AN ANALYSIS OF
INSTITUTIONAL SOLID WASTES
A solid waste management
open-file report (SW-2tg)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
-------
AN ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL SOLID WASTES
This open-file report (SW-2tg) on work performed under solid waste management
training grant no. EC-00032 to the University of Illinois
was written by STEWART A. MESSMAN
and has been reproduced as received from the grantee.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-2tg).
-------
FOREWORD
This Nation is facing the ever-growing problem of how best to
manage its solid wastes. Not only are present practices of solid
waste storage, collection, processing, and disposal becoming inadequate,
but the United States also faces a shortage of trained professional
workers in the field who are equipped to deal with the problem.
To help alleviate this shortage, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, under authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Public Law
89-272), administers a program of grants-in-aid which supports
graduate-level training programs at 13 universities for approximately
65 masters' degree candidates each year. These students receive
specific training in the many aspects of modern-day solid waste tech-
nology and management. Some of these training programs are located at
large urban universities and center their instruction on solid wastes
in the urban environment, while other programs are at schools in
agricultural regions and may place their emphasis on food-processing
and farm waste problems. To date, over 100 engineers have been trained
at the graduate level in universities receiving support from the Federal
solid waste management training grant program.
One phase of the graduate students' training is to conduct a research
project dealing with a specific aspect of solid waste management. This
document reports on the results of one such research project and provides
information which should be useful to others concerned with better solid
waste management practices.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The study of institutional solid waste systems has received very
little attention compared to municipal refuse systems and individual
disposal methods. The author believes that the solid wastes generated
by most institutional units are more suited to efficient and economical
storage, collection and disposal procedures than the average domestic
solid waste. Reclamation or salvage methods are particularly favorable
for institutional solid waste systems due to the relative homogeneity
of waste materials from individual waste sources. The evaluation of
present institutional solid waste systems and the design of proposed
systems are discussed. The University of Illinois is studied to provide
an example of an institutional solid waste system. Several recommenda-
tions are included for improvement of present undersirable conditions.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to extend his sincere appreciation to his
advisor, Dr. John T. Pfeffer, Professor of Sanitary Engineering,
for his encouragement in preparing this special problem. His
suggestions and criticisms of the manuscript provided new insights
for the author and clarified topics that needed more precise
definition.
Mr. Henry H. Koertge, Head of the Division of Environmental
Health, and Mr. James H. Trail, Chief Engineer of the Department
of Plant and Services, deserve a special thanks for their valuable
help in aiding the author's investigation of the University of
Illinois solid waste system. The author is indebted to them for
providing much of the data on animal waste production, collection
of refuse and associated economic costs.
This investigation was sponsored by a U.S. Public Health Service
Traineeship in Solid Waste Management* under Grant No. 8T01 EC 00032-02,
*The supporting organization, the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, is now a component of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Heterogeneous Composition 2
B. Economic Considerations 2
C. Solid Waste Management - General 3
II. INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS 7
A. Definition 7
B. Examples 8
C. Design of Proposed Systems 9
D. Evaluation of Present Systems 12
III. SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION 16
A. Sources 16
B. Quantities 17
C. Composition 18
D. Characteristics 19
E. Compatibility 21
IV. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS: COLLECTION,
DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION 22
Ao Disposal Methods 23
B. Disposal Costs 26
C. Reclamation Methods 28
D. Collection Methods „ 31
vii
-------
Page
V. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SOLID WASTE SYSTEM 36
A. Classification of Solid Waste Sources and
Characteristics 40
B. Present Solid Waste Management 44
1. Collection 44
2. Disposal 47
3. Reclamation Procedures 48
4. Costs 48
C. Alternative Methods of Solid Waste Management .... 49
D. Proposed Solid Waste Disposal System 51
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 55
A. University of Illinois Solid Waste System 55
B. Institutional Solid Waste Systems 58
REFERENCES 60
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. DISPOSAL METHOD COSTS 27
2. TRASH VOLUMES - 1968-1969 38
3. ESTIMATED GENERATION OF SOLID WASTES 43
4. REFUSE CHARACTERISTICS BY COMPOSITION CATEGORIES 45
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. VARIATIONS IN REFUSE VOLUME, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 37
2. CAMPUS MAP OF REFUSE CONTAINER LOCATIONS 39
3. EFFECT OF HAUL DISTANCE ON TOTAL DISPOSAL COST 53
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Solid waste production, one of the pollutional effects of man's daily
existence, is just beginning to stir the public conscience to concern, anger
and disgust with its deleterious effects upon our natural environment. But
the only new aspect of this solid waste problem is the public awareness that
a problem exists, and this awareness is, in itself, a major step forward in
the control and ultimate solution of the solid waste dilemma. As the common
man becomes concerned with a national problem, the needed momentum to rectify
the situation is brought to bear in the form of legislative action and econo-
mic support to carry out the solutions proposed by the technical experts in
the given field. This pressure increases research into the fundamental fac-
tors influencing the problem by rewarding those attempting to remedy the sit-
uation, and by imposing restrictions or out-lawing current practices which
contribute to the undesirable situation.
In this respect the Third Pollution, as solid waste has been called, is
in much the same position as water pollution was 15 years ago, and more re-
cently, air pollution. As both of these problems gained public attention,
more effort was put forth to control the discharge of these waste into our
environment and public cooperation has followed closely. Municipal and in-
dustrial management have also been aware of the problems, but their response
in curtailing and controlling effluents has been rather slow in many cases.
Now that solid waste has reached this critical stage of public aware-
ness, it is important that the problems presented by this pollutant be ade-
quately described and defined. The present systems for its treatment, or
lack of treatment, must be reviewed and modifications or new methods and
facilities must be evaluated in light of the standards which must be achieved.
-------
2
Finally, these controls and treatment processes must be put into operation,
carefully monitored to produce the desired end products and the results must
be analyzed to predict future needs and possible changes.
A. Heterogeneous Composition
Although there are many individual and peculiar problems in the proper
management of solid wastes, two basic factors of difficulty are common to
solid waste systems. The first of these is the heterogeneous composition of
the waste material itself. Not only is it difficult to categorize a waste
with respect to its component materials, but few generalities about a waste
can be made which are universally applicable. From any given type of source,
nany variations in component materials are likely. Even the same source may
often vary its components with time due to changing input conditions. For
example, restaurants perform essentially the same operation of feeding pa-
trons, but the refuse removed from a drive-in hamburger restaurant would be
quite different, and probably much more uniform in components, than the refuse
from a dining room service with a sizable menu. Even this latter refuse would
vary widely with seasonal tastes of the patrons and the seasonal use of avail-
able fresh, frozen or canned food products. The installation of a sink-type
garbage grinder would drastically change the type of refuse produced by either
of these previously mentioned establishments. This heterogenity of refuse
components which handicaps categorization is even more pronounced in residen-
tial, industrial and other commercial refuse. Geographic variations are
probably of greater significance in this respect than are seasonal variations
throughout the country, although these two influences are also related to
each other to some degree.
B. Economic Considerations
The second factor of difficulty in solid waste management is not
-------
3
concerned with the refuse material itself, but rather with the economic con-
siderations of various aspects of the solid waste problem. This economic
factor is often the controlling element in a solid waste system and may often
determine whether an operation is performed properly, poorly, or perhaps,
not at all. The underlying problem is that in our society at these affluent
times, refuse material is regarded as disposable, unusable material. It is
assumed to have no value, and, often, this is economically true. While a tin
can or junked automobile certainly contains a finite amount of steel and our
society requires more steel production everyday, it is seldom economical to
recover the steel present in these discarded materials. Consequently, it is
assumed they have "no value." The fallacy in this reasoning is that the
assumption of "no value" is dependent on an unlimited and readily accessible
supply of cheap iron ore. Although this is untrue, the "no value" idea still
represents a tremendous refuse production.
This economic aspect has another viewpoint. This is the traditional
belief that when one is through using something and discards the effect,
the user has no further responsibility for it. Due to the assimilative ca-
pacity of our environment, this was no problem in the past. However, today
one must do more than simply discard his refuse„ It must be collected, trans-
ported and disposed of properly. The costs involved in performing these op-
erations are real and must be ultimately paid by the user,, This responsi-
bility is not readily accepted by the general population or many industries,
as they do not want to spend money to get rid of unusable materials. As a
result, the tax monies available for refuse disposal, or the methods them-
selves, are inadequate for proper protection of the environment.
C. Solid Waste Management - General
The present condition of solid waste management must be described as
-------
4
"state of the art," for it has not progressed enough to be called applied
science or engineering. Although some disposal processes are receiving addi-
tional study and review and other new methods and innovations are being tried,
by far, the field is characterized by out-dated techniques for storage, col-
lection and disposal of refuse because these methods have traditionally been
used and little thought has been given to improving them. Improvement could
come in the form of correction of the existing system or change to a more
efficient or appropriate one. Lack of available money to promote a simple
analysis of the present situation is probably the most common obstacle to
improvement. Simple records of quantities of refuse disposed, cost of dis-
posal, number of man-hours worked and changes in refuse sources are seldom
kept. These figures could easily provide an initial review of total costs
involved, population and refuse production trends and expected life of equip-
ment and facilities. Future facilities could be planned more effectively
and solid waste management requirements could be predicted over several years
from this information.
Currently, solid waste management can be classified into two major divi-
sions, dependent on the responsibility for general management of the refuse
which is being produced. Municipal solid waste management is the first divi-
sion and is concerned, in a broad sense, with the refuse produced by residen-
tial and some commercial establishments within a specified governmental bound-
ary. This boundary is often the city limits but may be extended to include
one or more counties or a regional territory controlled by several municipal
governments. The municipal responsibility may be collection or disposal of
the refuse, or both. If the municipality performs only one of these ser-
vices, the other is provided by a private contractor. In the case of col-
lection by a private hauler, the individual producer is charged directly by
-------
5
the hauler, but private disposal for a municipal agency is paid by contract
with that agency.
The degree of refinement of municipal systems is relatively high in
larger cities and metropolitan areas due to the availability of some tax
monies. The sophistication of the system decreases directly with the size of
the municipality, in general. The limited amount of study that has been done
on solid waste systems has been concerned primarily with this municipal refuse
division. Many of the results of these studies and some worthwhile average
data has been collected, summarized and published by the American Public Works
Association in two recent volumes. (1,2)
The second division of general management of solid waste can be termed
industrial solid waste management. The industrial solid waste production is
not defined strictly as refuse produced by industry, but rather by the in-
plant collection and disposal of generated wastes by the producer or his
privately contracted agent. This designation includes many large industries,
manufacturing concerns and some commercial establishments who contribute no
wastes to the municipal system. At the same time, there are industries which
are provided with municipal refuse service, but these are usually small pro-
ducers of relatively compatible-type wastes.
The in-house handling of solid waste in this industrial division can
be quite well-suited to selective storage of waste products, efficient col-
lection procedures which can be geared to production factors in the plant,
and use of the optimum disposal method for the particular waste or wastes
produced by the plant. Many of these wastes have a definite recovery value
due to their magnitude of production at one source and, more important, the
freedom from contamination by other waste products. Reclamation of the refuse
may be possible at the plant site itself and the resulting product can be used
-------
6
again as a raw material input. Sometimes, the refuse must be packaged and
shipped away for processing to obtain the reclamable portion.
The degree of refinement of these industrial solid waste systems is not
well known. Although some concerned industries have well-developed systems,
others have not given much thought or action to this problem, or have had
difficulty in instituting proper procedures. A number of researchers are
attempting to collect significant data about refuse management by industry-
type classification0 The most rapid initial results and the disclosure of
peculiar refuse problems of particular industries have been received in ex-
tensive questionnaire surveys of selected typical companies. (3)
-------
II. INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS
One particular type of refuse production, which is not clearly defined
by either of the two previously mentioned refuse management divisions, can be
classified as institutional solid waste production. There has been very little
investigation of this type of waste production and its subsequent disposal.
The data available in this area are limited and are not readily transferable
and applicable to other institutions and their wastes. The purpose of this
paper is to carefully define the institutional refuse classification, to pre-
sent a complete review of present systems, and to analyze and evaluate proce-
dures which are the basis for design of future systems. The University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign will be studied as an example of a large insti-
tution. The suitability of this institution for solid waste analysis as a
complete system will be evaluated and proposals for possible changes and im-
provements in this system will be included.
A. Definition
The institution itself can be generally defined as any large, physical
organization of persons and, perhaps, materials, which are arranged in a
specific manner in a given location, and through the interaction of various
groups within this organization, a specific function or mission is performed.
The significance of the definition is the ordered arrangement and unified
central purpose of the institution. These are two important factors which
favor the development of a system approach to the management of institutional
solid waste. These factors influence the characteristics of the waste, the
volume and location of its production, the collection system parameters and
the disposal method. Also, the planning of systems, financing the operations
-------
and ultimate responsibility for proper control of the solid waste is much
simplified due to this definite, institutional entity.
B.. Examples
The definition of institution used in the context of this paper will be
reinforced by the citation of some specific examples of institutions which
may lend themselves to solid waste systems management. A university is a
good example of an institution, although this group could include other large
educational complexes.
Air terminals on major air routes are institutions processing both people
and freight preparatory to their air transport.
Hospitals and combined medical center facilities in large metropolitan
areas form a distinct type of institution with its own peculiar wastes. This
institution may often be located adjacent to a medical school, which would be
included in the system.
Certain industrial complexes are grouped together in such a way as to
use common utilities and have other interdependent functions, or perhaps, use
one another's finished product in their own process. The industrial park
complexes are becoming more and more prevalent on the outskirts of metropoli-
tan areas and near smaller outlying cities. Their individual site develop-
ment is usually controlled by a corporation board, and uniform code restric-
tions are placed on each industry within the complex. This institutionaliza-
tLon of industries can be very advantageous for a unified, comprehensive plan
for solid waste management.
A similar situation exists for some few giant shopping centers in the
metropolitan areas. These conglomerations of many diverse commercial opera-
tions on one site are the equivalent of an entire business district in a
medium-sized city. Their individual refuse production, being very compatible,
-------
if not totally alike, is most economically handled by one, well-designed
system.
Another institution suitable for refuse management is the research park,
where several companies involved in the investigation and pilot-project oper-
ation of new processes or equipment are situated in close proximity. The
wastes from these research labs and development shops may be quite different,
but their special and changing nature can be coordinated into a refuse sys-
tem.
Harbor and port facilities are a rather nebulous example of an institu-
tion. However, this complex of different operations might, in some cases,
be most adequately managed by one solid waste system. Not only is there
refuse from the docking ships, but there is also packaging and shipping
materials and containers which accumulate at shipside and around neighboring
warehouses.
Military bases are certainly not a new institution, but they do illus-
trate, to a very high degree, the unification of many different operations
under one organizational structure. Although some refuse management has been
practiced at most bases and several extensive studies have been conducted,
there is still a major need for solid waste systems to adequately unify the
different refuse production sources. (4)
C. Design of Proposed Systems
The designing of a proposed solid waste management system, or at least
one being given serious consideration for possible future implementation, is
very close to an ideal situation. The problem of refuse management has been
realized and the opportunity now exists for some concrete action to be taken
to correct and solve the problem. This design of a new system is ideal in
that no operating system is present, or one that is present is of such low
economic value that it can be scrapped without hesitation.
-------
10
Before the design procedures themselves are discussed, there are several
factors of importance which will influence the design and, hence, the future
operation of any system that may be installed. These factors, which are not
dLrectly related to the refuse production itself, are concerned with the
organization accepting the responsibility for the solid waste management.
This organization may be some governmental unit which is the institution it-
self, or it may sponsor the institution, as is the case of state universi-
ties. It may be the county board, municipal government or a branch of the
federal government. In the case of many of the previous examples of insti-
tutions, the management responsibility lies with the company itself, a pri-
vate corporation of representative members or a board of directors.
This responsible agency exercises control over solid waste management
practices in two forms. The first is in the form of regulations. The agency
enforces compliance of individuals or employees with the established refuse
storage, collection and disposal procedures. It must see to it that all the
regulations are being wet, that health hazards and nuisance situations are
avoided, and that operations are being conducted safely.
The second form of control by this agency is very important to proper
refuse management. This agency is responsible for the financing of the
solid waste management from the initial design to daily collection and final
disposal of the waste materials. As will become very evident in this dis-
cussion, the economic factors determine whether a given operation is a success
or a failure; whether it is conducted properly or improperly. Thus, the
allocation of monies for various stages of the refuse management system is
critical to the performance of the system, and must be given careful con-
sideration in the design of the system.
The financing of solid waste systems for industry is often simplified
in that the implementation decision and financial appropriations may be made
-------
11
by one management group. Difficulties arise for governmental agencies as
they may make the implementation decision, but they require financial approval
from other agencies or by public referendum. Future financing, especially
when it has been predicted within certain limits, usually is also rather
easily accomplished. However, with many governmental agencies this is not
true. A minimum-cost design is sometimes required at the expense of a more
favorable design, or one more easily adapted to possible changes. Present
capital expenditures to meet future needs are not readily approved. Thfs
aspect will influence the design of the system and, perhaps, the amount of
money allocated for design itself.
In the design of the proposed system, initial surveys must be made to
establish the solid waste production. These surveys record the location of
all sources of refuse production. This establishes the number of collection
points that may be necessary and shows the relation of each source to the
others in terms of travel distance. The surveys also record the volume of
refuse produced at each source. This usually is an average figure, and if
weights of refuse can be collected, this is desirable. The principal com-
ponents and general composition of the waste is noted. If the generation of
the waste is cyclical, varying with time or other controlling parameters,
this is recorded.
From the survey results, a study is made of the total refuse production.
The total volume of refuse, its particular components and general character-
istics, and its frequency of production will influence the type of disposal
method selected. A preliminary survey will disclose the types of disposal
methods which may be considered. This will depend on the land use within a
reasonable haul distance, land values, air pollution restrictions and possible
public relations difficulties, which may be foreseeable. Assuming the
-------
12
disposal method has been selected, a detailed study can be made of various
collection systems. The variables to be considered in this system are numer-
ous, but review of pertinent literature on the collection variables being
studied, and possible use of computer programs to explore different combina-
tions, should reduce the many possible situations to several, equally effi-
cient ones. Some of the variables in the collection system are directly
determined by the disposal method, such as haul distance, transfer station,
size of truck, compaction necessity, separation of refuse components and re-
jection of certain components.
Estimates are prepared from the final determination of the study. They
include the number and size as well as capital, operating and maintenance
costs of the equipment required in the refuse system. They will also include
the amount of labor involved and its cost. Depreciation costs for the capital
investments may be included, if a time basis for depreciating them is es-
tablished.
The surveys, studies and determination of estimates constitute the
planning of a proposed system for solid waste management. Predictions of
future requirements and specific recommendations are necessary to complete
the design of the system. (5)
D. Evaluation of Present Systems
The evaluation of existing refuse management systems is accomplished in
much the same manner as the design of a proposed system. The necessity of
evaluation may be for changes or improvement in the present system,. These
changes may be replacement of existing equipment, addition of new equipment
or processes, automation of certain labor consuming steps now in use, or
sinply changes in operating techniques to improve the efficiency or economy
of the system. The most limiting factor in this evaluation is the capital
-------
13
investment in equipment, which tnnnct be instantaneously depreciated or
assumed LC be a loss. This existing equipment must continue to be used to
some extent, and must consequently be incorporated into the flow of arty
changes in the system, The use ot this equipment sets some limits on the
type of: treatment, collection or disposal of the refuse which may be con-
sidered .
The evaluation, is pit pared by a series of surveys to establish the
sources oi waste production eifecl. this trariffi! a<;d the frequency of collection- If the
Li'tusf pr i-di.it t j on is not un i f o :(• ihj:, js important. A survey of the dis
1 oft?] me'i hods includes the haul u:. stance, transfer required, method of dis-
por.-i'i , csaily volume processed, -'-•:•,ess capacity available with the present
trethod, e-.pected life, labor involved and any operating problems which are
significant and need to be corrected.
A study of the survey Information is made to determine the effectiveness
of the present operation. Cost information is analyzed, when it is avail-
able, to obtain unit cost figures in terms of capital costs, depreciation
charges, operating costs and total costs for pieces of equipment, unit opera-
tions, and total refuse management. There is no standardization of units for
quoting this type of data, but values in terms of dollars per unit volume or
unit weight of refuse disposed is probably the most meaningful and most
easily interpreted by others studying the report.
-------
14
Economy and efficiency are two parameters which require definition with
respect to solid waste systems. The most economical system is the one meeting
environmental quality requirements for solid waste management at the lowest
cost. The most efficient one is the system providing the most convenience
in terms of reducing time and number of individual operations involved, and
requiring least effort, such as manual labor, while meeting equality re-
quirements. To evaluate these two criteria, alternative methods for storage,
collection and disposal of the refuse are considered to supplement or re-
place existing methods. In this consideration, efficiency and economic
factors determine which methods represent the most desirable combinations
for the remodeled system. This may result in fewer collection stops, longer
frequency between certain collections, mechanical loading of refuse vehicles,
shorter haul distances, transfer for longer hauls, greater volume reduction
by compaction in storage units, less volume for final disposal, reclamation
of some components of the refuse for recycle or sale of salvagable materials.
New costs can be estimated for each of these alternatives based on current
refuse volumes. A comparison of these individual costs with those costs of
present service will show which individual operations are most economic.
However, the must economic system can only be evaluated by the comparison of
total costs for each total solid waste system including all component parts.
It is very likely that the system having the most efficient, alternative
operations is not the most economical, so a compromise between optimum effi-
ciency and optimum economy must be chosen. This should be done in light of
probable future changes, to maintain a high degree of economy in an efficient
system.
The agency responsible for the solid waste management may establish
other limits on the evaluation of the present system by authorizing expendi-
tures only for certain operations in the system, such as refuse disposal
-------
15
methods. Therefore, any changes in the existing collection system will be
ones that do not result in any increased collection costs. This is not a
true system approach to improving the solid waste management, as some major
variables must be held constant.
At the time of this evaluation it may be possible for the agency respon-
sible for solid waste management to assume greater power in terms of juris-
dictional boundaries, legality of regulation enforcement and assessment of
finance charges on the parties served by this system. This may be of no
difficulty as few agencies want to be responsible for solid wastes, and
there are few precedents to overrule this assumption of authority for solid
waste control.
-------
16
III. SOLID WASTE PRODUCTION
Solid waste production must be thoroughly sampled, studied and analyzed
in any attempt to provide proper solid waste management. Three major areas
are of concern to fully evaluate this production and to determine how it will
influence collection and disposal procedures. Economic aspects of the total
system will also be affecced to a great degree by these factors.
A. Sources
The first factor is the source of the solid waste production. This is
the point where the waste is actually discharged from a process, or where it
is initially stored following removal from the actual living space. This
source gives a spatial location of the refuse production or its storage with
respect to other production locations. When these locations are plotted on a
map, a specific distribution will be given in terms of number of points at
which refuse must be collected. This may be in the form of individual pick-
ups by some collection vehicle or the entry point of refuse into a conveyor
system. This could possibly be a gravity chute, mechanical conveyor or vacuum-
pressure pipeline to transfer the waste to a centralized storage area. It may
also discharge directly to the disposal equipment or some intermediate device
for accomplishing volume reduction.
This listing of distribution of waste sources also gives information
about the type of waste to be expected at each point. When the types of oper-
ations conducted at the institution are analyzed with respect to their waste
production, the type of waste found at any particular source will be dependent
on the operations contributing refuse to that source. In most cases, this will
limit the refuse to only one particular class or type of refuse. If the in-
stitution has an assembly line operation, the waste production will be
-------
17
distributed along this line. All refuse of each particular composition will
be produced at the same point on this line and may be easily removed. It may
also be possible to integrate the conveyance of this waste along the produc-
tion line, as if it were another component. On the other hand, if there are
many similar operations conducted throughout the institution, it will be
necessary to collect these wastes with a certain set of collection vehicles if
separation of this waste component is going to be maintained.
B. Quantities
The volume of waste produced at a given source is one measure of its
magnitude. The second measure would be the weight of refuse produced. These
two measures are directly related by the density of the refuse. This is a
critical factor in the required capacity of storage facilities, collection
vehicles and disposal method. In most cases, measurements of refuse produc-
tion, as it is collected, are given in terms of volume measurements. This
would describe and determine the required size of storage containers in terms
of cubic yards (C.Y.). Collection vehicles and attendant compaction devices
are designed in these same units of volume. Due to the density variations,
which range from 200 Ibs. per C.Y. for loose, combustible material to 1200 Ibs.
per C.Y. for ashes and other inert materials, the required volume for refuse
removal will be large for low density paper wastes and relatively small for
dense wet garbage and inert wastes. (6)
The total volume of solid wastes to be handled from all sources will
determine the scale factor of the plant required to process the refuse ma-
terials. This magnitude will eliminate some disposal methods from consid-
eration, while others will be the optimum choice for this volume of refuse.
A good estimate of equipment and personnel can be made on the basis of the
total refuse to be disposed of daily.
-------
18
The total weight of refuse handled is used to assign costs to the collec-
tion and disposal of solid wastes. Weight in pounds is a more uniform mea-
sure for assigning the real capital and operating costs involved in processing
a given amount of waste material. Therefore, weight measurements should be,
and often are, made prior to disposal of the refuse. These costs are quoted
in dollars per ton on either an "as received" basis or dry-weight basis.
C. Composition
The second factor in solid waste production has already been referred
to in the previous discussion of refuse volume. This is the composition of
the solid waste or the type of material present. The following nine compo-
nents have been suggested for use in the classification of general refuse.
This is based on a municipal-type waste having all of these components present
in varying amounts. However, many institutional wastes will be composed of
several of these components in different percentages, so the classes of
refuse are still useful. This classification is based mostly on ease of
recognition of the particular components, and to some degree on their chemical
composition. (2)
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
Paper
Garbage (food trimmings, preparation, residue)
Lawn and tree trimings
Plastics, leather, rubber
Textiles
Wood
Metals
Glass, ceramics
Ashes, stone, dirt
The percentages of each of these components will vary greatly at dif-
ferent institutions and even at one institution during different seasons.
However, as it was mentioned earlier, the institutions tend to produce refuse
at given sources consisting of only one component of the above composition.
-------
19
This initial separation can be easily maintained throughout the solid waste
system, if it is desired. In certain cases it is desirable to keep some
components separated to allow different collection frequencies, use of dif-
ferent collection and disposal methods, and to facilitate salvage of valuable
materials. Institutional solid wastes exhibit a predominance of certain com-
ponents, which make them particularly suitable for efficient differential
treatment of some of the components. This can be economically justified, if
part of the waste can be disposed of by a less expensive method, or if its
salvage value will offset disposal costs. Occasionally, the sale of reclam-
able materials will realize an income for the institution, but this is a
rare case.
D. Characteristics
The third factor in solid waste production of significance to the de-
signer of a solid waste system is the refuse characteristics. These charac-
teristics describe the physical and chemical properties of the refuse. This
description is different from the composition, which describes the refuse
material by its previous use or service that it performed. A study of the
characteristics of the waste is important because it will limit the possible
collection and disposal methods which will provide the proper treatment for
the waste material. It will determine whether recovery of some value can be
obtained from the waste, will set limits on the operating procedures and
time intervals involved, and will require that special precautions be taken
with hazardous refuse material.
One widely variable characteristic is moisture content. This is usually
due to the garbage component and it may require the use of water-tight col-
lection vehicles. A high moisture content may promote rapid decomposition
on the refuse and consequent odor and nuisance problems. It may also make
-------
20
incineration impractical due to the amount of heat necessary for vaporization
of the water.
A large proportion of inert material in the refuse makes it a desirable
fill material, but it would not be desirable for composting operations. This
characteristic of the refuse would also give a low heat value, as well as
high residue content, making incineration impractical.
The compressibility of the refuse is an important characteristic to the
storage, collection and transport of the material. If the refuse is com-
pacted on-site, in the collection vehicle itself, or at a transfer station
before being hauled to the disposal site, the degree of compressibility will
determine the volume and number of containers and vehicles necessary to do
the job. Compactability also determines the final volume placed in the
landfill site, affecting its expected life as a disposal method.
The size of individual items will certainly affect the collection and
disposal operations. Bulky items may not fit in regular collection vehicles,
necessitating special collections. Some may be damaging to compaction or
grinding mechanisms. Physical dimensions may be too large to permit entry
into the incinerator charging hopper.
Refuse that is highly putrescible, inflammable, explosive, toxic or
contaminated with pathogenic organisms requires careful handling and dis-
posal with proper supervision. The storage interval may be very short and
special containers may be used. Collection with other refuse may increase
the hazards involved in its transport and disposal. Incineration may be
required for some of these types of refuse, while others must not be incin-
erated. Landfilling may be desirable for some, but not for others. In any
case, considerable pre-planning and close supervision are necessary to pre-
vent contamination of the environment and hazardous exposure of man to these
special characteristics of this refuse.
-------
21
Refuse with reclamable characteristics, such as high heat value for
incineration to produce steam, should not be overlooked. An analysis should
be made of refuse production and all costs involved to determine the desir-
ability of the reclamation process.
E. Compatibility
'If several sources of refuse production are to be combined for collection
and disposal5 an analysis of their characteristics should be made to deter-
mine the.ir ..'oinpatibility lor bot,ii collection and disposal. Some combinations
of characteristics may be ha^arJoua in themselves, while others may cause
inefficiences in the disposal method or reduce the economy of the total
system.
-------
22
IV. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS:
COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION
The different unit operations involved in a solid waste system, such as
collection, disposal and salvage of refuse materials, are usually developed
and studied as individual, independent processes. However, in any solid waste
system, these processes do not act independently of one another. Variable
factors of refuse production relate the action of one operation to the others,
causing a dependency within the system. In the design and implementation of
an efficient solid waste system, a thorough analysis of these relationships
will be necessary.
In general, the disposal method is probably the most independent variable
with respect to collection and reclamation procedures. The type of disposal
method is also subject to more limitations and restrictions than the other
two operations in a given area. A sanitary landfill would not be considered
where land was below the groundwater table, or in an area where land-use codes
would prevent its operation. Incineration may not be acceptable due to ex-
treme air pollution restrictions. Composting may be unacceptable, if the
volume of waste to be treated is very large. In the case of an exis.ting
system, the disposal method may be fixed by existing plant investments.
Generally, this means that the collection procedures and equipment will be
dependent on the type of disposal method used (1). Special preparation of
the refuse for disposal, such as the wrapping of wet garbage, will eliminate
the need for water tight collection vehicles. If the disposal method requires
separation of different refuse components, extra collection vehicles or
special compartmented ones must be used. This will also affect the collec-
tion frequency and time per pick-up.
-------
23
Salvage or reclamation procedures will depend on the disposal method to
a large extent. If the salvage of certain components effects significant
reduction in the total volume to be disposed, this will reduce the burden
on the disposal method. The efficiency of an incineration system would be
reduced if the paper and plastic components of the waste were salvaged, as
the heat value of the refuse would be lowered. Conversely, incineration
disposal would favor the salvage of inert materials and ashes for fill
material to improve incinerator performance. Reclamation of steam genera-
tion from waste heat production would require the use of central incinera-
tion disposal. If composting were selected as the disposal method, salvage
of glass, metals, and organic soil conditioner could be realized.
The design of the collection system will depend on the reclamation
procedures to be used. Efficient salvage will require the maintenance of
separation of certain components to promote their salvage or prevent con-
tamination from other undesirable waste components. Collection frequencies
may be reduced as a result of this separation procedure.
A. Disposal Methods
The sanitary landfill is a very acceptable disposal method which traces
its development from the undesirable open dump. In landfill operations,
refuse is deposited by collection vehicles on a working face or adjacent to
an open trench. A tractor device places and compacts the refuse to the de-
sired density in a series of two-foot lifts. At the end of the working day,
a cover of earth or fill material is placed and compacted over the refuse.
This cover protects the environment from the refuse in several respects.
Health and nuisance hazards from insect and rodent breeding are eliminated.
Burning of refuse material is practically eliminated and fire hazards are
negligible. If proper slopes are maintained during operation and compaction
-------
of the cover is adequate, surface water run-oft and groundwater pollution
problems will be. avoided. The operation of a sanitary landfill requires only
a minimum of earth-moving equipment and labor. Supervisory personnel are re-
quired for proper planning and operation of the sine. One disadvantage is
the sizable amount of land required, which is often unax'a liable in or n^ar
large me t r o t > o 1 i i; an a r e a t; (7 )
Incineration of refuse is considered a o'ispco^J nujtho'l . because ot the
great volume reduction accomplished in this pr^i es ,- Tne final inert residue
froiri the incinerator is usually ;> to 2j pftr.'ent ot rhc Luiciai weight c>f
refuse. This results in even greater volume reduction, as the density of the
ash residue is much greater than the density of the mixed refuse fed into the
incinerator. Proper incineration implies the high temperature, combustion of
the organic material present in refuse and the near complete burning of vola-
tile gases driven off in the process. The incinerator may be centrally lo-
cated or it may be of a smaller on-site design. In either case, the inciner-
ator is a complex mechanical device requiring skilled labor, competent super-
vision and frequent maintenance for its proper operation. The major advan-
tages of incineration are the possible close location of the incinerator site
to the source of refuse production due to small land requirements and all-
weather operation. The disadvantages are, attendant air pollution problems,
ultimate disposal of residue material and high capital, operating and main-
tenance costs compared to landfilling.
Composting has been given much attention in the literature as a third
major refuse disposal method (2,8). In reality, it is a conversion process
of refuse material into a supposedly pconomically valuable organic, soil con-
ditioner. Composting is accomplished by a manual or mechanical separation
of the refuse into readily reclaroa'ble material;,, inert:, undtsirab.lt !<"-> terial s,
-------
25
and bulk organic refuse which is shredded for composting. This organic
material is aerobically stabilized by bacteria present in the refuse. During
a variable length period of up to one month, the compost is occasionally mixed
to maintain aerobic conditions and uniform elevated temperatures, which result
from the stabilization activity. The compost material has been treated in
some instances with sewage sludge to increase the nitrogen content, and then
advertised for sale as a soil conditioner and fertilizer. Attempts to sell
the compost in plastic bags and bulk carload lots have met with limited
success. There does not at this time appear to be any appreciable constant
market for the finished product. Thus, composting cannot be considered a
disposal method of significance (9,10).
Grinding of refuse must be given consideration as a disposal method,
as it is currently used by many institutions for disposal of garbage wastes
in their food service operations. However, it must be realized that grinding
is not an ultimate disposal method in itself. It is a different transport
mechanism for the waste, which must then be treated with other sewage solids
at the wastewater treatment plant. It is only a disposal method from the
viewpoint of the institution removing its garbage in this way.
The principal of operation is the same as the home garbage grinder
installed in the kitchen sink and it serves the same purpose. The wet gar-
bage component of refuse from food packaging, preparation and residue is
ground into small particles by a series of rotating knife blades and flushed
to the sanitary sewer by water flowing through the unit. The refuse solids
are transported to the wastewater treatment plant and are readily treatable
like the other sewage solids. The organic nature of the garbage is compati-
ble to the treatment processes, but the organic load is likely to be exces-
sively high for the plant, even if dilution effects are substantial. Problems
-------
26
are encountered when grinders are installed on old, poorly designed sewer
lines or ones with inadequate flow or slope. In these cases clogging is
common and new sewerage must be installed to accommodate the grinder system.
Some larger grinder units are hammermill units, which pound and tear the
refuse into small diameter pieces. These have been used extensively by the
commercial fruit and vegetable wholesale houses for rapid, economic disposal
of large shipments of spoiled or damaged produce. The advantage of this
disposal method is the on-site, immediate disposal of putrescible refuse,
eliminating collection and storage requirements, and preventing health and
nuisance conditions. The operation of a grinder unit is very economical as
water and power costs are low (2). However, the hidden costs of treating
this waste at the treatment plant are excessively high.
B. Disposal Costs (See Table 1).
Costs of refuse disposal have been studied extensively and general
tendencies are reasonably evident. However, in a given locality and for
particular refuse characteristics, the costs of disposal may vary appreciably
from established average costs. Landfill has been found to have the lowest
capital investment by far, and in some cases, this cost may even have a
negative value as land appreciation will often return a sizable profit on the
initial investment. A private corporation operated a landfill near Barring-
ton, Illinois, purchasing approximately 100 acres of marginal farm land for
$1500 per acre and planning the site for development of a future golf course.
They expect to receive $5-6000 per acre for the completed fill site for a
200-300% return on their capital investment. (17) Average operating costs
for landfills are also the lowest with respect to the other disposal methods,
since a minimum of labor and complicated equipment is required.
Incineration costs are higher due to skilled labor requirements,
-------
27
TABLE 1
DISPOSAL METHOD COSTS
Disposal Method
Costs in dollars per ton
Capital Operating & Total
Maintenance
Sanitary Landfill
(2, 11)
0.10 - 0.50 1.00 - 2.00 1.10 - 2.50
Incineration
(12, 13)
0.75
3.50 - 5.50 4.25 - 6.25
Composting 1.50-2.50 3.00-4.00 4.50-6.50
(14, 15)
Garbage Grinding
to Sanitary Sewer
(2)
0.40
0.50 - 3.00 1.00 - 3.50
Incineration capital costs based on $6000./ton-capacity plant over
a 30-year expected life.
Composting costs do not include nutrient addition.
Garbage grinding costs for 300 ton/day central grinding operation
do not include solids treatment and disposal costs. These would be
$40. - 60./ton dry solids at treatment plant, exclusive of primary treat-
ment costs. (16)
-------
28
maintenance of complicated mechanical equipment and high capital costs„ Capi-
tal costs are based on a cost per ton rated-daily capacity of the incinerator.
To convert this cost to a cost per ton refuse disposed, a 30-year economic
life is often assumed, and daily refuse disposal is assumed to be at or near
rated-capacity 0
Average costs for composting are unrealistic and unreliable, as they are
based on only a small number of operations, often over short intervals of
time, and many of these have been abandoned or forced to close down,, Operating
costs are very dependent on the amount of hand labor required for separation of
the refuse components„ Some of the composting operations studied to obtain
these costs were likely to be operating at a loss, since they may be recip-
ients of Federal Demonstration Grants, or subsidized by a corporation from
other funds until they prove their operation to be successful,,
The costs for grinding disposal of only garbage are calculated for a
300-ton per day central grinder unit. These costs do not include the very
expensive disposal of solids at $40-60/ton, exclusive of primary treatment,
at the wastewater treatment plant,, This is included for comparison purposes
only and cannot represent the variations in costs due to the change in scale
of the operation. It must be remembered that storage and collection costs
are eliminated with this method, making it more competitive with the other
disposal methods, if the only refuse produced is garbage and, if only the
actual grinding costs must be paid by the institution. The disposal costs
are then included in the wastewater treatment plant operating costs.
C. Reclamation Methods
Three of the disposal methods for solid wastes have inherent reclamation
or recovery aspects, which may make one method more desirable than the others
for an institutional system. Incineration can be used to generate steam from
-------
29
heat,. This can be used for heating purposes or power generation, as
the cities of Zurich, Switzerland, and Boston are currently using this re-
claimed resource to heat and light city hospitals and other municipal build-
ings- (l-'jlS) The ash residue from a properly operated incinerator makes
very g,ood fill material and tn,°y even be sold to a contractor, if demand AT.
great enough„
Sanitary landfill ing can bo used to reclaim hilly or low bottom land it.r
extra land use by an institution., "J L may provide parking lots ,, storage areasJ
pldyjnp ^ields or park areas. With suitable precautions, such a;: gas re; It;;
from the fill and pile foundations,, some limited, temporary facilities m;_\ I :'
constructed,, However, adequate study must be made before construction begins,
or severe settling problems under structures may be encountered. One Lo?
Angeles County landfill, constructed to a depth of 185 feet, settled over 22
feet in some places and caused severe foundation problems on a single-story
structure nearby, (I1?)
Composting can produce a stabilized soil conditioner which may aid
gardeners and agriculture in some areas where soils have poor water-holding
capacity or become too cohesive. Addition of sewage sludge to increase ni-
trogen content will make this r,-r laimable refuse into a fertilizer. It may
be competitive with inorgani- fertilizers in some limited areas.
More direct reclamation of refuse may be accomplished by the salvage of
separate components of the solid waste production which have value themselves,
or way be reprocessed as a raw material. It may be technically possible to
sep;jr-:it< ^ salvagabj c. component fron the general refuse material, but this
will be limited by the economic costs of removal compared to the salvage
value, JV the desirable component cat be maintained in a separated stat>
from the other refuse at the source o.! prodv'Ction. separation will not Ut.
-------
30
required. In this respect, institutions are often well-suited to reclamation
due to the separate production of valuable refuse.
Paper and paper products such as corrugated boxes, cardboard clippings,
office mixed paper and newsprint are components of refuse which have a re-
covery value, depending on the quality of the refuse, degree of separation,
freedom from contamination and current market value. In the Chicago paper-
stock market, for example, in 1967, the following representative prices were
paid for various quality waste paper: (20)
Category Value in dollars per ton
No. 1 mixed paper 6
Old corrugated boxes 14
Corrugated clippings 25
Newsprint (negligible)
In a survey of the packaging industry for the ten-year period 1966-1976, the
outlook for paper recovery was toward decreasing recovery of waste paper due
to greater use of virgin fibers and increasing contamination of waste paper
sources. (20)
The recovery of metals from waste materials is profitable, if the metal
is all of one kind and free from contamination with other wastes or coating
materials. Production of metal scrap from certain manufacturing and pack-
aging processes, and from metal-working shops can be stored and periodically
collected for sale to a scrap dealer. Market values will determine the eco-
nomic value to be realized, or the disposal cost reduction available through
reclamation. Copper and aluminum are the principal non-ferrous scrap metals,
but demand for all scrap metal is falling. (21)
Glass and plastics are two components of refuse production which seem
likely candidates for salvage. Glass can be separated from less dense refuse
by agitation and settling. New air pressure and vacuum devices to separate
lightweight plastics are being tested. The market for used glass is negligible
-------
31
due to the high cost of at least $15 per ton to clean and process it for
reuse. However, glass from an uncontaminated refuse source may be salvag-
able, as these costs would not apply,, Plastics are so variable in their
composition that, unless they are sizable quantities of one particular type,
they are worthless.
Reclamation of waste products will become more necessary and, perhaps,
more economical in the future for two reasons. There is only a limited amount
of raw material available for production and secondly, there is a limited
amount of disposal space available, if we intend to preserve the quality of
our environment.
Do Collection Methods
Collection methods will be dependent, to some extent, on the disposal
method and any reclamation procedures in the solid waste system. However,
they usually account for 80% of the total management costs of solid waste pro-
duction. The collection methods and practice, therefore, deserve thorough
analysis to obtain an economical system which is efficient and compatible with
respect to disposal methods in use.
Although there are many collection systems in use with countless varia-
tions to fit particular requirements, most of them will fit into one of
several categories based on storage-load characteristics and transport of
refuse to disposal site,,
The use of an open- or closed-bodied truck or a closed compactor truck
with a collection crew is probably the most common method for collection of
many small refuse sources spaced at short distances, but not easily amenable
to common storage of refuse. This is the type of collection system found in
residential areas, but it is also widely used by private collectors of com-
mercial and light industrial wastes. It requires the most labor and usually
-------
32
frequent collections. The truck is restricted to hauling to the disposal site
between collected loads, which is a rather inefficient use of the vehicle.
A method requiring only the driver as labor is the compactor truck
which self-loads special containers at the collection site,, Often several of
these relatively small containers (1 ~ 3 C,,Y,) ar
-------
33
subsequent transport to the disposal site. The capital costs for such systems
would be high, even when installed in the initial construction of a facility.
However, the advantage of branch and trunk collection points over a large
spatial area or volume, would allow the collection of refuse produced in small
quantities by many processes. The adaptation of this system to separate refuse
component collection would present problems and added capital costs.
Transfer stations are a necessary intermediate step where refuse must
be hauled long distances from collection area to the disposal site. The col-
lection vehicle or large containers are taken to a centrally located transfer
station and dumped into large semi-trailers for haul to distant disposal
sites, which are usually landfill operations. Compaction may be provided by
the transfer station or within the semi-trailer itself. The collection vehicle
is then available for additional collections. It is difficult to determine a
specific haul distance above which transfer operations are more economical
than direct haul. Orange County, California, operates four transfer sites
handling 910 tons each per day with a round trip haul of 26 miles. Total
transfer and haul costs are $1.64 per ton. This cost agrees with a graph of
costs of transfer haul vs. direct haul for the Los Angeles County Southgate
transfer station. However, the graph shows that it is more economical to use
direct-haul with an average-sized collection vehicle than to transfer the
refuse for this particular haul distance. (4 p. IX-7, 1 p, 213) This illus-
trates the necessity for cost estimates based on the particular system being
studied and the analysis of more than one possible method of collection and
haul.
The combined use of long-distance rail haul with the transfer station
has been proposed for solution of the solid waste disposal problems in large
metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, Philadelphia, Denver and Upstate
-------
34
New York. Central compaction and transfer of the refuse from collection
vehicles to enclosed, large-volume rail cars promises to increase possible
round trip haul distance considerably, and make available disposal sites
considered much too distant for semi-trailer haul. However, none of these
sizable rail-haul plans have been implemented. (22)
Baling of refuse has been demonstrated to be an effective method for
maintaining the high compaction ratio of compressed refuse when it is subject
to handling, transfer and landfill disposal techniques. It is also effective
for processing and bulk shipment of reclaimed refuse components, such as waste
paper and metal scrap.
The Tezuka Process, a Japanese-developed process for compressing and
baling refuse into 1 C.Y. blocks, has received much attention lately. The
company claims the blocks have a final density of 64-120 Ibs. per ft. and can
be coated with asphalt, concrete, sheet metal or vinyl material, and can pos-
sibly be used for construction purposes. The claims also state that biologi-
cal degradation within the block is insignificant due to a lack of oxygen.
The cost of refuse disposal is quoted as $2.60 per ton, excluding building
costs and enclosure material costs, which could be substantial for sheet
metal. (23)
The claims for the Tezuka Process are difficult to believe, and possible
translation errors in the manufacturer's literature could be at fault. Bio-
logical activity certainly can continue under anaerobic conditions, causing
gas production and voids within the enclosed block. The additional building,
auxiliary equipment, and maintenance costs, plus coating material could make
the process economically undesirable. The final refuse block densities
quoted do not agree with the initial refuse density of 500 Ibs./C.Y. and a
claimed compaction ratio of 5:1 or 7:1. A preliminary report of the Tezuba
-------
35
Process by the American Public Works Association Research Foundation is a
critical analysis of the claims of the equipment manufacturer. (23)
-------
36
V. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is an example of a large
institution with a moderately refined organizational structure that produces
a substantial annual volume of solid waste. The student enrollment at the
University is approximately 32,000, but this number is reduced by one-half
during the three summer months of June, July and August. During vacation
periods, semester break and two summer periods when school is not in session,
this population is reduced to a mere few hundred students left on campus.
These fluctuations have a significant effect on the refuse production at
certain sources (see Fig. 1) and will dictate collection volumes and frequen-
cies. (See Table 2) Figure 1 shows that refuse produced by the student pop-
ulation, which is collected from housing, is high from September to May. The
construction and lawn debris production is low most of this time, but becomes
high from May to October. This equilization effect eliminates a high peak
demand for vehicles, keeping capital investment costs low, The University
employs 10,000 permanent faculty and staff for its operation. This population
is relatively constant, and continuously present on campus, except for slight
variation during the summer months.
The areal layout of the campus covers three-fourths of a square mile in
a roughly L-shaped pattern, one mile long on each side. (See Fig. 2) There
are approximately 100 major buildings and 25 minor ones Located within this
campus area, which does not include the south university farm area and its
associated buildings. The majority of the classroom and administrative office
space is located in the dozen large buildings surrounding the central quad-
rangle. Directly north of the quad is the engineering carapus with associated
offices, labs and shops, occupying five large blocks. South of the main quad
-------
37
X
o
cc
Id
Q.
cn
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
JUN
HOUSING REFUSE (STUDENTS)
30 C.Y HUGE-HAUL COMPACTION UNITS
1
SEP
DEC
MAR
2 60
UJ
o
j_ 50
TRANSFERRED
f\> CM -^
o o o
co 10
t-
i o
-
_
-
—
__
CONSTRUCTION a LAWN DEBRIS
5 C.Y UNITS TO TRASH DEPOT
JUN
SEP
DEC
MAR
FIGURE I. VARIATIONS IN REFUSE VOLUME
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
(REF. 24)
-------
H
o-.
v£)
a.
00
co
w
o
33
en
Q
W
CO
04
w
,z
r-l
<
H
1
IB
to
O
orf
W
60
C
•tH
in
3
O
33
C
O
T-l
4-1
4J
O
O
01
C
«
tJ
H
j
i
3
X
1
0)
OX
3
33
•
.J
•
^
*
33
33
(A
M
0)
M
&
•X3
rt
3
M in
4J -H
Ul (-1
C 43
0 01
CJ Q
r-H
rt
|H 43 *->
4-1 0) O
c rt o
0) M 01
OHO
j^
4-
c
c
13
a
r-
•K
T3
0)
4J •
0 tH
o rt •
ro a. u
B
o
o
£H
O •
co o
JH
O •
CM CJ
•
tH
oo •
O
•
O •
CO CJ
»
o •
-H C.3
S-l
00 •
CJ
IH
°
*
s_,
u->
O
^O •
| £>•»!
^- •
^ a
•a
4)
4J
CJ
rt •
CO ft, ,X
co W •
O O'
CJ
PS. f-H rj% CM cy> co m \o ~^ cr» CM p^
in in m in "^ co in in -^ r-n CM
Of-co t-~ r^-H<-vor-oo
co csj ro CN ro r^ ro co ro CN ro co
c^r^ooocr. CJNOCOOOOCO
f-H t-H
ro o o oo CM oo oo vjQ csj oo r^- -^
fv. ^Q Q\ \O O *3" lO ^O OO »™t CN -*3"
SSS^S SS5S55^
r^ vocor~ocooco
C.D ^j1 i-O *3" ~^ O^ O^ i-O cO C.D ^H r^«
CO CO <*"! CO CO CN Cs| CO CO CO CO CN|
0 CO 00 0 -H 00 0 ^D CM CM CO CTN
CQ QQ r-^ £*} ^-4 (^f. oo ...yN 1—1 LO r*^ r^«
v— 4 ^H »-( ,— 4
cMcor.^,0
CO CNJ •—» CN CN CN CN LO -^" <.f CO CO
in vD O CT\ 00 C3> CO O^ O> O *^~ C^
CO CO ~3" CO CM CM CO CO CO CO CO CM
J>t l-t M 4)
IH .X 4) 4) tH 43
W (J 43 43 4) 6 W
i— 1 43 3 4-'CM6Cr-HC
ON rt p. rt o) rt cr* I o)ouo)333
r— 4 ^ ^ ^ Ct^ f— j r— ( 1 QS^OC/l'^r-^r-^
.-1 — 1 ,-H
ON
o
f-H
oo
co
CO
00
o
0*1
vO
00
vO
vO
CO
p*.
0
0
00
*
CO
CM
1—1
m
0
f-H
CO
CO
f-H
f-H
-^-
(0
M
4)
c
cr.
4J
C
o
ct
0
EH
«
O
CM
•
in
f-H
0
co
-3-
•
,-H
'H
0
o
*«o
f-H
oo
vO
in
•
in
o
CM
CTi
•
f-H
O
oo
r"*
o
00
oo
o
CM
^
m
CM
in
o
oo
v£)
f-H
co
vo
m
c**
f-H
^->
^H
O
s^y
4)
E
f—
O
n
4J
0
H
O
r-H
OO
»
m
^-
2
p;
m
*
-3;
in
0)
g
3
r-l
0
c >
o
•H r-l
4J rt
rt 4J
4J O
IH H
O
a 4i
0) CO
0 O
rt o
H
>i
d
00
^.
,„
^
*
4)
E
f—
0
)
ct
4J
O
H
of
c a)
•H CO
Ul O
I-3
*"'~1
0)
Pi
c
o
3
CJ
rH
rt
CJ
0)
f-H
O
rt
4-1
O
0)
4-1
«
4J
(0
4)
O
O
T3
O)
•a
rt
ex
0)
I—I
o
in
4)
•a
0)
ui
ui
rt
4)
4J
rt
C
o
•H
4J
O
«
a
E
o
-------
FIGURE 2 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
CAMPUS MAP OF REFUSE
• 5,6 CY LOAO-LU6SER
A 8,10 CY LOAD-LUGGER
• -tO,3O CY WU8E-HAOC
•c 30,33 CY COMMCTOft HUGE-HAUL
C H AMPAIGN
TRASH DEPOT
TRANSFER SITE
"0-
-------
40
is an area of less structural density and diverse building use, such as fine
arid applied arts, law, veterinary medicine and animal labs, plant science,
commerce and state natural history and geological surveys. University resi-
dence halls are located principally on the southeast and southwest: corners of
the campus area. The design of major buildings ranges from two-story engi-
neering labs to fourteen-story residence halls with the average building about
four-stories tall. The street, pattern is mainly an east-west and north-south
rectangular grid, but with many discontinuous east-west streets making travel.
in this direction difficult and roundabout. North-south streets are usually
"through" streets, but in the central campus area, they are often one-way.
The topography can be described as absolutely flat.
Climatic conditions are significant at Urbana, as the summer is hot,
with average temperatures in the 75-90 F range, and humidity above 75%. It
is usually sunny and clear. In the winter, the climate changes to cold and
damp, with freezing temperatures down to zero degrees and rain, ice and wet
snow common until late March.
A. Classification of Solid Waste Sources and Characteristics
There are several major, distinct refuse source designations which can
be made, based on the composition of the refuse produced. These are readily
identified with particular building-use characteristics. The residence halls
and associated food service facilities produce one mixed-type refuse. The
office and classroom refuse are another designation. The life science,
veterinary medicine and agriculture buildings have a characteristic waste.
The physical plant operation concentrates construction and demolition refuse
to a certain extent. The engineering buildings are in the office-classroom
designation, although the labs produce a smaller, variable amount of com-
pletely heterogenous wastes.
-------
41
The residence hall food operations are serviced by a total of six
compactor-type huge-haul units; one located at each operation. Twelve of the
large buildings away from the quad, such as the Civil Engineering Building,
are also serviced by individual huge hauls. The classroom-office buildings
in the quad area are serviced by individual 8 C.Y. , on-site load-lugger units,
due to the restricted space available in this conjested area. Three build-
ings have no load-lugger space available and office refuse is daily carted
out to a Dempster paper-packer unit mounted on a truck body. Physical plant
construction waste and tree- and lawn-trimmings are concentrated at the trash
depot near the physical plant, if quantities are not large enough to warrant
direct trips to the disposal site.
The composition of the solid waste produced by the university falls into
four specific categories and one miscellaneous category. Dry refuse consists
of all paper wastes from offices, classrooms, labs, libraries and residence
halls and other wastebasket refuse produced in these buildings. Wet garbage
is the packaging materials, food preparation trimmings and food residue from
the residence hall kitchens and Bevier Hall home economics classes and cafe-
teria. The Illini Union food service produces a substantial garbage waste.
The third category is animal wastes., which include carcasses, bedding material
arid manure, and residue from meat processing. The animal carcasses are from
the large and small animal clinics, veterinary medicine and zoology research
and labs in the life sciences buildings. Assorted bedding of sawdust, news-
paper, cedar shavings and straw, and animal feces are produced at these build-
ings and the animal science building. Fat, bones, hides, offal and greases
are residue from meat processing at the central foods cold storage unit. The
wastes from construction projects, demolition of old structures, maintenance
and landscaping are the fourth major category of refuse. The miscelleneous
-------
42
category includes special wastes that are usually randomly produced. Their
characteristics are different from the other refuse categories and some re-
quire additional attention or special disposal precautions, They may include
chemicals, waste oil,concrete test cylinders and beams, waste ink and sol-
vents, wood powder, metal shavings, grease Erom traps, and cinder and clinker
material. (25)
The ash production by Abbott Power Plant averages 35 tons per day, but
this waste is removed by private contract with the coal company. This solid
waste will be eliminated by 1972, when the university expects to complete con-
version of the power plant to gas-fired boilers.
The total volume of refuse transported by the University of Illinois at
the Urbana campus to the disposal site in the 1968-1969 school year was almost
120,000 C.Y. This volume was measured from the total cubic yard capacity of
container volumes removed for disposal and assumes full or near-full utiliza-
tion of container capacity. (See Table 2) At an average density of 200 Ibs,/
C.Y., the weight of this refuse for cost assessment purposes was 12,000 tons.
A breakdown of percentages of component categories listed above on a weight
basis can be obtained from the Estimated Generation Survey of Solid Wastes
(25): (See Table 3)
Refuse Composition Category
Dry Refuse
Wet Garbage
Animal Wastes
Construction and
Maintenance Wastes
Special Wastes
Percent Weight of Total Refuse
517.
2%
10%
25%
12%
The characteristics of the refuse produced in each of the categories is
uniform, except in the construction-landscape refuse because components vary
with the season, and the special refuse which depends on the particular
-------
43
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED GENERATION OF SOLID WASTES
CHAMPAIGN-URBANA CAMPUS - UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Refuse Category
Pounds Per Year
Tons Per Year
Dry Refuse
Load packer
Load lugger
Huge haul
Private contractor
Total Dry Refuse
Wet Garbage
Residence hall kitchens
Bevier hall (Home Economics)
Total Wet Garbage
Animal Wastes
Carcasses
Fat, Bones, Hides, Offal & Grease
Bedding Material & Manure
Total Animal Wastes
Construction & Maintenance Wastes
House demolitions
Open-top containers
Landscape debris
Total Construction & Maintenance
Wastes
Special Wastes
Chemicals
Waste oils
Concrete test cylinders & beams
Waste ink & solvent
Wood powder
Cinders & clinkers
Metal shavings
Grease from traps
Total Special Wastes
Total All Wastes
535,000
3,969,000
5,297,000
1,400.000
11,201,000
513,000
56.000
569,000
575,000
359,000
1.304.000
2,238,000
1,912,000
2,400,000
765.000
5,077,000
300
102,000
170,000
4,100
2,400
2,527,000 *
41,000
11.200
2,858,000
5,600
280
1,100
2,500
21,943,000
1,400
11,000
* Source of this figure is unknown. Does not agree with Abbott Power
Plant cinder production, Which is 35 tons/day.
(Ref. 25)
-------
44
waste being disposed. The characteristics of the refuse, as noted earlier in
the discussion, describe the chemical and physical qualities of the refuse
and relate to the effectiveness of possible collection and disposal methods.
A relative comparison of the university refuse composition categories, with
respect to applicable characteristics for collection and disposal, is given
in Table 4. Examination of this table will show which methods of collection
and disposal are best suited to the types of refuse being produced, but rela-
tive percentage of total production and economic considerations will dictate
the final method to be chosen.
B. Present Solid Waste Management
1. Collection
The collection system for the university refuse production is pri-
marily the periodic removal of truck-mountable refuse storage containers from
their respective building sites for transport to the disposal site or to the
trash depot. The total of 113 containers vary in size from small 5 C.Y. load-
lugger units to the 30 C.Y. huge-haul units, 6 of which are equipped with com-
pactor rams which will reduce the refuse volume to 1/2 - 1/3 of its original
volume. (See Figure 2) The large containers are transported directly to the
disposal site, while some of the smaller 5-10 C.Y. containers located on the
south and west sides of the campus area are taken to the trash depot for com-
paction and transfer. This trash depot is a transfer and compaction station
where not only small container units, but construction and maintenance wastes,
are dumped through a floor charging-hopper into a compactor equipped huge-haul
for less frequent trips to the disposal site. It is located at the southwest
corner of the campus near the physical plant. This transfer point is located
on the opposite corner of the campus with respect to the disposal site loca-
tion.
-------
TABLE A
REFUSE CHARACTERISTICS BY COMPOSITION CATEGORIES
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
45
c ^
0) M
e o
O 60
a
CD
•s
VI
(0
O
4J
v. high
low
med.
no
high
no
yes
no
no
no
rH 0)
§0)
jj
•H 01
high
low
med.
no
high
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
e m
O Q) 3
•rt O
^J C flJ
0 « &
2c rt
(U 0
4J 4J W
co e *o
C -H g
o td «
O £ iJ
low-med .
med.
med.
no
low
yes
no
yes
no
no
-------
46
The frequency of collection varies, based on the rate of production
of waste at a source and the storage capacity of the containers« The small
load-luggers are usually emptied 3 times per week, while some of the huge
hauls are only emptied once weekly. Garbage contaminated wastes in the huge
haul units at the residence halls are emptied every third day»
A paper packer unit mounted on a truck body is used to remove office
refuse daily from several of the central quad buildings, which have no refuse
container space. It is operated on a one-half day basis.
Five additional vehicles are required for transport of the container
units to the disposal or transfer sites. These vehicles, however, are not
used exclusively for collection purposes. The personnel required to operate
the collection vehicles varies from 3 to 6 with an average of 5 working an
eight-hour day. One to three supervisory personnel are required, depending
on the particular problems being encountered.
The majority of the wet garbage wastes produced at the residence hall
food services and Bevier Hall are ground on-site by institutional garbage
grinders and flushed with water to the sanitary sewer. This waste does not
enter the solid waste collection and disposal system. The charges for this
service are included in the costs of sanitary connections and wastewater pro-
duction by the University paid to the Champaign-Urbana Sanitary District,, A
small amount of this garbage waste including wet slop, cans, glass and other
containers is put into the huge haul units, contaminating the contents with
wet garbage.
The garbage from the Illini Union food service is not collected by
the University, but is removed by private contract. At the present time, a
farmer collects this wet slop and garbage for hog-feeding purposes.
Animal carcasses and wastes require some special preparation and
handling to be disposed of in an aesthetically acceptable and sanitary way.
-------
47
These wastes from Veterinary Medicine Lab, Small and Large Animal Clinic and
the Zoology Department in Morrill Hall and Natural History Building are placed
in plastic bags and then in the load-luggers„ The bag keeps the contents free
from insect pests, prevent odors and disagreeable handling, and retains the
high moisture content within the refuse container. The small animals and
litter from Burrill Hall are incinerated daily in a small, 50,0 Ib. per hour
on-site incinerator. The Animal Science Building wraps the animal carcasses
in plastic and stores them in a freezer. Periodically they are collected by
a private scavenger for rendering. A thorough study of the handling of these
wastes and specific recommendations for immediate improvement of collection
and disposal methods are contained in a report on the Solid Waste Disposal of
Animal Remains and Wastes - University of Illinois. (26)
2. Disposal
The principal disposal method for the university solid waste pro-
duction is landfill at the Urbana City Landfill. This was formerly an open
dump, and its present site characteristics and operation make the sanitary
aspects of this disposal operation doubtful. The present site occupies 37
acres with possible expansion of 22 additional acres. The expected life of
the present site is about five years. This assumes that the Illinois State
Public Health Department or Water Pollution Control Board take no major action
to suspend or halt the use of the disposal site due to unsatisfactory condi-
tions .
The university is not involved in the operation of the landfill, but
merely transports its refuse to the site for disposal. It assumes one-third
share in the total cost of the landfill operation with the City of Urbana.
It was previously mentioned that most of the garbage waste from the
food services was ground and flushed to the sanitary sewer. No additional
disposal is necessary.
-------
48
Garbage slop from the Illini Union is collected by private contract
for a nominal fee with a local hog fanner for swine-feeding. This is a very
small part of the total refuse production.
Meat processing wastes such as fat, bones, and offal from Davenport
Hall and Central Food Stores, and large uncontaminated animals from Animal
Science are removed by contract by a Decatur rendering plant.
Ashes and cinders from the Abbott Power Generating Plant using coal-
fired boilers is removed by private contract included in the price of the
purchased coal.
3. Reclamation Procedures
Scrap metal and machine shop shavings are collected in a storage bin
at the Physical Plant Building. Depending on market value of the scrap metal
and volume on hand, the material is removed by a local scrap and salvage
dealer. The reclaimed sale value usually just offsets the removal cost.
No other reclamation procedures are in use at the present time.
4. Costs
The costs of refuse collection and disposal at the University are
difficult to evaluate due to the many hidden costs involved in the system.
Collection work performed by janitors and other help in removing refuse to
collection containers are not included. Kitchen help disposing of garbage to
grinders are not included. Collection vehicle maintenance and depreciation
are not included in the collection costs because accounting procedures include
these costs in the Transportation Division costs. The rendering contract for
removal and disposal of animal carcasses from Animal Science has recently in-
creased substantially in cost to $26.00 per ton. The removal of garbage and
wet refuse from the Illini Union by private contract for hog-feeding costs
$20.60 per ton. (25) It was not possible to assign operating-maintenance
cost and capital cost for the collection or disposal methods.
-------
49
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS REFUSE MANAGEMENT COSTS (24)
Total Annual Cost Dollars Per Ton
Collection(1) $44,486. 3.65
Disposal^ $10,000. 0.83
Total $54,486. 4.48
Collection costs include hauling, container maintenance and wages.
(2)
Disposal cost is 1/3 of Urbana City Landfill costs, including oper-
ating, maintenance and equipment capital investments.
C. Alternative Methods of Solid Waste Management
In the use of the total system approach to solid waste management, there
is the tendency to organize the system for the optimum efficiency. This is
a very creditable objective, but, especially for systems in existence, it is
difficult to achieve this goal without sacrificing economy to a large degree.
The University of Illinois could improve the total efficiency of solid
waste disposal by reducing the number of different disposal methods and over-
lapping disposal of similar waste materials. Hog-feeding and rendering con-
tracts are an added problem in this respecto The different disposal of
animal remains makes development of handling and storage procedures and regu-
lations difficult. The operation of one small animal incinerator requires
more time per pound of waste incinerated than a larger-scale incinerator.
Keeping the relatively small volumes of garbage contaminated wastes separate
from the general dry refuse in the huge hauls, would reduce the frequency of
collection from perhaps 3 times per week to once weekly. Compaction devices
may reduce collection frequencies by one-half.
Optimum economy of the solid waste system is difficult to assess , since
all present costs are lumped together as one total collection cost or total
disposal costs. Many costs are also hidden costs, budgeted under the
-------
50
individual department and not included in the total cost figures, The dis-
posal costs at present are extremely low and it is highly doubtful any changes
in disposal method would reduce this disposal cost. Collection and storage
costs may be reduced in some particular situations. The freezing and storage
of animals to be collected by the rendering company costs more than steriliza-
tion and haul to the landfill with other refuse. The disposal of other ani-
mals by this company is not more economical than landfill, but a removal ser-
vice is provided which otherwise must be performed by laboratory or janitorial
help. Flushing of waste trays under larger animal cages and grinding of the
waste materials to the sanitary sewer would reduce the amount of expensive
hand labor required presently.
The disposal of some of the larger animals by landfill would probably not
be the best disposal procedure. Their large size and subsequent decomposition
may affect the stability and settlement of the fill. Serious odor and nuisance
conditions would be likely, as well as health hazards from pest harborage.
Incineration of these large animal carcasses at a centrally located inciner-
ator could eliminate these concerns and is a preferable disposal method for
this waste, but it certainly is not as economical as landfill operations.
Disposal of the paper component of the total refuse production could be
eliminated if this mixed paper and cardboard were to be salvaged. This sal-
vage would reduce the total disposal costs, as it is a substantial part of
the waste production. As long as the sum of the market value of the salvaged
paper and the present disposal costs was greater than the salvage processing
and shipping costs, the method would be more economical than the present
method. As an approximation, the dry refuse component of university solid
waste production is almost entirely paper. If this 5600 tons of mixed paper
per year could be kept separated from contaminating wastes, like wet garbage,
-------
51
which would not be difficult, the recovery value would be $33,000. per year
at a nominal price of $6. per ton of mixed paper. This does not include the
additional savings in reduced disposal costs. Certainly a paper packer unit
could be purchased and operated for less than this figure.
Incineration of university refuse has been suggested as a practical,
efficient and aesthetically pleasing method of disposal. However, this in-
cineration would probably be very uneconomical due to the relatively small
amount of refuse produced by the University of Illinois. The average total
solid waste production of 12,000 tons per year amounts to only an average 33
tons per day. This is far below the average size municipal incinerator of
250 tons per day capacity per single furnace. The capital cost alone for a
33-ton per day incinerator would be at least $6600. per year based on a capital
cost of $6000. per ton capacity and a 30-year expected life. Not only would
capital costs be high for a small plant of this size, but operating costs could
not be justified to insure proper incineration of the refuse. Development of
small-scale incinerators requiring less labor and maintenance than conven-
tional units may deserve further consideration.
D. Proposed Solid Waste Disposal System
Sanitary landfill offers the best characteristics for general disposal
of university solid waste. It is efficient, sanitary, aesthetically accept-
able, and above all, very economical, both absolutely and when compared to
other disposal methods.
Although the continued operation of the present landfill site is ques-
tionable beyond several years, other disposal sites are available within an
easily justifiable haul distance of the university. For example, at a haul
distance of 10 miles, there is approximately 100 acres of used gravel pit
land south of Mahomet which would be suitable for landfilling with some site
-------
52
grading. At a distance of 30 miles, there is unlimited strip mine land
available near Oakwood. Figure 3 shows that landfill disposal costs, in-
cluding collection and haul costs, are cheaper than incineration costs for
direct haul or transfer haul up to distances of 25 miles (6, p. 44).
Land requirements for the disposal of all present production of univer-
sity refuse are easily calculated. Associated costs for the land required
are based on the most conservative figures and, yet, this method is still very
inexpensive.
From previously reported production figures of 120,000. C.Y. of refuse
per year, and assuming a compaction ratio of 3:1, 10 foot depth of fill and
207» cover material, the annual land requirement is:
/120,000 C.Y.N / 1 \ (27 C.F.N / Acre \ / 1 \
\ yr. ) \ 3 J \ C.Y. / V43,560 Acre-ftJ \10 ft. depth,/ {: '
(Volume) (Compac- (depth of fill) ^J-Owa
tion) for COVer)
„ 1 Acres
J • J. —"
yr,
Assuming land costs of $1000. per acre, which is an excessive cost in this
area for poor quality, degraded land, the total annual land cost would not
exceed $3100. Although equipment capital costs and operating costs must be
added, the total cost of landfill disposal would be considerably less than
total incineration costs, due to high operating and maintenance costs with
incineration. Finally, appreciation of the land value will be a negative
cost of landfill operation, and may even be great enough to return some of
the disposal operating costs, when the finished landfill site can be sold for
other future uses.
Landfill, as a disposal method, offers flexibility over other disposal
methods. Capital investment in disposal equipment is low, so the university
will not be bound by large plant investment to this disposal method, if
-------
53
$600
to
O 575
O
o
CO
o
o.
tO
5
o
ui
I
s
o
55O
525
SOO
475
450
INCINERATION (INCL
SANITARY
5-MILE HA II
LANDFILL (I
y
MCL 5-MILE HAUL)
$230
205
180
155
130
105
80
0 10 20 30 40 50
ROUND TRIP HAUL TO SANITARY LANDFILL - MILES
FIGURE 3. EFFECT OF HAUL DISTANCE ON
TOTAL DISPOSAL COST.
Population 50,000
(RER 6)
_co
"o
o
o
2
M
Q
O
o
<
o
-------
54
technological changes produce a more desirable method. Changes in refuse
composition or seasonal fluctuations in production of refuse will not affect
the operation of a sanitary landfill. This is particularly important, if
the university at a later time found salvage of a refuse component to be
economical. The reduction of total refuse for disposal would simply mean
less land would be required annually.
Salvage of mixed paper and corrugated box is the only reclamation pro-
cedure that appears to be economically attractive and of significant magni-
tude to allow efficient recovery. The value of the reclaimed paper varies
considerably over short time intervals. A thorough investigation of an outlet
market and a fixed price contract would be necessary to initiate this recovery
operation.
The disposal of the various animal carcasses, wastes and bedding materi-
als would be improved by incineration of all of these components at a conven-
ient location on campus. The buildings producing these wastes are located in
the south-east corner of the campus, so site selection would be limited to
this area. A daily pick-up by one special vehicle and a properly trained crew
could eliminate all storage, health, odor and handling problems, and provide
enough waste to justify part-time operation of a well-designed on-site incin-
erator. Auxiliary fuel may be required to get adequate incineration of all
wastes and limit air pollution problems. The supervisory control on such a
collection and disposal system would be much easier than the present situa-
tion of diverse disposal schemes.
-------
55
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. University of Illinois Solid Waste System
The University of Illinois has an- ideal solid waste disposal operation
at the present time, with regard to economics of the disposal method. It
would not be possible to create a more economic disposal method than the
operation with the City of Urbana. However, this situation will inevitably
change due to public and governmental pressure to provide more sanitary dis-
posal conditions. The university will then be forced to develop its own dis-
posal system, or combine with one or more municipalities or a county agency
for disposal of refuse.
The most sensible approach would be a combined disposal system for the
cities of Champaign and Urbana and their outlying communities and the Univer-
sity of Illinois. This combined system would provide sanitary disposal of
solid wastes for the small communities, insure the university of a permanent
disposal method and eliminate the undesirable Urbana city landfill. It would
also be more economical than operating duplicate facilities, as is presently
done. The increase in scale of the operation would allow better supervision
of the disposal and use of more sophisticated equipment to improve the aes-
thetic and sanitary conditions of the disposal site. For example, sanitary
landfill land requirements for Champaign-Urbana and the University of Illinois
would be about 10 acres per year, assuming a city population of 90,000, 0.75
tons refuse produced per capita per year (2), loose refuse density of 200 Ibs.
per C.Y., a compaction ratio of 3 to 1 and a ten foot depth of fill. This
land requirement of ten acres per year would be easily satisfied by purchase
of available marginal land in sufficient quantities within economical haul
distance. The best management would be obtained if the disposal system was
-------
56
developed on a regional basis, such as a sanitary district, and was responsi-
ble to the county board or its own representative board of supervisors.
Sanitary landfill disposal is the cheapest disposal method when all costs
are considered. It will continue to be so, as long as labor and construction
material costs continue to increase. Landfill operation also is the most
flexible disposal operation to changes in refuse composition, refuse produc-
tion volumes and changes in the disposal method itself.
Animal wastes and carcasses are the solid waste component of most con-
cern at the university. They pose both a storage and contamination problem,
and at the present time, are handled and disposed of in many varied methods.
The only component of university refuse that has any potential salvage
value is the mixed paper from office and classroom buildings. This can be
easily kept separated from other contaminating wastes, and be compacted and
baled for rail shipment. The value of this paperstoek is determined by market
prices, which are depressed at the present time. However, in the future this
may change with increased recycling of used paper in paper products. The
university production of 5600 tons annually would not only realize a market
value, but also reduce the amount of total refuse to be disposed by the uni-
versity.
The collection and transportation system for solid waste removal from
the university is an efficient and reasonably economical system in its present
state. The use of truck-mountable containers has reduced the labor required
for collection to a minimum, and has allowed the efficient use of vehicle
time primarily for transportation to the disposal site. The use of inde-
pendent containers for separation of putrescible garbage wastes and dry refuse
could allow less frequent collection of the volumes of dry refuse. This may
reduce the total number of required pick-ups or allow the pick-up schedule to
be more flexible to changes in dry refuse quantities.
-------
57
The central quad buildings, producing mainly office and classroom paper
wastes, and their attendant lack of refuse storage space requiring daily
paper-packer service, would be a likely area for study and implementation of
a pressure or vacuum collection and transport system. Gravity-type chutes
within buildings and vacuum-tube transport between buildings through existing
steam tunnels to a central collection and storage site near the quad should
be given consideration in the not-to-distant future. Periodic construction
and modification of existing utility corridors and tunnels for other purposes
would allow gradual implementation of this system at a minimum capital cost.
The trash depot facility on the far southwest corner of the campus pro-
vides a limited service for collection, compaction and transfer of small
quantities of construction and lawn debris arriving at the Physical Plant.
However, it is not particularly efficient to use this transfer facility for
emptying small load-lugger containers into a larger unit for haul to the
present disposal site. The distance and amount of time required to directly
haul these small units to the Urbana disposal site is not significantly more
than to the transfer site. The transfer time, labor and subsequent transfer
haul trips can be eliminated or reduced. In the future, if a more distant
disposal site is used, this transfer station will be very practical for elimi-
nating inefficient direct haul of small container units to the disposal site.
An administrative structure for solid waste management at the University
of Illinois should be established to concentrate in one unit the responsibility
for economy and proper sanitary quality control in present operations, and to
provide adequate future planning for changes or additions in facilities. The
present responsibility for solid waste management is divided, on the basis of
the operation involved, among the physical plant transportation department,
the sanitary engineer for the university, the animal caretakers of various
-------
58
science and agriculture departments and the custodial labor force. This
segregated responsibility allows conflicting policies and procedures to de-
velop, which reduce the efficiency of the total solid waste system. Coordi-
nated under the responsibility of one director, uniform regulations, inspec-
tions and corrective procedures could be instituted more effectively,
B. Institutional Solid Waste Systems
Institutional solid waste systems need to be developed to properly and
economically process specialized refuse produced by the operation of these
organizations. The solid waste must be considered a reclamable resource that
in many cases is very amenable to recovery as a raw material, conversion to a
new product or use as a source of energy. With anticipated increases in
future growth, refuse production and management will receive greater consid-
eration from the viewpoint of limited natural resources and limited disposal
space and assimilative capacity of our environment.
Institutional sources of solid waste production need to be studied to
modify and optimize collection and disposal methods for existing institutions,
and to develop design criteria for planning solid waste systems for future,
proposed institutions. The benefit of installation of solid waste systems
during initial construction, like other utilities, promises simultaneous
efficient and economic removal and disposal of refuse. To accomplish this
optimization, surveys of present typical institutions need to be made to
analyze refuse production, characteristics, collection, disposal and relative
costs involved. Meaningful results of this survey can only be obtained if
standard units and methods of measurement and evaluation are used. This
problem currently hampers any comparison of two existing systems, as data are
reported in terms of different weight, volume and time units.
The solution being sought in analysis of institutional solid waste
-------
59
systems cannot be a fixed standard of performance, such as an effluent con-
centration of x milligrams per liter or a percent removal. Instead, the goal
is to improve the environment of man by reducing the burden of solid waste,
which must be ultimately returned to the environment,at reasonable economic
costs. Technological progress in developing new treatment methods and critical
review of existing facilities will help achieve this goal.
-------
60
REFERENCES
1. Refuse Collection Practice. 1966. Amer. Public Works Assn. Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Danville, Illinois, p. 525.
2. Municipal Refuse Disposal. 1966. Amer. Public Works Assn. Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Danville, Illinois, p. 528.
3. Grove, C. S., M. L. Kestner and N. L. Nemerow. 1969. Rehabilitation of
solid industrial waste disposal sites. Paper - Purdue, Ind. Waste Conf.
May 8, 1969. n.p.
4. Tchobanoglous, G. and G. Klein. 1962. An engineering evaluation of
refuse collection systems applicable to the shore establishment of the
U. S. Navy. S.E.R.L. Univ. of Calif„, Berkeley, p. 478.
5. Hildreth, J. B. 1968. Solid waste planning p. IV:1 - IV:6. In Elements
of solid waste management. USPHS Training Manual in Solid Wastes.
6. Anon. 1964. Refuse quantities and characteristics. _In Municipal Refuse
Collection and Disposal, p. 6-10. Office for Local Government. New York
State Executive Department.
7. Anderson, R. L. 1968. Operation procedures for sanitary landfill, jn
Sanitary landfill - principles of design and operation,, USPHS Training
Manual in Solid Wastes.
8. Golueke, C. G. 1968. Composting, p. 150-209. In Comprehensive studies
of solid waste management - abstracts and excerpts from the literature.
S.E.R.L. Report No. 68-3. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. p. 308.
9. Anon. 1966. Composting - is it economically sound? Refuse Rem. JA
V. 9:10.
10. Anon. 1966. A thorough look at composting. Amer. City. V. 81:30.
11. Fahy, V. 1966. A firm price for six years of service. Amer. City.
V. 81:106.
12. Flaherty, J. F. 1960. Boston's incinerator is a steam producer. Amer.
City. V. 75:104.
13. City of Chicago, Dept. of Sanitation. Southwest incinerator costs.
July, 1969.
14. Sanford, C. F. 1965. Elmira to try composting. Amer. City. V. 80:93.
15. Anon. 1968. $1 1/2 million composting plant closes. Refuse Rem. J.
V. 11:23.
-------
61
16. Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District. West-Southwest Wastewater
Treatment Plant solids disposal costs. July, 1969.
17. Discussion with Mr. Michael Albl. National Disposal Corporation.
Barrington, Illinois. July, 1969.
18. Anon. 1960. The Swiss don't miss incinerator thrift. Amer. City.
V. 75:32.
19. Development of Construction and Use Criteria for Sanitary Landfills.
1969. Interim Report prepared by Los Angeles Co. and Engineering
Science, Inc«, Arcadia, Calif. USPHS Solid Waste Program.
20. Darnay, A. and W. E. Franklin. 1969. The role of packaging in solid
waste management 1966 to 1976. Report prepared for USPHS Bureau of
Solid Waste Management.
21. Story, W. S. 1963. Problems of the salvage industry as they relate to
solid waste disposal, p. 235. In Comprehensive studies of solid waste
management - abstracts and excerpts from the literature. S.E.R.L.
Report No. 68-3. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
22. Hamlin, G. H. 1967. Propose train to haul to desert landfill. Refuse
Rem. J^ V. 10:10.
23. The Tezuka Refuse Compression System. 1969. A preliminary report by
the Amer= Public Works Assn. Research Foundation, Chicago, Illinois.
USPHS Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
24. University of Illinois Physical Plant records. September, 1969.
25. University of Illinois Solid Waste Survey. 1969. Report by Consoer,
Townsend and Associates.
26. Koertge, Henry H. 1968. Summary Report: Solid waste disposal of animal
remains and wastes - University of Illinois.
a 535
-------
------- |