./day)
Source: Figures compiled by Fred C. Hart Associates.
34
-------
assumed, that the commercial and industrial waste streams have remained at the
same levels. This yields a total waste stream per day of 1,589 tons or 6.5
lbs./person/day.
The City and County of Denver Sanitary Service Division utilizes two dif-
ferent compactor truck models for residential garbage collection. One is the
traditional rear loader compactor truck which requires one driver and two load-
ers who empty garbage cans from alleys. Approximately 70 percent of the waste
is collected in this manner at a cost of $54/ton. The second method consists of
providing a 3-cubic yard dumpster for every four residences. An automatic side
loader compactor truck with one driver can collect the solid waste at a cost of
about $27/ton. The remaining 30 percent of the waste tonnage is collected in
this manner. When the side loader system is fully implemented, about 60 percent
of the households will use this system. The total budget for collection of
196,305 tons of solid waste in 1980 was $7,875,000 at an average cost of
slightly over $45/ton.
The solid waste from the City and County of Denver is being disposed of in
three landfills: Denver-Arapahoe (also known as "Lowry" landfill) landfill,
located in west central Arapahoe County, BFI landfill, located just north of
Denver in Adams County, and County Line landfill, located south of Denver in
Douglas County. The Denver-Arapahoe sanitary landfill is owned by Denver but
managed by a private firm. The other two landfills are privately owned and
managed. The landfill operators set the tipping fees. The City is currently
charged $5.00/ton of solid waste for disposal but this fee will be raised to
$7.00/ton at one or more of the landfills in the near future.
The solid waste management system in Denver is experiencing several prob-
lems. Closure of the County Line Landfill and the BFI Landfill are imminent due
to exhaustion of their capacities. Approximately 68 of 85 acres at the County
Line Landfill have been filled and the remaining area is expected to last only
another three to four years. The BFI Landfill is expected to remain open only
another 12 months. Although the Lowry sanitary landfill has over 2,000 unfilled
acres available for development, use of that landfill is clouded with
controversy.
35
-------
In addition, there are 83 closed disposal sites in the City and County of
Denver. According to the Colorado Department of Health these sites must be
assessed for methane or leachate production potential and environmental protec-
tion requirements.
The City and County of Denver and its surroundings have achieved by far the
highest level, variety and potential for resource recovery in the state. Almost
all of the recycling organizations listed in Table 4 operate in Denver at one or
more locations.
No sampling of solid waste has been performed in the Denver area to deter-
mine waste composition. The composition percentages shown in Table 2 are
national averages. Several assumptions can be made to qualitatively discuss
differences in Denver's waste stream from the national averages. The paper
component for Denver is probably greater due to the high number and concentra-
tion of business and government offices in the central city area. Waste genera-
tion levels for glass, plastic and metal beverage containers are probably also
very high. Yard and wood waste levels may be somewhat less due to high urban
densities. Construction and demolition waste volumes are currently inflated due
to the tremendous construction activity in the city's central business district.
One local recycler estimates that 8,800 tons of newspaper are distributed
per month in the Denver area. Of this 17-50 percent is eventually recycled.
Present market conditions are characterized by tremendous fluctuations in demand
and price for newsprint. A substantial amount of corrugated cardboard is
generated by the commercial sector. Many businesses already routinely bale
cardboard for recycling. For other paper products (office paper, mixed paper,
etc.) the quantities recycled are regarded as proprietary and cannot be estimat-
ed at this time.
In 1980 an estimated 57 percent return rate of aluminum cans was achieved.
This market is close to saturation. Higher levels of aluminum recycling may be
impossible due to the fact that other types of light aluminum (such as baking
pans, foil etc.) contain food residues which cause contamination and health
problems. As mentioned previously, ferrous metals from industrial sources
36
-------
achieve levels of close to 100 percent recycling. Household sources are steel
cans. Markets for steel cans are small or non-existent in the Denver area.
Waste glass is being generated at the rate of about 150 tons per day in
Denver. In 1981, Golden Recycle Company, a local buyer-processor of glass,
utilized glass at a volume of approximately 30 tons per day, 60-70 percent of
which is returned from the Colorado market. There are plans to expand their
demand for glass to 100 tons per day in the near future. Conceivably all of
this amount could be collected from the Denver area. Golden Recycle Compar\y is
presently trying to locate another local flint (clear) glass user to improve the
economics of the venture. Another company, Capital Insulation, is attempting to
start up a facility in Denver which could process up to 20 tons per day of glass
cullet.
Recycling of plastic materials is not now feasible except on a very limited
basis. Due to the tremendous number of polymers and the unmeldability of these
groups only uncontaminated and segregated plastics can be recycled. Consequent-
ly, the greatest possibility for plastics recovery is probably in the form of
energy derived from combustion.
Organic solid wastes such as yard and food wastes are not being recycled or
reused to any great extent. Therefore until changes occur which make use of
these materials more favorable there will continue to be virtually no commercial
recycling of these solid waste components.
Loveland. Loveland, Colorado, a city of approximately 30,000, is located
in Larimer County in the northern part of Colorado. It is a medium sized city
after experiencing an 86 percent increase in population between 1970 and 1980.
Although this is a phenomenal rate of growth it is not unusual when compared to
other medium and large Front Range Communities such as Greeley (36 percent),
Fort Collins (49 percent), Longmont (85 percent), Colorado Springs (59 percent),
and Broomfield (186 percent).
The City of Loveland operates a municipal solid waste collection service
for all residential customers within the city limits. Three private commercial
haulers collect commercial and industrial wastes. The City of Loveland main-
37
-------
tains records on the number of loads of compacted waste which are taken to the
County landfill. City trucks are weighed for a period of one week four times
throughout the year to determine average waste densities and seasonal varia-
tion. As a result, figures for residential waste generation and waste load are
very accurate.
Table 7 shows current residential waste generation rates. The 1980 resi-
dential waste generation rate averaged 2.4 lbs., per person per day. According
to previous records and yearly population estimates the waste generation rate
has been steadily increasing.
Commercial and industrial wastes, have grown in volume along with popula-
tion increases and concurrent increased commercial activity. However, records
quantifying this growth are not available. Private haulers in the area do not
make such figures available. Prior studies have suggested that in cities with
populations similar to Loveland's the residential waste stream represents 40 to
60 percent of the total municipal waste stream (i.e., including residential,
commercial, and industrial components). Therefore, it was assumed that residen-
tial waste represents 50 percent of the waste stream. This assumption suggests
that total solid waste generation in the City of Loveland is 73 tons/day for a
daily per capita waste generation rate of 4.8 lbs.
Seasonal variation of the residential solid waste stream in Loveland shows
a pattern similar to that of Denver but with less variation. Figure 4 illu-
strates that Loveland's waste stream stc(ys roughly within the 25 percent expect-
ed seasonal variation. Again, the low point occurred in February and the high
points occurred in April and June.
All of the solid waste generated in and around the City of Loveland is
being deposited in the Larimer County Landfill which is located about seven
miles north of the city. Loveland owns a 25 percent share in the landfill pro-
perty which is run by the Larimer County Department of Public Works. Area fill
with daily cover is the predominant method of operation though trench fill is
used where appropriate. The facility consists of 480 acres of which about 60
acres have been completed. The landfill is expected to have sufficient capacity
to remain open for over 20 years.
38
-------
TABLE 7
REFUSE COLLECTED BY THE CITY OF LOVELAND IN 1980
Average
Month Tons Tons Per Day
January
960.6
31.0
February
808.3
27.9
March
1,013.6
32.7
Apri 1
1,291.9
43.1
May
1,305.1
42.1
June
1,291.9
43.1
July
1,285.3
41.5
August
1,192.5
38.5
September
1,132.9
37.8
October
1,099.8
35.5
November
907.4
30.3
December
1,073.3
34.6
13,362.6 (Year's Total) 36.5 (Average TPD)
Source: City of Loveland
39
-------
The Larimer County Landfill also maintains a disposal lagoon for septic
tank waste. Approximately 252,000 gallons are accepted each week. Several
groundwater monitoring wells have been drilled in and around the landfill area
and as yet have shown no groundwater contamination. In terms of cover
requirements and other regulations the landfill is "usually in compliance" with
the State Health Department. No major or minor improvements in the landfilling
operation are required or planned.
Solid waste loads are not weighed at the landfill as no scales have been
installed; instead, a fee schedule for various vehicles has been developed.
Commercial compactor trucks pay for their loads on the basis of volume at the
rate of $1.25/yd.3. Commercial haulers and frequent users of the landfill pur-
chase "dump tickets". The gateman punches out the amount owed at the entrance
to the landfill.
The Supervisor of the City Refuse Collection Department in Loveland reports
that collection vehicles travel an average of 31 miles round trip per route at a
cost of approximately $1.89 per mile. The Refuse Department Budget averages
$29.44 per ton of solid waste for collection and disposal.
Aside from the local grocery stores which collect aluminum cans, there are
two other recycling organizations in Loveland. Both use paper products. One
firm functions as a broker for newsprint, cardboard, high-grade office papers,
and computer paper and cards. Volumes handled were not available. The other
firm collects only newsprint, primarily through volunteer and youth group parti-
cipation. This firm manufactures cellulose insulation. According to their
representative, the collection system is just being organized in Loveland and
volumes are not yet known.
Overall, the solid waste system appears to be functioning well. Haul dis-
tance to the landfill is reasonable and the residents of Loveland are not
disturbed by visual impacts, traffic congestion, litter, or odors from the land-
fill. The system is among the best in the State.
40
-------
Montrose. Montrose, a town of approximately 9,000, is located on an arid,
flat plain near the Gunnison River. The town is surrounded by federally-owned
BLM, Forest Service and National Park Service Lands. The area's economy is
based on government, agriculture, livestock, mining and services. Montrose does
not undergo significant population fluctuations and has grown in population 34
percent in the past 10 years.
The City of Montrose operates a municipal garbage collection service for
residential and commercial customers within the city limits. The city does not
keep precise records of volumes of solid waste deposited in the landfill. How-
ever, volume records were available for the first five months of 1981 and are
presented in Table 8. Extrapolating from these data, a conservative estimate of
the tonnage can be obtained. This works out to be almost 10,000 tons per year
or 27 tons of solid waste per day. The per capita waste generation rate appears
to be approximately 6.2 pounds daily. This is a higher rate than that
calculated for the City of Loveland but lower than the Denver waste generation
rate.
The County of Montrose operates a garbage collection service in the unin-
corporated areas of the county by maintaining dumpsters. The county will dis-
continue this service in 1982 and collection will be taken over by private
haulers. Private commercial haulers do some commercial collections from the
large businesses in the town and county.
All of the solid waste generated in and around the town of Montrose is
being deposited in a county-owned landfill in the eastern part of the county.
The actual landfill operation is conducted by a private operator for a three
year contract period. Commercial compactor trucks, city trucks, and county
trucks pay for their loads at the rate of $1.50/yd.3. Other users pay no fee.
Montrose has no recycling outlets except local grocery stores which collect
aluminum cans.
The responsibility for solid waste management in the town of Montrose is
shared by several governmental offices which do not appear to have a data
management system with which to assess and coordinate management activities. No
41
-------
TABLE 8
MONTROSE TOTAL WASTE GENERATION (1981)
Month
Actual yd.3
January
3,072
February
3,069
March
3,237
Average 3,329
April
3,036
May
4,233
June
3,329
July
3,329
August
3,329
Estimated from
September
3,329
January - May
October
3,329
data.*
November
3,329
December
3,329
TOTAL
39,950 yd.3
x .25 tons/yd3
= 9,988 Tons per Year
= 27 Tons per Day, average
* Estimated by FCHA from January - May data as no data was available
beyond May.
Source: City of Montrose
42
-------
centralized information is kept which estimates the landfill waste volume, acre-
age, landfill capacity, etc. This situation is, however, very typical of
smaller communities due to limited resources and low solid waste management
priority.
Vail. Vail is located in the Gore Range of the Rocky Mountains in central
Colorado. Vail is a major, internationally-known ski resort and an increasingly
popular summer resort. As such, the area experiences extreme seasonal popula-
tion fluctuations. A large portion of the local-employee population resides
elsewhere and commutes to Vail daily. Therefore, the permanent, year-round
population of the Town of Vail in 1980 was only about 2,300 persons. Officials
from the Town of Vail estimate that there are 4,000 residents during the winter
(December-March) and summer months (July-September) but only about 350 in the
spring and fall. In addition, there are an estimated 20,000 tourists at any
time during the winter, 15,000 in summer and 9,000 in spring and fall. Because
of it's relative proximity to the Denver area, there are also a significant
number of day users of the ski area.
The economy of Vail is solely tourist based. Tourism, in turn, is affected
by the national economy and the weather. Although the Town of Vail has a very
small resident population, it actually has an incongruously large tax base
because of the size of the visitor population and expensive real estate values.
There is no industrial activity in the Gore Valley.
The State of Colorado has a number of resorts which experience similar
population fluctuations and face similar solid waste issues. Some of these are
Estes Park, Telluride, Aspen, Dillon, Keystone, Durango, and Steamboat Springs.
Table 9 presents tonnages hauled during a twelve month period in 1978-
1979. Essentially, all of the waste generated in Vail/Gore Valley is hauled to
the County landfill by one private hauler so that the quantities are specific to
the area and well substantiated.
The seasonal highs and lows of the waste load are almost exactly opposite
of the "typical" case (see Figure 4). The quantities in 1979 varied from a low
in May of 9.8 tons per day to a high in February of 32.8 tons per day. As there
43
-------
TABLE 9
SOLID HASTE 6EHERATION IN VAIL, COLORADO
Month
Tons Per Day
Tons Per Month
December, 1978
24.9
772.2
January, 1979
30.1
933.1
February
32.8
918.4
March
26.6
825.8
Apri 1
15.7
471.6
May
9.8
303.5
June
12.4
372.6
July
15.1
466.6
August
15.1
466.6
September
14.0
420.0
October
11.0
370.5
November
12.2
364.5
AVERAGE 18.2
TOTAL 6,685.4
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Resource Recovery Feasibility Analysis for Eagle County, Colorado,
July, 1980
44
-------
is very little yard waste and no industrial activity in the area, the waste load
figures in Table 9 represents a waste stream composed only of residential and
commercial waste. The solid waste quantities for Eagle County include high
amounts of construction wastes. Because of the way in which estimates for the
Vail area were obtained, it is not possible to determine what, if any,
proportion of the Vail waste stream is comprised of construction waste. The
magnitude of the tonnage figures vary directly with the population-tourist load
at any given time. Using the population figures provided by the Town of Vail it
appears that the average daily per capita waste generation rate is between 2 and
3 lbs. with an average of about 2.8 1bs./person/day. Solid waste composition in
Vail/Gore Valley may be quite different from national estimates although this
cannot be substantiated with actual data.
Management of solid waste for the Town of Vail presents some unique pro-
blems. Most obvious, is the tremendous variation in the amount of solid waste
generated in the area. Variations of over 200 percent in monthly waste loads
require a high degree of flexibility in terms of equipment use, personnel and
organization of collection routes.
The solid waste from the Vail area is deposited in the Eagle County land-
fill. The landfill is located approximately twenty-two miles away near Wolcott,
Colorado. A long haul distance such as this presents problems of time and
increased costs especially considering that the final three-quarters of a mile
of the route is a winding, unpaved mountain road. Access is most difficult
during the winter when the waste volume is at the highest levels.
Landfills located at high altitudes experience problems with winter filling
due to the incidence and severity of frost action at the ground surface which
complicates the process of obtaining cover material, causes equipment freezing
problems, high winds, drifting snows, etc.
In addition, the limit of the present landfill's capacity will be reached
in two to three years. Adjacent land is probably available for additional land-
fill space so the situation is not yet critical. The average cost of solid
wastes deposited at the Eagle County landfill in 1979 was $6.84/ton.
45
-------
Aluminum cans and returnable glass beverage containers are the only
routinely recycled solid waste components in the Vail area. (Even so, it is
estimated that there are 110 tons per year of unrecovered aluminum cans in the
waste stream.) These items are handled through local grocery stores. Because
these are the only recovery systems in place, recycling potential at the present
is low. Difficulties with transportation and the relatively small waste stream
are not conducive to economically favorable recycling under current market
conditions.
In 1978, local school board officials in Eagle County applied for a grant
to study the possibility of a waste-to-energy facility in Eagle County. A grant
was awarded under the Urban Policy Program on the basis of projected severe
waste disposal problems and the potential presence of a suitable energy con-
sumer.
A resource recovery feasibility study was conducted in Eagle County from
August, 1979 until July, 1981 under the EPA Resource Recovery Project Develop-
ment Assistance Program (a part of the Urban Policy Program). As the study
proceeded, the major energy consumer candidate had to be dropped from further
consideration. To compensate, district heating of multi-unit housing was
discussed with local resort developers with encouraging results. Thre planning
proceeded to the preliminary stages of construction negotiations. Unfortunate-
ly, an unsuccessful winter ski season created financial and investment obstacles
to commitments of capital. Also, traditional prejudices to garbage-related
facilities began to affect the serious pursuit of such options. Because the
population fluctuates so dramatically and rapidly it is extremely difficult to
generate public interest and support for a solution which requires a relatively
long-term commitment. Due to these and other constraints the study concluded
that the economics of the project were not currently favorable although the
potential for future development exists. The outcome of the study process has
been that the same solid waste management problems exist and no viable alterna-
tives have yet been identified.
46
-------
Summary Evaluation of the Representative Communities. Study and evaluation
of the solid waste management systems within the four representative communities
results in the following general conclusions about the current solid waste
management and resource recovery outlook in the state:
o landfilling is currently the primary statewide solid waste disposal
option;
o the communities which were examined within this analysis, while not
confronted by immediate solid waste management emergencies, have
planning and operational problems which are representative of the
problems confronting the majority of Colorado communities;
o resource recovery, in the form of recycling, is being practiced to a
limited extent. Indications are that recycling efforts will expand
and potential exists for waste-to-energy systems.
o all the recycled materials markets within the State are located in
Denver; and
o markets which would encourage resource recovery are generally
lacki ng.
These and other conditions greatly effect the consideration and viability of
resource recovery as a waste management option.
47
-------
III. CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTION
Consideration of Resource Recovery as a Viable Option
As discussed previously and as experience in Europe, Japan and other parts
of the United States has demonstrated, increasing landfilling costs and associ-
ated environmental and economic trends indicate that there is a natural progres-
sion toward consideration of resource recovery as an additional solid waste
management tool. Feasibility of resource recovery, however, can only be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis. The environment which would most contribute to
resource recovery consideration is shown in Figure 5.
Evaluation of resource recovery can be undertaken by the private sector,
public sector, non-profit organizations, or combinations of the above. The pro-
cess of evaluation requires certain information including:
o the efficiency, effectiveness, cost and current and future constraints '
of solid waste management options;
o the basic legal and institutional structure confronting implementation;
o the availability of funds (current and projected) for waste management;
o the degree of social and political acceptability and public support for
each management option;
o the levels of risk and uncertainty associated with the options; and
o other factors which cannot be placed into monetary or numeric terms.
This information would ideally be considered within the context of priorities,
goals, resources and constraints of the solid waste management structure in each
specific situation. The first step in considering resource recovery is the
48
-------
FIGURE 5
ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO RESOURCE RECOVERY
o Amount of wastes generated are significant (communities in which
populations are relatively concentrated)
o Few landfills exist or are far from the point of waste generation
o Landfill tipping fees are high
o Energy costs are high
o Industry raw material costs are high
o Environmental standards are strict and enforced
o Land is scarce and there is pressure to develop land for more profitable
uses
o No or few other disposal alternatives exist
Source U.S. Conference of Mayors
49
-------
the recognition of solid waste problems which either currently exist or are
likely to occur in the future. The necessary information to make this recogni-
tion is rarely readily available to appropriate decision makers. Consequently,
resource recovery is not being adequately considered in the decision-making
framework and process.
Factors Affecting Resource Recovery Feasibility.
Figure 6 presents a number of factors which affect the feasibility of
resource recovery options. Each factor must be evaluated within the context of
a specific solid waste system during the planning phase of each potential
project. To expedite this analysis the Environmental Protection Agency has
prepared a comprehensive Resource Recovery Planning Model which guides planners
through the factors and identifies the go/no-go decision points. The factors
are discussed in a general way below, with examples of Colorado situations where
this information is available.
o Waste Characterization and Availability. In order to estimate the
potential amount of materials available for recycling and/or conversion
to energy, certain basic information on the quantity and quality of
wastes must be obtained. This basic information allows the projection
of potential revenues and identification of potential markets.
o Assured Waste Supply. Private commercial haulers of solid waste choose
the disposal site they patronize based on the lowest cost combination of
disposal fees (tipping fees) and transportation (i.e. round trip travel
distance). Goverment collection agencies, on the other hand, may
consider other factors such as the fuel requirements of an incineration
facility. Waste-to-energy facilities which depend on wastes collected by
private haulers must be assured of receiving an amount of waste adequate
to permit the optional utilization of the facility. Where private
haulers have chosen not to use a waste-to-energy facility based on cost
considerations, governing agencies have, in some cases, promulgated waste
flow control ordinances. These ordinances require that all wastes
collected within a certain jurisdiction be delivered to a waste-to-energy
facility. Unfortunately, such ordinances can substantially disrupt any
50
-------
FIGURE 6
FACTORS AFFECTING RESOURCE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION
Waste Characteriiation
(Quantity and Quality)
Environmental
Uncertainties
Technological
Uncertainties
Assured Waste
Supply
Resource Recovery
Feasibility
Institutional
Barriers
Economic and
Financial
Uncertainties
Market
Administrative
Uncertainties
Uncertainties
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates
-------
operating or planned source separation efforts. This issue remains
untested and unresolved in Colorado. Preliminary examination of the
legality of waste control ordinances in Eagle County suggested that
under Colorado statutes, the County could not regulate the waste stream
flow within its limits. Further analysis has qualified that conclusion
somewhat by suggesting that the County, as the owner or joint owner of a
waste-to-energy facility, could control waste flow through ordinances.
Legal powers of municipalities in Colorado may allow cities to pass such
ordinances. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the City
of Boulder questions the extent of legal powers of cities in Colorado.
o Technological Uncertainties. Many of the waste-to-energy technologies
are still being developed. Incineration with heat recovery appears to
be the most reliable and adaptable waste conversion technology. While
source separation may not face the myriad of technological problems of
waste-to-energy facilities, equipment selection and operation and main-
tenance problems are often encountered.
o Institutional Barriers. Institutional barriers can be thought of as
non-technological, non-economic considerations arising from the laws,
policies or relationships of and among organizations, governmental
entities and other institutions. For example, freight rate discrimina-
tion is one important example of an institutional constraint. Freight
rates have favored the transportation of virgin goods over recycled
materials, a situation which affects the economic viability of resource
recovery activities. In October, 1981, the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion ordered railroads to roll back rates and refund excessive charges
on many recyclable commodities. The order followed 10 years of litiga-
tion by the National Association of Recycling Industries (NARI) and
provides for establishment of maximum rates on a commodity-by-commodity
basis. Railroads contended that a single composite base rate for all
recyclable items be used and that escalations for volume and mileage
then be added. The result of this order is that rate rollbacks and
refunds will be applied primarily to the transport of all non-ferrous
metals and, to some extent, to the transport of wastepaper, textile
waste, scrap rubber and reclaimed rubber, scrap plastics, and cullet.
52
-------
Scrap iron and steel are not included in these provisions. For some
commodities, the railroad profit levels will be reduced by 20 percent to
50 percent. NARI is presently attempting to eliminate discriminatory
rates for wastepaper.
o Administrative/Jurisdictional Uncertainties. If a resource recovery
system involves a number of jurisdictions, and/or is involved in a
complex arrangement between the public and private sectors, the
continued involvement of all parties is uncertain. Although contracts
and agreements may be signed among municipalities and firms, the possi-
bility of a jurisdiction pulling out from the agreement, or other
associated administrative problems, are real possibilities. One method
which can be used to implement a waste-to-energy system in an area which
includes several governmental jurisdiction is the formation of, a solid
waste district which is permitted under Colorado law. However, no solid
waste disposal districts have yet been funueG in the State. Presently,
there is an effort in Yuma County, Colorado to establish a solid waste
disposal district. County and municipal officials in Yuma County have,
however, found problems with this statute since districts can be formed
only within unincorporated areas. This is somewhat impractical because
waste generation is concentrated in the incorporated areas. Also, the
statute limits taxing to 1/2 mill, an amount that is thought to be too
small. An effort is underway to determine if a solid waste disposal
district can be set up under other statutes for special purpose
districts or to change the Colorado law.
o Market Uncertainties. A resource recovery operation cannot be success-
ful without the existence of relatively stable and secure buyers
(markets) of the recovered materials or energy. Markets for many
recovered materials in Colorado are relatively weak due to geographic
isolation from national markets and lack of major regional industrial
development. It is often difficult to achieve negotiation of and agree-
ment on long-term contracts specifying the quantity, quality and price
of recovered resources. The marketing of recovered resources is subject
to price and market capacity fluctuations which can prove to be
disastrous. Eco-Cycle, in Boulder, has developed contacts with buyers
53
-------
of its key products (corrugated cardboard, paper, and glass) that appear
to insure adequate demand for those products. Eco-Cycle states it can
sell all it can produce without fear of affecting the market (i.e.,
without having to lower the price). Recycle Something, in Fort Collins,
is a smaller volume operation than Eco-Cycle. Newspaper is the mainstay
of Recycle Something's program in terms of amounts processed and income
generated. The demand for newsprint is highly seasonal and the market
is distant. These factors at times combine to affect Recycle Some-
thing's revenues by a factor of three, causing severe econonic hardship
and a non-viable operation. With respect to energy recovery, it is
often stated that consumers of energy products are readily available,
however, a 1982 study by Fred C. Hart Associates performed for Larimer
County, indicated that no suitable market for steam existed for a
proposed waste-to-energy facility.
o Economic Uncertainties. The feasibility of a resource recovery opera-
tion is dependent upon projections of costs and revenues. In some
cities, projections have been based on optimistic or inaccurate informa-
tion which lead to unsuccessful implementation. Costs and revenues are
greatly affected by current economic conditions. For example,
negotiations with private developers for partial financing of a waste-
to-energy facility in Eagle County were terminated by changing economic
conditions due to a snow drought. A recurring problem in waste-to-
energy feasibility assessments in Colorado and elsewhere is the lack of
a clear definition and interpretation of the price a public utility is
required to pay for electrical energy purchased from small generators
according to the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). In
cases of marginal feasibility this factor may tip the balance one way or
another. The State Public Utilities Commission has implemented a
program designed to clarify this issue. A more definitive answer may be
available in the later part of 1982.
o Environmental Uncertainties. The environmental and health aspects of
most waste-to-energy systems are only currently being defined. It is
uncertain if some of these technologies can meet existing environmental
rules and regulations without very costly process modifications or
54
-------
control procedures. Of special significance in Colorado is the air
pollution regulatory framework. An energy recovery incinerator project
currently being considered by the City and County of Denver has
identified this area as one of the major factors affecting project
feasibility. Appendix 3 is a discussion of environmental compliance
which was originally prepared for a Boulder waste-to-energy feasibility
study performed by Fred C. Hart Associates in 1981.
All of these factors affecting resource recovery feasibility create a plan-
ning and implementation atmosphere of relatively high risk and uncertainty.
Reduction in risk and uncertainty should be a major public sector priority if it
is determined that encouragement of resource recovery is a desirable goal.
Figure 7 identifies and ranks various types of impediments affecting the
success of operating waste-to-energy operations, based upon a survey taken in
1978. Any case-specific feasibility study must closely examine and analyze each
of these impediments early in the planning process.
Resource Recovery Option Comparison
There are a variety of resource recovery options which could be evaluated
as alternatives to landfilling. These range from low technology/high labor-
intensive efforts to sophisticated technological systems. Options which are
considered to be the most viable alternatives in the near-term include:
o source separation recycling; and
o incineration with heat recovery.
Additionally, a combination of the above options must be considered.
A recent comprehensive analysis of costs, performance, and
environmental acceptability and marketability (see Table 10 for criteria) of the
resource recovery options in Table 11 by the Environmental Protection Agency
rated source separation recycling and incineration with heat recovery the
highest. Experience within Colorado confirms these findings. Each option is
further discussed below.
55
-------
FIGURE 7
RELATIVE SIGNFIICANCE OF IDENTIFIED IMPEDIMENTS TO
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES*
o Inability to compete with landfill disposal fees
o Technological difficulties and limited experience
o Unrealized projections of revenue from product sales
o Government intervention in market pricing and resource allocations
o Overdesign of plant capacity
o Underestimation of initial capital costs
o Environmental regulations
o Fragmentation/conflicts of governmental authorities
o Underestimation of 0 & M costs
o Overestimation of materials recovery
o Overestimation of available waste quantities
o Pricing energy below market replacement value
o Public opposition to siting
o Local politics and labor-management problems
* Ranked from most significant to least significant from a 1978 EPA/
Mathtech survey
Source: EPA
56
-------
TABLE 10
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM RATING CRITERIA
I. PERFORMANCE
A. Reliability: System and components proven to perform dependably and
with minimum down-time.
Rating Description
High Proven performance with high reliability
Medium Adequate performance with adequate reliability
Unacceptable Inadequate performance with inconsistent reliability
B. Degree of Waste Volume Reduction
Rating Description
Higii >60%
Medium 30-59%
Low 0-29%
C. Freedom from Maintenance/Simplicity
Rating Description
High Simple; minimal skills required for operation; few or
no moving parts
Medium Moderate; intermediate in mechanical complexity; oper-
ation requires some degree of skill and/or training
Low Complex; involves sophisticated mechanical equipment;
skilled and trained operators required
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
A. Meets all minimum standards for air, noise, water and land pollution
Rating Description
Acceptable Complies with minimum standards
Unacceptable Does not meet standards
B. Maximizes resource recovery within technological limits
Rating Description
High Recovers maximum number of resources; >60% of waste
Medium Recovers moderate number of resources; 30-59% of waste
Low Recovers few resources; <29% of waste stream
III. MARKETABILITY OF RECOVERED PRODUCT(S)
Rating Description
High Product(s) have ready markets
Medium Product(s) are somewhat marketable, but prices subject
to cyclical swings
Low Product(s) difficult to market or have very low value
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
57
-------
TABLE 11
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM RATING TPD Systeni)
tJI
00
Waste Freedom from
Volume Maintenance; Environmental Resource Marketability Net
Reliability Reduction i.e., Simplicity Standards Recovery of Product(s) Cost/Ton*
Ferrous
Recovery
Compost
Compost with
Ferrous
Recovery
RDF with
Ferrous
Recovery
Incineration
with Energy
Recovery
Incineration
with Ferrous
and Energy
Recovery
Source
Separation
Medium
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Medium High
High
Medium High
Medium Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
**
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Acceptable** High
Acceptable
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
$15.38
26.70
26.05
13.61
11.68
11.95
8.16
* Cost of operating system minus revenues plus disposal of non-recovered material (costs in 1978 dollars)
** May require external air pollution control equipment.
Source. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Source Separation. The basic requirements of most source separation
systems consist of:
o Preparation and segregation of material (s) - individuals and businesses
segregate and prepare recyclables.
o Materials collection - materials are collected at the source (curbside
pick- up) or brought to a central facility by recycling patrons.
o Materials processing - each material is processed and stored according
to market specifications.
o Materials marketing - secondary materials are transported to secondary
material brokers or industrial consumers.
The materials targeted for recovery, the preparation and processing require-
ments, method of collection, and materials marketing are all dependent upon
local conditions such as:
o Markets
o Population
o Investment capital, and
o Public support.
Most source separation programs employ one or more of the following con-
cepts :
1. Curbside collection. Participants place recyclable materials in a pre-
arranged manner and at a prearranged time for collection. Curbside collection
may be multi-material (typically newspaper, glass, mixed metals) or single
material (usually newspaper or yard waste).
59
-------
A major advantage is that curbside programs usually produce the greatest
public participation and diversion of materials from landfill disposal.
Several disadvantages exist because of the collection vehicle and labor
requirements. Curbside collection is typically the most expensive approach.
Actual cash requirements are dependent upon program design, accounting, and
participation. Because of the larger volumes, materials processing, such as
baling and ferrous metal separation, is appropriate. This requires a greater
capital commitment but also yields higher market prices for materials.
2. Buy-back centers: As the name implies, buy-back centers purchase dis-
cards from the recycling patron. The centers typically purchase only the high
grade materials such as aluminum and certain grades of papers. Other materials
such as glass, bi-metal cans, and waste oil may be accepted as donations.
A primary advantage is that buy-back centers target materials, such as alu-
minum, which yield a high market value per pound. The centers purchase small
quantities of materials from individual recycling patrons and make a profit by
marketing bulk shipments of upgraded (sorted and/or prepared) materials.
Buy-back centers are generally the most capable of financial self-sufficiency
due to the limited range of materials purchased and their ability to regulate
volume by pricing.
Buy-back centers require up front cash to operate and ten to 60 days may be
required to provide a return. The recycling center must have capital-intensive
site improvements and equipment to handle significant volumes of materials.
3. Donation Centers. Donation centers accept materials solely on a dona-
tion basis and are typically small volume operations with minimal materials
processing. They can be single or multi-material and may be manned (usually
utilizies voluntary labor) or unmanned centers.
Donation centers can be established with minimal initial investment and are
appropriate for small communities which cannot justify high capital investments.
On the other hand, donation centers generally recover a very small percentage of
the recyclable materials that are available in the waste stream. Unmanned
60
-------
centers often develop problems with trash being dumped into recycle bins
resulting in high contamination levels.
4. Integrated Approach. Integration of source separation programs with
conventional garbage collection and disposal can improve a program's chance for
success.
This approach assures that components of the waste stream are recovered in
the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Highly marketable materials are
separated and sold while low demand items are coverted to energy through
incineration. Also transfer stations and landfills are ideal locations for
placement of donation centers and may be appropriate for buy-back centers.
The main disadvantages to this approach are the lack of well designed
collection equipment for separated materials and resistance of personnel to the
increased complexity of collection duties.
Incineration with Energy Recovery. The basic requirements of waste-to-
energy systems consist of:
o Collection of solid waste - collection is performed by either munici-
pal or private refuse collectors just as in a typical landfill
disposal system.
o Delivery of solid waste to the incinerator facility - waste is deli-
vered to the facility and used immediately or stored (on the order of
1-3 days) as required by consumer energy-use patterns.
o Solid waste processing - the extent of processing depends upon the
incinerator technology chosen. Processing may consist of removing
bulky or hazardous items, mixing of various waste streams or shredding
of wastes to achieve optimal heat energy.
Two important factors are necessary for the success of a waste-to-energy
facility: 1) the assured supply of an adequate volume of solid waste and
2) consumer(s) willing to purchase the energy at predetermined rates and prices.
-------
Incineration with heat recovery is advantageous because it utilizes other-
wise "lost" resources. Moreover, incineration reduces solid waste volumes
entering the landfill by 80 to 90 percent and reduces waste tonnage by 50 to 70
percent. Finally, revenues from energy sales help offset solid waste disposal
costs.
One disadvantage of incineration is that in many areas, tipping fees
charged by waste-to-energy facilities cannot compete with lower landfill
charges. In addition, waste flow control ordinances may be required to assure
that waste will be delivered to the incinerator. Incinerator air emissions
contain heavy metals and particulates, which makes siting difficult in most
areas. Furthermore, the revenues received for the produced energy may be too
low to offset cost of its generation.
Waste-to-energy systems can be developed to produce different energy
products:
1. Steam Only - most waste-to-energy incinerators produce steam as the
only energy product. It is sold for heating, cooling and/or process
uses.
Advantages: Technologies for producing only steam have had widest applica-
tion in this country. Steam production provides incinerator efficiencies of 50
to 75 percent.
Disadvantages: Few consumers requiring steam volumes such as generated by
waste-to-energy systems exist in Colorado. There are very few industries with
process steam needs. Steam generating plants need to be located relatively near
(1-2 miles) the steam consumer(s).
2. Cogeneration - refers to the generation of electric power from a
combustible fuel and the concurrent utilization of "waste" heat from
the generating process.
62
-------
Advantages: Electricity is a relatively easily saleable and transportable
product. Since the Federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA)
requires that electric utilities purchase electricity offered for sale by small
generators at the net avoided (marginal) cost to the utility, markets for
electricity from waste-to-energy systems are assured.
Disadvantages: Electricity generation dramatically reduces waste-to-energy
facility efficiencies to about 25 percent. Electricity generation from waste-
to-energy facilities has not yet been used in the United States. Interpretation
of PURPA and the term "net avoided cost" has remained relatively unclear to date
so potential revenues from electricity sales cannot be dependably predicted.
Combining waste-to-energy incineration with traditional garbage collection
and disposal can result in a more efficient solid waste management system for
the following reasons:
o Resources that would ordinarily be "lost" in the landfill are
retrieved through incineration.
o Incinerator systems significantly reduce landfill space requirements,
usually, on the order of 80 to 90 percent. There will still be a need
for landfills for incineration residues and wastes which are non-
combustible.
Combination of Source Separation and Incineration with Energy Recovery.
Combining source separation programs with waste-to-energy incinerator systems is
potentially the most cost-effective and environmentally sound solid waste
management system. Materials which are relatively easily recycled (considering
public convenience, process complexity, market stability and prices) can be
selectively removed from the collection system. The incinerator can then be
designed to process the remainder of the waste stream. Although no full-scale
combined systems currently exist in the U.S., a number of communities with
incinerators still have viable recycling programs which have been described as
being complementary rather than competing. In general, full-scale recycling
systems have been limited to capturing 10 to 20% of the total waste stream and
63
-------
most solid waste experts agree that higher percentages are not likely in the
near future. Based on this alone, recycling systems and waste-to-energy systems
may be inherently compatible.
The basic requirements of a combined solid waste management system include:
o Separation of solid waste - solid waste is separated into recyclable
and nonrecyclable portions by individuals and businesses.
o Collection - the separated solid waste stream portions are collected
either with modified conventional collection equipment or transported
separately by combining commercial collection of solid waste with one
or more of the collection methods mentioned in the source separation
section.
o Processing - waste stream portions are delivered to the appropriate
facilities and processed as required.
A primary advantage of this combined system is that source separation of
recyclable materials reduces capacity requirements for the landfill and the mod-
ular incinerator, a situation potentially resulting in reduced total costs.
Source separation also removes noncombustibles from the waste stream which can
cause maintenance problems in the incinerator. Nonrenewable resources (usually
noncombustible) are recovered and renewable resources are salvaged in the form
of energy. Solid waste management is more efficient because the waste stream
can be managed in response to material and energy market forces. Moreover, in
the event that one form of resource recovery option is not economically justifi-
ed, an alternative system is functioning to replace it. In addition, incinera-
tion retrieves resources for which recycling technologies or markets do not
exist.
Disadvantages of combined source separation and incineration include possi-
ble competition for materials, such as paper and plastic, thereby reducing
viability of one or the other or both. Also, combining resource recovery sys-
tems increases the complexity and, potentially, the costs of waste collection
and processing.
64
-------
Study of waste-to-energy feasibility in Boulder, Colorado concluded that
there is no basic incompatibility between the continued existence of Eco-Cycle,
the highest-volume nonprofit recycling group in Colorado, and the existence of a
waste-to-energy facility. The report by Fred C. Hart Associates explained that
Eco-Cycle, by realizing its projected higher participation level, could cause a
smaller resource recovery facility size resulting in potential loss of scale
economies and loss of some revenues. However, total waste disposal costs for
the County may be lower since the portion of the waste they remove is handled
at low cost. At its projected level, Eco-Cycle would remove substantial amounts
of combustible material (paper) from the waste stream, but the amount of paper
removed would not have a marked impact on the composition of the remaining
stream. Removing 38 TPD of paper and 14 TPD of nonccmbustibles leaves the
remaining waste stream 69.5 per cent combustible, reducing the percentage of
combustible material 1n the waste stream by only 0.5 percent.
Table 12 summarizes the issues relating to certain specific factors which
may influence consideration and implementation of source separation recycling
and incineration with heat recovery. The factors have been identified as major
concerns by parties in Colorado who were contacted during the research efforts
conducted to complete this study.
65
-------
TABLE 12
FACTORS AFFECTING SOURCE SEPARATION AND INCINERATION POTENTIAL IN COLORADO
Factors
Community Attitudes
Source
Separation Recycling
o prevailing belief that it
is a major contribution
to the community
o commonly thought to be
inconvenient (too much
work, creates clutter,
takes up space around
homes and offices)
Inci neration
With Energy Recovery
o lack of awareness
about waste-to-
energy systems
o public opinion
strongly supports
renewable energy
suppli es
towards
non-
resistance
profit, government
subsidized recycling in
some cases
do not want major
facilities near
residences
o scavengers steal curbside
materials during
high-market periods
o do not want storage areas
near residences
Involvement and Education
potentially involves a
large segment of
community thereby in-
creasing awareness of
conservation, litter,
and packaging issues
public involvement
with the system
essentially
non-existent so
the public
perceives no change
in involvement
Air Pollution
community
extremely
success
involvement is
important for
o could improve air pollu-
tion problems through use
of fewer natural resources
o requires education
to overcome
resistance to
siting facilities
in populated areas
o potential for new
air pollution
sources
66
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
FACTORS AFFECTING SOURCE SEPARATION AND INCINERATION POTENTIAL IN COLORADO
Factors
Numbers of Jobs Created
Other Demonstrated Effects
Source
Separation Recycling
o typically very labor-in-
tensive in all phases
o subject to labor cutbacks
due to materials market
fluctuations
o reduces landfill space
and/or incinerator volume
requi rements
o potential to reduce waste
generation by producing
changes in packaging, con-
sumption and disposal
patterns due to increased
complexity of waste dis-
posal for individuals
o benefits incineration
facilities by removing
noncombustibles from the
waste stream
Incineration
With Energy Recovery
o potential to in-
crease the number
of jobs, although
it can be less
labor- intensive
than landfilling;
important to match
personnel to
required skills
o collection and
transportation
labor may remain
unchanged
o utilizes materi-
als that are not
usually recycled
due to lack of
technology or lack
of markets
coupled with
source separation
can provide the
most efficient use
of waste stream
Institutional/Legal
Barriers
o strict resource recovery
specifications by buyer
o freight rates which de-
scriminate against recycled
materi al s
o collection system and
vehicles not geared to
separated materials
o control of waste
stream essential
yet may not be
possible under
current laws
o air pollution
control require-
ments may be
restri cti ve
67
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
FACTORS AFFECTING SOURCE SEPARATION AND INCINERATION POTENTIAL IN COLORADO
Factors
Institutional/Legal
Source
Separation Recycling
o subsidized recycling
competing for limited
markets in some instances
with private enterprise
flow control laws may
eliminate or severely
restrict materials going
to recycle centers
Incineration
With Energy Recovery
o difficult to
finance in many
cases due to high
capital costs
o jurisdictional
problems
o high risk of
implementation
Nuisance Conditions
o collection points such as
curbsides, drop-off cen-
ters, processing and
storage centers may be
unsightly
o improperly contained and
prepared recyclable
materials can cause
litter, aesthetic and
vector problems
o may increase truck
traffic, conges-
tion in vicinity
of incinerator
o potential for
garbage processing
facility to be
located in resi-
dential, commer-
cial areas
68
-------
IV. COMPARISON OF LANDFILL AND RESOURCE RECOVERY OPTIONS
Rationale and Basis for Analysis
If the incorporation of resource recovery options in solid waste management
is to increase, its costs, benefits and uncertainties must be quantified. In
this regard, four major categories of benefits and costs can be discussed.
These include:
o production of energy from the conversion of wastes;
o energy savings of using recycled materials compared to the use of
virgin materials;
o space saved at landfills by diverting wastes from this destination;
and
o costs of landfill disposal versus resource recovery.
These categories are quantified for each of the four representative
communities. As a basis for analysis, resource recovery potential for each
community has been estimated. These scenarios have been developed through
consideration of such factors as:
o factors affecting markets and market potential;
o existence and severity of solid waste management problems; and
o characteristics of the community.
These scenarios do not describe current resource recovery activity, nor do they
describe what is necessarily likely to happen in the future. Rather, they
attempt to describe short-term, maximum feasible resource recovery levels
assuming near-optimal conditions of currently existing markets and institutions.
69
-------
While the scenarios provide useful information for comparative purposes, it is
the concepts of analysis which are more important in this and other applica-
tions. The evaluative concepts are discussed below.
Resource Recovery as a Partial Solution to Both Solid Waste and Energy Problems
Resource recovery can result in substantial energy savings in addition to
reducing solid waste management problems. Energy benefits result from two
processes:
o the production of energy through conversion of the waste supply; and
o energy savings through recycling as an alternative to production and
processing of virgin raw materials.
The first benefit is directly realized by the local community, while the second
is of primary benefit from a national or regional perspective. The calculation
of energy benefits for each process is shown below.
Production of Energy. The Btu value of a waste stream is dependent upon
waste stream composition. Figure 8 depicts the variation of heat values for the
paper, plastic, organic and wood components of a waste stream. These components
are usually the most combustible materials found in a typical waste stream in
significant quantities. Plastic has by far the highest heat value at 36 million
Btu/ton of material. Paper and wood are about equal at 15.5 million Btu/ton and
16 million Btu/ton respectively. By way of comparison, coal has a heating value
of approximately 22 million Btu/ton and oil has a heating value of 36 million
Btu/ton.
An awareness of the comparative heat values of various waste stream compo-
nents is a valuable tool in the management of incineration facilities. Knowl-
edgeable operators can selectively utilize specialized waste streams to obtain
an optimal operational effect.
70
-------
Millions of
Btu's per
Ton
-------
Component heat values are also used to determine the composite heat value
of "typical" municipal solid waste streams. An example is illustrated as
follows:
"Typical Waste Stream" Btu Value
Paper - 31.9 percent (by weight
of total waste stream)
Plastic - 4 percent:.
Organics - 34.7 percent:
Wood - 3.9 percent:
(15.5 x 106 Btu/ton) x 0.319
= 4.94 x 10® Btu/ton
(36 x 106 Btu/ton) x 0.04
= 1.44 x 10® Btu/ton
( 4 x 10® Btu/ton) x 0.347
= 1.39 x 10® Btu/ton
(16 x 106 Btu/ton) x 0.039
= 0.62 x 10® Btu/ton
Total = 8.39 x 10® Btu/ton = 4,200 Btu/lb.
The calculations produce an estimate for the heat value of a "typical"
pound of solid waste of 4,200 Btu. Estimates ranging from 4,000 to 5,000
Btu/lb. are widely utilized as standards in resource recovery reference
materials and engineering studies. 4,500 Btu/lb is utilized in this report. If
specific composition data are available during the evaluation of options, these
data should be substituted for the more generalized data. In situations where
the waste stream yields both materials and energy, the Btu content change of the
waste stream can be estimated using Table 13.
Saving of Energy. Various attempts at quantifying energy savings through
recycling of materials compared to utilizing virgin materials have been
conducted. While there is some disagreement over the actual energy quantities
saved, the following data are representative of the significant energy impact of
recycling.
72
-------
TABLE 13
BTU AND FUEL SAVINGS ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
sooo sru/ib
MTEftlAL
S HMuction in Wutt 5tr»«io
10
U
40
SO
50
70
90
ICO
itevsMDtr
.33
.St
.<9
.32
.IS
Cemioiud
.34
.33
¦*?
.33
.20
Pimr
.33
.33
.(9
.32
.IS
Mnd Ptsvr
.33
.70
.S3
.40
.23
Aliarlitia Cam
¦F«rrou« tint
»
BTU YA
LUC
_S1M»
5SOO BTU/lh
MATERIAL
I RMuction in Uuu Itrte*
!0
20
X 1 40
SO
U
;o
X
100
Nmmmt
.33
.39
.54
.38
Carnraatad
.33
.71
• S3
.42
.27
.13
H1 attend* 'imt
• SS
.39
.54
.33
Hind Pto«r
.St
.73
LJi_
.45
,ia
6000 BTU/lb
WTWIAL
x Reducl
ion In U«st( Str*ta
10
20
30
40
50
50
70
SO
W
10a
Nmmmt
.86
•7?
.58
.43
.i9
Camm tad
.37
•7?
.30
.47
H1«v-Srid« ?mr
.38
.72
.58
.4]
.15
Hind Pio«r
.38
.73
.33
.30
.38
.25
.13
MATERIAL
X Reduction in 1«U 5tna
10
20
33
40
50
oo
10
a
9(1
100
nmmmt
.38
.78
.34
.51
.39
Cormatud
.39
.77
.56
.54
.43
.31
Hlqft-SrvM Hour
.38
.76
.34
.51
.39
.27
.IS
Mad Piocr
.39
J?.
.61?
.57
.48
*3L.
.23
.14
7800 BTU/lb
MATERIAL
x Reduction in Vtsu
Straw
10
20
30
40
SO
60
7T
a
W
100
nmmmt
.39
.77
.38
.53
.46
Corrwitad
.79
.38
.57
.47
.39
.25
H1oft>6rad« Piwr
.39
,77
.36
.53
.46
.32
.22
Mxad ftotr
.90
.30
.70
.30
.50
.40
.X
.20
.10
To use table, locate the subtable for appropriate baseline BTU
valu£ of a specific waste stream. Find the material being separated
in the first column. Move across the table to the percent value
equal to the percent of material being recovered. Read adjustment
factor and multiply BTU value of waste stream by this factor to
determine the new BTU value of the waste stream. For example, in a
waste stream with 7000 BTU per pound, where corrugated material is
20 percent of the waste stream and 70 percent of that is recovered,
the recovered paper represents 14 percent of the waste stream. The
adjustment factor for corrugated from the 7000 BTU per pound table is
between 0.89 and 0.77. Interpolation yields a factor of 0.84. Thus
the remaining waste contains 0.34 x 7000 BTU per pound or 5830 BTU
BTU per pound.
Source: EPA, Small-scale and Low-technology Resource Recovery
Study" 1979.
73
-------
Net Energy Savings from the Use of Recycled Materials
106 Btu/Ton
Estimate?
Range-
Percent Savings 1
Estimate?
Range-
Ferrous Metals
Alumi num
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Paper/Newspaper
Glass
Rubber
15.5
224
94.7
17.5
39.3
35.5
22.1
11.1-40.3
169-281
40.3-94.7
5.5-17.5
11.8-47.0
5.2-35.5
1.3-2.5
22.0-22.1
65
92
85
65
60
64
71
50-74
92-97
84-95
56-65
60-72
23-70
0-14
70-71
Data Compiled by JRB Associates.
1 Realized savings resulting from use of recycled materials as compared with
total energy expended in refining new materials.
2 From the National Association of Recycling Industries.
3 Estimated range from various sources.
Land Savings Through Landfill Diversion
The compacted in-place density of municipal waste in Colorado is estimated
to range from 400 lbs. to 1,200 lbs. per cubic yard (with 700 lbs. per yd.3 as
an average). The actual density is primarily dependent on the density of the
waste as it is brought to the landfill and the degree of compaction provided by
the particular landfill equipment utilized. Landfills in Colorado range in
depth from 8 to 100 feet or greater with an average depth on the order of 20
feet. Generally landfill facilities in Colorado utilize one of two methods of
operation. These methods are termed trench-fill and area-fill. In most
trenching operations approximately half of the land available for the
landfilling is utilized for actual deposition of waste; area-fill operations
utilize on the order of 75 percent of the available land.
74
-------
The total municipal solid waste stream for Colorado is estimated to be 600
tons per day. Assuming an in-place compaction density of 700 lbs. per yard3,
an average landfill depth of 20 feet, and that approximately twice as much total
land is needed for a landfill than the amount of land in/on which waste is
deposited, the total area of land that is utilized through landfilling in
Colorado is on the order of 385 acres per year. Thus, for every one percent of
the waste stream diverted from the landfill, approximately 3.85 acres of surface
land is saved per year.
Cost Comparison of Options
The cost-effectiveness of any resource recovery system is a function of six
variables: 1) capital costs; 2) operating and maintenance (0&M) costs; 3)
collection/transportation costs; 4) revenues received for the recovered
materials and energy; 5) tipping fees; and 6) the cost of landfilling, the
disposal alternative. These factors are combined in the following way to deter-
mine cost-effectiveness:
Cost of Option - Revenues = Required Tipping Fee
An economic analysis of source separation programs is normally done in a
slightly different manner than that for incineration with heat recovery. This
is due to the fact that source separation is concerned only with specific
materials within the waste stream rather than the total waste stream which would
be burned in an incinerator. Therefore, economic viability of source separation
would be indicated in those situations where revenues for the sale of specific
waste materials is greater than the cost of operating the program. A revenue/
cost comparison could also include a credit given to the resource recovery
alternative for diversion of materials from the landfill. More specifically, a
given amount of money would have to be spent to dispose of these wastes in a
landfill; since the goal of disposal is still accomplished through resource
recovery, this amount of money could be credited to the resource recovery opera-
tion as a revenue.
Cost-effectiveness does not mean that the lowest cost alternative would be
chosen in every case. For example, government may choose to consider other
75
-------
variables such as providing subsidies and/or Incentives to provide a system as a
public service. The private sector is most likely to apply cost-effectiveness
evaluation and implement the highest profit option. Private sector resource
recovery operators, such as a paper recycler, however, will only obtain revenue
from the sale of paper. Cost savings at the landfill (due to diversion of waste
material) will not be realized by the recycler. Therefore, although paper
recycling may be cost-effective when considering total solid waste management
system costs, a paper recycling operation may not be profitable.
Collection and transportation costs are typically a very significant por-
tion of overall waste management system costs. In fact, these costs generally
account for 75%-90% of the total. High population densities, public resistance
to landfill siting and regionalization of landfills have all influenced siting
of new landfills at increasingly greater distances from waste sources. Because
waste-to-energy facilities tend to be located nearer to population centers
(because of relatively small acreage requirements, neccessity to be near
industrial energy users, and greater public acceptance of waste-to-energy
facilities than landfills) the savings in transportation costs to waste haulers
can compensate for higher tipping fees.
Resource Recovery Scenarios
Resource recovery scenarios were developed in order to compare resource
recovery options to landfilling. Table 14 presents, for the four communities
examined, the estimated amount of solid waste generated each day and the
assessed estimate of the maximum practical level of recycling in terms of
percentage of the waste stream and tons.
The estimation of the maximum practical percentage of recyclable materials
required the use of a number of assumptions and subjective judgements. The
process of arriving at these estimations is as follows. First, current and
historic levels of recycling during periods of high and low prices were
determined as accurately as possible. These figures were provided by local
recyclers although in many cases figures were not or could not be reported
because data was unavailable or proprietary. When local data were not
available, state or nationwide estimates were used. Next, existing recycling
76
-------
TABLE 14
RECYCLING SCENARIOS
Solid Waste
Component
Paper
Newsprint
Cardboard
Other
Glass
Metal
Ferrous
Non-ferrous
Plastic
Yard
Food
Mood
Mlscellaneous
TOTALS
Tons Discarded
Per Day
Denver
111
102
294
154
119
21
64
286
265
62
111
1589
Loveland
2.6
2.3
6.8
3.5
2.7
0.5
1.5
6.5
6.1
1.4-
2.6
36.5
Montrose
1.9
1.7
5.0
2.6
2.0
0.4
1.1
4.5
4.9
1.1
1.8
27.0
Vail
1.2
1.1
3.2
1.3
1.4
0.3
0.9
3.6
0.9
0.9
1.2
16.0
Maximum Practical
Percentage Recyclable
Denver
65
65
65
30
5
50
0
0
0
0
0
Loveland
25
25
25
15
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
Montrose
0
5
0
5
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
Va1l
0
0
0
5
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
Tons Recyclable
Per Day
Denver
72
66
191
46
6
11
0
0
0
0
0
392
Loveland
0.7
0.6
1.7
0.5
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
3.7
Montrose
0
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
Source: Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
-------
operations and systems were evaluated. Areas with functioning recycling groups
have much greater potential for continued and/or expanded activity than areas
without these operations. Additionally, the level of development of the
recycling operations was assessed. Organizations which process a variety of
materials, have one or more methods of collection and which have developed
extensive and stable market (buying and selling) networks have a much greater
potential for increasing the volume of the recycled materials. Community
attitudes and awareness were also taken into account. Factors which were
considered indicative of attitudes that affect recycling include the existence
or lack of a local volunteer recycling effort, the predominant economic
activities of the area and any other information which was available and
applicable. Markets were also considered in terms of existence, stability,
location and ability to accept greater volumes of materials.
It was then assumed that all of the conditions and characteristics would
remain essentially unchanged in the near future. That is, no major market
expansions will occur. It was assumed that markets are relatively strong,
prices paid are at the upper levels, and that participation is relatively
strong. Therefore, the maximum practical percentage recyclable represents an
estimate of levels which could be achieved at the present time, under favorable
conditions. Changes in governmental influence, local and regional location of
secondary material buyers, removal of constraints, willingness to bear risk,
etc. could result in substantial market changes, thereby encouraging recycling
efforts beyond the estimates provided in Table 14.
Analysis of Scenarios
Energy Savings and Recycling Revenues. Table 15 presents potential energy
savings and revenues from recycling the quantities of materials specified in the
scenarios. The material and energy values are implicity reflected in the price
buyers are willing to pay for these recycled materials.
Revenue estimates are based upon prices quoted by Denver area recyclers as
typical of their markets. (Newsprint-$25/ton, cardboard-$40/ton, other paper-
$90/ton, glass-$30/ton, ferrous metals-$140/ton, other metals - primarily alumi-
num-$700/ton).
78
-------
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND REVENUES FROM RECYCLING THE
MAXIMUM PRACTICAL PERCENTAGE OF SOLID HASTE IN FOUR COMMUNITIES
Community
Maximum
Practical Tons
Recyclable Per Day
Total Energy Savings
(Millions of Btu
per Day)
Equivalent to
Barrels of Oil/Day
Potenti al
Revenues ($/year)
Revenues Per Ton
Recycled ($)
Denver
392
6,935
1,196
11,500,000
80
Loveland
3.7
79
13.1
128,000
95
Montrose
0.3
18
3.1
28,100
256
Vail
0.2
17.1
295
26,600
365
-------
Small communities which are far from the Denver Metro Area such as Montrose
and Vail can only be expected to recycle high value materials, the revenues of
which can offset high transportation costs. The last column in Table 15
illustrates this factor. By recycling the maximum practical percentage of the
waste stream, Denver and Loveland could receive an average of $80-$95/ton where-
as Montrose and Vail could receive $256/ton and $365/ton, respectively. The
smaller communities could economically recycle only aluminum and perhaps very
small amounts of other items locally.
It is difficult to estimate realistic costs for recycling operations. This
is due to uncertainties such as:
o the type of source separation facility most appropriate to each
community (e.g. a drop-off center essentially gives the recyclable
material to a middleman at no cost, while a buy-back center results in
a direct cost to the middleman); and
o the importance of transportation costs incurred for delivery of
materials on a small scale basis.
On a very general basis, however, costs and revenues can be compared. Few
studies exist in the literature which quantify source separation costs and cost
estimation methodologies. A study performed in Nottingham, New Hampshire
entitled "Economics of a Small Rural Town Recycling System: Implications of a
Case Study" was an early attempt at quantifying a system. Appendix 4 is taken
directly from the New Hampshire report which presents the framework utilized in
Nottingham to develop recycling costs (capital, operating, and transportation
costs and revenues).
The Nottingham experience serves as a good model for Colorado communities
interested in establishing recycling systems. The level of detail necessary to
utilize this model is beyond the'scope of this report; however, for illustrative
purposes, two source separation systems have been developed and costed (see
Tables 16 and 17) for the Colorado representative communities.
80
-------
TABLE 16
VAIL OR MONTROSE DROP-OFF CENTER COST ANALYSIS
Capital Costs
Equipment
Containers (2)
Miscellaneous
Total
Construction and Land
Building and Land-donated
Site Development
Total
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS - ANNUALIZED
Operating Costs
Labor: 1.5 operators
Energy
Maintenance
Supplies
Site Upkeep
Miscellaneous
Contract Hauling (24 trips at $200/trip)
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS - ANNUAL
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS
Amortization Annual
Cost($) Life Factor (10%) Cost($)
6,000 5 0.264 1,584
1,000 5 0.264 264
7,000 1,848
0
4,000 20 0.117 468
4,000 468
2,316
18,000
1,000
500
500
300
500
4,800
25,600
27,916
81
-------
TABLE 17
LOVELAND ALUMINUM BUY-BACK/DROP-OFF COST ANALYSIS
Amortization Annual
Capital Costs Cost($) Life Factor (10%) Cost($)
Equipment
Containers (4) 2,800 5 0.264 739
Skidsteer Loader 10,000 5 0.264 2,640
(w/Forklift Attachment)
Flatbed Truck 30,000 5 0.264 7,920
Compactor/Baler 12,000 5 0.264 3,168
Miscellaneous 3,000 5 0.264 792
Total 57,800 15,259
Construction and Land
Buildings and Land 25,000 20 0.117 2,925
(plus donated)
Site Development 10,000 20 0.117 1,170
Total 35,000 4,095
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS - ANNUALIZED 19,354
Operating Costs
Labor: 2.5 operators 30,000
Energy 10,000
Maintenance 2,700
Supplies 1,000
Site Upkeep 1,000
Miscellaneous 1,000
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS - ANNUAL 45,700
TOTAL BUY-BACK FOR ALUMINUM 16,400
(300 lbs/day at $.15/1b)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS 81,454
82
-------
For Vail and Montrose, dropoff centers for paper and aluminum were
developed; for Loveland, a combination dropoff/aluminum buy-back center was
developed. Because there can be no one "typical" operation in Denver, costs in
Denver would be highly variable; therefore, a Denver system was not developed or
costed. It should be emphasized that the type and costs of an actual system for
each one of these communities would be very case-specific and are likely to
differ substantially from these cost estimates. For example, if used equipment
were available, or if donations of material, equipment, labor, etc. could be
obtained, the cost estimates would change dramatically. However, as a general
indicator, the systems in Tables 16 and 17 will suffice. Using the recycling
scenarios presented above, cost/revenue comparisons can be made as follows:
Loveland Montrose Vail
Annual System Cost
$ 81,454 $ 27,916 $ 27,916
Annual Revenue
$ 128,000 $ 28,100 $ 26,600
Annual Profit or Loss
$ 46,546 $ 184 $ -1,316
If the amount of money which would have been spent on landfill disposal were
credited (as a revenue) to the source separation systems, the cost/revenue
comparison would be:
Loveland Montrose
Vai 1
Estimated Landfill Costs ($/ton) $ 3.60
$ 4.30 $ 3.15
Tons Recycled per day
3.7
.3
.2
Additional Annual Revenue
$ 4,862
$ 471 $ 230
Total Annual Profit or Loss
(including profit or loss
from above)
$51,408
$ 655 $-1,086
83
-------
Experience in California (as expressed in "Energy Analysis of Secondary
Material Use in Product Manufacture," California Solid Waste Management Board)
may shed further light on the situation. Generally, the appropriate collection
method relates to volume handled and is estimated to be:
o drop-off center: 10-50 tons per month;
o buy-back: 50-500 tons per month;
o curbside collection: 100 - 600 tons per month.
Each system will be unique in terms of staffing, material processing, storage,
transportation equipment and degree of subsidy (e.g. volunteer help, donated
equipment, and grants from various groups and levels of government). Levels of
sophistication and costs increase from drop-off through curbside collection.
The drop-off type system is characterized by a monthly throughput of less
than 50 tons per month of recyclables (paper, aluminum, ferrous cans, and
glass), nearly all volunteer help, and donated land and equipment.
Curbside collection systems have generally evolved from existing drop-off
recycling centers in order to increase tonnages of recycled materials from resi-
dences. One collection method used for source separated materials employs
several auxiliary small capacity 3-wheeled scooters whose manueverability
facilitates pick-up in high density residential areas. These vehicles work in
conjunction with a large capacity transfer truck. Another system involves the
use of a flatbed truck with or without numerous one to two cubic yard bins for
the collection of newsprint, mixed glass, aluminum, and ferrous metals.
Attempts to have employees of the residential waste collection service
pick-up recyclable materials in addition to regular garbage has had little
success. Employees resent the extra time required and concomittantly, effective
integrated collection vehicles are not yet available.
To provide a perspective of the relative net revenues (net revenue = costs
- revenues received for sale of the recyclables) associated with each of these
systems, Figure 9 presents a financial comparison of the various source separa-
tion systems from actual operations in California. Figure 9 demonstrates that
84
-------
FIGURE 9
FINANCIAL COMPARISON OF RECYCLING
SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA
I
<2
40
20
•20
-40
-60
_ o —
IS-'A g
_ — — -3d o
o
— — o
IS?'A +
* —
~~ ak *
.ax:
so
.100
2&
//
3C0
— _ A
7Wi«/Mrmfh
I /.CO
sk*
/ /
/ ~
• * * * • (CDC) Canftunicy Dvop-o£f Ceicer
O a a a (ISA) Integrated Systos/v alunirnin Buyback
• • • • (BS) Buyback (Miltl-fnateri»l)
~~ ~ + CISNM Integrated System, no aiusbur buyback
• t g x (SM) Separate Curbside CoUeceio-.i/w alinripim buyback
iiii (SUA) Separate Qiibaide Collecticn. no aluirinn buyback
Source: State of California, Energy Analysis of Secondary Materia
Use in Product Manufacture, 1930
85
-------
an aluminum buy-back program in any system contributes significantly to its
economic viability.
Using the California experience as a basis, only Denver among the represen-
tative communities could support a curbside collection system. A buy-back
system would be appropriate in Loveland, while drop-off centers are the most
practical option in Vail and Montrose.
Space Savings from Landfill Diversion. According to the maximum practical
recycling scenarios discussed above, the following land at landfill sites could
be saved yearly:
Energy Production. A waste-to-energy facility could process a significant
portion of Denver's waste stream for purposes of energy recovery. The City and
County of Denver is seriously considering this solid waste management option at
the current time. Table 18 presents a simplified cost analysis for a 450 ton
per day (TPD) incineration facility with heat recovery in Denver. A tipping fee
of $7 per ton would be necessary to ensure a facility breakeven point. Current
tipping fees at Denver's landfills are on the order of $5 per ton and are
expected to rise to $7 per ton in the near future. If comprehensive methane gas
and leachate control and monitoring actions were added to the "real cost" of
operating a landfill, the total required tipping fee at a 450 TPD landfill in
Denver could rise from $7 to $10 per ton (based upon a 1980 Fred C. Hart
Associates study entitled "Technology, Prevalence and Economics of Landfill
Disposal of Solid Waste" completed for the U.S. EPA). Therefore, the resource
recovery option appears to be very viable under these conditions.
Acres/Year
Denver
Loveland
Montrose
Vail
25.15
0.24
0.019
0.013
86
-------
TABLE 18
COST ANALYSIS FOR A 450 TON PER DAY DENVER
WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY
$/ton
1. Debt Service (include capital cost, fees, interest, etc.) 16
2. Operating and Maintenance Cost 16
3. Transportation Cost (assumed to be $0 for comparison purposes) 0
4. Energy Product Revenue 25
Required tipping fee = 16 + 16 - 25 = $7/ton
Source: City and County of Denver, 1982
87
-------
Additionally, since transportation costs generally account for a majority
of the total cost of waste collection and disposal (currently estimated to be an
average of $40/ton), the transportation cost savings obtained through efficient
siting of a waste-to-energy facility may further favor the resource recovery
option.
Assuming that an energy user could be found in the other representative
communities, comparisons can also be made between the resource recovery facility
and landfill tipping fees (see Table 3). For comparative purposes, a model 25
TPD waste-to-energy facility was developed and costed based on a review of the
literature (see Table 19). Comparison of the tipping fees are as follows:
Loveland Montrose Vail
Estimated Landfill Cost ($/ton) $ 3.60 $ 4.30 $ 3.15
Energy Recovery Facility ($/ton) 22.00 22.00 22.00
Therefore, even if landfill costs are grossly underestimated, the energy recov-
ery option does not appear to be economically viable in the short-term.
Waste-to-energy incineration could have direct implications in other cities
in Colorado. Feasibility studies have recently been conducted in both Eagle
County (includes Vail), Larimer County (includes Loveland) and Boulder County.
There are no secure markets for the recovered energy resources in any of these
three areas. However, Boulder and the Public Service Company are continuing
negotiations regarding the sale of steam and/or electricity from a modular
incinerator.
Several references, which provide institutional and technical guidance,
exist in the literature regarding waste-to-energy incinerators. A reference
88
-------
TABLE 19
COST ANALYSIS FOR A 25 TON PER DAY INCINERATION FACILITY
1. Capital Costs
Capital Costs = $1,500,000
Amortized capital cost per ton processed
= Capital costs ($) x CRF*
365 days/yr. x design capacity (TPD) x utilization factor^
= $1,500,000 x 0.11746
365 x 25 x .85
= $22.71
Say $23.00/ton
2. Operating and Maintenance Costs
= $21.00 per ton processed
3. Transportation Costs - assumed to be $0
4. Revenues Generated
Revenues per ton processed = 4,500 Btu x 2,000 lbs x 0.55 (efficiency)
1 b. ton
x $4.50 = $22.28/ton
"l0®Btu
Say $22.00/ton
5. Tipping Fee
Tipping Fee = Capital Costs + O&M Costs + Transportation
Costs - Revenues
= $23 + $21 + $0 - $22 = $22
6. Energy Generated Per Day^
= 25 TPD x 4,500 Btu x 2,000 lbs. x 0.55 (efficiency)
lb. ton
x 0.85 (utilization factor)
= 105 x 106 Btu/day
t 5.8 x 10® Btu/barrels of oil
equivalent to 18 barrels of oil in energy value.
1. CRF = Capital Recovery Factor (20 years at 10% interest)
2. A utilization factor accounts for downtime of the incinerator due to
maintenance and mechanical failures.
3. The energy generated from a solid waste incinerator is in the form of steam
or electricity. The conversion to barrels of oil is presented to provide a
frame of reference.
89
-------
entitled "Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery: A Technical,
Environmental and Economic Evaluation"! provides good background material for
incinerator systems the size and type of which might be utilized in Colorado in
the near future.
Summary of Resource Recovery Analysis for Representative Communities. A
number of concepts and evaluative techniques have been introduced in order to
provide information to be used in evaluating the costs and benefits of source
separation and waste-to-energy options. These concepts and techniques have been
applied to the four Colorado representative communities in order to estimate:
o current landfill costs;
o maximum practical tons (MPT) recycled;
o energy savings from recycling the MPT;
o potential revenues from recycling the MPT;
o annual profit or loss from one potential recycling operation in each
community;
o revenue saved by diverting the MPT from the landfill through
recycli ng;
o space saved by diverting the MPT from the landfill through recycling;
and
o tipping fee for one potential waste-to-energy operation in each
community.
Table 20 summarizes the results of analysis for each representative
community.
iFrounfelker, Richard, 1979, Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 65 p.
90
-------
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY ANALYSES
Denver
Loveland
Montrose
Vail
Current Estimated Landfill Cost ($/ton)
5.00
$ 3.60
$ 4.30
$ 3.15
Maximum Practical Tons Recycled
(tons/day)
392
3.7
.3
.2
Energy Savings from Recycling
(million Btu/day)
Potential Revenues from Recycling
($/year)
6,935
$11,500,000
79
$128,000
18
$28,100
17.1
$26,600
Annual Profit or Loss from One
Potential Recycling operation ($/year)
highly variable $ 46,546
$ 184
-$ 1,316
Revenue Saved by Diverting
Wastes from Landfill through Recycling ($/year)
$ 715,400
$ 4,862
$ 471
$ 230
Space Saved by Diverting Wastes from
Landfill through Recycling (acres/year)
25.15
0.24
0.019
0.013
Tipping Fee for one Potential
Waste-to-Energy Facility ($/ton)
7.00
$ 22.00
$ 22.00
$ 22.00
-------
V. POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS
Potential State Government Roles
There are several areas where an increased role by Colorado State Govern-
ment may be appropriate. This supportive role could concentrate on the elimina-
tion of barriers and constraints so that resource recovery options can be ade-
quately considered in the decision-making process at the local level. This pro-
cess has already been initiated by the State government. Of special note in
this regard are the landfill tax and/or user surcharge established in the 1981
hazardous waste legislation (S.B. 519). These funds can be appropriated by the
County governments for the purpose of financing solid waste management activi-
ties including resource recovery. The State has also shown its far-sightedness
in other areas such as alternative energy supply and conservation tax credits.
This program is among the best in the nation. There is a possibility for simi-
lar programs for resource recovery. These programs allow implementation at the
local government or individual level, yet provide the necessary'stimulus at the
State level to encourage actions which have a long term public benefit.
Two general areas in which state government could play an active role
involve information and markets. Both of these areas can act as major obstacles
to resource recovery consideration and implementation, yet can be overcome in
certain instances through appropriate strategies and awareness. The information
role would fill important data gaps necessary for proper decision-making, while
the market role would provide direct and/or indirect stimulus of the demand for
secondary materials or energy from wastes. State action could lead to:
o increased recognition of solid waste management problems which exist now
or will exist in the future;
o increased consideration of resource recovery in local government and
private sector decision-making processes; and
o stimulation of private sector activities through incentives and enhanced
markets.
Discussion of each category of possible state action follows below.
92
-------
Information. Informational constraints are a major hindrance in the
consideration of the resource recovery option by local governments. Vital
information currently not readily available includes:
o accurate landfill and other solid waste management cost data;
o waste characterization (quantity and quality) data;
o the availability of technical assistance for local decision-makers; and
o general educational materials on the benefits and costs of the various
management options for the general public and local government decision-
makers.
A comprehensive effort to obtain and disseminate this information would be of
great value to planners assessing the case-specific feasibility of resource
recovery. Such actions would also provide an impetus to re-evaluate existing
solid waste practices which may no longer be appropriate due to excessive costs,
environmental problems, etc.
Markets. In any discussion of the consideration and/or implementation of
resource recovery, the factor of markets must included. The markets which
control the economic viability of resource recovery generally are not influenced
by a single community. The existence of markets (or the development of markets
where none exist) is of critical importance in the successful achievement of
resource recovery implementation. Certain materials (e.g., aluminum cans) have
established stable markets which are attractive to a wide variety of individuals
groups and businesses. Other materials have either less stable or highly
localized markets which are not readily accessible to those who generate or
collect wastes.
In resource recovery projects, there are inherent risks which act as
deterrents to investment. The incentives that can be used to compensate for the
risks must be consonant with the particular markets, technology and economic
uncertainties. Unproven technologies may require research and development while
technologies that are already successful may require incentives to encourage
93
-------
commercialization. Low technology options may simply require initial front-end
capital. Following is a brief description and analysis of the types of economic
incentives which should be considered as possibilities for government
involvement in resource recovery. Table 21 provides a summary of the effects
these incentives tend to have on decision making.
Incentives such as floor prices and contract prices are grouped under the
broad term of price incentives. Price incentives aim to encourage activity by
assuring profits to suppliers through control of the end product price. These
are also called price supports or guarantees. More specifically, floor pricing
refers to a scenario whereby the government agrees to buy all of the product
and then resells the product at market prices. The advantages to this type of
incentive program are that the government does not choose processes for develop-
ment, efficiency is encouraged, very little administrative effort is required
and the initial risk of the project falls largely on the investor. Disadvant-
ages include a possibly overwhelming financial burden to the government. The
potential burden could be reduced by requirements for prior government approval
of development plans. Also, artificial pricing of any kind may contribute to
artificially higher consumption of a more expensive product which results in
higher cost to society as a whole.
Contract pricing is essentially the same as floor pricing except that con-
tracts are individually negotiated with sponsors of specific projects. Under
this system, the government chooses technological processes for development by
awarding preferential contract terms. It also allows the government to limit
its financial liability by controlling output. Again, this may lead to an arti-
ficially low price for the product and consequent overuse. Other disadvantages
are that administrative costs are much higher as compared to floor pricing and
efficiencies may be sacrificed due to loss of typical market pressures.
Tax incentives are another broad grouping of economic incentives. Tax
incentives operate more indirectly than price incentives but have the same ob-
jective of reducing risk and increasing profitability. For example, with
accelerated depreciation, (one type of tax incentive), capital and financing
costs of the project are partially offset. The government "pays" for tax incen-
tives in foregone income.
94
-------
TABLE 21
EFFECT OF VARIOUS INCENTIVES ON DECISION-MAKING
Type of Incentive Effects on Decision-Making
Government Private Non-Profit
Price Incentives
Potential major ne-
gative budgetary
implications under
marginal market
conditions--relies
on private sector
to solve problems
Strong Incentive
for expansion of
existing framework
through risk re-
duction
Strong Incentive;
Integration Into
private sector
market framework
Tax Incentives
Foregone Income to
government (nega-
tive budget Impli-
cations)
Strong incentives
for expansion of
existing framework
through risk reduc-
tion
No Immediate Incen-
tive became of tax
free status—1nd1-
rect Impact because
of Increased pri-
vate sector market-
ing activity
Loan Guarantees
Substantial risk
of negative budget
Implications In
poor market condi-
tions
Major risk reduc-
tion technique en-
couraging entrance
Into marginal mar-
kets
Major new source of
potential revenue
for groups with
little financing
credibility
Grants
Potential negative
budget impacts, but
gives substantial
discretion to gov-
ernment to decide
what is appropriate
Not a major Incen-
tive because of *-
short-term Impact
and minor market
stimulus
Very important to
small capital-short
groups needing
limited funding
Olrect, low-inter-
est loans
Seme foregone cap-
ital due to lower
Interest rates
Important for new
market areas or new
smaller operations
Very important to
small capital-short
groups needing
limited funding
Surcharge (e.g.,at
the landfill)
Additional revenues
which can be diver-
ted to specified
activities such as
resource recovery
Additional costs of
landfllling Im-
proves considera-
tion of resource
recovery as an
option 1f markets
exist
No immediate Incen-
tive; indirect im-
pact because of in-
creased opportuni-
ties 1f private
responds appropri-
ately
Landfill Diversion
Credit
Potential major
negative budget
impacts—If the
objective of di-
verting waste from
landfill is high
priority, will be
very effective
Significant new In-
centive to divert .
wastes from land-
fill and recover
substantial re-
sources 1n many
cases
Significant new
Incentive to divert
wastes from land-
fill and recover
substantial re-
sources 1n many
cases
95
-------
Risk reduction incentives operate by reducing the risk taken by the invest-
or. The risk is shifted, in part or wholly, to the government. Two common
types of risk reducing incentives are loan guarantees and insurance. A loan
guarantee is a government committment to guarantee a percentage of loans for the
capital costs of a project. This arrangement results in lower interest rates to
the project sponsor as the investor's risks are reduced. The low-interest debt
can result in a lower selling price of the product. Obviously, the major dis-
advantage is the possibility of a default and a resulting financial burden to
the government. Some of the risk to the government can be reduced by inversely
adjusting the loan guarantee percentage to the risk of failure. However, this
might be counter productive to the original intent of the incentive plan as more
risky projects win lower loan guarantees. Loan guarantees can also encourage
early shutdown of projects as anytime a project cannot earn its fixed costs and
operating costs, the tendency could be to default. The failure of a project
will result in costs to the general taxpayer as opposed to the private sector.
Insurance is another form of incentive that can reduce risk. Under this
incentive program the government requires that all resource recovery projects
purchase default insurance. Premiums are set according to the degree of risk of
the project. The government maintains a fund to cover defaults and may provide
bonds to increase collateral. Insurance incentives have similar advantages and
disadvantages to loan guarantees except risks are shared by the government and
the developers.
Capital access incentives decrease the capital needed to participate in a
project. These take the form of grants or direct government loans.
Grants may be especially important to cover capital costs of small opera-
tions with limited resources. Other states have successfully used grants to
stimulate resource recovery consideration and implementation. California has a
wel1-developed resource recovery program in which grants play a very significant
role. Montana has encouraged resource recovery and other renewable energy and
conservation options through grant program funds that were collected through
coal severance taxes. Recently, a state grant was provided for a waste-to-
energy facility in Livingston, Montana. Competitive bidding for grant money en-
courages efficiency as does cost-plus or percentage-of-total-cost arrangements.
96
-------
This method is advantageous because it does not affect financial markets (unless
the government must borrow) because money is coming from public funds. However,
this is also a costly alternative because the government is responsible for
costs whether the project is successful or not.
Direct loans are a form of capital access incentive. A governmental entity
will allocate a certain amount of its budget specifically for low-interest loans
for specific projects. Typically, payments start after the project has become
a
operable. Advantages and disadvantages are the same as for grants except that
if the project is successful the government will not be burdened with capital
costs.
Another way to encourage investment and commercialization is through the
use of surcharges. Surcharges are levied much like a tax, to help p^y for
selected incentive programs. The surcharge may be levied against specific users
(e.g. at the landfill) or on products so that the largest users contribute the
greatest amounts. The funds collected can be allocated to specific uses (such
as resource recovery projects). In this way, the government takes no direct
risk in project implementation because funds were allocated to reach specific
goals.
Another interesting idea with similar goals to that of a surcharge is a
landfill diversion credit. This provides an immediate stimulus to prevent
wastes from going to the landfill. The credit serves to extend the geographic
limits of product, markets, so that materials which might otherwise not be sale-
able in a local market may, under new circumstances, find a regional or national
market. This incentive, then, should directly lead to both a reduction in land-
fill use and encourage resource recovery. This situation, of course, still
depends upon markets which, even on the national level, are unstable in mar\y
cases. In other words, the landfill diversion credit may not allow the demand
for Colorado recovered materials to change to the extent necessary to make sig-
nificant market impacts.
Other incentive programs could be modeled after creative programs which
have been designed to attack a specific solid waste problem. For example, North
Dakota and Montana have implemented abandoned car recovery programs which have
97
-------
met with great success in removing and reclaiming abandoned cars as well as
providing a monetary gain to county economies.
All of these incentives should stimulate the viability of various resource
recovery options. However, it is ultimately the demand for the recovered
resources which determines viability. There are markets in some cases for
energy products such as steam and/or electricity. Markets for materials are
highly variable and difficult to predict. The private sector must necessarily
play the dominant role in determining how much each material market can absorb.
Where appropriate, government could intervene to influence the demand for
recycled goods and services. A major question associated with this option is
whether it can be effective at the State, as opposed to the national.level.
Government actions directly affecting demand could include:
o state procurement of a required percentage of recycled goods;
o legislation requiring a percentage of recycled goods in the manufacture
of certain new products; or
o elimination of unjustifiable materials quality standards that exclude
recycled goods.
These actions would not have a substantial impact on overall demand because
of the low percentages of goods purchased by State Government and the relatively
small amount of goods produced in Colorado. The State of Colorado currently has
a recycled product procurement policy which has met with limited success. Under
this program, bids for recycled goods are solicited from vendors. State pur-
chasing agents then determine the amount or percentage of recycled materials in
the products, the weight of the goods, and the multiplier to be used based on
the energy savings of recycling that particular material. With this informa-
tion, the bid is adjusted so that the recycled goods compete more favorably.
The approximate formula is presented below:
Bid Price - [Weight of the Article x Percentage
of Recycled Material x Multiplier (Cost of a Btu)]
= Adjusted Price
98
-------
The adjusted price is then used as the bid price when making purchasing
decisions. However, state procurement officials report that most dealers in
Colorado do not supply bids of recycled goods or will not admit that recycled
materials are included.
Potential County and Municipal Government Roles
Colorado counties and municipalities currently have some valuable tools to
encourage resource recovery. One is in the form of the landfill user's sur-
charge which was established by Senate Bill 519, Section 5, 30-20-115. This
action permits counties to collect service charges from users of solid waste
disposal sites and facilities for the purpose of financing solid waste manage-
ment (including resource recovery) in the county. The use of the funds is not
limited to on-site operations but is left up to the discretion of the particular
county. To date, only Boulder County has made use of its authority to impose
such a surcharge. The county began assigning a fee of approximately $0.20 per
cubic yard of compacted garbage ($0.15/carload, $0.50/pickup truck load) in
October, 1981. From October through December, 1981, approximately $27,000 was
collected and placed in an escrow account. These funds are allocated by the
Board of County Commissioners on the advice of the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee. Following a Request for Proposals in the fall of 1981, approximately
$75,000 has been allocated to Eco-Cycle for equipment and personnel. Another
$35,000 was allocated to Boulder County as repayment on a loan formerly made to
Eco-Cycle. A smaller amount was earmarked for the purchase of a semi-trailer to
replace a greenbox collection site. Citizens in Summit and Larimer Counties
have also requested the imposition of a landfill surcharge for resource
recovery, though no definite decision has as yet been made in either case.
The Colorado Legislature, through another action, Senate Bill 481, also
cleared the way for cities or towns to establish 'heating and cooling' utilities
(Section 5, 31-32-105). The Act specifically authorizes municipalities to oper-
ate utilities with energy derived from biomass and other renewable resources.
"Biomass" can be broadly interpreted as including municipal waste-to-energy
systems.
99
-------
Municipal grants have been an important element in the success of some of
the recycling organizations in Colorado. For example, the City of Boulder and
Boulder County have contributed approximately $175,000 in grants to Eco-Cycle
since its inception in 1976. The Ft. Collins recycling organization, Recycle
Something, has received grant financial assistance from the city in the form of
land and warehouse space and $64,000 per year of revenue sharing funds.
All of these county and municipal actions suggest that the first step a
governmental agency must accomplish is a recognition of current and potential
solid waste management problems and their associated environmental and economic
costs. Only after this recognition can steps be taken to alleivate or prevent
specific problems.
State Commitment to Resource Recovery
Individual State incentives could be initiated through amending existing
legislation or creating new policies and/or legislation. A clear statement of
State philosophy is an important first step. The State's resource recovery
philosophy should allow for:
o a broad, non-restrictive approach;
o an emphasis on filling gaps in the market system rather than duplicating
or hindering existing efforts;
o the removal of obstacles so that when market forces allow, implementa-
tion can occur; and,
o a focus on recognition of current and/or future solid waste management
problems.
This philosophy reflects cognizance of the fact that habits, vested interests,
and economic realities must change gradually. A withdrawal from dependence upon
landfills must occur gradually. The philosophy also reflects the realization
that although there is a natural evolution towards resource recovery, actions
taken in the near term can provide a supportive role in encouraging this evolu-
tion. Awareness and education can only be positive factors in achieving the
long term solid waste management goals.
100
-------
Overall, it is clear that landfilling will remain the prevailing waste
management technique in the near term. Colorado will be faced with tremendous
growth opportunities and costs. The evolutionary process towards resource
recovery could be an important component in planning for growth. The framework
for consideration and implementation of resource recovery should be established
now in order to avoid mistakes- and unnecessary costs later.
101
-------
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations were developed by the Resource
Recovery Subcommittee of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee following review of
the report by members of the Subcommittee and representatives of EPA Region VIII
and the Colorado Department of Health.
102
-------
Conclusions
1. Solid waste management in Colorado is handled by an unintegrated and .
diverse group of private and public sector entities.
2. Accurate and complete data on solid waste management in Colorado is diffi-
cult to obtain because of institutional factors such as fragmented manage-
ment responsibility and different accounting procedures within the public
sector and the classification of data by the private sector as proprietary
information.
3. Resource recovery in Colorado is hampered by the state's geographic
distance from users of secondary materials, a lack of knowledge about
resource recovery by public and private sector decision-makers, and the
difficulty of accurately comparing costs of landfilling with that of the
costs of the various resource recovery options.
4. Many existing landfills in Colorado are confronted by problems such as
limited future capacity, inadequate operating procedures and potential or
existing groundwater and surface water contamination. New landfills will
be sited further from population centers because of competition for
undeveloped land and because of growing public opposition to siting land-
fills near populated areas.
5. The greatest existing and potential governmental support for resource
recovery in Colorado is at the municipal and county levels. A comprehen-
sive Colorado resource recovery program is in an early phase of develop-
ment. Federal support for municipal solid waste studies or projects is
being completely withdrawn.
6. The economic and political feasibility of comprehensive material and energy
recovery will continue to improve, while disposal by landfilling will
continue to grow more difficult and expensive in all of Colorado, especial-
ly along the Front Range. This conclusion is predicated on energy costs
continuing to increase, land costs continuing to escalate, and landfills
being located at greater distances from the points of refuse generation
(resulting in increased transportation costs).
103
-------
Recommendations
1. Information on waste management and resource recovery should be developed
for public and private sector decision-makers and the general public. To
facilitate the flow of information, a central clearinghouse of waste
management information should be established in the state. The Department
of Health should staff the clearinghouse.
2. The governor or legislature should empanel a temporary legislative
committee charged with conducting a review and evaluation of resource
recovery in Colorado. Following the review, recommendations should be made
on further State involvement. Adequate funding for staff in preparing the
committee's report should be provided.
3. Governments should increase their use of products made from recycled
materials, recycle their own wastes and encourage business and industry to
do the same. Additionally, government and industry should consider
waste-to-energy as a waste management option.
4. Source separation for material recovery and waste-to-energy systems should
be considered in tandem, not as mutually exclusive activities. Present and
future opportunities for material recovery must be considered when planning
refuse-to-energy facilities. Any waste flow control legislation should be
written so as to not preclude source separation activities.
5. If public funds, in the form of grants or loans, are made available for
resource recovery efforts, all types of organizations, both public and
private, should be allowed to compete for those funds on an equal basis.
6. If a comprehensive State resource recovery program is determined to be
appropriate, it is imperative that resource recovery become a bipartisan
issue. A liaison should be created between the governor and the state
legislature to affect the above recommendations.
104
-------
APPENDIX I
105
-------
NOTE: The following material from the State of South Dakota is intended to
provide a simple methodology for estimating costs of solid waste dis-
posal at a particular site. Numbers included in the sample tables are
presented to clarify the cost analysis. Numbers utilized are not
intended to provide a baseline for comparison. Current costs for
equipment, land, labor and construction may be 50% - 100% or greater
than the example numbers.
106
-------
Costs and Returns
off Solid Waste Disposal in Sanitary Landfalls
Bjr P. F. Kor, Exteuioa water raouica iptoal'm
G. 3. Duiiuui, Exunnoa agricultural engineer
. Most units of government feel that the disposal of
jolid waste* should be wholly or at Jeatt partially a
self finanonj public service. The alternative is for
local government to absorb all costs, with revenues
collected through taxation.
Assuming that government wants to make the
service self financing, what charge per ton of waste
handled must be made to cover depreciation on
needed equipment, pay operating coses and retire the
cost of land used?
Land* costs may be in the form of yearly lease
charges, land purchased for landfill use that will be
sold when the site is full, or land purchased that will
be retained for uses such as public parks, mainte-
nance facilities for government equipment, or for
some other public use.
This publication contains a method for comput-
ing what service charges 'must be made to retire all
disposal capital and operating costs. Collection costs
are not included in this publication.
A format is provided, showing an example. But
since no two situations will be the same, blank spaces
have been provided for units of government to insert
figures that apply to their situations. The objective is
to come up with a charge per ton of waste handled
that will retire all costs during the life of the site.
Knowing this, units of government can then decide
if they wish to use this charge per ton and make the
service entirely self financing or if they wish to lower
the charge per con end pay part of the costs out of
tax revenues.
Tne example used is the same as the one used in
FS 613 where acreage requirements were computet!.
Table 1 summarizes die example situation and pro-
vides space for your situauoa.
The example atsurr.es chat the land will be pur-
chased by the unit of government .mil retained for
ruturc public use.
Table 1
Example
Situation
Your '
Situation
Population to be served
- 30,000
Estimated yield per person
_
-------
Table 2
YeaWy Equipment Depreciation
Example Your
Equipment Equipment
Compactor _________ $50,000.00
Wheel-fype
loader $27,000x520% 5,400.00 $_
Elevating grader
$48,000x10% _______ 4,800.00 $_
5-
$.
lata! equipment value $60,200 $_
Assuming a 10 year life for the
example with a 20% reclaim
value, yearly depreciation s
60.200x80% =
10 years $ 4,816.00
Assuming " year life
for your equipment with
a % reclaim value,
yearly depreciation =
S x % =
veers $_
Table 3
Yearly Land and Associated Costs
Example
Your
Costs
Costs
Land _ __ $ 7,500.00 $
Site preparation 1,000.00 ?
Fencing 440.00 ?
Incidentals ____________ 300.00 $_____
Shelter 2.400.00 $
Example Total $11,640.00
Your Total ________ $
yearly land charge st totol land charge = S11.64Q —
design life 10 yean
$1,164.00
your yearly land charges your total land charge =
your design life
$ = $
years
Annuel Operating Costs
Principle operating coses are labor, fuel and re-
pairs for equipment Some billing and bookkeeping
cost will be involved, buc since they become a part of
other bookkeeping needs of the governing unit they
are not significant in themselves. A record should be
kept for future reference of tonnage or volume han-
dled.
Table 4 gives operating costs as assumed for the
example with space for computing your costs.
The cost of a scale is omitted, since many govern-
ing boards feel that tonnages can be esomated rea-
sonably wcIL Some consider adding a scale after
some of the immediate costs have been reared.
The basic costs shown in tables 2, 3 and 4 cm
be inserted in computarion table No. 5.
Table 4
Operating Costs
Example
Costs
Your
Costs
Personnel—2 men including
insurance, social security etc).. $15,000.00
s
FuaI and lubrication
2.300.00
?
B»pni"r*
_ 5,250.00
$
ln*ursnr»
650.00
$ _
Annual operating costs for
»*OIT»pl»
523.200.00
Annuol operating costs far
your operation
s
108
-------
Table 5
Computation Table
Colt Factors
Example
Summary
Your
Summary
1. Yearly equipment depreciation
(Table 2) I 5 4,816.00
2. Yearly land and associated
cost
Using Assumption No. 1
(table 3)' _ — .
Using Assumption No. 21
Using Assumption No. 3s
3. Yearly interest on investment
and jor reserve fund4
4. Annual operating cost
(table 4)
1,164. CO
$23,200.00
5-
5-
Example total annual costs. $29,180.00
Your total annual costs
In com© Factors
Anticipated annual waste
yield from the example '
(table 1)
23.269 T '
Anticipated annual waste
from your facility (table 1)
Cost Factors
Example Your
Summary Summary
Charges Needed
Per Ton charges needed to retire
all costs=totol annuo I costs = S29.180=31.254
total annual T 23,269 T
Your per T. charges needed to retire all casts
=$
your total onnuol costs=$
your total annual T
.Tans
-Assumption is that land will be purchased and retain-
ed for public use. Usually it is desirable to chorge off
the land cast to waste disposal, since future use will
likely not be revenue producing.
'Assumption is that land will be sold after site is com-
plete. Therefore it should b* safe to ouum* a land
charge of zero, but an annual charge covering fenc-
ing, incidentals and structures should be included.
3AssumpttofT is that the land is leased, and the land
charge equals the yearly rent paid plus an annual
charge far fencing, incidentals and structures.
4lf the governing body must incur an indebtedness to
meet aJI or a part of the earn involved, obviously the
service charge should retire the interest paid an the
amount of the debt. Even though an indebtedness is
not incurred, some units of government use this tech-
nique to built a reserve fund so that money is avail-
able far new equipment and lend when it must be
purchased at a future date (10 years in the case of the
example). This technique is common practice in bus-
iness but is relatively new in government. It is called
Capital Improvements Budgeting.
To Buy or Not To Buy Land
The decision to purchase land to keep for public
use. to purchase land to sell after the-site is full, or to
lease land nail be influenced by many things such as
need for more public use land, availability of land,
land costs and perhaps others. -
To give some idea of the dollar difference be-
tween the alternatives, the example used here has
been refigured and is shown in table 6.
Table 6
Buying or Net Buying Land
Per Ton Charge
to break even
Assumption No. 1 (as used in the example)
where land is to be retained for public use_ $1.254
Assumption No. 2—where land is to be sold
efter site is completed ST-222
Assumption No. 3—1where land is leased—(a
fiaure of $20.00 per acre per year is used
here) 51-243
Since dollar diiferences are so small, units of gov-
ernment should be more concerned with their need
for public use land than with choosing the least cost-
ly alternative.
Determining a Rate Schedule
Computations so far are all in terms of cons. If a
scale is purchased the rate schedule is no problem
since everything is weighed. If there is no scale, tons
must be converted to compacted cubic yards.
Compactor trucks are rated according to the
cubic yarils tliey can compact, so this is a simple con-
version. The rule of thumb used in conversion is that
one cubic yard of com pacta! wastes will weigh from
800 to 1000 pounds with the S00 pound figure occur-
ring more frequently.
Going back to the example used where the per
ton rate was ilerennined ro be Sl.25. and using S50
pounds per cubic yard for conversion, the break-even
rate would be ($125 x 350/2000) or 5.53 per cubic
109
-------
yard. This would establish a race of S5J6 per load
for a 12 cubic yard compactor.
In the case of non-compacted loads delivered to
the sice the rate schedule becomes something of an
educated guess.
Most units'of government establish a rate sched-
ule for non-compacted wastes based on the size of the
conveyance used for delivery. One sanitary landfill's
rate schedule for such conveyances is shown below.
1. Small trailers with a rack (about 2 yards)—
SJ5 per load
2. Large trailers with rack or small pickup w/o
' rack (about 3 yds)—$1.00 per load
3. Large pickup with rack (about 5 yds)—1-25
per load
4. Small trucks (5 to 9 yds)—S2.C0 per load
5. Large trucks (10 to 12 yds)—$2.75 per load
Obviously this rate schedule is a rather arbitrary
one established in the hope that, for example, pickup
loads of old tires that are heavy and difficult to com-
pact' will average out with loads of paper cartons
that'are light and compact easily.
110
-------
APPENDIX
111
-------
FURTHER SOURCES OF RESOURCE
RECOVERY INFORMATION
Organizations
Paul Parker
National Association of Recycling Industries
330 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
Jim Fowler
Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel
1627 K. Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
01ie Webb
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
1390 Logan Street, Suite 308
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 831-7411
Pete Grogan
Colorado Recycling Cooperative Association
P.O. Box 4193
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(303) 444-6634
Danamarie Schmitt
Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal
Association
P.O. Box 2941
Denver, Colorado 80201
(303) 659-2120 Ext. 217
112
-------
Tony Massaro
Coloradoans for Recycling
1711 Pennsylvania Street, Suite 207
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 830-0294
Elaine Weaver
Colorado Counties, Inc.
1500 Grant Street, Suite 301
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 861-4076
Ron LeBlanc
Colorado Council of Local Energy Officials
8101 Ralston Road
Arvada, Colorado 80002
(303) 431-3000
Clara Lou Humphrey
League of Women Voters
1600 Race Street
Denver, Colorado
(303) 320-8493
National Solid Waste Management Association
1120 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Government Sources
Greg Starkebaum
Colorado Department of Health
Waste Management Division
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333
113
-------
Ed Demos, Vicki Mattox
Denver Energy Utilization Study
City and County of Denver
Environmental Services Division
Department of Public Works
(303) 575-5767
Amy Lingg
Denver Clean Community System
Room 379
City and County Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 575-2563
Morris Johnson, William Rothenmeyer, Martha Walters
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
(303) 837-3853
Office of Energy Conservation
State of Colorado
1525 Sherman
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-4481
A1 Foster
Denver Regional Council of Governments
2480 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 200B
Denver, Colorado 80211
(303) 455-1000
114
-------
Active Resource Recovery Projects
Pete Grogan/Roy Young
Eco-Cycle
P.O. Box 4193
Boulder, Colorado 80306
(303) 444-6634
Tim McClure
Summit Recycling Project
Box 73
Frisco, Colorado 80443
(303) 453-1372
Recycle Something
P.O. Box 148
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 484-2249
Jim McNelly
Natursoil Company
5243 E. 100th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80229
(303) 457-2897
Frank Smith
Golden Recycle Company
3000 Youngfield, Suite 230
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
(303) 277-5775
Dave Powelson
Tri-R Systems
4930 Dahlia Street
Denver, Colorado 80216
(303) 399-6351
-------
Ken Dunwoody
Colorado Recycling
9700 W. 51st Place, Suite D-314
Arvada, Colorado 80002
(303) 431-9052
William Schaeffer
Atlas Metal and Iron Corp.
P.O. Box 5428
Denver, Colorado 80217
(303) 825-7166
116
-------
APPENDIX III
117
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES
IN COLORADO
A. The Permitting Process
Any resource recovery project will be confronted by a number of local, state
and Federal rules, regulations and guidelines which were established to control
environmental impacts of proposed actions. These potential environmental
impacts will have to be identified during the initial project planning stages in
order to prepare permit applications and allow time for regulatory agency review
and decision. These regulatory/institutional factors can be a significant
determinant of overall project feasibility and/or project scheduling due to the
fol 1 owi ng:
o the permitting process is a complex, time-consuming series of actions
involving a number of regulatory agencies on all governmental levels,
none of which has overall regulatory control over any particular
proposed project;
.0 the regulatory framework is constantly changing and evolving, with
regulatory agencies sometimes uncertain of their specific role, and the
permit applicant is often confronted by uncertainties and changes which
are not readily apparent;
o pollution control requirements may affect project financing and/or
economic feasibility; and
o the lack of operating experience with most types of resource recovery
projects from which to gain environmental emission data and proper
pollution control equipment selection.
The above listed constraints do not mean that a resource recovery facility
such as the one considered for Boulder cannot be accomplished; but rather that
regulatory factors and issues cannot be overlooked or given a low priority in
118
-------
project planning, scheduling and budgeting. Any regulatory oversight or
deficiency could turn out to be the "fatal flaw" of project feasibility.
As mentioned above, there is little successful operating experience from
which to gauge the overall complexities, costs, and time-frame of the resource
recovery facility permitting process. There do, however, appear to be several
regulatory issues/factors which deserve primary attention and can be addressed
on a preliminary basis within the scope of this report. These include:
o air emissions and permit requirements;
o noise regulations; and
o solid waste generation and permit requirements.
Each is discussed in detail below.
B. Air Emissions and Permit Requirements
There are two types of air pollution regulatory controls which are of
concern to potential new projects which will emit air pollutants. These
include:
o limits on the concentrations or amounts of pollutants within stack
emissions; and
o effects on ambient air quality.
The study area is located within the EPA-designated Denver Air Quality Control
Region, which has been classified as a non-attainment area (not in compliance
with ambient air quality standards) for four criteria pollutants*:
1 A criteria pollutant is one listed in the Clean Air Act Section 108(a) which
requires the preparation of a criteria document to form the scientific basis
for the national ambient air quality standard.
-------
o ozone;
o nitrous oxides;
o particulates; and
o carbon monoxide.
The Denver Region is in compliance with the fifth criteria pollutant, sulfur
dioxide. In this situation, any new source in the region cannot further degrade
ambient air quality in the non-attainment pollutant, while the additional
contribution of sulfur dioxide to the ambient air quality will be limited to
specified maximum incremental increases. The following discussion consists of
the application of existing Colorado air pollution regulations to resource
recovery options in the study area. In addition to the regulation of the five
criteria pollutants discussed above, the State regulations also include
emission limits for opacity, odor and hazardous air pollutants, all of which may
also apply to resource recovery facilities.
1. Modular Incinerators. A new source modular incinerator will require a State
air pollution permit and the filing of an air pollution emission notice (APEN)
as described in Regulation No. 3 (see Figure 6 for a schematic representation of
the air permitting, process). These-efforts require a thorough description and
discussion of the estimated quality and composition of expected emissions (based
upon actual test data or other sources acceptable in the Air Quality Control
Division) as prepared by the project proponent.
According to State regulations, a modular incinerator constructed in 1981 or
later would be considered a "new stationary source". In this situation, the
incinerator must comply with all standards of performance including those
specifically designed for incinerators (Regulation 6, Section III), which states
specific requirements for the most probable major air pollution problem, that of
particulates, and for associated opacity impacts.
The most critical determination will be if the incinerator would be
classified as a "major stationary source." This category includes any
stationary source which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year
120
-------
Figure 6: Permit Procedures for Air Emission and Solid Waste Disposal Permits
Air Contaminant Emission Permit -- Air Pollution Control Olvlslon (Department of Health)
ha .
l_ ll'uti I lih Piilil jc,ill lie 30 ,0 I I MS pet t lun 30 Oiyil i V , j .
\ Hlk llinlt. | ferluaj 'U»i« .fsieill |s»w«JWillon J I Al icr Sli.l ut iy,r..l l.i.n, | ' '"¦*l A'f
ISuImII kit lun foi
A lr Mtlttjul
lulvi luo I'cioill
Acvle* for
('.iUNp lcleiic\J-»
by UtvliliMi
(2U U^yiJ _
4 Nceii
Icoriifucl P
I Aua ly& K
|If fbbllc
Prel Iwlotry
tuiBHCiil deii'd
rueiti
I weeks
No Public Co»aM*i»l:
Hike 0cc li Ion lit
6 weel.1
6 weeks
6 w«efci
1 weekt
Certificate of Pesignation (Solid Haste Disposal) -- Hadlatlon and Hazardous Waste Control Division (Department of Health)
ISuUit A|ipNcillon for
Oi I If It 4I luo ol 0«i lyii«l luu
SullJ U4fl« Site
"llit'vlen Iy Uivltlool—-
Tinier"
n.i
I Com
[tot
B.KCilh
v li Iimi Submit* to 1
mit CuamUlltMiL'ill
r flcvle* |
Ot>l«In
Ce» t If lc*l luii
Source: Ired C. Hart Associates
-------
or more of any of the non-attainment criteria pollutants. If an incinerator
were placed in this category, a permit can be granted only if:
o the proposed source will achieve the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) for the specific source category;
o the applicant has certified that all other major stationary sources
owned, operated or controlled by the applicant in Colorado are in
compliance with the State Implementation Plan or are subject to and in
compliance with an enforceable compliance schedule; and
o offsets (greater than a one-to-one ratio) must be obtained from existing
sources for all non-attainment pollutants.
Early indications from test and operating data are that a modular incinerator of
the type examined here may be classified as a major source because of
particulate emissions. This may be true even though modular incinerators are
touted as inherently non-polluting because the two chambers burn most, but not
all, of the burnable gases and particulates. Indeed, some manufacturers claim
that no special scrubbers, precipitators or other air pollution equipment are
necessary on these incinerators. However, it is sometimes difficult to maintain
combustion at steady state conditions for incinerators that burn municipal
wastes. Municipal wastes are highly heterogeneous, and incinerators that burn
such waste may require emission control equipment to meet state and/or Federal
air pollution standards. Other parties attempting to obtain offsets in the
Denver region have had major difficulties, a situation which makes the offset
requirement the most probable regulatory fatal flaw.
There does exist, however, a possible exemption to the offset requirement
under certain circumstances if:
o the applicant has used his best efforts in seeking the offsets but was
unsuccessful;
122
-------
o all available offsets were obtained; and
o the applicant continues to seek,offsets as they become available.
With respect to direct emission limits, Table 16 shows the different types
of emission substances detected in the flue gas from the North Little Rock Plant
in Arkansas. Tests of the North Little Rock stack emission for their modular
incinerator revealed that the emission rate for total particulates averaged
0.130 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/SCF) corrected to 12 percent CO2 with a-
maximum of 0.231 gr/SCF. These average values are considerably higher than the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission's standards for particulates (0.08
gr/SCF for 50 TPO or more). This suggests that particulate air pollution
control equipment would be necessary for a Boulder operation. Control of the
one attainment pollutant (sulfur dioxide), must provide for limiting incremental
increases over a specified baseline to:
0 10 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) (annual arithmetic mean);
0 50 mg/m3 (24-hour maximum); and
0 300 mg/m3 (3-hour maximum)
Evaluation of odor, opacity and hazardous emissions cannot be properly evaluated
at this time, but must not be neglected if further analysis and planning are
undertaken.
2. Refuse Derived Fuel Facilities. The cofiring of RDF with an existing
coal-fired power plant will most likely be classified as a "modification" to an
existing facility. Upon modification, a facility shall become an affected
facility for contaminants to which a standard applies and for which there is an
increase in the emission rate to the ambient air. This is an especially
important point because Public Service Company does not currently use pollution
control equipment from Valmont Units 1-4. Additionally, the change in operation
of an existing facility may require the filing of a revised Air Pollutant
Emission Notice if a "significant" change in emissions has occurred in
accordance with the Division definition of significance.
123
-------
TABLE 16
NORTH LITTLE ROCK FLUE GAS EMISSION DATA
Emission Rate
Pollutant Maximum Average Minimum lb/ton of Refuse
Particulates V 0.231 gr/SCF 0.130 gr/SCF 0.067 gr/SCF 3.03
SQX 410 ppm £/ <0.78
NQX 99 ppm 82" ppm 69 ppm 3.68
CO 36 ppm . 29 ppm 16 ppm 1.00
HC 40 ppm 28 ppm 20 ppm 0.55
Pb V 4.49 mg/m^ 0.14
Source: U.S. EPA, Small Modular Incinerators with Heat Recovery.
V gr/SCF = grains per standard cubic foot.
£/ ppm = parts per million.
3/ mg/m^ = milligrams per cubic meter.
124
-------
Given previous RDF operating experience, an RDF facility in Boulder would
normally be classed as a "major modification" according to State regulations. A
major modification classification would normally result in the same three
requirements (including offsets) for a major stationary source incinerator
listed above in the discussion of modular incinerators. However, refuse derived
fuel generated from municipal solid waste is specifically exempted from these
requirements.
As with modular incinerators, there is not enough information at this time
to evaluate odor, opacity and hazardous waste emissions. With respect to sulfur
dioxide, the clearly stated Colorado Air Quality Control Division policy is to
place the burden on new sources to prevent degradation and maintain compliance
with ambient air quality standards. Therefore, with respect to a modified
existing coal/RDF power plant, SO2 emissions may not present a problem. All
applicable standards must be met within 180 days of the completion of the
modification. Table 17 shows a comparison of the stack emissions from burning
coal only and cofiring coal with 7 percent RDF at the St. Louis, Missouri
facility.
3. Pollution Control Equipment Needs and Costs. Since particulates were
identified above as the probable major air pollution problem, this discussion
will be limited to that pollutant. The control of particulates will be governed
largely by established practices. Such factors as particle size, range,
density, resistivity, concentration, composition, the degree of removal
required, and the allowable pressure drop will all influence the selection of
the appropriate control method and subsequent costs. The four most common types
of particulate collectors may be arranged in order of increasing efficiency,
complexity and cost:
0 cyclone collectors;
0 wet scrubbers;
0 fabric filters; and
0 electrostatic precipitators.
To date, there are no known instances in which major air pollution control
equipment has been integrated into a modular incinerator facility. One supplier
125
-------
TABLE 17
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE ST. LOUIS FACILITY
Substance in Particulate Coal Only Coal Plus 7 Percent RDF
As 3.13 2.00
Be 0.200 0.706
Cd 0.575 1.39
Cr 12.1 16.0
Pb 11.3 54.0
Hg 0.153 0.417
Source: Sussman, David B/. Personal Communication, U.S. EPA.
126
-------
(Consumat of Richmond, Virginia) is currently conducting research in this area,
and has roughly estimated total air pollution equipment capital costs to be ten
percent' of a $500,000 modular incinerator plant. Operating cost estimates are
not available.
A najor resource recovery facility which burns RDF alone or cofires RDF with
coal can be directly compared with the needs and costs of a major coal fired
boiler. The use of RDF would not require the special use of other air pollution
control equipment. Costs, however, are difficult to estimate without detailed
knowledge of plant design, RDF and coal quality, and other parameters; costs are
very case- and site-specific. EPA estimates for the capital costs of electro-
static precipitator particulate control range from 2.5 to 4.4 million (1976
dollars) for a 200 MW utility boiler. Assuming a 12 percent per year escalation
(for five years), 1981 costs would range from 4.4 to 7.75 million. Erection and
installation costs would add about 70 percent to this total, creating an instal-
led equipment range of from $7.5 to 13.2 million for the 200 MW boiler. If a
new coal-fired boiler were to be built today, capital costs would be approxi-
mately $1,000 per installed Kilowatt. Particulate control capital costs for the
200 MW boiler would, therefore, range from 2.2 to 3.9 percent of total capital
cost. EPA estimates of operating costs for electrostatic precipitator particu-
late control range from $.56 to 1.02 million. Escalation at 12 percent per year
would increase these estimates to $1 to 1.8 million in 1981 dollars.
C. Noise Regulations
Restrictions and regulations on the noise emitted from a resource recovery
facility take two forms: those affecting workers, as regulated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (0SHA); and those affecting the
general public, as regulated by the City of Boulder.
A recent study has shown that some resource recovery processes can produce
noise in excess of present 0SHA standards. Control of noise in such equipment
by engineering design may be costly, although the option of administrative noise
controls (limiting the time exposure of employees) and personal protective
equipment may be sufficient in some cases.
127
-------
The City of Boulder has shown its concern for the protection of the general
public from excess noise through a relatively agressive noise regulation en-
forcement program. Current noise restrictions at the property line are 65 deci-
bels in business zones and 80 decibels in industrial zones during daytime hours
(7 a.m. to 11 p.m.). Several methods are available to reduce the noise at the
property line, the most common of which is the strategic placement of fences to
block and absorb the noise. Although no noise permit or clearance is required
from the City of Boulder Environmental Enforcement Center, enforcement personnel
would like to be informed of actions as plans progress, and aoe willing to pro-
vide noise checks and work with a resource recovery developer to make sure the
operation is within legal limits.
Noise pollution is an often overlooked form of environmental impact which
has been shown to produce detrimental effects on the health and welfare of
humans. While little is known about the case-and-site-specific impacts of
potential resource recovery facilities in Boulder, a noise impact analysis
should be performed if planning on either of the facilities progresses.
D. Solid Waste Generation and Permit Requirements
Solid wastes from resource recovery plants include combustion ash and parti-
culate matter recovered by air pollution control devices. These wastes can
produce undesirable leachates when disposed of in a landfill. Although data are
scarce, fly ash particulate from waste incinerators may contain hazardous trace
elements such as cadmium, lead, beryllium and mercury.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, solid (non-
hazardous) wastes are to be regulated primarily at the State and local levels.
Under current circumstances, a Certificate of Designation would have to be
issued by the Boulder County Commissioners if a new landfill site were to needed
for waste disposal. The State Health Department would also have to approve the
siting, engineering, and operational plans for any new landfill. If existing
landfills are used for waste disposal, the site must be one that has already
been issued a Certificate of Designation and is being operated according to min-
imum RCRA and State rules and guidelines (see Figure 6 for a schematic represen-
tation of the Certificate of Designation process).
128
-------
Preliminary (not case-or site-specific to Boulder) data indicate that hazar-
dous (under the meaning in RCRA) wastes may be contained within solid wastes
generated from resource recovery processes. If this is the case, the waste dis-
posal situation will become extremely more complex, and may prove to be a
project fatal flaw. Hazardous wastes are generally regulated by the Federal
Government (the EPA), although states can take over regulatory, administrative
and enforcement responsibilities with an EPA-approved program.1 Hazardous
wastes are regulated from "cradle to grave" (from generation through
transportation, storage, and disposal) under RCRA, and required actions may
involve reporting requirements (to the regulatory authority), manifest
requirements (to track the waste from cradle to grave) and permit requirements
(an approved disposal facility). The RCRA hazardous waste program is still
evolving, and early indications from the Reagan administration provide for
substantial regulatory changes. Under current circumstances, disposal sites for
hazardous wastes would require (like solid non-hazardous wastes) a Certificate
of Designation from the County Commissioners. It is uncertain if a current
exemption (pending further study) for utility and other wastes from the RCRA
non-hazardous waste program would apply to resource recovery facilities.
E. Other Environmental/Regulatory Concerns
Other permits, approvals and clearances beyond those three listed above
would undoubtedly be required before a resource recovery facility could begin
operation. These may include such items as wastewater discharges (regulated by
the state under authority granted to EPA in accordance with the Clean Water
Act), and building, plumbing and electrical permits. Additionally, care must be
taken to avoid environmental and safety problems associated with fires, explo-
sions and pathogens contained within the waste streams.
1 Colorado has indicated a desire to gain primary hazardous waste responsibility
from EPA and is in the process of preparing a state program which would be
approved by EPA.
129
-------
F. A Regulatory Compliance Strategy
As briefly discussed previously, environmental and regulatory considerations
may play a major part in overall project feasibility. At this early stage in
project planning, the most serious potential fatal flaws are the probable need
for an air emission offset and the uncertainty surrounding hazardous wastes.
Further study needs to be performed during the future planning stages to deter-
mine the overall impact of regulatory considerations. In this regard, the
following steps are recommended:
o once more detailed project plans are formulated, regulatory agencies on
all governmental levels should be contacted;!
o meetings should be held with these agencies, with the applicant provid-
ing as much project data and information as possible in an open and
honest exchange;
o issues, requirements and uncertainties should be identified early with
each specific agency, with the applicant confirming verbal discussions
and requesting answers to questions in writing; and
o involved agencies should be informed of all project actions and changes
in plans as they occur.
1 In making agency contacts, it is very possible that some minor permit, clear-
ance or approval authority may be overlooked. Therefore, the applicant is
encouraged to communicate with others proposing resource recovery projects,
hire specialists in regulatory compliance, and/or contact as many agencies as
possible (even those that may not visibly have a regulatory resource recovery
role).
130
-------
G. Risks of Hazardous Substances in the Waste Streaml
Questions have been raised about potential risks, in the workplace from
hazardous substances which may be contained in the waste stream of resource
recovery plants. Since these systems are new, the consequences of hazardous
substances in resource recovery systens are currently not well developed in
relation to occupational health and safety factors. This section describes each
of these hazardous substances and reviews some of the associated ongoing
research and regulatory activity.
As municipal solid waste is processed within resource recovery facilities,
workers are exposed to bacterial, fungal, and virological pathogens contained in
the waste stream. Solid waste contains human and animal fecal matter due, for
example, to the use of disposal diapers and the disposal of animal litter. Good
data on the impact of the pathogens on the health of workers are not available.
The EPA is funding research on pathogens in resource recovery plants by the
Midwest Research Institute. This preliminary study is expected to produce a
qualitative assessment of potential problems with pathogens and suggest what
in-plant control measures can be implemented.
Processing solid waste produces considerable dust and because of the variety
of materials in solid waste, there is additional concern about specific
substances such as asbestos, metals, and other toxic substances. Obviously,
dust control measures and personal protective equipment for workers in resource
recovery plants need considerable attention on the part of workers, managers,
and regulators.
Municipal solid waste occasionally contains dynamite, gunpowder, flammable
liquids and gases, aerosol cans, propane, butane, and gasoline fuel containers,
1 :Source: OTA, Material and Energy from Municipal Waste, pp. 102-107.
-------
and other explosive and flammable materials. When such substances are shredded
or processed in resource recovery facilities explosions can occur. Both refuse
derived fuel and modular incineration facilities are designed to withstand mild
explosions by constructing processing units with hinged walls and tops or other
conduits to allow rapid venting of exploding gases. Explosion suppression/ex-
tinguishing systems, water spray, or equipment isolation are other means of re-
ducing explosion damage. Manual or automated surveillance of input material, is
utilized in some facilities, but cannot be expected to remove all explosive sub-
stances.
Additional research in minimizing the potential of explosions and the damage
resulting from explosion is being conducted by resource recovery manufacturers
and by the Federal government (OSHA).
132
-------
APPENDIX
133
-------
NOTTINGHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING THE COSTS OF RECYCLIN6
NOTE: This appendix is an excerpt from "Economics of a Small Rural Town
Recycling System: Implications of a Case Study1". It presents the
methodology utilized to determine recycling costs and revenues for a
recycling system developed in Nottingham, New Hampshire. The town of
Nottingham developed a dropoff center system in the early 19701s consist-
ing of the following:
1. A manual baler for newspaper,
2. A shredder for manually fed cardboard and manually fed mixed paper,
3. Manual sorting of glass followed by glass crushing,
4. A ferrous/non-ferrous metal separator followed by a "tin" crusher
(ferrous stream) and an aluminum crusher (non-ferrous stream).
This appendix develops specific capital and operating costs, transportation
costs, and revenues for each of the materials recycled. The appendix develops a
framework for determining these costs which can be utilized by other
communities.
The authors of the report concluded that labor time and machine time (electrici-
ty usage and cost) represent the operating costs as they are the most dominant
variables and are the easiest to quantify. Capital costs, transportation costs,
and market revenues were developed for Nottingham in a more straight-forward
manner.
The Nottingham report also includes the results of a weighing survey of house-
hold wastes to estimate the average daily quantity and composition of waste that
might be expected from rural households under a source separation recycling
system and a survey of households to determine residents' attitudes, toward the
recycling system.
1 Tichenor, R., Jansen, E.F. Jr., and Pickering, T., 1975, Economics of a Small
Rural Town Recycling System: Implications of a Case Study: Durham, New
Hampshire, University of New Hampshire, 46p.
134
-------
Chapter IV of this report presents estimates of input requirements
per ton for the processing of each material, recycled in a Nottingham-type
plant based on observed average input usage per ton for each process. It
also examines the labor and electrical cost implications of the estimated
requirements. In this appendix, additional information is assumed for a
hypothetical town to illustrate a relatively simple framework for inte-
grating information from Chapter IV with information from outside the
report to approximate recycling costs and net costs for a Nottinghamrtype
plant in a particular town.!/
>»
For estimation purposes, the sum of production labor and electrical
costs for a Nottingham-type recycling plan may be viewed as roughly equiv-
alent to what economists refer to as variable costs (i.e., costs for
which the total varies directly with output levels). Appendix Table 1-1
illustrates computational procedures for an approximation of variable cost
per ton of recycled material. It is assumed that planners for the hypo-
thetical town have determined that, given the resident and commercial
population of the town, the expected composition of recyclables to be pro-
cessed at the town facility is that given in Column 4 of that table.
It is further assumed that the appropriate wage and electrical rates
are $3.00 per hour and $.06 per killowatt-hour, respectively. Multiplica-
tion of those rates by the estimated labor and electrical requirements
given in Table 2 of Chapter IV yields the labor and electrical costs per
ton for each material which are given in Columns .1 and 2 of Appendix
Table 1-1. Summing these for each material yields an estimate of variable
cost per ton for that materia-l (Col. 3). Multiplying the variable cost
per ton for each material (Col. 3) by the percentage that each material is
of total recycled waste in the town's composition (Col. 4) and summing
these weighted figures (Col. 5) yields $15.19, the estimate of variable
cost per ton of recycled material for the hypothetical town.
The annual amortization on the building and equipment plus annual
overhead expenses can be viewed as equivalent to what economists refer
to as fixed costs. It is assumed that the planners for the hypothetical
town have determined that a Nottingham-type recycling plant can be con-
structed and equipped in that town for the costs itemized in the first
— To insure that they are not unreasonable, assumptions about wage and
electrical rates, composition of recyclables, prices for recyclables,
and initial costs of the building and equipment are based on information
from Nottingham supplied to us by R and C, Inc. Assumed wage and elec-
trical rates are those that applied in Nottingham during the study per-
iod. The assumed composition is based on sales data (and estimated
accumulation of unsold aluminum) through early November, 1974. Assumed
market prices are a simple average of prices received by (quoted to the
case of aluminum) Nottingham through mid October, 1974. Assumed initial
. capital costs are those paid in Nottingham. However, due to other pure-
ly hypothetical factors in the example, it cannot be interpreted as
depicting Nottingham's actual experience.
135
-------
Appendix Table 1-1
Computation of Variable Cost Per Ton of
Recycled Material for Hypothetical Town
Material
(1)
Labor Cost
Per Ton
(2)
Electrical
Cost Per Ton
(3)
(1) ~ (2)
Variable
Cost Per Ton
(4)
Percentage
Recycled Material
(5)
(3) X (4)
Contribution to
Variable Cost
Per Ton of Recycled
Materia 1
Newspaper
$ 14.10
$ .003
$ 14.10
12.4%
$ 1.75
Cardboard
48.60
1.72
.50.32
6.7
3.37
Mixed Paper
25.80
1.21
27.01
10.0
2.70
Glass
6.90
.06
6.96
56.1
3.90
"Tin" Can
21.00
1.11
22.11
14.2
3.14
Aluminum
53.40
1.94
55.34
.6
.33
Variable Cost Per Ton of Recycled Material
IB.19
-------
column of Appendix Tabic 1-2, and that they have decided that life expec-
tancies are as shown in the second column of that table, that annual
amortizations are adequately approximated by the formula given at the bot-
tom of that table, that the current municipal bond rate of 71 is the
appropriate interest rate, and that annual overhead expenses (including
an allowance for maintenance and repair expenses) will be about $2,000.
As indicated in Appendix Table 1-2, the resulting total annual (in-plant)
fixed cost estimate is $5,722.63.
Together the computations of Appendix Tables 1-1 and 1-2 imply the
following approximations of in-plant cost functions:
Al) Total Annual (in-plant) cost = $5,722.63 + $15.19 Q
A2) Annual (in-plant) cost per ton = $5,722.63/Q + $15.19
where Q = annual tonnage of recycled material. 'Die hypothetical town's
total cost and cost per ton can be approximated for various annual ton-
nages by substituting the tonnage for Q in the above equations.
Per ton cost estimates are probably the most useful for comparison
with disposal alternatives. The second column of Appendix Table 1-4 pre-
sents estimates of annual (in-plant) costs per ton computed with equation
A2 for the selected annual tonnages given in the first column of that
table. These arc not, of course, the net costs per ton that should be
compared with disposal alternatives. Net revenue per ton (revenue per
ton minus the costs per ton of transporting materials to markets) must be
estimated and subtracted from in-plant costs per ton to estimate net costs
per ton. For our hypothetical town, it is assumed that the expected aver-
age market prices and transportation costs per ton for each material are
those given in Columns J and 2 of Appendix Table 1-3 yielding the net rev-
enue per ton given in Column 3 of that table. Multiplying the net revenue
per ton for each material (Col. 3) by the percentage that material is of
total recycled material (Col. 4) and summing the weighted figures (Col. 5)
over all materials yields $16.83, the estimate of net revenue per ton of
recycled material given at the bottom of Appendix Table 1-3. Subtraction
of that amount from in-plant cost per ton at each of the selected tonnages
in Appendix Table 1-4 yields the net costs per ton given in the third col-
umn of that table.
If our linear approximations of production relationships in Chapter
IV are thought to be adequate, this framework can be used to estimate
annual recycling costs and net costs for real towns by substituting the
appropriate information for the assumptions made for the hypothetical
town. The estimated net costs.per ton can then be compared with estimates
from other sources of the net cost per ton of disposing of recyclables by
the least cost alternative available to the.particular town.
These estimates and comparisons can and should, be made not only for
the current annual quantity of recyclables but for a range of quantities
that might accompany the potential growth or decline of the town within
the life of the facility. Growth or decline may also cause changes in
the composition, and prices (for inputs and outputs) are certain to change
137
-------
Appendix Table 1-2
Recycling Capital Costs At Nottingham, N.II. (1973-1974)
and Illustrative Annual Fixed Cost Estimates for a Hypothetical Town
Initial Cost Estimated Life Annual Fixed Cost-^
Paper Shredder
$2390
10
322.65
Glass Crusher
1000
10
135.00
Can Crusher
3900
8
624.00
Magnetic Conveyor
S00
.8
108.00
Forklift
3S00
10
513.00
Battery Charger
150
5
35.25
Batteries (30)
1500
10
202.50
Paper Baling Frame
15
2
8.03
Paper Baling Equipment
¦ 50
10
6.75
Glass Sorting Bins (3)
300
5
70.50
Glass Shipping Bins (12)
360
10
4 8.60
Metal Shipping Bins (12)
300
10
40.50
Paper Shredding Bin
30
10
3.35
Paper Shipping Bins (6)
300
10
40.50
Building (30x66x16)
IS,400
20
1,564.00
33,295
3,722.63
Allowance for annual overhead expenses
(Hypothetical Town)
2,000.00
Annual Fixed Cost (Hypothetical
Town)
5,722.63
1/ Amortization on Equipment and Plant by the approximation formula:
(Pr Lee/Li fe) + [(Price/2) x interest rate] using 7" for the interest rate.
2/ At Nottingham, this building houses the incinerator operation in addition to
its recycling operation.
138
-------
Appendix Table 1-3
Computation of Net Revenue
Per Ton of Recycled Material for Hypothetical Town
Material
(1)
Hypothetical
Market Price
Per Ton
(2)
Hypothetical
Transportation
Cost Per Ton
(3)
(1) - (2)
Hypothetical
Net Revenue
Per Ton
(4)
Hypothetical
Composition
(S)
(3) X (4)
Contribution to
Hypothetical Net
Revenue Per Ton
Recycled
Newspaper
$ 40.00
$ 3.40
$ 36.60
12.4%
$4.54
Cardboard
35.00
21.80
13.20
6.7
. 89
Mixed Paper
11.90
14.70
-2.80
10.0
-.28
Glass
22.25
6.80
15.45
56.1
8.67
"Tin" Cans
25.00
11.40
13.60
14.2
1.93
Aluminum
200.00
20.00
180.00
.6
1.08
Net Revenue Per Ton
of Recycled Material $16.83
-------
Appendix Table 1-4
In-Plant Cost Per Ton and Net Recycling Cost Per Ton
For a Hypothetical Town at Selected
Annual Tonnages of Recycled Materials
Annual Tonnage of
Recycled Materials
Q
In-Plant Costs
Per Ton
(5722.63/Q) «¦ 15.19
Net Costs
Per Ton
(In-Plant Cost Per Ton
Minus Net Revenue Per Ton of
16-83)
Tons
Uol lars
200
45.80
26.97
400
29.50
12.67
600
24.73
7.90
800
22.54
5.51
1000
20.91
4.08
1200
19.96
. 3. 13
1400
19.28
2.45
1600
18.77
1.94
1800
18.37
1.54
2000
18.05
1.22
140
-------
over time. The simple framework suggested lierc can also be used to assess
the impact of such changes by merely substituting various potential val-
ues of these variables into the framework for those values which are
believed to be currently applicable.
141
-------
APPENDIX V
142
-------
Source:
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
November, 1978.
GLOSSARY
of Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Like tny emerging technology, mouse# recovery ind modern solid wean management hate developed a jargon all their own —
often leaving the layman puzzled by a maze oi incomprehensible terminology. "What's pyroiysisf.What's the difference Between a
dump ana a sanitary landfill?"
lit this new edition ot the Glossary, the National Canter lor Resource Recovery, Inc., provides brief definitions tor some of the
more commonly used — but frequently mlaunderstood — terms. The definitions ware prepared for lay readers, and should not Be
considered technically complete. Emphasis was placed on interpreting word meanings in the contest of resource recovery and solid
waste management, so that an interested reader without a technical background will llnd the terms to be helpful, understandable
and reienrant.
A«robiC Digestion: The utilization of organic waste aa a
substrata for the growth of bacteria which function in tn«
presence of oxygen to reduce tna volume of tn« waste. The
products of tfiis decomposition ara carton dioxide, watar ana
a remainder consisting of inorganic compounds and any un-
digested organic material.
Air Classifier: A unit grocass in Which mixed material is in-
jected into a forced air stream and separated according to the
size, bulk, density and aerodynamic drag of the pieces.
Aluminum: A light, strong, silver-colored metal, and tne
most abundant metallic element in the urtn's crust It Is de-
rived chiefly from the mineral bauxite.
Aluminum Magnet So* gddy Current Separator.
Anaerobic Oigestion: The utilization of organic waate as a
substrate for tne growth of bacteria which function in the
absence of oxygen to reduce the volume of waste. The bacteria
consume tne careon In tne waste as their energy source and
convert it to gaseous products. Property controlled, anaerobic
digestion will produce a mixture of methane and carbon diox-
ide, with a sludge remainder consisting of Inorganic com-
pounds and any undigested organic material.
"Back-End" System: Jargon for any of several processes
for recovering resources from the organic portion of the waste
stream. (Front-end processes separate and recover tne In-
organic portion from tne incoming refuse.) 8ock-«nd system
operations include refuse-derived fuel recovery, conversion to
oil or gas, fiber reclaim, composting, conversion to animal
feed, etc.
Ballistic Separator A mechanical separation system in
which the mixed material is ejected with a horizontal velocity,
and segregated by the respective ballistic path or arc of eacn
piece according to its mass and drag.
Beneiiciation: The concentration, snnancement or
upgrading of waste materials in a resource recovery process-
ing system so that they may be more readily used aa secondary
materials. (See Secondary Materials.)
Biodegradable Material: waste material wnich is capable
ot being broken down by bacteria into basic elements. Most
organic wastesr^such as food remains and paper, are bio-
degradable.
Biochemical Oxygen Oemand (BOO): a measure of
the amount of oxygen used by microorganisms to break down
organic waste materials in water.
Collection Center: A place or facility designed to accept
waste materials from individuals. This is usually for such
specific items as glass bottles or cans. The term may also be
used to mean a central receiving point for waate material col-
lected by a government or private agency.
Color Sorting oi Glass: A technique for sorting by color
glass reclaimed From solid waste. Two experimental methods
have been developed: (1) Optical sorting which compares lignt
reflected from eacn piece with lignt reflected from a
background standard. Successive passes, witn different light
source filters and standards, could be color selective. (2)
Magnetic sorting which utilizes hign-intensity magnetic forces
on small glass pieces to sort tne dear glass from the colored
glass (wnich contains iron compounds).
Combustibles: Various materials tn tne waste stream
wnich are bumaole, such as paper, plastic, lawn dippings,
leaves and other lignt organic materials.
Commercial Waste: Waste material wnich originates in
wholesale, retail or service establishments, such as office
buildings, stores, markets, theaters, hotels ind warehouses.
Composting: The natural conversion of most organic
materials to humus by microorganism activity. Commercial
methods speed uo the action ot aerooic microorganisms by
mechanical mixing and temperature control, aeration and
acidity. Composting is not effective on plastic and rubber.
Consumer Waste: Materials wnicn have been discarded by
the Buyer, or consumer, as opposed to "in-ptant waste," 01
waste created in tne manufacturing process.
Cover Material: Sand and dirt used to cover compacted
waate in a sanitary landfill.
Cuilet: Scrao glass, usually Broken up into small, uniform
pieces.
Cyclone Separator A mecnanical seoarator which uses a
swirling air flow to sort small particles according to their size
and density.
Qeinking: A process in Whicn most of tne ink, filler and otner
extraneous material is removed from printed waste .pacer or
brcKerThls produces pulp which can be used'iiong with vary-
ing percentages of virgin paper in the manufacture ot new
143
-------
paoer, Including nign quality printing, writing and office papers
as wail aa tissue and toweling.
Oensified Refuse-Derived Fuel (d-ROF): a refuse-
derived fuel whicn hss Bean compressed or compact ad
tnrough such processes aa pallatizing, briquettlng or ex-
truding. causing improvements in certain handling or burning
characteristics. (See Retus+Oamad Fuai.)
Dewatering: The removal of water by filtration, eantrifuga-
Hon, pressing, coagulation or othar methods. Dewatering
makes sewage sludge suitable (or disposal by burning or land-
filling. The term is also applied to removal of water from pulp.
Dump: An open land site where waste materials are burned,
left to decompose, rust or simply remain. Because of the prob-
lems which they create, such aa air and water pollution, un-
sanitary conditions, and general unsightliness. dumps haw
been declared illegal (with varying moratorium dates) In all
states.
Eddy Current Separator A type of equipment used to
separate aluminum and other non-magnetic metala through
the use of electrodynamic induction of a magnetic field; i.a-. an
alternating current Is passed through a piece of metal in a
soecifled manner causing the metal temporarily to become
magnetic and making it possible to deflect it and separate it
Also referred to as "aluminum magnet" and eiectrodynamic
separator.
Effluent: Solid, liquid or gas waatss which enter the environ*
merit aa a by-product of cnemical or biological processes,
usually from man-oriented processes.
Bectrodynamic Separator See Eddy Currant Separator.
Electrostatic Precipitator A system tor removing un-
wanted colloidal particles from a solution by passing the par-
ticles tnrough an electrostatic field and than collecting the
charged particles on collecting plate or pipe. Sometimes used
in incinerators, furnaces and treatment plants to collect or
separate dust panicles.
Elutriation: The separation of finer, lignter particles from
coarser, heavier particles In a mixture by means of s usually
slow upward stream of fluid so that the lighter particles are car-
ried upward.
Energy Recovery: A form of resource recovery in whicn the
organic fraction of waste is converted to some form of usabie
energy. Recovery may be achieved tnrough the combustion of
processed or raw refuse to produce steam (*&. ss a. sup-
plemental fuel in electric utility power plant boilers or as the
primary fuel in incinerators), through the pyrolysis of refuse to
produce oil or gas; and through the anaerobic digestion of
organic wastes to produce methane gas.
Ferrous: Metals which are predominantly composed of iron.
Most common ferrous metals are magnetic, in the waste
materials stream, these usually include steel or "tin" cans,
automobiles, old refrigerators, stoves, etc
Fluid Bed Incinerator An Incinerator In which the waste
Is maintained in suspension In air by an upward controlled flow
of the air. The bed of solids acts like a fluid when the upward
air flow has sufficient velocity to float seme of the solids. One
such Incinerator confines combustion within a bed of wave
and sand supported on a perforated plane. Air is blown upward
tnrougn tne plate whicn chums the waste and sand Into a tur-
bulent mass. Volatile gases are collected above the bed.
Fly Ash: Small solid panicles of ash and soot generated
when burning coal, oil or waste materials. With proper equip-
ment, fly asn is collected to prevent it from entering the at-
mosphere. Fly ash can be used in building materials, sucn as
bricks, or disposed of In a landfill.
Fossil Fuels: Fuels, sucn as coal, oil and natural gas, which
are the remains of ancient plant and animal life.
"Front-End?" "System; Jargon referring to processing of
municipal -solid waste for recovery of materials (e.g., metals..
glass and paper). A front-end system also prepares tne organic
portion in a form readily usable in energy recovery, or back-end
systems.
Froth Flotation: A process frequently used In tne mineraia
industry wnereby one type of finely divided solid may be
separated from another by Immersing mem in a tank of water
with an appropriate chemical surface active agent and in-
troducing air bubbles at tne bottom of the tank. The agent In*
pans to one material or tne other a greater affinity for air than
water, causing it to rise with the bubbles to tne surface where
it can be collected. This metnod is used to recover small par-
ticles. of material sucn ss sand-sized pieces of glass by
separating them from rock and stone.
Fumace: An enclosed refractory or water wall structure
equipped with grates. The furnace is the area in an incinerator
where the preheating, drying. Igniting and most of tne burning
of refuse takes place.
G(asphalt* : A highway paving material in which recovered
ground glass replaces some of the gravel normally used in
asphalt
Glass: Vitreous material from the fusion of sand and soda
ash, with ad|uvant Ingredients, common glass Is impermeable,
transparent, sanitary and odorless. Clear bottle glass is made
basically by melting almost pure silica sand In furnaces at
2700'F. with burnt lime or limestone and soda asn. Crushed
glass (cullet) has traditionally been added to make the mixture
of raw materials mora workable. Colored glass is usually ob-
tained by adding small amounts of selected metals, salts or ox-
Ides sucn as iron salts or enromia.
Gravity Separation: The collection of substances
Immersed in a liquid by taking advantage of differences in
density.
Hammermill: A type of crusher used to break up waste
materials into smaller pieces or particles, which operates by
using rotating snd flailing heavy hammers.
Hazardous Waste: Waste materials Which by tneir nature
are dangerous to handle or dispose of. These materials include
old explosives, radioactive materials, some cnemical and some
biological wastes, usually produced in industrial operations or
in institutions. Not meant to imply that other wastes are non-
"hazardous.
Heavy Media Separator A unit process used to separate
materials of differing densities by "float/sink" in a colloidal
suspension of a finely ground dense mineral. This suspension,
or media, usually consists cf a water-suspension cf magnetite,
ferrosilicon or galena.
Home Scrap: Scrap that is utilized within the plant where it
originates. (See ln-Plant Wast*.)
Hydrolysis: A type of chemical reaction in which water acts
upon another substance to form one or more entirety new
substances. Hydrolysis is usually catalyzed by the presence of
an acid or alkali. An example Is the breakdown of cellulose to
carbohydrates, or, funner, to glucose. The products of the
hydrolysis of cellulose may be fermented to produca etnanol.
Hydrapulpef® : A large mechanical device used primarily in
the paper industry to pulp waste paper or wood chips and
separate foreign matter. The effect of pulping is to suspend
finely divided cellulose fibers (and other matter) In water. This
process hss been incorporated In certain resource recovery
systems.
Incinerator a plant designed to reduce wsste volume by
combustion. Incinerators consist of refuse handling and
storage facilities, furnaces, subsidence chambers, residue
handling and removal facilities, chimneys and otner air pollu-
tion control equipment.
Industrial Waste: Those waste materials generally dis-
carded from Industrial operations or derived from manufactur-
ing processes.
Inorganic Refuse: Waste material made from substances
composed of matter otner than plant, animal, or certain
cnemical'.compounds of carbon. Examples are metals and
glass. (See Organic Rotim.)
In-Plant Waste: Waste generated in manufacturing proc-
esses. Such might be recovered through internal recycling or
144
-------
tnrougn a salvage dealer. [See Horns Scree. Prompt industrial
Scrap.)
Institutional Waste: Waste materials originating In
school*, hospitals,' research institutions and public buildings.
Trie materials include packaging materials, certain hazardous
wastes, food wastes, disposable srocucts. etc
Jigging: A process used to segregate presized solid
materials of different densities and operated by periodic pulsa-
tion of a liquid, usually water, through a bed of the mixture of
solids, wnicn tends to float tne lignter solids.
Laachate: A liquid containing decomposed waste, bacteria
and other noxious and potentially harmful materials wfticft
drains from landfills and must be collected and treated so as
not to contaminate water supplies.
Utter Solid waste discarded outside the established
collection-disposal system. (Solid waste property placed in
containers is often referred to as trasn and garoage; uncon-
tainerized, II is referred to as litter.) Litter accounts for about
two percent of municipal solid waste.
Magnetic Separator Equipment usually consisting of a
belt, drum or pulley with a permanent or electro-magnet and
used to attract and remove magnetic materials from other
materials. (See Separation.)
Manual Separation: The separation of waste materials by
hand. Sometimes called hand-picking, manual separation is
done in the home or office by keeping newspapers separate
from garbage, or In a recovery plant by picking out certain
materials. (See Separation.)
Materials Recovery: The initial phase — front-end — of a
resource recovery system where recyclable and reusable
materials are extracted from waste for sale. (See "fnncBM"
Sysrem.)
Methane: An odorless, csiortesa, flammable gaa which can
be formed by the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste
matter or by chemical synthesis. it la the principal constituent
of natural gaa.
Microorganisms: Generally, any living thing microscopic
In size Including bacteria, yeasts, simple fungi, some algae,
slime mows and protozoans/They are involved in the stabiliza-
tion of waste materials (composting) and in sewage treatment
processes.
Mixed Paper Waste paper of various kinds and quality,
usually collected from stores, offices and schools.
Modular Combustion Unit A small, self-contained In-
cinerator designed to handle small quantities of solid waste.
Several "modules" may be combined in a plant as needed,
depending on the quantity of waate to be processed. (See !/»•
eiMtwHeit)
Municipal Solid Wastes: The combined residential and
commercial waste materials generated In a given municipal
area. The collection and disposal of these wastes are usually
the responsibility of local government
Newsprint: The kind or type of paper generally used for
printing newspapers.
Nonferrous: Metals which contain no Iron. In waste
materials tnese are usually aluminum, copper wire, brass,
bronze, etc.
Obsolete Scrap: Scrap derived from products which have
completed their useful economic life:
Organic Refuse: waste material made from substances
composed of chemical compounds of carbon and generally
manufactured in tne life processes of plants and animals.
These materials include paper, wood, food wastes, plastic, and
yard wastes.
Packaging Materials: Any of a variety of papers, card-
boards, metals, wood, paperboard and plastics used in the
manufacture of containers for food, household and industrial
products.
Paper In a general sense, the name for all kinds of matted or
felted sheets of fiber formed on a fine screen from a water
suspension. More specifically, paper is one of two broad sub-
divisions (the other being paperOoard) of ihe general term
paperrPao«f7u3tjal[y Tighter in" basis weight thinner anymore
flexible than paperboard, is used largely for printing, writing,
wrapping and sanitary purposes.
Paperboard: Relatively heavier in basis weight, thicker and
more rigid than paper. There are three broad classes of paper-
board: (1) container board, (2) ooxboard, and (3) special types
such as automobile board, building board, tube board, etc
PaperStOCk: A general term used to designate waste papers
which have been sorted or segregated at the source into
various recognized grades, it is a principal ingredient in the
manufacture of certain types of paoerooard.
Particulates: Suspended small eolioidai size panicles of
ash, charred paper, dust soot or other partially incinerated
matter carried in tne products of combustion.
Plastics: Man-made materials, large molecules called
"polymers," containing primarily carbon and hydrogen with
lesser amounts of oxygen or nitrogen. Frequently com-
pounded with various organic and inorganic compounds as
stabilizers, colorants, fillers and other adjuvant ingredients.
Plastics are normally solid in their finished state, but at some
stage in their manufacture, under adequate heat and pressure,
they will flow sufficiently to be molded into desired shape.
Thermoplastic*, such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride
(PVC), polystyrene and polypropylene, become soft when ax-
posed to heat and pressure and narden when cooled. Ther-
mosetting plastics, such as phenoilcs and some polyesters,
are set to permanent snaoes when heat and pressure are ap-
plied to tnem during forming, and reheating will not soften
tnese materials.
Primary Materials: Virgin or new materials used for
manufacturing paaic products. Examples include wood pulp,
iron ore, silica sand and bauxite.
Prompt Industrial Scrap: Waste which is generated dur-
ing a manufacturing operation. (See //t-Pfenr Wests.)
PutreSCible: Subject to decomposition or decay. Usually
need in reference to food wastes and other organic waates.
Pyrolysis: The process of chemically decomposing an
organic sufistance by heating It In an oxygen-deficient at-
mosphere. High temperatures and closed chambers are used.
The major products from pyrolysis of solid waate are weter,
earoon monoxide and hydrogen. Some processes produce an
oil-ilka liquid of undetermined chemical composition. The gas
may contain hydrocarbons and frequently there is process
residue of a carbon char. Alt processes leave a residue at in-
organic material. The gaseous products cannot be mixed with
natural gas in principal distribution systems unless there is ad-
ditional chemical processing. Applied to solid waste, pyrolysis
Has tne features of effecting major volume reduction while pro-
ducing storable fuels.
Recycling: A resource recovery method involving the collec-
tion and treatment of a waste product for use as raw material
in tne manufacture of the same or a similar product e.g^
ground glass used in the manufacture of new glass. (See
Ttuiafomatlon.)
Refractory Material: Incinerator lining material which
resists the abrasion, spelling, and slagging effects due to heat
and refuse material movement which are present In incinera-
tion.
Refuse-Oerlved Fuel (RDF): a solid fuel obtained from
municipal £ciid waste as a result of a mechanical process, or
sequence of operations, which improves the physical, me-
chanical" or combustion characteristics compared to the
original unsegregated feed product or unprocessed solid
waste. (See Oens/Y/ed Aefose-Oerfvetf Futl.)
Residential Waste: Waste materials generated in nouses
and apartments. The materials include paper, cardboard,
beverage and food cans, plastics, food wastes, glass con-
tainers, old ctothea, garden wastes, etc.
Residue: The materials remaining after completion of a
chemical or physical process, such as burning, evaporation,
distillation or filtration. (See Sludge.)
Resource Conservation: The reduction of the amounts of
solid waste that is generated, reduction of overall resources
consumed, and utilization of recovered resources.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 197G:
This law amends tne Solid Waate Oisposai Act of 1963 and ex-
pands on tne Resource Recovery Act of 197Q to provide a pro-
gram to regulate hazardous waste: to eliminate open dumping:
to-piwote solid waste managemenrprogrems tnrougn-flnan=--
cial and technical assistance; to further solid waste manage-
ment options in rural communities through government grants;
145
-------
and to conduct research, development and demonstration pro*
grams for tne betterment oI solid waste management, resource
conservation ana recovery practices.
Resource Recovery: A term describing the extraction and
utilization of materials and values from the waste stream.
Materials recovered, for example, would include metals and
glass which can be used as "raw materials" in tne manufacture
of new products. Recovery of values including energy recovery
by utilizing components of waste as a fuel or feedstock for
chemical or biological conversion to some form of fuel or
steam. (See Recycling, Transformation.)
Rising Current Separator a unit process utilizing a form
of elutriation which separates by a counter-current flow of
water (or other fluid).
Rubber An elastic substance obtained by coagulating the
latex of various tropical plants and prepared as sheets and
dried. It can then be modified by chemical treatment to in-
crease its useful properties (toughness and resistance to wear)
and used in tires, electrical insulation, ate.
Rubble: Waste materials made up mainly 0/ fragments or
pieces of rock or masonry, sometimes containing lumber or
other construction materials.
Sanitary Landfill: A method ot disposing of refuse on land
without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safe-
ty. Careful preparation of the fill area and control o< water
drainage are required to assure proper tandfllllng. To confine
tne refuse to the smallest practical area and reduce it to the
smallest practical volume, heavy tractor-like equipment is used
to spread, compact, and usually cover the waste daily with at
least six Inches of compacted dirt. After the area has been
completely filled and covered with a final two- to three-foot
layer of dirt, and has been allowed to settle an appropriate
period of time, the reclaimed land may be turned into a recrea-
tional area such as a park or golf course. Under certain higniy
controlled conditions the land may be used as a plot on which
some types ot buildings can be constructed.
Scrap: Waste material which Is usually segregated and
suitable for recovery or reclamation, often after mechanical
processing.
Screening: a sieve-like device used to separate pulverized
waste material into various sizes. Two or more stages of
separation may be used, each stage having a different hole size
In order to separate material by size. (See Separation.)
Scrubber A device for removing unwanted dust particles
from an air stream by spraying the air stream with a liquid
(usually water) or forcing the air through a series of baths. (See
Electrostatic Precipitator.)
Secondary Materials: All types of materials handled by
dealers and brokers that have fulfilled their useful function and
usually cannot be used further In their present form «r at their
present location, and materials that occur as waste from the
manufacturing or conversion of products.
Separation: To divide waste into groups of similar materials,
such as paper products, glass, food wastes and metals. Also,
used to describe the further sorting of materials into more
specific categories, such as clear glass and dark glass. Separa-
tion may be done manually or with specialized equipment.
Settling Chamber A mechanical collector which removes
coarse particulate matter when the force of gravity pulls the
dust to the bottom of tne chamber. The air Is introduced Into
the chamber at a very low velocity to allow the particulate to
tall out more effectively.
ShreddefT A mechanical device used to break up waste
materials into smaller pieces by 1 earing and Impact action.
Sludge: Waste materials in the form of a concentrated
suspension of waste solids In water. One type of sludge is pro-
duced from the treatment of sewage.
Solid Waste: Discarded solid materials, includes
agricultural waste (e.g., animal manure, crop residues), mining
waste (e.g., mine tailings), industrial waste (e.g., manufacturing
residues) and municipal waste. (See industrial Waste,
Municipal Solid Waste, Residential Waste, Waste Materials.)
Solid Waste Management Conduct and regulation of
the entire process of generation, storage, collection, trans-
portation. processing, recovery and disposal of refuse.
Source Separation: The segregation and collection of in-
dividual recyclable components before they become mixed
into the solid waste stream (e.g., bottles, cans, newspapers,
corrugated containers or office papers).
Spiral Classifier. A mechanical device tor oerlorming two
types of wet separation of fine solids: (1) large solids are
separated from small solids of approximately the same densi-
ty; (2) higher density solids are separated from lower density
solids of tne same approximate size. The large or denser solids
are delivered up the spiral, somewhat drained.
Steel: Commercial iron that contains carbon in any amount
up to about 1.7 percent as an essential alloying constituent. It
is distinguished from cast iron by its malleability and lower
carbon content.
Tin-Free Steel (TFS) Cans: Cans made from low-caroon
steel with a very thin anti-corrosion coating of chromium oxide
rather than tin.
Transfer Station: A place or facility Where waste materials
are taken from smaller collection vehicles (e.g., compactor
trucks) and placed in larger transportation units (e.g.t over-the-
road tractor trailers or barges) for movement to disposal areas,
usually landfills. In some transfer operations, compaction or
separation may be done at the station.
Transformation: A resource recovery method involving the
collection and treatment (other than by biological or chemical
means) of a waste product for use as raw material in the
manufacture ot a different product, e.g., ground glass used to
make brick. (See Recycling.)
Trash: Waste materials which usually do not include garbage
but may include other organic materials, such as plant trim-
mings.
Trommel: A perforated, rotating horizontal cylinder which
may be used in resource recovery facilities to break open trash
bags, remove glass in large enough pieces for easy recovery
and remove small abrasive Items such as stones and dirt.
Trommels have been used to remove steel cans from in-
cinerator residue.
Urban Waste: A general term used to categorize the entire
waste stream from an urban area. It is sometimes used in con-
trast to "rural waste."
Vibrating Screen: a mechanical device which sorts
material according to size. The vibration serves to prevent clog-
ging ot the screen and to accomplish outfeed. Mechanical
screens are used wei or dry, In single or multiple decks.
Virgin Materials: Any basic material for industrial proc-
esses which has not previously been used, e.g., trees, iron ore,
silica sand, crude oil, bauxite. (See Secondary Materials,
Primary Materials.)
Volume Reduction: The processing of waste materials so
as to decrease the amount of space the materials occupy.
Reduction Is presently accomplished by three major proc-
esses: (1) mechanical, which uses compaction techniques
(sanitary landfill, etc.) and shredding; (2) tnermal, which is
achieved by heat (incineration and pyrolysis) and can reduce
volume by SO-SO percent; and (3) biological, in which the
organic waste fraction is degraded by bacterial action (com-
posting, etc.). (See Biodegradable, Composting, Incinerator,
Pyrolysis, Sanitary Landfill, HammermiU, Shredder.)
Voluntary Separation: The separation of glass bottles,
food and beverage cans or newspaper by hand by individuals or
groups of individuals, at home or In local collection centers.
Waste Materials (Solids): a wide variety of solid
materials that may even include liquids in containers, which
aie discarded or rejected as being spent, useless, worthless, or
in excess. Does not usually include waste solids found in
sewage systems, water resources or those emitted from
smoke stacks.
Waste Pulper A pulping system designed specifically for
waste material processing.
Waste Stream: A general term used to denote the waste
material output of an area, location or facility.
Water-Wall Furnace: Furnace constructed with walls of
welded steel tubes through which water is circulated to absorb
the heat of combustion. These furnaces can be used as in-
cinerators. The steam or hot water thus generated may be put
to a useful purpose, or simply used to carry the heat away to
the outside environment.
Yard Wastes: Grass clippings, pruning, and other discarded
material from yards and gardens.
146
------- |