EPA-600/2-77-013
August 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Municipal Environmental
45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U S Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are1
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/2-77-013
August 1977
EVALUATION OF THE REFUSE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITES
by
Jack Preston Overman
Hittman Associates, Inc.
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Contract No. 68-03-0094
Project Officer
Robert A. Olexsey
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Res-earch Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted
in cooperation with
Office of Policy Development and Research
Division of Energy, Building Technology, and Standards
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi-
cation. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
ListofFigures vi
List of Tables xi
List of Abbreviations xv
Acknowledgements xvi
Sections
I Introduction 1
II Conclusions 7
III Recommendations 14
IV Data Collection and Analysis 19
Indianapolis, Indiana 19
Kalamazoo, Michigan 32
Macon, Georgia 48
Memphis, Tennessee 65
St.Louis,Missouri 78
Seattle, Washington 99
Sacramento, California 109
King County, Washington 122
King County Plastic Bag Study 134
References 148
-------
FIGURES
No. Pagi
1 Typical of 24 refuse storage pens at
the Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough
site. Only plastic bags are allowed and
are collected by the municipal refuse
service 20
2 Trash chute base and container in MFLR
building at the Indianapolis site.
Note the right angle feed to the con-
tainer which results in daily chute
blockages 21
3 Typical of two standard 4 cu yd con-
tainers at the Indianapolis Operation
Breakthrough site 21
4 Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough
site arrangement of pens and containers 22
5 Typical of sixteen compactors in covered
pens located around Kalamazoo, Michigan
site 34
6 On-site refuse collection at Kalamazoo,
Michigan. 35
7 Refuse storage in 4-cu yd containers
and collection by a top-loading packer
truck at Kalamazoo, Michigan 35
8 Kalamazoo Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location of
compactors 37
9 Two typical containers and pen locations
at the Macon site. One is center left
next to the trees. The other is just to
the right of the basketball goal 50
10 The chute-fed compactor and container
in the MFM/HR building at the Macon site 50
VI
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Pag
11 Macon Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement of containers 51
12 One compactor container is replaced
with empty between service days at
the MFM/HR at the Macon site 53
:e contractor top-loading packer
used to empty containers at the
si te
1 3 Pri vate
truck
Macon site 53
14 MFM/HR refuse chute with off-set com-
pactor and restricted opening at the
chute-to-chamber interface which results
in chute backups 59
15 Refuse chute blockage at second floor of
MFM/HR building at the Macon site. Chute
wasbackeduptothirdfloor 60
16 Refuse spills out of side opening of
compactor containers in the MFM/HR
building on the Macon site 61
17 Typical 3-cu yd container and concrete
pen installation at the Memphis site 66
18 Compactor with container attached in
one of the MFHR buildings on the
Memphis site 66
19 Ramp to compactor room in the MFHR
building on the Memphis site 67
20 Typical 31-cu yd packer truck as used
for collecting refuse from containers
at the Memphis site 67
21 Memphis Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing locations of con-
tainers and the compactor 68
22 Thirty-five gallon containers and en-
closures as used for refuse in La Clede
Town, St. Louis, MO 79
23 Tractor and trailer used by four men to
collect refuse from containers in La
Clede Town. Refuse is collected six
days per week 80
vi i
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Pagt
24 West and east views of pen where La
Clede Town refuse is stored for
pickup by municipal service 80
25 Closeup photograph of La Clede Town
refuse pen which shows bags of refuse
intact and broken open, yard wastes,
and appli ances 81
26 Roll-off 30-cu yd container used at La
Clede Town refuse storage pen to
supplement municipal removal services 81
27 Typical chute-fed compactor installation
i n the MFHR bui1di ngs 82
28 Typical of the household compactor in-
stallations in the MFLR and MFMR
buildings in La Clede Town East and
West 83
29 Refuse storage pens for refuse from the
MFLR and MFMR buildings of La Clede
Town East and West sect ions 82
30 St. Louis site arrangement 84
31 Enclosure for four one-cu yd containers
at the Seattle site 99
32 Internal picture of enclosure at the
Seattle site 100
33 One-cu yd container from chute-fed
refuse rooms awaiting pickup at the
Seattle site 100
34 Closeup of one-cu yd containers from
chute-fed refuse room at the Seattle
site 101
35 Refuse collection at the Seattle site
using a rear-loading packer truck 101
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
36 Seattle Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location of refuse
chutes and containers 102
37 Typical chute-fed container installa-
tions in the MFHR building at the
Sacramento site 110
38 Typical of ten redwood pens and trash
cans as used for the MFLR section and
one SFA section of the Sacramento site 111
39 Typical backyard area of SFA units which
are serviced with backyard pickup at the
Sacramento site 112
40 Two rear-loading packer vehicles and
crew which serviced the MFLR and most
of the SFA units at the Sacramento
site 112
41 Box and cart which 'is used for refuse
collection from backyards of one SFA
section at the site 113
42 Sacramento Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location and type
of services 114
43 Refuse (trash) cans set curbside by
residents of SFD units at the King
County Operation Breakthrough site 123
44 Refuse (trash) cans left curbside
behind SFA at the King County
Operat ion Breakthrough Site 123
45 Typical of three 2-cu yd containers
used by MFLR residents at the King
County Operation Breakthrough site 124
46 Refuse collection crew and 25-cu yd
packer truck at the King County Operation
Breakthrough site 124
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Pa g e
47 King County Operation Breakthrough
site arrangement 125
48 Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
122nd Court, King County, Washington 135
49 Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
122nd Court,, King County, Washington 135
50 Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
NE 149th Place, King County, Washington
51 Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
NE 150th Street, King County, Washington
52 Site arrangement showing units parti-
cipating in the plastic bag versus
trash can study at the King County site 137
53 Observed total elapsed time to collect
refuse in trash cans and plastic bags
54 Observed total man-time to collect
refuse in trash cans and plastic bags
55 Average man-time spent on collection
activities for trash cans and plastic
bags 143
56 Photographs of trash cans left curbside
after pickup 145
57 Refuse spilled from a plastic bag as
the result of being torn open by a pet 145
-------
TABLES
Paqe
1 Operation Breakthrough Sites Refuse
Management Systems 2
2 Summary of Economic and Technical Analysis
Results 8
3 Demographic and Solid Waste Data for
Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough Site 23
4 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
the Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough Site 24
5 Apportioned Costs to Indianapolis Site for
Segments of Costs of the Private Service
Contractor 26
6 Combined Segments of Annual 'Expenses for
Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
Indi anapoli s Si te 27
7 Observed Refuse Collec'ion Activities at
the Indianapolis Site for One Pickup and
Annually with Analytical Results 29
8 Demographic and Solid Waste System Descrip-
tive Data for the Kalamazoo Operation
Breakthrough Site 38
9 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
the Kalamazoo Operation Breakthrough Site 39
10 Apportioned Costs to the Kalamazoo Site
for Segments of Costs of the Private
Service Contractor 40
11 Combined Segments of Annual Expenses for
Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
Kalamazoo Site 41
12 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at
the Kalamazoo Site for One Pickup and
One Year with Analytical Results 43
xi
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Pag
13 Costs for Kalamazoo Refuse Collection
Assuming the Compactors were Properly Utilized 44
14 Demographic and Solid Waste System Data for
the Macon, Georgia,Operation Breakthrough Site 49
15 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
the Macon Operation Breakthrough Site 54
16 Estimated Costs to the Macon Site for Segments
of Costs of the Private Service 55
17 Combined Segments of Annual Expense for
Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
MaconSite 56
18 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at
the Macon Site for One Pickup and One Year
with Analytical Results 58
19 Demographic and Refuse System Descriptive Data
for the Memphis Operation Breakthrough Site 69
20 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
the Memphis Operation Breakthrough Site 71
21 Apportioned Costs to the Memphis Site for
Segments of Costs of the Private Service
Contractors 72
22 Combined Segments of Annual Expenses for
Refuse Collection and Disposal at the Memphis
Site 73
23 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at the
Memphis Site for One Pickup and One Year with
Analytical Results 74
24 Demographic and Solid Waste System Descriptive
Data for the St. Louis Operation Breakthrough
Site 85
25 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
La Clede Town East and West, the Operation
Breakthrough Portions of the St. Louis Site 87
26 Costs of Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
La Clede Town Portion of the St. Louis Site 88
xi i
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
27 Summary of Total Cost of Refuse Collection
and Disposal at La Clede Town in St. Louis 89
28 Annual Expenses for Cost Elements of Refuse
Collection and Disposal at the St. Lou.is
Site 90
29 Demographic and Solid Waste System Descriptive
Data for the Seattle Operation Breakthrough
Site 103
30 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
Seattle Operation Breakthrough Site 104
31 Estimated Annual Expenses for Segments of the
Refuse Collection and Disposal at the Seattle
Site 105
32 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at the
Seattle Site for One Week with Projections to
One Year with Analytical Results 107
33 Demographic and Solid Waste System Descriptive
Data for the Sacramento Operation Breakthrough
Site 115
34 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
Sacramento Operation Breakthrough Site 117
35 Combined Segments of Annual Expenses for Refuse
Collection and Disposal at the Sacramento Site 118
36 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at the
Sacramento Site for One Pickup and Projections
toanAnnualBasis 119
37 Demographic and Solid Waste System Descriptive
Data for the King County Operation Breakthrough
Site 126
38 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at the
King County Operation Breakthrough Site 128
39 Combined Segments of Annual Expenses for Refuse
Collection and Disposal at the King County Site 129
XT 1
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
40 Cost of Refuse Collection and Disposal at
the King County Site Assuming that all
Residents Subscribe to the Private Contract
Collect ion Service 130
41 Observed Refuse Collection Activities at the
King County Site for One Dickup and One Year
with Analytical Results 131
42 Results From Observations of Plastic Bag
Versus Trash Can Pickup at the King County
Site 139
xi v
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
SFA single-family attached dwelling units
SFD single-family detached dwelling units
MFLR multifamily low-rise dwelling units
MFMR multifamily medium-rise dwelling units
MFHR multifamily hi gh-ri se- dwell i ng units
MFM/HR multifamily medium and high-rise dwelling units
container An enclosed container of the type designed
for being emptied by a packer truck
can A standard garbage can of usually 30 to 40
gallons capacity which can be manually emptied
dwel1 ing
unit An apartment or a home
TABLE OF CONVERSION UNITS
1 foot = 0.3048 meters
1 mile =1.6093 kilometers
1 cu yd = 0.7646 cubic meters
1 mill = 0.00254 centimeters
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The cooperation of site management, municipal employees,
private refuse service contractors, and site residents is
greatly appreciated. Without their help and enthusiastic
support, this project could not have been completed as
thoroughly at each site within the limited resources avail
able.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Jerome Rothenberg of
HUD for his guidance and assistance and to the project
personnel of EPA who include Messrs. Leland Daniels,
Patrick Tobin, and Robert A. Olexsey.
xvi
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Operation
Breakthrough Program is involved in demonstrating experi-
mental housing design and construction. One of the pro-
visions of the program is to evaluate the refuse collection
methods in the program to determine the practicality of the
methods and to guide development of solid waste management
systems for future projects. The Operation Breakthrough
sites and a description of the refuse management systems are
presented in Table 1.
The Operation Breakthrough sites at Indianapolis, Kalamazoo,
Macon, Memphis, St. Louis, Seattle, Sacramento, and King
County are included in this report. The Jersey City site
has a pneumatic trash collection system which is being
evaluated in detail relative to technical and economic
performance. The Jersey City study requires one year of
site monitoring and analysis, and the results will be
documented in a separate report. In addition to technical
and economic performance, a user acceptance survey was con-
ducted for evaluating the refuse management system at each
site, and the survey results are included in a separate
report.2
The specific purpose of this report is to present the re-
sults of evaluations of general data gathered during short
visits to each site. In addition, the results are presented
for a four-week study of the curbside pickup of plastic bags
versus standard garbage cans at the King County, Washington,
site. A separate report covers an evaluation of refuse
system acceptance by residents.
The overall objective of the sponsor of this study is to
evaluate the economics, effectiveness, and feasibility of
using improved solid waste collection systems in new com-
munities. The results will be used to guide the develop-
ment of larger scale projects in the future. The specific
objectives of the evaluation of the various types of solid
waste management systems at the Operation Breakthrough sites
-------
OO
^
LU
H-
00
>-
oo
LU
CD
=C
00
Ol OJ QJ
Ol 01
o
o;
1C
Qi
CQ
-------
included the following:
1. Describe each solid waste system and provide
drawings, photographs, technical specifications
where available and as applicable.
2. Analyze the economics of the systems based on
available data. The analysis includes consi-
derations of:
(a) Capital cost of equipment (including
installation costs, where applicable).
(b) Operating costs such as electrical power,
labor, maintenance, parts and supplies,
fuel, repair costs, container rental,
disposable liners, transport and dis-
posal fees .
(c) Recurring costs such as taxes and
insurance.
(d) All costs results were compared to the
"1968 National Survey of Community Solid
Wastes Practices " and the results derived
from that survey by Hagerty, Pavoni, and
Heer.3 TO obtain comparative costs, all site
cost data and the results of Hagerty et. al.
are modified to a common base in October 1975
using the building and common labor cost
indexes found in the Engineering News Record.
The 1968 survey results are modified as
fol1ows.
"1968 National Survey of Community Solid Wastes Prac-
tices "1> 3 National Average costs per capita per year
1968 Modifier (ref.)0ctobcr 1975
Capital $1.70 1351.9/754.9 (4) $3.047 cap./yr
Excluding
Capital $5.11 177/100 (4) $9.04/cap./yr
Total $6.81 $12.08/cap.yr
The Operation Breakthrough sites were visited
at different times and the costs obtained at
-------
Site
Date of Visit
each site are modified as follows.
Cost Modifiers
Material and
Installation
Cost Indexes
Other Cost Indexes References
Indianapolis, Indiana
September 1973 1351.9/1158.1
September 1975 1351.9/1333.7
Kalamazoo, Michinan
September 1973
1351.9/1158.1
Macon, Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee
October 1973 1351.9/1154.8
St. Louis, Missouri
July 1974
1351.9/1238.7
4525.6/3800.4
4525.6/4512.8
4525.6/3800.4
4525.6/3802.4
4525.6/4030.7
(4,5)
(4,6)
(4,5)
(4,7)
(4,8)
Seattle, Washington; Sacramento, California; King County, Washington
April 1975 1351.9/1273.2 4525.6/4204.9 (4,9)
It should be noted that Indianapolis was
visited twice and cost data from both visits
are utilized and modified by the appropriate
cost modifier.
In addition to cost projections to October
1975, capital equipment costs are annualized
by multiplying by a carrying charge. The
carrying charge is the sum of an interest
rate plus a sinking fund factor for depreciable
capital costs. For non-depreciable capital
costs, the carrying charge consists of just
the interest rate. The carry ing charge
i s
where: i is the interest rate
n is the number of years
of depreciation
3.
In all instances the number of years of
depreciation is considered to be the expected
life of the equipment. A 7.5 percent interest
rate is used for all cost evaluations.
Analyze the technical aspects of the systems to
determine the effectiveness and efficiency. The
-------
technical analysis includes consideration of:
(a) Quantity of solid wastes collected in terms
of type and number of containers at each
service and the number and type of dwelling
units.
(b) Distances traveled between services and total
distance to collect on site.
(c) Distances from the collection vehicle to the
storage areas .
(d) Time spent on various collection activities
including productive collection time, handling
and walking time, waiting time, and time
SDnnt on oth M activities.
(e) Mechanical equipment performance effectiveness,
safety, convenience, user acceptance, noise,
odor, sanitation, aesthetics, and other
aspects pertinent to each system.
(f) Compactor (where installed) load capacity and
the weight, size, and handling requirements
of compacted packages.
(g) Storage containers effectiveness, sanitation,
user acceptance, and other aspects pertinent
to each system.
The approach for accomplishing the above objectives consists
of visiting each site and recording the required data.
Solid waste system descriptive and economic data are ob-
tained from site management and other sources (HUD, builder,
contract hauler) as required. Technical data are obtained
through short-term observations of solid waste management
practices for the eight sites. Time and motion study
estimation techniques are used to gather sufficient data for
determining the technical effectiveness and efficiency of
seven sites. Detailed time and motion study techniques are
used to perform a comparative study of plastic bag versus
standard containers for curbside collection at the King
County site. For the special study, half of the King
County residences were furnished plastic bags for lining
trash cans. On pickup day, the plastic bags were tied and
set at curbside. The other half of the residences utilized
standard cans in the usual manner by setting them at curb-
side on pickup day. The data were collected over a one
month period for comparing the halves on the basis of
economics, collection efficiency, aesthetics, sanitation,
and other pertinent aspects.
-------
User or resident acceptance of the solid wastes management
systems was determined by surveying a sample of the residents
and the management at each site by conducting interviews
using an approved survey questionnaire. The results of the
analysis are analyzed to determine the type of use, user
solid waste disposal requirements, suitability of the system
to the user, and suitability of the system with respect to
the environment of the user. This program was approved by
the Office of Management and Budget. The results of the
analysis are provided in a separate report2 and an overall
summary report, separate from this report, except for the
St. Louis site where approval to survey residents was denied.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the results of evaluations of solid
waste management system data gathered at eight Operation
Breakthrough sites. In addition, the results are presented
for a four-week study of the curbside pickup of plastic bags
versus standard garbage cans at the King County, Washington,
site. The overall objective of this study is to evaluate
the economics, effectiveness, and feasibility of using
improved solid waste collection systems in new communities.
The major results from the economic and technical evaluations
of each site are summarized in Table 2. All economics data
were adjusted to reflect cost as of October 1975 as explained
in the Introduction, Section I. Only three of the eight
sites approach the adjusted National averages for cost of
refuse collection and disposal. Indianapolis, Sacramento,
and King County are lowest in cost per capita per year.
Specific conclusions for each site are stated below.
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
The system is satisfactory in that refuse is collected and
disposed. The city charges for collection for the entire
site even though the MFMR and the maintenance buildings are
serviced by a private contractor. The costs (adjusted to
October 1975 basis) are $2.22 per cu yd which is reasonable
and equates to $44.38 per dwelling unit per year. The costs
could be reduced if the city services the entire site. The
total costs are $12.62 per capita per year (average) which
is higher than the adjusted national average of $12.08 per
capita per year. Site labor requirements could be reduced
if residents were required to store refuse in their homes
until pickup day. At present, considerable site labor is
required to clean the refuse pens each week because of
bagged refuse exposure to weather, insects, and animals.
The manual pickup by the city incurs a high nonproductive
rate with 35 percent of the active collection time spent
wai ting.
-------
"O
CU
CU
O-
J
CL
0)
+-> -a
i 3 >,
OJ
CL
01
-a -a
Z5 e
-a cu
cu a.
*-> o
00
o oo
^ LU
O i
LU OO
ii
LL. OO
o :
a.
o
C3^
3-
CM 0)
CO O.
PO 01
ro Q-
CO O
i CM
CU cn
S_ d
03 r-
S_
-a s_
C Z5
03 u
cu
^^ S-
4-> r-
U Q.
a:
CU ZJ
> I
^ o
o
o
CXl i i
-M
l/l 03
O
O-
Q.
E
OJ ^ O
O 03 O
-------
CO
QJ
0-
03
4-J
C
rd
>
-Q
03
to
r
Q
CO
QJ
cn
fO
4-J
c
03
>
-o
r . Odors , insects,
o
-Q
O3
4-
O
QJ
to
ZJ
OJ
>
r-
4-J S-
O =3
ZJ O
-o u
O O
s_
CL tO
C 40
0 CJ
c QJ
4-
4-J 4-
C QJ
QJ
U 5-
S- QJ
QJ _C
O- 4-J
fO
i-O QJ
ro 3
4-J
to
o
CJ
3
0
_J
t use compactors .
e costs . 1 7 percent
ve refuse handl i ng
o o «-
rz c to
ro co
O fZ QJ
T3 QJ U
40 x
co c; i_u
4-1 !
C 03
QJ E -
-o i~
r- -C 0
to cn.Q QJ
QJ -i 03 >
C£ 1C i T-
CO
4- C
- C QJ
CO CO 4-1
co 4-J QJ rz
QJ CO CO T-
C 0 ZJ
QJ O S-
> QJ O
r- , > XI
4-J o3 " O3
CJ 4-J 40 ,
QJ T- CJ
4- Q- 13 co
4- 03 -O T-
QJ CJ O
i_ _C
i- -rz CL cj
o cn c -r-
o T- o J=
ex in c 3
c
l O
OJ -i- :>>
S- 4-J CJ
U C E
T3 ZJ QJ O
i "O ZJ S-
13 QJ O~4-
O S- QJ
CJ L. QJ
TZ> 4- QJ
QJ C S-
co rO QJ LJ-
13 CJ
CO -i
S^ 4-J >
O Wl i_ co
4-J O CU CJ
CJ CJ tO T-
03 4->
CL 3 TZ> QJ
E 0 QJ JC
O r S- 4->
CJ -r-CO
rz zj QJ
L- -i- cr rO
QJ QJ
CL 4-J S- "O
Or- 0
S- ZJ C 0
Q_ CO r- CU
c
1
E
S-
OJ
>
"
CO
4-J
O
QJ
to
C
.,
"
CO
i_
0
-a
o
es i ncreased costs .
nonproduct i ve use
Noisy collection.
CO
3 40
O3 C >!
CJ QJ i
CJ 4-J
C ^ C
O OJ QJ
r- Q. Z)
4-J CT
03 ro QJ E
r r C. O
r 4-0
rO S-
4-J O
CO CO O JZ
C 4_J 4-1 CO
r CO O3
o -o s-
i- CJ QJ 4-J
O CJ
4_> QJ -r- C£
CJ O > 1C
rO 5Z S- --^
a. ro QJ s:
E C CO U-
o QJ s:
O 4-J
C C
i_ T- s- T-
QJ 03 0
CL E -Q i-
0 03 QJ
t- -C r- 4-J
CL C7> -M
g -i 4 -r-
i . 3Z 0 1
r
03
4-J
r-
CL
o3 E
U O
s-
3 4-
0
_J QJ C
CU T-
S- E
4 t_
CO QJ
to "O >
QJ C
C fO "
QJ tO
> C 4-J
i o3 U
4-J QJ QJ
CJ CO
QJ O C
4- -r-
4-
QJ . -
CO CO
JZ 4-J S-
CT> tO O
r- 0 -0
rc u o
1 4-»
JZ 4- 4-
4-J 4- C
rz ZJ 4-J o
O CO O T-
E C -M
4-J 03
S- O O N
QJ d "O T- co
CL i L.
QJ CO -r- QJ
ZD CJ S- 4-J 4-J
Q C QJ ZJ CO
rO C O3
U S- S- CJ
QJ 03 03 O
Q. QJ 4-J _Q C
r C 03 O
O 0 O r
LO C_J CO
TD QJ S-
O rO > QJ
±f± QJ -r- C
J^ Jv* 4-J -^-
4- S- CJ O rd
O QJ ZJ ZJ 4-J
> s^ -o c
QJ O 4-J o O
QJ S- C)
4- 1- CL
QJ c cn
C CO T3 O C
O 4-J- ro C T-
r~ CO O >
4_) o ' 4-1 O
U CJ C E
QJ 4J CU
CL cn c CJ E
to c o i- OJ
CM- S^ QJ ^
r- 4-J 4- CL-Q
03 O
i S- i_ CO i-
03 QJ o cxi CL
CL o_4-
r- 0 >l
CJ 4-J 4-1
r- JZ C CO QJ
c cn OJ c <+-
3 -r- - CU 03
21 1C U Q-CO
O
1 ^
CJ
QJ OJ
4- QJ
4- S- SZ
QJ U- !-
E
>i S-
S- . CU
QJ CO >
> CJ
i «
4-1 CO
. QJ 40 .
CO JZ (J CO
4-J 4-J QJ E
CO CO LO QJ
O QJ C r
{J rO -i -Q
O
i "O * i-
ro O LO Q_
4-J O S-
i- CD O >>
CL -O S-
rO O 03
CJ 4-1
QJ E «-
3 > o c:
O -r- S- rO
1 4-J 4 CO
>> to
QJ
r- CJ
O JZ
QJ 3
4-
4- QJ
QJ cO
ZJ
4-1 4-
O QJ
d S_
QJ 4-
!- O
rO
cn
to C
S- -i
O i
4-J -0
CJ C.
O3 O3
CL JZ
E
0 OJ
CJ >
-r-
LO
CO
CO OJ
4-> CJ
to X
0 UJ
u
QJ
> -o
-r- QJ
CO M
CO -r
cu
CJ '«-
X -M
UJ ZJ
C
O QJ
I- J}
4_>
03 T3
i- i
QJ ZJ
CL 0
0 3
QJ co
JZ C
4-J O
r
£= 4-J
i S^
0
CO CU
S-
o JT
+-> cn
CJ 3
o3 O
CL S^
E -C
O 40
U -*£
ro
QJ QJ
j~ 5^
r CO
CO
C
QJ
CL
>,
S- QJ
03 cn
4-J ro
r- S-
C O
03 4-J
CO CO
CO C
CO T-
QJ E
C S-
QJ QJ
> >
i
4-J ft
CJ CO
QJ 4-J
4- O
4- QJ
QJ CO
C
S^ T-
O
O "
D_ CO
s~
o
"O
QJ O
>
r- J^
CO 4-J
C -i-
QJ 2 -0
4-J QJ
rz co ~o
r- E ro
QJ O
S_ i i
O J3 S-
JD O QJ
03 S- >
r- CL 0
>,
1
s_
QJ
CL
0
i_
CL
4-
i
QJ
cn
03
4-J *
C "0
ro ^
> N
TD '-
rO '
i
C +0
ro ^
er cen t nonpro-
ion serviced
CL4-J
S-
CNJ O
CM CL
QJ
C
cO O
4-J
to
0
CJ C
O
QJ -r-
U 4-1
t o3
> M
S- T-
QJ r-
LO -i
4-J
C Z3
0 >,
i S^ i
4-J O 4-J
C) _Q C
QJ ra QJ
i i 13
r- CT
O QJ QJ
U > S-
r- 4-
-C 4-J
cn u O
- ZJ O
IC-0 -M
1
U
QJ
4~
4~ QJ
QJ CJ "
C CO
>i 03 i-
S^ S- 0
QJ 03 ~O
;=» QJ o
CL
o- E
03 O
CO S-
40 40 4__ .
to C £Z
O QJ QJ T-
O « QJ E
i £_ 5^
i a> 4- QJ
03 CJ >
40 x -a
r- LU C "
CL rd co
03 4-J
CJ -CO
QJ ra QJ
S > QJ CO
O T- 1 C
1 4-> CJ -i
i ve . Overl oaded
CO
c
QJ
4-J
c;
r-
s_
0
o
03
1
CO
40
CO
O
CJ
c
0
.,
4-J
CJ
QJ
,
i
O
u
JZ CO
cn c:
r- QJ
1C 0-
1
QJ 1
> C
1 1
4-J QJ
3 U CJ "
o QJ c: to
4 rO S-
4- S- O
>> QJ 03 ~O
i QJ O
E- -0 Q_
03 0 Q- E
r O 03 O
=J C5 S-
CJ 4O 4_
r- C
4-J QJ QJ
S- to , QJ C
rd 4-i i S- T-
O. co OJ 4 E
00 S^
CO CJ X "O QJ
40 LU C >
cO i o3
O 03 "
CJ 40 - C CO
-i CO ra 40
3 O- CO QJ CJ
O O3 QJ i CU
1 CJ C CJ CO
heir own refuse.
aestheti cs .
4-J QJ
40
cn-r-
C to
r
LO E
O 0
CL s-
to 4-
i
T3 4-J
CJ
co o3
4-J S-
C 4-J
QJ QJ
~cj -o
r-
CO QJ
QJ -o
t- -r-
CO
i- -Cl
o s-
4~ Zi
CJ
CO
40 40
co 4-
O QJ
U i
JZ LO
Cn C
r- ro
=C CJ
0
zr *
O to
4-J 4->
CJ
CO S- QJ
i- o to
QJ 40 C
-Q O «-
-.- 03
i- S- «
CJ +-> CO
cn C s-
-Q O O
ZJ CJ -O
to o
QJ
S- CJ JZ
O T- 4-J
4- > T-
5- 3
co QJ
40 tn LO
co E
O QJ OJ
CJ CO i
ZJ -Q
34-0
O QJ S-
_J S- CL
c
1
E
i_
QJ
>
"O r~
C
o
-------
Site environmental aspects are generally good. Site aes-
thetics could be greatly improved if shrubbery were planted
around the pens. Restriction of residents to placing refuse
in pens only on collection days could minimize odors, insects,
and animal problems. Refuse protection in the home should
not result in storage problems if bags are properly used; in
fact, it should increase the care taken by residents to
minimize problems through proper tying of bagged refuse.
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
The system is not being properly utilized; therefore, the
full effectiveness of the design of the system is not being
achieved. Excessive costs are incurred for pickup labor,
plastic bags, on-site hauling, and disposal costs. The
total costs observed are $2.55 per cu yd of loose refuse.
Costs could be reduced to $2.29 per cu yd if proper compaction
operation were performed by site residents. The $2.29 per
cu yd is based upon proper utilization of the compactors
which would then allow reduction of pickups from seven to
three per week by site maintenance personnel and reduction
to one pickup per week by the private service contractor.
Residents do not start the compactors. Trash is placed in-
side the compactors if the chamber is not full, but the
residents do not push the start button after placing refuse
inside. Subsequent visits by residents result in refuse
being left on the ground around the compactor rather than
compacted in the chamber.
The use of plastic bags in the chamber of the compactor
created a safety hazard due to broken glass. This has re-
sulted in the need to segregate glass from the trash. It is
recommended that a metal, hinged carrying "caddy" or similar
device be devised for handling compacted packages which are
removed for disposal.
MACON, GEORGIA
The refuse system is effective, efficient, and fairly econom-
ical. A lack of design consideration is evident in the
refuse chute to compactor interface. Future projects should
specifically give more consideration to refuse room location,
refuse chute location, and compactor installation so that
the necessary space is allowed for a proper installation of
the equipment. The containers as well as the pens in most
cases blend well into the site. Some of the containers do
not blend into the site. Consideration should be given to
specifying the color of containers such that they do not
detract from the site. Also, container locations should
receive more consideration for access by the service truck.
10
-------
Refuse rooms, where residents need not open doors, should be
closed and possibly locked at all times when not being
attended. Walking time and some nonproductive labor can be
reduced. It will not reduce overall costs much, but con-
sideration for future sites should include planning to
improve labor utilization. The containers inside of pens
must be rolled out and positioned in front of the packer
truck. After emptying the container must be rolled back.
Future sites should contain provisions for allowing direct
access to the container by the truck. Packer trucks should
have some provision to prevent liquids from being squeezed
out of the truck onto the parking lot or grounds of a resi-
dential area. This type of refuse system should not be
affected by weather conditions except ice or snow which may
prevent the packer truck from being operational.
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The refuse collection system is economical. Future com-
pactor installations should consider the basis of hauling
and disposal charges during the planning stages. If reduced
volume does not save money, the only reason to install the
equipment is to reduce the number of pickups. The system as
installed at Memphis requires a private contractor to
remove and dispose refuse which is the single most expensive
part of the system. The contracts account for 55 percent of
the annualized system costs. The concrete pens do serve to
blend the containers into the site; however, future sites
should more closely match pen size to container size so that
the container will fit into the pen. Also, pen orientation
should be considered for ease of emptying by the truck.
Container size and method of emptying should be considered
where there may be limited overhead space. The system has
no apparent odor, sanitation, or noise problems. The con-
tainer-to-truck interface,when using containers in high-rise
structures,must be considered in terms of the method of
moving to the truck. A hazardous situation exists because
the containers must be manually pushed down inclined ramps
to the truck. This requires dexterity and a fair amount of
strength to prevent the heavily ladened containers from
running wildly down the inclines possibly crashing into
automobiles in the parking lots or injuring personnel.
The manual movement of the containers is consumptive of time
and labor. The 144-unit MFHR building should have been a
serious candidate for compactor installations because of the
number of tenants. Presently, the containers are emptied
once each day, six days a week. Installation of compactors
11
-------
should reduce the number of pickups to a maximum of three
pickups per week. This would not reduce dumping charges,
but it should reduce pickup fees and reduce the labor ex-
pended in removing backed-up refuse in the chute.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
The system is not economical for the entire site. The
effectiveness and efficiency of the refuse collection system
is degraded by the labor intensive efforts and excessive
handling of refuse. Curbside pickup would benefit the La
Clede Town portion of the site by eliminating the need to
place refuse in containers and then move refuse from con-
tainers to street areas for pickup. Similarly, the refuse
is then placed in pens to await pickup and disposal by the
municipal service and by private contractor. A recommended
improvement is to eliminate excessive handling of the refuse.
The existing system is not aesthetically obtrusive. All
containers and pens are well disguised by shrubbery. The
storage pens are outside and the sanitation is questionable
because refuse builds up in the pens, decays, attracts
flies, causes extreme odor problems, and probably attracts
vermin. Also, excessive handling of the bagged refuse
caused bag tears and refuse spillage which increases the
probability that storage problems occur.
A complete study should be performed so that the refuse
management system could be improved. A study of once-only-
handling of refuse should be included in the study. By
decreasing handling, it would probably decrease costs and
sanitary problems and increase efficiency and effectiveness.
Curbside pickup and disposal by the site, the city, or a
private contractor may offer cost benefits to the site.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The Seattle site refuse system is effective, efficient, and
environmentally satisfactory. The annual costs appear high
due to the costs of the city provided collection and disposal
service. The costs could be lowered by servicing the chute-
fed containers once a week. The efficiency of the collection
crew could be improved at the site if a one or two man crew
was used in place of the three-man crew, because one man
stands idle while collection is performed at the site (this
reduction may not be possible due to requirements for personnel
when servicing urban areas other than the Operation Breakthrough
site).
12
-------
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The capital costs for the Sacramento site refuse system are
low and the operation and maintenance costs are high.
Collection and disposal fees account for 71 percent of the
costs of the refuse system. Overall, the costs per dwelling
unit, per capita, and per cu yd of refuse are fairly low
and are less than national averages.
Excellent efficiency is achieved in refuse collection activi-
ties at the site. The effectiveness and efficiency of
collection in terms of cost are high, but the volume of
refuse collected per unit of time appears low which is due
to the backyard collection activities required to service
295 dwelling units.
Odors occur in the trash can pens in hot weather. The
system exhibits no environmental problems associated with
aesthetics, noise or sanitation. Resident requirements for
handling refuse are minimal.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Refuse collection and disposal at the King County site is
very effective with the exception of the residents who
dispose of their own refuse. Curbside collection once a
week using a two-man crew is efficient and environmental
problems are minimized. The refuse system would be much
more economical if all SFA and SFD residents subscribed to
the private collection service. It is an option of the
homeowner to subscribe or dispose of his own refuse.
KING COUNTY PLASTIC BAG STUDY
The use of plastic bags in place of standard trash cans
results in $17.41 higher annual costs to the homeowner.
Refuse collection activities are more efficient and require
less labor when plastic bags are utilized. Refuse is col-
lected faster when plastic bags are used; however, the
contractor will not reduce pickup fees even if bags are
used. The collection crew prefers plastic bags because of
increased pickup speed. The site appearance is improved
because cans are not left curbside in the SFD areas after
pickup of refuse. Site environmental conditions are as good
or better when plastic bags are used. There is less collec-
tion noise when plastic bags are collected. Odors are
minimized and there appears to be less possibility of sani-
tation problems when plastic bags are used. Overall, a site
would appear to be improved if plastic bags are used in
place of trash cans for curbside pickup, however, heavy duty
bags (3-mil thickness) were used in the study and bags of
less strength might have different results.
13
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning for future developments should include detailed
consideration of refuse management requirements. The re-
quirements should be incorporated into designs during
development of site plans and buildings to assure adequate
considerations for installation, location, and operation.
Particularly important is the planning required for innova-
tive systems which may have unusual requirements or may not
be acceptable to residents. The results and conclusions of
the study demonstrate that conventional collection methods
such as curbside, chute, and dumpster containers are easily
used by residents whereas innovative methods are not prop-
erly utilized by residents. Recommendations for each site
follow:
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Methods should be studied to allow municipal servicing of
the MFMR building as well as the rest of the site because
the site pays the city for the service even though it is not
used. The $1824 per year paid to the private contractor
could be saved if the city serviced the MFMR building and
the site hauled bulky wastes away. If similar to the rest of
the site, the refuse would have to be stored in plastic bags
and placed in a pen for city pickup. The city utilities
department has indicated that this is possible.
A regulation not allowing residents to place bags of refuse
in the pens except on pickup days should be considered.
This would influence residents to properly close and tie
bags and prevent exposure to weather and animals (pets,
mostly cats and dogs). A top to the pens would help prevent
weather effects but would prevent the cleansing effect of
direct sunlight; therefore, a top is not recommended.
Crew performance efficiency would be greatly increased if
the truck driver participated in refuse handling. Over
seventy percent of his time is spent waiting while two crew
members load the truck. Possibly, a switch to a crew con-
sisting of a driver and a loader (two men) would greatly
increase utilization of personnel.
14
-------
Methods should be considered to install a slope from the
vertical chute to the container in the MFMR building. The
current design results in chute clogging and backups with
scattered refuse in the container room. Future buildings of
this type should have provisions for the container to be
placed under the chute and to have a plate valve to close
the chute when the container is being serviced.
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
Considerable effort on the part of the site management has
not resulted in residents using the communal compactors so
that maximum benefits of refuse volume reduction are real-
ized. It is doubtful that the residents will ever properly
utilize the equipment; therefore, it is recommended that
curbside pickup once a week be initiated at the site with a
one or two-man crew. Another alternative is to use cen-
trally located containers serviced by a private contractor.
If communal compactors are considered for future develop-
ments, automatic cycling would be a desireable feature. The
charging chamber should also be located at least 36 to 42
inches above the ground to prevent entry by adventuresom
youngsters. The higher location would allow easier ser-
vicing by the collection crew. The greatest benefit that
automatic cycling attains is the reduction of refuse volume
which requires fewer servicing trips by the collection crew.
A special carrying device should be used with compacted
refuse to prevent injuries to service personnel. A two
handled device could be easily developed as a caddy for bags
of compacted refuse.
MACON, GEORGIA
The use of central containers works very well. Future site
planning should incorporate better locations for containers
to allow easy access by the pickup truck. Container enclo-
sures should be oriented to prevent the containers from
being very noticeable. The planting of shrubbery instead of
(or in addition to) using frame enclosures might also be
considered to improve aesthetics.
The compactor installation under the chute of future multi-
level buildings should consider the interface problems be-
fore installation so that adequate space is allowed to
provide a proper fall for refuse to enter the compactor
chamber. Refuse container rooms should be locked to prevent
entry by people and pets. Compactor containers should have
metal or canvas compactor-port covers to prevent spillage
when moving or emptying the containers.
-------
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The site is charged landfill fees on a loose refuse basis.
A four to one compaction ratio means the site is charged
four times the loose refuse price; therefore, compacting the
refuse has not saved money. Future developments should
consider the basis of landfill fees before installing
compaction equipment. The equipment does allow fewer ser-
vice trips by the contracted pickup service.
Future sites which use container enclosures should design
and install enclosures of sufficient size to allow the con-
tainer to be fully inserted into the enclosure. The enclo-
sures at the Memphis site are too small and would be difficult
to modify since they are concrete. The use of containers
should also consider the method of emptying the containers.
The containers under the deck must be lifted and moved to an
overhead opening for emptying by the top loading packer
truck. The containers in the high-rise buildings must be
rolled downhill along a sidewalk to curbside for emptying;
therefore, the weight of the container plus refuse can
present handling problems to personnel. The containers
could get away from the crew and cause personal injury and
property damage. Future sites should allow the pickup truck
to move to the trash rooms to service containers.
The Adult Student Housing high-rise building is an excellent
candidate for use of compactors under the refuse chutes.
The six-day a week servicing could be reduced to servicing
three times a week (or less). Landfill fees would not be
saved, and a method to safely move the containers to curb-
side would have to be developed.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
The St. Louis site refuse system has many problems and a
complete in-depth study of the refuse management system is
desparately needed. Such a study is recommended and it
should incorporate the following minimum features. Study
the possibility of once or twice a week curbside pickup in
La Clede Town to reduce refuse handling and storage. Pickup
the refuse from the Operation Breakthrough portions (La
Clede Town East and West) only once a week since all house-
holds have compactors. Store refuse in containers which can
be dumped by trucks rather than requiring manual loading.
The containers would help minimize odors, insects, and
vermin problems. The site should consider purchasing a packer
truck and providing curbside collection for disposal of
refuse.
16
-------
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The chute-fed containers do not need emptying twice a week.
Either by adding one or two containers, once a week service
could reduce the costs of servicing the site. The refuse
rooms are locked and being underground are cool, odor free,
and insect free.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The Sacramento site refuse management system is very effec-
tive. Some overloading in some of the multi-family-low-rise
(MFLR) pens occurs while other pens are virtually unused.
It is suggested that the pens be better located for use by
residents. The pens near automobile parking areas are
frequently overloaded; therefore, additional pens in those
areas might solve the problem. Another approach is to move
the three pens in the MFLR alleys to the curbs of the parking
lots. Ten pens appear adequate for the load.
The high-rise buildings should have compactors installed to
reduce pickup frequency. The buildings have plenty of space
under the refuse chutes where compactors would easily fit.
The installation could easily reduce servicing from six
days a week to three times (or less) a week.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
All residents of the King County site should subscribe to
the refuse collection service. Thirty-five residents that
haul their own refuse away could save money by subscribing
to the service. No other recommendations are made for the
site.
SUMMARY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Single family attached (SFA) and detached (SFD) housing
developments appear to be most effectively serviced by
curbside, once a week pickup of refuse. Multifamily-low-
rise (MFLR) buildings can effectively utilize curbside
pickup but should probable be serviced with centrally
located containers. Household compactors can only be
recommended if once"a week pickup will be used and residents
are taught to use their compactors. Communal compactors are
not recommended; but, if used, they should automatically
cycle without relying on residents to actuate the units.
17
-------
Communal compactors must also be carefully designed and
installed to preclude entry by children and injury to personnel
when handling the compacted package.
Multifamily-medium (MFMR) and high-rise (MFHR) buildings
should always be candidates for chute-fed compactors.
Specific attention should be focused on allowance of space
for proper equipment installation. Also, designs should
provide easy access for servicing by a packer truck to
minimize manual handling of containers.
The special plastic bag study at the King County site
showed definite advantages to use of plastic bags in place
of containers. A warmer time of day for pickup or a warmer
climate might change the results if bags weaken. Only heavy
duty bags are recommended if a plastic bag requirement is
i nsti tuted.
18
-------
SECTION IV
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
The Indianapolis site was visited on September 16 and 17,
1973, and revisited on September 4, 1975. At the time of
the first visit, the site was exploring the use of centrally
located storage pens in place of centrally located 2-cu yd
containers. The second visit was made after the transition
was completed. The reason for the change by the site was
economics; the city billed the site for refuse collection
and disposal even though the site contracted with a private
hauler to service the containers. The system consists of 24
redwood pens centrally located for residents of the SFA,
SFD, and MFLR dwelling units. One 2-cu yd container (dump-
ster type) is located under a trash chute in the MFMR. Two
4-cu yd containers (dumpster type) are located at the
clubhouse for disposal of yard and bulky wastes. The
storage pens are serviced once a week by the city, and the
containers are serviced three times a week by a private
contractor. Figures 1 through 3 are photographs of typical
pens, the chute-fed container, and the typical bulky wastes
container. The site arrangement is shown in Figure 4. The
site demographic and other data are given in Table 3.
Refuse Storage Description
SFA, SFD, and MFLR residents of the Indianapolis site take
their refuse to a storage pen. The 24 pens are serviced
once a week by municipal service. The city uses a rear-
loading packer truck with a driver and two helpers. The
crew is paid on the basis that serving 900 dwelling units
equals an eight-hour day of work. Site residents using the
pens are required to place refuse in plastic bags before
disposal in the pens. The municipal service will not pick
up refuse that is not in a plastic bag. Once a week, the
municipal service sends a rear-loading packer truck. The
truck is backed to the door on each pen where the two helpers
load the bagged refuse. The estimated site load from pens
is 79 cubic yards per week (or per pickup day) which almost
loads the truck which is capable of handling 20 cubic yards
of packed refuse (equivalent to 80 to 100 cu yd of loose
19
-------
CD
CO
O
S-
o
o
o
CD
ro
CO
Q
c:
-C co CD
4-> ro oo
-(-> Q_q_
ro CD
co ,
CD <
Q.
ro
CL
O) . o
CD d) !
ro -4-J d
i- -r- Z5
O co E
V) _£Z CD
CD Z5 -M
to o
=5 S- >,
H- _£Z .0
(XJ i- O
ca CD
o sr i
o o
! !- CJ
ra +->
u ra CD
CL CD ra
>, Q-
I O T3
C
co ro
ii i T3
O CD
uj a. s
r^ r0 O
^D £Z i
CJ3 ro i
ii ! ro
u. -a
C CD
ii S-
rO
CO
CD
20
-------
CO
T3 i
S- O
tO O-
T3 (O
C C
fO -I-
CO T3
E
O
O)
en
O
s_
i ra -^
re to
o to o>
i- S- S-
CL OJ CD
>> C
CO O "3
(J S-
LU O)
o: -o o-
CD
Ii 13
U_ O
^T
O) +J
-o -c ^= -c
C +-> CD O
O)
re cn^r S- Q
.a c: +J cu ,_
sz^j
O) T3 O) -r-
-i-> +-> re ^
3-1- O +-> ^J
J= ^^ C 3
O -Q O J=
" o
^ o;
CO _ I OJ QJ 5^
n3 u- +J -c ,_;
s- s: - +-> .^
I- <" re
s= o-o
r CO 4->
I- c
CVI S- i -O .,_
(U O OJ
LU C Q- (O (II ^
1-1 C -I- LO
U_ O "O en (y
O C C s_
i i re
21
-------
111111
container, 2 cu yii
PEN
CU SFD (140 units)
Mill SFA (103 units)
MFMR/MFLR (typed-in, 52 units)
I| container
[p3* 4 cu yd ea
//~s\ container
FIGURE 4. Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement of pens and containers. The number
of MF units is indicated with the building.
22
-------
Table 3. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE DATA FOR
INDIANAPOLIS OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and Types of Dwelling Units
Type
SFA 140 units
SFD 103 units
MFLR 16 units
MFMR 36 units
Total 295 units
No. occupied 253 units
No. residents 890 people (prorating to 295 units
indicated 1038 people)
Site area 42.9 acres
Distribution of Units by Type of Service
Number and Type
103 SFD
156 SFA/MFLR
36 MFMR
1 Clubhouse
Pens
13
11
Containers
1 (chute fed)
2
Average number of units/service =10.5
Average number of people/service = 38.4
refuse). When full, the truck is emptied at a landfill
eight miles from the site; however, the truck is not full
after servicing the site and other city residential areas
are serviced before and after the site is serviced. Pen
cleanup and maintenance and collection of bulky refuse are
performed by site employed personnel.
The three dumpster-type containers are serviced three times
each week by a private contractor. A front-to-overhead
packer truck is used with only a driver. Residents place
refuse in the containers. The estimated load is 10 cu yd
per pickup day or 30 cu yd per week. The truck services
other areas in addition to the site. Cleanup around con-
tainers and pickup of bulky wastes are performed by site
personnel .
Economic Analysis
Economic data are tabulated in Table 4 in general form.
The municipal service charges were discussed with the
Department of Sanitation to determine the elemental costs.
23
-------
Q.CO
c_> O
l/l QJ
O E
UJ
I I
c: o
O TO O <4- f- 0>
u_ o
o a.
r CO O O -ij-
CXI i CXI CD CD CTi
CO -j r S-
CD >T3
OJC
OJ
S- t- S- -t-J
r i cu o cu o
u o CL.Q -t-> m
0 .
_Q , CU CU
3
>> o
u cu co _c cxi
24
-------
The information obtained indicated the following elemental
costs to the city (in September 1973 costs):
Sept. 1973
$ 27 per day truck investment recovery
12 operation and maintenance
15 landfill costs (fees)
76 labor, salaries of driver
plus two helpers
23 labor fringes at 30 percent
12 supervision of a crew
$165 per day
The service classification for the site is "apartment," and a
crew is expected to service 900 apartment units per day.
These costs on a fractional basis indicate that the annual
cost to the city for servicing the site is:
($165/day)x(253/900)x(52 service days/year)=$2412/year
The total cost to the city is almost three times the amount
($866) directly paid by the site. It is apparent that the
city subsidizes refuse collection from general revenue
funds. The $1546 subsidy from general revenues is indicated
as other municipal funding in Table 4. The results can be
compared with the results of the "1968 National Survey of
Community Solid Wastes Practices."1 (See Section I for
adjustment to obtain October 1975 costs.) The site costs
are $12.62 per capita per year as compared to the national
average of $12.08 per capita per year.
The private contractor servicing three containers provided
information relative to expenses of collection and disposal
of refuse:
Capital Costs (September 1973 data, October 1975
multiplier is 1.1673) Expenses/Year
(% of total)
$28,000 truck, 5-year amortization, $6,916/yr (23%)
carrying charge is 0.247
$ 160 ea., 2-cu yd container, $ 23/yr
10-yr amortization, (negligible)
carrying charge is 0.146
$ 190 ea.,'4-cu yd container $ 55/yr
(two), 10-yr life (negligible)
carrying charge is 0.146
Recurring Costs (multiplier is 1.1673)
Insurance, taxes, licenses $800/yr $ 934/yr ( 3%}
25
-------
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Labor @ $150/40-hour week (multi p1i er
is 1.1908)
Supervisions @ 15% of labor
Landfill costs @ $18.75/load
(498 loads/yr)
(multiplier is 1 .16731)
Operating costs @ $10/day
(multiplier is 1 .1673)
$ 9,288/yr (31%)
$ 1,
$10,
393/yr
900/yr
( 5%)
(36%)
$ 607/yr ( 2%)
Total Costs $30,116/yr (100%)
Using the above figures, the expenses can be apportioned to
the site as shown in Table 5. The costs are shown in the
far right column of Table 5 as the three container price for
three pickups per week. The prices to the site include
profit to the private contractor.
The expense associated with each element of refuse collection
and disposal can be estimated and analyzed. The combined
municipal, private service, and site expenses are detailed
in Table 6. Sixty-nine percent of the annual expenditures
is for labor and plastic bags.
Table 5. APPORTIONED COSTS TO INDIANAPOLIS SITE
FOR SEGMENTS OF COSTS OF THE PRIVATE SERVICE CONTRACTOR
Capital Costs
Truck
Containers
Recurring Costs
Insurance, licenses,
taxes
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Labor w/30% fringe benefit
Supervisory costs
Landfill costs
Operating costs
Total Annual Costs:
Apportionment
Factor
23%
negligible
3%
31%
5%
36%
2%
74%
TW
October 1975
Three Container
Annual Costs to
Site
$ 420
negligible
$ 420
$ 55
565
91
657
36
$1,349
$1,824
NOTE: Costs to site include contractor profit.
26
-------
ra
c: i
C ro
^ +-*
O
y u 1
*^-
O
1 1
1
LU
1
1
O
o
LU
OO
:D
LU-
LU LU
i i
Q£ CO
O
U_ CO
1 1
CO 1
LU O
OO 0-
LU z:
a- Z
LU
C i
CU ro
< ' 1 %
CD O
0) I
oo
OO 1 CTl M3
oo i r^ vo
00 OO r
A
,
<=0-
oo
CM
^d"
«
CM
faO-
en UD
cu
-i_>
r
OO
r^^ ^o
1 1 OO i
i i «
i
te-
O)
+->
ro
>
S_
Q-
LO
^~
j->
r\
1
oo-
O 1 I 1
CM 1 1 1
"*
bO-
O
CM
«*
OO-
i
ro
a.
1
o
1
c
3
S
00
**Q
sj-
&+
oo
UD
<^-
bO-
00 O)
00 C +->
4-> 00 O) =3
oo s- Q.^;
o a> o
O C CU
r- CD CU
i _^: ra ra co
ra O 4-> S- 3
+J =J C O *4-
^ S- O 4-> O)
a. t cj) oo a;
rO
1
i_n
LO
**
LO
LO
to-
T3
CU
-a
Z3
1
o
c
^
00
O)
00
CU
o
,
oo
CU
X
oo ra
+-> 4->
oo
o
cj cu
o
CD E
C ra
r- S-
s^ ^
S- oo
3 c:
O i i
CU
- -
CL>
>
O
-Q
(O
CM
CO
co r-- r--
i CTl i CM
un en to
00 O
r--. LO
oo oo
CM
i_n co
co
o
O
faO-
o
i_n
00
CTl
^j-
oo
r^ CM o
oo i i-D
CTl CM CM
CTl
o
CM
OO-
a>
QJ
o
c
ra
c
QJ
-»->
(
ra
s:
o3
c
o
r
-M
rO
S-
01
Q-
o
u
c:
ra
c:
cu
+->
c:
ro
£=
00
4J
CO CD
O C
<_) -r-
4->
^ T5
0 i-
o CU
ra Q.
_l O
CO
CU 00
CU 01
ct ra
-Q
,
i O
1 -1
1 1 1 ^
T3 00
C ra
ra i
_J Q_
o
o
CT)
O
OO
LO
en
oo
r\
co
oo
CM
1-^
cc
CM
ra
+->
O
CO
ro
+->
O
27
-------
Technical Analysis
The collection and disposal of refuse at the Indianapolis
Operation Breakthrough site was observed for three days, The
municipal service collected about 67 cu yd, and the private
contractor collected about 10 cu yd. The city collects once
each week and the contractor empties the containers three
times each week:
67 cu yd/week x 52 wk/yr = 3481 cu yd/year
10 cu yd/pickup x 156 pickup/yr = 1560 cu yd/year
Total estimated annual load = 5041 cu yd/year
Site occupancy was 253 units occupied (219 served by city,
34 served by contractor). Expanding the data for a fully
occupied site of 295 dwelling units results in 5900 cu yd of
refuse collected per year. The technical data are sum-
marized for the municipal service, the private contractor
service, and the combined services of both. The data col-
lected and analyzed include total distance traveled, number
of stops, refuse per unit time, stops per unit time, and
time spent in various pickup activities by the crews. The
data are shown in Table 7 for the site as it was observed
on September 4, 1975. The site was 85 percent occupied.
The nonproductive time is considered as all waiting and
packing time and is 35 percent of the total labor spent in
collection activities.
Equipment Performance -
There are very few pieces of equipment involved, but the
following generalizations are made about the equipment
performance:
Suitability - The system works in that refuse is collected
and disposed. The chute in the MFMR building clogs up
because there is lack of slope from the vertical fall to the
container (see Figure 2) which is offset from the chute.
This is a nuisance when the container is removed because
considerable time is required to clean up the room during
and after container removal.
Effectiveness - Except for chute clogging in the MFMR, the
system is effective for refuse collection. The system is
not effective with respect to labor utilization because only
65 percent of the man-time is productively utilized during
refuse collection on site.
28
-------
Lfl
\
^>
I/O
[i I
o:
LU 1
m -
i
oo 1
i i-
1 3
-
. 1
^- j
O <=C
1 Z
0 Z
LU et
1
_l Q
0 Z
0 =C
LU OL.
OO 13
1 x/
) Jt-
Lu. O
LU i 1
o: CL
O LU
LU -Z.
=> o
QC
LU o;
oo O
CQ Lu-
O
LU
1
> <
r--. oo
OJ oo
_O _l
ro O
1 Q-
<=C
^y
eC
a
2T
^
d
CD
E
CD
LU
QJ
£
-a
CD
-*->
03
E
4->
LU
en
E
CD
1 '
5
QJ
i_
(_)
M-
O
O
2T
M-
0
O
^
CD
U
d
03
en
O
QJ
E
C
03
s:
03
-M
0
H7
d
-^
C_
03
a.
a
d
+-j
03
3
C7
d
-o
cr
03
3=
cr
d
-iiT
03
CJ
C
CE:
T3
QJ
en
Q
03
jj
QJ
'o
>
"O
CD
-M
U
CD
O
CJ
QJ
M
C/l
en
+J
c
ID
eo
D.
O
4-1
t/1
-o
CD
QJ
>
O3
s_
h-
CD
U
>
s_
QJ
S)
V
-c
c
c
a
e/"
1
C
o:
E
C
f
UD
CX
"C
d
o
o
QJ
en
t
d
03
E
CO
r^
CXJ
«d-
en
o
d
O
u
QJ
en
d
03
E
CO
MD
ro
LO
^
CO
cr>
CXJ
CD
cxj
**
-o
>-
13
U
r~^
UD
on
LD
~
tn
O 13
O U
- O
, 1
u
4-1
en en
03 cn oo
i o3
CLJD
, (
LO
ro
CXJ
QJ
E
LD
j«:
QJ
QJ
3:
s_
QJ
CL
Q.
3
_^
CJ
r- QJ
CL 4->
03
QJ >
d -
0 S-
~-~ CL.
en
"O
d
O
C_)
QJ
1/1
en
-o
C
O
o
QJ
cn
QJ
cn
O
O
1_
QJ
d
03
+.>
d
O
U
CD
s_
03
03
*->
03
-o
_*:
QJ
QJ
-^, CL
eo 13
CL-^
13 U
^ -i
U Q.
CL QJ
d
QJ O
QJ
S~ S-
-d o
1 4-
**~*
i/1
Z3
O
Jd
c
o:
E
^j-
cx
eo
S^
^
o
.c~
£Z
03
E
UD
CO
S-
03
CD
>-
S-
QJ
Q_
03
-(-)
O
1
^_
03
CD
>i
s_
QJ
CL
S^
03
QJ
>,
S_
CD
CL
S-
03
QJ
>,
S^
CD
CL
en
s_ s-
13 03
O QJ
-d >^
1
C S-
03 CD
E Q.
-^
en
s- s^
^ 03
O QJ
-d >-
S-
-o >^
>^
J-
13 OJ
U CL
~o
QJ
tj
en i
-4-> >
(- S-
d QJ
i_
en >,
0.
O S-
4-J QJ
en CL
S-
>>
i^
QJ
CL
Q-
O
M T3
CL en >,
O
+J S- 3
cn QJ o
CL
S- S-
CL QJ en QJ
O D- -*-> O.
+J 'I
cn tn d cn
CD =3 QJ
S~ -I-? -M
QJ =3 CT) =3
CL d d d
en E E
QJ 1 i 1
i d CD d
r- 03 2 03
E E T3 E
CXJ CXI *3~ LO
O CO CO Cxj
-D X) -a
>i>)>>
13 Z3 13
U CJ U
S- S- S-
QJ QJ QJ
CL Q. O-
y> en en
CD CD QJ
CL 4-> +-> +->
O =3 13 Z3
4-> d d d
cn -i -r- -i
E E E
i_ iii
cu d d d
CL ro 03 03
E E E
>,
-M CO O CTi
cn O « < CD
CL CZ
O CD -
4-> "a -O Cn
en d >i d Cn
0 »-> -r- d
S- -M '- Z3 r T-
CD en d CJ -a J^
CO CL 13 d U
1 S^ S- 03 03
-J QJ QJ CH CD HI D-
=> U CL d Q.
on d -i oc oo
LU 03 t- r- t-
Cir -MO< O cn Cn
en _Q CD -Q cn d d
_J '- 03 3 03 C r~ -i-
=t -Q i -D - i- j»: -M
t_J TD r i-
l i QJQjQJQJ-r-0303
1 cn cn cn cnor ^ ^
-J i- S- S- S-
> > >
<:
-------
Resident Acceptance - An analysis of the results of a survey
of a sample of residents concluded that the residents are
relatively pleased with the system even though they experienced
overloading of pens resulting in littering, odors, dog
nuisances, insects, and vermin2. Also, flooding and wind
affect cleanliness of the areas around the pens. Observation
during recording at the site revealed nine storage pens that
had refuse remaining after pickup by the municipal service
as the result of refuse not being stored in plastic bags.
Because of this condition, site personnel must clean up
refuse and place in bags so that the city service crew will
pick up the refuse on the next service day.
Site Appearance -
The pens are 8 ft x 8 ft x 8 ft redwood on concrete slabs.
The pens are located next to parking areas and are easily
detected. The chute-fed container is located in a special
room under the building and is completely out of sight.
Environmental Considerations -
Deodorizer is used during pen cleanups, but odor still
develops on hot days causing insect nuisances, particularly
flies and yellowjackets. The pens in the single-family
areas of the site appear free from odors and insects because
the refuse is conscientiously placed in plastic bags. Pens
in the multifamily areas contained spilled refuse which is
not picked up by the municipal service and causes odor and
insect problems. There are no apparent sanitation problems.
Collection activities produce noises from engines, equipment
operation, and particularly truck brakes.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the system in economics, effectiveness, efficiency,
and environmental aspects.
Economic Advantages -
The site is charged a sanitary fee (includes a fee for refuse
collection and disposal) by the city regardless of whether
municipal trash service is used or not; therefore, it is
economically advantageous for the site to make use of the
city service where possible. The system could be more cost
effective if a method could be devised whereby the city would
30
-------
service the entire site. A telephone conversation with per-
sonnel in the city utilities department indicates that the
city could collect the refuse for the MFMR building so long
as a suitable enclosure were provided and the refuse were
placed in bags for pickup by collection personnel. The costs
could also be reduced by not allowing storage of refuse in the
pens by requiring residents to store refuse in their homes
until the night before refuse pickup day. Since the resident
must use plastic bags, storage in his home would influence
proper closure of the bags and less exposure to the elements
of weather and animals.
Economic Disadvantages -
Two pickup services are required, municipal for the single-
family and low-rise buildings, and private service for the
medium-rise building and the clubhouse. The municipal
service will only pick up trash that has been placed into
plastic bags and stored in the pens. Bulky waste items are
picked up by site maintenance personnel and are disposed at
the clubhouse dumpster-type container which, in effect, is
an extra pickup service in terms of site labor. The private
service must make three pickups per week for the medium
rise and clubhouse buildings.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
If the site used all the storage pens, only one pickup per
week would be required for all dwelling units. The residents
must place refuse into plastic bags and then into the pens
which then makes it easy for the municipal service to pick
up the refuse.
Effectiveness, Disadvantages -
Residents must purchase plastic bags due to municipal re-
quirements. The refuse is not protected from the weather in
the pens. The chute in the medium-rise backs up with
refuse necessitating cleanout every time the container is
dumped. The chute problem is caused by improper design
considerations (see Figure 2).
Efficiency, Advantages -
The pens provide concentrated storage and provide for fast
pickup. The refuse removed per man-minute of labor is about
31
-------
0.4 cu yd per man-minute of labor including all nonproductive
time. For the entire site, productive man-time was 125 man-
hours per year of the 214 man-hours used per year in refuse
collection. Productive man-time was 65 percent of total
labor used collecting refuse.
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
The municipal service will not pick up any refuse not stored
in plastic bags. The manual pickup by the city incurs a
high nonproductive rate with 35 percent of the active collec-
tion time spent waiting. The waiting time is caused by the
truck driver waiting in the cab of the packer truck during
pickup of refuse by the two helpers. The driver spend 73
percent of his time waiting (51 minutes out of 70 minutes
on site). The helpers spend 14 percent of their time waiting
during packing cycles of the truck (20 man-minutes out of 140
man-minutes while on site). In addition to collection man-
time, site maintenance personnel spend 968 man-hours per year
at a cost of $4873 per year picking up bulky wastes, cleaning
in and around the pens and containers, and maintaining the
equi pment.
Environmental Aspects, Advantages -
The site aesthetics are fine with the pens located next to
parking areas. The aesthetics could be greatly improved by
planting shrubbery around the pens.
Environmental Aspects, Disadvantages -
The pens are noticeable throughout the site. The containers
are particularly noticeable. Pens in the multifamily areas
of the site have odors and attract flies and other insects.
A resident survey^ indicates problems with animals and insects
at the site.
The pens have open tops and are subject to the effects of
weather. By restricting residents to placing refuse in the
pen the day before pickup, much of the weather effects would
be minimized.
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
The Kalamazoo site was visited on September 18, 19, and 20
1973. The refuse management system consists of 16 screw
type Model TM-200 Compackager compactors, each located for
32
-------
use by several residences, one chute-fed hydraulic-type
compactor in the MFMR building, and two 4-cu yd containers
in the parking lot opposite the community center. The com-
pactors are serviced daily by site personnel who move refuse
to the two 4-cu yd containers which are serviced twice a
week by a private contractor. The compactors, the on-site
collection, and the private contract containers and collec-
tion are shown in Figures 5,6, and 7. The site arrangement
is shown in Figure 8. The site demographic and other data
are given in Table 8.
Refuse System Description
SFA, SFD, and MFLR residents of the Kalamazoo site take
their refuse to centrally located compactors for disposal.
Keys are provided to residents for operating the compactors.
Residents of the MFMR building place their refuse in a chute
which feeds an automatically actuated hydraulic compactor on
the bottom floor of the building. Each day, two men collect
refuse from the compactors, replace plastic liners in the
compactor, place refuse in a two and one-half ton dump
truck, and dispose of the refuse in two 4-cu yd containers
near the service building on the site. A private service
contractor empties the containers twice a week into a top
loading packer truck which requires only a driver for oper-
ati on.
SFA, SFD, and MFLR residents are asked to separate glass
items from refuse and place in barrels which are provided
next to compactors. The MFMR residents are asked to sepa-
rate glass items and newspapers from refuse and place in the
chute charging rooms on each floor of the building. Glass
is separated because it breaks during compaction and may
injure collection personnel by puncturing the bags when
lifted from the underside. Newspaper is not placed in the
trash chute because of potential clogging at the lower end
of the chute. Site personnel collect glass items and news-
papers from each floor of the MFMR building. The separated
items are not recycled to obtain revenue, probably because
the total amounts are small and storage would be a problem.
Each day, plastic bags are replaced in each compactor, and
disinfectant is sprayed around the compactor units. The
bags are large size, 54" x 54", and heavy duty, 0.004 in.
thick. Bags are carried by the site pickup crew each day.
In addition to disinfectant spray, a private service is
contracted to provide vermin control at each compactor. The
control consists of bait boxes at each compactor area.
33
-------
-O O)
O) >
-(-> 03
E- o
O) (O
Q. Q.
E
T3 O
OJ O
S-
OJ d)
> -E
O 4->
O
E
O
S-
CU
E re
r- -E O)
4-> CO
CO ZJ
S- CD <+_
O 4-> QJ
-M O S-
o z
re s-
CL
O OJ M-
o +-> re
r-
E CO -O
-M re re
x en 3
i- -i- +j
co .E o
o re
<+- T-
o s: E
O)
i *» QJ
re o .a
o o
i IM +J
CL re o
>, E E
I re
re
CC 3
=> O
CJ3 S-
iI 03
34
-------
Gi-
ro
S-
cn
O
(C i
cn
i- O)
O f
O +->
N C
rC O)
E -O
i
O cn
O)
r- H-
i O
O
O i
to
O) tO
CO O
3 0-
14- I/)
CU -i-
s- -o
OJ S-
-l-> O
1- <+-
to
C O)
o s-
s-
fO
. -Q
to
fO
UJ
o; l*-
=) O
CU
i i O)
u_ to
O)
CD
-!->
o
35
-------
"3
>>
-Q
O
01 ^:
en o
re to
S- Q.
o
*-> en
to c
r
O) T3
to n3
=5 a
Ol
CL
o
o;
=)
CI3
36
-------
LEGEND
Compactor (17)
(131 units)
4-cu yd containers (2)
NOTE: Quantity of units other than
SFA or SFD proceeds type of
housing unit (e.g., 8 MFLR is
8 units in a MFLR building).
FIGURE 8. Kalamazoo Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location of compactors
37
-------
Table 8. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIVE
DATA FOR THE KALAMAZOO OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and Type of Dwelling Units and Occupancy:
Type No. Vacancies Residents
SFA 127 units 8 units 414 people
SFD 14 0 56
MFLR 52 9 105
MFMR 52 0 56
Number occupied: 228 units
Number residents: 631 people
Site area: 33.8 acres
Distribution of Units to Each Refuse Service Point:
Number and Type Compactors
14 SFD 2 Model TM-200 Compackager
183 SFA/MFLR 14 Model TM-200 Compackager
52 MFMR 1 Hydraulic Compactor
All refuse is collected daily and stored in two 4-cu yd
containers.
One 2-1/2 ton dump truck is used for collection.
Plastic bags, 54"x54"x.004" clear polyethylene, are
used for collection.
Average number of units per service = 13.4
Average number of people per service = 37.1
Based on observation of refuse collection and pickup for one
day at the site, approximately 77 cu yd of loose refuse are
collected per week, or approximately 4000 cu yd per year.
The refuse load was estimated from the collected amounts of
compacted and uncompacted refuse with compacted refuse con-
centrated at a ratio of eight parts loose to one part
compacted.
A private contractor services two 4-cu yd containers twice
a week utilizing a top loading packer truck. The containers
are serviced each Monday and Thursday. An average load on
a pickup day is 38.5 cu yd of loose refuse. The capacity
of the truck is 30 cu yds packed; therefore, the site does
not fill the truck. The truck services other locations be-
fore and after servicing the site.
Economics Analysis
The economic data are tabulated in Table 9 in general form.
The private service contract for the site is less than 10
38
-------
CL:O
<_> o
CTi O
CO
O LU
0. I
CO 1-1
i-i co
a
a en
a:
Z 31
o h-
O O O O
o LU
LU o;
i ca
_i
o z:
o o
QJ Ul OJ
co
OJ . C OJ p
39
-------
percent of the estimated annual costs; however, the cost
elements may be estimated from data obtained from discussions
with the service contractor and apportioned to obtain the
total price to the site. The apportionment of cost is based
upon the contractor's time on the site of 6.5 minutes per
pickup day. The apportioned costs are shown in Table 10
and include profit to the private contractor.
Table 10. APPORTIONED COSTS TO THE KALAMAZOO SITE
FOR SEGMENTS OF COSTS OF THE PRIVATE SERVICE CONTRACTOR
Annual
Costs
Apportionment
Factor
October 1975
Annual Costs
to Site
Capital Costs
Truck $ 44 6% $ 80
Containers (2) 51 7% 93_
|~95 13% $ 173
Recurring Costs
Insurance,
licenses, taxes $ 7 1% $ 13
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Labor with 20%
fringe benefits $ 74 10% $ 133
Supervisory costs 15 2% 27
Landfill costs 529 72% 958
Operating costs 15 2%_ 27
$633 86% $1,145
Total Annual Site
Costs $735 100% $1,331
NOTE: Costs to site include contractor profit.
The expense associated with each element of refuse collection
and disposal is shown in Table 11. The resulting costs are
$14.52 per capita per year which is $0.48 higher than the
national survey results of $12.08 per capita per year. Labor
plastic bags, and th.e compactor costs account for 83 percent
of the total costs for refuse collection at the site. The
single major cost item is for labor at 39 percent of total
annual costs.
40
-------
4- ru
O 4->
O
CU r-
O ro
S_ 3
OJ d
O- C.
CD O
O) h-
00
10 oo to o
oo cn r^~ o
ro
faO-
un
o
oo
r^ o co oo
LO un ir> CM
co co cn o
LT>
oo
oo
cn
oo s:
uj <;.
OO _l 00
Z =C i
LU ^ OO
Q-
00 ii O
h- O-
cu
LO
oo
O
O
oo
CM
OO
r^ oo co
cr> CM CM
to co o
LT>
CD
oo
oo
cn
o oo
co cn
OO
CM
r^
o
LO
o r^ co
UD CM LO
t cn
00
oo
CIS
LU
oo
Q 1
i i LU
CD I
o o
c_> o
O)
o
o
ro
4->
Q.
O
oo
S-
0)
+J
1
CU
-C
oo
n
OO
>J
O)
_N
OO OO 3
S- i- -C
CU O O
C 4J
- O CU
ro ro oo
4-> Q. 3
E E 4-
O O CU
o o Q:
OO
CU
X
rO
4_>
"
00
0)
oo
c
CU
!_>
OO -I
4-> i
00
O "
c_3 a>
u
cn c:
c ro
r- S-
S- ^
S- 00
^ c:
u i i
CU
01
oo
4_>
OO
0
o
CU
o
c:
ra
c:
O)
-t-J
c:
r
rO
S!
03
C
0
i
4_>
ra
s_
OJ
Q.
o
CU
o
c
ra
c:
CU
4->
c:
r
ra OO
E O) oo
O) CD
"4- ra
cn _a
c: i
r i O
+J ! T
S_ ro 4- -4->
O S- T3 oo
-Q CU E ro
ra Q- ra i
1 O 1 Q-
00
ra
4->
O
ro
4->
O
ra
13
41
-------
Technical Analysis
The collection and disposal of refuse at the Kalamazoo Oper-
ation Breakthrough site was observed for two days. Based on
estimated volume of observed refuse and discussions with
site personnel, the estimated refuse collected is 77 cu yd
per week for 232 occupied dwelling units. Expanding for
full occupancy (245 units), the refuse collection load is
about 81 cu yd per week or about 4200 cu yd per year. The
technical data for refuse collection and disposal are sum-
marized in Table 12 including distance travelled, number of
stops, dwelling units serviced, crew size, refuse collected,
estimated volume, elapsed time, and labor time expenditures.
Table 12 includes actual observed data for the 95 percent
occupied site. The nonproductive time is considered as all
waiting and packing time and is 17 percent of the total
labor spent in refuse collection activities.
Equipment Performance -
Sui tabi1i ty - The equipment (compactors) are capable of 10:1
volume reduction of trash. A 10:1 reduction in volume
should reduce the weekly loose refuse volume to 7.7 cu yd
(compacted) which could be eas'ily stored in the two 4-cu yd
containers. Since there are 17 compactors, the weekly
refuse volume for each compactor should average about 0.45
cu yd.
Each compactor holds 0.165 cu
pickups throughout the site c
per compactor per week. The
pickups per week. This would
reduce plastic bag usage, red
reduce the number of off-site
the private contractor. The
$0.26 per cu yd of loose refu
shown in Table 13. The annua
and of the system if operated
Total Annual Costs
Cost/Dwelling Unit/Yr
Cost/Capita/Yr
Cost/Cu Yd of Loose
Refuse
yd (compacted); therefore,
ould be reduced to three pickups
MFMR building may require four
reduce pickup labor costs,
uce on-site truck travel, and
pickup and disposal trips by
resultant savings would be
se generated on the site, as
1 costs of the observed system
properly are:
As-Observed
$15,072
$51.09
$14.52
$2.55
If Properly
Operated
$9,359
$38.20
$14.05
$2.29
42
-------
co
o
o
M CO
«=C I
co
I o
GO
-------
M- ro
O -!->
O
CU i
o to
S- 3
0} C
Q- C
CM c CTi i
CO
co
r-~ un o «3-
CM i i
vo
o
o
un
r>.
. CD
=3 o:
CO UJ
CO DQ
-
U. ,
111 rv
rv 11 \
Q-
O O
O I
M Q-
2: uj
CO
o: o:
o o
u. i
o
co
i Q.
co :_
o o
CJ> O
CO
CU
CU
co
CM (JO O
un r^ o
i 10 r
S
CO
CO
CM
O1
CM
CO
O1
CM
CM
to-
CO
CM
00
kft
S-
Q-
O CO
* C31
CO
CO
faO-
O <* CO
CO i LT)
cn
CM
O-!
to-
ro
S- CU
ro >,
01
un
CO
o-i
1-
CU
ex
O)
Q.
3
T3
C/l
S-
QJ
cu
JC
I/)
O)
I *
to
o
0
,
ro
-l->
r
Q.
rO
0
to
CU
.^
^ 4_>
tO 3
S- -E
0 0
I 1
O CU
rO to
Q. 3
E ^t~~
O CU
o on
a
o
en
c
s-
s-
o
cu
o;
to
cu
to
c:
cu
o
cu
o
ro
3
oo
to
o
CJ
CL)
o
E
re
c:
CL)
fO
ro
S-
O)
CL
o
-a
Q. :>>
rO
O 3
U
S- S_
CM
CO «=J-
CO i CM
0)
o
c
OJ
ns to
E TD
3 ro 3
TD O O
S- S- S-
cu cu cu
Q. Q. Q.
I/) I/) to
O O O
O O O
-------
Effectiveness - The effectiveness can be measured as the
relative degree to which the system is performing as designed,
Assuming $2.29 per cu yd was a suitable design objective,
the system could be stated to have achieved the following
effectiveness :
/2.55-2.29\
" \ 2.29 I
x 100 = 89 percent effectiveness
Under these assumptions, the system has performed nearly
as we!1 as i ntended.
Compactor performance could not be assessed because records
of repairs were not available. On the date that data were
gathered, two compactors were in a failed condition. The
switch did not work on one compactor and the other compactor
had sustained structural damage which required welding to
effect repair.
Resident Acceptance - Residents had only cycled three of 16
compactors on the morning of the day that pickup data were
recorded (8:30 a.m.). The automatic actuator on the MFMR
compactor was not functioning. Between 3 and 3:30 p.m. on
the same day, a check of all compactors revealed that two
had been cycled out of 17. The observed data indicate that
residents carry refuse to the compactor, but do not actuate
the units. The observed data are listed below with the
related refuse content also shown. The data indicate that
residents neither realize the potential of the compactors
nor properly utilize the compactors. The accumulation of
refuse at each compactor location caused site management to
initiate daily pickups. Some residents expressed concern
about the cost of the refuse service. Site management has
sent letters to each resident requesting that they actuate
the compactors or possibly be faced with extra fees to pay
for the daily collection service.
Compactor Compactor Compactor
Chamber Loading Not Cycled Cycled
Full 4
3/4 full 1 1
1/2 full 3 1
1/4 full 5
Empty 2
A separate report presents the results of a survey of resi-
dents attitudes with respect to refuse removal at the
45
-------
Kalamazoo site. The results of that report indicate that
MFMR residents have no problems, that single-family homes
experience overloading of facilities and lack of protection
from pets, and that MFLR apartment residents experience
overloading of facilities. Only two respondents to the
survey reported trouble with the compactors. The details of
the survey are included in Reference 2. Observations during
the three-day site visit resulted in two instances of pet
nuisance and both instances were the result of not placing
refuse inside the compactors.
Site Appearance -
The compactor shelters blend in with the site even though
they are noticeable. Strewn refuse was evident at one loca-
tion where a pet was observed emptying several bags of
refuse which had been placed on the ground next to the
compactor. Overflow was evident at five compactors which
had not been actuated (all five were in satisfactory condition)
Bags of refuse and boxes placed next to the compactors
create site-appearance nuisances.
Envi r o n me n ta1 Co n s i d e r a t i on s -
The refuse left outside detracts from appearance and could
cause insect problems, though no insects were observed. The
use of deodorizer on a daily basis effectively eliminates
odors. No sanitary problems appeared to exist. Very little
noise is created by the compactors or the collection acti-
vity, and no complaints about noise had been received by the
site management.
A safety problem exists with the use of the compactors.
When handling bags of refuse, shattered glass has penetrated
the bags and caused several instances of severe cuts to
hands and arms requiring hospital emergency treatment. The
solution at the site is segregation of glass from refuse.
Glass is placed in a container next to the compactor.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvantages
of the Kalamazoo refuse collection system in economics, ef-
fectiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
46
-------
Economic Advantages -
If properly operated, the system would cost $2.29 per cu yd
of refuse which is reasonable. Lower costs might be achieved
if landfill fees could be saved through utilization of the
refuse compactors. Assuming proper compaction, the site
could haul the refuse to the landfill in the truck owned by
the site and save most of the costs of the private service
contractor.
Economic Disadvantages -
Residents do not actuate the compactors which has resulted
in refuse overflows of the compactors and in daily collection
at the site. The use of compactors has not been a benefit
to the site economics. Excessive costs are incurred for pickup
labor, plastic bags, on-site hauling, and disposal costs. The
costs observed are $2.55 per cu yd of loose refuse. Costs
could be reduced to $2.29 per cu yd if the compactors were
properly utilized thus allowing reduction of pickups from
seven to three per week by site maintenance personnel and
reduction from two to one pickups per week by the private
service contractor.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
Refuse is removed. If properly operated, the system could
reduce refuse collection and disposal costs through elimi-
nation of four pickups per week by site personnel.
Effectiveness, Disadvantages -
On a cost basis, the effectiveness is about 89 percent; that
is, the system costs are 11 percent higher than they could
be if the system were properly utilized. The requirement
for resident participation is not effective for the site.
Residents do not start the compactors. Trash is placed in
side the compactors if the chamber is not full, but the
compactors are not started. Two solutions are possible.
Either place the key lock on the chamber handle and have
the machine automatically cvcle when the door is closed or
place a timer on the compactors so that they will actuate
over a set interval of time. The timer will still require
a key lock on the chamber door to preclude entry by children.
47
-------
Efficiency, Advantages -
None as currently utilized. Collection labor requirements
could be greatly reduced and efficiency could be greatly
increased if residents actuated the compactors. The utili-
zation of labor could become 95 percent or higher if col-
lection personnel did not have to actuate the compactors.
Effi ci ency , Pi sadvantages -
The personnel utilization is 83 percent due to personnel
having to actuate compactors. Fuel, plastic bags, and labor
could be conserved if the residents properly utilized the
compactors. Because of improper compactor utilization, much
refuse handling is required at the site by residents, site
personnel loading and unloading, and private contractor
pickup service loading.
Environmental Considerations -
Advantages - The site is free from odors, insects, and
vermin. The aesthetics are good. If compactors were pro-
perly used, landfill volume, disposal fees, and refuse
handling could be reduced.
Envi ronmental Cons iderations -
Disadvantages - Refuse is left on the ground outside of
compactors and increases the possibility of spillage and of
attraction of pets, insects, and vermin. A greater volume
of refuse must be handled than should be the case if the
compactors were properly utilized. The system was a hazard
to collectors handling bags with broken glass inside.
Separation of glass from refuse has become necessary to
preclude handling hazards. It is recommended that a metal,
hinged carrying "caddy" or similar device be devised for
handling compacted packages which are removed for disposal
and, thereby, eliminate segregation of glass from the refused
MACON, GEORGIA
The Macon site was visited on October 1, 2, and 3, 1973.
The refuse managemen-t system consists of twenty-four 2-cu yd
containers located throughout the SFA, SFD, and MFLR dwelling
unit areas of the site. A chute-fed compactor with two side
compaction 2-cu yd containers is utilized in the MFM/HR
building. Redwood pens enclose the containers on three
-------
sides. Th
in a room
is located
containers
containers
Figures 9
the chute-
is shown i
are given
e chute-fed compactor and containers are located
in the base of the MFM/HR building. One container
at the site maintenance building. The compactor
are serviced three times a week and the other
are serviced twice a week by a private contractor,
and 10 are photographs of container locations and
fed compactor and container. The site arrangement
n Figure 11. The site demographic and other data
in Table 14.
Table 14. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM DATA
FOR THE MACON, GEORGIA, OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and Types of Dwelling Units and Occupancy:
No. Occupancy
Type Units Units People
SFA
SFD
MFLR
MFM/HR
159
6
42
80
287
134
4
35
79
252
437
17
60
136
650
Site Area: 50 acres
Distribution of Units and Refuse Containers:
Number and Type
of Units
30 SFA/SFD
177 SFA/MFLR
80 MFM/HR
Maintenance Building
Containers (2 en yd each)
5
18
2 (fitted to compactor)
1
Adjusted Occupancy: (650)x(287)/(252) = 740
Average Number of Units per Container = 11
Refuse System Description
SFA, SFD, and MFLR residents of the Macon site place refuse
in the containers located next to their homes. MFM/HR
residents place refuse in the refuse chute charging stations
located on each floor which feed a compactor at the base of
the chute. Twenty-two containers are located convenient to
residential parking areas and are serviced by a private con-
tractor twice each week. The same contractor services two
compactor containers three times each week. When a container
is full, site personnel replace the container with an empty
49
-------
FIGURE 9. Two typical containers and pen locations at the Macon
site. One is center left next to the trees. The
other is just to the right of the basketball goal.
FIGURE 10. The Chute-fed compactor and container in the
MFM/HR building at the Macon site.
50
-------
LEGEND
Container (24, 4-cu yd each)
2, 2-cu yd each)
I I I I I
SFA (159 units)
Number of other units
is indicated next to,
buildings.
Compactor with
2 containers
(2-cu yd ea)
FIGURE 11. Macon Operation Breakthrough Site
arrangement of containers
51
-------
by rolling the containers around; Figure 12 shows a full
compactor container with the empty attached to the compactor.
All site containers are emptied by a front to overhead
loading packer truck with a driver performing all work
functions. The driver deodorizes each container using a
truck mounted sprayer. The packer truck is shown in Figure
13. Based on observation of refuse collection for two days
at the site, approximately 36 cu yd of loose refuse are col-
lected per week from the MFM/HR building and about 65 cu yd
of loose refuse per week are collected from the SFA, SFD,
and MFLR units. The estimated annual refuse load is 5250 cu
yd of loose refuse. The MFM/HR was calculated on the basis
of four to one compaction units. Refuse is hauled to a
landfill when the truck is full. The capacity of the truck
is 30 cu yd compacted. The truck services other residential
areas before and after visiting the site. Cleanup around
containers is performed by site personnel who use a small
tractor and trailer to clean up around the site.
Economic Analysis
The descriptive economic data for the refuse system at the
Macon site is given in general form in Table 15. The costs
of site labor and the private service contract are the two
highest single cost items at the site. The private service
contractor would not furnish data relative to the elemental
costs that make up the total site costs. Based on observed
data, the cost elements are estimated and are shown in Tabljs
16. Contractor labor data is based upon being on the site*
a total of 271.4 hours per year. Landfill fees are five
dollars per load. The driver salary is based on five
dollars per hour. The expense associated with each element
of refuse collection and disposal for the Macon site is
shown in Table 17.
The economic results can be compared with the adjusted
national survey results1 for community solid wastes manage-
ment costs. The site costs are $28..52 per capita per year
compared to $12.08 per capita per year adjusted from the
national survey (see Section I for October 1975 adjusted
basis). Labor and packer truck costs account for 60 percent
of the total costs for refuse collection at the site. Site
capital costs are $4.24 per capita per year which is higher
than the $3.04 per capita per year from the adjusted 1968
survey. Operating and maintenance costs are $24.28 per
capita per year which is much higher than the $9.04 per capita
per year costs from the adjusted 1968 survey. The private
service contract accounts for 55 percent of all costs of refuse
disposal.
52
-------
FIGURE 12. One compactor container is replaced with empty between
service days at the MFM/HR at the Macon site.
FIGURE 13. Private contractor top-loading packer truck used
to empty containers at the Macon site.
53
-------
'^^
o
2:
LU
^r-
_l_
|
1
ft.
1
OO
o
D_
00 LU
Q i i
OO
Q
^ p-
&_ 1
cf. CD
Z O
0 C£
i i 1C
1 1
r^ r^
1 1 1 ^f
_l LU
O CQ
O
^
LU O
OO i i
i 1
U- - U
-o s-
>- >>
3 S-
o >)
i- 13
OJ U
CD-
CD
4->0
i/) O
O-
s-
CD t-CJ
Q->-.~ -
"--CD
-M -*d-
- r--
VI "--.CO
o rD cxi
CJ 0^
ra tO
3 4->
C I/)
'c o
=£ CJ
cn
C-Q
-.- Q>
>-, cn
S_ S-
S- ro
ro -C
t_J O
LD
r--
CD i/l
i 4-J
i/i
o
u
0
i ra
r- L.
-M QJ
3 i
s: o.
,_
ro
i- to
r- I/I
C O
O
cxi in i C-N.
ro Ln o «^j-
CO CO Cn LO
fe^
cn UDCT, UD
o
o o o o
kD ^ ^d" !-D
ro LO ro rj-
LO co o r-.
«>"«
O LO ro
fcO-
CD O O O
i | ( ' j * j !
O O O CD
CD O O CD
CD O ro CXI
CT> LO ^~ ro
&*
"O QJ
* -M-
QJ -i
M- <
CU r- i.
<*- ^ >,
CD >>O
4- I .
S^ ^ LO -
>,!
i r s-
O S CD
-=3- >> i
o \ 1/1 T-
CD C rO
QJ CD S-
IS) 4-J CL -M
4-> ^
tO ^1 S- S- oC
O (J O CD
(_> -M C S-
QJ O -- O
ro 13 CL+J U
4-> M- E C OJ
i- QJ O O S-
a. o: <_> c_j i
fO
C_J
XI o
LO
C3
*y>
^ CD
CSJ
rvj ( ,
t/>
LO O
ro
ro
t/>
CD
O
CD
CD
1/1
-M
l/l
O
CJ
CT
C
s_
S-
^
CJ
QJ
cr:
to
^_)
o
o
CD
U
c
ro
C
CD
4-)
C
ro
s:
"a
c:
ro
cn
c:
4-J
ra
s_
CD
a_
O
o
o
ro
t^
t"
ffaH-
<^J- cn r-. ojo
^^~ ^ t
\kf*
< < D
CO LO "=3- i^D
" " "
' ^
feO-
cxi cxi r-. r--
O O 0 CD
r ' i ' <-^- r-^
O CXi O O
LO UD CTi UD
UD cxj ro cn
ro i 01
faO-
^1
4- -M
S~ U
O ro
i/l Cn S_
i CO -(->
> -M C
S- C 0
QJ ro U
CL u
13 (- OJ
_Q i
CU - 3 >
QJ QJ S-
-t-J -M QJ
to l/l C
ra QJ
». * 4J
O O i >
.a JD a.' (-
I 1 LJ_ D_
-o
>,
IS
C\J (_j
LO
. t-
ro QJ
bO- CL
. s^
CL ro
CXJ ra CD
LO U >,
00 S- 1_
CXJ QJ QJ
s_
ro
CO =, QJ
LO Q >>
co s- s- c:
r^~ QJ QJ o CD
t^V CL CL -i- S-
-t-J ro
"^ C -D"
C ro CD 03
S- -^ CL U ro
LO ro *-> X CD "D
O QJ (J CD
i >> QJ i ro
. s- o o cn .
CXI CD CM- i to
feO- CL -i- QJ C
i 00 S- QJ
^ CD D.
CU O QJ O CO ^ ^^-^
to -i 1- 4-> CXJ ro O3
r3 (J TD O S- ro 03
O QJ QJ - O ~O "O
to CO > M
"O QJ QJ -t-1 to r-- r--
CU LO JD CI r r-
S- O 13 C= ' -
ra s s- s- re
"O 1^ O QJ QJ -M
t/1 1- CCO-C^QjD ro
t/1 4-> -U -M
LO CU >,<_> r
CTi C r- c 4-> -M S-
i 13 oo ro r- CD
S- S- 13 QJ QJ QJ O
CU cn o in d c -u
O - O Oi ^i-QO
"U'C^QJCCDCD""'
C E t/i 4-1 -- - EZ
03 to =3 O S- S- 03
Z3 C ' ET <4- M- C
O ' 03 QJ
4-J CL CD +-> Wl < - C -M
-C O r- CD CD C
tO QJ | 4-J CXI CXI f-
4-> 4-J cr ro
OS- - 4-> -^ 13 13
^j ^ .,_ ^ ^Z 4_i
tOCDCr3=35- "C
n£-I3i j_Q=3S-03
-r-7, QJ -O O ^3 U
ra c c t_> -~^. ^i s_
r- i O d ^± "-^ JD
O i +-> ra ro co :3
4-J oo i c: . CD -
i- QJ oo QJ CXI
QJ CD "O CXI tZ feO i
Z3 i- cxi r*-. 03 _^ " zs
rO LO GD E CD -^ t^
t/1 -C CXJ CXI CD QJ
to S- U CD 3 QJ S-
4-> QJ tO^^Z-^.30
(/) r Cn fO XI 4-J tO ^^ "4
O i C 3 S- to
C_J O-- O4->=jS ^
r- >,>-,ajrO O=3CU
i 4-JS-u-r- -croQJ
ro , s- c: r c: i x: 3
ZJ Z^fOroCLajci"-^
IZ EUCL< CLfotzO
c rj -M E fD LO
III 1 | 1 1
0
1 rQ-QO -OQjH-Cn
54
-------
CJ1
LO
|*^
l-H
OO Qi
1 Q-
OO
O LU
O "T"
1
LU LJL.
1 O
cC
^" CO
. t
*^ t
h- CO
OO O
LU C_3
to
,
cu
r~~
_Q
n3
I
to
"O +^
CU to
+-> 0
tO O
E
r- QJ
4-^ -1-^
tO >-
LU 00
tO CM 00
i CO *
CM IO CO
A A «\
CM i CO
bO- (bO-
4_>
to
0
0
4-
O r
to
1 % ^
E E
QJ E
S-
CU i
Q- to
+->
0
1
-^5 --^
CTi <^- CO
r i CO
.c
to
T3 +->
cu to
4-> 0
ro O
E
-t-> ro
to 3
LU E
=C
IO O1 LO
LO r-~ co
0 1^ 00
* ^
1 1
b^ (be-
10
f ,
S-
>^
in
x ^_Q
f *
o <=i-
CD CM
O ^ '
to «
-(-> CO to
to CM S-
^ 0 *e- QJ
CO E
IO -i-
i **^ 03
fO O 4->
+-* 13 E
r- S- 0
O. I O
tO
o
40
O T3
E 0)
to
CM i COCOCOO O O3
oo oooocococo to- -o
CTiOuncMCTiooto ^«:
A *\ »! »\ T^J tj
i *d~ LO i E 13
r (O i-
bO- -bO- [b^ -b^ +-) I
r &_
4- O
0 +->
S- O -
Q- IO CD
S-
to -l-> QJ
S- CU E 4->
3 -000
0 3 0 E
-E i +->
-~^ O O) O
LO E O O
r^ LOLOCMCOO o >
r CO LOO tO >>S-CU
-p- S_ O) CU
4-> l/l to
CU E
+-> . cu cu
tO S- -E -(-J
S- 113 CU 4-J -r-
O) E 4-
S- >, -r- E 0
0 t 0 S-
-Q S- S- Q.
,-l->E
CT> CTt CM i «d" P^- LO tO i _Q *
^ " " 1 S>_ C) i O
i CM LO -EOCMtOCU
b^- bO- fbO- -bO^ CU O -Q 13 IO 4->
QJ 4- 03 tO E 4-> -r-
4-T-S-i QJ EfOtO
r- i 03 4-> 03 "O
i CU 4- 3 QJ
S- >> O J3 0 E JZ
S- 03 -r- to O +->
ro QJ s- s-s s- to cu
to
4_J
C/l
IO O
QJ O
E QJ
QJ O
O E
r- ro
p^ C~
QJ
> -1-J
to E
CU -r-
x. ro
to ro s:
4-^ -(-)
tO T3
O " E
o cu ro
o
CD E CD
E ro E
1- S- !-
S 35 -4-^
S- to ro
3 E S-
O I i QJ
QJ Q.
C£ O
o
to
-(-J
i
4-
CU
E
CU
QJ-O
CO tO
E -t-3 4- tO
i tO tO +->
S- O QJ -t-> to
4- CJ to tO O
cu o c_>
&« >, CU O
0 S- 4-
c\j o CD ro
\ to i E Z5
S -^ r- -i- E
> <- +J E
S- S- 4- ro et
O QJ "O S-
XI O- E CU i
ro zj ro Q. ro
1 CO 1 O 4->
o
1
>->! Q-i EflSi CU-M-r-
1 O O -O i to to
QJ i to c o ^-t*> ro to
> S- O O -0 +-> CU
i « 3 QJi to CO-E
4 JZ: O T3 +J *^ -i CU O -!->
O -E QJ -i- S- O
.EOS ioto-t->curo E
+->cu^i-ro ro+J cuo
i- -Q CU !- to ^1
S O I c~ QJ tO +^ 1 i-
C3i i to +J o to ro
Oi CM+-> EOO CU
o -be- to ~o ro +-> cj >)
O E O E E -t->
>+->ooro cu QJ-O -1-4-
co ro +-> CD QJ 4- o
CM -O >>-O E S- +-> O
bo- tocus-ro-i-roros--!-'
s-toooro-EEQ-E
+->curotoi Eo-r- cu
ro C J3 -r- 4-> QJ CJ
i >i- «i tO"Oi-
-^ros-s_cutorocu3cu
O -t-> O QJ O-i 3 r Q.
3 E -O Q- QJ -M QJ (J
S O ro ""^ LO 3 C_) ^ E CO
H" C__? I CO CO 1 ' ^^ \ * *^ r"
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ro .a o T3 QJ 4- cn^:
55
-------
o
1 t
u
t^^
o
LU
i
_|
O
oo
| ! | | |
GO GO
Lu CO
LU
C£. LO
^
o: CTI
O i
Lu
Di
LU LU
GO CO
Z O
| | 1 1
Q. O
X 0
LU
_J LU
o
4-> h-
c
CD (
o re
S- 3
CD C
Q. C
"*
2
o
h-
c
E
en
CD
GO
^^ ^5 ^5 ^^ ^^ ^^
O 1 '
CO LO
00 O
LO O
CM LO i l-v. CO CM
CO LO O -Si" r CO
CO CO O-) LO CNJ CO
n ft
CM i
^Q
CO CM 1 O CO
co co i en co
CT) OS LO CO CM
r* ^ ft r*
CD O
b*^ (/) g^)
o
1
CM
b^-
CD
GO
CM LO i I~~-
co LO o *d-
00 CO 01 LO
&
LO co r-~
CO LO LO
r CO «d"
* A
CO LO
\v> *o-
o
r
CO
CO
b9-
LO
^"
=d~
CTl
-be-
CD
4-)
re
si
O_
CD CM
i CO
CM CO
CM i
(S)
00 CM
C
1
en
CD
^n
4-3
CO
O
O
r * 4_)
r CO C
re CD-I-
CO S-
C 4-> CO
CD CD 4-^
CO
4-3
CO
O
O
^~
re
i^
Q.
re
o
4-> Q-T3 CO
3 C CO O
.c s- s- re s- o
CJ O CD CD
4-> c s- c en
CD O -r- O. !- C
co re re 4J ^^ re -i
3 D.4J O O 4-> S-
*t- E c re 3 c s-
CD O O S- S- O 3
a: o o H- h- o u
CD
Q£
x re
re 2:
T3
> c
CD re
u
c. c
re o
S- -i-
"3 l_*
co re
c s-
i i CD
a.
0
c~
re
c:
j ^
c
r
re
E
T3 CO
c~ cD
re CD
4-
cn
C r
r r~
4J -r-
s_ re <4-
O S- "O co
.a CD c r
re Q- re re
_1 O I 4->
o
h-
i
re
-M
o
h-
p
re
3
C
C
=£
56
-------
Technical Analysis
The collection and disposal of refuse at the Macon Operation
Breakthrough site was observed for three days. Based on
estimated volumes of observed refuse and discussions-with
site personnel, the estimated refuse collected is 101 cu yd
per week, or about 5250 cu yd per year, for the 252 occupied
residences. Expanding for full occupancy (287 units), the
refuse collected per year is about 6000 cu yd. The technical
data for refuse collection and disposal are summarized in
Table 18 including distance traveled, number of stops,
dwelling units serviced, crew size, refuse collected, esti-
mated volume, elapsed time, and labor time expenditures.
Table 18 includes actual observed data for the 88 percent
occupied site. Nonproductive time is considered as all
waiting and packing time and is 13 percent of the labor
spent in refuse collection activities.
Equipment Performance -
Suitabi1ity - The compactor in the MFM/HR building was not
operating satisfactorily. The refuse backs up the chute
every day because of an off-centerline location of the
compactor and lack of clearance between the chute opening
and the chamber of the compactor. Figure 14 depicts the
situation. Additionally, the automatic photoelectric
actuator for the compactor does not function and the compactor
requires manual operation several times a day. The resultant
chute blockages require 30 minutes a day to clear. Chute
blockage and cleanout is shown in Figure 15. As shown by
the photograph, chute cleanout is not an easily performed
task. An additional 15 minutes a day are required to clean
the refuse room. Refuse chute cleanout requires 130 man-
hours per year, and refuse room cleanup requires 65 man-
hours per year. The refuse room cleanup is necessitated by
refuse spillage out of the side of the compactor container
when the containers are moved around the refuse room (see
Fi gures 1 2 and 16).
The collection of refuse from the containers located around
the site is complicated by lack of turning room and lack of
adequate space for the truck to properly approach the con-
tainer. Thirteen containers must be manually rolled out of
the enclosures and positioned so that the truck can approach
and empty the containers. After dumping, the driver pushes
the containers back into the enclosures. The containers are
equipped with wheels so that movement is possible. In
sloped parking areas, the containers tend to roll downhill,
and in two locations, container movement must be carefully
57
-------
LU
h-
t 1
00
^
o
O OO
<: i
i
LU 00
3: uj
1 Di
h i
f^ ^-
(_j
UJ |-
i i >-
| . i
t i ec
>-^T
-*^
i i ^;
1
o in
< |
*""" *
^ Z-^-
0
1 1 *"V
i ^j.
O LU
LU >-
_J
I LU
o 2:
0 0
LU Q
CO 'Z.
| i
LLJ Q
ce: ro
K^
O CJ
1 1 1 l__l
> >
LU
"O
O)
4-*
I/) CJ
£ CD
^ OO
s-
QJ
00
U CJ CJ
*^t~ CD ^O CD LD CD
CO C/l CXI to ^ (/)
CT^ 1 U"> I O 1
^D C i C CNJ C
fO fO fO
E E E
0 CJ 0
CD QJ CD
^" CO O CO LO CO
^J- | f\J | (^Q |
CO C r C CO C
E E E
O CJ O
CD CD CD
CO CO CO
U3 1 O 1 O 1
ID C CTi C O C
CO E E i E
O CJ
CD QJ
CO CO
«d- i 10 i o
CM E: i c
v£> ro LO ro
c^J E E
vj" VO LO
CO O CM O VO O
Cft CD LO QJ O QJ
UD CO i CO CM CO
-o
>> CD
"O ^>
""^ *^~^» >^^"~x Q
cj CD CD _a
co ^ co ro
LO O O O
O O ' -
CM CM i _Q
1 CD
0 1 >
i co ro c: to o
c: S- CL. o S- .a
o QJ E o QJ ro
0 C O C
r- CJ i. ,- ^
«^- ro o ro -O
CM -l-> CM +J -(->
, , j
CO CD
r-. r-. i
CM
S-.
QJ
1- T- >
E E
S-
co o -a
CM i ^t
CJ -~ *
Zi QJ
CO S- >
S- - - CO - - 4-> O
CD -^ S- -^ _Q
c CD QJ 3 cn ro
r- QJ C ^ C
ro 3 -r CO -r '-^
+-> ^^ ro QJ CXJ3
C Q) 4-> E r - '
O O C -i- QJ
CD O - O -t-> -C E
-M 30 S_
ro -3- 4-> co o
i> CM - CM - QJ q-
1- . ^-^ -t^l i.
S- ro -Q ! QJ
D- OO Q.
CO
LO S- S-
LO -C >-,
CO 1
C i-
ro ai
E Q-
co
S- i.
LO _C >>
c: s-
ro CD
E Q.
CO
s- s_
-c: >>
CM 1
c: s-
CM ro QJ
E ^""*
CO
S- S-
co-'r^
CT> C S-
ro QJ
E Q-
,
CO >,
0 S-
>
c^ >>
LO S-
CNJ 3 QJ
LO CJ CL
1
O co
O S-
QJ
CO C
O -r-
cx> ro
CM -I-)
QJ
QJ >
QJ O
co _a
re
CM
LO
CM
CM
LO .
^O &-
CM >,
1
E
LO
cn
CO
r^
c^
LU
>
* ,
_J
,
o
+-> S- 3
CO QJ O
O-
S- S-
CX CD CO QJ
O O.-H' CX
co co c: co
QJ Z3 CD
QJ 3 CD Z!
ex c c: c:
co E *~~ E ^>^ ^i ^*>
CD 1 i 1
i re 3 re o o o
E E -0 E
S- S- S-
i O CT> i QJ CD Q)
. CX CX CX
O CO * ^J-
CO CO CO
QJ QJ QJ
CO CX 4-> +J +->
4-> O =5 3 ZJ
i -t-J C C C
Z3 CO *i ! !
oo E E E
CD <~ III
CL ro re re
r- E E E
re >,
-l-> 00 r CM O
>, CX C
r O QJ
re +> "0*0
C CO CX >,
=t O -t-> CD
S- +J -i- Z5 C CD
CD 00 C O T- C
CL =! i !-
i- s- -a -*
QJ QJ cn QJ co
o ex c ex ro ro
C -r- 3: Q-
ro s- i s- ^--v.
-(-> O i O Cn CD
00 ^3 CD -Q CD C C:
i- ro 3 ro c: -i- >-
-a i -a r -i- .*: -t->
T3 i !-
QJ CD CD QJ -i re ro
CD CD CD CDQi 3 3
S- S- S- S-
QJ CD CU CD
c^ ^c
-------
36" x 30"
chute
offset
30" diav
Ramp to Opening
on Compactor
Restricted
Openinq
36" x 36"
Opening to
Chamber
Container
FIGURE 14. MFM/HR refuse chute with off-set compactor and
restricted opening at the chute-to-chamber interface
which results in chute backups
59
-------
en
c
-o
.
o
o
-a
<+- s-
O -r-
-C
s- ^->
o
o o
o -a
o a)
CD J^
to o
ro
c/1
O) (O
m 3
fO
-i
O 3
i -C
J3 O
a>
4->
3
-------
FIGURE 16. Refuse spills out of side opening of compactor
containers in the MFM/HR building on the Macon site.
controlled to prevent rolling downhill into parked auto-
mobiles. The parking areas are not wide enough for the
turning radius of the truck, which results in considerable
jockeying of the truck to approach containers, turn around
and leave the parking area.
Effectiveness - The effectiveness is not as high as intended
because of the refuse chute and compactor problems which
require chute clean out, actuation of the compactor, and
excessive refuse room cleanup. If the 195 man-hours required
for chute and room cleanouts were subtracted from the data
in Table 14, the reduction in costs are $651 per year.
man-hours per year of waiting time is associated
site personnel helping the private service contractor
compactor containers. If the 211 man-hours were
the reduction in costs are $705 per year or twelve
cubic yard of refuse. The effectiveness of the
designed, is then
Also, 16
with the
load the
deleted,
cents per
system, as
1
/
\
3.52-3.40
3'46
x 100 = 96 percent
96 percent with respect to costs. This represents an
cellent effectiveness with respect to system design.
ex-
61
-------
Effectiveness of manpower utilization is fairly good for the
site. Nonproductive or waiting time is ineffective utilization
of personnel. From Table 18, the manpower utilization is:
SFA, SFD, MFLR
units (ea. pickup)
MFM/HR units
(ea. pickup)
All units
(per week)
Productive
Time
(Man-min.)
102
52
360
Nonproductive
Time
(Man-min.)
14
Total
Time
(Man-min)
Percent Time
Utilization
Effectiveness
52
116
60
412
88%
87%
87%
The refuse collection system results in 87 percent effective
utilization of personnel.
Resident Acceptance - Site management has not received any
complaints from residents. The containers and surrounding
areas are clean. Residents appear to fully accept and use
the system. A separate report will summarize the results of
a resident survey at the Macon site to determine the level
of user acceptance of the refuse management system (see
Ref.2). In general, the survey found that the residents accept
the system but about one third believe the system to be inade-
quate with respect to environmental concerns; odors, insects,
weather and pets were cited as problems. The survey also found
that residents believed that there is a requirement to place
refuse in plastic bags; however, there is no such requirement.
The believed requirement may have resulted from requirements
at community developments where residents previously lived
since most residents had lived at the site for a very short
time, less than a year, at the time of the survey.
Site Appearance -
The containers and enclosures are highly visible in the
parking lots. The areas surrounding the containers are
clean and free from litter. The compactor and containers in
the MFM/HR building are closed off from view by doors;
however, the doors are usually 1 ef,t open. The compactor
room was littered with refuse on each day observed necessitating
cleanup every morning by site personnel. If the doors were
closed, residents could not toss refuse into the room and
insects and pets could not gain access to the refuse to dig
through and scatter the refuse from the containers.
62
-------
Environmental Considerations -
The environmental considerations include odors, sanitation,
and noise problems. The spraying of the containers effec-
tively minimizes odors and insects. In hot weather, some
odors occur which are noticeable when within 10 feet of the
containers. A particular problem occurred while container
collection was being observed. A watery fluid flowed from
the truck each time the contents of a container were compacted,
The fluid fell onto the parking areas around the site. The
fluid constituency is unknown as well as any effect the
fluid may have on site sanitation. No particular odor
emanated from the fluid. The packer truck is noisy when
emptying containers and packing refuse; also, the noise is
very obvious to residents because their homes are located
very close to the parking areas where the containers are
servi ced.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvantages
of the Macon refuse collection system in economics, effec-
tiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
Economic Advantages -
Reasonable capital expenditures are required by the site for the
system as installed at the Macon site. A proper installation
for the compactor could have minimized site labor requirements.
The use of centrally located containers around the site
minimizes the labor requirements for refuse collection.
Only one man and a packer truck are required to collect and
dispose refuse. Also, the single highest cost item is the
private service contract. By concentrating costs in this
manner, bookkeeping and accounting are made easy at the
si te.
Economic Disadvantages -
Actual installation problems encountered at the interface of
the refuse chute to the compactor results in chute blockages
and the expenditure of site labor to clean the chute. The
utilization of site labor for this purposes increases
system operating costs. The cost of the private contractor
service results in high operating and maintenance costs to
the site. The service is 55 percent of total Annual costs. If
63
-------
fewer pickups could be utilized without causing detrimental
environmental effects, reduced costs could be achieved; how-
ever, the problem should be studied carefully before reducing
the number of pickups per week.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
Refuse is effectively collected and removed. The cost
effectiveness is high, estimated at 96 percent. Handling of
refuse is minimized in the use of centrally located containers.
A properly operating compactor installation could also min-
imize refuse handling and the use of labor.
Effectiveness, Disadvantages -
The parking areas are not large enough for a packer truck to
easily maneuver to empty containers. Walking time and some
nonproductive labor could be reduced. It will not reduce
overall costs much, but consideration for future sites should
include planning to reduce labor requirements. The containers
inside of pens must be rolled out and positioned in front of
the packer truck. After emptying, the container must be rolled
back. Future sites should contain provisions for allowing
direct access to the container by the truck. The improper
compactor installation causes chute blockages and requires
site labor to make the system properly perform.
Efficiency. Advantages -
The collection system as installed results in 87 percent
utilization of lab^or for productive refuse collection acti-
vities. A minimal* amount of refuse handling is required.
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
Thirteen percent of the labor requirements are for nonproduc-
tive activities. The site load of about 65 cu yd per week
for the SFA, SFD, and MFLR units indicates that the 23 con-
tainers do not need servicing twice a week. The containers
are 4 cu yd which provides 92 cu yd total capacity in the
containers. Likewise, proper compactor utilization could
reduce servicing to twice per week for the compactor con-
tainers. Collection activities and costs of collection
might be minimized if private contract services were reduced
to once a week pickup for the SFA, SFD, and MFLR units. The
number of collections per week appears high for the site.
64
-------
Environmental Considerations -
Advantages - The site is clean and free from odors, insects,
and vermin. The aesthetics are fairly good even though
containers are fairly visible. Handling of refuse is minimized,
Envi ronmental Considerations -
Disadvantages - The truck is noisy and liquids tend to be
squeezed out of the refuse and leak to the parking areas.
Since all units at the site have garbage disposals, it might
be assumed that the liquid was contained in refuse collected
by the truck prior to servicing the site or the liquid is
water which has collected in containers from rain. Packer
trucks should have some provision to prevent liquids from
being squeezed out of the truck onto the parking lot or
grounds of a residential area. The MFM/HR refuse room be-
comes messy and littered with refuse due to an unlocked and
usually open door to the room, the inconsiderate throwing of
paper bags full of refuse into the room, and access allowed
to dogs and cats. Refuse rooms, where residents need not
open doors, should be closed and possibly locked at all times
when not being attended.
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The Memphis site was visited on October 22, 23, and 24, 1973.
The refuse management system consists of fourteen 3-cu yd
containers in concrete pens distributed among the SFA and MFLR
residences and serviced three times per week, two 3-cu yd
containers in one MFHR building each chute-fed and each ser-
viced six times per week, and two 2-cu yd containers for
attachment to a compactor in the other MFHR building and
serviced twice each week. All containers are serviced through
contracts with private companies. The typical container and
pen, compactor, and collection vehicle are shown in Figures
17 through 20. The site arrangement is shown in Figure 21.
Site demographic and other data are given in Table 19.
Refuse System Description
SFA and MFLR residents of the Memphis site take their refuse
to centrally located 3-cu yd containes. MFHR residents deposit
their refuse in a refuse chute. One MFHR building has a trash
chute at each end of the building and a 3-cu yd container at
the base of each chute. The other MFHR building has a chute-
fed compactor with two 2-cu yd containers. Refuse is collected
65
-------
FIGURE 17. Typical 3-cu yd container and concrete pen
installation at the Memphis site. Note that
the container is not set inside the pen
because of lack of clearance room.
FIGURE 18. Compactor with container attached in one of the
MFHR buildings on the Memphis site.
66
-------
FIGURE 19. Ramp to compactor room in the MFHR building on the
Memphis site. The compactor container in the fore-
ground is fully compacted. The other containers are
temporarily provided for boxes from residents moving
into the building.
FIGURE 20. Typical 31-cu yd packer truck as used for collecting
refuse from containers at the Memphis site.
67
-------
r
LEGEND
CONTAINER
3-cu yd unless
otherwise noted
r
1 "
FIGURE 21. Memphi's Operation Breakthrough site arrangement
showing locations of containers and the compactor
68
-------
in packer trucks by private contractors as described above
and in Table 19. The packer trucks require only a driver
for operation. The driver and truck service all containers
for the SFA and MFLR units without external assistance. The
compactor containers in one MFHR building are rolled out to
the parking area by site personnel for emptying by the
truck. The truck driver plus site personnel roll the containers
in the other MFHR building to the parking area for emptying
by the truck. Container pens, refuse container rooms, and
the compactor room are cleaned by site personnel.
Table 19. DEMOGRAPHIC AND REFUSE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIVE
DATA FOR THE MEMPHIS OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and Type of Dwelling Units and Occupancy:
Type
No.
SFA 69 units
MFLR 99
MFHR 350
Totals 518 units
Number Occupied:
Number Residents:
Site Area:
Distribution of Units
Number and Type
69 SFA, 48 MFLR
51 MFLR
144 MFHR
206 MFHR
Vacancies
0 units
0
49
49 units
Residents
215 people
197
396
808 people
469 units
808 people
15.9 acres
to Each Refuse Service Point:
Service Description
10 containers in pens (3-cu yd ea)
three pickups per week
4 containers in pens (3-cu yd ea)
three pickups per week
2 chutes, 2 containers (3-cu yd ea)
six pickups per week
1 chute, 1 compactor, 2 containers
(2-cu yd ea)
two pickups per week
Average Number of Units per Service: 30.5
Average Number of People per Service: 47.5
Based on observation of
days at the Memphis site
refuse are collected eac
are collected per year.
the collected amounts of
the compacted refuse con
to one part compacted.
site visit does not fill
other urban areas before
refuse system activities for three
, approximately 175 cu yd of loose
h week, or approximately 9100 cu yd
The refuse volume was estimated from
loose refuse in containers and from
centrated at a ratio of ten parts loose
The volume of refuse collected on each
the packer truck. The truck services
and after servicing the Memphis site.
69
-------
Economic Analysis
The economic data are tabulated in Table 20 in general form.
The private service contractor represents $12,414 or 55
percent of the estimated annual costs of refuse collection
and disposal. Costs of various elements of the private con-
tractor services are estimated from discussions with each of
the two contractors. The apportioned costs for contractor
services are shown in Table 21 and are based upon time spent
on the site by each contractor vehicle and driver. The ex-
pense to the site associated with each element of refuse
collection and disposal is shown in Table 22. Labor and land-
fill fees account for 52 percent of -the expense to the site.
The city inspection fee is 16 percent of the expenses. The
costs are $25.35 per capita per year as compared to the adjusted
national survey average of $12.08 per capita per year.
Technical Analysis
The collection and disposal of refuse at the Memphis Opera-
tion Breakthrough site was observed for three days. Based on
estimated volumes of observed refuse, the loose refuse collected
is 175 cu yd per week or 9100 cu yd per year for the 469 occu-
pied units and 808 people. The technical data for refuse
collection and disposal are summarized in Table 23 including
distance traveled, number of stops, dwelling units serviced,
crew size, refuse collected, estimated volume, elapsed time,
and labor time expenditures. The data in Table 23 were ob-
served for the 90 percent occupied site. The nonproductive
time is considered as all waiting and packing time. Riding,
walking, and handling refuse are productive activities.
Equipment Performance -
Suitabi1ity - The two containers in the #2 high-rise building
(144 units) must be emptied six days a week which appears to
be a high pickup rate. Two compactors might be more suitable.
Estimated annual costs for two compactors and twice weekly
pickup service for the #2 high-rise as opposed to the six-day
service are shown below:
Current Design New Design with
with Containers 2 Compactors
Capital Costs:
Two Chutes $ 550 $ 550
2 Compactors & Containers 60_ 1,836
$ 610 $2,386
Recurring Costs: $1,011 $1,011
70
-------
CO
I1
CL.
(/> CLCn
O tO CO
O O -
CM i
CL ro
LO o3 QJ
CO CJ >-,
co r- o CD o L
r-- m us co co
CTi CM in O CO
r-. r-- in i
sf CO CO CO
i O CM i
00
Q.
£<"
Q
. O O CD
O O CD O O
CM co O Ln
cn i vo i r-.
oo in cn -5j- co
O O O CD O
r- r-. m i
T CD co co
<3- cn o Ln
-a u QJ
c ro E
co o QJ i-
r-~, T- 4-J
cn 4-> QJ
r O U QJ
QJ i QJ
S- CL 3 S-
.0 C ^ £
S- 3
O O
-Q -cr
00 -r-
4-J 4-
i- QJ
CD ro TD LJ
QJ -r-
O CD QJ >,' fT3£=-
oo
a:
a.
u_
o
co
o
o
CM
OJ
r
_Q
<_i > -i.1*
-qj cnj3 u_ QJ
i- -i- s: c\j
o a: CM
u in
LL. c
o c 4->
4-> -r- =J
CJ £
ro QJ o <
E 3 o
5 S-
' QJ
CM ro r- CM
o o o its
> O > LO LO
i- O -i- i I
3 ro Cn 03
QJ O 4-> -
Odl-QJQJ
S-313LO
-r -i ro O~i i
r- >, o i- s-
i CD c c: i
T Q- 4-J 4->
4-> O O QJ
O
03 ro
03 ro
cn 13 c: i i a. c
i_ CTi -1-3 «" LO -i CD 03 O
rocO-O QJ-r-i i 4->CD U
^T^-fO4-J 03 CLO <
i- S-
QJ QJ
a. Q-
CS-XS-S-
. -I CTI * i/i o cn E
>, >^<-D S- S- QJ -C 4- J_
S- C~-v4-J4-> 3roi -C QJ
QJ O E E O f
I O -Q cj> u I *
>i/)OO
- E E
J CM UD
71
-------
C£ 00
O *"»*
UU 0
1
1 1 1 (_)
1
Q- LU
s: o
LU HH
^ >
C£
LU LU
HZ 00
1
LU
0 1
1 «=C
^>
00 1 i
00 D-
O
O LU
^XZ
Q 1
LU
^r \ i
^_ LJ
O O
1 1
1 CO
fv | -
O 00
Q. O
Q_ (_ 3
l_l_
O
i OO
C\l |
~z.
O) LU
P_ *sr"
.O CD
fO UJ
1 CO
*^^>
to
r
to
(O
CO
LO
i^
CTl
i.
o
^
o
4_3
<_)
o
^___^
3
c o
c +->
< -C
CO CD
nj co !
-M O LO
O CJ
t
CM
O
Z
o
(U
s-
c
o
fO
C.C
C CO
^C *"*
QJ O
-M CJ
.,
00
CMr-.cn co CO^-LOLOCM
r**- co LO co p-1-. r**- LO t CM
CMCTlCM CM COOCOi CTi
CM CO CM . ^j- CO
«
^~ r^ i en CM p^ co co 1*^*
co co r--* i ro co to en !*«
ocno CM tocnr^-CMto
CM ro CM co r^
t-O- t/> -t/^ tO- bO-
4-J
CD
ife
0 -M
i- O
+-> ro
s_ u,
o
0-
Q.
(
rO JD
C CO
C O
<: o
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
cncTico CNJ ^j-cnr^-oo
CM CM ro r*^
i cno LO LOr^^j-colcn
cor--to cn ^±totoc\i cn
cn «a- ^ CM ^j- co vo to
^ ^ ^ ^ '"EJ
1
o
z:
o
+J
o
c
o
o
,
ra
c"^
^C +*'
QJ O
-M O
LO
CO CDJCO ^}- tO f^ 1^^ LOJLO
CO CO . 'd-COOOCMW-
i i CM CO CM
t
-t^ [to- to- t^ ffao-
£
QJ
1 «_
O O
1- (XJ
o u-
o.
o.
ro
-O M- OJ
- ' QJ QJ +J
QJ CJ C C
M- C CD -i-
i- ro JD ro
i QJ C E
CJ CJ CD QJtL_
^-^ S- C -t-> en co »-
CD >i fO C C -M LO
4- [ S- T- -i- CO 4->
r o ^ ros-occn
r-* r t/1 LO 2£ 4 CJ ro LO
1 -t ' C O QJ
CO S- t/1 -r- ~O 3-S >)> QJ
*->>> i/) O C O S- S- 4-
co i S- C_> * fO CM O -Q
O LO QJ CO -\ LO 2 i
CJ - C cnoj en 3 i
r- c: co c: > -r-
r .^ ro T-C -r- s- s- - 4-
rou-t-5 S- CD 4-> O QJ i T3
M 3d S- cj ro -Q CL QJ d
--L-o 3--- S- ro i3 3 ro
d. h- O
tO LO
en o
* CJ
o
(-,*) .
, ^
-o
CD
"§
CJ
O *~
O CU
rji
s-
fd
JZ
CJ
en
c
CM S-
" S-
cn ro
to- cj
-o cu
QJ -t->
M n3
ro s-
|r^ s- CD
kr QJ Q.
h* CL o
0
i CO
ffcO- CO -
'"" _^
-^ CJ
U 3
3 S- OJ
S- -t-) LO
4-> QJ 4-
+-> ro E QJ
ro -C -r- s-
&S _C -M -4->
O -M ~O -l->
O 1- S- CU -
r- S- 03 O +-> 4-
fl3 QJ -Q CJ O
CD >, ro ra s-
>, r- Q_ CL
s- E
S-QJ 4- O S-
QJ CL O CJ O
Q. -M
LO 5^: S- O
LO S- » LO o ro
tO S- 13 LO i 4 S-
r-* o -c QJ « ~o c
-to- -C c i/i co >^ O
tO *-*-> -M CJ
tO CTi fO "i *f~ 3
en ^j- -M 4 4 cj CD
^j- CM C QJ QJ +->
CM o c: c s- ro
4- CJ QJ QJ CD >
4- -t-> O -O -Q Q-'r-
o - to s-
4- -t-J t CU QJ O CL
-t-j O ^ cn cncn
3 S- O C C QJ
O CL S- -i- -r- O ~O
QJ CD S- S- tO- 3
QJ CD -M C 4- 4- i
LO 4-J -O - -r- CD CJ
CO CO r 1 -MCZ5OS--'-
o i cj c c CNJ CM ro
O C X O O -C CO
O QJ O CO CO CJ 4->
QJ S- 13 ^ CO
-M s--aro 5, r o
r- roCQJ QJQ-Q--CJ
CO QJ fO >, QJ C -O
>, ^ S^ S- >, CD
ro S-CUQJ-I-OOO^T-
^3 CD -M CL-C 4- .C -C U LO
c CL ro QJ
C E LO > t~ i_ t_ t_ "O
<=C LO-F-S- CJCDCUCUQj
LO S^ -M ZS O fO CL O O 4-J
4-> S- I3COOOQJ CO
LO o OQJJZO OLOLOS
c_j cj QJ cn «=± r-- -4-1
ro tos_"!^-coi PICCOLO
i S- CM rO CM to- tO--t/^ tO-bO- UJ
ro -M
-M C I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o o
1 c_j ro -Qcj~ocu4- cn_c:
72
-------
<+- rO
O 4->
O
E
CU r
O ro
S- Z3
CU E
Q- E
1 1 i f^r"
CO
U_
LU
C£
°£
Lj- 1 1
CO
CO
LJJ CO
CO ,_,
UJ :r
^^ ^-
X LU
UJ ^-
1 uj
^f i
^ in
^ f
~z.
^ i
CU
CD
CU
CO
^^ ^^
LO co LO o =!- r~^
CXI
LO c o cxi r-- "d-
cn i co r--- co ^t-
i to O CXI CTt i
i i CXI (£)
kft fao-
CU
-I-J
r-
CO
un o o k>
cn r-r-eo xi
r US O »
, , XJ
Ml VT-
cu
ro
.^
S-
r\
cxi i~~ cn
i co un
cxi cn cxi
CXI CO
if\ ^^-
CU
+-> CXI
3 =tt=
j= o:
o rn cu
1 1 +j
*\ JEI CU
{/I
4_>
E
CU
E
cn
cu
CO
4-)
(/)
O
O
to i-
S- U
CL) to E
E S- 0
- cu o
ro C
+j .,- ^
E ro to S-
O 4-> E CU
O E CU -^
to O Q- O
-l-> " O ro to
to S- i- Q. S-
O O i CXI CU CU
C_) 4J =tfe E « E
O <"** * »r tO *i~
i ro 1C CU ro -^ ro
ro CXU. 4-^ 4-1 O 4-*
+-> E s: 3 c 3 E
r- O -E 0 S- 0
Q. CO o O 1 CJ>
rO
C_3
^5 ^^ ^^ ^^
MD r-~ 1 * ^st" ^!t" CO VD 1 1
i i CO i LO
1 1
cn co cxi co LO LO co
cn co co 10 LO i co
id cxi cn LO oo i LO
co co r^ <3- cxi
tjC)- (^ ^ff. feQ.
cn cn to to
cn cn i i
to '"C tO tO
CO CO CO CO
<»0- (feO- -bO- If*
CO CO CXI LO LO CXI
CO CO LO LO i CXI
cxi cxi cn oo i cn
co -vf- oo
t/*) tzf)- (y) (^).
(/)
4_>
t/)
O
O)
o
E
l/l ro
CU CU E
CU CJ CU
M- C +->
ro E
E S- !-
O 3 ro
tO "!~ tO ^*
^J ^_) E
to O !- "O
00) E
C_3 Q. " rO
to to
Ol E CU CT
E -r- IO E
i- E -r-
S- >, CU -!->
S- 4-> O ro
13 -r- -r- S-
U O I O)
O) Q.
o; o
cu
o
c~
rO
E
O)
4-)
E
r^
ro to
E 0)
cu
n t)
CD
E i
4~) *i
S- ro M-
O i- T3
JD CU E
rOQ.ro
_J O 1
^^
^3
^D
1
^
to
CXI
CXI
ro
0)
0 .
0 ST
s.
o
^ "*
10
**
CXI
-------
oo
oo
I-H
O- 00
>>Q_
oo
UJ Lul
I > c
i -^, i O O -
i S~ O -i-
o a:
fH <
( LU
O >-
O O
CJ
Q
LU
00
Lu Q-
S- L-
CL QJ 4-> Oi
O CL-^ O-
O
Q i i
LU Q-
CC LU
LU "
00 O
CO
o
o
CO
CSJ
TO C E
Oj CL i TO
ai
.a
QJ OJ QJ O
74
-------
Current Design New Design with
with Containers 2 Compactors
Operating and Maintenance Costs:
On-site labor
(estimate) $ 544 $ 354
Private contractor
service (estimate) 6.057 2.894
$6,601 $3.248
Total Annual Costs $8,222 $6,645
An estimated annual savings of $1,577 could be achieved if
two compactors were installed in place of the containers in
the #2 high-rise.
The containers in both high-rise buildings must be rolled
down inclined ramps about 60 to 80 feet to the parking lot
where they can then be emptied into the truck. The contain-
ers have caster wheels. The container full of compacted
refuse from #1 high-rise (200 units) is difficult to control
on the ramp because of its weight. The containers in the #2
high-rise are also difficult to control. The Memphis Housing
Authority is planning to install a winch for handling the
compactor containers. As installed, the requirement to move
full containers down the ramp is unsuit able because of
hazard to personnel moving the containers.
The concrete pens are not properly sized for the containers
which causes difficulty to the truck. The containers are
not easily aligned with the truck and cannot be easily re-
placed in the pens after dumping. Pipes were installed in
the pens to protect the concrete from being hit; however,
the pipes obstruct the containers and do not allow the con-
tainers to be set flush into the pens. Containers located
under the deck must be picked up and moved to an opening so
that they can be emptied overhead without hitting the deck.
Effectiveness - Refuse is effectively collected and disposed
by the system. The compactor effectively concentrates
refuse and permits reduced pickup visits. The system is
operating very nearly as it was designed to be operated;
consequently, the cost effectiveness is high, very close to
100 percent. Moving the containers from the high-rise
buildings down a ramp is not an easy task for two men.
Three pickups per week do not appear necessary for the SFA
and MFLR containers. Only two of the 14 containers were
full, two were two-thirds full, and the other 10 were less
than half full on the day observed. The effectiveness could
be improved through use of compactors in the #2 high-rise
buiIdi ng.
75
-------
Residence Acceptance - Site management has received no complaints
Sorr.a refuse is spilled between containers and pens causing litter
and odors. A separate document reports the results of a resident
survey at the site. The results of the survey in general found
that a shortage of containers was indicated by respondents; this
finding was not indicated in the visits for analyzing economic
and technical aspects of the system.
Site Appearance -
The containers are located inside concrete pens in parking
areas and inside refuse rooms and do not affect site appear-
ance. Site neatness could be improved if the containers could
be fitted flush inside the pens. The protective pipes would
have to be removed. Some accumulation of refuse occurs between
the container and the pen because refuse can fall into the gap
and access is not easily attained to clean it out except when
the container is removed. About once a month, site personnel
go with the collection truck to clean out the pens.
Environmental Considerations -
There are no apparent sanitation problems. The collection
truck makes some noise, but residents are not bothered and
do not complain. Some odors are created in hot weather in
the containers for the SFA dwelling units. The SFA containers
are located in direct sunlight and on warm days some odor is
noticeable. All other containers are either inside refuse
rooms or are under the deck area which is between the MFHR
and MFLR buildings.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvantages
of the Memphis refuse collection system in economics, ef-
fectiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
Economic Advantages -
Capital expenditures are low.
Economic Disadvantages -
The refuse collection and disposal expense is high at $25.35
per capita per year. The operating and maintenance expendi-
tures are primarily for the private service contracts which
76
-------
account for $13.92 per capita per year or 55 percent of the
total cost for refuse collection and disposal. If compactors
were used in the #2 high-rise, it is estimated that the overall
costs could be reduced by $1.77 per capita per year which repre-
sents a 7 percent reduction in costs. A city inspection fee
of $0.50 ($0.59, October 1975 costs basis) per dwelling unit
per month is levied against the site as a recurring charge.
There is no reduction in landfill fees for compacted refuse.
Future compactor installations should consider the basis of
hauling and dumping charges during the planning stages. If
reduced volume does not save money, the only reason to install
the equipment is to reduce the number of pickups.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
Refuse is effectively removed. Minimal refuse handling is
achieved. Containers appear well located for use by residents.
Effectiveness. Disadvantages -
The use of containers under a deck where overhead loading is
difficult is not good. Three pickups per week appears excessive
for the SFA and MFLR units. The refuse from the 144 unit MFHR
fills two containers which are emptied six times a week. A
compactor arrangement could reduce the required pickups per
week and reduce overall costs to the site. Installation of
compactors should reduce the number of pickups to a maximum
of three pickups per week. This would not reduce dumping
charges, but it should reduce pickup fees and reduce the labor
expended in removing backed-up refuse in the chute. The con-
tainers and pens are not properly si-zed for a good fit. The
concrete pens do serve to blend the containers into the site;
however, future sites should more closely match pen size to
container size so that the container will fit into the pen.
Pen orientation should be considered for ease of emptying
by the truck. Also, some pens could be blocked by parked
automobi1es.
Efficiency, Advantages -
Personnel requirements are minimal, but the efficiency of
labor utilization could be improved.
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
Personnel from the site are used to move containers from the
144-unit MFHR building and accrue 21 man-hours per year of
77
-------
waiting (nonproductive) time. The truck drivers accrue 75
man-hours per year of waiting time while servicing the site.
Eighty-seven man-hours of the total of 96 nonproductive man-
hours used per year are associated with moving and emptying
the two chute-fed containers in the 144-unit MFHR structure.
The other nine hours are associated with waiting for resi-
dents to move automobiles in the parking areas next to the
SFA units. The collection labor utilization efficiency is 77
percent.
Environmental Considerations -
Advantages - Site aesthetics are good and the containers are
unobtrusive. There are very little odor and noise problems.
There are no sanitation problems.
Disadvantages - A safety problem exists for personnel moving
the containers out of the two MFHR buildings. The contain-
ers tend to overpower the two men when moving containers
downhill on ramps to the parking areas where the truck can
empty them. The hazardous situation exists because the con-
tainers must be manually pushed down inclined ramps to the
truck. This requires dexterity and a fair amount of strength
to prevent the heavily laden containers from running wildly
down the inclines possibly crashing into automobiles in the
parking lots or injuring personnel. The manual movement of
the containers is consumptive of time and labor.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
The St. Louis site was visited on July 29, 30, and 31, 1974.
The site studied consisted of three sections: La Clede Town
East, La Clede Town West and La Clede Town. The east and
west sections are housing built as part of the Operation
Breakthrough program. La Clede Town is the middle section
and was constructed before the Operation Breakthrough sec-
tions. The La Clede Town section is comprised of SFA housing
which employ sidewalk (similar to backyard) collection of
refuse by site personnel from site provided containers. The
Operation Breakthrough housing, La Clede Town East and West,
consists of MFLR, MFMR, and MFHR buildings. The MFLR and
MFMR units are equipped with household compactors. The MFHR
units (two buildings) have chute-fed compactors. The refuse
system is described below and depicted in Figures 22 through
29. The site arrangement is shown in Figure 30, and site
demographic and other data are given in Table 24.
78
-------
FIGURE 22. Thirty-five gallon containers and enclosures as
used for refuse in La Clede Town, St. Louis, MO.
There are 587 containers and 127 redwood enclo-
sures around the site. Plastic bag liners are
replaced each day in each container.
79
-------
FIGURE 23. Tractor and trailer used by four men to collect
refuse from containers in La Clede Town. Refuse
is collected six days per week.
FIGURE 24. West and east views of pen where La Clede Town
refuse is stored for pickup by municipal service,
80
-------
FIGURE 25. Closeup photograph of La Clede Town refuse pen which
shows bags of refuse intact and broken open, yard
wastes, and appliances.
FIGURE 26. Roll-off 30-cu yd container used at La Clede Town
refuse storage pen to supplement municipal removal
services.
81
-------
FIGURE 27. Typical chute-fed compactor installation in the MFHR
buildings. Two are installed, one in the MFHR in La
Clede Town East and the other in the MFHR in La Clede
Town West. A private contractor services the containers.
FIGURE 29. Refuse storage pens for refuse from the MFLR and MFMR
buildings of La Clede Town East and West sections.
Refuse is picked up by site personnel and stored in
the pens until picked up by municipal service.
82
-------
cu
to
O)
-o
to c
C (O
o
r- +->
+-> 1/1
rO ro
i UJ
+-> 3
(/) O
C I
OJ
s- -o
O O)
*-> 1
O C_5
s-
CU
Q.
O
2
4->
to
4-
CU
CU
+-> o
c to
o s-
(j CU
Q.
c
r- CU
O
T3
O CD!
.c c
CU T-
tO "O
o ^
x: :3
CD
»-> s:
Ll-
CU to
o
Q.
Q-
01 3
,U-
oo
CM
cc:
i en
3 c:
C i
a) -
-C
83
-------
^L
-------
Table 24. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR THE ST. LOUIS
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and type of dwelling units and occupancy:
Type No. Vacancies Residents Type of Refuse Service
La Clede Town West (part of Operation Breakthrough housing):
MFLR 34 3 69 Household Compactors
MFMR 24 1 51 Household Compactors
SFA 75 4 158 Household Compactors
MFHR 90 4 191 Chute-fed Compactor
La Clede Town East (past of Operation Breakthrough housing):
MFLR 34 1 73 Household Compactors
MFMR 123 3 268 Household Compactors
MFHR 84 1 185 Chute-fed Compactor
La Clede Town:
SFA 656 5 1700 Backyard Pickup
(estimated)
Number occupied 1098 units
Number residents 2695 people
Site area 24.5 acres
Distribution of units by type of service:
Number and Type Description
656 SFA Backyard pickup from 35-gal. containers
75 SFA Household compactors with backyard pickup
68 MFLR Household compactors with two containers
per building
147 MFMR Household compactors with two containers
per building
174 MFHR Chute-fed compactors with private service
Refuse from SFA, MFLR, and MFMR buildings is collected six days per
week and stored in pens for municipal pickup and disposal twice a
week. Refuse from MFHR buildings is collected twice a week by a
private contractor.
85
-------
Refuse System Description
La Clede Town East and West -
Residents of La Clede Town East and West who live in SFA, MFLR
and MFMR units dispose of refuse using household compactors.
When the compactor chamber is full, the bag is removed and
carried to a collection point. SFA residents set their bags
curbside for daily pickup by site personnel. The plastic
compactor bags are furnished by site management. MFLR and
MFMR residents place their bags in containers, two to each
building, located next to stairs at ground level; site
personnel empty the containers on a- daily basis. The bags
are stored in pens while awaiting collection by municipal
service. MFHR residents place their refuse in vertical
chutes which lead to compactors, one at the base of a chute
in each building. The compactor containers are rolled to
parking areas for servicing twice a week by a private con-
tractor.
La Clede Town -
La Clede Town residents place their refuse in 35-gallon con-
tainers. Five hundred eighty-seven containers are located
along sidewalks throughout La Clede Town. The site personnel
empty the containers and reline with plastic bags six days
a week. The refuse is collected by a four-man crew using a
tractor and trailer. The bags of refuse are stored in a pen
while awaiting pickup and disposal by the municipal service.
When the pen becomes overloaded, a 30-cu yd container is brought
in, filled, and disposed of by a private contractor.
Economics Analysis
The economic data are tabulated in Tables 25, 26, and 27 in
general form for the sections of the site and for the whole
site. The cost of various segments of the city and private
collection and disposal services were not available. Based
on observations at the site of the equipment and apportioning
to labor used, the costs are estimated and given in Table 28
for elements of capital, recurring, operation and maintenance
costs. Labor, disposal fees, compactors including containers,
and plastic bags account for 87 percent of the total annual
costs for refuse collection and disposal. Labor and disposal
fees together account for 63 percent of the annual costs.
The costs are $46.00 per capita per year as compared to $12.08
per capita per year from the adjusted national survey results.
86
-------
O
l 01
oo >
Q CQ LU
H-
Q ^ >i
z: o oo
I 00
o ^ =>
ii LU O
I D 1
o o
i n: oo
ol-
O LU
OO 00
^3 LU Lu
U- S O
LU
C£ Q OO
LJ_ =£ o
o "-1
h- h-
I oo o:
OO =t CD
CD LU O-
O
. O
LD I
C\J
LU
<1J O
, LU
JD I
rO O
i CD t/1 CD S-
(TS CD -Q CJ O
<- n3 "3 C 4->
-*-> i- i CU U
c o un u_ 03
CD -M S-
un o o en
U (ti rO "O O
CJ .
OJ S- r- O ^~
JD r- TO r
fI3 S- S-
_] Q_ I
>^ C
r O
13 -r-
O CT~ OJ r +J ^ ;
C _Q ro i/) <
C ^ £ 4-J o -
tU ^ ^ O LJ u~i
C C 4-= S- OJ
O OJ ^ --
-r- -r- -O- CL 4
_Q OJ ro
>
~D CD » (/)
CD +- CD -Q i
. S- C r
QJ OJ O QJ >
-
4-J CU
1 CU OJ CU
CD S
"O -
^c:!-
-Q CU CD
~O CD 4- CJ1 -CT i
87
-------
UJ
1C
I
UJ
| |
-<
!
co " '
o ^
Q- 0
oo i
1 t
1
a GO
y
^^ LU
-j
7- 1
^c. '
O
1 I U_
1- 0
O
li i "Z.
_|0
1 I~H
o
I i I O-
oo
U_ IS
UJ O
1 1 LLJ
O a
1 1 1
oo -i
t ^J
CO
-
QJ
CL. S- CJ
-4-> CL. "l&
CO LO
O ZD U3
o a-
ZJ 4->
c o
< CJ
CJLQ
C QJ
- a
£*«
s- .c
ro CJ
CJ
LO
r^.
en t/i
+J
t/i
o
M CJ
u
o
ro
S-
QJ
^
CL
r-
,
Z)
z:
03 V)
f- -t-J
-t-> CO
- o
c: CJ
K- 1
IJD PO LO en i
CO P^ UD 00
1 OO tJD
CXI ,
fee-
0 r r- 0
CD O CD O CD
oo cn o co ro
r^. p-. oo o en
CO U"l ^" i CO
co en to
&
^f «d- «3- «* ^t-
O O CD CD O
i i i i i
§00 r- CD CD
OJ CO CO UD
CO O ^O |JD OO
P CO *d"
b<*
-o
c:
03
(/i
QJ
S-
Z«
t/1
O
u
c
QJ OJ
t/1
5- S-4-
QJ QJ CO
C E -*
f- -i OCn CJ)
to c +J *-> s- s- s-
M OJ C C O QJ
t/1 CL O O CTH-J i
O CJ CJ C (J !
CJ QJ -i 03 ro
en QJ QJ "o s- s-
r 03 CO CO f -I-J 4->
rd s- ri zj o
M O 4- 4- JZ O O
r- 4-> QJ OJ 33
Q. CO at CC ( |
ro *
CJ
OO
<3-
r-^
<&
*$-
CO
*d-
fc^
- t/i
+J
t/1
0
CJ
CD
rz
s-
S-
ZJ
CJ
QJ
C£
r^.
CD
CO
OJ
^9-
sd-
«*
CO
*/>
CO
O
CJ
OJ
CJ
c
ro
C
QJ
-M
C
-C 03
M
OJ "O
CD C
-O 03
13
CQ c:
o
>i *-"
*-J ro
- S-
CJ QJ
a.
o
r-v r-.
LO O
OJ CO
I"--. O
V* -fa^
co ^r r- CD LO ^ oj
ro r \£) LO co o en
O CO CD i kO CO
oj i ro i r-- o
^ *3- r
w [to- -t^
^ ;z z: z z
CO *3~ P~- O LO
CO i iJD LO rO
O OO O .
C\J i OO i
bO^
co co *d- ?»- «vj-
i i CD CD O
, , , , ,
CD CD . LO CD
^t i P-. CD
1 i OJ i
OO
0*
QJ
CJ
c
03 r-
C -
QJ S-
4-) 0
C -(->
i- <-> -r- CJ
QJ QJ E S-
M 4-J 4->
-i- -r- -O C
t/> LO C O
03 CJ
" " t/1
QJ QJ t/1 QJ 4->
E E -M -M i^
r- T- C ro O
-M +J O3 -^ > CJ
Q t/) T-
i -M T- CJ) S- r
i 1- S- 03 CL ro
ZJ ro .Q JD - - Zt
4- CL ZJ C
- -« i -M cj en rz
i- C
_J _1 LL, CL. 1C O
1
«d~
r-.
en
t/1 -M
Z3 C >,
. t4- QJ ,
I C QJ 4- CL
i 03 O t/l
4-> E O 4->* -
CJ CL zj * co QJ en
X i QJ ZJ C
C QJ O 4- 4- QJ
i- > -i- QJ JD >i
i- 5-
"O O "O QJ Zi
QJ 4- QJ S- i- CHO
co > 03 o c: - - -
CO > i S- QJ 4- -i- «d-
Z) QJ >, S- t/1 P--
cj c: to i t/i 4- -M en
coO-Q>i >,-O -r-,
i . o u -t-1 c: s^ 4-
-O-M C- S- ZiOQJ>,
CJ QJ 03 - - O 4- O-J C '
a> a> .c d.*^ 4- QJ zj * .
S_ t/1 *-* ZJ P** QJ CTi-Q *~3 ^3"
03 cj en » ZJ c; - r--
ajTZtCj" -C E -i-QJ CTi
COQJCO CJ QJ -OCDf/li
i OO 03 >> 03 > ZJCCT)
co QJi QJ QJ i - 03 >>
03 tn-l-'ZJ S- OS-_Oi
^ . 4J -r- "D *-^ O C 4- ZI
S- C l/l ' ^" O i mr O rZ>
LO O QJ f**- OJ 03 fe-S O
r-. -M T3 - QJ -Cnt^ S- i_Oi
i O3CO-t->-r-, ra - - QJ .E CT) QJ E
s- s--*-1 cnr ^rcn irzci.-i
oj-a s- r- zj to r~- rz-r- ro
JDrZ4-Oo3 -TDS-CnE rd-OO-4-J
O ZJ O 4-> QJ >> QJ i O E ^ I*O C
-M4- >-,' i S- --». i -O
CJ S-4-JIZiaj''->-,4- LOCJCOCJ
OcnQjto>^'TD4-roi r-.c: -t/>
C: > E >r^ c ' 1 *~D03 CO 4-QJ
03 -^ ZJ ~O QJ OJ - - QJ fa=»- S- O CL
CIZr034-S- >i ZJ
o.^ +J -i- ro QJ -MO-MO
Mt/lQJO i OJQJ-t-JS- rd-C=cOi
-n-4-J" ^tt-'^-QJ IO *&
t/i t/i | E S- i ! t/i CL * E cj
MZJ i QJrOLOi I -C=ro -4-J
t/)( LOO.QJ- d-M UE-Mro
CJ t/i--~.-^t O3 E QJCD ^L
-(->4->CE "QJEZi ' LO CO QJ
-McO-i LO-i QJ-E^O ..^QJ
t/lQJEU?' +J U 1 ! CJ) .^OOQJS
ZJi-Zi 1 (B S- 4-> C QJfeO-OJ
-3 QJ ^E'QJZJU-' QJ 3S-
-O 4-> CT1JD -i-JZ OQJi 3+-1 OJ
03CC O3CJOO4-I i 03-»->CL
O i QJ U QJ bO- " O 3 QJ -^ CT1 l/l
M CO i -i -E CJ T3 ^ CL OJ -i i-
i QJ. S-CTi-MO "^- QJQJQJ
"O 3CLOOJo3roQJS-r--co3 C
QJ QJ "O T- 4- tfl- QJ to OJ en S- >)'i-
t/l CD -M ^J- Zi CL. ZJ S- S- ro
ZiS-' i -4-J-MCOO4- oQJQJ-l-J
rOLOZ3coro OQJLO >>.E CL > d
t/1 -E c£3 £ O * 4-4-) -t->Oro>!
CL-I 'i 'r- 03 QJ E O3 -E -O
r >-j >; "O -M O3 CO t/1 Ol O 1 ^3
4-> S- O QJ-'-+-)P-- t/1 -i "O -r- C EO CJ
i S- E -M C E feO^ S- ZJ -M QJ 03 CD 1
ZJ ro ro O -i O OOJ-QCJEECDO
ECJCLOJ CJ-M-McO QJ LJOOO
ZJ i O 03 CJ ZJ >>i S- QJ
QJQJOi Of^ ro -4->i ZJEOJO
JZJZ CJ OCOCOOO S_4--i O O 'i CO 3
1 1 O U t'O- Ln "-D 1 O CJ O Uu ^ i 1
111 till 1 1 1 1 1
03-QLJ tDCU4-CJ) JZ >- *r-j -^ .
88
-------
T3
: GO
UJ i11
CO
LU O
UJ
O
< I
I - CO
Q
JO
ID
r-~.
CTi
s-
OJ
O
O
r-.
CM
O)
>>-o
>^>^-^-
^ S-
O 13 rC
U O)
s- >>
CD O
D-O S-
i~ CL)
4-> « Q.
tO LO
0
O-^
OJ
s- 'o.
CU S- O
CL >, 01
-\ O
+J
to CLOD
O tO CD
o o r-.
CM
to
^
i- C
O) S_ ^
CL >,
"~-x O
+-> ZD CM
to Q i
O r
o -
LO CO I
to o LO
i CM «d-
fa=»- f> ^aO-
^3-
CM
CO
feO-
CM i l-~
CM tO i
en i LO
i CM
*** &* ^^^
0
CD
to
*
u*
co r--. LO
CM a co
CM CO O
CM CM tO
faO- -bO- -tO
o
CM
1
-oq-
to oo r--
ro (/)
3 4->
c; to
E O
C
ro
to 21
-l_>
to to T3
-M o e:
to O n3
o
CJ CTI C
c o
03 S- 4->
+-> S- ra
r- ^ i-
Q. O Q.
O CC o
«=)-
LO
^ »\
^±
CM
^ *«-
to
I )
-f '
to
o
tO O
-!->
(/) 1
O ro
O =5
C
c=
0
I
89
-------
<4- 10
O -!->
O
4-> I
E
CU
O ro
s- =3
cu c:
CL c:
CM CO
OO i
CM
CVJ
oo
^t-
O 00
CO
oo
=>
U- UU
UJ I
0; ii
oo
Lu
O OO
II
oo rD
oo h-
O
c_> i
r-
oo
O CTl OO 00 <-O
CT> O CO CO CM
O VO «tf" O CO
A n *
CM cr> co co vo
O OO CO CM
«3 <* O CO
CM
CO
oo
CM ID O LO
r^ ^t- cri o
i i oo -sd-
-o
cu
rO
1/5
(O
CTl
O)
ja
o
o
o
O. CU
o
CM
CM
faO-
LD
CTl
CM
O
CM
«d- oo ^j- o
in CM i
LD CM
LO OO
CO *d-
»» n
co r^-
LO
O
CO
Q.
o
5
cu
VD
OO
00
oo
oo
OO
tn LO oo
oo oo
t oo
CM
CM CTI r~^
O CM O
co 10 o
IO
CM
CM
CM
faO-
OO
OO
OO
b=)-
00
oo
CM
CTl
CM
00
CTl
CTl
CO
LO
O
oo
CO
OO
oo
LO
*\
CM
ro
+->
C
O
o
CO
o
o
ro
a.
ra
(J
rO
co i-
S-
CL) »»
C CO
CU co
S- S-
3 cu
CO i
O T-
i ro
O S-
-O C -t->
C CU
ra CO "O
E * C.
co CU co ro
S- Q. S-
O CU CO
-l-> CU C S-
O OVr- O
ro ra O S-
I CJ 00 CJ h-
(J
CO
cu
X
ro
-->
m
CU
o
£T
ro
CO CO
4-> c:
CO "r-
O
CJ «
Dl O)
E CO
r- C
i- CU
5- U
^3 *i
O _J
CU
or
CO
+-"
0
CJ
cu
o
ra
c~
cu
c
1
s:
-o
c
ro
C
0
-i~>
ra
S-
cu
Q.
ol
at
u
ra
c~
ai
-|_3
C
ra
E
CO
ra
U
i
1-
-Q
^
S- "
0 r-
JD CU
rO 3
_J U_
CO
a> co
cu en
4- ro
-Q
ra (J
CO !-
0 4->
O- CO
co ra
r~ r^
Q D_
CO
rO
O
ro
-t->
O
ra
90
-------
Technical Analysis
The collection and disposal of refuse at the St. Louis site
was observed for three days. Based on the estimated volume
of observed refuse and discussions with site personnel, the
estimated refuse collected is 286 cu yd per week for .1098
occupied dwelling units, equivalent to 14,880 cu yd per
year. Considerable data for refuse collection and disposal
were collected for the St. Louis site and d'iscussed in the
following paragraphs.
La Clede Town -
The refuse service to La Clede Town consists of a tractor
driver and three men. The three men remove plastic trash
bags from containers located along sidewalks and alleys
throughout the site. They reline the containers and set the
bags curbside. The tractor driver loads bags onto the
trailer and helps with removing bags and relining containers.
The distance between services averages about 80 feet when
the driver moves the tractor around the site. Some containers
are not located curbside, but the bagged refuse is set curb-
side by the three men who remove filled bags and reline con-
tainers. The refuse is picked up six days each week. The
refuse collection performance is reflected in the following
observed and calculated results:
(Average week -- 6 days)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Distance
Travelled
(Miles)
7.5
4.5
4.5
5.2
5.2
4.5
Trailer
Loads
5
3
3
3.5
3.5
3
Cubic
Yards
50
30
30
35
35
30
Number
of Men
4
4
4
4
4
4
Elapsed
Time
(Min.)
480
480
480
480
480
480
Refuse Collection Parameters at La Clede Town
Per Mile
Travelled
6.69 cu yd
64.01 plastic bags
12.96 cartons
Per Mile Through
the Site
105 cu yd
1005 plastic bags
203.5 cartons
Per Man-hour
1.1 cu yd
10.5 plastic
bags
2.1 cartons
Per Hour
4.4 cu yd
41.9 plastic
bags
8.5 cartons
120.57 residences 315.5 residences 19.7 residences 78.9 residences
91
-------
Operation Breakthrough Site -
East Site - Two men using a tractor and trailer spend two
hours, two days per week emptying 19 containers for the MFLR
and MFMR dwelling units. The containers are receptacles for
refuse compacted by residents who have individual household
compactors. Paper bags are used which are specifically
designed for the compactors. The bags are stored in a pen
where city refuse service makes pickups.
Two men spend 30 minutes, two times per week, replacing com-
pactor containers in the MFHR building and rolling the full
2-cu yd container to the parking lot where a private hauling
company can empty the container into an overhead (front
loader) packer truck. The chute in the MFHR blocks up about
two times a week requiring one man-hour to clear. Refuse
collection performance results are given below for the East
site:
Distance travelled about 2400 feet/day (2 days per week)
Cu yds of refuse (MFLR/MR) 1/2 cu yd/wk (40% compacted)
Cu yds of refuse (MFHR) 4 cu yd/wk (40% compacted)
Total refuse (loose) 17.1 cu yd/wk
No. of men (site personnel) 2
Man-time (site personnel) 2 man-hours/week
Elapsed time (site personnel) 1 hour/week
No. of residences 241 dwelling units
Occupancy 232 dwelling units
West Site - The SFA units are serviced by one man one hour per
day, five days per week, to pickup refuse and store in a pen or
curbside. Most refuse is stored curbside where the La Clede
Town crew picks up the refuse and stores it in the central pen
for city pickup or to be disposed by private service.
The residents in the MFLR units carry compacted refuse to
containers next to buildings. Site personnel move refuse to
locations where the private contractor can pickup and dispose of
wastes. Two men spend 30 minutes, two times per week, to
pickup refuse and move 2-cu yd containers to areas accessible
to the private hauler's truck.
Two men spend 30 minutes, two times per week, replacing com-
pactor containers in the MFHR building and rolling the full
container to the parking lot where a private hauling company
can empty the container into an overhead (front loader)
packer truck. The MFHR refuse chute blocks up about twice
per week requiring one man-hour to clear. Refuse collection
performance results are given below for the West site:
Distance travelled about 2,000 feet/day (2 days/week)
SFA refuse 1/4 cu yd/wk (40% compacted)
92
-------
MFLR refuse
MFHR refuse
Total refuse (loose)
No. men
Man-time
Elapsed time, SFA
Elapsed time, MFLR/MFHR
No. of residences
Occupancy
4 cu yd/wk (40% compacted)
4 cu yd/wk (75% compacted)
34.0 cu yd/wk
3
10 man-hours/wk
5 hours/wk
4 hours/wk
223 dwelling units
215 dwelling units
East and West Portions Combined -
Distance travelled
Total loose refuse
No. of men
Man-time
Elapsed time
Occupancy
about 8800 ft/wk
55.1 cu yd/wk
5 (at different intervals)
12 man-hours/wk
10 hours/wk
447 dwelling units
Refuse collection performance is reflected in the following
results:
Refuse collected per mile travelled
Refuse collected per man-hour of
collection time
Refuse collected per hour of
collection time
Refuse collected per residence
(occupied)
Residences per mile travelled
Residences per man-hour of
collection time
Residences per hour of collection
time
30.6 cu yd/mile
4.3 cu yd/man-hour
5.1 cu yd/hour
0.1 cu yd/residence
268.2 res./mile
37.2 res./man-hour
44.7 res./hour
La Clede Town Plus Operation Breakthrough Site -
Distance travelled
Distance through site
Total loose refuse
(residences)
Total yard refuse
Total refuse
Man-time
Elapsed time
Occupied residences
33.1 miles/wk
13.7 miles/wk
266.1 cu yd/wk
20 cu yd/wk
286 cu yd/wk
204 man-hours/wk
58 hours/wk
1098 dwelling units
93
-------
Refuse collection performance for the entire site is reflected
in the following results:
Refuse collected per mile travelled 8.6 cu yd/mile
Refuse collected per mile through site 20.9 cu yd/mile
Refuse collected per man-hour of
collection time
Refuse collected per hour of
collection time
t Refuse collected per dwelling unit
(occupied)
Dwelling units serviced per mile
travelled
t Dwelling units serviced per man-hour
of collection time
Dwelling units serviced per hour of
collection time
1.4 cu yd/man-hour
4.9 cu yd/hour
0.3 cu yd/unit/wk
32.6 du/mile
5.3 du/man-hour
18.6 du/hour
Refuse Pickup by City and Private Contractor -
In addition to on-site refuse collection, municipal disposal
and private disposal services are used at the site. Refuse
compacted into 2-cu yd containers in the MFHR buildings are
picked up by front loader trucks, privately contracted.
Additionally, when municipal service is not sufficient for
pickup at La Clede Town, a private contractor is called, who
brings in a 30-cu yd roll-off container which is filled by
three site personnel. When filled, the private contractor
removes the container.
During the observation period, St. Louis municipal refuse
services were hampered by the effects of a work strike by
their employees. A large amount of refuse was piled in the
La Clede Town pen which was decaying, causing odors (and
complaints by residents), attracting flies, and presenting
a bad aesthetics nroblem. Site management stated that daily
city pickup operations when normal eliminate most of the
refuse accumulation problem, but hot weather still causes
problems with odors and flies. Also, at the time of obser-
vation, the 30-cu yd container was being hauled away twice a
week which was not sufficient to remove all refuse from the
pen.
Col 1ecti on Times -
Producting and nonproductive collection time are estimated
man-times per average day for various collection activities
94
-------
La Clede Town (refuse collection):
Tractor Three Other Avg. Per
Driver Men Day Total
(Man-min) (Man-min) (Man-min)
Tractor:
Riding 62.4 Q 62.4
Plastic Bag Handling 60.7 957.5 1018.2
Walking 3.8 317.3 321.1
Set Curbside 0 55.1 55.1
Loading 101.8 0 101.8
Unloading 30.6 0 30.6
30-cu yd Container:
Loading 0 85.0 85.0
Total man-time = 1674.2 man-minutes per day x 6 = 10,044.3/wk
or 10,044.3 man-minutes per week x 52 = 522,303.6/yr
The type of effort involved where three men move through the
site independent of tractor and trailer results in practically
no nonproductive time. On light days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Saturday), the crew may finish on-time or a little early. On
Mondays, the crew may finish late. On Thursday and Friday, the
crew finishes on time.
Operation Breakthrough Site (avg. per day for a week,
six working days) :
Riding 30 man-minutes
Walking (set
curbside) 10 man-minutes
Loading 20 man-minutes
60 man-minutes/day, or
360 man-minutes/week
Entire Site (avg. per day for a week, six working days):
Per Day Per Week Per Year
(Man-min) (Man-min) (Man-min)
Riding 92.4 554.5 28,831.9
Plastic Bag Handling 1,018.1 6,108.8 317,656.6
Walking 321.0 1,926.2 100,164.5
Set Curbside 65.1 390.5 20,308.1
Loading 206.8 1,240.5 64,506.0
Unloading 30.6 183.8 9,556.6
1,734.0 10,404.3 541,023.7
95
-------
In the following paragraphs, the above technical data and
qualitative observations are discussed relative to equipment
performance, site appearance, and environmental aspects.
Equipment Performance -
Sui tability - A better arrangement should be considered for
La Clede Town. Excessive handling and storage in open pens
are unsuitable aspects of the refuse system. The compactor
equipment in the Operation Breakthrough portions of the site
appears to be a very suitable approach for refuse handling;
however, the excessive handling of refuse decreases suita-
bility. Excessive handling of refuse is a system deficiency
at the site. For SFA, MFLR, and MFMR units, residents place
refuse in containers, site personnel empty containers and
place refuse in storage pens, the city services the pens and
disposes the refuse off site. A study of direct pickup and
disposal by site personnel could result in reduced overall
costs and increased system suitability.
Effectiveness - Lost time or nonproductive time is minimal;
however, the refuse system is labor intensive. Site personnel
collect an average of 1.4 cu yd per man-hour. Assuming the
labor requirements could be reduced to the point where a
more typical value of 16 cu yd per man-hour were expended,
(comparable to an average of the King County curbside ser-
vice and the Macon container service), the estimated site
costs per cu yd of refuse could be reduced by $3.27 per cu yd
to $4.97 per cu yd. Comparing the reduced costs with the
actual value, the effectiveness with respect to costs is:
[l - (8-2^797)] x 100 = 34 percent
Under the comparison conditions, the site effectiveness is
very low.
The compactors on the Operation Breakthrough portions of the
site have performed well and appear effective except for
capital and the maintenance costs. The MFHR compactors are
used effectively and account for $7,589 in annual costs.
The household compators are not very effective and they
account for $15,637 in annual capital costs and $6,063 in
annual operating and maintenance costs (excluding $7,355
per year for compactor bags). The $29,055 annual ex-
pense for household compactors represents 23 percent of the
total annual site costs. The bags of refuse from household
compactor units were not all compacted. From observations
over a three-day period, about forty percent of the bags
96
-------
appeared to have been compacted. Loose refuse was in the
other sixty percent of the bags. It is concluded that house-
hold compactors on the site are not effectively utilized.
If they were, refuse could probably be collected only once
a week from the areas having household compactors thereby
reducing site labor requirements and costs.
Resident Acceptance - The residents use the refuse system.
The only complaints received by site management involve odors
and insects at the storage pens. The methods of collection
and disposal appear to be very convenient for use by the
residents. A survey of residents was not made at the St.
Louis site as at other sites; therefore, resident attitudes
toward refuse collection are not known. It can be stated
that the full capacity of the household compactors is not
being utilized which results in the requirement for more
pickups from the containers by site personnel.
Site Appearance -
The site appearance is excellent and very little litter is
noticeable around the site. The refuse pen for La Clede
Town was very messy during the three-day observation period.
Municipal refuse personnel were on-strike and a considerable
volume of refuse was stored in the pen. The refuse was
noticeable but only in the area of the pen. Except for the
piled up refuse, all three pens blend nicely into the site
surroundings. The containers in the MFLR, M F M R , and MFHR
buildings are hidden from view by enclosures that are built
into and match the exterior of the buildings.
Environmental Considerations -
Refuse stored in open pens is subject to the effects of
exposure to the weather. The refuse decays, causes odors,
attracts flies and other insects, and may present sanita-
tion problems. Hot weather causes extreme problems with
odors, flies, and other insects. It may also be presumed
that the open pens provide feeding areas for vermin.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvantages
of the St. Louis site refuse collection system in economics,
effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
97
-------
Economic Advantages -
The high rise chute-fed compactors are economical. There are
no other economic advantages of the system at the site.
Economic Disadvantages -
Costs are excessive for the entire site. The costs for the
Operation Breakthrough portion of the site are higher than
the costs for the La Clede Town portion on a per unit volume
of refuse collected due to ineffective use of household
compactors. The excessive labor expenditures are major contri-
butors to high costs at the site.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
The Operation Breakthrough portion of the site could be effec-
tive if residents would use the household compactors and refuse
was picked up only once a week.
Effectiveness. Disadvantages -
The refuse collection system is very labor intensive, using
36.4 man-minutes per cu yd of refuse. There is too much
handling of refuse at the site.
Efficiency, Advantages -
Nonproductive time is minimal, but excessive handling of
refuse is required.
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
Excessive labor requirements and handling of refuse are re-
quired. The La Clede Town containers are emptied six times
a week and 42.7 man-minutes are expended per cubic yard of
refuse collected. The Operation Breakthrough portion of the
site requires 7.0 man-minutes per cubic yard of refuse
collected. The inefficiency results from handling the refuse
many times. Curbside pickup would benefit the La Clede Town
portion of the site by eliminating the need to place refuse
in containers and then move refuse from containers to street
areas for pickup. Similarly, the refuse is then placed in
pens to await pickup and disposal by the municipal service
and by private contractors. A recommended improvement is to
eliminate excessive handling of the refuse by curbside pickup
and direct disposal by site, private, or city personnel.
98
-------
Environmental Advantages -
Site aesthetics are excellent around the buildings.
Environmental Disadvantages -
Sanitation may be a problem in the vicinity of the storage
pens. The storage pens are open to weather effects. Decay-
ing refuse in pens is aesthetically unappealing, causes odors,
and attracts insects and possibly vermin. Also, excessive
handling of the bagged refuse causes bag tears and refuse
spillage which increases the probability that storage problems
occur.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The Seattle site was visited April 18, 21, and 22, 1975. The
refuse management system consists of a combination of four
one-cu yd containers in an outside enclosed (open top) pen
and two refuse chutes. Each of the -chutes feeds four one-cu
yd containers located inside refuse rooms adjacent to the
underground parking garage for the site. One chute is located
outside with a charging station at ground level. The other
chute is located in a community center adjacent to SFA units
with charging stations on the second and third levels. The
containers and collection method are depicted in Figures 31
through 35. The site arrangement is shown in Figure 36, and
demographic and other data are given in Table 29.
FIGURE 31. Enclosure for four one-cu yd containers at the Seattle
site. The enclosure is located beside building.
99
-------
FIGURE 32. Internal picture of enclosure at the Seattle site.
Three containers are out of view to the right.
FIGURE 33. One-cu yd container from chute-fed refuse rooms
awaiting pickup at the Seattle site.
00
-------
FIGURE 34.
Closeup of one-cu yd containers from chute-fed
refuse room at the Seattle site.
FIGURE 35. Refuse collection at the Seattle site using a
rear-loading packer truck. The containers are
rolled to the truck, emptied, and returned.
101
-------
PEN W
1-CU
CONTA
MFLR
8 UNITS
MFLR
8 UNITS
SFA
12 UNITS
MFLR
4 UNITS
SFA
8 UNITS
CHUTE WITH
1-CU YD
CONTAINERS
SFA
10 UNITS
CHUTE WITH
1-CU YD
CONTAINERS
SFA
8 UNITS
FIGURE 36. Seattle Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location of refuse
chutes and containers.
102
-------
Table 29. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM DESCRIPTIVE
DATA FOR THE SEATTLE OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and type of dwelling units and occupancy:
Type No. Vacancies Residents
MFLR
SFA
20
38
19
1
50
156
Number occupied = 56 units
Number residents = 206 people
Site area =1.8 acres
Distribution of units to each refuse service point:
23 SFA units use 2 chutes feeding one-cu yd containers
35 SFA and MFLR units use four one-cu yd containers
located in the enclosure
Average number of units per service =
Average number of people per service =
Refuse System Description
19.7
68.7
The residents of the Seattle site deposit their refuse in
refuse chutes or in enclosed containers. Site personnel
replace full containers with empty containers under each
chute on a daily basis. Site personnel move the chute-fed
containers to the curbside twice a week for pickup by a
municipally contracted pickup service. Four one-cu yd
containers are located at each of the three services. The
pickup contractor moves containers from the enclosure to
empty. The contractor uses a rear-loading packer truck with
a driver and two helpers to collect refuse. The site is
serviced twice a week, and other urban areas are serviced
before and after servicing the site.
Economics Analysis
The economic data are tabulated in Table 30 in general form.
The refuse pickup and disposal costs account for 78 percent
of the costs in the system. The pickup and disposal costs are
fixed by city ordinance and are collected by the city. The
costs of various elements of the pickup service are estimated
from data obtained from discussions with city personnel and
the contractor and observation of the collection at the site.
The resulting costs of various
tion system are shown in Table
fees account for 70 percent of
the site.
elements of the refuse collec-
31. Labor costs and disposal
the refuse system expenses to
103
-------
Q O
2: Qi
O I LU
I Qi
O CQ
I O
O >-i
O I
OO UU
ZD Q-
Lu O
Lu
QL LU
OO OO
O
C_> LU
31
O h-
OO =C
-Q
to
cu -o
-Q C
O 13 r
-t-> 4- t
QJ , p-
cn 3 Q_
C TD - >i
r- -*->+->
_^ CO I !
EZ LO 13 LJ
O O- O "O O
. ^5 t- C i QJ
OJ CU
1/1 CJ>"
=1 S-
E LJ
OJ QJ
rj CL
CL QJ
104
-------
H- ro
LU
oo
^D
I i
LU
O^[
LU
LU H-
7t- HH
1 oo
U_ LU
O 1
1 .
00 1
i
0
4-1 )
c
CU i
O ro
S_ =5
cu c:
Q- C
^
cj-^i ^i c?^ c5-^ <3"^
LO LO CO i
i
r-- i i oj
C i
CU ro
r~ | ^
cn o
0) (
OO
1 0 LO 1
CM O O CO
CM r^. oo
(=0-
P-- I--- 00 i ^t-
CO OO CM , C£5
f> g\ ft
i i i
OO- -faO *<9-
oo
0
«d-
r\
00
<&
r
CM
r\
^$-
***
LO 1
CU
£
00
O <*Q
CO
-fa2}
v£> un
co r~^-
OO CO
fae- -
TD
c: cu
ro 4->
rO
1- r
o
CM O
O Q-l -09-
i r-^ oo i ^i-
CM OO LO i CO
cn oo i oo
* t\
i i
*>O- -faO- -tjO-
oo
CM
r-.
*
CM
*/>
*^D
CO
CO
OO
faO-
Q C_3
LU LU
h- _J
<; _i
^. o
I t C_^
1
00
LU
i
OO
CD
-Q
fO
H-
CO
O) a
CO
4->
CO
O
t_5
i^
ro
-4->
i
Q.
rO
0
4-> CD
CO 13 O_
S_ JZ
CU O "O
C O)
i CU CO
-^ ro co O
0 4-> 13 i
3 C M- 0
S- O CD C
H- C_) C£ LU
CO
CU
X
rO
h-
O)
O
ro
S-
3
co
(->
co
O
C_)
CT
C"
i
S-
5-
^3
O
CU
CCL
CO
i i
r\
CO
CD
CO
C
CD
O
i
1
CU
CO
4-*
CO
O
o
cu
o
c:
c:
cu
40
sr
i
ro
^*
T3
C
ro
cn
c
i
4-^
ro
c_
CU
Q.
O
u
c
to
cu
c
1
ro
c
ft
CO
-t_ )
CI
ro
U
s_
J3
3
r
f\
S- CO
O i
_Q CD
rO 3
_l U_
4->
CO
0
O
i
^-~
i
H-
T3 CO
C i
rr ro
i 4->
0
r
i
ro
40
O
h-
r
ro
~^
sz
c
-------
The site costs are $22.19 per capita per year as compared to
$12.08 in the adjusted national average for refuse collection
and disposal. The costs at the Seattle site are higher than
the national average. A comparison of the costs shows the
Seattle site expending $1.72 per capita per year for capital
costs and $20.47 per capita per year for operation and main-
tenance as compared to the adjusted national averages of
$3.04 per capita per year for capital costs and $9.04 per
capita per year for operation and maintenance costs.
Technical Analysis
An estimated 15.8 cu yd of refuse are collected each week
from the Seattle site. The technical data for refuse collec-
tion and disposal are summarized in Table 32 including
actual observations of the distance travelled, number of
stops, dwelling units serviced, crew size, refuse collected,
estimated volume, elapsed time, and labor time expenditures.
Waiting time is considered nonproductive time and is 22 percent
of the total labor spent in refuse collection activities.
Equipment Performance -
Suitabi1ity - The system design is very suitable and the
equipment is fully used and very satisfactory. There is
very little littering because the system is convenient and
easily cleaned.
Effectiveness - The system is very effective. Methods to
decrease cost could only occur if it were possible to
slightly change the service requirement. The four containers
in the enclosed pen must be serviced twice a week. The
chute-fed containers in refuse rooms could be serviced on a
once a week basis since the refuse is protected from weather,
is enclosed, and is not subject to causing odors in hot
weather. The refuse from the chutes could be handled by
once a week pickup with four one-cu yd refuse containers
provided under the refuse chute inside the community center.
The refuse from the outside chute could be handled by once a
week pickup with six one-cu yd refuse containers provided.
The costs of the pickup service would be reduced to $2,977
per year representing a savings of $708 per year. Assuming
this change were made, the resulting cost of collection and
disposal is $4.73 per cu yd. A comparison with the achieved
costs gives a high estimated effectiveness of 92 percent:
x 100 = 92%
106
-------
LO LO
~O ~O
QJ
E
i 4->
rO 1
O rO
h- El
C C
o o
O U O CJ
CO QJ CXJ QJ
O on r-- to
i i ro t
c c
E E
i/i
UJ
t
oo
LU
1
1
^i"
^"^
LU
OO "T""
^
1
UJ i t
in is
I
fV*
I- -
OO
LU LU
i i ^
1 0
1 I
> o
1 1 1
H-
<-J 00
^t r^1
o
Z: t-H 00
O 1 h-
i i C_3 1
h- LU rs
CJ <-3 OO
LU O LU
1 OL Cd
_ J D_
O _J
o :n
LU l~~l ' '
CO 3 1
u_ -^ '
Q- LU ~5*
3= «3
*- o
O) uj >
CX) "O CO "O
LO LO
i 13 i 13
0 U
l/l
-a
t/) cu
*-J
u
1/1 OJ
OJ E "
4_) -i_> o
i i i <-J
S- 5-
QJ QJ
C C
O ro CO ra
i -4-> i +->
C C
O 0
U CJ
(/)
S 0)
QJ QJ M
-C u oo
< CO
1
M-
O l/l
. . .^f
1 i 1 O C
LO LO
1
o -
O oo
CL
O
O +->
QJ "O
CJ QJ
C
ro QJ
-M >
l/l ro
i S-
Q h
o
-(-3
U
^" rO O"i
S-
O to
CJ QJ
,
QJ -^
r CJ E
QJ -r-
C S-
O CU O
to oo
s-
cu
CJ
>
S-
QJ
00
OJ QJ
0_ +J
QJ >
4- ) ,
i i-
OO Q-
LO
S-
13
CTv O
(_Q _C"
(
c
ro
E
to
^
LO O
1
c
ra
E
i/i
i_
zs
^- 0
LO JC
t
c
ro
E
LO
13
O
CO _C
1
s
E
!/)
LD S-.
CV1 Z3
O
^
cxj :=K,
CXI
CO 3
u
l/l
QJ
<-O ro
CO 4-o
CT> C
O
CJ
~o
to QJ
LO -r- S-
C QJ
rs LO
s-
LO >1
CO CL
U3 O ^
i/l CL
to
CU
ro -i-
E
^_
ro
QJ
fO
-M S_
O QJ
h- CL
Q.
O
CL tO ~O ~O "O T3
O >-, >-, >^ >-,
LO QJ 3 3 13 13
Q. U CJ CJ CJ
j_
CL QJ to S_ S- S- S-
O CL -M OJ QJ QJ QJ
-M -r- CL CL CL CL
LO t/l C
QJ 13 to tO to LO
i- -M QJ QJ QJ QJ
QJ 13 CD -M -M -M -M
Q_ C C ZJ ^3 ZJ ^3
i- -r C C C C
OJ i ^ E E i E
r CI QJ 1 1 1 1
r- fO S C C C C
E E ~O ro ro ro ro
E E E E
ro LO r^
o . o cxj r~- i
. co
O CXJ i LO O CO .
* ^
CO
"
CL
O
i/l
i
CO -t-J
- to
CL CO c
O * " QJ
to -M "O "O
-M oo CL >^
0 +->
13 S_ 4J -r- 13
oo QJ to c; cj
OJ CL 13 cn
ct: ^ s^ c cn
to JO QJ _Q IT CL.
>^ ., ro 5 rD ^~~^ ^~^
i ~o i "O i cn cn
ro cn c: c
C QJ QJ OJ QJ C -r- "1-
=< cn cn cn cn-r- ^c -M
O3 ro fO ro "O i "i
S- S- S- S- T- ro ra
QJ QJ QJ QJ rV ^E 22
i> > > >
«=C ct <=C =C
107
-------
Resident Acceptance - Residents use the system very effec-
tively and appear to accept the system. A resident survey
was conducted and a separate report^ presents the results.
In general, the survey concluded that the collection and
disposal system is adequate with 95 percent of the respon-
dents giving favorable responses; however, over half of
the respondents indicate potential personal hazards, pri-
marily from falls and criminal assaults, in the use of the
enclosed storage area. Site management expressed no overall
opinion about suitability, problems, or resident cooperation.
Site management did not mention any personal hazard occur-
rences.
Site Appearance -
The site appearance is excellent with respect to effects
from the refuse collection and disposal system as shown in
Figure 31. The only littering due to refuse facilities
appeared inside the enclosed storage pen and was minor
( see Fi gure 32).
Environmental Considerations -
Site appearance is excellent. In hot weather, residents
have complained of odors from containers in the enclosed
pen. No sanitation problems are apparent. Noise levels
when refuse is collected are negligible to the site.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the Seattle refuse collection system in economics,
effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
Economic Advantages -
Capital expenditures for the refuse system are low at $366
per year. There are no direct recurring costs.
Economic Disadvantages -
Refuse pickup and disposal costs are high at $3,686 per year
which is 78 percent of the total annual costs. These costs
could probably be reduced by once a week service to the
chute-fed containers. Such a change should not cause any
detrimental environmental effects to the site.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
Very little handling of refuse is necessary, and the system
is very effective. The cost effectiveness could be improved
108
-------
by once a week service of the chute-fed containers. Chute
containers are in locked rooms out of sight and safe from
vandalism. There should be no adverse effects from once
a week servi ce.
Efficiency, Advantages -
The system operates very efficiently and requires minimal
efforts from site personnel. The non-productive time ex-
penditures are low, and the system achieves 78 percent pro-
ductive utilization of labor time.
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
A three man collection crew was used and probably a one or
even two-man crew could satisfactorily empty the containers.
Waiting time occurs during truck compaction cycles and the
larger the crew size the higher the waiting time accrued.
Waiting time is non-productive and decreases the efficiency.
It is the collection crew waiting time that keeps the labor
utilization efficiency at 78 percent instead of a much high-
er value. The efficiency of the collection crew could be
improved at the site if a one or two-man crew was used in
place of the three-man crew; however, this reduction may
not be possible due to requirements for personnel when ser-
vicing urban areas other than the Operation Breakthrough site,
Environmental Considerations -
Advantages - The site appearance is excellent. Litter from
the refuse system is contained in the enclosed pen. The
noise during collection activities is minimal. There are no
apparent sanitation problems.
Disadvantages - Odors are prevalent in hot weather in the
enclosed pen which also suggests the possibility of insect
attraction.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The Sacramento site was visited on April 28, 29, and 30,
1975. The refuse management system consists of chute-fed
containers in t.wo MFHR buildings, trash cans inside redwood
pens for MFLR units and one SFA section, and backyard pickup
from the remainder of the site which includes SFA and SFD
units. The chute-fed containers, pens, and collection
methods are depicted in Figures 37 through 41. The site
arrangement is shown in Figure 42. The bite demographic
and other data are given in Table 33.
109
-------
to
j^ o S
c .c CO
S'^l
^ O co
, CD 0-
V 1 £
C S_ CD
"I o o
_[2 fd 4-> Q-
g O) O. o
TD5^'5-
V^-?fe
io1-1*-
tl C O) O)
5 -r- -C T3
-g-oh-
U i CO
Q-
(O
O
QJ
to
oo
110
-------
CU
S- 4J
O 'I-
q- 01
-O O
CU -I-5
01 E
3 CU
E
to ro
ro S-
O
t/> ro
E OO
ro
O
U
i CU
n3 to
O
E cn
(O !-
O S-
I
S- 4-> Q.
Z5 ro 3
O -^
<4- ^: o
Q-'r-
O) ro Q.
E S-
r- CD CU
E O S-
+> O
4- O M-
O -E CU
Q-JD
CU
E O) >>
O -E ro
I- T3
to
i- E
O
-E E
Q. O) -M
(O O.-1-
S- E
CD E 3
O ro
4-J O E
O I (O
-E X O
Q.-I- I
to S-
+-> 3
if- CU O
CU E 1-
i O
ro
CU to
-E ro "+-
I ^= O
00
CO
CD
111
-------
FIGURE 39. Typical backyard area of SFA units which are
serviced with backyard pickup at the
Sacramento site.
FIGURE 40. Two rear-loading packer vehicles and crew
which serviced the MFLR and most of the SFA
units at the Scaramento site. Note the tote
cans for collection and carrying refuse.
112
-------
o
0>
O> T-
O !
O)
CO
$_
O O)
o +->
d) co
CO
3 O)
M- -c:
s- ro
o
o
-o -
d) -t->
co o
Z3 O)
to
o
: oo
O)
c
o
c
ro
c
o
o -o
O)
O) co
-C 3
O)
s-
i- CO
I
T3
s- o
(O
O CO
-a
-o s-
E ro
fO >>
j^
X O
o
-------
SFD 20 UNITS
FIGURE 42. Sacramento Operation Breakthrough site
arrangement showing location and type
of services.
114
-------
Table 33. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR THE SACRAMENTO
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and type of dwelling units and occupancy:
Type No. Vacancies Residents
SFA 179\ 18 724
SFD 20 J
MFLR 96 1 178
MFHR 306 0 336
Number occupied: 582 units
Number residents: 1238 people
Distribution of units to each refuse service point:
28 MFLR seven days per week backyard service by site
personnel. Refuse is moved on a cart and placed in
containers inside MFHR building.
68 MFLR once a week municipal service from trash cans
in enclosed pens.
179 SFA once a week backyard municipal service.
20 SFD once a week backyard municipal service.
306 MFHR six days a week municipal service to six
containers.
Refuse System Description
Residents of the two MFHR buildings (306 units) remove boxes
and newspapers and place the remaining refuse into chutes
which feed two-cu yd containers (see Figure 37). Newspapers
and boxes are placed in the charging station closets on each
floor for collection each day by site personnel. Three
two-cu yd containers are provided in each MFHR buildings.
Two containers from each building are emptied each morning,
Monday through Saturday, by a municipal front loading packer
truck. Site personnel maintain refuse room cleanliness and
change containers under the chutes.
Residents of 28 MFLR units have refuse picked up from their
yards in the mornings, Monday through Saturday, by a site
employee who hauls the refuse to a MFHR building and places
the refuse in one of the containers (see Figure 41).
115
-------
Residents of 68 MFLR units place their refuse in 42 trash
cans located four to a pen in nine enclosed redwood pens
and six in a tenth pen. The pens are located near parking
lots and along sidewalks (see Figure 38). The cans are
emptied once a week by a municipal service using a rear
loading packer truck (see Figure 40).
Residents of 179 SFA and 20 SFD units place refuse into
cans or bags located in areas provided in the courts in
back or front of their homes. The city provides backyard
pickup services to empty the cans once a week (see Figures
39 and 40). Two rear loading packer trucks are used with a
total crew size of three men.
Based on observations for one day, approximately 101.6 cu
yd of loose refuse are collected from the 582 dwelling units
and disposed. For a total unit occupancy of 601 dwelling
units, the volume of refuse would be estimated as 105.8 cu
yd per week or about 5500 cu yd per year.
Economic Analysis
The economic data are given in Table 34 in general form.
The city collection and disposal fees for the site account for
for 71 percent of the annual costs to the site. The cost
elements making up the city fees were not furnished by the
city; therefore, the cost elements are estimated from data
obtained from discussions with city personnel and observa-
tions of refuse collection and disposal. The estimated ex-
penses of the elements are shown in Table 35. The labor
costs and dump fees are estimated to account for 79 percent
of the costs associated with refuse system at the site. The
Sacramento site costs are $11.34 per capita per year versus
the national average of $12.08 per capita per year.
Technical Analysis
The technical data collected during the three-day observa-
tion period are displayed in Table 36. The data are for
the site at the 97 percent occupancy level. The estimated
weekly volume of refuse is 101.6 cu yd which corresponds to
an annual volume of about 5300 cu yd. The volume was esti-
mated by counting tote-can loads placed on trucks by the
crew and by observing the volume in the containers. There
is no waiting time associated with the refuse collection
methods. The crew loads refuse into the rear loading pack-
ing trucks, starts the packing cycle, and continues to
collect refuse while the trucks are completing a packing
cycle. Refuse is disposed in a city owned landfill. Crew
116
-------
r- S-
CL. ro
^ (13 CU
ro u >i
O LU
LU D-
_l O
I I
O O I
O t 1-1
z: oo
LU LU
oo s: :
rD
r S- C -t^ C
117
-------
E
CD i
O 03
5- 3
CD E
Q. E
a:
CM
CO
CM CM
CO
o
o
1
1 1
oo
oo P
LU H-
oo z
ZUJ
UJ s=
o- ?S
x o^
LU CJ
| CO
^ 1 1 1
^y T*
^y» [
^^
| .
LJ_ =t
0 |
oo ^
i oo
Eo
li l Q_
S <"
CD i i
1 1 1 O
O Z
LU =t
*^ 2:
m O
^~ t~H
o i
LiJ
. i
LO O
OO C-J
QJ LU
r-- 00
^) ^~~j
frt iJ--
I [_jj
Cy"
rv
O
U.
+->
C r-
OJ fO
p~ 1 ^
en o
CD 1
oo
CD
- ^ !
CO 00
r
CO
03
CO
LO
1 . CD
cn 4J
t to
>
t- 'r
(V i-
r*i o
O
O
O
co P-. CM cn oo cr>
«3" O OO 1^
CO S- JE E S-
O CD C_> 03 03
U E O O
CO !- CD
r ^. 03 CO ^. ^.
03 O +-> 3 co CO
4-> 3 E M- 03 03
r- S- O CD i- S-
Q. ( CJ Qi H- H-
03
0
i^. cn to LO o to
O LO LO LO 1 CO
CM f^ CM tO tO "^t"
to «d~ i "=d-
^ f~
bO- -faO- -faO- -fa^V
O LO OO 00 CM
OO LO CO ^J-
O i
n r» *i
OO OO *3- tO
b^ (bO^ -bO- CO
<^J-
"
03 03 03 03 r^-
1^ =!- OO LO CM ^|- -bO-
o CM o LO co ^a-
CM r^ i to *d~ oo
*1 ^ «\ »\
OO «d- CO O
r
bO- -faO- -faO- -bO-
co
+~>
CO
o
CJ
CD
o
C"
03
CD E
O CD
E 4->
03 E
i- *l~"
3 03
co co ^1
4_J t~
co i-. -o
O E
CJ ** O3
CO
CD CD E
E CO O
r- E -i-
i- CD -M
S- O 03
3-i- S-
O 1 CD
CD Q.
ce. o
T3 tO
E CD
03 -i-
r
« O-
CO Q.
4-5 ^
E CO
03
O CD tO
- O CD
S- E CD
_Q 03 M- r
3 E 03
i CD i +J
4-> r 0
" E -r- I
S- CO ! f-
O i 03 "O co i
J2 O) E E r 03
03 3 03 03 13
1 Lu _l -i-> E
O E
to
+->
t/1
0
O
T3
CD
4_>
03
_E
+J
CO
LU
1
03
118
-------
C ^^. CJ
CD CJ) C
E C r-
CD - '
UJ i C
ro rO
QJ 3 1C
OO
UJ
1 1
_lp^
*^ *;
1 H
I Q.
O ^D
<=t i^ OO
0 1-1
"Z. i i OO
O Q- =f
ii CO
H- UJ
o 2: _i
Ul O e£
O O ^
OU.eC
Ul UJ "Z.
00 h- -=C
^D I I
U- OO O
i i i i
U4-I f~~
O£ O
1- 00
uj ui o
> s: i i
a: < i
ui o; c_5
oo o ui
CQ eC r^
O 00 O
QC
ui a.
^ I
ro
1
OJ «C
r*
_Q
fO
H-
oo
-o
C
1 0
o c o
i ro QJ
LD E »/>
E
1 CJ
1 C
1 I-
1 "O
i Cr=
-a
C
1 O
O C <-J
CM rQ CD
r- E M
|
i -a
1 CD
I Q
I ro
1 UJ
oo
c:
O
LO U
i QJ
on oo
~a
CD
4-> QJ
ro E
E =>
-M 0
UJ
-a
ro
3 +J
(_j o
OD
-a
(D
QJ CD
0
*-*
3 CD
CD N
!_ i-
C_J L/l
QJ
C
*'S
o
o
CXJ
O oo
0 C
^ Z3
CL
O
a +->
o
ro
CD
QJ
s-
0)
CL
00 00
CD QJ
E
"O
O c
O 1 O
^0 c: u
- ro CD
CO E oo
0
M
O C
0 i 0
UD C 0
- ro CD
CO E i/l
O
oo
-^3
O C
0 0
<^o cj
" CD
CO 00
a -a
0 >>
i 3
o
t-^ en
fO
_Ct
,
CO
CXI
0
CD
CXI
,
^f
fD
1 S_ S-
CO C 3 !- ,
0
00
1 S- S-
U3 E -d CL >>
oo
1 S- S-
C D S- fO
CXi E _£Z O. >,
S- i-
CTi O QJ CD
«* -d Q. >,
O -o
0 >5 S-
" ^ CD QJ
<-i~> 0 CL >,
CD
CD O
CD -Q
oo ro
QJ
CD O
CD -O
oo ro
CXJ
CO
£
ro
QJ 4-
E CX)
* -
i LO
CD -
^ ^
5- fO
a 3
4-> S-. rO
O CD OJ
t CL >,
s_
oo
o_
0
-1-1
?
-(-1
s
O-
o
CD
a.
4-
i
CO
^
3
i
CD
C
0
i/l
CD
CL
oo - -
3
D \ CL
CD CL +->
err o oo -a
-I-1 0- >!
i oo O S-
(O -t-1 CD 13
U CTi OO Q. O
>-, CLJ -*-1 CD CD
S- =3 C =3
-a c .- c
00 E ' E
CD 1 CD 1
r c 3 c
E E E
i IJD -CO
. O
o en cxj r--
en
CXI
Q-
O
Ol CD
O- O-
o
CO -t-1
.. Cr. oo
CLCO C
O - CD
+-> "O "O
o +-1
CD 00 C LJ
o_ n
CD QJ en CD
u CL c CL
re <~ i ^
-M O i O
to _d CD -Q
r- ro 5 ro
-o . -a .
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
i-S.J-5
~a -o "O
>^ >^ >^
^ ^ 13
CJ O O
S- S- S-
QJ QJ CD
Q- CL Q_
00 00 00
QJ QJ CD
4_> 4-) -(->
z; n =3
c sz c
^ -i r
1 1 1
c ^ e
E E E
CO LT> O
0 r
CJ)
c: CJi
- c
-a ^^
H U
(O fO
:r a.
. . en en
en c c
tZ -r- -r-
-o i i-
o; 3 3
119
-------
time and distance to the landfill were not determined be-
cause additional refuse was collected at other urban lo-
cations after completion of a pickup at the site.
Equipment Performance -
Suitabi1ity - The equipment appear very suitable for the
designed refuse system at the site. Only one problem was
apparent. Some of the trash cans in the redwood pens be-
come overloaded between pickups; however, some of the other
cans were empty. Pen locations could have caused the
problem. Proper location of the pens might provide better
distribution of refuse among the cans.
Effectiveness - The effectiveness is good. It is doubtful
that the costs could be reduced without altering the refuse
system design. The overloading of some refuse pens might be
eliminated by relocating some pens to supplement the pens in
the heavily used areas.
Resident Acceptance - The residents use the system. Very
little littering was visible. Residents utilizing two pens
have complained about overloading of the trash cans. A
separate report^ presents the results of a survey of resi-
dents with regard to refuse management practices at the site,
The survey indicates problems with refuse scattering, un-
collected refuse, and a shortage of containers. Forty per-
cent of the respondents in general feel that refuse storage
and disposal is inadequate.
Site Appearance -
The site appearance with respect to the refuse system is ex-
cellent. Littering is minimal. The refuse pens blend into
the site fairly well. Figures 37 through 41 show that site
appearance in refuse equipment areas is excellent. The
problems indicated in the survey of residents were not
apparent when data were collected for the economic and tech-
nical evaluations.
Environmental Considerations -
The site appears excellent in consideration of the environ-
mental aspects of aesthetics, odors, sanitation, and noise.
The only problem was odors from pens in hot weather.
120
-------
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the Sacramento site refuse collection system in
economics, effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental
effects.
Economic Advantages -
The site is economical at $11.34 per capita per year and
favorably compares with the $1?.08 national average.
The costs are:
$14,486 per year for the site
$24.10 per dwelling unit per year
$11.34 per capita per year
$2.63 per cu yd
Capital costs are minimal for the refuse system and compare
favorably with the national averages.
Economic Disadvantages -
The operation and maintenance costs are high at $13,532 per
year. The cost of collection and disposal of refuse repre-
sents $10,344 or 71 percent of the total annual costs.
Estimates of elements of the city charges and observed site
labor utilization show that labor is $6,759 (47 percent) and
that landfill fees are $4,655 (32 percent)of the total
annual costs.
Effectiveness, Advantages -
Refuse is effectively collected and disposed. Very little
handling of refuse is required. Once a week backyard ser-
vise appears very effective for the site. Resident accep-
tance of the system appears excellent.
Effectiveness, Disadvantages -
Some of the refuse pens are overloaded possibly due to the
pen location. Additional pens and trash cans or more fre-
quent servicing might solve the problem.
Efficiency, Advantages -
Though considerable walking time is required, non-productive
time does not occur; therefore, personnel utilization is ex-
cellent. The refuse collected per unit time and per man-
121
-------
hour is 0.1 cu yd per minute of elapsed time and 0.1 cu yd
per man-minute. The refuse collected per mile driven is 3.2
cu yd per mile.
Efficiency, Disadvantages
Backyard collection requires considerable walking. Refuse
collectors walk 56,183 feet per year to collect the refuse.
The refuse collected per foot walked is about 0.1 cu yd per
foot. The effectiveness and efficiency of collection in
terms of cost are high, but the volume of refuse collected
per unit of time appears low which is due to the backyard
collection activities required to service 295 dwelling
units.
Environmental Considerations, Advantages -
Site aesthetics are excellent. Noise associated with
collection activities is minimal. In general, very few
odors occur. Very little refuse handling is required.
Littering is minimal. There are no sanitation problems.
Environmental Considerations. Disadvantages -
Odors occur in hot weather from overloaded pens.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
The King County site was visited on April 14, 15, and 16,
1975, for the collection of technical and economic data for
analysis of the refuse management system. In addition, a
study of trash can collection versus plastic bag collection
was conducted at the site from April 17 through May 14.
The conduct and results of that study are presented in the
following section of this report.
The refuse management system consists of once a week curb-
side pickup for SFA and SFD units and once a week container
pickup for MFLR units. The pickup service is provided by
resident contract with a private service contractor or the
resident disposes refuse at a county transfer station. The
refuse system is depicted in Figures 43 through 46. The
site arrangement is shown in Figure 47. The site demo-
graphic and other data are given in Table 37.
'122
-------
FIGURE 43. Refuse (trash) cans set curbside by residents of
SFD units at the King County Operation
Breakthrough site.
FIGURE 44. Refuse (trash) cans left curbside behind SFA units
at the King County Operation Breakthrough site.
123
-------
FIGURE 45. Typical of three two-cu yd containers used by MFLR
residents at the King County Operation Breakthrough
site.
FIGURE 46. Refuse collection crew and 25-cu yd packer truck
at the King County Operation Breakthrough site.
124
-------
8 MFLR
D
10 SFA
LEGEND
Container, 2-cu yd.
SFA and SFD units
have curbsid-e pickup
as follows:
SFD
9 SI
FIGURE 47. King County Operation
Breakthrough site arrangement.
125
-------
Table 37. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
DESCRIPTIVE DATA FOR THE KING COUNTY OPERATION
BREAKTHROUGH SITE
Number and type of dwelling units and occupancy:
Type No. Vacancies Residents (estimated)
SFA 80 0 327
SFD 74 1 304
MFLR 24 0 68
Number occupied: 177 units
Number residents: 699 people
Site area: 35.9 acres
Distribution of units by type of service:
Type of Service
118-SFA/SFD 487 people Curbside subscriber service - by
private contracts, once a week
35-SFA/SFD 114 people Haul their own refuse away
1-SFD Vacant
24-MFLR 68 people Use three two-cu yd containers,
group service by private contrac-
tors, once a week
Average number of units per service:
SFA/SFD 1 unit per service
MFLR 8 units per service
126
-------
Refuse System Description
Residents of the SFA and SFD dwelling units place refuse in
trash cans which are set curbside. Residents of the MFLR
units place refuse in three two-cu yd containers which are
located in the parking areas adjacent to the units. The
cans and containers are serviced once a week by a private
contractor. The service is contracted by each SFA and SFD
homeowner. Thirty-five SFA and SFD homeowners do not par-
ticipate, and they dispose refuse at the county transfer
station. The MFLR residents pay for the container service
as a group. One SFD unit was vacant and no service was
provided.
A crew of two men from the private service contractor
collects refuse in a 25-cu yd packer truck on a once a week
basis. The two-cu yd containers are equipped to be emptied
by the same truck. Refuse is collected by the contractor on
the basis of two cans emptied once a week. Bags may be
substituted but the bag or can size must average about 32
gallons and be placed within 25 feet of the curb. The truck
services other residential areas before and after servicing
the site. Refuse is dumped at a county provided transfer
station.
Economic Analysis
The economic data are given in Table 38 in general form. The
private service contractor accounts for 44 percent of the
costs to the site. The costs of various elements making up
the price of the service contractor may be estimated from
data obtained from discussions with the service contractor
and from observations of refuse collection and disposal.
The estimated costs of the private contractor service and
individuals providing their own service is shown in Table
39. Eighty-five percent of the costs are for dump fees,
labor and costs of automobiles used by individuals for
disposal of refuse. If all residents subscribed to the
private contract service, the costs would be reduced to
values shown in Table 40. The site costs are $13.65 per
capita per year compared with an adjusted national average
of $12.08 per capita per year.
Technical Analysis
The private contractor services the site once a week with
a 25-cu yd packer truck and a two-man crew. Other residen-
tial areas are serviced before and after the site is ser-
viced. When full, the truck is emptied at a county trans-
fer station.
127
-------
o
ou
S- CM S-
Q- --
-
s-
QJ
- Q-
t- S- .
-
ro S- S-
i 0) CJ
b=> Q. Q.
O
CD
s_ >-
O. i-
00
(X
OO UJ
oo
uj <:
o OQ
o
UJ O
oo'
CL.
u. o
o
oo
o
CJ
oo
oo
CD
S
c o
ct <_>
r- >P1
LO
CTl 00
. 4->
01
O
O
O
(13
S-
OJ
O-) S- S-
LO QJ CJ
v> CL a.
O !-
LO
- t.
CO t^
f tn
CN] CNJ
O CO
0 >
3- o
CO CN1
«- fO
_Q O
o
ai
a.
o
a> cu
on u
-o aj T-
oo cu >
ai i- s-
r 0)
i- i on
-Q i
O !- 0)
o -a 3
4-> C M-
=J re cj
ic C S- E
o TD -u
C T- 10 S-
O 4-> 00 O CJ CJ
i- «> s- . c a.
>-> c cj o
CJ rt5 -Q CJ LO
co a- s- ^ +->
i- .a s-
s- 3
(J C > i CNJ ro
on o i- n3 i E
I- -i- CJ 4-> (-
O 4-J 3 V)
OJ 0} i- O CJ
S- OO O 4- J3
ra -M o re on
CJ U 4->
on (U fO cu oo 01
i-OO S- 4-> -i- O
LO
OJ
c
o
E
-a
OJ
C
fO
o
IT)
o
o
3
+->
a.
o
rcf i c: -i- cj c
4- - -u i cu oo c
E TO - T3 4J O
I -O O -M O. E -i- -r- !-
(J i- O Q- - 00 00
OD1ID-M-O QJS-i
CCJ COM-CJi i-
C -r- >,CNI 3 r .1- O- CJ
C S- i Di O LO -V
O > <1J ^-~ ^^ J- (^ CO O
4-> t/1 D-1 fO CJ CD
( 4_) ^j c^-J 5 .
on on "O i CJ n3 >^fa^- i
on LO oj E 4-> s- o
CJ C71 -i- C !-! CJ TIJ
iCJi Q.OOO -»~
Eui
OJ QJ to
ru c_j 4-> 4->
3 QJ -r-
o- > c s- -. _ . .
r- 3 QJ S-
~O t|_ _^ o_ QJ QJ C3
QJ I QJ S- C S- *^-
> >, QJ QJ ^- -i- rtJ
S- +-> 3 Q_O fO 4J
to T- s- o CNJ c: OJ
128
-------
Table 39. COMBINED SEGMENTS OF ANNUAL EXPENSES
FOR REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AT THE
KING COUNTY SITE
Private
Site
Segment.
Total
Percent of
Annual Total
Capital Costs:
Truck
Containers (3)
Automobiles
Trash cans
$ 445
12
$ 457
$2,184
375
$2,559
$ 445
12
2,184
375
$3,016
5%
23
4
32%
Recurring Costs:
Licenses, Taxes,
Insurance
Sales Tax
$ 44
487
$ 531
$ 44
$ 487
$ 531
Operation and
Maintenance Costs:
Labor
Fuels and
Maintenance
Landfill fees
$2,116
5
1,096
$3,217
$1,092
1,684
$2,776
$2,116
1,097
2,780
$5,993
22%
11
29
62%
Totals:
$4,205
$5,335
$9,540
Annual Total
$9,540
100%
129
-------
Table 40. COSTS OF RFFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AT THE
KING COUNTY SITE ASSUMING THAT ALL RESIDENTS
SUBSCRIBE TO THE PRIVATE CONTRACT COLLECTION
SERVICE
Cost Per Cost Per Cost Per
Annual DU Per Yr Cap. Per yr Cu Yd (2100
Costs (177) (699) cu yd/yr)
Capital Costs:
Trash cans $ 375 $ 2.12 $0.54 $0.18
Recurring Costs: 000 0
Operating and
Maintenance Costs:
Refuse service $6.203 $35.05 $8.87 $2.95
Total Annual Costs: $6,578 $37.17 $9.41 $3.13
An estimated 33-cu yd of loose refuse are collected each
week by the private contractor from 142 dwelling units at
the site. The annual estimated load is 1700-cu yd of loose
refuse for the 142 units. Assuming an equal load of 12-cu
yd per year per dwelling unit for the forty-three non-
subscribing units, the non-subscribing residents dispose
of about 400-cu yd of refuse by hauling refuse to the
county transfer station in personal automobiles. The
collection of refuse by the private contractor was observed
and the technical data collection and analysis are for the
private contract service. Non-subscribers were not ob-
served disposing their own refuse. The technical data for
refuse collection and disposal are summarized in Table 41
including distance travelled, number of stops, dwelling
units serviced, crew size, refuse collected, estimated
volume, elapsed time, and labor time expenditures. Table 41
includes observed data of service to 142 dwelling units. The
non-productive time is waiting and packing time and is five
percent of the total man-time utilized in collection acti-
vities.
Equipment Performance -
The refuse system does not utilize site-owned equipment. The
following comments are directed to the refuse system as
observed more than to equipment.
130
-------
CO
UJ
OL
LU
o
-
O
o o
LU
_l Q
O
CJ
DL,
. ID
^
O
f-H
i Q.
ce.
Q ;
o: o;
LU O
oo i
CO
O LU
CD :
rd
O -r- r-
O- CL
00
-*-> -O
CL 5*,
O
+-= S- =3
O)
Q.
OJ
E E
i CO
o o
c Ot c:
ro 5 ITS
E T> E
s- s- s-
CU , .. -o -^
) -w cn c: u
> -i 3 C 05 fO
i c: y -r- ic a.
t_ i s~
O r O
_Q O) -D
fO 5
-------
Sui tabi1i ty - Curbside once a week collection provides a
very suitable refuse collection and disposal system. The
thirty-five homeowners who dispose refuse on their own can
only be a suitable arrangement if they can dispose refuse
while away from home enroute to perform other necessary
duties. The landfill fees actually prohibit the cost
effectiveness of individual refuse disposal. With auto-
mobile costs, the individual approach accrues an estimated
$11.63 per month per dwelling unit as compared to the $2.75
per month charge of the private service contractor.
Effectiveness - If all homeowners on the site subscribed to
the private contractor service, the costs of refuse collec-
tion and disposal would be $3.13 per cu yd as compared to an
estimated current cost of $4.54 per cu yd. The cost effec-
tiveness of the current system is 55 percent:
/4.54-3.13\
' \ 3.13 /
x 100 = 55 percent
Under-utilization of the curbside pickup service causes a
low effectiveness of the refuse system.
Resident Acceptance - Residents complain of lack of suffi-
cient trash can storage volume for refuse. The refuse
pickup contractor allows two average trash cans per week for
the $2.75 ($2.92 adjusted to October '1975 basis) charge per
month. A separate report? discusses the attitudes of resi-
dents at the King County site with respect to the refuse
management system. The conclusions of the report indicate
that 28 percent of the residents reported inadequate disposal
services and facilities primarily due to trash can over-
loading, scattering of refuse by household pets, and odors.
In addition the residents indicate a lack of responsiveness
to complaints made to the private service contractor. Ob-
servations over the three-days at the site revealed none of
the problems reported in the survey.
Si te Appearance -
The site appearance could be improved if residents removed
trash cans from curbside after refuse has been collected.
Particularly in the SFA dwellings, residents have trash cans
curbside at all times (see Figure 44). SFD unit residents
remove trash cans from the curbs and store out of view.
There was practically no littering as the result of the
refuse system.
132
-------
Environmental Considerations -
The trash cans left curbside detract from appearance and are
subject to external problems with insects, odors, and
animals; however, observations revealed no environmental
problems. There is noise associated with refuse collection
but the disturbance is minimized by limited time on-site
only once a week. Odors and sanitation problems were not
evident.
Results
The results are presented as the advantages and disadvantages
of the King County site refuse collection system in econo-
mics, effectiveness, efficiency, and environmental aspects.
Economic Advantages -
The site as designed has only the costs of trash cans and
collection service. The cost of refuse collection and
disposal could be low at $3.13 per cu yd if all homeowners
subscribed to the collection service. Also, if all sub-
scribed, the refuse collection and disposal would compare
favorably with the national average for the service.
Economic Disadvantages -
The observed site accrues $13.65 per capita per year which
is greater than the national average of $12.08 per capita
per year. The 35 homeowners who dispose of their own refuse
create the high cost situation. Their reasoning for per-
forming their own disposal is unknown.
Effectivneess , Advantages -
Refuse is effectively collected and disposed. If properly
utilized, the cost effectiveness would be excellent.
Effectiveness, Disadvantages^ -
The system is only 55 percent cost effective because the
system is not fully utilized.
Efficiency, Advantages -
The collection of refuse averages 3.4 man-minutes per cu yd
of refuse. Personnel utilization is excellent with 95
percent of labor time spent in productive collection acti-
vities and 5 percent in non-productive activities.
133
-------
Efficiency, Disadvantages -
The only disadvantage with respect to efficiency is the
disposal of refuse by some residents who do not subscribe to
the private collection service.
Environmental Considerations -
Advantages - Odors are minimal. There are no sanitation
problems. Noise is minimal. There is very little litter-
i ng.
Pisadvantages - Refuse cans are left curbside behind most
SFA unitsjconsequently, the aesthetics are not as good as
possible. Some odors occur at the 2-cu yd containers in hot
weather.
KING COUNTY PLASTIC BAG STUDY
The King County site SFA and SFD dwelling units were divided
into two sections for a study of the curbside collection of
trash cans versus plastic bags. Half of the dwelling units
were furnished plastic bags for residents to line trash cans
and set the filled bags curbside on collection day. The
residents of the other half of the dwelling units used their
trash cans in the normal manner. The site was observed from
April 14 through May 14. Detailed time and motion record-
ings were conducted during refuse collection on April 23,
May 7, and May 14. Figures 48 through 51 show bagged refuse
set curbside awaiting pickup. Figure 52 shows the site
arrangement and indicates the areas using plastic bags and
trash cans. The results are given as a comparison between
the halves of the site with respect to economics, collection
efficiency, site appearance, user preference, and the en-
vironmental considerations of odors, noise, sanitation, and
aesthetics.
Economic Comparison
The only economic difference between the two halves of the
site is the use of plastic bags. During the study period an
average of 94 plastic bags were used each week by 61 partici
pating homeowners. Three-mil thick, 32-gallon bags with
ties were furnished for use by the residents. The bags
retailed for $1.34 ($1.42 adjusted to October 1975 basis)
for a box of eight in the King County area. A cost compari-
son on a per dwelling unit basis follows and assumes that
the homeowner pays for the cost of the plastic bags and will
only need one trash can. The homeowner using plastic bags
134
-------
FIGURE 48.
Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
122ND Court, King County, Washington
FIGURE 49. Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
122ND Court, King County, Washington
135
-------
FIGURE 50. Bagged refuse set curbside for pickup,
NE 149th Place, King County, Washington
FIGURE 51
Bagged refuse
NE 150th Street,
set curbside for pickup,
King County, Washington
136
-------
6 SFD
8 MFLR
6 SFD
LEGEND
8 SFD
9 SFD
CONTAINER, 2 CU-YD
SFA AND SFD UNITS HAVE
CURBSIDE PICKUP AS
FOLLOWS:
| PLASTIC BAGS
i TRASH CANS
] NOT PARTICIPATING
FIGURE52. Site arrangement showing units
participating in the plastic bag versus trash can
study at the King County site.
137
-------
at the King County site pays an average of $17.41 per year
more than the homeowners using trash cans.
57 Homes 61 Homes
Using Trash Cans Using Plastic Bags
(Per Dwelling Unit) (Per Dwelling Unit)
Capital Costs:
Cans
Recurring Costs:
$ 2.10 per year $ 1.05 per year
0 0
Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Plastic Bags
Private Contract $35.04 per year
Total Annual Costs:
$18.46 per year
$35.04 per year
$37.14 per DU/yr $54.55 per DU/yr
Technical Comparison
The technical comparison between plastic bags and trash cans
considers efficiency, site appearance, user preference, and
environmental effects.
Efficiency -
The data were collected by observing refuse collection from
April 14 to May 14, 1975. The results are presented in
Table 42. The results are compared for efficiency of
service on the basis of several calculations:
Average elapsed time
per stop
Average distance
between stops
Average labor per
stop
Average dwelling
unit density
Average labor per
item collected
Average labor per cu
yd of refuse
Riding:
Walking/Handling:
Waiting/Packing:
Plastic Bags
1.5 minutes per stop
469 feet per stop
3.0 man-minutes per
stop
4.4 units per stop
0.4 man-minutes per
bag
2.9 man-minutes per
cu yd
0.8 man-minutes per
cu yd
2.0 man-minutes per
cu yd
0.1 man-minutes per
cu yd
138
Trash Cans
3.2 minutes per stop
283 feet per stop
3.3 man-minutes per
stop
3.4 units per stop
0.6 man-minutes per
can
4.4 man-minutes per
cu yd
0.9 man-minutes per
cu yd
3.0 man-minutes per
cu yd
0.5 man-minutes per
cu yd
-------
oo
00
ra
oo
cc
UJ
>-
cs
CO
o
I
oo
_J O
D- O
U_ CD
o;
I
00
O UJ
o: rolun
en co r-.
en io
QJ
£ u
o
o
O CM folLO
CO CJi IT) CM
-o
I/! QJ
4-1 >
i t.
C O)
r^ CM cnlco
d- LT) CM CM
QJ
QJ C
> «3
1- ol
O
i+_ 4- 4_ 4_
i£) CO LD
i_n «* i r
r. f f f
LO u^ ro co
<
QJ
>r_
ol
O-
o
t/1
O
4-
o
01
QJ
s-
CJ
fO
CO
QJ
4->
(Q
O
CJ
4_)
(O
^^00^
Lf) LO LT)
1 1 1 i
1 i 1 0
D-l «^f LO LO |
3
LO
'"-
3
^
S
4-J
CO
LO
*
3
QJ
a.
r-.
cn
QJ
cn
fQ
QJ
<:
a
U CO O U3|"d- -^
---. co cn cn r- a
r--. CT>
-o
>,
3 cn co CO|LO
u LO uo ID r-~. -x.
CO
«d- LH
-o
3 ^.
o o *± cn co 4J
-^ O "£> LO CM 4-
4-> cn VD i r^
4_ « * « ^ eg
rr i o-,
d- ^T
QJ
-D 4->
>, -i
CJ 4
^. o
cn 1/1
O QJ
S-
fO
-D QJ C
>, 01 ftJ
13 O
=3 M-
0 QJ J=
QJ <4- S-
3
S-
r-~- CM rolcM QJ
CM CM)Ln Q-
<-o
LO LO LO QJ
1 1 1 i fO
CM i4-l QJ
1 1 1 O >
D-O t ^-LOLT»l et
-a
U
r-.
"D
>,
U
U1
*
T3
U
4-
CO
ro
"D
3
O
^
r--.
-a QJ
>, 01
=3 4-
CJ OJ
QJ 4-
O- O
139
-------
The results favor the use of the plastic bags in all re-
spects. A statistical comparison of items collected per
unit time and per man-minute was conducted to insure that
the data sample was sufficient to show significant differ-
ence between the results. Figure 53 illustrates the ob-
served total elapsed time per item collected. Figure 54
illustrates the observed total man-time per item collected.
At the 0.05 level of significance, the means are signifi-
cantly different; therefore, the observed data was suffi-
cient in quantity to distinguish the differences between the
total times of refuse collectione either by cans or bags.
The time expended in performing various collection activities
are depicted in Figure 55 for collection of cans and plastic
bags. The average times show that considerable labor sav-
ings result when using plastic bags. The handling and
walking time are 9.6 man-seconds per item lower and the
waiting and packing time is 4.0 man-seconds per item lower
for plastic bags than for trash cans resulting in a total of
13.6 man-seconds per item saving or a 35 percent reduction
in labor requirements per item collected excluding riding
time. The reduction in labor per unit of refuse volume is
1.4 man-minutes per cu yd (31 percent) less for bags than
for cans excluding riding time.
The labor utilization efficiency is higher for the plastic
bag collection than for the trash can collection. As shown
in Figure 55, only 0.4 man-seconds per plastic bag is non-
productive as opposed to 4.4 man-seconds per can. This
results from once-only handling of refuse in bags and the
elimination of spreading the refuse into the loading chamber
of the packer truck. Bags are picked up and placed into the
chamber, and bags contain the refuse during packing opera-
tions. Also, several bags can be picked up at one time
whereas cans require emptying one at a time and returning to
curbside. When a tote can is used, the trash cans are
emptied into the tote can. The tote can is carried to the
truck and emptied; however, the refuse must be spread into
the packer chamber to prevent overflow. Refuse collection
in the plastic bag experiment resulted in 98 percent effi-
cient utilization of labor for productive collection activi-
ties whereas collection af standard trash cans utilized
labor at 85 percent efficiency. Collection of refuse in
plastic bags resulted in less time per stop and longer
distances between stops because more refuse could be handled
on each trip to curbside by the crew at each stop. Thirty-
one percent (2.9 vs. 4.4 man-minutes per cu yd) less labor
was required per cu yd for curbside pickup of plastic bags
than for trash cans.
140
-------
600
500
CO
-a
E
o
o
-------
CO
-a
o
o
(0
£
O
CO
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Trash Cans /
~ Mean Time = 37.9 man-seconds/can
One Standard Deviation = 11.1 man-seconds
53 observations.
Plastic Bags
Mean Time = 23.0 man-seconds/bag
Standard Deviation = 9.8 man-seconds
30 observations
8 10 12 14 16
QUANTITY OF ITEMS
18 20 22 24
FIGURE 54. Observed total man-time to collect refuse in
trash cans and plastic bags. Total man-time includes
time spent riding-, handling and walking, waiting, and packing
142
-------
to
-a
c
o
(J
O)
rt)
or
c
CQ
40
30
20
Total =
37.9 man-seconds/can
4.4
TRASH
CANS
Riding
Waiting & Packing
Waiki ng & Hand!ing
Total = 23.0 man-seconds/bag
0.4
PLASTIC
BAGS
FIGURE 55. Average man-time spent on collection
activities for trash cans and plastic bags.
143
-------
If costs were reduced because of the labor reduction through
the use of plastic bags, collection labor would be reduced
31 percent. This savings if translated to resident costs
would result in a new cost to the resident of $2.47 per
month for refuse collection or $29.64 per dwelling unit per
year. Overall refuse system costs for plastic bag users
would become $49.15 per dwelling unit per year as opposed to
the actual cost of $54.55 per dwelling unit per year. The
costs would still exceed the cost of $37.14 per dwelling
unit per year for use of standard trash cans.
An additional benefit to the resident occurs through the use
of plastic bags. The resident sets the bag curbside where
it is picked up leaving no can to be returned to the home
which is a particularly positive benefit to households where
no one is home to retrieve the can. Also, the can, if used
inside the home, does not become dented and desecrated by
collection activities.
Site Appearance -
The use of plastic bags in the SFA areas of the site re-
sulted in no difference to site appearance; however, a
better site appearance resulted from the use of plastic bags
in the SFD areas. Residents of the SFA housing have a
concrete pad provided next to carports along the parking
areas; consequently, the SFA residents leave trash cans
curbside at all times whether lined with plastic bags or un-
lined. Residents of SFD homes keep trash cans inside garages
or close to their homes; in all but one home, the cans were
out of view from the outside of the home. The use of
plastic bags resulted in trash cans being left out of view
on pickup day with the plastic bags set curbside (see
Figures 49 through 51). After pickup the plastic bag areas
of the site were clean whereas trash cans were left curbside
in those areas where trash cans were used during the test
(see Figure 56). Plastic bags were very effective against
spillage of refuse. Only one instance occurred where a pet
had broken open a bag and strewn refuse (see Figure 57). The
instance occurred the first week of the study and was not
repeated during the subsequent four weeks. It should be
noted that the pickup crew will not clean up strewn refuse
as shown in Figure 57; the crew will only pickup the bag and
the contents remaining in the bag. Overall, site appearance
in SFD areas was improved by the use of plastic bags.
User Preference -
A survey of residents could not be performed; however, par-
ticipation in the study plus casual conservation with resi-
dents indicated that the use of plastic bags was satisfactory
144
-------
FIGURE 56. Photographs of trash cans left
curbside after pickup.
145
-------
FIGURE 57. Refuse snilled from a plastic bag
as the result of being torn open by a pet.
even though most participants feared that pets would break
into the bags and strew refuse. The collection crew de-
finitely preferred plastic bags to trash cans because
collection was faster not to mention the fact that the fas-
ter the time of collection the earlier the crew would com-
plete the pickup route. As noted in the economic analysis,
site pickup costs are not reduced by the service contrac-
tor if bags are used instead of cans. Pickup service
management indicated that plastic bags become soft on hot
days and tend to tear during the collection, particularly
when the bag is exposed in the sun. The problem did not
occur during the study possibly because 3-mil thick bags
were used and because the site was serviced before nine
thirty in the morning on each pickup day.
Environmental Effects -
The use of plastic bags with ties resulted in fewer odors,
less noise, better aesthetics, and apparently less sanita-
tion problems. The only problem which could be of an
146
-------
environmental concern is that plastic bags do not readily
degrade in sanitary landfills as does loose refuse. Of
particular interest is the reduction in noise levels be-
cause cans are not banged around during collection activi-
ties. Sanitation problems would appear to be lessened
since the refuse is enclosed in bags and the collection
crew is not exposed to the refuse.
Results
The use of plastic bags in place of standard trash cans
results in $17.41 higher annual costs to the homeowner.
Refuse collection activities are more efficient and re-
quire less labor when plastic bags are utilized. Refuse
is collected faster when plastic bags are used. The collec-
tion crew prefers plastic bags because of increased pick-
up speed. The site appearance is improved because cans
are not left curbside in the SFD areas after pickup of
refuse. Site environmental conditions are as good or
better when plastic bags are used. There is less collec-
tion noise when plastic bags are collected. Odors are
minimized and there appears to be less possibility of sani-
tation problems when plastic bags are used. Overall, a
site would appear to be improved if plastic bags are used
in place of trash cans for curbside pickup; however, heavy
duty bags (3-mil thickness) were used in the study and bags
of less strength might have different results.
147
-------
REFERENCES
(1) "1968 National Survey of Community Solid Wastes
Practices," an Interim Report, EPA, USPHS,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.
(2) "Survey of User Acceptance of the Solid Waste
Removal Systems at Operation Breakthrough Sites,"
Hittman Associates, Inc., and Applied Management
Sciences, Inc., HUD/EPA sponsored, Cincinnati,
Ohio, unpublished.
(3) Sol id Waste Management, Hagerty, D. Joseph, Joseph
L. Pavoni, and John E. Heer, Jr., Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, 1973, p. 16.
(4) "Construction Scoreboard," Engi neering News
Record, 195(18), October 30, 1975, p. 18.
(5) "Construction Scoreboard," Engineering News
Record, 191(13), September 27, 1973, p. 23.
(6) "Construction Scoreboard," Engineering News
Record, 195(12), September 25, 1975, p. 25.
(7) "Construction Scoreboard," Engineering News
Record 191(17), October 25, 1973, p. 28.
(8) "Construction Scoreborad," Engineering News
Record, 193(5), July 25, 1974, p. 29.
(9) "Construction Scoreboard," Engineering News
Record, 194(17), April 25, 1975, p. 18.
148
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-013
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EVALUATION OF THE REFUSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OF
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITES
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977
("Issuing Date!
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jack Preston Overman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11.
68-03-0094
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory --Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT Qne of ^e provisions of the Operation Breakthrough program in the Departmen
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, is to
evaluate the refuse management systems to determine economic and technical practicality
for application to future projects. The 9 sites are Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Macon,
Memphis, St. Louis, Seattle, Sacramento, King County, and Jersey City. The evaluation?
show that the methods employed at the Macon, Memphis, Sacramento, and King County sites
are the most economical and effective. The five very conventional systems consist of
central containers at Macon, Memphis, and Seattle and primarily curbside collection at
King County. The Indianapolis site uses storage pens which results in low costs but
also results in odors, insects, and refuse scattering. The central or communal com-
pactors at Kalamazoo are not effective or economical because of improper utilization by
residents. The St. Louis system desperately needs modifying because it is extremely
costly and very ineffective. The Jersey City site utilizes pneumatic trash collection
and a separate report is being prepared to assess the technical and economic perform-
ance of the system. In addition, a refuse system user acceptance survey was conducted
at each site, and the results are documented in separate reports for each site with an
executive summary for all sites.
Recommendations for refuse management systems in future projects are based on th<
results of the study. It is also recommended that the St. Louis site be studied and
modified to reduce costs, increase system effectiveness and efficiency, and reduce
environmental problems.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS \C. COSATI Field/Group
- )
DESCRIPTORS
*Refuse
Collection
Removal
Storage
*Evaluation
Operation Breakthrough
Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
165
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
149
OUS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-757-056/6560
------- |