Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan-Recycling Dubuque's Future-December 1990R
36-3.728
BRI
Iowa
Books
ARCHIVES
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared For
Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Prepared By
Brice, Petrides-Donohue Co.
December 1990
R 363.7285 BRI Iowa Bks.
Brice, Petrides-Donohue Co.
Integrated solid wate management
plan
Printed on
Recycled Paper
3 1825 00267 7774
BR I
inn
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report has been prepared for the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency to provide an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for Dubuque
County. The cooperation of the city of Dubuque and the landfill personnel
has been instrumental in completion of this plan.
The plan is a document which outlines an approach to future solid waste
management in Dubuque County. The success of solid waste management will
depend on agencies, groups and dedicated individuals who will be involved
in implementing the plan.
Rep/Dubuque/AC6
1104
FIR
Pul
1011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paee
BACKGROUND 1.1
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 2.1
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 3.1
WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS 4.1
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 5.1
Waste Reduction 5.1
Yard Waste Composting 5.5
Mixed Solid Waste Composting 5.10
Recycling 5.18
Waste -to -Energy 5.38
Incineration 5.40
Landfilling 5.47
TRANSFER STATION COST ANALYSIS 6.1
COMPUTER MODELING 7.1
PUBLIC AWARENESS - CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 8.1
PROPOSED INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 9.1
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 10.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11.1
APPENDICES
Computer Model Printouts A.1
Comparative Cost Analysis Tables B.1
Recycling Advertisement C.1
Dubuque County Landfill Tonnage Report (F.Y. 1989) D.1
Crder Form for Publication "Variable Rates in Solid
Waste" E.1
Rep/Dubuque/AC7
and/or disposal of the solid waste and 4) to take necessary steps to
prevent contamination and pollution of the land, water and air resources of
the areas involved in the transport and/or disposal of the solid waste.
The operation of the county landfill is performed by the city of Dubuque
through a contract with the Agency. The costs involved with the operation
of the landfill facility are covered entirely by tipping fees.
Historically, tipping fees have increased from $3.50 per ton in 1976 to
$11.00 per ton in fiscal 1991. Because of the need for improvements at the
landfill to comply with new regulations, the tipping fee will increase to
$22.00 per ton in fiscal 1992.
There is a relatively recent recycling effort in the Dubuque County area;
however, all of the communities in the study area (Table 3-2) continue to
use the Dubuque County Landfill as the primary disposal method, with the
exception of the city of Bernard whose waste is taken to the Jackson County
Landfill. There are eight municipalities in the county that have
municipally operated collection systems. All others within the project
area and the rural population have private contractors who haul to the
landfill. The private contractors either contract with the towns or
directly with the homeowners.
The collection system is large, and the rural residential population is
extensive. There are approximately ten private collectors in Dubuque
County; some who are hauling yard waste as well as solid waste. All
municipalities have required the elimination of yard wastes from garbage as
of July 1, 1990. Yard waste separation is only one example of the need to
closely monitor the collection system within the study area to assure
cooperation with the DMASWA.
The requirement for solid waste management through comprehensive planning
was enacted by the Iowa Legislature as part of the Groundwater Protection
Act in 1987. The act established a separate branch of the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources to lead waste reduction and recycling efforts. Part I
of the Comprehensive Plan establishes the hierarchy of solid waste disposal
options.
• Volume Reduction at the Source
o Recycling and Reuse
o Combustion with Energy Recovery and/or Refuse Derived Fuel
o Combustion for Volume Reduction
o Landfilling
These items need to be carefully studied and evaluated for all solid waste
disposal projects. Renewal of landfill operating permits are tied to the
Comprehensive Planning requirements. The Legislative Review in Chapter 2
covers the current requirements in more detail.
The implementation of a Comprehensive Plan for solid waste management with-
in Dubuque County involves technical considerations as well as many issues
relating to administrative structure and the general public. The Dubuque
1.2
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive solid waste management planning is a requirement established
under the Groundwater Protection Act passed by the Iowa Legislature in
1987.
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (DMASWA) was created
through a 23-E Agreement to oversee a county -wide landfill program in 1976.
Since that time, all of the cities and towns within Dubuque County have
agreed to use the landfill operated by the DMASWA. The participating muni-
cipalities are bound by the 28E Agreement until all bonds used to finance
the landfill are paid. It is anticipated that the final bond payment will
be made some time in 1995.
In June 1990, the DMASWA contracted with Brice, Petrides-Donohue to examine
the existing solid waste disposal system and develop a system for manage-
ment of the entire waste stream incorporating disposal alternatives as
required under the Groundwater Protection Act.
The existing county -wide landfill operated by the DMASWA consists of
approximately 214 acres, of which approximately 115 acres are to be devel-
oped as a landfill. The original facilities plan written in 1975 estimated
landfill life at 20 years; however, a follow-up report in 1985 estimated
remaining landfill capacity at current tonnages at 35 years. Using the
figures in the most recent report and assuming the county landfill has
adequate cover material, the facility has 30 years capacity at current
tonnages. A fill area for demolition materials, which is scheduled to
close in 1991, is in operation elsewhere in the county and John Deere
operates its own waste disposal at their plant location. If these waste
streams are directed to the DMASWA landfill, the remaining useful life will
decrease.
Nation-wide, solid wastes from residential, commercial and institutional
sources are estimated at 160 million tons per year, or 1,300 pounds per
person per year. Approximately 85 percent of municipal solid waste is
disposed of in sanitary landfills. The Dubuque metro area solid waste
study area has a waste generation rate that is generally in line with the
national average. The EPA projects that generation rates will increase
from the present 3.5 pounds per capita to 6.5 pounds per capita by the year
2000. Even though goals have been established by federal and state agen-
cies to reduce dependence on landfilling, if waste generation rates con-
tinue to increase, the quantity of materials landfilled may not be reduced.
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency oversees the operation of
the county landfill. The agency consists of a three -member board of direc-
tors, two members of the Dubuque City Council and one member from the
Dubuque County Board of Supervisors. The agency's duties include: 1) the
economical disposal of all solid waste, 2) to encourage other local
government agencies to administer, operate and maintain facilities, 3)
provide equipment, machinery, buildings and grounds for the transport
1.1
104
lon
101
ra
Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency has authority to implement this plan.
The intent of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is to provide
direction in implementing any or all alternatives in landfilling within
Dubuque County. The plan has been prepared in light of current factors and
conditions; however, it will need to be monitored and updated as waste
stream, technology, law and environmental factors change.
Public awareness is an essential element in implementing changes in solid
waste management practices in Dubuque County. This issue is addressed in a
separate chapter on Citizen Participation.
Reports/Dubuque/AA6
1.3
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
The Solid Waste Disposal Act was passed by the Iowa Legislature in 1970.
This Act required that all solid waste be disposed in a "sanitary disposal
project." The Act also established guidelines and permitting procedures to
be administered through the then relatively new Iowa Department of Environ-
mental Quality (IDEQ) (now the Iowa Department of Natural Resources -
IDNR). The compliance date for the Act was established as July 1, 1975.
In response to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, most counties and some cities
organized solid waste disposal authorities, either through their City Coun-
cil, County Board of Supervisors or special purpose commissions or agencies
formed under the authority of Section 28-E of the Code of Iowa. These
multi -governmental 28-E agencies had authorities defined in their individu-
al agreements but were also limited by the state Code. Recently, the Code
has enabled the authorities of these multi -governmental agencies to be
expanded under Sections 28-F and 28-G.
Although there were numerous solid waste disposal technologies available in
the early 1970s, there were very few commercially successful. The costs,
benefits and risks associated with solid waste disposal at the time made
landfilling the technology of choice for most of the facilities in the
state. IDNR (then IDEQ) developed administrative rules which dealt with
siting and operation of landfills. In general, the facilities developed in
response to the Solid Waste Disposal Act are those that are in operation
currently. The existing solid waste disposal projects in the study area
operate under permits issued by IDNR.
Federal legislation, primarily in response to hazardous waste issues, also
impacted solid waste disposal. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) was passed in 1976. This legislation established stringent controls
on hazardous wastes with a cradle -to -grave philosophy for treatment, stor-
age and disposal facilities. Subtitle D regulations of RCRA were promul-
gated and issued for public comment in August, 1988. It is currently anti-
cipated that these regulations will go into effect in 1991, and could have
significant impacts on existing sanitary landfills. The Subtitle D
regulations would expand RCRA authority from hazardous waste facilities to
include all solid waste disposal facilities. For many existing facilities,
the RCRA regulations will be very far reaching and require significant
changes.
The Black Hawk County Landfill can be used as an example of the potential
effects of Subtitle D regulations. The Black Hawk County facility is an
interim status hazardous waste facility and, as such, has been regulated
under Subtitle C of RCRA. The facility has currently installed 54
monitoring wells and has also undertaken formal closure of approximately 40
acres of the 140-acre site. To comply with the various RCRA requirements
has taken approximately 5 years at a cost of approximately $3 million.
Highlights of the RCRA Subtitle D regulations follow:
2.1
Pw
PRI
RCRA Subtitle D
The regulations will affect all landfills that are not closed
within 18 months after the regulations are promulgated. EPA esti-
mates that compliance with the new Subtitle "D" regulations will
cost between $400 million and $3 billion annually.
EPA estimates
3,000 of the
result of the
a significant
that over the next several
current 6,000 municipal
Subtitle "D" regulations.
trend toward development
new regional landfills.
years as many as 2,000 to
landfills may close as a
There may, therefore, be
of transfer stations and
The new regulations do not require retrofitting of existing land-
fill units with liners or leachate collection systems. However,
any facility in operation on the date of rule promulgation would
have to install a final cover that meets the risk -based perform-
ance standard.
The largest impact is likely to be felt by existing facilities
that expand laterally into new units. These new units would, in
most cases, be required to install liners and leachate collection
systems.
Key Requirements
General
1. The proposed regulations present siting restrictions for new facilities
addressing proximity to airports, 100-year flood plains, wetlands,
fault areas, seismic impact zones and unstable areas.
2. Under the proposed regulations, the owner or operator of a MSWLF would
be required to demonstrate the financial and technical ability to con-
duct closure and post -closure care and, if applicable, corrective ac-
tion for known releases. This requirement would insure that the owner
or operator adequately plan for all of the costs involved. State and
federal entities would be excluded from financial assurance require-
ments, but local governments would not be excluded. The amount of
financial assurance required would be based on written site -specific
cost estimates. The cost estimates would include closure, post -closure
care and corrective action for known releases.
Design
1. The proposed design criteria establish a performance standard that
allows states flexibility in determining the allowable risk level and
the point of compliance. New and existing units would be required to
meet the performance standard, but different options for control
mechanisms are given for each.
2.2
2. New units would be required to be designed with liners, leachate col-
lection systems and final cover systems as necessary to meet a state -
established design goal. Each state can establish its design goal with
certain carcinogenic risk levels for the groundwater beneath the land-
fill. The states would be allowed flexibility in requiring liners,
leachate collections systems and final covers -- within a limited pro-
jected risk range of one cancer incidence in 10,000 exposures to one
cancer incidence in 10 million exposures. The point of compliance
would be at the waste management unit boundary or state -established
alternative boundary. The alternative boundary would be no more than
150 meters from the waste management unit boundary and would be re-
quired to be on facility -owned land.
3. Developing programs to comply with the federal performance standards
will place a heavy burden on state environmental protection agencies.
Groundwater Monitoring
1. EPA estimates that at least one in every four of the existing 6,000
municipal landfills is violating current groundwater protection stand-
ards.
2. The groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements proposed
by EPA under Subtitle "D" are very similar to those being used for RCRA
Subtitle "C" hazardous wastes facilities. The proposed requirements
would apply to all new and existing landfill units.
3. Phase 1 monitoring consists of semi-annual sampling of 15 indicator
parameters, 9 heavy metals and 46 volatile organic compounds. If a
statistically significant increase or decrease occurs over background
for two or more indicator parameters or one or more heavy metals or
VOCs, Phase 2 monitoring program would be required.
4. Phase 2 monitoring consists of analyzing groundwater for 234 para-
meters. The minimum sampling frequency for these parameters is
quarterly. If a statistically significant increase above the trigger
level occurred for any parameter, the owner would be required to pro-
ceed with corrective actions.
5. Corrective action requirements would mandate that owners perform an
assessment of corrective measures, select corrective measures, estab-
lish a groundwater protection standard and implement a corrective
action program.
Landfill Gas Monitoring
1. Because methane has been the principal cause of explosions, EPA pro-
poses monitoring only for that landfill gas parameter at this time.
EPA may require monitoring for other gas constituents in the future if
2.3
1101
information is developed indicating that this is necessary. Operating
landfills must monitor for methane gas migration in the soil, in fa-
cility structures and at the property boundary.
2. Although the proposed regulations require only methane monitoring, it
is expected that the monitoring will indicate the need for implementa-
tion of landfill gas controls at many facilities. If excessive methane
levels are detected, the owner must take necessary steps to insure
protection of human health. A remediation plan would need to be sub-
mitted to the state within 14 days of certain limits having been ex-
ceeded.
3. EPA proposes methane monitoring at least quarterly. Site -specific
conditions may require more frequent monitoring, such as when facili-
ties are near residential areas.
4. EPA recommends that continuous monitoring devices be used in facility
structures at the landfill.
Operations
1. Procedures for excluding the receipt of hazardous wastes include random
inspections of incoming loads, inspections of suspicious loads, record
keeping of inspection results, training of personnel to identify
hazardous wastes and procedures for notifying state authorities. All
necessary personnel would have to be trained to identify potential
sources of hazardous wastes. At a minimum, this should include super-
visors, spotters, designated inspectors, equipment operators and weigh
station attendants. The training should emphasize familiarity with
containers and labels typically used for hazardous wastes and other
hazardous materials.
2. The owner would be required to design, construct and maintain run-on/
run-off surface water control measures for specified storm events.
3. Disposal of liquid wastes would be prohibited, including 55-gallon
drums filled with liquids and liquids from tank trucks. Household
waste, except tank trucks filled with septic waste, are exempt. Leach -
ate and gas condensate from the unit could be recirculated only if the
unit has a composite (synthetic and clay) liner and a leachate collec-
tion system.
4. The owner would be required to maintain historical records, including
groundwater and landfill gas monitoring data, inspection records, state
notification procedures, and closure and post -closure care plans.
Closure and Post -Closure
1. The new regulations would impose significant new requirements on land-
fill owners in closing landfills and long-term maintenance.
2.4
2. Owners would be required to develop a closure plan and perform closure
in a manner that minimizes the need for further maintenance and mini-
mizes the probability of leachate release.
3. Owners would be required to conduct two phases of post -closure care.
The first phase would be for a minimum time period of 30 years and the
second phase for a length of time determined by the state. The first
phase would consist of maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of
the final cover, maintaining and operating the leachate collection
system, maintaining and monitoring the groundwater monitoring system,
and maintaining and operating the gas monitoring system.
4. The second phase must include provisions for groundwater and gas moni-
toring.
State Level Legislation
The Iowa Legislature established a separate branch of IDNR to coordinate
various grant programs and lead waste reduction and recycling efforts. The
Waste Management Authority Division (WMAD) of IDNR is not a traditional
regulatory branch of the Department but instead coordinates the programs
noted above. The WMAD is separate from the Water, Air and Solid Waste
divisions; however, it has the authority regarding the Comprehensive Plans
required by the Groundwater Protection Act, House File 631.
Groundwater Protection Act
The Iowa Legislature passed the Groundwater Protection Act of 1987 (HF 631)
which established the requirements for the comprehensive solid waste man-
agement plan. Part I of the solid waste comprehensive plan establishes the
state's hierarchy of solid waste disposal options. Part II of the compre-
hensive plan requires more stringent landfill design, operation and moni-
toring requirements.
Comprehensive planning requirements include a schedule for implementation
which is coordinated with the IDNR sanitary disposal project permits. The
comprehensive planning dates are as follow:
7-1-88 New permits and permit renewals due after this date require
comprehensive plans, Parts I and II.
7-1-92 New permits and permit renewals for landfills require a
leachate control system.
7-1-94 Permit renewals after this date require steps toward imple-
mentation of the comprehensive plan, Parts I and II.
7-1-97
After this date, permits issued for alternatives to landfills
or landfills which are part of an alternative disposal system
only.
2.5
Part I comprehensive plans are evolutionary in nature, requiring periodic
updates as economic considerations and technologies change. At a minimum,
the Part I comprehensive plan will be updated and refiled with the Depart-
ment every three years (when the permit is due). In all cases, the plans
must be implemented by July 1, 1997.
The Groundwater Protection Act also established a solid waste tonnage fee.
Initially, this fee is $1.50/ton paid to the permit holder for each ton of
solid waste received. This was initiated July 1, 1988. 0ne dollar is
transferred to the state, and $0.50 is retained by the permit holder for
planning purposes. The fees and retainage are on an increasing schedule as
follows (Table 2-1):
TABLE 2-1
STATE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION FEES
Fees
Collected
Fees
Retained
FY 1989
FY 1990
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
$1.50/Ton
$2.00/Ton
$2.50/Ton
$3.00/Ton
$3.50/Ton
and thereafter
$0.50/Ton
$0.50/Ton
$0.65/Ton
$0.80/Ton
$0.95/Ton
The use of the fees by the state and the permit holder are restricted by
the Act. The primary use is directed at planning for and implementation of
landfill alternatives.
The Act also allows for cost sharing grants administered by Waste
Management Authority Division. The Landfill Alternatives Grants are a
competitive process and awarded twice per year. A grantee may receive up
to $300,000.00 on a 65 percent share.
Part II of the comprehensive plan addresses closure and post -closure plans,
leachate control plans, financial plans and financial assurance
instruments. IDNR will administer the requirements of the Part II guide-
lines.
2.6
The Part II guidelines appear relatively close to the RCRA Subtitle D regu-
lations. Landfills will be required to meet increased containment regula-
tions and include leachate collection and treatment systems. Closure and
post -closure plans will need to be developed for all facilities which will
outline steps to be taken for monitoring and maintenance of facilities for
a minimum of 30 years after closure. In addition, facilities will be
required to establish financial assurance mechanisms to provide for closure
and post -closure costs and remedial action, if necessary.
The impact of the Part II regulations will vary with the size of facilities
and the status of facilities in their life span. It is, however, obvious
that the costs of landfilling will increase significantly to implement the
new regulations.
Specifics in the Part II guidelines for landfilling require that the site
undergo a hydrogeologic investigation to assure its suitability and provide
that the monitoring well system is appropriately and adequately designed
and constructed for the particular site.
All sites shall have an engineered containment system (liner) consisting of
a minimum of 4 feet of compacted clay (1.0 x 10-7 cm/sec - Maximum Perme-
ability).
All sites shall have a leachate collection and treatment system which is
required to be monitored and maintained through the operating and post -
closure periods.
Closure plans are required which detail final grading and drainage features
to prevent erosion, ponding and percolation of water into the site and run-
on and run-off controls. The closure plan must be designed to minimize the
potential release of pollutants to the air, groundwater and surface waters.
The closure must also address leachate collection and treatment, ground-
water monitoring, and gas collection and monitoring at the site.
Post -closure plans are required to assure that the integrity of the final
cover is maintained throughout the post -closure period. Groundwater and
gas monitoring must be maintained, along with the leachate collection and
treatment system throughout the post -closure period. The current post -
closure period is thirty (30) years following closure of the site; however,
there is speculation that there will be perpetual monitoring and post -
closure activities required.
Part II requirements also include the need for an approved financial assur-
ance instrument. This financial assurance must be adequate to cover costs
of all post -closure activities. Final guidance on this requirement is not
yet available; however, there have been recent estimates of $5.00/ton in -
place or $200,000.00/acre to cover the financial assurance requirement.
2.7
IOR
rev
House File 753
The environmental legislation continued in the 1988-1989 session when House
File 753 was passed. This legislation, which is known as the Waste Reduc-
tion and Recycling Act of 1989, provides prohibitions on various materials
from landfills, establishes a schedule for the prohibitions and also estab-
lishes goals of 25 percent reduction in solid waste by July 1, 1994, and 50
percent by July 1, 2000. The waste reduction is based on the level of
solid waste production as of July 1, 1988.
The major prohibitions and schedule are summarized as follows:
Banned Material Date
Waste Oil
Batteries
Beverage Containers
Unprocessed Tires
Yard Waste
July 1, 1990
July 1, 1990
July 1, 1990*
July 1, 1991
January 1, 1991
*Dealers, Distributors and Redemption Centers.
The legislation also deals with plastics labeling, recycling and packaging.
In addition to dealing with the banning of land disposal of various materi-
als, the legislation also addresses the state's role in supporting alterna-
tives. There are numerous funding sources established to encourage waste
reduction, including a fee for tires. The legislation also addresses re-
cycling issues relating to use of recycled materials. The state will
increase the use of recycled materials and establish procedures which will
give preference to the use of recycled materials in state contracts. Some
of the other features of this legislation include:
"State and local agencies responsible for the maintenance of public
Establishes a lead -acid battery trade-in program wherein all retailers
selling batteries must accept the old battery for disposal.
Motor oil retailers will be required to accept used oil or post a
Assigns DNR the responsibility to determine a means to store and
recycle tires.
Establishes a state-wide waste reduction and recycling network. This
network will provide an informational base to encourage waste reduction
and recycling and will also promote the use of recycled materials used
by public and private groups and assist in promotion of recycling pro-
grams.
2.8
Market development of recyclable materials is addressed.
Public education to promote waste reduction and recycling is addressed.
In general, the recent legislation has provided a direction for solid waste
management that will necessitate significant changes in our waste manage-
ment practices. Our approach to solid waste management will require tech-
nological changes which, in turn, may affect societal changes.
It is a certainty that the costs of solid waste management will increase.
This will be true of any alternatives implemented and will also be true of
continuing to landfill.
Iowa DNR Rules
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has extensive administrative rules
which regulate the implementation of Iowa Code. Section 567, Environmental
Protection, and Chapters 100 through 125 address solid waste disposal.
Rep/Dubuqua/AA4
2.9
PHI
Imq
104
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
Dubuque County is located on the eastern Iowa border next to the
Mississippi River. The county lies about 60 miles south of the northern
state line. Dubuque County is situated in a unique location because it
borders a tri-state area. Wisconsin is located on the county's northeast
border and Illinois is situated at the southeast border.
Dubuque County contains three state permitted landfills, all within 10
miles of the Dubuque metropolitan area. John Deere Dubuque Works operates
a 35-acre landfill north of Dubuque, and Tschiggfrie Excavating, Inc.,
operates a 14-acre construction and demolition landfill to the south of the
city. The third site, the Dubuque Metropolitan Sanitary Landfill, consists
of 214 acres total and 103 acres used for solid waste fill and serves the
businesses and residents of Dubuque County. Each of these landfills
operate under a permit issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
The IDN4 permit information for the facilities is shown on Table 3-1.
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (DMASWA) is responsible
for overseeing the operation of the Dubuque Sanitary Landfill (DSL).
DMASWA is the permit holder for the DSL and also the sponsor for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, Permit No. 31-SDP-2-75P. The
study area is located in Region I, Iowa DNR; and its operation is reviewed
by this office:
Region I Office
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
907 West Main Street
Manchester, Iowa 52057
Phone (319)927-2640
The study area consists of Dubuque County which is the current service area
of the Dubuque Sanitary Landfill. The DMASWA does not currently intend to
regionalize the study by including neighboring counties; however, some
sections of this report will address regionalization on a limited basis.
The demographics of the study area were developed from the 1986 Statistical
Profile of Iowa published by the Iowa Development Commission. Table 3-2
lists demographic information for Dubuque County. A significant portion of
Dubuque County's population is urban, accounting for approximately 2/3 of
the people. The other 1/3 of the population is rural. The proportionately
large urban population is reflected in the overall population density of
153 persons per square mile.
Solid waste disposal in the study area has been primarily through landfill-
ing; however recently, yard waste composting and voluntary recycling
programs have been implemented. Collection systems for the county's
residential/commercial solid waste generators are maintained through a
mixture of private firms and public haulers. The city of Dubuque provides
3.1
solid waste collection services to its residents and some small businesses.
The towns located throughout the county have residential and commercial
solid waste collection provided by the town, or a private hauler contracts
directly with the residents and businesses. Most of the industrial solid
waste is collected and transported to the landfill by one private hauler,
BFI Waste Systems, Dubuque District. A small portion is hauled to the
landfill directly by the generator industry.
Based on the population information from the statistical profile and waste
generation estimates, a population centroid and waste generation centroid
were computed. Figure 3-1 illustrates the location of the two centroids.
The centroid information is used throughout the report as a factor in
analyzing transportation economics.
PHI
3.2
Sanitary Disposal Project
TABLE 3-1
Current
Responsible Initial Expiration
Agency Issuance Date
John Deere Dubuque Works Landfill John Deere 1974
Dubuque Works
Dubuque Metropolitan Sanitary
Landfill
(Permit No. 31-SDP-2-75P)
Tschiggfrie Excavation, Inc.,
Landfill
Dubuque Metro- 1976 January, 1991.
politan Area
Solid Waste
Agency
Edward
Tschiggfrie
Proposed Clo-
sure, 1991
3.3
TABLE 3-2
DUBUQUE COUNTY
Projections
Population 1970 1980 % Total % Change 1990 2000
Total 90,609 93,745 100 3.5 90,700 92,300
Urban 66,506 66,027 70.4 -0.7
Rural 24,103 27,718 29.6 15.0
Land Area: 612 Square Miles
Population Density: 153.2
No. No. Owner- Median No.
Housing Units (1980): Total Occupied Value Rental
31,506 21,655
48,600 8,366
Incorporated Areas
Population Population
1970 1980
Size Rank*
Asbury 410 2,017 3
Balltown 79 106 18
Bankston 28 40 21
Bernard 148 130 14
Cascade 1,744 1,912 4
Centralia 105 106 17
Dubuque 62,309 62,321 1
Durango 55 41 20
Dyersville 3,437 3,825 2
Epworth 1,132 1,380 5
Farley 1,096 1,287 6
Graf 70 98 19
Holy Cross 290 310 9
Luxemburg 185 271 11
New Vienna 392 430 8
Peosta 57 120 15
Rickardsville 193 215 12
Sageville 338 291 10
Sherrill 190 208 13
Worthington 365 432 7
Zwingle 96 119 16
Unincorporated Areas
St. Catherine
*Within county (1980).
Source: Iowa Development Commission, "1986 Statistical Profile of Iowa."
Rep/Dubuque/AA1
3.4
Pel
Pal
N
10011
IMN
w
WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
An evaluation of the waste stream composition is a necessary step in solid
waste planning. A comprehensive examination of Dubuque County's waste
stream was conducted to determine the breakdown of the waste stream into
the residential, commercial and industrial components. Further research
revealed the constituent make-up of each of the waste streams. This infor-
mation was used to develop a plan to meet the state solid waste goals.
Information was obtained from landfill tonnage reports, city billing re-
cords, a survey of private haulers, published national averages and surveys
at other landfills. The landfill has approximately 170 accounts. These
accounts consist of residential haulers, business and industry, schools and
cities of Dubuque County. Some of the major haulers include:
Major
Haulers:
City of Dubuque Refuse Collection
Randy's Sanitary Service
BFI Waste Systems
Eagle Manufacturing
Tschiggfrie Excavating
City of Dubuque Street Cleaning
City of Cascade
City of Dubuque Sewage Treat-
ment
City of Epworth
Modernfold Industries
Both urban and rural populations contribute to the residential waste
stream, but in differing proportions and composition. Commercial waste
generators are usually located in the towns and cities, and most industrial
generators are located
Figure 4-1 illustrates
stream. Data used to
Appendix D.
in the larger cities such as the city of Dubuque.
the relative contributions by weight of each waste
derive the waste stream breakdown can be found in
The waste stream quantity and composition varies with the season. Accept-
ing the winter months to be represented by December, January and February;
spring to be March, April and May; summer to be June, July and August; and
fall to include September, October and November, the following waste stream
is projected:
SEASONAL VARIATION OF THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
Residential
Waste Stream*
Total
Waste Stream**
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
19.9
26.5
27.5
26.2
20.6
26.2
27.2
26.0
*Percent of total residential waste stream.
**Percent of total waste stream.
4.1
4.2
5o
Q O
M Cr
LU to
8
A
•
•
Z
•
•
•
P.
FIGURE 4-1
A breakdown of the monthly variations of residential and total solid waste
follows:
MONTHLY VARIATION OF THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
Residential
Total
Residential
Total
January
February
March
April
May
Jun
83.0 79.7 July 97.2
67.0 67.7 August 110.9
91.8 93.7 September 105.8
99.9 97.8 October 105.1
125.8 123.3 November 103.7
121.4 118.8 December 88.6
97.9
109.4
105.4
104.3
101.7
100.2
Percent of
The winter
summer and
Annual Average Day.
months produce below average waste volumes, while the spring,
fall seasons produce average to above average waste volumes.
The majority of the above average waste production during the warmer nine
months of the year can be attributed to yard wastes and increased construc-
tion activities. Yard waste volumes increase dramatically during the wet
spring, taper off or decrease during the drier summer, and peak again dur-
ing fall as a result of the collection of leaves. Implementation of the
new yard waste composting project in Dubuque County should produce more
stable monthly waste volumes.
An investigation of the available solid waste information reveals the con-
stituent breakdown of the total Dubuque County solid waste stream. The
breakdown consists of residential, commercial, industrial, construction -
demolition and miscellaneous solid waste sources. Each constituent was
then broken down into the waste components. The component tonnages are
estimates based on national averages and physical studies conducted at
other state landfills. The component values in this study are heavily
weighted on the sampling results of a study conducted at the Des Moines
Metropolitan Landfill. Table 4-1 lists the composition of the solid waste
stream. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 illustrate the general compositional break-
down.
Residential waste accounts for approximately 39 percent of the solid waste
entering the Dubuque County Landfill. Much of this solid waste is
generated in the city of Dubuque and is collected by the city refuse
department. Single-family homes up to apartments are considered residen-
tial. An estimate was made for the residential portion of the waste coming
from other towns using information from the haulers of each city's waste.
The industrial -commercial waste stream accounts for approximately 45 per-
cent of the total landfill tonnage. Most communities produce commercial
4.3
TABLE 4-1
COMPOSITION OF THE SOLID WASTE STREAM
Residential Commercial/Industrial
Percent of
Percent of Total
Total Total Commercial/ Total Total
Component Residential (Tons/Yr) Industrial (Tons/Yr) (Tons/Yr)
Paper
Corrugated
Lawn/Garden
Food
Wood
Plastic
Glass
Ferrous Metal
Nonferrous Metal
Miscellaneous
35
5
24
9
2
7
3
3
1
11
9,975 39 13,105 23,080
1,425 14 4,705 6,130
6,840 3 1,010 7,850
2,565 12 4,030 6,595
570 5 1,680 2,250
1,995 11 3,695 5,690
855 3 1,010 1,865
855 5 1,680 2,535
285 1 335 620
3,135 7 2,350 5,485
TOTAL
100 28,500 100 33,600 62,100
4.4
Pun
yen
>1- Leti
Iouri
0'—.T-
O
W}
M —1 m
cy<
Z
C—a
L LI
CC
FIGURE 4-2
4.5
ca
Q
CC
cc
Z
uu
cc
Z
3
FIGURE 4-3
MIR
ina
solid waste, which is waste typically from service oriented businesses.
Industry, on the other hand, is generally found in the larger towns and
cities. Most of the industrial waste is generated by industries located in
the cities of Dubuque and Dyersville.
The remaining waste makes up approximately 16 percent of the total and
consists of construction/demolition (10 percent), dirt/gravel from street
and parking lot cleaning (4 percent) and other miscellaneous waste (2 per-
cent). Construction/demolition waste is made up of predominantly rubble
from building demolition, dirt and gravel, concrete and metal reinforce-
ment, wood, shingles and asphalt.
The Dubuque County Landfill currently processes solid
about 70,000 tons per year. The landfill has
capacity of 4,500,000 C.Y.; the landfill will have
years, depending upon cover soil availability.
waste at a rate of
an estimated remaining
a projected life of 30
Solid waste tonnages received at the landfill appear to be increasing over
the last decade. Figure 4-4 presents tonnage information from 1977 to
1989. Drawing a best fit line indicates that landfill tonnages increased
10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while census information indicates a county
population drop of 8 percent over the same period. This produces a per
capita solid waste production increase of 560 lbs./year. While it is pos-
sible that the residents of Dubuque County generate more solid waste, it is
more likely the solid waste increase is a result of other factors. An
increase in industrial activity could be one reason for the increase in
solid waste production. Another reason may be that collection efficiencies
have advanced over the last decade, resulting in service to a larger por-
tion of the population. Those people who were using alternative disposal
methods may now have solid waste collection.
Figure 4-4A is an illustration of the same information but also projects
the tonnage to the year 2000 after implementing successive solid waste
comprehensive plans.
Also noticeable on Figure 4-4 is the large variation in solid waste produc-
tion between some years. Many of these variations can be attributed to
one-time events, such as the demolition of a major building or the loss of
a large solid waste producing customer. Several events at the county land-
fill had a noticeable impact on the waste tonnage. In 1980, Interstate
Power Company discontinued disposal of fly ash at the Dubuque County Land-
fill. Other events include the disposal of petroleum and sulfur contami-
nated soil in 1989 and 1990.
Rep/Dubuque/AA5
4.7
4.6
11114
•
DUBUQUE METROPOLITAN LANDFILL
ANNUAL TONNAGE - 1977 TO 1989
80 TONNAGE (Thousands)
70-
SO
50 1 1 1 ► 1 1 ► ►
1977 1978 1970 1980 1981 1982 1988 1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989
YEAR
►
►
IWO
I't1mI
VIM
80
70
80
60
40
80
If
I r11t41 I
FIGURE 4-4
um
MUM
mime
DUBUQUE METROPOLITAN LANDFILL
ANNUAL TONNAGE - 1977 TO 2000
TONNAGE (Thousands)
77 78 7980 81 828384868887888990
YEAR
FIGURE 4-4A
94
2000
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
To implement alternatives to landfilling requires numerous considerations
which all need to be weighed into the decision -making process. To greater
or lesser degrees, economics, environmental and user ease factors all im-
pact the success of any landfill alternatives. There are various systems
in -place throughout the United States that utilize different approaches to
solid waste management that have met with varying levels of success. It
should, however, be noted that the implementation of any alternatives to
landfilling will increase the out-of-pocket costs of solid waste disposal
above those experienced currently. This may be considered a short-range
cost increase if long-term landfill related environmental costs are in-
cluded in the analysis. The implementation of an integrated solid waste
management program must, however, be considered as a new approach to solid
waste management and disposal and cannot be simply viewed as a means to
reduce costs or "make money" from solid waste disposal.
The IDNR hierarchy of solid waste management options describes several
steps toward the implementation of an integrated solid waste management
program. It provides several considerations that must be included in com-
prehensive planning. Although each system will be unique, there are ele-
ments that can be universally applied and it is safe to presume that as
landfilling alternatives are implemented, new markets and new technologies
will result out of necessity.
The following text describes various steps in the states hierarchy. The
intent is to generally describe the waste management option, its advantages
and disadvantages. It is not intended to be all inclusive or in extreme
detail due to the need for public involvement in the overall process. As
has been noted throughout the study, we believe that whatever "system" is
adopted, flexibility must be a major consideration. It is, therefore,
intended that the following descriptions provide a starting point which
will require additional development through the public information process.
WASTE REDUCTION
The first element to be considered in the integrated solid waste management
plan is waste reduction. Waste reduction education and programs at the
residential level are important and should be supported; but to have an
even greater impact on the quantity of solid waste ultimately disposed,
reduction programs must also apply to the large quantity generators.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
The DMASWA Agency should appoint an authority whose function would be to
study and quantify individual industrial, commercial and institutional
waste streams. They would then work with the generators to develop strate-
gies to reduce their waste generation. This authority could educate the
industries and businesses of the advantages of these programs. The DMASWA
authority could provide a clearinghouse function whereby waste from one
generator may serve as raw material for another. The Agency should also
5.1
serve as the information clearinghouse to provide a data base for waste
generators to implement reduction and recycling programs. This feature may
only have measurable affects for larger generators, and it is likely that
some state or regional waste exchange program may be necessary. The local
Authority could serve as the information source for such an exchange pro-
gram. This would be another low -budget, low -profile program that could be
accomplished relatively simply. Incentive to industry may be some civic
recognition, reduced waste disposal cost and potentially reduced environ-
mental liability, depending upon the material impacted.
The industries and businesses in Dubuque County should be made aware of
waste minimization programs available to them offered by the Waste Manage-
ment Authority Division of the Iowa DNR and the Iowa Waste Reduction
Center.
Waste Minimization Programs
1. Waste Reduction Assistance Program, (W.R.A.P.)
1-800-532-1114 (Recycling Hotline)
2. Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Northern Iowa
1-800-422-3109
These programs provide free, confidential, nonregulatory assistance to all
Iowa businesses and industries. The DMASWA Agency would be responsible for
getting this information to the applicable commercial/industrial
generators.
RESIDENTIAL
Even though individual residences are not major solid waste producers,
collectively they produce a significant waste volume. Waste reduction
programs at this level should be pursued. Each person's attitude toward
waste, learned at the individual level, may carry over to their place of
employment. Leaving grass clippings on the lawn, avoiding products with
excess packaging and buying food in bulk with reusable containers are
examples of what the individual can do to reduce solid waste generation.
The DMASWA has recently begun a highly visible program that encourages
waste reduction. By using the pay -for -bag method for financing the com-
posting operation, the Agency has also encouraged waste reduction.
Theoretically, the homeowner has a financial incentive to leave grass clip-
pings on the lawn or to start backyard composting.
Public education on yard waste reduction should also be started. Informa-
tion needs to be made available about the advantages of grass clippings
left on the lawn and how to start backyard composting. A few ways to "get
the word out" include putting a notice in with the residents' utility
bills, advertisement in local newspaper and enlisting the help of the
schools. There are many local media which can be used. These include:
5.2
Mass Media in Dubuque Area
1. KDUB-TV, Dubuque
2. KWWL-TV, Waterloo (Dubuque Office)
3. WDBQ/KLYV Radio, Dubuque
4. KDTH/KATF Radio, Dubuque
5. KDFX Radio, Dubuque
6. KDST Radio, Dyersville
7. Telegraph Herald Newspaper, Dubuque
8. Dubuque Leader Newspaper, Dubuque
9. Cascade Pioneer Newspaper, Cascade
10. Dyersville Commercial Newspaper, Dyersville
11. Des Moines Register (Dubuque Office)
12. Julien's Journal Magazine, Dubuque
13. Dubuque Advertiser Newspaper, Dubuque
14. Outdoor Billboards, Frank Hardie Advertising
15. Over 49 News and Views, Newspaper, Dubuque
16. City Bus Billboards, Dubuque
Since the pay -for -bag system encourages waste reduction, the city of
Dubuque and other municipalities should consider using this approach for
household solid waste. Public education promoting ways to reduce solid
waste volumes should be initiated concurrently with the volume -based rates
program.
"Variable Rates in Solid Waste - Handbook for Solid Waste Officials" is a
publication which provides a detailed analysis of variable "can" type and
"bag/tag" type systems. This publication is written by Lisa A. Skumatz,
Ph.D., and Cabell Breckinridge and is funded jointly by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 10, Solid Waste Program, and the city of
Seattle Solid Waste Utility. A copy of the order blank for this publica-
tion is in Appendix E.
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WASTES
Another waste reduction technique that has become publicized is that of
prohibition of various materials. By banning various materials from the
waste stream, several state and/or local authorities have, in essence,
provided a ban on the use of these materials. Perhaps most notable is foam
plastics. Numerous areas of the nation have banned the use of foam plas-
tics, thus resulting in a reduced waste stream directly from the foam plas-
tic product and also indirectly by the reduced waste generation from the
production of the foam plastic product. The Agency must view these
prohibitions carefully and establish a policy to inform landfill users
prior to implementation of a material ban. The Waste Reduction and
Recycling Act addresses some of these types of issues and the local efforts
to prohibit various wastes may best be handled by working with the state
programs. It is unlikely that a local prohibition of any particular mate-
rial will necessarily result in measurable environmental changes. As
5.3
state, regional and national programs develop, however, measurable benefits
may be achieved. Problems concerning funding and enforcement can be anti-
cipated for most "prohibitions," and the local authority should carefully
evaluate these factors prior to implementing any bans on a regional basis.
A list of possible source reduction programs follows:
Consumer Activities
Consumers can be encouraged to:
Compost yard waste.
Buy fewer household hazardous materials.
Buy in bulk.
Avoid disposable items.
Substitute their own nondisposable shopping
plastic bags at stores.
Repair or donate items, instead of disposing of them.
Use long-lasting, energy -efficient light bulbs.
Lobby retailers and manufacturers for availability of bulk items
and for changes in packaging.
Local Government, School and Business Activities
These institutions can:
bags for paper or
Use two-sided copiers.
User longer -life tires on vehicle fleets.
Buy in bulk, with minimum packaging.
Examine and, if necessary, change procurement practices, to maxi-
mize source reduction opportunities.
Business and Industr"- Activities
Local
businesses and industries can be encouraged to:
Disclose the environmental impact of products and packaging.
Change product design to eliminate unnecessary packaging.
Evaluate in-house source reduction opportunities that minimize the
amount and toxicity of waste that must be treated or disposed of.
As a minimum first step to encourage business and industry to
reduce waste, responsible agencies should publicize the waste
minimization programs for business and industry offered by the
Waste Management Authority Division (Iowa DNR) and the Iowa Waste
Reduction Center to every business and industry in the planning
area. These programs provide free, confidential, nonregulatory
assistance to all Iowa businesses and industries. On -site techni-
cal assistance helps each site to identify opportunities for waste
reduction. A strategy for "getting the word out" to business and
industry about these programs should be included in the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
5.4
COMPOSTING METHODS
The emphasis toward landfill avoidance, due to increased environmental
concerns, disposal facility capacities and legislation, has lead to an in-
creased interest in composting facilities. Composting is a waste reduc-
tion/recycling activity promoted as a waste management option which reduces
waste volume and produces a usable end product. Materials that can be
composted include leaves, grass clippings and other yard wastes, organic
materials separated from collected solid waste, general municipal solid
waste, food processing waste, sewage sludge or combinations of these mate-
rials. The desired rate of composting, the type and amount of material,
whether these wastes are source -separated or not, land availability and the
desired level of investment help determine
cess.
the choice of a composting pro -
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is the government body in
charge of composting regulation. A composting facility will be regulated
under one of two sets of rules. One set of rules applies to composting
only yard wastes, while a second set of rules applies to composting mixed
solid waste. Facilities composting yard wastes only must follow less
stringent regulations compared to facilities composting mixed solid waste.
For instance, yard waste only facilities do not require an operating per-
mit. Some of the rules that apply to a yard waste only facility are:
The
°
°
0
°
°
°
°
The yard waste must be debagged or bagged in a biodegradable bag.
The biodegradable bag must be opened prior to composting.
An all-weather surface shall be used for unloading.
One acre of land is necessary for every 3,000 cubic yards of yard
waste composted.
The composting site shall have a slope of 1 to 3 percent.
The site may not be located within 100 feet of an inhabitable
residence.
Finished compost must be analyzed for stability prior to public
distribution.
If compost is offered for sale, it must be registered by the De-
partment of Agriculture.
Records must be maintained to document compliance with the com-
posting regulations.
following are rules that apply to composting
• Shall require a permit.
5.5
of mixed solid waste:
o Must submit detailed design plans to IDNR.
o Composting will be done on an impervious base which has a maximum
permeability of 1x10-7 cm/sec.
• A detention basin is necessary to collect leachate, and an NPDES
permit will be required for treated leachate discharge.
o Must have specific operating requirements.
• Must draft a closure plan.
• Finished compost
heavy metals.
shall be tested for stability, pathogens and
• If finished compost is offered for sale, it must be registered by
the Department of Agriculture.
Mixed solid waste composting facilities are regulated similarly to a solid
waste landfill.
Although almost any organic material can be composted, the primary option
selected for consideration is yard waste composting. Several features
favor yard waste composting and provide justification for this approach to
waste management. Leaves are relatively easy to compost. They are easily
separated from the waste stream, produce little odor if handled properly
and generate a useful end product. Grass clippings are also easily sepa-
rated and can enhance the leaf composting process by providing nutrients.
Grass should be blended with leaves and partially composted materials to
control odors and therefore requires somewhat higher levels of operation.
Municipalities vary in size, location, quantity of yard waste generated and
availability of land suitable for compost sites. The best approach to yard
waste composting varies with application of differing levels of technology.
Small communities, rural in character, may consider supplying the waste to
farmers for animal bedding or discing into fields, the no -technology
approach. The more sophisticated methods that have been developed are
referred to as minimal-, low-, intermediate- and high-level processes.
Yard waste can also be co -composted with sewage sludge using these same
techniques. Alternatively, organic waste included in the municipal solid
waste stream can be composted using in -vessel technology.
Where time and space are not limiting, minimal technology composting may be
most appropriate. In this approach, yard wastes are heaped into large
piles or windrows and turned and reformed once a year. Each year, general-
ly in the fall, yard wastes are put into separate windrows 12 feet high and
24 feet wide. Much of the pile remains anaerobic for the full year between
turnings. Unpleasant odors can be expected prior to the first turning, and
serious odors may be released after the first turn. Therefore, a compost-
ing site using minimal technology should be relatively isolated from resi-
dential or other sensitive areas with a large buffer zone. The material
5.6
should fully decompose in approximately three years. Typically, this mini-
mal level process requires one-half acre for 3,000 cubic yards of material
for each year in processing. A front-end loader to pile and turn the
leaves is all the equipment that is necessary.
Low -Level Composting
The low-level technology process, which is currently being used in Dubuque
County, involves a slightly higher amount of handling. A more rapid com-
posting is achieved under conditions in which offensive odors are reduced.
This means ensuring adequate conditions of moisture content, oxygenation
and temperature within the windrows.
Water is added at the beginning of the process to bring moisture content up
to approximately 50 percent. It is estimated that 20 gallons of water are
needed per cubic yard of leaves. A windrow size of six to eight feet high
and 12 feet wide produces proper internal temperatures during the compost-
ing activity. After the initial microbial activity, which lasts approxi-
mately one month, two windrows can be combined into one providing aeration,
keeping the pile aerobic to reduce odors and help maintain proper tempera-
ture. A finished, stabilized compost is produced in approximately 16 to 18
months. Shredding and screening are optional steps that can improve the
physical quality and appearance of the final product but also require in-
creased capital and labor costs. Turning of the windrows can be done with
a front-end loader or a windrow turning machine. A rough estimate is that
one acre is needed for 3,000 to 3,500 cubic yards of leaves. Additional
area is needed for completion and storage of the previous year's material
and a buffer zone.
Intermediate -Level Composting
In intermediate -level composting, the low-level process is improved to
speed up the rate of composting. Municipalities or regional centers deal-
ing with larger volumes of waste can improve the rate of decomposition by
turning the windrows more frequently and adding moisture when necessary.
Weekly turnings are generally used which justifies a windrow turning
machine. The finished product is available in approximately four to six
months. By completing composting in less than one year, storage of unfin-
ished and stabilized compost is less of a problem and site size can be
reduced. There are increased capital costs due to the special machinery
and the required on -site water service. A county or group of communities
may consider operating a windrow turner to service several communities,
trucking the machine to different sites and thus spreading out the invest-
ment.
High -Level Composting
The high level technology leaf composting process may also be desirable due
to space constraints. It involves forced aeration of the windrows with
blowers which are often controlled by a temperature feedback system to
ensure near optimum temperatures while maintaining aerobic conditions.
5.7
PR
Wetting at the start is necessary. The blowers are removed and mechanical
turning begins after about one month. A moderate size buffer zone is rec-
ommended. The benefit is that composting can be completed in less than one
year so space for each year's waste is reusable unless storage is needed.
Intermediate and high level sites can be developed into large operations to
handle leaf waste each fall, yard waste from spring to fall or co -compost-
ing of these wastes with sewage sludge year round. This would generally
require full-time employees and higher capital costs for buildings and
other site improvements such as on -site water and leachate control systems.
It is estimated that leaves and yard wastes comprise 24 percent by weight
of Dubuque County's annual residential waste stream and 3 percent of the
commercial/industrial waste stream. This indicates that in F.Y. 1988-1989,
the landfill received 6,840 tons of yard waste from the residential sector
and 1,008 tons from the commercial/industrial sector of Dubuque County, for
a total of approximately 7,850 tons of yard waste, or 10 percent of the
total waste stream.
Leaves are estimated to weigh 250 to 450 pounds per cubic yard and grass
clippings slightly higher. A value of 450 pounds per cubic yard is used
for all yard wastes. The total volume of yard waste at the landfill during
F.Y. 1988-1989 would then be approximately 35,000 cubic yards. Composting
regulations require that one acre of land be used for every 3,000 cubic
yards of yard waste. So if Dubuque County anticipates the yard waste ton-
nage to remain consistent with past years, a 12-acre site would be neces-
sary.
It is expected, however, that only a portion of the waste volume generated
within the county will be taken to the composting facility. Many of the
small communities will operate under separate yard waste processing plans.
Also, it is likely that more homeowners will leave grass clippings on the
lawn because of the higher disposal costs. Therefore, a site smaller than
12 acres will be adequate.
IOWA DNR GRANT
The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (DMASWA) received a
$100,000 grant from the IDNR to operate and study a composting site during
F.Y. 1990-1991 (July 1, 1990-June 30, 1991). The composting site, located
at the Metropolitan Landfill, was designed and approved by IDNR in June.
The initial composting area is approximately 3.5 acres, which can be
expanded if more area is needed.
The composting facility is located at the Metropolitan Landfill. Opera-
tions began on July 1, 1990. The facility will accept grass clippings,
leaves, brush and other organic lawn/garden wastes. It will be operated by
existing landfill personnel; however, it was necessary to hire an addition-
al operator. Equipment purchased for operations at the compost site in-
clude a Scat Model 482B compost turner for $39,750.00 and an Olathe Model
865 tub grinder for $66,500.00. Other equipment purchases that may be
5.8
necessary before the first finished compost is ready is a screen that may
cost between $60,000.00 and $90,000.00.
The composting costs will be covered directly by the residents producing
the yard waste. The landfill will charge a $15.00 per ton tipping fee for
those people hauling yard waste directly to the landfill and the city of
Dubuque will use a pay -for -bag volume -based approach for those customers
leaving yard waste at the curb.
Residents within the city of Dubuque will be required to use degradable
plastic bags for lawn and garden wastes. These bags are sold at local
stores for $0.50 each. One requirement of the IDNR composting grant
requires the study of this plastic bag's characteristics under composting
conditions. At the end of one year, an evaluation will be made whether to
continue the use of the degradable plastic or to switch to using paper
bags. Brush will be bundled and tied using a six-foot sissal rope "Brush
Tie" that will cost $1.00 each and will be distributed the same way as the
plastic bags.
Yard waste will be collected in the city from April 15 to November 30. The
city will use packer trucks owned by the city which are normally held in
reserve for regular refuse collection. The yard waste will be picked up on
the same days that the regular refuse is collected. Each crew collecting
yard waste will collect from three refuse routes. Four new seasonal
employees were hired to make up the extra labor.
The following are the results of yard waste collections from July through
November, 1990.
Yard Waste
Processed
(Tons)
July August September October November
114.26
146.64 125.53
254.23 358.35
Also delivered to the composting site during this time period was 358 tons
of brush from private citizens. The composting facility received a total
of 2,357 tons of yard waste. The composting operation has not been open
long enough to produce definitive data, so no assumptions or projections
have been made from this yard waste tonnage data.
Christmas trees will be recycled in a voluntary drop-off site collection in
the city of Dubuque. Trees will be chipped into "Merry Mulch" and returned
to the public for use in flower beds.
The sanitary landfill will remain open for yard waste composting all year
long.
5.9►
d Solid Waste Composting
Ind
Solid waste composting is similar to lawn/garden waste composting. Both
may use the same technology, static pile, windrow and in -vessel, and both
take advantage of biological decomposition as a means to stabilize the
material. Mixed solid waste, however, is more difficult to compost due to
the diversity of organic material. Mixed solid waste must also be pro-
cessed before composting to remove the inorganic material such as glass,
metals and plastic. Composting mixed solid waste utilizes three major
steps: processing, composting, and curing and distribution.
PROCESSING
Processing is the first major step in composting MSW, which starts with
recycling. A recycling program will remove many of the inorganic materials
before reaching the composting facility. Glass, plastic and metals are
common physical contaminants in mixed solid waste compost, many of which
would be removed by a recycling program. It is easier and more efficient
to remove the recyclables at the source rather than hand picking at the
front end. Many composting systems pulverize or chop the solid waste prior
to the composting process. If contaminants such as glass go through this
process, it becomes very difficult to remove them from the finished compost
material.
Front-end processing follows recycling. First bulk items, non-
compostables, such as white goods, rugs, textiles are removed from the
organic material. Then the remaining solid waste is pulverized or shredded
to reduce the particle size. This increases the surface area which results
in more thorough mixing and enhances the environment for the micro-
biological organisms. Size reduction also improves the handling charac-
teristics.
Many systems incorporate magnetic separation in the processing step. Mag-
nets remove most of the ferrous metal remaining after the recycling and
front-end hand picking stage. Plastic, glass and nonferrous metal con-
taminants are still a problem.
Composting is the biological breakdown of organic material. The rate at
which the solid waste decomposes depends on the method of composting. The
in -vessel composting method, for example, optimizes environmental condi-
tions for the biological organisms. With less intensive methods such as
windrow composting, the conditions are not optimum, resulting in slower
decomposition.
Unlike yard waste, mixed solid waste is made up of a wide range of organic
material. The various components in mixed solid waste decompose at dif-
ferent rates. The degradation process may involve a succession of organ-
isms utilizing the byproducts of other organisms. If the waste material
lacks required nutrients for any of the variety of organisms or contains a
contaminant which would inhibit the organisms, total decomposition will be
hindered.
5.10
There are three common solid waste composting methods: 1) in -vessel, 2)
aerated static pile, and 3) windrow. The method used in any particular
situation depends upon land availability and, in part, by the makeup of the
solid waste.
In -vessel composting requires the least amount of land and composting time
of the three methods. This is a system where the material to be composted
is enclosed in a chamber or vessel in which adequate mixing, aeration and
moisture control are provided. The environmental conditions of an in -
vessel system can be carefully controlled resulting in rapid decomposition.
Actual composting time is between one and two weeks.
Aerated static pile composting takes place on open land. Moisture and
nutrients are added to the processed mixed solid waste which is then placed
in piles on a network of aeration pipes. The pipes are connected to a
blower which supplies the air necessary for composting. The air circulat-
ing in the compost piles provides the needed oxygen for the composting
microbes and also prevents excessive heat build-up in the pile.
The aerated static pile system is generally less capital intensive than
either an in -vessel system or a windrow system. However, there are con-
tinuous energy costs from supplying air to the compost piles.
Windrow composting is the most land intensive of the three methods. The
mixed solid waste is formed into a windrow pile, triangular in shape. The
windrows are normally 10 feet high and 15 feet wide.
Aeration is accomplished by turning the windrow. The more frequently the
windrow is turned in conjunction with moisture and temperature considera-
tions dictates the rate of decomposition. Turning machines used in lawn/
garden waste composting can also be used with mixed solid waste windrow
composting.
Land Requirements
Time and land requirements for a composting facility are inter -related
factors. An increased composting time results in the need for land to
accommodate the incoming waste. Each of the three mentioned composting
methods have different composting times and, therefore, variable land
requirements. In -vessel composting requires the least amount of time,
followed by aerated static pile, then windrow composting. Composting times
and land requirements for each of the three systems are listed in Table
5-4.
5.11
a•�
MgI
TABLE 5-4
COMPOSTING TIMES AND LAND REQUIREMENTS
Composting
Method
Composting
Time
(Months)
Curing
Time
(Months)
Total
Time
(Months)
Land
Requirement
(Acres)
In -Vessel 0.25-0.5
Aerated Static 1.5-3
Pile
Windrow 2-6
0.5-1.5
0.5-1.5
0.5-1.5
0.75-2
2-4.5
2.5-7.5
*Based
**Based
Waste
on manufacturer's literature.
on 3,000 C.Y. raw solid waste per acre (Unit Weight of Solid
450 Lbs./C.Y.).
To keep unwanted material out of the compost operation, front-end removal
of contaminants should be included in the integrated program. Many of the
noncompostable materials can be removed using a recycling program. Manual
and mechanical methods must then be used to remove the remaining contami-
nants. The following table shows an estimated projected waste stream prior
to recycling and front-end removal of composting contaminants.
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE STREAM
Residential
(Tons/Year)
Commercial/
Industrial
(Tons/Year)
Total
(Tons/Year)
Paper
Corrugated
Plastic
Food
Wood
Lawn/Garden
Ferrous
Nonferrous
Glass
Miscellaneous
9,975
1,425
1,995
2,565
570
6,840
855
285
855
3,135
13,105
4,705
3,695
4,030
1,680
1,010
1,680
335
1,010
2,350
23,080
6,130
5,690
6,600
2,250
7,850
2,530
620
1,860
5,490
(From 1989 landfill data.) (Rounded to nearest 10 tons.)
5.12
If recycling removes 65 percent of the recyclable materials and 80 percent
of composting contaminants are removed at the front-end, the following
table is the remaining solid waste to be composted:
MSW COMPOSTING WASTE
STREAM
Front -End
Removal
(Recycling)
Total (Tons/Year)
Contaminants
Removal
(Tons/Year)
Remaining to
be Composted
(Tons/Year)
Paper
Corrugated
Plastic
Food
Wood
Lawn/Garden
Ferrous
Nonferrous
Glass
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
23,080
6,130
5,690
6,600
2,250
7,850
2,530
620
1,860
5,490
15,000
3,985
3,700
0
0
7,850
1,645
400
1,210
3,570
100% Removal of Ferrous Metals
Lawn/Garden To Be Composted Separately
0 8,080
0 2,145
1,590 400
0 6,600
0 2,250
0 0
885 0
175 45
520 130
1,535 385
20,035 TPY
The yearly tonnage to be composted is estimated to be 20,035 tons/year.
The average month would then be 1,670 tons. It is assumed that the yard
waste composting system currently running will continue and will not be
incorporated with solid waste composting.
The composting land requirements are based on the average month tonnage.
In -vessel composting, unlike windrow or static pile composting, needs land
area primarily for curing. Because of the rapid decomposition involved
with in -vessel composting, the vessel itself has minimal land requirements.
According to manufacturer's literature, a 100-ton per day facility would
require approximately eight acres of land.
Land area for aerated static pile composting is greater than for in -vessel.
More lard is necessary because of the longer composting time, in addition
to curing time. Depending on operational conditions, the necessary land
area could reach 20 acres.
5.13
mai
As would be expected, the land area necessary for windrow composting is
greater than the other two methods. More space is needed, again, because
of the longer composting time. Up to 30 acres may be needed if Dubuque
County were to use this type of composting system.
There are two major considerations involved with choosing a composting
system: siting and operational costs. In high population areas, the
deciding factor may be siting. If land area is scarce, an in -vessel system
may be the only reasonable alternative. In rural areas, like Dubuque
County, land suitable for composting is more plentiful; therefore, the
selection of a composting system is based more on costs.
The costs involved with an in -vessel composting system are somewhat higher
than the other two systems. According to a manufacturer of an in -vessel
system, a 100-ton per day facility will have a capital cost of $8 million,
plus eight acres of land. The annual operation and maintenance (0&M) cost
is about $1.2 million, which does not include landfilling rejected materi-
al. Financing the capital costs over a 10-year period at a 10 percent
interest rate results in an annual capital cost of $1.3 million. The
annual capital cost plus the 0&M cost results in an annual cost of $2.5
million. Assuming that the facility will receive compost 312 days per
year, the resulting cost is approximately $80.00 per ton processed.
Aerated Static Pile
The second composting method examined is aerated static pile. The costs
for this method are somewhat less than with the in -vessel method; however,
more land area is also needed. Estimated costs were obtained from a sup-
plier of a packaged static pile system. The estimated cost would be
greater than $70.00 per ton, depending on the effectiveness of the recycl-
ing program. If recycling removes a large portion of the composting con-
taminants, such as plastics and metals, from the waste stream, the costs
for front-end hand sorting would be reduced.
Windrow composting is a low technology composting technique compared to the
other two composting methods. This type of operation would be run similar
to the existing yard waste composting system. Since suitable land is
likely available, the windrow composting method would probably be Dubuque
County's most cost effective composting option. Excluding front-end hand
picking, the following is a cost breakdown for windrow composting.
20,035 Tons/Year/450 Lbs./C.Y. = 89,050 C.Y./Year
The operation of a mixed solid waste composting site requires the use of
several pieces of equipment. Where smaller operations can improvise when
it comes to equipment, a large operation must use equipment specially de-
signed to perform necessary tasks. The large operations must optimize
labor and machinery use to improve efficiency. The front-end loader is
used for a variety of tasks. Among these are windrow formation and com-
bination, compost turning, moving compost to screening and transferring
5.14
compost to the curing area. A new front-end loader is estimated to cost
approximately $60,000.00.
Proper composting requires turning on a regular basis. The amount of turn-
ing dictates how rapidly the raw material converts to finished compost. A
compost turner is usually a machine which is attached to and powered by the
front-end loader or a farm tractor. Also on the market are self-propelled
turning machines which do not need the aid of a front-end loader. A turn-
ing machine would cost about $50,000.00.
COMPOST PRODUCT
The compost material must be broken down into a fine soil -like texture
before it can be distributed. If the material to be composted consists of
grass and leaves only, the operation of turning will produce an end product
of sufficient quality for public distribution. Mixed solid waste facili-
ties, however, may receive substantial quantities of diverse organic mate-
rials which require shredding and mixing before composting. Compost is
often shredded both at the beginning and end of the process. Several manu-
facturers of shredding equipment were contacted to determine approximate
costs. Shredding equipment costs for a typical facility were estimated at
$90,000.00.
The end product should be screened before it is distributed for use. The
screening process removes clumps of non -composted material along with rocks
and other debris. The material not passing the screen can be returned to
the composting operation if it is organic or landfilled. A screen capable
of processing 100 C.Y./Hr is estimated to cost about $104,000.00.
The machinery previously described makes up the list of the major equipment
necessary to operate a composting facility. A summary of the machinery and
the corresponding cost is listed in Table 5-5.
TABLE 5-5
ANNUAL EQUIPMENT COST
Item Capital Cost ($)
2 Front -End Loaders
Turner
Shredder
Screen
Total
$130,000
55,000
100,000
115,000
$400,000
Total Annual Equipment Cost
(Amortized over 10 years at 10%) $65,100
5.15
Poi
rn
LAND
The land requirement for a compost facility is based on the volume of waste
that can be put on a parcel of land while maintaining space for operation.
A windrow composting site would require about 30 acres of land. After
including a 150-foot buffer zone the total land requirement is 48 acres.
In Iowa, land is plentiful and costs much less than in many urban areas.
Iowa land costs average approximately $2,000.00 per acre. So, a 48-acre
site is estimated to cost $96,000.00.
Before composting can begin, improvements must be made to the land. One of
the first improvements is the preparation of the soil into an impermeable
layer. A clay layer or sometimes asphalt is constructed to deter leachate
from entering the groundwater. Other improvements include a drainage
system, a watering system (usually a well) to wet the composting material,
access roads and a fence and gate. Typical land development costs are
estimated to be $4,000.00 per acre. Since the actual composting takes
place in a 30-acre area the land improvement cost was computed on this area
and was determined to be $120,000.00.
Both land and land improvement costs total $216,000.00. If capital is
obtained at 10 percent over a 10-year period, the resulting annual land
cost is approximately $35,200.00.
EQUIPMENT
A large composting operation uses specialized equipment that remains on
site full-time. Buildings should be constructed for storage and mainten-
ance of the machinery. Since employees are there full-time, buildings for
offices, gate hcuses and scale houses are also needed. To accommodate
these needs for Dubuque's facility, a total building expenditure of
approximately $260,000.00 is anticipated.
A scale is necessary at a large compost site. If private haulers are to be
charged a tipping fee, some means of measurement must be provided. A scale
also provides weight information for record keeping which plays a major
role in site operation optimization. An average modern scale can be con-
structed on -site for about $30,000.00. The total annual cost for scale and
buildings is $47,200.00 over 10 years and 10 percent interest.
To assure that a composting facility runs efficiently, it is important to
maintain adequate staff. A large facility of this type requires a full-
time front-end loader operator and five full-time facility operators.
Labor costs are summarized in Table 5-6.
Other miscellaneous costs involve insurance, legal fees, gas and oil,
water, supplies, electricity, maintenance and disposal of non-compostable
materials. These items are estimated to cost about $40,000.00 per year.
5.16
The total annual costs involved for the composting operation are summed up
in Table 5-7.
A composting site has an annual cost of $432,000.00. This results in a
cost of $4.85 per cubic yard, and assuming the waste has a density of 450
Lbs/C.Y., a cost of $21.55 per ton.
IDNR regulations, in many ways, treat solid waste composting sites similar-
ly to solid waste landfills. The following quantifies some of the added
costs as applied to a 40-acre site, which would result from conforming to
the regulations
COST FOR 40-ACRE SITE
Engineering - Land Development
Legal - Land Development
Hydrogeologic Report
Monitoring Wells
Clay Liner - 129,000 C.Y. @ $3.50
Leachate Collection System - 18,000 L.F. @ $7.00
TOTAL
Annual Cost (Amortized Over 10 Years, 10%)
$ 20,000.00
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
451,500.00
126,000.00
$717,500.00
$116,800.00
Other Annual Costs
Groundwater Monitoring
Leachate Treatment
Insurance
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
- 8 Wells @ $400.00 $ 3,200.00
5,000.00
50,000.00
$ 58,200.00
$175,000.00
TABLE 5-6
LABOR REQUIREMENTS
FOR A SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATION
Labor Description
Hourly Wage
(Inc. Benefits)
($/Hr)
Total
Hours
(Hr)
Annual
Cost
($)
Scale Attendant
Front -End Loader
(5) Full -Time Laborers
Equipment Repair
Total Annual Labor Cost
$ 8.75
12.50
8.75
$ 2,500
2,500
2,500
$ 21,875
31,250
109,375
4,000
$166,500
5.17
TABLE 5-7
ANNUAL COSTS FOR A
SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATION
Item
Annual Cost
($/Yr)
Equipment
Land -Land Improvements
Buildings
Labor
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Contingencies
(10% of subtotal)
Engineering/Overhead
(12% of subtotal)
Total Annual Compost Cost
$ 65,100
35,200
47,200
166,500
40.000
$354,000
35,500
42.500
$432,000
Accepting that the cost is proportionate to the site size, conforming to
the regulations would add $131,000.00, or $6.55 per ton, to the windrow
facility. These extra costs were already added into the cost estimates for
aerated static pile and in -vessel. These added costs would increase the
cost for windrow composting to $28.10 per ton processed.
Because of uncertain liabilities and the high costs involved with mixed
solid waste composting, this option should be examined in great depth prior
to acceptance.
RECYCLING
The second step in the IDNR hierarchy is recycling, which is the reuse of
natural resources and man-made products. Recycling is a logical process
which reuses waste materials to produce new raw materials and products,
thus recycling can occur only when waste materials are made into new
products and purchased. Limited recycling is already common in the indus-
trial sector where scrap from manufacturing processes is collected and
reused. It is in the commercial, institutional, and residential waste
streams where concentration on recycling of post -consumer wastes should be
increased. We have become accustomed to throwing away waste materials
5.18
because of the ease and relatively low cost. We can, however, be retrained
to recycle which is exemplified by the success of Iowa's Bottle Bill. An
examination of collection, transportation, materials processing and market-
ing, as they pertain to Dubuque County's recycling possibilities for com-
mercial, institutional and residential waste, was conducted.
There are several incentives which make recycling a viable waste disposal
activity and which support its inclusion in the comprehensive solid waste
plan. Incentives to recycle include:
1. Preserve Natural Resources
2. Landfill Avoidance
3. Reduce Disposal Costs
4. High Value of Some Recyclables
Recycling is widely supported. It is almost universally accepted that our
natural resources should be preserved for future generations. If recycling
can be shown to significantly affect the preservation of natural resources
for the future, participation in recycling programs should increase.
Landfill avoidance is a second incentive. The removal of materials from
the solid waste stream for recycling reduces the volume of waste placed in
the landfill, thereby extending the life of the landfill.
A third incentive deals with the cost of disposal, which depends on the
nature of the waste, the location where the wastes are produced and the
regulations governing permissible disposal practices. Disposal costs for
industrial generators typically are reduced by recycling, but costs to
individuals for recycling post -consumer wastes, may actually increase, at
least in the short-term.
The final major incentive is materials costs. In general, materials of
high unit cost, non-ferrous metals for example, are recycled simply because
the recycling costs are usually lower than the costs of buying and refining
the raw materials. Materials of low unit cost, such as newspaper, are
recycled when disposal costs are high. Recycling of valuable materials is
already commonly done voluntarily by industry and individuals. The govern-
ing authority must address the issue of recycling less valuable materials
from the post -consumer commercial, institutional and residential waste
streams, even if at an economic loss, to keep wastes out of landfills and
to meet the mandated goals. Some of these materials can, however, provide
revenue to help offset the expense of collection, transportation and pro-
cessing.
Recyclable materials in the commercial, institutional and residential waste
streams typically include paper and cardboard, ferrous and nonferrous
metals, plastics and glass. When products or packaging made from these
materials reach the consumer and, eventually, the end of its useful life,
it is discarded along with an almost infinite variety of other products and
5.19
PIM
rq
materials. It is the mixture of materials which causes difficulties in the
return of post -consumer wastes to industry, as small quantities of impuri-
ties in many recyclable materials can render them valueless. The commer-
cial waste stream typically consists of a large fraction of uncontaminated,
recyclable materials which are both readily identifiable and easily
separated. The residential waste stream, if processed initially at the
individual homeowner level, could also be separated into various com-
ponents. The county should consider the advantages and disadvantages of
source separated waste when implementing a recycling plan.
MARKETING
To have a successful recycling program, the material must not only be col-
lected but must also be marketed. If recycling is continued as a solid
waste management option, the authority will need to establish long-term
contracts with materials markets.
The law of supply and demand is apparent in secondary materials markets.
Where recycling has become mandatory, secondary materials markets often
become glutted and it costs additional monies to get materials to more
distant markets or fees are charged to accept the materials. The supply
and demand must be considered in conjunction with one another, and any
recycling program should not only encourage the supply but also the demand,
the purchase of products made from recycled materials. Another element of
the demand side of recycling will be the development of new markets for
secondary materials.
The supply side of recycling may be considered on a continuum. The typical
homeowner will support recycling if it is shown to be significantly advan-
tageous either economically or environmentally. As mentioned, it does not
appear from current programs that the economic advantages can be shown in
short-range costs. It will probably cost additional money to recycle. It
appears, however, that the long-range costs of recycling when incorporated
in the integrated solid waste plan can be justified.
A curbside recycling program in Dubuque County could collect the following
recyclables:
1. Milk and Beverage Containers
2. Glass - All Three Colors
3. Steel Cans
depending on current local markets and marketing agreements.
There are current local markets for paper, cardboard, metals, plastics and
glass. Current market conditions were derived from published regional data
and surveys of scrap handlers and purchasers, Table 5-14.
5.20
Paper
There is a local market for paper, but this market fluctuates rapidly.
Paper is recovered in a variety of grades, including bond papers, mixed
office papers and newsprint. To get the highest market prices, paper needs
to be sorted and free of contaminants. Corrugated is also recycled local-
ly.
There is a potential for marketing newsprint as animal bedding in the study
area.
Ferrous Metals - Nonferrous Metals
Both ferrous and nonferrous metals are also recycled within the study area.
Scrap dealers will purchase various grades of these metals, which depends
on separation into the various types of metal. In particular, ferrous
metals should be kept separate from nonferrous metals.
Plastics
Plastics are currently being recycled within the state of Iowa. The most
commonly recycled plastics are HDPE and PET. HDPE is used in milk con-
tainers and a variety of other products. PET plastics are used in beverage
containers. Research and commercial experience indicate that plastic
beverage containers will become a major recyclable material in curbside
programs in the near future. Plastics have a high value and are readily
and economically reclaimed. Iowa currently has a beverage redemption law
which includes PET containers. Until recently, Iowa landfilled 93 percent
of these already separated containers; however, H.F. 753 addresses this
issue and prohibits iandfilling of beverage containers by a dealer, dis-
tributor, manufacturer or redemption center after July 1, 1990.
Out -of -State Beverage Containers
The Dubuque waste stream contains a significant quantity of beverage con-
tainers from Illinois and Wisconsin which are not subject to the deposit
requirements in Iowa. These may provide some short-term economic recover-
able metals.
Action has also been taken on foam plastics manufactured with chlorofluoro-
carbons. House File 753 calls for the complete elimination of plastic foam
packaging containing chlorofluorocarbons by January 1, 1990, and eliminat-
ing these foam plastic products not previously prohibited by January 1,
1998.
Glass
Glass
glass
markets exist to an extent locally and in surrounding states.
buyers insist on color separated material. They also maintain a
5.21
Most
two -
tiered price structure in which they pay significantly more for waste glass
bottles from redemption centers than they pay for curbside -collected mate-
rial.
Miscellaneous
Other miscellaneous items that can be recycled include motor oil, waste
tires, lead -acid batteries and household batteries which have redemption
value if handled properly. Locations for oil and lead -acid battery dispos-
al listed in Table 5-14 are located in the Dubuque metropolitan area.
Outlying communities should establish and publish locations for disposal of
special wastes, which include not only oil and lead -acid batteries but also
waste tires, household batteries and household hazardous wastes. Even if
the collection of these items is unprofitable, they should still be removed
to protect the waste stream and environment from contamination. These
items are also directly addressed in the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act.
Current market prices for the East Central U.S. region are listed in Table
5-13. A spot check in markets in and around the Dubuque area is summarized
in Table 5-14. Market prices locally are consistent with the regional
prices.
METHODS OF COLLECTION
There are a variety of methods to retrieve residential recyclables from the
solid waste stream. Recycling programs span from voluntary neighborhood
drop-off centers to mandatory source separation programs with six to eight
separate materials. All of the programs have shown varying levels of
success, which are relative to the type of recycling program.
Drop -Off Centers
A drop-off center is one of the simplest forms of voluntary recycling.
Operation of this program involves voluntary participation by residents to
drop-off recyclables at a prearranged location. Other volunteers gather
the materials for processing and marketing. One example of this type of
program is the Boy Scout paper drive where the local troop runs the recycl-
ing effort. Financially, the drop-off program is attractive. Capital and
operation costs to the city are minimal because the program is run almost
entirely on a voluntary basis or by private enterprise. There are, how-
ever, drawbacks. Theft and vandalism are not uncommon to an unprotected
drop-off center. Because accumulation and transportation of the recyclable
materials to the drop-off location is an inconvenience, this type of
recycling program typically has a low participation rate resulting in a low
solid waste diversion rate.
A drop-off program is currently operating at Econo Food supermarkets in the
city of Dubuque. The Dubuque Audubon Society, Sierra Society and the
Mississippi River Revival jointly operate the facility. The drop-off
center is open every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and accepts milk
jugs, newspaper, aluminum, glass and ferrous metals.
5.22
The Telegraph Herald, a local Dubuque newspaper, financially supports the
old newspaper recycling at the drop-off center. The newspaper is shipped
to FSC Paper Company in Alslip, Illinois. The Telegraph Herald also
purchases raw feedstock with recycled content from the same company.
The Telegraph Herald also supports the recycling effort by providing adver-
tising space in the newspaper. The 6 1/2-inch by 14 1/2-inch space pro-
vides information on materials being recycled in the area and the partici-
pating vendors accepting the materials. The bottom of the advertisement
gives more details on how to process the recyclables prior to taking them
to the vendors. A sample of this advertisement is in Appendix C.
The Dubuque Boy Scout Troop, Troop #11, is also active in a recycling pro-
gram. The troop makes a collection on the second Saturday of every month
and is located at the old Sears store parking lot, Dubuque. They collect
newspaper, cardboard, glass, aluminum, steel cans and milk jugs.
The cities of Epworth and Dyersville also provide some drop-off site
recycling in their communities.
Voluntary Curbside
Another voluntary recycling program utilizes curbside separation. This
process involves asking each residence within a neighborhood to separate
recyclables from other trash and set it out to be picked up either concur-
rently with the other trash or on a separate pick-up day. If the
recyclables are collected at the same time as the other trash, they must be
kept separated using specially designed vehicles and/or trailers. The
implementation of a curbside recycling program can be expensive. This type
of program involves extra man-hours for collection, upgrading or purchasing
of equipment such as vehicles and special trash containers, and an extra
materials handling step at a recycling processing facility. One benefit
received from a curbside program is increased participation. A well organ-
ized and operated program can expect voluntary participation rates as high
as 30 percent. It is reported that homeowners are encouraged to partici-
pate in the program by their neighbors; they want to avoid the stigma of
being the neighborhood's nonrecycler.
Currently, none of the cities in Dubuque County provide curbside recycling.
5.23
TABLE 5-13
CURRENT REGIONAL MARKET RATES FOR RECYCLABLES
(EAST -CENTRAL U.S., JULY, 1990)
Paper $/Ton. Baled. Relatively Contaminant Free
Newspaper
Corrugated
Mixed Waste Paper
Computer Printout
White Ledger
Magazine
Ferrous metals S/Gross Ton
Bundled #1 Steel 120
Steel/Tin Cans Clean 115
Aluminum
0-10
10-20
0
80-125
60-100
0
Processors $/Lb. End Users S/Lb.
Beverage Cans 0.28
Other Scrap 0.25 0.44
Copper $/Lb.
0.36 0.52
#1 0.70 0.75
#2 0.58 0.65
Brass
Red
Yellow
Plastic
$/Lb.
0.42 0.50
0.3 0.40
$/Lb. Baled in Large Quantities
Clear PET 0.05 - 0.10
Green PET 0.03 - 0.10
Mixed PET 0.06 - 0.10
HDPE 0.03 - 0.08
PET and HDPE Mix 0.04 - 0.05
Mixed Rigid Containers 0.04 - 0.06
Glass
Clear
Brown
Green
Mixed
8/Ton Processors $/Ton End Users
20-30 50 - 75
20-30 50 - 75
20-30 50
0 0
5.24
TABLE 5-14
SURVEY OF DUBUQUE AREA SCRAP AND
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS BUYERS
Material
Market
Location
Ferrous and Non-
ferrous Metals
Paper*
Corrugated
Plastic
(Milk Jugs)
HDPE
Glass
Alter Scrap Processing
Blum Company
East Dubuque Recycling
Econo Foods
Alter Scrap Processing
East Dubuque Recycling
Boy Scout Troops
Econo Foods
Swiss Valley Dairy
Econo Foods
Alter Scrap Processing
East Dubuque Recycling
Boy Scout Troops
Econo Foods
Oil Big 10 Minute Lube
Lead Acid
Batteries
The Battery Center
Dubuque
Dubuque
East Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
East Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
East Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
Dubuque
*Black and White Ledger; Computer; Newspaper.
Recyclables, including paper, corrugated, plastic, ferrous metals, nonfer-
rous metals and glass, at a typical residence are approximately 65 percent
reclaimable and 35 percent nonreclaimable. A 30 percent participation rate
in a voluntary curbside separation recycling program, therefore, results in
a 20 percent diversion of the recyclable residential waste stream, or 10
percent of the total residential solid waste stream. Because of the fixed
costs involved with curbside separation, it may be more practical to imple-
ment a program that would increase the participation rate, such as a manda-
tory curbside separation program.
5.25
Mandatory Curbside
Mandatory curbside separation is essentially the same as the voluntary
system, except participation in the program is mandated by a law or ordi-
nance. As in the voluntary program, the homeowner is required to separate
recyclables and nonrecyclables. The separation can be into numerous com-
ponents, depending upon the markets and individual program requirements.
However, if the separation requires more than two to three components,
accuracy falls off, along with participation due to frustration on the
homeowner's part.
Success of the program depends upon the cooperation of the residents. If
materials can be separated solely as "recycle" and "nonrecycle," the home-
owner's job is simplified, resulting in higher participation rates. The
recyclables can then be transported to a processing facility where they can
be sorted. Participation rates approaching 80 percent are common when the
system is kept simple.
Processing costs can be reduced by requiring the resident to separate the
recyclables, which usually results in lower participation rates. If the
homeowner is required to do the separation, time must be provided to phase -
in the program. Initially, newsprint, plastic, glass and metals could be
required. Other elements could be added in the future after public aware-
ness and education programs have been promulgated.
Another factor to be considered in the
material that will need to be processed.
time period to minimize confusion so
cessors will have time to change their
sudden flow of materials.
mandatory program is the volume of
A program should have a phase -in
that collectors and recycling pro -
systems and be able to react to the
No city in Dubuque County currently requires mandatory curbside recycling.
Hypothetical Example - Dubuque County
Table 5-15 depicts anticipated results in Dubuque County from the previous-
ly described recycling programs.
Effective diversion rates were calculated based on recoverable recyclable
material comprising 65 percent of the recyclable waste stream. The parti-
cipation rates used were 15 percent for a drop-off center, 30 percent for a
voluntary curbside program and 80 percent for a mandatory curbside program.
The expected diversion quantities for each recyclable material for each of
the three recycling scenarios are listed in Table 5-15. The less intense
recycling programs, drop-off centers and voluntary curbside have an insig-
nificant impact on the total waste stream. Even mandatory recycling of
residential wastes will divert only 7,700 tons per year, or 10 percent of
the total waste stream.
5.26
A recycling program removing paper, corrugated, plastic, glass and metals
from the residential waste stream when added to the existing lawn and
garden composting operation produces the following diversion rates:
RECYCLING DIVERSION RATES
Recycling Method
Total Tonnage
% of Residential % of Total
Drop -Off
Voluntary Curbside
Mandatory Curbside
9,390
10,930
15,550
33
38
55
13
15
21
Includes recycling and elimination of lawn/garden waste.
TABLE 5-15A
DIVERSION BY RECYCLING METHOD
(DROP OFF)
Percent of
of Total
Component Residential
Total
Generated
(Tons/Year)
Quantity
Recovery Participation Recycled
Rate (%) Rate (%) (Tons/Year)
Paper* 35
Corrugated 5
Lawn/Garden 24
Food 9
Wood 2
Plastic 7
Glass 3
Ferrous Metal 3
Nonferrous Metal 1
Miscellaneous 11
9,975
1,425
6,840
2,565
570
1,995
855
855
285
3,135
65
65
65
65
65
65
15
15
15
15
15
15
998
143
200
86
86
29
TOTAL
28,500
1,542
*Paper includes colored and white ledger, computer and newspaper.
Assumptions: 1. 65% of recyclable material is recoverable.
2. Effective Diversion Rate - 10%.
5.27
TABLE 5-15B
DIVERSION BY RECYCLING METHOD
(VOLUNTARY CURBSIDE)
Percent of
of Total
Component Residential
Total
Generated
(Tons/Year)
Quantity
Recovery Participation Recycled
Rate (%) Rate (%) (Tons/Year)
Paper* 35
Corrugated 5
Lawn/Garden 24
Food 9
Wood 2
Plastic 7
Glass 3
Ferrous Metal 3
Nonferrous Metal 1
Miscellaneous 11
9,975 65
1,425 65
6,840
2,565
570
1,995 65
855 65
855 65
285 65
3,135
30
30
30
30
30
30
1,995
285
400
170
170
57
TOTAL
28,500
3,077
*Paper includes colored and white ledger, computer and newspaper.
Assumptions: 1. 65% of recyclable material is recoverable.
2. Effective Diversion Rate - 30%.
5.28
TABLE 5-15C
DIVERSION BY RECYCLING METHOD
(MANDATORY CURBSIDE)
Percent Total
of Total Generated
Component Residential (Tons/Year)
Paper* 35
Corrugated 5
Lawn/Garden 24
Food 9
Wood 2
Plastic 7
Glass 3
Ferrous Metal 3
Nonferrous Metal 1
Miscellaneous 11
9,975
1,425
6,840
2,565
570
1,995
855
855
285
3,135
Quantity
Recovery Participation Recycled
Rate (%) Rate (%) (Tons/Year)
65 80 4,990
65 80 710
65
65
65
65
80
80
80
80
1,000
430
430
140
TOTAL
28,500
7,700
*Paper includes colored and white ledger, computer and newspaper.
Assumptions: 1. 65% of recyclable material is recoverable.
2. Effective Diversion Rate - 80%.
The numbers indicate that the lawn and garden fraction contributes heavily
to the total waste stream. However, even with mandatory recycling, it is
unlikely that the year 1994 goal of 25 percent will be achieved without the
participation from the industrial/commercial sector.
Case Study - Pilot Curbside Recycling Program
The city of Waterloo, Iowa, recently undertook a pilot curbside recycling
program, in conjunction with Advanced Recycling Systems, Inc., of Waterloo.
This study involved five neighborhoods throughout the city, representing
1.5 percent of the city's residential accounts. Participation in the pilot
program was voluntary; however, after being selected to take part, the
separation of recyclables was mandatory.
Each resident involved in the study was given containers to separate
recyclables from garbage. After collecting recyclable material and trash
from each area, both were weighed. Lawn and garden material was handled
separately and is not included in the results.
5.29
The final results are not yet available and should be released in the near
future. Preliminary results, Table 5-17, released by Advanced Recycling
Systems appear to indicate that a significant portion of the residential
waste stream can be diverted from the landfill by using this program.
TABLE 5-17
Area
Recyclable
Materials
(Lbs.)
Trash
Collected
(Lbs.)
Total
Weight
(Lbs.)
Percentage
Recycled
East 1*
East 2*
West 1*
West 2*
West 3*
2,161
4,539
10,312
8,322
15,726
5,816
6,611
4,628
4,284
8,255
7,977
11,150
14,940
12,606
23,981
27.09%
40.71%
69.02%
66.02%
65.58%
TOTAL*
41,060 29,594
70,654 58.11%
*Data through August 3, 1989.
To implement this type of curbside separation recycling program, a city
would need to make major additions and changes to the current collection
practices, equipment and staff. For one city in Iowa, the estimates for
capital cost to implement the curbside recycling program is approximately
$4.7 million. To finance this over a period of 15 years at an 8 percent
interest rate would result in an annual cost of $549,000.00. Operation and
maintenance costs, which include salaries for drivers, collectors and
administrative personnel and the upkeep of the equipment, were projected to
be approximately $900,000.00 per year.
The city produces approximately 23,000 tons of residential solid waste per
year. The following calculation determines the cost per diverted ton to
implement this program, assuming 50 percent diversion.
549,000 + 900,000
23,000 * 0.5 - $126.00/Ton Diverted
If the program were not as successful as anticipated, the cost per diverted
ton would increase. This cost, however, does not consider the revenue from
the sale of the recyclable material which would decrease the cost from
$20.00 to $50.00 per ton, depending on the quantity and market value of the
recyclables.
5.30
The cost of the proposed program is not necessarily representative of all
recycling programs. It is possible to begin the implementation of a curb-
side separation program with lower costs. The cost estimate for the above
project anticipates the use of a six -container system for each residence
and new vehicles, which represents a large part of the initial capital
cost. Other programs may choose to take a less expensive approach by using
existing equipment and recycling fewer items on an initial basis.
The three cities of Dike, Grundy Center and Reinbeck in Grundy County are
involved in another type of recycling effort using the concept of volume
based rates. Recycling in these towns is accomplished by using the pay -
for -bag system. Residents purchase specially marked bags which they fill
with the garbage going to the landfill. Recyclable materials are set out
and picked up separately.
This system provides a direct economic incentive for the homeowner to
reduce, reuse and recycle. Recycling more results in reduced amounts of
trash and the use of bags. Those who refuse to recycle end up paying more.
This system may be a good way for many communities to initiate and finance
a recycling program. The Agency should investigate this type of system to
be used in Dubuque County.
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY (MRF)
The separation of recyclables from nonrecyclables is the first step in the
recycling process. The second step is materials processing at a Material
Recovery Facility (MRF). A material recovery facility is a facility where
separation of mixed recyclables into specific components and preparation
for market takes place. Forms of preparation may involve sorting, shred-
ding, crushing, compacting and bailing. Some material recovery facilities
are designed to take recyclables already pre -separated by the residents and
collectors, while others receive the recyclables in mixed form and then
manually or mechanically separate the recyclables into the different com-
ponents. Two MRF facilities operating in Iowa are the Northwest Iowa Area
Solid Waste Agency in Sheldon, Iowa, and Lee County Solid Waste Commission
in Fort Madison, Iowa.
Most operating material recovery facilities are located in the eastern
region of the United States. The facilities investigated range in size
from 40 to 300 throughput tons per day. The smaller facilities for the
most part processed metal and glass only, whereas the larger facilities
handled paper, cardboard, metal, glass and plastic. Many facilities begin
processing smaller quantities of very specific recyclable materials and
then expand to processing other recyclables as the operation becomes more
efficient.
5.31
COST ANALYSIS
An operation and maintenance and capital cost analysis was performed using
information obtained on 23 operating or soon to be operating material
recovery facilities. As stated earlier, these facilities are located most-
ly on the eastern part of the United States so the costs are based on east
coast rates. A regression analysis was performed using costs versus tons
processed per day. The available information was inconsistent in that of
the facilities investigated, some had operation and maintenance cost infor-
mation only, some had capital cost information only, while the rest had
both capital and operation and maintenance cost information.
Figure 5-1 is a scatterplot of capital costs versus throughput tons per day
for the investigated material recovery facilities. Several points deviated
substantially from the remainder of the data and were eliminated from the
analysis. This left 13 data points available for the regression analysis.
The plot shows that an increase in throughput tons relates to an increase
in capital costs.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
A regression analysis was performed using capital cost as the dependent
variable and throughput tons as the independent variable. Two of the
points that were outliers appeared to be nonrepresentative from the rest of
the sample and were eliminated from the analysis. The resulting regression
analysis produced an r-squared of 0.81 indicating a linear relationship
between the two variables. The following is the equation of the best fit
line which predicts capital cost given throughput tons.
Total Capital Cost — 443,719.2 + 17,202.9 x Daily Throughput Tons
A regression analysis was also conducted using operation and maintenance
cost as the dependent variable and throughput tons as the independent vari-
able. Again, two points were outliers and were eliminated from the analy-
sis. The regression produced an r-square of 0.73 which indicates a fairly
good linear relationship between the two variables. The following equation
predicts operation and maintenance costs given throughput tons.
Annual 0&M Cost — 404,296.4 + 2,957.0 x Daily Throughput Tons
Figure 5-2 is a graph of the regression curve (best fit line). This graph
indicates that an increase in throughput tons per day is related to an
increase in annual operation and maintenance costs.
By applying the regression equations to the residential recycling tonnage
data, estimated annual costs for an MRF for each recycling method were
calculated. Capital costs were amortized at 10 percent over 10 years.
These costs are listed in Table 5-18.
5.32
1111101
L
4
7
6
6
4
3
2
1
0
lulls
e illlll1
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY
CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS
CAPITAL COST (_) (MILLIONS)
O 60 100 160 200 250
THROUGH -PUT TONS (TPD)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
IIIIIIt
wlu
1111 N
—+— REGRESSION CURVE
111111111
MInii•
FIGURE 5-1
i•111N1H
1 11
11011.
.11
300
•/111111
360
41411111 111111.
MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY
O & M COST ANALYSIS
OM COSTS ($/YR) (Thousands)
16111111115
200-
O
0
•
•
•
•
50 100 160 200 260 300 350
THROUGH -PUT TONS (TPD)
--1 REGRESSION CURVE
1'. 1N1n1R' 11?NIII14
FIGURE 5-2
MRF Total
Recycling Method
000
N • CO �7
c -CO
4,1
000
O 00
000
r+s-
ulviNO
000
0• 00
000
N O r1
N d ON
O 00
000
O 00
000
r- oo
an ..o rn
crr
N tsC
0 • CD
+ • en n
m m
.0 '0
}4 u N
a a a
O 0 0
0
W W W
W 0 0
• C
a. �s
O r+ C
W O c
A
Capital cost amortized at 10% for 10 years.
Rep/Dubuque/AB5
5.35
RESULTS
The results indicate that economies of scale apply to Materials Recovery
Facilities. The larger the throughput tonnage, the lower the cost per ton.
The costs per ton for an MRF to process residential recyclable materials
appear excessive. The most economical case, not considering transportation
costs, is for mandatory curbside recycling. It is apparent that to justify
an MRF, commercial/industrial recycling would also be necessary.
A material recovery facility may be economically justifiable with the par-
ticipation of the commercial and industrial sections in the recycling
effort. Accepting that 65 percent of the recyclable portion of the waste
stream is reclaimable and participation reaches 60 percent, a capture of
approximately 16,000 tons per year can be anticipated An MRF operating
312 days per year with a capacity of 50 tons per day would be necessary to
process the recyclables. The following costs for the MRF were computed
using the formulas from the regression analysis.
Capital Cost a $1,300,000.00
Annual Capital Cost — $150,000.00
(8%, 15 Years)
Annual 0&M Cost = $550,000.00
Total Annual Cost — $700,000.00 ($43.86/Ton Processed)
A portion of the annual cost for the operation can be offset by revenue
generated from the sale of recyclable materials. With proper preliminary
separation and reduced contamination, this should yield a better return
than when commingled.
It should be noted that these results apply most directly only when yearly
throughput tonnages are 10,000 or greater. For smaller tonnages, the costs
are extrapolated, thus they may not be appropriate. For smaller tonnages,
a simpler facility may be more appropriate. A transfer station with col-
lection bins, for example, could be used to separate recyclables which
would then be transported to a large MRF or to a market. However, separa-
tion of materials will need to be done by the homeowner, with only minimal
handling at the transfer station. Material recovery facility costs were
estimated for smaller facilities handling 30 throughput tons per day and
less. The data used to derive the processing costs are given in Table 5-19
and the dollars per ton costs for each recycling method in Table 5-20.
OWNERSHIP AND MARKETING
Private ownership of the MRF in Dubuque County would be most desirable;
however, if the Authority decides to construct an MRF for processing of
recyclable materials, it may be advantageous to solicit other counties to
5.36
participate. Regionalization would increase the volume of recyclables
which would decrease the capital and operation costs on a per ton basis.
The marketing of recyclables in a cooperative effort between Dubuque County
and other counties in the region who also have a recycling program would
also be beneficial in another way. There are advantages to cooperative
marketing both from the buyers' and sellers' points of view. Many buyers
are reluctant to deal with small municipalities because of the difficulty
in contacting officials and the nonuniform quality of the material they
sell. Small municipalities often have trouble finding buyers; and once
buyers are found, they have trouble with contract commitments. Both sides
profit from a cooperative program. A co-op effort would give the counties
more influence when dealing with the buyers, and the buyer could be assured
of a more uniform quality product.
TABLE 5-19
ESTIMATED MRF COSTS (SMALLER FACILITIES)
Throughput
Tons Per
Day
Personnel
Needed
Labor Capital
Cost* Cost**
($/Year) ($/Year)
Contingency
20%
($/Year)
Total
Annual
Cost
($/Year)
Total
Cost
($/Ton)
3 6 $ 87,360 $ 40,700 $25,600 $153,660
7 8 116,480 48,800 33,000 198,280
15 11 160,160 65,000 45,000 270,260
30 18 262,080 114,000 75,200 451,280
$197
109
69
58
*Based on $7.00 per hour and 2,080 hours per year.
**Capital for building and equipment amortized over 10 years at 10 percent.
TABLE 5-20
MRF COSTS FOR DUBUQUE COUNTY (SMALLER FACILITIES)
Diversion
Recycling Method (Ton/Year)
Diversion
(Ton/Day) MRF Cost MRF Cost
(260 DPY) ($/Year) ($/Ton)
Drop -Off Center
Voluntary Curbside
Mandatory Curbside
1,542
3,077
7,700
6
12
30
$201,000
258,000
446,000
$131
84
58
5.37
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
As the third step in the state's hierarchy, waste -to -energy systems have
received less recent attention than has recycling. Waste -to -energy systems
are, however, viable elements in an integrated solid waste management plan.
Combustion of solid waste for energy use has been practiced for many years.
It is common in Europe, and there are numerous facilities in the United
States successfully using solid wastes as fuel. Technology exists that can
make incineration of solid wastes environmentally safe in terms of air
pollution and ash disposal.
Waste -to -energy projects can provide substantial benefits for waste reduc-
tion. For typical mixed solid waste, volume reductions of up to 80 percent
can be achieved through incineration. This volume reduction obviously
extends landfill life.
Energy recovery from municipal solid waste can also be a benefit. Solid
waste is approximately equivalent to 40 percent of the energy of coal.
Simply stated, one ton of solid waste is approximately equal to 800 pounds
of coal.
Costs
The cost of waste -to -energy facilities is significant. The current rule of
thumb for a mass burn waste -to -energy system is $100,000.00 per throughput
ton. For a 500-ton per day mass burn system, the cost could approach $50
million. For refuse -derived fuel (RDF) systems, the initial capital costs
are lower; however, operating costs may be higher depending upon numerous
factors such as the amount of preprocessing and/or separation provided, the
complexity of the system and location of the energy market.
In spite of the potential costs, waste -to -energy facilities will play an
important role in the overall integrated solid waste management program.
The key to the success of any waste -to -energy system involves three primary
factors:
1. Waste Stream Control
2. Energy Market
3. Public Support
Waste stream control is essential to maintain that the waste input is
delivered to the facility for processing or incineration. Contracts with
the energy user will necessitate that a sufficient quantity of waste input
be maintained. Since the short-range costs may be higher for the waste -to -
energy process, the haulers and/or generators may search for other less
expensive options. The Solid Waste Authority can achieve the waste stream
5.38
control through adopting Sections 28-F and 28-G of the Code of Iowa which
were instituted for this problem. These sections expand the powers avail-
able to intergovernmental (28-E) agencies to ensure waste stream control.
Markets
The energy market must be a stable, long-term energy user. The expenses
associated with the waste -to -energy facility cannot be justified for a
high -risk energy user. This is obviously more true of a steam or electric
user than an RDF market where the fuel could be supplied to an alternate
user; but in either event, the energy market is a critical element in the
decision to proceed. The "ideal" energy market should also be compatible
with the swings in wastes received. As noted in the waste stream descrip-
tion, waste volumes vary substantially. The waste -to -energy facility needs
to ensure that the energy market is supplied with the minimum waste stream
and also ensure that the facilities are able to process the maximum waste
stream.
Siting
Siting of the facility should be coordinated with the energy market. This
is particularly important for steam markets. Practical limits of one mile
separation are usable for siting, and this will vary with the steam tem-
perature and pressure requirements of the market. For electrical energy
markets, the siting is not as critical. It is, however, important that the
local power company either be made a partner in the agreement or separate
agreements be made to supply distribution capabilities and/or back-up sup-
ply. RDF can be transported to end users and is more easily sited than
either of the other two energy producing facilities. The haul distances
must, however, be considered in any processing facilities to be constructed
since they will play an important role in the economics of the waste -to -
energy option.
It should be noted that implementing waste reduction and recycling programs
do not negate the viability of a waste -to -energy facility. Composting and
recycling will reduce the waste stream to be processed; however, in some
instances, the heat value of the waste stream has actually been enhanced by
the first two elements of the hierarchy, and it appears that separation
prior to energy production can reduce air pollution concerns. The Waste
Reduction and Recycling Act of 1989 requires that recyclable, reusable and
materials which will result in uncontrolled toxic or hazardous air emis-
sions be removed from the waste stream prior to any process involving
incineration.
Public Input
Public support is essential to implementing any solid waste disposal
option. It is particularly important in waste -to -energy because of the
relatively high cost and perception of possible environmental risks. A
special public education and awareness program will be needed prior to
implementation of the waste -to -energy program. The facilities must also be
5.39
PRI
MIN
designed, constructed and operated to enable the environmental concerns to
be minimized. Air pollution and ash disposal for current and potential
future safeguards must be incorporated in planning and economic analyses of
the facilities.
Summary
In general, waste -to -energy facilities which appeared to be the technology
of the future during the energy crisis should still be considered as one
possible element in the integrated solid waste management program. The
success of any waste to energy facility is dependent upon the waste stream,
energy market and public support. Due to the relatively high costs in-
volved, a thorough analysis of this option must be undertaken prior to
implementation.
INCINERATION
A mass burn incineration model was run to analyze the costs associated with
this type of facility on a regional basis. Table 5-21 is a present value
cost analysis associated with a typical mass burn facility. This example
represents a situation where steam will be sold at a rate of $3.00 per
1,000 pounds. It is assumed that the value of the steam will increase at a
rate 1/2 percent greater than general inflation. The plant will not gener-
ate electricity.
Costs
The scenario shown uses typical operation and maintenance costs, and capi-
tal costs are amortized over 20 years at an 8 percent interest rate. The
results are given in dollars per account per year. "Accounts" is merely
another expression for households; and for this analysis, the costs were
spread over 31,500 accounts. The net costs are given as present value or
in year 1 costs.
This example shows that during the first year, the cost for this facility
would be about $90.00 per account, about $64.50 per account after the tenth
year and approximately $29.00 per account after the 20th year. These costs
are all based on current technology and the current regulations. At the
time when it is appropriate to consider the use of this type of facility, a
more in-depth analysis with site specific data should be performed.
Summary
Dubuque County's waste stream may not be sufficient to supply a waste -to -
energy or mass burn facility. A possible alternative to the construction
of an incineration facility would be to contract with an existing system.
John Deere Works in Dubuque routinely incinerates solid waste produced at
the John Deere plant. An investigation of the feasibility of utilizing
this facility and other privately owned incinerators to incinerate a por-
tion of the county's waste should be pursued.
5.40
TABLE 5-21
PRESENT VALUE COST ANALYSIS
DUBUQUE COUNTY HASS BURN INCINERATOR
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
MIXED SOLID WASTE-TON/DAY 190 190 190 190 190 190
HIRED SOLID WASTE-TON/YEAR 59280 59280 59280 59280 59280 59280
UNIT O&M COST-S/TON 45 47.25 49.61 52.09 54.7 57.43
ANNUAL O&.8 C0ST-3/YEAR 2667600 2800980 2941029 3088080 3242484 3404509
BOND RETIREMENT COST-0/YEAR 2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909
ANNUAL COST-S/YEAR 5471509 5504889 5744938 5891990 5046394 6208518
STEAM GENERATED-1000 LBS./YR 355680 355680 355680 355680 355680 355680
STEAM RATE-S/1000 LBS. 3 3.16 3.34 3.52 3.72 3.92
ANNUAL STEAM REVENUE-S/?EAR. 1067040 1125727 1187642 1252953 1321875 1394579
ELECTRICITY GE0ERATED-KWH/7R 10162235 10162285 10162286 10152286 10162286 10162285
ELECTRICITY RATE-3/Kill 0 U 0 0 0 0
ANNUAL ELEC. REVENUE-S/YR 0
ANNUAL NET COST-3/YR 4404469
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-3/YR 4155160
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-3/TN 70.09
NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS 32000
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-3/AC 129.85
PRESENT VALUE COST ANALYSIS
DUBUQUE COUNTY MASS BURN INCINERATOR
MIXED SOLID WASTE-TON/DAY
NIXED SOLID WASTE-TON/YEAR
UNIT O&M COST-S/TON
ANNUAL OAM.COST-3/YEAR
BOND RETIREMENT COST-S/YEAR
ANNUAL COST-3/YEAR
STEAM GENERATED-1000 LBS./YR
STEAM RATE-Si1000 LBS.
ANNUAL STEAM REVENUE-S/YEAR
ELECTRICITY GENERATED-KWH/YR
ELECTRICITY RATE-S/KWB
ANNUAL ELEC. REVENUE-S/Ya
ANNUAL NET COST-S/YR
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-s/Ya
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-S/TN
NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS
PRES. VALUE OF NET COST-3/AC
0 0
4479162 4557296
3986438 3826394
67.25 64.55
32000 32000
124.58 119.57
0
4631027
3674544
61.99
32000
114.83
0
4724519
3530435
:59.56
31.000
110.33
0
4813939
3393637
57.25
32000
106.05
190
59280
60.3
3574839
2803909
6378748
355680
4.14
1471280
10162285
0
D
4907468
3253746
55.06
32000
101.99
190 190 190
59280 59280 59280
63.12 66.49 69.8I
3753581 3941260 4131)323
2803909 2803909 2803909
6557490 6745169 6942232
355680 355680 355680
4.36 4.6 4.86
1552201 1637572 1727638
10152286 10162286 10162286
U 0 0
0
5005289
3140380
52.98
32000
98.14
0
5107597
3023179
51.00
32000
94.47
0
5214594
2911802
43.12
32000
90.99
YEAR 11 YEAR 12 YEAR 13 YEAR 14 .YEAR 15 YEAR 16 YEAR 17 TEAR 18 YEAR 19 YEAR 20
190 190 190 190 190 190
59280 59280 59280 59280 59280 59280
73.3 76.97 80.81 84;85 89.1 93.55
1345239 4562501 4790626 5030158 5281556 5545749
2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909 2803909
7149148 7366410 7594535 7834067 8085575 8349658
355680 355680 355680 355680 355680 355680
5.12 5.41 . 5.70- 6.02 6.35 6.7U
1822658 1922905 2028664 2140241 2257154 2382142
10162286 10162285 10162286 10162286 10162285 10162235
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5325490 5443505 5565871 5693826 5827621 5967516
2805928 2705256 2609498 2518385 . 2431662 1245342
47.33 45.64 • 44.02 42.48 41.02 21.01
32000 320J0 32000 32000 32000 32000
87.69 84.54 81.55 78.70 75.99 38.92
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF NET COST 54043162
190 190 190 190
59280 59280 59280 59280
98.23 103.14 108.3 113.71
5823036 6114188 5419897 6740892
2803909 Z803909 2803909 2803909
8625945 8918097 9223806 9544801
355680 355680 355680 355680
7.07 7.45 7.36 8.30
2513160 2651383 2797209 2951056
10162286 10162285 10162286 10162285
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6113785 6266714 6426597 6593745
1229170 1213172 1197346 1161689
20.73 20.47 20.20 19.93
32000 32000 32000 32000
38.41 37.91 37.42 36.93
INN
DUBUQUE COUNTY HASS BURN INCINERATOR ANALYSIS
PARAMETER LIST
TABLE 5-21.
(Continued)
1 --# YEARS TO CALCULATE TABLE
2 --NIXED SOLID WASTE ITONS/DAY)
3 --H.S.W. GROWTH FACTOR IX/YR)
4 --DAY TO ANNUAL CONY. (DAY/YR)
5 --UNIT 0 & H COST IS/TON)
6 --O&M RATE OF INCREASE IX/YR)
7 --CAP-REC--COST (31
8 --CAP-REC--COVERAGE FACTOR 1.1.1
9 --CAP-REC--BOND RETIRE METHOD
10 --CAP-REC--BOND LIFE It YRS)
11 --STEAM GEN. FACTOR I#STM/8MSi
12 --STEAM RATE ISii000 # 3THi
13 --STEAM RATE INCREASE iS/YRI
14 --STEAM SALES METHOD CODE
15 --ELEC. GEN. FACTOR ItSTM/KWH)
16 --ELECTRICITY RATE IS/KiiH1
17 --ELEC. RATE INCREASE IiiYRI
18 --ELECTRICITY SALES METHOD CODE
19 --PRES. VALUE INTEREST I./YRJ
20 --NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS
BOND RETIREMENT DATA
YEAR
RETIRE
INTEREST
0
8
STEAK SALES PERCENT
100 100
100 100
20
190
0
312
45
5
20000000
20
1
15
3
3
5.5
1
35
0
0
6
32000
100 100 i i.0 100 IUD 100 1447 100
100 I00 140 106 100 100 100 100
ELECTRICITY SALES PERCENT
0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
u
0
0 0 0
5.41
5.42
Caution should be exercised when pursuing the possibility of using waste -
to -energy for solid waste management. One concern is the disposal of ash.
EPA has been considering the quality of the ash from mass burn units.
There appears to be numerous studies that are inconclusive as to whether or
not ash from MSW is hazardous or nonhazardous. It has yet to be finally
determined whether or not the ash will be declared hazardous; however, it
appears that it will at least be classified as a special waste and require
special handling. If the decision is that the ash is hazardous, signifi-
cant additional costs will result from the ash handling and disposal.
Another concern which should be considered is siting difficulties and regu-
latory controls. As mentioned earlier, public opposition may make it very
difficult to site a waste -to -energy facility. Future regulation of air
emissions is not easily predicted and may cause significant future cost
increases.
These and other concerns should be closely scrutinized before making a
commitment to a waste -to -energy facility. If private industry is inter-
ested in mass burning the solid waste, such as John Deere, the party
responsible for ash disposal and air pollution control should be determined
in the early stages of the negotiations and the appropriate risks assigned
in the contract.
REFUSE -DERIVED FUEL
The production of refuse -derived fuel has been highly publicized recently.
The Ames Resource Recovery Plant in Ames, Iowa, is municipally owned and
operated and has been in operation since 1975. Fluff produced by the RDF
facility is used by the municipal electric plant and burned with coal.
After undergoing several shake -down experiences, the RDF facility appears
to have established itself as a stable, long-term fuel production facility.
In addition to Ames, RDF has been produced in other facilities in Iowa,
including Iowa Falls and Cherokee, Iowa.
There are numerous vendors of RDF systems. Most of the systems have simi-
larities in that the waste is presorted (usually manual) and then goes
through a mechanical sorting process to isolate various components of the
waste stream into usable and/or recyclable fractions. The primary output
from the process is fuel pellets; however, side streams of compost, plas-
tics, metals and glass can be incorporated.
The estimated breakdown from a typical RDF facility is as follows:
1. Bulky Items and Other Incompatible
Waste to Landfills 10%
2. Heavy Plastics to Recycle 5%
3. Ferrous Meals to Recycle 10%
4. Compost 25%
5. Aluminum to Recycle 5%
6. Pellets 45%
5.43
PHI
Tipping Fees
The facilities are generally set up such that the tipping fees are suffi-
cient to cover the capital and operating expenses initially. As
recyclables and pellet sales become stable and secure, the tipping fees may
be reduced to allow for the other revenues to partially offset the capital
and operating expenses.
As was previously described in the recycling section of this report, stable
revenues from recycling may not be anticipated for some time in the future,
although the metals to be recovered from this type of operation would
appear to be currently marketable.
Compost
The compost from the system currently contains too many impurities to make
it usable or saleable. The mechanical separation of this fraction of the
waste stream is ineffective in screening out various constituents, and
plastics and glass can be found in the compost. Currently, this cannot be
used as compost and is being landfilled from the Iowa Falls facility. The
manufacturer indicates that they are working on solving this particular
problem. We would not anticipate a significant revenue from the compost
waste stream from an RDF facility even if the current problems with compost
quality are resolved.
Product
The primary product from an RDF facility is the fuel fraction. The fuel
can be in several forms: fluff such as the Ames facility, pellets (densi-
fied dRDF) such as the Iowa Falls facility, or dust which is being experi-
mentally tested for firing with natural gas.
The pelletized RDF is undergoing numerous tests to determine its air pollu-
tion potential. There are various areas where the dRDF is in use; however,
IDNR has not accepted it for widespread use in Iowa to date.
IDNR has indicated that if the dRDF is shown to be compatible with one
facility having a specified type of combustion process and equipment, it
would be considered compatible with other facilities with similar combus-
tion processes and equipment. The outcome of this air pollution testing is
critical to the long-term viability of the RDF process as a solid waste
management alternative.
Some research has indicated that feeding lime (possibly lime sludge) into
the pelletizing operation actually enhances the performance of air pollu-
tion equipment, namely acid gas scrubbers, and reduces the potential for
heavy metal leaching from the ash.
5.44
Ash
The combustion of dRDF produces an ash. It appears that the ash resulting
from dRDF combustion is sufficiently diluted with the ash from the primary
fuel (coal) that the hazardous characteristics are not present to any sig-
nificant degree, and the potential for heavy metals leaching may be reduced
with pH control through a lime feed system in the pellet production pro-
cess.
If the lime feed is found to significantly enhance the dRDF process and
lime sludge could be incorporated as the source, it may serve as a method
of disposal for lime sludge which is a significant waste stream in several
areas of the state. The possibility of this combination of waste disposal
options should be investigated.
The implementation of any RDF facility must be preceded by clearance of the
air pollution and ash issues. It now appears, however, that the current
technology meets these concerns and will be approved in the near future,
and this should, therefore, not be a long-term consideration.
Costs
The capital cost for dRDF processing is estimated at approximately $2.5
million for a 50 TPD facility. The operating costs for the facility based
on public operation are estimated to be approximately $26.50/ton initially.
If tipping fees are set to cover the entire capital and operating costs of
the facility, the tipping fees need to be approximately $48.80/ton. This
is based on 10 percent, 10-year capital recovery with no coverage factor.
Summary
If RDF is approved by IDNR (based on the air and ash tests), it appears
that it is a viable solid waste management option. This alternative should
be considered as part of the effort to reach beyond the year 2000 solid
waste diversion goal. The solid waste authority should pursue a privately
owned RDF operation and, upon failure to locate interested parties in the
private sector, should consider a publicly owned facility. It is also
recommended that only a portion of the waste stream be committed to RDF so
that the other waste diversion and reduction techniques in the hierarchy
can be vigorously pursued. If the entire waste stream is committed to a
waste -to -energy facility, the incentive for other steps is reduced or
eliminated, which is not in accordance with the overall intent of the com-
prehensive plan.
Revenues generated from the dRDF and other pull -off streams could be
applied against the tipping fees in the future when they can be successful-
ly marketed.
5.45
1.
2.
Contract Considerations for a
Waste -to -Energy Facility
The Agency should agree to provide a waste stream of a specified
quantity which should be based on some average term not less than
one year.
The facility should be responsible for the processing, marketing
and disposal of material from the facility.
3. Tipping fees should be specified and the effect of other waste
management options should be agreed on in the initial contract.
For example, if recycling of paper at a 10 percent level is
imposed, what is the resulting tipping fee; similarly, considera-
tions for compost, metals, plastic, glass, etc.
4. There should be considerations that limit the waste stream to that
under the jurisdiction of the "Authority."
5. Hazardous wastes should not be accepted, and procedures on dealing
with these wastes should be delineated.
6. Contract term should be as long as feasible, with optional renewal
periods.
7. Responsibility for permitting and testing should be specified.
8. The facility should be required to provide financial records of
the operation for auditing purposes that can be easily understood.
9. The facility should be required to have a contingency plan should
markets fail.
10. The "rejects" should be specified and limited based on the
influent waste stream.
11. The contract may consider negotiating with the facility to be a
market for recycled materials from other steps in the hierarchy.
12. The contract should be carefully drafted to cover various scena-
rios with respect to default on the part of the facility for
nonperformance and/or bankruptcy.
The above considerations are only general descriptions of the types of
considerations that should be included in the contract. If the "Agency"
proceeds with a waste -to -energy facility with a private owner/operator, the
contract should be thoroughly reviewed by technical, legal and financial
aavisors.
5.46
INCINERATION FOR VOLUME REDUCTION
The IDNR hierarchy provides that volume reduction through incineration may
be preferable to landfilling the unprocessed waste stream. Reduction,
recycling and yard waste composting alone, while effective waste diversion
techniques, do not appear to be adequate in reaching the waste diversion
goal of 50 percent. If solid waste composting or waste -to -energy facili-
ties cannot be developed, then incineration for volume reduction may be
considered.
The advantages of incineration are the reduction of volume that needs to be
landfilled and the cost of an incinerator may be lower than a waste -to -
energy or RDF facility. Like waste -to -energy, however, incineration must
consider the same problems with ash disposal and air emissions. It is not
recommended that this step in the hierarchy be considered at this time. A
volume reduction incinerator should not be included in the integrated solid
waste management system until the other steps in the hierarchy have been
implemented.
As mentioned earlier, however, existing systems should be investigated.
John Deere; Bremer County Landfill, Bremer County, Iowa; or other operators
of incinerators should be contacted to investigate this possibility if it
is necessary.
LANDFILLING
The Dubuque County Landfill began receiving waste in August, 1976. At that
time, the expected refuse capacity gave the landfill an approximate site
life of 20 years. It was also estimated that there was an adequate supply
of soil to be used as cover material. The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Sani-
tary Landfill Study, conducted in 1984 and 1985, indicates that the refuse
capacity was vastly underestimated in the earlier report and gave an up-
dated estimated landfill life of 35 years. The extra capacity, however,
contributes to making the landfill site soil short which will require the
landfill to obtain soil off -site or to consider daily cover alternatives
such as foam or fabric which would require Iowa DNR permit amendments.
The landfill is inspected regularly by the Iowa DNR and has never violated
the terms of its permit.
Originally, the landfill contained approximately 80 acres of land area in
which solid waste would be buried. The operation plan divided the area
into four phases. Phases 1 and 2 are the southern half of the landfill and
have reached an elevation of approximately 940. Phases 3 and 4 were pro-
posed to be used for future filling capacity.
The landfill will be required to meet new standards set out in the EPA
(RCRA Subtitle D) and IDNR (Comprehensive Planning Part II) regulations.
Those areas with existing solid waste fill, Phases 1 and 2, will need to be
5.47
upgraded to meet stricter codes; and future cells, Phases 3 and 4, will
have to be designed and constructed using more rigid environmental con-
siderations. Site improvements that will be necessary include:
Filled Areas (Phases 1 and 2)
1. Retrofit a leachate collection and treatment system.
2. Installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
3. Expanded sampling.
4. Closure/post-closure activities.
New Cells (Phases 3 and 4)
1. Clay liner (4-foot thickness with maximum permeability of
1x10-7 cm/s).
2. Leachate collection and treatment system.
3. Possibly a system to lower the groundwater table.
4. Hydrological investigation, including installation of groundwater
monitoring wells.
5. Annual sampling.
6. Closure/post-closure activities.
Continued operation of the Dubuque
sive than it has been previously.
To comply with new standards, the
to retrofit a leachate collection
County Landfill will become more expen-
Dubuque County Landfill will
system to the areas filled
and 2. The two methods normally used for leachate extraction
flow interceptor pipes or the use of wells to pump the leachate. Because
of the hazards involved with installing the first system, the Dubuque
County Landfill will probably develop a well field to remove leachate. It
is difficult to estimate the cost of a retrofit leachate collection system
prior to the actual design. An estimated capital cost, however, to install
a well field on the 40 acres filled under Phases 1 and 2 may reach
$500,000.00.
be required
in Phases 1
are gravity
To estimate the cost of developing new cells under Phases 3 and 4, the
following controlling assumptions have been made.
Site:
Waste
40 Acres
Adequate Clay Available On -Site for Liner, Daily and Final Cover
Average Fill Depth - 10 Feet Below Grade
Average Fill Height - 50 Feet Above Grade
Stream: 70,000 Tons Per Year
Density - 800 #/C.Y. In -Place
Operation: 20 Percent Daily and Final Cover Requirement
5.48
Financing Terms: Revenue Bonds
10 Percent Interest
10-Year Life
20 Percent Coverage Factor
The total land area in Phases 3 and 4 produces an estimated capacity of 12
years.
The cost estimate for the facility includes capital, operating, closure and
post -closure costs which are projected through the life of the facility but
presented in current dollars. The cost estimate is shown in Table 5-22.
TABLE 5-22
LANDFILL COST ESTIMATE
INITIAL CAPITAL COST
Land Development Cost 40 Acres @ $30,000/Acre
Landfill Development Engineering - 10%
Landfill Development Legal - 10%
Hydrogeologic Report
Monitoring Wells
Subtotal - Initial Capital Cost
10%/10 Yr. Revenue Bonds with 20%
Coverage Factor
Annual P&I Payment = $312,500 x 10 Yrs. —
$3,125,000 - Total Payment for Initial
Capital Expenditure
OPERATING COSTS - 12 YEARS
Groundwater Monitoring
1st Yr. - 8 Wells @ $1,500/Each
Next 11 Yrs. - 8 Wells @ $400/Each
Clay Liner - 175,000 C.Y. x $3.50
Leachate Collection System - 18,000 L.F. x $6.00
Leachate Collection System (Retrofit)
Leachate Treatment - $5,000/Yr. x 12 Yrs.
Gas Collection System - 9,000 L.F. x $6.00
Operating Costs - $8.00/Ton
70,000 TPY x 12 Yrs. x $8.00/Ton
Insurance - $50,000/Yr. x 12 Yrs.
Legal - $5,000/Yr. x 12 Yrs.
Engineering - $20,000/Yr. x 12 Yrs.
Int
$1,200,000
120,000
120,000
100,000
60,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 12,000
35,200
612,500
108,000
500,000
60,000
54,000
6,720,000
600,000
60,000
240,000
Subtotal Operating Costs $9,001,700
5.49
TABLE 5-22
LANDFILL COST ESTIMATE
(CONTINUED)
CLOSURE/POST CLOSURE COSTS - 30 YEARS
Closure - 115 Acres x $25,000/Acre
Groundwater Monitoring - 30 Yrs. x 8 M. Wells x $400/Each
Post Closure Care - 30 Yrs. x $30,000/Yr.
Insurance - 30 Yrs. x $25,000/Yr.
Legal and Engineering - 30 Yrs. x $10,000/Yr.
Subtotal Closure/Post Closure
TOTAL COSTS:
Initial Capital Costs
Operating Costs
Closure/Post-Closure
$2,875,000
96,000
900,000
750,000
300,000
$4,921,000
$ 3,125,000
9,001,700
4,921,000
$17,047,700
For a 12-Yr. Life at 70,000 TPY the Volume In -Place at Closure —
12 Yrs. x 70,000 TPY = 840,000 Tons.
The Average Tipping Fee Would Therefore Be:
$17,047,700/840,000 Tons — $20.29/Ton*
*In addition, the tipping fees would need to reflect the state's ground-
water protection fees as shown on Table 2-1.
The average tipping fee for the Dubuque County Landfill under "typical"
conditions is projected to be $20.29 per ton. This, however, does not
include special costs for site -specific problems. The Dubuque County
Landfill is soil short, and costs may increase substantially if it becomes
necessary to obtain soil off -site.
The Dubuque County Landfill may explore alternatives to on -site soil, such
as borrow dirt from surrounding farmland and conserving existing on -site
soil by using a synthetic for daily cover.
The described monitoring program assumes a minimum number of wells at the
site. Costs may increase if more wells are added. Sampling costs may also
increase if contaminants are detected during the routine sampling period.
As Dubuque County implements the comprehensive plan, the volume of solid
waste landfilled will be reduced. Since most of the costs described in
this report are fixed, decreasing tonnages will make it necessary to
increase fees to cover those costs.
Rep/Dubuque/AB0
5.50
TRANSFER STATION ANALYSIS
An analysis was conducted to determine whether a cost savings would result
from the construction of a transfer station. The analysis consists of
comparing the cost for collection vehicles to haul solid waste to a dispos-
al site (landfill) to the cost for the collection vehicles to haul to a
transfer station at a centrally located site. If these cost savings are
great enough to offset the cost of operating a transfer station, the trans-
fer station would be economically justified.
The cities that would benefit from a transfer station were isolated in this
analysis. A transfer station constructed at the county centroid would be
located further from most of the cities than the landfill. Therefore, for
this analysis, the transfer station was located at the centroid of the
outlying communities. An analysis was then conducted using the communities
that were closer to the transfer station than the landfill. The cities
analyzed are Bankston, Cascade, Dyersville, Epworth, Farley, Holy Cross,
Luxemburg, New Vienna and Worthington. The location of the transfer
station for this analysis is depicted in Figure 6-1.
For purposes of the transfer station cost analysis, it is assumed that
solid waste collection and disposal would not be affected by the addition
of a transfer station. The cost savings for the collection vehicles would
result from the shorter transport distance to the transfer station. There
may be some additional savings in actuality which would result from reduced
wear and tear on the collection vehicles but these vary between vehicles
and cannot be predicted with any assurance.
A computer model was developed to analyze the economic benefits of a
transfer station in Dubuque County. While transport distances and waste
generation are unique for each community, there are several factors
included that are common to all communities. Dubuque County's final
consideration of a transfer station should include a separate study of the
area and features desired at the transfer station which is beyond the scope
of this study.
Some assumptions were made concerning solid waste collection. These
include collection truck size, cost and average speed during collection and
hauling to the landfill. Other assumptions concern wage rates for drivers
and collectors, fuel costs, etc. A 20-yard packer is a popular collection
vehicle in Iowa and was used in the model. The cost of a new 20-yard
packer truck is estimated to be $65,000.00.
The focus of the first phase of the model was to determine the collection
vehicle transportation cost. To accomplish this, the analysis was broken
down into two areas. The first was to determine the time cost or costs
that result whether the vehicle is moving or idle. The second cost, usage
cost, results from the actual use of the vehicle. The following two tables
highlight time and usage costs.
6.1
•
wmui
w
TABLE 6-1
COLLECTION VEHICLES
TIME COST
Item
Cost ($/Yr.)
Depreciation on Truck, Less Tires,
Over 6 Years (Straight Line)
Driver's Salary
Collector's Salary
Benefits (25% of Salary)
Interest on Truck Investment (11%)
Insurance (3% of New Cost)
$10,683.33
20,000.00
15,000.00
8,750.00
7,051.00
1,950.00
Total Annual Time Cost $63,434.33
Time Cost ($/Min.)
(260 Working Days Per Year @ 8 Hours Per Day) 0.5083
TABLE 6-2
COLLECTION VEHICLES
USAGE COST
Item $/Gal. MPG Cost ($/Mile)
Fuel $1.30 5.00 $0.2600
Oil 4.00 5,000 0.0008
Tires # Miles Cost/Tire
Rear 4 20,000 $150.00 0.0300
Front 2 20,000 150.00 0.0150
Repair and
Maintenance 0.1500
TOTAL USAGE COST $0.4558
6.3
By accepting a typical unit weight for garbage in the collection vehicle of
600 Lbs./Cu. Yd. and an average vehicle speed during transport of 35 mph,
the information needed for the analysis is complete.
To determine the transportation cost, the distance from the collection area
(cities) to the disposal area was measured from a county highway map.
Based upon the waste generation of each area, the number of trips could be
determined from which the total travel distance was computed. Multiplying
this number by the total usage cost from Table 6-2 results in an annual
usage cost. By again using the total travel distance but this time multi-
plying it by the average speed results in an annual time which is multi-
plied by the time cost presented in Table 6-1, which also results in an
annual cost. The total annual cost is then found by adding these two
results. It is assumed that the amount of time spent dumping the solid
waste at the transfer station is the same as the time spent at the land-
fill.
A comparison of the total annual time cost was made between the collection
sites and the destination disposal site to the collection sites and a
centrally located transfer station. The difference between these two
amounts is the cost savings for the collection vehicles.
Transfer Station Analysis
To determine whether a transfer station is a cost-effective transportation
alternative, the total savings resulting from collection trucks traveling
fewer miles must be greater than the transfer station cost. In the com-
puter model, the costs associated with the ownership and operation of a
transfer station were examined.
The cost of a simple open top transfer trailer is estimated to be approxi-
mately $50,000.00 and a tractor is estimated to cost $60,000.00. In this
analysis, a transfer station started with one tractor and two trailers. If
the tractor was forced to be on the road more than eight hours per day,
another tractor and trailer were added to the fleet and considered in the
cost analysis.
The construction of a transfer station involves a capital investment for
land acquisition and construction of the facility. The facility may
include a building to house equipment, the building in which the transfer
station is located and a scale. The initial site and site development
costs for this model were estimated to be $10,000.00 and $200,000.00,
respectively. Site development costs anticipate a building, scale, fenc-
ing, access, parking and utilities. The typical costs do not include a
compactor or push -pit which may be justified in some of the larger facili-
ties. Accepting 20-year financing at 8 percent interest, an annual capital
recovery cost of $21,389.00 results from the construction of the facility.
The following tables list the analyses necessary to compute the other
transfer station costs.
6.4
justifiable as a result of increasing fuel costs or innovative facility
operations. A transfer station, for instance, may be capable of also being
used as a material recovery facility.
Rep/Dubuque/AB9
6.7
COMPUTER MODELING
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION STRATEGIES
A computer model was developed for Dubuque County to evaluate alternative
solid waste diversion strategies. The model was developed around a grid
system by dividing each county into townships. Each township is assigned a
number and is referred to as a cell. A map of the Dubuque County area
delineated into cells used in the model is shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2.
This section gives an overview of the construction of the model and its
basic capabilities.
Using information from the 1980 Census, each cell was assigned a rural and
urban population. Based on this information and the county solid waste
generation data, solid waste generation is computed for each cell. The
residential tonnage is distributed proportionately into each cell according
to the population of that cell. The industrial -commercial waste stream is
assigned directly to the cell in which the industry is located.
At this point, each cell has an urban, rural and industrial waste com-
ponent. Each component is then further broken down to represent the com-
position of the solid waste. It is possible to divert any part of the
waste stream from any of the three components, recycling paper, plastics
and/or metal for instance, from the urban waste stream.
With the basic information stored in each cell, the computer model can be
used to analyze solid waste diversion strategies. The model focuses only
on a range of cells that are specified which enables single cities,
multiple cities or any combination of individual cells to be analyzed.
Diversion strategies that can be assessed include recycling and composting
and the siting of transfer stations.
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
The model can be used to analyze a source separation program. By
interacting with the model, diversion quantities of recyclables are varied,
along with their current market values. The model can compute the cost to
transport the recyclables to a central storage area and the cost to
transport the remaining solid waste to a specified destination. The model
can also determine the transport costs involved with trucking the
recyclable materials to another destination, such as a processing plant or
to the recycling markets. The revenue from the recyclables is calculated.
Whether curb side separation recycling takes place or not, the remaining
solid waste is accumulated at any specified destination. At this point,
three situations can be analyzed: 1) recycling, 2) composting and
3) transfer station.
0
m
7.1
m
m
H
FIGURE 7-1
1011
PR
PR
Poi
PRI
Mili
rid
T90
T89
T88
T87
DUBUQUE COUNTY OUTLINE
COMPUTER MODELING CELLS
I
2
3
4
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
R-2W R-1W
R-IE
FIGURE 7-2
R-2E
R-3E
NOTE:
INTEGER TOWNSHIP AND RANGE
N ERS ARE REFERENCED FROM
THE CENTER OF EACH CELL.
The model is designed to analyze a situation where recycling takes place at
an initial destination which is typically the centroid or landfill. The
model computes the quantity of material that will be recycled and the
market value that can be expected. It also has the capability to recycle
from a given separate waste stream entering the recycling facility before
and after being mixed with the previously mentioned waste stream. The
model computes the costs that will be incurred from the transportation of
the recyclables to the market and the revenue that can be expected from the
sale of the materials. With this information, the net cost to recycle is
projected.
COMPOSTING ANALYSIS
Another form of solid waste diversion evaluated is composting. The
operator inputs the percentage of food, paper/cardboard, lawn/garden and
miscellaneous waste that will be composted, the composting site location
and the computer model generates composting site information. Among the
information determined by the model is the amount of land area needed to
compost the given quantity of material and the resulting annual capital and
operation and maintenance costs and transportation costs can be derived.
TRANSFER ANALYSIS
A mixed solid waste transfer station is the last process analyzed by the
model. If the recycling and composting facilities are not already at a
final disposal site, such as a regional centroid or landfill, then the
model examines the use of a transfer station to transport the remaining
solid waste to a final destination, which could be a landfill or waste -to -
energy facility or a material recovery facility for recyclables. The model
was used to determine the population and garbage generation centroids. The
model has the flexibility to calculate the centroid of any combination of
cells. With all the data input, the model is then used to determine annual
capital and operation and maintenance costs for the transfer station, along
with the costs to own and operate the transfer tractors and trailers.
There were several input variables that were assigned typical values.
These variables were used in determining transportation and related costs
and include:
Garbage Compacted in Packer Trucks 650 Lbs./C.Y.
Lawn and Garden Waste 450 Lbs./C.Y.
Curbside Recyclables, Mixed 300 Lbs./C.Y.
Average Packer Truck Capacity 20 C.Y.
Average Recycling Vehicle Capacity 20 C.Y.
Transfer Trailer Usable Capacity 75 C.Y.
SCENARIO NO. 1
The first run involved yard waste composting and recycling. It was assumed
that the total yard waste stream was composted at the county landfill. The
necessary composting area for this volume is 10 acres or 21 acres with a
7.4
buffer area. The annual site cost was computed to be approximately
$178,000.00.
Paper, cardboard, plastic, metals and glass were recycled in this analysis.
Assuming that 40 percent of the recyclables were removed from the waste
stream produces a total removal of 23,800 tons per year. The model derived
costs to transport the materials to market and the return received from the
sale of the recyclables.
SCENARIO NO. 2
The second scenario involves the same input information as the first,
except MSW composting is analyzed in place of yard waste composting. In
this situation, 80 percent of paper, cardboard, food and miscellaneous
waste not captured by recycling is composted. Again, the composting opera-
tion is sited at the county landfill. In this case, 24 acres are needed to
compost 21,000 tons per year of mixed solid waste. The annual site cost
was estimated to be approximately $430,000.00.
RESULTS
Other information, including costs and waste volume breakdowns, not men-
tioned here can be found in Appendix A. Information generated by the
model, along with information in the report, was used to prepare the Com-
parative Cost Analysis (Appendix B).
Rep/Dubuque/AC4
7.5
PUBLIC AWARENESS - CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Implementing a plan to change or alter the way we handle solid waste
disposal requires full cooperation of all interested parties and the in-
volvement of public officials, private collectors, landfill operators, and
most of all, the general public. The Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
Agency has the responsibility of focusing all parties together toward the
common goal of implementing landfill alternatives in future solid waste
management systems.
Local government leaders need to fully understand the problems of the pre-
sent system of disposal and the types of changes that best address those
problems. Private collectors also must be fully informed so that they can
comply with proposed changes in a timely and efficient manner.
The general public needs to know what is being proposed, what is expected
of them, and how can they assist in solutions to the problem. Increasing
fees, even if necessary, without a full understanding of why is not
generally well received or supported by the public. The public should be
informed of the benefits to the economy, public health and the environment
of solid waste management alternatives to landfilling.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
An increased awareness relative to solid waste issues and necessary changes
should be the goal of the public education program. This needs to be an
on -going process and is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Groundwater Protection Act includes a policy for public education and also
charges the director (of DNR) to work to develop a program to be included
in grades seven and eight of Iowa schools covering water quality issues.
MASS MEDIA
Direct contact with the public can be extremely beneficial in implementing
changes needed to improve the solid waste disposal system. Localizing what
needs to be done increases success with any project. A Citizens Advisory
Group or Technical Advisory Committee with wide representation can be an
excellent sounding board and can generate public awareness. The mass media
should be kept informed and should be encouraged to cover as much news and
information about the issues on the local scene as possible. A news card
sent to every household periodically by way of utility bills covering solid
waste information is often helpful. Providing service clubs programs on
the environment should be used in the public education effort, along with
school projects demonstrating the recycling possibilities and elimination
of disposables. The general public is by far the most effective source of
ideas and projects toward implementing change in any on -going program.
They are the final voice in reducing dependence on "disposables", purchas-
ing recycled and recyclable materials, and urging companies to change the
packaging of products.
8.1
CITIZEN'S ADVISORY GROUP
A Dubuque County committee was formed for the purpose of making
recommendations to DMASWA concerning recycling and solid waste issues. The
committee held public meetings on October 10, 1990, October 18, 1990, and
October 24, 1990. A fourth meeting is planned for January, 1991. The
committee members are:
Ernie Akers
Council Member, City of Epworth
104 - 1st Street, S.W.
Epworth, Iowa 52045
Beverly Berna
Iowa State University Dubuque
County Extension
2600 Dodge Street - Plaza 20
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Tom Bylund
City of Dubuque Solid Waste
Coordinator
City Hall - 13th & Central
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Francis "Skip" Manternach
Mayor, City of Cascade
City Hall
Cascade, Iowa 52033
Frank Murray
City of Dubuque Public Works
Director
City Hall - 13th & Central
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
David Parrett
BFI Waste Systems
1055 Century Circle
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Nita Wiederanders
Dubuque Audubon Society
1255 North Booth Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
DMASWA also held two public meetings to inform local governments and the
general public about this comprehensive planning effort and to solicit
comments. The meetings were held on September 12, 1990, in Peosta and
October 3, 1990, in Dubuque.
IOWA DNR
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has educational literature avail-
able for local governments as well as individuals. Many of the materials
available for governments are implementation guides for solid waste pro-
grams, such as recycling, composting and household hazardous waste. The
DNR can also give advice on other sources of information, such as manuals
and books, reports, magazines and journals, school curriculum guides and
information from other government agencies. These sources of information
may be helpful to the DMASWA as they plan and implement solid waste
programs. For this information, contact:
8.2
1.1
e.i
IMO
nu
Waste Management Authority Division
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building - 5th Floor
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Information Phone: (515)281-5145
Recycling Hotline: 1-800-532-1114
Improvements in solid waste disposal practices and reduced waste generation
take time. It is a long-range goal that needs a continuous strong public
awareness and education program as part of the comprehensive planning
necessary to meet that goal.
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
1-800-424-9346
They produce several publications which are very helpful in the design and
implementation of recycling programs.
Rep/Dubuque/AA9
8.3
..6111111111111111111111,
PROPOSED INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The previous chapters of this report provide a description of Dubuque
County, its population and waste stream, and the various options available
in the hierarchy of waste disposal alternatives. Preliminary results indi-
cate that solid waste management will become a more significant component
in the budgeting considerations of the area's entities. Alternatives to
landfilling will involve significant cost increases for collection, trans-
portation, processing and disposal. Landfilling costs are also expected to
increase significantly as more stringent design, development, operation and
monitoring requirements are enforced.
Planning and implementation of the comprehensive waste diversion strategy
must include careful consideration of the potential effects of variables
which cannot be controlled or accurately forecasted or predicted. For
example, there will be a major impact on the cost of landfilling due to the
recent environmental legislation increasing groundwater monitoring require-
ments. It is not possible to predict how policy on other environmental
issues, such as in regard to air pollution, may change and impact the cost-
effectiveness of waste -to -energy or incineration facilities. The waste
stream's quantity and composition will change as society's attitudes toward
waste disposal change, population trends change and waste disposal prac-
tices change. Energy and recycled materials markets will fluctuate.
Industrial and commercial waste generators may become more involved as
their current methods of disposal become more costly. Transportation and
energy costs will probably increase as they did in the 1970s. These types
of variables should be considered before making final decisions.
Each disposal option has considerations that make reliance on a single
technology impractical. The system must maintain flexibility by having a
variety of options available. When problems occur with one technology or
demand decreases in one option, the waste can be supplied to another for
effective overall waste management.
EDUCATION
Education is vital to the success of a solid waste program. The education
process involves getting the information to the targeted group and present-
ing it in such a way as to alter that group's habits. A variety of edu-
cational strategies should be used when implementing a comprehensive solid
waste plan.
Schools
To ensure long-term success, the most important place to start education is
in the schools of Dubuque County. Adults are more likely to comply with a
solid waste program because it is the law, not because they are concerned
with landfill shortages and environmental pollution. Children are open-
minded and can more easily be taught to care about solid waste issues.
9.1
With the importance of those issues ingrained in them, they should grow up
to be enthusiastic adults who care about solid waste issues because they
believe it is important.
The Iowa DNR has an environmental education facility which could assist
with a program and provide inforamtion. Contact:
Springbrook Conservation Education Center
R.R. #1 Box 53
Guthrie Center, Iowa 50115
Phone (515)747-8383
They also have a Groundwater Education Coordinator in the Des Moines office
which provides assistance. Call (515)281-5135.
An educational program should be set up in the schools in Dubuque County.
The following is a list of some programs or guides available to the educa-
tors to assist in teaching solid waste issues:
School Curriculum
Recycling Study Guide (Grades 4-12), Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Wallace State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa, 50319-0034, (515)281-8941.
"The Wizard of Waste" and "Trash Monster" available from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board, 1020 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento,
California, 95814, (916)322-2680. "The Wizard of Waste" kit $20.00; "Trash
Monster" kit $23.00.
Waste: A Hidden Resource. Keep America Beautiful, 9 West Broad Street,
Stanford, Connecticut, 06902, (203)323-8987. $50.00, plus $5.00 postage/
handling.
GREAT (Groundwater Resources & Educational Activities for Teaching). Cur-
riculum for earth/life/general sciences, grades 7-9, Conservation Education
Center, R.R. 1, Box 53, Guthrie Center, Iowa, 50115. $8.00, payable to
Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Iowa State University Extension at 2600 Dodge Street, Plaza 20, in Dubuque,
Iowa, 52001, (319)583-6496, offers publications on environmental issues and
will provide assistance with solid waste educational programs.
There are a variety of ways to communicate a message to a large number of
people. Advertising or public service announcements using local media is
one way to "get the word out." Another method would involve the distribu-
tion of fliers through the mail, for example along with the utility bills,
by handing them out at convenient locations or by direct mail. These
should be printed on recycled paper.
9.2
Public awareness is important to ensure initial and ongoing success of the
solid waste plan implementation. Any program for Dubuque County should
first consider the methods that will be used to educate the public so they
have the information necessary to implement the project. The following
table lists educational and promotion ideas which may be used.
IDEA LIST FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
EDUCATION AND PROMOTION
Newsletters
Broadcast or Print Public Service Announcements
Consumer Brochures/Pamphlets
Special Events
* "Recycling Week," Etc.
Bumper Stickers
Posters
Press Kits
Premiums
* Mugs, Frisbees, Key Chains, Calendars, Litter Bags, Etc.
Decals
Flyers
Grocery Sack Stuffers
Buttons/Patches
Certificates
Billboards
Signs
T-Shirts
Exhibits
Logo Promotion
Contests
Newspaper Supplements
Transit Advertising
Mayor's Proclamation
Manuals and Directories
School/Youth Programs and Projects
* Poster Contests
* Incorporating Recycling Lessons Across the Curriculum
* Special Assemblies
* Recycling as Scout "Unit"
* Park Cleanups - Pick Up Trash,
Found
* Workshops for Teachers
* Film Strips, Comic Books, Activity Cards
* Puppet Shows
* Special Speakers
Discuss the Recycleability of
Items
9.3
SPECIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
To reduce the risks involved with landfill leachate, it is important to
minimize the amount of hazardous substances entering the landfill. Dubuque
County should coordinate and promote a household hazardous waste cleanup
day. Give the residents the opportunity to take unwanted household hazard-
ous wastes to a location in each community. The Agency can then dispose of
the waste properly. This type of program should be conducted at least on
an annual basis.
The Waste Management Authority Division administers a Toxic Cleanup Day
Grant Program. This is a competitive process and grants are awarded twice
per year. The Agency should apply for this grant.
The Iowa DNR has an Emergency Response phone number, (515)281-8694, in case
of an emergency with hazardous materials. The city of Dubuque Fire Depart-
ment also has a Hazardous Waste Response Team for local emergencies.
Motor oil, lead -acid batteries and tires are banned or will be banned from
disposal at the sanitary landfill. Each community should have a location
where the general public can dispose of waste oil. The DMASWA should
investigate potential locations for oil disposal. Service stations and
automobile lubrication stations would be potential sites for waste oil
receptacles. If a private location cannot be found, the local governments
should have waste oil collection included with the hazardous waste cleanup
day. After disposal locations are established, the public should be
informed of these locations.
Lead -acid batteries are also banned from the landfill. Dealers selling new
lead -acid batteries to the public must accept the old batteries in return
and recycle or dispose of them properly. This will take care of the major-
ity of old lead -acid batteries; however, batteries needing disposal which
will not be replaced remain a problem. Again, the hazardous waste cleanup
day may be an opportunity to collect and properly dispose of these lead -
acid batteries. The public should also be made aware of recycling programs
within the community. K-Mart stores, for instance, currently buy lead -acid
batteries for recycling.
By July 1, 1991, unprocessed waste tires will be banned from disposal at
the sanitary landfill. The authority should pursue markets for waste
tires, such as highway construction, playground conditioners and fuel. If
markets are unavailable, the tires can be landfilled if they are first
processed. All efforts should, hoewver, be made to develop markets for the
processed tires to avoid landfilling.
Medical wastes do not make up a significant portion of the waste stream;
however, special handling and disposal of medical waste is necessary.
Currently, medical wastes produced in Dubuque County are incinerated at
Mercy Medical Center in the city of Dubuque. Incineration at this facility
should continue to be the method of medical waste management. To ensure
9.4
that all infectious medical waste is removed from the waste stream entering
the landfill, the DMASWA should adopt a policy prohibiting the landfilling
of unprocessed infectious medical wastes. A notice and educational mate-
rial detailing the prohibition should then be sent to the facilities that
produce the wastes.
WASTE REDUCTION
The city of Dubuque currently encourages waste reduction by partially
financing the county composting operation with the pay -for -bag system.
This gives homeowners an incentive to leave grass clippings on the lawn or
to backyard compost. Educational programs should be initiated to further
encourage homeowners to use these methods of lawn/garden waste management.
Since volume -based charging, such as the pay -for -bag system, gives the
solid waste producer an incentive to reduce, municipalities in Dubuque
County should use volume -based charging for other solid waste. This can be
accomplished by using a pay -for -bag system similar to the one used for lawn
and garden waste or the solid waste can be measured during collection. The
second method would increase collection time and costs. At the same time,
the public should be informed about acceptable methods of reducing gen-
erated wastes. A recycling program can also be enhanced by volume -based
rates if the charge for collection of recyclables is less than the charge
for regular garbage.
Volume -based charging may be simplified if stickers or tags are used to
label the residents' solid waste. A sticker or tag can be sold through the
Agency and distributed to the public. Each solid waste generator will be
required to attach a sticker or tag to the solid waste container before it
will be collected. This system works the same way as using a stamp to pay
for a mailed letter.
It appears that volume reduction would initially be most effective on the
industrial/commercial level. Paper waste makes up a large portion of the
total waste produced by businesses and schools; therefore, they should be
encouraged to use two-sided copy machines. Other waste reduction tech-
niques discussed in Chapter 5 should also be encouraged.
A detailed waste analysis should be performed by each industrial and com-
mercial generator. The DMASWA should establish a clearinghouse to study
this information and then advise the generators on volume reduction tech-
niques. Programs available through existing agencies, such as the Waste
Management Authority Division (IDNR) and the Iowa Waste Reduction Center at
the University of Northern Iowa should be made available to the industrial/
commercial waste generators.
YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
Realizing the urgency of removing yard waste from the waste stream, Dubuque
County has recently implemented a yard waste composting operation. Com-
posting should continue to be the method of yard waste recycling, and
9.5
w
UNI
MMII
Dubuque County should continue to promote its existence and use. Promo-
tions should also encourage backyard composting or leaving grass clippings
on the lawn.
RECYCLING
Dubuque County
evolves into a
started with a
Dubuque. This
raises public
time, markets
opportunities
DROP-OFF
should use a recycling strategy that starts simple and
more complex program as necessary. Dubuque County has
drop-off recycling system with several drop-off centers in
should be expanded to other communities in the county. This
awareness about recycling at a minimal cost. At the same
can be developed and an investigation of potential recycling
in the commercial/industrial section should be conducted.
The drop-off program should start collecting one to three different recycl-
ing materials such as plastic, metal cans and glass. A low technology MRF,
such as a warehouse, should be set up to process the recyclables until a
more advanced MRF is built. Drop-off recycling success does not come from
diverting large quantities of solid waste from the landfill but from the
education of the public about recycling and the municipalities about mate-
rials processing and establishing markets.
CURBSIDE
A voluntary curb -side separation recycling program should start within a
year of the drop-off program. This should involve both the residential and
commercial/industrial sectors. Again, keep the system simple at first,
then include more items in the future as people become more proficient
recyclers. The amount of presorting on the homeowner's part will depend on
public support of increasingly complicated systems.
A more advanced material recovery facility may be necessary to process the
increased volume of recyclables. A large portion of the industrial/com-
mercial waste stream is collected privately by one company.
The Agency and/or cities should apply for Landfill Alternatives Grants from
Iowa DNR to assist in funding waste reduction and recycling programs.
MRF
The material recovery facility should be privately owned and operated.
Alter Recycling, Browning -Ferris Industries (BFI) and Dittmer Companies,
Inc., have expressed interest in ownership of an MRF to process the
county's recyclables. These three companies have experience and contacts
in the recycling field The Agency should send requests for proposals for
the MRF to these three companies and other interested parties at least one
year prior to the implementation of the recycling program.
9.6
To assure quality control, the MRF should be regulated by the Agency. A
contract between the owner and the Agency should be drafted and include the
following guidelines:
Tipping Fees - Rates Charged to Customers
Unaccepted Materials
o Quantity and Quality of Materials
O Necessary Processing
o Hours of Operation
o Market Information
0
Service Area - Just Dubuque County
States Have Access to the Facility
O Fate of Nonrecyclable Residuals
or Will Other Counties and
0
Contingency Plan for the Unanticipated Shutdown of the Facility
DMASWA should own and operate an MRF in the event that an acceptable pri-
vate owner cannot be found. The facility should be sized in anticipation
of volumes from a mandatory recycling program and have a convenient loca-
tion. Because of the cost of an MRF and the marketing leverage gained from
larger volumes, Dubuque County should solicit other communities in neigh-
boring counties to take part in the recycling program.
By 1993, an evaluation of the recycling programs should be made to deter-
mine if a mandatory system is necessary. If it is needed, an ordinance
must be passed mandating participation in the program.
RECYCLED PRODUCTS
The DMASWA, Dubuque County, city of Dubuque and all cities in the compre-
hensive plan should support the last step of the recycling cycle, purchase
of products produced from recycled materials. The Agency should develop a
program to promote the use of recycled products to each business and organ-
ization in the study area. This should begin with local governments.
Paper and other recycled products should be purchased in place of their
virgin counterparts. Initially, the recycled materials may have a higher
cost; however, supporting the markets now will help bring prices down in
the future.
Examples of recycled products are recycled paper, tire derived fuel, glass
aggregate asphalt, fly ash used in concrete, recycled plastic products and
yard waste compost. It is also important the manufacturer of these pro-
ducts use "post -consumer" materials and not claim factory waste as a
recycled product.
RUBBLE FILL AREA
Construction/demolition waste makes up a significant portion of the Dubuque
county waste stream. A large portion of demolition waste is rubble.
Rubble free of other construction/demolition waste is not considered solid
waste and can be used in such activities as road construction, erosion
control or fill material. Construction/demolition wastes must be processed
9.7
at a permitted solid waste disposal facility; however, the Agency should
investigate the possibility of removing the rubble from the other construc-
tion/demolition waste for other uses. If nothing else, the rubble should
be separated and stockpiled elsewhere to help in the effort to reach the
solid waste management reduction goals.
MIXED SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING
Dubuque County should be capable of reaching the 1994 goal of 25 percent
using waste reduction, composting yard waste and recycling the residential
and commercial/industrial waste streams. It is unlikely, however, that the
year 2000 goal of 50 percent can be obtained without the addition of
another solid waste management program. Dubuque County should investigate
mixed solid waste composting as a means of achieving this goal.
The MSW composting operation should concentrate on producing a high -quality
compost that would be easily marketed or land applied. The targeted waste
should be paper and cardboard not captured by recycling, food and wood
waste. Rejected materials that would be recycled or landfilled would be
plastic, glass and metals that were not captured in the recycling program
and the other noncompostable items.
Dubuque County should compost these items using the same technology used
for yard waste composting. Many of the equipment needs of the MSW compost-
ing site could be met with the same equipment used at the yard waste fa-
cility. The two composting operations; however, should be kept separate.
The engineering, land development and permitting requirements are more
extensive with mixed solid waste composting than with the composting of
yard wastes. Dubuque county, therefore, should start planning and design
of the site by 1995. The first stage would involve locating a suitable
site, determining a plan to remove noncompostable material and application
for the required permits. Market research would also be started at this
time. The second stage will involve engineering design, construction and
program implementation.
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
It is not recommended at this time that Dubuque County pursue the third
step in the waste management hierarchy, waste -to -energy. The high capital
costs associated with mass burn incinerators, along with the uncertainties
associated with future air pollution and ash considerations, contribute to
significant risks associated with this technology. If, however, a private
firm expresses interest in burning solid waste at an existing facility,
negotiations with these industries should be pursued.
9.8
REFUSE -DERIVED FUEL
An RDF facility does not currently carry the same degree of risk as does a
mass burn unit. There are, however, significant risks associated with this
type of technology that must be addressed. The contract with a private
operator for the RDF facility must be carefully drafted to cover a full
range of legal, financial and technical issues. Dubuque County should not
pursue RDF for waste management unless the mandated goals are not reached
using other methods.
INCINERATION FOR VOLUME REDUCTION
Dubuque County should anticipate difficulty in permitting this type of
facility. This process should be considered as a low priority method to
reduce landfill waste volumes unless a private firm expresses interest in
incinerating the solid waste at an existing, privately owned facility. At
this time, this alternative is not recommended.
LANDFILLING
This ultimate disposal technology will
comprehensive plan for solid waste ma
Dubuque County landfill can anticipate
implementation of the solid waste plan
continue to be a viable part of the
nagement. At current volumes, the
30 years of remaining space. The
will increase the landfill life.
The Agency is currently in the process of developing Part II of the Compre-
hensive Solid Waste Plan. Part II includes the requirements of Subsections
4 and 5 of State Code 455B.306, which addresses closure and post -closure
plans, leachate control plans, financial plans, and financial instruments
and must be completed prior to renewal of the landfill permit. The hydro -
geologic investigation currently being conducted at the landfill will
produce information necessary in Part II of the Comprehensive Plan. Part
II of the Comprehensive Plan should be implemented after its completion and
acceptance.
CHART
The following organization chart demonstrates the proposed solid waste
management plan for Dubuque County. This example anticipates that rubble
will not be removed from the construction/demolition waste and will be
landfilled. The lawn and garden waste is composted and the remaining waste
enters the recycling process. Nonrecyclables and recyclables not captured
in the recycling program are composted.
The lawn and garden composting, along with recycling, will be implemented
prior to the year 1994. As shown on the chart, these two activities will
remove approximately 23,800 tons from the solid waste stream each year,
surpassing the 1994 goal of 25 percent. The final step, MSW composting,
removes another 26,370 tons per year, for a total of 50,180 tons per year
diverted from landfilling. Implementing this plan with these results will
enable Dubuque County to reach the 50 percent waste reduction/recycling
goal.
Rep/Dubuque/AC1
9.9
DUBUQUE COUNTY
PROPOSED INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
ORGANIZATION CHART
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION
SOIL, GRAVEL & MISC.
(11,700 TONS/YR)
TOTAL SOLID WASTE
(73,800 TONS/YR)
RES. - COMM. - IND.
(62,100 TONS/YR)
COMPOSTING
LAWN / GARDEN
(7,850 TONS/YR)
RECYCLING MATERIALS
PAPER, CORRUGATED,
PLASTIC, GLASS, METALS
(39,900 TONS/YR)
RECYCLED
40% OF RECYCLABLES
(10,960 TONS/YR)
RECYCABLES
NOT CAPTURED
(23,940 TONS/YR)
NON-RECYCLABLES
FOOD, WOOD, MISC.
(14,350 TONS/YR)
MSW COMPOSTING
(38,290 TONS/YR)
REJECTED MATERIALS
PLASTIC, GLASS,
METALS, MISC.
(11,920 TONS/YR)
FIGURE 9-1
9.10
COMPOSTING
PAPER, CORRUGATED,
FOOD, WOOD
(26,370 TONS/YR)
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
VOLUME REDUCTION - 1991
I. Volume -Based Rates
A. Continue using the pay -for -bag system to finance yard waste
composting.
B. Consider a system similar to financing yard waste for regular
garbage.
C. Encourage backyard composting and clippings left on the lawn.
II. Encourage Industrial and Commercial Volume Reduction
A. Conduct detailed inventory of industrial/commercial waste
C. Establish sites and begin collection - Spring, 1991.
D. Inventory the industrial/commercial waste stream.
III. Voluntary Curb -Side Separation Program
A. Initiate administrative duties - 1991.
1. Purchase proper equipment.
2. Start public education.
3. Motivate commercial/industrial sector.
4. Expand MRF capacity.
5. Negotiate with markets.
6. Solicit recycling participation of other counties.
B. Implement program - Spring, 1992.
stream. _ C. Construction/demolition solid waste recycling.
B. Alter copying and printing to include the use of both sides of
the paper.
C. Inform commercial/industrial sector of state sponsored waste
reduction programs.
III. Coordinate and Promote a Household Hazardous Waste Collection and
Disposal Program
A. Motor oil and lead -acid battery disposal education.
YARD WASTE COMPOSTING - 1991
I. Continue Yard Waste Composting Initiated July, 1990
II. Continue to Evaluate and Optimize the System
III. Pursue Markets for the Compost Materials
RECYCLING
I. Local Government
A. Local government offices start paper recycling.
B. Local government offices begin using recycled products.
II. Coordinate Voluntary Drop -Off Program
A. Promote program - Winter, 1990.
B. Pursue markets - Winter, 1990.
10.1
1. Encourage contractors to separate rubble.
2. Establish rubble site.
IV. Mandatory Recycling
A. Evaluate voluntary recycling program Fall, 1992.
B. Mandatory recycling (if necessary).
1. Pass ordinance - Spring, 1993.
2. Include industrial/commercial sector.
3. Evaluate program - Fall, 1993.
C. Reach 1994 25 percent reduction goal.
MIXED SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING
I. Administrative
A. Investigate mixed solid waste composting ownership - 1995.
1. Investigate options for private ownership and operation.
2. Public ownership and private operation.
3. Public ownership and operation.
B. Isolate composting waste stream - 1996.
10.2
C. Locate composting site - 1996.
D. Apply for proper permits - 1996.
E. Begin engineering design - 1996.
F. Research markets - 1996.
II. Site Construction - 1997
A. Begin construction - spring.
B. Purchase proper equipment - spring.
C. Begin composting - summer.
D. Evaluate composting program - 1998.
III. Evaluate Total Solid Waste Management Program - 1998
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
I. Remain Receptive to Private Proposals
II. Evaluate the Need for Waste -to -Energy
INCINERATION FOR VOLUME REDUCTION
I. Remain Receptive to Private Proposals
LANDFILL
I. Landfill Operation Will Continue to be Necessary
II. Reduce Materials to be Landfilled
A. 25 percent by July 1, 1994.
B. 50 percent by July 1, 2000.
Rep/Dubuque/AC2
10.3
r4
Pui
CD
TAPCET
m
0
0
U
0
w
w
CC
-J
O
Cc
0
Cc
a.
w
CC
CD
0
CD
z
CD
0
d
0
0
DROP OFF PROGRAM
0
z
177
0
o
a C CD
0 0
U Cr.
Cc
2E
MAIN RECEPTIVE TO PRIVATE PROPOSALS
MAIN RECEPTIVE TO PRIVATE PROPOSALS
J
O
z
0
U
0
0
W
w
J
0
1-
w
w
0
0
0
J
0
m
T
W W
L7 a. J
N (Y j O
I 0
O O O
a 0: w z
• n O
Z. a: 1-
CC >- CDCC Z C)a .4 o
7.7
4 CD
4CC � oa 0
CD cf, U
Z a. I1J W
• w UJ W
4 0
0 J
w a- CD V
CD> Ql
__ F -
I C.).
CC 4 -
4 0
CD -J
0 J -)
-J
.,,E. a
O U
Ct: cc -J
Z. C.) >-
Z
w
Z N 5.)
01
I—
w �
w---
0 -)
1- F
UU
1,)
4 w
3 1N M-
—
1— 4 4)
W 3
w
VOLUME REDUCTION
COMPOSTING
0
w
2
MSW COMPOSTING
WASTE -TO -ENERGY
CC 0
L 0
0 o In
Z
1- o
4 -J J
CCw J J�--
Z j o a)
V -J Z z 0
Z O J
>4 CC
J Q_
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The primary purpose of "proper" solid waste management is to protect public
health and the environment. We know that environmental factors may be
closely related to public health in some respects; and therefore by manag-
ing environmental impacts, we can affect public health.
The current method of solid waste management in Dubuque County is primarily
through landfilling. When this process was initially developed, the intent
was generally to provide a space for solid waste disposal and provide suf-
ficient cover to minimize litter, vermin and fire hazards. These are still
significant considerations in operating a landfill; however, there are
additional concerns regarding potential groundwater and surface water con-
tamination.
Groundwater contamination has become a significant issue in landfill sit-
ing, design and operation. H.F. 631, Part 2 - Comprehensive Planning,
requirements include liners, leachate collection and treatment, expanded
monitoring, closure and post -closure plans. These more stringent landfill
requirements are generally directed at reduction of potential groundwater
contamination, early detection of any release should it occur and remedia-
tion of problems before they can become more widespread. Implementation of
these more stringent landfill requirements will increase the costs of this
type of disposal; however, it will also improve the environmental effects
of landfilling as a technology.
The waste management hierarchy established by IDNR is, in part, related
directly to environmental effects. Implementation of a comprehensive plan
will ultimately reduce landfilled solid waste and the hazards associated
with landfilling.
WASTE REDUCTION
The first step in the hierarchy is waste reduction, and the current types
of activities anticipated in this step would result in environmental
benefits. It is obvious that if waste is not produced, the environmental
affects from their disposal is a positive one. Landfill life is expanded,
and potential problems from landfills are generally reduced as a result of
waste reduction. Some of the materials proposed for banning through waste
reduction programs are generally targeted at some of the more environ-
mentally questioned materials. Chloroflurohydrocarbons in foam plastic,
for example, which is banned in the future, is a documented environmental
problem from its manufacture. As waste reduction programs are instituted,
they must be evaluated on their overall benefits; however, in general, they
will provide positive environmental impacts.
RECYCLING
Recycling and re -use is another step in the hierarchy which appears to have
significant positive environmental effects. Through recycling and re -use,
raw materials and energy are saved and landfill life is extended. The type
of recycling program will have some impact on the level of energy savings
as the collection of solid waste for recycling will involve expenditure of
energy, labor and equipment. Market locations also are factors in the
environmental benefits as they relate to energy and equipment expenditures
to move the materials to the market. Developing local markets will reduce
transportation costs and corresponding environmental factors; however, the
materials processing required by the market may result in significant local
environmental effects. For example, if a paper mill were to develop in the
Dubuque County area to recycle old newsprint (ONP), significant energy use,
air pollution concerns and water needs will result. Although there are
significant needs for ONP recycling, the environmental drawbacks of an ONP
processing operation must be considered in the overall management program.
There are numerous possibilities when recycling is viewed in this type of
program; however, in general, recycling and re -use have the potential to
provide significant environmental benefits.
One of the waste reduction and recycling programs that is recommended is
yard waste composting. This fraction of the Dubuque County waste stream
represents a significant volume which is currently being landfilled. In
the landfill, this highly organic material takes up landfill space, decom-
poses and contributes to leachate generation. Through composting the yard
waste, the organics can be returned to the soil to enhance soil tilth.
Although the fertilizer value of this material is generally not considered
to be significant, compost improves moisture holding capabilities, reduces
soil compaction and improves production on compost treated soils.
YARD WASTE COMPOSTING
The yard waste composting process has some potential negative environmental
effects such as odors and organically contaminated runoff. The IDNR permit
process, which requires that these facilities be sited, developed and
operated to minimize the negative factors and the potential benefits from
use of the compost make the technology environmentally beneficial overall.
MIXED SOLID WASTE COMPOSTING
To meet the year 2000 waste reduction goal, it is recommended that Dubuque
County consider composting mixed solid waste. This method has potentially
negative environmental effects from leachate contamination of surface and
groundwater and the production of odors. Processing under controlled con-
ditions, however, will alleviate these problems. The stabilized compost
can be used as a soil conditioner or possibly landfill cover.
11.2
LANDFILLING
The final step in the hierarchy is landfilling, which is becoming more
regulated due to environmental concerns. This technology will continue to
be a necessary part of the overall waste management program and the tighter
restrictions , including the Solid Waste Management Plans Part I and Part
II, on landfill operations will result in improved environmental factors
for this technology.
In general, it is intended that implementing the Comprehensive Plan will be
an overall environmental benefit. The intent of the legislation appears
directed at environmental enhancement, and the hierarchy establishes the
steps in solid waste management, in part, based on environmental factors.
The success of implementing the Comprehensive Plan and the resulting envi-
ronmental improvements will, however, depend on the public education and
awareness program to convince the waste generators of the benefits, solicit
their support and justify the costs of implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Rep/Dubuque/AC3
11.3
POI
pui
mal
APPENDIX A
COMPUTER MODEL PRINTOUTS
RECYCLING AND LAWN/GARDEN
WASTE COMPOSTING
HECri;LiNG Ai HE :OLLEt;)IUN AKEA
DUBUQUE
FOR CELLS 1 TO 17
URBAN RURAL TOTAL TOTAL MARKE)
AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL TRANSPORT
COMPONENT REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED REMAINING VALUE COSTS •
(TONS) (IONS) (TONS) (TONS) ($) (S)
PAPER
O 0 0 23082 0.0 U.0
CARDBOARD
O 0 0 5129 0.0 0.0
LAWN/
GARDEN 0 0 0 7852 0.0 0.0
PLASTIC
O 0 0 5691 0.0 0.0
WOOD 0 0 0 2249 0.0 u.0
FERROUS
METAL 0 0 0 253.5 0.0 0.0
NONFERROUS
METAL 0 0 0 619 0.0 0.0
FOOD 0 0 0 6593 0.0 U.0
GLASS 0 0 0 1863 0.0 0.0
MISC. 0 0 0 17189 0.0 0.0
TOTAL
O 0 0 7380U 0.0 0.0
COSTS TO TRANSPORT RECYCLEABLES FROM COLLECTION TO TEMPORARY
STORAGE _$ 0
COST TO TRANSPORT REMAINING WASTE STREAM TO FIRST DESTINATION =$ 59478.59
A.1
OPERATIONS AI SOLID WASTE HANDLING r-ACILITY
RtCYCL1NG
ORIGINAL EXTRA COMBINED
PRODUCT WASTE WAS1E WASTE IOIAL F4uI;tic 1 IUIML
PRODUCT VALUE STREAM STREAM SIHEAM RECYCLED HEIUHN REMA1NINt
($/TON) (TONS) (IONS) (TUNS) 110(43) ($1 IIUNS)
PAPER
10.00 0.0
CARDBOARD 10.UU 0.0
PLASTIC 100.00
0.0 9233 9233.0 92329.54 13849.4
0.0 2452 2451.824511.57 3677.6
0.0 0.0
2276 21/b.4 22/544.60 3414./
WOOD 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 2249.1 PR
FERROUS
METAL 100.00 0.0 0.0 1013 1013.1 101308.20 1519.6
NONFERROUS 11141
METAL 10.00 0.0 0.0 248 247.6 2475.13 371.4
GLASS
20.00 0.0
0.0 745 745.1 149v2.16 111/.7
TOTAL 15957'.0 453118.3u
TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLEABLES
DISTANCE TOTAL
DESTINATION ANNUAL. TOTAL 10 TRUCP. ANNUAL
,PRODUCT I CITY D1S1ANCE TONS MAHkEI CAPAiIli. Co:0
(MILES) (MILES) (CI) ($i
PAPER
CHICAGO 205177 9233 200.0 40.0 187273.5
CARDBOARD CHICAGO 70050 2452 200.0 40.0 63937.7
PLASTIC CHICAGO 91058 2276 200.0 40.0 63112.2
FERROUS
METAL
CHICAGO 20262
1013 200.0
40.0 16493.6
NONFERROUS
METAL
CHICAGO 4952 248 200.0 40.0 4520.1
GLASS
CHICAGO 13547 745 200.0 40.0 12365.3
. TOTAL
405046 15967 0.0 0.0 369/02.5
A.2
COMPOSTING
(1ONS)
LAWN/
GARDEN 7851.1
PAPER U.0
CARDBOARD 0.0
FOOD 0.0
MISC. 0.0
TOTAL 7851.1
TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME = 34896.28 CY
AREA NECESSARY FOR COMPOSTING = 9.9/0364 ACRES
TOTAL LAND AREA NEEDED (INCLUDING 15U F1. BUFFER) _
ANNUAL SITE COST = $ 178320
TOTAL
PARAMETER RECYCLED
(TONS)
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
TOTAL
COMPOSTED
(TONS)
21.11291 ACHES
10TAL
REMOVED
(TONS)
TOTAL
REMAINING
(TONS)
PAPER
9233.0 0.0
9233.0 13849.4
CARDBOARD
2451.8 0.0
2451.8 3677.6
LAWN/
GARDEN
0.0 7851.7
7851.7 0.0
PLASTIC
2276.4 0.0
2276.4 3414.7
WOOD
0.0 0.0
0.0 2249.1
FERROUS
METAL 1013.1 0.0 1013.1 1519.6
NONFERROUS
METAL
247.6 0.0
247.6 371.4
F000
0.0 0.0
0.0 6592.7
GLASS
745.1 0.0
745.1 1117./
MISC.
0.0 0.0
0.0 17169.1
1OTAL
1596/.0 7851.7
A.3
23818.E 49961.4
TRANSFER STATION ANALYSIS
TRANSFER STAIlUN HAUL DESTINATION IS TOWNSHIP 89 RANGE 4
THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO MAKE ONE TRIP = u HOURS
NUMBER OF TRACTORS NEEDED 1
NUMBER OF TRAILERS NEEDED = 2
TOTAL TUN -MILES = 0
TOTAL TRACTOR COST = $ 65000
TOTAL TRAILER COST = $ 10000U
ANNUAL COST TO OWN AND OPERATE TRANSFER VEHICLES = 82531 ($/YR)
USAGE COSTS FOR GAS. OIL. TIRES. ETC. _ .5988001 (SMILE)
FIXED SITE AND BUILDING COSTS = $ 210000
ANNUAL FIXED SITE AND BUILDING COST = 21388.96 t$/YR)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST = 18000 ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = 121920 ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL LANDFILL TIPPING COST = $ 1099590
1
RECYCLING AND MSW COMPOSTING
A,4
RECYCLING Al THE COLLECTION AREA
DUBUOUE
FOR CELLS 1 10 11
URBAN RURAL TOTAL TOTAL MARKET
AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT TOTAL TRANSPORT
COMPONENT REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED REMAINING VALUE CUS1S
(TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (IONS) ($) ($)
PAPER
CARDBOARD
O 0 0 23082 0.0 0.0
O 0 0 6129 u.0 0.0
LAWN/
GARDEN 0 0 0 7852 0.0 0.0
PLASTIC
WOOD
O 0 0 5691 U.0 U.0
O 0 0 2249 U.0
.IJ
FERROUS
METAL U 0 0 2533 0.0 0.0
NONFERROUS.
METAL 0 0 0 619 0.0 U.0
FOOD 0 0 0 6593 0.0 0.0
GLASS
MISC.
TOTAL
O 0 0 18U3 u.0 0.0
0 0 17189
0.0 0.0
O 0 0 7380u U.0 O.0
- COSTS TO TRANSPORT RECYCLEABLES FROM COLLECTION TO TEMPORARY
STORAGE =S 0
COST TO TRANSPORT REMAINING WASTE STREAM TO FIRST DESTINATION =$ 69476.59
A.5
PRODUCT
OPERATIONS Al SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILII'
ORIGINAL
PRODUCT WASI E
VALUE STREAM
($/FON) (TONS)
RECYCLING
EXTRA
WASTE
STREAM
(TONS)
COMBINED
WASTE
STREAM
(TONS)
IolAL PRoD)C1 I01AL
REC-it:LEU RETURN REMAINING
(IONS) ($) (IONS)
PAPER
10.00 0.0
0.0 9233 9233.0 92329.54 2769.9
CARDBOARD 10.00 0.0
0.0 2452 2451.5 24517.6/
PLASTIC
100.00 0.0
0.0 2276
2276.4 22/644.60 3414./
WOOL)
0.00 0.0
0.0 0 0.0 0.U0 2249.1
FERROUS
METAL
100.00
. 0.0 0.0
1013 1013.1 101308.20 1519.6
NONFERROUS .
METAL 10.00
0.0 0.0 248 247.6 2416.13 371.4
GLASS
20.00 0.0
0.0 745 748.1 14902.16
TOTAL 15967.0 4631 /8,.30
DESTINATION
PRODUCI CIIY
TRANSPORTATION OF RECYCLEABLES
DISTANCE TOTAL
ANNUAL TOTAL TO TRUCK ANNUAL
DISTANCE TONS MAHKEI CAPMC11T COSI
(MILES) (MILES) (CY) ($)
PAPER
CHICAGO 205177 9233 200.0 40.0 187273.5
CARDBOARD CHICAGO 70050 2452 200.0 40.0 63937.7
PLASTIC CHICAGO 91058 2276 200.0 40.0 83112.2
FERROUS
METAL CHICAGO 20262 1013 200.0
40.0 18493.6
NONFERROUS
METAL CHICAGO
4952 248 200.0 40.0 4520.1
GLASS
CHICAGO 13547 745 200.0 40.0 12365.3
TOTAL
•
405046 15967 0.0 0.0 369702.5
A.6
C0MPOS1 ING
(IONS)
LAWN/
GARDEN 0.0
PAPER 11079.6
CARDBOARD 2942.1
FOOD 5274.2
MISC. 1718.9
TOTAL 21014./
TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME = 84058.97 CY
AREA NECESSARY FOR COMPOSTING = 24.01685 ACRES
TOTAL LAND AREA NEEDED (INCLUDING 150 FT. BUFFER)
ANNUAL SITE COST = $ 429541.4
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
= 40.17147 ACRES
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
PARAMETER RECYCLED COMPOSTED REMOvED REMAINING
(TONS) (TONS) (TUNS) (TONS)
PAPER
9233.0 11079.6
20312.5 2769.9
CARDBOARD
2451.8 2942.1
5393.9 735.5
LAWN/
GARDEN 0.0 0.0 0.0 7851.7
.PLASTIC
2276.4 0.0
2276.4 3414.7
WOOD
0.0 0.0
0.0 2249.1
FERROUS
METAL 1013.1 0.0 1013.1 1519.6
NONFERROUS
. METAL
247.6 0.0
247.6 371.4
FOOL)
0.0 5274.2
5274.2 1318.5
GLASS
745.1 0.0
745.1 1117.7
MISC.
0.0 1718.9
1718.9 15470.2
TOTAL
15967.0 21014.7
A:7
36981.7 36818.3
w
w
p
TRANSFER STATION ANALYSIS
TRANSFER STATION HAUL DESTINATION IS TOWNSHIP 89 RANGE 4
THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO MAKE ONE TRIP = 0 HOURS
NUMBER OF TRACTORS NEEDED = 1
NUMBER OF TRAILERS NEEDED = 2
TOTAL TON -MILES = 0
TOTAL TRACTOR COST = 9. 65000
TOTAL TRAILER COST = $ 100000
ANNUAL COST TO OWN AND OPERATE TRANSFER VEHICLES = 82531 ($/YH )
USAGE COSTS FOR GAS. OIL. TIRES. ETC. = .5958001 ($/MILE)
FIXED SITE ANU BUILDING COSTS = $ 210000
ANNUAL FIXED SITE AND BUILDING COST = 21388.96 ($/Y(i)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST = 18000 ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = 121920 ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL LANDFILL TIPPING COST ='S 810002.4 .
A.8
APPENDIX B
COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS TABLES
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- LANDFILL ONLY
i 0 Cr.o <..f C..m _0 0 6.0 a
60m 0
cr.o cr. 00 rn
N 0 m o O- 00 a o+ 60 CS0-a-0 00.
4 ar
a.
o 0 0 0O r0•,f 0 0 0 000 O0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0^ m 0 0 0 m 0 4 V 0
.t O 40 O .0
~O Os m O .y -c NGPeC- .y
O C. OO }. 4 0 0 O60, 60 cac•'f
-0. Of .l cif r- a. O OO ^ a o00 O O O O 0 O O Oa.fte O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0 a
�- 0 0 0 6 0000 0 O O O
i 0 0
of a0 - OP Col m •- '- e e
C e 0• r- 0 O 0 0 .c. 0 =0 6 T
m O O 6 O
Of a of 0 ^- 00 `if0 O
Of 0 0 0 0 a 0 e 0 e e .- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om 0
O m b 0 0 0 m 0 m O
o 0 _ o
'+ ea. p a ^ e Of .0coa.0... C. a CD
OSo a 0
Or CT 6.0 406
or Of 0
m CO O CO 0 m C. m 0 m N N O * 0 - 0 0 0 0 O e 0 e .0 0 r-
b
OO O 0, O
00
CO 010
O'0 0Ca N e cif
O to
ma aa Om
_ -_
Of
N Of Of Of Of 0 cif a-,
Or ro
0 O O 0 N O b c0 0 .0 0 m 0 0 0 0 O O m m O N 00
0 .0 Of .- 0 O 40 CO m
a. P e �- m 00 .0 .-. O e
r- r-• O 0 a CO a Of cif r- 0- Of n e Of ^ erf
Of CO <-Y of .0 Or Of
0 0 0 0 0 40 CO 60 O 60 0 O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 .+� O m
co m O .- m .-�- O O
Of CO 0• O O 40 .0 N mOf
CO
r� r- 0 0•
r••• r0 a Of ..Y .�f r. CO ca O a T
N <60 ea 467 N cf CS
4.0 60 -0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 00 Os b 0 0 0 0 O CO •0 m O
p a a s - m m O a .0
0 O Of a0 O 40 0 CO CO 00
0p m m ^• e m Cae a 0a. •- O O 0a Of ..9 CS0..a. O CO O v
Of u7 v N «! CaC.....�f COO^
2
a 0 0 0 0 0 a- O a m O m 0 0 0 Of CO O O .0 N u O N mm
O 0 •0 Of 0 a •0 Of 0 0Of or Cs. O e O
0 Of
m CO m a Of cs
N en c+f s N c^f cif Of
i
}
O 0
Of Of
.4014
0CO
'
4.0
0
04.
m 0Os Os
.....-
CS 0
C. o_
CS CO
O O m O m 0 m cif .- .~ 0 0 a
O CO Ca 0 0 .0 m
CO CS^ e w a c9
CO O N CO Co O N a .- a Off 0 0
O ,0 m
N 0 Of a c^f • 0
0 O C�
O O P Of a c7
Of CO
CO
O
p 0
A 410 0 n- 600 b0 r
O O 0 CO..7 Of
N 60Cf.
CO Oe
O O a Of Of
or Of or Or a 660
o b 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0* OP 0 a GP0 0 0 of
m m •u
CO o GI
CO CP
N of CP CO
H
40
...
a .l) D:
4 COP CI. cal 0
0 : V
O 6-4
N A N
W- ....
</) 0� r.
Cr, x O a_
4 O 2 4
3 a. V
OPERATING COSTS
4
or-
2 0-
CO 4
fc 0- w -
0 - .0
GP o CO o s •-.
60 - : W 2 a O O.
s S 4
2 C.0 60
GI 4 '-
0 0 2 N 0 K
[CIOi O 0 O
i to 0 V 602 0-
0 U 0-
2 0 m a 0 0 a-.0+ 0 a.
W 0
0_ 40 40 .W- - o 0 a. o
2 0 6.1.1 0 ./) J _N V
_2 4 cn O 40 O
0- - -
0- 0 C.0 0- 40 0 2 CO 4 2
O .- N 660 •.a
B.1
s
LAP
W O 0 0 a 0 a o a 0 0 O m
O b O
u. O O CO m O0 CO or
r- O Or Of ro. Ore Of T
Of O
m
O C. O C. m C. m O m-- 0 0 Of
Of O
O O•
N O O Co 400 N
40- r- O OCP nOf ^ a 0 0 O
N CO ,0 m
0 0 CO O Ca O CO 0 N m •► O Of
O CO 40 60 Ca m
Of CO Ce3Of Of ^- e•f _ 660 Ca
40 r- O0.O O 0 O a Of m cif
Of a Of Of
0 CO 0 0 .e o 460 0 4.10 0 OSN .- O m
.o - a..Cr*m o
eo
0
4 .0
O 0 4
.0. CO
a.•"
2 V) 2 .- O ....-
4 40 400 0 0 w --. 0 4
.0 0 .0
Pa r O 2 O. O
20 0 0
0. m 4 ... d
W w f- i n 44.
44- .A V a. C. 2 4
0 2 CO 0- 4 .•-
2 O- G2. V p C. O
i
pa
at
2 0-
O 4
- U i
0. -~ 40 0 .
. 0.
a a 0 u.o_ Q
C.
... o. V) 0 CO (.0 CO
O Of 40 Oa w
U O. 2 U 0_
b
V) 40Lir O.. t/ r
0 ...-. 2 r- a- 0 4 f- 0
0
N 0 = 0 0
O.
a
0 0 a.0 0 60CPCC 2 4 4 2 40 0 2
erj
YEAR
1. WASTE MEAN
2. TONS PROCESSED
3, PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPI1Al COSTS
5. OPERATING COSIS
6. 1RANSPORIAIION COST
1. 101A1 COSIS
8. REVENUES
9. NEI DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12, ADJUSTED COSI PER 10N
13. NEI COSI PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NEI COST PER CAPITA
YEAR
I. WASTE SIREAH
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSIS
6. IRANSPORIATION COSI
1. 101A1 COSIS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
II. ADJUSTED COSIS
12, ADJUSIEO COSI PER ION
13. NEI COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COSI PER CAPITA
16. NEI COSI PER CAPIIA
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUHHARIUED ANNUAL DATA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- WASTE REDUCTION 110%1
0 1, 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 1041 IO YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 1458 14111411 14610 1484 114901 11510 14515014515 11452
1380
0 0 0 0 1393 1406 1419 14320 1 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
p 0
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.120 1.840 1.910 14.180 1.
48 0 00
0 0 . 0 0 0 0
0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
00
60
20
60
00
00
80
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340
90300 90�00 90600 90a00 90900 92140
I00 90300 910E00 905.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
oe
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 10101 20 YEAR
AVERAGE
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2, IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. IRANSPORIAIION COST
I. TOTAL COSTS
8, REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER TON
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COSI PER CAPIIA
16. NET COSI PER CAPITA
YEAR
I. WASTE STREAM
2. TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COSI
1. TOTAL COSIS
8, REVENUES
9. NEI DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER TON
13. NEI COST PER TON
14. POIUTAIION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NET COST PER CAPIIA
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15680
1523 1536 1549 1562 1515 1588
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 .0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2,95
0 0 .0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
SOLID WASTE CONPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMNARI200 ANNUAL DATA
16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
1601 1614 1621 1640 150330 1511
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
p 0 0
p 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
3,16 3.38 3.62 3.8
0 0
0.00
0,00
93420
0.00
0.00
i i�
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- LANDFILL (AFTER 10% REDUCTION)
0.00
0.00
93580
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
93140
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
93900
0.00
0,00
0
0
0
0
0
43.81 2.19
0 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1841600 92380
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 10141 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
66420 66531 66654 66111 66888 61005 61122 61239 61356 61413 61590 610635 61064
0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 1029000 102900
810324 811151 813119 814606 816034 811461 818888 820316 821143 823111 824598 8181141 818115
2191860 2195121 2199582 2203443 2201304 2211165 2215026 2218881 2222148 2226609 2230410 22130955 2213096
3105084 3110312 3115661 3120949 3126238 3131526 3136814 3142103 3141391 3152680 3151968 31341102 3134110
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3105084 3110312 3115661 3120949 3126238 3131526 3136814 3142103 3147391 3152680 3151968 31341102 3134110
1.00 1,01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1,84 1,91 14.18 1.48
3105084 3328098 3561120 3823291 4091860 4392121 4101513 5045530 5401804 5196013 6212201 46311623 4631162
46.15 50.02 53.52 51.26 61.26 65,55 10.13 15.04 80.29 85.90 91.91 690.88 69.09
46.15 46,15 46.14 46,14 46.14 46,14 46,13 46.13 46.13 46.13 46.12 461.34 46.13
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
34.23 36.63 39.19 41.93 44.86 48.00 51.36 54.95 58.19 62.91 61.30 505,93 50.59
34.23 34,23 34,23 34,23 34.23 34.22 34.22 34.22 34,22 34.22 34.21 342.23 34,22
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 10101 20 YEAR
AVERAGE
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
61101 61824 61941 68058 68115 68292 68409 68526 68643 68160 1352910 61649
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 2058000 102900
826025 821453 828880 830308 831135 833162 834590 836011 831445 838812 16506234 82531?
2234331 2238192 2242053 2245914 2249115 2253636 2251491 2261358 2265219 2269080 44648010 2232401
3163256 3168545 3113833 3119122 3184410 3189698 3194981 3200215 3205564 3210852 63212244 3160612
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3163266 3168546 3113833 3119122 3184410 3169698 3194987 3200215 3205564 3210852 63212244 3160612
2.10 2.25 2.41 2,58 2.16 2.95 3.16 3.38 3.62 3,81 43.81 2.19
6658186 1136110 1648446 8191414 8185886 9416512 10092313 10616113 11593009 12424984 1.4E+08 6951368.
98.34 105.22 112.51 120.45 128.81 131.89 141.53 151.85 168.89 180,10 2049,18 102.46
46.12 46.12 46,11 46,11 46.11 46.11 46,10 46,10 46.10 46.10 934.42 46.12
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 32380
12.01 11.05 82.44 88,20 94.31 100.91 108,03 115.59 123.61 132.32 1500.58 15.03
34.21 34.21 34,21 34,21 34.20 34.20 34.20 34.20 34.20 34,19 684,21 34.21
I G
It to
YEAR
1. WASTE S1REAH
2. TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NE1 DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. AOJUSIEO COST PER 10N
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NE1 COST PER CAPIiA
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- COMPOSTING 10% IAFiER 10% REDUCTION)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 101A1 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
6642 6654 6665 6611 6689 6101 6112 6124 6136 6141 6159 61064 6106
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 113000 11300
106936 101125 101313 101501 101690 101818 108066 108255 108443 108632 108820 1019122 101912
431130 432491 433251 434012 434112 435533 436293 431054 431814 438515 439335 4359128 435913
609966 610915 611864 612813 613162 614111 615659 616608 611551 618506 619455 6151850 615185
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609966 610915 611864 612813 613162 614111 615659 616608 611551 618506 619455 6151860 615185
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1.48
609966 653619 100523 150122 804516 862163 923939 990138 106101E 1131098 1218562 9102419 910242
91.83 98.24 105.10 112.43 120.28 128,61 131.65 141.26 151.53 168.53 180.29 1355,98 135.60
91.83 91.82 91.80 91.18 91.16 91.14 91.12 91.10 91.69 91.61 91.65 911.32 91.13
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 .91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
6.13 1,19 1.10 8.23 8.81 9.42 10.08 10.18 11.54 12.34 13.20 99.30 9.93
6.13 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.11 6.11 6.11 61.11 6.12
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2, IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4, CAPlIAI COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NE1 DISPOSAL COSIS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12, ADJUSTED COSI PER 10N
13. NE1 COST PER 10N
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16, NEi COSI PER CAPITA
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2, TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPIiAI COSIS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTA1 COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NEl DISPOSAL COSTS
10, PRESEHI VALUE INDEX
11, ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER 10N
13. NE1 COST PER TON
14, POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COSI PER CAPITA
16. NET COST PER CAPITA
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6, TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSIS
8, REVENUES
9. NE1 DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESEHI VALUE INDEX
11, ADJUSTED COSIS
12, ADJUSTED COST PER TON
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NEi COST PER CAPITA
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 10141 2YEAR
A0E0406
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
6111 6182 6194 6806 6818 6829 6841 6853 6864 6816 135291 6165
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 11300 1426000 11300
109008 109191 109385 109513 109162 109950 110138 110321 110515 110104 2118282 108914
440096 440856 441611 442311 443138 443898 444659 445419 446180 446940 8194305 439115
620404 621353 622302 623250 624199 625148 626091 621046 621995 628944 12398586 619929
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
620404 621353 622302 623250 624199 625148 626091 621046 621995 628944 12398586 619929
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2.95 3.16 3.38 3.62 3.81 43.81 2.19
1305858 1399405 1499650 1601012 1122185 1845540 1911125 2119373 2211160 2433813 21284200 1364210,
192.81 206.33 220.13 236.13 252.61 210.24 289,10 309.28 330.81 353.96 4018.10 200,90
91.63 91.61 91.59 91.58 91.56 91.54 91.52 91.50 91.49 91.41 1832.82 91,64
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 92380
14.12 15.11 16.16 11.29 18.50 19,19 21.11 22.65 24.23 25,92 294,24 14.11
6.11 6.11 6.11 6,11 6,10 6.10 6.10 6,10 6,10 6,10 134,21 6.11
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- LANDFILL (AFTER 10% REDUCTION AND 10% COMPOSTING)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 TOTAL 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
59118 59883 59989 60094 60199 60305 60410 60515 60620 60126 60831 603512 60351
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900' 1029000 102900
129292 130516 131861 133146 134430 135115 131000 138284 139569 140854 142138 1363512 136351
1912614 1916149 1919624 1983099 1986514 1990049 1993523 1996998 2000413 2003948 2001423 19911859 1991186
2804866 2809625 2814385 2819144 2823904 2828663 2833423 2838183 2842942 2841102 2852461 28310431 2831043
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2804866 2809625 2814385 2819144 2823904 2828663 2833423 2838183 2842942 2841102 2852461 28310431 2831043
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1,48
2804866 .3006299 3222189 3453513 3101562 3961341 4252204 4551501 4884104 5235383 5611223 41891984 4189198
46.92 50.20 . 53.11 51.41 61.49 65,19 10.39 15.31 80.58 86.21 92.24 693.40 69.34
46.92 46.92 46,92 46.91 46.91 46.91 46.90 46.90 46.90 46.89 46.89 469.05 46.90
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
30.92 33.09 35.40 31.88 40.53 43.36 46.39 49.64 53.11 56.82 60.19 456.99 45.10
30.92 30.92 30.92 30.92 30.92 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30,90 309.13 30,91
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 10141 20 1E48
AVERAGE
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
60936 61042 61141 61252 61358 61463 61568 61613 61119 61884 1211613 60884
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 2058000 102900
143423 144108 145992 141211 148562 149846 151131 152415 153100 154985 14855610 142181
2010898 2014313 2011848 2021323 2024198 2028212 2031141 2035222 2038691 2042112 40183209 2009160
2851221 2861980 2866140 2811499 2816259 2881019 2885118 2890538 2895291 2900051 51096819 2854841
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2851221 2861980 2866140 2811499 2816259 2881019 2885118 2890538 2895291 2900051 51096819 2854841
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2.95 3.16 3.38 3.62 3,81 43,81 2.19
6014021 6445128 6908399 1404259 1935689 8505239 9115640 9169822 10410922 11222305 1.3E108 6284200,
98.69 105,60 112.98 120.88 129.34 138,38 148,06 158.41 169.49 181.34 2056.51 102.83
46.89 46.89 46,88 46.88 46.88 46.81 46.81 46.81 46,81 46.86 931,81 46.89
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 92380
65.04 69,59 14.46 19.61 85.24 91.20 91.58 104.40 111.10 119.51 1355.39 61.11
30,90 30.90 30.90 30.90 30.89 30,89 30.89 30.89 30.89 30.88 618.01 30.90
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- RECYCLING 15% )AFTER COMPOSTING 10% AND 10% REDUCTION)
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAK
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOIAI COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NEI DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER TON
13. NEI COSI PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NET COSI PER CAPITA
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAK
2. TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. IRANSPORTAIION COSI
1. 101AL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NEI DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENI VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSIS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER ION
13, NET COSI PER 10N
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COSI PER CAPITA
16. NET COSI PER CAPITA
0 1 2
13800 13930
8961 8982
0 0
160000 160000
360013 360641
511102 512002
1031115 1032649
260034 260492
111081 112151
1.00 1.01
111081 826208
85.99 91.98
85.99 85.96
90100 90860
8.50 9.09
8.50 8.50
14060
8998
0
160000
3 4
14190 '14320
9014 9030
0 0
160000 160000
361281 361916 362550
512903 513803 514103
1034184 1035118 1031253
260950 261408 261861
113233 114310 115386
1.14 1.23 1.31
885215 948563 1016313
98.38 105.23 112.56
85.93 85.90 85.81
91020 91180 91340
9.13 10.40 11.13
8.50 8.49 8.49
5 6 1
14450 14580 14110
9046 9061 9011
0 0 0
160000 160000 160000
363184 363818 364452
515603 516504 511404
1038181 1040322 1041856
262325 262183 263241
116463 111539 118616
1.40 1.50 1.61
1089029 1166811 1250281
120.39 128.11 131.14
85.84 85.81 85.18
91500 91660 91820
11.90 12.13 13.62
8.49 8.48 8.48
11 12 13 14 15
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150
9140 9156 9112 9188 9204
0 0 0 0 0
160000 160000 160000 160000 160000
366989 361623 368251 368891 369526
521005 521906 522806 523106 524601
1041994 1049529 1051063 1052598 1054132
265013 265531 265989 266441 266905
182921 183998 185014 186151 181221
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16
1641933 1165113 1891901 2021116 2111984
180.29 192.84 206.21 220.63 235.99
85.65 85.62 85.59 85.56 85.53
92460 92620 92180 '92940 93100
11.82 19.06 20.39 2131 23.33
8.41 8,46 8.46 8.46 8.46
SEIB
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSIS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NE1 DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11, ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COST PER TON
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NET COSI PER CAPITA
YEAR
1. WASTE SIREAN
2. TONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4, CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1, TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COST PER 10N
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NOT COST PER CAPITA
S0110 WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
8 9 10 TOTAL 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
9093 9109 9125 90536 9054
0 0 0 0 0
160000 160000 160000 1600000 160000
365086 365121 366355 3635009 363501
518304 519205 520105 5160536 516054
1043391 1044925 1046460 10395546 1039555
263699 264151 264615 2625536 262554
119692 180168 181845 1110010 111001
1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1.48
1339656 1435411 1538001 11495685 1149569
141.33 151.58 168.56 1268.52 126.85
85.15 85.12 85.68 858.23 85.82
91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
14.56 15.58 16.66 125.41 12.54
8.48 8.41 8.41 84.84 8.48
15880 16010 16140
9219 9235 9251
0 0 0
160000 160000 160000
310160 310194 311428
525501 526401 521308
1055661 1051201 1058136
261363 261821 268219
188303 189380 190456
2.95 3.16 3.38
2321201 2493505 2611689
252.42 210.00 288.80
85.50 85.41 85.45
93260 93420 93580
24.95 26.69 28.55
8.45 8.45 8.45
16210
9261
0
160000
312062
528208
1060210
268131
191533
3.62
2862600
308.91
85.42
93140
30.54
8.44
19 20 101A1 20 YEAR
AVERAGE
16400 1503300 15165
9283 182651 9133
0 0 0
160000 3200000 160000
312696 1333436 366612
529108 10411104 520555
1061805 20944540 1041221
269195 5296818 264844
192609 15641662 182383
3.81 43.81 2.19
3061141 34422482 1121124
330.42 3155.10 181.15
85.39 1113.43 85.61
93900 1641600 92380
32.66 311.22 18.56
169.39 8.41
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- LANDFILL (AFTER 10% REDUCTION, 10% COMPOSTING AND 15% RECYCLING)
8.44
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 . 101AI 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
50811 50901 50990 51080 51169 51259 51348 51438 51521 51611 51106 .513036 51304
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 1029000 102900
619898 620990 622082 623114 624266 625358 626450 621542 628634 629126 630811 6259036 625904
1616113 1619121 1682680 1685634 1688588 1691541 1694495 1691449 1700402 1103356 1106310 16930180 1693018
2399511 2403616 2401662 2411108 2415153 2419199 2423845 2421890 2431936 2435981 2440021 24218211 2421822
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2399511 2403616 2401662 2411/08 2415153 2419199 2423845 2421890 2431936 2435981 2440021 24218211 2421822
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1,48
2399511 2511810 2156532 2954446 3166560 3393893 3631531 3898661 4178618 4418452 4199902 35836311 3583631
41.23 50.53 54.06 51.84 61.88 66.21 10,84 15.19 81.09 86.16 92.83 691,84 69.78
41.23 41.22 . 41.22 41.21 41.21 41.21 41,20 41.20 41.20 41.19 41.19 412.06 41.21
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
26.46 28.31 30.28 32.40 34.61 31.09 39.69 42.46 45.43 48.60 52.00 390.93 39.09
26.46 26.45 26.45 26,45 26.45 26.45 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44 26.44 264.45 26.44
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 TOTAL 20 YEAR
AVERAGE
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
51196 51885 51915 52064 52154 52243 52333 52422 52512 52601 1035022 51151
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 2058000 102900
631909 633001 634093 635185 636211 631369 638461 639553 640645 641131 12621269 631363
1109263 1112211 1115111 1118124 1121018 1124032 1126985 1129939 1132893 1135846 34155121 1101186
2444013 2448118 2452164 2456210 2460255 2464301 2468346 2412392 2416438 2480483 48840996 2442050
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2444013 2448118 2452164 2456210 2460255 2464301 2468346 2412392 2416438 2480483 48840996 2442050
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2.95 3.16 3.38 3.62 3.81 43.81 2.19
5144411 5513631 5909335 6333420 6181922 1215019 1191050 8356518 8956105 9598688 1.1E+08 5115424
99.32 106,21 113,10 121.65 130.15 139.25 148.99 159.41 110.55 182.48 2069.61 103.48
41,19 41.18 41.18 41.18 41,11 41,11 41,11 41.16 41.16 41,16 943.11 41.19
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 92380
55.64 59.53 63.69 68.15 12.91 18.01 83.46 89.30 95.54 102.22 1159.38 51.91
26.43 26.43 26.43 26.43 26.43 . 26.42 26.42 26.42 26.42 26.42 528.10 26.43
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. IRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER TON
13. NE1 COSI PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSIEO COST PER CAPITA
16. NET COST PER CAPITA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- NSW COMPOSTING 40% (AFTER 10% REDUCTION,10% COMPOSTING,AND 15% RECYCLING)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 TOTAL 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
20325 20360 20396 20432 20468 205044 205390 205155 20611 20641 206833 205214 20521
0 0 0 0 0
0
113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 1130000 113000
260154 260612 261010 261529 261981 262445 262903 263362 263820 264218 264131 2626143 262614
610109 611891 613012 614254 615435 616616 611198 618919 680161 681342 682524 6112012 611201
1103863 1105503 1101142 1108182 1110422 1112062 1113101 1115341 1116981 1118621 1120260 11128815 1112882
589411 590449 591488 592526 593564 594602 595641 596619 591111 598155 599194 5951215 595121
514452 515053 515655 516256 516858 511459 518061 518662 519264 519865 520461 5111600 511160
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1.48
514452 551101 590313 632436 611495 125163 111410 832858 892192 955151 1023831 1659282 165928
25.31 21.01 28.95 30.95 33.10 35.40 31.85 40.48 43.29 46.29 49.50 312.88 31.29
25.31 25.30 25.28 25.21 25.25 25.24 25.22 25.21 25.19 25.18 25.16 252.30 25.23
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 915E0
5.61 10.31 t
5.6 5.61 5.61 5.66 5.66 5.66 5.65 5.65 5.65 5.64 5.64 56.54 5.65
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COSI
1. 10TA1 COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSIS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSIS
12. ADJUSTED COSI PER TON
13. NEI COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COSI PER CAPITA
16. NET COST PER CAPITA
I I 1
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. IONS PROCESSED
3. PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. 101A1 COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COST PER TON
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15. ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NET COST PER CAPITA
YEAR
1. WASTE STREAM
2. TONS PROCESSED
3, PROCESSING RESIDUALS
4. CAPITAL COSTS
5. OPERATING COSTS
6. TRANSPORTATION COST
1. TOTAL COSTS
8. REVENUES
9. NET DISPOSAL COSTS
10. PRESENT VALUE INDEX
11. ADJUSTED COSTS
12. ADJUSTED COST PER TON
13. NET COST PER TON
14. POPULATION SERVED
15, ADJUSTED COST PER CAPITA
16. NE1 COSI PER CAPITA
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 TOTAL 20 EAR
AVERAGE
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
9140 9156 9112 9188 9204 9219 9235 9251 9261 9283 291330 14866
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 113000 3460000 113000
116998 111200 111402 111604 111806 118009 118211 118413 118615 118811 3805818 190291
301635 302156 302611 303198 303120 304241 304162 305283 305805 306326 9811815 490594
591632 592356 593019 593803 594526 595249 595913 596696 591420 598143 11011693 853885
265013 265531 265989 266441 266905 261363 261821 268219 261131 269195 8622551 431128
326559 326825 321090 321356 321621 321886 328152 328411 328682 328948 8455136 422151
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2.95 3.16 3.38 3.62 3.81 43.11 2.19
681359 136012 188231 844091 903916 961914 1036510 1110021 1188689 1212924 11195148 859151
15.20 80.39 85.94 91.81 98.21 104.99 112.24 119.99 128.21 131.13 1401.12 10.36
35.13 35.69 35.66 35.63 35.60 35.56 35.53 35.50 35.41 35.44 608.12 30.41
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 92380
1.43 1.95 8.50 9.08 9.11 10.38 .11.10 11.86 12.68 13.56 185.80 9,29
3.53 3.53 3.53 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.50 91.11 4.59
'.6111111P .S111'111
••,!ALIT /MILLI!
SOLID WASTE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
SUMMARIZED ANNUAL DATA
MANAGEMENT METHOD -- LANDFILL (AFTER 10% REDUCTION. 10% COMPOSTING, 15% RECYCLING AND 40% NSW COMPOSTING)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 TOTAL 10 YEAR
AVERAGE
13800 13930 14060 14190 14320 14450 14580 14110 14840 14910 15100 145150 14515
30481 30540 30594 30648 30102 30155, 30809 30863 30916 30910 31024 301821 30182'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102000 102900 1029000 102900
311939 312594 313249 313904 314559 315215 315810 316525 311180 311835 318490 3155422 315542
1006064 1001836 1009608 1011380 1013153 1014925 1016691 1018469 1020241 1022014 1023186 10158108 1015811
1480902 1483330 1485151 1488185 1490612 1493039 1495461 1491894 1500321 1502149 1505116 14942530 1494253
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1480902 1483330 1485151 1488185 1490612 1493039 1495461 1497894 1500321 1502149 1505116 14912530 1494253
1.00 1.01 1.14 1.23 1.31 1.40 1.50 1.61 1.12 1.84 1.91 14.18 1.48
1480902 1581163 1101043 1823090 1953888 2094065 2244292 2405291 2511832 2162142 2960909 22110315 2211032
48.58 51.91 55.60 59.49 63.64 68.09 12.85 11.94 83.38 89.21 95.44 111.59 11.16
48.58 48.51 48.56 48.56 48.55 48.55 48.54 48.53 48.53 4d.52 48.52 485,43 48.54
90100 90860 91020 91180 91340 91500 91660 91820 91980 92140 92300 915800 91580
16.33 11.41 18.69 19.99 21.39 22.89 24.48 26.20 28.03 29.98 32.08 241.20 24.12
16.33 16.33 16.32 16.32 16.32 16.32 16.32 16.31 16,31 16.31 16.31 163.16 16.32
11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 i01AL 20 YEAR
AVERAGE
15230 15360 15490 15620 15150 15880 16010 16140 16210 16400 1503300 15165
31018 31131' 31185 31239 31292 31346 31400 31453 31501 31561 621013 31051
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 102900 2058000 102900
319146 319801 380456 381111 381166 382422 383011 383132 384381 385042 1516361 318818
1025558 1021330 1029102 1030815 1032641 1034419 1036191 1031963 1039736 1041508 20493436 1024612
1501604 1510031 1512458 1514886 1511313 1519140 1522168 1524595 1521023 1529450 30121191 1506390
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1501604 1510031 1512458 1514886 1511313 1519140 1522168 1524595 1521023 1529450 30121191 1506390
2.10 2.25 2.41 2.58 2.16 2.95 . 3.16 3.38 3.62 3.81 43.81 2.19
3113282 3400819 3644190 3906185 4186315 4486523 4808241 5153029 5522519 5918489 66310512 3315529
102.11 109.24 116.88 125.04 133.18 143.13 153.13 163.83 115.28 181.53 2121.54 106.38
48.51 48.51 48.50 48.49 48.49 48.48 48.48 48,41 48.41 48.46 910.29 48.51
92460 92620 92180 92940 93100 93260 93420 93580 93140 93900 1841600 92380
34.32 36.12 39.28 42.03 44.91 48.11 51.41 55.01 58.91 63.03 115.10 35.16
16.31 16.30 16.30 16.30 16.30 16.30 16.29 16.29 16.29 16.29 326.13 16.31
�. IIIIII y1
A111'11V.
APPENDIX C
RECYCLING ADVERTISEMENT
Ls
v
Clip and save
O„,
oat!
tza.Ga,,aCZv;.i
Vim,
c
e
a
a
Z$
t
Container
Glass
Corrugated
' w
,
l Ill
a
o
Milk Jugs
2
a
a
rK
c
F
O
>>
a
>
Atter Scap Processing
1s0 Marring. St
✓�
/
tf
/
v
-_.
- .
_
-
/I,
tsr t.rn
The Battery Center
bey.:o eve. ae Net
unre rrry *ea
*
m East %budge Recycling
> seer. ere spec Was9t•, l
n Mwy:a East, Era
n .r�r4A.o
7
tt/
le
tY
t✓
/
✓
✓
,
Blum Company i5o, Ea
O an Ea*
1 weed
/
-„
✓
-
•
I
j Big 10 Minute Lube ..-c
1 00 :IX
..
:-
_yam
„m
..-:t
, -_
-
/
V
Dubuque Sanitary
Landfill (fees charged)
lnry- za wed
I
✓
EccnofO0d3 Grocery
sass 7> x Road
warms
/
V
Moor's Salvage
RR sa lor, a1
.aF.as-nta
Swiss Valley Farms
__Diary
ire'
flo1r
r,i.
-
:9-._J
sa»a
Southwest Opportuni-
t es Center-
they. 8, weer al
au
Mro.. WI
ial
%
V
'
.
DAC Inc.
MO a.m tee x
r•+.w
t/ r/
11/ ,/
✓
_.
IA stow
wwa
Q,,.a.
s other ban lead add.
Recycling markets sometimes change daily.
WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO CALL THE VENDORS LISTED ABOVE
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR RECYCLABLES-
How To Recycle
Seo.rate Glass By Coo..
Gass mites n green, brown and dear. If the
grass a Ant gnat, trove, Or mar a is oat ix -r-
e -ante.
2. Only Glass That Contained A Food Product
Can 8. Recycled.
Please Co not trap n pia gems Gght buts.
etc that an be pasaous for tool
3. Labels may be In on, remove 40a and rinse.
Cardboard
Only corrugated armoard bases are socepoeble.
Please no croctoard (rrreat.rboxeal or pnsaoaeni
Corrugated onnout must be boom n cotanarde
and not Please Loan out al boxes.
Tin Can
1. Rerrow at,ela rinse cans dealt.
Steel Gda wide cans.
2 Liter Soda Bottles
I. Pi moo. sod, and Anse.
Mirk and Llauld Det meat Bottles
1. Cady Mose Oodles rule wrong symbol on te
boson or the bottle are acceptable This in
eludes 41 caeca mtlk Npe and moat baud blr-
gent bodes.
2. Amoy, Ws, Arose and Amon.
Aluminum
AU types we acceptable. Cana, screen karnee toi
pots and pans a pee trays.
Newaaaow
Newspapers should be totaled. !trot ang
newspapers et paper parka Of boxes, they must
be mowed. Saks and bases cannot accompany
the newspapers.
Thank you for your cooperation. Together we can keep
valuable recyclable products out of our landfills, ditches
Dust,
--vc, and roads.
GIf you have further questions, Or It you kngw of other recycling opportuntt4s
M please an Tom Bylund, City of Dubuque Solid Warta Coordbtator at S88-4116-
C
DU. adverdeing apace provided by ,le Telegraph 14a.ld
Clip and save
C.1
.1
04Oer01co04T c, 01oC N
..4 04010'-ttC CD OcD:J.-+00 O c
Q . 01 OC- "rQ'N TT Cn - -OLC co r-
E• Z CO c0 c0 a) cD cc -7 Tr In to N C.
0 0 r-
E� E-
C4E-ICI cn.1.toco00r-cr)00cc000r• N
W Q z u1 . . . . . . . - . - .
x> a Z NCOTTolt- 'T:DTT -IMN C) r-
E-+ - 0 OC'Nt-r-c-NSC'-T--4 N C"J
O 00C:+ E-• rIif) if) LC) C'oc)r-cCDOaO 0
'-4
z
O
ET CO -I 04.-+01000 d'tic-ONtitD VD
(,." - ET ^ c r- ch M 00 c c' to N CI --+ N C7
APPENDIX D 0 >- < cr' - - - - . . - - - - - -
P. A E. z uo oo cfl r• c- co am o ,-+ cm cn co N
DUBUQUE COUNTY LANDFILL w Z H 0 --i r- Ct d' co N N 0 co co O N (-
TONNAGE REPORT Z <z E.d- NNNNNN-TNNNN o
co
(FISCAL YEAR 1989) W c
Q ^
z rn
z CO
Q c)C) U) t1--1000N04O00O03MO 00
E•0-4 W z ONc-0u) 01--+d'0000TT01 C7
cm I-+ E. W rn - . - - - . . - . . - .
a-'+W 4+u1E. z cncnu .-4ct-c)OT'Lc 0 0
..a z (4..,:C01 O--4c-cou0O010TrtntnC00 co
HCY.A 3>" E. t-C)COt tf)CV CV OC')NC10 0
O4 <'7 0a N N NNN N N N N NN 01 -+
(=1 W I co
Z >+ CO
CO
aacn
,-+ ct)
>, 0 E.
E-.vl>' Z
zH a [_. W W cn um CD -1, cy co a) CM u1040407 O
• 4+A 0AC4z cD0ca0,-,"a'Cr) CIN00to o
O ti 0 W E- v1 •
-
o — O.A... Z NtD-.00 coc0-1C) 00 00
E'CAE1d 0 carncoN'-,c)v'N,-4aCr) c+1 co
W F-AQCL E• CVNNNCOCV4-I,-iMCI) tf)C1 ul
A U A W — co
et A
q
A
A z
0
W W H L Tr cm co coC)OCOt�t NT TT
O A W E' CM u0r-00 DulCD vDOt-Otc) tC
CrCO O 0 • • . - - - - . -
>+AA W z r+Ncod' Co o.-tC)cD c001r- co
E. oo 4., ,..o 0 rm 01 cn amtnco1,4cvTT 00oca v
HAW a E. -7'cotnumv0 c*)Oceroc N
o A Ce 0 — --+ -4 .4 -.4 r, r, -4 -1 ,-i ,-4 N .-4 0
o
COLLECTOR
CL'
W C4
CO C4 W w >- C4
E- z W CLt <4
x cnWaazx<4Axa a
E- -O W WACKUH W Q
Z P.E•>OZOM ad -Z E-
O A A W J C W Q w¢ 3. ¢ A 0
z h Q u1 O Z A'"1 C:. Z Q z - E-
D.1
APPENDIX E
ORDER FORM FOR THE PUBLICATION
"VARIABLE RATES IN SOLID WASTE"
by Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. and Cabell Bredcinridge
Aft, jointly by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Solid Waste Program, and the
Gty of Seattle Solid Waste Utility
ORDERING COPIES OF THE VARIABLE RATES HANDBOOK
To order additional copies of this document or its companion volume, please
enclose a -check or money order for the full amount for the documents
requested, payable to "Future Impressions." The price of each document
reflects only the actual cost of printing and mailing.
NAME
AFFILIATION
ADDRESS
CITY
PHONE
STATE
ZIP
Number of Vol. I, Variable Rate Handbook, requested (at $10.00 Each)
Number of Vol. II, Variable Rate Handbook, requested (at $37.50 Each)
Requests for documents should be sent to:
Winnie Hooker
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Solid Waste Program
HW-072
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Additional copies of this document or its companion volume may also be
ordered through the National- Technical Information Services (NTIS), at
(703)487-4650. Please request the following document numbers:
EPA 910/9-90-012a
EPA 910/9-90-012b
Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., and Cabell
Breckinridge, Variable Rates in Solid
Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste
Officials. Volume I - Executive Summary,
June, 1990, 40 pages.
Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., and Cabell
Breckinridge, Variable Rates in Solid
Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste
Officials. Volume II - Detailed Manual,
June, 1990, 310 pages.
For questions about these manuals, or for further information about
ordering the manuals, contact Winnie Hooker at (206)442-6641, or at the
address above.
E.2
City of
Dubuque Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
LETTER OF COOPERATION
for the Dubuque County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
1991 - 1994
Official Address:
RE: Iowa Administrative Code 567-101.5(3) Comprehensive Plans
Dear Sir/Ms:
The City of plans to use the Dubuque Metropolitan Area
Landfill, Permit No. 31-SDP-2-75P.
The City has reviewed the Dubuque County Comprehensive Plan prepared by the
Agency in December 1990 and agrees to the following three statements:
1. The Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by the City and the City is
committed to the waste reduction and recycling goals of 25 percent by
1994 and 50 percent by 2000.
2. The City adopts and will make its best effort to put into action the
implementation plan and schedule contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Summary of the implementation plan. (See Plan)
a) Volume Reduction and Education - 1991 to 1994
b) Curbside Recycling - 1991 and 1992
c) Update Comprehensive Plan - 1993
d) Mixed Solid Waste Composting - 1995
e) Landfilling - 1991 to 1994
ATTEST:
City Clerk Date
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor Date