John T.

Pfeffer
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

PRENTICE HALL, Erzglewood Clgfs, New Jersey 07632

 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pfeffer, John T.
Solid waste management engineering / John T. Pfeffer.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-13-824905-9
I . Refuse and refuse disposal. 1. Title.
TD791.P44 1992
628.4'4-dc20 9 1-25053
CIP

Acquisitions editor: Doug Humphrey

Production editor: Merrill Peterson
Supervisory editor and interior design: Joan L. Stone
Cover designer: Joe DiDomenico
Prepress buyer: Linda Behrens
Manufacturing buyer: Dave Dickey
Editorial assistant: Jaime Zampino

0 1992 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.

A Simon & Schuster Company
Engiewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, in any form or by any means,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
I S B N 0-13-624905-9
90000>
Printed in the United States of America

IO 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

ISBN 0 - 1 3 - 8 2 4 9 0 5 - 9

Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London

Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty. Limited, Sydney
Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Toronto
Prentice-Hall Hispanoamericana, S.A., Mexico
Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi
Prentice-Hall of Japan, Inc., Tokyo
Simon & Schuster Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore
Editora Prentice-Hall do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERING
PRENTICEHALLINTERNATIONAL
SERIES
INCIVILENGINEERING
AND ENGINEERING
MECHANICS
William J. Hall. Editor

Au A N D CHRISTIANO, Structural Analysis

BARSOM AND ROLFE,Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, 2/E
BATHE,Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis
BERG,Elements of Structural Dynamics
BIGGS,Introduction to Structural Engineering
CHAJES,Structural Analysis, 21E
COLLINSAND MITCHELL,Prestressed Concrete Structures
COOPERAND CHEN,Designing Steel Structures
CORDING, ET AL., The Art and Science of Geotechnical Engineering
GALLAGHER, Finite Element Analysis
HENDRICKSON AND Au, Project Management for Construction
HIGDON,ET AL., Engineering Mechanics, 2nd Vector Edition
HOLTZAND KOVACS, Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering
HUMAR,Dynamics of Structures
JOHNSTON, LIN AND GALAMBOS, Basic Steel Design, 31E
KELKAR AND SEWELL, Fundamentals of Analysis and Design of Shell Structures
MACGREGOR, Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, 2/E
MEHTA,Concrete: Structure, Properties and Materials
MELOSH,Structural Engineering Analysis by Finite Elements
MEREDITH, ET AL.,Design and Planning of Engineering Systems, 2/E
MINDESSA N D YOUNG,Concrete
NAWY,Prestressed Concrete
NAWY,Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach, 2lE
POPOV,Engineering Mechanics of Solids
POPOV,Introduction to Mechanics of Solids
POPOV,Mechanics of Materials, 21E
SCHNEIDER AND DICKEY, Reinforced Masonry Design, 21E
WANGAND SALMON, Introductory Structural Analysis
WEAVER AND JOHNSON, Finite Elements for Structural Analysis
WEAVER AND JOHNSON, Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements
WOLF,Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis in Time Domain
WRAY,Measuring Engineering Properties of Soils
YANG , Finite Element Structural Analysis
Contents

PREFACE xii

CHAPTER 1. lNTRODUCTlONlDEFlNlTlONS 1

Definition of Solid Waste Management 2

Definition of Solid WastelRefuse, 2
Definition of Management, 2
Constraints Applied to Management, 3
Solid Waste Sources 4
DomesticlResidential Solid Waste, 4
Commercial and Institutional Solid Waste, 4
Municipal Solid Waste, 5
Industrial Solid Waste, 6
Agricultural Residues, 6
Functional Elements of a Solid Waste Management System 7
Solid Waste Management Agencies 8
Study Questions 11

CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 12

Public Health Aspects of Solid Waste Management 13

Disease Sources and Pathways, 13

V
vi Contents

Role of Solid Waste in Disease Prevention, 14

Physical and Chemical Hazards of Solid Waste, 15
Control of Fly Production 16
Control of the Population of Other Vermin 17
Air Pollution from Solid Waste Management 17
Historical Perspective, I7
Current Air Pollution Concerns, 19
Water Pollution from Solid Waste Management 21
Historical Perspective, 21
Leachate Production, 22
Surface Water Pollution, 24
Groundwater Pollution, 25
Study Questions 26

CHAPTER 3. LEGAL ISSUES AND AUTHORITY 28

Power of the Law 28

Historical Perspective 29
Statute Law 31
Federal Legislation for the Control of Solid Waste 37
The Clean Air Act Amendments and Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965, 37
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, 39
1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40
State Recycling Legislation 44
Miscellaneous Legislation 45
Study Questions 45

CHAPTER 4. SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF

URBAN SOLID WASTES 47

Historical Perspective 47
Current Composition of Urban Solid Waste 48
Factors Causing Change in Solid Waste Composition 50
Technological Changes, 51
Legislation: Air Pollution Control Laws, 54
Quantities of Urban Solid Waste Generated 55
Contents vii

Variations in the Quantity and Characteristics of Solid Waste 57

Seasonal Variations, 57
Regional Variations, 58
Variations among Individual Households, 59
Physical Characteristics of Solid Waste 60
Densiry, 61
Moisture Content, 64
Chemical Characteristics of Solid Waste 65
General Classes of Chemical Compounds, 65
Ultimate Analysis, 67
Proximate Analysis, 69
High Heating-Low Heating Value, 69
Study Questions 71

CHAPTER 5. RECYCLING 72

Uses for Recycled Materials 72

Replace Virgin Material, 72
Raw Material for New ProductlUse, 73
Extent of Recycling 74
Paper and Paper Products Recycling, 74
Aluminum Recycling, 76
Glass Recycling, 78
Ferrous Metal (Can) Recycling, 78
Plastic Recycling, 79
Economics of Recycling 80
Avoided Cost, 80
Value of Recycled Material, 81
State Government Subsidy, 82
Recycling Costs, 82
Study Questions 84

CHAPTER 6. STORAGE, COLLECTION, AND TRANSPORT 85

On-Site Storage 85
Single-Family Residential Sources, 85
Multifamily ResidentiaNCommerciaIllnstitutional Sources, 87
Techniques for Solid Waste Collection 88
Collection Procedures for Single-Family Residences, 88
Methods-Time-Measurements (MTM) Techniques, 89
Collection Procedures for Large Producers, 94
viii Contents

Determination of Collection TimeKosts 95

Pickup Time, 95
Haul Time, 96
On-Site Time, 96
Off-Route Time, 97
Collection and Disposal Time, 98
Cost Considerations Associated with Collection Systems, 99
Collection Vehicle Routing 102
Definition of a Unicursal NetworklEuler Tour, 103
Construction of a Unicursal Network, 105
Minimizing Street Retracing, 107
Construction of an Euler Tour, 107
Long Distance TransporVTransfer Station 108
Cost-Effectiveness of Transfer Stations, 108
Transfer Systems and Equipment Utilized in the Industry, 110
Facilities Location and Waste Allocation 112
Study Questions 114

CHAPTER 7. ENGINEERING ECONOMICS 116

Methods to Finance Solid Waste Management Systems 116

General Obligation Bonds: Municipal Corporations Only, 116
Revenue Bonds: Public and Private Financing, 117
Innovative Financing Methods, 118
Cost Components 118
Capital Costs, 118
Cost Indexing, 121
Operating and Maintenance Costs, 122
Administrative Costs, 123
Taxes, 123
Economic Comparisons: Publicly Owned Systems 124
Annual Costs, 124
Present Worth, 124
Economic Evaluation for Private Financing 125
Study Questions 129

CHAPTER 8. PROCESSING OF SOLID WASTES 130

Receiving Area 130

Weigh Station, 130
Contents ix

Receiving ArealTip Floor, 131

Temporary Storage, 132
Refuse Conveying 136
Conveyor Types, 136
Sizing of Conveyors, 139
Particle Size Reduction 140
Particle Size Distribution of Raw Refuse, 140
Solid Waste Shredding, 142
Particle Size Distribution: Shredded Refuse, 147
Energy Required versus Particle Size, 148
Maintenance Cost: Hammer Wear, 148
Explosion HazardlControl, 149
Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 15I
Magnetic Separation of Ferrous Metals, I51
Aluminum Separation, 153
Air Classification, 154
Screening, 158
Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems 163
Ames, Iowa, 163
National Resources Technology, 164
RefCoM Separation System, 166
Study Questions 168

CHAPTER 9. COMBUSTION PRINCIPLES A N D

MASS-BURN DESIGN 170

Principles of Combustion 170

Definition of Combustion, 170
Conditions Necessary for Combustion, I70
Combustion Zones in a Solid Fuel, 171
Combustion Temperature, I72
Berthelot’s Second Law of Combustion, 173
HHV (AH,) Determined by the Oxidation State of Carbon, 174
Volumetric and Gravimetric Analysis, 174
Complete Combustion 1s Necessary, 176
Theoretical Combustion Air, 176
Mass Balance for Combustion of a Fuel Gas 177
Combustion Air Requirements, 178
Combustion Products, 178
Composition of the Dry Products of Combustion, 179
Calculation of the Weight of Total Products of Combustion, 179
Weight of Combustion Air per Pound of Fuel, 180
X Contents

Mass Balance for the Combustion of a Solid Fuel 181

Energy Balance on Combustion Processes 183
Theoretical Considerations, 183
Energy Balance Computations, 185
Estimating Heat Loss from Average Combustion Product C,, 188
Design Considerations for Multiple-Chamber Incinerators 189
Components of a Multichamber Incinerator, 189
Geometry of the Combustion Chambers, 189
Combustion Air Distributions, 193
Current Design Guidelines and Objectives, 194
Air Pollution Control Requirements for
Mass-Burn Incineration 195
State Permit Requirements, 195
Air Pollution Control Systems, 196
Operational Strategies for Emission Reductions, 199
Ash Disposal 201
Products and Capital Costs of Incineration
(Mass-Burn) System 202
Study Questions 204

CHAPTER 10. BIOCONVERSION OF URBAN REFUSE:

FUEL GAS PRODUCTION 206

Solid Waste as a Substrate for Bioprocesses 206

Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 208
Initial Pilot Plant Evaluation, 208
Revised Facility Design, 208
Methane Fermentation System, 209
Final System Configuration and Performance, 213
Economic Evaluation, 217
Study Questions 221

CHAPTER 11. SANITARY LANDFILL DESIGN A N D

OPERATION 222

Site Considerations 222

General Requirements, 222
Soil Properties, 224
Hydrogeologic Properties of the Site, 226
Landfill Techniques 229
Trenching Method for Constructing Sanitary Landfills, 230
Contents xi

Area Method for Constructing a Sanitary Landfill, 231

Cover Material Requirement, 233
Landfill Cover Design, 235
Landfill Liner Design, 240
Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 243
Hydrological Cycle for a Sanitary Landfill, 244
Moisture Routing, 250
HELP 253
Study Questions 256

CHAPTER 12. CONTROL OF LEACHATE AND GAS FROM

SANITARY LANDFILLS 258

Leachate Control 258

Leachate Collection System, 258
Leachate Properties, 259
Leachate Treatment Systems, 265
Expected Life for Biological Activity in a Landfill, 272
Discharge of Leachate to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works, 273
Fate of the Leachate Contaminants in the Subsoils 275
Effects of Soil Porosity and Hydraulic Gradient on TOT, 275
In-Situ Biological Activity, 276
Cation-Exchange Capacity, 277
Adsorption Properties of Soils, 278
Landfill Gas ControVRecovery 279
Gas Migration in Soil, 280
Gas Production Potential, 282
Gas RecoverylMigration Control, 284
Gas Utilization, 287
Final Land Use Considerations 291
Subtitle D Regulations 292
Subpart B: Siting Limitations, 293
Subpart C: Design and Operational Changes, 294
Subpart C: Closure and Postclosure, 295
Subpart D: Risk Assessment, 296
Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring, 299
Study Questions 300

INDEX 302
Preface

The management of the vast quantities of solid waste generated by urban commu-
nities is a very complex process. A variety of social, political, economic, and tech-
nical factors dictate the final solution for a specific community or region. This text
focuses on the technology for managing urban solid waste. It encompasses the en-
tire spectrum: the quantities of solid waste generated by residential, commercial,
institutional, and municipal sources; trends in the quantity and characteristics of
solid waste; techniques for storage, collection, and transport; processing technology
for material and energy recovery; and the ultimate disposal of the residual materi-
als. The text does not concentrate on or emphasize the social and political issues
that have driven the field for the past two decades. It does address these issues to
the extent that they have influenced the development and application of technology,
both from a historical perspective and likely future impacts. This text is an intro-
duction to the technology and engineering design of the systems employed in man-
aging the urban solid waste of the United States. The current social, political, and
regulatory constraints that control the application of the technology are also dis-
cussed. It assumes that students have a technical background and have had an in-
troductory course in environmental engineering or technology that has familiarized
them with air, water, and land pollution issues.

xii
Introduction/ Definitions

One of the most pressing problems facing municipalities is the efficient and long-
term disposal of urban solid waste. The disposal of solid wastes, once taken for
granted, has become an issue of immense proportions. More and more these prob-
lems are in the news, with the political concerns overshadowing the technical and
economic issues. Construction and operation of landfills, material recovery sys-
tems, and incineration systems have become costly. Because these systems are un-
popular with the general public as a method for solid waste disposal, obtaining sites
for new facilities has become very difficult. This resistance to the development of
new facilities has imposed a capacity limitation on the existing facilities and caused
a significant increase in the cost of refuse disposal in recent years.
It is important to note, however, that landfills will continue to be employed for
the foreseeable future for the disposal of the majority of the urban solid wastes
generated in this country. In 1970, material and energy recovery accounted for
7.1% of the 118.3 million tons of urban wastes generated, leaving 109.9 million
tons to be landfilled. In 1984, the corresponding numbers were 14.6%recovered of
the 148.1 million tons generated, leaving 126.5 million tons to be landfilled. It is
expected that in the year 2000, 30.3% of the 182.2 million tons generated will be
recovered in some form, leaving 126.8 million tons for landfills.' If these predic-
tions are borne out employing current options for material and energy recovery, it is
apparent that there is a large market for competitive technologies. It is also appar-
ent that even with extensive employment of energy and materials recovery, landfills

'Waste Age, Nov. 1986, p. 27.

1
 2 lntroduction/Definitions Chap. 1

will still be necessary to dispose of a final, unusable residue, albeit in much

smaller amounts.
To fully understand the problem faced by the state and local governments and
private enterprise, it is necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the problem:
What is solid waste? Why do we produce so much of it? Why is it so costly to
manage? What are the effects on the environment? Why are residents so opposed to
the current methods of refuse disposal? What are the regulatory agencies doing to
control solid waste management? What are the opportunities for recycling practices
to reduce the amount of solid waste generated? What are the technologies available
for the management of solid waste? In the following chapters, these questions are
discussed. Although it is extremely difficult to provide complete answers, it is in-
tended that the reader obtain sufficient information to have a sounder base for de-
cision making.

DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Definition of Solid WastelRefuse

Solid waste is any solid material in the material flow pattern that is rejected by
society. What is a solid material? It is a material having a significant angle of
repose. The angle of repose is a characteristic of the fluidity of a substance. A
material that does not exhibit an angle of repose will assume a flat horizontal sur-
face if allowed to stand unconstrained. The angle that the surface of the pile makes
to the horizontal is the angle of repose. A significant angle of repose is subjective
but can generally be viewed as that angle that will permit the material to be han-
dled by solid handling equipment such as conveyors, front-end loaders, and shovels.
If it has sufficient fluid properties that prevent forming a pile without containment
walls, it generally is considered to be a liquid waste, not a solid waste. This is an
important distinction since it is difficult to draw a clear line between what is solid
and what is liquid when working at the interface between the two.

Definition of Management

Management can be defined as the judicious use of a means to achieve an end. “An
end” is the removal of the rejected material from the material flow pattern. It is no
longer of use to the population and it has no intrinsic value to the society. It is
therefore discarded, and if not disposed of properly, will be a source of potential
problems to the population that discarded it. In early societies, the material was
discarded where used, and since many of the societies were nomadic, they moved
Chap. 1 Definition of Solid Waste Management 3

away from their wastes. It is now no longer possible to move, so these materials
must be removed from contact with the population.

Constraints Applied t o Management

Protection of public health. The public health problems associated with the
improper disposal of solid waste, especially food waste, have long been the driving
motivation for the removal of these materials from human environs. The attraction
of rats and other vermin made solid waste a source of significant health problems,
especially with regard to diseases associated with rats and flies.

Minimum cost. It was generally accepted that the “cost” of solid waste
management was the number of dollars required to eliminate the rejected material
from contact with human populations. If this could be accomplished by dumping it
in a used gravel pit, hauling it to sea, volatilizing it into the atmosphere, or what-
ever, that was the minimum cost. As the environmental impact of improper disposal
of solid waste became known, it was necessary to impose more stringent constraints
on disposal techniques. Also, it is no longer sufficient to consider only the current
costs of the design, construction, and operation of a facility. Future economic lia-
bilities, if not for the disposal site operator, then for society in general, are recog-
nized and are now becoming a part of the cost evaluation.

Environmental acceptability. Initially the objective of solid waste disposal

was to render the waste innocuous either by hauling it to remote locations where
human contact was unlikely, or attempting to burn the combustible fraction. The
resulting environmental insults were tolerated. The quantity of waste was limited
both by the per capita production as well as by the total population. Also, the
environmental insults from other societal activities were significantly greater than
from solid waste disposal. As the concern for improving the quality of the environ-
ment began to be expressed in the 1960s and 1970s, it was clear that solid waste
disposal practices were contributing to the deterioration of environmental quality.
Since then there has been a steady increase in the control exercised over solid waste
disposal.

Resource recovery and conservation. The concept of resource recovery

and conservation has had a significant impact in defining what is and is not rejected
by society. The oil embargo of the 1970s and the ensuing concerns for energy con-
servation resulted in the identification of materials having a high production energy
requirement. (Perhaps the increase in the cost of energy was a stronger driving
force than conservation.) These materials were the targets for recycling, and as more
was learned about recycling, a variety of other materials has been added to the list.
 4 Introduction/Definitions Chap. 1

This is discussed in detail later, but it is important to recognize that recycling has
changed the definition of what is rejected by society.

SOLID WASTE SOURCES

DomestidResidential Solid Waste

This category of waste includes the rejected solid material that originates from
single- and multifamily household units.

Garbage. This type of residue results from food marketing, preparation,

and consumption in relationship to residential units. It contains putrescible organic
material that needs special consideration due to its nature of attracting vermin (rats -

and flies) and of producing very strong odors.

Rubbish/trash. This category consists of paper and paper products, plastics,

cans, bottles, glass, metals, ceramics, dirt, dust, yard and garden wastes, and the
like. Except for the yard and garden wastes, these materials are nonputrescible.

Ashes. This type of waste is the residue from any combustion process (Le.,
fireplaces, wood or coal heating units, etc.) resulting from household activities.

Bulky wastes. This category includes furniture, appliances, mattresses and

springs, and similar large items. Because of the size and weight of these items, it is
usually not possible to collect them using normal collection equipment. They re-
quire special handling and collection.

Commercial and Institutional Solid Waste

The refuse that originates from offices, banks, retail stores, restaurants, schools,
hospitals, and so on, is included in this category. It is subdivided similar to resi-
dential refuse. Garbage will originate primarily from restaurants and fast-food es-
tablishments. Rubbish may be generated in large quantities at certain commercial
establishments because of the large amount of packaging materials. There is gener-
ally not much production of ashes, as incineration on a small scale in not practiced
any more. The ash production used to be substantial since on-site incineration was
a common means for reducing the volume of material for disposal.
There are two additional categories that are associated with the commercial
and institutional wastes.

Construction and demolition waste. This class of refuse includes the lum-
ber, bricks, concrete, plumbing, electrical wiring, and so on, associated with the
destruction of old buildings and the construction of new buildings. The quantity of
Chap. 1 Solid Waste Sources 5

this material associated with building demolition and construction can be highly
variable, due to the close correlation of the construction industry activity with the
general economy of an area.

Special wastes. These wastes are the solid and semisolid materials gener-
ated by special facilities such as hospitals and research laboratories. These wastes
may include explosive substances, toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, or patho-
logical materials. Because of the hazardous nature of these materials, they are not
permitted in the general waste stream, but require special collection, handling, and
disposal, depending on the exact nature of the material.

Municipal Solid Waste

This category includes the solid residue that results from the municipal functions
and services. These wastes are of a nature that require special collection, and in
some cases, special processing.

Street refuse. This material results from normal street cleaning operations,
including street sweepings and catch basin cleaning. It is primarily inorganic, con-
taining a considerable percentage of sand, grit, and dirt. The quantity may be in-
fluenced by the season of the year and certain practices (Le., the use of sand or
cinders for ice and snow control). During the fall, leaves may be the primary com-
ponent of this refuse stream, depending on the degree of urbanization and the policy
regarding leaf pickup or burning. (There are still areas in this country that permit
open burning of leaves in the fall. This may soon be banned totally.)

Dead animals. It is the responsibility of the municipality to remove large

dead animals, either wild or domesticated, from the streets. It is a major problem in
communities that are located adjacent to habitats that support a significant popula-
tion of large wild animals, or communities that do not have animal control laws
that keep animals (dogs in particular) from running loose.

Abandoned vehicles. It is common practice in some areas of a community

simply to remove the licence plate from an old automobile and abandon it on the
street. Removal and disposal then become a problem for the city. Title clearance is
a major problem to consider when developing an abandoned automobile disposal
system.

Water and sewage plant residues. In all urban areas, disposal of sludge
resulting from the treatment of water and wastewater must be properly conducted.
In some cases the municipality may own these systems, or they may be owned by a
public utility or sanitary district. In all cases, the disposal problem must be addressed.
6 Introduction/Definitions Chap. 1

Park and beach refuse. This is the typical refuse generated by users of
these facilities: cans, bottles, paper, and plastic. Also, there may be quantities of
landscape waste resulting from maintenance of the vegetation and trees. This can be
a significant problem when storms strike and damage a large number of trees in the
park or beach area.

Landscape waste. In most cities, an arbor department has the responsibility

for maintaining trees and areas in the parkways of streets and other public lands.
This may also be a function of the park district. The removal of debris resulting
from storms (Le., wind or ice) can present a major task to the municipality.

Industrial Solid Waste

There are two general sources of refuse generated at industrial sites, the commer-
cial/institutional component and the process solid waste. It is important to distin-
guish between the two. The quantities and characteristics of these residues are
markedly different.

Commercial/institutional. This type of refuse is associated with the activi-

ties of the support personnel for the plant. The refuse is produced by the office
staff, the cafeteria, and personnel-related activities, as well as quality control lab-
oratories.

Process wastes. This is the residue remaining from manufacturing pro-

cesses. All plants are less than 100% efficient and a percentage of the raw material
as well as the product becomes a waste. In industries where the primary product
accounts for a limited percentage of the input material, secondary products have
been developed to improve the economics by increasing the income stream as well
as reducing the cost of residue disposal. For example, lumber mills have developed
a use for the chips from the planing operation (chipboard) and for the sawdust
(either as a fuel for power production or for use in particleboard). These residues
are unique for each industry and unique for each plant within a given industry.

Agricultural Residues

In rural areas the disposal of solid residues resulting from agricultural activities
poses significant and unique problems. These residues will not be addressed except
to indicate that problems do exist.

Confined animal feeding. It is not uncommon to concentrate 10,000 to

50,000 head of beef cattle in a confined feeding operation. The manure generation
from these animals during their residence on the lots is substantial. Similar prob-
lems are associated with swine feeding operations with 30,000 pigs on site or from
 Chap. 1 Functional Elements of a Solid Waste Management System 7

a million chickens or turkeys. Manure management becomes a major expense for

operators of such facilities.

Crop residues. The residues from many crops, such as corn, wheat, and
soybeans, are left on the fields and reintroduced into the soil. However, the cuttings
or prunings from vineyards and orchards present disposal problems. There is both
the volume of the plant material to consider and the potential for this plant material
to harbor diseases and insects. There are many other examples of disposal problems
associated with agricultural production.

FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

There are a number of different operations associated with a solid waste manage-
ment system. Each operation accomplishes a specific purpose in the chain of ac-
tions required to manage the solid waste satisfactorily. Understanding each of these
steps is necessary in order to develop an efficient management system. Figure 1.1
is a representation of the sequence in which these operations occur. Our presenta-
tion of the material follows this flow diagram.
The operations in the highlighted boxes are mandatory for any management
system; this represents the absolute minimum number of operations required.
Refuse is produced at the source. The quantity and composition of refuse are deter-
mined by the characteristics of the source. Most refuse is produced over a period of
time, requiring on-site storage until such time as it can be collected. The storage
may be conventional trash cans for single-family residences or a large storage bin
for large producers. Frequency of collection will depend on a number of factors, the
most important being the production rate.
Collection will be accomplished with a special vehicle that is mechanically
compatible with the storage systems. Collection in a single-family residential area
will require a side- or rear-loading packer truck into which the cans can be emptied
manually. Areas served with a large container will require a vehicle with mechani-
cal mechanisms to transfer the refuse from the container to the vehicle. After the
refuse has been collected, it must be transported to either a processing system or a
sanitary landfill. For economic reasons, small solid waste management systems
generally use the collection vehicle to haul the refuse to the landfill.
As the system becomes larger or more heavily regulated, additional steps may
be warranted. These steps may involve a more efficient means of transport, includ-
ing such methods as rail or barge haul, or processing for mass and volume reduc-
tion through a resource recovery system. Resource recovery may entail separation
of specific components for recycle. Paper, aluminum, plastic, ferrous metals, and
glass are components that have been identified for reuse. The organic portion of the
refuse can be incinerated to generate steam or electricity. This fraction can also be
processed biologically to produce fuel gas or composted for use as a soil condi-
tioner.
 8 Introduction/Definitions Chap. 1

[ Transfer station I

J
Corn bustion
gases
Refuse
processing
c-
- - Resource
recovery

Figure 1.1 Functional elements of a solid waste management system.

There will always be a certain quantity of rejected material that is noncom-

bustible (ash) or that has no recoverable value. This material will necessarily re-
quire a sanitary landfill for final disposition.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

The collection and disposal of the refuse generated in metropolitan areas, small
towns, and rural areas may be conducted by a unit of local government such as the
village or city, the county, or a special management district; by a private contractor;
or by a combination of public and private agencies. In larger cities it is common for
residential collection to be the responsibility of the city. The larger producers-
apartment complexes and commercial and industrial sources-often contract with
private haulers to collect their refuse. Disposal may be at a municipally operated
Chap. 1 Solid Waste Management Agencies 9

TABLE 1.1 COMPARATIVE REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COSTS

Total Tons Disposal

Average annual cost collected cost
City tonnage ( IO6 $) per worker ($/ton)

Philadelphia 820,000 128.5 323 157

Baltimore 335,000 48.9 332 146
New York 6,620,000 622.0 55 1 94
San Diego 340,000 12.4 147 1 37
Los Angeles I,500,000 33.0 1599 22

Source: Waste Age, Nov. 1986, p. 6.

site or at a privately owned site. It is difficult to generalize, however, since there

are a large variety of combinations of public and private refuse collection and dis-
posal operations.
Management of solid waste is a big business in the United States and in other
industrialized countries. Municipal systems consume a significant portion of the
municipal budget. There is a great difference in the efficiency (cost) of solid waste
management in different communities. Table 1.1 illustrates this difference by com-
paring the 1986 cost of operation for several large cities. The table indicates several
differences in the refuse management practices of these cities. First, not all of the
refuse is collected by municipal workers. For example, New York has about 2.3
times the population in their service area than that of Los Angeles, but collects 4.4
times the tonnage of refuse. The role of private collectors is not reflected in the
cost of the municipal systems. The number of workers associated with the manage-
ment system has a major impact on the cost. Clearly, the operational efficiency in
San Diego and Los Angeles is much higher, as reflected by the tons collected per
worker.
An additional factor that determines the cost is the disposal method. In the
cities that have adequate sanitary landfill capacity, the disposal cost is not as great
as for those cities that incinerate all or part of the refuse. The data in Table 1.2 give
the percentage of the refuse landfilled or incinerated prior to landfill of the ash. The
high percentage of the refuse from Philadelphia and Baltimore that is incinerated
increases the cost significantly. A typical landfill tipping fee (the charge for unload-
ing the refuse at a specific site) will be in the range of $15 to $20 per ton, while the
tipping fee at an incineration facility will be between $75 and $100 per ton. In the
next decade there will probably be a significant increase in tipping fees associated
with all disposal facilities.
The contribution to solid waste management made by private companies is
difficult to quantify, in part because this segment of the industry is comprised of a
large number of companies, ranging from a single truck owner to multibillion-dollar
corporations. The record keeping and accessibility of the records for the small com-
panies presents a significant problem in generating statistics on the contribution of
private enterprise to the solid waste management problem. It has been estimated
10 Introduction/Definitions Chap. 1

TABLE 1.2 WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES OF SEVERAL LARGE CITIES

Sanitary landfill Incineration

City Number Percent Number Percent

Philadelphia 2 50 2 50
Baltimore 3 50 1 50
New York 3 91 3 9
San Diego 2 100 0 0
Los Angeles 4 100 0 0

Source: Waste Age, Aug. 1984, p. 23.

that approximately half of the solid waste management business in the United
States is conducted by private companies.
The data in Table 1.3 present some information on the two largest waste man-
agement companies in the United States, Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) and
Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). In 1987, WMI’s gross sales increased to $2.757
billion and BFI’s to $1.656 billion.2 These companies had about 8.2 million resi-
dential accounts, serving a population of approximately 40 million people. This
leaves almost 200 million people served by municipal systems or other private com-
panies.
In 1987, the third largest North American company in this business was Laid-
law Industries, with a gross revenue of $481 million. It was followed by Western
Wastes, with a gross revenue of $98 million. When one considers the volume of
business by these four companies relative to the total population and the rapid rate
at which the size of the companies decrease, it is not surprising to find that there
are a large number of small operators collecting and disposing of solid waste. In the
late 1960s, WMI was a small local company that initiated an acquisition program
that has been responsible for much of the company growth since it was formed.

TABLE 1.3 1985 STATISTICS FOR THE TWO LARGEST WASTE

MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
Parameter WMI BFI
Number of employees 19,800 17,300
Number of vehicles 8,600 5,400
Residential accounts 4,900,000 3,300,000
Commercial and industrial 350,000 425,000
Number of landfills 97 80
Number of transfer stations 20 25
Number of incinerators 0 0
1985 Gross sales $1.625 X IO9 $1.445 x 1009

Source: Waste Age, May 1986.

’Waste Age, June 1988.

Chap. 1 Study Questions 11

WMI’s revenues for 1989 were $4,458,904,000. This has been a real growth indus-
try for a few companies. This trend continues as the smaller companies are acquired
by the few large firms.
The presence of a multitude of private and public entities in the solid waste
management business presents an interesting challenge. Private companies are
profit oriented, whereas public agencies are politically oriented. One generally ob-
serves that the private operations are more economical when all appropriate costs
are counted. However, many public agencies that are tax supported may have hid-
den costs. Equipment may serve two purposes; for example, garbage trucks can be
fitted with a snow plow and used for snow removal in communities that have lim-
ited snow fall. It is very difficult to determine the true cost of public solid waste
management agencies. As revenue bonds are used to fund more of the solid waste
management facilities operated by public agencies, it will be possible to develop
better cost data for comparing private versus public solid waste management agen-
cies. These bonds are retired from income from the facility. Consequently, better
cost accounting practices are necessary.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Define the following terms: (a) solid waste management; (b) commercial
refuse; (c) garbage; (d) institutional refuse; (e) rubbish; (f) refusekolid waste;
(8) municipal solid waste; (h) domestich-esidential refuse.
2. What constraints are imposed on the management of solid waste?
3. What role do sanitary landfills play in solid waste disposal today, and what is
their likely future role?
4. What are the functional elements of a solid waste management system?
5 . What is the role of the municipal government in solid waste management?
6. What is the role of private industry in solid waste management?
7. Do small, privately owned collection and disposal companies play a signifi-
cant role in the collection and disposal of solid waste?
EnvironmentaI Effects

Historically, public health was the motivation for removing solid waste from the
human habitat. The waste material frequently contained items that were potentially
dangerous, such as broken glass and ceramics. The food residues and human waste
were attractions for rats, flies, mosquitoes, and other vermin. These vermin were
vectors for the transfer of human and animal diseases to the human population. This
issue was responsible for the efforts of municipalities during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century in the control of solid wastes. This responsibility was dele-
gated to the “Department of Sanitation” or “Department of Streets and Sanita-
tion.” Even today, solid waste collection and disposal in the larger cities is
frequently the responsibility of such municipal departments.
The primary objective was the removal of the refuse from contact with the
human population. In most cases this only required hauling these solid residues to a
“dump” located on the edge of the city. Garbage was commonly collected from
large generators and fed to swine. Garbage was also hauled to the dump. As the
material accumulated at the disposal site, fires set deliberately or accidentally
would burn a large portion of the combustible material and create new space for
more refuse. It was possible to extend the life of these sites for decades by this
technique, and such was the case until as recently as the early 1970s.
After World War 11, the larger cities were faced with ever-increasing quanti-
ties of rejected material. The cost of hauling these large tonnages to remote areas
increased substantially. To control costs it was necessary to reduce the tonnage for
disposal. In most cities, single-family homes that had space in their yards employed
a “burn barrel” to eliminate the combustible fraction. In the more congested resi-
dential areas and central business districts, this was not possible. Large generators

12
 Chap. 2 Public Health Aspects of Solid Waste Management 13

of refuse, such as department stores and large apartment complexes, employed on-
site incineration to eliminate the material that would burn. In areas where neither
the burn barrel nor on-site incineration was possible, the refuse was collected and
hauled to a central location for burning. The central incineration system was insti-
tuted to burn the combustible fraction of this refuse. In some cities, separation
of combustible from noncombustible refuse was required. Separate collection of
these streams resulted in a better fuel for incineration. As collection costs increased
in more recent times, separate collection was discontinued and the entire refuse
stream was incinerated.
The foregoing scenario was common throughout the United States during this
period in history. The refuse was removed from human contact, but it was only a
matter of time before these “disposal” techniques created major environmental
problems in metropolitan areas. In this chapter we discuss the problems associated
with the improper management of solid waste, from the public health aspects to the
pollution of the air and water resources.

PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

The public health problems associated with solid waste fall into two categories:
diseases carried by vermin, and the physical and chemical hazards resulting from
certain components in solid waste. Discarded solid waste provides the food and
harborage for rats, flies, and mosquitoes. Food wastes attract these insects and ro-
dents. The debris associated with the refuse provides shelter as well as breeding
environments, especially for insects. Therefore, the population of vermin can be
expected to increase if the refuse is not managed. Broken glass, rusty metals,
household pesticides, solvents, and so on, are the sources of chemical and physical
hazards associated with solid waste.

Disease Sources and Pathways

The diseases that can be attributed to the vermin associated with solid waste are
varied, depending on the contaminated material that may be present in the refuse
and the endemic disease reservoir of the human and animal population of the area.
Refuse can contain human and animal fecal material. Any disease present in the
population producing this waste can be transmitted by flies. Diseased animal re-
mains may be present. Flies contacting this material can transmit certain diseases to
other populations. Mosquitoes that breed in the water retained by the refuse can be
the carrier of a number of diseases that may be endemic in the human or animal
population. Finally, there is the disease reservoir in the rat population, which can
be transmitted to human beings in contact with this population.
Diseases associated with the direct carrier pathway (i.e., carried by flies and
mosquitoes) include typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, gastroenteritis, dysentery,
14 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

cholera, yellow fever, hepatitis, encephalitis, and malaria. Two conditions are nec-
essary for these diseases to be a public health problem: (1) they must be endemic in
either the human or the animal population of an area, and (2) there must be a
carrier to transmit the etiological agent from the original host to the receptor. Con-
sequently, control of the conditions that foster the growth of flies and mosquitoes
is a critical component in the control of many public health diseases. Because of
the progress in control of the insect populations and the reduction in the number
of persons infected, many of these diseases are no longer a problem in the indus-
trialized world. Gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, and encephalitis are currently
the primary public health problems in the United States associated with flies and
mosquitoes.
Rats also contribute to transmission of diseases. They are a reservoir for
plague and typhus fever. The etiological agent is present in the rodent population
and is transmitted to human beings by lice and fleas that live on the rats. So if rats
inhabit the same environs as people, the probability for transmitting these diseases
increases. Rat bite fever is also transmitted by rats. A rat bite may become infected
by microorganisms carried in the rat’s mouth, causing a fever to develop that can
be fatal if not treated promptly and properly.

Role of Solid Waste in Disease Prevention

In addition to being a potential source of pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms,

solid waste has two other roles in the increased incidence of common public
health diseases. The garbage (food waste) is a source of food for vermin. Flies find
moist garbage an ideal environment for reproduction and, as discussed later, the fly
population correlates closely with the way in which garbage is managed. In a sim-
ilar manner, the organic matter in garbage is also a food source for the mosquito
larvae. Of course, rats are scavengers and are attracted by exposed garbage. The
populations of both mosquitoes and rats are increased by the presence of food
wastes, but careful management of garbage will not eliminate these vermin.
Discarded rubbish may retain rainwater that provides a breeding place for
mosquitoes. One area that continues to receive attention is the growth of mosqui-
toes in discarded tires. It has been common practice to collect used tires at a central
location so that when a sufficient quantity is obtained, some use may be found for
them. Unfortunately, uses have been slow in developing and the number of tires in
a single location may be in the many millions. It is impossible to place tires so that
water does not collect in them. This is a perfect breeding place for mosquitoes. Of
particular public health concern is the Culex mosquito, which transmits encepha-
litis. If rubbish is allowed to accumulate, it is a potential breeding habitat for
mosquitoes.
Rats are generally found in all rural and urban areas. They are very secretive
animals that have learned to live in close proximity with human beings. They are
commonly found in sewers and similar protected environments. Consequently, the
Chap. 2 Public Health Aspects of Solid Waste Management 15

presence of a food source (discarded garbage) will attract them. If the food supply
is adequate and there is adequate habitat, the rat population will increase signifi-
cantly. Of course, discarded rubbish that accumulates also provides an ideal harbor-
age for these animals. A concurrent increase in diseases carried by the rat can be
expected.

Physical and Chemical Hazards of Solid Waste

A problem frequently overlooked is that of the physical and chemical hazards that
can result from certain components in the refuse stream. The general public faces
the following hazards:

1 . Explosive hazard of solvents, gasoline, and so on

2. Toxic chemicals used as pesticides, cleaning solutions, solvents, and so on
3. Direct contact: infected cuts and abrasions resulting from contact with broken
glass, metals, and other sharp objects that are heavily contaminated with
bacteria

It is common practice to dispose of “empty” gasoline, paint, and solvent

containers by putting them in the refuse container. Sufficient vapors may remain
in these containers to create an explosive mix. With a spark or match, an explosion
is possible. Because of the quantity of vapors, the explosion will not be large but
may be sufficient to cause injury to a person close to the container. More esoteric
sources of explosive materials may be a military souvenir brought home from a war.
Since the item has been sitting on a shelf for several decades, it is now time to
discard it. What was thought to be a disarmed shell or grenade has more than once
been found to be live.
Toxic household chemicals are used in substantial quantity in the modern
household. Every chemical, including toxic metal compounds of arsenic or lead,
insecticides, herbicides, cleaning ammonia, caustic solvents (sodium hydroxide or
lime) and organic solvents, may be found in households. The quantities of these
materials are small, but they may be very toxic if ingested or absorbed through the
skin. Containers that retain quantities of unused chemical may be placed in the
trash can for disposal. Contact with such chemicals can be dangerous to people,
especially if they do not know what is in the container.
Finally, the injury that can result from cuts and abrasions from the broken
glass and ceramics, sharp metal edges, and pointed objects can be severe. Cuts
easily become infected because the objects will probably be heavily contaminated
with bacteria. Blood poisoning and tetanus are common problems associated with
these injuries.
Workers in the refuse collection industry are more susceptible than the gen-
eral public to the foregoing physical and chemical hazards. Continued exposure to
the refuse on a daily basis leads to frequent injuries. Additional injuries result from
 16 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

equipment-related incidents where the mechanical mechanisms may injure the care-
less worker. The collection vehicles are cumbersome and visibility is limited, so it
is not infrequent for a worker to be run over by a collection truck. Muscle strains
and back injuries are frequent. The physical effort required to lift, carry, and load
the contents of 500 or more trash cans in a day is substantial. Most communities
limit the weight of the can contents, but this limit is not always followed. Attempt-
ing to lift an overweight can is a frequent cause of back injury.
A survey conducted by the National Safety Council in 1974' found that the
injury rate in the refuse collection industry is the highest in the work force. The
survey found 60.77 disabling injuries and 2012 days lost per million person-hours
worked. The days lost were almost four times the national average for all industries.
Improvements in the design of equipment and more safety training has reduced this
injury rate, but it is still among the highest in the work force. The job specifica-
tions in many communities require the applicant to pass a rather strenuous physical
test. This requirement is necessary to reduce muscle strain-related injuries.

CONTROL OF FLY PRODUCTION

Understanding the life cycle of the fly is necessary to develop solid waste manage-
ment techniques that can control the population. Flies have four stages in their life
cycle:
adult+egg+larva+pupa+adult
The adult fly will deposit the eggs in a moist environment that has an acceptable
food for the larvae that develop when the eggs hatch. Garbage is an excellent en-
vironment. When the eggs hatch, the larvae feed on the organic material until they
reach a certain maturity. The larvae are then transformed into pupae, which is an
inactive state. Before pupating, the larvae migrate from the moist garbage to a dry
loose material such as sand or soil. The pupae that are formed then mature until the
adult flies emerges. This migration is important since the larvae will no longer be
in the refuse. To break the life cycle of the fly, the refuse should be removed before
this migration occurs.
Field studies were conducted during the 1950s in California to evaluate the
role of solid waste management in control of fly population. One program was
established to determine the effect of collection frequency on the fly population.2
The evaluation simply used a larvae trap to collect the larvae that migrated from
the refuse cans after different periods of time. The significant data show that only
7.8% of the larvae migrated from the can in a 4-day period. However, in a 7-day
period, 93.1% of the larvae had left the can. Consequently, during the warm

'Solid Waste Management, Jan. 1975, p. 10.

'Campbell and Black, California Vector Views, Vol. 7, Feb. 1960; Ecke and Linsdale, California Vec-
tor Views, Vol. 14, 1967.
 Chap. 2 Air Pollution from Solid Waste Management 17

months it will be necessary to collect the refuse twice weekly if fly control is an
objective.
The condition of the refuse storage container has been found to be a signifi-
cant factor in the fly population. Only 26% of new containers that were in good
condition and restricted access of the adult fly to the refuse were found to generate
flies. Larvae production was 92 per can per week. However, 46% of the containers
that were in poor condition and made it easy for the adult flies to deposit eggs in
the refuse produced larvae at a rate of 877 per can per week. Can condition was
responsible for about a 20-fold increase in the fly p~pulation.~ Additional factors
that restricted access of the adult fly to the garbage as well as the quality of the
garbage were effective in reducing the population. These included wrapped and
well-drained garbage, the type and quality of food scraps, exposure time of garbage
to adult flies, can cleanliness, and spillage of garbage around the container.
The number of flies generated from refuse is also a function of other condi-
tions. Temperature is a major factor in the reproduction rate of all insects. Conse-
quently, the warm months are when fly problems will be experienced. If not
properly managed, household refuse has the potential of producing about 70,000
adult flies per cubic foot. It is clear that general cleanliness and good housekeeping
at the on-site storage location along with frequent collection of the refuse can be
expected to minimize the population of flies generated by solid wastes.

"UNTROL OF THE POPULATION OF OTHER VERMIN

The rat population is controlled by keeping the refuse in containers so that the rat
cannot get to it. The use of metal and plastic containers prevents the rat from ac-
cessing the garbage. Consequently, there is no attraction. Also, the collection fre-
quency and the general cleanliness of the on-site storage area are important in
keeping the rat from being attracted. If garbage is allowed to accumulate, even if it
is in good containers, the rat will find a way to get to it.
Mosquito control simply depends on the elimination of the breeding places. If
the refuse is not allowed to accumulate, there will be no accumulated water. This
will eliminate the mosquito population associated with solid waste.

AIR POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Historical Perspective

Improper disposal of solid waste has a history of polluting the atmosphere. Early
dumps were located away from human habitats because of the air pollution prob-
lems ranging from odors of decaying garbage to smoke and fumes caused by the

'Black and Magy, California Vector Views, Vol. 9, Nov. 1962.

18 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

TABLE 2.1 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE

DISPOSAL IN THE ST LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA, 1963

Emissions (tondyr)

Source Aldehydes HC so2 Particles B(a)P”

Refuse incineration (285,600 tons per year-2 1% of total refuse collected)

Total 150 396 226 1,486 14
Municipal 39 33 20 I 1,001 3
Residential 25 19 25 80
Industrial 52 208 262 6
Other 34 I36 140 5
Open burning of refuse (602,000 tons per year-40% of total refuse collected)
Total I , I40 84,300 297 14,147 402
On-site 572 44,500 127 7,473 245
Dumps 528 39,600 170 6,674 157
Refuse total 1,290 84,696 523 15,633 416
All other sources 2,400 289,000 455,000 130,500 1,130

aB(a)P, Benzo[a]pyrene in Ib/yr.

Source: Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC, 1964

frequent fires that occurred at the site. The effect of on-site incineration was re-
duced by having a stack that dispersed the combustion gases above the ground. The
ever-present backyard burn barrel was a serious nuisance and, in some cases, an
acute health threat to asthmatics. The environmental revolution that was gestating
in the 1960s began the attempt to determine the role of various societal activities in
environmental degradation.
It was obvious that the uncontrolled burning of refuse was creating air pollu-
tion, but the contribution to the total air pollution problem was not documented
until studies such as the one shown in Table 2.1 were completed. Sixty-one percent
(887,600 tons) of the refuse produced in 1963 in the St. Louis area was subjected to
some type of combustion. The incinerated refuse produced a measurable quantity of
air pollution, but it was insignificant compared to the quantity generated by open
burning. The true impact of uncontrolled combustion of refuse is apparent com-
pared to the total air pollutants from all other sources in the area.
Aldehydes represent a class of compounds that may be associated with incom-
plete combustion of any fuel. Open burning of refuse contributes an amount equal
to half that from all other sources. Hydrocarbons (HC) are another indicator of poor
combustion as well as a measure of volatile organic compounds such as gasoline
and organic solvents. Open burning of refuse contributed about one-third the
amount produced by all other sources. The production of benzo[a]pyrene, a sus-
pected carcinogen, by open burning was about one-third the amount produced from
other sources.
Chap. 2 Air Pollution from Solid Waste Management 19

Refuse combustion was not a significant contributor to sulfur oxide (SO,)

since the sulfur content of refuse is low. The particulate emission from refuse burn-
ing was also a smaller portion of the total particulate load on the atmosphere. The
ratios are no longer applicable since these data were collected when there was little
or no control of air pollution from any source. As a result of vigorous enforcement
of air pollution control standards, many of the air pollutants have been reduced.
Data of this type clearly identified the open burning dump as a major contributor
to the air pollution problem. As discussed later, legislation soon prohibited this
practice.
In the 1960s it was common practice for the refuse produced at large com-
plexes such as apartments, shopping centers, and commercial buildings to use on-
site incineration. In large cities, multistory apartment units used what was termed a
“flue-fed” incinerator. The incinerator was located in the basement with the flue
rising through the building to the roof. On each floor, refuse disposal doors were
located in the incinerator flue. The refuse was dropped to the incinerator in the
basement. When the pile was large enough, the building maintenance personnel
would ignite and burn the refuse.
An evaluation of the flue-fed incinerators in New York City found that there
were 11,000 units that burned about 600,000 tons per year. The combustion tem-
peratures were very low and most of the organic material would volatilize rather
than be oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. The average temperature in these
incinerators ranged between 460 and 670”F, while the maximum was found to range
between 970 and 1200°F. A temperature of 1200°F is the bare minimum for efficient
combustion. In a modern incinerator, to ensure complete combustion, the tempera-
tures are maintained at 1600°F or greater. Obviously, the combustion conditions in
these units were very poor, resulting in massive air pollution. The mass of particles
emitted to the atmosphere was estimated to be between 0.85 and 1.55% of the
weight of the refuse fed to the incinerator. The quantity of “noxious gases” was
estimated to vary from 0.9 to as much as 30% of the tons of refuse fed. A major
environmental insult has been corrected with tight air pollution control standards
for on-site incineration. The standards have effectively made this process so expen-
sive that it is no longer practiced.

Current Air Pollution Concerns

The ban on open burning of all refuse in urbanized areas has shifted the concern for
air pollution to the central incineration or mass-burn systems. These units are large,
processing up to 3000 tons per day of refuse and, because of their size, can present
a significant burden on the local atmosphere if proper air pollution control is not
exercised. Table 2.2 shows the expected emissions from an uncontrolled incinera-
tion system. The volume of combustion gases associated with these weights would
be about 300,000 standard cubic feet (scf) per ton (dry solids) of refuse.
20 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

TABLE 2.2 MODERN INCINERATION EMISSION FACTORS

Emissions
Pollutant (Ib/ton)

Particulate 260
Sulfur oxides 8
Nitrogen oxides 5
Hydrogen chloride 10
Carbon monoxide 3
Total hydrocarbons 0.6
Lead 0.7
Mercury 0.002
Hydrogen fluoride 0.04

In addition to the metals listed in Table 2.2, a variety of other metal particles
may be in the incinerator stack gases. All of the metals that are present in the refuse
have an opportunity to be discharged as particles. The most important metals in
addition to those listed in Table 2.2 are arsenic, cadmium, and selenium. These metals
are toxic at relatively low exposure levels and their discharge should be controlled.
The technology associated with these systems is capable of producing a high-
quality stack gas. Table 2.3 presents the standards proposed for the European Eco-
nomic Community (EEC) as well as the stack emissions reported from operating
incineration plants that employ the appropriate air pollution control technology (see
Chapter 9). The emission data are within the standards that are proposed for the
EEC, showing that the control technology is adequate for these pollutants.
Table 2.3 introduces a new pollutant, dioxin. There are two general classes of
organic compounds that are of concern in this category: the polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and the polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). They
are commonly called dioxins and furans. Because of their chemical structure there
are a large number of isomers, some are more toxic than others. However, all are of
great concern because of their toxicity, carcinogenicity, and probable mutagenicity.
The structures of the dioxin and furan are presented below. They consist of
two benzene rings with a double (dioxin) or single oxygen (furan) linkage between
the rings. The isomers are formed by the substitution of chlorine atoms at any or all

TABLE 2.3 EEC STANDARDS AND EMISSIONS FROM OPERATING UNITS

Parameter Proposed standard Measured levels

Carbon monoxide 80 PPm 70 PPm

Sulfur oxide 70 PPm 60 PPm
Nitrogen oxide 390 ppm 150 ppm
Hydrogen chloride 62 PPm 25 PPm
Particulate 0.08 gddscP <0.005 gddscf
Total dioxin ? <minimum detectible

*Grains/dry standard cubic foot.

 Chap. 2 Water Pollution from Solid Waste Management 21

Dioxin Furan

of the numbered carbons in the benzene rings. There are five dioxins and seven
furans that are considered as the most toxic. One is the dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD (tet-
rachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin) . This compound is frequently used as a reference for
the determination of the concentration of these compounds in the environment. The
toxicity threshold is very low; the LD,, (dosage at which 50% of the test population
dies in a specified time period) for guinea pigs is less than 10 pg/kg of body
eight.^ Environmental concentrations in the range of ppt (parts per trillion) are of
interest. These levels are very near the limits of the sensitivity of the analytical
techniques.
The presence of compounds such as dioxins cannot be taken lightly because of
the very low toxic threshold. As new analytical techniques are developed, it will be
possible to detect more materials that are extremely toxic. The dilemma for regula-
tion is evaluation of the risk associated with the levels that are measured. When it
was not possible to detect the presence of a toxic material, there was no concern
about the possibility of it being generated in the processing of solid waste. As the
analytical capabilities improve, it will be possible to detect more and more poten-
tially toxic substances. However, it is not possible to determine the long-term expo-
sure effect of these concentrations until many years after they are detected. Risk
evaluation has been and will be a major component in establishing rational stan-
dards for all discharges to the environment.
Standards for the emissions from the solid waste incineration systems are in
an evolutionary stage. It will probably be the year 2000 before the standards solid-
ify. Therefore, it will be necessary to monitor the technical literature and the regu-
latory activity to keep current on emission standards.

WATER POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Historical Perspective

Sanitary landfills are a recent technology that has been applied nationwide only
during the past two decades. Prior land disposal sites were better defined as dumps.
Little attention was given to the manner in which the refuse was placed and soil
cover was used only when convenient. California has been leading the nation in the
development of this technology. Because of the unique air sheds in many of the

4Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983, p. 124a.

22 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

populated areas of southern California, air pollution has been a major problem
since the rapid population growth that started after World War 11. Open burning of
any solid waste in the urban areas was quickly prohibited. Central incineration was
also not permitted, so landfills were the only option.
The population density and the cost of hauling the refuse long distances re-
quired many of these disposal sites to be located close to populated areas. It was
necessary to operate the landfill in such a manner that it did not create problems for
the neighbors. An acceptable technology for this climate developed rapidly and un-
til recently it was the only method considered for the disposal of solid waste in
southern California. Since this region is relatively dry, leachate production was not
a problem except under unusual circumstances.
In the larger urban areas in the rest of the country, the refuse was generally
incinerated. In the smaller communities, the lower population densities made it
possible to find land areas relatively close by that could be used for refuse disposal.
Unfortunately, there was no local pressure that required the design and operation of
an engineered disposal site. State and federal control did not yet exist. Conse-
quently, most of the refuse was simply dumped at an innocuous location. No effort
was made to control the access of water to the sites. In fact, it was not uncommon
to dump the material into an excavation such as a sand or gravel pit that was full of
water. Refuse was considered a good fill material to use to reclaim these excavations.
Also, control of surface water was not practiced. Frequently, drainage from
surrounding land areas was permitted to drain into the excavation for the landfill.
Any precipitation that fell on the site percolated into the refuse. Consequently, sub-
stantial volumes of water entered the fill. As this water percolated through the
refuse, it dissolved large quantities of soluble inorganic and organic pollutants. The
water generally found its way into the groundwater. As long as the refuse contained
only natural materials, the subsurface soils were effective in removing most of the
pollutants by the time the leachate-polluted water reached the point of use. There
was some concern about the presence of heavy metals, but most of the wells that
were contaminated with this leachate had a quality of water that masked the poten-
tial hazard from the leachate contamination.
The introduction of anthropogenic (human-made) chemicals into the material
flow created a new problem. The blatant dumping by industrial sources of large
quantities of these toxic compounds into the landfills created a source of new con-
tamination in the leachate. These compounds, being synthetic, were frequently not
biodegradable. The presence of these substances in groundwater in increasing quan-
tities created new concern for leachate pollution. In many cases, natural processes
were not effective in containing these materials. Therefore, the pollution of ground
and surface water with leachate became a problem of major importance.

Leachate Production

Water pollution can result from the improper design and/or operation of a sanitary
landfill. Control of infiltration that results from precipitation and surface runoff
from the adjacent land areas is an essential component of any satisfactory landfill
Chap. 2 Water Pollution from Solid Waste Management 23

Precipitation

,-Evapotranspiration
,

I Free liquid-leachate

Leachate attenuation by subsoil

________________------- Water Figure 2.1 Mechanism for leachate

level
production.

operation. If this water is allowed to infiltrate into the landfill, it will increase the
water content of the fill until excess moisture exists. The water will slowly move
down through the refuse and absorb the soluble materials present in the solid waste.
Figure 2.1 illustrates how leachate is generated. The quality of the leachate is de-
pendent on a number of factors, and the composition, as illustrated in Table 2.4,
can be highly variable, depending on the source. These data represent the range of
leachate characteristics that have been reported in the literature. The characteristics
of the landfills producing this material are equally variable, with operating ages
ranging from 1 to 16 years.
The volume of the leachate generated will depend on the quantity of water
infiltrated. One acre-foot of infiltration (12 in. of water over 1 acre) equals 325,000
gallons. Without control of surface water, this would be a typical amount of infil-
tration in an area with an annual precipitation of 30 to 40 in. For example, each
foot of water entering the surface of a 100-acre landfill per year will generate
32,500,000 gallons of leachate per year. The effect of this volume of leachate of the
quality indicated in Table 2.4 can have a major impact on either the surface or the
groundwater system.
The biological activity in the landfill significantly changes the chemical envi-
ronment. The biodegradable organic solids are hydrolyzed, and in many cases the
product is an organic acid. The pH can become acidic, less than 5.0. Also, the
oxidation-reduction potential is lowered into the range where many metals are sol-
uble. The combination of low pH, high salt concentration, and reduced environment
24 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

TABLE 2.4. LANDFILL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS

Range of values
Parameter (mg/L except pH)

BOD 4049,500
COD 8 I-33,360
PH 3.7-8.5
Dissolved solids 584-44,900
Suspended solids 10-700
Alkalinity (CaCO,) 240-20,500
Hardness (CaCO,) 540-22,800
Total P 0-130
NH,-N 0- 1106
NO, + NO,-N 0-10.3
Calcium 60-7200
Chloride 5-2467
Sodium 34-7700
Potassium 28-3770
Sulfate 1-1558
Manganese 0.1-125
Magnesium 17- 15,600
Iron 0-2820
Zinc 0-370
Copper 0-10
Cadmium 0-17
Lead 0-2.0

Source: R. Gardner and E. Conrad, The Use of “HELP” Model

in Evaluating Alternative Leachate Management Plans for Three
New York City Landfills, Proceedings Waste Tech 86, Chicago,
IL. Oct 1986

create a very corrosive environment that is responsible for converting many of the
metals in the refuse into soluble ions.

Surface Water Pollution

The pollution of surface waters (streams and lakes) by leachate is not a significant
problem. It is an unusual site design that causes the leachate to exit the landfill
above ground. If this should happen, the concentrated leachate causes severe pollu-
tion of the surface water. The high BOD rapidly depletes the dissolved oxygen in
the water and fish kills occur in a very short time. A leachate with a BOD of
10,000 mg/L is approximately 500 times as strong as domestic sewage. The 32.5
million gallons per year generated from the 100-acre site discussed above would be
the equivalent of the untreated sewage discharge from a city with the population of
45,000.
Additional contamination is related to the various metals that may be present
in the leachate. Table 2.5 lists the general-use water quality for the state of Illinois.
Chap. 2 Water Pollution from Solid Waste Management 25

TABLE 2.5 STATE OF ILLINOIS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Chronic Standard
Constituent (P€!W

Arsenic 190
Barium 2,000
Cadmium e{00.7852[ln(hardness)]- 3.490)
Chromium (total) 11
Copper e{0.8545[ln(hardness)] - I .455}
Cyanide 100
Fluoride 15,000
Iron (total) 1
Lead e{ 1.273[ln(hardness)] - 1.46)
Manganese 1 ,OO0
Mercury 0.5
Nickel 1
Silver 100
Zinc 1 ,OOo

Source: Illinois Environmental Register 366, Illinois Pollution Control

Board, Chicago, Sept. 1 , 1988.

Manganese, iron, zinc, copper, cadmium, and lead have potential concentrations
that could cause violation of these stream standards even with a large dilution fac-
tor. If the leachate does exit the fill above the elevation of the surrounding ground,
it can be expected to cause severe water pollution when it enters a surface water.

Groundwater Pollution

The normal path for the leachate is to percolate downward into the groundwater.
The rate at which the water moves is controlled by the permeability of the material
underlying the site. A very tight clay will restrict the movement to inches per year.
Conversely, sand and gravel deposits permit several feet of movement per day. As
the contaminants move through the subsoils, there is significant biological, chemi-
cal, and physical interaction between the contaminants and the soil matrix. This
interaction depends on the characteristics of the soil.
The biodegradable organic material (BOD)present in the leachate provides a
substrate for a diverse population of soil bacteria. A substantial population of mi-
croorganisms will develop when this organic material is present. The organisms will
stabilize the BOD if the concentration of toxic materials is low. The supply of
oxygen is restricted due to the surface soils. Consequently, anaerobic degradation
generally occurs. The carbon dioxide produced by the biological activity is dis-
solved in the water and will keep the pH depressed, causing the water to dissolve
the minerals as it passes through the aquifers.
The biodegradable material does not travel far from the landfill before it is
stabilized by the microorganisms in the soil. The change in the chemical quality of
26 Environmental Effects Chap. 2

the groundwater may be significant. The acidity associated with the carbon dioxide
will cause an increase in the dissolved solids. The effect of these dissolved materi-
als will depend on the characteristics of the aquifer. Typically, one can expect an
increase in hardness and probably an increase in the iron and manganese. In addi-
tion, the chemical characteristics of this water will keep any metal ions leached
from the refuse in solution. If this flow is in a permeable sand and gravel aquifer,
it is possible to find contaminated groundwater considerable distances from the
landfill.
If the subsoils are tight clays, the rate of movement is greatly reduced. In
addition, the clay has a cation-exchange capacity that will prevent the metals
leached from the landfill from moving. As the metal ions pass through the clay,
they are exchanged for the monovalent ions present in the clay matrix. With the
proper subsoil, it is possible to greatly reduce the rate at which the leachate moves,
providing sufficient time for the biological activity to stabilize the BOD. The ion-
exchange capacity of the clay will attenuate the movement of metal ions by captur-
ing them in the soil matrix.
The introduction of the refractory organic compounds creates a different sce-
nario. Since these compounds do not degrade, it is only a matter of time before
they will reach a point of use. It may be 10 years, or 100 years, but sooner or later
they will move from the landfill unless the site is designed to minimize leachate
production and to capture the leachate that is produced. If this material had not
been dumped into the landfills in the past, the current public hysteria about toxic
materials in leachate would not exist.
Past practice did not separate the normal urban solid waste from industrial
hazardous waste. Drums of a variety of toxic chemicals were routinely hauled to
the most convenient landfill. Since these sites were not designed to contain lea-
chate, numerous cases of groundwater pollution have been documented. The con-
taminants consist of a variety of organic chemicals, including organic solvents
(volatile organic compounds), herbicides, insecticides, oils, polychlorinated bi-
phenyl (PCB), and heavy metal sludge. It will be many decades before the existing
problem sites are finally cleaned and the public resistance to sanitary landfill dis-
posal of nonhazardous urban waste is eliminated.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What was the objective of solid waste disposal prior to the 1970s?
2. What is the potential impact of improperly managed solid waste on the tradi-
tional public health diseases?
3. What is the role of solid waste in controlling the population of flies, mosqui-
toes, and rats?
4. What chemical and physical hazards are associated with solid wastes?
Chap. 2 Study Questions 27

5 . What is the life cycle of the fly, and how does this relate to the collection of
solid waste?
6. What were the major environmental problems associated with the improper
disposal of solid waste during the 1960s and 197Os?
7. What are the current environmental concerns with solid waste disposal?
8. Why is the dioxin and furan class of chemical compounds of such concern to
the public?
9. What is the mechanism for the production of leachate from a sanitary landfill?
10. What are the general characteristics of leachate?
11. Differentiate between the pollution of surface water and groundwater by sani-
tary landfills.
 n

Legal Issues
and Authority

POWER OF THE LAW

The original power to regulate environmental pollution was founded in the police
power that has been vested in the state government. The Constitution guarantees
that the rights of the individual states shall be supreme and all rights assigned to the
states are to be enforced by the states. (See Amendment X to the U.S. Constitution,
which was approved in 1791.) This has special significance in the area of pollution
control because all control actions for intrastate pollution problems rest with state
government.
However, the U.S. Constitution reserves certain rights for the federal govern-
ment (see Article 1, Sections 8 and IO). These include the power to regulate inter-
state and international problems as well as those problems that pertain to the
welfare of all of the people of the United States. Also, the Constitution does not
permit treaties between states. When such an arrangement is desired, it requires
action by the federal government to legalize the agreement. This means that any
cooperative arrangements between two or more states for the purpose of environ-
mental quality control must be authorized by the federal government.
The state, in its supreme position, can delegate its powers to other units of
government. This power can be delegated not only to the federal government but
also to lesser governmental units. This is seen in the regulatory power of many
political entities, such as county and municipal government. The police power of
these local units of government is never inherent, but it is a delegated power from a
higher source by constitutional, statutory, or chartered positions. The state govern-
ment retains the right to discharge or cancel the powers that they grant.

28
 Chap. 3 Historical Perspective 29

It soon becomes obvious that the residence of power can be a highly complex
problem. The states guard their power carefully and are reluctant to yield it to a
higher government. However, the federal power over interstate matters offers an
inroad into environmental pollution control. This is basically because the environ-
ment does not confine itself to political boundaries but tends to follow natural
boundaries such as drainage basins or air sheds. It is generally true that most envi-
ronmental pollution problems cross state lines and, consequently, open the door for
federal action.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Control of environmental pollution has a long and complicated legal background.

The basis for most of the legal activities in the United States prior to the explosion
of legislation in the past 40 years was the common law doctrine. This doctrine was
brought from England by the early settlers of this country. It has as its basis the
centuries of decisions that were made by various bodies. In essence, it reflects what
the society considers to be fair and reasonable. There is no specific written docu-
ment, so the interpretation of what is fair and reasonable tends to change as soci-
ety’s perception changes. Consequently, as the quality of life improves, what was
considered fair and reasonable 50 years ago may not be today.
Historically, the primary mechanism for the control of pollution was the pub-
lic health powers. These powers were central to elimination of the gross pollution
that occurred up until perhaps the 1930s. During the 1930s, significant funding was
provided by the federal government for the construction of sewage treatment plants.
This was part of the public works programs instituted to increase employment dur-
ing the depression era. Funds were made available for the construction of treatment
facilities for communities that discharged into small streams. In addition to in-
creased employment, construction of these treatment plants reduced the health haz-
ard associated with raw sewage discharges. The second mechanism that was
occasionally used to correct some environmental problems was legal action initiated
under the common law doctrine of nuisance.
The public health powers arise from the police powers of the state, which are
“to assure safety, comfort, health and convenience in the State by preserving public
order and insuring to each citizen an uninterrupted enjoyment of all rights and priv-
ileges.” This power has been delegated to local agencies, at both the county and
municipal level. This is the basis for the municipal police departments and the
county sheriff departments, as well as other agencies, such as city or county health
departments.
Since public health falls under the police power umbrella, any activity that
causes a defined public health risk can be terminated by the appropriate state or
local health agency. Perhaps the most common use of this power at present is the
closing of eating establishments that have had cases of food poisoning. Rapid action
on the part of the health department in closing an establishment is necessary to
30 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

prevent the exposure of a large number of people to potential health problems. The
state, county, or municipal health department has the power to effect such closures
in the interest of public health.
The intentional or accidental dumping of a large quantity of a toxic chemical
into the water supply of a community would be the type of event that could be
considered as a public health problem and immediate action could be taken by the
appropriate health department. The release of toxic gases into the atmosphere in
quantities that are known to be toxic can be declared an emergency and immediate
action taken to protect the population and eliminate the discharge. The acute health
effect must be identifiable before the health officer can exercise the power of the
office. This mechanism works well for well defined cause-effect scenarios. It is,
however, not effective in addressing the multitude of pollution problems that do not
have such a clearly identifiable effect.
A similar situation exists with the common law doctrine of nuisance. Black‘s
Law Dictionary defines “nuisance” as that which annoys or disturbs one in the
possession of one’s property, rendering its ordinary use or occupation physically
uncomfortable to her/him. A “nuisance per se” is defined by the same authority as
“an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under all
circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings.” Therefore, if some activity
generated a substance that had been legally or judicially defined as a “nuisance per
se,” it is unnecessary to demonstrate that it caused injury to a particular person or
persons or the property of said persons. For example, in many jurisdictions, air
pollution by a thick black smoke has been declared a nuisance per se by legislative
fiat.
Under the nuisance doctrine, it is possible for any citizen to bring suit against
someone causing pollution. The basis for the suit is not necessarily health related
but can be any adverse effect the pollution event has on “the rightful use and en-
joyment of one’s property.” A frequent basis for such suits in recent times is odor:
for example, from industrial processes or animal feed lots. The suit will generally
be heard in circuit court before a jury. If the plaintiff demonstrates successfully that
the pollution interferes with the rightful use of the property in question, there are
three possible results. There could be a cease-and-desist order, a money penalty, or
a combination of the two. The severity of the penalty will depend on how the case
is presented and the mood of the jury.
If the plaintiff is successful in establishing great mental anguish or some other
equally ill defined malady, the monetary penalty may be substantial. Also, the cost
of eliminating the source of pollution could be significant. Consequently, if the
financial cost to the polluter is great, an appeal will probably be filed. The time
frame for hearing the suit in the circuit court may have already been 1 to 2 years.
The appeals process can extend the resolution of the case for many years. In some
suits initiated in the 1950s, up to 15 years passed before resolution was achieved.
The legal fees on both sides increase in proportion to the time required to settle the
case. This is not a very efficient mechanism for correcting pollution. It is not
 Chap. 3 Statute Law 31

timely, it is expensive, and it frequently addresses only one pollution event rather
than the general question of environmental deterioration.
Common law has little preventive power, as the practice of common law was
to settle for monetary damages only after the act had been committed. In common
law and even in some states today, there is a doctrine that one who moves near an
existing nuisance cannot complain. This has proved to be a considerable hindrance
to environmental pollution control. Fortunately, this doctrine has been repudiated
by most states.
Because of the shortcomings of common law procedures for combating envi-
ronmental quality degradation, the federal and state governments began to search
for more efficient mechanisms for controlling pollution. This was achieved by the
passage of statute laws directed specifically at environmental protection.

STATUTE LAW

A statute law is a law enacted by the legislative body of a state or nation and
recorded in a formal document. It addresses a specific problem and establishes a
mechanism for defining what is considered to be a violation of the law. By enacting
the statute, the legislative body determines what is acceptable for the citizens of the
state. For example, the speed limit on the highway is set at a specific level. It is not
necessary to show that the speeder endangered someone. The legislative body has
determined that this is a speed at which a vehicle can be operated with a reasonable
degree of safety. Exceeding that speed is a violation of the law. Because of the
unique status of the states in the United States, the majority of the statute laws
relating to the health, safety, and well-being of the public is legislated at the state
level.
After a statute law is passed, it must be able to withstand any court chal-
lenges. If the law is infringing upon rights guaranteed by the state or U.S. Consti-
tution, the law is subject to being declared unconstitutional. The courts hearing the
challenge will range from the state courts to eventually the U.S. Supreme Court if
they decide that the issue is important enough for them to consider. When these
laws survive the court challenge, they become very powerful tools for regulatory
agencies.
The current state environmental regulatory activity is based on statute laws.
As with speed limits, the legislation is specific. It does not just say that one shall
not pollute the environment, but sets up specific mechanisms to ensure that anyone
operating a system that can pollute operates it in such a way that pollution does not
occur. This is accomplished through enabling legislation that establishes the neces-
sary administrative organization to carry out the intent of the legislation. This or-
ganization generally includes a rule-making body as well as an enforcement body.
An example of such legislation is the 1970 Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
This legislation contains the 13 titles listed below. A brief summary of the contents
32 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

of each title is presented, with more emphasis placed on the titles pertaining to
solid waste.

Title I: General provisions. This title presents the legislative declaration

indicating the intent of the legislature in passing this act, as well as the definitions
of the various terms used in the document. Most important is the establishment of
the agencies responsible for administrating the act. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (this is the state agency, not to be confused with the U.S. EPA) is
the primary administrative agency. They are responsible for environmental monitor-
ing, initiating enforcement action, managing the federal programs delegated to the
state, defining technical standards, and issuing of development, construction, and
operating permits. The director of the EPA is appointed by the governor with Sen-
ate approval. There is a large professional staff-accountants, engineers, lawyers,
scientists, and so on-that is responsible for the conduct of the agency business.
The Pollution Control Board (PCB) is the rule-making body created by this
act. They have the responsibility for establishing the standards necessary for achiev-
ing the desired environmental quality. The act established well-defined procedures
for the PCB to follow when developing standards. The PCB has set both general
environmental standards such as dissolved oxygen levels in the streams or ozone
level in the atmosphere, as well as discharge standards required to achieve these
general standards. The PCB also acts as a judicial board by hearing any enforce-
ment action initiated by the EPA or a citizen. A concise record is developed when
hearing a case, and an appeal of a PCB decision goes directly to the appellate
court. The record of the PCB hearing is the basis for any appeal. The PCB also
imposes any penalties they deem appropriate. The PCB has seven members ap-
pointed by the governor with Senate approval. A limited professional staff is also
available to the PCB.
The Institute for Environmental Quality was established as the research and
data collection entity for the Illinois environmental program. Funds were provided
for contract work in support of the PCB and EPA mission. Legislative action in
1978 transferred the mission of the Institute to the Department of Energy and Nat-
ural Resources (DENR). A primary responsibility of DENR in support of the state
environmental program is the preparation of economic impact statements for any
new substantive regulations. The economic effects of regulations have been a sig-
nificant concern of the legislature since the late 1970s. Additional sections in this
article provide descriptions for the public inspection of the records and the protec-
tion of trade secrets.

Title II: Air pollution. This title addresses the air environment and autho-
rizes the PCB to set air quality standards and discharge standards necessary to
achieve the air quality standards. It also defines how the state agencies should in-
teract with the federal agency in setting and enforcing air quality standards. This
title contains two sections of special interest. Section 9.b says: “No person shall
construct, install, or operate any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or air craft
Chap. 3 Statute Law 33

capable of causing or contributing to air pollution in Illinois, or designed to prevent

air pollution, of any type designated by Board regulations, without a permit granted
by the Agency, or in violation of any condition imposed by such a permit.”
This section introduces the permit mechanism for the control of air pollution
and the same concept is applied to the other pollution problems in subsequent titles.
A permit is required for any discharge to the atmosphere, and in order to obtain the
permit, certain agency stipulations must be satisfied. Failure to have a permit is a
violation of the law regardless of the lack of any impact on the environment. The
requirements for obtaining the permit can change, without new legislation, as the
conditions warrant. The PCB and, to some extent, the EPA determine what these
conditions are, and as the quality of the environment changes, so may the discharge
standards and the permit requirements.
One section that is especially germane to solid waste management is Section
9.c, which stipulates: “No person shall cause or allow the open burning of refuse,
conduct any salvage operation by open burning, or cause or allow the burning of
refuse in any chamber not specifically designed for the purpose and approved by the
Agency pursuant to regulations adopted by the Board under this Act. . . .” This
section tied the improper disposal of refuse to air pollution problems and essentially
eliminates open burning.

Title 111: Water pollution/Title IV: Public water supplies. These titles ad-
dress the water environment and contain essentially the same provisions as Title 11:
Air Pollution, except for the reference to refuse disposal.

Title V: Land pollution and refuse disposal. This title addresses the issue
of proper disposal of refuse, including hazardous wastes. It contains the general
pronouncement of legislative intent plus several prohibitions regarding the handling
of solid waste. In particular, Section 21.a stipulates: “No person shall cause or
allow the open dumping of any waste.” Section 21 .b requires that “no person shall
abandon, dump, or deposit any waste upon the public highways or other public
property. . . .” Finally, Section 21.c prohibits “the abandonment of any vehicle in
violation of the Abandoned Vehicles Amendment to the Illinois Vehicle Code.”
These three subsections identify specific problems that were presented to the legis-
lature at the time the legislation was passed.
The substance of this title is contained in Section 21.d and f. Specifically,
subsection d specifies: “No person shall conduct any waste-storage, waste-
treatment, waste-disposal, or special waste-transportation operation: 1. without a
permit granted by the Agency or in violation of any condition imposed by such a
permit . . . or 2. In violation of any regulations or standards adopted by the Board
under this Act.” Subsection 21 .f addresses the management of hazardous waste.
This has all of the requirements of the above plus additional requirements imposed
by the nature of the material.
Section 22 permits the PCB to set standards for the location, design, con-
struction, sanitation, operation, maintenance, and discontinuance of the operation
34 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

of refuse collection and disposal, storage and treatment sites and facilities, and re-
source conservation and recovery sites and facilities; standards for the certification
of personnel to operate refuse disposal facilities or sites; standards for the dumping
of any refuse; and standards for the handling, storing, processing, transporting, and
disposal of any hazardous waste. In addition, the PCB can set standards for record
keeping, standards for equipment used, procedures for monitoring contaminant dis-
charge, land pollution emergency alerts, closure and postclosure requirements, and
the restriction on the disposal of hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills.
This title also contains considerably more stipulations regarding hazardous
waste management and disposal. A number of these requirements for hazardous
waste were added in amendments to the original act. In some cases the amendments
were in response to federal legislative requirements.

Title VI: Noise. This title recognized that noise is also a means for environ-
mental deterioration, The title is structured similar to the other titles.

Title VII: Regulations. This title establishes the operational philosophy for
setting the environmental regulations. It gives the PCB the power to define the
procedural rules for establishing a record for any regulations or enforcement action.
It provides for public hearings and debate for enacting, amending, or repealing any
substantive regulation. A substantive regulation refers to the ambient standards,
emission standards, standards for issuance of permits, and so on. The purpose of
this title is to establish uniform procedures and policies for setting regulations and
enforcing environmental quality control.

Title Vlll: Enforcement. Under this title the EPA is given the responsibility
for investigating any complaint made by the PCB, a complaint filed by a citizen, or
any other condition deemed worthy of investigation. The EPA is essentially defined
as the policing agency. Certain procedures that must be followed by the PCB in an
enforcement hearing are also defined in this title. After a duly constituted hearing
before the PCB, orders to cease and desist may be issued. These orders may be
enforced by monetary penalties. Other actions include the revocation of operating
permits.
This title also recognizes that episode or emergency conditions may occur.
When such conditions occur as specified in the PCB regulations, the EPA may so
declare and take any action deemed necessary to protect the health and security of
the population. This action may include sealing any vehicle, equipment, vessel,
aircraft, or other facility that is in violation of such regulations.

Title IX: Variances. Variances from any PCB regulation may be granted
when the regulation is found to cause undue hardship upon the discharger. A vari-
ance relieves the discharger of the responsibility for meeting the standards. There
are usually time limits for the variance and there may be additional stipulations
Chap. 3 Statute Law 35

imposed. This title defines the intent of variances and sets some guidelines for
issuance of variances;

Title X: Permits. This is the heart of the state mechanism for environmental
quality control. The requirement that every discharger, soperator of pollution control
equipment, refuse disposal operation, and so on, must have a permit gives the state
control over the manner in which the system functions. This control emanates from
the technical standards and guidelines set by the EPA for the design, installation,
and operation of any pollution control system or refuse disposal operation. This is
in addition to the general environmental quality standards and the discharge stan-
dards set by the PCB. Any discharger of air or water or supplier of water must have
a permit to function. Lack of a permit is a violation of the law and subject to
penalty. The permit can be obtained only if the applicable standards and guidelines
will be satisfied.
This title specifies a number of considerations necessary for awarding a per-
mit. Additional permitting requirements are a result of the delegation of federal
permits. One such delegation is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem Permits (NPDES) required by the federal government for any point-source dis-
charge to a surface water. The state has been delegated the responsibility for these
permits, which define the discharge limits for an effluent. Other delegated permit-
ting authority relates to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Per-
mits for persons owning or operating a facility for the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste. As new federal permitting requirements are developed
and delegated to the states, these activities would be covered under this title.
Section 39.2 of Title X is particularly relevant to refuse disposal. This section
was added by the Illinois Legislature in 1982 and was known as Illinois Senate Bill
172 in recognition of its being introduced in the Illinois Senate. While the act was
not specific for solid waste disposal facilities, the impact of this legislation on the
development of new sites for sanitary landfills was devastating. Passage of this bill
effectively stopped all new sanitary landfill construction in Illinois until 1989. The
following are the relevant sections:

a. The county board of the county or the governing body of the municipality, as
determined by paragraph (c) of Section 39 of this act, shall approve the site
location suitability for such new regional pollution control facilities only in
accordance with the following criteria:
1 . The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is
intended to serve.
2. The facility is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the
public health, safety, and welfare will be protected.
3. The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character
of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the
surrounding property.
36 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

4. The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100-year floodplain as

determined by the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the site is
flood-proofed to meet the standards and the requirements of the Illinois
Department of Transportation and is approved by the department.
5. The plan of operation for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to
the surrounding area from fires, spills, or other operational accidents.
6. The traffic patterns to and from the facility are designed as to minimize
the impact on existing traffic flows.
7. If the facility will be treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, an
emergency response plan exists for the facility, which includes notifica-
tion, containment, and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an ac-
cidental release.
8. If the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has
adopted a solid waste management plan, the facility is consistent with the
plan.
9. If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any appli-
cable requirements specified by the board for such areas have been met.

The section continues with specific requirements for filing of applications and
the public hearings associated with the application for a regional facility permit.
This legislation provided the perfect vehicle for the neighborhood opponents
of a site. It was possible to exert sufficient political pressure on the county board
members, especially the one representing the district in question, that receiving site
approval became almost impossible. The “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) syn-
drome dominated the decision-making process. Locating a site for a new regional
pollution control facility has been taken out of the realm of economic, engineering,
and scientific judgment and has become almost totally emotional and political. If a
site does not have perfect economic, engineering, and scientific characteristics, it
has absolutely no chance of being approved. Even if perfect from every technical
perspective, approval is not assured.
Because of the difficulty in obtaining new sites for sanitary landfills, the Illi-
nois legislature was considering (1990) the establishment of a statewide body that
has the responsibility for the approval of any regional waste disposal site. This
board would be similar to the state public utilities commission and would take con-
trol from the local politicians and place it in the board, which is more isolated from
public pressure.

Title XI: Judicial review. Any appeals from PCB decisions are relegated
directly to the appellate court for the district in which the cause for the action arose
and not in the circuit court.

Title XII: Penalties. The general penalty statement is contained in Section

42.a and is: “Any person that violates any provisions of this Act or any regulations
adopted by the Board, or any permit or term or condition thereof, or that violates
 Chap. 3 Federal Legislation for the Control of Solid Waste 37

any determination or order of the Board pursuant to this Act, shall be liable to a
civil penalty not to exceed $lO,OOO for said violation and an additional penalty may
not exceed $1,000 each day for which the violation continues.’’ There are additional
sections that increase the maximum penalty. For example, violation of the NPDES
permit or terms or conditions thereof is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
$10,000 per day of violation. Violation of a RCRA permit carries a possible fine of
$25,000 per day of violation.
Because of the seriousness of improper management of hazardous waste, the
act sets some very stiff penalties. Section 44.c specifies that any person knowingly
transporting, treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste without a permit, or
who obtained the permit with falsified information, commits a class 4 felony and is
liable to a fine of not more than $250,000, except that a defendant that is an orga-
nization is liable to a fine of $l,OOO,OOO. If these acts place any person or persons
in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, a class 3 felony is committed.
Felonies can result in a jail sentence.
In most cases, the penalties are sufficient to encourage compliance with the
PCB orders. The ultimate course of action for those violations that carry a fine
only and the fine fails to generate compliance is a court order requiring compliance.
Failure to obey the court order can be considered contempt of court, which can
result in a jail sentence.

Title Xlll: Miscellaneous provisions. This title contains what could be con-
sidered “housekeeping” provisions. They do not fall under any of the previous cat-
egories, or refer only to actions taken during the transition from the existing
agencies to the new agencies created by the act.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR THE CONTROL OF SOLID WASTE

Federal legislation that has been used for pollution control dates back to the Rivers
and Harbors Act in 1899. This was the first attempt to control the dumping of
refuse into surface waters. Its Section 13, known as the Refuse Act, prohibited the
discharge or deposit into navigable waters of any solid refuse. The act was designed
to control the discharge of materials that interfered with shipping. This act had little
or no impact on the quality of the environment as long as the refuse was not inter-
fering with shipping. It was, however, very important in the initial attempts to con-
trol pollution during the 1950s and 1960s. It was an existing law and it was
interpreted in a manner that assisted the pollution control agencies in control of
some of the pollution problems before the needed legislation was passed.

The Clean Air Act Amendments and Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1905

The first legislation that specifically recognized the role of solid waste in environ-
mental degradation was the 1965 amendments to the 1963 Clean Air Act. These
38 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

revisions became known as the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. This act was a
result of a 1964 congressional subcommittee investigation into air pollution prob-
lems. The subcommittee report stated: “No more obvious and disgraceful illustra-
tion of the need for applied technology can be found than the appalling state in
which the nation’s waste disposal practices exist.” The act specifically recognized
that the disposal of solid waste in open burning dumps was a major contributor to
air pollution. The “backyard” burn barrels and the low-technology incinerators
used for on-site incineration were also making significant contributions to a degra-
dation of the air quality. At this time, air pollution was the primary problem being
associated with solid waste disposal.
This act called for a national research program to find and perfect methods of
disposal that would avoid environmental contamination. Little or no information
existed on the quantity and characteristics of solid waste. The larger cities had
information on the tonnages that they processed through their incinerators and land-
fills. However, few data were available on the quantities collected by private indus-
try, even in the metropolitan areas. This was compounded by the tens of thousands
of disposal systems in small communities, some of which were city operated while
others were private. The large private companies were not yet in existence, so the
private sector was represented by literally thousands of small operators.
Funding was provided by this act to conduct studies that would define the
problem. Surveys were conducted of the industry in an attempt to determine the
quantity of refuse generated. What were the characteristics of the discarded mate-
rial? Surveys of the manufacturing industry attempted to establish the quantity of
material used in various consumer products such as glass containers, metal contain-
ers, paper and plastic packaging, and so on. Additional information was obtained
on the current methods for disposal of the refuse. In particular, what was the envi-
ronmental impact of refuse disposal? The results of these studies and surveys pro-
vide a much needed data base for future legislation and control strategies.
One fact that surfaced from these studies was the large quantity of urban
waste material generated (estimated at about 125 million tons per year). Analysis of
the composition of the refuse indicated that it was potentially a valuable resource
being wasted. The paper, glass, and metals had potential for recovery and reuse.
Also, the energy content of the refuse was significant, equivalent to about 50 mil-
lion tons of coal per year. If techniques could be developed to use the refuse as a
raw material, it would cease to be a waste. Consequently, the next piece of legis-
lation emphasized resource recovery.
One additional concern surfaced during these investigations. The publication
of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 raised the consciousness of society con-
cerning the hazardous and toxic chemicals being used. Data collected on waste
materials generated by the production and use of these hazardous materials indi-
cated that the quantity was significant. More important was the lack of information
as to the ultimate disposition of these chemicals. The national concern for hazard-
ous waste was in an embryonic stage at this time in the development of solid waste
control legislation.
Chap. 3 Federal Legislation for the Control of Solid Waste 39

Resource Recovery Act of 1970

This legislation was an extension of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 designed
to foster the development of techniques for reuse of the refuse constituents. The
specter of a poisoned environment had been raised, and the sparsity of data on the
management of hazardous materials was a clear signal that this area must be better
defined. In addition to the general pronouncements, this act contained five provi-
sions that were intended to address the solid waste management issues.
The first provision made available funds for the demonstration of new tech-
nology for energy and material recovery. Federal funding up to 75% of the capital
costs was available for the construction of full-scale demonstration plants that re-
covered energy and/or materials from solid waste. It is very difficult to convince
public officials to invest in new technology unless they can see a full-scale operat-
ing plant. These funds were to be used to provide the operating systems that would
encourage the use of the new technology. The success of this funding was very
limited. The only technology that was successfully demonstrated and utilized to any
extent was refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The refuse is processed to remove a substan-
tial portion of the noncombustible components. The combustible fraction is burned
in a coal-fired central power generating plant.
Solid waste management was chaotic at all levels of government. The prob-
lem was poorly defined at the state and local level. Regulations were nonexistent
and the states did not have any coordinated plan for addressing the problem. A
second provision in this act funded studies for the development of local, state, and
interstate solid waste management plans. These funds assisted the various govern-
mental units in defining the problem and developing a plan for managing the refuse
stream.
Availability of funds for capital improvements is frequently an impediment to
the local governments in solving environmental problems. They may be near their
bonding limit, or the voters will not approve bond issues for capital projects. At this
period of time, the federal government was in the midst of a construction grants
program for the construction of water pollution control plants. This section of the
act provided grants to local agencies for the construction of resource recovery
plants. However, money was never appropriated for these grants.
Because of the uncoordinated approach throughout the country and the lack of
any uniform standards and guidelines for solid waste management systems, a sec-
tion of the act was designed to support the development of guidelines for the col-
lection, disposal, and recycle of solid waste. This charge was given to the Office of
Solid Waste Management of the U.S. Public Health Service, the federal agency that
was responsible for solid waste management at that time. It also provided funds for
training programs for personnel involved in the design, operation, and maintenance
of disposal systems.
Finally, the act recognized that there was a serious problem in the way that
toxic and hazardous materials were managed. Because the issue was so poorly
defined, the act concentrated on providing a mechanism for better defining the
4Q Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

problem. This was the beginning of a still intensive effort to bring the hazardous
waste problem under control. It is also the beginning of the confusion between solid
waste management and hazardous waste management issues. This was, in part, a
result of the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous waste along with regular non-
hazardous refuse. The philosophy was “out of sight, out of mind,” and landfills
were very convenient places to achieve the “out of sight” component of this phi-
losophy. Unfortunately, the second component did not apply, as these materials
found their way back into the environment.

1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Public Law 94-580, signed into law on October 21, 1976 by the president, changed
the nature of solid waste management dramatically. This legislation initiated the
separation of hazardous waste from nonhazardous waste. It is essential to have an
appreciation of the impact that the hazardous waste management legislation had on
solid waste management. As will be seen, the regulation of hazardous waste was
much more intense than normal solid waste. As long as the waste is nonhazardous,
the regulation is less severe. Unfortunately, the indiscriminate mixing of hazardous
and nonhazardous waste in prior years has left a legacy that will take many decades
to eliminate.
Subtitle A contains the statements referring to the general intent of the legis-
lation, but it also includes some salient points that shaped the response of the state
regulatory agencies for many years into the future. One such statement indicated
that one object of the legislation is the “protection of health and the environ-
ment . . . by prohibiting future open dumping on the land and requiring the con-
version of existing open dumps to facilities which do not pose a danger to the
environment or health.” This statement was a directive to close all open dumps.
Following the statement of findings and objectives, Subtitle A of the new law
also provides some new definitions. Vastly expanded over previous law, the defini-
tion of solid waste includes “any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment
plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, or other dis-
carded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material
resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agriculture activities. . . .”
Only solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, irrigation return flows, and
otherwise regulated industrial discharges do not fall under this definition.
Also. it contained a much broader definition of disposal; “the discharge, de-
posit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or haz-
ardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous
waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the
air or discharged into any water, including groundwater.”
Subtitle A also requires the U S . EPA to publish suggested solid waste man-
agement guidelines describing the “level of performance” that can be attained by
various available solid waste management practices which protect public health and
Chap. 3 Federal Legislation for the Control of Solid Waste 41

the environment. These guidelines must be published by October 21, 1977, and
from time to time thereafter. It is interesting to note that some of the required
guidelines were still in the draft stage in 1990. This indicated the complexity of the
process. While the word suggested is used, the act makes it mandatory for these
guidelines to be used by federal agencies. Also, use of these guidelines is a precon-
dition for any federal funding to the states, so the guidelines are essentially man-
datory.
Subtitle C addresses the topic of hazardous waste by providing the following
definition: “A hazardous waste is a solid waste or combination of solid wastes,
which, because of its quality, concentration, or chemical, physical, or infectious
characteristics, may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in the mor-
tality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environ-
ment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise
managed.” This was the first legislation that provided a detailed definition of what
was to be considered hazardous waste.
The task of developing specific criteria for identifying hazardous waste was
given to the U.S. EPA. As soon as these criteria were available, they were to pub-
lish a list of waste materials that were subject to federal regulation. Because of the
requirements imposed on the management of hazardous waste as described below, it
is essential that care be taken to exclude these materials completely from the nor-
mal solid waste stream.
For generators of hazardous waste, standards were to be (and have been) de-
veloped that cover record keeping, labeling practices, use of appropriate containers,
chemical analysis, use of a manifest system, and reporting to regulatory authorities
as to the quantities of hazardous waste generated and their disposition. The mani-
fest system was designed to assure that all hazardous waste goes to a permitted
treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Standards were developed for transporters of hazardous waste to ensure that
only properly labeled wastes are transported and only to permitted facilities desig-
nated on the manifest. Record-keeping requirements were imposed, and all regula-
tions must be consistent with the Department of Transportation rules under the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
Facility owners and operators must have permits, and performance standards
governing operating practices, contingency plans, and location, design, and con-
struction of facilities were developed. Detailed record keeping and satisfactory re-
porting, monitoring, and inspection, as well as compliance with the manifest
system were required. The owner is required to ensure maintenance of operation,
which includes continuity of operation, personnel training, and financial responsi-
bility.
The EPA was given the responsibility for developing the rules and regulations
for implementation of this legislation. The deadline was April 21, 1978, but slip-
page in this date was expected and new deadlines were established to match the
progress made by the EPA.
42 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

Subtitle D of the RCRA was designed to assist in developing and encouraging

methods for the disposal of solid waste which are environmentally sound and which
maximize the utilization of valuable resources and to encourage resource conserva-
tion. Such objectives are to be accomplished through federal technical and financial
assistance to states or regional authorities for comprehensive planning pursuant to
federal guidelines designed to foster cooperation among federal, state, and local
governments and private industry. Guidelines developed by the EPA were to be
available within 2 years.
Contained in this subtitle were references to six specific requirements that
must be satisfied by the states in order to qualify for approval of funding from the
federal government for the development of these plans.

1. The state must identify the responsibilities of state, regional, and local author-
ities relative to the distribution of federal funding among them and the means
for coordination and implementation of regional planning.
2. The plan must prohibit the establishment of new open dumps within the state
and require that all solid waste be processed for recovery or be disposed of in
sanitary landfills or in some other environmentally sound manner.
3. The plan must provide for the closing or upgrading of all existing open dumps
according to a predefined timetable, but not later than October 21, 1983.
4. The plan must provide for whatever regulatory powers the state may need to
carry out the plan.
5 . The plan must permit local governments to enter into long-term contracts for
the supply of solid waste to resource recovery facilities.
6. The plan must provide for whatever waste management practices-resource
recovery, sanitary landfill, and so on-may be necessary to use or dispose of
solid waste in an environmentally sound manner.

The primary importance of these actions was the elimination of open dump-
ing. However, it was necessary for rules and regulations to be developed that define
a sanitary landfill relative to the design, construction, and operation. Many states
developed such guidelines, but because of nonuniformity among states, the EPA
developed what could be considered a minimum set of rules and regulations for
sanitary landfills. Similar rules and regulations for other types of refuse processing
system-in particular, incineration-are also the responsibility of the EPA. This is
a dynamic process and the rules and regulations are generally in a state of flux as
applied to new sources. Consequently, it is essential for the designer to remain cur-
rent with the changing regulatory environment.
Congressional amendments to the RCRA in 1984 require that the EPA revise
the Subtitle D criteria for facilities that may receive hazardous household waste (as
most landfills do) or small-quantity-generator, a source of hazardous waste. The
revisions must require groundwater monitoring to detect contamination, establish
location standards for monitoring wells for new and existing facilities, and provide
Chap. 3 Federal Legislation for the Control of Solid Waste 43

for corrective action. State programs must spell out performance standards to be
met by leachate collection systems and landfill liners as well as requiring landfill
operators to protect groundwater from the same list of hazardous constituents used
in hazardous waste landfill regulations. New enforcement authority has been given
to the federal government to ensure compliance with the regulations.
These 1984 amendments imposed significant new requirements for the design
and operation of sanitary landfills. Although not as restrictive as the regulations for
a hazardous waste site, the new regulations are much tighter than the regulations
previously in effect. They require that the site must be designed to ensure no con-
tamination of groundwater. Provision must be made for liners and leachate collec-
tion systems that will remove any leachate that is produced. Monitoring wells are
required to ensure no groundwater contamination. The cost of refuse disposal by
sanitary landfill will increase significantly.
The RCRA set the direction of much of the future legislation in this area. The
focus was on hazardous waste. The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was
passed in 1976 for the purpose of regulating the introduction of new toxic chemicals
into the environment. This act was directed more toward the use of chemicals as
pesticides, wood preservatives, and other uses that result in a wide environmental
distribution. As such, it has little relationship to solid waste management except to
further highlight the mood of the Congress at this time.
The discovery of the buried hazardous chemicals at the Love Canal Site in
New York and the severe health problems that were attributed to this site simply
added incentive for the Congress to tighten control even more. As the actual and
projected costs for the cleanup of the Love Canal became known, Congress per-
ceived a need to finance these costs from sources other than the federal treasury. In
1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities
Act (CERCLA) was passed. This legislation was designed to pass the cost of
cleanup of the contaminated sites back to the producers of the waste. In cases
where the origin of the hazardous waste can be determined, any site remediation
costs can be recovered from the producer in proportion to the amount of waste
contributed. Many companies were and still are recipients of substantial bills for
site cleanup costs.
It was also clear that responsibility for some of the contaminated sites would
never be assigned to any generator. In many cases there is no record of the source
of the material, or the site has been abandoned and is in the public domain. In such
cases a fund has been established, appropriately called “The Super Fund,” that
annually has several billion dollars available for orphaned site cleanup. These funds
are provided by taxes on the chemical manufacturing industry.
The impact of CERCLA on conventional landfills is significant. If any known
hazardous waste is disposed of by a landfill, it becomes the responsibility of the
operator unless it is possible to trace the source of the waste. If a currently non-
hazardous waste is accepted and this waste is added to the list of hazardous chem-
icals, the operator may be required to remove the waste from the site if it is found
to be contaminating the environment. The liability associated even with small
 44 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

quantities of hazardous or potentially hazardous waste has had a major impact on

the financial aspects of landfill disposal.

STATE RECYCLING LEGISLATION

As the difficulty in siting of sanitary landfills increased during the 1980s, means for
reducing the flow of refuse into landfills were sought. Recycling of materials from
the solid waste was one way to reduce the flow to the landfills. New Jersey was the
leader in this area. In 1981, an Office of Recycling was established to encourage
voluntary recycling. It was funded by a tax on tipping fees of $0.12 per cubic yard
(approximately $0.36 per ton) which generated about $4.6 million per year. These
funds were partially used for statewide educational programs on recycling, as well
as providing grants and loans to communities in support of recycling activities.
Forty-five percent of the surcharge was rebated to communities with active recycle
programs, on a per-ton-recycled basis. In effect, the tax on landfills was used to
subsidize recycling.
Although the voluntary program was successful, it was not diverting suffi-
cient quantities of refuse. Consequently, in 1987, New Jersey passed a mandatory
recycling law. It imposed an immediate ban on the disposal of leaves in a landfill.
By March 1988, all counties had to recycle at least 15% of the previous year’s total
solid waste. By 1989, the total volume of waste recycled had to equal or exceed
25% of the urban solid waste stream. Partial funding of the program was obtained
by a $1.50 per ton surcharge on refuse deposited in the state’s landfills. One com-
ponent of the refuse stream receiving special attention under these programs is yard
and garden waste, especially leaves and grass clippings. This material accounts for
the majority of the refuse that is recycled-or at least not placed in the landfill.
Most of it is composted, and the compost is used for various purposes by the local
agencies.
A number of states followed New Jersey’s lead in the passage of various bills
to encourage recycling. In 1986, Illinois passed the Solid Waste Management Act,
imposing a fee of $0.20 per cubic yard of refuse deposited at a landfill. These funds
were used for research and planning as well as innovative refuse management sys-
tems such as recycling. Public Act 85-1195, passed in 1988, changed the surcharge
to $0.60 per cubic yard for the state and up to $0.45 per cubic yard for the munic-
ipality. In 1992, these rates are reversed, with $0.60 per cubic yard available to the
municipality.
A companion bill, Public Act 85-1197, the Solid Waste Planning and Recy-
cling Act, effective January 1, 1989, requires counties of more than 100,000 pop-
ulation and the city of Chicago to develop comprehensive solid waste management
plans that emphasize recycling and alternatives to landfills by March 1, 1991. The
plan must include a recycling program designed to result in 25% of the municipal
refuse being recycled by the fifth year of the plan’s adoption. This legislation also
requires the elimination of all yard waste from landfills effective July 1, 1990.
 Chap. 3 Study Questions 45

MISCELLANEOUS LEGISLATION

State bottle bills that require as much $0.10 per container deposit for all beverage
containers have had little or no effect on the quantity of solid waste generated.
These laws have to some degree reduced the litter associated with the disposable
container. That was the intent of the original legislation, but some have tried to use
it to force a reduction in refuse generation.
At the local level, a host of ordinances are continually being passed in the
hope that one can legislate away the refuse disposal problem. There is a reluctance
for public officials to recognize that the demands of special interest groups for no
landfills, incinerators, or other refuse disposal systems cannot be satisfied. It will
not be possible to eliminate solid waste as long as society exists, especially with its
consumer orientation.
Local ordinances are not likely to be effective and in some cases will simply
shift business to adjacent municipalities. In 1988, Suffolk County in New York passed
an ordinance prohibiting the use of certain plastics. After July 1 , 1989, sale of food
in packaging that is not biodegradable was prohibited. Banned items included foam
“clamshells,” foam meat trays, plastic grocery bags, and polystyrene and polyvinyl
chloride containers. How successful this legislation will be remains to be seen.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1 . What has been the historical relationship between public health and control of
environmental pollution?
2. What is the common law doctrine of nuisance? How has it been used to con-
trol environmental pollution?
3. What are some of the major deficiencies related to the control of environmen-
tal pollution under the nuisance doctrine?
4. What is a statute law?
5. How does a legislative statute expedite control of environmental pollution?
6. What state agencies were created by the 1970 Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Act, and what was the function of each agency?
7. How does a state requirement for a permit to construct and operate a pollution
control facility facilitate control of environmental pollution?
8. What are the siting requirements specified under Section 39.2 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act? How have these requirements affected the
opening of new landfills?
9. What was the impact on solid waste management of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965?
10. What was the most significant new issue introduced by the Resource Recovery
Act of 1970?
46 Legal Issues and Authority Chap. 3

11. What is the RCRA?

12. What is the objective of Subtitle C of the RCRA?
13. What is the objective of Subtitle D of the RCRA?
14. What is the potential impact of CERCLA on the operation of a sanitary land-
fill?
15. How has recycling legislation encouraged development of recycling programs
at the local level?
Sources
and Characteristics
of Urban Solid Wastes

The sources of urban solid waste have historically been consistent in that the refuse
is generated from residential, commercial, and institutional establishments and from
municipal services. Industrial solid waste is unique to a specific industry and is not
normally considered as part of the urban refuse stream. If one includes industrial
solid waste, there have been significant changes in the sources as new industries
emerge and old industries are eliminated. It is not our intent in this chapter to
discuss industrial solid waste because of the uniqueness of each waste stream.
Historically, the characteristics of refuse have not been consistent. There have
been tremendous changes with time, and these changes are expected to continue.
Refuse is a product of society and reflects the characteristics of the society: income
level and economic health, consumer orientation, cultural persuasion, technological
advancements, and social standards and aspirations. It is important to understand
how refuse composition has changed with time so that one has an appreciation of
potential future changes. The composition can be related to the various societal
characteristics of the particular historical time.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The composition of refuse in the United States at the turn of the century was in-
dicative of the spartan life-style of the population. The refuse was truly rejected
material. As shown in Table 4.1, combustion products (breeze, cinders, and ashes)
accounted for over 60% of the reject stream. The balance was material of little
value. This reflected two factors: the limited availability of consumer goods (Le. ,

47
 48 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

Table 4.1 Refuse composition circa 1900

Composition
Constituent (%)

Breeze and cinders 50

Ash 12
Dirt and dust 20
Paper, straw, vegetable refuse 13
Miscellaneous (tins, 0.7%; metal, 0.2%; bottles, I .5%) 5

throw-away items) and the economical need to use everything to the limit. Even the
garbage was not wasted. It was fed to livestock, either at the residence or, in the
cities, collected and used as food for swine. One finds these characteristics and
practices today in many developing countries, where scavenging is an integral part
of solid waste disposal, either at the source or at the disposal site.
Major changes occurred in the United States after the depression era of the
1930s and especially after the end of World War 11. The economic prosperity of the
country was greatly improved. Spin-off from technologies developed during the war
provided numerous benefits to the consumer. Population density increases in the
cities changed the life-style of the residents, all of which is reflected in the change
in the refuse composition. The composition of the refuse from New York City
clearly illustrates the change during this period of history (see Table 4.2). Of note
is the large decrease in garbage and ashes and the large increase in paper and metal
that occurred between 1939 and 1958.

CURRENT COMPOSITION OF URBAN SOLID WASTE

During the 1960s and 1970s numerous investigations were conducted in an attempt
to determine the composition of urban refuse. When evaluating these studies, it
appeared that each source of refuse was unique. This observation simply empha-

Table 4.2 Composition of New York City refuse

Composition (%)

Constituent 1939 1958

Garbage 17.0 4.8

Paper 21.9 56.5
Wood 2.6 0
Metal 6.8 14.8
Glass 5.5 5.7
Ashes 43.0 11.7
Miscellaneous 3.2 9.6
Chap. 4 Current Composition of Urban Solid Waste 49

Table 4.3 Composition of typical urban refuse

As-received composition (% wet wt)

Constituent 1970 1984 2000

Paper and paper products 33. I 37.1 41.0

Garbage (food wastes) 11.5 - 8.1 6.8
Yard and garden waste 19.0 17.9 15.3
Metals 12.2 9.6 9.0
Glass 12.5 9.7 7.6
Plastic 2.7 7.2 9.8
Miscellaneous organic solids 8.3 8.4 8.4
Miscellaneous inorganic solids I .7 1.9 2.1
Total (million tons) 110.2 133.0 158.8

Source: Waste Age, Oct. 1988, p. 46.

sized the variations among sources as well as seasonal variations in the composi-
tion of one source. It was clear that a “typical” solid waste probably did not exist.
However, Table 4.3 presents the currently accepted composition of a typical urban
solid waste as well as past and future changes in composition. This composition
could be considered to represent an “average” for the refuse generated in the
United States.
A different country, a different composition: The composition of refuse from a
Canadian city and a US. city could be expected to be as similar as that between
two U.S. cities. However, the refuse in other countries may be significantly differ-
ent. Table 4.4 shows some of the variations that one may find among different
industrialized countries. The data for all except Taipei represents the reported com-
positions in the late 1970s. The Taipei data were collected in 1982. Figure 4.1
shows the appearance of refuse from the United States [Figure 4.l(a)] and Spain
[Figure 4.1 (b)].

Table 4.4 Urban refuse composition of different countries

Composition (%)

Component U.S. U.K. Madrid Taipei

Paper 33 43 18 24
Putrescibles 31 17 50 29
Metal 12 9 4 5
Glass 12 9 3 11
Textiles 4 3 2 8
Plastics 3 5 4 12
Ash-fines 2 12 6 9
Miscellaneous 3 2 3 2
100 100 100 100
 50 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

(a) (b)
Figure 4.1 Physical appearance of refuse from the United States (a) and Spain (b).

The Madrid refuse has a low percentage of paper and glass. This is a result of
the recycle ethic present in the Madrid population.’ At this time the “throwaway”
philosophy was not prevalent in Spain. Natural fibers are in short supply in Spain
and much of Europe, so paper recycle is attractive. Also, reusable glass containers
are used extensively for beverages. The high content of putrescible materials is a
result of a cultural characteristic of marketing much of the food in fresh food mar-
kets. There is a preference for fresh fish, meat, and produce as compared to pre-
pared foods.
The primary difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is
in the ash component.* Solid fuels were used to a substantial degree for home heat-
ing. This fuel is gradually being replaced with gas and oil. The Taipei refuse has a
relatively low paper content but a high plastic ~ o n t e n tIn
. ~countries with a shortage
of forests where the paper fibers are obtained from these forests or imported, plastic
is cheaper than paper to use for packaging. Many of the other differences may be due
to differences in the society or simply may be the inherent variability of these data.
The refuse in developing countries approximates the composition shown in
Table 4.1 except for the composition of combustion products. This percentage
would be low for tropical countries that do not use a solid fuel for space heating.

FACTORS CAUSING CHANGE IN SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION

There have been some significant events in the last 50 years that have had a major
impact on the composition of urban refuse in the United States. These events were
a result of either technological advances or legislative restrictions.

’ENADIMSA, Serrino 116, Madrid, Spain.

*Warren Springs Laboratory, Stevenage, U.K.
3Chung-Hsing Engineering, Inc. Taipei, Taiwan
Chap. 4 Factors Causing Change in Solid Waste Composition 51

Technological Changes

Elimination of solid fuels for home heating. The ash content of refuse has
decreased markedly since the end of World War 11. To supply the large quantities
of liquid fuel needed to power the machines of war, especially planes, tanks, and
supply vehicles, the vast oil fields in the southwestern United States were devel-
oped. After the war, the production capacity of these fields was in excess of the
peacetime needs for motor fuels, so the industry sought new markets for their prod-
ucts. In addition to the liquid fuel, vast quantities of methane (natural gas) were
being produced. In many cases this gas was simply flared on site.
Recognizing the potential market for these fuels for space heating of all types
of buildings, transportation systems, mainly pipelines, were developed to move the
fuel to the population centers. The low price, the convenience of the automatic
burners that were possible with both fuel oil and natural gas, and the lack of a
residue resulted in a relatively rapid switch to these new fuels. This was particu-
larly timely since there was a major construction boom in housing units for the
millions of soldiers returning to civilian life and starting new family units. The loser
in this market was the coal industry since it was the fuel being displaced. However,
this competition kept the price of coal low. This encouraged the construction of
electrical power generating stations with some of the electricity being used for
space heating. In either case the ash residue was eliminated from the urban refuse
stream.
The speed of this transformation is illustrated by the following numbers for
New York State. These numbers represent the percentage of living units heated by
coal. There was a more rapid transition in the urban areas during the decade of the
1950s, in part, because that was where most of the new home construction was
occurring.

I940 1950 1960

Urban 73.3% 39.1% 8.8%

Rural 81.0% 41.4% 17.4%
Statewide 74.6% 39.5% 9.9%

Similar examples can be found in other parts of the country. The trend has contin-
ued and today it is even difficult to buy coal for use in the home.

Packaging and marketing of food stuffs. This certainly is a major techno-

logical advance, encouraged by the general economic prosperity of this country and
the marketing of consumer goods. This development affected many areas of the
consumer market. Plastic film and metal foil were major contributors to the revo-
lution in the food-packaging industry. The most common technique for food pres-
ervation in the 1940s and 1950s was canning in metal cans and glass jars. Prior to
these changes, food was purchased either fresh or canned. Some dry food, such as
52 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

flour, sugar, and salt, and some dried fruits and vegetables were available in paper
packages.
Concomitant with the development of these new materials was the perfection
of new processes for preservation of food (i.e., frozen foods, freeze-dried, and par-
tially dehydrated). Various food items could now be prepared at a central plant and
frozen for distribution to the consumer. The palatability of these foods was, in many
cases, superior to the canned foods, and in some cases almost as good as fresh
items. Freezing was a good technique for storing foods, so it was possible to have
many foods all year that were generally not available as canned products, and there-
fore available only during certain periods of the year.
As this technology improved, the industry began marketing different types of
prepared foods. Before long it was possible to buy a “TV dinner,” essentially a
complete meal that needed only to be thawed and heated in an oven. The develop-
ment of the microwave oven made such meals even more convenient. Consequently,
most of the food passing through the food markets has been processed to a greater
or lesser extent. Portions of the food that would have become garbage in the house-
hold remains at the processing plant, where it becomes an industrial solid waste.
This technology affected the garbage component by eliminating all of the
nonedible portion of the food. The pea pods, the carrot tops, the corn husks and
cobs, and so on, remained at the processing plant. These materials were replaced
with packaging materials such as paper, plastic film, and aluminum foil. The natu-
ral biodegradable food wastes were being replaced with a new synthetic material,
plastic, and a metal product that was not degradable.
A majority of the food wastes that do reach the household are discharged into
the sewer with a garbage grinder. This appliance is not present in all households,
but most new residential units have them as part of the basic appliances. As a result
of these technological advances, the decrease in the garbage content of solid waste
indicated in Table 4.3 is understandable, as is the increase in plastic and paper. The
garbage content will probably not decrease significantly in the future because of the
relatively low percentage in the current refuse stream.
One example of the effect of new materials and consumer demands on the
composition of refuse is the beverage container industry. Prior to 1950, essentially
all of the beer and soft drinks were marketed in returnable glass bottles. During
World War 11, some of the beer was shipped overseas in metal cans. This was a
special use of cans and it was not very popular in the domestic market. The devel-
opment of the pop-top can was a breakthrough in gaining acceptance of cans for
beverages. The can could be opened conveniently. Also, the nonreturnable bottle
was being introduced at about the same time. There was definite competition be-
tween can and bottle manufacturers for this market.
The data in Table 4.5 show that the consumption of beverages increased from
about 53 billion units in 1958 to near 80 billion in 1976. During this period, throw-
away containers increased from 10 billion to almost 60 billion units, while return-
able bottles remained essentially constant at about 2 billion units. From 1958 to
1976, the number of fillings per container decreased from 4.5 to 1.3. There has
Chap. 4 Factors Causing Change in Solid Waste Composition 53

Table 4.5 Effect of technology on beverage container use

Containers used (million units)

~~ ~ ~

1958 1965 1976

Nonreturnable
Bottles I ,43 I 7,011 22, loo
Cans 8,746 18,559 36,000
10,177 25,570 58,100
Returnable bottles 1,628 2,499 1,660
Total containers I 1,805 28,069 59,760
Total fillings 52,921 65,213 79,500
Containers/fillings 1f4.5 112.3 U1.3

Source: Midwest Research Institute, The Role of Packaging in Solid

Wusre Management-I966 to 1976 Publication SW-Sc, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, Washington, DC, 1969.

been little change in this ratio in recent years due to the concern of a significant
part of the population for resource conservation. This segment of the population
continues to demand returnable containers, and the industry responds to this market
as they do to any market.
In recent years, there has been a major decrease in disposable glass bottles
and steel cans. Aluminum cans have assumed the dominant share of the market for
disposable beverage containers, increasing from about 1% in 1964 to over 90% of
the total number of containers in 1984. The aluminum can industry produced over
66 billion cans in 1985. Of course, it is a question of how long aluminum will retain
this dominant position. Plastic containers have captured most of the market for
large beverage containers (1 liter or greater), including milk, juices, and soft drinks.
In 1982, approximately 21% of the soft-drink gallonage was sold in large plastic
containers. If this trend continues, one may find aluminum and glass completely
displaced from the beverage container market.
An additional complicating factor is the mandated recycling laws that have
been passed in many states and will probably become nationwide in the near term.
The ease of recycle may play a significant role in determining which material dom-
inates. As discussed later, in 1988, about 50% of aluminum containers were being
recycled. Plastic recycle was in the infant stage but being aggressively pursued by
the industry.

Packaging and marketing of consumer goods. The marketing concept that

resulted in large self-service stores required a new packaging philosophy. Individual
items were selected from the display shelf by the shopper. Packaging was required
to protect the item from damage or contamination by the customers. The item also
needed pricing information for the checkout clerk, and depending on the size, may
need to be packaged for security reasons. Consequently, a significant amount of
packaging material, paper and plastic, as well as aluminum foil, is used for display
54 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

of merchandise. When the purchase is completed, it is placed in one or more con-

tainers, adding more packaging material to be discarded.
Estimates of the quantities of packaging material contributing to the urban
solid waste stream are given below.4

197 1 1980 1990

Metric tons 35.1 38.2 45. I

Percent of total 36.9 36.6 35.5

A significant increase in the quantity of discarded packaging material gener-

ated during each time period is apparent in the table. However, the percentage of
the solid waste stream occupied by packaging materials remained essentially con-
stant, or decreased slightly. During this time frame, there was almost a threefold
increase in the amount of plastic in the waste stream. Since much of the plastic is
used for packaging, it is reasonable to assume that the consumer activity increased
substantially during this period. Lighter plastic material was substituted for the
heavier paper products, which should have decreased the percentage by weight of
the packaging material.

Communications (print) industry. This is a difficult area to quantify, but

one that has had a significant impact on the quantity of solid waste. Newsprint is
but one source of this paper. A vast number of mailings that bring the Madison
Avenue message clog every mailbox. This advertising is heavily subsidized by the
postal service through preferential mailing rates. The data in Table 4.6 reflect the
expected quantities of paper used for different printing purposes.

Legislation: Air Pollution Control Laws

The legislation passed at the state and federal level for control of air pollution had
a major impact on the composition as well as the quantities of solid waste gener-
ated in the urban areas. Few data were available on either the characteristics or the
tonnage of refuse produced prior to the ban on burning. Therefore, one can only
estimate the impact of this legislation. A typical refuse mix is about 25% ash and
25% water. If one were to assume that the combustion was 75% efficient in “burn-
ing” the 50% organic material and evaporating most of the water, only about 35 to
40% of the weight of the original refuse remained. This material would be about
65% inorganic (ash, glass, metals, ceramic goods, and dirt). This material has little
value for recycle. It would not burn well in an incinerator and would only be suit-
able for landfill.

4Waste Age, Apr. 1980, p. 46.

 Chap. 4 Quantities of Urban Solid Waste Generated 55

Table 4.6 Paper used for printed communications

Paper used (metric tondyear)

197 I 1980 1990

Newspapers 6.62 6.47 9.11

Books, periodicals 4.43 5.25 6.96
Writing, other printing 2.40 3.52 5.71
Total paper 13.45 15.24 21.78
Percent of total
refuse generated 14.1 14.6 17.1
~~~~ ~ ~

Source: Waste Age, Apr. 1980, p. 46.

More significant is the increase in the quantity of material that has to be

collected and hauled to the disposal site. After the “burn,” the density of the refuse
was probably about twice that of the unburned. With both a quantity reduction and
density increase, the number of trips to the disposal site might be only one-fourth
that required with unburned refuse. Therefore, the banning of open burning had a
major impact on the number of vehicles required to collect the refuse and, conse-
quently, the cost of the collection.
The apartment house incinerators in New York City that were causing major
air pollution in the 1960s incinerated about 600,000 tons/year or about 2000 tons/
day (6-day week) of refuse. Since these incinerators might be expected to destroy
over 90% of the organic material, the density of the refuse in the collection vehicle
would probably increase from 300 to 500 lb for unburned refuse to perhaps 1000
lb/yd3 for the incinerator residue. If each vehicle could haul 30 yd3 and make four
trips per day to a disposal site, 10 trucks operating 6-day weeks could remove the
residue from these apartments. Upon elimination of the incineration, the number of
trucks required increases to about 75 to 80, depending on the density of the refuse
in the truck. The cost of these air pollution control laws was not insignificant. Time
is required to implement such changes due to the quantities of materials involved.

QUANTITIES OF URBAN SOLID WASTE GENERATED

The actual quantities of refuse produced nationally remains as elusive today as it

was 20 years ago. Numerous estimates have been made and they have ranged from
as little as 3 Ib to as much as 10 lb per person per day. It is difficult to use numbers
with such uncertainty. Therefore, it is always better to obtain actual tonnages for a
specific project rather than trying to estimate the capacity requirements from such
“average” per capita numbers.
Evaluation of the estimated per capita production rates provides some insight
into the changing character of the refuse stream. It is interesting to see the projected
increases in refuse production and the effect such things as recycling may have on
future rates. It is also interesting to observe how consistent, or inconsistent, the
56 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

projections have been over time. The 1968 National Survey of Community Solid
Wastes Practices provided the first estimate of the national production rate at about
230 million tons per year. The per capita production was estimated at 5.2 Ib per
day. Subsequent studies conducted by various agencies, but funded by the U.S.
EPA, produced different numbers.
One of the first updatings of the estimated quantities of refuse is presented in
Table 4.7. The gross discards represent a product-by-product analysis of all major
waste components. Using the industrial production figures, it is possible to obtain a
better estimate of the amount of refuse a particular component will generate. For
example, in the 1968 survey, the amount of paper in the solid waste stream signif-
icantly exceeded the production capacity of the paper mills. The total refuse produc-
tion estimated with the latter technique was about half of the earlier estimates.
This evaluation also introduced the concept of resource recovery. With an al-
lowance for recycling, the annual tonnage decreased to about 125 million for 1971.
The substantial increase in refuse generation during the next 20 years, 133 to 225
million tons per year, was expected to be accompanied by a concomitant increase in
the quantity recycled. As a result, the increase in the net refuse production is less
and the per capita production increases only marginally. This projection was made
prior to the rash of mandatory recycle legislation passed in the late 1980s. There-
fore, the effect of recycling may be even more pronounced.
This report categorized the tonnage as to the general source. In 1971, the total
estimated production was 125 million tons. This tonnage was allocated as follows:
residential, 90 million tons; commercial, 23 million tons; and municipal, 12 million
tons.
Refuse production was much greater in the United States than in other indus-
trial countries. Data presented for the comparable time period (1971) show that the
refuse generation rate in the United Kingdom was about 16.5 million tons per year,
or about 1.5 lb per capita per day. Comparable data for Spain indicate a generation

Table 4.7 Estimates of solid wastes production

197 1 1980 1990

Gross discards
IO6 tonslyr 133 175 225
Ibkapita-day 3.52 4.28 5.00
Resource recovery
lo6 tons/yr 8 19 58
I bkapita-day 0.21 0.46 1.29
Net waste disposal
10' tons/yr 125 156 I67
Ibkapita-day 3.31 3.81 3.71

Source: Resource Recovery and Source Reduction, Second Annual

Report to Congress, U.S. EPA Publication SW-122, Washington, DC,
1974.
 Chap. 4 Variations in the Quantity and Characteristics of Solid Waste 57

Table 4.8 1980 Estimates of solid waste for disposal

Waste (tondyr)

197I 1980 1990

Rubbish 61.8 68.5 82.8

Garbage 20.6 22. I 24.3
Yard waste 22.5 27.6 33.0
104.7 118.2 140. I

Source: International Research and Technology Corporation, Fore-

casts of the Quantity and Composition of Solid Waste, Final Report to
the U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 1980.

rate of 9.9 million tons per year, or 1.54 lb per capita per day. These countries did
not have the same consumption level as that in the United States at this time and
still are more conservative in the generation of refuse.
A report published in 1980 contains an analysis of a variety of waste materi-
als. The categories comparable to the other studies are presented in Table 4.8.The
total tonnage of what is generally considered urban refuse is a little less than that
shown in Table 4.7. The tonnage figures in Table 4.3 represent the most recent
estimates of the quantity of refuse generated. The more recent studies are indicating
that the generation rate is less than initially estimated. Also, the two latter studies
are relatively close in the predicted tonnage. This probably is a result of better
estimating techniques and a better data base.

VARIATIONS IN THE QUANTITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID WASTE

The discussion above identified the changes in refuse quantities and characteristics
that are long term and more global in character. Additional variations are possible
and must be considered when attempting to determine the refuse quantity and char-
acteristics for a specific project. These variations can be categorized into three spe-
cific areas.

Seasonal Variations

Perhaps the most significant variation associated with seasonal factors is the amount
of yard and garden waste. The onset of spring brings a sharp increase in the quan-
tity of grass clippings from low-density residential areas. The quantities are highly
dependent on the area of the community, specifically the yard area per living unit.
Few data have been gathered on this specific source. As more states restrict the
disposal of this material in the sanitary landfills, data on the quantities will become
available because of the separate collection. In the fall, the grass clippings give way
to leaves, which are also being excluded from landfills. Again, the quantities are
58 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

determined by the number and types of trees present in the community. The burning
of the leaves is prohibited in almost all metropolitan areas, so alternative means
must be provided for collection and disposal.
Additional seasonal variations are less dramatic. During the Christmas sea-
son, there is a surge in consumer purchasing. This generally results in an increase
in the quantity of packaging material discarded. After Christmas, the residue from
the holiday can be significant, especially if one includes the millions of Christmas
trees that are discarded.
Any refuse processing and disposal system must be designed to cope with the
changing quantities of refuse as well as the changing characteristics. If disposal is
by landfill, the primary question is one of capacity. With the restriction on the
disposal of yard and garden refuse in the landfill, this problem is minimal. How-
ever, for an incineration process, the increase in the wet grass has a major impact
on the energy content of the refuse and may require an auxiliary fuel to maintain
the combustion temperatures.
The collection of refuse is also affected greatly by these variations. Collection
routes are generally established so that the vehicle and crew can service it in about
7 to 8 hours. When significant increases in the quantity of refuse occur, additional
vehicles and crews are needed, or overtime work is required. The added trips to the
disposal site needed to handle the additional refuse can greatly increase the cost of
operation. Special collection routes needed to collect the seasonal production of
yard and garden waste require an added number of vehicles and crews for only part
of the year. All of these variables significantly complicate the development of the
collection, processing, and disposal system.

Regional Variations

There are obvious differences in the seasonal variation in different regions of the
country. For example, Florida is a semitropical climate that does not exhibit the
variability in yard and garden waste. In arid regions, the amount of yard and gar-
den waste would be considerably less than would be found in regions with high
rainfall. The effect of climate on this waste category is rather obvious. Moisture is
another characteristic that may be influenced by regional climate. In areas with
high precipitation, the moisture content of the refuse will be significantly higher
than in arid regions. This would be a combination of more yard and garden waste
as well as more precipitation to wet the refuse. In fact, the low humidity common
in the arid regions may significantly reduce the moisture originally present in the
refuse.
There may be other regional variations, but these are generally not major. The
nature of the consuming public is rather uniform throughout the country. Certain
marketing factors may affect some components. For example, if all beverages are
marketed in disposable bottles rather than aluminum cans, the glass and aluminum
content of the refuse would be substantially different. However, these regional mar-
 Chap. 4 Variations in the Quantity and Characteristics of Solid Waste 59

-
Figure 4.2 Refuse -generation per
I t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ' household as a function of the number of
0 2 4 6 8 10 residents. (From Waste Age, Apr. 1976,
Number of persons p. 35.)

kets are not as pronounced as they have been in the past. Legislation at the state
level could have an impact. For example, a state that has a large plastic lobby may
be encouraged to tax or ban all containers not made of recyclable plastic. Because
of the monopolistic nature of such a law, it would probably not stand a court chal-
lenge. However, there is always the possibility that similar legislation will be passed
that could have a significant impact on the composition of refuse.

Variations among Individual Households

The previous discussions did not address the variations that can be expected among
households in the same community. According to the results of a study of refuse
production from households of different sizes and characteristics, the primary factor
influencing this variation is the number of persons per h o ~ s e h o l d Figure
.~ 4.2 pre-
sents the daily waste production per household as a function of the number of peo-
ple. The total production increases from about 5.5 lb/day for two people to 8.8
lb/day for 10 residents. The increase is not in proportion to the increase in the
number of residents.
This is not unexpected since some items are closely related to the individual
consumer, while others are closely related to the household unit. The containers for
food and beverages are more dependent on the number of people, while newspapers
are more dependent on the unit. Also, there is an economy of scale for food and
beverage items. A large family will probably purchase items in large containers.

'Waste Age, Apr. 1976, p. 29.

 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

1.0 -
X Total paper
+ Newspaper
o Garbage
.-8Q 0.8 -
lu
p
5- 0.6 -
0
c
E
.-E
E 0.4 -
x
U
e
LL

0.2 -

Figure 4.3 Refuse component -generation

I

I l l I l l I I I I I per capita as a function of the number of

These relationships are illustrated in Figure 4.3, which shows the daily per capita
production of different refuse components.
The curves show that the per capita production of most components are highly
dependent on the number of persons until the number reaches four to five. All
curves, except for paper and garbage, flatten to indicate no relationship with num-
ber of residents. The per capita production of paper decreases significantly with
increasing size of unit. Again, one needs only one newspaper per household. This is
true for many print items from bills to magazines.
The true impact of the results of this study is illustrated in Figure 4.4.The per
capita production of refuse decreases from approximately 2.6 Ib/day to about 0.9
Ib/day when the number of persons increases from two to 10. This threefold de-
crease in per capita production will significantly reduce the quantity of refuse ex-
pected from housing units with large families. Except for extremely low income
levels, these production rates appear to be independent of the income level of the
family. Curves showing the per capita production of refuse as a function of dwelling
size are almost horizontal. The number of family members has a much greater im-
pact on refuse production.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID WASTE

The two most important physical characteristics of refuse are density and moisture
content. The two are interrelated but have two totally different considerations in
refuse management systems.
 Chap. 4 Physical Characteristics of Solid Waste 61

Figure 4.4 Daily per capita refuse

production as a function of the number
0 2 4 6 8 10 of persons per household. (From Waste
Number of persons Age, Apr. 1976, p. 38)

Density

Refuse as produced and deposited in the trash can has a density of perhaps 200 to
300 lb/yd3. This low density is primarily a result of the shape of the material in the
waste stream. A glass bottle will float on water even though the specific gravity of
glass may be 2.5. The air trapped in the bottle reduces the overall specific gravity
to less than 1. This is true for the milk cartons, the boxes, and a host of other
objects present in the refuse. If the glass bottles are broken, the metal cans
smashed, and the boxes collapsed, the density will increase. As the proportion of
glass, ceramics, ashes, grit, and metals increase, so will the density. Therefore, the
density of any refuse stream will be determined by the composition and by the
degree of shape alteration (compaction).
Moisture also increases the density of refuse until the material becomes satu-
rated with water. As the air in the voids is replaced with water, the density will
increase. Additional water may actually decrease the density by displacing the sol-
ids, which have a greater density than water. To achieve high densities with a wet
refuse, it is necessary to expel the excess water.
Reduction in volume is an important consideration in the management of
refuse, both in the collection and transport and in the final disposal. For example,
the volume (Vi)occupied by 1 ton of refuse at a density of 200 lb/yd3 is 10 yd3.
This means that a truck with a 30-yd3 capacity could only haul three tons of refuse.
 62 Sources and Characteristicsof Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

I 1400
I 1200

1oa 1000

0 80
-E,
9
.c 60
.-0
I

3
-0
40 400
Y

al
2
I2 20 200

I I , I I I I I , I
0
0
20 40 60 80 100 Figure 4.5 Effect of compressive forces
Compaction pressure (psi) on the percent volume reduction.

With a volume reduction of 50%, the density becomes 400 lb/yd3. This same truck
can haul 6 tons of refuse. If the density is increased to 1000 lb/yd3, the volume (Vf)
occupied by 1 ton is 2 yd3. From equation ( l ) , the PRV is 80%:

percent reduction in volume (PRV) = 100 1

( ):- - (1)

Since the trucks are size limited rather than weight limited, the impact of such a
reduction in volume on the cost of collection and hauling of refuse is obvious.
Unfortunately, these volume reductions require a substantial compressive force.
Figure 4.5 presents data collected on the compaction of refuse. Internal pres-
sures of 100 psi were required to achieve the 80+% volume reduction. It is possible
to exert that level of pressure on the face of a hydraulic ram, but it is not practical
to design a truck body to contain an internal pressure of 100 psi. Consider the load
that would be placed on a flat surface with dimensions of 8 ft by 20 ft and a
pressure of 100 psi, over 2,000,000 lb. It would require a very well supported truck
body to contain such a load. Most collection vehicles strive to achieve a PRV of
50%. The density of the refuse is increased from approximately 250 lb/yd3 to 500
lb/yd3 by the normal compaction equipment on the collection vehicle.
High-pressure compaction has been investigated for increasing the density of
refuse for long-distance transport. This compaction is accomplished with stationary
balers that can exert great pressures on a ram that forces the refuse into a restricted
Chap. 4 Physical Characteristics of Solid Waste 63

Table 4.9 High-pressure compaction of refuse

Density (Ib/yd3)

Ram pressure
(psi) During stroke After stroke
~

500 1620 1080

1000 2000 1380
1500 22 10 1580
2500 2400 1600
3500 2490 1750

area. The refuse is strapped to prevent rebound. It is possible to increase the density
significantly over the noncompacted refuse. Typical densities achieved with baling
are shown in Table 4.9. It is necessary to restrain the refuse after the pressure is
released. Otherwise, a rebound effect occurs and the density decreases. Operation
at the very high pressures actually expelled water from the refuse. Water has a
density of 1685 lb/yd3. The only way to achieve densities as high as 2400 lb/yd3
would be to eliminate the water. These data suggest that one approaches an area of
diminishing return when the ram pressure reaches 1500 psi. It is very difficult to
retain a density in excess of 1500 lb/yd3 even in baled refuse.
The degree of compaction obtained when refuse is placed in a sanitary landfill
is a critical operating parameter for the landfill. Volume is the determining factor
for efficiency of landfill utilization. Efficient operation of the site requires placing
the refuse and compacting it to an optimum density. Operational requirements for
landfills are discussed in a later chapter. In the context of density considerations,
the data in Table 4.10 are presented.
These data resulted from a full-scale test in which landfill cells were filled
with refuse. A Caterpillar D-9 was used to spread and compact the refuse. Residen-
tial refuse was used and had the following dry weight composition; paper and paper
products, 51%; grass and yard rubbish, 36%; inert materials, 11%; and garbage,
2%. The material was dumped into the cell and spread in layers at a depth of 1.O to
1.5 ft. As each layer was placed, a track of the D-9 passed over it four times. The

Table 4.10 Refuse compaction in a sanitary landfill

Density (lb/yd3)

Moisture Before cover After cover

Content
(“ro) Wet Dry Wet Dry

23.6 1052 804 1209 924

35.4 1094 706 1186 765
53.2 I199 56 I 1318 605

Source: Public Works, May 1969, p. 1 1 1 .

64 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

volume of the cell and the wet and dry weight placed in the cell were measured in
the field. To determine the effect of moisture on the compaction process, the mois-
ture content of the refuse was adjusted prior to placement.
Several observations can be made from these data. First, the effect of increas-
ing the moisture content of the refuse is detrimental. The wet density increase is
small, and the dry density decreases significantly at the higher moisture levels. In
effect, the landfill is being filled with water rather than solids. Second, the soil
cover plays an important role in containing the refuse. In this case, 2 ft of soil was
placed on the top of the cell. The imposed load from the soil (about 300 lb/ft2)
prevented the refuse from rebounding, resulting in a measurable increase in both
wet and dry density. Finally, there is a limit to the increase in density that can be
achieved. The maximum density based on the dry solids was slightly more than 900
lb/yd3. With this careful operation, the maximum density of as-received refuse was
only 1300 lb/yd3. One can use a conservative estimate of in-place density for refuse
in a sanitary landfill of about 1000 lb/yd3 “as received.” If the density of the refuse
is increased from about 250 lb/yd3 at the source to 1000 lb/yd3 in the landfill, the
PRV is approximately 75%.

Moisture Content

The moisture content of refuse is defined as the ratio of the weight of water to the
weight of the wet refuse. The following equation can be used to calculate the per-
cent moisture of a sample:
wet weight - dry weight
% moisture = (2)
wet weight
A known quantity of wet sample is dried in a drying oven to a constant weight. The
source of this moisture is either from the components of the refuse (Le., garbage
and yard wastes) or from precipitation. A typical range for moisture content is 20 to
40%. The lower represents refuse from an arid region, while the higher would be
for a region with high precipitation. These are only average, and values greater than
40% are not uncommon.
The moisture in the refuse affects the weight of the material handled. Refuse
with a dry weight density of 250 lb/yd3 is capable of absorbing a considerable
weight of water before additional volume is required. The water simply fills the
void spaces. If this refuse has a moisture content of 25%, the wet density increases
to 333 lb/yd3. At 50% moisture, the wet density is 500 lb/yd3. Water simply adds
weight to the solid waste, and the cost to collect and transport increases. It is de-
sirable to eliminate extraneous water from contacting the dry refuse.
Moisture is very important in refuse processing that involves thermal systems.
The water must be evaporated before a thermal process can proceed. The energy
penalty can be a significant factor in the economic success of these processes. The
heat loss associated with the evaporation of water and the heat associated with the
 Chap. 4 Chemical Characteristics of Solid Waste 65

Table 4.11 Enthalpy of water and water vapor

Enthalpy (Btu/lb)

Temperature ( O F ) Liquid Vapor

32 0 1076
77 47 1096
212 180 I150
600 617 1165

Source: R. H. Perry and C. H. Chilton, Eds., Chemical

Engineers Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1973, (3) p. 110.

elevated temperature of the water vapor is significant when the moisture content is
greater than 15 to 20%. In Table 4.11, the data on the enthalpy value of liquid
water and water vapor at various temperatures show how much energy can be as-
sociated with the latent heat of water.
The latent heat of water is temperature dependent, but since the evaporation
in a thermal process generally occurs at temperatures below 200°F, the heat of va-
porization is approximately 1050 Btu/lb. The heat capacity of liquid water (the
change in enthalpy at constant pressure C,,) is 1 Btu/lb-OF, while water vapor has a
C,, of approximately 0.5 Btu/lb-"E Consequently, the mass of water evaporated and
heated to some elevated temperature is a major determinant in the energy balance
for a thermal process.

CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLID WASTE

There are several ways to characterize the chemical composition of refuse, includ-
ing the general classes of chemical compounds, elemental analysis (ultimate analy-
sis), or proximate analysis used for combustion system evaluation.

General Classes of Chemical Compounds

Classification provides some insight to the type of material contributing to solid

waste. Knowledge of the general classes of compounds and their characteristics
enables one to have a better understanding of the behavior of refuse.

Lipids. These compounds are commonly called fats, oils, and grease.
Refuse will contain approximately 8 to 10% lipids on a dry weight basis. The pri-
mary sources of lipids are garbage, cooking oils, and fats. Because of the chemical
structure of lipids, they have a high energy value, about 16,000 to 17,000 Btu/lb. A
refuse with a high lipid content is a good candidate for an energy recovery process.
Lipids also become fluid at temperatures slightly above ambient. This can add to
66 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

the liquid content of the refuse and cause a change in the physical properties of the
refuse due to wetting of the paper and paper products. Although lipids are biode-
gradable, they have a low solubility in water, which substantially reduces the rate of
biodegradation.

Carbohydrates. Carbohydrates, hydrated carbon, have the general formula

(CH,O),. This category includes a variety of sugars and polymers of sugars, such
as starch and cellulose, which are both polymers of glucose. One additional factor
may be included to subdivide these compounds [i.e., the resistance of the polymer
to hydrolysis (breaking into the single monomer of sugar)]. If one uses this classi-
fication, carbohydrates include only the sugars and starch. The starch polymers
hydrolyze easily to glucose and the sugars are soluble in water and readily biode-
graded. They also attract vermin since they are a good food source for flies and
rats. The sources of carbohydrates are primarily garbage and yard wastes. Sugars
account for 4 to 6%, and starch accounts for 8 to 12% of the dry weight of solid
wastes.

Crude fibers. This category includes the natural fibers, which are resistant
to degradation. The major polymers are cellulose and lignin. Cellulose is a very
large polymer of glucose. Lignin is composed of a number of monomers with ben-
zene rings being the primary monomer. Cellulose and lignin occur together in many
fibers and result in material that is highly resistant to biodegradation. This is the
source of the humus material found in nature. Natural fibers found in paper prod-
ucts, garbage, and yard waste are the major source of these polymers. Cellulose may
account for 25 to 30% of the dry weight of refuse, while lignin may be 8 to 10%.

Proteins. Proteins are nitrogenous compounds that consist of an organic

acid (R-COOH) with a substituted amine (NH,) group. Garbage and yard wastes
are a source of proteins, which comprise about 5 to 10%of the dry solids in refuse.
Proteins provide a valuable source of nutrients for the biodegradation of solid
waste. The refuse is deficient in nitrogen, and rapid biodegradation requires addi-
tional nitrogen for the microbial growth. Also, partial decomposition of proteins
can result in the production of amines, which have very intense odors. Common
names for some of these amines are “putrescine” and “cadaverine” and are indic-
ative of the association they carry.

Synthetic organic materials. The remaining organic material is composed

of synthetic compounds that are classified as plastic. The textiles made from natu-
ral fibers, cotton and wool, would be classified as crude fibers, as would leather.
Synthetic materials have recently become a significant component of solid waste,
accounting for 5 to 7%. The resistance to natural degradation makes these materials
of special concern, especially when placed in an environment where natural pro-
cesses are expected to destroy the material.
Chap. 4 Chemical Characteristics of Solid Waste 67

The regulatory pressure on the plastics industry has spurred the development
of polymers that are either photodegradable or biodegradable. Several photodegrad-
able polymers are currently used in special cases. An ethylene-carbon monoxide
copolymer has been developed for the manufacture of plastic six-pack carriers.
When exposed to ultraviolet light, the polymers disintegrate. Other photodegradable
plastics combine copolymers of ethylene-propylene with ketone-containing mono-
mers to increase the presence of a light-sensitive group that will interact with ultra-
violet light. Of course, these plastics must be exposed to light before they degrade.
Biodegradable plastic contains a starch-based additive along with the normal
synthetic monomers. The polymers that form contain a certain fraction of natural
starch polymers that is biodegradable. As the microorganisms attack the starch, the
polymer structure of the plastic deteriorates. With certain modifications, these syn-
thetic monomers themselves can be biodegraded.
There is considerable resistance to use of degradable plastics. One of the pri-
mary attributes of plastic is its stability under many different environmental condi-
tions. Degradable plastic would be defeating the purpose of the plastic. The
presence of these plastics in the waste stream may complicate the recycling effort.
It will be difficult to separate the degradable and nondegradable polymers. If plastic
recycling is fully developed, much of the incentive for degradable plastics will be
eliminated. It is probable that they will not become a significant component of the
refuse stream.
Another factor of interest is the high energy content of the plastic, which is in
the range of 23,000 Btu/lb. It is an excellent fuel, and an increase in plastic content
will increase the potential for energy recovery from solid waste. A negative factor
associated with the combustion of plastic is that some of the plastic is polyvinyl
chloride, a source of chlorine, which has been associated with the formation of
dioxin, and a source of acid gas, which increases corrosion in the combustion
system.

Noncombustibles. The balance of the material is considered to be noncom-

bustible: glass and ceramics, metals, dust and dirt, and ashes. This category may be
in the range of 12 to 25% of the dry solids. It is essentially the residue that remains
after combustion.

Ultimate Analysis

The ultimate analysis is an elemental analysis that determines the percentage of

each element present in the refuse. This analysis is necessary for conducting any
mass balance calculations for a chemical or thermal process. The five primary ele-
ments and their percentage in the refuse are shown in Table 4.12. Carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen constitute the majority of the mass of material in refuse. The low
sulfur content is important when considering a combustion process. There is little
concern with air pollution from sulfur oxides. The ash fraction contains the residual
68 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

Table 4.12 Ultimate analysis of solid waste

Element Range (% dry wt)

Carbon 25-35
Hydrogen 2.5-6
Oxygen 15-30
Nitrogen 0.25-1.2
Sulfur 0.02-0.12
Ash 12-30

from combustion of the organic material as well as the original inorganic compo-
nents in the refuse. Because of its composition, this ash can have significant envi-
ronmental consequences. Where does the ash go-up the stack or to a landfill? The
glass and ceramic materials and the metal containers account for most of the ash
fraction. If an efficient resource recovery system is used to process the refuse prior
to combustion, the magnitude of the ash fraction can be reduced to less than 10%of
the ash from a conventional incineration system.
Table 4.13 shows some typical values for the toxic metal content of the ash
residue from combustion of raw refuse and of refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The bulk
inert materials, such as cans and bottles, are excluded from the fine ash produced
by an incinerator. If the weight of these materials are also considered as part of the
ash stream, the weight percent of the metals in Table 4.13 for incineration would be
reduced by a factor of 3. The percentage of heavy metals in the ash from RDF
combustion is higher. Many of these heavy metals are present in the organic com-
ponents (plastic, leather, rubber, and paper) of the refuse. However, remember that
much less ash is produced from the combustion of RDF.
The heavy metals present in the ash pose a significant disposal problem. The
mobility of these metals may cause the ash to be declared a hazardous waste, re-
quiring a special ash landfill. The U.S. EPA has specified a standard procedure for
determining the leachability of these metals. These ash fractions also contain sig-

Table 4.13. Metal content of ash from refuse combustion

Fine ash (Ib/ton)

Metal Incineration RDF

Cadmium 0.186 0.614

Chromium I .396 3.574
Mercury 0.024 0.102
Nickel 1.162 1.022
Lead 14.418 21.464
Tin 2.094 I .022
Zinc 23.256 51.104

Source: Waste Age, Sept. 1978, p. 51.

Chap. 4 Chemical Characteristicsof Solid Waste 69

Table 4.14. Proximate analysis of solid waste

Solid waste (wt %)

~~

Range Typical

Moisture 15-40 20
Volatile matter 40-60 53
Fixed carbon 5-12 I
Ash 15-30 20

nificant quantities of other metals, such as iron, manganese, calcium, magnesium,

and sodium. These metals are not toxic and do not present the same problem for
disposal.

Proximate Analysis

The proximate analysis shown in Table 4.14 is of importance in the evaluation of

the combustion properties of a fuel. There are four principal categories: moisture,
ash, volatile matter, and fixed carbon. Moisture adds weight to the fuel without
having any heating value, and the evaporation of water will reduce the heat release
from the fuel. Therefore, the higher the moisture content, the lower the value of the
material as a fuel. Ash has a similar effect. It adds weight without generating any
heat during combustion. The heat loss with the ash is small, due to the low heat
capacity of the material (about 0.2 Btdlb-OF) and the exit temperature of the ash
from the furnace.
The volatile matter and the fixed carbon define the combustion characteristics
of the fuel. The volatile matter represents the portion of the fuel that is converted
to gases when the temperature increases. This gasification will occur even before
combustion is initiated. The gases are transported to the secondary combustion
chamber, where rapid combustion of a fuel gas occurs. The chemical reaction be-
tween the fuel and oxygen occurs in a molecular dispersion. Heat release is rapid
and combustion is complete in a very short time. Fixed carbon represents the car-
bon that remains on the furnace grates essentially as charcoal. Combustion occurs
on the surface of the solids and the combustion rate is controlled by the surface area
of the fuel. Consequently, a fuel with a high percentage of fixed carbon will require
a longer retention time on the furnace grates to achieve complete combustion than
will a fuel with a low percentage of fixed carbon.

High Heating-Low Heating Value

A knowledge of the heating value of any material is critical for the evaluation of its
potential for use as a fuel in a combustion system. This parameter is a function of
the composition of the refuse, the percentage of materials that have higher Btu
70 Sources and Characteristics of Urban Solid Wastes Chap. 4

values, such as plastics and lipids. The Btu value is determined experimentally
using the bomb calorimeter test. This test measures the heat release at a constant
temperature of 25°C (77°F) from the combustion of a dry sample. This is the stan-
dard reference temperature for all heat balance calculations. The following chemical
equation represents the reaction occurring during combustion of a fuel, say cellulose:
(C,H,,O,), + 6n02 + 6nC02 + 5nH,O (3)
One product of this reaction is the water that results from the oxidation of
hydrogen. At the standard test temperature, this combustion water remains in the
liquid state. This condition produces the maximum heat release and is defined as
the high heating value (HHV). This is always the value obtained from the bomb
calorimeter test. In equation (3), 162 lb (1 lb-mol) of cellulose will produce 90 lb (5
lb-mole) of water during combustion. For every pound of cellulose burned, 0.56 lb
of combustion water are produced. The quantity of combustion water depends on
the hydrogen content of the fuel.
However, during combustion, the temperature of the combustion gases remain
above 212°F until discharged to the atmosphere. Consequently, the water is always
in the vapor state when in the combustion system. The heating value associated
with this condition is termed the low heating value (LHV). The following equation
shows the relationship between HHV and LHV:
LHV = HHV - (Ah!,X 9H) (4)
AH,, is the heat of vaporization of water, and H is the hydrogen content. Each
pound of hydrogen will produce 9 lb of water (18/2).
This water is only that resulting from the combustion process. If the fuel has
moisture associated with it, this free water must also be evaporated. The energy
required may be substantial and may result in a very inefficient combustion process.
Three factors must be remembered when evaluating refuse as a potential fuel.

1. Only dry organic material yields energy.

2. The ash content of the fuel reduces the proportion of dry organic material per
pound of fuel and retains some heat when removed from the furnace.
3. The moisture contained as free water in the refuse reduces the amount of dry
organic material per pound of fuel and requires a significant amount of energy
for evaporation.

The heating value of refuse on an as-received basis can be greatly reduced as

the ash and moisture content increases. “As received” is a term used to indicate
that the refuse has received no processing but is in the same condition as when it
was discharged from the collection vehicle. This topic will be discussed again in
greater detail when considering heat balances on combustion systems.
Chap. 4 Study Questions 71

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the six major components in present-day solid waste? How are these
components projected to change by the year 2000?
2. What factors are responsible for the variations in refuse composition in differ-
ent countries?
3. What significant technological changes in the past 50 years have influenced
the composition of refuse?
4. What effects have environmental legislation during the 1960s and 1970s had
on the quantities and characteristics of refuse?
5. How is the per capita production of refuse changed during the past 20 years,
and what has been the effect of resource recovery on this production rate?
6. What seasonal and regional variations in refuse composition can be expected?
7. What is the significance of density in solid waste management systems?
8. What is the role of water in refuse-processing systems?
9. What is “ultimate analysis”? What is a typical elemental composition of
refuse?
10. What toxic metals are commonly found in ash from refuse combustion
systems?
11. What is the meaning of “proximate analysis”? What is a typical proximate
analysis of refuse?
12. If the high heating value of methane (CH,) is 382,000 Btu/lb-mol, what is the
low heating value?
13. What is the significance of free moisture and combustion water in the opera-
tion of a thermal refuse processing system?
Recycling

As discussed in Chapter 3, the thrust of much of the state and local legislative
action in the mid-1980s was directed toward recycling of various components of
solid waste. A dictionary definition of recycle is rather straightforward, “to put
through a cycle again or through a new cycle.” The returnable glass beverage bottle
was a classical example of recycle. Prior to the advent of disposable glass, plastic,
and aluminum containers, most beverages were sold in returnable glass bottles. The
bottles were used again and again, with only the broken bottles being discarded. In
the present-day “disposable” society, such a practice would not be considered re-
cycling because the container is never discarded. The commonly accepted definition
of solid waste recycling would be to utilize one or more components in such a way
that they are not deposited in a sanitary landfill. With this definition, the uses
discussed below may be available for a refuse component.

USES FOR RECYCLED MATERIALS

Replace Virgin Material

Historically, it has been cost-effective to manufacture consumer goods from virgin

materials rather than reusing the existing material. There are many reasons for this
practice, but a primary reason was the known quality of the raw material. The
composition of the virgin material was consistent, having little or no contamina-
tion. Continued reuse of the material may change its intrinsic properties or may
increase the level of foreign materials that interfere with the product quality. Qual-

72
Chap. 5 Uses for Recycled Materials 73

ity control was an original justification for use of virgin materials and probably will
continue to be the limitation on the percentage of material that can be recycled.
Today, paper is recycled for the manufacture of new paper products. The var-
ious paper products recovered from solid waste can be repulped and made into new
product ( i e . , newsprint is pulped and made into new newsprint, etc.). The propor-
tion of recycled paper blended with virgin fibers will depend on the quality of the
recycled material, in particular the length of the paper fiber. The more the fibers
are processed, the shorter they become, soon reaching a size that is no longer ac-
ceptable in the final product.
Glass has recycle value as a replacement for the silica (sand) that is used to
manufacture glass. Again, quality control is a problem, especially with colored
glass. As we discuss later, the value of recycled glass is low because the cost of
virgin material is low. Much of the cost is associated with the energy required for
melting the glass and forming a new product. In this case the recycled container
rather than the container material has the real value for resource conservation. Alu-
minum, especially cans, has a high recycle value. The cost of the virgin materia1 is
high because of the energy required to produce the metal from the ore. The 33.1
billion cans recycled in 1985 resulted in an energy savings of 9.5 billion kilowatts.
As long as the aluminum is free from contamination, which is true for cans, it can
be re-formed economically. A major problem with the recycle of ferrous metals
is the contamination with other metals used to make special steels. Copper con-
tamination, in particular, imposes a limitation on the amount of steel that can be
recycled.

Raw Material for New Product/Use

Some refuse components have been used as a raw material for the production of
other products. Recycled paper has a large market for use in manufacturing building
materials, such as roofing felt, insulation, and wallboard. It has also been used to
manufacture special containers such as egg cartons. It could see a bigger market in
this area, especially if the legislative bans on the use of plastic foams expand.
Recycled plastic has been used to produce fiberfill, an insulating material used in
lightweight cold-weather clothing and gear. It has also been used to manufacture
structural plastics for playground and park equipment. As the quantity of recycled
plastics increases, it will continue to provide a raw material for a low price. There
will be many new uses found.
All of the organic material present in the solid waste stream contains signifi-
cant quantities of energy. Incineration of solid waste with energy recovery is cur-
rently used in many large communities. The material is burned in a steam boiler
dedicated to refuse combustion, or burned along with another fuel in a central
power generation station. As the separation of paper, plastics, and yard and garden
waste at the source increases, the value of the solid waste as a fuel decreases. This
is a case where the recycling and resource recovery schemes are incompatible.
 74 Recycling Chap. 5

Table 5.1. Major commodities recycled in the United States, 1984

Generated ( IO6 tons) Recycled ( IO6 tons) Percent

~

Paper and paperboard 62.3 12.9 21

Glass 13.9 I .o 7
Metals 13.7 0.9 7
Plastics 9.1 0.1 I
Rubber and leather 3.4 0. I 3
Others 45. I 0 0

Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960

to 2000, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Franklin Asso-
ciates, Washington, DC, 1984.

EXTENT OF RECYCLING

The data in Table 5.1 show the extent of recycling in 1984. Paper is the major
commodity recycled, with glass and metals a distant second. Certain metals have a
much higher recycle rate than the general category. Plastics, rubber, and leather
make a small contribution to the recycled stream. Plastics are receiving consider-
ably more attention as the proportion of plastics in the solid waste increases. The
decade of the 1990s should see a significant increase in the amount of plastics
recycled.

Paper and Paper Products Recycling

Paper has the longest history for recycling of any component of refuse, except for
perhaps ferrous metals. It was not uncommon to save paper and ferrous metals for
collection by civic groups such as the Boy Scouts. This was occurring prior to
World War I1 and increased significantly during this war. The demand for recycled
paper has continued. Over the years, 20 to 25% of the paper produced has been
from recycled paper fibers. In 1986, about 17.8 million tons of waste paper were
used in the United States. Two hundred paper mills processed only waste paper, and
another 150 mills used waste paper for part of their production. One limitation on
the amount of waste paper that can be used in any year is the capacity of these
paper mills. One can not build such a mill in 6 months. The investment is large and
the corporation will need to be certain that the supply of waste paper will continue
at a competitive price. Consequently, the growth in the capacity for use of recycled
paper will be gradual, and until the mill capacity catches up with the supply of
waste paper, there will be an oversupply and price instability.
The price of waste paper is very volatile and regional. In 1987, the price paid
to municipal recycling systems ranged from around $5 to over $80 per ton. The
extreme fluctuation in price is reflected in an article from the Wall Street Journal
(Jan. 25, 1989, p. B4), which reported: “Municipalities that just two months ago
were receiving as much as $25 per ton for their newspapers from brokers now are
Chap. 5 Extent of Recycling 75

Table 5.2. Projection of paper production and recycling

Millions of tons
~ ~

Year Production Recoverable Actual Fuel Landfilled

1984 77 70 21 2 48
1990 86 76 27 5 45
2000 I IO 95 34 9 52

Source: Waste Age, Sept. 1986, p. 53.

having to pay these brokers $5 to $35 a ton just to haul the old papers away.” One
factor that is blamed for the extreme fluctuations in the value of waste paper is the
export market. The excess paper that is diverted to this market can keep the supply
tight, but the export market is not the dominant market for recycled paper. In 1987,
24 million tons (28.6%of the paper produced) were recycled. Domestic consump-
tion was 19.6 million tons and 4.4 million tons (18.3% of the total recycled) were
exported.
Table 5.2 presents some projections as to the future potential for this activity.
These data project that about 90% of the paper produced could be recovered, as
shown in the third column. A more realistic percentage might be 85%. It is esti-
mated that some 15% of the paper is removed from the waste stream as permanent
products, such as building materials, books and ledgers, and sanitary paper. The
actual recovered paper is considerably less, for the reasons discussed earlier. The
column marked fuel represents the paper that is burned for power production. If
these production projections are accurate, it is possible that the amount of paper
being hauled to the landfill will have increased by 2000. There are, of course, many
factors that impact these numbers. They are nothing more than educated guesses
using historical data and expected expansion of the mill capacities.
It is interesting to know the types of paper and paper products that are recy-
cled. In 1987, corrugated containers, including the clippings from the fabrication of
these containers, accounted for 11.2 million tons (47%) of the recycled paper prod-
ucts. Newsprint provided 4.4 million tons (18%); mixed papers, 2.8 million tons
(12%);and high-grade papers from print shops, 5.5 million tons (23%). The major
sources of recycled paper have been and continue to be the industrial and commer-
cial paper and paper product users. The data in Table 5.3 show how much recycled
material is used in each category. Clearly, paperboard leads in total tons recycled,
but construction paper and others (45%) and tissue paper (43%) uses a larger per-
centage of recycled fiber to manufacture new product. Paperboard uses about 34%
of recycled material for the manufacture of new containers. High-quality paper used
in printing and writing paper uses a very low percentage of recycled fibers, only
about 5%.
The historical sources for recycled paper and paper products developed for a
reason. The large producers of these waste papers were prime candidates for recy-
cle because the quantities of waste paper generated were large and the cost for
76 Recycling Chap. 5

Table 5.3. Paper recycling in the United States, 1986

Millions of tons

Total production Waste paper used

Newsprint 5.6 1.4

Printing, writing, etc. 19.6 I .o
Industrial, etc. 5. I 0.3
Tissue 5.1 2.2
Paperboard 35.4 12.0
Construction paper 2.0 0.9

Source: Paper Recycling and Its Role in Solid Waste Management, American
Paper Institute, New York, 1987.

disposal was significant. Therefore, there was an economic reason for recycling the
paper; it was more cost-effective than hauling the paper to a disposal site. Eco-
nomic considerations continue to drive paper recycle. Legislative dictates may in-
crease the quantity of paper available for recycle, but there will be strong resistance
on the part of waste paper processors to make the large capital investments neces-
sary to increase their plant capacity. State legislatures are very fickle and they
could eliminate the source of funds for recycle subsidy just as rapidly as they made
them available.

Aluminum Recycling

The recycle of aluminum, especially aluminum cans, has been a major success.
There was a resistance on the part of the industry to become involved in reuse of
the aluminum. However, the social and economic pressure convinced them that it
was in the industry’s best interest to use the recycled material. They have recog-
nized the marketing advantage of recyclable aluminum beverage containers. The
major aluminum companies use this in their advertising to induce the use of more
aluminum containers. Recyclability and convenience of the aluminum can has in-
creased its market share in the number of beverage containers from about 1% in
1964 to over 90% in 1984.
Table 5.4 presents data on the quantity of aluminum recycled. In 1975, about
25% of the cans were recycled. This percentage remained relatively constant until
about 1980. During this period, a number of states passed laws requiring deposits
on all containers. The mandatory deposits of from $0.05 to $0.10 per container
provided an additional incentive for recycle.
In recent years the value of recycled aluminum cans has increased such that
this alone is incentive for recycle. Contracts for the purchase of aluminum cans for
as much as $1400 per ton were reported in 1989. Most new refuse processing sys-
tems include an aluminum recovery process for the express purpose of recovery of
these cans prior to disposal. There are about 25 cans per pound, so the value of a
Chap. 5 Extent of Recycling 77

Table 5.4. Aluminum can recycling

Year Millions of pounds Billions of cans Percent recovered

1975 180 4. I 26.9

1976 212 4.9 24.9
1977 280 6.6 26.4
1978 340 8.0 27.4
1979 360 8.5 25.7
1980 609 14.8 37.3
1981 1017 24.9 33.2
1982 1 I24 28.3 55.5
1983 1144 29.4 52.9
1984 1226 31.9 52.8
1985 1250 33. I 51.0

Source: Wasie Age, Mar. 1987, p. 120.

single can will be almost $0.03. This value encourages the pickup of cans discarded
as litter. There are many “street people” that make a special effort to collect these
discarded cans and take them for recycle. Such automated facilities as the Golden
Goat buy-back centers make it very easy to recycle the beverage containers (see
Figure 5.1). In fact, the value of the mixed aluminum scrap at $500 to $700 per ton
is sufficient that reports of the theft of aluminum highway signs and aluminum
siding from buildings have been in the news media. There are very active legal
recycle programs for mixed aluminum scrap and aluminum cans in all communities.
These programs are generally self-sufficient and, in some municipal programs, pro-
vide an income to subsidize the other recycling activities.
The future of aluminum as a beverage container will depend upon the inroads
made by the plastic industry. At present, the larger beverage containers-soft
drinks, juices, and milk-are marketed in plastic containers. The ability of the alu-
minum industry to retain its market share will depend, in part, on the image
it projects regarding recycling. In 1987, the plastics industry instituted a major

Figure 5.1 Golden Goat franchised

automated buy-back unit.
78 Recycling Chap. 5

research and public relations program for the purpose of developing an image of
plastic as a material that is easily recycled.

Glass Recycling

Glassmakers have been returning glass broken during manufacturing to the glass
furnace since the advent of glassmaking. This cullet, mixed at a ratio of 15% with
raw materials, is used for new product manufacture. When the supply of broken
glass from the manufacturing plant was inadequate to meet this ratio, some plants
would initiate a buy-back program from the public in the vicinity of the plant. As
long as the recycled glass is of the same color, it can be used without additional
refining. General public collection of glass for recycle was initiated in 1970 with a
total of about 24,700 tons collected during that year. This quantity has increased to
about 1 million tons, approximately 4.5 billion containers, in 1986. The Glass Pack-
aging Institute estimates that 25% of the glass bottles are made from recycled
’
glass. At present, there are 85 container manufacturing plants that buy reclaimed
glass from thousands of reclamation centers.
It is necessary to separate glass according to colors and run it through a
crusher to break the containers and remove the metal caps and the labels. This
reduces the volume of the glass and substantially reduces shipping costs, which are
a significant cost factor in glass recycle. The weight of the glass restricts the ship-
ping distance since the price paid for the recycled glass may not cover long-distance
shipping costs. Many glass plants are located throughout the country, but they may
produce only certain colors or quality of glass. It is not always possible economi-
cally to market all colors of glass from a given recycling center. A careful market
analysis must be conducted before glass recycling is undertaken. Prices in 1988
were about $25 per ton for mixed glass avd $38 to $45 per ton for color-sorted glass.
Glass has been losing its share of the beverage container market. In the 1950s,
over 90% of the beverages was packaged in glass containers. By 1975, glass con-
tainers had only 40% of the beer market. The glass container share of the soft-drink,
juice, and milk market was equally affected. Aluminum and plastic containers were
assuming a larger share of these markets. Glass is still used extensively for many
food items, but plastic has been slowly displacing some of this market.

Ferrous Metal (Can) Recycling

Historically, there was a market for tin cans. The cans were passed through a de-
tinning process for recovery of tin and ferrous metal. Other cans were, and still are,
shipped to copper mines for use in the recovery of copper from low-grade ores. The
detinning operations were considerably reduced during the 1970s and 1980s because
of the increased cost of the process and a reduced supply of “tin” cans. The loca-
tion of the copper mines in the western part of the country has eliminated use of

‘World Wasre, Aug. 1988, p. 40.

Chap. 5 Extent of Recycling 79

cans from east of the Mississippi River due to the high transportation costs. The
concern with metal contamination of the steel product has substantially reduced the
market for recycled steel cans. The current recycling activities have increased the
availability of tin-coated steel cans. Consequently, the detinning operations may in-
crease. There are some changes in the cans that may present problems, especially
the plastic coatings used on the can interior. The quantity of tin on the can is
reduced accordingly. Even under the best scenario, ferrous can recycling is
marginal.
However, ferrous metal is easily recovered by magnetic separation. In 1982,
some 3.5 billion cans were recovered from resource recovery facilities. Most of
these cans are processed through a scrap dealer and included with a variety of other
ferrous scrap metal. “White goods,” which are the appliances and other enameled
fixtures discarded from households, are also processed by these dealers. The price
for cans may range from $0 to $60 per ton, depending on many site-specific con-
ditions. Much of the scrap metal is exported to countries that have metal processing
plants designed for a high percentage of scrap metal. The separation of ferrous
metals is convenient and inexpensive. The removal of these metals will reduce the
maintenance cost of the subsequent processes, so most refuse processing plants re-
cover these metals even if they have to give them away.

Plastic Recycling

Plastic has only recently become a significant portion of the refuse stream. Prior to
1970, it was not listed as a component of solid waste. The data for 1970 show
plastic to be between 2 and 3% of the wet weight of the refuse. The use of plastic
for containers, in food packaging, and in packaging in general has increased this
percentage to about 7% in 1990. In 1987, 14.7 billion pounds of plastic were used
in packaging. This quantity is expected to increase to 34 billion pounds by 2002.2
With the emphasis on recycle, the industry has recently launched an intensive pub-
lic relations effort and research program to improve the image of plastic as an eas-
ily recycled material.
There are two types of plastics that are currently receiving the major atten-
tion for recycle: polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene
(HDPE). PET is the plastic in the clear bottles used for beverage containers, and
HDPE is used as the base cap on PET bottles and for white or milky containers.
PET is used for large soft-drink containers and in 1985 accounted for 21% of the
soft-drink volume. For that year, PET production was about 450 million pounds and
about 110 million pounds were recycled. HDPE production in this year was 1.8
billion pounds, but very little was r e ~ y c l e d . ~
The process for manufacturing of these plastics makes it difficult to use recy-
cled plastic to produce the original product. Some in-plant waste plastic may be

‘Chemical Engineering, Nov. 23, 1987, p. 22.

‘Wasre Age, Jan. 1985, p. 50.
 80 Recycling Chap. 5

Table 5.5 Estimated plastic wastes

Waste (billion pounds)

Year Manufacturing Post-consumer

~ ~

1984 2.5 30
1990 3.5 35
1995 4.5 45

Source: Waste Age, July 1987, p. 55

used, but most of the recycled plastic is used to manufacture other plastic products.
PET can be used as the starting material for a number of other products and the
potential market for recycled PET has been estimated at 1.3 billion pound^.^ Fiber-
fill, unsaturated polyester, strapping, and other extruded products are possible uses.
Fiberfill has an estimated market potential of 250 million pounds per year.
Unsaturated polyesters are made by chemically modifying the clean PET.
When mixed with glass fibers, it can be used for a variety of components ranging
from boat hulls to no-rust exterior panels on automobiles. Marble dust can also be
mixed with the liquid unsaturated polyesters and allowed to solidify to produce
materials for sinks, countertops, and tubs. A number of other uses for PET are being
developed, so it appears that there will be a readily available market for this plastic.
The primary market for the HDPE plastic is in the production of extrusion
products such as flowerpots, toys, plastic lumber, and car components. There were
approximately 1.8 billion pounds of HDPE used in 1985, with little recycled from
the solid waste stream. Most of the recycled plastic was from in-plant waste. The
effort being invested by the industry will lead to a variety of new uses for the
various plastic products in the solid waste stream. The quantities of plastic wastes
expected are given in Table 5 . 5 .

ECONOMICS OF RECYCLING

The economic justification for recycling as it is being practiced in many municipal-

ities today is very dubious. There are three basic sources of revenue that can meet
the cost associated with recycling. These income streams must be adequate if the
venture is to be successful.

Avoided Cost

If the material is not recycled, it must be deposited at a disposal site, either a refuse
processing plant or a sanitary landfill. There is a “tipping fee” that must be paid
for each ton or cubic yard of material delivered. Since the recycled material is not

4WasfeAge, Jan. 1985, p. 50.

Chap. 5 Economics of Recycling 81

brought for disposal, this fee is not paid. Also, the transportation cost may be re-
duced by not having to haul this material to a distant landfill site. This avoided cost
can be significant. Historically, tipping fees at sanitary landfills were about $5 to
$10 per ton. As a result of the more restrictive controls placed on sanitary landfills,
these prices are in excess of $20 per ton at the landfill site. These tighter controls
and the resistance of communities to the location of sites close to urban areas may
add transportation costs of $20 to $80 per ton to the tipping fee at the landfill.
Comparable costs are also incurred at the mass-burn (incineration) plants.
Consequently, there may be a built-in savings for the producer of the refuse of
$40 to $100 per ton if the recycle can be effected. The large producers of recyclable
materials, such as supermarkets, department stores, and printing plants recognized
these savings many years ago. The quantities were sufficient to warrant special
collection and haul to the recycle center even though the disposal costs were con-
siderably less than today. As the disposal costs escalated, these recycling activities
became more cost-effective. These sources of recycled material are the foundation
of the recycling industry. They will continue to generate these wastes and because it
is cost-effective, will continue to recycle. This is not necessarily true for the many
municipal recycling systems. When the public recognizes the cost of these munici-
pal recycle systems, the support could disappear.
The avoided cost will be significant only if the quantity of material recycled is
significant. The recycling of aluminum can reduce the weight of refuse for disposal
by a maximum of less than 1% if all of the aluminum is recycled. Because alumi-
num is such a small fraction of the refuse stream, avoided cost will have little effect
on the economics of aluminum recycle. Conversely, paper and paper products are a
major component of refuse, especially from certain generators. If 50% of the paper
in urban solid waste is recycled, the avoided cost will be significant, and perhaps
even more important, the life of the landfill will be extended significantly. The
tipping fee is the same for the aluminum as the paper. The difference in tonnage
diverted is important because of the economies of scale associated with the recycle
operation.

Value of Recycled Material

The second income stream from recycling is the intrinsic value of the recycled
material. Some of these values have been discussed previously, but a range of val-
ues for the main recyclable material is presented in Table 5.6. With the exception
of aluminum and plastic, the values of the other recyclable materials are marginal,
and under certain market conditions, may be negative. The avoided cost may be the
only economic benefit from recycling these low-value materials. Conversely, alumi-
num is the other extreme. Its value is sufficiently high that mechanical systems
have been developed solely to recover aluminum from the solid waste stream. Be-
cause of this high recycle value, more and more aluminum is not discarded. It is
reclaimed before it becomes a solid waste. If the solid waste contains 1% aluminum,
82 Recycling Chap. 5

Table 5.6 Value of recycled materials

Material Range ($/ton)

Paper -25-50
Ferrous metal 0-60
Aluminum 600- 1400
Plastic
PET 160-180
HDPE 60-200
Glass 10-100

Source: Recycling Times, Aug. 15, 1989.

a recovery system that is 90% efficient would provide a revenue stream of $9 per
ton of refuse processed if the aluminum is marketed for $1000 per ton. Careful
evaluation of the quantity of material present in the refuse stream is essential when
conducting an economic evaluation of recycling.

State Government Subsidy

The laws passed by states that require recycling frequently include a tax on the
tonnage of refuse landfilled in the state. This generates a revenue stream that can be
used to subsidize the cost of recycling. This revenue can be significant. For exam-
ple, Illinois has a charge of $1.05 per cubic yard landfilled. The approximately 25
million cubic yards landfilled annually will generate about $26 million. In 1992, the
municipalities will receive 60% of this money to use for support of various solid
waste disposal activities.

Recycling Costs

The cost of recycling varies considerably from community to community. The ma-
terials collected and the type of collection are big factors in defining these costs.
Source separation with separate collection has been most common. The costs re-
ported have varied from negative (income earned from recycling) to over $100 per
ton. Figure 5.2 shows a typical curbside container used for recycle. There are a
variety of types of containers used for setting out recycled materials. Color coding
may be used to assist in the collection. Multibin vehicles such as the one shown in
Figure 5.3 are used to collect the recycled materials.
As the recycling systems become better planned and operated, these costs will
become more uniform and may be more attractive. For example, in 1982, the city
of Woodbury, New Jersey, collected 177 lb of paper and 74 lb of glass per p e r ~ o n . ~

'F. P. Mulvey, The Economics of Recycling Municipal Waste: Background Analysis and Policy A p
proaches for the State and Local Governments, New York Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Manage-
ment, Albany, NY, 1986.
Chap. 5 Economics of Recycling 83

Figure 5.2 Curbside contcliners used for

setout of rei:ycled materials to be collected
by curbside collection.

The collection cost was $61 per ton, but these costs were offset by the town’s
ability to reduce the frequency of regular refuse collection from twice to once
weekly. When this savings and the value of the recovered material were considered,
the reported net cost of the recycling program was $13 per ton of material recycled.
This was considerably less than the landfill cost.
Economic success depends on participation by a large percentage of the pop-
ulation, so that a large quantity of recycled materials can be generated. When sep-
arate collection is used, it can only be cost-effective if it collects enough tonnage to
use the collection vehicles efficiently, and enough to reduce the collection costs of
the regular solid waste. When the avoided cost can be attributed to both collection
and disposal, the cost-effectiveness of recycling can improve significantly.

Figure 5.3 Multibin vehicle for the curbside collection of recycled materials.
84 Recycling Chap. 5

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What uses can be made of recycled materials?

2. Does recycling have a long history, or is it a recent innovation (last 20 years)?
What are some examples?
3. What are the technical factors that limit the percentage of a material that can
be recycled?
4. How significant is the recycle of major constituents of solid waste?
5 . Why has corrugated paperboard enjoyed such a success in recycling?
6. What factors were responsible for initiating the recycle of aluminum cans?
7. How has the plastic industry attempted to use the recycling issue to improve
the market for plastic products?
8. What economic factors are used to support recycling?
Storage, Collection,
and Transport

Refuse is generated at the source on a somewhat continuous basis. However, col-

lection occurs on an intermittent basis-once or twice a week or perhaps daily,
depending on the quantity generated at a specific site. Therefore, it is necessary to
provide on-site storage for the solid waste until it is collected. The storage and
collection are separate operations but must be closely coordinated. The type, size,
and location of containers are very important factors in determining the most effi-
cient collection system.

ON-SITE STORAGE

Single-Family Residential Sources

The single-family home located in suburbia presents the most expensive unit cost
scenario for refuse collection. The quantity of refuse generated is low and it is
spread over a large area. The common storage mechanism is one or more "gar-
bage" cans with a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons each. These cans are manually
transferred to the collection vehicle. Roll-out containers are becoming more popular
in some areas of the country. These containers have a capacity of about 50 gallons
and are on wheels. On the day of collection, the resident rolls the container to the
street and it is mechanically loaded onto the collection vehicle. Figure 6.1 shows a
typical garbage can and a single-family roll-out container.
The size and number of containers as well as the location of the containers are
regulated by ordinance for a municipal agency and by contract for a private collection

85
86 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Figure 6.1 Typical on-site storage containers for single-family residence.

company. Collection efficiency and cost dictate the number and location of the con-
tainers. For collection, the refuse must be at curbside. When alley collection is
possible, the containers are at the back of the property. However, only older neigh-
borhoods have alleys, and then the alley width may be insufficient to allow passage
of the modern collection vehicle.
Usually, the refuse is not stored at curbside because of the aesthetics of having
solid waste setting on the street. It must be transported to the curb on the day of
collection. This may be done by a setout program in which the residents carry the
containers to the curb, or a special crew member of the agency goes through the
neighborhood for this purpose. In either case, it is the responsibility of the resident
to reclaim the cans. This may not always happen promptly and the cans or lids may
create a nuisance on a windy day.
An alternative to can setout is the use of a “shoulder barrel” (see Figure 6.3). A
plastic container with about a 50-gallon capacity is carried by a member of the collec-
tion crew to the can location. The cans are emptied into the shoulder barrel and the
refuse is transported to the collection vehicle. This has several obvious advantages.

1. The collection crew does not lose time carrying the cans from storage to the
collection vehicle.
2. Can setout is not required, which eliminates the inconvenience to the resident
or the cost of added crew members for can setout.
3. The cans remain in a more secure location and are not as likely to be a nuisance.

Shoulder barrels have become so popular that they are generally used no mat-
ter where the cans are stored. It simplifies the collection if the cans are not trans-
ported to the vehicle, even if for a short distance.
Chap. 6 On-Site Storage 87

The shoulder barrel imposes a definite h i t on the amount of refuse that can
be handled by one person. If the 50-gallon barrel is filled with refuse at a density of
250 lb/yd3, it will weigh 60,to 70 lb. That would be equal to about two typical cans
full of refuse. A much heavier load would require two trips to the collection vehi-
cle. It is common for the city ordinance to regulate the weight and number of con-
tainers so that this delay does not occur. A private agency contract will also have a
limit. If exceeded, an additional charge will be assessed to the resident to cover the
added cost due to the extra time required for the second trip.
Any oversize solid waste such as furniture and appliances that are generated at
a single-family residence require special handling. These objects are too heavy for a
crew member to carry to the collection vehicle. The typical vehicle is not designed
to accept these oversize items. Consequently, a special collection is required. Many
municipal systems provide this service when requested. This may also be true for a
private collector, but there may be an additional charge. There are a variety of
procedures for providing this special collection, but all are costly.

Multifamily ResidentiaI/CommerciaI/lnstitutionalSources

These sources generate larger quantities of refuse. Historically, multifamily housing

units had one or two cans for each unit. However, transfer of these containers to the
collection vehicle was very time consuming. It is not cost-effective to use individ-
ual cans for storage. Also, little care was exhibited by the users and these storage
areas were frequently overflowing with refuse, attracting vermin. To reduce costs
and litter and to improve the aesthetics of these storage areas, large containers are
rapidly replacing the individual containers.
The Dempster Dumpster was one of the early container units on the market.
This container was manufactured by the Dempster Corporation, but the name dump-
ster is frequently used to identify all containers. Load Lugger is another name used
to identify these containers. These containers are manufactured by a number of
companies in a variety of sizes, ranging from 0.5 to 40 cubic yards. Sheet steel is
used in the construction, so these containers have a significant empty weight. The
smaller containers may be mounted on rollers to facilitate movement from the stor-
age location to the collection vehicle. The larger containers are too heavy to move
manually and require a location that will permit access by the collection vehicle.
The refuse in containers that have a capacity of 5 yd3 or less will be trans-
ferred to the collection vehicle by a mechanical loading system. The container is
lifted by the mechanism and the refuse is dumped into the truck body, where it is
compacted (see Figure 6.2). Containers between 5 and 10 yd3 may be dumped into
the truck, or they may be hauled directly to the processing plant or disposal site.
Containers greater than 10 yd3 are generally too large for the contents to be trans-
ferred to the collection vehicle. They are loaded onto the truck chassis and the
container becomes the truck body. After unloading, the container is returned to the
on-site storage location for additional use.
 88 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Figure 6.2 Typical container and collection used for on-site storage for significant
generators of refuse.

The density of the loose refuse in these containers is about 200 to 250 lb/yd3.
In locations where a substantial quantity of refuse is produced, it is common to
combine these containers with a compaction unit, which may increase the density
by a factor of 2. The refuse accumulates in a hopper that feeds a hydraulic ram.
When the hopper is full, or at a preset time, the ram is activated and the refuse is
shoved into the container. The density of the refuse is increased by the action of the
ram. In the transport of solid waste, volume is the limiting factor, not weight. A
40-yd3 container with refuse at a density of 500 lb/yd3 will have a net load of only
20,000 lb (10 tons). Even if one includes the weight of the truck and the container,
this is well below the maximum allowable highway gross weight of 80,000 lb.

TECHNIQUES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

Collection Procedures for Single-Family Residences

The manner in which the refuse is transferred from the storage containers to the
collection vehicle depends on several factors. Two key considerations are the num-
ber of members in the collection crew and the type of collection vehicle. A survey
of municipal collection agencies conducted in the 1960s found that one municipality
had nine members in their collection crews. That was a bit excessive, but the same
survey found that most crew sizes were equal to or less than three. A number of
collection agencies have found that a very cost-efficient collection can be accom-
plished with only one crew member, who both drives and loads the truck. The
single crew member is particularly efficient when containers are located at curbside.
Chap. 6 Techniques for Solid Waste Collection 89

There are essentially two types of vehicles to consider, the side load and the
rear load. The side-loading truck is particularly suited to the single-member crew.
The hopper into which the refuse containers are emptied is immediately behind the
cab of the truck. The driver can simply stop the truck next to the refuse containers
and step out of the cab, pick up the containers, and dump them into the truck.
These trucks are dual drive, with operating controls on both sides of the cab. The
driver can operate the vehicle as either left-hand or right-hand drive, whichever is
most convenient to the refuse location. This combination saves substantial time
since the driver neither has to walk to the rear of the truck to empty the containers,
nor around the truck to get to the controls when the containers are located on the
right side of the vehicle. This type of collection is also very efficient when collect-
ing along busy streets that require collection from only one side at a time. Figure
6.3 illustrates the two types of vehicles most commonly used.
There are numerous ways in which the collection crews can function. Figure
6.4 illustrates two techniques, method A for a two-person crew and method B for a
three-person crew. In both cases, refuse is collected from both sides of the street. In
method A, the truck stops between the residences to be serviced, four in total. The
driver (D) goes forward to collect residence 2’, returns to the truck to empty the
shoulder barrel, then services residence 1’. The second crew member is servicing
the residences on the other side of the street. The driver then returns to the cab and
drives forward to the next pair of residences. This type of scheme works for both
curbside and backyard collection.
Method B involves a three-member crew and a total of six residences are
serviced for each stop. As the vehicle moves forward, the two loaders (L, and L2)
disembark to collect residences 1 and 1’. They bring the refuse to the vehicle,
which has stopped adjacent to residences 2 and 2’. The driver leaves the cab to
service residence 3’. During this time the loaders are emptying their barrels and
servicing residences 2 and 2’. The driver empties the shoulder barrel and moves to
residence 3. One of the loaders becomes the driver and moves the vehicle forward,
picking up the driver, who serviced residence 3. This cycle is repeated and one of
the other members of the crew becomes the driver.
One can envision a number of other ways in which the crew members can be
directed to service the residences. The objective of specifying these procedures is
the development of the most efficient collection system. Time is the critical con-
sideration and the procedures are designed to minimize the time required to carry
out the steps involved in transferring the refuse from the on-site storage containers
to the collection vehicle. There have been numerous time-motion analyses con-
ducted on refuse collection to improve the design of equipment and to develop ef-
ficient procedures for the collection crews.

Methods-Time-Measurements (MTM) Techniques

The task of transferring refuse from an on-site storage container to a collection

vehicle may appear to be a simple step, Just pick up the can, dump it into the
90 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Figure 6.3 Side- and rear-loading compactor vehicles

shoulder barrel, and carry the barrel back to the collection vehicle. If done only
once, it would not matter how you did it. However, it takes the refuse from about
200 residences to fill a 30-yd3 truck. A 10-second reduction in the time required to
service a residence translates into 2000 seconds per truck (about a half-hour). If an
agency has 100 trucks collecting two loads per day with a three-person crew, the
daily reduction in labor cost would be $4500 assuming a labor cost of $15 per hour.
The reduction in the operating cost of the vehicle must also be included, so the
magnitude of the savings becomes substantial.
The steps involved in the collection of refuse are many. Assuming that a
shoulder barrel is used and the driver also collects, the first question is: What does
Chap. 6 Techniques for Solid Waste Collection 91

Direction of
truck movement

Method A

Direction of
truck movement

'\\\\
\
\ a-

Figure 6.4 Schematic of possible

Method B procedures for collection of refuse.
92 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

the driver do with the shoulder barrel when operating the vehicle? Is it left at the
back of the truck, or is there a place for it right outside the cab? It takes several
seconds to walk to the back of the truck to retrieve the barrel. As indicated in
Figure 6.4, there are several paths that the collectors and the driver can take in a
multimember crew. What is the most efficient procedure? One can identify many
other actions that are part of the collection process that affect the time required to
service a residence.
Efficiency experts in the industrial engineering area have developed tech-
niques to measure the time required to perform a specific task. This technique in-
volves monitoring the actions of a crew that is collecting refuse. The time required
for each move is measured. A “standard time” for the task is determined. This is
the actual time required to complete the task and excludes all time delays not re-
lated to the task (i.e., fatigue, personal delays such as lighting a cigarette, equip-
ment malfunctions, accidents, etc.). The standard times measured for each
procedure can be compared and the most efficient procedure can be identified.
Table 6.1 presents the results of such an analysis. A shoulder barrel was used
except when the cans were located in the alley. Only two cans were permitted at a
residence. A comparison of can location and crew size was made. One can see
from the person-minutes per stop that the alley location requires the least time for
collection. There are other factors that may influence collection from an alley lo-
cation. First, alleys exist only in the older sections of most communities. Subdivi-
sions developed after about 1950 tended not to allocate land for alleys. Even if an
alley exists, it may not be practical to operate the large vehicles normally used in
refuse collection. If a small vehicle is used, this must be considered in the context
of the overall cost of collection. This is discussed in more detail later in the chapter.
The curbside location offers the second-best location, requiring only 0.20 to
0.30 person-minute more per stop than the alley location. The crew size is an im-

Table 6.1 Standard times for refuse collection

Services Person-minutes
Crew Can Standard Per Per
size location time“ stop service-stopb

Backyard 2.35 1.33

Backyard 2.38 1.33
Backyard 2.40 1.35
Alley 0.86 0.58
Alley 0.49 0.79
Alley 0.35 0.97
Curbside 2.06 1.18
Curbside 2.11 1.12
Curbsi de I .58 0.88

a Minutes per collection stop for both sides of the street

Includes travel time between collection stops on the route.
Source: A Study of Solid Waste Collection Systems, U.S. Public Health Service F’ub-
lication 1892 (SW-96), Washington, DC, 1969.
Chap. 6 Techniques for Solid Waste Collection 93

Table 6.2 Results of a two-week field study of specific crews

Cans Items Time (midservice) Refuse Person

Crew per Per per minutes
Agency size service service Collect Travel service per ton

A I 2.45 3.40 0.68 0.15 77.1 26.3

B 2 2.65 3.55 0.59 0.17 81.2 43 .O
C 3 2.70 4.01 0.58 0.17 73.2 63.5
D 1 1.79 2.60 0.57 56.9 37.6
X 1 2.74 4.04 0.99 88.1 33.8
Y I 2.07 2.87 0.59 60.5 39.0

Source: A Study of Solid Waste Collection Systems, U S . Public Health Service Publication
1892 (SW-96), Washington, DC, 1969.

portant factor in determining the person-minutes per service stop for both alley and
curbside locations. About 0.3 person-minute can be saved per service stop by re-
ducing the crew size from three to one. However, the time required for collection
from the backyard is not sensitive to crew size. The time required for backyard
collection is substantially greater for all crew sizes.
A field survey of collection crews in southern California was conducted to
evaluate the time required to service residences. The results of this study are pre-
sented in Table 6.2. There were four municipal collection agencies (A, B, C, D)
and two private agencies (X, Y). Crew sizes and the number of cans per residence
are shown in the table. The number of items per service include the cans as well as
any other type of container or bundle. The time required to service the residences
and the weight of refuse collected at each residence permits computation of the
labor required per ton of refuse collected. This can be translated to collection costs
by multiplying the person-minuteskon by the cost of labor and adding the equip-
ment costs. A very clear message is the lower cost associated with the single-
member crew.
Crew size and the number of containers as well as container location are sig-
nificant factors in determining the cost of refuse collection. Table 6.3 compares the
collection time required for increasing numbers of containers and for different crew
sizes. A larger number of containers will significantly increase the time required at
any stop regardless of the crew size. The larger crew will reduce the time required
to service a residence, but not in proportion to the increase in crew size. A three-
member crew does not collect the refuse three times as fast as the single-member crew.
The times previously discussed are all standard times. They do not include
any time loss due to nonproductive activities. During the period of a day, there are
many events that are considered nonproductive. These events can be classified as
unpredictable or predictable. These unpredictable delays fit the following catego-
ries: personal actions, traffic congestion, equipment failure, and accidents. Personal
actions include a variety of activities of a personal nature, such as lighting a ciga-
rette, telling a joke, or adjusting clothes. Fatigue also reduces the efficiency of the
crew. A loader that loads a 20-yd3 truck with refuse in an 8-hour period has lifted
and carried about 10,000 lb.
94 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Table 6.3 Collection time as a function of crew size and number of

containers per service stop

Time (midservice stop) for number of containers per service stop

Crew
size I 2 3 4 5

1 0.278 0.456 0.620 0.793 1.161

2 0.223 0.383 0.558 0.705 0.863
3 0.214 0.311 0.454 0.558 0.716

Source: A Study of Solid Waste Collection Sysrems, U.S. Public Health Service Publication
1892 (SW-96), Washington, DC, 1969

These delays are difficult to control. They depend on the morale of the crew
and the level of training and supervision. Traffic congestion is difficult to predict.
However, careful planning of vehicle routes can avoid travel on streets with high
traffic density during rush-hour periods.
Equipment failure can be minimized through a good maintenance program but
is still unpredictable. A well-trained crew will minimize equipment failure by know-
ing how to operate the equipment. Accidents are also related to crew training. Traf-
fic accidents are less controllable, but accidents associated with the equipment are
definitely related to crew training. In recent years, considerable attention has been
given to training to reduce this time loss as well as the cost of worker compensation
associated with job-related accidents.
Predictable nonproductive time is related to specific activities that are a nec-
essary part of the collection system. These times can be factored into the cost of
collection. These activities include the travel time required to get the collection
vehicle and crew from a storage yard or central base at the beginning of the day to
the collection route and to return from the tip site at the end of the day. Also
included is the time allocated for lunch and breaks, time for dispatch to another
route when finished with one route, route retracing, and relief time. Route retracing
refers to the need for traveling over streets that have already been collected. Be-
cause of the configuration of certain routes, it is not possible to avoid retracing
some of the streets. When a collection crew has filled a truck and there is not
sufficient time left in the day to return to the collection area, collect a reasonable
partial load, return to the tip site, and unload, this may be the end of the day for
this crew. This is designated as the relief time. These times will be utilized in
estimating collection times.

Collection Procedures for Large Producers

Collection of refuse from single-family residences is labor intensive, while collec-

tion of refuse from large producers requires the proper mechanical systems. As de-
scribed previously, the refuse is stored in a metal container with capacities ranging
from 0.5 to 30 or more cubic yards. The weight of even the smaller containers
 Chap. 6 Determination of Collection Time/Costs 95

precludes manual loading. The refuse in the containers is either transferred to the
collection vehicle, or the container is attached to the truck chassis and hauled to the
tip site. The collection vehicle and the containers must be compatible. As was
illustrated in Figure 6.2, smaller containers are engaged with mechanical arms that
lift the container and transfer the contents to the collection vehicle. The empty
container is replaced and the vehicle moves on to the next container. This sequence
is repeated until the vehicle is filled, at which time it will go to the tip site to be
unloaded. The contents of the larger containers are not transferred to the collection
vehicle, but the containers themselves are loaded onto the truck chassis and hauled
to the tip site. The container is emptied and returned to the original site to be
refilled.

DETERMINATION OF COLLECTION TIME/COSTS

A rather simple equation can be developed to calculate the time and, consequently,
the cost required to collect refuse. This equation can be applied to either single-
family residences or to large producers. A minor modification is required to reflect
the various steps involved. The following four time factors must be considered in
this formulation.

Pickup Time

Pickup time is the time required to load the collection vehicle. It is determined by
the following factors: the mean quantity of refuse per stop, the vehicle capacity
(volume), and the density of the refuse in the vehicle, which determine how many
service stops are required to fill the vehicle. This number can be combined with the
time required to service a particular stop and the time required to travel between
stops. V and D are characteristics of the collection vehicle, and t, and Q are char-
acteristics of the collection area. This time element is defined as
VDt,
Pickup time = -
Q
where V = volume of the collection vehicle, yd3
D = density of refuse in the collection vehicle, lb/yd3
t, = mean pickup time per stop, midstop
Q = pounds of refuse per stop, lb/stop

Therefore, if the truck size, refuse density in the truck, the mean quantity of refuse
per service stop, and the mean time required to service each residence or stop are
known, the mean time required to fill the truck can be determined.
The truck size is a very important variable in this equation. Proper sizing of
the collection vehicle will be necessary to obtain a cost-effective collection system.
96 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

In this part of the equation, truck volume is the only significant variable. The den-
sity is usually fixed at about 500 lb/yd3, due to the limits on internal pressure in the
truck body. The mean quantity per stop can be controlled to some extent by ordi-
nance or contract. However, it is necessary to collect all of the refuse generated or
it will be discarded in some other manner. The time per stop is a function of the
area-the distance between houses, the container location, the crew size, and other
factors, as discussed previously. In designing a collection system, it would be pos-
sible to select a crew size. This would be a variable that would change the time per
stop.

Haul Time

The location of the tip site, be it a transfer station, an incinerator, or a sanitary

landfill, relative to the collection route becomes a very important time element.
When the truck is full, it must travel to the tip site and unload. If one workday is
required to fill the truck, after unloading it will go to the storage yard to wait for
the next day's operation. However, if only part of the day is required to collect the
first load, the truck will return to the collection area and collect another full or
partial load. The actual haul time for multiple loads is complicated by the destina-
tion of the truck after unloading. The time required for haul is given as
haul time = (2n - l)b (2)
where n is the number of trips from the collection route to the tip site and b is the
travel time from the collection route to the tip site (one-way travel time only). The
2n accounts for the fact that for more than one load per day, the vehicle must return
to the collection area after each load except the last.

On-Site Time

When the collection vehicle reaches the tip site, a time element must be included
that allows for the time required to unload the vehicle. There are two components to
this element, the actual unloading time and the waiting time. The unloading time
will depend on the traffic pattern on the tip floor and the design of the vehicle.
When the truck enters the tip area, it must position itself properly to dump the
refuse in an area that accommodates further handling of the refuse. At the landfill,
the refuse must be dumped at the working face of the fill so that the equipment can
place it properly. At a transfer station, the refuse may be dumped into a pit or on a
floor, where a front-end loader loads it onto the transfer vehicle. Several minutes
may be required to position the vehicle, especially in a poorly designed tip area.
The vehicles do not handle like a small car. Considerable space for the long turning
radius is necessary for easy maneuvering.
 Chap. 6 Determination of Collection Time/Costs 97

The compaction mechanism must be securely attached to the body of the

truck; otherwise, it would not be able to exert the required pressure during compac-
tion. In a rear-loading vehicle, this mechanism must be disengaged. This frequently
requires the driver to exit the cab to unlock fasteners that release the mechanism.
The mechanism can be raised hydraulically and the front of the truck bed can be
elevated and the refuse dumped from the truck. The time required to complete all
of these tasks may total 10 minutes or more. A side-loading vehicle has the com-
paction mechanism located in the front of the truck bed. In many cases the rear end
of these truck bodies can be opened hydraulically from the cab and the compacting
ram used to push the refuse out the rear of the truck body. The time required is still
about the same, due to the time required for the ram to travel to the rear of the bed
and back.
A major problem at all tip areas is scheduling the arrival of the collection
vehicles. This is especially acute for residential collection. All of the trucks will
tend to complete the first load at about the same time. The difference in the travel
time from the route to the tip area is the only time factor that will prevent all the
trucks from arriving at the tip site at the same time. Collection from commercial
areas and apartment buildings will tend to be better spaced over the operating day.
The queue that forms at the tip site can consume considerable time. Careful atten-
tion must be given to the traffic flow at the tip site.
The on-site time can be designated as s and is usually a fixed value for each
trip to the tip site. For multiple trips, the on-site time becomes ns.

Off-Route Time

The off-route time refers to the nonproductive time, the time that does not result in
the collection or transport of refuse. The predictable and nonpredictable times dis-
cussed above fall into this category.

1. Travel time from storage yard to collection route at the beginning of the day
2. Travel time from tip site to storage yard at the end of the day
3. Lunch, relief time, dispatch time, and route retracing
4. Miscellaneous time loss, such as traffic congestion, accidents, and equipment
failure

Estimating these time factors requires a through knowledge of the area served.
The location of the storage yard relative to the collection routes and the tip area
have a significant impact on this time element. Route retracing is an inefficient use
of the collection vehicle and can be minimized by careful design of the collection
route. As discussed later, selection of the right-size collection vehicle can reduce
such time elements as relief time and dispatch time. Off-route time is generally
fixed for a given collection area and can be designated as w.
98 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Collection and Disposal Time

The time required for the collection and disposal of one load (either full or partial)
during the working day can be computed as
L1 = pickup time + haul time + on-site time + off-route time
VDT,
--
-
+ b + s + w (3)
Q
In this case the truck comes from the storage yard, collects the refuse needed
to fill it, drives to the tip area and unloads, and then returns to the storage yard.
Essentially, this involves making only one collection trip during the day. If a full
working day is not required to collect one load, what happens to the vehicle after it
has been unloaded? This is determined by the restrictions placed on the allowable
overtime. Assume that the workday is 8 hours (480minutes) and that the maximum
overtime allowed on the average is 30 minutes. The following considerations will
determine what happens to the vehicle after the first load.

1. If L , = 480 minutes, it is the end of the day.

This is the case where a full day is required to complete the task of collecting
a load and unloading at the tip site and returning to the storage yard.

2. If L , < 480 minutes and L , + 2b + s 2 510 minutes, it is the end of the day.
There may be more time left in the day to collect refuse, but after the first
load is unloaded, the round-trip time from the tip area to the collection area plus
the unloading time exceeds the allowable overtime. Therefore, the crew has com-
pleted the workday and the time short of the 480 minutes is considered relief time.

3. If L , > 510 minutes, it is the end of the day with a partial load. The magni-
tude of the partial load, a, is calculated by the equation
aVDt,
510 = -+ b + s + w (4)
Q
4. If L , + +
2b s < 510 minutes and L , < 480 minutes, the truck returns for
one or more additional loads.

The collection crew and vehicle will make a total of n trips, where n is an
integer. The total number of trips made will depend on how many full and partial
loads can be collected in the time allotted. The minimum allowable partial load will
also be a factor. It is impractical simply to collect from a couple of residences. The
Chap. 6 Determination of Collection Time/Costs 99

constraint on the size of the minimum partial load may be 25% of the truck capac-
ity. The time required to collect the additional loads can be calculated as

(5)

This equation has the constraint that L, 5 510 minutes and a 1 0.25. If a <
0.25, only full loads will be collected. The actual number of loads, full and partial,
is given by
N=n+a-1 (6)
where N is the number of loads and n is the number of trips. The parameter a
represents the portion of a load obtained during the last trip, and must always have
a value. If the last trip had a full load, the value of a would be 1 .

Cost Considerations Associated with Collection Systems

The time elements discussed above have associated cost factors that may vary from
one element to the other. The three cost categories are: labor, vehicle operation and
maintenance, and vehicle capital amortization.

Pickup costs. In this operating mode, the labor cost for the full crew is
applicable. All members will be needed to operate the process as designed. The
normal rate of vehicle amortization will apply. Amortization is calculated as an
annual cost, but this cost can be expressed as an hourly rate by dividing the annual
cost by the number of hours that the vehicle can be used annually. Theoretically, the
vehicle is available for use 24 hours per day, but the hourly cost must be based on
the hours that personnel are available to operate it. Therefore, for the typical 8-hour
shift, 5-day week, the number of hours annually would be 2080.
The capital costs are significant. These vehicles can cost from $75,000 for the
smaller units to over $150,000 for the large units. The expected life of these vehi-
cles may be only 5 years, but with care they may last longer. For cost purposes, the
5-year period is used. A $100,000 unit at a 10% interest rate and a 5-year life will
have an annual cost of $26,380, or $12.68 per hour. In addition to this capital cost,
one needs to add the operation and maintenance cost. Depending on the mainte-
nance program, this cost can equal the annual capital cost. Total costs of $20 to $75
per hour are not uncommon for collection vehicles.

Haul costs. Once the collection vehicle is filled, it travels to the tip area to
unload. The full collection crew may ride to the tip site, or they may be transferred
to another empty vehicle and continue collection. In this case only the labor costs
for the driver would be incurred. These cost savings are significant if a large crew
is employed. At a labor cost of $15 per hour, the savings would be $30 per hour of
haul time by using only the driver for the trip to the tip site, as contrasted to a crew
100 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

size of three. When the haul time is short, the savings may not justify the more
complex routing required to transfer the loaders to another vehicle. The amortiza-
tion and operating and maintenance costs for the collection vehicle apply to these
time elements the same as for the pickup time. Operating costs may be a little
higher, due to the higher fuel consumption for higher operating speeds. The on-site
time (unloading time at the tip site) would have the same cost considerations as the
haul costs.

Off-route time. The time associated with the off-route activities carries the
same costs as the pickup time except for the relief time. The collection crew has to
be transported from the base location to the collection area and returned at the end
of the day.

Relief time. The relief time occurs when there is not sufficient time in the
day to collect additional refuse and unload it within the time constraints. The col-
lection vehicle is returned to the storage yard before the 480-minute day is com-
plete. The crew will be paid for a full day and the charge for the amortization of
the vehicle will apply. However, since the vehicle is sitting on the lot, there will be
no charge for vehicle operation and maintenance.

Analysis of the time required for the various time elements associated with
refuse collection and the costs associated with these elements will allow the com-
putation of the cost of refuse collection. Sensitivity analysis can be conducted to
determine the effect of vehicle size, crew size, haul distance, and a number of other
factors on the collection costs. The most cost-effective collection system can be
selected. Table 6.4 presents the results of such a calculation. The specific values for
the parameters in equation ( 5 ) are as follows: D = 500 lb/yd3, Q = 75 lb/service
stop, t, = 0.63 midservice stop, crew size = 3, b = 20 min, s = 10 min, and
w = 60 min.
The first part of Table 6.4 shows the time required to collect the indicated
number of loads. The number of loads that can be collected in 480 minutes can be
determined from equation ( 5 ) . The value of n equals the number of full loads that
can be collected in 480 minutes or less plus one. Inserting this value of n and the
values for the other parameters into equation ( 5 ) and equating it to 480 minutes will
determine a, the size of the partial load that can be collected. If a is less than 0.25,
the partial load is not considered. The tons per day are computed from the number
of loads and the weight per load. Labor costs are based on three crew members for
8 hours at $15 per hour (this includes the typical fringe benefits). In this example,
no overtime is allowed. The final figure is the cost in dollars per ton. This identi-
fies the most cost-effective vehicle. There is not a major difference among the
different-sized vehicles. The 15- and 25-yd3 vehicles have essentially the same cost,
with the 20-yd3 only slightly more costly. Therefore, other factors may dictate the
size of vehicle to select.
Chap. 6 Determination of Collection TimeKosts 101

Table 6.4 Effect of truck size on collection costs

Truck volume (yd3)

10 15 20 25 30

Time required to collect indicated number of loads

I load 132 153 I74 195 2 16
2 loads 224 266 308 350 392
3 loads 316 379 442 505 568
4 loads 408 492 576
5 loads 500
Loads1480 min 4.5 3.8 3.0 2.8 2.3
Tonsiday 11.3 14.2 15.0 17.3 17.3
Labor (at $15lhr) $360 $360 $360 $360 $360
Operating time (hr) 8 8 7.37 8 8
Relief time (hr) 0.63
Vehicle cost
Per hour $20 $26 $34117 $42 $52
Per day $160 $208 (250.6 + 10.7) $336 $416
= $261.3

Total cost
Per day $520 $568 $621.3 $696 $776
Per ton $46.0 $40 $41.4 $40.2 $44.9

The lack of sensitivity of collection costs to vehicle size in Table 6.4 is a

result of the relatively short haul time. The tip area would have to be very close to
the collection area to have such a short haul time. Table 6.5 shows the effect of a
haul time, b, of 40 minutes on the most cost-effective vehicle size. The longer haul
time increases the cost of collection with all sizes of vehicles, but the 15- and

Table 6.5 Effect of truck size on collection costs

Truck volume (yd3)

10 15 20 25 30

Loads1480 min 3.0 3.0 2.25 2.0 2.0

Tonslday 7.5 I I .25 11.3 12.5 15.0
Labor (at $15/hr) $360 $360 $360 $360 $360
Operating time (hr) 6.93 8 8 6.83 7.53
Relief time (hr) 1.07 0 0 1.17 0.47
Vehicle cost
Per hour $20/10 $ 26 $ 34 $42121 $52/26
Per day $149.30 $208 $272 $31 1.43 $403.78
Total cost
Per day $509.30 $568 $632 $67 I .43 $763.78
Per ton $ 67.91 $ 50.49 $ 55.93 $ 53.71 $ 50.92
 102 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Start -
6, 5 4

Figure 6.5 Simplified solid waste

30-yd3 vehicles are the most cost-effective. That is primarily because full loads are
collected with little or no relief time. As the haul distance increases, the vehicle
that can obtain a full load and make the least number of trips to the tip area will
generally be the most cost-effective.

COLLECTION VEHICLE ROUTING

Figure 6.5 illustrates a very simple collection district with only four loops. The
most cost-effective collection procedure is to have the collection vehicle travel over
each street only once. A quick examination of this figure clearly shows that it is not
possible to eliminate street retracing. The best that can be achieved is to minimize
this retracing. It would be possible by trial and error to find a way for the vehicle to
collect in this district and minimize the retracing. It would be much more difficult
if there were multiple districts that contained hundreds of loops. This issue of ve-
hicle routing has been addressed by numerous researchers in the past two decades.
There are three publications that make a complete and understandable presentation
of a technique for routiag refuse collection vehicles. '
The overall collection vehicle routing consists of three parts:

1. The division of the collection area into smaller districts, each of which gen-
erates one load of refuse
2. Determination of the vehicle path or tour from its entry into the district until
its departure
3. The aggregation of the districts and their associated tours into a full day's
workload for the vehicle and crew, which is called a route

'J. C. Liebman and J. Male, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, June 1975,
p. 3%; D. Krabbe, Solid Waste Management, July 1979, p. 68; J. Reindl, Solid Waste Management, July
1979, p. 12.
Chap. 6 Collection Vehicle Routing 103

Each tour will include a trip to the tip area to unload the filled vehicle. The
location of the district boundaries relative to the location of the tip area will have a
significant impact on the costs of the trips to and from the tip area.
A procedure based on a network representation of the collection district has
been developed by Liebman and Male.* This procedure is summarized in the fol-
lowing discussion. Streets over which collection must take place are the links of the
network, and their intersections are the nodes. If collection occurs on both sides of
the street at the same time and the street is not one-way, it is represented by a single
undirected link. If the collection must take place separately on each side of the
street (as may be the case for a major four-lane street), it is represented by two
links, each with an assigned direction that is the direction the collection vehicle
must travel.
There are three cases to consider:

1. Networks that are totally undirected: all are two-way and collection takes
place on both sides simultaneously
2. Networks that are entirely directed: either all streets are one-way or collection
takes place separately on each side of the street
3. Networks that are a mixture of directed and undirected links

Associated with each link is a cost, and the objective of routing is to obtain
the minimum cost. The cost of travel over any link is treated as invariant. It is true,
however, that traffic conditions as related to the time of day may affect the actual
cost, but it is not practical to consider such a factor systematically. There is suffi-
cient flexibility in constructing the final tour to allow for avoiding thoroughfares
during rush-hour periods. The cost of actual collection is fixed with respect to rout-
ing. Collection must take place over every required link, and rerouting will change
neither the time required nor the distance traveled while collecting. The only vari-
able under the control of the router is the cost of “dead heading”: the cost of
traveling over or retracing streets that have been collected, that will be collected in
a future pass, or that do not need collection. If a tour can be found that does not
have street retracing, that tour clearly has the minimum cost. If that tour does not
exist, the tour that has the minimum amount of retracing is the tour with the min-
imum cost.

Definition of a Unicursal NetworWEuler Tour

What conditions are necessary in a network to have a tour that does not have any
street retracing? This answer was formulated over two centuries ago, in 1736, by
E ~ l e r He
. ~ was concerned with routing a parade across the seven bridges on the

*J. C . Liebman and J. Male, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, July 1979,
p. 399.
‘Scientific American, VoI. 189, 1953, pp. 66-70.
104 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

-CT*T>-
River

4
Shore C

Island A

Shore B
Island D

Figure 6.6 The seven bridges of Konigsberg.

River Pregel in Konigsberg, a town in eastern Prussia (see Figure 6.6). The object
was to find a tour that started on one bank, traversed each bridge exactly once, and
returned to the staring point. Euler generalized the problem by deriving two condi-
tions that are necessary and sufficient in any undirected network for there to be a
tour that travels over every link exactly once and returns to the starting point: (1)
the network must be connected so that there is a way from every node to every
other node, and (2) the number of links touching every node (called the degree of
the node) must be even.
The necessity of this condition is made intuitively clear by considering the
entrances and exits at each node. Each time you enter a node (except at the starting
and ending node), you must exit from it. You must travel a pair of links touching
the node. If any node is of odd degree, you will ultimately enter it and find no
remaining untraveled link on which to exit. The same reasoning applies to the start-
ing and ending nodes, except that the links are used in the opposite direction. Thus
it is clear that there can be no tour without street retracing on any network that does
not have all nodes of an even degree. It is also true that a tour can be constructed
without retracing any streets on any network that does have all nodes of even de-
gree. A network that is connected and has all nodes of even degree (and therefore
has an Euler tour) is called a unicursal network.
Euler’s condition for unicursality has been extended to directed networks and
mixed networks. An Euler tour can be found in a completely directed network if
and only if the network is connected and the number of links directed toward the
node equals the number of links directed away from the node. Thus it is also easy
to determine by inspection if an Euler tour is possible on a completely directed
network.
In a mixed network, consisting of some directed and some undirected links,
the requirements for existence of an Euler tour are much more complex. The net-
work must, of course, be connected, and there must be an even number of links
touching every node. In addition, the number of undirected links touching any node
must be at least as great as the difference in number between incoming and outgo-
ing directed links. Intuitively, this requirement must hold so that the undirected
links may be used in the appropriate direction to make up the difference between
incoming and outgoing directed links and provide an equal number of entrances and
Chap. 6 Collection Vehicle Routing 105

exits from the node. It is possible to satisfy these requirements at every node and
still have some portion of the network that has more entrances than exits, thus
making an Euler tour impossible. To insure the existence of an Euler tour, the con-
dition that the number of undirected links be at least as great as the difference in
number between the inward and outward directed links must be satisfied, not only
at every node, but also at every group of nodes.

Construction of a Unicursal Network

The effects of the unicursality condition are more important than simply permitting
the identification of a unicursal (an unusual condition) collection district in which
no street retracing is required. They suggest a procedure for developing a minimum-
cost tour in a nonunicursal network. One can start to develop a tour simply by
tracing the path of the collection vehicle through the network of streets, retracing
streets wherever necessary. The resulting network must be unicursal with new links
inserted for the streets that are retraced because a tour exists that travels over every
link in this network exactly once. Instead of simply setting out to trace a tour in a
nonunicursal network, retracing streets wherever necessary, it is possible to make
the network unicursal by adding links. The added links must correspond to existing
streets and they represent retracing of these streets. When the network has been
made unicursal, a tour must exist with street retracing exactly equal to the added
links.
In an undirected network, the unicursality conditions are simple and viola-
tions are easy to identify. If the network of required collections streets is not con-
nected, additional links representing optional streets must be added to make the
network connected. It is also easy to identify nodes that are of odd degree, but
their conversion to even degree is slightly more complicated. Clearly, any node
of odd degree must have at least one added link incident upon it. However, that
added link is incident at its opposite end upon another node. If this node was also
originally of odd degree, the added link makes both nodes even. However, if this
node was of even degree, this added link makes it odd. Addition of another link
incident upon this node will convert it back to even degree, but may make another
node odd.
The ultimate conclusion is inescapable; if progress is to be made toward uni-
cursality, each added link must connect two nodes of odd degree, or be part of a
continuous chain of added links that begins and ends at odd nodes. Figure 6.7 il-
lustrates the technique for making the network unicursal. The odd nodes are iden-
tified (2, 4, 6 , 8 ) and links (shown by the double lines) are added to make them
even. By adding a link between nodes 2 and 5, node 2 becomes even but node 5
becomes odd. As shown in Figure 6.8, extending a link from node 5 to node 8
makes not only node 5 even, but also node 8 . The same can be applied to nodes 4
and 6 ; a link is added between node 4 and 5 and between node 5 and 6 . The
network is now unicursal.
106 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Finish
t

Figure 6.7 Building a unicursal network.

In a completely directed network the procedure for obtaining unicursality is

similar. If the original network is not unicursal, there will be some nodes with more
incoming than outgoing links, and other nodes with more outgoing than incoming
links. Unicursality requires that each node be balanced, so it is necessary to provide
the appropriate number of outgoing links at each node of the first group and the
appropriate number of additional incoming links at each node of the second group.
Nodes that were originally balanced require no additional links; if an incoming link
is added to such a node, a balancing outgoing link must be provided, and vice
versa. Thus to make a directed network unicursal, one must add links in directed
chains leading from nodes with an excess of incoming links to nodes with an excess
of outgoing links. In a mixed network there is no simple method for obtaining un-
icursality. It is possible to treat the network as undirected and add links to make
every node even, and then add additional undirected links to ensure that the number
of undirected links at each node is at least as great as the difference between the
number of incoming and outgoing links. It remains necessary, however, to ensure
that this condition is met for all subsets of nodes as well as individual nodes. This
is rather difficult but can usually be done by inspection.

Finish
4

7 8 9 Figure 6.8 Completed unicursal network.

Chap. 6 Collection Vehicle Routing 107

Minimizing Street Retracing

The assignment of links required to convert the odd nodes to even nodes will not
necessarily produce the minimum distance of retraced streets. It is possible, but
difficult, to select the right links so that the sum of their distances is minimum.
This is especially true for a tour having a large number of added links. To solve a
similar problem, Kwan4 observed that any unicursal network can be decomposed
into a set of closed loops, in which each link appears in exactly one loop. In any
given loop, or cycle, some of the links may be required collection links, and the
others may be retraced streets, the added links. All nodes are of even degree, since
the cycle is part of a unicursal network. In any such cycle, if all retraced streets
(added links) are removed, and the previously nonretraced streets now become re-
traced streets, the even-degree property at every node is maintained, and thus the
network remains unicursal. However, such an exchange is advantageous only if the
cost of the links removed is greater than the cost of the links added. Kwan proposed
that a unicursal network be inspected for cycles in which such exchanges reduce the
length (cost) of retraced streets and proved mathematically that when no more such
exchanges are possible in the network, the minimum cost for retracing of the streets
has been achieved. Kwan’s procedure is not practical for guaranteeing minimum
cost because the number of cycles that must be inspected is very large in any size
network. It is, however, quite valuable as a method of seeking improvement in a
unicursal network by inspection.

Construction of an Euler Tour

As soon as all of the links needed to make L.e network unicursal are added and
Kwan’s procedure is applied, an Euler tour can be constructed. It is usually possi-
ble to construct this tour by inspection. Care is required to be sure that all the links,
including those added at the odd nodes, are traversed once and only once. Figure
6.9 illustrates the direction of travel for this simple route. The numbers indicate the
order in which the streets are collected. The dashed lines represent retracing. If
U-turns are permitted, which is generally not true, it would be possible to construct
a different tour.
There are a number of road conditions and traffic constraints that can influ-
ence the final tour. Many intersections prohibit left turns, and U-turns are prohib-
ited at most intersections. The grade of the street may have the effect of fixing
the direction of travel for the collection vehicle. It is not desirable to have fre-
quent start and stops on a steep up-grade. Travel downhill is much preferred. Each
network will have variations that will require a little foresight in development of
the tour.

4M.-K. Kwan. Chinese Muthemufics, Vol. I , 1962, pp. 207-218.

 108 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Finish

Start - A

l6 t
6
11
f-
61 1 2
5
- -
3 t4
4
+-- +--
15 10

7 1 tI 1 4
Tg
7 -
13
a - a
Figure 6.9 Completed Eular tour of a
unicursal network.

LONG DISTANCE TRANSPORTlTRANSFER STATION

As discussed earlier, the haul time to the tip site has a significant impact on the cost
of refuse collection. It is desirable to use the collection vehicle for collection and
minimize the time it is used to transport the refuse collected. In cases where the
disposal site (sanitary landfill, for example) is at a significant distance, or requires
significant travel time to reach, it may be more economical to use other means of
transport. The economic comparison is made on the unit cost associated with using
the collection vehicle as the haul vehicle versus the cost of construction and oper-
ation of a transfer station and the cost of the transfer vehicle. One can speculate
that the ton-mile cost of haul with the collection vehicle is much greater than the
ton-mile cost of the transport vehicle, or the distance must be very great to warrant
the investment in the transfer station.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transfer Stations

Figure 6.10 shows the cost of operating a collection vehicle as a transport vehicle.
A detailed cost breakdown developed by Schape? in 1982 dollars was used to con-
struct this curve. It is for a 20-yd3 vehicle with a two-person crew. The total col-
lection vehicle haul cost is obtained by adding the fixed and variable cost. This
curve shows the margin available for the transfer operation if the vehicle travels at
the indicated speed. Note the higher operating costs at the higher speeds, but also
remember that the distance traveled is greater, so the cost per ton-mile will be less.
A 45-minute haul time will add approximately $16 per ton to the cost of collection
and disposal if the vehicle travels at about 35 mph.
The cost of the transfer operation has two components: a fixed cost resulting
from the construction cost for the station and the capital cost associated with the
equipment and transfer vehicles, and an operating cost related to the tons pro-
cessed. The fixed cost is determined by the cost of the money used to finance the

5L.Schaper, Waste Age, Dec. 1982, p. 28.

 Chap. 6 Long Distance Transportrrransfer Station 109

24t

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Figure 6.10 Collection vehicle haul cost.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(From L. Schaper, Waste Age, Dec. 1982,
One-way travel time (min) p. 29.)

facility and does not depend on the tons processed. The lower the number of tons
processed, the higher the cost in dollars per ton. In making economic comparisons,
the capital cost for the transfer station and transfer vehicles are separated. The cap-
ital cost of the transfer vehicles is included in the vehicle cost. Figure 6.11 shows
the range of capital costs expected for transfer stations. The large cost range results
from the complexity of the facility. It may be nothing more than a tip floor and a
couple of truck bays for loading the transfer vehicle with a front-end loader, or it
may contain a processing system that compacts and containerizes the refuse for rail
or barge shipment.
The important cost figure is presented in Figure 6.12. The annualized capital
cost plus the operation and maintenance cost for the transfer station determine the
first costs that are incurred simply by transferring the refuse from one mode of trans-
portation to another. The annualized capital cost is based on a 12% interest rate.
Obviously, the annual capital cost is very sensitive to interest rates. Added to this first
cost is the cost of the transfer vehicle, which is a function of the distance the refuse
is hauled. The first cost decreases with the size of the facility, due to economies of
scale. The larger the capacity, the lower the cost as long as the capacity is being used.
Figure 6.13 presents the cost of transfer vehicles. The total transfer haul cost
is the sum of the vehicle fixed cost per ton plus the variable cost, which depends on
the travel time to the disposal site. The total cost of the transfer system is the sum
of the cost of the transfer station (Figure 6.12) and the transfer haul cost (Figure
6.13). This total cost is compared with the cost of operating the collection vehicle
(Figure 6.10) to determine the most cost-effective means to transport the refuse to
the disposal site.
 110 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

-
$ 4
v)
c

8
c 3
.-c
3
c
L
v)

: 2
0

I I I I I I Figure 6.11 Transfer station construction

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 costs. (From L. Schaper, Wasre Age, Dec.
Capacity (tons/8-hr day) 1982, p. 29.)

Transfer Systems and Equipment Utilized in the Industry

Highway transport is the primary mode of transporting refuse to distant disposal

sites. This is not necessarily the most economical for large quantities of refuse, but
may be all that is available in many urban areas. Aluminum and steel trailers with

I I I I 1 I I Figure 6.12 Construction and operation

0
2oo 400 6oo 8oo 'Oo0 cost of transfer station. (From L. Schaper,
Capacity (tons/&hr day) Wasre Age, Dec. 1982, p. 29.)
 Chap. 6 Long Distance Transportrrransfer Station 111

50 mph,

0 10 20 30 40 50 6o
Figure 6.13 Transfer vehicle cost. (From
One-way travel time (min) L. Schaper, WasteAge, Dec. 1982, p. 29.)

capacities up to 96 yd3 are used for hauling the refuse. Volume is the limitation for
the amount of material that can be transported by one trailer. Densities are in the
range of 500 to 600 lb/yd3. Even at 96 yd3, the weight of the refuse is only between
50,000 and 60,000 lb. Including the vehicle weight, this is still less than the
80,000-lb weight limit for primary highways. There are, however, other factors that
may limit the load these trailers carry. Access to the landfill may be over unim-
proved roads that will not support heavy loads. Moving these heavy vehicles on the
landfill site is difficult in wet weather. Therefore, not all vehicles will be sized for
maximum capacity.
Offloading of the trailer at the site varies with the type of equipment. Many
trailers have a cable winch that pulls a panel in the front of the trailer to the rear,
forcing the refuse out the rear end. In other cases, the cable may be attached to a
landfill tractor and the refuse pulled out of the trailer. Other systems involve large
dump platforms that lift the entire truck into the air, with the refuse falling out the
rear of the trailer. Dump trailers are not generally used because of the length of the
trailer. When the bed is raised into the air for dumping, the raised trailer bed is very
unstable, and moving forward to make room for the refuse dischargine from the
trailer could result in damage to the trailer.
Some transfer operations simply load baled refuse on flatbed trucks. After the
refuse passes through the baler, the bale is picked up by a forklift tractor and placed
on the trailer. After the trailer is loaded, it is covered with a tarpaulin to keep the
refuse completely contained. At the disposal site, the baled refuse is unloaded by a
forklift tractor and stacked in the landfill. These systems have been designated as
“bale fills.” They appear to be economically attractive for long-haul distances
where good roadway conditions exist. With the density of the bales approaching
1000 lb/yd3, it is possible to exceed the maximum highway weight limit.
Baling of refuse has also been used to improve the load-carrying capacity of
other modes of transportation, such as rail and barge. These transport systems can
 112 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

carry large weights, so they are always volume limited with a low-density material.
The bales may weigh 4 to 5 tons, which facilitates transferring the refuse at the
transfer station as well as the disposal site. With rail or barge haul, the refuse must
be transferred to another vehicle at the landfill site to move the refuse to the work-
ing face of the fill. Also, containers are used to facilitate loading and offloading rail
and barge transport systems. The refuse can be compacted when placed into the
containers to a density of perhaps 700 to 800 lb/yd3. The refuse is isolated from the
environment during transport. Special cranes are used to load and unload the trans-
porter. At the disposal site, the containers are transferred to trucks for haul to the
working face of the landfill. Special unloaders dump the containers and place them
back on the truck for return to the transporter, which in turn takes them back to the
original transfer station for a new cycle.
The selection of a specific transfer system is very site dependent. The avail-
able transportation links between the source (municipality) and the disposal site
(sanitary landfill), the distance (time) required to make the trip, and the quantity of
refuse being transported will be the primary factors influencing the selection of a
system. The trade literature describes a number of unique systems in operation.6

FACILITIES LOCATION AND WASTE ALLOCATION

When establishing a network of collection, transfer, and disposal operations, it is

desirable to determine the cost-effective location for each component of the net-
work. It is, indeed, a rare occasion when there is a choice in the site selection.
There are so many external constraints on the location of refuse processing and
disposal facilities that the basic question is “Where can I find a site?” not “Where
can I find a site that has a cost-effective location?” It therefore becomes pointless
to address the facilities location question. It is, however, desirable to establish the
most cost-effective allocation of refuse once the sites have been identified.
Consider the locations of the sanitary landfill sites (L), an incineration site
(I), and transfer stations (T) in Figure 6.14. How does one determine the amount of
refuse that goes from each transfer station to each processing or disposal site? The
primary objective of the distribution of the refuse among the various disposal op-
tions (Le., the sanitary landfill and the incinerator) is the development of the least-
cost disposal system. The costs considered are the cost of each disposal option,
which may not be the same even for each sanitary landfill, and the cost of hauling
the refuse from each transfer station to each disposal site. This cost function is
described by

6World Wastes, Mar. 1984, p. 20; Mar. 1985, p. 18; Nov. 1985, p. 26.
Chap. 6 Facilities Location and Waste Allocation 113

Figure 6.14 Allocation of refuse among

U disposal sites.

where Xu = tons of refuse hauled from transfer station i to disposal site j

Hu = cost of haul of refuse from transfer station i to disposal site j
Dj = cost of disposal at site j
Thus
m n

subject to the following constraints:

Total refuse available. There is only so much refuse available at any of the
transfer stations, Ri. It is impossible to manufacture refuse in the transfer stations.
Therefore, the total amount of refuse shipped out of a transfer station must not
exceed the amount available. Conversely, all of the refuse available at a transfer
station must be shipped to a disposal site.

Xu = Ri (9)
j= 1

Total capacity at the disposal site. Each site has a defined maximum ca-
pacity that cannot be exceeded, Qj. The facilities simply cannot handle additional
refuse. This constraint is defined by
m
Xij 5 Qj
i= I
114 Storage, Collection, and Transport Chap. 6

Additional site capacity constraints may also apply. For example, operation of
the incinerator (disposal site 4)at partial capacity increases the unit cost. Therefore,
an incinerator may require that the refuse flow to it equals its capacity. This is
defined by

i= I

Direction of refuse flow. It is not practical to consider hauling refuse from

one disposal site back to a transfer station and then to another disposal site. It is not
likely that such a scenario will occur, but to ensure that it does not, the constraint
shown in equation (12) is applied:
xu 2 0 (12)
This constraint controls the direction of refuse flow.
While these equations are rather simple to solve with some of the available
linear programming software, the cost functions are difficult to define with accu-
racy. Therefore, such an exercise will be only as valuable as the data provided in
the formulation of the cost functions for the haul and disposal costs.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. How does the location of the storage containers for single-family residences
affect the collection costs?
2. What is a “shoulder barrel”? How does use of a shoulder barrel affect col-
lection costs, aesthetics of refuse collection, and quantity of refuse that can be
produced per service stop?
3. How does collection from single-family residence service stops differ from
that of multifamilykommercial service stops?
4. What is “standard time”? How is the methods-time-measurements technique
used to improve the efficiency of refuse collection?
5. What is the effect of crew size on the standard time required for each service
stop? How does container location affect the standard time?
6. What time factors contribute to nonproductive time and are not considered as
part of standard time?
7. What time factors comprise the collection time and cost?
8. Find the nearly optimum size of collection vehicle for use under conditions
(a) and (b) below. What observations can you make on the effect of haul time
to the disposal site on the optimum size of the collection vehicle? Given:
Compacted refuse density, 500 lb/yd3; production rate, 90 lbhervice stop;
Chap. 6 Study Questions 115

mean time per service stop, 1.O min; crew size, 3; labor rate, $12/hr; off-route
time, 60 min; disposal time, 10 min; maximum overtime, 30 min at $18/hr;
a = 0.25; vehicle capacity/costs:

Capacity Operating cost Relief cost

(yd’) ($/hr) ($/hr)
10 28 18
15 36 23
20 45 26
25 52 30
30 60 37
35 IO 45

Condition (a): Haul time to disposal site is 15 minutes.

Condition (b): Haul time to disposal site is 60 minutes.
9. What are even- and odd-degree nodes?
10. What is a “unicursal network”? How is one constructed from a group of
streets in a collection route?
11. What is Kwan’s rule for minimizing the retracing of streets?
12. What are the cost components of a refuse transfer system? Under what condi-
tions does a transfer station result in lower refuse collection and disposal
costs?
13. What transportation systems have been used for the long-distance transpart of
refuse?
14. What characteristic of refuse has a significant impact on the cost of long-
distant transport?
15. What are the constraints imposed on the distribution of the refuse collected
from an urban area among the various operating disposal sites?
Engineering Economics

METHODS TO FINANCE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The funds necessary to finance the construction of publicly or privately owned sys-
tems must be obtained from the commercial lending market. This is accomplished
by the use of bonds which are sold by bonding institutions at an interest rate that
reflects the current market conditions and the security used to back the bonds. A
brief discussion of the possible financing mechanisms is necessary to understand
the impact of the bonding method on the cost of the facilities. The types of bonds
available to public and private agencies are different.

General Obligation Bonds: Municipal Corporations Only

General obligation (GO) bonds can be used by any municipal corporation or agency
that has a defined property tax base. This tax base is pledged as a guarantee that
the bonds will be retired as agreed. A tax rate based on the assessed valuation of
the property is levied annually. Because the tax base is pledged to support GO
bonds, they generally have the lowest interest rate, as they are considered the safest
possible investment. The property tax is collected by the county in which the mu-
nicipal agency is located and transferred to this agency for making the required
annual payment on the bonds. The actual tax rate levied can change as the assessed
value of the property changes.
The revenue generated from the operation of the facility is not required to
retire these bonds. The annual bond payments are available from the property tax

116
Chap. 7 Methods to Finance Solid Waste Managements Systems 117

collected each year. Historically, this has led to abuse of this funding mechanism.
Systems were built that were not technically sound, and since the revenue for pay-
ing of the bonds was guaranteed by the property tax, little effort was made to
improve the technical operation. In fact, many of these systems were abandoned,
leaving the municipal agency (property tax payers) saddled with the bill.
The security of this investment is protected by the states, which limit the
amount of general obligation debt that a municipal corporation can accumulate. It
is easy to sell GO bonds because of the security associated with them. The experi-
ence with the near bankruptcy of New York City in the 1970s did considerable
damage to the public perception of these bonds. However, the federal government
provided assistance that prevented New York from defaulting on any bond pay-
ments. The new controls that now exist have recaptured the public’s confidence.

Revenue Bonds: Public and Private Financing

Revenue bonds are becoming the preferred method of financing solid waste man-
agement systems. The constraint on the percentage of assessed valution that can be
used for GO bonds has reserved their use for projects that do not have a defined
revenue stream, such as storm drainage, municipal buildings, and matching funds
for street construction. A sanitary landfill, incinerator, or collection system can
have a revenue from the tip fee or the service charge assessed the producers of the
solid waste. The revenue bonds are a little more risky in that they rely on the
income from the operation of the system for the funds to retire the bonds. Conse-
quently, these bonds cannot be sold unless the economic analysis shows that the
income stream is adequate to meet the expenses and bond payments. Binding con-
tracts will probably be required to guarantee the source of funds (Le., a tip fee).
This is where the need for flow control of the refuse is most acute. Also, the pro-
jections of the refuse tonnage processed is a critical number in determining the
economic validity of the project. Is the projected tonnage available, and if so,
can the system process it at the required rate? This is frequently a deficiency in
the cost projections. If with a nominal capacity of 1000 tons/day, only 800 tons/
day are processed, the income stream is only 80% of the projected value for 1000
tonslday.
Revenue bonds can be used to finance both public and private projects. The
total capital required for public agencies to finance projects is significantly less than
that required for private companies. There are many reasons for this differential,
one of which is the tax status of municipal bonds and municipal agencies. Munici-
pal corporations do not pay any federal income tax or property tax. Also, the in-
terest rate is generally lower because of the tax-exempt nature of the income from
municipal bonds. The income from bonds used to finance privately owned systems
are not exempt from federal income tax, so the interest rates are higher. Also, there
are other financing requirements that affect the amount of money that must be bor-
rowed. These requirements are discussed in detail later.
 118 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

Innovative Financing Methods

To assist municipalities in attracting new business, a number of mechanisms have

been developed to provide a financial incentive to encourage building industrial
facilities. Industrial development bonding authority is one mechanism that has been
given to units of local government. These bonds are similar to other municipal
bonds in that the interest is exempt from federal income tax. Therefore, the interest
rates are lower than the current market rate. These bonds are issued by the munic-
ipality to finance a particular privately owned project. The revenue from the project
is to be used to retire the bonds. Again, because of excessive use of this bonding
mechanism, most states have placed a limit on the amount of these bonds that a
municipality may issue.
The creation of a tax-increment financing (TIF) district by a municipality is a
mechanism to postpone property tax payment on the improvements associated with
the construction of a facility. The intent of a TIF district is to encourage the rede-
velopment of blighted areas of a community. In addition to the stable low property
tax rate, the municipality may improve the infrastructure of the area as an incentive
for the private development.
Other mechanisms may be developed in the future to assist private developers
in reducing the cost of a facility. However, a bond payment plan must exist that will
provide the necessary funds to meet the interest payments and the face value of the
bonds when they are due. A revenue stream must be generated to meet this payment
plan.

COST COMPONENTS

To consider alternative systems for solid waste management, it is necessary to com-

pare them on the same economic basis. Costs are divided between fixed costs (cap-
ital costs) and reoccurring costs (operation and maintenance).

Capital Costs

Capital costs are those up-front costs associated with the purchase and installation
of the system being constructed. There are several costs that are considered capital
costs and are included in the total value of the bond issue.
On-site construction costs. The construction costs are associated with on-
site and off-site activities. The on-site, or battery limits costs represent those costs
that are common for the system no matter where it is constructed. These costs are
less site dependent and more predictable. The following cost categories are in-
cluded:
Equipment. All systems will require various pieces of equipment to make
the system complete. These items are priced by the manufacturer and generally do
Chap. 7 Cost Components 119

not include installation costs. For initial cost estimates, it is possible to obtain es-
timates of the installation cost from the equipment supplier. These installation costs
are not sufficiently accurate to use for the economic evaluation needed for financing
purposes.
Foundations. Foundations are required for all significant pieces of refuse-
processing equipment as well as buildings and other structures. The cost of these
foundations can be determined based on specified loading parameters. They are site
dependent to some degree and require knowledge of the soil and foundation char-
acteristics of the site.
Buildings. The construction costs of the buildings required to house the sys-
tem is another cost category to include in construction cost. This cost is very
closely tied to the type of process system and the quantity of solid waste generated.
Buildings can be used for a number of purposes and are likely to be a significant
component of the cost.
Utilities. The utility system for the site must be developed to distribute the
electricity, steam, and water and to provide the necessary storm drainage and sew-
ers and perhaps a treatment system for the sanitary sewage and any process waste-
water. The utility needs are system dependent and can be a significant construction
cost.
Site Development Costs. The site development costs refer to the provisions
of on-site roads and other pavement, landscaping, and the like. All of these costs
relate to the actual site.

Off-site construction costs. Providing the necessary roadways or railroads

and utilities (electricity, sewers, and water) to a facility may be a significant cost
item. The availability of adequate electrical power may be a determining factor in
the facility location. A system with several thousand horsepower operating will
need access to a major power supply. These cost categories are very site specific
and may be deciding factors in site selection for certain systems. These costs are
part of the infrastructure development costs that the municipality may be willing to
assume.

Land acquisition costs. Land requirements vary with the system. A sani-
tary landfill may require several hundred acres. Conversely, a transfer station may
need only 2 or 3 acres. Land costs are both system and site dependent.
Professional services. Several professional services are required to assem-
ble a project of any size. The development of the necessary design drawings and
specifications and the construction supervision will require a substantial effort from
a consulting engineering firm. The cost of these services is negotiated but may
range between 7 and 10% of the project cost, on-site and off-site, for the prepara-
tion of the design documents. Construction supervision may require a similar ex-
penditure.
120 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

Additional professional services may be required that relate to contract nego-

tiations, fiscal management, and the general administration of design and develop-
ment phase. Funds have to be made available to cover these costs as they occur.
Bills are submitted for work completed and are expected to be paid. There is no
income stream yet, so it is necessary to borrow the funds to cover these costs.

Financing costs. This is a cost category that is frequently missed in a ca-

sual economic evaluation. This category includes the cost of selling the bonds as
well as the funds needed to meet the financial commitments until a revenue stream
is developed. These costs are covered by actually borrowing money by issuing more
bonds so that these payments can be made before the revenue stream starts and for
money that is to be placed on reserve for future bond payments in case of a break in
the revenue stream.
Bond Issue Costs. There are brokerage houses that specialize in raising cap-
ital by selling bonds for a client. The magnitude of the fee for this service will vary
with the size of the issue, but it is approximately 4% for a normal-sized bond issue.
Bond Payment Reserve. A requirement that is imposed on the borrower of
the money is the establishment of a reserve that can be used to make the necessary
bond payments in case of process failure or plant shutdown. The magnitude of this
reserve is a reflection of the technical maturity of the processing system. If there is
some uncertainty about the ability to keep the system on line, the required reserve
will be much higher than if the system has a long history of successful operation. A
typical reserve may be equal to 1 or 2 years of bond payments. Of course, the
higher the reserve, the higher the financing costs. Since this money is a reserve, it
is placed at interest and actually earns money until it is used to make the last pay-
ments to retire the bonds.
Bond Payment During Construction. The time required to complete the
construction of a processing system may be one or more years. During this period,
there will not be any income stream to meet the bond payment requirements. The
bonds may be retired at a uniform annual rate that starts during the first year after
the bonds were issued. In other payment schedules, principal payments may not be
required for years, but interest payments are required during the first year. If the
financing arrangements require payments starting at once, the funds to make these
payments must be borrowed.

Startup costs. Once construction is complete, a period of time is required

before the facility becomes operational. Much of the equipment will require adjust-
ment while operating, some equipment may be installed incorrectly, operators must
be trained, and so on. This will prevent the facility from operating at capacity and
the expected income stream will not exist during this period. The full labor costs
and most of the operating costs will be incurred during this time. It may take from
1 to as many as 6 months, depending on the complexity of the project, before the
Chap. 7 Cost Components 121

facility becomes operational. The allowable startup time is generally in the con-
tract, and if longer periods are required than specified, it may be at the expense of
the contractor or the equipment supplier. Funds are made available to cover these
costs by borrowing additional money.

Contingency. A contingency is always provided for in any economic evalu-

ation. This is a measure of how much confidence one has in the data used to gen-
erate the design and compute the economics. The larger the contingency, the less
confidence exhibited in the system data base and performance. Contingencies of
10% are common in many designs.

Cost Indexing

Frequently, the cost for the equipment or the installation cost may be obtained from
a project that was bid in previous years. Other sources of cost information may be
cost curves available from company files. In general, these costs are all referenced
to a specific year and have a cost index value associated with them. The cost index
is designed to correct the cost information for inflation. A number of indices exist
and each is somewhat specific. The following are three that may be useful in the
environmental field.

Engineering-News Record. There are two indices: one that covers heavy
construction-concrete and earth moving, and one that covers building construc-
tion. These indices are published weekly in Engineering-News Record.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. EPA has developed a

cost index for small and large wastewater treatment plants. Until 1989 these indices
were published annually in the Washington Notebook section of a monthly issue of
the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.

Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering magazine

publishes an index that shows how much the chemical plant construction costs have
escalated with time. This index may be particularly useful for refuse-processing
systems because many of these systems have a lot of processing equipment.
The chemical plant cost indices listed in Table 7.1 illustrate the change that
can occur in the costs of facilities. The cost of chemical plants during the period
1957-1959 is used to set the reference index of 100. The ratio of these indices will
permit the extrapolation of historical cost data to present costs. The changes can be
significant. For example, if the cost of a plant in 1980 was $10,000,000, the same
plant would cost $11,380,000 in 1981, a 13.8% increase. This was a period of high
inflation. Conversely, a $10,000,000 plant built in 1984 would cost only $9,845,000
in 1986. These indices clearly reflect the national pattern for economic growth and
122 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

Table 7.1 Chemical Plant Cost Indices

Year Plant cost index Percent change

1980 26 1
198 I 297 13.8
1982 3 I4 5.7
1983 3 I7 1 .o
1984 323 1.9
1985 325 0.6
1986 318 -2.2
1987 324 1.3
1988 343 5.9
1989 355 3.5
1990 357 0.6

demand for materials and equipment. A negative index will occur only when the
manufacturers have an oversupply of product and are selling at a discount, if not
below cost.

Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operation and maintenance costs are variable costs that depend on the way in
which the facility operates. Many of the costs are in direct proportion to the quan-
tity of material processed. For example, the electricity required will depend on how
many hours the facility operates and the quantity of refuse processed. Labor may be
less dependent on the quantity processed. The labor contracts will generally require
payment for an 8-hour shift even if the desired through put is achieved in 6 hours.
Maintenance costs will also be dependent on the hours operated and the tons pro-
cessed. It is necessary to be specific in identifying these costs; what determines the
actual cost for each category?

Labor. The operating and maintenance personnel requirements are specific

for each facility. The skill levels and trades required must be determined before the
labor costs can be specified. There are two cost categories for labor: base wage rate
and fringe benefits. The base rate represents the hourly wage, which is based on job
skill requirements and experience. Certain fringe benefits are applied uniformly to
all employees (e.g., health insurance, dental insurance, clothing allowance, etc.).
The cost is independent of the wage rate. Other fringe benefits are tied to the wage
rate (e.g., paid vacation and holidays, retirement, etc.). However, for cost estimat-
ing, it is common to apply a percentage to the base wage to determine the magni-
tude of the fringe benefits. A typical number might be 35%, but this percentage
could be much higher for certain employee contracts.

Utilities. There is always a requirement for utilities at any refuse manage-

ment facility, if only for the personal needs of the employees. These costs are rela-
Chap. 7 Cost Components 123

tively insignificant and generally not evaluated. However, the utility costs for a
processing system may be significant, especially energy costs. Careful evaluation of
these costs is important because they can have a significant impact on the economic
feasibility of a system.

Supplies. This category includes the various operating and maintenance

supplies required in the facility. A variety of operating supplies are included, rang-
ing from process chemicals to fuel for steam generation. Refuse management sys-
tems have a Iimited demand for these supplies, except for fuel for the collection and
transport vehicles and the wheeled equipment used on site. The maintenance sup-
plies can be significant for certain processing systems and for the collection and
haul vehicles. The economic comparison can be only as good as the estimates for
these costs. Some are very significant, whereas others are insignificant, but all are
highly system dependent.

Administrative Costs

Personnel. All facilities must have an administrative structure, including a

facilities manager, business manager, legal staff, and a support staff. The normal
personnel costs apply to this group, both the base wage rate and the fringe benefits.
The size of this group will be system dependent.

Insurance. Insurance has not been considered to be a significant cost factor

in the economic health of a system. In addition to the normal insurance require-
ments, such as worker’s compensation, some processing and disposal systems may
have a very large potential liability. Some agencies choose to discount the need for
this type of insurance, while some of the large companies are self-insured. The
future requirements in this area are likely to become more restrictive. It is possible
that some of the new regulations for disposal sites will require the operator to carry
insurance against any damage claims, environmental or otherwise.

Legal and fiscal. These costs are associated with the normal operation of
the facility. The need for legal assistance will depend on the characteristics of the
facility and how much resistance exists from the community. Fiscal costs are asso-
ciated with the required audits and contract accountability. This can be a significant
activity when a private company has a contract that has a profit-sharing clause for
the host community. Record keeping must be detailed and complete.

Taxes

This category applies only to privately owned facilities. Municipalities are not re-
quired to pay either property or income tax. Under normal circumstances, private
companies are required to pay both. Mechanisms are available to municipalities to
 124 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

provide property tax relief as an inducement to encourage private development of

facilities. However, these inducements are not very common in this industry. They
have been used to make some of the large mass-burn facilities more economically
attractive as an investment for private money.

ECONOMIC COMPARISONS: PUBLICLY OWNED SYSTEMS

Publicly owned systems do not have profit motivation as a goal. The issue is not
the return on investment. The municipal agency has a problem that needs a solu-
tion, so the objective is to find a system that has the lowest cost. Because fixed and
variable costs are involved in determination of the economic comparisons, some
procedure is necessary to express these costs on a common base. There are a num-
ber of ways to achieve this goal, but two common procedures are used in the envi-
ronmental field, annual costs and present worth.

Annual Costs

The determination of annual costs provides more information for making cost com-
parisons because it is possible to reduce the annual costs to a common parameter
such as dollars per ton. Operating and maintenance costs are readily available as
annual costs since they accrue with the operating time. The first cost (capital costs)
can be converted into annual costs by using the appropriate compound interest for-
mula. The following equation gives the capital recovery factor (CRF) for repaying a
loan over a period of n years at an interest rate of i per annum.

For example, the CRF for a 20-year loan at 10% interest is 0.11746. A
$10,000,000 loan would require an annual payment of $1,174,600 for 20 years. The
CRF can be computed from equation (1) or can be obtained from any number of
handbooks.
Since the operation and maintenance costs are available on an annual basis,
the same basis as that used for the annual capital costs, these numbers can be added
to obtain the total annual costs associated with the facility. Knowing the capacity of
the facility, the tons processed per year can be computed. Dividing the total annual
costs by this tonnage will yield the cost per ton processed.

Present Worth

When the federal government initiated funding of the construction grants program
for wastewater treatment, it chose to use a different basis for cost comparison, the
 Chap. 7 Economic Evaluation for Private Financing 125

present worth. Present worth is the amount of money that would have to be in-
vested at i interest to generate a fixed amount of money every year for n years. It is
the inverse of the capital recovery factor, and the present worth factor (PWF) given
by the following equation is the inverse of CRF:
(1 + i)" -1
PWF =
i (1 + i)"
In fact, equation (2) is the inverse of equation (1). Multiplying the annual
costs associated with the operation and maintenance by PWF determines the present
worth of these annual costs. This present worth value is comparable to a capital
investment and therefore can be added to the capital cost of the facility. The result-
ing total cost, present worth value, can be used for economic comparisons of the
systems.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION FOR PRIVATE FINANCING

The following example is an economic evaluation of a facility that is planned to

process 400 tons/day on a 5 day/week basis or 2000 tons/week. This is a privately
financed facility in which the developer has taken an equity position (invested some
of their own funds). Construction and startup of the plant are assumed to begin in
1988 and take 2 years to complete, and the facility is scheduled to operate for 20
years. A bond is floated in 1988 with payments to begin immediately. During con-
struction, only interest payments are made. Once the plant is operational, both
principal and interest payments are made. A bond payment reserve (1.5 years) is set
aside in 1988 and kept until the last year of operation (2009), at which time it is
recovered. Annual interest is earned on that reserve. Construction costs are paid
during the course of the construction period, and short-term interest is earned on
the unspent money raised by the bonds.
The definitions used to determine the necessary bond issue are presented
below.

Total Capital Cost (TCAP). This includes the cost of land, equipment, instal-
lation, design, construction supervision, startup, capital contingencies, fur-
nishing, market development, mobile equipment, and so on.
Equity. This is the amount of cash the developer has invested in the plant.
Bond Payment. The semiannual bond payment is determined by using the
capital recovery factor (CRF) for an annual interest rate of 8% and 20 years
(since the bond payments are semiannual, i = 0.04 and n = 40 payments):
Bond Payment Reserve (BPR). A reserve of three semiannual bond payments
(1.5 years) is set aside at the beginning of the project. That reserve will earn
126 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

interest both during construction, shown as interest earned on reserve (RINT),

and during the life of the plant. That interest is estimated as 8% annually. The
reserve is recovered at the end of the bond term (2009).
Bond Payment During Construction (BPDC). Two years of bond interest must
be paid during construction. Those payments must be made with borrowed
money. The money is to be received at the beginning of 1988, while the four
payments are made at the end of 6-month intervals. The money is invested
and earns short-term interest [bond payment interest (BPINT)] until these
semiannual payments are made.
Interest on Construction Funds (IDC). During the construction period, pay-
ments are made according to completed work. The estimate assumes that the
required money is borrowed at the start of construction and that it is placed
into a short-term investment until needed. While the interest received will
depend on the payment schedule, it is estimated here as 5.3% of the total
capital cost.
Bond Issue Costs (BIC). This is the fee paid to an investment firm for the sale
of the bond issue. Generally, it is some percentage of the bond issue. In this
example, 4% was used.
Bond Issue (BOND). The bond issue is the amount of money that must be
borrowed and is determined as follows;
BOND = TCAP - EQUITY BIC + + BPR + BPDC - (3)
RINT - BPINT - IDC

Other pertinent equations are:

EQUITY = FEQ X (TCAP + BIC + BPR + BPDC -
RINT - BPINT - IDC) (4)
BIC = 0.04 X BOND (5)
BPR = CRF X 3 x BOND (6)
BPDC = i X 4 X BOND (7)
RINT = (BOND X CRF X 3) X INTR X 2 (8)
BPINT = (BOND X i) X 2.5 X INTR (9)
IDC = 0.053 X TCAP (10)
where FEQ is the fraction of equity that is put forth and INTR is interest on the
short-term investments (8% per annum).
Once the plant is in operation, the operating expenses and bond payments
must be offset by its revenues. The expenses that are included here are those for
personnel, power, water, equipment replacement, maintenance materials and sup-
plies, landfill disposal, and general supervision and administration (GS&A) ex-
penses. These expenses are inflated each year at 5%.
Chap. 7 Economic Evaluation for Private Financing 127

Table 7.2 1990 expenses and revenues

Expenses Revenues
~ ~

Personnel $1,533,200 Methane $ 1,578,500

Power 1,688,000 Carbon dioxide 1,351,000
Water 2,920 Tipping fee 5,564,000
Equipment replacement 181,700 Sewage sludge 952,000
Maintenance (M&S) 990,800 Interest income 358,000
Landfill disposal 235,040 Metals 275,000
GS&A expenses 788,375
Mobile equipment 288,500
Contingency 209,000
Total expenses $5,937,535 Total revenues $10,073,500

To illustrate an economic evaluation, a process for the anaerobic fermentation

of refuse to generate methane has been selected (see Chapter 10). This facility re-
ceives revenues from the sale of methane, carbon dioxide, and recovered metals,
from the tipping fee for the refuse, from the fee for the sewage sludge disposal, and
from the interest earned on the bond payment reserve. The revenues and expenses
for the first year of operation for this example are presented in Table 7.2. The
estimate of the capital requirements and the cash flow for the facility are presented
in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 for an equity contribution of 25%.
The cash flow presented in Table 7.4 shows the revenues exclusive of that
generated by the tipping fee. The tipping fee is determined based on the difference
between the bond payment and the operating expenses and other revenues plus the
required pretax income. The income from the bond reserve and the expense of the
bond payment are constant over the life of the project (with the exception of the
return of the 1.5-year bond payment reserve at the end of the project). Expenses
and revenues other than methane are assumed to increase with inflation (5%).
Methane revenues are inflated according to the Gas Research Institute’s (an indus-
try group) gas price projections. The methane revenues increase because of infla-
tion as well as resource depletion.

Table 7.3 Capital requirements

Total construction costs $28,862,000

Equity 7,034,000
Bond capital requirements 21,828,000
Bond issue costs I, 179,000
Bond payment reserve 4,467,000
Bond payment during construction 4,716,000
Interest earned on reserve (715,000)
Interest on bond payment (472,000)
Interest on construction funds (1,530,000)
Bond issue $29,474,000
128 Engineering Economics Chap. 7

Table 7.4 Cash flow

Other Bond Operating Bond
revenue reserve expenses payment
Year 61OOO) ($lOOO) ($low ($lOOO)

1990 4,157 358 5,938 2985

1994 5,383 358 7,218 2985
1999 7,289 358 9,211 2985
2004 9,962 358 I 1,757 2985
2009 14,014 477 1 15,005 2985

The tipping fee required to cover the difference between the expenses and
other revenues presented in Table 7.4 may be determined quite readily. For exam-
ple, in 1990, the tipping fee would have to generate $4,408,000 ($4,157,000 +
358,000 - 5,938,000 - 2,985,000). Since this facility is expected to process
104,000 tonslyear (2000 tondweek), the tipping fee must be $42.38 per ton. This is
the break-even tip fee; no profit is included. This number does not change substan-
tially until the last year, when the bond reserve is treated as income. The additional
tipping fee required to provide a profitable operation depends on the measure of
acceptable return. Three measures are investigated here:

1 . At least 10%first-year pretax income ratio

2. At least 25 to 30% average pretax income ratio (PTIR)
3. At least 25 to 30% average annual pretax return on invested equity (ROI).

The PTIR, also known as the profit margin, is calculated by dividing the pre-
tax profits by the gross revenues. As the equity increases, the expenses for the bond
payments decrease, which then increases the profit for a fixed tipping fee. The ROI
is determined by dividing the pretax profits by the amount of equity invested.
The objective of this exercise is to find the equity contribution yielding the
minimum tipping fee that satisfies all three profit measures presented above. Figure
7.1 is constructed by calculating the income and expenses for each equity position
and applying the appropriate profitability objective. Each line plots the 1990 tipping
fees that are required to satisfy the foregoing constraints for the range of equity that
might be put forward. The tipping fee required to satisfy a given pretax income
ratio decreases with increasing equity because the annual cost of the bond payment
decreases. The tipping fee required to give the desired return on investment in-
creases with increasing equity because the initial investment, and thus the required
return, is larger.
The feasible regions shown in Figure 7.1 are equitykipping fee combinations
that satisfy all three constraints. Region 1 satisfies the condition of 25% ROI and
10%first-year PTIR. Region 2 satisfies the constraints of 30% ROI and 30% PTIR.
Notice that the requirement for a 10%first-year FTIR exceeds the requirement for a
25% average PTIR. Since this objective is binding, the tipping fee wiil be higher
than that required for 25% average PTIR and ROI. Putting forth 12 to 15% equity
Chap. 7 Study Questions 129

0 20 40 60 80 100
Equity (%)

Figure 7.1 Economic evaluation for private financing.

gives the lowest tipping fees for the 30% PTIR and ROI requirements. The tipping
fees would be about $57 per ton. The first-year PTIR constraint requires a tip fee of
about $52 per ton and an equity position of about 18% if the 25% ROI is used.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of GO bonds and of revenue bonds?
2. What is the source of revenue for each type?
3. What cost elements are considered to be capital costs?
4. Distinguish between capital and construction costs.
5. What is the value of cost indexing?
6. What costs are considered to be operation and maintenance costs?
7. Compute the cost of a publicly owned processing system in dollars per ton
given the following information.
Plant capacity, 100,000 tons/yr Bond issue, $10,000,O00
Interest rate, 10% Economic life, 20 years
Operating costs, $800,00O/yr Maintenance costs, $350,00O/yr
8. Calculate the present worth for the facility in Question 7.
9. Distinguish between fixed and variable costs.
10. How does present worth compare fixed and variable costs?
11. How does the actual bond issue differ from the capital costs for private indus-
try financing?
OBC
Chap. 8 Receiving Area 131

that is fed to the computer as the truck drives on to the scale. This number identi-
fies the owner of the vehicle and the empty weight. The gross weight is recorded
and the net weight computed. This information can then be used to bill the owner
of the truck for the tons of refuse received. This tip fee is a major source of revenue
for the facility.
These stations can be operated manually by having the data inputted by a
keyboard. This requires an operator in the scale house. There may be advantages to
having more control of the access to the facility by having this checkpoint. When
access control is not a problem, the facility can be completely automated. The ve-
hicles have magnetic cards that are inserted into a card reader. The information is
collected and computed automatically. The degree of sophistication of the weigh
station must be balanced against the cost of the system and other needs that may be
served by having personnel on duty at this station.
The weigh station serves other purposes by providing data on the rate at
which refuse is processed by the facility. The input tonnage is important for making
cost calculations for the operation of the plant. In the case of a sanitary landfill, the
accumulated tonnage received indicates the rate at which the capacity of the fill is
being used. The weigh station also provides a data base for determining the total
refuse production of the area served by the facility. Because the vehicles are coded,
it is possible to track the rate of solid waste production on the routes served by the
specific vehicle. This will assist in revising the routes as the refuse production
changes because of changing land uses.

Receiving Areanip Floor

The sizing of the tip floor must consider the number of trucks that will be unload-
ing in a given period. If the facility receives only 100 tondday, that is equivalent to
about 20 loads. Distributing this number over 480 minutes results in one load every
24 minutes. Therefore, if the unloading time is 10 to 15 minutes, space for only one
truck at a time is necessary. Of course, the truck arrival is never uniformly spread
over the day. In this case it might be appropriate to have space for three or four
trucks to unload at the same time. If 12 ft is allowed for each unloading area, a space of
35 to 50 ft would be sufficient. Figure 8.1 is a photograph of a receiving area that
uses a portion of the tip floor for short-term storage of the refuse (slab storage).
As the facility becomes larger, the number of trucks increases in proportion.
A figure of 1000 tons/day would be the equivalent of about 200 loads. Distributing
these loads over a 480-minute period would result in one truck ever 2.4 minutes. A
10- to 15-minute unloading time would require five or six spaces for unloading.
Again, the trucks tend to arrive in bunches. When they start the route at the same
time, they will generally finish at approximately the same time. The only factor that
will cause a distribution of the truck arrival will be the time differential between
the route and the tip area. Planning of collection routes can assist in distributing the
arrival times over the workday. A particularly difficult time is the end of the
132 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Figure 8.1 Collection vehicle unloading on a tipping floor

day. If the day ends at the same time for all collection crews, all vehicles will
arrive at the tip floor at the same time. This will result in a long queue and a
considerable loss of time. It is not practical to provide space for perhaps 100 trucks
to unload at the same time. Therefore, some thought should be given to a staggered
starting time. Still, the number of spaces required would be 10 to 15, or a distance
of 120 to 180 ft. There will be many other factors that may limit the space available
for truck unloading.

Temporary Storage

All refuse-processing facilities are faced with the problem of matching the rate at
which the refuse is received with the rate at which it is processed. As discussed
above, the solid waste does not arrive uniformly over the operating day. The S-
shaped curve in Figure 8.2 illustrates how 500 tons of refuse might accumulate over
an 8-hour operating period. This mass accumulation curve shows periods of low
receipts and periods of high receipts. If the refuse is being fed into a processing line
at a constant rate, there are times when not enough refuse is being received to meet
this demand rate, or times when too much refuse is being received. A “surge” or
storage facility must be available to accommodate these differences. Curve 1 shows
the demand rate for a processing system processing the 500 tons in an 8-hour pe-
riod. It is assumed that the operating day for the processing line starts at 8:OO A . M . ,
the same time as the collection day. A total of 135 tons of storage would be re-
quired for this operating condition. It is clear that the amount of storage could be
reduced if the processing line was not started until a sufficient quantity of refuse
was received. Shifting the demand curve 1 hour later could reduce the storage re-
quirements significantly.
 Chap. 8 Receiving Area 133

-
8 12 4 8 12 4
Figure 8.2 Accumulated mass flow rate
Time of day of incoming refuse.

The required storage is complicated by the period of operation for the facility.
If the refuse is processed 24 hourdday, there must be enough refuse in storage at
the end of the collection day to supply the facility until the trucks arrive to unload
the next day. This is illustrated by curve 2 in Figure 8.2, which shows the demand
rate for processing the 500 tons in a 24-hour period. Storage capacity for 335 tons
would have to be provided for this operating condition. If the refuse is incinerated,
the storage must be sufficient to feed the incinerator from the end of the collection
day on Friday until sufficient refuse arrives on Monday. This would require a stor-
age capacity for over 64 hours of operation of the facility.

Pit storage. A common method of storage for the large mass-burn (inciner-
ation) plants is the use of a large pit, as shown in Figure 8.3. The tip floor may be
25 to 30 ft above the bottom of the pit and the trucks back up to the edge of the pit
and dump the refuse into it. The refuse is reclaimed with an overhead crane using a
“claw.” The refuse is loaded into a feed hopper and conveyed to the furnace. The
crane operator can monitor the quality of the refuse in the pit and select a balanced
feed to the furnace. It is possible to alternate, for example, wet and dry refuse to
obtain a more even heat load on the furnace. Operator control of the feed stream is
a very important consideration that tends to discourage total mechanization.
Alternative techniques for reclaiming refuse from storage include “live bot-
tom” pits. The bottom of the pit is a heavy pan conveyor that moves the refuse to
one end of the pit, where it is transferred to another conveyor for feed to the fur-
nace. This system has had limited success with raw refuse because of bridging of
 134 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Figure 8.3 Schematic diagram of a typical incineration system using pit storage with retrieval of refuse by
overhead crane.

the refuse over the conveyor. There are very few of these units in operation except
on shredded refuse.
The required storage capacity is based on volume requirements. The tonnage
that must be stored as determined above must be converted to volume. The density
of raw refuse after it is discharged from the collection vehicle will be approximately
300 to 400 lb/yd3. The volume required to store refuse to feed an incinerator pro-
cessing 500 tons/day from 5 P.M. on Friday to midmorning on Monday would be
about 6500 yd3. A pit 30 ft deep by 50 ft wide by 120 ft long would be required.
The length of the pit would provide sufficient unloading space to accommodate the
approximately 100 loads that would be delivered. Plants handling larger tonnages
will naturally require wider and deeper as well as perhaps longer pits. Width:depth:
length ratios for these pits are not specified. The dimensions are determined by a
variety of site and economic factors.

Slab storage. An alternative to pit storage that is preferred by many plant

managers is slab storage. This consists of a concrete slab on which the collection
truck dumps the refuse. One or more front-end loaders alternately load the refuse
onto the conveyor feeding the processing system or pile the unneeded refuse to the
side (see Figure 8.1). The slab is partially surrounded by a “push wall.” This is a
reinforced concrete wall designed to withstand the force of a large front-end loader
pushing refuse against the wall to load the bucket. The refuse in excess of that the
processing line can handle accumulates in a pile. When the processing line has
caught up with the incoming refuse, the loaders retrieve the stored material and
load it onto the feed conveyor.

,/
Chap. 8 Receiving Area 135

Slab storage is much cheaper than pit storage, especially when the required
storage volume is moderate. It also has the advantage of operator control. The
front-end loader operators are in a position to observe the quality of the refuse
discharged from the trucks. They can be selective in what they introduce into the
processing line. Elimination of massive steel, large truck tires, solvent cans, and so
on, can provide a degree of protection for the processing equipment. The large
storage requirements for the continuous operation of mass-burn systems may make
the pit storage more economical. The height of the pile for slab storage is limited to
about 15 ft by the reach of the front-end loader.

Atlas Bin storage. A third storage system that has been considered for stor-
age of refuse is the Atlas Bin. This device is used extensively for storing wood
chips and similar materials. It was logical to assume that it would work on refuse.
It became clear in a short time that raw refuse could not be stored in such a unit.
Some success has been obtained with processed refuse that has more uniform char-
acteristics. There are still problems that must be addressed.
The Atlas Bin consists of a metal silo in the shape of an inverted cone. The
processed refuse is conveyed to the top (the apex of the cone) and dropped into the
bin. The refuse forms a pile in the shape of a cone. The angle of the bin walls is
designed to approximate the angle of repose of the refuse pile. Under these condi-
tions, the wall pressure exerted by the refuse is minimal. The costs are reduced
from normal bin storage because of the lighter construction required for the walls.
The retrieval mechanism is illustrated in Figure 8.4. The refuse pile grows
from the center since the incoming stream drops down from the center of the in-
verted cone. There are several sweep bucket chains that are attached to a rotating
pull ring on the periphery of the circular base. As these chains are pulled, they tend
to migrate toward the center. They drag along the bottom of the pile, pulling the
refuse toward the exit conveyor, located in a channel under the floor. The refuse
pulled by the chain drops onto this conveyor and is conveyed to the desired process.
One of the major problems with this system is the maintenance costs. Pro-
cessed refuse contains quantities of grit, glass, and metal. This material is very
abrasive and causes extreme wear on the bottom of the bin. Protection of the con-
crete is necessary to prevent damage to the bin bottom. The abrasion also requires
frequent replacement of the chain and buckets. Another problem occurs when the
refuse is allowed to accumulate in the bin. The retrieval mechanism works on a
last-in first-out basis. If the bin is not completely emptied at frequent intervals,
some of the refuse may remain in the bin for extended periods of time. If the
moisture content is adequate, biodegradation will occur, causing odor problems.
The refuse can also compact sufficiently over a period of time so that the drag
buckets do not dislodge it as they move around the bottom.
The extreme of this problem was illustrated by a reported event that occurred
with the Atlas Bin at the Baltimore, Maryland, gasification plant. It appeared that
some hot metal in the shredder ignited refuse being transported to the bin, where
it proceeded to burn. The resulting fire was extinguished using a considerable
 136 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Refuse
,-

Drag
chain
conveyor

I \
Bin wall
Pull ring

Figure 8.4 Refuse retrieval from an Atlas Bin. (From: Waste Age, July 1985, p. 54.)

quantity of water. The plant was shut down during this time and after the fire was out,
they decided not to resume operation until they figured out what to do with the wet
material. The gasification plant was a thermal process and could not process the
wet refuse. After several days of planning, a solution was devised that required
removal of the refuse from the bin. As they tried to retrieve the material, they were
surprised that the wet paper had dried on the surface of the pile, encasing it with a
thick coating of papier-milch& As you know, dry papier-mkhd can be hard and
reasonably resistant to attack. How to break this tough skin? Dynamite! A few
sticks were strategically placed around the pile and exploded. The explosion did
damage to the bin, but the papier-milch6 was still intact.
The relative economic advantages of these storage systems are difficult to
quantify. Many of the costs are site specific or process specific. The best solution is
to determine the operational advantages each system may offer. The cost of the
storage is not a dominant cost factor in the total system cost. Therefore, operational
advantages usually decide which storage system is used.

REFUSE CONVEYING

Conveyor Types

The movement of refuse through any processing facility will involve a number of
conveying systems. There are four systems that have application in short-distance
transport of refuse. Each has unique characteristics that determine the appropriate
application. With the exception of the pneumatic conveyor, the other conveyors will
Chap. 8 Refuse Conveying 137

probably be found in every refuse processing plant. The purpose of conveyors is to

elevate the refuse so that it can be gravity fed into a unit process or a storage
facility.

Pan or apron conveyors. The pan or apron conveyor is the first conveyor
employed in processing raw refuse. It consists of a continuous loop of heavy steel
plates pinned together and supported by rollers. It is enclosed with stationary ver-
tical side plates and the conveyor serves as the bottom of a receiving bin for loading
raw refuse onto the processing line. The steel plates are necessary to withstand the
impact of large dense objects that may be dropped from the height of a front-end
loader or similar equipment. The conveyor is slow moving, and therefore it must be
wide to handle any quantity of refuse. The slow speed provides an opportunity for
the loader operator to achieve a relatively uniform depth of refuse on the conveyor.
The conveyor is driven by a variable-speed drive that enables the operator to ad-
just the feed rate to meet the capacity of the processing equipment. Figure 8.5
shows an inclined pan conveyor used as an in-feed conveyor for a vertical shaft
hammer mill.

Belt conveyor. The belt conveyor is a continuous belt stretched between a

head and a tail pulley (see Figure 8.6). These pulleys are supported by a structural
frame designed to span the distance between supports. The rubber-impregnated fab-
ric belt is carried by a series of top rollers supported by the structural frame. The
rollers are as closely spaced as needed to support the load carried by the belt. They
are positioned to have the belt assume a concave shape. This increases the capacity
of the belt by providing sides. It is also possible to place vertical metal plates on
the sides of the belt to increase the depth of material on the belt.
The belt returns on the underneath side of the frame. A small number of
horizontal rollers is provided to support the belt on the return trip. Because the belt
is made of a fabric material, it is subject to stretching. A free-floating idler pulley
is positioned on the return run to maintain tension in the belt. When these belts are
subject to wind and rain (exterior runs), they can be covered. This cover is hinged
to allow access to the belt. The angle of inclination of these conveyors is limited by
the ability to keep the refuse from sliding back down the belt. The maximum angle
is about 30" from the horizontal.

Bucket conveyor. The bucket conveyor is designed to provide a nearly ver-

tical lift. Since belt conveyors are limited in the angle of inclination, a different
conveyor is necessary to obtain a vertical lift. There are a variety of designs for
these conveyors, but the variation is mostly in the manner of support for the buck-
ets. The buckets can be attached to a chain and lifted up a metal channel. A con-
tinuous rubberized belt that has the buckets fabricated as part of the belt is more
common for refuse conveying. The capacity of the conveyor is determined by the
volume of the buckets and the speed at which the buckets are elevated. These con-
veyors are not very satisfactory for raw refuse. The particle size is too large, requiring
extremely large buckets. The application is almost exclusively for processed refuse.
138 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Figure 8.5 Inclined pan conveyor feeding

refuse into a vertical shaft hammer mill.

Pneumatic conveyors. As the name implies, these conveyors use a stream

of air to transport the refuse. The application of such conveyors is limited because
of the high energy requirements as well as the environmental problems associated
with the air used for transport. Air is blown into a sheet metal pipe at a velocity
sufficient to transport the refuse particles. Air-velocity requirements are in the
range 3000 to 5000 ft/min. Depending on the diameter of the duct, airflow rates of
10,000 to 20,000 ft3/min are experienced. The power required to transport this
quantity of air at these speeds is substantial, an order of magnitude greater than the
power required for the conveyors above.
Refuse is fed through an air lock into the airstream. The refuse is recovered by
passing the suspension through a cyclone. The cyclone is designed to remove only
the larger particles; therefore, the air must be cleaned further with a baghouse (fab-
ric filter) before being released into the atmosphere. The normal application of
pneumatic conveyors is in conjunction with air classification systems where air is
used for other purposes. Since the material is already suspended in an airstream, it
becomes practical to use the pneumatic conveyor. The substantial maintenance cost
of these conveyors is due to the sandbasting effect of shattered glass and grit con-
Chap. 8 Refuse Conveying 139

Conveyor cap

\
Skirt rubber

Section A-A

Figure 8.6 Schematic representation of a belt conveyor.

tained in the refuse. This problem is particularly acute at bends. Reinforced re-
placeable wear plates are included at these locations to assist in maintenance.

Sizing of Conveyors

Belts, pans, and bucket conveyors. The capacity of a conveyor is a func-

tion of the cross-sectional area and the speed of the conveyor. The width is fixed by
the positions of the side plates or edge of the belt. The depth is limited to a degree
by the height of the side plates or the shape of the belt and the angle of repose of
the solid waste. These two dimensions determine the cross-sectional area. The fol-
lowing equation can be used to calculate the volume flow rate:
Q = AV (1)
where Q = flow rate in ft3/min, A = cross-sectional area in ft2, and V = belt
speed in ft/min. Mass flow rate can be determined by knowing the density of the
refuse on the conveyor. As with other examples previously discussed, the density
 140 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

can be expected to be less than the density of the refuse in the collection vehicle,
perhaps 300 to 400 Ib/yd3 (10 to 15 lb/ft3) for raw refuse. Processed refuse density,
especially shredded refuse, will be closer to 5 lb/ft3 (150 lb/yd3).
The speed of a pan conveyor is in the range 10 to 20 ft/min. The belt conveyor
operates at a higher speed, generally about 200 ftlmin (2 to 3 mph). Higher speeds
are possible, but the wind resistance can become a problem with refuse. Plastic
film is especially prone to wind action and can literally form a plug on the belt if it
is covered, or blow off an uncovered belt. The bucket conveyors move at a higher
speed than the belt conveyor because the refuse is contained in the bucket and is not
as susceptible to wind action.

Pneumatic conveyors. Sizing of pneumatic conveyors is an art and requires

experience with the material being conveyed. There are theoretical equations for
calculating the velocity required to transport a particle with a specific size, shape,
and density. However, the variation in size, density, and shape that occurs in pro-
cessed refuse render these equations useless. In addition, these equations are valid
only for a single particle. When multiple particles are transported, particle inter-
action greatly complicates any technique for calculation of the required air velocity
or flow rate.

PARTICLE SIZE REDUCTION

All refuse processing systems must, as a first step, consider the condition of the
refuse as it is received at the processing facility. The initial processing step is the
liberation of the refuse contained in bags and boxes. These containers must be
opened in order for the refuse particles to be available for the processing steps
involved in separation of wanted and unwanted components. The mechanical pro-
cessing entailed in this initial step can be gentle or harsh. It may be as simple as
passing the refuse through a rotating drum that contains “shark’s teeth” that can
break open the bags and boxes as they tumble in the drum, or it may involve pass-
ing it through a shredder that reduces the particles to some prescribed size. How
well the subsequent processing steps work will depend on this initial step and the
effects on the individual constituents in the solid waste.

Particle Size Distribution of Raw Refuse

The constituents in raw refuse have characteristic particle sizes that can be used to
assist in their separation. Figure 8.7 shows typical particle size ranges for the var-
ious components in unprocessed solid waste. This figure is idealized. There will
likely be a very small percentage of every component at the smaller sizes. Paper
and paper products are the largest components in the refuse stream and also have
Chap. 8 Particle Size Reduction 141

News-
print

Card-
board

Paper
C
._
c
(
0
'I Garbage
Cl
E
8
c
Yard
c and
$ garden
2 waste

Metal

Glass

Plastic

Miscellaneous
organics
lnerts
0 4 8 12 16 20
Typical component size (in.)

Figure 8.7 Typical size distribution of raw refuse.

the largest particle size. From this figure, a particle size cut at about 8 to 9 in.
would produce a stream containing only paper and corrugated, with some plastic
film.
The 4- to %in. size range contains the garbage and yard waste, rubber and
wood, plus the miscellaneous organic materials. Glass and ferrous and nonferrous
metal tend to be less than 4 in. The inert residue (ashes, dirt, etc.) will generally be
less than 2 in. Unfortunately, none of these distributions is absolute. For example,
grass clippings will be less than 2 in. However, these size distributions do provide
an approach for obtaining streams that are highly enriched with certain refuse com-
ponents. Simple separation of the refuse according to size will provide an opportu-
nity to apply a variety of technologies to the recovery of specific materials from
refuse. As the composition of refuse changes, so will these size distributions.
142 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Solid Waste Shredding

Shredding has been used as the initial step for processing solid waste since the
early attempts to produce a useful product from this material. The original concept
was massive size reduction. Under this scenario, it is a battle of survival. Which
will wear out first, the refuse or the hammers in the mill? This is especially acute
when the refuse contains difficult-to-shred items such as rubber tires, bowling balls,
engine blocks, large pieces of carpet, and so on. This intensive shredding was
partly in response to the need to produce a relatively uniform material for the pro-
duction of RDF. As more experience with shredding was obtained, the emphasis on
massive size reduction has changed. Alternative devices have been evaluated in this
role and found more effective than the power-intensive hammer mills. The follow-
ing description of shredders will identify some of the advantages and disadvantages
of the various shredding systems.

Flail mill. The flail mill is a well-established size reduction unit that has
been employed in many industries. It has a low power requirement, commensurate
with the limited particle size reduction achieved. The refuse receives only one ex-
posure to the hammers or heavy chains (in which case it is called a chain mill)
swinging from the rotating shaft. As it passes through the mill, the hammers strike
the refuse and knock it against the anvil plate (see Figure 8.8). If the particle is
small enough, it will pass through the mill without being reduced in size. Small
items such as glass and metal containers have a low probability of being struck by
the hammers, so they will probably pass untouched. Most plastic items and paper
will also pass untouched. Only the large containers, bags, boxes, cans, and so on,
will be impacted by the mill.
There are three primary advantages associated with the flail mill: low power
requirements, low maintenance requirements, and minimum size reduction. The
first two advantages are obvious in that the operational costs are much lower per
ton of refuse processed than for the more destructive mills. The third advantage is
,
Hammers or flails

,otor
,End plate

/ Discharge
conveyor

conveyor

Figure 8.8 Schematic of a flail mill.

Chap. 8 Particle Size Reduction 143

Drive motor
/

istic
tion

Figure 8.9 Schematic of a vertical shaft hammer mill.

associated with the quality of the output from the mill. If it is desired to recover a
useful product from the refuse, separation of the various components will be nec-
essary. Since particle size reduction is limited, the various constituents in the refuse
remain intact and retain their characteristic particle size. For example, the glass
does not shatter and become embedded in the organic fraction. The recovered or-
ganic fraction is of higher quality without the embedded glass. Can recovery, both
ferrous and aluminum, is more efficient if whole cans are available rather than
small pieces. Consequently, the flail mill offers a better size-reduction unit process
for a material recovery processing system.

Vertical shaft hammer mill. Hammer mills are classified as to the orienta-
tion of the rotor or shaft. The vertical shaft has a drive shaft mounted vertically.
Figure 8.9 is a representation of the vertical shaft mill. This type of mill, originally
known as the Tollemache Mill, was developed in Great Britain for the shredding of
solid waste. Massive steel hammers are pinned to this shaft. When rotating at high
speed, the centrifugal force of these swinging hammers causes them to strike the
refuse that is being fed into the mill. The hammers are enclosed in a massive steel
housing that serves as a counter force to the hammers. The diameter of the housing
decreases from top to bottom, decreasing the space between the hammer tips and
144 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

the housing. For the refuse to pass through the mill, the particle size must be small
enough to permit passage through this space.
The material is fed from the top. The fan action of the rotating hammers sets
up an airflow from top to bottom which, along with gravity, pulls the material into
the mill. As the housing narrows at the neck section, material that has not been
reduced in size will not pass. If this material is very difficult to mill, the continued
impact from the hammers will impart a centrifugal motion that will cause the object
to move to the ballistic ejection port. Items such as bowling balls or massive steel
sections will normally be ejected rather than allowed to remain in the mill and
destroy it.
Since the object of these mills is to obtain significant size reduction, there
needs to be an understanding of what controls the particle size. The retention time
in the mill and the number of hammer impacts are important factors. The spacing
between the hammers and the housing in the lower part of the mill assists in regu-
lating the time of passage through the mill. The number of hammers in the lower
portion of the mill determines the number of impacts, which in turn, determines the
particle size. Therefore, by changing the number and location of hammers in the
mill, the particle size can be changed. With time, the tips of the hammers wear and
become rounded, changing the distance between the hammer and the housing.
Since this wear can occur after a few hours of operation, the product particle size
can also change significantly in a relatively short time.
The advantage of the vertical shaft hammer mill is the ability to achieve a
high degree of size reduction, even with refuse that may contain difficult to mill
material. The primary disadvantage is the high energy cost and high maintenance
cost. Also, in the process of shredding raw refuse, the contamination of the organic
material with the shattered glass and other inorganic components significantly re-
duce the value of the organic product. The most effective use of this type of mill is
on a stream of solid waste that has undergone processing to remove the inorganic
constituents.

Horizontal shaft hammer mill. There are two primary differences between
the vertical shaft and the horizontal shaft hammer mill illustrated in Figure 8.10.
First, the rotating shaft is horizontal. Steel hammers are pinned to this rotor and
centrifugal force causes them to impact the refuse in the mill. The second difference
is the presence of a grate that has specific-size openings. Only those particles
smaller than the opening will be passed. This provides a more positive control over
the maximum particle size. It can also be a potential problem. For example, if a
small piece of steel too large to pass through the grate openings enters the mill, it
will remain there until it is beaten to a smaller size. If this requires a long time, the
continued impact of the hammers will heat the steel to a sufficient temperature to
ignite the refuse, resulting in a fire. Rejection ports exist, but they work only if
there is a significant mass to the rejected material.
These mills were developed for and are used extensively for the crushing of
ores and stone. The application to solid waste shredding has not been very success-
Chap. 8 Particle Size Reduction 145

lnfeed
I

Shaft
Rotor

Hammers

Adjustable
breaker bar

Grate with
openings
I I
I I

+-----
1 Outfeed

Figure 8.10 Schematic of a horizontal shaft hammer mill.

ful. Several manufacturers still sell these mills for refuse processing. They have
made some modifications, but the solid waste just does not respond like the brittle
ores and stone. Plastic and rubber products are considerably more resilient and are
much more difficult to mill. Because of the grate, this mill cannot pass these ma-
terials like the vertical shaft mill. If a sheet of plastic or textile aligns properly in
the vertical shaft mill, it can pass down the sides with little contact with the ham-
mers. This is not true with a horizontal mill; everything must be reduced to a size
that will pass through the screen openings.

Shear shredder. A recent addition to the equipment that can be used for
size reduction in solid waste is the shear shredder. A schematic of this unit is pre-
sented in Figure 8.11. The size reduction accomplished by the hammer mill is from
the impact of the hammers. A shear shredder achieves the size reduction by cutting
actions. Two slow-speed counter-rotating shafts support cutters that literally cut the
material as it becomes entrapped between the cutting teeth. The cutters reduce the
146 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

I - lnfeed conveyor

--- Cutters

;@,& ':
I
-
I
Shaft

Cutter teeth

___t Outfeed conveyor

Figure 8.11 Schematic of a shear

shredder.

size sufficiently for the material to pass between the shafts and cutters. These shafts
are hydraulically driven at speeds of about 100 rpm. If the material jams the cut-
ters, the rotation is automatically reversed to free the jam. After a couple of revo-
lutions in reverse, the shafts resume normal rotation. This sequence will be
continued until the material is finally passed through the shredder or the system is
shut down and the offending material is removed from the mill. Shutdown is not
normal because even objects such as railroad ties and large truck tires can be pro-
cessed by these mills.
Particle size is controlled by the spacing and orientation of the cutters on the
shafts and the spacing between the shafts. Nominal particle sizes can range from
perhaps as low as 1 in. to 8 to 10 in. A major advantage of this mill is the lack of
destructive force. Glass bottles and metal cans will pass the mill with little damage
if large spacings are used for the cutters. Consequently, there is good control over
the large particles, while at the same time, the components with a characteristic
smaller size can pass the mill with little destruction. This is a definite advantage for
the subsequent separation and material recovery.
The operating costs are more reasonable. The power cost is less than that for
the hammer mills because of the slow speeds used. The maintenance costs are much
lower because of the cutting action of the mill. The cutters are made from extra-
hard steel and are not significantly impacted by organic material and lightweight
metal. Massive steel will be a problem and care is exercised to remove material of
this type before it reaches the mill. Also, concrete materials are not acceptable.
However, such materials are not found in any quantity in normal residential and
commercial refuse. Construction and demolition debris would not be accepted into
this unit.
 Particle Size Reduction 147

I I I I I I I
0 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 20
Screen Size (in.)

Figure 8.12 Particle size distribution of shredded refuse: A, raw commercial; B, raw residential;
1, Ames, Iowa, secondary; 7, Ames, Iowa, primary; 2, Great Falls, Maryland; 3, Cockneysville, Maryland;
4, Odessa, Texas; 5, Tilton Falls, New Jersey; 6, Appleton, Wisconsin. (From Solid Waste Management,
May 1980, p. 36.) Reprinted with permission from Solid Waste Management, May 1980. Copyright
Communication Channels, Inc. 1980 Atlanta, GA, USA.

Particle Size Distribution: Shredded Refuse

Since the objective of shredding is size reduction, it is interesting to know how

particle size differs for different mills. The rating of a mill is on the basis of a
“nominal” particle size. This is the screen size that will pass 90% by weight of the
milled refuse. A mill that produces a nominal particle size of 2 in. will have a
product in which 90% of the weight will consist of particle sizes less than 2 in.
Some authors use a “characteristic” particle size, which is defined as the screen
size passing 63.2% of the weight of particles. Why this particular number was
selected is not apparent except that these authors report a better fit for the data.’
Particle size distributions of shredded refuse from various mills are known by the
manufacturer. However, as mentioned earlier, the particle size and size distribution
can change significantly with hammer wear.
Figure 8.12 illustrates the size reduction achieved by several operating mills.
The size distributions shown in this figure are for horizontal shaft hammer mills
except for curves (2) and (3, which are for vertical shaft mills. The size distributions

‘G. Trezek, G. Savage, and L. Diaz. Solid Waste Management, May 1980, p. 36.
148 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

for raw residential and commercial solid wastes are shown on the right side of the
curve. The commercial refuse falls primarily in the size range 2 to 20 in., while
residential refuse appears to be in the range 1 to 10 in. After shredding, the particle
sizes are reduced significantly. The nominal particle size for all mills except for the
secondary mill curve (l), appear to be between 2 to 4 in. Ames, Iowa primary and
secondary mill, size distributions were generated by a two-stage shredding system.
The discharge from the primary mill (curve 7) was, after some screening, the feed
for the secondary mill. The discharge from the secondary mill (curve 1) had nom-
inal particle size of approximately 1.5 in. It has generally been observed that
multistage shredding is necessary to achieve a nominal particle size much below
2 in. One can design a single-stage mill that can produce the small particle, but
the capacity of the mill is so restricted that it is not practical. After passing the
first stage, the smaller particles can be removed with a simple screen. This signif-
icantly reduces the load to the second-stage shredder, improving the performance of
this unit.

Energy Required versus Particle Size

Shredding is a very energy intensive step in the processing of refuse. Energy is

required to destroy particle integrity; the more destruction, the more energy. There
is a close correlation between particle size and energy requirements. Typical data
for operating mills are shown in Figure 8.13. A nominal particle size of 4 in. will
require about 7 kWh per ton of dry weight processed. As the nominal particle size
is reduced to 2 in., the power demand increases to 12 kWh/ton; at 1 in., 27 kWh/
ton; and at 0.5 in., 50 kWh/ton. With power cost in the range $0.05 to $0.10 per
kilowatthour, the power costs for shredding refuse to small particle sizes can be
substantial.

Maintenance Cost: Hammer Wear

A second operation and maintenance cost is the wear on the hammers and the hous-
ing or grates of the mills. There is substantial metal loss from both portions of the
mill. Figure 8.14 demonstrates the magnitude of this problem. Hammer wear is
expressed in pounds per ton of as-received refuse processed. The metal used for the
hammers plays a significant role in the metal loss. A soft metal wears away rapidly,
while a very hard metal will chip upon impact with some of the more resistant
materials. An alloy hardness of about 50 (Rockwell C) appears to be the better
range for the hammers. The loss due to chipping is not easily quantified since it
tends to be isolated events. Upon inspection, one can visually observe the large
chunks missing from the hammers. A mill processing 500 tons/day could be ex-
pected to lose about 22 lb/day of metal from the hammers. It is likely that similar
amounts will be lost from the stationery portions of the mill.
Chap. 8 Particle Size Reduction 149

60 c
t"
c
z;
50-

-
'\ \ \
40
P
c
30 -
.-0
c
0

g 20-

10 -

1 I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0
Product size (in.)

Figure 8.13 Energy requirements for size reduction. X,, nominal particle
size; X,,, characteristic particle size. Reprinted with permission from Solid
Waste Management, May, 1980. Copyright Communication Channels, Inc.
1980 Atlanta, GA. USA.

The maintenance cost is the cost of replacing the metal on the hammers and
the mill housing. This requires removing the hammers from the mill and replacing
them with a new set. New tips are then welded onto the worn hammers. It takes a
welder a significant period of time to use several hundred pounds of welding rods.
When new metal is needed for the mill housing, it is necessary to take the mill out
of service to allow welding of new metal to the interior of the housing. This main-
tenance can easily cost $2 to $4 per ton of refuse processed, depending on local
conditions.

Explosion HazardKontrol

A constant concern with shredders, especially hammer mills, is the possibility of

explosions. There are many possible causes of explosions, ranging from organic
vapors to discarded dynamite to dust. There are a number of ways to handle explo-
sions, but the industry is slowly coming to recognize that these techniques are not
absolute. Consequently, the primary means of addressing explosion hazards is iso-
lation of the shredder from the rest of the processing facility. The shredder is
housed in a separate structure that has appropriate structural walls protecting the
areas where personnel are expected to be located. The refuse is conveyed to the
mill, which is operated by remote control. If a blast occurs, the personnel hazard is
greatly reduced. This is the major concern because the damage likely to occur to
150 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

0*181
0.16

9
g 0.10
t
E 0.08
E
0.06

I
0

0.02
0.04

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Alloy hardness, RC

Figure 8.14 Hammer wear as a function of hammer properties. Reprinted with permission
from Solid Waste Management, May, 1980. Copyright Communication Channels, Inc. 1980
Atlanta. GA. USA.

the mill is minimal. When 1000 hp is being dissipated inside a housing constructed
of 1- to 2-in. steel plate, a tremendous amount of explosive energy will be required
to damage the mill.
However, efforts should be made to protect against and reduce the effect of
explosions even if there is adequate personnel protection. Time will be lost even for
minor repairs to such components as the conveyors. The most common cause of
explosions is likely to be dust. As the refuse is milled in any hammer mill, many
fine particles are produced and suspended in the atmosphere, in both the shredder
housing and the shredder building. A spark can ignite this suspension, causing a
blast of major proportions. Dust control is essential. One common stop-gap mea-
sure is a water spray to keep the refuse wet and reduce the dust production. This
may not be a practical solution, especially if the refuse is being prepared as RDF.
Dust can be controlled by good ventilation. The location of exhaust fans that con-
tinuously pull dust-free air into the shredder will keep the dust level low. Of course,
this air must be passed through filters to recover the dust.
Volatile solvents are frequently blamed for explosions, but with the new con-
trols on the disposal of volatile organic compounds, the probability of finding a
significant quantity of these materials in the refuse is greatly reduced. This is one
reason for having an operator on the floor monitoring the waste stream being fed to
the mill. If drums or cases of solvent cans are observed in the refuse, they can be
removed manually before the refuse is sent to the shredder. A single empty solvent
 Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 151

can is not enough to create a significant explosion. A can full of a volatile solvent
can be a problem if the vapors are allowed to remain in the shredder. However, the
ventilation that provides the dust control also removes the vapors.
Explosion suppression devices are available to reduce the force of any such
event. When the explosion starts, there is an increase in internal pressure. Sensors
strategically located sense this pressure change and release a gas to extinguish or
suppress the explosion. An inert gas such as carbon dioxide or nitrogen will retard
the propagation of a flame front by displacing the oxygen. These gases also prevent
fires that may occur after the explosion. Halogenated hydrocarbons are suppressants
that chemically extinguish the incipient explosion. The key to successful application
of suppressants is the sensitivity of the pressure sensors and the response time. In a
detonation (say, dynamite) the propagation of the flame front is instantaneous and a
pressure rise occurs in microseconds, so the response time of the suppressant must
be comparable. In a deflagration, the flame front propagates at a much slower ve-
locity, and it may be 0. l to l .O second before a pressure rise is noted. Fortunately,
most explosions in shredders are of the deflagration type.
The final assist in reducing the damage due to these explosions is to provide an
outlet for the pressure buildup. Blast doors are frequently located in the roof above
the shredder and a blast duct is used to direct the force of the blast up through these
blast doors, where it will do minimal damage.

PROCESSES FOR SEPARATION OF REFUSE COMPONENTS

After the refuse has received some size reduction, if only enough to open the bags
and boxes, it can be subjected to a number of different unit processes that can
recover specific components from the solid waste. Some of these processes are very
simple and straightforward, while others are complex. Each process generally has a
specific component that it will recover. A train of processes can be designed to
recover the useful components found in solid waste. It is possible to vary the pro-
cess train to fit the specific needs of the refuse being processed. Market value
and refuse composition will be major factors in determining the desired material
recovery.

Magnetic Separation of Ferrous Metals

Recovery of ferrous metal is easily accomplished with magnetic separation. The

refuse is passed under a strong electromagnet that lifts the magnetic metal from the
refuse stream. The efficiency of separation and the quality of the product is deter-
mined by the degree of preparation of the raw refuse and the specific recovery
device used. Much of the ferrous metal is captive (Le., enclosed in a plastic bag, a
box, or other container). Liberation of the metal from these containers is necessary
for recovery. Therefore, some degree of size reduction of the raw refuse is neces-
sary to open the containers.
152 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

-7-L- I Transfer I
Ferrous b
product c) ~

Figure 8.15 Magnetic belt for ferrous metal recovery

The most simple recovery device is a magnetic head pulley. A permanent

magnet is built into the head pulley of a conveyor belt. The velocity of the belt
tends.to impart an inertia to the material as it is discharged, causing it to continue
for a short distance in the direction of the belt motion. The magnet in the head
pulley binds the ferrous metal to the belt surface and the metal travels back under
the belt as the belt begins the return trip. After a short distance, the metal leaves
the magnetic field of the head pulley and drops into a recovery bin. Because of the
very low cost of magnetic head pulleys, they can be located on a number of con-
veyor belts. A high ferrous recovery efficiency, 95%+, is possible because of the
multiple exposures. The quality of recovered metal is low because of the contamina-
tion carried over with the metal. Any paper, plastic, or other material that is trapped
between the metal and the conveyor belt will report to the recovered ferrous bin.
Because of the poor quality of recovered metal, a different magnetic separa-
tion system has been developed. This is a belt magnet, as shown in Figure 8.15.
This belt is suspended above a normal conveyor belt that is transporting processed
refuse. It consists of a strong electromagnet that has the power to recover relatively
heavy pieces of ferrous metal. The magnets are covered by a belt that transports the
metal to a recovery bin. As the metal is transported from the main magnet, the
polarity of the magnetic field is reversed, causing the metal to rotate. As the po-
larity changes, the metal drops a small distance from the belt and rotates 180". This
movement provides an opportunity for the entrapped paper, plastic, and so on, to
fall from the belt.
The ferrous product from this unit is considerably cleaner than that obtained
from the magnetic head pulleys. The efficiency of recovery is only about 80 to
8596, and the cost of the belt magnet is sufficiently high to preclude multiple belts
to enhance the recovery.
Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 153

Paper and
aluminum

Paper
t 1 Paper

Figure 8.16 NRT aluminum recovery system.

The value of ferrous scrap is relatively low. The transportation costs to the steel
mill may be more than the scrap value. It is, however, prudent to remove most of
the ferrous metal early in the processing train. The properties of ferrous metal are
such that it will be a cause of operating problems in all subsequent unit processes.

Aluminum Separation

The value of recovered aluminum is high and during the past 20 years, significant
progress has been made in developing a recovery technology. A commercial system
is now marketed by National Recovery Technologies, Inc. Figure 8.16 is a flow
diagram of this technology. Partial separation of shredded raw refuse is necessary
to produce a stream enriched with aluminum. The removal of ferrous metals, glass,
and smaller organic and inorganic particles as well as removal of large (>6 in.)
paper and plastic particles will make the process more efficient. The aluminum-
enriched stream is passed down an inclined plane that contains a series of metal
detectors spaced across the width of the plane. Each detector is connected to a
high-pressure air jet located directly below it. When the detector senses metal, a
short blast of air from the air jet blows the metal and any accompanying material
onto another conveyor. This stream, although highly enriched with aluminum, still
contains some paper and plastic. This initial step of the process is identified as
ELPAC (electronic-pneumatic aluminum concentrator).
The second step of the process, PULSORT, separates the aluminum from the
contamination carried over from the ELPAC concentrator. The quantity of material
remaining in this stream is very small, less than 5% of the raw refuse input. Con-
sequently, it is possible to consider discrete items as they cascade down an inclined
plane. This plane contains a metal detector to sense when aluminum is present. The
detector energizes a large magnet for a split second at the same time the aluminum
item passes over it. As the magnetic field builds in the magnet, eddy currents are
154 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

induced in the aluminum. The magnetic field that is associated with the eddy cur-
rents produces an oppositely directed force that acts on the large magnet to eject the
aluminum object from the cascading stream. The resulting ejected stream is 100%
aluminum.
Field tests on this unit show that it recovers almost 100% of the aluminum
that is in the feed stream to the ELPAC. Small pieces of aluminum foil and metal
may pass undetected. It is 100% efficient in recovery of aluminum cans from this
stream. Any large aluminum objects or cans that are not released from bags and
boxes will not be recovered. As with all recovery processes, the material to be
recovered must be accessible to the recovery mechanism.

Air Classification

Principles of operation. Air classification is a process that has wide indus-

trial application for separation of unwanted components from products. Attempts
have been made, with some success, to apply this process to shredded solid waste.
If a particle is introduced into the upper end of a chamber containing air under
quiescent conditions, it will fall through the chamber, eventually exiting at the bot-
tom. If there is an upward velocity to the air that resists the downward motion of
the particle, one of three things can happen: the particle will fall, the particle will
remain suspended in the airstream, or the particle will fly. The final response of the
particle to the upward air velocity can be calculated from theoretical equations,
including Stokes law. Unfortunately, these equations are for idealized particles that
do not exist in shredded solid wastes.
These equations are useful to ascertain the variables that are important in
understanding the operation of such a system. Particle density and air density are
two primary variables. This density difference is the primary reason it was thought
that this process would be successful in separating organic solids from inorganic
solids. Particle diameter, along with the density, determines the particle mass. The
downward force exerted by gravity is determined by the mass of the particle. Then,
of course, the upward air velocity creates a drag force that counters the gravita-
tional force. However, this drag force is very sensitive to particle shape, the one
particle characteristic that will have the most variability. It is also sensitive to the
Reynolds number. A careful analysis will make it obvious that it is impossible to
analyze theoretically the design requirements for an air classification system for
shredded solid waste. The equipment manufacturers resorted to pilot scale units to
determine the appropriate design, and then proceeded to construct commercial units.
Figure 8.17 illustrates the concept of an air classifier that separates inorganic
solids from organic solids (paper, plastic, garbage, textiles, etc.). The shredded
refuse is introduced through a rotary valve (essentially an air lock) into the classi-
fier. A fan creates a high upward velocity by pulling air out the top. The shape of
the duct is designed to induce a degree of turbulence in the airflow. An upper baffle
creates a zone near the top that has a high level of turbulence. This turbulence is
Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 155
Shredded
Light fraction refuse

Heavy Figure 8.17 Schematic of the air

fraction classification concept.

intended to cause the particles to disperse in the airstream and approach the behav-
ior of a discrete particle. The baffle at the bottom of the unit is intended to create
a similar turbulence to disperse any clusters of solids that may have reached this
level. Under ideal conditions, after the refuse is introduced into the separator, the
particles will slide down along the back of the unit. In their downward trip, the parti-
cles are washed with a turbulent airstream that is intended to suspend the lighter
particles and carry them out in the “light” fraction. The dense particles continue
the downward trip and are discharged at the bottom as a “heavy” fraction.

Operational success. Commercial units are available from a number of

manufacturers. Figure 8.18 is a cross section of a commercial air classifier. It oper-
ates similar to the system discussed above except for the air input and mechanical
shaking. An irregular-shaped duct induces turbulence as the air passes through it.
Blowers also introduce air into the underside of the classifier in an attempt to sus-
pend the organic particles before they reach the outlet for the heavy fraction. Vi-
bration of the entire unit is designed to free the organic from the inorganic
156 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

I Lights

Figure 8.18 Cross section of a commercial air classification unit.

particles. When vibrated, dense particles tend to force particles of lower density to
the top, where they have more exposure to the airflow. A high-volume blower
draws air out with the light fraction, which passes through a cyclone to recover the
particles. The air will then be filtered before discharge to the atmosphere. Air is
introduced through the feed opening as well as at the outlet for the heavy frac-
tion. These openings are baffled to control the distribution of air between them. A
flexible rubber shroud in the classifier permits adjustment of the geometry to suit
the specific field conditions.
The theory of air classification is sound, especially if applied to the idealized
system. Unfortunately, shredded refuse is far from ideal. There are several key
problems that make it impossible to use this system on such a heterogeneous
stream. Perhaps the biggest variable is the moisture content. The moisture content
of the entire waste stream may only change a few percentage points, but the added
moisture may be in one component, say paper. Wet paper responds very differently
from dry paper in an air classifier. Wet refuse particles tend to stick together, form-
ing larger particles. Wet paper will attract dust and dirt, which will be carried over
to the light fraction. When refuse is shredded to relatively small particles in a ham-
mer mill, the shattered glass will become embedded in the paper and other organic
constituents in the refuse. Of course, this glass is carried to the light fraction. The
final factor that makes separation of the shredded refuse difficult is the aerodynamic
properties of the particles, especially can lids. These metal items will “fly” to the
light fraction.
Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 157

Table 8.1 General recovery level for air classifier

Component Percent to heavy fraction

Paper and corrugated 5-10

Plastic 15-20
Wood 30-35
Textiles 5- 10
Nonferrous 90-95
Ferrous 95-100
Glass 95-100
Yard waste 30-40
Putrescibles 85-90
Rubble 95-100
Rubber and leather 95- 100

Source: D. L. Murray, “Air Classification Performance

and Operating Principles,” 8th ASME National Waste Pro-
cessing Conference, 1978, p. 505.

It is possible to adjust the air classifier to perform reasonably well on a given

shredded refuse. The typical adjustment will produce a light fraction that has a low
ash content, but the recovery of the organic material will be low. The separation of
the inorganic and organic solids is not very good, and as shown in Table 8.1, a
significant portion of the organic material will remain in the heavy fraction. The
converse effect can also be achieved. As long as the refuse characteristics do not
change, it will continue to perform this manner. However, a change in moisture
content or particle size will require readjustment. This in not practical on a daily
basis because of the time required for adjustment. Several of these units have been
installed, but the only ones operating to date are doing so because they are part of
a pneumatic conveying system. The limited separation achieved is not worth the
cost of operation.

Air knife applications. An especially successful application of the air clas-

sification concept is called an air knife. This device is restricted to a waste stream
that has been subjected to a significant amount of separation. In particular, it is
applied to a stream that has a narrow size range. Under these conditions, the den-
sity truly becomes the major difference between particles. Figure 8.19 illustrates the
principle of an air knife. The material discharged from a conveyor has a nearly
horizontal stream of air directed on it. The air current will carry the plastic and
paper with it, while the dense material will fall more rapidly. The proper placement
of a baffle to separate the two streams will result in a stream containing essentially
lightweight material and a stream containing dense inert material. Because the par-
ticle sizes are relatively uniform, the separation based on density differences is very
efficient.
The quantity of refuse passing through a specific air knife is small because
of the classification and separation that has already occurred. Consequently, the
158 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Figure 8.19 Schematic of air knife configuration.

quantity of air required is also low and since the particles are not suspended in the
airstream, it is delivered at a relatively low velocity. There is no particular dust
problem, as the air is contained in a hood, to allow for most suspended particles to
settle. The fugitive dust leaving the hood can be handled by the building dust con-
trol system.
These units have low initial cost and low operating cost. It is practical to
install an air knife on any separated stream to refine the quality of the reclaimed
material, either to upgrade the inorganic content or the organic content of the
stream.

Screening

Screens have a ong history of use for separating materials according to particle
size. As discussed previously, the various components in the refuse stream have
characteristic size ranges. With proper screen sizes it should be possible to produce
a variety of streams that are enriched with specific components of the raw refuse.
Because of the overlap in the size range for some of the refuse constituents, 100%
separation is not possible. Additional processing will usually be necessary to obtain
a stream that contains only one constituent. Screens have also been found beneficial
as the first processing step. Because many of the particles in the refuse are already
of small size, they can be removed before shredding. This will significantly reduce
the load on the shredder, which in turn reduces the cost of operating this unit.
Successful operation of screens involves two considerations. First, the size of
the screen openings must be proper for the size of particles being separated. It is
Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 159

Rotation

Shredded
refuse “Y I Ine-

Figure 8.20 Schematic of rotary drum screen.

rather straightforward to determine the size of the openings required by conducting

a particle size analysis of the feed material. Second, the particles must be exposed
to the openings. A number of screening systems have been developed to accomplish
this exposure. Two that have found the most acceptance for processing both raw and
shredded refuse are the rotating drum screen (trommel screen) and the disk screen.

Rotary drum (trommel) screen. The trommel screen is a large-diameter

drum positioned nearly horizontally. The diameter may range from 2 ft to perhaps
10 ft. As shown in Figure 8.20, the refuse is introduced into the elevated end. As
the drum rotates, the particles are carried up the side of the drum until they reach
a certain height, where they then fall to the bottom to repeat the cycle. It is the
number of these cycles that determine the opportunity for the particles to contact
the openings and pass through. The more cycles, the higher the separation effi-
ciency. However, the throughput of the trommel will be reduced unless a large per-
centage of the particles are passing through the openings. There is a trade-off
between capacity and separation efficiency.
The drum is inclined at a small angle to the horizontal. For each rotation, the
particles move forward, depending on the angle of inclination and the distance the
particles are carried up the side of the drum before they fall back. This distance can
be calculated from the geometry of the drum. and the rotational speed. Lifter bars
are installed on the interior of the drum to prevent the particles from sliding back
along the drum surface. The particles will be carried at least halfway up the side of
the drum. Any additional distance will depend on the rotational speed of the drum.
The centrifugal force will hold the particles to the drum side until gravitational
forces exceed the centrifugal force.
If the drum rotates at too high a speed, the centrifugal force is such that
the particles will be held against the drum surface and not fall back to the bottom.
The “critical” speed is determined by the diameter of the drum and can be calcu-
lated as
ro2 = 32 (2)
This is the rotational speed where the centrifugal force equals the gravitational
force. In this equation, r is the drum radius, in feet, and o is the rotational speed,
160 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Figure 8.21 Schematic representation of a disk screen.

in radhec. The larger the drum, the lower the critical speed. Typical rotational
speeds are in the range of 20 to 30 rpm.
Figure 8.20 is a representation of a compound trommel, a trommel that has
two different-size openings. The first portion of the drum has 0.5-in. holes to pass
dirt, grit, shattered glass, and other small particles. The quality of this “undersize”
for recovery is poor, and the material would be taken to the landfill. The remainder
of the drum has 4-in. openings. The material passing these openings is considered
to be an acceptable product for subsequent processing to produce a refuse-derived
fuel. The “oversize” is recycled back through a shredder to be reduced in size so
that it will pass through the openings. The drum does not have to have different-size
openings, but can be a simple trommel with only one hole size, as the application
dictates.
Trommel screens have been successful in a number of installations. There are
several manufacturers of the systems. In fact, they are so simple in construction that
any fabrication shop could build one. Design of these units from a process consid-
eration is more of an art than a science. Therefore, the experience of the manufac-
turer in processing solid waste is a very important consideration in sizing of the
equipment to achieve a given objective.

Disk screen. The disk screen (Figure 8.21) consists of a bed of rotating
shafts containing a number of disks. The shafts and disks all rotate in the same
direction, so that the particles “float” down the length of the bed. The turbulent
nature of the bed provides numerous exposures of the particles to the screen open-
ings. The size selection is determined by the distance between the outer diameter of
Chap. 8 Processes for Separation of Refuse Components 161

Figure 8.22 Refuse separation by a disk screen

the shafts and the spacing of the disks on the shaft. Particles having two dimensions
equal to or less than these spacings have an opportunity to pass through the screen.
Most particles tend to orient such that the two larger dimensions are in a horizontal
plane. Therefore, the size separation is usually based on these two larger dimen-
sions. Of course, it is possible for a particle to orient in such a way that the largest
dimension is vertical and consequently, report to the undersize fraction. No process
can guarantee 100% discrimination of size.
These screens can be constructed to provide a wide range of particle size cuts,
ranging as small as 0.25 in. to 6 to 8 in. or larger. Figure 8.22 shows the refuse
passing across a 5- by 3-inch disk screen. Only the large particles remain on the
screen. The capacity of the unit is determined by the length and the surface loading
rate. The number of exposures the particles have to the openings is the important
consideration. Particle movement on the bed is excellent and causes separation of
clumped particles. This results in good size separation.
Figure 8.23 illustrates the performance of a 3.5- by 1.0-in. screen. These
curves show the percentage of the various particle sizes in the feed stream that
report to the oversize fraction. It does not show the percentage of the individual
components in the feed stream that are found in the oversize. The spacing be-
tween the shafts was 3.5 in. and between the disks was 1.0 in. The refuse had
been passed through a shear shredder for minimal size reduction. There is a very
clear separation of the glass and ceramics according to particle size. Since the size
of the intact glass containers is larger than the openings in the screens, these
162 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

100
- Screen openings

3 ’/* in. x 1 in. Disk screen

Glass and ceramics

80

.-w
$ 60
0
s
44

3
2 40

20

0
6 4 2 1 0.5 0.25
Particle size (in.)

Figure 8.23 Performance of a disk screen.

containers are concentrated in the oversize, greatly facilitating recovery. Because

the glass was not broken to any extent, most of it remained in the oversize fraction.
However, all of the broken glass was found in the undersize; none of it reported to
the oversize.
The separation of the plastic, paper, and textiles according to size was not as
good. These materials have very irregular shapes and it is possible for the particle
to be oriented such that the largest dimension is in the vertical direction. Under
these conditions, the larger particles will pass the screens. Also, the smaller parti-
cles tend to attach to the larger particles and report to the oversize stream.
Disk screens will provide a reasonably distinct separation of particles accord-
ing to size. Those refuse components that have a definite size, such as cans and
bottles, can be isolated by simple screening. The stream will contain essentially all
of the cans and bottles, with some other constituents, such as paper and plastic.
However, once these concentrated streams are obtained, it is possible to use other
techniques efficiently to further refine the glass and cans (Le., the aluminum recov-
ery system, air knife, etc). Consequently, a variety of screen sizes can be assembled
to isolate the various refuse components in concentrated streams. This is the basis
for some of RDF systems discussed later.
 Chap. 8 Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems 163

Fe fraction to storage

Figure 8.24 Schematic of the Ames, Iowa, RDF system. (From Solid Waste Management, May 1979,
p. 40.) Reprinted with permission from Solid Waste Management, May, 1979. Copyright Communication
Channels, Inc. 1979 Atlanta, GA. USA.

REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL SYSTEMS

Ames, Iowa

The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 funded a demonstration project designed to

produce refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from solid waste. This project was undertaken
by the city of St. Louis and the Union Electric Co. As a result of the apparent
success, a full-scale plant was designed and constructed for the city of Ames, Iowa.
This facility became operational in 1976. It consisted of a two-stage shredder and
an air classifier. The discharge from the primary shredder was fed to the secondary
shredder. The small particles produced by the second-stage shredder were passed
through the air classifier to produce a light fraction for the RDF. The heavy fraction
was sent to a material reclamation center for recovery of metals.
The system operated, but the maintenance costs were high and the quality of
the RDF was poor. Radar Corp. investigated the use of disk screens to improve the
overall performance of the system. These screens were installed and the system
shown in Figure 8.24 was operated. There were three objectives for installing the
164 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

screens. First, a scalping screen was installed to remove from the primary shredder
discharge all particles less than 1.5 in. Only the larger particles were sent to the
second-stage shredder. The second objective was to remove the glass from the sys-
tem early, before it became pulverized and embedded in the refuse fibers as the
material passed through the second-stage shredder. The glass crushed in the first-
stage shredder was removed by the fine disk screen and sent to the landfill.
Finally, the disk screen was intended to improve the performance of the air
classifier. The fine, less than % in., mostly inorganic refuse was removed by the
fine disk screen. Glass greater than Ys in. was sent to the Radar air classifier, which
was equipped with a secondary separation zone having a high removal efficiency
for glass in excess of Ys in. Before installation of the disk screens, the glass and grit
portion of the RDF ranged from 4.1 to 5.5%. Limited data show that this compo-
nent of the RDF has been reduced and there has been an increase of about 15% in
the Btu value of the RDF. The effect of the scalping screen on the operation of the
second-stage shredder was significant. The less than 1.5 in. underflow from the
primary shredder accounts for 59%, by weight, of this shredder output. This re-
duces the mass flow through the secondary shredder to only 41% of the previous
value. Power consumption in the second-stage shredder has dropped from 125 am-
peres (with surges to 200) to 85 amperes (with rare surges to 100). The mainte-
nance costs has also been reduced.*

National Resources Technology

National Recovery Technologies (NRT) has developed a processing system that in-
corporates a number of technologies to produce RDF and to recover various mate-
rials from refuse. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 8.25. It consists of
a large rotating drum where most of the separation occurs. The raw refuse, after
perhaps passing a hand-picking station for recovery of corrugated paper products, is
conveyed directly to the rotating drum. The bags and boxes are opened by the
action of “shark’s teeth” located in the first third of the drum (step 1). These are
sharp metal triangular plates that protrude into the drum. When the bag or box hits
the “tooth,” it is ruptured and the contents are released. The second third of the
drum has permanent magnets attached to the surface. These magnets attract the
ferrous metals and carry them to the top of the drum, where they are scraped from
the drum surface and fall onto a conveyor belt. In the final third of the drum (step
3), lifting bars, or better, buckets, are fastened to the drum wall. As the material is
elevated with the drum rotation, the paper, plastic, and so on, will fall back into the
drum. However, the dirt, grit, shattered glass, and so on, are retained by these
lifting bars. Near the top of the drum, these materials fall onto a conveyor.
There are three streams exiting the drum: one stream containing the plastics,
paper, other organic material, and nonferrous metals; one containing ferrous metals

’Solid Waste Management, May 1979, p. 40.

Chap. 8 Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems 165

Figure 8.25 Schematic of the NRT separation system. (Courtesy of National Recovery Technologies, Inc.,
Nashville, Tennessee.)

plus organic contamination; and one containing the shattered glass, grit, dirt, and
fine organic particles. The first stream passes on to the aluminum recovery system
described earlier for recovery of the aluminum and production of RDF (steps 5 and
6). The stream intended for RDF production may be refined additionally to remove
any large dense particles that pass through the drum. It may also be necessary to
shred this material, depending upon the use for the RDF. The second and third
166 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

streams are passed by an air knife that removes much of the fine organic material,
such as lint and grass clippings (step 4).The ferrous metal can be recovered, as can
the unbroken glass. The fine dirt, grit, and shattered glass will go to the landfill.
Data on the efficiency of this process are limited, but some information has
been made available in the literature. Approximately 85% of the metals, glass, and
noncombustibles are removed in the processing. Aluminum can recovery is nearly
100%. Only those cans that are not liberated from the bags, and so on, escape the
aluminum recovery unit. Several of these systems are currently being installed to
produce RDE Also, a system has been installed at the XL Disposal Corp. in Crest-
wood, Illinois, far the sole purpose of material recovery prior to hauling the refuse
to the landfill. Except for aluminum and ferrous metals, the product recovery is by
hand picking, including corrugated paperboard and various plastic materials.

RefCoM Separation System

RefCoM is an acronym given to a refuse-processing system developed to produce

methane gas by fermentation of the organic material in the refuse. The refuse sep-
aration portion of this system produces a RDF that contains the organic fraction of
refuse. This product can be used as RDF or as the feed for a biological processing
system (Le., production of methane or compost). Since the various components of
refuse have a characteristic size, only minimal size reduction prior to screening is
needed to open containers to allow the particles within to be exposed to the screen
openings. This means lower operating costs for milling, and the refuse components
retain their characteristic size and shape. This greatly facilitates separation, and a
number of screen sizes can be used to separate the refuse into streams that are
enriched with particular refuse constituents. This enrichment greatly enhances the
opportunity for recovery of these constituents. The system shown in Figure 8.26 has
been developed to produce a product that is a high-quality organic material suitable
for a number of uses.
The essential components of this system are as follows. The raw refuse is
subjected to a bag opener prior to passage over a coarse disk screen that rejects
particles greater than about 5 in. After ferrous removal, this oversize stream is
milled and then passed over another coarse disk screen for rejection of oversized
particles, especially plastic containers and film. This oversized material can be pro-
cessed through a paper separator for plastic and paper recovery if the shredding has
not been excessive. It can also be hand-picked to recover plastic and paper. The
material can also be returned to the shredder until it is finally reduced in size, or
sent to a separate small shredder for size reduction. The undersize from both coarse
disk screens passes to a can separation screen to produce an oversize stream rich in
aluminum cans and glass containers. This stream goes to an aluminum recovery
process for extraction of the aluminum, and the remaining material in this stream is

"waste Age. Feb. 1988, p. 54.

Chap. 8 Refuse-Derived Fuel Systems 167

Paper Paper ~

Recycle
or
boiler

0 - Overs
U - Unders
'T' Fe TI
L -Light
H - Heavy
Fe - Ferrous
Mag. - Magnet
-- screen

I"
classifier

Landfill
I

stoner stockpile

Landfill

Figure 8.26 Schematic of the RefCoM processing system.

added to the RDF stockpile after passing through an air classifier (air knife) that
removes the glass and other dense material. The undersize from the can separation
screen is passed over a fine disk screen to remove the dirt, grit, shattered glass, and
so on. The oversize goes to the stockpile after passing through an air knife that
removes any remaining dense inorganic material. The undersize from the fine disk
screen is processed through an air stoner for recovery of the fine organic material,
such as grass clippings. The air stoner is a modification of an air knife designed to
separate small inorganic and organic particles.
In addition to the aluminum and ferrous streams, two additional streams are
generated from the separation processes: a stream rich in organic material that can
be used as a RDF and an inorganic (inert) stream that goes to the landfill. A com-
puter model of the separation processes has been developed that includes a variety
of screen sizes, air knifes, air stoners and ferrous and aluminum recovery systems
that can be assembled in any desired combination or sequence. The model calcu-
lates the input and output streams for each process in the flow scheme ~ e l e c t e dIt. ~
can compute the fraction of the individual refuse components, such as paper or

4James J. Geselbracht, Black and Veatch, Pleasant Hill, CA, personal communication, 1987
168 Processing of Solid Wastes Chap. 8

Table 8.2 Mass balance on the RefCoM separation system

Stream Water BDC NBDC Inerts Total

Raw refuse 101.1 194.6 54.9 49.4 400.0

Fe recovered 0 0 0 15.0 15.0
Feed to paper separator 3. I 50.5 26.2 1.9 82.1
Feed to can reject screen 97.9 144.I 28.4 32.5 302.9
Can screen oversize 15.9 78.1 21.3 7.5 122.8
Can screen undersize 82.0 66.0 7. I 25.0 180.I
Fine screen oversize 13.6 28.2 5.0 16.3 63.2
Fine screen undersize 68.4 37.7 2.0 8.8 116.9
Air classifier light fraction 12.6 28.2 1.7 12.6 55.4
Air classifier heavy fraction I .o 0 3.3 3.7 8.1
Air stoner light fraction 57.1 31.6 2.0 0 90.7
Air stoner heavy fraction 11.3 6.1 0 8.8 26.2
Feed to AI recovery 15.9 78. I 21.3 3.8 119.1
Fe removed from feed to AI recovery 0 0 0 3.7 3.7
AI recovered 0 0 0 1 .O 1 .o
Rejects from AI recovery unit 15.9 78. I 21.3 2.8 118.1

plastics, or can present the categories based on the activity of the material in the
various processes (see Table 8.2). In this case, biodegradable solids (BDC) refer to
paper, food wastes, and yard wastes. The combustible category (NBDC) is plastic,
wood, rubber, textiles, and so on, and the inert materials constitute all of the non-
combustible components. The biodegradable solids are also considered to be com-
bustible, but have a potential for uses other than combustion.
Table 8.2 presents a lot of numbers that are probably of little interest to the
reader. The intent is to illustrate the extent of the data base that some manufacturers
and firms working in this field have accumulated. This same level of detail is prob-
ably available on most refuse unit processes. It is not always publicly available be-
cause of the desire of equipment suppliers to control use of the equipment. As
mentioned earlier, some of these units are very simple mechanically and could be
fabricated in any metal shop. The protection retained by the developer of the tech-
nology is the result of the many field tests conducted. This information is required
if the unit is to be properly utilized.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the essential elements of a receiving area of a refuse processing

system?
2. Differentiate between pit, slab, and bin storage of refuse. Discuss the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each.
3. What are the four types of conveyors considered for refuse transport? Where
is each type applied in the processing train?
Chap. 8 Study Questions 169

4. Calculate the capacity in tons per hour, of a 36-in. flatbelt conveyor with
12-in. metal skirts. Assume that the angle of repose for the processed refuse
is 35” and that the conveyor can be loaded so that the side depth is equal to
the 12-in. skirt height. The density of the refuse is 5 lb/ft3. The belt speed is
100 fpm.
5 . How can the particle size of the unprocessed refuse be used to enhance the
separation of the refuse into individual components?
6. What is the negative effect of shredding raw refuse to a small size on the
separation of individual constituents?
7. Distinguish between hammer mills, flail mills, and shear shredders.
8. What is the relationship of shredded particle size to operating and mainte-
nance costs for shredders?
9. What is the difference between a magnetic belt and a magnetic head pulley for
removal of ferrous metal from refuse?
10. How does an aluminum “magnet” work?
11. What is the principle of operation for air classification? What are the prob-
lems associated with the application of this process to urban refuse?
12. Why is the “air knife” concept an improvement in this process?
13. What property of refuse is exploited by the use of screens for component
separation?
14. How does a rotary drum (trommel) screen operate? What is the critical speed
of a trommel screen?
15. How does a disk screen operate?
16. Calculate the critical speed of a trommel screen 6 ft in diameter.
17. Draw a schematic diagram of the Ames, Iowa, RDF system.
18. Draw a schematic diagram of the RefCoM RDF system.
19. How does the quality of refuse change by passing it through the RefCoM RDF
system?
Combustion Principles
and Mass-Burn Design

PRINCIPLES OF COMBUSTION

Definition of Combustion

Combustion is a chemical reaction involving the rapid combination of oxygen with

the combustible components in a fuel. This is a reaction where the elements in the
fuel are oxidized. When there is adequate oxygen for the oxidation to be complete,
the elements will be in their most stable oxidized state. The major elements in the
fuels are carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Some fuels have significant quantities of
sulfur and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen. Carbon is oxidized to carbon dioxide, hy-
drogen to water, and of course, oxygen does not react with atmospheric oxygen.
Sulfur will oxidize to sulfur dioxide, an undesirable product. Nitrogen is generally
thought to be converted to a nitrogen molecule (gas). Because of the large amount
of nitrogen present in the combustion air, it is difficult to determine where the
oxidized forms originate. Since only a small percentage of the atmospheric nitrogen
is oxidized to nitrogen oxides in the combustion process, it is assumed that the
same small percentage of fuel nitrogen is oxidized beyond molecular nitrogen.

Conditions Necessary for Combustion

Since this is a chemical reaction, it follows the laws of chemical equilibrium, chemi-
cal kinetics, and thermodynamics. Following is a brief presentation of the important
conditions that affect the combustion reaction. A simple way to remember these
conditions is by the initial letters, T, T, T, 0.

170
Chap. 9 Principles of Combustion 171

Time. Because this is a chemical reaction, adequate time must be available

for the reaction to go to completion. The time required for complete combustion is
related to the following conditions.

Temperature. The temperature at which the combustion occurs has several

effects. First, a higher temperature results in a higher reaction rate, allowing the
reaction to reach completion more quickly. Second, many compounds have an ig-
nition temperature that must be reached before the energy level is sufficient to
initiate the reaction. Finally, the temperature will determine the equilibrium con-
centration of some of the combustion products, especially the oxides of nitrogen.

Turbulence. This condition is important because the reactants must have in-
timate contact if the reaction is to proceed to completion rapidly. Mixing in the
furnace is essential to mix the combustion air (oxygen) with the combustible gases
and vapors.

Oxygen. Having this reactant in excess will drive the reaction to completion
more rapidly. If a stoichiometric quantity of oxygen is available, the reaction will
eventually reach completion, but excess oxygen will increase the rate at which com-
pletion is achieved.

Combustion Zones in a Solid Fuel

When a solid fuel is introduced into a furnace, combustion will proceed through a
series of steps. Understanding these steps is important in understanding the design
of a furnace.

Distillation zone. The fuel is introduced into the primary combustion cham-
ber and subjected to high temperatures. Oxygen is generally not sufficient to pro-
vide for rapid and complete oxidation of all of the fuel. There is sufficient oxygen
to cause enough burning to maintain relatively high temperatures. As the fuel’s
temperature increases, volatile materials present will be driven off as gases. The
volatile matter determination of the proximate analysis indicates the significance of
this volatilization. A continued increase in temperature will cause many of the or-
ganic compounds in the fuel to thermally “crack” and form gaseous products.
Solid waste has a high volatile matter content, and there is a rapid release of
combustible volatile compounds that burn in the gas phase. Refuse will respond
differently than a fuel such as coal, which has a much lower volatile matter content.
In coal-fired power plants, the coal is crushed to very fine particles and blown into
the furnace like a gas. Because of the very large surface area of the small particles,
the combustion approaches a gaseous combustion. Since refuse has a high volatile
matter content, small particles are not required. However, all of the refuse particles
172 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

must be exposed to the high temperature if volatilization is to occur. This is

achieved by designing the grates to turn the material over as it progresses through
the furnace.

Incandescent zone. After the volatile compounds and the compounds that
are thermally cracked have been driven from the fuel, only fixed carbon and ash
remain on the grates. When the temperature reaches the ignition temperature of
carbon, 1300”F, the fixed carbon, essentially charcoal, is ignited and burns on the
surface. To achieve good “burnout” (Le., destruction of all the combustible mate-
rial), it is necessary to obtain at least 1300°F in the refuse bed and to have oxygen
available to burn the fixed carbon. The oxygen is supplied as the “underfire air,”
air that is blown in under the grates and passes up through the refuse retained on
the grate. Because surface burning is slow, the retention time of the residual mate-
rial on the grates must be long, to ensure good burnout.
Some of the heat released by burning of the fixed carbon is used to evaporate
the moisture in the incoming fuel and to provide the heat energy for the many
thermal cracking reactions that are endothermic (Le., heat is required for the reac-
tion). The heat balance becomes an important consideration for these first two
phases. If sufficient heat is not available, the combustion will be poor at best.

Flame zone. During the first stage of combustion, most of the combustible
solids are converted to gaseous components, either by volatilization, thermal crack-
ing, or partial oxidation. These hot gases form a flame when mixed with oxygen.
The combustion, oxidation, is rapid. Very high heat release rates are experienced
and high temperatures can be encountered in this combustion zone. The flame zone
operates with a great deal of turbulence so that the gases are intimately mixed with
the oxygen added with the secondary air supply. The combustion occurring at a
high temperature with excess oxygen will be complete in 1 or 2 seconds. This is a
critical phase in refuse combustion. If properly designed, the concentration of non-
oxidized organic compounds will approach zero. All of the toxic and hazardous
compounds produced during the early combustion phases will be destroyed.

Combustion Temperature

In recent years there has been a tendency to increase the maximum combustion
temperature. In early refuse incinerators, it was generally conceded that 1200°F was
sufficient to minimize the odors produced during incineration. This was an impor-
tant consideration for two reasons. First, the lower temperature was more benign in
the furnace; less maintenance was required. Second, during certain periods of the
year, the refuse would be wet and auxiliary fuel would be required to maintain a
higher temperature. When the refuse was dry, the temperature would be much
higher than 1200°F. Under these conditions, a lot of excess air was vented through
the furnace to control the temperature at this lower level. Air pollution control was
not required, and the air was free, so it was freely used.
Chap. 9 Principles of Combustion 173

As the profession became wiser (Le., developed the ability to measure the
multitude of compounds that were present in these gases), it was clear that it would
be necessary to improve the combustion efficiency. Also, the application of emis-
sion standards to incinerators made it impractical to use the high airflow rates to
cool the furnace when burning dry refuse. As much as 300% excess air would be
used. The air pollution control device would have to be more than twice the size
required for normal airflows. These changes caused a reevaluation of the role of
incineration in refuse disposal. The high temperatures resulting from the restricted
airflow necessitated an alternative means for cooling the hot combustion gases. The
added costs for construction and operation of these units needed another income
stream to keep the costs reasonable, so the idea of steam recovery and finally the pro-
duction of electricity with steam turbines became a reality. Once in the power gen-
eration business, it was desirable to reach as high a temperature as practical so that a
high boiler efficiency was obtained. More of the refuse energy was turned into steam.
As more information is developed, the role of temperature in determining the
degree of combustion becomes apparent. Many constituents will not even ignite at
some of the temperatures previously used. Examples of some of the ignition tem-
peratures of organic materials are presented in Table 9.1. Ignition temperatures are
unique for each substance. These are intended only as examples of the wide tem-
perature ranges encountered. These are the temperatures at which the ignition oc-
curs. The rate of combustion is still a function of the temperature. Therefore, higher
temperatures would be advantageous for increasing the rate of combustion. These
are some of the considerations for establishing furnace temperature standards for
refuse incineration.

Berthelot’s Second Law of Combustion

This law describes the relationship between the initial reactants and the final prod-
ucts of a combustion reaction. “In a furnace, with work equal to zero, the heat
evolved from the union of combustible elements with molecular oxygen depends

Table 9.1 Ignition Temperatures of Selected Compounds

Substance Ignition temperature (“F)

Carbon disulfide 248

wood 350
Paper 350
Acetone 1042
Benzene 1097
Carbon monoxide 1128
Methane I170
Cyanogen 1562

Source: R. H . Perry and C. H . Chilton, Eds., Chemical Engineers

Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, p. 9-19.
174 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

upon the ultimate products of combustion and not upon any intermediate combina-
tions which may result.”
Example
Consider the reactions of carbon with oxygen:
Two-step conversion:
C + io2+ CO AHR = -10,100 Btu
CO + io2+ C 0 2 AHR = - 4,000 Btu (2)
One-step conversion:
C + 0 2 + C02 AHR = -14,100 Btu (3)
This law simplifies the combustion analysis. It is not necessary to consider all
of the possible reactions and intermediate products. It is only necessary to know the
composition of the reactants and the final products.
Unfortunately, refuse is not a well-defined chemical compound. However, this
law applies if the elemental composition (ultimate analysis) of the fuel is known.
The products will be the oxidized form of the elements, CO, and H,O primarily.
Sulfur will be oxidized to SO,, and nitrogen is assumed to be elemental nitrogen,
N,. The other elements present in the combustible fraction will be insignificant in
the combustion reactions. The cans, glass, ceramics, and so on, do not enter into
the combustion analysis. The heat of reaction, AH,, of refuse must be determined
from the bomb calorimeter test discussed previously. The value obtained is the
HHV (high heating value) at the standard temperature of 77°F.

HHV (AH,) Determined by the Oxidation State of Carbon

Because of the nature of refuse, it is very difficult to determine the HHV from
theoretical considerations. In addition to the ash content, the oxidation state of
carbon is quite variable, having a significant impact on the HHV. This effect is
illustrated in Table 9.2. The oxidation state of carbon in most natural fibers, such
as cellulose (paper), is the same as that in elemental carbon. The average oxidation
number for carbon in an organic compound can be determined from the following
relationship:
oxidation number = 2(number of oxygen) - (number of hydrogen) (4)
Plastic polymers are generally more saturated with hydrogen and the carbon has an
oxidation number closer to that of methane. Fats and oils also contain more satu-
rated carbon compounds, which cause these materials to have a higher HHV.

Volumetric and Gravimetric Analysis

Avogadro’s law. “At the same temperature and pressure, equal volumes of
all perfect gases contain the same number of molecules (Le., 6.02 X loz3).”
Chap. 9 Principles of Combustion 175

Table 9.2 Effect of carbon oxidation state on HHV

Compound Carbon oxidation number Btu/lb-mol Btu/lb C

-4 382,786 31,899
-2 3 10,333 25,861
0 169,183 14,099
+2 121,666 10,139
+4 0 0

Source: R. H. Perry and C. H. Chilton, Eds., Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, p. 3-145.

Mole. A mole is defined as that quantity of a substance that has a weight

equal to the molecular weight. A gram-molecular weight is the weight in grams of
6.02 x molecules of a substance. For example, the molecular weight of meth-
ane is 16, so a g-mol of methane weighs 16 g. A lb-mol simply references every-
thing to the pound (Le., everything is 454 times larger than the g-mol). This is a
convenience only for use with the Imperial System of units.

Volume occupied by 1 mol. The ideal gas law can be used to determine the
volume occupied by a gas:
PV = NR,T (5)
where N = number of moles
R, = ideal gas constant
P, V, T = pressure, volume, and temperature, respectively
This equation stipulates that at a constant pressure and temperature, the volume
will depend only on the number of moles. The volume occupied by 1 mol of any
gas is the same as long as they are at the same temperature and pressure. For
any gas,

1 lb-mol occupies 359 scf (32°F and 1 atm).

1 g-mol occupies 22.4 L at STP (0°C and 1 atm).

Gravimetric/volumetric analysis. The analyses of solid fuels are reported

in percentage by weight (gravimetric analysis), and the gaseous products of com-
bustion are reported in percentage by volume (volumetric analysis). The relation-
ships above are important in the conversion of weight percents to volume percents.
When a solid fuel composition is presented, it is necessary to convert this compo-
sition into a mole percentage since all combustion reactions occur on a molar basis.
It is also necessary to know the moles of gaseous products, since this determines
the volume of gaseous combustion products. Table 9.3 illustrates the relationships
between these expressions of composition. The unifying parameter is the molecular
weight.
176 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Table 9.3 Conversion of volumetric analysis to gravimetric analysis

Volumetric Gravimetric
analysis Weight of individual analysis
Constituent [% (mo1/100 mol)] Mol. wt gas (lb/100 mol) [% (lb/1001b)]
~

H2 26 2 52 100(52/2052) = 2.5
co 68 28 1904 100(1904/2052) = 92.8
CH.4 6 16 96 100(96/2052) = 4.7
- - -
100 2052 100.0

The reverse calculation can be accomplished by expressing the gravimetric

analysis percent as lb/100 lb. The number of pounds of a specific compound or
element is then divided by its molecular weight to determine the number of moles
of this constituent in 100 lb. This is done for each constituent to find the number of
moles in the 100 lb of fuel. The number of moles of individual constituents is
divided by the total number of moles per 100 lb and multiplied by 100% to obtain
the volumetric analysis.

Complete Combustion Is Necessary

All calculations associated with the mass balance for combustion reactions must be
based on the complete combustion of the elements in the fuel (Le., carbon is oxi-
dized to carbon dioxide, hydrogen to water, and sulfur to sulfur dioxide). The correct-
ness of the calculations can be checked by knowing that the mass of the reactants
must equal the mass of the products. The same is not true for the volume of the
reactants and the products. The following equations illustrate these relationships:
c + 0, + CO, (6)
12 lb C + 32 lb 0, -+ 44 lb CO, (7)
1 mol C + 1 mol 0, -+ 1 mol CO, (8)
For this reaction, the mass of reactants, 44 lb (12 + 32) equals the mass of the
products, 44 lb [equation (7)]. However, the 2 mol of reactants yield only 1 mol of
product, as illustrated in equation (8). A mass balance should be completed on any
type of combustion computations.

Theoretical Combustion Air

The theoretical or stoichiometric oxygen requirements can be determined from the

chemical reactions for the oxidation of the combustible elements in the fuel. The
gaseous products of combustion will generally be CO,, H,O, and SO,. If air is
used as a source of the oxygen, these combustion products will contain the nitrogen
 Chap. 9 Mass Balance for Combustion of a Fuel Gas 177

associated with the oxygen. However, since the stoichiometric amount of oxygen is
used, there will be no oxygen remaining in the combustion gases. In all combustion
systems, it is desirable to have an excess of oxygen to drive the reaction to com-
pletion more rapidly. The excess air employed is usually 25 to 50% of the theoreti-
cal air. In older incinerators, values as high as 300% were used primarily to cool
the furnace when the refuse was dry. Because of the cost of air pollution control,
the excess air is minimized. Only enough excess oxygen is supplied to ensure com-
plete combustion.
It is necessary to know the composition of air since nitrogen will be present in
all mass and energy balance calculations. For this application, air is assumed to
contain only oxygen and nitrogen. The volume percentages of oxygen and nitrogen
are 20.9% and 79.1%, respectively. The weight percentages are 23.15% and
76.85%,respectively. The following numbers are important to have for conducting
mass balance computations.

To supply 1 lb of 0, requires (U0.2315) = 4.32 Ib of air:

1 lb 0, + 3.32 lb N2 = 4.32 lb air (9)
To supply 1 mol of 0, requires (110.209) = 4.78 mol of air:
1 mol 0, + 3.78 mol N, = 4.78 mol air ( 10)
1 scf 0, + 3.78 scf N, = 4.78 scf air (11)

MASS BALANCE FOR COMBUSTION OF A FUEL GAS

Given the volumetric composition of a fuel gas, the following procedure can be
used to compute a mass balance for the combustion of this fuel (Table 9.4). The
mass and volume flow rates are necessary to size the furnace components and the
air pollution control equipment and to compute an energy balance. The tabulation is
simply an attempt to assist in keeping the numbers straight, as there are many ways

Table 9.4 Mass balance computations: oxygen requirements

Constituent Vol % Combustion reaction Moles 0, required

H2 9 H, + f0, +. H,O 9(3 = 4.5

co 24 co + io, co,-3 2 4 0 = 12.0

CH, 2 CH, + 20, -+ CO, + 2H,O 2(2) = 4 . 0

CO, 6
0, 3 (-3.0)
N2 56
Theoretical oxygen requirements = 17.5 moll100 mol
50% excess air = 8.75 moll100 mol
178 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

in which the numbers can be manipulated. The first step involves determination of
the theoretical oxygen requirements. This requires writing the combustion reactions
to determine the moles of oxygen required for each combustible element. These
equations also provide the gaseous combustion products. The residual excess oxy-
gen and the nitrogen in the total combustion air will also be part of the combustion
products. It is important to recognize the oxygen present in either a solid, liquid, or
gaseous fuel. The availability of this oxygen in a fuel gas may be obvious, but in
the other fuels it represents the amount of oxidation of the carbon that has already
occurred, and must be deducted from the oxygen requirements.

Combustion Air Requirements

The required combustion air can be calculated as follows:

17.5 mol 0 2 4.78 mol air 83.7 mol air
0% excess air: X - = 0.837 scf/scf
100 mol fuel mol O2 100 mol fuel
50% excess air: combustion air = 1.5(0.837) = 1.26 scf/scf

Combustion Products

The combustion equations also provide the combustion products in Table 9.5.
Gases associated with the combustion air will be in the stack gases. The table
shows how these numbers are handled. Nitrogen is an important component of any
combustion system that uses air as the oxygen source.

Table 9.5 Mass balance computations: combustion products

Combustion product (mo1/100 mol)

Constituent Vol % Combustion reaction CO, H,O N2 0,

Theoretical air: 0%excess air

H2 9 H,+ f0, H,O .+ 0 9 0 0

co 24 co + fo, co, .+ 24 0 0 0

CH4 2 CH4 + 20, C 0 2 + 2H,O

.+ 2 4 0 0
co2 6 6 0 0 0
0, 3 0 0 0 0
N2 56 0 0 56 0
- - - -
32 13 56 0
Combustion air 0 0 66.2 0
50% excess air 0 0 33.1 8.75
- - - -
32 13 155.3 8.75
Chap. 9 Mass Balance for Combustion of a Fuel Gas 179

Table 9.6 Volumetric analysis of the dry products of combustion

0%excess air 50%excess air

mol/ 100 mol/ 100

Constituent mol fuel Vol % mol fuel Vol 8

COZ 32 100(32/154.2) = 20.7 32 100(32/196.1) = 16.3

0 2 0 0 8.75 100(8.75/l%. I ) = 4.5
NZ 122.2
- 100(122.2/154.2)= 79.3
-
155.3
- -
100(155.3/1%.1) = 79.2

154.2 100 196. I 100

”.

Composition of the Dry Products of Combustion

The composition of the gases exiting the stack is used for operational control as
well as for emission standards. The oxygen or carbon dioxide content of these gases
is frequently used as a baseline for determining the concentration of allowable con-
taminants. Sampling and analysis of these gases require a dry sample. It is impos-
sible to extract a sample from a stack and retain a constant moisture. As the gas
cools, the water condenses. Also, many of the analytical instruments require a dry
sample for analysis. Therefore, calculation of the dry products of combustion (dpc)
is necessary. The combustion products listed in Table 9.5, less the water, are used
in this calculation, as shown in Table 9.6.

Calculation of the Weight of Total Products of Combustion

Mass flow rates are important to size the motors required for the fans and blowers
used to move the combustion gases. These weights are also useful in making esti-
mates of the energy balances on a combustion unit. This will be discussed later.
The weight of the gases can be computed from the number of moles and the mo-
lecular weight. This is shown in Table 9.7.

Table 9.7 Weight of the total products of combustion (tpc)

0%excess air 50%excess air

mol/ Ib/ mol/ Ib/

Constituent Mol. wt 100 mol 100mol 100mol 100mol
COZ 44 32 (X 44) 1408 32 1408
HZO 18 13 (X 18) 234 13 234
0, 32 0 0 8.75 280
NZ 28 122.2 (X 28)
-
3420 155.3
-
4348

5062 6270
180 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

To compute the pounds of combustion gases per pound of fuel, the weight of
100 mol of the fuel gas must be known. This number can be calculated in the same
manner as in Table 9.7. It is 2650 lb/lOO mol of fuel.
lb tpc 5062
At 0% excess air: - -
lb fuel 2650
- 1.91

lb tpc 6270
At 50% excess air: ---- = 2.37
lb fuel 2650
The weight of water in the combustion gases is used to compute the heat loss
associated with water vapor and to determine the potential for condensation in vari-
ous parts of the furnace.
lb H20 234
-=-= 0.089 lb/lb fuel
lb fuel 2650
The specific heat of the water vapor is almost twice the specific heat of the
dpc. When using the weight of combustion products to estimate heat loss, it is
necessary to separate the weight of water from the weight of dry gases.
lb dpc lb tpc lb H20
-- -
lb fuel lb fuel lb fuel
lb dpc
At 0% excess air: -- 1.91 - 0.089 = 1.82
lb fuel
lb dpc
At 50% excess air: -- 2.37 - 0.089 = 2.28
lb fuel

Weight of Combustion Air per Pound of Fuel

To complete the mass balance, it is necessary to determine the weight of combus-

tion air used per pound of fuel. This is shown in Table 9.8.

Table 9.8 Weight of combustion air

0% excess air 50% excess air

moll Ibl moll Ibl

100 mol 100mol 100mol 100 mol

0, 17.5 (X 32) 560 26.25 (X 32) 840

N, 66.2 (X 28) 1853.6 99.3 (X 28) 2780.4
- -
2413.6 3620.4
 Chap. 9 Mass Balance for the Combustion of a Solid Fuel 181

lb air - 2413.6
At 0% excess air: -- - = 0.91
lb fuel 2650
lb air 3620.4

The mass balance can be used to check the accuracy of the computations as
follows:
At 0% excess air: 1 lb fuel + 0.91 lb air = 1.91 lb tpc
At 50% excess air: 1 lb fuel + 1.37 lb air = 2.37 lb tpc

MASS BALANCE FOR THE COMBUSTION OF A SOLID FUEL

The mass balance computations for a solid fuel are similar to those for a fuel gas.
There are a few differences in the initial fuel compositions that must be recognized.
First, the ultimate analysis of a solid fuel is a gravimetric analysis (Le., a weight
percent basis). All combustion reactions occur on a mole basis. The fuel gas com-
position, a volumetric analysis, can be translated directly to molar units, since the
volume percent is simply a mole ratio expressed as a percentage. With a solid fuel,
the weight of the individual fuel components must be converted to moles in order to
use the combustion equations. If the weight percent is considered to be based on
100 lb of fuel, the percentage numbers are the weight of the individual constituent
per 100 lb of fuel. The number of moles per 100 lb can be calculated by dividing
the weight of the element by its molecular weight. The computation continues as
for the fuel gas; only the results are based on 100 lb rather than 100 mol.
The ultimate analysis is based on a dry sample. If the percentage combustible
elements sum to loo%, the analytical results are also presented on an ash-free ba-
sis. The combustion air and the combustion products are based on an “as received’’
fuel (Le., the fuel will contain the moisture and the ash). Therefore, it is necessary
to adjust the weight percent (ultimate analysis) to reflect the actual contents of the
elements in the fuel as it is burned. If one is given the solid fuel analyses shown in
Table 9.9, they can be used to construct Table 9.10.

Table 9.9 Solid fuel analysis

Proximate analysis (wt %) Ultimate analysis (wt %)

Moisture 9.7 Carbon 78.3

Volatile matter 19.6 Hydrogen 5.4
Fixed carbon 60.0 Oxygen 8.7
Ash 10.7 Sulfur 6.0
100.0 Nitrogen 1.6
100.0
182 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Table 9.10 Mass balance computations: oxygen requirements

Combustion 0, required
Constituent Wt % Mol. wt mo1/100 Ib reactions (moU100Ib)
~~ ~

S 4.8 32 0.15 s + 0,- so, 0.15

H, 4.3 2 2.16 H2 + ;02--* H 2 0 1.08
C 62.3 12 5.20 c + 0, + co, 5.20
N, I .3 28 0.05 No reaction
0, 6.9 32 0.22 (-0.22)
Ash 10.7
H,O 9.1 18 0.54

100.0 Theoretical oxygen required = 6.21

50% excess = 3.11

The carbon content in the fuel can be computed as follows:

%C = 78.3(1.00 - 0.097 - 0.107) = 62.3%
This same relationship is used to compute the percentage of each element in
the fuel. With these corrections, the calculation of the oxygen requirements for a
solid fuel can be made as illustrated in Table 9.10. The gaseous products of com-
bustion are calculated as before (see Table 9.11). The nitrogen in the fuel is as-
sumed to report as N,. Because the quantity of nitrogen oxides formed in the
furnace is very small compared to the amount of nitrogen present in the combustion
gases, it is reasonable to ignore these compounds.

Table 9.11 Gaseous combustion products from solid fuel

Combustion product (mo1/100 Ib)

Constituent Co, H,O N2 so2 0 2

0.15
2. I6
5.2
0.05

0.54
- - - - -
5.2 2.70 0.05 0.15 0
Combustion air 23.50
50% excess air 11.75 3.11
- - - - -
5.2 2.70 35.30 0.15 3.11
 Chap. 9 Energy Balance on Combustion Processes 183

ENERGY BALANCE ON COMBUSTION PROCESSES

Theoretical Considerations

The first law of thermodynamics states that the heat transferred (Q) to any system
is equal to the change in the internal energy ( A U ) plus work (W) done by the
system. This law can be applied to any system, whether or not a chemical reaction
occurs. A statement of this law is
Q=AU+W (13)
If a reaction occurs such that there is no mass transferred across the system bound-
ary (e.g., a closed system), the system remains at constant pressure, and the only
work done is due to volume change, equation (13) becomes
Q = AU + p A V = AH (14)
H is a property of the system that represents the heat content and is defined as
enthalpy. In combustion reactions, the change in enthalpy may be due to changes in
the temperature or due to chemical reactions taking place at a constant temperature.
To distinguish between the two phenomena, let A H , denote the enthalpy change
due to the chemical reactions and AHT denote the enthalpy change due to tempera-
ture change. This relationship is
Q= AH= AHR + AHT (15)
A H , is commonly referred to as the heat of reaction and, for refuse, is determined
by the bomb calorimeter test. This test is run at a constant temperature of 77"F,
which is the reference temperature (To)that will be used in subsequent energy bal-
ance calculations.
Figure 9.1 illustrates the relationship defined by equation (15). For a steady-
flow process between states 1 and 2 in which the changes in kinetic energy and
potential energy are zero and the only work done is volume change, the heat flow is
determined by the enthalpy change. The change in enthalpy can be determined by
computing the difference in the enthalpy at point 1 and point 2:
AH = H2 - Hi = (H2 - H,) + AH, + (Hy - H I ) (16)
In this equation, H, and H, are the enthalpies of the products and reactants, respec-
tively, at the reference temperature. For convenience, the sign on the last term of
equation (16) can be changed to a negative, to give
AH = H2 - Hi = (H2 - H,) + AHR - ( H I - H y ) (17)
However, the reactants and the products are composed of a number of specific
substances. ( H , - H,) represents all of the reactants, and (H2 - H,) represents all
I
of the products. It is necessary to consider the number of moles of each substance
(N) and the molar enthalpy of that substance (h). Therefore, the following is a
184 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Products

Figure 9.1 Relationship between enthalpy

Temperature ( O R ) of reactants and products.

general equation that can be used to compute the enthalpy change considering each
individual substance involved in the reaction:

prod react

where (hl)j= molar enthalpy of the reactants, j , at the temperature they enter the
furnace
( l ~ , )=~ molar enthalpy of the reactants at the reference temperature, 77°F
(h2)i= molar enthalpy of the products at the final temperature
( l ~ ,= ) ~molar enthalpy of the products at the reference temperature
When T2 = To and T, = To, h2 - ho = 0 and hl - h, = 0. Consequently,
Q = MR (19)
A sign convention is used throughout to determine if heat is added or released
from the reactions. When AH, is negative, Q is negative, indicating that the reac-
tion is, exothermic (Le., heat is released by the system). If AH, is positive, the
reaction is endothermic and it is possible to achieve the indicated end products only
if heat is added to the system.
To compute the energy balance, information is needed for the enthalpy of the
different reactants and products as a function of the temperature. The .enthalpy can
be determined from the heat capacity of the material as indicated by
Chap. 9 Energy Balance on Combustion Processes 185

where HT and H , are the enthalpy at the elevated temperature and the reference
temperature of 537"R (77°F) in Btu/lb-mol and C, is the heat capacity at constant
pressure. Integration of this equation produces a general equation for the computa-
tion of the enthalpy change for various materials. The values for constants in this
'
general equation can be found in thermodynamic properties tables. These constants
have been determined experimentally or computed from theoretical considerations.
C02: HT - Ho = 10.34T + 1.37 X 10-3T2 - 1.96 X 105/T- 5583 (21)
CO: HT - Ho = 6.6T + 1.6 X 10-3T2 - 3717 (22)
02: HT - Ho = 8.27T + 1.29 X 10-4T2 - 1.88 X 105/T - 4129 (23)
N2: HT - Ho = 6.50T + 5.0 x 10-4T2 - 3635 (24)
H2: HT - Ho = 6.623 + 4.05 X 10-4T2 - 3672 (25)
H20: HT - Ho = 7.14T + 8.1 x 10-4T2 - 4.0 x 10-*T3 - 4062 (26)
These equations are cumbersome and it is easier to have the enthalpy displayed in
tabular or graphical form for ease of use, especially when considering a variety of
substances at several different temperatures. Table 9.12 contains such values as
computed from equations (21) through (26).
Water requires special consideration. First, the enthalpy values calculated
from equation (26) and presented in Table 9.12 are only for the water vapor. It is
assumed that the water evaporates at the standard reference temperature and that
only the vapor is subject to the temperature increase. The C, for liquid water is
1 Btu/lb-OF, while water vapor has a specific heat of about 0.5 BtuAb-"E This is a
valid assumption since the humidity in the furnace gases will be very low until the
water evaporates and the combustion water appears. Since the values in Table 9.12
and equation (26) do not consider any change of state, the heat of vaporization of
water must be included in the heat-loss calculations.

Energy Balance Computations

Heat loss with the combustion gases. The mass balance computations
conducted in Tables 9.10 and 9. I 1 provide the necessary flow rates for the reactants
and the products. The initial and final conditions must be specified and the HHV of
the fuel (refuse) must be known. The enthalpy value of a fuel gas such as methane
is available, but the enthalpy value for a solid fuel is not easily determined since the

'R. H. Perry and C. H. Chilton, Eds., Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1973, p. 3-119.
186 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Table 9.12 Enthalpy of ideal gases

Enthalpy (Btu/lb-mol)

Temperature (OR) CO COZ Hz H2O N2 0,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 2,076 2,572 2,022 2,214 1,995 1,866
400 2,736 3,865 2,713 2,983 2,680 2,859
500 3,450 5,121 3.41 1 3,768 3,375 3,791
537 3,717 5,583 3,672 4,062 3,635 4,128
600 4,176 6,371 4,118 4,567 4,080 4,695
700 4,914 7,629 4,832 5,381 4,797 5,584
800 5,664 8,904 5,555 6,210 5,520 6,464
900 6,426 10,198 6,286 7,053 6,255 7,340
1000 7,200 11,514 7,025 7,910 7,000 8,211
1100 7,986 12,854 7,772 8,781 7,755 9,082
I200 8,784 14,217 8,527 9,665 8,520 9,953
1300 9,594 15,606 9,290 10,563 9,295 10,824
1400 10,416 17,021 10,062 1 I ,474 10,080 11,697
1500 11,250 18,467 10,841 12,398 10,875 12,570
1600 12,096 19,929 11,629 13,334 1 1,680 13,445
1700 12,954 2 I ,422 12,424 14,282 12,495 14,321
1800 13,824 22,942 13,228 15,243 13,320 15,196
1900 14,706 24,489 14,040 16,216 14,155 16,079
2000 15,600 26,062 14,860 17,200 15,000 16,962

specific compounds in the fuel are not known. It is convenient to assume that the
fuel is introduced into the furnace at the reference temperature (77°F). It is possible
to estimate the heat required to elevate the fuel temperature to the reference tem-
perature by using the specific heat of the solid fuel. Typical values for organic
compounds are 0.3 to 0.35 Btu/lb-"E Therefore, if the solid fuel is not at the ref-
erence temperature, the heat requirement can be calculated from CplAT1 W,where
W is the pounds of dry fuel. For more precision, a correction can be made for the
water (moisture) present in the fuel using this same approach and a C, value of 1.0
Btdlb-"E
Given the following information (see Tables 9.10 and 9.11), determine the
amount of heat that can be recovered from the combustion of a solid fuel.

Combustion reactants Gaseous combustion products

02:9.32 lb-moV100 Ib 0,: 3.11 lb-mo11100 Ib

N,: 35.25 lb-mo1/100 Ib N,: 35.30 Ib-mo1/100 Ib
T = 140°F CO,: 5.20 lb-mo1/100 Ib
SO,: 0.15 lb-mo1/100 Ib
Fuel at 77°F H,O: 2.70 lb-mo1/100 Ib
A H R = -9000 Btu/lb T = 540°F
Chap. 9 Energy Balance on Combustion Processes 187

Step 1. 2 N(h, - h,) of combustion air at 140°F.

Constituent lb-mo1/100 Ib h, ho N(h, - ho)

~~~ ~ ~ ~

02 9.32 4695 4128 5,284

N2 35.25 4080 3635 15,687

20,971

Step 2 . 2 N(h, - h,) of gaseous products of combustion.

0 2 3.11 8,211 4,128 12,698

N2 35.30 7,000 3,635 118,785
CO, 5.20 11,514 5,583 30,841
so2 0.15 9,920 4,812 766
H2O 2.70 7,910 4,062 10,389
N ( A I Y , . )=
~ ~2.70(18,926
~ Btu/lb-mol) = 51,100

224,579

Step 3. Compute the heat of reaction, AHR.

AHR = -9000 Btu/lb(lb dry solids/100 lb fuel) = -9000( 100 - 9.69)
= -812,790 Btu/100 lb fuel
Step 4. Compute Q as follows:

prod react

= 224,579 + (-812,790) - 20,971 = -609,181 Btu/100 lb of fuel

= -6092 Btu/lb of fuel

Additional heat losses. The analysis above represents only the heat balance
on the combustion gases. Additional heat loss can be attributed to the ash fraction
and to radiant heat from the furnace. The heat loss associated with the ash will
depend on the temperature at which the ash exits the furnace and the heat capacity
of the ash components. Most incinerators have an airstream called the underfire air
that passes over the ash and extracts some of the heat. Ash temperatures will gen-
erally be about 400°F as it drops into the ash quench tank. A AT value of about
350°F would be reasonable. Multiplying this temperature change by a representa-
tive C, and the pounds of ash generated will yield the heat loss with this residue.
188 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

The following are specific heats for some of the common residues found in refuse
incineration.

Specific heats for inorganic materials

Ash 0.2 Btu/lb-"F

Glass 0.17 Btu/lb-P
Aluminum 0.21 Btu/lb-"F
Iron 0.1 Btu/lb-"F

In the example above, the fuel contained 10.68% ash, or 10.7 lb/100 lb of
fuel. Assume that the final temperature of the ash is 400°F and the initial tempera-
ture is 77°F:
heat loss with ash = (10.7 lb/100 lb)(0.2 Btu/lb-"F)(400 - 77)
= 691 Btu/100 lb of fuel
If this heat loss is compared to the approximately 200,000 Btu/100 lb of fuel lost
with the combustion gases, it is apparent that it is insignificant. If the ash content
doubled, the heat loss would still be minimal.
The radiant heat loss from the furnace will also be insignificant in a modern
design. Because of the size of these units, it would be impossible to dissipate the
heat if the loss was a significant percentage of the furnace load. A system burning
1000 tons per day of refuse releases about 400 million Btu/hr. Even a 1% loss
would be 4 million Btu/hr. A sizable ventilation system would be necessary to re-
move the heat from the building. The insulation of these furnaces is substantial to
minimize the radiant heat loss.

Estimating Heat Loss from Average Combustion Product C,,

An alternative technique for approximating the heat loss with the combustion gases
can be used. This assumes an average C,, for the dry products of combustion. Over
the temperature range in Table 9.12, the C,, for these gases will average between
0.23 and 0.25 Btu/lb-OF, with nitrogen having a value of 0.25. Since nitrogen is the
largest component of the combustion gases, a value of 0.25 Btu/lb-"F would be
appropriate. Table 9.13 presents the computations that are necessary to obtain the
pounds of combustion products.
The exit temperature of the combustion gases is 540"F, so the temperature
change is (540 - 77) = 463°F.
Heat loss: dpc = (1327 lb/100 lb)(463"F)(0.25 Btu/lb-OF)
= 153,600 Btu/100 lb
(H20), = (48.6)(463)(0.5) = 10,251 Btd100 lb
 Chap. 9 Design Considerations for Multiple-Chamber Incinerators 189

Table 9.13 Pounds of combustion gases

Gas lb-m01/100 Ib Mol. wt lb/IOO Ib

0 2 3.11 32 99.5
N2 35.33 28 988.4
0 2 5.20 44 229.0
so2 0.15 64 9.6
-
C dpc = 1326.5
H2O 2.70 18 48.6

( A H " ) H=~ ~
(48.6)
('"3
-
Total heat loss = 153,600 + 10,251+
= 51,100 Btu1100 lb

51,100 = 214,951 Btu/100 lb

This estimation of the heat loss with the combustion gases compares with 223,301
Btu/100 lb as computed in step 2 on page 187. The loss is underestimated by about
4%, which is sufficiently accurate for an initial assessment of the energy balance on
an incineration system. Slightly more precision is obtained by using the actual en-
thalpy values for the product gases.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR MULTIPLE-CHAMBER INCINERATORS

Components of a Multichamber Incinerator

Figure 9.2 is a cutaway of a simple in-line incinerator. One can compare it with
Figure 9.4, an illustration of a modern large-scale incinerator, and recognize the
general flow path. Figure 9.2 is more detailed and identifies the various component
parts. There are three major compartments in this unit: the ignition or primary
combustion chamber, the mixing chamber, and the secondary combustion chamber.
There are two parameters that dictate the geometry of the chambers, retention times
and gas flow velocities. The retention times are associated with the combustion
rate, while the gas velocities control the mixing that is achieved.

Geometry of the Combustion Chambers

Incinerator design is still an art, but there are some general guidelines that must be
considered to have a successful design. One of these is the size and geometry of the
furnace chambers. The size of the primary combustion chamber is controlled by
grate loading and arch height. The grate loading is an empirical relationship that is
unique for the type of grate employed. The stationery grate illustrated in Figure 9.2
has loading defined by
LG = 10 log Rc (28)
190 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Charging door
-

wall port

Figure 9.2 Cutaway of an in-line multichamber incinerator. (From Air Pollution Engineering Manual, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40,
Washington, DC, 1967.

where L, is the grate loading rate in lb/hr-ft2 and R , is the refuse combustion rate
in lb/hr. The grate area (AG) is computed by dividing the refuse combustion rate by
the allowable loading rate. This area fixes the horizontal dimensions of the primary
combustion chamber. There are a number of different types of grates; many of them
are mechanical. Each grate will have a different allowable loading rate as dictated
by field evaluations of the grate performance.
For a small incinerator that is burning 1000 lbhr of refuse, the grate loading
would be 30 lb/hr-ft2 of as-received refuse. The heating value of the as-received
refuse would be 4000 to 5000 Btu/lb, depending on the moisture and ash content.
The heat release rate of this grate would be between 120,000 and 150,000 Btu/
hr-ft2. This is a typical rate for a fixed grate. Mechanical grates can be loaded at
higher rates, resulting in higher heat release rates. Figure 9.3 illustrates some ad-
ditional grates available for burning solid fuels. The applications illustrated in this
figure employ a spreader stoker that mechanically throws (from the feed hopper on
the right side of the grate) the fuel across the width of the grate. The stationary
grate in Figure 9.3(a) requires the ash to fall through the grate openings without
Chap. 9 Design Considerations for Multiple-Chamber Incinerators 191

(a) Stationary (b) Dumping

pit

(c) Oscillating (d) Traveling

Figure 9.3 Types of grates available for combustion of solid fuels.

any movement of the grate. In Figure 9.3(b), the grates are mechanically rotated.
This dumps the ash into the ash pit underneath the grates. Neither of these grates
provide any mixing of the fuel on the grate. Consequently, heat release rates would
be low, less than 200,000 Btu/hr-ft2.
The grate in Figure 9.3(c) moves the ash to the side by oscillating (vibrating).
It is sloped to assist in the movement of the ash to the ash hopper. Figure 9.3(d)
shows a traveling grate that is an endless metal belt. It moves slowly to the right
and carries the ash to the ash hopper. Both of these grates can also accept fuel from
a feed conveyor or ram. The fuel would be introduced from the left side of the grate
as presented in these figures. This would be termed a crossfeed, as contrasted to an
overfeed, which occurs with a spreader stoker. The manner in which the fuel is fed
to the furnace determines the maximum heat release rate. For example, a traveling
grate with a crossfeed of fuel has a maximum heat release of about 300,000 Btu/
hr-ft2, while this same grate fed with spreader stoker has a maximum heat release
rate of 1,000,000 Btu/hr-ft2.
Except for the stationary grate, the grates above could be considered for use
in the combustion of RDF. However, the characteristics of unprocessed refuse are so
variable that these grates are not very satisfactory. Because of the bulky nature of
the refuse, some grate action is necessary to mix the refuse to expose it to the high
192 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Radiant (waterwall) Convection

section Superheater tube bank

Ash pit

Figure 9.4 Mechanically fired incinerator with reciprocating grates

temperatures and combustion air present in the primary combustion chamber. Fig-
ure 9.4 illustrates the reciprocating grate. The grates are arranged similar to stair
steps, with alternate steps being stationary. The movable steps are slowly moved
back and forth, gradually pushing the refuse to the ash hopper. Each time the refuse
tumbles from one step to the next, it is mixed to expose more of the unburned
material to the proper environment. There are other types of grates that achieve the
same objective. It is important to provide this mixing capability when burning un-
processed refuse.
The other dimension required is the height of the primary chamber, or the
arch height. Retention time of the combustion gases in this chamber is one factor
that determines the chamber height. Again this is defined by an empirical relation-
ship unique for each furnace. For the unit in Figure 9.2, the arch height (HA) can be
calculated from
HA = %(AG)4’11 (29)
An additional factor that is considered is the length-to-width ratio of this chamber.
This ratio is considered in relationship to the remaining portion of the furnace.
When the combustion gases exit the primary chamber, they pass through a
flame port into a mixing chamber, where the secondary air is mixed with the com-
bustion gases. In these two components of the incinerator, gas velocity is the con-
trolling factor in generating turbulence, as the gases change directions of flow. The
gas flow rate and the cross-sectional area determine this velocity. For the incinera-
Chap. 9 Design Considerations for Multiple-Chamber Incinerators 193

tor in Figure 9.2, the recommended velocity for the flame port is 55 ft/sec when the
gas temperature is 1000°F. Since the volume of a gas is temperature dependent, the
1000°F is a reference temperature. If a higher temperature is encountered in the
burn, the gas velocity will increase. The recommended downward velocity for the
mixing chamber is 25 fVsec at lOOO"F, and the velocity through the combustion wall
port is about 70% of the mixing-chamber velocity. The height and width of the
mixing chamber are set by the dimensions of the primary combustion chamber.
The gas velocity in the secondary combustion chamber is much slower since
the mixing should have occurred in the previous chambers. The horizontal velocity
should be less than 10 fthec, preferably in the range 5 to 6 fVsec. Since the height
and width of the secondary chamber are fixed by the primary chamber, it may be
necessary to adjust the length-to-width ratio of the primary chamber. The length of
the secondary chamber is determined by the desired retention time.

Combustion Air Distributions

There are three locations where it is necessary to introduce combustion air. The
underfire air is necessary to maintain a good burnout. The air passing through the
ash on the grates will cool the grates and ash, thereby reclaiming some of the heat.
It will also provide the oxygen necessary to completely oxidize the residual organic
material in the ash. There is a limit to the underfire air. Too much will suspend a
large fraction of the ash in the combustion gases, greatly increasing the air pollu-
tion problem. Underfire air will be about 10 to 20% of the total combustion air.
The majority of the air is introduced into the primary chamber to obtain high
temperatures and good burning. About 40 to 50% of the air required is added in
this chamber as overfire air. There are small incineration units that operate with
only enough over- and underfire air to have an effective gasifier in the primary
chamber. The lower air velocities reduce the amount of entrained ash particles
found in the combustion gases. The primary heat release is in the secondary com-
bustion chamber. The balance of the required air is added as secondary air. The
excess oxygen in the secondary combustion chamber and the high temperatures
force the combustion to completion as long as the retention time is not too short.
Air distribution is controlled by dampers on the air ducts or ports that conduct
the air to the furnace. The capacities of these air-handling systems are overdesigned
by as much as 50% to permit flexibility in the distribution of the air through the
furnace. The head loss is kept low, about 0.1 in water gage. If forced-air or
induced-draft airflow is used, the head loss should not be significant. The power
required for the fans, or stack height or temperature differential required for the
induced draft, can become excessive if this head loss is not low. A stack draft (DT)
of 0.5 in. of water gage may be required to overcome the head loss in the furnace.
The relationship between the stack draft, height, and temperature differential is

DT = 0.52PH( - i)
194 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

where P = atmospheric pressure, psi

H = stack height, ft
T = ambient temperature, OR
Ti= stack temperature, OR
Modern incineration systems have high stacks, but the designs include fans to
ensure positive control over the airflow. The temperature of the combustion gases is
reduced to low levels as a result of the energy recovery systems associated with
mass-burn or RDF facilities. Because of the reduced temperature differential, little
natural draft will be generated. The stack height is not intended to provide draft but
is used to discharge the combustion products higher into the atmosphere.

Current Design Guidelines and Objectives

There is no set of design standards that can be followed for the design of an incin-
erator. An incineration system design is the sum of the designs of a host of indi-
vidual components, ranging from the ash-handling conveyor to the steam condenser
on the steam turbine to the dry scrubber for air pollution control. Each furnace is
unique and the design is based on the cumulative experience of the manufacturer in
the design and operation of many units. There are some specific objectives in the
design and operation of an incinerator that reduce the air pollution potential, espe-
cially from unburned organic materials. As illustrated in Table 9.14, these objec-
tives are broken into three categories: design, operatiordcontrol, and verification.
The physical design of the furnace should achieve these goals.
Table 9.14 presents the proposed goals for the design and operation of mass-
burn incineration systems. Similar goals have been proposed for RDF facilities and
starved-air incinerators. These guidelines may be revised at any time by the U.S.
EPA. The major consideration in the design element is being able to achieve the
temperature of 1800°F and to have good control of the distribution of the combus-
tion air. During operation, excess oxygen is necessary to achieve the oxidation of
the organic materials and to keep the concentration of CO at low levels. Combus-
tion is assumed to be reasonably complete when the concentration of the CO is
low. Also, the ability to add auxiliary fuel to obtain operating temperatures during
startup and at any time the temperature drops or the CO concentration increases
beyond acceptable levels is a requirement. Finally, verification of the design suc-
cess is achieved by monitoring the oxygen and CO in the flue gas. The furnace
temperature should achieve the required 1800°F and the mixing of the air with the
combustion gases is verified by a CO profile of the furnace.
An additional constraint that is not shown in this table is the retention time in
the furnace and in a postcombustion chamber. Retention times that are being con-
sidered and actually imposed in some permits are a minimum furnace retention time
of 1.5 seconds. This may increase to 2.0 seconds. As discussed presently, a post-
combustion chamber with a retention time of 2.0 seconds may be necessary to
ensure the destruction of the trace organic compounds formed during combustion.
 Chap. 9 Air Pollution Control Requirements for Mass-Burn Incineration 195

Table 9.14 Minimizing trace organic emissions from mass-burn incinerators

Element Component Target

Design Temperature at fully 1800°F 1 m above overfire jets

mixed height
Underfire air control At least four separately controlled plenums over depth of
grate per grate module
Overfire air capacity 40% of total air
Overfire air injector That required for penetration and coverage of furnace cross
design sections
Auxiliary fuel capacity 60% of design load
Operation/ Excess air 6-12% excess oxygen
control Turndown restrictions 80- 110% of design or as set by CO profiling
Startup procedures On auxiliary fuel to design temperature
On auxiliary fuel for high CO or low furnace temperatures.
Verification Oxygen in flue gas 6-12% by volume of dry gas
CO in flue gas I00 ppm on 8-hr average
400 ppm on 30-min average
800 ppm on IO-min average
Furnace temperature Minimum of 1800°F at fully mixed height across furnace
In-furnace CO profiling CO variation allowed 50% in plane after fully mixed height
for air distribution

Source: Combustion Control of MSW Incinerators to Minimize Emissions of Trace Organics, U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, 1987.

This chamber may be considered as the secondary combustion chamber if the com-
bustion is nearly complete in the primary combustion chamber.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS-BURN INCINERATION

State Permit Requirements

Each incinerator-mass-burn, RDF, or starved-air-requires a discharge permit.

The stack discharge emission guidelines imposed by the states are variable, but
Table 9.15 presents two of the more complete listings. As of 1987, these were only
proposed guidelines, but these numbers have been known to move from guidelines
to specific permit requirements.
In addition to the normal air pollutants, these guidelines include acid gas,
HCl, and hydrocarbons. The levels are generally specified in concentrations, but in
some cases, a percent reduction is also included. No standard has been proposed for
dioxin and furan emissions. There is still considerable discussion regarding a
“safe” level. The risk issue has been clouded by the extreme concern for the ap-
parent chronic toxic and mutagenic effects of these compounds. In 1987, an incin-
erator in Essex, New Jersey, was issued a permit with a level of 5 lb/hr for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD.
196 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Table 9.15 State emission guidelines for mass-burn systems

Pollutant New Jersey, 7% 0, Illinois, 12%CO,

Particulates 0.015 gddscp 0.010 gddscf

HCI 50 ppdhrb 30 ppdhrb
SO2 50 ppdhr' 50 ppm/hrd
NO, 300 ppdhr 100 p p d h r
Hydrocarbons 70 p p d h r
co 400 ppdhr 100 p p d h r
100 p p d 4 days
Temperature
Design 1800°F 1800°F
Minimum 1500°F 1500°F
Minimum furnace 1.0 sec 1.2 sec
residence time
Minimum lime injection 100 Ib/hr
Certified operator No No
Minimum excess 0, 6%

"Grains/dry scf.
b90% reduction.
'80% reduction.
d70% reduction.
Source: Wusre Age, Jan. 1988, p. 83.

Air Pollution Control Systems

Particulates. Particulates can be very important contaminants, depending

on their origin. They can result from solid materials that are present in the refuse or
they can condense from organic vapors or metal fumes. Solid particles form under
normal combustion conditions in a furnace by the noncombustible materials re-
leased from the refuse in the form of fly ash. These solids consist of inorganic
oxides, including heavy metals and are emitted over a wide range of particle sizes.
Condensation particles occur when partial combustion occurs in the furnace, pro-
ducing organic vapors. When the combustion gas cools, these vapors condense to
form particles that are organic compounds. Certain metals, and metal oxides, can
become vapors at high furnace temperatures. Upon cooling, these particles con-
dense to form particles containing these metals.
There are two primary devices for control of particulate emissions from incin-
eration: electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters. ESP uses an electrical
field to remove the particles that acquire a charge when passing through this field.
Conventional ESPs are about 99.8% efficient for removal of particles greater than
2 pm. However, removal of smaller particles is more critical because particles of
less than 2 pm are respirable (Le., can be inhaled deep into the lungs). The ESP
efficiency is only about 93% for this size range. Newer designs that have a larger
collection plate area per unit of gas flow have improved this efficiency, but at a
Chap. 9 Air Pollution Control Requirements for Mass-Burn.Incineration 197

significant cost. There is still some concern that the ESP may not be able consis-
tently to meet the discharge limit of 0.01 gr/dscf.
For new incinerators fabric filters will probably be considered the choice for
control of particulate emissions. These filters are closely woven fabrics that trap the
particles as the gas stream is pulled through the filter. The fabric is formed into
tubes or “socks” and a large number are suspended in a “baghouse.” A large filter
area can be obtained with this arrangement. The filtration mechanism is a “deep
bed” filtration. Only the larger particles are trapped on the surface, where they
form a “bag cake.” The fine particles actually penetrate the bag cake and the filter
cloth. This filtration mechanism exhibits a high efficiency for the particles below
2 p,m. Mass collection efficiencies of 99.99%can be expected. The stack discharge
consistently meets the 0.01 gr/dscf, and discharges as low as 0.001 gr/dscf have
been obtained.
The bags are manufactured from a variety of materials suited to the specific
chemical nature of the gas being cleaned. Two environmental conditions can in-
crease the operating problems of the bags: high temperature and high moisture. The
bag material deteriorates rapidly at high temperatures, so it is necessary to reduce
the temperature of the combustion gases before entering the baghouse. A steam
boiler can lower the temperature from 1800°F to about 300°F. If the gas stream
contains excessive amounts of moisture and hygroscopic particles, the bags can be-
come clogged with wet particles. If a wet process is used for emission control prior
to the filters, the particles must be dry before they reach the filter fabric.
There is a substantial pressure drop across the filter, considerably more than
with an ESP Power costs for the fans are a significant operating cost that must be
considered.

Acid gas control. Acid gases, HCl, HF, SO,, and NO, have limits imposed
by some discharge permits. HCl and HF are of primary concern with refuse incin-
eration. The combustion temperatures are generally not high enough (C 2000°F) to
cause significant NO, production, and the sulfur content of refuse is low, so SO2
removal alone would probably not be required. However, the combination of the
three acid gases creates both operational and environmental problems. Because
these compounds are gases, they must be converted to a solid by precipitation or be
adlabsorbed by a solid or liquid particle. The resulting particles are removed by an
appropriate removal device. The three processes applicable to acid gas removal are
wet scrubbers, spray-dry scrubbers, and dry scrubbers.
A wet scrubber consists of a spray chamber where a fine spray of water is
mixed with the combustion gases. Gases that are soluble in the water spray will be
absorbed and removed with the water droplets. A dilute base solution is used to
improve the capture of the acid gas. With a base present, the acid is neutralized to
a salt that is soluble in the water. The water droplets are removed by a cyclone or
demister before the gases reach the baghouse. These droplets cannot be removed by
the fabric filters because they rapidly clog the filter medium with a wet cake. There
is a temperature drop with the wet scrubber, due to evaporation of some water. The
198 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

scrubbers are 95% efficient in removal of HCl and HF and about 85% efficient in
removal of SO,. NO, removal is not appreciable with these scrubbers.
The water continues to be circulated with the addition of more base. The
concentration of resulting salts increases to the limits of solubility and precipitate.
Unfortunately, the chloride and fluoride salts are reasonably soluble and will accu-
mulate to high concentration. The solution can be very corrosive. In addition, the
C02 in the combustion gas will react with the base and since the base ion is nor-
mally calcium, precipitate as calcium carbonate. The SO, forms CaSO, which has
a limited solubility. The sludge produced from these scrubbers may also contain
some of the metal particles present in the combustion gases. Disposal of the wet
sludge is a problem, especially if contaminated by heavy metals.
A spray-dry scrubber sprays a concentrated base solution into the combustion
gas to absorb the acid gas. The removal mechanism is the same as for the wet
scrubber. The water content is only sufficient to effect the absorption and then
evaporates before the gas reaches the baghouse. When the water evaporates, it
leaves behind a solid residue that can be removed by the filter. As contrasted with
the wet scrubber, the residue is dry and has much less volume. The heat loss with
the evaporation of the water will reduce the gas temperature. The removal efficien-
cies are the same as for the wet scrubbers.
A dry scrubber injects a base such as lime (CaO) directly into the primary
combustion chamber. The lime will react with the acid gas to produce CaCl,, CaF,,
and CaSO, particles. The hydrogen in the HCl and HF will form water with the
oxygen from the lime. These particles are removed by the particle removal unit on
the stack gas. The dry residue is less expensive to dispose of, due to the much
smaller volume of dry rather than wet residue. Also, the absence of water greatly
reduces the corrosion problems associated with a wet system. Temperature loss
from water evaporation does not occur, so more energy is available for recovery.

Control of heavy metals. Heavy metals are present in the combustion gases
as suspended particles of fly ash and as metal fumes. If the temperature in the
combustion chamber is high, the metals will be present as a vapor. Table 9.16 lists
the boiling or sublimation temperatures for some of the heavy metals common to
refuse. When the temperature in the refuse reaches 1800°F, all of the metals except
lead will be present as a vapor. Salts of some of the metals have lower boiling
points. For example, lead chloride will boil at about half the temperature of lead

Table 9.16 Boiling temperatures for s o m e heavy metals

Metal Boiling temperature (OF)

Lead 3 164
Lead chloride 1742
Zinc 1664
Cadmium 1402
Arsenic I135 (sublimation)
Mercury 673
Chap. 9 Air Pollution Control Requirements for Mass-Burn Incineration 199

metal. Mercury is a major problem because of the low temperature at which it

boils. The metals in the ash remaining on the grates will not be exposed to the high
temperature of the secondary combustion chamber. Consequently, only metals with
low boiling temperatures will evaporate from the ash. Metals that are carried with
the fly ash to the high-temperature zones can be expected to vaporize.
The success for control of the heavy metal emissions is (1) an efficient par-
ticle removal process and (2) cooling the gases to below the condensation point of
the metals before reaching the particle removal system. The use of a steam boiler
will generally not cool the gases sufficiently. An “economizer” is used to recover
additional heat from the gases after they have passed through the boiler. This unit
can reduce the gas temperature to less than 400°F. Passage of the cool gas through
an efficient filter unit will yield a 99% reduction in all heavy metals except mer-
cury. Mercury remains a problem. It is difficult to cool the gas sufficiently to con-
dense all of the mercury vapors. Tests at Quebec City found 0% mercury removal
when the gas temperature was 40O0F, while operating at 280°F achieved a 90%
reduction.2 Temperatures below 300°F coupled with an efficient scrubber/baghouse
particle control unit can be expected to achieve a 90% reduction of mercury.

Dioxin control. In general, control of dioxin and furan have concentrated on

the combustion efficiency. As long as the efficiency is high, with low levels of CO
and good temperatures and oxygen concentrations, the level of dioxin should be
acceptable. Since there is no consensus as to an acceptable standard, the approach
has been to use the best available technology (BAT). Success in Italy with postcom-
bustion chambers may indicate a future direction for dioxin contr01.~These cham-
bers have been added to conventional incinerators to provide better control of the
temperature and the oxygen level. The chambers provide a retention time of 2.0
seconds. The temperature is maintained at 1700 to 1800”F, and the oxygen is 6% at
the chamber exit.
The effectiveness of this technique was demonstrated on an existing facility
that was retrofitted with a postcombustion chamber. Before the retrofit the total
PCDD was 3 X lo-* p,g/dscf. After the retrofit, the level of total PCDD was re-
duced to 3 X lov4 pg/dscf, or a reduction of 99%. It may be that similar results
will be obtained by increasing the time in the area of the furnace where the tem-
peratures are highest and excess oxygen is present. If complete oxidation of the
PCDD precursors can be achieved, there is no reason to expect them to reform.

Operational Strategies for Emission Reductions

Recent evaluations of incineration systems have clearly indicated that proper opera-
tion can be a major factor in minimizing the emissions. Also, the preparation of
refuse as RDF can remove many of the contaminants before they are in the gas
stream.

*Waste Age, Jan. 1988, p. 92.

’Waste Age, Jan. 1988, p. 87.
200 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Control of refuse composition. Understanding the source of the undesir-

able components in refuse can be important in evaluating the opportunity for re-
moval prior to combustion. Some of the materials can easily be removed in
preprocessing of the refuse.

Cadmium. Cadmium batteries account for about 60% of this metal in the
refuse. An additional 25% can be found as an additive to certain plastics.
Chromium. About 40% of the chromium is found in rubber and leather. An
additional 40% is associated with metals.
Mercury. Batteries (alkaline) account for about 60% of this metal. Additional
sources include plastic (10%) and paper (13%).
Lead. About 20% of the 600,000 tons per year of the lead used in batteries
end up in the refuse stream. The other major source of lead is the solder in
electronic components.
Acid gases. The primary sources of HCl, HF, and SO, are plastic, especially
the chloride in PVC, textiles, and rubber.

The metals that are present in batteries, appliances, electronic items, and so
on, have a high probability of being removed in the various separation processes
used to prepare the RDF. However, the contaminants contained in the paper, plastic,
textiles, and rubber may end up in the fuel. The benefits of separation can be seen
from the results of the NRT separation process (Figure 8.21). In addition to recov-
ery of the aluminum, ferrous metals, glass, and other inert materials, the process
resulted in a reduction of stack emissions of 52% for lead, 64% for chromium, and
73% for cadmium, compared to burning unprocessed refuse in the same f a ~ i l i t yIt. ~
was also observed that complex hydrocarbons were reduced by 75% and the CO
reduced by 63%. This improved combustion was a result of the uniformity of the
fuel and the ability to better control the combustion.

Operational control of the combustion process. If a system is designed to

provide operational flexibility, considerable reduction in the emissions is possible
by careful operation of the incinerator. Not only is it necessary to have sufficient
combustion air-handling capability, but it is also necessary to have the ability to
distribute this air at varying rates to different sections of the furnace. A uniform
feed rate is important in maintaining the proper oxygen level and temperature in the
combustion zones. With this uniform feed rate, the airflows can be set more pre-
cisely. Moderate temperatures can be maintained in the primary combustion cham-
ber. This will reduce the metal volatilization and the NO, formation. Preparation of
the refuse to provide a homogeneous fuel with reduced inert material can greatly
improve operation. The NRT process is one example. Separation of the metals re-

4wasre Age, Feb. 1988, p. 55.

 Chap. 9 Ash Disposal 201

duces the metal content in the combustion gases, but the homogenization resulting
during the processing makes it possible to provide a more uniform Btu feed rate to
the furnace.
Complete oxidation of the organic compounds released from the refuse can
be achieved if excess oxygen and high temperatures are maintained in the second-
ary combustion chamber. The temperature should be in excess of 1800°F to oxi-
dize completely the precursors for PCDDs. A 99% destruction of pentachlorophenol
(a precursor) was observed with the following secondary combustion chamber
conditions:
~~~ ~

Percent O2 Temperature O F

20 1350
2.5 1500
0 I800

At the highest temperature, complete oxidation of this compound was achieved at

the stoichiometric combustion air. If an oxygen level of 6% is maintained at this
temperature, dioxin formation will not be a problem. The oxygen should not be
permitted much higher because of the cooling effect of the excess air. A maximum
temperature of 2000°F will minimize the formation of the NO,.

ASH DISPOSAL

The bottom ash and the fly ash from an incineration system will contain all of the
metals present in the refuse, assuming that the emission control devices are remov-
ing the metals from the combustion gases. The composition of these ashes is poorly
documented in the literature. In most cases, the ash has simply been hauled to a
landfill for disposal. The U.S. EPA has proposed to categorize these ashes as haz-
ardous if they fail the EP toxicity test. There is considerable opposition to such a
classification. This test is an elaborate procedure that passes a weak acid solution
through the ash under specified conditions to determine what elements and com-
pounds are leached from the ash. If any exceed the regulatory limit, the ash is
declared a hazardous waste, requiring disposal at a hazardous waste site or at least
a landfill designed for incinerator ash, a "monofill."
The data in Table 9.17 show the mobility of heavy metals that may be found
in incinerator ash. The results of the EP toxicity test will depend on the character-
istics of the ash as determined by a variety of factors, including additives such as
lime, temperature in the primary combustion chamber, degree of slagging in fur-
nace, and degree of refuse preprocessing. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate each
incinerator ash independently.

5Wasre Age. Dec. 1987, p. 162.

 202 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

Table 9.17 Summary of EP Toxicity Tests on Incinerator Ash

Fly ash Bottom ash Combined ash

Metal Regulatory limit (mg/L) No. Ave. (mg/L) No. Ave. (mg/L) No. Ave. (mg/L)

As 5 .O 10 C1.0 7 <1.0 11 <1.0

Ba 100 11 2.4 6 0.5 8 0.6
Cd” 1.o 23 21.7 I 0.3 33 0.7
Cr 5.0 10 <o. I 6 <o. 1 12 <o. 1
Pbb 5.0 25 31.0 7 2.1 36 5.4
Hg 0.2 10 <0.01 6 c0.02 8 <0.02
Se 1 .o 10 0.03 6 <0.02 12 <0.01
As 5.0 10 0.05 6 0.03 8

“23 fly ash and 3 combined ash samples exceeded limit.

b21 fly ash and 16 combined ash samples exceeded limit.

Source: Waste Age, Sept. 1987, p. 89.

The data in this table are interesting in that they suggest that it may be ad-
vantageous to provide for separate disposal of the bottom ash from the fly ash. Fly
ash tended to exceed the regulatory limits for cadmium and lead, whereas the bot-
tom ash was acceptable for all metals. When the bottom and fly ash are combined,
the lead standard is still violated on the average. In some samples, the combined
ash also violated the cadmium standard. The quantity of bottom ash is generally
considerably more than the fly ash, so separation of the two ashes may result in a
lower ash disposal cost, especially if one ash is designated as hazardous.

PRODUCTS AND CAPITAL COSTS OF INCINERATION (MASS-BURN) SYSTEM

Historically, the only objective of incineration was the destruction of the combus-
tible fraction of refuse. As the environmental standards required more air pollution
control, the operational philosophy had to be changed to accommodate these stan-
dards. One major problem was dissipation of the excess heat generated by the com-
bustion process. Because of the air pollution control equipment, it was not feasible
to use the massive quantities of excess air for cooling the furnace. Heat recovery by
the installation of boilers was instituted. Marketing of the steam was difficult be-
cause of the inability to transport steam any significant distance. Several plants
constructed close to a major steam user were able to sell the steam for use in manu-
facturing processes. As the number of plants increased, it became more difficult to
find the steam markets. The prospects of generating electricity from this steam was
investigated and markets have been developed. The passage of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) required the electric utilities to buy any electricity
produced at a price reflecting their avoided cost (Le., the cost of the fuel). This is
Chap. 9 Products and Capital Costs of Incineration (Mass-Burn) System

Table 9.18 Status of waste-to-energy facilities:

1986 versus 1988

Number of facilities

Status 1986 1988

~ ~ ~~

Conceptual 75 139
Advanced planning 72 63
Construction 25 28
Shakedown I 4
Shutdown
Temporary 8 5
Permanent 19 21

Source: Waste Age, Nov. 1988, p. 61.

about half of the price paid by the consumer. In 1988, these prices ranged from
$0.0369 in the southern region to $0.07 19 per kilowatt hour in the northeastern
region of the country.6
Despite problems with air emissions, incineration or waste-to-energy plants
continue to be considered as a solution to the refuse disposal problem for many
urban areas. Table 9.18 compares activity in the development of new facilities in
1986 and 1988. These data indicate a strong commitment to this technology. The
capital required for construction of sufficient capacity to process all of the refuse is
substantial. The projected expenditures for all the facilities in the conceptual and
advanced planning stage would be approximately $20.7 billion.
Table 9.19 presents capital costs for waste-to-energy facilities. The data vary
considerably because of the variety and sizes of systems considered. Also, some of
the systems have been constructed for several years and were not subject to the
tighter emission standards. Today, a waste-to-energy plant will be in the range of
$200,000 per todday capacity. For example, a 1000-todday facility will have a
capital cost in the range of $200 million. In addition to the amortized capital cost,

Table 9.19 Capital cost of waste-to-energy facilities

$1000
Mass burn Capital costa Capacity
(158 plants) (IO6 $) (tons/day) Capacity (tondday)

Total 14,485 131,684

Mean 92 833 110
Range 2-445 36-4800 29-219

aCapital costs are 1990 dollars.

Source: Waste Age, Nov. 1986, p. 27.

‘waste Age, Nov. 1988, p. 61.

204 Combustion Principles and Mass-Burn Design Chap. 9

an operation and maintenance cost of perhaps $30 per ton must be considered. De-
spite these high capital and operating costs, the tip fees projected for new facilities
are in the range of $40 per ton. The revenue from the energy sales is sufficient
to reduce significantly the revenue needed from the tip fees. It is worth noting
that many of the projected tip fees increase substantially by the time the facility is
on line.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1 . Define ‘‘combustion.”
2. What four general conditions are necessary to achieve good combustion?
3. What occurs in each of the three combustion zones associated with combus-
tion of a solid fuel?
4. What factors have been responsible for the increase in furnace temperatures of
refuse combustion systems?
5 . If complete combustion is ultimately achieved in a furnace, what is the effect
of the formation of intermediate combustion products during combustion on
the total heat release?
6. What is the effect of the oxidation state of carbon in a fuel on (a) the high
heating value, and (b) the low heating value.
7. Compute the average oxidation number of the carbon in these materials:
C6Hi4, C~jHiz06,and C6Hi,O,-
8. What is the difference between a gram-mole (g-mol) and a pound-mole (lb-mol)?
9. If 1 lb-mol occupies 359 scf at 32°F and 1 atm, what is the volume at
(a) 1800°F and 0.5 atm, and (b) 1800°F and 1 atm?
10. Convert the following volumetric analysis of dry products of combustion to a
gravimetric analysis: CO,, 8%; 0,, 6%; N,, 86%.
11. Convert the following gravimetric analysis of a solid fuel to a volumetric anal-
ysis: C, 39%; H, 7%; 0, 52%; N, 2%.
12. What is the purpose of providing excess air for combustion systems?
13. A prepared RDF has been found to have the following composition:

Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis

~ ~

Moisture 22% Carbon 51.5%

Inorganic 19.5% Hydrogen 7.5%
Organic 58.5% Oxygen 41.4%

Calculate the theoretical air requirements as (a) lb/lb of RDF and (b) scf/lb
RDF.
Chap. 9 Study Questions 205

14. For the fuel in Question 13, calculate the composition of the dry gaseous
combustion products (% by volume and % by weight) with 50% excess air.
15. For the fuel in Question 13, calculate the volume and mass of total gaseous
products of combustion if the combustion gases are cooled to 340°F by a
steam recovery boiler.
16. What is the need for computing (a) the mass of the combustion products, and
(b) the composition of the dry products of combustion?
17. What is enthalpy? How does enthalpy change in a combustion reaction?
18. What is AH,, and how is it determined for a solid fuel?
19. How is the enthalpy of a substance determined at a temperature other than the
reference temperature?
20. For the fuel in Question 13, calculate total heat recovery with the refuse and
combustion air at 77°F and the gaseous combustion products at 340°F. The
dry refuse has a calorific value of 6500 Btullb.
21. For Question 20, calculate the total heat recovery with the combustion air at
40°F rather than 77°F.
22. When calculating heat balances, what special considerations are required for
both the fuel moisture and the combustion water?
23. Given the following gaseous products of combustion, calculate the heat loss
per pound of fuel associated with these products using the average values for
the C, and a final temperature of 350°F: CO,, 1.1 lb; 0,, 0.45 lb; N,, 4.44
lb; H,O, 0.59 lb. The fuel and air temperature is 77°F.
24. What factors dictate the size and geometry of an incineration system?
25. What type of grate is most suitable for the combustion of unprocessed refuse?
Why?
26. What are the design and operating objectives of an incinerator to minimize air
pollution problems?
27. What are the air pollutants of primary concern? What are the procedures for
controlling these pollutants?
28. How does the refuse processing associated with the preparation of RDF re-
duce the air pollution potential of solid waste?
29. What concerns are involved in the disposal of incinerator ash?
Bioconversion
of Urban Refuse:
Fuel Gas Production

SOLID WASTE AS A SUBSTRATE FOR BIOPROCESSES

The organic matter present in refuse presents a significant disposal problem while
providing a large, renewable source of organic material that has the potential to be
converted into useful chemicals and fuels. The approximately 150 million tons of
refuse generated each year has an energy content of 1.5 Q (quadrillion Btu). This is
the equivalent of 75 million tons of coal if all of the refuse is incinerated. However,
much of the organic matter, mainly paper, food waste, and yard and garden debris,
can be converted biologically to a number of products, including ethanol, methane
(CH,), and carbon dioxide (CO,).
Equation ( 1 ) describes the first biological transformation that occurs with the
complex biodegradable fibers present in solid waste. Cellulose is the major fiber
in various refuse constituents. In the initial reaction the cellulose is ultimately
hydrolyzed to glucose. Cellulose hydrolysis is a very slow process that limits the
rate of biological activity in the refuse.

Hydrolysis Reaction
( C d 1 0 0 5 ) ~+ x H20 + x C6H 1 2 0 6 (1)
Equation (2) shows the reaction for the fermentation of the glucose to ethanol (ethyl
alcohol). This is but one of the intermediate reactions that can occur. With selection of
the proper organism, the product of the fermentation can be specified. Microorganisms
can produce a variety of chemicals, including several short-chain organic acids and
alcohols. These products have commercial value in the industrial chemical markets.

206
Chap. 10 Solid Waste as a Substrate for Bioprocesses 207

Fermentation reaction
+
C6HI2O6 2H20 + 2CH3CH20H + 2HCO; + 2H' (2)
A number of researchers has investigated the prospects for production of commer-
cial quantities of these chemicals. Technologies have been developed for the pro-
duction of both chemicals and fuels from the biodegradable organic fraction in
refuse. However, the costs are much greater than when a well-defined substrate is
used. The cost of processing the refuse to obtain a consistent-quality substrate is
very high. Because of the solubility of the fermentation products, recovery from the
fermentation liquor adds considerable cost to the processing. To date, these pro-
cesses have not been economically practical on solid waste. Certain industrial resi-
dues have been used for these fermentations. In 1989, about 800 million gallons of
ethanol were produced by the grain milling industry for use as an octane enhancer
in gasoline. Much of the carbohydrate used as raw material was from spoiled or
contaminated grain and residues from the milling process. The economic success of
these fermentations was, in part, based on special tax incentives provided by the
federal government during the energy crisis of the 1970s.
The most promising process for recovery of a useful product from refuse is
methane fermentation. This process occurs naturally in a sanitary landfill and can
be incorporated into an engineered system that produces a fuel gas. A brief outline
of the reactions occurring during methane fermentation is presented below. In
methane fermentation, complex organic fibers such as cellulose are converted
anaerobically by a consortium of bacteria into CH, and CO,. Methane fermentation
can best be described by a three-stage scheme. In the first stage, the polymers are
hydrolyzed and fermented by hydrolytic and fermentative bacteria to primarily fatty
acids and alcohols [equations (1) and (2)]. These fermentation products are then
oxidized to acetic acid and CO, by obligate H,-producing acetogenic bacteria
[equation (3)]. Finally, methanogenic bacteria produce CH, from the reduction of
CO, with the H, produced from the reaction shown in equation (3) and the cleavage
of acetic acid [equations (4)and ( 5 ) ] .

Acetogenic reaction
2CH3CH20H + 2H20 + 2CH3COO- + 2H+ + 4H2 (3)

Methanogenic reactions
4H2 + HCO; + H+ + CH4 + 3H20
CH3COO- + H20 + CH4 + HCO;
The CO, that is produced by the metabolism of the substrate will either re-
main in the aqueous phase or escape into the product gas together with the meth-
ane. The amount of CO, absorbed is influenced by a number of factors, such as
temperature, partial pressure of CO, in the gas phase, pH, bicarbonatekarbonate
 208 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

alkalinity, and ionic strength. The equilibrium solubility of CH, and CO, may be
described by Henry’s law and aqueous CO, dissociation equations.

FUEL GAS PRODUCTION FROM REFUSE

A number of research studies was conducted during the late 1960s and the 1970s on
techniques to utilize this natural methane fermentation process to recover a fuel gas
from solid waste. These studies were sufficiently promising, and with the Middle
East oil embargo of the mid-l970s, encouraged federal agencies to fund a proof-
of-concept experiment. In May 1975, a contract was awarded to Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., for installation of this facility at their Pompano Beach, Florida, Solid
Waste Reduction Center.

Initial Pilot Plant Evaluation

The site selected for construction of the Refuse Conversion to Methane (RefCoM)
project was an operating sanitary landfill. RefCoM, with a nominal capacity of
10 tons/hour, received a slipstream from a vertical shaft hammer mill rated at 62.5
tons/hour that was being used to prepare refuse for landfill cover. The primary
shredded refuse passed through a trommel screen that removed fine inorganic ma-
terial such as shattered glass, sand, and ash. Then a second-stage horizontal ham-
mer mill reduced the size of the particles to pass through 3-in. grate openings,
producing a relatively uniform particle size. From the shredder the refuse was con-
veyed to an air classifier, which produced a “light” fraction consisting of low-
density organic material for feed to the fermentation reactors. A “heavy” fraction
containing high-density inorganic material was landfilled.
This “light” fraction was conveyed to the premix tank, where the fermenter
feed slurry was prepared. Appropriate quantities of makeup water, recycle liquor,
chemicals, and in some cases, sewage sludge were added to prepare the desired
feed slurry. Steam was also injected at this point, to heat the feed slurry to obtain
the desired fermentation temperature. Two 50-ft-diameter mechanically mixed reac-
tors, each approximately 45,000 ft3, were constructed. The fermenters were oper-
ated under a specified experimental program. The overflow from the tanks flowed
by gravity to the vacuum filter, where the slurry was dewatered. The filtrate from
the vacuum filter was used as makeup water to slurry the incoming dry refuse. This
recycle eliminated the need for the disposal of a large quantity of contaminated
water, which would require treatment at a significant cost prior to discharge.

Revised Facility Design

The severe operational problems that were encountered with the original refuse sepa-
ration processes necessitated a complete reevaluation of this technology. The air
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 209

classification process was totally unsatisfactory for preparing the feed for the fer-
mentation tanks. Experience in Europe and in the United States with rotary drum
screens (trommel screens) for the separation of refuse components was very posi-
tive. The concept of screening was appealing since separation is on the basis of
particle size and not density. Therefore, the screens are less susceptible to moisture
content and aerodynamic properties of the particles. In addition, the power required
to operate a screening system is about an order of magnitude less than that required
for the air separation system. The initial RefCoM refuse separation subsystem was
replaced with a combination of disk screens of different sizes that produced an ideal
feed for the methane fermentation system. The screening produced a feed that was
free of cans and bottles and had particles between and 2 in. Only a portion of the
shredded refuse stream from the Solid Waste Reduction Center was used. The bal-
ance was diverted to the landfill.

Methane Fermentation System

The methane and carbon dioxide produced by this process are a result of the activ-
ity of the microorganisms present in the anaerobic fermenters. These reactors are
designed and operated such that the optimum conditions necessary for growth of
these organisms are maintained. These conditions can be separated into two general
areas as follows:
1. Physical environment
(a) Aqueous homogeneous suspension
(b) Thermophilic fermentation temperature
(c) Gastight reactor
2. Chemical environment
(a) Neutral pH
(b) Adequate nutrients

Physical environment. The product from the refuse separation subsystem is

relatively dry, with a typical moisture content of 25 to 35%. Uninhibited microbial
activity generally occurs at moisture contents greater than 75%. An equally impor-
tant consideration is the physical properties of a concentrated slurry. Because of the
paper content of the feed solids, the viscosity of the slurry increases dramatically as
the moisture content decreases. As the moisture content drops below 90%, the
slurry begins to lose its fluid properties, significantly increasing the difficulty of
transporting and mixing the slurry. Consequently, water is added to the feed from
the stockpile to obtain a slurry solids concentration compatible with the reactor
system. This water is obtained by recycle of the filtrate generated from dewatering
of the fermented slurry.
Mixing plays an important role in the successful operation of this reactor. The
degree of mixing must be sufficient to maintain a relatively homogeneous slurry.
210 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

Because of the long retention time of the solids in these reactors, a high rate of
mixing is not necessary. Mass transfer is not a consideration. However, it is impor-
tant that zones of stagnation be prevented from developing. Heavy inorganic solids
can accumulate in these zones and reduce the effective reactor volume. The design
objective of the mixer is to move heavy solids to the withdrawal point on the bot-
tom of the tank, where they can be removed from the reactor. Similar problems can
also be encountered with floating material, especially plastics (Styrofoam). Design
of a mixer with sufficient power input to keep these materials from separating is not
practical or necessary. Alternating slurry withdrawal between the top and the bot-
tom of the reactor can prevent the accumulation of heavy, inert solids and float-
ing plastics.
The rates of methane production are substantially higher at temperatures in
the thermophilic range (130 to 140"F, 55 to 60°C) compared to operation in the
mesophilic range (95"F, 35°C). The traditional drawbacks of operating at thermo-
philic temperatures do not exist with this system. The feed slurry has a high solids
concentration, 12 to 15%, greatly reducing the amount of water to be heated. A
major portion of this water is warm, recycled filtrate, so little heat is required to
achieve the desired slurry temperature. However, heat transfer must be considered
carefully since the heat-conducting properties of the slurry are very poor. Direct
steam injection into the feed stream or the reactor is the recommended technique
for heating the reactor contents.
The reactor must be designed to be gastight. The gas produced by the fermen-
tation must be captured if it is to be marketed. Any gas loss will mean a decline in
this revenue stream and will create a potentially explosive mix of air and methane.
It is equally important to prevent air from entering the reactor, for two reasons. If
sufficient air enters the reactor to develop a methane content between about 5 and
15% by volume, an explosive mixture exists. Also, the methanogenic bacteria are
sensitive to the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of the reactor slurry. If enough
oxygen enters the reactor to elevate the ORP, the methane fermentation will cease.

Chemical environment. The methanogenic bacteria are sensitive to pH and

are inhibited when the pH drops below 6.6. Refuse is traditionally deficient in the
natural alkalinity needed to control pH. In addition, the oxidation state of the car-
bon in carbohydrates is such that the gas produced by this fermentation is 50%
carbon dioxide. This high partial pressure of CO, in the gas phase will depress the
reactor pH and require a higher level of alkalinity to maintain a neutral pH. Since
the alkalinity formed by the decomposition of the substrate is not adequate, addi-
tional alkalinity must be added to the reactor. Lime is generally the most economi-
cal source.
The lime requirements are significantly reduced by recycle of the filtrate. This
recycle also reduces the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus required to satisfy the
nutritional requirements of the microorganisms. As a result of the filtrate recycle,
only intermittent additions of nutrients are required. Micronutrients such as sulfur
and trace metals are available in sufficient quantities from the refuse.
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 211

Table 10.1 Fermenter loading conditions

Average feed rate (tons/day) Loading

(Ib vol. solids/
Test runs Classified lights Volatile solids ft3-day)

1 5.9 4.3 0.25

2 14.7 1.6 0.54
3 9.4 4.4 0.31
4 5.4 2.9 0.20
5 10.0 5.1 0.33
6 7.1 3.3 0.19
7 14.3 6.5 0.38
8 11.8 6.7 0.61
9 9.5 5. I 0.49
10 17.6 7.9 0.49

RefCoM pilot plant fermenter performance. After modifications to the

refuse processing subsystem were made, data were collected on the fermenter per-
formance. Table 10.1 shows the loading conditions on the reactors during the test
runs. The classified lights fed are the weights of the processed refuse, including the
moisture as measured by the weigh belt on the feed to the premix tank. The volatile
solids represent the dry ash-free solids in the classified lights. Table 10.1 also
shows the volumetric loading on the reactor. Loadings as high as 0.61 lb of volatile
solids per cubic foot per day were achieved.
The data in Table 10.2 are representative of the more traditional operating
parameters for the reactors. Retention times investigated ranged from a low of 6.4
days to a high of 26.6 days. During the entire period of operation, the temperature
was maintained in the thermophilic range of 135 to 140°F (57 to 60°C).The previ-
ous laboratory studies and the subsequent economic analysis strongly support ther-
mophilic operation. The ability to feed a concentrated slurry was demonstrated. A

Table 10.2 Fermenter operating conditions

Fermenter solids (%)

Test Retention Feed slurry
run time (days) concentration (%) Total Volatile

1 10.0 4.5 2.99 2. I9

2 6.4 6.5 4.37 2.97
3 8.6 5.0 3.09 2.26
4 12.6 4.5 2.68 1.93
5 9.8 6.5 4.05 2.95
6 26.6 9.3 2.67 2.00
I 13.5 9.4 3.60 2.76
8 10.1 10.3 6.33 4.65
9 9.0 1.5 4.19 3.64
10 10.5 9.0 4.02 2.91
212 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

Table 10.3 RefCoM gas production data

Volatile Gas production

Retention solids (scf/lb vol. solids fed)
Test time destruction
run (days) (%) Total CH,
1 10.0 43.6 5.9 3.1
2 6.4 45.6 6.2 2.7
3 8.6 46.3 6.2 3.2
4 12.6 52.1 1.0 3.8
5 9.8 42.6 5.8 3.1
6 26.6 75.1 10.1 5.5
7 13.5 66.3 8.9 4.8
8 10.1 52.4 7.0 3.1
9 9.0 47. I 6.3 3.4
10 10.5 63.2 8.5 4.5

slurry with solids concentrations as high as 10.3% was fed into the fermenters,
resulting in a reactor slurry solids concentration of 6.33%.
Table 10.3 shows the gas production data for the test periods indicated. Fre-
quent data on the influent and effluent solids were obtained so that it was possible
to compute solids balances on the reactors as well as the volatile solids destruction
in the reactor. Since the dominant biodegradable organic material in the refuse was
carbohydrate, gas production was computed based on a gas production of 13.5 scf/
lb volatile solids destroyed. The methane production was determined from the mea-
sured gas composition. The gas composition was relatively consistent during
periods of “steady-state” operation. The methane content ranged between 50 and
54%. The pH was maintained about 7.0 by the addition of lime. The RefCoM data
are better than the data on gas production obtained from prior thermophilic labora-
tory studies. ’
A belt-filter press with a stainless steel belt was obtained to evaluate the de-
waterability of the fermenter slurry. The process was used in a production mode
and was never operated under optimum conditions. Under these conditions, the de-
watering system was able to reduce the moisture content of the fermenter slurry to
below 70%. It has been demonstrated that the dewatering characteristics of the
RefCoM digested solid wastes are much superior to those of digested sewage
sludge. Chemicals were not needed to condition the slurry prior to filtration. The
concentration of total solids in the filtrate from the belt press stabilized at approxi-
mately 2.5%. The belt was a very porous weave that passed a substantial quantity
of small particles. This low solids capture was not a problem since the filtrate was
recycled to the fermenter.

‘J. T. Pfeffer, “Temperature Effects on Anaerobic Fermentation of Domestic Refuse,”’ Biotechnology

and Bioengineering, Vol. 16, 1974, pp. 771-787.
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 213

Table 10.4 Material balance for the refuse separation subsystem

Dry solids (tonslday)

Biodegradable Combustible Inert Water

Refuse feed 225.9 40.8 57.4 75.8
Stockpile 133.5 22.4 23.0 62.2
Incinerator 90.0 15.7 7.7 5.3
Landfill 2.8 2.6 21.7 8.3
Ferrous 0 0 3.8 0
A 1uminum 0 0 1.1 0

Final System Configuration and Performance

An extensive evaluation of the refuse separation unit processes was combined with
the results of the RefCoM field tests to develop a computer model that can be used
to calculate the mass and energy balances and generate cost information on the
system. The essential components of the refuse separation system have been pre-
sented in Chapter 8 (see Figure 8.22). In addition to the aluminum and ferrous
streams, there are three streams generated from the refuse separation processes; a
stream rich in organic materials for feed to the fermenter, a combustible oversize
for feed to the incinerator and an inorganic stream that goes to the landfill. A com-
puter model of the separation processes has been developed that includes a variety
of screen sizes, air knifes, air stoners, and ferrous and aluminum recovery. It does
not, however, include the paper separation process, the “wet trommel.” Table 10.4
shows the computed splits for a 400-ton/day (2000-todweek) facility assuming a
5-day operating week for the front end. The combustible fraction represents non-
biodegradable organic materials such as plastics, textiles, and rubber. These num-
bers represent the mass balance only on the separation subsystem. The dewatered
cake from the fermenter also goes to the incinerator, and the ash from the inciner-
ator is landfilled.
This scheme represents the baseline processing that would be involved in a
complete system. A significant quantity of biodegradable organic components is
still being diverted to the incinerator. This material is primarily paper that is part of
the coarse screen reject. Recovery of this paper with the installation of a plastic/
paper separator (“wet trommel”) must be balanced against a reduction in the
amount of steam (electricity) that can be produced by the incinerator.
Figure 10.1 is a block diagram of all of the subsystems employed in this in-
tegrated system model. Mass balance calculations for the refuse separation pro-
cesses are based on 5 days/week, while the fermentation process is operated 7 days/
week. This example is for 400 tons/day or 2000 tondweek for the 5-day operation.
It is easier to consider the total system capacity on a weekly rather than daily basis
when doing mass balances.
214 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

iMetals

biodegradable Biodegradables
combustibles
Sewage sludge
. CHI

Digester
cleanup

Wastewater

Incinerator/boiler
Inerts

Landfill

Figure 10.1 RefCoM plant schematic diagram.

The mass balances on the fermenters and the incinerator are shown in Tables
10.5 and 10.6, respectively. Separated refuse is fed from the stockpile to the fer-
menters daily, which is necessary to maintain a balanced fermentation process. The
input streams to the fermenter consist of the sewage sludge, refuse, and recycled
filtrate. Fermented slurry and the product gas streams are the output from this pro-
cess. For this example, the retention time in the reactors is 12 days, resulting in a
biodegradable solids reduction of 65%. The methane production is 1 million cubic
feet per day, with 933,000 ft3 of carbon dioxide production. The feed slurry solids
concentration is 12%, and the destruction of solids in the reactor results in a reactor
slurry solids of 6.8%.

Table 10.5 Mass Balance on the Fermentation Reactors

Input (tondday) Output (tons/day)

Sludge Refuse Filtrate Total Slurry Gas

Biodegradable 10.0 95.2 10.0 115.2 40.3 74.9

Combustible 0.0 16.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 0.0
Inerts 4.3 16.4 6.9 27.6 27.6 0.0
Water 462.4 44.4 657.1 1164.5 1152.6 11.9
Moisture (%) 97.0 25.8 97.5 88.0 93.2 19.0
Gas production: CO,, 933,300 scf/day; CH4, I ,01 I ,OOO scf/day
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 215

Table 10.6 Mass balance on incineration

Input (tondweek) Output (tons/week)

Screen Filter Total Ash Gas

Biodegradable 450.0 169.4 619.4 0.0 619.4

Combustible 78.5 112.0 190.5 0.0 190.5
Inerts 38.5 116.2 154.7 154.7 0.0
Water 26.5 677.6 704.1 0.0 704. I
Moisture (%) 19.1 63.0 42.2
Gross heat available: 1 . 1 X IO9 Btu/day

The fermented slurry is dewatered and the cake along with the oversize from
the coarse disk screen are fed to the incinerator, resulting in a feed rate of 138
tondday of dry solids (238 tons/day of wet solids). The data in Table 10.6 are
expressed in tons per week because of the different operating periods for these pro-
cesses discussed previously. The 238 tons/day of wet solids fed to the incinerator
are reduced to 22.1 tons/day of a dry ash that must be landfilled. The combustion
process converts 115.7 tons/day of combustible solids to COz and water and evapo-
rates 100 tons/day of moisture.
The Btu content of the incinerator feed based on 8600 Btu/lb combustible
solids is 2.0 X lo9 Btu/day. Allowing for heat to evaporate the moisture and heat
losses in the incinerator, about 1 . 1 X lo9 Btu/day is available for recovery. Some of
this energy is required for process heat (Table 10.7). Heat is required to elevate the
temperature of the incoming solids and water in both the refuse and sludge streams.
Radiant heat losses from the reactors must be replaced and heat is required for
evaporation of water necessary to maintain water vapor in equilibrium with the gas
phase at 140°F. When these heating requirements are satisfied, there is about
0.95 X lo9 Btu/day available for recovery. There are several options for use of the
steam. The magnitude of the electrical power demand makes a strong case for gen-
erating electricity for on-site use. With power costs in the range of $0.05 to 0.10

Table 10.7 System heat balance

Heat (Btulday)
~

Heat refuse feed solids 6,622,200

Heat refuse moisture 7,204,200
Heat sludge solids 742,000
Heat sludge moisture 74,945,000
Reactor heat losses 41,064,200
Gas water vapor 24,180,300

Total heat used 154,757,900

Gross heat available I , 100,000,000
Net heat available 945,242,100
216 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

Table 10.8 Unit process energy demand

Energy demand
(kWW)

Shredder 356,449
Separation subsystem 29 1,432
Reactor mixers 2,505,813
Gas processing 1 13,234,026
Slurry dewatering 183,763
Incinerator 3,176,263
Miscellaneous 1,431,796

21,178,522

per kilowatt hour, the annual power costs will be in the range of $1,000,000 to
$2,000,000. This would buy a lot of capital for the addition of a generating unit to
the incinerator.
The electrical demands of several processes are significant. Table 10.8 pre-
sents the power requirements for the various unit processes. The refuse separation
processes have a line capacity of 50 tons/hour and operate only 8 hours/day, 5 days/
week. The reactor mixers, incinerator, and gas processing unit operate continuously,
while the balance of the processes operate 16 hours/day, 7 days/week. Gas cleaning
and compression is the dominant power user. This produces gas at 975 psig for
injection into a gas transmission line. The incinerator and the reactor mixers are the
next major consumers of electricity. The shredder is a relative low power user be-
cause of the limited size reduction needed.
A mass balance on the total system is given in Table 10.9. These rates are
expressed in tons per week. The input stream consists of 2000 tons/week of refuse
on an as-received basis and 3336.9 tons/week of sewage sludge that is 97% water.
The output streams include the recovered metals and the methane and carbon diox-
ide. The incinerator stack gases account for 1514 tonslweek, about half of which is
water from the sludge and refuse. An additional 2858.8 tons/week of water is re-
turned to the wastewater treatment plant. Of the 2000 tons/week of refuse pro-
cessed, only 331.2 tons/week go to the landfill. This is a reduction in weight of

Table 10.9 Mass balance on total system (tons/week)

Input Gas streams
Material
Refuse Sludge recovered CH4/C0, Incinerator Landfill Sewer
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~

Biodegradable 1130.0 70.0 0.0 524.3 619.4 14.0 42.7

Combustible 204.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 190.5 13.3 0.0
Inert 287.0 30.1 24.5 0.0 0.0 263.2 29.4
Water 379.0 3236.8 0.0 83.3 704. I 41.3 2786.7
- - - - - - -
2000.0 3336.9 24.5 607.6 1514.0 331.8 2858.8
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 217

disposed material of 83%. However, the volume reduction is even greater. With
in-place densities of 1000 Ib/yd3 for refuse in a landfill, the 2000 tons will occupy
4000 yd3. The in-place density of the residue and ash would be about 2000 lb/yd3.
The volume occupied by the ash is about 330 yd3, or a volume reduction of 92%.
The life of the landfill would be greatly extended.

Economic Evaluation

The following discussion of an economic evaluation of the RefCoM system can be

applied to any refuse-processing operation. A number of options are always avail-
able in the design of any facility, and the decision regarding which option to select
will invariably be based on an economic evaluation, The following example is a
synopsis of the evaluation of the RefCoM process as a means for disposal of solid
waste while producing a useful form of energy.
The 400-ton/day facility described above, planned to process 400 tonslday on
a 5-day/week basis or 2000 tons/week, was used as the base case for this economic
evaluation. When the plant is operational, the operating expenses and bond pay-
ments must be offset by its revenues. The expenses included here are those for
personnel, power, water, equipment replacement, maintenance materials and sup-
plies, landfill disposal, and GS&A expenses. These expenses are inflated each year
at 5 % .
The plant receives revenues from the sale of methane, carbon dioxide, and
recovered metals, the tipping fee for the solid waste, the fee for the sewage sludge
disposal, and the interest earned on the bond payment reserve.

Base case. This is the system discussed in Chapter 7. The revenues and
expenses for the first year of operation of the base case system are presented in
Table 7.2. The base case estimate of the capital requirements and the cash flow for
the facility are presented in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 for an equity contribution of 25%.
The cash flow for the 20-year economic life of the system presented in Table
7.4 shows the revenues exclusive of those generated by the tipping fee. The tipping
fee is determined by the difference between the bond payment and the operating
expenses and other revenues plus the required pretax income. The income from the
bond reserve and the expense of the bond payment are constant over the life of the
project (with the exception of the return of the bond payment reserve at the end of
the project). Expenses and revenues other than methane are assumed to increase
with inflation (5%). Methane revenues are inflated according to the Gas Research
Institute’s gas price projections.* The methane revenues increase with inflation as
well as resource depletion.
The tipping fee required to cover the difference between the expenses
and other revenues presented in Table 7.4 may be determined quite readily. The

*Ann Ashby, Gas Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1986.

218 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

90 -

80 -

5
< 70
-
8
Q,

-8
F
60-
---- Average PTIR
r -0- 10% First-year PTIR
m
.-
2 50-
F
40 -

I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Equity (%)

Figure 10.2 Base case economics for the RefCoM process.

additional tipping fee required to provide a profitable operation depends on the

measure of acceptable return. The same three measures as discussed in Chapter 7
are investigated here:

1 . At least 10% first-year pretax income ratio

2. At least 25 to 30% average pretax income ratio (PTIR)
3. At least 25 to 30% average annual pretax return on invested equity (ROI)

The objective of this exercise is to find the equity contribution yielding the
minimum tipping fee that satisfies all three profit measures presented above. Figure
10.2 presents the results of the runs made using the base case cost estimates. The
tipping fee for each equity position and profit constraint is calculated and plotted in
this figure. Each line plots the 1990 tipping fees that are required to satisfy the
foregoing constraints for the range of equity that might be put forward.
The feasible regions shown in Figure 10.2 are equitykipping fee combinations
that satisfy all three constraints. Region 1 satisfies the condition of 25% average
return on investment (ROI) and 10% first-year pretax investment ration (PTIR).
Region 2 is a subset of region 1 and satisfies the tighter constraints of 30% average
ROI and 30% average PTIR. Notice that the requirement for a 10%first-year PTIR
exceeds the requirement for a 25% average PTIR in the feasible region. The 10%
first-year PTIR rather than the 25% average PTIR is the controlling factor for set-
ting the tipping fee under this scenario. Putting forth 12 to 15% equity gives the
lowest tipping fees in feasible regions. Those tipping fees would be in the range of
$55 to $57 per ton.
Chap. 10 Fuel Gas Production from Refuse 219

TablelO.10 Composition of the incinerator feed

Constituent Tonslday

Biodegradable combustibles 89
Nonbiodegradable combustibles 27
lnerts 22
Water 100
-
238

Base case with internal energy generation. The base case does not utilize
the large amount of heat energy that results from incineration of the fermenter resi-
due and the nonbiodegradable combustible streams. The composition of the stream
fed to the incinerator is presented in Table 10.10. Assuming that the biodegradable
organic materials have a heating value of 7000 Btu/lb dry solids and the nonbio-
degradable combustible solids have one of 14,000 Btu/lb dry solids, a total of
78 million Btu/hr is available. Assuming that it takes 1900 Btu to evaporate 1 lb of
water (including furnace efficiencies and the enthalpy of the water vapor), and that
the waste heat boiler is 67% efficient, the heat available as steam is estimated at
42,000 lb/hr. About 6600 lb/hr of low-pressure steam is required for digester heat-
ing, leaving about 35,000 lb/hr of excess steam. This steam may be sold to other
industrial steam users, used to drive in-plant machinery (compressors, mixers, etc.)
or used to generate electricity for in-plant use and/or sale. If the latter option is
chosen and assuming that the efficiency of a single-stage turbine is about 50%, the
potentially available generated power is 5350 kW.
The base case employed an estimate of $5.2 million for the capital, engineer-
ing, and construction supervision for the incineration unit. The additional cost as-
sociated with power generation (turbine, generator, condenser, etc.) is $8.8 million.
Due to the mode of operation of the plant, there will be different power de-
mands at different times of the day and week. There will also be different rates paid
by a power company for on-peak versus off-peak periods. Using rates of $0.02 and
$0.016 per kilowatt for on- and off-peak periods, respectively, for the appropriate
excess electricity generated throughout the week, a revenue stream of $242,100 per
year will be obtained. As a result of the addition of internal generation of electric-
ity, the deviation from the base case is summarized as follows:

1. The addition of $242,100 per year in electricity sales

2. The removal of $1,688,000 per year in power costs
3. The addition of $8,800,000 in capital costs

The results of this case are presented in Figure 10.3. Note that the require-
ment for a 10% first-year PTIR dominates the requirement for an average PTIR of
25 or 30% and that when combined with the ROI requirement, gives a tipping fee
of $44.50 and $46.50 per ton at 25 and 30% ROI, respectively.
220 Bioconversion of Urban Refuse: Fuel Gas Production Chap. 10

70 r
I --", .

----
Region 2 ROI

- 60
Average PTIR

1
C
+-0 Ef --- 10% First-war PTlR
8 50
s
ar
.+-
p 40
.-n
P
i=
30

20
20 40
LIII-J
60 80 100
Equity (%)
Figure 10.3 RefCoM economics: base case with internal energy generation.

100% public financing. Perhaps private investors would not want to risk
their capital even with a 30% ROI and 30% PTIR. What would be the effect of a
zero-equity financing arrangement on the economics of a 400-todday RefCoM fa-
cility? Table 10.11 presents the capital requirements in 1990 dollars for the base
case with and without internal energy generation for zero equity invested.
Without some equity financing, the bond issue should increase, although not
proportional to the amount of equity replaced. In the base case, decreasing the
equity from 25% to 0% increased the bond issue from $29,474,000 to $32,600,000
(a 10% increase), while with the base case with internal energy generation the bond
issue increased from $39,000,000 to $42,500,000 (a 9% increase). Taking these
costs, the other annual expenses, and the revenues other than the refuse tipping fee,
a break-even tipping fee can be determined (Table 10.12).

Table 10.11 Capital requirements for zero equity

Base Internal power

Case ($IOOO) generation ($IOOO)

Total construction costs 28,862 37,662

Equity 0 0
Bond capital requirement 28,862 31,662
Bond issue costs I , I54 1,506
Bond payment reserve 0 0
Bond payment during construction 4,618 6,026
Interest earned on reserve 0 0
Interest earned on bond payment ( 462) ( 645)
Interest earned on construction funds ( I ,530) (1,996)
Bond issue 32,642 42,553
Chap. 10 Study Questions 221

Table 10.12 Tipping fee calculation for zero equity (1990 dollars)

Other Operating Bond Tipping

revenue expenses payment fee
($1OOO) 61OOO) 6 ($/ton)

Base case 4156 5931 3306 48.90

Base case with 4400 4249 430 1 40.00
internal energy
generation

Installation of the generating plant substantially increased the capital expendi-

ture and the bond issue. The economic justification rests with the cost of electrical
power and the ability to sell the excess power generated. This system has a signif-
icant power demand that imposes a major annual operating cost. The economic
evaluations are very sensitive to power costs and the market value of the excess
power. Even with PURPA, the value of the marketed power is considerably less
than the price paid by the consumer. This cost differential drives the economics of
the RefCoM facility with internal power generation and use.
As shown in Table 10.12, the break-even tipping fee for the base case with
internal energy generation is almost 20% lower than the base case. Assuming (and
that may be a big assumption) that the costs used in presenting this analysis are
accurate, the larger investment will result in a lower tipping fee. Of course, at this
stage of the development of any design, there is a degree of uncertainty associated
with any cost information. However, the larger the difference in the computed tip
fee, the more confidence one can have in the decision.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Describe the biochemical reactions that are required to convert solid waste
into a fuel gas containing methane and carbon dioxide.
2. What process environment is necessary to support methane fermentation at
high rates?
3. Draw a schematic of a system for the biological production of a fuel gas from
solid waste. Identify all of the significant subsystems.
4. What would be typical process parameters for the operation of a fermentation
reactor producing methane from refuse?
5. What is the purpose of the refuse separation subsystem? What fraction of the
refuse was fed to the fermentation reactor?
6. What was the role of the incineration unit in this system?
7. What are the possible revenue streams for this system?
8. How does the production of electricity by incineration of the residual organic
material affect the economic evaluation of this system?
Sanitary Landfill Design
and Operation

SITE CONSIDERATIONS

General Requirements

The general requirements for site selection for any regional waste disposal facility
have been elucidated in Chapter 3. Section 39.2 of Title X of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act sets the following criteria (these requirements are specific for
Illinois sites, but similar requirements can be expected in other states):

1. The facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is

intended to serve.
2. The facility is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the pub-
lic health, safety, and welfare will be protected.
3. The facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of
the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the surround-
ing property.
4. The facility is located outside the boundary of the 100-year floodplain as de-
termined by the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the site is flood-
proofed to meet the standards and the requirements of the Illinois Department
of Transportation and is approved by the department.
5. The plan of operation for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the
surrounding area from fires, spills, or other operational accidents.

222
Chap. 11 Site Considerations 223

6. The traffic patterns to and from the facility are designed as to minimize the
impact on existing traffic flows.
7. If the facility will be treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste, an
emergency response plan exists for the facility, which includes notification,
containment, and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental
release.
8. If the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has adopted
a solid waste management plan, the facility is consistent with the plan.
9. If the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any applicable
requirements specified by the board for such areas have been met.
Condition 7 is contained in the legislation, but would not generally apply to
new sanitary landfill sites since hazardous wastes would not be accepted along with
normal urban refuse. The regulated recharge area referenced in condition 9 are the
areas where significant surface water infiltration occurs and recharges the aquifers
that are groundwater resources.
These requirements are general in nature and can be used to identify specific
site characteristics that are required for a site to be acceptable for a sanitary land-
fill. The specific characteristics include topographic and geologic factors. The im-
portant features are presented in Table 11.1. Steep topography presents a number of
problems. Equipment operation and truck access are more difficult when steep
slopes are encountered. Because of the exposed soil, erosion problems are more
severe as a result of rapid runoff from the steep areas. These problems can be
overcome, but at a cost.

Table 11.I Specific site characteristics for sanitary landfills

Degree of limitation

Factor Severe Moderate Minimal

Land slope >15% 3-15% <3%

Surface Clean sandlgravel Sandlgravel Silty
deposits Heavy organic clay with silt clay
Bedrock depth <IO ft 10-25 ft >25 ft
Bedrock type Fractured Sandstone
limestone
Groundwater
depth <IO ft 10-25 ft >25 ft
Distance to:
Water well <300 ft 300-1000 ft >I000 ft
Floodplain <300 ft 300-1000 ft >I000 ft
Streadlake < I 0 0 0 ft >lo00 ft
Parks <I000 ft >I000 ft
Wetlands Located within

Source: Waste Age. June 1986, p. 88.

224 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

The geology and hydrogeology of the area are more important and less visi-
ble. The availability of sufficient soil suitable for cover material is always a prime
consideration. It is equally important to have subsurface conditions that protect any
groundwater sources. The soil deposits, both in depth and type, the imperviousness
of and distance to the rock strata, and the location of the groundwater table are all
important considerations in site selection. The objective is to maximize the distance
from the landfill to the groundwater table and to have the maximum depth of im-
pervious material between the fill and the water table. This will reduce the possi-
bility that any leachate that may leak from the fill will contaminate the
groundwater.

Soil Properties

The types and quantities of soil available at the site will be significant factors in the
cost of operation of a landfill. Soils are needed to provide the moisture barrier in
the bottom of the fill and also in the cover. The soil must be able to support the
equipment used to transport and place the refuse. When the site is completed, a soil
capable of supporting a good vegetative cover is needed.
Soils are generally classified as to the percentage of clay, sand, and silt. There
are a number of different soil classifications. Two are shown in Figure 11.1, the
U.S. Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service (USDA) and the Uni-
fied Soil Classification System (USCS). The USDA classification has several more
classes than the USCS. Soils are characterized by their particle size as follows:
Clay <0.005 mm
Silt 0.005-0.05 mm
Sand 0.05-2.0 mm
Gravel >2.0 mm
Clay is composed of very fine particles, colloidal in nature. These sizes are,
in part, responsible for the soil characteristics. However, the presence of different
cations and organic compounds can have a major effect on the behavior of the soils,
especially clay and to a lesser degree, silt. Clays are plastic and cohesive. The
presence of organic compounds will increase the compressibility of clays. It is not
sufficient to characterize soils on the basis of particle size alone. The surface prop-
erties of the soils are also very different. The ion-exchange capacity is determined
by the presence of surface ions that can be exchanged. This exchange can alter the
behavior of the soil and change its properties, as well as remove cations from the
water passing through the soil.
The soil properties that are important in a sanitary landfill relate to the activ-
ities associated with operation of a landfill. The following properties are important.
Permeability. A soil with a low permeability is needed to prevent the pas-
sage of water into the fill and the loss of leachate from the landfill. A tight clay is
Chap. 11 Site Considerations 225

100

Percent sand
Figure 11.1 Textural classification of soils.

very effective in this role; a silty clay is less effective but still satisfactory. The
permeability is a function of the particle size and with larger particles, the particle
size distribution. In other cases it is desirable to have a porous soil to control land-
fill gas. The gas will follow the path of least resistance. Soils that have a large
particle size that is relatively uniform will be suited for this role. Uniform gravel or
uniform sand is the soil of choice. Such soils also have a role as drainage layers to
direct the flow of water within the landfill and cover.

Swelling and cracking. Certain soils are very prone to swelling when they
become wet. When these soils dry, they crack, causing a break in the integrity of
the soil layer. Clay and silty clays are particularly susceptible to this problem. Clay,
especially clay with a high organic content, is plastic and very compressible. When
 226 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

loaded it is subject to heaving. When wet, this type of soil is unsuited for support-
ing vehicles, especially collection and transfer vehicles.

Support of vegetation. When the landfill is completed, a final cover is

placed to isolate the refuse from the environment. It is essential to have a good
cover of vegetation to protect the soil from erosion and to serve as a means of
dissipating the water that may infiltrate into the top layers of the cover. These soils
must be able to absorb and retain significant quantities of water as well as plant
nutrients needed for the growth of the vegetative cover. Silt, sandy silt, and to a
lesser degree, clay-sandy silt are desirable soils for this purpose. It is important to
remember that the cover may be constructed of several layers of soil, each having a
specific purpose.

Hydrogeologic Properties of the Site

The selection of a landfill site requires very careful evaluation of the hydrogeology
of the area. As indicated in Table 1 1 . 1 , it is desirable to maximize the distance
between the landfill and the groundwater and to have an impermeable stratum be-
tween them. Figure l l .2 illustrates the type of conditions that may be encountered.
The deep aquifer is a considerable distance below the surface. It is recharged at a
distant point. The travel time is long, so the water level will remain relatively con-
stant. It is also protected by an impervious stratum above. Contamination of this
aquifer is extremely improbable. The shallow aquifer is more vulnerable; the dis-
tance to the landfill is greatly reduced and there is no protective layer. This aquifer
has a high risk of contamination if the landfill is not designed to minimize the
production of and contain all leachate that may be produced.
This figure also illustrates the importance of site selection relative to the
groundwater table. A shallow aquifer is replenished by local precipitation. Conse-

roundwater table

Shallow aquifer
-
Deep aquifer

Impervious strata

Figure 11.2 Hydrogeological considerations in landfill siting.

Chap. 11 Site Considerations 227

I I I I I I
t t t t t t

Groundwater table

*_/----
__---- +L -----_
Ir
1
/
Clay lens

Figure 11.3 Perched groundwater tables.

quently, its level may vary considerably, being near the surface during wet weather.
A landfill located on the high ground will not be likely to come in contact with the
groundwater. However, if the site is closer to the stream, it is possible for the
groundwater to infiltrate the landfill during wet periods. It is very difficult to pre-
vent water from penetrating the bottom of the landfill unless the fill contains a
substantial depth of leachate. Lifting pressure backed by many feet of water head
can be encountered. Rupture of the lining is a strong possibility and the landfill will
become saturated with groundwater. When the water level drops, the contaminated
water will also leak from the fill, causing pollution of the shallow aquifer.
Figure 11.3 illustrates a different groundwater problem that is local in nature.
An impervious layer of soil such as a clay lens may be 20 to 30 ft below the surface
and cover a reasonable area. The precipitation falling in this area will percolate into
the ground and form a perched water table. The level of this water table will vary
substantially, coming very close to the surface during periods of heavy precipita-
tion. Again, the groundwater may penetrate the landfill, causing saturation of the
refuse. When the water level drops, the contaminated water will drain from the fill,
causing serious groundwater pollution. These sites are the most difficult to evaluate
unless there is a historical record of the groundwater table levels at the specific
site. It pays to evaluate any site during wet as well as dry weather conditions.
There usually is a wealth of information available on the hydrogeological con-
ditions within a given area from the state geological surveys or the USDA Soil
Conservation Service. They are the repository for the drilling logs from the multi-
tude of water, oil, and gas wells that are drilled. Other drilling logs are also re-
tained by these agencies. This information is used to map the state and can be a
valuable source of information in the initial stages of site selection. It will assist in
elimination of the sites that have obvious water and soil problems. As potential sites
are identified, it will still be necessary to conduct on-site drilling to establish the
subsoil conditions as well as the location and variation of the groundwater table.
Each state permitting agency has a required number and spacing for the test
drillings. Soil borings on a 100- to 200-ft grid may be necessary to characterize the
subsoil adequately. As the borings are being conducted, samples will be tested for
228 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

moisture content and grain size distribution for use in classifying the soils. Soils
that may be considered for liners and cover material will also be tested for perme-
ability, Atterberg limits (effect of moisture on soil properties), moisture content,
and moisture-density relationships. The borings should extend to at least 20 ft be-
low the intended bottom of the site. A portion of the borings should terminate
below the water table if it is greater than 20 ft below the base of the site. If these
borings are located on the periphery of the site, they can be converted into moni-
toring wells for use after the site becomes operational. The water elevation in these
test holes will provide information on the direction of groundwater movement and
fluctuations in the water table.
In addition to horizontal movement, groundwater and potential contaminants
from the landfill may move vertically within the subsurface formation. Vertical
movement can be detected by installing multilevel wells as shown in Figure 11.4.
This will identify if the site is in a recharge or discharge area. Recharge areas are
identified by the differential level of water in the multilevel test wells, as shown in
Recharge area Discharge area

Landfill

I \ \ \. !i

\
Groundwater1
flow lines u
Surface
elevation-100

elevation
90
-.
I 92
-

Downward
flow of

1
Upward
flow of
water

Figure 11.4 Groundwatergradients and flow lines.

 Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 229

this figure. The water level in the deeper wells is lower because of the head loss
associated with downward movement of water. The converse is true for a discharge
area. Requirements for landfill conktruction in these areas are more stringent, or
may be prohibited, in some states, to provide better protection of the groundwater.
A landfill constructed in a discharge area will require a groundwater manage-
ment system to prevent the flow of water into the landfill. A well field surrounding
the site, or an underdrain system will be necessary to remove the groundwater in-
flow before it reaches the refuse. Since this is a discharge area, the groundwater
will not be susceptible to contamination from the leachate. If, however, the ground-
water flow is not controlled, the landfill will be saturated and leachate can escape
from the surface of the site and cause surface water contamination.
If the landfill site is in a recharge area, control of surface water is more crit-
ical. The percolation of water into the soil will speed the movement of any contam-
ination released from the landfill. It is essential that the surface water infiltration
into the landfill itself is minimized, and effective leachate containment and removal
systems are installed. Also, collection of the surface water from the surrounding
area into a surface drainage system will reduce the infiltration and the rate at which
the infiltrated water travels into the groundwater system.

LANDFILL TECHNIQUES

A landfill’s basic design parameter is volume. It depends on the area covered, the
depth at which the refuse is placed, and the ratio of soil cover to refuse. The air
space in this fill site represents the volume available for placing the refuse and cover
material. Since the refuse generation rate is measured in tons, an additional param-
eter that influences the capacity of the landfill is the in-place density of the refuse
and soil.
Historically, the site for a landfill was the nearest quarry or hole in the
ground. The refuse was used to fill the excavated volume. Little concern was given
to the availability of cover material. If soil was available, a final cover of sorts was
applied when an area of fill was completed. The current standards and guidelines
for the design and operation of sanitary landfills have rendered these sites less de-
sirable. Strict enforcement of the requirement for daily and final cover has increased
the operating cost of these sites because of the cost of imported cover material.
Also, the need for lining the bottom and sides with a water barrier has increased
the site development cost. On-site excavation and placement of soil costs approxi- b

mately $1.00 to $2.00 per cubic yard. However, if the soil has to be imported from
off-site, the costs will be as much as $10.00 per cubic yard, depending on the haul
distance. As discussed later, the cost of the cover material can be a significant part
of the total operating cost. New sites tend to be on high ground, where the water
problem will be minimized and where adequate soil is available for cover. If exist-
ing excavations are used, the filling procedure will be the same as used for the area
method described below. When cover material was unavailable, alternative landfill
230 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

techniques have been used in the past. However, the new regulations will probably
preclude any system that cannot provide a daily cover.
All landfills have certain commonalities. Appropriate buffer zones and screens
are necessary to isolate the landfill from the neighbors. Proper placement of trees
and shrubs can greatly reduce the animosity between the neighbors and the site.
Also, security fences are needed to prevent unauthorized access to the site, whether
by children or for illegal dumping. An all-weather access road from the primary
roadways is mandatory. The collection and haul vehicles are essentially highway
vehicles. They do not function well on unstable roads. At the site, careful mainte-
nance of the working face access track is required to keep the trucks from becoming
stuck. During inclement weather, it may be necessary to have a tractor available to
assist the trucks. Of course, the mud that collects on the truck wheels must be spun
off before the truck returns to the highway.
At the larger sites, a number of other provisions are required for efficient and
safe operation of the facility. Maintaining the equipment used at the site requires a
facility properly equipped for the desired on-site maintenance. This may be a com-
plete automotive maintenance shop that can service not only the landfill equipment
but also the collection and haul vehicles. Also, it is necessary to have a water
supply available for firefighting. When a fire starts in a sanitary landfill, severe air
pollution can result if the fire is not extinguished rapidly. A number of techniques
are available to handle fires. However, if the fire is in the fill, it may be necessary
first to expose the burning material by excavating the fill. Then water or foam can
be applied to extinguish the combustion. If the fire zone can be defined, it is also
possible to inject an inert gas such as CO, to extinguish the fire. Water can be
used, but it may add to a leachate management problem.

Trenching Method for Constructing Sanitary Landfills

Figure 11.5 illustrates the more simple technique for constructing a sanitary land-
fill. In the trench method, the collection truck will dump its load generally from
the side of a previously excavated trench that may be 10 to 15 ft deep. A tractor/
compactor will spread and compact the refuse by pushing it up the slope of the
working face. The tractor makes several passes over the refuse to achieve optimum
density. This procedure continues until the end of the day. At that time, cover ma-
terial is excavated by extending the trench. The volume of cover material excavated
creates an initial in-ground volume for the refuse. The additional volume required is
obtained by raising the elevation of the top of the site. As each new trench is
started, part of the excavated soil is used to construct an aboveground berm on
which the initial refuse can be compacted. This berm has a slope of about 1 vertical
to 3 horizontal. The balance is stockpiled for use as cover material when the last
cell in the trench has been completed.
This placement technique is an inefficient use of land. As can be seen from
this figure, there is a considerable volume of soil that is not excavated between the
 Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 231

Security fence

Soil cover A

obtained by
refuse trench excavation

Figure 11.5 Trench method for placing refuse in a sanitary landfill.

trenches. There is very little planning for the site development and management of
the on-site soil. However, in a small landfill that has an abundance of area, the
inefficiency is offset by the reduced requirements for earth-moving equipment.
There is no need to move and stockpile large volumes of soil. It is used as needed
for final cover since most of these fills are only one lift. Only one tractor will be
needed to spread, compact, and cover the refuse.
At least 3 ft of soil is required as a final cover. Six to 12 in. of soil is used for
intermediate cover on the working face, where refuse will be placed the next day.
The excavated soil must be of the quality needed for cover: a clay or clay-silt that
can be used to form a layer of relatively impervious soil and a silt that can be
placed on top of the clay to support a vegetative cover. Evaluation of on-site soils is
necessary to ensure the availability of the required type and quantity of soil. Trench
construction does not easily permit the construction of liners and leachate collec-
tion systems. Therefore, the site selected needs a good layer of impervious subsoil
to prevent movement of any leachate. Some planning for the management of the
soils is necessary, as it is not uncommon for the operators of these sites to place
20 ft of refuse on top of the needed cover material. A simple, but definite operating
plan is required for the site.

Area Method for Constructing a Sanitary Landfill

The area method has a well-developed construction plan (Figure 11.6). It may in-
clude a liner and a leachate collection system. Design of such a system requires
complete knowledge of the subsoil conditions at the site as discussed above. Is the
soil suitable for a liner? Is there sufficient topsoil for use as a final cover? These
soils must be excavated and stockpiled for use as they are needed. A portion of the
site is excavated to the working depth of the fill, and any required liner and leachate
232 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

Final soil
cover Perimeter fence
(2 - 5 ft) \

Figure 11.6 Area method for placing refuse in a sanitary landfill.

collection system is installed. Because of the probable volume to be excavated, it is

necessary to plan for the use of this soil as cover rather than exporting it.
An embankment with a 1-on-3 slope is constructed by the excavated soil to
serve as the initial starting point for the refuse placement. Refuse is dumped at the
toe of the working face and spread by compactors in layers of 1 to 2 ft. The spread-
ing and compacting is an important part of the operation of the site. It is desired to
achieve a maximum density of the refuse placed in the fill. This layering is contin-
ued until the last load is placed. The vertical lift of the refuse will be 10 to 14 ft.
Then 6 to 12 in. of cover material is spread over the working face. The top of the
intermediate lifts will be covered with at least 1 ft of soil. This cover is sufficient to
isolate the refuse for an intermediate time. It is also sufficient to provide a reason-
able base for the trucks and equipment when the next lift is placed. If this is the last
lift, a final cover will be placed. This may be a specially designed cover to provide
an effective control over moisture infiltration into the refuse.
As shown in Figure 11.6, the area method requires a number of pieces of
earth-moving equipment. Scrapers are used to excavate the area and stock pile the
soil as well as spread cover material on the completed area of the fill. Tractors and
compactors are used to spread and compact the refuse as well as the cover material.
A road grader may be used to maintain the access road. During dry periods it may
be prudent to have a tank wagon to control dust, especially if there are neighbors.
Depending on the daily capacity of the site, there may be numerous pieces of equip-
ment involved.
Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 233

’ Working face

Figure 11.7 Geometric relationships in a

Plan view landfill cell.

The area method makes the most efficient use of the site. Multiple lifts are
used and the height of the fill is limited only by the available cover material, the
base area of the site, and any site zoning restrictions. The limits on the side slopes
of the fill are generally 1 vertical to 3 horizontal. This limit is imposed primarily by
the maximum slope that facilitates the operation of the compaction and earth-
moving equipment. Even with a material like solid waste, this slope will result in a
stable embankment. If a significant land area is available, one can envision a rather
high fill if there are no other limitations imposed.

Cover Material Requirement

The amount of cover material required for a sanitary landfill is a function of the
size of the cell. The volume of cover per ton of refuse in the cell will decrease as
the cell size increases. This effect can be demonstrated by comparing the surface
area-to-volume ratio of different cell sizes. Figure 11.7 is a parallelepiped that rep-
resents a typical landfill cell. If the working faces have a 1-on-3 slope, the distance
down the working face would be about 32 ft if the vertical depth of the refuse in the
cell is 10 ft. One can assume that the top area is a square with dimension D. The
refuse volume in any cell will be 100’. The surface area that requires cover mate-
rial is the area of the top and the two working faces. This area can be computed as
surface area = D 2 + 2(32)D (1)
The surface area-to-volume ratios (SA/V) are presented as follows:

D 20 ft 40 ft 80 ft
Volume 4000 ft3 16,000 ft3 64,000 ft3
Surface area 1680 ft2 4160 ft2 11,520 ft2
SNV 0.42 0.26 0.18
234 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

These numbers show that as the size of the cell increases there is a decrease in the
ratio of the exposed surface area to the volume of the cell.
This relationship can be used to determine an actual volume of cover material
by considering the depth of soil associated with each surface. If there is only one
lift to a landfill, the depth of cover material required for the top will be at least 3 ft.
If the daily cover on the working faces is 0.5 ft, the following equation can be used
to compute the required volume of cover material (CM) and the cover material-
to-refuse volume ratio (CM/V):
CM = 3(D2) + 0.5(2)(32)0 (2)

D 40 ft 80 ft
CM 6080 ft3 2 1,760 ft3
CMIV 0.38 0.34

The cover material for a single-lift landfill will occupy approximately one-fourth of
the total volume of the site.
Assuming an intermediate cover of 1 ft on the top surface and 0.5 ft on the
working face, the following equation yields the volume of cover material required
an intermediate lift of a multiple-lift fill:
CM = 1(D2) + 0.5(2)(32)0 (3)

D 40 ft 80 ft
CM 2880 ft3 8960 ft3
CMIV 0.18 0.14

For this cover material scenario, the soil requirements decrease from 15% to 12% of
the total cell volume as the cell size increases.
The effect of having multiple lifts on the cover material volume can be seen
from the following calculation. If one considers three lifts with 1 ft of intermediate
cover and a final cover of 3 ft on the fourth lift, the CM/V can be determined by
computing a weighted average as follows:
D = 40 ft
CM/V = f[3(0.18) + 1(0.38)] = 0.23

D = 80 ft
CM/V = f[3(0.14) + 1(0.34)] = 0.19
The cost of the cover material can be estimated by considering the volume associ-
ated with the refuse and the amount of cover material used. A site that has received
500,000 tons of refuse will have a compacted refuse volume of approximately lo6
yd3. If the CM/V is 0.19, the total fill volume will be lo6/(1 - 0.19) = 1,299,000
Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 235

yd3. The cover material volume is 299,000 yd3. At $1.00 per cubic yard, the cover
material will cost
$299,000
= $0.598 per ton of refuse
500,000 tons
However, if the cost of the cover material is $5.00 per cubic yard, the cost of the
cover material alone would be $2.99 per ton of refuse.
The depth of the final cover is an important factor in the cost of the cover
material at a specific site. Because a depth of 3 ft or more may be required, it is
desirable to have many lifts of refuse covered with the final cover. As the size of the
cells and the number of lifts increase, the cost of the cover material per ton of
refuse placed will decrease.

Landfill Cover Design

As with all designs, the design of the cover for a landfill is a trade-off-in this
case, between the effectiveness of the moisture barrier and the amount of leachate
that will have to be collected and treated. It is possible to cap the fill to a point
where essentially no water will infiltrate. This is the goal at sites that contain haz-
ardous wastes. Is it worth the cost for a conventional sanitary landfill? This is a
major design decision to be made. The regulations for municipal refuse landfills are
not specific regarding the design of the cover. As will be seen later, they are defi-
nite about reducing the risk of groundwater contamination. The regulations will
generally require the collection and treatment of any leachate that is generated un-
less there are some unusual subsoil conditions.
A modern cover design may contain layers of different soil types, ranging
from very tight impervious soils such as clay, to coarse sand and gravel. Each layer
has a different function. Figure 11.8 shows the layers that are likely to be consid-
ered for a cover design. Each layer has a specific function, and soils with properties
that will achieve this function are chosen. Certain functions can be achieved with
synthetic materials such as geomembranes, which are moisture barriers, and geo-
textiles, which can be used for filtration and, to some extent, drainage. This is a
relatively new application of these materials and few long-term performance data
are available. The following discussion will concentrate on the use of different types
of soils to achieve the cover design objectives.

Surface layer. The surface layer has the function of providing a suitable
medium for plant growth. Plant growth is essential to protect the surface of the
cover from erosion. There will be a slope to the final grade to assist with runoff of
precipitation. Without a vegetative cover, the soil will erode, from both wind and
water action. It should be a soil with a texture that allows for percolation of water
into the soil and that has a good water retention capacity. It should not be an
236 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

v v V C b IIl\U C k d
Surface (vegetation support)

Filter(s)

Biotic barrier

Drainage

Hydraulic barrier

Foundation (buffer)

-~ ~

Gas control
Figure 11.8 Potential layers in a soil
Compacted refuse cover system.

expansive soil that will swell when wet and crack when dry. Soils that fill this
objective are silt, silt-loam, loam, and sandy-loam soils, as defined by Figure 11.1.
The depth of this layer will depend on the type of vegetation and the antici-
pated role of evapotranspiration in control of the excess moisture. If evapotranspi-
ration is a major factor in the control of excess moisture, this layer should be deep
enough to provide a significant soil moisture reservoir. It will need to support deep-
rooted plants as well as the more shallow-rooted grasses. Depths of 2 to 3 ft or
greater are appropriate. If a drainage layer is installed in the cover, much of the
infiltration will be removed by this system. A soil depth of 12 to 18 in. would be
appropriate to support a grass cover. This depth of soil with a drainage layer will
not contain excessive quantities of water, so it may be necessary to provide for
irrigation during the dry periods to establish and maintain the grass cover.

Biotic barrier. The function of the biotic barrier is to prevent penetration of

the moisture barrier by either burrowing animals or roots from deep-rooted plants
(trees). This layer has been proposed as another safe guard for the integrity of the
moisture barrier. It consists of a coarse gravel that will be effective in stopping such
animals as woodchucks and prairie dogs from digging into the fill. Such a barrier
will not impede root penetration, so maintenance of the surface will be necessary.
There is good reason to suggest that the biotic layer is of little value. Mowing of
the area to keep down the growth of trees and large plants will solve the root prob-
lem. It will also present a habitat that will discourage burrowing animals from es-
tablishing residence at the landfill. Judicious use of rodenticide will add any
additional control that may be needed.
Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 237

Figure 11.9 Schematic of a drainage layer in a landfill cover.

Drainage layer. This layer will be very important when the landfill is in an
area of high precipitation and where evapotranspiration is not an effective mecha-
nism for dissipating the excess water. Its purpose is to remove the water that infil-
trates the top layer of the cover. This layer is sloped to a drain line, as shown in
Figure 11.9. Water will gradually drain into these pipes and be removed from the
cover. The soil used in this layer need only be porous. A coarse relatively uniform
sand or fine gravel would be a good candidate material.
The success of this drainage layer depends on maintaining its porosity. As the
water from the layers above percolates down through the soil, the fine particles may
be transported into the pores of the coarse soil. This is referred to as “piping.”
These fine particles clog the pores and ruin the open-pore network needed to trans-
port the water. It is advisable to install a “filter” layer above the drainage layer.
The filter is a soil of particle size between those of the drainage and surface layers.
Ideally, the size gradation will increase in the direction of the drainage layer. It is
possible to place more than one layer of filter material, with increasing particle size
from top to bottom of the layer. Geotextiles also appear to be suitable for this ap-
plication.
It is necessary to maintain the slope of the drainage layer as well as the col-
lection pipes. Unfortunately, landfills are noted for settling with time. The addi-
tional load of more lifts that are placed in the fill and the vibrations associated with
the equipment will cause substantial consolidation of the refuse in the lower levels
of the fill. This will occur during the active life of the fill. However, there is a
long-term consolidation that is associated with the biodegradation of the organic
solids. As these solids are converted to gases and soluble compounds, there is a
reduction in the mass of material remaining in the fill. Additional settling will occur
as the gas is vented from the site and the soluble solids are removed with the
leachate.
If this settling is uniform, it is possible to compensate for it in the design
phase. However, uniform settling is not the normal response. The refuse placed in
each daily cell may have different characteristics. Some cells may have more mois-
ture than others or may have more nutrients that will increase the microbial activity.
238 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

Consequently, the different rates at which the solids are destroyed will influence the
settling that can occur. In addition, the components of the refuse placed in the fill
may vary from cell to cell. Unless a conscious effort is made to segregate various
types of refuse, it is possible to have cells that contain a large fraction of inert
material, such as construction and demolition refuse. These cells will behave much
differently from the cells containing typical residential refuse.
The drainage system will fail if the differential settling is responsible for the
creation of depressions (low spots) in either the drainage layer or the drain pipes.
Water from other areas of the cover will concentrate in this depression. This stand-
ing water and the associated increase in hydraulic gradient will increase the rate at
which water penetrates the soil hydraulic barrier. The concentrated infiltration will
cause this portion of the landfill to reach field capacity and start generating lea-
chate. Substantial subsidence will be noted because of the surface depressions that
will form, creating surface pools of water. These pools can be eliminated by filling
the depression and returning the grade to the original elevation. However, except by
excavating to the hydraulic barrier, there is no technique for eliminating the subsur-
face subsidence. This problem may not be obvious unless there is substantial sur-
face subsidence or very careful attention is paid to the elevations of landfill surface.
There is a strong argument for not installing such a layer in the covers for a
sanitary landfill. The added cost of this layer and drain pipes could be used to
increase the depth of the hydraulic barrier layer and the surface layer. This will
increase the soil reservoir capacity as well as provide additional resistance to the
infiltration through the hydraulic barrier. In climates with moderate to light precip-
itation, this type of cover will control the infiltration to a point where leachate will
not be produced. In areas of high precipitation, infiltration will occur and provi-
sions must be made to collect and treat the leachate.

Hydraulic barrier. The hydraulic barrier is instrumental in preventing the

infiltration from reaching the refuse. The desired type of soil is a tight clay. Sandy-
clay and silty-clay soils are suitable if a clay is not available. The depth of the
hydraulic barrier can be adjusted to reflect the permeability of the soil. Two feet of
a good clay will substantially eliminate the infiltration if the water is not allowed to
pond on the surface and keep the surface layer saturated. If none of these soils is
available, relatively impermeable barriers can be created by amending a fine grain
soil with bentonite clay, fly ash, or some other soil additive. The cost of importing
these additives will be substantial. It is certainly more economical to operate a
landfill where these soils are naturally available.
Geomembranes can be used as the hydraulic barrier when suitable soils are
not available. They have shortcomings in that they can easily be damaged. A break
in the membrane destroys its ability to prevent the water from penetrating the site.
It is especially vulnerable in the cover. Significant differential settling can cause
elevation differences sufficient to tear the membrane. Also, the potential for me-
chanical damage during placement and by the refuse material after placement is
relatively high unless a significant effort is made to protect the membrane. The
 Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 239

Overburden
load

Hydraulic barrier

(a) Construction damage (b) Tensile stress generated

by overburden load

Hydraulic barrier
Compaction effort

\
(c) Differential settling
‘ Hydraulic barrier

(d) Coarse material punches down

Hydraulic barrier through hydraulic barrier
Overburden load

Protective n y r
layer

(e) Coarse material punches up

through hydraulic barrier ‘Hydraulic barrier

(f) Protective layer too thin

Figure 11.10 Types of mechanically induced geomembrane failures. (From Waste Age, Aug.
1987, p. 152.)

typical types of mechanical damage that can occur to the membrane are illustrated
in Figure 11.10. Damage may be due to the construction equipment as indicated by
Figure ll.IO(a) and (0,or due to the manner in which the membrane is placed in
the cover as illustrated in the balance of Figure 11.10.

Foundation layer. The foundation layer in Figure 11.8 has special signifi-
cance when a geomembrane is used. Its role with a soil hydraulic barrier is not
clear, and since it is under the geomembrane, it will not be an effective moisture
barrier unless this membrane is damaged. It is designed to separate the membrane
from the refuse and protect it from damage by the refuse. It can be constructed
from any on-site soils that do not contain sharp stones or other objects that would
damage the membrane. Another objective of this layer is to provide a “stable”
foundation for the membrane, one that will not be subject to subsidence. This is
difficult to accomplish because of the long-term biological degradation of the solid
240 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

wastes and the voids created when the gas is liberated. Subsidence will continue for
many years, and frequently at an uneven rate. The differential settling can cause
rupture of the membrane and loss of the moisture barrier.

Gas control. Gas will be produced in the landfill as a result of the biodeg-
radation of the organic solids. Soils that prevent infiltration of water will also pre-
vent the gas from escaping. This gas must be released, or it will generate sufficient
internal pressure to rupture the restraining membrane or soil moisture barrier. This
rupture will provide an avenue for infiltration of water. Consequently, any landfill
design requires the installation of a gas collection system. There are several ap-
proaches to the design of such a system and they will be discussed later. One such
design has a layer of a porous material such as crushed stone placed on top of the
refuse. The gas can follow this layer until it reaches a collection well. This will be
a rather costly technique for collection of the gas. It probably would not be used
except in unusual cases.

Landfill Liner Design

The design of the liner requires many of the same considerations as the design of
the cover. The objective is to prevent the movement of the infiltration (leachate)
into the groundwater. Figure 11.11 illustrates the components of a liner constructed
from soil. The bottom of the landfill is first prepared by excavating to the desired
depth. If the bottom soil is a tight clay, it can serve as the liner. If it is a permeable
soil, it is then necessary to cover it with a layer of impervious soil that can serve as
a moisture barrier. The soil should have a permeability of lo-’ c d s e c or less when

Figure 11.11 Schematic of soil liner for a sanitary landfill

Chap. 11 Landfill Techniques 241

compacted to its optimum density. Either a clay or an amended sandy or silty clay
will meet this criterion. Bentonite can be mixed with the later soils to reduce the
permeability to acceptable levels.
However, before the barrier layer is applied, a foundation must be prepared to
carry the weight of the imposed load. As mentioned before, a landfill with a depth
of 50 ft will have a load of about 2000 lb/ft2. As the refuse approaches field capac-
ity, this load can double due to the added weight of the water. If an unstable soil is
present on the bottom of the fill, it can be deformed as a result of this load, espe-
cially if the load is not uniformly applied, and cause a loss of liner integrity. Such
soils will have to be excavated prior to the placement of the impervious soil mois-
ture barrier.
The thickness of the soil liner will be dictated by the availability of suitable
material. If an impermeable soil is not available, it will be necessary to use on-site
material that has a higher proportion of imported bentonite added. The cost of the
imported material will be a factor in the final depth of the soil liner. If on-site
materials are used, depths up to 5 ft may be used to ensure that leakage will not
occur.
The finished grade of the soil moisture barrier is sloped to drain to leachate
collection pipes located in the bottom of the fill. These pipes are either plastic or
vitrified clay drain tiles. The type of pipe used will depend on the expected load
and the ability of the pipe to withstand this load. An additional 2+ ft of a porous
sand is placed over the pipes and the moisture barrier. The refuse is then carefully
placed on the sand. It is possible to damage the pipes unless care is exercised with
the heavy equipment used to place and compact the refuse. The drain tiles are con-
nected to a manifold that conducts the leachate to a wet well for pumping to the
leachate treatment and/or disposal system.
When a suitable soil is not available, a synthetic membrane can be used as the
moisture barrier. Figure 11.12 illustrates the installation of a geomembrane (syn-
thetic membrane) in a sanitary landfill. The undisturbed soil is graded and com-
pacted to provide a solid foundation for the fill. As with the soil liner, it is
necessary to remove any soil pockets that may not be able to carry the superim-
posed load from the landfill. The graded and compacted base soil is covered with a
12- to %in. layer of sand to support the membrane. In an area where it is possible
for the groundwater table to rise to the bottom of the fill, an underdrain system may
be installed to remove this water and prevent the back pressure from rupturing the
liner. This underdrain can also serve for leak detection and may be required under
certain conditions.
A variety of synthetic membranes have been proposed for these liners. A 30-
mil (0.75-mm) or thicker membrane is usually employed. Each material has differ-
ent properties. Because of the newness of the use of these liners, there are few
historical data on their performance. Many types of polymers have been offered on
the market, including a variety of polyethylene polymers, polyvinyl chloride, poly-
olefin, and rubber fabrics, such as Hypalon, Neoprene, and butyl-cured rubber.
Polyethylenes, especially high-density polyethylene (HDPE), have been receiving
242 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

\ Sand filter
Leachate
collection / 12 to 18 in. of
soil with low
permeability

6 to 12 in. sand
drainage layer bJ 70-mil geomembrane

6 to 12 in. sand base

Graded and compacted subsoil

Undisturbed subsoil

Figure 11.U Typical installation of a synthetic membrane liner.

the most attention for these applications. They exhibit the properties that are desir-
able and have a reasonable cost. Properties that are important in the evaluation of
these polymers are presented in Table 11.2 together with the recommended testing
procedure and recommended minimum values.
After the membrane has been placed and the seams sealed, it is covered with
a 6- to 12-in. layer of sand to serve as a protective layer for the membrane. A 12- to
18-in. layer of clay or bentonite amended soil is placed over the sand layer. This soil
is compacted to its optimum density. This layer serves as a moisture barrier to
direct the leachate to the drainage pipes. The bottom of the fill is sloped toward the
drain pipe, which is embedded in the soil layer. The drain pipe also serves to drain
any leachate that may accumulate on the membrane.
The complexity of the liner can increase the costs considerably. The more
layers placed, the more the construction and material costs. Common excavation
and placement of on-site soils will cost about $1.00 to $2.00 per cubic yard. Be-
cause of the added care needed in excavating top soil, excavation and placement of
on-site top soil will cost between $1.00 and $3.00 per cubic yard. Sand blankets
constructed from off-site sources of sand can be expected to cost between $8.00 and
$10.00 per cubic yard or more if the haul distance is significant. Any imported soil
can be expected to be in the cost range $10.00 per cubic yard or higher. The costs
of a synthetic membrane are dependent on a variety of factors ranging from the
material type and thickness to the quantity required. In general, the clay liners are
less expensive if a good clay is available within a short-haul distance of the site. If
imported clay or bentonite admixtures are required, the synthetic membrane liner
may be cost-competitive.
 Chap. 11 Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 243

Table 11.2 Synthetic liner performance test categories

Test Property Test Method Good Minimum Value

Strength category
Tensile properties ASTM D638, type 1V
Dumbbell at 2 in./min
Tensile strength at 2400 psi
yield
Tensile strength at 4ooo psi
break
Elongation at yield 15%
Elongation at break 700%
Toughness category
Tear resistance ASTM Dl004 die C 45 Ib
initiation
Puncture resistance FTMS lOlB method 2031 230 Ib
Low temperature ASTM D746 procedure B -94°F
brittleness
Durability category
Carbon black percent ASTM D1603 2.0%
Carbon black dispersion ASTM D3015 A- 1
Accelerated heat aging ASTM D573, D1349 Negligible strength
change after I month at 110°C
Chemical resistance category
Resistance to chemical EPA method 9090 10% tensile strength
waste mixtures change over 120 days
Resistance to pure ASTM D543 10% tensile strength
chemical reagents change over 7 days
Stress cracking
resistance category
Environmental stress ASTM D1693 C condition 1500 hrs
crack resistance

Source: Reprinted with permission from World Wastes, 1986 Equipment Catalog. Copyright Communica-
tion Channels, Inc., 1986, Atlanta, GA, USA.

ROLE OF MOISTURE IN A SANITARY LANDFILL

The plan for management of the surface and groundwater at a landfill site is an
extremely important component of any site development plan. The groundwater
problem is generally eliminated during the site selection process. It is not possible
to select a site that will not be exposed to precipitation except in some arid regions,
such as the desert areas of the southwest and southern California. In fact, most
populated areas of the United States are in regions that have significant precipita-
tion. An understanding of the hydrological cycle as it relates to a sanitary landfill is
essential in developing a strategy for the management of moisture at a specific site.
Because of the effect of climate on this cycle, there is significant variation from
site to site in the leachate production potential.
 244 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

PreciDitation

\ \ \ \\\ \t--.t t t t
Surface evaporation
,+4-444-4 I I /
Transpiration

---L ’ Surface runoff

c
Cover material
1/5y *
(soil moisture reservoir)

r
Infiltration into
cover material /
/ ,,ius, /
/
Infiltration into

Subsoil (liner)
Infiltration
into subsoil

Groundwater table
---------------__-_ 1--__-----
Figure 11.13 Fate of precipitation falling on a landfill site.

Hydrological Cycle for a Sanitary Landfill

Figure 11.13 illustrates the fate of precipitation falling on a landfill site. There are
four things that can happen to this precipitation: it can become surface runoff, the
water retained on the surface can evaporate, it can infiltrate into the cover material
and be extracted by plant transpiration, or it can infiltrate into the refuse, where it
may eventually become leachate. Because it is sometimes difficult to separate the
surface evaporation from the plant transpiration, these two are frequently combined
as one term evapotranspiration.

Infiltration. When there is free water standing on the surface of the landfill,
there is an opportunity for this water to percolate into the soil cover. The rate of
percolation or infiltration is determined by the characteristics of the soil that is used
to cover the site. The water flow can be defined by
Q = PIA (4)

6
Chap. 11 Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 245

Table 11.3 Permeability of materials used in landfill construction

Material description P (cdsec) Q (gWac)

Uniform coarse sand 0.47 4 x IO8
Uniform fine sand 4.7 x 10-3 4.4 x IO6
Silty sand 1.1 x 10-4 95,700
Uniform silt 5.6 x IO-^ 52,200
Sandy clay 5.6 X 5,220
Silty clay 1.0 x 957
Clay 1.0 x IO-’ 96
Colloidal clay 1.0 x IO-^ I

This is the Darcy equation, relating the flow rate (Q) to the permeability of the soil
(P), the hydraulic gradient (0, and the surface area (A).
The permeability (hydraulic conductivity) is a laboratory measurement of the
rate of flow of water through a column of soil at 60°F and with a hydraulic gradient
of 1 ft/ft. The proper selection of the soil that is placed in the cover can have a
major effect on the amount of water that can infiltrate into the landfill. Since the
soil cover must also absorb some water to maintain a good vegetative cover, more
than one type of soil will be required for covering the refuse. The permeability of
some common soils is given in Table 11.3.
The significance of the soil permeability is obvious from the amount of water
that infiltrates, as shown by the Q values in gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). A
coarse uniform sand passes a lot of water and would be the type of material that
would be preferred in the construction of a drainage layer either in a compound
cover or in the leachate collection system in the bottom of the fill. Conversely, the
amount of water passing through the clay is extremely low. Perhaps a better way to
evaluate the clay is to compute the time required for water to penetrate a layer that
is 2 ft deep when exposed to a hydraulic gradient of 1 ft/ft. With a P value of
1 X lo-’, this time is 2000 years. It is not surprising that the goal for the construc-
tion of liners and covers for landfills is a permeability of 1 X lo-’. With a 2-ft
depth, a rather extended period is required before any water will pass through the
layer. The rate of flow increases if there is a static head of water on the layer, as
might be the case with a liner, or a cover if the surface grades are not maintained.
A 10-ft static head of water on top of the 2-ft moisture barrier would increase the
+
hydraulic gradient to 6 ft/ft [( 10 2)/2]. The 2000 years would be reduced to 333
years.
Clearly, the covers and liners are capable of excluding the surface water and
retaining water that infiltrates into the fill as long as the integrity of the moisture
barrier is maintained. Any significant settling can cause a shift in the soil layer that
may cause a break in the barrier. Water can freely pass through this break. It is not
difficult to maintain the integrity of the liner if proper attention is paid to the foun-
dation conditions of the underlying soils. A landfill that is 50 to 100 ft high will
impose a significant load on the subsoil-2000 to 4000 lb/ft2. If this is an unstable
246 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

soil that cannot carry this load, the liner may be expected to fail. Also, the differ-
ential settling that occurs in the refuse will make it difficult to maintain the integrity
of the cover. Postclosure requirements will call for maintenance of the cover for a
period of as long as 30 years.

Evapotranspiration. The water loss associated with the vegetation planted

on the final cover of the landfill is often overlooked when evaluating the leachate
production potential of a sanitary landfill. A certain amount of the precipitation
wets the ground surface as well as the surface of the vegetation. This water evapo-
rates in a short time after the precipitation event. The soil cover serves as a reser-
voir that captures any of the water that infiltrates the soil. As the water infiltrates,
a moisture front moves down through the soil. If the soil layer is deep enough and
has sufficient moisture retention capacity, all of the water originating from this
precipitation event will be held in the cover. This moisture is the source of water
needed for the cover vegetation growth. The water is extracted from the soil and
returned to the atmosphere by transpiration. Consequently, little or none of the
moisture has an opportunity to reach the refuse.
The quantity of water extracted by the plants depends on the plant species and
the climatic conditions. Certain plants have very high water needs and will grow
only in wet areas. Other plants have shallow root systems that can extract the mois-
ture from only the top layer of soil. Deep-rooted plants such as trees are not suited
to landfills. The roots will not penetrate the refuse because of the adverse environ-
mental conditions: low pH and high salt (dissolved solids) content of the moisture
(leachate). Consequently, the selection of plantings for the cover will be important
in effectively using this moisture reservoir. The plants should have moderate water
needs and a root system that will penetrate the depth of the soil cover.
The transpiration rates are controlled by the factors that affect plant growth.
The plants are most active during warm temperatures with good solar radiation. As
the temperatures cool, both the evaporation and transpiration rates decrease. There
is a potential for significant water loss during the warm summer months. Low hu-
midity and wind will increase the water loss by both mechanisms as long as the
water is available. If the cover material is dry, the plants are unable to extract any
water. Therefore, excess water must exist in the soil cover before transpiration is
effective.
The following information is indicative of the transpiration losses that are
possible from various plants.

Trees 6-60 in./yr (cottonwood and willow are at the high end)
Rye grass 18-24 in./yr
Clover 18-24 in./yr
Meadow grass 22-60 in./yr

The various grasses have the ability to extract significant quantities of moisture
from the soil. They typically have shallow root zones, and that restricts the transpi-
Chap. 11 Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 247

Table 11.4 Surface runoff potential from land areas

Runoff (gallacre)
~

Cover (slope) Sandy loam Silt loam Tight clay

Grass
(0-5%) 16,355 (C = 0.1) 49,000 (C = 0.3) 65,340 (C = 0.4)
(5-10%) 26,136 (C = 0.16) 58,800 (C = 0.36) 89,842 (C = 0.55)
None
(0-5%) 49,000 (C = 0.16) 81,675 (C = 0.5) 98,000 (C = 0.6)
(5- 10%) 63,340 (C = 0.4) 98,000 (C = 0.6) 114,345 (C = 0.7)

Source: Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 43, No. 10, 1971, pp. 2084-2100.

ration potential. Deeper-rooted broad-leaf plants such as clover are included in the
cover vegetation to extract the water from the lower layers of the soil cover.

Surface water runoff. The amount of water that infiltrates is also a function
of how long the precipitation remains on the surface of the landfill. If good surface
drainage systems are installed, the precipitation is removed from the site rapidly,
reducing the time for infiltration to occur. If the soil is impervious and the surface
is sloped for drainage, more of the precipitation will be surface runoff. This runoff
can be estimated by the rational formula
Q = CIA
where Q = rate of runoff
C = coefficient of runoff that is determined by the factors above
I = rainfall intensity, in./hr
A = surface area
Table 11.4 shows the total amount of runoff that can be expected for different
surface conditions for a rainfall intensity of 1 in./hr for a 6-hr period. The total
volume of water associated with this rainfall is 163,550 gallondacre. The runoff
from a tight clay soil with no cover and a slope in excess of 5% would be about
70% of the precipitation. Even a silt-loam soil with a very low slope can be ex-
pected to have about a 30% runoff. A small amount of runoff can be very instru-
mental in the control of the water infiltrating into the refuse. This will be obvious
when moisture balance calculations are conducted. The investment in a good sur-
face drainage system is warranted.

Moisture retention capacity. The moisture retention capacity of the refuse

and soil must be considered when evaluating the potential for leachate production.
Refuse has been found to be able to absorb between 100 and 175 lb of water per 100
lb of refuse.' This corresponds to a moisture content between 50 and 64%. The

'R. Stone and R. Kahle, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Oct. 1972, p. 731.
248 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

amount of water retained by the refuse in the landfill will depend on the dry density
of the solid waste. Therefore, if the density is 500 lb of dry solids per cubic yard,
at 50% moisture the refuse will retain
(500 lb/yd3)(1 yd3/27 ft3)(l ft3/62.4 lb)(12 in./ft) = 3.56 in./ft
At 800 lb/yd3 dry density, the water retained by the refuse is
(800 lb/yd3)(1 yd3/27 ft3)(1 ft3/62.4 lb)( 12 in./ft) = 5.70 in./ft
This 800 lb/yd3 represents about the maximum dry weight density that is likely to
be experienced in a landfill. It is more common to express the moisture as a volume
ratio or in volume per volume units of in./ft. The latter numbers can be related
directly to precipitation, which is measured in inches.
The amount of water from infiltration that can be retained by the refuse de-
pends on the moisture content of the refuse when placed in the landfill. A certain
amount of water may be incorporated in the refuse due to the precipitation falling
while the refuse is placed in the fill. This will add to the moisture content of the
refuse. It does not rain every day, so many cells are constructed with no increase in
moisture. In fact, significant precipitation is required to exhaust the water retention
capacity of the refuse. The following computation shows the amount of additional
water that can be absorbed if the refuse has a dry density of 800 lb/yd3 and an
initial moisture content of 25%. The moisture content of the refuse in the fill is
assumed to be 50% before the moisture retention capacity of the refuse is exceeded.

Initial water = (800/0.75) - 800 = 267 lb/yd3

Water absorbed at 50% moisture = (800/0.5) - 800 = 800 lb/yd3
Net water absorbed = 800 - 267 = 533 lb/yd3
in./ft = (533 lb/yd3)(1 yd3/27 ft3)(l ft3/62.4 lb)(12 in./ft) = 3.80 in./ft

The moisture retention capacity of soil is also important, especially the soil
used in the cover material. There are two characteristics that are important, the
field capacity and the permanent wilting percentage. These relationships are shown
in Figure 11.14. When precipitation falls on a soil, it will immediately fill the sur-
face pores. Gravity and capillary action will draw the water into the soil. It will
continue to fill the pores until the precipitation ceases. A certain depth of soil will
be saturated. When the precipitation ceases, the water will continue to be pulled
into the soil by gravity. It will reach a certain moisture level that is defined as the
field capacity (FC). The field capacity of a soil is determined by subjecting it to a
capillary suction head of 100 cm of water. Except for the surface drying, the soil
will remain at this moisture level.
If plants are present and the roots extend into the soil of interest, the absorbed
moisture will be extracted during plant growth. During growth, the moisture will
eventually be reduced to a level at which the plants can no longer extract the water.
This is known as the permanent wilting percentage (PWP). The PWP is estimated
 Chap. 11 Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 249

Saturation point

c
s
8
2 removed
3
.-c.
u)

r"

wilting percentage
Figure 11.14 Moisture relationships
Time in soils.

by subjecting the soil to an equivalent capillary suction head of 15 atm. The differ-
ence between the field capacity and the permanent wilting percentage represents the
soil moisture reservoir. When the moisture content is less than the field capacity,
any infiltration will be absorbed and later released as transpiration by the plants. If
the moisture content exceeds the field capacity, the water will move deeper into the
fill. The moisture content will not be reduced below the permanent wilting percent-
age except by surface drying.
Soils have different moisture retention capacity as evidenced by the data in
Table 11.5. The clay, silt, and silt-clay soils will have field capacities in the range
4.0 to 4.5 in./ft. These are the typical soils used in the construction of landfill
covers. Soils that are all sand, especially uniform particle sizes, will have a very
low field capacity. This is the type of soil that would be used as a drainage layer
because of its permeability and inability to hold water.
The soil reservoir capacity is determined by the difference between the two
moisture levels. A silt that has a FC = 0.349 volume ratio and a PWP = 0.09
volume ratio is used as an example of this calculation.

FC = (0.349)(12 in./ft) = 4.2 in./ft

PWP = (0.090)( 12 in./ft) = 1.08 in./ft
Moisture reservoir = 4.2 in./ft - 1.08 in./ft = 3.12 in./ft

Table 11.5 Representative soil field capacities

Soil Field capacity (in./ft)

Clay 4.5
Silt 4. I
Coarse sand 0.5
250 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

The soil has the capacity to store 3.12 in. for each foot of depth. This is the amount
of water that can be extracted by the vegetation growing on the cover of the land-
fill. The time distribution of precipitation relative to this transpiration loss is an
important factor in determining the potential of the site for producing leachate. An
analysis of this relationship can be conducted to determine the net inflow of precip-
itation into the refuse.

Moisture Routing

A simplified example of this analysis is shown in Table 11.6. The monthly precip-
itation and potential evapotranspiration are shown in columns 2 and 3. This infor-
mation is obtained from records of the area under study. State agencies such as the
state water surveys will have historical precipitation data. They may also have
evapotranspiration data. The state agricultural service agencies will also be a source
of information on the soil-water relationships for specific areas. The difference

Table 11.0 Moisture routing in a sanitary landfill

~~ ~~~ ~~ ~

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Month Precipitation Potential evapotranspiration Net water CM deficit Excess water
(in.) (in.) (idmonth) (in.) (Z in.)
Jan." 3.40 0.5" 0 5.10 0
Feb." 2.95 0.5" 0 5.10 0
Mar. 4.02 0.62 3.40 I .70 0
Apr. 3.33 1.67 1.66 0.04 0
May 3.53 3.35 0.18 0 (-0.14) 0.14
June 4.07 5.25 -1.18 1.18 0.14
July 4.25 6.10 -1.85 3.03 0.14
Aug. 5.59 5.31 0.28 2.75 0.14
Sept. 3.95 3.74 0.21 2.54 0.14
Oct . 2.91 2.02 0.89 1.65 0.14
Nov. 3.53 0.75 2.78 0 (- 1.13) I .27
Dec. 3.03 0.5" 0 0 1.27
Jan." 3.40 0.5" 0 0 1.27
Feb." 2.95 0.5" 0 0 1.27
Mar. 4.02 0.62 3.40 0 4.67
Apr. 3.33 1.67 1.66 0 6.33
May 3.53 3.35 0.18 0 6.51
June 4.07 5.25 -1.18 1.18 6.51
July 4.25 6.10 -1.85 3.03 6.51
Aug. 5.59 5.31 0.28 2.75 6.51
Sept. 3.95 3.74 0.21 2.54 6.5 1
Oct . 2.91 2.02 0.89 1.65 6.51
Nov. 3.53 0.75 2.78 0 (-1.13) 7.64
Dec." 3.03 0.5" 0 0 7.64

"Ground frozen, 100% of precipitation is surface runoff,

Chap. 11 Role of Moisture in a Sanitary Landfill 251

between these two numbers represents the amount of water that will be available for
withdrawal from storage. When the monthly precipitation exceeds the potential
evapotranspiration, the excess water will either become surface runoff or will infil-
trate into the soil. When the converse is true, the water is withdrawn from the soil
moisture reservoir.
Column 4 is the difference between columns 2 and 3. The difference is treated
algebraically to compute the net water produced in in./month. There is a special
case associated with the months of December, January, and February. It is assumed
that the ground is frozen during these months and no water can percolate into the
soil cover. This condition is obviously site specific and may not exist in many parts
of the country. The excess water would then be handled in the same manner as with
the remaining months. However, the evapotranspiration is temperature dependent
and will be considerably reduced during the “winter” months.
It is necessary to define the conditions of the soil as it is placed on the land-
fill. The initial moisture will be some place between field capacity and permanent
wilting percentage. For this example assume the following conditions for the cover
material: cover depth = 3.0 ft; field capacity = 4.2 in./ft; permanent wilting
percentage = 1.08 in./ft; and initial moisture content = 2.50 in./ft. The following
information can be calculated from the foregoing soil conditions:
Maximum cover material deficit: (4.20 - 1.08 in./ft)(3.0 ft) = 9.36 in.
Initial cover material deficit: (4.20 - 2.50 in./ft)(3.0 ft) = 5.10 in.
This example assumes that the cover is placed on January 1 and has an initial
water deficit of 5.10 in. This is the amount of infiltration that is required to bring
the soil in the cover to field capacity. Column 5 indicates the cover material deficit
in total inches. Since the soil is frozen during January and February, none of the net
water can infiltrate the cover. It either evaporates or becomes surface runoff. How-
ever, in March the net 3.4 in. of precipitation will infiltrate the cover and reduce
the moisture deficit to 1.7 in. In the following 2 months, an additional 1.66 and
0.18 in. of net precipitation infiltrates the cover. This is sufficient to increase the
cover moisture to the field capacity of the soil and have an excess of 0.14 in. of
water that will penetrate the refuse.
In the month of June, the water loss by evapotranspiration is greater than the
precipitation, so water is removed from the soil reservoir. Consequently, the mois-
ture deficit in the cover material increases to 1.18 in. This continues until August,
when there is excess water remaining. The water deficit in the soil decreases to 0
in. in November. At this time, an excess of 1.27 in, of water has reached the refuse.
There is no more infiltration in December, when the ground again freezes. As a
result of the moisture inflow during the first year, the cover material is at field
capacity when the second year starts. The first-year balance is atypical because of
the soil moisture level when it was placed. It cannot be used to predict the condi-
tions for the subsequent years. After the first year, the refuse has received 1.27 in.
of excess water to add to the refuse moisture content. A wetted front where the
252 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

refuse has reached field capacity has moved into the refuse. Since this moisture is
out of the root zone, it cannot be removed by the vegetation.
The second-year moisture balance represents the normal water accumulation
for the precipitation and evapotranspiration conditions. Any significant change in
either of these conditions will change the water balance. A wet year will increase
the amount of water reaching the refuse, while a dry year will remove all of the
moisture from the soil reservoir, allowing for more of the precipitation to be ab-
sorbed. In the case presented here, the total net water can be computed by summing
columns 2 and 3 except for January, February, and December when the ground is
frozen. This is valid as long as the cover material never reaches a maximum deficit.
A continuation of Table 11.6 shows that at the end of 2 years, the excess
water reaches 7.64 in. During the second year, 6.37 in. (7.64 - 1.27 = 6.37) of
excess water infiltrate into the refuse in the landfill. If the refuse has a moisture-
absorbing capacity of 3.80 in./ft, the field capacity moisture front will move into
the fill at the rate of 1.68 ft/yr (6.37 inJ3.80 in./ft). The time it will take for
leachate to be produced will depend on the depth of the refuse and the intermediate
cover material. Assume that the refuse is placed in three lifts of 10 ft per lift with 1
ft of intermediate cover between the lifts. It will take 18.5 years [(30 fU1.68 ft/
yr) + (2 ft)(4.20 - 2.50 in./ft)/(6.37 inJyr)] for the leachate to reach the bottom of
the landfill. The first year is not included in this calculation and can be ignored
since only a limited amount of water reached the refuse. The moisture front will
penetrate the refuse only 0.33 ft [1.27 inJ(3.8 in./ft)].
The construction of a reasonably impervious cover on the landfill and provid-
ing sufficient slope to allow the surface water to drain to a storm drain system can
have a significant impact on the amount of water that will infiltrate the refuse.
Table 11.7 illustrates the effect if 20% of the precipitation that occurs in the months
when the ground is not frozen results in runoff. At the end of the first year, there is
an increase in moisture deficit of the soil cover. This suggests that the moisture
balance is such that more water is lost by evapotranspiration than infiltrates the
cover. During the second year, the moisture content of the cover soil reaches the
permanent wilting percentage. At this moisture content, the moisture deficit in the
soil is maximum. This cycle will be repeated each year as long as the precipitation
remains the same. The refuse will never reach field capacity and the landfill will
never produce leachate.
This analysis assumes that the characteristics of the material in the fill remain
constant over this time period. This is not necessarily true. The organic material in
the fill will be degraded as a result of the microbial action. Much of the mass will
be converted to gas and released from the fill. As a result of the imposed load, the
density will increase significantly. Also, the loss of the solid material will allow for
considerable consolidation of the fill. The moisture-holding capacity of the remain-
ing fill material may increase or decrease, depending on the changes that occur.
Most probably it will increase some because of the increased density.
This analysis is based on typical precipitation data for the midwest. In more
arid regions, the probability of leachate production from a reasonably designed and
Chap. 11 Help 253

Table 11.7 Effect of runoff on moisture balance in a sanitary landfill

Precipitation- Potential evapotranspiration Net water CM deficit Excess water

Month runofr (in.) (in.) (idmonth) (in.) (Z in.)
Jan.b 0 (3.40) 0.5b 0 5.10 0
Feb. 0 (2.95) 0.5b 0 5. IO 0
Mar. 3.22 0.62 2.60 2.50 0
Apr. 2.66 1.67 0.99 I .49 0
May 2.82 3.35 -0.53 2.02 0
June 3.26 5.25 -1.99 4.01 0
July 3.40 6.10 -2.70 6.71 0
Aug. 4.47 5.31 -0.84 7.55 0
Sept. 3.16 3.74 -0.58 8. I3 0
Oct. 2.33 2.02 0.31 8.82 0
Nov. 2.82 0.75 2.07 6.75 0
Decb 0 (3.03) O.Sb 0 6.75 0
Jan.b 0 (3.40) O.Sb 0 7.75 0
Feb. 0 (2.95) O.Sb 0 6.75 0
Mar. 3.22 0.62 2.60 4.05 0
Apr. 2.66 I .67 0.99 3.06 0
May 2.82 3.35 -0.53 3.59 0
June 3.26 5.25 - 1.99 5.58 0
July 3.40 6.10 -2.10 8.28 0
Aug. 4.47 5.31 -0.84 9.12 0
Sept. 3.16 3.74 -0.58 -
9.70 (9.36) 0
Oct. 2.33 2.02 0.3 1 9.05 0
Nov. 2.82 0.75 2.07 6.98 0
Dec . 0 (3.03) OSb 0 6.98 0

"20% of precipitation becomes runoff.

bGround frozen, 100%of precipitation is surface runoff.

operated landfill is very low. Conversely, areas of high precipitation such as the
southeast will experience more problems with leachate and the provisions for lea-
chate collection and treatment represent good design practice.

A computerized system for conducting the analysis above has been developed for
the U.S. EPA by the Waterways Experiment Station of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) program is
a quasi-two-dimensional hydrologic model of the water movement across, into,
through, and out of a landfill. The model accepts climatologic, soil, and design data
and utilizes a solution technique for the effects of surface storage, runoff, infiltra-
tion, evapotranspiration, soil moisture storage, and lateral drainage. Figure 11.15
illustrates the landfill system, including various combinations of vegetation, cover
soil, waste cells, special drainage layers, and relatively impermeable soil barriers,
as well as synthetic membrane covers and liners that are modeled by HELP. The
254 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

Precipitation Evapotranspiration
Surface runoff

t
-
- ;Infiltration I
F
Vegetative layer
h
P
3 Lateral drainage layer
L

%
Q Moisture barrier layer
j Percolation into refuse
I

t
Compacted refuse
I
-
q
0)
F

v)

Lateral drainage layer

L L (leachate collection)
P .E-

ir Moisture barrier layer

I
Percolation (to
groundwater)

Figure 11.15 Schematic of the components modeled by HELP:

program was developed to facilitate rapid estimation of the amounts of runoff,

drainage, and leachate that may be expected from the operation of a wide variety of
landfill designs. The model, applicable to open, partially closed, and fully closed
sites, is a very useful tool for both designers and permit writers.
The program contains an extensive data base on the characteristics of various
soil types, precipitation patterns, evapotranspiration-temperature relationships as
well as the necessary mathematical formulations to utilize these data in conducting
the analysis of the moisture flow in the landfill. Because of the size of the original
program, a minicomputer or possibly one of the newer workstations is required for
its use. Version 2.0 can be run on the newer microcomputers.
The transfer of moisture through each layer of a landfill (e.g., the top soil,
clay cap, refuse, leachate collection system, and bottom liner) is modeled based on
various equations of flow through porous media, evapotranspiration, and runoff. A
clear understanding of the limitations and the basic assumptions used by the HELP
model is required to interpret the results. The model uses Darcy’s equation [equa-
tion (4)]for flow through porous media to estimate the infiltration rates through the
Chap. 11 Help 255

Table 11.8 Effect of cover permeability on leachate production

Final cover, P ( c d s e c )
Existing
conditions 10-5 lo+ 10-7
~

Precipitation (mgd) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93

Runoff (mgd) 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.26
Evapotranspiration (mgd) 0.43 0.48 0.60 0.64
Leachate (mgd) 0.47 0.43 0.21 0.01

various layers of the landfill. This equation is valid only when the soil and the
refuse moisture content has exceeded the field capacity and free water is present in
the pores. In fact, the material should be saturated for this equation to apply. Some
of the major limitations are:

1. It may take years for the landfill cap, the refuse, and the landfill liner to
approach field capacity. If a final cover is placed on a landfill before the
refuse reaches field capacity, the rate of infiltration through the refuse will be
greatly reduced and the time required for the refuse to reach field capacity
will be greatly extended and may never occur.
2. Leachate may be produced before the entire refuse bed reaches field capacity
due to channeling of the water through the refuse.
3. The model does not allow for failure of the moisture barrier. Cracking of the
cover can introduce large quantities of water into a limited volume of refuse,
resulting in rapid production of leachate.

Even with these limitations, HELP is a valuable tool for analysis of the design
of landfills. If the site is maintained so that the system components are functioning,
the predictions of this model will be very helpful. An example of the utility of
HELP in evaluation of a cover design is an analysis of the leachate production
potential of the New York City Fountain Avenue landfill.2 This 300-acre site oper-
ated between 1961 and 1985, receiving up to 3000 tonslday of mixed urban refuse.
The calculated quantity of leachate generated under different designs for the final
cover is shown in Table 11.8. Existing conditions consisted of 1 ft of intermediate
cover of silty sand with a permeability between lo-’ and cdsec. The fate of
the precipitation shown in Table 11.8 results from 18 in. of soil cover with the
indicated permeability capped with 6 in. of top soil. The leachate is reduced from
about 470,000 gallondday to only 10,000 gallondday when the cover has a perme-
ability of cdsec.

’R. B. Gardner and E. T. Conrad, “The Use of the HELP Model in Evaluating Alternative Leachate
Management Plans for Three New York City Landfills,” Proceedings, Waste Tech ’86, National Solid Waste
Management Association, Washington, DC, 1986.
256 Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation Chap. 11

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are the important topographic and hydrogeologic factors that must be
considered when selecting a site for a sanitary landfill?
2. What are the soil classifications according to particle size?
3. What types of soils are suited for the following applications: (a) moisture bar-
rier; (b) drainage barrier; (c) vehicle support; (d) final cover material?
4. What is the importance of permeability when considering soils for landfill
applications?
5 . What is the objective in the siting of landfills relative to the groundwater
table?
6. What is the difference between a groundwater recharge and discharge area
relative to landfill sites?
7. Explain how a trench landfill is constructed.
8. Explain the advantage of an area method over a trench method for the con-
struction of a sanitary landfill.
9. What supporting activities/facilities must be included in the development of a
landfill site?
10. How does the size of the cell and the number of lifts in a landfill affect the
percentage of the fill that is occupied by cover material?
11. What are the primary objectives of the final cover on a sanitary landfill?
What types of soils are best suited to meet these objectives?
12. What are some of the problems associated with using a drainage layer in a
landfill cover to remove excess filtration?
13. What types of materials can be used as hydraulic barriers in both landfill
covers and landfill liners?
14. Explain the possible fate of precipitation that falls on the surface of a landfill.
15. What factors determine the rate of infiltration into the soil?
16. What is the field capacity? What is the permanent wilting percentage?
17. A soil has a field capacity of 0.35 volume ratio and a permanent wilting
percentage of 0.08. What is the moisture retention capacity?
18. What is the relationship between climate and evapotranspiration?
19. A refuse with an in-place density of 600 lb of dry solids per cubic yard
reaches field capacity when the moisture content reaches 60%. How much
water expressed in in./ft of refuse can the landfill hold if the moisture content
of the refuse is 30% when it is placed in the landfill?
20. If a sanitary landfill is located in central Illinois, estimate the time required
for leachate to be produced under the following conditions:
(a) Three lifts, 12 ft of refuse per lift, 1 ft of intermediate cover, 3 ft of final
cover.
Chap. 11 Study Questions 257

Soil Refuse

FC, 4.1 in./ft In-place density, 600 Ib/yd'

PWP, 1.0 in./ft dry solids
Initial moisture, 2.5 in./ft FC at 55% moisture
Initial moisture, 25%

(b) Cover is flat, so no surface runoff occurs except when ground is frozen, at
which point 100% runoff occurs.
________ ~~

Precipitation Potential evapotranspiration

Month (inhonth) (inhonth)

Jan." 2.2 0.7

Feb." 1.9 0.9
Mar. 3.3 I .o
Apr. 3.7 2.3
May 4.1 3.4
June 4.2 4.4
July 3.5 4.6
Aug. 3.1 4.6
Sept. 3.3 3.8
Oct. 2.9 2.2
Nov. 2.7 0.9
Dec. 2.2 0.8

"Ground is frozen, so all precipitation will become runoff.

21. Using the same data in Question 20, calculate the time required to produce
leachate if the cover is sloped to allow 20% runoff of precipitation when
ground is not frozen, at which time 100% runoff occurs.
22. What is HELP?
Control of Leachate and
Gas from Sanitary Landfills

LEACHATE CONTROL

The control of leachate can be accomplished in two ways: (1) prevent the precipi-
tation from entering the refuse by an appropriate cover, or (2) collect and treat the
leachate produced by the site. If the moisture conditions are such that the formation
of leachate can be prevented without an expensive cover, this is the preferred tech-
nique for control. However, if excessive precipitation exists and leachate production
is likely, it is necessary to provide for its collection and treatment. It is still appro-
priate to design a cover that will reduce the inflow of water. The treatment of lea-
chate is costly, as will be shown later.

Leachate Collection System

The leachate collection requires the establishment of an underdrain system as illus-

trated in Figure 11.5. A collector line connects the individual drain lines to a wet
well located outside the active fill area. All drain lines are designed for gravity
flow, but since only a liquid is being transported, the slopes on these pipes can be
very flat, but a slope to the collector line is necessary. A major problem with the
flat slopes is the potential subsidence that may occur if the base of the fill is not
properly constructed to support the imposed load of the refuse and cover material.
If this occurs, the leachate will remain in the fill and have the potential of leaking
from the site.

258
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 259

A lift station is required to pump the leachate to the surface for treatment or
storage prior to transporting to a disposal site. The size of the wet well must be
sufficient to store enough leachate to keep the pump in the lift station from cycling
too frequently. The pump size will be dictated by the predicted leachate production
rate. A 50-gaVmin pump would require a wet well capacity of at least 1000 gallons.
Any less volume would require the pump to cycle too frequently. If on-site treat-
ment is employed, the treatment system should have sufficient surge capacity to
accommodate the flow rates that occur when the pump operates.
If the projected volume of leachate is low and the decision is made to haul it
to a treatment facility, on-site storage is required. Tank trucks with volumes of
about 5000 to 8000 gallons can be used to haul the leachate. The size of truck will
be determined by the road conditions and allowable weights. It is necessary to have
sufficient surface storage capacity to be able to fill the tanker perhaps several times.
The haul costs may be more attractive if several loads can be hauled during each
cycle. A surface storage volume equal to several tanker volumes may be desirable.
A high-capacity transfer pump will be needed to fill the tanker in a reasonable time.
The surface storage tank will have to be freeze resistant in colder climates.
The tank can be insulated if aboveground installation is selected, or it can be cov-
ered with soil to provide the necessary insulation. The leachate pumped from the
landfill will be at moderate temperatures of perhaps 50 to 6OoF, so all that is nec-
essary is sufficient insulation to prevent loss of this temperature. The corrosiveness
of the leachate will require a material that is corrosion resistant. A concrete or
carbon steel tank with an epoxy coating on the interior or fiber-reinforced plastic
tank will be satisfactory. Local costs will determine the selection.

Leachate Properties

Before effective processes for treatment of leachate from a land disposal facility can
be identified, the characteristics of the leachate must be defined. The composition
of leachate from a landfill receiving only residential refuse will be substantially
different from the leachate originating from a site that has been receiving industrial
solvents. A complete characterization of the leachate is necessary before treat-
ment is attempted. Contaminants may range from simple short-chain organic acids
that exert a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), to high total dissolved solids, to
soluble metals (cadmium, iron, lead, mercury, zinc, etc.), to volatile organic com-
pounds, to toxic organic compounds such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, and so on.
The quality of leachate is determined by several factors, including the age of
the fill, the biological activity in the fill, the infiltration rate, and the material
placed in the fill. Biological decomposition of the organic material will signifi-
cantly change the chemical environment in the fill. Many solid materials may be-
come soluble as a result of this change and the biological transformation of the
organic solids that occurs. As this biological activity continues, the organic material
is converted into gases that may migrate from the fill site. The longer the period of
260 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

biological stabilization, the more stable the organic solids become, resulting in less
material being available for leaching. High rates of infiltration will extract the con-
taminants from the fill at a much faster rate as well as reduce the concentration of
contaminants in the leachate.
The contamination can be classified in general categories according to the
type of treatment processes that are required for their removal. Biodegradable or-
ganic compounds (BOD) represent those compounds that can be stabilized by aer-
obic or anaerobic biological processes. This represents a wide variety of organic
substances, toxic and nontoxic. Nonpolar compounds that can be adsorbed on acti-
vated carbon represent the majority of the remaining organic compounds. Some
organic contaminants may be in such dilute concentrations that neither biological
nor activated carbon treatment processes are practical. If the organic compound is
volatile, removal by air stripping may be possible. If not, it may be necessary to
employ a strong chemical oxidant such as chlorine, ozone, or peroxide. Finally, the
inorganic ions, such as heavy metals, must be removed by chemical precipitation or
ion exchange. As a contaminant category, total dissolved solids is not as binding as
the above and is usually not a consideration in leachate treatment.

Biological transformations. The sanitary landfill contains a complex mi-

crobial ecosystem. In general, the initial moisture content of the refuse is low and
the biological activity is substantially inhibited. However, there are pockets of mois-
ture that will support a vigorous population of microorganisms. Therefore, long
before the landfill reaches field capacity and starts to produce leachate, a substan-
tial number of biological transformations has occurred. After the initial oxygen that
is trapped in the refuse voids is depleted, the aerobic biological stabilization rapidly
turns anaerobic. The anaerobic biological transformations discussed in Chapter 10
are the same as those occurring in a sanitary landfill.
The chemical environment changes as a result of this anaerobic decomposi-
tion. The acidity produced by the formation of the organic acids and the carbonic
acid can decrease the pH to levels of less than 5.0 during the active acid fermen-
tation phase. The acid pH will substantially alter the solubility of metals as illus-
trated in Table 12.1. Of the metals shown, only ferric iron (Fe’+) and mercury
(Hg2’) are insoluble in pure water at moderately acid pH levels. The other metal
ions become very soluble at the lower pH.
There is also a significant change in the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
of the environment. As the ORP becomes negative, the various oxidized species
become reduced. The impact of the ORP change on some metal ion solubility in
water is also illustrated in Table 12.1. For example, the solubility of iron at pH of
7.0 increases from 1.2 X IO-’’ mg/L in the ferric form to 1.2 X lo4 mg/L in the
ferrous form. This table is concerned only with the solubility of these ions in pure
water since the insoluble form is the hydroxide species. The introduction of other
anions can significantly alter the solubilities of metal ions. Table 12.2 shows but a
few examples of the solubility of metal salts in water. The presence of the carbonate
ion and the sulfide ion significantly alter the solubility of many of the metal cations.
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 261

Table 12.1 Metal ion solubilitya in pure water as a function of pH

Metal
PH
ion
(mglL) 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Cd V.S. V.S. V.S. 1200 12

cu V.S. V.S. 14.0 0.14 1.4 x 10-3
Fez+ V.S. V.S. V.S. 1.2 x io4 120
Fe3+ 1.2 x 1.2 x 10- 1.2 x 10-1 1.2 x 10-13 1.2 x 10-15
Pb V.S. V.S. V.S. 2.5 X 10" 250
Hg 6.0 X lo-' 6.0 x IO- 3 6.0 x 10-5 6.0 x 1 0 - ~ 6.0 x 10-9
Ni V.S. V.S. V.S. 6.0 x 103 60
Zn V.S. V.S. V.S. 130 1.3

Source: Data from A. J. Bard, Chemical Equilibrium, Harper & Row, New York, 1966.
"V.S., very soluble

The carbonate and sulfide ions are not normally present in the surface water
that infiltrates into the landfill. The carbonate ion forms from the carbon dioxide
that dissolves in the water. However, the pH must be above 7.0 before the carbonate
ion becomes a significant factor in the solubility of the metal cations. The sulfide
ion is also a result of the biological activity. In an anaerobic environment, any
sulfate ions present in the leachate can be reduced by sulfate-reducing bacteria. The
sulfide produced will react with the metal cations to form insoluble metal sulfide
precipitates. Unfortunately, the quantity of sulfur present in most refuse is limited
and the available sulfide is soon reacted with the large supply of metal ions. Solu-
ble metals will appear in the acidified leachate.
Also, metal solubility is affected by a variety of other factors, some of which
are of biological origin. For example, it has been shown that cegtain bacteria have
the ability to convert some metals into an organic form. This was demonstrated
with mercury, when it was shown that the methylmercury found in natural waters
resulted from the biological transformation of deposits of mercury metal into the

Table 12.2 Solubility of metal salts in water

Compound mg/L

CdS 1.1 x IO-^

cus 1.6 x IO-"
FeCO, 0.33
FeS 1.4 x 1 0 - ~
PbCO, 0.07
PbS 1.7 x 10-15
HgS 2.0 x Io-z'
NIS 5.9 x
ZnS 1.0 x

Source: A. J. Bard, Chemical Equilibrium, Harper &

Row, New York, 1966.
262 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

mobile methylmercury. Organic compounds that are found in the leachate may also
form a complex with the metal cation that is very soluble and mobile. The form of the
metal is an important consideration in deciding on appropriate treatment processes.
The biological activity is also responsible for a major change in the form of
the solid waste. Much of the solid organic material is biodegradable and the micro-
organisms are able to convert the insoluble polymers into soluble monomers. Cel-
lulose, a common constituent in paper, yard wastes, and food wastes is a good
example of this change. A hydrolysis reaction converts the insoluble cellulose fibers
into glucose. Not only is the glucose soluble, but it is also a prime substrate for the
fermentative bacteria that are responsible for the formation of organic acids.
The soluble organic material released by the biological action in the fill joins
the soluble metals and other ions released by the acid pH to produce the contami-
nation that can be expected in leachate from any sanitary landfill. The concentra-
tion of the soluble organic material (BOD and COD) will be determined by the
amount of additional stabilization that occurs from methane fermentation. Because
of the active methane production that may occur in an established older fill, the
leachate will be substantially different from a young fill. The BOD will be signifi-
cantly lower, the pH will be nearer to neutral (7.0), and the concentration of metal
ions will be lower. The dissolved solids and the nonbiodegradable organic com-
pounds, as measured by the difference between the BOD and the COD, will prob-
ably remain at high concentrations.
In addition to the metals made soluble by the acid and reduced conditions and
the products of the biological fermentation, leachate may contain a variety of other
contaminants. These contaminants will depend on the types of materials that were
placed in the fill during its life. One may find everything from small quantities of
household pesticides to industrial chemicals. This depends on the degree of control
exercised over the types of material received at the landfill. Before any attempt can
be made to develop a treatment train for leachate from an existing sanitary landfill,
it will be essential to know the composition of the leachate.

Leachate composition. The literature contains numerous reports on the

characteristics of leachate from sanitary landfills, and each site is unique. Table 2.4
lists the range of values reported for the different contaminants. Table 12.3 presents
the average composition of leachate collected each year over a 4-year period from
one site. These data show several characteristics of leachate that are important in
devising a treatment system. The high BOD values suggest that much of the organic
material is biodegradable and can be removed with a biological process. There is,
however, a significant amount of biologically inert material as indicated by the dif-
ference between the BOD and COD concentrations. The ultimate BOD or COD of
the biodegradable components can be estimated at 1.5 times the BOD reported in
Table 12.3.
The data in this table illustrate the variability in the yearly average of the
concentrations of the various contaminants. The variability between each sample
was even more pronounced. Substantial variations occurred in the BOD and COD
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 263

Table 12.3 Landfill leachate characteristics

Concentration (mg/L except pH)

Contaminant Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

BOD 4,460 13,000 11,359 10,907

COD 11,210 20,032 21,836 18,533
Dissolved solids 11,190 14,154 13,181 13,029
PH 7. I 6.6 7.3 6.9
Alkalinity (CaCO,) 5,685 5,620 4,830 5,404
Hardness (CaCO,) 5,116 4,986 3,135 4,652
Calcium 65 I 894 725 8 18
Magnesium 652 454 250 453
Phosphate 3 3 3 3
Kjeldahl-N 1.660 760 611 984
Sulfate 1 I4 683 428 462
Chloride 4,816 4,395 3,101 4,240
Sodium I , 177 1.386 1,457 1,354
Potassium 969 950 968 96 I
Cadmium 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.09
Chromium 0.16 0.43 0.22 0.28
Copper 0.44 0.39 0.32 0.39
Iron 245 378 176 3 12
Nickel 0.53 I .98 1.27 I .55
Lead 0.52 0.81 0.45 0.67
Zinc 8.70 31 11 21
Mercury 0.007 0.005 0.011 0.007
~

Source: J. D. Keenan, R. L. Steiner, and A. A. Fungaroli, “Chemical-Physical Leachate Treatment,”

Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 6, 1984, pp. 1371-1384.

from the first year. Also, the concentration of some of the metal ions changed sub-
stantially as did the hardness and the total dissolved solids. Treatment of wastewater
with this variability is difficult unless provisions are made to cope with such vari-
ation. A surface storage basin should be considered to equalize the variation in
volume and concentration that will likely occur.
Any treatment train will probably include processes for removal of biodegrad-
able and nonbiodegradable organic components. The required reduction in the BOD
and COD concentration will be determined by the point of discharge. BOD levels
of 200 mg/L will generally be accepted for discharge to a sanitary sewer. For dis-
charge to a stream or lake, the BOD may have to be reduced to 30 mg/L or less.
Standards for COD concentrations have not been defined for most discharges. The
concern is more for the specific organic compounds contributing to the COD. How-
ever, a surface water discharge permit for an effluent containing 4000 to 5000 mg/L
COD would probably not be granted. Discharge of a high COD leachate to a sani-
tary sewer is an option.
The metal ions are of particular concern because of the very strict discharge
standards, especially for such metals as cadmium, lead, and mercury. Table 12.4
264 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Table 12.4 State of Illinois water quality standards

Standard (KglL)

Metal Acute Chronic

Arsenic 360 190

Cadmium e{l. 128[ln(hardness)] - 2.918) e{0.7852[In(hardness)] - 3.490)
Chromium (total) 16 11
Copper e{0.9422[ln(hardness)] - 1.464) e{0,8545[ln(hardness)]- 1.455)
Iron (total) lo00
Lead e{ I .273[1n(hardness)] - I .46}
Mercury 0.5
Nickel lo00
Zinc lo00

Source: Illinois Environmenfal Register 366, Illinois Pollution Control Board, Chicago, Sept. 1 , 1988.

lists the Illinois water quality standards for metal cations commonly found in lea-
chate. Where chronic standards are listed, they refer to the concentration outside of
the mixing zone in the receiving water. Otherwise, the acute standard applies at all
points in the receiving water. Because these metals are removed in wastewater treat-
ment plants and become part of the sludge, most municipalities and sanitary dis-
tricts are imposing pretreatment regulations that require metal removal prior to
discharge to the sanitary sewer system. This metal-laden sludge may have to be
treated as a hazardous waste. Consequently, all leachate will probably require treat-
ment to remove metals prior to discharge to a natural water body or sanitary sewer.
The remaining contaminants shown in Table 12.3 may or may not be required
to be removed prior to discharge. The nitrogen and phosphorus levels are very low
for the biological treatment of the leachate. Phosphorus will definitely have to be
added as a nutrient to obtain an acceptable population of microorganisms. Depend-
ing on the biological process, nitrogen may also be limiting. The other cations and
anions per se do not present a problem. The composite of these ions as represented
by the dissolved solids is in excess of the 1000 mg/L Illinois water quality stan-
dards. The hardness, as represented by the calcium and magnesium ions, and the
alkalinity can be removed by lime precipitation. However, the chloride salts of so-
dium and potassium require a more expensive process such as ion exchange or re-
verse osmosis. If discharge is to a sanitary sewer, the dilution with the sanitary
sewage will generally eliminate the need for total dissolved solids removal.
Finally, one must be concerned with the organic compounds that are on the
list of priority pollutants. These compounds may fall in one of the foregoing cate-
gories and be removed as part of the BOD or COD. Those compounds that are
biodegradable will be metabolized in the biological process. Nonbiodegradable or-
ganic compounds could be expected to adsorb to the biomass or to the activated
carbon that may be used for COD removal. It is possible that some of these com-
pounds may be air stripped in an aerobic biological process. The allowable concen-
trations of these materials in the effluent are so low that extra care is required to
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 265

ensure that the required efficiency is obtained. If not, additional treatment will be
required to achieve the specified standard.

Leachate Treatment Systems

Reduction of the high BOD common in the leachate from landfills, especially rel-
atively young sites, is accomplished with either an aerobic or anaerobic biological
process. In any biological process, the concentration of metals is of concern. The
zinc concentration in the leachate shown in Table 12.3 is very high, a level that
would be toxic to microorganisms in the biological process. The other metal ions
are at marginal levels and may not be toxic. The fate of these metal ions in the
biological process must be ascertained.
The pH of either an aerobic or anaerobic system must be 7.0 or above for
successful operation. If the acidity is caused by organic acids, very little base will
be required to obtain the neutral pH. The acids are metabolized by the organisms,
consuming the hydrogen ion that causes the acidity. As the pH increases, the solu-
bility of the metal ions decreases (see Table 12.1) and iron (ferric) and mercury in
particular become very insoluble. The presence of alkalinity, the carbonate ion, also
precipitates some of the metal ions (see Table 12.2). A careful analysis of the sol-
ubility of the metals known to be present in the leachate must be made to determine
if pretreatment of the leachate is necessary before attempting to treat it with bio-
logical processes.
Anaerobic treatment processes. Any time the BOD concentration is in ex-
cess of 1000 to 2000 mg/L, an anaerobic biological process is the likely choice for
the initial treatment step. The sulfate present in the leachate is reduced to sulfide in
this process. This sulfide plus additional sulfide that may be present in the leachate
provide an important anion for the removal of several metal cations (see Table
12.2). The heavy metal removal efficiency in the anaerobic biological process is
generally high as long as sufficient sulfur is present to precipitate these metals. If
sulfur is inadequate, it can be added to the anaerobic process as a sulfide salt.
A variety of anaerobic processes is available; ranging from a conventional
CSTR (completely stirred tank reactor) with or without sludge recycle to a packed-
bed anaerobic reactor to a fluidized-bed reactor. Figure 12.1 is a schematic of these
reactor types. The CSTR in Figure 12.l(a) is an enclosed gastight tank with a mix-
ing system to keep the contents from stratifying. Because of the relatively low rate
of the anaerobic fermentation, this process is normally heated to 35°C. When a
CSTR has solids separation and recycle added, it is termed an anaerobic contact
process, as shown in Figure 12.1(b). The solids recycle increases the solids reten-
tion time (SRT) to a level greater than the hydraulic retention time (HRT). The
efficiency of BOD reduction is a function of the biological SRT; consequently, this
process can achieve a higher reduction of contamination at a short HRT without the
need for heating. The fixed-film reactor [Figure 12.l(c)] can be a packed-bed reac-
tor or a fluidized-bed reactor.
266 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Inf

Fixed film reactor

(C)

Figure 12.1 Anaerobic processes to consider for treating leachate.

The anaerobic biofilm (fixed-film) reactor offers several advantages as a pro-

cess for treating leachate. As evidenced by the packed-bed or fluidized-bed reac-
tors, the biofilm reactor is the most effective means of achieving a SRT that is not
a direct function of the hydraulic retention time. The reactor contains a packing that
has a large specific surface area. The microorganisms attach to the column packing
medium. With the proper design considerations, extremely long SRTs can be ob-
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 267

tained. Because of this very long SRT, the anaerobic biofilm reactor is capable of
producing much better treatment efficiencies than a CSTR or an anaerobic contact
process. Since anaerobic methane fermentation is the active biological process,
power costs for oxygen transfer are nonexistent.
The anaerobic biofilm reactor is generally operated in an upflow mode. With-
out effluent recycle the column operates as a plug-flow reactor. If the waste
strength is high, process failure can occur because of the multistep nature of the
methane fermentation process. This problem is easily solved with effluent recycle.
At high recycle rates, the flow regime in the reactor will approach a CSTR. In the
fluidized-bed reactor, a bed of small particles is expanded with the aid of effluent
recycle. The small particles provide a high specific surface area for a thin dense
microbial growth. This permits a high concentration of biomass within the reactor,
and because the biofilm is thin, substrate diffusion limitations are minimized. The
metal precipitation that occurs in these reactors can pose a severe operating prob-
lem. Sludge will accumulate in the voids and metal salts will precipitate on the
packing. An operational procedure is necessary to remove the sludge and clean the
precipitates from the packing. The fluidization velocity in the fluidized-bed reactor
prevents the accumulation of solids. It is also possible to remove a portion of the
media from the reactor periodically for cleaning. The cleaned media can be returned
to the reactor for reuse.
Many types and strengths of wastewater have been treated with fluidized-bed
anaerobic reactors. The data in Table 12.5 show the performance of packed-bed and
fluidized-bed reactors for the treatment of still bottoms from an alcohol production
plant. The BOD of the stillage is composed of many of the same fermentation
products as leachate. The major difference between the two treatment systems was
the specific surface area of the media; the packed-bed system was 187 m-' (613

Table 12.5 Performance of anaerobic packed-bed and fluidized-bed reactors in the

treatment of high-strength wastewater

Packed-bed Fluidized-bed

Parameter Run I Run 2 Run 3 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

Retention
Time (days) I .8 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.92 0.23
Influent COD 9900 1 1,500 26,000 48,500 44,200 27,900
Effluent COD 380 910 5,764 900 800 3,400
Ib COD
ft3-day 0.34 0.81 1.8 I .7 4.6 11.5
% COD
removed 96 92 78 98 98 88

Source: P. Muhs, Treatment of an Ethanol Fermentation-Distillation Wastewater with an Anaerobic

Fluidized-Bed and Anaerobic Fixed-Film Filters, unpublished report, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1985.
268 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

ft-I) and the fluidized-bed system was 4400 m-’ (13,114 ft-I). The data in this
table clearly illustrate the greater capacity of the fluidized-bed reactor in treating
wastewater containing a high concentration of biodegradable organic compounds.
The use of granular activated carbon (GAC) in lieu of an inert material as the
medium in an anaerobic fluidized-bed reactor significantly improves treatment effi-
ciencies, especially when the leachate contains nonbiodegradable components. The
GAC medium has superior biofilm attachment properties and provides a longer SRT
within the reactor. The adsorption capacity of the GAC provides a buffer to smooth
fluctuations in feed strength as seen during shock loads to the treatment system.
Wastewater containing a high concentration of phenolic compounds plus a variety
of other compounds produced in the thermal gasification of coal have been treated
successfully by this process. The wastewater was treated in a two-stage system con-
sisting of a GAC fluidized-bed anaerobic reactor followed by an aerobic polishing
process. The aerobic process was necessary to oxidize the high level of ammonia
and the cyanide and thiocyanate present in the wastewater. It will generally be true
that an aerobic process will be required after anaerobic treatment to provide final
polishing of the effluent prior to discharge to other than a sanitary sewer system.
A summary of the steady-state performance of the two-stage system when
treating this wastewater is presented in Table 12.6. The only organic compounds
that were identified in the GAC anaerobic reactor effluent were the five phenolic
compounds. However, none of these compounds were detected in the effluent from
the aerobic treatment system. Steady-state total and filtered COD removal efficien-
cies in the GAC reactor were 94 and 95%, while the corresponding removal effi-
ciencies of these constituents across the total treatment system were in excess of
98%. In addition to reducing the COD in the anaerobic reactor effluent, the aerobic
Table 12.6 Steady-state performance of the two-stage treatment system

Concentration (mglL)

Reactor Final
Parameter Influent effluent effluent”

Total COD 14,658 907 272

Filtered COD 753 208
Cyanide 275 275 30
Thiocyanate 218 218 36
Ammonia-N 1,244 1,244 59
Phenol 1,957 0.05 BDL
0-Cresol 663 8.75 BDL
m- and p-Cresol 1,473 17.09 BDL
2,4-Dimethylphenol 67 0.05 BDL
3 3- and 2,3-Dimethylphenol 233 0.30 BDL

Source: J . T. Pfeffer and M. T. Suidan, “Anaerobic-Aerobic Process for Treating Coal

Gasification Wastewater,’’ Proceedings of the Industrial Waste Symposium, 58 Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, VA, 1985, pp. 235-249.
”BDL, below detection limits of gas chromatography.
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 269

polishing system was responsible for removal of ammonia, cyanide, and thiocy-
anate. The removal efficiencies for these three constituents were 95, 89, and 83%,
respectively.
The success of this process in treating wastewater containing toxic compounds
is controlled by the ability of the GAC to adsorb the toxic substances. During start-
up, significant concentrations of toxic compounds in the wastewater will inhibit the
growth of the microorganisms necessary to degrade the COD. This is true even if
the toxic compounds are biodegradable. Adsorption of the biodegradable toxic com-
pounds allows the microorganism population to develop to the level required to
metabolize these substances at the rate at which they are being fed to the system.
This adsorption capacity of the GAC serves as a sink that can adsorb surges of toxic
organic compounds and prevent toxicity from occurring. The excess biodegradable
material is held until the soluble concentration of these organic compounds is re-
duced. Desorption can then occur and this adsorbed COD can be metabolized by
the biofilm.
The nonbiodegradable adsorbable organic compounds must be adsorbed by the
GAC as they are introduced into the reactor. Adsorption is the only mechanism for
removal of this material. Adequate adsorption capacity must be available to keep
the toxic compounds below their threshold level. As the carbon becomes exhausted,
the soluble concentration of these toxic compounds begins to increase. This in-
crease begins to inhibit the biofilm, causing an increase in the concentration of the
biodegradable organic compounds. Since many of the biodegradable compounds can
be adsorbed, the capacity of the carbon is consumed even more rapidly. As a result,
process failure is rapid. This condition clearly shows the importance of maintaining
the capacity of the carbon by replacing spent carbon with fresh carbon. This re-
placement rate is controlled by the rate of application of the nonbiodegradable COD
and not the rate of application of total COD. The higher the percentage of biode-
gradable COD, the lower the rate of carbon replacement.
The efficiency of the biofilm in metabolizing the biodegradable COD is con-
trolled by the SRT of the biological process. Since the biofilm is attached to the
carbon, the SRT is determined by the replacement rate of the carbon. If 1% of the
carbon is replaced per day, the SRT of the reactor would be 100 days. A 5% per day
replacement rate would yield a 20-day SRT. As discussed above, the carbon re-
placement rate is controlled by the rate at which nonbiodegradable COD is applied
to the reactor and the adsorptive capacity of the carbon. The COD application rate
is a function of the concentration of nonbiodegradable COD in the influent and the
hydraulic retention time of the reactor. As the nonbiodegradable COD loading rate
increases, the SRT will decrease.
The presence of certain organic compounds may complicate treatment. If lea-
chate is contaminated with such organic compounds as PCBs or dioxin, treatment
processes specific for these materials will be required. The presence of compounds
such as organic solvents (benzene, chloroform, methyl chloride, etc.) needs special
consideration. Many of these compounds are nonpolar, having a limited solubility in
water. In general, such compounds have an affinity for activated carbon and should
270 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

show a high removal efficiency in the GAC reactor. However, the standards imposed
may be impractical to meet when employing the high COD loading commensurate
with efficient operation of the anaerobic GAC fluidized-bed reactor. Additional
treatment for these compounds may be necessary. They are generally quite volatile
and could be expected to be stripped in the aeration basin of an aerobic process.
Therefore, it may be possible to remove these residual organic materials from the
leachate by air stripping. However, in some air quality districts there are regulations
for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wastewater
treatment processes.
The variability of leachate requires characterization of each site regarding the
BOD, COD, BODKOD ratio, metals, and organic compounds that are on the pri-
ority pollutant list. An anaerobic fluidized-bed GAC reactor offers an efficient sys-
tem for removing both the biodegradable (BOD)and nonbiodegradable (COD)
organic materials. Metals will also be precipitated as metal sulfides if adequate
sulfur is available in the leachate or added to the reactor as a sulfide salt. Periodic
replacement of a portion of the carbon is necessary to maintain the adsorption ca-
pacity of the carbon. If the carbon becomes saturated, the. process will fail rapidly.
The fluidized-bed system will prevent the accumulation of sludge in the reactor and
the carbon replacement will remove the metal precipitates that form on the carbon
surface. Carbon adsorption will remove many of the organic priority pollutants, but
because of the very low levels permitted in the effluent, subsequent treatment may
be required.

Aerobic treatment processes. There are a variety of aerobic treatment pro-

cesses that one may consider for the treatment of leachate. The biological processes
have the ability to stabilize only the BOD. Nonbiodegradable material is removed
only incidentally by limited adsorption to the biomass and other solids that are
generated in the process. Aerobic processing can render many of the metals insol-
uble due to the neutral pH, the presence of carbonate ions, and the oxidation state
resulting from the aeration. The insoluble metals are incorporated into the biomass
and removed along with the sludge that is generated. Therefore, a solids removal
mechanism is desirable for the treatment of leachate.
When selecting an aerobic treatment process, one should remember that the
volume of leachate produced per day is generally small. Also, the staff support for
the operation of this process will be limited unless a significant labor cost is accept-
able. Consequently, the simpler the process, the more suitable it will be. One of the
most simple processing systems is a multistage lagoon system. Figure 12.2 is a
representation of a two-stage lagoon system that can be designed to treat raw lea-
chate or to serve as a polishing unit for an anaerobic process. The first stage is an
aerated lagoon designed to have a rapid rate of BOD stabilization. Because the
leachate will have a high BOD, it is necessary to transfer oxygen to the lagoon
artificially to keep it from becoming anaerobic and creating significant odor prob-
lems. The second stage is a stabilization pond that provides additional stabilization
and also provides a solids removal mechanism. The solids will deposit on the bot-
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 271

Mechanical

Aerated lagoon
Stabilization ponds

Figure 12.2 Two-stage lagoon system for leachate treatment.

tom of the second-stage ponds. By constructing more than one cell, a cell can be
allowed to dewater and dry so that the deposited solids can periodically be re-
moved.
The first-stage lagoon can be analyzed as a CSTR. The BOD stabilization rate
is first-order, equal to kS,where S is the BOD in the basin and k is the rate constant
in (days)-'. A mass balance on the CSTR will yield

_S -- 1
So 1 + k0
From this equation and a value for k = 0.55 day-', the BOD removal efficiency of
the aerated lagoon can be calculated. For example, if the hydraulic retention time
(e) is 15 days, the BOD removal efficiency at 20°C will be 89.2%. The value of k
is temperature dependent and a "rule of thumb" is that it changes by a factor of 2
for each 10°C change in temperature. At 1O"C, the value of k would be approxi-
mately 0.275 day-'. The BOD removal efficiency will be reduced to 80.5% for a
15-day retention time. If the influent BOD (So)is large, say 5000 mg/L, the efflu-
ent BOD (S) will be high. At 20"C, there will still be 490 mg/L of BOD in the
effluent [5000(1 - 0.892)].
The aeration in the aerated lagoon is accomplished with either a surface me-
chanical aerator or a diffused air system. The surface aerator is preferred because of
the ease of installation. These units can be mounted on pontoons and floated in
the lagoon. This is especially attractive when the lagoons are constructed earthen
basins. Depending on the soil conditions, it may be necessary to line these lagoons
to prevent the leachate from infiltrating into the soil. The power required for the
aeration can be estimated from the BOD stabilization. Each pound of BOD, will
require approximately 1.5 lb of oxygen for stabilization. A typical surface aerator
will deliver about 2 lb of oxygen for each horsepower-hour of energy used. This
relationship will permit sizing of the aerator and calculating the energy costs.
The first-stage lagoon is relatively deep, 12 to 15 ft, depending on the volume
required. It does not rely on any static air-water surface interactions. Mechanical
272 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

energy is used to assist in the transfer of the oxygen from the air. Conversely, the
second-stage lagoon relies heavily on the static air-water surface for oxygen trans-
fer. This lagoon will be shallow, 3 to 4 ft deep. Because of the various mechanisms
active in this stage, there is no model that adequately describes the BOD reduction.
Solids separation will be an important factor in the BOD reduction. The biomass
formed in the first stage has a substantial BOD that is removed by the settling in
the second stage.
The retention time is one design parameter used to size the lagoon. With a
retention time of about 60 days, one can expect an additional 90% reduction of the
BOD in the effluent from the first stage. An alternative design is based on a BOD,
loading rate. A typical rate that will achieve about 90% BOD reduction is 15 lb
BOD,/ac-day. It is relatively easy to reduce the leachate BOD to a level that is
acceptable for discharge to most sanitary sewer systems. However, for discharge to
a receiving water, a third-stage stabilization pond with an additional retention time
of 60 days will probably be required for the lagoon system of treatment. In many
areas of the country where the evaporation rate from a free water surface exceeds
the precipitation rate, the retention time in the three-stage system may be sufficient
so that all of the water is lost by evaporation and there is no effluent.

Expected Life for Biological Activity in a Landfill

One issue that is frequently underestimated when considering the postclosure lia-
bility of a landfill and the associated leachate treatment or disposal is the length of
time leachate will be produced. As discussed previously, it may be years after clo-
sure before the fill reaches field capacity and leachate is produced. The environ-
ment that develops in the fill can be expected to retard the biological activity and
prolong the release of soluble material. The acid production phase essentially
“pickles” the refuse by reducing the pH to inhibitory levels. As these acids are
leached, additional organic polymers are hydrolyzed and fermented to more acids.
Methane fermentation will also slowly reduce the acidity, allowing for more biodeg-
radation. This continues until all of the biodegradable material is either leached
from the site or converted to methane and carbon dioxide.
The time required for this to happen can be very long. The following example
can be used to illustrate how long the leachate production may continue. The con-
ditions chosen will actually increase the rate of stabilization of the fill. Assume that
the BOD of the leachate is 20,000 mg/L at the start of leachate production. Since
there is a gradual reduction in the concentration of BOD with time, one can assume
an average BOD of 5000 mg/L over the period of biological activity in the fill.
Also, the rate of infiltration will be important in determining the mass of organic
material leached. Assume that 24 in./yr of precipitation infiltrates into the site.
That will produce 0.653 million gallons (MG) per acre per year of leachate. The
rate of BOD leaching is calculated as follows:
Chap. 12 Leachate Control 273

(0.653 MG/ac-yr) (8.34 lb/gal) (5000 ppm) = 27,250 lb/ac-yr

= 13.63 tons/ac-yr
Now the tons of refuse per acre of fill can be computed given the depth of
refuse (assume 30 ft) and the density (assume 500 lb/yd3 dry solids):
tons of refuse
acre
= (30 ac-ft)( 1610 2) (0.25 $) =
tons
12,075 -ac

The question now is to determine the quantity of biodegradable solids in this

refuse and their fate. The following assumptions are made:

1. 75% of the dry solids is organic material.

2. 25% of the organic solids is nonbiodegradable.
3. 65% of the organic solids is converted to methane and carbon dioxide.
4. 10%of the organic solids is leached as BOD,.
Leached organic solids = (12,075 tons/ac) (0.75) (0.10) = 906 tonslac
If the ratio of BOD, to leached organic material is 0.75, the BOD, available
per acre for leaching will be
leachable BOD, = (906 tons/ac) (0.75) = 679 tons/ac
The time required for all of the BOD, to be leached from the landfill is
(679 tons/ac) ( 1 ac-yd13.63 tons) = 50 years
This extended time period has significant implications on the long-term costs
of landfill closure. The current requirement for sufficient capital to fund postclosure
activities for only 30 years after closure may be totally inadequate. If a municipality
owns the facility, it will have to continue funding the postclosure operating costs as
long as needed. The funds can be obtained from the general tax revenue or from
surcharges on the current refuse disposal system. If a private corporation owns the
land, the funds for this long-term operation will be paid out of corporate profits, or
if the company is no longer in business, it will become a public cost. The message
is to avoid as much as possible the production of leachate.

Discharge of Leachate to Publicly Owned Treatment Works

One option for leachate disposal is to discharge it to a publicly owned treatment

works (POTW). This option may be available to landfills that are located in an area
that has a large POTW. However, in a smaller community in which the landfill
receives all of the community refuse, the impact of the leachate on the POTW can
be devastating. The following example illustrates the impact of the direct discharge
274 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

of leachate to the POTW handling the wastewater from the population that pro-
duces the refuse. If one assumes that the landfill has an operating life of 20 years
and, as discussed above, the site has 12,075 tons of refuse per acre, the population
served can be computed:
ton refuse
population served =

The volume of wastewater produced by this population is 36.7 million gallons

per year [(1006)(100 gal/person-day)(365 day/yr) = 36,700,0001. The calculated
volume of leachate is 650,000 gal/ac-yr if the infiltration is 24 in./year. The BOD,
of the influent to the POTW during the initial period of leachate production is
calculated by taking a weighted average of the BOD of the leachate (say 10,000
mg/L) and raw sewage (150 mg/L).

BOD( 1 + g) = (150 mg/L) (1) + (10,000 mglL) (E) -

BOD5 = 320 mg/L

The contaminants in the leachate are primarily soluble compounds, so the BOD can
be expected to pass on to the secondary treatment processes. The influent BOD to
the secondary portion of the POTW is typically between 100 and 150 mg/L. With
the leachate addition the load on the secondary processes will increase by a factor
of 2 to 3. Since the design of this portion of a POTW is based on the BOD loading
rate, the secondary process capacity must be doubled or tripled to accept the in-
creased load.
There are numerous other assumptions that can be made for the example
above with an equal number of results. However, as long as the quantity of leachate
is significant, the impact on the POTW will be significant. A leachate BOD of
10,000 or even 5000 mg/L will increase the BOD of the influent to the POTW to a
level that will overload the secondary treatment processes. The volume flow rate of
the leachate must be considerably less than 1% of the wastewater flow if this over-
load is to be prevented.
Most POTWs require pretreatment of any discharge to a sanitary sewer to a
level comparable to normal domestic sewage. Under certain conditions, higher
BOD concentrations will be accepted, but there is a significant charge for the dis-
charge. The charge is intended to recover the cost of treating the wastewater. The
sewer use charge varies for different POTWs. An example is the charge imposed in
1990 by the Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District.' The charge based on the
volume of sewage was $1.04 per 1000 gallons. In addition, a charge of $104.00 per
1000 lb of BOD is levied. This sewer use charge can substantially increase the
operating cost of the landfill.

'Ordinance 481, Urbana and Champaign Sanitary District, Urbana, IL, 1990.
 Chap. 12 Fate of the Leachate Contaminants in the Subsoils 275

In the example discussed above, 27,250 lb/ac-yr of BOD was discharged from
the landfill. This calculates to an annual cost for the BOD load of $2834 per acre-
year. With a flow of 650,000 gallondyear, the volume charge will be an additional
$676 per acre-year. The total cost is $3500 per acre-year. To be meaningful, this
annual cost must be related to the 12,075 tons of refuse (dry solids) placed in each
acre of the fill. The annual cost for treating the leachate for this example is $0.29
per ton-year of dry solids. How long will the landfill be generating the leachate: 20
years; 50 years? If 20 years, the cost of treating the leachate will be $5.80 per ton
of refuse dry solids. If 50 years, the cost will be $14.50 per ton of refuse dry solids.
These are significant sums that must be considered in the pricing of the tip fee at
the site. All too often, the postclosure costs are grossly underestimated.

FATE OF THE LEACHATE CONTAMINANTS IN THE SUBSOILS

The effect of the leachate on the groundwater after it leaves the landfill is deter-
mined by the characteristics of the underlying geological formations. There is a
time factor relating to the time of travel (TOT) to a compliance point, such as a
water well or monitoring well. Depending on the porosity of the substrata, the TOT
can be a few days to a few centuries. While the leachate is passing through these
formations, there is a possibility for removal of the contaminants by a variety of
biological, chemical, and physical processes. Again, these processes will depend on
the characteristics of the formations.

The Effects of Soil Porosity and Hydraulic Gradient on TOT

The Darcy equation can be used to define the flow of water in a saturated soil:
Q = PIA (2)
where Q = flow rate
P = permeability of the soil
I = hydraulic gradient
A = cross-sectional area of the flow path
Since Q/A is a velocity term, this equation can be expressed as follows, where the
velocity of flow (V) in a saturated soil is defined by the soil permeability and the
hydraulic gradient:
v = PI (3)
If a landfill is fortunate to have a thick clay deposit under it that may have a
permeability of io-’ c d s e c , the flow velocity will be
ft
276 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

If water is not ponded on top of this soil, the hydraulic gradient will be 1 fVft. It
will take 10 years for the leachate to pass through 1 ft of this soil. Unfortunately,
there may be layers of more porous material mixed with the clay. Of course, the
leachate will flow through the porous material at a much higher rate. The value of
placing a 5-ft clay liner in a landfill is obvious. If a leachate collection system is
installed, there will not be any ponded water, so the hydraulic gradient will be
1 ft/ft. It will be 50 years before any leachate will pass through a clay layer with
this permeability. As discussed below, one can expect significant improvement in
the quality of this leachate as it passes through the clay.
The horizontal movement of the leachate through the clay will be almost non-
existent. The hydraulic gradient is very low, so the driving force is minimal. How-
ever, if the permeability of the soil is high, the horizontal movement of the leachate
can be substantial. For example, a uniform fine sand may have a permeability of
c d s e c . Even with a flat hydraulic gradient of, say, 53 fVmile, the distance
the leachate can move is significant. The same calculation as above will show that
the contamination can move about 10 ftlyear. Since these landfills are likely to
produce leachate for several decades, it is conceivable that the contamination could
move 500 ft or more even with such a flat hydraulic gradient.

In-Situ Biological Activity

The soil is generally well inoculated with bacteria and other microorganisms. The
presence of biodegradable material in the leachate will increase this population sig-
nificantly. The increasing microbial population rapidly depletes any oxygen that
may have been present in the soil. Anaerobic fermentation is established. The
oxidation-reduction potential is lowered, reducing the oxidized elements that are
present in the leachate. A particularly important step is the conversion of sulfate
into sulfide. As discussed earlier, many metals are insoluble in the presence of
sulfides. This side effect of biological stabilization can be very effective in immo-
bilizing heavy metals, causing them to be held in the soil matrix as insoluble pre-
cipitates. These precipitates, as well as the biomass growth, can also plug the soil
pores and greatly reduce the permeability.
This biological activity will occur in all soils, pervious and impervious. Even
though a sandy soil may allow for the rapid movement of the leachate, only the
nonbiodegradable materials are generally found any distance from the landfill. Un-
fortunately, these substances are frequently the toxic materials that have been de-
posited in the landfill. If the concentration of these toxic substances is sufficiently
high, it is possible to inhibit the biological activity in the soil. Then the biodegrad-
able materials may be found at significant distances from the site.
This biological activity does change the quality of the groundwater. The re-
duced sulfur may be present as hydrogen sulfide, rotten-egg gas. Some naturally
occurring metals such as iron and manganese may become soluble under the re-
duced conditions. The carbon dioxide produced will depress the pH, which will
Chap. 12 Fate of the Leachate Contaminants in the Subsoils 277

increase the solubility of calcium carbonate, thereby increasing the hardness of the
water. These changes degrade the quality of the groundwater but do not render it
unsafe. Technology exists and is frequently used to remove these contaminants,
which also occur naturally.

Cation-Exchange Capacity

For aqueous concentrations of metals (cations) in the same order of magnitude as

those of competing ions, adsorptive interactions are generally described as ion-
exchange reactions. This is a reversible process by which cations and anions are
exchanged between the solid and liquid phases. Cation ion exchange is generally the
more important when considering the attenuation of ions contained in the leachate.
The fractions of soil that are the seats for cation exchange are the organic and
mineral particles having effective diameters less than 20 pm. This includes a por-
tion of the silt, all of the clay particles, as well as colloidal organic matter.
Positively charged cations are attracted to surfaces that are negatively
charged. The negative charge on the organic particles arises from the ionization of
the carboxyl (COOH) and hydroxyl (OH) functional groups present in the organic
particle. The charge on the clay arises from two sources: ionization of the hydroxyl
groups attached to the silica atoms at the broken edges of the tetrahedral planes,
and by isomorphous substitution. The latter is the substitution of “proxy” atoms
for the silica and aluminum found in the crystalline structure. Examples are AI3+ or
Fe3+ for Si4+ or Mg2+ for A13+. This causes a fairly uniform net negative charge
to develop on the clay particles.
Mineral clays in soils are of two general classes. The 2:1 clays are composed
of layers consisting of a sheet of alumina interposed between two silica sheets.
Montmorillonite, beidellite and vermiculite are 2:1 clays. The 1:1 clays are com-
posed of layers that contain one silica sheet and one alumina sheet. The charge on
2: 1 clays results primarily from isomorphous substitution, while the lesser charge
on the 1:1 clays is a result of the ionization of the hydroxyl groups at the broken
edges of the plates.
The negative charge that develops on the organic and mineral colloids is neu-
tralized by cations attracted to the surface of these colloids. Numerous cations,
including calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, ammonium, aluminum, iron,
and hydrogen, are adsorbed to the charged sites with varying degrees of tenacity,
depending on the cation charge and hydrated radii. As a general rule, di- and triva-
lent cations are more strongly bound to the colloid than are monovalent cations.
Also, the greater the degree of hydration of an ion, the less tightly it will be held.
The cation-exchange capacity (CEC) of a soil will be affected by the nature
and the amount of mineral and organic colloid present. Soils with large amounts of
clay and organic matter will have a much higher CEC than that of sandy soils. Also,
soils with 2: 1 clays will have a higher CEC than that of soils with 1 :1 clays. Typical
values for CEC are 100 to 200 mEq/100 g for organic colloids, 40 to 80 mEq/100 g
278 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

for 2:l clays, and 10 to 20 mEq/lOO g for 1:l clays. The pH also affects the CEC of
all colloids. For example, a soil humus with a CEC of 150 to 300 mEq/lOO g at a
pH of 7.0 will see this value drop to 10 to 20 at a pH of 4.0. At these lower pH
levels, the H+ concentration is sufficiently high to compete for the exchange sites.
These values for the CEC indicate the quantity of metal that can be removed by
soils. If the CEC for iron is 100 mEq/100 g, the soil would be able to remove about
2.8 g of iron per 100 g of soil. Considering the mass of soil contained in a 5-ft
cover, one can calculate the amount of metal retained in the liner.

Adsorption Properties of Soils

Many soils exhibit a significant capacity for surface adsorption of organic materials
from water passing through the soil matrix. The organic carbon content of the soil
has been observed to be a common parameter that can be used to define the ad-
sorptive capacity of soils for specific organic compounds.2 This relationship can be
expressed as a partition coefficient (KO,):
pg chemical/g organic carbon
KO, =
pg chemical/g water
(4)

The organic matter in most soils is intimately bound to clay as a clay-metal-

organic complex. As a result, there are two major types of adsorbing surfaces avail-
able to a chemical: clay-organic and clay (mineral). The relative contribution of the
organic and inorganic surface areas depends on the extent to which the clay is
coated with organic matter. Comparative studies between known clay minerals and
organic soils suggest that most, but not all, organic molecules have a greater affin-
ity for organic surfaces than mineral surfaces. However, the influence of clay on
organic chemical adsorption can be significant, especially in soils where the organic
matter is below 1%.
Table 12.7 presents empirical regression equations determined for some
classes of organic chemicals. These values for KO, are correlated with the solubility

Table 12.7 Regression Equations for the Estimation of KO,

Equation Chemical classes

log K, -0.557 log S + 4.277 Chlorinated hydrocarbons

(S in pmol/L)
log K, = -0.55 log S + 3.64 Variety of pesticides
(S in mg/L)
log K, = -0.54 log S + 0.44 Aromatic and polynuclear
(S in mole fraction) aromatics

Source: James Dragun, Hazardous Materials Control, SeptJOct. 1988, p. 24.

2James Dragun, Hazardous Materials Control, Sept./Oct. 1988, p. 24.

 Chap. 12 Landfill Gas Control/Recovery 279

of the organic material in water. Very strong correlations have also been found
between KO, and the octanol-water coefficient (Kow).
The importance of this mechanism in control of the typical quantities of toxic
organic compounds that may be observed in the leachate from a landfill receiving
only residential refuse can be seen with the following calculation. For example,
1,l ,2-trichloroethane (TCA), a chlorinated hydrocarbon has a solubility of 4.5 g/L
or 33,700 p.mol/L. From the equation in Table 12.7 for chlorinated hydrocarbons,
the KO, is calculated to be 57.0. If the concentration of TCA in the leachate is 1
mg/L, the TCA retained per gram of organic carbon in the soil can be computed
from equation (4) to be 57.0 pg TCNg organic carbon. A typical organic-clay soil
may contain as much as 5% by weight of organic carbon. The quantity of TCA
adsorbed by this soil would be 2.85 p.g/g of soil. A soil with a specific gravity of
2.0 will contain 124.8 Ib of soil per ft3. The total amount of TCA adsorbed by this
soil will be 0.16 g/ft3. Consider a liner that is 5 ft deep; how much leachate will
need to pass through this liner to exhaust its capacity to adsorb TCA if the TCA is at
a concentration of 1 mg/L?
(5 ft3/ft2)(0.16 g/ft3)
Leachate volume = = 800 L/ft2
1 0 - ~ g/L
This is equivalent to infiltration of 340 in. of precipitation through the landfill.
Consider the time required to obtain this much leachate if the cover prevented
90% of the precipitation from infiltrating the landfill and the leachate collection
system was 90% effective in capturing the leachate. Under the assumptions above,
an area receiving about 31 in./yr of precipitation would have 0.3 in./yr of leachate
escaping the landfill. It would require about 1000 years for enough leachate to pass
through the landfill to exhaust the adsorptive capacity of the clay liner.
The scenario above is subject to many assumptions, but the same conclusion
is obtained regardless. A properly designed, constructed, and maintained landfill
will provide almost a certain guarantee that groundwater pollution will not occur as
long as the refuse is restricted to the normal urban solid waste, and wastes from
toxic and hazardous materials generators are not accepted.

LANDFILL GAS CONTROURECOVERY

The gas produced by the decomposition of the refuse placed in a landfill has a bad
history. There are several recorded instances of explosions in structures built on or
near a landfill. Several of these explosions have resulted in deaths. In addition to
this hazard, the gases have been associated with intense odor problems. Release of
hydrogen sulfide plus a variety of decomposition products such as volatile amines
create severe odor problems for neighbors of a landfill. The sanitary landfill has
been identified as a significant source of hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide emissions
contributing to the concern for local and global air quality. Consequently, control of
280 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

the gases generated by the landfills is receiving more attention. Both the federal
and state regulatory agencies are increasing the requirements for landfill gas control.
There are two potential sources of gases from the landfill: gases produced by
the decomposition of the organic solids in the refuse, and volatilization of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) such as organic solvents that have been placed in the
landfill. The former will continue to be a problem, while the latter will be greatly
reduced as a result of the ban on the disposal of hazardous wastes in sanitary land-
fills. Existing sites may continue to generate VOCs if they were accepted into the
site. There will always be a very limited amount of VOCs, due to the household
chemicals that are part of the urban waste stream.
When the refuse is placed in the fill under conditions that support biological
activity, the oxygen present in the refuse voids is rapidly used by the aerobic mi-
croorganisms to metabolize the biodegradable solids. Carbon dioxide is produced by
this reaction. In a short time, the gas composition is changed by replacing the
oxygen with carbon dioxide so that the gas is about 20% carbon dioxide and 80%
nitrogen. The initial anaerobic decomposition that develops when the oxygen is
exhausted is fermentative, producing additional carbon dioxide. The added volume
of CO, increases the internal pressure of the fill and displaces the nitrogen by forc-
ing it from the fill. The gas will be composed primarily of CO,, with a small
percentage of hydrogen that results from the acetogenic reactions. This transient gas
composition is eventually replaced with an equilibrium composition that develops as
the methane fermentation becomes active. Since the majority of the solid waste is
carbohydrate, the gas composition will approach 50% CH, and 50% CO,. This is
the gas composition that is considered when evaluating the control/recovery of
landfill gas. Contamination with nitrogen and oxygen may occur in a site that is not
well contained. The landfill will “breathe” as a result of the changes in atmo-
spheric pressures. During high-pressure periods, air will flow into the fill as the
void volume in the fill is compressed. During low pressure, the converse is true. In
a fill that has a significant gas production rate and is reasonably tight, this contam-
ination will not be noticeable.

Gas Migration in Soil

Normally, the gas will move from the fill by molecular diffusion through the soil
cover and the adjacent soil. If the internal pressure of the fill is above atmospheric
but not sufficient to rupture the cover, the pressure differential will increase the rate
of diffusion by increasing the partial pressure of the CH, and CO,. In all cases the
gas will move along the path of least resistance. If the soil in the liner is very tight,
the gas will not move through it easily. If a tight cover exists that has a significant
resistance to gas diffusion, the internal gas pressure may increase sufficiently to lift
the soil or synthetic membrane, causing a rupture to occur. When this occurs, the
gas is flowing through a free opening and is driven by a pressure differential only.
Molecular diffusion no longer applies.
Chap. 12 Landfill Gas Control/Recovery 281

Fick's law defines the molecular diffusion as a function of the concentration

gradient and a property of the gas defined as diffusivity. Gas concentrations are
expressed as lb-moles per cubic foot. The gradient includes a length term to define
the distance over which the concentration changes. The definition of this length has
a significant impact on the manner in which gas diffuses from the site, and results
in two different equations for gas diffusion. The cover has a fixed dimension and
the concentration of CH, and COz above the fill will remain constant at the typical
values for the atmosphere. Therefore, the following equation can be used to define
the rate of gas diffusion through the cover material:3

where
q = net velocity or transfer rate, lb-mol/ft2-day
Cfill = lb-mol/ft3 of gas in the fill
Cair= lb-mol/ft3 of gas in the atmosphere
L = depth of landfill soil cover, ft
Dp = diffusivity of gas in soil, ft2/day
The diffusivity of gas through the soil (0,)is a function of the soil porosity
(p = ratio of the volume of pores to total soil volume) and the gas diffusivity in
free space (Do):
Dp = 0.66pD0 (6)
The gas diffusion through the bottom and the sides of the landfill is modeled
as a point source since the gas diffuses radially in all directions except through the
cover. Also, the concentration of the gas in the soil pores changes with time until it
reaches the composition of the gas in the fill. Therefore, the concentration gradient
is not constant, but time dependent. The following equation describes the rate of
gas diffusion horizontally and downward from the fill:

q = cofy2 (7)

This equation assumes that similar soils surround the fill. Co is the concentra-
tion of the gas at the soil-refuse interface. As the value of t increases, the diffusion
rate decreases as the square root of time. Examination of these equations will show
that assuming the same porosity of soil, the gas diffusion will be much greater
through the cover.

'In-Situ Investigation of Movements of Gas Produced from Decomposing Refuse, California Water
Quality Control Board Publication 35, 1967.
282 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Gas Production Potential

The gas production potential can be determined from the quantity of solid waste
placed in the landfill. If the biodegradable fraction of the refuse is assumed to be
primarily cellulose, the stoichiometric volume of gas generated per pound of solids
destroyed is 13.3 scf. Using the example presented on page 273, there are 12,075
tons of dry solids per acre in a 30-ft-deep landfill. If 65% of these solids are con-
verted to CH, and CO,, the maximum gas that can be generated by the methane
fermentation process is
(12,075 tons) (2000 lb/ton) (0.65) (13.3 scf/lb) = 209 X lo6 scf/ac
The unknown in this analysis is the rate at which the gas will be produced.
There are many factors that determine this rate. Refuse is known to be deficient in
nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients are essential to the growth of the micro-
organisms necessary for the fermentation reactions. A low moisture content will
also retard the bacterial activity. Whenever the moisture content is less than 75%,
biological activity is a function of the moisture level. A low temperature will also
reduce the rate of activity. While the average environmental conditions in the fill
may be detrimental to a high rate of bacterial activity, there may be pockets of the
fill (garbage and grass clippings) where the moisture and nutrient levels are satis-
factory for good bacterial growth. As the refuse in these pockets is stabilized, the
moisture and the nutrients become partially available for biological activity in more
of the refuse. It is not practical to attempt to add the required nutrients and mois-
ture. It has been proposed that sewage sludge be deposited in the landfill to enhance
the growth conditions for the fermentative bacteria. Many landfills do accept sew-
age sludge in various states of dewatering. There are some implications of accept-
ing the extra water that can be expected to exacerbate the leachate production.
There is little good information on the rate at which gas is generated under
the typical conditions encountered in a landfill. Numerous laboratory lysimeter
studies have indicated that the refuse could be stabilized in a matter of months.
These are ideal conditions that are never encountered in a full-scale landfill. The
rates of stabilization observed in the field have been much slower. A large-scale test
facility was constructed at the Mountain View, California, landfill site to obtain
data on the gas production rates from refuse that was placed in the test cells with
each cell receiving different treatments. No discernible difference in the treatments
was observed, due in part to faulty monitoring systems. The baseline conditions did
produce some indication of the production rates that could be expected. The first-
year production rate was low but increased substantially for the next 5 years. The
rate then decreased to a lower rate, which might be expected for an extended period
(10 to 20 years). These production rates were as follows:
Year 1 0.20 scf/lb dry solids
Year 2-6 0.50 scf/lb dry solids
Year 7-? 0.25 scf/lb dry solids
Chap. 12 Landfill Gas Control/Recovery 283

Table 12.8 Gas production potential

Production [ IO00 scf/day (Mcf/day)] for operating year:

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ZMcf/day

1 171 171
2 427 171 598
3 I 427 171 1025
4 I I 427 171 1452
5 I I I 427 171 I879
6 I I I I 427 171 2306
7 214 I I I I 427 171 2520
8 I 214 I I I I 427 171 2734
9 I I 214 I I I I 427 171 2948
10 I I I 214 I I I I 427 171 3 162
I1 I I I I 214 I I I I 427 3 I62
12 I I I I I 214 I I I I 3 162
13 I I I I I I 214 I I I 3 162
14 I I I I I I I 214 I I 3 162
15 I I I I I I I I 214 I 3 162
16 I I I I I I I I I 214 3 162
17 0 1 I I I I I I I I 2948
18 0 1 I I I I I I I 2734
19 0 1 I I I I I I 2520
20 0 1 I I I I I 2306

These rates can be used to estimate the gas production potential for a landfill.
Assume that sections of the fill are completed annually and a gas recovery system
is installed when each section is completed. Also assume that the fill receives 800
tonslday (600 tons of dry solids) of refuse. With the figures above, Table 12.8 can
be constructed. It is assumed that the fill has a 10-year operating life. The gas
produced by each section of the fill as it is completed annually is listed in the
columns. The total gas production from the fill each year after the start is computed
by summing the rows. After some time in the fill, the refuse will cease to produce
gas, so the total gas production will peak when the initially filled material ceases to
produce measurable quantities of gas.
Assuming that 75% of the solids are organic solids and that 75% of these
solids are biodegradable, the theoretical gas production for each year’s worth of
refuse placed in the fill would be 2.3 X lo9 scf. The total gas produced in each
column can be determined by summing the daily gas production for each of the
years indicated. If this is done for year 1, the total is 1.6 X lo9 scf. This represents
about 70% of the theoretical gas production in this period. Additional gas may be
produced for a number of years, but the production rate will be substantially lower
than the rates used to construct Table 12.9. It has been observed in the field that
the gas will continue to be produced for many years. The active life of the fill for
gas production is difficult to predict because of the many factors that determine the
rate at which the gas is produced. By monitoring the gas production during the first
 284 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Gas
Interior burner
recovery well / Blower Exterior

,
\
Passive Gas
Venting vent flare Barrier Exterior p:edjb'e
wall recovery well
trench I I I

(a) Passive gas venting (b) Gas recovery

Figure 12.3 Schemes for the control of gas migration.

few years and comparing it with the theoretical gas production, an estimate can be
made of how long gas production can be expected.

Gas Recovery/Migration Control

The requirements for control of gas migration and, in some areas, the discharge of
hydrocarbons (CH,) to the atmosphere generally require installation of some type of
landfill gas collection system. Once the collection system is installed, it may be
economically desirable to use the gas as an energy source. The installation of the
gas control system will account for a significant portion of the cost. The additional
cost for gas utilization is easily recovered from the sale of the energy.
Figure 12.3(a) illustrates a passive system for control of gas migration. The
fill is surrounded by either an impervious barrier of a tight clay or a slurry trench,
or it has a synthetic membrane liner that prevents the flow of gas from the fill.
Another option is to install a venting trench around the periphery of the fill. This
trench is filled with crushed stone that allows the gas moving horizontally to escape
by diffusing up through the trench to the atmosphere. In addition, wells or vents
may be installed on the surface of the fill to allow the gas to escape. These wells
may be vented to the atmosphere or to a gas flare that burns the gas as it is liber-
ated. Local permit conditions will dictate the system to be installed. Figure 12.3(b)
illustrates the installation of gas recovery wells on the periphery of the fill. The gas
is collected by a header pipe and transported to a gas utilization system.
Chap. 12 Landfill Gas Control/Recovery 285

system

Monitoring
probes

Figure 12.4 Active landfill gas recovery

system.

If gas recovery is the prime objective, additional wells will be installed in the
fill to assist in more efficient recovery of the gas. Figure 12.4 illustrates the general
approach to the installation of the gas recovery wells. The well extends to about
80% of the fill depth. Spacing will vary, depending on the construction of the fill.
If a tight soil is used for the intermediate and daily cover, it will be necessary for
each cell to be penetrated by a well. Spacings will typically be on a grid with
distances between wells varying from about 100 to 200 ft. The individual wells are
collected to a header pipe that conveys the gas to a central point for processing.
Figure 12.5 illustrates an approach used by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts that is a combination of wells and collection trenches. As the landfill lifts
are completed, a trench is constructed in the refuse directly underneath the soil

Gas
Gas utilization collection
System

J
Gas wells
and trenches

Leachate
monitoring

deposits

Figure 12.5 Gas recovery system used in canyon landfills.

286 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

4-in. PVC drilled

kid
(a) Gas recovery well (b) Gas monitoring well

Figure 12.6 Gas monitoring and recovery wells.

cover. This trench is filled with crushed stone and connected to a collector pipe at
the back of the landfill. Since these are canyon fills, construction of these collector
pipes and the gas recovery system is possible before the fill is completed. It is
possible to initiate gas migration control and gas recovery before the site is closed.
When the site is closed, gas recovery wells can be added on the surface as needed
to ensure complete coverage of the landfill with a gas removal unit.
The construction of the gas recovery wells has not been standardized. Each
gas recovery designer has a typical design. Figure 12.6(a) illustrates such a design
for installation of peripheral wells. This concept can be applied to wells located on
the fill. A major concern is the integrity of the piping. Settling, especially differ-
ential settling, can cause failure of the pipe unless sufficient flexible connections
are provided. Some designers will locate the collector pipes above the fill surface.
Construction is simplified since it is not necessary to excavate the refuse to place
the pipes. Also, stresses due to differential settling can be managed. Protection
from freezing will be necessary in cold climates. The gas released from the fill will
be wet and the condensation that will occur in the exposed pipes can freeze.
The gas monitoring probe illustrated in Figure 12.6(b) is installed in the soil
adjacent to the landfill. Its purpose is to determine if methane is migrating from the
site. The probe can be a simple perforated PVC pipe that is embedded in a bore
hole backfilled with gravel or coarse sand. The top of the well is sealed with a tight
clay cap or concrete. Internal pressure as well as methane concentrations can be
Chap. 12 Landfill Gas ControVRecovery 287

measured with this probe. A more complicated probe can sample from different
levels by separating the bore hole into zones. Each zone has a sampling pipe open
to the gas environment in that zone. The f-in. pipe in Figure 12.6(b) shows how
such a multilevel monitoring well can be constructed.
The gas extraction rate must be carefully monitored to prevent drawing a vac-
uum on the landfill. If this occurs, air will be drawn into the fill. This reduces the
heating value of the gas and the air contamination may prevent use as a pipeline
quality gas. The gas processing systems are designed to separate methane from
carbon dioxide, not from oxygen and nitrogen. The changing atmospheric pressures
will significantly alter the volume of gas that can be extracted. If the barometer is
rising, the gas volume in the fill is decreased by the pressure increase. The extrac-
tion rate will decrease accordingly. A falling barometer will result in an increase in
the extraction rate. Control of the extraction rate is achieved by monitoring the
pressure differential between the fill and the atmosphere. Also, oxygen monitors
can detect the presence of air in the landfill gas, indicating the need to reduce the
extraction rate.

Gas Utilization

The typical composition of the gas extracted from a landfill is presented in Table
12.9. The heating value of this gas is 476 Btuhcf. There are a number of other
gases that may be found in this gas, depending on the materials received at the site.
Older fills may have received industrial wastes that contained VOCs. It is common
for these compounds to be found in the landfill gas. New fills will not experience
this problem due to the prohibition on the acceptance of hazardous wastes. The
household solvents and related substances will not be in sufficient quantity to be
detected in the gas.
The heating value of the gas is sufficient to use directly as boiler fuel or as
fuel for a gas turbine or internal combustion engine. Combustion of the gas at the
high temperatures of a boiler or turbine will oxidize the various organic contami-
nants present in the gas. The steam generated by the boiler would be used for pro-
cess heat by an industry. For the gas to be used for this purpose, the industry must
be relatively close to the landfill. The cost of transporting the gas any significant
distance is prohibitive. An alternative use is to generate electricity with a gas tur-
bine. A steam boiler can also be added to the gas turbine to generate low-pressure

Table 12.9 Typical landfill gas composition

Constituent Volume (%)

Methane 47.4
Carbon dioxide 47.0
Nitrogen 3.1
Oxygen 0.8
Miscellaneous 1.1
288 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

__t

xco,
- xco,
(a) Physical absorption (b) Chemical absorption

Figure 12.7 Absorption mechanisms for removal of CO,.

steam if a market exists. Marketing the electricity is guaranteed under PURPA, but
the price may not be very attractive. If the power can be used during peak demand
periods, the electric utility may be interested in paying a higher price. The success
of marketing the energy will definitely be a factor in the economic viability of gas
recovery.
Some gas purification is required even for on-site use as a fuel. The gas will
be wet, so a drying system will be needed. This is typically done with a chiller. The
gas temperature is lowered to decrease the moisture content to an acceptable level.
After it is dried, the gas is reheated with the rejected heat from the chiller. This
step will eliminate the formation of condensation in the gas lines and the associated
corrosion. Because the CO, concentration is high in the gas, the pH of the conden-
sate can be 5.0 or less. This will be corrosive to many metals.
This condensate is a unique problem for landfills that have VOCs present in
the gas. Because some of the VOCs are considered a hazardous waste, their pres-
ence in the condensate makes it a hazardous waste. Some states prohibit return of
this condensate to the landfill. The new federal guidelines prohibit return to the
landfill unless a liner exists and the leachate is collected and treated.
The separation of carbon dioxide from the methane can be accomplished with
several different processes. To date, there are three different techniques to consider:
physical absorption, chemical absorption, and membrane systems. In physical ab-
sorption, a solvent is used to absorb one component preferentially. Henry’s law
determines the effectiveness of the solvent used for the separation. As shown in
Figure 12.7(a), there is a linear relationship between the partial pressure of C 0 2
and the mole fraction in solution. To obtain a very low value for Pco2, it is neces-
sary to maintain a low concentration of CO, in the solvent (Xco,).The landfill gas
is passed into an absorption column, generally under pressure, and contacted with
the solvent. The CO, is absorbed by the solvent. The purified gas is then piped to
the end use. The solvent is regenerated and recycled back through the absorber.
Some commercial processes and the solvent employed are the following:
Chap. 12 Landfill Gas Control/Recovery 289

Fluor process propylene carbonate

Rectisol process methanol
Selexol process dimethyl ether of polyethylene glycol

Figure 12.7(b) shows the relationship between Pco,and the mole fraction of
CO, in the solvent when chemical absorption is involved. There is a reversible
chemical reaction between the CO, and the solvent. As illustrated with this curve, a
low Pco2 can be obtained with a high mole fraction of CO, in the solvent. These
processes have been used extensively in natural gas processing. After passing
through a pressurized absorption column, the solvent is regenerated for recycle
back to the absorption column. The purified gas is sent to its end use. Monoethanol
amine, diethanol amine, and glycol amine are solvents commonly used for chemical
absorption.
The solvents used typically absorb all acid gases. This includes such gases as
hydrogen sulfide. When regenerating the solvent, the CO, is normally vented to the
atmosphere. Consequently, the presence of hydrogen sulfide can create significant
odor problems. The removal of this gas before the CO, is removed is necessary to
eliminate this odor problem. A common process used for this purpose is an “iron
sponge.” This is a column packed with a medium coated with ferric oxide. The
removal mechanism involves a chemical reaction between ferric oxide and hydrogen
sulfide. The ferric ion is reduced to ferrous ion, which reacts with the sulfide to
form ferrous sulfide on the surface of the packing material.
Figure 12.8 is a schematic of an absorption tower showing how the process
operates. After passing through the “iron sponge” for hydrogen sulfide removal,
the gas is introduced into a pressurized absorption tower and contacted with a
‘‘semilean” solvent. This solvent has been only partially regenerated, but due to
the pressure differential, has capacity to remove some CO, from the gas coming
from the landfill. The partially purified gas passes up the column, where it is con-
tacted with regenerated “lean” solvent for removal of the remaining CO,. The flow
of the gas in the absorption tower is countercurrent to the solvent. The gas with the
lowest concentration of CO, is contacted with the solvent having the lowest concen-
tration of CO,.
The solvent exits the absorption tower to a flash chamber, where the pressure
is released. Because of the pressure drop, the solvent is supersaturated with C 0 2 .
The gas is released from solution and discharged to the atmosphere. The
“semilean” solvent is pressurized and returned to the tower to absorb more CO,. A
portion of the semilean solvent is sent to the solvent regeneration column. After
heating the solvent, it is passed through a stripping tower, where the CO, is air
stripped. The regenerated or “lean” solvent is returned to the absorption tower.
Semipermeable membranes have been applied successfully to the removal of
CO, from landfill gas. Membranes are thin barriers that allow preferential passage
of certain molecules through the membrane pores while retaining other molecules.
Membranes have been developed that allow CO,, H,S, and H,O to pass while re-
taining the CH, molecule. These membranes are formed either as flat sheets or as
290 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Lean solvent
c 1

Semilean solvent

9bsorptior
tower
200 Dsia
JIJ
t Pressure
flash

Raw Solvent
sponge gas regeneration
H2S removal

Figure 12.8 Schematic of an absorption process.

hollow fibers. The flat sheets are packaged into “spiral-wound’’ modules to in-
crease packing efficiency and to withstand the internal pressures that develop. Gas
membrane separation is pressure driven with pressures up to 2000 psi. The higher
the pressure, the more efficient the separation. The hollow fibers are packaged as
“bundles” so that a large surface area can be available in a small volume. The
fibers have a very small diameter that keeps the wall stress low when the system is
operated at high pressures.
The cost of gas purification by membrane processes can be significantly af-
fected by the design of the process. In some applications, a single-stage membrane
is adequate, and consequently, the capital cost for gas purification is low. A single
stage will result in low product recovery. A more expensive design may be justified
to achieve a higher product recovery of a valuable product. Improved product re-
covery is achieved through the use of a multistage system with recycle as shown in
Figure 12.9. The methane content of stream D will be 30 to 35%, depending on the
desired methane concentration in the product gas, stream B. This stream is com-
pressed and passed through a second-stage membrane. The product gas, stream E,
is recycled and mixed with stream A. The recycle along with the raw gas is passed
through the first stage to produce a product that is 98% methane.
In addition to the added capital cost for the second-stage membrane, the re-
cycle stream (D) has to be compressed to the operating pressure of the membranes,
which is usually around 350 psi. The volume of the recycle stream can be equal to
 Chap. 12 Final Land Use Considerations 291

Recycle

Raw Membrane Product

gas
Compressor

Membrane

Compressor
I
Permeate - CO,

Figure 12.9 Process flow diagram for membrane separation of CO,.

or greater than the raw gas stream. The compression costs are not insignificant.
Consequently, serious consideration should be given to the economic justification
for purification of the landfill gas. Purification to pipeline standards will cost ap-
proximately $1.00 to $1.50 per 1000 ft3. Compression to a pipeline pressure near
1000 psi can increase the cost by an additional $1.00 per 1000 ft3.

FINAL LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the postclosure requirements in the federal guidelines, some plan

needs to be developed for productive use of the site. In general, only open space
uses are suitable. There are five major problems that must be addressed when con-
sidering final use of a landfill site: fill settlement, both total and differential; allow-
able foundation loads; corrosive nature of fill material; explosive hazards associated
with the landfill gas; and excavation of the decomposing refuse in the fill.
The foundation problems with landfills has been discussed in the l i t e r a t ~ r e . ~
The maximum supportive foundation load is only 500 to 800 lb/ft2. Any structure
will have to be supported by piles driven to the original base of the fill. The settling
that occurs with time will present continued maintenance problems. As the surface
subsides, it will separate from the base of the structure, exposing the underside of
the floor system. The utility lines will be stressed if not broken by the load of the
subsiding cover and related material. Recognizing that settlement up to 30% of the
fill depth may occur, the maintenance requirements may be significant.
The settling experienced in a landfill is influenced by a number of factors,
some external to the fill. Most of the natural settling will occur within 5 years after

4"Foundation Problems in Sanitary Landfills," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE,
Feb. 1968, p. 103.
 292 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12 ....

the refuse is placed. Additional settling may result from activities associated with
the final use of the landfill. A superimposed load associated with a building or
additional fill material can cause additional consolidation of a fill that was consid-
ered stable. The consolidation can be increased by the vibrations associated with
equipment used in construction, by traffic, and so on. If water seeps into the fill, it
can increase the consolidation by changing the physical nature of the fill material as
well as increasing the rate of biological decomposition of the solids. Differential
settling is also experienced. This creates very difficult problems in maintaining the
integrity of the landfill cover as well as any pipes, and so on, that are placed in the
cover system.
The refuse and the compounds that are produced by biodegradation create a
very corrosive environment. The pH may be acidic, sometimes as low as 4.5.The
acidity is a result of the CO, and the organic acids generated by the biological
degradation of the solid wastes. The corrosivity of a soil is determined by its ability
to conduct electricity. The higher the resistance, the lower the ion concentration and
the less the corrosivity. The U.S. Bureau of Standards classifies a soil as highly
corrosive if the electrical resistivity is less than 2000 ohms/cm3. Typical electrical
resistivity measurements for landfill material is 800 to 1000 ohms/cm3. Because of
this property, any material placed into the refuse portion of the fill must be corro-
sion resistant.
The most appropriate use for completed landfill site is open space and recre-
ational areas. Parks, playgrounds, ballparks, and so on, are ideally suited for instal-
lation on these sites. Other successful uses include parking lots, open industrial
storage areas, and runways for light aircraft. In general, the land use must be ini-
tially planned to be compatible with any applicable zoning regulations. During the
active life of the landfill, a variance to the local zoning code may be needed. This
can generally be obtained as long as the ultimate use of the site fits the planned
land use. It may be true that the ultimate use of the site is years in the future, but
it may be a selling point that can be used to generate local support. Many residents
are amenable to having usable open space in the neighborhood, especially in con-
gested areas.

SUBTITLE D REGULATIONS

The 1984 revision to the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act required U.S.
EPA to rewrite Subtitle D rules to address the needs for design and operation stan-
dards for sanitary landfills. This revision was published in the Federal Register,
August 30, 1988, with a request for comments by the public. These comments were
considered in any revisions made prior to the rules “going final.” These rules have
had some significant impacts on both existing and new urban solid waste landfills.
The Subtitle D regulations set forth revised minimum criteria that include:

1. Location standards
2. Facility design and operation criteria
Chap. 12 Subtitle D Regulations 293

3. Closure and postclosure care requirements

4. Financial assurances standards
5 . Groundwater monitoring and corrective action standards

The following presents the significant changes and additions that are important in
the siting, design, and operation of urban solid waste landfills.

Subpart B: Siting Limitations

Certain locations have been identified as incompatible with the operation of a san-
itary landfill. Some of these location restrictions previously existed (airports and
floodplains), while the others are new.

Airports. Landfills are known to attract birds that may pose a hazard to the
operation of aircraft. Any landfill closer than 10,000 ft of an airport used by turbo-
jet aircraft and 5000 ft of one used by piston-type aircraft will have to demonstrate
that they do not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.

Floodplains. Any landfill located in a 100-year floodplain will have to be

designed so as not to restrict the flood flow, reduce the temporary water storage
capacity of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste so as to pose a hazard
to human health and the environment.

Wetlands. New landfills will not be able to locate in wetlands unless the
following demonstrations are made:

1. No practical alternative with less environmental risk exists.

2. Violations of other state and local laws will not occur.
3. The unit would not cause or contribute to significant degradation of the wet-
land.
4. Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize potential ad-
verse impacts.
5 . Sufficient information to make the determination is available.

Fault areas. New landfill units cannot be sited within 200 ft of a fault line
that has had a displacement in Holocene time (past 9000 years).

Seismic impact zones. New landfill units located within a seismic impact
zone will have to demonstrate that all contaminant structures (liners, leachate col-
lection systems, and surface water control structures) are designed to resist the
maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified materials (liquid or loose materials
consolidated into solid rock) for the site.
294 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

Unstable areas. Landfill units located in unstable areas must demonstrate

that the design ensures stability of structural components. The unstable areas in-
clude areas that are landslide prone, in karst geology susceptible to sinkhole forma-
tion, and undermined areas where subsurface mining has taken place. Existing
facilities that cannot demonstrate the stability of the structural components will be
required to close within 5 years of the regulation’s effective date.

Subpart C: Design and Operational Changes

The new Subtitle D rules impose several new general design and operating criteria
for sanitary landfill receiving urban solid waste. The following rules identify spe-
cific criteria that in the past were considered to be good design practices but not
specific design requirements.

Hazardous waste exclusions. Landfill operators will be required to develop

a program to detect and prevent the disposal of regulated hazardous wastes. The
program will include at a minimum:

1. Random inspection of incoming loads

2. Inspecting suspicious loads
3. Maintaining records of inspections
4. Training personnel to locate hazardous waste in the general refuse stream
5. Enacting reporting procedures when such wastes are found

Cover material. Landfills will be required to cover disposed waste with a

suitable cover material daily or more frequently to control disease vectors, fires,
odor, blowing litter, and scavenging.

Disease vector control. Landfills will have to prevent or control on-site

populations of disease vectors using techniques that are appropriate for the protec-
tion of human health and the environment.

Control of explosive gases. Routine monitoring for explosive gases in fa-

cility structures and at the facility property boundary will be required. The allow-
able level will be 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for the facility structures
and the LEL at the facility property boundary. If a landfill is found to exceed these
levels, gas control systems will be required to eliminate the problem.

Air criteria. Landfill sites will be required to meet applicable requirements

under a State Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan pursuant to Section 110 of
the Clean Air Act. Open burning of refuse is prohibited.
Chap. 12 Subtitle D Regulations 295

Access. Public access to landfills must be controlled to protect public health

and the environment and to prevent unauthorized vehicular traffic and illegal dis-
posal of wastes.

Run-onhun-off control systems. Storm water control systems that divert

water from the adjacent areas and carry the run-off from the landfill must be de-
signed, constructed, and maintained for each landfill. The design capacity should be
sufficient to handle the water from a 24-hr, 25-yr storm event.

Surface water requirements. Landfills will be required not to:

1. Cause a discharge of pollutants into waters violating any requirements of

the Clean Water Act, including the National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System
2. Cause a nonpoint pollution of water that violates an approved water quality
management plan under the Clean Water Act

Liquid restrictions. Landfills will be prohibited from accepting bulk and

noncontainerized liquids, and containers holding free liquids unless these liquids
are household or septic wastes. Also, recirculation of leachate or landfill gas con-
densate will be prohibited unless the landfill has the proper leachate collection and
liner system to prevent the release of liquids.

Record-keeping requirements. Owners and operators of sanitary landfills

will be required to record and retain environmental monitoring testing results, or
analytical data; inspection records, training procedures, and notifications; and clo-
sure and postclosure plans.

Subpart C: Closure and Postclosure

This subpart has significant changes regarding how the site is managed after its
useful life is expended. The long-term consequences will require careful planning
for the finances needed for this period.

Closure criteria. Owners and operators of landfills will be required to de-

velop a closure plan for performing closure in a manner that minimizes the need for
further maintenance and minimizes the probability for release of leachate.

Postclosure care. There are two phases of postclosure care; the first is set
by U.S. EPA and is for a minimum period of 30 years. The second phase is for a
period to be set by the state. The EPA specifications for the first phase are:

1. Maintaining the effectiveness and integrity of the final cover

2. Maintaining and operating the leachate collection system
296 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

3. Maintaining the groundwater monitoring system and monitoring the ground-

water quality
4. Maintaining and operating the gas monitoring system

In addition, the EPA will require the state to mandate that the second phase
include a provision for groundwater and gas monitoring.

Financial assurance criteria. It will be required that owners and operators

of landfills demonstrate that they have the financial ability to pay for the post-
closure and any required remedial activities. The exception to this requirement is
state and federal agencies for which the debt would be that of the state or federal
government. States will be allowed to specify the financial assurances mechanisms
that would be acceptable in meeting this obligation.

Subpart D: Risk Assessment

Instead of the federal proscription of specific design requirement (Le., liner design
or leachate collection and treatment), the states have flexibility in determining the
allowable risk levels and the point of compliance within the federally mandated
guidelines. As specified by the EPA, these levels will be for a minimum excess
lifetime cancer risk level within the loM4to range (i.e., one cancer incidence
to 10,000 exposures to one in 10,000,000 exposures). This proposal has received a
storm of protest from environmental organizations. They want the risk reduced to
essentially zero.
In establishing the design goal, a state will be required to consider at least the
following factors:

1. Hydrogeological characteristics of the site area

2. Climatic factors
3. Volume and physical characteristics of the leachate
4. Proximity of groundwater users
5 . Groundwater quality

The EPA is not specific as to how the states are to determine compliance. They do
provide a guidance document to accompany the final regulations on methods that
will adequately determine compliance. There are three options for the states to con-
sider: (1) a risk-based algorithm, (2) a categorical approach, and (3) an empirical
method.
These requirements are for new facilities. Existing landfills will be required to
be equipped at closure with a final cover that is designed to prevent infiltration
through the cover and into the refuse. Existing units are not required to be retro-
fitted with liners and leachate collection systems.
Chap. 12 Subtitle D Regulations 297

Risk-based algorithm. The extensive data base that the EPA has developed
has provided them with sufficient information that they are willing to propose a
mathematical relationship that characterizes the site’s potential for groundwater
contamination. The algorithm represents the level of contamination as the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with human consumption of groundwater at the fa-
cility’s compliance point. This algorithm is

where R = lifetime risk posed by groundwater consumption at the compliance

point
QR = predicted leachate release rate to the uppermost aquifer, m3/yr
QA = groundwater flow rate in the uppermost aquifer, m3/yr.
TOT = leachate time of travel in the aquifer from the unit boundary to the
compliance point (TOT = 0 for a unit boundary equal to the com-
pliance point)

Categorical approach. The EPA’s guidance for using the categorical ap-
proach will consist of a 2 X 2 matrix based on annual precipitation (P) and time of
travel (TOT) through the unsaturated zone from the bottom of the landfill to the
aquifer. Precipitation at the site is available from published rainfall records or it
may be measured at the site. Calculation of the TOT can be obtained through:

1. Calculation methods prescribed for determining vulnerable hydrogeology un-

der RCRA’s hazardous waste section
2. Calculations of Darcy’s law
3. Calculations based on the linear velocity of water
4. A wetting front approach for unsaturated soil

The location category for each landfill unit can be determined as follows:

Category 1: P is less than or equal to 40 in./year; TOT is equal to or greater

than the unit’s active life.
Category ZZ: P is greate? than 40 in./year; TOT is equal to or greater than the
unit’s active life.
Category ZZZ: P is less than or equal to 40 in./year; TOT is less than the unit’s
active life.
Category ZV: P is greater than 40 in./year; TOT is less than the unit’s active
life.

A minimum TOT of 20 years has been specified by EPA to preclude the siting of
short-duration projects in relatively poor locations.
298 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

The landfill category can then be used to determine the need for liners and
leachate collection systems.
Leachate Collection Systems
Landfills in Categories I and ZZZ are not required to install a leachate collec-
tion system unless it is determined that leachate will accumulate to a depth of
1 ft or greater.
Landfills in Categories ZZ and IV must have a leachate collection system that
will prevent the leachate from accumulating to a depth greater than 1 ft over
the unit’s bottom.
Liner Criteria. All units must have a liner or overburden, or a combination
of both, that will prevent the migration of leachate to an aquifer during a time
period equal to 20 years.

Categories I and I I . A natural base consisting of the vadose zone will be

allowed unless a liner is required to meet the performance standard above or is
needed for a leachate collection system.
Categories ZII and ZV. Install earthen or synthetic liners or modify the existing
subbase such that in combination with the overburden, the composite TOT
value meets the above performance standard.

Under the categorical approach, a final cover system that prevents infiltration
of surface waters into the waste after closure is required. States will have the op-
portunity to determine the requirements for the final cover system, as long as the
design assures compliance with the health-based performance standard in the design
criteria in this section.

Empirical method. This approach allows owner and operators of existing

facilities or those planning to build new units in similar locations to use the ground-
water monitoring results from the existing units to determine the design. If the
monitoring results do not exceed the design goals, the design of the new unit would
not have to be any more complicated than the existing unit. For this method to be
allowed, the following conditions must be met:

1. The new unit must have sufficiently similar location and waste characteristics.
2. The existing unit must have operated groundwater monitoring wells over a
period long enough to allow leachate generation, release, and migration
through the unsaturated and saturated zones to the wells. (This requirement
essentially negates the use of this option since the objective of a good design
is to prevent the formation and migration of leachate. If this design objective
is achieved, the leachate will never reach the monitoring wells, and conse-
quently, the design is not acceptable.)
Chap. 12 Subtitle D Regulations 299

3. The groundwater monitoring parameters must address the phase I parameters,

and phase I1 parameters if triggered.
4. The monitoring data must be supplemented with appropriate fate and trans-
port modeling of hazardous components over a time period equal to the post-
closure care period.

Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring

The groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements are similar to those
being used for RCRA hazardous waste sites. These requirements will apply to all
new and existing landfills unless it can be demonstrated that there is no potential
for leachate migration to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the landfill,
including the postclosure care period. The monitoring system required for all sites
must be able to detect the presence of leakage from the site. The number, spacing,
depth, and construction of the wells will be based on site-specific information. Sys-
tem design will include a thorough characterization of the aquifer thickness, ground-
water flow rates, and directions. Identification of the saturated and unsaturated
geologic units overlying the uppermost aquifer, including thickness, sequencing, hy-
draulic conductivity (permeability), and porosities, is required. The monitoring wells
are installed at the compliance boundary used for the design.
Under this monitoring program, EPA requires the states to establish ground-
water trigger levels that are protective of human health and the environment for
some 234 parameters. The trigger levels will be the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, state-established health
risk levels where MCLs do not exist, or background levels. There are two phases
incorporated in the monitoring program, with the second phase increasing in scope
and detail.

Phase 1. Monitoring consists of semiannual sampling of wells during opera-

tion and closure, and at a state-specified frequency during postclosure care for:

1. 15 indicator parameters such as sodium, chemical oxygen demand, chloride,

and iron
2. 9 heavy metals
3. 46 volatile organic compounds

If a statistically significant increase or decrease occurs over background in two or

more indicator parameters, or one or more heavy metals or volatile organic com-
pounds, phase I1 of the monitoring program would be triggered.

Phase II. Monitoring in this phase consists of analyzing the groundwater for
any of the 234 parameters detected as significantly different above background con-
centrations at the compliance point. The minimum sampling frequency for these
300 Control of Leachate and Gas from Sanitary Landfills Chap. 12

parameters is quarterly during the active life of the fill and closure period, and a
state-specified frequency during the postclosure care period. If the increase in any
of these parameters is substantiated, the owner or operator will be required to pro-
ceed to corrective actions. Corrective action requirements would mandate the as-
sessment of available corrective measures, selection of a corrective measure,
establishment of a groundwater protection standard, and implementation of the cor-
rective action program. The goals of the corrective action program are to protect
human health, attain the groundwater protection standard, and control further releases
into the environment that may pose a threat to human health and the environment.
These regulations have a significant impact on the design of new landfills.
One can expect the costs of this disposal method to increase. The cost is a long way
from equaling that for incineration, but it will increase the avoided cost associated
with recycling. The impact on existing landfills will not be as severe, but the clo-
sure requirements and postclosure care may be a major liability for an operator that
does not have the capital or cash flow needed for the postclosure care, particularly
the monitoring requirements. Any required corrective actions can be expected to
bankrupt the smaller operators. The tab for site remediation will fall to the state or
federal government.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. How does anaerobic and aerobic biological activity affect the solubility of the
common metal contaminants found in leachate?
2. What biological transformations occur in the landfill that are responsible for
the contaminants found in leachate?
3. What processes are appropriate for the removal of biodegradable organic ma-
terial? Nonbiodegradable organic material?
4. Draw a schematic of an anaerobic biological treatment process for treating
leachate with a BOD, = 2500 mg/L and a COD = 6000 mg/L if the effluent
is discharged to a municipal sewer.
5 . Draw a schematic of an aerobic biological treatment process for treating lea-
chate with a BOD, = 2500 mg/L and a COD = 3000 mg/L if the effluent is
discharged to a municipal sewer.
6. What role can GAC play in leachate treatment systems?
7. If a leachate is produced at the rate of 20,000 gpd and has a BOD, of 4500
mg/L, size an aerated lagoon and stabilization pond to treat the leachate for
discharge to a municipal sewer. Compute aerator horsepower requirements.
State any assumptions.
8. What is the potential impact of the discharge of untreated leachate to a mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment system?
9. How much added cost can leachate treatment add to the tip fee for a sanitary
landfill?
Chap. 12 Study Questions 301

10. A landfill is leaking leachate to a groundwater aquifer. If the aquifer has a

permeability coefficient of 10-3.5cdsec, how long will it take for the con-
tamination to reach a water well located 1 mile from the fill if the hydraulic
gradient is O S % ?
1 1 . What effect does in-situ biological activity have on the leachate as it passes
through the subsoil?
12. What type of soils have the greatest capacity to limit the movement of di- and
trivalent metal ions? What is the mechanism?
13. An organic clay has been found to have a CEC for cadmium of 75 mEq/100 g.
If the cadmium content in the leachate is 0.1 mg/L, how much leachate will
have to pass through a cubic meter of this soil before the CEC is exhausted?
14. What is the fate of soluble organic material in the leachate when it is in con-
tact with soils that have a high organic carbon content?
15. What is KO,?
16. Naphthalene, a polynuclear aromatic (C,oH8), has a solubility of 34.4 mg/L.
How much leachate can be passed through a cubic meter of a soil before
breakthrough of the naphthalene? The soil is 3% organic carbon and the lea-
chate contains 2.5 mg/L of naphthalene.
17. What is the mechanism for gas production in a sanitary landfill? What is the
origin of volatile organic compounds that are sometimes found in this gas?
18. What determines the migration path for landfill gas?
19. Why is gas control important?
20. What would be the effect of a cover containing a gastight membrane with no
gas recovery wells installed at the site?
21. What factors in the landfilled refuse determine the potential gas production rate?
22. How can gas be recovered from a landfill? What is the quality of this gas?
What is its value?
23. Identify some processes for gas purification. What contaminants are removed
by each process?
24. What characteristics of the landfill limit the final use that can be made of the
site?
25. What are the siting limitations for sanitary landfills that were promulgated
under Subtitle D of RCRA?
26. What significant design and operational changes have been established under
Subtitle D?
27. What is the impact of the postclosure requirements on the cost of operating a
sanitary landfill?
28. What design objectives for sanitary landfills are being specified by U.S. EPA?
29. What is the difference between the risk-based algorithm and the categorical
approach for determining if a liner and leachate collection system is required?
30. What is the implication of the requirement for phase I1 groundwater monitoring?
Index

Acid gas scrubbers, 197 revenue, 117

Adsorption tower, 289 Bulky wastes, 4
Air classification Burn barrel, 12, 18
air knife, 157
operation, 154 Capital recovery factor, 124
performance, 156 Capital requirements determination, 127
principles, 154 Carbon dioxide separation
Air pollution absorption processes, 288
control, 196 membrane processes, 289
incineration, 18, 195 Carbon oxidation number, 174
on-site incineration, 13, 19, 55 CERCLA, 43
open burning, 18 Chemical plant cost index, 121
scrubbers, 197 Collection and disposal costs, 9
Aluminum containers, 53 Collection costs,
Angle of repose, 2 calculations, 100
Annual costs, 124 haul, 99
As received, 70 off-route, 99
optimum vehicle size, 101
Beverage containers pick-up, 99
returnable, 52 relief time, 99
throw-away, 52 Collection procedure
Bioconversion c~mmercial/institutional, 94
fermentation, 206 single-family residences, 88
hydrolysis, 206 Collection time
methane production, 207 haul time, 95
Bomb calorimeter, 70, 183 curbside, 92
Bonds determination, 97
general obligation, 116 non-productive, 93
industrial development, I 18 off-route time, 97

302
 Index 303

on-site time, 96 baling, 63

pick-up time, 95 dry weight, 64
residential areas, 92 landfill, 63
Collection vehicles moisture content, 64
rear loading, 88 wet weight, 64
routing, 101 Dioxin, 20
side loading, 88 Disease
Combustion flies and mosquitoes, 13
air requirements, 178 rat borne, 14
definition, 170 role of solid waste, 14
energy balance, 182 sources and pathways, 13
final products, 174 Domesticlresidential refuse, 4
gaseous products, 176, 178, 182 Dry products of combustion, 179
heat recovery, 186 Dumps, 12, 17, 21, 33
mass balance, 176, 177, 181
mass flow rates, 179 Economic comparisons
necessary conditions, 170 private ownership, 125
oxygen requirements, 176, 177, 182 publicly owned systems, 124
solid fuel zones, 171 Economic evaluation, 127
temperature, 172 Electrostatic precipitators, 196
Combustion water, 70 Emission reductions
Commercial and institutional refuse, 4 operational control, 200
Common law doctrine, 29 operational strategies, 199
nuisance, 29, 30 refuse preprocessing, 200
Compaction Endothermic, 184
effect of moisture content, 64 Enforcement, 34
on-site storage, 87 Enthalpy
sanitary landfill, 63 changes, 183
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen- definition, 182
sation, and Liability Act, 43 heat of reaction, 183
Constitutional power, 28 liquid water, 65
Conveyor capacity, 139 molar, 183, 185
Conveyor types, 137, 138 water vapor, 65
Cost indexing, 121 Environmental acceptability, 3
costs Environmental effects, public health, 12
administrative, 123 Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois, 32
annual capital, 124 EP toxicity test, 201
bond issue, 126 Equity, 125, 128
bond issue costs, 126 Evapotranspiration, 246
bond payment, 125 Exothermic, 184
bond payment reserve, 125 Explosion suppression, shredding, 151
capital, 118
contingency, 121 Fabric filter, 197
financing, 120 Field capacity, 248
off-site construction, 119 Flow control, 117
on-site construction, 118 Fly, life cycle, 16
operation and maintenance, 122
start-up, 120 Garbage, 4, 12
total capital, 125 effect of food processing, 52
Critical speed, trommel screens, 159 effect on fly population, 17
effect on rat population, 15, 17
Delegation of power, 28 Geomembranes, 235, 238, 241
Density material properties, 241
 304
Index
Geotextiles, 235 secondary combustion chamber, 193
Gravimetric analysis, 175 underfire air, 193
Groundwater movement, 228 Incinerator ash, toxic metals, 68
Groundwater table, 227 Infiltration. 244

Haul cost, collection vehicle, 108 Kwan’s procedure, 106

Hazardous waste, 38, 41
Hazardous waste management, 34, 40
Heat capacity, 185 Landfill
Heat loss biological transformations, 260
ash, 187 chemical environment, 260
combustion gases, 185, 186 corrosive environment, 292
estimates, 188 cover material cost, 234
radiant, 188 cover material requirements, 233
Heat of reaction, 174, 183 equipment required, 232
Heat of vaporization, water, 65 final land use, 292
Heating value foundation problems, 291
high, 69, 174 groundwater pollution, 25
low, 69 hydrogeologic properties, 226
HELP, 253 hydrological cycle, 243
application, 255 moisture routing, 250
limitations, 255 regulations, 292
site development, 230
site selection, 35, 222, 293
Ignition temperatures, 173 siting criteria, 222
Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 3 1 siting limitations, 35
Incineration soil management costs, 229
emission factors, 19 soil properties, 224
emission standards, 20, 195 soil testing, 228
on-site, 13, 19 surface drainage, 247
Incinerator surface water control, 229
acid-gas control, 197 water pollution, 22, 24
air distribution, 193 Landfill construction
ash disposal, 201 area method, 231
capital costs, 203 trench method, 230
combustion chamber geometry, 189 Landfill cover
design considerations, 189 biotic barrier, 236
design objectives, 194 design objectives, 235
dioxin control, 199, 201 drainage layer, 237
dioxin emissions, 20 foundation layer, 239
discharge permit, 195 gas control, 240
energy products, 202 hydraulic barrier, 238
gas velocity, 193 surface layer, 235
grate loading rates, 190 Landfill gas
grates, 191, 192 composition, 287
heat release rates, 191 control systems, 284
heavy metal emissions, 198 extraction rate, 287
operational control, 200 hazards, 279
overfire air, 193 migration rates, 281
particulate emission control, 196 monitoring probe, 286
primary combustion chamber, 190 production potential, 282
retention time, 194 production rates, 282
secondary air, 193 purification, 288
 Index 305

recovery wells, 285 chemical environment, 210

soil migration, 280 physical environment, 209
sources, 280 Methods-time-measurements, 9 I
usage, 287 Moisture content, 64
Landfill liner Moisture retention capacity
design objectives, 240 refuse, 247
geomembrane, 24 I soil, 248
moisture barrier, 241 Molecular weight
Landfill regulations gram mole, 175
closure/post-closure criteria, 295 pound mole, 175
gas control, 294 Municipal solid wastes, 5
groundwater monitoring, 299
hazardous waste exclusions, 294 Network
risk assessment, 296 directed, 104
siting limitations, 35, 293 undirected, 104
Landscape waste, 6 unicursal, 104
Leachate NIMBY, 36
characteristics, 23, 259
collection system, 258 Node
composition, 262 even-degree, 103
control, 258 odd-degree, 103
groundwater pollution, 25
pretreatment requirements, 264 On-site incineration, 13
production, 23 Open dumps, 40
production period, 272
water pollution, 22, 24 Packaging
Leachate attenuation consumer goods, 53
“in-situ” biological activity, 276 food, 51
soil adsorption of organic material, 278 Paper
soil cation exchange capacity, 277 print industry use, 54
Leachate disposal production rates, 75
cost, 215 recycling rates, 74
sanitary sewer, 273 Particle size distribution
Leachate treatment raw refuse, 140
aerated lagoon, 271 shredded refuse, 147
aerobic processes, 270 Particle size reduction
anaerobic biofilm reactor, 266 energy costs, 148
anaerobic biological process, 265 explosion hazard, 149
anaerobic CSTR, 265 maintenance cost, 148
anaerobic GAC biofilm reactor, 268 Partition coefficient, 278
multi-stage lagoon system, 270 Penalty
post closure liability, 273 civil, 37
Liner integrity, 245 criminal, 37
Perched water table, 227
Management Permanent wilting percentage, 248
constraints, 3 Permeability, 245
definition, 2 Permit, 33, 35, 195
Manifest, 41 Police power, 28, 29
Material recovery Pollution Control Board, 32
aluminum, 153 Present worth, 124
ferrous metal, 151 Proximate analysis, solid fuel, 181
Metal ion solubility, 261 Public health, 3
Methane fermentation, 207 powers, 29
 306 Index
Public health (conr.) lipids, 65
problems, 13 plastic, 66
Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act, 202 proteins, 66
PURPA, 202 Refuse conveying, 136
belt conveyor, 137
RCRA, 40 bucket conveyor, 137
Recycle pan conveyor, 137
definition, 72 pneumatic conveyors, 138
new product raw material, 73 Refuse derived fuel, 39
virgin material replacement, 72 Ames, Iowa system, 163
Recycling, 56 National Resources Technology, 164
legislation, 44 RefCoM performance, 167
Recycling costs, 82 RefCoM system, 166
Recycling economics Refuse generation
avoided cost, 80 household variations, 59
material value, 81 per capita production, 60
subsidy, 82 regional variations, 58
Recycling rates seasonal variations, 57
aluminum, 76 Refuse processing
ferrous metals, 78 air classification, 154
general, 74 air knife, 157
glass, 78 aluminum separation, 153
paper, 74 Atlas Bin storage, 135
plastic, 79 disc screen, 160
Reduction in volume, 61 disc screen performance, 161
RefCoM flail mill, 142
anaerobic fermenters, 209 horizontal shaft hammer mill, 144
economic evaluation, 2 17 magnetic separation, 15I
energy balance, 215 pit storage, 133
fermenter performance, 21 1 receiving area, 130
gas production, 212 screens, 158
mass balance, 213, 216 shear shredder, 145
pilot plant, 208 shredding, 142
process description, 208 slab storage, 134
system configuration, 213 storage required, 132
tipping fee, 218, 220 storage volume required, 134
Refuse. See also Solid waste tip floor, 131
compaction, 62 trommel screen, 159
definition, 2 vertical shaft hammer mill, 143
density, 61 weigh station, 130
open burning, 18, 33 Refuse storage
Refuse characteristics on-site commercial, 87
carbohydrates, 66 on-site residential, 85
crude fibers, 66 pit storage, 133
current, 48 volume required, 85, 87
effect of air pollution control laws, 54 Refuse transport
effect of packaging, 51 barge, 111
effect of printed communications, 54 highway, 110
effect of solid fuels, 51 rail, I I 1
effects of food preparation, 52 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40
effects of packaging, 53 subtitle C, 41
historical, 47 subtitle D, 42
international, 49 Resource recovery, 38, 56
Index 307

Resource Recovery Act, 39 Standard collection times, 92

Resource recovery and conservation, 3 Standard time, 91
Roll-out container, 85 Statute law, 31
RubbisMtrash, 4 Street refuse, 5
Super Fund, 43
Sanitary landfill, 42
Scrubber, 197 Theoretical combustion air, 176, 178
Shoulder barrel, 86 Time of travel, 245, 275
Soil Tipping fees, 9, 129
cation exchange capacity, 277 Tires, mosquito breeding, 14
classification systems, 224 Toxic household chemicals, 15
clay characteristics, 224 Toxic Substance Control Act, 43
permeability, 224, 245 Transfer costs, transfer vehicles, 109
support of vegetation, 226 Transfer station
surface adsorption properties, 278 cost effectiveness, 108
Solid fuels, ashes, 51 fixed costs, 109
Solid waste. See also Refuse total costs, 109
chemical hazards, 15 transfer costs, 109
definition, 2, 40 Transpiration rates, 246
generation rates, 56 TSCA, 43
open burning, 18
physical hazards, 15 Ultimate analysis, solid fuel, 181
proximate analysis, 69
quantities, 56 Variances, 34
sources, 4, 47 Vehicle routing
sulfur oxide, 19 Euler tour, 107
ultimate analysis, 67 minimize retraced streets, 106
worker injury rate, 15 network analysis, 102
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 38 network node definition, 103
Solid waste management, 2 unicursal network, 103, 104
Solid waste management agencies Vermin, 12
private, 9 Volumetric analysis, 175
public, 8 dry products of combustion, 179
Solid waste management system, functional ele- fuel gas, 177
ments, 7
Special wastes, 5 Waste allocation
Specific heat constraints, I13
inorganic materials, 188 procedure, 112
liquid water, 65, 185 Water and sewage plant residues, 5
organic compounds, 186 Water quality standards, 264
water vapor, 65, 185 metals, 24