solid waste handling and disposal
in multistory buildings and hospitals
VOLUME I
conolus,,ns, and
i
-------
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 endorse-
ment or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
-------
solid waste handling and disposal
in multistory buildings and hospitals
VOLUME I summary, conclusions, and recommendations
This final report (SW-34d. 1) on work performed
under solid waste management demonstration
grant no. EC-00164 to the County of Los
Angeles was written by ESCO/GREENLEAF
and is reproduced as received from the grantee.
VOLUMES II AND IV Observations of Local Practices (SW-34d.2) and Selec-
tion and Design of Solid Waste Systems (SW-34d.4)
are available from the Department of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
VOLUME III Research on Systems Development (SW-34d.3) is avail-
able under separate cover from the U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
An environmental protection publication in
the solid waste management series (SW-34d.l).
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20401 Price $2.
Stock Number 5502-0082
-------
FOREWORD
In the past century of national growth, reflected in increased
population, expanding municipalities, and greater industrial and
commercial enterprises, this Nation responded with nonconcern
to a concurrent physical deterioration of the country. The first
comprehensive water pollution control legislation was not enacted
until 1956; the first comprehensive air pollution legislation, in
1963: Finally, six years ago, legislation acknowledged a national
solid waste problem--a pollution that can pervade the air, water,
and land.
Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (Title II, P. L. 89-272)
and now under the broader mandate of the Resource Recovery Act
of 1970 (P. L. 91-512), municipalities and other agencies are
eligible to apply for Federal demonstration grants to study, test,
and demonstrate techniques which advance the state of the art in
the solid waste management field.
Disquieting statistics compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency point up the significance of these solid waste management
demonstration projects. The Nation's outlay for getting rid of its
debris is $4. 5 billion annually--and growing. Most of this cost is:
(1) for collecting only part (180 million tons) of the 360 million tons
of household, commercial, and industrial waste actually being
generated; (2) for disposing of it in dumps or landfills (94 percent
of which are unsatisfactory) or in incinerators (75 percent of which
are inadequate). One basic Federal policy has been to encourage
the concept of areawide solid waste management as a sound vehicle
for raising the overall level of these sanitation services to safeguard
environment and public comfort.
The County of Los Angeles received one of these demonstration grants,
to make an in-depth study of solid waste handling and disposal in
multistory buildings and hospitals. The results are reported herein.*
--SAMUEL HALE, JR.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
*For studies also related to collection and disposal of solid wastes in
high-rise buildings, refer to National Academy of Sciences--National
Research Council. Collection, reduction, and disposal of solid waste
in high-rise multifamily dwellings. Rockville, Md. , U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1971. [Distributed by National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Va. , as PB 198 623. I69p. ]
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The ultimate purpose of this study is to determine improved solid waste
handling and disposal techniques adaptable to various types of multistory
buildings, hospitals and detention facilities. This research initiated by
the Project Planning and Pollution Control Division, Department of County
Engineer, County of Los Angeles, was performed with the assistance of
the Solid Wastes Program, National Center for Urban and Industrial
Health, U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, * and through guidance of the Advisory Committee on Solid
Wastes, organized by the Department of County Engineer to assist the
project team throughout the study period.
ESCO-GREENLEAF, A Joint Venture (Engineering Service Corporation,
Los Angeles, California, and Greenleaf/Telesca, Engineers & Architects,
Miami, Florida) was selected by the Board of Supervisors to conduct this
study in collaboration with the Project Planning and Pollution Control
Division. Special consultants assisting the project staff in certain aspects
of the study include Elmer R. Kaiser, Senior Research Scientist, New
York University; George S. Michaelsen, Professor and Director, Division
of Environmental Health and Safety, University of Minnesota; Richard G.
Bond, Professor, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota;
Donald Vesley, Assistant Professor, School of Public Health, University
of Minnesota; and Gordon P. Larson, Air Pollution Control Consultant,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Considerable interest in this study has been shown by many governmental
agencies, equipment manufacturers and individuals directly concerned
with the subject. With this encouragement, together with the direct and
indirect assistance of numerous contributors, enthusiasm for successful
completion of the study has been maintained,
Sincere appreciation is extended to the administrators and staffs of all
hospitals, members of the Sheriff's Department and representatives of
the Department of Building Services, who cooperated and assisted in the
on-site investigations in those buildings under their respective juris-
dictions.
The constructive criticism and guidance of members of the Advisory
Committee on Solid Wastes were invaluable and special recognition
for the member agencies is warranted. Agencies represented in this
Committee include: Los Angeles County, Hospital Department, Mechani-
cal Department, Building Services, Health Department, Forester and
Fire Warden, Department of County Engineer, and Air Pollution Control -
District; and the State of California, Department of Public Health and
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
* Now the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
IV
-------
PREFACE
Problems of solid waste collection and disposal in institutions and
other multistory buildings mirror many of the same problems con-
fronting the community at large--in greatly magnified form. In
large building complexes, as in many of the Nation's communities,
solid waste systems often are so crude as to be termed, in the
words of this report, "man-handling„ " Either in large buildings,
the subject here, or in a community, a two-prong approach will
be necessary--immediate application of improved methods that are
presently available, and then planning and research for optimal
future solutions.
This study, supported in part by solid waste management demon-
stration grant no. G06-EC-00164 from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, reflects this approach, and hopefully will motivate
administrators and designers concerned with multistory complexes
to consider solid waste handling and disposal as an integral factor
in the total service system provided for these buildings. Such a
consideration must take into account safety, sanitation, convenience,
and cost. The complete study is reported in four volumes:
Volume I, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, presents
a digest of atudy objectives, development of systems evaluation
methodology, and criteria for systems design, together with a brief
review of the total study. Available from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
Volume II, Observations of Local Practices, is a detailed study and
evaluation of systems and practices in fifteen County -owned building
complexes, including seven hospitals, four multistory office build-
ings, and four detention facilities, varying in function and size
within each classification. This report establishes the theoretical
standards of operation peculiar to each plant and, through field
observations, actual operating conditions of these systems. Avail-
able from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Volume III, Research on Systems Development, covers an investi-
gation and evaluation of available solid waste handling, storage,
processing, and disposal equipment and systems adaptable to build-
ing installations. This report provides coverage on both marketed
systems and equipment components, as well as systems concepts
in the development and "idea" stage. Available from the Superin-
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
-------
Volume IV, Selection and Design of Solid Waste Systems, provides
an extended evaluation of systems adaptable to the various classi-
fications of buildings and complexes considered in the study, with
recommendations for operational improvements or modifications
of existing systems as may be required in each type of facility.
Design criteria and preliminary design of systems modifications,
together with outline specifications and cost estimates covering
installation and operation, are developed on a selected building
complex,, Available from the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
22151.
John A. Lambie, County Engineer, County of Los Angeles, was
the project director for this study; Peter M. McGarry, with our
Division of Demonstration Operations, was the project officer.
--JOHN T. TALTY, Director
Division of Demonstration Operations
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
VI
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page No.
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 1-1
II IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM 11-1
111 DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION METHODS Ill-l
IV OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES IV-1
V RESEARCH ON SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT V-l
VI SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS Vl-l
VII REVIEW OF STUDY Vll-l
Vll
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page NcT
APPENDICES
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Existing Solid Waste System) a-1
DETENTION FACILITIES
(Description of Existing Solid Waste Systems) b-1
DETENTION FACILITIES
(Evaluation of Existing Solid Waste Systems) c-1
OFFICE BUILDINGS
(Description of Existing Solid Waste Systems) d-1
OFFICE BUILDINGS
(Evaluation of Existing Solid Waste Systems) e-1
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Considered Improvements to Solid Waste System) f-1
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Recommended Solid Waste System Improvements) g-1
Vlll
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. I INTRODUCTION 1-1
The need for this study was motivated by observed lack of progress, both locally and
nationally, in development and use of improved systems and equipment for handling
and disposal of solid wastes in multistory buildings.
Since 1920, when the solid waste production per capita was 2.7 Ibs. per day, there
has been a steady increase in the rate of production of solid waste. In recent years,
the increase has been at an even more rapid rate as copying machines and disposable
items have come into more general use, and it is now reported that the waste production
is in excess of 5 Ibs. per capita per day. Although wages have increased manyfold
during the same period, mechanization and automation - in most fields - have kept
costs under reasonable control. The gathering of solid waste inside of buildings,
especially multistory buildings and multi-building complexes, has shown little
change during this period and manpower is still relied upon for picking up and
transporting refuse within buildings to central points of collection or disposal.
Newly constructed buildings are in most cases still utilizing solid waste handling
systems which were conceived and developed many years ago, and it is not unusual
to find a row of waste cans lined up in front of a multi-million dollar monumental
building waiting for collection. In multistory buildings, trash is often manhandled
at great expense. Occupants of apartment buildings complain of noise and odors
from filthy trash chutes, and there is a constant fire hazard in the storage rooms.
New rubbish handling systems can and must be developed and their use must be
requi red.
Although phenomenal progress has been made in the field of medicine and new
methods and equipment are being developed for the care of hospital patients,
very little progress has been made in changing methods of disposing of solid
waste from these institutions. The health hazards resulting from present outdated
systems are a real concern to health authorities and sanitary engineers., There is
a need for research and development in this area which so closely affects our
environment.
The need for an integrated system for solid waste disposal in hospitals is obvious.
Present archaic systems require considerable handling which is not only becoming
increasingly expensive, but results in frequent exposure to disease and filth.
Wastes are often transported through corridors of hospitals and up and down ele-
vators, thus exposing countless patients, staff and visitors to potential accident
and infection hazards.
-------
VOL. I .
CHAP. I I-2
The volume of hospital solid wastes being produced is constantly on the increase.
One reason for this is the use of disposables. Because the present philosophy suggests
it is "cheaper, faster, safer" to use it once and throw it away, total expenditures
for disposables are increasing at an accelerating rate of growth. This trend will
greatly increase the volumes of solid waste and increase the magnitude of the
entire (logistics) problem.
In hospitals, methods need to be devised for conveying wastes from their source to
a storage area or ultimate disposal, ideally with the least handling and exposure to
the occupants of the building and community. Consideration should be given to the
possibility of combined handling systems to include transportation of supplies and
linens throughout the hospital. Provisions for cleaning and maintenance of the
materials handling system must be considered during the design and selection phase.
Strong emphasis should be given to studying what can be done in older facilities to
minimize present problems.
Various methods of reducing the volume of solid waste stored in buildings need to be
studied. The feasibility of compressing, shredding, and packaging refuse within the
building should be explored., Most refuse could easily be crushed and compacted to
a fraction of its original volume with the use of a satisfactory crushing or grinding
mechanism.
Even though refuse storage is generally an indispensable function of a building, it
is seldom given adequate consideration by builders and designers. Refuse storage
continues to be a source of problems for fire and health officials. The ultimate
methods of disposal in a building must be coordinated with the planning of the site
as well as the design of the waste handling system. The present requirements for
in-building storage may be minimized with a system employing conveyor systems
that continuously transport wastes to a central storage or processing station.
Present day planners, architects and engineers appear to have no faith in the newer
sophisticated waste handling systems. There is a need for evaluating this new
equipment under operating conditions so that real progress can be made.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. I 1-3
Purpose of the Study:
The purpose of this study is (1) to determine the current "state-of-the-art" in refuse
handling and disposal systems serving various types of multistory buildings and
building complexes, (2) to determine prevailing methods, practices and equipment
employed in waste systems, as well as the standards of operation, (3) to identify
specific areas of weakness in waste systems operation, and (4) to identify available
equipment or equipment in the development stage that may be used to improve
handling, storage, processing and/or disposal methods.
Study Objectives:
The objectives of this total project are to improve solid waste handling and disposal
in multistory office buildings, hospitals and detention facilities. This project will
be undertaken in two phases,, The broad objectives under Phase I as undertaken in
this study are (1) to evaluate and determine the types and quantities of solid waste
produced by multistory office buildings, hospitals, and detention facilities, and
to predict future quantities, (2) to study and evaluate materials handling and waste
disposal equipment and systems, (3) to study the application of such handling and
disposal equipment or systems to the buildings under consideration, and to review
existing County-owned facilities and recommend changes in refuse handling
systems, and (4) recommend projects to be constructed so as to demonstrate their
effectiveness in a selected multistory hospital, office building or detention
facility and develop positive data on the protection of public health, operating
efficiency, reliability, and cost.
Under Phase II, a proposed continuation of this study, objectives will include:
(1) the design and construction of a selected waste handling and disposal system,
(2) the testing and evaluation of the system's performance; and (3) the development
of code requirements and guidelines for architects, engineers, planners, and builders
for providing acceptable and convenient waste storage, handling, and/or disposal
for hospitals, institutions, multistory buildings, including offices and apartments.
Broad descriptions of work tasks that would lead to these objectives were outlined
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. I
prior to commencing the study,, The basic tasks were expected to include:
1. Field surveys of selected local buildings or institutions to determine physical
characteristics and obtain data on the refuse collection and disposal system.
2. Analysis and evaluation of the present refuse collection and disposal system
for each building or institution from economic, esthetic, and sanitary viewpoints.
3. Research and investigation of refuse collection; preparation and handling systems
to determine operating characteristics, size and space requirements, and cost of
installation and operation.
4» Research and investigate the various methods of refuse disposal, including
salvage, waterborne disposal in sewers after grinding, landfill, composting,
on-site and central incineration, taking into account health hazards, air
pollution, reliability, and operating cost.
5. Studies to determine which type or types of refuse collection, preparation
and handling systems can best be employed in each of the types of buildings
under consideration, and the benefits that would result from such an installation.
Consideration to be given to shredding, pulping and compacting of refuse and
to gravity, pneumatic, vacuum and containerized handling systems and other
methods o
6. Coordinate research and investigations with study of grinders for disposal of
hospital wastes currently being undertaken by County Health Department.
7. Studies to determine which method or methods of refuse disposal can best be
employed in each of the types of buildings or building groups under
consideration.
8. Selection of a multistory office or detention facility building to be used as
the basis of a demonstration project and prepare preliminary designs and
estimates of cost for installing the refuse collection, preparation, handling,
storage and/or disposal equipment, including modifications required in the
buildings, if any.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. I
1-5
9. Selection of a hospital building complex to be used as a demonstration project
for a system of collection and disposal for hospital wastes and the development
of preliminary designs and estimates of cost for the construction and operation
of such system.
Further, the objectives of this study of local interest will include an in-depth survey
of the refuse collection and disposal facilities and practices at various County buildings
and institutions for the purpose of improving and modernizing equipment, methods and
practices, and at the same time suggest design standards and code requirements that
may insure adequate solid waste system capabilities in future buildings to be constructed
within the County jurisdiction. The following list of County buildings or institutions
with their varied use and relative size, provides a broad base upon which to conduct
this study. The study will also include inspection of such representative private
multistory buildings as may be needed to verify and confirm the data based on the
study of the County buildings.
Name
LAC-USC Medical Center
Long Beach General Hospital
Harbor General Hospital
Rancho Los Amigos Hospital
John Wesley Hospital
Olive View Hospital
Mira Loma Hospital
Mira Loma Sheriff's Facility
Central Jail
Sybil Brand Institute
San Fernando Juvenile Hall
Hall of Justice
Hall of Records
Hall of Administration
County Courthouse
County Engineer Building
Use
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Hospital
Detention Facility
Detention Facility
Detention Facility
Detention Facility
Detention Facility
Office Building
Office Building
Office Building
Office Building
Reported Size
3,000 beds
428 beds
715 beds
1,188 beds
259 beds
725 beds
232 beds
500 inmates
3,000 inmates
600 inmates
411 inmates
3,000 inmates
404,000 sq. ft.
1,000,000 sq. ft.
660,000 sq. ft.
171,000 sq. ft.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. I
Organization of Material:
As this study progressed and expanded to a multi-volume presentation providing a
breakdown in the major divisions of the investigation, it became apparent that the
voluminous material must be condensed to summary form for interest, continuity and
value. Hopefully, one of the principal values will be the emphasis to the readers of
the relatively little previous input to this subject of solid waste systems in buildings
and the need for continuing study.
Contents of this volume include background material that was necessary to develop
prior to proceeding with field investigation and analysis of solid waste systems. This
background material, incorporated in Chapters II and III, identifies functions and
nomenclature of solid waste systems in building complexes for purposes of this study
and establishes a numerical rating basis for the evaluation of waste systems- This
rating basis is confined to performance capabilities of the systems as related to
effect on the environment, both in-plant and off-site.
Chapters IV and VI, covering investigations on existing systems in selected local
buildings and upgrading of these systems, applies the principles of evaluation
developed for this study and explores the economic aspects of solid waste system
operation. These chapters summarize the detailed studies to be found in Volumes II
and IV, and includes selected appendages from these volumes to illustrate the depth
of study.
Chapter V summarizes the scope of activity involved in the research and investigation
of equipment and systems as presented in Volume III. The reader is referred to this
volume for specific information on equipment components.
Chapter VII presents recommendations for the continuation of this study and the
proposed design of a solid waste system for a major building complex. Recommen-
dations are also made on additional areas of study that should be explored to broaden
knowledge on solid waste systems in buildings and the effect on the community.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. II IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Functions of a Solid Waste System 11-1
Nomenclature of the Solid Waste System 11-3
Definitions of Solid Waste Materials 11-5
LIST OF TABLES
ll-l Classification of Refuse Materials 11-7
LIST OF FIGURES
11-1 Schematic of Typical Solid Waste System in a
Multistory Building Complex 11-4
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. II IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM 11-1
At the outset of this study, it was indicated that existing descriptive terminology for
solid waste systems in buildings was not wholly adequate. Definitions of functions
related to handling and disposal of wastes in buildings were not specific. Standard-
ization of nomenclature of solid waste systems had not been fully established.
Definitions of solid waste materials and the nature and character of these materials
as related to the wastes generated in specific buildings had not been fully developed.
Therefore, for clarity and understanding, review and selection of terminology were
undertaken as the first steps in this study.
Functions of a Solid Waste System:
The connotation of "system" within this report denotes a building utility requirement,
such as a plumbing system. For purposes of this study, the four principal functions of
a solid waste system are limited to waste handling, storage, processing and disposal.
The term "waste handling" includes all those functions associated with the transfer or
movement of solid waste materials after creation, excluding storage and actual
processing and/or ultimate disposal methods that may be employed. These waste
handling functions are limited to and defined as follows:
collection - Methods and equipment used in (1) the pickup of accumulated
wastes from the initial point of deposit or subsequent storage
points and (2) loading of vehicles or other means of conveyance
for transport.
transport - Methods and equipment used in the vertical or horizontal
movement of materials.
discharge - Methods and equipment used to unload wastes from the
carrier or transporter,,
Storage of wastes is the interim containment of accumulated materials in either loose,
compacted or other processed form prior to subsequent handling, processing or disposal,
Waste processing is considered as those preparation functions, such as bagging or
encapsulating of disposables and reusables as well as treatments of disposables
-------
VOL. I ;
CHAP. II M""
involving volume reduction through changes in size and shape, uniformity or consistency.
The degree of volume reduction and corresponding increase in density varies with the
method or combination of methods employed and the composition of the material input.
Typical processes or combinations of these processes which precede ultimate disposal
may include:
Bagging Shredding Pulverizing
Encapsulating Chipping Dewatering
Compaction Grinding Baling
Crushing Pulping Extrusion
Waste processing may also include those techniques employed in reconditioning or
reprocessing reusable equipment such as laundry, bottle washing, dishwashing,
washing and rinsing, sterilization and autoclaving. However, the scope of this
study shall be limited to the handling methods associated with reusables up to the
point of reprocessing.
Disposal is considered herein as the final treatment or combination of treatments in the
conversion of wastes to innocuous materials or useable by-products. By and large,
known disposal methods are limited to relatively few conversion processes, some
involving conversion by normal decomposition of materials and several processes which
involve accelerated conversion„
Conversion of waste may be accelerated by destructive disposal processes such as
controlled incineration and supervised or unsupervised open burning. Conversion may
also be accomplished by natural composting or accelerated by means of various mecha-
nized systems. Grinding of domestic and commercial food wastes for discharge to sewers
with ultimate processing at treatment plants and final disposal of sludge at sanitary
landfills or other disposition is popularly accepted in many areas as the best disposal
method for garbage. In addition, other terminal processes such as wet air oxidation
and pyrolysis are among the newer accelerated conversion processes being explored.
Reclamation of selected waste materials (paper, rags, metals, glass etc*), rendering
of animal carcasses and fats for production of glues, fertilizers and soaps, as well as
salvage of food wastes for swine feeding, are representative of the accelerated
conversion processes by salvage. Disposal by sanitary landfill, open dumping, dumping
at sea and natural composting are the only processes where conversion is not normally
accelerated by man, where normal bacteriological decomposition of material occurs.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. II ||-3
Nomenclature of the Solid Waste System:
Preliminary investigations revealed that popularly accepted terminology for descriptions
of solid waste systems in buildings appeared to be generally non-existent. The need
for identification of the system's basic components and working parts or functions of
these components appeared to be a prerequisite to detailed investigation and analysis
of actual working systems. For this identification, the requirements of the solid waste
system (handling, storage, processing and disposal) serving a complex of multistory
buildings were considered. It was indicated that the flow of wastes from creation
to ultimate disposal would present the full range of system functions that could
normally be expected in any major building complex. This hypothetical waste
system was resolved into four basic components or sub-systems:
1. The unit system - those initial functions performed in containing and
moving waste from its point of creation to and including the point of
storage, processing or disposal within the unit. A unit may be defined
as a single floor or limited area or zone of a floor.
20 The inter-unit system - those functions performed in the vertical or
horizontal transfer of wastes from two or more unit (floor or departmental)
storage areas to and including an intermediate storage, processing or
disposal point serving a group of units.
3. The inter-building system - those functions performed in the transfer
of wastes from intermediate storage points to and including a central
on-site storage, processing or disposal point.
4. The off-site system - those functions performed in external transfer
of wastes from the central storage area to and including off-site
processing or disposal.
Figure ll-l, a schematic diagram, illustrates the typical multistory system, identifying
components and functions within the system„
-------
O
g
LEGEND
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Storage, Processing or Disposal
Intermediate Storage, Processing or Disposal
Central Storage, Processing or Disposal
Final Off-Site Processing or Disposal
[21
SCHEMATIC OF TYPICAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM IN A MULTISTORY BUILDING COMPLEX FIGURE ll-l
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. II 11-5
Definitions of Solid Waste Materials:
The comprehensive terminology and definitions as employed by *APWA in their publi-
cation "Municipal Refuse Disposal" describing wastes and the nature and character
of refuse materials have been adopted for use in this study, with certain supplementary
modifications as may be pertinent to descriptions of wastes generated in building
types studied herein.
APWA terminology and definitions are as follows:
1. Waste refers to the useless, unwanted, or discarded materials resulting from
normal community activities, including solids, liquids, and gases0
2. Atmospheric wastes consist of particulate matter, such as dust and smoke, fumes,
and gases.
3. Liquid wastes consist mainly of sewage and industrial wastewaters, including
both dissolved and suspended matter„
4. Solid wastes are classed as refuses
5. The physical state of wastes may change in their conveyance or treatment„
Dewatered sludge from wastewater treatment plants may become solid wastes;
garbage may be ground and discharged into sewers becoming waterborne
wastes; and fly ash may be removed from stack discharges and disposed of
as solid or as waterborne wastes.
6. Refuse comprises all of the solid wastes of the community, including semi-
liquid or wet wastes with insufficient moisture and other liquid contents
to be free-flowing,
7, The component materials of refuse can be classified by (a) point of origin,
(b) the nature of the material itself, and (c) character of materials.
8. Special wastes are defined as (a) hazardous wastes by reason of their
pathological, explosive, radioactive, or toxic nature, and (b) security
wastes: confidential documents, negotiable papers, etc.
*American Public Works Administration
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. II
Table ll-l presents the APWA classification of refuse materials defining the character,
nature and kinds of typical materials as well as their conventional point of origin.
Nearly all these kinds of refuse materials are produced in major building complexes.
However, for purposes of this study, identification of solid waste materials generated
in special purpose buildings must be further detailed. The point of origin or source
may be further refined indicating building, floor and/or department where wastes are
generated. Supplementing the APWA classifications of waste materials in connection
with hospitals, the character of solid waste must be further expanded to include
certain reusable wastes.
Kinds of these materials are soiled linens, instruments, accessories, bottles, food
utensils,etc. The importance of classifying these materials as solid waste cannot
be overemphasized for they are presently handled in a manner similar to disposable
waste materials, they exist in quantities that generally exceed the quantities of
disposable materials and with the growing popularity of single use items, they may
be in fact converted to disposable materials on relatively short notice.
Further classification of the nature of hospital waste must also include definitions
of contaminated and non-contaminated materials. It can be assumed that a textbook
definition of contaminated and non-contaminated waste materials would produce a
clear distinction between these material classifications. However, in practice, due
to the complexities of the waste handling systems and the prevailing intermix of
"clean" and "dirty" areas generating wastes, segregation of waste materials
throughout the system must rely heavily on the human element of judgment in the
classification and distinction of these types of materials. Observations further
supported by opinions of hospital and health department representatives indicate
that reliability in this method of segregation cannot practically nor economically
be achieved. Therefore, the following definitions of contaminated and non-
contaminated wastes based on point of origin are adopted for purposes of this study.
Those solid waste materials resulting from non-medical activities not directly or
physically related to patient care, such as materials generated through ware-
housing, processing and preparation of new or sterile materials and supplies, will
be considered as non-contaminated wastes, providing physical barriers reasonably
isolate these service areas arcd the wastes are not later intermingled.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. II
1-7
TABLE ll-l CLASSIFICATION OF REFUSE MATERIALS
Kind or
Character
Composition or Nature
Origin or Source
Garbage
Rubbish
or
Mixed Refuse
Ashes
Bulky
Wastes
Street
refuse
Dead
animals
Abandoned
vehicles
Construction
& Demolition
wastes
Industrial
refuse
Special
wastes
Animal and
Agricultural
wastes
Sewage
treatment
residues
Wastes from the preparation, cooking, and
serving of food.
Market refuse, waste from the handling,
storage, and sale of produce and meats
Combustible
(primarily
organic)
Noncombustible
(primarily
inorganic)
Paper, cardboard, cartons
Wood, boxes, excelsior
Plastics
Rags, cloth, bedding
Leather, rubber
Grass, leaves, yard trimmings
Metals, tin cans, metal foils
Dirt
Stones, bricks, ceramics,
crockery
Glass, bottles
Other mineral refuse
Residue from fires used for cooking, heating
buildings, incinerators, etc.
Large auto parts, tires
Stoves, refrigerators, other large appliances
Furniture, large crates
Trees, branches, palm fronds, stumps, flotage
Street sweepings, dirt
Leaves
Catch basin dirt
Contents of litter receptacles
Small animals: cats, dogs, poultry, etc.
Large animals: horses, cows, etc.
Automobiles, trucks
Lumber, roofing, and sheathing scraps
Rubble, broken concrete, plaster, etc.
Conduit, pipe, wire, insulation, etc.
Solid wastes resulting from industrial
processes and manufacturing operations,
such as: food-processing wastes, boiler
house cinders, wood, plastic, and metal
scraps and shavings, etc.
Hazardous wastes: pathological wastes,
explosives, radioactive materials
Security wastes: confidential documents,
negotiable papers, etc.
Manures, crop residues
Coarse screenings, grit, septic tank sludge,
dewatered sludge
From:
households,
institutions,
and commercial
concerns such
as:
hotels,
stores,
restaurants,
markets, etc .
From:
streets,
sidewalks,
alleys,
vacant lots, etc.
From:
factories,
power plants,
etc.
Households,
hospitals,
institutions,
stores,
industry, etc.
Farms,
feed lots
Sewage treat-
ment plants,
septic tanks
SOURCE: APWA REFUSE COLLECTION PRACTICES
-------
VOL I
CHAP. II ||-8
All solid wastes generated from the use of clean materials and used in connection
with patient care through clinical services, medical support services and certain
non-medical services (including food service, soiled linens etc.) will be considered
as contaminated wastes. Biological and infectious wastes generated as a result of
patient treatment, operating and autopsy procedures, and laboratory research
activities will, of course, also fall within this classification as will hazardous
wastes such as radioactive, explosive and toxic materials.
Basically, these definitions limit non-contaminated wastes to those materials such
as packaging and containerizing of new materials, wastes resulting from food
preparation, and processing of other clean products, as well as those waste
materials generated by administrative departments and other similar functions not
physically related to patient care and easily affording controlled segregation of
waste materials from point of origin to point of disposal without intermixing with
contaminated wastes.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. Ill DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION METHODS Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identification and Point of Origin of Hospital
Waste Materials 111-2
Composition of Solid Waste Systems in Hospitals III-3
Community Interrelationship to the Hospital Waste System III-7
Evaluation of Hospital Solid Waste Systems 111-10
Evaluation of Systems in Other Building Types 111-14
Improvements in Systems 111-18
LIST OF TABLES
111-1 Types of Wastes Produced by Departments 111-4
111-2 Typical Variables in Composition of Solid Waste Systems 111-5
111-3 Description of Hospital Solid Waste Systems II1-6
III-4 Distribution of Hospitals and Nursing Homes -
Los Angeles County 1968 111-9
III-5 Basis of Evaluation of Hospital Solid Waste Systems 111-12
111-6 Numerical Rating of Hospital Solid Waste Systems 111-13
II1-7 Basis of Evaluation of Detention Facility Systems 111-14
111-8 Numerical Rating of Detention Facility Solid
Waste Systems 111-16
111-9 Numerical Rating of Office Building Solid Waste Systems 111-17
LIST OF FIGURES
111-1 Health Districts County of Los Angeles Health Department 111-8
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. Ill DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION METHODS Ill-l
Evaluation of solid waste systems may be defined for purposes of this study as the
determination of the efficiency of equipment and methods employed in the total
system to perform the functions of handling, storage, processing and disposal of
wastes in compliance with the requirements of existing codes and accepted standards.
This evaluation must be resolved into two components. These components are
performance capabilities of the systems or equipment as designed (theory) and as
operated (practice). The latter introduces the human element of operating personnel
Applicable regulatory controls pertaining to operation and maintenance of solid
waste systems include building, fire, pollution and health standards and other local
restrictive ordinances, as well as departmental or in-plant regulations and certain
special controls such as the Hospital Licensing Act applicable in California.
These codes and standards applicable to handling, processing and disposal of solid
wastes for building installations can be resolved to controls for four basic environ-
mental factors or conditions affecting the health and welfare of the general public
and building occupants. These four highly interrelated factors are sanitation,
safety, security and esthetics and may be defined as follows:
Sanitation - control of all conditions which contribute to contamination
and may permit the spread of disease or infection, the
irritation, discomfort or impairment of bodily function
through inhalation, ingestion or contact.
Safety - control of all conditions relating to prevention of
accidents or catastrophy which could cause personal
injury or property damage.
Security - Prevention of unauthorized access to waste handling and
disposal areas to eliminate pilferage or salvage of hazardous
wastes and accidental contact with contaminated materials.
Esthetics - Public and users acceptability in terms of appearance,
noise, odors, psychological factors, convenience,
workability of the system, etc.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill m-2
Development of methods for evaluation of solid waste systems for the various types of
special purpose buildings under study was based on observations of their respective
operating characteristics, requirements and types of material being handled. It was
obvious that types of wastes and handling requirements differed extremely between
building classifications, and that methods of evaluation would necessarily be tailored
to each group.
Identification and Point of Origin of Hospital Waste Materials:
Types of conventional solid wastes generated in hospital plants are not unlike those
wastes to be found in small municipalities and may include:
1. Garbage 6. Bulky Wastes (furnishings, auto parts, tires, etc,,)
2. Rubbish 7. Expended Vehicles
3. Ashes 8. Street and Landscaping Refuse
4. Dead Animals 9. Construction and Demolition Wastes
5. Special Wastes 10. Industrial Wastes (shops)
In addition, reusable materials and equipment, such as linens, food service items,
patient care items, etc, requiring reprocessing, often will be found in quantities that
far exceed the amounts of these conventional solid wastes.
Generally, bulky wastes, worn-out vehicles, street and landscaping refuse, con-
struction and demolition wastes, not uncommon on hospital sites, are handled in
separate channels apart from the main flow of waste materials generated daily within
the plant buildings. Daily quantities of these materials generated fluctuate considerably,
Dependent on the nature and quality of these materials, they may be salvaged for in-
plant reuse or deposited at landfills. By and large, the methods of disposal generally
selected are limited by the characteristics of the individual waste materials. Detailed
studies of these types of wastes will not be considered within this study, except as they
may be found within the building waste handling system. Similarly, those radiological
wastes which are generated in varying quantities and handled in compliance with State
and Federal regulations will not be investigated in depth except as they may affect the
general waste handling system in the hospital complex.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill 111-3
In summary, the identification of kinds of wastes that may be found normally in the main
stream of the solid waste system include garbage, rubbish, ashes, dead animals, special
wastes and reusables. From observations of the different characteristics of certain waste
materials and their respective handling requirements within the hospital waste system,
eight categories of waste materials have been established for detailed study „ These
categories are identified as follows:
1. Sharps - needles, blades, etc. (Disposable)
2, Surgical, pathological and animals (Disposable)
3. Soiled linen (Reusable)
4. Rubbish or mixed refuse (Disposable)
5. Patient care items (Reusable)
6. Non-combustible - glass, metals and ashes (Disposable)
7. Garbage (Non-grindable) (Disposable)
8. Food service items (Reusable)
For further background on the development of evaluation methods, some comment on the
identification of the various types of waste materials and their point-of-origin is necessary.
Wide variations in departmental organization exist; however, for purposes of this presen-
tation and from review of available organizational charts, departmentalization as illus-
trated in Table 111-1 has been adopted as generally representative of hospitals in the total
system, and is indicative of the range of points-of-origin of waste materials. Table 111-1
also illustrates the major identifiable types of solid wastes that may be generated in
typical departmental areas, and designates these materials as either contaminated or non-
contaminated. With limited exceptions, contaminated wastes are generated in the
medical departments (patient care areas and services) as opposed to the generation of
non-contaminated wastes occurring in non-medical departments. Those classifications
as shown in the Table are based on the definitions of contaminated and non-contami-
nated wastes presented earlier in this report.
Composition of Solid Waste Systems in Hospitals:
Functions of waste handling, storage, processing and disposal in the total solid waste
system may be accomplished by using various combinations of methods and equipment.,
Table 111-2 lists typical variables that may occur in performance of each major
function in the Unit, Inter-Unit, Inter-Building and Off-Site System.
Generally, the more conventional methods and equipment are employed in the
hospitals under study, and considerable variations within the systems occur at each
-------
VOL.
CHAP.
1-4
TABLE Ill-l TYPES OF WASTES PRODUCED BY DEPARTMENTS
SOURCE OF WASTE
TYPES OF WASTE MATERIALS
DEPARTMENT
Non-Medical Departments
Administration
Resident Facilities
Engineering
General Services
Laundry
Dietary
Medical Departments
Clinical Services
Acute & Ext. Care
Obstetrics & Gyn .
Out-Patient
Pediatrics
Psychiatrics
Surgery
Support Services
Clinical Laboratory
Research Laboratory
Dental Clinic
Radiology
Pathology
Pharmacy
DISPOSABLES
Radiological
c
c
Pathological & Surgical
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Wl
"5
°E
<
"5
1/1
c
2
UJ
VI
0)
T3
0
CO
I/I
0>
TJ
0>
i>
Z^
i/»
a.
L.
O
-C
00
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Mixed Refuse Combustible
nc
nc
nc
nc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Segregated Non-Combustible
nc
c
nc
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Food Waste Grindable
c
c
c
c
c
Food Waste Non-Grindable
nc
vt
1
£
o
U
•4-
C
IU
"B
O-
c
c
c
c
c
0)
o
'E
$
73
8
LL.
C
c
c
c
c
vt
c
V
C
lj
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
_c
vt
o
£
IU
•o
&
nc
Demolition Waste
nc
o
3
•B
"w
0)
01
~O
0
_c
I/I
<
nc
REUSABLE
i/>
V
.»»
o
co
nc
c
c
.c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1/1
4-
£
o
U
"c
4)
"B
a.
C
c
c
c
4)
U
S
'5
oo
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
'e
,c
Note: Above Designation of Wastes Indicates Departmental Locations Where
Contaminated (c) and Non-Contaminated (nc) Wastes are Generated
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill
111-5
TABLE 111-2
TYPICAL VARIABLES IN COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Unit System
Initial
Deposit
(Receiver)
Open
Container
Open
Container
w/Liner
Disposable
Container
Special
Container
Closed
Container
Closed
Container
wA'ner
Initial
Transfer
Manual
Hand
Cart
Pneumatic
Tube
Automated
Conveyor
Motorized
Cart
Initial
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
None
Sealing
Contained
Liner
Compact
Encap-
sulate
Grind
or Pulp
Storage
Room
Reclaim
For Reuse
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Gravity
Chute
E 1 eva tor
Dumb-
waiter
Automated
Conveyor
Pneumatic
Tube
Pipeline
Intermediate
Storage ,
Processing/
Disposal
None
Storage
Room
and/or Bins
Compact
Encap-
sulate
Grind
or Pulp
Incinerate
Reclaim
For Reuse
Inter-Building System
Internal
Transfer
Manual
Hand
Cart
Motorized
Cart or
Train
Automated
Conveyor
Pneumatic
Tube
Pipeline
Truck
Central
Storage
None
Piles or
Pits
Open
Container
Closed
Container
Compactor
Container
Holding
Tank
Storage
Room
Central
Processing
or Disposal
None
Incinerate
Grind
or Pulp
Shred
Compact
Extractor
Reclaim
For Reuse
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Open
Truck
Covered
Truck
Packer
Truck
Container
Carrier
Sewer
Final
Process! ng
and/or
Diiposal
Landfill
Sanitary
Landfill
Special
Sanitary
Landfill
Incinerate
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
Discharge
to Sea
Salvage
hospital in handling different kinds of wastes, such as grinding of food preparation
wastes, incineration or grinding of pathologic wastes, segregation in handling of
certain types of wastes upon creation through their disposal.
Table 111-3 serves to illustrate these variations by showing the principal types of
wastes handled at a typical local plant and the numerous "systems" that may exist
for "special handling" of certain solid waste materials. Personal decisions and
judgments, hurriedly made on some occasions, must channel a particular type of
waste material into the right path for its proper handling. Due to error in personal
judgment, a resulting intermix of materials in the various "systems" is not uncommon.
Without adequately supervised specialized personnel being assigned for the exclusive
purpose of handling solid waste materials, numerous parallel systems for handling
segregated wastes cannot be expected to function consistently in the manner intended,
and avoid the intermix of contaminated and non-contaminated materials.
-------
TABLE 111-3
DESCRIPTION OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Pathological and Surgical
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
leasable Patient Items
Non -Combustible
Garbage (Non-Grindable)
Food Service Items
Radiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
Av. Daily
Weight
75
1,000
45,500
16,200
—
1,500
1,800
9,000
TR
TR
25
2,600
%
of Tata
.1
1.3
58.6
20.9
—
1.8
2.3
11.6
TR
TR
TR
3.4
Unit System
Initial
Deposi t
(Receiver)
Lined Open
Container
Lined Closed
Container
Cloth Bag
Lined Open
Container
—
Lined Open
Container
Special Cart
Special Cart
Special
Container
Closed
Container
Closed
Container
Open
Container
Initial
Transfer
Manual
Manual
Manual
Hand Cart
Manual
Manual
Special Cart
Special Cart
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Initial
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Utility Room
Utility Room
Corridor
Utility Room
Utility Room
Autoclave
Utility Room
Corridor
Corridor
Special
Container
—
—
Grinder
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Elevator
Elevator
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Elevator
Elevator
Elevator
Elevator
Stairs
—
Sewer
Intermediate
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Can Room
Can Room
Chute Room
Chute Room
Can Room
Corridor
Corridor
Can Room
—
—
Inter-Building System
Internal
Transfer
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Hand Cart
Cart Train
Cart
Sewer
Central
Storage
Cart
Cart
Open Storage
Area
Cart
Cart
Special Cart
Corridor
Roof Top
Cart
Refrigerator
—
Central
Processing
or Disposal
Loading Dock
Loading Dock
Laundry
Loading Dock
Loading Dock
Loading Dock
Kitchen
—
Loading Dock
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Hospital
Packer Truck
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Hospital
Packer Truck
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Private
Contractor
Hospital
Packer Truck
City Truck
Sewer
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
Landfill
Landfill
...
Landfill
—
Landfill
Landfill
—
Federal
Landfill
Landfill
Rendering
Sewer Treat-
ment Plant
o
m
-------
VOL. 1
CHAP. Ill 111-7
Community Interrelationship to the Hospital Waste System:
Other factors to consider in the evaluation process include environmental contamination
within the community. No conclusive research directly related to off-site disposal of
hospital wastes and its effect on the community has been performed. Principal concerns
relate to the possible survival of harmful bacteria and disease transmission by direct
human contact with contaminated materials or through other biological vectors, as well
as transmission through air and water pollution. Off-site disposal conventionally
involves a method of highway transport, direct or via transfer stations to landfills,
central incineration plants or other disposal facilities. The community environment
may be exposed to hospital waste contaminants throughout the course of travel with
greatest potential exposure occurring at the disposal site where direct contact by
refuse workers and scavengers may occur or where water pollution via run-off or
leaching may ultimately affect the populace,, Potential hazards to the environment
may be minimized in transport through tight container!zation, and at disposal sites
through special handling procedures, tight security and proper selection of site.
In practice, all these measures are difficult to insure.
Though beyond the scope of this study, it was considered necessary to identify and
convey the relative significance of the hospital waste disposal problem within
Los Angeles County. Figure Ill-l illustrates the subdivision of Los Angeles County
by health districts as identified by the County Health Department. Table III-4 shows
the 1968 distribution of hospital beds and nursing home beds within the County by
these districts. Using nominal waste production factors of 10 Ibs./day per hospital bed
patient and 5 Ibs./day per nursing home bed patient, a potential quantity of about
470,000 Ibs. or 235 tons of disposable wastes can be expected to be generated daily
in Los Angeles County. Other than identified pathologic wastes which represent a
small percentage of total wastes, it is likely the majority of these waste materials
are being transported to area landfills. It is also likely that the majority of hospitals,
especially those of less than 500 beds, are serviced by private refuse contractors.
Largely these waste materials are not identifiable as hospital wastes as they are
received at landfills. Private contractors servicing the majority of private institutions
as well as some of the public facilities contract for routine servicing, and of course
no segregated collection is feasible. Therefore, the majority of hospital wastes are
mixed with commercial wastes prior to delivery to disposal sites and do not receive
special handling.
-------
VOL.
CHAP.
1-8
South 1 ,,s,m.,tjnlo .7 WMttiet -. 1 ^., X
Figure Ill-l '.
HEALTH DISTRICTS County of Los Angeles Health Department
-------
TABLE III-4 DISTRIBUTION OF HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES - LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1968
Location of Facilities by Health Districts
Alhambra
Bellflower
Central
Compton
East Los Anqeles
El Monte
East Valley
Glendale
Harbor
Hoi ly wood-Wi 1 shi re
1 nq 1 ewood
Long Beach
Monrovia
Northeast
Pasadena
Pomona
San Antonio
San Fernando
South
Southeast
Southwest
Santa Monica
Torrance
Vernon
West Valley
Whi frier
TOTAL (Excluding Veterans Administration Facilities)
Veterans Administration Hospitals (5)
TOTAL BEDS
HOSPITALS
No. of Hospitals by Capacity Range
0-49
Beds
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
1
4
3
3
3
4
2
5
1
I
3
49
50-99
Beds
3
5
4
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
3
2
5
2
61
100-299
Beds
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
4
2
3
2
1
2
1
5
2
2
2
7
2
50
300-499
Beds
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
- 14
500+
Beds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Total
No. of
Hosps.
4
10
12
5
4
4
4
8
4
10
11
10
9
8
4
8
8
11
1
4
9
8
6
0
15
4
181
No. of
Beds
427
793
1,925
716
295
243
306
1,388
491
2,112
1,150
2,388
1,052
2,828
748
1,047
2,026
1,873
67
492
481
1,479
1,257
0
L651
569
27,804
3,397
31,201
NURSING HOMES ( N .H .)
No. of Nursing Homes
by Capacity Range
0-49
Beds
9
2
11
4
1
5
8
12
14
2
7
10
3
7
11
3
3
1
2
7
9
2
6
2
141
50-99
Beds
11
7
9
7
2
10
8
10
2
15
10
10
11
6
16
12
1
7
1
10
14
6
11
3
199
100+
Beds
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
6
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
3
5
50
Total
No. of
N.H.
22
10
24
14
4
17
17
28
2
31
14
20
22
12
24
23
4
11
1
3
18
27
12
0
20
10
390
No. of
Beds
1,519
776
1,685
1,170
428
1,402
939
1,909
179
,783
.145
,442
,328
907
,484
,277
175
1,000
30
143
1,177
1,814
1,149
0
1,475
978
27,314
4,502
31,816
Combined Total
No. of
Facilities
26
20
36
19
8
21
21
36
6
41
25
30
31
20
28
31
12
22
2
7
27
35
18
0
35
14
571
No. of
Beds
1,946
1,569
3,605
1.886
723
1,645
1,245
3.297
670
3,895
2.295
3.830
2,380
3,735
2,232
2,324
2,201
2,873
97
635
1,658
3,293
2,406
0
3,126
1,547
55,118
7,899
63,017
CD
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill 111-10
Again assuming that contamination of the environment may result from off-site transport
and disposal of this material, it may be emphasized that geographically nearly all areas
of the County are subject to this potential hazard.
Based on the above factors and limited knowledge in this field as to immediate and long-
range effects, elimination of these potential hazards to the community environment
through on-site disposal would likely be recognized as the preferred method from the
viewpoint of public interest. Prevailing methods of on-site disposal are basically
limited to grinding of food wastes and incineration. Destruction of hospital wastes
by on-site incineration, while eliminating major potentials of disease transmission,
may also contribute to the added problem of community air pollution through emissions.
Grinding of food wastes with discharge to sewer is unquestionably one of the most
efficient processes and least offensive to both the operating personnel and the community
at large. Exploration needs to be made on potentials of grinding all wastes for sewage
discharge and decontamination of these materials before removal from the hospital
plant.
Regardless of the system selected, assurance of its proper operation to minimize environ-
mental contamination, both within the plant and the community, is paramount and is
emphasized in the development of the evaluation methods.
Evaluation of Hospital Solid Waste Systems:
For the complex systems generally found in hospitals, it appeared necessary and
desirable to develop a numerical rating method that would consider the relative value
of environmental factors, the relative effect or hazard of each type of waste on the
environmental factors and the significance of each waste in the total system „ Table 111-5,
developed through collaboration with knowledgeable parties, numerically illustrates
the above factors. Through arithmetical calculations, the cumulative value of some
4,300 points was established and identified as the maximum value of the hospital system.
It also appeared necessary to relate the significance of each waste to each component
and function within the system in order to convey the identity and location of inade-
quacies that may be found. Table 111-6 identifies the eight principal groups of solid
waste materials, presents the breakdown of each system by components (Unit, Inter-
Unit, Inter-Building and Off-Site systems) and the related functions within each
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill 111-11
component. Distribution of the total weighted numerical value of each waste from
Table 111-5 is made to each of the ten functions in the total system and the respective
environmental factors (sanitation, safety, security and esthetics). These numerical
values appearing in Table 111-6 were based on judgments of the relative significance
of each waste as it affects the respective environmental factors within each function
of each waste system. The format of Table 111-6 was developed not only to illustrate
the distribution of maximum values within the waste system but also to provide a tool
for actual rating of those systems of the hospitals under study.
In practice, the actual rating evolved as a grading process which reflected the
deficiency in operation of each required function in the total system. This deficiency
point rating method was resolved to a five-step grading process, considering both
equipment and methods employed in the performance of each function. Actual
rating of a system function involved calculation of deficiency points applicable
to each environmental factor in each function. Blank spaces indicate a function
npt applicable to the system. Conditions and accompanying deficiencies (related
to maximum values) in the adopted grading process are as follows:
Condition Deficiency
Need Not Be Improved.
Completely Acceptable As Is,, - 0% of Maximum Value
Requiring Some Improvement in Method
of Operation. Equipment is Adequate
for Intended Use - 25% of Maximum Value
Requiring Major Improvements in Method
of Operation and Some Improvement in
Equipment Maintenance - 50% of Maximum Value
Requiring Major Improvements in Method
of Operation and Major Improvement in
Repair and Replacement of Equipment - 75% of Maximum Value
System Is Not Acceptable for Present Use
and Major Equipment Design Changes
Are Required -100% of Maximum Value
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill
111-12
TABLE 111-5 BASIS OF EVALUATION OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Relative Val ues (A)
Environmental Factor
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Surgical, Pathological & Animals
Soiled Linen
Reusable Patient Items
Rubbish
Non-Combustible
Garbage
Food Service
4
Sanitation
(B)
90
75
100
40
40
30
24
20
(C)
360
300
400
160
160
120
95
80
3
Safety
(B)
100
25
25
40
75
50
18
26
(C)
300
75
75
120
225
150
55
80
2
Security
(B)
100
100
47
60
62
42
25
25
(C)
200
200
95
120
125
85
50
50
1
Esthetics
(B)
65
100
100
50
100
55
100
50
(C)
65
100
100
50
100
55
100
50
10
Total
925
675
670
450
610
410
300
260
TOTAL VALUE OF OPTIMUM SYSTEM 1675
1080
925
620 4300
(A) Relative Values of Environmental Factors
(B) Relative Significance of the Particular Environmental Factor for Hie Particular Waste
(Rating on Scale of 0 to 100)
(C) Weighted Numerical Value (C=AB) of Each Waste or its Relative Significance
to Each Environmental Factor and the Total System
-------
TABLE 111-6
NUMERICAL RATING OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles,
Etc.
Surgical, Patho-
logical & Animals
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient
Items
Non-Combustible
Gan^age
(Non-Grindable)
Food Service Items
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sani tation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Unit System
Initial
Deposit
(Receiver)
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
4(1
40
30
5
20
5
5
10
40
5
5
20
5
15
5
15
15
15
15
5
5
70
10
10
5
5
1
M
1
10
,1
5
135
115
BO
fil
415
Initial
Transfer
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
50
50
5
5
35
10
5
5
50
5
5
15
10
20
5
15
20
20
5
5
10
15
5
5
5
5
•>
S
a
10
,1
5
185
i:«
40
AO
420
Initial
Storage,
Vocessing,
Disposal
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
20
10
25
5
35
5
35
15
30
5
5
10
10
25
20
10
25
5
15
5
10
20
15
5
11
5
5
10
10
10
.1
5
I,1),1)
85
125
I'll
430
Def.
Value
Total
^ax.
Value
Total
110
100
60
15
90
20
45
30
l?0
15
15
45
25
60
30
40
60
40
35
15
25
11
30
20
25
11
15
39
m
30
11
15
4/i
335
(•4,1
(•!«
1 265
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Def.
Value
v\ox.
Value
50
45
5
20
5
5
5
80
5
5
10
20
20
5
10
15
15
5
5
Is
11
5
5
5
,1
,1
5
,1
5
,1
5
21V
115
40
yj
415
ntermediate
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Def.
Value
Max .
Value
20
10
25
5
35
10
35
15
50
5
15
10
15
45
15
10
15
5
15
5
?0
10
5
15
1
,1
10
III
10
,1
5
144
no
I?,1!
to
465
Def.
Value
Total
Max.
Value
Total
70
55
30
10
55
15
40
20
130
10
20
20
35
65
20
20
30
20
20
10
20
35
15
10
20
10
10
IS
1,1
15
10
10
J/5
225
IfVl
II.')
880
Inter-Building System
Intr-nal
Trar. »r
DeF.
Value
Max.
Value
50
45
5
10
15
5
5
30
10
15
5
10
15
5
5
20
15
10
5
5
10
5
5
5
1
5
5
1
5
,1
5
135
120
55
40
350
Central
Storage
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
1(1
1
25
5
10
10
20
15
30
5
20
5
10
25
15
5
10
5
15
5
5
10
10
5
5
,1
5
19
1
5.
1
5
8i
70
115
,.ii
325
Central
Processing
or Disposal
DeF.
Value
Max.
Value
20
10
10
5
40
5
5
10
40
15
5
5
15
25
10
5
15
15
15
5
5
1(1
5
5
li
,1
5
5
1,1
19
5
5
165
95
4V
.45
365
Def.
Value
Total
v\ax.
Value
Total
no
HI
40
15
60
30
30
30
100
30
40
15
35
65
30
15
45
35
40
15
15
30
20
15
25
11
15
20
'/!)
20
15
15
385
285
/;to
140
1040
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Def.
Value
Max..
value
?n
10
10
5
20
5
10
5
10
5
15
5
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
5
5
1
5
5
10
5
5
15
,1
5
5
5
90
55
75
55
275
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
Def.
Value
vtax .
Value
no
75
60
20
75
5
75
15
40
15
5
15
55
25
30
15
15
15
15
5
.1.1
?,1
15
5
15
10
5
20
11
10
5
5
350
180
VIII
loo
840
Def.
Value
Total
Max.
Value
Total
100.
H5
70
25
95
10
85
20
50
20
20
20
65
35
45
25
25
25
25
10
60
30
20
10
25
15
10
35
20
15
10
10
440
235
285
W
1115
Def.
Value
Total
Max.
Value
Total
riAO
.100
200
65
388
75
200
100
400
75
95
100
160
225
125
100.
160
120
120
50
120
150
85
55
95
55
50
100
80
80
50
50
1675
1080
925
620
4300
o
CO
-------
VOL.
CHAP.
TTPiT
Evaluation of Systems in Other Building Types:
In contrast to hospital waste systems, characteristics of solid waste systems in detention
facilities and office buildings are relatively simple. Although these systems are similar
in structure, the types and relative quantities of wastes they must handle are consid-
erably less. In addition, the characteristics of the waste materials are less offensive
and hazardous and require minimum segregation in handling and storage. Even though
these systems are relatively simple, it appeared necessary to develop similar evaluation
methods (numerical ratings) as prepared for hospitals, as a means of identifying and
conveying our findings.
In the case of detention facilities inspected, identifiable components of the system
were limited to the inter-unit or inter-building and off-site system. Identifiable
wastes consistently found in the mainstream of this principal system are soiled linens,
garbage and rubbish. Through a similar process as detailed in the discussion on
evaluation of hospital systems, the rating method considers the relative value of
environmental factors (in this case equal), the relative effect or hazard of each type
of waste on the environment and the significance of each waste in the system.
Table 111-7 was developed establishing the cumulative value of 1,000 points as the
maximum value of the detention facility system.
TABLE 111-7 BASIS OF EVALUATION OF DETENTION FACILITY SYSTEMS
Relative Value (A)
Environmental Factor
Typ e of Waste
Soiled Linen
Garbage
Rubbish
Total
1
Sanitation
(B)
100
80
60
240
1
Safety
(B)
60
60
100
220
1
Security
(B)
80
60
100
240
1
Esthetics
(B)
100
100
100
300
4
Total
(C)
340
300
360
1000
(A) Relative Value of Environmental Factors
(B) Relative Significance of Each Waste on Each Environmental Factor
(C) Relative Significance of Each Waste in Total System
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill 111-15
Table III-8 identifies the three principal wastes and relates the significance of each
within each component of the system and functions within the components. Distribution
of the total numerical value of each waste from Table 111-7 is made to each of the five
functions in the total system and the respective environmental factors.
In the case of office buildings inspected, identifiable components of the systems
included the unit, inter-unit and off-site systems. In these systems, the general
practice employed mixes all wastes as collected and virtually no segregation of
waste materials occurs. The relative value of environmental factors are considered
equal. Table 111-9 was developed, establishing a 400 point maximum value of the
office building system. Distribution of this value is made to each of the three system
components and respective functions of these components, as well as environmental
factors within each function.
The rating forms illustrating the distribution of maximum values within the waste
systems are later employed in the actual rating of those systems in detention facilities
and office buildings under study. The method of rating of these systems is on a
deficiency basis following the same procedures as set forth earlier in the discussion
on evaluation of hospital systems.
-------
VOL.
CHAP.
TABLE 111-8 NUMERICAL RATING OF DETENTION FACILITY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
«P
7 :
20
IS
....15
W'
20
25
25 :
20
-46
40
40
60 :
J00
m ••
m
Tota 1
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
SO
40
30
40
2&
40
...&..
75-
Sft....
50
4ti
^,,
. 120
13D
130
J6U
...45...
50
45
55
?$
4Q
••••fiS"
55
J20
^
HO
14&
24S
m
240
300
TOTAL
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
m
J9S
)85
I 540
TOJ; :
265;
4#t
wa
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. Ill
111-17
TABLE 111-9 NUMERICAL RATING OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
System Components
UNIT SYSTEM
T SYSTEM
Z
D
1
a:
£
Z
LLJ
P—
IO
fc
t
to
LJ_
U.
o
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage,
Processing, Disposal
Total
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
)0
$
: 5
20
1Q
S
.... ^
W
S
: tf
1$
5Q
25
2i
"25
MM SI'
25..
.55
30
10..
10
t$
30:"''
10
15
HJ
30
-•••£••
3D '
50
SB
25
10
to
" "§'
...S.'..
15
is
20
ZO
25 '
25
25
""&
)0fl
'TOO
510$ :
J00
Total
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
mum
mm
m$m
::xJ25:::;::
s&m
mm
mwm
mm
mum
mm
mm
:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:
mm
-------
VOL. I _
CHAP. Ill m~18
Improvement's in Systems:
Rating of the waste system has been resolved to evaluation of that system actually
employed in handling each of the identifiable wastes and the capability of that
system to consistently handle the material in an acceptable manner. This concept
of evaluation provides for a rating, reflecting (1) capabilities of the system and
its equipment and (2) efficiency of operating technique,, This evaluation is expressed
by application of deficiency points to individual functions and collectively represent
a deficiency rating of the total system. Guidelines for needed improvements to the
existing system would be indicated by the deficiency ratings of each waste in the
unit, inter-unit, inter-building and off-site systems. Considered system improvements
to reduce system deficiencies may be classified as interim or long range in nature.
Interim improvements or remedial measures involving minimal expenditures may range
from greater emphasis on equipment maintenance or stop-gap training measures to
improve the techniques of operating personnel to replacement or modification of
obsolete equipment.
Emphasis on long range improvements must consider new technology and concepts of
the various "closed system" concepts and totally integrated systems which may
minimize malfunctioning. The "closed system" approach may include combinations
of material handling, processing and disposal devices which eliminate or minimize
human handling of solid wastes after the initial deposit. With the flow of all solid
waste materials in hospitals nearly paralleling the flow of clean supplies and
equipment (both in quantity and routes, except in the return cycle), the "closed
system" concept may also include consideration of those multi-purpose material
handling systems being developed for building application.
In later stages of this study where system improvements are considered in these
local buildings, the same method of evaluation used in the rating of existing
systems will also be applied in the rating of contemplated modifications.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. IV OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES Page No.
RESTATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY IV-1
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN COUNTY HOSPITALS IV-3
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES IV-15
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS IV-22
SUMMARY IV-26
Prevailing Problems in Solid Waste Management
in Buildings IV-26
Causes of Problems IV-28
Required Development of Remedial Measures IV-28
Continuing Studies IV-30
LIST OF TABLES
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
IV-1 Breakdown of Daily Waste Production (Lbs0/Day)
By Types of Waste IV-4
IV-2 Characteristics of Hospital Plants and Daily Waste
Production IV-5
IV-3 Percentage Distribution of Systems Operating Costs IV-7
IV-4 Daily Labor Requirements for Systems Operation
(Man-Minutes per Bed Patient) IV-9
IV-5 Annual, Daily and Unit Operating Costs IV-10
IV-6 Percentage Deficiencies in Environmental Rating of
Systems Operations IV-11
IV-7 Percentage Deficiencies of Sub-System Functions IV-13
IV-8 Relationship of Waste Production, Labor Requirements
and System Deficiencies by Individual Wastes IV-14
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. IV OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES Page No,
LIST OF TABLES
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
IV-9 Descriptive Characteristics of Detention Facilities IV-16
IV-10 Breakdown of Daily Waste Production (Lbs./Day)
By Types of Waste IV-17
IV-11 Contract Services for County Detention Facilities IV-19
IV-12 Percentage Deficiencies in Systems Operations IV-20
IV-13 Relationship of Waste Production and System Deficiencies IV-21
Comparison of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
IV-14 Waste Production and Costs of Operation IV-23
1V-15 Percentage Deficiencies in Systems Operations IV-25
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. IV OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES IV-1
A comprehensive review, inventory and evaluation of existing solid waste systems and
solid waste management practices in a substantial cross section of County owned and
operated building complexes within the County of Los Angeles were carried out during
the early stages of this study. Complete details of these investigations were recorded
in Volume II. In review of this volume of material, the following digest has been
prepared restating the purpose and scope of the total study, as well as briefly
summarizing investigations conducted at these local institutions.
RESTATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
The ultimate purpose of the total study is to determine improved solid waste handling,
storage, processing and/or disposal techniques adaptable to various types of multi-
story buildings and building complexes. In connection with these objectives, a
comprehensive investigation of existing systems, methods, and practices in various
types and sizes of buildings was required as the initial phase of study. A wide range
of building classifications was initially considered. However, due to anticipated
details of study and time limitations, only three basic building classifications were
approved for study within the scope of the contract. These classifications, hospitals,
detention facilities and office buildings, were selected based on their diverse
functions and apparent differences in solid waste system requirements. Selection
of the individual projects included seven hospitals, five detention facilities and
four office buildings. Extreme variations in physical configurations, functions and
waste system requirements also existed in those projects selected within each building
classification.
Separate survey methods and report formats were developed for each building class-
ification to record and convey pertinent data on identification of the existing solid
waste systems, classification of wastes, quantities of waste production, operating
characteristics and cost analysis of the systems, as well as evaluation of the environ-
mental effect of systems operation within each plant and the community at large.
Procedures for the evaluation of solid waste systems were developed by the project
staff under the guidance of special consultants in environmental health and staff
members of the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota. Field observations
and ratings were carried out at each of the local projects by the observation team
consisting of the Project Engineer, his assistant and a field engineer representing
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-2
the County Engineer's office. Individual ratings of each project were made by each
member of the observation team. Differences in judgments were reconciled through
discussion and additional site visits. Results of these evaluations were reviewed by
the above-noted advisors who is some cases made independent evaluations to corrob-
orate the ratings as presented In this report.
As indicated above, Volume II presented comprehensive detail of these observations.
Chapters II through VIII (Volume II) presented individual reviews on the relatively
complex hospital solid waste systems, and Chapters IX and X (Volume II), respectively,
presented studies of systems operations at detention facilities and office buildings.
Similarity of waste system characteristics within these latter building categories
permitted the presentation of the investigations in an abbreviated form by building
categories rather than individual projects. A summary of these project reports are
incorporated herein,
A case study of the LAC-USC Medical Center, illustrating typical details involved
in these investigations, as reported in Chapter II, Volume II, is appended (Appendix A)
in its entirety for the readers' information.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-3
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN COUNTY HOSPITALS
Investigations of all the selected County hospitals were conducted during the latter
months of 1968 and early 1969 to determine physical characteristics of the plants
and develop data on the solid waste systems. Diverse conditions found to exist
among nearly all plants ranged not only from the physical characteristics of
location, land, buildings and plant layout, but also to the predominant types
of care and specialties each facility offers.
Initial field observations were carried out at each of these hospitals to determine
average daily quantities and types of wastes produced. Observations ranged from
a period of five days to two weeks at these plants, depending on the size and
complexity of the waste system operation. Weight records were developed on all
major types of disposable wastes through the use of portable scales. Daily weight
records of soiled linen were obtained from laundry records for all hospitals.
Results of these observations were compiled and typical daily activity was esti-
mated for each plant as shown in Table IV-1. This Table provides the breakdown
of daily waste production by type of waste and summarizes total daily production
by the broad categories of disposable and reusable waste materials, as well as
certain calculated unit production factors (daily bed patient and per capita
production). Although waste production in hospitals is commonly reduced to
the familiar "pounds per bed patient unit", the results of this study of the seven
local hospitals have shown an extremely wide range in unit production when
analyzed on this basis. This analysis suggests that for estimating purposes in
the design of solid waste systems, calculations of total wastes based on bed
patient capacity alone may be misleading and that further investigations should
be made relating production to other plant and building characteristics.
An example of the wide range in waste quantities generated when analyzed on
daily production/bed patient/day can best be illustrated by a comparison between
Long Beach General Hospital and the LAC/USC Medical Center as shown on
Table IV-1. Long Beach, a geriatrics center, offers a type of patient care that
requires limited specialties, limited space, limited supplies, limited staff and
support personnel as opposed to the requirements of the Medical Center. The
Medical Center is one of the major general teaching hospitals in the country.
This institution provides a comprehensive range of medical care for all age
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
groups. Highly specialized services require a complex plant with a high ratio of ^
specialized building areas, supplies, staff and support personnel. With such varying
conditions, it can best be summarized that types of wastes produced and respective
quantities of each are to a great extent dependent upon the classification of the
hospital (range and type of care), ratio of bed patients to equivalent population,
and management policy on reusable and single-use items.
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-1 BREAKDOWN OF DAILY WASTE PRODUCTION (LBS./DAY) BY TYPES OF WASTE
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Path. & Surgical
Soiled Linen (R)
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items (R)
Non-Combustibles
Garbage (Non-Grindable)*
Food Service Items (R)
Radiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
TOTAL PRODUCTION
DAILY PRODUCTION DISPOSABLE
Pounds per Bed Patient
Pounds per ** Capita
DAILY PRODUCTION REUSABLE (R)
Pounds per Bed Patient
Pounds per ** Capita
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
75
1,000
45,500
16,200
TR
1,500
1,800
9,000
TR
TR
25
2,600
77,700
23,200
11.6
3.75
54,500
27.2
8.75
Long Beach
General
Hospital
3
TR
3,740
540
TR
75
150
1,400
-
-
-
330
6,238
1,098
3.6
2.08
5,140
16.9
9.74
Harbor
General
Hospital
22
156
13,600
6,569
TR
465
660
2,400
TR
20
220
950
25,062
9,062
16.7
5.57
16,000
29.6
9.73
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
40
4
16,320
2,760
TR
725
875
4,200
TR
20
20
1,100
26,064
5,544
6.0
2.80
20,520
22.1
10.20
John
Wesley
Hospital
8
115
2,900
717
TR
80
160
800
_
50
10
210
5,050
1,350
7.9
3.44
3,700
21.7
9.41
Olive
View
Hospital
20
6
5,630
1,722
TR
250
475
2,500
TR
20
23
1,860
12,506
4,376
7.8
4.32
8,130
14.5
8.08
Mira
Loma
Hospital
5
TR
1,120
362
TR
80
110
600
_
25
150
2,452
732
5.1
3.37
1,720
11 .9
7.93
*Predominantly Garbage Mixed with Substantial Quantities of Paper, Plastics, Metal, Etc.
**Per Capita Production Based on Equiv. 24-Hr. Population
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
IV-5
Table IV-2 was prepared relating total waste production to building area, gross popu-
lation (total patients, outpatients, employees, volunteer workers, etc.), and *equiv-
alent population (average population present each 8 hour shift over 24 hours per day
and 7 days per week).
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-2 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOSPITAL PLANTS AND DAILY WASTE PRODUCTION
Total Building Area (MSF)
Bed Patient Capacity
Ratio of Area (SF) per Patient
Avg. Occupancy-Bed Patients
Occupancy Rate
Gross Population'2^
Equivalent 24-Hr. Pop. <3)
Ratio of Patients to Equiv. Pop.
Total Daily Waste Production (Lbs.)
Lbs./MSF of Bldg. Area
Lbs. /feed Patient
Lbs. /Person- Gr. Pop.
Lbs./Capita-Equiv. Pop.
Total Disposables (Lbs.)
Lbs./MSF of Bldg. Area
Lbs. /Bed Patient
Lbs./Person-Gr. Pop
Lbs./Capita-Equiv. Pop.
Total Reusables (Lbs.)
Lbs./MSF of Bldg. Area
Lbs ./Bed Patient
Lbs./Person-Gr. Pop.
Lbs./Capita-Equiv. Pop,
LAC -USC
Medical
Center
2,822.0
2,300
1,220
2,018
87.4%
21,294
6,220
32.3%
77,700
25.6
38.8
3.7
12.50
23,200
7.5
11.6
1.1
3.75
54,500
18.1
27.2
2.6
8.75
Long Beach
General
Hospital
195.4
428
455
302
70.5%
1,246
526
57.4%
6,238
32.0
20.5
5.0
11.82
1,098
5.6
3.6
0.8
2.08
5,140
26.4
16.9
4.2
9.74
Harbor
General
Hospital
665.8
688
965
541
78.6%
5,512
1,645
32.8%
25,062
32.5
46.3
4.5
15.30
9,062
10.7
16.7
1.6
5.57
16,000
21.8
29.6
2.9
9.73
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
1,191.0
1,540
775
929
60.3%
5,471
1,982
46.7%
26,064
21.9
28.1
4.8
13.30
5,544
4.7
6.0
1.0
2.80
20,520
17.2
22.1
3.8
10.20
John
Wesley
Hospital
140.3
259
540
170
65.5%
1,124
392
43.4%
5,050
36.0
29.7
4.5
12.85
1,350
9,6
7.9
1.2
3.44
3,700
26.4
21.7
3.3
9,41
Olive
View
Hospital
510.1
699
730
560
80.4%
2,452
1,012
55.0%
12,506
24.5
22.3
5.1
12.40
4,376
8.6
7.8
1.8
4.32
8,130
15.9
14.5
3.3
8.08
Mira
Loma
Hospital
91.1
232
390
144
62.1%
453
217
66.5%
2,452
27.0
17.0
5.4
11.30
732
8.2
5,1
1.6
3.37
1,720
18.8
11.9
3.8
7.93
Range of
Production
(4)
64%
172%
46%
35%
128%
364%
125%
168%
66%
149%
62%
29%
(1) Avg. Occupancy During Observation Period
(2) Gross Population Including Total Bed Patients, Outpatients, Employees, Volunteer Workers
(3) Equivalent Population is Average Shift Population Present 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week
(4) Range in Production Over Lowest Production Factor
*Example of Calculations
Total Est. Population/Shift
Avg. Shift & Daily Pop.
Monday-Friday
1st Shift
13,400
2nd Shift
5,100
7,100
3rd Shift
4,300
Saturday and Sunday
1st Shift
5,000
2nd Shift
3,500
4,000
3rd Shift
3,500
Equivalent Population - 5/7 (7,100) + 2/7(4,000) = 5,075+1,145 = 6,220
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV"6
A comparison of these calculated production factors, as shown in Table IV-2, indicates
the following range in production occurring in the seven hospitals studied:
Lbs./MSF of Bldg. Area - Ranging 64% above the low of 21.9 Lbs./MSF
Lbs. per Bed Patient - Ranging 172% above the low of 17.0 Lbs./Bed Patient
Lbs./Person (Gross Pop.) - Ranging 46% above the low of 3.7 Lbs./Person
Lbs./Capita (Equiv- Pop.) - Ranging 35% above the low of 11.3 Lbs./Capita
This analysis indicates that estimates of waste production may be more accurately
projected by using a per capita production factor related to equivalent population
than the other production factors considered above. This analysis shows a range of
11.3 to 15.3 pounds per capita, including both disposable and reusable waste classi-
fications, was generated daily at these hospitals studied. Table IV-2 also shows the
calculated unit production factors individually for disposable and reusable waste
classifications. Except for the distortion caused by the relatively low production level
of disposable waste materials at Long Beach General Hospital, comparison of these
factors further supports the theory that per capita production factors related to equiv-
alent population provides the more reliable basis for estimating.
Continuing observations at these institutions were devoted to investigations of
equipment and services provided for handling and disposal of solid wastes, and methods
and practices employed, all as a basis for determination of costs of operation and
evaluation of the systems.
Labor requirements were found to be the most significant factor in systems operation,
consistently ranging above 90% of total operating costs. Table IV-3 illustrates the
percentage distribution of costs represented by labor, building and fixed equipment,
vehicular equipment, contractor or disposal fees, and miscellaneous expendable
supplies. Percentage distribution of costs to the categories of reusable and disposable
materials indicate a wide range of cost experience, some, such as Long Beach, with
costs nearly in direct proportion to quantity of waste production, opposed to the cost
experience of Harbor General, which is nearly in inverse proportion to quantities
of reusables and disposables. In addition, total system costs are distributed to the
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SYSTEMS OPERATING COSTS
SYSTEM COMPONENT
Unit System
Inter-Unit System
Inter-Building System
Off- Site System
Total System
COST ELEMENTS OF TOTAL SYSTEM
Bldg. & Fixed Equip „
Mainto & Repairs
Vehicular Equip. Carts
Oper. & Maint.
Contract or Disposal Fees
Misc. Expendable Supplies
Sub -Total
Labor
Total System
CLASSIFICATION OF WASTE
Disposable
Reusable
Total System
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
%of
Costs
75.8
14.1
4,3
5.8
100.0
1.0
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.5
5.1
94.9
100.0
54.1
45.9
100.0
Long Beach
General
Hospital
%of
Costs
85.0
-0-
10.0
*5.0
100,0
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1.1
6.4
7.5
92.5
100.0
29.2
70.8
100.0
Harbor
General
Hospital
%of
Costs
84.4
6.0
5.2
4.4
100.0
.4
.1
.3
1.2
.3
1.9
4.2
95.8
100.0
69.3
30.7
100.0
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
%of
Costs
87.6
2.5
9.1
.8
100.0
.2
-0-
.4
1.3
.3
2.2
4.4
95.6
100.0
56.2
43.8
100.0
John
Wesley
Hospital
%of
Costs
84.4
7.8
7.8
*TR
100.0
.4
.1
TR
TR
.1
6.2
6.8
93.2
100.0
55.5
44.5
100.0
Olive
View
Hospital
%of
Costs
85.3
3.9
9.7
1.1
100,0
.1
ol
.2
1.0
.2
1.9
3.5
96.5
100.0
55.0
45.0
100.0
Mira
Loma
Hospital
%of
Costs
75.0
18.0
5.0
*2.0
100.0
.5
.1
TR
TR
.2
4.2
5.0
95.0
100.0
42.5
57.5
100.0
*Contract Services
-------
VOL. I
CHAP- IV IV-8
sub-systems or system components (Unit, Inter-Unit, Inter-Building, and Off-Site
system). It is of interest to note that the on-floor handling of waste (the Unit
system) consistently ranges from 75 to 87.6% of total system costs.
To further signify the magnitude of labor in the systems operation, daily manpower
requirements have been resolved to man minutes per bed patient as observed at each
institution and shown in Table IV-4. Review of the individual description of solid
waste systems and estimated daily labor costs of solid waste systems presented in the
respective chapters will provide detail of these labor requirements at each institution.
Table IV-5 was prepared to relate estimated total costs of the system operation to
quantities of waste produced. Unit cost data on a per ton basis, as well as on a
bed patient day basis, has been calculated for comparison between hospitals.
The findings of this study, limited to detailed investigations at only seven hospitals,
suggest that variations in labor requirements and total costs of operation are dependent
largely on physical complexities of the plant layout and equipment employed, as well
as the skill and inclination of labor. Development and evaluation of the foregoing
statistics, together with observations of waste systems operation at these plants,
further emphasize the diverse characteristics of these institutions and their respective
waste systems.
The evaluation of these institutional waste systems was based on observations over
a continuing period of several months. These observations were concluded with
the preparation of a numerical rating on operational efficiency of the individual
systems related to the environmental factors of sanitation, safety, security and
esthetics. Detailed ratings of the individual hospital waste systems were previously
presented in the respective chapters on each project (Table identification -
"Numerical Rating of Hospital Solid Waste Systems"). In summary form, Tables IV-6,
IV-7 and IV-8 were prepared to relate the more pertinent factors in these ratings.
Table IV-6 shows the weighted deficiency rating of the total waste system operation
as related to the four environmental factors.
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-4 DAILY LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEMS OPERATION (Man-Minutes per Bed Patient)
System Component
Unit System
Inter-Unit System
Inter-Building System
Off- Site System
TOTAL SYSTEM
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
Man-
Min0
37
7
2
2
48
%of
Total
77.2
14.4
4.2
4.2
100.0
Long Beach
General
Hospital
Man-
Min.
28
-
3
*0
31
%of
Total
90.4
-
9.6
0
100.0
Harbor
General
Hospital
Man-
Min.
54
4
2
2
62
%of
Total
87.1
6.5
3.2
3.2
100.0
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
Man-
Mi n.
28
1
2
TR
31
%of
Total
91.0
3.0
6.0
TR
100.0
John
Wesley
Hospital
Man-
Min.
58
4
3
*0
65
%of
Total
89.3
6.1
4.6
0
100.0
Olive
View
Hospital
Man-
Min.
53
2
4
TR
59
%of
Total
89.8
3.4
6.8
TR
100.0
Mira
Lorn a
Hospital
Man-
Min.
39
11
2
*0
52
%of
Total
75.0
21.2
3.8
0
100.0
*Contract Services
-------
Comparisons of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-5 ANNUAL, DAILY AND UNIT OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY OF WASTES PRODUCED:
Disposables (Tons/Day)
Reusables (Tons/Day)
Total Waste (Tons/Day)
COST OF SYSTEM OPERATION:
Annual
Daily
AVERAGE DAILY COST PER TON:
Disposables
Reusables
Total Wastes
AVERAGE DAILY COST/BED PATIENT
Disposables
Reusables
Total Wastes
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
11.60
27.25
38.85
$2,396,850
$ 6,566
$ 305
$ 110
$ 170
$ 1.76
$ 1.49
$ 3.25
.ong Beach
General
Hospital
0.55
2,57
3.12
$223,600
$ 612
$ 325
$ 168
$ 197
$ 0.58
$ 1.44
$ 2.02
Harbor
General
Hospital
4.53
8.00
12.53
$777,435
$ 2,130
$ 327
$ 82
$ 170
$ 2.73
$ 1.21
$ 3.94
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
2.77
10.26
13.03
$656,340
$ 1,798
$ 364
$ 77
$ 138
$ 1,09
$ .85
$ 1.94
John
Wesley
Hospital
0.68
1.85
2.53
$296,582
$ 813
$ 664
$ 195
$ 321
$ 2.65
$ 2.13
$ 4.78
Olive
View
Hospital
2.19
4.06
6.25
$750,585
$ 2,056
$ 516
$ 229
$ 329
$ 2.02
$ 1.65
$ 3.67
Mira
Loma
Hospital
0.37
0.86
1.23
$175,200
$ 480
$ 551
$ 322
$ 390
$ 1.42
$ 1.91
$ 3.33
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-6 PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL RATING OF SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
Environmental Factor
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Weighted Avg.
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
63
50
59
57
58
Long Beach
General
Hospital
25
24
24
28
25
Harbor
General
Hospital
40
37
27
42
37
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
14
16
19
26
20
John
Wesley
Hospital
31
25
18
26
26
Olive
View
Hospital
40
33
34
35
36
Mira
Lorn a
Hospital
27
25
32
35
29
>
o
n
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
Table IV-7 expresses these ratings in percentage of deficiencies within sub-system or
system components and functions within the components. Weighted average deficiencies
as shown in Tables IV-6 and IV-7 are composite deficiency ratings calculated from the
numerical rating Tables presented in Chapters II-VI1I (Volume II). For example, in the
case of the LAC-USC Medical Center, the percentage deficiencies of the environ-
mental factors, as shown in Table IV-6, were calculated from Table 11-18 (page 11-53,
Volume II) as follows:
Sanitation 1050/1675 = 63%
Safety 544/1080 = 50%
Security 546/925 - 59%
Esthetics 364/620 = 57%
Weighted Avg. 2504/4300 = 58%
The percentage deficiencies of sub-system functions as shown in Table IV-7 were calcu-
lated in a similar manner. For example, referring again to Table 11-18 (Volume II),
total deficiencies of the Unit system were calculated as follows:
Initial Deposit 217/415 = 52.3%
Initial Transfer 212/440 - 50.5%
Initial Storage,
Proc. & Disposal 267/430 = 62 „ 1 %
Weighted Avg. 696/1265 - 55.0%
Table IV-8 illustrates the rated deficiencies in handling individual wastes at each
hospital and also shows the relationship of individual waste quantities produced, as
well as labor requirements of each within the systems.
By review of the descriptions of the solid waste systems (individual project reports), it
is indicated that on-site handling of wastes is largely done by manual methods. The
rating of on-site handling is therefore basically an assessment of the capabilities of labor
in movement of the various types of wastes, the preparation of these materials and the
conditions of storage facilities,, These evaluations were based on prevailing practices
observed at each facility during the observation period, and in accordance with the
evaluation procedures outlined in the introductory section of this report,, In close
review of the numerical ratings of each hospital waste system, major deficiencies
are found to generally prevail in storage functions, vertical transfer, inter-building
transfer and off-site disposal, all of which are associated with the principal disposable
wastes (sharps, rubbish, non-combustibles) as well as on-site handling of linen.
Recommendations for upgrading these systems (Volume 111) will consider these broad
needs as well as specific deficiencies within the respective systems of each facility.
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-7 PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES OF SUB-SYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Sub-System and Function
UNIT SYSTEM:
Initial Deposit
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM:
Vertical Transfer
Intermediate Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-BUILDING SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Proc. or Disp.
Weighted Average
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
External Transfer
Final Proc. or Disp.
Weighted Average
TOTAL SYSTEM
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
52.3
50.5
62.1
55.0
41.2
62.2
52.0
54.9
74.8
67.4
68.0
23.3
71.8
60.0
58.0
Long Beach
General
Hospital
38.1
27.6
43.0
36.0
-
-
-
19.4
39.4
.5
19.0
11.3
45.1
37.0
25.0
Harbor
General
Hospital
50.8
47.6
33.3
44.0
38.8
25.6
32.0
37.7
54.8
2.7
31.0
14.9
45.1
38.0
37.0
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
20.7
6.2
37.9
22.0
-
35.5
19.0
16.3
8.3
-0-
8.0
6.2
35.6
28.0
20.0
John
Wesley
Hospital
31.8
27.9
30.2
30.0
36.6
11.8
24.0
24.6
35.1
4.1
21.0
6.2
34.9
28.0
26.0
Olive
View
Hospital
47.0
35.0
35.3
39.0
-
64.5
34.0
27.1
13.2
-0-
13.0
16.0
69.5
56.0
36.0
Mira
Loma
Hospital
37.3
20.5
51.6
37.0
-
25.4
13.0
22.3
39.3
2.5
21.0
10.5
49.2
40.0
29.0
CD
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-8 RELATIONSHIP OF WASTE PRODUCTION, LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES BY INDIVIDUAL WASTES
Type of Woste
Shorps, Needles, Etc.
Path. & Surgical
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
Non-Combustibles
Garbage ( Non-Grindoble)
Food Service Items
•Radiological
Food Waste (Grindoble)
TOTAL SYSTEM
Disposable Waste
Reusable Waste '
LAC -USC
Medical Center
%of
Prod.
.1
1.3
58.6
20.9
TR
1.8
2.3
11.6
TR
3.4
100.0
29.8
70.2
%of
Labor
6.1
.4
19.3
37.9
5.2
6.2
2.9
20.2
.1
1.7
100.0
55.3
44.7
%
Def.
76
81
54
58
8
50
59
38
-
-
58
69
37
Long Beach General
Hospital
%of
Prod.
.1
TR
59.9
8.7
TR
1.2
2.4
22.4
-
5.3
100.0
17.7
82.3
%of
Labor
1.7
.3
41.5
8.6
1.6
2.2
3.2
30.4
-
10.5
100.0
26.5
73.5
%
Def.
44
9
27
29
8
29
24
8
-
-
25
28
17
Harbor General
Hospital
%of
Prod.
.1
1.5
54.2
26.2
TR
2.0
2.6
9.6
- TR
3.8
100.0
36.2
63.8
%of
Labor
1.2
2.6
20.3'
55.3
1.0
3.4
1.9
12.4
.5
1.4
100.0
66.3
33.7
%
Def.
63
11
41
43
8
42
35
23
-
-
37
41
27
Rancho Los Amigos
Hospital
%of
Prod.
.2
.1
62.6
10.6
TR
2.9
3.3
16.1
TR
4.2
100.0
21.3
78.7
%of
Labor
3.0
.5
33.8
42.8
1.6
2.3
2.1
11.8
TR
2.1
100.0
52.8
47.2
%
Def.
16
15
22
35
9
22
24
10
-
-
20
22
15
John Wesley
Hospital
%of
Prod.
.2
2.4
57.4
14.1
TR
2.6
3.2
15.8
-
4.2
100.0
26.8
73.2
%of
Labor
8.9
4.5
15.2
29.4
2.2
7.7
2.7
27.8
-
1.6
100.0
54.8
45.2
% f
Def.
49
13
31
21
42
31
19
13
-
-
26
29
19
Olive View
Hospital
%of
Prod.*
.2
.3
45.1
13.6
TR
2.2
3.7
20.0
-TR
14.9
100.0
34.9
65.1
%of
Labor
1.1
.4
28.5
45.8
.7
.7
1.5
17.3
.1
3.9
100.0
53.5
46.5
%
Def.
53
35
35
39
16
41
32
7
-
-
36
42-
23
Mira Loma
Hospital
%of
Prod.
.1
TR
45.6
14.8
TR
4.4
4.5
24.4
-
6.2
100.0
30.0
70.0
%of
Labor
2.4
.8
42.2
23.9
4.4
2.4
6.0
14.3
-
3.6
100.0
39.1
60.9
%
Def.
39
34
26
20
14
37
28
18
-
-
29
33
21
*Not Included in Numerical Rating
<
CO
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN DETENTION FACILITIES
Investigations of solid waste systems in County detention facilities, as reported in
Chapters VIII and IX (Volume II) and summarized herein, were conducted during
the early months of 1969 to observe the physical characteristics of the plants and
develop data on the solid waste systems. Institutions investigated included the
Mira Loma Rehabilitation and Detention Facility, Central Jail, Sybil Brand Institute,
San Fernando Valley Juvenile Hall and the Hall of Justice.
Considerable variations exist in function, size, population and types of inmates at
these institutions. Table 1V-9 provides a comparison of the varying physical charac-
teristics of these institutions. Considerable variations were also found in the rate of
waste production. However, types of wastes produced, and methods and practices
employed in their respective solid waste systems, were very similar. Table IV-10
shows the comparison of total waste production by individual types of wastes and
relates this production to building area and various population factors. By compar-
ison with Table IV-2 (page IV-5), it will be noted, that as in hospitals, per capita
unit production related to equivalent population shows a lessor variation in the
range of production. It also suggests that for estimating and analysis of waste
production quantities, this per capita factor may be more reliable and meaningful
than use of other factors.
Functions of the Unit System are confined to individual cell block, dormitory and
departmental activities generally performed by inmate occupants or work details.
Observations of these in-plant housekeeping functions were of limited nature and
not considered significant to this study. Detailed observations were generally
confined to the Inter-Unit or Inter-Building and Off-Site systems.
The three basic categories of wastes found in these detention facilities (soiled linen,
garbage and rubbish) are each handled in separate channels. Descriptions of the
separate solid waste systems at each of these institutions, presented in Volume II
and Appendix B herein, detail the system activities. Although the operation of
these systems in detention facilities relies heavily on labor, it cannot be classi-
fied as the principal cost factor, as in conventional systems in other types
of buildings. In fact, by comparison to other types of buildings, cost
-------
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-9 DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF DETENTION FACILITIES
O
m
No. of Buildings
Range of Story Heights
Building Area (Sq0 Ft_)
Inmate Capacity
Jail Personnel
Total Population^
(2)
Equivalent Population
Ratio Inmates to Equiv0 Pop.
Type Inmate
Mira
Loma
40
1
268,900
533
158
691
571
93%
Adult (M)
Central
Jail
1
2-6
750,000
3,000
500
3,500
3,120
96%
Adult (M)
Sybil Brand
Institute
6
2-4
230,340
836
166
1,002
876
95%
Adult (F)
San Fernando
Juvenile Hall
18
1 &2
208,700
515
233
748
570
91%
Juvenile
(F &M)
Hall of
Justice
1
12-14
539,000
2,900
217
3,117
2,952
98%
Adult (M)
(1) Gross Population Includes all Employees and Inmates
(2) Equivalent Population Includes Average No0 Employees and Inmates Present Each Shift
24 Hours/Day, 7
-------
o
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-10 BREAKDOWN OF DAILY WASTE PRODUCTION (LBS./DAY) BY TYPES OF WASTE
REUSABLE WASTE:
Soiled Linen
DISPOSABLE WASTES:
Rubbish
Garbage
TOTAL WASTES
Lbs./MSFof Bldg. Area
Lbs. /Inmate
Lbs ./Person ^)
Lbs ./Capita (2)
TOTAL DISPOSABLES
Lbs./MSFof Bldg. Area
Lbs. /Inmate
Lbs. /Person (])
Lbs ./Capita (2)
TOTAL REUSABLES
Lbs./MSFof Bldg. Area
Lbs./lnmate
Lbs. /Person 0)
/O\
. Lbs ./Capita I2)
Mira
Loma
2,174
810
1,140
4,124
15.3
7.7
5.9
7.2
1,950
7.2
3.6
2.8
3.4
2,174
8.1
4.1
3.1
3.8
Central
Jail
12,000
4,200
7,420
23,620
31.5
7.9
6.7
7.6
11,620
15.5
3.9
3.3
3.7
12,000
16.0
4.0
3.4
3.9
Sybil Brand
1 nsti tute
1,756
1,217
1,367
4,340
18.8
5.2
3.4
4.9
2,584
11.2
3.1
1.6
2.9
1,756
7.6
2.1
1.8
2.0
San Fernando
Juvenile Hall
895
1,360
1,300
3,555
17.0
6.8
4.7
6.3
2,660
12.7
5.1
3.5
4.7
895
4.3
1.7
1.2
1.6
Hall of
Justice
7,000
3,036
4,000
14,036
26.0
4.8
4.5
4.8
7,036
13.0
2.4
2.3
2.4
7,000
13.0
2.4
2.2
2.4
Range
Prod. (3)
106%
65%
97%
58%
115%
113%
119%
96%
272%
153%
183%
144%
(1) Based on Gross Population Including Total Inmates and Employees
(2) Equivalent Population is Average Shift Population Present 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week
(3) Range in Production Over Lowest Production Factor
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV"18
elements of detention facility systems are insignificant. Table IV-11 was prepared to
illustrate identifiable cost elements in the respective systems. In general, these
consist of contract services providing storage bins, collection, hauling and off-site
disposal at landfills. With the exception of the Hall of Justice where the County
Department of Building Services assists in the Inter-Unit system, no other labor costs
are acknowledged. Relating total identifiable costs to waste quantities indicates a
modest range of about $0.01 to $0.02 per pound is incurred in the operation of the
waste systems.
The evaluations of these detention facility waste systems were based on observations
over a continuing period of several weeks. These observations were concluded with
the preparation of a numerical rating on operational efficiency of the individual
systems related to the environmental factors of sanitation, safety, security and
esthetics. Detailed ratings of these systems are presented in Volume II and
Appendix C herein. Summaries of these ratings have been prepared showing
percentage deficiencies within the systems operation, as illustrated in Tables IV-12
and IV-13.
Table IV-12 expresses these ratings in percentage deficiencies within the system
components and functions and shows the weighted deficiency rating related to the
four environmental factors. Table IV-13 illustrates the rated deficiencies in
handling individual wastes at each institution and the significance of quantities
of each material.
These ratings, as in the case of hospital system ratings, were largely an assessment
of the capabilities of labor in the movement of waste materials, the preparation of
these materials and conditions of storage facilities. These evaluations were based
on prevailing practices observed at each facility during the observation period in
accordance with evaluation procedures outlined in the introductory section of this
report. Review of the ratings indicate principal deficiencies generally prevail in
central storage and off-site disposal associated with the rubbish system.
-------
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-11 CONTRACT SERVICES FOR COUNTY DETENTION FACILITIES
CONTAINERS FURNISHED:
No.
Type
Size
COST OF SERVICES:
Monthly
Daily
Type of Wastes Received
Tons of Waste Per Day
Cost per Cubic Yard
Cost per Ton
Mira
Loma
13
Comm. Bins
3CY
$351.00
$ 11.70
Gar. & Rub.
1.0
$ 0.30
$ 11.70
Central
Jail
10
Comm. Bins
4CY
$342.00
$ 11.40
Rubbish
2.1
$ 0.29
$ 5.45
Sybil Brand
Institute
5
Comm. Bins
3 CY
$150.00
$ 5.00
Gar. & Rub.
1.3
$ 0.33
$ 3.75
*San Fernando
Juvenile Hall
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
Hall of
Justice
12
Comm. Bins
3CY
$336.00
$ 11.25
Rubbish
1.5
$ 0.31
$ 7.50
Note: Contract Services Include Furnishing Bins, Collection 6 Days/Week and Disposal by Landfill
*San Fernando Juvenile Hall - Open Storage of Rubbish on Loading Dock is Collected by
Olive View Hospital Packer Truck
-------
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-12 PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES IN SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
o
Sub-System and Functions
INTER-UNIT OR BUILDING SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Total
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR RATING:
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Mira
Loma
32
61
8
36
7
40
26
32
16
27
41
40
Central
Jail
29
31
-
20
21
47
36
27
25
21
30
32
Sybil Brand
Institute
25
44
8
26
9
32
22
24
15
20
30
30
San Fernando
Juvenile Hall
22
49
-
24
24
47
37
30
22
25
29
41
Hall of
Justice
29
70
-
34
21
54
40
37
28
27
45
45
-------
Comparison of Detention Facility Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-13 RELATIONSHIP OF WASTE PRODUCTION AND SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Type of Waste
REUSABLE WASTE:
Soiled Linen
DISPOSABLE WASTES:
Rubbish
Garbage
TOTAL WASTES
Mira
Loma
%of
Prod.
52.7
19.6
27.7
100.0
%
Def.
14.0
47.0
33.0
32.0
Central
Jail
%of
Prod.
50 ,8
17.7
31.5
100.0
%
Def.
26.0
34.0
21.0
27.0
Sybi 1 Brand
Institute
%of
Prod.
40.5
28.0
31.5
100.0
%
Def.
14.0
36.0
22.0
24.0
San Fernando
Juvenile Hall
%of
Prod.
25.2
38.3
36.5
100.0
%
Def.
24.0
42.0
24.0
30.0
Hall of
Justice
%of
Prod.
49.9
21.6
28.5
100.0
%
Def.
31.0
43.0
37.0
37.0
o
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS IN COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS
Investigations of the solid waste systems in County office buildings, as reported in detail
in Chapter X (Volume II), were conducted during December, 1968, and early months
of 1969 to observe the physical characteristics of these buildings and develop data on
the solid waste systems. Buildings investigated included the Hall of Records, Hall of
Administration, County Courthouse and the County Engineers Building.
It may be summarized that these buildings, though varying in both function and size,
are similar insofar as solid waste management is concerned, with the County Department
of Building Services handling this function at each building. Similarity of in-building
handling and storage methods prevails, as well as the similarity and range of contract
services received at each facility. The descriptions of office building solid waste
systems, presented in Volume II and Appendix D herein, detail these activities.
Tables IV-14 and IV-15 were prepared to illustrate other comparisons made of the
waste systems operation „
Table IV-14 shows certain building characteristics, as well as average daily waste
production and estimated operating costs of the systems calculated during the
observation period. Production related to building areas shows an overall average
of 2.8 pounds per MSF (thousand square feet) of building area is experienced in
these buildings, with the County Engineers Building showing a substantially higher
production at 4.9 Ibs./MSF- This higher rate was due to a large volume of blueprints
being handled, which is not uncommon at this building. Costs of operation of these
systems can be related to an average cost per ton at about $350, in a range of costs
from $312 to $504 per ton. As in hospitals, labor was found to be the most significant
cost factor in systems operation. Distribution of system costs reflects an average of
about 88% in labor, 3% in contract services and 9% in building, equipment and
accessories. Distribution of these costs to the system components shows an average
of 83% expended in floor activities (the Unit system), 14% in between-floor handling
(the Inter-Unit system), and 3% in the off-site system.
The evaluations of these office building waste systems were based on observations
over a continuing period of several weeks. These observations were concluded
with the preparation of a numerical rating on operational efficiency or
deficiency of the individual systems related to the environmental factors of
-------
VOL. I
CHAP.IV
IV-23
Comparison of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV-14 WASTE PRODUCTION AND COSTS OF OPERATION
Building Area (Sq. Ft.)
No. of Floors
Daily Waste Production (Lbs.)
Daily Production (Lbs./MSF of
Bldg. Area)
Annual Operating Costs
Avg. Daily Costs
Cost per Ton
Cost per Lb.
Distribution of Costs
Building & Equip.
Contract Services
Labor
Total
Distribution of Costs
Unit System
Inter-Unit System
Off-Site System
Total
Hall of
Records
404,000
17
1,000
2.5
$ 65,385
$ 252
$ 504
$ 0.25
7.9%
2.2%
89.9%
100.0%
82.2%
15.6%
2.2%
100.0%
Hall of
Administration
1,000,000
10
2,560
2.6
$ 103,708
$ 399
$ 312
$ 0.16
10.1%
3.5%
86.4%
100.0%
84.0%
12.5%
3.5%
100.0%
County
Courthouse
660,000
9
1,750
2.6
$70,617
$ 273
$ 312
$ 0.16
8.6%
2.4%
89.0%
100.0%
82.0%
15.6%
2.4%
100.0%
County
Engineers
171,000
11
840
4.9
$42,717
165
$ 393
$ 0.20
9.2%
2.5%
88.3%
100.0%
89.4%
8.1%
2.5%
100.0%
-------
VOL. i ,:
CHAP. IV IV-24
sanitation, safety, security and esthetics. Detailed ratings of these systems are
presented in Volume II and Appendix E herein„ Summaries of these ratings have
been prepared showing percentage deficiencies in the systems components and
functions and the weighted deficiency rating related to the four environmental
factors, as illustrated in Table IV-15.
These ratings, as in the case of hospital system ratings, were largely an assessment
of the capabilities of labor in the movement of waste materials, the preparation of
these materials and conditions of storage facilities. These evaluations were based
on prevailing practices observed at each facility during the observation period,
in accordance with evaluation procedures outlined in the introductory section of
this report.
Due to the uniform and relatively inoffensive nature of the waste materials handled,
as well as the advantages of a single waste channel handling all waste materials,
complexity in these waste systems is minimized. Satisfactory operation is limited
only by the capability of plant facilities provided and accessory equipment used,
as well as the skill and inclination of labor. By and large, labor performs
effectively within these systems using very simple equipment,, Custodial crews
in office buildings, as opposed to hospitals, have the added advantage of working
in unoccupied buildings in off-peak hours where productivity and supervision of
labor can be satisfactorily controlled. The most significant deficiencies in these
systems are in the functions of central storage and off-site disposal. Due to the
nature of waste materials, system sanitation does not pose the severe problem as
found in hospitals; however, conditions affecting safety, security and esthetics
are of major significance.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV
IV-25
Comparison of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
TABLE IV--15 PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES IN SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
UNIT SYSTEM:
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Stor., Proc., Disposal
Total
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Total
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
External Transfer
Final Processing or Disposal
Total
TOTAL SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR RATING:
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Hall of
Records
22
17
38
28
22
31
-
21
17
71
55
31
20
27
36
43
Hall of
Administration
22
17
38
28
37
71
-
43
17
71
55
41
20
39
63
43
County
Courthouse
22
17
47
32
35
40
-
29
27
71
58
37
20
38
43
48
County
Engineers
22
17
25
22
22
93
-
47
17
71
55
42
20
47
51
48
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-26
SUMMARY
In the course of this study, certain pioneering has been undertaken in the identi-
fication of building waste systems, adoption of nomenclature of sub-systems and
functions within these systems, and development of methods of evaluation of waste
system operation. These tasks were fundamental to the total study and were carried
out to the stage of development which appeared adequate for the continuing phases
of the study to progress. Hopefully, these preliminary efforts to develop standard
terminology may be refined for practical application in the industry as may later
be required,. However, for purposes of this study, application of these basic
principles have aided in the determination of requirements of the solid waste
systems, provided the yardstick for measuring the efficiency or deficiency of
systems operation, and provided a means of conveying these findings to the
reader»
These findings have emphasized the prevailing problems of solid waste management
and systems operation common in those local projects investigated, as well as
common in other public and private facilities observed in other areas of the
country.
Prevailing Problems in Solid Waste Management in Buildings:
Probably the most important problem within solid waste management in complex
buildings is lack of knowledge or awareness of an identifiable and indispensable
system, what it costs to operate and a method of measuring its effectiveness. In
most cases, there is an established policy on handling waste materials but in
practice the actual operation of the waste system rarely corresponds to that policy.
Until recently, the total solid waste system as such within buildings has been
ignored and is not yet commonly recognized or even easily identifiable. Little
research has been carried out to explore the in-building problems associated
with solid wastes. These waste materials have been looked upon as a by-product
of our activities, of little significance, just something to "get-rid-of", with little
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-27
real concern how that may be accomplished; when, in fact in a way, waste is the
end material product of our activities. This can best be comprehended when we
realize the simple fact that sooner or later nearly all material products are converted
to waste. In the case of consumable supplies, our principal daily source of wastes,
this conversion is represented by a constant daily flow of waste materials. With
this in mind, the basic concept of solid waste for this study was based on the
principle that the ma|ority of materials entering an institutional building and
distributed for use are converted to wastes in a continuing flow, with all solid
wastes cycled out in a reverse pattern from distribution of new supplies. This
concept also applies to those reusable items that may be cycled out after use for
either on-site or off-site reprocessing.
Certain variations of this concept occur, dependent on the building type and
functions, such as hospitals where certain biological wastes may be generated
within the institution, and office buildings where many of the supplies when
processed are dispatched to an ultimate off-site receiver.
Recent emphasis on the environmental effect of solid wastes, both in-plant and to
the community at large, has brought to the surface many problems heretofore ignored
or unrecognized. Progress in building design, accompanied by the increase of
multistory complexes and higher density of land use, as well as increasing per
capita rates of waste production, have tended to create large concentrations of
solid wastes at limited accumulation points in building service areas where
access for removal is limited. These conditions have further emphasized the
material handling problems associated with the in-building movement of solid
waste materials, on-site storage and disposal or off-site transfer for disposal.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV~28
Causes of Problems:
Prior to the current era of growing awareness of the solid waste problem in buildings,
design consideration for handling waste materials has, at best, largely been limited
to the location of conventional waste chutes and storage rooms, even in the more
sophisticated building designs, primarily because this was the only equipment and
method available. Consequently, the problems that exist in these buildings today
are inherent to design.
It can be recognized that manually working a conventional solid waste system may
be a distasteful and dirty job. This will be a certainty without direct policies and
standards of operation coupled with conscientious working supervisors and trained
crew members to produce the desired standards.
Reasonable standards of operation can be expected where building maintenance
activities can be performed in off-peak hours or when buildings are vacant, such
as the services prevailing in office buildings. By contrast, performance of these
activities in hospitals coincides with peak activities of other functions during
the first shift operation. Depending on the complexities of plant layout and
traffic congestion, close surveillance and supervision of operation of the solid
waste system within reasonable economic limits is unlikely, and reasonable
standards of operation are difficult to maintain consistently. This substandard
operation, though directly the failure of labor to perform a satisfactory job, can be
traced further to the inadequacies of system design to meet present day requirements.
Required Development of Remedial Measures:
Generally, the standards of performance of manual tasks in connection with
collection and storage of wastes in the Unit System are at present totally
dependent on policies and housekeeping practices and are not likely to be
remedied through mechanization. However, within present day technology, it
would appear that substantial mechanization of the balance of the system is
feasible and that solutions to the more critical problems will ultimately be
in the design of buildings. A coordinated and massive attack by architects
and engineers, coupled with firm operating and administrative policy of
building management, may well be what it takes to stimulate these solutions.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-29
These solutions, through design, may be accelerated through recognition of the
overall effect of operation of inadequate systems, both from environmental and
economic aspects.
Further tightening of codes and regulations that recognize and control environ-
mental problems of the community and building occupants can be expected when
the effects of solid waste system operation are positively related to existing environ-
mental hazards.
The investor (developer, owner or operator) must be made aware of the economic
benefits that may result from the mechanized system. Cost studies of mechanized
systems will, of course, reveal that initial capital investment requirements will
far exceed the cost of conventional systems. However, development of complete
cost data showing comparisons of total annual costs (capital and operating expenses)
and the economic feasibility of the mechanized system opposed to the conventional
system may provide the investment incentive to expand the construction budget.
The solid waste system must be popularly recognized as a requisite mechanical
equipment component in building design and given early consideration in the
preliminary design stages (the same consideration given to plumbing, air
conditioning, heating, ventilating, etc.) in order to integrate another
vital function in an orderly manner. With complex building layouts providing
high density occupancy and correspondingly, high rates of waste production,
periodic consultations with specialists in the fields of industrial engineering,
materials handling engineering and solid waste management may be desirable
and beneficial from the preliminary design stage throughout the design process.
Design consideration should also be given to multiple purpose material handling
systems to handle both new supplies and waste materials.
In short, the problems must be solved in the same manner as industry mechanized
production lines several decades ago.
It is vital that design standards be developed for solid waste systems in various
types of buildings. These standards should be adequate not only for present
levels of waste production but must also consider present trends affecting
increases in rates of waste production for certain types of buildings.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-30
System design must provide flexibility for modification and expansion to meet potentially
large increases in waste production which are likely to result from the adoption of
single-use disposables, as well as the natural increase of wastes being experienced
annually. As indicated in the hospital studies, conversion from reusable to disposable
linen may increase the loadings of disposable wastes from 100% to 200% on the
relatively short notice of an administrative decision. This increase in most cases
would not affect the in-building handling materially; however, would likely over-
burden storage and/or disposal facilities.
With critical solid waste problems, such as these, facing architects and engineers,
as well as developers and building management, needed acceleration of solutions
in the design of systems for both buildings in the design stage and existing buildings
is obvious. However, no single source of information offering concise data on total
systems or equipment that is presently marketed is available as a guide to determining
interim solutions.
Continuing Studies:
In the course of this continuing study, a review of recognized publications providing
coverage on various aspects of solid waste management, as well as direct contact
with manufacturers, was undertaken in an effort to assemble a cross section of the
equipment that is readily available for consideration in the design of building
systems. This information is incorporated in Volume III (and summarized in
Chapter V of this volume), which defines and catalogs equipment components
and accessories by functions within the system, i.e. handling, storage, processing
and disposal. This volume also covers selected equipment in developing and
experimental stages that may prove to be adaptable to building systems at some
future date.
This equipment research, together with the inventory and evaluation of existing
solid waste systems in the local projects as summarized herein, provides the
necessary background for the continuing study on upgrading of these systems,
which is presented in its entirety in Volume IV and summarized in Chapter VI
of this volume.
In conclusion of this study, design requirements for solid waste system improvements
in a selected local project, including preliminary plans, outline specifications,
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. IV IV-31
construction costs and benefits of the system are developed.
This series of studies demonstrates the need for greater emphasis on solid waste
management in buildings, the state-of-the-art in equipment development and
development of design criteria, as well as the potential of economic and
environmental benefits that may result from an adequate system design.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. V RESEARCH ON SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Organization of Material V-l
HANDLING METHODS V-3
STORAGE METHODS V-7
PROCESSING METHODS V-10
FINAL PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHODS V-12
SUMMARY V-l 5
LIST OF FIGURES
V-l Supply-Waste Cycle in a Typical Multistory Building Complex V-4
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. V RESEARCH ON SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT V-l
An integral and vital division of this study has been the research and investigation of
equipment in the developmental stage and currently available for use in solid waste
systems in buildings. This investigation was concluded with the compilation of a
report incorporating descriptions and illustrations of the individual equipment
components. Obviously, due to the nature of this type report, a meaningful
summary is not feasible and the reader is referred to the complete volume (Volume III)
for specific data on the various types of equipment cataloged. To apprise the reader
of the arrangement of material in this volume, the following sections describe the
contents and generally summarize observations made during the course of this study.
Organization of Material:
In the early stages of this investigation, it was anticipated that classifications and
definitions of the various types of equipment encountered were requisite to the study
both for the readers' benefit and as a working tool in preparation of the report.
The major classifications or divisions of equipment were limited to correspond to
the four basic functions of the waste system, i.e. handling, storage, processing
and disposal.
The sections of Volume III devoted to the narrative review of this equipment also
follow these classifications. In the review of equipment, every effort was made to
describe representative makes of equipment and such descriptions are included for
general informational purposes only. In support of this equipment review within
each major classification, referenced appendices were prepared, identifying
(sub-classification) by name and definition, the individual equipment components
and accessories. Separate appendices (Product Lists) were also prepared, listing
these equipment components alphabetically and identifying respective manu-
facturers and known trade names. To complete the appendices in Volume III in
support of this equipment review, a master alphabetical index of these manufacturers
was prepared.
The listing of manufacturers of various products as identified in Volume III is only
partial. To identify every manufacturer producing equipment related to the subject
appeared neither practicable considering the time limitations imposed, nor neces-
sarily useful for purposes of this report. There are many lists published covering
specific types of equipment, such as those to be found in Material Handling
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-2
Engineering Handbook & Directory; Solid Wastes Management Sanitation Industry
Yearbook; Guide Issue, Journal of the American Hospital Association, as well as
many other sources. In general, product listings were restricted to those items
which were seen at trade shows, inspected in operation, or on which descriptive
printed matter was reviewed. Numerous equipment manufacturers failed to respond
to inquiries and hence are not included.
During the course of this investigation, voluminous project records, consisting of
equipment catalog files, inspection reports and correspondence with numerous
manufacturers, were developed. The written review as presented in Volume III
in a sense represents only a summary of the total activities undertaken.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-3
HANDLING METHODS
The major task and cost in the operation of solid waste systems is the movement of
waste material between the initial point of accumulation and the ultimate disposal
point. In effect, operation of solid waste systems is largely a material handling
function, adaptable to mechanization but predominantly performed today by
manual methods. Today's manual systems are largely "built-in" by building
design conditions. It is not uncommon to find, even in contemporary designs,
numerous interim waste storage points for the temporary deposit of wastes,
thereby breaking the cycle of movement and thus creating a number of
rehandlings of the same material before reaching the final destination point.
Today, scarcity of labor for this type of work, the trend of lower productivity
of labor, as well as rising labor rates, collectively emphasize the need for
mechanization of the more complex systems.
Unfortunately, far too much of the solid wastes, as well as supplies in institutions,
are "handled" and "rehandled" instead of being directly transported by mechanical
means. These conditions have been permitted to develop by institutional and
industrial planners and management. Institutional management, habitually
satisfied to "do it by hand", ignored the development of these plant engineering
needs, planners were not aware of these needs, and the materials handling
industry was not properly alert to a new market. The latter was apparent during
the course of this investigation when it was found that many equipment manu-
facturers were unaware of the needs in the field of solid waste handling at the
time they were first contacted. Due to this, it was equally apparent early in
the investigation that developing information on waste handling methods and
equipment would be more time-consuming and involved than would be that
required for storage, processing and disposal methods. Considerable time and
effort was made in contacting manufacturers and as a result of many otherwise
unproductive inquiries, it is indicated that some companies have been prompted
to investigate the material handling problems in solid wastes. Hopefully, new
contributions in useable equipment will be forthcoming for this field.
The apparent reluctance on the part of some manufacturers to become involved
in waste handling is somewhat understandable. In general, the subject of
materials handling has long been almost solely associated with industry.
Applications of their methods and equipment in the past have been primarily
-------
VOL. 1
CHAP. V
V-4
directed to warehousing, processing and manufacturing industries, where identical,
or at least similar, articles are handled. If the material is in bulk, it normally
has consistency in shape and other physical characteristics throughout its volume
and, hence, mechanical handling is not too difficult to develop. On the other
hand, solid wastes, especially those generated in hospitals, almost defy description.
This material lacks uniformity of size and shape. It is a non-homogeneous mix and
may be highly contaminated. Adapting a mechanical handling system to these
conditions may be highly complex.
The relationship of the movement of "clean" and "dirty" materials within a building
complex is an involved process. In effort to simplify the relationship of this process,
Figure V-l schematically shows the supply-waste cycle. This diagram is admittedly
an oversimplification but serves to emphasize the parallel course in movement of
supplies and wastes and the basic activities between the point of supply, point of
use (or conversion to waste), and ultimate point of disposal. Locations of these
activities (storage and processing) for both supplies and wastes may be and generally
are interspersed throughout the system. The point is that planned material handling
systems can minimize the interim storage needs and permit efficient direct and
uninterrupted flow of both materials.
FIGURE V-l
SUPPLY-WASTE CYCLE IN A TYPICAL MULTISTORY BUILDING COMPLEX
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V
It is essential that the reader be made aware of the current state-of-the-art as it
applies to solid waste handling. Considering the existing need, it is inadequate.
While some advancement is being made, these efforts range from meager to sophis-
ticated. However, if one thinks of general materials handling, as opposed to the
handling of solid wastes, then giant strides have been made. Electronically
controlled, fully automated supply systems are available, but they are neither
presently suitable for specialized use in handling solid wastes nor economically
feasible for this purpose alone. Types of equipment, such as overhead chain
conveyors, horizontal or inclined belt conveyors, or perhaps long roller conveyors
as used in industry, do not at first glance seem to be applicable to the problems
encountered in solid waste handling. Although perhaps not directly useable, it is
possible that these basic methods of moving materials might be modified to meet
the needs under study.
With few exceptions, little has been seen which could be described as complete
solid waste handling systems. There are hundreds of different pieces of equipment
designed and produced to handle or transport material items. These individually
are considered in this report as equipment components and not systems. Most of
the installations seen have consisted of a number of components rather than a
complete integrated system.
The most elementary and, at the present time, the most widely used class of
horizontal transport devices in use for the horizontal transport of solid v/astes in
institutions is the hand-pushed cart. This indispensable piece of equipment comes
in many shapes and styles; is available in metal, fiber and plastic; and of standard
or special designs. Carts are available from simple open-top canvas hampers to
specially designed stainless steel bodies. A very wide range of types of conveyors,
including roller, belt, chain, monorail and pneumatic tube, plus many varieties
of these principal classifications, may also be considered in the general class of
horizontal transport equipment. For off-site operations and for some possible
on-site transport requirements, special types of collection vehicles or mobile
packers or transfer trailers may be employed.
Gravity and vacuum chutes alone are the only equipment items specifically designed
and commonly used for the vertical transport of wastes. The principal forms of
multipurpose vertical transport are elevators, dumbwaiters or specially designed
lift systems, which will accommodate only carriers or transporters of a special
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-6
type and handle all types of material. Controls may be manual, i.e. they can be
summoned or dispatched by push buttons or they may be automated to sequence with
loading from or unloading to horizontal conveyors.
Some devices, such as pneumatic tubes, gravity chutes, certain types of conveyors,
and other equipment, provide multiple functions,. They not only transport materials
but may be used to load or discharge bulk or containerized items, and may incor-
porate interim storage or holding stations for en route materials. These may be
complete horizontal and vertical transport systems designed and installed by one
manufacturer or they may be combinations of loading devices, horizontal and
vertical conveyors and discharging equipment of different manufacture, which
have been combined into an integrated system.
Such devices as blowers or suction fans, cyclonic separators, pneumatic tubes,
various types of conveyors, vertical lifts, pipelines for slurries, and other equipment
can be arranged to operate as an integrated handling system. Some of the most
interesting general materials handling systems observed have been examples of good
engineering and the apparent successful "marriage" of components made by different
manufacturers.
The most sophisticated, fully automated systems were designed and largely built
and installed by single manufacturers. These combine horizontal and vertical
transport elements, using special track, transporters, modules and electronic
controls. Units can be summoned and dispatched from control panels and operated
within the system, unattended.
The review of handling equipment as contained in Volume 111 covers the limited
field of specialized equipment for handling solid wastes as well as certain general
materials handling equipment and accessories considered to be adaptable for possible
use in solid waste systems.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP.vy-T
STORAGE METHODS
Storage of wastes for purposes of this report has been previously defined as the interim
containment of accumulated materials in either loose, compacted or other processed
form prior to subsequent handling, processing or disposal.
Storage as related to solid wastes further includes required facilities for the contain-
ment of both reusable materials (such as soiled linens) and disposable wastes. However,
this section of the study is primarily concerned with the problems associated with
disposables. Characteristics of these materials subject to storage may range from
loose, mixed or segregated wastes (including rubbish, food wastes, sharps, patho-
logical, and non-combustible materials) to various types of processed wastes
(including shredded, baled, compacted and pulped materials).
Containment of loose wastes may be accomplished with various types of accessories
for dry storage, such as bags, wastebaskets, barrels, bins, etc, in either its bulk
state as collected or after undergoing certain dry processes such as shredding,
pulverizing, which achieve a substantial degree in volume reduction and produce
a homogeneous end-product.
Other methods of volume reduction may be accomplished with various types of
compaction devices, such as packers and balers« These dry compaction processes
may handle both loose bulk wastes or shredded or pulverized wastes. Conventional
containment of these materials is by compaction in special bins, containers and in
some cases standard cans and paper bags. In the case of some balers, the compacted
wastes are merely strapped for open storage.
Certain reduction processes involving both grinding or shredding and compression,
together with the addition of a small amount of moisture, produce a moist homo-
geneous compacted waste in an extruded form. Storage accessories for this end-
product are similar to those for loose wastes, although the volume requirements
are considerably reduced.
The pulping process, in which loose or bagged dry wastes are greatly reduced in
particle size by grinding and shearing action in the presence of water, produces
a slurried wet waste. The liquid slurry can either be transported through pipelines
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-8
for further treatment or passed through a dewatering press0 In the latter case, the end-
product is a damp, uncompressed sludge of high moisture content and high density.
Storage requirements may be limited to barrels or special containers where larger
volumes are involved.
Storage and handling are inextricably related. The wastebasket, the simplest form
of a storage unit, must be emptied, usually into a larger receptacle, which, in turn,
is another storage unit. The emptying process and the movement of both the waste-
basket and the larger receptacle are elements of the handling process. The large
waste receptacle is moved, usually on a manually pushed cart to a terminal point
on the floor. If, when the cart reaches this destination, the accumulated and
presumably bagged waste was deposited in a chute or other handling device, no
further interim storage space need have been provided on the floor for waste accu-
mulations. What is perhaps more important, one entire handling operation would
have been eliminated.
The foregoing is not against the provision of necessary storage areas. It is in favor
of reducing the tendency in institutions to use storage areas for the avoidance of
work by some and creating work by leaving items for others to rehandle. It favors
the elimination of any unrequired operations, especially the most expensive of all,
manual tasks. Storage areas are highly essential but they should be planned in
conjunction with the actual requirements of the handling system, for both functions
are inseparable.
Waste storage facilities must include the various types of temporary storage
receptacles, such as bags, baskets, barrels, packer containers and bins, etc., but
also the properly planned storage areas, rooms or spaces in which the equipment
will be used and handled. These areas must be carefully located within individual
rooms, departments, utility stations and on the ground floor or basement service
levels as well. If stationary packers are to be used, ample horizontal and vertical
clearance must be provided to permit the movement of loading equipment. Provision
must be made for adequate cleaning and sterilizing of the waste storage areas, as
well as equipment and receptacles.
It is recognized that despite the need for the reduction of the numbers of storage
points, adequate spaces must be provided within the Unit, Inter-Unit and Inter-
-------
VOL. I
CHAP.V V-9
Building systems. No amount of desire will eliminate the necessity for properly
planned, well laid out and adequately sized storage areas within the total solid
waste system.
In planning storage areas, the volumes and compositions of the generated wastes must
be known or estimated with reasonable accuracy. The total handling concept must
be determined as well as methods of processing and disposal before the number, sizes
and locations of the storage areas and the required equipment can be determined.
The review of storage equipment as contained in Volume III covers the limited
specialized components available for the storage of wastes, as well as numerous
accessories employed for this function.
-------
VOL. I .-.
CHAP.V V-10
PROCESSING METHODS
During the course of this study, it became increasingly evident that some form of
preparation of solid wastes prior to planned disposal is desirable, and under certain
conditions is essential. Present practices in disposal operations will not suffice for
the changing composition of solid wastes. The need for some preparation of general
solid wastes prior to attempted disposal by sanitary landfill or other methods deserves
extensive and continuing investigation. Such processes as grinding or shredding
permit more material to occupy a given space than is the case with present methods
of disposal of raw untreated wastes. In addition, the decomposition of waste
materials is hastened by particle size reduction.
Dry grinding of solid wastes prior to incineration or deposit in landfills deserves
consideration but alternative methods of disposal should be studied. Reduction by
wet grinding or pulping and the creation of a readily transportable slurry constitutes
another method which deserves in-depth investigation. A variation of this method
involves dewatering of the pulped wastes into a moist sludge for easier handling
with less bulk. Although these methods may be considered as means of disposal by
the user, they are only processes or preparation of the material for subsequent
handling and ultimate disposal.
Processing, as related to this study, includes some operations which are highly
interrelated with handling, storage and disposal functions. The criteria used for
identification of processing functions is based upon physical change of the loose
raw materials. Waste processing is considered as those preparation functions, such
as bagging or encapsulating of disposables and reusables, as well as treatments to
disposables involving volume reduction through changes in size and shape, uniformity
or consistency. The degree of volume reduction and corresponding increase in density
varies with the method or combination of methods employed and the composition of
the material input. Typical processes or combinations of these processes which
precede ultimate disposal may include:
Bagging Shredding Pulverizing
Encapsulating Chipping Dewatering
Compaction Grinding Baling
Crushing Pulping Extrusion
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-ll
Probably the simplest form of processing of solid wastes is packaging. This includes
the manual separation of certain wastes and depositing the material in bags or special
containers for interim storage until the container is injected into some type of handling
system. By bagging, packaging or other encapsulating processes, conditions of the
wastes have been changed from loose to contained for greater ease in handling, as
well as improvement in sanitation.
Methods or devices which reduce the bulk of solid wastes by compression include such
items as balers, crushers and packers. Drastic changes in size, shape and consistency
by homogenizing mixed waste materials is another variation in reduction processes
employed to facilitate handling, further processing or ultimate disposal. Such equip-
ment as grinders, shredders, pulverizers, and pulpers may accomplish this initial
reduction. Further positive reduction may be accomplished by such devices as
pelletizers and extruders or dewatering presses in the case of pulped wastes.
Various combinations of equipment components for processing solid wastes are being
researched by manufacturers in efforts to develop satisfactory processing or disposal
systems. One such combination of components is a pulper having a dewatering press
and junk remover as connected processes for reduction of solid waste to a moist sludge
form for subsequent disposal in landfills or incineration. Another manufacturer
combines a grinder of the hammermill type with an extruding device which reduces
solid wastes to highly compressed, moist briquettes. Still another processing system
is one which combines a blow hog and a cyclone to combine pneumatic transport
of raw and treated materials with a reduction process. The end product is a finely
shredded, dry material prepared for incineration or other means of disposal.
The review of processing equipment as contained in Volume III covers the broad
field of specialized equipment and accessories for processing solid wastes as well as
certain equipment used in industrial processes that may be adaptable to use in waste
processing systems.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V v'12
FINAL PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL METHODS
Singularly, the most emphasized need and least developed function or activity in solid
waste management is that of disposal. Conversely, however, the greatest investment
and advances in equipment for solid waste systems occur in handling, storage and
processing functions preceding disposal. Development of satisfactory disposal processes,
free of pollution effects on the environment, has been lagging and processes are still
being researched.
Disposal is considered herein as the final treatment or combination of treatments in the
conversion of wastes to innocuous materials or useable by-products. By and large,
known disposal methods are limited to relatively few conversion processes, some in-
volving conversion by normal decomposition of materials and several processes which
involve accelerated conversion.
Conversion of waste materials may be accelerated by destructive disposal processes,
such as controlled incineration and supervised or unsupervised open burning. These
processes produce high volume reduction of solids with the end product of these processes
being a mixed residue including ash and non-combustible materials of high density, as
well as gaseous air pollutants. Conversion may also be accomplished by natural com-
posting or accelerated by means of various mechanized systems. Products of these
mechanized composting systems are a sterile organic soil and gaseous air pollutants.
The composting process in itself does not greatly reduce the volume of waste materials.
However, substantial reduction in the end product may be accomplished in conjunction
with those reclamation activities normal with composting processes and where high ratios
of salvageable materials are present. Grinding of food wastes for discharge to sewers
with ultimate processing at treatment plants and final deposit of sludge at sanitary
landfills or use as soil conditioner is popularly accepted in many areas as the best
method of disposal of garbage. In addition, other terminal processes such as wet
air oxidation, which may produce a sterile slurry or ash cake, and pyrolysis, a
destructive distillation process producing sterile charred solids, are among the
numerous newer conversion processes being explored for development.
Salvage of selected waste materials in the past has had great significance and currently
this reclamation concept is regaining popularity, although economics are not always
favorable. Among the materials of greater significance for salvage are paper, rags,
ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass and rubber. Other salvage processes such as
rendering of animal carcasses and fats for production of fertilizer, glue, soaps, etc.,
as well as salvage of food wastes for swine feeding, still prevails in many areas of
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-13
the country. Both methods generally require segregation of the wastes at the source of
generation and often require refrigerated storage. Excessive handling costs in nearly
all reclamation processes are the overriding factors in the economic feasibility of
disposal by various reclamation processes.
Disposal by sanitary landfill, open dumping and dumping at sea are the only processes
where conversion is not accelerated by man and where normal decomposition of the
organic material occurs. However, dumping of solid wastes in the sea or inland bodies
of water has in recent years been outlawed for all practical purposes. In both sanitary
landfill and open dumping methods, substantial settlement of the material occurs during
decomposition, together with production of gaseous emissions,, Open dumping, the most
common practice used in the disposal of solid wastes, has in recent years received strong
criticism from governmental agencies and the general public. The only currently accept-
able method of disposal by landfill is management of sanitary landfills adhering to accepted
standards of construction and daily maintenance. Continuing studies on sanitary landfills
are being conducted in efforts to produce land on completion of such operations that will
have a wider range of use than current experience indicates is permissible.
The above broadly indicates the total range of disposal methods currently available.
For purposes of this report, we are primarily concerned with selection of ultimate
disposal methods that are suitable for the special categories of wastes commonly gener-
ated in hospitals, office buildings and detention facilities. From the foregoing studies
covered in Volume I and II, quantities, types and characteristics of waste produced at
each of these types of facilities, together with an evaluation of present disposal methods
employed, were explored in some depth. Based upon these studies, the following
criteria in the selection of disposal methods for each building type was established.
Hospital Wastes: The evaluation of hospital solid waste systems indicated that main-
taining separate collection channels for contaminated and non-contamined wastes
cannot be practically or economically enforced in the conventional hospital facility.
Segregation of waste materials throughout the system must rely heaviiy on the human
element of judgment in the classification and distinction of these types of materials.
Generally, an intermix of materials occurs due to difficulty of identification and
the inability of the workers to make a distinction. Even intermixing of disposables
and reusables is commonplace. As a result of these observations, this study has adopted
the theory that all wastes coming off the hospital floor can be classified as contaminated
materials. It must be pointed out that such classification of hospital wastes is not
currently accepted by all authorities,, Composition of these wastes include many
salvageable materials that could prove harmful upon reclamation and reuse. Based
upon these conditions, it was concluded that on-site disposal should be preferred or
on-site processing of these materials should be accomplished to produce a sterile
homogeneous material suitable for safe off-site transport and disposal.
-------
VOL. I .,
CHAP. V V-14
Office Building Wastes; Composition of wastes generated in the office buildings studied
were neither hazardous nor objectionable when related to handling or disposal. Largely
consisting of paper with an intermix of small quantities of food wastes and non-
combustibles, these materials are generated in relatively low volumes. No restrictions
appear necessary on the disposal of materials of this type. However, in interests of
security of confidential information, as well as general building safety, consideration
should be given to first stage processing of this material such as shredding and/or
compaction or baling preceding ultimate disposal. Selection of disposal methods will
likely be limited to incineration and landfill or salvage where quantities of materials
warrant.
Detention Facilities: Disposable wastes generated in detention facilities were previously
identified as rubbish and food wastes not unlike general municipal wastes. It was found
in earlier investigations that detention facility waste systems are largely operated by
inmates and equipment in this operation is intentionally limited. It was concluded that
on-site processing or disposal involving mechanical equipment subject to the operational
abuse by inmates should be avoided and that off-site disposal would be preferred.
Nature of the waste materials present no greater hazards in disposal than in normal
municipal wastes and may satisfactorily be disposed of by conventional methods such
as landfilling or incineration.
The continuing research and investigation involved review of the various disposal
processes and the combinations of equipment components for processing solid wastes,
in efforts to identify, select and evaluate satisfactory disposal systems for the various
types of buildings under study. These concluding studies are incorporated in full in
Volume IV and summarized in Chapter VI of this volume.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V
SUMMARY ,
One of the primary objectives of this study has been the consideration of existent and
available systems for the efficient handling of the wastes generated in multistory
building complexes and hospitals, which would carry solid wastes from their many
points of origin to a place or places of ultimate processing or disposal, without human
handling or hazards to health. Despite the advanced state of development of general
materials handling equipment, tried and proven mechanical components designed
exclusively for solid waste handling are almost non-existent, with the exception of
chutes and pneumatic conveyor systems. Various types of conveyors used in industry
(such as screw conveyors, belt conveyors, chain conveyors, etc.), however, have
been adapted to certain components of waste handling and disposal systems.
Various types of processing and disposal equipment (such as compactors, balers, grinders,
pulpers, incinerators, etc.), all offering a wide range of capacities, have been developed
for solid waste systems in buildings. Continuing improvements are being made in the
evolution of this type of equipment.
Reduced space requirements can be accomplished with the use of waste reduction
devices, and building sanitation and safety can be improved with modern compactor
container storage. Interim storage points in multistory building complexes can be
minimized with the use of pneumatic conveyors whereby nearly instant removal of
wastes can be accomplished.
Substantial progress is being made in the development of individual components, but
generally the total system concept has not yet been developed and marketed that will
provide solutions to all of the many different problems in building complex systems.
A brief recapitulation'of the many problems encountered in the building types under
study and review of the varieties of equipment available further confirm this obser-
vation. This is most emphatically so where a waste system installation is considered
for existing structures. The existing layout of floor areas, assigned use and space
limitations due to existing mechanical installations impose restrictions upon a free
choice of methods and equipment presently available.
The solution to these problems in both existing buildings and those in planning stages
requires engineering design of the total system. Design of systems in existing buildings
-------
VOL. I __
CHAP. V V-.T6
generally requires the following:
1. Analysis of planned building areas and functions and future expansions.
2. Identification of types and quantities of wastes to be generated by building areas.
3. Review applicable code requirements,affecting waste handling.
4. Establish range of locally approved disposal methods.
5. Establish range of processing and disposal methods to consider.
6. Establish range of handling methods to consider.
7. Establish range of storage methods to consider.
8. Evaluate economic and environmental aspects of workable combinations of
handling, storage and processing.
In addition to the above, design of systems in buildings in the planning stage should
also consider the following:
1 o Study of general materials handling requirements (quantities apd types of new
materials at receiving, storage, processing and distribution points).
2. Evaluate merit of common conveyor system for new materials and waste materials.
The rate at which progress is being made in the development of more sophisticated
handling and disposal equipment may well make some portions of this report outdated
almost before publication. Daily, new material could be added or superseded. It must
be recognized that during any period of great technological progress, no precise time
could be totally ideal for such a study to be made and the process of updating is .a
continuing one. New handling methpds and treatment processes are being developed,
but which are, as yet, untested under working conditions. Some of the equipment
known to exist is of foreign origin and not yet installed or proven under operating
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. V V-17
conditions in the United States. Other equipment or methods, some of which have
been seen by the consultant, are still in the development or pilot plant stages and
the sponsors have placed restrictions upon disclosure of details at the present time.
In conclusion, it is strongly recommended that continuing investigations be carried
out in efforts to stay abreast of developments in this field.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. VI SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS Page No.
Organization of Material VI-1
MODIFICATION OF HOSPITAL WASTE SYSTEMS VI-2
System Criteria VI-3
Handling Requirements VI-4
Storage Requirements VI-4
Processing and Disposal Requirements VI-5
Effect on Community VI-6
Evaluation of System Modifications VI-8
Identification of Considered System Modifications VI-10
Summary VI-11
MODIFICATION OF OFFICE BUILDING WASTE SYSTEMS VI-13
System Criteria VI-13
Identification of Considered System Modifications VI-14
Evaluation of Modified Systems VI-14
Summary VI-23
LIST OF TABLES
VI-1 Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
Effect of System Modifications VI-12
VI-2 Numerical Rating of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
Systems 1 &4 VI-15
VI-3 Numerical Rating of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
System 2 VI-16
VI-4 Numerical Rating of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
SystemS VI-17
VI-5 Comparison of Office Building Project Costs VI-18
VI-6 Estimated Daily Labor Requirements and Costs of
Systems 2 and 3 VI-19
VI-7 Estimated Daily Labor Requirements and Costs of System 4 VI-20
VI-8 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Modifications VI-21
VI-9 Comparison of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
Effect of System Modifications VI-24
LIST OF FIGURES
VI-1 Comparison of Economic Desirability of Systems VI-22
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. VI SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS VI-1
The preceding sections of studies have developed background data identifying the
functions and components of solid waste systems in the various types of building
complexes under study. Observations of these systems in selected local buildings
have recorded the prevailing level of operating standards, the mechanics, and
efficiencies or deficiencies, in their existing operation,, Further evaluations have
indicated the environmental effects and costs of operation of the various components
within these building systems, all as a means of identifying weaknesses and needed
improvementSo
Concurrently with these observations, an investigation was conducted to establish
the present "state-of-the-art" in methods and equipment developed for or adaptable
to solid waste systems in buildings. Basic guidelines have been advanced for defining
system requirements in these various types of buildings, and procedures have been
suggested for the evaluation of methods and equipment in the design of workable
systems for buildings in the design stage as well as existing buildings.
The concluding phase of this study is broadly concerned with the evaluation of
various feasible methods of improvements to solid waste systems in existing buildings
and specifically to the solid waste systems of selected County-owned and operated
building complexes previously investigated. Complete details of the continuing study
are recorded in Volume IV of this report. The principal objective of the continuing
study is the determination of methods of storage, handling, processing and disposal
that can best be employed where warranted to improve the operating efficiencies
of solid waste systems in these existing buildings. This determination involves the
investigation of statutes, regulations and codes as they may affect the selection,
installation and operation of equipment components in the system. Comparisons of
installation and operating costs and benefits of those systems suitable for each type
of building are also made and conclusions are presented together with positive
recommendations for system improvements„
Organization of Material:
Presentation of material as contained in Volume IV incorporates (1) a digest of
principal codes and regulations locally applicable to solid waste systems and
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VI-2
management, (2) the evaluation of various types of system improvements considered
for selected buildings, and (3) the description of proposed solid waste system modifi-
cations at the LAC-USC Medical Center, cost estimates and analysis of benefits of
this project, together with an outline of a continuing studies program.
In review of this volume of material, the following digest was prepared, summarizing
the requirements of system concepts, evaluation procedures and the conclusions of
these evaluations.
MODIFICATION OF HOSPITAL WASTE SYSTEMS
From the descriptions of existing systems in local hospitals detailed in Volume II,
critical problems were identified that are common to the majority of hospitals
visited across the country and likely common to nearly all hospitals in general.
Observations at these local hospitals indicate comprehensive policies have been
adopted regarding solid waste management. Generally, these policies are adequate,
including specific directives for segregation and special handling of hazardous
materials. Practical enforcement of these policies is where the systems break down.
Inadequacies in performance are largely due to the "people factor" built into the
system and the inability of the workers to make correct judgments consistently.
Upgrading of the conventional solid waste system may be approached in several ways.
For example, immediate solutions may be considered for improving methods in handling
an individual type of waste or minor modifications of selected functions within the
system.
Those unacceptable conditions in the existing waste system should be met with interim
remedial measures until such time as acceptable long range solutions can be considered
and adopted. These interim remedial measures would generally be confined to policy
enforcement and would rely largely on the capabilities of supervisors and cooperation
of workers. Such changes can only be implemented and carried out successfully when
accompanied by a continuing surveillance program. The value and benefits of a
sanitarian carrying among his duties the responsibility for surveillance of the total
solid waste system would be indispensable. In those hospitals inspected, the
prevailing lack of surveillance of the solid waste system operation was evident.
It is reasonable to expect such surveillance with the cooperation of supervisory
personnel would have marked effect on working personnel and conditions of the
entire system. Concentration on improvements of initial preparation of wastes,
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VT=3
i.e. devising workable methods of breaking, packaging or containerizing disposable
syringes, needles, instruments, etc. at the ward level would reduce hazards in handling
and the possibility of ultimate reuse. Improvements in maintaining proper handling
and disposal of pathological wastes, separation of reusables and disposables, proper
bagging of materials, prompt deposit of materials in chutes, close supervision of
storage, processing and disposal areas and maintaining security in these areas against
access by unauthorized personnel are needed improvements that will lead to a more
nearly acceptable level of operation and that may be accomplished through a
continuing surveillance program. In the conventional waste system in the larger
institutions, which relies totally on the performance of manpower, costs of intensive
supervision and surveillance will be relatively high, but are necessary if attempting
to implement such an interim remedial program.
Conversely, the total system may be modified with the design of a single integrated
closed system to handle all types of materials insofar as practical. With the develop-
ment of a modified system whereby the majority of waste materials can be conveyed
in a mechanized closed transport system, such surveillance will be limited to initial
handling techniques at the ward level and final handling at the processing and
disposal stations.
System Criteria:
The necessity of a closed system for the transfer, storage, processing and disposal of
hospital wastes is founded on the premise that all such wastes are contaminated. This
is based on observations that segregation of identifiable contaminated and uncontam-
inated waste materials is neither accomplished in practice nor likely to be practically
or economically enforced. Composition of these wastes include many salvageable
materials that could prove harmful upon reclamation and reuse. In the interest of
public health and welfare, it was concluded that in addition to the closed transport
system, on-site disposal should be preferred or on-site processing of these materials
should be accomplished to produce a sterile homogeneous material suitable for safe
off-site transport and disposal.
Capabilities of presently developed equipment are not sufficiently flexible to achieve
a closed system design that will handle all wastes from point of generation through a
point of disposal in either new buildings or modifications of systems in existing buildings.
However, it does appear feasible that systems can be assembled that will handle the
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VI-4
majority of these materials from centrally located accumulation points on each floor
to central storage or processing locations.
Handling Requirements:
Due to the prevailing high ratio of reusable soiled linens to disposable wastes, it
appeared necessary for the selected waste handling system to have the capabilities
of moving both materials. General materials handling systems, either of the auto-
mated mechanical conveyor type or automated cart type, could not be adapted within
these existing buildings due to physical plant layout, limitations of space, conflicts
with internal traffic elements and mechanical and structural obstacles. The only
alternative handling system available, having the required capabilities, that could
be adapted within existing plants appeared to be pneumatic conveyors. Although
twin tube systems are available for separate handling of linens and wastes, consider-
ation has been limited herein to the single tube system based on lesser space require-
ments and economy. Flexibility in adapting this type of system within the existing
building would permit collection from the base of chutes without extensive modifi-
cations to the existing chute system. Evacuation of accumulated materials could be
accomplished at frequent intervals, transferring the materials to their respective
central storage locations.
Storage Requirements:
This closed system concept also favors elimination of storage and rehandling of wastes.
With the use of the pneumatic conveyor system, intermediate storage requiring
physical rehandling after deposit in the chutes would be eliminated.. With the added
consideration of placing the Vertical;chutes under slight negative pressure to minimize
aerosol contamination, the transport system would meet the desired level of environ-
mental standards which the closed system can provide. Utilization of automated
mechanical conveyors or cart systems (which are more adaptable to buildings in the
design stage) for the transport of sealed containers would afford a similar level of
environmental standards providing space availability;would permit their use. In
either case, the only storage elements required in these types of closed systems are
the initial storage facilities in the Unit system and central storage in the Inter-
Building system.
-------
VOL. j
CHAP. VI vi-5
Processing and Disposal Requirements:
Considering the criteria established for disposal of contaminated hospital wastes, a
number of methods have been evaluated. These methods identified below are listed
in their order of desirability.
1. Transportation of pulped or ground hospital wastes in the sanitary sewer
system with on-site sterilization or subsequent sterilization, oxidation and
digestion at an off-site treatment plant will assure freedom from contami-
nation hazards.
2. Transportation and landfill of residue from hospital refuse after thorough
on-site incineration or pyrolysis is a safe method without danger of
contamination.
3. Transportation and landfill disposal of hospital refuse after pulping or
grinding and sterilization is a safe method without danger of contamination.
4. Transportation of pulped or ground hospital waste in the sanitary sewerage
system with dewatering and disposal at an off-site treatment plant should
be a satisfactory system for limited quantities of hospital refuse.
5. Transportation and landfill disposal of hospital refuse, modified by grinding
and extruded with a binding agent into blocks and encapsulated, while
minimizing hazards during transport and handling, is still subject to
spreading contamination at the disposal site by rupture of the casing
during compaction operations.
6. Transportation and landfill disposal of hospital refuse modified by grinding
or pulping will reduce some hazards in handling at the disposal site but
may cause the spread of contamination in transport and disposal.
7. Transportation and landfill disposal of baled or compacted hospital refuse,
while lessening dangers to handlers, the material is subject to scavenging
of hazardous reusable materials and the spread of contamination in
transport and at the disposal site.
8. Transportation and landfill disposal of loose hospital refuse is dangerous to
handlers and the public alike and is subject to scavenging of hazardous
materials and the spread of contamination along the transport route and
/-i* tVto ell
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI Vl'6
Of the eight methods of processing and disposal considered above, only four (Nos. 1-4)
reasonably meet the established criteria (page V|-3) and have sufficient qualifications
to warrant serious consideration from an environmental point of view.
Of these four, only two (Nos. 2 and 3) fully meet the established criteria, wherein
incineration and sterilization after pulping convert the wastes for safe off-site
handling. Two additional methods, differing only slightly and both involving pulping,
utilize the already contaminated sewers as the means of off-site transport. These
methods would not contribute additional environmental contamination in transport and
in principle also meet the criteria. Method No. 1 provides for further modifications
of pulped solids by the wet oxidation process. This may be accomplished prior to
discharge to sewers or at the sewage treatment plant by modification of treatment
processes. In the latter case, the wet oxidation process would be handling the full
range of solids presently encountered in addition to the pulped hospital waste
loadings. Method No. 4 without further modification of pulped solids prior to
discharge to the sewers or without modification of sewage treatment processes would
burden the treatment plants with the quantitative increase in contaminated solid
materials these plants will handle.
Methods 5 and 6, while not reducing dangers from contamination do reduce hazards
in handling, eliminate scavenging and are a considerable improvement over present
off-site handling methods. Such processes could be considered on an interim basis
until such time as the system could be further upgraded.
Effect on Community:
In evaluation of these processing and disposal methods, the magnitude of the total
hospital waste problem in the community must be weighed and related to in-plant
environment and the environment of the community at large. For example, in
Los Angeles County, some 580 hospitals and nursing homes have a potential daily
generation of about 470,000 pounds or 235 tons of disposable wastes. This quantity
of materials is presently handled at the respective institutions daily and disposed of
by incineration or transported to landfills for disposal.
In addition to the problems of in-plant handling, potential hazards to the community
exist in the off-site handling of this material. No conclusive research directly
related to off-site disposal of hospital wastes and its effect on the community has
been performed. Principal concerns of health authorities relate to the possible survival*
of pathogenic microorganisms and their subsequent transmission by direct human contact
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VI-7
with contaminated materials or through insects or rodents, as well as transmission
through air and water pollution. Off-site disposal conventionally involves a method
of highway transport, direct or via transfer stations to landfills or other disposal facil-
ities. The community environment may be exposed to hospital waste contaminants
throughout the course of travel with greatest potential exposure occurring at the
disposal site where direct contact by refuse workers and scavengers may occur or where
water pollution via runoff or leaching may ultimately occur.
Although incineration is one of the most effective methods, its continuing use cannot
be recommended in this area because of the severe air pollution which already exists
under certain atmospheric conditions.
Considering pulping with discharge to sewers as an alternative, a potential loading
of about 70% of this total daily generation of hospital wastes or 165 tons (dry weight)
would be handled daily at the sewage treatment plants in Los Angeles, discounting
mositure content and non-pulpable material. With conventional sewage treatment
processes, the nature and quantity of these solids would in truth be a burden if all
such materials were received and processed. However, with modifications of sewage
treatment processes, adapting such methods as wet oxidation, all solids may be
substantially reduced in quantity and handled at a much faster rate than conventional
processes permit.
The solution for the total community problem in handling hospital wastes could be
achieved if pulping or grinding with discharge to sewers can be proven feasible
and accepted by local authorities. Hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, etc. where
contaminated wastes are concentrated could utilize a recognized contaminated
transport channel (the sewer) with disposal at limited and controlled locations
(sewage treatment plants). Personnel at these plants are accustomed and trained in
handling and processing such contaminated materials in a routine manner with
reasonable safeguards to the community environment.
A concurrent research project conducted by the County of Los Angeles Health
Department has investigated wet grinding of hospital wastes with discharge to
sewers. This "research carried out during 1967-69 employed the use of small pilot
grinder installations at selected local hospitals wherein selected hospital wastes
*"Use of Wet Grinding Units for Disposal of Hospital Solid Wastes" - by Bernard S.
Weintraub, Harvey D. Kern, Health Facilities Service Division, County of Los Angeles,
Health Department, Aug. 1969 - Research Grant 110-224 Health Facilities Planning
1 " ' -"''•"• r ' '' ". Public Health Service
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI
were satisfactorily processed. The study concluded that such processing with subsequent
discharge to sewers is a feasible and an appealing public health solution to a major
community problem and suggested that more intensive research was warranted for this
method of disposal .
Evaluation of System Modifications:
It must be reemphasized that selection of the solid waste systems or systems modifi-
cations for hospitals should not be governed solely by favorable economics. The
evaluation of solid waste systems must consider the environmental aspects of operation
as well as the economic aspects, not unlike the evaluations which have conitfibuted
to the evolution and continuing improvement of sanitary systems for handling contam-
inated liquid (sewage) wastes generated in all types of buildings.
The environmental aspects considered in the evaluation of the solid waste system
modifications in those institutions under study follow the same procedures as were
applied in the evaluation of existing systems. This evaluation method was
developed around the closed system concept, wherein the optimum standards of
operation throughout the system permit handling, storage, processing and disposal
of all wastes to be accomplished without exposure and without contributing
additional environmental pollution. Such a system, receiving wastes at the point
of generation and transporting this material to a final processing or disposal station
would in theory not have an operating deficiency, except possibly in the initial
deposit or in the final disposal process. An analogy to this concept is the garbage
grinder, receiving and processing food wastes generated in the kitchen, discharging
these materials to sewers for transport with final processing and conversion of wastes
at the sewage treatment plant.
Based on present technology and equipment in the development stage, it is doubtful
that such systems capable of handling all hospital wastes (both reusables and
disposables) will be devised and widely used in the foreseeable future.
Considered improvements which most nearly approach this concept, as qualified in
the foregoing, have been limited to adaptation of the pneumatic conveyor system
for transport of the majority of wastes and the four optional processing and disposal
methods that reasonably meet the established criteria. Tabular summaries will later
show the comparison between the various systems at each institution.
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI
Costs of the various system improvements were estimated based on cursory investigations
of buildings, mechanical installations and site conditions, without benefit of the
development of preliminary plans. Sizing of processing and/or disposal units were
based on handling of the present quantities of wastes generated during a one shift
operation on a seven day week basis. Expansion of disposal facilities and/or
increasing number of shifts worked would be required to meet significant future
increases in waste production. Manufacturers of various types of equipment were
consulted in establishing budgeted costs of improvement. Depreciation costs
(straight line basis) of the modified systems have been based on 10 to 25 year life
of various elements of the systems. Net investment costs for installation of the
modified systems consider total costs of improvements, less salvage allowances for
equipment used in the present system that may be retired. Cost allowances for
additions or replacement of equipment in the existing system are also considered
in the determination of the net investment.
Summaries were prepared on each system identifying the tangible economic benefits
(if any) to be derived from the implementation of the project, incorporating those
direct operating benefits as noted, together with certain indirect benefits that
accrue due to elimination of certain parts of the existing system. Direct operating
benefits or advantages consider the direct effects of operational costs of the project,
i.e. savings in labor and building areas released for other uses and the increase in
costs of maintenance, materials and supplies and power or collectively, the gross
savings or added cost of operation. Indirect benefits or non-operating advantages
also consider annual savings in further depreciation of the existing system. In some
cases, it will be noted that the considered improvements in systems will not reflect
such benefits or economies but will, in fact, increase annual operating costs» A
tabular summary will later show the comparison of the economic evaluations
between the various systems at each institution.
In addition to the tangible benefits, certain intangible benefits with monetary value
will also accure as a result of operating the improved solid waste system,, Improvement
in sanitation, safety, security and esthetics may likely have an effect on the frequency
of personal injury, accidents, illness of personnel, as well as patients throughout the
plant and perhaps the greatest effect on those being associated with the direct handling
of the waste materials. Similarly, limiting the exposure of wastes in transport and
off-site disposal would likely have a beneficial effect on the community at large.
Improvement in systems operation and these related environmental conditions should
also tend to reduce the general cost of building maintenance and losses due to fire
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VI-10
or other casualty. These improved systems using an isolated and specialized transport
method will reduce congestion in building corridors, allowing more efficient
performance of other service functions. Economic analysis of annual dollar savings
that may accrue from these benefits would require a multitude of record statistics
of plant operation that are not available and adequate bases of fact are not at hand
to permit an intelligent detailed estimate. However, it is conceivable that
collectively the intangible benefits could equal, if not exceed, the estimated value
of tangible benefits in many cases.
Identification of Considered System Modifications:
Reference to the identification of those modified systems considered in the evaluations
will be limited to ID numbers established as follows:
1 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Pulping or Wet Grinding, Wet Oxidation,
Discharge to Sewers
2 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Incineration, Transport Residue to Landfill
3 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Pulping or Wet Grinding, Wet Oxidation,
Dewater, Transport to Landfill
4 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Pulping, Discharge to Sewers
5 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Pulping or Wet Grinding, Extrude, Transport-
to Landfill
6 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Shredding, Transport to Landfill
7 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Pulping or Wet Grinding, Dewater, Transport
to Landfill
8 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Stationary Compactor, Transport to Landfill
9 - Pneumatic Conveyor System, Packer Truck, Transport to Landfill
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI VFTT
Only those systems (Nos. 1-4) which meet the established criteria for satisfactory
disposal were considered in the environmental evaluation (numerical rating) of
modified systems. However, cost comparisons of all these systems were made to
provide an overall "yardstick" in the range of costs of disposal and the significance
of such costs.
These system evaluations as presented in Volume IV included detailed numerical
ratings, estimated project costs, estimated daily labor costs and the economic
analysis of these system improvements at each institution. Repetition of this volume
of data is not warranted herein and the reader is referred to Volume IV for complete
details. However, to illustrate the depth of these evaluations, the report on the
LAC-USC Medical Center is appended (Appendix F) in its entirety for the reader's
convenience.
Summary:
In review of the evaluation of system modifications as presented in Volume IV,
Table Vl-l was prepared in summary of these findings, showing comparisons in
system deficiencies, investment requirements and increase or decrease in annual
costs.
Based on investment requirements and the effect on annual costs of operation of the
four systems considered, System 4 (pulping with discharge of wastes to sewers) has
considerable merit, while at the same time improving in-plant conditions as well
as off-site handling.
The solution for the total community problem in off-site handling of hospital wastes
could be achieved if pulping or grinding with discharge to sewers can be proven
feasible and accepted by local authorities. Hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, etc.
where contaminated wastes are concentrated could utilize a recognized contaminated
transport channel (the sewer) with disposal at limited and controlled locations
(sewage treatment plants). Personnel at these plants are accustomed and trained
in handling and processing such contaminated materials in a routine manner with
reasonable safeguards to the community environment. Based on local environ-
mental conditions and needs, further development of this concept is warranted.
-------
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
TABLE Vl-l EFFECT OF SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
COMPARISON OF SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Existing System
Considered System Modifications:
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
EXISTING ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
COSTS OF SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS:
System 1 - Net Investment
'Annual Cost Difference
System 2 - Net Investment
'Annual Cost Difference
System 3 - Net Investment
'Annual Cost Difference
System 4 - Net Investment
'Annual Cost Difference
LAC-USC
Medical
Center
58%
20.6%
20.8%
23.2%
24.4%
$2,396,850
$2,292,000
(389,250)
$2,272,000
(428,325)
$2,317,000
(379,900)
$1,932,000
(431,200)
Long Beach
General
Hospital
25%
9.9%
10.1%
12.5%
13.7%
$223,600
$645,000
45,500
$500,000
21,500
$647,000
53,400
$495,000
27,500
Harbor
General
Hospital
37%
12.6%
12.8%
15.2%
16.4%
$777,435
$698,000
(54,700)
$573,000
( 74,400)
$718,000
(37,900)
$498,000
(76,100)
Rancho
Los Amigos
Hospital
20%
9.0%
9.2%
11.6%
12.8%
$ 656,340
$1,732,800
58,900
$1,667,800
24,000
$1,752,800
75,200
$1,507,800
22,200
John
Wesley
Hospital
26%
11.1%
11.5%
13.8%
15.0%
$296,582
$594,800
(2,400)
$459,800
(22,100)
$614,800
6,100
$444,800
(20,100)
Olive
View
Hospital
36%
10.1%
10.3%
12.7%
14.0%
$750,585
$587,100
(29,200)
$412,100
( 30,500)
$607,100
( 12,900)
$387,100
(50,000)
Mira
Loma
Hospital
29%
11.2%
12.3%
13.9%
15.0%
$175,200
$415,000
(8,300)
$275,000
( 15,200)
$435,000
1,200
$290,000
(22,300)
Total
All Hospitals
--
—
$5,276,592
$6,964,700
( 379,450)
$6,159,700
(525,025)
$7,091,700
(294,800)
$5,554,700
(594,400)
% Return
on Investment
—
--
—
5.4%
8.5%
4.2%
10.7%
'Increase or decrease ( ) over annual operating costs of the existing solid waste system, including annual depreciation expense
for buildings and equipment but, excluding interest expense and any additional off-site disposal costs that may be assessed.
o
m
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI
MODIFICATION OF OFFICE BUILDING WASTE SYSTEMS
The evaluations of existing systems in the office buildings under study, as reported in
Volume II, indicate these systems are operated with reasonable economy and with
relatively minor deficiencies.
These investigations found that these systems are operated largely without specialized
equipment by custodial work forces as they perform daily routine cleaning and
maintenance functions. This work is generally performed when buildings are
unoccupied, thereby permitting effective supervision and control of these activities.
Composition of wastes generated in the office buildings studied were neither hazardous
nor objectionable when related to handling or disposal. Largely consisting of paper
with an intermix of small quantities of food wastes and non-combustibles, these
materials are generated in relatively low volumes.
The numerical rating, reflecting the environmental aspects of these evaluations,
identified that the major deficiencies exist in storage functions and the off-site
system. These deficiencies are relatively minor by comparison to those found in
the hospital waste systems,, Upgrading of these systems as in the case of hospitals
requires adopting higher standards of operation. The motivation for adopting such
standards is multipurpose; to improve building safety and safety of occupants through
elimination of fire hazards and conservation of space through minimizing storage.
Based upon the equipment research undertaken in this study, there are limited
mechanical devices that can be employed to help achieve such improvements.
Such improvements for these buildings will require additional capital investments
and likely result in higher annual costs than presently experienced.
System Criteria:
Minimum modifications that may be considered, limited to such installations as
gravity chutes and/or stationary compactors or balers, will require only nominal
investments and accomplish the basic objective of improving on-site storage deficiencies,
Major modifications, eliminating in-building storage entirely, may be feasible in
major building complexes. Such systems, employing pneumatic conveyor systems,
could evacuate materials deposited in gravity chutes in each building and convey
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI ~ V|-14
these materials to a central storage or processing point. Such processes, including
compaction or baling, pulping or grinding and incineration, may be considered as
the final on-site treatment of wastes. However, due to the severity of air pollution
in the Los Angeles Basin, the latter has not been considered suitable for the Civic
Center buildings under study.
Identification of Considered System Modifications:
Reference to the identification of those modified systems considered in the evaluations
will be limited to the ID numbers established as follows:
1 - Manual Fed Stationary Compactor (System serves single building),
Continued Transport to Sanitary Landfill
2 - Gravity Chutes, Pneumatic Conveyor System, Central Stationary Compactor
(System serves several buildings), Continued Transport to Sanitary Landfill
3 - Gravity Chutes, Pneumatic Conveyor System, Central Wet Grinding Station,
Discharge to Sewers and/or Reclamation of Pulp (System serves several
buildings)
4 - Gravity Chute, Stationary Compactor (System serves single building),
Continued Transport to Sanitary Landfill
Evaluation of Modified Systems:
The procedures in evaluation of office building systems follow the same procedures
as outlined earlier for hospitals. The following evaluations of the modified systems
include tabular and graphic illustrations of the numerical ratings, estimated project
costs, estimated daily labor costs and the economic analysis of such modifications
considered at the four office buildings under study. The above described systems
are considered at each of these buildings except the Engineers Building, wherein,
due to the remote location from the tunnel system connecting the Civic Center
buildings, only systems 1 and 4 may be feasible.
-------
TABLE VI-2 NUMERICAL RATING OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS 1 & 4
System Components
C
T SYSTEM
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM
O
-n
-n
i,
a
3
l-o
—1
m
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage,
Processing, Disposal
Total
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal -
Total
TOTAL
Sani ration
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
.Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sani tation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
HALL OF RECORDS
RUBBISH
Dcf.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
3
2
2
4
5
5
3
9
8
7
5
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
";
14
20
16
18
24
28
28
Max.
Value
W
5
<-,
•13-
10
5
5-
to
f
\$
15
2Q
25
25
"23
SO
?S
15
50
1D
10
te
3TF
10
15
10
W
5
50
50
SO
7?
K)
10
i
s_
H
15
" 20
70
2i
?S
25
?S
tOvl
W
T)00
')00
Total
Dcf.
Value
9
5
14
12
17
29
5
50
55
98
Max.
Valu-
•'0
30
.55
125
65
75
40
375
3d
70
>)Qo
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
3
—2
2
4
5
5
3
9
8
7
5
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
18
24
28
28
Max.
Value
10
5
5
-,?0
10
t,
5-
to
5
»$
15
2D
20
25
'" 25
"""'56
?•>
15
50
10
10
25-
30?
10
15
10
30
5 '
50
50
SO
7T
10
10
5
S..
~-M~
f5
20
7.0
&
25
25
25
)
as
25
55
)
10
10
5
S...
15
IS,_
20
7.0
•2i
25
25
' 25
JOP
ioy
)00
)00
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
14
12
17
29
5
50
55
98
Max.
Value
40
30
55
123
60
7$
<'Q
375
30
70
100
400
O
I
I
Oi
<
-------
TABLE VI-3
NUMERICAL RATING OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
SYSTEM 2
Q
m
System Components
UNIT SYSTEM
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM
O
5
I/I
-H
m
3
3
m
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage,
Processing, Disposal
Total
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
isthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
isthetics
Sani ration
afety
ecurity
isthctics
Sanitation
afety
ecurity
isthetics
anitation
afety
ccurity
Esthetics
HALL OF RECORDS
RUBBISH
Dcf.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
n
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
18
18-
21
23
Max.
Value
to
r>
',
. '0
10
S
0
w
'tr"
15
15
2D
J?5
25
25
5
15
JO™1
10
10
25
3tf'
!0
)5
10
10
"""5
50
50
SO
7t
10
10
J) •
S^
H
IS
20
?&-
2TT
25
~ ?5~~
?S
HV
•1JO"
300"
)«r
Total
Dcf.
Value
9
5
14
5
6
11
5
50
55
80
Max.
VollJ"
•'0
30
55
W.1
60 ;
75
4D
175
70
400
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
]
1
5
2
1
— o~
2
4
2
1
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
2
2
_ 0
1
3
12
20
15
5'
14
20
16
18
18
21
23
Max.
Value
10
5
S
?0
1£L
5
10
5
»5
15
.20
•25
'25
25
~"%5
?•>
15
)0
1D
10
25
3tT
to
i5
10
?o
5
50
' 50
SlT
?',
10
10
~~5r
H
Ts~"
20
?0
26
25
25
•?s
)OU
UJ
iOO
)00"
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
14
5
6
11
5
50
55
. 80
Max.
Value
40
•in
35
J2j
60
75
•50
175
30
70 '
t(V>
40o
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
18
18
21
23
Max.
Value
10
5
5
20
10
s
S-
)U
5
\S
15
u_2D
25
~~2'i
25
"•'*
?">
15
10
10
10
2$ :
3T"
10
15
i'o
30
5"
50
50-
sij
?7
10
10
S
S.
t5
IS."
20
70
2,>
as
25
?s
)
- ';5
50
,10
10
25
36
v>
i5
10
30
S
50
scT
SO
. 75
10
10
i
S...
15-
. IS
20
70
-&-H
25
25
2S
)OiJ
ioy
"JOO
"W
Total
Def.
Value
^ax .
Value
40
30
55,
)2j
60
75
'ID
175
30
70
100
'(00
-------
TABLE VI-4
NUMERICAL RATING OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
SYSTEM 3
System Components
UNIT SYSTEM
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM
O
~n
— t
3
t/>
-H
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage,
Processing, Disposal
Total
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sani tation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
HALL OF RECORDS
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
4
1
7
Max.
Value
10
;>
<-,
70
•1(1
<;
J
to
'fj'
\$
15 ,
2Q
•25
25
73
V)
?•>
15
50
10
10
2$
sir
10
15
10
10
5~
50
50
SO
?<••
10
10
6
5^
t-s
15
20
?0
2l>
25
25
75
1!00
HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
4
2
1
7
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
4
1
7
Max.
Value
10
5
5
70
10
5,
5-
to
5
IS™
15 ,
2C1
.•20-
25
?5
%5
?5
15
50
10
10
25
30
10
15
10
10
"'5'
50
50
SO
?'•
10
io
~~~i"
•is-
15
""20
70
2i
25
25
?S
JOJ
10^
)00
"too"
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
14
5
6
11
0
0
0
25
Max.
Value
40
30
55
)2i
60
75
•JO
175
30
70
lrv>
400
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
— r~
i
5
2
I
0
2
4
2
I
7
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B~
0
0
0
0
13
4
1
7
Max.
Value
___ 10
5
20
1Q
s
5-
15
f
15
15
2Q
-'/O
2'i
25
" S0
?•> .
15
50
10
10
25
r~3(T
10
!5
io
10'
' '$'
50
50
SO
}-,
-10
10
5
S..
15
(5
20
?0
2i
-.35'
25
?S
JOiJ
10^"
)00
")00~
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
14
5
6
11
0
0
0
25
Max.
Value
<0
30
55
12S
60
75,
40
170
30
70
'^oo
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
10
5
5
73
10
S
5
to
f
)5
)5
20
•25
25
^5
SO
'r>
n
50 ,
10
10
25
30
10
15
10
10
-•••$••
50
50
SO
?-
10
'10
5
5...
t5
15
20
?0
26
'5
25
25
!OJ
100
500
")00~
Total
Def.
Value
Max.
Value
40
30
55
)23
60
75
fQ
175
30
70
too
'100'
<
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI
VI-18
TABLE VI-5
COMPARISON OF OFFICE BUILDING PROJECT COSTS
BUILDING
HALL OF
ADMINISTRATION
COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
HALL OF
RECORDS
ENGINEERS
BUILDING
SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
4
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Compactor
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Compactors
Building
Total
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Grinders
Building
Total
Gravity Chute
Compactor
Total
Compactor
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Compactors
Building
Total
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Grinders
Building
Total
Gravity Chute
Compactor
Total
Compactor
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Compactors
Building
Total
Vacuum Tube
Gravity Chute
Grinders
Building
Total
Gravity Chute
Compactor
Total
Compactor
Gravity Chute
Compactor
Total
INSTALLED
COSTS
$ 12,000
$102,200
4,050
6,250
25,000
$137,500
$102,200
4,050
18,750
25,000
$150,000
$ 4,050
15,000
$ 19,050
$ 12,000
$102,200
4,050
6,250
25,000
$137,500
$102,200
4,050
18,750
25,000
$150,000
$ 4,050
15,000
$ 12,000
$102,200
7,650
6,250
25,000
$141,100
$102,200
7,650
18,750
25,000
$153,600
$ 7,650
15,000
$ 22,650
$ 12,000
$ 4,050
15,000
ESTIMATED
LIFE (YEARS)
10
25
25
10
25
25
25
10
25
25
10
10
25
25
10
25
25
25
10
25
25
10
10
25
25
10
25
25
25
10
25
25
10
10
25
10
DEPRECIATION
$1,200
$4,088
162
625
1,000
$5,875
$4,088
162
1,875
1,000
$7,125
$ 162
1,500
$1.660
$1,200
$4,088
162
625
1,000
$5,875
$4,088
162
1,875
1,000
$T7T55
$ 162
1,500
$1,660
$1,200
$4,088
306
625
1,000
$6,020
$4,088
306
1,875
1,000
$7,270
$ 306
1,500
$1,810
$1,200
$ 162
1,500
$1,660'
-------
VOL. |
CHAP. VI
VI-19
TABLE VI-6 ESTIMATED DAILY LABOR REQUIREMENTS
AND COSTS OF SYSTEMS 2 AND 3
REQUIREMENTS OF WASTE SYSTEM:
Unit System (Man Mrs.)
Inter-Unit System (Man Hrs.)
Total System (Man Hrs.)
ESTIMATED LABOR COSTS:
Unit System
Inter-Unit System
Total System Cost
Cost/Ton
Cost/Pound
Hall of
Records
52.9
1.0
53.9
$ 196
$ 5
$ 201
$ 402
$0.201
Hall of
Administration
85.0
1.0
86.0
$ 315
$ 5
$ 320
$ 250
$0.125
County
Courthouse
56.6
1.0
57.6
$ 210
$ 5
$ 215
$ 246
$0.123
Note: Above cost summary does not include off-site system costs, which
are expected to remain generally constant.
Note: Present labor costs are not expected to be affected in System 1 .
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI
VI-20
TABLE VI-7 ESTIMATED DAILY LABOR REQUIREMENTS
AND COSTS OF SYSTEM 4
REQUIREMENTS OF WASTE SYSTEM:
Unit System (Man Hrs.)
Inter-Unit System (Man Hrs.)
Total System (Man Hrs.)
ESTIMATED LABOR COSTS:
Unit System
Inter-Unit System
Total System Cost
Cost/Ton
Cost/Pound
Hall of
Records
52.9
2.0
54.9
$ 196
$ 7
$ 203
$ 406
$0.203
Hall of
Administration
85.0
2.0
87.0
$ 315
$ 7
$ 322
$ 252
$0.126
County
Courthouse
56.6
2.0
58.6
$ 210
$ 7
$ 217
$ 248
$0.124
County
Engineers
37.6
1.0
38.6
$ 139
$ 4
$ 143
*r • •**
$ 340
*r ** rv
$0.170
Note: Above cost summary does not include off-site system costs, which are
expected to remain generally constant.
Note: Present labor costs are not expected to be affected in System 1.
-------
VI-21
TABLE VI-8 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE
SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
OFFICE BUILDING
HALL OF
COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
HALL OF
RECORDS
ENGINEERS
BUILDING
ITEM
1 INVESTMFNT
Initialled Cost of Project
nvestment Released or Avoided by Project
Ner Investment Required
II OPERATING ADVANTAGE
DIRECT EFFECT OF PROJECT
Labor
Maintenance
Moteriali and Supplies
Pawer
Floor Space
Net Increase or Decrease in Operating Costs
111 COMPUTATION OF DESIRABILITY RATING
Total Advantage
Depreciation
Return on Investment
Desirobilitv Ratina
I INVESTMENT
Installed Cost of Project
Investment Released or Avoided by Project
Net Investment Required
II OPERATING ADVANTAGE
DIRECT EFFECT OF PROJECT
Labor
Maintenance
Materials and Supplies
Power
Floor Space
Net Increase or Decrease in Operating Costs
III COMPUTATION OF DESIRABILITY RATING
Deprecialion
Rotumon Investment
D-sirabilitv Rotina
1 INVESTMENT
Installed Cost of Project
Investment Released or Avoided by Project
Net Investment Required
II OPERATING ADVANTAGE
DIRECT EFFECT OF PROJECT
Labor
Maintenance
Materials and Supplies
Power
Floor Space
111 COMPUTATION Cif DFS1RABM ITY BATING
Depreciation
Return on Inveitment
D ' abTfv Rofna
1 INVESTMENT
Installed Cost of Project
Investment Releoitd of Avoided bv Protect
Net Investment Required
II OPERATING ADVANTAGE
DIRECT EFFECT OF PROJECT
Labor
Maintenance
Materials and Supplies
Power
III COMPUTATION OF DESIRABILITY RATING
Total Advantage
Deo relation
Keturn or, Investment
Desirability Rating
SYSTEM
]
$ 12,000
$ 12,000
$ 60
90
1.090
J- 640
Deere™
S 0
5 600
J- 640
,200
$-1,840
-15
t 12,000
X 12,000
Increase
S 60
90
1,090
S- 640
Decrease
J 0
$ 600
1.200
5-1.840
-15
5 12,000
S 12,000
Increase
S 60
90
1,090
J- 640
Decrease
5 0
$ 600
S- MO
,200
5-1.840
-15
$ 12,000
S 12,000
Increase
S 60
90
1,090 _,
S- 640
Decrease
S 0
S 600
S- 640
1,200
5-1,840
-15
2
$137,500
S137.500
Increase
S 690
1.030
1.000
Decrease
56.350
S 600
54,230
5 4,230
5,675
S- ,645
-1
5137, SOO
J137.500
Increase
J 690
1,030
1,000
Decrease
16.350
S 600
14,230
5.875
J-1,645
-1
5141.100
5141,100
Increase
S 690
1,030
1,000
Decrease
16 350
1 600
J4.230
S 4,230
6,020
5- 790
-1
Increase
Decrease
3
5150,000
$150,000
5 750
1.125
1,550
56.350
5 600
53,525
5 3,525
7,125
5-3,600
-2
5150.000
5150,000
Increase
1 750
1,125
1.550
Decrease
56.350
S 600
53,525
7,125
5-3.600
-2
5153.600
5153,600
Increase
i 750
1.125
1,550
Decrease
56.350
S 600
53,525
5 3,525
7,270
5-3,745
-2
Increase
Decrease
4
S 19,050
5 19,050
Increase
5 100
ISO
1,245
Decrease
55.385
S 600
$4,490
54,490
1,660
52,630
15
5 19.050
S 19.050
Increase
5 100
150
1.245
Decrease
15.385
$ 600
$4,490
1,660
52.830
15
5 22.650
5 22,650
Increase
S 100
150
1,245
Decrease
S5.385
$ 600
$4,490
54,490
1,810
52,680
2
S 19,050
S 19,050
Increase
S 100
150
1,245
Decrease
$5.385
S 600
$4,490
14 490
1.660
52,830
»
Note: Term "Desirability Rating" is synonymous with percent of return on investment.
-------
FIGURE Vl-l COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC DESIRABILITY OF SYSTEMS
O
DESI RABILITY RATI NG
BUILDING
HALL OF
ADMINISTRATION
COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
HALL OF
RECORDS
ENGINEERS
BUILDING
Systems 2 and 3 not applicable at Engineers Building
-------
VOL.
CHAP. VI
Summary:
In review of the foregoing evaluations of system modifications, Table VI-9 was prepared
in summary of these findings, showing comparisons of system deficiencies, investment
requirements and the increase or decrease in annual costs.
Based on investment requirements and the effect on annual costs of operation, basic
interim improvements in these types of building systems could be accomplished most
practically through the installation of stationary packers at slight additional annual
cost. Installation of gravity chutes in existing buildings should be considered in
future building modification plans.
It is likely that a pneumatic collection system and central processing station serving
a number of buildings such as exist in the Civic Center complex could prove economi-
cally feasible, providing broad participation could be achieved. In the case of the
Civic Center complex, this would likely require joint participation of Federal, State,
County and City agencies occupying the numerous governmental buildings in the area
and perhaps participation of private enterprise buildings on the perimeter of this
complex. It is beyond the scope of this project to investigate such potentials further,
but this concept is recommended for consideration in planned expansions of the
Civic Center and in the planning stage of similar new complexes.
-------
TJ
o
m
<
•G
•N
Comparison of Office Building Solid Waste Systems
TABLE VI -9 EFFECT OF SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
COMPARISON OF SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Existing System
Considered System Modifications:
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
EXISTING ANNUAL OPERATING COST
COSTS OF SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS:
System 1 - Total Investment
* Annual Cost
System 2 - Total Investment
*Annual Cost
System 3 - Total Investment
_, * Annual Cost
>
0
•n System 4 - Total Investment
< *Annual Cost
Hall of
Records
31%
24%
20%
6%
24%
$ 65,385
$ 12,000
1,840
$137,500
1,645
$150,000
3,600
$ 19,050
( 2,830)
Hall of
Administration
41%
24%
20%
6%
24%
$103,708
$ 12,000
1,840
$137,500
1,645
$150,000
3,600
$ 19,050
( 2,830)
County
Courthouse
37%
24%
20%
6%
24%
$ 70,617
$ 12,000
1,840
$141,100
1,790
$153,600
3,745
$ 22,650
( 2,680)
County
Engineers
42%
24%
24%
$42,717
$12,000
1,840
—
—
$19,050
( 2,830)
Increase or decrease ( ) over annual operating costs of the existing solid waste system, including
annual depreciation expense for buildings and equipment, but, excluding interest expense and
any additional off-site disposal costs that may be assessed.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. VII REVIEW OF STUDY Page No.
HOSPITAL WASTE SYSTEMS VI1-1
DETENTION FACILITY WASTE SYSTEMS VI1-3
OFFICE BUILDING WASTE SYSTEMS VII-4
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAP. Vn REVIEW OF STUDY ~
The findings of this study have confirmed general inadequacies that prevail, both in
(1) the operation of conventional solid waste systems and (2) the development and/or
use of hardware that can upgrade operating standards.
HOSPITAL WASTE SYSTEMS
In the hospitals inspected, both locally and throughout the country, significant
deficiencies exist in the in-plant system as well as off-site disposal. Based on the
detailed investigations of local institutions, those deficiencies, relating to the
environmental aspects of in-plant handling and storage of wastes, are tolerated
daily, while generally incurring high costs of operation. Mechanized and automated
handling systems currently exist and are being tested and improved. Although rela-
tively high in capital costs, these systems will likely provide overall economy in
annual operating costs for many small and large institutions. Pneumatic conveyor
systems for handling soiled linens and disposable wastes have the greatest potential
for adaptation in existing buildings. The pneumatic system and conveyor systems
for sealed container transfer both hold merit for use in buildings in the planning
stage. The latter has the added flexibility of handling the distribution of clean
supplies as well as soiled materials and wastes. However, it is also likely that
economically the latter could not be justified unless it is in fact designed to handle
all types of these materials. Both types of systems will afford similar improvements
in operating standards in that material movements are accomplished in a closed
transport system, minimizing exposure within the plant as well as minimizing interim
storage requirements.
The deficiencies existing in on-site processing and disposal are largely due to lack
of investment in proper equipment and/or operating personnel. However, types of
equipment that can provide satisfactory processing are limited. Incineration is the
only proven method of on-site disposal that is widely used. In many cases, on-site
incinerators with reasonable capabilities are improperly operated. Similarly, many
on-site installations exist that are not capable of handling the loads imposed on
them or being operated to meet local standards, even if there were qualified oper-
ators. Both incinerator design and operation are highly complex. Although the
importance of design engineering is now generally recognized, specialized training
of operators is not. The industry is capable of designing incinerators to meet the
-------
VOL. I
CHAP. VI1 VI1-2
most stringent standards. In the larger metropolitan areas where air pollution conditions
are severe, the more sophisticated control devices will likely be required in order to
meet local standards. However, it presently appears economically and/or technologically
infeasible that such devices can be adapted to the smaller on-site incinerators based on
lack of such equipment in this waiting market. Further, in view of the severity of air
pollution conditions that exist in such areas as the Los Angeles Basin, where progressively
restrictions are necessarily being strengthened on air pollution, incineration cannot
be recommended. Except in such extreme cases, a properly designed incinerator with
qualified operators is the only currently proven method of on-site disposal that could
be recommended, whereby materials can be reduced and converted to an innocuous
state, microbiologically safe for off-site transfer and disposal.
Alternative methods of on-site processing investigated that would properly condition
waste materials were all centered around pulping or wet grinding. It was concluded
that such processing, followed by sterilization and dewatering, would provide adequate
conditioning for off-site transfer and disposal. Similarly, it was considered that the
environment would not be further exposed to contamination if, following the pulping
process, the material were discharged to the sewers, utilizing an already contaminated
channel for transport. Various types of wet grinding and pulping equipment of various
capacities are presently available and being improved. Such equipment can be sized
for small and large installations. Sterilization processes and equipment specifically
designed for handling of unselected solid wastes are non-existent. However, certain
processes may be adapted for this need. Capabilities of the sewers for pipeline
transport of additional non-settleable solids appear to be adequate if the materials
are property introduced. Chief concern with this method, employing sewer transport,
is the ultimate effect of solid loadings on conventional sewage treatment plants, water
reclamation and modifications in treatment processes that may be required.
Considering the local conditions of the Los Angeles Basin area, and the dilemma
facing the hundreds of hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, etc,,, all generating similar
wastes and having similar problems in the control of processing and disposal of these
materials, the need for detailed studies of pulping and wet grinding was considered
warranted. This study appeared fully justified when considering that improving
standards of handling and disposal of hospital wastes is a growing national problem.
Further development of this concept suggested that a pilot project be developed
-------
VOL. |
CHAP. vTi
of sufficient scale to prove meaningful under a wide range of conditions. Inasmuch as
successful experimentations have been carried out on small scale projects, it is vital
that this project be of sufficient scope to test the full range of disposal methods
connected with the wet grinding or pulping process.
Based on these qualifications and the total findings of this study, the project concept
was further developed, and the LAC-USC Medical Center was recommended as the site
for this project. Complete details of the development of this concept, together with
schematic plans, and the environmental and economic evaluation of the modified
system for the Medical Center, were carried out in Volume IV and are appended
(Appendix G) in their entirety in this volume for the reader's convenience.
The proposed project includes the design, construction and operation of the proposed
waste system, together with an extensive program of observations, analysis, and testing
(as noted in the appended study).
The proposed system for this project involves pneumatic transport of disposable wastes
and reusable linens employing a single tube pneumatic conveyor system. This proposed
system also will contain a central pulping station for disposable materials, a wet
oxidation process and an experimental sewage treatment plant. Optional disposal
methods available include discharge of raw or sterilized pulped wastes to sewers,
transport of dewatered raw or sterilized pulped wastes to landfills, nearly complete
oxidation of pulped wastes with discharge of residue to sewers or dewatered residue
to landfills or emergency bypassing of all processes with direct discharge of bulk
wastes to a compactor for disposal at landfills.
Based upon the foregoing study, this project is recommended as a solution to the
more critical problems of the current solid waste system at LAC-USC Medical Center.
It is a solution with qualifying economic and environmental benefits. In summation,
the proposed project would meet local needs while also providing a laboratory for
study and experimentation on a number of optional disposal methods for institutional
application.
DETENTION FACILITY WASTE SYSTEMS
The observation and evaluation of existing solid waste systems in local detention
-------
VOL. I _
CHAP. VII ' VTI-4
facilities indicated that principal in-plant deficiencies occur in central storage. Manual
in-plant housekeeping functions, including the collection and transfer of solid wastes to
central storage, are generally performed by inmate work details. Changes in the manner
of performance of these internal functions are not considered feasible and quality of
such performance is subject to the enforcement of standards by staff and supervisors.
Mechanization of any portion of the solid waste system, subject to abuse by inmate
operators, should be avoided. Although mechanical processing devices such as
stationary compactors would improve central storage conditions, reliable functioning
could be expected only if operated and maintained by a qualified employee. As a
practical matter, improvements in detention facility waste systems can be expected
only through enforcement of standards by staff and supervisors„
OFFICE BUILDING WASTE SYSTEMS
In those office buildings investigated in the Civic Center, only minor deficiencies
were found in the elements of storage and off-site disposal. Generally, in-plant
supervision is effective in maintaining good operating standards. In-plant defi-
ciencies that occur are primarily due to lack of equipment for confinement and
reduction of collected waste materials.
Interim improvements in these systems will require adoption of higher standards of
operation with accompanying increase in annual costs. Basic improvements can
be accomplished with the installation of manually fed stationary compactor units.
Further improvements can be accomplished with chute installations directly feeding
the compactor units.
Long range improvements, involving chute installations in each building connected
with a central pneumatic conveyor system and processing station, should be
considered in planned expansions in the Civic Center complex in the initial design
stages of similar projects.
The proposed project recommended for the LAC-USC Medical Center will determine
the feasibility of such systems and the results should also be evaluated from the
viewpoint of application to office building complexes.
-------
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page No.
APPENDICES
A LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Existing Solid Waste System) a-1
B DETENTION FACILITIES
(Description of Existing Solid Waste Systems) b-1
C DETENTION FACILITIES
(Evaluation of Existing Solid Waste Systems) c-1
D OFFICE BUILDINGS
(Description of Existing Solid Waste Systems) d-1
E OFFICE BUILDINGS
(Evaluation of Existing Solid Waste Systems) e-1
F LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Considered Improvements to Solid Waste System) f-1
G LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
(Recommended Solid Waste System Improvements) g-1
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A a-1
The study and evaluation of the existing solid waste system
operation at the LAC-USC Medical Center, as reported in
Chapter 11, Volume II, is appended in its entirety. This
study illustrates the depth of investigations undertaken
and supports the continuing studies of this institution
leading to recommended system modifications.
-------
VOL. II OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES
CHAP. II LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER Page No.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PLANT ||-1
Range of Medical Functions and Specialties ||-1
Plant Services and Population ||-2
Location, Buildings and Land ||-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ||-7
Types of Waste Materials Generated ||-7
Brief Description of the Total System ||-8
Responsibility of Solid Waste Management ||-9
Organization of Manpower 11-11
OBSERVATIONS OF THE INTER-BUILDING AND
OFF-SITE SYSTEM 11-13
The Inter-Building Materials Handling System 11-13
Handling and Storage of Disposable Waste Materials 11-17
Waste Disposal Practices 11-19
Handling and Storage of Reusable Waste Materials 11-20
Quantities and Types of Disposable Waste Materials 11-21
Quantities and Types of Reusable Waste Materials 11-26
Summary of Total Waste Production 11-28
Equipment and Building Areas Used in System Operation 11-28
Subcontract Services and Disposal Fees 11-31
Personnel Requirements 11-31
OBSERVATIONS OF THE IN-BUILDING SYSTEM ||-32
General 11-32
Handling of Disposable Waste Materials 11-33
Handling of Reusable Waste Materials 11-34
Personnel Requirements 11-34
Equipment and Building Area Requirements 11-38
ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM 11-39
-------
VOL. II OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES
CHAP. II LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER Page No.
OBSERVATIONS ON AEROSOL CONTAMINATION 11-46
Equipment and Procedures Used 11-46
Observations at Selected Sampling Stations 11-47
Results of the Sampling Program 11-48
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SYSTEM OPERATION 11-50
The Developed Rating II-52
LIST OF TABLES
ll-l Shift Population and Waste Production 11-3
11-2 General Services Personnel 11-12
11-3 Inter-Building Disposable Waste Collection 11-22
11-4 Production of Disposable Wastes by Buildings 11-23
11-5 Load Record 8-Day Period 11-24
11-6 Soiled Linen Processing - October 1968 11-27
l|-7 Summary of Daily Waste Production 11-29
11-8 Costs of Building and Equipment in Inter-Building
and Off-Site System 11-30
11-9 Daily Requirements for In-Building Waste Handling 11-36
11-10 Labor Requirements of In-Building Waste System 11-37
11-11 Building Areas and Equipment of the In-Building System 11-38
11-12 Estimated Annual Equipment Operating Cost 11-40
11-13 Estimated Daily Labor Costs of Hospital Solid Waste Systems 11-41
11-14 Distribution of Estimated Annual Costs to Waste
System Components 11-43
11-15 Cost Comparison of Disposable and Reusable Wastes H-44
11-16 Summary of Air Sampling Data 11-48
11-17 Description of Hospital Solid Waste Systems ||-51
11-18 Numerical Rating of Hospital Solid Waste Systems 11-53
-------
VOL. II OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES
CHAP. II LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER Page No.
LIST OF FIGURES
ll-l Site Plan 11-5
11-2 Aerial Photograph of LAC-USC Medical Center M-6
11-3 Observations of Daily Cart Movement 11-15
11-4 Detail of Clean and Soiled Cart Movements 11-16
11-5 Schematic of Inter-Building Solid Waste System 11-18
11-6 Air Sampling Procedures in Soiled Linen Room 11-48
-------
VOL. II OBSERVATIONS OF LOCAL PRACTICES
CHAP. II LOS ANGELES COUNTY-USC MEDICAL CENTER 11-1
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PLANT
Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center, until 1968
known as Los Angeles County General Hospital, is the largest facility of the eight
hospitals presently operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Hospitals
and one of the largest facilities in the United States. Through its affiliation with
USC Medical School, it is also one of the largest teaching hospitals in the country.
The Medical Center, along with the other County hospitals, is administered by the
Board of Supervisors through the Director of the Department of Hospitals. However,
at plant management level, each of these hospital facilities may be considered
autonomous or semi-autonomous in the adoption and implementation of administrative
policies and plant operating procedures.
Range of Medical Functions and Specialties:
The Medical Center is operated to provide hospitalization, out-patient care and
convalescent care as well as home care for qualifying patients within certain
geographic limits of Los Angeles County and the maximum capacity limits of its
facilities. It offers specialized diagnostic, medical and surgical procedures as
well as emergency care for the critically ill and accident victims. It provides
teaching and training programs for medical specialties, nursing and allied health
professions, including clinical teaching to USC students and post-graduate training
for health personnel through its affiliation with the University, as well as inservice
training for both health and supportive personnel. It actively supports research
efforts to advance medical knowledge, treatment techniques, health services and
management functions, all in cooperation with the University„
Types of care offered include preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic functions.
Plant facilities provide for inpatient, outpatient and emergency services. A
comprehensive range of medical care specialties, or special categories, are
-------
VOL. II .
CHAP. II "-2
provided including:
Internal Medicine Pediatrics Burns
Chest Medicine Communicable Diseases Neurosurgical
Dermatology Psychiatry Orthopedics
Metabolic Unit Jail Medicine O to laryngology
Renal General Surgery Ophthalmology
Dentistry Chest Surgery Urology
Neuromedicine Tumor Premature Center
Obstetri cs/Gynecology
Plant Services and Population Related to Solid Waste Production:
Present plant services maintained at this facility and staffed by hospital personnel
include the Dietary Department, which prepares some 10,000 meals daily, the
Laundry, which processes some 56,500 pounds of soiled linen daily with a working
staff of 200, General Services (Housekeeping and Custodial Services) with a staff
of 600, the Transportation Department, Maintenance Shops, Security, Pharmacy „
The Business Office, Medical Records, Personnel, Communications and the Computer
Center provide those business services required in further support of the plant
activities,, A nursing staff of 1,466 and 3,181 nurses aides (attendants) are
involved in the various aspects of patient care functions-
Total population in the Medical Center Complex is comparable to that of a substantial
community. Including patients, paid and non-compensated personnel, there is a
gross population of approximately 21,000 persons scheduled over a seven-day week,
24-hour day basis. Non-compensated personnel include students, trainees,
volunteer workers and personnel that may be paid by other agencies.
The breakdown of the total population based on daily census records and ordinance
personnel lists consists of about 2,000 bed patients per day (avg, seven-day basis),
2,800 outpatients per day (avg, five-day basis), 10,800 paid personnel and 5,600
non-compensated personnel.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-3
Each person in this total population of 21,000 is a direct creator of solid waste,
and quantities of wastes each generates varies with his classification, daily
activities and hours present„
Table 11-1 illustrates probable variations in plant population that may occur over
the weekly period and relates the corresponding rate (percentage) of waste
production by shifts that may be expected daily.
TABLE ll-l SHIFT POPULATION AND WASTE PRODUCTION
Bed Patients (constant)
Outpatients
Paid Personnel
Non-Comp. Personnel
Total Est. Population/Shift
Avg. Shift & Daily Pop.
Rate of Waste Production:
% of Dally Production
Monday - Friday
1st Shift
2,000
2,800
5,400
3,200
13,400
2nd Shift
2,000
1,500
1,600
5,100
3rd Shift
2,000
1,500
800
4,300
*7,100
54%
25%
21%
Saturday and Sunday
1st Shift
2,000
3,000
5,000
2nd Shift
2,000
1,500
3,500
3rd Shift
2,000
1,500
3,500
4,000
42%
29%
29%
*lncludes outpatients weighted at 1/2 value due to limited time in hospital
Although the above estimate and observations indicate that waste production is a
continuing process, the major handling of accumulated wastes is primarily confined
to services provided during the first shift operation.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
Location, Buildings and Land:
The Medical Center is located in the Central District of Los Angeles about one mile
northeast of the downtown Civic Center. Bounded by Mission Street, Marengo Avenue,
Cummings Street and Zonal Avenue, it occupies a site of some 68 acres bisected by
State Street meandering on a north-south axis through this property. The proportions
of the property range from about 1200 feet wide on the north-south axis to an average
length of some 2500 feet. Grade differential is considerable, ranging from the
highest elevation on the east boundary (Cummings Street) at 430' MSL, falling
about 125' in grade to the west with its lowest elevation at about 305' in the
southwest portion of the property.
Basically, the total site consists of three building plateaus. Nominal differences
in grade will be found in that portion of the property developed as building sites
and parking areas lying west of State Street with grades ranging from the low of
305' to 337'. The developed building areas generally lying in the southeast
quarter of the property, east of State Street, range from a low of 330' to a high
of 350'. In the northeast quarter, also lying east of State Street, grades range
from a nominal low of 360' to 400', with abrupt changes of grade occurring along
the west and south borders of this parcel.
This complex is comprised of 28 buildings, varying from 1 to 20 stories in height.
Nineteen of these buildings are classified as permanent structures. The remaining
nine buildings, though classified as obsolete, are currently in use.
The Site Plan of the existing plant, Figure ll-l, identifies all buildings by number,
function, number of stories, etc. The aerial photograph, Figure 11-2, further
illustrates the relationship of buildings and emphasizes the magnitude of this
complex. Future development by the addition of major new buildings will
likely be confined to the general area presently occupied by these obsolete
structures. Buildings in this complex, ranging from 5 to 40 years in age,
together with land, equipment and vehicles, are estimated to have a
replacement value of approximately $150,000,000. Collectively, the existing
buildings provide about 3,000,000 square feet of useable floor area, of which
some 2,800,000 square feet is represented in permanent structures.
-------
o
c
SCALE OF FEET
BUILDING SCHEDULE
Bldg.
No.
No. Area Bldg. No.
Function Floors (SF) No. Function Floors
1 Unit I -Acute 19 1,285,000 9 Pharmacy 6
2 Unit II-O.B. & Gyn. 9 376,110 10 General Laboratory 3
3 Outpatients 4 209,000 11 Chaplain 1
4 Pediatrics S.C.D. 8 171,075 12 Patient Identification 1
5 Psychiatric 9 132,000 13 Research Building 1
6 Interns Residence 10 139,000 14 Clinical Research 4
7 Nurses Res. & Classrooms 9 171,620 15 Power House
8 Nurses Residence 2 46,000
Area
(SF)
55,000
33,000
2,750
2,725
22,000
61,000
Bldg.
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Function
Laundry
Shops
Research Building
Garage
Storage
Steam Plant
Cancer Research
No.
Floors
2
1
3
2
1
Area
(SF)
55,200
12,200
14,500
6,160
4,100
10,200
Bldg,
No.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Function
Gate House
Admin. (Hoip. Dept.)
Telephone Exchange
Storage
Storage
Incinerator
Classrooms
No.
Floors
1
4
2
1
1
Area
(SF)
2,400
30,600
6,180
2,940
2,270
2,000
-------
—
3-
3
—
—
n
O
n
ID
3
o
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-7
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
The foregoing description of the existing facilities at the Medical Center has
indicated the complexities of this 68-acre plant layout. The complexities of
the total solid waste system, both in variety of materials generated and methods
of handling, processing and disposal of these materials, are equally as great.
Types of Waste Materials Generated:
Types of conventional solid wastes generated in this plant present similar varieties
and quantities as will be found in a municipality of similar size, including:
1. Garbage 6. Bulky Wastes (furnishings, auto parts, tires, etc.)
2. Rubbish 7. Expended Vehicles
3. Ashes 8. Street and Landscaping Refuse
4. Dead Animals 9. Construction and Demolition Wastes
5. Special Wastes 10. Industrial Wastes (shops)
In addition, reusable materials and equipment, such as linens, food service items,
patient care items, etc. requiring reprocessing, will be found in quantities that
far exceed the amounts of these conventional solid wastes. These reusables have
all the handling and transport problems of conventional waste materials, and
dependent on future changes in operating policy, single-use (disposable) items
may replace certain of these materials, substantially increasing the problem of
disposal.
Generally, bulky wastes, worn-out vehicles, street and landscaping refuse, con-
struction and demolition wastes are handled in separate channels apart from the
main flow of waste materials generated daily within the plant buildings. Daily
quantities of these materials generated fluctuate considerably. Dependent on the
nature and quality of these materials, they may be salvaged for in-plant reuse or
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
deposited at landfills. By and large, the methods of disposal selected appear to be
satisfactory and are limited by the characteristics of the individual waste materials.
Detailed studies of these types of wastes will not be considered further in this study,
except as they may be found within the building waste handling system. Similarly,1
those radiological wastes which are generated in varying quantities and handled
in compliance with State and Federal regulations will not be investigated in depth
except as they may affect the waste handling system in this building complex.
In summary, the identification of kinds of wastes that may be found in the main
stream of the solid waste system include garbage, rubbish, ashes, dead animals,
special wastes and reusables. From observations of the different characteristics
of certain waste materials and their respective handling requirements within the
total system, eight categories of waste materials have been established for detailed
study. These categories are identified as follows:
1. Sharps - needles, blades, etc.
2. Surgical, pathological and animals
3. Soiled linen
4. Rubbish or mixed refuse
5. Patient care items
6. Non-combustible - glass, metals and ashes
7. Garbage (Non-grindable)
80 Food service items
(Disposable)
(Disposable)
(Reusable)
(Disposable)
(Reusable)
(Disposable)
(Disposable)
(Reusable)
Brief Description of the Total System:
Policies of operation of the solid waste system specify relatively direct and simph
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-9
procedures to be followed. Certain special purpose equipment has been provided for
disposal of wastes. Pathologic incinerators provide facilities for disposal of tissue
wastes. Grinder installations provide facilities for disposal of food preparation wastes
and selected pathologic wastes. Central on-site incineration has generally prevailed
over the years for the disposal of other infectious wastes. The balance of disposable
wastes are hauled by hospital packer trucks to landfill for final disposal.
An inter-building transfer system, employing tram trains, collects loaded carts at
intermediate storage points, transports them via surface, tunnel and corridor routes
to central storage points. Infectious wastes are discharged at the central incinerator
for disposal. Other disposable wastes are discharged and loaded into a compactor
truck for transport to a landfill. Reusable wastes are directed to their respective
reprocessing points. The compactor truck also provides collection service from a
number of outlying buildings not serviced by the tram train. Direct haul to the
landfill is made after each load is collected.
Various methods of waste collection and transport exist within the 28 buildings in
this complex. However, generally hand cart collection of materials on each floor
prevails. Eight of the multistory buildings have chutes for vertical transport of
soiled linens and mixed refuse. The balance of waste materials, both reusables
and disposables, are transported by elevators where available or manually via
stairs in some of the two and three story buildings to intermediate storage points
to await the inter-building pickup.
Responsibility of Solid Waste Management:
General Services (Housekeeping and Custodial Services) is charged with the
responsibility of solid waste management along with other plant services. In
performance of the functions in solid waste management, this department must
observe those general regulations dealing with building safety, fire prevention,
air pollution, sanitation, as well as the applicable requirements of the Hospital
Li ceasing Act.
Operational policies have been adopted by plant administration which provide
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II I'"10
a means of coordinating all supportive services with the medical activities within the
plant. Coordination between the Medical Department, charged with the primary
function of patient care services, and the Non-Medical Departments' function of
providing all other required support services is accomplished through a system which
subdivides the total plant operation into administrative or service areas. Each area
is assigned an administrator to provide liaison between Medical and Non-Medical
personnel in performance of their respective functions.
As related to management of the solid waste system by Housekeeping and Custodial
Services, these service areas may be physically defined as follows:
Area 1 - The Outpatient and Admitting Room Administrative Area,
consisting of the Outpatient Building (Bldg. No. 3) and the
basement and 1st floor of Unit I (Bldg, No. 1).
Area 2 - The Laboratory-Radiology and Surgical Specialties Adminis-
trative Areas, consisting of floors 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Unit I
(Bldg. No. 1).
Area 3 - The General Medicine Administrative Area, consisting of
floors 6, 7 and 8 of Unit I (Bldg. No. 1).
Area 4 - The Medico I-Surgical Administrative Area, consisting of
floors 9 through 19 of Unit I (Bldg. No. 1).
Area 5 - Psychiatry and Children's Division Administrative Areas,
consisting of the Psychiatric Building (Bldg,, No. 5) and
the Children's Division Building (Bldg. No. 4).
Area 6 - The Obstetrics-Gynecology Administrative Area, consisting
of Unit II (Bldg. No. 2).
Two other service areas generally non-medical in function are defined as follows:
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-11
Area 7 - The Special Services Area, consisting of all outlying buildings
(Bldgs. No. 9 through 28), grounds, service yards and tunnels.
Area 8 - The Resident Hall Area, consisting of the Interns and Nurses
Buildings (Bldgs. Nos. 6, 7 and 8).
Organization of Manpower:
The housekeeping and custodial labor force is subdivided into teams serving the total
plant. These teams provide all services for the specified service areas, including
on-floor refuse collection activities and transport of segregated waste material
to intermediate storage points.
A special service team (for Area 7) provides all custodial services to the group of
outlying buildings, as well as operation of tram trains, elevators and refuse trucks
for transfer of waste materials from intermediate storage areas in all buildings to
central storage, processing and disposal points.
Personnel of other departments are involved in certain aspects of handling soiled
linen and used food service items. The nursing staff and aides are largely responsible
for on-floor handling up to the point of depositing linens in the laundry chutes and
placing used food service items on the carts for return. Laundry personnel are
assigned to clean out the soiled linen chute rooms, including bagging and placing
on soiled linen carts. Dietary personnel, of course, handle cleanup of food carts
on the return to the kitchen.
Each of the eight service areas are staffed to furnish services as required on a
seven-day week basis. Table 11-2 indicates General Services manpower classi-
fications and assignments in each of these areas.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
7FT2~
TABLE 11-2 GENERAL SERVICES PERSONNEL
Personnel
Classification
Si% Foreman
Cust. Foreman
Custo Working Foreman
Institutional Laborers
Custodians
Truck Driver
Tram Operator
Elev. Operator
Chief Hskpr.
Sr. Hskpr.
Housekeepers
MisCo
Total
Personnel Assigned by Service Areas
1
1
2
3
7
74
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
87
2
1
2
3
-
51
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
57
3
1
2
3
-
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
4
1
2
4
-
61
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
68
5
1
2
3
3
64
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
6
1
3
4
2
80
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90
7
1
2
-
9
43
3
6
36
-
-
-
18
118
8
—
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
1
2
48
- -
61
Total
7
15
20
21
427
3
6
36
1
2
48
18
604
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II H-13
OBSERVATIONS OF THE INTER-BUILDING AND OFF-SITE SYSTEM
Comprehensive field observations were conducted during October, November and
December, 1968, at the Medical Center to determine (1) daily quantities of solid
wastes produced, (2) distribution of generated wastes by principal buildings
and/or accumulation points, (3) manpower, and equipment used in the handling
and disposal of these materials, and (4) actual methods and practices employed.
Initial inspections at the Medical Center were made to identify the characteristics
and functions of the inter-building solid waste system. Upon inspection of the
complexities of the inter-building material handling system in which solid wastes
were transported, it appeared that extended observations were warranted in this
a rea<,
The Inter-Building Materials Handling System:
Ten major buildings of the plant are connected by a combination of elevated
corridors, tunnels, basement corridors and surface lanes providing the basic
traffic network for inter-building movement of pedestrians and materials. The
remaining 18 buildings are served primarily by surface routes (streets and sidewalks),
The tunnel-corridor network serving the major buildings is the common transport
route for the movement of pedestrian traffic (employees and patients), clean
materials and dirty materials. Various types of small vehicles (combustion engines
and electric powered vehicles) are utilized in this activity. Peak activities in
movement of materials and people generally occur at different time intervals;
however, overlapping of these functions is common in a routine day. Peak
pedestrian movements occur with changes of shifts. Peak activities in movement
of clean materials occur with the dispatch of pharmacy supplies, clean linen
supplies, food cart movement prior to meal service, and distribution and collection
of medical records. Peak activities in movement of dirty materials occur with
refuse and soiled linen collection, return of food carts following meal service,
and return of reusable equipment associated with patient care. During these
peak periods, moderate traffic congestion is noticeable at the terminal
(distribution and collection) points in each of the buildings along the tunnel-
corridor network.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II "-14
The center of material handling activity and the major area of congestion exists in the
corridors of Unit I wherein trains of food carts, medical records and general supplies
are assembled for dispatch and disassembled on return. Through traffic of clean and
dirty materials routed to and from the Interns' Residence and Outpatient Clinic
must pass through the main corridor., Cleanout of soiled linen and trash rooms
adjacent to this corridor and makeup of the carts and trains handling this material
generated in Unit I also occurs here. Nearly all general supplies for upper floors
of Unit I must be dispatched from this corridor level. Patients being transferred
for treatment to Unit I or the Outpatient Clinic must also be moved through the
main corridor. The interchange of plant personnel between buildings and working
personnel in various departments on the service level of Unit I is a continuing process
as required by the daily routine. Due to inadequate warehousing space, corridors
are used as an area for overflow storage of new supplies and equipment until
permanent storage space becomes available. Substantial congestion is the prevailing
condition in the main corridor of Unit I from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., when pedestrian
and material movements slack off.
Extreme congestion of cart traffic at variable intervals also occurs at both the laundry
receiving area and the central storage area for refuse (former incinerator) with carts
often backed up into the adjacent areas of the tunnel-corridor awaiting unloading
or return.
To measure the magnitude of the inter-building materials handling system, observa-
tions of the tram train activity over a two day period were recorded. Average daily
activity of the three tram trains used in the system was calculated at a combined
total of 193 stops for pickup and/or discharge of carts, with a total of 493 cart
movements occurring daily. These observations were confined to a ten-hour period
during the day and did not include activity after 3:00 p.m., which principally
consists of food cart movements for the evening meal and other limited activity.
These observations also excluded the tram train assigned exclusively for the
movement of pharmacy supplies and other vehicles used in material and people
movement. Figures 11-3 and 4 were prepared to illustrate hourly activity during
the ten hour period and the percentage of activity related to the movement of
clean and dirty materials. Including the return movement of food carts, together
with soiled linen cart and refuse cart movements, 63% of pickups, 68% of cart
movements and 63% of daily time were allocated to solid waste handling„
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-15
80 _.
70 -
60 -
-u 50
N?
* 40 -
i_
u
u-
c
c5 30-
z
D
£ 20 -
10
0
c
u
CL
Misc .
3 C
* 5
3 C
(M)
3 C
5 £
3 C
3 C
3 C
v C
3 C
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
DOC
DOC
O O- C
D O —
Rubbisf
Food C
Clean
Soiled
c
c
1-
• f
i (R)
arts
.inen (
Linen
3 C
3 C
c
CL)
M
D C
D C
si C
"• r«
3 C
3 <
O
— t-
Cl
1
D 0 0
^ lO O
Hourly Intervals
FIGURE 11-3 OBSERVATIONS OF DAILY CART MOVEMENT
-------
VOL
II
CHAP. II
11-16
35-.
on
oU-J
25_
.
*• *\~
> 20-
ti
<
^
I 15~
§
O
0)
0.
10-
5-
n
\J •»
rn
| Rubbish
]
,
M
-
u
]
c':
0) :
C
^j :
t-a :
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-17
Handling and Storage of Disposable Waste Materials:
Figure 11-5 illustrates the building layout of this plant and shows the location of the
connecting tunnel-corridor network, intermediate and central solid waste storage
points, as well as collection stations serving the minor buildings. It will be noted
that nine buildings in this complex, varying from 3 to 20 stories in height,
collectively contain 18 intermediate trash and soiled linen storage rooms, each
being chute fed from the floors above. Other intermediate storage points include
the "can room" and 1Itank carts" in the kitchen area in Unit I. In addition to these
principal waste storage points, some 30 refuse collection stations (cans and bins) are
located on surface routes throughout the complex.
In each of the trash rooms, a portable bin (cart) of about 2 to 2 1/2 cubic yard
capacity with hinged top is positioned to receive the direct discharge from the trash
chuteSo It is intended that as these carts are filled to capacity, an empty cart will
be manually moved into position. Often in practice, this cart movement does not
occur until the loaded cart is overflowing and/or the chute is backed up. When
these circumstances develop, manual clearing of the chute and cleanup of spilled
litter is required,, Observations indicate the majority of this mixed refuse is plastic
bagged before deposit in the chutes,, However, rupturing of bags occurs along with
occasional deposits of loose material directly into the chutes. An intermix of reusable
equipment items, such as soiled linen, patient care utensils, etc. is commonplace.
These salvageable pieces are normally separated when observed and re-channeled
into their proper route for reprocessing. As carts are filled during the day, they are
moved out of the trash rooms into the adjoining corridors to await pickup by the
tram train and transport to the central storage area« Here the carts are uncoupled
to await discharge of contents, and are returned to assigned or needed locations on
subsequent trips.
Segregated non-combustibles, disposable syringes and needles, and all pathologic
wastes are collected in covered containers, then transported via hand cart and
elevator to the "can room" located on a branch of the main service level corridor
in Unit I. Here materials are assembled for later disposition. The intended systems
direct that all materials other than segregated pathologic wastes be loaded on flat
bed carts for transport to the central storage area to await disposal. Pathologic
wastes are either directed to the pathologic incinerator in Unit I or in Unit II.
-------
CO
o
o
O
(D
-I
CO
C
(Q
Q
(/>
of
LEGEND
£) Building Number
A Compactor Truck Station
8 Linen Room with Chute
Trash Room with Chute
Subterranean Tunnel or Corridor
ZHIZ Elevated Corridor
12 Number of Floors
Soiled Linen - Central Storage
General Refuse - Central Storag
Pathological Incinerator
SCALE OF FEET
BUILDING SCHEDULE
O
m
m
Bldg.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No. Area Bldg. No.
Function Floors (SF) No. Function Floors
Unit I -Acute 19 1,285,000 9 Pharmacy 6
Unit II - O.B. & Gyn. 9 376,110 10 General Laboratory 3
Outpatients 4 209,000 11 Chaplain 1
Pediatrics & C.D. 8 171,075 12 Patient Identification 1
Psychiatric 9 132,000 13 Research Building 1
Interns Residence 10 139,000 14 Clinical Research 4
Nurses*es. & Classrooms 9 171,620 15 Power House
Nurses Residence 2 46,000
Area
(SF)
55,000
33,000
2,750
2,725
22,000
61,000
Bldg.
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Function
Laundry
Shops
Research Building
Garage
Storage
Steam Plant
Cancer Research
No.
Floors
2
1
3
2
1
Area
(SF)
55,200
12,200
14,500
6,160
4,100
10,200
No
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Function
Gate House
Admin. (Hasp. Dept.)
Telephone Exchange
Storage
Storage
Incinerator
Classrooms
No.
Floors
1
4
2
1
1
Area
(SF)
2,400
30,600
6,180
2,940
2,270
2,000
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II M-19
Non-grindable wastes from the kitchen are deposited in "tank carts". These carts are
transferred from the ground floor kitchen to the basement level by elevator to await
pickup by the tram train and transport to the central storage area,,
Waste Disposal Practices:
At the beginning of the observation period, on-site disposal of the majority of mixed
refuse was accomplished by incineration0 However, during this period, the incinerator
installation,due to violation of air pollution regulations,was forced to shut down, and
all waste materials formerly handled by this method were routed to a privately operated
landfill via the hospital's compactor truck. During the time incineration was practiced,
the carts containing mixed refuse, kitchen wastes, etc. were emptied directly on the
upper level charging floor of the incinerator, then scooped (charged) into the furnace
in a continuous manner until the capacity of the furnace was reached. Segregated
non-combustible materials and accumulations of disposable syringes and needles in
cans were stored for later transfer to the landfill.
After incineration was discontinued, an improvised plywood chute was constructed
to convey all waste materials from the upper level charging floor to a rear end
loader compactor truck on a parking lot grade some 14 feet below. Generally an
attempt was made to discharge the carts directly into the chute or in its vicinity.
Problems of area littering and sanitation on the charging floor level were similar
for both the incineration operation and the truck loading operation; however, the
latter method also created additional problems in the area of the truck at ground
level „ This system was later modified when a new top loading (forklift) truck was
acquiredo Present methods provide direct chute discharge to the topside receiving
hopper of the truck. Spillage has been minimized in the loading operation but
windblown littering as well as occasional overcharging of the chute remains a
sanitation problem. A second rear loading compactor truck utilized in the plant
system is normally stationed at the loading dock at the service level on the north
side of Unit I. This loading dock is also utilized as a principal receiving point
for incoming supplies. All bulky packaging materials from the warehousing
operation and miscellaneous other wastes are loaded directly into this truck during
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II "-20
the day. This truck is also employed on a building to building collection system
servicing the balance of the outlying buildings in this complex. Due to the nature
of this collection system, this truck proceeds to a private landfill for disposal of all
materials as loads are collected. Currently (since October, 1968), all wastes
formerly incinerated are also hauled to the same landfill for disposal. Observations
at this landfill indicate substantial salvage activities occur on a continuing basis at
the working faces of the fill. Hospital wastes are routinely handled at discharge
points common to all refuse haulers.
At the time of observations, the pathologic incinerator in Unit II was partially
disassembled for repairs and the incinerator in Unit I was not used due to malfunction.
After the central incinerator was shut down, no alternate method of on-site disposal
existed for this material „ Due to apparent lack of communications or lack of an
awareness of the problem, these materials were inadvertently channeled into the
off-site disposal channel by operating personnel <, It may be pointed out at this
time that the location of the pathologic incinerator in Unit I is at an intermediate
level between the basement and the ground floor level. All wastes intended to be
handled by this incinerator must be transported to the basement level by hand cart
and elevator, and then hand carried up two flights of stairs to the incinerator
cubicle. Similarly all residue must be hand carried to the basement level.
Handling and Storage of Reusable Waste Materials:
The routine in handling soiled linen is similar to the methods of handling mixed
refuse. The majority of linen gathered on floors is either bagged (cloth) or
bundled before deposit in the chutes. Observations at the chute rooms indicate
a substantial quantity of the bagged material loosens and scatters on impact and
that a sizeable quantity, principally surgical linen, is placed in the chutes in a
loose fomio As in the case of the trash rooms, a miscellaneous intermix of other
reusable materials, as well as rubbish, may be found in the soiled linen rooms.
Cleaning out linen rooms involves separation of the extraneous items, rebagging
and loading the linen on flatbed soiled linen carts. These are placed in the
adjoining corridor to await pickup by the tram train and transport to the receiving
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II M-21
area adjacent to the laundry. These materials are either taken directly from the cart-
to a conveyor belt for manual sorting or unloaded on the nearby soiled stockpile to
await the sorting process. At peak activities, soiled linen carts are backed up well
into the elevated corridor awaiting handling. At times, assembled clean linen supply
carts awaiting tram train distribution further congest this area.
The major reusable material other than linen at this facility generally consists of
patient care and food service items, etcc After use, those materials leaving the
floors above are transported via cart and elevator to intermediate collection points
on the service level to await pickup by the tram trains for transport to their respective
stations for reprocessing. However, in the case of patient care utensils, the cleaning
process may occur on the floor or at central sterilization stations within the building,
not requiring tram train handling. Reusable food service items are, of course,
returned on the food carts to the central kitchen cleaning area in Unit I.
Quantities and Types of Disposable Waste Materials:
After identification of methods and practices characteristic of the systems operation,
a quantity survey was made to .determine daily volume of solid wastes produced in
the total plant.
Initially observations were limited to that portion of wastes transported via the
tram train to the incinerator which at that time was in operation» Portable scales
were located in the vicinity of the incinerator, and a record was prepared identifying
all carts by number, tare weight and locations (building, trash room, etc,,) where
specific carts were assigned. Similarly all accumulation or intermediate storage
points were identified by building location. Actual weighing of loaded carts was
recorded for a period of eight days to acquire a reasonable cross section of daily
activity and to establish a "typical" day's production as delivered to the incinerator.
Considerable variations in quantities collected were observed during this period„
Observers' comments indicate this was likely due to the variable productivity
of labor and/or mechanical problems rather than extreme variations in waste
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
Tl-22"
production during the normal week day., However, with limited activity of admin-
istrative, outpatient, laboratory and other supportive functions during the week-
end, it is obvious that waste production would also be substantially lower during
the weekend period.
Tables 11-3 and 11-4 illustrate typical daily activity occurring during this eight day
period in refuse cart movements, distribution of wastes by accumulation-points and,
buildings within the plant, and the breakdown of segregated non-combustible and
mixed refuse as delivered to the incinerator area. These summaries do not include
the quantities of wastes collected by the compactor truck for landfill disposal.
TABLE 11-3 INTER-BUILDING DISPOSABLE WASTE COLLECTION
Date
10-16 (W)
10-17 (Th)
10-18 (F)
10-21 (M)
10-22 (T)
10-23 (W)
10-24 (Th)
10-25 (F)
TOTAL
TYP. DAY
Disposable Solid Wasj-es^ Transferred
Combustible
Lbs.
10,673
9,828
9,833
7,905
10,698
10,673
8,848
8,535
76,993
9,624
% Tot.
93.3
94.3
94.8
94.3
88.9
93.4
88.6
96.8
92 o9
Non-Combo
Lbs.
750
590
535
480
1,360
750
1,135
285
5,885
735
% tot.
6.7
5.7
5.2
5.7
11.1
6.6
11.4
3.2
7.1
Total
(Lbs.)
11,423
10,418
10,368
8,385
12,058
11,423
9,983
8,820
82,878
10,, 359
Cart Movement
No ./Day
84
81
79
64
91
83
82
80
644
80
Avg. Net Wt.
Lbs ./Cart
136
128
132
131
132
137
121
;. no
129
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
1-23
TABLE 11-4 PRODUCTION OF DISPOSABLE WASTES BY BUILDINGS
Building
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
16
-
Function
Unit 1 - Acute
Unit II - OB/Gyn.
Outpatients
Ped./CD
Psychiatric
Interns
Nurses
Pharmacy
Gen'l . Lab
Laundry
Misc.
TOTAL
Avg. Lbs.
Collected
Daily
5,510
1,570
930
640
570
400
150
80
60
220
170
10,300
Shortly after this eight-day period of observations, the incinerator was closed down
and a new system was improvised by General Services, to haul all wastes to the
landfill with the addition of one compactor truck. To complete the quantity
survey, including all wastes now handled by both trucks, it was necessary to
ride both vehicles and obtain weight records at the landfill. Observers on
the trucks after obtaining tare weights, recorded refuse weights for a period
of four days and the truck operators continued to provide scale records for an
additional four day period. Table 11-5 illustrates the truck weight records for
this additional period of time, including the combined quantities of wastes
which were formerly incinerated with those previously collected and hauled to
the landfill. Total daily activity during this eight day period indicated
4.4 trips averaging 4,600 pounds (2.3 tons) or 20,550 pounds (10.25 tons) of
disposable solid waste material were hauled daily to the private landfill.
General observations of the truck activity prior to the incinerator shut down
-------
VOL.
CHAP.
1-24
TABLE 11-5 LOAD RECORD 8-DAY PERIOD
Date
12-3 (Tues.)
12-4 (Wed.)
12-5 (Thurs.)
12-6 (Fri.)
12-7 (Sat.)
12-8 (Sun.)
12-9 (Mon.)
12-10 (Tues.)
No. of Trips:
Avg ./Day
Total Waste
Avg. Day (Lbs.)
Avg. Load (Lbs.)
Truck No. 3368
Tare Wt. 1
Gross Wt.
21,220
20,830
25,000
24,560
23,600
24,120
24,100
24,760
24,870
24,550
24,631
24,515
24,605
24,320
24,610
23,730
24,750
24,300
24,820
24,863
8,660 Lbs.
Net Wt.
2,560
2,170
6,340
5,900
4,940
5,460
5,440
6,100
6,210
5,890
5,971
5,855
5,945
5,660
5,950
5,070
6,090
5,640
6,160
6,203
2.5
13,700
5,500
Truck No. 3369
Tare Wt. 1
Gross Wt.
24,630
24,500
24,740
20,800
21,320
22,412
21,530
21,580
22,630
21,453
22,300
20,650
19,915
21,430
23,410
8,560 Lbs.
Net Wt.
6,070
5,940
6,180
2,240
2,760
3,762
2,970
3,020
4,070
2,893
3,740
2,090
1,355
2,870
4,850
1 .9
6,850
3,700
Total Daily
Refuse
Hauled
14,570
27,770
23,522
9>180
24,806
18,238
20,555
25,723
4.4
20,550
4,600
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II U-25
indicated it was making about three to four trips a day hauling estimated average
loads of about one and a half tons or about 9,000 to 12,000 pounds daily.
Final observations of the combined activity of both trucks reasonably confirmed
these quantity estimates.
Following the above observations on the principal disposable wastes, there
remained only two basic types of wastes with unknown quantities. These materials
were food preparation wastes deposited directly in kitchen grinders and patho-
logical wastes for disposal by incineration.
Hospital personnel in Dietary and Pathology assisted in determination of quantities
of these materials in order to minimize disruption in these very active departments.
The Chief Dietitian selected a day with menu requirements of foods with high volume
of preparation wastes, which are the principal materials handled by the grinder
installations. Personnel in the various preparation areas segregated this material
and weighed the accumulated wastes prior to charging the grinders. Results of
this activity presented a combined daily total of all food preparation wastes of
2,600 pounds. At the time of this survey, about 10,000 meals per day were
prepared or it can be related that up to 0.26 pounds of waste per meal may
be expected.
Surgery, autopsy and the laboratories generate the major quantities of segregated
pathologic wastes. Technicians in these services over a three day period estimated
volumes of wastes accumulated each day for disposal by the pathologic incinerator
at approximately 187 gallons. Using a density factor of 5,2 Ibs./gal. based on
an allowed 70% moisture factor for this type of material, it is indicated that a
total production of about 1000 Ibs./day may be expected from these combined
sources. Distribution of this material generated by the major producers for
disposal by incineration is as follows:
Unit I - Basement - Lab Services 30 gallons per day
2nd Floor- Autopsy and Lab Areas 80 gallons per day
2nd Floor- Laboratories 45 gallons per day
16th Floor- Pathology Lab 30 gallons per day
Unit II - 4th Floor - Surgical-Delivery 2 gallons per day
-------
VOL. II . —,,,-
CHAP. II ""26
The prevailing handling practice at the time of observations involved storage of
materials in closed containers with plastic liners, with delivery once daily via
cart and/or elevator to the Can Room in Unit I for intermediate storage prior
to disposal. Interviews with various personnel involved in handling and dispatch
of these materials indicated differences of opinion as to routing and storage
procedures.
Quantities and Types of Reusable Waste Materials:
To complete the quantity survey, data on reusable supplies and equipment
classified as solid waste material in this study had to be developed. The
principal identifiable materials in quantity in this classification are soiled
linens, patient care and food service items. •
Laundry records were found to be quite comprehensive, and daily weight records
of soiled linen processed were readily available. Utilizing the most current
month's records that were typical (October, 1968), an average calendar day
production of some 45,500 pounds was calculated opposed to an average of
56,500 pounds processed daily. Table 11-6 itemizes daily activity by shifts
for the total number of days worked in the month of October.
Reusable food service items collected from the wards was calculated on the basis
of number of patient meals served daily. Some variations occur with type of food
service for various meals; however, an average of 1 1/2 Ibs./patient meal was
estimated,, Based on 6,000 patient meals served per day, a daily quantity of
some 9,000 pounds may be expected for return from the wards in food carts to
the kitchen for reprocessing.
Patient care items presented greater difficulty in identifying a consistent
handling system and basis for estimating quantities. In the case of patient
care utensils, in most buildings cleaning or sterilizing facilities are available
on each ward or within the building, and these materials are seldom seen in
the inter-building system. The major reusable supplies circulated within the
inter-building are reusable bottles from Pharmacy. These are generally
transferred exclusively in racks or cartons by the Pharmacy tram train on the
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-27
TABLE 11-6 SOILED LINEN PROCESSING - OCTOBER 1968
Processing by Shifts (Lbs ./Day)
Date
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
1st Shift
21,970
29,970
29,135
29,530
19,845
29,760
28,813
27,640
22,885
27,865
26,500
30,290
28,360
31,410
32,525
18,675
31,730
27,700
30,775
32,220
28,995
31,980
31,085
33,295
33,925
716,878
2nd Shift
19,085
24,890
30,545
29,307
—
26,290
28,500
29,880
30,340
30,370
29,690
31,250
30,525
30,930
30,905
—
30,885
33,845
32,950
31,890
29,215
31,930
31,350
32,293
32,790
689,655
Total
41,055
54,860
59,680
58,837
19,845
56,050
57,313
57,520
53,225
58,235
56,190
61,540
58,885
62,340
63,430
18,675
62,615
61,545
63,725
64,110
58,210
63,910
62,435
65,588
66,715
1,406,533
Average Lbs. Per Working Day
Average Lbs. Per Calendar Day
56,500
45,500
-------
VOL. II .
CHAP. II H-28
return of carts to this department and then reprocessed in the bottle washing section.
Observations during the entire period at this plant indicate that total patient care
items expected to be handled daily in the inter-building system will be represented
in trace amounts only.
Summary of Total Waste Production:
In summary, Table 11-7 presents the types and quantities of wastes that may be
expected to be generated daily at the Medical Center under its present level of
service, and relates these quantities to the number of bed patients, number of
employees and combined plant population, as well as total floor area of this
building complex. The closing chapter of this volume will summarize our
findings on all hospitals under study and attempt to establish patterns in the
relationship of population or plant size to total waste production.
Equipment and Building Areas Used in System Operation:
For later economic analysis of the solid waste system, identification of all
elements which contribute to its function is necessary. Included in these
elements are building areas and equipment used exclusively in waste handling,
storage, processing and disposal, and equipment shared with other services,.
Excluding the numerous trash and soiled linen chute rooms considered as cost
elements of the in-building system, building areas used in the inter-building
waste system are limited to (1) the abandoned incinerator presently used as a
central storage and loading area for disposable wastes, (2) the covered storage
area for soiled linen, and (3) the two rooms housing pathologic incinerators.
Collectively, the replacement costs of present covered storage area requirements
for disposable wastes and soiled linens (about 2,000 square feet) should not exceed
a nominal $20,000.00 investment. The pathologic incinerator rooms (about
250 square feet of building area) based on a nominal $25.00 per square foot
building cost allowance would represent an investment of about $6,000.00.
The balance of areas in the inter-building system used for storage and
processing as well as transfer routes are of mixed use and cannot be directly
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-29
TABLE 11-7 SUMMARY OF DAILY WASTE PRODUCTION
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Path. & Surgical
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
Non-Combustibles
Garbage (Non-Gri ridable)
Food Service Items
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
TOTAL WASTES
Total Disposable
Total Reusable
Avg . Wt .
Lbs./Day
75
1,000
45,500
16,200
TR
1,500
1,800
9,000
TR
25
2,600
77,700
23,200
54,500
% of
Total
.1
1.3
58.6
20.9
TR
1.8
2.3
11.6
TR
TR
3.4
100.0
29.9
70.1
* Daily Production Factors
Lbs./Bed Patient
TR
.5
22.8
8.1
TR
.7
.9
4.5
TR
TR
1.3
38.8
11.6
27.2
Lbs. /Capita
TR
TR
2.2
.8
TR
TR
.1
.4
TR
TR
.1
3.7
1.1
2.6
*Based Avg. Census of 2,000 Bed Patients Daily and Gross Population of 21,000
Note - Total Production Related to Gross Bldg. Area of 3,000,000 SF:
Disposables (a)7.5 Lbs./MSF, Reusables @ 18.1 Lbs./MSF
or Total of 25.6 Lbs./MSF Daily.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-30
allocated to the waste system •
The principal equipment acquired for exclusive use in the inter-building waste system
includes the pathologic incinerators, all soiled linen carts, trash carts and portable
bins. The equivalent of two tram train power units are also used in transporting
reusable and disposable waste materials. The balance of carts used for transport
of clean supplies and return of reusables or disposable materials should be allocated
to the movement of clean supplies and not to the waste system.
Equipment utilized in the off-site system is limited to the 13 cubic yard compactor
truck providing the building to building collection service and the new 33 cubic yard
compactor truck which handles the majority of materials formerly incinerated.
A summary of these elements in the inter-building and off-site systems is presented
in Table 11-8, which shows the inventory and cost allowance of each item. This
estimate based on approximate replacement costs indicates a capital investment
of about $68,250.00 required to duplicate building areas and equipment used in
the inter-building system, and $52,000.00 for equipment used in the off-site system.
TABLE 11-8 COSTS OF BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT
IN INTER-BUILDING AND OFF-SITE SYSTEM
Inter-Building System:
Building Areas (Incinerator rooms & covered storage areas)
Est. Value
$ 26,000
Equipment:
2 - Tram Train Tractors
10 - Flatbed Trash Carts
35 - Portable Trash Bins
30 - Soiled Linen Carts
8 - Tank Carts
2 - Patho. Incinerators
@ $3000 = $ 6,000
@ 200 = 2,000
@ 350= 12,250
@ 200 = 6,000
@ 750 = 6,000
@ 5000= 10,000
ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT COST
42,250
Off-Site System:
1-13 CY Compactor Truck
1 - 33 CY Compactor Truck
ESTIMATED EQUIPMENT COST
15,000
37,000
52,000
EST. REPLACEMENT COST OF BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT
120,250
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-31
Subcontract Services and Disposal Fees:
A disposal fee for those materials hauled to the private landfill has been established
at $4.00 per ton, plus $1.00 per load for special handling of hospital wastes. In
practice, loads are not generally weighed and charges are made on a truck load
basis. However, based on the daily production of about 10 tons and using the above
rates, charges should be in the range of $45 to $50 per day for off-site disposal,
dependent on the number of loads required. With the larger compactor truck
recently added to the system, the minimum rate will probably be achieved.
One contract not specifically related to the economic analysis of the inter-building
and off-site system has been issued to a private contractor for collection, transpor-
tation and disposal of radioactive waste material in accordance with State and Federal
regulations. This contract provides for removal of special 55 gallon containers at a
cost of $27.55 per container. Current experience indicates about eight drums per
year are handled.
Personnel Requirements:
From field records of the entire period of observations, it is estimated that average
daily activity of the inter-building and off-site systems involves an equivalent of
about sixteen men. About one third of this manpower is represented by truck and
tram operators, with the remainder consisting of laundry workers, institutional
laborers, custodians, etc. performing loading, unloading or other handlings of the
various types of waste materials. Further detail on the labor force, including
cost data, is shown later in this chapter.
-------
VOL- I'
CHAP. II
OBSERVATIONS OF THE IN-BUILDING SYSTEM
Continuing observations at the Medical Center were carried out to determine the
detailed functions of the in-building operation (Unit and Inter-Unit Systems).
Cursory inspection of the major buildings in the plant was accomplished with the
assistance of area supervisors of Housekeeping and Custodial Services. The purpose
of this inspection was primarily to compare methods and practices employed in the
various departments and buildings and to select "typical" wards and stations for
in-depth observations.
General:
These cursory inspections revealed or confirmed the complexity and confusion that
usually exists within the waste handling operations of hospitals. These complexities
are "built-in" through the multitude of different materials and supplies that are
distributed and used throughout the hospital daily. Emphasis is placed on the
importance of distribution of new materials with little direction given in handling
the residual waste materials.
Detailed studies by staff members of the University of Minnesota' ' have been made
previously in the field of hospital wastes, cataloging and itemizing typical components
of mixed refuse to be found in various hospitals. These materials can be broadly
categorized into (1) wood and paper products, (2) cloth or fiber, (3) plastics and
rubber, (4) plants and miscellaneous foods, (5) miscellaneous non-combustibles,
(6) medications, and (7) reusables.
In addition to these categories of wastes that are generated throughout the hospital,
additional concentrations of wastes requiring special handling are occasionally passed
into the general waste system, bypassing intended channels. Similarly, in many cases,
mixed refuse of the above material categories, dependent on point of generation, such
as isolation wards, etc., are also intended for special handling but are inadvertently
channeled into the general waste system. Confusion in proper handling methods may be
introduced by high turnover of personnel, difficulty in identifying the material after it
passes through the first hands, language difficulty, morale, and improper equipment.
(1) Bacterial Contamination From Hospital Solid Waste, R0 G. Bond and
G. S. Michaelsen, Research Grant EF-00007-04 National Institute of Health, 1964.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II U-33
First observations confirmed the general kinds and intermix of materials prevailing in
the system. Rather than devote extensive field time to cataloging the components of
the mixed waste materials, observations were directed to the mechanics of handling,
handling techniques associated with all types of wastes, equipment used, and time
devoted by personnel classifications in various aspects of waste handling in an
effort to establish operating standards, efficiencies, and a basis of determining
costs of the present waste system operation.
Initial inspections were confined to the Acute Unit (Building 1), O.B./Gyn.
(Building 2), Outpatients (Building 3), Communicable Disease (Building 4),
Psychiatric (Building 5), and various laboratories and kitchen areas. Observations,
together with interviews with custodial personnel and supervisors, as well as floor
nurses and nurses' supervisors, assisted in providing a basis of labor estimates.
Handling of Disposable Waste Materials:
It was generally observed, as may be expected, that disposable wastes are created
and/or handled by all personnel, patients and visitors in a continuing daily flow.
However, upon deposit in the initial container, handling of disposable wastes
immediately becomes limited to the Housekeeping and Custodial staff.
Wastebaskets in patients' rooms and other initial containers are usually wiped out
with disinfectants and lined with plastic bags after use. Floor workers, along with
general cleaning duties, empty these containers by removing the filled plastic bags
and placing them into a plastic lined cloth bag suspended on the custodial cart,,
When the plastic liner is filled, a custodian wheels the cart to the nearest trash
chute, ties the bag closed, and deposits it in the chute.
Though a relatively simple system, breakdowns occur due to innumerable reasons,
including shortages of plastic bags, monotony of the routine, etc. Plastic liners
are on occasion omitted from containers or from the cloth bag on the custodial cart.
Occasionally, the plastic liners of the cloth bag are filled to excess and cannot
be tied or are too large to enter the chute door. These circumstances then create
additional time, effort and risk in handling. Typical alternative handling
methods may include (1) dumping of loose material in chutes, (2) hand carried
-------
VOL. n
CHAP, ii
or stretcher borne bags of trash transported by elevator to the intermediate storage
rooms, (3) improper storage on the floor, and (4) rebagging of materials for deposit
in chutes, all of which give greater exposure of the environment to the material
and increase handling costs.
Miscellaneous segregated waste materials on each floor, including non-combustible
items, syringes and needles, and double-bagged medical wastes, as well as surgical
and pathological wastes from limited locations, are collected separately in cans,
which are manually transported by custodial personnel via elevator or stairs to
service level intermediate storage locations for later retransfer to selected disposal
stations.
Handling of Reusable Waste Materials:
Custodial personnel are not as greatly involved in the initial handling of reusable
waste materials. The nursing staff and nurses aides (attendants) are the primary
handlers of this material prior to use and after its conversion from clean to dirty
classification. They remove soiled linen, bag (cloth) or bundle the material and
hand carry it to the nearest chute for deposit in same. Highly contaminated
linens from certain areas may be double-bagged or plastic-bagged prior to deposit
within the chute system. Similarly, they also collect used food service items
from patient rooms after meals, bag disposable food wastes, and assemble all
implements on food carts to await pickup by custodial personnel. These carts
are then escorted via elevator transport, and grouped at intermediate collection
points at service level to await the inter-building transfer to the main kitchen.
Patient care items are also collected by nurses or attendants and hand carried to
on-floor cleaning and/or sterilizing facilities for reprocessing. Reusable bottles,
largely from the pharmacy department, are collected as required, placed in racks
or cartons and stored in utility rooms or corridors until picked up by pharmacy
personnel for return via elevator and tram train for reprocessing.
Personnel Requirements:
Minor variations occur in the on-floor unit system of handling solid wastes. However
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II M-35
the previously described methods prevail in the major waste-producing areas. To
relate personnel requirements to this operation, various departments and typical
wards were observed. Four wards were selected for detailed observations of
personnel involved in the daily routines of housekeeping functions. Observations
of shift routines at each of these wards were made over a period of four days,
recording time devoted to handling of the principal solid waste material,
including sharps, soiled linen, patient care and food service items, rubbish and
non-combustibles.
The observed time devoted to waste handling as recorded was consistently less than
estimated by the various supervisory personnel in each classification. It also
appeared more reasonable as a basis for this estimate and determination of unit
factors that could be used in projecting total estimated manpower requirements.
Similar observations were made in other areas of the in-building system and
composite time factors of all personnel involved in waste handling were
developed. These factors were related to the major types of wastes and were
resolved to minutes per day per bed patient in handling each material. Projections
of total manhour and equivalent manday requirements for the in-building system,
shown in Table 11-9, indicate an equivalent of 180 mandays are required daily in
these waste handling activities. Table 11-9 also relates this labor force to personnel
classifications and shows the composite time factor (minutes/bed) utilized in these
projections.
As noted earlier in this report, estimated labor is specifically limited to (1) the
handling of disposable waste materials from the point of initial deposit through
the point of disposal and (2) the handling of reusable materials after use up to
the point of storage or accumulation preceding reprocessing. Estimated labor as
shown does not include general cleaning duties of custodians or handling of clean
supplies that may later be converted to wastes.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
TABLE 11-9 DAILY REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-BUILDING WASTE HANDLING
Type of Waste
Sharps
Soiled Linen
Reusable Patient Items
Food Service Items
Rubbish
Non-Comb.
Other <2>
TOTAL
Equivalent Man Days
Manhours by Personnel Classifications
Nurses
—
94
16
142
—
—
—
252
31
Aides
—
94
66
142
—
—
—
302
37
Cust.
92
67
—
—
559
95
—
813
102
Lndry.
Wrkr.
—
34
—
—
—
—
—
34
4
(1)
Other
—
—
—
7
—
—
44
51
6
Total
92
289
82
291
559
95
44
1452
—
Equiv.
Man
Days
11
36
10
36
70
12
5
180
180
Min.
Per
Bed
2.8
8.7
2.5
8.7
16.7
2.9
1.3
43.6
—
(1) Lab. Tech., Food Service Worker, Elev. Operator, Institutional Laborer
(2) Pathological, Garbage (Non-Grindable), Radiological
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
li-37
Table 11-10 was prepared to illustrate the manpower load requirements on major
personnel classifications involved in the in-building solid waste system. It shows
average daily personnel available (7 day basis) and the number and percent required
for handling of solid wastes,, Further detail on personnel requirements, including
cost estimates, in handling of solid wastes within the various components of the
system will be presented at the close of this chapter.
TABLE 11-10 LABOR REQUIREMENTS OF IN-BUILDING WASTE SYSTEM
Man Day Distribution
Personnel
Classifications
Nurses
Nurses Aides
Custodians
(1) Total
Available
1,047
2,272
327
Required for Waste Handling
Man Days
31
37
102
% of Tot.
2.9%
1.6%
31.2%
(1) 7-Day Basis. (5/7 of Ordinance Positions)
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-38
Equipment and Building Area Requirements:
Principal building areas and equipment utilized in the in-building waste system are
limited to the soiled linen and trash rooms, shaftways housing chutes and the fixed
equipment (chutes and access doors). Collectively, the 18 pairs of soiled linen
and trash rooms, together with shaftways, chutes and hardware, represent an
investment estimated at about $345,000 in building and equipment exclusively
used by the in-building solid waste system. Table 11-11 shows the breakdown of
these costs based on nominal allowances of $25.00 per square foot for building
area and $3.00 per cubic foot for shaftways.
TABLE 11-11 BUILDING AREAS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE IN-BUILDING SYSTEM
Building Areas and Volumes:
1 Can Storage Room 500 SF @ $25/SF
18 Trash Rooms @ Avg. 155 SF Area =2800 SF @ $25/SF
18 Soiled Linen Rooms @ Avg. 275 SF Area = 5000 SF @ $25/SF
3620 LF Chute-Shafts @ 6 CFAF = 21,720 CF @ $3/CF
Est. Value
$ 12,500
70,000
125,000
65,160
Total Building Value Allowance
$272,660
Fixed Equipment:
3620 LF Trash and Linen Chutes @ $20AF Installed
$ 72,400
TOTAL BLDG. & FIXED EQUIPMENT
$345,060
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II fih39
ESTIMATED OPERATING COST OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM
Building, equipment and labor involved in the system operation have been explored
in detail in the preceding sections of this chapter. An investment of some $370,000
has been calculated for those portions of the physical plant and fixed equipment that
are exclusively used in solid waste handling functions. Projecting the estimated
value of buildings and fixed equipment on a thirty-five year basis with a nominal
interest rate of 5% (average annual amortization rate at 6.107%) results in an
average expense of about $23,000 per year, or $63.00 per calendar day. A
reasonable budget allowance for maintenance and repairs of these types of
facilities should be equal to about 2% of building costs, or some $7,400 a year,
or $20 per day.
Operating costs for vehicular equipment will include such items as maintenance
and repairs, tires, fuel, service, licenses, etc. For the most part, though all
power vehicles are operated on relatively low mileage basis, most of the equipment
is operated at least at idling speed during active work shifts. Therefore, an average
of 8 hours per day on a 7 day week basis or about 3,000 operating hours per year
has been allowed in the following calculations of total annual and average daily
equipment costs. Table 11-12 summarizes the equipment referred to earlier in this
report, together with capital and operating expenses they represent.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-40
TABLE 11-12 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EQUIPMENT OPERATING COST
Equipment Item
l-33CYComp. Truck
1-13 CY Comp. Truck
Cost
Allowance
$37,000
15,000
TOTAL OFF-SITE EQUIPMENT
2-Tram Train Tractors
10-Flatbed Trash Carts
35-Portable Trash Bins
30-Flatbed Linen Carts
8-Tank Carts
2-Pathol . Incin.
$ 3,000
200
350
200
750
5,000
Oper. &
Maint. Cost
$3.50/Hr.
2.50/Hr.
$1.25/Hr.
10% of Val .
10% of Val .
10% of Val.
10% of Val .
—
TOTAL INTER-BUILDING EQUIPMENT
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
Annual
Oper. &
Maint. Cost
$ 10,500
7,500
$ 18,000
$ 7,500
200
1,225
600
600
1,000
$11,125
$29,125
Annual
Depre-
ciation
$ 3,700
1,500
$ 5,200
$ 600
200
1,225
600
600
1,000
$ 4,225
$ 9,425
Total Annual
Cost
$14,200
9,000
$23,200
$ 8,100
400
2,450
1,200
1,200
2,000
$15,350
$38,550
In addition to the foregoing costs, labor for the total system, including payroll taxes
and insurance and social benefits, has been calculated at about $2,275,000 annually
or $6,232 per calendar day. Table 11-13 relates types of employees involved in waste
handling and the distribution of estimated labor costs to the various types of wastes
(reusables and disposables) and components of the total waste system.
-------
TABLE 11-13
ESTIMATED DAILY LABOR COSTS OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Types of Wait*
Sharps Needles Etc
, , , ,
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
Non -Combustible
Garbage (Non-Grindable;
Food Service Items
Radiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
Unit System
Type
imployee
Zustodian
ah.T«eh.
- .frtJ;—..
^urse
&tt
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-42
Certain other operating costs lie in the area of the miscellaneous expendable
supplies, such as replaceable containers and disposable bags, etc. used
throughout the plant. A nominal allowance of $100.00 per day has been
established for this factor based on quantities of refuse produced and estimated
numbers of containers. A summary of the estimated annual and daily expenses
of the system based on the foregoing data is shown in Table 11-14, which also
relates these costs to the various components of the waste system.
-------
TABLE 11-14 DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS TO WASTE SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Cost Elements
Bldg. & Fixed Equip .
Maint. & Repairs
Vehicular Equip. Carts
Oper. & Maint.
Disposal Fees
Miscc Expend. Supplies
SUB-TOTAL
Labor (Taxes, Ins., Benefits)
TOTAL
Avg. Cost Per Day
% of Total
System Components - Estimated Annual Cost of Operation
Unit
$ -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
12,250
$ 12,250
1,805,000
$1,817,250
$ 4,980
75.8%
Inter-Unit
$ 21,500
6,880
-0-
-0-
-0-
12,250
$ 40,630
298,000
$338,630
$ 926
14.1%
Inter-Building
$ 1,500
520
4,225
11,125
-0-
12,000
$ 29,370
73,000
$102,370
$ 280
4.3%
Off-Site
$ -0-
-0-
5,200
18,000
16,400
-0-
$ 39,600
99,000
$138,600
$ 380
5.8%
Total
Cost
$ 23,000
7,400
9,425
29, 125
16,400
36,500
$ 121,850
$2,275,000
$2,396,850
$
—
%
1.0
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.7
1.5
5.1
94.9
—
—
100.0%
Avg . Cost
Per Day
$ 63
$ 20
$ 26
$ 80
$ 45
$ 100
$ 334
$6,232
—
$6,566
—
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-44
Collectively all costs of equipment, buildings, etc., exclusive of labor, are slightly
more than 5% of the total annual costs of the waste system. It is of interest to note
that total annual costs of the waste system are equivalent to 2.6% of the total annual
operating budget of the Medical Center, which in 1969 was $79,826,000.
Table 11-15 provides a comparison of the respective costs of handling disposable and
reusable wastes, excluding only the costs of reprocessing the reusable materials.
TABLE 11-15 COST COMPARISON OF DISPOSABLE AND REUSABLE WASTES
Type of Waste
Disposables:
Rubbish
Other
Total
Reusables:
Soiled Linen
Food Service Items
Other
Total
Total All Materials
Avg. Wt.
Lbs<,/Day
16,200
7,000
23,200
45,500
9,000
TR
54,500
77,700
Daily Costs of Handling & Disposal
Labor
$2,235
1,027
$3,262
$1,255
1,403
312
$2,970
$6,232
Bldgo &
Equip.
$104
40
$144
$ 45
3~45
$189
*0ther
$ 85
60
$145
—
$145
Total
$2,424
1,127
$3,551
$1,300
1,403
312
$3,015
$6,566
Avg» Cost
Per
Ton
$300
322
$305
$ 57
312
$110
$170
Per
Bed
$1.22
.56
$1.78
$0.65
.70
.15
$1.50
$3.28
"Miscellaneous expendable supplies and dumping fees
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-45
The cost estimates as presented herein are based upon observations and judgments,
generally without benefit of record data or statistics,, Costs of building areas and
equipment as well as hourly rates of labor are based on nominal average unit cost
allowances. Waste quantities and manhour estimates, of course, are based on
actual observations. Certain extrapolations have been made which by analysis
of time (minutes per bed) and costs per bed appear to be reasonable.
The final chapter of this volume will provide cost comparison of solid waste systems
in all hospitals under study and the cost "yardstick" to assist in the evaluation of
systems.
Alternative methods of waste handling and disposal to be explored in Volume IV
of this study will also provide cost comparisons of considered alternatives for the
Medical Center system „
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
OBSERVATIONS ON AEROSOL CONTAMINATION
Previous research through air and surface sampling has been performed in various
hospitals in the country, relating the effects of waste handling activities on the
environment and the resulting contamination which may likely occur. Specific
investigations by Bond and Michaelsen (Bacterial Contamination from Hospital
Solid Wastes - 1964) had given insight into expected effects of waste handling
practices on airborne micro flora. They had indicated, for instance, that soiled
laundry handling was by far the most significant influence on increased airborne
bacteria. They also indicated general levels of airborne bacteria associated
with various hospital areas and had suggested that such factors as activity levels
and ventilation patterns could greatly affect sampling results.
As part of the waste handling evaluation at the Medical Center, it was decided
to obtain a limited quantity of data concerning microbiological aerosolization
by actually monitoring procedures in several locations specifically selected for
their proximity to waste handling activities. The main objective was to demon-
strate similar effects to those previously reported, actually occurring in the
hospital being studied and to emphasize the potential hazards that exist in
these less obvious sources of contamination. Local field experimentation was
conducted at the Medical Center in March, 1969. This program was limited
to air sampling for quantitative estimates of airborne bacteria at selected
locations in the plant. Field testing and lab analysis were performed by
personnel of the Los Angeles County Health Department in collaboration with
special consultants from the Division of Environmental Health and Safety,
School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.
Equipment and Procedures Used:
The air samplers chosen for the study were Elliot Slit Samplers. These samplers
were connected to vacuum pumps and equipped with gauges to regulate airflow
to one cubic foot per minute. The samplers operate on the slit impact!on
principle. Air sampling plates are placed on a turntable adjusted to a distance
of 2 mm between the bottom of the slit and the agar surface. Two samplers
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-47
were employed. One was set for one revolution of the turntable in two minutes
(two cubic feet) while the other made one revolution in six minutes (six cubic feet),
Prepoured plates containing Trypticase Soy Agar were obtained for the program.
Plates were incubated at 37° C for 20-24 hours after sampling, then counted.
When plates were too heavily contaminated for accurate counting, results were
recorded as TNTC and arbitrarily assigned a value of 200 col/cu ft.
Observations at Selected Sampling Stations:
The areas selected for sampling included the following:
1. Trash chute rooms and the adjacent corridor in the service level of the
Acute Unit (Bldg. No0 1) at the Medical Center.
2. Laundry chute rooms and adjacent corridor areas at the same level.
3. The soiled linen sorting area at the laundry.
4. One soiled utility room on an upper story nursing station.
Each of the selected areas was sampled on several occasions. On those days when
the chute rooms and adjacent corridors were being sampled, one sampler was set
up in the room while the other was located in the corridor near the door, which
was kept closed except when entry was necessary. A sample was run on each
machine approximately every 15 minutes, starting between 6:30 and 7:30 a.m.
and continuing for some 6 to 8 hours. A detailed record of activity associated
with each sample was kept. Additional samples were sometimes run directly
associated with a specific waste handling activity, such as loading of trash or
laundry into carts. Figure 11-6 shows the typical arrangement of air sampling
equipment during sampling procedures.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
11-48
igure 11-6 Air Sampling Procedures in Soiled Linen Room
In the soiled linen sorting area, one machine was set up near the start of the belt
operation and the other near the end,, Again sequential samples were taken every
15 minutes or so for 4 or 5 hours. On the nursing station the two machines were
located on opposite sides of the soiled utility room.
Results of the Sampling Program:
The overall results of the air sampling program are summarized in Table 11-16.
TABLE 11-16 SUMMARY OF AIR SAMPLING DATA
Station
Trash Chute Room
Laundry Chute Room
Soiled Linen Sorting
Station Utility Room
- Inside
Outside
- Inside
- Outside
Area
* Observations
99
96
58
57
54
55
Mean col/
cu. ft.
14.1
8.8
38.3
31.4
71.0
5.0
# of TNTC
Plates
2
0
2
5
7
0
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II 11-49
It is obvious that the laundry handling operation does generate considerably greater
aerosols than does the trash handling. This is consistent with the conclusions of
Bond and Michaelsen. Also of considerable interest is the finding that colony counts
in the corridor adjacent to the soiled linen chute rooms were almost as high as in
the storage room itself. Thus, it appears that the soiled linen handling operation
as currently practiced might actually result in exposing the great number of persons
utilizing the adjacent corridor to increased airborne contamination.
It is somewhat surprising that the corridor outside of the soiled linen chute rooms
should be significantly more contaminated than the same corridor outside of trash
chute rooms, as the trash and soiled linen storage rooms are often in close proximity
to each other. One possible explanation might be that the pattern of air movement
in the tunnel is from the trash rooms toward the soiled linen rooms.
In summary, the air sampling program has demonstrated, in agreement with previously
published reports, that soiled linen handling is a significant source of airborne
contaminants and that even when the activity is confined to a storage room with
the door closed most of the time, the effect can be demonstrated in adjacent areas„
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II
EVALUATION OF EXISTING SYSTEM OPERATION
The evaluation of the performance capabilities of the existing solid waste system at the
Medical Center has been based upon observations of the plant, equipment and oper-
ating techniques employed in its operation. As an aid for evaluation of the system,
a summary description of the total solid waste system, Table 11-17, was prepared,
showing typical daily production of the various types of wastes and the prevailing
methods of performing the various function within each of the system components
(Unit, Inter-Unit, Inter-Building and Off-Site System) for each type of waste.
As indicated in the Table, the task of the movement of waste materials at the
Medical Center is largely manual in nature. Although equipment presently
employed provides mechanical means of vertical and horizontal transportation
over substantial distances for those wastes of the greatest quantities (soiled linen
and rubbish, etc.), movement of each of these wastes generally involves a minimum
of four different modes of transport, and four to five physical rehandlings or
transfers of the loose or contained materials, between the points of initial
deposit and their ultimate resting place. An extreme contrast to these methods
may be observed in the direct closed system afforded food preparation wastes,
which are generally limited to a single handling as they are deposited directly
in the kitchen grinders soon after creation.
It is evident that evaluation of the existing systems for handling the various types
of waste materials within the complex will, in the majority of cases, depend upon
methods of preparation of waste materials and reflect the performance of labor
handling this material, working generally without benefit of specialized equipment.
Malfunctions of any of the limited equipment in the system will tend to handicap
labor further in satisfactorily performing its functions and affect standards
throughout the respective waste system.
-------
TABLE 11-17
DESCRIPTION OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles, Etc.
Pathological and Surgical
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
Non -Combustible
Garbage (Non-Grindable)
:ood Service Items
tadiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste(Grindable)
Av. Daily
Weight
75
1,000
45,500
16,200
—
1,500
1,800
9,000
TR
TR
25
2,600
%
of Total
.1
1.3
58.6
20.9
—
1.8
2.3
11.6
TR
TR
TR
3.4
Unit System
Initial
Deposit
(Receiver)
Lined Open
Container
Lined Closed
Container
Cloth Bog
Lined Open
Container
—
Lined Open
Container
Special Cart
Special Cart
Special
Container
Closed
Container
Closed
Container
Open
Container
Initial
Transfer
Manual
Manual
Manual
Hand Cart
Manual
Manual
Special Cart
Special Cart
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Initial
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Utility Room
Utility Room
Corridor
Utility Room
Utility Room
Autoclave
Utility Room
Corridor
Corridor
Special
Container
—
—
Grinder
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Elevator
Elevator
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
—
Elevator
Elevator
Elevator
Elevator
Stairs
Sewer
Intermediate
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Can Room
Can Room
. Chute Room
Chute Room
—
Can Room
Corridor
Corridor
—
Can Room
—
—
Inter-Building System
Internal
Transfer
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
—
Cart Train
Cart Train
Cart Train
Hand Cart
Cart Train
Cart
Sewer
Central
Storage
Cart
Cart
Open Storage
Area
Cart
—
Cart
Special Cart
Corridor
Roof Top
Cart
Refrigerator
—
Central
Processing
or Disposal
Loading Dock
Loading Dock
Laundry
Loading Dock
—
Loading Dock
Loading Dock
Kitchen
—
Loading Dock
—
—
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Hospital
Packer Truck
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Hospital
Packer Truck
Hospital
Packer Truck
—
Private
Contractor
Hospital
Packer Truck
City Truck
Sewer
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
Landfill
Landfill
—
Landfill
—
Landfill
Landfill
—
Federal
Landfill
Landfill
Render! ng
Sewer Treat-
ment Plant
o
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. II ~ 11-52
The Developed Rating:
In the development and application of evaluation methods adopted for this study,
general guidelines were established for rating the various types of equipment and
methods employed in each function of the system for handling the respective types
of waste. Evaluation of the total system was based on observations over a period
of some sixty days, during which various malfunctions in the system occurred.
However, the evaluation was based on what appeared to be prevailing practices
and conditions during this period. Table 11-18 presents the composite deficiency
rating as developed by the project staff, and follows the format established in
the introductory section in Volume I. Proper interpretation of the rating of
individual waste systems will indicate those areas of the system where remedial
measures should be considered,, It would appear that minimizing rehandling
and exposure of all waste materials within the plant by means of a closed
transport system, with no interruption between the initial points of dispatch
and processing or disposal stations would provide the optimum in solid waste
system.
Discussions on remedial measures to be considered as suggested by the deficiency
rating of the individual waste systems at the Medical Center are presented in
Volume IV-
-------
TABLE 11-18
NUMERICAL RATING OF HOSPITAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles,
Etc.
Surgical, Patho-
logical & Animals
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient
Items
Non-Combustible
Garbage
(Non-Grindable)
Food Service Items
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Safety
Security
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety^
Security
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Unit System
Initial
Deposit
(Receiver)
Def
Value
30
30
15
5
10
2
0
5
30
2
2
15
2
7
2
15
10
5
2
1
0
|1
?
5
0
78
57
217
Max .
Value
tCt
40
30-
5.
».
5
. . . .5-
»
•«•
5!
>•'
-.:-,*.
tS:
,,,,5,
15
:''. tS:.
. • -J5;
iiViifi
i^r
:; : qjj:
••':::::|j:
-11?''
Ift
.1
113
AD
415
Initial
Transfer
Def.
Value
38
25
2
2
15
5
0
2
35
2
2
10.
5
10
2
7
10
10
0
2
5
0
2
2
0
2
5
1
64
7
79
212
Wax.
Value
58
S)
5
fi
^r
10
.S.
£
JO
5:
5.:
-. . IS.
ifl
JO
, „?-'
15
: 20
rW
s
-tff-
!»::
It
F~$~
'•:' §
:-• . j
S
IB
$
tBi,
4ft,
420
Initial
Storage ,
tocessing,
Disposal
Def.
Value
15
5
20
2
25
2
35
II
22
2
5
7
5
13
15
5
5
0
7
2
10
7
7
2
2
7
7
VI
41
39
267
Viax.
Value
j&.
,
..«:
JS
5
35
15
5
5
1(>
10.
IS'-;
20
10
25
5
IS
.._!
ft
Ml
""iff"
5
S
W
m
7ft
5
«
~&
430- .
Def.
Value
otal
83
60
37
9
50
9
35
18
87
6
9
32
12
30
1?
27
15
10
7
_i-
25
12
11
5
2
20
l/
A
1*2
126
696
Value
Total
HO
100
60
K
W
20::
4£
«
45
2S
6(5
: -\3Jf;
:::^.:
40
40.
JJ
30
15
3&
30
-|i
4ft,
245.
1245
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Def.
Value
40
25
0
2
15
2
0
2
40
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
7
0
2
2
0
2
2
— 2-
116
'/
171
Wax.
Value
SO
45
5
5
ifl
5
5
S .
80
. -5
S
20
''! :2&S
'::'&•
: W
:JS::
.':1S .
5
~4-
-•«'•
:': . . A .
V:' ;S:
:-...i'
-: . x'S-:
S
— ^
^15
tl*
40
4.5
ntermediote
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
Def.
Value
15
5
13
2
35
7
25
11
40
2
5
10
10
25
10
7
5
5
15
5
ia
7
7
— i-
124
W
AH
289
Max.
Value
2&
to
25
S
35
to
35
is:
' '*Sx
5
1$
.. wx
. . IS .
45
; m
to:i
15.
5
t5
-4-
"?rr"
10
-..is.
;,-•,$:.
: IB
..K.
i
)#
Iffi
Iffl
Def.
Value
Total
55
30
13
4
50
9
25
13
80
2
5
15
20
25
10
7
12
5
17
4
5
12
V
9
—i-
240.
VI
1 70
460
Max.
Value
Total
20 :
Ss.
30
K
5.5
13
40
K
J3Q.
§:
26r
35:.
iJ
20
.IB-
30.
ZO
20
-tt-
•"^:
;JSL
~^s*
•• -"t^
: JO;::
. :':15:'-
IS
"iff"
3«
"m
880
Inter-Building System
Internal
Transfer
Def.
Value
40
30
5
2
5
12
2
2
25
5
7
5
5
7
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
1!
2
Bl
-ft-
192
Max.
Value
' ' ' (JQ *
41
3"
15
5
S
33
W
)5
3
io
5
5
20
15
10
__£.
KF:
U-r*,
• : -. "5
: . .'. :3? f
- .:5s
•5-
4
135
-tt-
: 330
Central
Storage
Def.
Value
5
2
25
5
10
10
20
15
30
5
20
5
5
13
15
5
5
10
2
2
5
12
2
2
S
5
3V
100
243
Max.
Value
m
s
25
*
w
10
"
79-
JO
45
tt
s
tft
s
ti
~4-
HJ
: 18:
• . .&.:
•i:
,..«„
5
S
5
70
Central
Processing
or Disposal
Def.
Value
20
10
10
5
40
5
5
10
20
7
2
2
15
25
10
5
7
3
15
5
5
5
3
0
2
116
59
246
Max.
Value
M
Ift
iO
5
49
5
5
IB
40
15
s
S
15
29:
IP
V
is
15
15
M.M^
Iff
: 15
. /. '^-.:
- Ji:.'
••,,1.1,;
— i-
)«5
"m"
365
Def.
Value
Total
65
4?
40
12
55
27
27
27
75
17
29
12
25
45
27
15
17
18
19
12
17
7
4
9
161
16.2
IU/
681
Max.
Value
Total
::..:;»:
f:
':
:V»;
••:•:«:
:'y.^Sk-
':••'• i(6::
:::-'.3Q::
100
::::;3Q::
40
:nf::
>.:•! S>
;::.;5
a;;
:•! .'3S:
•:.: «
Vrt||
"^
iff
mJ*
x : IJ^j
:- ^f:
•??'
:':3&:
^4*i
395
W
^
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Def.
Value
10
5
0
3
20
5
2
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
42
10
64
Max.
Value
nr?ft
M:
W
mill
flr
J
10
5
ID
J
15
: *
io
ti
W
to
5
$
s
^
13
5
,..,i,
r*
ira-
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
Def.
Value
80
75
60
20
75
5
75
15
40
20
30
10
13
15
11
7
5
IS
236
IB6
—O.
603
Vtox.
Value
W,
(W
3
YT
,5
7$
IS
: JJ
15
5
ffin
55
3S
X
OT
15
15
15
injffn
7f«
"It
Iff
»
W
W
840
Def.
Value
Total
90
80
60
23
95
10
77
20
45
20
30
10
13
15
16
7
5
IS
•555"
130
1R7
667
Max.
Value
Total
iiW-
re-
:
85
its-
t...
&
43
fnf
14
3S
25
HI
*gi
-f
tv
{*>
35
m
Ffl
•4S-
Def.
Value
Total
293
212
150
48
250
55
164
78
242
25
43
59
102
120
86
59
15
10
7
4
67
50
63
25
24
64
~rr
30
22
TTOT
546
2504
Max.
Value
To to
3HV
3oO.
30B
«
m
.J£.
200
\Wi:
*8B
::y$.
•:.'-JS::
^OK
tOt
'235':
)JJ
• ji i :
"MF
J2Q:
.ri(6':
"i]l:'
fl^
•W
wo
*»
T357T
HUB1
**
CO
-------
VOL. i SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX B
The tabular descriptions of the existing solid waste
systems in detention facilities, as reported in
Chapter IX, Volume II, are appended in support
of the summary contained in Chapter IV of this
vol ume.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. VIII
VI11-23
TABLE VI11-9
DESCRIPTION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - MIRA LOMA
REHABILITATION CENTER AND SHERIFF'S FACILITY
System Components
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Off-Site:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
Avg. Daily Weight
% of Total
Types of Waste
Soiled Linen
Hand Carl-
Laundry Sorting
Area
Laundry
2,174
52.7
Garbage
Sheriff's Truck
Commercial
Bins
Private Packer
Truck
Private Landfill
1,140
27.7
Rubbish
Sheriff's Truck
Commercial
Bins
Private Packer
Truck
Private Landfill
810
19.6
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
1X-6
TABLE IX-2 DESCRIPTION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - CENTRAL JAIL
System Components
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Off-Site:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
Avg. Daily Weight
% of Total
Types of Waste
Soiled Linen
Hand Cart
Soiled Linen
Room
Sheriff's Truck
Mira Loma
Laundry
12,000
50.8
Garbage
Hand Cart
Refrigerated
Storage Room
Private Truck
Hog Feeding
7,420
31.5
Rubbish
Hand Cart >
Commercial :
Bins
Private Packer
Truck
Private Landfill
4,200
17.7 J
-------
VOL. 11
CHAP. IX
IX-12
TABLE IX-4 DESCRIPTION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - SYBIL BRAND INSTITUTE
System Components
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Off-Site:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
Avg. Daily Weight
% of Total
Types of Waste
Soiled Linen
Hand Cart
Laundry Sorting
Area
Laundry
— — —
1,756
40.5
Garbage
Hand Cart
Commercial
Bins
Private Truck
Hog Feeding
1,367
31.5
Rubbish
Hand Cart
Commercial
Bins
Private Packer
Truck
Private
Landfill
1,217
28.0
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
1X-18
TABLE IX-6 DESCRIPTION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM -
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY JUVENILE HALL
System Components
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Off-Site:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
Avg. Daily Weight
% of Total
Types of Waste
Soiled Linen
Hand Cart
Soiled Linen
Room
Institution
Truck
Olive View
Laundry
895
25.2
Garbage
Hand Cart
Area Near
Loading Dock
Sheriff's Truck
Hog Feeding
1,300
36.5
Rubbish
Hand Cart
Loading Dock
Institution
Truck
Private Landfill
1,360
38.3
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
IX-23
TABLE IX-8 DESCRIPTION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - HALL OF JUSTICE
System Components
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Off-Site:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
Avg. Daily Weight
% of Total
Types of Waste
Soiled Linen
Elevator
Soiled Linen
Room
Sheriff's Truck
Mira Loma
Laundry
7,000
49.9
Garbage
Elevator
Open Storage
Room
Private Truck
Hog i-eeding
4,000
28.5
Rubbish
Elevator
Commercial
Bins
Private Packer
Truck
Private Landfill
3,036
21.6
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX C c-1
The tabular evaluations of the existing solid waste
systems in detention facilities, as reported in
Chapter IX, Volume II, are appended in support
of the summary contained in Chapter IV of this
volume.
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. VIII
VI11-24
TABLE VIII-10 MIRA LOMA REHABILITATION CENTER AND SHERIFF'S FACILITY
NUMERICAL RATING OF DETENTION FACILITY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building System
1
VI
£
175
!t
0
S/stem
Components
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Soiled Linen
Def.
Value
5
2
2
3
5
2
5
10
3
2
3
7
13
6
10
20
13
6
10
20
Max.
Value
25
10
•$-.
15
W '
10
26:
. 20 '•'•
ts
JO
15
)5
50,.
w
40
. SO
20
1$
""fc
20
""30...
J5
"25
:• So
•••$Q
"30
40
so"'
100
• #>..
w
" m
Garbage
Def.
Value
2
3
2
2
3
3
10
19
5
6
12
21
5
0
0
5
5
2
15
22
10
2
15
27
15
8
27
48
Max.
Value
5
IS
'10
Jo-'
,,,,3.,
5
tt"
25
20 .
20
to
J-5
®i
40
50
SD
20
tf
J5
20
"30
S
15
"'30'
' 50
20
30
50 :
.80
6&
#*
)&>
Rubbish
Def.
Value
5
11
7
7
2
19
30
22
7
30
37
29
1
0
0
3
3
15
25
19
4
15
25
22
11
45
62
51
Max.
Value
20...
55
\5
15
in
w
3D
• go
15
20
1.5...:
15
40
6D
' #>
"""&..
"5
20 :
IS
,. 15
TS
'"20
25
?5
2
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
IX-8
TABLE IX-3 NUMERICAL RATING OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - CENTRAL JAIL
Inter-Unit or Inter-But! dine System 1
Off-Site System |
System
Components
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Soiled Linen
Def.
Value
13
5
2
3
2
0
5
5
15
5
7
8
5
3
3
5
15
3
5
15
20
6
8
20
35
11
15
28
Max.
Value
i?2:5l
m*m
mm*
mm
*:W:
vXv'
m
$*;:
mm.
mm
mm
mm
m*m
mi$t
;:•:•:•:£§:•:
mm
mm
mm*
mm.
mt
m
':??$&&
•:-<:-:%&:-fy.
mvm
mm
mm*
m$m
mtm
mOm
m$>*i
mm*
mm
mm
?mm
Garbage
Def.
Value
2
3
2
2
2
1
5
5
4
4
7
7
5
3
3
5
5
1
3
15
10
4
6
20
14
8
13
27
Max.
Value
$£$&£
mam
mxm
mm
xWW
mm
mm*
*mM
mm*
m$m
mmx
mm*
mm*
mm
mwm
mm*]
mmz
m m
m&m
wm&
mm*
mm*
mimi
msm
m*m
mWX
mm&
ms&&
mm&
mw&
wtm
xwm
Rubbish
Def.
Value
5
3
3
3
1
5
15
15
6
8
18
18
1
5
0
3
3
15
25
19
4
20
25
22
10
28
43
40
Max.
Value
mtm
mM
mm*
mm*
mam
SS30S:
mm
vm~
mm
mm*
m*®*
m&m
mmi
m&x
mm
m2m
m$m
mm*
m$m
mm*
m$m
mM
W2&X
mi&w
•mm
#88®
m&x
SSSSig
HibSsS:
mm
Total
Def.
Value
20
11
7
8
5
6
25
25
75
17
32
33
11
11
6
13
23
19
33
49
34
30
39
62
59
47
71
95
Max.
Value
mm
mm*
mm
m<
mm
mm*
mim
mm
msm
mm*
mm
m
S:
im
3BB
;:.::330;:x
wtm
m$&&
««s
Kim
msm
m7$x
mtm
tf+iiStt:
mm
fAfi&*
mm*
mm*
XM&*
mm*
mm
mm
H*»!S
TO
Def.
Value
46
61
107
41
124
165
272
TAL
Max.
Value
||||i
1111
IIPI
Illl
IllHi!
Hill
ill
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
IX-14
TABLE IX-5 NUMERICAL RATING OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - SYBIL BRAND INSTITUTE
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building System
Off-Site System !
System
Components
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
:inal Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Soiled Linen
Def.
Value
5
2
2
3
2
2
5
10
3
2
7
3
10
6
14
16
10
6
14
16
Max.
Value
; 25
10
5
" 15
, ,^,.
M)
2P
: 20
ts
10
15
?5
50
30
40
. £Q
20
K
'" tf
20"
""»..
)5
25
: 36"
"50
""SO
40
SiJ
TOO
#>...
W
"*oo
Garbage
Def.
Value
2
3
2
2
' 2
1
5
13
4
4
7
15
5
3
0
5
5
1
3
15
10
4
3
20
14
8
10
35
Max.
Value
5
is
ID
JO
"•$•
•.-5
JO
25
' 20 .
20 :
: K>
J.5
30.
40
30
SD
20
*5
15
20
""50 ;
s •
15
36"
53
&
30
50 :
60
64
#*
J80
Rubbish
Def.
Value
5
3
7
3
2
13
15
15
7
16
22
18
1
0
0
3
3
15
25
19
4
15
25
22
11
31
47
40
Max.
Value
#..
J5
15
J5
s i
25
' 3D
30
15
20
1$
15 '
: -40
60
" $0
"<«)..
5 .
20
as
...15
IS-
20
25
?5
20
43
'"4Q
" 40
...60;.-..
J90
100 :
)fla ;
Total
Def.
Value
1?
8
11
8
6
16
25
38
3
2
7
3
21
26
43
49
6
3
0
8
ft
16
28
34
14
19
28
42
3<5
45
71
91
Max.
Value
SO
40
3d
•"40
' 20"
40
(5i>
75
....$&..
,,,,?f>,
4D
*5
}&>
3 3D
1-30
3 60
rfS
• 50
45
55
...75..
4Q
-------
VOL. 11
CHAP. IX
1X-20
TABLE IX-7 NUMERICAL RATING OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - SAN FERNANDO VALLEY JUVENILE HALL
Inter-Unit or Inter-Building System 1
I Off-Site System
System
Components
nternal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Soiled Linen
Def.
Value
5
2
2
3
2
2
5
5
7
4
7
8
5
3
3
5
15
3
5
15
20
6
8
20
27
10
15
28
Max.
Value
25
\Q
$ "•
""15
W
1$
20
20
15
»0 :
15
.J5
50...
30
40
sa
: 20
*5
i$
2&
30
15
25
30
: 5Q
'50
40
50
TOO
#>
SO
100
Garbage
Def.
Value
2
3
2
2
2
2
5
13 .
4
5
7
15
5
3
3
5
5
1
3
15
10
4
6
20
14
9
13
35
Max.
Value
5
IS
•••"to1
-JO":
'•$••
5
8T
•23
20
20 '
?0
.?S
' 30
40
30 :
SO
20
\$
J5
20
"50
S
i t5
30'
50
£0
30
50
i 80
oft
«0
)0
-------
VOL. II
CHAP. IX
IX-25
TABLE IX-9 NUMERICAL RATING OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - HALL OF JUSTICE
| Inter-Unit or Inter-Building System
1
s
05
i
0
System
Components
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
:inal Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Soiled Linen
Def.
Value
13
5
2
3
5
2
10
10
1 Q
lo
7
12
13
5
3
3
5
15
3
15
20
6
g
20
38
13
20
33
Max.
Value
i 25
JO
.. ..$...
15
••»•••
H»
20
: 20.
t$
JO
is
*5
...
SO
"\00
Garbage
Def.
Value
2
3
2
2
5
2
10
25
5
12
27
5
3
3
5
5
2
22
10
5
18
27
17
10
30
54
Max.
Value
5
IS
to
JO
s
i 5
&
25
20 .
" 2&
10
.15
•Wv
VV...
40
30 '
SO
'.20...
&
}5
20
30..
S
J5
30"
3W
20
•30""
50
' 60
oG
<0
JQtf
Rubbish
Def.
Value
5
3
3
3
2
13
30
23
16
33
26
1
5
0
3
.1
15
19
4
20
25
22
11
36
58
48
Max.
Value
28
JS
15
35
5
25"
30
30
15
20
15... i
15
-sU
60
"" vO
<&..
5
20
]S
15
T&
20
25
^5
"OOI
xv
40
""'4Q
' 40
.60. V.
too
100
JOQ i
Total
Def.
Value
20
11
7
8
12
17
50
58
32
28
57
66
11
11
6
13
?.l
20
%
34
31
51
1
69
66
59
108
135
Max.
Value
SO
40
30
#>••
&T
40
60
75
....Sv..
50
4&
_«..
1 -^A
•I4U
J3Q
130
36Q
...45..
^0
45
55
...J$
40
o5
S5
>
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY/ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX D d-1
The tabular descriptions of the existing solid waste
systems in office buildings, as reported in
Chapter X, Volume II, are appended in support
of the summary contained in Chapter IV of this
volume.
-------
TABLE X-3 DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
System Components
UNIT SYSTEM:
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage, Processing,
Disposal
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
External Transfer
Final Processing and/or Disposal
DAILY WASTE PRODUCED (Lbs.)
Hall of
Records
Unlined Cans
Manual
Barrel on Cart
Elevator
Trash Room
Packer Truck
Landfill
1,000
Hall of
Administration
Open Container
Hand Cart
Commercial Bin
Elevator
Loading Dock
Packer Truck
Landfill
2,560
County
Courthouse
Open Container
Hand Cart
Corridor
Motorized Cart
Trash Room
Packer Truck
Landfill
1,750
County
Engineers
Unlined Cans
Manual
Barrel on Cart
Elevator
Bins in Corridor
Packer Truck
Landfill
840
O
DO
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX E e-1
The tabular evaluations of the existing solid waste
systems in office buildings, as reported in
Chapter X, Volume II, are appended in support
of the summary contained in Chapter IV of this
volume.
-------
TABLE X-7
NUMERICAL RATING OF OFFICE BUILDING SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
-o
>
O
rn
X
NO
>
CO
I—
m
X
System Components
UNIT SYSTEM
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM
O
3
J,
3
3
3
s
Initial Deposit (Receiver)
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage,
Processing, Disposal
Total
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing
or Disposal
Total
External Transfer
Final Processing
and/or Disposal
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety_
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
HALL OF RECORDS
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
1
3
7
10
5
5
8
17
5
3
0
5
5
5
8
5
10
8
8
10
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
20
27
36
43
Max.
Value
10
5
5
• 20
1S
5
5-'
to
5
tt
15
20
'"»
2$
•••?$
...so"
25
1-5
tf
^
" W
" t$
' 3ff
1&
\S
W
\9
S...
5&
"»"
SO.
2}
....«>.
JO
S.
ft.
(5
w.;
#„
20
'25
"to
25
'"2?
TOIL.
ti»
900
W
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
21
35
13
23
36
5
50
55
126
Max.
Value
40
W
#
i tt5
£0
79 •
40
)?5-
30
70
400 i
HALL OF ADMINISTRATE
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
1
3
7
10
5
5
8
17
5
7
5
5
5
13
30
5
10
20
35
10
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
20_
39
63
43
Max.
Value
10
5
S
20
. MJ
£
5
m
.... s
is
"JS
20
"its
&
25
§_
... 15
...?«.
10
M*°
j»
: 3ff :
W"
15
10
\0
5.
5ft
. 5&
L...8)..
r «i
i"
....a.
»5
W
"JO..
20
25
is
J00
no»
1S>
we
Total
Def.
Value
9
5
21
35
22
53
75
5
50
55
165
Max
Valu
40
JtO
55
US .
60
7S
40
\7$
"30
y&
:
4M :
:
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
1
3
7
15
5
5
8
??
5
11
0
5
5
5
15
5
10
16
15
10
2
5
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
17
20
16
20
38
43
48
Max.
Value
to
5
•- 5
.'..30
W
S
$
to
S
1$
"'•15
2&
•"is
»
»
.. S3
4%
W
,,,^«
.W
30
10
J5
w,
»
*i,.
^
»
SO
iftn
..»-.
tt
"S
...S.
B
W
'20..
20
^
is
25
'»
^
t»
TBO
)<»
Total
Def.
Valu
9
c
26
40
21
30
51
8
50
58
149
Max.
Value
4ft
&
»
K$
75
40
H$
30
76
•tto
xw
ENGINEERS BUILDING
RUBBISH
Def.
Value
2
1
1
5
2
1
0
2
1
3
0
10
5
5
1
117
•i
3
0
5
5
25
30
10
10
28
30
15
2
2
0
1
3
12
20
15
5
14
20
16
20
47
51
48
Max
Value
10
5
' 3
.26
,, «?
A
$
to
i S
IS
15
20:
''as
j»
5»
t_
...M.
*9
-j»
^
W
i*
W
»
bi'
itf
"»'":
»
2?..
..«!..
W
S
..:$..
15
W
'**„
is
25
4S
41-
ISO
Hie
Total
Def.
Valu
9
5
14
28
13
70
83
5
50
55
166
Max.
Value
•40
W
S*
m \
(SO
7*
40
)?$
90
XJ
100
.
tOO :
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX F f-1
The evaluation of considered improvements to the solid waste
system at the LAC-USC Medical Center, as reported in
Chapter III, Volume IV, is appended in its entirety. Based
upon evaluation methods and system requirements established
in earlier stages of this study, considered modifications to
the existing system were all centered around a central
pneumatic collection system with various processing and
disposal options. The following comparisons of these
systems further support the selected modifications
proposed as the basis for the demonstration project.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. Ill
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
The evaluation of those system modifications described in the foregoing, and the overall
effect of those modifications on the solid waste system operation at the LAC-USC Medical
Center are summarized in the following group of illustrations:
Table Ill-l Percentage Deficiencies of Sub-System Functions
Figure Ill-l Comparison of System Deficiencies
Table 111-2 Comparison of Project Costs
Table 111-3 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Modifications
Figure 111-2 Comparison of Economic Desirability of Systems
Table 111-1 shows percentage deficiencies of sub-system functions within each modified
system and the comparison to deficiencies of the existing system. Figure Ill-l graphically
illustrates these comparisons. These illustrations are summarized from the detailed
numerical ratings of each modified system included as Appendix B (pages b-1 and b-2).
It will be noted that variations in deficiencies of the modified systems occur only in
the functions of on-site central processing or disposal and the off-site system.
Substantial decreases of present deficiencies in the handling system operation are
expected to be accomplished with the pneumatic conveyor system. The remaining
deficiencies are largely associated with those reusables (patient and food service
items) not entering the modified system, as well as the initial handling of nearly all
items in the unit system prior to entering the modified portions of the system. In the
case of the latter, further reduction of deficiencies in operation are likely to come
about only through enforcement of policies and closer supervision and not through
mechanization in the foreseeable future.
Estimated costs of the various systems are illustrated in Table III-2. It will be noted
that approximate costs of the pneumatic system are constant in all systems with
variations occurring only in the processing and disposal elements. Estimated daily
labor costs for each of the modified systems shown in Appendix B (pages b-3, b-4
and b-5) provide detail on classifications of labor distributed to various categories
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. Ill 111-12
of wastes within the sub-systems. These may be compared to estimated daily labor costs
of the existing system (Table 11-13, Page 11-41, Volume II). Principal economies,
occurring in the Unit, Inter-Unit and Inter-Building systems as a direct result of the
pneumatic system, are constant in the labor estimates of each modified system.
Variations in labor between the modified systems occur only with the differing
requirements of processing and disposal methods.
Economic evaluation of the various modified systems is summarized in Table 111-3,
showing net investment requirements, direct annual operating advantages (gross savings)
and indirect or non-operating annual advantages (savings accruing from elimination of
certain parts of the existing system). Calculations of the annual return on the investment
after depreciation is shown in dollars and the percentage return is expressed as the
"desirability rating" . Figure 111-2 graphically illustrates the comparison of desirability
ratings. In comparison between systems, the higher the return, the greater the
"economic desirability" of the investment. It is emphasized that this analysis does
not consider the cost of funding such improvements and the rate of return (desirability
rating) shown should be compared to existing interest rates available and average
annual interest rate applicable to the respective investments.
Investment requirements of the four systems considered (systems 1-4) with processing and
disposal methods which meet the established criteria range from $1,932,000 to'
$2,317,000. The indicated annual return on required investments range from. 16% to
22%. The range in system improvements indicates the deficiencies of the existing
system may be decreased by 58% - 65% with major improvements at nearly all levels
of operation.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. Ill
Comparison of Hospital Solid Waste Systems
LAC-USC Medical Center
TABLE Ill-l PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES OF SUB-SYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Sub-System and Function
UNIT SYSTEM:
Initial Deposit
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM:
Vertical Transfer
Intermediate Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-BUILDING SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Proc. or Disp.
Weighted Average
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
External Transfer
Final Proc. or Disp.
Weighted Average
TOTAL SYSTEM
% DECREASE OF DEFICIENCIES
Existing
System
52.3
50.5
62.1
55.0
41.2
62.2
52.0
54.9
74.8
67.4
68.0
23.3
71.8
60.0
58.0
—
1 m proved System s
System
1
34.0
34.3
25.3
31.1
16.6
21.3
19.1
8.3
31.4
34.8
24.8
1.5
7J
5.7
20.6
64.7
System
2
'
34.0
34.3
25.3
31.1
16.6
21.3
19.1
8.3
31.4
47.1
29.1
1.8
2.6
2.4
20.8
64.3
System
3
34.0
34.3
25.3
31.1
16.6
21.3
19.1
8.3
31.4
34.8
24.8
3.3
20.0
15.9
23.2
60.2
System
4
34.0
34.3
25.3
31.1
16.6
21.3
19.1
8.3
31.4
34.8
24.8
9.1
24.3
20.5
24.4
58.1
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. Ill
SYSTEM I
If no I Pratmlng
SYSTEM 2
S'ongi,
SYSTEM 3
Dlinul '
SYSTEM 4
LEGEND
•-\.. . . • •
•**'••*
-EXBTNG
-PROPOSED
FIGURE Ill-l COMPARISON OF SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
LAC-USC Medical Center
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. Ill
1-15
TABLE IM-2 COMPARISON OF PROJECT COSTS
LAC-USC Medical Center
SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SYSTEM COMPONENT
Vacuum Tube
Grinders
Building
Wet Oxidation
Total
Vacuum Tube
Incinerator
Total
Vacuum Tube
Grinders
Building
Wet Oxidation
Truck
Total
Vacuum Tube
Grinder
Building
Total
Vacuum Tube
Grinders
Building
Extruders
Truck
Total
Vacuum Tube
Shred
Building
Truck
Total
Vacuum Tube
Grinders
Dewater
Building
Truck
Total
Vacuum Tube
Compactor
Containers
Building
Equipment
Total
Vacuum Tube
Trucks
Building
Equipment
Total
INSTALLED
COSTS
$1,600,000
200,000
210,000
360,000
$2,370,000
$1,600,000
750,000
$2,350,000
$1,600,000
200,000
210,000
360,000
25,000
$2,395,000
$1,600,000
200,000
210,000
$2,010,000
$1,600,000
200,000
210,000
90,000
25,000
$2,125,000
$1,600,000
220,000
210,000
25,000
$2^035,000
$1,600,000
200,000
55,000
210,000
25,000
$2,090,000
$1,600,000
30,000
24,000
150,000
75,000
$1,879,000
$1,600,000
80,000
150,000
75,000
$1,905,000
ESTIMATED
LIFE (YEARS)
25
10
25
25
25
25
25
10
25
25
10
25
10
25
25
10
25
10
10
25
10
25
10
25
10
10
25
10
25
10
25
25
25
25
10
25
25
DEPRECIATION
$ 64,000
20,000
8,400
14,400
$106,800
$ 64,000
30,000
$ 94,000
$ 64,000
20,000
8,400
14,400
2,500
$109,300
$ 64,000
20,000
8,400
$ 92,400
$ 64,000
20,000
8,400
9,000
2,500
$ 103,900
$ 64,000
22,000
8,400
2,500
$ 96,900
$ 64,000
20,000
5,500
8,400
2,500
$100,400
$ 64,000
3,000
1,000
6,000
3,000
$ 77,000
$ 64,000
8,000
6,000
3,000
S 81,00-
-------
TABLE II1-3 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
LAC-USC Medical Center
1 INVESTMENT
Installed Colt of Prefect
Disposal Value of Assets Retired by Prefect
Capital Additions In Absence of Prefect
Investment Released or Avoided by Project
Net Investment Reaulred
II NON-OPERATING ADVANTAGE
Decline of Present System Disposal Value
Depreciation on Capital Additions Avoided
Total Non-Operating Advantage
III OPERATING ADVANTAGE
DIRECT EFFECT OF PROJECT
labor
Maintenance
Materials and Supplies
Power
Floor Space
Net Increase or Decrease In Operating Costs
IV COMPUTATION OF DESIRABILITY SATING
Total Advantage
Depreciation
Return on Investment
Desirability Rail no
SYSTEMS
! 28.000
50,000
52.370.000
78.000
52,292,000
« 2, BOO
5,009
S 7.800
Increase
S 3.900
5.000
47.600
Decrease
S 541 .650
S 3,100
S 48B.250
$496,050
I0o,300
389,250
17
2
S 28.000
£0,000
$2,350,000
78,000
52,272,000
5 2 800
5.000
S 7.800
Increase
S 1.175
3,000
24.400
Decrease
S 540.000
S 3.100
S 514.525
$522,325
94.000
428,325
10
3
S 28.000
50.000
S2, 395, 000
78,000
S2, 317,000
S 2.800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
S 4.100
5,000
48.700
Decrease
> 528.100
i 3,100
S 473.400
$481.200
109,300
371,900
14
4
S 28.000
50.000
12,010,000
78,000
$1,932,000
S 2,800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
S 2.950
3.500
22.500
Decrease
S 541.650
5 3,100
B 515.800
$523,600
92.400
431,200
22
5
S 28,000
50,000
$2,125,000
78,000
$2,047,000
'$ 2,800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
S 4.400
5.000
31.300
Decrease
S 541.650
S 3,100
! 504.050
$511,850
103,900
407,950
20
6
S 28,000
50,000
$2,035,000
78,000
$1,957,000
$ 2,800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
S 2.950
5.000
32.500
Decrease
S 528.100
S 3,100
S 500.750
$508,550
96,900
411,650
21
7
S 28,000
50,000
52,090,000
78,000
$2,012,000
S 2,800
5,000
$ 7,800
Increase
S 3.300
4.000
24.000
Decrease
S 528.100
S 3,100
S 499.900
$507,700
100,400
407,300
20
8
S 28,000
50,000
$1.879.000
78,000
$1,801,000
$ 2,800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
S 1.000
2.000
IB. 500
Decrease
* 559.000
S 3, 100
* 540. AOO
S548,400
77,000
471,400
26
9
S 28,000
50,000
SI. 905,000
76,000
$1,827,000
$ 2,800
5,000
S 7,800
Increase
« 2,000
5,000
20.000
Decrease
S w^ 4Dn
S 3.100
S W4 500
$532,300
81,000
451,300
25
r*
m
Note: Term "Desirability Rating" is synonymous with percent of return on investment.
-------
FIGURE 111-2 COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC DESIRABILITY OF SYSTEMS
LAC-USC Medical Center
-n
0
g
m
KJ
SYSTEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DESIRAB LITY RATI NG
-30 -20 -10 0 20
8:$:-:-S
40 60 80 100
Note: Term "Desirability Rating" is synonymous with percent of return on investment.
-------
VOL. I SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX G g-1
The continuing study of proposed solid waste system
improvements at the LAC-USC Medical Center, as
reported in Chapter VI, Volume IV, is appended in
its entirety- This study covers the development of
the design concept, schematic plans, estimated costs
of construction and operation, benefits of the system
and a proposed testing and observation program after
installation of the system „
-------
VOL . IV SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
CHAP. VI PROPOSED PILOT PROJECT Page No.
SCOPE OF PROJECT VI-1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES VI-3
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM VI-4
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE VI-5
DESIGN CONCEPT VI-7
PRELIMINARY PLANS VI-8
DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM OPERATION VI-12
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Wet Pulping System VI-16
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Mechanical Conveyors VI-18
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Wet Air Oxidation System VI-19
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Experimental Sewage
Treatment Plant VI-20
Design Criteria VI-20
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS VI-22
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS VI-24
BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM VI-27
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION VI-33
-------
VOL . IV SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
CHAP. VI PROPOSED PILOT PROJECT Page No.
LIST OF TABLES
Vl-l Solid Waste Classification VI-17
VI-2 Annual Operating Costs of Project Facilities VI-22
VI-3 Estimated Daily Labor Costs of the Modified Waste System
LAC-USC Medical Center VI-23
VI-4 Estimated Construction Costs VI-25
VI-5 Tangible Economic Benefits VI-28
VI-6 Numerical Rating of Proposed Solid Waste System
LAC-USC Medical Center VI-29
VI-7 Percentage Deficiencies of Sub-System Functions VI-31
LIST OF FIGURES
Vl-l Estimated Schedule of the Continuing Program VI-6
VI-2 Schematic of Inter-Building Solid Waste System (Existing) VI-9
VI-3 Proposed Refuse Processing Plant - LAC-USC Medical Center VI-10
VI-4 Proposed Refuse Processing Plant - LAC-USC Medical Center Vl-ll
VI-5 Diagrammatic Chart - Refuse Processing Plant VI-14
VI-6 Comparison of Percentage Deficiencies of Sub-System
Functions - LAC-USC Medical Center VI-32
-------
VOL. IV SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
CHAP. VI PROPOSED PILOT PROJECT
The earlier volumes of this study have provided a summary of the total study, a detailed
study and evaluation of existing waste systems in selected building complexes and an
investigation of available equipment for system improvements. In the preceding
section of this volume, an evaluation of considered system improvements was made
at each of the selected building complexes. Upon review of these evaluations, one
of these complexes, the LAC-USC Medical Center, was selected for continuing study
and as the site for construction of the recommended system to be tested.
The proposed waste system for this project involves pneumatic transport of disposable
wastes and reusable linens employing a single tube pneumatic conveyor system. This
proposed system also will contain a central pulping station for disposable materials,
a wet oxidation process and an experimental sewage treatment plant. Optional
processes and disposal methods available include discharge of raw or sterilized pulped
wastes to sewers, transport of dewatered raw or sterilized pulped wastes to landfills,
nearly complete oxidation of pulped wastes with discharge of residue to sewers or
dewatered residue to landfills or emergency bypassing of all processes with direct
discharge of bulk wastes to a compactor for disposal at landfills.
The Medical Center project permits a full range of observations and tests on sterili-
zation of pulped wastes, effects of raw or sterilized pulped wastes on various sewage
treatment processes, recovery of cellulose by the wet oxidation process and numerous
other activities noted in the scope and objectives of the project.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The project includes the design, construction and operation of the proposed solid waste
system, together with an extensive program of observations, sampling, analysis, and
testing. This program will determine the adequacy of each item of equipment to
fulfill its function properly and any modifications that may be needed to improve
its operation. Careful records of operating and maintenance cost will be maintained
and any improvements in related services will be observed to evaluate properly the
economic impact resulting from the installation.
Tests will be conducted and observations made to determine the improvement in environ-
mental conditions as related to the handling of waste materials and the disposal of
refuse. Microbiological air samples will be taken in the vicinity of laundry and refuse
chutes, in service tunnels and at the inlet of the conveying system to determine
-------
VOL. IV .
CHAP. VI VI-2
improvement achieved through the installation of the system. Similar tests will be
made on the discharge of the exhaust filters from the conveying system, at the pulping
units to determine the level of aerosol contamination at these points, and the need, if
any, of modifying these installations. Evaluations will be made on the effectiveness
of a single tube pneumatic conveying system for transport of disposable wastes and
reusable linen.
Physical inspections will be made of the sewers into which pulped refuse is discharged
to determine the condition of the sewers, quantities and type of deposits, septic
conditions, etc. both above and at intervals below the point of discharge of pulped
waste before commencing such discharge and at intervals during the program.
Measurements will be made of sewage flows above and at intervals below the point of
discharge of the pulped waste, together with the quantities of pulped waste discharged
into the sewers. Measurements will also be made of the quantities of refuse delivered
to the waste processing plant, the volume and weight of non-pulpable wastes removed,
the amounts of electric power or other fuel consumed, and the quantities of water
requi red.
Physical, chemical and bacterial analyses will be made periodically on samples of the
pulped refuse and sewage samples taken above and at intervals below the point of
discharge into the sewer to determine the effect of such discharge on the characteristics
of the sewage and to the effect on water reclamation.
Tests, including chemical and bacterial analyses, will be conducted on the wet
oxidation process to determine the temperature-pressure-time relationship required to
sterilize, to oxidize completely or to oxidize sufficiently to permit the recovery of
cellulose fiber from varying concentrations of pulped refuse or from varying mixtures
of pulped refuse and sewage sludge as would be encountered in a municipal sewerage
system if pulped solid waste were admitted on a general or restricted basis.
Tests will be conducted on the stability of the dewatered cake from the wet oxidation
process, extent of the reduction of solids and upon the feasibility of recovery of a
useable cellulose fiber. Tests will also be conducted on the amenability of the
filtrate to conventional sewage treatment processes, either alone or mixed with
varying amounts of domestic sewage and on the amenability of various mixtures
of pulped refuse and sewage to treatment by conventional or other means.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI ' Vh3
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Broadly, the objectives of this program are to develop operating procedures and
performance standards and determine operational reliability of the designed system,
together with an evaluation of the environmental improvements and economic benefits
that may be derived from such projects. These objectives are further expanded as
follows:
1. To demonstrate the savings in cost and improvement in environmental conditions
in a hospital- complex through the installation of a pneumatic conveying
system for handling soiled and contaminated materials from hospital floors.
2. To demonstrate the practicality of using sewage as the fluid for pulping and
transportation of pulped hospital wastes, and to determine what preconditioning
of the sewage, if any, is needed before use in the pulper.
3. To demonstrate the practicality and costs of disposing of pulped hospital wastes
in a sanitary sewerage system and the savings in cost thereby.
«
4. To determine the extent of wet oxidation required and the costs of such
processes to sterilize effectively a pulped contaminated hospital waste.
5. To determine the effect of wet oxidation of pulped hospital wastes and the
effect of residue discharged into sanitary sewerage systems.
6. To determine the extent of wet oxidation necessary to produce a stable and
sterile dewatered pulp and to determine the costs of such processes.
7. To determine the extent of wet oxidation necessary to recover a useable
cellulose pulp from pulped hospital waste and the costs of such processes,
as well as the practicality of recovering a commercially valuable cellulose
pulp from a mixed sewage sludge and pulped waste as might be obtained
from the general discharge of pulped solid wastes into the sanitary sewerage
system.
8. To determine the quantities and characteristics of non-pulpable hospital wastes
and processing required for their safe and proper disposal, as well as the cost.
-------
VOL. IV .
CHAP. VI VI-4
9. To determine the effect o.f adding various quantities of pulped solid waste
to sanitary sewage on both the primary and secondary units of conventional
sewage treatment plants, including those employing both trickling filters and
activated sludge or some of its more recent modifications.
10. To determine the effect of adding various quantities of pulped solid waste to
sanitary sewage on sludge characteristics, including dewaterability and
degradability under both mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic conditions,
as well as under aerobic conditions.
11. To determine the practicability of aerobic decomposition of dewatered pulped
waste and sewage sludge through composting.
12. To determine what process or series of processes may be required to treat effec-
tively the mixtures of sanitary sewage and pulped solid waste which might be
anticipated in municipal sewerage systems should pulping of such wastes be
generally adopted.
13. To evaluate the overall economic and environmental effects on a municipality
from the general adoption of pulping as a method of solid waste disposal or of
limiting it to contaminated hospital wastes.
14. To continue research on systems and equipment available for materials handling
and solid waste disposal to take advantage of development work currently in
progress,
15. To continue research on regulatory codes and restrictions and develop code
modifications or guidelines for system design as may be required.
16. To provide documentation of project for educational purposes, such as
photographic coverage, movies, other visual aids.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The construction program required for development of this solid waste system is esti- -
mated to be completed within the first year's period. Proposed construction of the
basic components in this system that is necessary to carry out the project objectives
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
is identified as follows:
1. A single tube pneumatic conveyor system for the collection of both soiled
linens and refuse from the various treatment, service and housing units.
2. A central pulping station with discharge to sewers and optional disposal
processes.
3. A wet oxidation plant for the oxidation and sterilization of the pulped
contaminated waste.
4. A sewage pumping station to supply sewage to the pulpers.
5. A centrifuge or vacuum filter for dewatering oxidized pulp.
6, Experimental sewage treatment plant with capacity of 40,000 - gpd
and capable of treating various mixtures of pulped waste and sewage
by both conventional and non-conventional means.
7'. Laboratory and auxiliary equipment required for the operation of the
system and carrying out the project objectives.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The proposed program is planned over a three-year period. Progress made
during preliminary planning indicates it is entirely feasible to expect final design
plans and specifications on these projects to be completed during the first six-month
period and construction to be accomplished during the remaining portion of the first
year. It is also feasible that certain phases of mechanical design of special equipment
components can be accelerated in order that their production and delivery for instal-
lation will coincide with the construction schedule.
It is anticipated that a period of three to four months during the second year should
be allowed for equipment testing and a transition period at the Medical Center
project, before full operation should be expected. Within the proposed three-year
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
VI-6
program, an estimated period of approximately the final twenty months will be
available for detailed observations, testing and systems evaluation under full operating
conditions. This would appear as a reasonable period in which to accomplish the
ultimate objectives of the proposed project.
This proposed implementation schedule is graphically illustrated in Figure Vl-l, which
details principal items occurring during the program period.
FIGURE Vl-l ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF THE CONTINUING PROGRAM
first 12 Mos. Period
Second 12 Mos. Period
Third 12 Mos. Period
Description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112
13 14 15 16 17 18 192021 222324
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
nal Design Plans and Specifications
'urchase Special Equipment
Equipment Shop Prow!ngs
lid and Award Construction Contract
'reduction of Equipment
Construction
Equipment Installation:
Pneumatic System
Pulping Station
Wet Oxidation
Equipment Testing
Observation of System Operation
Interim and Final Project Reports
* Division of first period into separate Design and Construction Phases will likely extend these activities by approximately 90 days.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI ~ VF7
DESIGN CONCEPT
During the course of this study, from the evaluation of existing solid waste systems
and considered improvements to these systems, the broad concept of a closed mechan-
ical system, fully automated, capable of transporting all disposable and reusable
waste materials and providing on-site disposal, appeared to be the optimum system.
With the preceding studies, it also became apparent that varying limitations in each
of the building complexes investigated would require certain compromises on system
selection due to space limitations and existing area functions.
Combined evaluation of the economic and environmental aspects of various combina-
tions of equipment indicated the optimum system for the LAC-USC Medical Center
should be designed around a pneumatic transport system for the transport of soiled
linens and disposable wastes, together with a central pulping station for processing
disposable materials. These new system components or sub-systems would fully
replace the present inter-building system and off-site system. Modifications of
certain methods and equipment in the inter-unit system would also be required and
collectively, these modifications would have a limited effect on methods and practices
used in the unit system (patient care and service areas).
Personnel requirements of the improved system would generally be limited to the
unit system, where emphasis on handling techniques and supervision could be
confined to those initial handling functions prior to deposit of wastes in chutes.
Those personnel involved in the mechanical system would be limited to qualified
maintenance mechanics and operator classifications.
Local authorities in various County and City agencies concerned with environmental
control approved of the basic concept. However, as design criteria were developed
and the potential loading and characteristics of solids in the sewerage system became
more apparent, concern was expressed about these factors and their ultimate effect on
sewage treatment processes. It was recommended that the proposed basic waste system
project be expanded to include an experimental sewage treatment plant and sludge
processing (wet oxidation) unit, to provide facilities for on-site experimentation in
order to evaluate fully the total disposal process.
Preliminary plans were developed around this total concept. Although a substantial
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VI-8
investment will be required for the basic solid waste system, anticipated annual savings
in the operation of the improved new system would return the investment in a period
of five to seven years excluding costs of the experimental sewage treatment plant. If
depreciated over a nominal 25-year period, an annual direct savings or operating
surplus (over present costs) of about $354,000 would be available for redistribution
to patient-care functions or other needed improvements,, In addition to these direct
savings, it is estimated that substantial indirect benefits though difficult to estimate
would likely accrue as a result of improved health and safety standards, both in the
hospital plant and the community at large.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
The above briefly summarizes certain of the background material preceding the
preliminary design phase of the proposed system. To reorient the readers to the
physical plant at LAC-USC Medical Center, Figure VI-2 illustrates the existing
building layout and relates certain features of the existing solid waste system. The
schematic routing of the proposed pneumatic conveyor system has been superimposed
on this plan showing the approximate piping network that would be situated on the
main hospital parcel. The extension of this pipeline across Zonal Avenue terminates
at the proposed location of the waste processing plant. This site was selected as the
most suitable location for the plant by hospital representatives and their master
planning consultant. Figure VI-4 suggests configuration of the plant facilities.
Implementation of the proposed solid waste system will involve construction of a
permanent new building to accommodate equipment installations, the control room,
office and laboratory services which comprise the central waste processing plant
and accessory structures and assemblies. Structures of the experimental sewage plant
will be located adjacent to the waste processing plant.
This basic plant as proposed and illustrated in Figures VI-3 and VI-4 will accommodate
the pneumatic system discharge hoppers, exhausters and bacteriological filters, a
twin pulper installation with provisions for the addition of a third unit, the wet
oxidation equipment, conveying equipment and other accessories to these various
processes. In addition, a control room for the pneumatic system, conveying equipment,
pulping process and wet oxidation process, together with an office, laboratory and
employee facilities are located on the upper floor level with access provided by
both elevator and stairs* Contaminated areas within the plant are confined to the
-------
£
(D
Q
O
O
I
CD
C
(0
OO
o
Q
S"
n>
3
i
o
LEGEND
Building Number
Compactor Truck Station
Linen Room with Chute
Trash Room with Chute
Subterranean Tunnel or Corridor
Elevated Corridor
Number of Floors
Soiled Linen - Central Storage
General Refuse - Central
Pathological Incinerator
O
c
rn
BUILDING SCHEDULE
Area
(SF)
2,400
30,600
6,180
2,940
2,270
Function
Gate House
Admin. (Hosp. Dept.
Telephone Exchange
Storage
Storage
Incinerator
Classrooms
55,200
12,200
14,500
6,160
4,100
Bldg.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Function
Unit I -Acute
Unit II - O.B. & Gyn.
Outpatients
Pediatrics & C.D.
Psychiatric
Interns Residence
Nurses Res. & Classrooms
Nurses Residence
No.
Floors
19
9
4
8
9
10
9
2
Area
(SF)
1,285,000
376,110
209,000
171,075
132,000
139,000
171,620
46,000
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Pharmacy
General Laboratory
Chaplain
Patient Identification
Research Building
Clinical Research
Power House
55,000
33,000
2,750
2,725
22,000
61,000
Laundry
Shops
Research Building
Garage
Storage
Steam Plant
Cancer Research
10,200
SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED INTER-BUILDING COLLECTION SYSTEM AND CENTRAL DISPOSAL PLANT
PNEUMATIC TUBE —^—^ CENTRAL DISPOSAL PLANT •
EXHAUST AIR TUBE —
-------
-------
Oo
[ATM! t JT PI M4T
OQo
P HOPOS ED REFU SE PROCESS I NO PL-ANT
L AC • USC MEDICAL.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI Vl~12
central storage and pulping process areas located on the lower level. Dense and inert
materials removed by the dejunkers during the pulping process and grit removed by the
hydraulic cyclones after pulping are washed and disinfected as they are conveyed to
an exterior storage hopper in a screened enclosure. A second hopper in this same
area provides storage of the sterile sludge cake after dewatering, or in emergencies
(processing breakdown), unprocessed bulk wastes can be directly bypassed to the
hopper for evacuation from the plant by compactor trucks.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM OPERATION
The pneumatic conveyor system will provide transport service for accumulations of
disposable wastes and soiled linen from forty-four loading stations on service levels.
These stations include all existing gravity chutes and selected new loading stations.
The piping network required for connection of these stations to the laundry and
disposal plant involves about 8,300 lineal feet of 20" diameter 1/4" steel pipe
with flanged joints and epoxy lining. In addition to this basic transmission line,
special discharge valves and valved air intake piping will serve each loading
station.
The system will operate on a time and/or demand basis, cycling disposable wastes
and soiled linens alternately or as required. Exhaust air will be moved at a rate
of about 10,000 cfm or 60 mph by 2-100 HP exhausters with a third 100 HP unit
as standby. Evacuated materials will be deposited in collection hoppers at the
waste processing plant and the laundry.
Each of the existing chutes will be under induced negative pressure by exhausting
ai/r at the rate of about 300 cfm. It is proposed to bleed off this volume continuously
itjito the main transmission line and ultimately through the bacteriological filters at
the waste processing plant.
Operation of the waste system (pneumatic conveyors and waste processing plant) will
be largely automated. Monitoring devices and required manual override controls
for all mechanical elements of the system will be housed in the central control room
at the processing plant. A remote monitoring panel with alarm signal systems should
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VMS"
be located by plant management as a supplementary control station to insure prompt
and proper attention is given to operational malfunctions of the system.
Figure VI-5, a schematic flow diagram, illustrates the various processing functions
and sequence of processes that are available in the proposed waste processing plant
and identifies the principal equipment components contained therein or adjacent to
the structure. This chart shows the flow of refuse through the various units from the
pneumatic hopper No. 1, where it is weighed to storage hopper No. 16, where the
material is transferred to trucks for disposal at landfills. Refuse material is discharged
from receiving hopper No. 1 into storage hopper No. 2, where storage up to a full
day's capacity is provided. This central storage hopper is equipped with a live
bottom slat conveyor which feeds the waste material to conveyor No. 3. Oscillating
conveyor No. 3 is provided to even out the load and the rate of feed to conveyor
No. 4, which in turn delivers the refuse to pulper feed bins No. 5. The rate of
feed from these bins can be adjusted to the rate at which the materials are being
pulped in unit No. 7. Pulped material with about a 3% concentration of solids
is delivered by gravity to sump No. 14, from which it in turn is pumped to the
degritting unit No. 10, where ground glass, grit and bits of metal are separated
from the pulp. The pulp then continues to concentrator No. 13, where sufficient
water is removed to give an 8 to 10% consistency of pulp. This pulp is then
delivered to storage tank No. 21. From tank No. 21, the pulp enters the wet
oxidation system through sludge pump No. 30 and high pressure pump No. 31.
It first passes through the heat exchanger No. 24, where it is heated by previously
processed pulp before entering the reactor No. 23. In reactor No. 23, it is mixed
with steam and compressed air and the material oxidized. From here it returns
through the heat exchanger, where much of the heat is given up to the incoming
material after which it passes to storage tank No. 22. From storage tank No. 22,
the material is dewatered on vacuum filter No. 17 and then delivered via conveyors
No. 18 and 6 to the storage hopper No. 16 for truck loading. Unpulpable material
is removed from the pulping machine by junker No. 8 and from degritter and fed
through conveyors No. 11 and 12 to the grit storage hopper No. 15. Here the
material, after disinfection, will be loaded into trucks for disposal at landfills.
The layout of the plant will permit discharging a mixture of either sterilized or
unsterilized pulp with sewage to the sewer system or to the experimental sewage
treatment plant for further processing. Sewage for the operation of the plant and
for the dilution of the pulped material before discharge into the sewerage system
-------
DIAGRAMMATIC CHART-REFUSE PROCESSING PLANT
LEGEND
1. Vacuum system delivery hopper with pneumatically operated discharge gate. 24.
2. Storage bin with live bottom (pan conveyor). 25.
2a. Pneumatically operated bypass gate. 26.
3. Oscillating conveyor to level out load . 27.
4. Belt conveyor. 26.
4a. Pneumatically operated deflector plate. 29.
Pulper Feed storage bin and conveyor. 30.
6. Belt conveyor. 3] _
7. 60" pulper. 32.
8. Junk separator and elevator. 33g
9. Cyclone feed pump. 34.
10. Hydraulic cyclone for grit removal. 35.
11. Screw conveyor for grit and junk transfer. 36.
12. Bucket conveyor for grit and junk. 37.
13. Single screw thickener. 38.
14. Pulped refuse sump. 39 _
15. Grit and junk storage hopper with bottom gate. 40.
16. Processed refuse storage hopper with bottom gate. 4] _
17. Vacuum filter. 42t
18. Belt conveyor. 4g(
19. Mixing chamber. 44.
20. Sewage storage and settling tank. 45.
21. Pulped waste storage tank. 46.
22. Oxidized waste storage tank.
23. Reacror.
Heat exchanger.
Level control valves.
Coolers.
Separator.
Solvent pump.
Solvent tank.
Sludge feed pump.
High pressure sludge pump.
Hydraulic pump and storage tank.
Service air compressor and storage tank.
High pressure air compressor.
High pressure steam boiler.
Boiler head tank.
Chemical feed for boiler water.
Brine tank.
Water softener.
Vacuum system centrifugal exhausters.
Vacuum pumps for vacuum filter.
Recording scale to weigh incoming refuse.
Flexible duct connection to permit weighing incoming refus
Refuse delivery tube.
Vacuum system exhaust.
Vacuum pump discharge silencer.
Figure VI-5
Page VI-14
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI ~ VMS"
will be taken from the City of Los Angeles sewer system by a small pumping station
and pumped to storage tank No. 20, from which it will be used as needed. Sewage
from this tank will also be used to feed the experimental sewage treatment plant.
The refuse storage and processing area has been laid out having in mind that this
material is contaminated, Operations of this equipment will be controlled from a
console in the control room on the second floor and it will not be necessary to have
an operator in the refuse or pulping area during its operation.
Accessory equipment, such as flushing and/or steam cleaning devices will be provided
for sanitizing processing, storage and conveyor equipment and work areas after daily
use. A drainage system will carry off flushings to a sump for discharge to sewers.
Exhausters for the vacuum collection system are located on the second floor along
with the vacuum pump required for the operation of the vacuum filter., The discharge
of these exhausters is through filters located on the roof. These filters will be of a
type capable of filtering out bacteria and will be arranged so that they may be
sterilized prior to removal for cleaning. Air within the refuse storage and pulping
area will be similarly filtered before discharge into the atmosphere.
Design provisions must be made for odor control within the processing plant and to
reduce excessive noise to acceptable levels within and outside the plant.
-------
VOL. IV __
CHAP. VI VI-16
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Wet Pulping System
Principal components of the wet pulping system include two pulpers with junk separators
and elevators, two cyclone feed pumps, two degritters and two concentrators. The
system shall be capable of pumping the slurry through at least 150 feet of pipe and
elevating the slurry by at least 15 feet.
Each pulper shall be capable of processing 12,000 pounds per day of a mixture
Class 1 waste, Class IA waste, and Class II waste, as specified in Table Vl-l. The
pulpers shall accept unselected waste in loose form, bagged, or in cartons, of any
size with the limitation that the longest dimension shall not exceed 36 inches.
The pulper shall reduce the major portion of the waste to a slurry. Pulped particle
dimensions shall meet provisions of the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation
Rneness of Grind Specification for Garbage Grinders. The remainder of the
waste not slurried shall be ejected by the junk separator.
The pulper shall expel essentially nonpulpables (Class II waste, some Class IA waste
and Class IV wastes) through the separators. Such rejects shall initially contain a
maximum of 10% by weight (dry basis) of pulpables, which shall be flushed out
prior to these rejects being discharged to the conveyor system„ Nonpulpables shall
be removed and conveyed by the bucket elevator while the pulper is in operation,,
Unprocessed waste remaining in the pulper at the end of any given day's operation
shall be processed within 30 minutes. After pumpdown and cleaning, residue of
non-pulpable materials remaining in the pulper shall not impair the efficiency of
the system when it is restarted. It shall not be necessary to remove waste manually
from the pulper for trouble-free restart.
The water level in the pulper tank shall be automatically controlled. There shall
also be a provision to meter a disinfectant solution automatically into the system
through the water makeup line.
Each pulper shall have a rated capacity of processing 12,000 pounds of hospital
waste in a five hour period when fed at a continuous uniform rate a mixture of
90% Class I waste and 10% Class II waste. Controls provided shall include
automatic start-stop and manual start-stop.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
VI-17
TABLE Vl-l SOLID WASTE CLASSIFICATION
PULPABLE
NONPULPABLE
CO
CO
oi
LU
Q-
QQ
LJJ
QQ
<
CO
CO
LU
U
O
O
z
CLASS I WASTE*
fixtures, consisting of:
aper products
Mastic and rubber tubing
Disposable plastic and rubber items
Disposable aluminum cookware, dinner-
ware and foil
Cloth or nonwoven fabrics, i.e.
clothing, bed linen, towels, gowns,
surgical garments, garbage and bones
(cooked and uncooked), mop heads,
rope, string and tape
Wooden vegetable, fruit, poultry and
meat crates
'lastic casts
CLASS II WASTE*
Mixtures, consisting of:
Metal cans and caps
Silverware and utensils
Surgical instruments
Nails, screws, bolts, clips and other
fasteners
Animal wastes and bedding
CLASS IA WASTE*
Jlass, sand, ceramic, grit
CLASS III WASTE
CO
<
CO
00
Autopsy waste**
'athogenic waste**
solation area waste**
Grease, oils and wax
a: o_
4^
Z Q-
o>
z °°
CLASS IV WASTE
Metal surgical appliances
Pipe and pipe fittings
Metal hardware and other similar objects
Bedpans, urinals, pails, and other stainless
steel wares
Coat hangers, metal wire, and strapping
Building material waste including:
bricks, concrete, blocks, plaster, lumber,
reinforcing rods, roofing material, and
other similar objects
*Maximum size of object:
Largest dimension not to exceed tank diameter, less 14 inches
^Subject to local regulations
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VMS
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Mechanical Conveyors
Characteristics of the mechanical conveyor components required in this plant are
described in the following (item numbers refer to keyed numbers on Figure VI-3):
Load-in Conveyor, 1 required (item 2B in bottom of storage bin), apron type,
4Q'L x 8'W, 50 TPH capacity, speed variable 2 to 10 FPM with Jog capability,
2 HP motor, intermittent duty, with speed changes and jogging, maximum
load 200 Ibs. persq. ft.
Load-out Conveyor, 1 required (item 2C in bottom of storage bin), type apron,
24'L x 8'W, 50 TPH capacity, speed variable 2 to 10 FPM with jog and
reverse capability, 2 HP motor, maximum load 200 Ibs. per sq. ft., duty
requires frequent stops and starts, speed changes, jogging and reversing.
Vibrating Conveyor, 1 required (item 3), 12'L x 4'W x 18"H, 10 TPH capacity,
1" stroke @ 200 FPM, intermittent duty with frequent starts and stops.
Tripper Belt Conveyor, 1 required (item 4), 30" belt troughed at 35 for 6" each
side, 70' o.a.l., 45' horiz. and 25' @ 20° incl., max. load 16 #PSF, avg.
load 4 #PSF, speed 100 FPM, 5 HP motor, 10 TPH capacity, intermittent duty
with frequent starts and stops.
Tripper, 1 required (item 4a), movable, powered with cable and reel, size and
cap. to match 4 above, remote control of location and discharge, bypass back
onto belt, intermittent duty with frequent position changes.
Pulper Feed Conveyor, 2 required (item 5), 24" belt troughed @ 35° for 6" each
side, 20' c. to c., 20° max. incline, speed variable 10 to 20 FPM, 2 TPH
capacity, continuous duty.
Bypass Conveyor, 1 required (item 6), 36" belt troughed @ 35° for 6" each side,
57' c. to c., 20° incline, 135 FPM, 16 TPH capacity, continuous duty.
Grit and Junk Conveyor, 1 required (item 11), type either belt or screw, size
12" belt or 9" screw, 28' c. to c., horiz., speed 150 FPM or 15 RPM, 2 TPH
capacity, continuous duty.
Bucket Elevator, 1 required (item 12), lift 24', incline 70°, 2 TPH capacity,
continuous duty.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI ~~ VM9"
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Wet Air Oxidation System
The wet air oxidation system shall include equipment, piping, valves, motor control
center, instrumentation and insulation. Principal components of the system shall
include two air compressors (400 psig), equipped with 100 HP motors, one hydraulic
pressure pump (25 GPM) equipped with a 15 HP motor, one high pressure hydraulically
operated sludge pump, one sludge feed pump equipped with a 5 HP motor, one solvent
pump (20 GPM) equipped with a 10 HP motor, one solvent tank constructed of 304
stainless steel or fiber glass, one gas fired boiler (400 psig), one heat exchanger
with concentric piping of 304 stainless steel tested at 1200 psig, one reactor for
operation at 400 psig and 400°F. tested at 1200 psig, one separator designed for
operation at 400 psig and 400°F. tested at 1200 psig, one gas fired catalytic vapor
oxidation unit, one pulped sludge storage tank (24,000 gallon capacity), and one
oxidized sludge thickening tank (24,000 gallon capacity).
The system shall be so designed as to produce a sterile and dewaterable oxidized
end product. Flameless combustion of the pulped sludge shall take place in an
aqueous state. The oxidized solids shall be dewaterable, without the addition of
chemical coagulants, to a moist solid which is non-putrescible, biologically stable
and free of obnoxious odors.
Based on the calculated 13,000 pounds of pulpable wastes (dry weight) generated
daily at the LAC-USC Medical Center, this low pressure oxidation system shall have
the capability of handling slurries at a digestion rate of 1000 pounds per hour (dry
solid weight) or 24,000 pounds daily under continuous operation. The capabilities
of the system shall permit a maximum of 50% reduction of insoluble organic matter
and 90% solubilization and oxidation of polyethylene plastics.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS - Experimental Sewage Treatment Plant
The purpose of this plant will be to determine the effect on conventional sewage
treatment plants from the addition of various quantities of pulped refuse to the sewage,
to determine what modifications may be required in sewage treatment plant design
and operation to treat mixtures of pulped refuse and sewage satisfactorily, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of processing pulped refuse at a sewage treatment plant.
The plant will treat a proportioned mix of domestic sewage taken from a sewer in the
vicinity and controlled quantities of pulped refuse taken from the storage tanks at the
waste processing plant. The plant will provide a maximum of flexibility within and
between its various elements to facilitate the testing of the various processes and
will have a capacity of 30 gpm or 43,000 g.p.d. The design will be based on the
use of steel tanks which can be removed at the end of the program.
Design Criteria:
1. Average Flow 43,000 g.p.d.
2. Population Equivalent 430 persons
3. Assume solid loading at 1.2^/cap»/day or 500^/day
Equivalent to 1000 g.p.d. of 6% pulp
4. Mixing Chamber Detention time 15 minutes = 465 gal.
Say 4'Dia. and 5' S.W.D. with variable speed mixer
5. Primary Clarifier Detention 2 1/2 hrs. = 4500 gal.
Say 12' Dia. and 6' S.W.D. with sludge scrapper,
central feed and peripheral discharge
No skimmer required
6. Aeration Detention time 24 hrs. 43,000 gal.
Say 2-20' Dia. and 91 S.W.D. with variable speed
bridge mounted mechanical aerators
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VI-21
7. Secondary Clarifier Detention time 2 hrs. with 25% return 4500 gal.
Say 12' Dia. and 6' S.W.D. with sludge scrapper,
center feed and peripheral discharge
80 Sludge Processing Aerobic Digester for 1/2 capacity at 15 cu.ft./cap =6450 cu.ft.
Say 20' Dia. and 20' S.W.D. with floating aerator
Anaerobic Digester for 1/2 capacity at 15 cu«ft./cap =6450 cu.ft.
Say 20' Dia. and 20' S.W.D. with floating cover
Wet air Oxidation provide sludge thickening tank
Say 6' Diameter and 7' S.W.D.
1000 gal. of thickened sludge to be processed at
25 gpm =40 min. operation daily
Dewatering Use Vacuum Filter at pulping installation
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
VI-22
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Annual direct operating costs of the total project, excluding capital costs, are estimated
at $202,000. The breakdown of these costs to the basic elements of the project, i.e.
the waste system, experimental sewage treatment plant and laboratory testing, are
estimated as shown in Table VI-2.
TABLE VI-2 ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF PROJECT FACILITIES
*Payroll
Materials, Equip. & Supplies
Maintenance
Power & Fuels
TOTAL
Solid Waste
System
$ 61,000
5,000
4,000
50,000
$120,000
Sewage Tr.
Plant
$32,000
3,000
4,000
2,000
$41,000
Laboratory
$27,000
12,000
2,000
-
$41,000
Total
$120,000
20,000
10,000
52,000
$202,000
includes taxes, insurance and social benefits
The analysis of economic benefits of the project must consider only those costs asso-
ciated with the operation of the waste system and not those involved with research
activities. Implementation of the proposed waste system, although largely limited
in effect to those costs and functions in the existing inter-unit, inter-building and
off-site systems, also will have some effect on preparation and handling of certain
disposable wastes in the unit system (patient care and service areas). Based on these
system modifications, Table VI-3 was prepared showing the changes in daily payroll
costs that may be expected. Comparisons of labor costs by categories of wastes, as
well as costs of operation by system components or sub-systems, can be made with
Table 11-13 (Volume II, Chapter II), the estimated daily labor costs of the existing
-------
TABLE Vl-3 ESTIMATED DAILY LABOR COSTS OF THE MODIFIED WASTE SYSTEM - LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Types of Waste
.
Soiled Linen
Rubbish
Reusable Patient Items
^on-Combustibl e
Garbage (Non-Grindable
:ood Service Items
Radiological
Ash & Residue
Animal Carcasses
Food Waste (Grindable)
Unit System
Type
.mployee
Nurse
ab.Tech.
ustodian
^Jurse
Custodian
^urse
Attendant
lustodian
Attendan
Nurse
Attendan
Lab. Tech
Custodian
nst. Lab
.ab.Tech
Fd.Srv.V
Pay
Rate
5.72
4.12
3.71
5.72
3.34
3.71
5.72
3.34
3.71
3.34
5.72
3.34
4.12
3.71
4.03
4.12
3.42
Hr./
Day
10.0
1.0
0.5
94.0
94.0
525.0
15.0
66.0
10.0
3.0
142.0
142.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.7;
27.0
Emp.
Total
57.20
4.12
1.86
537.68
313.96
1947.75
91.52
220.44
37.10
10.02
812.2'
474.28
2.06
0.74
0.40
3.09
92.3-
Unit
System
Total
57.20
5.98
851 .64
1947.75
311.96
37.10
10.02
1286.52
2.80
0.40
3.09
92.3'
J4606.80
Inter-Uni t System
Type
imployee
Custodian
Elev.Op.
Elev.Op.
Custodian
Pay
Rate
$3.71
3.71
3.71
3.71
Hr./
Day
0.5
7.25
0.3
0.3
Emp.
Total
$ 1.86
26.90
1.11
1.11
Unit
System
Total
$ 1.86
26.90
2.22
$30.98
1 nter-Bu
Type
Employee
Equip.
Op. II
Fquin Op
Lab. Tech
Eauip.
Op. II
Equip.
Op. II
•quip. Op
iquip .
Op. II
iauip.Op
iquip.
OR. II
Tram Dr.
rd.Srv.WI.
nst.Lab.
Custodian
Equip.
Op. II
Lab. Tech.
Pay
Rate
$4.94
1 5 28
4.12
4.94
4.94
1 5.28
4.94
1 5.28
4.94
1 5.28
4.03
3.42
4.03
3.71
4.94
4.12
1 d i nj
Hr./
Day
0.3
0 1
3.0
16.8
6.0
6.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
9,7
3.5
18.0
3.5
1.0
0.1
0.5
System
Emp .
Total
$ 1.48
0 W
12.36
82.99
29.64
34.85
1.48
3.17
2.96
3.70
14.11
61.56
14.11
3.71
0.49
2.06
Unit
System
Total
$ 2.01
12.36
82.99
64.49
4.65
6.66
89.78
0.49
2.06
$269.20
Off-Site
Type
Employee
Truck Dr.
Pay
Rate
$4,74
Hr./
Day
1.0
System
Emp,
Total
14.74
Unit
System
Total
$4.74
$4.74
TOTAL
$ 59.21
20.20
934.63
2012.24
311.96
46.49
16.68
1403.20
8.73
0.89
5.15
92.34
$4911,72
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VI-24
solid waste system.
It is anticipated that the effect of the proposed system will reduce total daily labor
costs from the present level of $6,232.46 to $4,911.72, or a daily savings of $1,320.74.
The largest increment of this savings, an amount of $981.60, is estimated to accrue
from the combined functions of inter-unit, inter-building and off-site systems. Addi-
tional labor savings of $304.92 are estimated to occur in the unit system as a result
of changes of methods, practices and the elimination of separate collection systems,
such as sharps and needles, made possible by the system modifications.
Increases in certain operational costs, such as materials, supplies, maintenance,
power and fuels are attributed to the new system. Collectively, these added costs are
estimated at $60,000 annually, or $164.38 per day. With these offsetting costs
considered, savings in direct operating costs are reduced to $1,156.36, or a net
reduction in operating costs of about 18.6% in the total system is anticipated.
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Development of the total project previously described, including the pneumatic
conveyor system, waste processing plant and the experimental sewage treatment
plant, and based upon preliminary plans, is estimated to cost $3,180,410, as
shown in Table VI-4, including contingencies and engineering, but excluding
land.
Excluding the costs of the experimental sewage treatment plant and related contin-
gencies and fees, the net cost of the permanent solid waste system installation as
proposed for the Medical Center is about $3,000,000.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI 71=23"
TABLE VI-4 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A. Pneumatic Conveyor System $ $
1. Pipe System, including inlets and controls 1,275,457
2. Evacuators, Filters, Hoppers, etc. 176,000
3. Electric Power and Controls 142,000 1,593,457
B. Sewage Pump Station
1. Structure 25,000
2. Pumps and Controls 21,000
3. Piping 3,000
4. Electrical 2,000 51,000
C. Outside Piping
1. Diversion Chamber 2,000
2. 800 If.-12" V.C. Sewer® $12 9,600
3. 800 If.-8" C.I. Force Main® $8 6,400 18,000
D. Processing Plant
1. Building 175,000 cf. @ $1 175,000
2. Tank Screening 6,000 sf. @ $6 36,000 211,000
E. Fabricated Plate
1. Inlet Hopper 2,400
2. Storage Bin 6,250
3. Bypass Hopper 750
4. Pulper Storage 4,270
5. Loading Hopper 4,700
6. Storage Tanks 17,400
7. Conveyor Supports 2,000 37,770
F. Materials Handling Systems
1. Load in Conveyor 40'L x 8'W 50 T.P.H. 11,000
2. Load out Conveyor 24'L x 8'W 50 T.P.H. 8,000
3. Leveling Conveyor Vibratory 12'L x 4'W 10 T.P.H. 4,500
4. Tripper Belt Conveyor 70'L x 30" W 10 T.P.H. 9,000
5. Tripper 5,500
6. 2 Pulper Feed Conveyors 20'L x 24"W 2 T.P.H. 6,000
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VI-26
Materials Handling Systems (continued)
7. Bypass Conveyor troughed belt 57'L x 36"W $ 1,500 $
8. Grit & Junk Conveyor screw type 911 x 28' 4,000
9. Grit & Junk Elevator bucket type 3,000
10. Installotion (40% x $52,500) 21,000 73,500
Pulping Equipment
1. 2-60" diam. Pulpers
2. 2-500 gpm Feed Pumps
102,500
3. 2-6" Degritters
4. 2-9" Screw type Thickeners
5. Installation (40% x $102,500) 41,000 143,500
Ho Wet Oxidation Plant
1. 1 H.P. Air Compressor
2. 1 H.P. Feed Pump
3. 1 Bailer Assembly 800 psi
4. 1 Heat Exchanger 800 psi
5. 1 Reactor 800 psi
6. 1 Separator 800 psi
7. 1 Catalytic Oxidation Unit
8. 1 Solvent Tank & Pump
9. 1 Vacuum Filter
10. 1 Vacuum Pump
11. 1 Conveyor
12. Installation 375,000
I. Electrical 71,500
J. Hopper Weighing Scale 7 500
Total Estimated Cost of Solid Waste System $2,582^227
K. Experimental Sewage Treatment Plant 125,000
Total Estimated Construction Costs $2,707,227
L. Contingencies 10% \ 270,723
Total Construction Budget $2 977 950
M. Engineering Fee / 202,460
Total Estimated Cost $3,180,410
*
Note: Component Costs Are More Refined Than Those Shown in Table 111-2
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI " VF27
BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM
It is estimated that the net investment required will produce an annual advantage or
savings of $498,350 before depreciation, or return the initial investment in about six
years. Assuming a straight line depreciation on the installation, with a 10-year life
allowed on the pulping station equipment (value about $400,000) and a 25-year life
allowed on the structures, pneumatic system, wet oxidation plant, etc. (value about
$2,600,000), annual depreciation costs can be calculated at about $144,000. A net
annual surplus of $354,350 available for other improvements or patient care functions,
and representing a return of 12.1% on the invested capital, is anticipated after depre-
ciation.
Table VI-5 summarizes the tangible economic benefits to be derived from the implemen-
tation of the project, incorporating those direct operating benefits as noted, together
with certain indirect benefits that accrue due to elimination of certain parts of the
existing system.
Certain intangible benefits with monetary value will also accrue as a result of operating
the improved solid waste system. Improvement in sanitation, safety, security and
esthetics may likely have an effect on the frequency of personal injury, accidents,
illness of personnel, as well as patients throughout the plant and perhaps the greatest
effect on those being associated with the direct handling of the waste materials.
Similarly, limiting the exposure of wastes in transport and off-site disposal would
likely have a beneficial effect to the community at large. Improvement in systems
operation and these related environmental conditions should also tend to reduce the
general cost of building maintenance and losses due to fire or other casualty. This
improved system using an isolated and specialized transport method will reduce
congestion in building corridors, allowing more efficient performance of other
service functions. Economic analysis of annual dollar savings that may accrue from
these benefits would require a multitude of record statistics of plant operation that
are not available and adequate bases of fact are not at hand to permit an intelligent
detailed estimate. However, it is conceivable that collectively the intangible
benefits could equal, if not exceed, the estimated value of tangible benefits.
The improvement in environmental conditions which result from the modified system
are more readily identifiable than the economics of intangible benefits. Table VI-6
shows the numerical rating of the improved system by categories of wastes, sub-systems
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
VI-28
TABLE VI-5 TANGIBLE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Investment Requirement:
Installed Cost of Project
Less Salvage Allowance of Existing Waste System Equipment (1)
Less Avoided Cost of Capital Improvements to Existing System (2)
NET INVESTMENT REQUIRED
Direct Operating Benefits (3):
Operating Labor (4)
Less Increase in other Operating Costs:
Maintenance
Materials and Supplies
Power and Fuels
NET ANNUAL OPERATING ADVANTAGE
Indirect Benefits (Recurring Annual Savings):
Annual Decline in Equipment Salvage Value of Existing System (5)
Annual Depreciation on Capital Improvements Avoided (6)
Annual Value of Building Areas Released for Other Use (7)
TOTAL ANNUAL ADVANTAGE OR SAVINGS
Less Annual Depreciation Expense
$3,000,000
- 28,000
- 50,000
$2,922,000
$ 541,650
4,000
5,000
- 50,000
$ 482,250
$ 2,800
5,000
8,300
$ 498,350
$ 144,000
NET ANNUAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT
% Return on Investment
$ 354,350
12.1%
(1) Approximately 1/3 the estimated cost of present inter-building and off-site equipment
(2) Allowance for alternate minimum annual improvements to solid waste system
(3) Savings in annual operating costs
(4) Net annual savings over present labor costs
(5) 10% of present allowed value or (1) above
(6) Allow 10-year life on annual improvements (2) above
(7) Allowance of 1/2 of in-building storage areas or 4,150 SF @ $2.00/SF/Yr. *
-------
TABLE VI-6 NUMERICAL RATING OF PROPOSED SOLID WASTE SYSTEM - LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Type of Waste
Sharps, Needles,
Etc.
Surgical , Patho-
logical & Anirrials
Rubbish
Reusable Patient
Items
Non-Combustible
Garbage
(Non-Grindable)
Food Service Items
Total
TOTAL
Sanitation
Safety
Security
isthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
isthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
-sthefics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Safety
Security
Esthetics
Sanitation
Safety
Security
Unit System
Initial
Deposit
Receiver)
Def.
Value
0
10
0
0
10
2
0
5
30
2
2
15
2
7
2
15
2
in
5
5
2
2
0
4_
5
0
2
4A
38
9
141
Wax.
Value
4O
4&
30
5
20
5
$
tfl
40.
S
5
20
5
:. .15.
: S
15
..15
W
...15.
5
•i*
2#
to-
ll)
S
....5
....a
«&.
— 5_
10
5
£
KK>
115
.^d.
4M
Initial
Transfer
Def.
Value
0
0
0
0
15
5
0
2
35
2
2
10
5
10
2
7
1C
10
0
c
c
2
0
I
5
2
39
144
Wax .
Value
^sa^
SO
5
35
:.:1G-
:•-•.••$•
' "S
50
,,:,5-':
•.•$;
15
'•»•'
..#
. )5
:-.:%}..
•W
5
1 5'
"IS"
1?
S
:: -S
• ...5
-- 5'
....a.
.*£.
Iff
5
?•
,!«,,
US
...40..
r4°—
.-.«£
Initiol
Storage,
Vocessing,
Disposal
Def.
Value
25
2
35
11
5
0
7
?
7
5
3
9
47
109
vAax .
Value
20x
TO
2S
S
: 35
•..,-•$•
.;-3»-
. IS
':: 3B
--:/$-
5
W
-: 10
i: :2S-
:.: 20-:
-..:$.:
.•-;•&•
•:-.'• :S.
li
"• -5
16
30
15
:i 4,
-J3~
5,
.- 5
w
If
5
•-„„»
tM
-*)••;
liiS
;*»;:
Def.
Value
Ota I
0
1C
0
0
50
9
35
IS
65
4
^
23
7
IT1
22
15
10
4
15
5
(
17
t
159
86
6
39^
^ax .
Value
Total
:':1:TC:
IOB
:•&
:.,15
:90
;•' 20"
4S
'- ?9
«P
)S
15:
•••.«•
ii'ffl
: tf
-,30::
.40.
60
*>
*
n, IS,
25
,ss
30,
-Mr-
&:
t&
ti
Jtt
30
1S
li
4ft)
.ass
\2V,,
i?*s
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
Def.
Value
12
0
0
0
IS
2
0
2
20
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
P
0
o.
1
n
0
I)
2
2
2
4
69
Max.
Value
SO
45
5
20
5
5
5
W
5-
S
M
?o
»
5
TO..
15
13
fr
M.,Sn
li
S
_,,i.
S
a
• i
s
, i
5
••*„
^tv
115
4&
•to
, ,10
i
, ,5,
l«
4tn
«fl
•«sf-
Def.
Value
Total
12
C
0
0
5C
9
25
13
2C
C
C
0
5
g
0
0
4
C
0
u
1
c
0
o
9
7
4
101
18
32
]y
16(
Max.
Value
[Total
7ft
55
30
TO
&
IS
40
20
lag
W
.. 20.
20
?s
4?
,20
ln^
3D
20
M
...ffi.,
ar
35
is
,,.tD,
XV-
tu
tv
•ffr-
,,,;!,S
IU
ID
,J*rt
225
l£i
860
Inter-Building System
Internal
Transfer
Def.
Value
0
0
0
0
5
12
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
29
Max.
Value
50
45
V
,,,,/§
'iff
15
i
&
30
10
tf
— i.
a.
i.
.,. ,s-
„, s--,
S
i
u__5,
us.
1'20
55
40
.;:asp^
Central
Storage
Def.
Value
3
1
0
2
10
10
20
15
7
1
0
2
2
f)
0
1
1
?
0
1
i
I
0
?
?
5
5
23
25
28
102
Max.
Value
P
...S..
25
5
»5
• ••&
20
IS .
...itt.
i 5.
ze
5
#
t5
ft.
W
5
tj
,,,,fi,,
,WL
B
_„!_
5
S
i
,,J,V,,
5
5
-,.Ju,
,«i
70
iii,.
33S.;
Central
Processing
or Disposal
Def.
Value
c
A
0
1
4C
t
[
1C
2C
7
2
2
4
f)
P
1
1
?
0
_.„ 1
4
1
n
i
0
2
2
23
V
la
125
Max.
Value
W
W
JO
5
.40
5
5
10
40
tf
5
.. .5
15
2a
»
}
15
15
ia
,,.^
' 5
tff
,,ff
S
li
ilv
*:-
*:
)«
,,,,4,
5
IM
V*
-^
365;:
Def.
Value
Total
8
3
0
3
«
27
27
27
27
8
2
4
6
12
0
2
2
4
0
2
5
•}
n
3
4
9
9
110
60
38
258
Max.
Value
Total
flfr
15
ifl
,,3°-
30
30
100
W
*
,,,1,5
35
AS
?o
f?
!S
^5
«
15
,,,ti
•»
W
,,,u,
29
,,,tl,
ts
-4
29
...ri,
IS
*^
2?S
WVI
W40
Off-Site System
External
Transfer
Def.
Value
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
?
0
n
n
p_
0
0
4
Max.
Value
ffl-
I?
tS
•5
2B
5
Jo
5
10
S
t?
>, rf
is
ID
TS
)h
(6
'W
10
3
....«
s
5
f
|f>
..,.S
3
-4
5
ft
S
W
??
-^
25^ i
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
Def.
Value
0
n
C
0
0
0
0
0
30
13
IS
2
0
0
0
a
13
15|
60
Max.
Value
$
S
as
20.
7$
$
?5
IS
40
<«
?
ifS
55
W
30
"1?'
tr
'•'»•
15
S
"'iW'
|W-
1*
J
.,tS:
IB
ff
*$,
.T?.
w
...5.
S
350
tgo
2tft
Tar
«n
13
ol
3
i*:';
45
87
58
112
12
6
29
18
29
4
74
15
10
4S
.??
20
13
10
0
8
30
22
20
~7rT5
177
_ 146
122
884
Max.
Value
Total
iSSft,
200
45
m
75
209
100
iUld
?*•
te
ieo
ua
22S
WS
)vX3
140
•"fJai
W
£3
"W
t*
85
"Iff
95
;SS
_SB
.M
-M.
80
06
9)
•m
\m
•&44
-5w-
m4iSi
^
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
and sub-system functions within the total system. Comparison of this rating with
Table 11-18 (page 11-53, Volume II), the numerical rating of the existing solid waste
system operation, shows the detail of the decrease in deficiencies accomplished by
the improved system. The total effect of these improvements can be summarized as
shown in Table VI-7, showing percentage deficiencies by sub-system functions in the
existing system and the improved system. Graphically, these effects are also illus-
trated in Figure VI-6.
It is estimated that a decrease of 64.7% in present deficiencies of system operation
can be accomplished with the proposed improvements,, The remaining deficiencies
are largely associated with those reusables (patient and food service items) not entering
the modified system, as well as the initial handling of nearly all items in the unit system
prior to entering the modified portions of the system. In the case of the latter, further
reduction of deficiencies in operation are likely to come about only through enforcement
of policies and closer supervision and not through mechanization in the foreseeable
future.
In summary, marked improvement in environmental conditions (both in-plant and off-
site) can be accomplished through implementation of the proposed modifications.
Those tangible economic benefits as identified indicate these improvements can be
made comfortably within the present level of costs; in fact, will likely provide a
substantial operating surplus. Intangible benefits, though not of identifiable value,
will in all likelihood provide substantial economic bonus in the plant operation.
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI
VI-31
TABLE VI-7 PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES OF SUB-SYSTEM FUNCTIONS
Sub-System and Function
UNIT SYSTEM:
Initial Deposit
Initial Transfer
Initial Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-UNIT SYSTEM:
Vertical Transfer
Intermediate Storage
Weighted Average
INTER-BUILDING SYSTEM:
Internal Transfer
Central Storage
Central Processing or Disposal
Weighted Average
OFF-SITE SYSTEM:
External Transfer
Final Processing or Disposal
Weighted Average
TOTAL SYSTEM
LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Existing
System
52.3
50.5
62.1
55.0
41.2
62.2
52.0
54.9
74.8
67.4
68.0
23.3
71.8
60.0
58.0
% DECREASE OF DEFICIENCIES
Improved
System
34.0
34.3
25.3
31.1
16.6
21.3
19.1
8.3
31.4
34.8
24.8
1.5
7.1
5.7
20.6
64.7
-------
FIGURE VI-6 COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE DEFICIENCIES OF SUB-SYSTEM FUNCTIONS - LAC-USC MEDICAL CENTER
Initial
Deposit
(Receiver)
•HM^^^^^_
;::::.:- v:-:y ;.:;.;: -::v''
x::'::x:Xv'::X -: :':: '?:;.;::x':::X:
xX:x :•:•': : x: ;-vx xXxXx
Unit System
Initial
Transfer
••••^MBH^BI
::':;:;::Xv x:x;x;x:x:::!:x:: :::
:' -xXxxX yX::Xx':X:X X
Initial
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
^•^^^^MKB
iWiVitiiiVhviVi-.Vi/xxl
1xV.?xW;::x-;::Sx::|
:::::'::': :::!-:":-:;:":::::::- ': x^:^
:;X::;::.:,V:'-':j J::x\;:::'X::::|:::|:'
Inter-Unit System
Vertical
Transfer
*;;;H;;:;.;:;;;;;:;:S;.;!K::;;f;;iS
JSsKgi^BSsSg
Intermediate
Storage,
Processing,
Disposal
^-V :-:::;::; *m ffi;.
::ii||i:j||i;|:;
:-.;'x: ;-:"!-:•:• '::$>x-:-!::-:0:;!''::-:
••!' :"':;::':".::::: :-:-:-:'!:!::-:-.:: :;::::::"-:
::-::::::::::.::::;::::::::^-:::::::'::::::-X>
Internal
Transfer
iiiiyiifis
if:' EXISTING -11
'•'::::/':::'':' x''- :•'•: :-:•:":-. ::':::::::'::
Illllllll
S|PROPOSED||
Central
Storage
"•. ':-:::-::i>v"0'": : :-::.':':;:::'-":-y
: !-: !-.":::::::^:: ::::::-:::::::''::":: ':-::'::
':::::::x::::::^--:::--::::!-:::^:>W:::-::
"::iO:' : -:::::-x-:.:-!::-:":^:':-::!:x: "':
:::x-: ::::::-y-:: ."-•.- .:: :-x":::::'.:.:- :'-
::'':':::.-: :•:•:-;-.-: '•''•:- x':':::::;'-::x::
;;|||||||||||
:i;|;ll|i|ll|
Central
Processing
or Disposal
::"i! .••y >' f'WM::: :•*':'.
'; >;; ;::J;0;';-: s;-;-.-' i-: .; i;-
ixMxS&SSy :i: ;Sii
illlillllli
:S*::'KW:'H'5f:S:.?::Si
:'•! :'::'jf::":::H-S:S:;:;.;:::jS:
:-:i?:/iS:::;::£xS;SiSSi
:::!B.o:>X:x':::x;:X:;:^:-:B::::
illllll
Off -Si te System
External
Transfer
-
Final
Processing
and/or
Disposal
;:.-.•/ :':: -;;:.:,:•;,;-:;• 5r::
I.:'.. P^M-- :.':.:
:::::;::::-:,;::-V'::.:;:;t::---:
'^•oxi-ffXvf-WxwWS
!i:'::S:"¥iiS::::¥S:?i:¥%:!;:5
::;:;:::-/;::::.-:::X::;::::x;x;:|:|:;. :;.':j
:-.-:-:-:- •:•::•::-::;:: ::;.::x-:o-:-:-:'.-:-:-
•^:':::::::^x:::X:X:::X::::::^::::::-
-"::":-:•: :-::::x>-;:::y:xX x:: ':- ':-'
8 PERCENTAGE
80
60
40
20
-o
10
o
o
-------
VOL. IV
CHAP. VI VI-33
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Based upon the foregoing study and evaluation of the existing system operation,
considered alternative methods of improvement, the concept of the proposed modifi-
cations and development of this concept through preliminary planning stages, cost
estimates and the analysis of tangible benefits, this project is recommended as a
solution to the more critical problems of the current solid waste system at LAC-USC
Medical Center. It is a solution with qualifying economic and environmental
benefits. Through the waste processing and disposal methods employed, minimal
emissions are contributed to the already critical air pollution conditions of the
Los Angeles Basin. A homogeneous residue is also produced by processing for
disposal at landfills or discharge to sewers.
In summation, the proposed project meets local needs while also providing a labor-
atory for study and experimentation on the pneumatic handling system in combination
with a number of optional disposal methods and processes that may have potential
application in various size hospital plants throughout the country.
A U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O-470-307
------- |