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
------- |