Solid waste management

quản lý chất thải rắn (solid waste management)......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

HANDBOOK OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

HANDBOOK OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

George Tchobanoglous

Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of California at Davis

Davis, California

Frank Kreith

Professor Emeritus of Engineering

University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado

Second Edition

McGRAW-HILLNew York Chicago San Francisco

Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan

New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore

Sydney Toronto

as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form

or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher

0-07-150034-0

The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-135623-1

All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a marked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringe-ment of the trademark Where such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps

trade-McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporatetraining programs For more information, please contact George Hoare, Special Sales, at george_hoare@mcgraw-hill.com or (212)904-4069

TERMS OF USE

This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc (“McGraw-Hill”) and its licensors reserve all rights in and to thework Use of this work is subject to these terms Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store andretrieve one copy of the work, you may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative worksbased upon, transmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without McGraw-Hill’s prior con-sent You may use the work for your own noncommercial and personal use; any other use of the work is strictly prohibited Your right

to use the work may be terminated if you fail to comply with these terms

THE WORK IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” McGRAW-HILL AND ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES

AS TO THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY OR COMPLETENESS OF OR RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM USING THEWORK, INCLUDING ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE WORK VIA HYPERLINK OR OTH-ERWISE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TOIMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE McGraw-Hill and itslicensors do not warrant or guarantee that the functions contained in the work will meet your requirements or that its operation will

be uninterrupted or error free Neither McGraw-Hill nor its licensors shall be liable to you or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error

or omission, regardless of cause, in the work or for any damages resulting therefrom McGraw-Hill has no responsibility for the content of any information accessed through the work Under no circumstances shall McGraw-Hill and/or its licensors be liable forany indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages that result from the use of or inability to use the work,even if any of them has been advised of the possibility of such damages This limitation of liability shall apply to any claim or causewhatsoever whether such claim or cause arises in contract, tort or otherwise

DOI: 10.1036/0071356231

We hope you enjoy this McGraw-Hill eBook! If you’d like more information about this book, its author, or related books and websites,

please click here.

Professional

Want to learn more?

Contributors xi

Preface xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction George Tchobanoglous, Frank Kreith, and Marcia E Williams 1.1

1.1 Waste Generation and Management in a Technological Society / 1.1

1.2 Issues in Solid Waste Management / 1.2

1.3 Integrated Waste Management / 1.8

1.4 Implementing Integrated Waste Management Strategies / 1.11

1.5 Typical Costs for Major Waste Management Options / 1.13

1.6 Framework for Decision Making / 1.19

1.7 Key Factors for Success / 1.22

1.8 Philosophy and Organization of this Handbook / 1.24

1.9 Concluding Remarks / 1.25

Chapter 2 Federal Role in Municipal Solid Waste Management

2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act / 2.1

2.2 Clean Air Act / 2.22

2.3 Clean Water Act / 2.35

2.4 Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines / 2.38

2.5 Flow Control Implications / 2.38

3.1 Introduction / 3.1

3.2 Trends in Municipal Waste Generation and Management / 3.1

3.3 The Waste Reduction Legislation Movement / 3.3

3.4 The Effect of Legislation / 3.5

3.5 State Municipal Solid Waste Legislation / 3.8

3.6 State Planning Provisions / 3.8

3.7 Permitting and Regulation Requirements / 3.9

3.8 Waste Reduction Legislation / 3.9

3.9 Establishing Waste Reduction Goals / 3.10

3.10 Legislating Local Government Responsibility / 3.12

3.11 Making Producers and Retailers Responsible for Waste / 3.16

3.12 Advanced Disposal Fees / 3.18

3.13 Special Waste Legislation / 3.20

3.14 Market Development Initiatives / 3.21

Chapter 4 Planning for Municipal Solid Waste Management Programs

4.1 State Solid Waste Management Planning / 4.1

4.2 Local and Regional Solid Waste Management Planning / 4.7

4.3 Conclusions / 4.13 References / 4.14

5.1 Municipal Solid Waste Defined / 5.1

5.2 Methods of Characterizing Municipal Solid Waste / 5.2

5.3 Materials in Municipal Solid Waste by Weight / 5.3

5.4 Products in Municipal Solid Waste by Weight / 5.11

5.5 Municipal Solid Waste Management / 5.19

5.6 Discards of Municipal Solid Waste by Volume / 5.24

5.7 The Variability of Municipal Solid Waste Generation / 5.25 References / 5.30

Chapter 6 Source Reduction: Quantity and Toxicity

6A.1 Introduction / 6.1

6A.2 Effects of Source Reduction / 6.2

6A.3 Involvement by Government / 6.6

6A.4 Developing a Source Reduction Plan / 6.15

6A.5 Strategies for Source Reduction / 6.17 References / 6.25

Part 6B Toxicity Reduction Ken Geiser

6B.1 The Toxicity of Trash / 6.27

6B.2 Waste Management Policy / 6.30

6B.3 Product Management Policy / 6.33

6B.4 Production Management Policy / 6.37

6B.5 A Sustainable Economy / 6.39 References / 6.40

7.1 The Logistics of Solid Waste Collection / 7.1

7.2 Types of Waste Collection Services / 7.2

7.3 Types of Collection Systems, Equipment, and Personnel Requirements / 7.14

7.4 Collection Routes / 7.22

7.5 Management of Collection Systems / 7.25

7.6 Collection System Economics / 7.25 References / 7.27

Chapter 8 Recycling Harold Leverenz, George Tchobanoglous, and David B Spencer 8.1

8.1 Overview of Recycling / 8.1

8.2 Recovery of Recyclable Materials from Solid Waste / 8.3

8.3 Development and Implementation of Materials Recovery Facilities / 8.10

8.4 Unit Operations and Equipment for Processing of Recyclables / 8.38

8.5 Environmental and Public Health and Safety Issues / 8.70

8.6 Recycling Economics / 8.74

References / 8.77

Chapter 9 Markets and Products for Recycled Material

Chapter 10 Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW)

10.1 Introduction / 10.1

10.2 Problems of Household Hazardous Products / 10.3

10.3 HHW Regulation and Policy / 10.16

10.4 Product Stewardship and Sustainability / 10.21

10.5 Education and Outreach / 10.26

10.6 HHW Collection, Trends, and Infrastructure / 10.29

References / 10.33

Chapter 11 Other Special Wastes

Part 11A Batteries Gary R Brenniman, Stephen D Casper,

11A.1 Automobile and Household Batteries / 11.1

11C.2 Source Reduction and Reuse / 11.32

11C.3 Disposal of Waste Tires / 11.33

11C.4 Alternatives to Disposal / 11.34

References / 11.36

Part 11D Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris George Tchobanoglous

11D.1 Sources, Characteristics, and Quantities of C&D Debris / 11.39

11D.2 Regulations Governing C&D Materials and Debris / 11.42

11D.3 Management of C&D Debris / 11.42

11D.4 Specifications for Recovered C&D Debris / 11.44

11D.5 Management of Debris from Natural and Humanmade Disasters / 11.46

References / 11.47

Part 11E Computer and Other Electronic Solid Waste

Gary R Brenniman and William H Hallenbeck

11E.1 Introduction / 11.49

11E.2 Hazardous Components in Computers and Electronic Waste / 11.50

11E.3 Disposing of Computers is Hazardous / 11.53

11E.4 Extended Producer Responsibility and Electronic Toxin Phaseouts / 11.55

11E.5 Can a Clean Computer Be Designed? / 11.57

11E.6 What Can You Do As a Computer Owner? / 11.58

11E.7 Contacts and Resources for Dealing with Computer Waste / 11.58

References / 11.60

Chapter 12 Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes

12.1 Principles / 12.3

12.2 Technology / 12.14

12.3 Economics / 12.27

12.4 Marketing Principles and Methods / 12.33

12.5 Environmental, Public, and Industrial Health Considerations / 12.40

12.6 Case Study / 12.45

12.7 Conclusions / 12.45 References / 12.47

Appendix 12A Partial Listing of Vendors of Equipment and Systems for Composting MSW

and Other Organic Wastes / 12.50 Appendix 12B Costs for Composting MSW and Yard Wastes / 12.68

Chapter 13 Waste-to-Energy Combustion

IntroductionFrank Kreith

13A.1 Incineration / 13.3

References / 13.84

Part 13B Ash Management and Disposal Floyd Hasselriis

13B.1 Sources and Types of Ash Residues / 13.85

13B.2 Properties of Ash Residues / 13.86

13B.3 Ash Management / 13.93

13B.4 Landfill Disposal / 13.95

13B.5 Regulatory Aspects / 13.97

13B.6 Actual Leaching of MWC Ash / 13.99

13B.7 Treatment of Ash Residues / 13.100

13B.8 Environmental Impact of Ash Residue Use / 13.101

13B.9 Ash Management Around the World / 13.102

13B.10 Beneficial Use of Residues / 13.104

13B.11 Analysis of Ash Residue Test Data / 13.109

References / 13.116

Part 13C Emission Control Floyd Hasselriis

13C.1 Introduction / 13.121

13C.2 Emissions from Combustion / 13.124

13C.3 Emission Standards and Guidelines / 13.126

13C.4 Emission Control Devices / 13.132

13C.5 Controlled and Uncontrolled Emission Factors / 13.154

13C.6 Variability of Emissions / 13.160

13C.7 Dispersion of Pollutants from Stack to Ground / 13.161

13C.8 Risk Assessment / 13.165

13C.9 Calculation of Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions / 13.168

13C.10 Conversions and Corrections / 13.171

References / 13.174

14.1 The Landfill Method of Solid Waste Disposal / 14.2

14.2 Generation and Composition of Landfill Gases / 14.10

14.3 Formation, Composition, and Management of Leachate / 14.30

14.4 Intermediate and Final Landfill Cover / 14.47

14.5 Structural and Settlement Characteristics of Landfills / 14.54

14.6 Landfill Design Considerations / 14.58

14.7 Landfill Operation / 14.69

14.8 Environmental Quality Monitoring at Landfills / 14.77

14.9 Landfill Closure, Postclosure Care, and Remediation / 14.84

References / 14.88

Chapter 15 Siting Municipal Solid Waste Facilities David Laws, Lawrence Susskind,

15.1 Introduction / 15.1

15.2 Understanding the Sources of Public Concern / 15.1

15.3 A Typical Siting Chronology / 15.4

15.4 Building Consensus on Siting Choices / 15.8

15.5 Conclusions / 15.16

References / 15.17

Chapter 16 Financing and Life-Cycle Costing of Solid Waste Management Systems

16.1 Financing Options / 16.2

16.2 Issues in Financing Choices / 16.5

16.3 Steps to Secure System Financing / 16.8

16.4 Life-Cycle Costing / 16.10

16.5 Summary / 16.16

References

This page intentionally left blank

Luis F Diaz CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520 (CHAP 12).

Rachel Donnette Thurston County Environmental Health, 2000 Lakeridge Drive SW, Olympia, WA

Jim Glenn BioCycle, 419 State Avenue, Emmaus, PA 18049 (CHAP 3)

Clarence G Golueke CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520

(CHAP 12)

William H Hallenbeck 1106 Maple Street, Western Springs, IL 60558 (CHAPS 11A, 11B, 11E)

Floyd Hasselriis Engineering Consultant, 52 Seasongood Road, Forest Hills Gardens, New York, NY

11375 (CHAPS 13B, 13C)

Kelly Hill 105 Rosella Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99701 (CHAP 3)

Frank Kreith Engineering Consultant, 1485 Sierra Drive, Boulder, CO 80302 (CHAPS 1, 9, 13)

James E Kundell Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (CHAP 4)

David Laws Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),

77 Massachusetts Ave., RM 3-411, Cambridge, MA 02139 (CHAP 15)

Harold Leverenz Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616 (CHAPS 6A, 8, 9)

Copyright © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Click here for terms of use

James M Lyznicki School of Public Health, 2121 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60612-7260 (CHAP.11A).

David E B Nightingale Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Program, Washington State Department

of Ecology, P.O Box 47775, Olympia, WA 98504-7775 (CHAP 10)

Philip R O’Leary University of Wisconsin, 432 N Lake Street, Madison, WI 53706 (CHAPS 14, 16)

Edward W Repa National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA), 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 (CHAP 2)

Deanna K Ruffer Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (CHAP 4)

George M Savage CalRecovery, Inc., 1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1060, Concord, CA 94520 (CHAP.12)

David B Spencer WTE Corporation, 7 Alfred Circle, Bedford, MA 01730 (CHAP 8)

Lawrence Susskind Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

77 Massachusetts Ave., RM 3-411, Cambridge, MA 02139 (CHAP 15)

George Tchobanoglous Engineering Consultant, 662 Diego Place, Davis, CA 95616 (CHAPS 1, 8, 11D)

Hilary Theisen Solid Waste Consultant, 2451 Palmira Place, San Ramon, CA 94583 (CHAP 7)

Marcia E Williams LECG, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (CHAP 1)

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The first edition of this handbook was an outgrowth of a two-day conference on integrated solidwaste management in June 1989, sponsored by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and the National Conference

of State Legislatures (NCSL) At that time, the management of solid waste was considered anational crisis, because the number of available landfills was decreasing, there was a great deal

of concern about the health risks associated with waste incineration, and there was growingopposition to siting new waste management facilities The crisis mode was exacerbated by such

incidents as the ship named Mobro, filled with waste, sailing from harbor to harbor and not being

allowed to discharge its ever-more-fragrant cargo; a large number of landfills, built with cient environmental safeguards, that were placed on the Superfund List; and stories about thecarcinogenic effects of emissions from incinerators creating fear among the population

insuffi-In the 12 years that have intervened between the time the first edition was written and thepreparation of the second edition, solid waste management has achieved a maturity that hasremoved virtually all fear of it being a crisis Although the number of landfills is diminishing,larger ones are being built with increased safeguards that prevent leaching or the emission ofgases Improved management of hazardous waste and the emergence of cost-effective inte-grated waste management systems, with greater emphasis on waste reduction and recycling,have reduced or eliminated most of the previous concerns and problems associated with solidwaste management Improved air pollution control devices on incinerators have proven to beeffective, and a better understanding of hazardous materials found in solid waste has led tomanagement options that are considered environmentally acceptable

While there have been no revolutionary breakthroughs in waste management options,there has been a steady advance in the technologies necessary to handle solid waste materialssafely and economically Thus, the purpose of the second edition of this handbook is to bringthe reader up to date on what these options are and how waste can be managed efficiently andcost-effectively These new technologies have been incorporated in this edition to give thereader the tools necessary to plan and evaluate alternative solid waste management systemsand/or programs In addition to updating all of the chapters, new material has been added on(1) the characteristics of the solid waste stream as it exists now, and how it is likely to develop

in the next 10 to 20 years; (2) the collection of solid waste; (3) the handling of construction anddemolition wastes; (4) how a modern landfill should be built and managed; and (5) the cost ofvarious waste management systems, so as to enable the reader to make reasonable estimatesand comparisons of various waste management options

The book has been reorganized slightly but has maintained the original sequence of topics,beginning with federal and state legislation in Chapters 2 and 3 Planning municipal solidwaste (MSW) programs and the characterization of the solid waste stream are addressed inChapters 4 and 5, respectively Methods for reducing both the amount and toxicity of solidwaste are discussed in Chapter 6 Chapter 7 is a new chapter dealing with the collection andtransport of solid waste Chapters 8 and 9, which deal with recycling and markets for recycledproducts, have been revised extensively Household hazardous waste is discussed in Chapter

xiii

Copyright © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Click here for terms of use

10 Special wastes are considered in Chapter 11, with new sections on construction and lition and electronics and computer wastes Composting, incineration, and landfilling are doc-umented in Chapters 12, 13, and 14, respectively Finally, siting and cost estimating of MSWfacilities are discussed in Chapters 15 and 16, respectively Many photographs have beenadded to the book to provide the reader with visual insights into various management strate-gies To make the end-of-chapter references more accessible, they have been reorganizedalphabetically.The glossary of terms, given in Appendix A, has been updated to reflect currentpractice, and conversion factors for transforming U.S customary units to SI units have alsobeen added.

demo-George Tchobanoglous

Davis, CA Frank Kreith Boulder, CO

ABOUT THE EDITORS

George Tchobanoglous is a professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at the

University of California at Davis He received a B.S degree in civil engineering from the versity of the Pacific, an M.S degree in sanitary engineering from the University of California

Uni-at Berkeley, and a Ph.D in environmental engineering from Stanford University His pal research interests are in the areas of solid waste management, wastewater treatment,wastewater filtration, aquatic systems for wastewater treatment, and individual onsite treat-ment systems He has taught courses on these subjects at UC Davis for the past 32 years Hehas authored or coauthored over 350 technical publications including 12 textbooks and 3 ref-

princi-erence books He is the principal author of a textbook titled Solid Waste Management:

Engi-neering Principles and Management Issues, published by McGraw-Hill The textbooks are

used in more than 200 colleges and universities throughout the United States, and they arealso used extensively by practicing engineers in the United States and abroad

Dr Tchobanoglous is an active member of numerous professional societies He is a cipient of the Gordon Maskew Fair Medal and the Jack Edward McKee Medal from the WaterEnvironment Federation Professor Tchobanoglous serves nationally and internationally as aconsultant to governmental agencies and private concerns He is a past president of the Asso-ciation of Environmental Engineering Professors He is consulting editor for the McGraw-Hillbook company series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering He has served as amember of the California Waste Management Board He is a Diplomate of the AmericanAcademy of Environmental Engineers and a registered Civil Engineer in California

core-Frank Kreith is a professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder,

where he taught in the Mechanical and Chemical Engineering Departments from 1959 to

1978 For the past 13 years, Dr Frank Kreith served as the American Society of MechanicalEngineers (ASME) legislative fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures(NCSL), where he provided assistance on waste management, transportation, and energyissues to legislators in state governments Prior to joining NCSL in 1988, Dr Kreith was chief

of thermal research at the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), now the National able Energy Laboratory (NREL) During his tenure at SERI, he participated in the presiden-tial domestic energy review and served as an advisor to the governor of Colorado In 1983, hereceived SERI’s first General Achievement Award He has written more than a hundred peer-reviewed articles and authored or edited 12 books

Renew-Dr Kreith has served as a consultant and advisor all over the world His assignmentsincluded consultancies to Vice Presidents Rockefeller and Gore, the U.S Department ofEnergy, NATO, the U.S Agency for National Development, and the United Nations He is therecipient of numerous national awards, including the Charles Greeley Abbott Award from theAmerican Solar Energy Society and the Max Jakob Award from ASME-AIChE In 1992, hereceived the Ralph Coates Roe Medal for providing technical information to legislatorsabout energy conservation, waste management, and environmental protection, and in 1998 hewas the recipient of the prestigious Washington Award for “unselfish and preeminent service

in advancing human progress.”

Copyright © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Click here for terms of use

This page intentionally left blank

Human activities generate waste materials that are often discarded because they are

consid-ered useless These wastes are normally solid, and the word waste suggests that the material is

useless and unwanted However, many of these waste materials can be reused, and thus theycan become a resource for industrial production or energy generation, if managed properly.Waste management has become one of the most significant problems of our time because theAmerican way of life produces enormous amounts of waste, and most people want to preservetheir lifestyle, while also protecting the environment and public health Industry, private citi-zens, and state legislatures are searching for means to reduce the growing amount of waste thatAmerican homes and businesses discard and to reuse it or dispose of it safely and economi-cally In recent years, state legislatures have passed more laws dealing with solid waste man-agement than with any other topic on their legislative agendas The purpose of this chapter is

to provide background material on the issues and challenges involved in the management ofmunicipal solid waste (MSW) and to provide a foundation for the information on specifictechnologies and management options presented in the subsequent chapters Appropriate ref-erences for the material covered in this chapter will be found in the chapters that follow

1.1 WASTE GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT

IN A TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Historically, waste management has been an engineering function It is related to the evolution

of a technological society, which, along with the benefits of mass production, has also createdproblems that require the disposal of solid wastes.The flow of materials in a technological soci-ety and the resulting waste generation are illustrated schematically in Fig 1.1 Wastes are gen-erated during the mining and production of raw materials, such as the tailings from a mine orthe discarded husks from a cornfield After the raw materials have been mined, harvested, orotherwise procured, more wastes are generated during subsequent steps of the processes thatgenerate goods for consumption by society from these raw materials It is apparent from thediagram in Fig 1.1 that the most effective way to ameliorate the solid waste disposal problem

is to reduce both the amount and the toxicity of waste that is generated, but as people searchfor a better life and a higher standard of living, they tend to consume more goods and generatemore waste Consequently, society is searching for improved methods of waste managementand ways to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be landfilled

Sources of solid wastes in a community are, in general, related to land use and zoning.Although any number of source classifications can be developed, the following categorieshave been found useful: (1) residential, (2) commercial, (3) institutional, (4) construction anddemolition, (5) municipal services, (6) treatment plant sites, (7) industrial, and (8) agricultural.Typical facilities, activities, or locations associated with each of these sources of waste arereported in Table 1.1 As noted in Table 1.1, MSW is normally assumed to include all commu-nity wastes, with the exception of wastes generated by municipal services, water and waste-

1.1

Copyright © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Click here for terms of use

water treatment plants, industrial processes, and agricultural operations It is important to beaware that the definitions of terms and the classifications of solid waste vary greatly in the lit-erature and in the profession Consequently, the use of published data requires considerablecare, judgment, and common sense.

Solid waste management is a complex process because it involves many technologies anddisciplines These include technologies associated with the control of generation, handling,storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing, and disposal of solid wastes (see Table1.2 and Fig 1.2) All of these processes have to be carried out within existing legal and socialguidelines that protect the public health and the environment and are aesthetically and eco-nomically acceptable For the disposal process to be responsive to public attitudes, the disci-plines that must be considered include administrative, financial, legal, architectural, planning,and engineering functions All these disciplines must communicate and interact with eachother in a positive interdisciplinary relationship for an integrated solid waste managementplan to be successful This handbook is devoted to facilitating this process

1.2 ISSUES IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

The following major issues must be considered in discussing the management of solid wastes:(1) increasing waste quantities; (2) wastes not reported in the national MSW totals; (3) lack ofclear definitions for solid waste management terms and functions; (4) lack of quality data, (5)need for clear roles and leadership in federal, state, and local government; (6) need for evenand predictable enforcement regulations and standards, and (7) resolution of intercounty,interstate, and intercountry waste issues for MSW and its components These topics are con-sidered briefly in this section and in the subsequent chapters of this handbook

Rawmaterials

Finaldisposal

Residualdebris

EnergyWasteRaw materials,products, andrecovered materials

Manufacturing

Processing and

Consumerproduct use

FIGURE 1.1 Flow of materials and waste in an industrial society.

TABLE 1.1 Sources of Solid Wastes in a Community

Typical facilities, activities, or

Residential Single-family and multifamily Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics,

dwellings; low-, medium-, and textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood,high-density apartments; etc glass, tin cans, aluminum, other metal,

ashes, street leaves, special wastes (including bulky items, consumer electronics, white goods, yard wastes collected separately, batteries, oil, and tires), and household hazardous wastes

office buildings, hotels, motels, food wastes, glass, metal wastes,print shops, service stations, ashes, special wastes (see auto repair shops, etc preceding), hazardous wastes, etc

governmental centers, etc

Industrial (nonprocess wastes) Construction, fabrication, light Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food

and heavy manufacturing, wastes, glass, metal wastes, ashes,refineries, chemical plants, special wastes (see preceding),power plants, demolition, etc hazardous wastes, etc

Construction and demolition New construction sites, road Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc

repair, renovation sites, razing of buildings, broken pavement, etc

Municipal services (excluding Street cleaning, landscaping, Special wastes, rubbish, street sweepings,treatment facilities) catch-basin cleaning, parks and landscape and tree trimmings, catch-

beaches, other recreational basin debris; general wastes from

Treatment facilities Water, wastewater, industrial Treatment plant wastes, principally

treatment processes, etc composed of residual sludges and

other residual materialsIndustrial Construction, fabrication, light Industrial process wastes, scrap

and heavy manufacturing, materials, etc.; nonindustrial waste refineries, chemical plants, power including food wastes, rubbish,plants, demolition, etc ashes, demolition and construction

wastes, special wastes, and hazardous waste

Agricultural Field and row crops, orchards, Spoiled food wastes, agricultural

vineyards, dairies, feedlots, farms, etc wastes, rubbish, and hazardous wastes

* The term municipal solid waste (MSW) is normally assumed to include all of the wastes generated in a community, with the exception of

waste generated by municipal services, treatment plants, and industrial and agricultural processes.

Increasing Waste Quantities

As of 2000, about 226 million tons of MSW were generated each year in the United States.This total works out to be over 1600 lb per year per person (4.5 lb per person per day) Theamount of MSW generated each year has continued to increase on both a per capita basis and

a total generation rate basis In 1960, per capita generation was about 2.7 lb per person per dayand 88 million tons per year By 1986, per capita generation jumped to 4.2 lb per person perday The waste generation rate is expected to continue to increase over the current level to a

1.4 CHAPTER ONE

TABLE 1.2 Functional Elements of a Solid Waste Management System

Waste generation Waste generation encompasses those activities in which materials are identified

as no longer being of value and are either thrown away or gathered togetherfor disposal What is important in waste generation is to note that there is anidentification step and that this step varies with each individual Waste gen-eration is, at present, an activity that is not very controllable

Waste handling and separation, Waste handling and separation involve the activities associated with managingstorage, and processing at the source wastes until they are placed in storage containers for collection Handling

also encompasses the movement of loaded containers to the point of tion Separation of waste components is an important step in the handlingand storage of solid waste at the source On-site storage is of primary impor-tance because of public health concerns and aesthetic considerations.Collection Collection includes both the gathering of solid wastes and recyclable materials

collec-and the transport of these materials, after collection, to the location wherethe collection vehicle is emptied, such as a materials-processing facility, atransfer station, or a landfill

Transfer and transport The functional element of transfer and transport involves two steps: (1) the

transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to the larger transportequipment, and (2) the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over longdistances, to a processing or disposal site The transfer usually takes place at atransfer station Although motor vehicle transport is most common, rail carsand barges are also used to transport wastes

Separation, processing, and The means and facilities that are now used for the recovery of waste materials transformation of solid waste that have been separated at the source include curbside collection and drop-

off and buyback centers The separation and processing of wastes that havebeen separated at the source and the separation of commingled wastes usu-ally occurs at materials recovery facilities, transfer stations, combustion facili-ties, and disposal sites

Transformation processes are used to reduce the volume and weight of wasterequiring disposal and to recover conversion products and energy Theorganic fraction of MSW can be transformed by a variety of chemical andbiological processes The most commonly used chemical transformation pro-cess is combustion, used in conjunction with the recovery of energy The mostcommonly used biological transformation process is aerobic composting.Disposal Today, disposal by landfilling or landspreading is the ultimate fate of all solid

wastes, whether they are residential wastes collected and transported directly

to a landfill site, residual materials from MRFs, residue from the combustion

of solid waste, compost, or other substances from various solid waste ing facilities A modern sanitary landfill is not a dump It is a method of dis-posing of solid wastes on land or within the earth’s mantel without creatingpublic health hazards or nuisances

process-per capita rate of about 4.6 lb process-per process-person process-per day and an overall rate of 240 million tons process-peryear by 2005 While waste reduction and recycling now play an important part in manage-ment, these management options alone cannot solve the solid waste problem Assuming itwere possible to reach a recycling (diversion) rate of about 50 percent, more than 120 milliontons of solid waste would still have to be treated by other means, such as combustion (waste-to-energy) and landfilling

Waste Not Reported in the National MSW Totals

In addition to the large volumes of MSW that are generated and reported nationally, largerquantities of solid waste are not included in the national totals For example, in some stateswaste materials not classified as MSW are processed in the same facilities used for MSW.These wastes may include construction and demolition wastes, agricultural waste, municipalsludge, combustion ash (including cement kiln dust and boiler ash), medical waste, contam-inated soil, mining wastes, oil and gas wastes, and industrial process wastes that are not clas-sified as hazardous waste The national volume of these wastes is extremely high and hasbeen estimated at 7 to 10 billion tons per year Most of these wastes are managed at the site

gen-of generation However, if even 1 or 2 percent gen-of these wastes are managed in MSW ties, it can dramatically affect MSW capacity One or two percent is probably a reasonableestimate.

facili-Lack of Clear Definitions

To date, the lack of clear definitions in the field of solid waste management (SWM) has been

a significant impediment to the development of sound waste management strategies At a damental level, it has resulted in confusion as to what constitutes MSW and what processingcapacity exists to manage it Consistent definitions form the basis for a defensible measure-ment system They allow an entity to track progress and to compare its progress with otherentities They facilitate quality dialogue with all affected and interested parties Moreover,what is measured is managed, so if waste materials are not measured they are unlikely toreceive careful management attention Waste management decision makers must give signifi-cant attention to definitions at the front end of the planning process Because all future legis-lation, regulations, and public dialogue will depend on these definitions, decision makersshould consider an open public comment process to establish appropriate definitions early inthe strategy development (planning) process

fun-Lack of Quality Data

It is difficult to develop sound integrated MSW management strategies without good data It

is even more difficult to engage the public in a dialogue about the choice of an optimal egy without these data While the federal government and some states have focused on col-lecting better waste generation and capacity data, these data are still weaker than they should

strat-be Creative waste management strategies often require knowledge of who generates thewaste, not just what volumes are generated

The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) impacts and the costs of alternatives to filling and combustion are another data weakness Landfilling and combustion have beenstudied in depth, although risks and costs are usually highly site-specific Source reduction,recycling, and composting have received much less attention While these activities can oftenresult in reduced EHS impacts compared to landfilling, they do not always Again, the answer

land-is often site- and/or commodity-specific

MSW management strategies developed without quality data on the risks and costs of allavailable options under consideration are not likely to optimize decision making and may, insome cases, result in unsound decisions Because data are often costly and difficult to obtain,decision makers should plan for an active data collection stage before making critical strategychoices While this approach may appear to result in slower progress in the short term, it willresult in true long-term progress characterized by cost-effective and environmentally soundstrategies

Need for Clear Roles and Leadership in Federal, State, and Local Government

Historically, MSW has been considered a local government issue That status has becomeincreasingly confused over the past 10 years as EHS concerns have increased and more wastehas moved outside the localities where it is generated At the present time, federal, state, andlocal governments are developing location, design, and operating standards for waste man-agement facilities State and local governments are controlling facility permits for a range ofissues including air emissions, stormwater runoff, and surface and groundwater discharges inaddition to solid waste management These requirements often result in the involvement ofmultiple agencies and multiple permits While product labeling and product design have tra-

ditionally been regulated at the federal level, state and local governments have lookedincreasingly to product labeling and design as they attempt to reduce source generation andincrease recycling of municipal waste.

Understandably, the current regulatory situation is becoming increasingly less efficient,and unless there is increased cooperation among all levels of government, the current trendswill continue However, a more rational and cost-effective waste management framework canresult if roles are clarified and leadership is embraced In particular, federal leadership onproduct labeling and product requirements is important It will become increasingly unrealis-tic for multinational manufacturers to develop products for each state The impact will be par-ticularly severe on small states and on small businesses operating nationally Along with thefederal leadership on products, state leadership will be crucial in permit streamlining The cost

of facility permitting is severely impacted by the time-consuming nature of the permittingprocess, although a long process does nothing for increased environmental protection More-over, the best waste management strategies become obsolete and unimplementable if wastemanagement facilities and facilities using secondary materials as feedstocks cannot be built orexpanded Even source reduction initiatives often depend on major permit modifications forexisting manufacturing facilities

Need for Even and Predictable Enforcement of Regulations and Standards

The public continues to distrust both the individuals who operate waste facilities and the ulators who enforce proper operation of those facilities One key contributor to this phe-nomenon is the fact that state and federal enforcement programs are perceived as beingunderstaffed or weak Thus, even if a strong permit is written, the public lacks confidence that

reg-it will be enforced Concern is also expressed that governments are reluctant to enforce lations against other government-owned or -operated facilities Whether these perceptionsare true, they are the crucial ones to address if consensus on a sound waste management strat-egy is to be achieved

regu-There are multiple approaches which decision makers can consider They can developinternally staffed state-of-the-art enforcement programs designed to provide a level playingfield for all facilities, regardless of type, size, or ownership If decision makers involve the pub-lic in the overall design of the enforcement program and report on inspections and results,public trust will increase If internal resources are constrained, decision makers can examinemore innovative approaches, including use of third-party inspectors, public disclosurerequirements for facilities, or separate contracts on performance assurance between the hostcommunity and the facility

Resolution of Intercounty, Interstate, and Intercountry Waste Issues

for MSW and Its Components

The movement of wastes across juristictional boundaries (e.g., township, county, and state)has been a continuous issue over the past few years, as communities without sufficient localcapacity ship their wastes to other locations While a few receiving communities have wel-comed the waste because it has resulted in a significant income source, most receiving com-munities have felt quite differently These communities have wanted to preserve their existingcapacity, knowing they will also find it difficult to site new capacity Moreover, they do notwant to become dumping grounds for other communities’ waste, because they believe theadverse environmental impacts of the materials outweigh any short-term financial benefit.This dilemma has resulted in the adoption of many restrictive ordinances, with subsequentcourt challenges While the current federal legislative framework, embodied in the interstatecommerce clause, makes it difficult for any state or local official to uphold state and local ordi-nances that prevent the inflow of nonlocal waste, the federal legislative playing field can be

changed At this writing, it is still expected that Congress will address the issue in the nearfuture However, this is a difficult issue in part because of the following concerns:

● Most communities and states export some of their wastes (e.g., medical wastes, hazardouswastes, and radioactive wastes)

● New state-of-the-art waste facilities are costly to build and operate, and they require largervolumes of waste than can typically be provided by the local community in order to covertheir costs

● Waste facilities are often similar in environmental effects to recycling facilities and facturing facilities If one community will not manage wastes from another community, whyshould one community have to make chemicals or other products which are ultimately used

manu-by another community?

● While long-distance transport of MSW (over 200 mi) usually indicates the failure todevelop a local waste management strategy, shorter interstate movements (less than 50 mi)may provide the foundation for a sound waste management strategy Congress should becareful to avoid overrestricting options

1.3 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT

Integrated waste management (IWM) can be defined as the selection and application of

suit-able techniques, technologies, and management programs to achieve specific waste ment objectives and goals Because numerous state and federal laws have been adopted, IWM

manage-is also evolving in response to the regulations developed to implement the various laws TheU.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified four basic management options(strategies) for IWM: (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, (3) combustion(waste-to-energy facilities), and (4) landfills.As proposed by the U.S EPA, these strategies are

meant to be interactive, as illustrated in Fig 1.3a It should be noted that the state of nia has chosen to consider the management options in a hierarchical order (see Fig 1.3b) For

Califor-example, recycling can be considered only after all that can be done to reduce the quantity ofwaste at the source has been done Similarly, waste transformation is considered only after themaximum amount of recycling has been achieved Further, the combustion (waste-to-energy)option has been replaced by waste transformation in California and other states Interpreta-tion of the IWM hierarchy will, most likely, continue to vary by state The managementoptions that comprise the IWM are considered in the following discussion The implementa-tion of integrated waste management options is considered in the following three sections.Typical costs for solid waste management options are presented in Sec 1.5

Source Reduction

Source reduction focuses on reducing the volume and/or toxicity of generated waste Sourcereduction includes the switch to reusable products and packaging, the most familiar examplebeing returnable bottles However, bottle bill legislation results in source reduction only ifbottles are reused once they are returned Other good examples of source reduction are grassclippings that are left on the lawn and never picked up and modified yard plantings that donot result in leaf and yard waste The time to consider source reduction is at the product orprocess design phase

Source reduction can be practiced by everybody Consumers can participate by buyingless or using products more efficiently The public sector (government entities at all levels:local, state, and federal) and the private sector can also be more efficient consumers Theycan reevaluate procedures which needlessly distribute paper (multiple copies of documents

can be cut back), initiate procedures which require the purchase of products with longer lifespans, and cut down on the purchase of disposable products The private sector can redesignits manufacturing processes to reduce the amount of waste generated in manufacturing.Reducing the amount of waste may require the use of closed-loop manufacturing processes,different raw materials, and/or different production processes Finally, the private sectorcan redesign products by increasing their durability, substituting less toxic materials, orincreasing product effectiveness However, while everybody can participate in sourcereduction, doing so digs deeply into how people go about their business—something that isdifficult to mandate through regulation without getting mired in the tremendous complex-ity of commerce.

Source reduction is best encouraged by making sure that the cost of waste management is

fully internalized Cost internalization means pricing the service so that all of the costs are

reflected For waste management, the costs that need to be internalized include pickup andtransport, site and construction, administrative and salary, and environmental controls andmonitoring It is important to note that these costs must be considered whether the product isultimately managed in a landfill, combustion, recycling, or composting facility Regulation canaid cost internalization by requiring product manufacturers to provide public disclosure ofthe costs associated with these aspects of product use and development

Recycling and Composting

Recycling is perhaps the most positively perceived and doable of all the waste managementpractices Recycling will return raw materials to market by separating reusable products fromthe rest of the municipal waste stream The benefits of recycling are many Recycling savesprecious finite resources; lessens the need for mining of virgin materials, which lowers theenvironmental impact for mining and processing; and reduces the amount of energy con-

Combustionwaste-to-energy

Recyclecomposting

Sourcereduction

Sourcereduction

Recycling,composting

Wastetransformation

Landfilling

(b)(a)

Landfilling

FIGURE 1.3 Relationships between the management options comprising integrated waste management:

(a) interactive, and (b) hierarchical.

sumed Moreover, recycling can help stretch landfill capacity Recycling can also improve theefficiency and ash quality of incinerators and composting facilities by removing noncom-bustible materials, such as metals and glass.

Recycling can also cause problems if it is not done in an environmentally responsible ner Many Superfund sites are what is left of poorly managed recycling operations Examplesinclude operations for newsprint deinking, waste-oil recycling, solvent recycling, and metalrecycling In all of these processes, toxic contaminants that need to be properly managed areremoved Composting is another area of recycling that can cause problems without adequatelocation controls For example, groundwater can be contaminated if grass clippings, leaves, orother yard wastes that contain pesticide or fertilizer residues are composted on sandy or otherpermeable soils Air contamination by volatile substances can also result

Recycling will flourish where economic conditions support it, not where it is merely dated For this to happen, the cost of landfilling or resource recovery must reflect its truecost—at least $40 per ton or higher Successful recycling programs also require stable marketsfor recycled materials Examples of problems in this area are not hard to come by; a glut ofpaper occurred in Germany in 1984 to 1986 due to a mismatch between the grades of papercollected and the grades required by the German paper mills Government had not workedwith enough private industries to find out whether the mills had the capacity and equipmentneeded to deal with low-grade household newspaper In the United States, similar losses ofmarkets have occurred for paper, especially during the period from 1994 through 1997 Priceshave dropped to the point at which it actually costs money to dispose of collected newspaper

man-in some parts of the country

Stable markets also require that stable supplies are generated This supply-side problemhas been troublesome in certain areas of recycling, including metals and plastics Governmentand industry must work together to address the market situation It is crucial to make surethat mandated recycling programs do not get too far ahead of the markets

Even with a good market situation, recycling and composting will flourish only if they aremade convenient Examples include curbside pickup for residences on a frequent scheduleand easy drop-off centers with convenient hours for rural communities and for more special-ized products Product mail-back programs have also worked for certain appliances and elec-tronic components

Even with stable markets and convenient programs, public education is a crucial nent for increasing the amount of recycling At this point, the United States must develop aconservation, rather than a throwaway, ethic, as was done during the energy crisis of the 1970s.Recycling presents the next opportunity for cultural change It will require moving beyond amere willingness to collect discarded materials for recycling That cultural change will requireconsumers to purchase recyclable products and products made with recycled content It willrequire businesses to utilize secondary materials in product manufacturing and to design newproducts for easy disassembly and separation of component materials

compo-Combustion (Waste-to-Energy)

The third of the IWM options (see Fig 1.2) is combustion (waste-to-energy) Combustionfacilities are attractive because they do one thing very well—they reduce the volume of wastedramatically, up to ninefold Combustion facilities can also recover useful energy, either in theform of steam or in the form of electricity Depending on the economics of energy in theregion, this can be anywhere from profitable to unjustified Volume reduction alone can makethe high capital cost of incinerators attractive when landfill space is at a premium, or when thelandfill is distant from the point of generation For many major metropolitan areas, new land-fills must be located increasingly far away from the center of the population Moreover, incin-erator bottom ash has promise for reuse as a building material Those who make productsfrom cement or concrete may be able to utilize incinerator ash

The major constraints on incinerators are their cost, the relatively high degree of cation needed to operate them safely and economically, and the fact that the public is very

skeptical concerning their safety The public is concerned about both stack emissions fromincinerators and the toxicity of ash produced by incinerators The U.S EPA has addressedboth of these concerns through the development of new regulations for solid waste combus-tion waste-to-energy plants and improved landfill requirements for ash These regulations willensure that well-designed, well-built, and well-operated facilities will be fully protective fromthe health and environmental standpoints.

Landfills

Landfills are the one form of waste management that nobody wants but everybody needs.There are simply no combinations of waste management techniques that do not require land-filling to make them work Of the four basic management options, landfilling is the only man-agement technique that is both necessary and sufficient Some wastes are simply notrecyclable, because they eventually reach a point at which their intrinsic value is dissipatedcompletely, so they no longer can be recovered, and recycling itself produces residuals.The technology and operation of a modern landfill can ensure protection of human healthand the environment The challenge is to ensure that all operating landfills are designed prop-erly and are monitored once they are closed It is crucial to recognize that today’s modernlandfills do not look like the old landfills that are on the current Superfund list Today’s oper-ating landfills do not continue to take hazardous wastes In addition, they do not receive bulkliquids They have gas-control systems, liners, leachate collection systems, extensive ground-water monitoring systems, and perhaps most important, they are better sited and located inthe first place to take advantage of natural geological conditions

Landfills can also turn into a resource Methane gas recovery is occurring at many landfillstoday and carbon dioxide recovery is being considered After closure, landfills can be used forrecreation areas such as parks, golf courses, or ski areas Some agencies and entrepreneurs arelooking at landfills as repositories of resources for the future—in other words, today’s landfillsmight be mined at some time in the future when economic conditions warrant This could be

particularly true for monofills, which focus on one kind of waste material, such as combustion

ash or shredded tires

Status of Integrated Waste Management

The U.S EPA has set a national voluntary goal of reducing the quantity of MSW by 25 cent through source reduction and recycling It should be noted that several states have sethigher recycling (diversion) goals For example, California set goals of 25 percent by the year

per-1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000 It is estimated that source reduction currently accountsfor from 2 to 6 percent of the waste reduction that has occurred There is no uniformlyaccepted definition of what constitutes recycling, and estimates of the percentage of MSWthat is recycled vary significantly The U.S EPA and the Office of Technology Assessment(OTA) have published estimates ranging from 15 to 20 percent It is estimated that about 5 to

10 percent of the total waste stream is now composted Today, 50 to 70 percent of MSW islandfilled Landfill gas is recovered for energy in more than 100 of the nation’s larger landfillsand most of it is burned with energy recovery

1.4 IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The implementation of IWM for residential solid waste, as illustrated in Fig 1.4, typicallyinvolves the use of several technologies and all of the management options discussed previ-ously and identified in Fig 1.2 At present, most communities use two or more of the MSWmanagement options to dispose of their waste, but there have been only a few instances in

which a truly integrated and optimized waste management plan has been developed Toachieve an integrated strategy for handling municipal waste, an optimization analysis com-bining all of the available options should be conducted However, at present, there is noproven methodology for performing such an optimization analysis.

The most common combinations of technologies used to accomplish IWM are illustrated

in Fig 1.5 The most common in the United States is probably Strategy 4, consisting of side recycling and landfilling the remaining waste In rural communities, Strategy 3, consisting

curb-of composting and landfilling, is prevalent In large cities, where tipping fees for landfillingsometimes reach and exceed $100 per ton, Strategy 5, consisting of curbside recycling with thehelp of a materials recovery facility (MRF), followed by mass burning or combustion at arefuse-derived fuel (RDF) facility and landfilling of the nonrecyclable materials from theMRF and ash from the incinerator, is the most prevalent combination However, as men-tioned previously, each situation should be analyzed individually, and the combination ofmanagement options and technologies which fits the situation best should be selected As aguide to the potential effect of any of the nine strategies in Fig 1.5 on the landfill space and itslifetime, the required volume of landfill per ton of MSW generated for each of the nine com-binations of options is displayed in Fig 1.6 Apart from availability of landfill volume andspace, the cost of the option combinations is of primary concern to the planning of an inte-grated waste management scheme Costs are discussed in the following section

Curbsidecollection

Materials recovery facilityand/or transfer station

Wastetransformationfacility

Landfill

Drop-off and/orredemptioncenter

Generatorreturns

Residentialsource or wasteCommingled

waste Source-separatedwaste, including

yard waste

Principal materials diverted

PaperCardboardPlasticAluminumGlassFerrous metalCompostMethaneRDFEnergy

Household hazardous wastes

to an appropriate facility

Beverage redemptioncontainers, aluminum cans

Curbsidecollectionand/orgeneratorreturns

FIGURE 1.4 Flow diagram for residential integrated waste management.

1.5 TYPICAL COSTS FOR MAJOR WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

This section presents typical cost information for the various waste management gies More detailed cost information, including the cost of individual components, labor, land,and financing, is presented in Chap 16 At the outset, it should be noted that the only reliableway to compare the costs of waste management options is to obtain site-specific quotationsfrom experienced contractors It is often necessary to make some preliminary estimates in theearly stages of designing an integrated waste management system

technolo-To assist in such preliminary costing, cost data from the literature for many parts of thecountry were examined, and published estimates of the capital costs and operating costs forthe most common municipal solid waste options (materials recycling, composting, waste-to-energy combustion, and landfilling) were correlated All of the cost data for the individualoptions were converted to January 2002 dollars to provide a consistent basis for cost compar-isons The cost data were adjusted using an Engineering News Record Construction CostIndex (ENRCCI) value of 6500

In addition to the externalized costs presented in this chapter, there are also social costsassociated with each of the waste management options For example, recycling will generate

FIGURE 1.5 Typical examples of waste management options for a community.

1.14 CHAPTER ONE

FIGURE 1.5 (Continued)

air pollution from the trucks used to pick up, collect, and distribute the materials to be cled Many steps in recycling processes, such as deinking newspaper, create pollution whosecost must be borne by society, since it is not a part of the recycling cost Waste-to-energy com-bustion creates air pollution from stack emissions and water pollution from the disposal ofash, particularly if heavy metals are present Landfilling has environmental costs due to leak-age of leachates into aquifers and the generation of methane and other gases from the land-fill It has been estimated that 60 to 110 lb of methane will be formed per ton of wet municipalwaste during the first 20 years of operation of a landfill About 9 to 16 lb of that gas will not

recy-be recovered, but will leak into the atmosphere recy-because of limitations in the collection systemand the permeability of the cover The U.S EPA has estimated that about 12 million tons ofmethane are released from landfills per year in the United States New regulations, however,will reduce the environmental impact of landfilling in the future

FIGURE 1.6 Landfill volume required per ton of MSW generated from the waste management options trated in Fig 1.5.

illus-Capital Costs

It should be noted that capital cost data available in the literature vary in quality, detail, andreliability As a result, the range of the cost data is broad Factors which will affect the costsreported are the year when a facility was built, the interest rate paid for the capital, the regu-lations in force at the time of construction, the manner in which a project was funded (pri-vately or publicly), and the location in which the facility is located Also, costs associated withancillary activities such as road improvements, pollution control, and land acquisition greatlyaffect the results Cost data on separation, recycling, and composting are scarce and, in manycases, unreliable Therefore, it is recommended when comparing various strategies to manageMSW, costs for all systems should be built up from system components, using a consistent set

of assumptions and realistic cost estimates at the time and place of operation The most sive and reliable data available appear to be those for the combustion option Combustion is

exten-a controlled process thexten-at is completed within exten-a short period of time exten-and for which there is exten-agood deal of recorded experience Also, inputs and outputs can be measured effectively withtechniques that have previously been used for fossil fuel combustion plants Typical capitalcosts for collection vehicles and materials recovery facilities, and for composting, waste-to-energy combustion, and landfilling are presented in Tables 1.3 and 1.4, respectively

Collection. Capital costs for collection vehicles are presented in Table 1.3.As reported, vehiclecosts will vary from $100,000 to $140,000, depending on the functions and capacity of the vehicle

Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). The range of capital costs for existing low-tech andhigh-tech MRFs that sort reusable materials, whether mixed or source-separated, varies fromabout $10,000 to $40,000 per ton of design capacity per day

TABLE 1.3 Typical Capital Costs for Waste Collection Vehicles and Materials Recovery Systems

Waste collection

collection vehicleMechanically loaded collection vehicle $/truck 115,000–140,000Source-separated waste Right-hand stand-up-drive collection $/truck 120,000–140,000

vehicle equipped with four separate compartments

Materials recovery

Low-mechanical intensity† Processing of source-separated $/ton of capacity 10,000–20,000

materials only; enclosed building, per dayconcrete floors, 1st stage hand-

picking stations and conveyor belts, storage for separated and prepared materials for 1 month,support facilities for the workersHigh-mechanical intensity‡ Processing of commingled materials $/ton of capacity 20,000–40,000

or MSW; same facilities as the low-end per day system plus mechanical bag breakers,

magnets, shredders, screens, and storage for up to 3 months; also includes a 2d stage picking line

* All cost data have been adjusted to an Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index of 6500.

† Low-end systems contain equipment to perform basic material separation and densification functions.

‡ High-end systems contain equipment to perform multiple functions for material separation, preparation of feedstock, and densification.

Composting. Published capital cost data for MSW composting facilities are limited Asreported in Table 1.4, capital costs for MSW composting facilities are in the range of $10,000

to $50,000 per ton of daily capacity Further, investment costs show no scale effects (i.e.,investment is a linear function of capacity within the capacity range of 10 to 1000 ton/d)

Mass Burn: Field-Erected. Most field-erected mass burn plants are used to generate tricity The average size for which useful data are available is 1200 tons/day of design capac-ity (with a range of 750 to 3000 ton/d) The range of capital cost varies from $80,000 to

elec-$120,000 per ton per day The mass burn facilities were not differentiated by the form ofenergy produced

Mass-Burn: Modular. Modular mass-burn steam and electricity generating plants are cally in the range of 100 to 300 ton/d The range of capital costs is from $80,000 to $120,000 perton per day

typi-Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Facilities. The range of capital costs for operating RDF duction facilities with a processing capacity in the range of 100 to 300 ton/d varies from

pro-$20,000 to $30,000 per ton per day (see Table 1.4)

Landfilling. Landfilling capital costs are difficult to come by, because construction oftencontinues throughout the life of the landfill instead of being completed at the beginning ofoperations Consequently, capital costs are combined and reported with operating costs Cap-ital and operating costs of landfills can be estimated by using cost models, but such models arevalid only for a particular region The range of costs reported in Table 1.4 represents the start-

up costs for a new modern landfill that meets all current federal regulations, with a capacitygreater than 100 tons/day

TABLE 1.4 Typical Capital Costs for Composting Facilities, Combustion Facilities, and Landfills

Composting

Low-end Source-separated yard waste feedstock only; $/ton of capacity per day 10,000–20,000system cleared, level ground with equipment to turn

windrowsHigh-end Feedstock derived from processing of commingled $/ton of capacity per day 25,000–50,000system wastes; enclosed building with concrete floors, MRF

processing equipment, and in-vessel composting;

enclosed building for curing of compost product

Monofill Disposal of single waste in a modern landfill with $/ton of capacity per day 10,000–25,000

double liner and gas recovery system, if required

* All cost data have been adjusted to an Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index of 6500.

Operation And Maintenance (O&M) Costs. Along with capital investment, operation andmaintenance (O&M) costs are important in making an analysis of integrated waste manage-ment systems Once again, it should be noted that the O&M cost data show large variations.For a reliable estimate, a study of the conditions in the time and place of the project must bemade Operating costs are affected by local differences in labor rates, labor contracts, safetyrules, and crew sizes Accounting systems, especially those used by cities and private owners,and the age of landfills or incinerators can greatly affect O&M costs Typical O&M costs forcollection vehicles and materials recovery facilities, and for composting, combustion, andlandfilling are presented in Tables 1.5 and 1.6, respectively.

Collection O&M Costs. Collection O&M costs, expressed in dollars per ton, are affected byboth the number of stops made and the tonnage collected Typical O&M costs for the collec-tion of commingled wastes with no source separation range from $50 to $70 per ton TypicalO&M costs for the collection of the commingled wastes remaining after source separation ofrecyclable materials range from $60 to $100 per ton Costs for curbside collection of source-separated materials vary from $100 to $140 per ton

MRF O&M Costs. O&M costs for MRFs range from $20 to $60 per ton of material rated, with a typical value in the range of $40 to $50/ton The large variation in O&M costs isdue, in large part, to inconsistencies in the methods of reporting cost data and not on pre-dictable variations based on the type of technology or the size of the facility In general, low-technology MRFs have higher operating costs than high-technology MRFs, because of thegreater labor intensity of the former

sepa-Composting O&M Costs. The range of O&M costs for composting processed MSW variesfrom $30 to $70 per ton While the capital costs show little or no effect with scale, O&M costsshow some decline with plant capacity, but the correlation is quite poor

Mass Burn: Field-Erected O&M Costs. Typical O&M cost estimates for field-erected massburn combustion facilities reported in Table 1.6 are for electricity-only mass burn plants

TABLE 1.5 Typical Operation and Maintenance Costs for Waste Collection Vehicles and Materials Recovery Systems

Waste collection

Source-separated waste Right-hand stand-up-drive collection vehicle $/ton 100–140

equipped with four separate compartments

Materials recovery

Low-mechanical intensity† Processing of source-separated materials only; $/ton 20–40

enclosed building, concrete floors, 1st stage hand-picking stations and conveyor belts,storage for separated and prepared materials for 1 month, support facilities for the workersHigh-mechanical intensity‡ Processing of commingled materials or MSW; $/ton 30–60

same facilities as the low-end system plus mechanical bag breakers, magnets, shredders,screens, and storage for up to 3 months; also includes a 2d stage picking line

* All cost data have been adjusted to an Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index of 6500.

† Low-end systems contain equipment to perform basic material separation and densification functions.

‡ High-end systems contain equipment to perform multiple functions for material separation, preparation of feedstock, and densification.

O&M costs range from $60 to $80 per ton O&M costs for plants producing steam and tricity are about the same.

elec-Mass Burn: Modular O&M Costs. Typical O&M costs for modular mass burn combustionrange from $40 to $80 per ton Although the capital costs are sometimes lower for the steam-only plants, the O&M costs are not Typical tipping fees for the steam-and-electricity plantsand for steam-only plants range from $50 to $60/ton and $40 to $50/ton, respectively

RDF Facility O&M Costs. Typical O&M costs for RDF facilities is about $40 per ton ofMSW processed, with a range of $20 to $40 per ton Note that the averages cited previouslyare based on wide ranges and the number of data points is small Hence, these averages areonly a rough estimate of future RDF facility costs

Landfilling O&M Costs. Available data are few and indicate wide variability in landfillcosts as a result of local conditions Some cost data reflect capital recovery costs that others donot The O&M costs for MSW landfills range from $10 to over $120 per ton The cost range formonofills varies from $10 to $80 per ton of ash

1.6 FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING

The preceding sections present information on the four waste management options—sourcereduction, recycling, waste-to-energy, and landfilling With that material as a background, wemust map out a framework for making decisions In a world without economic constraints, thetools for waste management could be ordered by their degree of apparent environmental

TABLE 1.6 Typical Operation and Maintenance Costs for Composting Facilities, Combustion Facilities, and Landfills

Composting

cleared, level ground with equipment

to turn windrows

commingled wastes; enclosed building with concrete floors, MRF processing equipment,and in-vessel composting; enclosed building for curing of compost product

Waste-to-energy

field-erected energy recovery unit, and air discharge cleanup

modular energy recovery unit, and air discharge cleanup

fuel (RDF from processed MSW)

Landfilling

Commingled waste Disposal of commingled waste in a modern landfill $/ton 10–120

with double liner and gas recovery system

double liner and gas recovery system, if required

* All cost data have been adjusted to an Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index of 6500.

desirability Source reduction would clearly be at the top, as it prevents waste from having to

be managed at all Recycling, including composting, would be the next-best management tool,because it can return resources to commerce after the original product no longer serves itsintended purpose Waste-to-energy follows because it is able to retrieve energy that otherwisewould be buried and wasted Finally, landfilling, while often listed last, is really not any better

or worse than incineration, as it too can recover energy Moreover, waste-to-energy facilitiesstill require landfills to manage their ash

In reality, every community and region will have to customize its integrated managementsystem to suit its environmental situation and its economic constraints A small, remote com-munity such as Nome, Alaska, has little choice but to rely solely on a well-designed and -operated landfill.At the other extreme, New York City can easily and effectively draw on somecombination of all the elements of the waste management hierarchy Communities that relyheavily on groundwater that is vulnerable, such as Long Island, New York, and many Floridacommunities, usually need to minimize landfilling and look at incineration, recycling, and resid-ual disposal in regions where groundwater is less vulnerable Communities that have problemswith air quality usually avoid incineration to minimize more atmospheric pollutants Sometimesthese communities can take extra steps to ensure that incineration is acceptable by first remov-ing metals and other bad actors out of the waste stream In all communities, the viability of recy-cling certain components of the waste stream is linked to volumes, collection costs, availablemarkets, and the environmental consequences of the recycling and the reuse operations

Planning for Solid Waste Management

Long-term planning at the local, state, and even regional level is the only way to come upwith a good mix of management tools It must address both environmental concerns andeconomic constraints As discussed earlier, planning requires good data This fact has longbeen recognized in fields such as transportation and health-care planning However, untilrecently, databases for solid waste planning were not available, and, even now, they areweak

There are a number of guidelines that planners should embrace First, it is crucial to look

to the long term The volatility of today’s spot market prices is a symptom of the crisis tions in which new facilities are simply not being sited Examples already exist of locationswhere current prices are significantly reduced from their highs as new capacity options haveemerged

condi-Second, planners must make sure that all costs are reflected in each option Municipalaccounting practices sometimes hide costs For example, the transportation department maypurchase vehicles while another department may pay for real estate, and so on Accurateaccounting is essential

Third, skimping on environmental controls brings short-term cost savings with potentiallygreater liability down the road It is always better to do it right the first time, especially forrecycling and composting facilities, as well as for incineration facilities and landfills

Fourth, planners should account for the volatility of markets for recyclables The questionbecomes: In a given location for a given commodity, can a recycling program survive the peaksand valleys of recycling markets without going broke in between?

Fifth, planners must consider the availability of efficient facility permitting and siting forwaste facilities using recycled material inputs, and for facilities which need permit changes toimplement source reduction

Finally, planners should look beyond strictly local options When political boundariesare not considered, different management combinations may become possible at reason-able costs Potential savings can occur in the areas of procurement, environmental protec-tion, financing, administration, and ease of implementation Regional approaches includepublic authorities, nonprofit public corporations, special districts, and multicommunitycooperatives

Formulating an Integrated Solid Management Waste Strategy

The process of formulating a good integrated solid waste management strategy is consuming and difficult Ultimately, the system must be holistic; each of its parts must haveits own purpose and work in tandem with all the other pieces like a finely crafted, highly effi-cient piece of machinery Like a piece of machinery, it is unlikely that an efficient and well-functioning output is achieved unless a single design team, understanding its objective andworking with suppliers and customers, develops the design The successful integrated wasteplan drives legislation; it is not driven by legislation More legislation does not necessarilylead to more source reduction and recycling In fact, disparate pieces of legislation or regu-lation can work at cross purposes Moreover, the free market system works best when there

time-is some sense of stability and certainty, which encourages rtime-isk taking because it time-is easier topredict expected market response The faster a holistic framework for waste management isstabilized, the more likely public decision making will obtain needed corporate investment.The first stage of planning involves carefully defining terminology, including what wastesare covered, what wastes are not covered, and what activities constitute recycling and com-posting It also requires the articulation of clear policy goals for the overall waste manage-ment strategy Is the goal to achieve the most cost-effective strategy that is environmentallyprotective or to maximize diversion from landfills? There are no absolutely right or wronganswers However decision makers should share the definitions, key assumptions, and goalswith the public for their review and comment

The second stage involves identification of the full range of possible options and themethodical collection of environmental risks and costs associated with each option Data col-lection is best done before any strategy has been selected The cost estimates for recycling andcomposting can be highly variable depending on what assumptions are made about marketdemand and what actions are taken to stimulate markets These differing assumptions aboutmarkets can also impact the assumptions on environmental risks, since some types of reuse sce-narios have more severe environmental impacts than others The stringency of the regulatorypermitting and enforcement programs that set and enforce standards for each type of wastemanagement facility, including recycling facilities and facilities that use recycled materialinputs in the manufacturing process, will also impact the costs and environmental risks associ-ated with various options Finally, the existence of product standards for recycled materials willimpact the costs and risks of various recycling and composting strategies The costs of all man-agement strategies will be volume-dependent Once this information is collected, the publicshould have the opportunity for meaningful input on the accuracy of the assumptions Accep-tance by the public at this stage can foster a smoother and faster process in the long run.The final step involves examining the tradeoffs between available options so that an option orpackage of options can be selected.At the core, these tradeoffs involve risk and cost comparisons.However, they also involve careful consideration of implementation issues such as financing,waste volumes, enforcement, permit time frames, siting issues, and likely future behavior changes.Some examples of implementation issues are useful Pay-by-the-bag disposal programsmay result in less garbage because people really cut back on their waste generation when theycan save money On the other hand, there has been some indication that pay-by-the-bag sys-tems have actually resulted in the same amount of garbage generated, but an increase in burn-ing at home or illegal dumping Another example is the need to assess the real effect of bottlebills Bottle bills may be very effective if collected bottles are reused, or if markets exist so thatthe collected bottles can be recycled However, in some locations bottle bills result in a dou-ble payment—once to collect the bottles and then again to landfill the bottles because noviable market strategy is in place A final example concerns flow control Flow controlpromises a way to ensure that each of the various solid waste facilities has enough waste torun efficiently On the other hand, if governments use flow control to send a private genera-tor’s waste to a poorly designed or operated solid waste facility, then the government may betampering with the generator’s Superfund liability, or the government may increase theamount of waste that is going to an environmentally inferior facility

Some computerized decision models have been developed which compare the costs of ious strategies However, these often require considerable tailoring before they accurately fit

var-a locvar-al situvar-ation It is often useful to develop var-a finvar-al strvar-ategy in var-an itervar-ative mvar-anner by firstselecting one or two likely approaches and then setting the exact parameters of the selectedapproach in a second iteration Public involvement is critical throughout the selection process

It may also be useful to develop an integrated waste management strategy by formulating

a series of generator-specific strategies Residential generators are one group of MSW ators Another important group includes the public sector, including municipalities and coun-ties, who generate their own waste streams Finally, there are numerous specific industrygroups such as the hotel industry, the restaurant industry, petrochemical firms, the pulp andpaper industry, and the grocery industry In each case, the character of the solid waste gener-ated will vary For some groups, all the waste will fall into the broad category of MSWs Forother groups, much of the waste will include industrial, agricultural, or other non-MSW waste

gener-In some cases, the variation within the generator category will be significant gener-In other cases,the within-group waste characterization is likely to be relatively uniform Industry-by-industry strategies, focusing on the largest waste generator categories, may result in moreimplementable and cost-effective strategies

1.7 KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESS

Arriving at successful solid waste management solutions requires more than just good ning The best technical solution may fail if politicians and government officials do not con-sider a series of other important points This section attempts to identify some of these points

plan-Credibility for Decision Makers

It is absolutely crucial to work to protect the credibility of those individuals who must mately make the difficult siting and permitting decisions Proper environmental standards forall types of facilities, including recycling, can help give decision makers necessary support.Credible enforcement that operates on a level playing field is also crucial Operator certifica-tion programs, company-run environmental audit programs, company-run environmentalexcellence programs, government award programs for outstanding facilities, and financialassurance provisions can also increase the public’s level of comfort with solid waste manage-ment facilities Finally, clear-cut siting procedures and dispute resolution processes can pro-vide decision makers with a crucial support system

ulti-Efficient Implementation Mechanisms Including Market Incentives

A number of things can be done to help facilitate program implementation Expedited mitting approaches for new facilities and expedited permit modification approaches forexisting facilities can be helpful Approaches such as class permits or differential require-ments based on the complexity of the facilities are examples Pilot programs can be particu-larly helpful in determining whether a program which looks good on paper will work well inreal life

per-Much of today’s federal and state legislation and regulation has focused on a and-control strategy Such a strategy relies on specified mandates that cover all parties withthe same requirements These requirements are developed independent of market conceptsand other basic business incentives, and, as a result, these approaches are often slower andmore expensive to implement for both the regulated and the regulators

command-Some of the most efficient implementation mechanisms involve the consideration of ket incentives Market approaches can significantly cut the cost of achieving a fixed amount of