y of
SOLID WAST_
COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
comparing one-man
with multi-man crews
a condensation
-------
-------
Recent strikes of sanitation workers have made citizens of a number of
American cities Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, Memphis, and Los
Angeles, to name a few - painfully aware of the importance of solid
waste collection. As the wastes pile up, the public was forced to think
about the costs involved in this essential, but often taken-for-granted,
community service.
On a nationwide basis, these costs are huge: Americans annually spend
approximately $4.5billion on solid waste management. In coming years,
these costs will increase. Population is increasing. So are the quantities
of goods and services Americans produce and consume. The result: Every
American is throwing away more and more solid wastes. Thus, managing
solid wastes must come to be thought of in terms of mass production,
mass collection, and mass disposal.
The collection process, which represents approximately 75 per cent of
total management costs, would seem a good starting point for efforts to
reduce our bills for solid waste management. Traditionally, this area has
not received a great deal of attention, however. More emphasis has been
focused on improving existing disposal techniques or developing new
ones incorporating reclamation, since the disposal process is the source
of serious environmental problems.
NATION SPENDS
$4.5 BILLION
ON
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
-------
As a big business, waste collection can benefit from in-depth studies of
equipment, methods, and other factors involved in efficient operation
and high employee morale. One way of attacking collection costs is to
reduce manpower requirements, thus freeing the funds needed to pay
sanitation workers the higher wages they are demanding.
SURVEYS
OF
COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
MAJOR REASON
FOR ONE-MAN CREW COST
SAVINGS IS TRAVEL TIME
One-man collection crews, instead of the widely used two- and three-
man crews, appear to be one means of doing this. A solid waste man-
agement study funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
indicates that a one-man system may be more efficient than multi-man
systems in collecting waste that has been placed at the curb. Using a
right-hand drive, side-loading compacting truck, one man is more pro-
ductive than a.multi-man crew in terms of the man-hours required to
collect a ton of solid wastes. Although equipment costs for one-man
crews are higher, overall costs are 25 to 45 percent less than for two-
man crews and 35 to 50 percent less than three-man crews, under
conditions assumed in the study, which was conducted by Ralph Stone
and Co., Inc., Engineers, Los Angeles. Travel time is a major reason
for the savings, since only the driver works then. The efforts of the
second and third members shorten collection time, but not enough
to compensate for the time wasted in travel.
-------
The one-man crew also may be more economical than the multi-man
crew for collecting solid wastes from alleys. The loads are not excess-
ive for one man to collect from curbs or alleys in residential and light
commercial areas. When wastes must be carried out from backyards,
bigger crews are more economical.
The study grew out of reports that some southern California commun-
ities are cutting their collection costs by using one-man crews. Are the
apparent savings real? Why do one-man crews save money? Does their
use have widespread applicability? Answering these questions involves
a thorough analysis of solid wastes collections, a complex system in-
volving not only men and equipment, but also the frequency of ser-
vice, type of materials collected, location of pickup point, road con-
ditions, climate, and many other factors. Numbers cannot be attached
to all these factors, nor can numbers be attached to the human factors
involved morale, motivation, and fatigue, for example. Thus, merely
looking at overall costs and crew size cannot explain the true nature
and cause of the relative effectiveness of different systems. But com-
paring specific factors particularly the readily definable ones can
help disclose the interrelationships which might be involved. The study
team, therefore, made comprehensive surveys of six collection systems.
To supplement and verify this information, they also compiled a list of
equipment suitable for one-man operations, surveyed national collection
practices, and conducted time and motion studies of on-route collection
time.
COMPARING SPECIFIC FACTORS
DISCLOSED EFFICIENCY OF
ONE-MAN CREWS COLLECTING
WASTE IN CITY AREAS
-------
Comprehensive studies were made on four municipal collection systems
(two using one-man crews, one each using two- and three-man crews)
and two private systems (both using one-man crews). The systems, all
located in California communities, were similar as to climate and areas
served; local ordinances were similar as to containers, preparation of
solid wastes for collection, and materials suitable for collection.
COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES
SURVEYED FOUR MUNICIPAL
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
WITH VARYING CREW SIZE
The specificjroutes picked in each system were predominately single
family residences of average income; there were a minimum number
of route obstructions such as cul-de-sacs and construction obstacles.
Streets were level. Wastes were picked up at the curb on one side of
the street; the truck then returned in the opposite direction to collect
from the other side. Some alley collections were included; the wastes,
placed adjacent to the alley, were picked up during a single pass of the
collection vehicle.
Each collection system was surveyed at least twice. In most instances,
the surveys extended over two weeks. The operations of one crew were
followed during the entire work day for one week; a different crew was
studied the second week. This alternative was chosen rather than ran-
domly surveying a number of crews for one or two days, since short-
term surveys, especially those involving detailed time studies, may
temporarily affect work rates.
-------
K
O
O
o
1.6
1.4
1 2
1 n
'u
08
0.6
04
02
MUNICIPALITY A
ONE-MAN CREW
MUNICIPALITY B
TWO-MAN CREW
MUNICIPALITY C
THREE-MAN CREW
i
j_
i
1 2 3 45
CANS AT COLLECTION STOP (NUMBER)
ONE-MAN CREWS
ARE MORE EFFICIENT
IN FIELD STUDIES
-------
SURVEYS REVEALED THE
INCREASE OF CREW SIZE
DECREASED THEIR
RELATIVE EFFICIENCY
At each service stop, the engineers making the study recorded the
number and type of containers, collection time, travel time to the
next stop, and elapsed time. Any measurable delays were noted
for example, the time to tag illegal containers, operate the packer
cycle at the stop, or clean up spilled wastes. Other delays such as
the effect of a parked car or removing lids from containers were
too short to be recorded or their precise duration could not be de-
termined. Motion picture films and video tape recordings were made
for later analysis.
The single most important factor determining relative efficiency of
different size crews is the time to collect the wastes at each service
stop, assuming that containers can be lifted by one man and that col-
lection time depends primarily on the number and type of containers.
During all time spent for travel, lunch, relief, and at the disposal site,
the relative efficiency decreases as crews size increases; an exception
is when the loaders in multi-man crews are productively employed
while the wastes are being hauled for disposal. Occasionally, loaders
were used for sweeping gutters or carrying loaded containers to the
curb for subsequent collection.One private firm assigned the haul
and disposal time as the lunch period for loaders. Other time consid-
erations, such as unloading at the disposal site, may also affect rela-
tive efficiency, but not to a significant degree.
-------
1.4 r-
1.2
1.0
2 0.8
0.6
K 0.4
0.2
REAR LOADING RH DRIVE
SIDE LOADING RH DRIVE
SIDE LOADING LH DRIVE
I
234
CANS(NUMBER)
SIDE LOADING VEH
WITH
RIGHT HAND DRIVI
IS MORE EFFICIENT
-------
The most comprehensive study was made of three municipal systems,
all providing curb side service. They were surveyed for 2-week periods
during winter, spring, and summer. Municipality A, with one-man crews
using side-loading packers equipped with right-hand drives, took about
26 man-minutes of route time to collect 1 ton of solid wastes. (Route
time consists of time to collect at each stop and to travel between stops.)
The two-man crews of Municipality B took 43 man-minutes, and the
three-man crews of Municipality C took 64; both used rear-loading
packers.
SECOND OR
THIRD CREW MAN
IS MORE EFFICIENT
WHEN THERE ARE
TWO OR MORE CANS
AT A SERVICE STOP
Including time for hauling and disposing, as well as nonproductive time
such as for breaks and lunch, would further increase the time advantage
of the one-man crew. The difference in average collection time between
crews for equal numbers of cans increases as the number of cans increases.
This would be expected, since the second or third crew man becomes more
useful when there are two or more cans at the service stop. Having a man
act solely or primarily as a driver does not significantly reduce travel time
between stops. However, an additional one member might be helpful in
the tight maneuvering required on routes with narrow alleys or cul-de-sacs.
Detailed analysis.of the field data indicates that replacing all containers
with bags or sacks could reduce the collection time per stop by 15 to 50
percent, depending on the number of items placed for collection. The
-------
1.4 r
1.2
1.0
One-Man Crew
Disposables
D
z
- 0.6
LU
s
H
0.4
0.2
One-Man Crew
Cans
I
J
Two-Man Crew
Cans
I
Two-Man Crew
Disposables
2345
ITEMS (NUMBER)
DISPOSABLE COISITAINEF
REDUCE COLLECTION T
AT EACH STOP
-------
savings resulting from reduced collection time and elimination of con-
ventional containers may compensate for as much as half the cost of
both the disposable containers and their holders. The feasibility of using
disposable bags is now being studied in Inglewood, California.
TRAC
EQUIPPED VEHICLES
ILLUSTRATE BOTH THE
POSSIBILITIES AND THE NEED
OF BETTER DESIGNED
SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
Another of the municipalities studied was using a conventional rear-
loading packer equipped with a TRAC (Truck Rear Actuated Control).
While wastes are being collected, the truck moves in reverse and is driven
from a platform located adjacent to both the loading hopper and the
waste containers. After loading is completed, the device is disengaged
and swung up for storage behind the vehicle. The truck then proceeds
in the normal manner to the disposal site.
The study indicates that one man using a TRAC-equipped vehicle re-
quires about 26 percent fewer man-minutes on the route than a two-
man crew. Reduction in total man-minutes would be still greater
38 percent since the two-man crew loses more minutes in haul and
nonproductive time. The TRAC unit is still experimental and is not
fully satisfactory for all-weather, heavy-duty use. As a concept, how-
ever, it illustrates both the possibilities and the need to design better
equipment specifically for solid waste collection.
10
-------
TRAC LOADING
Truck
Rear
Actuated
Control
TRAC DRIVING
11
-------
THE SIDE LOADING PACKER
IS THE BEST FOR
ONE-MAN CREWS
A listing was compiled of the many types of existing collection equip-
ment that can be operated by one man (See Table 1}. Conventional
rear-loading packers can be operated by one man although somewhat
less efficiently than side-loaders in terms of crew time. There is some
disagreement on whether the rear-loader is more efficient for process-
ing and compressing the wastes than the side-loader. During the field
surveys, wind was likelier to blow light materials out of the hopper of
the side-loader; in addition, the packing mechanism tended to become
less efficient as the truck filled up. However, the particular side-loader
studied permitted continuous loading into the hopper. Most rear-loaders
have a packing cycle, so time is lost when the crew must wait for the
packing mechanism to complete its cycle before additional solid wastes
can be loaded.
Of existing equipment, the side-loading packer is probably the best for
one-man crews because collection can be completed with a minimum
of lost-time effort. For curbside collections, right-hand drives may prove
most efficient, despite the extra cost for installation. Assuming a crew
completes 200 to 400 collection stops per day, even minor time savings
per stop can become significant.
Results of the study indicate that for one-man curbside collection, the
ideal vehicle would locate the driver and packing mechanism close to-
gether; it would also locate the driver close to the containers at the ser-
12
-------
vice stop. Ideally, the man should step directly from the cab to the con-
tainers, then pivot and load them into a hopper. The hopper should be
big enough so that the packer mechanism does not have to operate at a
stop.
Adequate safeguards should be standard equipment on any truck. A
positive breaking mechanism should be included, as should guards to
prevent the operator from being entangled in the packing mechanism.
Packer controls should be located so that the operator can positively
stop the mechanism at any point, should his arm or hand get caught
in the mechanism. Adequate mirrors should provide the driver with
maximum visibility while he is driving.
The wheel base of the truck should be as short as possible, consis-
tent with necessary wheel base dimensions and axle capacities
for efficient vehicle design. The larger sized vehicles will generally
be more efficient regardless of crew size. There is, of course, a prac-
tical upper limit, depending on the time required to drive between
collection stops, other nonproductive time, disposal time, and route
factors such as street widths, alley widths, and the presence of ob-
structions. Ideally, the crew should travel to the route, collect one
full load, complete its trip to the disposal site and back to the yard,
all within 8 hours. Thus, the crew would spend the maximum amount
of time collecting on the route.
EFFICIENTLY DESIGNED VEHICLE
ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE
SAFEGUARDS AND SIMPLICITY
OF OPERATION
13
-------
SURVEYS
OF
COLLECTION
PRACTICES
FAILURE TO RECORD
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
AND MANPOWER BY CITIES
HINDERS ACCURATE
DETERMINATION
OF PRODUCTIVITY
OF COLLECTION DOLLAR
Despite the apparent advantages of one-man collection crews, they are
not widely used in the United States, according to a survey the study
team made of 234 cities in 42 states. The cities surveyed provide muni-
cipal rather than private collection service; use a three-man crew;
designate a combination of curb and alley collection; and use rear-load-
ing packer equipment. Less than 3 percent of the cities use one-man
crews, they prefer, in descending order, side-loading, front bucket, and
rear-loading equipment, Twice as many cities use three-man crews as
do two-man crews, but several cities use four-man, five-man, and even
larger-sized crews, usually in conjunction with carrying wastes out from
backyards.
The median city's collection cost per ton is about $10 for small and med-
ium-sized cities, and $13 for larger cities with populations in excess of
500,000. Cities vary widely in both cost efficiency and accurate account-
ing. In fact, one of the most interesting conclusions to be drawn from the
survey is that many American cities have no way of accurately determining
the productivity of their collection dollar simply because they fail to re-
cord solid waste quantities and manpower adequately. Because of this, cost
figures may not be too reliable.
14
-------
Although precautions were taken in the field studies to eliminate extrane-
ous factors, differences do exist in personnel, equipment, and field condit-
ions. To eliminate the effects of such differences and to verify the results
of the field surveys, industrial time and motion studies were made. The
basic human motions of one-, two-, and three-man crews at each stop were
broken down into these elements;
Dismount from truck
Walk to containers
Grasp and pick up container
Pivot and carry container to loading location
Place container on ground and pivot
Return to cab
Mount truck
Time standards were set for each basic motion by the MTM (Methods-Time-
Measurement) system, which is used by industrial engineers throughout the
world. MTM times are those a typical experienced worker would need under
normal conditions to perform all the motions involved in a given task.
INDUSTRIAL
TIME AND MOTION STUDIES
ESTIMATE EFFECTS
OF DIFFERENCES
OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS
AND VERIFY RESULTS
OF FIELD SURVEYS
TIME
AND
MOTION
ANALYSIS
15
-------
The MTM system does not include time values for factors which cannot
be standardized. Solid waste collectors vary in experience, motivation, and
physical condition. Unavoidable delays sometimes occur; usually they ori-
ginate within the task itself for example, one full container can be as heavy
as the combined weight of three partially loaded containers. When waste
quantities are small, a collector may load two containers simultaneously.
In other cases, he may have such difficulty with one can that the actual
time exceeds the standard time for two or more cans. However, when the
volume of data is large and adjustments are made for fatigue and delays,
there should be no appreciable differences between MTM times and those
observed in the field.
METHODS - TIME -
MEASUREMENT
ANALYSIS SUBSTANTIATES
STUDIES INDICATING
ONE-MAN CREWS ARE
MORE EFFICIENT FOR
COLLECTING ATCURBSIDE
AND ALLEY
The MTM time and motion analyses did substantiate the field studies,
indicating that one-man crews may be more efficient than either two- or
three-man crews for collecting at curbside and alley. Based on MTM stand-
ards, the three crews are about equal for modified curbside collection, in
which both sides of quiet, narrow streets are collected at each stop. The
analyses also substantiate the potential savings in collection time through
use of disposable containers, as well as the advantage of the side-loading
right-hand packer. And, finally, MTM methods indicate that two- and
three-man crews are more efficient for backyard collections, particular-
ly if large capacity trucks are used.
16
-------
*
-Alley-
\
LEGEND
CONTAINERS
LOADER
PATH TO RESIDENCE
BY DRIVER OR LOADER
PATH TO TRUCK
BY DRIVER OR LOADER
DRIVER
In terms of man-minutes per service stop, a side-loader with a one-man crew is the most efficient
in collecting two cans in one pass down a 25-foot wide alley. The side-loader (left) takes 0.578
man-minutes, the rear-loader with one-man crew (center) takes 0.606, and the rear-loader with a
two-man crew (right) takes 0.790, with Driver and Loader alternating at each stop.
17
-------
MAXIMUM
CONTAINER WEIGHT
IS RELATED TO THE
EFFICIENCY AND WELFARE
OF COLLECTION CREWS
The study team made a special analysis to evaluate the effects of fatigue
and delays on curbside collection. Fatigue occurs as the day progresses
and from handling a large number of containers at a single stop. To eval-
uate the first type of fatigue, the field survey data for the first 150 stops
for Municipalities A, B, and C were compared with data for 150 stops late
in the day. (The final 50 stops were omitted to reduce the effect of any
tendency of the crew to work faster as the day was ending.) Analysis of
the two groups of data shows that one-man crews are subject to the same
amount of fatigue as two- and three-man crews.
The second type of fatigue was evaluated with regard to loading height and
total container weight. In laboratory experiments on college students, load-
ing height of the collection vehicle did not cause performance to deteriorate
significantly until the total weight loaded at one time exceeded 5,000 pounds.
Total container weight, on the other hand, did have an important effect on
performance. The critical point at which it begins to take longer to load a
can falls within the range of 45 to 60 pounds per container. Further study
is needed to define this point more accurately; maximum container weight
should be related to the efficiency and welfare of collection crews.
Opposition to the use of fewer men on collection vehicles is often based
on the assumption that there is too much work for one man. The college
students in the laboratory, however, loaded more tonnage in a 1- to 2-hour
18
-------
CO
LLI
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
MUNICIPALITY A
One-Man Crew
1 0.4
0.2
Beginning of Day
End of Day
I
3 4
CANS (NUMBER)
FATIGUE OCCURS
AS DAY PROGRESSES
19
-------
period than most crews, regardless of size, load during the 4 hours they
normally spend on a collection route. Furthermore, one-man crews of
Municipality A consistently loaded 8 or more tons per day from curb-
side, and many one-man crews loaded 10 to 12 tons per day. These crews
had minimum amounts of overtime, usually when they had to return to
collect a partial load because wastes were being generated at unusually
high rates.
UNAVOIDABLE
DELAYS OCCUR
WHEN LIDS
ARE BEING REMOVED
PRIOR TO LOADING,
AND WHEN
PACKING MECHANISMS ARE
OPERATED AT A STOP
The video tapes and movies of Municipalities A, B, and C were used to study
delays encountered on the collection route. The tapes were particularly
valuable because they could be rerun, stopped, or operated in slow mo-
tion. The unavoidable delays most commonly encountered occured when
the lids were being removed from containers prior to loading and when
the truck's packing mechanism was operated at a collection stop. The three
municipalities used packer vehicles equipped with auxiliary engines so that
the load was normally packed while the vehicle traveled between stops.
However, at stops with large quantities of wastes or when the load was
nearly full, the packer frequently had to be operated at the collection
stop. Other delays noted were caused by cars parked adjacent to the
containers, and by waste spilling from the hopper during packing or from
the container during loading. Personal delays noted included lighting cig-
arettes, talking, and scavenging.
20
-------
With this analysis of fatigue and delays, it was possible to compare field
collection times with MTM standards. Field times included a fatigue fac-
tor, but the laboratory studies indicate it is probably relatively minor.
Therefore, MTM standards were not adjusted for fatigue. Adjusted for
personal and unavoidable delays, they agreed closely with field times,
indicating that MTM standards can be used to analyze refuse collection
and provide a convenient means for estimating efficiencies of crews of
varying sizes.
M-T-M STANDARDS ARE USED
TO ANALYZE REFUSE COLLECTION
AND PROVIDE A MEANS OF
ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY
Careful planning and engineering of solid waste collection systems can
pay dividends in terms of protecting public health, saving money, im-
proving service, and reducing the frequency of strikes and other person-
nel difficulties. In general, there is an immediate need to improve the
design and use of collection vehicles; the combination of packer body
and conventional truck chassis does not provide the best man-machine
relationship. Public collection systems have tended to be slower than
private systems to adopt new technology, such as smaller crews and
improved equipment. There is also a need to establish work and time
standards for collection crews, and then to check them from time to
time.
OUTLOOK
THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE NEED
TO IMPROVE THE DESIGN
AND USE OF THE
COLLECTION VEHICLES
21
-------
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
WILL HAVE TO UPGRADE
THE QUALITY OF THEIR PERSONNEL
AND PROVIDE
PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES
If labor costs and strikes continue to increase, the one-man crew may
become more common, particularly in private collection firms and in
smaller cities. Certainly, those using (or considering using) curbside or
alley collection should weigh the possible advantages of the one-man
crew. However, such crews are especially sensitive to excessive absentee-
ism and poor work habits. If one-man crews are to be effective, solid
waste collection systems will have to upgrade the quality of their per-
sonnel and provide them the opportunity for promotion. Such systems
need to pay higher wages. They will have to instill in them a sense of
personal pride and responsibility. Both theiemployee and the community
as a whole will benefit if the status of the solid waste collector and his
essential contribution to the public receive the recognition they deserve.
22
-------
TABLE 1
U. S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR
ONE-MAN OPERATION (1967)
23
-------
-------
U. S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE - MAN OPERATION ( 1967 )
MANUFACTURER
Bynal Products, Inc.
11990 Franklin Ave.
Franklin Park, Illinois
60131
Cobey Perfection -
Cobey Company
Division of Harsco Corp.
Gallon, Ohio
Cushman Motors
Division, Outboard
, _. y? . LOADING LOCATION EQUIPMENT TYPE
MODEL ( Cubic _ _. . -, _,
. Front Side Rear Top Open Body Compactor
Yards )
6 - yd. Hussler 5.9 XXX
8 -yd. Hussler 7.3 XXX
Cobey Paktainer
PT1224 24 X (X) X
PT1230 30 X (X) X
Cobey Train-Tainer 4 X XX
Containers 5 X XX
Cushman Refuse 1.25 X X X
Collection Vehicle
Marine Corp.
Lincoln, Nebraska
Dempster Bros., Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee
Dempster Dumpmaster
Container Train
Dempster Front End
Loader DP-3B-20-DB
Note: ( ) indicates secondary loading location available; special order required.
25
-------
U.S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE-MAN OPERATION (1967) Contmuea -
MANUFACTURER
MODEL
VOLUME
( Cubic
Yards )
LOADING LOCATION
Front Side Rear Top
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Open Body Compactor
E - Z Pack Co.
Division of Hercules
Gal ion Products, Inc.
Galion, Ohio
FL 45 - 20
FL45-25
FL45-30
Econo - Train
Container Unit
CT-4
CT-5
SL 16
SL20
SL24
A 16
A 20
A 24
20
25
30
4
5
16.75
20
24
16.75
20
24
X
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Garwood Industries, Inc.
Wayne, Michigan
LP716
LP718
LP720
LP725
T- 130 L
16
18
20
25
40
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
Note: ( ) indicates secondary loading location available; special order required.
-------
U. S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE - MAN OPERATION ( 1967 ) Continued -
MANUFACTURER
The Heil Co.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53201
Hobbs Trailers
609 N. Main St.
Fort Worth, Texas
MODEL
Colectomatic
Mark III
Hobbs Hyd - Pak Rear
Loader - HRL 18
HRL20
HRL 25
Hyd - Pak 60 Series
6013
6016
6020
6024
Hyd - Pak Trailer
Units
(as transfer units)
VOLUME LOADING LOCATION EQUIPMENT TYPE
u IC Front Side Rear Top Open Body Compactor
Yards )
13 X
16 X
20 X
25 X
18 X
20 X
25 X
16 X } X
19 X X
23 X X
27 X X
32 X (X)
42 X (X)
50 X (X)
60 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: () indicates secondary loading location available; special order required.
27
-------
U. S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE - MAN OPERATION ( 1967 ) Continued -
MANUFACTURER
Hobbs Trailers
(continued)
Leach Co.
222 West Adams St.
Chicago, Illinois 60606
MODEL
Hyd - Pak M Series
M 18
M21
M 25
Hyd - Pak Packing
Containers
Leach 2 R Pack master
Leach Pak master
r£"wcME L°ADING LOCAT|ON
.. . Front Side Rear Top
Yards ;
18 X
21 X
25 X
20 to 35 X (X)
X
20 X
25 X
31 X
13,16, X
17,20,
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Open Body Compactor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lodal, Inc.
P. O. Box 791
Kingsford, Michigan
49802
EVO (Detachable Body)
Load - A - Matic 21, 25,
30
28
Note: ( ) indicates secondary loading location available; special order required.
-------
U. S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE - MAN OPERATION ( 1967 ) Continued-
MANUFACTURER
MODEL
VOLUME
( Cubic
Yards )
LOADING LOCATION
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Front Side Rear Top Open Body Compactor
Lodal, Inc.
(continued)
Train Transfer System
Transfer Truck
Lodal Trains
M - B Company
New Holstein, Wisconsin
M - B Pack King
14
16
20
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Marion Metal Products
Marion, Ohio
20 S
20
Hydropaka Model Q
Trash Tainer
28
1
2
X
X
X
X
29
-------
U.S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE-MAN OPERATION ( 1967 )
Continued
MANUFACTURER MODEL
VOLUME
( Cubic
Yards)
LOADING LOCATION
Front Side Rear Top
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Open Body Compactor
Pack -Mor Mfg., Co.
1123S. E. Military Dr.
P.O.Box 14147
San Antonio. Texas
78214
RLA 1315
RLA 1615
RLA 1815
RLA 201 5
RLA 251 5
RLA 301 5
3 RL
Hydraulic Packer &
13
16
18
20
25
30
20, 25,
30
13
Cylindrical Body
Stationary Packer &
Side Loader
Transfer Trailers
Lo - Boye Trailer
Front Loader
16
20
24
28
13 to
28
45 to
75
28 to
38
20 to
32
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
-------
U.S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE-MAN OPERATION ( 1967 )
Continued -
MANUFACTURER
MODEL
VOLUME
( Cubic
LOADING LOCATION
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Yards) Front Side Rear Top Open Body Compactor
Seal Press Division of
Tampo Mfg. Co., Inc.
1146W. Lowell St.
San Antonio, Texas
78207
H. E. Smith, Inc.
1 069 S. Jackson St.
Defiance, Ohio
Mark '16'
Mark '20'
Mark '24'
Smithpac 5
Smithpac 10
16.5 X X
20.5 X X
24.5 X X
5.08 X
10.33 X
X
X
X
X
X
Sterling Mfg. Co.
241 N. Third St.
Laurens, Iowa 50564
Hippo
10.44
Vel - JacMfg. Co., Inc.
5650 N. Broadway
Wichita, Kansas 67219
Pak Rat
10
31
-------
U.S. EQUIPMENT SUITABLE FOR ONE-MAIM OPERATION ( 1967 } Continued -
MANUFACTURER
MODEL
VOLUME
( Cubic
LOADING LOCATION
EQUIPMENT TYPE
Yards) Front Side Rear Top Open Body Compactor
Wayne Engineering Co.
Cedar Fall, Iowa
Mighty Pack
10
(X)
Toledo Industrial
Fabricating Co., Inc.
1100 Bush St.
Toledo, Ohio
Shu - Pak
Stationary 2
Packers 4.50
Shu - Pak Side Loaders 25 to 38
X
X
X
Western Body &
Houst Co. (Distributors)
8901 Juniper St.
Los Angeles, California
90002
Western Full Pak
30
U0 454
32
Note: ( ) indicates secondary loading location available; special order required.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 468- 678
-------
This summary report is basec
Systems Comparing One-Mar
Service Publication No. 189^
74-602791 ). It is available fr
U. S. Government Printing 0
is $ 2.25 in paper cover. The
~"~ r' ures, 1 5 photographs, i
on A Study of Solid Waste Collection
with Multi-Man Crews, Public Health
(Library of Congress Catalog Card No.
m the Superintendent of Documents,
fice, Washington, D. C. 20402. Price
175-page publication includes 25 tables,
id 7 appendices.
A STUDY OF
SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
COMPARING
ONE-MAN WITH
MULTI -MAN CREWS
5 of these major sec ions:
ABSTRACT
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDAT ONS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION ^NDPURPOSE
DETAILED APPROACH
,:ield Surveys and Analysis
National Sur\ :y of Collection- Practice
Time and Mo ion Analysis
Mathematical Model
Equipment
GLOSSARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
------- |