The Community Choice Between
High and Low Technology Approaches to
Resource Recovery
by
Stephen Andrew Hill
B.A.,
University of California, Santa
(1976)
Cruz
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF CITY PLANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 1980
®j
Stephen Andrew Hill 1980
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to
and to distribute
copies of this
thesis
document
or in part.
reproduce
in whole
. A
A
Signature
of
Author
fparment//of Urban Studies and
n'ii
Certified
23,
Planning
1980
b
Lawrence Susskind
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted
by
La119ley C. Keyes
Chairman, MCP Committee
MASSACHUSETTS INSTTUTE
OF TECHNOLOY
AUG 2 0 1980
uIBANES
2
The Community Choice Between
High and Low Technology Approaches
to
Resource Recovery
ABSTRACT
Traditional methods for disposing of municipal solid
waste, landfilling and incineration, have in many communities
been unable to meet local disposal needs and various environIn recent years, resource recovery -mental regulations.
the recovery of materials and/or energy from household waste
There are two generic
has offered an alternative.
-the "low technology" approach
approaches to resource recovery:
involves household separation of recyclable materials and
the "high technology" approach involves processing mixed
wastes to recover energy and perhaps materials.
The debate over the merits of each approach has focused
on national issues of resource conservation, consumption
habits, and disposal impacts.
However, the decision to implement or participate in a resource recovery program is
The thesis thus examines the appropriate
usually municipal.
Using a case
technology issue from a community perspective.
study approach, it observes how communities view the lowversus-high technology issue, and defines some elements of
a choice process for communities considering resource
recovery.
The case studies suggest that municipalities typically
do not face a binary choice between low and high technology
Rather, they can select combinations of resource
approaches.
or sequence their choices so as to best
options
recovery
A community's particular objectives
needs.
local
address
and circumstances with respect to solid waste management
will have a major influence on its evaluation of resource
recovery options.
3
Acknowledgements
Many individuals offered useful suggestions
formation during the course of
I want
to
this study.
In particular,
thank the members of my thesis committee:
Susskind for his timely comments
suggestions
Michael Bever and
Fred Gross
resource recovery.
individuals
I also want
along the way.
helpful
to thank Professor
for sharing their
thoughts
I am indebted to the many
in my case studies:
their
assistance made the study possible.
cooperation
This thesis
dedicated to the men of packer truck 37,
Works
Larry
and valuable criticism,
and Joseph Ferreira and Larry Bacow for their
about
and in-
and
is
Cambridge Public
Department, whose Friday morning pick-ups were a
source. of
inspiration to me at my writing desk.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I.
Introduction
II.
Why
III.
The Issue of
IV.
Case Study 1:
Marblehead, Massachusetts....
28
V.
Case Study 2:
El Cerrito,
42
VI.
Case Study 3:
North Little
VII.
Case Study 4:
Ames,
VIII.
Conclusions..
97
The
97
.-
--
-----.
.
Resource Recovery
.
- ---.
...
.
,,
. ..
.....................
Iowa
California
6
11
22
Appropriate Technology,
......
Rock, Arkansas..
59
..................
77
Community Perspective
Suggestions f or
Ix.
---
a.Community
Choice Process..
101
Bibliography
126
Glossary and Acronyms.......................
130
5
TABLE AND FIGURES
Table
page
1.
Material
Composition of MSW...................
12
2.
Marblehead MSW Generation Rates................
31
3.
Marblehead
Program Costs
37
4.
El
Program Materials
5.
El Cerrito Program Costs and Revenues ..........--
53
6.
North
70
7.
Waste Tonnage Processed
8.
Ames
9.
Motivation
Cerrito
Little
Rock Plant
RDF Plant
for
Costs
and
and
Costs
by
Revenues.----.........
Markets ....
--.--..-. 52
and
Revenues -...
Ames RDF Plant -
Revenues................
Considering
Resource
Recovery--
88
90
102
Figure
Study
Locations..........................
9
1.
Case
2.
Location Map:
Marblehead, Massachusetts.......
29
3.
Location Map:
El Cerrito,
43
4.
Location Map:
North Little Rock, Arkansas -...
60
5.
Location Map:
Ames,
78
California.........
Iowa.....................
6
1.
INTRODUCTION
United
The
cipal
(MSW)
solid waste
--
have been hard
of muni-
quantities
about 140 million
--
tons annually.
sanitary landfilling and
Traditional disposal methods -incineration
large
States generates
pressed
what
keep pace,
to
with rising
disposal costs and environmental and health
regulations
of
Cost
disposal practices.
and
capacity
problems with traditional disposal have led many communities
to
recovery -from
the
There
nology"
generic
two
are
approaches
option
is
or
energy
(or
materials
recovery of
resource
attractive
both)
stream.
waste
the
one
alternatives;
consider
--
and
to resource recovery.
approach is
fundamentally
different
--
The so-called "low tech-
labor-intensive, and
separating
involves
household solid wastes into recyclable and non-recyclable
components.*
transported
Recyclable
separately
wastes
are
then collected
The
to material markets.
"high technology" approach is
and
so-called
capital intensive; mixed MSW
is processed at a centralized facility, and energy is
usually
recovered
between
high and
recovery
*
is
from the
low
the basis
Or, rather,
generation.
combustible
technology
of
the
portion.
approaches
appropriate
not mixing wastes
at
their
to
The
choice
resource
technology
point
of
issue.
7
Arguments
primarily
around
disposal impacts and natural resource
national
issues of
policy.
These include:
and impacts, their
the net energy requirements of
implications for MSW disposal needs
each approach, their
ploitation, and
revolve
the other
for one or
effect on rates
of natural
resource ex-
their effect of patterns of consumption
and waste generation.
The appropriate technology
in previous
issue has been addressed
studies and papers, but in each case from
There
either a national or non-site-specific perspective.
apparently have been no
or
studies of
community perspective.
since the decision
to
this issue from a local
Such an approach would be useful,
implement or participate in a resource
At
recovery program is usually made by local government.
this
level, most of
debate
the issues
are external to the
central to
resource recovery choice (for
example, a community should not expect
fluence the size of
habits).
the national
its choice
secondary material markets
to in-
or consumption
Also, a community may find that key variables,
as MSW composition or current disposal
ficantly from the national
of appropriate
costs, differ signi-
averages, on which most
technology are
analyses
based.
For these reasons, an analysis of
technology resource recovery
such
the low-versus-high
issue from a community pera case
spective would be helpful.
The analysis is based on
study approach, considering
four cases in which communities
8
implemented resource recovery
selected and successfully
choice process is examined --
In each case, the
systems.
circumstances leading to a decision, options considered,
participants, choice criteria used,
and results
of
the project
project implementation,
to date.
From the case studies,
the
thesis
communities view the low-versus-high
recovery issue and
process
technology resource
some elements
the appropriate technology issue.
are not
intended
options
or
all
to describe
project
of a
choice
considering resource recovery, in
for communities
light of
They
(ii) defines
observes how
(i)
selection
all
possible
and
The four cases
recovery
resource
implementation
issues.
illustrate four very different choice processes and
provide mostly site-specific
allow me
1 locates
Nonetheless,
some general comment-s about
to make
technology
results.
the
Figure
the four cases.
low-versus-high technology choice is not
approaches
binary.
to resource recovery are not really
and communities
tend not
First,
The
the
two
substitutes,
to view them as competing options.
a community's particular objectives and circumstancees
with regard
fluence
appropriate
issue and a process for community. choice.
Several conclusions are worth highlighting.
Second,
they
to solid waste management will have a major
on its evaluation of
resource recovery options.
the resource recovery choice is very
mentation
issues.
closely tied to
Given the high degree of
inThird,
imple-
interdependence
9
Figure 1
Case Study Locations
Marblehead
Ames0
El
Cerrito
North
Little Rock
of various
elements of
a resource recovery strategy,
munity must usually address specific implementation
(such as materials
and/or-e:nergy buyers)
prior to
a comissues
selecting
a particul-ar option.
The following two sections provide background
mation on solid waste management practices and
covery options, and
debate
case
studies;
approach,
approach.
in
the first
Sections
IV -
technology
VII contain the four
two are examples of
the low-technology
and the second two illustrate the high-technology
Section VIII discusses the
re-examining
a process
resource re-
describe the low-versus-high
in more detail.
infor-
the appropriate
resulting conclusions,
technology question and defining
for communities wishing to compare the
their context.
two approaches
10
Notes
1.
Marchant Wentworth, Resource Recovery:
See, for example:
Environmental
Truth & Consequences (Washington, D.C.:
Action Foundation), 1977; Congress of the United States,
Office of Technology Assessment, Materials and Energy
from Municipal Waste,
U.S.
GPO),
July 1979;
Volume
and
Association, Recycling:
Barbara:
Comm. Envir.
I
(Washington, D.C.:
California Resource Recovery
The
State
Council),
of
the Art
1978.
(Santa
11
WHY RESOURCE RECOVERY?
II.
some back-
The purpose of th-is section is to provide
for
ground
therefore
their
the
reviews
solid waste disposal
familiar with
Readers
systems.
and
problems,
associated
and
case studies
subsequent
practices
in
the
U.S.,
resource recovery
various
to
wish
issued may
these
It
discussion.
skip this section.
Solid
Municipal
(MSW),
which we
concentrate
upon,
solid
institutions
and
offices.
It specifically excludes
and
schools
such as
lishments,
gene-
includes wastes
commercial and business
rated by households, sma l
cate-
two
into
divided
be conveniently
municipal and non-municipal.
gories:
waste
can
waste
estab-
government
solid waste produced by
MSW
industrial, farming, mining, and demolition activities.
products and materials;
is composed of a remarkable variety of
indicates
1
Table
households
U.S.
generate
its
a
composition
commercial
and
considerable
amount
terms.
general
in
sources
of MSW
--
currently
over
140 million
2
annually,
tons
generation has
Waste
and
or nearly 3.5
is
future.
expected
to
grown steadily
continue
EPA predicts
pounds
225
to
per
in
increase
million
tons
capita per
the
last
somewhat
day.
two
decades,
in the
annually by
the
year
3
1990.
Table 1
also
provides data
on MSW generation
in
1975.
12
TABLE
1
MATERIAL COMPOSITION OF MSW*
Net waste
disposed of
after recycling
Waste content
as discarded
Million
tons
44.1
Paper
13.7
Glass
11.3
Ferrous
1.0
Aluminum
0.4
Other nonferrous
4.4
Plastics
2.8
Rubber
0.7
Leather
2.1
Textiles
4.8
Wood
0.1
Other
Total nonfood
85.4
product waste
22.8
Food waste
26.0
Yard waste
Miscellaneous
1.9
inorganic wastes
136.1
TOTAL
Million
tons
37.2
13.3
10.8
0.9
0.4
4.4
2.6
0.7
2.1
4.8
0.1
% of
total
29.0
10.4
8.4
0.7
0.3
3.4
2.0
0.5
1.6
3.7
0.1
62.7
16.8
19.1
77.5
22.8
26.0
60.4
17.8
20.3
1.4
100.0
1.9
128.2
1.5
100.0
Material
% of
total
32.4
10.1
8.3
0.7
0.3
3.2
2.1
0.5
1.5
3.5
0.1
Agency, Fourth Report
U.S. Environmental Protection
Source:
Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, SW-600
to Congress:
U.S. GPO), 1977, p. 1 8 .
(Washington, D.C.:
The composition reflects
1975 data for the United States.
considerable geographic and seasonal variation.
*
MSW disposal
the 1960s,
The 1972
when
the
have improved
open dumping
and most
to sanitary
the
landfills
in
were
closure
open dumps were
1976 Resource Conservation
landfilling is
in
response
prevalent.
of most
either
to state
and Recovery Act.
an engineered method of MSW
since
significantly
and incinerators
Clean Air Act resulted
MSW incinerators,
converted
practices
large
closed
or
laws
Sanitary
and
13
waste is spread in layers,
4
with a layer of soil.
burial
--
While vastly superior
compacted, and covered
to open dumps,
sanitary landfills
nonetheless pose a variety of environmental and
Landfills can cause
problems.
economic
surface and groundwater
tamination, due to surface runoff and underground
movement.
In recent years,
--
currently, about half of
by groundwater.
each year,
land
leachate
groundwater contamination has
environmental and public
emerged as a serious
con-
health issue
the U.S. population is served
Landfills consume considerable amounts of
into
effectively pre-empting other uses well
the future.
Landfilling, once a cheap d-isposal method,
becoming a very costly one.
is
fast
EPA estimated the average cost
disposal in 1976 to be about $30/ton,
5
About 20% of this
$4 billion per year nation-wide.
of MSW collection and
--
or
amount,
and
or
$6/ton, represents disposal costs.
federal regulations reduce the
impacts
of landfilling, the
will be more apparent.
of
"full"
As
state
environmental and health
economic cost of landfilling
In addition to
inflation and growth
stream itself, disposal costs are expected
the waste
to
to rising land values and longer
6
Opposition
sites.
haul distance to new outlying disposal
increase in
the future due
by landowners
resents
and nearby residents
a serious
landfilling
obstacle to the
in many
areas.
to landfill siting replong-term viability of
14
There are three generic
approaches to
the problems of
excessive MSW generation and
conventional disposal:
reduction, source separation
(with materials
centralized processing
waste
recycling),
(with energy recovery).
and
Waste re-
to the prevention of waste at its source by
duction refers
redesigning products or changing patterns of production and
comsumption.
It
can be achieved in several ways:
by
developing products that require less material per unit
(eg.
smaller
by developing products with longer
automobiles),
average lifetimes, by
substituting reusable products for
"disposable" ones, and by reducing household comsumption
EPA estimates
of products.
of
that 20 million tons (or 10%)
the 1985 annual waste stream could be eliminated by a
waste reduction
scenario
that
includes
more durable automobile tires,
containers,
beverage
refillable
and
a 10%
re-
7
duction
in
other
packaging wastes.
made in this direction so
deposit
laws
("bottle
bills")
far;
. Little
progress
has been
mandatory beverage container
are the most visible
achievement
to date.
Together, source separation and centralized MSW processing constitute resource recovery
materials
because
or energy
it
(or both) from MSW.
is simple and requires little
is considered a "low
Conversely,
--
the
recovery of
Source separation,
capital investment,
technology" approach to resource recovery.
centralized MSW processing, using complex proces-
sing equipment
and being capital intensive,
a "high technology".
Both approaches have
is often called
the effect of
15
reducing our
on landfills for MSW disposal and
reliance
of primary mater'ials
supplementing our use
low technology resource recovery)
the setting aside of recyclable waste materials
is defined as
at
(or
separation
Source
and/or energy.
segregated collection and
8
Transportation may
secondary material markets.
their point of generation for
to
transport
be provided by
the waste generator, by
by private haulers,
vehicles,
There
organizations.
city collection
or by voluntary recycling
are two principal types
of source
separation programs of concern to municipalities:
curbside
*
collection and
separate
Under
materials
a curbside separate collection program, recyclable
are collected at curbside on a regular basis,
the resident
A recent
the community recycling center.
or business from having to transport the materials.
EPA survey found 218
such programs in the U.S.
tually all programs collect paper
paper);
saving
only 16%
In most cases
and 14%
(57%),
municipality -izations operate
Vir-
(newsprint or mixed waste
collect glass and metal, respectively.
separate collection is performed by the
and community organ9
of the programs, respectively.
private collection firms
29% and 12%
With a community recycling center, the participant is
required
to deliver recyclable materials
to a central col-
Other separate collection programs are more specialized:
industry-sponsored recycling (such as aluminum can re-purchase
programs), office paper recycling, and commercial and industrial
source separation (eg. supermarkets segragating such products
as corrugated paper).
*
16
lection point.
Following
Earth Day in 1970,
recycling centers sprang up
cycling center will accept
(either mixed of
in the U.S.
Typically, a re-
several materials --
color-sorted),
be municipally-operated, or,
paper, glass,
aluminum
"tin' cans,
and perhaps other waste products as well.
private contractor or
thousands of
cans,
The center may
more likely, operated by a
community organization.
Until recently,
recycling centers did not pay for waste material;
recent
years have seen the establishment of a few "buy-back"
programs that pay participants a per-pound price for
cified materials, such as paper
Several
approach to
communities in
off
California use an
perhaps others.
include curbside separate
center,
or aluminum.
"integrated"
source separation, which combines these
principal programs and
two
Such a program might
collection, a drop-off recycling
a buy-back program, and a
facilities.
spe-
system of
satellite drop-
This approach allows participants
the program that they prefer,
to select
and may enhance community par-
ticipation.
All of
the above low-technology approaches
markets for recovered materials.
on an irregular basis
a few cases do
buyers.
as
require
Often, materials are sold
storage bins fill
--
in only
recycling programs have contracts with material
Recycling programs currently divert about 9 million
or 6% of total
of MSW annually from the waste stream -10
Over 90% of this tonnage is comprised
MSW tonnage in 1975.
tons
17
ation has
of
estimates
EPA
of various paper wastes.
the potential to
source
that
separ-
as much as 50 million tons
divert
MSW per year by 1985.
summarize, recycling diverts a relatively small
To
percentage of a community's MSW
It has
weight).
tunity cost,
cost and
low initial
can be quickly planned and
developed.
being flexible and
composition.
It
(in the range of
operating costs, and
It has
a low oppor-
adaptible to changing MSW
requires considerable public
volume
or
support
and participation to be effective.
has
1-25% by
a low financial risk, due
to
Finally, it
its low initial
cost and
flexibility.
High-technology resource recovery involves the
central-
ized processing of mixed MSW, in order to separate recyclable
materials
product --
and convert
the remaining fraction into an energy
dry fuel, steam, or electricity.
wide variety of centralized MSW processing
with varying degrees of complexity, cost,
feasibility.
have been widely used thus
(mostly in Europe),
and magnetic
other
technologies,
and demonstrated
Energy and materials recovery technologies
can be combined in a variety of ways.
tion
There are a
far,
however:
composting
separation of
Only three processes
ferrous
waterwall combus-
(mostly in Europe),
scrap.
In the U.S.,
processes have been proven commercially to
extent
derived
--
modular
fuel
two
a lesser
incineration with heat recovery, and refuse-
(RDF) processing.
18
In waterwall
large waterwall
combustion, MSW is
furnaces, generally without any pre-processing.
The primary product is
(for industrial
first shredded
ferrous metals can
incineration.
after
Europe
steam, which can be used directly
processes) or converted .to electricity.
some cases, MSW is
recovery;
and
burned directly in
Japan;
in
to facilitate materials
be recovered either before or
Waterwall units are widely used
1975
In
there were
seven units
ranged
in
completed
from 300 to 1,600
in the U.S.
Plant capacity has
tons per day
recently proposed plants have been still
11
to 3,000 TPD.
larger --
up
(TPD);
Small-scal.e modular incinerators recover heat in the
form of
usually without any materials
steam or hot water,
A modular
recovery.
identical
furnaces.
the
stage
first
plant
a series of small
MSW is incinerated in two stages:
is a starved-air
ducing a combustible gas.
auxiliary fuel
consists of
combustion process, pro-
The gas is
(oil of gas)
then burned with an
in a secondary combustion
The two-stage process reduces particulate emissions
12
This technology
and provided more complete combustion.
chamber.
was developed for hospitals,
and was
schools, and other institutions,
recently adapted to mixed MSW.
communities
in the U.S.
with heat recovery;
In 1975,
only three
had developed modular incinerators
these units had capacities of
20-50 TPD.
More recent plants have a wider range of capacity -200
TPD.
up to
19
Refuse-derived
fuel systems produce RDF by
MSW and mechanically removing the organic
fraction -product
using a "wet" or
is
termed
"fluff"
"densified"
depending on subsequent processing.
fuel
supplement
refuse
is first
and heavy
-
20%
RDF mixture.
shredded, and
fraction, using an air
boilers -At an RDF plant,
classifier.
fraction is RDF.
There were
plants
the .U.S. in 1975,
with another 20
Ferrous
either being
from a 200:TPD facility
to a 6,000 TPD plant in St.
Plant
Louis, Missouri.
commercially unproven or lack markets
U.S. --
situation.
composting
of
MSW to yield
tion
is a good
Several technologies
demonstration phase:
scale
in Ames, Iowa,
Other centralized processing technologies are
in the
(and
four operating RDF
or at the advanced planning stage.
has varied greatly --
a light
from the heavy fraction;
the light
constructed
used as a
then separated into
perhaps other) metals are recovered
in
or "powdered"
RDF is
in conventional coal-fired
in an 80% coal
The fuel
RDF,
RDF,
usually
(combustible)
"dry" process.
RDF,
separating
pyrolysis
either
for their products
example of
the latter
are in an experimental or
(the partial decomposition
a gas and/or liquid fuel),
anaerobic diges-
(the biological degradation of MSW by micro-organisms
in the absence of oxygen),
processes
to isolate glass,
and various materials-recovery
aluminum,
and non-ferrous
metals.
Including all centralized processing technologies, there
were
21 operational resource recovery plants
in 1975;
another
20
10 were under
and
construction, 33 were in advanced planning,
13
Centralized MSW processing has
54 were under study.
$15-32 per ton depending on
been estimated to cost
the
energy and material revenues range from
14
per ton, leaving net costs of $3-21 per ton.
technology used;
$17
$5 to
Given very limited commercial experience with a range
different
of
technologies, these cost and revenue estimates
are necessarily rough.
High-technology resource recovery differs strikingly
in many
percentage
more as
of MSW
(in
the
range of 50-90% by weight),
It has high initial costs
partly as a consequence, requires
time --
acting
a substitute for conventional disposal than as a
way of reducing disposal needs.
and,
It diverts a much larger
respects from recycling.
on the order of 3-8 years.
opportunity
20-30 years)
a much longer lead
It has a much higher
cost, due to the long financing period
and lack of operating flexibility.
it has a much higher. financial risk, due
of net operating costs,
(typically
Finally,
to the volatility
high initial costs, and limited
experience with the various recovery technologies.
21
Notes
1.
Michael Greenberg, "Suggestions for Evaluating Resource
Recovery Proposals", AIP Journal, January 1977, p. 25.
2.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology
Assessment, Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste,
Volume I
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO), July 1975, p. 24.
3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fourth Report to
Congress:
Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO), 1977, p. 20.
4.
Marchant Wentworth, Resource Recovery:
Truth & Consequences (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Action Foundation),
1977, p.
75.
5.
U.S. EPA, op.cit.,
p.4.
6.
U.S. EPA, op.cit.,
p.4.
7.
U.S.
EPA, op.cit.,
p.7.
8.
U.S.
EPA, op.cit.,
p.32.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection' Agency, A National Survey
of Separate Collection Programs, by David Cohen, SW-778
(Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO), 1979, p. 2.
10.
U.S.
EPA, Fourth Report,
op.cit.,
p.
32.
11.
U.S.
EPA, Fourth Report,
op.cit.,
p.
47.
12.
Congress of
13.
U.S.
14.
Congress of the United
the United States,
EPA, Fourth Report,
op.cit.,
op.cit.,
States,
p.
255.
pp. 47-49.
op.cit.,
p.
130.
22
THE
III.
Given
ISSUE OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY
the
II, what
in section
described
approaches
two generic
debate revolves
zation
and
consumption
of
Advocates
The low-versus-high
to
a way
extraction and
and
see
as
at
waste
nothing amiss
see
proponents
consumption habits,
consumption
excessive
efforts
serious
to
of
problems
the
to
United
(and recycling)
separation
a prelude
as
and
High-technology
reduction.
U.S.
source
the
approach find
of resource
sensitize citizens
consumption,
with
see
They
untenable.
MSW disposal.
it does
as
as much
tech-
resource utili-
of
patterns
low-technology
the
prolific rate
States'
aroung
recovery
is the appropriate technology
issue and why is it important?
nology
to resource
centralized
MSW pro-
cessing as a reasonable way to cope with the resulting waste.
focused mainly on national issues of
The debate has
the relative energy efficiency of low-
resource policy:
versus-high technology
approaches, their implications
resource exploitation
levels
of
effect
on MSW generation
effect
on
The
the
size
rates
and
and
consumption,
their
and
their
patterns,
secondary materials markets
appropriate
of
and
technology
degree
recovery program.
of
local
issue
and
Low-technology
flows.
also concerns
control
for
over
advocates
a
scale:
resource
argue
that
large,
23
multi-community energy recovery plants
are deleterious to
to manage its own affairs and problems.
a community's right
it was
Until recently, high-technology meant large-scale;
generally assumed
that centralized MSW processing plants
required large volumes of solid waste to be economically
The modular
viable.
incinerator technology now makes
scale plants possible.
small-
But centralized MSW processing is
a capital-intensive approach, requiring communities
still
to make
long-term commitments and hence reducing local
control
over MSW issues in the
future.
Proponents of each persuasion use a variety of arguments
support their position.
to
including
Low-technology advocates,
environmental organizations and community
the high-technology approach perpetuates
argue that
even encourages -plant economics
high levels
groups,
--
and
of waste generation, since
favor the full utilization of plant capacity.
Resource recovery plants are portrayed as being inflexible,
unable to
cope with changes in MSW composition, and
pre-
cluding low-technology efforts at materials recovery.
Large
processing plants often require communities contributing
MSW to sign long-term contracts, and virtually all highsystems involve
technology
commitments
control
nology
to
dramatically reduce local
over a hitherto local
responsibility.
systems produce significant
including
water
are thought
These
long-term financing.
amounts of
High-techair pollutants,
potentially hazardous materials, as well as waste-
(from ash quenching)
and residues
that must
be properly
24
Centralized
treated.
be
processing plants are considered to
financially risky and unreliable, having high initial
costs and
utilizing new and often commercially-unproven
technologies.
Low-technology advocates point out that
source separation
do a better job of separating recyclable materials,
strategies
producing a higher-quality product with higher resale value.
Low technology
systems require modest
capital investment and
can be implemented relatively quickly.
separation is
Finally,
feasible in communities too
source
small to consider
centralized MSW processing.
High-technology advocates
--
the resource recovery
* *
industry
,
the beverage container
and regional agencies --
industry, and some state
paint a different picture.
systems
argue that low-technology
recover a relatively
fraction of MSW, and thus do not address
fill capacity and cost.
depending on "free"
dized labor.
It
shift
the issues
small
of land-
Recycling is considered uneconomical,
household separation and
is thought
volatile material markets
major
They
to recycling).
(often) subsi-
to be unreliable, depending on
(which would be
saturated by any
The argue that recycling will
not work in dense urban areas, being viable only in affluent,
Recent developments in modular
this argument somewhat.
*
incinerator systems dilute
Firms with experience in energy/materials recovery and
chemical engineering, boiler design, and
related fields -pollution control, for example.
**
25
well-educated, white-collar
is thought
to reduce
recovery less
suburbs.
Finally, recycling
the energy value of MSW, making energy
attractive.
Proponents of high-technology
systems see
them as a
more direct approach to the problems of diminishing disposal
capacity and
reduce
rising energy prices.
High-technology approaches
the amount of MSW requiring disposal dramatically,
minimizing landfill needs and
impacts.
They point to the
commercially-proven resource recovery industry in Europe.
Finally, centralized MSW processing is expected
economical --
to be more
especially in the future, with rising landfill
costs and energy prices.
Implicit in the appropriate
assumption that
compatible.
Several
In
technology debate is the
low and high technology approaches are intheory, at least,
recent studies argue that
this
is not necessarily so.
low and high technology
approaches may be quite compatible, and
that
bination may in
arguments are theor-
etical and
fact be
are based on
desirable.
The
their com-
averaged data for various parameters,
such as MSW composition, since the authors can cite no actual
examples
of combined resource
recovery systems.
EPA scientist John Skinner has
separation
(i.e. low-technology) and
high-technology) are compatible, at
With a MSW composition similar to
predicts
demonstrated that
energy recovery
source
(i.e.
least conceptually.
the national average, he
that a source separation program removing 60%
of
26
all paper
of MSW by
value
energy
from the waste stream would reduce the
less than 9%.
low tech-
In determining the compatibility of high and
approaches,
likely
if high-technology resource recovery is
after a low-technology
recovery
plant without
jeopardizing
its
feasibility.
(for a given
increases the per-ton material revenues;
is worth more as fiber than as a fuel, and
paper
Effective
a city to plan for a smaller
This reduces the capital cost of the plant
service area) and
more
developed
source separation program.
source separation enables
resource
is
compatibility
sequencing matters;
nology
source
separation produces a cleaner, more valuable product in
Conversely, developing a source separation program
general.
may reduce
the revenues and profitability of an existing
resource recovery plant.
This is especially true if the
plant is designed to receive MSW with a high energy value
or
incorporates expensive materials processing equip-
if it
ment.
Combining high and low technology
Source separation removes abrasive glass
yield advantages.
and metal
systems may in fact
from the waste stream, thereby increasing
life of resource recovery plant equipment.
removes
much of the non-combustible
the energy
value of
Source
the
separation
fraction, increasing
the incoming MSW.
An
intensive source
separation program could obviate the need for processing at
a central
plant,
reducing
the
capital
and operating
costs
of
27
Perhaps
some resource recovery technologies, especially RDF.
importantly, a combination
most
approaches
is more flexible.
of high and low technology
It can
adapt more easily to
changing MSW volumes and composition due to a lower level
of capitalization and fewer
long-term commitments.
The prospect of the two approaches
being compatible
appropriate
is of mixed value.
to resource recovery
It does not
technology question, since the
utilization and consumption are
resolve the
issues of resource
largely unaffected.
Energy
recovery, with or without recycling, still requires a steady
flow of MSW, reinforcing present consumption and waste
generation habits.
richer set of
recovery.
It does,
options for
however, provide a
somewhat
communities considering resource
Some ccmbination of the
two approaches may better
meet a municipality's needs and objectives than either approach
alone.
Notes
1.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology
Assessment, Materials and Energy from Municipal W-aste,.
GPO), July 1979, pp. 83-85.
Volume I (Washington, D.C.:
Truth & Consequ2. Marchant Wentworth, Resource Recovery:
ences (Washington, D.C. : Environmental Action Foundation),
1977, pp. 57-58.
28
IV.
CASE
In
STUDY 1:
1972,
town of Marblehead, Massachusetts,
the
started
curbside collection program
a
newsprint, metal
1975,
after
hauling and
cans,
for
four
materials:
glass,
and
colored glass.
incinerator
and
arranging for
clear
closing its
In
private
landfilling, the town applied for and received
grant
federal
to
its
upgrade
collection program.
separate
then, the program has enjoyed a very high participation
Since
25%
rate, consistently diverting
MSW
took
a recycling program from a local community group and
over
a
MARBLEHEAD, MASSACHUSETTS
generating a
stream, and
the waste
from
(by weight)
of
the town's
small
fiscal
surplus.
The
case
illustrates
several
facets of
high technology resource recovery choice.
importance of community support
program, and
are high,
costs.
suggests
recycling
that,
can
different
be
low-versus-
It reinforces the
for a successful recycling
where marginal disposal costs
reduce net
The case also suggests
approaches may
the
compatible,
ksolid waste management
that low and high technology
and
that
criteria
to
evaluate
each.
is
an
affluent
suburban
a
community will use
Background
Marblehead
community in
the
29
Figure
2
Marblehead, Massachusetts
Location Map:
NEW
HAMPSHIRE
A
Amesbury
Glou
MASSACHUSETTS
Marbleh
Saugus
Boston
0
30
Boston metropolitan
The town had a 1970 population
population growth in the
future:
a 1990 population
projects
17
and expects a lower
growth since 1950,
moderate
miles north of Boston.
2
It has experienced
of 21,300.
region about
rate of
the town Comprehensive Plan
of 28,400.
The median income in
1970 was $12,184, considerably above the Massachusetts
3
Seventy percent of all households live in singleaverage.
family homes.
Marblehead is governed by a Board of
legislative decisions are made at
limited
commercial and
has declined
in Marblehead
the community.
Summer tourism
the service industry
5
important and growing sector.
is an
(1979) generates about 9,150 tons
(TPY) of residential MSW, including recyclables,
2,250 TPY of commercial MSW -6
This generation
31 tons per day.
and another
TPY, of
only
in economic importance, but
The town currently
per year
The town has
industrial activity, with most
employed outside
residents
major
an annual Town Meeting.
4
employees are unionized.
Municipal
Selectmen;
relatively
stable over
fluctuations,
additional
a total of 11,400
rate has been
time, with only minor seasonal
being slightly higher
summer residents.
for Marblehead over several
in the summer due to
Table 2 estimated MSW generation
years.
31
TABLE 2
MARBLEHEAD MSW GENERATION RATES
1970
1975
1980
21,300
23,500
25,000
7,800
1,900
9,700
8,600
2,100
10,700
9,150
2,250
11,400
1
Population
2
MSW
(tons per year)
Residential
Commercial
Total
1.
1970 and 1975 data from Community Profile; 1980 data
projection from town's Comprehensive Plan.
2.
1980 data based on personal communication with Raymond
Other data derived
Reed, Health Department Director.
basis.
proportional
a
by author on
Residential
Department,
collection is performed by the town Health
under the Board of Health, a nearly autonomous
in charge of all public health matters,
7
Private firms
refuse collection and disposal.
agency
refuse
including
collect
for commercial businesses and multiple-unit residences.
The Health Department used to operate the town landfill, later
the town incinerator, and now runs the recycling
transfer station.
program and
MSW collection and disposal costs are
paid from the town general fund and are included in the
8
rate.
town's tax
Chronology
Marblehead acquired
a small
landfill in 1955.
Due to its
in the early 1960s
built an
capital
cost was about
(16 acre) site for its
limited capacity, the town
incinerator at
the site.
Its
$275,000, spread over ten years.
32
residuals
Incineration
--
about
10%
by
weight
--
were
land-
filled on the site.
In the
early 1970s,
the high school Ecology Club started
a drop-off recycling center where residents could bring newsglass,
print,
popular
and cans
and gained
on weekends.
The program was quite
In 1972,
community attention.
a group of
environmental-minded citizens, led by Carl King, a local
attorney, proposed that the town sponsor an intensive re9
At the May 1972 Town Meeting, their proposal
cycling program.
for mandatory
of
10
introduced by King and passed as a by-law.
source
recyclables was
Town officials
separation and
took no
separate
collection
The
strong position on. the issue.
Health Board, while sympathetic
to the program's resource
conservation goals, was skeptical about
implementation;
by-law provided no additional funds or instructions
11
Department implementation.
the
for Health
The separate collection program commenced operations
Due to limited publicity and a confusing
later in 1972.
collection schedule
(the Department
collected
a different
material each week) participation was only moderate, but
program nonetheless recycled
about 14-18%
(by weight)
the
of
residential MSW.
In 1974,
EPA tested stack emissions at the
incinerator and informed local
have
officials that
town's
they would
to either reduce emissions significantly or phase out
33
the plant.
would
The Health Board decided that upgrading
be too
costly, and began investigating other
options.
The Health Department looked
at several regional
recovery projects, all
in the planning stages
in
still
Saugus, NESWC in Haverhill, and
doubted that
the plant
resource
SESWC in Peabody
they would be developed
in time.
Board members visited Consumat's modular
--
RESCO
--
but
Two Health
incinerator at
Wellesley, Massachusetts, and were not impressed with facility
12
reliability and safety.
The Department considered a baling
process to
reduce MSW volume prior
existing landfill;
except
in the very short
to act,
the Board
station
and
1975,
limited
to disposal at
capacity ruled out this option,
term.
After
eventually decided
pay to have-its
further EPA pressure
to develop a transfer
MSW hauled
the Health Board signed
Service Company of America
the town's
elsewhere.
In April
a five-year contract with
(SCA),
(at no
whereby SCA would
cost
to the
to a
private landfill in Amesbury, Massachusetts, for a
tipping fee
town)
of
build the transfer station, and haul MSW
$18.95 per ton.
The
station was built and
the incinerator closed in August 1975.
The new disposal
fee
represented nearly a doubling of
the
town's per-ton disposal cost, and the Board was eager to
13
reduce costs.
With a niew incentive to reduce MSW tonnage,
the Board met with a consultant
Associates
grading
(RPA) --
--
Resource Planning
and applied to EPA for support
their separate collection program.
EPA awarded an
$80,000 grant
to the
In June
town as part of
in up1975,
a
34
demonstration
project
Massachusetts).
(also including the city of
the Department spent
With the funds,
on two multi-material
$40,000
collection vehicles, reserving the
for project monitoring
other half
Somerville,
studies by RPA.
and
Resource recovery system and results
The 1972
five
program required residents to separate MSW into
categories:
metal
cans,
clear glass, colored
and non-recyclable refuse.
Department would
addition to
newsprint,
collect a different
Each week,
its twice-weekly refuse collection.
trucks).
the Health
recyclable material, in
ment used existing staff and equipment
packer
glass,
The Depart-
(i.e. conventional
Recycled materials were stored
at
the land-
fill site and sold on a non-contract basis directly to
material buyers in the region with no intermediate processing.
The alternating
collection schedule was necessary because
buyers needed a "clean" product,
not
and
the packer trucks could
separate materials.
After 2 1/2 years of operation, program results were
The program was recycling between 1,200 and 1,600
mixed.
TPY of materials, an'impressive 14-18% of total residential
14
solid waste, in contrast to the U.S. average of 2% for all
15
Program participation was consistently
recycling programs.
16
regularly.
participated
30-40% of all households
good -These
and
results were obtained despite minimal program publicity
the
Health Board's decision not
mandatory
separation provisions
to actively
of the 1972
enforce the
by-law.
However,
35
17
the program had a net cost of
$43,000 in 1973
that probably applies to other years.
management costs
in
a figure
--
solid waste
Total
(collection, recycling, and disposal)
1973 were approximately
per ton.
or about $32
$265,000,
recycling, disposal costs would have been unchanged,
18
betwee $27 and $32.
and slightly lower --
Without
The revised
recycling program
started in January 1976,
Recyclable
differed in many ways from the previous system.
materials were divided
and cans,
clear glass
into only three groups:
and colored glass and
compartmentalized trucks allowed
simultaneously collect
Department
newsprint,
cans.
Two
to
the Health Department
several materials.
Initially,
the
provided twice-weekly refuse collection and once-
weekly collection of all*eparated materials.
In mid-1977,
the Department reduced refuse collection to once per week.
High participation rates had
the change offered
ficantly;
savings;
and
substantial
residents agreed to
Marblehead entered
Inc.
reduced refuse tonnage signicollection cost
less frequent service.
into a one-year contract with Recor,
(later Matcon, Inc.)
of Salem, Massachusetts,
an inter-
mediate processor willing to purchase mixed materials.
contract
to
specified "floor"
prices for
Salem by the Health Department.
newed in
all materials, delivered
The contract was not re-
1977 when the two parties could not agree
*Only mixed
glass
The
and cans required processing.
on a price
36
continued to purchase all of the town's
but Matcon
19
Matcon complained at times about the
recovered materials.
schedule,
contamination of the paper and glass/metal
level of
--
with other MSW --
but on
products
residents
the whole Marblehead's
good job of separating recyclable materials.
did a
In the first
the
program has
ing
175
2 1/2 years
recycled
consistently
(or 2,100 TPY).
TPM
(January 1976 to June 1978),
This
solid waste generated
residential
averag-
150 TPM,
over
of
tonnage represents 25%
in Marblehead.
The
fraction of households participating has ranged between 60%
20
The program has resulted in a net savings of
and 74% .
its first
$45,000 over
2 1/2
management costs in 1977 were about
collection, recycling,
Total solid waste
years.
(including
$294,000
and disposal)
--
$34 per ton.
or
the separate collection program, this total would
21
Thus, separate
ton.
per
$36
or
have been about $311,900,
Without
saved
collection
the town about
$17,000 per year,
or" $2
per
**
ton.
3 gives
Table
This net
sensitive
centage
of
economic results
savings, while slight,
to changes
Net
and 1977.
terribly
is not
in participation rates
residential MSW recycled).
is much more
for 1976
(i.e.
the per-
savings (or cost)
a function of market prices for recovered
Matcon, Inc. has since gone out of business, and Marblehead now sells mixed glass and cans to Recycle Enterprises
in Oxford, Massachusetts, and newsprint to a firm in Salem.
*
**Separate collection program costs were more than
by material revenues plus disposal credits.
offset
37
materials.
Between 1976
were fairly
cullet
fluctuations
and 1978, market prices for
stable($10-12/ton),
for secondary materials,
prices were
quite volatile
22
respectively).
TABLE 3
but due
glass
to market
newsprint and
can
($12-28/ton and $10-30/ton,
MARBLEHEAD PROGRAM COSTS AND REVENUES
1976
Recycled Materials
Revenues
Material sales
Disposal credits
Subtotal
$35,600
40,100
75,700
$25,500
41,100
66,600
47 , 900
49,800
$27,800
$16,800
149,600
124,600
$274,200
146,700
123,900
$270,600
Cost
Net Revenue
(Cost)
Remaining MSW
Collection Costs
Disposal Costs
Total
1977
Source:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Multi-material
Source Separation in Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts:
Collection
and Marketing, SW-822 (Washington, D.C. - U.S. GPO),
December 1979, pp. 47-48
Resource Recovery Choice
The
town in fact made three separate choices concerning
resource
recovery --
existing
recycling program, an
a
a 1972 decision to get
transfer station and pay
decision to
early-1975
involved in an
decision to build
for private disposal, and a 1975
upgrade the materials recovery program.
Each
responded
to a different situation and employed different
criteria;
they are discussed in turn.
38
The 1972 decision to
at
start
separate collection was made
Town Meeting with the backing of a group of
the new by-law was passed
to address a national
officials
felt
spirit of
taking local action
Town
resource conservation issue.
was unprepared
government
in the
"do-gooders",
for
such an endeavor, and
been "slipped through" at
23
Health Board
sufficient discussion.
the proposal has
Town Meeting without
chairman Bruce Humphrey notes that the Board had no
to initiate
funds
program; nobody had thought
a separate collection
of the by-law.
through the actual implementation
Despite
lack of preparation, the new program held some promise
this
Incinerator
for the Health Department.
a source of
stack emissions were
local concern and a program that reduced MSW
tonnage would also reduce the level of
and
some
residuals
requiring disposal at
incinerator emissions
the town's hard-pressed
landfill.
Clearly, the 1972 decision was elective.was
not yet under pressure to modify its incinerator, and
disposal
at
Marblehead
$10.90 per ton.
to provide the
Recycling
efforts were not
town cost savings, either;
costs were fairly
In 1975, the
Under
Annual operating costs
24
or
$85,000 in the early 1970s,
excessive.
incinerator averaged
the
about
costs were not
annual incinerator
insensitive to minor changes
town faced
intended
a much different
in tonnage.
situation.
pressure from EPA, the Health Board had to either
upgrade
its
incinerator or
find a new disposal option.
The
39
the Health Board with no need
and was made by
25
The Board
approval.
town
for
investigated a broad range of
options, including upgrading
essentially a short-term one,
ch-oice was
the incinerator, a small "package" incinerator, MSW baling
(and on-site
landfilling), participation in a regional resource
recovery project,
vinced that no new landfill
town
Some
grading
past
the
officials
--
sites within the
town remained.
ex-Board members
--
incinerator, given
come close to meeting federal air
up-
favored
its good performance in
and existing staff commitments.
the
But the plant did not
quality standards, and
agreed that this option was too
the Board
con-
The Board was
station.
and a transfer
costly.
Board
chairman Humphrey was also reluctant to improve the facility
with no guarantee that
standards.
paid
it would
subsequently meet emissions
Another Massachusetts community had recently
for extensive incinerator modifications and still ex-
ceeded federal standards.
Humphrey, and possibly other
Board members, felt hemmed in by EPA, and doubted
local disposal strategy -would meet
that any
incineration or landfilling
--
EPA standards.
Needing a short-term solution, the Board
could not
wait for regional resource recovery to become a reality.
Most of
the then-proposed projects were not
struction,
expected
and Health Department director
RESCO
(in Saugus)
close to con-
Raymond Reed
to be too expensive,
distance from Marblehead and
given its
anticipated tipping fees.
40
regional
Also,
seen as a "political
resource recovery was
town officials expected facility siting to be a
26
Overall, the Board found the transfer station
major obstacle.
football";
option preferable on
solution to
the
several grounds:
their acute disposal problem;
opportunity cost.
investments);
The last
thought to be infeasible, a
should prove
successful
in the
The town's existing materials
tivQly
itself a disposal option.
was not, however, an
any of
future.
recovery program was not
The program was diverting a rela-
choice.
small fraction of total MSW
regional plants.
the Board wanted
in a regional resource recovery program
to be able to join
in this
had a very low
in any case, and
transfer station was needed
a factor
and it
factor was particularly important;
given that local disposal was
one
SCA would build
(other options required
to the town
facility at no cost
considerable front-end
if
it provided an immediate
tonnage, and was not in
Marblehead's recycling program
impediment to participation in planned
to
Although the town made no commitment
several regional proposals, its MSW composition
the
(and the recycling program's effect on composition) was
27
not an issue during discussions.
Having
selected an option which substantially increased
per-ton disposal costs,
the town in 1975
had
a strong in-
centive to reduce MSW tonnage via its separate collection
program.
Unlike
significant
cost
the 1972 choice,
savings for
the
town now stood
each ton of MSW recycled
to gain
(and
41
hence diverted
the
cost
marginal
station).
from the transfer
of
disposal was
high
--
In economic terms,
$19
provided economic incentives to generate less
of disposal costs,
Regardless
quite popular
remained
per
ton --
and
solid waste.
the recycling program had
since it
inception, and Marblehead's
resource conservation efforts were a source of pride to both
residents
and
Therefore, when Humphrey
of EPA's demonstration grant program for materials
learned
recovery,
the Board readily
The Board's
result
town officials.
of
earlier
such a grant.
agreed to apply for
choice to upgrade its program was a fairly direct
the
incentives created by its disposal
decision
that year.
Notes
1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Multi-material
Source Separation in Marblehead and Somerville,
Collection and Marketing, by Resources
Massachusetts:
Planning Associates, Inc., SW-822, December 1979, p. 2 .
2.
Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development,
Massachusetts Profile of Marblehead, 1970.
3.
Massachusetts, op.cit.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source Separation:
The Community Awareness Program in Somerville and
Marblehead, Massachusetts, SW-551 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO), November 1976, p. 4 .
5.
Town of Marblehead, Marblehead Comprehensive Plan, 1970.
6.
Personal communication:
Raymond Reed, Director,
Marblehead Health Department.
7.
U.S.
8.
Personal
EPA, Community Awareness
communication:
Program, op.
Raymond Reed.
cit.,
p. 4.
42
9.
Personal communication:
Marblehead Health Board.
10.
Town of Marblehead, Ch.
11.
Personal
12.
Ibid.
13.
U.S.
14.
Town of Marblehead, Health Department, Recycling:
Marblehead, Massachusetts, undated brochure.
15.
U.S.
EPA, Collection and Marketing, op.cit.,
16.
U.S.
EPA, Community Awareness
17.
U.S.
EPA, Collection and Marketing, op.cit.,
18.
Author's estimate, assuming collection and disposal
costs unchanged by recycling program.
19.
U.S.
communication:
Bruce Humphrey, Chairman,
39 of By-Laws and Amendments.
Bruce Humphrey.
EPA, Community Awareness
Program, op.cit.,
25.
p.l.
Program, op.cit.,
EPA, Collection and Marketing, op.cit.,
p.
p.
p.26.
15.
p.15.
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Multi-material
Source Separation in Marblehead and Somerville,
Citizen Attitudes Toward Source Separation,
Massachusetts:
by Resources Planning, Inc., SW-825, December 1979, p.5,
Raymond Reed.
and personal communication:
estimate, based on EPA data.
21.
Author's
22.
U..S*. EPA, Collection and Marketing, op.ci t.,
23.
Bruce Humphrey, Chairman of
Personal communication:
Marblehead Health Board, and Alan Robbins, Chairman of
Marblehead Planning Board.
24.
Personal
25.
Ibid.
26.
27.
Communication:
Raymond Reed.
Personal
communication:
Bruce Humphrey.
Personal
communication:
Raymond Reed.
pp. 3
6
-3 8 .
42 _
El
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA
STUDY 2:
CASE
V.
Cerrito has a fairly long history of recycling,
The
beginning with a volunteer-run recycling center in 1972.
city
control of
assumed
recycling
within
community
plan
receives
about
predicts
500
of
18%
Also
leadership.
of a
tonnage by
25%,
the
(TPM) of
were good
program
get
El
elective;
disposal
costs
or
a
and
Cerrito's
it was
serious
importance
the
of
and
secondary material
and the availability of various
was
recyclables,
able program administration
markets
recovery
center now
The program currently
underscores
and
important
started.
long-range
Cerrito' s MSW.
El
support
community
part
future.
in'.the near
it
in multi-material
As
per month
tons
350
expanding
1977,
project
community.
Cerrito's experience
El
strong
small
to reduce MSW
TPM
about
diverts
a
in
program
a demonstration
as
significantly
the
not
grants to help the
choice about
of
forced
shortage
of
resource
hastened by
landfill
high
capacity.
Background
El
north
of
Cerrito
Oakland,
urbanized East
and
is
Richmond,
Bay
and
a
suburban
California,
area.
It
Kensington,
community
and
is
borders
an
about
part
the
of
eight
miles
the heavily
cities
unincorporated
of Albany
community.
43
Figure
3
Location Map:
El Cerrito,
California
Richmond
El Cerrito
o Kensington
o Albany
Berkeley
44
El
a 1975 population of 23,000, slightly less
1
The 1975 median income was $15,056;
1970 level.
Cerrito had
than the
both this
and the average level of
education are above the
U.S. average.
Refuse collection
East
in
El Cerrito is performed by the
Bay Sanitary Service under
ment, which permits
a long-term franchise agree-
annual rate adjustment.
Albany have similar franchise arrangements.
residents currently pay $5.00
service and
Kensington and
Cerrito
El
per month for one-can-per-week
$2.00 per month for an additional can.
East Bay
Sanitary Service hauls refuse directly to a regional landfill
in Richmond --
the West
Contra Costa county landfill, privately
owned and operated, and located about
Commercial haulers are charged
Cerrito.
tipping
five miles
fee.
in a wetland
a $4.00 per
The West Contra Costa county
area, and has up
capacity, despite
from El
ton
landfill is located
to 40-50 years of remaining
frequent violations
of state
environmental
and a running legal battle with the State Lands
2
site.
the
of
part
to
Commission over title
standards
El
Cerrito generates an
average of
690 TPM of residential
and 110 TPM of commercial refuse, a total of 800 TPM of MSW -3
The recycling program also serves
or 9,600 tons per year.
the towns
of Kensington
(population of 14,700),
MSW respectively.
(1975 population of 5,300) and Albany
each generating 100 and
650 TPM of
45
Chronology
El
Cerrito's recycling program began in
Little, a city
and Ernie Del
It was a weekend drop-off
Simone.
by Albany and Kensington.
and
--
facility,
by volunteers, accepting a variety of materials.
The program was well-received and
metal cans --
attracted users from near-
A glass crusher was added,
received a small but
center
recycling center
with the support of city councilmen Gregg Cook
E.C.ology --
staffed
employee, started a small
1972 when Ken
about 15
to establish a Board of
coordinate its
5
The
local environmental programs.
Directors to administer
volunteer
the
steady supply of glass, paper,
4
Local environmentalists in
TPM.
1974 persuaded the center's founders
activities with other
and
the program and
to :create more visible links
Board was intended
with the El Cerrito community.
At
this time, El
positions,
Cerrito had
several unfilled CETA
and Charles Papke, a local resident and activist,
proposed to the city's Parks and Recreation Department that
he be
hired to develop -plans for an expanded recycling program.
City officials were interested because of the state legislature's
1972
Solid Waste Management
among other
and
things mandated local
proposed a 25%
disposal by
and Resource Recovery Act, which
1980.
but reluctantly.
recycling center
such a project.
solid waste management
plans
reduction in the amount of MSW requiring
The city
council approved Papke's hiring,
Council members
but were not
supported the
small private
ready to commit city funds
to
46
Working under Parks and Recreation Department
director
Joel Witherell, Papke established a Citizen's Solid Waste
The
Advisory Committee.
leaders
and
develop
community
awareness
of and
support
Papke studied other intensive
the recycling program.
recycling programs --
composed of community
and was intended to oversee
and city officials,
planning efforts
for
Committee was
in Modesto
largest programs in California.
Recreation Department showed
and Davis, then the two
Surveys by the Parks and
a large majority of households
Cerrito willing to participate-in a curbside collection
6
Papke proposed an "integrated"
program for recyclables.
in El
recycling program having
off
facilities,
program.
including drop-
several components,
a buy-back program, and a curbside collection
In this way, Papke hoped
to combine the profitability
of
the buy-back approach with the high participation rates
of
the curbside collection approach.
Papke and the Committee also examined material markets
and grant sources.
Kaiser Aluminum at that
wide system of aluminum buy-back centers
time had
a nation-
to promote aluminum
Kaiser was willing to consider an
arrangement
whereby the E.C.ology program would perform this
function in
can recycling;
the
East Bay
state
area.
The 1972
Solid Waste Management
responsible
program
for allocating
Board
the
in 1976
established a
(SWMB) and made
the Board
funds' from a demonstration grant
for resource recovery projects.
reation Department
finance
state Act also
The Parks and Rec-
applied for a SWMB
capital improvements
grant
to
recommended by Papke.
47
The Department also
state Employment
applied
for grants
Development
from CETA and
Department to
staff the
the
proposed
expansion.
A
central
feature of Papke's long-range plan was that
the city would assume
control of the recycling program.
There were several reasons
for this proposal.
Committee was convinced that
The Advisory
program administration would
be
the volunteer Board of Directors
7
The Board, lacking
lacked both organization and resources.
crucial and
time consuming;
non-profit corporate status, was also unable to secure grants
from various state
Aluminum made
their participation
on city involvement.
tingent
of Directors
Parks and
order
and federal programs.
to
as a materials buyer con-
In May
agreed with Papke,
In addition, Kaiser
1977 the E.C.ology Board
recommending
that the city's
take over the program in
8
spur more rapid expansion.
Recreation Department
The full city council
Chief
proposal.
collector's
was less enthusiastic about the
among their
concerns was the city refuse
opposition to the plan.
East Bay
Sanitary Service,
while unfamiliar with the plan's details, was sure that a
major
and
in the
opposed
risky,
ongoing recycling effort would hurt its business
long run.
The city's Public Works Department
the plan, noting that
also
the proposed expansion was
and that
the program shouldn't be directed by the
9
The council
Parks and Recreation Department in any case.
also worried
about
financing
the program;
they had no
assurance
48
of
from the SWMB and were unwilling to
a grant
amount of city
unspecified
Events in the
funds
success.
to the program's
following months lessened the council's
Papke and others were able to
concerns.
commit an
not all) -of the city refuse
allay some
(but
collectors' fears so that
franchisee offered to provide separate collection
the
service.
The city concluded a one-year contract with Kaiser Aluminum,
under which Kaiser would
for aluminum scrap.
and a per-ton price
point to a ready
could
pay the E.C.ology program $12,000
source of financing,
held several joint workshops
to
the proposal and gauge public
for
Committee
inform community residents
response.
The workshops
to the council broad
were well attended, and demonstrated
support
at least in the
Finally, the council and the Advisory
short-term.
of
Program proponents
the recycling proposal.
With a favorable recommendation from director Witherell,
the
city council
in July 1977 voted
3-2 to have the city's
Parks and Recreation Department assume responsibility for
the E.C..ology program in accordance with the plan prepared
by Papke
for
the Department.
a majority of council members were persuaded
on the
issue,
of the
program's viability,
financial
year
end
soundness.
trial period;
city
While clearly still divided
community
support,
financially unsound.
short-term
The council's approval was. for a one-
the council members wanted
involvement
and
after a year if
to be able to
the program proved
The council also decided
to let
49
collection of
curbside
E.C.ology do
Sanitary Service had offered,
per participating household,
East Bay
recyclables.
per month
for an extra dollar
to collect
recyclables,
but
cover any
only on a trial basis, and with city guarantees
to
extra costs.
to expect,
the
costs
council declined the firm's offer.
in 1977,
Later
the
Not knowing what additional
state SWMB,
the city received a
$45,000 grant from
and the Parks and Recreation Department began
administering the E.C.ology program with 12
CETA staff,
the
the Kaiser contract, and a modest advance of funds
10
Program expansion was preceded by an extensive
from the city.
SWMB
grant,
promotional program, including paid advertisement
Monthly tonnage rose dramatically in
to-door canvassing.
and has
late 1977,
and door-
increased
steadily as the program has
expanded.
El Cerrito received a second
in May 1979
state SWMB grant of
$92,200
to reach a stated goal of 500 TPM, which the
city thought would
enable the program to be self-supporting.
The program also received
additional CETA staff,
and the
state Department of Rehabilitation awarded a special grant
to a non-profit community health program to provide staff
assistance
to E.C.ology.
volume and
in
response
in the neighborhood of
soon move
road
to complaints
the
to a new site in
and rail access,
To accomodate its increasing
about
excessive
traffic
current location, the center will
El Cerrito --
one with improved
50
Resource recovery system and results
The 1972
at
recycling program consisted of
the city's corporation yard.
open one
Saturday per month, it
materials:
Staffed by volunteers and
accepted a variety of
aluminum and tin cans,
and color-sorted glass.
a drop-off center
newsprint, magazines,
Materials were sold
to local buyers
on a highest-bidder basis when a sufficient volume had accumulated.
Over
the course of
upgraded somewhat --
several years,
a glass crusher was added and volunteers
were paid for their work.
During its
program received a fairly steady
15
TPM --
or 180
the center was
tons per
first
four years the
flow of materials, averaging
year.
The 1977 program expansion
area and provided new staff and
increased the center's work
equipment.
The drop-off
program hours were expanded to every weekday, and four new
programs were added.
available
month
to all
A curbside collection program was made
El Cerrito residents for a fee of
(in addition to refuse collection
dropped
several months later
to
fees) --
$1.00 per
this -fee was
increase participation.
Six
household-separated materials were collected each week:
mixed glass,
newsprint, magazines, aluminum cans, tin
cans,
and reusable wine bottles.
The program was expanded to
Kensington in June 1978 and
to Albany
A
buy-back program, also
different
corrugated
in September 1979.
open on weekdays,
consumer-sorted materials:
cardboard, color-sorted
accepted ten
bundled newsprint,
glass,
tin cans,
aluminum
51
pure aluminum scrap, mixed
cans,
wine
aluminum scrap,
The program paid an advertised
bottles.
and reusable
per-pound price
for each material, usually making a 25-50% mark-up on its
11
a
Two other activities were added:
subsequent sale.
commercial program, which collected materials from commercial
businesses
in 2 cubic yard bins,
similar bins
which placed
and a satellite program,
in smaller outlying communities
and multi-unit apartment complexes.
increased the service area
Program expansion also
the drop-off and buy-back programs
Contra
serve residents of west
Costa county and north Alameda county, with a combined
population of 150,000.
materials volume
April 1979,
From a pre-1977 level of 10-15 TPM,
and 44%
TPM by July 1978, 250 TPM by
12
The curbside and
October 1979.
grew to 100
and 350
TPM by
buy-back programs account
45%
--
for the majority of this
calculating the reduction in MSW requiring
disposal is not straightforward.
reduction
in El
--
Given different service areas for
respectively.
different programs,
tonnage
Cerrito's
tonnage;
Witherell estimates an 18%
alternatively, assuming
that all recyclables originate in the three-town area, this
13
Witherell estimates that
area has achieved a 23% reduction.
50%
of
El
program;
Cerrito's households participate in the curbside
this figure is 60%
The 1977
equipment
--
in Kensington.
expansion also provided additional processing
a paper
baler
and
aluminum shredder
reduced transportation costs and enabled
--
which
the program to get
52
higher prices
for its materials.
E.C.ology has had
Consequently,
basis to
access to
good
the program has
the highest bidder.
Over
its lifetime,
secondary material markets.
sold materials on a non-contract
lists firms that
Table 4
regularly purchase recycled materials.
TABLE 4
EL CERRITO PROGRAM MATERIALS MARKETS
Material
Location
Buyer
Paper fiber
Ferrous metal
Aluminum
Consolidated Fiber
Engineered Waste
Sonoco
Bay Area
M&T
BHR
Levin
Bay
Reynolds Aluminum
Simon & Sons
Custom Alloy
Bay Area
Tacoma,, WA
Bay Area
If
B
i
Area
it
to
BHR
Glass
Oil
(used)
Area
Owens Illinois
Brockway
Bay
Circo
Encore
Madera, CA
Bay Area
Ecotek
Bay Area
to
It
Liquid Gold
Source: City of El Cerrito, State Grant Application, California Solid Waste Management Board (for E.C.ology Recycling
Center), December 1979, page 3.
E.C.ology usually
of
ships materials
the paper fiber is
Bay Area's
for
buyers.
export,
Much
which explains
the
strong secondary paper market.
Describing
complicated
sold
to
the economics of
by several
factors:
the E.C.ology program is
a
lack of
comparable data
53
since its
1977
capital costs,
intermittent
expansion, relatively large and
and a rapidly growing volume of materials
processed
by the facility.
Accurate information is not
available
for the program's
first
fiscal year
shows actual economic data for
Table 5
(1977-78);
1978-79 and the program's
1979-80 budget.
TABLE
EL CERRITO PROGRAM COSTS AND REVENUES
5
1978-79
Costs
1
Labor
City funded
CETA and Phoenix
Subtotal
2
Operating expenses
Administrative services
Capital improvements
Purchase expenses
A
Total
$46,000
A
A & 46,000
57,000
30,000
0
110,000
$122,000
90,000
212,000
57,000
30,000
92,000
240,000
& $243,000
$631,000
$219,000
A
0
$469,000
90,000
92,000
& $219,000
$651,000
($24,000)
$ 20,000
Revenues
Sale of materials
CETA and Phoenix grants
State SWMB grant
A
Total
Net
1979-80
Revenue (Cost)
Source: City of El Cerrito, State Grant Application, California Solid Waste Management Board(for E.C.ology Recycling
Center), December 1979, page 9 and City of El Cerrito
E.C.ology Recycling, Income Statement for FY 1978-79, July 18,
1979.
1.
Information on the CETA/Phoenix contribution in 1978-79 is
Labeled "A", it is in the range
not readily available.
$50,000 to $100,000.
2.
"In-kind"
of
3.
the
Cash
services provided by
site,
outlays
fleet
from
insurance
the
the city including free use
rates,
buy-back
and management
program.
services.
54
the table
As
of
program expects net revenues
indicates, the
$20,000 in 1979-80, which will be used
loan from the city.
standing
deficit.
a small
Clearly,
In 1978-79,
the program is
labor intensive;
CETA and Phoenix
In 1979-80, labor
development grants.
subsidies
The Department plans
represent 20% of the basic budget.
reduce
the program produced
to the availability of
this is largely due
employment
to reduce the out-
to
increase its use of processing
14
This strategy, coupled with
grants end.
this labor component and
equipment when these
increases in per-month tonnage processed, is expected to make
the program self-supporting by 1982.
Material prices are
ton
$25/ton
for
sidered
an "aluminum rich"
Jersey,
and some
ferrous metals
southern
as a result,
glass and mixed paper; and
15
California is con("tin"cans).
state
--
along with Arizona, New
states
--
due to
increased
of total
5%
strongly affected by material prices,
to the aluminum fraction
At E.C.ology,
range represents a 40%
*Author's estimate, based
total
which
But revenues are
recycled tonnage which is aluminum
per-ton price.
this
be expected,
As might
significantly since 1977.
also very sensitive
its large soft-
aluminum constitutes a larger than
average fraction of MSW tonnage.
project revenue is
and used oil;
$30/ton for
for newsprint;
drink market;
per
$113
$900/ton for
$80/ton for cardboard, wine bottles,
$65/ton
have
they average
The center receives about
in 1979-80.
aluminum;
quite high;
the percentage
---
due to
its high
the aluminum fraction is 5-10%;
change in average
on E.C.ology records.
per-ton revenue.
55
Resource Recovery Choice
El Cerrito's
city faced no pressures
The
one.
resource recovery choice was
conditions dramatically in
did not
enter into the
alternatives
state landfilling standards at
county landfill
Contra Costa
the West
to change its solid waste
to consider disposal
it no cause
future enforcement of
While
elective
low disposal costs and ample landfill
management practices;
capacity gave
an
could change both
the future, this possibility
city's decision.
The state's goal
of reducing the amount of MSW requiring disposal was not
binding
on communities, relying instead on goodwill
by cities
and counties
choice was
El Cerrito's
not to
governments have
(in fact many local
made no or minimal effort to meet
this goal).
fairly uncomplicated:
assume control of an existing recycling
city council made its
formal decision in July
whether or
program.
1977,
for the new center.
a site
Recreation Department
on its behalf.
the city council was considering
considerable energy
That
climatic.
is not
The
to
The Parks and
study expansion options and applying
state and federal grants
volvement, many city
but
devoted increasing attention to the
program, hiring Papke to
for
The
when the
city involvement in the program goes back to 1972,
city provided
efforts
By the
the proposal for
time that
city in-
staff and officials had already devoted
to the
project.
say that
council had
city council approval was anti-
several serious reservations
56
about
involving
with
satisfied
more-or-less
approval.
the E.C.ology program, and were
their
before giving
each issue
A major concern was
opposition to
this
the city in
the city refuse collector's
the recycling proposal.
Over several months,
opposition subsided, following a lengthy interchange
between East Bay
Department
staff.
Papke's prior
Sanitary Service and Parks and Recreation
Community participation was another concern.
surveys of citizens' willingness to participate
were reassuring in this respect,
of workshops
enjoyed
convinced the
the early 1977
council that
series
the recycling proposal
wide community support.
In addition,
support
and
the proposal received the endorsement and
of several key officials.
had helped
start
enthusiastic.
Two
the recycling center
city council members
in 1972
and remained
Ex-councilman Ray Cook, who had the respect
of
the council in general and was a popular public
16
El Cerrito, also supported city involvement.
figure in
Project viability was another concern of the council:
would
the project work, and
istered by the
for
city?
be successfully admin-
The city council found Papke's plans
expanding the recycling
accurate,
could it
center reasonably complete and
and the contract with Kaiser Aluminum assured the
city of
an aluminum market in
the short
term.
Witherell
assured
council members that his Department would have no
council's approval
trouble administering the program;
the
was in part an expression of their
confidence
in him.
57
Finally, council members were concerned about the
of
the
effect
city's
issue a blank check for
Although the
not
they did not want
financial commitment;
SWMB
grant
grant.
to in
the recycling program.
and additional CETA allocations had
yet been awarded, the council was reassured
Kaiser
extent
Their use of a one-year trial
by the
period
$12,000
further
limited potential city expenditures.
Notes
1.
City of El Cerrito, California, State Grant Application,
E.C.ology Recycling Center, to State Solid Waste Management Board, December 1979, p. 2 (henceforth "Grant Application").
2.
Personal communication: Charles Papke, Resources Management Associates, El Cerrito(and former city employee).
3.
Grant Application, op.cit.,
4.
Joel Witherell, Director of
Personal communication:
Community Services Department (formerly Parks and
Recreation Department),City of El Cerrito.
5.
Personal communication:
6.
Ibid.
7.
Personal communication:
8.
City of El Cerrito, Community Services Department,
E.C.ology Recycling, undated brochure (ca. 1979), p.
9.
Personal communication:
p.
2.
Charles Papke.
Joel Witherell.
Charles Papke.
Joel Witherell;
10. Personal communication:
2.
p.
Recycling, op.cit.,
communication:
2.
and E.C.ology
Joel Witherell.
11.
Personal
12.
E.C.ology Recycling, op.cit.,
13.
Author's
p.
3.
estimate, assuming 350 TPM throughput.
58
Joel Witherell.
14.
Personal communication:
15.
Grant Application, op.cit.,
16.
Personal communication:
p.
9.
Charles Papke..
59
VI.
CASE
STUDY 3:
In 1976
NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
the city of North Little Rock signed
contracts
with an energy-recovery
equipment vendor and a wood products
manufacturer
a small-scale modular
with heat
to develop
recovery.
incinerate
all the
manufacturer,
The 100 TPD facility was designed to
city's refuse and
ment
commenced
city's
for
with landfill costs in
two years,
City officials saw the energy
more as a way
of promoting
facing a natural
disposal.
lead
gas
support
for
interest
for several
recovery system
economic development in a region
shortage, and less as
The equipment vendor,
a method
and not the city,
in proposing and assessing the
recovery.
at a cost
the area.
North Little Rock's decision is of
reasons.
despite manage-
a smaller-than-expected market for
operated successfully
competitive
to serve
industrial expansion area.
operations in 1977 and,
difficulties and
steam, has
supply steam to the
with the possibility of expanding
new industries in the
The plant
incinerator
feasibility of
Several key individuals were crucial in
the proposal and
between the city
and
resolving obstacles
of waste
took the
energy
gaining
to negotiations
the energy buyer.
Background
North Little Rock is
located
in the middle of
the state,
60
Figure 4
Location Map:
North Little Rock, Arkansas
61
in the
largest city
2,000 people per
of
1970 was
center
the
is
and
$8,467,
The city
per
about
--
of
the Missouri-Pacific
facilities.
generated a total of about
200 tons
70 TPD of residential MSW
2
Resiremainder commercial and industrial waste.
and the
solid waste --
city's Sanitation Depart-
dential waste was collected.by the
and
commercial and industrial waste
the Department
In the early 1970's,
by private haulers.
hauled MSW to a private
landfill several miles north of town.
This landfill clos.ed
after reaching capacity, and the city was forced
a more distant
to utilize
Jacksonville, about 12 miles
landfill in
the city.
north of
The Jacksonville landfill, privately
the Arkansas Waste Disposal Company,
3
a tipping fee of $3.00 per ton.
and operated by
owned
charged
City collection was financed
residents
budget
to the city.
The
ofabout $600,000;
in order
city
by user
study showed the Depart4
In December 1975,
$42,000.
a 1975
to make the Sanitation Department
raised
fees, paid by
Sanitation Department had a
ment with an annual deficit of
the
Median income
significantly below the national average.
in 1975
(TPD) of
day
ment,
1975 population
The city supports a diversity
repair and maintenance
Railroad's
in
square mile.
industries,
small
low
are relatively
densities
Residential
North Little Rock's
state.
capitol and
eleven percent above the 1960 level.
--
64,400
was
from Little Rock, the
the Arkansas River
across
the fees to
self-supporting,
$2.00 per month per household.
62
Chronology
In
1971
North Little
modular incinerators
Systems, Inc.,
ment.
Rock purchased two
(without heat
a major vendor
City officials hoped
12.5
TPD
recovery) from Consumat
of modular
incinerator equip-
to reduce hauling distances
(and
thereby reduce collection costs)
by establishing "satellite"
5
incinerators at different locations.
North Little Rock's
area and low population
large
attractive.
The
density made this proposal
city undertook no
extensive analysis prior
to
their purchase.
The two units were never
to
siting problems;
city officials
that was acceptable
and residents-feared
In mid-1974, U.S. Recycle
dealer for
Consumat
several "smoke belching"
6
-another.
Corp.
in Arkansas,
of Commerce,
learned that Koppers
of
industrial
steam for
(USR),
the franchise
through the city Chamber
Company was a major user
processing.
Division of Koppers manufactured
products at
failed to find a site
to various neighborhood organizations.
North Little Rock already had
industries,
installed due
The Forest Products
creosote-treated wood
USR proposed an
its North Little Rock plant.
energy recovery plant burning municipal refuse
give Koppers a dependable steam supply.
officials
expressed considerable
of an impending natural gas
wished
to avoid
Later
natural gas
could
Koppers company
interest;
shortage in the
7
curtailments.
in 1974, USR approached
that
they were aware
Southeast, and
then-mayor
Eddie Powell
63
USR argued
with its energy recovery proposal.
cost
system offered significant
form of reduced MSW hauling costs.
the
developed
successfully
steam to
city in
for the
USR had already
small-scale
other
two
recovery systems which sold
--
savings
that the
modular
small manufacturing firms
City officials,
Siloam Springs and Blytheville, Arkansas.
in
the
especially
council,
city
they knew nothing of
were
energy
skeptical
of
the proposal;
the technology and doubted
that the
But
proposal could compete economically with landfilling.
city officials were nonetheless willing to consider the
proposal;
they wanted to do something about the
purchased
in
they realized
providing
was
1971
two units
(which the city had been storing),
and
that Koppers
jobs and
optimistic that
Company was important to the city,
8
Mayor Powell
substantial tax revenues.
the plant would produce excess
steam
which could be used to attract new industrial development,
9
a high priority for the economically depressed town.
Initial discussions between the
encouraging;
and
persuaded
meet their
Koppers re-af
firmed
its
city officials that
steam requirements.
city and Koppers were
support
the plant
for
th-e prQject
could reliably
During this period
(1974-75),
fees at the private landfill in Jacksonville rose
10
This increase in
from $3 to $11 per ton.
dramatically -tipping
disposal costs did not cause
city officials
future landfill shortages, but
more
economically attractive.
it
to worry about
did make USR's proposal
64
In
early 1975, USR became concerned about
MSW collection
not provide
system,- fearing
that
a
the city's
haphazard
system would
a reliable stream of MSW to the energy recovery
facility.
At the firm's urging, North Little Rock sponsored
a study of
the city's solid waste management activities,
using
The
funds from a HUD-funded Management Assistance Program.
city's planning consultant
work to USR, citing
in turn subcontracted
the latter's familiarity with the
the
city's
solid waste situation.
USR made
mending 26
its report to
actions to improve the
producing ability of
mended
that
practical,
cover
the city in August 1975,
efficiency and
the Sanitation Department.
the city discontinue
landfilling as
and that MSW collection fees
the Department's costs.
recom-
revenueUSR recomsoon as
be increased
to
The report posed a choice
between landfilling and energy recovery, suggesting that
11
the latter was
economically competitive, if not cheaper.
Local newspapers questioned
noting that USR was
recovery
report
equipment.
favorably and
the impartiality of
also in the business of selling energy
But
city administrators received the
implemented most
including a higher MSW collection
council, without a specific
the energy
*
the report,
recovery proposal
of the reforms
fee.
commitment,
The mayor and
agreed
suggested,
city
to pursue
further.
The city planning department had already planned a modest
study of the sanitary division under the MAP program, then
in its third year.
65
The proposal was much more appealing
officials and
city a site
to both city
residents after Koppers offered to
adjacent to
provide the
its plant location (and the city's
City
expansion area) for the recovery plant.
industrial
officials recalled their siting difficulties in 1971, and
thought
the economic development the plant might spur.
of
The Koppers
plant already caused
severe odor problems, and
city residents doubted that a resource recovery plant
make matters worse at
worked at
Koppers and
that
location.
supported the
of 1975.
from the
company executive
focused
on
represented
assurances
produced by
pay"
an
Many nearby residents
12
proposal.
city and Koppers continued
Negotiations between the
through the fall
plant manager
Koppers'
by Mayor Powell and
or pay
The
city,
the city's attorney, wanted
either purchase all steam
that Koppers would
arrangement).
and a
firm's Pittsburgh headquarters
the need for reliable steam delivery.
the plant
could
for unused
steam (a "take
Negotiations also centered on
acceptable way to determine
steam price.
in the negotiations, even offering
or
finding
USR participated
legal services
in drawing
up agreements, and worked with the state Department
of
Control and Ecology (DPCE) to facilitate permit
13
By late 1975, it was clear that all parties
applications.
Pollution
would
reach a satisfactory agreement.
In what marked
the
city council
the city's first
formal commitment,
in November 1975 voted to solicit bids
66
for
a proposal
to design,
build,
and
equip
the modular
*
incinerator
plant.
Bids were
but
only two were judged
bid
included
Company
received in January next year,
to meet the qualifications.
Consumat equipment
(a local
firm),
and the Baldwin Construction
plus an offer of a full refund
the
two previously-purchased
and
lower --
Consumat units.
Koppers
informed the city council that
Sunbeam proposal technically unacceptable.
the council
to the
instead,
the council signed
with USR for
effort
USR,
into
At
the
this point,
it
a memorandum of understanding
equipment purchase, deferring arrangements
design and
selecting
it found
rejected both bids and
15
turnkey-procurement process.
bypassed the competitive-bid,
plant
Custom Sheet
could have rejected the low bid for not responding
bid qualifications;
In April,
for
The other --
bid was made by another local firm,
14
Sunbeam equipment.
Metal, using
USR's
construction.
felt
that
the project,
for
The mayor and council, in
the
f irm had already
and
had
put
considerable
a commercially-proven
product.
Negotiations between the city and Koppers continued.
major
area of disagreement remained;
guarantee
*
whether Koppers would
to purchase a specific amount of
being uncertain
One
steam.
of its own future steam needs
Koppers,
and future
This is the so-called "turn-key" procurement approach;
the bid solicitation also listed qualifications which eligible
bidders had to meet -previous experience with modular systems,
and so forth.
67
to do
energy prices, was reluctant
that
all of its
it would meet
city's plant,
The city declined to press
to rely on
underwriter argued
the firm's goodwill.
from the
The
the matter, and
city's bond
that the marketability of the necessary
revenue bonds would not
guarantee,
steam requirements
refused to guarantee to purchase any
but
specific amount.
decided
firm promised
The
so.
be affected by lack of a specific
and city officials wanted
to hasten project im-
plementation.
In June 1976,
city issued
year the
capital
September
$1.3 million of revenue bonds
initial testing
and
1977,
Later
that
to finance
contractor began construction in
The project
costs.
late 1976;
months
the long-term purchase of steam.
and for
leasing
signed a contract for site
the two parties
the plant took place in
of
the plant was fully operational three
later.
Resource recovery system and results
The North Little Rock facility
is a small-scale modular
combustion system with a capacity of 100 TPD.
It
with four controlled-air modular combustion units,
a 25 TPD capacity.
per hour
at 150 pounds per
and
square
10,000 pounds of
inch
is equipped with an automatic
combustion unit
wet ash conveyor system,
The
if
necessary.
in
the number of
each with
These units are paired with two boiler
heat exchangers, each capable of producing
steam
is equipped
(psig).
Each
ash removal
but ash may be removed manually,
facility is
designed to permit
combustion units
and
a doubling
boiler heat exchangers
68
if
future expansion is
designed
desired.
Inc.,
and manufactured the equipment.
operation requires a staff of nine.
Full plant
refuse is dumped on the
pair
Consumat Systems,
of units,. where it
the plant
floor of
The
is loaded.
Incoming
in front of
each
combustion process
is a combination of pyrolysis, volatization, and gasification
of hydrocarbons;
the second
natural gas is used as an auxiliary fuel in
stage of
combustion.
odors and very low
16
stack emissions of particulates and other pollutants.
17
After
Incineration reduces MSW weight by about 70%.
This process
results in minimal
to a disposal site.
quenching, residual ash is hauled
city does not
or after
recover any materials
incineration.
nature, the ash need not
Because of
from MSW --
The
either before
its largely inorganic
be dumped at a sanitary landfill.
North Little Rock, for at least
the first
two years of
operation, dumped residual ash at a state-certified, privatelyowned site by the Arkansas River.
The plant
hours per day,
is intended
to supply steam to Koppers
five days per week.
24
The 1976 contract with
Koppers requires the city to deliver a minimum of 15,000
pounds per hour of
(psig),
saturated.
minimum amount of
The plant had
steam, at 110-150 pounds per square inch
Koppers
is not obligated
to purchase a
steam, however.
capital
costs
of $1,530,000
(1978 dollars).
69
The
for the two
city received a refund
the remaining $1,350,.OO by
purchased earlier, and raised
issuing
at interest
revenue bonds,
18
to 6.75%.
20-year
from 5.75
1979,
rates ranging
Rock plant only hegan regular
Because the North Little
operations in
incinerator units
available for
late 1977, and data are not yet
operating results are
only available for
1978.
The
facility processed an estimated 15,125 tons of refuse in 1978,
19
Most of this tonnage was residential
or an average of 58 TPD.
MSW delivered by the Sanitation
Department.
were charged a tipping fee of $0.90
(or about
Initially, the daily throughput was only 40 TPD,
landfills.
but
cubic yard
a price thought to be competitive with nearby
ton),
$8.00 per
per
Private haulers
this had risen to
80 TPD by October 1978,
to equipment modifications
increased hourly
response
in
and operational changes
throughput of
that
MSW at the plant.
The energy recovery facility has complied with state
for air quality
standards
levels in
chloride
thus
far.
Sulfur and nitrogen oxide
stack emissions have been negligible, although
20
The incineremissions have been recorded.
ator units
are not subject
to
federal air quality standards,
being below the size threshold that would qualify them as new
sources.
Table 6
Estimates
ience
presents annual
of operating costs
in 1978,
and
include
cost
and revenue data for 1978.
are based on several months exper-
annual debt
Project revenues are derived
service of
from two sources:
$44,000.
steam sales
70
and
dump
fees
the latter
from
great
who used
haulers
minor
a relatively
are
not as
commercial
the
--
facility
Revenues were
fraction.
as originally anticipated by USR, due to lower
than expected
steam demand by Koppers.
Under optimal operating
conditions, an independent research group predicted a net
per ton --
$10.53 result
$2.73
21
in 1978.
facility runs
at near-capacity and
processing
TABLE
cost of
significantly below the
the
The calculation assumed that
steam produced.
sells all
NORTH LITTLE ROCK PLANT COSTS AND REVENUES
2
per-ton
Annual(1978)
6
1
Costs
Revenues
$365,000
17.7,000
$20.45
9.92
Net costs
$188,000
$10.53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Small Modular
Source:
A Technical, EnvironIncinerator Systems with Heat Recovery:
Technology Corp.,
by
Systems
Evaluation,
and
Economic
mental,
11 7 12 0
.
SW-177c, November 1979, pp.
1.
2.
Includes operation and maintenance costs,
costs.
Assumes 17,850 tons per year (or 69 TPD).
Initially, USR proposed
operate
plant
the facility
at
North Little
and debt
service
it be allowed to manage and
that
for the first
two years.
Rock was important
A
successful
marketing
to the firm's
USR doubted that the city had qualified staff to
22
The city adjministration, however,
their equipment.
efforts, and
operate
facing an employee surplus,
avoid layoffs.
that
city
necessary
declined USR's offer in
In retrospect, city officials
operation
was unwise.
training,
and
Plant workers
management
changed
too
order to
and USR agreed
lacked the
often
to
71
develop any experience.
was
As a result,
inadequate, and najor equipment
late 1979,
plant
facility was
council
spent
breakdowns occured.
operation deteriorated seriously,
forced to close.
agreed to
At
and reopened the plant
the first year of plant
peak demands
accommodate -reduced
hour
for steam by Koppers that
caused Koppers
landfill
But
surge problems
the plant could not
from 15,000 pounds per
--
-
interested in resource recovery,
and specifically in USR's proposal,
While the
23
in May 1980.
hour.
Resource Recovery Choice
North Little Rock was
Consumat
to re-activate one boiler, and
steam purchases accordingly
to 10-12,000 pounds per
the city
operation, Koppers relied
entirely on steam from the recovery plant.
--
In
and the
Consumat's request
let Consumat operate the plant.
$200,000 on repairs
During
equipment maintainence
for several reasons.
city was not worried about the availability of
facilities, disposal costs had
and were expected to keep rising.
increased recently,
USR pointed out
the long-
term economic advantage of energy recovery in this respect.
The city,
way
by
especially Mayor Powell, saw USR's proposal as a
to improve
reducing
reli4ahility.
the efficiency of
hauling
distances
and
the
Sanitation Department,
improving
collection
vehicle
North Little Rock also suffered from a depressed
*Includes new rolling equipment, replacement of refractory
walls, and extensive interior
cleaning.
Sanitation Department trucks often became mired or suffered
tire damage at the Jacksonville landfill, increasing vehicle
operation costs and reducing collection efficiency.
**
72
local
economy, and Mayor Powell
saw the energy recovery plant
as a way to promote much-needed economic development.
pending natural gas shortages,
Given
the proposed facility would
make the city more
attractive to new industry seeking a
location with dual
energy sources.
to recover
its 1971
The city's
was
Finally,
investment in modular
the city wanted
incinerators.
resource recovery choice was
elective, and
based mainly on long-term considerations.
While
Sanitation Department's collection program was
efficient,
there was no pressing need
practices.
Jacksonville landfill
collection and disposal costs,
in-
to change collection
for some
plus
were the main factors motivating
ested when USR presented
time.
Future MSW
future economic development,
the city's choice.
For the reasons noted above,
the
perhaps
Similarly, the city expected to continue hauling
MSW to the
Full
the
city officials were
its energy recovery proposal
interin 1974.
city support of and participation in the project awaited
resolution of
several issues,
however.
City officials
were unsure of how reliable the system would be.
They doubted
that the plant would have a lower net disposal cost than landfilling.
siting,
Both city officials and
and
strating its
All
1975,
the city needed
commitment
but the
however.
last of
residents worried about
some promises
from Koppers demon-
to the project.
these concerns were resolved by late
Koppers assured
the city that steam
proposed plant would meet its requirements.
from the
The city was
73
reassured by
a concurrent EPA study of
incinerators, which
feasibility and
to visit
or
small-scale modular
supported USR's claims about
economics.
Also,
technical
city councilmen were able
three
similar USR plants already under construction
24
in operation elsewhere in Arkansas.
USR predicted a low
initial per-ton tipping fee and rising steam revenues, in
contrast
to increasing landfill and hauling costs.
As noted earlier, Koppers offered a site
which
satisfied city officials and residents.
the city had
successfully negotiated most
agreement with Koppers, with
the
for the Dlant
By late 1975,
aspects of an
important exception of
a
Koppers' guarantee to purchase minimum amounts of steam.
mayor
and city council were thus willing to commit themselves
to the
proposal and
solicited bids
City officials faced
their
The
decision.
What
conflict of interest, but Koppers' site
the prospect of a
dulled these
is
community opposition to
Earlier, local newspapers were concerned
about USR's apparent
offer and
little or no
for plant development.
serious natural gas shortage
objections.
somewhat
surprising about the city's
is that
so few options were examined.
tigated
only one
the modular
particular.
alternative to the
incinerator
City officials
status quo
technology, and
Other options
--
such as
inves-
in detail:
USR's propos-al in
incineration without
heat recovery, MSW compaction .and hauling,
recovery technologies --
choice
and other energy
and alternative steam buyers or
74
arrangements were apparently not
Rock's
was
size precluded
investigated.
North Little
large-scale energy recovery, and
USR
the main equipment vendor in Arkansas for modular incin-
erators.
Nonetheless,
limit
options so
its
Perhaps
it is not
clear that the city had to
severely.
the most interesting feature of North Little
Rock's resource recovery choice is. the fairly passive
taken by the city itself.
ticipants,
The
city was one of
initiated the idea of energy
a potential steam buyer,
made the
various technical and economic
Koppers in
USR, and
recovery.
parin
later
Koppers
USR located
initial proposal, conducted
studies, assisted
subsequent negotiations,
necessary state permits.
and cleared
the
city and
the way for
Koppers verified technical feasibility,
advocated strongly for USR's
a site for
several
rather than the instigator and lead party,
considering resource recovery options.
Company,
role
proposal,
and offered the city
the plant.
City involvement increased, however, during negotiAtions
with Koppers, and the mayor took a personal interest in the
25
project's success.
The city's less prominent role can be
partly attributed to
served
two
the fact
that the energy recovery project
functions, being both an energy
disposal facility.
As such,
supplier and a MSW
the plant had to meet the needs
of both users.
Several
project's
key individuals were largely responsible for the
consideration and
eventual
implementation.
75
Mayor Powell
of
used his
the city council.
the efficiency of
political strength to gain the
-Powell felt
city services
proposal as a way to do
waste management.
took the lead
this,
it was important
in general, and
at
least in
saw the USR
Radcliffe,
steam requirements and
certifying that the USR proposal would meet
His
improve
the area of solid
Koppers' plant manager, Mr.
in defining Koppers'
to
support
those requirements.
support for the modular incinerator proposal gave credi-
bility
to
the project.
R. Michael Butner,
president of USR,
had a key role in suggesting the proposal originally,
ducting the necessary studies,
and Koppers of
con-
and persuading both the city
the proposal's merits.
Notes
1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Recovery
Case Studies of Five Processes,
Project Implementation:
by Development Sciences, Inc.,(Washington, D.C.: U.S.
GPO), 1977, p. 1 (henceforth "Case Studies").
2.
R. Michael Butner, president
Personal communication:
of U.S. Recycle, Little Rock, Arkansas; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Small Modular Incinerator
A Technical, Environmental,
Systems with Heat Recovery:
and Economic Evaluation, by Systems Technology Corp.,
SW-177c, November 1979, p. 4 5 .
3.
U.S.
4.
Ibid.,
5.
Robert Seay, former director
Personal communication:
of North Little Rock Public Works Department.
6.
Personal communication:
Inc., Boston.
7.
U.S. EPA,
8.
Ibid.,
EPA,
p.
p.
Case
Studies,
op.cit.,
p.
16.
16.
Case Studies,
15.
John Culp,
op.cit.,
p.
DSI-Resource
7.
Systems,
76
John Culp.
9.
Personal communication:
10.
Ray Hagar, Director of North
Personal communication:
Department.
Sanitation
Little Rock
11.
U.S.
12.
Personal communication:
13.
U.S. EPA, Case Studies,
op.cit.,
14.
Personal communication:
Robert
15.
Ibid.
16.
U.S.
17.
Ibid.,
18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Small Modular IncinA Technical, Environerator Systems with Heat Recovery:
mental, and Economic Evaluation, by Systems Technology Corp.,
SW-177c, November 1979, pp.112-113, (henceforth "Small
Systems").
19.
U.S. EPA, Small
day year).
20.
Ibid.,
p.
21.
Ibid.,
pp.
22.
U.S.
23.
Personal communication:
R. Michael Butner, president
of U.S. Recycle, Little Rock, Arkansas.
24.
U.S.
25.
Personal communication:
p.
EPA, Case Studies, op.cit.,
EPA, Case
p.
Studies,
16.
John Culp.
p.17.
Seay.
op.cit.,
p.
A-l.
A-3.
Systems,
op.cit.,
p.
45
(assuming a 260-
4.
175-176.
EPA, Case
EPA, Case
Studies,
op.cit.,
Studies, op.cit.,
p.
pp.
John Culp.
25.
9-10.
77
STUDY 4:
CASE
VII.
day
(TPD) refuse processing plant,
facilities
The
in the U.S.
the rest of
(RDF),
which
the county,
is
one of the first such
plant receives MSW from Ames and
and produces a refuse derived fuel
the city's
fired as a supplementary fuel at
Despite persistent
electric utility plant.
culties
IOWA
the city of Ames has operated a 200 ton
Since 1975,
per
AMES,
and net operating costs of
those projected,
the plant has met
technical diffi-
$13-16 per ton, over twice
the county's disposal needs
since it began operation.
Ames' resource recovery decision was motivated in part
by an impending shortage of
landfill capacity and strict new
state regulations affecting MSW disposal.
But
the city council
took a broad view of the disposal problem, and sought
provide a long-term, environmentally sound
city's disposal needs.
to
solution to the
The city's choice was motivated by
non-economic criteria, both environmental and political,
although technical and
economic feasibility were both issues
influencing the council's decision.
portant
that
Probably the most
factor leading to the .city's ch-oice was
the city owned its own utility, which made
technology attractive
attention on this
early
the
im-
fact
the RDF
in the planning process, focused
option, and
guaranteed a market
for a then-
78
Figure 5
Location Map:
Ames,
Iowa
3
Story City
McCallsburg
0
Roland
Zear Lng
0
Gilbert
Nevada
0
Colo
0
STORY COUNTY
Kell y
Cambridge
H ixley 0
0
'u
Sl1atk
________
Maxwell
_________________________
POLK COUNTY
Colli 'Is
a
79
fuel product.
untested
Background
Moines,
Iowa about 32 miles north of Des
in central
Located
inter-
Ames developed as a farming center at the
section of
railroad lines
two
in western
is now the principal city in Story
Ames
Story County.
the
of
County, with 63%
The 1970 population of Ames was 39,000 1
Growth during the 1970s was equally
1960 level.
county's population.
above the
46%
the
brisk, but
future rate of increase is expected
to be
slower.
Iowa
State University
a major part
of the
(ISU) is located in Ames,
and many other residents have
residents are students at-ISU,
some affiliation with the university.
and
the city supports
ISU,
In addition to
federal agencies are headquartered
several state and
is
town's
About half of the
community.
and
in -Ames,
a range of manufacturing and agricul-
Median incone in 1970 was $10,126, slightly
2
Ames has a weak mayor
above the state and county average.
tural
industries.
form of
mayor
government, with a six member city council
being
the
--
seventh
siderable responsibility
the
city manager
and his
a
haulers
member).
Con-
staff.
throughout
solid waste is collected
Story
County.
franchise arrangement with one hauler;
haulers and allow open
--
for city administration rests with
Traditionally, municipal
by private
non-voting
and
(the
competition.
Some
others
Ames has no
towns have
merely
license
franchise
80
requirement, and residents pay a monthly
refuse collection.
for
the hauler
$3.00 per month per household;
In
two)
widely practiced.
1956,
to
periodic earth cover.
existent in other
4
practiced.
(and
Open burning was
but
the dump
MSW
state:
No accurate records of waste
the city Public Works Department esti-
that disposal costs were about
$2.50 per
3
$5.50.
had one
the better-run facilities in the
tonnage were kept,
fee was
risen to
A city operated facility,
dump its MSW.
received
(or
this
Ames was using a former farm, acquired in
one of
year
it has since
open refuse dumps.
was then
mated
In 1970,
Iowa communities
the early 1970s, most
some cases
in
fee directly to
ton).
$2.00 per
capita per
Disposal costs were almost non-
towns where
open dumping and
burning were
Chronology
A 1970
for
act of the state
legislature provided the impetus
a local review of MSW disposal practices.
The act pro-
required communities
5
The act
to have approved disposal plans by late 1972.
hibited open dumping and burning and
created a
Department
Solid Waste Disposal Commission within the state
of Health to
quired communities
implement the legislation, and re-
to obtain disposal permits by July 1975.
The Commission in 1971 promulgated
rules and
regulations --
for both landfill operation and new landfill siting --
*
Author's estimate, assuming
0.8 TPY per
capita.
plus
81
virtually ended
disposal
early enforcement activities
Its
plan guidelines.
local
turn aggravated
open burning, which in
problems for many communities.
In 1970,
J.
City Manager
the new legislation, Ames'
in response to
R.
Castner conducted
a study of the
city's
site sould reach capacity
6
and a new landfill would be needed.
landfill, discovering that
in only
3-5 years
Castner
realized that Ames'
the
situation was not unique and
initiated discussion with Story County officials and representatives
county-wide
of
14
other towns in the
Because
landfill.
county participation was
county, proposing a
of its broader jurisdiction,
considered
The proposal
crucial.
to pursue the matter
7
advice of the County Engineer).
died after county officials declined
(on the
the same time,
At
Castner's staff was investigating
possible sites for a new city
results
of
(or county)
landfill.
their 1971 survey were pessimistic.
The
New state
standards for landfill siting ruled out marginal lands because
of infiltration and leachate problems.
was prime agricultural
at
$3,000 per acre.
land,
The
which was considered too
The new site would have
city, and Castner and others anticipated
8
from nearby landowners and residents.
the
a consequence, the
As
a task
costly
to be outside
serious opposition
city council in late 1971
force to consider other options
the need
only alternative
created
that might obviate
for acquiring a new landfill site.
The task force
82
was
an
informal group,
members -Arnold
group
Joe Maxwell and
Chantland, and
ments of
consisting
Dean Huston,
city
council
Public Works Director
three professors from the
civil engineering and mechanical
ISU depart-
engineering.
The
investigated a variety of options, including more
efficient methods of landfilling
alternatives.
in
of two
the U.S.,
as well as
Task force members visited
including a MSW
energy recovery
several facilities
shredding and
landfilling
operation in Madison, Wisconsin, a materials recovery plant
and a refuse derived fuel plant in St.
Franklin, Ohio,
in
Louis, Missouri.
facility --
The group was
impressed with the St.
Louis
a joint EPA-city demonstration project that used
the burnable portion of the city's MSW to generate electricity.
A
preliminary check showed that the
utility could be adapted
In late 1972,
the
to burn
city's own coal-burning
a mixture of RDF
task force concluded
and
coal.
its research and
they authorize a more
9
Other city council
detailed study of the promising RDF idea.
recommended
to the city
members agreed that
council that
the proposal merited further
study;
they
too expected great difficulties in siting a new landfill
and were anxious
to find an alternative.
In October,
council hired the firm of Gibbs, Hill, Durham,
(GHDR) of Omaha, Nebraska, to
feasibility
of
engineering
firm,
city's
electric
a RDF
plant.
and Richardson
study the technical
and economic
Primarily an architectural and
GHDR had designed
utility.
the
recent additions to the
83
In February 1973,
council, concluding
--
its report
to
the city
that the RDF proposal was indeed feasible
the city generated a sufficient amount of MSW, a waste
processing
could be
plant
would work,
and
the resulting
RDF product
10
city's utility plant.
successfully burned at the
The report
if
GHDR submitted
suggested that disposal costs could
be reduced
the facility received waste from the entire county
55,000 TPY),
due to economics
of scale.
and others were apprehensive about
(about
Councilman Huston
the proposal;
they realized
that the then-unproven technology represented
a financial
risk.
in its accept-
ance
Nonetheless, the council was unanimous
of GHDR's report and support of the RDF concept.
woman Koerber
and others considered
objectionable
and favored,.
in
landfilling environmentally
principle,
an approach
recovered energy and materials from MSW.
to
pursue
transferred
In early 1973
regulatory functions were
from the Health Department
of Environmental Quality
of consolidation
area-wide landfills.
forcing
council resolved
state's disposal regulation program was
gathering momentum.
policy
The
that
the proposal further.
Meanwhile, the
Department
Council-
Story City
--
closing
to
the newly-created
(DEQ).
DEQ pursued a
small dumps
DEQ closed the Story
and
encouraging
City dump in 1973,
to use Ames'
need for a
landfill and dramatizing the
11
county-wide facility.
Comiunities in Story
County had
few options;
upgrading
prohibitively expensive and
a common landfill.
the
each small dump would be
county was not
City Manager Castner
thus
interested
found town
in
84
them to discuss
officials entuhsiastic when he met with
Castner
participation in the city's RDF project.
their
already convinced of the
Ames' city council was
bility and desirability of
hired GHDR to design the
woman Koerber opposed
With
the project.
from these communities,
mitments
than a
be less costly
them that the facility would
12
regional landfill.
assured
the council
feasi-
informal comin May 1973,
refuse-processing plant.
Council-
feeling that the firm
GHDR's selection,
but Castner assured the council
lacked the necessary ability,
that no other firms were available and
interested in the
project.
In April 1974,
signed
25-year
plant and
Maxwell, Rowland,
13
The contracts
and Cambridge.
Story City,
each town to have
required
towns --
contracts with six
Gilbert, Kelley,
costs.'
GHDR's designs were completed and Ames
its MSW delivered
to the Ames RDF
provided for a per-capita sharing of net operating
Ames
promised to receive MSW even if
the plant
completely, but made no promises about net operating
predicted
at
the time to be about $5 per
Also in April,
the
Due to
most construction costs.
the bonds did nQt sell.
on municipal
cost,
capita per year.
the city council unanimously approved
issuance of general obligation
state legislature
failed
Ames
to raise
bonds --
(G.O.)
bonds
to
finance
an unfavorable bond market,
successfully petitioned the
the maximum interest rate payable
from 5%
to
6%.
In February 1975,
the
85
council again approved the issuance of G.O.
amount
of
$5.3 million.
RDF plant
in August
1975.
funds, and
the contractor
Concom-
construction and utility-boiler modification
The Public Works Department
down operations at
late
the
These were sold successfully.
struction began, using city
pleted
bonds in
the plant
and
started shake-
it was fully operational by
1975.
Resource recovery system and results
Ames' refuse processing plant is designed to produce a
fuel supplement
materials -woodchips.
ferrous metals,
Louis,
(hence 52,000
is modeled after an earlier RDF plant in
of a similar scale,
and the city.
mixture
It
and
capacity, serves all of
and operates five days per week
TPY capacity).
Municipal
aluminum, paper products,
The plant has a 200 TPD
Story County,
St.
(RDF) and to recover various processed
and operated jointly
The Ames plant supplies
by EPA
RDF to the Ames
Power Plant, a city-run utility which burns a
of
20% RDF and 80%
coal.
Refuse entering the plant goes through a
processing
subsystems:
into six-inch chunks),
magnets,
a secondary
chunks),
an air
a primary
shredder
(breaks refuse
a ferrous recovery unit with electro-
shredder
classifier
(reduces refuse to two-inch
(separates light and heavy, non-
combustible
items),
system also
includes a wood chipper
Packer
sequence of
and an aluminum recovery unit.
The
and paper baler.
trucks and private vehicles
dump refuse on
the
86
tipping
$.50
floor,
per load,
and pay a nominal
respectively.
this point.
by pneumatic
tubes to a storage
continuous basis.
is
bin, and
the bin allows
At
ified
The non-combustible
moving grate);
inorganic
to be covered daily, and
supplement.
the third is
Two boilers are
on a continuously
suspension-fired
(coal and
into the boiler and burn in suspension).
firing of
fraction
all three boilers have been mod-
to burn RDF as a fuel
special
(or "heavy")
simple matter.
the utility plant,
shot
sent
from the bin to the
Because of its
stoker-fired (coal and RDF are burned
are
items are
the utility to use RDF on a
this waste does not need
disposal is a
$1.00 and
After processing, the RDF is
hauled to the Ames landfill.
nature,
of
Bulky and hazardous
set aside at
utility boilers;
tipping fee
RDF did not work well,
grate in this boiler.
RDF
Suspension-
and the city later added a
The utility uses all of
the
RDF that the processing plant can produce, and pays a perton price
equivalent to its
the value of
varies
as a
the conventional
fuel it
and natural gas
14
per ton in 1976.
used by
of the market
price averaged
ferrous metals
price of highgrade
$20 per ton.
This price
the RDF
the utility;
Ames contracted with Vulcan Materials Co.
which buys recoyered
that is,
--
displaced.
function of the heat content of
cost of coal
$10
fuel-offset value
of
and
the
it averaged
Indiana,
for a fixed percentage
steel
scrap.
In 1976,
Ames also contracted
the
with Alcoa
87
Aluminum to purchase shredded aluminum at a price of $300 15
400 per ton, depending on the quality of the material.
The
city has
no contracts for paper
Total capital costs
$6,310,000
or woodchips.
for the refuse processing plant were
(1975 dollars),
including $4.12 million for the
plant
itself and
land,
rolling equipment, architectural and engineering costs,
$1.6 million for the RDF storage bin and
16
utility modifications.
Other capital cost items included
and
of
start-up costs.
G.O.
issued by
duration at an
The project was
the city in 1975;
interest rate of
financed by
the bonds have a 20-year
5.3% per year.
$1 million came from city funds reserved
disposal
$5.3 million
The remaining
for solid waste
activities.
Ames' plant
city utility
has provided a
(meeting 10%
of
steady supply of RDF to the
the utility's
fuel-energy needs),
and has reduced MSW tonnage requiring disposal by over 90%.
At the
same time,
financial
the plant
difficulties.
has
The city and
technical problems, given the
production and
was designed
lack of
firing at that time.
Still, it was hoped
resolved after
the air
considerable
GHDR expected some
experience with RDF
Much of the equipment
classifier
down-time
that most problems
a brief shake-down period.
But many problems persisted.
ially in
technical and
for different uses and had to be adapted to
meet plant needs.
would be
faced serious
--
Equipment
failures
and RDF conveyor units)
over
20% in
the last
half
(espec-
caused
of
17
1976.
88
"Bridging",
frequently
ing
or
the piling up
of RDF material upon itself,
caused pneumatic lines
to become
the whole system to be shut down until
cleared.
Plant design did not
city was
screen
dust
to
forced
systems
primary shredder in order
including broken magnets and
--
--
installing a disc-
and
to isolate
The aluminum recovery unit was plagued with
and grit.
problems
the line was
include dust control, and the
take remedial steps,
separator after the
clogged, requir-
inefficient cooling
has not produced a saleable product since
18
start-up.
Despite
technical difficulties,
Table 7
away very little MSW tonnage.
received during
TABLE 7
the plant's
the plant has
first
year(TPY)
three years of operation.
Tons per day(TPD)
79%
93%
73%
The Ames Experience, Financial
Source: Resource Recovery:
Summary (Update)
1.
2.
Assumes 260 operating days per year.
Plant has 200 TPD capacity.
Of
the
as
ferrous metals, and
incoming MSW tonnage, 84%
Recovered
becomes RDF, 7%
is
recovered
9% is rejected and hauled
to
the land-
paper, aluminum, and woodchips are
gible fraction of the
Percent
of capacity
157
186
145
40,900
48,300
37,700
1976
1977
1978
TPY of
shows MSW tonnage
WASTE TONNAGE PROCESSED BY AMES RDF PLANT
Tons per
fill.
turned
total.
ferrous metals over
The plant
a negli-
recovered about
the three-year period,
3,000
at a price
89
of
per ton.
$30-35
paper
TPY
during
Because
of very poor market
this period, the
for
prices
plant recovered only about 120
of paper.
The city utility encountered no major problems using RDF
as a
fuel supplement.
burned
during
the
An average of 36,000 TPY of RDF was
1976-78
utility's fuel needs --
coal,
the city
supplying
in terms of BTU.
but a low sulfur content.
content
sulfur
period,
it decreases sulfur
about 10% of
the
RDF has a high ash
When burned with high
(di)oxide emissions,
allowing
to use a greater percentage of cheaper, high-sulfur
local coal
But RDF
(rather than Wyoming or Eastern coal).
firing also increases particulate emissions significantly;
when the
state DEQ re-tested stack emissions
plant exceeded particulate standards
in 1978,
the
19
(with and without RDF).
Even after modification, the utility does not consistently
meet
to
these
resolve
standards;
the
state
still
trying
this issue.
Net operating costs
have been more than twice
estimated by GHDR in the 1972
as
DEQ and Ames are
Table 8 shows.
feasibility
study
those
($5.68 per ton),
90
TABLE 8
AMES RDF PLANT COSTS AND REVENUES
1976
319,500
97,900
4,400
32,200
10,500
1977
353,300
102,300
10,200
49,600
7,400
1978
322,300
89,300
3,200
61,400
84,600
$464,500
$522,800
$560,800
626,700
482,800
12,500
690,900
465,400
12,500
689,500
463,600
12,500
Revenue
RDF revenue
Ferrous metals revenue1
Other material revenue
Tipping fees 2
Other 3
Total
Costs
O&M
Debt service
Equipment reserve
$1,122,000 1,168,800 1,165,600
Total
Net
646,000
657,300
cost
604,900
$16.06/ton 13.38/ton 16.04/ton
Source: Resource Recovery:
Summary (Update)
The Ames Experience, Financial
1. Woodchips and paper, mainly.
2. At RDF plant and sanitary landfill.
3. 1978 figure included $75,000 EPA grant
modification.
There are several reasons for
GHDR, in
in
its 1972
these unexpectedly
tonnage has been much less;
prices assumed
that
RDF.
yearly
In fact,
has operated well
costs have been allocated
Second,
of refuse.
low per-ton revenues for
TPY.
the plant
below capacity, and major fixed
tons
high costs.
study, overestimated MSW generation rates
Story County, predicting 55,000
among fewer
for equipment
the RDF plant received
GHDR estimates of
RDF would be
fired with
fuel-offset
100% coal,
cheaper natural gas
an unexpected
availability
of
the utility's
per-BTU fuel
cost.
tially no revenue from recovered
The
lowered
plant received
aluminum or paper
but
essen-
(due to
91
equipment
Third,
failure and low market prices,
rapid
inflation
1972 estimate
rate on
in
1974
of capital costs.
G.O. bonds
these
Unaccustomed
extra
costs,
in Story
usually
towns were quite distressed
--
break their
respective
Huxley
1977.
Both Ames
grants
in 1977,
and
interest
County have had to
from city
tax revenues.
the participating
by the high per-ton costs.
Gilbert
--
tried
Two
unsuccessfully
to
25-year contracts with Ames in early
and the other
arguing that
towns sought
the
state and
RDF plant was
Ames received a multi-year
federal
of national
importance and a valuable demonstration project.
year,
GHDR's
service dramatically.
to sizeable disposal fees,
communities
doubled
cost-sharing plan, Ames and -the
participating communities
finance
1975 almost
This plus a higher
increased debt
Because of the plant's
other
and
respectively).
Later that
$600,000 demonstration grant
from EPA.
Resource Recovery
Choice
Several characteristics
are noteworthy.
was not
The city's choice,
elective.
Ames would
The
conscious
of Ames' resource recovery choice
The city
unlike those in other cases,
council knew
need a new disposal site
that within five years,
(or technology).
council's decision. to develop and
and positive
act;
the cQuncil
RDF plant was a
regarded
the
city's
These communities were concerned over predicted $5 per capita
By way of comparison
per year costs, never mind $10-12 costs.
nearby counties pay $4-8 per ton for landfilling (or $3-6 per
capita per year). 2
92
MSW disposal
essentially
landfill
situation as an opportunity.
short-term disposal problem,
capacity),
a solution
the council
Faced with an
(i.e. how to expand
took a longer view and sought
that would be beneficial to the city in the
long-
term.
The city council made no
single, identifiable decision.
Rather,
council members were initially attracted
option,
and
subsequent
attraction.
ing
--
The most obvious
considered
and political
thought
only to reinforce that
There are several reasons for this
of options.
was
studies served
alternative --
undesirable on environmental,
grounds.
City manager
the new state landfill
Castner and
in the process of
siting
limited
in
examples
the
user
St.
to
evaluate or
the
council
Des Moines
lawsuits
opposing siting from nearby
the 1971 task force had very few
observe.
Louis RDF plant and
city
economic,
resource recovery options were very
the early 1970s;
in Ames
to the
Other
landfilling
a new landfill and faced
from landowners and resolutions
communities.
early narrow-
standards would make landfill
siting both expensive and politically difficult.
was
to one
The
successful operation of
the availability of a willing RDF
(the utility) made this
technology very attractive
council.
*
Qther local and state officials discount landfill siting
difficulties, howeyer, citing an abundance of open space and
0
little history of citizen opposition.23
Public works
costs.
**
director Chantland
predicted
$6 per ton disposal
93
The nature of Ames and
influenced
was made
have ties
and
city council
the criteria used by the
to
is a college
Ames
RDF proposal.
to evaluate the
residents
the time at which the decision
to unique
Residents are receptive
ISU.
many
town:
support creative or exper22
This attitude is
approaches to municipal problems.
innovative solutions, and often
imental
reflected in the city council.
is atypical;
In
this sense, the Ames case
is unlikely that other Iowa communities would
it
supported an essentially untested technology.
have
decision came at
Ames'
movement, at
the height of
the environmental
a time when Americans were becoming acutely
aware of natural resource and pollution problems.
This
choice --
both among city council members and in the
munity at
large.
agricultural land,
impacts of
another landfill,
recovery would
The city
environmental
and conserving natural resources.
council thought
the council's
that resource
engender less public opposition
They were convinced that
landfill.
work and
avoiding the
other criteria entered into
decision as well.
com-
The RDF proposal was seen as a way of
preserving
Certainly
city's
in the
philosophy or attitude was very much a factor
that it would be cheaper in
than a new
the RDF plant would
the long run.
The
1972 GHDR report predicted a 10-year "payback" period;
landfilling would be more costly in present24
The city also had lots of willing technical
terms.
this point,
value
after
assistance --
from GIIDR and
the university.
GHDR was
94
anxious
to become established
growth industry,
and. many
in what
faculty
at
it saw as a
future
ISU were willing
to
assist in developing such a major new technology.
The council's choice engendered very little
--
among council members or
the public.
Despite
controversy
early skep-
ticism by some council members over the new technology,
25
"nobody dragged their feet",
and the council was unanimous
in supporting
plained
This consensus can be ex-
the RDF proposal.
by both the prevailing
innovative and
politics, which
supported
solutions, and
environmentally-sound
the
the proposed RDF project.
merits of
The public
at large had
a minimal role in the resource
No community organizations were
recovery choice.
involved
Because
suggesting or promoting resource recovery.
in either
solid waste disposal was
considered
an "essential public
the council did not need to obtain voter approval
26
on the G.O. bonds which financed the plant.
More importantly,
service",
the
that
RDF -proposal was
time.
compatible with community
Although the city newspaper was
sentiment at
critical of the
feasibility, most citizens apparently
27
In retrospect, some
favored or were unaware of the project.
questioning its
project,
residents wish city officials had
education prior
are
to
spent more
their decision.
efforts
a broader
to
involve
consensus,
and
citizens
operating costs.
the public might have
could have
on citizen
Now, many Ames'
unhappy with the RDF plant's high
Earlier
time
sensitized
produced
citizens
to
95
the possibility of higher-than-predicted costs.
Project
financing and siting,
two common pitfalls in
energy recovery plant development,
in Ames.
had set
The city had
aside funds
facility.
plant,
Land
ample debt
caused no
capacity at the
since 1970 to
near
for the project was available near
of excessive
the
site
did
time, and
finance a new disposal
in a primarily commercial area.
residents
serious problems
object
the power
Some of the few
to the project
on grounds
noise, but the city was able to purchase the
necessary parcels without resorting
to
condemnation.
Notes
1.
City of Ames, Community Development
Profile, June 1978, p.2.
2.
Ibid.,
3.
Personal communication:
City Clerk,
4.
Personal communication:
of Environmental Quality
George Welch, Iowa Department.
(Air and Land Division).
5.
Code of
6.
Barbara Koerber, member of
Personal communication:
Ames City Council; and City of Ames, Energy from a
The Ames Experience, by David Doran,
Wasted Resource:
1978, p.
3.
7.
Personal communication:
Manager, City of Ames.
8.
Barbara Koerber, Joseph Maxwell,
Personal communication:
and Dean Huston, members (or ex-members) of Ames City
Council.
9.
The Ames
City of Ames, Energy from a Wasted Resource:
Experience, by David Doran, 1978, p. 3 (henceforth
"Ames Experience").
p.
Department, Community
3.
Iowa, Ch.
455B, Dir.
J.
4,
R.
City of Ames.
Part 1.
Castner,
former City
96
p.
4.
10.
Ames Experience, op.cit.,
11.
Personal communication:
12.
Ibid.
13.
Personal communication:
City Clerk, City of Ames.
14.
Ames Daily Tribune, "The
p. 12.
Garbage Plant,"
15.
Ibid.,
16.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of the
Ames Solid Waste Recovery System, Part I, by J. C. Even
et.al., Iowa State University, and D. E. Fiscus and C. A.
Romine, Midwest Research Institute (Cincinnati: Muni. Env.
Research Lab.), November 1977, pp. 196-198.
17.
Ibid.,
18.
Ames Experience, op.cit.,
19.
Arnold Chantland, Director
Personal communication:
of Public Works Department, City of Ames.
20.
Ames Daily Tribune,
February 1, 1977.
21.
Personal
22.
Charles Miller, Director of
Personal communication:
Department of Environmental
Iowa
Division,
Land
Air and
of Ames City Council.
member
Quality; and John Parks,
23.
Personal communication:
Arnold
25.
Personal communication:
Ames City Council.
Barbara Koerber, member of
26.
Personal communication:
Arnold Chantland.
27.
Personal communication:
sity, Ames.
Keith Adams,
p.
p.
J.
R.
Castner.
March 23,
1976,
12.
31.
p.
"County
communication:
25.
towns
Arnold
start search for funds,"
Chantland.
Chantland.
Iowa State Univer-
97
VIII.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper set out to
how communities
view the
recovery issue,
and to
should
use
specific
The
in
choose
resource
empirical;
both
to
the
terms
Community
In
none
low-versus-high
recovery
the
the
two
to observe
technology
prescriptive.
fours
approaches
options).
resource
The
first
This
(and
among
matter
section
is
addresses
case studies.
Perspective
of
the
four -cases did
compare
high and
low
technology
covery.
Rather,
one
approach was
present
tasks:
suggest a process municipalities
between
second
of
accomplish two
waste
disposal method.
communities
approaches
compared
In
the
directly
to
resource re-
to
the
case of
El
community's
Cerrito
and Marblehead, recycling was evaluated in the context of
continued landfilling
or incineration.
North Little Rock
and Ames saw energy recovery as an alternative to landfilling.
These
no
cases
communities
approaches
*
are
In
at
as
least
probably not
unique;
that have viewed
competing
low
the
and
author knows
high
of
technology
options.
two metropolitan
regions
--
Portland,
Oregon,
and Washington, D.C, -high-technology proposals have been
rejected in favor of further study of both low and hightechnology options.
two approaches seen
as
In neither case, however, were
comparable substitutes.
the
98
is
Why
this
As
the case?
and high-technology
They also tend
community objectives and criteria for
to address
different
solid waste management.
it appears that communities considering
case studies,
From the
attributes and
approaches have different
different problems.
solve
low
section III pointed out,
low-technology approaches have been primarily concerned
with environmental issues
and
energy,
(conserving natural resources and
reducing landfilling
(reducing disposal
extent with economic issues
extending
impacts) and to a lesser
costs
and
the community's landfill).
the useful life of
Communities considering high-technology approaches have been
primarily
concerned with economic and fiscal
(pro-
issues
reducing disposal costs, and
viding new disposal capacity,
attracting new industry) -and to a lesser extent with environmental
issues
(conserving materials and
energy, as
in the
Ames case).
Aside from these differences, though, communities
to view the choice between the
than
two approaches differently
those engaged in the appropriate technology
As section III noted,
In considering resource recovery
options, many municipalities
costs, system reliability,
recovery,
specific
are more concerned with net
and compliance with environmental
than they are with resource policy.
national debate
focuses
on two
While the
generic approaches to
communities must consider specific
sites,
debate.
the debate has focused on national
issues of resource policy.
regulations
tend
each with associated
resource
options --
costs, risks,
and
at
99
time
The municipality's
benefits.
frame is usually shorter,
with priority on meeting short-term disposal needs.
governments can view
local
"open"
system.
A local
regional landfill
solid
naste
Finally,
management as an
option, such as hauling MSW to a
(as Marblehead
decided to do
in 1975),
might not be considered a valid long-term disposal solution
from a regional or national perspective.
Municipalities are usually motivated
source
to consider re-
(or reasons).
recovery for a specific reason
These
reasons may imply a lot about the opticns available to
community and
how they are valued, as we will see.
motivations include:
high disposal costs,
little
demand
stringent
state
(or other) regulations
support
limited by a landfill near
its capacity, as was the case in Ames,
time, as
for resource recovery,
for alternative energy.
Disposal capacity may be
(or dump)
that is
scheduled to be
in the case of Marblehead
facilities can be
easily acquired,
or by an incinerator
closed at
in 1975.
some future
If new disposal
the municipality may
feel no need to consider resource recovery.
More often,
however, developing a new disposal facility means
cant
initial costs,
siting.
to
Common
remaining disposal capacity,
affecting MSW ,disposal, public
and
the
Communfities
consider resource
and political
in this
recovery.
signifi-
opposition to facility
situation have
strong incentives
100
--
High disposal costs
increase rapidly
or costs
in the
future
an attractive option, in art
refer
or
to all post-
economic sense.
collection costs,
important
Marblehead,
than present
costs.
A
community
costs
such
(as well as average)
even small reductions
in MSW
disposal costs overall.
(and other)
state
Disposal
including any transfer
facing a high marginal
tonnage can yield lower
to
Expected future costs are
cost of disposal, may find that
Stringent
are expected
also make resource recovery
--
long-distance hauling costs.
often more
as
that
regulations may reduce
remaining capacity at a disposal facility
(for example,
by restricting a landfill area or requiring an incinerator
to close if it cannot meet air
Marblehead).
They may also
quality
increase disposal
requiring remedial work (such as
existing
standards, as. in
costs, by
leachate barriers
landfills) or restricting new landfill
sites
increasing haul distances or acquisition costs).
state regulations hastened
which was
to
expected to
$6.00 per
Public
the need
in
In Ames,
for a new landfill,
increase disposal costs from $2.50
ton.
support
for resource recovery --
citizen proposals, support
for
conservation, or opposition to
in the
form of
resource and/or energy
existing disposal practices
is often a primary reason for municipal involvement.
El
(and
Cerrito, Marblehead, and
citizen support was
a major
(to
a lesser extent),
factor
--
In
Ames
in those cities decisions
101
and eventually proceed with resource recovery.
to study
Public
support is
given their
Either
be
critical
for low-technology approaches,
greater reliance on resident participation.
the municipality
interested
in alternative
itself or local industry may
sources of energy, and a high-
technology system for energy recovery may be attractive in
this context.
Alternative
counter
sources may be needed to
expected
shortages or supply curtailments
Rock) or
to obtain less expensive energy.
(as in North Little
If
local industry
is the energy user, a community may be presented with a
specific resource recovery proposal prior
to any municipal
study.
Communities may have
to
one or
Those
consider resource recovery.
studies are summarized
several reasons
found
for wishing
in the four case
in Table 9.
Suggestions for a Community Choice Process
At
the community level,
the
appropriate technology
issue
is more complex than its national counterpart.
order
to facilitate further discussion, let
the
original question, which posed
the
two
sense
approaches, to read:
for
a given community?
is most appropriate?"
process is difficult,
of
the
Trying
us first
In
restate
a simple choice between
"Does resource recovery make
combination
If
so, which type or
to
construct a useful choice
however, since many important aspects
resource recovery choice are specific
to a
community
102
TABLE
9
MOTIVATION FOR
Reason
CONSIDERING RESQURCE RECOVERY
Marblehead
1972
Face high
or increasing disposal costs
3.
Stringent
state (or
other) regulations
4.
Local support for
resource
recovery
5.
Demand for
alternative
energy
*
1975
(a)
1975
(b)
North
El
Cerrito Little
Rock
o
o
o
o
o
o
Ames
o
o
1. Need new
disposal
capacity
2.
High Technology
Low Technology
o
0
o
0
Three columns refer to Marblehead's three different
(i) a voluntary decision in 1972 to start
choices:
separate collection, (ii) consideration of energy
recovery just prior to having its incinerator closed
in 1975, and (iii) a late 1975 decision to upgrade
its separate collection program after arranging for
regional landfilling.
103
or resource
combined in various ways
(e.g.
The case studies and
the separate collection -
immediately
illustrate a choice between
low and high-technology options.
Nonetheless,
lessons which are applicable
recovery choice.
in section III).
their results are not
since they do not
contain certain
options can be
combination noted
centralized MSW processing
relevant,
Particular
recovery proposal.
the cases do
to the resource
In each case, a community was motivated
to consider resource recovery, examined specific options,
and
selected its preferred
The remainder of
choice.
section offers
specific suggestions
choice
Without
issue.
defining
suggestions can help a community
a
concerning the local
choice
to
(i)
"process",
ment
and
(ii)
see if
these
determine the feas-
ibility of low and high-technology approaches
recovery
this
to resource
that community's solid waste manage-
circumstances and objectives favor
one approach over
another.
Feasibility of Resource Recovery
Clearly, a municipality must have an interest in
resource recovery before
examining the feasibility of
different
Assuming that this
for
technologies.
one or more of
the reasons noted
feasibility must be addressed.
At
the case,
above, the matter
of
this stage, we are
concerned with the feasibility of the
specific
is
two approaches, not
resource recovery options or projects.
Below
104
are
listed
ibility
of
discussed
The
low and
in
criteria for
high-technology
evaluating
the
approaches;
feas-
each
is
approach
to
turn.
recovery
the
low-technology
depends, on:
MSW Composition
A
MSW
sets. of
feasibility of
resource
(l)
two
community
to
composition
present
in
considering
be
sure
sufficient
recovery.
On
a
constitute
the
recycling
that
should
materials
recyclable
quantities
to
nation-wide basis,
analyze its
are
justify materials
recyclable materials
2
sition
varies
basis.
In
contains
majority of
considerably
Marblehead
a
and
(2)
on
a
regional
Somerville,
greater-than-average
3
and less ferrous metals.
of
MSW by weight,
aluminum helps
Availability
make
In El
to
quite
regions
of
country
markets
materials
MSW
Massachusetts,
of
paper
and
glass,
profitable.
have
carefully,
a
should
locating
potential
better
Some
secondary
notably California
--
pre-
specifications.
significantly
than others
is
Communities
checking product prices and
the
seasonal
secondary material markets
investigate materials markets
and
compo-
markets
requisite for any recycling program.
buyers
and
this
Cerrito, a high percentage
recycling
of materials
Ready access
amount
but
and
4
the mid-Atlantic
Scrap
paper,
often
sold
share
of
states.
a principal
for
export,
this market.
so
This
is
due to
source
of
that
port
several
factors.
recycling revenues,
regions
Other materials
support
buyers
tend
is
a large
to
locate
105
near
their markets
important
A
is
in major metropolitan
the strength and diversity of
recycling program, such
its
areas..
as El
Cerrito's,
products to several buyers will tend
Als.o
those markets.
that can sell
to receive higher,
more consistent material revenues
than a single-buyer
program.
for mixed recyclables was
critical
In Marblehead, a market
to the feasibility of
that community's minimum-
separation recycling program.
(3)
Community
support
Recycling
materials
and,
and participation
depends on household
separation of
in some cases, their
transportation to drop-
off or buy-back center.
citizens
is
As such,
to conduct source
separation of household wastes
incentives for recycling --
collection costs
even so,
community can
such as lower
refuse
a successful recycling program relies heavily
and El Cerrito,
interest
A
or free use of the town's landfill, but
on citizen cooperation and
the
the willingness of
fundamental to recycling success.
create
recyclable
interest.
a clear majority of residents expressed
in source separation, and
local recycling program.
difficult.
In both Marblehead
There appears
in fact participate in
Predicting participation is
to be only a minor correlation
between the rate of community participation in recycling
and
socio-economic factors, such as age, income, and
5
education.
Communities should conduct surveys to determine
residents'
willingness
to participate
in source separation,
106
and
under what
These are
approaches.
terms.
the factors most
relevant to
The feasibility of high-technology
resource
set of
factors:
recovery depends on a somewhat different
(1)
low-technology
MSW Energy Value
While the relative abundance
is again of
important
of
recoverable materials
interest, the energy value of MSW is
factor
for high-technology
Energy value, measured
on the mix of
in BTU per
the most
resource recovery.
pound of MSW, depends
organic and inorganic wastes;
EPA estimates
*
the national average to be
5,000 BTU/lb.
energy value can vary greatly
and
between seasons
energy recovery plant;
unpredictable,
the
from community to
in agiven community.
range of MSW energy value
if
Like MSW composition,
community
A predictable
is necessary to a successful
this value is too low or
too
impractical.
In
energy recovery may be
Ames,
energy value at 3,000-6,000
6
In Marblehead and
indicating wide fluctuations.
consulting engineers estimated
BTU/lb.,
Somerville, EPA found an average energy value of 4,340 BTU/lb.,
7
In neither
but this varied between 4,000 and 5,300 BTU/lb.
Ames
nor North Little Rock was energy value an obstacle to
energy recovery.
*
For com arison, coal has an average energy value of 12,600
BTU/lbD.
107
(2)
Availability of energy markets
The high-technology approach focuses mainly on energy
recovery.
but
Many centralized plants
also recover materials,
energy recovery is usually the main feature of
and provides
the bulk of plant
revenues.
metal recovery represents only 22%
the plant
In Ames,
of MSW-derived
ferrous
revenues;
at North Little Rock's modular plant, no materials are
recovered.
Once again, the
crucial to the
success of
presence of.such markets is
an energy recovery plant.
is often a wide range of markets
for recovered energy,
depending in part on the energy product.
are an important potential market
the right circumstances
the fact
industry or
steam --
and under
In the Ames case,
its own utility created a
ready market for RDF, a hitherto unproven
Local
Electric utilities
for electricity,
steam or RDF.
that the city operated
There
fuel supplement.
the city itself may provide a market for
for industrial processes or heating purposes.
Typically,
an energy recovery plant must provide a product
that meets
the needs of the energy buyer.
Rock plant, while providing
steam,
buyer.
The North Little
a sufficient daily supply of
could not meet the peak steam demands of its energy
A
community should
investigate potential energy
markets, identifying potential buyers and
checking product
specifications and needs.
(3)
Sufficient MSW tonnage
Until
quantities
recently, it was
of
MSW
--
on
the
generally agreed
order
of
1,500
that large
tons
per
day
--
108
were required for economically
But modular
incinerators
North Little
feasible energy recovery.
(with heat recovery),
Rock plant, make
such as the
the high-technology approach
possible for communities producing more than 30
equivalent
of a population
of about 15,000.
TPD
the
--
Smaller towns
would probably have to participate in a regional project.
The minimum size of an energy
on
the
particular technology
and RDF plants are
2,000 TPD range.
recovery plant
chosen:
waterwall
considerably larger,
Ames'
depends
largely
incinerators
usually in the 600
-
proposed RDF plant required more
MSW tonnage than the municipality produced,
leading it to
contract with other towns to deliver their wastes
to the
facility.
(.4)
Air quality regulations
MSW is by definition a highly variable and heterogenous
fuel;
its
combustion at an energy recovery plant yields a
more unpredictable mix of air pollutants than
fossil
fuel combustion.
that from
In particular, MSW combustion
produces high levels of particulate emissions,
as well as
lesser amounts of hazardous materials, such as lead and
9
cadmium.
The feasibility of energy recovery may depend
on
the
lations
stringency of state
and their
plant has
supplement,
control
enforcement.
had considerable
quality standards
(and federal) air quality regu-
since it
coal-fired utility
difficulty meeting federal air
started using RDF as
and was obliged to
equipment.
Ames'
Smaller,
a fuel
install remedial emissions-
modular-incinerator facilities
109
may pose less
of a problem;
process reduces emissions
times
too
(as was
(5)
small
the
their starved-air
considerably, and
to be subject
to
incineration
they are some-
"new source"
regulations
case in North Little Rock).
Institutional
factors
Under this heading, the community should
legal and organizational factors which affect
consider the
its ability
to plan, procure, finance, and
(if relevant)
energy recovery system.
series of reports
EPA's
operate an
on resource
recovery plant implementation provides guidance in
this
respect:
Questions to be raised here include:
what are the
laws affecting the process by which the city can
procure a recovery' system; can the city efficiently
operate a recovery plant and market the product itself; can the city assure that wastes will be delivered to the plant; what financing options are
available to the city; and what arrangements must
be made tolbeet the requirements of the financial
community.
Institutional factors were important
cases.
In Ames,
to assure
the
contracts with other
on municipal
to raise the allowable
bonds before
North Little Rock case,
which assured
contributed
meet
state
towns were necessary
sufficient MSW tonnage, and the city had to persuade
state legislature
to reform
in both energy recovery
it
could obtain financing.
In the
a key state utility commission ruling
the modular
incinerator
to the project's
of auxiliary
feasibility.
its MSE collection financing
requirements
interest rate
fuel
The city also had
system
in order to
for issuing special revenue bonds.
110
Some
of these
cipated;
(6)
factors are predictable and
others arise unexpectedly.
Access
to capital
Energy recovery plants are
large-scale ones.
Amortized
range between $10
and 30 per
Iowa,
plant
serves
(1975 dollars),
or $14,000
or
capital intensive, especially
capital costs
ton
a population
Little Rock's modular
dollars),
should be anti-
per
(1980 dollars).
of
65,000
and
The Ames,
cost $5.5 million
ton of capacity.
incinerator cost
$13,000 per ton
for proposed plants
North
$1.3 million
of capacity.
plant procurement, a community must have
(1976
For many types of
(and be willing to
devote)
sufficient resources
Private
equity has not been attracted to energy recovery
projects, due
their
to
to finance plant development.
the newness of
perceived risk.
the
technology and to
Revenue bonds backed
by the project
being financed may not attract buyers
for the same reason.
As was the case in North Little Rock,
states may authorize
the city to
improve
issue special revenue bonds, or otherwise
capital.
the city's access to
Factors Affecting
Any of
stacle to
a
the Choice
the items noted
above may pose a serious
low or high-technology
both approaches
are basically
approach.
Given that
feasible, a community's
Author's estimate, based on EPA and
Steel Institute published data. 1 1
*
ob-
American Iron and
111
preference for one or the
other will depend on its
cumstances and on Jts solid
The following factors,
to
it
cir-
waste management objectives.
should be
stressed,
the choice between approaches, and less
to
refer primarily
specific
resource recovery options.
Several circumstances affect
technology choice.
for
the low-versus-high
They include the
community's motives
considering resource recovery and various external
conditions,
such as state policy for resource recovery.
Each may cause a community to prefer one approach over the
other.
(1)
Remaining
disposal
capacity
Remaining capacity refers both to the remaining lifetime of
a community's
prospects
existing disposal facility and
for replacing that
facility in the
community with little remaining capacity at
future.
the
A
its present
facility will be forced to make a choice between energy
recovery and
traditional disposal methods;
approach alone will not
head
(in 1975) faced
solve
its problems.
this situation;
municipalities decided that
a low-technology
in both
Ames and Marblecases, the
siting a new landfill was either
too costly or politically unworkable, and considered
recovery options.
It may be
desirable to select an
energy
interim
solution in order
to provide adequate time to
examine resource
recovery options;
this is what Marblehead did
in its 1975
contract with a private hauler.
While energy recovery is
112
a better response to limited
disposal capacity, recycling
may be a useful part of the community's
resource recovery
strategy.
Conversely, a community with considerable disposal
capacity can utilize low-technology
strategies
life of
For
example, a recycling program that
extend the community's
head nor
have
diverted
El Cerrito, however,
of MSW
In neither Marble-
the low-technology approach
did
Marblehead's landfill was virtually full
this effect;
when it began recycling, and El
many users
20%
landfill capacity by 25%; about
if 12 years of capacity remained.
3 years
extend
its landfill and reduce annual disposal costs.
the
would
to
Cerrito is only one of
of a private landfill
in Richmond.
(2) MSW disposal costs
In general,
high disposal costs favor the use of both
high and low-technology approaches.
anticipated
increases motivated
High tipping fees or
Ames, North Little Rock,
and Marblehead to consider resource recovery strategies.
There may be no
incentive for recycling, however, unless
the marginal cost of disposal
a
$19
is also high.
per ton marginal cost was
recycling efforts.
factor
quite sufficient
Unfortunately,
definition of "high" cost; net
In Marblehead,
there
is no
disposal cost
is
to encourage
convenient
only one
in the resource recovery decision.
(3) State regulations affecting MSW disposal
State regulations
and their
enforcement
tend to result
113
in
increased disposal
with consequences
(4)
costs
in
as described
Citizen attitudes
toward
approaches may be an
(1)
low-technology approaches,
resident
participation, as
This
is particularly
which depend heavily on
the El Cerrito and Marblehead
illustrate.
Demand
for alternative
A demand
itself
energy
for alternative energy --
or a local industry --
options.
by U.S.
In North Little Rock, the
Recycle and Koppers Co.
low and
by the municipality
clearly favors energy recovery
eration of resource recovery.
of
above.
important motivation for local officials
investigate one or both approaches.
cases
(2)
resource recovery
true for
(5)
and
capacity,
support for low or high-technology
Active community
to
and reduced disposal
energy recovery proposal
dominated the city's considNonetheless,
some combination
high-technologies may be appropriate,
to reduce
the non-combustible fraction of incoming MSW.
(6)
Other resource recovery projects
A community may already be host to a privately-operated
recycling program
(as in Marblehead
may have access to high-technology
region --
either planned or
El Cerrito),
recovery systems
already in operation.
istence of a low or high-technology
reasons, make
and
project will,
or it
in the
The exfor several
that approach more attractive to a community.
An existing recycling program enhances the prospects
technology strategies,
serving
for low-
the function of a pilot
114
project
by checking material markets and resident
pation,
and
partici-
The early
identifying operational problems.
recycling program in El Cerrito was valuable in this respect.
Similarly,
a nearby energy recovery plant may represent
participation
option to the community:
another
Marblehead,
or planned resource recovery project.
considered contracting with
(RESCO, in
of minimizing the community's
as northeast Massachusetts,
palities
suits
terms.
too,
such
for MSW from essentially
Such a situation is favorable
to munici-
the region, who can select the project
that
them, and perhaps bargain for more favorable
Participation in a regional project has disadvantages
usually forcing a community
such as
(7)
in
In regions,
several private and/or regional
recovery proposals compete
the same area.
best
planning and implementation
the financing issue.
and avoiding
energy
of the planned regional
This option had the advantage
resource recovery projects.
costs
for example,
an existing energy recovery plant
or joining one
Saugus)
in an existing
to meet various
obligations,
contributing a minimum annual volume of MSW.
Role of state
and federal policy
While external to a community's specific circumstances,
state and federal policy on resource recovery can nonetheless
create
and
important incentives and disincentives
high-technology
approaches.
By providing
assistance and planning grants for
government agencies can to
options and
for both low
technical
resource recovery projects,
a degree define resource recovery
determine their relative
feasibility.
EPA's
115
demonstration grant program has assisted both low and hightechnology systems;
its 1975 grant
to Marblehead improved
implementation prospects significantly.
grant
program enabled El Cerrito
equipment necessary
its
California's SWMB
to purchase most of the
to the expansion and later success of
recycling program.
The E.C.ology program brochure
emphasizes this point:
Without CETA grants and State Solid Waste Grants,
the chances for most (California) communities to
start and retain a recycling program are minimal.
Other state policies and actions have incentive effects
too.
In Arkansas, a state utility commission ruling assured
modular incinerator plants of a continuous supply of auxiliary fuel.
State legislation
bond financing of
North
authorizing special revenue
solid waste disposal facilities enabled
Little Rock to finance its energy recovery plant for
a relatively low rate of interest.
state policy
to
promoting centralized
the formation of
In Massachusetts, a
resource recovery led
several regional
resource recovery pro-
posals, which Marblehead was able to choose from.
policies in Iowa,
on the other hand,
source recovery.
State law set an upper bound on
rates
Ames
in
*
for municipal
could
bonds;
impede reinterest
the limit had to be raised
successfully finance
fact recommended against
served to
State
its RDF plant.
the Ames proposal,
Although the town chose instead
and utilize a regional landfill.
before
Iowa's DEQ
citing its
to build a transfer
station
116
high cost and
Just as
risk.
a community's
circumstances
between resource recovery options,
objectives with respect to
each
community will
have
and hence
different
options.
Nonetheless,
criteria, and
so
can affect its choice
can the community's
solid waste management.
a somewhat
criteria
we can
for
different
set
evaluating
identify
Clearly,
of
resource
several
objectives,
recovery
commonly
used
assume that a given community will weight
each criterion appropriately
(and may add others).
Five
criteria for evaluating resource recovery options are most
relevant:
net
opportunity
(1)
Net
cost, reliability,
cost,
environmental impact,
and time constraints.
cost
The net
cost of a resource recovery option refers to
the net per-ton cost to the community of MSW processing and
disposal.
trends,
It
An estimate of net cost
perhaps
expressing cost
may be necessary
to
Marblehead's separate
collection costs
should also
*
for future
in terms of net present value.
incorporate
changes
in
collection
cost;
collection program reduced refuse
to the community.
A measure of
account for risk and uncertainty,
the measure's
affect
should account
accuracy and events which could
net cost
indicating
significantly
cost estimates.
Several criteria are derived from a recent study of solid
13
waste disposal options in Rockport, Massachusetts.
117
The net cost
of energy recovery, generally speaking,
is more volatile than
coupled
are
with, say,
that
of
a low-technology approach
landfilling.
Energy recovery plant
the result of large revenues and
changes
in
gross costs;
costs
small
either can have large effects on net cost.
In
both North Little Rock and Ames, net costs of disposal have
been twice
(or more) those predicted at the
community's
choice was made.
However,
time when
the
in some circumstances,
landfill costs may be equally or more volatile, depending
on the
availability of new sites or
regulations.
rapidly
state regulations,
prices and landfill
seen likely to do,
decline faster than
(2)
recovery system -operator
the net
the net
as could well happen.
If
costs increase rapidly, as
cost of energy
they
recovery will
cost of a low-technology strategy.
refers to
the dependability of a resource
its design, equipment manufacturer,
(as relevant).
back-up procedures.
and
Especially in energy recovery plants,
a community is concerned about
system flexibility,
In general,
approach is far more reliable, due
and
its disposal costs rising
Reliability
Reliability
and
of state
in the future if the Amesbury landfill is closed or
modified by
energy
Marblehead may find
the enforcement
lack of inter-dependent
or
redundancy,
the recycling-landfill
to its relative simplicity
sequential elements.
For
ex-
ample, a paper-baler breakdown at El Cerrito's recycling
center would
only cause
a slight decline in project revenues,
since unbaled paper brings a lower per-ton price.
At
the
118
Anes plant,
however,
clogged pneumatic tubes
the
RDF product
the
tubes are cleared.
centralized
cause the entire plant
recovery plant
incinerator
approach) may
(3)
(a more
to shut
down until
Careful design can assure
also means higher cost.
or
transporting
is
that a
reasonably reliable, but this
In practice, siting a new landfill
frequent occurence with a low-technology
also pose a "reliability" problem.
Environmental impact
A resource recovery option should
comply with state
(and
federal) regulations
concerning air
quality, water
and
should
consistent with any local
or
landfilling.
It
also be
community policies promoting materials
conservation, and so
quality,
recovery, energy
forth.
Both low and high-technology approaches have unavoidable
impacts which
can be largely mitigated, although often at
Recycling implies continued
substantial
cost.
traditional
disposal.
of
the unavoidable
For-both approaches,
impacts is
health effects of MSW emissions
(4)
Opportunity cost
ity
the
option?
are largely unknown.
local control
How many future
The preemptive
implied by a resource
actions are
effect may affect
narrow range of future choices,
duration.
for example,
is usually concerned with both the opportun-
cost and the degree of
recovery option.
the seriousness
somewhat uncertain;
the
A community
impacts from
and may be of
foreclosed by
a broad
or
short or long
Both North Little Rock and Ames issued debt
that
119
will be
repaid over a 20 year period.
Clearly, a flexible
resource recovery system has a lower opportunity cost.
The high-technology approach usually has much higher
opportunity costs.
Plant financing
payments over 20-30 years,
of
requires debt service
and usually necessitates
contracts
equal duration with MSW contributors and/or energy buyers.
Energy recovery plants are usually
cannot easily
adapt to changes in MSW volume or composition.
Participation in
a regional energy recovery project usually
means relinquishing
waste management
separation,
inflexible, in that they
considerable
decisions
local control over solid
(such as whether
to conduct source
where to dispose of MSW, and how much disposal
will cost).
Low technology approaches,
a community,
can have a de
facto
while less binding on
opportunity cost
if the
community must make a long-term commitment for a new disposal
facility.
Communities wishing to minimize opportunity costs
consider various
options.
should
combinations of MSW disposal and recovery
For example, in 1975 Marblehead chose
to develop
a transfer station and haul its MSW to a regional landfill.
This meant a 5-year contract with a private hauler, a much
shorter
commitment than would have been required had the town
participated
ed
in a regional resource recovery project
its own disposal facility.
It
can be argued that
or developany com-
bination of low-technology resource recovery and conventional
disposal which defers a high-technology
considering.
By deferring energy
approach is worth
recovery, a community can
120
the benefits of
reap
operating experience
technological
energy
in the
costs
will presumably reduce net
advances and greater
recovery field,
and
which
improve system relia-
bility.
(5)
constraints
Time
Communities often face
time constraints
new solid waste disposal capacity;
be
should
in developing
a resource recovery option
implementable within the necessary
time frame.
Options with uncertain implementation schedules
time to be
-
between
High-technology approaches
serious
implemented,
3 and
and
9 years.
take considerable
the lead time can vary considerably
In Ames,
the
intervial between
consideration of the RDF proposal and
up was nearly four years;
was
slightly more
plants appear
depend
the community's control pose a problem in
on events beyond
this respect.
that
project start-
in North Little Rock, this interval
than three
years.
Not surprisingly,. smaller
to take less time to procure and develop.
The
practicality of energy recovery options may depend on interim
disposal options
Choice Process
to tide a community over.
Suggestions
The previous material is relevant mainly to a community's
general
order
evaluation of
to proceed
low and high-technology
further,
resource recovery options
a community must
approaches.
define specific
(such as municipally-run separate
small-scale modular incineration with heat
collection
or
recovery),
specifying potential energy
or materials buyers,
In
121
sites,
service area, and so
and choice will
many of which
found
than
ial
forth.
The community's
invariably hinge on implementation
defy generalization;
throughout
examples of
the four case studies.
describing a formal choice process,
reviews
the case studies and
evaluation
factors,
these
can be
Consequently, rather
the remaining mater-
identifies various
lessons
which apply to the resource recovery decision.
A point often overlooked
the status quo
is
the "status quo"
recovery
that present
is not
options --
practices,
in evaluating alternatives
to
conditions tend to change;
static.
In comparing
resource
with each other and with present disposal
a community should look for future
filling
costs,
forth.
Future trends are most relevant
state regulations,
trends in land-
energy prices,
and
so
to resource recovery
options that require long-term commitments.
Ames' decision
to develop an energy recovery plant was based largely on
city officials'
expectation of much higher landfill costs
in the
A net present value analysis may be helpful
in
future.
this respect.
Information is an
important commodity in the resource
recovery choice process.
Good planning information is crucial
to an informed decision, especially
for high-technology
projects which are more sensitive to systems effects.
In
the Ames case, project consultants over-estimated MSW generation
ton
in the RDF plant's service area;
operating costs were
as a result,
considerably higher
per-
(and total
122
revenues were less)
composition and
tant
in El
than predicted,
to
early analysis of MSW
potential community participation was
Cerrito's decision
impor-
to develop its own separate
While information gathering should be
collection program.
geared
An
actual data needs,
a community should develop
necessary information early in the choice process.
In a
similar sense, a thoughtful municipal
process demands
officials
ongoing staff attention --
informed and to be
community
reflects
Ames'
(versus
sure
private
to keep
function;
so
local
that the evaluation process
or plant
investor)
special task force, composed of city staff
served this
choice
too did the El
interests.
and officials,
Cerrito solid waste
advisory committee.
There is a tendency
in defining and evaluating resource
recovery options for a community to seize the
that comes along.
tation
this tendency, with the result
that other, possibly better,
This happens in terms
available sites, material and/or
their
forth.
energy buyers,
In North Little Rock, for
the city compared only one proposal --
Koppers modular
option.
options are never explored.
of defining resource recovery tech-
equipment vendors, and so
example,
project
The necessary preoccupation with implemen-
issues. reinforces
nologies,
first
incinerator proposal
Communities
should,
if
--
to
the USR-
the landfilling
at all possible, define
options more broadly and not
foreclose choices too
soon.
123
Similarly,
of resource
to
communities
should be
recovery options are
local needs and objectives.
a lesser extent, Ames,
impartial, and
feasibility
to
studies of the preferred
firms with a direct interest
seeing the option implemented.
present:
sensitive
In North Little Rock and,
option were performed by private
in
sure that analyses
The usual paradox
is
often, only firms with experience in the design
and operation of resource recovery projects are competent
to evaluate the proposed option(s).
apparent
for
not demand
A
This problem
is less
low-technology systems, whose assessment does
sophisticated
technical skills.
community should promote public participation in the
resource recovery choice process.
This
is important
for
both low and high-technology approaches, but for different
reasons.
Source separation
and recycling require extensive
household involvement, and early
step in publicizing
public input is the
and promoting a low-technology approach.
High-technology systems are,
of course, capital intensive
(and/or require long-term commitments),
mitments of
sort.
this
first
size often require
Formal voter approval was
and resource com-
public approval of
some
not necessary in either Ames
or North Little Rock, but in both cases there was
little or
no community opposition.
Finally,
communities should bear in mind
resource recovery strategy must be
existing solid waste management
that any
integrated with the
system already in place.
In
124
El Cerrito,
the cooperation
of the city's
lector was considered relevant
separate collection program.
necessary
to the development
North Little Rock
to reform city collection practices
energy recovery plant with a dependable
its
In
franchised
col-
of its
found it
to provide
supply of MSW.
evaluating resource recovery options, municipalities
examine their
vities
In
--
compatibility with other MSW management
should
acti-
M4SW storage, collection, and disposal.
the years
ahead,
resource recovery will assume
importance as the costs of traditional
increasing
waste disposal methods
increase and as
become more apparent.
Federal
and thus hasten
their various
impacts
and state government can
develop policies which create various
incentives,
solid
the trend,
incentives and disbut
decisions
to
implement
resource recovery will be made at the local level
--
by initiating projects or by participation in
either
regional or private projects.
specific resource recovery options, not generic approaches.
with
The
Municipalities will be faced
local
policy,
decision, while responsive to state and
should be based on local conditions and
federal
criteria.
Notes
1.
2.
Neil Seldman, Garbage in America:
Approaches to Recycling
(Washington, D.C,;
Institute for Local Self-Reliance),
pp. 16,27.
1977,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fourth Report to
Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, SW-600
Congress
U.S. GPO), 1977, p. 18.
(Washington, D.C.:
125
3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Multi-Material
Source Separation in Marblehead and Somerville, Massachusetts:
Composition or Source-Separated Materials,
by Resources Planning Associates, Inc. (Washington, D.C.:
GPO), December 1979.
U.S.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A National Survey
of Separate Collection Programs, by David Cohen, SW-778
(Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
GPO) 1979, p.36.
5.
Ibid.,
6.
City of Ames, Iowa, Solid Waste Incineration Study, by
Gibbs, Hill, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. (GHDR),
February 6, 1973.
7.
U.S.
8..
A Blueprint
New England Energy Congress, Final Report:
for Energy Action (Boston: NEEC), May 1979, p. 134.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Small Modular
A Technical,
Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery:
Environmental, and Economic Evaluation, by Systems
U.S. GPO),
Technology Corp., SW-177c (Washington, D.C.:
November 1979, p. 110.
10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Resource Recovery
Plant Implementation, Guide for Municipal Officials:
GPO),
Planning and Overview, SW-157.1 (Washington, D.C.:
1976, p.
6.
11.
Solid Waste
See, for example, Am. Iron and Steel Inst.,
Processing Facilities, by Resource Technology Corp.,
August 1979, or U.S. EPA, A Nationwide Survey of Resource
Recovery and Waste Reduction Activities, by Bradford Max,
SW-142, 1979.
12.
City of El Cerrito, Community Services Department,
E.C.ology Recycling, undated brochure (ca. 1979).
13.
Harvard University, Department of City and Regional
Planning, An Evaluation of Solid Waste Disposal Options
for Rockport, Massachusetts, Planning Workshop 401,
February 1977, p. 16.
pp.
EPA,
30-31.
Composition of Materials,
op.
cit.,
p.
27.
126
IX.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Iron and Steel Institute, Solid Waste Processing
Facilities, by Resource Technology Corp., Washington, D.C.:
AISI, August 1979.
Ames, Iowa, City of, Energy From a Wasted Resource:
Ames Experience, by Daniel Doran, 1978.
The
Ames, Iowa, City of, Solid Waste Incineration Study, by
Gibbs, Hill, Durham, and Richardson, Inc., February 6, 1973.
California, State of, Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission, Energy Analysis of Secondary
Material Use in Product Manufacture, by Regis Kunz and
Mark Emmerson, State Solid Waste Management Board (contract
400-006), November 1979.
California Resource Recovery Association, Recycling:
The
the
Second
California
of
the
Art,
Proceedings
of
State
Community Environmental
Recycling Conference, Santa Barbara:
Council, Inc., 1978.
California, State of, State Solid Waste Management Board,
Current Status of Small Resource Recovery Systems and
Processes, Technical Information Service, Bulletin No. -8
(Revised), November 1979.
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste, Volume .1,
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO, July 1979.
Conn, W. David, "Waste Reduction:
Resources Policy, March 1977.
Issues
and Policies,"
Devine, K.C., "Market Incentives for Recycling - The Tax
Credit and Productive Charge Compared", Environmental
Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 4 (1976)
El Cerrito, California, City of, State Grant Application,
E.C.ology Recycling Center, to State Solid Waste Management
Board, December 1979.
Greenberg, Michael, "Suggestions for Evaluating Resource
Recovery Proposals", American Institute of Planners Journal,
January 1977.
127
Harvard University, Department of City and Regional Planning,
An Evaluation of Solid Waste Disposal Options for Rockport,
Massachusetts, Planning Workshop 401, February 1977.
A CommunJackson, David, "The Other End of the Telescope:
ity Approach to Resource Recovery", Resources Policy, September 1977.
Kagan, David, et.al., Solid Waste Management Options for the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Environmental Impact
Assessment Project, Laboratory of Architecture and Planning,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1978.
Love, Peter, "Energy Savings from Solid Waste Management
Options", Resources Policy, March 1978.
MITRE Corporation, Metreck Division, Resource Recovery Model
(and Model Overview), by Richard Telago and Paul Stoller,
Technical Report MTR-79W00437, September 1979.
Mulligan, Kevin, "Project SORT - Source Separation in
Seattle", Compost Science, January-February 1979.
Page, Talbot, Conservation and Economic Efficiency:
An
Approach to Materials Policy,. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1977.
Pavoni, Joseph L., et.al., Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal:
Materials and Energy Recovery, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., 1975.
Petrovic, W. and B. Jaffe, "Measuring the Generation and
Collection of Household Solid Waste in Cities", Urban
Affairs Quarterly, December 1978.
Quimby, Thomas, Recycling:
The Alternative to Disposal,
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.
Baltimore:
Seldman, Neil, "Community Participation in Resource Conservation and Recovery", Report to American Society of
Civil Engineers Convention and Exposition (Reprint 3787A),
October 1979.
Garbage in America:
Approaches to Recycling,
Washington, D.C.: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 1977.
The
Sonoma County Recycling Center, Garbage to Energy:
False Panacea (2nd Edition), Santa Rosa, California, September 1979.
128
Could", Conservation
Town that
Mark, "The Little
Sullivan,
News, Washington, D.C.:
National Wildlife Federation,
January 15, 1977 (Reprint).
Susskind, Lawrence and Richard Newcome, The Obstacles to
Regional Resource Recovery: A Massachusetts Case Study,
Environmental Impact Assessment Project, Laboratory of
Architecture and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, December 1977.
U.S. Department of Energy, Overcoming Institutional Barriers
to Solid Waste Utilization as an Energy Source, by Gordian
Associates, Inc., Report HCP/L-50172-02, November 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Nationwide Survey
of Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction Activities, by
Bradford Max, SW-142, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1979.
* A
by David
,
National
Cohen,
Survey of
Separate Collection Programs,
SW-778, Washington, D.C.:
Evaluation of
the
Ames
Solid Waste
U.S.
GPO, 1979
Recovery
System - Part I, by J. C. Ever, et. al, Iowa
State University, and Dez. E. Fiscus and C. A. Romine,
Midwest Research Institute, Cincinnati: Muni. Env.
Research Lab., November 1977.
Resource Recovery
, Fourth Report to Congress:
and Waste Reduction, SW-600, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO,
1977.
, Multi-material Source Separation in Marblehead
Collection and Marketing,
and Somerville, Massachusetts:
U.S. GPO, December 1977.
SW-872, Washington, D.C.:
, Multi-material Source Separation in Marblehead
Citizen Attitudes Toward
and Somerville, Massachusetts:
Source Separation, SW-825, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO,
December 1979.
Guide
Resource Recovery Plant Implementation:
SW-157.1,
Overview,
and
Planning
for Municipal Officials:
GPO, 1976 (Others in this series
U.S.
Washington, D.C.:
include: Technologies SW-157.2, Markets SW-157.3, Financing
SW-157.4, Procurement SW 157.5, and Risks and Contracts
SW-157.7).
Case
Resource Recovery Project Implementation:
Studies of Five Processes, by Development Sciences, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1977.
,
129
__,
Small Modular
Incinerator
Systems with Heat
Recovery:
A Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluatian,
by Systems Technology Corp., SW-177c, Washington,
D.C.: U.S.
GPO, November 1979.
,
Source
Separation:
The
Community Awareness
Program in Somerville and Marblehead, Massachusetts,
SW-551, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. GPO, November 1976.
Vesilind, P. et.al., "Low Technology Materials Separation",
Compost Science, April 1979.
Wentworth, Marchant, Resource Recovery:
Truth and Consequences,, Washington, D.C.: Environmental Action Foundation, 1977.
130
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS
BTU:
British thermal unit,
a measure of energy
centralized separation and
Centralized MS14W processing:
recovery for use or recycling of materials and/or energy
contained in mixed MSW.
DEQ:
DPCE:
Iowa Department
Arkansas
of Environmental Quality.
Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology,
A resource recovery process in which part
Energy recovery:
or all of MSW is recovered as a fuel, or burned to produce
steam for heating or electricity.
EPA:
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Gibbs, Hill,
GHDR:
Nebraska.
Durham, and Richardson,
Inc.,
of Omaha,
In the context of resource recovery, any
High-technology:
processing mixed MSW to recover energy
facility
centralized
materials.
and/or
ISU:
Iowa State
University.
In the context of resource recovery, a process
Low-technology:
for materials recovery which relies on the source separation
of MSW.
The recovery of various materials
Materials recovery:
MSW -- using either a high or low-technology approach.
from
regularly collected solid
Municipal solid waste -MSW:
waste from households, institutions, and commercial establishments.
.Recycling: Reprocessing of used products into new basic
materials, in which the identity and utility of the original
Usually refers to low-technology systems.
product is lost.
Processes for recovering useful energy
Resource recovery:
and/or recyclable materials from mixed or separated MSW;
includes both high and low-technology approaches.
RPA:
Resources Planning Associates,
SCA:
Service Corporation
of America.
Boston, Massachusetts.
131
Separate collection:
Regular collection of waste products
that are segregated according to material type.
Household separation of recyclab.le
Source spearation:
materials from other MSW prior to recycling.
SWMB:
California State Solid Waste Management Board.
Tons per day
TPD:
tons per year).
is
USR:
U.S.
Recycle,
(similarly, TPM is tons per month and TPY
a franchised vendor of Consumat equipment.