HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1992
Apen~3lldm~
AGENDA
Y
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL ltlo
July 28, 1992 (iy
Work
28, 199Se2ssiaton5:of5
1the City Of Denton City Council
E• McKinney on Tuesday, July
, Denton, in Texas the at Civil
which the Defense following Room
considered: Y Hall, ?15
items will be
5:15 P.M.
1• Receive a report and hold a discussion with the
solid waste Technical committee and give staff direction.
2• Denton Area
Receive a report and hold a discussion with the Keep Denton
Beautiful Board regarding the "Welcome To Denton" sign and
give staff direction.
3• Receive a report and hold a discussion re ardin a
ordinance dealing with repeat violators of the g proposed
standards and give staff direction. grass and weed
4• Delivery of the 1992-93 proposed budget.
5• Adjourn to the Visual Arts Center, (7:00 p.m.)
Special Called Meeting of the Cit
Tuesday, July 28, 1992 at 8:00 Y of Denton City Council on
corner of Bell and Hirkor p.m, at the Visual Arts center,
items will be considered: y' Denton, Texas at which the following
8:00 P.M.
1• Consider approval of a resolution of appreciation for retiring
Board/Commission Members.
2• Consider approval of a resolution of appreciation for retiring
Council Members.
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the above notice of meeting
bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton j 1992 at , Texas, on
-._,o'clock (a.m.)
TITYSETCREARP"-
ACCO00A5
WITY
COUNC
,y
t mod- ~T+-a-~-_ _
QOO~oO~~~o
0
0 F H pOpp~~=.~
dpp yr ra;O`~
~(J Ctd~d 11n 1i1.
DATE: JULY 23 1992
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FOR!!AT
TO: Mayor and Members of the city council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECTS Receive a report from the Denton Area Solid Waste
Technical Committee
REC- 1ME!TATION: None at this time,
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND; The Denton Area Solid Waste Technical
Committee began its meetings in October, 1991. The group
was formed on an ad hoc basis and is composed of members
with some expertise and/or significant interest in the area
of Solid Waste Disposal. For the most part this group has
for researching s met every other week with membership assigned responsibility
disposal. This group pacific
received eandeevaluatedlall known
alternate disposal options, waste minimization programs,
solid waste pricing structures and collection techniques,
Their report has been delivered with the agenda under
separate cover,
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
City of Denton Solid Waste Division, Denton Area residents
and businesses,
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time.
Respec fully submitted,
L1 oYd
Iiarrel~
City Manager
Prepared by:
in
stil Any to f`~%~-----
Director of Community Services
A7
R. E, Ne son
Executive Director, Utility Administration
1A94914
7
I
a a
Assessment of Solid Waste Management
Alternatives
for
The Denton Area
Prepared By
I
Denton Area Solid Waste
Technical Committee
July 1992
Preface
The Denton Area Solid Waste Task Force is an ad hoc group of citizens from the
Denton area who believe that serious consideration should be given to establishing a
Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative (DARRC) to address .cur solid waste
management problems. The fundamental concept behind establishing ]ARRC is to use
the creative talents of area governments, universities, businesses and industries and
citizens to address the solid waste disposal problem in an environmentally sound manner
which fosters resource recovery and economic development in the region. The long term
goal of DARK will be to turn what is now a lost resource (landfilling solid waste) into an
asset via resource recovery. A number of factors make this a critical time to seek creative
ways to address the solid waste problem.
Under current conditions, the City of Denton's Municipal Landfill is expected to reach
permitted capacity in July, 1996. The closure of this facility will leave a significant void
relative to convenient and economical disposal sites for Denton area residents and
businesses, Although there are plans to expand the facility, thereby extending its useful
life, various factors have come into play which significantly affect consideration of
landfilling as the sole method of solid waste disposal for the Denton area
Recent state legislation set a goal of a 40% by weight reduction in the amount of
waste which is landfilled through the adoption of waste minimization and recycling
programs. Also, the growing concern for the environment has raised serious questions
relative to the long term environmental effects of landfilling. Additionally, the general
public's perception of landfills and landfilling activities is extremely negative and tends to
create difficulties in sighting and operating such facilities. Based upon these factors it is
apparent that alternative disposal methods must be considered and implemented in order
to reduce the dependence on landfilling.
Landfilling has been the prevalent method of solid waste disposal In the area for
economic reasons. Unfortunately, landfilling remains and probably will remain for
sometime, the most economical disposal option available In this area. The introduction
of any of the accepted disposal alternatives will significantly increase disposal costs
which, in turn, will be reflected in area solid waste collectlon and disposal rates,
However, due to regulalory requirements and environmental stewardship
considerations an alternative disposal method(s) must be implemented regardless of
increased costs. Thus, the problem becomes which of the available options is best
suited to the DARRC and can meet societal goals for recovering resources from solid
wastes and minimizing impacts of solid waste disposal on the environment.
The Solid Waste Technical Committee began examining the technical options for
managing solid waste In the Denton area in October, 1991. The report which follows
i
includes consensus recommendations from the Task Force on a solid waste management
program for the Denton area which will in the opinion of the Task Force best serve the
immediate and long term interest of the area.
{
it
is
{
Participants
Ken Dickson, Director Tom Waller
Institute of Sciences Institute of Applied Sciences
University of North Texas University of North Texas
P.O. Box 13078 KO. Box 13078
Denton, Texas 76203 Denton, Texas
565.2694 565-2694
Harry Meeuwsen Jim Coulter
4 Department of Kinesiology City of Denton
Texas Woman's University 1100 Mayhill Road
P.O, Box 23717 Denton, Texas 76201
Denton, Texas 76204 383-7527
898.2589 (w)
565.1138 (h)
Joyce A, Poole Bill Angelo
3021 N. Bonnie Brae Director of Community Services
Denton, Texas 76201 City of Denton
362.9662 Denton, Texas 76201
566.8420
Dale Branum Lanse Fullinwider
TLC Landscaping Plant Operations Manager
2601 Ft, Worth Drive Physical Plant
Denton, Texas 76205 University of North Texas
566.2458 Denton, Texas 76203
565.2751
John Cooper Martin Slemmons
Denton County Extension Grounds Maintenance
Hortlculturlst Supervisor
i 101 E. McKinney St, Ste. 208 Texas Woman's University
Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76204
566.3607 898.3139
ill
a
[3
{Y
1$
Gary Mokry James Smajstrla
Andrew Corp, Trinity Composting
2701 Mayhill Road 412 Wlndwood
Denton, Texas 76201 Lewisville, Texas 75067
381-8129 214,!315-2478
381-8107 FAX
i
i
i
i
i
iv
k
f
`I
1 1
I
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter i INTRODUCTION Page Number
1
Chapter 2 WASTE MINIMIZATION 9
r
h Chapter 3 COLLECTION 12
1
Chapter 4 MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF) 19
Chapter 5 COMPOSTABLES AND COMPOSTING 28
Chapter 6 REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF) 42
Chapter 7 LANDFILL 46
Chapter 8 MARKETS 49
Chapter 9 SPECIAL WASTES 52
Chapter 10 LEGISLATION 55
Chapter 11 ENVIRONMENT 59
Chapter 12 PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 64
Chapter 13 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 76
BIBLIOGRAPHY 85
Appendix A 94
v
i
V
i
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the United States grew steadily between
1960 and 1988, from 88 million to nearly 180 million tons per year. Per capita generation
of MSW increased from 2.7 pounds per person per day in 1960 to 4,0 pounds per person
per day In 1988. After materials recovery for recycling, discards were 3.5 pounds per
person per day. Without source reduction, the amount of waste generated in 1995 is
expected to reach 200 million tons, or 4.2 pounds per person per day. By 2000,
generation is projected to reach 216 million tons, or 4.4 pounds per person per day.
Based on current trends and information, EPA projects that 20 to 28 percent of MSW will
be recovered annually by 1995. Exceeding this projected range will require fundamental
changes in government programs, technology, and corporate and consumer behavior
(EPA, 1990),
The composition of MSW is given in Figure 1 (EPA, 1988).
Materlals Generated In MSW
by Welght, ASS
Yrd
WIWI$
(X 11w PIL"M
8,0%
gar YA04M . Irv A moon IOM
Figure 1 represents a characterization of the municipal solid waste stream of the
Pdolod on Recycled Paper
r
1
I
I
2
nation as a whole and as such may not necessarily accurately reflect Denton's municipal
solid waste stream. In this analysis municipal solid waste is defined as wastes such as
curable goods, nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food wastes, yard wastes,
and miscellaneous inorganic wastes from residential, commercial, Institutional, and
industrial resources. Examples of wastes from the,,, categories include appliances,
newspapers, clothing, food scraps, boxes, disposable tableware, office and classroom
paper, wood pallets, and cafeteria wastes. MSW does not include wastes from other
sources, such as municipal sludges, combustion ash, and industrial nonhazardous
process wastes that might be disposed of in municipal landfills or incinerators.
Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the disposition of municipal solid waste in the
United States in 1988.
i
i
Management of Munl dpai Solid Waste
In the U.S., 1998
Landfill, 72.7%
yi
li
'Racovery
Indnerntlnn, I4,2%
Clearly, the disposal of MSW produced at these rates cannot be sustained using
today's management practices. In addition, as outlined below, legislated state and
federal mandates/goals for waste minimization and recycling are becoming increasingly
common. Integrated solid waste management involves using a combination of
techniques and programs to manage the municipal waste stream, An integrated system
is designed to address a specific set of local solid waste management problems, and its
operation is based on local resources, economics, and environmental impacts (EPA,
1989},
Pooled on Recycled Paper
3
In Texas, Senate Sill 140 passed he in the egulr
State's goal ta achieve by t January 1t 191 Legislature
establishes state recycling goals,
recycling of 40 percent of the state's total municipal solid waste stream. In this section
of Senate Bill 1340 total municipal solid waste stream means the sum of the state's total
municipal solid waste that is disposed of as solid waste, measured in tons, and the total
number of tons of recyclable material that has been divenad or recovered from the total
municipal solid waste and recycled. The governmental entities covered under this bill
include state agencies, state courts or judicial agencies, university systems or institutions
of higher education, counties, municipalities, school districts, or special districts. These Purch
sing ssion will
ctionrofSallvrecyclable Commimaterials
agencies, in cooperation m for the Stateepa ationaa d cod
generated a prog num
high-grade generated by the entity's operations, includiog~et prolceduesafomlcol ecting and storing
provide
paper, and corrugated cardboard; 2)
recyclable materials, containers for recyclable materials, and procedures for making
the
contractual or other arrangements with buyers of recyclable materals3) evaluate necessary
amount of recyclable material recycled, and modify the recycling program
to ensure that all recyclable materials are effectively and practicably recycled; and 4)
establish educational and incentive progrwns to encourage maximum employee
participation. Exemptions from the requirements of t is law are school districts and citias
with populations of less than 5,000 if it is determined that compliance would work a
hardship on the district or the city.
Regardless of the manner in which recycling targets are set it is important that
flexibility be maintained to allow municipal waste management plans to be designed for
local conditions. In general, markets for secondary materials fluctuate considerably over
time, often rapidly. The City of Denton's experience with markets for recyclable resources
is discussed In Chapter 8. The ability to sustain marketing of collected materials at high ets is a key levels cannot always of system hence the fl xibattyrof
th plan recommendedthere,
determining the e As part of Senate type Bill 1340 the General Land Office in and coopratioT xas theDepartmentTexas ato
Commission, the Railroad Commission of Texas,
Commerce, is required to, "Initiate, coordinate, and conduct a comprehensive market
development study that quantifies the potential benefits and costs oh recyc
focling I orderuses the
to provide the groundwork for an economic development strategy of the General Land
state's waste management priorities discussed above." A ix A. Because of the
Office's market development study plan is included in AppenVan adapted se the
uncertainties associated with recovered materials markets, any p
City cannot con nThe components most often discussed as parto materials of municipal sold waste
coot of the p1a
management plans include; source reduction, recycling, combustion and landfill,
r
Peinled on Recycled Paper
I
4
Waste Minimization/Source Reduction
Source reduction programs are designed to reduce the quantity and toxicity of
materials entering the municipal waste stream. Both goals, if reached, could have +
significant impacts on the operation of other waste management alternatives, Reducing
the quantities of materials in the waste stream can result in a reduced number of waste
handling vehicles and equipment and smaller management and disposal facilities,
Collection costs, for example, can be reduced if there is less waste to be collected. Also,
the costs of constructing and operating facilities such as transfer stations, material
recovery facilities, and waste-to-energy plants will be lower with a smaller waste stream.
In addition, landfill capacity is preserved through effective quantity reduction programs.
The removal or reduction of products with toxic components will also improve the
operation and environmental impacts of waste management facilities. For example, heavy
metals such as lead and cadmium can be found in printing inks and household batteries.
When these materials are buried at a landfill or burned at a combustion facility, these
constituents require control of leachate at the landfill and air emissions at the combustion
facility. A source reduction program that minimizes the use of these materials can reduce
environmental risks.
Recycling
Recycling programs vary in degrees of aggressiveness; some may be simple, low-
technology drop•rif centers, while others may involve comprehensive source separation
and curbside collection or complex separation technologies at material recovery facilities.
Because recycling can divert significant quantities of materials from ultimate disposal, it
Is usually one of the first options selected by communities faced with an Impending landfill
capacity shortfall. Even though recycling can divert significant quantities of materials from
disposal the percentage of materials being recycled on a weight basis is not as yet all
that significant when compared to the tons of materials being discarded (Table 1).
In addition to landfills and combustion facilities, recycling programs can also have
a positive Impact on composting operations. Many commonly recycled materials (e.g,
glass, aluminum, plastic) are not easily composted, and are generally considered
contaminants in the compost product. Similarly, the removal of toxic constituents (e.g,,
lead and cadmium from inks and batteries) in the waste stream will also result in a higher
quality compost.
Composting
A variety of composting programs exist, ranging from simple backyard systems
to in-vessel digesters handling municipal solid waste. Composting can divert significant
Printed on Recycled Paper
5
quantities of materials from disposal, Composting programs, therefore, can play a
fundamental role in the conservation of landfill space.
Backyard composting is often considered a source reduction activity, as materials
handled in this manner never actually appear in the municipal waste stream. This is not
a trivial reduction. Analysis by the City staff indicate that at certain times of the year yard
wastes may comprise more than 45% of the residential solid waste stream, Centralized
yard waste composting facilities are becoming more popular as a waste management I
tool, and their operation can diroctly benefit other alternatives. First, composting can
divert a significant amount of matarial from the stream entering
Table 1, Materials Discarded and Recycled, 1988.
Amount Generated Amount Recycled Percent Recycled
(Millions of Tons) (Millions of Tons)
Paper and 71.8 18,4 25.6
Paperboard
Glass 12,5 1.5 12,0
Ferrous Metal 11.6 0.7 5.8
Aluminum 2.5 0.8
31.7
Other non-ferrous 1,1 0.7 65.1
materials
f Plastics 14.4 0.2 1.1
Rubber, leather, 1510 0,1 2.9
textiles, wood
Food Wastes 13.2 0.0 0,0
Yard Wastes 31.6 0,5 1.6
Miscellaneous 2.7 0.0 0.0
Inorganic Wastes
Source; Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 -
2000; (update 1988) Flnal Report, Franklin Associates.
combustlon facilities or landfills. A smaller waste stream means a smaller facility (which
is less expensive to build and operate), Second, because yard wastes do not burn as
well as some of the other waste stream components, diversion of yard wastes from a
PrNrted on Recycled Paper
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I ,
I
ti
i
combustion facility to a composting facility can increase the heating value of the
remaining waste stream entering the combustion facility. A higher heating value means
that more steam or electricity can be produced per pound of waste burned.
j Composting programs can be designed to complement or augment most other
waste management activities. Preserving landfill space is the most obvious example, and
this factor Is often the driving force behind a composting operation.
f
As discussed earlier, municipal solid waste composting operations can effectively
be combined with recycling programs today in the more advanced centers around the
United States and/or the preparation of refuse-derived fuels, Processing technologies
used separate a compostable fraction, a fraction of materials suitable for recycling, and
a stream that can be processed further into RDF. As these technologies develop, the
benefit of combining all three operations is expected to become even more attractive. i
Combustion of Solid Waste
i
f The Impacts of alternative management options on combustion facility design and
operation have been described above, To summarize, the reduction in size, non-
combustibility, and toxicity of the waste stream that results from source reduction,
recycling, and composting programs can significantly lower costs and Improve the
operation of future combustion facilities, Combustion plays an important role in waste
management bemuse it not unly reduces the volume of material requiring disposal, it also
produces a revenue-generating product.
Combustion facilities associated with municipal solid waste management plans are i
generally of one or two types; 1) mass burning facilities, 2) RDF, refuse derived fuels
facilities. The RDF facilities are primarily fuel production facilities, 1,e,, the fuel is made
from municipal solid waste. The fuel so produced can then be combusted on site as a
fossil fuel supplement to produce steam for whatever purpose might be needed, but
more Importantly the fuel can be sold as a commodity and does not need to be burned
at the site.
Land Disposal
i
Landfills are necessary components of waste management systems, and
complement the other waste management alternatives by providing disposal capacity for
the various residuals. For example, processing recyclables generates residuals that
cannot be sold, reprocessed or reused. Similarly, non~compostable and non-combustible
f (1,e. fly ash) materials require disposal. In addition, disposal capacity is often needed
during planned or unanticipated facility shutdowns.
{
printed on Recycled Paper
j
{
i
I
I
i
j'
7
Summary
Under current conditions the Denton Municipal Landfill is expected to reach
permitted capacity in July, 1996. The closure of this facility will leave a significant void
relative to convenient and economical disposal sites for area residents and businesses.
Although there are plans to expand the facility, thereby extending its useful life, various
factors have come into play which significantly affect consideration of landfilling as the
sole method of solid waste disposal.
recent state legislation has a legislated goal of a 40% by weight reduction in the
waste which is landfilled. The goal is to be accomplished through the adoption of waste
minimization and recycling programs. Additionally, the general public's perception of
landfills and landfilling activities is extremely negative and tends to create difficulties in
siting and operating such facilities. Based upon these factors it is apparent that
alternative disposal methods must be considered and implemented in order to reduce the
dependence on landfilling, and meet the legislated reductions.
Landfilling has been the prevalent method of solid waste disposal in the area for
economic reasons. Unfortunately, landfilling remains and probably will remain for some
time, the most economical disposal option available in this area. The introduction of any
of the accepted disposal alternatives will significantly increase disposal costs which, in
turn, will be reflected in area solid waste collection and disposal rates.
Due to regulatory and environmental factors an alternative disposal method{s} must
be implemented regardless of increased costs. Thus, the problem becomes which of the
available options is best suited to this area and produces'the greatest Impact at the
lowest possible cost.
The solid waste management plan recommended by the Denton Area Solid Waste
Technical Committee is outlined in Figure 3, Each of the components in the figure will be
discussed in some detail in the chapters which follow.
r
Printed on Recycled Paper
i
l
to
I
~i
[i
I X
F~
I 4Y
I
r 8
Municipal Solid Waste
Commerclal Residential Institutional Industrial
Source Reduction
1
I
l Collection
1
i MRF Recyclables
i i
I
Compost RDF Landfill
I
I
1
Pnnfed on peaycied Paper
i
I
f€
9
CHAPTER 2
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Traditional approaches to the solid waste management dilemma have addressed the
waste problem after the waste has been generated. In effect, these approaches, such I
as recycling, combustion of wastes, and landfilling, are treatments for the symptoms of
the problem and do not address the problem itself. Source reduction, or waste
minimization, addresses the waste problem prior to generation (EPA, 1989).
Unfortunately, the concept of waste minimization has not received as wide a range
of application as other approaches to the solid waste problem. Thus, the actual impact
on the waste stream of this approach is difficult to estimate, A review of recent literature
on this subject, however, indicates that waste minimization as a viable approach to the
solid waste dilemma is receiving more and more attention at all leve's of government. J
EPA (1989) defines source reduction as "the design, manufacture, and use of
products so as to reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste produced when the products
reach the end of their useful life". Such a definition may leave local governments
questioning what a local authority can do in this area that would really impact the amount
of waste that Is generated. In reality, there are numerous steps that have been taken by
local governments that support the waste minimization approach. Some of the steps
which have been taken in other communities and may be considered viable in the Denton
area include; 1
1, developing and implementing Public Education Programs stressing product
reuse, changing consumer purchasing habits, decreasing consumption, and
substituting safer products
i
2. developing and implementing product exchange information networks
3, sponsoring and supporting legislation which encourages product reuses,
decreases packaging, increases product lifetime, and decreases product toxicity
4. developing and Implementing regulations designed to restrict quantity and
product design
5, developing financial incentives and disincentives to encourage reduction by
linking economic benefit to reduction activities.
Pnnled on Recycled Paper
4
I
I
i~
I~
Public Education Programs 10
The development and implementation of public education programs are relatively
inexpensive when compared to the benefits which can be achieved. The programs may
i
take the form of
a series of newspaper articles or advertisements, brochures mailed out
separately, or with utility hty bills, hank statements, etc,, public presentations aimed at civic
groups and other organizations, and the development of presentations and curriculum
for the schools. The subject material could include such items as reusable shcrping
bags, purchasing in bulk, avoiding disposable items, reusing common items, repairing
all types of items, promoting less toxic substitutes, etc.
Product Exchange Network
A product exchange network can be an effective tool for reducing the local waste l
stream as everyone comes across an item at one time or another that they don't want,
but is still useful. As the saying goes, "one man's junk is another man's treasure." Local
governments can capitalize on this factor by providing a clearinghouse for unwanted but
still useful items. A system could be implemented where the potential disposer of an item
or items reports the Information to the clearinghouse, which in turn advertises its
availability to the public. While cable television offers the best medium for such
exchanges, newspapers, newsletters, and open computer networks offer similar
opportunities,
The State has a product exchange network for industries. The State's program
Is called Resource Exchange Network for Eliminating Waste (RENEW). RENEW is an
Information clearinghouse operated by the Texas Water Commission and established at
f
the direction of the 70th Legislature, The RENEW program provides an opportunity for 3
industries to sell their surplus materials, by-products and wastes. It further offers the
opportunity for industries to request materials. The exchange also helps Industries find
persons able to reclaim or reuse unwanted materials.
Clearly, information clearing house systems raise questions concerning the liability
associated with such a program. The RENEW catalog contains a disclaimer that might
be appropriate for a local system. The disclaimer reads, "Information provided through
the RENEW Catalog is supplied by the lister of the material. The exchange is not
responsible for any warranty, expressed or Implied, as to the accuracy of the material
description, the suitability of a particular use, or the merchantability of any material offered
through this Catalog. It is the legal responsibility of each party to determine whether a
listed material is a hazardous waste or a hazardous material. Hazardous wastes must
/ be managed in accordance with all relevant hazardous waste regulations and laws,
RENEW Is not responsible for the determination of what may constitute a hazardous
material or hazardous waste or create a hazardous situation. RENEW reserves the right
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
11
not to list a material, to delist a material, or edit information provided by the listing party."
Sponsoring/Supporting Legislation
i
More and more communities are engaging in efforts to persuade state and federal
governments to develop more stringent legislation promoting waste reduction. Reusable
bottle laws in some states, and outright product bans in others make it evident that such
an approach is viable. Some of the issues involved in the area tend to be fairly
controversial, as significant impact may be felt by local industry and retailers. As a result,
coordination and open communication with local industry and businesses are suggested
to ensure success.
y Regulation
Although most of the regulatory activity relative to waste minimization occurs at the
state and federal levels, local government can take some steps in this area. The first step
1 would be to declare waste minimization a top priority in the local solid waste management
s plan. Secondly, the community could implement specific regulations relating to quantity
control and product design. Quantity control regulation may include restrictions or bans
of products to promote substitution of products that have the same function, but are less
harmful to human health and the environment. Product design regulations could take the
form of sales taxes or restrictions on products that do not meet certain design criteria,
such as product durability, product toxirity levels, mandatory disclosure of environmental
a impact, and purchasing requirements for government agencies.
Financial Incentives/Disincentives
i
f=inancial rewards and penalties have long been recognized as the most effective
motivational tools in our "pocketbook" oriented society. Thus, economic Incentives and
disincentives that encourage and promote waste minimization have been found to be
equally effective. Local governments can Implement these reward and penalty systems
through tax credits or exemptions, product disposal charges, and variable waste disposal
charges for garbage collection. Tax credit and exemption programs provide incentives
to companies and institutions that follow specific source reduction processes for
manufacturing or consuming. Product disposal charges usually take the form of per unit
taxes or product value taxes, which require that disposal costs are programmed into the
total cost of the product. Variable waste disposal charges for garbage collection
institutes volume-based pricing which tie consumer usage to the actual cost of disposal.
This variable waste dlspo:,al charge may offer the greatest benefit to waste minimization
with the least effort and will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this report.
Pdn7ed on Recycled Paper
r
i
12
CHAPTER 3
COLLECTION ACTIVITIES:
Collection of Recyclables
There are three basic systems for the collection of recyclables and yard waste which
include, recycling "drop-off" centers, source separation curbside collection, and
commingled curbside collection. Each of these systems have experienced extensive
application across the United States, and each have achieved relative degrees of
success.
Drop-Box Recycling Centers
The drop-box recycling center approach is perhaps the oldest system in use. It is
relatively easy to implement and offers the cheapest alternative to the collection of
recyclables. In these systems, large containers are strategically placed at one or more
locations in the community and users are required to bring their recyclables to the
centers. This type of system also requires users to separate all recyclables and place
them in the appropriate containers.
This type of system is relatively inexpensive to implement and operating costs are
nominal when compared to other alternatives. Another advantage of this system involves
its accessibility to commercial waste generators as well as residential generators. This I
system also offers accessible recycling to residents and businesses outside the
community who occupy rural areas or local jurisdictions without recycling programs.
There are also a number of problems relating to these drop-box recycling systems.
In some instances, the sites for the containers are difficult to locate as they tend to fall
victim to the same "not In M backyard" syndrome that plagues landfills. Since these
facilities do not normally require personnel for constant oversight, they tend to be
misused by some users resulting in unsightly accumulations of material outside the
containers and contamination of recyclables. The most serious concern with these
systems relate to the lack of convenience they provide to the residents. While those
individuals who maintain a high level of environmental consciousness appear willing to
take the time and trouble to transport their recyclables to these sites, the majority of i
residents will only participate if the programs are extremely convenient and require very
little effort on their part. Thus, the reduction in waste stream experienced in the drop-box
recycling systems tends to be much lower than other alternatives,
The City of Denton has direct experience with this type of system as the first drop-box
recycling center for newspaper was implemented in March, 1988. Since that time, the
Printed on Recycled Paper
13
program has been expanded to include two centers for the collection of newspaper,
glass, aluminum, and tin, and 14 satellite containers for newspaper. These facilities
experience heavy usage from users from outlying areas. City staff reports indicate that
this program is collecting approximately 100 tons of newspaper, 21 tons of glass, .9 tons
of aluminum, and 2 tons of tin per month, Almost all of this material would have ended
up in the Denton landfill without the centers.
Source Separation Curbside Recycling
Perhaps the most popular recycling program offered today is the source separation
curbside collection of recyclables, In these systems, residents are issued three to four
small containers in which they are asked to separate and place newsprint, glass, metal
products, and plastics. On collection day, the containers are placed on the curb for
collection. Most service providers collect the materials manually from the curb, provide
additional sorting of glass and metal products, and place the materials in the appropriate
bin on a multiple container truck. Once the trucks' bins are full they are taken to a
centralized facility where each bin is individually off-loaded in a large container. The
materials are then transported to local area markets,
This type of system is much more convenient for the resident than the drop-box
system and tends to stimulate much higher participation rates, thereby increasing the
amount of material diverted from the waste stream, The source separation curbside
system is relatively easy to implement, and requires less upfront capital than other
curbside approaches, Capital expenditures for this system are necessary for the `
purchase of special collection vehicle;;, customer containers, and large containers for
transportation to markets.
There are also some problems with this curbside program as compared to other
alternatives. First, the system is limited to coverage for residential customers and does
not affect the commercial waste stream, Secondly, this approach requires a dual
collection system as different vehicles and personnel are used for the collection of
recyclables and the collection of waste. Thirdly, such a system usually only yields a 10%
reduction in the residential waste stream, which in some systems is relatively insignificant.
Finally, these systems have relatively high operating costs for colleAlon and, when
combined with capital expenses and compared with waste diversion volumes, generate
a relatively high per unit cost, As a result, these systems are usually the most expensive
and produce relatively insignificant benefits.
1
The City of Denton has experimented with this type of system through its curbside
collection pilot program. As reported by City staff, the program has exceeded national
averages in terms as participation as recent data indicates that approximately 52% of the
area residents in the areas where this service is offered are participating in the program.
Printed on Recycled Paper
i
14
The waste diversion rate for the program is estimated to be 9.7% of the waste stream,
and area residents have expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the program.
The 1991.92 Solid Waste Budget included a package for the citywide expansion of
the program. At that time staff estimated the cost of the citywide program to be
approximately $208,000 annually including the necessary capital for program start up.
In order to fund the program residential solid waste rates would need to be increased by
$1,20 per month per customer. Based upon a 10% waste diversion rate, staff analysis
" indicated that the program would cost approximately $115 per ton to divert the recyclable
material from the landfill. When the diversion rate was spread across the remaining
landfill life, the program resulted in a savings of 1.5 months of landfill space at a cost of
$1,080,000. At the time, the City considered this type of result unacceptable relative to
program costs.
l Commingled Curbside Collection
The collection of recyclables that are commingled with normal waste products is
becoming increasingly popular in the United States as more and more communities are
converting to this type of system, In a commingled collection system residents are asked
to place their refuse and recyclables in Separately colored plastic bags to reduce spoilage
and provide for more efficient sorting processes, The bags of recyclables are collected
along with the bags of regular garbage and placed in the same collection vehicle. Once
full, the collection vehicle is driven to a sorting facility where the bags are separated by
color. The bags of garbage are removed and disposed of in a landfill or are added to
a compost system. The bags containing recyclables are opened and the materials sorted
by type through an automated and manual separation process. The recyclables are then
baled and prepared for shipment to the various markets,
Commingled collection systems are hailed as the mast convenient approach to
recycling as they significantly reduce the resident's efforts for separation arro storage of
recyclables. Since the recyclables are collected on the same day as the regular garbage,
overall participation rates also tend to increase. The net result of the system's
convenience and the same day collection of recyclables and garbage are substantially
higher waste diversion rates than other systems.
I
Capital costs for the collection of recyclables in this system are much less than source
separation systems as no additional equipment is required. Similarly, operating costs for
/ collection are also lower as no additional personnel are required for commingled
collection activities. There may be some increased cost as a result of acquisition of
different colored bags for recyclables; however, this increase should be offset somewhat
by a reduction in the amount of regular garbage bags utilized in this type of system,
Plinfed on Recycled Paper
15
The real cost for the commingled collection systems results from the construction and
operation of the sorting facility required for the system, Capital costs for construction
may run as high as $2,000,000; however, these costs can be spread over the 30-year life
of the facility, Annual operating costs can also be substantial and may run in the range
of $400,000 to 500,000 per year. While these costs are significant, when they are applied
against the volume of material diverted from the landfill they generally produce a lower
per-ton cost than other recycling alternatives.
i
Perhaps one of the best features of this system sterns from the sorting facility which
` allows for the processing of recyclables which are perierated from commercial and I
industrial customers as well as those generated from residential customers. Since the
commercial waste stream is generally much larger than the residential waste stream, the
potential impact of this system is much greater.
Incentives for Waste Management and Recycling 1
While properly designed public education and recyclable collection programs can
provide reductions in the amount of solid waste which is disposed in landfills, maximum
reduction levels cannot be achieved without substantial alterations to traditional collection
and billing systems, Individuals who have developed a certain level of environmental
consciousness will participate in such programs regardless of the billing and collection
systems utlllzed. Unfortunately, there appears to be a greater number of individuals who
will only participate if programs are convenient and there are some incentives built into
the system that ultimately provide some tangible financial reward back to the participant. J
For this reason, numerous communities in the United States have developed and l
implemented volume-based rate structures which charge, based upon the amount of
refuse which is placed out for collection, In most residential collection systems where
volume-based pricing has been implemented, the program usually involves a pay per bag
or can approach. Such pricing differs significantly from the flat rate billing systems
commonly used to finance residential collection and disposal operations.
In the commercial collection industry volume-based pricing has been quite common
for a number of years as collection and disposal rates are generally based upon
container size and collection frequencies. Rather than reward customers for reduced
waste volume, the tendency in the commercial industry has been to offer a declining
block rate structure which rewards the higher volume customer.
l A review of programs implemented in other communities reveals that there are
numerous options and variations available, relative to alternate price structures. In most
cases, communities have opted to implement a pay per bag system in which customers
are required to use specially marked bags or stickers for all residential garbage. A few
Prinfed on Hecycled Paper
I
i
16
communities have implemented pay for can programs which utilize stickers placed on
containers, or rates based on the size container used by the customer. The latest
variation to be implemented on an experimental basis involved a pay by weight program
in which customers' garbage was weighed and the customer was billed according to the
weight of the garbage placed on the curb.
Pay Per Weight
An analysis of a weight-based rate program implemented in Seattle, Washington
points out the benefits of weight-based rates compared to volurne-based pricing
(Skumatz, 1991). In essence, the arguments for weight-based rates center on the fact
that the type of pricing Is based on actual use, whereas other structures are based on
estimates of customer use. Additionally, this system is seen as providing a greater
incentive to recycling and waste minimization compared to volume-based pricing. On the
negative side, the study revealed that the technology required for the weighing of
materials on the route was simply not available for quick and easy weighing and
recording of materials collected. Thus, weight-based pricing, while holding the greatest
potential for providing incentives for waste minimization and recycling, is not yet
considered a cost effective approach to solid waste pricing.
Pay Per Can
The pay per can approarh involves the use of mechanical collection systems. These
are systems in which residents are issued heavy duty plastic toter-type garbage cans,
These cans usually range in sizes of 30, 60, and 90 gallons, On collection days these
cans are rolled to the curb by the residents for emptying by an automated collection
vehicle operated by one individual. Once emptied, the toter cans can be rolled back into
the residence by the owner.
There are two basic pricing variations in the pay per can system. The first type is one
in which the resident is charged based upon the size of the can utilized. The second
type of system involves the placement of stickers on the cans which are removed by the
waste collector once the cans are emptied. In this later system, stickers are purchased
by the resident, They may be issued a nominal amount of stickers for a base fee.
Additional stickers may be purchased at various outlets, or through the mall. Variable can
sizes are allowed with the larger cans requiring more stickers than the smaller cans. No
cans would be emptied unless the appropriate number of stickers are applied to the can,
The pay per can approach has some difficulties (Skumatz, 1091). In an analysis of
the pay per can approach Skumatz points out that the subscription-type service may not
provide a real incentive for source reduction and recycling. That is, the res',,ent is
charged based on the size of the container, not the amount of material in the container,
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
t
17
Residents subscribing to the smallest container available receive no real reward for
reducing the amount of waste disposed. It is possible such a system could stimulate
residents using larger cans to dispose of waste at higher r-1tas in order to get the most
for their money. When used in conjunction with a sticker system, this approach requires
that stickers be removed once the can is emptied, which slows collection activities
significantly.
There is also some substantial concern relative to the cost of maintaining large
inventories of variable-sized cans in order to respond to changes in customer needs. Not
only is there a significant cost in purchasing the extra containers, but warehousing costs
can be fairly expensive as well, This problem becomes even more pronounced in
communities which provide curbside collection of recyclables and/or yard waste through
the same mechanical system.
A final concern which seems to occur in the pay per can system involves those
instances when a resident produces more waste than will fit in the container. The relative
success of the program is largely dependent on strict adherence to program rules which
do not allow for collection of items which are not placed in the appropriate container,
Since almost every resident experiences an occasion when they produce more garbage
than usual, inflexible pay per can systems can create complaints from the public and/or
cr ate an environment where residents subscribe to more service than is really needed.
Pay Per Bag
As previously mentioned, the pay per bag system is the most commonly used '
approach to volume-based rates. Perhaps the primary reason for its wider application
stems from the fact that it is more closely aligned to traditional collection methods and
is somewhat less disruptive to implement. In this type of system residents continue to
place their garbage at the curb in plastic bags which are collected manually.
There are two basic variations to the pay per bag system which include the use
of specially marked bags, or the use of stickers that are affixed to any common plastic
bag. In both of these systems the refuse is not collected unless it is placed in the
appropriate bag or the appropriate sticker is affixed to the bag. Both systems require the
residents to pay based upon the number of bags which are placed out for collection,
in those systems in which specially marked bags are used, the distribution system
used for the bags Is somewhat cumbersome as compared to the sticker system. The M
bags must be acquired and adequate inventories maintained by the local service
provider. The bags are distributed to various outlets that are reasonably accessible to
the public. Public facilities such as fire stations, and recreation centers, along with major
municipal facilities, are typically used as outlets; however, on-site storage space at these
PmoMd an Recycled Paper
i
~r
FI
I
ICI
I
18
facilities is usually limited. Many communities make these bags accessible through local
retailers who are compensated for their efforts.
The sticker system allows residents the flexibility of using any bags they choose
and allows for a less cumbersome distribution system. Stickers can be distributed in the
same manner as the bags; however, they require much less room for storage,
Additionally, stickers can be distributed through the mail either separately or with utility
bills, The sticker system provides an additional advantage as they can also be used on
large bulky items that will not fit in bags, such as appliances and furniture. On the
negative side, stickers are somewhat less convenient than the bags, as it takes the
resident a little longer to insure that the stickers are appropriately attached to each bag.
While the pay per bag systems are less accurate and provide a little less incentive
for source reduction and recycling than the weight-based rate system, they are more
cost-effective and feasible to implement. When compared to the pay per can systems,
the pay per bag system is not as capitally intensive, requires less inventory maintenance
cost, and provides a much greater degree of flexibility than the can systems. Additionally,
the pay per bag approach appears to offer more incentive to the resident as charges are
based upon the number of bags actually placed out for disposal.
Although the pay per bag systems appear to offer the most advantageous
approach, they are not without problems (Becker and Browning, 1891). However, these
problems can be addressed with variations of the systems and on-going public education
programs. Specific problems include; insufficient revenues to cover the cost of collection
and disposal; uneven cash flow; illegal dumping of waste along roadside, and in
commercial containers; and excessive compaction of waste in individual waste bags.
The problems of Insufficient revenues and uneven cash flow can easily be
addressed through the implementation of a monthly-based fee. Under such a system,
residents can be Issued a nominal number of stickers under the base fee, Additional
bags or stickers can be purchased by residents at a much higher per bag or sticker fee.
Utilizing a base fee allows the service provider to accurately project base revenues and
predict cash flow.
The problems of illegal dumping and excessive compaction can be addressed
through increased enforcement activities and continuous public education programs
designed to make residents aware of the purpose of the volume-based rate system.
Several communities have experienced high levels of success through the public
education programs which are preferable to increased enforcement. In addition, it is also
possible to minimize the dumping problem in commercial containers by installing locks
on containers and/or limiting their accessibility to the public.
Printed on Recycled paper
. r
19
CHAPTER 4
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
The acronym MRF stands for Materials Recovery Facility although in the trash
world there is not unanimous agreement as to what constitutes a MRF. According to
Governmental Advisory Associates Inc. of New York (1991.93 Materials Recovery ar+d
Recycling Yearbook) all MRF's separate recyclables from residential waste with some
combination of hand sorting and mechanization, and then actively market the products.
MRFs receive commingled recyclables although some of their input may also be source
separated. Thus, all MRFs separate some of their materials from commingled
recyclables. These systems produce a combustible fraction, a compostable fraction,
recovered materials, and residuals. In general, the materials recovered from this process
are of lower quality than materials that are source separated or separated at N1RFs,
mainly because they have been mixed with other types of refuse. To achieve higher
quality, materials must be cleaned, which can be costly. As full stream processing
technologies develop, however, product quality of recovered materials is expected to
increase. Full stream processing is attractive because no source separation of materials
is required. Participation could effectively be 100 percent, Materials are separated at full
I stream processing facilities both mechanically and by hand. Depending on the facility
f design, different amounts of hand and mechanical technologies would be used.
Size and weight are the main characteristics used to separate materials:
• When the material is first dumped, oversized materials such as white goods
t and furniture are removed;
• Rotating screens called trommels are used to create two waste fractions;
a large sized materials fraction that includes combustibles and metals, and
a small-sized materials (i.e., pass through three inch screen) fraction, which
is comprised largely of compostable materials;
i Ferrous metals are extracted from the larger materlals in the large materials
h fraction using a magnet system;
Air classification can be used to separate the lighter materials in the large
materials fraction from the heavies;
• Light materials include plastic and paper and can be further processed into
RDF; if warranted, paper can be further separated from plastic and used in
composting;
Printed on Rocyciad Paper
1
20
The heavy fraction can be mechanically or hand sorted further to recover
salable materials such as corrugated cardboard; and
Disposal of residuals is required.
Currently there are 257 MRFs in America which range from less than one ton per
day (tpd) to nearly 1,000 tpd, up from 104 in some stage of development in December,
1989. Regardless of the debate over what constitutes a MRF, we believe that a facility
that separates recyclables from source separated and/or commingled trash should be
part of the Denton areas long term solid waste management plan.
i
Generally when people think about recycling and municipal solid waste streams
they envision residential waste streams. However, statistics collected by the City of
Denton Municipal Solid Waste staff indicate that only about 25% to 30% by weight of the
MSW stream in the City is residential, 70% to 75% of the stream is commercial- Industrlal-
of 40% of
asts recycling
the that
residentiall wlegislated
not bclear
e met even if 100% estimates
recycled.
MSW colulid It is
MSW
Therefore, some type of processing facility will be required to make commercial-
Ind ustriai-Institution al waste recycling a reality. A preliminary analysis prepared by the
City staff of the commercial-Industrial-institutional waste stream in Denton suggests that
approximately 80% of this waste stream is comprised of paper products. These
can be recycled
materials, it separated at the commercial•industrial-institutional site,
relatively easily. The important technical factor in recycling paper products is that they
be relatively uncontaminated, i.e., they cannot, for example, be mixed with putrescent
organics and still retain their value as a marketable commodity. Whatever long term
solution to the municipal solid waste is chosen, the solution cannot be undertaken without {
addressing the commercial•industrial-institutional component. !
Typically in MRFs commingled materials are delivered, dumped, and moved on
conveyors from which the different materials are sorted. The types of materials separated
in a MRF include;
Recoverable Paper. Recoverable paper is most often not commingled with bottles,
cans, plastics and other recyclables. Usually these fiber materials (newspaper and
cardboard boxes in many communities) are dumped on a concrete pad or floor. Some
inspection and manual removal of garbage and contaminates is performed. The final
product is baled and often loaded directly on to trailers or rail cars for movement to an
end-use market. i
Aluminum and Steel Cans, Aluminum and steel cans typically are sorted early in
the process as these materials most often require multiple processing steps. Separation
r Printed art Recycled PAP&
I
i
21
from other materials is accomplished with the assistance of electromechanical devices.
Magnetic drums first strip off the tinned steel and bi-metal cans. Aluminum can
separation is handled by gravity, weight separation mechanisms, eddy current techniques
or manual separation. Both steel and aluminum containers are size-reduced for storage
and marketing. Tinned steel and bi-metal cans are often baled, and aluminum cans are
typically flattened and blown into a trailer, although some operators bale or briquette
aluminum cans.
Glass Containers. Color sorting of glass bottles is the most labor intensive activity
in a MRF. Hand labor sorts the clear, amber, and green glass from a moving conveyor
line into different chutes or piles for storage. Sometimes further crushing is done to make
the product furnace-ready, although this is generally dictated by the requirements of the
company buying the glass. Only whole and nearly whole glass containers are sorted:
broken glass chips become residue at the and of the processing line. A high percentage
of commingled material, averaging 20 percent by weight must be landfilled. This is not
an insignificant factor. Approximately one-half of the residue is generated in the collection
process and one-half at the MRF. The composition of the residue breaks dawn to
roughly 90 percent glass, about 5 percent garbage and about 5 percent other recyclables
(commonly other plastics). The composition of MRF residue will be different from facility
to facility depending on the materials collected in the program. The residue is the
product of more than one dozen steps that make up the collection program. Some
significant areas that contribute more or less to residue generation are given in Table 2.
Mixed glass has little value. According to Jack Hostetler of The Bassichis
Company in Cleveland, one of the largest glass processors in the United States, the
variance of the chemistry of broken glass can cause weaknesses in finished glass
containers, Rhode Island pays to landfill the broken glass, while New York City gives it
away for use in roads, and Dane County, Wisconsin sells it for $2.00 per ton. Mixed cullet
(crushed glass) brings little or no revenue, while color separated cullet sells for $30 or
$40 per ton. Thus, coupled with very poor markets for mixed cullet, the options available
rely mainly on improving the collection of color-mixed containers and their handling and
processing. On the other hand, flint glass (clear) can be marketed for over $30.00 ton.
Unintentional glass breakage which occurs before color separation and subsequent
crushing of glass Into cullet includes both breakage of whole bottles and further crushing
of glass pieces that broke during collection and transport,
Plastics, Plastic has probably received the most attention with respect to applied
technology in collection, sorting, and processing. Although many MRFs still sort some
plastics by hand, the more advanced facilities include gravity separators and mechanical
devices,
printed on pocycled paper
22
Table 2. Points in the collection process where glass residue generation is produced.
Where Residue is Generated
Area/Step Less Residue More Residue
Household container Bags Bins
Vehicle type Compartmentalized Packer
Truck fill Less than 75% More than 75%
Compaction No Compaction Compaction
Pad Dumping Careful, baffled Straight, fast
Line Loading Gradual Feed Mass Dumping
` Process Design For comfort Unsophisticated
Line Speed Slower Faster
V
Source: Richard Bishop Consulting, Ltd., 1991,
I~ The level of technology employed it a MRF is generally low compared to other
more mature industries. The principle of separation most often used in movement and
processing Involves gravity for routine flow of materials, Few MRFs use advanced
` technology such as spectrography to sort glass by color,
Size and Cost
The range of MRF sizes can be extreme. Typically sizes range from 20 to 200 tons i
of daily processing capacity, requiring from 5,000 to 50,000 square feet of operating area.
The MRF and the municipal recycling business is just too new to assume that a particular
configuration of equipment upon which an operating contract is based will be appropriate
the useful life of most of the equipment used in a MFV
than five ears. And
for longer the y
is not much longer than five years. One can expect that within five years both the mix
of materials that are economical to recover and the equipment that is best suited to make
these materials highly marketable will be different than today. Therefore, MSW systems
put in place to reduce the amount of material entering landfills and to meet legislated
recycling goals should be as flexible as possible.
If In most cases, the land, buildings and equipment associated with MRFs are capital
costs that must be financed. As a result, the cost of borrowing is a major component of
those capital costs, Public entities, either municipalities or quasi-public authorities, usually
have significantly lower borrowing costs than private sector businesses. In addition, a
Printed an Pecycled Paper I
I
I
I
i
I
1.
r
23
public entity's ability to amortize land and buildings over a long period of time brings cost
efficiencies to a project. The land and buildings make up a large part of a MRF's costs
and are included in the price it must charge (Bishop, 1991). If a MRF were placed at the
Denton City landfill, a logical site, the cost of the land would not represent a new cost.
I
Capital Costs
Although the sale of recyclables can generate considerable revenues at large
processing facilities, the sale of recyclables alone has not been shown to be sufficient to
support the full cost of siting, building, and operating a new MRF. Revenues from
materials sales vary greatly from area to area, depending on market conditions and
transportation costs. Again, avoided cost of landfilling must be taken into account when
evaluating the integrated management system. Existing Mi have had total capital
costs of $10,000 to $22,000 per daily ton of input (Chertow, 1989). A 100 tpd facility,
therefore, would have capital costs ranging from $1 to 2.2 million. Capital costs for
equipment alone can range from $4,000 to $8,000 per design ton.
Operating Costs
Primary operating costs include labor, equipment operation and maintenance, and
the cost of disposing residuals (approximately 20 to 25% of the incoming material at a
MRF will eventually be disposed of as residual). Operating costs vary from facility to
facility but have been estimated to range from $20 to $60 per Incoming ton, prior to the
sale of materials and capital cost considerations (Chertow, 1989).
Recycling waste materials diverts potentially large volumes of wastes from landfills
and combustors. Thus, recycling is absolutely vital to achieving local and nati,rnal goals.
Recycling is also Important because it stops unnecessary depletion of valuable natural
resources. Finally, recycling is an excellent educational too] to raise awareness in
individuals of all types of waste management, because everyone must become conscious
of what they do and do not discard. In order to increase recycling, markets must be
available, more recyclables need to be separated, collected and marketed, a National
Recycling Council should be formed, incentives and disincentives for safe recycling
should be examined, 2n 1 waste exchanges should be promoted. Of course, it is
essential that, In the development of recycling programs, risks to human health and
environment from the recycling are minimized .
Table 3 shows the comparative costs for eight MRF operations. These facilities
have operating capacities of 20 to 140 tons per day; half are owned by public entities and
half by are owned by private companies. {
Pilnled on Recycled Paper
I
T ~
t;
24
Table 3, Summary of MRF processing costs for public and private facilities located
around the United States.
I
MRF Processing Costs
Facility Ownership Processing Costs Capacity in tons
per ton per day
A Public $86 80
B Public $70 90
C Public $46 65
i
D Public $38 140
E Private $32 110
F Private $29 75
G Private $26 50
H Private $45 80
Average $45 80
i
Does not include revenues. If revenue is included in the cost equation, the offset
ranges from $8 to $35 per ton,
Source: Richard Bishop Consulting, Ltd, 1991.
Three factors appear to contribute most to the cost of processing operations:
wage rates, the ievei of capital investment, and the general level of productivity (which,
of course, is closely associated with investment in equipment). Of less impact to MRF
operating costs, but still significant, is the overall level of residue generated (material
which must be landfllied). The average and ranges of residue production from a cross j
section of eight MRFs from four regions of the country are shown in Table 4. Operators
that have developed techniques to generate less residue or that have found a low-cost
disposal option have lower costs, Some operators have developed vertically integrated
businesses to use a large portion of the residue in construction and allied businesses,
Processing and sorting rates also differ widely by material, In large part, the
technology and type of equipment used, material characteristics and requirements of the
end market determine sorting rates, which are a large contributor to cost. The faster the
processing, the lower the cost.
Pooled on AecyOed Papat
I
i
i
i
r'
ki
25
Table 4. MRF residue generation.
MRF Residue Generation
Region Ownership Residue as a percent of
commingled material
Mid-Atlantic Private 32
Midwest Public 26
Mld-Atlantic Public 22
New England Public 19
Mid-Atlantic Public 18
Midwest Private 15
West Coast Public 15
Mid-Atlantic Private 5
Average 19
Source; Rlchard Bishop Consulting, Ltd„ 1991.
Glass container processing is particularly sensitive to sorting rates because of the
labor intensity of the process, Relative sorting rates for glass containers have been
developed through time studies and estimates. Through put varied from a low of 600 to
700 Ibs per employee-hour to over 2,000 Ibs per hour. Even though the range is wide,
most of the surveyed MRFs operate in the mid-range of 1,200 to 1,600 pounds per hour.
It Is easy to see that a $10 per-hour wage rate would result in a cost of about $30 per ton
at the low sorting range. This shows the importance of productivity to the operation.
In a pure economic sense a MRF is similar to a manufacturing plant. MRF
practices can be highlighted by important operating concerns and objectives. Some of
the most common ones include;
• high labor productivity,
• size reduction at the earliest practical stage,
• early eliminatlon of garbage and contaminants,
• maximum quality upgrading,
Primed on Recycled Paper
,
1
I
l
26
maximum yields (low residue),
elimination of double and triple handling of materials,
minimization of storage space,
minimization of excess equipment,
residue disposal at lowest cost,
Flexibility in operation beyond the immediate and current processing it asks needs
to be a key strategy for planning, building, and operating Me facil, Market
can quickly alter
changes, legislative action and shifts in community recycling preferences
the effectiveness of the processing center.
The majority of current operating practices and equipment used in MRFs to sort
bottles, cans, plastics and fiber materials is off-the-shelf equipment and technology
adapted from other industries, The most prominent evidence of this is the high labor
which are by
intensity of MRF processing, especially in the sorting of glass containers,
far the largest component of commingled materials. This is not to say that advanced
practices are not developed or used; they are simply not prevalent, Research into MRF and operations suggests that the R to solid residential tllung
is nnfold slSolme predi ti will
continue to grow as the solutions
for the future of MRF's include;
the MRF will become more predominant,
i
the size and complexity of the typical MRF will increase,
the MRF design will be more flexible,
r
the private sector will increase its presence in MRF operations,
Increased private sector involvement will negatively affect continuity of
service, if privately operated MRFs stop processing certain materials
deemed to be uneconomic,
collection approaches will become both more specialized (by developing
MRFs) and more general (by developing MRFs that handle one material
only),
MRF processing costs for handling some materials will decrease by up to
Prmfecl on Recycled Papat
I'
G
rl
4.
1
1
27
50 percent by 1995,
{
state legislation will continue to have a major impact on collection and
processing systems,
The increasing trend toward public ownership of material recovery facilities to
process and market municipally generated recyclables is a response to needs not being
met by the private sector and makes good economic sense.
I
Municipalities are accustomed to delivering their garbage to one landfill or resource
recovery facility. Public works departments are generally not able or willing to send
trucks hither or yon, each with a different broker, processor, or mill. Municipalities
generally prefer to send all or most of the recyclables to a single location at which the
materials can be processed and marketed.
There is some evidence that residential participation in recycling programs and the
volumes produced are both increased by making it easy to recycle, Allowing residents
to place all their containers (mixed glass, metal and plastics) in one bin is easier at the
kitchen and the curb than separating the material by type and glass color. JJi
Flexibility of Waste Management Systems 1
1
The flexibility of the set of options is also an important consideration that must be
built into the local waste management system. The ability to adapt waste practices to
changing conditions is important. Waste management components that are more flexible I
serve to insulate the locality from unexpected changes in local and larger scale
conditions.
Flexibility to expand is also beneficial, Many large-scale capital projects have
inherent maximum capacities. Should the community reach these limits earlier than
anticipated, the solutions could be very expensive. Thus, the else of expansion of waste
management components, individually and in concert, is a significant consideration in the
planning and Implementation process,
r 1
NOW on Recycled Paper it
J
1
28
CHAPTER 5
COMPOSTING - HAS THE TIME COME?
President Bush issued Executive Order 12780, on October 31, 1991, directing
federal agencies to foster development of recycling and waste reduction programs.
Specifically encouraged were programs for "the composting of organic materials such as
yard waste",
Texas State Bill 1340, sponsored by Senator Carl Parker and passed in the 72nd
Leqislature, mandates that 15 percent of yard waste be composted in order to be
included in the 1994 forty percent recycling goal, In this bill, the Solid Waste
Management Advisory Council was directed to recommend regulations for management
of yard waste by 1993. The bill suggests the possibility of banning all yard wastes from
Texas landfills.
I
The 1991.92 Interim Regional Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by the
Department of Environmental Resources, North Central Texas Council Of Governments
(NCTCOG) in Action Recommendation #5 encourages every city, especially those of
15,000 population and greater, to initiate and promote yard waste minimization programs.
Citing Senate BIII 1340, the NCTCOG plan recommended: adoption of the "Don't Bag It"
Lawn Care Plan; creation and use of community composting centers; and development
and promotion of educational programs on home composting and the separation of yard
waste for use as mulch.
Unpublished surveys of City of Denton solid waste collections indicate 24 percent
of the solid waste volume is residential. Twenty-five percent of residential solid waste is
yard waste in the form of brush, leaves and grass clippings.
After compaction in the collection truck, which reduces volumes four to five times
over curbside volumes, brush accounts for 45% of residential yard waste with 8,995 cu.
yd. collected annually. Leaves comprise 35% of residential yard waste with 6,996 cu. yd,
collected annually. Grass clippings comprise 20% of residential yard waste with 3,998 cu.
yd, collected annually.
In addition to yard waste, other compostable materials in the solid waste stream
include food wastes, wood wastes, paper wastes and sewage sludge. Food wastes
include food scraps from households and restaurants, produce from supermarkets and
waste from food processing plants. Wood wastes are produced by construction and
demolition projects. Paper wastes are generated in residential and commercial activities
throughout the city which include mago/ines, newspapers, white paper, textiles of natural
fibers, cardboard {plain and corrugatea; and paper packaging of all kinds.
Prlnled on Recycled Papei
29
Waste materials should be composted only when a viable recycling market does
not exist for a particular material. For instance, the market for recycled newspapers has
been depressed in recent years and this may best be composted until the recycled
newspaper market rebounds. The market for recycled white paper, on the other hand,
has been strong and is expected to continue so into the foreseeable future.
The Value of Compost
The benefits of returning organic matter to the soil has been recognized by farmers
for thousands of years. However, only in the last century has it been that the techniques
of piling and aerating organic matter in ',h4aps" been developed.
Experienced gardeners and landscapers have learned to view incorporation of
compost into soils and planting beds as one of the most beneficial practices for
producing and sustaining healthy vigorous plants.
Regardless of the source of the composted material the product of composting is I
an excellent soll conditioner, According to Minnich and Hunt (1979) compost builds good
soil texture and structure, qualities that enable soil to retain nutrients, moisture, and air
for the support of healthy plant growth. Compost provides and releases plant nutrients,
especially 'mlcronutrients; protects against drought, controls pH, supports essential j
bacteria, feeds helpful earthworms, stops nutrient loss through leaching, acts as a buffer 1
against toxins in the soil, stretches the growing season, and conserves natural ' I
nonrenewable energy resources. Composting is an ideal form of recycling, returning
organic wastes to the use of the land from which they originally came.
i
An Increasing number of farmers, gardeners and landscapers are incorporating
organic materials, including compost, in their management practices. As the many
benefits of compost are recognized by professionals and novice alike, the market for
compost can only increase. j
At least one Denton landscape contractor uses compost exclusively on his new
Installations. He buys his compost from commercial producers for $12.50 to $15.00 per
cubic yard, Compost delivered to Denton can double the price of the compost.
Source Reduction of Compostables
Reducing the amount of waste generated in residential and commercial activities
can be an effective way to reduce landfilling rates, Programs to help minimize waste
would encourage consumers to: choose products which are responsibly packaged; use
concentrates; buy less processed food; use refillable containers; buy recycled materials;
buy goods that can be recycled; rent, borrow or share items when possible; and use
Prlnled on Recycled Paper
t
I
30
reusable products such as washable linen towels rather than disposar le paper towels.
Consumers should be encouraged to ask businesses to offer products which produce
the least waste possible.
Pruning is one of the most fundamental horticultural techniques practiced in
landscape maintenance. Wood pruned from trees, shrubs and vines comprise
approximately 45 percent of residential yard waste in Denton. Pruning actually invigorates
plants which rebound with increased growth rates.
There are many reasons to prune such as repairing wind or ice damage, removing
I, dead or diseased wood or just shaping plants to a desired form. Because pruning
invigorates plants resulting in the production of more wood and since the resulting wood
must either be landfilled or composted, the need and occasion to prune should be
avoided when possible.
The many aesthetic, environmental and energy benefits of plant materials in the
landscape will supersede waste generation concerns. We will continue to generate yard
waste Into the distant future, Through judicious plant c-!action and maintenance
practices, however, the amount of yard waste produced c«n be I f , , med.
Proper plant selection and placement is the key to reduction of pruned wood in
the landscape, large trees planted too close to utility lines require frequent pruning to
keep utility lines clear. Plants which grow too large for the site in which they are planted
require frequent pruning to keep them in bounds.
Trees planted under utility lines should have a mature height of 20 feet or, less.
Deciduous trees adapted to this use include redbud, flowering crabapple, Mexican plum,
Carolina buckthorn, flame•leat sumac, Mexican buckeye, crape myrtle and deciduous
yaupon. Evergreen trees 20 feet or less include yaupon holly, but-ford holly, 'Nellie R.
Stevens' holly, 'Foster' holly, southern wax myrtle, Chinese photinia and Carolina cherry
laurel
i
Trees larger than 20 feet should be planted far enough from utility lines so the
mature tree canopy spread will not contact or interfere with maintenance of utility lines.
For instance, a shumard red oak, with a mature canopy diameter spread of 50 feet,
should be planted at least 25 feet from the closest utility line. This will not only insure
safe, dependable utility service but allow development of a full canopy spread. Pruning
by utility line clearance crews often exposes trees to potential disease problems.
The variety of plant materials available in the landscape trade today allows for
selection of plants which grow to the desired form for the site planted. Whether one is
planting below a window or beside a doorway, the plant selected determines the degree
Printed on Re cycfod Paper
it
31
of pruning, if any, required to keep the plant in bounds.
Plants should be allowed to grow into their natural form and size. Hedge shearing
will become less popular as the natural form of plants is appreciated and the waste
generated by excessive pruning is recognized by the general public. Of course, existing
plants will require significant pruning, but pruning requirements should diminish if these
plants are replaced by more appropriate selections.
Lawn clippings account for approximately 20 percent of residential solid waste.
Although lawn clippings can be bagged and composted, this is not necessary. The lawn
clippings contain valuable nutrients which can be returned directly to the soil while
mowing.
A result demonstration program conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service (TAEX) has shown nearly 100% adoption of the "Don't Bag It" Lawn Care Plan
(DBI) by homeowners who have tried it. The DBI program recommends using a slow-
release lawn fertilizer, mowing often enough to remove no more than one-third of the leaf
blade at any one cutting and watering the turf only when signs of moisture stress are
observed. i
As DBI is adopted by homeowners and lawn service companies throughout the
area, the grass component of yard waste collection should diminish to insignificant levels,
Backyard Composting
Recycling has become the accepted way to handle wastes of all types. Although 1
markets for recycled materials are somewhat unstable and generally unpredictable, the
markets for recycled yard wastes are very stable and highly predictable. Through
backyard composting of yard wastes, the waste generator becomes the waste handler,
processor and end user of the final recycled product.
i
The "Don't Bag It" lawn care program has promoted instant recycling of grass j
clippings. Grass clippings contain nutrients in an organic form which are slowly released
by microbial decomposition. By returning grass clippings to the soil surface, one Is
actually spreading an organic, slow-release fertilizer which is composted directly in the
soil, The value of nutrients returned to the soil in this manner equals that of one or two
fertilizer applications per year.
Although grass clippings are the easiest yar1 waste to recycle, any of the others,
such as fallen leaves, vegetable debris or pruned wood are just as useful in the home
landscape. In fact, the more woody the material, the more humus is left to use in the
garden and landscape,
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I 's
'J
32
The secret to composting woody materials is to chip or shred the material into finer
pieces before putting them in the compost bin. Materials that are not too woody, dried
leaves for instance, can be run through a lawn mower. Pruned limbs, however, need to
be run through a chipper/shredder.
' Chipper/shredders come in a range of sizes to match the job. Typically, the bulk
of pruned limbs are of shrubbery, which can be handled by smaller chipper/shredders.
Small chipper/shredders also condition vegetable debris removed from flower beds and
" vegetable gardens. These materials should always be removed from the site and
composted to reduce the incidence of soil borne diseases.
Larger tree limbs require larger type chipper/shredders, The convenience and
efficiency of chipping most every kind of yard waste produced will make this the sensible
choice for many homeowners and landscape maintenance companies.
Fallen tree and shrub leaves account for approximately 35 percent of yard waste
In Denton. These materials are a good source of organic fertilizer. Dried native oak
i 13aves, for instance, contain pound for pound more NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potasslum) than fresh cow manure. When composted or simply turned into the soil, fallen
leaves provide an excellent source of organic matter which aerates and loosens the soil.
I For homeowners with heavily wooded landscapes, one of the biggest chores each
year is raking leaves. Some lawnmowers have attachments which pick the leaves up and
shred them as they are bagged. This shredding action loads up to seven times more
leaves in each bag and also prepares the leaves for composting. Shredded leaves
decompose faster and more completely than unshredded leaves.
i
Leaf vacuums are available which vacuum, shred and bag your leaves for easy
handling and compost preparation. This specialized piece of equipment handles larger
volumes of leaves more quickly and efficiently than a lawn mower. Commercial leaf
vacuums are available which landscape service companies or municipal crews could use
to vacuum large areas quickly and efficiently.
Leaves which have been shredded and bagged can be used as mulch around
tender plants for winter protection. Fresh dried leaves, up to four and five inches deep,
can be tilled directly into open flower beds or vegetable gardens where they are
dacomposed naturally in the soil. The leaves can also be composted in bins which
f further reduces their volume and concentrates their nutrient values for use in the
andscape.
I
Printed on Recycled Paper
P
h
4
33
Collection and Separation of Compostables
i
Because commercial waste comprises approximately 76% of Denton's Solid Waste
collections and commercial sites typically do not have room and are not easily equipped
h to source separate compostables, it is assumed a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
system will be adopted to facilitate recycling of commercial waste,
Since unit costs of materials handled through a MRF system decline as volumes
increase, it is assumed that residential waste will be handled through the MRF system
along with commercial waste. It would be pointless to source separate residential waste
at the same time the city is operating a MRF system.
Yard wastes including brush, leaves and typically bagged or stacked in lots of sufficient size to iconstitute eco opmicalc ollect on
units. Except as RDF, the only practical beneficial reuse of yard waste is as compost,
Yard waste is a contaminate in recyclabes. Inclusion
collections would increase the load on the MRF system with no of yard general
posy biiitysof ilncrreasing
the volume of recyclables, For these reasons, a separate collection for yard waste to be
taken directly to a centralized composting facility i~ recommended.
Once a week collections by a city crew running five, eight-hour days per week is
suggested. Currently, large volume yard waste collections are considered special
pickups and occur on Wednesdays each week.
i
Since much of the yard waste is co-mingled now, it is suggested these materials,
especially leaves and grass clippings, be placed In bags of a different color from those
used for general coilections. Pruned wood and brush can be cut into four foot lengths
and bundled as Is currently practiced.
Compostables other than yard wastes can be included with the general collections
in commingled bags, Citizens should be encouraged to separate white paper and take
it directly to recycling centers to prevent quality degradation.
Landscape maintenance companies would be encouraged to bring yard wastes
of all types to a centralized composting facility. •Currently, these companies are either
f setting these materials at the curbside for city collection or are dumping these materials
in private or unauthorized locations,
Citizens should be encouraged to separate and recycle whatever they can on their
own. The city and others should foster not only homesite recycling, but source reduction
and waste minimization. The greatest temptation with a MRF' system is to give the city
Pe,wed on Recycled Paper
34
all the responsibility for waste management, As is done with other municipal utilities,
electricity, for instance, resource conservation should be promoted, encouraged and,
perhaps, rewarded by the city, if possible,
Composting of Wastewater Biosolids (Sludge)
Treatment of wastewater results in the production of residual solids (biosolids).
These biosolids must be removed from the system and disposed of daily. It Is critical that
the disposal method selected allows for the consistent removal of these solids.
The emphasis on beneficial reuse of wastewater biosolids by 11he Environmental
Protection Agency is guiding the types of disposal practices which many municipalities
are selecting. "EPA's policy strongly supports the beneficial reuse of wastewater
blosolids. Improving the productivity of the land with the soil conditioning properties and
nutrient content of these biosolids has human health and environmental advantages
beyond those that are directly associated with applying wastewater biosolids to the land.
Additional benefits of reusing biosolids result from a reduction in the potential adverse
human health effects associated with other methods o disposal, a decreased
dependence on chemical fertilizers and a reduction in the air emissions that contribute
to the greenhouse effect." Difficulties in obtaining long term land application sites and the
development of these sites, plus the decreasing availability of landfill sites, is opening the
door for composting of biosolids.
Composting of wastewater biosolids provides an effective way to stabilize and treat
these solids, producing a marketable product. Estimates from the EPA indicate that there
are $30-$60 per ton of organic nitrogen in wastewater biosolids. Operational reports from
composting facilities indicate potential revenue sources which could help offset
operational costs of this disposal method. Discussions with municipalities using
composting and the 1991 Blocycle Survey indicate that marketing of the products is not
a challenge, The products are being used within the municipalities by park systems and
public works, as well as being distributed to residents, landscapes, nurseries, golf
courses, sod farms and tree farms with demand exceeding supply in some cases,
"Biocycle", a recycling journal dealing with composting, has been tracking the
progress of wastewater blosoilds composting projects since 1985. In 1985, there was a
total of 173 projects with 79 in operation. In 1991, there was a total of 275 projects with
149 in operation. Many of the projects not in operation are in various stages of
construction or engineering design. This survey shows a steady increase in composting
of biosolids as a method for solids disposal.
Plowed on Nocyclod Paper
ti
35
Centralized Municipal Composting
Assumptions
Denton currently places 60,000 tons per year (tpy) of waste into the landfill, Of this
total, 4,000 tpy is yard waste (brush, leaves, grass clippings). All other compostable
material within the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) stream is 40,000 tpy. Sludge (biosolids)
is generated at 6 tons per day on a 365 day per year basis. (source: City Staff)
The following composting scenarios will be examined':
Diversion
Start-up From Design Operation
LA.Yard ion Ca acl Landfill Caoacitv Size
ste 4,000 toy 6% Small
udge 6,000 6% Small/Med
ge, MSW 46,000 70% 70,000 tpy Large
* = Sludge not currently landfilled.
In all scenarios, yard waste will be collected by a dedicated truck in certain
colored plastic bags at curbside. For part C, additional compostables will be separated
from the MSW stream and reduced in size at a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). j
The design capacity is an allowance for future growth and participation of nearby
cities. There Is sufficient diversity of materials to provide an acceptable beginning carbon-
nitrogen ratio,
Technology; Four basic technology levels may be used for municipal composting,
Low tech, or static pile method. Materials are placed outdoors In large piles, Piles are
turned, but on an infrequent basis. Most Texas producers of soil products use this
method, This is the least expensive method in terms of capital and operating costs, This
method cannot be applied to sludge or mixed waste composting by law. The slow
process may require a two-year allowance for digestion of material; Processing costs are
significantly lower than other methods.
Medium level, or turned windrow method. Material is placed in long piles called
Prmtod on Racyclod Paper III
1
36
windrows. Windrows are agitated, or 'turned",. as needed to maintain the a minimum 5%
oxygen content required by the aerobic process. The process may be outdoors or
covered. Sludge and mixed waste can legally be composted by this method. An all
weather improved pad facility is required for sludge composting. Allow four to eight
months for composting. Processing cost is $5 to $30 per wet ton. (Medium and high
' level cost estimates are from Yard Waste Management, a planning guide for New York
State),
" High level, forced air static pile. This method is similar to the static pile, except anaerobic
conditions (the conditions under which significant odors are produced) are avoided by
providing air with blowers. Controls may be automated. Land requirements are low,
Plies may be indoors or outdoors. Processing costs range from $20 to $50 per ton.
High level, in-vessel systems (IVS). Materials are agitated and aerated inside large
containers. Land requirements are low. This method provides the highest level of control
over the process and odors and is best for urban, congested areas. IVS are no flexible
in terms of capacity. Processing costs range from $40 to $150 per ton plus a very high
initial capital cost
i
All technologies are capable of producing a good quality end product.
Municipalities should choose the lowest level technology possible, tempered by the
two following considerations;
Degree of process control desired, based on makeup of input materials
such as sludge, MSW or excess grass clippings.
Cost of land. Higher technology results In quicker composting, which is
important when land or land improvement costs are excessive.
Process
Following are three process scenarios and recommended equipment;
Scenario A; Yard Waste
r Yard waste alone presents a small material stream and could be composted using
j the lowest technology. Incoming materials may be tipped on an unimproved site, Under
vaet conditions, material is placed on an improved tipping pad. The materials are then
moved by wheel loader when the cornposting site dries.
The main challenges are de-bagging leaves and grass and chipping the
prmled on nocycled papor
37
commingled brush. Biodegradable plastic may solve the de-bagging problem at some
future time. However, today the plastic breaks down at a slower rate than the compost
process, and the environmental impact is not yet clear. Manufacturers of those products
t should be given an opportunity to present the latest research on those topics.
The commingled nature of brush, wood and bagged materials drives sorting
before windrowing. Brush is fed to a portable chipper. (See discussion of grinding
j equipment.) Personal attention to this operation will prevent metal from entering and
damaging the chipper. After the bags are separated from the brush, they could be
processed with a Scat turner which has a de-bagging attachment. Bags collect on spikes
near the top of the machine. Another alternative Is to make several passes with the
f Wildcat turner. The vendor claims that the long, straight flails will impale and wrap up
80%+ of the plastic bags. Bags are removed from the flails by hand. Dedicated
j stationary equipment is available which will automate the task, but the economics will
need review. Low end units are available for $50,000 to $100,000. The only remaining
l alternative is de-bagging by hand and knife. One advantage to the last method is that
I garbage hidden in bags can be segregated immediately.
It is assumed that the oversized brush stream is small in comparison to the packer
truck collectlons. This brush can be chipped with the same disk chipper, fed by a device
such as a truck mounted knuckleboom crane. The volume is not large enough to justify
a large hammermill grinder. Large stumps (greater than 12") can be stockpiled for
periodic chipping by a travelling custom grinder.
A wheel loader forms piles 10' tall and 20' wide. Piles are moved and restacked
four times a year. Allow two years for the composting cycle and one acre per 2,000
cubic yards of yard waste per year. For Denton, the working portion of the compost site
would be approximately tour acres at start up capacity. Buffer and utility areas require
additional space in each scenario.
Scenario B: Yard Waste and Sludge
In order to meet regulations, sludge must be processed with the turned windrow j
or higher technology on a improved pad. This requirement drives procurement of a
specialized windrow turner. Due to the moderate size of the facility, any of the compost
turners described in the equipment section would be adequate for the job.
Reduction of pathogens requires a high process temperature, which must be
achieved and documented for every batch of compost produced. Use of varying input
material should be avoided, because it makes process control uncertain. Wood chips
should be separated from grass and leaves and stockpiled as the bulking agent. The
stream of wood into the facility will ebb and flow with the season, while sludge is
Printed on Recycled Paper
i
38
produced regularly, The weather, through changes in temperature and humidity, will
provide challenge enough to the process control.
The composting site consists of two parts in addition to the tipping pad. One is
upgraded for all weather access, and the other is not. The upgraded portion is sized for
sludge composting. The unimproved area is for grass, leaves and excess brush.
Because windrow turning equipment has been purchased for sludge composting, it is
available for use on the yard waste as well,
Windrows are combined as volume reduction indicates. Finished produce should
s be screened for increased quality, Allow tour to eight months for the full composting
cycle and one acre per 5,000 cubic yards of incoming materials per year. For Denton,
the working portion of the compost site would be less than two acres at start up capacity,
Scenario C: Yard Waste, Sludge and MSW
This scenario represents a large scale composting operation. The de-bagging and
chipping operation from the earlier scenarios is still required, The balance of the
materials are received from a MRF.
M Any of the compost turners listed in the equipment section could still handle and
turn the stockpile on a ton/hr basis, However, a large windrow turner will be justified to
minimize the size and cost of an upgraded, all weather composting pad.
Allow four to eight months for the full composting cycle and, with the large turning
equipment, one acre per 8,000 cubic yards of incoming materials per year. For Denton,
the working portion of the compost site would be six acres at start up capacity and eight
acres at design capacity. Tipping and buffer areas require additional space.
Equipment
Size reduction: Comments on three technologies follow: {
Disk and Drum Type Chippers. These machines are generally small and portable
for jobs such as chipping power line trimmings. Disk type chippers with 12" diameter log
capacity and hydraulic roller feed can be purchased for $20,000. However, larger
versions are available to 500 hp and beyond with options such as built in knuckleboom
k loader and chain conveyor infeed,
IIj Hammer mill, The typical tub grinder hammer mill on the market today does not
have a safety device for passing foreign matter. This results in a good chance of
breakdown due to iron or rocks getting into the hammers, When hammer mills are
I Plinlod OF? nacyc;od Paper
III
i
I
39
installed in industry, it is standard practice to provide metal detection upstream. Feeding
the tub with a wheel loader makes foreign material impossible to detect.
The forte of the hammer mill is that the screen guarantees that items over a certain
diameter cannot pass. This feature is not important in composting. A small percentage
of oversized wood through the mill is acceptable and will be handled by the compost
turner or screen at a later stage. Cost range is;
$ 35,000 100 hp <6" dia. log capacity 10.20 tonhr
$250,000 650 hp 24" dia. log capacity 30.50 ton/hr
Screenless Hammermill. In this type of mill, the screen is replaced by stationary
bars or a second set of counter-rotating hammers. Some of these mills have spring
loaded safety devices designed to pass metal with less damage to the machine. Several
brands have live bottom infeed hoppers. As with the tub grinder, feeding the hopper with
a wheel loader makes foreign material difficult to detect. Typical costs,
$180,000 175 hp 8" dia. log capacity 30.50 ton/hr
$270,000 300 hp 20" dia, log capacity 100+ ton/hr
Note: The purpose of composting is to extend landfill life by removing volume,
(rather than weight), from the waste stream, The largest tree trunks and stumps could
be landfilled with little volume penalty. The large material causes a disproportionate
amount of wear and strain on the equipment. Alternately, stumps could be safely
stockpiled and chipped on a periodic basis by a traveling custom grinder for -W$5/cy.
Note; Begin quality control at the curb. Instruct collection crews to either leave or
segregate metal and the like from grass and brush collection.
Compost Turners
Summary of common types,.
Stockpile
Manufacturer List Price Engine Caaacity Densitly
Wildcat' $50,000 117 hp 1,100 ton/hr 3,100 cy/acre
Wildcat' 70,000 177 1,800 3,100
Scarab 14 120,000 234 2,000 4,800
Primed on Recycled Paper
E
#i
Y
W
40
Scat 4828' 65,000 65 2,200 4,400
Scat 483HB 100,000 85 3,000 5,500
Scarab 18 180,000 360 3,000 5,600
These units require assistance of a wheel loader to operate.
Other manufacturers offer similar equipment, Wildcat and Scarab are flail type
turners which perform size reduction as well as aeration. The Scat is an elevating face
style which aerates without size reduction and will require more time for composting.
Temperature: In cold climates, a large windrow is required to provide critical mass and
insulation for the composting process during the cooler months. This is not a critical
factor in the milder Texas climate.
Land requirements: Larger windrows allow more material to be composted per acre.
This is not a critical consideration for unimproved sites. This is important in scenario C,
as the entire composting crew would need to have all weather access,
Capacity: Land requirements, rather than ton/hr capacity, will generally be the deciding
factor for turner sizing and selection, An eco, lomic calculation should be made taking
into account land improvement cost, labor cost, equipment cost, and equipment per unit
operating cost, to determine the correct machine sizing.
Windrow turner design: There are two basic types of windrow turners: those which flail
the windrow as it is turned (Scarab, Simms, KW, Wildcat.,.) and those which simply mix
and aerate the windrow (Scat, Olathe, Brown Bear...). The choice between the two types
should be based upon the method of windrow preparation that will be used. Use the flail
type turner if larger materials, 3"+, are placed in the windrow so that mechanical size
reduction may continue. Capital and operating costs of the second class of turners are
much lower than the first.
Screens: Screens upgrade product quality. Oversized chips are reincorporated
into composting windrows and can serve to "seed" new windrows with microbes. Costs
are $70.100,000 for systems which include infeed ;popper, screen, and dual discharge
conveyors,
they: A wheel loader is needed for various unit operations. Water must be
delivered to the windrow during processing. This can be accomplished by truck or
piping/hoses.
PermMing
Primad on Recycled Popes
T ~
tf I
s,
41
Compost sites which handle yard waste are exempt from the state and federal
permit process. Finished compost sold from these sites does not require testing for
pathogens or metals. The TX Bureau of Solid Waste Management recommends that the
procedures outlined In "Management Strategies for Landscape Waste" (Illinois) be
followed. Addition of other items to the compost recipe (such as newspapers) are
handled on a case by case basis.
i
Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes does require state permitting as a Municipal
Solid Waste Site • Type V. An exception to the rule is composting of mixed waste at a
currently permitted landfill, which requires only registration, rather than a new permit. See
the Munlclpal Solid Waste Management Regulations published by the Bureau of Solid
Waste within the Texas Water Commission. Finished compost sold from these sites does
require a quality testing program.
I
a ~
J
I
i
1
i
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I
I
42
CHAPTER 6
REFUSE DERIVED FUEL (RDF)
Examination of the average composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) indicates
approximately 40% is paper; 6,5% is plastics; 17.9% is yard wastes; 7% is ferrous metals;
3% rubber and leather; 2.3% textiles; 4% wood; 7,9% food wastes; 1% aluminum; 8.2%
glass and 4% "other". Thus, over 80% by weight of the MSW is combustible (Franklin
Associates, Ltd., 1988).
Of the total commingled waste stream, an average of 20% is easily
recycled/recoverable (aluminum, ferrous metals, corrugated cardboard papers, high
density plastics). This 20% will be reduced to only 10% of the original volume going In
due to crushing and compacting, Additional recycling/recovery can be accomplished in
locations having large quantities of high grade paper disposal if it is non-contaminated
through source recycling efforts, Traditionally, all these items have just gone directly into
the landfill and only now, through public education and increasing legislation, is some I
effort being made by businesses and homeowners to participate in "recycling" programs
of varying intensity.
The advantages of a Resource Recovering Center concept are many, with a strong
argument that you will obtain 100% participation as very little modification of behavior in
the home/workplace will be required. Aside from noted and recognized "hazardous
wastes" being separated out, the trash will be able to be picked up and taken away as
usual from the home, as far as the customer is concerned. High grade paper recovery
can be accomplished through participation/education of industries using large quantities
of paper In their day-to-day operations. The success of any recycling program, whether
public or private, depends on how thoroughly and economically collection, separation
and resale Is accomplished, Curbside recycling is a form of source separation which
requires individuals to separate the recyciables and place them at the street or curb for
collection. Aesthetically, this can be the most appealing process to a local government,
However, public participation traditionally is low or wains over a period of time and costs
are higher than mass incineration and NEARLY DOUBLE that of resource recovery
operations, Also, special collection trucks with bins must be purchased and non-
contaminated separation maintained for resale. If a high participation is required,
enforcement costs will be incurred and must be administratively managed,
Resource Recovery/RDF
In "resource recovery", the separation and recovery is done in a modern, indoor
facility where aluminum, ferrous metals, high density plastics, and corrugated cardboard
may be selectively separated and sold as commodities. About 45.50% of the remaining
Primed on Recycled Paper
1
+
r ~
1
43
MSW can be converted to a high density pellet (Refuse Derived Fuell or RDF) which has
a BTU content of 7,500.8000 BTU's/pound (similar to a high grade of lignite coal); and
a much lower sulfur content than most coals; a lower nitrogen content than most coals,
and is "storable and transportable" and non-biodegradable product, Extensive tests have
now proven that when mixed with a calcium hydroxide binder, the emissions of
chlorinated dioxins and furans resulting from combustion are no greater than from
burning coal. The polyaromatic hydrocarbons produced by combustion are less than
coal, The RDF can be co-fired with coal for use in cement plants, utility plants and other
energy producing boilers, The bdRDF produced from municipal solid waste is better
environmentally and is of equal heat-producing ability of coal. A daily waste flow of
nearly 400 tons will produce about 200 tons of RDF a day, When producing RDF from
the waste stream, a percentage can be used to operate the "drying" phase of the sorting
system and with adaption, to run the whole plant on a generator being fired by the
pellets, or frorn a "gasifier", either "on-lir ie" or through conversion of stored pallets to gas.
Additional uses of the pellets to be considered include, generating power sat a utility plant
(see conversion chart for possible use in Denton's 63 MW Spencer site generator); use
by the state schools/offices for fuel (co-fired with coal, gas); or, 200T RDF could provide
heat for 2,500 homes, just to name a few. Not to be overlooked is the potential to
increase the RDF produced as a community grows and/or as other areas "join" a possible
cooperative. With a large enough daily waste stream, the RDF becomes a highly
marketable commodity ro sell commercially to industries such as the cement plants in
Midlothian (Texas), who are seeking environmentally safe, accessible fuel sources.
By incorporating known figures based on actual experience, it has been found that
if you are removing 80% of the MSW by recycling and producing pellets, the remaining
20% of "non-usable" waste has been densified (or compacted) to about 10% of it's
original volume and extremely benign in content. The end result is that the life on a
landfill is now able to be given an additional TEN YEARS of life for each year of life under
current use conditions, With an acknowledged "life" remaining on a currc+ntly opened
landfill space of 4.8 years, the revised use of a landfill would be an additional 40-80 years,
using the "10-factor" with a resource recovery system in place in the next year. Additional
"life" may even be realized as ongoing research allows us to mine old landfill cells and
recover recyclables and at the same time open up new space for re-use.
The diversification possible with a resource recovery system seems to make this
concept additionally worth considering seriously. With proper planning and
implementation, top-of-the-line recovery systems are able to offer a superior method of
turning MSW into a composting operation. It is even possible to develop the system to
produce RDF on "one line" and do composting on another line, and "gasification" on
another, largely by the system of what is "picked" from the conveyor lines during the
processing and strategic planning when designing the system to be installed,
Pnoled on Recycled Paper
is
44
Resource Recovery/RDF
When looked at in proper perspective of the whole spectrum of positive benefits ,
that can be realized with a resource recovery system, the "cost" is then looked upon as
an investment for the future of an entire area. Let's examine various alternatives; In
considering "curbside" recycling, the total costs are estimated at $2001ton of MSW, For
mass burning, the costs are presently $100t1ton of MSW and strict air control regulations
make it difficult to obtain permitting and costly to operate, If we continue to landfill, we
are only passing the costs on to future generations, and at the same time encountering
environmental problems and potentially creating new ones. The increasing tightening
regulatory demands (to be in compliance) and the associated closing of nearly half of our
nation's landfills in recent years are creating a "supply and demand" market for waste
disposal. Tipping fee costs will continue to rise more sharply for private and government
operated sites as even more landfills are closed and regulation costs increase. Doubling
and even tripling of rates can be anticipated according to on-going published articles
(Texas Water Commission, Clean Texas 2000, Recycle Texas, April 8, 1992), and in
multiple trade journals and newspaper articles.
Communities sharing in landfills operated by private companies should be aware
that they will ultimately be the ones who will pay to bring privately-operated landfills into
compliance and certainly will also pay for any fines or liabilities incurred by them for
improper procedures or handling of waste, it's important to note that a person or
community does not "sell liability" when a private company takes over a community's
waste handling,
Present day figures for a resource recovery/bdRDF system as described range in
cost from $45 to $50/Ton (or about $12 a cuiuic yard), according to manufacturing
releases. These figures are based strictly on the costs and have NOT allowed for the
computation of selling the pellets or utilizing MSW-produced gas or pellets and equating
the potential of maintaining (or holding down) electric costs over longer periods by
producing electric power from waste, or even the resale of the recovered recyclables,
which would allow for a reduction from the $50/Ton figure, In a "co-operative" developed
operation, the communities/commercial participants will look forward to rebates from the
solid waste costs once the plant is paid for and the by-product of RDF is marketed and
sold. It would be remiss not to point out that the new Clean Air Act of 1990 allows for co-
firing of 30% RDF with coal. Further, Minnesota and South Dakota have now passed
state legislation adopting the Clean Air regulations and are now utilizing RDF in
commercial burn applications. Washington is putting intensive pressure on utility
companies to reduce the air pollution created by coal-fired generators. A "binder-
densified" RDF (bdRDF) process nearing full patenting has been proven to reduce
sulphur emissions levels by 40% and greater, It would certainly seem prudent for utility
companies to consider bdRDF as a means to come into compliance with federal
Pnnred on Recycled Papa/
i
a
45
regulations as well as other industries producing sulphur emissions. The process to ,
create bdRDF was developed by a University of North Texas professor, Dr. Ken
Daugherty, who is now being sought internationally to bring this tested and proven
process around the world.
Resource Recovery/RDF
The legal implications of resource recovery systems and the ability to burn the
bdRDF produced have obviously been addressed in existing state legislation which now
allow these operations and by exceeding EPA standards for its use. Existing operational
systems in other states shoL-Id make it less difficult to permit and operate such systems
in progressive communities throughout Texas.
The "cooperative concept becomes a new direction to investigate when deriving
"bottom line" and operational numbers as well. Using the present increases in rates being
seen statewide and anticipating those in the near future by public and privately operated
landfills, it makes this "State of the Art" technology within the tipping fee levels we will all
soon be living with. The decision will be for communities to retain the benefits of local
control by investing in a recovery system, or become a part of a "cooperative" In their
area, or let private operations take over their waste disposal and realize the profits that
could be the community's.
r
Ponlod ort Recycled Paper
1
,
c+
j'
46
CHAPTER 7
LANDFILL l
Although the vast majority of solid waste literature published today preaches the
benefits of alternate disposal methods compared to the evils of land disposal, "landfills
are the most widely used waste management method in the United States" (EPA, 1989).
Regardless of our dependency on landfiiiing, recent attention on the nations "solid waste
crisis" has raised significant questions relative to the necessity of future land disposal
practices.
The EPA, through many of its publications, has consistently affirmed the necessity of
future landfill facilities (1989). The EPA's position has been reaffirmed in subsequent
publications such as Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management and Sites For
Our Solid Waste; A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement. In essence, the EPA's
bottom line has been that there are some materials in the municipal waste stream that
can only be disposed of in landfills and that no one single disposal method can provide
a solution to the solid waste disposal crisis.
Over the last few years, growing environmental concerns have significantly increased
public awareness relative to environmental threats posed by the land disposal of solid
waste. This awareness has given rise to new landfill technology and increased regulatory
scrutiny which has made the modern landfill much more protective of the environment,
The EPA states that "due to technology improvement and increased regulation, modern
landfills are more secure than ever and adverse environmental impacts can be detected
and properly addressed."
There are a number of new technologies associated with the modern or state-of-the-
c,rt landfill. Some of these items include; liner systems (clay and/or synthetic); leachate
collection systems; monitoring systems; improved closure techniques; provisions for post-
closure maintenance; and control of materials entering the facility, It is essential that any
new facility include most If not all of these technologies.
It is fortunate that the City of Denton's Edwards Landfill was permitted under Texas
D3partment of Health Regulations enacted in 1983, as these regulations required
inclusion of some of the technologies previously discussed. While the City's landfill can
not be considered as totally state-of-the-art, it does include liner systems, monitoring
system, gas control systems, improved closure techniques, provisions for post-closure
maintenance, and some material screening, Additionally, unused and unlined sections
of the landfill can easily be adapted to include leachate collection systems and provisions
can be made for leachate treatment through the waste water treatment plant which is
immediately adjacent to the landfill site.
Prinfod on Recycled Paper
l
i
I
47
The primary concern with the Denton landfill involves its limited life expectancy, At
current rates of deposition, with slight increases for growth, City staff estimates that the
landfill will reach capacity in July, 1996. Since iandfilling of some solid waste will be
essential for the foreseeable future, Denton should take immediate steps to secure the
availability of future landfill space.
Essentially, Denton has three options which include securing space at another facility
through a long term contract, securing a new landfill site, and expanding the existing
landfill. The problem of securing landfill space is fairly complex in that all factors including
technical, social, economic, and political must be considered (EPA, 1989). Thus,
Denton's options must be evaluated in that context.
Additional Space at Another Facility
The City of Denton could choose to haul its solid waste to another landfill in the area
However, the number of such sites is extremely limited. In reality, the only two sites In
the region that would offer any such possibilities to the City at the present time include
the Camelot or the DFW Landfills, both of which are located off of State Highway 121 in
Lewisville. While the proposed Sanitary Landfill off of 1-35W in southern Denton County
may offer some capacity in the future, this site has not been permitted by the State, and
its future remains in question and can not be considered a viable alternative at this time.
From a technical, social, and political standpoint, this option would appear to be fairly
palatable. However, the economic factors would definitely be negative based upon the
City's past experience with hauling to the Lewisville area. During 1984 and 1985, after
the closing of the Mosely Road Landfill and the opening of the Edwards Lane Landfill, the ;
City spent a little more than a year hauling its solid waste to the Lewisville landfills. The
data obtained from this endeavor indicated significant expenditures associated with the
haul.
Some of the increased costs would result directly from the transportation of the refuse
over the additional miles. Vehicle maintenance and operating costs would increase
significantly as this option would more than triple the hauling miles for each vehicle. The
majority of increased costs would result from the additional turnaround time experienced
by the collection vehicles. Currently it takes a collection vehicle approximately 40 minutes
to leave its route, travel to the landfill, dump its load, and return to the route. The
additional mileage, the heavy traffic experienced at 1.35E and United States 121, and the
l waiting time experienced at the Lewisville landfills due to their heavy usage, result in a
turnaround time of 1.5 to 2 hours. Given the fact that each of the collection vehicles
makes three trips to the landfill per day, the additional turnaround time could exceed 3
hours and 45 minutes per day, per vehicle. In order to compensate for the extra time,
City staff has projected that the residential section would require two additional trucks and
Ponled on Recycled Popet
1
z
I
48
six employees, and the commercial section would need three additional trucks and three
additional employees to provide the same customer coverage that is currently being
provided.
The City staff has also looked at this option and accomplishing the transportation of
' the refuse through the establishment of a transfer station, Preliminary analysis indicates
that the capital cost of the transfer station and additional personnel required for its
operation are even higher than the expenses required for the direct haul of waste to the
" Lewisville landfills,
In addition, there would be no real savings experienced due to the closure of the
Dorton landfill, Current rates for residential and commercial service cover the City's
disposal cost through the landfill tipping fee. The tipping fees at the Lewisville landfills
are lower, but fairly compatible to the tipping fees charged in the commercial and
residential rates. In effect, the tipping fees that would not be paid to the Denton landfill
would be paid directly to one of the Lewisville landfills.
The City staff will be working on refinements in the financial projections for this option
later this year. At that time, more detailed financial analysis will be incorporated with this
report,
If the City should opt to secure a new landfill site, it would appear that the City would
i find the social and political factors to be negative. Geological information obtained by the
City's Landfill Site Selection Committee in the 1970's indicates that there are several
technically superior sites in the area which would be ideal for sighting an environmentally
sound facility. Economically, these sites would be expensive to purchase and develop,
but still cheaper than most other alternatives as tipping fees would not be expected to
exceed $20.00 per ton,
From a social and political standpoint the City would probably face an uphill battle
during and after the permitting process. All of the sites available have been considered
at one time or another and all have been rejected by the Site Selection Committee and
previous City Councils due to public opposition, Given the increase in public awareness,
the City could expect even more resistance to any of these sites.
It would appear that the most advantageous course of action for the City would be
to proceed with the plans to expand the existing facility, at least on a small scale, Since
f the City already owns some of the property to be developed and already has landfill
related facilities in place, this would be the best approach economically. Given the City's
history with the geological conditions in the area, the technical factor, while not optimum,
is tolerable and familiar to City personnel, In terms of social and political factors, this
option could offer the political path of least resistance as there is currently a landfill
operating in the area as well as the City's wastewater treatment facility,
r
Printed on Pecycied paper
I
i
49
CHAPTER 8
MARKETING CONSIDERATIONS
Recovering resources from the solid waste stream and putting them to beneficial
uses are the primary objectives of a solid waste management system which utilizes a
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), If the recyclable materials can be separated and
recycled then the need for landfilling as a disposal method can be greatly reduced
providing a significant economic and environmental benefit to the community, For a MRF
to accomplish these objectives there must be a demand for the resources recovered.
Historically, the demand or market for recycled resources has been extremely variable for
paper, plastics and some kinds of glass and somewhat variablo for steel, aluminum and
clear glass. Reasons for the great variability in the prices paid for recycled raterials are
directly related to supply and demand. Thus, from all the case studies reviewed in the
literature, it is obvious that it is unwise to depend on revenue generated by selling
recovered resources to cover the costs of a MRF. However, to ignore this area of
potential revenue and to not attempt to maximize economic returns from the marketing
of recovered resources would be a mistake. What is crystal clear is that it will be
essential for the Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative to create a market for the
resources recovered and to creatively market them,
There are a number of ways that the City „an create a market for the recovered
resources. First, it should be a condition of membership in the cooperative that members
purchase products and gocJs made from post-consumer recycled materials. For
example, if the members purchase paper products made from recycled paper the
demand for recycled paper will increase and thus the revenue returned to the
Cooperative will be greater. An aggressive program of utilizing recycled products and
materials will have to be part of the operating culture of the City,
A more direct way of creating a market for some of the recovered resources is to
seek out industries to locate manufacturing facilities in association with the MRF.
Partnerships between these industries and the Cooperative can be el;cablished which are
beneficial to all parties. Otherwise, transportation costs of recovered resources between
the MRF and a materials user reduces thci value of the recovered resources make the use
of recycled materials marginal or cost pronibitive, However, if transportation cost can be
lowered by eliminating shipping or by shipping in bulk via rail, then returns can be
increased to the MRF, resulting in lower charges to the public,
The City should strive to sell directly to end users of recycled resources. By
eliminating middle men, greater returns can be reatizdd. Likewise, better prices can be
obtained by compacting materials and shipping in bulk.
Ponied on NgOod Paper
k
h
50
To be able to creatively market recovered resources, the City recovery facility will
have to be designed to have a great deal of flexibility in terms of the products or
not
mark rocess
For this reason, the MRF should include a composting system which can p
only sludges but paper recovered from the waste stream. when the
a ket et for paoet is
low then it can be diverted to make compost. Similarly, when the er could for comps
be curtailed. i
low, but a reasonable market exists for paper then composting pap
Consideration should be give to including a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) rnanufacturing
creates
capability associated with the MRF. This adds another dimension of flexibility and
another marketing option. When markets for recycled paper are weak, consideration can
be given to diverting paper into the RDF facility. The ability to recover several marketable
products from the MRF will make coping with the vagrancies of the market place easier.
Denton's Experience With Recycling Markets
k
The City of Denton Solid Waste Division has had significant experience with the
recyclable markets since it implemented its first recycling program in April, 1988.
Unfortunately, the City's experience has not always been aposrne positive one Were he lythe City
began its recycling program, the markets for paper, glass, strong,
' The City was receiving a fair price for its recyclables and the recysclii ng ip brokers wee/
i providing the transportation from Denton to area markets. There vav
for plastics at that time.
In 1989, the markets for most materials began to weaken as more and more local
1 governments implemented recycling programs thereby increasing the supply of materials
available for recycling. Broker prices for newsprint and glass began to fall dramatically
and the brokers discontinued providing for transportation to Dallas/Fort Worth markets,
During the summer of 1991, the City's broker for newsprint reduced the payment
for this material to $0 per ton in one month, then refused to accept any newsprint at all.
After contacting evdry recycler in the North Texas and southern Okr ooma area, the, tCity
he
found a firm that would take the City's newsprint Approximately
new broker also refused to take the City's newsprint, citing a continuing glut in the market
for such paper. Fortunately, the City was able to locate another broker who would take
the material, In December, 1991, this market began to pay a nominal fee for newsprint,
While the market for glass has also weakened significantly, resulting in reduced
prices, the City has been able to maintain a steady receiver for the materials. Recyclable
metal products have also suffered from price reductions, but have maintained the most
stable market conditions through area brokers, White and cornpute( paper recyclables
have also suffered substantial fluctuations in value.
While there was no real market for plastic products when the City began its
Primed on Rocycled Paper
51
programs, these markets did open up for approximately two years. Both the City and the
First United Methodist Church were able to market Type 1 and Type 2 plastics during this
period for nominal prices. During the late summer 1991, area plastic markets began to
collapse to the point where the brokers wanted to charge the suppliers for taking their
recyclable plastics. These market conditions were the primary reason the Church shut
down its program and the City discontinued accepting plastic products,
Market problems for all products seem to occur for two basic reasons. The first
reason applies to paper and plastic products which involves a lack of facilities to turn the
used products into useful products, The second reason, which involves primarily glass
and metal products, seems to stem from the profits the brokers insist on making on their
handling of the products,
Some relief in the paper market should be experienc^A once the Champion Paper
Recycling Plant in Sheldon, Texas, is brought on line. Additionally, there has been an
announcement that a plastics recycling firm will open a plant in the Metroplex area at
some point in the future, which will help the condition of the plastic market. Wo anticipate
that metal and glass markets will stay relatively stable over the next several years.
Even with the anticipated improvements in the market conditions which will result
from the inclusion of new recycling facilities in the state, the markets will probably still
experience significant fluctuations as local governments attempt to achieve state-
legislative recycling goals. The anticipated increase in the supply of recyclable materials
will cause gluts in the markets from time to time. As a result, the City cannot be assured
that markets will be available for all materials on a consistent basis. Additionally, the City
should not become dependent on the proceeds generated from the marketing of
recyclable materials as these revenues may not be realized.
While the dependability of a revenue stream for the sale of recyclables may be
questionable, the City should take steps to maximize the revenues which may result from
recycling. The City should thoroughly investigate the possibility of implementing a system
which eliminates the broker and provides materials directly to the firms involved in
recycling the materials. In such a system the City would collect, bale, and ship the
materials directly I- 'he recycler. The City should also consider providing for the storage
of recyclables when t ;,e markets are depressed. Although this system would maximize
recycling revenues, t to benefits should be weighed against the increased costs
associated with baling, storage, and transporting the materials directly to market.
r'
Pnnfed 00 Recydod Paper
52
CHAPTER 9
SPECIAL INASTES
Special wastes, such as household hazardous wastes, used oil, and tires should
not be collected with other municipal solid waste as they require special handling
practices. Many states (Table 5) have instituted bans on materials which fall under the
heading special wastes,
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
Many products used for everyday household cleaning and upkeep contain
substances that can threaten human health and the environment it disposed of
Improperly, t;ommon detergents, cleaners, and furniture polishes, as well as pesticides,
paints, thinners, solvents, and do-it-yourself automotive materials are just a few examples
of household hazardous waste.
The disposal of household hazardous waste is unregulated in most states.
Therefore, people typically dispose of it by pouring it down drains or storm sewers,
burning it or burying it in the backyard, or mixing it in with non-hazardous household
waste that is collected by the city. Unfortunately, many people either do not realize that
household hazardous waste should be disposed of in a special manner, or they find it
too inconvenient or costly to do so.
Although improperly disposed of household hazardous waste makes up only a
very small percentage (less than one percent) of the municipal solid waste stream, it can
pose serious problems for any type of waste management effort.
The innovative programs for collecting used oil and car batteries sponsored by
Chief Auto Parts are important programs, as is the regent legislation which incorporates
the cost of automotive tire disposal upfront in the purchase price. These programs
require a lot of public education to be successful and it is Important that the City pursue
efforts to educate the public regarding the dangers as well as the benefits for
participation in these programs.
f
pirniad on RecyGod Paper
I
53
Table 5. Legislated state bans on the disposal of special wastes.
h _ Disposal Bans
state Lead acid Yard Unprocessed Used Large Other
Batteries Wastes Tires Oil Appliances
California x
Connecticut x xA x B
D. C. x
Florida x x x x x C
Georgia x
Hawali x
Illinois x x
Iowa x x x x x D
Kansas x
Kentucky x
Louisiana x x x x
Maine x
Michigan x
Minnesota x x x x x E
North x x x x x
Carolina
New x
Hampshire
New Jersey x xA
New York x x
Ohio x x x
Oklahoma _ x _
Oregon x x F
Pnnred on Recycled Paper
i
I
F!
• 'i
54
Table 5. Continued.
Pennsylvania x xA x
Rhode Island x
i. Virginia x
Washington x
Wisconsin x x x x x G
r
Wyoming x
I
A. Yard waste disposal bans only apply to leaves,
4
B. Nickel cadmium batteries,
f C. Construction debris. 1
D. Non-degradable grocery bags; beverage containers returned to wholesalers
through the State's mandatory deposit law.
` E. Dry cell batteries that contain mercuric oxide or silver oxide electrodes, i
r nickel cadmium or sealed lead acid, Mixed unprocessed waste in metro
area,
F. Recyclable material that has already been separated.
G. Aluminum, plastic, steel and glass containers, corrugated paper & paper
board, foam polystyrene packaging, magazines, newspaper and office
paper are banned from disposal unless municipalities are certified as having
an "effective" separation program.
i
i
P(mled on Pocycfed Peper
55
CHAPTER 10
LEGISLATION
Dealing with the problems of MSW in today's world is certainly not as simple as
it was just a few short years ago, In this region there are probably several sites of
sufficient quality to continue to build landfills and bury municipal solid waste. However,
the costs of building new landfills is increasing as new construction requirements are
being put In place by the Environmental Protection Agency. These requirements along
with the almost universal opposition to landfills in inhabited areas means that the costs
of disposing of our wastes as we have in the past is going to increase dramatically.
Tipping fees at the Denton City landfill are currently $13.80 per ton a far cry from the $150
per ton and greater in the northeastern part of the United States. Nonetheless, rising
coats are a portent of things to come. These factors and the legislated goals of reducing
the amount of waste being disposed of in landfills means that something has to change.
One of the first things that seems to occur when municipalities must deal with MSW in a
manner different than landfiiling is recycling of residential waste. However, as pointed out
earlier, residential waste In Denton makes up only about 24% of the MSW, while 76% of
the MSW is from industrial/ commercial/ institutional entities. Therefore, it Is impossible
to meet legislated goals simply by dealing with residential waste. The problem is even
more complex than this, however, if one assumes that a plan adopted by the City
includes recycling of both residential and industrial/ commercial/ institutional wastes. It
is important to understand that recycling means more than separating out and selling
recyclables. It also means buying products made from recycled materials, and working
toward establishing a level playing field for secondary (recycled) materials.
Buying Products Made From Recycled Materials
A fundamental problem with most recycling is that as more material is
recycled, the price per ton of recycled material goes down. A notable exception to this
phenomenon Is aluminum which is the most successfully recycled material and one for
which the market has remained reasonably stable. At the other end of the spectrum are
newsprint and glass. As previously discussed, the market for almost all of these items
has been highly volatile. Part of the problem with the volatile markets can be attributed
to the success of what most people view as recycling, i.e., collection and selling materials
to be recycled. However, recycling can and should be viewed as a circle. Simply
gathering materials and taking them to a recycling center is only part of the circle. Any
plan put in place by the City must include the incentives and legislative mandates to
complete the recycling circle, i.e. buying materials made from recycled materials This
sounds simple enough, but it's not. The discussion which follows illustrates some of the
problems. Paper is used as an example although the same example could be illustrated
using any number of recycled materials,
Pdnred on Recycled Paper
56
The most important question which must be asked when one buys recycled paper
products is, what is the percentage of post-consumer waste included in this product?
In specifying paper with recycled fiber two classifications of fiber need to be understood.
• Post-Consumer Waste - A finished material which would have been
disposed of as solid waste, having completed its life cycle as a consumer
item, Does not include manufacturing waste.
• Pre-Consumer Waste - Dry paper generated after completion of the paper
making process but never reaching the consumer (included butt rolls,
rejected unused stock, roll converter shavings, envelope cuttings, bindery
trimmings, paper waste from printing, cutting or other converting).
Most so-called recycled papers include pre-consumer waste with little or no post
consumer waste content, although these products may carry the label, made from 100%
recycled paper. Pre-consumer waste has been used by the paper making industry for
a long time, and certainly materials with high pre-consumer waste content decreases the
demand for virgin materials. However, pre-consumer waste is not currently reaching the
landfills in any significant amount. Therefore, purchasing agents need to concentrate their
efforts on increasing the percentage of post-consumer waste in the products they
purchase.
The technology for producing paper products with increased percentages of post-
consumer waste is rapidly changing, Copy paper which can be used in both copy
machines and laser printers with 10% post-consumer waste content and 40% pre-
consumer waste content exist and can be easily purchased, Many other paper types
rom a variety of suppliers now routinely contain 10% post-consumer waste or more,
Leveling the Playing Field
Bruno (1988) in his report on Incentives for Recycling discusses hvv the United
States tax policy, in the form of deplation allowances, gives virgin materials a competitive
advantage over recycled materials. The federal tax code encourages selected activities
through the use of tax incentives, such as the depletion allowance for certain natural
resources. To encourage the further expansion of particular extraction enterprises, the
federal government allows a reduction in taxable income to partially compensate the mine
operator for the depletion of assets. A mine owner, for Instance, can deduct a
percentage of the value of the copper removed from the earth; the mineral is an
irreplaceable business asset.
This percent depletion permits owners of affected firms to compute their depletion
deductions as a percentage of gross income from their property. Depletion is analogous
Prinlod oo Aecycled Paper
i
I
I
57
to capital consumption allowances in that it is compensation to producers for the attrition
of their capital, Percentages vary by mineral, and timber is not eligible for percent
depletion; however, timber enjoys faiored treatment under other provisions in the law.
The use of percent depletion discourages the utilization of recycled products to the
degree that it subsidizes the prices of raw materials that compete with secondary
materials as factors of production. The United States EPA, in a report to Congress, as
shown in Table 6, illustrated the price differential between raw and recovered materials
due to the depletion deductions.
Table 6. Price difference between virgin and recycled materials due to percent depletion.
Product Product Virgin Cast Recycled Cost Tax Benefit
($/ton) ($/ton) Difference as % of
Difference
Glass 18.50 16.50 to 20.50 •1,50 to 0 to 8
+2.00
Paper 78,50 81.00 2.50 72
t.ineboard
Corrugated 79,50 82.00 2.50 72
Cardboard
Boxboard 152.50 155.50 3.00 60
Printing & 92.00 99.00 7,00 26
Writing
Steel 40.50 43.00 2.50 106
(Pig Iran) _
Source; Tannenwald, R. Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments for and Against
Percent Depletion, Congressional Research Service, Washington D.C.: March 22,
1978.
From the data in Table 6, one can observe that while depletion allowances don't
account for all of the differences between the costs of goods made from virgin or
secondary materials, it does represent a significant percent difference in price for several
of the items, The purpose of the depletion allowance is to encourage the expansion of
the extractive industry. One unintended result of the policy Is price discrimination against
recovered materials.
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
59
I
CHAPTER 11
ENVIRONMENT
Avoided Costs
It is easy to understand the concept of avoided costs when it is explained as the
costs of disposal not incurred when you avoid putting material in the landfill, i.e. the life
of the landfill is extended by not adding MSW and the cost of additional landfill space is
avoided. These avoided costs occur regardless of the income produced from the
materials not permitted in the landfill. In addition, there are also much broader costs that
are avoided by recycling those materials that can be recycled instead of putting them into
the landfill. It is not as easy to show directly in the municipal budget of Denton, Texas
the economic and environmental savings accrued from recycling and thus avoiding these
much broader costs, but these savings are nonetheless Important and reflect, at the very
least, the Denton area's sense of environmental stewardship,
The following recycling "facts" help illustrate these additional avoided costs. +
Conservation of Natural Resources
Recycling conserves not only raw materials such as trees from which paper is
made and bauxite ore used to make aluminum, but also the energy used to convert these
raw rr+aterlals into usable products like paper and aluminum cans, Recycling offers the,
opportunity to trim waste disposal needs and thereby reduce disposal costs while
simultaneously easing environmental stresses, Recycling metals, paper, glass, plastics
and organic wastes lessens the demand for energy and raw materials. Producing
aluminum from scrap instead of bauxite cuts energy use and air pollution by 95 percent.
Making paper from discards instead of virgin timber not only saves valuable forests, it
reduces the enurgy used per ton by up to three quarters and requires less than half as
much water. Energy and materials use and their associated pollution can be cut
drastically by reducing the amount of waste generated, by encouraging the direct reuse
of products, and by recycling, the process of converting discards into new products.
Table 7 summarizes some of the environmental benefits derived from replacing virgin
material with recyclables,
Beneffls of Used Oil Recycling
It takes only one gallon of used oil to make the 2.5 quarts of lubricating oil
that it takes 42 gallons of crude oil to make,
Refining used oil takes only about one-third the energy required to refine
crude oil to lubricant quality.
Peinled or? Recy0od Paper
i
I
60
if all of the used oil in the United States were recycled, it would lava the
United States i ,3 million barrels of oil per day.
f
One gallon of u~fed oil used as fuel contains about 140,000 btu o energy.
Table 7. Environmental benefits derived from substituting secondary materials for virgin
resources.
steel paper Glass
Environmental Aluminum
Benefit
Percent
Reduction of: ^ 23 74 4.32
90.97 47.74
Energy Use 74 20
Air pollution 95 85 35
97 76
Water
pollution 97 80
Mining Wastes 40 58 50
Water Use
Source: R.C, I_etcher and M,T. Shell, 1988, Source e Solid tWas e Handbook.,
Recycling, In: William D. Robinson,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
More Facts,.. source: Center for Energy and Mineral Resources (CEMR) at Texas A&M
University, Texas Energy, Volume 16, Number 61 November•0ecember, 1990.
What a waste) other
The United States waste production per person is twice that of any
nation in the world.
For throw example, we'll throw away I million
This year 0 ic
990 h Bach is recyclable will
waste, of whch mu
4.5 million tons of office paper and nearly 10 MilliOn
tons of al more than s and
and jars,
tons of newspaper.
P,infed on Recycled Paper
61
• We throw away enough glass bottles and jars to fill the 1,350-foot twin
towers of New York's World Trade Center every two weeks,
• Nationally we throw away enough aluminum to rebuild our entire
commercial air fleet every three months,
• We throw away enough iron and steel to continuously supply all the nation's
automakers,
• Each year, we throw away enough wood and paper to heat 5 million homes
for 200 years.
• Americans go through 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour; only a sma!
percentage are recycled.
Energy Savingsl
Twenty cans can be produced from recycled aluminum with the same
amount of energy that it takes to manufacture a single can from raw
materials.
• Making materials from recycled aluminum use 95 percent less energy than
making the same products from raw materials.
• Recycling 25 aluminum drink cans saves about 7.5 kilowatt-hours of
electricity, or enough energy to cool those same drinks for two days.
Savings on Natural Resources
• One press run of the Sunday edition of the New York Times uses the paper
produced by about 75,000 trees, In 1986 the nations' newspapers
collectively required 13 million tons of newsprint,
• If you recycled your own copy of the New York Times (or newspaper of
similar size) every day of the year, you'd save the equivalerit of four trees,
15 pounds of air pollutants from being pumped into the atmosphere, 2,200
gallons of water, and 1.25 million BTUs of energy (enough electricity to
power a 100-watt light bulb for 152 days.
For every ton of paper manufactured from recycled papers 17 trees are
saved and 3 cubic yards of landfill space are saved.
Prmred on RBCydel Paper
r
F
u
i
Il
t
62
The production of recycled paper uses half the water of the production of
virgin paper,
In addition to reducing the amount of mining necessary, using scrap iron
and steel rather than raw ore to make steel means a 40 percent reduction
in water use,
Saving Landfill Space
Almost 20 percent of landfill waste is made up of yard wastes, which can
easily be composted or left on the ground.
Plastic takes 200 to 400 years to breakdown naturally. Buried in a landfill,
even items that normally biodegrade quickly, such as paper, yard waste,
and food last as much as 50 years,
Reducing Pollution
The process of removing ink from scrap paper is cleaner and less toxic
than the process required to make paper from virgin pulp. Production of
recycled paper generates one-quarter the air p0110tion and two-thirds' the
water pollution of production of virgin paper.
Using scrap iron and steel rather than raw ore means an 86 percent
reduction in air pollution, and a 76 percent reduction in water pollution.
By curbing the need for energy, most of it supplied by fossil fuels, recycling is an
effective way to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases and scale back the pollutants that
contribute to acid rain. Fossil fuel combustion upsets the delicate balance among
atmospheric gases and scientists predict that increased carbon dioxide levels will warm
the Earth's atmosphere and raise ocean levels. The pollutants and acid rain associated
with fossil fuel burning are already linked to 19 million hectares of damaged forest in
contral and northern Europe an area the size of Austria and the former East Germany
combined and to thousands of lifeless lakes throughout the industrial north. Thus,
recycling has both economic and environmental benefits.
i
Pnmled on Rocycled Paper
I
i
63
The production of recycled paper uses half the water of the production of
virgin paper.
In addition to reducing the amount of mining necessary, using scrap iron
and steel rather than raw ore to make steel means a 40 percent reduction
in water use,
Saving Landfill Space
Almost 20 percent of landfill waste is made up of yard wastes, which can
easily be composted or left on the ground.
Plastic takes 200 to 400 years to breakdown naturally, Buried in a landfill,
even items that normally biodegrade quickly, such as paper, yard waste,
ll
and food last as much as 50 years,
Reducing Pollution
The process of removing ink from scrap paper is cleaner and less toxic
than the process required to make paper from virgin pulp. Production of
recycled paper generates one quarter the air pollution and two-thirds the
water pollution of production of virgin paper,
Usin sa iron and eduction hair pollution, tanldr a t76rptercentareduction in water poll means an 86 percent
By curbing the need for energy, most of it supplied by fossil fuels, recycling is an
effective way to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases and scale back the pollutants that
contribute to acid rain. Fossil fuel combustion upsets the delicate balance among
atmospheric gases and scientists predict that increased carbon dioxide levels will warm
the Earth's atmosphere and raise ocean levels. The pollutants and acid rain associated
with fossll fuel burning are already linked to 19 million hectares of damaged forest In
central and northern Europe an area the size of Austria and the former East Germany
and to thousans of
economic and environmental brenetts~t the industrial north. Thus,
recycling has
f
Printed on Recycled Paper
64
CHAPTER 12 a
PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The preliminary economic analysis which follows was undertaker as an attempt to
develop scenarios which permitted a reasonable comparison of the various MSW
strategies examined by the Solid Waste Technical Committee. The analysis should not
be considered a definitive analysis as it is not based on the results frorn detailed
engineering studies of the facilities examined by the Technical Committee. The costs of
the various alternatives are based, for the most part, on data taken tiom the literature
dealing with municipal solid wastes and data provided by the Solid Waste Division staff.
Much of the experiences with alternative methods for the disposal of MSW comes from
regions of the country where labor, construction, and operating costs tend to be
significantly higher than those found in Denton.
The results of the analysis should be used to compare the relative differences in
costs between the alternatives, The development costs, the annual operating costs and
the annual debt service are based on 1992 dollars, The dollar amount used as
representative of 1992 dollars was derived from the 1992 landfill operating costs reported
by the City staff, The landfill operating costs were divided by the projected tons of
municipal solid waste to be disposed of in 1992 to derive the cost per ton of disposal,
The cost per ton for disposal was then applied to the projected tons of MSW to be
disposed of 10, 23, and 33 years in the future to project future operating costs in 1992
dollars, The quantity of MSW, in tons of materials, projected for disposal 10, 23, and 33
years in the future were based on the assumption that the quantity of materials to be
disposed of would increase at an annual rate of 2.61 The projected disposal quantities
are given In Table 8. The preliminary economic analyses are based solely on the landfill
operating costs. It was assumed that the administrative costs and collection costs would
continue to represent the same percent of the total Solid Waste Division budget as it
does in 1992.
The results of calculations for two options 1) landfilling all the MSW in a new
landfill, and 2) combining a compost and materials recovery facility with a smaller landfill
are given In Table 9. Each step in each calculation is footnoted to explain the derivation
of the factors used in the analysis, The analysis also assumes that the mix of residential,
commercial, and Institutional customers will remain the same as that which exists in 1992,
An analysis of the two options is summarized in Table 10.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Fl
I
65
I
Table 8. Projected quantities of MSW produced by the City of Denton.
MSW IN CITY OF DENTON j
Assurnes 2.61% per year increase in MSW generated
NUMBER YEAR VOLUME GENERATED CUMULATIVE IN PLACE
CUBIC YARDS YARDS VOLUME'
1 1996 355753
2 1997 385038
3 1998 374566
4 1999 384342
5 2000 394373
6 2001 404666
7 2002 415228
8 2003 426066
9 2004 437186
10 2005 448696 4005814 2002907
i
11 2006 460305
12 2007 472319
13 2008 484646
14 2009 497295
I
15 2010 510275
16 2011 523593
17 2012 537269
18 2013 $51281
19 2014 565670
20 2015 580434
21 2016 695583
i
22 2017 811128
23 2018 627078 10666926 6333463
24 2019 643445
Printod on Recycled Paper
66
Table 8 continued,
NUMBER YEAR VOLUME GENERATED CUMULATIVE IN PLACE
CUBIC YARDS YARDS VOLUME'
25 2020 660239
26 2021 677471
27 2022 695153
F 8 2023 713297
2024 731914
30 2025 751017
31 2026 770618
32 2027 790731
33 2028 811369 17912180 8956090
34 2029 832546
35 2030 854275
1 36 2031 876572
37 2032 899451
38 2033 922926
39 2034 947015 T
40 2035 971732
41 2036 9,97094
42 2037 1023118
43 2038 1049821 23176365 11588182
in place volume is calculated as the cumulative yards divided by 2. The in place volume assumes a 2:1
compaction of cumulative yards In the landfill.
I
Piinled on Rocycled Paper i
I
i
i
67
Table 9. Comparison of the costs of the two options examined by the Solid Waste
Technical Committee.
Oplkm Dates (Years) -
2005 (10) 2018 (23) 2028 (33)
OPTION I, Landfilling MSW in New Landfill
*Capacity Needed' 2.0x108 yd' 5.98xIoe yd' 9.99x10' yd'
for 10 years for 23 years for 33 years
•Size Required' 16 acres 48 acres 80 acres
•Development Cost (1992 Dollars)' $2,0x10° ($1/yd') $5.083x108 ($0.85/yd3) $6.993x106
Volume Entering Landfill` ($0.70/yd')
448,596 yd' 627,078 yd' 811,369 yd'
*Tons Entering l 87,476 tons 122,280 Ions 158,217 tons
•Annual Landfill Operating Costs $1,196,672 $1,672,790 $2,164,409
(1992 Dollars)',
*Annual Debt Service (1992 Dollars)' $317,160 $565,536 $726,456
Total Annual Operating Costs In
1992 Dollars' $1,513,832 $2,238,326 $2,890,865
OPTION II. Composting Yard Waste + Materials Recovery Facility + Smaller Landfill
•Composdng Facility"
'Yard Waste Volume1) 46,205 yd' 64,589 yd' 83,571 yd'
*Tons" 17,408 tons 24,334 tons 31,485 tons
*Acres Needed1z 9.2 12.9 16.7
*Development Costs (f992 Dollars)" $330,000 $500,000 $600,000
*Annual Operating Costs Includes
Debt Service (1992 Dollars)" $174,080 $243,340 $314,850
Total Annual Operating Costs In
1992 Dollars" $174,080 $243,340 $314,850
•MRF
*Volume Entering Ni 402,391 yd' 562,489 yd' 727,798 yd'
•Tons Entering" 70,068 tons 97,948 tons 126,730 tons
*Tons per Day (280 day/yr)i8 269 tons/day 377 tons/day 487 tons/day
*Volume Prooessed10 305,494 yd'/yr 427,042 yd'/yr 552,541 yd'/yr
*Tons Processed20 51,173 tons/yr 71,535 Ions/yr 92,556 Ions/yr
*Tons per Days' 197 tons/day 275 tons/day 356 tons/day
•Development Costs (1992 Dollars)22 $4,934,446 $6,898.870 $8,886,680
•Annual Operating Costs ($45/ton 11
processed/year, Includes debt $2,302,785 $3,219,075 $4,165,020
service, 1992 Dollars)"
Total Annual Operating Costs In
1992 Dollars21 $2,302,785 $3,219,075 $4,165,020
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
,
,
68
Table 9. Continued
e Landfill
*Capacity Needed'' M x106 yd' 1.91x10° yd' 3,2x10' yd'
for 10 years for 23 years for 33 years
*Size Required 20 5,1 acres 15.3 acres 25.6 acres
$Development Cost (1992 Dollars)2' $0.64x106 $1,624x106 $2.240x106
*Volume Entering Landfill26 96,897 yd' 135,449 yd' 175,236 yd'
aTons Entering Landfill" 18,894tons 23,356 tons 34,174 tons
eAnnual Operating Costs $258,470 $319,510 $467,500
(1992 1
*Annual Debt Service (1992 Dollars)" $101,496 $180,684 $232,704
Total Annual Operating Costs In
1992 Dollars32 $359,966 $500,194 $700,204
Total for Option II Annual Operating
Costs In 1992 DdlarO $2,836,831 $3,962,609 $5,180,074
Footnotes
'Based on estimates of the volume of landfill needed to hold the MSW generated by the
City of Denton through the years 2005, 2018, and 2028 respectively, Source: City of
Denton Solid Waste Staff. It is important to note that approximately 7075% of the MSW
Is generated from commercial sources while 2530% Is generated from residential f
sources, Changes in the mix of commercial sources could dramatically alter the average
percent increase in MSW generated.
'Based on producing 124,875 yd' of volume per acre of landfill constructed, Source: City
of Denton Solid Waste Division, j
'Estimated cost of developing new landfill to meet State of Texas/EPA Regulations $1
per cubic yard for the small landfill, $0.85 per cubic yard for the medium sized landfill,
and $0.70 per cubic yard for the large landfill.
'Volume of un•compacted MSW entering the landfill in 2005, 2018, and 2028.
'Tons of MSW entering the landfill in 2005, 2018, and 2028.
y 'Based on the landfill costs to dispose of the MSW generated in 1992 ($13,68) applied
to the tons of waste generated in 2005, 2018, and 2023.
'Paned on Recycled Paper
s
Table 9 Continued, 69
'Annual debt service based on borrowing $2,000,000 at 10% interest for 10 years in the
case of the small landfill, $5,083,000 at 10% interest for 23 years, and $6,993,000 at 10%
interest for 33 years,
'Total annual operating cost for each landfill scenario, The sum of the annual landfill
operating costs and the annual debt service.
9 A Medium technology composting facility,
°Yard waste makes up 10.3% of MSW by volume,
"Yard waste makes up 19.9% of MSW by weight,
125,000 yd' of yard waste requires one acre,
"Estimate made of equipment costs needed to operate a medium technology
composting facility.
"Source • technical literature on annual operating budget for medium technology
composting facility including debt service ($10/ton processed annually).
°Total annual operating costs includes both annual operating costs and debt service.
I
6Volume entering MRF is amount generated minus 10.3% removed as yard waste.
"Tons entering MRF is amount generated minus 19.9% removed as yard waste.
"Tons per day is based on operating 260 days per year (5 days per week),
"Volume processed Is 68% of MSW entering the MRF, Thirty-two percent wlll be diverted
directly to the landfill,
20Tons processed is the sum of the tons of recyclable material entering the MRF,
27ons processed per day is based on operating 260 days per year.
"Development costs In 1992 dollars are based on data contained in the US EPA
document Handbook, Material Recovery Facllitles for Municipal Solid Waste, EPA/625/6
91/031, September 1991,
Prinled on Recycled Paper
70
Table 9 Continued. ,
"Annual operating cost is based on $45/ton processed annually. The $45/ton includes
debt service.
"The sum of the annual operating costs and the annual debt service on the money
borrowed to build the facility.
2bA landfill will be needed to dispose of materials which are not processed by the MRF
and residuals which cannot be recycled, These are estimated to be 32% of MSW
generated. Thus the landfill capacity is 32% of what would be required if all MSW were
to be landfilled.
Size is based on needing 124,875 yd' per acre of landfill. Source: City of Denton Solid
Waste Division.
"Cost to develop is equal to $1.00 per cubic yard, for the small landfill, $0.85 per cubic
yard for the medium sized landfill and $0.70 per cubic yard for the large landfill. The
same rates were applied to these landfills as were applied to the larger landfills In
footnote 3 above although the sizes are different and the economy of scales are also
probably somewhat different.
'Volume entering the landfill is 32% of the amount of MSW entering the MRF in 2005,
2018, and 2028.
".Tons entering the landfill Is the sum of the of the MSW components not removed by the
compost facility or the MRF.
"Based on multiplying the number of tons to be disposed of by the cost to dispose of
a ton of MSW ($13.68) In 1992 dollars.
"Based on borrowing (10% interest over the number of years of capacity needed) the
development costs of the landfill for the years 2005, 2018, or 2028.
"The total annual landfill operating costs for the years 2005, 2018, and 2028 in 1992
dollars. Includes annual operating costs and debt service.
"Total annual operating costs for Option II, in 1992 dollars.
A comparison of each of the options for the years 2005, 2018, and 2028 are given
in Table 10. The results of this analysis show that in 1992 dollars the cost in the year
2005 to dispose of 1 ton of MSW in a new landfill built in 1996 to last 10 years would be
$17.31 compared to the $13.68/ton cost of 1992. The same costs for the years 2018 and
2023 for landfills built in 1996 to last 23 and 33 years respectively would be $18,30 and
$18.27 per ton. The comparative costs for the composting, MRF, smaller landfill
alternative would be $32.43, $32.41, and $32,74 for the same time periods.
Proofed on Recycled Pope(
I
71
Table 10. Comparison of the costs of disposing MSW solid waste in a new landfill with
the costs of recovery of MSW from a compost and MRF facility and a smaller landfill,
Preliminary Economic Analysis
Option =T= Dates (Years)
OPTION I 2005 (10) 2018 (23) 2028 (33)
Landfifling All MSW
Annual Operating Costs $1,196,672 $1,672,790 $2,164,409
Annual Debt Service $317,160 $565,536 $762,456
Total Annual Operating Costs $1,513,832 $2,238,326 $2,890,865
Tons Disposed Of 87,476 122,2'30 158,217
Cost/ton $17.31 $18.30 $18.27
Increase In Rates Over 1992 Rates 1,27 increase 1.34 Increase 1,36 Increase
OPTION II
Combined Compost, MRF, Landfill
Total Annual Operating Costs for Option $2,836,831 $3,962,609 $5,180,074
II Including Debt Service
Tons Disposed Of 87,476 122,280 158,217 I
Cost/ton $32.43 $32.41 $32.74
increase in Rates Over 1992 Rates 2.37 increase 2.37 increase 2.39 increase
Increase In Rates Over Option I Rates 1.87 increase 1.77 Increase 1.79 Increase
Tons of recyclabies recovered from the 51,173 71,635 92,556
operation of the MRF
Vieturn lue of Recyclables if an Average $1,279,325 $1,788,376 $2,313,900
of $28,00 per ton could be
lized from the operation of the MRF,'
Total Annual Operating Costs for Option $1,557,506 $2,174,234 $2,866,174
II including debt service but minus the i
value of the recyclable
Cost per ton $17,80 $17.78 _ $18.11
Increase In Rates 1992 Rates 1.30 increase 1.30 increase 1,32 Increase
Increase In Rates Over Option I Rates 1.02 Increase 0.97 Increase 0.99 Increase
r
Scenarlo does riot realize any monetary benefit from the sale of compost.
Pnnred on Recycled Paper
t
I
i
I
I
72
Clearly there is a significant increase in the per ton disposal costs if the City were
to implement the option recommended by the Solid Waste Technical Committee. With
such a clear difference in costs, why did the committee decide to recommend this
option?
There are increasing pressures on elected officials to reduce the reliance
of Texans on landfills for the disposal of MSW, This pressure is reflected I
in the goals of Senate Bill 1340 and the Texas 2000 program. Certainly
there is a question as to whether or not these goals will translate into legal
' requirements but the committee feels that the public pressure is not going
to go away and there will in fact be increased pressure to modify the
manner in which MSW is handled. The handwriting is on the wall, if the
` goals of Senate Bill 1340 or Texas 2000 were to become legal mandates
the City would not be able to meet either mandate by landfilling all MSW.
The option recommended by the committee would extend the potential life
of a landfill by approximately 3 times, or to put it another way the size of a
landfill to meet the needs of the community could be reduced by 3 fold for
the same time period if the alternative option was adopted.
I
Landfiiling alone provides little or no opportunity for a return on the dollars
Invested in the landfills construction and operation, The option
recommended by the committee does provide this opportunity:
Producing compost not only avoids landfill costs but compost in and
of itself has economic value.
The resources recovered by the MRF not only avoids landfill costs
but these resources also have economic value.
i
The resources recovered through the operation of the MRF may be
used to attract industries involved in producing products made from
these resources.
The recommended option or some variation of this option is simply
the correct thing to do. It secures landfill space for three times the
volume of MSW when compared to landfilling alone. There are
significant enviorrtmental costs that are avoided by the recovery of
post consumer wastes from the landfill and, it promotes civic pride
and establishes Denton as a leader in environmental stewardship.
Ponied on Aecycred Paper
,
'i
73
Table 10 also shows that if the materials recovered from the landfill could be sold
for an average of $25,00 per ton' the cost per ton disposal rates would decrease to levels
equal to those that will be required using the new landfill option alone. The real question
then is how can this be accomplished?
First of all it is important to understand that the quality and quantity of the materials
recovered from the MSW stream are of utmost importance in determining the value of the
materials to the end users that convert the materials into recycled products. We've all
heard the horror stories of truckloads of recovered materials being dumped into landfills
because they were contaminated". Generally this comes about because there is too
much of one commodity, green or brown glass for example, mixed with the clear glass.
It is also true that these stories are often associated with unmanned drop off centers. The
h quality of materials from MRFs are generally far superior to those received from drop off
E centers, This does not mean however, that an aggressive education program to teach
customers how and what to separate will not have to be undertaken to help maintain the
quality of the recovered resources.
Secondly it is important to understand that there Is a big difference In the price per
pound of recovered materials paid for by processors (middle men, or middle persons)
when compared to the prices paid for by end users (those facilities that make new
products from the recovered materials), These differences are shown in Figures 4 and
5. Figures 4 and 5 represent the national averages paid by processors and end users
for aluminum and cardboard respectively. The difference in price paid for aluminum by
these two groups averages almost 15 cents per pound while for cardboard the difference
is approximately $25.00 dollars per ton. These same relative differences exist for almost
every recovered resource examined (Recycling Times, 1991).
Several things happen in a properly run MRF that permits one to take advantage
of the differences in these two markets, The materials separated from the operation of
a MRF are of a consistently good quality so the end users are willing to deal with the
MRF operators, The materials from a MRF can be baled, crushed, or otherwise
consolidated to greatly decrease the volume occupied by the resources, This permits
two things to happen; the materials can be stored if necessary but more importantly it
the dramatic differences in weight between a bag of their crushed aluminum cansnandsa bag
of un-crushed cans.
,
'The Mf3F intermediate processing facility in DuPage County, Illinois has been averaging
between $30.00 and $35.00 dollars per ton during the latter part of 1991 and early part
of 1992.
Prided on Recycled Paper
~j
74
Figure 4, National average used aluminum can prices paid in 1991 by processors and
end users.
Aluminum Used Beverage Can Prices
National Averages - 1991
EG U.O. Ill 111 4441414. 01aWN. 410.
00 4nd•ul/r4, tll. lowl4rll♦ 1^ emlltofs.....
a-
40
P
0
11 20
d
10 . • . Paid by M%;466erl --•1- Paid' by' dnd-UNr1' "
0
( 4 3 4 6 0 r 8 4 10 11 17 13 14 16 tE if 1E 19 40 41 42 7321 2E
Time • 1091
x01M H1664 Me$ 44 net 141401 4,461 In666 told, wl 61414116n114W11144 1001644 14 4%"
mo d\4n1161r UPC 1
Figure 5, National average used cardboard prices paid In 1991 by processors and end 1
users.
Old Corrugated Cardboard Prices
National Averages - 1991
V1. Pr404644rl 111 4l/I/N, MD/r1, 110, .
*
,
~~/~1~1^d•U1414 l» Olod: 71114 lid,
40 0
q
30
•
20
a
10 Paid by End Uqn
Paid by Pfomforf
01 4 3 4 6 E 7 E 9 101f 1413141E t8 7T 1E W2 2122232426
TIM# • 1941
NOW /rf4H MU IO 041 '01661 6,141 PilM, M on ,1llon4l 4,606111 Nooltlld to ohN
■0re14el lilt 1144. i
Prloted on Recycled Paper
I
75
If the MRF were built at the existing landfill it should be possible to run a spur from
the nearby railroad to the MRF site providing for an additional transportation avenue for
consolidated materials, Recycle Texas, a reuse, recycling and products directory put out
by the Texas Water Commission lists many different companies that accept materials by
rail. Shipping costs are a significant part of the costs of dealing with recovered materials.
The best of all worlds would be to attract end users to a Recycled Products industrial
park. Not only would decrease shipping costs but it would also create jobs.
Finally, it Is of ut!,nost importance regardless of what choice the City makes in
dealing with its MSW that it begin the process of purchasing materials made from
recycled materials, The watch word here is post-consumer waste i.e., when purchasing
paper the manufacturer claims is made from recycled fibers, what you really want to know
is what percent of post-consumer wastes is included in these fibers. Paper waste
produced Inside a paper mill have always been recycled into new paper and are called
recycled fibers. However, this waste paper was never headed for a landfill. Products
made from post-consumer waste includes fibers that were headed for a landfill and
purchase of products made from these fibers extends the life of landfills and supports the
price structure for recycled resources.
In addition, a wide variety of new products made from recycled plastics and
commonly referred to as "plastic wood" are on the market. These products include 2 x
4's and various other sized "boards" to fence posts, picnic tables, park benches, car
bumps, and parking lot car stops to mention a few. These products are not yet In the
mainstream commercial market but they are available and purchasing agents should be
instructed to seek out these products.
Pdnled an Recycled paper
r(
j
is
Ali
76
CHAPTER 13
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The mission of the Denton Area Solid Waste Technical Committee was to examine i
the technical, environmental, social, legal and economic aspects of alternatives for solid
waste management for the City of Denton and the Denton Area, The goal was to
examine the feasibility of establishing a Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative
(DARRC), However, it quickly became apparent to the committee that the starting point
in accomplishing this goal was to evaluate alternatives for the City of Denton's solid
wastes since the City's program would logically be the nucleus of any area wide solid
waste management cooperative. Thus, this report focuses on ways to address solid
waste management In the City of Denton, but it has broader implications, The Committee
beileves that a Denton Area Resource Recovery Cooperative will ultimately, provide the
best solution for solid waste management.
The Figure below, presented in Chapter 1, includes those MSW technologies
examined in the greatest detail by the Denton Area Solid Waste Technical Committee.
We believe that a combination of these technologies, phased into an area wide solid
waste management plan, will meet the desired objectives,
Municipal Solid Waste +
Commercial Residential Institutional Industrial
Source Reduction
1
Collection
1
MRF Recyciables
A
~1%
Compost RDF Landfill
Printed on RegOed Paper
i
f;
!i
77
Ihat; Based on the research and deliberations of the Committee, it is recommended
• The City of Denton move immediately to expand its current landfill,
• A municipal composting facility be established to process yard wastes and that
yard wastes be banned from the landfill,
• A municipal materials recovery facility be developed at the landfill to recover
recyclable resources from the City's solid waste.
• Mandatory source separation of both residential and commercial solid wastes
be implemented in a phased manner. It is recommended that all solid wastes
be source separated into three categories • paper, recyclables (glass, ferrous
metals, aluminum, plastics) and nonrecyclables. A three colored bag or sticker
and unified collection system is recommended.
i
• Residential and commercial MSW billing rates be based on the volumes of
wastes generated.
Implementation of these recommendations should be phased so that a logical and
efficient transition from the current MSW plan can be accomplished. The recommended
solid waste management program would accomplish the following:
Reduce the flow of solid waste to be landfilled by approximately 78 percent.
i
Allow Denton to meet the legislated goals of 40% reduction (Parker Bill) and
80% reduction (Texas 2000) in MSW being landfilled.
• Ensure that Denton has adequate landfill space to meet it's needs for at least
three times as long as we - Id be achieved for the same size landfill which
received all the MSW from the City and to do so at a site that makes sense
economically and environmentally,
• Address yarn wastes as a resource in a technically and environmentally
acceptable manner.
• Address the recycling opportunity in a technically and environmentally effective
manner by using a Materials Recovery Facility which will maximize economic
return from recovered resources while minimizing environmental imprcts.
Nulled on R"YOno oapor
~f
78
• Provide the opportunity for the development of a recycling products industrial
park located in Denton associated with the MRF and the landfill, This will
broaden and diversity the economic base of the city.
Allow Denton to be in control of MSW management for the future.
i
• Stimulate research and development in the private sector and at LINT and TWU
on developing products from recovered materials.
I
• Demonstrate Denton's leadership role in addressing municipal solid waste
management problems by turning them into opportunities for developing civic
pride and economic development,
a
Landfill Recommendation:
The Committee recommends that the City of Denton expand its current landfill. The
current City of Denton Landfill will be full and facing closurer by 1996. The City will have
to develop a new landfill, expand the existing landfill, or send it's wastes to a commercial
landfill.
According to the City of Denton Solid Waste Division the current landfill site can
ll
be expanded to accommodate at toast 80 acres of new landfill. The current site is a
good site to meet the continuing landfill needs of the community for the following 1
reasons:
I
• Expanding the current site will not be as controversial or as expensive as
s9curing a new site.
The current site is strategically locater+ close to Denton minimizing
transportation of MSW.
• This strategic location, close in, with access to good transportation by
highways and rail make it highly amenable to developing a resource
recovery industrial park.
• Geological and technical characteristics do not place costly constraints on
r expansion,
The current landfill site is located near the City's waste water treatment
facility which generates sludges which have to be disposed. Efficiency is
gained by having the landfilling operation close by, as well as, a
composting facility.
Pnnled on Pocycfed Paper
I
I
i
k
a
7'9
Costs of developing a new or expanded landfill will result in increased disposal
costs. The Solid Waste Technical Committee estimates that expanding the existing landfill
will require an approximate 20 to 30% increase in the annual solid waste management
budget above the normal increases for inflation, expanded services, etc. Thus if a new
landfill was brought on-line in 1996 residential and commercial fees would have to
increase by approximately 20 to 30% above what they would be if the City did not have
r to expand the existing landfill or build a new landfill. Thus projected disposal costs would
go from $13.68 per ton to between $16.83 to $17,67 (in 1992 dollars) depending,_n the
1 size of the landfill.
i.
Expanding the City's landfill without implementing resource recovery will only
provide a temporary solution to the solid waste management problem. While landfilling
may appear, in the short term, to be the most economical means of getting solid waste
r out of sight and out of mind, it has many hidden costs including lost opportunities for i
i using recyclable resources, adverse environmental impacts, long term liabilities and
rapidly escalating costs in the future, not to mention that our Governor and legislature
have set goals for decreasing the use of landfills while encouraging resource recovery
and recycling.
i For these reasons the Committee recommends that the City of Denton develop an
integrated approach to solid waste management. This integrated approach should
include a small landfill, a municipal composting facility and a materials recovery facility.
The use of a composting facility and a materials recovery facility will allow the City to
i extend the life of its expanded landfill by a factor of 3X. This means that a landfill I
designed to hold the City's solid waste for 33 years will only be a third full at the end of i
33 years. Thus the City will not have to develop another undoubtedly more costly new
landfill but will be able to meet its needs for many more years.
Municipal Composting Facility (MCF) Recommendation
Yard wastes (leaves, limbs etc.) make up 10.3% by volume and 19.6% by weight
of MSW going to the landfill. These materials can be economically and effectively used
to develop compost for landscaping, horticulture and agriculture, The Committee
recommends that the City develop a medium technology composting facility at the landfill
site. This facility could be developed in phases as yard wastes are diverted from the
MSW stream, Ultimately, all yard w,istes should be banned from disposal in the landfill,
and the City should encourage the TAEX Don't Bag It program, back yard composting,
and provide a collection system and fa .ility for processing the yard wastes. The compost
produced can be used by the City, sctd to citizens and/or marketed commercially. A
composting facility also provides flexibility in dealing with paper recovered in a Materials
Recovery Facility, Paper separated from the municipal solid waste stream can be
composted if the market for recycled paper is weak.
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
i
i i
7r
80
A medium technology composting facility has a modest capital cost, low operating
costs and intermediate space requirements. When located adjacent to the landfill
equipment and personnel can be shared between the composting and landfill operations,
The range of costs and sizes of composting facilities are given in Table 9 in Chapter 12.
Materials Recovery Facility Recommendation
A Materials Recovery Facility provides the ability to recover recyclable resources
from municipal solid wastes in an efficient manner. MRFs employ manual and automated
separation technologies capable of handling paper, aluminum, glass, ferrous metals and
plastics, MRFs include the capabilities to bale, store and ship recovered resources to
i
processors. It can process both residential and commercial solid wastes and can be
designed to process recovered resources into several different end products which allow
greater flexibility in marketing while maximizing economic returns.
The Committee recommends that the City of Denton include a MRF in its solid
waste management program. Inclusion of a MRF appears to be most effective way of
meeting the goal of reducing materials going to the landfill by the 40% by weight as
outlined in the Parker Bill and the 60% goal of Texas 2000.
There is a common belief that residential curbside recycling can dramatically
reduce the materials to be landfilled and that there are great environmental benefits from
curbside recycling. However, if every residence in Denton participated in curbside
recycling and if every ounce of solid waste was recycled, the amount of material diverted
from the landfill would be decreased by only 25%. Commercial solid waste makes up
75% of the solid waste going to the landfill. Additionally, unless there is an efficient way
to collect curbside recyclabies and to transport them to brokers or processors, the
economic or environmental benefits of curbside recycling are greatly reduced. If collected
curbside recycled materials are transported unconsolidated then the transportation costs
and associated environmental emissions associated with transportation may offset much
of the environmental benefits of recycling, A MRF which allows for efficient processing
of both residential and municipal solid wastes and for compaction and consolidation of
recovered material is a much more effective way to recover resources, maximize
economic return and minimize the environmental effects of transportation. For example,
plastic containers can be separated according to kind, shredded, baled and shipped in
bulk directly to a plastics recycling industry, This maximizes economic return by dealing
directly with the processor, while eliminating the broker and cutting transportation costs.
~ I
The Committee recommends that the City of Denton construct a MRF which initially
can separate, process, store and ship paper, aluminum, ferrous materials, glass and
plastics, The MRF should be designed so that it can be expanded to produce paper fluff
which can be diverted to the Municipal Composting Facility when paper market conditions
Prnaea or? Rocyclod Paper
I
r
{
I
8i 1
or compost market conditions make it advantageous, The MRF should also have the
flexibility to be expanded to produce Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). RDF can be used as ll
an alternative to coal and natural gas. The ability to divert paper and plastics to RDF 1
provides even greater marketing alternatives if markets for the RDF can be established.
The Committee recommends that the City of Denton develop a MRF capable of
processing 300 tons/day of solid wastes. This will give the facility excess capacity in its
initial years with future capacity to meet the City's needs for the next 23 years. Design
should be modular so that development can be done in phases and allow for expansion
in the future.
It is estimated that the capital cost of building a 300 ton/day MRF will be
approximately $7,000,000 with an annual debt service of $700,000 and with an annual
operating budget estimated to be $2,836,831 including debt service. Both estimates are
in 1992 dollars. Such a MRF will be able to conservatively divert 68% of the City's solid
waste from the landfill, Coupled with a composting facility as much as 78% of the MSW
can be diverted from the landfill. The market value of these recovered resources is
difficult to estimate, However, MRFs such as the one operated by DuPage County Illinois
report covering their annual operating costs from sale of recovered materials. It is not
unreasonable to expect that 50 to 7511b of the annual operating costs could be recovered.
Landfill Recommendations
By developing a Municipal Composting Facility and a Materials Recovery Facility
the City of Denton's landfill needs will be decreased by a factor of at least three (3X).
This means that a 25.6 acre landfill can be built instead of an 80 acre landfill to meet the
needs of Denton for the next 33 years. This would leave approximately 54 acres of
undeveloped space for future landlili needs. A 15.3 acre landfill would do the job of a 48
acre landfill which is the amount of solid waste projected to be generated in Denton over
the next 23 years. Building a smaller landfill costs less and since less wastes are
landfilied the costs of operating the landfill will be less.
The Committee recommends that the City of Denton immediately secure the land
necessary to ultimately expand the current landfill by 80 acres and to provide space for
the proposed MRF, MCF and a recycling oriented industrial park. However, it is
recommended actual development proceed in smaller increments. With a MRF and a
Municipal Composting Facility operational in 1996, Denton will need only 15.3 acres of
landfill to reach the year 2018 (23 years) and 25.6 acres to reach the year 2028 (33
years), These estimates are based on the assumption that the volume of solid waste
generated in the City will grow as the population increases at an average rate of 2,61%
annually, Naturally, it the growth rate is faster the landfill will fill up faster, if the growth
rate is slower then the landfill will last longer. In either case the need for landfill space is
Pnnled on Pecycled Paper
82
greatly reduced with a MRF and a MCF.
Mandatory Source Separation Recommendation
The Committee recommends that Denton phase in a mandatory source separation
requirement for residential and commercial generators of solid wastes. While there are
many different approaches to source separation, the Committee believes that a three bag
system, or a sticker system are the most likely candidates. For example, in the three bag
system ail paper products that can be recycled (newspapers, cardboard etc.) would be
placed in a red bag. A blue bag would contain all other commingled recyclable materials
(plastic, aluminum, ferrous metals etc.) and a black bag would contain all table wastes
and other wastes which would not at this time be recycled. These bags would be placed
at the curb on collection day and all would be picked up and placed into a compaction
truck. Commercial clients would also be required to separate their wastes into the three
categories, although some modification of bags or a container system may be needed.
The compaction truck would transport its load to the tipping floor of the MRF where the
different colored bags would be separated and diverted into the appropriate process lines
of the MRF. Black bags containing non recyclable would be immediately transferred to
the landfill for disposal.
4 Volume Based Rates Recommendations
Commercial, residential, institutional, and industrial collection rates should be
based on the volume of MSW generated, Volume based rates encourage waste
minimization practices. The rates should be structured to reward waste minimization
i efforts.
Waste Minimization/Waste Reduction Recommendations
F
The City should also actively work with the Texas Water Commission to actively
educate their commercial-industrial-institutional members about the state RENEW
program. The City should also establish its own cable TV and computer bulletin board
waste exchange program to facilitate source reduction and wisa use of resources. The
City should establish an aggressive and on-going solid waste reduction education
program. The goal of this program should be to educate the public on ways to decrease
the amount and hazards associated with MSW.
Special Wastes
The City should develop a program to address household hazardous wastes. The
program should include educational activities about less hazardous alternatives, as well
as, provide opportunities for the collection and reuse and disposal of household
Prtnled on Aecyckid Papor
t,
1
83
hazardous materials.
Economics
The economics of these recommendations depends on a number of variables. In
the Committee's preliminary economic analysis two alternatives were examined. Building
a landfill to hold all of the City's solid wastes for the next 33 years versus an integrated
approach which combines a Municipal Composting Facility with a Materials Recovery
Facility with a smaller landfill. For comparative purposes these two options were
examined if built to meet the City's needs for ten years (2005), 23 years (2018) and 33
years (2028). Both options were assumed to be implemented in 1996 although the
economics of the options were evaluated in 1992 dollars since data were available to
estimate costs in current dollars and no assumptions had to be made about future
inflation, etc. This approach permits a relative comparison to be made of how each
option impacts solid waste management in the City of Denton.
The results of this analysis showed that if Denton was allowed to continue to
dispose of its solid waste totally by landfilling, that it would have to develop additional
landfill space at a cost which would cause the annual landfill operating costs to increase
by approximately 20 to 30%, This 20 to 30% increase would be in addition to the normal
increases in budget due to inflation, new programs, etc. If this option was followed the
City would need to expand the current landfill by 80 acres to meet the needs of the City
for the next 33 years, Development costs for a large landfill are estimated to be
approximately $7,000,000 in 1992 dollars at a development cost of $0.70 per yd',
The option recommended by the Committee (MRF, MCF and landfill) will cause the
annual landfill operating costs to increase by approximately 2.4 times (see Table 10 in
Chapter 12). This option will rea,ult in higher r,asidential and commercial bills in the short
term. On first examination this appears to be a large increase. However, there are many
benefits not accounted for in this comparison which should be considered First, in the
analysis resulting in the 2.4 fold Increase in operating costs no income is included from
the sale of resources recovered by the MRF or the sale of compost, Some recent studies
show that it is feasible to recover most if not all the operating budget of a MRF from the
sale of the recovered materials, If as shown in Table 10 in Chapter 12 the average
income from the sale of recyclat)les removed by the MRF was $25.00 per ton, the
operating cost per ton for disposal vrould decrease from approximately $32,00 to $18.00
a ton. Disposal costs in this range are not significantly different from those associated
with landfilling alone. This option provides the possibility of generating revenue while the
landfilling option has no real possibility of producing revenue. Second, this option allows
the City's landfill needs to be reduced by a factor of at leant three. Thus the City will not
have to develop additional landfill space for many years, Third, this option meets the goal
of effective environmental stewardship by optimizing recycling while minimizing
profed on PI)CY60d Paper
y
f
84
environmental impact. Finally, this option provides the potential to develop a recycling
industry associated with the MAR By developing a resource recovery industrial park it
may be possible to use the recovered materials in local recycling industries. This would
contribute to the economic development of Denton, provide jobs and put dollars back
into the local economy,
To help promote the recommended MSW plan the City should work aggressively t
to contact and work with Mr. Mauro and the General Land Office, and other responsible
agencies, (Senate Bill 1340, passed in the Regular Session of the 72nd Texas Legislature,
directs the General Land Office, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Health,
Texas Water Commission, Railroad Commission of Texas, and the Texas Department of
Commerco, to undertake a comprehensive lnarketstudy that focuses on the development
of recycling industries and markets in Texas, The primary purpose of the study is to lay
the groundwork for creation of a statewide strategy and program to expand markets for
recycled products in Texas and to foster development of recycling industries in the
state.) the Governor and the Governor's staff, local State and Federal Representatives,
and Senators to insure that any State or Federal plans and/or funds designed to attract
businesses that deal with recycled materials include the Denton as a primary site and a
willing partner in the development of such opportunities.
The City should also pass ordinances which require government offices to use
recycled products wherever allowed by state purchasing regulations. One of the factors
responsible for the erratic nature of the markets for recyclables is tendency for individuals,
communities and cities to believe that they are recycling by removing post-consumer
wastes from the MSW stream. Clearly this is only part of recycling and the circle must
be completed by buying products made from recycled materials.
The City should lobby for State and Federal legislation that deals with the inequities
in the costs of products produced from virgin materials compared to those produced
from recycled materials, A leveling of the playing field would make products made from
recycled materials more competitive. This committee should work with elected State and
Federal officials to see to it that legislation is introduced to accomplish this leveling.
Conclusion
The Committee strongly recommends that the City of Denton develop an integrated
solid waste management capability which incorporates waste minimization, landfill
expansion, a municipal composting facility, and a materials recovery facility, It is the belief
of the Technical Committee that such a program will prove in the short, mid and long
term to be the most economical and environmentally sound approach to solid waste
management.
Pnhtod on Recycled Papar
r
{
f.
x/{
VI
A
85
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adamec, B. 1991. "Volume-based Collection Fees: A Success Story" Resource
Recycling, March 1991, pp 139.140.
American Paper Institute. 1991. Paper Recycling and its Role in Solid Waste
Management. American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 260 Madison
Avenue, New York, N,Y. 10016. 1.800.878.8878.
American
Paper Recycling Comm ittee, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, N Y,1 016`n 1ti800-
878.8878.
American Paper Institute. 1991. Paper Recycling; A Primer. American Paper Institute,
Paper Recycling Committee, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y, 10016. 1-800-
878.8678.
Paper institute. 1991. How to Recycle
260 Madison Avenue, New York, NY. 10116n1
Paper Recycling Committee,
American
Y 10016
Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 60 Madison Avenue, IlNew York American
1-800.878.8878,
American Paper Institute. 1991. Key Questions and Answers on Paper Recycling,
American Paper Institute, Paper Recycling Committee, 260 Madison Avenue, New
York, N.Y. 10016. 1.800-878.8878.
American apQ Recycling Institute.
Commiittee, 260 Madison Aenue, New York, N.Y. P1 01x6 Institute,
Paper
American Paper Institute. 1990. Paper Recycling: The View to 1995. Prepared for the
American Paper Institute, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016. 1.80.878-
8678. by Franklin Associates, LTD,
j Ariz, N.S. and E.R. Yoos. 1990. Composting Potential in Municipal Solid Waste
Management. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Prairie Village, KS.
Aseptic Packaging Council. 1991. Maximum Benefit, Minimum Waste, The Truth about
aseptic packaging.
I
Prrriled oo Recycled Papor
I
;I
u
86
Backer, J. and M. Browning. 1991. "Volume-based Garbage Collection Fees: An Analysis
of 10 Illinois Programs.", Resource Recycling, March 1991.
BioCycle. 1989. The Biocycle Guide to Composting Municipal Wastes. Edited by the Staff
of Siocycle, Journal of Waste Recycling, The JG Press, Inc„ Emmaus, PA,
BioCycle Guide to Yard Waste Composting, and Art & Science of Composting Yard
Waste Management, a Planning Guide for New York State Management Strategies
for Landscape Waste, State of Illinois Named vendors,
I
Bruno, J,L, 1988. Incentives for Recycling, Legislative Commission on Solid Waste
Management, New York State Department of Solid Waste, Room 208, Albany, NY
12233.4010. {
Chertow, M.R. 1989. Garbage Solutions, A Public Official's Guide to Recycling and
Alternative Solid Waste Management Technologies, National Resource Recovery
Association, and The United States Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1988. Determining the Economic Feasibility of a Solid
Waste Boiler. Guide #4 in a Series of Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides.
Dept, of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Waste Management. Harrisburg, PA
17120.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1988. Recycling Works: Pennsylvania Curbside
Recycling Primer, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental
Resources, Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Resource Recovery and
Planning, Recycling and Energy Recovery Section, Harrisburg, PA 17120,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1988. Recycling Works: Pennsylvania Curbside
Recycling Primer. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental
Resources, Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Resource Recovery and
Planning, Recycling and Energy Recovery Section, Harrisburg, PA 17120.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1989, Estimating Composition and Quantities of Solid
Waste Generation. Guide #1 in a Series of Municipal Solid Waste Planning
Guides. Dept. of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Waste Management.
Harrisburg, PA 17120.
f Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 198f, Estimating Solid Waste Transportation Costs.
Guide #2 in a Series of Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides. Dept, of
Environmental Resources, Bureau of Waste Management. Harrisburg, PA 17120.
Prinfod on Roc yofed Paper
E
Et
A~
I
87
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1989. Determining the Feasibility o'r Resource Recovery,
Guide #3 in a Series of - Municipal Solid Waste Planning Guides. Dept, of
Environmental Rr9ources, Bureau of Waste Management, Harrisburg, PA 17120.
County of Essex. 1983. The Integration of Energy and Material Recovery in the Essex
County Solid Waste Management Program. Department of Planning and Economic
Development Division of Solid Waste Management. County of Essex, New Jersey.
Desmarais, G.W. 1992, Operational Parameters for Yard Waste Composting, BioCycle
DuBois, A. and J. Lang. 1992. Household Batteries: drop-off and curbside collection.
Resource Recycling,
EPA, 1984. Waste Analysis Plans, A Guidance Manual. EPA/530-SW-84.012, Office
of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
i
f EPA, 1586. Report to Congress: Minimization of Hazardous Waste. EPA/530-SW-86-
041A, Minimization of Hazardous Waste. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D,C.
k EPA, 1968. Solid Waste Disposal in the United States, Executive Summary of Report
to Congress. EPA/530-SW-88-011A, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1988. Solid Waste Disposal in the United Slates, Executive Summary of Report
' to Congress. EPA/530-SW-88-011A. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D,C.
EPA. 1989. Report on Minimum Criteria to Assure Data Quality,
I
EPA, 1989, Recycling Works] State and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management
Problems, EPA/530-SW-89.014, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. 20460.
EPA. 1989, Bibliography of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives,
EPA/530-SW-89.055,
EPA. 1989. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management, EPA/530-SW-89-
072.
f EPA, 1969. Recycling Worksl State and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management
Problems. EPA/530-SW•89.014, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D,C. 20460,
Ponied on Recycled Popeo
88
EPA. 1989. Yard Waste Composting; A Study of Eight Yard Waste Composting
Programs Across the United States. EPA/530-SW-89.038. Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C,
EPA. 1989. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. EPA/530-SW-89-019.
EPA, 1990, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990
Update, EPA/530-SW-90.042. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1990. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990
Update. EPA/530-SW-90.042. Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
D. C.
EPA. 1990. A Catalog of Hazardous and Solid Waste Publications. RCRA Information
Center. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste (OS-305),
Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1990. A Catalog of Hazardous and Solid Waste Publications, RCRA Information
Center. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste (OS-305),
Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1990. The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads.
The RCRA Implementation Study. EPA/530-SW-90.069,
EPA. 1990. Sites for Our Solid Waste, A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement.
EPA/530-SW-90-019.
EPA. 1990, The Environmental Consumer's Handbook. EPA/530-SW-90.0348.
EPA. 1990. Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste Officials.
Volume I Executive Summary. EPA/500-SW-90.084A. Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C,
EPA. 1990. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990
Update. Executive Summary. EPA/530-SW-90.042A,
EPA. 1990, Waste Minimization, Environmental Quality with Economic Benefits.
EPA/530-SW-90-044, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.G.
EPA. 1991. Unit Pricing, Providing an Incentivo to Reduce Municipal Solid Waste.
EPA/530/-SW-91.005. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C,
Printed on Recycled Paper
i
I
ti
i
89
EPA. 1991. Handbook: Material Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid Waste.
EPA/625/6.911031. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
Fliesler, N. 1987. Agricultural, Sludge, and Solid Waste Composting; Introductory Profiles.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Solid Waste, Boston, MA.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1988. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States, 1969 to 2000 Update 1988) Final Report, March 1988.
Franklin, W.A. 1990. Paper recycling: The view to 1995, Summary Report prepared for
The American Paper Institute by Franklin Associates, LTD.
Getz, N.P. 1991, Comparison of Environmental Impacts from Recycling. Presented at
GRCDA/SWANA, Sixth Annual 0laste-to-Energy Symposium. Roy F, Weston, Inc.
Glass Packaging Institute. 199x Glass recycling, Why? How?, Glass PacKaging
Institute, Washington, DC. (202) 887.4850.
Glenn, J, and R. Spencer. 1991. Solid Waste Compost. BioCycle.
GRCDA. A Peer match program matches experts in the various fields with government
officials throughout the US who need help in solving municipal solid waste
problems. The Peer Match Program provides advice on all aspects of solid waste
management issues including, planning, waste reduction, collection, recycling,
composting, combustion, and landfilling.
GRCDA, 1990, Journal of Municipal Solid Waste Management, A Compendium of
Selected Papers, Volume i, Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal
Association, Silver Springs, MD, August, 1990,
GRCDA/SWANA, 1991. Recycling Municipal Solid Wastes: Concepts, Approaches,
Practices, and Technologies. Publication # GR-REC0200, SWANA, Silver Spring,
MD.
GRCDA/SWANA, 1991. Waste-To-Energy as Part of Municipal Solid Waste Management.
Vol, 2. Publication # GR•WTE0401, GRCDAISWANA Silver Spring, MD,
Hegberg, C-s,A., G,R. Brenniman, W H. Hallenbeck, 1991. Technologies for {recycling Post-
Con:gumer Mixed Plastics, University of Illinois Center for Solid Waste Management
and Research. Office of Technology Transfer, School of Public Health, Chicago,
III.
Pnnred on Reuyctnd Papar
t
t,
i
90
Hurst, K., P. Relis, and J. Melcher, 1988, The Next Frontier: Solid Waste Source
Reduction, Community Environmental Council, Santa Barbara, CA, October, 1988.
Keep America Beautiful. 1987. Multi-Material Recycling Manual, 2nd Ed, Keep America
Beautiful, Inc., Stamford, CT 06902.
Keep America Beautiful, 1990. Overview: Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives. Keep America
Beautiful, Inc. Stamford, CT.
Keller, J. 1992. The nitty-gritty of glass recycling: reducing glass breakage in collection
and processing. Resource Recycling.
Kiser, J.V,L. 1990. A Comprehensive Report on The Status of Municipal Waste
Combustion. Waste Age. November 1990
Kiser, J.V.L. 1991. The Future Role of Municipal Waste Combustion. Waste Age.
Lauer, P.W. 1988. State Solid Waste Policy Report, A Focus on Minnesota: Background
Paper X: Waste Reduction. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Office of Waste
Management Grants and Assistance. SL Paul, MN 55108.
Letcher, H.C. and M.T. Sheil. 1986. Source Separation and Citizen Recycling. In: William
0. Robinson, Ed., The Solid Waste Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Magnuson, A, 1992. MRFing USA: Catch the Wave. World Wastes.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1991. Compost Health Risk Assessment, Prepared for Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc, 1991. Executive Summary of Compost Health Risk Assessment and
Risk Comparison Between Solid Waste Management Alternatives. Prepared for
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources.
McMahon, J. 1992. Variable Collection Rate Crusade Spurs Recycling Programs. World
Wastes.
Minnich, J. and M. Hunt. 1979. The Rodale Guide to Composting. Rodale Press,
Emmanus, Pa.
r
Aw '+d oo Recycled Pepet
if
f1
;w
s1
enc 1989, Guidance Manual for Refuse Derived Fuel
Minnesota Pollution Control Ag Y
Processing Facilities. Minnesota es to Pollution Control Agency, Ground Water and Soli
Waste Division, St, Paul, MN.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1989. Guidance Manual for Solid Waste Recycling
Facilities. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ground Water and Solid Waste
Division, St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Office of Wast~a management. h~an ge nent~and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Minnesota Office of
1989. Guidance Manual, Industrial Solid Waste
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Management Plan. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, MN.
A Series of
Mitchell. W. 1990, Learning About Waste Separation and Composting.
Lessons on Waste Management e for Use Authority, iDovgh School ecience and Vocational
Classes. Delaware So
ement Planning Moeger, C. 1986. Solid Waste
Sol dnagd Ha a dous Waste N~innesota poll
Assistance, Division of
Agency,
i rebates and computers. Resource
Moss, J. 1991. A curbside recycling program:
Recycling. July.
National League of Cities. 1986• Waste-To-Energy Facilitios. A Decision Makers Guide.
VA. 22305.
National League of Cities. National Publishing. Alexandria,
National Solid Wastes Management Association. 1990. Recycling in the United States,
Mid-Year Update 19960. National Solid Wastes Management Association,
Washington, D.C. 20036,
NCTCOG 1991, Overview, 1991-9 Interim of Go ern ments. WNCaste TCOG Managemenplan t f of
No orth h Central Texas C
.
Environmental Resources, (817) 640.3300 program. Claremont, NH.
Ni-INT, 1990, NHNT Solid Waste Project: Household Battery
i O'Donnell, K.F. 1,992, Recyclables Recovery at RDF Plants Meets with mixed Success.
World Wasters,
Pnnled on POCYOad POW
i J
1
I
t
92
Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Facing America's Trash; What Next for Municipal
Solid Waste? Interim Summary, Congress of the United States, Office of
Technology Assessment, Oceans and Environment Program. Washington, D.C,
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1986, Papercycle, Office Paper Recycling at The
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Fountain Square, Building E-1, Columbus,
OH 43224.
OSCAR. 1987. Source Reduction Task Force Report. Rhode Island Solid Waste
Management Corp. Providence Rhode Island,
OSCAR, 1991. rt Handbook t f En Environmental to Reduction
Providence, lhode Island 02903-1037.
Departm
(4-01) 277-3434.
Islfor Success. Department of
Blueprint
ntt, Providence, Island.
and 02903.1037•( 01) 277-
OSCAR. v9onmentalcManalgemeRhode
En3434.
Paper Recycler. 1991. Analyzing Trends in the Paper, Paperboard, and Packaging
Industry. Vol 2. No. 5, May 1991.
Pratt, E. 1991. U.S. EPA on Recycling. Waste Age.
Sherman, S. 1991. "Local Government Approaches to Source Reduction." Resource
Recycling, September, 1991, pp 112-119.
Skumatz. L.A. 1991. Garbage by the Pound; the Potential of Weight-Based Rates.
Resource Recycling.
State of Florida, 1967, Renewable Energy. Resource Recovery. Governor's Energy Office,
The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL. 32399.001.
Tannenwald, R, 1978. Analysis and Evaluation of Arguments Against Percent Depletion.
Congressional Research Service. Washington, D.C.
Texas Water Commission, 1991. Recycle Texas, A Reuse, Recycling and Products
Directory. Texas Water Commission. Austin, 'rx.
The Council for Solid Waste Solutions 2nd Edition. The Solid Waste Management
Waste
Water Solutions, WashMunicipal ing on, D.C. 20005,
Management, The CoCause, No uncil for Soldl s
Printed nn Recycled Paper
U_xq:!YYj; t
F qq
!4
' f
• p
93
Waste Age. 1991. Recycling Times 1991: The Year in Markets. Waste Age. Vol, 3., No.
26.
Ward, M. 1991. Who's Buying Plastic, Recycling Today. r
Washingt:,)n State Department of Ecology, 1990. The Problem Waste Study. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia Washington 98504.8711, (206) 459-6000,
WRAP. 1991. Waste Reduction and Prevention. Waste Reduction and Prevention Branch,
Planning and Innovation Division. Manitoba Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba,
CANADA.
Zimmerman, E. 1988. Solid Waste Management Alternatives: Review of Policy Options to f
Encourage Waste Reduction, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources,
Springfield, IL
a
i
r
Primlad on N0Y0Bd Paper
i
i
r
i
94
APPENDIX A
OVERVIEW OF MARKET DEVELOPMENT STUDY
Senate Bill 1340, passed in the Regular Session of the 72nd Texas Legislature,
'i directs the General Land Office, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Health,
Texas Water Commission, Railroad Commission of Texas, and the Texas Department of
k Commerce, to undertake a comprehensive market study that focuses on the development
of recycling Industries and markets in Texas. The primary purpose of the study is to lay
the groundwork for creation of a statewide strategy and program to expand markets for
recycled products in Texas and to foster development of recycling industries in the stater
i
Senate Bill 1340 sets out the following objectives for the study:
I
• identify existing economic and regulatory incentives and disincentives for
creating a market development strategy.
'h analyze the market development implications of the state's waste
management policies and regulations; existing and potential markets for
plastic, glass, paper, lead-acid batteries, tires, compost, scrap gypsum, and
other recyclable materials; and the state's tax structure and overall
l economic baser
examine and make policy recommendations regarding the need for
changes in or the development of policies that affect;
II
• transportation of recyclable materials
tax incentives and disincentives
the availability of financial capital
• enterprise zones
• managerial and technical assistance
job-training programs
• strategies for matching market supply and market demand
• the state recycling goal
public-private partnerships
• research and development
government procurement policies
/ education programs
• public health and safety
establish a comprehensive statewide strategy to expand markets for
recycled products in Texas,
Printed on Recycled Paper
,
rl
i
1
k
95
In response to the legislative mandate contained in S.B, 1340, the Gener
Office had developed the following plan for accomplishing the market d al Land
~ evelopme
nt study.
II Plan for Conducting Market Development Study
k OBJECTIVE 1: Gather data on existing and potential supply of scrap plastic, paper,
glass, lead-acid batteries, tire, yard waste and other compostable
materials, gypsum, and other recyclable materials.
TASKS: Survey local governments on collection of recyclables.
Survey business and industry on recycling efforts.
Review existing literature on volume and content of waste
stream.
• Interview regulators on volume and content of waste stream,
OBJECTIVE II: Examine factors affecting supply of recyclable materials.
TASKS: Identify economic, regulatory, and
disincentives for collection of recyclables. incentives and
• Assess existing public education on recycling and
participation in collection programs.
• Identify costs of collection.
OBJECTIVE III: Examine existing and potential uses of recovered materials,
TASKS: Identify range of uses of reach commodity,
r Investigate products and technologies currently under
r development,
• Survey manufacturers and other end users of recovered
materials to identify market trends,
Survey manufacturers and processors to Identify market
barriers such as transportation issues, tax and regulatory
disincentives, availability of capital, need for technical
assistance, etc.
OBJECTIVE IV: Examine factors affecting demand for recovered materials and
f products made from those materials.
TASKS: Assess procurement policies and practices of both public and
private entities.
Gauge consumer acceptance of products made from
recovered materials,
Aimed on Pecyded Paper
Y
il.'l'1 fig
1
YiTn
Y•
CITY
,ACOU NCIl
Y
M
,~1x
1
QO~~Ud0 F I
Q ~ O Q ~!-•r
O fir"
i~! OOOOOQ V t ~~C1ooo-
~w u "I
1=
t
♦.1.w µ
1 rc>FVO.
1
i
Apnda UPI
(.1)It3..?` Q ;
DATE: .July 2B, 1992
C1Tl' COUN[:I1~ RIsP01i'1' POIt~fAl'
i
TO: Mayor and Members of Lhe Cite Council
FROM: Lloyd V, Harrell, Oily Manager I
SUBJECT "Welcome to Dmil,on" sign
RfsGOi'1MHSND,1Tl0NS:
The Heel, Denton Beautifni Board recommends erecting a red brick and aan.rete
face+d sign on Best. University Drive- as Lhe first entrance .9ign. "Weiceme to
Denton" and "Ins t. 1667" will Ise impressed into UP concr~~I:e, I ind
shtldosrod or
sLained to highlight the words. The sign will be placed on it berm approxirnmtely
450 feet east. of the intersection with 1-35 Service Road on the south side of W.
i
University. The borm and surrounding area will be Itill lscaped trial additional
landscaping will he eunsideriA when the 1-35 exit ramp is relocutod to Lhe west, i
If funding is available ra second sign of Ile same type is recommeudecl on DaIIas
Drive near Wolfe's Nursery and lloliday Lm.
SUM~fAItY: t
AG the June hr_e.p Detit.oti Ilenatiful mecl.ing, the Board drscassed comments and
questions that where raised at the Council workscssion on June 2, 1992, Among
the items mentioned was using bronze or bursts lettering instead of impressed
concrote, but the estimate for using IeLLers ou (he sign hKatuased the cost of
the sign Lo $4,125, The Board recommends "sing a slain In the impressed iel.ters
to add de.fInWon to the wording, The Board also discussed Lhe location on
IhriversiL.y Drive. The location is approximaLely l5o feet east of LAle 1-36 and
University DIivu iuf,crS~scLioii, Tliv site is enr•rent.ly 35 I'eet wide and wit] be
incrvnsed when Hle exit. ramp is relocated to the west, Slides and a video of the ~
area were- rciviewed by the Board prior to their recoomendaLion,
The Board reiiowed possible locutions ut or near the lianas Urine and 1-36
iaLoi section as t.ha site for n second sign, Ac•cor tin; Lo Lhe Deparlouurl of
1'r,~sn:put hrttiou Llic brick sigo could not, be instal led hrlweua t.lu.- Service Road and
Lhe lAurslat.c, this "rya is upgulated not rally by the Department oI'
Ir•nrsporl.at.iun hill. aI~;o b} Lint I'cdertl gucc'rnuurni, 1'hr HI'm111 lellkltkul~
rucoaimendcd placint; (hi., sic;'" in 1,111' median acrth of the Icft inru lane from
DaII"o" Dr. into WUlk', ?carsnry, FLU siqu troitlsl 1)1' ro(ticcd in izrto I'll
bctwc+en tLe existing cuucrrlrr splash Y;rutril,
flue rCc,.nnureadi'd deslf;a is, hesrd ran lhrr TWI, oiil,ralice :>is,u on Bell A%(-, I'lre
size, r., I' Lhe Sign would be al,IIrrtxirnatel,v Six I'1'e1. high and r' i9111, iiu•t, lung Willi
IIn overall FfluCrre footage UI' I'orl}-ojgI11, scItotre fret. I'he fiir;L sign won lrl serve
ass it proLotlpe Per future-, signs anti thir sim, would vary delleudilil,', on I.ho oLhet.
ojitrttnce locations,
0', IWDS 7/28/92
Page 2
IIACKQROUi\'D;
The Keep Denton Beautiful Board begtur reviewing designs and locaLinas for a
"Welcome to Denton" sign in January. The Board recommended the locatlun and
design at its May meeting, A worksession with the City Council was held on
June 2, 1992, On Jul,v 6, 1992, the Board discussed the "Welcome Lo Detrton" sign
and considered questions raised at the Council worksession,
PROGBANSi, DCFARTDi1 nR GROL C, r}I; 'ECTLDt
Keep Denton Beautiful, CiLy iMallager's Office, Parks and Recreation Department,
Planning and Development Departrtrent, and the 'T'exas Department of Transportation
FISCiIhI-Hk?,1CT:
The cost estimate for sign with impressed letters and shadowing ranges front
$2,100 to $2,500, Cil,y staff has approached Acme Brick about donating the brick
for the sign, and once It daSiga and location is finalized It meeting will be
scheduled with Acme Brick Co, represenLatives, if it donation for the brick 15
received, the cost of the sign should reduce. Approximately $2,610 formerly
allocated to 1,11(l U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sister Cities membership is
available to spend on 1;11e sign.
Respectfully submitted;
I'vopareXd by; Lloyd V. 1larrelI
City Dlanagel,
Cecile Carson
Community improvement. Coordinator
Approved;
esus Nava
Asst ant to Cho City Afunage
cewds
1
K
(i
I)IiR'foN 13ISAUTIFICATION ADVISORY CoMMlSsiov
MINUTF'
dULI' 6, 1992
PRESEN'T': John Cooper, John Eulow, liable Devereaux, Gertrude Gibson,
ON Smallwood, ;Martha Len Nelson, find Jeaute Morrison
-fAFF: Cecile Carson, Keel, Dcuton Beau( iPut Coordinator, Jesus Navu, Assistant.
U) the oily Munagor, and D.J. Branham, Clerk 'T'ypist III
I1, CONSID11I MAKING' A RECOMAIENDATION REGARDING 'fHF: DESIG,ti'
AND PLrU;P;IIENT OF A "WUC',OME SIGN"
Get le Carscr Amwed the Board slides and a video or the proposed location
for the "h'alcome to Denton" sign and examples of the sign design,
Ms. Carson stated Chat you can see the sign approximnl.ely 200 yawls away
from the 1-35 bridge, when you exit off 135 to go north or wusl, aid when you
exit to the right or east bound on University, slte continued Chat, the
Depau,tment of TransporLal.ion plans to move the exit snip to the west,
According to his. Carson, the now sign would he in rronl, of the existing
"Welcome" sign. The proposod sign is approximety 6 feet in height and would
he placed on at 3 feet: berm,
Jenne :Morrison asked WNW placing the Sign in the median, Air, Cooper
sE.al.cd I.bat Chat, was discussed at the May meeting, but asked this, Garcon to
briefly explain the reasons for not locnLiig Lho sign ii the median, Cecile
Carson elated the median would ba reduced when the road is widened. Jn
order t.o meek acquires by the Department of Transportation the width of I,he
sign COOM:,L be auay wider than 3 to I reei, its, Carson stut,ed that detail
ou the discussion was located in Lhe minutes for the may meeting including
people driving across Elie medians, questions of liability, and I.he necessity
of moving the sign during construction of the oew Janes.
G'cciJc: Caroni staLed that Jaud:4capin,g around Lhe sign had been menLioned.
A Lrr-c behind 1-he si n ou on the side, possibly some t'ypa~ of holly,
a,~aas
plaaaned.
Crrei i,. Uarstan shne;rd a ai idc oT' Iit l I as DI•ivc. a;howit g Lh"~ It u'( I irtta aildi width
hr lareea, Lhe nplash k'nUrd, 'NI, Cav!;I)n continued that LLB I~"j LrJCaHons woa.ld
III, eal,her tan the 6ocond rnodi AN ~,inCe the fir~'.t. nipdian ins uIJ conc•rta.c or ou
the Iaido betwcea ltin (rraoRlo and ls'oli'e N II'scre,r.
r
y1ti, Morrison Onled that Dallas Or, :Should be the morond priority. Shp aalao
stattd tlirrl. Ehe I'M Lhe sign should be Jocaalyd in Lhe mediae, Mi.
SM41IWOMI fiskcsl about, fttndiiri,
Cecile Carson stated dust starlight. sign rased an t-ywa_ate of
$2,2510,00 for a brick sig:i wil,b impressed lector,,, Tll(o City would do the
electric conaectiori for Lhe exterior lighting, Cecile Carson stated that
SLaulight also qm'e an eSLiPlate for usiuk bronze or brass I(I.Lurs oil Llie
sign but LAL would increase Lhu pried to 101 ,125,00, J, H. US Wood
meatioued darken Lhe lcl.teriug, John Ouoper stated the totters nued to be
a Lan or slighlly darker (slot, Ms, tiKYNoa Slated Lllilt since fuuda were
1,1miLed LIU a fuudrv.ciser might, be neceasau~y,
Cecile Carton stated that Starlight, had indicaUd Out soma Shadowing on the
sign could be dune, Jenne Dlurrisnn asked what color brick we would use,
Cecile Carson stated Mnyor Oislleberrl had suggested rod brick slightly
darker or similar to Lhe TAI Sign,
Joint Cuuper asked if the sign (oil UniversiLy) could he Jul, closer to the
yield sign or if the yield sign could l movxI over, Uecile Carson Slated
Lhat. [he Department did not mention anyLhiug,abouL Lhat, but, along ss it met
safot.y regu,lalAons it, might, be possible,
Jesus N?rva Stilted that the Board needs Lo approve the locaLion and the
denign for the sign. Jcane Morrison stated that Lhe Mayor WWII the munuy
for the sign and had expressed an interest in the UnivruusiLy Drive location,
She continued that. the Board ahould consider the llniv A Lv Dr, siLe,
Martha Len Nalsun also stated Lhat, with the Outlet -Mall coming to Denlou Lhe
Sign un UY 380 would lie a good local [oil.
Martha Gen Nelson sLaLed LhaL she liked Lhe wrougiron that wr,•, un -cl
side of Lhe TWU sign and asked if Lhat could be placed around t u. "wolcome
Sign". 'Chu Board discussed this sign being a protoLype for oLhor signs and
Lhe wronght iron wuulrl not, work at other locat,ious like Dallas Or, J. It.
Smallwood staled that he felt Lh,? wrought iron could bu it Secondary issue
and could be tised if nlene}' was avni1.able and Lhe siLe was appropri;it.cr, _
Jenne Murrisou madu a recommendation that the sign with impressed bA Lering
6e located on W. Gnivc:rsiLy, J, B, Smallwood se_cended the motion. Mo1.ioil
carried,
Cecile Carson staLLd LhnL Lhe item would be presented to Council on July 28,
1992 during Lhe work session,
Jeane Morrison asked if Lhe sign they chose today would be it modal for
future signs on Lhe, major entranceways, Mr, Cooper stated yen,
J, B, Smallwood revommandcH Lhe brick desNll with prefab coacrok, face and
wrought, iron he a ud where approinriate and cost effocLi , ak.rtrude clibson
Seconded. Mel ion carried.
it
w:
DENTON 11EAUTIFICA1ION ADVISORY COMMISSION
M i NUTFS
MAY d, 199?
pRF.Sh:NTt Johpt Cooper, Dick Engle, J. I;. Smai Iwood ,
Martha Len Nutaon, rind Gertrude Gihson
STAFF, Cecile, Claraoit , Keep Denton 13ermtl-ifIII Coordinator,
D, .1. Dranham, Clerk 'T'ypist, lllt and Jesus Naval
Assistrui, to the City Manager, Nunn Garttert
Ilorticulturistt Owen Yost, Hardnor
I
III. CONSIDER MAKING RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE DESIGN AND
PLACEMENT 01' A "1t'I?,LCOME" SIGN
Chair Cooper opcued thin d~.scussiuu by sLnting that Lha Pxecutive Committee of Lhe
Commission had instructed the sl.aff to deteratine a design based oil Lhe TWU
entrance sign on University. He continued that, it was a red brir;k sign with
"Welcome to Denton" imprinted in it concrete face. I
Ms. Carson presented ill Wes of University Drive. She stated l.hal. the size or the
sign would be appros;mrttcly Six feet high and eight foot: long +rith an overall
square fooLage of forty-eight square feeL. Slre stated Lhal the first sign wotild
serve as it proLoLype, for foLure signs soil Lhe size would vary depending opt the
other entrance locations,
The commission considered twu sites on University Drive its the location for Lhe ~
first. sign. The second or Lhird median an University Drive, eastbound from I-35
sad Lhe area between the Service road rutd the Raynor property where Lhe 1°35
rsc.Victa roads connecLs to University Drive were coprsider'ed. Ms. Carson sLaLed
that site preseni.ad I.he sigh design to rrspreSeul,atives of' the Department, of
'1'r•anSport.atiou la8t, week. She cuntitttted that. D,tz Flsom provided recommelidat.ious
hissed on SLat.e guides tdaoit Lhu location. Since Lhc• iS Marie of brick,
Mr, Eli~r,nm roconunended Lhal. Lhe sign be located to Lire er.tsl. of I,he I-305 service
acct its comwe Liort Lo University Drive and adjaceul. Lo the Rnyzor property.
Ms. Carson informed the Commission that Mr. FisoM Indicated HaltI.hu sign placed
ill 010 Medirun wonid head Lo be smaller. dir. hlsom staLed Lko Sign would need Lo
he four feel; from the edge of Lhe curb oar each side. When OniversiLy is widen
Lo six lanes the, median will he: reduced Lo Lw'eIVC fe+iL, Ther W1601 of Lhe Sign
COUld b.! nto grenLer Ulan 1'uur feeL with a four Pout Setbacl, oil each side. 'fhrs
Department of Transportal.iun had also informed ?Is, tJrusun that It sikn in the
median might be subject. Lu tltnnag.l tlUriug Llie construction of Lhe new hues. 'T'he
sign and vehicles wurllinig oil the road could be damaged.
i
Mr. Cooper asked i£ they expressed concern over RIut.ovists or hved awa1
sLrandards. Ms. Carson staled Lh:rt Signs in Cltu Mudians may b,_, more Iikel,y to be
hit, by motorist.!;. Fihe continued have experienced some problems wiLh people
driving across Lhe meditus. Thr,i?nprtrt.toanL of 'I'ranSporLation iS concerned about
possible liability Lo th, sl.at.e' and Lhe r.ily if th., brick sign was sl,ruck by a
vehicle.
Ca 3.n
GtH
I
1'a~;e L
The
ComsaL•s,ion naked diva widening of Unhersay Dr, r,lrss plnnocd. A1s. Carson
informod lheni that Wes McClure, with Lhe DeparLmenL, indicated UK the plans for
widenintt this s;ectiou of University Drive were scheduled for a public hetcriug
during Lhe s+rmorer' of lgff2.
I
She conLAW thal, she had been advised by the DeparLrnenl, of 'T'ranspor'tation LhaL
if the sign was located in Lhe median it, Shou!.d he designed so f,haL it Could be
removed during construction. Oae_ example was Lo place hooks oil the side so [hill,
it, could be NFLed from Us pad and moved to a storage area during cniArucLion.
Mr. tingle stated that In,, thought, Lhe locni-ion on Lhe side would be effcet.ive.
Ms. Carson ndvised the Commission that. Lhe DepnrLmvuL planned to move the service
road forl.her to the west. This would prOVided a lar°ger Kroll In fr'orif uP the
"Weicome" sign after construction. The- sign would In, visible from 1-35 n.rd
Univorsil'y Drive.
i
Ala. Melnon asked about, ALs.cdWig a fence or sides to the Sign liko aL TWI. Mr.
Yost Slated Ant the size might be difficult, Lo wid .someLhiug of that: nature.
A question was asked about, service club atLaching logos Co Lhe Sign. Mr. Coopol
stated that thus Commission should not consider that, aL this time. He stated that
at t.hc meeting in January the Commission discr.ssod going alternaLivess that Lhcy,
l
wish to consider III the ful,ure.
I i
Dick Engle made n moLion and 1. B. Smallwood acconded Lhc motion to approve the
sign deigns and location on Highway, 380 .Sr1W by Rnyzor. MoLion carried, Ms.
Carson Stated LhaL Ms. Morrison herd Wormed dlr. Cooper, Mr. i;ngle and her that,
she lilted the design.
I
Ms. Nul!son asked AM landscaping and if a herm wnn possible. Mr. Yost and ms.
Oirrrer indiuaLA that landsualAg would bo included, Dr. Sinalllrood indi(AL[od
that, he J iked Lhc Woa of a berm and (ho tree aAlown in the dr awirr Ms. Utirsou
sl.+at-ed that wc! would also be lookiurt for some one Co "adopt" tho auva. Mr.
Cooper shitud Lhab a landsrapln plan would be designed of ur ITIOval by Council
of Like locntJon.
I
r<
el
i
11
-
SA tpf111MENT SPECIFICATIONS -
R ~
f 11 4'0' X B'o' Monument Fece; Brick
Border Top. Sides 0 Ends.
- 21 Center of We KM t race to be Pre-Cat
Concrete Panels
L $ O I~_ 2! 31 2'0' Tall X 7'0' Wide X 21' Beeo BrICk
f . u5 ~ i a _ Beim M 1Md RICO beloN Monumant aasnasa
41 Brsa Stud-Mounted Letters eeN*+NaaaaNaaa
a - y - 51 Exterior Lighting on Conduit from Mw mi t
- Fscs see PHOTO CELL Within Structure
1 - - 61 Bring Eltetricel Prlnry Up one Side Sy
Conduit for Lights
o
.i.ET»Sa5 0~lc, hltxt# oN1L•`{
4 f ~
p 0
N CITY OF DENTON
&XI 215 E McKINNEY
DENTON TX 7620A
_ SALES: A. SUTTON
ART: B, S
SCALE; 3/4" _ V-0"
I
~r---- "-a;. SKO 592-093 DATE; 6/24/1992
:
I
I
I ~
l
k
1
I
I
i
;1 P ST 669.5.1
865 (G)
I 1 ~ _
1 LP +
111\1111
I I:l at~ A t ~ 1 _ \J
IH 1 ~ ' ~i 1A
Ir M i Y 1 +
TO7.f 91 I
f i ~~f 1 Ir`
Ilnl•9 I
(1 1 1 1
1 1
~ Ip+ I
Powo Psklno l~
~p'', , '711100ora I IOOu
y 1
•....1L~ 7P.6 ..Z., I • TrP • I
• Inl/f InIM _ n /fP9f {nl _ Inl/t
Y 1,' p e .9 it In NX10.7.1 I'
I Gus 11 T01.. J.61 !W.[•{'1 88,, K.-... -.t
+ a r
9Y Y _ w .
ITOS,9 Y V~ J~R51 „u9,s
nl + InIN
rl Inl•f
"I 77"wo
'i '1 H '1 ,nl. 1 YTW.t N ~(TPP.
1 b. 1 1 + k T I /0 0 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~w•
% 1 f 10
EXISTING R.O.*.a.
it 0 1
'ftii" 00 , P STA 67 I • 1) . 5559 (G)
1 1 ; 1 ~
916600 "`I DEMO /~~2* 46' 32.00' RT.
+ 1 l N 1'~6NOO;M • 96!{00 " Da
■ 138 80 L O w
0000
1 1 , , Ipea
' .w I„m277.56
it it it 1 ' I R•5729.58
1 1 /
"I it% "k ol f 1 ,ilnl/1 PC STA 669.72.7510 (G)
`I ^ ; 1 l M 1 1 PT STA 672.50.3065 (G)
11 11 1, ,
1 1 1 1 ~
` REMOVE PAVEMENT IN THIS AREs
S 11 'i '1 ~ 1
1 1 1 ~ 1
1 1 _
1 1 1 1 , 1
1 1 1 1 f YYYIY
1 1
IJ 1 1 l , 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
4 1 1
1 1 1 1 l 1
1 1 1 ~ 1 1
1 t 1 1 1 1
V 1 1 1 1 1
t 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 \ 1
1 1 1 ; 1 1
1 1
ARTM]ENT LEGEND
1W AYS - ° EXISTING R.O"W.
PROPOSED R„ 0. W.
7r--~ 9"M k ,-TM ,r T N - FACE OF PROPOSU
~ I
t? I
:CITYCOUNCI]
L
Y + 1
t1
1 ~L-r
"r1
i
G Ii\1..\{ ~.M1I"r
1
I
rr.._
ooooo°°ooaaaooooooC~°oo
0 0
Q ` 0 Q
S
o ~k
OOO~Rs, ~q ~
O
F o~~° 0~ a c c c ~ c o o~°° °U
.L J •J rr
i
A3egdaNo.
Agerria-It~e-m„lSpSy 1►''«.
DATE: July 28, 1992 1
c'I1'1' C11UtiC'(l,_RFh~I{'C_.I'OR51~1'L
Y
TO: Mayor noel Members of the City Anntcil
l FROMr Lloyd V. Harrell, City 1tanager
5ULIMT: Ordinance pr'oviiling for alLernativo meLltods of notification for grass
and weed violations related to repeat offenders
h
i ItI;CO~1@!_F~DAT:IUN; ~
I
The CommuniLy Improvement DiViHiotl recumnnQnds acpprovcrl Of t.hc Urdi nAnce,
i
` SIJPIQErIft) ;
The proposed ordinance provides Tor a notice process.{ to assist in doaling with
repeal: offenders, The current provisions require that each time a property is
~ rn violation of the Lwelve inch standard that a notice ho sent. to the owner of 1
fire property. The proposal provides language ibr the second notice Lint if "in
one gro%ing season (usually kpril to Member), the properLy owner fails to
correct n subsequent violation" Be City may enter the prupcwLy throughout the
growing Heaton as uecassavy to correct future violat'i'ons without furl,her uoLice.
This provision would provide staff with the ability to more prMaq lies that
routinely are in violation of city, codes, Whom the city mows a property, the
aWner, is charged rot' the mose'ing cost's curd an $80 administrative fee is added.
We also believe that this provision will influenc0 the oreAnert of larger I;rrrct.s
Lo hire contractors; to maintain properly On It schedule rather t.ian waiting for
a CiLy notice, The ordinance provides wording that must be included in Lhv flral;
Mid second notice so Lhat. the owner is aware of the need to heels the properly
ricaintained,
CommuniLy Improvencil1, htrs con Lae Led severdll cit,ie8 abouL the, vepc:tt offender
problem, Haltom I;iLy and Abiiene hnve ordinances similar On the proposed
document, The Abilene ordinance Imovidus l.hal, after the first uotice Lie clay
may mow the property on thirty clay intervals and bill the owner for the
abaLemeut, AlLhnagh Mid lone city officials stated that they had received some
complaints from citizens, no unu has challenged the city on its right to mow the
properLy and charge them for the mowing, The Code linforcemeut Office in Abilene
does IOt rernspael L6c properties wiles a citizen complaint. is rccej%'ed. Iu
Wichita Falls, violators are notified that. Lie first. notice: is Lhe only uoL.ice
they will receive, 1X11 King, Director of Codo hilorcumnO, sLaUml that a
courtesy notice is somNimea seat or an officer map varsonnI y couLaot the osecntr
0H a second oI, rentIe' hut. a no1.ice is not requiIcd, Uased on our conversaLions
with members of the Code Enforcemuut. Association of Texas, many cities are
Cunsider iug this type of ordinaucu or notification process for owuers{ of
propc,rLivs LhaI are froquenLly 1 u viulIt Lion of :;rays alai we,,ds Ickpl Lions,
Z. J
ll
5
eE~
`I
y
CC Format;NoP,ificaLion ~
Grits and Woods
Page 'l
I
gACKCIROUND:
Community Improvement eeceiVet, numerous c:omplaioLs ahout tnainLenauce of viu;iu4t
or unoccupied tracts each year.
Oa0 group of resfdent.s in Lhe Norl.}twood
Subdivision appeared before then Cil,y Council to complain about seven lots owned
' by Universal Management Corp, of Miami, floviclu, A.lLhough I,lic, owner mows Lhe
property they will uot.complete the work until the city sends Lhem annotice, The
I Officer for Lhe area has vepeaLedly requested that the owner schedule mowing the
i property every six 1.0 eight wooks, but the owner to this date bus declined. We
believe this ordinance would be an incentive for them and others to begin
schedul,ecl mowing,
i 1'110 Code Enforcement Officers have identified approximately 100 owuerES who would
be considered repeat offenders, if these properties were mowed ever six to eight
v0eks or approximately four to five Limes each yeav, they would not exceed the
twelve inch stai;davd. A number of those owners have stated that they will not
maintain the pr•operLy unfess Lhe City tells Lhern it. is in violation. The Code,
Enforcement Officers wilt continue working wiLb the repeat offenders to encourage
them Lo main Lain Lheiv property,
r
PROGRrIh15 _-_I)hPhR'fhli?NTS Oft (il10lJI?Sr1PI?HC'fI:D:_
Community Improvement, City Contractor, and repeat offenders
FISCAL I WtNL'f:
A reduction in the time officers spond orl vup0flt; violations will nllow Lhe
officers to deal with other inspect.ious and programs,
Itespecl.fully submitted:
- U
i'repared by: Llc•yd V, Farrel]
n City dhuager
u ~IrA J'L
Cecile Carson
Community Impt-ovem` rit Coordinator
' Approved;
04 l,ant to the City ~4lauager
k
I
it
e
a
i
ALL002D4 ~I....
U
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 20-72
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ALTERNATE METHODS OF GIVING
NOTICE OF GRASS AND WEED VIOLATIONS; PROVIDING THAT THE CITY MAY
CORRECT REPEATED WEED AND GRASS VIOLATIONS IN ONE GROWING SEASON BY
MOWING WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of section 20-72
of Chapter 20 of the Code of ordinances are amended to read as
` follows:
Sao. 20-72. Notice to ovuer of violations; abatement by
city; collection of costs; appeals.
(a) Notice of violation. If the owner of property fails
or refuses to comply with section 20-71, the City shall give
written notice to the property owner. The notice shall be
delivered to the owner or mailed to the owner's post office
address. If delivery in person is not possible or if the
owner's address is unknown, notice shall be given by:
k (1) Publication in the City's official
newspaper at least twice within 10 consec--
utive days;
(2) Posting the notice on or near the
front door of each building on the proper-
ty to which the violation relates; or
(3) Posting the notice on a placard at-
tached to a stake driven into the ground
on the property to which the violation
relates, if the property contains no
buildings.
(b) Contents of first notice, A notice of violation
shall contain a statement:
` (1) Setting forth the requirements of
section 20-71;
(2) That the owner has ten (10) days from
the date of this notice to correct the
violation;
I - -
€i
i`
(3) That if the owner fails to correct
the violation, the city will enter upon
the property and mow or have it mowed; and
(4) That if the owner fails to pay the
costs hereof, a lien shall be filed
against the property to secure all costs
and fees.
(o) Contents of second notice. The second notice
of a violation in one growing season' shall con-
tain:
(1) All required statements as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(2) A statement that if the property
owner commits a subsequent violation of
section 20-71, the City may enter the
property, as necessary, for the remainder
of the year to correct further violations
without further notice to the owner and
may assess the costs thereof as provided
herein.
(3) For the purposes of this section, grow-
ing season shall mean the period of time from
March until November of any year.
(d) city may correct violation. If, at the expiration
of ten (10) days after notice, as provided in this para-
graph, is given, the owner fails to correct the violation,
the City may enter upon the property and do the work, or
pay for the work to be done, as necessary to correct the
violation. If, during one growing season, the property
owner fails to correct a violation after notice has been
given as provided in paragraph (b) (2) of this section, the
City may enter the property throughout the growing season
as necessary to correct further violations without further
notice to the owner and may assess the costs thereof as
provided herein.
SECTION II. That paragraphs (d), (e), (f) of section 20-72, as
set forth prior to this amendment, are respectively retitled as
paragraphs (e), (f.), and (g), to conform to this amendment.
SECTION III. That this irdinance shall become siffective four-
teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the city Secretary
is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be
published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official news-
paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
Page 2
i
yY
r
tF~
1 I~
TTO~V. That the provisions of this ordinance are separa-
ble, and the invalidity of any phrase or part of this ordinance
shall not affect the validity of effectiveness of the remainder of
the ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the. day of _
r 1992,
BOB CASTLEBERRY,MAYOR
e
I ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
i
BY:
l
Page 3
i
ii
HANDOUT TO COUNCIL 7-28-92
i
i
I
CITyOf DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL AUILDING / 215 E. MCKINNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201
i
' I
XEMORANDUM
i
DATEi July 28, 1992 +
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council 1
I
FROM., John F. McGrane, Executive Director Finance
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCIL INQUIRIES CONCERNING BUDGET. ISSUES
i
Please find attached staff responses to inquiries made by city
Council members concerning the following issues:
• 1992-93 Pay Plan alternatives.
i
i 1I
• Effect of more licensed professional counselors on
the health plan.
' I
funding Explanation xandMsurveyaofRmetroplex cities
contribution rates.
if you have any questions regarding the above, or need additional
information, please advise.
AFF0031F
Attachments
l
8171666.6200 D/FW METRO 434.2529
4
I
' I 1
1
CITY of DENTON, TRXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. McKINNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201
MFMORANDUM {
To: Betty McKean - Executive Director of Municipal Services
and Economic Development
1
From: Tom Klinck - Director of Human Resources
Date: July 21, 1992
' I
Subject: 1992/93 Proposed Budget - City Council Requests -
Human Resources Issues
This memo is to respond to requests by City council members
on the following Human Resources issues in the 1992/93
Proposed Budget:
1. Pay Increase Alternatives considering projected
Health Insurance costs increase of 15$ I
2. Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) - survey of
I
member city practices
i
3. Mental Health Providers - effect on Health Insurance
Program
PAY INCREASE/BENEFITS ALTERNATIVES
On January 11 1992, with city council approval, we
implemented Phase I of a new, comprehensive, and more
effective Salary and Performance Management Program. This
provided us a new, enhanced salary structure and "pay-for-
performance" program that is designed to re-allocate
previously funded dollars for pay increases to more
specifically recognize employees for their performance.
Because funding was limited, initial implementation
recommendations for this new program were conservative.
A part of the initial recommendation was that, in the 1992/93
Budget, consideration be given for fully funding a
"pay-for-performance" matrix for non-Civil Service employees
and additional steps for the command ranks in the Police and
Fire Department's pay programs. Unfortunately, the
projections for the 92/93 Budget do not allow for fully
funding these program components.
817/566.8200 0/FW METRO 434.2529