Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout77-0430 Aurorar . to' 3o AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Aurora, a home rule municipal corporation, Kane and DuPage Counties, Illinois, (herein- after for brevity referred to as "Aurora") and the City of Elgin, Kane and Cook Counties, Illinois, (hereinafter referred to as "Elgin") , WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City of Elgin has agreed by Resolution adopted this same date to participate with other cities, including Aurora, with respect to a feasibility study for a regional solid waste disposal facility and related matters; and WHEREAS, Aurora is now prepared to enter into an agreement with the engineering firm of HENNINGSON, DURHAM f RICHARDSON, Des Plaines, Illinois, which Agreement is subject to the prior approval of the City of Elgin. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency hereof being hereby accepted by both parties, the parties agree that if Aurora enters into an Agreement with the engineering firm of Henningson, Durham & Richardson of Des Plaines, Illinois, for the purpose of that firm con- ducting a feasibility study for a regional solid waste disposal facility and re- lated matters in form and substance as approved by Elgin, Elgin does hereby agree to pay to Aurora, Elgin's share of the cost of that feasibility study as set forth in the Resolution adopted this same date; that the payments to Aurora shall be made in the manner set forth in the Agreement between Aurora and the engineering firm; Elgin's contribution shall not exceed the sum of $23,061.00. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. CITY OF AURORA Atte Cler CI OF ELGIN EY . C Manager Attest: ►/"-A City erV LAW OFFICES DREYER. FOOTE AND STREIT JOHN E. DREYER ASSOCIATES TELEPHONE: WILLIAM J. FOOTE AREA CODE 312 THOMAS J. STREIT VALLEY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 897.8764 MICHAEL J. COLWELL 900 NORTH LAKE STREET 897.8765 AURORA. ILLINOIS 60508 RALPH A. KETCHUM RICHARD M. FURGASON KEVIN F. LYNCH April 30, 1977 MICHAEL J. HANSON City of Elgin 150 Dexter Court Elgin, IL 60120 Attn: Marie Yearman City Clerk Dear Ms. Yearman: Enclosed find two (2) executed copies of the agreement between the Cities of Elgin and Aurora with reference to the regional solid waste disposal feasibility study. I thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, DREYER, FOOTE & STREIT ASSOCIATES XV&IP-4-et,l`t_ ), William J. Foote WJF/jlw enclosure I i. AURORA SOLID WASTE ENERGY AND MATERIALS RECOVERY STUDY Preliminary Report Outline Executive Summary Table of Contents • Introduction— �/ I. Existing. Conditions \ 1' / 1 A. Existing Solid Waste Management Practices -',' B. Existing Quantities 4;11 C. Existing Composition "I, 00P II. Projections • A. Projected Quantities --,B Projected Composition _-- III. Markets A. Energy Markets 1. Electricity 2. Shredded Fuel 3. Pyrolysis Gas/Oil 4. Steam B. Materials 1. Ferrous 2. Aluminum 3. Glass 4. Paper IV. Alternatives A. Alternative Technologies 1. Steam/Electric 2. Steam 3. Pyrolysis B. Configurations 1. Optimal sites. 2. Optimal Collection/Transport/Process/Disposal configurations. • V. Feasibility Analysis A. Economic Analysis 1. Facility Costs 2. Transport Costs 3. Revenues 4. Disposal Costs 5. Summary and Net Facility Cost B. Environmental Impacts VI. Recommendation • A. Decision Methodology B. Recommendation C. Sensitivity Analysis VII. Implementation A. Organizational Strategies B. Financing Strategies C. Legal Considerations D. Implementation Schedule I. EXISTING CONDITIONS Any effort to plan for the future must begin with an assessment of the present. A starting point is needed for the determination of future solid waste management needs. The purpose of this section of the report is to set that starting point by examining existing collection and disposal practices in the study area, and existing solid waste quantities and composition. This information will be used in a later chapter to calculate the costs of the present system of solid waste management to compare to resource recovery alternatives. A. EXISTING COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL Solid waste collection and disposal decisions are presently made essentially independently by the nine communities involved in the study. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing collection and disposal practices in the study area. The two largest cities (Elgin and Aurora) operate a collection service for residential waste only. Privately-owned hauling contractors perform the collection of the remainder of the residential waste and most of the commercial, industrial and special waste. This service is provided either by contract to the municipality, or to individual citizens and businesses. No transfer stations are operated in the study area, and all wastes generated presently are disposed of in a number of landfills near the study Aurora Solid Waste Energy and Materials Recovery Study • TABLE 1 - 1 EXISTING COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL COLLECTION Major Municipality Residential Commercial Industrial Special/Bulky Disposal Site(s) Aurora City Private Private Private Midway Batavia Contractor Private Private City/Private Midway Elgin City Private Private City/Private Mallard Lake/Woodland } Geneva Contractor Private Private Private Midway Montgomery Contractor Private Private Private Midway , { Naperville Contractor Private Private City/Private Greene Valley North Aurora Contractor Private Private Private Midway St. Charles Contractor Private Private Private Midway Sugar Grove Private Private Private Private Greene Valley Notes: 1. City = Municipally operated collection service. 2. Contractor = Collection service performed by a private hauler under contract with a municipality. 3. Private = Individual citizen or business performs collection using internal labor or by contract to private hauler. Source: HDR Survey r _.__.__ - ....>- . — -_-.__ ..— -. ________ . :a �.._... .. 4I;, I•I 1 )te - _l___ ....,--.:*.., ±Li �-- li I .0 I .c 0,-, . 'dill" 4 // J L-:a �1 I k\ ,9/. J , L' TREAMWOOD? I o T I rJ 1 J r yELGIN K 1�-J--� r: \ 1 H AR ERA -_I _ rJ r-i BARTLETT•--- COOK COUNTY __ 1 —}- �; r J'ti" rr `U ‘J i OU PAGE COUNTY l I e 1 , I �- r i_L_JI 'Nt -J i [� \ ti l I I �`` ._ J/ is _ }� ,z� -5 I L 1 VALLEI; -- I �' s \ WIEW 1 I I '' `' .A • - I 'L., r7 iL1 Uz_0-_ 7 1 1 / ae 1� a 1 Ci _,..,r-,-1�p�NE I r-- s}- cw� ®, I �" I I ' r? .- i .I.0-, 1 J LI C ___ I r/ �W 1' �� v I . w ' '' ''\: \\ •:\. � I I 'W.CHARLES� �y` 1- _- .�-- ----- _, J,.�- i --- I r I CN.g., trL T� / /' ,Or c- WEST CH?•AGO 5, --fIBURN ENEVA ` ` I i ] --t- ' J 1 ,�`�., v �AVi L_.., WINFIELDJ "sae 6A AAA 'v , Lr-- I 1 I I I1-3 1 1 /tip 1 �'" l i I7 IL 7•URORAt- : T• \v�•• r __.r, J © \\ \ \ ♦\\ //1 , , \ ;\� \♦ . , c. ,,. $ NAP RVIL 1\ v♦, Q' �t. \� `AURORA T.\\,\ '\, yi,\\. / �p� SUGAI'GROVE • �t \•,A\�� �� 1 ‘ A(•Lt( ''\ ' ,%:y‘P \A AyRORAJ,,kkt k‘N<7..:\ \ "..................., - -0/7-1 X. I la .zr\.�/ o sib ^\\,e, ,_ DU PAGE COUNTY- r _ KANE COUNT - ;MON�L - __ MERV � ,4 °��4 KENDAII C 'LINTY WILL COON EMS7 kN CA 4 >auL.. /D*,5'cjsA.k... s sr�r'ti — 'ES1bEVT1 t At1D COMM'ERGl Rt__ WAs-r-e.._ — Iq 11 AURA'?•A SOLA ta WASTE ENERAY AND MATEF=4ALS RE - '4 ERA S k)D%f ""f\QORE— i-'L area. Details of the landfills presently permitted for operation in and near the study area are given in Table 1-2. Figure 1-1 is a graphic representation of how solid waste is presently transferred after collection. Decisions about where to transport wastes are made independently by each hauler based upon haul distances, dumping fees, road quality, and some- times even weather. Therefore, the destination of a particular community's waste may change from day to day. B. EXISTING QUANTITIES A review of the available data and solid waste literature suggests that all solid wastes can be divided into the following categories: Residential - Often called "Domestic" , "Municipal", or "House- hold" wastes. These wastes consist of that which is normally collected from residences in a municipal collection program. • Commercial - These wastes come from a variety of commercial businesses engaged in wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, services, and government (standard industrial classification major groups 50 through 99). Not included are hazardous or infectious wastes from health care establishments or bulky wastes such as junked equipment. Industrial - Included in this group are wastes from businesses involved in manufacturing, transportation, communication, and public utilities (SIC major groups 19 through 49). Not included are "special" industrial wastes such as fly ash, foundry san oils, tars, sludges, and blast furnace slag. Aurora Solid Waste Energy and Materials Recovery Study TABLE 1 - 2 EXISTING LANDFILLS Estimated Type of Waste Annual Remaining Facility Accepted2 Location Operator Volume (CY) Life (yrs) 1) Elgin Landfill I South Elgin Private 75, 000 n. a. 3 2) Geneva I Aurora Private 4, 000 n. a. Construction 3) Greene Valley]. R, C, I Naperville Private 800, 800 10 4) Mallard Lake]. R, C, I Bloomingdale Private 1, 078, 000 3 - 5 5) Midway 1 R, C, I Geneva Private 676, 000 n. a. . 6) Polly R, C, I St. Charles Private 3, 000 n. a. 7) Tucker Freight I Montgomery Private 5, 000 n. a. 8) Tri-County I South Elgin Private 26, 000 n. a. 9) Woodland R, C, I South Elgin Private 1, 001, 000 8 - 10 10) Woodruff I Elgin Private 56, 000 n. a. Edwards Co. Notes: 1. Elevated Landfills 2. R = Residential, C = Commercial, I = Industrial and construction/demolition 3. n. a. = Data not available • Source: HDR Survey and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency t • Special Waste - This is a highly diversified group of wastes which includes all solid wastes not in the previous three categories. Included are construction/demolition wastes, street sweepings, bulky wastes, fly ash, bottom ash, air pollution control solids, toxic/hazardous sludges, chemicals, oils, tars, solvents, tires, foundry sand, blast furnace slag, agricultural, and mining wastes. This study is concerned only with the first three categories of solid waste. . Although an analysis of special waste is necessary for a comprehensive solid waste management plan, this analysis is not. necessary for a study of resource recovery options. The reasons are: 1) These wastes are normally handled by the private waste generator, thus never enter the municipal waste stream, and 2) These wastes are generally unsuitable for processing or are of limited resource recovery value. Determining the existing quantities of residential, commercial, and industrial waste in the study area is difficult because of the lack of reliable data. Landfill operators, municipalities, industries, and commercial establishments in most cases do not keep complete records of solid waste generation. Since it is not possible to determine directly the amount of waste generated, another method must be chosen which will give acceptable results. The most widely used and accepted method is to establish unit waste factors for each type of waste. These unit waste factors are in terms of pounds of waste generated per person per day in the residential waste case; and for commercial and industrial waste, pounds per commercial or industrial employee per day. The unit waste factors can then be applied to estimates of population, and commercial and industrial employment to arrive at an estimate of the amount of waste generated per day. The methods used to calculate these unit waste factors are discussed in the following paragraphs. 1. Residential Unit Waste Factor Residential waste generation data from past studies, municipalities, private haulers, and landfill operators were investigated. A report prepared by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission in 1973 1, discussed the work that had been completed in identifying waste generation in Kane, DuPage, Lake and Cook Counties. This report referred to a Kane County • Study completed in 1968 2, which identified a unit waste factor of 3. 1-lb/capita/day for what was termed "incinerable" waste. Un- fortunately, this number is not relatable to a residential-only unit waste factor because it includes substantial amounts of commercial and industrial wastes. The DuPage County report in 1970 3, and the Lake County report in 1972 4, showed residential unit waste 1 Reference 1, pp. 173 - 194. 2 Reference 2 3 Reference 3 4 Reference 4 factors of 2. 12 lb/ca ita/day and 2. 3-1b/ca ita/day, respec- tively. A more recent (1975) study by the Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality 5, identified a combined residential/ commercial unit waste factor which is, again, not relatable to a residential-only factor. The average of the residential unit waste factors developed in certain recent studies in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, and Montana is about 2. 3-lb/capita/day. Table 1 -3 is a list of the relatable data for comparison purposes. The consensus of the table is about 2. 3-lb/capita/day. The 2. 3-lb/capita/day unit waste factor compares favorably with information from local municipalities and private haulers. The City of Elgin, reported an annual waste volume from residential collection of 63, 170 cubic yards or 25, 268 tons V (assuming a packer truck compaction factor of 800-lb/cubic yard). Based on an estimated 1976 population, this amount is equivalent 46i 1. 9_lb pita/day. Similar information from the private hauler for Naperville showed a 1976 unit waste factor for residential waste of 2. 6-lb/capita/day. In summary, 2. 3-lb/capita/day is the consensus of the information from other studies in the study area and studies in other states, and this factor falls within the range suggested by 5 Reference 5, Appendix A , pp. 59 - 75. Aurora Solid Waste Energy and Materials Recovery Study • TABLE 1 - 3 RESIDENTIAL UNIT WASTE FACTOR DATA Residential Waste Data Source Study By Date (lb/capita/day) Du Page County, Illinois Consoer, Townsend & Assoc. 1970 2. 12 Study Lake County, Illinois Lake County D. P. W. 1971 2. 3 Study State of Michigan Study Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1977 2. 9 Wayne County, Michigan Wayne Co. Dept. of Public Health 1976 2. 56 Downriver (Suburban Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1976 2. 38 Detroit), Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan West Michigan Regional Planning 1975 2. 3 Commission Racine County, Wisconsin Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1976 1. 9 and City of Racine, Wisconsin Dubuque, Iowa Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1975 2. 2 State of Montana Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1975 2. 3 Pinellas County, Florida Henningson, Durham & Richardson 1976 2. 0 • existing local information. For these reasons, 2. 3-1b/capita/day will be used to estimate residential waste generation. The • application of this factor to a 1977 population for the study area estimated from data supplied by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) yields a total of 120, 050 tons of residential waste per year or 329 tons per calendar day (365 days per year). Note i- 1��� -11A- u�ti�� ix ��� �L�zTc- ackl <((<�l o`�((�cX�� (4Z-c_ �(L L,2t I' (oC?_ C�F.ve c�r'C` Cali`L lxt_;[-'G� Cn a. 'Cal('4,\e(.G�� �f. YYC t .�� -1�'�CL3a LZ Ccl'fj • 2. Commercial Unit Waste Factor c,Y k._"^� *.J (?4-^dm.-7; Y\ It has been shown that solid wastes generated by commercial establishments can be mathematically related to characteristics of the establishments in question. Commercial solid waste generation is most closely related to the number of employees and the type of business involved 6. A good method, then, for determining the amount of commercial waste generated in an area without actually measuring the amount from every commercial business is to establish a unit waste factor in terms of pounds per employee per day. Unfortunately, none of the past studies in the area have established comparable employee-based commercial unit waste fay . Mc._ cw e P<>v30 e-es..--<< ihkI ix)a factors which are unsatisfactory for this study since the study area will be broken down into smaller areas for haul cost analysis. 6 Reference 6, p. 843 The consultant has, however, conducted commercial waste generation surveys recently in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Minneapolis) 7, and in Dallas, Texas 8. These two surveys indicate that 5. 75-lb/employee/day is a reasonable estimate for a commercial unit waste factor. When this factor is applied to NIPC estimates of 1977 employment in wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance, real estate, services, and government, a total of 167 tons per day or 60, 780 tons annually results. 3. Industrial Unit Waste Factor This category of waste consists of the residue from a variety of manufacturing, fabricating and public utility opera- tions. Surveys of industrial waste generation in Texas 9, Minnesota 10, Wisconsin 11, and Michigan 12, indicate that industrial unit waste factors range from 10 to 14 lb/employee/day in industrialized areas to between1.5and 8 lb/employee/day in smaller, less industrialized cities. 7 Reference 7 8 Reference 8 9 Reference 7 10 Reference 8 11 HDR Survey in Racine County 12 Reference 9 r ' The most recent information concerning industrial waste generation in an area similar to, and near the study area, comes from a 1977 study by the consultant in Racine County, Wisconsin. A questionnaire survey of the manufacturing establishments in the county revealed an average of 4.5 lb/employee/day. A Guncckfrts O '�lrt� CiVGC�I,ei13k.e ei[ZAZ— tACtT Cl u i+ Lea S\G grQct OIC (Or- tq k / l/t /5 fet7 1cebie, —M 7.5 .i//ry- will be used to estimate industrial waste generation in the study area. Multiplying this factor by estimates of total industrial employment derived from NIPC data, yields 154 tons per day or 56, 134 tons of industrial waste annually. Table 1-4 gives a summary of the residential, commercial, and industrial waste generation. TABLE 1 - 4 WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY Unit Waste 1977 Waste Generation Category Factor Tons/Calendar Day Annual Tons % of Total Residential 2. 3 329 120, 050 5% (lbs/cap/day) Commercial 5. 75 167 60, 780 25 (lbs/emp/day) Industrial 6.4 154 543, 34- 24 (lbs/emp/day) TOTAL 650 236,gc04 100 4. Seasonal Variation It is not only important to know how much waste is generated in a given year, but also how the amounts of waste generated vary within that year. These variations must be considered in the sizing of solid waste handling and/or processing facilities. Figures 1-2 and 1-3 show seasonal variation data for 1976, from Elgin and Naperville. These curves for residential waste show peaks in the spring and valleys in the winter. The addition of the more seasonally uniform commercial and industrial waste would reduce the severity of these variations somewhat. • These curves show that solid waste processing or disposal systems should be designed for peaks and valleys of about 25% above average monthly generation. C. EXISTING COMPOSITION Determining the feasibility of resource recovery as a solid waste management option requires knowledge not only of the quantities of solid waste generated, but also the composition of the waste. Knowledge of composition in two general areas is necessary; waste composition by material type, and waste combustion characteristics. 1. Material Composition The economic viability of any resource recovery option is ultimately dependent on the sale of recovered energy and materials. 12 10 0 w w z 8 c. AVERAGE MONTHLY, 8.33% J 6 Z Z J 0 4 I— u_ O 2 0 J F M A MJJ A S OND MONTH RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION SEASONAL VARIATION - ELGIN, 1976 1 AURORA SOLID WASTE ENERGY AND MATERIALS RECOVERY STUDY SOURCE : ELGIN DEPT. OF SANITATION FIGURE I - 2 12 10 Cc Z 8 AVERAGE MONTHLY, 8.33 To J 6 J i Q F. O q u. O ' o I o 2 0 JF M A MJJ A S ON D I MONTH r RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION SEASONAL VARIATION - NAPERVILL , 1976 AURORA SOLID WASTE ENERGY AND MATERIALS RECOVERY STUDY SOURCE: CITY OF NAPERVILLE 1 FIGURE I —3 The recovery of these resources usually requires the processing of the solid waste (shredding, screening, air classifying, con- veying, combustion, etc. ). Experience has shown that residen- tial and commercial type wastes are generally suitable for processing. There is evidence, however, that a significant portion of industrial waste is not processable. A waste charac- terization study in Wisconsin 13, during 1975, showed that about 35% of the industrial waste consisted of materials such as ashes and other inorganics, liquid and solid chemicals, and other components not suitable for processing. Because of their limited resource recovery value and wear on equipment (es- pecially shredders), these materials are best kept out of the processing plant. Because of the variability and corresponding uncertainty of industrial waste composition, this study will assume that 50% is processable and has a composition similar to mixed residential and commercial refuse. There have been many studies of the composition of the residential and commercial portions of the solid waste stream. Table 1-5 shows the results of some of the laboratory analyses of solid waste samples taken both in Illinois and in other parts of the country as well as the most recent estimates by the U.S. EPA 14 13 Reference 10 14 aeference 11, Table 1, page 60. 1 Aurora Solid Waste Energy and Materials Recovery Study TABLE 1 - 5 PROCESSABLE WASTE PERCENT COMPOSITION BY MATERIAL CATEGORY San Diego Dubuque Rochester Marquette Springfield EPA Aurora Component California Iowa Minnesota Michigan Illinois Nat'l. Avg. Composition Paper 47. 0 40. 5 46. 2 46. 6 45. 3 39. 6 45. 4 Misc. Organics 41. 4 44. 1 34. 5 34. 8 46. 6 39. 2 35. 8 (plastic, wood, rags, yard, food) , Total 88. 4 84. 6 80. 7 81. 4 81. 9 78. 8 81. 2 Combustible Glass 5. 1 5. 5 9. 0 8. 7 6. 5 10. 3 8. 1 Ferrous 5. 7 8. 7 9. 5 8. 1 8. 6 8. 4 8. 2 Aluminum 0. 5 1. 1 0. 8 1. 3 0. 7 0. 7 0. 7 Other Metal -- 0. 1 -- -- -- 0. 3 0. 3 Misc. Inorganic 0. 3 -- -- 0. 5 2. 3 1. 5 1. 5 TOTAL 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 Source: HDR Landfill Sampling Analyses and EPA Third Report to Congress on a national basis. Note the similarity of all of these com- positions. This fact suggests that the EPA national averages are a good basis for selecting a processable waste composition for the study area. The EPA, however, suggests "extreme caution" in applying the national-level data to local-level plan- ning 15. For this reason, the study area composition shown on Table 1-5 was chosen by using the EPA numbers as a base and adjusting the paper, miscellaneous organics, glass, and ferrous categories to more closely match local conditions and consultant experience. 2. Combustion Characteristics In most cases, energy recovery from solid waste requires the total or partial combustion of the waste. It is therefore neces- sary to know the combustion characteristics of the waste in order to estimate the potential for energy recovery and to design an appropriate energy recovery device. The most important com- bustion characteristics are heating value (Btu/lb), moisture content (%), and ash content (%). These three characteristics vary widely depending on the degree and type of processing to which the waste is subjected. Combustion characteristics can, however, be established for raw, as-received, processable 15 Reference 12, page 7. 0 solid waste from residential, commercial and industrial sources as a basis for calculations. Based upon data published by the EPA for solid waste at St. Louis 16, operating experience at Ames, Iowa, solid waste literature combustion data 17, and consultant experience, the numbers in Table II-4 were chosen for use in this study. TABLE I - 6 COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCESSABLE SOLID WASTE Characteristic Content Heating Value (Btu/lb. ) 5, 000 Moisture Content (% wt. ) 27 Ash Content (% wt. ) 23 Note that the chosen heating value is perhaps conservatively low, but since system economics are so heavily dependent upon energy sales, a conservatively low figure is preferable to an optimistically high number. 16 Reference 13, p. 39. 17 Reference 15, p. 6, ref. 16, p. 357, and ref. 17, p. 11. II. PROJECTIONS Given the existing conditions, planning for the future must proceed with a projection of those existing conditions. The most important projectfor this study is the projection of the quantities of waste which will require disposal and/or processing over the designated planning period. Since resource re- covery is being analyzed as a solid waste management option, a projection of how waste composition may change over the planning period is also important. The purpose of this chapter is to make these required projections.`, will be used in later chapters to size alternative disposal and resource recovery systems and to determine revenues from potential buyers of recovered materials. A. PROJECTED QUANTITIES The unit waste factors developed in the Chapter I were used in conjunction with population and employment projections from the Northeastern Illinois Plan- ning Commission (NIPC) to predict waste generation to the year 2000. It is assumed that the unit waste factors will remain constant over the planning period. This assumption provides a reasonable compromise between predictions of per capita waste generation increases 18/ and recent evidence of the trend toward decreases.19/ These unit waste factors for each type of waste were simply multiplied by projected population or employment to derive future waste quanti- ties. 18/ Reference 15, p. 7 . and Reference 12, p. 10. 19/ Studies by the consultant in Arizona and Michigan show that according to historical records, percapita waste generation has stopped increasing and has actually decreased in some cases. • Since a later part of this study is concerned with optimizing the location of solid waste facilities (landfills, transfer stations, processing plants, etc. ), it is necessary to divide the study area into areadistricts and make quantity projections for each. The Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) and NIPC have divided the Chicago metropoitan area up into many small zones. Popula- tion and employment projections for each zone covering the study area were made available to the consultant. Figure II-1 shows how these zone boundaries compare with municipal boundaries. These 92 waste generation zones (WGZ) were chosen to approxi- mate the boundaries of the study area. Certain zones in high growth potential areas were also included to account for possible future city boundary expansion (areas between Aurora and Naperville, Aurora and Sugar Grove, and areas to the west of Elgin, St. Charles, Geneva and Batavia). Population and waste generation in three categories are listed for each of -the 92 zones from 1970 through 2000 in ten-year increments in Appendix A. Table II-1 is a summary of the data in Appendix A. The numbers for each city are zonal approximations which do not match city boundaries exactly. They are shown for illustration purposes only. Figure II-2 is a graphic illustration of the projections. It shows that total waste generation will rise from a current (1977) amount of about 650 TPD to about 980 TPD. Processable waste will rise from about 550TpD to about 890 TPD by 2000. • I J9a r.., i- I �-/ 1C__, " /, 1 N , ,,,,,,,,, - . .'C't04r r jr-in_r--..rt 1 t' E L G I N Y,�:.0 'ti 1 L, ` �/ sr �` ��-j '� �57REAMWOOD �� ri f //` ' I I J n ii 1 I �SO TH i I j _1 1 1ANO�ER7 yELG N I r� rl4 BARTLE_TT'--\AR_✓✓✓✓✓1 j COOK COUNTY_--� —� —�—�`T 1 "' y'' r__k� 7. j DU PAGE COUNTY \ I,tl I e I I I c II II f- _� Lsv l � i I r-- d�uVWE 1 ; t r- J VE I I ` il 1 __ -� M, � 1 ,, � , yr? L4 c-_) I} J U ,_- •• S � � z "`'• • , \' • \ --gig ; ``._�\ \ r-Lr, ST CH•R ESQ ,yam L: I 7 CD — ——r --— fi }-r� -s-T—— -�-•,—.,, twwww -� ✓ W WJ r' � try,� 31 WEST CH AGO 5 a a c, - L- ElBURN •--,-�3 c33 y1a• I 1/4 ljg---,,, I , •T 7 L,-' ' \1 LL,��. WINFIELD ' L„+R: \ I ��\2 t BATAVIA i 1J Lr-- V.. ` �� FERMI 1 3� 1 •. I NATIONAL I \\„ 4. 1 ACCELERATOR w� � \� ) � --�I LABORATORY I r n . 1 I 31 o// c� 1 \` I _ I � `rVARRENVILRE I __ I 4 III ismx-- _ r J tt 73 s'�R'i'8..:: \U `oQ : 14. /� off . .>I �� � \��,r \ � • ham\t Ny ^ \\ NAPERVI LEy �Fii'�� J } .ems c -......�.... k. \,AURORA\ ; ,��� t \\�,r i O �_ 1 } • SUGAR GROVE \ ,. ., '� o\ \\\ 4..e_.__. a ._.<,..- 63 N E i 1 DU PAGE COUNTY, l��:t�/za __ KANE COUNT _ __ �© _- ti KENDALL C UNTY WILL COUNTY �,� ) 1 �1 I I j WASr _ 4-EN-E M0i`k TVE "ZOO Mbi\TN ES te; 19cU-KE_ Tr—L 1000 900 — 500 TOTAL WASTE 800 — 450 >- 0 400 Z 700 PROCESSABLE O WASTE S O O v F' 600 — 350cr O W H t POPULATION 500 -- 300 a 0 J 0 400 — 250 300 — 200 0 } 4 I f 0 1970 197? 1980 1990 2000 YEAR AURORA STUDY AREA PROJECTIONS Auk sOUD WASTE 'ENE ( ANT) M t -j\l_S FtU,u(Zr. IL-2 AURORA SOLID WASTE ,TMENNLRGY AND MA/A,TERIALS RECOVERY STUDY WASTE GENERATION BY MUNICIPALITY (TONS PER DAY) MUNICIPALITY 1970 1980 1990 2000 AURORA POPULATION 101083. 0 120860 . 0 151108 . 3 179304.0 N. AURORA TOTAL WASTE 229. 4 276. 4 318 . 0 365 . 8 MONTGOMERY. RESIDENTIAL WASTE 116 .2 139. 2 173. 4 205. 9 COMMERCIAL WASTE 46 . 4 57 . 5 63 . 3 74.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 66 . 8 79. 7 81 . 3 85 .6 PROCESSABLE WASTE 195 . 4 235. 5 276 . 3 322. 0 NAPERVILLE POPULATION 30798 . 0 42426. 0 59171 . 0 . 82970. 0 TOTAL WASTE 65 .7 90 . 8 128. 7 ' 182.1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 35 . 3 48 .7 68 . 0 95.4 COMMERCIAL WASTE 19 .9 32 . 5 49. 3 75.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 10 .5 9. 6 11. 4 11.4 PROCESSABLE WASTE 60 . 3 85. 9 122 .9 176. 3 SUGAR GROVE POPULATION 1901 . 0 2035. 0 2329 . 0 2629. 0 TOTAL WASTE 3 .9 4. 8 5 .5 6. 1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 2 . 2 2 . 3 2 .7 3. 1 COMMERCIAL WASTE 1 . 7 2. 0 2. 2 2.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 0 . 0 . 5 .6 .6 PROCESSABLE WASTE 3 . 9 4 . 5 5. 2 5.8 BATAVIA POPULATION 10933 . 0 15218 . 0 20760 . 0 23050.0 TOTAL WASTE 23. 0 30 . 1 37. 5 41.6 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 12.6 17. 5 23. 9 26.5 COMMERCIAL WASTE 3. 0 4. 8 5 .7 6. 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 7 .4 7 . 8 7 . 9 8.9 PROCESSABLE WASTE 19 . 3 26 . 1 33 . 5 37. 0 GENEVA POPULATION 9098 . 0 13471. 0 18440 . 0 22160. 0 TOTAL WASTE 32.6 48 . 4 58. 4 69. 1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 10 . 5 . 15 . 6 21 .2 25.4 COMMERCIAL WASTE 8 .7 17. 0 20 .6 23. 1 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 13.4 15 . 8 16. 6 20.6 PROCESSABLE WASTE 25.8 40 . 5 50 . 0 58. 8 ST. CHARLES POPULATION ' 14240 . 0 22290 . 0 . 31890 . 0 33980 .0 TOTAL WASTE 36. 4 49. 8 62. 8 67. 1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 16 . 3 25 . 6 36.7 39.0 COMMERCIAL WASTE 9. 0 12 . 4 14. 0 14.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 11 . 1 11 . 8 12. 1 13.7 PROCESSABLE WASTE 30 . 7 43 . 8 . 56.6 60 . 1 ELGIN POPULATION 63380 . 3 78525 . 0 102865 . 0 125781. 0 TOTAL WASTE -- 147.4 175 . 1 212. 1 250. 0 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 72 . 8 90 . 3 118 . 2 144. 8 COMMERCIAL WASTE 44. 5 51. 1 • 58. 1 66. 9 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 30 . 1 33 . 7 35 . 3 38. 3 PROCESSABLE WASTE 131. 9 157 . 7 193. 5 230 .2 TOTAL POPULATION 231433 . 0 294825 . 0 386563. 0 469854.0 TOTAL WASTE 538 .4 675. 4 823. 0 981.8 RESIDENTIAL WASTE 265 .9 339. 2 444 . 1 540 . 1 COMMERCIAL WASTE 133 . 2 177. 3 213. 2 262. 6 INDUSTRIAL WASTE 139. 3 158. 9 165. 7 179. 1 PROCESSABLE WASTE 467 . 3 594. 0 738 . 0 890 .2 B. PROJECTED COMPOSITION When resource recovery from solid waste is evaluated as a management technique, knowledge of the composition of that solid waste is of primary im- portance. It is clear that the composition of solid waste shifts over time, but predictions of those shifts is very difficult. Because the factors which influence composition changes, and the vastly complicated interactions be- tween these factors are not well understood, a high degree of uncertainty exists. Recent attempts have been made by the EPA to project changes in solid waste composition to 1990. 20/ Most changes are in the plus or minus ten to fifteen percent range. The most important changes are increases in percent composition in all paper categories, a decrease in glass composition, a slight decrease in ferrous metal composition, and an increase in aluminum composition. Because of the uncertainty involved in attempting to project composition changes and because recent attempts to this end show that most changes could be as small as 10 to 15 percent, this study will assume that the composition developed in Chapter I (see table I-5) will remain constant over the study period. This is probably a conservative position because the EPA projections tend to favor the economics of a resource recovery system. 20/ Midwest Research Institute, "Base Line Forecasts of Resource Recovery, 1972 to 1990," MRI Project No. 3736-D, Kansas City, Mo. , March, 1975. REFERENCES 1. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Solid Waste Report, Technical Report No. 7, April, 1973. 2. W. K.P. Associates, Analysis of the Alternatives for the Organization and Execution of Refuse Disposal Activities on a County-Wide Basis, prepared for the Kane County Board, April, 1968. 3. Consoer, Townsend, and Associates, Engineering Report on Solid Waste Disposal, Du Page County, prepared for the Du Page County Board, 1970. 4. Lake County Department of Public Works, Engineering Report on Solid Waste Disposal, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, September, 1971, and May, 1972. 5. Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, An Analysis of Solid Waste Management Systems, by Ernest L. Hardin, Jr. , and H. Lawrence Dyer, I I B Q Document No. 75-7, May, 1975. 6. De Geare, T. V. , and J. E. Ongerth, "Empirical Analysis of Commercial Solid Waste Generation", Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, December, 1971, p. 843. 7. Henningson, Durham, and Richardson/Harry S. Johnson Companies, Solid Waste Energy and Resource Recovery Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, Final Report, December, 1975. 8. Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc. , Strategy for Solid Waste Management, North Central Texas Region, prepared for the North Central Texas Council of Governments, May, 1974. 9. Metcalf and Eddy of Michigan, Inc. , Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Solid Wastes Study, Detailed Report, March 30, 1973. • a, • 10. Donohue and Associates, Inc. , Solid Waste Characterization Study, Region I, Wisconsin Solid Waste Recycling Authority, - Project # 4333. 4, August 9, 1975. 11. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWMP, Third Report to Congress, Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, SW-161, September, 1975. 12. Smith, Frank Austin, "Quantity and Composition of Post Consumer Solid Waste: Material Flow Estimates for 1973 and Baseline Future Projections", Waste Age, Ap. , 1976, / pp. 2 - 10. 13. Midwest Research Institute, St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant: Equipment, Facility, and Environmental Evaluations, L. J. Shannon, et. al. , EPA Document # EPA-650/2-75-044, May, 1975. 14. Hagerty, Joseph D. , et. al. , Solid Waste Management, Van Hostrand Reinhold Co. , New York, 1973. 15. Rimberg, David, Municipal Solid Waste Management, Noyes Data Corp. , London, 1975. 16. Pavoni, Joseph L. , et. a. , Handbook for Solid Waste Disposal, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975. , I