530SW126C
EF 530/
SV-126c
                                            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                            National Technical Information Service
                                               PB-257 969
         EVALUATION OF A COMPARTMENTALIZED REFUSE
         COLLECTION VEHICLE FOR SEPARATE NEWSPAPER
         COLLECTION

         SCS ENGINEERS

         PREPARED FOR
         U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

         MAY 1976
                          LIBRARY
                          U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          EDISON, N. J.  08817

-------
                        QEILOEIR
  FROM   NATIONAL  TECHNICAL INFORMATION  SERVICE
    Solar Heating and Cooling in Buildings: Methods of
    Economic Evaluation
    COM-75-11070/ PAT 48 p  PC$4.00/MF$2.25

    Design and Construction of a Residential Solar
    Heating and Cooling System
    PB-237 042/ PAT233 p   PC$8.00/MF$2.25

    Performance of a Residential Solar Heating and
    Cooling System
    PB-244 644/PAT 62 p   PC$4.50/MF$2.25

    Solar Energy
    AD-778 846/ PAT 478 p   PC$12.50/MF$2.25

    Stimulation of Geothermal Energy Resources
    ERDA-37/PAT52p PC$4.50/MF$2.25

    An Assessment of Industrial Energy Options Based on
    Coal and Nuclear Systems
    ORNL-4995/PAT329 p   PC$10.00/MF$2.25

    Environmental Impact Statements: A Handbook for
    Writers and  Reviewers
    PB-226 276/PAT 207 p   PC$7.75/MF$2.25

    Environmental Protection Guidelines for Construction
    Contract Specification Writers
    ADA-014146/PAT124p  PC$5.50/MF$2.25
                    A Review and Analysis of Environmental Impact
                    Assessment Methodologies
                    ADA-013359/PAT21 p PC$3.50/MF$2.25

                    Procedures for Reviewing Environmental Impact
                    Assessments and Statements for Construction Projects
                    ADA-015 020/PAT 25 p PC$3.50/MF$2.25

                    Computers in the 1980's: Trends in Hardware
                    Technology
                    AD-783 323/PAT 20 p  PC$3.50/MF$2.25

                    Minicomputers: A Review of Current Technology,
                    Systems, and Applications
                    AD-783 316/ PAT 104 p  PC$5.50/MF$2.25

                    Microprocessor/Microcomputer Software Systems:
                    Present and Future
                    ADA-013 322/PAT 25 p PC$3.50/MF$2.25

                    An Air Force Guide to Contracting for Software
                    Acquisition
                    ADA-020 4447PAT 45 p PC$4.00/MF$2.25

                    A Dictionary for Unit Conversion
                    PB-249 659/ PAT 456 p  PC$17.50/MF Not Available
HOW TO ORDER
  When you indicate the method of pay-
ment, please note if a purchase order is not
accompanied by payment, you will be billed
an addition $5.00 ship and bill charge. And
please include the card expiration date when
using American Express.
  Normal  delivery time takes three to five
weeks.  I; is vital that you order by number
or your order will be manually filled, in-
suring a delay.  You can  opt for  airmail
delivery for a $2.00 charge per item. Just
check the  Airmail Service  box. If you're
really pressed for time, call the NTIS Rush
Order  Service.  (703)  557-4700.  For  a
$10.00 charge  per item, your order will be
airmailed within 48  hours.  Or, you can
pick up your order in the Washington In-
formation  Center & Bookstore or  at our
Springfield Operations  Center  within 24
hours for a $6.00 per item charge.
      You  may also place your order by tele-
     phone or TELEX. The order desk number
     is (703) 557-4650 and the TELEX number
     is 89-9405.
      Whenever a foreign sales price is NOT
     specified in the  listings, all foreign buyers
     must add the following charges to each or-
     der:  $2.50  for each paper copy;  $1.50 for
     each microfiche; and $10.00 for each Pub-
     lished Search.
      Thank you for your interest in NTIS. We
     appreciate your order.
 METHOD OF PAYMENT
 F_] Charge my NTIS deposit account no.

   Purchase order no
               NAME	
   Check enclosed for $
                                                    ADDRESS-
 fj  Charge to my American Express Card account number
 rrnTnrmT
 Card expiration date_

 jignature	
   Airmail Services requested


    Clip and mail to

    NTIS
    National Technical Information Service
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    Springfield, Va. 22161
    (703) 557-|650 TELEX 89-9405
                                                    CITY. STATE, ZIP-
       Item Number
                            Quantity
                       Paper Copy
                         (PC)
Microfiche
  (MF)
                                            Unit Price*
    All  Prices Subject to Change
  10/76
              Sub Total
        Additional Charge
        Enter Grand Total
                         Total Price'

-------
          EVALUATION OF A COMPARTMENTALIZED

            REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE FOR

            SEPARATE NEWSPAPER COLLECTION
This final  report  (SW-126c) describes work performed
for the Federal  solid waste management programs  under
contract no.  68-01-3191 and is reproduced  as  received
                from the contractor.
        U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                       1976

                   REPRODUCED BY
                  NATIONAL TECHNICAL
                 INFORMATION SERVICE
                   U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                     SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
                LIBRARY
                U. S.  ENVIRONMENTAL P;;;,';hC[JON AGENCY
                EDISON, N. L 08817

-------
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
 SHEET
1. Report No.
           3. Recipient's Accession NU
 4. Title and Subtitle
      Evaluation  of a Compartmentalized Refuse Collection
      Vehicle for Separate Newspaper Collection
                                           5. Report Date
                                             May.  1976
                                           6.
7. Author(s)
      SCS Engineers
                                           8- Performing Organization Rept.
                                            No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
      SCS Engineers
      4014 Long  Beach Boulevard
      Long Beach,  California  90807
                                           10. Project/Task/Work Unit Nc
                                           11. Contract/Grant No.
                                            68-01-3191
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
      Resource Recovery Division
      Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
      U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 	Washington.  D.C.  20466	
                                           13. Type of Report & Period
                                             Covered

                                              Final  Report
                                           14.
 15. Supplementary Notes
                 COLOR ILLUSTRATIONS REPRODUCED
                          IN BLACK AND WHITE
 16. Abstracts
       The purpose of the report is  to present information on the  economic
 viability  of a compartmentalized refuse  collection vehicle for  separate
 newspaper  collection.   The  compartmentalized vehicle is  compared to the
 rack and separate  truck approaches.   A model is  developed for analyzing
 alternative  collection approaches  to minimize and/or compare applicable
 costs.   The  three  methods are analyzed for  their cost-effectiveness when
 newspaper  revenue  is $8/ton and $25/ton.  The report concludes that the
 compartmentalized  vehicle is economically viable.   Furthermore,  it states
 that the economics  of  the compartmentalized vehicle are  more favorable
 than the rack and  separate  truck approaches.  The  separate truck ap-     f
 proach, however, is more economical  with more than 50% participation and '
 a monthly  collection frequency.                                               j
 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

   Source  Separation
   Separate Collection
   Recycling Systems
   Materials Recovery
17c. COSATI Field/Group
                                        PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
  Report)
    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                   121. No. of Pages
                                                   20. Security Class (This
                                                     Page
                                                       UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
                                                                      USCOMM-DC 1^9

-------
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.

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS


Sect 10 n                                           Page

   I.       SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                  1

             Operating Characteristics               1
             E co n om i c V i a b i1i ty                     1

  II.       INTRODUCTION                             3

 III.       BACKGROUND AND APPROACH                  7

             Background                             7
             Approach                               8

  IV.       CONCEPT EVALUATION                       11

             Pilot Area Characteristics            11
             Startup  Costs                         16
             Performance  Parameters                 18
             Program  Economics                     29

   V.       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                        41

  VI.       APPENDICES                              43

             A.   Rancho Palos  Verdes, California    A-l
             B.   Fullerton, California              B-l
             C.   Newport  Beach,  California          C-l
             D.   Systems  Analysis  Data
                   Development                     D-l
             E.   Collection Model                   E-l

-------
                          FIGURES

Number                                                Page

   1        Compartmentalized Shu-Pak with
           Hydraulic Newspaper Loading Device           4

   2        Discharging Separately Collected
           Newspapers (Conceptual)                       5

   3        Residential Refuse Collected in
           Rancho Palos Verdes                         12

   4        Transfer Ramp used for Separate
           Newspaper Collection, Newport
           Beach                                       19

   5        Compartmentalized Truck  Operational
           Sequence for Collection  and
           Disposal                                    20

   6        Impact of Separate Newspaper
           Collection on Refuse Collection;
           First Collection Day of  Week
           (Compartmentalized Truck)                   24

   7        Impact of Separate Newspaper
           Collection on Refuse Collection;
           Second Collection Day of Week
           (Compartmentalized Truck)                   25

   8        Impact of Compartmentalization
           on Legal Payload                            27

   9        Rack Approach to Separate Newspaper
           Collection                                  30

  10        Separate Truck Approach  to Separate
           Newspaper Collection                        30

  11        Effective Cost for Compartmentalized
           Collection of Separated  Newspaper
           Versus Mixed Refuse Collection Cost
           Prior to System Implementation:
           Exemplary Analysis                          32

  12        Effective Cost for Compartmentalized
           Collection of Separated  Newspaper
           Pending Recommended Equipment
           Modifications                               33

-------
FIGURES (Continued)

Number                                                Pag€

  13       Effective Cost for Rack Collection
           of Separated Newspaper Versus  Mixed
           Refuse  Collection  Cost Prior to
           System  Implementation:  Exemplary
           Analysis                                     36

  14       Effective Cost for Separate  Truck
           Collection  of Separated Newspaper
           Versus  Mixed Refuse Collection  Cost
           Prior to  System Implementation:
           Exemplary Analysis, 1/wk Separate
           Collection                                   37

  15       Effective Cost for Separate  Truck
           Collection  of Separated Newspaper
           Versus  Mixed Refuse Collection  Cost
           Prior to  System Implementation:
           Exemplary Analysis, 1/2 wk  Separate
           Collection                                   38

  16       Effective Cost for Separate  Truck
           Collection  of Separated Newspaper
           Versus  Mixed Refuse Collection  Cost
           Prior to  System Implementation:
           Exemplary Analysis, 1/mo Separate
           Collection                                   39

-------
                          TABLES
Number                                                page
   1        Residential  Refuse Characteristics          14
   2        Selected Socio-Economic
           Characteristics                             17

-------
                  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A compartmentalized Shu-Pak can optimize both mixed refuse
and separate newspaper collection operations.  The appeal-
ing aspects of the compartmentalized Shu-Pak include:

        Compartment capacity and rate of paper
        loading can be tailored to local conditions
        and requirements.

        Minimal driver orientation time is required
        to attain operating proficiency.

        Mixed refuse and separated newspaper can be
        loaded in the same hopper area without losing
        the flexibility to load refuse from both
        sides of the truck.

        Installation of the compartment does not
        reduce payload capacity.  Conversely, the
        compartmentalized  approach can enhance
        weight distribution.

Separately collected newspaper was not contaminated
when dumped through the truck body.

Separate newspaper collection with the compartmentalized
test unit required incremental time  for newspaper loading
and transfer.  Proper system design, however, can reduce
incremental loading time to about 3  seconds per participat-
ing stop.   Previous studies indicate that this incremental
time can be readily absorbed without necessitating
additional labor and equipment.

Minimization of newspaper  handling time necessitates
that transfer be performed at the disposal site or a
location on the haul route.

                     Economic Viabi1ity

The compartmentalized approach to separate collection  of
newspaper is economically  viable.

        Startup costs are  required for implementation
        of the compartmentalized approach.  Installa-
        tion of the compartment and  loading mechanism

-------
        on the collection vehicle were estimated  to be
        $1,700 per unit.   A ramp must be available  to
        facilitate transfer of separately collected
        newspaper (estimated cost:  $10,000).

        The economics of  the compartmentalized  Shu-Pak
        are more favorable than a rack-equipped Shu-Pak.
        Incremental  newspaper loading of the two
        approaches are similar.  Newspaper transfer
        time, however, is less with the compartmentalized
        unit.

        The economics of  the compartmentalized  Shu-Pak
        are more favorable than the separate truck
        approach when collection frequency is  either
        once per week or  bi-weekly.  At greater than
        50 percent participation and a monthly  collec-
        tion frequency, the separate truck approach
        becomes more economical.

The compartmentalized approach appears adaptable  to other
recyclable components of  mixed municipal refuse,  i.e.,
glass and metal.

-------
                                         te collection  of
                                         a one of two
                              II

                         INTRODUCTION

As currently  practiced, curbside separa
recyclable  materials is accomplished  vi
approaches:

         A  separate  truck (or trucks)  designated  for
         collection  of separated materials.   Generally,
         the viability of the separate truck  approach
         increases with participation.  At  low  partici-
         pation  rates, capacity of the separate truck
         may not be  fully utilized; however,  as parti-
         cipation  increases, capacity  is better
         utilized.

         A  rack  (or  racks)  to isolate separated material
         from  mixed  refuse  during collection.   The
         most  appealing aspect of the  rack  approach  is
         that  mixed  refuse  and separated material  can
         be  collected simultaneously by the same  crew.
         Also, householder  refuse set-out habits  need
         not be  altered.

In a recent study*,  both approaches were shown to  have
merit as a means  of  reducing disposable waste  quantities
while lowering  overall  solid waste management  costs.
The results further  indicated that a compartmentalized
collection  vehicle  could prove more beneficial  than
either approach  by  incorporating the best  features  of
each.  A compartment properly sized to hold  separated
material at a given  participation rate, could  optimize
both mixed and  separate collection operations.

Maxon Industries  of  Los  Angeles, California, developed
a  prototype compartmented  vehicle.   As characterized  in
Figures  1 and 2,  a  3 cu  yd  compartment and loading
"bucket" were designed  for  installation on a standard
side loading  Shu-Pak.**  The crew member loads separated
newspaper and mixed  refuse  in the same location, the  news-
paper being hydraulically  loaded into the compartment after
placement in  the  "bucket."
 *  SCS Engineers, Analysis of Source Separate Collection of
   Recyclable Solid Uaste; Separate Collection Studies, [y. 1").
   Environmental Protection Publication SW-95c.l.  U.S. Environmental
   Protection Agency, 1974 [157 p.J .  (Distributed by National
   Technical Information Service,  Springfield, Va., as PB  239 775.)
**  By weight, newspaper amounts to about 10 percent of the residential
   refuse collected in Rancho Palos  Verdes.  The 3 cu yd compartment
   consumes approximately 10 percent of the 29 cu yd body.

-------

-------

-------
A private contractor,  Browning Ferris  Industries,  Inc.
(BFI), permitted Maxon to install  the  equipment for test
and evaluation on an existing BFI  truck for use in the  city
of Rancho Palos Verdes,  California.   City officials agreed
to a test program, and the Palos Verdes chapter of the
American Association of  University Women provided  in-kind
public relations support for curbside  separate newspaper
collection in a pilot  area encompassing about 1,100 homes.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation  Districts built  a trans-
fer ramp at the Palos  Verdes Landfill  to facilitate un-
loading of newspapers  separately collected during  the
pilot program.

Evaluation of the compartmentalized  approach to separate
collection was conducted by SCS Engineers under contract
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The study objective was  to evaluate  and report on  the
operating characteristics, performance, cost, and  overall
efficiency of the compartmentalized  Shu-Pak when utilized
for separate newspaper collection.  Comparisons were also
to be made with the separate truck and rack approaches
to separate collection.

-------
                          Ill

                 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH


                       Background

The Palos Verdes Peninsula is located about 25 miles
south of Los Angeles.  The area is one of the more affluent
and well-educated residential areas in southern California.
Following Earth Day 1970, the Palos Verdes Chapter of the
American Association of University Women, with cooperation
of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts opened
a recycling center to accept source separated materials
from 61,000 peninsula residents.*  The recycling center
has operated continually since inception, and receives
about 100 tons of material per month.  Creation of the
recycling center was viewed as the first step toward a
more systematic approach to recovery of recyclable resi-
dential  solid waste.  The second step was initiation of a
curbside separate collection program.

Solid waste collection on the peninsula is conducted by
five private contractors.  One contractor, BFI, collects
residential waste from about 7,700 persons residing in
2,200 homes within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Curbside collection service is provided twice weekly using
side-loading compaction vehicles.

Installation of the compartment and "bucket"  on one BFI
truck was performed by Maxon in November, 1974.  The
separate collection program commenced the first week of
December, 1974.

The program immediately experienced difficulties.
Knowledge of the pending program from an effective
door-to-door public relations effort resulted in pilot
area residents accumulating newspapers for several weeks.
As the compartment was sized to meet the Los  Angeles area
norm of  newspaper (about 10 percent of residential solid
   Four cities are located on the peninsula:   Rancho Palos
   Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates,  Rolling Hills,  and Rolling
   Hills Estates.

-------
waste), separated newspaper quantities far exceeded
compartment capacity.   When the compartment filled, addi-
tional newspaper could not be accommodated, and were treated
as mixed waste.   This  created resident disillusionment
with the program, and  undoubtedly curtailed some degree
of participation.

During the initial  days of the program, it was also
observed that the dead-man control  used to raise and lower
the bucket resulted in excessive time to handle separated
newspaper.  To correct the situation required removing
the truck from the  route for two days.  Removal of the
compartmentalized truck again resulted in disposal of
bundled newspaper and  created further disillusionment on
the part of pilot area residents.

The driver also experienced problems with the newspaper
transfer operation  prior to construction of the transfer
ramp by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
During the interim  period of about  three months, the driver
unloaded refuse at  the landfill and proceeded to the nearby
Palos Verdes Recycling Center where separately collected
newspapers were dumped on the ground and manually loaded
into a roll-off bin.   This added from one-half to one hour
per day to the driver's time.  Further compounding the
problem was a refuse  collection strike during which all
material placed curbside was treated as refuse.  The
cumulative effect of  driver and resident disillusionment
created some problems  with concept  credibility.  However,
they did not affect the evaluation  due to the methodology
used.
Two criteria
concept:
             Approach

were used to evaluate the compartmentalized
     1.  Impact on normal collection operations
     2.  Economic viability
Impact on Collection

Prior to modifying the truck, a
performed to serve as the basis
if any, of compartmentalization
The second BFI truck operated in
                   two-week time
                   for assessing
                   on collection
                    Rancho Palos
study was
the impact,
operations.
Verdes
(designated as the "control truck") was also monitored
during the same time period.

-------
An additional two weeks of time studies were conducted
to assess concept impact after the following had occurred:

     1.  Sufficient time passed for the newspaper
         set-out rate to achieve normalcy.

     2.  Elimination of the dead-man control in
         favor of an air control valve.

     3.  Operator familiarity with the equipment.

The control truck was also monitored during the same time
period.

The driver cooperated with the study team such that the
results attained and reported herein are believed valid.
Thus,  the unfortunate decline in participation due to
resident disillusionment only affects conclusions on ade-
quacy  of compartment size and problems that would be
encountered when generation exceeds capacity.

Economic Viability

The effectiveness of the compartmentalized approach to
separate collection is related to the ability  of the mixed
collection system to absorb incremental time requirements
for newspaper collection and transfer.  Any incremental
costs must be offset by revenue and diverted disposal
savings to achieve economic viability.  Using  residential
participation rate as a proxy for the rate of  newspaper
recovery, a simulation model  was used to assess the com-
partmentalized approach assuming that the incremental
time requirements could not be absorbed into the normal
work day.

The results of the evaluation were then compared to separate
collection using rack and separate truck approaches.   The
data input for collection time parameters for  the rack
and separate truck were derived from time studies con-
ducted in the southern California cities of Fullerton  and
Newport Beach which also use the Shu-Pak.

-------
                             IV

                     CONCEPT EVALUATION

Results of the evaluation are summarized in this section
in terms of performance parameters and economic viability.
Prior to presenting the results, characteristics related
to separate collection in the Rancho Palos Verdes pilot
area and start-up costs associated with the compartmentalized
approach are briefly discussed.

                 Pilot Area Characteristics

Refuse Characteristics

Refuse Generation.   Weekly weight receipts for both collec-
tion trucks were obtained for a one-year period (Figure 3).
Although varying from week-to-week, the average quantity
of refuse collected by the compartmentalized and control
trucks were almost  identical:


                                           Per Capita
                                           Generation
                       Average Refuse         Rate
                     Quantity Collected  (Ibs per person
     Truck             (tons per week)      per day)
Compartmentalized           50.4              3.74

Control                      50.2              3.72
Figure 3 also indicates the time periods during which
the time studies were conducted.  The compartmentalized
truck was monitored during periods when waste generation
exceeded the mean.   Refuse quantities collected by the
control  truck were  less than the mean before the test
program, but similar to the compartmented unit after the
test program commenced.  Thus,  the compartmentalized
truck was monitored during periods demanding of equipment
and 1abor.

Due to the  similarity of quantities collected by the
compartmentalized truck during  "before and after"  periods,
the average refuse  generation rate for these weeks was
used during the evaluation:
                       Preceding page blank
                             n

-------
                                                 CO
                                                 S-
                                                 0)
                                                 CO
                                                 o
                                                 O
                                                 c
                                                 u
                                                 cu
                                                 
-------
                            Refuse Generation Rates
Collection Day    (tons/wk)    (1bs/hshld/wk)  (1bs/person/c
First of week       33.6             61              4.36

Second of week      23.6             4_3              4.10

Total/Average       57.2            104              4.24


Refuse Items.  The term "refuse item" is used throughout
the analysis to designate items placed curbside for
col 1ection:


       Refuse Item                   Description
        Container              Fiber, metal, or plastic
                               contai ner

        Bags                   Paper or plastic bag

        Other                  Bundled brush, lawn chairs,
                               or any other discarded item
                               not amenable to container-
                               ize t i o n
The efficiency of manual  refuse collection is influenced by
the type of refuse item placed curbside for collection.
Containers must be returned to the curb after being emptied
into the loading hopper.   Bags and "other" items are
generally pitched into the loading hopper with inherent
time savings.   Thus, the  type of item, or mix thereof, can
be important when evaluating an alternative approach to
refuse col 1ecti on.

Table 1  presents the refuse item characteristics observed
during the field studies  before and after commencement
of the separate collection program.*  As seen, the average
number of items per stop  increased after commencement of
the separate collection program (newspaper bundles not
included in the item count).  The increase in average
number of items per stop  was accompanied by a decrease in loac
ing time per stop.+  The  initial  hypothesis that the item mix
*  Frequency distribution graphs presented  in  Appendix A
+  Load time analysis  presented in Appendix A.
                            13

-------
                      TABLE 1

         RESIDENTIAL REFUSE CHARACTERISTICS
Refuse Item
Compartmental i
Containers
Bags
Other
Total
Ave. weight/
Control Truck
Containers
Bags
Other
Total
Ave. weight/
Col
Firs
Before++
zed Truck
2.6
0.3
0.6
3.5
stop(lbs) 60

2.3
0.3
0.9
3.5
stop(lbs) 49
1 ection
t*
After

2.7
0.4
0.8*
3.9
62

2.4
0.4
0.8
3.6
60
Day of Week
Second
Before++

1 .9
0.2
0.4
2.5
43

2.0
0.2
0.5
2.7
35

+
After

2.1
0.3
0.7*
3.1
39

**
**
**
**
38
 *  Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday
 |  Thursday, Friday, or Saturday
 #  Does not include newspaper bundles
**  No data
++  Before separate newspaper collection program
                         14

-------
changed from non-disposable containers  (metal/piastic  con-
tainers) to disposables  (paper and plastic bags, bundled
brush) was invalidated by the breakdown  in Table 1 which
shows an increase in each item.  Therefore, the
conclusion reached was that the task system* induces greater
loading speed during heavy generation periods and more than
compensates for the occurrence of more  items per stop.

Newspaper Characteristics

Bundling Requirements.   Separated newspaper was  required  to
be bundled for collection.  Acceptable  bundling  techniques
were by tying string or  twine around newspapers, or placing
newspapers in grocery bags.  The vast majority of pilot area
residents opted to use grocery bags.  In that bundles  are
manually handled only once during the collection process,
bags ripping open or newspapers slipping out were not  pre-
valent problems.  Although not observed  or quantified  during
the field studies, the driver indicated  that grocery bags
tended to split when wet  (rain).

Newspaper Generation .   A weekly newspaper generation  rate
of 13.0 1bsper household per week in the pilot area was
based on the quantities  collected during field studies con-
ducted after the program  had attained normalcy in weekly
set-out patterns.  The number of newspaper bundles set out
by participating households ranged from  one to five with  an
average of 1.5, or an average weight of  8.7 Ibs per bundle.

Partici pat ion

An effective public relations program coupled with high
socio-economic status in  an area receiving separate collec-
tion service should be indicative of a successful program.
The pilot area in Rancho  Palos Verdes met both criteria:

        A public relations program consisting of news-
        paper articles,  a series of flyers, and a door-
        to-door information campaign was conducted in
        the pilot area by the Palos Verdes chapter of
        the American Association of University Women.
*The taS'kf system opera#6s on tire b
-------
        The pilot area consisted of about 7,700 people
        residing in 2,200 single family  household,
        Table 2 presents selected socio-economic
        data for the pilot area, the city of Rancho
        Palos Verdes, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach
        SMSA*.   As shown, the pilot area is  characterized
        by a high-income, highly educated populous with
        family size about that of the national average
        (3.5 persons/household).

During the two week period in which time studies of the
compartmentalized concept was monitored, a participation
rate"1" ranging from 30 to 40 percent was observed.   Although
adequate to assess most concept parameters,  a greater
participation rate would have been desirable to test the
adequacy of compartment size and associated  newspaper
behavior patterns (angle of repose, density, etc.) during
route conditions.

One noteworthy observation made during the field studies
was that householders were equally inclined  to set out
bundles on either, but notboth collection days.*  This
statement is substantiated by comparison of  the average
daily participants on the first and second collection day
of the week:


                    Program Participants
                 (number per route per day)


             Monday/     Tuesday/    Wednesday/
             Thursday     Friday      Saturday
              73/71        58/56      72/72

                        Startup Costs

The initial cost to compartmentalize the Shu-Pak used in
the Rancho Palos Verdes test was about $1,400 which included
installation of the compartment; cutting an  opening in the
   Standard Metropolitan Statistical  Area.

   Participation rate is defined as the number of households,
   expressed as a percent of total  households in separate
   collection service area, placing newspaper bundles out
   for separate collection.

   Similarly, there was no notable  difference in the
   number of newspaper bundles between the first and
   second collection day.
                             16

-------










*
co
i— i
1—
CO
|_H
OL
LU
I—
(_}
ea;
ad
nr
0
CM

LU I — I
_l 2!
CQ O

r- 0
O
LU
1
O
i — i
(_3
O
CO

Q
LU
r-
0
1 1 1
_J
LU
CO































03
CU


to
o

fO
Cu

o
r-
o
E
ro
G£




^•^
-I-)
.,_
C_3
CU
s_
•r—
4->
E
LU




+
tO
CU
s_
e^;

-t-J
O
1 —
•1—
Q-


I


(/>
U CJ
•I — •!—•
O CO
C -r-
O S-
O CU
LU 4->
1 0
O n3
•r- S-
U ro
O -C
CO O





O
CO O
o r-.
"oo "^ en
CM • . "
CO CM CM O
0 •— r-
•% CO
^








o
O CO
•— o
O1 00 CO «
•» • • r-—
CO CO CO CM
CO r— •&*








o
0 0
O LO <3- O
r— . « . "
"CO LD CM
r-. i — CM
-bO-






"O
f— 22
O fO "D
^Z •!- O)
cu -o 4-> >,
to CU CU i —
rs E r— T-
E 0 ^^ Q. E
0 ^: c E 03
•r- ^ O 0 H-
•M co -P- O O)
03 E -(-> E E
i— O (O S_ n3 O
Z3 tO O 03 -r- O
a s- rs o> -o E
O QJ ~O >s CU "P-
D- Q- LU 5;







**
"
O -i-

CTi tO
i— O
.. J^
en O
E 03
•i- CU
tO CQ
O CD
_E C
o
-o —i
E 1
ro to
o>
E r-
0 Ol
•i- CD
-M E
ro  o
CO S-
Z3 O ~O
to Q- Ol
E O) (J
GJ S- -r-
^- 5-
O) 03 CU
-E E CO
4J T—
4— ro
q_ 0)
O •'- S-
to ro
Z3 4-^
ro O i—
tv to -to
S- S- CO -p-
CQ Q. E
to CU
CO CO Ct -r-
E CO CO
• CU 2! CU
rD cj co D;

* +
17

-------
bulkhead through which the newspaper is loaded; mounting
the lift-arms, bucket, and support members; and installa-
tion of the controls.  Subsequent installations should in-
clude an independent hydraulic pump to raise and lower the
bucket (instead of the air control valve) with actuation
possible from cab and/or hopper positions.  With these minor
modifications, incremental newspaper collection time per
stop could be halved (from 0.10 min to 0.05 min) based on
simulated time studies.  Initial installation costs Including
the recommended modifications are estimated to be about
$1 ,700 per vehicle.

The compartmentalized approach evaluated requires a transfer
ramp with a bin located below dumping grade.  The alternative
of dumping separately collected newspaper on the ground and
either loading a storage bin manually or with the aid of a
skip-loader was not  deemed practical by the study partici-
pants.  The ramp used during the test was constructed by
the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and was neces-
sarily of a makeshift variety feecause the Palos Verdes
landfill g's scheduled  to  reach,  capacity within;_the next three
years.  The ramp configuration used by the city of Newport
Beach (Figure 4)    accommodates two 40 cu yd roll-offs
which are placed below the dumping grade.  Construction cost
for the concrete retaining walls, asphalt dumping surface
and concrete apron on which to set the roll-offs was about
$10,000.

Total startup costs  are, therefore, estimated to be $10,000
plus $1,700 for each modified collection vehicle.
               Performance Parameters

The compartmentalized approach to separate newspaper col-
lection, as previously illustrated in Figure 1 and 2, incor-
porates a 3 cu yd storage area within a standard Shu-Pak
body to isolate separately collected materials from mixed
refuse.  Also shown in Figure 1 is the 0.1 cu yd bucket in
which to place separated newspaper bundles for subsequent
mechanical loading through a bulkhead opening into the com-
partment for storage along the collection route.  When the
body has been filled with mixed refuse, the truck proceeds
to the disposal site, dumps the mixed refuse first and, in
an independent operation, dumps the separated newspaper
at a pre-arranged location (Figure  5).     As can be inter-
preted from this generalized sequence, incremental time is
associated with collection and newspaper dumping operations,
The impact of the compartmentalized approach to separate
                             18

-------
FIGURE 4.    Transfer Ramp Used for
 Separate Newspaper Collection,
          Newport Beach

-------
                          COLLECTION

     Loading  Newspaper
        (bucket  down)
                           DISPOSAL
    Loading  Refuse
       (bucket  up)
       Di'inpiruj R
Transferring Newspaper
FIGURE. B.  Comp.  f TO i f.a"! ized  Truck Operational Sequence  for
Col lee Moo and  FJi s,-c.; <) 1 .
                              20

-------
newspaper collection on normal refuse loading, hauling and
dumping operations in Rancho Palos Verdes is summarized
below.

Driver Familiarity

The compartmentalized approach to separate collection should
not offer a significant problem with regard to driver
ori en tat ion .

The current prototype configuration requires the driver to
take an extra step upon cab egress to actuate the air control
valve to lower the bucket when separated newspapers are avail
able.  Curbside collection using a one-man crew is
predicated on efficiency such that an extra step or two per
stop becomes  time consuming as well as irritating.  Waiting
for the bucket to descend or ascend is another source of
irritation that results if the driverO) fails to actuate
the control upon cab egress, or (2) is not compacting at
the time when the bucket must be raised to load the paper
bundles.  With respect to the latter condition, a slow
bucket ascent may not offer sufficient velocity to eject the
bundle(s)  which fall  into the refuse hopper during the
subsequent budket descent.  These time consuming irritations
tan be* el irninated with the addition of a cab-meonted  control
switch and an independent pump to raise and lower the
bucket.  In this manner, the driver may optimally sequence
loading operations to suit the specific stop.  For example,
if newspapers are separately bundled/bagged and placed
atop/beside refuse containers, the following sequence would
be typi cal :

        Arrive at a collection stop.

        Engage bucket switch upon stepping out of cab.

        Walk  to curbside set-out point (bucket lowers
        during this time).

        Pitch newspaper bundle(s) into bucket.

        Engage bucket switch and return to curb to
        collect refuse (bucket raises and loads news-
        paper into compartment during this time).

        Load  refuse.

        Return to cab.
                             21

-------
        Drive to next stop*.

Thus, the only incremental time per stop would be the time
required to pitch separated newspapers into the bucket.   If
newspapers are not separated  and placed curbside, there
would be no impact on loading in that the bucket is held
in a raised position until needed.

An additional advantage of the independent pump would be
that the bucket cycle time (lowering and raising) can be
tailored to suit driver efficiency  and service area char-
acteristics (e.g., if parked  cars or mature foliage are
present, the truck cannot be  stopped immediately adjacent
to the curb which increases the "walking" time for the
driver of a one-man truck.  Thus, the bucket cycle time
could be slower than a situation where obstacles do not
exi st).

Bucket Capacity

The bucket capacity (0,1  cu yd) was designed to accommodate
two large bundles (each bundle 12 inches high) or four
smaller bundles (each bundle  3 to 6 inches high).  In any
case, if the number of bundles loaded into the bucket exceeds
four, the excess will fall into the refuse hopper while
being elevated to the compartment.   The alternative of
loading several bucket loads  of newspaper per stop is viewed
as being excessively time consuming.  Once a separate
collection program "levels out," however, and householders
become accustomed to placing  newspaper bundles out on a
regular basis, the "overflow" problem becomes non-existent.
For example, when the Rancho  Palos  Verdes program leveled
out, an average of 1.5 newspaper bundles were generated
weekly by pilot area households with 95 percent of the
participating stops setting out either one or two bundles."1"
With either one or two bundles the  driver can pitch the
bundles into the bucket.   In  excess of two, the driver must
manually place the third  and/or fourth bundles in the
bucket to circumvent bundles  from falling out while being
elevated.
*  When a full  load of refuse is collected, the truck
   proceeds to  the landfill, discharges the mixed refuse
   and proceeds to the adjacent transfer ramp to transfer
   the separatedly collected newspapers if the compartment
   is filled.

+  Households  in the Fullerton separate collection program
   averaged 1.7 newspaper bundles per week (Appendix B) .
                             22

-------
Loading Time

Detailed in Appendix A, four steps were taken to assess
newspaper handling time on overall refuse loading time:

     1)  Isolation of "refuse only stops" from "separated
         paper stops" with data tabulated in terms of
         number of items per stop (newspaper bundles not
         included) as a function of total loading time
         per stop (travel time between stops not included).

     2)  Regression analysis performed on each data set.

     3)  Comparison of regression lines.

     4)  Deduction of actual newspaper handling time
         from "separated paper stop" line.

Based on this procedure, the impact of separate newspaper
collection on refuse loading time for the first and second
collection day of the week are respectfully shown in
Figures 6 and. 7.  Each figure cgmpares refuse
loading time with paper* (solid line) and without paper"1"
(dashed line).   Also shown is the hypothetical loading time
(dotted line) calculated by subtracting the actual amount of
time to load an average of 1.5 newspaper bundles (0.10 min)
from the time for loading refuse when newspaper is separately
set out. As shown in Figure 6 (first collection day), the
"hypothetical line" falls below the "refuse line" leading
to the conclusion that refuse containers  are either lighter
or easier to handle because of newspaper removal which
results in a portion of the incremental paper loading time
being absorbed.   Although not totally, Figure 7 shows
that newspaper handling time adds to refuse collection time
on the second,  or light collection day of the week.  This
dilemma is not solvable although similar data analysis of
the rack program in Fullerton, California  (Appendix BK
supports the "absorption hypothesis."  Implementing the
suggested changes in the control and loading devices could
further reduce the incremental time requirements by an
additional 0.05 min.

Prior to the load time analysis, there was speculation that
the 3 cu yd consumed by the compartment would create diffi-
culty when trying the "break the load" after attaining 60
to 70 percent of a load.  Comparison of the refuse loading
time per stop during the first 60 to 70 percent of a truck-
load with loading time per stop during the last 30 to 40
percent yielded no significant differences.
*  Refuse plus separated newspaper
+  Refuse only.
                              23

-------
Q.
O
QJ
Q-

O)
E
    2.4
    2.2
    2.0
    1.8
    1.6
    1.4
    1.2
o>  K0
E


1   0.8
    0.6


    0.4


    0.2


      0
            —Compartmentalized separate newspaper
                 col lection.
            —Refuse collection without separate collection
            —Hypothetical  refuse collection  (separate
                 collection  less actual newspaper handling
                 time).
        0   1
                                                8
10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
     FIGURE  6.   Impact  of  Separate  Newspaper  Collection
     on  Refuse  Collection;  First  Collection  Day  of  Week
     (Compartmentalized Truck).
                             24

-------
2.4


2.2



2.0


1.8



1.6
Q.
o

£   1.4

S-

Q-
O)
cn

1.2


1.0


0. 8


0.6


0.4


0.2


  0
                   Refuse collection with separate newspaper
                    collection.
                   Refuse collection without separate collection
                   Hypothetical refuse collection  (separate
                    collection less actual newspaper
                    handling  time).
        0    1
                                            8
                         Refuse Items  Per Stop
10
    FIGURE 7.  Impact of Separate Newspaper Collection on
    Refuse Collection; Second Collection Day of Week
    (Compartmentalized Truck).
                            25

-------
Weight Distribution

The compartmentalized approach can enhance payload weight
distribution (Figure 8).   The total  newspaper loading
system (compartment structure, bucket,  support,  controls)
adds about 700 Ibs to the truck tare weight of which
400 Ibs is applied to the front axle and 300 Ibs to the
rear.  Once 900 Ibs of newspapers are loaded into the
compartment, however, weight on the  rear axles is neutral-
ized (fulcrum effect of taking newspaper weight  out of
the body and transferring it forward to the compartment).
This is an important consideration in that refuse collection
vehicles typically become overweight on the rear axles.
Superimposed on Figure 8  are representative participation
rates.  At the Rancho Palos Verdes participation rate of about
35 percent, the compartment had a potential payload penalty
of about 140 Ibs (equivalent to refuse  from about 2 house-
holds on the heavy collection day).   That is, under Rancho
Palos Verdes conditions,  the legal gross vehicle weight
of a compartmentalized vehicle would be reached  140 Ibs
sooner than an unmodified vehicle.

Den si ty

Refuse Density.  Installation of the compartment in the low
compaction density area*  of a Shu-Pak was performed to
minimize load penalties due to loss  of  body capacity.

Refuse loads monitored before and after compartmentalization
were found not to be appreciably different.  In  both
instances, maximum loads  of about 6.5 tons were  attained in
the compartmentalized truck.  The control truck  attained
maximum before and after  loads of about 7.0 tons.  The
difference in loads between the two  trucks was attributed
more to driver loading/compacting habits than to loss of
capacity due to the 3 cu  yd compartment.  Accordingly, the
compacted refuse density  of 450 Ibs/cu  yd prior  to
   Refuse loaded into a Shu-Pak is compacted from the load-
   ing hopper toward the rear doors.   Once "door resistance"
   is met, refuse curls upward and toward the front of
   the body.   The position of the compartment is typically
   a "fluff"  zone, or an area where the least dense compacted
   refuse is  located.
                            26

-------
O)
                                                           o
                                                           O
                                                           00
                                                              "O
                                                               c
                                                           O   3
                                                           o   o
                                                           CM  O-
                                                               to
                                                               Ol
                                                           O   O)
                                                           O  —I
                                                              o
                                                              S-
                                                              (t!
                                                              -M
                                                              O
                                                              -o
                                                              (O
                                                              o
                                                              0)
                                                          O  (/)
                                                          O  3
                                                           I
                                                          o
                                                          o
                                                          CM
                                                              cu
T3
rt3
O
                                                                        (O
                                                                        Q-
                                                                        (O
                                                                        en
                                                                        cu
c
O
                                                                        IB
                                                                        M
O)
E
-(->
i-
fO
Q-
E
O
C_3
O
(O
Q.
                                                                        CO

                                                                        UJ
                                                                        u.
          CM
                          OO
                                                 CM
 (spunod  j.o  spaupunLj)
                               27

-------
modification was improved to 500 Ibs/cu yd via compart-
mentalization without the truck exceeding legal  weight
limitations.

Newspaper Density.   Due to the participation rate not
exceeding 40 percent (20 percent on a given collection
day), compartment capacity was not tested during route
conditions.   Accordingly, on-route density of newspaper
was not estimable.

Based on tests prior to formal initiation of the separate
collection program  in Rancho Palos Verdes, the compartment
was filled with bundled newspaper totaling 1,280 Ibs.
To attain this weight,  however, required the driver to
repeatedly stand on the loading bucket and manually
rearrange the newspaper load through the bulkhead opening.*
Compartment loads totaling about 1,100 Ibs were  attainable
with minimal rearrangement.+  The latter weight  converts
to an in-place density  of about 370 Ibs/cu yd.

With the present loading technique (i.e., through top-
center of the bulkhead) the angle of newspaper repose
becomes more severe  as the compartment fills.  Truck vibra-
tion does little to overcome newspaper skin-friction when
peaked near the opening.  Angle of repose problems are worse
yet in damp or rainy weather.   An experiment to  mount a
probe on the bucket which would precede the newspaper
bundles through the opening to knock  aside peaked bundles
did not perform the expectations (in fact, the probe had
a tendency to catch under twine or become wedged in a
bundle and pull it  out  of the  compartment).

Newspaper Transfer  Time

Rancho Palos Verdes collection routes are located within
10 miles of the Palos Verdes Sanitary Landfill.   Disposal
of refuse, including weigh-in, consumed an average of 15
min per load.  Driving  time to the transfer ramp,
positioning and dumping the separately collected newspaper
into a roll-off bin and return to the access road required
an average incremental  time of 5 min.
   Although questionable from a safety standpoint,  the
   rearranging procedure is similar to procedures required
   to add water to the auxiliary engine radiator when
   necessary (i.e., climbing in the hopper area).

   The approximate point where manual  rearranging is
   required wa  not determined during  the study.
                             28

-------
Cooperation of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
provided a nearly optimal solution to newspaper transfer.
Had the transfer facility been at a location other than the
disposal site, incremental time requirements would have been
correspondingly greater.

Newspaper Contami nation

When dumped, separately collected newspaper comes in
contact with the interior of the collection vehicle body.
Newspaper contamination was considered a potential problem.
However, mixed residential refuse typically has a high
paper content (even with newspaper removed).  The scouring
action of this paper, and in the test area, large quantities
of yard trimmings and brush resulted in the body floor
being sufficiently clean to impart no noticeable con-
tamination upon newspaper bundles.

                     Program Economics

Similar to the rack approach, the compartmentalized approach
also allows mixed refuse and separated newspaper to be
loaded coincidentally by the same crew and, in the case of
a Shu-Pak, in the same hopper area (Figure 9).  According-
ly, householder refuse set-out habits need not be sig-
nificantly altered.  In order to be cost-effective, however,
the compartmentalized and rack approaches must be capable
of absorbing incremental newspaper collection and transfer
time without necessitating additional  equipment and labor.

The separate truck approach entails the use of independent
equipment and labor to collect separated newspaper
(Figure 10).  Depending on the ability of a collector to
divert labor and equipment from normal  or reserve refuse
collection forces, the frequency of separate collection
may be varied.

The cost of separate newspaper collection and the economic
impact on mixed refuse collection operations depends on
a number of factors including:   separate collection approach,
equipment type and size, crew size, collection frequency,
participation  rate, haul time,  and revenue/diverted dis-
posal  savings.   By using Rancho Palos  Verdes service area
conditions, mixed refuse collection frequency, refuse
generation rate,  newspaper generation  rate, etc.,  a
hypothetical  residential area of 10,000 single family
homes  was evaluated using a refuse collection model
(Appendix E).   Supportive data  (Appendix D) were derived
from BFI operations in Rancho Palos Verdes (Appendix A);
MG Disposal operations in Fullerton (Appendix B) where
                             29

-------
 FIGURE  9.   Rack  Approach  to  Separate  Newspaper
 Collection.
FIGURE 10.   Ssparate Truck Approach to
Newspaper.1 ollection.
                        30

-------
Shu-Paks are used to separately collect newspaper using
the rack approach; and Newport Beach municipal operations
(Appendix C) where Shu-Paks are used to collect newspaper
via the separate truck approach.

Model Economics for Separate Collection

The alternative separate collection approaches were
evaluated on the following assumptions:

        Compartmentali zed and rack approaches were
        evaluated in conjunction with efficient
        mixed refuse collection systems where no
        additional time requirements could be absorbed
        without additional equipment and labor.

        In the analysis of the separate truck approach,
        mixed refuse collection vehicles were re-
        routed to compensate for the reduced waste
        quantities due to separate collection.

Figures 11  through 16 depict the economic viability of
the alternative separate collection approaches based on
Rancho Palos Verdes conditions.  The bounds on each
figure reflect newspaper revenue rates of $8 per ton (upper
bound) and $25 per ton (lower bound).   Included in the
savings is a constant $2 per ton for diverted disposal  costs
Also plotted for comparative purposes  is the estimated
baseline cost for mixed refuse collection prior to
implementation of a separate collection program.

Compartmenta1i zed Approach.    Figure 11 is representative
of the equipment as tested (incremental loading time of
0.10 min per participating stop).   Figure 12 assesses the
cost sensitivity to the suggested  equipment changes based
on an incremental  time reduction of 0.05 min per stop.

The impact of reducing incremental  newspaper loading
time is visibly evident by comparing the upper bound be-
tween the two figures.   With an incremental load time of
0.10 min per participating stop, the $8 per ton revenue
rate is barely adequate to cover the additional  cost for
labor and equipment to implement the program.   By halving
the incremental  time (Figure 12),  even an $8 per  ton revenue
is more than sufficient to cover the additional  costs.

As seen in  both  figures,  the compartmentalized concept
effectively  reduces  overall  collection costs until  a 75
percent participation rate is  attained.  At this  point
under Rancho Palos Verdes  conditions,  the compartment and
                             31

-------
    30  -
IS)
O)
o
c
o>
•a
O>
C£.

O
o
o
 A
o
O in
4- S-
  (O
c: o
o -o
SI
  M-
S- O
O)
CL in
  -a
29 -
28 -
    27
    26
O
GJ
O
C_)

O)
O
QJ
LU
    25
24
    23
Point where
compartment
reaches capacity^
               ^Newspaper
                at $8 per
                                              Mixed
                                              Refuse
                                           Col 1ection
                                               Cost
       Newspaper
       revenue  at
       $25 per  ton
       0    10    20   30   40   50   60    70    80   90   100

                         Percent Participation

FIGURE 11.   Effective Cost for Compartmentalized Collection
of Separated Newspaper Versus Mixed Refuse Collection  Cost
Prior to  System  Implementation:  Exemplary Analysis
                              32

-------
     30
     29
28
 cu
 01
 -a
 to
 a>
o
o
o
 ft
o
 O
£ o  27
o -a
 s_ o
 CD
 CL (/)
  •a
_|.:j £^
 
o 3
  o
 c: jc
 O 4J
O
CD
O
CD
UU
    25
24
    23
               Point  where
               compartment
               reaches  capacity.
/Newspaper revenue
 at  $8  per ton
        Newspaper
        revenue  at
        $25  per  ton
                                              Mixed
                                              Refuse
                                            Col 1ection
                                               Cost
       0    10    20   30   40    50    60    70   80

                         Percent  Participation
                                                 90   TOO
FIGURE 12«   Effective  Cost for I^Oflipartmental ized  Collection
of Separated  Newspaper Pending Recoiwmended .Equipment  -"
Modifications
                              33

-------
truck are both filled to capacity.   When  participation
exceeds 75 percent a larger compartment must  be  installed
to enable simultaneous filling of compartment and  body.

Due to lack of community support or "competition"  from
schools,  religious groups,  etc., participation rates
exceeding 60 percent are highly unlikely.   Thus,  the  75
percent limitation in Rancho Palos  Verdes  was deemed
appropriate.

Rack Approach.  The discontinuities shown  on  Figure 13
delineate points (35 and 70 percent participation)  where
on-route  transfer of newspaper is required.   At  these
points, an incremental cost increase is incurred  to cover
transfer  costs.   With newspaper revenue at $8 per  ton,
savings exceed collection costs when participation  is
70 percent or less.

The economics of the rack approach  are similar to  the
compartmentalized approach, as tested (Figure 11).

Separate  Truck Approach.  Figures 14 through  16,  respective-
ly, indicate the economics  for implementing  the  separate
truck approach for separate collection frequencies  of
once per  week, once every two weeks, and  once per  month.
As seen,  cost is sensitive  to collection  frequency  which
reflects  the quantity of newspaper  available  per  participat-
ing stop  (i.e.,  at once per week, the driver  would
collect 13 Ibs per stop; at bi-weekly or  monthly  frequencies,
the driver would respectively collect 26  or 56 Ibs).   Thus,
economies of scale are evident.

Comparing separate truck approach costs with  those  of the
compartmentalized approach  shows that the  latter  approach
is preferable  at either weekly or  bi-weekly  frequencies.
At a once per month separate collection frequency  the
compartmentalized approach  is preferable  under 50  percent
and similar from 50 through 70 percent participation.
Beyond 70 percent, the separate truck is  the  best  choice
although  participation rates exceeding 50  percent  are
i nfrequent.

Concl usi ons.  The compartmentalized approach  as  evaluated
appears to be a  viable separate collection option  pro-
vided a newspaper transfer  facility is located at  the disposal
site or adjacent to the haul route.  Economics can  be
further improved with the recommended equipment  changes.
The capacity of  the compartment can be specified  for  local
needs based on expected participation rates  and  quantity
of available newspaper.
                             34

-------
Studies of the rack approach using rear loaders with side
mounted racks, have found incremental  newspaper collection
times of 10 to 15 seconds per stop can be absorbed into
normal collection activities without necessitating additional
equipment or labor.  It is reasonable  to assume that the
smaller incremental time requirements  associated with
the compartmentalized approach using a Shu-Pak,can be
similarly absorbed.
                             35

-------
to
O)
CJ
c:
QJ
-o
•p—
to
cu
O
O
O
O in
4- i.
  03
O
QJ
O
CJ
(11
     30
29
28
£ o 27
O XI
  H-
S- O
O)
CX to
  "0
-!-> C
to 03
O 10
O H3
  O
26
    25
    24
    23
Points where on-route
 newspaper transfer
     is required ->k
          Newspaper revenu
      Newspaper
      revenue
      at $25 per
            10    20   30   40    50    60
                                      70
                        80    90
TOO
                         Percent  Participation
      FIGURE  13.   Effective Cost for Rack  Collection  of
      Separated  Newspaper Versus Mixed Refuse Collection
      Cost  Prior  to  System Implementation:  Exemplary
      Analysi s
                              36

-------
to
0}
u
c
O)
CO
OJ
Cf.

o
o
o
 *>
o
  in
  i.
O O
S- 4-
 T3
CO E
O "3
O CO
O)
o
o
O
O)
 38

 37

 36


 35

 34

 33

 32

 31


 30

 29

 28

 27

 26


 25

 24


 23

 22

21

20
                                                 Newspaper revenue
                                                 at $8 per ton
                 Newspaper  revenue
                 at  $25  per  ton
Mixed
Refuse
llection
 Cost
         0   10     20   30   40   50   60   70

                         Percent Participation
                                            80   90
         100
     FIGURE 14.  Effective Cost for Separate  Truck
     Collection  of  Separated Newspaper Versus Mixed  Refuse
     Collection  Cost  Prior to System Implementation:
     Exemplary  Analysis, 1/wk Separate  Collection.
                                     37

-------
to

4- t/5
  $_
.C rQ
4-> r-
C. r—
O O
S_ U_
O) O
CL
to C
O fO
O to
[ ^ s
cu
cu
o
O)
4-
LoJ
 38

 37

 36


 35

 34

 33

 32

 31


 30

 29

 28

 27

 26


 25

24

23

22

21

20
                                               Newspaper revenue
                                               at $8 per ton
                  Newspaper  revenue
                  at  $25  per ton.
  Mixed
  Refuse
Col lection
   Cost
         0   10    20   30   40   50   60   70    80    90   100

                         Percent Participation

     FIGURE  15.   Effective  Cost  for  Separate  Truck
     Collection  of Separated Newspaper Versus Mixed  Refuse
     Collection  Cost  Prior to System Implementation:
     Exemplary Analysis, 1/2 wk  Separate  Collection.
                                    38

-------
 to
 O)
 u
 c
 oi
-a
•i—
 01
 a>
a;

o
o
o
  I/)
  s-
  n3
O O
s: -a

S_ 14-
a> o
a.
  M
+-> "O
^ c.
o ra
E O
O -C
a
a>
a>
o
oj
q-
 38


 37


 36


 35


 34


 33


 32


 31


 30


 29


 28


 27


 26


 25


24


23


22


21


20
Newspaper  revenue
at $8 per ton
                   Mixed
                   Refuse
                 Col lection
                    •Cost
                Newspaper  revenue
                at  $25  per  ton
         0   10     20   30   40   50   60    70

                         Percent Participation
                                            80
                       90
100
     FIGURE 16.  Effective  Cost  for  Separate  Truck
     Collection  of  Separated Newspaper Versus  Mixed  Refuse
     Collection  Cost  Prior to System Implementation:
     Exemplary  Analysis,  1/mo  Separate  Collection.

-------
                             V

                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully express our appreciation to the Resource
Recovery Division of the Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   In
particular, we commend Ms. Penelope Hansen, Project
Officer, for her support of the evaluation and for her
sincere interest in seeking methods to optimize separate
collection of recyclable materials.

Special recognition is made to the many participants who
made the study possible.  Individually, we express our
gratitude to Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. for per-
mitting a collection vehicle to be modified and allowing
the subsequent testing and evaluation to be performed; to
Maxon Industries for installing the compartment and
associated equipment and controls without cost to the
study or participants; to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
for supporting the test program; to the Palos Verdes
Chapter of the American Association of University Women
for providing in-kind public relations support;  to the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts who voluntarily
built a transfer ramp at the Palos Verdes Landfill to
facilitate unloading of separately collected newspaper;
and to MG Disposal  and the City of Newport Beach who
respectively provided sites to study rack and separate
truck approaches to separate newspaper collection.
                      Preceding page Hank

                             41

-------
                         APPENDICES

Appendix                                             Page
   A       Rancho Palos Verdes, California           A-l
   B       Fullerton, California                     B-l
   C       Newport Beach, California                 C-l
   D       Systems Analysis Data Development         D-l
   E       Collection Model                          E-l
                        Preceding page blank
                             43

-------
                         APPENDIX A

               RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes has a population of about
39,000.  Of this sum, about 7,700 persons residing in
approximately 2,200 single-family homes receive twice
weekly refuse collection service from Browning Ferris
Industries, Inc. (BFI).   The "BFI collection area" in
which the separate newspaper experiment was performed
is characterized by homes on large lots (average street
frontage of 93 ft) on steep hills (up to 20 percent grades)

         DATA DEVELOPMENT FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION

The basic methodology employed to evaluate the compart-
mentalized approach to separate collection was to monitor
the collection vehicle before and after modification.
Based on the monitoring  performed, data were developed to
assess the impact on normal refuse collection operations
and to assess economic viability.  The second BFI truck
("control truck") with similar routes in Rancho Palos
Verdes was also monitored to aid in determining if any
measurable impact was influenced by the prototype concept
or by collection area idiosyncracies such as seasonality
of waste generated, variation in number and/or type of
containers collected per residence, etc.

The remainder of this appendix presents the data gathered
and analyzed during the  course of the study.

              Collection/Disposal Operations

With the exception of brush trimmings, mixed residential
refuse is stored primarily in metal/plastic containers
and/or plastic bags.   Brush is bundled and set out at the
curb with containerized  refuse for collection.  Collected
refuse is transported to the Palos Verdes Sanitary Land-
fill operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts.

Implementation of the pilot separate collection program
altered the general collection/disposal  format only to
the extent that (1) separated newspaper was collected
simultaneously with mixed refuse, and (2) separated
newspaper was discharged into a roll-off container located
adjacent to the working  face at the Palos Verdes Landfill
via a transfer ramp constructed by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts.
                            A-l

-------
Refuse Per Stop.   The frequency distribution of refuse
items* per stop before and after commencement of the
separate collection program are shown for the compart-
mentalized truck  in Figures A-l and A-2 and for the con-
trol truck in Figures A-3 and A-4; each set respectively
depicting the first and second collection day of the week.

Load Time.  Loading time per stop was assessed by following
each vehicle along the route.  The modified truck was
monitored for two weeks prior to compartmentalization and
an equal amount of time after the separate collection
program commenced.  The control truck was monitored for
two-day periods during the same time frames.  Loading time
was recorded at each stop and an item count made.  The
aggregated results of the time studies are displayed in
Figures A-5 through A-10 for the compartmentalized truck
and in Figures A-ll through A-13 for the control truck.
The load time line was established using linear regression
with data input weighted by frequency of occurrence.

Figures A-5 through A-7 present the loading time character-
istics for the compartmentalized truck on the first collec-
tion day of the week, Figures A-8 through A-10 on the
second day.  Each set depicts the following:  the first
graph of the series displays loading time prior to the
separate collection program.  The second and third graphs
show the relationship after commencement of separate
collection; the second graph depicts stops where no news-
paper was set out, and the third graph depicts stops which
participated in the program by separating newspaper.  In
each case, the relationship is expressed in terms of refuse
items.  In this manner, the time to handle separated
newspaper can be  assessed on a common basis.

Trave1 Time Between Stops.  Travel time between stops
remained constant at about 0.30 min before and after
vehicle modification.

Newspaper Characteri sties

Newspaper Quantity.  A weekly newspaper generation rate of
13.0 Ibs per household in thepilotarea was based on the
quantities collected during field studies conducted after
*  Storage containers, disposable bags, and/or bundled
   refuse; does not include newspaper bundles.
                            A-2

-------
the program had attained normalcy  in weekly  set-out
patterns.*  This rate was deemed reasonable  for  the  pilot
area based on the following rationale:

        A pre-program survey conducted by  the  American
        Association of University  Women  reached  62
        percent of the 1,100 pilot area  residents.
        One question in the survey sought  to determine
        which newspapers were received by  pilot  area
        residents.  Using these data and individual
        publisher weight per issue estimates resulted
        in a newspaper generation  rate of  10.7 Ibs per
        household per week.  This  estimate was believed
        to represent a lower bound for two reasons:
        (1) much of the local "junk mail"  is printed
        on newsprint, and (2) local "advertising  news-
        papers" are delivered weekly without sub-
        scription (these newspapers would  likely  not
        be considered by a householder when  responding
        to a questionnaire).

        A 1972 household solid waste separation  study
        conducted for two weeks by 50 pilot  area
        families,+ resulted in a newspaper generation
        rate of 14.8 Ibs per household per week.  This
        estimate was considered an upper bound based
        on recent efforts by the majority  of newspaper
        publishers to reduce the quantity  of news-
        print used due to escalating purchase  costs.

As shown in Figure A-14, the number of newspaper  bundles
set out per participating stop ranged from one to five
with an average of 1.5.
   At program onset, residents set out quantities of news-
   paper that had been stored for several weeks or months.

   Unpublished case study of the Palos Verdes Recycling
   Center conducted by SCS Engineers in April, 1973, in
   support of:  SCS  Engineers.   Analysis  of  Source
   Separate Collection of Recyclable Solid Waste:  Collection
   Center Studies.   Lv.  22.   Environmental Protection Agency,
   1974 [75 p.]~  (TJTstributed by National Technical  Information
   Service, Springfield, Va., as  PB-239 776.)
                            A-3

-------
CD

E





-------
O)
o
E
OJ
s-
s_
Z5
o
o
o
o

>>
o
c
OJ
3
CT
0)
s-
120L



110



100



 90



 80



 70



 60



 50



 40



 30



 20



 10


  0
            	Before separate collection
            	After separate collection
                mean number
                 of items
                                                           10
                         Refuse  Items  Per  Stop

        FIGURE  A-2 .  Frequency Distribution  of  Refuse
        Items per Stop; Second Collection  Day  of  Week
        (Compartmentalized Truck)
                           A-5

-------
S-
GJ
-Q

-------
120 <

   j-

110:-
                 Before  separate  collection
             	 After  separate  collection (no data available
OJ
-Q
CD
U
CD
5-
u
u
o
o
c:
OJ
rs
cr
01
100 j-



 90



 80 h



 70



 60



 50 i-



 40



 30



 20



 10
                 mean number
                  of items
                                                  8
                                                        10
                          Refuse Items Per Stop
         FIGURE   A-4 .   Frequency Distribution of Refuse Items
         per  Stop;  Second Collection Day of Week (Control Truck)
                         -A-7

-------
 in
 O)
O)
£
TO
    2.4
    2.2
    2.0
1.8
5  1-6

D.
O

£  1.4

5-

(X
    1.2
    1.0
|   0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
            Loading  time  =  0.13  +  0.22  (items  at  stop)
            Coefficient of  correlation  =  0.97
            Number of  observed stops  =  1 ,764
                       mean
                                                8
                                                       10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
     FIGURE A- 5  .   Loading Time  as  a  Function  of  Refuse  Items
     per  Stop  Prior  to Commencement  of  Separate  Collection
     Program;  First  Collection  Day of  Week  (Compartmentalized
     Truck).
                          A- 8

-------
    2. 4
    2.2 _
        Loading  time  =  0.20  +  0.17  (items  at  stop)
        Coefficient  of  correlation  =  0.98
        Number of  observed  stops  =  945
OJ

3
d.
o
co
2.0


1.8


1.6


1.4
s_
O)
a.
E
I—
en
c:
T3
fO
0



1.
1.


0.



2
0


8
    0.6
    0.4  -
    0.2  .
                         mean
1 I 1 1 i 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
        0
                                                       10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
    FIGURE  A-6 .   Loading Time as a Function of Refuse Items
    per Stop After Commencement of Separate Collection; First
    Collection Day of Week (Compartmentalized Truck - Refuse
    Only Stops).
                          A- 9

-------
(1)
E
    2.4


    2.2



    2.0


    1.8


    1.6
CL
O

£   1.4

i_

-------
2.4


2.2



2.0


1.8



1.6
OL
O

£   1.4
Cl)
s-
OJ
Q-

0)
O)
1 .2
    1.0
    0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
            Loading  time  =  0.15  +  0.23  (items  at  stop)
            Coefficient of  correlation  =  0.99
            Number of  observed stops =  1,703
                  mean
                                                           10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
    FIGURE  A-8 .   Loading Time as
    per Stop Prior to Commencement
    Program; Second Collection Day
    Truck).
                               a Function of Refuse Items
                               of Separate Collection
                               of Week (Compartmentalized
                          A- 11

-------
to
CD
CL
O
4J
CO

S-

-------
    2.4


    2.2


    2.0
to
S   1.8
    1.6
Q.
O
•»->
CO

S-
(13
O.
1.4
    1.2
    1.0
    0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
        Loading  time  =  0.23  +  0.19  (items  at  stop)
        Coefficient of  correlation  =  0.95
        Number  of  observed  stops  =  126
                    mean
                                                8
                                                       10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
     FIGURE  A-10.  Loading Time as a Function of Refuse
     Items per Stop After Commencement of Separate Collection;
     Second Collection Day of Week  (Compartmentalized Truck -
     Separated Paper Stops).
                         A-13

-------
to
CD
Q.
O
S-
<1>
D.

O)
E
•i—
I—

O)
2.4


2.2


2.0


1.8


1.6



1.4



1.2


1.0
5   0.8
    0.6


    0.4


    0.2


      0
            Loading time  = 0.09  +  0.16  (items  at  stop)
            Coefficient of correlation  =  0.99
            Number of observed stops  =  339
                   mean
                                                8
                                                       10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
     FIGURE A-ll  .  Loading Time  as  a  Function  of  Refuse  Items
     per Stop  Prior to  Commencement  of Separate Collection
     Program;  First Collection  Day of  Week  (Control  Truck),
                          A- 14

-------
V)
01
a.
o
t/o
cn
c:
2.4


2.2



2.0


1.8


1.6



1.4



1.2


1.0
2   0.8
    0.6


    0.4


    0.2


      0
            Loading  time  =  0.15  +  0.13  (items  at  stop)
            Coefficient of  correlation  =  0.96
            Number of  observed stops  =  248
                mean
                                                8
                                                       10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
    FIGURE  A-12.  Loading Time as a Function of Refuse Items
    per Stop Prior to Commencement of Separate Collection;
    Second Collection Day of Week (Control T^uck).
                          A-,15

-------
2.4



2.2 L


2.0
t/>
J»   1.8
    1.6
CL
o
GO
0)
Q_
cr>
sr

1.4


1.2


1.0


0.8


0.6


0.4


0.2


  0
        0
            Loading time = 0.19 + 0.12  (items  at  stop)
            Coefficient of correlation  = 0.75
            Number of observed stops =  1,858
                        mean
                                             8
10
                         Refuse Items Per Stop
    FIGURE  A-13.  Loading Time as a Function of  Refuse  Items
    per Stop After Commencement of Separate Collection;  First
    Collection Day of Week (Control Truck).
                         A-IB

-------
O)
o
c
OJ
u
o
o
o
c
CD
CT

-------
                        APPENDIX B

                   FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA


The City of Fullerton is located 25 miles southeast of Los
Angeles and has a population of about 82,000.  Fullerton
initiated curbside separate collection of newspaper in
September, 1973.  After soliciting bids for collection and
marketing of separate newspaper, a one-year contract was
signed with a local  paper dealer to provide once per month
service using an open stake truck and a three-man crew.
At the end of the year period, the paper dealer opted not
to renew the contract.  At this time, MG Disposal, the pri-
vate hauler in Fullerton, agreed to retrofit their residen-
tial refuse collection vehicles with racks ($500 per
vehicle) to separately collect newspaper on a weekly basis
concurrent with normal refuse collection.  As shown in
Table B-l , the response to weekly separate collection
doubled the sums collected during the monthly program.

MG Disposal uses the Shu-Pak, one-man collection
vehicle for residential service.  In order to minimize the
incremental paper handling time associated with a rack ap-
proach, a  1.5 cu yd  rack was mounted in the hopper area,
directly opposite the right-hand loading sill (Figure B-l).
Removing the flexibility of loading from the left side.of
the truck  was not critical in Fullerton as loading is pc~r-
formed only from the right-hand side.  Sequentially, the
driver arrives at a  collection stop, picks up the
bundled paper, tosses it across the hopper area into the
rack (Figure B-2) and commences loading mixed refuse.  Basec!
on a one-day study of one collection route, the rack held
bundles from about 35 homes.  Using the observed average of
1.7 bundles collected per home and assuming the average
bundle to  weigh 9 Ibs*, each full  rack-load weighs about 540
with a corresponding in-place density of approximately
360 Ibs/cu yd.  When the rack fills, newspaper is off-loaded
into the route foreman's pick-up truck for transfer to MG
Disposal's yard.  The offloading effort  is aided by a full-
length, hinged door  on the back of the rack which is flush
with the left side of the truck.  This configuration enables
the pick-up truck to be positioned alongside the collection
vehicle for ease of  transfer.  The average transfer operation
required 5 minutes.
*Based on Rancho Palos Verdes data; see Appendix A.
                            B-l

-------


















1 —
1
CO

LU
_J
CO
<=t
h-

























Q
LU
CJ
LU
_J
_J
O
o

>-
_J
1 i 1 ct
h- i— i
«C 'ZL
C£ C£
e£ O
0. U_
LU t-<
OO —I

•!—
4->
c

c
O
^"


+ +
Loouoenooo^d-i i i i i
r— en o to LO to 10 i i i i i
•— •—










*
LO LO oo LO ^d" r>* *»o ^0 o r^* co ^
C\llOCj-(0«4'*^'OOOO^J-C\lr— F—
r™ r— r—












*
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ICM(0eCcC
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ^f ^O "x,^^
•y •y






s~
>» CO S- S-
>~> J- XI S- CO CO
S- fO -I-) E CU XI XI
(O^-Cr— 1/lCOXlEE
3S-O--- cu>,3-i->oeuco
CXI S-S->,Et— OlQ--t->>O
CO QJ rt3 f^ nu *^ ^3 ^3 QJ {J f^ ^^
*"O i * ^ ^^ 3^ *~^ i j ^^ OO ^~ ^ -^-" i"*^
r—
•!->
c
o
E
«
^
en
r_

«»
i.
CO
r->
E
CO
4^
Q.
CO
00

.E
CD
3
O
i.
^;
4^

co
r^
• en
CO •—
r—
X) "
(O &»
•— eu
•r- XJ
rO ^E
> CO
(O +J
Q.
+-> CO
o oo
^
E
o
<: s-
•^^ Ll_
X)
E
O CO
s- -o
U_ (O

J- C
CO O
r— -i—
ro 4->
CU 0
-o co
r—
S- •—
CO O
Q. 0
iC
0->,

I— -^
(O CO
O Ol
0 2
1—
n
>>-»->
XI E
CU
cu 
-o cu
fO SM
E 0-

CO O
S- -l->
cu
2-*
r>. .
 en i —
E i— fO
O (/)
•r- •< O
+-> S- Q.
U CO M
CO X> ••-
•— O Q
r— -t->
o o es
002:


















•
cu
J^
• !—
s.
4J
(O

E
o

r—
cu
c
E
o
(/)
s-
co
ex

E
o
«^"
+->
o
CU
p—
r-
0
o
B-2

-------
 FIGURE B-l.   Rack Mounted in
 Shu-Pak Hopper Area
FIGURE B-2.   Loading Separated
Newspaper in ^ack
              B-3

-------
Time-studies were conducted to quantify the impact of
separate collection on normal  refuse collection operations.
The results of the one-day study are graphically displayed
in FiguresB-3 and B-4.  Figure B-3 depicts the actual paper
loading time in terms of time  as a function of the number
of bundles collected per stop.  Figure B-4 compares the
refuse loading time of "refuse plus paper" stops (solid
line) to the "refuse only" stops (dashed line).  Also
shown is the hypothetical  loading time (dotted line)
calculated by subtracting  the  actual amount of time to
load 1.7 bundles of newspaper  (route average)  from the
time for loading "refuse plus  paper."   As shown, the
"hypothetical line" falls  below the refuse only line
leading to the conclusion  that containers are  either lighter
or easier to handle due to newspaper removal  which results
in a portion of the incremental  paper  loading  time being
absorbed.  In terms of the time studies conducted, the
average incremental route  time to handle separated news-
paper is 0.08 min per stop with paper  versus  0.13 min
that would be concluded for loading 1.7 bundles if only
Figure B-3 were considered.

The loading time equations for Figure  B-4 were derived
via linear regression and  are  shown below:

     Refuse collection with separate newspaper collection

     Loading time = 0.22 + 0.10 (items at stop)*
     Coefficient of correlation = 0.98
     Number of observations =  64

     Refuse collection without separate newspaper
     col 1ection	

     Loading time = 0.11 + 0.10 (items at stop)
     Coefficient of correlation = 0.96
     Number of observations =  239
   Not including newspaper bundles
                           B-4

-------
Q.
O
t/1
O)
D-
CD

    2.4
    2.2
    2.0
    1.8
    1.6
    1.4
    1 .2
    1.0
    0.8
    0.6
    0.4
    0.2
Rack loading time = 0.03 + 0.05 (number of
  bundles per stop)
Coefficient of correlation = 0.91
Number of observed stops = 64
                       I	I
                  I	I
J	I
_i	I
_i	I
        01234     56789     10

                     Newspaper Bundles Per Stop

        FIGURE B-3.   Separated Newspaper Loading Time as a
        Function of Bundles per Stop -- Rack Approach
                             8-5

-------
t/1

-------
                        APPENDIX C

                 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA


The City of Newport Beach is located 35 miles south of Los
Angeles and has a population of about 57,000.  Newport Beach
initiated curbside collection of separated newspaper in
September, 1974, with associated tonnages shown in Table C-l

Newport Beach provides municipal collection service for
residential refuse.  Mixed refuse is collected twice weekly;
separated paper is collected once per month using the sepa-
rate truck approach.* Due to a wide variety of service area
conditions, both rear- and side-loading refuse collection
vehicles are used to provide mixed and separate collection
service.  For the purpose of gathering supportive data to
this study, a Shu-Pak performing separate newspaper collec-
tion was monitored for one day.  The results are shown in
Figure C-l in terms of newspaper loading time as a function
of the number of bundles per stop.

To facilitate handling the newspaper, a transfer ramp was
constructed in the city yard.  The ramp configuration
(Figure C-2) accommodates two 40 cu yd roll-offs.
Construction cost for the concrete retaining walls, asphalt
dumping surface and concrete apron was about $10,000.
*  Implementation of the separate truck approach was
   accomplished by diverting three crews from refuse
   collection duties on newspaper collection days.   After
   newspaper routes have been serviced, the three crews
   return to assist with refuse collection operations.
   In this manner, full utilization of equipment and labor
   is attained.
                            C-l

-------
                TABLE C-l

         QUANTITIES OF NEWSPAPER
          SEPARATELY COLLECTED
        NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
             Quantities of Newspaper
                Per Month (tons)

 Month       1974               1975

January       --                 104
February      --                  80
March         --                  65
April         --                  84
May           --                  83
June          --                 104
July          --                 120
August        --                  97
September     47
October       67
November      82
December      85
                    C-2

-------
    2.4



    2.2
        Paper  Collection  Time  =  .13 +  0.03  (number of  bundles
        Coefficient  of  Correlation = 0.98
        Number of  observed  stops  = 98

-------
FIGURE C-2.   Transfer Ramp Used  for
Separate Newspaper Collection,  Newport
Beach
                 C-4

-------
                        APPENDIX D

             SYSTEMS ANALYSIS DATA DEVELOPMENT


Data used to assess the impact of mixed and separate colleC'
tion operations via compartmentalized, separate truck and
rack approaches with respect to overall collection costs*
are presented in this appendix.  These data served as input
to the collection model described in Appendix E.  The model
output estimates collection costs prior to implementing
separate collection and the effective cost of collection
after implementation.

                     Data Development

Data used to exercise the model are presented in Table D-l
and discussed in the ensuing text.

Collection Vehicle Capacity (V0)
 ™ ••                    —      • 'C—~

Collection vehicle type was constrained to a side-loading
Shu Pak of 29 cu yd capacity although incorporation of a
3 cu yd compartment for separated materials reduced the
effective capacity for mixed refuse to 26 cu yd for the
compartmentalized alternative.

Collection Time per Stop (t)

The average time per stop for collection of mixed refuse
and separated newspaper were based on the following:

     Baseli ne (prior to separate collection) - collection
     time per stop and travel  time between stops were
     derived from time studies  conducted in Rancho Palos
     Verdes prior to and after  initiation of the separate
     collection program (Appendix A).

     Compartmentalization - collection time per stop
     and travel  time between stops were derived from
     time studies conducted in  Rancho Palos Verdes after
     implementation of the separate collection program
     via the compartmentalized  approach.
*0verall  collection cost considers the costs of both mixed
 and separate collection.
                            D-l

-------

























_1
0
o
z
•z
o
I—*
1-
0
UJ
_J
_J
o
o

UJ
i/)
^
.— U-
1 UJ
o a:

UJ UJ
	 1 "X.
CO (-
t— cr>
c/5
*-*
<->
UJ
X
UJ

C£.
O
U_


u
0)
r—
r—
O
o

ai
•M
(O
s_
*O
ex
01
i/j


























CC
c
o
.* *J
O IO
IO O-
CC -i-
u
s.
IO
a.
^Q,
O -4->
••- (0
U
0) C
f— 0
I— *r—
o +->
O IO
o.
01 f
4-> U
10 -r-
O <0 t.
3 ex 10
i- a> o.

o
co



o
in


O
CM


O
co






o
in


o
CM
ai
4J
IO 01
s- *->
IO IO
ex ^.cc
0) ai
V) WC
3 0
Vt- "-
01 4->
C£ IO
a.
•a -i-
O5 U
X •*—
•^ 4->
21 &_

QJ IO
N ce
^11 c
IO O
*^> -r*
C <->
0) 10
e ex
4-> *t—
S- U
IO -r-
CL+J
E i.
O IO
u c.
O
co




o
in





O
CM

a>
IO
s_
O> a. c
C 01 0
•t— CO *r~
.— +J
(U O U
. t>* co in i f— • CM in
CM 1 . . . «•


10 o «a-
i cn o o
' ' r-'i-^

•~^ cn
>* o- co
•— cn iii -^ ill
• • iii r-~ iii
i— o in


>-» 0
VO IO «S-
cn i— cn i i i o — . iii
CM . • i i i in co iii
.— o «• in


~^ CM
p^ (7°i vf
< — cn ill -** iii
• • ill o ill
i— O IO
^
£o , , ,
- • III
I — '*'

^^,
O ^ CO
VO CMO 1 I 1 O «3- III
CM . • 1 1 1 O -^ III
i— r~ in r—
10

*^^
cn ro
i— O III
• - iii
•—•—



o
o
• cn
cn r— i i i o «»• iii
CM -^ i i i in "^ i i i
co «a- r—
r— VO
.
•—

-o
O) -* 01 -*
--^ **JS-3 *•"*
>> ' — * ~O S- 5 CM E ^^ ' — • TD t- S CM E
C OJ IO ^\ — . (/i IA OJ IO **^^s^^^
3 ~r~ X CXi — i — r— JD JD X CX f— I — r—
UEf- 01 f— i — T-OJ
^— — -s: c^ ...- — ^- — Si in ...
u
> •!-> "DO-
D-2

-------


















































































^-^,
•o
Ol
3
C
'.^
C
o
o

P-.
1
Q
LU
CO
•a:
*-

















o
re
o
CL
CL

re
i.
re
a.
01
f>


























































01
10
ce
c
o
*^«. •*•-
-*£ 4J
U 03
re ex
fy .p.
U
S.
03
OL
C Ol
O 4->
•r- 03
(J
01 C
•— 0
O 4->
(_> 03
Q.
01 t-
4-* U
03 •!-
^ S- 4->
U 03 «-
3 Q. re
i. Ol Q.
1- to
0.
re o>
S- 4->
03 re
CX ^^ C3£
Ol 01
LO to c
3 O
t- -r-
Ol 4-1
cc. ra
o.
•O 1-
Ol U
X -r-
•r- 4-»
s: s-
re
Q.

-^- 01
•D 4->
01 re
IM a:
.^
i — C
re o
4-> 'r-
C 4->
01 re
E 0.
4J -r-
S- 0
re -i-
E S.
o re
(_> Q-
Ol
4_>
re
s-
IO ^~*
01 0. c
C 01 O
1— t/) >r-
r— 4->
QJ O O
I/I 4-> 01
re .—
CO S- i—
o o
•r- 0
S-
o_
* —





Ol
r—
f\
re
s-
re



o
co




o
in


o
CM


o
CO





o
in




0
CM



o
co





o
in





0
CM



o
CO





o
in




o
CM

































o>
CM


CM
CM l£> in
m *^ p^ ro o*t c\j CM
i— CM in o O "
CO
0 O
o
CM







CM ^c in
CM Ch CM
ro in r** m o "CM
r- i— m • .CO
0 0













CM VO
CM Ol
m in I*** ro o O O
i— r— in
0 O









o
CM




«3- ID in
ro o r^- CM crt CM CM
i — CM tr> co o "
• • 00
o o


CO
^~








i— IO
ro m r^ CNJ eft o o
i — i — in ro o
• .
0 O











. — . — ^ _
c c c c
^— -^ ^^ -^ -^ 0 0
C C C E E 4J 4->
E E E ^^ *^ l^" ^^

> U
CO Q ^f- O O C£ tA
































J^
01
Ol
J

^
01
o.

^
re
•o

c
o
•r-
4_>
U
01
r—
O
O

-o
c.
o
0
01
10
*^
4_>
CO
i.
•'-
"*"
s-
o
14-
l/)
01
4J
re
E
•r-
4_>
to
Ol

4_)
f-
cn
•r-
01
S

S-
o
Ol
E
•r-
•"-"
00
4J
U
01
£
01
C£
4<

D-3

-------
   Separate Truck - Collection time for separated
   newspaper via the separate truck approach was
   based on time studies conducted in Newport Beach
   (Appendix C)  and the following assumptions:

                  Newspaper
   Separate      Bundles per           Source
  Collection    Participating            of
   Frequency        Stop              Estimate
    1  wk             1.5         Rancho Palos Verdes

    1/2 wk           2.7         Estimate

    1  mo             3.9         Newport Beach

   Figure D-l  was  used to estimate travel time between
   stops at 20,  50,  and 80 percent participation rates
   based on time studies in Rancho Palos Verdes where
   the average distance between stops is 93 ft in
   hilly terrain.   The estimated travel time was added
   to  the "Newport Beach loading time" and recorded in
   Table D-l.

   From previous research, removal of newspaper from
   mixed residential  refuse was calculated to reduce
   the number  of containers set out for collection by
   about 0.25  per  participating stop.*  Using the
   Rancho Palos  Verdes time study relationships pre-
   sented in Appendix A, time for collecting mixed
   refuse in conjunction with the separate truck approach
   was calculated  and 0.30 min added to account for
   travel time between stops.

   Rack - Based  on the results of the Fullerton time
   study (Appendix B), the time to load newspaper into
   a rack did  not  vary with fill rate,  although an
   incremental loading time of 0.07 min for 1.5 bundles
   per participating  collection stop was added.

   In  Rancho Palos Verdes, the rack would have the
   capacity to hold  separated newspaper from 40 homes
   based on the  following conditions:
SCS Engineers,  Separate Collection Studies, 1974.
                          D-4

-------
    1.0
    0.9
    0.8
    0.7
    0.6
CL
O   0.5

to

-------
           Condition                Source
        Newspaper has an          Fullerton
        in-place rack density
        of 360 Ibs/cu yd

        1.5 bundles per           Rancho Palos Verdes
        parti ci pant

        Each bundle weighs        Rancho Palos Verdes
        9 Ibs

As would be expected, removing recyclable portions of mixed
refuse for separate collection increases the number of
households that  can be served per "mixed truck load."
Table D-2 presents the number of households serviced per
load via the rack approach for each of the assumed partici-
pation rates.   Based on participation rate, the number
of households  placing newspaper out for separate collection
is also tabulated.  Observations in Rancho Palos Verdes
indicate participants are equally inclined to set out news-
paper on the first and second collection day of the week.
For example, a 20 percent participation rate has been
assumed to receive participation from 10 percent of the
households on  the first collection day of the week and a
corresponding  sum on the second collection day.  Based on
the preceding  assumptions, the number of racks of newspaper
filled per truckload is also shown in Table D-2 based on the
factor of 40 participating stops per rack load.

Using the number of participating households from Table D-2
and the estimated incremental newspaper handling time per
participating  household, the average time per collection
stop for rack  operations was calculated at the various
participation  levels as follows:

     ti = ~

where:

     t-j = average time per collection stop at participation
          rate i (m i n )

     S-j = number of collection stops per load at
          participation rate i (households)

     P-J = number of participating households at
          participation rate i (households)
                            D-6

-------
                          TABLE D-2

             RACK FILL RATE VERSUS PARTICIPATION
                    - 29 CU YD VEHICLE -
Parti ci pati on
Rate
U)




0
(mixed refuse
collection only)
20
50
80
100
Househol ds
Per Load*

(Vc)(d)
Q

(no. )
214


217
225
229
231
Hous
Parti
(




Total
0


43
112
183
231
ehol ds
c i p a t i n g
no. )


Each
Col lection
Day+
0


22
56
92
115
Newspaper
Racks Filled
Per Load Per
Col 1 ection
Day

(no. )
0


0.6
1.4
2.3
2.9
*Based on first collection day of week.
+Assumes half of participants place out  separated
 newspaper on each collection day per week.
                              D-7

-------
     tm = average time per collection stop for mixed
          refuse (min)

     tn = average incremental  time per collection stop
          for handling newspaper (min)

     ts = average travel  time  between stops on the
          route (min)

Exercising the preceding  equation with participation per-
centages of 20, 50, and 80 yields the rack collection
times (t) shown in Table  D-l.

Collected Waste Density (d)

Based on refuse quantities collected during the Rancho Palos
Verdes study,the compacted density of mixed refuse with or
without newspaper was calculated to be 450 Ibs/cu yd for
each alternative except the compartmentalized approach to
separate collection.   With respect to the compartmentalized
vehicle, the same loads were obtained with 3 cu yd less
body volume.  Thus, compacted  density in the effective body
capacity (26 cu yd) was calculated to be 500 Ibs/cu yd.

Quantity of Refuse per Stop (Q)

The quantity of refuse per collection stop was calculated to
be 104 Ibs per household  per week with 61 Ibs set out on the
first collection day  of the week and 43 Ibs on the second
day.  These data were derived  from the periods during which
the "before and after" time studies were conducted (October/
November and June/July).   As such, the quantities are repre-
sentative of typically high generation periods which are
also the most demanding of collection equipment and labor.

For the separate truck approach, removal of newspaper at
various participation rates from the mixed waste has impact
on both mixed and separate collection quantities.  Partici-
pating households were estimated to generate about 13 Ibs
of newspaper per week (1.5 bundles/wk, 8.7 Ibs/bundle).  Again
recognizing householder propensity to set out newspaper on
either collection day, the quantity of mixed refuse per
collection stop at the exemplary 20, 50, and 80 percent par-
ticipation rates was  apportioned accordingly.

Collection Route to Disposal Site (B)

Based on Rancho Palos Verdes time studies, the average one-
way driving time between  the collection route and the
disposal site for vehicles hauling mixed refuse was 13 min.
                            D-8

-------
Haul time for the separate truck
was also assumed to be 13 min in
newspaper were located at the
           collecting newspaper only
           that the bins for separated
        Palos Verdes Landfil1.
Disposal  (D)

The average time spent
discharge mixed refuse
 at the
 was 15
Palos Verdes
min.
landfill  site to
Additional time must be included in the disposal time for
varying levels of participation associated with the rack and
compartmentalized operations.

Rack.  The number of times a rack would fill while col-
1ecting one full load of mixed refuse was shown in Table D-2,
Based on the fill rate, the number of times the collection
vehicle would be required to transfer newspaper into the
route foreman's truck* is presented below:
      Partici pat ion
         Rate
           0
          20
          50
          80
         100
Newspaper Racks
Filled Per Load
    (no.)

      0
     0.6
     1.4
     2.3
     2.9
            Transfer
          Requi rements
            Per Load
             (no.)

               0
               0
               1
               2
               2
In addition, newspaper unloading at the disposal site was ass in,
ed to be required for rack operations.  The "out-of-the-way" d-
ing time from the working face of the Palos Verdes landfill tc
the transfer ramp required an additional 2 min of driving
time.  Added to this time is the time to manually unload the
which was assumed to be the same as on-route transfer (5
min) and proportional to the amount of paper in the rack at
the time a full load of mixed refuse was attained.  The
times shown in Table D-3 were estimated for disposal  opera-
tions with the rack approach.

Compartmentali zed.   Based on tests performed prior to formal
initiation of the separate collection program in Rancho
Palos Verdes, the compartment was filled with bundled news-
paper totaling 1,280 Ibs.  To attain this weight, however,
*Assumes a Fullerton transfer operation (Appendix B) whereby
'the collection vehicle  does not leave the route.
                            D-9

-------
              no
          i—  10  CD-
          tO  O  E
          +J  CLT- •
          O  CO I—
                                LO
                                             CM
                                                    CM
                                                          CO
      o
          CO
          E
          •r- -O
          h- CD  OJ.
             X  00
          OVi-  3
          E s: if-
          •r-     CO-
          Q. s- o;
          E O
          3 M-
          Q
                                       LO
                                             in
                                                    in    in
      o
      C£
      O.
      £X
c_>
<:
o:
ro
o
 >,    OJ
+J     ^J
 Q.    •!-
 E 4-> CO
uu  re    —^
       •— E
 O Jii fO -i-
•fJ  O oo E
    fO O ^—'
 cu a: Q.
 E     oo
•r—     »i—
I—     Q
                                       IT)
                                                          (A
CO
CO
o
Q.
      Q

      Q
      oo
    S-
    O)
•— l»- (D--s
 
          CO S-  E
          -(-> CD  CU
          34-  E^
          O 00  CU   •
          o; E  s-  o
           i  
-------
 required the driver to climb on the loading bucket and
 manually rearrange the load through the bulkhead opening.
 This procedure is not acceptable from a safety standpoint.
 Compartment loads totaling about 1,100 Ibs were attainable
 before manual rearrangement was required.  This weight con-
 verts to an in-place density of about 370 Ibs/cu yd which
 is  about the same as that achieved in Fullerton via the rack
 approach (360 1bs/cu yd).  Based on the methodology dis-
 cussed earlier in this appendix to develop the rack fill
 rates, Table D-4 presents the compartment fill rates in
 terms of participation.  Due to the concept configuration
 which requires refuse to be dumped prior to newspaper, the
 compartmentalized approach has the capacity to accommodate
 82  homes per load.  Thus, at the Rancho Palos Verdes news-
 paper generation rate (13 Ibs per household per week) the
 compartment can cope with a 75 percent participation rate
 before practical capacity is attained.  With no on-route
 transfer performed, the only incremental disposal  time is
 at  the disposal site which has an out-of-the-way penalty of
 5 min for each dump.  At a 20 percent participation rate,
 the truck would not be required to dump separately collected
 newspaper until the end of the day.  Based on this assumed
 practice, and a generality of two loads of mixed refuse per
 day in Rancho Palos Verdes, the incremental  disposal  time
 is  2 to 3 min per load.   At the higher exemplary participa-
 tion rates  the full 5 min of newspaper unloading time has
 been added  to the normal  disposal  time of 15 min.

 Non-Productive Time (K)

 Non-productive time for such functions as dispatch, lunch
 and relief, yard to route time, and disposal  site  to yard
 time averaged 57 min during the time studies.


 Equipment Cost (Cv)

 An unmodified, 29 cu yd  Shu-Pak has an initial  cost of about
 $36,000.   The average BFI fleet cost for this  vehicle type
 equates  to  $19.25 per hour and includes depreciation,
 interest,operations,  maintenance,  and overhead  (administra-
 tion, facilities, and land).   This  cost converts  to $0.321
 per minute  for the basic  vehicle.

 Compartmentalization  has  an installed  cost  of  about $1,400
 (compartment,  bucket,  cylinders,  pumps,  switches,  etc.).
Depreciated on  a straight line basis  over a  7-year period
 and a 50  hr work week,  the $1, 700 initial  cost  converts  to
 $0.001  per  minute of  operation.   During  the  course of the
study no  compartment  maintenance  was  required.   However,
                           D-ll

-------
         COMPARTMENT
           TABLE D-4

      FILL RATE VERSUS PARTICIPATION
      - 29 CU YD VEHICLE* -
Participation
    Rate
    (*)
Households
 Per Load*
 Households
Partici pating
    (no. )
Compartments
 Filled Per
  Load Per




0
v VIMU _j_
Q

(no. )
214



Total
0

Each
Col lection
Day#
0
uu i i et t i uri
Day

(no. )
0
(mixed refuse
 collection
    only)
20
50
80
100
217
225
229
231
43
112
183
231
22
56
92
115
0.3
0.7
1.1**
1.4**
   *26 cu yd mixed refuse capacity plus 3 cu yd compartment,
   +Based on first collection day of week.
   #Assumes  half of participants place out separated
    newspaper on each collection day per week.
  **Compartmentalized approach cannot accommodate
    fill  rate greater than 1.0.
                            D-12

-------
 hydraulic cylinders require repacking once or twice  per
 year and some hydraulic hose maintenance/replacement will
 be necessary over the equipment life.  Thus, the allocated
 compartment cost was doubled to $0.002 per min to estimate
 1i fe costs.

 The rack cost of $500 was similarly treated, and an  incre-
 mental $0.001 per min was added to the basic Shu-Pak cost.

 A paper transfer ramp was assumed to be required for both
 the separate truck and compartmentalized approaches.  The
 $10,000 spent by Newport Beach to construct a concrete rein-
 forced ramp was assumed to be a representative cost.
 Depreciating this cost on a straight line basis over a
 twenty-year period, converts to a cost of about $0.003 per
 min.   Allocation of this cost would be variable with
 respect to the number of trucks using the ramp.  As  a
 proxy for this evaluation, $0.001 was included in the equip-
 ment  costs for separate truck and compartmentalized  alterna-
 tives .

 Collection Labor Cost (Cc)

 Shu-Pak drivers currently earn $4.10 per hour and are guar-
 anteed a 50 hr work week.   Fringe benefits equivalent to
 $0.80 per hour and overhead equivalent to $0.85 per  hour
 result in a burdened labor cost of $5.75 per hour or $0.096
 per min.

Newspaper Revenue (R)

At the time of the evaluation, used newspaper was selling
 at $8 per ton, at best.   A revenue rate of $25 per ton was
also  evaluated to determine the impact of revenue on the
feasibility of alternative separate collection approaches.

Disposal  Savings ($1

BFI  operations in Rancho Palos  Verdes  use  the  Palos  Verdes
Landfill  site owned - and  operated  by^tBe-tos  Angeles. .<\  \  ,:
County SanitatrondDisfericts  fop whieha4$2  per t0n
-------
                        APPENDIX E

                     COLLECTION MODEL
The many approaches to performing refuse collection and/or
separate collection of recyclable materials can be described
with a mathematical model.  The model defines the mathemati-
cal relationships between collection time, tonnage col-
lected, haul time, equipment capacity, costs, and other fac-
tors.  Through repeated calculations, the model may be used
to analyze alternative collection approaches to minimize
and/or compare applicable costs.

The following factors affecting the efficiency of mixed or
separate refuse collection were included as variables in
the model:

     1.  Average quantity of mixed or recyclable material
         generated per residential unit.

     2.  Average collection time for each residential
         unit, including travel time to the next stop.

     3.  Average driving time between the route and the
         disposal site.

     4.  Total non-productive time:  travel time between
         yard (vehicle storage area) and route and
         between the disposal site and the yard; breaks,
         relief; and dispatch.

     5.  Average disposition time per load at the
         disposal site for mixed and/or separated
         newspaper.

     6.  Crew size.

     7.  Equipment type, capacity, and performance
         characteristics.

The following assumptions  were used during the calculations:

     1.  The minimum partial load allowed was one-fourth of
         the vehicle load  capacity (i.e., a collection
         vehicle was not allowed to return to the collection
         route after emptying a full  load unless sufficient
         time remained to  collect at least a quarter  of a
         load).
                            E-l

-------
     2.  The maximum work day was constrained to 500*
         minutes.

     3.  Crew members were paid for 500 minutes; if time
         was not sufficient to collect a partial load,
         they were dismissed early, but paid for a full
         day.

Physical and cost variables used in the model were defined
as follows:

     Physical Variables

     Xn:  Total time to collect and offload n loads
          (crew-min/day).

     Vc:  Vehicle capacity (cu yd).

      t:  Average collection time per stop plus travel
          time to the next stop (min).

      d:  Average density of material  in the vehicle
          (1bs/cu yd).

      Q:  Average quantity of material per stop (Ibs).

      B:  Average one-way driving time between route
          and disposal  site (min).

      D:  Average disposal time (min).

      K:  Total non-productive time per day - includes
          dispatch, breaks, yard to route time, and
          disposal  site to yard time (min).

     Cost Variables

     Cc:  Cost of collection labor ($/crew-min).

     Cv:  Cost of collection vehicle ($/truck-min).

      R:  Revenue from  materials separately collected
          ($/ton).

      S:  Disposal  savings from materials  separately
          collected ($/ton).

Alternative collection  frequencies  for the separate truck
alternative may be  evaluated by changing the value  of the
average quantity of material  collected per stop (Q) in

 *BFI crew  members  work  six  days  per week  with  a  50-hour
  guarantee.

                             E-2

-------
proportion to the monthly generation rate.  For example,
evaluation of a separate truck collection program where
once per month collection is to be performed and the average
newspaper generation rate is 56 Ibs/mo would have a Q value
of  56.  If weekly newspaper collection is to be evaluated,
a Q value of about 13 Ibs would be used (56 -j- 4.3 weeks/mo).

Various participation rates may be evaluated by changing the
value of the average collection time per stop (t).   As
previously defined, the value of t is comprised of  the time
to collect materials per stop (i.e., dismount truck, load,
remount truck) plus the driving time to the next stop.  The
collection portion of t was assumed to be constant  at a
specific collection frequency due to the average quantity of
material collected per stop being held constant.

The second variable in the time calculation, travel time to
the next stop, is a function of participation rate.  An
even distribution of participants and material  generation
along a 10-home segment of a route was assumed.  For example,
an overall participation rate of 10 percent for one side of
the street collection assumes that one out of each  ten
homes along the route sets out newspaper.   Thus, travel time
was calculated based on collecting materials at the first
home on the route and driving past the subsequent nine homes
to the next participant.  Similarly, a 50 percent participa-
tion rate was evaluated by assuming a collection stop is
made at every other home along the route.

                       Calculat ions

Using the variables discussed above, a series of seven cal-
culations are necessary to evaluate the performance and
cost characteristics of alternative collection  operations:

     1.  Calculate the time to collect the first and
         successive loads (whole and partial).

     2.  Convert collection time into collection cost.

     3.  Determine tonnage collected.

     4.  Determine number of residences served.

     5.  Convert tonnage collected into dollar  savings
         (revenue plus diverted disposal  savings).

     6.  Compute net cost of separate collection
         (collection cost less savings).
                            E-3

-------
     7.  Convert net cost into meaningful  factors
         (cost/ton, cost/residence).

Step 1  : Collection Time Calculation

The total time in minutes to complete one  load (collect
and offload) can be calculated as follows:


     Xi = Vctd  + B + D + K
            Q
At the  disposal site, a decision is made:

     If XT  + 2B + D = 500, only one full load was
     collected for the day;

     If Xi  >  500, only a single partial load was
     collected for the day, and the following
     calculation made:

         500 = (a) Vctd  + B + K + D
                   __

     Solving for the value of (a) gives the fraction of
     the truck capacity used for the  partial load;

     If Xi  + 2B + D <  500, the truck was  sent for a
     second or more loads as time permitted.

In general, the truck made a total  of n trips, where:

     Xn:  = (n + a - 1)  Vctd  + (2n - 1 ) B + K + nD
     provided Xn *  500 <  Xn + 1 ,  and a >  1/4;

     if a ^  1/4, only (n - 1 )  trips are made.

The results provided collection time in terms of crew-
minutes per day and the quantity of material collected by
the vehicle.   In this  case, crew members were paid for a
500 min day even if finished early. (If collection time were
not constrained and overtime permitted, appropriate modifi-
cations would be required to the preceding equations.)

Step 2:  Collection Cost Calculation

Under the conditions imposed, crew  members were paid for a
full day's work even if finished early.  Labor costs were
                             E-4

-------
converted to a cost per crew per min  ($/min) based on
current hourly rates of the driver including overhead and
fringe benefits to express the daily  collection time, Xn ,
in   labor costs.  Similarly, vehicle costs (amortization,
overhead, fuel, oil, and maintenance) were converted to a
cost per vehicle per minute ($/min) to apportion vehicle
costs.  Generally, daily collection time was converted to
cost as fol1ows:

     Daily Collection Cost = Xn (Cc + Cv)

When an undertime situation occurred, the collection cost
relationship was as follows:

     Daily Collection Cost = 500 Cc + [480 - (480-Xn) ]  Cv

This  relationship represents a proxy for vehicle undertime.

Step 3:  Tonnage Collected Calculation

Revenue was based on newspaper tonnage collected.  The
volume of material collected per day was converted to
tonnage by the following relationship:

     Tonnage Collected = JJLVd_
                         2,000

Volume (V) may be calculated by multiplying the truck capa-
city (Vc)  by the number of full  and partial loads collected
in Step 1.   Average density (d)  was derived from subtracting
the vehicle tare weight from loaded vehicle weight and
dividing by V c•

Step 4:  Residences Served Calculation

The number of residences served  per day by each crew depends
on many factors:   participation  rate, truck volume, crew
size, etc.   The  factors required to estimate residential
service rate, however, will have been developed during
Step 1.  Thus,  the service factor may be estimated by
dividing the multiplicative sum  of the volume  collected and
density by the  average quantity  of materials per stop:

     Services =
Step 5:   Dollar Sayings Calculation

Revenue  (R)  from recyclable  materials  and diverted disposal
savings  serve to reduce overall  collection costs.   Revenue
                            E-5

-------
was calculated by multiplying tonnage collected (Step 3) by
the rate paid by the paper stock dealer.

Diverted disposal savings (S) were calculated based on
local disposal conditions at the rate of $2 per ton.

Step 6:  Net Collection Cost Calculation

The net cost of separate collection operations was calcu-
lated by subtracting the results of Step 5 from the results
of Step 2:
     Total separate
     collection cost
Revenue plus
diverted
disposal cost
Net separate
col 1ection
cost
or
     (Step 2) - (Step 5) = Step 6

Step 7:  Performance Factors Calculation

Based on the net cost calculation (Step 6), performance
measures such as cost/ton and cost/residence can be calcu-
lated.  Net cost per ton was calculated by simply dividing
cost by the tonnage collected:
     Net Cost per Da^y
     Tonnage Collected per Day
                                or
           Step 6
           Step 3
The cost per residence per month was calculated by dividing
the daily cost by the number of residences serviced per day
(Step 4) and multiplying this sum by the collection
frequency (in terms of collections per residence per month)
Cost per
Resi dence
=
~Net Cost per Day
Number of Residences
Served per Day
X
"Collections per
Residence per
Month
or
     Step 6 Y  ["Collection Frequency"!
     Step 4 x  [_     Factor          J
where
     Frequency of Collection

        Once per month
        Once per 2 weeks
        Once per week
             Factor

              1
              2.16
              4.33
                             E-6
                                                     P01413

-------