The plan is unique in that the first step toward implementation was aken while the study effort was still in progress. Legislation was rafted by the Department of Environmental Protection with the asistance of a special team of General Electric and Program Associates personnel. The draft was submitted to the legislature and became Public Act 459 establishing the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority as the governmental body responsible for carrying out the plan.

HIGHLIGHTS

The Connecticut Solid Waste Management Plan is comprised of three elements.

A recommended path, the Baseline System Design, for Connecticut to follow in building new facilities for solid waste management and phasing out the old ones.

An organizational structure, the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, to carry out implementation of the plan, to incorporate new developments and maintain the plan as an alive and dynamic plan for Connecticut.

An allocation of responsibilities for solid waste management between the various levels of government in Connecticut. To provide a basis for development of the plan a set of goals for the Solid Waste Management Plan were established at the outset. 1. Environmental. To maximize resource recovery from solid waste and minimize adverse environmental impact.

2. Economic. To provide maximum benefits at the least user cost; encourage development of new industries and new products from recovered resources and through the identification of new markets for recovered resources; and utilize, to the greatest extent possible, the skills, management talents, and financial and other resources of the private sector, in combination with government.

3. Social. To reflect an interdisciplinary approach to solid waste management; take account of local, regional, and state land-use planning, including agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, and open space needs; and reflect a coordinated approach with local, regional, and state government agencies, commercial and industrial organizations, and other interested groups.

4. Technological. To be amenable to technological innovations with minimum disruption of services and to avoid long-term commitments. to existing technology unless its long-term compatibility with new technologies can reasonably be assured.

The essential objectives embodied in these goals are: least cost, minimum environmental impact, maximum resource recovery and social and political feasibility. These objectives have inevitable conflicts which must be taken into consideration.

1. Lowest Cost. This had two aspects. On the one hand, the plan should minimize costs to the 169 Connecticut cities and towns who faced rapidly escalating costs for increasingly inefficient, highly fragmented local operations. These costs were increasing because of a rapid growth in the amount of waste generated, reduced availability of land suitable for landfills and tougher Federal and State air and water pollution standards. Moreover, as landfill became more scarce

and expensive and new technology developed, it became clear that th problem could not be managed efficiently and effectively at the loc: level. On the other hand, it would accomplish little to replace loca taxes paying for inefficient solutions with state taxes paying for th same solutions.

2. Minimum Environmental Impact. This has three dimensions The State's 20 existing incinerators are major sources of air pollution emitting about 10 million pounds of pollutants into the air annually The State's 144 disposal areas are major sources of water pollution with only 13 fully meeting state standards. The landfills are consuming about 200 acres per year of land. Therefore, the plan should minimize emissions into the air, discharges into the water and consumption of land.

3. Maximum Resource Recovery. Less than 5 percent of the material in the waste stream is now recovered, even though there has been a high level of interest in Connecticut in recycling. Resource recovery is an important objective both because it decreases consumption of natural resources (especially nonrenewable resources such as aluminum, steel and petroleum) and because production of some materials from recovered resources requires less energy than production from virgin materials. Aluminum and glass are examples. Transportation costs and energy is reduced because the source of materials is now nearer the markets. The use of recovered energy, for example, reduces the need to ship petroleum into the State, (and also, therefore, reduces potential oil spills).

4. Socially and Politically Feasible.-This encompasses a range of considerations. One is the high nuisance level of most solid waste facilities and especially the traffic problems that might be created by the large regional facilities that will be required to meet the other objective. Another is that facilities will use industrial land that would otherwise generate tax revenues for local cities and towns. Most important, is a plan that will provide an administrative, managerial and financial mechanism that will allow for rapid, effective, and efficient implementation; equitably distribute the costs of the system; and be capable of adjusting to changes in processing technology, the amount and composition of the waste stream and future Federal or State action to regulate the waste stream or provide incentives for

resources recovery.

The Plan should reflect the views and will of the people of Connecticut and contain provisions enabling a continuing responsive mode of implementation and modification.

Major technological conclusions reached were:

*

(1) Sufficient technical processes exist now (or will exist) to allow disposition of Connecticut's solid waste on a statewide basis.

(2) Conversion of the combustible segment of the state's waste into a dry fuel for use by electric utility companies is the best short-term answer combining expeditious disposal of waste with a socially responsive application of its processed by-products.

(3) Pyrolysis-producing storage/transportable oil or gas from solid waste is the best long-term approach.

pro

po

e

Analysis of existing and potential market outlets for the recovered esources showed that energy is the most valuable single commodity the waste stream. From the analysis a revenue ranging from $3.10 to $6.89 per ton of raw refuse was projected. Energy accounts for mughly 55% to 80% of the revenue dollar. With the increasing shortage of energy it is anticipated the prices will continue to increase. Markets exist for the materials recovered from the waste stream. Cans can be sent to a detinning plant to be converted to high grade ferrous scrap. Glass can be sold to bottle plants or used as an aggregate in the manufacture of building blocks and materials. Aluminum is a valuable commodity, worth $200 per ton when adequately cleaned.

THE CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY

The new system will only be as good as the vehicle for its implementation. To overcome the problems inherent in local implementation, the State has created a Resources Recovery Authority charged with the responsibility of providing waste disposal services to municipalities by implementing the baseline system. The Authority-with its own board of directors-is empowered to issue up to $250 million in bonds; design, build and operate the new facilities; market recovered products; condemn land under certain circumstances; and contract with municipalities to receive and process their waste. The Authority is designed to combine the flexibility and entrepreneurial drive of the private sector with the low cost of capital and some of the powers of the public sector. It has no regulatory powers and, like a business, must be basically self-sufficient-with revenues from user fees and sales of materials covering all expenses (including debt service), although the State does assume the ultimate risk if the Authority's expenses exceed its revenues.

HOW THE PLAN MEETS THE OBJECTIVES

The heart of the plan is what it does, not how it does it.

Lowest Cost.-Existing costs vary widely depending on type of disposal (incineration or landfill), age of facility and type of operation. These costs are not particularly relevant because, in all but a few instances, minimum standards are not being met. To upgrade existing facilities where possible, and build needed new facilities in the traditional incinerator/landfill mode was estimated to require $342 million in capital expenditures over the next 12 years. Under the current subsidy formulas, the State would have to subsidize about $120 million of that expenditure with the rest falling on the municipalities. The total per ton cost for major new incinerators meeting all standards would be about $17 to $25. New landfills, adequately engineered to prevent water pollution and other problems, would have a total per ton cost of at least $5 to $7. By comparison the baseline system will have a total estimated capital cost over the next 12 years of about $295 million or about $47 million less than the incinerator/ landfill alternative. Estimated net total costs of the new system when complete will be about $10 per ton with the actual cost varying somewhat by region.

Least Environmental Impact

Air-Under the new baseline system by 1985 total emissions of hy drocarbons and NOx from all parts of the system including trans portation will be 2.51 million pounds per year. The new system wil release 860,710 pounds of carbon monoxide and 1.67 million pounds of particulates. This is an improvement over the 10 million pounds of pollutants released today just from incinerators particularly since the waste has increased from 3.2 million tons to 5 million tons. If the state had continued use of incinerators, even with new Federal air pollution requirements, they would have released 15 million pounds of particulates, 6 million pounds of hydrocarbons and NOx and 1 million pounds of carbon monoxide in 1985.

Water-Under the new baseline system, by 1985 the only landfills receiving raw garbage will be 10 or 11 in the very rural areas of the State, handling only about 16 percent of the total waste generated. These will be required to be located and engineered so as to minimize leachate problems. All other landfills will be receiving a residue from the resource recovery plants that will be basically inert and not pose water pollution problems.

Land Consumption.-Acreage consumed for landfill will decline under the new baseline system from about 200 acres per year at present to 50 acres per year in 1985, even though the amount of waste per year will have increased by more than 50 percent.

Maximum resources recovery.-From less than 5 percent today the amount of waste recovered will rise to more than 60 percent by 1985. This will include enough energy to generate 10 percent of the State's electrical energy needs, enough ferrous metals to build 200,000 automobiles, enough glass to make 450 million bottles and 23 thousand tons of aluminum. The incinerator/landfill system would recover virtually no resources.

Socially and politically feasible.-To minimize traffic problems and maximize collector convenience, the baseline system provides for 45 transfer stations in addition to the ten resource recovery plants and 11 rural landfills. Thus, there are about 65 entry points to the system or about one for every three of the 169 cities and towns. This is down from the approximately 150 entry points into today's "system" and will increase the average distance to a facility from 3.8 to 6.3 miles and increase collection costs not borne by the system by less than 50 cents per ton. To offset loss of tax revenues that would otherwise be earned by towns on the industrial land used by the system, the Resources Recovery Authority bill provides for payments in lieu of taxes equal to the taxes that would be paid by private industry. This will increase overall system costs by about $2 per ton but will result in a more equitable distribution of costs. To deal with the most important question concerning social and political feasibility-the administrative, managerial and financial vehicle necessary-the State has already acted as discussed above to create a Resource Recovery Authority with broad powers and capabilities to allow for effective provisions of services to municipalities.

The plan meets the four objectives set out. However, trade-off's between objectives can still be made. The new baseline system presented

gra

ne

0

T

1

ere is not the only possible system that could work and, in fact, the stem is designed to incorporate options when objectives conflict, as ey sometimes do. For example, a given region of the State might rant a higher level of resource recovery than the system provides, or greater reliance on rail transportation. These are technically possible at will make the system more expensive to these cities and towns, specially in the early years. In a similar vein a given region or town might want to put greater emphasis on source separation of waste by mposing an obligation that households or businesses separate certain categories of waste. The system can be adjusted to take these local options into account. The new baseline system, therefore, represents the DEP/GE team's judgment, based on discussion and reviews with local and regional officials and representatives of a wide range of prirate groups, of what at this point in time represents the best compromise between conflicting objectives.

When all of the objectives are weighed the plan is clearly preferable to the continuance of the existing methods of solid waste management. Details may change but the basic direction chosen by Connecticut toward resource recovery and preservation of the environment is the right one.

H. National Association of Counties Research Foundation, "Basic Issues on Solid Waste Management Affecting County Government" (May 1973), pp. 3–5:

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

Counties view, with alarm, the administration's drastic reduction in funds available to the solid waste program for FY 74. A major environmental problem has been recognized and great strides are being taken to address solutions. NACo believes that the initiative provided by the national solid waste program, resulting from the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 and the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, should not be lost.

We particularly laud the elimination of open dumps, the sponsoring of improved disposal techniques, action toward resource recovery, generation reduction studies and the development of training programs. The counties also are concerned with the increasing energy needs of this country and the potential use of solid waste products as fuel for power.

While the counties agree with the view of many administration officials that solid waste is basically a local problem-particularly in the area of collection, storage and disposal of non-hazardous wastewe observe that many problems must vigorously be attacked, directed and funded by the federal government. For example, problems not local in scope are generation reduction, resource recovery, handling and disposal of hazardous wastes, demonstration and dissemination of data on improved techniques, urgent personnel training needs for all levels in the solid waste system, continuing research and development requirements, funds needed by some local governments to start acceptable solid waste programs. Federal funds are needed to organize and execute these phases of a national solid waste program.