The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984 Solid Waste Management PlanSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STUDY PREPARED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Catherine T. Thompson, Project Planner Jack S. Hawbaker, Executive Director James B. Witherspoon, Senior Planner John E. Gudmundson, Planning Drafter ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Planning Department is grateful to the Maryland Environmental Service and especially to its Technical Director, Dr. Cliff Willey, and his staff, for the valuable advice and assistance provided through- out the eighteen months this study was in progress. The state of the art in solid waste disposal is constantly dynamic; new ideas and innovative experiments rapidly change from popular to passe'. With so many possible avenues to explore, we have benefited im- measurably from the time and effort saved by the guidance provided by Dr. Willey. Our appreciation is also extended to Mr. William Shremp of Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, and to the American Public Works Association of Washington, D.C. for their aid in securing us with grant funds used in connection with this study. Others who have helped through sharLng their experience in the management of solid waste systems were John Jenks, the manager of the Charleston, South Carolina shredder facility, and Kenneth L. Cramer, Associate Program Director, Teledyne National, at the Baltimore County shredder facility, and to them we extend our thanks. DISCLAIMER Various commercial firms were contacted during the course of this report prepar- ation for both quotes and technical data. Mention of those companies or any of their products in this report does not constitute endorsement by the Board of County Commis- sioners nor of any agency of Washington County government. THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION William E. Wolford, Jr., Chairman John C. Herbst, Vice -Chairman Michael D. Barnhart Jack B. Byers Thomas W. Dwyer Charles F. Wagaman, Jr., Ex -Officio Donald E. Zombro TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. STUDY OBJECTIVES II -1 Previous Landfill Studies 11-2 Previous Resource Recovery Studies 11-8 III. EXISTING LANDFILL CONDITIONS III -1 IV. ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE IV -1 Weighing Surveys IV -1 Waste Stream Analysis IV -11 V. METHODS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL V-1 Landfilling V-1 Shredding V-8 Seerdrum V-25 Baling V-34 VI. VOLUME REDUCTION & ENERGY RECOVERY VI -1 Potential for Energy Recovery VI -4 Materials Recovery VI -5 VII. COMPARISONS BETWEEN LANDFILLING & SHREDDING VII -1 Volume Reduction & Landfill Life VII -1 Cost Comparisons VII -10 Conclusions VII -17 VIII. FUTURE LANDFILL SITE SELECTION VIII -1 IX. FINANCING METHODS IX -1 X. RECOMMENDATIONS X-1 GLOSSARY G-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page SOURCES CONSULTEE APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX B-1 APPENDIX B-2 APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H. APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L MES Source Separation Study MES Energy & Materials Recovery Study Cost Estimates for RDF Facilities Baltimore Co. Resource Recovery Facility 1976 MES Weighing Survey Health Dept. Policy on Daily Cover Quote from Hammermills, Inc Quote from Environmental Utilities Quote from Heil Company Quote from Gruendler Company Property Transfer Data Shredder FacilityStatistics Weighing Survey Form Health Dept. Policy on Rubble Disposal S--1 * Each appendix is identified with a cover sheet. TABLES AND FIGURES Table Page 1 Comparison of Waste Generation Factors II -10 2 Solid Waste Generation Areas 111-7 3 December Weighing --Tonnage Summary IV -5 4 December Weighing --Vehicle Summary IV -6 5 July Weighing --Tonnage Summary IV -9 6 July Weighing --Vehicle Summary IV -10 7 October Weighing --Tonnage Summary IV -13 8 October Weighing --Vehicle Summary IV -14 9 Landfill Costs --Capital & Operating V-5 10 Landfill Costs --Capital V-6 11 Landfill Costs -Operating V-7 12 Shredder Hammer Maintenance Costs V-13 13 Shredder Capital Cost Analysis V-18 14 Shredder Operating Cost Analysis V-20 15 Shredder Fccility Costs V-23 16 Shredder Capital & Operating Costs V-24 16a Combined Shredding & Landfilling Costs V -24a 17 Seerdrum Capital Costs V-32 18 Seerdrum Operating Costs V-33 19 Landfill vs. Shredding Cost Comparisons VII -15 20 Financing Method Characteristics IX -4 21 Financing Method Comparisons IX -7 TABLES AND FIGURES (cont.) Figure Page Figure 1 Solid Waste Generation Areas II1-6 Figure 2 Population Projections 111-9 Figure 3 Landfill Depiction V-1 Figure 4 Seerdrum System Diagram V-26 Figure 5 Reynolds Recovery System Diagram VI -11 Figure 6 Landfill & Shredder Cost Comparisons VII -16 Figure 7 Land Transfer History VII -20 Figure 8 Maryland Geologic Terranes VIII -2 Figure 9 Washington County Terranes VIII -3 Figure 10 Study Area VIII -5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1979, an estimate for two solid waste shredders was sub- mitted by the Landfill Department for the Capital Improvements Program for fiscal year 1982. Upon review of that submittal, the Planning Department recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that a study be conducted to determine the practicality of a shredder facility before any funds were committed. The study was authorized, and this report is the result of the analysis and findings of that study. Although the study grew from an initial question concerning the feasibility of a shredder facility, it became apparent that other accepted methods of solid waste disposal must be considered in order for the study to be comprehensive. From this, the study was designed to present a thorough analysis of each solid waste disposal method having potential value to Washington County. Portions of this study were done by the Maryland Environmental Service, and the contribu- tions from that office are contained in the appendix as well as referenced in the applicable sections of this report. DATA COLLECTION Intelligent decisions concerning the optimum method of solid waste disposal cannot be made without knowing the quantity and types of solid waste received at the landfill. All of the alternatives to landfilling--shredding, baling, modular combustion, materials recovery --will depend 'on the amount and composition of solid waste. i Incorrect assumptions or errors in calculation can result in the loss of a market for recovered material, cause a community to buy volume -reducing machinery that is either over or under capacity, or discover too late that the long-term operating costs are far beyond what was anticipated. For these and other reasons discussed in greater detail throughout the report, detailed weighing data are indispensable and the data must be compiled over sufficiently long periods of time so as to eliminate seasonal variations or changes resulting from temporary commercial, residential, or industrial waste disposal habits. Designing a weighing program with the assistance of MES was one of the first tasks undertaken, and the information col- lected over 28 working days in three seasons of the year formed the basis for comparisons and conclusions with each of the different waste disposal techniques explored by both MES and the Planning Department. Virtually all vehicles entering the landfill were weighed in surveys during December, 1980; July, 1981; and October, 1981, in addition to obtaining the net weight of the trash, detailed statistics were also compiled showing the waste generation area (see Figure 1, page 111-6) and the classification of the trash, i.e. whether it was residential, commercial, industrial, rubble, and the like. Because of the sheer volume of vehicles that were weighed and the numerous combinations of trash classification, a computer program was designed and the data were processed in that way. ii An analysis of these data was made,and from this analysis we learned that: 1. The average daily weight of trash coming into the landfill is. 391 tons. 2. The peak season daily average is 451 tons and 67 per- cent of this amount, 301 tons, could be processed through a shredder. 3. 16 percent of the total waste stream comes from an auto shredding firm and is already shredded. 4. 17 percent of the waste stream consists of demolition rubble, yard waste, and similar debris that should not require landfilling in the prescribed manner with six inches of daily cover. 5. The daily per capita waste generation rate for the County is 7.1 pounds. This includes all types of waste and is calculated by dividing the daily total tonnage by the population served by the landfill. Coincident with the publication of this report, the new 148 -acre Resh Road landfill site is becoming operational, and the 62 -acre City/County Landfill site is being closed. In addition to the pri- mary landfill, transfer stations are maintained by the County in three locations shown on Figure 1, and the 25 -acre Hancock landfill serves residents in the western section of the County. LANDFILLING Landfilling is nearly always the least expensive method of waste disposal for a community, particularly one with suitable, 1Yi available land. In comparison with the other waste disposal methods, both capital and operating costs are generally lower. Equipment consists of earth -moving machinery, and the over-all operation is relatively simple thereby avoiding the need for specialized techni- cal knowledge or specially trained personnel. Maintenance can usually be performed by on -site employees. The cost of operating a landfill in Washington County was computed for a 15 -year period. This period is used for comparison purposes throughout the report and is based on the life expectancy of a shredder; projections beyond that time would lose significance because of the reinvestment in new capital equipment. Table 9 on page V-5 shows the capital and operating costs for landfilling for each of the 15 years. For 1980, the base year for the study, the total cost per ton for operating the landfill, including capital expenditures was $3.23. At an annual inflation rate of 10 percent, the costs per ton will rise to $12.83 at the end of the 15 years. These costs will later be compared with the costs for operating a shredder facility for a comparable period. THE SHREDDING PROCESS Shredding itself became popular as a means of reducing solid waste volume in the 1960's and 1970's when national attention was directed to environmental concerns. New legislation plus public sentiment provided the impetus for local communities to do something about their waste problems. In communities where land was in abundance and where the geohydrologic conditions permitted, open 10 iv dumps gave way to landfills, but in those areas with high water tables or similar physical limitations with the environment, other methods were explored for maximizing the available land. In 1980, there were 70 shredder facilities throughout the United States in various stages of operation. Some were fully operable, some were under construction, and others were inoperable. Although a costly means of treating a waste stream, shredding, without any doubt, will reduce the volume and thereby provide for greater density of the material when it is landfilled. The extent to which the shredder will permit an increase in density with a corresponding savings in land area depends on a number of factors ranging from moisture content of the trash to the degree of. compaction resulting from the machinery moving across the landfilled waste. Studies con- ducted by the University of Wisconsin indicate that an average of 30 percent increase in density can be realized by the shredding process, and that figure is used in this study as a basis for both density increase and reduction in required landfill volume. (There will not be a one-to-one relationship between increased density and reduction in required volume, but for estimating purposes such a relationship will be assumed thereby paving the way for a meaningful analysis.) volume reduction is just one of the benefits of shredding. Re- source recovery --both materials and energy --can also be derived. Magnetic separators are used in conjunction with shredders for v extracting ferrous materials; non-ferrous metals can also be separated as can glass and plastics. Conceivably, cardboard could even be separated from the waste stream on a feeder conveyor and marketed. The material produced by the shredder is homogeneous and small in particle size, and the need to provide daily cover, from a technical viewpoint, may not be necessary. The garbage will have been thoroughly mixed with non -organic materials to such an extent that rats and birds presumably will not be attracted. If no daily cover were required, and if the volume reduction were significant, the life of the landfill would be prolonged thereby saving the County money it would otherwise spend on new land. of shredding. These are some of the advantages What are the disadvantages? There are two types of shredders: horizontal axis shredders and vertical axis shredders, and they both do the same thing. Trash is fed into the shredder via a conveyor system and the shredder beats it to small pieces with huge flailing hammers mounted on a shaft. An average capacity shredder can handle 40 to 50 tons of refuse per hour, and this would be the type needed by Washington County based on a peak season flow of about 300 pro- cessable tons per day. Despite the size and hardness of the steel -alloy hammers, they do wear down with time and they need to be either re- placed or built up by welding additional lengths to them. The average cost of hammer wear equates to 40 cents per ton. The current waste stream will produce 81,295 processable tons each year with a resulting vi cost of $32,518 for hammer maintenance. Explosions are prevalent in shredders. One small can of gasoline in the waste stream will blow a shredder apart. Downtime is of no small consideration. A can of varnish that entered a shredder in San Diego blew out three of four walls of the shredder station. At the Baltimore County shredder facility, the cost of replacing explosion suppression devices is $6,500 per device in addition to cost incurred by the damage. Downtime can range from several days to many months. Additional disadvantages are provided in the report in Section V. Perhaps the most significant feature of a shredder installation is its cost. Cost estimates were obtained from several companies that manufacture shredders; the most complete estimate is from Hammermills, Inc. Based on that company's quote, the initial capital cost for purchasing a shredder is $2.4 million excluding dust and noise suppression equipment and shredder installation at the site. These costs would be extra; the County would have to hire a contractor for the equipment installation. The cost per ton for processing waste through a shredder for the first year (in 1980 dollars) would be $9.52. This includes an operating cost of $612,176 and an annualized capital cost of $161,517. The costs will escalate yearly through the fifteenth year when they will reach $28.29 per ton. This is just for the shredding operation itself exclusive of landfilling the shredded material. The concept of shredding as opposed to landfilling is frequently viewed as an either-or situation. Such is not the case. Landfilling will always be required in support of a shredding facil- ity. The landfill in support of shredding will be less expensive to operate than a regular landfill, but for 1980 the cost would have been $2.80 per ton. This, added to the $9.52, brings the total shredder/auxiliary landfill cost to $12.32 a ton in 1980 dollars. By the end of the 15 -year study period, the cost will rise to $38.68 per ton. CT: FDT%DTTM Wicomico County, on Maryland's eastern shore, employs a volume reduction system called by its trade name, Seerdrum, an English designed mechanism that operates on the principle that most of the waste stream is water-soluble. The Seerdrum is a long cylinder that rotates on its horizontal axis into which the waste stream is fed where it is turned for -about 45 minutes. Cans, bottles, and large pieces of trash exit the Seerdrum via a trommel onto one conveyor while the water-soluble material that is now reduced to small pieces comes out onto another conveyor for transport in trucks to the land- fill. A magnetic separator pulls out the ferrous metal, and the aluminum products are separated from the exiting waste by hand. Card- board is also separated from the waste stream by hand at the input conveyor stage. Wicomico County has secured a market for all of the extracted materials and sells them regularly, but the profit factor is unknown since there does not appear to be available data within the county to show how much it costs to separate the materials and trans- port them to market. Only the revenues are known. viii The Seerdrum carries the advantage of simplicity. Since its initial installation a couple of years ago, there has been no down- time at the Wicomico County site. Because of this simple design, highly skilled personnel are not required, The relatively slow operating speed permits time for the cardboard to be picked from the entering waste stream and aluminum cans from the exiting conveyor. Explosions, according to available information, are unknown since there is no flailing action like that of a shredder that will produce friction and heat. The water injected into the Seerdrum would suppress any fire that may start. The Seerdrum system, however, is a slow one. During the peak season flow, the landfill will be receiving 221 processable tons daily, or 34 tons per hour, as opposed to the 301 daily tons that could be processed through a shredder. This estimate is based on actual analysis of the incoming waste stream for the July weighing period. With this volume, it would take three Seerdrums to handle the daily waste; the alternative would be a second shift at the land- fill or some combination of extra shifts and extra equipment. The capital cost for such a system with three Seerdrums will be about $3.3 million. The total capital and operating cost for a Seerdrum system will be $7.29 per ton plus another $3.23 for landfilling with a total cost of $10.52 per ton, BALING Little information is available on the subject of baling as a means of solid waste disposal. It appears that 60 percent increase in density is the generally accepted figure, but just as with shredding ix or the Seerdrum operation, this ratio can vary greatly depending on the types of material in the waste stream. Until comprehensive studies have been made on this type of system, baling should be used only by those communities with known space problems where in- creased compaction is mandatory. Some localities are short of landfill space to the extent that baled waste is hauled to another site miles away. Washington County does not have that problem. RESOURCE RECOVERY Resource recovery encompasses two methods of processing solid waste: 1) burning the waste for the production of steam, and 2) extracting the materials for resale to a known market. The first method is practical where sufficient industrial or institutional users are available to whom the steam could be sold, and the second method is practical only where guaranteed markets for the recovered materials can be secured. In an ideal situation, both methods would be used wherein the recoverable materials --ferrous, glass, paper, aluminum --would first be extracted, and the remaining portion of the waste stream used as Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). Appendix B has been prepared by MES and the energy -from -waste potential for Washington County has been explored. The reader should refer to Section V of that report for more detail of this important aspect of solid waste management. In its analysis, MES considered the potential for future markets for low-pressure steam and RDF with the following: Mack Trusk, Inc., Fairchild Industries, Inc., Maryland Correctional Institution, Marquette Cement, Potomac Edison at Williamsport, and F.1 Hagerstown MELP. Other markets like Pangborn Corporation and the Washington County Hospital were considered too small to make a substantial contribution to the disposal needs of the County. The overall outlook for energy sales by the County government to local industry does not appear inviting. Initial costs for capital equip- ment are high. The average price for a facility producing both RDF and steam is around $10 million. There is also competition in the form of natural gas and low -sulfur coal with some of the industries. Unstable economic condition and low summer demand will make the potential even less appealing. MES expresses some optimism toward MELP for the long run, but it is a cautious optimism. The experiences of other localities in the country --Ames, Iowa, and Madison, Wisconsin -- show that the cost per ton can range from $11 to $22 where municipal light plants have been retrofitted to burn solid waste. A detailed study is necessary to determine the market potential for recovered materials. The practicality of such an operation will depend on the type of recovery system used, the method of trans- porting the material, and the demand for the materials at any particular time. A community, including Washington County, should not consider materials recovery without a long-term contract with a buyer wherein the market is guaranteed. Paper, in particular, has an unstable market, and the offering price will fluctuate greatly. Stockpiling would be necessary to take advantage of this price variation, and that would require space. Technically, recovery of these resources -- ferrous, paper, aluminum --would not be the problem; making it a profitable venture is the trick. EXTENDING LANDFILL LIFE How much landfill area will be saved in a 15 -year period if the County shreds the solid waste instead of landfilling it as we now do? Volume reduction with a shredder facility depends on four things: 1) the degree of pulverization, 2) the amount of recyclable materials extracted, 3) the amount of daily cover saved, and 4) the degree of compaction once the shredded material is landfilled. Oliver -Cutup & Associates prepared a report several years ago called "Design Report for Resh Road Landfill" in which the estimated life of the new site was 17 years. Using the same technical assumptions that were in that report but adjusting the figures to account for revised population projections and newer per capita waste estimates, the life of the landfill was re -estimated. If the County continues to landfill, the site should last 22 years. If, however, the County were to purchase a shredder facility, the land would be filled at a slower rate and in 15 years (the expected life of a shredder) only 79 acres would be filled. 21 acres would therefore be saved by converting to a shredder operation. What are the economics of saving 21 acres? Table 19 on page VII -15 of the report shows that during a 15 -year period, it will cost $14.6 million to continue with the landfilling operation and $34.4 million if we convert to shredding, with a cost difference of $19.8 million. The cost of saving 21 acres is therefore $19.8 mil- lion over a 15 -year period with a unit cost of $933,000 per acre. xii Conclusions and Recommendations 1. The County should continue landfilling. The alternatives explored in the study are either unacceptably expensive or lacking in market practicality. Washington County is fortunate because it has potentially available land in a sector where landfilling can be supported by the geohydrologic characteristics of the soil. 2. Land availability should not be taken for granted. The County Commissioners should begin now to seek additional sites. If the search is put off too long, and if new land is not obtainable, expensive volume reduction could become an unacceptable alternative. 3. The data used in this study were obtained from three weighing surveys over a period of only 28 working days. All of the applicable calculations are based on those data. We know, for example, that for the peak season the processable waste for a Seerdrum was 50 percent of the total waste stream, and that the average processable waste for the December and July surveys was 59 percent. Additional surveys may indicate yet another percentage. In order to establish confidence in the numbers, weighings must be taken over long periods of time. Without confidence in the numbers, reliable decisions cannot be made. The recently refurbished Winslow 80 -ton scale should be reinstalled as soon as possible at the site by a scale contractor and continuous weighing begun. New electronic equipment has already been purchased, and the cost of putting the scale into operation now will be minor compared to the cost several years from now. 4. Efforts should be initiated in conjunction with the State Health Department to establish a rubble site for the disposal of that fraction of the waste stream not requiring daily cover. At present, the landfill receives demolition rubble, tree limbs, yard waste, and residue from the Conservit shredding operation and eventually it is all covered. There are economies to be realized here and the savings per year will amount to thousands of dollars. 5. The Hancock landfill was not included in this analysis, but preliminary checking shows that the continued operation of this site as a landfill is probably not cost effective. A study should be undertaken to determine the cost and effort to make it a transfer station. The cost of operating the City/County landfill was $4.42 per ton for fiscal year 1982; the estimated cost of operating the Hancock site was, at a minimum, $11.06. The area served by the Hancock site contains only three percent of the County's population, yet it takes over seven percent of the total landfill budget to operate it. 6. A separate area should be designed for receiving all incoming trash from residential vehicles. At present, every vehicle entering the landfill deposits its trash at the working cell. This is neither cost-effective nor safe. One or more green boxes should be placed at a well -designed location where cars and other residential -type vehicles can stay clear of the traffic pattern created by the heavy trucks. Such a location should be designed by the County Engineering Department. xiv 7. The Board of County Commissioners adopted a policy effective January 1, 1976, that prohibited the disposal of vehicular tires at the landfill unless they had previously been sliced around the circumference. Unsliced tires present problems in the landfill operation because of their bouyancy, and they present an unnecessary cost to the County. During the 24 -day weighing period for July and October, a total of 28 tons of unsliced tires was dumped at the landfill. If this volume is indicative of the average, the yearly total will be 365 tons. The adopted policy should be enforced. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The disposal of solid waste has become a challenging issue in communities throughout the United States in recent years and has commanded the attention of government and the public alike. With the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970, open burning and earlier methods of closed incineration have given way to sanitary landfills across the country; additionally, environmental and aesthetic concerns have prompted the public to regard landfilling as the preferred method of waste disposal. However, despite the success of landfilling as a method of disposing of municipal solid waste, it is not without its problems. The high cost of land and the shortage of suitable sites have caused communities to look for acceptable alternatives. This search has also been spurred by techni- cal considerations such as high water tables and geohydrologic incompatibility. With the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by Congress in 1976, attention has shifted from the simple disposal methods suggested by the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 to the development of more sophisticated techniques. Two of these are resource recovery and waste volume reduction. Waste volume re- duction can extend the life of the landfill, conserve material resources, and reduce environmental damage, while resource recovery can generate a source of reusable materials and provide an otherwise untapped revenue for the local government. A variety of alternative systems for solid waste management deserve consideration by a community. Since no two communities are exactly alike, factors peculiar to the area must be explored before final decisions are made. Most alternative systems will require a high initial capital expenditure plus progressively high operating costs. Some of the factors requiring detailed consideration (as we will examine more fully in subsequent sections) are: costs, both capital and operating; resource recovery markets; types and amounts of trash generated; topography; geologic structure of the area; land availability; and public opinion. The purpose of this study is to explore the various alternatives open to Washington County for solid waste management and, through the process of elimination, to recommend the most practical method consistant with sound land use, long-term costs, and public benefit. The study itself grew from an initial question concerning the practi- cality of a shredder operation in conjunction with landfilling for the purpose of prolonging landfill life. It soon became apparent, however, that the analysis of any single aspect of solid waste management to the exclusion of others would only provide half a story. The study, then, has been designed to present a thorough analysis of each solid waste disposal method having potential value to Washington County in the foreseeable future. The study contains no small amount of supporting statistical information in the form of estimates, projections, and extrapolations. I - 2 Before Washington County could the systems discussed, it would to the necessary data mentioned study. The cost of alternative has been based on the best data figures would be reflected in a in this report are not intended engineering study. entertain the practicality of any of first need to obtain, in addition above, a detailed engineering systems estimated in this analysis available at the time; truer cost site -specific study. The analysis as a substitute for such an Throughout the preparation of this analysis, one fact became increasingly clear: the peculiarities of a community demand as much supporting data as can possibly be obtained before alternative methods of waste disposal are even initially considered. The accumulation of these data, in the form of waste types and amount, will provide the foundation for the wisest decisions; in the absence of such data, resulting decisions based on assumptions can result in financial disaster. A great amount of literature from both a technical and a popular perspective has been published in recent years on the subject of resource recovery and its resulting benefits to a community. Claims of success, technical and financial, are many. There are also stories that demonstrate that hindsight is better than foresight. Some communities have learned through trial and error that resource recovery is not a panacea for its solid waste problems. Each com- munity is unique; the solution to one locality's problems may not be acceptable to another. All the factors relating to solid waste within the community must be assessed before decisions are made. That point of view forms the basis for this study. I - 4 STUDY OBJECTIVES STUDY OBJECTIVES The overall objective of this study has been to determine the optimum solid waste management practice for Washington County. To achieve this objective, the County waste stream was examined, the present landfill operation was reviewed, and various current solid waste technologies were explored. Energy and material mar- kets were surveyed and analyzed to assess their role in solid waste management within the County. Research was conducted to determine the feasibility of the numerous solid waste disposal methods, including source separation, shredding, baling, modular combustion, plus several other innovative techniques. Financing for all these possible choices of solid waste disposal methods were similarly investigated. Among these solid waste alternatives, foremost consideration was given to the feasibility of a shredder facility for the purpose of extending the life of the County sani- tary landfill. The information accumulated throughout the study provided insight into the economic, legal, and technical aspects of solid waste management. These tasks were accomplished by the County Planning Department with assistance from Maryland Environ- mental Service (hereafter referred to as M.E.S.). Three weighing programs were conducted to ascertain both the quantity and types of solid waste disposed at the City/County land- fill. The economics and methods of operation of many solid waste management programs are sensitive to changes in the quantity and composition of the solid waste. The variations in amount and the composition will affect the revenues derived from tipping fees, the sale of recovered energy and materials, and the cost of oper- ating volume -reduction equipment. Seasonal variations in refuse generation must be known in order to determine peak input rates and storage requirements. Compositional analysis is the basis for determining the recoverable quantity of material and energy and for estimating revenues. These weighing surveys were signif- icant to this study and to solid waste management analysis within the County because until now previous studies were conducted based on either national averages or personal guesses of the solid waste stream. The only exception to this was a two-day survey conducted by M.E.S. in 1976 which was really not representative of the total waste stream because of its brief duration. See Table 1 for waste generation factors of previous studies as compared to this present study. Of additional significance are the various pro- jections shown in this study which, because they were based on 1970 and 1980 Census figures, are far more reliable than previous projections. A brief history of studies on solid waste management and resource recovery is provided below for the purpose of showing a comparison between the objectives of those studies and the objectives of this study. This summary will provide the reader with back- ground of previous effort directed toward resource recovery and will illustrate the development of practices that have lead to cur- rent landfill disposal techniques. This summary is extracted from II - 2 the Resource Recovery Pre -Feasibility Study for the Hagerstown Municipal Electric Light Plant (MELP) conducted by Henningson, Durham & Richardson in 1978. Previous Landfill Studies 1. In 1966, a report by the University of Maryland (Nash and Maher, 1966) made the following con- clusions concerning refuse collection and disposal in Washington County: The County should initiate its own collection service in some unincorporated areas of the County and form a separate department to be responsible for collection and disposal operations. Solid waste disposal in sanitary landfills would satisfactorily serve the needs of the County. Surveys should be conducted to determine types and quantities of waste generated for use in planning future landfill sites. 2. In its 1970 report, "Air Pollution in Washington County", the Maryland Division of Air Quality Control based its waste estimates on a generation rate of 4 lb./person/day, including allowance for industrial, domestic, and commercial disposal. Eight refuse disposal sites were then open. The Division estimated that 44,700 tons/year refuse were subject to burning in open dumps and 18,000 tons/year to on -site burning. II - 3 3. The "Solid Waste Management Plan for Washington County" (Baker Wibberley, 1974) found that: Washington County lacked a plan for solid waste management as required by Article 43, Section 387C of the Health Laws of Maryland. Incorporated municipalities provided some form of collection service, although Hancock was the only town using municipal employees. Solid waste collection outside Federal reser- vations and incorporated municipalities was under the free enterprise system and was unregulated. The six existing landfills were unplanned, efficient use was not being made of available land, and all sites were contributing to pollution problems. The Solid Waste Plan recommended that: The County contract with a private hauler for house -to -house collection in most of the Hagers- town Metropolitan Area and in the Sharpsburg and Cavetown areas. Green box containers and two transfer stations should be used to serve certain other areas of the County. The Dargan and Kaetzel landfills should be closed and the County should renegotiate for continued use of the Hancock and Williamsport municipal landfills. 4. The Maryland Environmental Service liminary survey of County landfill All trucks were weighed in and out Landfill, but private cars with ani and most of the pickup trucks were avoid a traffic problem. conducted a pre - operations in 1976. of the Resh Road 3 without trailers not weighed to II - 4 The results of the survey showed that 87.3% of the 368 tons of refuse delivered by truck in a two-day period appeared processable, while 12.7% contained wood, construction, and demolition debris. There was some question as to the validity of the results and of estimates by the Landfill'sDirector due to the condition of the scales, weather conditions, and the large number of private vehicles which deliver refuse to the site. (See Appendix C for more specific results of survey) . 5. The first annual review of the 1974 County Solid Waste Management Plan was made by the Planning Department in 1978 and provided a summary of current solid waste col- lection and disposal practices in Washington County. The 1978 review included the following inventories: Existing disposal sites. Equipment and personnel at each site. Refuse collection' equipment in Washington County. Henningson, Durham and Richardson verified and updated the 1978 review information contained in the inven- tories during their MELP study. The waste quantities were based on estimates by the Landfill Director. The 1978 review recommended that a Solid Waste Adminis- trator be appointed to develop a public awareness campaign, coordinate collection processes, institute a system of record keeping at all sites, develop a solid waste ordinance, and plan for landfill acqui- sition and re -use. The 1978 review also recommended that: The Hancock Landfill be replaced with a transfer station. A shredding operation be included in plans for the new Resh Road Landfill. City and County cooperate to support this study on energy recovery from solid waste at the Municipal Electric Light Plant. Part of the Resh Road Landfill be set aside as a centralized public composting station. 6. In 1970, the County purchased a 148 -acre site for future landfilling five miles northwest of Hagerstown adjacent to the Conococheague Creek. As part of the landfill permit application to the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Oliver-Cump and Associates in 1977 prepared a design report and drawings for this new Resh Road Landfill. Based on the then -current projec- tions of population growth and increasing refuse generation rates, the Oliver-Cump report estimated that the landfill will last from 1980 through 1997. Refuse quantities for 1980 were estimated in 1977 to be 125,187 tons, or 343 tons/day, based on a projected 1980 popula- tion of 118,268 generating 5.8 lb./capita/day. II - 6 Previous Resource Recovery Studies 1. Henningson, Durham & Richardson in January 1978 pre- sented a report to the City of Hagerstown which studied the preliminary feasibility of an energy and materials recovery project from solid waste within the City of Hagerstown and surrounding Washington County. The following recommendations were made in that study: • The proposed resource recovery project should be pursued as rapidly as possible. Final approval should be obtained from the public. A detailed study of converting one high pressure boiler to spreader -stoker operation for firing RDF and coal should be conducted. The City should select an implementation approach and reach a jurisdictional agreement with the County, which is responsible for the landfill and for solid waste management planning. All remaining institutional, technical, and regulatory questions should be answered during a preliminary design phase before a "GO -NO GO" decision is reached on long term bonding. This phase would include about 30% design, an economic analysis, and environmental assessment, and permit applications and approvals. • Once the bonding decision is made, firm commitments should be obtained from materials markets and from manufacturers of long lead-time equipment. Further recommendations are as follows: • Better measurements should be made of available waste quantities on a seasonal and on a.yearly bases. • Wastewater treatment solids should not be burned in MELP boilers, but some processed waste could be used as a bulking agent if sludge is composted. • The availability of wood wastes and the possibility of using wood energy resources in the Hagerstown area should also be investigated. II - 7 2. A brief three -page analysis of refuse derived fuel use at the Hagerstown M.E.L.P. by Urban Systems Technology (April, 1976) estimated a break-even amount of $13.64/ton for processing, transporting, and storing 108,877 tons/year of RDF from Montgom- ery County. That price was based on the following: Cost of purchasing energy from Allegheny Power System $2,823,514 Less coal cost - 1,133,536 Less amortization of capital costs - 205,016 Total RDF break-even amount $1,484,967 Capital costs included RDF receiving and storage facil- ities and electrostatic precipitators. RDF heat input was assumed to be 70% for the low pressure units and 50% for the high pressure units. The analysis did not consider boiler modification, RDF feeding equipment, disposal of additional, ash, and increased operation and maintenance costs which would be associated with burning RDF in the existing boilers. 3. The MES was involved in a study to generate interest on the part of State officials in the excess RDF pro- duced at Cockeysville which could not be used in Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E) power plants or at the Baltimore City Gas Pyrolysis Plant. MES was II - 8 le seeking funds to also investigate the market for RDF at the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) Dickerson Plant in Montgomery County (Schultz, 1978). The cost of transporting RDF to plants outside of Baltimore County was considered, and this lead to a study in Washington County. The Maryland Correctional Institution (MCI)/Maryland Correctional Training Center (MCTC) is a State prison facility with approximately 3000 inmates located five miles south of Hagerstown. From December 1976 through May 1977, Systems Technology Corporation conducted tests in the MCI power plant with pelletized RDF burned with coal in travelling grate boilers. The tests were conducted under contract with the EPA and with the cooperation of the Maryland Department of General Ser- vices. The RDF was obtained from the Baltimore County Resource Recovery Plant in Cockeysville, Maryland, and converted to pellets using a California pellet mill operated by the National Center for Resource Recovery in Washington, D. C. About 250 tons of 1/2 inch pellets were used in the tests. No loss in steam pressure was observed when up to 10% by weight of RDF pellets were substituted for coal. There were feeding and dusting problems because of the temporary, manual system used to convey pellets into the coal larry (sic). II - 9 U) w z H o u H H E-' w W H HO Q aH H H O O O V C)Iz HO wz O t!) 4.3 N 44 0 U) N 2 0 A CflQ Nr~ • 1-I r1 •r 0 N w E O rG 4J 4-) U 0 +� QJ I 4 Td J U)H4 G 4! a rows H -o Cl) r�NNc0N }4 C - 4 a •.-I 44 U U V >4Nooa)wo� Id`".o °r$ o O `dam O O g Ul N N 18 4J -2 •n 4J 4J •r -I r-4 44 �ul > t4 34J 8 Q4"H cU444r8 a). O M Q) I� 4 0 Wo ono a �' N v 0'4 U 4 -r1 ra ?� '� rl •r, r* w is cd r♦ �.' •w 4rHCd1 ma z - w9 128 QUs� c� dN U Ln Ln -P r -I CO O1 -T CO M CO M 00 O !n If l0 l0 N IS) to lQ lQ N N CO o a O N w (N OO NO If 0t n0 ko W N CO a1 O N CO CO Ol O1 O I d> O1O1 O1O O1O1O%O1O1 O r -I r-Irir}N r4r-1r-IriN CO r -I r1 0 L W f 0 N O U N CO co W N N C') H 8 JU0UN �00 -rl -H O a 44 • G r -I 4) NOC1 U 90 -H N a+ �+ B , �3100cr, rf ri N CO CO N C') ra 4J U r•t C CO 0-H Cd c2i r -I CO N 4J Oo II >4i 4i .i N EXISTING LANDFILL CONDITIONS EXISTING LANDFILL CONDITIONS Washington County is currently operating two landfill sites. The principal disposal area is a 62 -acre site owned by the City of Hagerstown and operated by the County. This site is in the process of closing out at which time the new 148 -acre Resh Road Landfill will become operational. The second landfill is a 25 -acre site owned by the Town of Hancock and operated by the County. The Hancock Landfill is located approximately two miles northeast of the town at the end of Sensel Road near the Tonoloway Creek. This landfill accomodates Hancock's waste disposal needs and those of residences, commercial establishments, and industries in most of Election District 5. For the purposes of this study, solid waste generated in the Town of Hancock and Election District 5 will be assumed to be disposed at. the Hancock Landfill, and the population of 3609 for the Hancock service area (ED 5) is likewise not included in the County popula- tion totals, for any of this study's calculations or projections for the Resh Road Landfill. In addition to the two public landfills, transfer stations, also referred to as "green boxes",are maintained at Dargan, Kaetzel Road, and Greensburg Road near Smithsburg. Each of these locations contain two 40 -cubic yard open top containers which are transported to the main landfill as needed. These transfer stations accept residential trash only and account for approximately 2.2 percent of the total waste stream dumped at the County landfill. The preceding section on objectives provided a summary of previous studies on solid waste management in the County, but none of these studies involved extensive weighing of the waste stream. From this, it became apparent at the inception of this study that in order to provide elected officials with the maxi- mum amount of information necessary for both near -term and long-term decisions, reliable data must be accrued. The amount and compo- sition of solid waste received at a landfill will vary with the seasons, and, in order to determine the types and quantities, these data must be accumulated of a period of time to compensate for seasonal variations. Ideally, a weighing program for a community will be continuous to assure a dependable source of statistics, but since time is a.governing factor in a study like this, three weighing periods covering three seasons of the year were selected. The 80 -ton Winslow scale at the City -County Landfill was reconditioned in the summer of 1981, and new instrumentation --a Detecto Digital Weight Indicator and a Detecto Ticket Printer -- was purchased to replace the original Winslow mechanical scale head. In addition to the calibration by the contractor, scale accuracy was confirmed to be within one-half of one percent through repeated checks against known gross weights of trucks from Conservit where certified, commercial scales were used. The first weighing program was in December, 1980, the second in July, 1981, and the third in October, 1981. The information obtained during these weighing surveys for both quantity and composition of waste formed.the data base for all other elements of this study. Advance planning for these surveys resulted in a high degree of data reliability. Commer- cial waste haulers were contacted to secure their cooperation, and all other vehicles were either weighed or, in the case of passenger cars, assigned a known weight based on selective sampling. More detail on the surveys is provided in the following section, Analysis of Solid Waste. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the three transfer sta- tions and the City/County, Resh Road, and Hancock Landfills. As shown, the County was divided into Solid Waste Generation Areas during the study period. This was done to analyze the areas of waste generation in relationship to population distribution and to monitor the extent to which County residents utilize the trans- fer stations. Table 2 shows the percentage of municipal solid waste (MSW) received at the County landfill during the July Weighing Survey by waste generation area. Waste generation area information was not collected during the December, 1980 survey; for that reason, only the July, 1981 survey is used as a basis for the waste genera- tion statistics. The July survey was conducted over a continuous twelve -day period during which time approximately 450 tons per day were deposited at the landfill. Weighing during the summer season reflects the highest generation rate because of the large amount of waste classified as Brush/Yard; Construction/Siding/ Remodeling; and Rubble/Demolition and Land Excavation. During the Summer Weighing Survey these classifications represented"19% of the total waste stream as opposed to 6% collected during the winter survey. As expected, waste generation area 5 generated 85% of total weekly solid waste. The population in this area is 72,638 and includes the municipalities of Hagerstown, Funkstown, and Williamsport. Since density and waste generation is the heaviest in this area of the County, waste generation area 5 was selected as the study area for the Source Separation Feasibility Study done by Maryland Environmental Service in conjunction with this report. (The results of that report are in Appendix A). Waste generation area 2 (population 26,463) includes several rural towns and contributed 6% of total weekly solid waste. The Greensburg transfer station, located in this area, generated approximately 1.2% of the 6% contributed weekly in waste generation area 2. Waste generation areas 1 and 4 each contributed 1% to the total weekly waste stream. All waste collected in waste generation area 1 originated at the Dargan and Kaetzel transfer stations before it was transported to the County landfill by private hauler. Waste generation area 3 encompasses Election District 5 including the Town of Hancock and is serviced by the Hancock Landfill. No vehicles surveyed during the July Weighing Survey reported that their loads originated in this part of the County. The remaining 7% of solid waste could not be. identified by a particular waste generation area; this part of the waste stream was dumped at the landfill by private vehicles which were routed past the scale due to their small loads. 91 M a Li {1J w cV u w cr 4.i a o z o w Dz o o cn. o c ® s- e w a m a _ a, a, Q C U C N yr w w z = (0 a x U) 111k —. r-� TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE GENERATION AREAS WASTE (PERSONS/ PERCENTAGE GENERATION POP. SQ. MILES SQ. MI.) OF TOTAL NSW* AREAS DENSITY BY GENERATION AREA # 1 ED 11 1550 21.257 72.92 l%+ ED 8 1901 16.068 118.31 TOTALS 3451 37.325 92.46 General Notes: No incorporated municipalities. Land Use: Rural Residential, Agriculture, Forest Land Density: Light # 2 ED 1 2313 24.421 94.71 6%+ ED 19 1216 12.756 95.33 ED 6 3927 21.110 186.03 ED 16 2725 22.048 123.59 ED 7 4413 20.170 218.79 ED 14 4155 13.992 296.96 ED 20 1555 20.071 77.47 ED 12** 3089 17.698 174.54 ED 9 3070 18.093 169.68 TOTALS 26,463 170.359 155.34 General Notes: Includes the following municipalities; Sharpsburg 721 Pop. Keedysville 476 Pop. Boonsboro 1908 Pop. Smithsburg 833 Pop. Land Use: Rural Towns, Rural Residential, Agriculture Density: iiedium # 3 ED 5 3609 52.496 68.67 00+ General Notes: Includes the following municipality: Hancock 1892 Pop. Land Use: Rural Residential, Agriculture (Orchard), Forest Land Density: Light * Municipal Solid Waste ** MCI Included + Percentageis based on Summer weighing only TABLE 2 (CONT'D) WASTE GENERATION POP. SQ. MILES AREAS (PERSONS/ PERCENTAGE SQ. MI.) OF TOTAL MSW DENSITY BY GENERATION AREA 4 ED 15 1694 46.862 36.15 1%+ ED 4 2368 27.981 84.63 ED 23 2863 26.151 109.48 TOTALS 6925 100.99 68.57 General Notes: Includes the following municipality: Clear Spring 462 Pop. Land Use: Rural Residential, Agriculture, Forest Land Density: Light # 5 ED 2 4718 14.289 330.18 850 ED 10** 7801 15.276 510.67 ED 18 5532 20.615 268.35 ED 27 5069 8.210 617.42 ED 13 5030 23.087 217.87 ED 24 867 5.192 166.99 ED 26 9489 5.539 1713.13 Hagerstown 34132 9.218 3702.76 TOTALS 72,638 101.426 716.17 General Notes: Includes the Hagerstown Funks town Williamsport Land Use: Residential, Agriculture Density: Heavy following municipalities: 34,132 Pop. 1103 Pop. 1867 Pop. Commercial, Industrial, LAND AREA % OF % OF POPULATION (SQ. MI.) DENSITY POPULATION LAND AREA #1 3451 37.325 92.46 3.05 8.06 #2 26463 170.359 155.34 23.40 36.83 #3 3609 52.50 68.74 3.19 11.36 #4 6925 100.99 68.57 6.12 21.83 #5 72638 101.43 716.14 64.23 21.92 TOTALS 113086 462.6 244.46 100.00 100.00 *Municipal Solid Waste **MCTC Included +Percentage is based on Summer weighing only cD rn m N O U) If) Z dO oD o a- m U N W 0 Q W p Q z <O z r >- )- 0 w Z _ (D P- Z W A O Q CD 0 OO CU - W I cD ti O O I 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 o e o o 0 0 No►IVlndod N J H w T T T _ O ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE Introduction When analysing the feasibility of various solid waste manage- ment options --sanitary landfilling, shredding, energy recovery, and the like --it is extremely important to have firm data on waste type and quantity. Previous studies conducted in Washington County were based on estimates of solid waste quantities and type without the benefit of a weighing program. This study was based on actual weighing surveys conducted at the City/County Landfill. After data were collected and compiled under the direction of the Planning Department, it was then analyzed with assistance from M.E.S. Techni- cal Services Staff. The following section was prepared by M.E.S. with data supplied from the December and July weighings and sup- plemented as necessary with additional information or edited to delete data discussed elsewhere. Solid Waste Survey The surveys of December and July were designed to provide the maximum amount of information without interfering unduly with nor- mal landfill activities. To accomplish this: 1. As stated in the section on Existing Landfill Conditions, all known commercial haulers were contacted in advance. An identification tag with a number was assigned to each truck and the hauler was instructed to display the tag on the windshield. This enabled the scale 'v-1 operator to enter the ID number along with the known truck tare weight into the digital indicator. This last feature was refined by the July survey so that the average weighing time per truck was approximately thirty seconds including the data -printout on a ticket form designed for this purpose. See the Appendix K for a sample of this form. 2. Small trucks and pick-ups with small loads and auto- mobiles were not required to stop for weighing on a regular basis. It was determined by random weighings that loads for these vehicles could be estimated at an average of 400 pounds for small trucks and 150 pounds for each automobile. 3. City of Hagerstown trucks, because of their use of the landfill during the night, were not weighed. It was determined that these trucks contain an average of 4.93 tons per load. Waste Categories During the survey, wastes were categorized as follows: 1. Residential - Household wastes delivered at the land- fill either by the City of Hagerstown, private haulers, or by residents themselves. 2. Commercial - Wastes from shopping centers, small busi- nesses, stores, office buildings and so on. IV - 2 3. Industrial -- Wastes from manufacturing plants and from businesses such as auto shredding/metals reclaiming. 4. Institutional - Wastes from hospitals and schools. 5. Rubble/Demolition/Land Excavation - Soil, concrete, brick, large tree stumps and similar material. 6. Brush/Yard Waste - Tree limbs, grass clippings, and similar material. 7. Construction - Siding, remodeling debris, roofing and materials that are generally the residues of either construction or the remodeling business. 8. White Goods Refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, and the like. 9. Tires. 10. Unidentified. For purposes of this report, the following categories are considered shreddable or processable wastes: residential, com- mercial, industrial (less auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste), institutional, and construction. The remaining waste categories, for the most part, would not go through a solid waste volume reduction system such as a shredder. They are: rubble/demolition/land excavation material, brush/yard waste, white goods, tires, and auto shredding/metals reclaiming wastes. IV - 3 e December Weighing Program (1980) The first weighing program conducted at the City/County Landfill was run December 18 through December 22, 1980 (Thursday through Monday, excluding Sunday). Although the program was intended to cover a two-week period, difficulties with the scale plus inclement weather forced an early termination. Data from the program are found on Tables 3 and 4. Highlights of the information provided by the December weighing are as follows: 1. From 206 to 346 vehicles used the landfill per day; the average was 248. 2. 80.6 percent o,f the waste entering the landfill was weighed; the rest, including -City of Hagerstown trucks (which enter the landfill at night) and small loads, was estimated based on spot checks of weights. 3. The amount of waste received per day ranged from 219 tons (a Saturday) to 413 tons (Friday). 4. The average amount disposed per day was 330 tons. 5. Of the 330 tons, the weekly average was as follows: 226 tons (80.6 percent) residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial. These sources of waste are all considered shreddable. Auto shredding/metals reclaiming, and construction materials are not included in the industrial category. IV - 4 W H r O U HZ o Ca �aac� HO >-Iza Paz M rr WE H a0 U\o H4 00 xE-�rn W H H U a wE1w O di �Qw zOQ m H 0 al N r -I in N U) Cr) cc N O 0 O r -I r -I 00 N E•+ qtr e) N N >1 rn H t a) P d-► r -I U H H CA Ei rl H Cr) d 61 N N M N a) a) + Ln O N LC) N U) N Cr) O N Cr) r + 0 00 Q1 r -I N �a)E' r{ U U] ) r4 a) ,7 ri •rl O N 00 a1 O H r -I (N lfl a) �c I 00 r -I to dr a� U)U] 00 in H e7 00 00 of H E-4 N Cr) in Cr) r-i N E -f U) ba) � U t7 • rl lfl N N 00 Cr) WI) 3✓ a) I) > Cr) •ra Ul rn in in m a) 0 00 On m in M Cr) Cr) H N O a) H U td U] U) in m N 00 w U r. N ko in ra O 0 s • • S 4 E-1 Cr) M N N Cr) E-i I U] Q)a) tT U •r-i •r -f in O d' 00 N 00 O in O cc d1 O N r -I r- i N N N N N N v v v v >1 >1 to rt$FZt Co oi 0 H E Co U] -- 3 (1]a) Ii 04r -I 00 .r- 4ri a)Q.1 -Naas xa) tP U) U a • -t •r{ 0 0 a • a-I-)rQ 3M� 0cdo Ln U) c3' U) H a) -I-) (U -I-) tT td U Rf co x� pzs a)N0 0 (U EWE -N -IJ (/,4J ri Cl] rd U) Ua)aw + -x ++ H ILl aQ cn H z zo H O H H C7 U 0 H iZ+ C7 Q 2 W � o c- W 0 ILl cc � Q!i H � 00 Ou z M Hm H El O ri r-1 CO N N N Ci) N r} Ui U1 I I I O O r -I 4-I I I I I I I M M IC Cl) M H 61 lfl MUi H I • N C) c i N Ui { r -I N O O CO O N H UH O Li) a, 8 r I H N Ui Li M H M O CO M O N C+ H i N H H - ccN LO H O s c� 'Si' b Li c`1 H ri el' Li) m lfl 00 o co M ri , et' I� • lfl N lfl Ca H rrr� N 00 O O> lfl N N N N H H H H O ii 3 O ra H IV - 6 49 tons (14.7 percent) auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste (84 percent of the industrial waste category); and 15 tons (4.7 percent) rubble and brush. 6. Based on 330 tons per day and a 1980 population of 109,477 (excluding Election District 5, the Hancock area, which is not included in the weighing program) the total waste generation rate is 6.0 pounds per capita per day (six day week) for the December weighing program. July Weighing Program (1981) Because of the scale problems encountered in December, 1980, a complete rehabilitation and calibration of the scales was done prior to the July program. The weighing program began July 13 and ended July 25, encom- passing a full two weeks of activity at the landfill. The weighing program was conducted by the Washington County Planning Department. Data from this survey are included on Tables 5 and C. Highlights of the information provided by the July weighing program are as follows: IV - 7 1. From 283 to 599 vehicles used the landfill per day, with an average of 384. 2. 87 percent of the wastes entering the landfill was actually weighed; the rest was estimated based on predetermined average weights of passenger vehicles and pickups. 3. The amount of waste received per day ranged from 361 to 599 tons. 4. The average amount received per day was 451 tons. 5. Out of the 451 tons there was an average of: 70 tons per day (15.5 percent) rubble, brush, white goods, and tires. 80 tons per day (17.7 percent) auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste (62 percent of the industrial waste category) 301 tons per day (66.7 percent) residential; com- mercial; institutional; industrial (minus auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste); and construction. 6. Based on the average of 451 tons per day and the pro- jected population of 110,484 for 1981 (excluding the Hancock area), the total waste generation rate is 8.2 pounds per capita per day (six day week) for the July weighing program. IV - 8 l C Ui O W V F Z Ui — 3 V Ln CO T C V) O N- U) ? N O M •--L V) N V.' --• -1.) 'C Q 'C e) N CS I^• O LA O C M O n {!'� O n n N n `:, LC) Ln N N Lt C COa0 h n I') O C M M Lf) N) M 'L` )!) R C C C 3 M I' - .+ __L I f E •A t � C C M' M I O O -C J C C O O Q O O O C .-i O C Q Q C J C � 1 O O. N O) N C C •C Ln N �C «r a0 O n q M e5 Ln C M �O C .y .r M C'• C N N II! Q �C G M F N Ln y 10 Ln M Cn M .Q N 10 O C m O O C �O fi O M .-� N M .y M O C .•+ CO O O M N ______ C7 O Ln M N N M Ln CO C h w N N h N O 1 M 00 C U u n C N CO O N- M N T Lr n -4 m N in O N N) M COO M N) Ln h 04 6) M 6) '.U) U) r.J .C-4 y •.4 0 4-L «-L M CO Ln -C --L Q) O N. O V' N M L N M N N CO C C ) .M.L .N .N.+ IN ij to Lam--' M 00 to CO Ln N .-+ M N R Ln -T a h CO \ U) N ,•. N- C O N L!) 'C Ll. M 'C CO sn N L fi N In M 1 M N L[; .. y LC •-� N N N r -r .h. N M =4 I E I A U I r% C C ^ CO M CO CON f IN d •^ ['.: L•L LO n n C CO N Q � O n h t I`f.^ ro .2� C.t _f CO M t!) n Ln C C 'D E C L1`. N N CO N ` CC 7 CO C N CO .-L h •-L CO •-. M O C N C LA M O CO LT U, Ln M K) LA 'C C CO !t n O CO N CO - Cl) N -CV h .-•L - CO M C N - C .-r M CO O CO C O •A 40 Q) CV C L)) N 0) 00 +-rt LA O) h •-+ •--i N C N CO 40 N M h •--I M to O) N y N N) M 'C M CO N O) r1 h Ln 0 M N M -. •--r Ln r N C N 'C M Ln M M C C N N. -.. e '•I .-� r -I .i n � � •A I O) c n e W O N O) v) Ii 00 ( M I N) f 0 04 '0 N Ln N -K N CO .--L h h `!I CO M Q) C) W) in an N LO h M N C Ln LD LM 10 ii Lv Ln t r f y M C O J Ln Ln O n eo I` N C � n C_ I M N C j QJm m O c � 11 LLn c .0, p n 1 r i..1 �.--I N M � W ..1 Nri) _- C � ) — M C L.7 CO O M y C L!) N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C Q N n n h n n .L n n n n n n .e Ln n v v v v v v v v v v v N Y N n i £� 0U, A 'O CC >. — a IC %. CC CC b 7. 'G -. J. CC IC Z ?. ro N 'O 44 a) In L7 S. LC t 4) y :C �1 V Z y 0 H Z 7 Y Z en C FL Z .)C <-4> m A 4.4C C 7 • c) ro O -A F) C) )¼_ C a) .c H LC G) o 0 . R y s0Z U. M 3 F 3 w Cl) 3 F LZl cn .0 ti aOS .4t .J.iV H U C7 . •U C) 044 CC C� CS. Cu .Oi N D Vr O '0 M N Q @ O '0 05 Q Co O r, O C M C W n UJ V. N M N N 'CC 05 '.D U] ( N U1 C N N- TO f .a C!7 @ M M on Ni '0 U) C @ Q Q M N N U. r Ni ON N C) Ni Ni O cc Co T in CS ` M - O Co N 0) C x r N — N Co TN ` —C M Ni N N Ni U; N M Q ,. M Ni M '0 N N I Q M M U) M U) O C) M Ln co 00 M O N '0 t� r M .•. M Qf '+ )� O O -r Q N @ v ..a .•r ti H .••t M .•-t - rl - N — .--1 C O I M M CO N 00 C14 M @ 1!1 C) C1 .D 'D 'n N N -r .-+ —0 C)) Q N — N N —c .+ N N * N CS O O O O O ^ O O O O O O ^ C N .O O v9 O O N •-- ..s ,..� N LLi 50 N N N Ni N @ )N I M .--i i M Co O1 O Vi CSCS CM.••/ US N N05 C5 - .. N Co — .0 .@.s H N O 4 V'• Ni O Q r 0 Ln r+ O O N) O @ T O Q V M L!) N O O Q @ Q O M CS Q O C C) N @ CS 05 C) N to M M M Q N- Ni M M M M M .Mr . C.)Co - O O O G U) N- ' O O O 00 co M ) '0 .r M Of @ CO 0 M -K O Q O 50 N U) Co C O O LO @ C Q - L'S. •r CS '0 OL U'i US N'0 ::0 N 50 In M @ @ .D N 5O M v7 O) Lf) O M Ln O .O M .-i .* O O N M @ M M M N N M N CC N N N O of Q 'O O N- CS O Q Co N '0 !N N — Ni O N O .••i Q U) M O ✓i N 55- Q N ( W N N -') N N N N N N N - N Ni M- - ...1 (4{ CM VS Q •-� O N -i r-. Ni Q M . Cl) . .i r .-i .••1 d N N N N N 4) I }. v v v �..� .✓ v v v �..+ U v v � N CC >s > N- ?. CC N '0 >. '0 ?. CC N Z >. '0 CC )> - CC •O '0 ^ N Co CC -. Co 3 .e CC CC '0 'O UI 6) CC N Co CC '0 Co 7 — R ..J ... LU —. > C h O D •F y ++ CC C) '0 7 •••) V as E =• a- L mate cc E 3 F 1•• Cl)FO- X F 3 r US e- - c) r 4. 44.54) 4) y CC E 8 E .y .F .F 4.4. 4.) 4) V! V! V) IV - 10 Waste Requiring Shredding For the most part, only the categories residential, commercial, institutional, industrial (minus auto shredding/metals reclaiming wastes), and construction (siding, roofing, small lumber, etc.) would be shredded. Previously shredded auto waste, rubble con- struction debris, land clearing wastes, and brush would not be shredded. For the two weighing periods, these categories amounted to an average of 266 TPD (December) and an average 301 TPD (July), at a composite average of 284 tons per day.* Future Waste Generation For general planning purposes, projected estimates of solid waste are based on the projected population and the average amount of waste generated per person. There are differences of opinion on whether per capita gener- ation rates for solid waste will increase or not in future years. Convincing arguments are being presented for a low rate of increase or possibly even a decline in the per capita generation rate of solid waste. This would be due to increased source separation re- cycling aluminum cans, reduced packaging, and general decline in goods purchased. For this report, it is assumed that generation rates may not increase or will increase very slowly. * This MES average is derived from an assumption that 80 percent of the incoming waste stream can be shredded. While this percentage was the best available in December, 1980, subsequent weighings have revised it to 67 percent. This latter number is used by the Planning Department for all de- rivations in this report and accounts for the 263 average tons per day referenced in subsequent sections. Iv - 11 Additional Analysis A third weighing survey was conducted in October, 1981 for a twelve -day period just as in July. The daily quantities ranged from 323 tons to 494 tons per day with a twelve -day total of 4609 tons and a daily average of 384. The daily per capita waste gen- eration rate for this period was 6.95 pounds. Because of the extensive computations involved in developing the landfill and shredder sections of this solid waste management analysis, time did not permit a delay until the October data were available. A brief analysis, however, of the October survey shows a strong corroboration with earlier data. The volume deposited at the landfill in October was eighty-five percent of the amount received in July, and the per capita generation rate was only two -tenths of a pound under the established average of 7.1 pounds. Seasonal Variations Solid waste disposal is usually cyclical, with greater amounts received during the summer months than in the winter. This is shown by an analysis recently done by M.E.S. for the Talbot County/ Easton Landfill for the years 1976 through 1980, for which contin- uous weighing records were available. Variations in solid waste disposal averaged out as follows: Variations From Average (Percent) January - March - 16.1 April - June + 10.7 July - September + 9.2 October - December - 3.8 IV - 12 C) G 0 E4 M Q Ln N M W t0 M m Ln W Ln W M W M h r ^'! O W C) C' m C Q LO N N ` U) O W W N C' C) M N m e' ra W tD Ln a O p o m d' W Q e' M en M m m m m M m m M m M M d' M N N to 1L Ln o O o c o U) O O O O O O o O P O o O o O I Ui co W O O O O O W ! I '0UI -,..I Ln Ln ? •-i W O N LD N Lp LD ON r M m co m N N M N W '-I N LO M r r m r M Q U) R N N m r -I. N M W N W +'•! co ^i N W U) M `p Lp C) co W O r O h O O O C) W O N C) W N r N F W M Q Q M O N O Q1 V) N O W Q P co ON O O Ln W lD W C' N N m N m W M O sr Q JJ +C) —40 M \O W O '-4W W N W r N W N N I Q N .�+ G C y C 7 .-L bL W W Ln Q m W O W to r W LO F') Q M W N k •-I co 7) O W W W N C) LO N C) co Q . I4 aro.-1 N •.i O W N W Ln W m h W m to '.0 Ln m N W CD O, i W C 'a E O r! N N W r1 O N N N N 0W0 U U1 Lt» fZ M W C) N m d' N ' Q m O co N Q Q LD r N m m ao CC 'a 4 W rl N W M r 7sC� ii RS LC t0 m Ln W M C) N ri O W Ln W m W co UI Al >4 ✓ W M W N N C4 .a C)) •.� U h r Q N \D d' L!) W r O co O N N N W N Ln v -4 h LO m W C) W O m m '.0 .••i ^•1 O 4 r m m m %D co N N Q W W N m Q m Ln LD W 0 'a •'i Q <D LD N Q Q 'O Q d' CO %O ' m h ECy M ❑ Q1 b C) �0.3> W C) C O •ri m O co r r ri `e' m N CO C N v C W to W Q r! m N N m Q r Q • 4.L CO W Ln rL N O tc LT W m m W N N N M m m •.i r-4 W W N W W C' 1 m C) H W - K) O N Ln m N N W co,co 1O Q m O '.0 W m M M to r i 4-- Li ! N co Ln m .-t t0 . 4.) U) O '-I Ln U.1 N m m. N M a h LO r Ln C1 W C) %O I ) m N N M m ri N N Lf) co h m M I O Lb W W .-i -4 l0 M r♦ ,C •.i r LO W O 'O O N M V. r N m r W Q a' co W ri N a' C) U) C) N M M r r h '-1 4.4 C) M C' W W N O F') M M M \O m an m N O Q C)' ur W Ui N Q N 1O M Y1 in r tf W N O U - W ++ C) LO Nri Ln N O W 1 Q Lc N M C) Q M m 1J N C) N m r O -4 d' '.0 O �\ N m C '.4 O N O O M m m M C9 r O m F') O LO m 'C) N t' m m W N W \O •ri W W ,-4 ri r ,..I N W j Lc N c rn o [f� .-'1 N N N N N N N N N m m O O O O P O O O O O O O y Its O.S S W >4 (C N '0 >4 '0 '-! 7r rd U) 'd >'C) N (C 'C) 'C) 0 Q) C N LO Ti 4.1 0 x (C ';3 'a m C) C U) .i IC 'CS 4 7 ?C w•7 • F ra G3 C C) 'a 7 •.+ sL C) C C) 'a 7 •ri y1 C) C C) C t+ C) C 0 7 Q) 4.4 tC C) 0Z >4 3- fy G CA 3 F 3 E•I >4 N 3 E W r tiIi E 0 E LR +`al ),I x U, v ••1 ro iJ C E+ •i1C tnlE eroiu C7 4 •t.i W m tl o ro a1 a) - m 0E-4 C Wy 3� H� :r] of CC1*tE Oi VII C C �c lk is N a Doti 4-4 bf N C ro a ro C. U, d 1; C 'G (n0 a� E U H xl m m >1 •44U,wl �� 0 7 � v U, ri . � v M et In N M V^ f• C C C' Q' .--1 tr ' 1C N N )C f. 01 ,-t C tC 01 M It • ' M M M M Ir N IC 1C C In N '.0S 1C Q M C' N O N N N N N r-( . ' ' C C C C C C C N N N N N N N N .a t If) d' Q' O O co W .-i M H M N N O 07 Q M C1 .-i 1p M M M M C M N N M CD lC N C t� O C' C O Ln r! M 1C N r•i N N M U) U) .-I N N N N N N U, G Ui C C 0� C CO O C O C) M U) N .1 N CJ %O S 1-1 M C N 1C i` N .i O ao n In ao .-i C1 w O ID N M o In r-! N .--i N 1D Id' N N N ✓` M J � � O O C O C O O C O C C C C O O lD w m W w C OJ O -T N a 1p -W U7 N C' ,-4 '.0 (N W d' M C1 O M N M .•i r-i .-i V' 0) .-I r-1 Ct co U) M Q1 C'. 4.) M N C' In 1` '--I N M N N 10 ' in M -1 rn N ,-t r In % N e N m' C' ri er O C m M O U) R ULn) C' !!'1 O' V' U) N M If) F 1 1 I C1 C' 1 I C v N C1 01 i 1 C 01 N M M M I*1 d' M (N IS) v N C N C O C N O C tD C C .i O in M .•1 .-I M et rh N a' rn N ' .( N d' a1 ter- u) o C W N tl' N C 1C In N N 01 in N ao It) In M In in Q'i U) In r1 .4 C1 ' o 01 N m .4 O .-1 N O1 in V' N M C' U) M M N fM M N C N N C) N (M N t` .d .-t '0 - lC C1 tD N U7 U) GC) "4 N i--I N -4 N aID U') N N d' O C '' N 'H d' W .i ..( .-1 61 '-i -) W N N C) C C '1 N M C \C N C O1 O .-I "••� N N N N (N N N N N M P') \ \ \ \ \ \ x \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O C 0 Cl) O O O O O C v dJ rt >. >, m ro >, >, C N >, ro m 'O >, '6 >, ro m t7 >, ' 'O co 'US Cl) U) Ia Ia '-I ro 't7 a) (n ro LI .-I 'U, 11 U, ►+ ro 0 co 'o a, O ).i 'a a IC U, Cl) ro 0 ., a1 4) 9 a) ' U, •.1 u y F H 3 F as+ Cp E I 0 E* ? E ca Un E0* —4 C1 O '9 ml CO) -4 M C' C C Q N O M N C N The spread between the lowest average quarter and the high- est was 27 percent. Variations on a monthly basis would be even greater. In the HDR/HELP Report (Chapter II, page II -11) variations in Washington County solid waste by month is projected from data from other sources. Variations about the average was ±24 percent with December being -14 percent (lower than the average) and July +10 percent higher. The purpose in presenting the above information is for com- parison to the December, 1980 and July, 1981 weighing program results. The average daily tonnage disposal during these two periods (with a range between 451 and 330 tons per day) show a variation of ±15 percent, about the average. This is not out of line with variation data presented in the HDR study in which Decem- ber was listed as -14 percent and July +10 percent about the average, for a total range of 24 percent versus 30 percent for the recently compiled Washington County data. Average Daily Tonnage for Washington County The average total tonnage is the average of the December weighing (330 TPD) and the July weighing (451 TPD), or 391 TPD (tons per day). This calculated out to be 7.1 pounds per capita per day, six days per week. IV - 15 Auto Shredding/Metals Reclaiming Residue Because of the unique nature of this particular waste and the total amount received each week at the County landfill, it needs to be considered as a separate category especially when examining shredding or resource recovery options. Auto shredding/ metals reclaiming residue refers to that material called "fluff" that is brought to the landfill from Conservit, Inc. and Newell Enterprises, Inc., both of which are located on adjacent properties just off the Sharpsburg Pike south of Hagerstown. The Conservit facility shreds motor vehicles while the Newell facility is in the business of reclaiming metals from already -shredded materials. Fluff consists of rubber, plastics, glass, or similar materials that are the fall -out from the operations. It also contains dirt. Estimates from Conservit management put the dirt to fluff ratio at 3:2 , i.e., 60 percent of the amount received is dirt and 40 percent is rubber, plastic, and :similar materials that could be burned if incineration were a feasible alternative. Although the combustible part of the Conservit/Newell residue has a very high heat value, it also is high in chlorine which can be a problem in some energy recovery systems because of the for- mation of corrosive chemicals. This would have to be a considera- tion in selecting an energy technology. IV - 16 As a contributor, Conservit/Newell material amounts to 16 'percent of the total waste stream brought to the landfill with an average of 49 tons per day for the December weighing and 80 tons per day in July. T17 - 17 { METHODS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL According to the American Society of Civil Engineers: "Sanitary Landfill is a method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation or at such more frequent inter- vals as may be necessary." Figure 3 details the area method which is used in Washington County landfilling. sectional view of a sanitary landfill Horizontal Length of Daily Cell and Cover N I�„°oo°O° o'o�°''odoo"o'eJon�oo po V o 000 u. Er);. Final Earth Cover N 1 pogo a e`'O�oo�o°oogo oQp �'� °oho' `eh9rh {no o�°e9�o�n oo nQ00 s' o ^aoD°o eoo O 00 o'eo to J' o�c o°�v0000°pn 000ene'o'�'e oed000°moo Oo Doo °f /p I �e voo t0 P ooe o00 o ° 3 i ro m `so/% �Aao I � I ' --1------------ ------------------------ I Horizontal Length of Working Face Figure 3 The area method is based on the refuse cell where solid waste is dumped, spread in thin layers, compacted, and covered with six inches of soil each day with an eventual cover of two feet of soil upon closure. The depth of cover is regulated by the State Health Department. Landfilling is generally the least expensive method of waste disposal. Operating expenses are usually lower and capital costs are minimal in comparison to other forms of waste processing. The equipment used is not highly technical; therefore, workers need only to be moderately skilled. Maintenance generally can be performed by landfill personnel. The disadvantages are often determined by characteristics of a particular site or locality. For instance, in low-lying parts of the United States, high water tables and high cost of cover materials are a problem. Site specific problems, such as leachate and methane production, can be detrimental to landfilling operations. Unavail- ability of future landfill sites and the high cost of land is be- coming a problem associated with landfilling in many communities. Landfill siting can be a difficult job because landfills are often perceived by the public as unsanitary and aesthetically repugnant. Economics of Landfilling Operating and capital costs vary with landfilling methods and with waste composition and volume. For example, if primarily V - 2 residential and commercial solid wastes are landfilled, a high compaction ratio is possible. This reduces the volume and extends the life of the landfill. If bulky wastes, such as construction debris, trees, and stumps, form a large portion of refuse, a lesser compaction ratio is attained. Other variables that can affect landfill costs significantly is the physical condition of the land, i.e., the availability of cover material, the relative difficulty of excavation, and the necessity of grading or land- scaping and of controlling ground water pollution. Table 9 details the capital and operating costs in Wash- ington County from 1976 into 1994. Years 1976-1981 consist of actual cost data from operation of the 62 acre City/County Land- fill. The years 1982-1994 are projected at an annual inflation rate of 10% for operating costs. Capital cost projections are explained in footnote (C). Since the town of Hancock and Election District 5 use the Hancock landfill, data from that area have been eliminated from the table. During 1980, the first year of the 15 year study period, it was shown that it cost approximately $3.23 for each ton of solid waste landfilled. This represents a total capital and operating cost of $394,172 to operate the landfill that year. During 1981, the cost per ton was $3.37. This represents the actual operating cost plus a lower capital expenditure than most other years. Since V - 3 capital expenditures during 1981 consisted of capital equipment for the new 148 -acre Resh Road Landfill, they were treated as a one-time charge to be annualized and added to each of the subsequent 13 years in the study peridd. (See Table 9 for capital expenditures by year).. The cost per ton ($4.42) in 1982 appears to rise so dramatically because capital expenditures were low in 1981. Capital costs per ton from 1983-1994 are cal- culated from previous years and inflated at an annual rate of 10%. Total capital and operating costs are shown for the 15 -year study period. Later in this report on page VII - 15 these figures will be used to compare the cost of a continuing landfill operation with the cost of buying and operating a shredder facility. NE 1, 4.E n�i an l0MMU1 Mr Nr N.--1 �'N1. 00-40 rM C1N U)e' NM ill acna O1O MOCTW rC0 MMMM MM as rn U)1Orr W O1O) Or -N ^^33 '-1 -F r1 S8o 44' U -401 L7 1O in r 0 N O M to C' N C' N C' N N C' N M O1 "OMrO1 r -r tomtl.-401.ti N un N N XO1O C' Wd'NO �"�O1 r61N W-4-4 M VO 0v O)W d' U c ri m c�i ui ri s c�i ri +i c vi ai ui r .-4.-4 It 'O W N. -f 61 r1 d'N<70 U1 N-+ O O rl MAO r4N p fC C'+`•1 L'"1 �0 V7 f� m01 a' -I NM 01.7 r (-1 n N r -i Cl M O O Ui V' r1 ri'i -i u9O Mt0 1O N '.001 U) N O 'OO to O1 lO C' lD d' C' m Cl CO �L a rl Cl tO r W1O Cl in C' '0 r N N O CO O U) Cl ri .•! 4.2 C1OOtfl N N N --r C1 N O V' O(N m-4 In CO Cl r6 '.O'0 61M NO)MmN CO (a'OrIC) MMMar ,la NNNM Cl M v (a' N tn'0 r r CO Cl O ri NM J 41 • Cla) p Cl N rl r O1O N d' N Cl CO Cl N r-4 Cl N OM (a' Ml0 -' •' lri ri Ql M --taM -4 Li) Nm V7 Q1 d'm 01 W rM +-r 1O rlto O1 MQ e43jrF - - 1NN CO r . -q v Ul N CO CO N un N CO M 'OO 1-4 1 4 .-f-i-1 -4-4 NN N N M Cl M0' �•• N ^`� aO ma N iO o ClN N V O IC) d 7' CO M CO Cl CO N (41 l0 to CO r COi0 Cl r4 'MtO rNtN CO .. U) OG rW 010 i - ^'1 N4'Ln �O rq O.-i NM C'1Or m C� ,.r ,..r -i (N NNN N N N N MM MMM Cl Cl Cl r o a r r♦ d' m N t n 01 M N O a m N 1 O O a N m W m O1 01 1 0 0 0 N N N M M a a - -12j M Cl Cl M M[ 1 n) (41 1Or W 01 rrrr 01010101 + rl rl ri -i O-i N Ma to a rm 01 O-i NMa CWCOW00CW WWmO1O1O1O1C1 •01Q11o10101010101010101010101 ri rF ri l rl --i ri rk -i ..4 ,--i -i -i -i -i a Cl rl N N N M d •--j ON a1 m U 0 8. 11 r ti O Cia) -i 41.4 Ill .' CU)8 U L 8n y O 'i G 4 U N• pp 0 4.)&.J W 4) 3 C >1 Cl O s7d O QN �O +�J 61 t� ��1 bA � ��•t N O ._4) M o b � , IC 011-144 ua q (4 cci (4 .CJ (al4-4(a 3 s5a-4 0 tu�C! 1O 441 C m G)) C O ^ --4 a U' i} •-i V tb fa �•� +1 rr� •- U v C 0 J Ski U ( rip 4) W 4J N rl1-4 Ifl rO Q 8 WO O IllG O� CO U CO V-5 H HO OH H W H +� td 01 N H N to d O 4J 011 H r--+ 01 ri N O 0 M H V' M M CJ Ea 110 N tD O H O tO �4 Oti N N CO N N 0) (j H H H N Q) 43 NN N CO CO My t� M 0 _ - • U 00 00 M 00 r-1 fi-rH H Q) 14 d U) CO 4.) 4J 43 -H U) U) rd HO HO fb rtJU rtiO Q) 4.) 14 0r'+ H w a4J Px 4J 4-1 4J fb r 0 rds O Q) E� v E 0 •,N •Q'0 J1 -1J -b1-- z W O W O IC is HO Mdr O 10 O 00 O HC u O H O ON O NN OO1!) Ocr OO M O 1100 m .O 01N GOON 1O r! 1 N N Ir N to O r-1 0) H H U 4J .,a Cl) CO CO tO V Z 4J 43 4-) 43 (C1H0) U) U) to to OtoO HO 0 O O O U 43 fy° H 4 H rf U) 43 }.I o. r4 N4)) � ZTd n N -r+ OH -1-H 1 b 0 f; rd -4 tt5 rd cd b P•i v H O dO 0U 0) S4 a J4 Cl)U)4 4 CQ 3 3 3 U 3 WO ZO ZZgZ O O fa 110 N CO 01 O H N rd N N N N CO CO Co v 0i H H H H H H H H 0 J4 43 -4 U) •r-1 0 1~ v .H 4) l4 -a) r -J WE -I A --I 0 G O •rl v Q r-+ N -O 00 )-1r1 H 4J U Os -4 �4 �4 rd H • U) • ,Q • r+ td rd Q) d M >~ v UJ rd > Q) U Q) )-1 M 0 4- >r > . (U Q • O •H td W •rf rO S -4 f: 01 co Q) .S.' 'J'9 c E cd -T Q) 1 .a) 0 H 4-) o tr C/) i4 v U v + -ri N 0 f; • tO rd N A to Ul M -ri •ri D v M WE -4H 43 J-+ 0 ..Q? 4h }-I N rCS C 4-) -H Q) O • U) 44 H -PA - 4J rO 3 443 0) ran f 43 UlydMrdO,W a)wrdrr000Z a, 4J Id M U -rf U CU Z 43 rd X U) OO1 J4 0 ul•ri v 04tH V)WH •r-4OH OW I -H 4 4J O cd H C U) H -N r= CUV4- 4- U U O 4-1 •r4 -r+ -4 s v 0 Q4 • Cd i) v E~ Q+ U) Q) C O.+ U) 01 Oa) -3O0 43 O N f7 >~ r4 O U) 4.4 rd 4 E >H H f.. 4) -r+ to Q) Q H -HWV rd • (d 4J U) A -r-1 44 J 4 cd Ul 44 n v 4J rd 4a 0 C ROa' >1 d O v O rd V >-11 •rH f:4 0 � b' 4- Qa 4 v rCs A •r -I -ri CU V U) Q) 0 4 U -ri U U) v 4-) v A • -4 Q) cd rd f: )-I - -4 Q) rV Q) U > 44 }4 3 td H v 44 04 Q) O -r-1 (U U) O rd iV ZP v 0) ro r{ r0 Qa rd O .P Ul 43 0) rd H O u) 1P 0 z U •H rd v •r1 -4J ' 0 5�W3'O4.)� O -r+ v J -r .C rd rd A U) -r; V J4 H 4J 4J 4-) r-i 4J $-I PO U c 0 -rH U 0 0 ¢ 4a ., U) O O J4 r-1 44 U .� Q) J•4 J-i U U o Q O 4J O)CU -ri 0 0 -ri $-I • -I OZ 43 Q) U) ,C CO O -rl 43 Q) -H >y-rl •r.l w 43 U!.41 Q) v U) A o0 U •r4 U) (OH fi' 4J -iJ •F) to U Q 4(U 00 �� d0 Ei E- 4-4 0) -r-1 O O —U) Q H N 01 H z z r -f H N C31 V' N -O H N LO H CSl CO C' O Cr LCl QO N H N H N r. l0 H O M H C)1 CO O O ro N in r4 • N U to O HO O 0 C' H M 8 H LO 0 CO r•I T Y) rHCO -1 M M d' H LO N LC) H CO H Ln N r•{ - C`•1 w° t3 rrs o m tr rj - O� co coC0 b' �I . to H84 ul 1H OH CHH^� 4 �• t7 um H U O 0)� N O i3 w N o I-PJOcii O Q)rn O -H to --I 2 r q Cci LW r +g con w!Luw w o °� to b 0) U) to H of w � 0 ., 9 � Am ._ u .P rn r i rti r_� r.. SHREDDING The main purpose of shredding is to reduce the volume of solid waste and turn it into a relatively homogeneous material. Shredded waste does not appear to support combustion on the landfill site, attract vermin, or have an objectional odor. When compacted in a landfill, shredded waste will have fewer voids than unprocessed waste, and the density of the waste will be inversely related to the amount of landfill space required. One EPA report indicates that shredding can extend the life of a disposal site by 25 to 33 percent when daily cover is used and up to 60 percent if daily cover is not required. (See Appendix D for the State Health Department's position on daily cover). In another study --the EPA Demonstration Project in Madison, Wis- consin --it was shown that the difference in density between unprocessed, covered waste and shredded, covered waste amounted to 30 percent. Note should be taken of the term "inversely related" used in the preceding paragraph. This relationship does not necessar- ily mean there will be a one-to-one ratio between increase in density (compaction) and decrease in required volume; it merely means that there is some relationship, and the degree of that relationship will depend on many things: moisture content of the solid waste, method and degree of compaction, the methods of handling the waste, the condition and age of the landfill, and the types of equipment used and the methods of operating that equipment. These are some of the variables that the reader needs to keep in mind in reviewing this or any other document on techniques for landfill life extension. "Volume reduction" at best is an approximation, and the waste industry seems to be saturated with claims of volume reduction and landfill life prolongation with some estimations as high as 90 percent. Such assertions should be regarded with caution. It's obvious, however, that in order for any analysis to be meaningful, some numerical percentage will be needed to compare straight landfilling with shredding. The findings from the two refer- enced sources of information are consistent; for that reason, they will be used as the basis for this analysis's assumption that shredding could result in 30 percent greater density and therefore approxi- mately 30 percent less required volume at the Resh Road Landfill. Since shredding reduces the density of municipal solid waste, con- version from a landfill operation to a shredding facility will reduce the number of employees needed to operate the landfill, and some of those landfill personnel can be trained to assist in operation of the shredding facility. The shredder operation, however, involves complex processes which require sophisticated management and skilled personnel as well as regular landfill personnel with the result being a net increase in required personnel. In addition to shredding itself, the system can be utilized to recover materials such as ferrous metals, glass and aluminum, or the shredded material can be used to provide energy for use in energy recovery systems. For example, the shredded product can V - 9 be burned in incinerators to provide energy to nearby industries. Of the various types of shredders in use, the two most widely used in the United States are the horizontal shaft and the vertical shaft. The machine size and the horsepower required when deciding on a system depend on the tons of solid waste accumulated in a day, the output particle size desired, and the processing rate desired per hour. It is mandatory to have a constant adequate source of horsepower to assure an accept- able level of performance without jams or damage to the shredder. Excessive maintenance problems can increase the operating costs to a point where the shredder would not be cost effective. The study conducted by the Planning Department showed that approximately 301 tons * (66.7a of the average tons per day) of solid waste deposited daily during peak seasons at the landfill would be processable. Shredding would be conducted during 6.5 hours, so a shredder would be needed that would be capable of processing 45.31 tons of solid waste per hour. Appendix E con- tains a quotation for a horizontal shredder from Hammermill, Inc. which has the capacity of processing 45-50 tons of solid waste per hour, contains a 1,250 Horsepower Motor, and shreds to a 4" pro- duct size. (Although many shredder companies were contacted for price quotes, Hammermill's figures will be used in this report because they were able to furnish the most information. * From the July Weighing. V - 10 Although shredding is being used in many communities for volume reduction exclusively or in combination with material and/or energy recovery efforts, there are advantages and disadvantages of the system that should be considered along with more specific comparison data given in this and subsequent sections. Advantages: 1. . Shredding reduces volume of solid waste which is an advantage in hauling, handling and landfilling. 2. Because of reduction in volume, landfill lifetime can be extended. This is particularly important when land costs are excessive, or future landfilling sites are unavailable. 3. Public acceptance has been relatively good in most communities as opposed to other disposal facilities. For the most part, pollution problems are limited if proper dust abatement apparatus is installed and if housekeeping is good, litter and vector problems are limited. 4. Most residential and commercial wastes can be shredded. 5. In conjunction with other technologies, shredding can aid in material and energy recovery. This can only be accomplished when markets are available for these resources. m V - 11 Disadvantages: 1. Materials fed into the shredder must be controlled. Washington County may need to institute a good source separation program to effectively collect materials which do not need to be shredded but instead could be sold if there is a market available. Incoming solid waste must be inspected before being fed into the shredder. Certain types of trash can become tangled in the hammermills, break or wear hammers excessively, and generally cause unnecessary maintenance problems which increases shredder down time. Component wear, and broken or worn hammers can be costly. In an EPA publication entitled, "Field Test Evaluation of Shredders", a comparison of hammer maintenance programs was detailed. Two methods of hammer maintenance are: 1. Hammer buildup which involves rebuilding the worn hammers with a special hardened alloy. 2. Wear -and -scrap wherein, as the name implies, the hammers are worn, scrapped and replaced with new hammers. Table 12 shows the cost in 1978 for hammer maintenance as reported by E.P.A. assuming a horizontal hammer - mill with a nominal rating of 50 TPH and having a hammer complement of 24 hammers. The unit cost of V - 12 $0.40/T is in the range of $0.25 to $0.75 per ton often quoted by shredding manufactures for hammer maintenance allowance. TABLE 12 COST SUMMARY FOR HAMMER MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS* 1978 Unit Cost Annual Cost Case Description ($/Ton) (1978 $) I Build-up once per week 0.395 41,100 II Daily build-up 0.397 41,300 III Wear -and -scrap 0.417 43,400 There are currently 81,295 processable tons of refuse received at the County landfill annually. At $.40 a ton, this will result in a yearly cost of $32,518 for hammer repair. This cost could be increased if incoming waste is not carefully inspected before shredding. 2. Due to the variety of municipal residential and commercial trash, combustible materials may mistakenly be fed into the shredder, resulting in a fire. Explosions can also occur if the explosive materials are not detected before being fed into the shredder. Explosive matter such as un- spent ammunition, aerosol cans, containers of gasoline, *Source: EPA docune�nt on Processing Equipment for Resource Recovery Systems, Vol. III Field Test Evaluation of Shredders. varnish, solvent, or lacquer thinner, can all trigger explosions that will result in costly repairs and down- time. Continuous monitoring of the waste stream as it is being fed into the shredder is necessary if fires and explosions are to be avoided. Even so, those facilities with constant visual inspection features have experienced serious problems with explosions in their shredders. Cowlitz County, Washington has had twenty explosions in its shredder between 1975 and 1980; San Diego County, California recently experienced an explosion that blew out three of four walls of the station because one can of varnish slipped past the inspection booths unnoticed; the shredder in Elmira County, New York was non -operational in July, 1981 following an explosion, with a projected re- start of nine months later; a fire in the Norfolk Naval facility in October, 1980 resulted in the shredder still being out of operation in the summer of 1981. 3. Dust and noise pollution is a problem associated with a shredding operation. Pollution control theories and laws are rapidly changing; therefore, while considering a shredder, federal and state laws and requirements must be explored. Although there is dust abatement machinery available, these measures will increase initial capital costs substantially. V - 14 4. 5. A shredding facility contains sophisticated equipment with complex processes requiring technically trained personnel for both management and maintenance. The system needs a relatively long period for planning and construction before start-up. Contracts with private trash haulers and markets for material and energy recovery will need to be secured. A full scale engineering study should be done before costs can be accurately assessed. Weekly and seasonal volumes of trash should be well known before cost, revenue,and equipment requirements can be determined. - ,V - 15 Shredder Capital Cost Estimates Although exact cost data for a desired system cannot be deter- mined without a detailed engineering study, estimated capital costs for a shredder facility have been established based on a 1975 EPA study of ten operating shredders, vendor quotes, and data collected within the County. Capital costs that follow are expressed in dollars per ton. Table 13 illustrates the total capital cost for each item, depreciation period, if applicable, and annualized costs. 1) Land - For estimating purposes, it is assumed that a shredder facility would require a minimum of three acres of usable land. Since the 148 -acre site pur- chased in 1970 will become operational soon, no separate capital costs were incurred for shredder site acquisition. 2) Site Construction - A construction expenses is based on the avera� taken from the E.P.A. an annual rate of ten daily load of 301 tons. cost of $ .76 a ton includes most for a shredder facility. This ;e 1975 cost of site construction shredder study and inflated at percent to 1980, assuming a peak 3) Stationary Equipment - The cost per ton ($.86) for stationary equipment includes a shredder, conveyors, a crane, and support equipment for those systems. A mag- netic separation system which is optional would add an additional $96,680.00 to total capital costs ($.08 per ton). Although explosion suppression, fire protection, dust abatement, and noise suppression systems may be necessary, estimates cannot be secured until such time as a particular system and site design is determined. The shredder quotation shown in Appendix E states that a company representative will be assigned to super- vise the installation and start-up of the equipment and to instruct the County's personnel for the first 8 weeks of operation. Rates are listed for additional time required of this representative. The County will be required to hire a contractor to assemble. the shredder. Shredder assembly is not included in the Vendor's quote. Site design and the foundation of the building must be accomplished at the County's expense before delivery of the shredder to the site. 4. Vehicular Equiipment - The capital cost per ton for vehicular equipment ($ .37) represent costs incurred to furnish the shredder facility with a tractor, and two transfer trailers which would be used to transport shredded material to the dumping site. It is estimated that capital costs will total $2,428,070.00 with an annualized cost of $161,517.17 and a cost per ton of $1.99. This cost includes major items needed for a shredding facility, except where it is indicated that a particular system requires specific site design before estimates can be made. The annualized capital cost per ton represent 21% of the total annual cost per ton for a shredder operation. v-17 o N M rn 8 H 0 H Ll') N -'-^�[ 13 UI 80�0 N �' O N N L' HC1 l0 l0 O M H (/)- rh U)- fl 1 • U ij I+ �+ I Oa a (N H LC) 8 O O O O CD O O 0 O H N co O O O N O H mot' U t )- tom/}• t/7- !} Ul O 'I Q! " }UP Q} r9 >1 H 0 '9 O 0 _1 r -I rU U O U1 Ul O N b� ( r N O z W S4 a U H Ch O t�l1 U W O 00 4J 4J m 8 U O U -pP Orrl � In O is Q ✓ E-� 8 8 V - 18 Shredder Operating Cost Estimates Annual operating costs for each item shown on Table 14 have been estimated using the number of processable tons generated in Washington County each year in conjunction with average item costs per ton based on the EPA ten shredder study. The EPA cost factors are based on 1975 studies and have been increased to include inflation rates to 1980. The labor costs shown on Table 14 however, are actual labor costs for landfill personnel during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980. Labor costs which may be incurred with initial shredder facility start-up are not included. Table 14 illustrates that the total operating cost estimated for a year in 1980 dollars is $612,175.99. An estimated 81,295 tons would be processable during that year at a cost of $7.53 per ton. This represents 79% of the total annual operating cost per ton for a shredding facility with transportation to the working face of the landfill, exclusive of:the landfill operation, based on quantities and waste characteristics in Washington County. V - 19 IV r•-1 J] H c) 9 to 4 l0 00 Cy N M M \p O N M O U]- U]- U]- {/} U]- U]- U} U} U/} 0 U 9 H H O N N 00 Ci M O IV ' -I LCf O N 000 M N Hto 601 N 0 N to 'H H in O1 H O M CO H N M l0 C H lf) N (N H U]- U)- U} Ul• UT• ;/l• i/)- O � N 41 -p QJ th U� Q1 O H Qi rA N bi fl - a 0 wrw 'ri V U] 44tQfl co Er N -,-I U U S N O c7l 0 �� OS Stn � �' ��+�� tn�`��j( •�� •� rr 0 rI vi b' v a Stn �•r� r- o x P1 S1 C4 4 il rIU) U ri > -4crj Ul pper" O N N r I U] 8 N ul N HI to bU+ ul d•) 4) a-+ al . -p! tad to 7-I W i j c� r. •H m A C) 0 U r1 -H I� H V - 20 Total Capital and Operating Costs Table 15 illustrates that an initial capital expenditure of approximately $2.43 million dollars would be needed for start- up of a shredder facility in Washington County, as compared to the average cost of $2.88 million estimated in the E.P.A. study. It would cost the County $9.52 per ton to shred and transport the shredded material to the landfill; costs which were calculated for ten shredders in the E.P.A. study averaged $11.14 a ton. Analysis of the waste stream in the County shows that approximately 67% of incoming solid waste can be processed through a shredder, 16% of the waste stream delivered by Conservit/Newell is already shredded, and the remaining 17% would be directly land - filled. Since a cost per ton of $9.52 reflects a cost for shredding and transfer to the landfill only, an additional cost per ton for landfilling would be incurred for each ton of shredded product and unshredded waste. We saw from•Table 9 that the estimated cost per ton for landfilling unshredded waste was $3.23. Shredded waste, because of its homeogeneous characteristics, could be handled easier and would therefore cost less per ton to landfill. But even with a shredder operation, there is still a certain amount -- the 17 percent-- that would be landfilled directly. The combination of these products ---the shredded material, the material arriving from Conservit, and the unshreddable waste --would all be disposed V - 21 in what we'll call the "auxiliary landfill", i.e. the onein support of a shredder facility. The cost per ton for operating the auxiliary landfill will be less than for a regular landfill, but it is nevertheless a real cost. The amount of reduction of this cost would be dependent on labor needs, degree of compaction, and cover material required with conversion of a direct landfill operation to a shredder/landfill facility. (See Table 19 for a detailed comparison between the total cost of a direct landfill operation and a shredder/auxiliary landfill facility). To the casual observer, it may appear that in considering a shredder the choice is "landfilling versus shredding". Such is not the case. Even with shredding, there will always be a need to landfill. Table 16 shows the total costs for a shredder facil- ity exclusive of the auxiliary landfill, and Table 16a shows the total cost for maintaining a shredder operation along with its necessary landfill. These cost figures are more graphically illustrated in Figure 6 on page VII -6. V - 22 TABLE 15 SHREDDER FACILITY COSTS 1980 Average Shredding Costs* Capital Costs $2.88 Million Annual Costs Operating Costs $8.63/Ton Annualized Capital Costs $2.51/Ton Washington County Estimated Costs $ 2.43 Million $ 7.53/Ton $ 1.99/Ton Total Annual Costs $11.14/Ton $ 9.52/Ton *Based on 10 shredders (1975) with capacities ranging from 64 to 1,042 Tons per Day; annualized capital costs do not include interest costs. The 1975 costs were unpated by JRB Associates using the Marshall and Stevens Index as published in the Chemical Engineering Magazine for capital and annualized capital costs and the Municipal Cost Index (MCI) published by The American City and County Magazine for operating costs. V - 23 CO 0 H H U W 0 z a A W Ei F-i H to W N NCCO ONQ' 10C a UI Nd'01 UI H m l0 Ln N N CO O c'l O N N U2 -i Z. 0 (1) 0 p100rIN Mel1NOOr-i(d'lO CO 0111 H Hr-Ir-lr-Ir-�r-{rir-1riN NN NN �J} [hOOM�r-INM01�10 r310I-10 0 0'ritllNON Dr-lCr'l NQlr - I Ln �o 01NMa)a)' o1 (N '1'0NU1 rd 4J MNt0NUIzt N N CI OHr�' 4••1 RS N m 0NU1lO110NO1NN r'1H0H •r•i i••I NCOO O1CH(NMet'100ONc)'l0 S-11 U) . .- . . ► ► . rd Q. r - Irlrlr-IrlHHNNN N 00 U 110 d'N NN 'O NCC mr-0HO t` N C\ rI 0 CO H 0001`N HC m H H M N CO N 01 Ln 01 N CO 110 N M N rd NMO- lOU1d'NNMN1Dr-iMmot' i-f r -IN 0HMC000Olr•Id'aov'NH(N a) l0 l0 N CO CO Ol O r•I m d' Ln N C- H M 0 rl ri r-i r4 r -I r-1 r-1 N N r-1 N N N N N Ln UI UI UI UI 01 01 0) of 01 (CU) H r-1 r -I r-i r -I UI Ln UI UI UI r-1 r-1 r -I r-! r-i 4J 4 Ln UI UI Ln U1 010101 01 01 Co CO CO CO CO Q-0 ri HHHH01010101010l01010\Ol rd U l0 la lO l0 lD N N N N N CO CO CO CO CO U r-4 ri ri r -I r -I r -I r-i r-{ r-i r♦ N N N N N ih U) `I 01 Ln 01 U1 (N O CO N N N CO O M N i-I �" }4 rd (N O N UI M r -I CO lO d (N 0 01 N UI gel' 0 Q) a) . ► ► ► ► ► ► - ► ► . ► ► H a >-f HNNm 'U1Ln10NO01010HN O O O 00 00 00 O 00 00 OO O O 0) 0) 01 U) -1 > r -I M UI CO O m UI CO O M 1D O r-i ;r l0 0 U) ld lOlOl010NNNNOao00CO 0101 01 H IZI 0 N NNNNNNN NN N NNNN 11 O r -I N Met' 111 l0 N 03 01 O r -I N M rd 00000000000001 01010101 Q) O1Cl010101C1Cl 01Cl 010101p101C'. J 1 r 1 r 1 H r-1 H r -I r-i r -I r-1 r-4 r -I H r-i rH r -I 00 O ao l0 O l0 (N (N ih H a) s~ s� s~crJ !~" Or♦ U) •H W rd O Q4.) 44 P Q) 00 S2+ rd U) U)44 •W rd SI O 0 E4(a3 O\O ra U)(N a) -P -P 0)01 01 O cn O 3 H r-1 ✓1 a) t3� Ul 0 - U U 0 )rd z O Q. -PU O O -P U • r -I C1 4-i V V cd3�a)-�H lz -H Q) Q) rd 'ti a �L r'•1 ro i•i r q U) ► U rd 0 Q) 0+ rd Q} �•1 .� O U -ri r0 Ql N U) f� ¢` 0 M 1~ U) rd P rt3 z 0 Surd ro•rl•r-1 x W W 4-4 -p --1 O a1 Pa -P U v) U) r-1 0 rd C) • 4 •r-1 Q4 r -I rd Q) U1 Q O U O J rd -P - O4-JHr1 4J �14 —W rd O 0 rti r I cd >~ 4J Q) U)rO 0 Er-- rl•W> z Wo +) •HrOOb(U > U) U r -I Q) O tU H o1a N ro ro ro 0 .k' OH O+ EOHO •r -I •W %) x Q Q) Q) WiUl •O0a) +19 -W •H W --- I4A. r0 OU —4-I r41 U) U) + U >1 -H U rd U) 4 cd -P U O N x �J — U U) Q) -P0 O U U) 4—°0 3 i•4 • U) U) N -H Q) !~ (U U -P r 4 4-) (U 04-a 0 c(d \ a} a) .H r_4 ro ra U) rl 4 0 H l0 0 •ri < � � -IH c z En 0 \ U) (U 0 o Q) 0 rl rd RI a) 4 a) •W a) ro - 0 d' O r1 -W U U) Q4 O H O Aa 3 c W •r•1 GYa U w 5- U V — 24 H H z 0 H W Pa O z H a H w z U H 0 U 0 44 U2 E -q O U Q w w z O E-1 a) Pa U] O U 'H 4 H O .H 4.1 rj .H H N M u I O M CO M r -I r— ,H b CD Nm�'mLf)NHrHNl0 NN L} CC*)(;HML. CO OM Lf100 HHrHHHHHNNNN MM MM 4) U] -4 Sr" C) l0 Lt) N C CO H N O Lf) lC N Va M d> O a) O CO LC If) OMNN LO N N m Nif)M U 04 NN Mme' V'�U?Lf)IOIONcOcOO.%O H NDDl4�3'000l0ti'OO0l0s NOCO 0) -I C) N N N L0 0 LC) O d' CO M CO M CO N C)OlHC!'ML000r-HONIf) NONLf) O a) a) N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M HHHHHHHHHHHHHHrH U] S -I S.' N L- 0 w qr O N LO ) CO If) N d' 01 O a) O L() ,-4 C) LO if ) NNC0OMOLOMN N U Pa El O) 0 0 H N M �S' Lf) 00 H N et' 00 H H r -I H r-i r-i H H H N N N (NN Lf) l0 l0 N N H N b m 01 l0 N d' U) '-I Q Lf) 01 Ln N 0 CO N N N CO O M NN r -I Z i4 Cd NC)NU)Mr100l0CI'NC)C)NLicr Oa)a) T e a E-' P-I'>N HN NM�'Lfjltil0 N0001O CHN CocoC00000criOOCOCOCOCC0 )O) 01 C)HNM�'if)t0NCO01OHN M� DD 00 Ca CO CO C0 CO CO CO CO Cil d> d> tit 01 d> Ol Ol Ol T OZ a1 O) 01 � dl Ol 01 d> Ci1 HHHHHHHHrHHHHHHH V - 24 a SEERDRUM The Seerdrum is simply a large, steel cylinder that rotates on its horizontal axis and is driven by four radial steel -belted automobile wheels each powered by a twenty -horsepower electric motor. The Seerdrum operates on the principle that most of the waste stream is water soluble. Waste is fed into the one end from a conveyor. It's mixed with a great amount of water, tumbled and turned, and directed toward the other end with the aid of internal baffles. This process takes approximately 40 to 50 minutes. Cans, bottles, and other hard substances within the dis- posed waste act as mechanical hammers to pulverize other waste inside the drum. The wet pulverized material emerges from the perforated drum to a product conveyor. A magnetic pulley located at the exit end of the product conveyor removes the ferrous metal from this material and deposits it in a hopper. Other resultant material, called the "product", is transferred by conveyor to a transfer trailer which takes it to the landfill. See Figure 4 for layout of a seerdrum operation. The English -built Seerdrum is currently in operation in Wicomico County, Maryland. It is the only one in operation in the United States, but one of thirty located worldwide. Since it is a relatively new system, most data collected for this study were provided by Wicomico County or by the sales representative for the Environmental Utilities Corporation which markets the system in the United States. V - 25 a @ w \ w V-26 Advantages: 1. The Seerdrum reduces volume of solid waste which is an advantage in hauling, handling and landfilling. The manufacturer states that the Seerdrum can reduce landfill area needs by 80%. Volume reduction of 80% is a function of mechanical removal of ferrous. metals, handpicking of cardboard and aluminum, elimination of soil cover at the landfill site and actual pulverizing of solid waste by the seerdrum. Since Washington County is required to use soil cover for its landfill and most forms of material recovery are not feasible at this time, reduction in volume would be less than 80%. 2. Reduced volume can reducelandfill life. 3. The Seerdrum is"simple in its mechanical operation which aids in maintenance and reduces downtime. Experience in Wicomico County substantiates this. 4. The simplicity of operation and repair of the system would eliminate the need for the highly skilled personnel that are essen- tial for other solid waste disposal systems such as shredders, incinerators, and energy conversion devices. 5. Seerdrumming can be employed in conjunction with other solid waste technologies such as material and energy recovery, and composting. 6. According to Environmental Utilities Corporation: "Unlike other pulverizing equipment where explosions have become a constant V - 27 r threat to the entire facility, no explosion has occurred in a Seerdrum in over 12 years of experience at 29 processing stations". 7. A multiple Seerdrum system has its own built-in backup capability. Disadvantages 1. The Seerdrum is a new concept in solid waste processing within the United States. Data for evaluating its reliability and for comparing it to other solid waste systems is not readily avail- able. 2. The Seerdrum is water consumptive. A source of public or well water must be available on -site. 3. The Seerdrum is only capable of processing certain types of solid waste. Generally, residential and light commercial solid waste can be pulverized with the,$eerdrum. Other waste must be directly landfilled. 4. Volume reduction capabilities for a covered landfill with- out resource recovery has not been ascertained. (Data may become available at a future time with testing at the Wicomico County installation). V - 28 5. The Seerdrum can process only about 11 tons of solid waste per hour. From an analysis of the waste stream for the peak season, it is known that 221 tons per day,or 34 tons per hour, would have to be processed. This, then, would require three Seerdrums. The alternative would be to have two work shifts with a constant backup of trash until the peak season is past. The cost cited below is based on the need for three Seerdrums.* Seerdrum Capital and Operating Costs Since the Seerdrum is a relatively new system within the United States, available cost data are only approximate. More information was provided by the manufacturer's representative and by some assistance from Wicomico County. Some cost data were not available; costs which were not included will be notes. Analysis of the data shows that an estimated $3.3 million would be required for start-up of a Seerdrum facility in Washington County. Based on a depreciation period of 15 years, the annualized cost for the system is approximately $241,440 or $3.38 per proces- sable ton. As previously mentioned, the Seerdrum is water consumptive; as a result, start-up of a system would require instal- lation of one or more wells on -site. This cost has not been included in total capital costs. Site construction cost appears to be lower in the vendor's proposal than actual cost which was calculated for *The 11 tons -per -hour is a vendor estimate based on conveyor feed. The Wicomico County landfill director has stated that they average approximately 10 tons per hour. However, tests run by Teledyne National (Investigation, Evaluation, and Comparison of Seerdrum & Harmexmill Solid Waste Shredder Processing Systems, May 12, 1975) stated that the Seerdrem has a rated capacity of 8 tons per hour. V - 29 construction of the new Resh Road Landfill. Therefore, capital costs shown in Table 17 are not comparable to similar tables pre- sented in Sections V and VII which detail capital and operating costs estimated for a shredder and actual landfill costs. Annual operating costs for each item shown on Table 16 have been estimated using the number of pro-cessable tons generated in Washington County in a given year in conjunction with the cost per ton estimated by the vendor for maintenance, utiliites, and general expense. Labor cost shown was actual labor cost for land- fill personnel during fiscal year 1981. Total estimated annual operating costs were $279,465 or $3.91 per processable ton. This represents costs involved with processing solid waste through the Seerdrum and transportation from the Seerdrum to the working face of the landfill. The total cost per ton for capital and operating the Seerdrum facility is $7.29. Analysis of the total solid waste stream delivered to the City/County Landfill shows that,on the average,fifty-nine percent of all waste collected is processable through the Seerdrum.* The remaining 41 percent must be directly landfilled along with the Seer - drum product. Although volume of solid waste is reduced by the Seer== drum which lowers capital and operating cost of the landfill operation, costs are still incurred for landfill operation, as well as the Seerdrum operation. Consequently, the total cost of processing with the Seerdrum ($7.29 per ton) must be added to a cost for *The percentage that is processable will vary. While the average equates to 59 percent, the ratio for the peak season was 50 percent. This variation emphasizes the need for continuous data collection. V - 30 landfilling the Seerdrum product. This cost per ton* would be incurred for. approximately 59% of the solid waste stream. The remaining 25% (excluding Conservit's 16 percent) would be directly landfilled at $3.23 per ton. The cost of landfilling the material from Conservit would be less since it would not require daily cover, and would require less compaction but for estimating pur- poses it can be assumed that the total cost per ton for a Seerdrum System would be approximately $10.52, or about $918,000 annually. One possible approach for the Seerdrum System would be for the County to enter into an agreement with Environmental Utilities Corporation to operate the landfill on a "turnkey" basis. With this method, Environmental Utilities would run the landfill for the County using its own capital equipment and personnel for an agreed -upon rate. The estimate received from the Corporation in the summer of 1981 can be found in Appendix F. * Although the cost per ton for landfilling a shredded product is less than that of directly landfilling, a cost could not be approximated due to insufficient data. V - 31 0 4J Cl, N 9 th L1) r•4 r-4 4i? O O N O (N O Q N (N N �1 N H (N N U)• .2 LO f 8 O O 0 N 0 N ri O • (r) i--i r-4 s C+) aJ M U)- U)• co U . i B ++-i•U N V H to 1 4-d .4.) RS Jo U) +) kk-�� DEW o r Hi! 8 6 H - •39 U1 H C!7 z H rj) 0 U Ea E-+ U2 w CO ri N l0 m Co H dr r1 N r --I N O Ui m N M H vi- i!!- ih >:.r" U)- U?- U)- U)- �'� 0 0 .-. .. WG .-... .. .-. H r -I N '.0 s~ m CO H r -I N H NO Lfl a) 4-a Cl) N M 0 v ... - v .— — r L IC) iJ O H O Cl) 0 H O f" 00 l0 N 0 - 3 CC a o l0 N 0 • • LO N M z ciN la t0 r r-i O r-i LO Ln l0 N Ln OH O �' c1' --I d1 ,-.4 Lf1 H H N H O r-i L.f) N •r N r U)- U)- {a- v)• yr { 4-4 v S= OW Q. -P H QJ 0 4J .N S~ 0 CO 4 (d H > -H 0 U1 U) >ICO •H 4i , v 0 -1-H 0 0 -P00 0 -Pa) M 0) rz7 C U v 4a r —I RS QL H 0 Q) U •r.l 4J •ri )4 > 2 WO 0 5 v0 v •r1 ro400 ra v0.µ U).4s~-P -P -P vMM a C v 0 0 (a za 44 -iJ M of a 4- O - cd 3 . V O4-i -H Cl) H (d U) v Ord •tJ U d 4 •- Q) E U 4J V > v d H Ul U) UI P rd 0 m U) 4J 00 Ca Om ws~ro 0005 p v Hp 0 c r i (d 0 H 4-1 E d 4 i • U r. U rb Ga l U - rd O4-' Q. rd ,%-i • .H U Cl) U) f~ rd Q U) -1-1 rd>i M 4- H (d O4 -O •H •r4 Q) -H (1) Cl) Q) v 0 z C 0• M U) -C4-) •I-1 r-1 ro U) v 44 QQ.� 4-) U) 0) 4 (d -rH-I ?�-I N >1 Q) t Cd a) Q) U r-1 -H Q) -P -H U) v )•a v S~ Ul -U) O (1) 0 (d (d r. - S~ v U) rd a-1 RS >1 •H 0 r-( (d I-i rd U) I H 0 rV rd H I U) y r0 0- v (d r0 0 0 E rd 0 rd -P t Q) U 0 r-i Q4 -J . V v -r'1 U v z✓> U 04w(a E 0 • 0.0 >1 Qr-4 0 S~ u U,H•H 4 Cd EE3 0 a) v S~ Ei S -r 4+ v rd U U) U vv Urd •f0 >-Hd0 S" 'J0 W0 •H a-► ≥••i aJ -fJ ra ; 4 U) Q) i•l Z •H ro ya CJ 04 00 U) ►Z(a E:ErdU) • -H EvU) Er U)0Q) rd >r - 4J 4 i - r -I (1) A 0 S -I WV 0 0 ;'-I ,tr` 0 a-► +) v 0 0 4a rd •H 4-1 S-( Cd +) 4-I 7-1 4I U) rd aJ v 4J v ?+ (a v U 0 0 >-r >1 v H HOW E -H )•l 4-1 ,s~ U] ra d 4-4 Cl) 0 --4b 04-H Z rd 41 r-1 co +) E (d Sa 0 (d tm r 1 rd l4 U) +a 0 -IJ Q) )-1 U U) -P0)0 ;-1 Q)(d0 0000 rdU)4Os~ 0 (d0 Cd Hv0 IQ) ray U) ,C1 4 Sa U A •H 4J tH H H A O'4- ___________ 0 U) 4-I 44 Q) rd Q) 0 0 v H 4-) 0 Q) QJ > . 4J H rd v r-1 U) •H S=r -i -lJ Z S- aJ U) •H •H .{J rd Q) I4 U) rd rd rw co (d 0 WO aJ v a-1 (d CA •iJ r~ t ", Q) C.' r-1 v H -H U) S i Q) Cl) U I RS I -H WOE Q) 0 E 4-)-i -H Q) v: (I) 4-S U 0r -H -W H -P 0 0 (1) 1~ 4- -rH Z -i-I •rI r -I U a) •H v Cl) r -I U) ..Qrd .- S~ •H (d -H. •H Q) 4J rd Rr a (d 0 (d r..' (d Q) 'd 4) b' (d v ts' .0 r'1 +a r z X 4 -IJ U a ra aaaU]W >W AWE (d W H 0 • 0 H a3 U A W W H V-33 BALING Baling is undertaken to reduce solid waste. It can extend landfill space, can be cost effective when transfer and long haul are necessary prior to disposal, and can make solid waste easier to handle and transport. There are several different types of balers which are currently marketed. Costs of processing per ton are dependent variables peculiar to an area and on the state of develop- ment of the particular system. Advantages 1. Life of landfill can be extended by increasing waste density by approximately 60 percent. 2. Balers can handle most types of wastes although large concentrations of grass clippings and leaves cannot be put in the same bale. 3. Reduction of bulk makes costs of hauling more economical. 4. Bales are easier to handle than loose solid waste. 5. Ferrous metals can be separated by magnet in shredding/ baling operations. Disadvantages 1. There is an initital capital investment involved with setting up the system. 2. After the bale is formed, no resource recovery can take place. 3. There is still not enough technical knowledge available about the economics of baling. 4. Effects of baling on decomposition and settling after burial in the sanitary landfill are still unknown. V - 34 Conclusion: "E.P.A. recommends that baling of solid waste be considered by cities generating a sufficient volume of solid waste (currently defined as those cities generating more than 400 tons per day . . . ), especially if close -in land for disposal sites is unavailable and long hauls are inevitable . . . It should be noted, however, that baling precludes any subsequent resource recovery process. Recovery must be accomplished before the baling step is begun." * * Decision -Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management, 1976, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Second Addition, P.78. V - 35 VOLUME REDUCTION AND ENERGY RECOVERY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS t VOLUME REDUCTION AND ENERGY RECOVERY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS Energy recovery is the use of certain fractions from the solid waste stream for energy production. Municipal solid waste has about half as much energy as coal on a per pound basis and about the same as peat or wood which qualifies it as a fuel or energy source. This section, written by M.E.S., summarizes energy recovery systems in operation or under construction in the United States that are sized for 300 tons per day or less. Overall, the predominant system in this size range is modular controlled -air incineration and the predominant product is steam. Modular controlled -air incineration is a relatively new technology as far as municipal wastes are concerned. It's appli- cation for a number of years has been in industrial waste and pathogenic waste incineration. The technology uses two combustion chambers: one for primary combustion with about half the air needed for complete combustion and a second, with backup auxilliary fuel, if needed, for higher temperature combustion of gases and particu- lates. As a result of using the second combustion chamber, emissions from these systems are relatively low, and air pollution control is cheaper and simpler than for most other combustion systems. Some of these units are less efficient in energy recovery than other types of mass combustion, but they have the advantage of lower cost per ton of capacity because of the modular construction. VI -1 1 The rotary kiln incinerator is a new technology. The first U. S. system is under construction in Gallatin, Tennessee. This technology uses a combination rotary waterwall kiln for combustion followed by a waterwall boiler (waterwall means the walls are lined with water -filled pipes bersus a refractory type lining). This unit is capable of producing steam at pressures and temperatures that are sufficient for congeneration of electricity. The Gallatin project is described later. (See Appendix B), Waterwall incinerators have been around for some time. Effi- ciencies are in the neighborhood of 65 percent and they are capable of producing steam at pressures that will allow electrical generation. They are, however, field erected and generally have been considered too costly for 200 and 300 ton per day applications. However, a recently constructed 200 TPD facility at Hampton, Virginia is described later. (See Appendix B). Refuse derived fuel, commonly referred to as RDF, comprises a separate branch of the energy recovery disciplines, and, because of the numerous varieties available, cannot be described as a single method of waste conversion. Each RDF system is a bit different than the next. Essentially the RDF approach involves separating, shredding, and sometimes pelletizing the combustible part of the waste stream so that it can be burned separately as fuel. VI - 2 I I The advantages claimed for the RDF approach are: • more efficient and uniform combustion than mass incineration. • smaller and cheaper combustion equipment than for water -wall mass incineration, ability to locate RDF processing plant and boiler at different locations. ability to burn RDF in existing boilers (usually as supplementary fuel to coal)° ability to include materials recovery. Maryland has been a leader in the development of technology for RDF production at the MES/Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility and has successfully burned RDF at a number of facilities including: 1) Cement Kiln - Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Union Bridge, Maryland. 2) Stoker boiler - Maryland Correctional Institution, Hagerstown, Maryland. 3) Utility boiler - BG&E Crane Station, Baltimore, Maryland, Pelletized RDF also is being supplied for extensive testing at a stoker fired boiler at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Washington County's potential for energy -from -waste was surveyed and analyzed by Maryland Environmental Service, The paragraphs which follow summarize a more detailed report on energy potential in the County written by M.E.S. and found in Appendix B of this report. The costs associated with the design, construction, and operation of a steam producing facility are not insignificant. It appears that only in those situations where there is a ready-made market is it feasible to enter into an energy recovery venture. Appendix B-1 shows the estimated costs for putting into production an RDF facility in Washington County. Depending on the type of facility, VI - 3 expense to the community just for design and construction will range from $3.3 million to $13.5 million, A typical energy -producing facility with an available market is illustrated by the operation of a modular combustion facility in Durham, New Hampshire. Faced with the closing of its open dumps, plus associated landfill problems, fourteen communities in the Durham area entered into a cooperative agreement to supply its waste stream to the new facility for the production of steam that in turn was sold to the University of New Hampshire.The de- sign and construction cost was $3.5 million, and the first year of operation plus debt service on the loan was $900,000. This was balanced by refuse disposal fees of $380,000 and another $520,000 through the sale of steam to the University. In such a community, a modular combustion facility may be justified where a dependable market exists. Evenso, as with the shredder method of waste dis- posal, down -time cannot be discounted. The loss of revenue from the University costs the community $2000 every day the facility is not in operation. Backup systems are recommended as indispensable to assure steady, interrupted production. Public support is requiredg in the Durham operation, an average tipping fee of $13 a ton is necessary to offset the operating costs.* *Public Works, July, 1981. VI - 4 Potential for Energy -from -Wastes Projects This Section, written by M.E.S., summarizes potential energy - from -wastes projects. Small scale projects using less than 300 TPD of solid waste are reviewed in the M.E.S. report (See Appendix B) to determine what kinds of projects are being successfully implemented in this range. Most involve mass incineration or modular starved -air incineration and produce low steam pressure. Three projects produce refuse derived fuel (RDF) for use as a supplementary fuel with coal in electric utility boilers. Washington County does not have ideal markets for low pressure stream waste -to -energy projects. Most steam markets are small (County Hospital, Pangborn, and Fairchild Industries). The only market is Mack Truck which we believe would be difficult to de- velop into a waste -to -energy project at this time. The RDF approach may have more potential for development. For a long-term commitment to a waste -to -energy project, the Hagerstown MELP is probably the best situation in the County at this time. This project, however, would require a careful re-examination based on the experience of the recovery industry over the last four years. VI - 5 Materials Recovery Materials recovery involves the extraction of valuable materials from the solid waste stream. This concept encompasses: 1. Changing the form or substance of a heterogenous mass of waste into new products, such as compost. 2. Recovering materials from the waste stream to be used as the raw material for new products similar to those discarded. 3. Adapting waste products to be used as a new product. unlike the previous one. For example, using discarded glass to make "'glassphalt" to pave highways. The following text is extracted from the October, 1981 report by MES on "Potential For Waste To Energy And Materials Recovery From Solid Waste" which is included in its entirity in Appendix B. Materials can be separated from the waste stream by hand (source separation), by a combination of mechanical processing and hand picking or entirely by mechanical processing, usually in connection with a solid waste shredding operation or some type of energy resource recovery system. The type of recovery process used will affect the amount and character of the materials recovered and usually the market used. Hand separated materials are cleaner and usually can be sold to local secondary scrap dealers. Mechanically processed materials usually have more contamination and are saleable only to special markets. Vl - 6 Materials recovery can have an impact on the volume of re- fuse going to landfill; for example, Marblehead, Massachusetts, through a well -run program, has been able to recycle 25 percent of the residential waste stream through source separation. This section lists markets for both source separated and mechanically separated materials as identified for Washington County. The feasibility of starting source separation programs in Washington County is discussed in a separate report to the County from MES. (See Appendix A ). Mechanical separation possibilities are not analyzed in detail in this report. For the most part, they would be part of a shredding or resource recovery operation and would not be viable unless energy recovery, shredding, or some other processing of solid waste was being done. Paper Paper prices are determined by its grade which varies according to its quality and the degree of contamination. Common contaminants include glue, staples, and rubber bands. These grades are esta- blished by the Paper Stock Institute of America, a commodity division of the National Association of Recycling Industries, Inc. VI - 7 Unstable market conditions for corrugated and newspaper present the biggest problems in selling wastepaper. The demand and price for each fluctuate considerably throughout the year. For example, in March,1980 the price for newspaper was $25-30/ton. In October, 1980 the price for newspaper had fallen to $10/ton and was expected to remain at that low price during the next few months. Market conditions for high grade office paper such as computer printout, and tab cards, on the other hand, are relatively stable at prices which average $80, and $115/ton, respectively. The price for corrugated appears to be fairly stable at this time with the price at $15/ton. The following markets purchase source separated paper: Maryland Metals, Inc. 304 W. Church Street P.O. Box 31 Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 739-5525 Suburban Insulation 1115C Maugans Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 791-2143 Purchases Tab Cards Purchases Corrugated Newspaper Computer Printout Tab Cards Garden State Paper, which buys newsprint directly for de - inking and recycling back as newsprint, has indicated to MES that it is not interested in purchasing paper from Washington County. Garden State will give a floor price contract which offers some stability to newsprint recycling projects. VI - 8 Glass C&C Cullet Supply Company in Marietta, Pennsylvania and Keystone Cullet Company in Greensburg, Pennsylvania both purchase color separated container glass, provided that it is rinsed clean and free of metal caps and rings. If a sufficient amount of glass is generated, either of these will provide containers and pick up service for the glass. Price for glass depends on transport requirements. The processes currently available to mechanically recover glass from municipal solid waste limit the marketability of the glass. Glass must be recovered to specification if it is to be sold. Only one market has been identified that will accept color - mixed cullet such as is recovered at the Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility. Owens-Corning fiberglass Corporation is purchasing the cullet for use in the production of insulation. The glass is separated from the other refuse by a vibrating air table that sorts material according to its specific gravity and shape. The cullet is then milled to 16 mesh as required by the contract with Owens-Corning. Revenue from the sale of the glass is $18.75/ton FOB Cockeysville. Washington County probably would not find mechanical glass recovery cost effective. VI - 9 N Aluminum Aluminum beverage cans and aluminum scrap can be sold to the scrap dealers listed below. The current price being paid by these dealers is $.20 - $.25 per pound. Brock's Scrap & Salvage Company P.O. Box 720 Cumberland, MD 21502 (301) 777-0820 P.O. Box 1517 Sharpsburg Pike Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 791-0100 Schroyer's Recycling Center 8145 Reich's Ford Road Frederick, MD 21701 (301) 663-6022 Mechanical recovery of aluminum could be a part of a solid waste processing system for Washington County, but the use of the "aluminum magnet" approach is not recommended at this time. These systems for extracting aluminum from shredded waste have not met with much success. Reynolds Aluminum has developed a system for aluminum can recovery that is relatively simple. The waste stream is processed through a large rotary screen to drop out and concentrate cans and similar sized objects. After magnetically removing ferrous cans, and performing some additional processing, aluminum cans are hand picked. Systems are now in operation in Houston, Texas (500 tons per day) and Salem, Virginia (80-100 tons per day). VI - 10 The Reynolds system is illustrated in Figure 5. A similar approach to aluminum recovery is being used in Wicomico County, Maryland, where aluminum cans are being hand picked following processing of solid waste through a Seerdrum rotary pulverizer. VI - 11 l Cam LLt m 2 u N + cJ + Ow �U) LL �I N;, 0 Lu �..r C, o. U) LLB Cl) 9 U> ca On s 3isdVna 11ld®Nb°7 O ff38VI-12 I LL O ii', Ti Ferrous Metals Ferrous metals recovered through source separation usually consist of tin cans, bi-metal cans (which are tin -coated steel having a single aluminum end) and tin -free steel cans. These are relatively uniform, light weight, easily handled, and may be easily processed for recycling by a consumer at home. The cans must be rinsed clean, have labels removed, ends cut out, and usually must be flattened (simply by stepping on the middles) to reduce their size. The only market for these cans in the Washington County area is Brock's Scrap & Salvage Company located in Cumberland. Accumu- lating a sufficient amount of cans to make their recovery economical could be a problem. The average price paid for these cans is $6/ton. White goods (appliances) can be sold to Conservit for $30/ton. The ability to sell ferrous metals that are mechanically re- covered from municipal solid waste is heavily dependent on the form and purity of the recovered metal. With the largest portion of the ferrous consisting of cans, the markets are limited. These cans are often a composite of several materials including steel, tin, lead, and aluminum. If the ferrous is incinerated prior to extraction, the result is a heavily contaminated product which at this time is not readily marketable in the Maryland area. VI - 13 At the present time, the most viable market in Maryland is Bethlehem Steel at Sparrows Point which purchases baled ferrous scrap from the Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility at 80% of the Philadelphia price for No. 2 bundles of scrap iron, as published in Iron Age (first issue of the month). Recent prices for ferrous are listed below: No. 2 Bundles - Philadelphia Market Price/Gross Ton Sep. 80 $65 Oct. 80 $61 Nov. 80 $64 Dec. 80 $64 Jan. 81 no price Feb. 81 $54 Mar. 81 $65-67 Apr. 81 $51 May 81 $51 June 81 $48 July 81 $48 Aug. 81 $53 Sep. 81 $47 Transport and baling will consume a substantial portion of this revenue as shown below. The figures below are based on shipment of a 65 cu. yd. trailer loaded with 15 tons, assl1ming no cost for the trailer. VI - 14 Gross Revenue: Less: Tractor Leasing 5 hours @ $31.20/hour (Round Trip) Baling in Baltimore & subsequent shipment to Bethlehem Steel March September $51.20/ton $37.60 (80% of $65) (80% of $47) $156 $165 $14/ton $14 Net Revenue:* $26.80/ton $13.20 *excluding cost of recovery Although ferrous prices fluctuate, they have remained high enough to make ferrous recovery a worthwhile recovery option for Baltimore County, which has recovered ferrous since 1976. Wicomico County, Maryland, now operates magnetic ferrous recovery in conjunction with its Seerdrum waste pulverization system, recovering ferrous metal from about 100 tons of solid waste per day. Wicomico County keeps transport costs low by using County -owned trucks for delivery and returning with slag from Bethlehem Steel. VI - 15 COMPARISONS BETWEEN SHREDDING AND LANDFILLING VOLUME REDUCTION AND LANDFILL LIFE One of the objectives of this study is to explore the feasibility of purchasing a shredder in Washington County in order to extend the life of the existing landfill. To accom- plish this task, it was necessary to completely analyze the current waste stream; review present landfilling techniques; and investigate operating shredder installations, the various types of equipment, and the degree of volume reduction associ- ated with those installations. Although the various methods of volume reduction were of prime consideration, resource recovery possibilities were considered as well. Often materials and energy recovery is quite compatible with a shredder facil- ity, and it makes good sense to extract marketable materials with an assured revenue from an otherwise "throw away" waste stream. Reduction of volume at a shredder facility and its auxiliary landfill is a function of the: 1. Degree of pulverization of solid waste which occurs during the shredding process; 2. Extraction of valuable materials from the waste stream which reduces volume at the landfill; 3. Savings in the amount of daily cover with a shredded product as compared with unprocessed waste; VII - 1 4. Degree of compaction at the landfill due to the type of solid waste buried and the operational techniques of the landfilling itself. These four variables which affect volume reduction were evaluated with respect to actual data collected in Washington County, information provided by the vendor and government agencies involved with Solid Waste Management, and state regulations controlling landfilling procedures. The following is a summary of that evaluation. 1. DEGREE OF PULVERIZATION OF SOLID WASTE WHICH OCCURS DURING THE SHREDDING PROCESS "Milling of refuse may be described as pulverization, shredding, or beating in order to obtain volume re- duction while at the same time producing a material which lends itself to easier disposal. An interesting feature of milling is the transformation of the refuse from a variety of waste materials into a relatively homogeneous mass bearing little resemblance to the original material. Not only is the volume reduced by up to 50%, but it is converted into a humus -like sub- stance which is relatively odorless, unattractive to flies and vermin, and which is relatively combustible."* * Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York, 1977, p.150. VII - 2 2. EXTRACTION OF VALUABLE MATERIALS FROM THE WASTE STREAM WHICH REDUCES VOLUME AT THE LANDFILL The amount of valuable materials extracted from the waste stream will be a factor in reduced volume and landfill space savings. The degree of reduction depends on the type of material recovery. Materials recovered can be on a small scale where extraction is one item like ferrous metals, glass, cardboard or aluminum can be taken from the total waste stream or on a larger scale where several of these items can be withdrawn. Several resource recovery plants in the United States are recovering these items with varying success. Some are also using a larger portion of the waste stream by converting most solid waste collected into refuse derived fuel (RDF) and burning it in an incinerator. Maryland Environmental Service has discussed material and energy recovery possibilities in Washington County in Section VI. 3. SAVINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF DAILY COVER WITH A SHREDDED PRODUCT AS COMPARED WITH UNPROCESSED SOLID WASTE The degree of soil cover used on a sanitary landfill often depends on the type of waste deposited, the quality objectives of the landfill, tonnage handled, and state requirements. The County landfill is re- quired by state law to cover a cell of exposed waste with a uniform compacted layer of approved cover material at least 6 inches in depth at the end of each day's oper- VII - 3 ation. Cover material is construed by the State Health Department as being clean earth. The technique for landfilling previously mentioned in the Oliver-Cump study consisted of spreading and compacting solid waste in layers on the face of the cell, passing over the cell two to five times with a compactor and covering with 6 inches of soil each day with a final cover of two feet upon closure. Since some types of items are harder to cover than others, e.g. rubber tires, bulky items, and branches, a greater quantity of soil is needed to provide a 6 inch uniform cover. During tests conducted in Madison, Wisconsin, it was found that when using a D7 Caterpiller tractor with an experienced operator, the practical depth of soil cover was found to be 14 inches on a flat surface and 18 inches on an inclined surface (as a working face) with unprocessed refuse. For comparison, the same equipment was used on milled refuse where the amount of soil needed to produce the same quality cover was approximately 6 inches on both flat and inclined surfaces.* Results of these tests indicate that unpro- cessed solid waste may require more cover than a shredded product. Unprocessed waste has a tendency to contain *Source: EPA Demonstration Project at Madison, Wisconsin reported in article entitled "Density of Milled and Unprocessed Refuse" by Robert K. Ham, et al. VII - 4 voids and cause "bridging" to occur, especially if not fully compacted. A shredded product is a more homo- geneous material which compacts more uniformly. This phenomenon contributes to the volume characteristic of a shredder. 4. DEGREE OF COMPACTION AT THE LANDFILL DUE TO TYPE OF SOLID WASTE BURIED AND LANDFILL OPERATIONAL TECHNIQUES Table 19 outlines the amount of solid waste estimated to be processed in a shredder in comparison to the landfill operation. Currently the City/County landfill buries almost 100 percent of all incoming solid waste. (White goods, amounting to less than 1%, are stock -piled, transported, and sold to Conservit periodically). Of the 100 percent of solid waste received (an average of 394 TPD) 16%, which originates from Conservit/Newell, is already shredded. Of the remaining 84%, 67% will be processable (263 TPD) and 17% will be directly landfilled. This 17%, consisting of rubble/demolition/land excavation material, brush/yard waste, white goods, tires, etc., in some cases could be shredded but with the possibility of unnecessary wear or breakdown of the machinery. These data are of primary importance when determining the vol- ume of reduction of landfilled solid waste versus shredded solid waste. Research done by the UniVersity of Wisconsin, Solid Waste Section, at Madison, Wisconsin has shown that VII - 5 volume reduction is dependent on refuse moisture content, amount of cover used, and amount of compaction. This research by the University, which included actual testing at landfills, demonstrated that a 30 percent volume re- duction can be achieved' through shredding. This finding provides the basis for both the effective refuse density of 1300 pounds per cubic yard given below and the 30 percent volume reduction cited in the next section. Also, the amount and type of solid waste landfilled will determine the volume reduction possible, e.g., bulky items are more difficult to compact and will have less volume reduction than mixed residential trash. In addition, milled refuse with equal compaction achieves a higher density than unprocessed refuse. In order to estimate the projected life of the new Resh Road Landfill site, we must therefore compare and evaluate the amount of shredded product that would be landfilled as opposed to the landfilling of unprocessed solid waste. Findings A review of "Design Report for Resh Road Landfill" prepared by Oliver-Cump and Associates reveals an estimated 17 -year life span of that 148 -acre site. This study was based on approximately 245 to 345 tons of solid waste per day delivered at the landfill. Population projections used in the Oliver-Cump study appear to be approximately 5% higher in 1980 than reported by the 1980 Census. With the use of a 20 -ton compactor and the filling technique pre- sented in that report, an effective refuse density of 1000 lbs. per W VII - 6 cubic yard was anticipated. Material which was already shred- ded (Conservit/Newell) and delivered to the landfill was classified as unprocessed solid waste, Since refuse generation data have become more exact due to solid waste weighing surveys, the population projections are more reliable due to the recent results of the 1980 Census, the Oliver- Cump report projections were adjusted to account for changes in the data. Although an effective refuse density of 1000 lbs. per cubic yard is still assumed for unprocessed solid waste, an effective refuse density of approximately 1300 lbs. is now assumed for landfilling a shredded product. Also, data have been re- calculated to classify Conservit material as being already shredded instead of as unprocessed waste. In arriving at new estimates for landfill life, this present analysis took into consideration such factors as changes in popu- lation growth rates, changes in the per capita waste generation rates, the nature of the processed material from Conservit/Newell, and the percentage of probable volume reduction of compacted material. These adjusted data result in revised projections of the original Oliver-Cump estimates, The techniques for landfilling used in the Oliver-Cump report were used as the basis for calculating landfill life for both the shredder and the straight landfill dis- posal methods. If the County continues to landfill, a total of 100.44 acres will be filled by the end of the fifteen -year period. (The reader should keep in mind that a fifteen -year study period is used based on the estimated life of a shredder). If a shredder VII - 7 facility were to be put into operation, however, the total area filled in this fifteen -year period would be 79.24 acres. This assumes that 67 percent of the total waste stream is processable through the shredder, 16 percent will arrive from Conservit/ Newell already shredded, and another 17 percent will not be pro- cessable. This decrease in required acreage is due to the volume reduction and density characteristics of the shredded product as compared to unprocessed solid waste. Additional volume reduc- tion is due to soil cover savings. Although statistics have shown that a 60 percent reduction in landfill space is possible without cover, this reduction was not considered due to the State Health Department's position that a shredded productis handled no dif- ferently than unshredded material with respect to cover requirements. When adjusting the Oliver-Cump report projections and creating a model for volume reduction of both a landfill and a shredder facility in Washington County, several assumptions were made. It was assumed that: (a) The technique for landfilling the new Resh Landfill would be conducted as specified in the Design Report; (b) Material and energy recovery would be possible only to the extent detailed in the MES report; (See Appendix B) . VII - 8 (c) Weighing surveys used for this study are re- flecting an average that would be consistent with the results of a year-round weighing program; (d) The State Health Department remains firm on its position -that a shredded product must be covered in the same manner as unprocessed solid waste. Changes in any of these items could result in new projec- tions for the life span of the 148 -acre site. However, if the factors cited above in estimating life of the landfill remain relatively stable, the Resh Landfill site should last 22 years with 100 percent of the waste directly landfilled. From this, it would appear that corresponding extension for landfill life would result from a shredder operation, one that would go well beyond the 22 years. Since the 15 -year study period used in this analysis is based on the maximum life expectancy of a shredder and its support equipment, any extension beyond that time would require a new investment in capital equipment. In the following section, it will be seen that these expenditures are of significance. For this reason, there has been no attempt to pro- ject the ultimate landfill life with a shredder operation. VII - 9 COST COMPARISONS OF LANDFILLING VS. SHREDDING As previously mentioned, the volume reduction capabilities of a shredder can increase the lifespan of a landfill by 25 to 60 percent depending on waste management practices of a particular landfill. Assuming that a volume reduction of 30 percent could be applicable in Washington County, it was estimated in Section that a shredder could save approximately 20 acres of landfill space at the Resh Road site over the 15 year study period. With this in mind, the difference between landfilling and shredding operating and capital costs should be reviewed. Table 19. gives the total capital and operating costs for both waste disposal methods for 1) , a single year (1981),, and 2) , for the total 15 -year study period. For 1981, the total capital and operating cost for land - filling at the City/County landfill was $413,970 or $3.37 a ton.* Shredder capital and operating cost without auxiliary landfilling would have been $834,911 or $10.17 a ton. See Table 16 , Page V- 24. of far greater significance, however, is the total cost of shredding processable waste and then landfilling 100 percent of *During 1981, capital costs incurred by the City/County landfill were pri- marily for site preparation of the Resh Road site. Since these are one-time costs and not representative of the landfill's actual budget, these costs were taken out and placed in each year of the study period in order to make landfill costs comparable to shredder costs. Therefore, 1981 capital costs are lower than normal which makes the cost per ton a little lour than it normally would be. -See the graph on page VII -- 16 for a ccanparison of the other 14 years within the study period. VII - 10 the waste stream for the 15 year period. In reviewing these costs, it is necessary to consider three basic categories of solid waste: 1. Solid waste that can be processed through a shredder; this constitutes approximately 67% of the waste stream in Washington County. 2. Solid waste which, because of its nature, is unprocessable and must be directly landfilled. This constitutes 17% of the waste stream. 3. Solid waste which is already shredded; this represents 16% of the incoming waste stream. As mentioned in the volume reduction section, a shredded product is a more homogeneous material and compacts more uni- formly than unprocessed solid waste. Tests have shown that a shredded product also requires less cover than unprocessed solid waste. Therefore, cost per ton for landfilling a shredded product is lower than landfilling unprocessed waste.An EPA study of ten shredder facilities has shown that for landfilling shredded waste there is, on the average, a $.37 a ton reduction in costs for vehicular equipment repair, maintenance, parts, and supplies. This reduction was reflected in the operating cost per ton for a shredded product when compiling the cost data for the total 15 year period. Although other information has suggested that land - filling a shredded product would have a greater reduction than $.37, this infomation was not presented in a manner which could be utilized in the County's cost data. Table 9 on page V-5. shows that the total cost of operating the County landfill from 1980-1994 would be approximately $14.6 million dollars with an additional cost per ton esculation. This cost assumes all wastes entering the landfill would be buried, including the Conservit/Newell wastes which should cost slightly less to bury because of their shredded nature. The estimated shredder costs for the 15 -year period are pre- sented in the table on page VII -15 in two parts: l)the capital and operating costs for the shredder itself ($22,606,808)*, and 2) the cost of burying the shredded product and the unprdcessable waste ($11,879,919). The additional cost of $11.8 million dollars would be required to operate an auxiliary landfill. The combined total is $34.4 million dollars to shred and landfill the County waste stream. The graph on page VII -16 shows a comparison of the costs per ton for the two methods of disposal for the 15 -year period. In evaluating the capital and operating costs of landfii- ling versus shredding, several factors are noteworthy: *Exact cost data cannot be determined without a detailed engineering study; estimated capital and operating costs have been established based on a 1975 EPA study of ten operating shredders, vendor quotes, and data collected within the County. 17TT - 17 (a) (b) (c) Since an engineering study was not performed, site design estimates are not site specific. Site design and construction costs, which com- prises 51 percent of the estimated capital cost, are based on average costs of 10 operating shredder sites in an EPA study. Although every attempt was made to keep the landfill model comparable to the shredder model, some overlap of operating costs may be present, especially in the administrative and general expense costs. This overlap was difficult to define due to lack of information on actual operation of a shredder with an auxiliary landfill similar to one which would be operating in Washington County. Labor costs estimated in the shredder model were the actual costs of County landfillemployeesfor FY ending 1980. Since a shredder facility contains sophisticated equipment requiring technically trained personnel for both management and maintenance, the labor costs for operating the facility would actually be higher than indicated. Estimations of required personnel were not used in the model due to insuf- ficient data available to define the number of workers needed and the salaries they would require. (Labor costs comprised 25% of the operating budget for 1980). VII - 13 (d) For uniformity, an inflation factor of 10% was used for both models for projections. (e) Land was treated as a non -depreciable asset in both models. (f) Vendor quotes were used in determining stationary and vehicular equipment capital costs for the shredder model. These items represent 49% of total capital cost for 1980. (g) Revenue from materials recovery in a shredder facil- ity was not deducted from operating costs primarily because of insufficient materials and unstable markets. These factors can add to or subtract from the totals shown for capital and operating costs. Firmer estimates could be pro- vided if an engineering study were done. Nevertheless, total shredder costs estimated for a 15 year study period equal $34.4 million dollars as opposed to $14.6"million dollars for landfill costs. The difference between the cost of these two methods of disposal is approximately 19.8 million dollars. The reduction of volume that would be saved in land is roughly 21.2 acres, (the difference between the 100.44 acres and the 79.24 acres discussed on pages VII -7 & 8) . 11 r J._i Nil 0>• m z3 UO cU c► tcIJ a` av w M c13 o (N •N C' 8-� �m N N M N�oocc m4 Ln-4M N t'+'! (N a+ Ln l0 N M U K! U o,4 Ln M (n CA M c9• M N C) m $4 is 4) l0 i— N Ln r•-i Ln Ln 4M C C N N r•i O Uo ©M N r-i M owl r ii Udil bjJ II hi O r-4 o, r-1 O CNo ! cai M t I I m U il 28 ®� 14 stnq .• .4J -.hr 0, tI_ia w tr az r<-4 v rn ' -2 8 04� c u icy -4�4 �� LOH RT C) N T 0 J uj LL p aD O Z 0 Q Z OD U) U, > ti Cn J J wJ Z cQ H z LL LL! it O n a ; z (1 )4 w OD u. ( O ao m 0 CD 0) O ro O Pn N O 0 N — O LO — N01 3d .LS00 Conclusion Recorded land transfers have indicated that the estimated cost of land located in portions of Election Districts 2, 13, and 23 near the City/County and Resh Landfill sites is roughly $1,100 per acre.* See the graph on page VII -20. Therefore, the current market value. of the 21.2 acres saved by volume reduction resulting from shredding will be approximately $23,320. The table on page VII -15 shows that there will be a cost dif- ference of $19.8 million between straight landfilling and a shredder operation for the 15 -year period. It also shows there will be 21.2 fewer acres needed if the County opts for a shredder facility. The $23,320 market value of the 21.2 acres, when subtracted from the 19.8 million, will still leave a total cost difference of $19,784,419. The result: A shredder operation will save 21.2 acres over a 15 -year period, but it will do so at a cost of $933,227 per acre. Although this study has been made without the aid of a detailed engineering analysis, there is goo reason to assign a high degree of validity to the cost comparison figures, the estimates, and the projections because of the substantial quantity and quality of data available from other communities as well as from federal and state agencies that have had experience with shredding facilities. The actual weighing data gathered in the December, July, and October sur- veys also adds a considerable measure of confidence to these cost *The cost per acre is in 1981 dollars. This cost represents land without improvements in a parcel of 75 acres or more in size, designated as Agricultural land by the .Tax Assessment office. Since land markets fluctuate considerably, $1,100 is an assumed cost based on research of past land transfers. See Appendix I for more detail. VII - 17 conclusions. It goes without saying, however, that costs of capital equipment as well as the cost of land will not remain static and can only increase over time. This vast contrast between land costs for future landfilling and shredder costs were recognized in studies conducted by EPA several years ago. In an article by John W. Thompson of EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, he noted: "Recently, the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs in EPA conducted a study of landfill, shredder, and transfer station costs. Results indicated the price of land is such a small portion of total disposal costs, that paying a very high price for land adjacent to the community may be a sound economic decision. This is especially true if the land can be acquired in lieu of transfer or shredder facilities. Use of shredder or transfer facilities is an intermediate rehandling step between collection and disposal." The EPA Demonstration Project at Madison, Wisconsin similarly concluded in an article Density of Milled and Unprocessed Refuse that: "It is obvious that, in evaluating use of any technique to increase refuse density in a landfill, the landfill volume savings is just one of the many factors that must be considered. It is unlikely, for example, that landfill volume savings alone would justify the cost of a milling operation." Research of the landfill costs versus estimated shredder facility costs in Washington County has supported the findings of the aforementioned studies. It appears that approximately 6.7 acres are presently utilized for landfilling each year; at a cost of $1,100 an acre, this annual rate of $7,370 represents 2 per- cent of the total capital and operating landfill costs during 1981 and 1 percent of the estimated capital and operating costs for a shredder in that same year. �TTT - 1R Although shredding can reduce the need to purchase addi- tional landfill space and is a necessary part of resource recovery, it is a very costly operation. In some communities throughout the United States, shredding may be more economically viable because of the high cost of land, cover material, or high water tables. Washington County does not appear to be hindered by these factors to a high degree. For that reason, the following section is devoted to the analysis of available land for future landfill sites. VII -19 2 N- 2 ti cD rn ti 0) w Q os - NQ) o LL z z °' • iz X z cn I <w m J oC ca a — z C) a) z a a a ® rn (0 (0 (0 2. 1 O 1 1 I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0) ® 1- (0 tC) M N f!� 3HOb 2�3d 1SOO SELECTION OF FUTURE LANDFILL SITES SELECTION OF FUTURE LANDFILL SITES The Resh Road County Landfill site will become operational during the first quarter of 1982. Although this landfill has a life expectancy of 22 years, the County should begin now ex- ploring the possibilities of obtaining additional acreage for future use. Since solid waste disposal on the land is a part of the land -water environment, investigation of areas in the County that are environmentally favorable, geologically sound, and otherwise suitable for location of a sanitary landfill are analyzed. Figure 8 shows Maryland divided into five terrane (sic) types on the basis of the hydrologic characteristics of the land as related to solid waste disposal. Three of these five terrane types are located in Washington County: Terrane I --Shale, Silt - stone and Sandstone of the Appalachian Province; Terrane II -- Limestone and Marble Valleys; and Terrane III --Crystalline Silicate -Rock Areas of the Piedmoht (See Figure 9). "Terrane I, shale, silt -stone, and sandstone of the Appalachian Province, appears to be moderately amenable to solid waste disposal, with certain limitations. Degradation of the underlying groundwater 'by leachate is least likely in areas underlain by shale or other impervious material, but leachate generated at such sites may enter nearby streams unless adequate pre- cautions are taken. Terrane II, valleys underlain by limestone or marble, is somewhat less amenable than Terrane I to solid waste disposal because of the common development of solution channels and crevices in the underlying rocks. Thus, direct pollution of the under- lying groundwater reservoirs is possible. Parts of Terrane II, where the residuum or alluvium overlying the limestone is sufficiently thick or impervious to retard or inhibit vertical movement of pollutants, may be more a C a 3. Y4n0S a w r I O :•. Q y ::::•:. e F`' = w a 0 U E Q z O o c a E V 4 i ..�" '•' VIII -3 amenable to solid waste disposal than other parts.. Susceptibility of any terrane to disposal of solid wastes is, of course, also dependent upon the design of the landfill --the use of a relatively impervious cover material, etc. '"Terrane III, crystalline silicate rocks of the Pied- mont, is suitable for sanitary landfills where a relatively thick zone of saprolite lies well above the water table. Where the saprolite is thin and the rocks are extensively fractured, the possibility of pollution of the ground water by leachate is increased."'* The location of the City/County and Resh Road Landfills are within Terrane I. For the purpose of this report, a study area was designated which primarily consists of Martinsburg shale and for the most part follows the boundaries of a section of Terrane I located along the banks of the Conococheague Creek. Additional landfill sites should be situated in this study area because it. is generally the most geologically stable for solid waste dis- posal and because much of this area is close to major population centers yet not highly populated. See Figure 10. In order to assess the availability of future landfilling sites, all tracts of 75 acres or more within the study area in size were identified. The assessment showed that there are 45 tracts of this size totaling 5903 acres. Further investigation given to acquisition of additional landfill acreage would be dependent on other variables such as: hydrology, topography, negotiations with land owners, adequacy of transportation link- ages, specific site design requirements and engineering data, proximity of residential areas to the site, community acceptance, and cost considerations. *Source: Solid Waste Disposal In#the Geohydrologic Environment of Maryland by Edmond Otton, pp. 1 & 2. viii - 4 Rt. 494 ,'r ev �4 r y t .��i3 Rt. 58 494 Broadfording road t. 63 N MILES 0 %4 14 3/4 1 US 40 TO HAGERSTOWN STUDY AREA Parcels in study area - 75 acres or more Rt.63 a Martinsburg shale area SAC - RIVER = 11�i�=J Existing landfill- city/county 62 acres v5\\ a New landfill - Resh road WEST VIRGINIA 148 acres Rt68 I WILLIAMSPORT n Figure 10 VIII -5 Cost Considerations In addition to analyzing the availability of future land- fill sites, a review of large property transfers located within the study area were evaluated to assess the cost per acre when transferred. It was hoped that evaluation of historical data of transfers in the study area would enable us to identify a trend and thereby project a cost -per -acre for future land sales within this area. Figure 7 shows historical data of large par- cel sales within Election Districts 2, 13, and 23. These transfers occurred from 1966 through 1979. As shown, 33 prop- erties were transferred within the study area. Of these transfers, seventy-nine percent took place between 1966 and 1973. Years 1974-1979 contained only 21 percent of the properties transferred. Since there were few data points in the years 1974-1979 an accurate line projection could not be shown. Instability in the real estate market has also lead to problems in projecting land costs in the future. By reviewing land transfers for the last five years and inflating these costs by 10% each year, an assumed cost -per -acre for land to be purchased in large tracts (75 acres or more) within the study area has been considered reasonable by inter- viewed land appraisors. VIII - 6 25 FINANCING METHODS FINANCING METHODS Several alternatives are available for financing a resource recovery project. Either public or private financing or a com- bination thereof may be used. Specific financing methods will depend on the organizational structure selected to implement the project, the financial status of that structure or its components, legal constraints, debt limits and political attitudes. Local input is necessary to determine the most desirable method of financing the proposed project. A financial consultant should be retained to explore the various financing alternatives in detail. Findings of such a study would aid local officials in the selection of an organizational structure to implement the project. Table 20 summarizes the characteristics of the financing methods available. Table 21 summarizes the advantages and dis- advantages of each method. Public Capital Financing The public sector may use either general obligation bonds or revenue bonds for long-term capital financing. General Obligation Bonds These are long-term, tax exempt debt instruments which are offered for sale competitively by municipalities for the purpose of obtaining financing for projects with high capital costs. The obligations are backed by the County's ability to levy taxes and IX - 1 voter approval is required to issue general obligation bonds. These types of bonds are particularly dependent on the credit rating of the municipality. Municipal Revenue Bonds Municipal Revenue Bonds (MRB) are long-term, tax exempt debt instruments issued directly by the County or the Maryland Environmental Service. Revenues of the project are guaranteed as backup for the debt. Municipal Revenue Bonds are usually negotiated with a municipal bond company rather than sent out for competitive bidding. Interest rates are therefore usually higher than a competitive bid bond such as a General Obligation (GO). Interest rates for MRB's vary, but are usually 0.50 to 0.75 percentage points higher than GO bonds. The rate could, however, be the same as a GO bond. Municipal Revenue Bonds do not require a vote of the people because the debt is secured by the potential revenue of the project. As such, these bonds are not based on taxation abilities. The County's credit is not necessarily in- volved since the payback is based' 'on the revenues of the project. Federal Grant/Loan Programs Federal Aid probably will not be available for planning and capital financing of resource recovery projects due to the new administration's budget cuts except possibly low interest loans through the Farmers Home Administration. Private Financing/Leverage Leasing Leverage Leasing is technically not a financial instrument; rather it is a financial package that combines several financial IX - 2 mechanisms. Leverage leasing is a complex mechanism to initiate that requires lengthy, convoluted rulings. It involves two major participants: a lessor and a (government agency) lessee. It differs from traditional leasing in that both the lessor and the government agency provide capital funds to purchase the asset. Usually, the lessor puts up 20 to 30 percent of the cost of the asset, and the government agency finances the remaining portion through a typical borrowing method. The leverage leasing concept is based upon the benefits (lower long-term capital and interest costs) that accrue to a county if a financial intermediary, corporation or individual is interposed between a long-term source of capital and the local government. The government agency enjoys the advantage of a lower net interest rate, normally below the general obligation bond rate, which in turn reduces agency out-of-pocket expenses. The lessor receives the advantages of an ownership tax shelter. Re- placement of the funds is from the lessee to the lessor and then to the financial institution. At the end of the leasing period, however, the lessor becomes the owner of the facility. The advantages of leverage include the following: . Demand on municipal funds is reduced. • The net interest rate is lower than general obligation bonds. . The lessor receives the ownership benefits. The disadvantages are that it is new, legally complex, and requires time to develop. IX - 3 O a Q Ei z z z w H H a 0 Cfl 0 w (f1 0 Exi C7 z H U z H H H Aa 0 E-1 U) H E-( r1, •rl U cd w 4-1 0 Cl) a) v1 I O a) >., 4x a) Lna) -i ri U] r-4 U H t $.I m ,� -rf . Or -44J ( ! r 4 4} aJ ( ) 0 4-) 5 4-4 (d U - -I r-i a) A� t 4 fd 01 I 0a) ro. o 4-)-Ha) 4-4 a) 0rd-ri-r, U • r-4 f~ z r 4 o 0 4a a) tT 0 a) r -I Q1 d •, i - t7' N 4JO i•4 a) a) >1 Q1 b1 CT a) >~ 43 r -I a) •r-1 r -f Qa O r-4 00 () m Q 4- i ul Q rd r•-4 0 Q4 0 q-1 r -I • J Q 4 d -r4 c a) a) 4 d (n Q >1 0 t p d k co •ri Z a) 0 a) COO -r-4 Q4 4 x rO }4 t3� a) 3 >~ >1 r-1 Q 4 EE --1 r`4 Qr 4.J U Ul 0 -H -H a) r -f •ra rd : rf o 1 •r -I (d a) (d s~ o a) •r-4 0 a a 1-4 Q4 Z4-4 4 t7� 4-4lO .4J a Q, U H s~ 4-.1 C) w cn 4-4 . U U 0 CIDU ra) a) rd •r1 I -r Q) •ri r-i d rt U S"s a) C! t -r rd a) ) U] U rd A •ri ri ,Q Ul I (d 0) 0 a) -r-i -H }l -ri U (d Z o- U t1 rd s~ Es' • r-4 w 0 5 Q U �" 4-) •r! Q4 a) 4 Q OE rd p •rf 0 d Q rd u] aJ 00 4 a) E Qa r -400) E a a) rd r-4 •r1a) E a) 4-f -r 1 -i 4 O ✓i 0• ri Q4 Ul W P •4 4 4 O -r4 (1) Cd z A 4J cd U 4, a) 4 u) t0) 4-I 0 .Q r 4 •r -f O rt o 1n vl .Q .: 0 0 Q.0) .Z I`i � r -4 •r1 b a) 0 -I-3 d rf -f) O 4-4 to >-s a) -4-1 -r-f 0 •,..1 +l co tT a) dj -rl •n O r -I Ul cd U] (d O Ul (d ri 3 •r•1 Ul 0-H > Ul a) 5 r-4 r-4 4J CU �.. U] o �' >H 0 Ord '" --�-H U, 544 b 0 .QZ E •Is -r-1 rl r: •rf 4-J .G r••4 Qa a) -r-1 p 5 U] r-1 •H1 -H Q 4a o U U , Q 0 4-11 C) (d Qa +l I`1 Q, r-1r-1 �-4 0 •r4 0 (d 0 -r•1 rt a) C z >-, a) (d 0 -r-1 O (d (d A to H Aa r-i 4 0 4-4 Qr N E E - (d A A S-4 to 44 4-3 04 0 3 � Os ! I 0 Q ! rd U Ur1 Cl]U Cl]U] Q O rl] 4 a) Cl] 4-) a) o rd -r1 I Oa) O 4 Cl r 1 Os Jy 0 E Oa) d 0 -H- COO • ri Ea)� _H -r-4 O 4 ✓i U d r ff d-4 rd rl 04-4 rd Q O4 Q Qi 0 4 •rf Z d a) a) O td U) Wu) X (d (d . 4 -rf U] -•1 O '✓' i, \ +4 -4-)-H 14 rtj rd �04J440 0 ->�cn �4 a) ul0 r0+ E~ a) r -1 (d O 0 OP u) 4s TO O Qa U rd 4-) z -l- U tT i/} a) •ri U LW0I >1 -HO 0 -rI a 4 OP CO z i; 4J 4 4 r4 Ul a) to 4 4J O •rl z is •r1 a) a) a) (d U a) a) r -I 4i E •n a) 4 -Os U 0v-Ub PP 0(d> P4rdtdO �0� wz 4-1 U) -rf 0 a)00J a} EP Q' E -P 10 4, -rl rz s~ m rd r! -P Q.i -r4 •r, -rf Q. a) >1 Ul Q Q E~ 4 a! •-) v >~ a) (d (d - r1 tT O > 0 0000 a0 0)0 •r4 PP SOP (d4 -1a) 4~ U 4-4 Q 0 a 4-) ' rd 4-1 4_l H Ul r -I Qa r OP • H rd Ua) 0 4l Q 0 .,..I -H -H a) s~ P (dl w Cl) d •O I r-i U] 4 -IC) CO E CO N >1 O U 0 rd O I c -P U Cl O r-1 a) 0(0UEa) 4 z--- 4-4 fd E O Ul U) -r- O -(d H •rl . Q' Q 0 U -P Q4 •ri (d 4.l O (d cd r -I ; 4 ri Qa O)-4O(dQa (4.4 4-) 4) 4_ rd Lf P4 0 a) 0 0 W U U (d •t, a) rd is a) Ei M a) rd Q) rd (I) •n a} •n a) r4 NA a)a-► 0 00 H ..-. OP OP E P -r1 P •r1 -P E -rf M r-i d-7 •4) }l Qi 0 N (N Q+ 0 Q+ 0 P •H 4-4 +l a) a) 0 -HO C1 C r( t:T1 t7i 0 f~ CO 4 Q Q Q }4 O (IDHO O N 0 0) rf 0 0 -ri z P z P Cl) +l U A 0 GL4 E'4 -r-1 (1<N z U 1 H >= • z a)z A4 4-1 H Ul O cd cd 0 ✓ 1 0-H o - -I'Q'Cd wrfro --rl cd ° aU� 0)0 a1 rH O4b �4 Cl)OP 04 .H -H W 4-1 •r -1 U0 �� a> a Q H z 0 U 0 El H H H H CJ Gu El z C7 E{ H 0 1:4 0 w w a H 4 0 E-1 w z H U z H E{ H a 4 U W 0 ml 0 cd 4J 0 0 ul 0 4J a) cn •rl U) a)Ln•ri 0-P U) U) r Q4 4J U •rl 4J cd U U) U Ri •ri U cd •r-1 bt 4r4 a) U -ri ri U] 0'H 0.Q) r1 U O i 0 4�1 4J U ,A a rb -r 1 OCuo C U >1 5 U 0 4J r-i •rl O Q) rd 4, O �4 �4 U Q) cd 4-1 a) A �! r I �-1 Q) •r-1 a) 4 )•4 �4 �4 ; 4 > Ua)ro(n 010�3r.a Q) 44 4 Q a) -4 4-I O a) O Z Q H 4-s CO �-1 Q4 O r -I U Q H R$ v U) Cu '� O •ri —1 �4 ri O �4 S4 N cri •cd Cd Cu Qag4 4J O U 4-)rl ri 4 •ri rI Q) U) O 4J S4 4J -H U •rI 0 m Cu a) U rd j Z �4 > .� 5 —I ra 0 a) (LCl) •riHr U r••1 >~ S4 � J > -z 1� 044JH J.•r-1 P- r w �4 ate) Cl) Q) 4J O 4J 4-s b U 00 -U !d • r1 btI 9 a) rl I4 4J ra rI Q) cd O •ri d m 4J cd N Q) Ri a) •ri rb U 4J a) cd U) �4 U) 4 U t4 ..4 cd 4-)-,-I -Pb 4J a) W C.) U -ri Cu �1 U? b~ r:� .r l U! s~ •rl x zn a r-1 >1.QU 4J O 1~ ,Q ,—I OW r-1 0 Q r I U ?1 O -e4 ..Q U U z 0 4J -ri H .Q 4 �4 O 0 d0 4J U Qa >~ cd a) -P 4J 34 -H Qa r� cd r^1 Cl) -Ha) Q4 N r-1 a) 4J H U O 4-) ri Q) cd .-1 •ri cd i cd cd Q) 44 cd U ri .c" 4J Z 0E4 4J Z I4 I -I U •rl WW *b rtl 4J Q) •rl •rl -H a) .4 Q) V •r4 r1 ri > f~ 0 Q4 '✓ U) 1W s~ rb (d r I 0 (1) 0 U) O cd a) -H cd a) -rl 4) O >~ 4 A co UQ H4J ZE0Q H4-) O Cl) •W H 4-) 4J cd Cu U) O 0 ! -r1 m IM g a) U 4U O -H Q, 1 cd r l U) >~ H Cu U �r- Cl) 4J 4J O-H4r-I U)° U w Cl) rv-I U1 Q) N O ,L2 0 A rb 4-P OW U rb >-1 4J •r1 U -1 r -I ) 0 r U 4J 4J 4J OO .0 b Cu r -I W Q U]4- cd U ,Q •r1 4-)rl Cu 4)Q U 1~ r' -I Cl) U) ri a) . I.r U) H PWO P4 a) to P4 Q) Q) Q) O Qa -r1 rb O U) N rj O O Q1) O r-O ±O4 -14--I H Q4 U H U u) U cd P4 Cl) 4J 4-1 r -k Q) O cd 4J Cu 4J -H P to Q4 Cu O m 04 00 1_v — C A E-( z O U 0 N H E-i H H U F4 w H z Q H 0 U) x 0 w a H F4 Ia Q O E-( z H U z H W Ei H Pa U W O U H Ea In H a w E- 0 U U]I E-4 0 •rl rd r -I m .Q rd 0 r~ 0 rl � rd 0 z C) 0 I•+ 0 U E P4 m r~ O r~ r -H •rl 1 f~ •rl 0 °-i tTo "-4-HO m 5 -P 4,)U tH m U] rd 0 r~ U (U — >I 0 4)j m OCCO Q) •r -r -r{ •r{ rr•f -PO4-0 41 U r1(U ..r~ cno -P Par43 I r -I m 0 CD d E Q) rd r -I Pa 4 -Pa( ] a -H cr1 Cd r +] �-I 0 e •r -I ri z 0 rd r -I SH" •r-1 0 :-r 0 �•r 4-I rd ✓ I•+ 'H •rl 4JQ) Q.i U a) O 4 0 0 rd --► U) (d I r 4 J U 3.1 > > • r+ 5 •I-► O 0 -H m Q) 0 s~ ru >~ .I} w .1,] a) 5 r-1 r-4 ) -H m O 0 r- Q) (d •r1 (I, U r1 r—{ U] •r -r r'I E 4 4)ri .r.1 rd Q) o C)4) U cd as -H rd P Z r. m .s2 r -I O a..( b1 U O --4 -r•I -r•I U] < •r•! 4J rd tT •r•I (d m t~ (d 4-I4-)4-4 • rr a) --P Ul •i4 rd 3-I 4-( s~ r~ r -I d d Ul •H -r•I rdOH rd •r•I 0 04-1 d WW •rl a 0 b rd m b1 m Z71 r~ r~ m • -) -}s EE --al 0 u a) b1 -r•I 0 0 Ord rd d00 -HOC) 0 0 (d ardmr;U HQ.im Ur—i dE~ o^�rl 4-I 4-I -1 0 U) 0 WI r1C) b1 b1 rd 4- 0 U O 1-r f~ 0 rI 0 0 0r1r0•Ir•-I (Ti (d O 0)0-i > 4-I PP -t (d O U) O 0 C) r1 ate)) Q. -40 m }-I r{ Z>m(d W -P 000 Q) 44 O -ri 4- U .0 m a) � U V (d d 5 -P 9' f QrHQ-1 CD 'd 04 O 0 E 0 d>1 C) OW W 0(I) (,4(d4,) (d4,) A O Ix 4 P 0 4) W 0 0 0+ arO (d0 --I -H 0 d -P by 0 0 Cl) 41 (d �4 0 o:: 00 >1 4-) r-rl 0 U) � m m Z k wow .0 -,I 3 0 >(U I4 rt •r1 0cn>: P: I4 X U •n 4J IX — 6 H N Ei U) a) r•I a) 0-H -H •r-1 4J 4J H 3 O r -I -d (d 04J Ea) 0 U Q -, Qa x 440 'Ti *z 0 W r -I U W N 41 Z U) t H I zU Z I U) -H a) 4) -H-Ha) H U U 04H H () r-1 rd U2 I� U) a) d 4-I i a) -r-1 a) (d _ > a) 0 •C$ 4-I 4) -1-► U a r -I -,I U2 cif (d -r-f cd Qa 4a 9 4J 4J 4J m 0 0 (d 0 E m -P O cd H czs a) -r•1 cd HI 0 m 1�1•r1 Ufa H J r -t 4) •H o r-1 a) . •r -I Cd m E (1) o -'4- m rd a 0O • r -I 0 Q.i ra m Qa d Q) (1 )0 (1) •r•1 a) -r-1 d r -I 4] .4)Q U (d S~ -r-I 5 fa 00 U1 - a) U) r -I m Q Rf m >C ,W U 0 Spa - W > U1 0 4) -HQ H 0 Qa -r-I r -I E o p 0 0 m U U (1) -r•I o O d 4J r -I (1) a) 4.) Q.F(1) cd 4J W U m Q4 a) 0 •r•1 a Ln U m •H Z fa r) rd (d 4J •r -I m E -P m t- a) (d rd d 0 0 4a U I~ Q U >4 W W H IT (d a) U rt'J 4-I Q a) Q 4a f -1 -0 •r4 a2 • r1 U) rZ4 {d Id Q rd •r{ (d m 4! W W- Qa rd tJ' E4-4 W cx •r14) S4 a) r0 00 rd 4J P4 4J rd a) a) U] s~ a) (I) 4-I a) HO aJ IM (l) >4 a) m > U (1) >C Q a) r-{ fa aG •,..1 M 0 •IJ A z (d 4J (d U •r -I > k E Cd m >'( a) d x d •ra (d m m I~ a (d �C 41 5 OE k ra -4W -r-I4-) 04 4I 3 •r -I •rl (d Z �-1 > w w 4J rd > a) 4J d ra 4J CE (d -rI ?i 5 (d a) tr (d f -c (d ,sue (d 0 -H O Cal m •r1 •r •r -1 .H P U 4J (d E !-I 0) Z 0 5 4a E-4 a m m s~ 4)E 0 >4 4) z rI (d fad U 04 CJ)s1 •H a) 0 0-H tT 4J4) 0-H ra r -I U I~ (d U •H 4-I 0 a) Q) w x A •r -I Z ra 0 �-1 (LIE (d (d OW -P a) E 0 4J 4J > 4a C7 Ei rl 4J -ra W a) m -P S4 fa W00 4 0 cd -r-t O 4 d U 4J 4) d v Qa r..4 -HWW a) 3 U s~ a) a-► EC1) b'@ m ,Q m 3 0 (LIP Q+ Z 4 (d -1 I~ >1 0 m Q •r•1 0 a) Z z a) ra d 0 U)0 sa fa (d rd a) •4J p r-+ •rl U) (d O (d 0 P a) m FO z a) zrd H Q.4Qa Ei E U is0rd (d Cn-r1 t~ 4) W P 04U d !� Ei U2Q HZ QO �s N H 4J WI zw 0 �C x Q 0 0 -r1 Ei •r{Q r-i -P a) Qa (d W Im N U U O m U •z 4H -c m U cad 40] HW •m •(d •rt tT .fJ O -r •N aJ (d m Q., m a) .7t 0 U)4-) H Z 4J 0 rd 4J rA 1 4) A 0 C 0 O 4JJ r-I.c O z -r4 Cd4 r0 4-i a) (d 0- w 43 O t~ m U r-1 - •rf H U a) -'-I f4 rd rd Z 0 4J d •r--1 O -rri a) rf Q aJ (1)-H Q 0 4) rd r-1 d m H a)(d3 b10 -Z 0O cd 0 s~ a)0 a)Ucd Ef.I a) a Of -l! Ix a) Q-, 4-t Cl)b la) 0 ✓ •• -H 'H -P 9m(d (d •ri is Q 3 O•ri rd H O>~rtd 0 ,04 Ix — 7 E -t z 0 U r-1 O H C7 Z H U H a 9c H H U E -q zw ro ww w wa AO 0w ZZ U] A HZ 00 U zA �C W H W E-1 A H E4 Ei O a CO 4, 1 > H 1~ U -t ate)0—I is IJ .r.l 4•.t -H .r•1 4.) 'H 3 0 U) H Q) ro $4 a) U ?, a) .r44-) 41 0 r. w - •O I m '-I rHu ro -Pr--I �4 (0 U 1~ 4) -H ( r00 4- a) 0$4 U4-) r♦m-4 z > -H -r,) -rl -H •rI -H U L', 4) 0 cd 0 t3+ CO IM B -H0 3 Uw Ua 04rO ZH$4 H4J0 m H -P U a) rI 4-4 Q) 4a WV H 4 I 44 Q) -n 0 A -H id •ri 0 0) 0 1 Cl) $4 U �p m� .4J4) a) a) a -Pa) CO w mrHv W� U) Eoa) a)(U •H0 -r -I •H 4-J$ s~ 0 m 0 -r4$4 O a) 4) 5 4 -P m >, 0 4-) t5' r-1 0O k sT rV r-i U) •r-1 4 1:. W 0 0$4W �4 9 z $4$ a)arc 0 0 H -H 1 . ro E - H Z •'- 'a W 04 01 rd •rf z m 00 0 ^rl -r-E 1~ Q) Z 0 0 .0 H r4 ro U .4" 0 Cl) 0 cd > -ri ^rl .W r0 fd m a) •ri -r-1 0 m 0> •r-i r'i a rd >~ m 0 -HE A 0)4.) a-1 .P raj .1.1 r-i ( 0 '✓` -HU)$4 $ -H(U WO 0 cd 0 -HO $.1 4 -r-1 9> >i OE E .0-a) 04 m WE 0 Cl) Xs r --I 4-1 4-)H n •r•1 44 $4-I 4-4 Q) c U Ri $ a) m H r. O A 44 r-1 0 9. a) a) z Q) 4 00 (U$-1 W tn- 4-1 M .1_► 4s E-cO-4.) 04 4-1 U 0 U 04 a) a) m 1~ 0 U W (U 41 m m cd WO) k a) bi ••H $4 4 0 .� 0 U) n c43$� r0� 0 0 •-H 0+ $4 ; a) SU." ro -r-I •0 r �Q $4 — HO) a) •r•1 0 cd U $-1 r0 k r-1 U a) m 4 m • r{ a) rtS ro $-t 9 •rl r4 a) 0 0-H 4i,— U cd •H a) 0 4J4J ZT •r 144 0(U U 0 N 0 ZT 0 g> •1.1 •r•1 rd O> 4) N L2 -dW$4 $4 0 0C)4) �� 0i 0 aim 0•e $4(U (d cd m O 00-i m -ri 14 104 U r -I (U >~ 0(U M„ r-i U) V a) > 0 -H H a 0t a) a) -rl a) TV — 0 H z 0 V N a as H a). 4 0 U +J (LS U) ✓ 4- a) •ri •ri •rf Or1 ri -I.J rd (iJ U) -H S� Q) Q) ..i~ 4J+J r -I U) cd CC -ri 1M co Q) •r•I (4J rd pDQ4 SCI 0) 1) Q d p -P >1.c -I� O r~ Q) O OH -FJ aai a) H rd -P • r1 U) • ri E 4O U)-( (n H a-1 z rd H (il Q) cls ro o E Wrc •H O a -r'�H C7 zi 'J 0 (Ti 4 )•I F I U •H 0 •ri rl V • -14-) U rd •r1 rd V G4 4-I M S~ O U •ri •H •ri (Ti •r1 U d -r-1 O fz�i m is d 40 H w 4-) r -f -rl V U2 1 41 U) a) u-1 a) 4•J (1) U -I- I M U) C) H Q) •4 H ( r) ,- I -ti (U U r -f Q) U r -I .H O >1 H 4J G` r-i Q) (a >1 •r-i z O O -I-) (Ti w (e Q) P4 r-1 0 Up 0 r-1!~ 1)-H P •1-P 4-1 r-1 Cl, HI)a d (TiN ;~ b UO 00 rd O r -I 9 O N H 2 x u) a) -P -H a) U)00 a) O -11 O >1 r I U U zCO r I H 1 O •rE P r -f (Ti H9 -H •r1 -0 w u O H 41 tad f � +J 0 (d (n (d ZT U Ga (=E l , •ri 4j �" -- •N Q) (' 9 r -I O a) r -f 3 .,..1 O r� rd U) ', E U a) t n tai • ri U) HO a.)i (d •r1 'Ha) O4 P (a U) P Ii) G4 E U -HO +I U -H Q) 4� 0 Ftr (U> ,.C 4..) (d Cl) O O cd P •r -I >4- O rd U J 4J4J S~ U O w o O U (flQ) (n c >~ 44 a) 4J . .po) Q a) rd d H w U) �, co r -I 4-I 4► `" -I � o t72 ri 1)-I-) O 1)P (d U) O r U) H Q) Q) ,-HG) cd ,Q 4-) ;~ >i O Q) (d ai - P4 (1) TA H A O -PO f -r-I U) U) R4 ctj U +) 0O U r> a) 4JP -P Q) to -) .,Q)) (d rd ri 11 (d U) U (d Er rd Q) d •r•1 U) P•1 a) -r1 P >1 O r -I ► •p a) 4 - U UU) U). O Q, z z FC O H4 0 r Q) Cr -'-t (d cd WI) El r -t. rtl O (a U P4 tf s . U 1~ .C..' b' 1) -HP (I) r -I a y, cn 04 >1 -r1 d 4 U 04 O O O ' (d O •r1 C' s~ .G x • rr E -r (1) 3 -H A -P th A Hz b, 0 5 a) rd ri a) cd >1 I V j O Q) IJ P W 1~ a) cd •r1 U rd .O �G ✓, H V.,4 .r.{ -r-1 Q) C/) 0 1~ -H rd O U) -P 0 ()UV i-r -H z 0 acs) 0 O -r1 4..1 0 r —I -ri 4 -4 r -I P U. d cd E z rd z rd N O U Fti ram all) a) P a) -HWOE O 5 U 5 •H U -° 0 r-1 •O rd (1) P -H a) U -rib P N P•1 4-1 4-W4- to rd (d a) -P -H +J rd 0 -I•J a) U) 4-) -EJ I~ z bi U) cd rd (Ti0-H -ri U rd rd >14J P z fu -ri O I s a' 4J rd •ri Q) -r! �•I 44 bi •r1 Q) Q) 4-i O S -r (d r•I 04 104 >1 0> El -PP �'rd •rI (QUO Hal r -4- i-1 FL d (d ri f. 4-J rd rd O U r•1 a1 0 cd -ri -H b" -Pal Pi P U) - r -I (d •r1 0)4-1 H Z r 1 ar cd •H a) U U0) >, 0) rd ) -H � rV >4 d NQ -E•) 4-I -P ri U) 4J O -P •rl (d OO •rl • -) H P -I •ri a) O Q4 9, (d -H 0 •rf is > •ri rJ •ri O Q) P a, acrd b' a r-1 ra rd Q4-ri •ri d 3 OH to 004 cd cd (1)-H f.; to rd Q) rd P P 0 -f ,.f 134 r '4-(dUrZ Zo O•ria, WUoa P a4 C ( Q) r Ix — 9 0 H w C7 Z H U Z Z H w a H H H Zx ww rX4 wa HO 0 H Cs rG wx Ecf U H 4o H M H < H m HZ Sao >:a z�w Ei (A wca E1 Q H Z H O a a) U •ri • r1 .P 3 � � Q) 0r1 •*I -4 rd 0 O cd Ur=a r us a) rj 0 S=, �i •r1 a) >4On W4 w ow r-i rr k O r -I a) • 4 4-) 44 4J Z a 0u0 o �a) a ra U r -I cd O W M >1 •rl U 41 Ca r I z r-i 4-) r4 a) •rf 4-) O a U•H U r -E ro I a (d •r-1 a) tn o � •r•I �•,.sa 0o a) a)t r —I fA o rn ox •H rrs +,(d stn a)Ua) U) '—t Un •rr .F) O a) m a) U A -H a)tda)0 rid Q4 a) cd z •-1 -10H U H4 -1r -14i a) •� ro a) 14 pr1 a) a) (A +l > (a H aWa IX - 10 RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The findings of this study do not support any of the volume -reduction concepts currently vogue in the field of solid waste management. Neither shredding, the operation of a Seerdrum, modular combustion, baling, materials recovery, nor the combina- tion of any of these processes would be practical for Washington County. Indeed, because of their high costs, these techniques are rarely cost-effective even for those communities where they are in use. In those sections of the country where land is in short supply, however, there is no alternative, and the large amounts of money spent on equipment and the operations is the result of neces- sity. In this respect, Washington County is fortunate. We do have the land, and it appears to be potentially available in that corridor of the County where, because of its geohydrologic characteristics, will support a continuing landfill operation. The findings of this study show that the Resh Road landfill is good for another 22 years, and it is apparent that the cost of continuing with this method of solid waste disposal is minuscule compared to the cost of shredding. 2. Available land, despite its apparent supply, is not inex- haustable and is limited in Washington County to that geograpic strip shown in this report. Its future availability should not be taken for granted. The County Commissioners should begin now to seek additional sites so we can be assured of waste disposal areas X - 1 for at least the next 40 years. Should new waste disposal tech- niques prove practical in the interim, the price paid for the land will not have been lost but will instead have become an investment. If an additional supply of land is not guaranteed, however, and if new disposal techniques do not become practical, the County will then find itself, as some communities throughout the coun- try have, with no alternative but to resort to costly volume - reduction investment. 3. This report reflects the best information available from both local and national sources, and the estimates and projections are supportable by dependable data. It was stated earlier, how- ever, that none of these data will remain static but instead will change with time. Every management factor for a community's waste disposal operations -- land availability, ever-increasing capital and operating costs, new discoveries in the field, changes in the local residential/commercial/industrial profile -- will affect the direction to be pursued by the elected officials in making decisions in these matters. The data presented in this report cannot remain valid forever, and they must be kept current through the continued collection of information. The most reliable source of information for Washington County's waste stream will be found through continuous weighing of incoming waste at the landfill. The recently refurbished Winslow scale is accurate within one-half of one percent; this represents a tolerance better than that required by Handbook 44 specifications. x- 2 The electronic equipment purchased in the summer of 1981 in support of the scale operation provides fast, accurate records of all in- coming waste. The Winslow scale should be reinstalled at the Resh Road site immediately, and full-time weighings should commence to make this indispensable source of data available. A computer pro- gram is already designed for the continued compilation of weight and waste classification data. We cannot get something for nothing: the continued operation of the scale will require a full- time employee, but for the long-term it will be an investment. Eventually, the possibility of utilizing part of the County waste stream to support materials resource recovery, energy conversion (perhaps for MELP), or even in•support of some federally funded project may arise. Administrations at the federal level can change every four years, and the ignored priorities of today can well be high on the list in years to come. Without a running record of the amounts and types of solid waste received at the landfill over a period of years, there will be no accurate way of knowing if those potential projects can be supported. We will instead be back to the business of guessing without any data to support us. An additional consideration involves the scale itself. It was recently completely refurbished at a cost of about $10,000. This included $4000 worth of new electronic equipment. Unless that scale is reinstalled at the new site and rust -proofed according to the specifications provided by the contractor (Complete Scale Service Company), it will deteriorate, and the money spent to date x- 3 will have been for nothing. A new scale costs at least $30,000; at an annual inflation rate of 10 percent', the price will increase to $44,000 in just four years. The subject of charging for incoming trash at the landfill has been briefly mentioned in the past. Eventually, that considera- tion will arise again. Without a history of supporting data, supplied monthly through a computer printout, there will be no way for the elected officials to determine the fees or to estimate the revenue, and without this information there will be no supporting basis for making a decision. At least six months of continuously compiled data should be analyzed before any consideration is given to tipping fees. 4. Everything coming into the landfill is presently covered with earth. While this is necessary for ordinary refuse, it is not for rubble. We know from the weighing surveys that 67 percent of the nearly 123,000 annual tons received at the landfill requires daily cover, and the remaining 33 percent does not. This 33 per- cent is comprised of the fluff from Conservit, the rubble from demonlished structures, trees, leaves, and various assortments of metal and wood. This fraction of the waste stream amounts to over 40,000 tons each year, and it's almost all being covered with earth. This is a needless expense in terms of labor, operating equipment, land area, and cover material. A separate area of the landfill should be set aside for waste that does 'not require daily cover. It was not within the scope of X - 4 this report to determine how that should be. accomplished, and an analysis (it would not need to be complicated) should be conducted to minimize this wasted effort. The Maryland Environmental Service inquired through the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene on this subject, and the response from the Health Department is included as Appendix L in this report. This analysis should include not only the optimum methods of disposing rubble, but it should also investigate the maximum efficiency with which the material from Conservit can be disposed. 5. The Hancock landfill operation, as with the rubble analysis, was not a part of the scope of this study, but some elementary figures show us that the cost/benefit ratio for keeping a separate landfill in that section of the County is out of kilter. Election District 5, with a population of 3,609, is served by that landfill. With a waste generation factor of 7.1 pounds per person per day, there is then an annual waste stream of 3,997 tons at the Hancock site, and with an operating budget'bf $44,200 for fiscal year 1982, the cost per ton is $11.06 as compared to $4.42 per ton for both capital and operating costs for the City/County landfill.* The weekly average deposited at the Hancock site is only 76 tons. A roll -off (green box) with a compactor mechanism could possibly accomodate the weekly accumulation at less expense -than is presently *$11.06 is the minimun cost per ton. Since there is little industrial or commercial waste fran the Hancock area, the per capita waste figure will be less than 7.1 pounds, and the cost per ton will therefore be higher. A daily per capita waste rate of 5.0 pounds will result in a cost per ton of $15.70. x- 5 incurred. There would be initial capital expense, but the operating cost would be greatly reduced. The County Commissioners should initiate an analysis of the Hancock operation. 6. At present, all vehicles entering the landfill drive to the working cell to unload. At any one time, the dumping area is busy with everything from large compactors to small residential cars, all side by side. This system is neither effective nor safe, and it can be remedied by having a roll -off placed at an optimum location for the sole use of residential vehicles. This has been done in other communities with great success. The safety aspect of operating a landfill cannot be considered lightly. In Frederick County, a woman was recently killed at the working face of the cell when a large truck toppled over. In Washington County, a compactor recently demolished an automobile, fortunately without human injury or loss of life. The advantages of designing a special area for residential vehicles will be: 1. Less congestion at the working face of the cell. The safety factor will be vastly improved. 2. Fewer movements by the compactors will be required if all residential trash is dumped on the working face from a roll -off. Maneuvering a large compactor to take care of many small piles of residential trash is inefficient and costly. 3. It is not practical to weigh all residential vehicles, especially during busy periods, because of the traffic X - 6 flow. The use of a roll -off will guarantee the exact weight of all residential trash. 4. The physical condition of the landfill surface is not conducive to small vehicles traversing it. Pieces of metal, nails, and mud present hazards, and many individuals are reluctant to drive their family car across such a surface. The location and type of container for residential waste should be well -designed and should not be haphazardly constructed. Other communities have discovered by trial and error the most efficient methods for doing this. The task of laying out such an area within the landfill should be delegated to the Engineering Department or to an agency with technical capabilities. 7. Several years ago, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a policy that prohibited the disposal of vehicular tires at the land- fill unless they had previously been sliced around the circumference. Unsliced tires present problems in the landfill operation because of their bouyancy, and they present an unnecessary cost to the County. During the 24 -day weighing period for July and October, a total of 28 tons of unsliced tires were dumped at the landfill. If this volume is indicative of the average, the yearly total will be 365 tons. The adopted policy should be enforced. x- 7 GLOSSARY (TflS_qARV Actual Refuse Density: The weight of refuse per volume of refuse. Baler: A machine used to compress and bind solid waste or other materials. Btu: (British thermal unit) The quantity of heat required to increase the temperature of one pound of water from 59.5 degrees to 60.5 degrees F. Bulky Waste: Large items of refuse such as appliances (also re- ferred to as white goods), furniture, large auto parts, trees, branches and stumps. Burner, primary: A burner installed in the primary combustion chamber to dry out and ignite the material to be burned. Burner, secondary: A burner installed in the secondary combustion chamber to maintain a minimum temperature and complete the combustion process. (Sometimes referred to as an afterburner). Cell: The volume of compacted solid waste enclosed by natural soil and/or cover material in a sanitary landfill. Cell depth: Vertical thickness of compacted solid waste enclosed by natural soil and/or cover material in a sanitary landfill. City/County landfill: The 62 acre site located on Resh Road which is owned by the City of Hagerstown and operated by the County. Combustion chamber (primary): Chamber where ignition and burning of the waste occurs. Combustion chamber (secondary): Chamber where combustible solids, vapors, and gases from the primary chamber are burned and settling of fly ash takes place. Compaction: Reduction in bulk of solid waste by rolling and tamping. Compactor (steel wheel): A gas or diesel. powered machine equipped with steel wheels to provide good compaction and crushing effort, used to spread and compact soil and solid waste. Composting: A controlled microbial degradation of organic waste yielding a nuisance-€ree product of potential value as a soil conditioner. G--1 Construction and Demolition Waste: Waste building materials and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, and demoli- tion operations on houses, commercial buildings, pavements, and other structures. Cover material: Granular material, generally soil, that is used to cover compacted solid waste in a sanitary landfill, generally free of large objects that would hinder compaction and free of organic content that would be conducive to vector harborage, feeding and/or breeding. Cullet: Scrap glass, usually broken up into small, uniform pieces; added to new materials to facilitate melting in making glass. Demolition waste: Waste materials produced from the destruction of buildings, roads, sidewalks, etc. The materials usually include large broken pieces of concrete, pipe, radiators, duct work, electric wire, broken -up plaster walls, lighting fixtures, bricks and glass. Density: The ratio of the mass of a substance to its volume. Effective Refuse Density: The weight of refuse per volume of refuse and the volume of cover in place within the landfill. Ferrous metals: Metals containing iron as the chief constituent. All alloys of steel and iron. Green Box: A detachable container in which service vehicle has lifting arms to pick-up container and contents together for trans- portation to the disposal site. Hammers: Heavy metal objects attached to a shaft which rotate at a high velocity within a hammermill. Hammermill: A grinding machine that operates by impaction of material against heavy metal hammers loosely pinned to a shaft rotating at a high velocity. Incineration: The controlled combustion process of burning solid, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes to gases and to a residue containing little combustible material. Institutional Waste: Waste material originating in schools, hospitals, research institutions and public buildings. The materials include paper, cardboard and certain hazardous wastes, food wastes, etc. Leachate: Liquid emanating from a land disposal cell that contains dissolved, suspended and/or microbial contaminants from the solid waste. G- 2 Lift: A layer of cells covering a designated area of a sanitary landfill. Magnetic separator: A separator which uses a magnetic system to sort ferrous materials from general waste materials. Manual Separation: The separation of waste materials by hand. Sometimes called hand picking, manual separation is done in the home or office by keeping garbage separate from newspapers, or in a recovery plant by picking out large cardboard or metal objects. MES: Maryland Environmental Service. Open Burning: Uncontrolled burning of wastes in the open or in an open dump. Processable Solid Waste: Waste types which for the most part would go through a solid waste volume.reduction system. The percentage of the total waste stream which can be run through a particular volume reduction system is dependent on the capabilities of that particular system. Refuse Derived Fuel (R.D.F.): The product which is created by separating, shredding and sometimes pelletizing the combustible part of the waste stream so that it can be burned as a fuel. Resh Landfill: The 148 acre site which is owned by the County; this site will become operational after close-out of the City/County Landfill. Shredding: Milling, pulverization or beating of refuse in order to obtain volume reduction while at the same time producing a material which lends itself to easier disposal. Shredded waste may be directly landfilled or used in combination with other processes, such as incineration or materials recovery. Source Separation: The setting aside of recyclable waste materials (such as paper, glass, metals, etc.) at their point of generation by the generator. This separation is followed by transportation of the recyclable materials from their point of generation to a secondary materials dealer or directly to a manufacturer. Tipping Floor: Unloading area for vehicles that are delivering refuse to an incinerator or other processing plant. Toe: The projection of the bottom of a (landfill) face beyond the top. Trommel,rotating: An inclined drum of mesh or perforated material (sometimes having finer mesh or holes at the upper end) into the upper open end of which granular material is fed so that it may be classified by particle size. G -3 Turnkey: A job or a project in which a private contractor completes the work of building and installation to the point of readiness for operation or occupancy at which time it is then sold to the customer at a prearranged price. Waterwall Incineration: A large internal panel of watercarrying pipes in a steam producing boiler. The water in the pipes is heated by the combustion of fuel or waste in the burner area. Working face: That portion of the compacted solid waste at a sanitary landfill which will have more waste placed on it and/or is being compacted prior to placement of cover material. G - 4 SOURCES CONSULTED SOURCES CONSULTED Abrecht, Oscar. "What happened to the Gold in Garbage?' American City & County, August 1981, pp. 47-49. Alter, Harvey, et al. The Recovery of Magnetic Metals from Municipal Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.: Resource Recovery, Inc., 1977. Anderson, Kent, et al. Decision -Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976. Baker, Everett. County Solid Waste Superintendent, personal inter- view held while touring Wicomico Solid Waste Facility, Salisbury, Maryland, April 1981. Chase, Malcolm J., and Thomas C. Pond. "Modular Combustion System Solves Regional Solid Waste Problem." Public Works, July 1981, pp. 48-50. Cost_Estimating Handbook for Transfer, Shredding and Sani Landf illing of Solid Waste. Cincinnati: Environmen Protection Agency, 1976. County Commissioners of Washington County Audit Report. FY 1980. Cramer, Kenneth, Plant Manager, personal interview held while touring Shredder Facility, Baltimore County, Texas, Maryland, April 1981. Crider, Donald M., and Robert C. Bealer. "Landfill Siting: How Bit a Problem is it?" Public Works, August 1981, p 57. Doran, Daniel M. Energy from a Wasted Resource; The Ames Experience. Iowa: City of Ames, 1978. Environmental Report. Washington, D.C.: National League of -Cities, 1980. Fiscus, D.E.,et al. Dust and Airborne Bacteria at Solid Waste Processing Plants. Cincinatti: Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Fraley, Melvin L. Investigation, Evaluation and Comparison of Seerdrum and Hammermill Solid Waste Shredder Processing System. Annapolis: Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Frounfelker, Richard. Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery. Cincinnati: Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Golueke, C.G. Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. S - 1 Ham, Robert Dr., Prof. of Civ. and Environmental Energy, telephone interview to Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, Nov., 1981. Ham, Robert K., John J. Reinhardt, and Gerald W. Sevick. "Density of Milled and Unprocessed Refuse." Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, 104, No. EE 1 1978), 109-125. Hansen, Penelope. Residential Paper Recovery. Cincinnati: Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Harrold, Stanley C. "Low Technology Resource Recovery at the County Level." Public Works, July 1981, pp. 73-75. Hawkins, Denise F. Resource Recovery Projects Request for Proposals/ Contracts --Summaries. Cincinnati: Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Hofman, Rose E. "Resource Recovery from Municipal Waste: Fact or Fiction?" Public Works, September 1981, pp 90-95 Humber, Nicholas J. et al. Third Report To Congress Resource Recover and Waste Reduction. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975. J.R.B. Associates, Inc. A Compilation of Statistics on Solid Waste Management within the United States. McLean: 1981. ------- Waste Composition Analysis Methodology. McLean: 1979. Jenks, John., Plant Manager, personal interview held while touring Shredder Facility, Charleston, South Carolina, February, 1981. Johnson, Emory, Plant Manager, personal interview held while touring Shredder Facility, Georgetown,: South Carolina, February, 1981. Johnson, Neal, et al. "California Waste Energy Projects Lean from Others." Solid Wastes Management, August 1981, pp 82-88. McDonough, Patricia A. Solid Waste Management. Ed. Alastair McArthur, et al. 10 vols. Washington, D.C.: National, 1975. Madigan, Kevin, and Douglas Jenkins. Cash for Trash. Columbia: Energy Research Institute, 1981. Municipal Innovations 26. Summer 1978. Noble, George. Sanitary Landfill Design Handbook. Connecticut: Technomic, 1976. O'Connor, John. "Solid Waste Problems? Alban, New York has Answers." American City & County, June 1981, pp. 63-65. S - 2 Oliver-Cump & Associates, Inc. Design Report for Resh Road Landfill Washington County, Maryland. Hagerstown: 1978. ------- Design Report for Washington County Landfill, Hancock, Maryland. Hagerstown: 1978. "One Man's Approach to Resource Recovery." Waste Age, August 1980, pp 25-26. Otton, Edmond G. Solid -Waste Disposal in the Geohydrologic Environ- ment of Maryland. Baltimore: Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. Rayford, Hilary. Maryland Recycling Directory. Annapolis: Environmental Protection Agency, 1981. "Refuse Shredder Answers Alaskan Landfill Shortage." Public Works, May 1979. Reinhardt, John J., and Robert K. Ham. Milling of Solid Wastes. Vol. 1, Cincinnati: Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. "Resource Recovery Systems Survey." Public Works, June 1981, p 98. Robinson,William D. "Solid Waste Shredder Explosions: What do they have in Common?" Solid Wastes Management, May 1979, p.46. Savage George M., and Geoffrey R. Shiflett. Processing Equipment for Resource Recovery Systems. Vol. 3, Cincinnati: Environ- mental Protection Agency, 1980. Savage George M., and George J. Trezek. Significance of Size Reduc- tion in Solid Waste Management. Vol. 2, Cincinnati: National, 1980. Shilepsky, Alan, and Robert A. Lowe. Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Planning and Overview. 9 vols., Cincinnati: Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Solid Wastes Management 1981 Sanitation Industry Yearbook. 18th Edition, Atlanta: Communication Chanels, Inc., 1980. Sprenkel, Terry V. "Safety and Health: The Ames Experience." Solid Wastes Management, May 1979, p 58. Swinehart, Glenn A., P.E. and Whitney A. Sanders II, P.E. "Waste - To -Energy." Solid Wastes Management, May 1979, p 20. Thompson, John W. "Shredding Vs Remote Landfill Costs." Solid Waste Systems, May/June 1977, pp 6-7. S - 3 Vesilind, P. Aarne, Alan E. Rimer, and William A. Worrell.. Performance of the Heil Model 92B Shredder at Pompano Beach, Florida. Durham: Duke University, 1979. Wilson, David G. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977. Wright, J. R., et al. "Weigh Waste to Determine Quantity before Planning Recovery Facility." Solid Wastes Management, March 1981, p 32. Yokum W., Plant Manager, personal interview held while touring Shredder Facility, Beauford, South Carolina, February, 198. n S - 4 APPENDIX A Preliminary Feasibility Study of Source Separation of Solid Wastes in Washington County, Maryland Report to the Washington County Commissioners and to the Washington County Planning Commission Prepared by the Maryland Environmental Service Thomas D. McKewen, Director 60 West Street Annapolis, MD 2.1401 October, 1981 This study is part of a statewide program to evaluate waste -to -energy alternatives. The intent of the study is to provide a preliminary evaluation of the recovery of materials fran refuse in Washington County, Maryland. The study was prepared by the Maryland Environmental Service, Technical Services section, with Mr. Ronald Darzen, writer of the report. Partial support for the study was received from the I7.S.Environmental Protection Agency through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Cliff R. Willey, Chief Technical Services Maryland Environmental Service i I. Summary and Recommendation............................ I II. Background Information ................................ 5 A. population and Housing Units ...................... 5 B. Solid Wastes Quantities ........................... 6 C. Solid Wastes Composition....... .................... 7 III. Factors Influencing Source Separation................. 9 A. Public Attitudes toward Source Separation......... 9 B. Mean Inccrne....................................... 9 C. Median Education Attainment ....................... 9 D. Existent Recycling Efforts........................ 11 IV. Continuous Management of the Waste Stream ............. 13 V. Marketing Recycled Materials .......................... 15 VI, System Concept and Estimated Economics ................ 19 111 Figure 1. Map of Source Separation Study Area............ 8 Figure 2. Collection Vehicle. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 1. Washington County Recycled Materials Revenue - 35% Participation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2. Estimated Program Economics - 35% Participation .................................. 23 Table 3. Annual Cost for Collection Vehicle............. 24 Tu I. S MMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The objective of this study was to determine the econanic feasibility of implementing a curbside, source separation program in Washington County, Maryland. To do this, consideration was given to current population characteristics, solid waste management practices and current recycling operations. These local factors plus information from recycling programs across the nation, were applied to econanic estimates which would illustrate the potential for the program. Based on the results, a curbside source separation system operating in Hagerstown and seven nearby communities, with moderate public participation, would remove significant volumes fran the waste stream, but would operate at a loss. The program could meet its own expenses when nearly all residents in the program area participate by recycling. It is recommended that the county government undertake an opinion survey to determine the extent of public support for the idea of recycling, before going any further toward implementation. Source separation entails the separate collection, transport and sale of recycled materials usually found in refuse such as glass, aluminum cans, and newspaper. The resident participates by storing recycled goods in containers just for that purpose and then setting the containers at the curb for collection. Businesses may participate by separating, storing and selling corrugated cardboard and office paper. Currently, about 200 communties in the nation operate sane type of source separation to recycle one or more materials. The econanic viability of such systems varies widely; some survive only because of extensive volunteer support, while others meet expenses. Among the major reasons to recycle are: to save money on refuse disposal; to save land otherwise consumed in landfilling refuse; to save energy because use of recycled goods in manufacturing conserves energy; and to contribute to general social and environmental improvement of the nation. Recent Federal regulations (The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) may make landfilling of refuse much more expensive and recycling more attractive in the near future. This report consists of six chapters which are summarized below. Background Information The majority of the county °s population resides in or near Hagerstown in a shall percent of the total county area. The location of the proposed system is Hagerstown and seven surrounding communities which contains about 73,000 people residing in 28,000 hones. The study area produces about 63,000 tons per year of domestic, commercial and institutional refuse consisting of mostly combustible matter and fractions of glass, metals and miscellaneous substances. Factors Influencing Source Separation Through experiences with recycling across the nation it has been learned that public attitudes, income and education will influence the outcome of recycling programs. The county should consult with its leaders, and conduct a public opinion survey to determine the potential for program support. More should be learned about the potential effect of a broad scale public recycling program on local scrap reclamation industries and programs. For example, based on a telephone survey by MES, one ccsipany in Hagerstown currently recycles about half of the newsprint theoretically available in the County. 2 Continuous Management of the Waste Stream Under State law (see Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 25, Section 3(v)), the County has authority to manage residential refuse fran the point of generation, through collection, transport and to the waste processing or disposal facility. The success of a source separation system may require the exercise of the County's authority to manage solid wastes to insure that glass, paper and other materials are sorted and kept apart by generators, collectors and facility operators. To effect this will most likely require rules and regulations applied to the entire solid waste system. Marketing Recycled Materials In or near to Washington County there are markets for all of the commonly recycled substances. Prices for these goods fluctuate so that among the different ways to sell goods, the preferred means is through contracts which specify price, quantity, quality, term of validity and similar matters. In this study, the nearest markets and latest prices were considered in the calculations of program revenues. System Concept and Estimated Economics The system would consist of three compartmentalized collection vehicles with two -person crews picking up -from homes and businesses. One day each week, newspaper, glass and cans would be collected from residences and corrugated cardboard and office paper would be picked up at businesses. Cardboard, newsprint and office paper would be dropped off at markets in Hagerstown; glass would be discharged into containers at Resh Road landfill to be picked up by the purchaser and ferrous metals would be stored at the landfill until enough volume accumulated to haul to market in Cumberland. 3 This system does not include aluminum recycling because private industry is already actively doing this in Maryland and County efforts would probably yield little reward. For economic reasons, the system would operate only in Hagerstown area. To determine whether source separation should be tried in all or just part of the county, preliminary estimates of program costs and revenues were made. One set of estimates applied to the entire County and another to Hagerstown and surrounding co munities. Both programs could expect only low to moderate participation resulting in a net loss. But the county -wide program, with much larger capital and operations costs, would have a net loss too large for the county to absorb while the metropolitan Hagerstown program may be affordable until participation rises. In its first year, the selected program would divert approximately 6,303 tons from disposal at a net cost to the County of $24 per ton. This is based on estimates shown in Table 1, page 20, in which five materials, glass, newspaper, corrugated, office paper and ferrous metals are recycled. By volume, the greatest materials recycled would be cardboard, glass and ferrous metal cans. The volume of wastes to be landfilled would decrease by about five percent, saving sane disposal costs, but in order to avoid dispute, these potential savings were not credited to the source separation system. 4 G • it !!it' 11 f • ' a'` A. Population and Housing Units Preliminary counts by the U. S. Bureau of the Census show the following for Washington County: Population April 1, 1980 April 1, 1970 Percent Change 113,086 103,829 8.9 Housing Units 42,391 34,585 22.6 In 1980, about 72,638 or 64 percent of the population resided in a 101 square mile area in and around Hagerstown, which is also the conurercial and industrial hub of the county. By dividing population by the number of housing units it is found that the number of persons per house has dropped from 3 to 2.6. This information will be used later to calculate how many collection vehicles are needed. The locale of the proposed source separation system is shown in Figure 1. In it are Hagerstown, Fountain Head, Chewsville, Funkstown, Halfway, Cedarlawn, Conococheague and Williamsport.The study area canprises 21 percent of the total area of the county. Preliminary calculations indicated that low population and excessive transport costs would carbine to make curbside source separation outside the study area uneconanical. 5 Dividing 72,638 persons by 2.6 persons per house gives a rough idea of the number of houses fran which recycled materials might be collected, i.e., 27,937 or 28,000 houses. B. Solid Wastes Quantities The materials which are handled in a source separation system are waste glass, cardboard, newspaper and several others. These are found in the waste streams caning fran the residence, the commercial operation, for example, department stores, and institutions, for example, schools. Industrial or manufacturing waste streams are not normally included in a municipally organized recycling project. Therefore, the waste stream which can be source separated is limited, for the purpose of this study, to residential, carrnercial and institutional, which are represented by a per capita per day generation factor of 4.36 pounds. • Fran the 1980 census it was learned that the County contains 109,477 people, minus the population of Hancock, and recent solid waste weighing work conducted by the County determined that 85% of all wastes are generated in the study area described earlier. Assuming collection of source separated materials takes place six days per week, the total annual tonnage to be considered for this project can be calculated: 109,477 people x 4.36 lbs/day/person 2000 lbs/ton x 312 days/yr = 74,461 x 85% generation in study area = 63,291 or 63,000 tons per year 6 C. Solid Wastes Composition The materials found in refuse vary depending on who lives in the community. For instance, big cities have more newspaper than rural areas; college towns have more glass bottles. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has canposed national averages for the major components but these tend to be high. Henningson, Durham and Richardson (BDR), in their work for the County in 1978, looked at figures for six canmunities plus national averages and selected moderate figures to represent the percentage of certain discards found in refuse. In principle, it is best to use conservative figures when planning capital projects so the BDR figures, listed below, were employed in this study. The only exception is ferrous metals which constitute about 5% of MSW, lower than the national average of 7%. MES has determined this through several years of processing refuse in Baltimore County. More accurate numbers require direct measurement. canbustibles 83 glass 7 ferrous metal 5 aluminum .7 other metal .4 miscellaneous 3.9 100.0 7 FIGURE 1. MAP OF SOURCE SEPARATION STUDY AREA WASHINGTON Named area contain ap * 101 squa County area * 73,000 people in 1972 or 64 % of County population * 716 persons per square mile III. FACTORS INFLUENCIM SOURCE SEPARATION A. Public Attitudes Tcward Source Separation Communities experienced in recycling have learned that one of the most effective means to reach the public and to get their response is by writing. Early in the consideration of alternatives to landfilling, a letter fran the top County officials explaining the need for alternatives to landfilling and a survey questionnaire (see sample) should be mailed to a small percent of the households in the target area. If recycling of office paper, corrugated paper or other materials fran the business community is contemplated, an appropriate letter and questionnaire should be devised and sent. E. Mean Inane The federal EPA has learned from examining 218 source separation programs in 1978 that income influences the rate of participation in recycling by the citizens in a program area. Areas where the annual mean income was $16,500 or above had participation of 50% or more. Areas where the annual income was $10,500 or less had participation of 20% or less. Washington County's mean income in 1977 was $14,636, compared to $18,672 for Maryland and $17,327 for the entire U.S. The County's mean income, being at the higher rather than the leer end of the EPA's range, indicates that a county source separation program could achieve a moderate rate of participation. C. Median Education Attainment Against national statistics, Washington County's median education level of 11.4 years for men and 11.5 years for women (1970 census data) points to potentially loco participation (20% or less). This observation is based on EPA statistics in which 58% of all multi -materials programs and 73% of the 9 V 1. Would you voluntarily store newspapers separately from your household garbage and tie them in bundles to be collected on a designated day of the week? 2. Would you voluntarily separate cans and put them in bags for a separate collection? 3. Would you voluntarily clean and separate glass bottles and jars by color, (removing any metal from the glass), and put them in bags to be collected on a specific day of the week? If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, please answer the following concerning the collection of the materials. 4. Would you deliver the bundles or bags to a specific location in your town? 5. Are you willing to have the refuse collector pick up the materials regularly, a) if it costs slightly more? b) if it costs slighly less? 6. Rather than having separation on a voluntary basis, do you think it would be more effective to require separation by local ordinance? Further comments: 10 newsprint programs had participation of 20% or less in corruruxnities with median education levels of 11.9 years or less. 1980 census data for the County may be different. D. Existing Recycling Efforts Paper, metal, appliances and a few other materials are being salvaged in or near Washington County by several camp hies. How much these canpanies recycle is unknown because their representatives, with two exceptions, refused in a recent telephone survey by the Maryland Environmental Service, to disclose such figures. The two companies which did report were Conservit, Inc. and Suburban Insulation, Inc. both of Hagerstown. Conservit reports recycling about 60 tons of aluminum cans per year. Suburban Insulation, Inc. annually recycles about 1800 tons of newsprint or approximately 52 percent of what is theoretically available in the study area. These are crude estimates especially since it is uncertain whether or not all of the reported tonnages came fran Washington County. We are not aware of any publicly -sponsored recycling and tracking down the tonnages recycled intermittently by civic groups is well beyond the scope of this study. So, with the exception of newsprint, it is unknown how current recycling efforts would affect county -sponsored source separation. In the case of newsprint, a decision to implement should be based on information acquired fran a public opinion survey and further inquiries of regional recycling companies. The appropriate companies are listed later in this report. 11 IV. CCtTINUOOS MANAGEMENT OF THE WASTE STREAM Solid wastes are managed in systems which consist of: first; sources of generation such as homes and businesses; second, collection by laborers and vehicles; and third, disposal facilities such as landfills or recycling plants. In source separation, materials must be sorted and kept apart through all three steps in the system. In the first step, the likelihood that a large number of people will separate glass, paper, etc. appears greater in a mandatory program than in a voluntary program. EPA studies provide good evidence of this. Well before initiating a program, decision makers should carefully consider passing an ordinance mandating separation of desired materials. Collection is the next step where separated refuse must be managed to minimize re -mixing, contamination and the loss of marketable substances. The licenses granted to refuse collectors should require appropriate handling and delivery procedures. The terms of any contracts for -collection issued by the County should also specify separate handling and delivery of recycled goods. The third element of the system is the wastes disposal or acceptance site be it a landfill, transfer station or recycling facility. Rules and regulations of the facility must specify that only separated refuse is accepted, from the commercial hauler or the individual. Mixed refuse is either turned away or accepted only upon payment of a fee assessed per pound or per load delivered. Continuous management of the waste stream, as outlined in the steps above, through consistent policies and procedures would make for greater participation, greater tonnages recycled and more equitable and efficient use of waste acceptance facilities. 13 r V. MARKETING RECYCLED MATERIALS The County is fortunate to have several active and interested markets nearby in Maryland and Pennsylvania which will accept all of the carrnonly recycled materials. Since a market is essential, the two basic types are worth considering. The relationship with a market is usually described as open market or contractual. In the open market, a program manager stores materials until there is volume enough to sell, calls known scrap dealers and sells to the highest bidder. it since the demand for recycled goods has been unstable, at times there may be very low prices or no market, both of which occured during the recession of 1974-75. As a result several dozen source separation programs in the U.S were discontinued. Contracts can cushion a program against sane of the negative effects of market instability by providing for a binding, continuous, specified relationship between seller and buyer. The first step in seeking market contracts is to contact companies to determine what they buy, which may well influence what the planned program will handle. Sample contracts or written agreements should be examined. Desirable terms to include in a contract are the guarantee of purchase; set prices under all market conditions; minimum and maximum prices; specified quantity or quality of delivered materials; and, penalties for contaminated deliveries. 15 Contracts are usually validated for one to three years, have fixed minimum and maximum prices and are most often made for newsprint and other wastepaper. Information on the closest markets, their locations and recent prices offered for the Hagerstown area are shown below. Prices are for October, 1981, change often and should be checked regularly. 16 k Material Price White goods $ 20/ton Aluminum cans $500/ton Glass $ 10/ton Corrugated $ 10/ton (loose) Newspaper $ 10/ton Office Paper $ 45/ton Ferrous $ 10/ton metals Market Deliver to: Conservit, Inc. P.O. Box 1517 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Pick up by: C&C Cullet Supply Co. Marietta, PA Deliver to: Suburban Insulation 1115C Maugans Ave Bagerstown, MD 21740 Deliver to: Brock's Scrap & Salvage Co. Cumberland, MD Source: Maryland Recycling Directory, MES, October, 1981 17 e Approximate Distance From Hagerstown 105 miles 68 miles Is This section contains four tables which summarize the potential economics of a curbside pick-up source separation program operating in Hagerstown and its surrounding communities of Conococheague, Fountain Head, Chejwsville, Funkstown, Halfway, Cedar Lawn and Williamsport, Their combined population, in 1980, is estimated to be 73,000 people who generate about 63,000 tons per year of residential, commercial, and institutional refuse. The first system concept included the entire County in the curbside collection area. Such a system would require substantial capital and even with moderate participation (35%) would incur high losses. With a participation rate well above 50%, the program might became economical. One out of four programs achieves a participation rate of 50% or higher. The above findings and the knowledge that most of the County's population resides in or near Hagerstown, led to the idea of a system confined to Hagerstown and its surrounding communities. A successful program there would still reduce the volume of wastes to be landfiiled but would require smaller capital and operating funds. Assuming weekly collection in the study area of 28,000 homes of which 35 percent participate: 28,000 homes x 35% participation = 10,000 homes With a 6 day work week, collection points per day are: 10,000 homes - 6 days = 1,666 homes per day 19 An EPA study of collection in nine states found that 20 cubic yard rear loaders can provide collection service to an average of 500 collection stops per day. The number of trucks needed is therefore: 1,666 homes per day r 500 homes per truck = 3.3 trucks or 3 trucks In terms of tonnage capacity, two trucks would suffice if they could each provide 833 services per day. Suitable trucks would be cauparthientalized, 20 cubic yard vehicles with hydraulically raised compartmentalized buckets to dump recyclables into the truck. Such a vehicle is shown in Figure 2. Capital and operating costs, including labor, are estimated at $74,000 per truck annually. See Table 5 for a detailed cost estimate for collection vehicles. The required three trucks would therefore cost $222,000 annually. This assumes County ownership and operation. Additionally, there would be expenditures to cover costs of delivering ferrous metals to Cumberland, Maryland, about 68 miles fran Hagerstown. Assuming that after collecting ferrous at the curb, packer trucks drive up an earthen ramp to unload directly into a 20 ton capacity open top trailer, costs would be limited to hauling. About one full truck load per week would be generated at 35% participation. Annual delivery costs are estimated at $13,000. Combining the costs for collection and delivery to markets, expenditures total about $235,000 annually. Revenues fran recycled materials are the subject of Table 1. Five materials are considered (glass, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, office paper and ferrous metals). Their volumes at 35% participation are estimated and October, 1981 market values are shown. 20 It is assumed that one day per week, cardboard and office paper would be collected from businesses. Within the proposed system a significant amount of revenue is generated by sales of those two materials. Since there is a local market for those and a significant volume of cardboard, it is possible that a system to separate only cardboard and office paper could be cost effective. The total estimated recycled tonnages would be about 6,303 with a market value of about $75,000 or about $12 per ton. Diverting 6,303 tons from the landfill would reduce the waste stream by about 5%. In Table 2, Estimated Program Econanics, total system costs are shown. Combined revenues and expenses yield an estimated annual loss of $160,000 or $25 per ton before costs for remaining plans, development and publicity for the program. All dollar estimates are preliminary and the results shown reflect the currently depressed prices for recycled materials. The crucial factors influencing the projected costs are the market prices, costs for collection and the level of participation. 21 1. WASHINGWN COUNTY RECYCLED MATERIALS REVENUE - 35% PARTICIPATION Office Ferrous Glass Newspaper Corrugated Paper Metal Total Fraction in Waste Stream, % 7 5.4 7.7 3.5 5 28.6 Amount in Waste Stream, TPY 4410 3402 4851 2205 3150 18,018 Amount Recycled, TPY, 35% Participation 1543 1190 1697 771 1102 6,303 Reduction in Waste Stream, % 1.2 1.0 1.3 .6 .9 5 Amount Collected Per Day (6 -day week) TPD 5 3.8 5.4 2.5 3.5 20.2 Annual Revenues $/Year 15,430 11,900 16,970 34,695 11,020 90,015 say 90,000 Assume 63,000 TPY in 1980; population 73,000. Materials fractions in waste stream figures are from different sources: Glass - HDR Report Ferrous metals - MES figures fran Baltimore County Resource Recovery Plant Newspaper, corrugated and office paper - EPA national averages Material revenues per ton estimates: Newspaper $10 Office paper $45 Glass $10 Corrugated $10 Ferrous $10 22 TABLE 2. ESTIMATED PROGRAM ECONOMICS - 35% PARTICIPATION (Based on 6,303 tons per year recycled) Collection 222,000 l 30 Delivery to Market i.3000 2 12 (ferrous metals) Total Expenses 235,000 Revenues Materials Credits 90,000 14 Net Loss 145,000 24 1. From USEPA Decision Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management; 1976, Table 53, page 152; costs escalated 10% per year for 1980. Vehicle is 20 cu. yd., rear loader; system requires 3 trucks collecting 312 days per year. 2. Estimate based on current costs of tractor trailers leased by Maryland Environmental Service for its operations. 23 V q P TABLE 3. ANNUAL COST FOR COLLECTION VEHICLE (compartmentalized 20 cu. yd. vehicle) Depreciated procurement* maintenance Consumable items Fuel (6,065 gallons at $1.25) Oil Tires Miscellaneous (insurance, fees) Labor including 20% fringe: Driver ($8/hr.) Helper ($6/hr.) management and administration (30% of labor) * $30,000 for 5 years at 10% $ 7,800 7,000 7,581 900 1,800 3,000 20,000 15,000 $ 73,581 or $74,000 Source: Decision Makers Guide _in S 1idWaste Management, U.S. EPA, 1976. All cost estimates have been updated to January, 1981. 4 24 FIGURE 2 COLLECTION VEHICLE 3.2" 3" 2•' Cws and Mass 3' 3%:'• ComPa"mw" 313W Paper Compartment H_________ 24.5•• ss• i"— 135 6" IH 9 3- 1I LIII i ;5.7_ 2.3_ 7s• a•• SOURCE. R,!source Planing Associates, Inc. 25 APPENDIX B �4-5570 / ' f.' !• 4" s I:+i'.l`f' 't1 ► 4:d' ' :riti :A'� 0 iti:;.i its f I. MnapdU s, Maryland 21401 October 1981 TABLE OF CC! TENTS FCRRLW0RD.. • ....... .�•/.� s� s e e o ...... o. s. r o ....... a . ......................... i LISTOF ABBPE 1ATIO YS • ......... • . s . s . s s .... s s . s e s . , s . s ... e . r ... a ... , e . `% LISTOF FIGURES ....................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES...... ••• ............................................r.. IX S[JMMARY.......a.....aa.•..r..............a•.........aa as .......••eaa I BEC0MMEtDA,TIONS.•.o•000......®e..e.•....es.saoa•a•••asee...®..e..eaaaa 5 SECTIONS IJT 7 I. II. ANALYSIS OF SOLIDWAS'T`E............................eo.e 9 III. MARKETS FOR MXERIALS POTENTIALLY C REDVERABLE FROM SOLIDWASTE. e ........ a. . • .. a e . • . e a • • s . r . • .. r s o ... r .... a a 23 IV. ANALYSIS OF OF C 0NTRCLpOF WASTE 7� BYE WfA�rS1HIING'IION CTXJN ' (.. a .... 33 �g�tl . P6d�1yi7;��gNTIIAL 7FOR 1'EI�G1 FROM !.ASiE PRQ ECTS.. a .... e o e .. e o e e 47 I. FaLNA6MCIM .AL 9.,e O.co o0e. a.00.....o sa... eea o e.. 67 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B 111 This report was prepared by the MES Technical Services Section in cooperation with the Washington County Planning Camnission. Participants in the study from MES included Dr. Cliff R. Willey (Waste Analysis and Energy Market Survey) , Mr. Ron Darzen (Analysis of Control of Wastes) , and Ms. Hilary Tatem (Materials Markets and Financial Assistance Programs). Partial support was received fran the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Cliff R. Willey, Chief Technical Services Section Maryland Environmental Services i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Btu - British thermal unit DOE - Department of Energy EPA - Q.S. Environmental Protection Agency G.O. - General Obligation HHV - Higher Heating Value MES - Maryland Environmental Service MST - Municipal Solid Waste PC]) - Pounds per Capita per Day TPDx -- Tons per Day (number of days basis) TPY - Tons per Year HAP - Report by Henningson, Durham, and Richardson for the Municipal Electric Light Plant, City of Hagerstown. V LIST OF FIGURES III -1 REYNOLDS ALUMINUM MATERIALS RECOVERY SYSTEM (DESIGN REPRODUCED FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY REYNOLDSALUMINUM)..............00.09...................... 28 V-1 STEAM USE BY VARICUJS CONSUMERS VERSUS STEAM AVAILABILITY FROM WASWDZTON COUNTY REFUSE (COPIED FROM HDR/MELP REPORT, FIGURE III -3, 1978) .................. 57 V-2 STEAM FLOW AT FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES MAIN PLANT CC4PLEX FOR 1980 (CURVES PROVIDED BY FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES)......... 59 V-3 STEAM FLOW AT FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES BONDING PLANT FOR 1980 (CUlWE.5 SUPPLIED BY FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES) ............. 60 vii LIST OF TABLES II -1 SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSED AT,CONTY/CITY LANDFILL DURING DECEMBER 1980 WEIGHING PROGRAM (TONS/bAY)............ 18 11-2 SUMMARY OF VEHICLES SURVEYED AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSED AT OJUflY/CITY LANDFILL DURING DECEMBER 1980 WEIGHING PROGRAM..................................................... 19 1I-3 SUMMARY OF WASHING`1tN COUNTY SOLID WASTE DURING JULY WEIGHING PROGRAM (PART I) .............................. 20 SUMMARY OF WASHflLON COUNTY SOLID WASTE DUR JULY WEIRPROGRAM (PART II) ............................. 21. I1-4 SURVEY OF VERICLES SURVEYED AND WASTE DISPOSED DURING JULY1981 WEIGHING PROGRAM .................................. 22 IV —1 WASTE COMMITMENT TEIXGH ORDINANCE OR CONTRACT.............. 42 IV -2 ALTERNATIVE REVEAIOE SCYS.........................,........ 43 IV -3 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES, AND THE CONDITIONS TEAT FAVOR FAQL.. 44 V-1 SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE IN OPERATION OR UNDERCONSTRUCTION _IN TEE UNITED STATES FOR300 TONS PER DAY OR LESS ................................ 49 V-2 APPROXIMATE FUEL USE OF COAL AND COAL/P T T, T BLENDS AT MCI BY MOO (TONS) ....................................... 64 VI -1 C EARAC.TERISTIC S OF CAPITAL FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMT FACILITIES....................... 71 VI -2 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL FFINANCING METHODS, AND THE C'NDITICNS MAT FAVOREACH. ®......00..............m......................... 74 Waste surveys were conducted by the Planning Commission staff at County/City landfill for four days in December 1980 and for 12 days in July 1981 The surveys averaged 330 and 451 tons per day, respectively, for all wastes entering the landfill. The wastes averaged: 72.4 percent - residential, commercial, institutional, constructing/building, and industrial wastes minus auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues 16.6 percent - auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues 11.0 percent - rubble, demolition, land clearing, and brush wastes. Approximately one-third of the auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues consisted of rubber, plastic, textiles and other combustible materials. This fraction, canbined with wastes other than rubble, demolition, etc. make up 78 percent of the waste stream. This part of the waste stream, which averaged about 300 tons per day, would be wastes for consideration for energy recovery. Most wastes would be potentially suitable for shredding and volume reduction other than rubble, demolition, land clearing, brush, white goods, tires, and auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues (which are already shredded). (Sane systems will not take items such as shipping pallets and other large objects - these must be looked at on a case by case basis.) For this report, the wastes we considered shreddable averged 266 and 301 tons per day, respectively, for the Decenber and July weighing periods. Additional weighing programs will be conducted by the County. Paper markets are available in the Hagerstown area for newspaper, tab cards, corrugated, and ca putor printout paper. None of the markets offer a base price (floor price): therefore revenues, particularly for newsprint, will cycle with the market and cannot be guaranteed. Because of this, a countywide source separation program, which would depend mostly on revenues from paper collections, probably would not be economical. (Source separation is covered in more detail in a second report to the County.) No local market exists for source separated ferrous metal cans. Cans magnetically separated from refuse in large quantiies, (20 to 40 tons per week) could be sold to Bethlehem Steel. Revenues are estimated in the report. Two Pennsylvania firms will pick up clear, color sorted glass. Containers will be supplied under certain conditions. Because of poor market conditions, they will not pay for the glass. Mechanical separation of glass is not recarmended. Washington County has markets for aluminum. 2 I Through municipal collections, green boxes, and direct citizens dumping, Washington County and local governments control about 15 percent of the waste stream. The remainder is handled by independent collectors who are not cam fitted to dispose at any particular location (although their choice of locations is limited). Under most financing schemes for energy recovery systems, sane control would be required to guarantee a supply of waste for the system. Approaches for waste control are briefly discussed in this section of the report. Small scale projects using less than 300 TPD of solid waste are reviewed in the report to determine what kinds of projects are being successfully implemented in this range. Most involve mass incineration or modular starved air incineration and produce low pressure steam. Three projects produce refuse derived fuel (RDF) for use as a supplementary fuel with coal in electric utility boilers. Washington County does not have ideal markets for law pressure steam waste -to -energy projects. Most steam markets are small (County Hospital, Pangborn, and Fairchild Industries). The only large market is Mack Truck which we believe would be difficult to develop into a waste -to -energy project at this time. The RDF approach may have more potential for development. For a long --teen ca nitment to a waste -to -energy project, the Hagerstown MELP is probably the best situation in the County at this time. This project, however, would require a careful re-examination based on the experience of the recovery industry over the last four years. 3 At the time this study was initiated, there were several federal programs for assisting energy and resource recovery programs. One, in particular, the DOE price support loan, would have enabled waste -to -energy plants to borrow against future revenues to reduce the first year's costs. Unfortunately, funds for the Federal programs have been rescinded. Financing will have to come from G.O. bonds, revenue bonds, vendor financing or combinations of these forms of financing. There may be ways to lower the first year's cost of a project, but most cannunities probably will have to accept a higher disposal fee at first to benefit later fran the overall econanics of waste -to -energy systeus versus continued use of landfill. No State of Maryland financial assistance programs are available at this time. 4 -�i� iii i• �� The following recommendations are made to the County: . Continue to conduct weighing studies or initiate a continuous weighing program so as to be in a position to properly design a solid waste shredding, processing, or resource recovery system. . Look for ways to fund a re-examination of the Hagerstcwn MELP project and for ways to level out the costs over the life of the project to avoid having high disposal costs during the first few years of the project. Continue to regard solid waste as a potentially valuable resource in negotiations with any new industry interested in locating in Washington County. The offer of this continuously available fuel or steam and electricity produced by the combustion of solid waste at discounted prices, could be an inducement for a new industry to locate in the County. MES is willing to work with the County to explore ways of funding further development of recovery projects and to assist the County in any discussions with potential customers for energy or materials recovered from solid waste. 5 SECTION I O4Mh: !16I N �1► This report was prepared in response to a request by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County for assistance in determining the best method to prolong 0 the life of the county's landfill. The following scope of work was prepared by the County Planning Commission staff and MES for the solid waste study: 1. Weighing Survey and Analysis of Solid Waste 2. Informational Tasks: a. Energy market survey and analysis b. Materials market survey and analysis c. Legal aspects of a comprehensive solid waste management system d. Source separation assessment and market survey e. Research of possible funding programs f. Research of technical and gnomical feasibility of all resource recovery alternatives g. Review landfill program, present and future 3. Comprehensive Review of alternatives to determine which are not feasible and which deserve further investigation. 4. Expanded evaluation of alternatives deserving further investigation. 7 5. Recommendations. This report includes Waste Analysis and Informational Tasks a, b, c, and e. An analysis of source separation (part d) is being submitted as a separate report by MES. Since a great deal has been written about the technology and economics of resource recovery, only information that appears relevant to the Washington County situation is covered. Also, it is intended that this report be used along with the report Resource Recovery Facility: Pre —feasibility ity Study which was prepared for the Municipal Electric Light Plant, City of Hagerstown, in 1978 by the consulting firm of Henningson, Durham, and Richardson (referred to here as the HDRjNELP report) . SECTION II ANALYSIS OF SOLD WASTE The feasibility of various solid waste management options - shredding, energy recovery, etc. - can be examined generally based on rough estimates of solid waste generation, such as those presented in the FD R/MELP Report, Chapter II. Final decisions on feasibility, design and equipment size, however, cannot be competently made without firm data on both waste quantities and waste types. At the onset of this study, it appeared that the county might want to move rapidly to install some form of solid waste volume reduction equipment; therefore, it was recommended that the county inn3ediately begin a waste analysis study at County/City landfill. Waste surveys were conducted bar the Washington County Planning Commission in December, 1980 and July, 1981. (A third survey is scheduled for October, 1981.) To perform the weighing, a platform scale previously installed at the County/City landfiill was rehabilitated and calibrated. An electronic weight recorder was rented for use with the scales to make weighing easier and more accurate. The program was designed, to provide the maximum amount of information without -interfering unduly with normal landfill activities. To accomplish this: 1. As much information as possible was obtained on empty weights of large trucks prior to the start of the weighing program. 2. Small trucks and pick-ups with small loads and autanobiles were not required to stop for weighing on a regular basis. It was determined that loads for these vehicles could be estimated on an average of 400 pounds per vehicle load for shall trucks and 150 pounds for each automobile load. 3. City of Hagerstown trucks, because of their use of the landfill during the night, were not weighed. It was determined that these trucks contain an average of 4.93 tons per load. During the survey, wastes were categorized as follows: 1. Residential - Household wastes delivered to the landfill either by the City of Hagerstown, private haulers, or by residents themselves. 2. Cammnercial - Wastes fran shopping centers, small businesses, stores, office buildings and so on. 3. Industrial - Wastes from manufacturing plants and fran businesses such as auto shredding/metals reclaiming. 4. Institutional - Wastes fran hospitals and schools. 5. Rubble/benolltion/Land Excavation - Soil, concrete, brick, large tree stumps and similar material. 10 6. Brush/Yard Waste - Tree limbs, grass clippings and similar material. 7. Construction - Sidling, remodeling debris, roofing and materials that are generally the residues of either construction or the remodeling businesses. 8. White Goods - Refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, etc. 9. Tires. 10. Unidentified. For purposes of this report, the following categories are considered shreddable or processable wastes: residential, coaanercia1, industrial (less auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste), institutional, and construction. The remaining waste categories, for the most part, would not go through a solid waste volume reduction system. They are: rubble/demolition/ land excavation material, brush/yard waste, white goods, tires, and auto shredding/metals reclaiming wastes. The first weighing program conducted at the County/City landfill was run December 18 through December 22, 1980 (Thursday through Monday, excluding Sunday). Although the program was intended to cover a two-week period, difficulties with the scale forced an early termination. Inclement weather also was a problem. Data fran the program are included at the end of this section as tables III and 11-2. Highlights of the information provided by the December weighing are as follows : V 11 (1) Fran 206 to 346 vehicles used the landfill per day, averaging 248 vehicles per day. (2) 80.6 percent of the waste entering the landfill was weighed; the rest, including City of Hagerstown trucks (which enter the landfill at night) and shall loads, was estimated based on spot checks of weights. (3) The amount of waste received per day ranged from 219 tons (a Saturday) to 413 tons (Friday). (4) The average amount disposed per day was 330 tons. (5) Out of the 330 tons there was an averaged: o 15 tons (4.7 percent) rubble and brush (no white goods or tires were received) o 49 tons (14.7 percent) auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste (84 percent of the industrial waste category) o 266 tons (80.6 percent) residential, commercial, institutional, industrial minus auto shredding/metals reclaiming, and construction (These are considered shreddable wastes.) (6) Based on 330 tons per day and a 1980 population of 109,477 (excluding the Hancock area, which is served by a small landfill not included in the weighing program) the total waste generation rate is 6.0 pounds per capita per day (six day week) for the December weighing program. Because of the scale problems encountered in December, 1980, a complete rehabilitation and calibration of the scales was done prior to the July program. 12 The weighing program began July 13 and ended July 25, encanpassing a full two weeks of activity at the landfill. The weighing program was run by Katherine Thompson, Washington County Planning Camnission staff. Data from the program are included at the end of this section as Tables II -3 and 1I--4. Highlights of the information provided by the July weighing program are as follows: (1) Fran 283 to 399 vehicles used the landfill per day, with an averge of 384 vehicles per day. (2) 87 percent of the wastes entering the landfill was weighed; the rest was estimated based on spot weighing and vehicle count. (3) The amount of waste received per day ranged from 252 (a Saturday) to 531 tons (a week day) . (4) The average amount received per day was 451 tons. (5) Out of the 451 tons there was an average of: o 70 tons per day (15.5 percent) rubble, brush, white goods, and tires o 80 tons per day (17.7 percent) auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste (62 percent of the industrial waste category) o 301 tons per day (66.7 percent) residential, commercial, institutional, industrial minus auto shredding/metals reclaiming waste, and construction. (6) Based on 451 tons per day and the 1981 population of 1,,0,484 (excluding the Hancock area) the total waste generation rate is 8.2 pounds per capita per day (six -day week) for the July weighing program. 13 Since the weighing programs have not been completed, only a preliminary analysis can be attempted. Seasonal Variation: Solid waste disposal is usually cyclical, with greater amounts received during the summer months than in the winter. This is shown by an analysis recently done by MES for the Talbot County/Easton landfill for the years 1976 through 1980, for which continuous weighing records were available. Variations in solid waste disposal averaged out as follows: (percent) January -March -16.1 April -June +10.7 July -September + 9.2 October -December - 3.8 The spread between the lowest average quarter and the highest was 27 percent. Variations on a monthly basis would be even greater. In the HDRWMELP Report (Chapter II, page II -11) variations in Washington County solid waste by month is projected frctn data from other sources. Variations about the average was ±20 percent with December being -14 percent (lower than the average) and July +10 percent higher. The purpose in presenting the above information is for comparison to the December and July weighing program results. The average daily tonnage disposal during these two periods (451 and 330 tons per day) show a variation of ± 15 percent, about an average of the two quantities. This is not out of line with variation data presented in the HDR study. December was listed as -14 percent and July +10 percent about the average, for a total range of 24 percent versus 30 percent for the Washington County data. 14 Average Daily Tonnage for Washington County: Since there is little else to work with, our average total tonnage is considered to be the average of the December weighing (451 TPD) and July weighing (330 TPD) or 390 TPD (tons per day). This calculated out to be 7.1 pounds per capita per day, six days per week. Wastes R+ airing Shredding: For the most part only the categories residential, canmerical, institutional, industrial (minus auto shredding/ metals reclaiming wastes), and construction (siding, roofing, well lumber, etc.) would be shredded. Previously shredded auto waste, rubble, construction debris, land clearing wastes, and brush would not. For the two weighing periods, these categories amounted to 266 TPD (December) and 301 TPD (July), averaging 283 tons per day. Future Waste Generation: For general planning purposes, estimates of solid waste are caiuonly made based on population and data on the average amount of waste generated per person. There are differences of opinion on whether per capita generation rates for solid waste will increase or not in future years. Convincing arguments are being presented for a law rate of increase or possibly even a decline in the per capita generation rate of solid waste. This would be due to increased source separation recycling ,such as the current trend in recycling aluminum cans, reduced packaging and general decline in goods purchased. For this report we are willing to believe that generation rates may not increase or will increase very slowly. Since the population for Washington County is projected to increase less than 6 percent. froth 1980 to the year 2000 (Maryland Department of State Planning) and we do not believe per capita generation will increase (for household, cat;nercial, and institutional wastes) the County should not have to plan for the management of much more waste than it is presently receiving. 15 i Auto Shredding/Metals Residue: Because of the unique nature of this waste, and its amount, this part of the waste stream needs to be considered as a separate category when examining shredding or resource recovery options. The waste is already shredded and would not be rerun through a shredding operation. The wastes also have certain characteristics that may or may not make them desirable in a resource recovery operation. Mr. George Sellers of Conservit provided the following estimates of waste from the auto shredding/metals reclaiming operations: 50 Tons per day/200 days per year, Composed of: 20 tons fluff 30 tons dirt/glass 55 Tons per day/200 days per year Composed of: 40 tons dirt 10 tons fluff 5 tons rubber/plastic Based on the above information, it is determined that the combined auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues are about one-third fluff, rubber and plastic, (which are burnable materials and have potential for energy recovery), and two-thirds a dirt -like residue, which would continue to be landfilled. Also, based on the above information, it is calculated that the average amount produced based on a six -day week would be 67 TPD, (out of which 22 to 23 TPD would be burnable). This is close (probably fortuitously) to the average amount of auto shredding/metals reclaiming residues received during the weighing programs - 64.5 TPD. (The December weighing averged 49 TPD and the July weighing averaged 80 TPD.) 16 Although the combustible part of the Conservit/Newell residue has a very high heat value, it also is high in chlorine, which can be a problem in same energy recovery systems because of the formation of corrosive chemicals. This would have to be a consideration in selecting an energy technology. (1) Weighing programs in December 1980 and July 1981 gave average daily tonnages of 330 and 451 tons per day entering County/City landfill. The average of the two weighing periods is 391 tons per day. (2) For the two weighing periods, the wastes averaged: 72.4 percent - residential, catercial, institutional, industrial minus auto shredding/metal recovery residues, and building wastes 16.6 percent - auto shredding/metal recovery residues 11.0 percent - rubble, land clearing, demolition, brush, and yard wastes. (3) Approximately one-third of the auto shredding/metal recovery wastes (22 to 23 TED, six -day week average) are combustible and could be considered for energy recovery; the remainder would be landfilled. (4) Rubble, land clearing, demolition and brush would not be usable for resource and energy recovery and would be landfilled. (5) Most of the remaining categories of wastes (78 percent, or 300 TPD average) would be processable for materials and/or energy recovery. V 17 TABLE II -1. SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSED AT a/CITY LANDFILL DURING DECEMBER 1980 WEIGHT PROGRAM ('ItNS/DAY) Type of Waste Thursday* Friday Saturday Monday Total Residential Caranercial Industrial Institutional Construction Brush/yard Rubble** unidentified 177.39 188.68 170.75 139.54 676.36 76.84 142.35 36.13 58.46 313.80 95.28 65.96 9.31 59.96 230.51 18.11 0.32 2.05 4.85 25.33 0.20 5.09 .45 4.10 9.84 1.95 9.86 - 11.70 23.51 36.33 - 1.12 - - - .49 3.05 37.94 3.05 406.09 413.37 218.69 282.15 1320.30 *Weighing program started on December 18, 1980. **Includes demolition and land excavation. NOTE: No white goods or tires were received during this period. [I? TABLE I1-2. SUMMARY OF VEHICLES SURVEYED AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSED AT COUNTY/CITY LANDFILL IRING DECKER 1980 WEIGHING PROGRAM Thursday Friday Saturday Monday Total Weighed trucks 85 100 Waste delivered (tons) 318.96 369.56 Average tons/truck 3.75 3.69 IIrweighed trucks* 16 7 Estimated weight (tons) 78.88 34.51 unweighed vehicles+ 110 124 Estimated weight (tons)++ 8.25 9.30 Total Vehicles 211 231 Total Weight 406.10 413.38 *City of Hagerstown night deliveries. **Estimated at 4.93 tons per truck. +Passenger cars and pickup trucks with snail loads. ++Estimated at 150 lb. per vehicle. 54 108 347 138.53 235.96 1063 2.57 2.18 3.06 12 8 43 59.16 39.44 211.99 280 90 604 21 6.75 45.3 346 206 994 218.69 282.15 1320.20 19 TABLE 11-3. SUMMARY OF WAMING t COUNTY SOLID WASTE DURING JULY WEIGHING PROGRAM (PART II) Rubble/ Demolition gush/ Land Yard Sub Excavation Waste White Gocds Tires Unidentified Totals Totals 1st Week 7/13 48.49 17.53 .87 .06 .00 66.95 531.18 7/14 54.54 21.88 .57 3.35 .00 79.74 420.29 7/15 28.16 20.15 .35 6.13 .03 54.82 375.64 7/16 28.18 24.78 .21 4.29 .13 57.59 360.61 7/17 87.63 16.45 .26 .33 .00 104.67 599.05 7/18 14.78 16.02 2.30 3.16 .00 36.26 363.60 Week 1 Total 261.78 116.21 4.56 17.32 .16 400.03 2650.37 2nd Week 7/20 48.49 17.53 .87 .06 .00 7/21 13.80 92.67 .97 .00 .00 7/22 25.26 65.54 1.73 3.10 .00 7/23 27.46 33.35 .12 .88 .00 7/24 65.02 13.64 1.28 .00 .00 7/25 14.71 12.84 1.20 .00 .00 Week 2 Total 194.74 235.57 6.17 4.04 .00 Survey Total 456.52 351.78 10.73 21.36 .16 66.95 526.25 107.44 457.44 95.63 445.42 61.81 486.80 79.94 472.63 28.75 378.91 440.52 2767.45 840.55 5417.82 20 TABLE I1--3. SUM 1RY OF WASHINGZGN C'CUN Y SOLID WAS'1 CURING JULY WEIGHING PROGRAM (PART 1) Construction Siding Remodeling Sub 1st Week 7/13 192.13 62.47 179.68 8.38 21.57 464.23 7/14 98.74 65.78 132.94 .00 43.09 340.55 7/15 100.90 58.92 134.86 7.87 18.27 320.82 7/16 144.34 67.65 56.74 8.98 25.31 303.02 7/17 154.57 77.97 213.45 11.51 36.88 494.38 7/18 241.96 4.33 28.22 5.57 11.26 327.34 Week I Total 932.64 373.12 745.89 42.31 156.38 2250.34 2nd Week 7/20 187.20 62.47 179.68 8.38 21.57 459.30 7/21 119.81 51.74 161.21 7.51 9.73 350.00 7/22 102.35 67.55 137.35 11.63 30.91 349.79 7/23 175.65 66.23 155.79 .00 27.32 424.99 7/24 171.90 61.13 130.17 - 880 20.69---- - --392.69 7/25 225.77 70.71 33.31 3.42 16.95 350.16 Week 2 Total 982.68 379.83 797.51 39.74 127.17 2326.93 Survey Total 1915.95 752.95 1543.40* 82.05 283.55 4577.27 *Includes 967 tons of auto shredding/metals reclaiming residue. 21 CO rl 01 N '#. .O -I �D ul O O t0 NIs !n l N tl tl N y� o m �G '-4 T in CND r�Ipd{ L E5�7 M vi N a N c'Y tO PAS CC 49 •o c' in to N ul UI a' V q tCppO W ' CN tl N m N ' N ul N .-1 N CCI 0 N C" M N N RI Ln ('4 fn tl tl q' f., m f�'1 V * en N e-1 N It) f'I e*I - 11! ('I O CI. OI Pn N In O fb CD fb .-t M O (N N V: to tD r+ ri �-+ ri ri m ri ri r- . N p.4r f CI o r-i N 2 Nco ri to .-i Cb ri N 0% -0 v ...4N in of N as ri to +`I ICI ri in N r7 K t .�! 7 O to O to O N O O O to O O O O O to d N O O O O O O O IO O N O CV 4.' tl N 1O .-1 o .i to -1 to -4 CO in O to N N e+1 N 0I N .-i cP4 tl N in V 0 N 0 r -I 'Q f.� N O1 �} N p try - 05 r -f CO - -4-4-4- N ODD 0 ha wi CJ 3G V• tl M al O o V• -r V• d erf in U, ,.4 0 d 0 o -0' tl V' tl tl v 1" CD m Ii 01 V4 01 CI C1 N 4 Of CS O. 4 in fh m M M IN IZ in ClI -rl C1 V w O CD 0 O IA N O O aD w CD rti .C ri f•1 c+1 10 oCCJ 05 +-t 4i U- 7 at U w ra 4 f+7 O as 0 '4 %0 lC oo f�'f ri CI tl CC 10 In CD O d 10 '4 ri Il r-1 C1 W CS It) I. I)) U 1�+ in N e7 1 M d' fvri� N N ape +w; ('1 tl rtl� to ('4 N 10 e4 LL m u1 fO1 t► V' V' N N . OC�I 4 0r�} N 05 Om 0 IO N N .-4iC') N N r•1 ri CV N N N N N N N p4 C UI O 49 N '4 .4-4 aQ 10 a'i p4 tl 1p� O r -f ri ii yl y 0 00 r�i l ray r� i J� c^7 N N N C�V spy # 1i is it N 22 SECTION III Materials can be separated from the waste stream by hand (source separation), by a combination of mechanical processing and hand picking or entirely by mechanical processing, usually in connection with solid waste shredding operation or sane type of energy resource recovery system. The type of recovery process used will affect the amount and character of the materials recovered and usually the market used. Hand separated materials are cleaner and usually can be sold to local secondary scrap dealers. Mechanically processed materials usually have more contamination and are saleable only to special markets. Materials recovery can have an impact on the volume of refuse going to landfill; for example, Marblehead, Massachusetts, through a well run program, has been able to recycle 25 percent of the residential waste stream through source separation. This section lists markets for both source separated and mechanically separated materials as identified for Washington County. The feasibility of starting source separation programs in Washington County is discussed in a separate report to the County from MES. Mechanical separation possibilities are not analyzed in detail in this report. For the most part, they would be part of a shredding or resource recovery operation and would not be viable unless energy recovery, shredding, or some other processing of solid waste was being done. 23 Paper prices are determined by its grade which varies according to its quality and the degree of contamination. Catmon contaminants include glue, staples, and rubber bands. These grades are established by the Paper Stock Institute of nerica, a caIInodity division of the National Association of Recycling Industries, Inc. Unstable market conditions for corrugated and newspaper present the biggest problems in selling wastepaper. The demand and price for each fluctuate considerably throughout the year. For example, in March the price for newspaper was $25-30/ton. Currently (October), the price for newspaper has fallen to $10/ton and is expected to remain at that low price during the next few months. Market conditions for high grade office paper such as computer printout, and tab cards, on the other hand, are relatively stable at prices which average $80, and $115/ton, respectively. The price for corrugated appears to be fairly stable at this time with the price at $15/ton. The following markets purchase source separated paper: -- Maryland Metals, Inc. 304 W. Church Street P. 0. Box 31 Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 739-5525 Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 791-2143 Purchases Corrugated Newspaper Computer Printout Tab Cards 24 Garden State Paper, which buys newsprint directly for de -inking and recycling back as newsprint, has indicated to MES that it is not interested in purchasing paper fran Washington County. Garden State will give a floor price contract which offers sane stability to newsprint recycling projects. C&C Collet Supply Campany in Marietta, Pennsylvania and Keystone Collet Canpany in Greensburg, Pennsylvania both purchase color separated container glass, provided that it is rinsed clean and free of metal caps and rings. If a sufficient amount of glass is generated, either of these will provide containers and pick up service for the glass. Price for glass depends on transport requirements. The processes currently available to mechanically recover glass from municipal solid waste limit the marketability of the glass. Glass must be recovered to specification if it is to be sold. Only one market has been identified that will accept color -mixed cullet such as is recovered at the Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation is purchasing the cullet for use in the production of insulation. The glass is separated from the other refuse by a vibrating air table that sorts material according to its specific gravity and shape. The cullet is then milled to 16 mesh as required by the contract with Owens-Corning. Revenue from the sale of the glass is $18.75/ton FOB Cockeysville. Washington County probably would not find mechanical glass recovery cost effective. W Aluminum beverage cans and aluminum scrap can be sold to the scrap dealers listed below. The current price being paid by these dealers is $.20 - $.25 per pound. Cumberland, MD 21502 (301) 777-0820 Conservit P. 0. Box 1517 Sharpsburg Pike Hagerstown, MD 21740 (301) 791-0100 Schroyer's Recycling Center 8145 Reich's Ford Road Frederick, MD 21701 (301) 663-5022 Mechanical recovery of aluminum could be a part of a solid waste processing system for Washington County, but the use of the "aluminum magnet" approach is not recommended at this time.' These systems for extracting aluminum fran shredded waste have not met with much success. Reynolds Aluminum has developed a system for aluminum can recovery that is relatively simple. The waste stream is processed through a large rotary screen to drop out and concentrate cans and similar sized objects. After magnetically removing ferrous cans, and performing sane additional processing, aluminum cans are hand picked. Systens are now in operation in Houston, Texas (500 tons per day) and Salem, Virginia (80-100 tons per day). The Reynolds systen is illustrated in Figure 11I-1. 26 A similar approach to aluminum recovery is being used in Wicaico County, Maryland, where aluminum cans are being hand picked following processing of solid waste through a Seerdrum rotary pulverizer. 97 FIGURE III -1. REYNOLDS ALUMINUM M&TERIALS RECWERY SYSTEM (DESIGN REPRODUCED FROM INFCRMATIC SUPPLIED BY REYNOLDS ALUMfl!JM) 'r: Ferrous metals recovered throughsource separation F� usually consist of tin cans, bi-metal cans (which are tin -coated steel having a single aluminum end) and tin -free steel cans. These are relatively uniform, light weight, easily handled, and may be easily processed for recycling by a consumer at home. The cans must be rinsed clean, have labels renoved, ends cut out, and usually must be flattened (simply by stepping on the middles) to reduce their size. The only market for these cans in the Washington County area is Brock's Scrap & Salvage Company located in Ciinberland. Accumulating a sufficient mount of cans to make their recovery economical could be a problen. The average price paid for these cans is $6/ton. White goods (appliances) can be sold to Conservit for $30/ton. The ability to sell ferrous metals that are mechanically recovered fran municipal solid waste is heavily dependent on the fonn and purity of the recovered metal. With the largest portion of the ferrous consisting of cans, the markets are limited. These cans are often a canposite of several materials including steel, tin, lead, and aluminum. If the ferrous is incinerated prior to extraction, the result is a heavily contaminated product which at this time is not readily marketable in the Maryland area. At the present time, the most viable market in Maryland is Bethlehem Steel at Sparrows Point which purchases baled ferrous scrap from the Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility at 80% of the Philadelphia price for No. 2 bundles of scrap iron, as published in Iron Acre (first issue of the month) . wt Recent prices for ferrous are listed below: No. 2 Bundles - Philadelphia Market Sep. 80 $64/gross ton Oct. 80 61 Nov. 80 64 Dec. 80 64 Jan. 81 no price Feb. 81 54 Mar. 81 65-67 Apr. 81 51 May 81 51 June 81 48 July 81 48 Aug. 81 53 Sep. 81 47 Transport and baling will consume a substantial portion of this revenue as shown below. The figures below are based on shipment of a 65 Cu. yd. trailer loaded with 15 tons, assuming no cost for the trailer. 30 arch epteber Gross Revenue: $51.20/ton $37.60 (80% of $65) (80% of $47) Less: Tractor Leasing $156 $156 5 hours @ $31.20/hour (R/T) Baling in Baltimore $14/ton $14 & subsequent shipment to Bethlehem Steel Net Revenue: * $26.80/ton $13.20 *excluding cost of recovery Although ferrous prices fluctuate, they have remained high enough to make ferrous recovery a worthwhile recovery option for Baltimore County, which has recovered ferrous since 1976. Wiccmico County, Maryland, now operates magnetic ferrous recovery in conjunction with its Seerdrum waste pulverization system, recovering ferrous metal from about 100 tons of solid waste per day. Wiccanico County keeps transport costs low by using County -owned trucks and back hauling slag from Bethlehem Steel. 31 SECTIC N IV ANALYSIS OF CON' OL OF WASTE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY "Only a high stakes gambler would camnit the capital needed to build a resource recovery facility without prior commitment that wastes will. be delivered," (National Solid Wastes Management Association,1979). irrespective of whether Washington County, a private company or other organization constructs and operates a recovery facility, the County must have a mechanism to commit its solid waste to the facility.A secured refuse supply indicates what size facility should be built; influences operating costs and tipping fees; and assures financial backers that adequate refuse is available to process or to convert to energy. Because it could increase the risk of failure, the lack of a secured refuse supply could negatively influence potential financiers and private firms which develop or operate resource recovery systens. The analysis in this chapter has been prepared to assist in determining ways for the County to acquire a guaranteed refuse supply. At present over 80 percent of solid waste in Washington County is collected by private firms. The, result of the December 1980 four -day weighing study can be used to estimate the volumes of refuse now under County control which could be directed to a resource recovery plant. 33 Four day total 1,237 tons 1,032 tons controlled by independent contractors 129 tons City of Hagerstown 66 tons from greenboxes 10 tons delivered directly by citizens This leaves 1,032 tons, or about 83 percent of the total waste stream over which Washington County has no direct control at this time. It therefore would benefit the County to decide whether it wishes to dedicate all or part of its refuse to resource recovery. The decisive factor will be the size of the energy market which is obtained. Should the market demand a product in volume enough to require the processing of all of the County's refuse, then the project with the best chance of success would be one where the County manages the entire waste stream fram generation through disposal. Because of the time it takes to pass and implement new laws, the issue of Washington County's contract should be examined well in advance of developing a recovery system. It is stated in the Code of Local Public Law of Washington County in Section 25A Public Works, that the Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for the construction, maintenance and control of solid waste collection, recycling and disposal facilities and projects. The DPW's authority supersedes any public, general, or local law to the contrary. Under Section 8-28, further power is given the County to adopt rules and regulations to control, prohibit or regulate the dumping of refuse in any unincorporated area of the County. The incorporated places are Boonsboro, Frankstown, Hagerstown, Hancock, Keedysville, Sharpsburg, Srithsburg, and Wiliamsport. Hagerstown has a population of 34,054 and the population of the seven other totals 8,762 people. 34 In Hagerstown, under Section 15-31, the city has authority over collection, contracts, and may tax users of the collection system. Hancock has no local ordinances to control solid waste. With regard to disposal facilities, State enabling legislation backing the referenced code sections is contained in Article 25A, Section 14A, Annotated Code of Maryland. The cited sections fran the local code and State law empower the County and make it responsible to manage solid wastes for the protection and pranotion of public safety, health, morals, comfort, and welfare. Article 25, Section 14A, Annotated Code of Maryland 14A. Refuse and garbage disposal facilities. (a) The county corm issioners of every county in the State may acquire, maintain, and operate a tract of land or tracts or parcels of land within the limits of the county for the disposal of refuse, garbage, rubbish, or any other matter as in their judgment may promote the public health of the inhabitants of the county, and may, in their discretion, construct, on sane site or sites, within the limits of the county, selected by -them, an incinerator or incinerators or other refuse disposal plants for the dispoal of refuse, garbage, rubbish, or any other matter. In the exercise of this power the county commissioners may: (1) Prescribe and enforce rules, and regulations concerning the operation and manner of use of the disposal areas or facilities; (2) Make agreements with persons, firms, corporations, municipal corporations subject to the approval of the governing body, special districts, or other counties for cooperation in, and financial suport by way of service charges and fees, in the acquisition, construction, operation and maintenence of the disposal areas or facilities; 35 (3) Fix and collect reasonable service charges or fees from any person, firm, corporation, municipal corporation, special district or other county for the use of the disposal areas or facilities; (4) To employ such personnel as may be necessary or desirable for the operation, maintenance, or supervision of the disposal areas or facilities; (5) Acquire land, including rights -of -way or easements, in fee simple or otherwise, as needed for the purposes of this section by purchase, gift, lease or condemnation. (b) The mayor and city council, by whatever name known, of every municipal corporation in the State are authorized to enter into agreements and contracts with any county for the purpose of disposing of the refuse, garbage, trash or other matter collected within the municipal corporation at any incinerator or plant operated under the provisions of this section. (c) The county cannissioners, in the furtherance of the provisions of this section, may make appropriations for land acquisition and capital improvements, or borrow funds for these purposes and issue notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness and make such appropriate levies as may be required to meet these obligations. (d) The provisions of this section shall be construed as additional and supplemental provisions to any existing laws providing for the disposal of refuse, garbage, rubbish or other matter. (1966, ch. 570.) With regard to refuse collection, the following section of State code expresses the powers of the County. Article 25, Section 3(a) (v) Annotated Code of Maryland Section 3(a) Enumerated Powers. 36 (a) Excepted counties. - (1) The county commissioners of each county in this State, in addition to, but not in substitution of, the powers of which have been or may be granted them, have the following express powers. (2) (i) The following counties are excepted from these express powers. (ii) Anne Arundel County, (iii) Baltimore County, (iv) Cecil County; included, however, in subsection (s-1), (v) Howard County, (vi) Prince George's County, (vii) Queen Anne's County; included, however, in subsections (f), (s) (3) , (s-1) , and (ii) , (viii) Worcester County; included, however, in subsections (1), (s), (2) , (x) , (x-1) and (y) . (v) Refuse collection and disposal; Dorchester County. - (1) To require, regulate, or provide for the collection, removal, and disposal of refuse, grbage, rubbish, filth, or any other matter or thing that is or may become injurious to the health or canfort of the inhabitants of the county, and to provide whether the expense, if any, shall be borne by individual owners or tenants or shall be paid for in whole or in part by the county. (2) To license refuse collectors for hire and to make it unlawful to collect, remove or dispose of refuse for hire without a license, to authorize regulation of camnercial refuse collectors including provision for suspension, revocation and renewal of licenses, all to pranote the health, safety and welfare of the county; to require public notice or hearing with the right to be represented by counsel in any case where an applicant is denied a license. This subsection shall be applicable in Dorchester County and the County Co mnissioners shall have the powers provided herein. 37 In developing its waste management system, an option open to the County is to obtain MES assistance by requesting that MES designate the County as a solid waste disposal region under the Maryland Environmental Service Law (C0MAR Section 3-106 of the Natural Resources Article). NES could then provide, maintain and operate solid waste projects for the County on a non-profit basis. Other advantages would be the utilization of MES staff expertise in waste management and freeing County staff from the burdens of project development. Should State funds for resource recovery becane available, a service region would be in good position to obtain those funds. To achieve waste caiinitaent to a facility, several avenues can be pursued: 1. Economic incentives (the tipping fee at the facility would have to be kept lower than the cost of waste disposal, including transportation and tipping fee, at alternative locations); 2. Direct control of refuse by law or ordinance; 3. Contractual agreements with private haulers. It is unlikely that a competing disposal facility would be developed within the County and disposal facilities in the surrounding counties and states would be too far away from the majority of the population to be attractive disposal alternatives. However, more assurances than this may be needed to protect investors as well as the county interests and to attract financing for a facility. To 38 One way to give local control is to enact an ordinance requiring the licensing of collectors, with a condition of that license being the requirement that wastes be delivered to a facility designated by the County and to pay the tipping fee required at that facility. The City of Akron, Ohio enacted such an ordinance in 1979. It was challenged in the Q.S. courts by local collectors who also operated privately owned landfills, but the ordinance was upheld. This ordinance assured that solid waste was delivered to the Akron recovery facility which was built to produce steam from solid waste. The State of Maryland recently created the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority to develop several solid waste to energy recovery facilities to serve Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Harford Counties and Baltimore City. A service region has been created under the Maryland Environmental Service Law for the affected parts of these jurisdictions that will allow the Authority to control the development of disposal facilities and the disposal of solid waste generated within the service region. The State of Delaware has created a statewide Solid Waste Authority under legislation of similar intent. Sane counties, Baltimore County, for example, have established collection routes that collectors canpete for. The authority for these exists under Article 25A, Section 5(T), Annotated Code of Maryland. In Baltimore County, this authority, however, has been applied only to residential refuse and not to commercial or industrial refuse collections. 39 The County or the facility's administrators will have to enter into waste commitment contracts with the municipalities within the County. If the County elects to contract with the municipalities, the necessary authority is contained in Article 25, Section 14A of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Table IV -1 summarizes the previous discussion on waste commitment through ordinance and contract. The purpose of presenting information on financing in the table is to show how the County's system of financing refuse disposal could be more fully developed. An appropriate financial system is one which will permit close control and balancing of all income and expenses related to wastes disposal. Should the county decide to put the solid waste system on a utility basis, that is, users pay directly for collection and disposal services, there are several alternative means to obtain and disburse funds. Table IV 2 identifies alternative sources of operating revenues for the solid waste system. These alternatives would only apply to a system with substantial County control over collection and delivery. Under this system revenues for the collection of solid waste would have to be raised by the County directly to enable it to reimburse the contracting private haulers. If special tax levies, utility taxes or assessments and user charges are instituted, these must be paid into and appropriated from special funds created therefore. (Sec. 8-45 of the Local Code, Revenues and Appropriations.) A solid waste management fund similar to the one presently in existence for water and sewer service could be formed for this purpose. The transition to the new revenue collection system could be accanplished by first instituting tipping fees at the county landfills and later adding the element which provides for the collection of solid waste disposal fees fran all county residents. The citations of law provided in this chapter are made for reference only and should be reviewed for accuracy and sufficiency by County legal staff before any action toward implementation of a project is taken. A MES attorney will soon complete an analysis of State and certain local laws on waste control. The analysis, although on Eastern Shore counties, may have sane applicability to Washington County. 41 .-4 G 4 M 47 roM A'1 yyyppp j �a 4 7 a% U ro� C ue ~ U U 0 V La „y w 61 Gi iie ' � LO U v 4W W O4 .-4 3CJLa JLa t4.4 b>'+y w ° °'o w ViaLa A A Z.4U ro:iu �U ��1Y Ossa¢� 4 w� dLa ws O� O 6a XOO Tt Q C) - -.4 '-14.1 4 °� � � 1 U d°J ro •• 1+ dJ Cl 6a 4 C7 Js CJ c� cCp 4lUwG �ro O' N44J C U �a U .� W.i ,.i C OO u y la r--i -a i11 .-1 =.i O - l�.i I ot1 =.°i tL s 0 R1 a u y RAJ y L x-44{ 4J aC 7 O �7 — y m Cd • 67 L'B 1O, �, r�I ro w al U 6roi t�� ul iJ >%e 1., dJ G! ��j>a QP I-4 4.J Q r-4 F� (del Qy ��¢ �y pg_ 143 .® R yG� a]43Ca] t43 (Cy Q 1� La v ro.' O U2 °,9 QS 8 U W U $w7 N CJ a�J }Oa 01 tub v 4 G 43 W0 CLI 43 3.1 w 2 Q6 42 I 00 14 •.mod .4.4y .I 0 U .4 W t1.13 C 4.4 7L Boo . �v 4.a 0 4+ C •.•1' GL 4.1 •U - o � O is 41 U�x -".4>Y ��E yECy9-I>C �uW C U 4 v v. -4.-4C O —1 vrp�i O 9v ?i dp C I U ski W C s� 0 >, 0 .-1 0 C fl4.47 r 41 , Or G 7 44.0 O v1 D' -.-4C w fC �1 .a1 Q3 Y 44 44 Lei 0 •CA r -k fQ L QS4.4 3 oa+0�> jai .+�� wx �fQsj, VQ� tyN ►.lb JJ •vi •.i i�J+'VN U 3 - •UY QpL7 G' •-^�QiC` I'D' � O C:S GJ O G C 61 U ♦ Q) 1�J-444 L:a 1 v sUr p 44.4 c O C8'0O u1.4 O Qi C A•4 0 "-4'-4 ^ .Ca 421 u W 0 d pQp 4J Ar ;C a 0 4,3-4242 44 U >(0 v . . t�e1 .,.+ 3 £40 B tiY a1 d3 4 aa� 0 90 21a 4" u w 14 0 O 1 .-1 x u UULL y O Q U U to C7 U U D F TABLE Icy -3 0 POTENTIAL AD AGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES CF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CWNERSAIP AND OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES, AND I1E CC DITICNS THAT FAVOR EACH Potential Potential Conditions which Alternative advantages disadvantages favor alternative Public Municipal Tax-free department Nonprofit Economies of scale City has administrative control Can institute separate collection for recycling Can institute mandatory collection Management and policies are continuous over time, resulting in experienced personnel and permitting long-range planning Records can be kept over a long time Monopolistic Past history of unsatisfactory Lack of incentive to maximize contractual operations for public services efficiency Financing and operations Public predisposition towards government operation of often influenced by political public services constraints Frequently financed from Quality of service provided more important criterion than general tax fund and subject to economics 1 -year budgeting process Solid waste management often low -priority item in budget Labor pressures may result in inefficient labor practices and strikes Restrictive budget policies may affect equipment replacement and maintenance Policies of job -support inflate labor costs Private Private Competitive bidding for Danger of collusion in bidding Flexibility 'is needed to make firms with contracts) helps keep prices Public agency must regulate changes in operations that would result in labor savings contract from govern- down City retains administrative contractors and other cost reductions mental unit control Existence of qualified private Can institute separate collection for recycling contractors Public predisposition towards private sector involvement in Can institute mandatory public services collection Newly incorporated communities, or where population growth is outpacing ability of community to provide public services Private Competition may reduce costs firms in Self-financing open compe- tition City has no administrative Unacceptable alternative control Danger of collusion among haulers to reduce competition and keep prices high Cutthroat competition can result in business failures and service interruptions Overlapping routes, waste of fuel Cannot institute citywide separate collection for recycling Difficult to enforce mandatory collection ordinances 'Continuedi 44 TABLE IV -3. POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF COLLECTICN SERVICES, AND THE CONDITICNS THAT FAVOR EACH (page 2) Potential Potential Conditions which Alternative advantages disadvantages favor alternative Private Self-financing City has no administrative Unacceptable alternative firms with control exclusive Monopolistic, can lead to high franchises prices Cannot institute separate collection for recycling Difficult to enforce mandatory collection ordinances Combination of public and private: Municipal system and private firms under contract Competition helps keep price down Alternative available if either sector cannot deliver service City has administrative control Can institute separate collection for recycling Can institute mandatory collection Municipality is expanding through annexation or merger with other jurisdictions Changing from separate garbage and trash collection to combined collection Competition Competition helps keep prices Overlapping routes, waste of Unacceptable alternative between down fuel municipal Can't institute citywide system and separate collection for private recycling firms Lack of mandatory collection Source: "Decision Makers Guide in Solid Waste management," H.S. EPA 1976. Publication SW -500, page V. 45 This section examines the following markets for using energy from solid waste for Washington County. Mack Truck, Inc. Fairchild Industries, Inc. Maryland Correctional Institute (MCI) Marquette Canent Potomac Edison at Williamsport Hagerstown MELP (Municipal Electric Light Plant) Mack Truck and Fairchild Industries are markets for low pressure steam for heating purposes. The other markets are primarily for refuse derived fuel (EDF) which would be burned as a supplemental fuel with coal. There are other industries and institutions in Washington County such as Pangborn and the Washington County Hospital (see report, Figure 111-3) which also could use steam produced from the combustion of solid waste. However, these markets are small and would not make a substantial contribution to the disposal needs of the County. Biological systems are not considered in this report. Although these systems can produce a variety of energy materials such as ethanol and methane, they are mostly under development. They may eventually need to be considered; however, we believe this should be done as a separate study. 47 Table V-1, summarizes energy recovery systems in operation or under construction in the United States that are sized for 300 tons per day or less. Overall, the predominant system in this size range is modular controlled —air incineration and the predominant product is steam. Modular controlled —air incineration is a relatively new technology as far as municipal wastes are concerned. It's application for a number of years has been in industrial waste and pathogenic waste incineration. The technology uses two combustion chambers —one for primary combustion with about half the air needed for complete combustion and a second, with backup auxiliary fuel, if needed, for higher temperature combustion of gases and particulates. As a result of using the second combustion chamber, emissions from these systems are relatively law and air pollution control is cheaper and simpler than for most other combustion systems. Sane of these units are less efficient in energy recovery than other types of mass combustion, but they have the advantage of lower cost per ton of capacity because of the modular construction. The rotary kiln incinerator is a new technology. The first U.S. system is under construction in Gallatin, Tennessee. This technology uses a combination rotary waterwall kiln for combustion followed by a waterwall boiler (waterwall means the walls are lined with water filled pipes versus a refractory type lining). This unit is capable of producing steam at pressures and temperatures that are sufficient for cogeneration of electricity. The Gallatin project is described later. N r4 M C o o o 7I C .a C9 C to c0 uv 0 — b N N G teaa' ^� L• 41 LS 4Q Li • r�1 '" - iMd i3o V 7GW C de 41 is y 4O sa I44° h C 49 Waterway. incinerators have been around for some time. Efficiencies are in the neighborhood of 65 percent and they are capable of producing steam at pressures that will allow electrical generation. They are, however, field erected and generally have been cosidered too costly for 200 and 300 ton per day applications. However, a recently constructed 200 TPD facility at Hampton, Virginia is described later. The RDF approach is the most difficult to briefly describe or to give. facts on. Each systen is more or less different fran the next. Essentially this approach involves separating, shredding, and sometimes pelletizing the combustible part of the waste stream so that it can be burned separately as a fuel called RDF (refuse derived fuel) . Usually the production of RDF is combined with the recovery of ferrous metals and sometimes with glass and aluminum recovery. The advantages claimed for the RDF approach are: • more efficient and uniform combustion than mass incineration •smaller and cheaper canbustion equipment than for waterwall mass incineration • ability to locate Id)F processing plant and boiler at different locations ability to burn RDF in existing boilers (usually as supplementary fuel to coal) . ability to include materials recovery Teledyne National (operator of the Baltimore County project) estimates that a 200 TPD fluff RDF system using a new utility boiler would have the following cost (Appendix A) IMF Processing Facility RDF Boiler Facility $4 to $6 (million) $5 to $7,5 $9 to 13.5 50 Is For producing a pelletized RDF, the kind of fuel that can be burned at the Maryland Correctional Institute, the cost was estimated to be: Pelletized RDF Production Facility $3 to $4 (million) Fuel Storage and Feeding System $0.3 to $0.5 $3.3 to 4.5 Maryland has been a leader in the development of technology for RDF production at the MES/Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility and has successfully burned RDF at a number of facilities including: (1) Cement kiln - Lehigh Portland Cement Campany, Union Bridge, Maryland (2) Stoker boiler - Maryland Correctional Institution, Hagerstown, Maryland (3) Utility boiler - BG&E Crane Station, Baltimore, Maryland. Pelletized RDF also is being supplied for extensive testing at a stoker fired boiler at Wright Patterson Air Force base in Ohio. A paper with additional information on the Baltimore County project is included as Appendix B. The three RDF projects listed in Table V-1 are located in Ames, Iowa; Madison, Wisconsin; and Lakeland, Florida. All three supply RDF to electric power plants. The RDF approach is used more for larger scale projects and a 200 to 300 TPD RDF project would need a carefully prepared cost analysis. We believe it is useful to look at projects that are under construction or in operation to see what combination of market and funding have led to successful projects. 51 (1) Auburn, Maine, is starting up a 200 TPD system that will supply superheated steam (500-600 F, 285 psig) to a plastics company in that city. The price of steam is tied to both the price of oil and the Consumer Price Index under a 20 year contract. The facility is located on five acres next to the plastics company. Financing for the facility, including feasibility study costs, consisted of: $3.4 million general obligation bonds, $.3 million U.S. DOE and $.6 million state grant. Auburn wil be charging a tipping fee of $8 per ton to neighboring camnunities using the facility. We could not determine the tipping fee or cost per ton for Auburn itself. (2) Pittsfield, Masschusetts is served by a 240 TPD modular controlled -air incinerator that supplies steam to a paper manufacturer under a 15 year contract. The price of steam is tied to the price of No. 6 fuel oil. The project was financed by revenue bonds ($6.2 million) and contractor equity ($.5 million), giving the vendor tax advantages. This is the first small scale system to use revenue bond financing. Since the project had to supply guarantees on steam supply, the system actually includes three 120 TPD units, with one for standby. This resulted in an overall cost per ton of used capacity that is higher than it would be if the project bad been able to operate with two units as an interruptable supply. Net disposal fee could not be determined from the information available. (3) A rotary kiln canbustor being installed at Gallatin, Tennessee will supply steam to three industrial custaners and electricity to the Tennessee Valley Authority (T.V.A.). Steam prices will be tied to the industries' fuel cost (oil), with a 15 percent discount on the industries' fuel cost. The facility will have two 100 TPD units, each guaranteed to produce 22,000 lbs. of steam per hour at 425 F, 504 F when firing 7084 lbs-. per hour of MSW (about 85 TPD). Financing for the project includes three sources: a $2 52 million low interest loan from T.V.A,,, a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Econanic Development Administration and $4.9 million in revenue bonds, for a total of $8.4 million. Tipping fees have been set at $6 per ton. (4) A 200 TPD waterwall incinerator began operation in Hampton, Virginia, November, 1980, supplying steam (365 psig) to the NASA Langley Research Center. Same interesting information was recently supplied to us based on the first six months of operation. It shows the following: Steam sale price (per 1000 lbs.) $5.21 Lbs. steam generated per lb. refuse 3,000 lbs. Residuals by volume (% of incasing wastes) 15% Boiler efficiency 65% Average heating value of refuse, 4,560 Btu/lb. System availability 73-74% Tipping fee (actual net disposal cost) $4.70/ton The low tipping fee for this facility was puzzling until the financing of the facility was examined. Financing consisted of: $ 7,000,000 - General obligation bonds at 5.94% for 20 years $ 2,485,000 - NASA funding $10,385,000 The combination of low interest and grant financing results in a low debt service. The tipping fee is expected to be zero in twelve years. For its contribution to the project, NASA appears to be getting a favorable price break on the price of steam (compared to cost of steam fran oil fired boilers). 53 (5) Ames, Iowa produces RDF for its municipal power plant. The RDF facility was constructed in 1973-75 at a cost of $6.3 million and later modified at a cost of about $.4 million (1978) for a total cost of $6.7 million (1975 and 78 dollars). The plant was designed for 200 TPD but receives only 120 to 130 TPD on the average with the result that per ton costs are higher than planned. (This shows the need for weighing solid waste prior to designing a recovery facility.) Revenues fran the Ares facility in 1978 came fran RDF sales (75 percent) and fran ferrous metal sales (25 percent). RDF averaged $11.11 per ton of RDF and ferrous $35.23 per ton. Total revenue per ton of incaning raw refuse was $12.45. Operating and fixed costs averaged $23.76 per ton of raw refuse. Fixed cost and interest amounted to 44 percent of the plant's expenses. Net cost of raw refuse received therefore averaged $11.31 per ton. Of the incaning raw refuse to this facility: • 84.3% became RDF (by weight); . 6.3% was sold as ferrous; • 0.04% was sold as cardboard and miscellaneous recyclable materials; 9.4% was landfilled. Landfill savings were therefore significant. (6) Madison, Wisconsin also produces RDF for a municipally owned power plant. Me facility began operating in 1979 and now processes on the average about 250 TPD, five days per week, 6-1/2 hours per day. [;t The overall facility cost is not typical because much of the work to design and build the system was handled by the city's own engineering staff and part of the system is leased. The costs were: RDF plant - - $2.72 million RDF storage/feed system - $1.05 million Modifications to two boilers - $_.5 million $4.27 million RDF is sold to the municipal power plant based on its cost for coal minus any expenses incurred in burning RDF and efficiency loss. In the first quarter of 1981 coal cost the power plant $1.59 per million Btu. R)F was sold at $18 per ton. The city estimated that for the last three quarters of 1980, the net cost for the energy disposal system was $21 to 23 per ton of refuse disposed of. The Madison plant recovers a smaller portion of the waste stream than the dines plant. RDF recovery was estimated at 55 percent, ferrous recovery at 6 percent, and material to landfill at 39 percent. From the projects described above, it is apparent that small scale energy recovery projects can be developed. However, the conditions leading to successful project development are special and will not exist everywhere: State/federal grants and low interest loans obviously played an important part in several of the projects and helped achieve a tipping fee ccznpetitive with landfill. 55 . Energy market was important. The best revenue source is fran the sale of steam priced relative to the price of oil. The existence of this kind of market contributed to the successful development of several projects. Major markets for low pressure steam in Washington County are: . Mack Truck . Fairchild Industries . Maryland Correctional Institute . Washington County Hospital . Pangborn Figure V -1 shows steam use on a monthly basis (1978) versus steam availability from solid waste projected for 1982. (This figure was reproduced from the 1978 HDR/MELP report.) Although the data are not current, the overall impressions given by the figure still hold. They are: (1) All markets have the disadvantage of being loo in the sunmier time when demand for solid waste disposal is highest. (2) Mack Truck is the only market that would use a substantial portion of the Washington County wastes in a low pressure steam waste -to -energy project. V 56 FIGURE V-1. STEAM USE BY VARIOUS CC! &JMERS VERSUS STEAM AVAThAILITY FRCM WAsHiw.T N CCtN1Y REFUSE (COPIED FPM HDWMELP REPORT, FIGURE I11-3, 1978) 80 80 1 1 1 d 1 / GO STEAM AVAILABLE (1982) C � 1 � d � 50 � 1 d ® 40 i Z 1 d —MACK TRUCK d d d 30 d d 20 ---� MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL �\ INSTITUTE PANG80RN FAIRCHILD ! s � WASHINGTON COUNTY\- HOSPITAL O ! 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 57 Mack Truck: The Mack truck plant uses 100 psig steam for space heating and heating washer tanks (most of the summertime use). Absorption cooling has been discontinued and air conditioning is all electric. The plant has been operating 5 -days per week, with boilers backed down during weekends. The primary fuel is currently natural gas. In 1980, 382 X 109 Btu of natural gas and 69.3 X 109 Btu oil heat were consumed. Estimated fuel cost for 1980 was about $2 million. Unfortunately, there are conditions which detract fran the viability of a project with Mack Truck. A major problem. is the current industry slump which would make a long-term carmitment for steam purchase very difficult to obtain at this time. (We understand that Mack Truck recently terminated its involvement in a proposed waste -to -energy project at its Allentown plant.) A second deterrent is the fact that Mack truck is burning mostly natural gas. Because of the present low cost of gas compared to oil, revenues would be about 75 percent lower than if the project were carpeting with oil fired boilers. Due to the above situation, we did not pursue the potential of a waste -to -energy project with Mack Truck. However, since this is the only large low pressure steam market in the County, the County should keep in touch and indicate a willingness to discuss such a project if conditions improve. Fairchild Industries: Figures V-2 and V-3 present monthly steam flaw for the main Fairchild plant and the bonding facility which are located about 1/4 mile apart. (The curves were supplied by Robert Lightner and Norman Dahl of Fairchild Industries.) The main plant uses steam; the bonding plant uses high temperature hot water. 58 gas 601 X 11J — MOM Wa1S ti 59 PicEAM FLCW AT FAIRCHILD INDUSTRIES BONDING PLANT FOR 1980 ;CURVES SUPPLIED BY FAIRCHILD IlWUSTRIES) 60T X nsg - MO?L UasvM sox dN -Ix —J o the 4 60 The problem with this market is size. Base load needs which exist 4 to 5 months of the year could be met with less than a 50 TPD waste -to -energy facility, which would contribute to, but not solve, the County waste disposal problem. Also, Fairchild Industries uses both natural gas and oil to fire their boilers, which again would affect project econanics. Mary1an_d- Correctional Institute: As a steam market, MCI has the disadvantage of being both small and a poor source of revenue. Steam is currently produced at MCI with coal fired boilers with coal purchased at $1.85 per mm Btu (versus about $5.70 for #6 oil). Revenue fran steam sales would be insufficient to support a project and the steam market is small. The RDF approach, using the MCI boilers, is discussed in the next section. washington County Hospital: A small modular combustion system might be worth investigating for the County Hospital since oil is the primary fuel and sane savings would be obtained by reducing waste disposal costs for the hospital. This project, however, would use only a mall part of the overall wastes disposed of in the County. pancborn: This steam market is too small. The RDF markets investigated were: . Potanac Edison /,�ielectric power plant ® Wliamsport Marquette . 1 arquette Cant Maryland Correctional Institute . Hagerstown ME%P All of the above markets would use RDF co -fired with coal. 61 The amount of RDF the County could burn depends on how it is burned, the quality of RDF required, the processing system used to produce RDF, and the composition of Washington County refuse. For example, Antes, Iowa, which has a high paper content refuse and boilers with grates that allow burning of heavy combustibles (pieces of wood, rubber, etc.) as well as a light paper and plastic, burns 84 percent of the waste stream as RDF. Madison, Wisconsin, which has a different system for producing RDF, recovers only 55 percent as RDF. However, Madison RDF has a higher heating value than Ames RDF (6500 versus 5100 Btu per lb.). Suspension burning requires a better grade of RDF than uses where all or part of the RDF can burn on a grate. Glass removal from RDF is very important for utility boilers. Potomac Edison - Williamsport: MES discussed the possibility of burning RDF at the Williamsport electric power plant with Potanac Edison in 1978 and it was generally determined at that time that the plant would not be a good place to burn RDF. There were a number of reasons, including the use of the plant, as a peaking plant and operational loads that would prohibit the use of much RDF. Although the plant is now more heavily loaded, with one unit providing base load seven days per week, it is our opinion that this still would be a difficult and costly market to develop. In addition, there is no real incentive for the power canny to burn RDF. Marquette Cement: Successful tests were conducted at the Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Union Bridge, Maryland, in 1979 using fluff RDF from Baltimore County, which indicate that RDF is a suitable supplementary fuel for cement kilns. 62 We have not discussed the possibility of burning RDF directly with Marquette. It appears, however, that with a 30 percent substitution of RDF fuel, this cement plant potentially could burn about 140 tons per day of RDF fuel. A disadvantage of the. cement industry as a market for RDF here in Maryland is that the primary fuel is high sulfur coal, which, at present, is a relatively inexpensive fuel, costing less than $2.00 per million Btu. The cement industry would require,a finely shredded, high quality RDF for suspension burning, which would add to the cost of production. On the other hand, kiln modification may not be too costly. No project econanics were developed. Maryland Correctional Institute: The potential to burn pelletized RDF in the spreader -stoker boilers at MCI has been successfully demonstrated by MES. The amount of RDF that could be burned, however, is insufficient most of the year to be the sole basis for a waste -to -energy project. Table V-2 lists coal use by MCI and potential RDF use by month. To 63 TABLE V-2. APPROXIMATE FUEL USE OF COAL AND COAL/PELLET BLENDS AT MCI BY MCNTH (TONS) * June 404 262 262 388 194 July 467 303 303 448 224 August 482 313 313 462 231 September 505 328 328 485 243 October 1044 677 677 1002 501 November 1206 782 782 1158 579 December 1457 945 945 1399 700 January 1462 948 948 1404 702 February 1466 951 951 1407 704 March 1414 917 917 1357 679 April 1223 793 793 1174 587 May 648 420 420 622 311 7639 7639 11306 5654 *Based on 1979-1980 coal consumption at MCI. Assumes 12,000 Btu per lb. for coal; 6,500 Btu per lb. for RDF pellets. **For 1:1 - = 9.25 Btu/lb. (average heating value of blend) 2 tons coal X 12 = mix X 9.25 (total Btu requirement) pellets = 1/2 mix = coal X "-12 X 1/2 = coal X 0.6486 9.25 ***For 2:1 6.5-± 6-.5-+-1-2 = 8.333 ... Btu/lb average heating value of blend 3 tons coal X 12 = mix X 8.33... (total Btu requirement) pellet.s= 2/3 mix = coal X.. —1.2X 2/3 = coal X 0.96 8.33 coal = 1/3 mix = 0.48 NCTE: Units of Btu in ** and *** above are in 1000's, e.i., 9.25 Btu/lb = 9,250 Btu/lb. In addition, coal has been purchased recently for $44.50 per ton or about $1.85 per million Btu. RDF would have to be similarly priced or discounted to be attractive as a fuel. In 1978, Henningson, Durham and Richardson (HDR) concluded, "that after 1984, the total annual cost to produce electrical energy with resource recovery (at the Hagerstown !LP) would be less than the cost of continuing to purchase an equivalent amount of energy and landfill all solid waste." (It was assumed the project would be in operation by 1982.) This conclusion was backed up by an excellent detailed report. MES finds the idea of such a project still attractive in some ways. Electrical production is the only "guaranteed" long term market for waste -to -energy projects. Unfortunately, MES does not have the time and staff available at this time to update the HDR report to today's costs to determine how the project looks now. Things that need to be re-examined are: (1) Project costs (2) Boiler experience with RDF, particularly for the high pressure boilers, boilers 8 and 9 (3) Yield of burnable RDF fram Washington County refuse (4) Yield of ferrous (generally we are finding 3 to 4 percent yield per ton of refuse, versus 7 percent in the report). In general, looking at the other projects where municipal power plants have been retrofitted to burn RDF (Ames, Icwa, and Madison, Wisconsin) we see disposal costs of $11,.30 to $22.00 per ton of solid waste. There may be reasons for these costs that could be avoided by Washington County, but only a detailed analysis would determine this. 65 Unfortunately, at present, any project in which the competing fuel is coal is at a disadvantage in terms of energy revenue generated, because of the low cost of coal. If this situation changes, RDF projects competing with coal could find their net disposal costs greatly improved. We recarnd that the County look for ways to further examine the potential of a MP waste -to -energy project. 66 APPENDIX B ® I NATIONAL PADONIA CENTRE -SUITE 401 30 EAST PADONIA ROAD TIMONIUM, MARYLAND 21093 13011 667-4840 TWX 710-862-2645 May 18, 1981 Dr. Cliff R. Willey Maryland Environmental Service 60 West Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Subject: Capital Cost Estimates for Washington County Resource Recovery Project Dear Cliff: Pursuant to your request during our meeting on April 24, 1981 this letter presents capital and operations cost estimates for a 200 ton per day refuse processing project. RDF Concept We have examined two readily available technologies either of which would lead to reliable, cost effective resource recovery operations. One concept is to produce a fluff refuse derived fuel (RDF) at a site to be determined. Equipment and buildings would be constructed as part of the new project. The RDF could be burned in an adjacent or remotely located new boiler to generate steam and/or electricity. The estimated associated turn -key equipment, construction, and engineering costs would be: RDF Processing Facility $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 RDF Boiler Facility 5,000,000 to 7,500,000 Total $9,000,000 to $13,500,000 Densified Refuse Derived Fuel Concept The other concept that is available is that of producing densi- fied refuse derived fuel (d-RDF) in the form of pellets and burning those pellets with lump coal in existing boilers. The capital costs for such a concept would be: d-RDF Production Facility Fuel Customer Receiving Facilities $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 300,000 to 500,000 Total $3,300,000 to $4,500,000 W TELEDYNE NATIONAL Dr. Cliff R. Willey May 18, 1981 Page 2 Assuming 200 tons per day of waste for 260 days per year, a project based on either of these concepts would generate approximately 31,200 tons per year of either RDF or d-RDF. The d--RDF would average between 6,000 - 6,500 BTU's per pound, with an ash content of 10 to 16% and a sulphur content of 0.1 to 0.2%. As a comparison, bituminous coal will average around 11,000 to 12,000 BTU's per pound with an ash content of 10 to 12% and a sulphur content of 2 to 4%. If d-RDF could be sold for $20 per ton, the annual revenue would be $624,000 plus ferrous sales revenues. It would appear that either of these approaches could solve the waste disposal problems in the Washington County area and provide sufficient revenues to cover operation and finance construction debts. Although the costs presented above are based on actual oper- ating experience, they should be further investigated and incorporated into a feasibility study. This study would analyize and develop all the necessary requirements to implement a resource recovery project for Washington County. In summary, we suggest Washington County fund a Preliminary Study to define a specific direction for a resource recovery project. Teledyne would welcome an opportunity to assist Washington County in definitizing the work scope for such a project. We would also be pleased to perform this study. I hope this letter has been responsive to your request for cost estimates. I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this material with representatives of the County and MES. In the meantime, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Ver truly yours, Lotito ssociate Program Director RJL:jw jw APPENDIX B ® 2 Baltimore County's r� .� 4 •iik Resource Recovery Facility Reprinted from the March 1981 NCRR BULLETIN with permission from the National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc. r •i'IIi iy � Wit:- - - ...� - .- ----.---:----}lw+ti'��F��,r�r.• .�„ v.+�T4�y.'..+'ti.r....•'F +yr,/1� ,�,,,.�,' Resource coveFacility Maryland Plant Plays Dual Role of MSW Processor and Researcher In the early 1970s, Baltimore County, Md., eagerly sought an efficient way to dispose of its solid waste. The Mary- land Environmental Service (MES), then a newly -formed state agency with solid waste responsibility, wanted to establish a research facility to investi- gate resource recovery. Cooperation be- tween the two entities led both to their goals. Through a joint effort of the county, MES and the private firm of Teledyne National, the county's refuse has been shredded and landfilled for the past five years, ferrous metals have been ex- tracted and sold, refuse -derived fuel (RDF) has been produced whenever needed for test burning, and other re- source recovery research projects have been conducted. It All Started .. - The Baltimore County landfill at Cockeysville --a suburb north of Balti- more —was rapidly reaching capacity a decade ago, and the county was forced to quickly find another place or another method for refuse disposal. Siting a new landfill was, as always, difficult; because of local resistance and other factors, it has taken the county an aver- age of three -to -rive years to procure a landfill in recent decades. A site was ac- quired in the less -densely -populated northern part of the county. The county decided to'build a transfer station at the Cockeysville site and haul the refuse 18 miles to the new landfill. A study was made for the county in 1972 by Green and Associates, Inc., to determine the best method for landfill- ing, The conclusion was that either bal- ing or shredding at the transfer station would be preferred; the county decided on baling. Meanwhile, the county had to take immediate action. A composting operation, which lasted for about a year, saved the necessary amount of land at the Cockeysville landfill to site the present plant. While the county was planning the balefill operation, the Maryland Envi- ronmental Service, which had just en- tered the solid waste field, proposed that MES fund one-half the plant if it could be used as a research facility for resource recovery processes. This would, of course, entail shredding rather than baling, since nothing could be recovered from baled refuse. This was no great obstacle, since shredding had been the county's second choice. In December 1973, the county and MES signed a contract to build the plant and share construction costs equally; in October 1975, an amendment added a transfer station to the project. Teledyne National was selected to build and operate the facility. Teledyne, recalled Charles E. Farley, chief of Bel timore County's Bureau of Sanitation, emphasized materials handling experi. ence rather than "black boxes." Tele- dyne proposed using equipment prove,, in other processes, which could be modified to process refuse. (While that concept is not popular today, recall that few companies had actual experience with building and operating resource re- covery systems in 1974.) The broad - based Teledyne group of companies also had considerable engineering and re- search capabilities and experience to call upon. The facility began shredding munici- pal solid waste (MSW) for transfer to landfill and recovering ferrous metals in January 1976. According to Farley, it has operated continuously since then, except for a few days following a major explosion in a shredder in January 1977. The transfer station in the southwest part of the county opened in June 1978. The Baltimore County Resource Re- covery Facility processes about 70 per- cent of the county's residential solid "Burning RDF to produce energy is not as mysterious as some people have made it appear." March 1981 Baltimore County waste. All incoming waste is residential, except for limited amounts of commer- cial waste collected from a few small businesses along with residential refuse. Collections are made by 52 small con- tractors, on a per-ton/mile base con- tract with the county. Most of the waste is brought directly to the processing plant; but about 200-250 tons per day are taken to the transfer station, about 25 miles away, and brought to Cockeys- ville by transfer trailers. The remaining commercial and residential waste is re- ceived at another landfill in the north- western sector of the county. Flow Description The Baltimore County plant is today only partially operational; the glass re- covery system is being tested and may be modified, and the aluminum recovery system is not being operated at al€. It is not anticipated, however, that the gen- eral flow will change substantially. Incoming collection trucks, which are weighed before entering the tipping area, dump either directly into one of two push -pits or into a storage pit, from which the MSW is moved into the push - pits via overhead crane. (Pits are used because there is not enough room on the site for a facility with a tipping floor.) It is moved by hydraulic ram and blade from the two push -pits onto the shred- der infeed conveyors. Hydraulic grap- ples allow the shredder operators to re- move unwanted objects from the lines before they reach the shredders. The two primary shredders are Tracor Marksman horizontal hammermills, driven by 1000 -hp motors and rated at 55 tons per hour (tph) each. Ferrous metals have been recovered since the plant began operating in 1976. The shredders are equipped with a Fenwall explosion suppression system, as well as blow-out panels and heavy "blast mats." The 1977 explosion has been the only one of major significance. It is thought to have been caused by dis- carded explosives. The plant was re- stored to partial operation, using one shredder, three days after the explosion; full operation was resumed in two months. Fact Summary Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility Opening: January1976 prkaos s 6aitimora County and Maryland Environmental Service —owner Teledyne National —designer and operator Vo/urrre: Design: 1600 tpd Actual: 1200 tpd Current throughput 850 tpd Tecfrnology: Shredding, magnetic separation. air classification, rotary and other screening, secondary shredding. pelletizing for ROF densification, crushing and screening for glass recovery (eddy current separation for aluminum recovery not in usel Products; Refuse -derived fuel (fluff or densified), ferrous metals, glass Costs & Revenues: $10 million for facility and transfer station, shared equally by Baltimore County and Maryland Environmental Service Operating costs: approximately $201ton including resource recovery facility, transfer station and transportation (about 55.2 million total operating costs ex- pected in FY 1981); operating costs of recovery facility alone approximately $12.501ton Revenues from'a(e of products: d-ROF—$27/ton; ferrous metals—S331ton (about 5500,000 in revenues expected in FY 1981) After being shredded to a nominal four -inch particle size, the refuse is con- veyed to the magnetic separation area, where magnetic metals are removed by Dings three -stage, overhead, belt mag- nets —one on each line. About 3'/ per- cent by weight of incoming waste is re- covered as ferrous product; the recovery rate is in excess of 95 percent. There is no additional cleanup of the ferrous product, and it is clean enough to meet the requirements of the user, Bethlehem Steel Corp. Kenneth Cramer, Tele- dyne's plant manager, said that the fer- rous product has been tested by both Teledyne and Bethlehem Steel and found to contain five percent or less of contaminants. After magnetic separation, the re- maining material from both lines is combined on one belt conveyor and taken to the RDF processing area. The system for processing RDF does not, at this time, have the capacity to ac- commodate the plant's entire through- put; additional capacity may be added as RDF customers are located. The desired amount of refuse is routed into the air classifier; the remainder is di- verted into a compactor, from which it is transported to landfill. The air classifier, a vertical shaft unit built by -Montgomery Industries and re- designed by Teledyne, is usually ad- justed for a 60/40 split (lights/heavies). The light fraction from the air classi- fier is screened through a one -stage Tri- ple/S Dynamics €rommel, which is 12 feet in diameter and 28 feet long with 1'/ inch screen. The undersize material is delivered to landfill as rejects. if the fuel customer prefers a large particle size, the trommel oversize ma- terial may be shipped as four -inch fluff without undergoing secondary shred - A cloud of steam risks from newly -made d-RDF pellets as they hit the winter air. Examining the pellets are, from left. John Peacock. Maryland Environmental Service; Kenneth Myers, Teledytae National; and Charles Farley, Baltimore County, '£here are two secondary shredders, 16 feet long. The first stage is a one -inch both horizontal mills. At present a six- screen; the unders from this stage form tph Gruendler is being used, since the the glass -rich fraction. This fraction is amount of throughput is low. When cleaned up by a shaker table with 3/4 more throughput is required, a 25-tph inch screen and a Triple/S air table; a Williams 800 -hp mill will be used. Williams horizontal hammermiIl then When producing fluff RDF, the pro- crushes it to minus 20 mesh. This mill is duct is conveyed from the secondary rated at 10 tph for glass pulverization_ shredder to a compactor and transfer The trommel's second stage is a four - trailer for transport. When d-RDF is be- inch screen; the fraction extracted here ing produced. —as it is now —the fluff is is the aluminum -rich portion of the conveyed to pellet mills for densifica- waste stream. This fraction is routed tion. through a Carpco eddy current separ- Three pellet mills are used: one Cali- ator to remove the aluminum. Rejects fornia Pellet Mill and two Sprout- from the glass and aluminum system.:; Waldron machines. While one of the as well as the trommel overs, go to land - Sprout -Waldron units has just been in- fill. stalled, the other two mills have been used for more than a year to produce RDF Tests one -half -inch diameter nellets at a rate The $10 million cost of the facility was divided equally be- tween Baltimore County and the Maryland Environmental Service. ding. If a finer fluff or densified RDF (d-RDF) is desired, secondary shredding produces a one -inch fuel product. Heat content of the RDF fluctuates with the season, rainfall, etc., but has averaged about 6500 Btu per pound according to plant manager Cramer. of about two tons per hour each on a long-term basis. Fuel pellets are loaded onto transfer trailers for transport to the fuel user. The heavy fraction from the air classi- fier goes through a two -stage sizing trommel, about 10 feet in diameter and Though the plant. does not have a steady market for large amounts of RDF, several test burns have been con- ducted using fuel from Baltimore Coun- ty, One of these was a 30 -day test burn in December 1979 at the Lehigh Port- land Cement Co. in Union Bridge, Md. A total of 1400 tons of fluff ROF was burned in a rotary kiln, contributing about 30 percent of kiln heat. Tests in- cluded air emissions, cement quality and chemistry, RDF characteristics and checks on kiln operation. The tests March 1381 Baltimore County showed that RDF could be successfully fired with coal at rates of at least up to 30 percent of the heat value with no detrimental effect on the cement quali- ty. (For further information on this ap- plication, see "Processed Refuse as a Cement Kiln Fuel," NCRR Bulletin, June 1980, pp. 43-47.) Other tests with fluff RDF included one last year when 2200 tons of RDF were burned by Baltimore Gas and Elec- tric Co. in a utility boiler, and an earlier test in which fluff RDF was co -fired with wood bark in a bark -burning boiler at a Pennsylvania paper mill. Cramer explained that the burn tests have been useful both for the plant and the RDF users. "They have learned a lot about burning RDF. It's not a big mys- tery —you have to have the right equip - Burning d-RDF at Wright -Patterson '1T right -Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, has test - burned densified refuse -derived fuel from the Baltimore County resource recovery facility for more than two years. Of the 2300 tons burned thus far, about 500 tons were burned dur- ing February and the first half of March 1981 —including a week of fir- ing 100 percent d-RDF. Most burning has been a mixture of d-RDF pellets and coal, about 1:1 volumetrically, according to Tom Shoup, chief of Environmental Plan- ning at Wright -Patterson. At this ratio, d-RDF supplies about 25 per- cent of the heating value for the boilers. "RDF has, by and large, been an ex- cellent fuel substitute for us," said Shoup. He said there have been no problems in burning the pellets —even with the 100 percent RDF test burn — despite the fact that the pellets had been stored outside, uncovered, for about two months. Emissions, con- trolled by electrostatic precipitators, have been acceptable. Three spreader stoker, chain grate boilers in two different power plants have been used for the tests. The boilers supply steam and high - temperature hot water for the base; about 90 percent is for space heating, and 10 percent for process use. There have, however, been some difficulties in handling pellets with high moisture content during the sum- mer. The moisture causes low pellet density, contributing to increased breakage and other handling and storage problems; it also exacerbates an odor problem. Another problem has been the fine, fibrous dust from the air classification system that is contained in the pellets and freed during handling. The RDF dust is filtered from the air by the same masks the power plant workers wear to avoid breathing coal dust. The three-year contract with Baltimore County expires next fall, and the fate of the burning program is uncertain. Though continuation of the contract has not been ruled out, long- distance shipping is expensive; in addi- tion to the $27/ton cost of,the pellets, shipping costs are about S23/ton by rail or S56/con by truck. On a com- parative Btu basis, the d-RDF costs about twice as much as coal. The tax- payers' motley is being spent wisely, said Shoup; the program is yielding a great deal of information. But when the research is finished, it would not make good economic sense to continue burning such expensive fuel. Wright -Patterson is, however, pleased with the d-RDF and would like to continue using it, perhaps from a local supplier. Ideally, Shoup said, he would like to burn 100 percent RDF in the summer when the boilers' load is low, and burn both RDF and coal in the winter. ment to handle RDF, but you can recov- er heat from it, and it's not as mysteri- ous as some people have made it ap- pear. " The current market for RDF from the plant is the U.S. Air Force at Wright - Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. Under a three-year contract be- ginning in the fall of 1978, the plant provides up to 8000 tons per year of densified RDF for test -burning at Wright -Patterson. The half -inch di- ameter pellets are shipped to Wright - Patterson via truck and rail. The facility is paid $27/ton f.o.b. Cockeysville. There have been a number of changes and modifications in RDF production at the plant since it began operating in 1976 —primarily to decrease the ash content and make the fuel cleaner and easier to burn. A full commitment was not made for the "back end" of the plant; the present RDF processing sys- tern will handle only about 40 percent of the incoming waste. If sufficient mar- kets materialize, the RDF processing system may be expanded. Recent fossil fuel price increases, said Cramer, have prompted renewed interest in refuse fuel by several fuel users, and several businesses have called to inquire about the plant's capabilities and the status of experimentation with RDF. The general feeling among those con- cerned with the plant is that it is ready to produce a good, usable fuel, but that in- dustry is not ready to use that fuel. Marketing Materials Ferrous metals have been recovered since the plant began operating. Orig- inally the ferrous was sold to a detinner in Delaware, which has since gone out of business. For the past three years or more, the ferrous metals —about 25 -to - 30 tons per day —have been sold to Bethlehem Steel, which uses it as feed- stock in the Sparrows Point steel mill in southeastern Baltimore County. Glass recovery and clean-up proce- dures are being tested and refined, and the glass system does not operate full- time yet. When it is operating satisfac- torily, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. will buy the glass product to use in mak- ing fiberglass, probably at the com- pany's Barrington, N.J., plant. Tele- dyne has been working with Owens- NCRR Bulletin Process Row Baltimore County Resource Recovery Facility Shredder Magrtatic seoarata rtspmeng Al Refuse Classitser Shredder � Separator To LtndM Trommei Landt� 4- Fluff RDF 1%... To Customer Seciy Sh.eddet 1'Fkjff ROF To Customer Corning for about two years, sending samples to Owens-Corning laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, for testing. For fiberglass manufacture, color -sorting is not required, and the process does not require that the feedstock be free of ceramics and stone, as would be the case in container manufacturing. Teledyne is trying to use the pilot - scale equipment installed in the facility for research and demonstration purpos- es and change it into production equip ment for the least cost, Cramer said. Owens-Corning requires a steady opera- tion, so they may expect a constant flow of material —the same amount each week —and set their process equipment to accept that amount of used glass without significant variations. Researchers from Teledyne have also developed products which may be manufactured from the used glass, in- cluding a foamed -glass product for in- sulating and building materials. This Peet Miis To d-RDF casiom Henries - 4- To Trammel Lartdfidf shaker Table To Table 1 Eddy Separator t Land1+71 Al Hammer° ill 20 Mesh Sasn • Gust Product Aluminum Product d h been atented and the Costs and Revenues pro uet as p patent assigned to MES. The original concept of the plant included a produc- tion facility to manufacture such pro- ducts, however, studies showed that the break-even point for such a facility is about 100 tons of recovered glass a day. With a design capacity of 1200 tpd, the Baltimore County facility would have only 80-85 tpd of glass if all of it could be recovered. Revenues from the sale of RDF and ferrous metals for fiscal year 1981 are expect- ed to be about $500,000. Aluminum recovery equipment, which was installed in the plant for R&D purposes, has only been operated experimentally for a short period. Only about one-fourth of one percent of the waste stream is aluminum —not enough to make recovery economically feasible. Total capital costs for the plant and the associated transfer station were $10 million -®58.4 million for the resource recovery facility and $1.6 million for the transfer station. This figure also cov- ered some of the research and develot. ment that was conducted at the plant. As noted, this $10 million was divided equally between the county and the Maryland Environmental Service. The county's portion of the cost was fi- nanced through a capital improvement program. The contract with Teledyne National is on a budgeted cost -plus -fee basis: MES pays Teledyne and then bills the county for the operating costs. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980, the plant processed 242,000 tons of waste at a total operating cost of about S20 per ton --including costs of the facility, the transfer station and associated trans- portation. Transportation costs are March 1981 Baltimore County quite significant, with distances of 25 miles to the transfer station and 18 miles to the landfill. Of that 820 per ton, operating costs at the Cockeysville facility were about $12.50 per ton. Revenues from the sale of recovered materials and RDF go into the county's general fund at present, though even- tually some will go to the state. Under the contractual agreement, when rev- enues exceed operating costs for the re- covery portion of the plant, a certain percentage of the revenues will go to the state to repay the reimbursible grant that financed the state's share of the fa- cility costs. Revenues have been very low so far, and the recovery portion of the plant is still operating "in the red," but Cramer said he expects to cross over into the black in the near future. Rev- enues from the sale of RDF and ferrous metals for fiscal year 1981 are expected to be about $500,000. Representatives of Baltimore County, MES and Teledyne National work very closely with each other on both the day- to-day operation of the plant and the practical application of what is being learned for the future of Baltimore County and other such projects. The goals of the facility from the county's point of view were voiced by Chief of Sanitation Charles Farley: "a reduction in the cost of disposal, and the savings that are inherent with it — such as land savings." The key to the re - This article was prepared by Ronald W, Musselwhite, NCRR Bulletin man- aging editor. A three -stage, overhead belt magnet fat top of inclined covered conveyor) removes fer- rous metals from the shredded refuse. The metals are dropped into the trailer in back- ground. alization of these goals, and the overall success of the project, will be the pro- curement of long-term markets for the RDF. Further success will come with steady production of recovered glass. In the meantime, the principals of this uni- que partnership are providing an essen- tial service in furthering the develop- ment and application of resource recovery. to NCRR Bulletin APPENDIX C Preliminary Survey of County Landfill Operations (Conducted in 1976) THOMAS 0. LecKEWEN DIRECTOR CLIFF R. WILLED' CHIEF, TECHNICAL. SEIRVIC93 STATE OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE 60 WEST STREET ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 13011 Apri�5 19, 1978 ITenningson Durham & Richardson ATI'N: Mr. Brian EIiggins 5454 Wisconsin Avenue Chevy Chase, MD 20015 Dear Mr. Fliggins: REEQ W. McCOMAGH DEPUTY 01+RECTOIR to response to your request for information collected during a Maryland Fnvironmental Service's preliminary survey of Washington County's solid waste P�anitary landfill operations made on September 9 and 10, 1976, I am submitting the following report from Mr. Chris Matthews of this office. The survey of the solid waste being hauled into the county landfill at Resh Road covered a period of two days (14.5 hours). All trucks were weighed in and out, but the private cars with/without trailers and most of the pick—up trucks were not weighed to avoid a traffic problem. The first day, Thursday, was a light day while Friday, the next day, was unexz✓eected light. There was a heavy downpour of rain most of the day. The average rate of tonnage per hour arriving at the landfill for the month of August, 1976, was reported by Mr. G. Keadle, Director of County's Solid Waste Department, to be 40 T/hr. The Thursday average rate of weighed solid waste was 28.4 T/br. and Friday was 30.32 T/hr. duri g the hours of the survey. About 87 percent of the incoming solid waste appeared processable for recycling (321.42 tons of the total 368.18 tons) . Processable for Recycling: Tons Tons Tons % of Total 1st Day 2nd Day Total Solid Waste Household 99.71 61.04 160.75 43.7 Stores 31.0 6.58 37.58 10.2 Mixed 14.12 22.14 36.26 9.8 Factory 28.28 37.74 66.02 17.9 School 7.05 7.19 14.24 3.9 Hospital - 6.57 6.57 1.8 Total 180.16 141.36 321.42 87.3 rtr. Arian Higgins coon-Processable for Recycling: Tons Tons Tons 1st Day 2nd Day Total Construction & Demolition 31.02 10.1 41.12 Wood 5.12 0.52 5.64 Total 36.14 10.62 46.76 April 19, 1978 % of Total Solid Waste 12.7 The two days of this survey were not considered normal operational days by the Director of Washington County's Solid Waste Department, Mr. Guy E. Keadle. The following data was reported to MES by Mr. G. E. Keadle giving the weights of solid waste received and landfilled at the Washington County's Resh Road Sanitary Landfill for the first sever: months of 1976. There is some ques- tion as to the validity of weights as there were days when the weighing scales were riot operable and the weather conditions were such that to maintain proper procedures would have been irr®ossible. Date Reported Month Tons/Month No. Workinc Days Tons/Day March 2 January 4282.4 26 164.7 March 2 February 4165.4 24 173.6 Aoril 5 March 4360.2 27 161.5 May 7 April 4362 26 167.8 June 9 May 5260 22 239 July 8 June 5860 26 225.4 August 2 July 9070 26 348 Septerrber 8 August 8736 26 336 The City of agerstown makes their collection of solid waste at approxi- mately 02:00 AM and unloads their three to four truck loads at the landfill site hours before the operations of the landfill begins —estimate of weights is 12 to 20 Tons/day, collections are made four days per week. Should there be any further need for MES's assistance, feel free to con- tact me or Mr. Chris Matthews. Yours truly, Cliff R. Willey Chief, Technical Services CRW: C°TM:bjm cc: William J. Dwyer, County Commissioner Varner L. Paddack, Mayor -Art Snowberger, City Engineer Guy E. Keadle, Director, Solid Waste Dept. APPENDIX D t Tip 7 Zi �� 11� �I � ��/�� VV ��1 �1✓ VV OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE 201 WEST PRESTON STREET • BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 • Area Code 301 • 383- 2771 Harry Hughes, Governor May 8, 1981 Mr. Jack S. Hawbaker, Executive Director Washington County Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Dear Mr. Hawbaker: Charles R. Buck, Jr., Sc.D. Secretary In response to your letter of April 9, 1981, dealing with the requirements of landfill cover, our Regulations, COMAR 10.17.11, Section .04 E (1) (c) specifically states that "A uniform compacted layer of approved cover material at least six inches in depth shall be placed over all exposed solid waste by the end of each day's operation, . . .". The "cover" has always been construed as clean earth by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Office of Environmental Programs' Waste Management Administration. Shredded domestic/commercial waste is handled no differently than unshredded material. If you are interested in the feasibility of landfilling shredded waste, we recommend that you communicate with: the Baltimore County Department of Public Works at 494-3185 for more information. Sincerely yours, Arthur N. Caple, Acting Chief Municipal Waste Division ANC:jb cc: Mr. Ronald Nelson Mr. James Pittman APPENDIX E 1 f AM�+IERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 • Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 July 15, 1981 Washington County Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Attention: Ms. Catherine T. Thompson, Associate Planner Reference: Refuse Shredding for landfills Dear Ms. Thompson, Thank you for your continued interest in Hatmnermills, Inc. equipment. Per the request of your June 8th letter, we have enclosed our Quotation H81-253 for the processing of 40-50 tons per hour of solid waste. Due to various differences in local and state environmental codes aria variations in product desirability, we have not included prices for an air pollution and dust control system. Our District Representative, Mr. W. D. "Bill" Robinson will be contacting you to answer any other questions that you may have. If you need assistance prior to this, please give us a call here in Cedar Rapids, or Mr. Robinson's ntnnber is ,(203) 268-4664 in Trumbull, Connecticut. Sincerely, HALLS, INC. Jim St. John Industrial Sales JSJ/k cc: W. D. Robinson Enclosures: Quotation H81-253 Drawing B588-1396 ONE OE THE • COMPANIES Hammermills, Inc. / National Iron Company / Pettibone Corporation / Universal Engineering Corporation �M ERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER iHNGTON COUNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 1 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING • CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAD TITY - PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION APPLICATION: Solid Waste; primarily residential and/or cnercial nature. Not anticipated that oversized bulky wastes will be processed. Rate: 40-50 TPH Product : _ Nominal 4" Operation: 6 Hours per day 5 or 6 Days per week. 1 1 SET HAM €RMILt.S , INC. - NATIONAL IRON RECEIVING HOPPER AND SIDEBOARDS WITH HINGED DOORS , AND SUPPORTS or ran Feeder). Welded construction of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. 1 HALLS, INC. NATIONAL IRON 72 In. wide x 98 Ft 0 In. long Nbdel FD -4 Apron Feeders. Welded, reinforced, structural steel frames witi two impact rails under the deck in the loading area. 1/2 In. thick, overlapping, steel flights bolts to t strands of D-4 crawler tractor -type chain, rows of D-4 crawler tractor -type, "Lifetime Lubricated" type carrying rollers under the de spaced at approximately 18 in. centers in the loading area and 36 in. centers from thereon. C1RM NO. 16-B ONE OF THE COMPANIES Lltlf:AM:_M�ERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 • Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGIC)N COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 H81-253 PAGE NO. DATE • 2 7/15/81 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS - MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER, DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION D-4 Crawler tractor -type, "Lifetime Lubricated" type return rollers. Segmental, cast, manganese alloy steel head sprockets keyed to steel shafts mounted in spherical, self -aligning, roller bearings with dust tight, cast, steel housings; grease lubrication. Cast, manganese alloy steel tail traction wheel keyed to steel shafts mounted in spherical, self -aligning, roller bearings with dust tight, cast, steel housing; grease lubrication. Screw type flight and chain take-ups. 1 SET HANL€1 ILLS, INC. National Iron Expanded Metal type gpards or Apron Feeder sides and tail sections). Welded, reinforced, steel construction in hingec sections. - 1 40 HP Variable Speed Drive (for Apron Feeder). Hagglund Hydraulic Rotary with torque arm (mounted on Apron Feeder headshaft). 1 HAM1ERMILLS, INC. - J. N. FAUVER 25 HP Hydraulic Power Unit (or Apron Feeder motor). Hydraulic power unit including motor mount, coupling with plate -type guard, pump, cooler with fan and shroud, 35 gallon capacity reservoir, filler with cap, sight level gauge, suction filter with vacuum indicator switch, relief valve charge essure au e with FORM Pto. tcs-e ONE OF THE + COMPANIES AMMERMILLS, INC 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHING'T'ON COUNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 3 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY - PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX- WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION shut-off valve, servo control valve, low level switch, high temperature switch and plumbing between components Hose and fittings between hydraulic power units and motors. Drivetrol electronic speed control system and current transformer. 1 SET HA, MASS, INC. NATIONAL IRON SUPPORTS (for Apron Feeder and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 Removable hatch with supports (above Apron Feeder section). Welded, reinforced, steel construction; floor plates of impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel plate. TOTAL ITEM #1 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $270,80. 2 1 BARKO HYDRAULICMODEL 130 HYDRAULIC C CRANE. Pedestal base with inspection/maintenance porthole mast, 270 degree rotation; 6 RPM. Hi -tensile steel main and secondary booms with tapered roller bearings, and double acting hydraulic cylinders; 24 ft. 4 in. horizontal boom reach. 'ORM O. ONE OF THE . COMPANIES fmm.t,n Uc In / Low ( ..owe ., i 1st_:..___ i L ' AIi1911 ERMILLS, IIV� . . 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGIOIT COUNTY Planning Cciinission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 (1UUTAIIUN NO. H81-253 YACiE NO. DATE 4 7/15/81 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING - CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING. PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY - PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX_ WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 56 In. opening, butt -type grapples with hardfaced steel arms and double acting hydrauli cylinders; 360 degree non -continuous rotation. 3500 lb. Lift capacity at full reach. Integral operator's cab with locking door with impact resistant windows; sliding impact resistant side windows; impact resistant windshield; impact resistant lower front window; interior lights; bucket seat; control console with controls for Crane, Apron and Compression Feeders and ammeter for Shredder rotor drive electric motor; hand lever boom and grapple controls; foot pedal swing controls. 50 HP Hydraulic power unit, including Lincoln encapsulated electric motor, coupling with plat type guard, pump, 70 -gallon capacity reservoir, cooler with fan and shroud, filler with cap, suction and return line filters, relief valve, pressure gauge and shut-off valve, drain outlet with plug and plumbing between components. TOTAL ITEM #2 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE -- $ 40,660. 3 1 Chute with supports (from Apron Feeder to Shredder) Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate (bottoms) and 18 In. steel channels (sideboards) reinforced with steel structural members; replaceable nose. Sideboards lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas FCRM No ,ss-s ONE OF THE : . COMPANIES ' �� A• AMMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-i5-9441 • Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHMGIt�N COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 H81-253 PAGE NO. DATE 5 7/15/81 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING • CRUSHLNG..SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. QUAN- UNIT STEM TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS PRICE EXTENSION 1 82 In. wide x 8 ft. 9 in. long Compressioa Feeder. Pivoted, welded, reinforced, structral steel frames with two impact rails under the deck in the loading area. 5/8 In. thick, overlapping, steel Eights bo to three strands of D-6 crawler tractor -type chain. Three rows of D-6 crawler tractor type, "Lifetime Lubricated" type carrying rollers under the deck. Steel head sprockets and steel suppor- wheels keyed to steel shafts mounted in s�iaerical, self -aligning, bronze journal bees with dust tight, cast, steel housings; grease lubrication. Hydraulic ram and shim type flight chain take-ups. 1 50 HP Variable Speed Drive (for Compression Feeder Hydraulic Motor with torque arm (mum ed on Compression Feeder headshaft). 1 Electro-Sensor Zero Speed Switch with mting bracket (for Compression Feeder). 1 Hood with belt curtain, spray bars, hired inspection/maintenance door, and suppor-s for Canpr°ession Feeder) ORM Na. 65-e ONE OF THE CO +YPANiES ANl14�ERMILLS, EN -t 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 H81-253 7/15/81 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. 1 Model 6080 Bulldog Solid REfuse Shredder. 60 In. Haramerswing diameter x 82 In. wide insid liners. Welded housing; one-piece base with integral rotor bearing supports, upper portions section with hinged rear section with Parker Harmifin double acting hydraulic cylinders and spray bars; sides and backs of steel plate, and tops, impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel plate all reinforced with steel structural members. Shredding chamber lined with impact and abrasio resistant alloy steel liners. Heat -treated and stress -relieved, forged, alloy steel rotor shaft; turned, ground and polished; provisions for hyraulic bearing removal. Center spiders and end discs cut from steel plate; machined, balanced and assembled with keys, lockouts and lockwashers onto rotor shaft. Spherical, self -aligning, roller, tapered bore rotor bearings with dust tight, cast, steel housings; oil lubrication. Cast, impact and abrasion resistant, reversible alloy steel harmmers. Heat -treated and stress -relieved, alloy steel hamme ins, FaRM NC ,� a ONE OF THE wraI:fsITj COMPANIES �lI MERMILLS, INC-. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 • Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 customer Keterence No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON WIJNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Conanission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. I DATE 33 West Washington Street 7 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS , ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS , SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEY. NG EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. TEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel cutte bar; notched tooth design; reversible. Cast, manganese alloy steel grates;' tangential, relieved openings. Rotor W2 of 52,000 lbs. ft.2. 1 General Electric Safety Switch, with mounting brackets (for Shredder upper rear section). 1 SET Rivett Circulating Oil Lubrication Systems (one for each Shredder rotor bearing). HAMMBMILIS, INC. - Rivett hydraulic power unit including totally enclosed, fan cooled electric motors; couplings with plate -type guards; pumps 30 -gallon capacity, dust tight reservoirs; filler/breather/strainer/cap assemblies; sight level gauges; relief valves; filters; drain outlets with plugs; and pressure gauges. Adjustable pressure control switches and flow sights. 1 SET Pyco Teiperature Detectors (one for each Shredder Rotor Bearing 1 HA MILLS, INC. - Hydraulic power unnit (50 HP for press ion Fdder motor and ressiorn ee er and EIder cylinders). Hydraulic power unit including motor mount, coupling with plate -type guard, pzmmp, cooler with fan and shroud, reservoir, filler with cap Q O P oars NO. 1 5.8 ONE OF THE g COMPANIES 1AMMERMILLS1 1NC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Keterence No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON OJUNT'! Planning Commission QUOTATION County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street. 8 7/15/31 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS. MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION indicator switch, relief valve, charge pressure gauge and high pressure gauge with shut-off valve, servo control valve, low level switch, high temperature switch, directional control valve, quick disconnects and plumbing between components. Directional control valve and quick disconnects Nose and fittings between hydraulic power unit, motor, valves and cylinders. Drivetrol electronic speed control system and current transformer. 1 Falk Gear Coupling with floating acer shaft (for direct connecting 1250 HP 1btor to Shredder). 1Expanded metal type coupling guard (for Shredder rotor drive). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 Hydraulic hammerpin puller (for Shredder). Parker Hannifin double acting hydraulic cylinder. Welded, reinforced, steel slide frame. Spacer block, 2 -piece puller rod and stud, pins and locator. Control panel with spring centered directional control valve and handle. ONE OF THE COMPANIES COMPANIES - 1!� 1� MERMILLS, IWC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 CUSTOMER WASIINN GOUNTY Planning Commission Comity Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Customer Keterence No. QUOTATION NO. -H81-253 PAGE NO. DATE 9 7/15/81 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS. MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING. PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OTITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Served by hydraulic power unit previously described. Tubing, hose and fittings between components. TOTAL 111 #3 - F.O.B. CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA $443,380. 4 1 Chute with Cover, Spray Bars, Rubber Seals and Supports(from Shredder to Vibrating Pan Conveyor).. Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas. TOTAL ITEM #4 - F.O.B. POINT' OF 11ANUFACI12E $ 1472O. 5 1 72 IN. wide x 14 ft. 0 in. long Vibrating Pan Conveyor o -' Welded pan of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Pan bottom and sides lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners. vibrating unit with two full width, counterweighted, steel shafts timed and driven through alloy steel gears and mounted in spherical, self -aligning, roller bearings; oil bath vapor mist lubrication with oil level sigh gauge on gear side and grease lubrication on drive side. Coil sr'srin suspension. tORM rya. 165.s ONE OF THE COMP,\NIES t`.._...,.... u,... ANl1NERM1LLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 . Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Commission QUOTATION NO, H81-253 County Office Building PAGE 7DA-TE 33 West Washington Street 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS - MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEAL ORDERING. PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QTITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 25 HP Fixed Speed Drive (for Vibrating Pan Conveyor). Adjustable motor mount. V -belt drive (from electric motor Co conveyor). 1 Hilltronics Zero Speed Switch with mounting bracket (for Vibrating Pan Conveyor). 1 Expanded metal type guard (for Vibrating Pan Conveyor V -belt drive).Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 Support (for Vibrating Pan Conveyor and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL IM #5 - F.O.B. POINT OF MAN(TFACIURE $ 35,970.( 6 1 SET Receiving er and Sideboards with cover and supports or Belt Feeder). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Receiving hopper lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas. TOTAL ITEM #6 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $ 3,760.C 0RM NO. 166.8 ONE OF THE = . COMPANIES AMMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WA IN= COUNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 - County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 11 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 7 1 60 IN. wide x 36 ft. 10-1/16 in. long Belt Feeder. Welded, reinforced, structural steel frame in bolted sections. Belt. 5 In. diameter, flat, steel idlers with self - aligning, "Permanently Lubricated" ball bearings. Crown face, drum -type, Steel head pulley with rubber lagging keyed to steel Shaft mounted in anti -friction bearings; grease lubrication. Crown face, self-cleaning wing -type, steel tail pulley with taper lock hub and steel shaft mounted in anti -friction bearings; grease lubrication. Screw -type belt take-up. Double belt wiper with spring loaded mounting. 1 Ste PlateType guard (for Belt Feeder side and tail section Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 15 } Fixed Speed Drive (for Belt Feeder). Adjustable motor mount. V -belt drive (frm electric motor to reducer. :ORM NO. ,65-8 ONE OF THE :. COMPANIES A�IMFRMILLS, 1NC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHING'T'ON COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. IE H81-253 PAGE NO. DATE7/15/81 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING - CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Falk shaft mounted reducer with backstops and torqu arm (mounted on feeder headshaft). 1 Electro-Sensor Zero Speed Switch with mountin bracket (for Belt Feeder). 1 Plate -Type Guard (for Belt Feeder V -belt drive). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SET Dribble Pans (for Belt Feeder). Welded, reinforced, steel construction in hinge sections. 1 SET Supports (for Belt Feeder and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL ITEM ##7 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $ 22,900. 8 1 SET Receiving Hopper and Sideboards with covers, and supports (for 48 in. wide x 62 ft. 2 in. on Be t Conveyor). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Receiving Hopper lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas 1 48 In. wide x 62 Ft. 2 In. Long Belt Conveyor. Welded, reinforced, structural steel frame in bolted sections. 0('- FORM NO. 165-8 ONE OF THE + COMPANIES 1 AMMERM1LLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 • Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON CO= Planning Con ission Couxity Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO, H81-253 7/15/31 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS. MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT; WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION ₹S SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY 1 ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Belt, 4 1/2 In. diameter, flat, steel idlers with self -aligning, "Permanently Lubricated" ball bearings. Crown face, drum type, steel head pulley with rubber lagging keyed to steel shaft mounted in anti -friction bearings; grease lubrication. Screw -type belt take-up. Double belt wiper with spring loaded mountings. 1 SET P:LaceType Guards (for 48 in. wide x 62 ft. 2 in. ,]�pg Belt Conveyor sides and tail section). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 10 HP Fixed speed drive (for 48 in. wide x 62 ft. 2 in. long Belt Conveyor). Adjustable motor mount. V®belt Drive (from electric motor to reducer). Falk Shaft mounted reducer with torque arm (mounted on Conveyor headshaft). 1 Electro-Sensor Zero Speed Switch with mountixla bracket or 48 in. wide x 62 ft. 2 in. long Belt Conveyor), 1 Plate -Type Guard (for 48 in. wide x 62 ft. 2 in. brig Be1tConveyor V -belt Drive). c ra NO. tes.8 ONE OF THE : e COMPANIES AMMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 - Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. H81-253 7/15/81 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS - MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING - CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING. PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SET Dribble Pans (for 48 In. wide x 62 Ft. 2 In. icrig Belt Conveyor), Welded, reinforced, steel construction in hinge sections. 1 Chute with Covers, Spray Bar and Supports (from 48 In. wide x 62 Ft. 2 In. long Bet Conveyor Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel plate in high wear areas. 1 SET Supports (for 48 In. wide x 62 Ft. 2 In. long Belt Conveyor and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL ITEM #8 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $ 37,760. 9 1 SET Receiving hopper and sideboards with covers and supports or 36 in. wide x 114 ft. 5ih. on Belt Conveyor). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Receiving hopper lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas. FORM NO. 15-8 ONE OF THE + COMPANIES �1MMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Luscomer xeIerence :N o. CUSTOMER WASHINGInN WUNIY QUOTATION NO, Planning Colnnission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO, DATE 33 West Washington Street 15 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE, AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In.. long Belt Conveyor. Welded, reinforced, structural steel frame in bolted sections. Belt. 4 1/2 In. diameter, flat, steel idlers with self -aligning, "Permanently Lubricated" ball bearings. Crown face, dnvm-type, steel head pulley with rubber lagging keyed to steel shaft mounted in anti -friction bearings; grease lubrication. Crown face, self-cleaning wing -type, steel tail pulley with taper lock hubs and steel shaft mounted in anti -friction bearings; grease lubrication. Screw -type belt take-up. Double belt wiper with spring loaded mounting. SET Plate -Type Guards (for 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. long Bet Conveyor sides and tail section). -.— Welded, reinforced, steel construction, 1 10 HP fixed speed drive (for 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. 1ong Belt Conveyor). FORA No. 165-8 ONE OF THE s COMPANIES 1 Y_��. __—.tx_ x__ ire_. _xr n in ...• n i•x .•. .v AMMERMILLS, INC- 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Lustomer Kelerence ,No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street • 1 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING • CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 Adjustable motor mount. V -belt Drive (fran electric motor to reducer). Falk shaft mounted reducer with torque arm (mounted on Conveyor Headshaft) . 1 Electro-Sensor Zero Speed Switch with Mounting Bracket or- 36. In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. long Belt Conveyor). 1 Plate -Type Guard (for 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. long Bet Conveyor V -belt drive). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SET Dribble Pans (for 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. long Bet Conveyor). Welded, reinforced, steel construction in hinge sections. 1 SEE' Supports (for 36 In. wide x 114 Ft. 5 In. long Belt Conveyor and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL ITEM #9 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $ 49,060 10 1 50 In. wide x 10 Ft, 0 In. long Vibrating Pan Feeder. FORM NO. 1658 ONE OF THE • COMPANIES �1MMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 CUSTOMER WASHING'h0N CbUi�]'I'Y Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 customer KelerenCC No. QUOTATION NO. H81 -253 - PAGE NO. DATE 171 7/15/81 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT. WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER I DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Welded pan of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members Pan bottom and sides lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners. Welded discharge lip of manganese alloy steel plate reinforced with manganese alloy steel structural members . Discharge lip bottom aridsideslined with manganese. alloy steel liners. Vibrating omits with two, full width, counterweighted, steel shafts timed and driven through alloy steel gears and mounted in spherical, self -aligning, roller bearings; oil bath vapor mist lubrication with oil level sigh gauge on gear side and grease lubrication on drive side. Coil spring suspension. 1 20 HP Fixed Speed Drive (for Vibrating Pan Feeder). Adjustable motor mount. Vmbelt Drive (from electric motor to feeder). 1 Milltronics Zero Speed Switch with mounting bracket for Vibrating Pan Feeder). DAMNO. 16$ -BONE OF THE COMPANIES HAMMERMILLS, INC. S00 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 ustomer Kelerence No. CUSTOMER WASHINGPON COUNTYQUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO, DATE 33 West Washington Street ' 1E 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING • CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PEACE EXTENSION 1 Plate -Type Gard (for Vibrating Pan Feeder V -belt Drive) Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SET Covers with Rubber Seals and Supports (for Vibrating Pan Feeder). Welded, construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. 1 Support (for Vibrating Pan Feeder and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL ITEM #10 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $32,400, 11 1 Stearns Magnetics Size 4872 Type LD Model 104LT ectro-Magnetic Drums. 48 In. Diameter x 72 In. face width. Magnet coils wound for 230 volt DC with Class H insulation high temperature windings. Cast, aluminum alloy steel heads; and manganese alloy steel plate cyclinders with stainless steel knock -off angles. Clamp -type bearings; grease lubrication. Screw -type adjustment. ,ORM NO. 4+s5-9 ONE OF THE COMPANIES �MMERMtLt.S, tNC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 r Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGIC)N Cx?tJNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. H814-253 7/15/81 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMIPORTANT:WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 15 HP Fixed Speed Drive (for size 4872 M.gneti.c D . ,dbrse foot mounted reducer with coupling (direc connected to electric motor); plate -type coupling guard. Adjustable base (for electric motor and reducer). Roller chain drive (from reducer to drum), 1 Milltronics Zero Speed Switch with mounting bracket or Size 4872 ectro$ iagnetic Drumm , 1 Plateype Guard (for Size 4872 Electra etic Drum .oller Chain Drive). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SET Covers with Spray Bars, Rubber Seals, and Supports (for Size 4872 ectro-Magnetic Drum). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. 1 SET Chute with Covers and Supports (from Belt Feeder to 48 In. wi e x2 Ft. 2 In. Ong t Conveyor • and from Size721ectro-Mietic Drums to 36dE x 1 4Ft. 3 In, long Belt Conveyor). "CAM NO. 165°8 ONE OF THE a COMPANIES �MMERMILLS, INc. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 CUSTOMER WASHINGTON CO= Planning Coniission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Customer Reference No. QUOTATION NO. H81-253 - PAGE NO. DATE 2 7/15/81 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS • SHREDDING. CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. STEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel liners in high wear areas. l SET Supports (for Size 4872 Electro-Magnetic Drum and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. TOTAL IT #11 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTURE $ 59,240. 12 1 Stearns Magnetics Size 3660 Type LD Model 104L Electro-Nagnetic Drum. 36 In. diameter x 60 In. face width. Magnet coils wourrl for 230 volt DC with Class H insulation high temperature windings. Cast, manganese alloy steel heads; and manganes alloy steel plate cylinder with stainless steel knock -off angles. Clamp -type bearings; grease lubrication. Screw -type adjustment. 1 5 HP Fixed Speed Drive (for Size 3660 Electro- Magnetic Drum) . aRM NO. 15-6ONE OF THE r + COMPANIES flANINIERMILLS, INC°. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 er Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINIMN QUOTATION NO. Planning Conission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 21 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 4 rse foot mounted reducer with couplir (direr connected to electric motor); plate -type coupling guard. Adjustable base (for electric motor and reducer). Roller chain drive (from reducer to drum). 1 Milltronics Zero Speed Switch with mounting bracket (for Size 3660 ectro-Magnetic Drum), 1 Plate -Type Guard (for Size 3660 Electro-Magnetic Drum Roller Chain Drive). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. 1 SEr Covers with Rubber Seals, and Supports (for Size 3660 ectro-Magnetic Drum). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. SEr Chutes with Covers, and Supports (from Vibrating Pan Feeder, and Size 3660 ectro-Magnetic Drum). Welded construction in bolted sections of steel plate reinforced with steel structural members. Lined with impact and abrasion resistant alloy steel plate in high wear areas. FORM NO. IS&$ ONE OF THE = COMPANIES AI�II�IERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapeds, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY QUOTATION Planning Comm Commission H81-253 253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS - MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM °TITY_ PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL - APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 SET Supports (for size 3660 Electro-Magnetic Drum and accessories). Welded, reinforced, steel construction. IDT L ITEM #12 - F.O.B. POINT OF MANUFACTITRE $ 37,440, MISCELIANEOUS: 1 SET Controls with mounting brackets (mounted locally). Watertight enclosures. Key lock -out on stop buttons. 1 SET Start -Up warning horn with mounting bracket. I SET Stearns Magnetics Silicon Rectifiers (for Size 4872 ectro-Magnetic Drum). 10,000 Watts 230 Volt DC output; 3 phase, 60 hertz, 460 volt input. Normal convection cooled. Full wave bridges. Insulated transformer construction. Dust tight enclosures. DC ammeters and voltmeters. )RU NO. t B ONE OF THE : • COMPANIES AMMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON G01JNI'Y QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission f H31-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street 23 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS. MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING. PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAD TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION 1 Stearns Magnetics Silicon Rectifier (for Size 3660 ectro-Ma etic Druu). 6000 Watts. 230 Volt DC output; 3 phase, 60 hertz, 460 volt input. Normal convection cooled. Full wave bridge. Insulated transformer construction. Dust tight enclosure. DC meter and voltmeter. TOTAL ITEMS #1 - #12 F.O.B. POINTS OF MANUFAC1URE. $1,048,180 13 ELECTRIC N 7I.'bRS AND STA = CONSISTING OF: 1250 HP, 3 phase, 60 hertz, 4160 volt, 900 RPM, type ANW horizontal open drip proof with 3-57 slip, 250% breakdown torque, 1.15 service factor, desigriec for shredder duty with stator and bearing temperature detectors, space heaters and sole plates. WORM NO. ,0sa ONE OF THE . COMPANIES 43�............:11� l..a / \i..u,.a,T team !`_�!w_... i L__._ rsr_e..____� r__�_ MERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. H81-253 PAGE NO. DATE 2L 7/15/81 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS - MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION - THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. UNIT EXTENSION TITY POUNDS PRICE 1250 HP Primary Reactor -Type Reduced Voltage Starte in NEM 4 enclosure with 3 phase overload protection, 2 indicating lights, 3 phase ammeter an switch, an instantaneous phase reversal and an open phase relay, a stall relay, an RTD relay, extra auxiliary contact and forced ventilation for additional cooling. 25 HP, 1200 REM T.E.F.C. motor for 72"' x 14` Vibrating Pan Feeder. 25 HP Starter. 15 HP, 1800 REM, T.E.F.C. motor for 60" conveyor. 15 HP Starter for above. 15 HP, 1800 RPM, T.E.F.C. motor for 48" Magnetic D. 15 HP Starter for above. One 10 HP, 1800 RPM, T.E.F.C. motor for 48" Conveyor. One Starter for above. One 10 HP, 1800 RPM, T.E.F.C. motor for 36" Conveyor. One 10 HP Starter for above. One 20 HP, 1200 RPM, T:E.F.C. motor for 50" Vibrating Pan Feeder. FORM NO. 465.8 ONE OF THE iqa1COMPANIES I�MMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 - Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGZON COUNTY Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. H81-253 7/15/81 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE, ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. W+T. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION One 20 HP Starter for above. One 5 HP, 1800 REM, T.E.F.C. motor for 36" Magnetic Drum. One 5 HP Starter for above. All Motors 3 phase, 60 hertz, 480 volts, except as noted. TOTAL ITEM #13 - F.O.B. FOINIS OF MANUFACTURE $ 96,320. TOTAL ITEMS #1-#13 - F.O.E. POINTS OF MANUFACTURE. $1,144500 ITYS TO BE FURNISHED BY OTHERS. Templates, anchor bolts, grout and fotmdaticns; noise suppression and dust abatement apparatus where required, small motors and starters, field wiring; installation labor and zvi - and equipment required for installation and maintenance.* POWER REQUIRK : 230/460 Volt, 3 phase, 60 hertz for small tors. PRICES: The prices are firm for shipment by Fbruary 28, 1982; thereafter, the prices will be subject to review and possible escalation. TERMS OF PAS: 10% With Purchase Order; Balance to be determined. oRne N®ONE OF THE + COMPANIES AMMERMILLS, tNC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 314-365-©441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY QUOTATION NO. Planning Commission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. I DATE 33 West Washington Street 2 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION SHIP=: Approximately 8 months F.C.B. points listed. The period of time within which shipment' promised begins with receipt of the written purchas agreement. The date of shipment is contingent on timely receipt of all the data needed for manufacture, approved drawings, necessary materials and components, strikes and other conditions beyond our control. DRAWINGS: We will furnish preliminary installatio drawings including foundation loadings and anchor bolt locations, and piping and wiring schematic drwings for approval within 6 weeks. The period of time within which the preliminary installation and schematic drawings are promised begins with receipt of the written purchase agreement and'the Letter of Credit, and is contingent on timely receipt of all the data needed for manufacture. We will furnish final certified installation and schematic drawings within 2 weeks, after receipt of the approved drawings. Inspection of the engineering drawings pertinent to the installation of the equipment we furnish is required prior to shipment and any construction at the plant site. PARTS AND INSTRUCTION 'tANt.TALS: We will furnish Parts and Instruction Manuals within 2 weeks after the date of shipment of the equipment. ONE OF THE V. IfK'4COMPANIES FOAM NO. I65 -B AMMERMILLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405. Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASI�NGIDN CbUNIY QUOTATION NO. Planning Con ission H81-253 County Office Building PAGE NO. DATE 33 West Washington Street - 2 7/15/81 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS . SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION TIIE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER. DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM OUAN- TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT P€IICE EXTENSION INSTALLATION AND START-UP SUPERVISION; AND OPERATING, SERVICING AND MAINTEIANCE PERSONNEL TRAINING: We will furnish a representative to supervise the installation and starting of the equipment we furnish; and to instruct your personae in its proper operation, servicing and maintenance for a period of 8 weeks. Time in excess of the 8 week period normally required for installation, start-up and personnel training will be invoiced at the following rates: Mondays thru Fridays U aS . $225 00 Saturdays U.Sa $340®00 Sundays U.S. $450.00 U.S. Holidays U.S. $575.00 Transportation via air passenger and living expense between the point of origin and the plant site are your expense for time in excess of the 8 week period. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970: The equipment we furnish will be, to the best of our knowledge at the time of shipment, in compliance with the standards and/or regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 only insofar as guards for mechanical power transmission apparatus are concerned. THANK YOU. CM NO. 165.8 ONE OF THE . COMPANIES AMMERM1LLS, INC. 800 First Avenue, NW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405 • Phone: 319-365-0441 . Telex: CRUSHER HQ -CDR 46-4443 Customer Reference No. CUSTOMER WASHINGTON COUNTY Plarming Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 QUOTATION NO. H81-253 PAGE NO. 2 DATE L 7/15/$1 DESIGNERS - ENGINEERS . MANUFACTURERS - SHREDDING . CRUSHING, SCREENING, CONVEYING EQUIPMENT AND PLANTS IMPORTANT: WHEN ORDERING, PLEASE MENTION THE QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ABOVE QUOTATION NUMBER_ DEVIATION THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN FROM SPECIFICATIONS QUOTED MAY ON THE REVERSE SIDE. AFFECT PRICE. ITEM QUAN TITY PART NUMBER / DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL APPROX. WT. POUNDS UNIT PRICE EXTENSION PURCHASER'S ACCEPTANCE APPROVED BY The prices, terms and conditions of sale are hereby accepted. WASHINGTON COUNTY PINING CON iISSION HANMILLS , INC. BY BY TITLE TITLE DATE DATE OAM NO. rise ONE OF THE s COMPANIES e a yG r Z'1 II V 5 I1 W a> ,O 41 Ii FRO _L.d'�1.S 716' r ciCJ2.1 NOJ'd ' ' Q - O F ` v z W CJ + aJdJ�� d E� % N�+�" r'- �� o a OAJAA0, Sno21;Y.J9 �' a APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES CORPORATION • SOLID WASTE RECYCLING SYSTEMS 0 To: Washington County Planning Commission Hagerstown, Maryland Attention: Mr. Jack S. Hawbaker, Executive Director Gentlemen: We are totally fanmiliar with the proble'ns of Solid Waste Processing and pollution control. We are prepared to supply a total system to Washington County, and operate the total system. We guarantee this system to be the most effecient of all systan in existence today. Because we have such faith in this system we are prepared to accept a long term contract for the car lete installation and operation of this system, for a resonable per ton tipping charge of $15.25. Washington County would collect all tipping fees and pay Environmental Utilities Corporation on a monthly basis. We will be happy to discuss this fully with your board and submit plans and projections as needed. Respectully submitted. VIRONMETAL UTILITIES CC PCATICN, jA.Bcyd j,,/resident ENGINEERING 9 SALES e INSTALLATION s MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 764 • Silver Spring • Maryland • 20901 • (301) 565-2403 APPENDIX G March 9, 1981 THE HELL CO. 3000 W. MONTANA ST., P.O. BOX 593. MILWAUKEE. WISCONSIN 53201. U.S.A. TELEPHONE C4141 $47-3333 • CABLE ADDRESS: HEILCO • TELEX: 026-831 Ms. Katherine Thompson Washington County Planning Commission County OfficeBuilding 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Dear Ms. Thompson: Thank you for your phone call requesting information on Heil Solid Waste Shredding equipment: The Heil Co. is pleased to quote budget prices for the following equipment: 42F shredder equipped with 250 HP motor, hammers, drive, infeed hood, reject hood and chute, explosion vent, dis- charge hood and supports, horizontal feed, incline feed, discharge conveyor, dust control, miscellaneous supports, platforms, etc., and electrical controls is $402,163.00. Add $56,889.00 to above total for magnetic separator for 42F system. 92B shredder with 1000 HP motor,,.'lube system, hammers, coupling, boom, pin puller, infeed hood, reject hood and chute, three explosion vents, discharge hood and supports, horizontal feed, incline feed, discharge conveyor, dust control, miscellaneous supports, platforms, etc., and electrical controls is $1,405,839.00. If a magnetic separator is required, please add $100,037 to the above mentioned price. The price for a 58A shredder, utilizing the same equip- ment as a 92B with the exception of explosion vents (58 uses two vents and the 92B is equipped with 3 vents) is $762,613.00. If a magnetic separator is desired, please include $65,926.00. Page 2 Ms. Thompson March 9, 1981 The 72A shredder includes same equipment as described for 92B system. The budget price is $994,150.00. Please add $74,683.00 to this figure for a magnetic separator. All of the above prices are F.O.B. Milwaukee, Wisconsin and do not include any applicable taxes. Per your request, I am including literature, information, and specifications on all mills along with information on the liners. Additional information on the liners is called out in each of the shredder specifications. The 58 shredder is a new machine and is in operation in Sweden. As of this date, we do not have a 58 shredder installed in the U.S., therefore, The Heil Co. would be willing to modify the existing warranty to compensate for problems that might arise with the machine since it would be the first in the states. We would be happy to discuss the warranty in greater detail at your convenience. I trust this information is what you requireIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, TH HEIL CO. /i Sharon G en Marketing Coordinator .Engineered Systems Shredder Group sg Enclosures cc: Don Kaminski Reid Lewis 13 i+iarch 9, 1981 92B SHREDDER MAINTENANCE COSTS ,Hammer Assemblies and Liners -HAMMER ASSEMBLIES COST PER TON PER TON 2. 1 Set Hammers (28) - $6,478.92 $.2592 25,000 Tons 2. 1 Set Hammer Arms (28) - $4,827.20 .0483 100,000 Tons 3. 1 Set Pe s (28) - $1,183.00 .0118 100,000 Tons $.3193 $.32 11INERS l. 1 Set Top Cone Liners (12) - $2,500.00 300,000 Tons 1 Set Middle Cone Liners (12) $2,500.00 300,000 Tons 3, 1 Set Bottom Cone Liners (12) $10,900.00 275,000 Tons -'4. 1 Set Circumferential Sweep Liners $2,600.00 100,000 Tons 3.. 1 Set Top Sweep Liners - $2,025.00 200,000 Tons 1 Set Base Plate Liners - $2,650.00 100,000 Tons '7. 1 Set Rotor Disc Liners - $1,190.00 100,000 Tons 8. 1 Set Wedge Bars - $2,880.00 COST PER TON .0087 .0083 .0396 .0260 .0101 .0265 .0119 .0144 $.15 $.1.455 $.47 arc�5;-i981 WEAR FACTOR ON THE LINE ZSY ---- -ON THE _ .. . - SI42EIL SHREDDER Upper cone liner plates, ½"-thick HRS plate will process some 100,000 tons of refuse. Neck rings, cast manganese are good for approximately 100,000 tons of refuse. _ _ _ . _ - Grind chamber liners, cast manganese will last for 'some 25 to 35,000 tons. Note: Hardfacing these liners can extend -t.-.e life of the liners as much as 70%. - last for some 30 to 40,000 tons of throughput. It sTo--dld be noted. that- t%9.2 series shredder is capable of processing the following.: (Please see enclosed sheet "GENERAL INFORMATION SHREDDER_ PLANTS). _ Whereas the 42 series shredder is limited to normal household wastes and limited -commerical waste.. 9ah 6, 19 81 -!AR FACTOR ON THE LINERS ON -THE 9,2_HEIL-SHREDDZP_ mapper and -midd3 a cone=3.iner plates are -made of HRS-plate, �I " -thick and -should -process in excess of 300,000 tons of refuse before replacement is required._ ___ -;Z-6wer-cone=liners are made of cast manganese steel, also good . or -some 300,000 tons of throughput before replacement is necessary. _ = =miners in the lower section of the shredder known as the swe.eP chamber" , -will---wear-as follows : = - - = _.--Top Liners - -�-=--HP.S--Plate _ =Approximately 200,000 Tons Circumferencial Liners HS Plate _ _ --=Approximately 150,000 Tons tease- Plate -Liners- _- : _,_ _ SRS `Plate - - - - =--- Approx±mate1y 150,000 Tons.- W = -edge Bars -Cast Manganese Steel - Approximately 200,000 Tons 'The hammers in the 92 shredders will shred approximately 25,000 -ins of refuse by the time 28 hammers are worn out. One set --consists of from 28 to 32,hammers, but they are replaced in orements of only four or eight at any given time. GENERAL INFORMATION SHREDDER PLANTS Solid Waste Categories n general terms, the Heil Series 92 Shredder will accept .Anything that can negotiate the infeed opening, without --any fear of damaging the machine. The object will either .Tbe shredded, ballistically ejected or, - a shut down may -be required to remove the object or material. It is the .ratter happening that should be avoided. We therefore submit the following groups of materials with comments for your guidance. -pup .1 Shreddable Materials 111 types of residential, commercial and industrial solid -waste including, bicycles, lawn mowers, furniture, white -goods, stoves, refrigerators, washers, driers, hot water anks, beds and mattresses. Automotive parts such as doors, --fenders, seats, exhaust systems, tires, wheels, etc. -.AI1 of the above will be shredded without incident. ±Grou.D II Considered non-shreddable (A) Automotive and truck drive line components, engines, transmissions, rear axle assemblies, gasoline tanks, (for obvious reason) - front axles and front wheel suspension parts. (B) Machinery parts of. all -descriptions such as hydraulic pumps, gear boxes, steel shafting, screw shafts, bearings"and gears. (C) Steel plates and bar stock. ;'Items in Group II could result in damage to one or more of the hammers in the shredder but moreover, when ejected from the mill, could cause problems at some point along the discharge system. Material of this nature has a scrap value end should never be brought into the plant. -Group III Considered non-shreddable (A) Steel cable, wire rope, electrical transmitting wires in bales or coils of excessive lengths. (B) Hawsers and tow lines or chains in excessive lengths. (C) Large bolts of heavy vinyl or other material. Cargo nets, fire hoses, parachutes or large tents. Items in Group III do not reflect any damage to the plant machinery. They will however, create a loss in productive time both in floor sorting and the need to shut down a machine to remove them from the rotor. These items tend to wrap around the rotor and hang on. Group IV Non -acceptable Industrial wastes such as chemicals, paints, acids or other potentially dangerous and/or explosive materials. Materials of a Group IV nature must never be brought to the shredder plant. They must be handled in accordance with the rules as set down by your governing Health Authority. APPENDIX H r1 A� •. r' rriv . PHONE (3141 531-1220 TELEX 44-7415 CABLE: GRUPULCO CRUSHER AND PULVERIZER COMPANY ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS OF REDUCTION MACHINERY AND MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT SINCE 1885 2915-17 NORTH MARKET STREET • ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 631O6 U.S.A. June 22, 1981 Ms. Catherine T. Thompson Associate Planner Washington County Planning Commission County Office Building 33 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Reference: Our W-4514 Solid Waste Disposal Dear Ms. Thompson: Thank you for the information in your letter of June 15, 1981 about your proposed refuse processing plant, in which we note you expect to handle ordinary residential and commercial wastes with no oversize bulky wastes. For the capacity of 40 - 50 tons per hour, now estimated, we suggest our Model 5OXE, which has a rotor 50" diameter x 72" wide. Price for this mill only is $99,980.00 and mill package is $135,970.00 which includes high feed hopper, oil lubrication system, coupling with guard, servicing hoist, hydraulic mill opener, discharge chute, and base for mounting motor. This, you will note, is 10" wider than mill we previously offered as you have a bit higher estimated capacity, and power needed is 600 H.P. A suggestion of equipment, likely to be needed, in a complete plant is enclosed which includes some ideas on types of material to be processed. The information is taken from equipment in a typical two stage compost plant built some years ago, which may, or may not, be more than you expect to do at this time. For example, we show two shredders; primary for coarse grinding, and secondary for fine grinding to make a compostable material or for greater density in landfills. Costs which are only estimates are, therefore, broken down by groups as follows: Feed and picking conveyors estimate $215,460.00 50" x 72" Primary Shredder, Mill Package, plus leveler in hopper, under crusher conveyor, inclined conveyor to secondary mill and with 600 H.P. motor and coupling Est.$197,570.00 jOed a,t 100% 4eacfcidd pap Ms. Catherine Page 2 June 22, 1981 T. Thompson Magnetic Separator Est. $ 35,436.00 50" x 72" Secondary Shredder, Mill Package with inclined conveyor from discharge 600 H.P. motor and coupling OPTION EST. $177,396.00 Mixer Blender and conveyor to surge loading bins OPTION EST. Conveyor, with hopper, for crushed cans to dryer OPTION EST. Can drier/cleaner with conveyors and hopper OPTION EST. Waste Paper conveyors OPTION EST. Continuous Balers OPTION EST. Electric Control Panel OPTION EST, $ 46,830.00 $ 16,650.00 $108,800.00 $ 18,145.00 $ 69,540.00 $ 82,872.00 These price estimates cover only major equipment most likely to be needed or options, but without incidentals too numerous to mention, and not necessarily supplied by Gruendler. Our principal interest is in supplying the shredders. We regret that operating and maintenance costs of shredders and other equipment is not available. Regarding time needed to start up our shredders, they can be brought up to operating speed in about 1 minute, and when turned off, they require about 15 minutes to come to a complete stop. It is estimated further that a building of suitable size for this kind of operation should have a floor space of about 65,000 to 70,000 square feet. This will vary depending on how many optional features will be included. Enclosed list of refuse shredders by us ever the years is enclosed for your review. If further information is needed, please advise. When you are ready for firm pricing on shredding equipment, we will be glad to work with you or your engineers who will be doing final design. L. L.. Jones Sales Manager ENC. MR -173-B, MR -I15, Schematic Drawing No. 2, and A-6224 CC: W. L. `Miarple & Associates P.O. Box 213 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 215 646-2330 APPENDIX I PROPERTY TRANSFERS - ELECTION DISTRICT #2 AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED FOR TAX PURPOSES WITH OVER 75 ACRES Cost Per Acre In Map 81. Parcel Purchase Price Total Ac. Imp. $ Land Land Only Study Transferred Area 1965 Transfers None 1966 Transfers 56 10 128 $ 33,000 108 Ac. $ 305 $ 257 no 48 10 10 $ 30,000 118 Ac. $ 254 $ 156 no 1967 Transfers 48 9 27 $ 70,084 110 Ac. $ 700 $ 654 no 1968 Transfers 47 18 36 $0,OOO 74 Ac. $ 543 $ 475 yes 1969 Transfers None 1970 •Transfers None 1971 Transfers 56 19 150 $ 78,000 148 Ac. $ 540 $ 502 no 1972 Transfers 57 1 13 $ 85,000 100 Ac. $ 850 $ 635 no 61 6 125 $132,000 166 Ac. $ 795 $ 693. no 1973 Transfers 57 20 4• $ 68,000 79 Ac. $ 861 $ 302 no 47 18 35 $ 85,500 115 Ac. $ 743 $ 552 yes 56 23 160 $ 75,000 78 Ac. $ 962 $ 776 no 48 13 54 $ 70,000 100 Ac. $ 700 $ 612 yes 57 19 3 $140,000 133 Ac. $ 1053 $ 930 no 56 14 148 $180,000 132 Ac. $ 1363 $1231 no 1974 Transfers None 1975 Transfers 48 13 152,151 $ 71,850 156 Ac. $ 461 $ 441 yes 1976 Transfers 57 13 500 $ 98,000 76 Ac. $ ** $1288 no 1977 Transfers None _ 1978 Transfers None 1979 Transfers None 1980 Transfers None ** No Improvements on Land PROPERTY TRANSFERS - ELECTION DISTRICT #13 AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED FOR TAX PURPOSES WITH OVER 75 ACRES Cost Per Acre In: Map 31. Parcel Purchase Price Total Ac. Imp.& Land Land Only Study Transferred Area 1965 Transfers 36 12 41 ,$ 36,350 101 Ac. $ 360 1966 Transfers 23 21 160 $ 24,000 158 Ac. $ 151 1967 Transfers 23 20 165 $ 27,500 138 Ac. $ 201 24 14 517 $ 98,000 104 Ac. $ 942 9 22 29 $ 45,000 142 Ac. $ 317 23 1 1 $ 36,800 91 Ac. $ 404 1968 Transfers 23 19 167 $ 30,000 89 Ac. $ 337 23 18 137 $ 72,000 104 Ac. $ 696 23 2 107 $ 30,000 106 Ac. $ 282 1969 Transfers 23 13 113 $ 68,240 120 Ac. $ 568 36 5 73 $ 40,750 83 Ac. $ 473 23 18 140 $ 73,000 139 Ac. $ 525 1970 Transfers 9 22 28 $ 60,000 89 Ac. $ 674 22 6 3 $ 36,000 122 Ac. $ 295 23 21 161 $ 130,000 158 Ac. $ 823 1971 Transfers 23 1 4 $ 60,000 86 Ac. $ 698 36 5 $ 80,000 179 Ac. $ 441 1972 Transfers 23 7 183 $ 53,000 137 Ac. $ 386 23 9 102 $ 66,000 156 Ac. $ 423 23 10 100 $ 55,000 89 Ac. $ 618 1973 Transfers 36 12 41 $ 35,000 101 $ 346 9 22 29 $ 47,000 110.00 $ ** 1974 Transfers 37 3 476 $ 125,000 105 Ac. $ 1191 23 11 85 $ 74,383 76 Ac. $ 970 * Resh Road Landfill Site ** No Improvements on Land $ 297 no $ 113 yes $ 102 yes $ 790 no $ 256 yes $ 268 yes $ 309 yes $ 406 no $ 154 yes $ 542 yes $ 377 no $ 307 no $ 576 yes $ 280 • no $ 799 *y5 $ 610 yes $ 182 no $ 282 .: $ 263 yes $ 513 yes $ 277 no $ 427 yes •$ 383 no $ 766 no PROPERTY TRANSFERS - ELECTION DISTRICT #13 (continued) +. AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED FOR TAX.PURPOSESWITH OVER 7S ACRES Cost Per Acre In Map B1. Parcel Purchase Price Total Ac. Imp.& Land Land Only Study Transferred Area 1975 Transfers None 1976 Transfers 9 24 3 $ 200,000 131 Ac. $ 1450 $ 728 yes 1977 Transfers 23 13 113 $ 124,695 120 Ac. $ 1039 $ 931 yes 1978 Transfers None 1979 Transfers 10 21 66 $ 225,000 97 Ac. ** $ 868 no 37 2 475 $ 325,000 103 -Ac. ** $ 396 no 1980 Transfers 23 24 142 $ 150,000 88 Ac. ** $ 1705 ** No Improvements on Land PROPERTY TRANSFERS - ELECTION DISTRICT #23 AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED FOR TAX PURPOSES 111TH OVER 75 ACRES Cost Per Acre In Map 51. Parcel Purchase Price Total Ac. Imp.& Land Land Only Study Transferred. Area 1965 Transfers 35 2 56 $ 33,000 185 Ac. $ 178 22 3 15 $ 42,100 178 Ac. $ 237 35 8 58 $ 29,500 206 Ac. $ 143 8 14 22 $ 20,000 88 Ac. $ 227 1966 Transfers 22 24 71 $ 23,500 121 Ac. $ 194 35 12 44 48 2 333 $ 36,658 133 Ac. $ 276 1967 Transfers 35 5 52 $ 42,976 140 Ac. $ 307 1968 Transfers 47 11 5 $ 125,000 261 Ac. $ 478 35 2 56 $ 60,000 186 Ac. $ 323 36 20 128 $ 30,000 106 Ac. $ 283 22 9 19 $ 40,000 103 $ 388 23 7 183 $ 50,000 139 Ac. $ 359 1970 Transfers 47 1 109 $ 55,000 141 Ac. $ 312 47 12 187 $ 100,000 106 Ac. $ 942 8 16 18 $ 52,500 114 Ac. $ 460 1971 Transfers 36 15 91 $ 35,000 86 Ac. $ 407 35 5 51 $ 55,000 156 Ac. $ 353 47 8 83 $ 52,000 125`Ac. $ 416 35 2 57 $ 60,000 149 Ac. $ 403 1972 Transfers 35 20 $ 165,000 190 Ac. $ 868 35 2 57 $ 55,000 76 Ac. $ 908 1973 Transfers 47 14 77 $ 100,000 242 AC. $ 413 48 2 333 $ 88,450 133 Ac. $ 665 1974 Transfers 22 11 23 $ 117,000 168 Ac. $ 696 1975 Transfers None 1976 Transfers 35 23 245 $ 60,000 132 Ac. $ 454 $ 65 $ 181 $ 106 no no no no no yes yes yes $ 382 yes $ 280 no $ 185 yes $ 281 no $ 256 yes $ 283 no $ 762 yes $ 293 no $ 282 yes close to landfill $ 331 yes $ 325 no $ 309 no $ 593 $ 553 $ 299 no $ 563 yes $ 523 no $ 441 yes PROPERTY TRANSFERS - ELECTION DISTRICT #,23 (continued) AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED FOR TAX PURPOSES WITH OVER 75 ACRES Cost Per Acre In yap B1. Parcel Purchase Price Total Ac. Imp.Land an Only Study Transferred Area 1977 Transfers 35 5 51 $ 70,000 156 Ac. $ 448 $ 426 yes 35 16 215 $ 54,000 79 Ac. $ 684 $ 408 no 1978 Transfers None 1979 Transfers 36 8 86 $ 441,000 300.82 Ac.$ 1466 $ 1012 yes 47 12 219 $ 88,250 88.25 Ac. .** $ 1000 yes 47 7 80 $ 100,000 189.63 Ac.$ 527 $ 283 no 22 14 31 $ 310,000 274.5 $ 1129 $ 540 no 1980 Transfers None ** No Improvements on Land APPENDIX J VITAL STATISTICS - SHREDDER FACILITIES, 1980 Rated Operating Processed Start -Up Shredding Capacity Rate sWaste Location Date Equipment (TPH) (290) Disposition Status Owner Alaska Sicka 1976 One vertical 15 - Landfill OP MU shaft shredder Anchorage 1979 Too vertical 75 900- Landfill; ferrous OP Mu shaft shredder each 1,000 recovery possible Prudhoe Bay 1979 One vertical 15 - taeineration; OP MV shaft shredder recovers energy as stead California Los Angeles 1979 One vertical 15 Varies Landfill; being OP MIT shaft shredder converted to fuel production Mountain View 1972 one vertical 30 - Landfill; alumina@ 'LOOP P1l shredder recovery ?alomar 1978 Two vertical 50 800 Landfill; ferrous OP CO, PROP shaft shredders each recovery San Diego - One horizontal 35 - - 4OP Co shredder Colorado ?ueblo 1975 Two vertical 25 250- Landfill; ferrous OP PR shaft shredders each 300 recovery Connecticut Ansonia 1974 one horizontal 10 - Shreds bulky OP %W shredder wastes prior to incineration; fer- rous recovery Bridgeport 1978 One horizontal 75 1,800 RDF OP PR shredder; one flail mill Delaware New Castle County 1972 Four horizontal 50 700 Landfill; ferrous OP PR shredders each recovery but no markets ?i;eon Point Under Two vertical 85 E,0O0 Recovery ferrous, TIC 50, PROP Construc- shaft shredders nonferrous, glass, tioo and air classified fuel from certain solid waste feed stack to produce humus to use as fertilizer and soil conditioner (CONTINUED) Florida Brevard County 1976 7vo horizontal 50 1.200 Landfill; ferrous OP shredders each recovery temporarily suspended while detinner relocates Pompano 3each 1972 - 15 OP 1978 - 80- 750- Used as landfill OP 100 800 cover South Dade Projected Three horizontal 55 - Shreds oversize TIC County 1981 shredders each bulky waste prior Co landfill North Dade Projected Two horizontal 40 - Preshred bulky TIC County 1981 shredders each items before pro- eessing stem for electricity Lakeland Projected One nonreversible 40 - Sunolemental TIC I981 shredder boiler fuel Georgia Atlanta 1976 one 3orizontal 50 250 Shreds prior to OP shredder baling Deealb Count? 1973 7w vertical 40 500 Shreds prior to OP shaft shredders each landfill Ii 1 ino is Chicago 1976 Two horizontal 75 - Recovery NOP primary each shredders; two vertical 50 secondary each shredders Chicago 1970 one horizontal 25 - Shreds bulky OP shredder wastes prior CO incineration Lal4ont 1975 One vertical 25 - Ferrous recovery OP shredder Springfield 1980 One shear -type 40- - Landfill OP shredder 60 Indiana Last Chicago 1977 One horizontal 25 100 Shreds bulky OP shredder wastes prior to landfill love Asses 1975 Two horizontal - 175- ROY OP shredders 200 Kansas McPherson 1975 One vertical 15 - Shreds wastes OP shredder prior'tn landfill CO PR PR Co CO MU MU CO MU MU PR PR MU MU (CONTINUED) Kentucky Louisville 1964 One horizontal 20 - Shreds oversized MOP Mu shredder wastes prior to incineration Louisiana New Orleans 1976 One vertical 60 - - OP PR shredder St. Mary's Parish 1979 Two vertical 20 - Landfill OP Co shaft shredders each Vermillion Parish 1978 Two horizontal 40 - Landfill OP MU shredders 60 Maine Lewiston 1977 One vertical 30 140 Landfill; ferrous OP `V shredder recovery but no markets Maryland Cockeysville 1975 '^,o horizontal 60 850 Landfill; ferrous OP Co shredders each recovery; RDF Massachusetts East Bridgewater 1977 One horizontal 40 - Produces and OP PR shredder tests Eon -Fuel II Morth Adana - One horizontal 40 - Shreds bulky OP MU shredder wastes prior to landfill Holliston 1974 One non -never- 50 - Shreds bulky 0P PR sible shredder wastes prior to landfill Minnesota St. Paul 1978 One vertical 30 - Shreds prior to OF M shredder landfill; ferrous recovery Duluth I980 Tow horizontal 30 - Used for fuel su SJLSSD shredders each in fluidized -bed incinerator Missouri St. Louis 1969 One horizontal 30 - Shreds bulky OP Mu shredder wastes prior to incineration Nebraska Omaha 1976 One horizontal 50 - Shreds for baling Ap MV shredder New Jersey Monmouth County 1975 Duo vertical 40 400 Landfill with OP Co shredders each magnetic separation of ferrous (CONTINUED) New York Albany 1979 T o vertical - 800 - SR D MU shredders Sl=ira 1973 Tva horizontal 40 - Landfill MOP Co shredders each Rempstead 1978 Four shredder -like - 1,000 Wet pulped to MOP PO, PROP devices called (design) produce steam Hydrapulpers Jamestown 1975 Tvo vertical 50 - Shreds prior to OP CO shredders each landfill Niagara Falls 1980 Three non- 70- - Resource -recovery. SO 4R reversible 90 Recovers metals, shredders each electricity, and stem Rochester 1979 Seven vertical Various 200- Recover RDF, SKD CO, PROP shaft shredders 300 aluminum, metals, (aoprox) glass North Carolina Guilford County 1973 Three vertical 50 - Shreds prior to OP MU shaft shredders each landfill Ohio Columbus Under Two vertical - - Refuse burned with UC MU Construe- shredders pulverized coal don for stem Columbus 1975 Three horizontal 20 - Shreds prior Co OP U shredders each landfill Willoughby 1973 Two vertical 12 80- Shreds prior to OP MU shredders each 100 landfill Oregon LaGrande 1978 One vertical 20 - Shreds prior to OP '4U shaft shredder landfill Lane County 1977 Two horizontal 65 - Recovery OP CO shredders 45 Willsonville 1972 One vertical 30 a Shreds tires prior OF MU shaft shredder to landfill PennsyLvania Altoona 1965 One vertical 15 m Composting plus OP MU shredder some ferrous recovery Harrisburg 1970 One horizontal 25 - Shreds bulky OP MU shredder wastes prior to incineration South Carolina 3eaufort 1975 One vertical 20 - Landfill; some OP MU shredder ferrous recovery (CONCLUDED) Charleston 1974 Three horizontal 30 - Landfill; some OP MU shredders each ferrous recovery Gaorgeeown 1974 One vertical 20 - Landfill; some OP MU County shredder ferrous recovery Williamsburg 1973 One vertical 20 - Landfill; some OP CO shredder ferrous recovery South Dakota Aberdeen 1975 One vertical 20 - Shreds bulky OP MU shredder wastes prior to landfill Texas Houston 1965 One horizontal 40 - Shredded for OP MU shredder ferrous recover,- remainder Landfill Odessa 1974 One horizontal 50 - Recovers metals OP NU shredder and soil enrichment Texarkana 1977 One horizontal 20 - Process industrial OP Pt shredder wastes prior to Landfill; ferrous recovery Virginia Yor₹olk 1975 One horizontal 30 - Shred bulk wastes NOP Yavy • shredder Washington Cowlitz County 1976 One horizontal 50 - Shreds prior to OP CO shredder landfill Tacoma 1971 One horizontal 40 - Landfill and RDF OP MU shredder Wisconsin Appleton 1974 Two horizontal 15 - Shreds prior to OP MU shredders each landfill Madison 1967 Flail Mill; one 35 - Landfill and RDF OP MU vertical shredder Milwaukee 1976 Two horizontal 75 1,600 Fullscale resource OP PR primary shredders; (design) recovery including two vertical 60 RDF ferrous, glass secondary and aluminum shredders Abbreviations: OP • Operational CO • County Owner MOP • Not Operational PROP • Private Operator UC • Under Construction SO • State Owner PR • Private Owner SU • Start-up MU • Municipal Owner WLSSD- Western Lake Superior Sanitary District SKD • Shakedown Source: Waste Age, "1980 Shredder/Baler Index," ,July 1980. APPENDIX K Washington County Landfill- -- Weighing Survey NOTE: YOU MUST RETURN TO SCALE WITH THIS FORM BEFORE LEAVIN( Waste Type ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial 50 Industrial Institutional ❑ Dirt, stone, block, bricks ® Brush, leaves, gross ❑ Wood, plaster board, siding, roofing ® Metal , appliances ❑ Tires, rubber Q Paper, cardboard ® Other Vehicle Type Compactor — yardage �L ® Roll -off yardage comp.Q non comp.❑ Pick- up O Other Solid Waste Generation Area l 2 3 4 I N OUT BY CETECTO i TIME:07:2E1 07 : 20 OCT "Oa -81. G 5842 0LE T Z942OLE N L9O0OLE I 9 Transfer Green Boxes GreensburgD Dargan❑ KaetzellD Company Name r Scale Operator APPENDIX L jgfr OFFICE OF ENOIR01MENTAL PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE 201 WEST PRESTON STREET • BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 • Area Code 301 • 38s-3123 Harry Hughes, Governor Mr. John W. Meyer Maryland Environmental Service 60 West Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Dear Mr. Meyer: Charles R. Suck, Jr., Sc.O. Secretary October 16, 1981 In response to your recent telephone conversation with Mr. Lawrence Leasner of the Program Development Division concerning a regional sanitary landfill and our rubble fill requirements the following comments are offered: A. sanitary landfill must be examined from the perspective of the permit requirements of Section 394 of Article 43, Annotated Code of Maryland._ In addition, an NPDES permit may be required, depending on the type of operation proposed. A regional landfill would be consistent with the above cited law and COMAR 10.17.11 — Regulations Governing the Installation and Operation of Systems of Refuse Disposal For Public Use. A regional sanitary landfill would alsonot be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 387C. of Article,43 which governs comprehensive county solid waste planning activities. Any facility which is to be utilized for rubble disposal must be examined from the perspective of the permit requirements of Section 394 of Article 43, Annotated Code of Maryland.. The type of proposed operation determines which permit is applicable. If the facility is to be part of a refuse disposal system for public use, as defined in COMAR 10.17.11.02 (W), the operator shall obtain a Refuse Disposal Permit from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, as specified in Section 394. Mr. John W. Meyer Page 2 To date, the design and construction of "rubble's landfills have ho -t been required to include leachata collection systems, liners, entensive ground water monitoring systems or detailed geohydrological investigations. However, a Refuse Disposal Permit application for this type of facility must demonstrate how only inert wastes will be received, provide a general geohydrological investigation of the proposed site, include an operating plan which: addresses the handling, compacting and covering of wastes, indicates that all disposal operations will be conducted at a pre —determined distance above the ground water table, includes monitoring wells and shows that the design, construction and operation of the facility will comply with all applicable regulations. Our staff will review the application for adequacy of the technical material contained therein. Materials which may be disposed of at a facilitypermittedto receive rubble include: demolition debris, wood wastes, asphalt, tires, tree stumps, brush, plaster, pipes, wire, paper products, and in some cases white goods. However, limiting the waste stream to these materials which are strictly non—putrescible, inorganic and pose no health hazard, obviates the requirement for a 394 Permit. Specifically, such waste stream would be limited exclusively to soil and earth and those substances composed of these conditions,, such as gravel, saprolite, rocks, bricks, concrete and stone. If you receive additional information please do act hesitate to communicate with. this Office. Mr.. Lawrence Leasner will gladly assist youinmatters relating to solid waste planning. Sincerely yours, Ronald Nelson, Director Waste Management Administration RN : tit cc: Mr. Douglas H. John Mr.. Arthur Caple 1 Mr. Lawrence Leasner