U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs Critique
of Rail Transport of Solid Wastes
The above report, by the American Public Works Association, describes
work performed under Federal solid waste management demonstration
grant no. D01-UI-00073, and is distributed by the National Technical
Information Service,, Springfield, Va. , as PB-222 709.
The following discussion briefly outlines three areas—economic
analysis, analysis of systems alternatives, and environmental parameters
of systems—where, in our opinion, the report could be strengthened.
Economic analysis is fundamental to the entire report. Data related
to random years within the period 1960 to 1972 are combined and intermixed,
making it difficult for the reader to relate to present cost. The cost
analysis is inconsistent in what elements of costs are included when data
are presented. Ownership and depreciation costs, for example, are included
sometimes, excluded sometimes and, at other times, not specified.
The report attempts to relate the cost of sanitary landfill ing with
bales to a standard operation as directly proportional to the density of
the solid waste. The conclusion, therefore, is that sanitary landfill ing
with bales costs one-half the amount required in standard operations. The
conclusion is not substantiated, nor, in our opinion, could it be.
The report contains many discussions of mechanical and technical
aspects of systems alternatives which have generalized statements with no
supportive documentation. For example, the report makes comparisons of
the densities achievable for various systems, including baling. The
extremely low density figures presented for baled shredded solid waste
are not substantiated. Although under certain conditions one type of
baling system will be advantageous over the other, baling shredded solid
-------
waste should not be discounted on the hypothesis established in this report
that sufficient density cannot be achieved.
As a second example, the report rejects rail hauling of unbaled solid
waste because existing rail cars cannot carry sufficient payloads for the
system to be economically competitive. The container concept--!'.e., 30- to
40-cubic-yard containers filled with compacted solid waste and loaded
on flatbed rail cars—is an alternative that should be considered. The .
container system could attain a competitive payload and also eliminate
the cost of a baling process.
In the area of environmental considerations, passing reference is made
that the baling process itself poses no water pollution problem, yet high-
moisture wastes can indeed pose a liquid waste problem if the liquid is
squeezed out during the baling process. Data are not provided to support
any conclusion concerning water pollution potential from baling. Similarly,
the production of leachate at a landfill and potential groundwater pollution
is weakly analyzed, and no actual data are presented to support the hypothesis
that water pollution would be decreased through baling.
Finally, in discussing environmental parameters, there are statements
that few or no pathological organisms exist in the baled solid waste
because of the heat buildup in the bales. Pathological destruction requires
not only sufficient temperatures but also thorough distribution of the
temperatures for sufficient time periods. The data presented do not
support other broad statements concerning relative "sterility" of the
systems and processes discussed.
October 1973
-------
PB-222 709
RAIL TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
| BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA '• Report No. 2.
SHEET EPA-530/SW-22D-73-010
14. Title and Subtitle •
RAIL TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
|7. Author(s)
American Public Works Association
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460 :
5. Report Date
1973
6.
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. <&XK«Jft/Grant No.
G06-EC-00073
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
116. Abstracts
The report.documents results of a preliminary study to determine the technical-economic
feasibility of hauling solid wastes by rail from urban areas to remote disposal sites.
The rationale for a rail-haul system is discussed and various elements of the system,
[or factors influencing the practicality of rail-haul, are examined. These include:
transfer stations and related refuse handling and compaction equipment; the position
[of railways in freight transport in the United States; suitability of various types of
rolling stock for hauling1 refuse and other solid wastes; train configuration; and
lestimated costs. Consideration is given to implications of the rail-haul concept for
[operation of disposal sites, including use of strip-mine areas. Organizational, finan-
Icial, and legal bases for transporting solid wastes by rail are outlined. The report
includes numerous tables, diagrams, and maps.v.
[17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
|*Refuse disposal, Urban areas, Hauling, Railroad cars, Materials handling, Processing,
Baling, Shredding, Operating costs
|l7b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
5VSolid waste management, *Rail-haul, Transfer stations, Strip mines, Sanitary landfill
17c. COSATI Field/Group 13B
. Availability Statement
Release to public
"ORM NTIS-39 (REV. 3-72)
19.. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
USCOMM-OC I4952-P72
-------
RAIL TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
This final report (SW-22d) on work performed under
solid waste management demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00073
was written by the
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION
and is reproduced as received from the grantee.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
ll
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
111
-------
FOREWORD
Rail transport of solid waste is one of the most widely discussed options
for solving the problems confronting large urban centers of the United States,
where waste generation is increasing at the same time that close-in, low-value
land for waste disposal is being depleted. Currently no rail systems are being
utilized to transport solid waste from these centers to potential disposal
sites. Because of the interest in the concept and the absence of operating
systems, the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) supported this
study to assess the feasibility of rail transport of solid waste.
The study report, as an initial survey of the rail-haul concept, affords
some basic insights into this relatively recent innovation in solid waste
handling. As the first consolidated body of information on rail haul, it also
serves as an elementary reference document.
Although OSWMP notes many areas in which our interpretation varies from
that of the authors, the report, including references, is published here
without editorial or technical change. Persons with more than a cursory
interest in the report are encouraged to analyze carefully the data presented,
including the methods employed to obtain the data, and then interpret results
reported discerningly.
The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs believes that solid waste
rail haul is a politically, economically, and environmentally viable concept.
To stimulate the application of this concept, OSWMP is sponsoring new
demonstration projects to establish actual operating rail-haul systems.
-SAMUEL HALE, JR.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Recommendations 1.
Chapter 1 Introduction 9
Chapter 2 Design and Processing for Rail Haul 15
Composition and Quantity 15
Recycle and Reuse 19.
Processing and Transfer Facilities 20:
Material Handling 40
Chapters Transport of Solid Wastes ' 49
Public Health Aspects 49
Transport Requirements 49
Rail Transport 49
Consideration of Type of Railroad Car 51
Railroad Freight Cars - Volume/Net Load Relationships . 56
Rail Car Economics 56
Solid Waste Trains 62
Factors Governing the Train Configuration 64
Track Cost 67
General Conditions 68
Effect of Rail Network 73
Competitive Modes of Transport 7&
Barge 80
Ocean Disposal _. 81
Chapter 4 Sanitary Landfill Operations 83
Basic Operational Requirements 83
Additional Considerations 87
Sanitary Landfill Operations 88
Cost Estimates 89
Active Strip Mines 90
Chapter 5 Administration 93
Regulatory Aspects of Solid Waste Proposal 93
Chapter 6 Public Health and Environmental Control 107
Transfer-Compaction Station 107
Rail Transport of Compacted Bales . . 108
Sanitary Landfills . 108
Appendices
.A Composition and Constituents of Manufactured and Natural
Products Found in Solid Wastes 110
B Background Information - Control Measures for Public
Health and Environmental Control 126
C Example of Potential Rail-Haul Sanitary Landfill Disposal Sites 144
D Photographs of Baled Solid Wastes and Sanitary Landfill
Operations With Baled Waste 147
-------
INDEX TO TABLES
Table Page
i Summary of Costs for Rail-Haul of Solid Wastes 3
1 Major Alternatives for Rail-Haul in Solid-Waste Disposal Systems 10
2 Cost per Ton for Small Volume Shipment by Rail Cars Attached to Regular Trains .... 11
3 An Outline of Major Areas of Investigation 13
4 Solid Wastes Collected in Urban Areas in the United States 16
5 Expected Ranges of Solid Wastes Composition 16
6 Industrial Wastes 17
7 State Population Living in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Served by a Large Railroad System 18
8 Capacity Variations in a 12-Stall Transfer Station 29
9 Approximate Densities of Common Solids at 20°C 30
10 Wear Averages 37
11 Densities of Residential Refuse Achieved by Different Processing Methods '. 39
12 Material Handling Characteristics of Residential Wastes 41
13 Material Handling Requirements for Transferring 100 Tons or 500 Tons of Unprocessed,
Shredded, or Baled Solid Wastes per 8-hour Shift Into a Rail-Haul System 43
14 Range of Average Performance Parameters of Selected Material Handling Equipment . . . 44
15 Annual Investment Cost at a 20-Year Depreciation Period Excluding Financing Charges . .47
16 Railroad Mileage of the Contiguous States 50
17 Type of Freight Cars Owned by Class I Railroads 51
18 Average Purchase Price of Freight Train Cars 52
19 Limits of the Volume/Net Load Relationship for Various Freight Cars 57
20 Range of Standard Rail Freight Car Purchase Price by Load Carrying Capacity 58
21 Annual Cost of Owning Rail Cars 59
22 Rail Car Utilization - by Density 60
23 Annual Cost of Owning Rail Cars at Selected Densities 61
24 Annual Cost of Owning Rail Cars Considering Variations in Utilization 63
25 Deadweight Per Train at Varying Net Loads and Different Capacity Cars . 65
26 Selected Locomotive Power - Cost Data 66
27 Refuse Unit - Train Freight Rate - Shipper Owned Cars 69
28 Refuse Unit Train Freight Rate -Carrier Owned Cars, Cost :$ 15,000 70
29 Refuse Unit Train Freight Rate-Carrier Owned Cars, Cost $25,000 71
30 Economic Characteristics as Affected by Variations in Density 72
31 Major Coal Production Activities by State 86
32 General Distribution of Review Areas, Coal Strip Mines 91
33 Cost of Owning and Operating a 35-Ton Mine Truck 92
34 General Problems Related to Possible Initiation of Rail-Haul Disposal
of Solid Waste 95
VI
-------
INDEX TO TABLES (Continued)
35 Reported Optimum or Estimated Unit Costs per ton For Various Solid Wastes
Disposal Operations 100
36 Composition of Residential Wastes - Estimated United States Average per Year HO
37 Industrial Wastes HO
38 Paper Wastes Ill
39 Glasses and Ceramics 112
40 Metals and Alloys 113
41 Food ...-.' 114
42 Garden Wastes :. . 115
43 Plastics '. 116
44 Textiles ! 117
45 Leather - Natural & Synthetic 118
46 Rubbers - Synthetic & Natural 119
47 Chemical Composition - Main Constituents 120
48 Varnishes and Lacquers 121
49 Insecticides 122
50 Cosmetics 123
51 Construction Wastes I24
52 Oversized Wastes 125
53 Typical Sound Levels 127
54 Modification of Hearing Evaluation Chart Based on Knowledge of
Absolute Thresholds of Human Hearing 128
55 Early Loss Index, 4,000 Hertz Audiometry 128
56 "Inert" or Nuisance Particulates 130
57 Some Toxic Dusts, Liquids, and Other Components in Household Wastes (Traces) . . . .'31
58 Ptomaines: Toxic, Putrefactive Alkaloids Produced by Bacterial
Degredation of Food Wastes '32
59 Toxic and Foul Smelling Vapors & Gasses Produced by Bacterial
Degredation of Food Wastes 132
60 Gas Analysis and Bale Temperature of Compacted Spring Cleaning Residential Wastes . . .133
61 Chemical Analysis of Leachings 134
62 Microbiological Analysis of Leachings 134
63 Epidemiological Information Concerning Diseases Associated with Solid Wastes 136
64 Selected Factors of Significance in the Control and Survival of
Pathogenic Organisms Associated with Refuse 140
VI I
-------
INDEX TO FIGURES
Figure Page
1 District of Columbia Transfer Station 21
2a Transfer Facility Development 22
2b Interface Local Collections . 23
3a Concept of a Circular Transfer Station 24
3b Plan View of Transfer Station by Kaiser Engineer 25
4 Concept of the "Compressed T" Transfer Station : 25
5 Variation of "Herringbone" Layout 26
6 Herringbone Layout, 5,000 Ton San Francisco, California Transfer Station 27
7 Plan View of Transfer Station and Baling Presses 28
8 Heavy Duty Hammer Crusher 33
9 Twin-Rotor Impactor 33
10 Roll Crusher 34
11 Rotary Knife Cutter 35
12 Novorotor Grinder 35
13 Operating Cycle of High-Density Multiple-stroke Baling Press 38
14 The Relationship Between Volume and Weight, at Various Solid Waste Densities .... 50
15 All-Door Box Car and Mobile Loader 53
16 100-Ton Side-Dump Gondola 54
17 Standard Hopper Car & 100-Ton Rapid Discharge Hopper Car 55
18 Tentative Solid Waste Rail-Haul Network, Ohio 74
19 Tentative Solid Waste Rail-Haul Network, Michigan 75
20 Tentative Solid Waste Rail-Haul Network, Indiana 76
21 Tentative Solid Waste Rail-Haul Network, Pennsylvania 77
22 Survey of Potential Landfill Sites 79
23 Sanitary Landfill Operating Costs, 1968 84
24 Percentage of Land Disturbed by Surface Mining of Various Commodities 85
25 Overview of Active Stiip Mine Operation 87
26 Volume Requirements for Sanitary Landfill 88
27 Mobile Container Carrier and Dumper 90
28 Plot of Regression Line of Two-Minute Temporary Threshold Shift 129
viii
-------
RAIL TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
How to dispose of the mounting quantities of
solid wastes produced in urban areas has become one
of the nation's most pressing problems. Land for
close-in sanitary landfills is rapidly being filled up and
new landfill areas in a growing number of cases are
not within an economical truck-haul distance from
the point of generation. Incinerators in many areas
have been either closed or forced to operate at
reduced rates in order to minimize air polluting
emissions. Composting has not become feasible for
most areas due to the lack of an adequate market for
the product.
The concept of the "three r's," reuse, recycle,
and reclamation has not yet been generally adopted.
An apparent major deterent has been the difficulty in
gathering at one location sufficient quantities of
wastes to create a source of second-hand materials
large enough to enable an economical recycling
operation to be undertaken.
An evaluafion of alternatives led the American
Public Works Association to initiate a feasibility
study to determine if railroads could be
advantageously utilized as a low cost, long-haul
method of transporting solid wastes to disposal or
reclamation sites far removed from high-density
urban areas. The study was jointly financed by 22
local governmental agencies, the Penn Central Rail-
road, and the Solid Waste Management Office of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Phase I of
the study was begun in April 1967 and completed in
March 1970; however, work was suspended on the
project for a period of approximately eighteen
months to conduct a separate study of high-pressure
compaction and baling of solid wastes because this
appeared to be a highly important part of an
optimum solid-waste rail-haul system.
An interim report dated October 1968 was
widely distributed and a complete report on Phase I
was distributed to study sponsors in March 1970. In
October, 1970, Phase II of the study was initiated.
This report presents the consolidated findings of both
Phases. Originally Phase II was planned to continue
feasibility studies and to serve as a catalyst for the
establishment of one or more demonstration projects
for the various building blocks needed for an
integrated rail-haul system. Phase III was to complete
the feasibility study after evaluating the operation of
a pilot solid-waste rail-haul system; assuming, of
course, that preliminary studies indicated that an
investment in a pilot system was warranted. Press
manufacturers, railroads and other interested groups
were kept informed of the research findings and
encouraged to conduct independent developmental
work on the rail-haul concept. Since the compaction
and baling demonstration project was conducted
prior to the completion of Phase I and since
considerable developmental work was being done by
the private sector, it was decided to make more
in-depth studies of some elements of the system and
to complete the preliminary feasibility study, under
Phase II, without actually evaluating a pilot
operation. This would provide public agencies with
current information on the potential of rail-haul of
solid wastes and the problem areas involved without
having to wait for a totally integrated demonstration
project to be funded and completed.
This report, therefore, explores the feasibility of
using rail haul as an integral part of a solid-waste
management system. Five major studies were
conducted concerning:
1. Transfer stations and refuse processing-how
to get the wastes into the system;
2. Rail Transport-how to get the wastes to the
point of disposal;
3. Disposal Operations-how to dispose of large
volumes of wastes;
4. Administration-authority of states to
establish a regional or area-wide authority
which might operate a system, and
5. Public health and environmental
control—how to overcome any adverse
environmental problems associated with a
rail-haul solid-waste disposal system.
The principle conclusion of the study is that rail
transport of solid wastes is not only feasible but that
no "breakthroughs" OF major technological
improvements would be necessary to implement a
rail-haul landfill operation at a price competitive to
disposal costs being paid by many cities in
metropolitan areas.
As reported in detail in the report, solid wastes
may be either processed, i.e. baled or shredded, or
unprocessed, i.e. as obtained from the collection
vehicle. The economic advantage of processing the
wastes can be determined from an analysis of: 1. the
transport function where the cost of equipment and
haul is involved; 2. the disposal function where.the
-------
amount of space, type of equipment, speed of
operation, and cover material requirements must be
evaluated; and 3. the processing operation and
related facilities required at the transfer stations. A
related consideration is the degree of recycling of the
wastes which.is or may become feasible, possible
methods for separating the components to be
recycled, and at what point—the point of origin, the
transfer stations, or the point of disposal—the
separation of components for the recycling operation
will be done.
Clearly, no one cost analysis can incorporate the
multitude of variables which might be included in a
rail-haul system.
The basic system which was chosen for analysis
utilizes:
1. Sanitary landfill as the means of ultimate
disposal because, under current conditions, it
offers the most promise for an economical
and perhaps beneficial (through land
reclamation) disposal method.
2. Shipment by rail because of its inherent
ability to move high density freight over long
distances at low cost. To maximize the
economic advantages of rail, it was found
that:
a. Shipments should make full utilization
of existing equipment, i.e. loads of 100
or more tons per rail car are desirable,
b. Shipments per train should be at least
1,000 tons,
c. Shipment schedules should fully utilize
equipment-100, 200, or 300 trips per
year, and
d. Shipments should generally be by
equipment used only for haul of solid
wastes to increase equipment utilization
and ensure dependability.
3. One-way haul distances of 100 miles, since
most intrastate systems can be operated on
this basis;
4. One 8-hour shift per day be used for the
operation of both the transfer station and
disposal facility.
The hours of operation for a transfer station will,
in practice, vary widely depending upon the source
and nature of wastes received. However, for the basic
system the one-shift operation was chosen.
An important consideration which could not be
discussed in detail is railroad pricing structure. The
railroad costs which have been utilized throughout
this report have been based upon actual cost as well
as accelerated depreciation and standard allowances
for overhead and profits. The Interstate Commerce
Commission early in 1971 reaffirmed its previous
position that "transportation of trash and garbage,
which has no property value, solely for the purpose
of disposal will continue to be not subject to
economic regulation by the ICC." However, should
the same material be hauled to a recycling facility,
the ICC has announced that it intends to extend its
jurisdiction to the setting of rates for such hauls.
Thus, pricing by individual railroads will depend
upon the competitive position of the railroad, the rail-
road's judgment of the abiliry-to-pay of the agencies
to be served, the railroad's estimate of the cost of
alternate available methods of disposal to the public
agencies, and applicable railroad operating costs, as
determined by how the railroad allocates costs in its
bookkeeping system and local labor contracts.
It should be noted, however, that present
conditions of rail plant and railroad labor practices
and their impact on the rail-haul of solid wastes could
cause an increase in rail-haul system cost. There is a
catch-up demand in equipment and facility
maintenance, and some labor regulations do not favor
an increase in productivity. In addition, there are the
unpredictable effects of continued inflation and the
adverse effects of certain governmental transportation
policies and regulations—their rate making activities,
failure to adjust service requirements to changes in
demand, and perpetuation of outmoded work rules.
Balanced against these general conditions,
however, are the favorable arrangements which have
been made with railroads and railroad brotherhoods
to permit proposals for rail-haul service to be made to
several communities. Brotherhoods, in some
instances, have agreed to experimently waive some
rules because the regular nature of the contemplated
transfer movement and the volume contemplated,
represents both "new work" and public service work.
The benchmark costs presented in this report pro-
vide public agencies with a basis for evaluating the rea-
sonableness of proposals submitted for rail transport
of solid wastes. Table i, Summary of Costs for Rail-
Haul of Solid Wastes, presents an overview of the com-
ponent costs of the various items which make up the
total cost of the various rail-haul systems. The total
cost, exclusive of land acquisition, environmental con-
trols and site development, was found to vary from
$5.60 to $7.62 per ton for baled refuse, $6.16 to
$9.20 per ton for unprocessed refuse, and $7.32 to
$10.60 per ton for shredded refuse. Each system en-
visions the landfill disposal of 1,000 tons of refuse per
day on a six day per week basis.
Three processing methods, chemical dissolution,
-------
4.
5.
6.
7.
TABLE i
SUMMARY OF COSTS
for
RAIL-HAUL OF SOLID WASTES
Item
Transfer Station l
Rail Cars
Motive Power
a. locomotive
b. locomotive maintenance
c. fuel
d. labor
Track Cost
Landfill
a. operation
b. haul to disposal
Subtotal (1-5)
Taxes and Supervision @ 25%
Contingency @ 15%
Total
Cost per ton-Owning and Operating
(excludes financing and amortization)
High-Pressure
Compaction
$2.00-$2.50
.12- .34
.17- .51
.06
.15
.20- .30
.30
.60- .90
.40
$4.00-$5.46
1.60- 2.16
$5.60-$7.62
Unprocessed
$1.60-$2.10
.25- .75
.24- .71
.06 .
.15
.20- .30
.30
1.20:- 1.80
.40
$4.40-$6.57
1.76- 2.63
$6.16-59.20
Shredded
$2.40-53.10
.25- .75
.24- .71
.06
.15
.20- .30
.30
1.20- 1.80
.40
$5.20-$7.57
2.12- 3.03
$7.32-$10.60
1 500 ton/8 hour shift, 6 day week. Excludes land acquisition, environmental controls, and
site development.
-------
size reduction, (i.e. shredding) and compaction were
investigated. The substudy on chemical processing
was rather brief, since it was found that a suitable
total system would require extremely complex
operations, extended research efforts and perhaps a
very long development lead time. Information on this
substudy is not given in the report.
The substudy of size reduction for rail-haul
considered many variables. The findings indicate that
the volume reduction of solid wastes by size
reduction with existing equipment and excluding any
subsequent compaction, ranges from less than 2:1 to
about 3:1. Furthermore, to handle most of the
residential and commercial refuse, including oversized
items, from urban solid waste disposal systems, size
reduction is, with existing equipment, estimated to
cost upwards of 80 cents to $1.00 per ton on an
8-hour, one-shift per day basis. This cost covers only
straight depreciation, maintenance, and power, while
excluding financing charges, return on investment and
labor.
A demonstration project on high-pressure
compaction and baling of solid wastes was conducted
under contract by the APWA as a companion study
with the support of the City of Chicago and the
Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Wastes Man-
agement Program. The demonstration project resulted
from information developed in exploratory compac-
tion tests conducted under the rail-haul study. A
separate report on that project has been prepared.
The demonstration project showed that
high-pressure compaction at about 2,000 to 3,000
psi produces stable high-density bales of
residential/commercial solid waste mixtures suitable
for rail transport of up to 700 miles. The average
density of the bales ranged from 60 to 80 Ib/cu. ft.
The cost, including straight depreciation,
maintenance, and power, but excluding financing
charges, return on investment and labor are estimated
at about 40 cents per ton based on an 8-hour,
one-shift per day, operation.
The Tezuka refuse compaction process,
developed in Japan, was also analyzed by the APWA.
A report on the results of the analysis was prepared
prior to conducting the compaction and baling
project and was published by the U. S. Bureau of
Solid Waste Management.
Rail Transport
The use of rail-haul as an integral part of a
solid-waste disposal system was found to offer a great
variety of alternatives for system implementation and
operation. Railroads represent the leading mode of
transportation for the movement of freight and serve
all major population centers in the nation. In
addition, an analysis of rail lines indicates that they
lead through many sparsely populated and
economically underdeveloped areas where suitable
landfill disposal sites may be found.
The rail car analyses covered all types of cars
including flatcar container systems. A load density of
about 50 pounds per cubic foot is generally needed to
achieve full utilization of the weight-volume
capabilities of rail-cars.
The train analyses covered many configurations.
The order of magnitude data indicate for 1969 that,
with trains dedicated to solid waste, a 100-mile
shipment with a payload of 600 tons per train, may
cost $5.60 per ton for a load-density of 10 pounds
per cubic foot (270 pounds per cubic, yard) or $2.20
for a density of 70 to 80 pounds per cubic foot. For a
payload of 1,200 tons per train, the cost would
approximate $4.25 and $1.65 respectively. These
costs are based on railroad-owned freight cars.
The rail transport analyses stress unit-train and
dedicated train economics. Areas supplying 1,000 or
more tons per day have been tentatively identified as
rail-haul anchor communities.
The potential volume for solid-waste rail-haul was
found to be quite large. Assuming an initial shipment
of one ton per capita per year, the standard
metropolitan areas served by the Penn Central
Railroad might, for example, supply more than 68
million tons of solid waste. This amounts to more
than 1.3 million tons per week or 217,000 tons per
day on the basis of 312 working days per year. A
stringent enforcement of environmental control
regulations which would close some marginal disposal
facilities might increase this tonnage by 10 to 15
percent. ___
The rail-haul system network analyses indicated
attractive opportunities for soMng waste disposal
problems on an intrastate or, if desired, interstate
basis. For example, through utilization of the existing
rail network, it may be possible to solve for many
years, about 70 to 80 percent of the solid waste
disposal problems in the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York. The
analyses suggest further that this might be
accomplished by the establishment of only two to
three statewide disposal sites per state. Finally,
rail-haul was found to greatly increase flexibility in
the selection of disposal sites inasmuch as the cost
increase per mile of haul is very low beyond a
minimum distance.
To dimension the competitive feasibility of
solid-waste rail-haul, it was necessary also to consider
other modes of long-distance transport such as barges
-------
and truck-trailers. Barging and trucking operations
can be analyzed and evaluated within the context of
many performance models. Within the constraints of
the present analyses, i.e. a 1,000-ton/one 8-hour shift
per day operation, daily removal, a 100 mile one-way
trip and dedicated service, trucking was found to be
significantly more and barging slightly less expensive
than rail-haul.
The long-term commitments that could be
required for rail-haul systems makes it necessary to
consider the potential influence of salvage and
recycling on both composition and volume of the
solid wastes. It was found that salvage or recycling
operations could be conducted before or after the rail
transport and that the effects might be appreciable.
Rail-haul as a system may be of great advantage for
significant salvage developments by concentrating
large amounts of refuse in remote locations where
salvage operations would not adversely affect
adjacent property uses.
Disposal Operations
Due to the possible network effects of a
solid-waste rail-haul system, it could be necessary to
operate sanitary landfills capable of handling 10,000
or more tons of solid wastes per day. The present
analysis emphasizes, however, 1,000 tons per 8-hour
shift operations in order to highlight the situation
found, and to decide on rail-haul anchor systems.
The economy of scale analyses based on many
reports indicate that existing landfill operations cost
about $1.20 to $1.80 per ton at 1,000 tons per day
with somewhat lower costs as the volume increases.
As shown in the compaction demonstration
project, compacted solid waste bales may increase the
utilization of landfill space by about 100 percent.
Thus, the savings with respect to land use and earth
moving are substantial if highly compacted wastes are
used. The cost per ton for baled refuse was found to
be about 60 cents to 90 cents per ton at 1,000 tons
per day.
The on-site movement of solid wastes from the
rail head to the point of disposal was found to
represent the largest variable among the landfill cost
elements. Movement distances of up to four miles
were analyzed and it was found that solid wastes
could be moved over such distances at a total cost of
about 40 cents per ton.
The landfill analyses showed that, given a
sufficient capacity, the sites which are suitable for
existing landfills are also suitable for rail-haul
landfills. In addition, and due to the large amounts of
material involved, rail-haul could present substantial
opportunities for major land reclamation projects.
Based upon the material accumulation capabilities of
rail-haul, such developments could be accomplished
and become visible within a strikingly short period of
time which, as a rule, was heretofore unachievable.
With respect to land reclamation, the possibility
of disposing of solid wastes in abandoned as well as
active strip mines was investigated. The findings
indicate that the geographical location of coal mines
is very favorable with respect to the location of many
highly urbanized centers.
The landfill analyses suggest that the cost of
landfilling baled refuse for a rail-haul system, may
range in terms of 1971 cost data, from $1.40 to
$ 1.82 per: ton and that it is feasible to dispose of solid
wastes in active strip mines at a cost of less than
$1.50 per ton.
Administration
The planning, site acquisition, and contracting
for services as well as the financing of a solid-waste
rail-haul system will require that the system be owned
and operated by either private industry or by a state,
intrastate, or interstate agency. Private industry in
recent months has indicated a willingness to provide
complete disposal services upon receipt of wastes at a
transfer station. However, there appears to be only a
limited number of landfill locations which can be
acquired by private industry with zoning or land use
controls which would allow disposal operations.
There may also be a reluctance on the part of many
public agencies to become dependent upon one
anchor community for . the disposal operation
inasmuch as they would be unable to exert
administrative control over the operation. Thus, it
appears likely that there will be a need for state
solid-waste disposal agencies or large regional
authorities with the power to contract, raise funds,
and to exert the power of eminent domain.
Data gathered in 41 replies to a questionnaire
sent to individual states indicates that most of them
have some agency specifically charged with solid
waste management responsibilities. In only half,
however, is a single agency so charged; in the
remainder responsibilities are shared with from one to
dozens of state governmental agencies - apart from
local governments. The principal agencies of 30 states
reported their date of establishment; half were
created in the last five years, and half of those in the
single year 1970. Hence it is not surprising that
relatively few have as yet been able to assemble such
resources of staff, financial support and expertise as
will enable them to deal authoritatively with their
-------
critical responsibilities.
Among the problems cited as likely to be
encountered in initiating a solid-waste rail-haul
operation were consideration of economics and
public opinion. It was felt that these greatly outweigh
those of a legal or technical nature. (It should be
noted in passing that some legal barriers have been
erected because of adverse public opinion.) Economic
problems centered around a common core of costs
(too high), volume of refuse (insufficient), and
economic justification (as compared to alternatives).
Respondents are in agreement that effective public
relations, including educational efforts designed to
project a good "image" of sanitary landfill (and
operating practices to justify it) is essential to
locating and utilizing disposal sites nearby or — via
rail-haul — at distant locations.
PUBLIC HEAL TH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
In developing a solid-waste disposal system it is
necessary to give considerable attention to public
health, environmental control, and occupational
health aspects with respect to all system elements.
Essentially, the respective problems of unprocessed
and physically processed wastes i.e. shredded and
compacted, are of the same type as those found in
other solid-waste disposal systems which use an
enclosed transfer station, vehicles for long-distance
transport, and sanitary landfills. However, some
differences are introduced through processing. These
are associated mainly with the use of heavy
processing machinery as well as with changes in waste
properties resulting from the physical treatment.
The collection and storage of the incoming, loose
refuse in transfer stations requires the same
environmental control measures recommended for
well-run incinerators. Dust problems, if they exist,
could be appreciably reduced through the use of
paper or plastic sacks in refuse collection.
The processing section of the transfer in which
the wastes are either compacted or shredded should
incorporate dust, noise, odor, vector and leachant
control. Dust is not produced during compaction,
however, appreciable dust problems can be created
during size reduction. The charging of non-sacked
refuse into presses or size reduction equipment
perhaps requires greater dust control measures than
those applied in charging incinerators. Noise control
measures may have to be implemented in both size
reduction and compaction processing. Major sources
of compaction process noise can be eliminated by a
proper installation of the press and the use of
soundproof pump enclosures.
In the overall, rail-haul transfer stations require
the same provisions of good housekeeping as other
enclosed solid-waste disposal facilities: active
ventilation for use as needed, regular cleaning,
drainage, fire control, and some regulation of the
"in-house" temperature and humidity.
Biological activity can occur in both processed
and unprocessed wastes during prolonged storage
and/or during any type of long-distance transport.
Prolonged standing of refuse cars in rail stations
should be avoided because of odors and the wastes
always should be covered or enclosed.
Considerable advantages appear to be gained in
landfilling by the use of compacted solid waste bales:
no blowing of paper in case of high winds, and
reduction of the possibility of open or smoldering
fires. Furthermore, it is also likely that, as a result of
hindered water percolating through the bales in
landfills, the release of gaseous and liquid
contaminants from baled refuse will be less than from
an equivalent quantity of loose wastes for a given
period of time.
LARGER CAPACITY SYSTEMS
As previously stated, the report proposes as a
minimum system, a 1,000-ton per one-8-hour shift
per day operation. In principle, such an enlarged
system can be provided in six ways:
\. by adding transfer stations, trains and
landfills with capacities the same as the
minimum system;
2. by adding transfer stations and trains in the
capacities given but increasing the scale of
operations at a single landfill site;
3. by adding transfer stations of the capacities
given but increasing the net load per train as
well as the scale of operations at the landfill
site;
4. by operating the transfer stations of the
capacity given two or three shifts per day
coupled with an increase in the net load per
train as well as in the scale of operations at
the landfill site;
5. by increasing the basic capacity of the
transfer stations as well as of the train, and
landfill site; and
6. by combinations of the various scale-up
elements indicated above.
Various scale-up possibilities are indicated in the
report. For example, the various ranges of train net
load as well as shipper and railroad owned freight cars
are discussed. For landfills, data are given to show
-------
cost-trends related to the daily disposal tonnage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rail-haul has considerable merit in terms of
solid-waste management, environmental control, and
solid waste material recycling. Consequently, the
following recommendations are made:
1. An actual solid-waste rail-haul demonstration
project—to test full scale the promise of an
immediate solution to a growing urban
problem; and
2. A feasibility study of recycling as an integral
part of solid-waste rail-haul disposal
systems-to pursue a highly encouraging
approach to the ultimate goal of progressive
resource management.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Solid waste is the residue of production and
consumption—a by-product of air-and water-pollution
control—the litter that people promiscuously discard
on the countryside—the "unusable" overburden of
mining operations-and the inedible remainder of
agricultural production.1 The total U. S. solid-waste
burden, including agricultural, mineral, and ash from
fossil fuels, has been estimated at more than 3&
billion tons a year. Household and commercial refuse
collected in urban areas constitutes only about
one-tenth of the 3& billion tons of solid waste
generated nationally, yet its management requires the
most challenging and continuous effort. It is the
visible, heterogeneous waste generated where people
live, and it poses a real and immediate threat to
public health, welfare, and safety if not properly and
promptly removed.
The cost of the collection and disposal of urban
solid wastes varies widely depending upon variables
such as extent and frequency of service, prevailing
wage scales, system management and cost accounting
techniques, types and quantities of materials
accepted, climate, and local physical conditions.
Reported collection and disposal costs in urban areas
range from less than $10 to more than $30 a ton
(1970 dollars), with collection ranging up to 80
percent of the total. The disposal portion also varies
widely—75 cents to $8 a ton—according to the
method used, but it must be considered with total
costs since length of haul to the disposal facility or
site influences collection costs.
The solid waste problem is especially acute in the
densely settled urban areas. Incineration and
landfilling are the principal methods of disposal in
urban areas. Incineration basically reduces the waste
bulk before final disposal on land. Although increased
efforts to salvage and recycle solid wastes promise to
reduce the bulk even further, land still will be
required for disposal of residues. And in densely
settled urban areas, land is not only in short supply, it
is also in strong demand for uses more attractive or
productive than solid-waste disposal. In competing
for the decreasing amounts of land still available,
solid-waste disposal is often the loser.
As wastes are transported increasing distances for
land disposal, the key factors become processing to
reduce bulk prior to transport, and mode of
transportation. The problem traditionally has been
1 Resource Recovery Act of 1970, Report of the Committee
on Public Works, United States Senate, July 23, 1970.
reduced to two alternatives: transfer and haul of all
wastes to sanitary landfills, or incineration to reduce
bulk before haul to a land disposal site.
Experience has shown that where suitable sites
are available within economic hauling distance, it is
less expensive to use the landfill method. The key
economic control is the cost of transport, a factor of
both distance to the disposal site and the pattern of
local waste generation, i.e., inputs from government
jurisdictions and the private-sector.
Generally, the lower the unit worth of the
shipment, the greater the total weight required to be
shipped to obtain economy of operation; as solid
wastes have a negative value, the size of the shipment
is very important. For that reason, large core cities
and their dependent regions are logical input points
for solid waste shipment; and railroads offering a high
tonnage, long distance, and ubiquitous means of
transportation, are the logical carriers.
The feasibility of rail-haul of urban solid wastes
was determined by providing seven objectives of the
study:
1. to determine the techno-economics of
rail-haul;
2. to ascertain the implications to present
collection and disposal practices;
3. to identify the required transfer operations
and -facilities;
4. to evaluate the potential usefulness of
industrial material handling experience;
5. to develop and, if necessary, carry out
demonstration projects of rail-haul concepts;
6. to evaluate the practicability, efficiency, and
safety of the equipment and techniques; and
7. to evaluate the environmental impact.
THE STUDY APPROACH
The study approach was determined in two steps:
first, selection of the rail-haul system to be
investigated; second, development of research
methodology.
Major Rail-Haul/'Disposal System Alternatives
Three basic rail-haul/waste disposal systems were
considered: rail-haul/sanitary landfill,
rail-haul/incineration, and rail-haul/composting.
These plus two variations of such systems are given in
Table 1, Major Alternatives for Rail-Haul in Solid
Waste Disposal Systems. Local collection is common
Preceding page blank
-------
to each; therefore, a rail-haul system, to be
immediately applicable, must be complementary to
present collection technology and practice. The
remaining elements of the systems include various
combinations of transfer stations, rail-haul
incineration, sanitary landfilling, and composting.
Since all systems involve the sanitary landfill to some
extent, incineration and composting are regarded as
partial rather than complete methods of disposal.
Rail transport may take place before or after a
given waste processing operation. If economically
feasible, large incinerators, for example, could be
built in the countryside where buffer areas might be
more easily acquired.
Note that the transportation and disposal
operations are not identical for each system.
Incineration, for example, requires the transfer,
utilization, or disposal of incinerator residues, while
composting involves the handling of both the
compost and the non-compostible material. Sanitary
landfilling is suitable for the greatest variety of solid
wastes and entails no subsequent handling. The
sequence of transport and disposal methods
determines quantities of material to be shipped.
Sanitary landfilling involves shipment of all wastes,
while incineration before transport reduced the
amount to be shipped. The tonnage transported is
identical, of course, for all systems in which
processing follows the rail-haul.
Finally, the costs of owning and operating the
various segments of the five disposal systems vary.
Programmed operating costs of incinerators under
construction in 1969 and equipped to meet stringent
air pollution control requirements reportedly ranged
up to $8 per ton of 24-hour-rated capacity.
Operational costs of present plants excluding fixed
costs vary widely; for example, 1969 costs of
operation of four incinerators in the City of
Cincinnati averaged $3.58 per ton of refuse handled
and in that same year, operation of a 40-year-old
TABLE 1
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES FOR RAIL-HAUL IN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Overall
System
Number
Position and Number of Major System Building Blocks1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
I
II
III
IV
V
Local
Collection
Local
Collection
Local
Collection
Local
Collection
Local
Collection
Transfer
Station
Incineration
Transfer
Station
Composting
Transfer
Station
Rail
Haul
Transfer
Station
Rail
Haul
Transfer
Station
Rail
Haul
Sanitary
Landfill
Disposal
Rail
Haul
Incineration
Rail
Haul
Composting
Sanitary Land-
fill Disposal
Sanitary Land-
fill Disposal
Sanitary land-
fill Disposal
Transport and
Sanitary Land-
fill Disposal2
1 Salvage for reuse may be designed into systems at transfer facilities or disposal sites.
2 Refers to the transport of compost as well as the ultimate disposal of non-compostable
waste items.
10
-------
obsolete plant in the District of Columbia exceeded
$9 a ton. Cost data for operating composting plants is
quite limited but is estimated to range in the upper
quartile of that reported for incinerators. The key
disadvantage of composting in the United States is
the lack of markets for the end product and
consequent failure of almost all such efforts. In
contrast, sanitary landfills are operated for as little as
75 cents a ton, though the upper limit can exceed $4
per ton of refuse handled. The total includes costs of
land, equipment, depreciation, labor, operation, and
contingencies. The wide variations result from
differing operating requirements as well as differing
sizes of fill. Fills receiving more than 50,000 tons a
year have generally been reported as costing from 75
cents to $2 a ton to operate.
Thus, the cost of existing waste processing
methods indicated that a combination of rail-haul and
sanitary landfill offers the best promise for
development of the most economical solid-waste
rail-haul disposal system
Methodology
Economic Guideposts. To identify the potential
benefits of a solid-waste rail-haul system, a
techno-economic feasibility study is required.
Feasibility means the capability of being used, carried
out, or dealt with successfully. To ascertain
feasibility, both exploratory and developmental
research may be needed. Economic feasibility
concerns the organization of the system; in this case
the location and layout of transfer stations and
disposal sites, the routes, and the schedule of
operations. Economic considerations must be
tempered to enhance community benefit and to
obtain public support. To be successful, a solid-waste
rail-haul system must, of course, be competitively
priced.
Rail rates are determined from specific
information about the variables: the origin, the
destination, the route or routes to be traveled, the
type and size of the cars to be used, the volume to be
transported, the schedule frequency, and the type of
service required. However, it is possible to generalize
on rates to indicate the order of magnitude of rail
shipment costs.
The ICC does not regulate the cost of shipment
of waste goods — those that have no value. Thus there
is an opportunity when dealing with railroads to
bargain for an advantageous position. The ICC in
early 1971, however, proposed to establish
jurisdiction over the transportation of wastes destined
for recycling. Thus, if recycling were to be
accomplished at a central disposal point, shipment of
solid wastes may be regulated, an economic factor
which must be considered.
The substantial cost difference between small and
large volume shipments results from the different net
load capacities of different cars and the use of
different cars and the use of different types of trains
such as unit trains or regular trains. The cost of small
volume shipments, based on data provided by several
railroads, is presented in Table 2, Cost Per Ton for
Small Volume Shipment by Rail Cars Attached to
Regular Trains.
TABLE 2
COST PER TON FOR SMALL VOLUME
SHIPMENT BY RAIL CARS ATTACHED
TO REGULAR TRAINS
Net Load
Capacity
per Car
(Tons)
50
70
80
100
Shipping Distance (Miles)
50
$5.05
3.70
3.25
2.65
100
$4.65
4.10
3.75
3.00
150
$6.30
4.65
4.15
3.45
These figures are based on full carloads,
railroad-owned cars and 1968/1969
operating conditions.
In contrast, unit train rates, usually with
railroad-owned cars, ranged form $1.50 to $2.00 per
ton. Moreover, quotes of 3 to 7 mills per ton per mile
have been made in extremely favorable circumstances
if such unit loads exceed 8,000 net tons and operate
with shipper-owned cars.
Thus, the economics of large volume rail-haul
shipments may be attractive for large metropolitan
areas where most of the urban solid wastes originate
and where the disposal problem is most acute.
Rail-haul of solid wastes should be based on shipment
tonnages which take advantage of unit-train rate
structures. General operating conditions tend to
confirm this. In conventional service, cars are moving
in trains about 10 percent of the time, or about 2&
hours a day. Moreover, nearly 4 percent of this 10
percent is for cars moving empty, so that an average
car is used only 6 percent of the time in revenue
service movement. It averages only 52 miles a day;
the rest of the time it is standing. A car stands in the
customers' yards about 40 percent of the time; the
11
-------
remaining 50 percent of the time it is standing in the
rail yards. The railcar in conventional service is
wasteful of time and money. The unit-train is a very
different story; the 50 percent of rail-yard-time can
be cut or even eliminated.
In contrast to conventional trains, unit trains are
moving some 500 to 700 miles a day, 50 percent to
90 percent of their total time, with an average near
75 percent. The combination of improved time and
load-usage factors of unit trains results in the fixed
equipment costs being spread over 10 to 30 times
more of the load than in conventional service. This is
a very significant and favorable economic factor.
Conceptualization of the Study. The
establishment of a suitable solid-waste rail-haul
system involves, like the development of all
technologies, an evolutionary process. The system
was conceived within the framework of developments
readily attainable, and concepts requiring a long lead
time were avoided. It was recognized as a system
containing major building blocks and many
interrelated elements.
Major areas of investigation were identified:
criteria for system evaluation, composition of the
wastes, transfer, public health and environmental
control, rail transport, and sanitary landfill
operations. The major study areas along with
correlated substudy efforts are listed in Table 3, An
Outline of Major Areas of Investigation.
Criteria or yardsticks are of key importance for a
feasibility study aimed at the development and
evaluation of a new system in which
cost/performance relationships are decisive. By
establishing the characteristics of an ideal system, the
criteria provide guidance for the identification of
problem areas, the allocation of efforts, and the
evaluation of given or potential alternatives.
The investigation of the feasibility of solid-waste
rail-haul requires identification of the composition
and quantities of solid wastes that the system must
handle. Such information is basic to the type and
degree of processing that is required for satisfactory
input of the materials into the rail-haul system as well
as specific system configuration, e.g., type of train
service, landfill operations and public health, safety
and environmental control requirements.
Salvage was considered an important substudy
effort since salvaging a substantial amount of paper
and metals content could change drastically the solid
waste processing requirements as well as other system
demands.
Transfer of wastes from the delivery vehicle to
the rail-haul system may be accomplished by:
a. transfer unprocessed, as delivered (materials
handling),
b. transfer of compacted or shredding materials
(materials processing),
c. combination of "a" and "b."
Materials handling and processing analyses are
necessary to determine, for example, the feasibility of
achieving maximum payloads per car with a reduction
in the transportation costs.
The public health and environmental control
aspects of solid-waste rail-haul are influenced by the
composition and quality of the materials that go into
the system and by any processing the wastes undergo.
These aspects, however, should be evaluated for all of
the major building blocks of any solid waste
management system.
Rail-haul constitutes the major building block for
determining the feasibility of a solid-waste rail-haul
system. The rail-haul investigation was specifically
concerned with:
a. rail car selection;
b. train configurations;
c. an interstate rail-network analysis for several
states aimed at determining, for illustrative
purposes, the potential location, number,
• and capacity of disposal sites suitable to
serve a large geographical area;
d. an analysis of shipping costs and factors
considered in the establishment of rate
structures; and
e. evaluation of nonrail modes of long-distance
transport for comparative purposes.
Sanitary landfilling as a part of a rail-haul system
employs well known and tested procedures for large
scale operations. In addition, rail-haul can provide
access to active strip mines, opening new disposal
opportunities and providing significant benefits
through land reclamation. Moreover, the synergistic
effects of the integration of strip mine and sanitary
landfill operations can lead to reduced costs.
Studies on the disposal aspects had to be
cognizant of 'many system- and nonsystem-related
factors. Although the investigations revealed that the
acquisition of disposal sites is a major problem, they
also indicated that the number of potentially
acceptable sites is greatly increased when the rail-haul
concept is employed.
In the final analysis, the adoption of a solid-waste
rail-haul system is dependent not only upon the
techno-economic feasibility of the individual building
blocks but also upon political, regulatory, and
environmental quality considerations.
12
-------
TABLE 3
AN OUTLINE OF MAJOR AREAS OF INVESTIGATION
Major Area
1. Criteria for system evaluation
2. Composition and Quantity
3. Transfer
a) unprocessed solid wastes
b) mechanical processing
size reduction
compaction
c) material handling requirements
d) transfer station layout
4. Public Health and Environmental Control
Factors
a. pathogens
b. chemical pollution
c. vector control (insects and rodents)
e. aesthetics
f.' safety
5. Rail Transport
a) rail car selection
b) train configuration
c) network analysis
d) rail rates and costs
6. Sanitary Landfill Operations
a. the scale-up of operations
b. the disposal implications of processed
wastes
c. disposal in active strip mines
Correlated Substudy Efforts1
None
Detailed identification of chemical constituents
and properties.
Evaluation of potential impact and significance
of salvage operations.
The feasibility and value of chemical
processing.
The feasibility and value of size reduction
(shredding).
Exploratory spot testing of processing solid
wastes by compaction.
Identification of basic solid waste public health,
nuisance, and other environmental impact
factors.
The comparative economics of npnrail modes
of transport for the long distance haul of solid
wastes.
Evaluation of alternatives for integrating strip
mine operations with solid waste disposal.
'These substudy efforts were undertaken in order (a) to provide the necessary input information not
available from other sources or (b) to provide the needed perspective with regard to the main areas of
investigation.
13
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESIGN AND PROCESSING FOR RAIL-HAUL
A "criterion" is information upon which a
judgment may be based. Unlike a standard it carries
no connotation of authority other than that of
fairness and equity; nor does it imply an ideal
condition. When technological data and other
information are being compiled to evaluate the
potential effectiveness of a solid waste disposal
system, without regard for legal authority, the term
"criterion" is most applicable.
The criteria for a solid waste disposal system can
be identified as follows: \
The system should:
1. be capable of handling all solid wastes
generated in the community, accommodating
a. residential, municipal, commercial, and
industrial wastes irrespective of
composition, moisture content, age, or
unit size, and
b. large and small input loads including
sudden surges, seasonal fluctuations, and
gradual increases or decreases in the
workload;
2. at least meet existing public health and
environmental control standards:
a. function without polluting air, water, or
land;
b. be free from noise, dust, odor, and
unsightliness;
c. provide a hygienic work environment;
d. be esthetically pleasing to the public;
3. function effectively
a. in all weather conditions;
b. without disruption of the whole by
damage to a part of the system;
c. using proven elements and practices; and
d. with resilience under catastrophic
conditions;
4. be capable of serving
a. small and large communities individually
or collectively;
b. regions, all or part;
5. be economically competitive with other
systems in respect to
a. the total cost, including investment,
operations, and maintenance;
b. compatability with local collection
efforts;
c. adaptability permitting rapid cutback in
costs if the load is reduced, regardless of
whether the reduction is temporary or
permanent;
d. the attraction it may hold for private
enterprise; and
e. the overall economic impact on a given
area;
6. have organizational simplicity, but
a. offer potential users management and
implementation options;
b. adapt to user needs and not vice versa;
7. have an inherent attractiveness for
implementation by being
a. publicly acceptable;
b. rapidly adoptable by governmental
jurisdictions, commercial collection and
disposal firms, and industries which
provide disposal facilities themselves;
c. amenable to product, process, or
methods evolution;
d. promising in terms of side benefits, such
as salvage or land reclamation.
The degree to which any existing or proposed
solid waste disposal system meets these criteria can be
taken as a measure of its relative merit. It is, of
course, recognized that no solid waste disposal system
exists which meets all of these criteria to the fullest
extent possible. Thus, any system' evaluation,
selection, or development must emphasize
optimization.
COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY
Solid waste is a heterogeneous mixture of
materials containing a wide variety of chemical
compounds and elements. Solid wastes have a liquid
content including the water in food wastes and that
resulting from its exposure to rainfall. Other liquids,
usually in containers, such as waste oil are also found
in solid wastes. The moisture content of solid wastes
varies appreciably.
The major sources of solid wastes collected in
urban areas may be categorized as residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, and municipal,
and those produced by demolition and construction.
Agricultural and mining wastes ordinarily are not
handled in urban systems.
About 3,000 pounds of solid wastes per capita
are collected in United States urban areas each year
(Table 4). It is well known that additional quantities
of solid wastes are generated in urban areas but are
not accounted for in the quantities reported as
"collected." This is the result of many factors
Preceding page blank
15
-------
TABLE 4
SOLID WASTES COLLECTED
IN URBAN AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES
Population
Class of Refuse Reporting (1000)
Combined household
and commercial 34,213
Industrial 25,213
Institutional 17,337
Demolition and
construction 21,716
Street and alley
32,705
23,405
17,006
cleanings
Tree and landscaping
Park and beach
Catch basin
Sewage treatment
plant solids
Total Solid Wastes
Collected
20,042
19,100
Pounds/
Capita/
Year
1,570
690
60
260
90
70
50
10
180
2,980
Source: 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Wastes
Practices, U. S. Public Health Service.
Because reports on all categories were not obtainable from
every community the population base for each figure is
shown. Total does not include agricultural and mineral wastes.
TABLE 5
EXPECTED RANGES OF
SOLID WASTES COMPOSITION
Class of Refuse
Percentage Composition
(Dry Weight Basis)
Paper
Newsprint
Cardboard
Other
Metalics
Ferrous
Nonferrous
Food
Yard
Wood
Glass
Plastic
Miscellaneous
Range
37-60
7-15
4-18
26-37
7-10
6- 8
1- 2
12-18
4-10
1- 4
6-12
1- 3
5
Nominal
55
12
11
32
9
7.5
1.5
14
5
4
9
1
3
100
Note: Moisture Content Range = 20%-40%
Nominal = 30%
Source: National Survey of Community Solid
Wastes Practices.
16
including simple lack of records, periodic removal of
salvageable materials from the waste stream for
recycling or reclamation, and on-site disposal.
Millions of household, commercial, and institutional
food waste grinders are used to dispose of garbage
through the community sewer system; many
institutions, industries, and multiple dwelling
complexes incinerate combustibles and maintain land
disposal areas on their property. Large quantities of
refuse are disposed of at unauthorized sites. The
variations among local systems and among types of
refuse underscore the importance of thorough
investigation of local and regional input factors in the
design and operation of community solid waste
management systems.
Composition According to Origin
Residential wastes contain a great variety of
manufactured and natural products. Most of the
items, such as cans, bottles, and paper products, are
relatively smallL oversized wastes, such as furniture,
refrigerators, and.large appliances, are usually handled
by special collections. Geography, climate, and season
of the year have a large impact on refuse content, i.e.,
yard wastes such as grass clippings may be minimal in
a temperate climate in January, but may make up ten
percent of the refuse in the grass growing period. The
composition range of so-called mixed refuse from a
community2 (but not including heavy industrial,
catch basin, sewage treatment solids, or demolition
and construction refuse) is shown in Table 5.
These ranges are subject to sharp variation. For
example, an individual truckload of refuse may
contain up to 100 percent of a waste product such as
paper, palm fronds, or spoiled and discarded food.
Commercial refuse is generated mainly in offices,
stores, theaters, markets, hotels, and restaurants and
usually contains large amounts of packaging materials
and food discards. Institutional refuse is similar to
residential and commercial refuse but also contains
specialized wastes; for example, hospitals and clinics
generate chemical and pathological wastes which
require special attention. Solid wastes from industry
include a wide variety of organic and inorganic refuse
(Table 6). The refuse varies from large heavy packing
crates and chemical sludges to cafeteria food wastes
and office discards. Much of industrial refuse is
related to a particular process and product
manufactured. The term municipal solid wastes is
used as an umbrella for a wide variety of community
refuse which is produced largely by municipal
operations. This includes street and alley cleanings,
park and beach refuse, catch basin cleanings, sewage
"Processing and Recovery of Municipal Solid Waste,"
R. F. Testin and N. L. Drobny, Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE, 96:3:June, 1970.
-------
TABLE 6
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Composition
Industry (Process Wastes)
Paper Sawdust, dust from rag stock,
lime sludge, black carbon
residue, paper rejects.
Fruit and Scraps of fruit and vegetables,
Vegetable seeds, cobs, oils, processing
chemicals.
Meat and Flesh, entrails, hair, feathers,
Poultry fat, bones, blood, grease.
Dairy Butterfat, milk solids, ash, acids,
discarded milk and cheese.
Glass and Broken ceramics, some glass,
Ceramics sludges, dusts, chemicals,
.abrasives.
Metallurgical Emulsified cleaners, machine
oils, oily sludge, borings and
trimmings, toxic chemicals.
Iron Foundries Cupola slag, iron dust.
Plastics Scraps from molding and
extrusion; rejects, chemicals.
Textiles Textile fibers (plastic and
natural), rags, processing
chemicals, detergents.
Construction Sand, cement, brick, masonry,
(including metal, ceramics, plastics, and
remodeling and glass.
demolition)
Chemical Organic and inorganic chemicals
and rejects of synthetic products
such as fibers, rubbers, pigments;
can contain toxic, explosive
and radioactive wastes.
Lumber and Sawdust, wood chips, abrasives,
Furniture oily rags, upholstery materials,
paints, varnishes, scraps of
wood, plastics, and textiles.
treatment plant solids, and tree and landscaping
debris from public property. Tree and landscaping
debris from private property is usually handled by
private contractors, although it may be disposed of at
municipal facilities. Abandoned automobiles also may
be a class of municipal refuse if the market is such
that scrap processors or parts dealers will not receive
them.
Demolition and construction refuse results from
urban renewal programs, normal replacement of
urban buildings, and new construction. It consists of
noncombustibles, such as brick, concrete, ceramics,
and steel; and combustibles, such as lumber. Salvage
influences the overall amount of material for disposal
(for example, reclamation of old brick) as do air
pollution regulations prohibiting on-site burning of
combustible debris. Demolition refuse is relatively
incompressible. Landfilling is the only practicable
way to dispose of the rubble component of this waste
material.
Trends in solid waste composition are evident.
The amount of food wastes in household refuse is
diminishing while the amount of paper products is
increasing. The per capita amounts of paper
consumed in the United States have risen more than
twice as fast (by weight) as the population increase.
This increase in tonnage has been registered in
spite of the fact that one ton of paper pulp now
yields as much as 50 percent more paper products
than it once did. The same trend is evidenced in metal
can production. The 65 billion cans produced in 1969
were manufactured from the same steel tonnage as
was used to produce 50 billion cans in 1965. Volume
and compressibility emerge as key factors in the
materials handling requirements of urban solid wastes.
Chemical and Physical Properties
Development of a rail-haul system requires
information about the physical, chemical, and
biological properties of the solid wastes to be
handled. A list of manufactured and natural products
found in solid wastes was developed and is presented
in Tables 36-52, Appendix A. The tables also contain
information on physical structure of constituents,
such as paper, plastics, and rubber. These are
particularly important in understanding the
processing system element.
Table 38 contains information about the
composition of paper products, which constitute a
major part of solid wastes. Tables 41 and 42 identify
chemical constituents, high water content, and the
bacterial products of food and plant wastes, which
are a source of nutrients for microorganisms. Tables
17
-------
43-46 give the chemical and physical structure of
plastics, textiles, leather, and rubber, all of which are
composed of long-chain molecules which have elastic
properties. Tables 48-51 provide data on paints and
varnishes, insecticides and cosmetics, and
construction wastes.
Quantities
The quantity of solid wastes which may be
handled in a rail-haul system depends on the size of
the area served, the type and amount of solid wastes
generated within that area, and system utilization
factors. For example, if use is permissive, much less
material may be expected to be introduced into the
system than if it were compulsory. The potential
quantity of solid wastes from a given service area may
be estimated for illustrative purposes by computing
the product of population and per capita production.
The potential service area for a solid-waste rail-haul
system can be gauged by the number of people living
in the relatively densely settled metropolitan areas
which, of course, are served by railroads. The
potential service area of one large railroad system, the
Perm Central Railroad, is shown in Table 7. Based on
an annual per capita quantity of one and a half tons,
if the solid wastes from these metropolitan areas were
handled by one solid-waste rail-haul system, the
annual tonnage would amount to more than 100
million. This is almost two million tons a week — or
400,000 tons a day calculated at 260 working days a
year. The data at least indicate the order of
magnitude of the solid waste quantities which might
be handled by a rail-haul system. The example is
based on present discard and collection practices, and
assumes that everything collected goes into the
rail-haul system. For the purpose of systems design,
critical capacity loads are not yearly averages but high
weekly averages, with due consideration given such
factors as seasonal variations and collection
frequency. The Monday collection of household
refuse may deliver twice the amount of refuse to the
disposal facility that the Thursday collection will
deliver if twice weekly collection service is offered.
On the other hand, daily collection quantities tend to
vary little and reflect only seasonal differences.
Relevance of Waste Characteristics
The relative importance of composition,
quantities, and unit sizes of solid wastes can best be
understood by evaluating their effect on rail-haul
TABLE 7
State Population Living in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas Served by a Large Railroad System
POPULATION
Served/Penn Central
LIVING IN SMSA
Not Served/Penn Central
%of
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland - D.C.
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
State (Total)
Population
10,775,300
4,958,400
3,164,500
6,241,100
5,424,500
8,392,100
4,516,000
6,910,700
18,101,700
10,537,200
11,711,400
1.771.600
92,504,500
Population
7,682,300
3,400,900
796,300
4,804,900
4,350,000
6,190,600
2,282,700
3,511,700
16,224,800
8,747,300
9,922,800
514.300
68,619,600
State
Total
71.3
68.6
25.2
77.0
83.5
73.8
50.5
50.8
89.6
83.0
84.8
29.0
74.2
Population
770.900
368,300
734,000
588,800
1,572,400
2,045,100
304,500
82,600
746,300
211,900
7,424,800
State
Total
7.1
11.6
13.5
7.0
34.8
29.6
1.7
0.8
6.4
12.0
8.0
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Sales Management Magazine, Railroad Guide
18
-------
system elements such as processing, public health,
transport, and landfilling. A processing operation is
based on knowledge of the physical and chemical
composition of the material and the volume to be
processed. For chemical dissolution processing, for
example, the solubility of waste components must be
known. The major constituent of paper
products — the major portion of residential
wastes — is a-cellulose. This constituent is insoluble in
water and cold alkalies and only partially soluble in
dilute acids. Thus, other solvents have to be used if
the major part of paper is to be dissolved. Materials
such as paper, plastics, and rubber are made up of
long-chain molecules which exhibit fiber structures
and elastic properties. Size reduction — physical
processing of these materials - should be
accomplished by a tearing action along the fiber and
by cutting the fibers. In compaction, the fiber
structure of such materials has to be considered since
bent fibers tend to spring back. Physical
characteristics of solid wastes, i.e., size and weight
relationships, govern the design of material handling
operations, process feeding devices, and the general
process and system layout.
Composition, along with concentration of
specific waste constituents, affect public health and
the environmental control measures. For example,
wastes which contain a high proportion of foods
provide an excellent medium for bacterial survival
and multiplication. Furthermore, bacterial
degradation products, especially from animal
proteins, often produce offensive smelling vapors and
gases. Control measures for wastes containing
putrescible organics should provide for odor control
as well as fly and rat control. Large volumes affect
not only the physical elements of transport and
landfill but also the concentration of the waste
constituents in a restricted space. Depending on the
nature of the constituents, they might require special
provisions in both transport and landfills.
RECYCLE AND REUSE
Salvaging from the solid waste stream for recycle
and reuse directly affects the composition and quanti-
ty of the refuse. Salvage may take place before or
after the wastes enter the disposal system, posing two
basic questions: 1. How is the rail-haul of solid
wastes affected by salvage, and 2. how does a rail-
haul system affect the prospects for salvage?
Technical Considerations
Technology of a salvage process must be geared
to the composition of the refuse and end-product
requirements. Ideally, a high concentration of
desirable substances and a low concentration of
undesirable constituents should be present in the
source material. The heterogeneous nature of solid
wastes and the composite nature of individual items
contained in solid wastes tends to dictate multi-step
processing for recovery.
Separation of certain kinds of wastes, such as
paper, metals, and glass, before collection would
greatly simplify the difficult and costly task of
subsequent separation and the necessity of additional
treatment to remove harmful contaminants. However,
this would probably increase collection costs.
Removing traces of paints, oils, and acids is costly.
The well-established trend of household collection
service is to collect mixed refuse. However, much
commercial and industrial refuse is large quantities of
single items - paperboard from packaging, or metal
trimmings from a manufacturing process, for
example. Considerable quantities of such material are
already recovered for recycling at the source of
generation.
Recovery of materials from waste mixtures can
be accomplished both by physical and chemical
means. The methods differ depending upon whether
separation into groups or extraction of specific items
or individual chemical components is attempted. In
all cases the separation is accomplished by utilizing
inherent differences in the properties of the materials.
Separation into broad groups usually requires
methods based on gross differences in properties.
More specific material salvaging techniques must be
utilized for the extraction of specific items such as
individual chemical constituents. Physical methods
used in industry for the gross separation of materials
include those based on mechanical, magnetic,
electrical, optical, and surface properties. Screening
and classification (particle separation), ballistic
separation (based on gravity), and magnetic
separation (ferromagnetism) have been applied to the
separation of solid wastes. Chemical processes have
also been used in the solid waste field. Incineration
can be classified as a chemical, volume reduction,
gross separation method. A nearly limitless number of
steps would be required for the separation of all
chemical constituents present in wastes. The technical
methods of separating even traces of such
constituents are available but the extraction of all
constituents has not been considered practicable or
economical. Technical processes based upon the
extraction or conversion of a single constituent, if the
constituent is not present in high concentrations or
has no use or economic value, are not considered
19
-------
solutions to the present problem. Recovery and
conversion processes, composed of a minimum
number of steps and capable of extracting or
converting the maximum quantity or a large number
of constituents simultaneously into useful products,
appear to offer the most potential. The utilization of
the mixture without processing or after shredding and
compaction as filling material in land recovery is such
a process.
Economic Considerations
The economic aspects of salvaging or resource
recycling are basically the cost of the process (or
processes) and its logistics, and the disposition of the
salvaged material. The lower the salvage process cost
the greater, in principle, the share of the total "sales
price" which can be allocated to logistics i.e., the
material handling, storage, and transport of the items
involved. The factor of logistics appears to represent
the more difficult problem for salvaging residential
wastes. Many variables have to be considered and
many alternative system configurations are possible.
The major factors influencing logistics include:
a. the objective or objectives of the salvage
operation, e.g., whether to salvage one, more
than one, or all of the waste materials;
b. the type and economics of scale required for
the.salvage operations to meet the objectives,
e.g., whether large or small plants are
necessary, whether physical separation by
hand or mechanical means is sufficient, or
whether additional processes are needed; and
c. the location of the salvage operations with
respect to source of the wastes and disposal
of residues.
The logistics of collection, accumulation, and
distribution can be relatively simple or quite
complex. If, for example, separation by hand at the
home is the only requirement, then separate or
compartmentalized storage and collection of one or
more items is needed in the implementation. The
logistics are simplified if only one item is salvaged and
the remainder of the wastes are disposed of as usual.
Generally, the complexity increases with the number
of items salvaged and the diversity and quality
requirements of the market outlets for the
recoverable items.
Processing solid wastes for resource recovery,
whether done within or without a rail-haul system,
could have significant effects on the system. Reduced
quantities could appreciably reduce overall costs, but
a reduced quantity could also increase unit shipping
costs. Within a rail-haul system, salvaging could be
performed in or close to a transfer station or at the
sanitary landfill site.
Use of the rail-haul concept can concentrate large
amounts of solid wastes into one or more locations.
This provides a favorable base for salvage processes
which require a large throughput. It also may serve as
a focal point for new plants producing new products
made from solid wastes or plants which use new, solid
waste oriented manufacturing processes. In this way,
solid waste salvaging logistics may be simplified since
the number and quantities of materials that need to
be transported are reduced.
The interface of the community collection and
rail transport portions of a solid waste management
system requires a materials handling-processing
facility of some type. The design of this facility could
well incorporate elements of materials separation and
reshipment within the flow pattern of the disposal
system. It can be concluded then that evaluation of
such facilities for use as processing points for
separation of marketable items and components of
the urban solid wastes burden may be considered a
valid and desirable consideration in the evaluation of
the feasibility of a rail-haul system.
PROCESSING AND TRANSFER FACILITIES
The function of a processing and transfer facility
is to receive refuse from vehicles which are used to
collect solid wastes from generating sources, to
provide for pre long-haul processing (such as salvage
and denafication), and to transfer residues to
equipment better suited to long hauls, such as large
trailer trucks or rail cars. Many communities
presently use collection-transfer long-haul systems.
One such installation began operation in 1950 in
Washington, D. C., (Fig.l). The facility, which is still
in limited use, transfers street and alley sweeping,
ashes, and miscellaneous noncombustibles and
incinerator residue to gondola cars for transport to a
District landfill. The garbage is ground for discharge
into a trunk sewer or loaded into trailer trucks.
Nuisance-free operation was achieved largely
through the installation of a fiber glass and activated-
carbon dust and odor control system. When it was
first placed in operation about 1 million cubic yards,
or 25 percent of the total production of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, was processed through the facility
(3 million cubic yards of combustibles were disposed
of annually at the District's incinerators and a
landfill).
The basic concepts of processing and transfer
facilities have been developed and applied over a
relatively long period. There remains, however, the
20
-------
RAILROAD GONDOLA SPACE
GRINDER
RAMP
DUMPING FLOOR
RAMP
*•
SOLE
L«TFOR«
SCALE
OFFICE
SUHtINU
1
« 1
1
HALL
OUT
B
'Kf
uotut/ ^
7
/ TRUCK
Al 1 FR^/
WASHING
ROOM
| STORAGE
FAN
ROOM
FILTER
ROOM
Source: American City
CHIMNEY
FIGURE 1
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TRANSFER STATION
need to adapt this experience to the use of long
distance rail-haul systems. Figure 2a is a schematic of
the basic elements of the transfer facility
development process; Figure 2b details the elements
of the interface of local collections with the transfer
facility development process.
Beginning with the interface with local
collection, the transfer station system is developed
through the establishment or location of facilities and
methods of transfer from the local collection vehicle
as governed by community ordinances and
regulations. The transfer stations are composed of
stationary and mobile equipment and facilities
compatible to the total system. Specific
considerations include:
a. the types and amounts of solid wastes
generated in the various sections of a
community, i.e., industrial parks, residential
areas, and commercial centers;
b. future community development and solid
waste generation patterns;
c. the structure of the public and private
collection effort, i.e., type and capacity of
vehicles, collection routes, and collection
schedules; and
d. the identification of desirable transfer station
service areas and functions.
Interface with Local Collection
The waste receiving operations are the physical
interface of a transfer station with the local collection
vehicles. The design of these operations is largely
determined by the operating capacity of the transfer
station and the net load of the collection vehicle. For
example, if the average net load per truck is 2.5 tons,
a transfer station rated at 1,000 tons a day should
theoretically receive 400 trucks a day. However, the
trucks will not arrive at the transfer station at
uniform time intervals because of existing practices
and regulations of the working time. Sometimes as
many as 30 to 50 percent of the total number might
arrive within 1 to 2 hours; thus, a 1,000-ton transfer
station would be designed to receive up to 100
collection units/hour during the daily peak traffic
period.
Operating costs of the collection fleet may make
it uneconomical to concentrate the unloading at one
transfer station for such a large number of collection
vehicles. Thus, in suburban or low density areas it
may be necessary to use one or more sub-stations for
the transfer operation.
Many transfer station layout concepts can be
developed. The factors affecting layout include: the
21
-------
Transfer Facility Development
Criteria for Measuring
Overall Effectiveness
Comparative techno-
economics including
economics of scale
Design Parameters
Size
Construction
Sanitation
Maintenance
Appearance
Safety
Lay-out
Technology
(State-of-the-Art)
Power
Existing
Immediate Future
Long-term future
(Including research
planning study de-
tailing project sug-
gestions and their
justifications)
Transportation System
Method of Waste Transfer
Stationary
Salvage.for
Resource Recovery
Ordinances and
Regulations
Proposed
Interface
Local Collections
Enforce-
ment
Existing
Proposed
FIGURE 2a
TRANSFER FACILITY DEVELOPMENT
22
-------
INTERFACE LOCAL COLLECTIONS
Single Community
Region
Organization
Spatial distribution
of local waste
production
N)
Existing
Desired
community
development
1
Local collection policies
existing and/or desired
I
Collection economies and local
economic capabilities
Increase in Service
New Techniques
Cost Reduction
Logistics of local waste collections
Collection equipment arriving
at transfer site
Spacing of Vehicle Arrival
Street vehicles-trucks, cars
-*-l Urban transit cars
Equipment existing and
available but not used in
community
Future Developments, e.g.,
new container systems,
drum systems
FIGURE 2b
INTERFACE LOCAL COLLECTIONS
Collection method
Total pick-up
Selected pick-up
Public
Private
Self-disposal
•— Industrial
.Commercial
Residential
-------
FIGURE 3a
CONCEPT OF A CIRCULAR TRANSFER STATION
design and operation of collection trucks, the
collection logistics and the unloading of wastes, the
in-station process and material handling requirements,
and the loading of the rail cars. The many alternatives
in transfer station layout concepts include:
1. a circular transfer station;
2. a design in .which the railroad cars pass
through the center of the station to permit
the loading of the cars from two sides,
utilizing gravity loading principles;
3. a small, one-operator transfer station in
which materials are moved by an inclined,
oscillating conveyor;
4. an "H" pattern station in which the layout
resembles the capital letter "H";
5. a compressed "T" layout—with a shortened
center but elongated crossbar;
6. a layout adapted to operations in
incinerators to be converted for this purpose;
7. a conventional design—similar to existing
transfer stations.
Most layouts can be developed to suit site
configurations. An artist's concept of a circular
transfer station is shown in Figure 3 a. Collection
truck width dictates a minimum of 12 dumping
stalls. Figure 3b is a plan and cross section view of a
proposed facility. Other concepts are more adaptable
to lesser capacities.
The compressed T is shown in Figure 4 and the
herringbone pattern in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the
actual herringbone layout of the 2,000-ton-per-day
San Francisco transfer station dedicated in 1970. This
was designed for long distance truck haul, but it has
an ultimate capacity of 5,000 tons a day and is
adaptable to rail haul.
Figure 7, Plan View of Direct Dumping Station,
is a sketch prepared by Pullman, Incorporated, of a
1000-ton per shift facility.
Assuming a 10-minute flow-through or dumping
turnaround time requirement, a 12-stall station has a
capacity of 72 vehicles an hour. If the in-station time
per vehicle is reduced to 5 minutes, then the station
could accommodate 144 vehicles an hour. The,
turnaround time for the new San Francisco transfer
station is reportedly 4 minutes per vehicle.
Potential variations in the number of trucks using
the station in a given period of time require truck
entrances and exits to be designed accordingly. An
arrival of 72 trucks an hour implies that every 50
seconds one truck enters arid leaves the station. The
arrival of 144 trucks an hour reduces this time span
to 25 seconds. Thus, the 12-stall transfer/station
24
-------
Up Down
(Incoming Trucks) (Outgoing Trucks)
Scale
Outgoing
Lane"
Incoming
Lane
Covered
Entrance &
Exit Ramp
Outgoing
'Lane
Truck dumping
floor
Pit
Compaction
station
Covered
Entrance &
Ezlt Damp
Scale
DOWN UP
(Outgoing Trucks) (Incoming Trucks)
Overhead traveling bridge crane,
circular bridge movement, one
or two cranea, bucket or orange
grapple exceeding 10 tona each
»r-r-ic«v« I mk
AMD ^ '
•J*. Cf |C»M
A. MO
TO
ARK.
FIGURE 3b
PLAN VIEW OF TRANSFER STATION BY KAISER ENGINEERS
P'_A.N
TRAVELIN& CRANE
TRUCK OUMP^* FLOO«
FIGURE 4
CONCEPT OF "COMPRESSED T" TRANSFER STATION
SECTION
25
-------
LOA.OfcD
TROC.K.— INKIErR. LAMB:
FIGURE 5
VARIATIONS OF " HERRINGBONE" LAYOUT
-------
\ \
FIGURE 6
HERRINGBONE LAYOUT, 5,000 TON SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., TRANSFER STATION
27
-------
T
1
V
—
H
§
s
g
t
-ffi-
Source: Pullman, Inc.
PLAN
SECTION
FIGURE 7
PLAN VIEW OF TRANSFER STATION AND BALING PRESSES
28
-------
requires at least two entrances, exits, and scales, and,
in addition, weighing operation which do not require
more than 50 seconds per truck. This speed of
operation is feasible, based on commuter ticket,
toll way, and industrial production control
experience. Therefore, it can be concluded that truck
waiting time, even outside a high volume station,
should be rare if causes not associated with the
station are excluded.
Many variable factors contribute to systems
design. The data in Table 8 show station capacity
variations as a variable of one factor—net load per
truck. Collection management decisions have a direct
impact on a rail-haul operation. For example, a
change in the collection truck purchase policy and/or
the route structure might affect both the net load per
truck and the schedule of truck arrivals at the transfer
station. In turn, the tonnage delivered during a peak
load day by collection vehiclss determines the size of
the pit required. Furthermore, "total-tonnage
delivered" influences decisions on working time and
the required speed of operations. Using simulation
techniques, with realistic data inputs, it is possible to
pinpoint both the opportunities and limitations of a
given system.
For the purposes of this investigation it was
decided to focus primarily on two transfer station
sizes-100 tons and 500 tons per 8-hour shift. A
100-ton station could handle from 10 to 25 trucks
and a 500-ton station from 50 to 125 trucks if each
truck makes two trips a day, depending upon the net
load per truck.
Experience indicates that these two sizes of
transfer station would be well suited to the existing
organization of the collection efforts. Many solid
waste jurisdictions operate fewer than 50 trucks and
large jurisdictions are structurSd^into collection
districts or wards which, as a rule, provide the base
for a fleet of trucks also numbering fewer than 50.
On the other hand, the 500-ton per 8-hour shift
station would be suitable for the heavy demand
situations and for any consolidations that might be
desired in the organization of collection activities. By
enlarging the pit and the truck/station interface,
station capacity can be boosted to 200-300 or
1,000-1,500 tons per day respectively simply by
adding a second or third shift to the operation.
Inherent to the design of the transfer station
must be provision for loading the rail-cars and spur
trackage for loaded and unloaded cars. Mobile
container carriers or fork lift trucks may be used for
loading.
Processing
The basic purpose of processing solid waste for
rail-haul is to improve the cost/performance
relationship of the over-all operation including
transport, disposal, and environmental control.
Furthermore, processing will facilitate handling,
storage, or material-handling operations that may be
required at various geographic points. The following
are major system development factors.
Type of Material. A solid-waste rail-haul system
should initially accommodate as great an amount and
TABLE 8
CAPACITY VARIATIONS IN A 12-STALL TRANSFER STATION
BASED ON INCREASES IN THE NET LOAD PER TRUCK
CAPACITY VARIATIONS
Net Load
Per Truck
(Tons)
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Incoming Trucks per hour
Per Hour
(Tons)
144
180
216
288
360
Per 8-Hour
Shift1
(Tons)
1,152
1,440
1,728
2,304
2,880
144
Incoming Trucks per hour
Per Hour
(Tons)
288
360
432
576
720
Per 8-Hour
Shift
(Tons)
2,304
2,880
3,456
4,608
5,760
'The calculations are based on the assumption that the trucks arrive at
the frequency indicated throughout the operating time of the station.
29
-------
variety as possible of household and municipal refuse.
To optimize material handling, transport, and
disposal systems, homogenization is desirable. This
permits effective handling of combinations such as
food scraps, household wastss, oversized furniture,
and large boxes without requiring oversizing of
equipment with correspondingly Increased investment
and operating costs.
Transport. The key to transport economics is
maximum utilization of the transportation
equipment, i.e., maximum payloads per unit of
transport. Since the density of unprocessed
household refuse averages less than 10 Ib/cu. ft., both
homogenization and densifica'ion are desirable. In
principle, the denser the materials and the better
the utilization of the transport space, the lower
the ratio of deadweight per car or train to the
net load; correspondingly, the greater the payload per
unit of transport; the lower the transportation cost.
The value of unit size standrrdization has been
proven by industrial experience in bulk material
handling and transport. However, there, as well as in
the solid waste field, the processing is or must
,become an .integral ,part,of.the,tptaJHsystem1..„.«*..*•-*.-«
Landfill. Space needs, earth moving, and cover
requirements represent significant cost factors.
Savings achievable by processing for volume
reduction can be significant.
Environmental Control. Processing may be used
as a tool to produce more favorable disposal
characteristics. For example, processing of solid
wastes into the form of stabl; bales reduces or
eliminates nuisances, such as blov/ing paper.
In general, processing of the input materials may
uffect the feasibility, configuration, und practicality
of solid-waste rail-haul. This involves a complex set of
objectives. However, the main objective is reduction
in volume or increase in weight per unit of volume to
minimize shipping and material handling costs. This
can be accomplished most suitably by physical
methods which can reduce or eliminate void at the
interface of the solid materials and within solid waste
items.
The limiting condition for volume reduction is
the volume of the voids in the wastes. Only extremely
rigorous methods, such as compaction under
enormous pressures, change basic properties of the
solids which in turn change the volume of the solid
portion of the wastes. In the absence of changes in
the properties of the solids, all that is accomplished is
the squeezing out of air and liquids contained in the
voids.
Since material properties are not affected by
normal physical volume reduction methods, the
weight of an individual load remains essentially the
same after the volume reduction process.
Consequently, the relationship between reduction of
volume and increase in density is quite simple when
no losses of the materials occur as a result of
processing. If the volume is reduced by a factor of
three, then the density increases by a factor of three.
However, since solid waste mixtures contain solids of
different specific weights but of identical volumes,
the densities of the individual lots may vary
appreciably. This holds true irrespective of whether
the mixture contains the sami or a different amount
of void space. Therefore, it is possible that the weight
per unit of volume of a given densified load of waste
may be higher than that of another, even if the
volume reduction ratio of that load is much lower.
The densities (pounds pei cubic foot—Ib/cu.ft.)
which can be expected for very densely packed solids
approximate those obtained for solid blocks
containing the same materials. The approximate
densities of a selected number of such common solids
are listed in Table 9; these values can be used to
^predict .^the^ average*, density<«*of»>bales'»t(assuming*»i»»
elimination of all voids.) For example, bales made up
solely from paper wastes could have an average
TABLE 9
APPROXIMATE DENSITIES OF
COMMON SOLIDS AT
20°C
Solids
Paper
Metal
Aluminum (alloys)
Iron (alloys)
Copper (alloys)
Glass
Porcelain
Plastic
Wood
Leather
Rubber
Cereal
Fats
Wool
Masonry
Brick
Concrete
Density Range
(Ibs/cu.ft.)
43-71
165-182
.430-530
500-550
150-182
160-190
66-120
12- 71
48- 65
60-110
26- 48
57- 61
50- 82
100-162
88-125
100-144
30
-------
density of 57 Ib/cu. ft. On the other hand, bales made
up of steel scrap could have an average density of 480
Ib/cu. ft.
In the absence of any swelling, moisture absorbed
by a solid does not produce a measurable increase in
the volume of the solid, but it does add to its unit
weight. As a result, the densities of solids may vary
widely.
Weight can be increased nore than 50 percent if
the wastes contain a large proportion of highly mois-
ture-absorbent materials such as paper and textiles.
In the absence of voids, dry mixtures of wastes
containing a variety of different materials in different
proportions should have densities which are between
the minimum and maximum values indicated in the
table. Thus, it may be calculated that the densities of
household mixtures, in the absence of voids and
moisture, are in the vicinity of 80 Ib/cu. ft. However,
solid wastes do contain moisture and therefore the
overall density of a waste mixture is affected not only
by voids, but by its liquid content.
Measuring the effectiveness of densification must
take these factors into account:
a. The decrease in volume achieved by a volume
reduction process will depend on the
air-to-solid ratio in the waste before and after
processing. Since the initial ratio is likely to
vary from load to load, different values are
to be expected for individual waste mixtures.
b. If a single load of wastes is considered, the
increase in density, after volume reduction,
would be proportional to the decrease in
volume. However, different loads of waste
reduced in volume by the same amount will
rarely have the same density or weight per
unit of volume. Equal weights can only be
expected if the materials contained in the
same space have the same specific densities.
c. If the wastes also contain absorbed moisture
in addition to the solids, then the obtainable
density will be increased, reflecting the
contribution of the liquid to the total
weight. This contribution could be
appreciable, both for processed and
unprocessed wastes. However, in the absence
of swelling, it would not affect the volume of
the densified wastes.
d. Absence of voids and displaceable liquids
permits densities thai may range from about
57 pounds for paper to about 480 pounds for
iron scrap/cu.ft. Estimates of the volume
reduction achievable for solid waste mixtures
range from about 3:1 to 10:1. Under
optimum conditions, typical household solid
waste mixtures can be densified to about 80
Ib/cu. ft.
Methods that might be employed for processing
solid wastes for rail-haul should be anlayzed primarily
in terms of: a. suitability for as large a variety of
materials as possible, b. volume reduction, and
c. cost. The two principal methods of densification
are size reduction and compaction. Both were
initially evaluated. Compaction was subsequently
investigated in a separate demonstration project
because of the promising results obtained by the
exploratory research conducted in connection with
this study.
Size Reduction
In recent years there has been considerable
application of size reduction to solid wastes as a
pre-processing method. It has been utilized in
composting operations and in scrap processing
(particularly auto hulk processing) to reduce the size
of bulky items. It has also been used occasionally as a
pre-processing method of incineration to facilitate
combustion by increasing the surface area and
therewith the volume of the wastes to be burned.
More recently, .size reduction has been used to
decrease the volume of existing voids in wastes.
Size reduction is not always a method of volume
reduction. For example, a reduction in volume of
dense materials, such as logs or metal bars, may not be
achieved by size reduction. In fact, such items, when
shredded, may increase in volume. Solid wastes such
as household refuse, however, contain a high propor-
tion of products which contain large voids. Therefore,
size reduction can achieve a decrease in volume by
making the large voids in waste items (large empty
containers for example) into smaller ones. It should
be pointed out, however, that size reduction does not
eliminate all voids.
Many existing transfer stations utilize a tracked
tractor on the floor of the receiving pit to crush large
objects and prepare such objects for handling. Such
an effort or some other means of reducing oversized
material to a size which can be handled by the
disposal system will be needed at transfer stations.
Analysis of the potential application of size
reduction for the rail-haul of solid wastes revealed
that a comprehensive theory of size reduction has not
yet been developed and that the principles by which
the different types of solids disintegrate appear to be
poorly understood. In fact, the two theories
postualted by Rittinger and Kick which are still
widely used in the design of size reduction equipment
31
-------
were introduced in 1857 and 1883. These theories are
mutually contradictory. Rittinger postulated that the
useful work done in crushing and grinding is directly
proportional to the new surface area produced and
inversely proportional to the product diameter. The
Kick theory is based primarily upon the stress strain
diagram of cubes under compression. Fred C. Bond3
in 1952 proposed a third theory, that the total work
required for crushing and grinding varies inversely as
the square root of the product size.
Most of the available size reduction equipment
tends to be cumbersome. It has a high power
requirement and most of its energy is dissipated as
waste energy rather than as disintegration energy. In
addition, many different types of equipment, utilizing
different size reduction principles, have been used to
meet specific disintegration property requirements of
identical or similar, i.e., homogeneous materials.
The lack of theoretical background and the
heterogeneity of solid wastes pose a difficult problem
for the development of "tailor-made" size reduction
machinery. The use of several size reduction
principles is required because of the different
disintegration properties of the various solid waste
materials. For example, hard and brittle materials,
such as glass, ceramics, and many construction
wastes, break easily under impact. These materials
can be easily disintegrated by the use of impact
equipment such as hammermills. On the other hand,
soft, elastic, and fibrous materials such as plastics,
rubbers, metals, paper, textiles, and wood are best
reduced by a cutting or shearing action which
requires equipment of the kind used in the rubber
and wood industries.
Size reduction equipment which is to be used to
process nonsegregated solid wastes also must be
constructed to handle the hazardous and nuisance
materials occasionally found in solid wastes. Clogging,
fires, and even explosions can be encountered in the
size reduction process. Most of the size reduction
units presently in use were originally designed for
other purposes. However, some models have been
modified for solid wastes; a few incorporate in their
design two sections — one for crushing and one for
shredding. In most cases, however, it has been found
necessary to provide some degree of separation of
wastes such as the elimination of large items prior to
the size reduction -process to avoid major difficulties.
The design of solid waste size reduction
equipment is generally based on impact or crushing
principles. Most of the machines in use are adapted
The Third Theory, of Comminution, Bond, Kred C. p. 484-
494. Mining Engineering, May 19S2.
hammermills of the hammer-crusher or impactor
design. A few are based on tearing and/or cutting
principles.
The difference between crushers and impactors is
found principally in the speed of operations and clear-
ances. The crusher operates at a slower speed than the
impactor, and it is designed with higher clearances.
Hammermills come in many different types.
Those used for coarse and intermediate crushing are,
as a rule, heavy duty, low-, or intermediate-speed
units. High peripheral speed units are generally used
for pulverization rather than crashing. Heavy duty
hammermills are employed for the crushing of
materials which are essentially nonabrasive. Capacities
range from less than one to about 1,200 tons an hour.
Size reduction by the heavy duty mill, illustrated in
Figure 8, is achieved by impact between the
hammers, breaker plates, and the material, and then
at the pinch points between the hammers and screen
or grate bars.
These mills are horizontal or sometimes vertical
shaft units which carry a series of pivoted or hinged
hammers. Some have adjustable breaker plates. The
fineness of the product can be adjusted by changing
the clearance between the hammers and the bars or
the breaker plates, and the size of the discharge
opening. Large items are recycled until the desired
fineness is achieved.
Impactor hammermills are recommended when
large reduction ratios (up to 35:1) are required for
materials that shatter on impact, such as rocks. The
reduction process can be achieved at high or low
machine speeds. The most effective method of
crushing brittle materials with a -minimum of fines is
to run the machines at low speed and in a closed
circuit.
There are several types of impact hammermills
available with fixed or adjustable breaker plates: the
reversible impactor, the twin-rotor (Fig. 9), and the
ring-type impactor. The reversible impactor has been
used for size reduction of rocks and limestone. The
capacity of this unit ranges from a few hundred
pounds to 1,500 tons an hour. Uncrushable materials
such as scrap iron are removed by centrifugal force.
Twin-rotor type impactors with manganese steel
hammers and capacities up to 200 tons an hour have
been used for the size reduction of wet and sticky
materials.
Ring-type units with capacities up to 1,800 tons
an hour and designed for brittle materials such as
bituminous coal apply ring hammers and crushing
32
-------
X
Breaker Plate
Grate Bars
Feed Inlet
Pivoted Hammers
FIGURES
HEAVY DUTY HAMMER CRUSHER
Pivoted Hammers
FIGURE 9
TWIN-ROTOR IMPACTOR
rings to accomplish size reduction by crushing. The
hammers and rings are hung from suspension shafts
and roll slowly over the feed, cracking and shattering
the materials by a "rolling compression" without
rubbing. The ring-type machines may be equipped
with plain or toothed rings.
Hammermills used for fine pulverizing generally
operate the hammers at high peripheral speeds and
impinge the material against a cover. Coarser product
sizes, however, can also be obtained with these
machines by reducing the speed and therewith both
the force and frequency of impact; by increasing the
clearance of the screens, and by changing their
configuration in the mill.
"Non-clog" hammermills are employed for
materials which are reducible by crushing but which
can be wet and sticky. These mills utilize a traveling
breaker plate which forces the feed into the crushing
path of the hammers. These units have capacities up
to about 1,500 tons an hour. They are primarily used
in the lime, chemical, quarry, and ceramic industries.
The disintegrator hammermills usually combine
the actions of attrition, cutting, and impact in one
unit. The hammers are, as a rule, fixed rigidly.
However, there are also units which use swing
hammers. The basic design consists of a rotor running
inside a 360° drum-type screen enclosure. The
materials processed in disintegrators are frequently
tough and elastic or wet, rather than hard and dry,
and the feed rate is quite low. The materials include
plastics, food, chemicals, and wood chips. The
hammertip speeds, in different units range from about
33
-------
1,000 to 22,000 feet per minute and the power
requirement of large units is about 200 horsepower.
Flail mills are also impact units. They are
horizontal, single rotor units with a studded shell and
hammers attached to the rotor by means of chains
forming a flail. The flails beat the material and in this
process break up the incoming feed. This type of
impact unit accepts garbage, cem;nt blocks, and steel
plates. Although frequent replacement of the flails
may be necessary, flails are inexpensive and easy to
replace.
Knife blade or cutting type hammermills operate
at high speeds. Hammers of knifelike construction are
mounted on a rotor, with the blades in close
proximity to a sizing screen. Knifelike hammers,
which take a fraction of the cross section of a mill,
tend to cut or granulate a product akin to the
hammer and chisel principle with a minimum of fines.
To minimize abrasive effects on the hammers,
tungsten carbide or similar hard-surfaced hammer tips
are used.
A crusher shredder combination is a two-stage
piece of equipment which is based on the principle of
a roller crusher and a rotary cutter. The material is
first crushed and flattened between rolls and then
shredded by rotary knives.
Roller-crushers usually have two rolls revolving,
as shown in Figure 10, toward each other at the same
speed. Large diameter rolls are required for large
feeds. Tension springs are used to exert pressures
from about 6,000 to 40,000 pounds/linear inch of
roll face. This is equivalent to a crushing strength of
18,000 to 120,000 pounds/square :uch.
The rotary cutters employed in this combination
are primarily used in the plastics industry. Some of
these cutters are capable of cutting 200-pound blocks
of thermoplastics as well as 80-pound synthetic
rubber bales. Knives are utilized liberally, as
illustrated in Figure 11, to provide maximum cutting
action. For example, cutters with as many as five
cutter knives set in a herringbone pattern have been
used in the size reduction of leather, rubber, plastics,
rags, bark, and metal foil. In some cutters the
flywheels are provided with shear pins to minimize
damage from materials such as tramp metal.
A novorotor type grinder is shown in Figure 12.
It is a twin-rotor impactor, each rotor operating in a
different direction. The feed enters the unit through a
centrally located opening and is then projected from
one rotor to the other until it is sufficiently reduced
to pass between the rotating bars which form the
base. The rotors, driven by individual 500KW motors,
revolve at about 3,000 rpm in units built for a
throughput of six tons an hour. The rotating bars are
chain driven outside the body of the machine.
Maintenance costs for one twin-rotor machine are
claimed to be substantially less than those for two
hammermills. The Novorotor grinders pulverize glass,
tear up textiles and carpets to strings, and shred paper
and cardboard to pieces of about two inches.
Novorotor type pulverizers for bulky wastes have
feed openings of about 60 x 120 inches and a
capacity of up to about 200 cubic yards per hour.
Materials reduced by these machines include boxes,
large cans, rocks, and furniture.
There are many types and models of equipment
now available which may be considered for the size
reduction of solid wastes. Examples include
Feed Inlet
FIGURE 10
ROLL CRUSHER
34
-------
Feed Inlet
Hopper __ ~ - _ J
Screen -
Bed Knives
Fly Knives
Cheek Knives
FIGURE 11
ROTARY KNIFE CUTTERS
Feed Inlet
I I
Rotating
Bars
Rotors
FIGURE 12
NOVOROTOR GRINDER
35
-------
Pennsylvania and Jeffry crushers, Volund and
Gondard pulverizers, Tollemarhe pulverizers and
sorters, Link-Belt grinders, Bulldog shredders, Joy
crusher-disintegrators, refuse shears, Munro-Roto
breakers, Eidal Eaters, rasping machines, and Cobey
composters.
Noise and dust are often significant problems to
be considered in size reduction. Noise and dust are of
importance with respect to occupational hygienne,
maintenance, and the construction of the facilities.
Hammermills, especially, are quite noisy and the dry
grinding of refuse will always produce a substantial
amount of dust. Wetting of the refuse naturally
would reduce the production of dust; however, it will
simultaneously enhance the corosive properties of
the wastes, which depend on the chemical
composition and moisture content of the grind. These
corrosive properties, together with the abrasive
properties of solid wastes, could take an appreciable
toll in metal wear and thus increase the operating
cost.
Metal wear can be expressed in pounds of metal
wear per kilowatt-hour. This permits an equipment
comparison which takes into account differences
related to the variations in properties of materials
subjected to size reduction.
The cost of metal wear in refuse grinding can be
high. Severe damage is likely to occur if the machines
are not designed to handle difficult materials ("scrap
losses"). Normal wear results irom abrasion and
dissolution. Metal losses in wet grinding are usually
up to ten times higher than those in dry grinding or
crushing. These losses arise from the dissolution of
iron metal parts which are in contact with the wet
grind. The dissolved iron forms ions which interact
with the hydroxyl group of water. This results in an
increase in the acidity of the wet grind and thus
enhances the corrosion of the meta! parts. The loss of
metal becomes appreciable when the pH is below 5.5.
In some cases a pronounced increase in metal loss can
be produced by the buildup of an electrochemical
potential at the interfaces between the grind and the
metal surfaces in the machines. In these cases the rate
of dissolution increases and rapidly reaches values
which are much higher than those encountered in
chemical dissolution alone.
Dissolution of metal does not occur in dry
grinding. Instead, the abrasion of metal results from
either mechanical impact or friction. The effect of
material abrasive hardness upon metal wear in impact
crushing is generally much more pronounced than in
other methods of size reduction. In general, hard
materials, coarse particles, and fast grinding motions
are conducive to abrasive wear. Mill wear becomes
critical in high-peripheral-speed equipment,
particularly high-speed close-clearance hammermills.
Within normal operating ranges of some mills the
metal wear is roughly proportional to the mill speed.
However, different types of equipment performing
the same function exhibit differences in metal wear.
It has been estimated that metal wear in crushing rolls
is nearly twice that in jaw crushers, and that the wear
in crushers is higher than in grinding mills.
Different parts of the same unit can be affected
in different proportions both in wet and dry grinding
or crushing. In wet ball mills the ball wear by
abrasion and dissolution is often found to be about
13 times that of the liner wear; in dry ball mills the
ball wear is about 10 times higher than that of the
lining.
An effective way to reduce metal wear due to
corrosion or abrasion is the substitution of parts with
a high wear resistance for those with low wear
resistance. Stainless steel is found to reduce wear
appreciably in wet grinding, nickel alloys are also
known to reduce metal wear in wet grinding, and
even more so in dry grinding. Similarly, alloys
containing chromium, molybdenum, and manganese
are found to improve the wear resistance of size
reduction equipment, such as hammermills and
cutters. Tungsten carbide tips are found to reduce
wear on knife-type hammers. However, due to the
increase in the acquisition cost of parts made from
these materials, it is always necessary to balance
investment against the maintenance cost.
Available metal wear data are rather limited. But,
some results related to: a. the method of size
reduction, b. different parts of the units, and c. their
relationship to the abrasion index have been
published4 and are given in Table 10. The first
column in the table lists different materials in the
order of increased abrasion index irrespective of the
grinding method or equipment. The table also
illustrates the difference between wet and dry
grinding, and the relative effect of grinding on
individual parts of the equipment. The wear averages
given include the scrap losses which are estimated to
be approximately 60 percent of the total metal wear
for crusher liners, 35 percent for ball mill liners, and
about 20 percent for crushing roll shells.
Operating and maintenance costs of size
reduction equipment depend primarily on the power
consumption and metal wear of the equipment.
These, in turn, depend on the design of the
4 F. C. Bond, Chemical Engineering Progress, Volume 60,
No. 2, 1964.
36
-------
TABLE 10
WEAR AVERAGES, Ib/kw-hr
Material
Dolomite
Shale
Limestone
Magnesite
Copper Ore
Gravel
Aluminum
Abrasion
Index
0.0160
0.0209
0.0320
0.0783
0.1372
0.2879
0.8911
Wet Grinding1
balls linings
0.060 0.0053
0.061 0.0054
0.090 0.0074
0.138 0.0112
0.178 0.0140
0.228 0.0176
0.340 0.0248
Dry Grinding
balls crushers
0.0050 0.0220
0.0051 0.0221
0.0088 0.0230
0.0140 0.0270
0.0190 0.0333
0.046
0.100
rolls
0.0160
0.0161
0.0215
0.040
0.060
0.094
0.198
*Wet grinding: moisture content exceeds 30% by weight
equipment and the material properties of the
equipment components. The 'jost of size reduction
operations is also affected by the nature of the feed
material and the fineness of the resulting product.
The operating cost for electric power and
maintenance of high capacity hammermills with wide
screen openings, based on manufacturers'
information, approaches Sl.OC a ton for mills capable
of processing several hundred cubic yards or about 30
to 60 tons of wastes an hour. The capital cost of such
large units is estimated to iange from $300,000 to
$500,000. The replacement costs for damaged metal
parts, in particular, the hammers and graters, are
reported to range from 20 cents to 35 cents a ton.
A study of experience vith 12 different size
reduction machines used to reduce residential wastes
indicates a cost of 80 cents to $1 per ton of refuse
processed (35 percent for power, 40 percent for
maintenance, and 25 percent for straight
depreciation, excluding interest and salvage). The
wastes were sometimes prepicked, but in all cases
oversized items were excluded and the nominal
end-product size was about six inches. Labor costs
have not been included in the estimates because of
wide variations in local conditions.
Compaction
The simplest physical method of obtaining low
volume, high density bundles of solid wastes is the
compaction of the materials in presses. During this
process the materials are crushed and flattened and
the air which occupies the voids is expelled. The
extent to which crushing and flattening takes place
depends on the pressure exerted and on the counter
pressure developed by the compressed material. In
the optimum case, voids are minimized and the
resulting close contact between the materials
facilitates adhesion and inter'ocking between the
solids, thus forming, in the experimental bales
produced in the demonstration project, a cohesive,
stable structure. The density of well-compacted bales
is likely to be about two to three times that of the
same material subjected to size reduction and
therefore could occupy only one half or less of the
volume required for shredded refuse.
Figure 13, Operating Cycle of High Density,
Multiple Stroke Baling Press, shows the six steps of
the operation of a typical metal baling press
A series of preliminary solid waste compaction
experiments in small presses and metal balers capable
of delivering relatively high pressures were performed
as a part of this study. The results and conclusions are
summarized as follows:
a. Compression of increments of batches of
solid wastes resulted in poor compression at
the interface of each compressed portion.
This effect persisted even when the final
pressure was increased to 18,000 psi, thereby
indicating that a discontinuous feeding of
materials requiring intermediate compression
should be avoided.
b. The magnitude of the contact surface applied
pressure needed for suitable compaction of
residential refuse, including oversized items,
appears to be in the vicinity of 2,500 psi. An
increase in applied pressure above 2,500 psi
did not produce an appreciable increase in
the density (volume reduction) nor in the
stability of the bale. However, the addition
of special materials, such as binders, and
changes in the size and configuration of the
bales might necessitate the utilization of
presses with higher pressure capacities.
c. Refuse with a high moisture content (>30%)
disintegrated after removal from the
compaction press. However, ordinary
37
-------
'3 Third
Compression
Cylinder
1 First
Compression
cylinder
Box Charged
Cover Down
Third
compression ram
extended
•:•;•:
IB
\
First
compression ram
extended
\
Second
compression ram
extended
Bale gate opened
bale ejected
Hopper loaded
Cycle starts
over — with
hopper dumping
charge into box
Source: Penn Central Transportation Company
FIGURE 13
OPERATING CYCLE OF HIGH-DENSITY MULTIPLE-STROKE BALING PRESS
-------
amounts of moisture in household refuse are
beneficial in the compaction and/or
extrusion of wastes containing large amounts
of paper. Slightly moist (20-30%), extruded,
or pressed bales with a high paper content
appear to be more stable than bales made of
of fully dried materials.
d. Improved stability and good cohesion were
obtained with samples of refuse which
included metal. The improved stability of
bales in the presence of metal is attributed to
the interlocking ability of the soft metals.
This finding could be utilized in the
development of appropriate baling
techniques, if a greater than normal stability
of the bales should be desired.
e. Spring-back, immediately after compaction,
was experienced by bales containing
primarily paper, or samples consisting of
leaves and green twigs. In the latter samples
the twigs uncoiled and the sample
disintegrated within a short period of time.
Spring-back, i.e., the reintroduction of voids,
can affect the stability of the bale required,
the compression speed necessary, and the
system-associated material handling and
space requirements.
f. Glass was always crushed into small
fragments during compression. Glass particles
on the outside of the bale could present
some hazard, since they appear to adhere
poorly to the outer surface of the bale.
g. Density of compressed samples of similar
composition showed little variation with an
applied pressure above 2,500 psi. large
variations in weight were observed in samples
of different composition. Bales of light
weight materials, such as paper, will of
course weigh less than bales made of heavy
materials, e.g., metals and their alloys. The
weights of compressed and/or extruded
samples, some of which included oversized
solid wastes, ranged from approximately 60
to 170 Ib/cu. ft. Some of the compacted
samples appeared to contain significant
amounts of moisture. The exact amount of
moisture and it's contribution to the weight
of the sample could not be determined in
those exploratory experiments. Because of
wide variation of unit weights of solid
wastes,, it is apparent that either the size or
the weight of the bale will have to vary
within certain limits unless* the input is
homogenized.
h. Shredding household refuse before
compaction, as compared to direct baling,
did not appear either to did the compaction
process nor to contribute to the stability of
the bale.
Solid-waste density benchmarks are fundamental
to the processing of solid wastes for rail-haul. Data
consolidated from a variety of sources are shown in
Table 11, Densities of Residential Refuse Achieved
by Different Processing Methods. Wide variations for
individual loads may be expected.
Because of the great variations in the densities of
the input materials, it appears advantageous to use a
multi-stroke compression approach for the
high-pressure compaction of solid wastes. Considering
existing presses, the metal scrap balers or similar
compaction devices appear to come closest to the
requirements for a high-pressure refuse compaction
device. Existing presses are not tailormade for
high-pressure compaction of solid wastes since they
were designed for different compaction purposes.
Thus, the cost data presented in this section are based
upon guideline data derived from existing presses and
indicate only a very general order of magnitude.
Metal scrap balers are usually three-stroke
compaction devices which, in the final compression
stroke, apply a force of 2,000 to 3,000 psi on the
materials to be compressed. The operating speed of
these machines may range, on the average, from 30 to
TABLE 11
DENSITIES OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE ACHIEVED
BY DIFFERENT PROCESSING METHODS
Loose refuse, no processing
Refuse from a compactor truck
after being dumped
Refuse compacted in a compactor truck
Shredded refuse
Shredded refuse baled in a special
paper baler and strapped
Refuse compressed in a metal scrap baler
without shredding or strapping
Density
Lbs./Cu. Yd.
100 to 200
300 to 400
400 to 700
300 to 600
800 to 1100
1600 to 2000
39
-------
120 seconds per cycle, and the useful service life is
often quoted to exceed 20 years. A broad range of
hydraulic presses is frequently specified at 100 to 300
horsepower per machine with the full power being
needed during less than 50 percent of the operations.
The investment cost, excluding interest and financing
charges, is reported to be in the range of from
$250,000 to $400,000, and the annual maintenance
expenditures are estimated to run from two to three
percent of the investment cost. The basis for
exploratory and developmental calculations
(1968-1969 price levels) is as foLows:
Investment per compression device is $500,000.
Useful service life is 20 years.
Straight depreciation cost :.s $25,000 a year; no
salvage value is assumed.
Power requirements are 500 horsepower, and it is
assumed that the full power will be required
continuously.
Electricity cost is 1.5 cents/kilowatt hour.
Compression device cycle time is 60 seconds.
Processing throughput is about one ton a minute
or 156,000 tons a year in one-shift-per-day
operations (six shifts per week, 8 hour per day.)
Based on the above assumptions and a three
percent maintenance factor, the following cost per
ton can be calculated:
Investment depreciation $0.167
Maintenance 0.096
Electricity 0.094
$0.357
Under the assumption that two percent maintenance
expenditures and two shifts a day, the calculations
would run as follows:
Investment depreciation $0.084
Maintenance 0.032
Electricity 0.094
$0.210
The above costs, like those quoled for size reduction,
refer only to items directly attributable to the
processing equipment. They exclude any financing
charges and interest, return on investment, labor, and
other associated transfer station expenditures, such as
foundations. Nevertheless, high-pressure compaction
of solid waste appears economically attractive.
MATERIAL HANDLING
The results of several surveys suggest that, on an
industry-wide average, material handling accounts
conservatively for about 30 percent of the total cost
of producing a finished product. Thus, it is desirable
to minimize the material handling functions through
the layout of the process.
Prime factors to be considered in equipment
selection are the performance requirements which
must be met. These include: the capacity (weight
and/or volume), the speed, and the distance which
the equipment has to travel.
A number of important material properties which
must be taken into acocunt in the handling of
unprocessed and processed solid wastes are given in
Table 12, Material Handling Characteristics of
Residential Wastes.
An evaluation of the material characteristics of
the three types of residential wastes indicates that
similar material handling methods and equipments
can be used for unprocessed and shredded wastes.
The main differences are that shredded wastes do not
contain large size items which must be
accommodated by the equipment, and that lower
volume capacity equipment will be required for
shredded than for unprocessed wastes. Other
differences which must be accommodated are the
high content of fines in the shredded material which
by improper selection of method and equipment
could create dust problems, In both cases methods
utilizing gravity motions on a slightly inclined surface
have to be excluded due to the poor flow
characteristics.
The mildly corrosive and abrasive nature of the
wastes, and the presence of contaminants and sticky
materials such as oils, paints and some foods will
influence the choice of materials used in construction
and for material handling.
Residential wastes, compacted into bales exhibit
characteristics of semi-nigged compact materials and
can be handled by equipment and methods used for
similar formed products. Lower volume capacity
equipment would be required to move the same
quantity of baled wastes than would be required to
move the unprocessed and shredded wastes. Flow
methods would not be applicable.
Material handling functions are specified in terms
of many variables and within each set of
specifications they can be accumulated in various
ways. Thus, to cut through the multitude of
alternatives, it is necessary to confine the following
analysis by use of the following assumptions.
1. Storage Pit for the Incoming Wastes
It is assumed that each transfer station would
have, like incinerators, a storage pit for the incoming
wastes.
This assumption is made for two reasons: 1. a
40
-------
flowability
density
size & shape
moisture
abrasiveness
TABLE 12
MATERIAL HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS
OF RESIDENTIAL WASTES
Unprocessed
(as delivered)
sluggish
approx. 6 Ib/cu.ft.
large variations in
sizes and shapes of
mixture components
varying degrees
(/rom dry to wet)
mildly abrasive
Processed
Shredded
sluggish
approx. lOlb/cu.ft.
less variations in
sizes. Different
shapes
varying degrees
(driet than
unprocessed)
mildly abrasive;
(more abrasive
than unprocessed)
Baled
corrosiveness
stickiness
dusts & odors
.TiiJdly corrosive
can contain
sticky materials
varying degrees
of dusts and odors
mildly corrosive
can contain
sticky materials
very dusty;
odorous
approx. 67 lb/cu.ft.
some variations in size
and shape of individual
bales
varying degrees (from
dry to wet; drier than
unprocessed)
mildly abrasive
mildly corrosive
can contain sticky
materials
little dust (from
spillage); odorous
storage pit provides a material hold area in case a
malfunction occurs in the sys*em; and 2. a storage
pit is needed to absorb peak loadings as caused by
existing collection practices and to convert the
cyclical waste delivery into a steady-flow system
input. The case of direct or partially direct dumping
from the collection truck into the rail car is excluded
by this assumption, because it is considered a special
rather than a general rail-haul system configuration.
The storage requirements for the incoming wastes
are assumed to be equivalent to the throughput rating
of the transfer station.
The corresponding size of the storage pit is
calculated on the basis of a waste density of 10 Ib/cu.
ft. or 270 Ib/cu. yd. Due to some packing that will
occur in storage because of the weight of the
material, it was assumed that the waste material
handling density excluded packing conditions.
As a result the sizes of the storage pit would be:
Capacity of Transportation Size of Pit
(Tons) (Cu.ft.)
100 tons, 8-hr/shift 20,000
300 tons per day 60,000
500 tons 8-hr/shift 100,000
1,500 tons per day 300,000
These space requirement? can, of course, be
satisfied by various storage pit configurations.
Depending upon local conditions, a storage pit may
be deep or shallow, narrow or broad, and long or
short. Furthermore, there are interfaces between
volumes configuration of the storage area and the
material handling required to remove materials from
the storage area. For example, it is possible to
establish a live-bottom storage pit from where the
wastes would be removed — and in this process
mixed — by machinery akin to a moving and
horizontally operating rotary excavation wheel.
For the purposes of this project, however, it was
felt advisable to follow the established incinerator pit
experience. This involves the removal of the materials
from the pit by crane which also accommodates a
mixing of the materials should this be necessary.
2. Location of the Processing Machinery
The processing machinery is assumed to be in or
immediately adjacent to the pit. This assumption
avoids, like incinerator layouts, unnecessary material
handling and travel and the charging mechanisms of
the processing equipment are fed by the pit crane.
3. Distance from Pit and/or Processing Area to the
Rail Spur
41
-------
The distance from the pit and/or processing
equipment to the rail car loading area can represent a
significant operations and cost factor.
For example, almost no material handling would
occur if the rail spur would be located immediately
adjacent to the pit or processing facility. The pit
crane would load the unprocessed wastes directly into
the rail car; the shredder would discharge directly;
and the press would be constructed to stack the bales
in the car with the help of a simple stacking
mechanism which, if necessary, could be actuated and
powered by a bale ejection ram.
However, like direct dumping, this case is a
special rather than a genera! system development
situation. Consequently, rail-haul feasibility should
include some provisions for material handling and any
decrease in the local material handling demands
would, of course, result in a decrease of the system
cost and therewith more attractive economics.
The minimum distance from the pit or processing
area to the rail spur is assumed to be 250 feet. This
assumption is made to facilitate maximum pit access
for the collection trucks which is quite important in
terms of the total refuse removal cost.
4. Changes in the Elevation of Material Handling
Movements
Changes in the elevation of material handling
movements are necessitated by both layout and
processing requirements. In turn, changes in the
elevation affect both the investment and operating
cost.
It was assumed that a maximum of two changes
in the elevation could occur. The first elevation is
required at the pit, i.e., the crane lifts the materials
out of the pit. The second elevation occurs in the
loading of the rail car and/or container.
Concerning the loading of the rail car it was
assumed that unprocessed and shredded solid wastes
would be loaded from the top. Since the full height
of a rail car extends about 16 feet from the rail, it
was concluded that an elevation of 20 feet should be
accommodated in order to allow ample room for
clearance and for loading over the full width of the
car. Baled solid wastes are assumed to be loaded from
the side which could involve a change in elevation
ranging from 4 to 12 feet.
All other material handling movements are
assumed to run level to the ground.
The listed assumptions can be converted into a
material handling demand profile for transferring
unprocessed, shredded and baled solid wastes into a
rail-haul system.
It is apparent from the many variables and
interdependences indicated that numerous material
handling cases and decision alternatives could be
established. A few examples are given in Table 13,
Material Handling Requirements, to illustrate the
similarities and differences resulting from variations
in the transfer approach.
The information in Table 13 indicates that the
material handling function can be made relatively
simple. The crane operations - and
expenditures — are identical for all three systems.
Differences occur in the charging mechanisms, the
in-station transport, and the loading of the rail car.
To identify material handling feasibility, i.e., to
avoid over- or undersign, it is necessary to convert the
material handling requirements into reasonable
performance specifications for the material handling
equipment.
Material handling equipment can be designed or
is readily available to meet almost any performance
requirements. Some of the material movement
characteristics of existing equipment are given in
Table 14, Range of Average Performance Parameters.
The type of equipment indicated is available with
many different performance variations. Furthermore,
the service life of the equipment can be quite
extensive even under heavy duty operating
conditions. For example, cranes and conveyor
systems are reported to have operated satisfactorily in
excess of 25 years.
The performance specifications for material
handling equipment in rail-haul transportations
indicate, in view of the above information, major
implementation problems will not occur. In
developing examples of such performance
specifications it was of course necessary to make
additional assumptions. These were:
1. Pit Cranes
Type of equipment: Overhead traveling cranes,
electric, bridge over middle of pit, bucket or orange
peel grapple capacity 5 and 10 cubic yards. Five cubic
yard crane is used in 100 ton/8-hr station; 10 cubic
yard crane is used in 500 ton/8-hr station.
Density of material: About 10 Ib/cu.ft. - pit, 15
Ib/cu.ft. - bucket. One cubic yard in bucket carries
about 400 pounds of waste: a 5 cubic yard bucket
carries about one ton and a 10 cubic yard bucket
carries about two tons.
Time available per round trip: 100 tons per 8
hour equals about 13 tons per hour; 13 round trips
per hour or about 4.5 minutes per run with a five
cubic yard bucket.
42
-------
TABLE 13
MATERIAL HANDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFERRING 100 TONS or 500 TONS OF UNPROCESSED,
SHREDDED OR BALED SOLID WASTES PER 8-HOUR INTO A RAIL-HAUL SYSTEM
Transfer Elements
1. Storage p't, 20,000 cu/ft.
2. Storage pit 100,000 cu/ft.
3. Charging mechanisms
4. In-station distance of
250 feet
5. Loading of rail car
Material Handling
Function
Take out 13 tons pei hour
Take out 63 tons per hour
Equalize and dimension
flow of material
Movement level to
ground
Elevation, stop or
storage to allow for
movement of railcar,
if more than one is
needed
Unprocessed
Overhead traveling crans
Overhead traveling crane
Hopper and distributor
Conveyor
Part of Conveyor
system, small
hold hopper
Shredded
Overhead traveling crane
Overhead traveling crane
Hopper and distributor
(distributor increases
incomplexity if more
than one shredder is
needed)
Conveyor covered
because of dust
Part of Conveyor
system, small
hold hopper
Baled
Overhead traveling crane
Overhead traveling crane
Hopper and scale,
portioning by weight
Industrial Fork
Lift Truck
Equipment already
given by industrial
fork lift truck
-------
TABLE 14
RANGE OF AVERAGE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
OF SELECTED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Type of Equipment
Electric wire rope hoists
Industrial cranes
Traveling cranes
Flight conveyor
Apron conveyor
Belt conveyor
Drag chain
Industrial fork lift truck
Selected Performance Characteristics
Load (tons) Speed (fpm)
1-5
up to 15
up to 300
several 100/hr
several 100/hr
several 1,000/hr
10/hr
up to 40
15-80
10-35
trolley 75-150
bridge 100-300
100
100
700
10-20
up to 900
Five hundred tons per 8 hour equals about 63
tons per hour; about 31 round trips per hour or
slightly less than two minutes per run with a 10 cubic
yard bucket. This time includes three seconds for
dumping and 6 to 10 seconds for grabbing.
Pit dimensions: 100 tons equals 20,000 cubic
feet; assumed 40 feet width, 50 feet depth, 100 feet
length. Five hundred tons equal 100,000 cubic feet;
assumed 50 feet width, 80 feet depth, 250 feet
length.
The width has been kept narrow on purpose
because of the steep angle of repose found in solid
waste materials.
Maximum travel distance: Eqivalent to pit
dimensions except for the depth; it is assumed that
the height of the hopper in the charging mechanisms
requires the addition of 10 feet to the depth values
given. Thus:
100 ton 500 ton
station station
bridge span 100 feet 250 feet
trolley span 40 feet 50 feet
hoist 60 feet 90 feet
Average travel distance j.er round trip: It is
assumed that the hopper is located in the middle of
the long side of the pit. Furthermore, it is assumed
that the distribution of the wastes in the pit is
uniform. Thus an average round trip travel distance
can be identified as follows: 10U ton station: 40 feet
width, 50 feet length, 60 feet depth; 500 ton station:
50 feet width, 125 feet length, 90 feet depth.
Synchronization of movements: Depth, width
and length travel occurs simultaneously.
2. Conveyors
Type of equipment: Trouglied belt conveyor; 20
degree side angle of belt, 20 degree elevation angle to
rail car loading station. Depending upon degree of
draft control in the station, it might be necessary to
specify covered conveyors.
Density of material: Unprocessed 6 Ib/cu.ft;
shredded 10 Ib/cu.ft.
Belt widths: 72 inches for unprocessed wastes to
handle all residential wastes including oversized items;
48 inches for shredded wastes.
Average loading of belt: Unprocessed wastes; 60
inches, 12 inches high. Shredded wastes; 36 inches, 12
inches high.
Speed of belt movement: Unprocessed waste; 13
ton/hr. or, at 6 Ib/cu.ft., 4,333 cu.ft./hr. Five feet
widths of belt: 866 feet per hour or about 14 feet
per minute.
Unprocessed waste: 63 ton/hr. or, at 6 Ib/cu.ft.,
21,000 cu.ft./hr. Five feet width: 4,200 feet per hour
or about 70 feet per minute.
Shredded waste: 13 ton/h~. or, at 10 Ib/cu.ft.,
2,600 cu.ft./hr. Three feet width of belt: 866 feet per
hour or about 14 feet per minute.
Shredded waste: 63 ton/hr. or, at 10 Ib/cu.ft.,.
12,600 cu.ft./hr. Three feet belt width: 4,200 feet
per hour or about 70 feet per minute.
3. Hoppers at Rail Car Loading Area
If more than one rail car is used and if the belt
movements and associated processing are not to be
interrupted, then it is necessary to provide
hold-hoppers at the end of the conveyor belts in
44
-------
order to avoid spillage between the rail cars.
Assuming a maximum time period of 10 minutes
for the positioning of the rail cars, the size of the
hold-hoppers is as follows:
i. unprocessed waste: 13 tons or 4,333
cu.ft./hr.; about 722 cubic feet.
ii. unprocessed waste: 63 tons or 21,000
cu.ft./hr.; about 3,500 cubic feet.
iii. shredded waste: 13 tons or 2,600 cu.ft./hr.;
about 433 cubic feet.
iv. shredded waste: 63 tons or 12,600cu.ft./hr.;
about 2,100 cubic feet.
Hold-hoppers at the rail car loading area are not
needed for baled solid waste.
The loading of unprocessed and shredded wastes
into the rail cars requires simple dust control
provisions.
4. Hopper and distributor to charge die conveyor or
processing equipment.
The transfer of the solid wastes from the pit
requires machinery to convert the batch loading as
delivered by crane into
a. a steady flow input for unprocessed wastes
in order to charge the conveyor at a regular
rate of feed, or
b. a steady flow input for shredded wastes in
order to charge the shiedder or shredders at a
regular rate of feed, or into
c. a different batch loading for baled wastes in
order to charge the press with waste portions
controlled by weight.
To ensure continuity of feed operations it was
assumed that the receiving hopper would have a
capacity twice that of the grab buckets: 10 cubic
yard for the 13 tons per hour station and 20 cubic
yard for the 63 tons per hour station.
All the distributors would have
agitators/controllers to ensure a regular rate of feed as
well as proper weighing in Ue case of compaction
processing. The speed of the agitator/controlled
device should be variable and be synchronized to the
needs of the subsequent process elements.
Some dust control would be needed for the
handling of both the unprocessed and processed
wastes.
5. Industrial fork lift truck
A small industrial fork lift truck is needed to
transport 13 tons, per hour of baled waste over a dis-
tance of 250 feet and to stack the bales in the rail car.
A slightly larger or medium size industrial fork
lift is needed in the 63 ton per hour station to
perform the same function.
It is assumed that in each case a round trip would
require a maximum of 10 minutes. Thus, the load
carrying capacity of the trucks is about two and
one-half and 11 tons respectively.
In the overall, the above information
demonstrates that material handling does not rank
among the "problems" of rail haul transfer stations.
An overview of the material handling experience in
industry can be taken to support this conclusion.
Estimates of Transfer Station Cost
The information presented in this report on
rail-haul transfer stations indicates that a great variety
of transfer station layouts and transfer operations is
both conceivable and reasonable. Local conditions
including the configuration of the site in addition to
the selection of the system itself are the major factors
which govern the developments of desirable transfer
stations.
It is necessary to establish cost estimates in terms
of: 1. gross calculations to cover a great variety of
possibilities for which the individual cost elements
could not be detailed, and in terms of 2. cost
examples based upon selected transfer station
illustrations established for this study.
Gross Estimates of Rail-Haul Transfer Station Cost
Gross estimates can be made by using ratios of
major cost element relationships found in selected
industrial operations. Examples of such ratios are
found in surveys, annual reports, Government
publications, and magazines. The many indivudual
inputs may be consolidated as follows:
1. Excluding financing charges, the straight
investment cost of processing equipment,
material handling equipment, and the
building and its appurtenances each account
for one-third of the total investment cost.
2. The total annual cost for the building and
equipment, the operations excluding labor,
. and the labor portion of the cost show a
relationship of 50:25:25 respectively, and
correspondingly.
3. Labor costs make up about 50 percent of the
total operating cost, if labor is included in
the operating cost data.
The gross estimates of xost are established with
the help of these ratios by a two-step procedure.
First, known or estimated data available for one or
more of the cost elements are inserted into the
45
-------
formula and the data for the unknown cost elements
are subsequently calculated.
Second, a brief analysis is made to gauge the
reasonableness of the data established for the
unknown cost elements, e.g., it is calculated what
such estimated cost could buy. It is, of course, wise
to use only conservative estimates in any of such
calculations made.
Finally, to apply these ratios in a reasonable
manner, it is necessary to describe the key conditions
of the operations upon which the ratios are based. As
a rule, the industrial operations are carried out in
terms of one shift per day. Process industries such as
refineries operate on a three-shirt per day basis and
their respective ratios are, of course, not included in
the above consolidations.
Furthermore, the service life of buildings and
various pieces of equipment va.ies considerably and
the published data reflect furthermore the write-off
regulations of the Internal Revenue Service as well as
cost accounting practices. Thus, the annual cost ratio,
given under input item 2, is a conglomerate of depre-
ciation effects. This ratio is, hov/ever, heavily weighed
in terms of long-term investment!* such as buildings and
machinery. This suggests that an average depreciation
period of 15 to 20 or even 25 years is more
appropriate than, for example, a ten-year period.
EXAMPLE 1: Five Hundred Tons per 8-hr/Shift
Transfer Station for Baled Solid Wastes
A 500-ton per 8-hr, shift compaction press is
conservatively estimated to cost $500,000. Thus, the
building and the material handling equipment would
cost, using the first ratio, about $500,000 each, and
the investment for the total station would run at $1.5
million.
For evaluating how the reasonableness of the
material handling investment cost estimate, it might
be mentioned that, for example, a 10-ton bridge
crane, as used in incinerators, costs about $135,000.
For evaluating the building cost estimate, $7.00 is
often given as the cost per square foot and 40 to 80
cents as the cost per cubic foot. Thus, $500,000
would buy about 71,500 square feet or 625,000 to
1,250,000 cubic feet of space excluding the cost of
land.
To gauge the annual cost for building and
• equipment it was assumed that interest and financing
charges would add a cost equivalent to about 75
percent of the straight depreciation. The depreciation
period was assumed to be 20 years for the building,
the press, and half of the material handling
investment. The depreciation for the other half of the
material handling investment was assumed to be ten
years. Table 15, Annual Investment Cost indicates the
computed annual cost.
At 500 tons per eight-hour shift and 312 working
days per year, the annual throughput would amount
to 156,000 tons. Thus, the direct investment cost
would run 56 cents per ton and if an amount
equivalent to 75 percent of these costs, or 42 cents,
were added for financing charges, return on
investment and other miscellaneous items, the cost
for 'the building and equipment would increase to 98
cents per ton. In turn, using the second ratio given
above, the total annual cost is calculated at $1.96 per
ton, including about 49 cents per ton for operations
and an equal amount for labor.
At 500 tons per shift the labor cost would total
in the above example $245 or ,$30.63 per hour. At an
average cost of $5.00 per hour, this would supply
about six men, each earning $4,00 per hour or $160
per week if an allowance of 25 percent is made for
overhead and fringe benefits. In gauging the
reasonableness of the cost for operations, it might be
remembered that maintenance and power for the
compaction press have been estimated previously at
about 20 cents per ton which would leave about 29
TABLE 15
ANNUAL INVESTMENT COST AT A 20-YEAR DEPRECIATION
PSRIOD EXCLUDING FINANCING CHARGES
Item
Building
Press
Material Hai.dling, A
Material Handling, B
Total Amount
$500,000
$500,000
$250,000
$250,000
Depreciation
Period
20 years
20 years
20 years
1 0 years
Annual
Cost
$25,000
$25,000
$12,500
$25,000
$1,500,000
$87,500
46
-------
cents per ton or $145 per 8-iir/shift for other direct
operating expenditures excluding labor.
Finally, using the third ratio, it can be stated that
the press operations, including maintenance, power,
and labor, would cost not more than 40 cents per
ton. Adding a depreciation cost element of 20 cents
per ton and 75 percent of the latter amount for
interest and return on investment, the total
compaction cost would run generously calculated at
about 75 cents per ton. Assuming that an equal
amount is spent for the material handling, the
transfer station cost would increase to $1.50 per ton,
excluding the building. If then the total building and
other miscellaneous expenditures were assumed to
add a cost of 50 cents per ton, the annual fund
available for these items wou)d amount to $78,000
(312 days times $250 per day). In contrast, the
annual cost for building investment, financing
charges, and return on investment are calculated at
only $43,750 within the framework of the present
analysis.
In the overall the above information tends to
show that it is reasonable to estimate the total
transfer station cost at $2.00 to $2.50 per ton. It
should be emphasized that these costs refer to a
station with a capacity of 500 tons per eight-hour
shift and that the size of such an operation requires a
reasonable degree of automation. For example,
dumping can be controlled by overhead ultrasonic
sensing devices and the press operations synchronized
with the loading equipment. The process layout as
discussed suggests that the operations might in
addition to a supervisor, require three people only: a
scale master to handle the incoming collection
vehicles, a crane operator, and a rail-car loader.
EXAMPLE 2: Five Hundred Tons per 8-hr/Shift
Transfer Station for Shredded and Unprocessed Solid
Waste
The development of transfer stations for
shredded and unprocessed solid wastes received were
given limited attention because compaction, as
previously mentioned appears to provide an optimum
system. This statement, however, should not be taken
to indicate that shredded or unprocessed solid waste
rail-haul systems are not feasible or applicable.
The previously used approach to gross estimating
can also be used to establish some order of magnitude
for the cost of transfer stations based upon shredded
or unprocessed solid wastes. However, the di-
rectly applicable cost elements of size reduction
equipment constitutes a very distinct and
predominant cost factor. This cost does not appear to
lead to economics in the balance of the system. Thus
the annual costs of traitsfer stations for shredded
solid wastes are higher than those for compacted solid
wastes.
Shredding costs 40 to 60 cents more per ton than
compaction. In a very simplistic way the transfer
station cost for shredded solid wastes may range from
about $2.40 to about $3.10 per ton.
The transfer station cost for unprocessed solid
wastes may be gauged in a similar way. The
differences between the three systems are primarily
the presence of the processing equipment. Thus, for a
broad estimate for transfer stations of unprocessed
solid wastes we may deduct the annual cost of
processing. As a result, the cost of transforming
unprocessed solid wastes, within the constraints of
transfer stations as indicated in this study, may range
from $1.60 to $2.10 per ton.
The Cost Influence of Contract Time and Number of
Shifts per Day
The foregoing estimates are based, as indicated,
on a 20-year contract time and operations of one
shift per day.
To indicate the influence of contract time and
changes in the number of shifts per day, it may be
assumed, in terms of broad gross estimates, that the
operating cost per ton remains constant.
Consequently, the influence of the two variables is
reflected primarily in the investment cost as projected
on an annual basis.
As has been shown previously, the annual portion
of the total investment cost amounts to about 98
cents per ton at a 20-year depreciation period and
operations of one shift per day. A reduction of the
20-year write-off time to 10 years would
consequently double the annual cost of the
investment. As a result the cost per ton at a 10-year
write-off period and operations of one shift per day
would increase by about 98 cents and the total
transfer station cost may be gauged broadly at $3.00
to $3.50 per ton.
Similarly, an increase in the number of shifts per
day would result in a greater utilization of the
facilities and the annual cost per ton of the
investment would be reduced. If everything remains
constant, two shifts per day would decrease the
annual cost of the investment to one-half and three
shifts to one-third of the 98 cent value given above.
However, it must be recognized in this context that
an increase in the number of shifts necessitates,
within the constraints of this analysis, an increase in
47
-------
the size of the pit and adjustments would have to be
made.
Cost Estimates for 100 tons/8-hr/Shift Transfer
Stations
In making gross estimates for 100-tons per
8-hr/shift transfer stations it is necessary to recognize
economics of scale.
The identification of realistic economics of scale
is an enormous undertaking where many variables in
both technology and possible technical development
alternatives are involved. For example, different
designs of equipment might have to be established in
case the existing equipment does not come in the size
and performance category required.
However, the experience of mass production
indicates, in principle, that the cost per unit of
throughput increases with a decrease in the total
amount of throughput. This holds especially true for
processing machinery such as presses and, to some
degree, for buildings.
In establishing therefore, gross estimates for
100-tons per 8-hr/shift, it was decided to use press
cost as an indicator for the variations in the cost per
ton. This results, of course, in very rough indicators.
However, this approach also tends to provide some
margin of safety since the other cost elements appear
to not increase as much.
An analysis of presses made for the high-pressure
solid-waste compaction program indicated that the
compaction might cost in small presses about 50
cents per ton excluding labor. Taking the relationship
of 40 cents per ton to 50 cents per ton as the cost
escalation factor, it can be estimated that the transfer
station cost in 100-ton/8 hr/shift can range from
about $2.50 to $3.10 per ton.
Specific Cost Elements
The estimates on transfer jtation cost were made
on a broad basis to cover as many of the individual
and local situations as possible.
Within the context of the present study it was,
however, possible to identify a number of specific
cost elements. These cost elements may, in turn, be
used to give validity to the reasonableness of the
information given.
The cost elements discussed refer exclusively to
items discussed previously under material handling.
The major element is the overhead traveling
crane. The same type and size is needed for shredded,
unprocessed and baled waste systems and a 500-ton/8
hr/shift station requires high speed operations. The
speed of crane operations increases rapidly with a
decrease in the load, if electric drives are used. The
required crane loads are estimated at only one or two
tons per load. The purchase price and installation of
such a crane is estimated at $300,000 excluding
financing charges. This is the equivalent of about 11
cents per ton at a 20-year write-off period. The total
horsepower requirements for the crane should not
exceed 100 HP.
The second major cost element is the conveyors.
A 72-inch/belt-width conveyor, for unprocessed
waste is estimated to cost, including a 20-feet
elevation and installation, about $35,000 excluding
financing charges. At a 10-year write-off period this
would amount to less than 3 cents per ton. The
horsepower requirements should not exceed 15 HP.
The conveyor for shredded solid wastes is
estimated to cost $25,000. In contrast, a 12-ton fork
lift truck is estimated to cost $15,000.
The third major cost element is the process
feeding equipment. The input for high-pressure
compaction requires a roi-gh control of the feed by
weight only. Such equipment is not now available.
However, preliminary estimates, for a 500-ton station
placed the investment cost in the neighborhood of
$25,000, excluding financing charges.
In the overall, the information given above on
some transfer station elements suggests, that the
economic feasibility of transfer stations can be
assumed and estimated at $2.00 to $2.50 per ton.
48
-------
CHAPTER 3
TRANSPORT OF SOLID WASTES
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Transport environment, time, quality of
movement, volume, and weight are basic
considerations in the transport of materials.
Transport environment and vime are evaluated in
terms of public health, volume and weight of material
in terms of transport cost. The quality of the
movement—the ride-is not considered significant in
the transport of loose, shredded, or baled solid
wastes.
PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS
The public health aspects of long-haul transport
of solid wastes may be d>fferentiated from short
distance movements of sob'd wastes principally in
terms of time effects. Solid wastes normally are
contained in the transporting vehicle several hours,
rarely longer than 24 hours. Iu contrast, long distance
transport might retain the wastes for longer time
periods depending upon the mode of transport as well
as the system configuration and scheduling.
The principal environmental requirements for
shipping solid wastes should be such that the
materials are not exposed:
1. to rain regardless of whether they are
unprocessed, shredded, or baled;
2. to prolonged periods of freezing if the
materials are unprocessed or shredded;
3. directly to the wind; and
4. to high temperature.
In addition, unprocessed wastes require use of
watertight rail cars to avoid drainage of moisture
from the refuse. Shredding and baling, on the other
hand, appear to remove or redistribute a significant
portion of the excess moisture that otherwise might
be released during transport; thus, watertight cars are
not required. All cars should, of course, be designed
to facilitate cleaning.
Following the rules of good practice for the
operation of incinerators, all wastes should be
disposed of within seven days of collection.
TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS
Transport vehicle load carrying capability is
keyed to weight and volume relationships. The
relative importance of volume or weight depends
upon the density of the materials shipped. Volume
factors are important in the shipment of
uncompacted household refuse; weight factors are
important in the shipment of high density materials
such as heavy metals.
The relationship between volume and weight of
solid wastes at various densities is graphically
presented in Figure 14, Relationship Between
Volume and Weight at Various Solid Wastes Densities.
The straight-line relationship indicates, for example,
that the volume of material at 10 Ib/cu. ft. is six
times that of material at 60 Ib/cu. ft.
RAIL TRANSPORT
Railroads represent the leading mode of
transportation for the movement of freight. Motor
trucks are second, pipelines third, and barges fourth.
Freight, in this statistic, includes solid as well as
liquid materials, which explains the relatively high
share of pipeline transport.
The rail data presented throughout this report are
derived from the operating experience of Class 1
line-haul railways. These include the carriers having
annual revenues of $5 million or more. Class I
line-haul operating companies:
1. represent only !2 percent of the companies
connected directly with the execution of rail
transport;
2. operate, however, about 96 percent of the
total miles of main track, including trackage
rights;
3. own about 93 percent of all the locomotives
and about 98 percent of all the freight train
cars in service;
4. employ about 93 percent of all railroad
personnel;
5. carry about 95 percent of the total freight
tonnages;
6. account for about 99 percent of the freight
revenue ton-miles;
7. earn about 96 percent of the total railway
operating revenue, and
8. represent about 95 percent of the total
capital stock of the industry.
Thus, Class I railroad transportation data can be
used to develop realistic solid-waste rail-haul
configurations in the eastern territory of the ICC
data. Moreover, these data are based on actual
working experience and therefore include existing
labor contracts and a multitude of different operating
regulations.
To obtain a perspective of the ability of the rail
network to serve an area, •<. comparison of the length
of the rail network related to the total area and/or
49
-------
Cubic Feet
OOOO's)
22
20
TABLE 16
RAILROAD MILEAGE OF THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED
(by State)
10 Ib/cu ft
15 Ib/cu ft
20 Ib/cu ft
30 Ib/cu ft
60 Ib/cu ft
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 tons
FIGURE 14
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
VOLUME AND WEIGHT AT
VARIOUS SOLID WASTE DENSITIES
State
United States Total
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
Total I
of Railroad
212,059
4,624
2,053
3.725
7,516
3,775
773
293
4,478
5,567
2,677
10,996
6,525
8,437
8,059
3:525
3,399
1,691
1,135
1,573
6,461
8,037
3.632
6,513
4,939
5,574
1,635
817
1,853
2,190
5,858
4,270
5,195
8,139
5,604
3,161
8,693
i57
3,261
3,910
3,339
14,277
1,725
719
4,085
4,955
2,582
6,133
1,848
31
Number of Square Number of People
Miles per Mile of per Mile of Road
Road (I960 Population)
16.74
11.16
55.51
14.26
21.11
27.62
6.48
7.02
12.79
10.58
31.21
5.13
5.56
6.67
10.21
11.46
12.44
19.64
9.32
5.14
9.01
10.46
13.14
10.70
29.79
13.85
67.61
11.39
4.44
55.56
8.46
12.34
13;60
5.06
12.48
30.68
5.18
7.73
9.52
19.71
12.65
18.73
49.23
13.36
9.99
13.76
6.75
9.16
52.98
2.23
932
707
634
480
2,091
465
3,279
1,522
608
708
249
917.
715
327
270
862
835
573
2,732
3,274
1,211
425
600
663
137
253
174
743
3,274
434
2,865
1,067
122
1,193
415
560
1,302
5,471
731
174
1,068
671
517
542
971
576
519
644
179
24,645
Source: Data developed from information published by the Interstate
Commerce Commission and U. S. Bureau of the Census
50
-------
the population is helpful. The lower the number of
square miles per mile of road, and the higher the
population density per mile of road, the greater the
potential benefit.
The rail network mileage, the ratios of square
miles, and the number of people per miles of railroad
in each state are shown in Table 16. The data
indicate, for example, that New Jersey with one mile
of track for each 4.44 square miles of area and 3,274
population may have a high, potential for the use of
rail-haul.
CONSIDERATION OF TYPE OF RAILROAD CARS
Either existing or specially designed freight cars
could be used for the rail-haul of solid wastes. The
decision as to which type of car to use will depend
upon the form in which du solid wastes are to be
shipped, e.g., unprocessed, compacted, or in stable
bales.
Existing Freight Train Cars
A variety of freight train cars are used to
accommodate the needs of the various shippers.
However, general purpose cars are prevalent. Thus, if
special railroad cars must be designed they should be
suitable for a variety of uses in order to achieve
maximum equipment utilization should solid-waste
rail-haul be abandoned.
In 1964, there were abor.t 1,534,000 freight train
cars in service. About 1,504,000 of these cars are
owned by the Class I railroads. A breakdown of these
freight train cars by class is presented in Table 17,
Type of Freight Train Cars Owned by Class I
Railroads.
TABLE 17
TYPE OF FREIGHT TRAIN CARS OWNED BY
CLASS I RAILROADS
Boxcars, general service 515,123 34.1
Boxcars, special service 81,220 5.3
Flatcars 48,257 5.3
Stock cars 22,445 1.5
Gondola cars 222,897 15.1
Hopper cars, open top 431,791 28.7
Hopper cars, covered 81,168 5.3
Refrigerator cars 36,922 2.4
Rack cars 41,075 2.7
Tank cars 5,157 0.4
Other freight train cars 2,330 0.2
Caboose cars ".5,549 1.0
TOTAL freight cars 1,503,934 100.0
Source: Interstate Commerce Cotimission, 1967
Transport Statistics in the United States,
Year ended December 31, 1964.
Table 17 indicates that general service boxcars,
open hopper cars, and gondolas represent more than
three-fourths of the freight cars in use. No other type
makes up as much as six percent of the total.
Since solid wastes can be processed in a way to
suit many different types of cars, it is appropriate to
review the cost of various types of cars. The average
cost of new freight train cars by type in 1969 is given
in Table 18, Average Purchase Price of Freight Train
Cars.
The advantages and limitations of existing cars
and their implications for the transport of solid
wastes are:
1. Boxcars
According to its name, die boxcar is enclosed on
all sides and has a roof. One or more doors are placed
on each of the long sides of the car. The boxcar is
generally used for shipments which must be protected
from the weather. As a rule, shipments consist of
boxed, crated, or bagged materials or products which
can be readily handled in unitized loads as, for
example, packages stacked on pallets and moved by a
forklift truck.
For transport of solid wastes, boxcars would
provide protection from the undesirable weather
effects. However, they are not suitable for loose or
shredded solid wastes because of the difficulty of
loading and unloading. On the other hand, boxcars
are suitable for compacted wastes which can be
loaded and unloaded in the same manner as bagged or
boxed materials. One version of the boxcar is die "All
Door" car in which die long sides of the car consist
exclusively of doors to facilitate loading and
unloading. Figure 15 is a sketch of an All-Door Box
Car being unloaded by a mobile loader.
2. Flatcars
Flatcars consist of a car floor without an upper
housing or body. Some flatcars have bulkheads.
Those widi movable bulkheads may be suitable for
the transport of baled solid wastes, if the bales are
prepared in such a manner that covers are not
required. Flat cars can also be used if the wastes are
containerized.
3. Gondola Cars
Gondola cars come equipped with sides and ends
but, as a rule, without tops. The car floor is
approximately level and may be provided widi
bottom doors and/or drop ends. The sides of die car
may be high or low. Several types of removable
covers are also available to protect die shipment from
die weather. Covers are designed not to interfere widi
51
-------
TABLE 18
AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF FREIGHT TRAIN CARS
Gass of Cars
Boxcars, General Service, Unequipped1
Boxcars, General Service, Equipped1
Boxcars, Special Service
Flatcars, General Service
Flatcars, Special Service
Flatcars, Trailers on
Gondolas, General Service
Gondolas, Special Service
Hoppers, Open Top, General Service
Hopperr, Open Top, Special Service
Hoppers, Covered
Refrigerator, (Other than Meat)
Autorack
Tank Cars
Number of Units
6,588
11,179
633
456
2,298
1,863
1,314
6,262
100
4,987
1,200
283
Average Cost
per Unit
(Collars)
$11,700
17,500
27,300
13,800
18,200
16,500
12,800
15,100
12,500
17,900
15,200
30,600
19,200
Transport Statistics in the United States (1969), Interstate Commerce
Commission—Costs rounded to nearest 100; prices reported are those
at the time of contract-paid in 1969.
As designated by ICC
loading or unloading operations. Figure 16 is a sketch
of a 100-ton side-dump gondola.
With a cover, gondolas could be used to transport
processed, particularly baled, solid wastes. The
loading and unloading process would vary dependent
upon the condition in which the materials are
shipped. Several types of loading equipment are
available, including car dumpers ($200,000 to
$500,000-excluding the foun-Jation and pit), and
mobile gantry cranes. Rotary car dumpers would
seldom be economically justified unless the annual
volume exceeded two million tons of refuse at the
destination point. Mobile gantry cranes are available
in capacities of 1- to 50-ton lifts, and with spans of
up to 30 feet. Unless the gondolas were watertight,
they would not generally be suitable for transport of
unprocessed solid wastes.
4. Hopper Cars
Hopper cars are designed to discharge their loads
by gravity through hopper doort built into the floor.
Thus, they have floor sections and/or sides which
slope to the one or more bottom openings in each
car. Hopper cars may be either uncovered or have a
permanent roof equipped with hatches. Figure 17 is a
sketch of a standard hopper car and a 100-ton "rapid
discharge" hopper car.
Hopper cars are used for the transport of
relatively small size, free-flowing materials. Large,
standard size hopper gates only measure
approximately 25 by 48 inches.
Unprocessed residential solid wastes could be
readily loaded into open-top hopper cars. Serious
difficulties would occur, however, in the unloading of
the car due to both the matting and clinging
properties of the materials and the presence of
oversized items. These problems might be alleviated if
the wastes were shredded and kept dry, preventing
paper from absorbing moisture from the atmosphere.
The unloading problems also might be averted if
the refuse were compacted into briquettes of the size
of baseballs or footballs. In this way a relatively free
flow might occur. The cars would require covers.
Hopper cars would need large discharge openings,
preferably 40 by 100 inches; steep, sloped angles, and
stainless steel liners.
Existing covered hopper cars do not appear to be
suitable for the hauling of solid wastes since they are
52
-------
Source: Penn Central Transportation Company
100-TON
ALL-DOOR
BOX CAR
8 FT x 8 FT x 8 FT
UNITIZED LOAD OF BALES
(17 TONS)
FIGURE 15
ALL-DOOR BOX CAR AND MOBILE LOADER
-------
SIDE VIEW
r='-e"-i * ~4
' L, an' n" «J
« «*n' n"
Source: Penn Central Transportation Company
. ro
i i -
& o
i
10-6'
I I
LOADING
N^J i I W>/
"te
COVER
DOORS
SWING-OUT
GATES
\
GRAVITY
DUMP
END VIEW SECTION A-A
FIGURE 16
100-TON SIDE-DUMP GONDOLA
-------
TOP VIEW
DISCHARGE .
OPENINGS
SLOPE
SHEETS
SIDE VIEW
\ i
\ '
\BOTTOM
GATES
10'-5"-
10-8
SECTION A-A
Source: Perm Central Transportation Company
TOP VIEW
DISCHARGE
•OPENINGS
SLOPE
'SHEETS
-10-6"
-7
\
\^
—
s
K) i (7)"
\ /
\ /
\ /'
*
\x
\
?
~^.
V-
&
—
ft
7
-
_
I +
\. J
•45-0"
-55-0"
\
SIDE VIEW
BOTTOM
GATES
•
-
_
_
te
m
K
d
f
15-6'
1
/ i
• • i • r i
i 1 i 1 |
END VIEW
FIGURE 17
STANDARD HOPPER CAR & 100-TON RAPID-DISCHARGE HOPPER CAR
55
-------
designed primarily for the shipment of powdered or
granular, free-flowing materials.
5. Tank Cars
Tank cars have only relatively small loading and
unloading openings. Thus, they could be used only if
the wastes were ground to a sufficiently small size to
pass the entry and exit ports. Unloading by air or
liquid pressure might lead to problems of settling,
clogging, and varying density of the wastes.
A review of the preceding discussion suggest that:
• unprocessed, loose, and shredded solid waste
should be shipped primarily in covered
gondola cars, containerized waste in flatcars
or boxcars; and that
• baled solid wastes should be shipped
primarily in covered gondolas and boxcars;
and, if covered and suitably packaged, on
flatcars.
Thus, the boxcar, the gondola, and the flatcar are
the primary rail car choices to be considered in the
development of the optimum solid-waste rail-haul
system.
RAILROAD FREIGHT CARS-
VOLUME/NET LOAD RELATIONSHIPS
In the transport of solid wastes by existing
freight train cars, it is important to consider the
relationship of volume and net load carrying
capability. For example, a doubling of the net load
per car may reduce car investment by half and save
on other transportation costs as well.
The theoretical limits of the volume/net load
relationship are given in Table 19, Limits of the
Volume/Net Load Relationship for Various Freight
Cars. The data refer to the most common types of
cars. However, to add perspective, information on
Hi-Cube cars is also included, although the number of
such cars in service is small. Hi-Cube cars are
considered specialized cars which are used mainly for
the shipment of packaged high volume/low weight
merchandise.
In reviewing Table 19, Limits of the Volume/Net
Load Relationship for Various Freight Cars, it must
be recognized that the information is based upon the
"maximum load limit" which is not identical with the
nominal or nameplate carrying capacity given for the
cars. The "maximum load limit" exceeds, in most
cases, the nominal carrying capacity. However, as
indicated in the "Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia"
for the Hi-Cube boxcar, the maximum load limit may
also be less-sometimes as much as 25 percent to 30
percent—than the nominal capacity given.
The theoretical load density limits do not take
into account the practical loading patterns that might
be achieved. Practical loading patterns might reduce
the available car volume capacity by at least 15 to 20
percent. This, in turn, would increase the individual
pounds per cubic foot values given by a like amount.
Furthermore, due to loading constraints associated
with access through doors and working in an enclosed
space, the usable space in boxcars may be
considerably less than that indicated unless
"All-Door" cars are used.
Thus, the information in Table 19 suggests that a
cargo density of 50 to 80 Ib/cu. ft. would be optimal
with respect to the use of most existing freight train
cars. A material density of this order can only be
achieved by high-pressure compaction which
therefore was made the subject of the first
demonstration project resulting from this study.
RAIL CAR ECONOMICS
Rail car economics depend on acquisition and
utilization cost: Car utilization, in turn, depends upon
the net load carried, e.g., density of materials, and the
number of revenue producing trips made during a
given time period. Only boxcars, gondolas, and flat
cars were analyzed.
/. Rail Car Acquisition Cost
Cost of rail cars is given in Table 20, Range of
Standard Rail Freight Car Purchase Price by Load
Carrying Capacity. The price of a 100-ton car could
vary from $12,500 to $22,200 depending on type
and number of units purchased. Forty-foot gondolas
and flat cars as well as cars with load limits of 50 tons
are not shown in the table because such cars are no
longer considered production line items. There is a
trend toward the 100-ton and even the 125-ton rail
car because of the advantageous economics. However,
track conditions of the rail lines to be used may
dictate the use of lower capacity cars.
Although the rail car acquisition cost will
normally be borne by the railroad and has been
discussed here in order to determine the applicable
rates which will be charged to a user, the using agency
would, most likely, purchase any containers that
would be utilized. An 8-by 8-by 20-foot container
costs about $6,000 and an 8-by 8-by 40-foot
container about $10,000. These standard dimensions
suggest that either 68- or 89-foot flat cars be used and
that $18,000 (three 20-foot containers) and $20,000
(two 40-foot containers) be considered as a
reasonable purchase price.
56
-------
TABLE 19
LIMITS OF THE VOLUME/NET LOAD RELATIONSHIP FOR VARIOUS FREIGHT CARS
Type of Car
(Nominal
Capacity)
Gondola Cars
50 ton
50 ton
^Otbn
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
100 ton
Hopper Cars
50 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
80 ton
80 ton
90 ton
90 ton
95 ton
100 ton
100 ton
100 ton
100 ton
100 ton
100 ton ,
90 ton
70 ton
Special Features
low sides
all steel, drop bottom
fixed-end, drop aoors
fixed-end
fixed-end
fixed-end
mill type, drop ends
mill type, drop ends
wood floor, ends, & sides
(for sulfur load only)
drop bottom for handling coke
fixed-end, 16 ft. drop doors
solid bottom, movable bulkheads
covered steel floor
covered, bulkheads
non-railroad owned
open top, double hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, double hopper
open top, triple hopper
automatic dumping, open top
open top, triple hopper
open top, triple hopper
open top, quadruple hopper
open top, sextuple hopper
wood chip car, sextuple hopper
wood chip car, sextuple hopper
wood chip car
Capacity
(Cu. ft.)
1,153
1,948
1,948
1,700
1,995
1,995
1,776
1,775
1,573
3,125
2,410
2,868
3,520
2,324
4300
2,160
2,460
3,030
2,700
2,960
2,821
2,868
2,100
3,4:8
3,600
3,418
3366
3,483
4,003
7,000
7,000
5,850
Maximum
Load Limit
(Lbs.)
129,000
100,000
100,000
151,000
158,200
162,600
144,800
141,400
158,700
153,600
140,000
143,000
146,500
140,000
250,800
135,200
168,200
164,100
157,000
166,100
166,300
202,600
191,900
204,300
200,000
201,300
200,000
200,000
195,200
200,000
188,500
143,500
Lbs./
Cu. ft.
112
51
51
89
79
82
82
80
101
49
58
SO
42
60
58
63
68
54
58
56
59
71
91
60
56
59
59
57
49
29
27
25
"type of Car
(Nominal
Capacity)
Boxcars
50 ton
50 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
80 ton
90 ton
100 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
Flat Cars
50 ton
50 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
70 ton
80 ton
90 ton
Special Features
15 foot door
8 foot door
16 foot double doors
16 foot double doors
16 foot double doors
16 foot double doors
single door
16 foot double doors
hi-cube for low density
packaged goods
hi-cube two 16 foot double doors
hi-cube for low density
auto parts
Approximate Area
(Sq.Ft.)
53x10 = 530
45x10 = 450
56 x 9 = 504
60x 9 = 540
60 x 10 = 600
53 x 10=530
60 x 10 = 600
58 x 9 = 522
Capacity
(Cu. ft.)
4,888
3908
4,932
4,884
4,952
6,013
6,146
5,980
10,000
10,000
10,000
Maximum
Load Limit
(Lbs.)
92,900
100,000
152,500
156,400
155,300
176,000
180,000
181,400
105,500
102,100
110,400
Load Limit
(Lbs.)
114,800
111,300
152,700
148,800
150,500
170,400
183,500
184,400
Lbs./
Cu.ft.
19
26
31
32
31
29
29
30
11
10
11
Source: Manufacturers and Railroad Data, Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia, 1966,
(Simmons-Boardman Publication)
-------
TABLE 20
RANGE OF STANDARD RAIL FREIGHT CAR PURCHASE PRICE
BY LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY
Type and Length of Car
Box Cars
40.6 feet
50.6
60.9
50.6 (All-Door)
Gondola Cars
Low side 3*6"
52.6 feei
65.6
Flat Cars
50 feet
60
68
89
70 tons
(dollars)*
11,500-14,200
13,800-15,000
19,000 - 20,700
15,000-16,000
13,200-14,200
15,700-17,300
11,000
15,000
17,250
20,600
Load Carrying Capacity
100 tons
(dollars)*
12,500-15,200
14,800- 16,000
20,000 - 22,200
16,000-17,000
14,200- 15,700
16,700-18,800
12,000
16,500
18,250
21,600
Sources: Various railroads and railcar manufacturers.
* The low values of the purchase price range reflect volume discounts
whic.-i are attainable through orders involving several hundred cars.
The data in Table 20 reveal an interesting
relationship between purchase price and length of car.
For example, an increase of 20 percent In the length
of a 50-foot car is, for box and flat cars, accompanied
by an increase of approximately 40 percent In cost.
Thus, from a car investment point of view, compact
cars should be given careful consideration in the
selection of desirable density ta-gets. In contrast, the
data in Table 20 indicate that r,n increase in the load
carrying capacity is relatively inexpensive. The
purchase price increases, as a rule, by only $1,000
with an increase in the load carrying capacity from 70
to 100 tons, i.e. about $33 per ton of capacity
increase.
It is customary to transform the purchase and
acquisition cost into annual cost in order to make
these data ready for utilization analyses. This requires
consideration of the service life which, based upon
Internal Revenue Service regulations, is commonly
estimated to range between 10 a id 15 years.
The service life, however, represents only one
factor in the determination of the annual. cost.
Additional factors include interest, return on
investment for the owner of the car, and
maintenance. To estimate total car investment it
appears necessary to increase the annual investment
cost by perhaps 100 percent in order to make the
necessary allowances.
The annual cost of rail cars for the rail-haul of
solid wastes has been calculated and is shown in Table
21, Annual Cost of Owning Rail Cars. Conservative
data are based on high values given in the range of
purchase prices in Table 19 and a 10-year
depreciation period was used.
In evaluating the data in Table 21, it must be
recognized that the "cost per ton of load carrying
capacity" indicates-in terms of annual cost-the cost
needed just to establish and maintain the capacity
given. Transport costs are not included. The latter
costs are determined by the capacity utilization, i.e.,
the density of the materials and numbei; of trips per
year.
58
-------
TABLE 21
ANNUAL COST OF OWNING RAIL CARS (10-YEAR SERVICE LIFE,
100 PERCENT ALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST, RETURN OF
INVESTMENT, MAINTENANCE, ETC.)
Estimated
Type and Length Purchase
of Car Price
Box Cars - 70 Tons
50.6 feet $15,000
60.9 feet 20,700
50.6 feet (All-Door) 16,000
Box Cars-100Tons
50.6 feet 16,000
60.9 feet 22,200
50.6 feet (All-Door) 17,000
Gondola Cars - 70 Tons
Low side 3'6"
52.6 feet 14,200
65.6 feet 17,300
Gondola Cars -100 To.is
Low side 3*6"
52.6 feet 15,700
65.6 feet 18,800
Flat Cars - 70 Tons
68 feet (3 containers
at 20 feet) 35,250
89 feet (2 containers
at 40 feet) 40,600
Flat Cars -100 Tons
68 feet (3 container.
at 20 feet) 36,250
89 feet (2 containers
at 40 feet) 41,600
Total Annual
Owning Cost
$3,000
4,140
3,200
3,200
4,400
3,400
2,840
3,460
3,140
3,760
7,050
8,120
7,250
8,320
Cost per Ton of Design
Load Carrying Capacity
$ 43 ($42.85)
59 ($59.14)
46 ($45.71)
32
44 ($44.40)
34
41 ($40.57)
49 ($49.14)
31 ($31.40)
38 ($37.60)
101 ($100.71)
116
72 ($72.50)
83 ($83.20)
59
-------
TABLE 22
RAIL CAR UTILIZATION - BY DENSITY
Type and Length
of Car
Box Cars
50.6 feet
60.9 feet
50.6 feet (All-Door)
Gondola Cars
(low side)
52.6 feet
65.6 feet
Flat Cars
68 feet (3 containers
at 20 feet)
89 feet (2 containers
at 40 feet)
Approx. Theoretical
Cubic Capacity
(cubic feet)
5,000
6,000
5,000
1,780
2,220
3,840
5,120
Approx. Practical
Cubic Capacity
(cubic feet)
4,000
4,800
4,000
1,600
2,000
3,500
4,600
Tons of Solid Waste Per
Car at Material Shipment
Density of
20 30 60
IDS. Ibs. Ibs.
(cubic feet)
20.0 40.0 60.0 120.0
24.0 48.0 72.0 144.0
20.0 40.0 60.0 120.0
10
Ibs.
8.0
10.0
16.0
20.0
24.0
30.0
48.0
60.0
17.5 35.0 52.5 105.0
23.0 46.0 69.0 138.0
Source: Basic data on freight car dimensions obtained from, various railroads, rail car manufacturers, and
car manufacturers, and "Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia 1966," Simmons-Boardman Publishing
Corporation, New Yrrk.
2. Capacity Utilization:
Density of Solid Waste Materials
A given rail car provides a set volumetric capacity
which can be filled-up to the limits of the set load
(weight) carrying capacity-with the materials to be
transported. High density materials will not require
all the space available. Light materials will fill up all
the space available but not require all the load
(weight) carrying capacity.
The influence of density on car utilization is
given in Table 22, Rail Car Utilization by Density.
Existing loading experience has been taken into
consideration. This requires a reduction in
theoretically available volume for box cars of about
20 percent; and for containers and gondolas, about
10 percent.
Table 23, Annual Cost of Owning Rail Cars At
Selected Densities, correlates economics and car
utilization by density. It indicates that high-pressure
baled solid wastes provide, in terms of car economics,
an advantage even in cases where the total volume of
the available space is not used.
3. Capacity Utilization:
Number of Trips Per Year
The data in Table 19 indicated the cost per ton
that would be incurred if the car would make only
one load trip per year. This, of course, does not occur
in normal railroad operations but is included as a
basic point of reference.
In conventional train service, the freight car
moves in trains about 10 percent of the time. About
40 percent of the time it is standing in customer
yards and the remaining 50 • percent is spent in
railroad yards. As a result of this waste of time, a rail
car travels an average of only 52 miles per day.
In contrast, unit trains move from 50 percent to
90 percent of the total time, averaging 75 percent.
Unit trains move from 500 to 700 miles per day.
Fixed equipment costs, therefore, are spread over five
to nine times more ton miles than in conventional
service.
In general, waiting at the transfer station, length
60
-------
TABLE 23
ANNUAL COST OF OWNING RAIL CARS AT SELECTED DENSITIES
(IN DOLLARS PER TON CARRYING CAPACITY)
Type and Length
of Car
Box Cars - 70 Tons
50.6 feet
60.9 feet
50.6 feet (All-Door)
Box Cars -100 Tons
50.6 feet
60.9 feet
50.6 feet (All-Door)
Total Annual
Owning Cost
(dollars)
$3,000
4,140
3,200
$3,200
4,440
3,400
Cost per Ton of Solid Waste Carrying Capacity
at Material Shipment Density of
lOlb.
cu.ft.
$150
172
N.A.
$160
185
N.A.
20 Ib.
cu.ft.
$ 75
86
N.A.
$ 80
93
N.A.
30 Ib.
cu.ft.
$ 50
59(1)
54(2)
$ 53
62
57(2)
60 Ib.
cu.ft.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
$32(1)
44(1)
34
Gondola Cars - 70 Tons
(low side)
52.6 feet $2,840
65.6 feet 3,460
$335
346
$178
173
$118
116
$59
58
Hat Cars - 70 Tons
68 feet (3 containers
at 20 feet)
89 feet (2 containers
at 40 feet)
Flat Cars -100 Tons
68 feet (3 containers
at 20 feet)
89 feet (2 containers
at 40 feet)
$7,050>'
8,120
$403
353
$207
174
$134
118
N.A.
•N.A.
$7,250
8,320
$414
362
$207
181
$138
121
$72(1)
83 (1)
N.A. = not applicable either because of material characteristics or too great a load difference, e.g., between
70 and 100 tons.
(1) Cost per ton of Design Load Carrying Capacity (Table 20) taken: it is assumed that the load would
be reduced to not exceed the load limit given in the car designation. However, "overloading" does
occur in real-life operations. . -
(2) Assumption is made that solid waste is baled at low pressure and strapped. (Strapping costs1 are, at '
: that density, about $0.60 per ton). • '' '.
61
-------
of haul, travel speed, and turn-around time will
determine whether a given trip can be made every day
or not. If a car can be used p.oductively .only every
other day, then twice as much equipment would be
needed to haul a given daily tonnage.
Considering intrastate solid-waste rail-haul
networks, travel distance as a rule would not exceed
100 to 150 miles one way as. determined from rail
network analyses.
The trains' total direct travel time would require
typically three hours — at most, 10. This would leave
from 14 to 21 hours for train assembly, if more than
one transfer station is operated, and loading and
unloading operations. Thus it is possible that a rail car
could be used daily.
The effects of variations in the number of trips
made per year are shown in Table 24, Annual Cost of
Owning Rail Cars At Selected Utilization Rates. The
table gives data for 100, 200, and 300 trips per year
at densities of 20 and 60 lb/cu.ft. The densities were
selected to indicate best average conditions, on a
country-wide basis, for unprocessed or shredded solid
waste (540 Ib/cu.yd.) versus just average conditions
for high-pressure baled solid wastes.
The type of car entries in Table 24 were selected
in terms of the minimum cost shown in Table 23 for
the respective car type. At 300 trips per year the
minimum cost for 20 lb/cu.ft. density is 25 cents per
ton. The minimum cost at 60 lb/cu.ft. is 12 cents per
ton. Thus with a 300,000 tons throughput per year
the cost differential in just the car owning and
maintenance cost could amount to $39,000 per year.
The density implications are even more
important if the car makes only 100 trips per year. In
this case, the cost differential would amount, on the
same types of cars, to 41 cents per ton. Again at
300,000 tons of throughput per year, the cost
differential amounts to $ 123,000 per year.
Similar calculations can be nude for the flat car
plus container analyses as well as the 70-ton flat car
versus the 70-ton gondola analysis. It should also be
noted that rail car leasing costs in 1970 were quoted
to range from 24 cents to 35 cents per ton for the
shipment of solid wastes.
In the overall it should be stated that the rail car
analysis take present conditions fully into account.
For example, it is well recognized that shortages
in rail car availability occur regularly each year.
Therefore, the solid waste rail car analyses were based
on both the acquisition (and outside financing) of
new rail cars and on dedicated service. The purchase
of new rail cars for solid waste hauls and the
dedication of such cars to that service would make
rail haul independent of the presently available rail
car stock.
If presently rolling rail cars are dedicated to rail
haul, then this would reduce the number of cars
(many of them idle much of the time) available for
other purposes. Correspondingly, it would increase
the car shortages occurring regularly at specific
periods each year.
However, this is nothing new and considering the
total number of cars, the initial demand for solid
waste cars is insignificant. In principle, the railroads
have always met their contractual obligations and rail
haul is proposed to operate on the basis of
contractual arrangements. The car shortages occur
with respect to peak demand (once-a-year) customers,
e.g., grain shippers, and not with respect to regular,
year-round shippers.
SOLID WASTE TRAINS
There are four basic train-type alternatives which
are potentially applicable to a solid-waste rail-haul
system. Choice of any one would depend on the
specific set of circumstances which exist in the local
or regional network, e.g., the waste volume, the
number of originating points, desired schedules and
turn-around requirements.
1. Regular Freight Train Service
In regular freight train service one or more
carloads of solid waste would be handled like carloads
of any other commodity. Cars would be attached to a
regularly scheduled freight train. This approach offers
considerable flexibility in operations but poses the
restriction on the railroad that the refuse car be not
subject to excessive delays in transit. This alternative
would not serve all communities since some have
infrequent freight service. In addition, the selection
of suitable disposal sites would be restricted to points
on routes where freight trains can drop off the refuse
cars. This, in turn, would require, provision for local
switching service, adding to the cost.
Refuse cars used in such sen-ice might have to be
dedicated exclusively to the transport of solid wastes
and might not be available for any other shipment.
This requirement is entirely compatible with normal
rail operations and does not impose something new
into railroad practice. The exclusive dedication of
cars to the transport of solid waste will, of course,
affect the utilization of the equipment. Dedication of
freight cars in the context of regular freight train
service is likely to prevent a maximum utilization of
the equipment and thus increase the system cost.
62
-------
TABLE 24
ANNUAL COST OF OWNING RAIL CARS CONSIDERING VARIATIONS IN UTILIZATION*
Type and Length
of Car
Solid Waste
Shipment Density
Car Owning and Maintenance Cost
Per Ton of Solid Waste Shipped at
Box Cars - 70 Tons
50.6 feet
Box Cars -100 Tons
50.6 feet
50.6 feet (All-Door)
Gondola Cars - 70 Tons
(low side)
65.6 feet
1
Obs./cu. ft.) Trip/Year
20
20**
20
20**
60
20
60
$ 75
($100)
$ 80
($106)
34
$173
58
100
Trips/Year
$0.75
($1.00)
$0.80
($1.06)
0.34
$1.73
0.58
200
Trips/Year
$0.38
($0.50)
$0.40
($0.53)
0.17
$0.87
0.29
300
Trips/Year
$0.25
($0.34)
$0.27
($0.36)
0.12
$0.58
0.19
Flat Cars - 70 Tons
89 feet (2 containers 20
at 40 feet)
Flat Cars-100 Tons
68 feet (3 containers 20
at 20 feet) 60
89 feet (2 containers 20
at 40 feet) .' . 60
$174
$207
72
$181
83
$1.74
$2.07
0.72
$1.81
0.83
$0.87
$1.04
0.36
$0.91
0.42
$0.58
$0.69
0.24
$0.61
0.28
* Data slightly rounded. '•'•
** This comparison refers only to the space utilization of box cars in the shipment of unprocessed or
shredded solid wastes. A n adaptation of the box car to the loading and unloading of unprocessed
solid wastes, i.e. top loading and side dumping, would increase the cost by about 30% of the values
' stated.The value adjustment is shown in the table in parenthesis.
63
-------
2. Dedicated Freight Train Service
A second alternative is to use a dedicated train
for the rail-haul of solid wastes. Such use eliminates
the need to conform to regular freight schedules.
Such service could accommodate even those
communities which have infrequently scheduled
regular freight service, it also allows flexibility with
respect to the disposal site location.
3. Unit Trains
Unit trains typically travel between two points
without stops enroute and generally pull from 70 to
100 or more cars. Some unit trains move over
distances of 500 to 700 miles per day. A unit
solid-waste train, however, could run economically
with fewer cars and with stops along the route.
The cost per ton to the shipper via unit train
averages less than half the rail industry average for
regular freight service. The biggest difference is the
elimination of switching in yards. With the bypassing
of yards and the elimination of switching, the cost
accounting problem for a unit train becomes less
complex. The cost of train crews, fuel and oil, power,
train servicing, loss and damage, and other items are
direct and specific to the train. A single bill of lading
for each train load reduces the paperwork and
accounting.
Unit train pricing opens the door to a sound basis
of rate making: "cost-based" tates. The attractive
economics of unit trains to the railroads is marketed
to shippers through a competitive price. Historical
rate patterns related to conventional service are based
on market competition or commodity values and
have created a very complicated structure of rail
tariffs.
Shipper furnished rail cars can bring about a still
lower rate to the shipper. It is advantageous to both
parties. Since a rail tariff is not a long term contract,
the railroad is faced with the speculation of a possible
diversion of their car equipment to other, more
conventional services, in the event the shipper
decided to change to some other transportation
alternative. The rail tariff will reflect the higher
expenses in that case. By furnishing the equipment
himself the shipper pockets the full cost advantage of
the unit train's low cost-potential for equipment
utilization. Furthermore, carrier furnished equipment
would have to be suitable for possible diversion to
general use.
The empty return run of a unit train could
become a payload of solid wastes. This alternative,
unfortunately, is not universally applicable. There are
few unit trains in operation; moreover, unit train
operators cannot allow disruptive changes in their
schedule or in train speed and there might be need for
an extensive cleaning operation of the rail cars at the
solid waste disposal site.
Nevertheless, the return haul approach should be
carefully investigated. Two arguments can be cited in
support of it. First, the cars in unit trains are
ordinarily hoppers-cither bottom or bottom side
dumpers. They can accommodate solid wastes in the
form of briquettes or—in the case of side dumpers-
blocks up to one-third cubic yard. Second, most unit
trains carry coal from mines-possible sites for refuse
disposal - to urban centers - where major quantities
of solid wastes originate.
4. Rent-A-Train
The Rent-A-Train concept was introduced by the
Illinois Central (I.C.) Railroad. The I.C. plan as
offered applies only to the shipment of specific
agricultural commodities from originating points in
the midwest to specific Gulf Coast ports. The present
plan involves hauls of at least 600 miles one-way.
As constituted today, the plan offers a shipper
eighty-six, 100-ton railroad owned cars in one cut
plus motive power on short notice whenever
requested. The cost consists of an annual charge of $ 1
million plus 1.5 mills per trailing ton-mile for a
minimum 600-mile one-way haul. The annual charge
of $1 million is reduced to $700,000 per train if the
shipper or receiver furnishes the cars.
Interest in the concept arises from the significant
reduction in freight cost when a user can arrange for
an intensive utilization of the train. This is, of course,
the case in the shipment of solid wastes by rail where
large tonnages must be transported daily.
FACTORS GOVERNING
THE TRAIN CONFIGURATION
Train configuration is primarily determined by
the train load, the conditions of movement, and the
utilization of the locomotive power available.
1. The Train Load
The total train load is made up of the total net
load and the total deadweight of the cars. The riet
load of the train is given by the weight of the solid
wastes it is to move. The deadweight varies with the
type of freight car used. The deadweight per car
varies specifically with differences in the load
carrying capability. Here, size, i.e., economics of
scale, come into play. On a very broad average, the
deadweight of a 50-ton car amounts to 23-25 tons. In
contrast the deadweight of a 70-ton car amounts to
64
-------
28-30 tons while the deadweight of a 100-ton car
ranges from 30-35 tons. The deadweight per train is
directly proportional to the number of cars used of a
given size and indirectly proportional to the
increasing capacity of the cars used. This is indicated
in Table 25 , Deadweight per Train, for net loads of
1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 8,000 tons of solid
waste per train.
Table 25 indicates that almost one-third of the
total train load is deadweight if 50-ton freight cars are
used. The deadweight drops to about one-fourth if
100-ton cars are used. Thus, even if the solid waste
shipment density allows full use of a freight car's load
carrying capacity, the largest available cars should be
used.
2. Conditions of Movement
In addition to the total trrin load, the conditions
of movement influence the amount of locomotive
power required per train. The conditions of
movement are, as a rule, referenced in terms of the
pull or push required to effect the movement. The
force of the pull is expressed in pounds.
Tests have indicated that it takes from 16 to 20
pounds of pull per ton of train weight to start a train
on a straight, level track in fair weather with
moderate temperatures. Once the train is underway,.
the pull must overcome rolling resistance which, as a
rule, is equated to about five pounds per ton of train.
The rolling resistance of the train is affected, of
course, by grades, curvature of the track, and speed.
As a rule, one percent of grade requires a pull of 20
pounds per ton of train. One degree of curvature
requires an additional pull of 0.8 pounds per ton of
train. An increase in the train speed from 10 to 50
miles per hour increases ths pull requirements, on a
broad average, by about 80 percent.
Thus, if a train would have to pass a one percent
grade in a 15 degree curve at 10 miles per hour, the
pull required would amount to 37 pounds per ton of
train. It is assumed in this case that the train would
neither go into the curve with a high speed nor stop
in the curve. In case the train would have to stop in
the curve on the grade, the necessary pull would
amount to about 52 pounds per ton of train.
The foregoing information indicates why it is
quite complicated to generalize on pull rates. Grades,
curves, and speed possibilities or limitations vary
between different movements as well as sections of
individual movements. For example, the pull
requirements vary substantially depending upon
whether the grades and curves on a line do or do not
coincide.
Pull requirements must be correlated to total
train weight. Assuming a pull need of 45 pounds per
ton of train, a 1,480 ton train —for example, a
50-ton car train with a 1,000 ton net load — would
require about 66,600 pounds of pull for its
movement. Under the same assumption, a 1,330 ton
train - for example, a 100-ton car train with a
1,000-ton net load-would require about 59,850
pounds of pull. The total train load in these examples
is derived from the data in Table 24 which assumes
that a car carries its rated net load.
TABLE 25
DEADWEIGHT PER TRAIN AT VARYING NET LOADS
AND DIFFERENT CAPACITY CARS (1)
Type of Car (2)
50 Ton
70 Ton
lOOTon
Deadweight in Tons per Train at Train Net Loads of
1,000
tOliS
480
4CO
330
2,000
tons
960
800
660
3,000
tons
1,440
1,200
990
5,000
tons
2,400
2,000
1,650
8,000
tons
3,840
3,200
2,540
(1) Figures slightly rounded
(2) Assumes full carload, i.e. 50 tons of solid waste on a 50-ton car,
70 tons on a 70-ton rar, and 100 tons on a 100-ton car.
65
-------
3. Locomotive Power
Locomotive power must be selected with respect
to the total weight of the train to be pulled as well as
the conditions of movement. On a very broad average
straight purchase price of locomotive power is
estimated to cost between $75 and $100 per
horsepower unit. A range of selected locomotive price
and performance data is given in Table 26, Selected
Locomotive Power — Cost Data.
The data presented in Table 26 indicate that the
purchase price for the tractive effort is from $3.20 to
$5.08 per pound. The tractive effort includes the
force needed to move the locomotive as well as
the drawbar pull. The drawbar pull is the amount of
force a locomotive can exert on its rear coupling to
move the attached train of cars.
For diesel-electric locomotives, a distinction is
frequently made between starting and continuous
tractive effort. A diesel-electric locomotive cannot
continue to exert maximum power for a prolonged
period without damaging its traction or electric
motors. Therefore, the continuous tractive effort for
such locomotives is rated at about 50 to 70 percent
of its starting tractive effort.
The drawbar pull of the locomotive is the
equivalent of the tractive effort minus the pull
required to move the locomotive itself. Tests have
indicated that it also takes 16 to 20 pounds of pull
per ton of weight to get the average locomotive
moving. Thus, if the locomctive weighs 100 tons it is
necessary to subtract 1,600 to 2,000 pounds from the
tractive effort given to obtain the drawbar pull
available.
TABLE 26
SELECTED LOCOMOTIVE POWER-COST DATA
Diesel-Freight "A" Units
TypeB-B 2,000hp
TypeB-B 2,500 hp
TypeB-B S.OOOhp
TypeB-B 3,300hp
TypeB-B 3,600hp
TypeC-C 2,250 hp
TypeC-C 3,600hp
Diesel-Multipurpose "A" Units
TypeB-B l,500hp
TypeB-B 2,000hp
TypeB-B 3,000hp
Type B-B 3,000 hp
TypeB-B 3,300 hp
TypeB-B 3,600hp
TypeC-C 3,600hp
Type C-C 2,000 hp
TypeC-C 3,0001-p
Type C-C 3,300hp
Type D-D 6,600 hp
Average
Weight/
Unit
(tons)
124-130
130-135
134
135
135
180-195
185-195
125-129
132-135
130-135
134
135
135
185-195
160-180
195
195
268
Average
Purchase
Price
(dollars)
$206,000
208,000
250,000
260,000
275,000
246,000
312,500
180,000
230,500
243,000
250,000
260,000
275,000
312,500
274,500
290,000
300,000
500,000
Average
Tractive
effort/unit
(Ibs.)
44,823
51,385
54,100
54,100
54,100
72,240
82,100 .
41,700
54,700
54,700
54,100
54,100
54,100
82,100
82,100
90,600
90,600
109,400
Average
purchase
price/lb.
Tractive
effort
$4.60
4.01
4,62
4.81
5.08
3.41
3.81
4.32
4.21
4.44
4.62
4.81
5.08
3.81
3.34
3.20
3.31
4.57
Source: ElectroMotive Division, General Motors Company,
and General Electric Company.
66
-------
Thus, for a 1,000 ton net-load train requiring as
previously indicated a 66.6CO or a 59,850 pound pull,
and assuming the continuous tractive effort at 70
percent of the starting or rated tractive effort, then it
is necessary to select a locomotive with a drawbar
pull of about 95,000 or 85,500 pounds respectively.
Selecting, for example, among the locomotives
indicated in Table 26, one would take two
Diesel-Freight "B-B" Units Type 2500 or one Diesel
multipurpose type "C-C" 3,000 hp respectively
under the assumption that about 18 pounds of pull
are needed per ton of locomotive weight to move the
locomotive. The difference in purchase price would
amount to about $126,000.
This difference in purchase price is significant.
The Internal Revenue Guidelines peg the life of the
averagely used locomotive at 14 years. On a very
broad average, locomotives are actively used about 50
percent of the time.
To allow for a higher service factor - probably
the rule in dedicated service — it appears necessary to
apply a 10-year depreciation period. As a result the
straight annual depreciation cost would amount to
$40,606 and $29,000 respectively. Using then a value
of 75 percent of the annual cost for interest, finance
charges and return on investment, the total fixed
annual engine cost would amount to about $71,050
and $50,750 respectively.
At 100 trips per year the cost would amount to
about $711 and $508 per trip and at 300 trips to
about $237 and $169 per trip respectively. At a
1,000-ton net load per train the engine ownership
cost in these examples would range from 17 cents to
71 cents per ton, a difference of about 400 percent
caused wholly by variations in the selection and
utilization of the rolling equipment;
Additional engine cost includes maintenance,
labor, and fuel. Maintenance costs are frequently
calculated at 20 cents to 30 cents per unit mile. Thus,
maintenance could amount to 6 cents per ton for a
1,000 ton, 200 mile trip. Fuel is frequently calculated
at four to six gallons per mile per unit. Thus, at five
gallons per unit/mile and a cost of 15 cents per gallon
the fuel cost would amount to $150 for a 200 mile
round trip. This is the equivalent of 15 cents per ton
at a net load of 1,000 tons per train. Additional fuel
allowances are necessary for waiting time at a rate of
seven to ten gallons per hour.
Thus, the mere engine owning and operating
costs, excluding labor, range upwards from 38 cents
to 92 cents per ton in these examples. In very broad
calculations it is frequently assumed that wages
amount to about $1.00 to $1.50 per train mile. This
would add, for a 200 mile round trip, 20 cents to 30
cents to the engine cost per ton of train net load.
In the overall, the foregoing data suggest that the
engine cost represents a major cost factor in the
make-up of rail rates. At 1,000 tons net load per
train, the data indicate that the cost increment for a
200-mile round trip may range from 48 cents to
$1.12 per ton.
The data represent broad approximations and
comprise only cost factors which are of general
concern. Weather factors also may have to be
considered. For example wet tracks and temperatures
below freezing reduce the handling power of
locomotives.
TRACK COST
A share of the track cost, i.e., maintenance of
way and operations including items such as signals
and gates, must be charged to the operating costs. A
specific allocation of track cost requires an analysis of
the expenditures which are allocated to the specific
portion of the track used. Furthermore, track
utilization factors must be considered, e.g., the
tonnage that rolls over the track within a given period
of time.
On a broad average, expenditures for track
maintenance and operations equal about 2 to 4 cents
per net ton mile. Thus if 1,000 tons are shipped over
a distance of 100 miles (100,000 ton miles) the track
cost would amount to about $300 or 30 cents per
ton.
The cost of track operation and maintenance
varies widely. Selection of an infrequently used line,
for example, may require a significant amount of
catch-up maintenance for the service required, i.e.,
load and speed. However, it must also be recognized
that alternative routes are frequently available. A
trade-off analysis will determine the most
advantageous route in terms of the total system.
To gain access to desirable sites for transfer
stations and disposal, it may be necessary in certain
instances to build new tracks. These tracks should be
capable of carrying heavy loads and accommodate
heavy traffic. There are several elements of cost
involved in laying track. These include labor,
equipment, land acquisition and right-of-way
expenditures, engineering, grading of both terrain and
bed, the laying of ballast, the actual positioning and
joining of ties and rail, and the cost of rails, ties,
anchors, and other materials. The actual costs will
necessarily depend to a large degree on the specific
conditions in a given Icoation. However, a general
estimate reported by railroad personnel is given at
about $20 to $25 per foot, excluding land.
67
-------
GENERAL CONDITIONS
Broadly speaking, rail-haul costing requires
consideration of expenses for: a. the operations of
way structures and equipment, b. the operations of
yards, (and of way-freight and through-freight trains)
c. general overhead and operating expenditures and
d. the investment. Each oi' these groups contains
many items which may or may not apply to the
costing out of a given rail transport service.
For example, the Interstate Commerce
Commission lists about 55 separate cost items to be
reported for the operating expenses incurred by a
railroad in just the maintenance of way and
structures. An inspection of these cost lists suggests
that some expenditures might not apply to the rail
haul of solid wastes and that other expenditures, such
as yard maintenance, will only apply if yards are
needed for a given solid-wastes rail-haul system. All
the rail investment and operating cost elements will,
of course, have to be analyzed, evaluated, and
packaged in terms of a specific movement in order to
arrive at the actual cost.
The ICC differentiates bet'veen way-freight trains
and through-freight trains. Way-freight train costs
differ from through-freight train costs because way
trains are operated as a "local" train with the right to
do switching work. Thus, they distribute empty cars
to the shipper and pick up the loaded ones. Only a
small part of the way-train costs are incurred in the
line-haul movement of shipments. In contrast,
through-freight trains spend the greater part of their
time in moving traffic over the line between
crew-changing points. Very little of their cost is
attributable to switching.
In addition to the through -trains and way-trains
there are specific switching units-, crew and engine,
which operate in and around major railroad terminals.
They service the industries close to terminals by
delivering loads, pulling loads, and placing empties.
Switching can be quite expensive, up to $90 per
car, if multi-line switching is involved. As a rule the
charge amounts to $7.50 per switch or $15 to get one
car on and off a train plus another $ 15 to repeat the
same operation on the other end of the line. For 50
tons of net load per car, the switching cost thus might
range from 60 cents to $1.80 p?r ton; and for 100
tons per car, from 30 cents to 90 cents per ton.
However, there are many variations depending
upon the terminal operations and the location of
customers. Some way-trains will cover a section of
only 20 to 30 miles and will switch on the way.
Others will travel 100 miles or more in a day and haul
some through-cars in the direction of their
movement. Furthermore, through-trains may be
operated like way-trains and do some local setting out
or picking up of freight cars. In order to make their
schedules, such trains may have less tonnage than that
assigned to through-trains wlu'ch do no local work.
Thus, depending upon local factors (e.g., the
number of transfer stations or communities to be
served enroute and the haul distance) the cost
patterns of either way- or through-freight trains might
apply. The through-train cost might, as a rule,
amount to only 70 to 80 percent of the way-train
cost per unit of movement. In almost all instances,
the cost per carload or per-ton-mile is higher for
way-trains than through-trains.
The cost differential between way- and
through-trains suggests that the operations for the
rail-haul of solid wastes be developed as much as
possible to utilize through-train operating conditions.
Local switching is expensive and should be minimized
by both the location and throughput of transfer
stations as well as the configuration of the entire
rail-haul operation. From an operating cost point of
view, rail-haul of solid wastes should use unit-train or
dedicated service rather than regular freight train
shipment patterns.
Terminal facility costs also must be identified in
the total cost of operation. These costs appear to be
strongly influenced by the operation of transfer
stations and their location in a rail network. It is
likely that there will be some terminal costs at the
origin and perhaps the destination of some rail-haul
systems.
In an example published by the ICC for a
low-volume waste paper and scrap metal movement,
terminal costs amounted to 52 percent of the total
costs. For our purposes this could be considered a
maximum cost. Terminal costs are incurred, however,
only where regular scheduled, non-dedicated service is
used. For the cost models used in this study, no
terminal changes were estimated to be applicable.
The data presented thus far on the rail-haul cost
suggest that many models can be buiit depending
upon differences in the many variables involved. Thus
the following discussions are confined to the
presentation of "order-of-magnitude" values in three
selected costing approaches.
/.• Unit Train Costing Patterns
Tables 27, 28, and 29 present costs representing
average roundtrip freight rate charges for unit trains
used for hauling solid wastes The three tables differ
in car implementation. Table 27 gives unit-train
freight-rate characteristics based on shipper-owned or
furnished cars. The data in Tables 28 and 29 are
68
-------
TABLE 27
Number
of Cars
per
Train
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
REFUSE UNIT-TRAIN FREIGHT RATE CHARACTERISTICS IN DOLLARS
PER TON SHIPPER OWNED CARS
One-way Trip (Miles)
50 100 150
Load in Tons/Car of the Same Carrying Capacity
50 75 100 50 75 100 50 75
100
6.56
3.68
2.16
1.58
1.38
1.30
1.21
4.39
2.47
1.45
1.08
.95
.88
.82
3.32
1.88
1.14
.82
.73
.68
.64
8.88
4.93
2.81
2.02
1.76
1.61
1.52
5.98
3.35
1.91
1.39
1.22
1.14
1.07
5.52
2.55
1.48
1.09
.96
.88
.85
11.21
6.19
3.47
2.46
2.12
1.95
1.83
7.56
4.22
2.39
1.72
1.50
1.38
1.30
5.73
3.21
1.84
1.36
1.18
1.10
1.03
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
50
13.54
7.47
4.12
2.90
2.48
2.28
2.13
200
75
9,14
5.08
2.85
2.04
1.77
1.62
1.53
100
6.93
3.90
2.23
1.61
1.41
1.31
1.26
50
15,88
8.71
4.78
3.35
2.86
2.62
2.45
250
75
10.71
5.95
3.32
2.35
2.04
1.89
1.76
100
8.14
4.56
2.59
1.88
1.62
1.52
1.43
50
18.20
9.97
5.43
3.78
3.22
2.96
2.75
300
75
12.30
6.81
3.78
2.68
2.31
2.13
1.99
100
9.35
5.24
2.96
2.13
1.87
1.72
1.61
Note: Return trip is assumed empty.
No mileage allowance paid by carrier.
Costs reflect ICC authorized rate increases to Jan., 1971. However, as previously
mentioned, these rates may not be actually charged for solid-waste rail-haul, since
ICC does not regulate waste rates.
based on railroad ownership of cars; the purchase
price per car being $15,000 and $25,000 respectively.
The tables are general and do not account for all
situations. For example, while some hauls require one
crew other hauls of identical length require two or
three crews because of differing regulations. This
could result in a rate difference of 25 to 50 percent.
Furthermore, the figures in the tables reflect many
assumptions about the nature of the service; changing
the assumptions will change the cost.
The major assumptions in these examples are:
1. Cars are in assigned-service, loaded to their
full carrying capacity, and moved on a
4.
5.
scheduled basis. Allowance is made for a 20
percent variation in the load per train on a
weekly basis.
Multiple car lots remain together. Thus, if
the 25-car option is selected, it would not be
permissible to use only ten of the cars.
Cars are spotted in one cut at one location.
Cars will not be moved around by the
railroad at the transfer station or landfill site.
Only 12 hours (excluding weekends) is
allowed for loading and unloading, e.g., eight
at the transfer and four at the disposal site.
Loading and unloading, cleaning of cars, etc.
69
-------
TABLE 28
REFUSE UNIT-TRAIN FREIGHT RATE CHARACTERISTICS IN DOLLARS
PER TON, CARRIER OWNED CARS, CAR COST $15,000
Number of
Cars per
Train
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
50
One-way Trip (Miles)
50 100 150
Load in Tons/Car of the Same Carrying Capacity
75 100 50 75 100 50 75
100
7.59
4.71
3.19
2.61
2,41
2.31
2.24
5.08
3.16
2.15
1.77
1.64
1.56
1.49
3.84
2.40
1.64
1.33
1.25
1.19
1.16
9.91
5.96
3.84
3.05
2.78
2.64
2.55
6.67
4.04
2.61
2.15
1.91
1.83
1.76
5.03
3.07
1.99
1.50
1.47
1.41
1.36
12.24
7.22
4.50
3.49
3.15
2.98
2.85
8.24
4.90
3.08
2.41
2.18
2.07
1.99
6.24
3.73
2.36
1.87
1.70
1.61
1.55
50
200
75
100
50
250
75
100
50
300
75
100
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
Note:
15.09
9.01
5.15
4.44
4.04
3,83
3.67
10.17
6.11
3.54
3.07
2.80
2.65
2.56
7.71
4.67
2.74
2.39
2.18
2.08
2.00
17.42
10.27
5.81
4.88
4.40
4.17
4.00
11.42
7.02
4.01
3.38
3.07
2.92
2.79
8.91
5.33
3.10
2.64
2.40
2.29
2.21
19.74
11.51
6.46
5.33
4.78
4.51
4.30
13.33
7.84
4.47
3.71
3.35
3.16
3.02
10.12
6.00
3.48
2.90
2.64
2.50
2.39
Return trip assumed empty.
Costs reflect ICC authorized rate increases to Jan., 1971.
is not performed by the railroad.
6. Cars are empty on the reiurn trip, and
7. Each haul pattern is supplied with 2.2 times
the necessary cars to provide for more
relaxed service requirements. It might be
remembered in this context that the
turn-around time is more a function of the
trip than of the distance.
These figures cannot and should not be used to
determine the cost of any specific movement, let
alone the rate that might be quoted.
The purpose of tables 27-29 is to show the
magnitude of the many trade-offs that are available.
For example, figures in Table 27 indicate that it costs
$3.32 per ton to ship 500 tons in five 100-ton
shipper-furnished cars over a distance of 50 miles, but
it costs $6.56 per ton, or $3.24 more, to ship the
same amount over the same distance in ten 50-ton
cars. Furthermore, it costs $5.52 per ton to ship 500
tons in five 100-ton cars over a distance of 100 miles.
In contrast, it costs $2.97 less, or $2.55 per ton, if
1,000 tons are shipped in ten 100-ton cars over the
same distance.
The data indicate that unit-train operations are
more expensive than regular train costs if only a small
amount of materials is shipped. For example, taking
Table 28, it costs $9.91 per ton to ship 250 tons of
material in five 50-ton railroad-owned cars over a
distance of 100 miles. These costs are incurred
primarily because of under-utilization of locomotive
power — in this case, an engine pulling only five cars
while it is capable of much more.
In applying unit-train costs to a solid-waste
rail-haul system, it is first necessary to balance the
economics of scale with the amount of solid wastes
that might be generated in a given area. The data
show that it would cost $2.55 per ton to ship 1,000
tons in ten 100-ton shipper-furnished cars over a
distance of 100 miles and $1.48 per ton if 2,500 tons
were shipped under the same circumstances. If the
railroad owns the cars and if each car costs $15,000,
then these costs would be $3.07 and $1.99 per ton
70
-------
TABLE 29
REFUSE UNIT-TRAIN FREIGHT RATE CHARACTERISTICS IN DOLLARS
PER TON, CARRIER OWNED CARS, CAR COST $25,000
Number of
Cars per
Train
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
50
One-Way Trip (Miles)
50 100 150
Load in Tons/Car of the Same Carrying Capacity
75 100 50 75 100 50 75
100
8.27
5.39
3.85
3.30
3.10
3.01
2.92
5.54
3.62
2.61
2.22
2.10
2.02
1.96
4.18
2.74
1.98
1.68
1.59
1.54
1.50
10.59
6.65
4.52
3.73
3.47
3.33
3.24
7.11
4.48
3.07
2.53
2.36
2.28
2.22
5.38
3.41
2.34
1.95
1.82
1.75
1.70
12.93
7.90
5.19
4.17
3.83
3.67
3.54
8.70
5.36
3.54
2.87
2.64
2.53
2.45
6.59
4.07
2.70
2.22
2.04
1.95
1.89
50
200
75
100
50
250
75
100
50
300
75
100
5
10
25
50
75
100
120
Note:
16.11
10.04
5.84
5.48
5.07
4.86
4.84
10.86
6,80
3^99
3.76
3.48
3.35
3.25
8.22
5.19
3.08
2.90
2.69
2.59
2.52
18.45
11.30
6.50
5.91
5.43
5.20
5.03
12.44
7.66
4.46
4.07
3.76
3.60
3.48
9.43
5.85
3.45
3.16
2.92
2.80
2.71
20.77
12.54
7.15
6.36
5.81
5.54
5.33
14.01
8.53
4.92
4.40
4.04
3.84
3.71
10.64
6.52
3.82
3.42
3.15
3.02
2.91
Return trip assumed empty
Costs reflect ICC authorized rate increases to Jan., 1971.
respectively.
Although the given data represent only one
example of solid-waste rail-haul cost characteristics,
they are sufficient to draw some general conclusions.
Analysis of the shipment tonnage, for example
suggests that a solid-waste rail-haul system requires
anchor communities to establish an economical base
for operations. Such anchor communities are defined
by the amount of solid waste generated in the area
and the cost of competitive disposal methods. In view
of the data in this report, it appears reasonable to
define an anchor community as one having 1,000 or
more tons of solid waste to dispose of daily.
The data also suggest that shipments be made in
100-ton or larger cars wherever possible. At 1,000
tons per train the cost per ton could range from
$2.00 to $2.50 for a one-way snipping distance of less
than 100 miles. The cost appears to be the same for
both shipper- and railroad-furnished cars, since the
cost of car leasing or ownership incurred by the
shipper would have to be added to the total transport
cost.
These costs include the individual items of
expense previously discussed including rail car.
engine, fuel, labor, termind, switching, etc.
Overall, the economics of scale in unit-train
operations may enable solid-waste rail-haul to be a
competitive solid waste disposal alternative.
2. The Effect of Material Density
Differences in the density of the shipped
materials affect the cost of unit-train operations.
However, the density effects can be improved by the
choice of railroad cars.
71
-------
TABLE 30
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 'N DOLLARS PER TON
AS AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS IN DENSITY
(BASED ON A 100-MILE HAUL IN UNIT
TRAIN OPERATIONS)
Total Payload
of Train
(tons)
600
1,200
1,800
Hi-Cube Car
Density Lb/Cu. ft.
10 25
Gondola Car
Density Lb/Cu. ft.
30 70-80
$5.60
4.25
3.75
$3.65
2.55
2.10
$4.00
3.35
3.15
$2.20
1.65
1.45
Table 30, Economic Characteristics as Affected
by Variations in Density, contains cost characteristics
of shipping materials of different densities in
different types of cars. The information supports the
contention that solid wastes should be compacted for
a maximum performance system.
Table 30 compares Hi Cube covered hopper
cars—useable capacity, 7,000 cu. ft.-for the shipment
of loose solid waste with gondola cars for the
shipment of baled waste. Two density values are given
in each case to indicate tin effects of various
processing results.
The assumed weight of 25 Ib/cu. ft. represents,
for this example, a maximum transport density for
totally unprocessed solid wastes which have received
some degree of compaction. The actual density of
unprocessed solid wastes is significantly lower and
this value approximates the maximum density of
uncompacted, shredded; solid waste materials. The
choice of 75 Ib/cu. ft. represents a weight just under
the maximum density of 80 Ib/cu. ft. which
represents the calculated maximum average density
that can be obtained with "normal," dry solid waste
mixtures by scrap baler compaction in the absence of
springback, i.e., with strapping, or some other form
of bale confinement.
The data in Table 30 indicate that the cost
differential for the shipment cf unprocessed, as well
as highly compacted, solid waste decreases with an
increase in the total payload of the train. At a
payload of 1,800 tons per train and a maximum
density of 25 Ib/cu. ft. for the unprocessed materials,
the cost difference with respect to 70-80 Ib/cu. ft.
materials might be as little as 65 cents per ton. At a
600-ton payload per train and material density of 10
Ib/cu. ft. for the unprocessed wastes, the cost
difference may amount to as much as $3.40 per ton.
Overall, the data in Table 30 show a cost decrease
when density of materials being shipped and net load
per train increase.
3. Cost Characteristics for 1,000-tons
Per Day Rail-Haul Movements
The data used in this report for the analyses of
railroad cars, engines, tracks, etc. can be used to
establish a third data input for rail-haul cost
estimates.
To keep the calculations simple, it was decided to
vary only the engine ownership cost which represents
the major cost variable. The car costs were taken
from the quotation for leased cars, to represent a
situation with a minimum initial cash outlay. All
other costs are based primarily on ton-mile
breakdowns and thus do not change with variations in
the equipment utilization.
Numerous variations of basic cost patterns are
not only possible but likely. As the following cost
estimates, based on two different rates of equipment
utilization show, these corts may range between
$1.51 and $3.20 per ton. Nevertheless, the data in
their totality suggest as reasonable the conclusion
that in 1000-ton per day rail-haul systems the cost for
the rail-haul link may be estimated roughly at $2.00
to $2.50 per ton, excluding terminal costs.
Cost Patterns, Varying Number of Trips and
Processing of Wastes
Processed Unprocessed
100 300 100 300
(trips per year) (trips per year)
Engine Ownership 0.17 0.24 0.51 0.71
Fuel 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Engine Maintenance 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Crew Wages OJ!5 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.63 0.70 0.97 1.17
Tract Cost 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Car Cost 0.12 0.25 0.34 0.75
1.05 1.25 1.61 2.22
25% Overhead 0.26 0.31 0.40 0.56
1.31 1.56 2.01 2.78
15% Contingencies 0.20 0.23 0.30 0.42
Cost per ton 1.51 1.79 2.31 3.20
In evaluating the data on the rail haul link it must
be stressed that the presently existing conditions of
the railroads arc fully taken into account. However, it
must also be recognized that operating rules,
including work rules, are subject to change and that
wide differences can exist among various local
situations. The data presented are based on
ICC-territory-wide averages. This implies that in
certain areas, depending upon local conditions, the
cost for the actual rail haul of the wastes may be
higher or lower than those indicated.
In addition, governments, railroad union, and
72
-------
management appear to be pioneering new operating
designs which may cut costs cr arrest price increases.
The new approaches are intended to actually
strengthen performance -considering human factors as
well as increased competition for new and old
business.
EFFECT OF RAIL NETWORK
The solid-waste rail-haul network is basically
defined by the existing rail network. Disregarding
local ordinances or state laws, the system appears
capable of functioning equally well intrastate or
interstate. Thus, an initial intrastate system might be
expanded to interstate as *he operation of the
disposal facility is proven acceptable to the public
and local authorities.
A rail network analysis represents a complex
undertaking. Some tentative results of such analyses
are shown on maps in Figures 18 to 21. The maps
cover the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and
Pennsylvania.
The maps in the four figures present the available
information in a highly simplified way to illustrate
the basic approach and its effects. The following
constraints should be kept in mind in reviewing the
maps:
1. not all communities are indicated which
might benefit from the rail-haul of solid
wastes;
2. the network confines itself to selected tracks
of the Perm Central Railroad to avoid
inter-railroad switching charges and an
increase in cost which could result from an
interline movement as such;
3. the lines indicate how far solid wastes can be
shipped at a cost of no more than $2.50 per
ton at the relatively large volume levels
attainable from the communities indicated;
4. other routes based upon Perm Central tracks
or trackage rights could be chosen; and
5. the potential for combining regional solid
waste/truck trailer operations with a
solid-waste rail-haul system is not indicated.
A maximum rate of $2.50 per ton was chosen as
a result of the previous analyses. Thus, the network
analysis answers the question of how far solid wastes
can be shipped from major metropolitan centers if
one is not willing to pay more tnan $2.50 per ton for
transportation. Differences in the lengths of the lines
therefore represent differences in the solid waste
tonnages generated by the communities served, and
potentially available for rail-haul.
The portions of line overlap indicate where
potential disposal sites might be located if one site is
to serve a number of metropolitan centers. Thus the
network analysis shows that rail-haul of solid wastes
increases the flexibility for the location of disposal
sites; where even greater economics of scale for
disposal might be achieved.
For example, Figure 18, the State of Ohio map,
suggests that the solid waste from the City of
Columbus might be shipped for $2.50 per ton or less
all the way to Toledo, Cincinnati, or Middleport, and
almost to Cleveland. Cincinnati's wastes might be
shipped for the same cost to half way between
Columbus and Cleveland, almost half way between
Columbus and Toledo, and about three-quarters of
the way between Columbus and Middletown. Where
the lines overlap, investigations should be conducted.
to locate disposal sites.
As a result of flexibility in the location of
disposal sites, many area- might compete for
solid-waste rail-haul disposal operations due to the
economic benefits that could result. To some degree,
the disposal operations i.iav produce benefits
comparable to those derived from locating a new
industrial plant in a community, particularly should
reclamation of solid waste materials become feasible.
An example of the number of site options made
available through rail-haul is given in Figure 22,
Survey of Potential LandfiJl Sites. This example
covers only the southeastern part of Michigan and not
the total state. Nevertheless, one aerial photo-survey
led to identification of 20 potential sites which met
the following requirements:
a. existence of a rail spur or proximity to rail
line with reasonable terrain features to
construct a spur;
b. large size or capability of considerable
expansion;
c. low density of population in the immediate
vicinity;
d. screening by natural vegetation and land form
features;
e. on-site availability of cover material;
f. absence of flood plains, natural drainage in
favor of the site in terms of sanitary landfill
requirements, apparent absence of
groundwater problems;
g. favorable local road pattern, general
transportation network, and land use.
The 20 sites are indicated by numbers which
were assigned arbitrarily and do not reflect any
ranking. Photographs of typical locations are
contained in Appendix C.
Overall, the network analyses indicate that it may
73
-------
4V^f5^2*-&
i~»>. ^rfif JS
„__ ^J^MEa^WSJSH;
LEGEND
Origin Route
City Marking
Columbus _p_a__
Cleveland ---
Cincinnati »».•*,*
Toledo •—„—— .
RAND M?NALLY
HANDY RAILROAD HAP
Ohio
Copyrififat by R*nd McNaHy A Comp»ar
Mod* in U.S.A.
KENTUCK
FIGURE 18
TENTATIVE SOLID WASTE RAIL-HAUL NETWORK, OHIO
-------
RAND M?NALLY
HANOT RAILROAD MAP
Michigan
LFGEND
Grand Rapids
Lansing —• — —
Kalamazoo — — •—
Copyright by RAND McNALLY & COMPANY. B. L. 69-S-41
FIGURE 19
TENTATIVE SOLID WASTE RAIL-HAUL NETWORK, MICHIGAN
75
-------
Fort Wayne — — —•
Evansville — — —
Gary
South Bend
«r«|MltfS
Indiana
Copyright by RAND McNALLY
& OOMPANV, R. L. 69-S-41
\/ K E '-"H T U C
FIGURE 20
TENTATIVE SOLID WASTE RAIL-HAUL NETWORK, INDIANA
76
-------
LEGEND
r *"r Origin Route
City Marking
Philadelphia '
Pittsburgh ......
Harrlsburg — — —
Johnstown — — —
Erie — — —
J
I Pennsylvania
I Copyright by
RAND HcNALLY & OWPANY. R. L. 69-S-41
FIGURE 21
TENTATIVE SOLID WASTE RAIL-HAUL NETWORK, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
be possible to serve from 70 to 80 percent of the
population in various states with the existing rail
network. This might be accomplished by the
establishment of only two or three disposal sites per
state.
COMPETITIVE MODES OF TRANSPORT
To evaluate the potential of a rail-haul system the
most economical method of transport must be
determined. The principal contenders for bulk
transport of large volumes of material are rail,
highway trucks, (tractor-trailer combinations), and
barges. Long distance pipelines could develop into a
fourth system at some time in the future. However, at
present, the transport of solid wastes by long distance
pipeline is beset with too many problems in total
system economics and pollution potential.
To establish a valid comparison requires that the
underlying models be comparable. Consequently, the
following analyses are based upon the following
constraints:
a. a volume of 1,000 tons per shipment at a
density of 20 Ib/cu. ft. for unprocessed and
shredded solid wastes a; id of 60 Ib/cu. ft. for
high-pressure/baled solid wastes;
b. a dedication of the equipment to the
solid-waste service;
c. a distance of 100 miles one-way or 200 miles
round trip;
d. a one 8-hour shift operation at the transfer
station;
e. daily removal of the wastes from the transfer
station excluding Sundays and holidays, and
f. a variation in the number of trips ranging
from 100 to 300 trips pe: year.
Many model variations are possible. However, the
above constraints reflect a minimum basic rail-haul
system; it is in this context that the initial decisions
on whether to employ rail-haul would be made.
A big handicap to economical hauling by truck is
the relatively small maximum net load-about 20
tons—that a single tractor-trailei rig is permitted to
haul in one trip.
The basic operating conditions of highway
tractor-trailer units imply that a tractor pulls, as a
rule, only one trailer at a time whether loaded or
empty. The overall travel speed is about 50 miles per
hour which leads to a line-haul tir.ie of 4 hours for a
200 mile round trip. Each unit is assumed to be
manned by one operator, the driver. Due to
regulations, he may spend not more than 10 hours
per day on the job.
For this example, at the speed and distance given,
a driver cannot make more than two trips per period
of operation. To allow for sufficient time for the
loading and unloading of the trailers, it was assumed
that the trailer would make one trip per operating
period while the tractor and the driver would make
two trips. Because of net-load limitations, there are
no significant cost differences between densities of 20
Ib/cu. ft and 60 Ib/cu. ft.
A 1,000-ton per 8-hour shift system would
require 50 trailers, 25 tractors, and 25 drivers. A
trailer is estimated to cost about $8,000 and a tractor
$15,000. Thus the total straight purchase price of the
transportation equipment would amount to $400,000
for the trailers and $375,000 for the tractors.
The useful service life of a tractor-trailer is
frequently estimated to range from 8 to 10 years.
Using the shorter service life, as was done in the rail
analysis, annual depreciation of the straight purchase
price over 8 years is $96,875. Assuming again, as was
done in the rail analysis, that the equivalent of 75
percent of these charges needs to be added to account
for interest, financing costs, and return on
investment, the annual cost of establishing the fleet is
$169,531.
Thus, if the fleet would make one trip per year,
i.e., move 1,000 tons, the total investment cost would
amount to about $170 per ton. At 100 trips per year
these costs would drop to about $1.70 per ton, at
200 trips to about 85 cents per ton and at 300 trips
to about 56 cents per ton. These calculations show
that the costs of a truck fleet are appreciable if the
rigs are underutilized. Operating costs are as a rule
classified into two types: running or road costs and
driver wages. Driver wages have, to some extent, the
same characteristics as running costs. For hauls of
more than 50 miles one-way, the driver's pay is set as
a rule at a fixed number of cents per mile. Today the
driver cost amounts to about 14 cents per mile or $28
for 200 miles which, at a payload of 20 tons,
amounts to $1.40 per ton.
The running cost consists of fuel, tires,
lubrication, and maintenance, in general these costs
vary in direct proportion to the distance traveled and
therefore are constant per mile.
The running cost total also adds up to 14 cents
per mile or $1.40 per ton. The fuel component is
calculated at five cents per mile (25 cents/gal, and 5
mi./gal.) The tire cost, including 18 tires per rig, is
calculated at 2 cents per mile. Lubrication and
maintenance is 7 cents per mile.
Thus, the total direct operating cost is $2.80 per
ton for a 200-mile trip. Assuming maximum
utilization of the equipment, i.e., in this case 300
78
-------
J/^/ffitot-ur f^
«• o.ajM-' v
j onro«
^:t'"-ty, \
^A«\*>56' r 4 B-I
jjft" 3T O TOLEDO
© Rand McNally & Company
FIGURE 22
SURVEY OF POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
79
-------
trips per year, the total cost, excluding overhead,
taxes and contingencies, is $3.36 per ton ($2.80
operating plus 56 cents investment cost). Assuming
25 percent as was done in the rail analysis for
overhead, base-support, insurance and taxes, and 15
percent for contingencies, i.e., spare units, it is
necessary to add $1.34 to the above cost figure. Thus,
it is estimated that the cost, within the constraints of
this analysis, will be about $4.70 per ton to transport
solid wastes by highway trailer over a 100-mile
one-way trip.
It must be mentioned that different truck
transportation models can be built. For example, if
the loading and unloading of the trailers could be
done very fast, it might be possible to reduce the
number of trailers by one-half. Assuming 300 trips
per year and keeping all other variables constant, this
would reduce the cost by about 15 cents per ton.
However, similar scheduling effects can also be
accomplished in rail-haul as well as barge
transportation. The actual economic study must be
determined using local circumstances and capabilities.
BARGE
Barging via inland waterways is generally
regarded as the lowest cost means of transporting
bulk materials for many types of haul. In determining
the basic equipment needs for solid-waste barging
operations, speed of movement becomes very
important. The travel speed of barging averages about
6 to 9 miles per hour. Thus, for a round trip distance
of 200 miles, the equipment would be enroute from
22 to 34 hours assuming quiet water and no delays
due to storm, fog, high water conditions, and waiting
at docks.
As a result, it would be necessary to have two
towboats or tugboats and at least two barges to allow
for the loading and unloading of the materials. The
situation changes, of course, if the origination and
destination points are located on .regularly scheduled
barge routes and if it should be possible to effect the
daily shipment of the solid wastes by attaching the
solid waste barge to a regularly scheduled tow. In
such a case, only two barges would be needed.
A barge can be considered a floating container. A
standard covered 1,000-ton barge measures about 175
ft. long and 26 ft. wide and has a draft of about 9 ft.
This provides about 40,000 cu. ft. of loading space.
Such a barge would be used for the transport of
1,000 tons of solid waste at a shipment density of 60
Ib/cu. ft.—in total, about 34,000 cu. ft. Since a barge
of this kind costs about $85,000 ard two are needed,
the straight purchase price investment is $170,000.
The cost changes considerably if the shipment
density of the solid wastes is 20 Ib/cu. ft. In this case
100,000 cu. ft. of transport space is needed to
transport 1,000 tons. Barge dimensions would be:
length 195 ft., width, 35 ft., draft, 9 ft., and
superstructure, i.e., upward extension of the basic
container, also 9 ft. Such a barge will provide about
105,000 cu. ft. of transport space and its costs are
estimated at $145,000 per unit. Thus, the basic barge
investment would be $290,000.
The economic service life of barges is often
estimated at 15 years which amounts to an annual
straight depreciation of about $11,400 and $19,400
respectively. Assuming again that an equivalent of 75
percent of the annual depreciation must be added for
interest, financing charges, and return on investment,
the total annual charges would amount to $20,000 in
the first case and to $34,000 in the second case.
Optimum utilization of each barge would be
achieved if it made a maximum of three 200-mile
round trips per week or 156 trips per year. The two
barges would account, under the best circumstances,
for 312 trips per year. As a result, the barge cost
would amount to about $64 or $109 per trip or, at
1,000 tons per trip, about 6 cents or 11 cents per ton.
The major cost element in barging is the motive
power. If the solid waste barge can be attached to a
regular tow the motive power may amount to only 3
to 4 mills per ton mile. At a tareweight of the barge
of about 300 tons, the motive power required for
160,000 ton miles (100 miles at 300 tons plus 100
miles at 1,300 tons), costs about $480 or $640 per
trip or 48 cents and 64 cents per ton.
The cost structure changes considerably,
however, if the motive power is needed only for the
solid waste shipments in order to ensure dedicated
service, i.e., daily removal of the materials. As
indicated above, two tugboats would be needed, and
this requirement cannot be reduced because of the
travel speed.
The movements of a barge of the size indicated is
estimated to require a tugboat of about 600 hp. The
cost of such a boat is estimated at about $3.00 per
installed horsepower. Thus, one boat costs about
$180,000 and the total motive power investment
amounts to $360,000.
The service life of tugboats is often estimated to
range from 15 to 20 years, similar to the service life
for barges. For this present calculation the economic
service life is assumed to be 15 years and the annual
purchase price depreciation $24,000.
Assuming again that 75 percent of annual
purchase price depreciation has to be added for
80
-------
interest, financing charges, and return on investment,
the total annual charges amount to $42,000.
Operating six days a week, 52 weeks a year, each
tugboat would make three trips per week or 156 trips
per year, and the two tugboats would handle together
312 trips per year. This leads to a motive power
investment cost of about $135 per trip or at 1,000
tons net load a cost of 14 cents per ton.
The size of a vessel's crew is determined by a
number of factors including size and power of the
boat and degree of automation. It is estimated that a
crew of three men would be needed for solid waste
operations. Three crews of three men equals nine men
per boat—plus two cooks brings total employment to
11 men per boat.
At $13,000 per man-year including vacations,
retirement, insurance, and related benefits, the annual
crew costs amount to $143,000 per 156 trips. This is
about $917 per trip, or, at 1,000 tons net load, about
92 cents per ton.
The other operating expenditures are fuel and
maintenance. Fuel is calculated at 20 cents per hp.
per day; at 600 hp., the figures are $120 per day,
$240 per 2-day trip, and 24 cents per ton. Annual
maintenance is estimated at 5 percent of
investment-5 percent of $180,000, or $9,000
annually per 156 trips. This is about $58 per trip or 6
cents per ton.
As a result, the direct . cost for dedicated
solid-waste barge service is estimated, within the
constraints of this model, to be about $1.47 per ton.
Allowing a charge of 25 peicent for overhead, taxes,
and shore support, and 15 percent for contingencies,
brings the total cost to about $2.06 per ton.
In evaluating the cost for rail-haul, barging, and
tractor-trailer solid-waste transport, it mu.st be
recognized that both rail and barge transport are
sensitive to increases in the daily shipment tonnage
and increases in shipping dist mce. An increase in the
daily shipment tonnage leads to a reduction in the
cost per ton, while an increase in the shipping
distance which allows completion of the trip within
the two-day period, does not lead to an equivalent
increase in cost.
Finally, in comparing the data on barge cost with
rail-haul and trucking it must be remembered that the
barge cost model assumes, with 156 trips per unit per
year, maximum equipment utilization. Reducing
utilization of equipment to a level of 108 trips per
year by adding extra equipment would increase the
cost to approximately $2.70 per ton.
OCEAN DISPOSAL
Oceans offer almost unlimited space for the
disposal of solid wastes, if the wastes can be
processed in a way to prevent harmful or undesirable
effects on the marine environment. Solid wastes to be
disposed of must be heavy enough to sink and must
be put into a form stable enough to prevent floating
of any components until they become waterlogged.
Waterlogged components, sunk to the bottom of the
sea, should be kept there by water pressure; however,
additional research into this method of disposal is
needed before it can be recommended for use.
Ocean disposal would require the rail-haul
segment of the system to terminate at suitable seaside
locations. The economics of ocean disposal appear to
be attractive, particularly if no site preparation or
related operations are required. For a haul distance of
about 100 nautical miles offshore and a volume of
about 5,000 tons per day, shipping costs have been
estimated at $2.25S per ton. The shipping could most
likely be done in ocean-going, bottom-dump barges or
specially designed sea-going vessels. Towing at sea
becomes more expensive as the haul distance from
shore increases.5
Economic Aspects of Solid-Waste Disposal at Sea. MIT,
Sept., 1970, DB19S22S
81
-------
CHAPTER 4
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
As previously noted, this study contemplates the
use of sanitary landfill as the means of disposal. The
sanitary landfill is a proven process, can handle large
volumes of wastes, is relativeay inexpensive, and can
be rapidly implemented. This chapter gives the basic
operational requirements for rail-haul sanitary
landfills, outlines the types of sites potentially
available, and presents some of the major cost
elements to be considered.
BASIC OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Existing landfills are not as large as ones which
might be realistically considered as part of a
solid-waste rail-haul system. The largest system
actually operated disposes of 8,000 tons of refuse per
day (Fresh Kills, Stateu Island, NYC). For
comparison, solid-waste rail-haul, as suggested by the
network analysis, appears capable of delivering
quantities to one site in excess of 10,000 tons of solid
wastes per day.
The cost patterns for sanitary landfills reflect, as
a rule, economies of scale. The larger the amount of
wastes disposed of, the lower the unit cost. As
indicated in Figure 23, Samtary Landfill Operating
Costs, 1968, the cost curve drops sharply as the daily
disposal volume increases. The costs shown exclude
the cost of land and site development. The latter
costs may range from a low of 5 cents per ton up,
depending upon local conditions. In addition it may
be necessary to pay an "in-lieu" tax on a per ton basis
to the jurisdiction in which the landfill is situated as a
consideration for obtaining site approval.
Sanitary landfill costs are presently quoted in
magazine articles and publicly available contracts to
range from about 65 cents to about $2.50 per ton of
refuse disposed. It should be recognized that these
data refer to existing landfills and the disposal of
unprocessed-not baled or highly compacted—solid
wastes. The scale of operations in solid-waste rail-haul
landfills suggests that perhaps completely different
equipment might be used to perform the on-site
operations. At an average density of 60 Ib/cu. ft. for
compressed solid waste,, the disposal space volume
requirements in 10,000 tons-a-day landfills will
amount to about 12,500 cu. yd. daily. At an average
material density of less than 30 Ib/cu.ft. as found in
most landfills of unprocessed wastes, space
requirements would exceed 25,000 cubic yards per
day.
These data suggest that, for example, in a 312
working-day year and depending upon the in-place
density of the solid wastes, from 3.75 million to more
than 7.5 million cu. yd. of earth might have to be
moved to provide the necessary space. The data
suggest that highly compacted refuse will produce
considerable disposal cobt advantages because of less
need of excavation and cover material per ton of
waste.
The type of equipment most likely needed for a
large scale undertaking has already been developed
for the mining industry, in particular surface mining,
and for large scale civil engineering projects. For
example, a bucket-wheel excavator, capable of
moving 8 million cu. yd. of earth per year, operates at
about 8 cents per cu. yd. total cost. The cost of a
tractor-scraper with a capacity of about 15 bank cu.
yd. per haul runs from about 6 to 8 cents total cost
per cu. yd. A shovel with a 100 cu. yd. dipper and a
36 million cu. yd. output per year also costs about 5
to 6 cents per cu. yd. despite the substantial increase
in performance.
The price of a bucket-wheel excavator is about
$2.8 million, a tractor-scraper about $46,000, and a
shovel about $8.4 million. The larger investments in
equipment presuppose a certain permanency of
operations because such units are not easily moved.
Undertaking a number of short-term land reclamation
projects with the same equipment would increase
costs per cubic yard, emphasizing the importance of
matching equipment to tctal system plans.
Rail-haul landfill operations will differ from
existing landfills in other respects than size. In most
landfills the wastes are brought directly to the
disposal point by collection trucks. For rail-haul, the
landfill operations must include rail-car unloading
facilities and hauling from a rail-head to the disposal
point. The type and scope of unloading facilities
depends upon the kind of vail car used, time available
for unloading, and on the amount, type and
condition of the solid wastes transported.
Site engineering is the keystone of good landfill
operations. In principle, rail-haul can use all kinds of
landfill sites as long as the size of the site is adequate.
However, each site has associated environmental
problems, and the cost of overcoming them-to keep
the landfill from degrading the environment—is part
of the total cost of operation.
Presently used methods of sanitary landfilling
might be continued with some modifications. Larger
equipment might require a trench 100 to 200 ft. wide
Preceding page blank
83
-------
$2.00
1.75
1.50
1.00
0.75
'0.50
0.25
IOCO
2000
Average tons per day.
FIGURE 23
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATING COSTS, 1968
3000
and 50 to 100 ft. deep compared to the more typical
100 ft. wide and 25 ft. deep.
Several possibilities exist for the establishment of
large sanitary landfills. Among these are:
I. Pits and Quarries
Pits and quarries, although widely located, do not
as a rule have the needed capacity and generally lack
sufficient inexpensive cover material nearby.
However, the effective capacity of pits and
quarries would be increased substantially if filled with
highly compacted refuse. And man-made materials
such as urethane foams and asphalt-based substances
might be substituted for the intermediate soil cover.
Such man-made materials can be porous or
nonporous, elastic or rigid, fire resistant, as well as
insect and rodent repelling. Some of them have been
applied at a cost of 1 to 5 cents per sq. ft. The cost of
obtaining and placing suitable cover material might
justify such an approach in some situations.
2. Open Pit Mines
Open pit mines are very large but few in number
and seldom available. Examples include the iron ore
mines in Minnesota and copper mines in Western
states. Technological advances are extending the life
of such mines by making it economical to mine lower
grades of ores. As a result,.mine owners are reluctant
to forego this often very profitable opportunity by
having their pits filled with solid wastes.
3. Scrub Land
Scrub land generally exists to some extent in
84
-------
every state and province and appears to be a potential
disposal site. However, scrub land is inoffensive and
does not impel people to try to reclaim it.
Consequently, it is not likely to be used except in
states that have no better alternatives. Use of any
scrub land site would depend, of course, on
accessibility, on remote location, and on the local soil
and water conditions. Conservation and recreation are
also important and should be considered.
4. Marshes
A careful distinction must be made in the case of
marshes. As a matter of conservation, one cannot
arbitrarily use marshes for landfill sites. Many
marshes are wildlife refuges or tidal areas that have an
important bearing on aquatic life and the fishing
industries. In addition, some marsh areas are of
considerable recreational value.
There may be marshes which have no such value
and may be suitable as landfill sites. As in all other
cases, but specifically, here, the site selection must
take into account the potential for water pollution,
flood damage, and the like. A number of good
examples do exist where marshes have been used for
refuse landfills with highly beneficial results.
Nevertheless, great care must be taken in the disposal
of solid wastes in marshes.
5. Abandoned and Active Strip Mines
Coal as well as ore minerals are strip mined. Coal
strip mines may be prime locations for solid-waste
rail-haul landfills particularly in the states served by
the Perm Central Railroad. Strip coal mines exist in
many localities, are accessible by rail, have enormous
area, and are generally regarded as having a negative
value calling for reclamation.
Consideration of Coal Strip Mines
The U. S. Department of the Interior estimated
that in 1965 some 3.2 million acres, or 5,000 square
miles of land, had been disturbed by surface mining.
Only one-third of this acreage was estimated to have
been reclaimed, leaving two-thirds, or roughly 2
million acres, requiring reclamation. Although it is
difficult to estimate the annual increase in the acreage
disturbed by surface mining, the figure cited for 1964
is approximately 150,000 acres.
Figure 24 indicates that about 41 percent of the
land disturbance is caused by the surface mining of
coal. Sand and gravel, with 26 percent of the total,
represent the second largest commodity. In the
overall, the mining of seven commodities accounts for
about 95 percent of the total land disturbed by
surface mining.
All others
Iron
Phosphate
Gold
Stone
Total =3.2 million acres
Source: U. S. Department of the Interior
FIGURE 24
PERCENTAGE OF LAND DISTURBED BY
SURFACE MINING OF VARIOUS COMMODITIES
The amount of coal mined by stripping increased
by about.9 percent between 1965 and 1966, from
approximately 165 million tons to approximately
180 million tons. Coal Age magazine forecasts that by
1985 the production of bituminous coal by stripping
will increase to a minimum of 380 million tons and a
maximum of 520 million tons. This is roughly two to
three times the present level of production. Thus,
active or abandoned coal strip mines appear to offer
ample potential sites for the disposal of solid wastes
for many years into the future.
Although the total number of strip mines is less
than that of underground mines, the productivity, in
terms of average output per man per day, is twice as
much. This fact is responsible to a great degree for
the significant growth in coal mining by the strip
method. Due to the rising costs of mining operations,
it can be safely assumed that those methods which
have high productivity will also have a continued
growth. Compared in terms of averages for the total
United States mines, underground mines have an
average output per man per day of about 14 tons and
strip mines of about 32 tons.
Furthermore, the selection of coal strip mines fof
consideration within the context of solid-waste
rail-haul appears to be supported by the geographical
location of the mines. In terms of actual production,
states east of the Mississippi accounted for 95 percent
85
-------
TABLE 31
MAJOR COAL PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES BY STATE
States East
of Mississippi
River
Alabama
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio
Pennsylvania
(Anthracite)
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
TOTAL:
Total Coal
Production
(Deep, Auger &
Strip) 1967
Tons (MM)
15.2
65.7
18.0
96.3
1.4
45.7
11.6
79.0
7.3
37.9
152.2
Number of
Bituminous
Coal and
Lignite
Mines, 1965
206
90
61
1,827
69
417
N.A.
1,140
230
1,271
1,660
519.0
6,971
States West
of Mississippi
River
Arkansas
Colorado
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
(Lignite)
Oklahoma
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Total Coal
Production
(Deep, Auger &
Strip) 1967
Tons (MM)
0.3
5.4
1.0
1.2
3.8
0.4
3.6
4.C
0.3
4.5
0.06
3.7
3C.O
Number of
Bituminous
Coal and
Lignite
Mines, 1965
8
79
28
6
16
13
8
29
15
31
5
14
252
Sources: Keystone Coal Buyers Manual - 1968. Minerals Yearbook, 1966, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
of the total coal produced in 1967, or some 549
million tons. States west of the Mississippi accounted
for only 5 percent, or approximately 30 million tons.
The states of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania rank highest in .he total number of
operative coal mines within thair borders. Table 31,
Major Coal Production Activities by State, indicates
the total coal production as well as the number of
mines by state.
Thus, the geographical distribution of the coal
mines is favorable for solid-waste rail-haul since a
significant share of the nation's highly urbanized
areas is found east of the Mississippi. An analysis of
the coal production activities, by states, indicates that
mining operations are found either in or close to most
industrial states.
Reclamation of Abandoned Strip Mines
Disposal in abandoned svrip mines might be
considered a special type of sanitary landfilling. Strip
mining appears to completely disrupt underground
water movement, and causes unnatural and
unpredictable mixtures of soil types as well as
disruption of the surface water. Thus, the cost of
sealing, drainage, and collection and treatment of
leachates must be evaluated during site selection.
One disposal opportunity is provided in strip
mines by the abandoned last trench, although ground
water problems might be greatest at this point;
another is found in the gaps between the spoil banks.
This latter opportunity blends directly into the
reclamation requirements of many states and would
help the owners defray their reclamation costs. In a
completely different approach, the possibility of
working abandoned strip mines backwards offers
especially attractive solid waste disposal
opportunities.
The reclamation of land is expensive. A survey by
the U. S. Department of Interior indicates that in
1964 it cost about $302 per acre to reclaim land
disturbed by area strip mining. Today, the same job
might cost $450 to $500 per acre. Including planting
and contouring, the reclamation cost could range as
high as $1,500 per acre. Thus it appears quite safe to
estimate a cost of $800 to $1,000 per acre for the
reworking of abandoned area strip mines even though
the land will be worth only $100 to $200 per acre
after reclamation. Using these example figures, solid
waste disposal could produce a benefit of $900 per
acre.
This value per acre must, of course, be correlated
to the stripping depth. A few years ago a stripping
86
-------
FIGURE 25
OVERVIEW OF ACTIVE STRIP MINE OPERATIONS
depth of 55 ft. was considered a generally accepted
maximum. Almost without exception that depth has
been increased today to 80 ft. and in several instances
100 ft. Thus, the utilization of abandoned strip mines
is primarily an earthmoving venture akin to normal
sanitary landfill operations.
Disposal in Active Strip Mines
Introducing solid waste disposal into the
operations of an active strip mine would add little or
no cost to the mine operation and eliminate the costs
of providing waste disposal space and cover material.
Basically, two methods of strip mining are
utilized. The first is area stripping, which consists of
digging a series of parallel trenches in relatively flat or
rolling terrain. The spoil material is placed in a
previously made cut, and the mine then resembles the
ridges of a washboard with an open trench where the
last cut was made.
The second method is contour stripping, which
consists of digging around a hillside in steep or
mountainous country. This creates a shelf bordered
on the inside by a wall that may be as high as 100
feet and on the outside by a rim with a steep outslope
covered by loose spoil material.
In this study, the investigation of the feasibility
of solid waste disposal in active strip mines
concentrates on area strip rather than contour mine
operations. This choice avoids the multiple moving
and handling costs involved in contour mining. An
example of area strip mine operations is illustrated in
Figure 25, Overview of Active Strip Mine Operations.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Enhancement of Topography
The large amounts of material which would be
involved in rail-haul systems offer opportunities for
substantial topographical engineering. Waste materials
might be used to build hills in level areas to develop
recreation complexes for year-round leisure time
activities.
Off-shore islands might be created or existing
land enlarged by filling parts of large bodies of water.
In both cases, proper dyking and sealing are necessary
to avoid water pollution. Such costs might not be
prohibitive at a large volume disposal site. Moreover,
87
-------
a substantial body of relevant knowledge and
experience is available from coastal land reclamation
efforts in Germany and the Netherlands.
2. Land Reclamation
The potential for land reclamation may be an
important consideration in site selection. Substantial
land reclamation might be accomplished by rail-haul
solid-waste disposal with no significant costs incurred
for the reclamation itself. Furthermore, substantial
land reclamation could be accomplished within a very
short period of time.
Completion time is highly significant. There is a
natural reluctance to undertake long range projects in
which the costs become visible from the start while
results do not appear until years later. For example,
by concentrating huge quantities of fill, the time
needed for large reclamation projects might be cut
down from, say, 7 or 8 years to 1 or 2 years. Thus, in
connection with land reclamation, a demand for
rail-haul solid-waste disposal operations might
actually arise in many places once the merits of the
approach have been demonstrated.
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
The functional profile of rail-haul sanitary
landfill operations is relatively simple. It involves a.
unloading of the rail cars, b. transport of the
materials to the point of disposal, and c. disposal,
including the preparation of the disposal space and
suitably covering the exposed surface. To carry out
these operations requires basic site facilities such as
railroad spurs and access roads.
The nature of these functions varies, however,
with the size and configuration of the site, the time
available for retention of the train at the site, the
waste tonnage and volume, and particularly the state
of the delivered materials, i.e., unprocessed, shredded,
or baled. In addition, the carrying out of the
functions will vary with climatological conditions,
e.g. ranges of temperature, wind velocities, and
rainfall.
Many models of rail-haul landfill operations
could be constructed. For this investigation it was
assumed that:
1. the landfill is operated for one 8-hour shift
per day which, of course, does not have to
represent a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. time period of
the day;
2. the landfill is operated 6 days per week;
3. the train may stay for 8 hours on the landfill
site;
4. the landfill will initially handle at least 1,000
tons per day;
5. the on-site traffic conditions would allow a
travel speed of up tc 20 mph.;
6. the site is exposed to intermittent high
winds; and that ' •'•
7. the distance from the rail-head to the point
of disposal averages 4 miles one-way.
Given these conditions, the unloading and
transport of the materials would have to be
performed "under cover" to prevent blowing
paper—unless the wastes are containerized or suitably
baled.
The space requirements depend upon the
compaction achieved at the point of disposal at the
time of disposal, i.e., before settlement. A graph,
Figure 26, Volume Requirements for Sanitary
Landfills, published in the February 1970 issue of
Public Works magazine, suggest that, in existing
landfills, the density of the materials after placement
and compaction ranges from ibout 600 to 800 Ib/cu.
yd. (22 to 30 Ib/cu. ft.)
However, generally the bulk density for domestic
6000
5500
SO IOO ISO 200 280
REFUSE PRODUCTION TONS PER DAY
88
(Range above 1,200 Ibs/cu.yd. added by Karl W. Wolf.)
Source: Public Works, February 1970.
FIGURE 26
VOLUME REQUIREMENTS FOR
SANITARY LANDFILLS
-------
waste compacted in-place is 800-1,000 Ib/cu.yd. Other
materials which commonly are handled at a disposal
site include ash residue-2,000 Ib/cu. yd.; bulky
waste-540 Ib/cu. yd.; stumps-270 Ib/cu. yd.;
dewatered sludge—1,534 Ib/cu. yd.; and liquid at
1,620 Ib/cu. yd. If domestic waste is used as a base,
then bulky waste and stumps are 44 percent and 370
percent respectively more expensive to dispose of.
Thus the economics of size reduction for such wastes
should be evaluated for savings in both the rail-haul
and the landfill operation.
Preliminary results of landfilling shredded refuse,
conducted at Madison, Wisconsin, suggest an in-place
density of the wastes at the point of disposal ranging
from 900 to 1,100 Ib/cu. yd. (33 to 41 Ib/cu. ft.). In
contrast and based upon the high-pressure baling and
compaction demonstration project, it can be
conservatively estimated thai the in-place density of
baled refuse will range from 1,500 to 1,800 Ib/cu. yd.
(55 to 67 Ib/cu. ft.)
COST ESTIMATES
Present sanitary landfill experience, as
documented in journals, magazines, and consultant
reports, suggests generally that sanitary landfills can
be operated inexpensively, without nuisances, and in
many different types of terrain.
Specific costs depend upon many variables,
including the price of land, labor, and machinery as
well as the number of hours the site is open, the
terrain, soil conditions, and the space utilization, i.e.,
the initial in-place density of the materials disposed
of. As a result, an analysis such as this, dealing with
general benchmark costs, must utilize general data
inputs and add or subtract cost elements not
represented in the general base.
1. Normal Sanitary Landfills
Since rail-haul systems can use all types of
existing sanitary landfills of sufficient size, the cost of
operating landfills may be an input for estimating
rail-haul landfill cost. It must be remembered that
these are point of disposal, site preparation, and
maintenance costs. They do not include transport of
the wastes or loading or unloading costs.
As summarized in Figure 23, landfill cost in 1968
ranged from about 88 cents to $1.32 per ton for
1,000 ton/day operations. Allowing for inflation at a
cost increase of 8 percent per year for the four year
period the present cost can be estimated at $1.20 to
$ 1.80 per ton. These costs represent standard landfill
operations with compacted densities of up to 1,000
Ib/cu. yd.
If in a broad sense the same type operations are
necessary to run a site, but the in-place density of the
material is doubled as for high-pressure baled solid
wastes, the costs would be reduced by one-half—to
about 60 cents to 90 cents per ton. Other savings
could result from, for example, the elimination of the
on-site compaction and the greatly reduced
point-of-disposal material-control cost. Thus, from ,
only a landfill operations point of view, it is possible ,
to value the effects of high-pressure solid waste baling
at 60 cents to 90 cents per ton, which is in addition
to the savings in transportation.
The unloading of the rail cars is assumed to be
performed at an even rate. At 1,000 tons per 8-hour
shift and an effective working time of 7 hours,
allowing 1 hour for coffee break and lunch, the
unloading rate is 145 tons per hour.
Unloading operations vary, as indicated
previously, with the rail-haul system configuration.
Containerized and baled wastes can be unloaded
directly from the rail car by an off-the-road fork-lift
truck akin to equipment used in the lumber industry.
In this case, only a ramp is needed. The fork-lift truck
could either transport the wastes to the point of
disposal and dump or place them; or it could load the
wastes on trailers for transport to the disposal area.
For this analysis it is assumed that the wastes
would come in 40-ft. containers, each containing on
the average 23 tons, as shown in Table 22. The
fork-lift truck would carry an identical amount of
baled solid waste per trip. Thus a 30-ton fork-lift
truck will be used for the analysis. Figure 27, Mobile
Container Carrier and Dumper, shows the container
in both the carrying and dumping position.
The average travel speed would be 20 miles per
hour or 3 minutes per mile. Thus an 8-mile round trip
would require 24 minutes of travel time. Allowing 3
minutes at each end for pick-up and dumping or
placement, the total fork-lift working time is
estimated at 30 minutes per trip or two trips per
hour.
A 30-ton off-the-road fork-lift truck costs about
$50,000 or about $6,250 per year in straight
depreciation for 8-year service life. At 312 days per
year and 7 hours per day the annual working time
amounts to about 2,184 hours and the straight
depreciation would cost $2.86 per hour. Allowing the
equivalent of 75 percent of that amount for interest,
financing charges, and return on investment, the cost
of owning such a fork-lift truck can be estimated at
$5.00 per hour.. The hourly operating costs are
estimated as follows:
89
-------
Source: Penn Central Transportation Company FIGURE 27
MOBILE CONTAINERS CARRIER AND DUMP
a. operator ($10,900/year)
b. fringe benefits @ 25%
c. fuel and lubrication (12 cents/mile)
d. off-highway tires (25 cents/mile)
e. repairs (20 percent of total investment)
Total $13.30
Thus, the fork-lift truck owning and operating costs
total $18.30 per hour or, at a performance of 46 tons
per hour, about 40 cents per ton.
As a result, allowing 15 percent for contingencies
(the overhead costs are already covered in the landfill
base cost), sanitary landfill, when used in conjunction
with rail-haul is estimated to cost, in round figures,
from about $1.85 to $2.55 per ton for loose refuse.
Similar landfill using high pressure baled solid waste,
are estimated to range, in round figures, from about
$1.15 to $1.45 per ton.
ACTIVE STRIP MINES
The disposal of solid wastes in active area coal
strip mines is treated as a special case of sanitary
landfilling because two operations must be combined.
Moreover, the cost structure of each area strip
mine is a unique case, subject like sanitary landfilling
to many local variables. These include the amount of
stripping that needs to be done, overburden soil
conditions, length of haul, demands on the roads that
have to be built, coal yields, and the number and
types of trucks that can be used.
Nonetheless, it is necessary to gauge in general
terms the cost structure of area coal strip mines. Ten
major cost centers are identified in Table 32, General
Distribution of Revenue Area, Coal Strip Mines by
Major Cost Center.
All of the cost items listed in Table 32 are
incurred regardless of whether or not solid waste
disposal is carried out. Solid waste disposal in active
strip mines will affect only a selected number of cost
centers.
The cost elements that could be affected are:
1. haulage by truck, if mins trucks are used to
carry solid waste in a return-haul
arrangement;
2. roads, if the solid waste traffic is of such a
magnitude that it requires additional roads or
impairs the service life of existing roads;
3. supervision on site;
4. certain noncontreliable expenses such as
insurance and taxes;
5. general overhead and perhaps certain
royalties; and,
6. profit before taxes.
The impact of solid waste disposal on these cost
items, varies from item to item depending upon the
circumstances. In principle, the solid waste disposal in
active strip mines must be organized in a way that
will not impair the mining operations. It generally
will be necessary to give preference to the mining
requirements.
90
-------
TABLE 32
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE, AREA
COAL STRIP MINES BY MAJOR COST CENTER
Major Cost Centers
1. Stripping of overburden
2. COR! loading, preparation
prospect drilling
3. Haulage by truck
4. Roads
5. Supervision on site
6. Land reclamation
7. Noncontrollable expenses, e.g.,
UMWA welfare, taxes, insurance
8. Depreciation
9. Royalties, general overhead
10. Profit before taxes
Percent of Cost Range
Total Revenue* Per Ton
35-45% $1.57-2.02
5-10%
3-10%
0.5%
1-2%
0.5%
.23- .45
.15- .45
.03
.05- .10
.03
10-15%
15-20%
5-10%
8-10%
.45- .73
.73- .90
.23- .45
.36- .45
Total revenue, or mine realization, in 1969 was about
$4.50 per ton.
Finally, in reviewing the cost center implication,
it must be recognized that profit, before income
taxes, is most important in terms of any company's
interest. This profit might be increased by either:
a. direct royalty type payments, or b. sharing of the
general cost incurred in the operations of a mine, or
c. a combination of both approaches. The
opportunity for the disposal of solid wastes in active
strip mines depends on its economic attractiveness.
The elements of solid waste disposal in active
strip mines are, in principle, ''dentical to those found
in normal rail-haul sanitary landfilling. They require:
1. transfer of the wastes from the rail car,
2. haulage to the point of disposal, and
3. final deposition of ths wastes.
Thus, the previously presented data for rail-haul
sanitary landfilling may be used in a selective manner.
If mine vehicles are noi used for the waste
transportation, then only the unloading and
transportation data as previously given apply. If the
wastes are covered in parallel with the removal of the
overburden, then point-of-disposal costs will be
minimal.
As a result, the initial cost may be as low as 40
cents per ton. Allowing again the equivalent of 25
percent of these costs for overhead, 15 percent for
contingencies, and another 10 percent for
foreman-type supervision ($12,000/year), the total
cost could be estimated as low as 60 cents per ton.
The cost of disposing of solid wastes in active
strip mines changes if the existing on-site
transportation equipment can be used. Haulage might
be in a return haul by a mine railroad or mine trucks.
Conveyors, inclined skips, and pneumatic and
hydraulic pipe lines also are used in mines for on-site
transportation; however, they are excluded from the
present considerations because they do not allow for
return haul.
The haulage of the wastes by truck appears to be
almost universally applicable in mines. Truck
transport can follow the disposal face and change
capacity easily.
In applying on-site mine trucking costs, it is
necessary to ascertain the underlying capacity, speed,
and length of haul. Statistics from the U.S. Bureau of
Mines show that the average haul from the coal loader
to the tipple is 4.6 miles. Furthermore, conservative
estimates by mine operators suggest that it is realistic
to assume an overall on-site speed performance of 20
mph. In this assumption, speed differentials are
averaged out for most of the on-site conditions
encountered. Thus the basic on-site transport
condition corresponds well to the basic landfill model
previously described.
The net load capacity of mine trucks varies
widely. The commonly used trucks are capable of
carrying from 30 to 100 tons of pay load per trip.
New equipment utilizing a tandem trailer
91
-------
combination is designed to cairy ISO to 250 tons of
material. Using mine trucks to transport solid waste
requires the wastes to be highly compacted. To move
unprocessed materials at an average density of 600
Ib/cu. yd. would, for example, require a 30-ton truck
to provide space capable of containing at least 100 to
perhaps 120 cu. yd., much larger than normal or
practical.
The following conservative mine haulage example
is given to indicate the potential order of magnitude
in the economics of on-site solid waste transport by
return haul. The example is based on a 35-ton, 35 cu.-
yd. truck, a $75,000 purchase price, a 5-year depreci-
ation period, 2,500 working hours per year, a 4-mile
one-way trip, only 20 mph. speed, a 6-minute waste
loading and unloading time for each trip, a material
density of about 0.8 tons or 1,600 Ib/cu. yd., and an
additional burden of 5 minutes per trip to account
for loss of truck availability in the coal haulage.
Within the above context, the truck is capable of
moving only 23 tons of baled solid waste per trip due
to volume limitations. The round trip time can be
calculated at 41 minutes of which 23 minutes are for
the solid waste haul (6 minutes loading, 5 minutes
burden, 12 minutes travel), and 18 minutes for the
coal haul (6 minutes loading and unloading, 12
minutes travel).
The specific estimates for the normal operation
of the mine truck are contained in Table 33, Cost of
Owning and Operating a 35-Ton Mine Truck.
Based on these computations, it would cost
about 42 cents to move one ton of solid waste 4
miles. The estimate is based on a truck cost of about
42 cents per minute with the truck charged with 23
tons for 23 minutes. If the 2C mph. speed of the
example could be increased to an average speed of 24
mph. as indicated by Table 33, the unit cost would
be considerably reduced.
Waste haulage represents only one part of the
total disposal cost. Additional costs are incurred in
the loading of the mine truck. Thus, compared with
the estimated cost of 40 cents per ton for the use of
TABLE 33
COST OF OWNING AND OPERATING A 35-TON
MINE TRUCK (Industry Averages)
Hourly
Cost Item
1. Fuel and lubrication
($0.10/mile, 24 miles/hour)
2. Repair
($0.10/mile, 24 miles/hour)
3. Tires for off-highway duty
($0.15/mile, 24 miles/hour)
4. Depreciation/Purchase price
(five-year service life)
5. Interest, Financing charges, Return
on investment (75% of purchase
price depreciation)
6. Operator (including 25% for
fringe benefits)
TOTAL
Cost
$2.40
2.40
3.60
6.00
4.50
6.25
$25.15/hour
Source: IIT Research Inst. and Handbook of Mining
an off-highway fork-lift truck it can be concluded
that solid waste disposal in active strip mines should
be performed with haulage equipment made to order
for the solid-waste transport function. This would
alleviate many organizational problems in the mine
operation.
In summary it appears feasible to dispose of
baled solid wastes in active area strip coal mines at a
cost of perhaps less than $1.25 per ton. However, the
specific implementation of the disposal process in
active strip mines also will depend upon the amounts
of wastes handled per shift, number of shifts per day,
trade-off implications with respect to the train
waiting time, and the on-site haul distance. The above
analyses suggest that on-site haulage might constitute
both the major disposal cost element and the primary
cost variable.
92
-------
CHAPTER 5
ADMINISTRATION
REGULATORY ASPECTS
OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Broad jurisdiction over the regulation of solid
waste disposal, is vested m the SO states; although
many have delegated certain powers and authority in
this field to local units of government. An inquiry
was sent to each state to ascertain the nature of their
organization for handling such responsibilities, the
extent of their powers and the various procedures
employed. Responses received from officials of 41
states6 provide the basis for development of this
chapter.
Organizational Placement
of Solid Waste Management
In 20 of the responding states only a single
agency was named as exercising solid waste
management responsibilities. In one state (Ohio) a
separate water pollution agency was specified, in two
(Colorado, New York) a separate one for air
pollution, and in six (Alabama, California, Florida,
Missouri, Utah, and West Virginia) the primary solid
waste agency was flanked by a pair, for control of air
pollution and water pollution respectively. Among
"related agencies" named as having some solid wastes
responsibilities are:
Forestry agencies in California and Pennsylvania;
Natural Resources agencies in Delaware,
Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington, and
West Virginia;
Transportation agencies in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania;
Public utility regulatory agencies in Nevada, New
6 Missing were reports from Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Texas, and Wisconsin.
Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Washington;
Planning/community affairs agencies in Idaho,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington;
Commerce/industry agencies in Michigan and
Pennsylvania;
Fish and game agencies in Nevada and
Pennsylvania; and
Highways agencies in Utah and West Virginia.
Kentucky responded most perceptively that, in
addition to the Division of Solid Waste in the State
Health Department, "49 agencies have some power in
the solid waste field, ranging from very minor to great
control. In talking to other states, [we] have found
their powers are splintered just about as widely." By
way of further explanation the response notes certain
enforcement powers concerning animal and food
processing wastes in the agriculture department, mine
wastes in the mining department, timber wastes in the
natural resources department, fish kill wastes in fish
and wildlife departments, and litter in highways and
parks departments-not to mention still other powers
in the state police.
The date and mode of establishment of reported
solid waste agencies is set forth in the tabulation
which follows.
It will be noted that three-fourths (30) of the
principal agencies were created by statutes which
were enacted within the past 6 years in two-thirds
(14) of the 21 states for which date of enactment is
given. Eleven came into being by executive or
administrative order, eight of them since 1964. All
the "related agencies" reported were created by
statute; of the 21 for which dates were supplied, half
(10) came into being within 5 years 1965-69 and six
more in the single year 1970.
Of the 20 states reporting one single agency
1 year 1970
5 years 1965-69
10 years 1955-64
10 years 1945-54
pre-1900
Year unspecified
TOTAL
Principal SW Agency Created:
By By By Board
Statute Governor of Health
6
8
1
4
2
9_
30
J_
4
Related
Sub Agencies
Total By Law
8
14
1
5
2
11
41
6
10
2
2
1
10.
31
Grand
Total
of all
14
24
3
7
3
21
72
93
-------
involved in solid waste management, half (10) of
those were created in the 5 years 1966-70 and half
(5) of those within the last 2 years. The latter group
is composed of Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, and
Rhode Island.
Structurally the solid waste agency is located
within the state health department in 25 of the 41
reporting states and within a "health and welfare"
department in eight others. In the se 33 cases the unit
is known as the division, bureau, or section of:
Environmental health in eight cases,
Environmental sanitation/engineering in five,
Sanitation/sanitary engineering in five, and
Solid waste managmenet in eight, with two
incorporating vector control.
Particularly designated pollution control agencies
are reported by the remaining eight states, as follows:
Arkansas—Pollution Contrcl Commission
Minnesota—Pollution Control Agency
New Jersey—Department of Environmental
Protection
New York-Department of Environmental
Conservation
Pennsylvania—Department of Environmental
Resources
South Carolina—Pollution Control Authority
Vermont —Agency of Environmental
Conservation
Washington—Department of Ecology
The functions handled by the state solid waste
agencies take the general pattern of establishing,-
promulgating, and enforcing standards and
regulations. Somewhat fewer heir, local jurisdictions
with planning and techniques. Very few provide
financial assistance and virtually none operate solid
waste facilities. The reported distribution is as
follows:
Principal Related
Agency (41) Agencies
Promulgates regulations 38
Requires conformance 34
Develops standards 39
Assists planning 41
Technical assistance 39
Reviews local plans 3";
Financial assistance 7
Operates facilities 2
30
31
18
13
14
15
6
4
General Overview of Problems Likely to Attend
Initiation of Rail Haul Disposal of Solid Waste
Briefly summarized in Table 34 are responses
concerning the main problems that a rail haul disposal
system might present to the 40 reporting states.
(Hawaii, is omitted from the analysis which follows.)
The legal and technical aspects were notably of
less concern than those of economics and public
opinion. A brief recapitulation indicates for each
category how many of the 40 responded in the
negative, with a mildly qualified negative, or gave no
response to the item—and the remainder who posed
problem(s) considered to be of some significance.
Tech- Eco- Public
Problems
None
None, but . . .
No answer
Total negative
Problems Cited
Legal
12
6
5
23
17
nical
12
8
3
23
17
nomic
3
4
3
10
30
Opii
0
7
(1
8
32
The legal difficulties alluded to in the overview
revolved around zoning legislation (see Kentucky,
Michigan, Missouri, and West Virginia),
anti-importation laws (see Delaware, Maine, New
Jersey, and Rhode Island), and legal barriers'in
receiving areas (see California, Kansas, Maryland,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania). Lack of
regional mechanisms was cited by Florida and the
need for operating controls by Michigan and South
Dakota.
Comments on technical considerations focused
primarily on design and operation of transportation
and transfer equipment (see Alabama, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
York, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont). Geologic
problems were cited by Florida and Washington and
the inadequacy of the railroad systems in Alaska,
Idaho, and Utah. New Jersey was concerned about
storage in the event of strikes or breakdowns, and
New Hampshire about how and where to unload as
landfill sites fill up.
While the economic problems cited were much
more numerous, they centered on a common core of
costs (too high), volume of refuse (insufficient), and
economic justification (compared to alternatives).
Public opinion problems concentrate almost
wholly on the probability or certainty of adverse
reactions in receiving areas, including a need to
"educate" the public or provide a good "image" for
the operation. How the operating procedures would
be carried out would determine the degree of public
acceptance, in the opinion of Iowa, Minnesota, and
New Hampshire respondents. Opposition on the basis
of costs would be anticipated in Arizona, Montana,
and Utah-states with a relative plenty of available
land and a relative paucity of railroad lines.
94
-------
TABLE 34
GENERAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO POSSIBLE INITIATION
OF RAIL-HAUL DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Of a Legal Nature
None
Guarantees of perfor-
mance required.
Approval by receiving
jurisdiction
None
Garbage & household
refuse cannot be
brought into state
Florida is "county
oriented" and few
successful regional
efforts exist
None from a public
health point of /iew
Of a Technical Nature
Transfer & disposal sites,
special cars, spur lines
Scant railroad mileage to
only a few communities
None
None if proper planning
were done.
None specifically; newly
developed systems might
have higher costs.
None
None
High water table reduces
availability of proper
land disposal sites
None, as equipment and
methodology would have
to comply with our rules
Of an Economic Nature
Haul costs & financing
Cost would be greater
than conventional means
More expensive
Probably not enough waste
to warrant rail haul
System would have to
compete with landfill
disposal and guarantee
performance
None (transfer operations
generally more feasible)
None
Rail network is such that
long hauls would be
necessary thus increasing
costs
None, unless a proposal
was considered for a
nonurban area
Public Opinion Nature
Doubt any part of state
wants another's refuse
None except regarding cost
Against depositing large
amounts in this area.
Gain acceptance of local
local citizens in area of
disposal
Generally, one jurisdiction
doesn't want another's
wastes.
Possible objections to
intercounty hauling in
recipient areas
Obvious reticence toward
disposal sites, especially
for waste from a "foreign"
source
Presently, citizens would
oppose disposal of others'
waste in their area. Dynamic
public information program
needed
Rail-haul has not been considered as a means to transport solid waste to date under existing conditions.
None
Litigation by
recipients to prevent
such practices
Zoning for loading &
unloading sites;
required permits for
disposal
State law basis
importing solid waste
1970 law to ha.- rail
haul of metropolitan
wastes
Controls for hauling,
loading, and unloading
rail cars; appropriate
zoning
None
None if haul is with-
in state.
Possibly specifically
passed zoning laws
None
Not all cities and counties
served by railroad
Uttering and escape of
wastes en route and at
disposal site.
Compaction required to
obtain economic local &
multihandling at both
ends of system
None. Maine rail network
very extensive
Most problems have
already been solved
Handling techniques to be
employed in transferring
waste
Type of rail car, type and
nature of volume reduc-
tion along R/W, double
handling material
None
None that could not be
easily solved
None
Distances very great;
population centers not
large enough to warrant
Costs of haul, special
handling, transfer from
rail-head to disposal site
So far economics of
system not fully revealed
and placed on a compet-
itive basis
It would be doubtful if
Maine would export
Payment of "bounty"
charges; specially
designed cars
Cost comparisons thus
far do not appear adequate
to support such a
j>rogram
Cost of multiple handling
construction cost for
spur track
Not feasible; most land
costs reasonable
Rail haul would cost
more than other methods
Much more expensive than
other methods available
Public would probably
object to disposal near them
To overcome "dumping
ground" stigma associated
with disposal site
Varies widely
Public opinion negative;
refer to law cited
Adverse public opinion has
for practical purposes
killed the idea
Public opinion has not yet
developed on rail-haul but
already a problem on
disposal sites
Depends entirely on
nature of operation,
time of trains, if covered,
leakage, etc.
Would require an
educational program
Adverse from generators
and recipients
Public would not favor
this because of cost
95
-------
TABLE 34 (Continued)
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakoti
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Of a Legal Nature
Prospective
None other than thos<
involved in normal
rail haul
Pending legislation
prohibits importation
of solid waste into
New Jersey
None. Presently
utilizing rail haul to
transport spent fuel
elements from nucleai
reactors
Court action to re-
strain development
Probably no major
problems
Would require permit
Insufficient data
available to answer
Need county approval
Illegal to import into
state, also illegal into
some towns
None
Rail-haul concept has
not been considered
Interstate transporta-
tion
None
When does ownership
change? New tariffs?
None
None
Zoning and highway
beautification
None
Of a Technical Nature
How and where to unload
because of landfill sites
being constantly used up
Receiving & loading
facilities, storage of
refuse in case of strikes
or breakdowns
Cannot envision any,
providing adequate
engineering design of
transfer stations & rail
haul cars
None of importance
Success of rail haul
has not been demonstrated
None
None
None
Nothing unusual
Competent planning and
adequate equipment, and
operators unavailable
Collection at rail center;
odor from putrefying
waste in transit
Many areas far removed
from rail facilities
Containerize tion and
mechanization
None
Available site and
adeauate trackage
Not great as to ground
water protection
None
Of an Economic Nature
Might be disastrous as
railroads have played
smaller and smaller role
in state; rather expensive
to revitalize them
Construction of facilities
at rail heads
May not be most econom-
ical alternative. Some
might arise when more
than one rail line involved
in given haul
None, if rail haul were
profitable to the hauler
Extra handling equals
extra cost
Probably not feasible for
years to come
Might be dependent on
federal or state funding
None
Not excessive
No areas have enough
population concentration
to make economically
feasible
Low-cost land will probably
make rail haul uneconomical
Abundance of open land
available for disposal
Rail charges to pay for
waste tonnage needed
None
Financing
Lack of money and ability
to raise it locally
Prohibitive freight rates
Public Opinion Nature
Much opposition
Usua! opposition to waste
from other areas
Unfavorable public opinion
might arise out of unsight-
lineso of a trainload of
solid waste. If covered,
should be O.K.
For rail haul into New
Jersey, tremendous ob-
jection; out of state,
minor
Opposition by residents
in area receiving the
wastes
None if initiated by
people of the state
Public opinion would
vary throughout state
Doubtful
Would hinge on public
image created and health
hazard or nuisance
Exporters would be for
or neutral. Receivers would
be opposed
None if properly handled
Opposition, especially
to large operation,
might be expected
Some areas will be sensitive
about receiving waste from
other areas
Adverse
Acceptable to have
refuse brought in for
reuse
Overcome local stigma
Considerable negative
reactions at first
Strong resistance to
disposal sites
Possibly
96
-------
Legal Considerations
State laws regulating landfill disposal are in effect
in all but five of the 41 reporting states. Alaska has
enabling legislation for landfill regulation, and a law is
proposed in Georgia; hence only Maine, South
Carolina, and Wyoming are evidently wholly without
such a statute. Laws governing rail freight transport,
as would be applicable to solid waste rail operations,
are reported by barely a quarter (10) of the
responding states-Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, and Washington. Qualified affirmative
responses were also given by Colorado (that the
Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over
proposed revision of services), Kentucky (that health
nuisance laws would apply), and Pennsylvania (that
general regulation is provided by the state's Solid
Waste Management Act).
The responsibilities which the state discharges
relative to landfill sites were listed on the inquiry
form in eight categories, thus:
Survey available sites,
Hold hearings on sites,
Requires submission of plans for use of sites,
Establish standards of landfill operations,
Check compliance with standards,
Require inclusion of solid wastes disposal plans in
local planning,
Provide technical assistance to local agencies, and
Provide financial assistance to local agencies.
All 41 states report providing technical assistance
but only a quarter (10) of them provide financial
assistance-Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Vermont (which are affirmative in all eight
categories), plus Florida, Kansas, New York, Ohio,
Rhode Island, and Washington. New Jersey reports
financial assistance "pending," which will bring that
state into all eight categories. The least assumption of
specified responsibilities is the reported two
categories each in Arizona and Maine and three in
Colorado and South Dakota. With "technical
assistance" universal, as noted, the other categories
are "standards" in Arizona; "survey" in Maine,
Colorado, and South Dakota; "checking compliance"
in Colorado; and "plans" in South Dakota.
In addition to the itemized eight categories,
several states report "othsr" state responsibilities,
including:
Geologic and hydrolopc feasibility studies in
Alabama,
Assistance in financing demonstration projects in
New York,
Reviewing and monitoring solid waste planning
and demonstration projects in Kentucky,
Planning, designing, constructing, and operating
solid waste facilities under certain conditions in
Maryland, and
Educational programs in Nebraska and Vermont.
Legal situations particularly pertinent to
initiation of rail haul disposal concern the ability of
two or more counties, or jurisdictions in different
counties, to enter into implementing agreements. In
relation to the disposal of solid waste, 40 reportedly
have the authority, with only one (Maine) responding
in the negative. In relation to transport of solid waste,
four others are also negative—Florida, Idaho,
Missouri, and Rhode Island. Wyoming indicated some
uncertainty as to powers of its local governments in
that regard.
A probably significant legislative tendency to
prohibit the "importation" of solid wastes into state
or local jurisdictions is noted, even though over 60
percent (25) of the 40 reporting states (excluding
Hawaii, inapplicable) answer in the negative and three
more are substantially so. Four states now have such
prohibitions statewide-Delaware, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania (in reference to mine disposal), and
Vermont—and such a law is reported pending in New
Jersey. Local governments have the power to enact
prohibitory ordinances in California, Kentucky,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
and Washington.
In addition to statute law, "judicial" law may be
applicable to such innovations as initiation of rail
haul disposal; hence respondents were asked whether
they are aware of any litigation within the state that
would relate to the use of land for solid waste
disposal purposes. From half (21) of the states the
responses were negative; several procedural actions
(e.g., condemnation) were cited in California, and
actions to abate certain offensive practices (e.g., open
burning) or negligent operation were cited from six
states. This leaves site selection the evident crux of
the matter in the following 13 states.
Georgia - In an action brought by adjacent
residents to enjoin the City of .Carrollton from
operating a sanitary landfill, a Superior Court judge in
September 1970 declined to enjoin the operation but
did prescribe certain restrictions. The city was
enjoined (1.) from polluting the river or the air by
burning or dumping and by dumping at all except on
their own property, (2.) from dumping at all except
when sufficient machinery and manpower are
available on the premises for carrying on the proper
operation of packing and covering, (3.) from
dumping such things as eggs, animal waste, and dead
animals unless they are placed in a properly prepared
ditch and covered immediately, and (4.) from
97
-------
burying or dumping any waste in such a way as to be
unearthed and to pollute either the river or to flow
on the property of the other persons in the area. The
ruling also imposed a temporary requirement to have
some person on the premises at all times to see that
the material carried there is properly placed in an area
or in a can; it is contemplated that when the
operation is "under control" the requirement for
keeping somebody on the premises continually would
be lifted.
Iowa - The Des Moines Metro Solid Waste
Agency selected a sanitary landfill site and secured
from the Polk County Zoning Board a "special use
permit" which adjacent residents sought to have
invalidated. The County Court upheld the zoning
board's action and plaintiffs appealed the ruling to
the Iowa Supreme Court, whose decision is expected
to be handed down in mid-July 1971.
Michigan — Courts have decreed both in favor of
and against the use of sites for landfills.
Minnesota — In a May 1971 decision the Olmsted
County District Court denied an injunction sought by
the Town of Oronoco to prevent the City of
Rochester from operating a sanitary landfill within
the Town(ship) on land owned by the city and for
which a permit had been obtained from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Provisions of an
ex post facto zoning ordinance of the town were
ruled invalid. In another case the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency in 1971 granted the City of Hopkins
a permit to operate a landfill wrihin its boundaries,
despite its location less than the statutory distance
from a municipal well and on condition of
periodically monitoring water quality in the vicinity.
A companion requirement to construct "an adequate
disposal area for toxic and hazardous wastes within
said landfill" may be amended to permit the city to
provide a portable receptacle for disposal of such
wastes prior to transfer to an ultimate disposal site.
Mississippi — Injunction has been used to
prohibit use of a site until state standards for landfill
were initiated.
Nebraska— The State Supreme Court in October
1970 affirmed a district court denial of injunction
sought against an "anticipated nuisance" from
proposed establishment of a sanitary landfill in rural
Madison County by Community Disposal, Inc.,
contractor for the City of Norfolk, under license
issued by the State Health Department. The Court
ruled that "It is generally accepted that a refuse
disposal operation is not a nuisance per se but it may
become a nuisance in fact as a result of the manner in
which jt is operated"'but that 'The burden rests on
the one complaining to establish that the use to be
made of the property must necessarily create a
nuisance." Another site location case is now pending
before the State Supreme Court.
New Jersey - A case involving the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Corporation is pending in
court.
Ohio — Two sites under same ownership are
being stopped pending decisions on local zoning.
Pennsylvania — In 1970 sixteen major cases,
involving both municipal and private sites, were
settled in favor of the State Environmental Resources
Department by court order, stipulation agreement,
summary proceedings or preliminary injunction.
Rhode Island — Petitions have been brought in
court to prevent the establishment of landfills.
Vermont — A proposed site for a privately
operated landfill at Pittsford was approved by the
State Environmental Board on the condition that the
applicant obtain the approval of the local zoning
board; this was denied in October 1970 and the
matter is now being appealed in the courts. In
another case the Addison Chancery Court in
December 1970 denied a request by the Town of
Bristol for a temporary injunction against operation
therein of a contractor-operated landfill that was
sanctioned by the State.
Washington - A proposed 223-acre landfill, to be
privately operated to dispose of Seattle wastes,
located at the eastern end of Coal Creek south of
Bellevue, is currently in vigorous contention. Hearings
by the King County zoning examiner began in
November 1970 on the site owner's most recent
application (the fourth since 1963) for a "dumping
permit" required for the landfill operation; after "6
months of testimony" the hearings are now in recess,
with a decision expected in September 1971.
West Virginia - Injunctive action was brought
when ground water was possibly endangered — and
where a road to the site, serving local residents, was
considered too weak for trucks.
Technical Considerations
Only one-sixth (7) of the reporting states
evidently had adopted a state plan for solid waste
management at the time of replying-Colorado,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. In Idaho and New
Jersey the state plan was then completed but not as
yet adopted. Practically all the remaining states (28
of the 32) indicated that preparation of such a plan
was then in process. Only four states indicated that
they neither have a plan nor are at work on
98
-------
one- Alabama, Alaska, Nebraska, and Nevada.
Training programs in relation to solid waste
management have been instituted in 18 states as
follows:
For state and local officials-Colorado, Florida,
Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.
For state officials only—Alaska, Georgia, New
Jersey, and West Virginia.
In addition, training for local officials is being
planned in Arizona and Georsia.
State surveys of potential disposal sites have
reportedly been made By eight states-Colorado,
Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. In addition,
partial surveys have been made by Alabama, Alaska,
South Dakota, and Tennessee. This small total, of
only about 30 percent of reporting states, probably
means that many state solid waste management
agencies have inadequate staff and finances to
conduct such a sizeable undertaking.
Master plans for solid waste management that are
regionally oriented, rather than of statewide
applicability, are reported by a number of states.
They are focused upon primary metropolitan areas in
Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, and Virginia.
The prime movers organizationally are councils of
governments in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, and
Tennessee; planning agencies in Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Oregon, and Virginia; counties in Alabama,
Alaska (boroughs), Arkansas, California, Michigan,
and New York; and development authorities in New
Jersey, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Interstate
agencies are in the Kansas-Missouri and New
York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania area. Regionally
oriented plans are in process in Florida, Georgia, and
Maine; they are reportedly under consideration in
Delaware and Mississippi.
While practically all of the reporting states have
laws regulating landfill disposal, and in most cases
check compliance with prescribed standards, only a
quarter (10) report having a listing of private firms
that are engaged in disposal operations within the
state. Those assertedly so equipped are California,
Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West
Virginia. South Dakota indicates availability of a
listing from another source, while Utah notes that
there are no such firms within the state.
Recognizing the likelihood that state regulation
of solid waste management might entail differing
procedures dependent on whether a private entity or
a public agency were being regulated, the question
was asked: "In what respect does state law require
dealing differently with private entities than with
public agencies?" Three quarters (30) of the states
assert that there are no differences. Wyoming says
there is no applicable law, Washington has not yet
studied the matter, and Kansas did not reply to the
item. The eight indicating some differences do so in
the following terms:
Iowa-Private agency must post surety bond with
local public agency.
Kentucky—Differences are in the planning role
Maryland-Authority given for regulating disposal
sites "for public use." Court held requirements of law
include private disposal operation where wastes are
collected from several sources. Whether large
corporation can dispose of its own wastes without
complying with regulations has not . yet been
determined.
Michigan-Bonding and fee payments.
Nebraska—Private enterprise is 'required to post
$2,500 bond; governmental entities do not.
Ohio—State law permits local health departments
to grant conditional licenses to governmental agencies
but not to private owners.
Vermont-Private operators are not exempt on
junkyard licenses, screening, and setback from
highways.
West Virginia—Private collectors regulated and
franchised by state except within municipalities; local
governments not regulated.
Economic Considerations
The economic aspects of prospective rail haul
operations weigh more heavily in the estimation of
respondents than do those of a basically legal or
technical nature. As previously noted, three-fourths
(30) of them forsee problems in general relation to
costs, volume and economic justification.
The prospectively high costs of rail transport,
including "financing" problems, are cited by
Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Ohio, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
The likelihood of insufficient generation of waste
was noted by Arkansas, Idaho, and South Dakota.
The presumption that rail haul could not
compete advantageously against more conventional
disposal procedures (often linked to availability of
sufficient land for landfill, for example) is advanced
by Alaska, California, Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Tennessee, and Utah. Kentucky and
Michigan were of the same opinion but stress that
99
-------
presently available cost figures r.re inadequate to fully
appraise the economic justification of rail haul.
In addition, an insufficiency or disadvantageous
layout of railroad trackage and facilities was
mentioned by Alaska, Florida, Idaho, New
Hampshire, New York, and Utah.
The extent of state awareness of local practices
and economic facts is not encouraging at the
moment, on the basis of questionnaire replies. It is
recognized, of course, that many of the agencies are
selatively newly established and that comprehension
of some of the elements will grow with experience. It
has been noted that only about L quarter of the states
have surveyed potential disposal sites, and only that
proportion have available lists of private disposal
firms. Slightly more of them (14) report that a
relatively current survey of refuse collection/disposal
charges is available - Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky,
Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. These are
*iot often reports by the state ajency; state leagues
of municipalities often conduct such surveys and
publish the results.
An admittedly difficult series of requests called
for a statement of viewpoints as to "optimum or
estimated unit costs" for a. sanitary landfill,
b. rail-haul from rail head to disposal site and c. a
full system of rail-haul disposal. Nine reported figures
for landfill, only three for the other two categories
are given in Table 35.
Landfill unit costs cluster around the
£1.5042.50 mark; the few figures supplied range
from $3.00 to $6.00 for rail haul and $5.00 to $8.50
for the complete operation. In the latter two groups
the figures are undoubtedly approximations, in the
main, based on the landfill figures that tend to be
more precise. Probably the three who responded (and
ths 38 who didn't) would tend to agree with
Kentucky's observation that the size of the operation
has such great effect on costs that typical costs are
not practical.
Inquiry as to a scarcity of suitable landfill
disposal sites (either generally or in specific areas)
brought a mixed response-. Only four states
(Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, and Oregon)
indicated general and specific scarcity; two others
(Hawaii and Pennsylvania) indicate general scarcity
winch evidently includes specifics. Reporting neither
general nor specific scarcities were seven states
(Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, and Wyoming); from five others
(Alabama, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, and
TABLE 35
OPTIMUM OR ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS (per ton) FOR
VARIOUS SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Full Rail-Haul
Disposal
$8.50
$5-$7
$6-$ 8
Sanitary Rail Haul to
Landfill Disposal Site
Arizona
California
Maryland
Montana
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
$1.68
$2-$4
over $1.50
under $2
$2-$3
up to $2.50
$1.50
$2.50
$1.50-$2
$3*
$3-$ 5
$4-$6
Based on trip of 200 miles one way
Source: APWA Survey of State Agencies
West Virginia) a negative general answer evidently
applies also to specifics. A majority of this dozen are
states with notably extensive tracts of open land.
More than half (23) of the reporting states are
those reporting in the negative (or not replying, in
four cases) as to a general scarcity of available sites
but noting that specific scarcities do exist in
particular regions within the state.
Among the 29 states that indicated some
scarcities of sites were three (Hawaii, Pennsylvania,
and South Carolina) that did not itemize particular
regions. Among 32 descriptions supplied by the other
26 states were 14 related to location (in metropolitan
areas) and 14 related to physical characteristics (soil
and geologic conditions, nine; water table, three;
climate, two). Public resistance was mentioned as a
factor in four — Idaho, Kansas, New York, and
Vermont.
The entire list of regions with a scarcity of
landfill sites follows:
Alaska Parts of southeastern Alaska and areas
north of Fairbanks are not suited for
sanitary landfills.
Arizona Winslow area - largely scabland with
little cover.
Arkansas The eastern portion of the state has a
high-water-table problem.
100
-------
California San Francisco.
Colorado Within municipalities, immediately
adjacent to municipalities where
geological and climatological
conditions are not suitable.
Delaware Upper New Castle.
Florida Coastal areas because of high water
table.
Georgia Metropolitan Atlanta will be
experiencing problems in the future.
Idaho Soil characteristics, water table, land
costs, and public objections.
Iowa In five counties in NE part of Iowa
where bedrock is shallow.
Kansas Kansas City Region due to public
opposition to open dumps.
Maryland In Baltimore and Washington
metropolitan areas.
Michigan Detroit area. They are becoming scarce
due to local objections.
Missouri St. Louis area.
Nebraska In a few cases along rivers in flood
plains.
New The general nature of the topography
Hampshire is not well suited for landfills.
New Jersey Corridor-NE-SW.
New York Metropolitan New York City and
"western Long Island (Note: Sites not
scarce but public opposition is very
great.)
Ohio Scarce in heavily populated areas and
in counties where zoning is being
enforced.
Oregon Because of climatology, acceptable
sites are rare in western Oregon but
prevalent in eastern Oregon.
Rhode Island In cities.
Tennessee Some areas in middle and east
Tennessee with shallow bedrock.
Utah Becoming more difficult to locate
along the Wasatch Front in Weber,
Davis, Utah, and Salt Lake counties.
Vermont Public resistance.
Virginia Core city areas with major
populations.
Washington Puget Sound area.
An inquiry that produced unanticipated results
concerned the ability of state agencies to acquire land
and whether they would be permitted to contract for
reclamation of such lands \ra sanitary landfill. The
query was evidently poorly phrased or widely
misunderstood, since eight states surprisingly
answered that "none" of the state agencies have
authority to acquire land and three others were
uncertain. Also surprisingly, 14 states mentioned only
one or more varieties of local government as having
land acquisition abilities. Since the power of eminent
domain is a virtually universal attribute of stale
sovereignty (and purchase it, a commonplace means of
acquisition), it is likely that a preoccupation with
solid waste obscured the query's larger dimensions.
While the 25 states cannot be powerless to acquire
lands, their abilities to reclaim acquired lands via
landfill are presently unknown.
From usable inquiry responses we do have dat;i
indicating the land acquisition abilities of the state
generally in two cases (Alabama and Georgia), state
institutions in two (Arizona and North Dakota),
numerous state departments in two (New York and
Pennsylvania), and the following specialized agencies:
Bureau of Solid Wastes Management - in New
Jersey
State Environmental Service — in Maryland
Division of Lands - in Alaska
Conservation agencies - in Iowa and Vermont
Water Development Authority — in Ohio
Parks departments - in Oklahoma and Utah
Department of Natural Resources - in
Washington
The probability or certainty is that all of the
above would be permitted to contract for land
reclamation via sanitary landfill. Interestingly, it
appears that in only four states are the primary solid
waste management agencies thus far specifically so
empowered - Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and
Vermont.
Public Opinion Considerations
In appraising the hazards to possible initiation of
a rail-haul project, 80 percent (32) of the respondents
identified public opinion as a factor to be reckoned
with, noting the particular necessity to avoid or
overcome adverse reaction by inhabitants and
authorities in receiving areas. Among the four broad
areas of problems considered, this one drew the most
comment, expressed with nearer unanimity than any
other.
Queried specifically as to whether public
attitudes have been a significant factor in selection of
solid-waste disposal sites, only three states (Alabama,
Kansas, and Nevada) replied wholly in the negative.
Delaware and Mississippi qualified negative
replies - the former by noting that the public in the
area of proposed landfill sites usually objects, and the
latter observing that public attitudes have been a
factor in coastal areas.
101
-------
Cases where definite plans for disposal facilities
have been thwarted at the point of site selection by
adverse public opinion have been cited by a number
of states, including:
Arkansas — Fort Smith and Russellville each have
selected several sites, but public attitude has caused
them to find still others.
Idaho - A public meeting and protest prevented
the relocation of a sanitary landfill; one community
has been seeking a site for two years.
Iowa - The Des Moines Metropolitan Solid Waste
Agency's endeavor to locate in an adjacent county
met such strong opposition that one objector
purchased the site at higher cost to keep the agency
out.
Missouri — St. Louis County was unsuccessful in
locating incinerators at any of its sites. Although the
county had the money, they did not build them
because of public attitudes.
Nebraska — Some regions have been unable to
locate sites because everyone wants it in someone
else's area.
New Hampshire - One town had chosen a new
site for a sanitary landfill and it was approved.
However, a development was about to start in the
area and the new residents would not accept the
location.
New York - People in Orleans County opposed
Rochester's waste being disposed of in their adjoining
county. Town of Trenton residents, Oneida County,
opposed to wastes from portion of the county being
disposed of in their town.
OMo - Several Ohio counties have been ready to
acquire and use sanitary landfill sites but local public
opinion has forced the boards of county
commissioners to look elsewhere.
Tennessee - City of Knoxville has been in site
selection process for over u year with no success;
public opinion vital.
Utoh - Weber County encountered considerable
opposition to sanitary landfill sites so went to
incineration. Cedar City is encountering extensive
opposition to landfill site selection, both from local
citizens and an environmental activist group.
Rail haul projects have already been abandoned
due to public pressure in several cases, as follows:
In Colorado, at one time El Paso County refused
the concept of solid waste from Denver being
transported by rail to a remote sJte in that county for
disposal.
In Maryland, rail haul of wastes to strip mines has
received adverse public opinion and the proposed
project was not implemented.
In New York, people in the Town of Coeymans,
Albany County, opposed rail haul and disposal of
wastes from Westchester County.
In Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia rail-haul proposal
was stopped by public attitude alone - in fact, it
precipitated two legislative hearings which resulted in
amendments to the Solid Wastes Management Act.
In Virginia, two rail-haul proposals have been •
rejected by public opinion.
Such experiences show that raw public opinion,
uninformed as to alternatives, will predictably be
opposed to local disposal of "other people's" refuse,
particularly when it is imported (e.g., by rail-haul)
from a considerable distance. Public opinion in the
dispatching region will, also predictably, take a
favorable position, though somewhat less universally
or intensively. While these appraisals came from
respondents in the current survey, the significant
evaluation is that there is virtually no public
antipathy to the rail-haul concept itself. The
assessment of anticipated public attitudes toward
possible rail-haul generally is that it would be neutral
in 24 of 39 reporting states, favorable in 11 and
unfavorable in only four. A companion inquiry
disclosed that in 25 states new public interest in
ecology is considered likely to swing public opinion
more in favor of landfill than before.
Since newly organized as well as long-established
conservation groups are becoming prominent among
present day "environmentalists," respondents were
asked to estimate the extent of their interest in
modern solid-waste management programs and in
possible rail-haul operations. While the apparent
interest of such groups in modern solid-waste
management is reportedly substantial (33
affirmative), the same is evidently riot true of
rail-haul (32 negative). Some pertinent comments
follow:
Arkansas - We have good response in relation to
the conversion of open dumps to sanitary landfills
and several groups have encouraged the towns with
which they are connected to develop collection
systems.
California - These groups, in acknowledging
concern for proper waste disposal, have attempted to
learn more about the problems and solutions and
have somewhat tried to disseminate that information.
Recycling efforts have been much praised.
Georgia — These groups tend to support nny new
concept in an effort to improve existing conditions.
Iowa - The Izaak Walton League urged the Des
Moines Metro Solid Waste Agency to pursue rail-haul
to abandoned quarries and strip mines.
102
-------
Kentucky - No support has been indicated
toward rail-haul or barge-haul.
Maine - There will be a favorable attitude at this
session of the legislature, with support by
conservation groups, JCC's, League of Women Voters,
garden clubs, etc.
Maryland - Ecology groups want to recycle
bottles and cans. That's easy — and, too many of us
professionals tend to go along with them and ignore
the problem of what to do with industrial wastes.
Most cities have ignored this problem by leaving it to
private collectors to collect and dispose of these
wastes.
Missouri — The Conservation Federation of
Missouri realizes the need ano will probably support
solid-waste legislation in the 1971 session of the
legislature.
New Hampshire - Several groups are actively
studying the problems involved with solid waste and
are looking for solutions. These groups are also doing
a fine public education job by bringing this
information to the surface.
New York — Many groups have expressed an
interest in instituting recycling and reclamation
programs in their communities. There are a few
instances where separation and collection have been
done on a voluntary basis.
Rhode Island — Ecology action organizations are
actively supporting a local recycling program.
South Dakota — A wildlife group within the state
has endorsed a resolution supporting new state
legislation for solid waste control.
Responses to the crucial point - of what needs
to be done to induce favorable public
attitudes - centered primarily on a need for
educational or public relations programs, but did not
overlook the desirability of high standards and good
practices in handling solid waste responsibilities.
Typical of this approach were statements that:
More efforts should be made toward proper
operation of existing disposal facilities — Arkansas.
First and foremost, demonstrate that a sanitary
landfill does not breed flies and rodents, does not
emit odors, and is not an open burning dump.
Forcing present sites to comply with sanitary landfill
requirements will be a strong factor in accomplishing
this goal - Georgia.
Demonstrate ability to perform reliably and more
economically - Kansas.
Adhere to good practices in sanitary landfill
operations. Use demonstration programs for sanitary
landfllling — Mississippi.
Very strict enforcement to attain highest
operational standards and sound planning for all
aspects of a management system — New Jersey.
Acceptance of landfills can and will be improved
by demonstration of good operation. The public will
not be convinced any other way — Oklahoma.
Change the public image of solid waste disposal
by operating successful landfills - Tennessee.
Eliminate or convert all open, burning dumps to
sanitary landfills. Upgrade faulty
incineration - Virginia.
Complexities of solid waste problems and
alternative approaches to their solution are stressed in
suggestions from some of the larger states, such as:
California — Better public education describing
needs, alternative solutions, and citizen
responsibilities.
Colorado — Reclamation or land improvement
must be emphasized. Economics of recycling or reuse
should be presented realistically and updated as new
methods are considered and economic evaluations
made.
Michigan — The public should be made aware of
the waste management problem, its complexities,
quantities, and financial implications.
New York - A vigorous public education
program needs to be undertaken, with greater
participation of the public and their municipal
representatives in the planning phases of developing
sound solid waste management practices.
Smaller states thinking along similar lines
include:
Delaware - First, good communication and
secondly, education as to need of abolishing open
dumping, what good sanitary landfills are, and what
the future may hold for recycling and recovery.
New Hampshire - A great deal more on
educating people on the advantages and good points
of well run solid-waste management programs is
needed. The people just do not know the problem,
the reason for the problem, or the solution.
South Dakota - The general public must be
made aware that better methods are available which
may be feasible with proper organization and
planning. The many small rural communities are
unable to finance a sanitary landfill independently
and should be encouraged to utilize a regional
approach to defray disposal costs.
Finally several states call for national educational
efforts, Arizona suggesting "more and more national
publicity on the problem." Maryland calls for "a
strong national program pointing out the problems of
solid waste handling," adding:
"Air and water pollution programs finally were
103
-------
adequately funded because of public pressure. The
public seems to feel getting rid of nonretumable
containers will solve the problem. But the major
problem-what to do with toxic, chemical,
pathological, explosive and other potentially
dangerous wastes—is being ignored by the public, the
media, and, most sadly, by the professionals."
Means of Implementing Rail Haul -
Ohio Possibilities
A pertinent approach, though not derived from
the survey, is offered here to illustrate how rail-haul
might be effectuated within the governmental
structure and legal climate 01 a single state. It is
derived from a letter dated January 27, 1969 from
Research Attorney James R. Hanson of the Ohio
Legislative Service Commission. After noting that "it
would appear that the Ohio Revised Code now
contains mechanisms by which a cross-country
solid-waste disposal project could be carried out," he
writes:
"A municipal corporation or county that wants
to dispose of compacted solid waste in another
county, after obtaining a site in the other county by
purchase of land, would need to obtain a license from
the board of health of the health district in which the
site was located. The Revised Code has required this
for any site operated after January 1, 1969. Plans and
specifications for the site would need to be submitted
to the State Department of Health for approval under
regulations of the Public Health Council at least 60
days prior to operation. The local board can charge a
fee up to $500 per year, or it can waive the fee in the
case of a political subdivision. When the local license
has been issued, the local board must certify to the
State Director of Health that the site has been
inspected and is in satisfactory compliance with the
Solid Wastes Disposal Law. The license must be
renewed annually. The Director annually surveys the
districts licensing such sites to determine whether the
law is being complied with-if the local district is
disapproved the Director takes over administration.
"The local board may suspend, revoke, or deny a
license of a solid-waste disposal site or facility for
violation of the law, but in the case of a political
subdivision it must first afford a hearing. Appeal from
an adverse decision is allowed.
"Since the local board of health administering
the Solid Wastes Disposal Law in the health district
has no explicit relation to the board of county
commissioners of that county, there would be no
legal necessity for the originating county or city to
make anv agreement with the county official in the
county of disposal, or any county across which the
compacted refuse is to be transported. There is still
the possibility, however, that such local officials
would find the operation offensive and attempt to
stop it by legal or political means. The local board of
health might become involved and would be
uncooperative in issuing or renewing a license. The
problem is thus how to provide assurance for the
originating jurisdiction that it may safely invest in
expensive compacting equipment and land for
disposal sites, and secure transportation equipment
by purchase or contracts with the railroads.
"One simple method would be to enact a new
section to set up a mechanism whereby the
originating county or city would get a plan of
disposal approved by the boards of health of the
health districts affected and by the State Department
of Health—such approval to assure renewal of the
license for the period of the plan unless revoked by
the State Department of Health because of law
violations. This would provide complete local
approval of the operation, plus state approval,
prevent later disturbance of the disposal program by
local political change, yet provide a means of
governmental control, assuming that the State
Department of Health would intervene only if there
were a legitimate health objection."
Powers to Move a Mountain
A recent feasibility study by Black & Veatch for
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
has considered the disposal of solid wastes from a
metropolitan area. Their report states "No agency is
presently organized and empowered to manage a
solid-waste disposal system of the scope envisioned in
the Ski Mountain project," and that "A new agency
will be required and special legislation will no doubt
be needed to authorize it." Pertinent to rail-haul is
the report's conclusion that "To function effectively,
the management agency will require certain powers,
including:
— The power of eminent domain to allow
acquisition of property.
- Authority to contract on a long-term basis
with municipalities, counties, districts, and other
governmental agencies.
- Authority to enter into long-term contracts
with private contractors, as may be necessary.
— Authority to pay for capital expenditures
through debt financing.
— Authority to levy service charges to pay all or a
part of capital and operating expenses."
104
-------
Questionnaire
The questions asked by the Association to develop
information for this chapter arj given in the following
outline:
I. Establishment and Responsibilities of State Agencies
in Relation to Solid Wastes Management
Name of Agency
Agency Established by:
State Law (cite)
Executive Order of:
Governor (check)
Other official or
Board (specify)
Date Established:
Functions related to
Solid Wastes Disposal
Handled by Indicated
Agency (check):
Assists in Planning
Reviews Local Hans
Technical Assistance
Develops Standards
Financial Assistance
Promulgates Regulations
Requires Conformance
Operates any aspect
II. General Problems Related to Possible Initiation
of Rail-Haul Disposal of Solid Wastes
1. If Rail-Haul were to be considered within or
involving your state, what problems would you
foresee of a
a. legal nature?
b. technical nature?
c. economic nature?
d. public opinion nature?
2. What greater or lesser intensity would attach to
any of the above if the rail-haul were to be operated
a. within a single county?
b. from one county to another?
c. within an established special district
1. wholly within your state?
2. from your state into another?
3. from another state into yours?
d. on a long-haul basis for disposal at a site distant
from point of origin
1. but all within your state?
2. from your state into another?
3. from another state into yours?
4. from one state through yours into another?
III. Legal Considerations
1. What state laws or regulations (give citations in
each case; provide copies if convenient) govern
a. landfill disposal of solid wastes?
b. rail freight transport (e.g., solid wastes)?
2. Please check specific state responsibilities relative
to control of landfill disposal sites:
Survey available sites '
Hold hearings on sites
Require submission of plans tor use of sites
Establish standards of landfill operations _
Check compliance with standards
Require inclusion of solid wastes disposal plans in
local planning '.—
Provide technical assistance to local agencies
Provide financial assistance to local agencies
Other (specify
3. Can two or more counties, and/or jurisdictions in
different counties, enter into an agreement for (a)
disposal of solid wastes? (b) transport of solid wastes?
4. Do any state or local regulations prohibit
importation of solid wastes into or through the
jurisdiction? Please cite, describe briefly, and furnish
copies if convenient.
5. Are you aware of any litigation as to use of land
for solid wastes disposal purposes? Please give citation
and gist of any court decisions.
IV. Technical Considerations
1. Has a state plan for solid wastes management been
adopted? If not, is one in process? What are its main
features?
2. Has a formal training program in solid wastes
management been instituted (a) for local officials? (b)
for state officials?
3. Has the state made any surveys of potential
disposal sites? (If so, please enclose copy of report or
of major findings).
4. Have any regionally oriented master plans for solid
wastes management been developed? If so, please
identify source and scope.
5. Has the state a listing of private firms
commercially engaged in disposal of solid wastes? If
so, please enclose a copy or cite where available.
6. In what respects, if any, do prevailing state laws
require state agencies to deal differently with private
entities than public agencies en solid wastes matters?
105
-------
V. Economic Considerations
1. Is a relatively current survey available covering
charges for refuse collection and/or disposal in
various localities? If so, please supply a copy if made
by your agency; cite source if by others.
2. Have you developed any optimum or estimated
unit cost (dollars per ton) figures that would apply
to: (1) sanitary landfill disposal (2) rail-haul
transportation from central loading point to disposal
site or (3) full rail haul disposal including both the
above? If so in any case, details will be appreciated.
3. Are suitable landfill disposal sites becoming scarce
within the state (a) generally? (b) for particular
regions? Specify.
4. What agencies of your state have authority to
acquire land of such character and extent as would be
susceptible to improvement via sanitary landfill
procedures? Would they be permitted to contract for
land reclamation via landfill if they so desired?
VI. Public Opinion Considerations
1. Have public attitudes been a significant factor in
selection of disposal methods and/or sites? Please
supply some specifics.
2. Would you anticipate public attitudes toward
possible rail haul disposal to be:
Favorable Neutral Unfavorable
Generally
In Receiving Region
In Dispatching Region
3. Do you have reason *.o believe newly aroused
concern for the ecology may tend to swing public
opinion more than heretofore toward support of
landfill operations?
4. Have conservation groups and similar citizen
organizations evidenced any interest in supporting (a)
modern solid wastes management programs? (b) a
possible rail-haul disposal system? Please indicate
which and to what extent.
5. What needs to be done to induce favorable public .
attitudes?
106
-------
CHAPTER 6
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The occupational health and sanitation problems
encountered in the rail-haul disposal of unprocessed
wastes, and of wastes processed by high-pressure
compaction and size reduction, are essentially the
same as those found in other disposal systems for
unprocessed wastes which utilize a. an enclosed
transfer station, b. vehicles for long-distance
transport, and c. sanitary landfills. The problems
associated with the disposal of unprocessed wastes are
well known. Therefore, this chapter discusses the
environmental implications arising from the
introduction of processing in the rail-haul disposal
system. Emphasis has been piaced on the evaluation
of high-pressure compaction as a part of the rail-haul
system because this process alters favorably the
properties of unprocessed wastes to a greater degree
than size reduction.
The principal environmental differences between
the rail-haul disposal system of compacted or
shredded wastes and the unprocessed wastes are
associated primarily with the use of heavy machinery
in the transfer station and with the changes in
physical properties of the refuse to be transported
and landfilled.
The environmental aspects pertaining to the
collection and storage of th? unprocessed wastes in
the transfer station remain the same. However,
nuisance aspects during post-transfer station transport
and landfilling, such as flying paper and dust, are
more severe after size reduction of the wastes, but
they are practically eliminated by high-pressure
compaction.
The size reduction and the high-pressure
compaction processes do not create gaseous or liquid
pollutants. However, liquids present in the wastes are
partially removed during processing. Dust problems
are introduced during size reduction but not during
compaction processing. Noise pollution is introduced
in both cases by heavy machinery, however, it is more
severe during shredding than during compaction.
The implications of high-pressure compaction
with respect to 1. transfer stations, 2. rail-transport,
and 3. landfilling of solid wastes is summarized
briefly in the following paragraphs. The implications
arising from size reduction processing have not been
presented in detail, as other research projects deal
specifically with this subject matter.
TRANSFER-COMPACTION STATION
The pollution control measures which must be
implemented in the transfer-compaction station are
of the same type as those required in any
well-organized refuse collection and storage station
and in industrial processing stations utilizing heavy
machinery for processing. Specialized and elaborate
pollution control measures such as those found in
chemical processing plants are not required.
The specific requirements can be assessed by
evaluating the main functions carried out in the
station. These can be broadly subdivided into three
groups:
1. Collection and storage of the unprocessed,
loose refuse in storage pits,
2. Compaction of loose refuse, and
3. Storage of the compacted bales.
1. Collection and Storage of Loose Refuse
As noted, the collection and storage of the loose
refuse requires the same pollution control measures as
recommended for well-run transfer or incinerator
stations. In both cases, the material is the same and so
are the functions of refuse dumping and storage
which might cause dust and odor problems. Likewise,
any possibility of infections through biological agents
and infestation by insects and rodents is similar to
that encountered in other closed collection stations.
Dust problems, and to some degree all other
problems mentioned before, could be appreciably
reduced if the collected refuse were contained in
paper sacks. For example, the escape of odors would
be partially prevented by the sacks and infestation by
insects and rodents would be minimized. The use of
sacks would also reduce spillage.
2. Compaction of Loose Wastes
The environmental control measures which must
be considered with respect to the compaction process
itself are primarily those dealing with liquid release
from wet refuse during compaction and the
generation of noise by the compaction equipment.
The compaction process produces no air or water
pollutants.
During a recent study titled "High-Pressure
Compaction and Baling of Solid Wastes"7 it was
7 City of Chicago Project No. l-DOl-Ul-00170-01,Dewr/op-
ment and Testing of Compaction and Baling Equipment
for Rail-Haul of Solid Wastes, 1971.
107
-------
found that the amount of teachings extracted from
the refuse during compaction, is small. However, since
even small quantities of learnings can emit very
unpleasant odors on standing, and since the teachings
contain pollutants, adequate provisions should be
made to install below the press a system for gathering
and disposal of the liquids released during
compaction. Dust is released only during dumping of
dry refuse in .the charging box; it is not produced
during compaction; moreover the charging box is
covered.
The main pollutant is the noise generated by the
compaction press and auxiliary equipment. Control
measures should include proper construction of the
building and press and proper installation of the
press. A soundproofed console should be provided for
the press operator if the pumps are not in soundproof
enclosures. Soundproof consoles may also be required
in other places, especially if the feeding and operating
of the press are not integrated by automatic control
and sound communication between employees is
required. Adequate emergency warning signals, not
depending on sound communication, such as flashing
lights, should be utilized. However, a soundproof
enclosure of the pumps might provide the easiest
solution.
3. Storage of Bales
It appears feasible to store bales for up to a week
without encountering offensive deterioration.
Indications are that wastes decompose more rapidly
when compacted than when they are loose, and that
the extent of the potential biological activity which
occurs during storage depends on storage conditions.
The degradation of food and garden wastes appears to
be appreciably enhanced, especially if the bales are
stacked and kept in close proximity to each other,
thereby preventing the dissipation of the heat
generated in the bales. Tests carried out in the
compaction program indicate that under favorable
storage conditions most pa'-hogenes could be
destroyed in the transfer station. They also indicate
that the main emissions during storage are likely to be
water and carbon dioxide produced by aerobic
degradation. However, foul odors from anaerobic
decomposition may be emitted, especially if the bales
contain raw meat wastes. The effect of storage
conditions on pathogene destruction, and the
possibilities of accelerating the degradation
(composting) of refuse by high-pressure compaction
of solid wastes, warrant further investigation and
development.
The storage of compacted bales requires a
ventilated area, especially if the bales are to be kept
for some time in a warm building. High-capacity
ventilation equipment is not required, however.
4. General Public Health and
Environmental Control of Station
In terms of industrial hygiene, working
conditions, and occupational health, the
compaction-transfer station must be provided with
active ventilation for use as needed. The parts of the
press and transfer station in contact with the solid
waste materials and, in particular, the leachants must
be cleaned regularly.
Other control measures needed in the transfer
station, none of which is specifically introduced by
the rail-haul system, include traffic and fire control,
good housekeeping, and temperature and humidity
control.
RAIL TRANSPORT OF COMPACTED BALES
During rail transport, consideration should be
given to the fact that the degradation of wastes either
continues or, with freshly prepared bales, starts
during transport. The rail transportation tests
(Chicago-Cleveland-Chicago) made with compacted
bales during the Compaction Testing Program
indicate that the degradation of organic wastes during
transport can be appreciable. Air temperature and
humidity in the rail car increased, and the bales
became wet and warm. Aerobic degradation
apparently took place since foul odors were not
detected.
As the degradation of wastes can be affected by
factors such as enclosed or ventilated cars, air
temperature, and humidity, the choice of rail cars
should consider the biological activity occurring in
the bales. Although active ventilation devices are not
required, provisions should be made to allow for the
escape of gaseous products, at least during the
movement of the rail car. Prolonged standing of
refuse cars in rail stations should be avoided.
SANITARY LANDFILLS
The placement of bales into sanitary landfills
requires similar control measures as those used for
unprocessed or less compacted refuse. They include
proper selection of the site to avoid groundwater
pollution and the use of suitable cover material.
However, in terms of environmental control,
solid-waste bale landfills appear to have advantages as
compared to existing landfills.
First, in cases of high winds, there is much less
chance for papers to be blown around. Second,
108
-------
solid-waste bales do not burn as easily as
uncompacted waste materials. Third, it is likely that
smoldering fires in the fill, if they occur, will not be
as severe as those in existing landfills because the
quantity of oxygen in the compacted wastes is low.
Fourth, the baled wastes arc likely to contain either
few or no pathogenes after storage and transport
during which time an appreciable amount of heat is
generated.
Provisions for the escape of gases should be no
more than that required in normal landfills. Controls
of leachants from bales do not need to have the same
capacity as those required for landfills of unprocessed
waste as bales tend to resist water percolation.
Provisions for rain water run-off must, of course, be
made following normal landfill experience.
In view of the importance of public health and
environmental control in solid-waste disposal, an
attempt was made during the study to gather and
evaluate as far as possible relevant data and
information which could be used in the development
of rail-haul as a significantly improved instrument for
environmental control. These data are presented in
Appendix B. Although emphasis has been placed on
developing inputs with respect to rail-haul of
compacted wastes, many of the data are applicable to
other systems.
109
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPOSITION AND CONSTITUENTS OF MANUFACTURED AND NATURAL
PRODUCTS FOUND IN SOLID WASTES
TABLE 36
COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL WASTES
(ESTIMATED UNITED STATES AVERAGE PER YEAR)
TABLE 37
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Type
Weight-Percentage
of Total Wastes
60.0%
8.5
Paper Wastes
Food Wastes (bound water and solids)
Glass and Ceramic Wastes 8.0
Metallic Wastes 8.0
Plants and Grass (bound water and solids) 6.5
Plastic Wastes 3.5
Furniture and Boxes 1.5
Construction Wastes 1.0
Textiles 0.5
Dirt and Vacuum Cleaner Catch 1.1
Rubber Wastes 0.2
Leather Wastes 0.2
Household and Garden Chemicals
(solids, liquids) 0.2
Paints, Oils, and Varnishes 0.3
Miscellaneous
(liquids, special washes, micro-
organisms, etc.) 0.5
100.00%
Industry
Paper
Fruit and Vegetable
Meat and Poultry
Dairy
Glass and ceramics
Metallurgical
Iron Foundries
Plastics
Textiles
Construction (including
remodeling and demolition)
Chemical
Lumber and Furniture
Composition
(Process Wastes)
Sawdust, dust from rag stock,
Lime sludge, black carbon
residue, paper rejects
Scraps of fruit and vegetables,
seeds, cobs, oils, processing
chemicals
Flesh, entrails, hair, feathers,
fat, bones, blood, grease
Butterfat, milk solids, ash,
acids, discarded milk and cheese
Broken ceramics, some glass,
sludges, dusts, chemicals,
abrasives
Emulsified cleaners, machine
•oils, oily sludge, borings and
trimmings, toxic chemicals
Cupola slag, iron dust
Scraps from molding and extrusion,
rejects, chemicals
Textile fibers (plastic and
natural), rags, processing.
chemicals, detergents
Sand, cement, brick, masonry,
metal, ceramics, plastics, glass
Organic and inorganic chemicals
and rejects of synthetic products
such as fibers, rubbers, pigments;
can contain toxic, explosive and
radioactive wastes
Sawdust, wood chips, abrasives,
oily rags, upholstery materials,
paints, varnishes, scraps of
wood, plastics, and textiles
110
-------
TABLE 38
PAPER WASTES
Type of Paper
Newspapers
Brown Kraft
Paper
Corrugated
Boxes
Books and
Magazines
Writing Papers
Glassine and
Grease Papers
Tissue Papers
Paper Food
Containers
Paperboards
Major
Constituent
fC«H.nO,)x*
a — Cellulose
a — Cellulose
a - Cellulose
a - Cellulose
a - Cellulose
a — Cellulose
a - Cellulose
a — Cellulose
a — Cellulose
Other Organic
Constituents
Lignin
Hemi-Cellulose
Pentosans
Lignin
Hemi-Cellulose
Pentosans
Lignin
Pentosans
0 & 7 Cellulose
Hemi-Cellulose
0 & 7 Cellulose
Lignin
0 & 7 Cellulose
Hemi-Cellulose
Lignin
Pentosans
Hemi-Cellulose
Lignin
Pentosans
& & 7 Cellulose
Lignin
Pentosans
Lignin
Hemi-Cellulose
(3 & 7 Cellulose
Pentosans
Lignin
Pentosans
Hemi-Cellulose
Fillers, Binders,
and Coatings
Rosin, Clay
Alum
Casein
Gum, Starch
Clay, Rosin
Alum, Resin
Clay, Starch
Glue
Ti02
Clay, Starch
Rosin, Casein
Satin White
TiO, , CaC03
Rosin, Clay
Alum, Starch
Satin White
Resin
Glycerine
Clay, Starch
Wax
Starch
Rosin, Clay
Starch, Alum
Wax
Clay, Rosin
Wax, Starch
Resin
Ash**
3.5%
6.5%
7.8%
28.0%
6.0%
0.7%
7.8%
7.5%
•"Condensed formula of cellulose fiber. **Average values.
References: Ralph W. Komler, Varieties of Paper and Paperboard, Waste Paper Utilization Council.
James P. Casey, Pulp & Paper, Vol. 1 to HI, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York
111
-------
TABLE 39
GLASSES AND CERAMICS
Chemical Composition — Main Constituents
Glasses41
SiO2 CaO A12O3 Na20 MgO K2O B203 PbO
70-74
67-92
73.6
71.6
67.2
54.0 ,
67-97
8-13
1-8
5.2
13.0
0.9
13-17
0.3-13
1-2
0-1
1.0
1.5
14-15
1-4
13-16
9.5-18
16.0
14.0
9;s
4-18
0.3-3.5
0.15-3
3.6
2.0
5.0
-
0.3-16
0-7
0.6
_
7.1
0.1-12
—
0-0.4
_
10-11
1-16
—
0-14.8
_
—
14.8
0-15
Ceramics
day** Feldspar**
(Mg, Ca, K2)OAl203:nSi02nHQ (Ca,K2)Na2)0-Al203 -6Si02
Sand Others:
Si02 Various Oxides
Applications
Containers &
bottles1-2
Tablewares1'3
Light bulbs2
Windows2
Decoratives2
Fiber glass3
Others1'2-3
China
Pottery
Bricks
Porcelain
Enamels
Refractories
"Composition by weight % """Variable composition
References: 1. B.C. Moody, Packaging in Glass, Hutchinson & Co., London, 1963
2. R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967
3. S. R. Sholes, Modem Glass Practice, Industrial Publication Inc., 1952
112
-------
TABLE 40
METALS AND ALLOYS
Type
Iron & Iron Alloys
Steels
Aluminum &
Aluminum Alloys
Copper &
Copper Alloys
Nickel &
Nickel Alloys
Lead &
Lead Alloys
Zinc &
Zinc Alloys
Magnesium &
Magnesium Alloys
Tin &
Tin Alloys
Mercury
Other Metals &
Metal Alloys
Chemical Composition -
Major & Minor Constituents
Major: Fe
Minor: Cr, Mn, P, S, Ni, Al,
Mo, Si, C
Major: Al
Minor: Cu, Mg, Mn, Si, Cr,
Zn, Pb, Bi
Major: Cu
Minor: Zn, Pb, Sn, Al, Fe,
Ni, Si
Major: Ni
Minor: Fe, Cu, Cr, Mo, Si,
C, Mn
Major: Zn
Minor: Sb, Sn, As
Major: Zn
Minor: Cu, Al, Pb, Mg, Cd
Major: Mg
Minor: Al, Zn, Mn
Major: Sn
Minor: Pb, Cu, Sb
Major: Hg
Minor: None
Co, Mn, Mo, Ta, Th, Ti, W,
Cr, Bi, Ag, Au, Pt
Applications
Cans, pipes, wires, tools,
razors, nails, structural,
appliances, furniture
Cans, cooking utensils
foil, appliances, furniture,
structural
Electrical wires, bronzes
& brasses, pipes, house-
wares, decorations
Thermal & electrical appliances,
linings, coatings, construction,
washing machines
Automobile storage battery,
pipes, pigments, solders,
coatings
Galvanic coating, roofing
paints
Structural, galvanic protection,
instruments, sporting goods,
office equipment
Coatings, solders, foils,
housewares
Thermometers, UV lamps
Special applications for
instruments, equipment, tools,
electrical, photography,
jewelry, coatings
References: D. E. Gray, American Institute of Physics Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1963
T. Baumeister, Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967
113
-------
TABLE 41
FOOD
TVpe
Vegetable Wastes
As purchased
Edible portion
Dried (beans)
Skeletons, stalks, stems
Fruit Wastes
Edible portion
Stems, skeletons, peels
Meat Wastes
Meat (fresh)
Meat (cooked)
Bones
Blood
Poultry meat
Skin, tissue, tendon
Fats
Fish Wastes
Fish (fresh)
Dairy Wastes
Milk (fresh)
Cheeses
Butter
Other Foods
Egg shells:
Coffee:
Cereals:
Food Additives:
t Chemical Composition — Main Constituents
Water Carbohydrates Proteins Fats&Ofls Muieral Matter Ash Others
% % % % Maior Constituents %
79-95
68-95
12.6
3-17
3-28
59.6
2-4
1-7
22.5
Legno-cellu'oses (see Wood in Table 8)
65-95
6-34
0.4- .4
0.2.-0.4
0.1-1.2
1.8
Ca, Fe, P
Ca, Fe, P
Ca, Fe,P
0.7-2 Vitamins
0.6- 1 .5 Vitamins
3.5 Vitamins
0.1-1.6
K, Fe, P, Cu
0.3-1 Vitamins
acids
Ligno-celluloses (White of orange peel: Pectocellulose) i
50-75
50-75
48-52
98
60-73
0-5
0-5
Trace
0-3
9-29
9-29
10-25
56
2
16-22
3-36
3-36
22-29
4
3-36
Na, Ca, P, Cl, S
Na,Ca,P,Cl,S
Na, Ca, P, Cl
Ca3(PO4)2 CaC03
NaCl,NaCo3
Na, Ca, P, Fe
0.2-7.3 Vitamins
0.2-7.3 Vitamins
1.3-6.1 Vitamins
40
0.15
1 .0 Vitamins
Collagen (Protein); Glycogen (starch) & animal fats
Glyceryl esters of fatty acids (100%)
65-84
84-88
35-74
15.5
0-4
f
0.3-4
0.4
11-23
3-6
18-80
0.6
0.3-20
3-4
27-37
81
Ca, P, Fe
Ca, P, Fe
Ca, P, Fe
Ca, P, Fe
Main Constituent-:
Calciiim;Chitin:C,sH380|oN2
Cellulose, Fat, Sugars, Proteins
Carbohydrates
Preservatives & Buffers (organic ucids), Sweeteners (saccharine),
Thickeners (agar-agar), Oils, Nutrients (vitamins)
1-1.7 Vitamins
0.7 Vitamins
1 .2-2.9 Vitamins
Trace Vitamins
Bacteria & Decomposition Products of Foods
Bacteria
Water
%
80-85
Proteins
%
8-J5
Fats & Oils
% •
0.54
Mineral Matter
Major Constituents
P,Na,Ca,S
Ash
0.5-3
Bacterial Degradation
Products of Foods
Organic acids. Aldehydes, Alcohols, etc.
Putrefaction Products of:
Proteins
Fats & Oils
Dairy Foods
Alkaloids: Aminovaleric acid (meat), Cadavcrine and Putrescinc (tissue),
Diethylamine (fish)
Butyric acid
Tyrotoxine (alkaloid) - in stale milk
Starches, sugars, celluloses.
References
M. B. Jacobs, Chemical Analysis of Food anil Food Products. New York, 1951
Hackh's Chemical Dictionary. 4th Edition, 1968
I. F. Gerard, Meat Technology, London, 1951
Blank, Handbook jf Food and Agriculture. New York, 1955
114
-------
TABLE 42
GARDEN WASTES
Type
Blue Grass, Red
Top, Fescue
Ryegrass, Bent
Roots & Tubers:
Leaves & Flowers:
Type
Green hardwood
Green softwood
Dry hardwood
Dry softwood
Type
Mineral Soil
Organic Soil:
Sand & Gravel:
Other Components
of Garden Wastes
Chemical Composition - Main Constituents
Grasses & Plants
Water
69-76%
75-90%
85-95%
Celluloses,
Lignin,
Others
. 12-24%
i
Protein
5-9%
K, Na, Ca, Mg,
Fe, P, S, Q
2-3%
10-25% solids (Celluloses, Lignin, Minerals)
5-15% solids (Celluloses, Lignin. Minerals)
Wood3
Water
60%
60%
25%
25%
7 - Cellulose*
(C6H1005)n
48%
50%
As above
As above
Lignin
C,H,0
19.5%
28.0%
As above
As above
Pentosans
(sugars)
19.0%
7.5%
As above
As above
Soil, 3 Sand, Other
SiOj
59%
A12O3 CaO MgO K20
3.7% 5.1% 3.5% 3.1%
Memo- ^
Celluloses
10%
15%
As above
As above
Na20
3.7%
Varying amounts of plant matter and minerals
Main constituent: Si02 (Quartz & Silica)
Industrial dusts; agricultural chemicals; insecticides, rodenticides, herbicides,
fertilizers; scraps of household wastes such as paper, plastics and others.
Average, dry weight basis. Average composition of the earth's crust, weight %
References: 1. National Academy of Science, National Research Council, Feed Composition, Washington, D. C.,
Publication No. 1232 (1964); F. C. Blanck, Handbook of Food & Agriculture, Reinhold Publish-
ing Co., New York, 1955.
2. J. A. Kent, Riegels, Industrial Chemistry, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York; Mantell, Engineer-
ing Industrial Handbook, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1958.
3. F. E. Bear, Chemistry of the Soil, Reinhold Publishing Co., New York, 1955.
115
-------
TABLE 43
PLASTICS
Chemical Composition
Main Constituents
Applications
Polyethylene
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Polystyrene
Phenolics
Polypropylene
Polyesters
Polyurethanes
Melamine-Formaldehyde
(Amino Resin)
Urea-Formaldehydes
(Amino Resin)
Cellulose Acetate
Acrylics
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene
Styrene (ABS)
Epoxies
Polycarbonates
Nylons (Nylon 66)
Polyacetals
Polyvinyl Acetate
Saran
Teflon
Kel-F
Polyvinyl Alcohol
[CH2-CH2-]n
t-CH(C2-CHCl-]n
[-CH(C6H5)-CH2-]n
[-CH2-C6H3(OH)-]n
[-CH2-CH(CH3)-]n
[-CO-C6H4.COO-CH2CH20-] n
[OR-0-CO-NH-R1-NH-CO-] „
[-NH-C3N3:(NHCH2-)2]n
[-CH2-N-CO-NH-]n
[-C6H702(OHXOAc)2-]n
[-CH2- C(CH3)(CO-OCH3)-]n
[CH2 -CH(CN)-CH2 -CH:CH-CH2
CH(C6H5)-CH2-]n
CH2-CH-CH2[-0-C6H4-C.
(CH3)2-C6H4 -0-CH2-CH(OH)-
CH2-]n
[-0-C6H4-C-(CH3)2 CeRrO-CO-
[-NH(CH2 )6 NH- CO(CH2 )4 CO-]n
[-0-CH-(CH3)-]n
[-CH2-CH(OOCCH3)-]n
[-CH2-CCl2-CH2-CHCl-]n
l-CF2-CF2-]n
i-CF2-CFCl-]n
[-CH(OH)-CH2-CH(OH)-CH2-]n
Packaging: sheets, bags;
bottles, toys, housewares
Packaging: bottles, containers; toys,
floor tile, pipes & fittings, shoes, upholstery
Packaging: foam, sheets; appliances, toys,
insulation, shoes, panels, cups, lids
Appliances, telephones, furniture,
laminates
Packaging, toys, carpets, blankets,
housewares, pipes, tubing, closures
Textiles: Dacron, Kodel, Fortrel, table tops .
laminates, fixtures, coatings, artificial leather
Elastomers, insulation, cloth linings,
packaging
Toys, dinnerware, ta'oletops, knobs,
buttons, bottlecaps, fixtures, plywood
Women's apparel, draperies, upholstery,
photographic film, packaging
Sunglasses, plexiglas, textiles, panels,
paints
Shoe heels^uggage, appliances,
construction, furniture
Flooring, linings, tubing, coatings
nPackaging: film, sheeting; appliances,
insulation
Fabrics, packaging, bottles, watch
straps, appliances, nuts
Toys, packaging, zippers
Records, adhesives
Packaging, upholstery, textiles
Packings, linings, seals, coatings,
insulation, gaskets
Water soluble packaging
References: Modern Plastics, January 1968.
R.N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw Hill Book Co. 1967.
116
-------
TABLE 44
TEXTILES
Chemical Composition - Main Constituents
Application
Synthetic Fibers
Polyamides:
Nylon 66
Nylon 6
Polyesters:
Dacron
Others.
Vycron
Kodel
Fortrel
Acrylics & Modacrylics:
Orion
Others:
Acrilan
Creslan
Dynel
Verel
Vinyls & Vinylidines:
Saran
Vinyon
Polyure thanes:
Spandex
PolyoleBns:
Polypropylene
Fiberglass:
Cdlulosic Fibers:
Viscose Rayon
Cuprammonium Rayon
Cellulose Acetate
Natural Fibers
Vegetable Fibers:
Cotton
Cellulose
Linnen
Cellulose
Animal Fibers:
Wool
Kcnilinc
Natural Silk
fibroin
(.HN(CH2)6NHOC(CH2)4CO-i,
«CH,)5CONH-)n
HO(C2H4OjC-C(SH4COj)nCjH,OH
(-CH,CHCN-)n
(-CH2ClCH-)n
(-ORC02NHR'NHCO-)n
(•CH2CH3CH-)n
Borosilicate glasses
(C6H,04-OH)
(C.H1005)n
[C6H,02CCH3)3]n
(C6H,04-OH)n
(QH-.O.-OH),,
•VSI%C;20%0; 19% N;
7%II;3%S
(C,sH,,NsO,)n
Women's hosiery, apparel, other
fabrics, protective clothing
Fabrics, shifts, dresses, blouses,
knitwear, stuffing for pillows,
sleeping bags, fire hose, V belts,
comforters, men's and women's
summer suits
Coats, sweaters, v/ork clothing,
carpets, pile fabrics, blankets, nets,
winter suits, draperies
Seat covers, other upholstery,
filter cloth, workmen's clothing,
heat-sealing fabrics
Elastics, foundation garments,
swim suits
Ropes, carpets, laundry nets,
blankets, sweaters
Draperies, curtains, bedspreads,
tablecloths
Wearing appare!, draperies,
upholstery, blends with wool in
carpets and rugs
Blouses, dresses, shirts, sheets,
curtains
Wearing apparel, household
articles
Wearing apparel, blankets.
carpets, rugs
Wearing apparel: also used with
other strong threads as
backing
References: R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process INdustries, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967, Chapter 35.
Geoffrey Martin, Industrial and Manufacturing Cliemistry; a Practical Treatise; Part 1.
Organic. 7th Edition, Revised by E. I. Cooke, 1952, Technical Press, Ltd., Section XIX.
R.}. Block, Amino Acid Handbook Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1956.
Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia ofCliemical Technology, Interscience Publisher, 1967, Vol. 9.
See Plastics. See Glasses.
117
-------
TABLE 45
LEATHER (NATURAL & SYNTHETIC)
Chemical Composition — Main Constituents
Applications
Natural Leather
Hide Substance:
Collagen
(Amino Acids)
Tannings:
Vegetable
Synthetic
Chrome
Fats
Glycerides of:
Stearin
Palmitin
Olein
FDIers:
Dyes& Pigments:
Synthetic Leathers
Neolite
Corfam
Patent Leather
Others
Complex mixtures of glucosides of
various polyphenols
Condensation products of sulfonated
phenols and formaldehyde
Basic chromic sulfate Cr(OH)S04
or sodium dichromate Na2Cr207
C3Hs(0-C17H3sCO)3
C3H5(0-C1SH31CO)3
C3HS(0-C17H33CO)3
MgS04 •, Cellulose
See Paints
Styrene-acrolonitrile butadiene
Polyester, urethane
Vinyl polymers, urethane
PVC; nylon, ionomer, spunbonded
polyester; polyurethane, viscose
Shoes, belting, gloves, bags,
upholstery, apparel
Heavy leather component
Auxiliary and complementary
agents
Light leather component
Shoe soles and heels, luggage
Shoe-uppers, belting
Shoes, handbags, belts
Shoes, shoe linings, bags,
Icatherlike fabrics, apparel
See Plastics.
References:
Geoffrey Martin, Industrial and Manufacturing Chemistry; a Practical Treatise; Part I,
Organic. 7th Edition, Revised by E. I. Cooke, 1952, Technical Press, Ltd., Section XIX.
R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process INdustries, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967, Chapter 25.
118
-------
TABLE 46
RUBBERS (SYNTHETIC & NATURAL)
Chemical Composition — Main Constituents
Applications
Synthetic Rubbers
Polybutadiene
Polyisoprene
Neoprene
Styrene-Butadiene
Nitrile
Polysulfide
Butyl
Polyurethane
Silicon
Others:
Rubber Fillers**
Natural Rubber
Rubber Hydrocarbon:
Others:
-CH2CH:CH(CH2)2CH:CHCH2
-CH2CH3C:CHCH2-
-CH2CC1:CHCH2-
-CH2 CH: CH(CH2 )2 CHC6 H5 -
-CH CH:CH(CH2 )2 CHCN-
-C(CH3)2(CH2)2CH3C:CHCH2-
-OROCONHRNHCO-
-OSi(R)2OSi(R)2-
Acrylic, Plastisized
polyvinylchloride, etc.
Sulphur, Clay, CaC03 , Coal, Silica
-CH2CR:CHCH2-
Fatty acids, Sterols
Proteins, Esters,
Inorganic salts,
Moisture
) 93.3%
I 6.7%
100.0%
Tires, waterproofing of fabrics,
shoe soles and heels, rubber boots,
swim suits, foundation garments,
linings, building, putties, cements,
flooring, pillows, mattresses, upholstery.
tubes, pipes, hose, insulation, packings,
rainwear, building panels, tennis and
golf balls, gaskets, sealants, combs,
belting, etc.
Hard Rubber contains about 25-40%
of Sulphur
See Synthetic Rubbers
See Plastics. Synthetic and natural rubbers contain about 50 parts of filler for 100 parts of rubber.
References: R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967
J. A. Kent,Industrial Chemistry, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, 1962
119
-------
TABLE 47
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION - MAIN CONSTITUENTS
Type
Chemical Composition - Main Constituents
Sons:
Mineral Soil
Organic Soil
Industrial Dusts:
Fly Ash, Cement
Dust, Metallurgical
Dusts, Foundry
Dusts, Oil Smoke
Fibers: (from carpets
and textiles)
Hair: '
Food Scraps:
Metal Scraps {pins,
needles, etc.)
Others:
Si02,Al203,CaO,Fe203)etc.
Organic plant matter and mineral soil (See Garden Wastes)
SiOj, A12O3 ,Fe203, Carbon, Sulphur, Oil, Metal Powders
Wool, Cellulosics, Acrylics, Polyesters, etc.
(See Textiles)
Keratine Substance: Carbon 51%
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Hydrogen
Sulphur
21%
Fats, Proteins, Carbohydrates (See Food Wastes)
Iron, Steel, Aluminum (See Metals & Alloys)
Powdered household chemicals, Paper scraps, Glass
fragments, Bacteria, etc.
!R. J. Block, AminoActf. Handbook, 1956
120
-------
TABLE 48
VARNISHES AND LACQUERS
Chemical Composition - Main Constituents
OUs
Mixtures of Esters
of Glycerin
(C3H5(CH)3)
and various fatty
acids such as:
Saturated Acids
Palmitic
Stearic
Arachidic
Unsaturated Acids
Oleic
Unoleic
Linolenic
Hydroxyl Acids
Solvents
& Thimers
Mineral Spirits
Turpeniine
Dipentene
Naphthas
Xylol
Xyleno!
Toluol
Benzol
Esters
Ketones
Alcohols
Ethers
Resins
Shellac
Resin Latex
Phenol-Aldehyde
Alkyds
Acrylates
Vinyl Resins
Chlorinated Rubber &
Diphenyl
Copolymer Latex
Cellulose Derivatives
Mannitol Esters
Pentaeerythritol Esters
Limed Rosin
Ester Gum
Copal
Dammar
Epoxies
Pigments
& Extenders
Lead compounds:
PbC03,PbS04,PbO
Calcium compounds;
CaS04,CaC03,CaO
Barium compounds:
BaSO4 ,BaCl2 , BaS
Zinc compunds:
ZnO, ZnS
Titanium Dioxide: Ti02
Oxides of: Co, Cr, Fe, Cu
Silica, Talc, Metallic
Powders
Carbon:
Amorphous
Crystalline
Phthalocyanides
Ferrocyanides
Toluidines
Chloro Aniline &
Analine Derivatives
Others
Dryers:
Naphthenates of:
Co, Mn, Pb, Zn
Resinates
Octoates
Linoleates
Tallates
Thickener:
Casein (Protein)
Plasticizers:
Phthalates
Phosphates
Antiskinnings:
Polyhydroxy Phenols
Alkalies
Chlorinated Phenols
Copolymers
Reference: R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967, Chapter 24
121
-------
TABLE 49
INSECTICIDES
Chemical Composition — Main Constituent
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
DDT
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Lindane
Dieldrin
Strobane
Perthane
Sulphur Hydrocarbons
Malathon, etc.
Saturated, Unscturated &
Aromatic Hydrocaibons
Methylene Chloride
Dichlorodifluorbmethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Allethrin
Pyre thrum
Le thane
Thanite
Sulfoxide
Piperonyl Butoxide
MGK 264
Cj4H9Cls
CieHisOjCls
'CioH6Clg
C6H6C16
Ci iH8C!6
Unknown
CisH2oCl2
CioHi906PSj
Kerosene, etc
CH2C12
CF2CI2
CFC13
Cl 7H26C>3
R'-dsH.vOs-R
C8H,702CNS
C,,H1702CNS
C25H18OS
Ci 9H30Os
C17H27O2N
Arsenites
Fluorides
Mercury Compounds
Phosphides, Cyanides, Sulphur Compounds
Function of Components
Toxicans
Solvents
Propellants in
aerosols
Knockdown agents
Synergists
Inorganic
toxicans
Reference: Mer/.ka & Pickthall, Pressurized Packaging, Aerosols,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1958
122
-------
TABLE 50
COSMETICS
Chemical Composition - Main Constituents
Active Ingredients
Halogenated Compounds
Aluminum Chlorhydrol
Aluminum Chloride
Hexachlorophene
Methylene Chloride
Polyvinylpyrrolidone
Sulphur Compounds
Zinc Sulphocarbolate
Aluminum Sulphocarbolate
Triethanolamine Laurie Sulphate
Sodium Lauryl Sulphate
Oils
Vegetable
Mineral
Silicone
Essential
Miscellaneous
Stearic Acid
Stearates
Glycerol
Isopropyl Myristate
Triethanolamine
Triethanolamine Laurate
Sulphides
Pigments
Talc
Alcohols
Propdlants
Halogenated Compounds
DichI orodifl uorome th ane
Dichlorotetrafluoroe thane
Trichlorofluoromethane
A12(OH)S-C1-2H20
A1C13
C13C16H602
CH2C12
(-CH-C4H6ON-CH2-)X
Zn(03SC6H40H)2-8H20
Al(03SC6H40H)3-nH20
C12H2SSO4C6H14O3N
C12H2SS04Na
Glycerides
Paraffins & Olefins
-R2SiO-
Aromatic Aldehydes
C,7H3SCOOH
C17H3SCOOM
(CH2OH)2CHOH
C,3H27C02CH(CH3)2
(C2H40H)3N
C,,H23C02C6H402N
Na, Ba-sulphides
ZnO, TiO, Stearates
3MgO-4Si02-H20
C2H5OH,etc.
CC12F2
CC12F-CF3
CC13F
Application
Deodorants
Deodorants
Deodorants
Hair sprays &
Shaving nreams
1
Shaving lotions
Deodorants
Shampoos, shaving creams
Shampoos
Sun lotion
Brillantine, lipstick
Hand cream
Perfumes, lotions, etc.
Vanishing cream
Cold & Vanishing cream
Creams, lotions
Creams, lotions
Creams, lotions
Shampoos
Depillatories
Face powders
Talcum powder
Perfumes, lotions
Propellant agents
in sprays
Reference: Tho Merck Index, Merck & Co., Inc., 8th Ed., 1968
123
-------
TABLE 51
CONSTRUCTION WASTES
Chemical Composition — Main Constituents
Structural
Clay Products
Gypsum
Woods
Papers
Plastics
Metals
Glasses
Refractories
Porcelain & Enamels
Concrete
Lime Cement
Sand & Gravel
Lime, Sand, Soapstone
Mortars
Vermiculite
Others
Various Clays J
CaS04-2H20
Cellulose2
Cellulose2
Acrylics, Phenolics
PVC, Alkyds, Polyesters,
Polycarbonates, Poly-
urethanes, Epoxies,
Polypropylene, Poly-
styrene Aminos3
Al, Aluminum alloys, Fe,
Steel, Brass4
Glasses5
SiO2 , A12 O3 rich clay
Ceramics1
CaO-SiQj^CaO-AljOa,
CaO-Al2O3-Fe2Oo
CaO
SiO2 , Mica, Feldspar1
CaC03 , Si02 , Talc
Clays, Refractories
Oxides of Si, Mg.Al,
Fe, K, Ca
Asphalt, Asbestos,
Paints, VArnishes &
Laquers6 , Fly Ash
Perlite, Cork, Oils, Gums
Applications
Building brick, face brick, tiles,
terra-cotta
Plasters, wallboard, roof &
partition tiles
Plywood, frames, fiber & particle
boards, panels, flooring
Construction paper, paperboard,
core material, wallpaper
Decorative & structural panels,
tiles, windows, adherives, lam-
inates, decorative fixtures,
putty, insulation, pipes,
fittings, seating
Frames, fixtures, pipes,
Windows, plates, foamed glass,
fiberglass reinforcements &
insulation
Fire brick, linings, mortars
Plumbing, fixtures, insulation
tiles
Foundations, walls, floor & roof
slabs, sinks, steps
Plaster, mortar, stucco
Aggregates: cements, plaster
Steps, floor & roof tiles, tubs
Fillers, binders
Aggregate in plaster, acoustical
plastic, concrete, fill insulation
Fillers, insulation, waterproofing,
hardeners, sealers, binders
1 See Ceramics 2 Sec Wood & Paper 3See Plastics 4 See Metals & Alloys
5 See Glasses 6 See Paints
References: Mantell, Engineering Materials Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959
R. N. Shreve, Chemical Process Industries, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967
124
-------
TABLE 52
OVERSIZED WASTES
Type
Appliances
Metals & Alloys
Plastics
Others
Furniture, Fixtures
Wood
Plastics
1 Metals & Alloys
Upholstery
Soft Furnishings
Plumbing & Bath
Recreational
Others
Chemical Composition -
Main Constituents
__
Steel, Al.Fe.Cu1
Polystyrene, Phenolics2
Wood3, Glass4, Paints5
Cellulose3
Urea & Melamine
Al, Steel, Cu, Ni1
Textiles6 , Rubbers7
Foams2. Leather8
Textiles* Rubbers7
Plastics2
Pb, Cu, Al-Alloys1
Acrylic, Polystyrene2
Metals & Alloys1
PVC,ABS, Polyester2
Lead, Aluminum1
Plastics2 . ,
Rubber7
Wood & Paper3
Applications
Refrigerators, stoves, dryers, washing
machines, TV's, dishwashers, humidifiers,
air conditioners, space heaters, warm
water heaters, boilers, lawn mowers,
sewing machines
Tables, chairs, cabinets, bookcases, beds,
sofas, desks, lighting, bath & kitchen fixtures
Filing cabinets, bed springs
Sofas, chairs, beds
Carpets, bedding, pillows, drapes
Bicycles, play equipment
Swimming pools, play equipment, toys
Batteries, Christmas trees
Room dividers, flooring
Tires, garden hose
Crates, brush, stumps, doors, cardboard,
fencing, Christmas trees
1 See Metals & Alloy,. 2 See Plastics. 3 See Wood & Paper. 4 See Glass & Ceramics.s See Paints,
Varnishes & Lacquers. 6See Textiles. 7See Rubbers. 8See Leathers.
125
-------
APPENDIX B
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CONTROL MEASURES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The information given in this appendix is a
detailed account of factors and control measures
which should be considered in all solid-waste disposal
systems. Included is information on noise, dusts,
toxic and foul smelling bacterial degradation products
from loose and compacted waste, liquid and gaseous
release during and after compaction, and data on
disease associated with solid wastes.
Noise in Transfer-Compaction Station
Two major sources of noise must be considered
in the design and operation of a transfer-compaction
station. One is associated with the operation of
transport vehicles delivering the wastes, and the other
with the operation of machinery (compaction press
and auxiliary equipment) utilized in the compaction
process.
The generation of noise by delivery trucks is well
known. It is encountered in all transfer stations and
as such does not represent a new noise element.
However, since it is not the only major source of
noise in a compaction station, it should be
re-evaluated with respect to its contribution to the
overall noise level. The number and frequency of
waste deliveries'will affect the necessary measures to
be taken in a given station. Infrequent deliveries of
short duration are unlikely to pose problems.
However, a continuous flow of noisy vehicles might
require improvement in acoustics of the station or
even a separation of the collecting section from the
processing section of the building.
The other major source of noise in the station is
the compaction press itself, although auxiliary
processing equipment such as cranes will also
contribute to the overall noise level. The noise
generated by compaction presses is appreciable and
care should be taken during design to reduce the level
as far as possible. Even so, all machinery operations
tend to be noisy and as a result interfere with
communications. Excessive noue could introduce
safety hazards since it interferes with warning signals
propagated by sound. Therefore, other types of
safety warning signals would hcva to be installed,
such as flashing lights, and in cases in which sound
communication between employees is required,
provisions will have to be made to soundproof
specific areas. The latter requirement applies
specifically to any employee operating equipment
which has to be integrated with other operations if
the operations are not carried out by automatic
control. Special attention should be given to the noise
generated from shredding equipment, if it is used as a
pre-processing method. As a rule, shredders, such as
hammermills, are much noisier than compaction
presses.
In addition to the effect of noise on
communications and to its related safety hazards,
consideration should be given to its effect on the
health and efficiency of the working personnel. The
exact nature of the physiological and psychological
effects of noise, outside extremely high intensity
exposures, is not fully known. However, the
efficiency of human effort, whether mental or
manual, is known to depend very largely on the
prevention of fatigue. Authorities on industrial
economics claim that the greatest waste in industrial
operations is caused today by nervous fatigue
produced by excessive and continuous noise. Nervous
fatigue induced by incessant operation of the noisy
equipment could affect both efficiency and awareness
and therefore safety of the working personnel. Some
gain in efficiency has been reported for workers using
earplugs; however, the beneficial effect of earplugs
appears to be limited.8
1. Noise and Vibration Control
In view of the negative effects which can be
produced by the noise generated in any industrial
station which employs heavy machinery, preference
should be given to the use of construction materials
with sound-insulating properties. Practical solutions
include stiff and heavy brick or masonry walls or
equivalent insulation, and good foundations. In
addition, since noise arises from nonperiodic sound
waves which are transmitted through the air from
vibrating sources, special attention also should be
given to localized vibration control. The most general
principle of localized vibration control is that
vibrations should be damped out as near as possible
to their source. Concerning the compaction press, this
means that it shall be of correct design, properly
balanced, and with adequate foundations.
When the compaction station is in operation,
noise surveys should be made to define potentially
annoying sounds and their origin. It is recommended
that the sound level in the station should not exceed
8Harris, C.M. (Kd.), Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1957).
126
-------
70 decibels or as governed by local noise control
ordinances. Typical sound levels originating from
different sources are given in Table 53.
TABLE 53
TYPICAL SOUUD LEVELS
Deafening
120
110
100
Very Loud
90
Loud
80
70
60
Moderate
50
Faint
40
30
20
10
Decibels
Threshold of feeling:
thunder, artillery
Nearby riveter
Elevated train
Boiler factory
Loud street noise
Noisy factory
Truck unmuffled
Police whistle
Noisy office
Average street noise
Average radio
Average factory
Noisy home
Average office
Average conversation
Quiet radio
Quiet home or private office
Average auditorium
Quiet conversation
Rustle of leaves
Whisper
Soundproof room
Threshold of audibility
Noise surveys in the station should include
measurements of the frequency, duration, and
intensity of the noise, and the physical characteristics
of the noise source. Remedial action should be taken
to eliminate sources of excessive noise whenever
possible. Personnel operating continuously a noisy
piece of equipment, such as a nonmodified press,
should be provided with a soundproof console. It is
also advisable that employees exposed to the noise
continuously should be tested for their hearing in
order that preventive measures can be taken to
eliminate possible hearing losses of sensitive
individuals.
2. Audiometric Testing of Employee Hearing
In order to determine whether the noise
generated in the compaction station affects the
hearing of the employees, periodic audiometric tests
should be made under the direction of a qualified
person. A pre-employment test should be given and a
history taken in which prior ear disease, exposure to
noise, or any deafness in the family is noted. Testing
should be repeated every 9 to 36 months.
Audiometric testing criteria9 and Hearing Conser-
vation Data Cards10 have been developed. A method
for classifying the hearing of employees has been
worked out11 and some modifications12'13 have
been recommended. The modifications for
classification suggest referencing audiometric
measurements to absolute hearing thresholds rather
than to a central value. The advantages of the
introduction of audiometric zero reference levels are:
a. negative thresholds are eliminated, b. the
horizontal straight-line reference profile of the 1964
WHO ISO audiometric standards is maintained, c. the
American Academy of Ophthalmology and
Otolaryngology rule of estimation of percentage of
impairment of hearing is more easily applied to data
referenced to these new levels, and d. the full range
of normal hearing is included in the audiometric
scale. The grading systems of the modified hearing
evaluation chart is shown in Table 54.
The Early Loss Index (ELI), which is a measure
of hearing decrements in the Hertz range, can be used
to advantage to predict future hearing losses so that
preventive measures may be taken. A system of
grading ELI is shown, in Table 55.
Recently, a new method for predicting
susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss has been
developed.14 This method utilizes tests of Temporary
Q
American Industrial Hygiene Association, Industrial Noise
Manual,Second Edition, American Industrial Hygiene Asso-
ciation, Detroit (1966).
'" Subcommittee on Noise, Committee on Conservation of
Hearing, American Academy of Ophthalmology and Oto-
laryngology, Hearing Conservation Data Card. Revised, June
1968.
1' Guide For Conservation of Hearing in Noise, Prepared by
Subcommittee on Noise of the Committee on Conservation
of Hearing and Research Center Subcommittee on Noise. A
supplement to the Transactions of the American A cademy of
Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. Los Angeles 1964.
12 Hermann, E.R., "Environmental Noise, Hearing Acuity
and Acceptance Criteria," presented at the Midwest Acous-
tics Conference, April, 1968.
13 Hermann, E.R., and Holymann, E.R., "Absolute Thresh-
olds of Human Hearing" Reprinted from American Indus-
trial Hygiene Association Journal, 28: 13-20, (January-Feb-
ruary, 1967).
14 Smith, Haul K., Jr.. "A Test for Susceptibility to Noise-
Induced Hearing Loss." ["resented at the American Industrial
Hygiene Conference, St. Louis. Missouri: May 1968, submit-
ted to the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal.
127
-------
TABLE 54
MODIFICATION OF HEARING EVALUATION CHART BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF
ABSOLUTE THRESHOLDS OF HUMAN HEARING
Classes of Hearing
(db)
0
25
-JC
JJ
*if\
J\J
£*;
QA
CK
1|C
IT;
Q ass
A
B
C
D
E
F
Degree of
Handicap
Normal
Not
Significant
Slight
Mild
Marked
Severe
Extreme
Mean He;
Level (19
ISO plus
500, l.OC
2,000 He
die Bette
At least
50
6S
80
95
115
iring
64 Hearing Characteristics
24 db)
iQ and Excellent and very
rtz in good hearing range
rEar*
Less than
50
65
80
95
115
No significant difficulty
with faint speech
Difficulty only with
faint speech
Frequent difficulty with
Normal speech
Frequent difficulty with
loud speech
Can understand only
shouted or amplified
speech
Usually cannot under-
stand even amplified
speech
If the average of the poorer ear is 25 db or more greater than that for
the better ear, add 5 db to the average for the better ear.
Absolute Thresholds of Hearing
(after Hermann & Holzman)
Audiometer Zero (1964 ISO)
Audiometer Zero (1951 ASA)
"Low Fence"
Educational Deafness
"High Fence"
Usual Limit of Audiometer
output
TABLE 55
EARLY LOSS INDEX, 4,000 HERTZ AUDIOMETRY
Aye-Specific
ELI Scale
Age Men Grade ASPVby: Remarks
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0
3
7
1 ]
15
20
26
32
38
A
B
C
D
E
<8db
8-14
15-22
23-29
30 or more
Normal -excellent
Normal-good
Nomial-within
Suspect noise-
induced loss
Strong indication of
noise induced loss
128
-------
Thresholds Shifts (ITS) at 3,000 and 4,000 Hertz
after exposure at 2,000 Hertz. Plots of the temporary
threshold shift against pre-exposure hearing
thresholds of 30 volunteers are shown in Figure 28.
The lower curve represents the line of regression and
the upper curve one standard deviation plus the
regression line. It has been postulated that persons
giving TTS values above the one standard deviation
line might be considered high risk candidates for
Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shifts (NIPTS).
Dusts in Transfer-Compaction Station
Dusts are released from solid wastes primarily
during the dumping of loose refuse in the storage pit
and to some degree during loading of| the press
charging box. Dust problems could be practically
eliminated if the wastes would be contained in paper
or plastic sacks. However, severe dust problems could
be introduced by the shredding of wastes and the
dumping of shredded wastes. Compaction itself does
not introduce dust problems, nor does the handling
of compacted bales.
There are several types of dusts which can be
released from loose solid wastes. They can be broadly
classified as:
1. Inert or "Nuisance" particulates,
2. Inert or "Nuisance" particulates
contaminated with either traces of toxic
chemicals or laden with bacteria, and
3. Toxic dusts.
The main components of dusts from household
wastes are usually inert or nuisance particulates of
low order of activity. In concentrations ordinarily
encountered, these dusts do not cause physiological
impairment. A threshold limit of 50 millions of
particles per cubic foot (mppcuft) has been
recommended for substances in this category for
which no specific data are available.1 s The limit
applies to a normal 8-hour work day; brief exposures
15 Threshold Limit Values 1967, Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial Hygienlsts, Chicago, Illinois, May 1967.
plus one
deviation
-10
10 20 30 40 50
Initial Hearing Threshold, T, in db
60
FIGURE 28
PLOT OF REGRESSION LINE OF TWO MINUTE TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT
129
-------
at higher concentrations car. be tolerated. Clean air,
such as outdoor air in rain, contains about 0.3
mmpcuft dust particles in comparison to the
recommended limit of 50 mmpcuft. On the other
hand, the concentration of dust in coal mines has
been estimated to be 112 mmpcuft.15
So far, only a limited number of nuisance
participates associated with solid wastes have been
rigorously tested. Those reported in the literature are
listed in Table 56. They include both soluble and
insoluble, organic and inorganic, constituents.
Insoluble components, such as cellulose, cement,
iron, steel, and titanium dioxide, tend to accumulate
in the respiratory passages. The accumulation of
soluble dusts, such as starch and calcium carbonate, is
only temporary.
Most nuisance dusts contain predominantly
mineral particles. This is likely to be true for solid
waste dusts also; however, it is conceivable that refuse
dusts could be mainly organic in nature. Large
quantities of the organic dust, especially cellulose,
could be produced during the handling of dry,
shredded wastes.
As mentioned before, the bulk of dusts generated
in transfer stations belong to the nuisance category.
1 Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Fourth edition, 1969.
However, it should also be recognized that ordinary
dust particles can be contaminated cither with traces
of chemical toxic impurities or that the dusts could
be laden with disease-carrying bacteria. The threshold
limit allowable for contaminated nuisance dust is
obviously less than for non-contaminated dusts.
Toxic impurities attached to dust particles could
be either solid or liquid. It should be emphasized that
as a rule households discard only very small quantities
of toxic dusts and liquids. Traces of toxic powders
and liquids could be introduced through a variety of
household chemicals, especially those used in the
control of insects, germs, rodents, and garden
vegetation, and through chemicals used for
housecleaning purposes. Paints can contain,
occasionally, toxic pigments and solvents; vacuum
cleaner catches may incorporate traces of toxic
industrial dust. However, toxic substances produced
during bacterial degradation of food wastes,
especially from meat and fish, are likely to be present
in traces in most waste loads. Some toxic categories
and components of wastes are listed in Table 57.
Toxic substances produced during the
decomposition of foods and pathogenic organisms
which have been associated with wastes are discussed
TABLE 56
"INERT" OR NUISANCE PARTICULATES
Chemical Composition
Components of:
Organic
Cellulose
Starch
Sucrose
Inorganic
Nuisance dust (no free silica)
Alundum (A1203)
Iron &. Steel Dust
Calcium Carbonate
Portia/id Cement
Gypsum
Limestone
Magncsite
Plaster of Paris
Tin Oxide
Titanium Dioxide
Paper, wood, vegetable
& fruit wastes
Food wastes
Food wastes
Soil, industrial dusts
Industrial dust
Industrial dusts
Paints, construction wastes
Construction wastes & dust
Construction wastes & dust
Cement, fertilizer
Refractories
Construction wastes
Pigment
Pigment in paper, painls,
rubber, ceramics, shoe polish
*See Tables 38-52
130
-------
TABLE 57
SOME TOXIC DUSTS, LIQUIDS, AND OTHER COMPONENTS
IN HOUSEHOLD WASTES (TRACES)
Origin in Waste
Chemical Composition
Organic: ChlorinatJd, Sulphur &
Phosphorous compounds, etc.
Inorganic: Arsenites, Cyanides,
Mercury compounds, etc.
Lead, Copper, Chromium, Zinc and
soluble Barium compounds
Mercury (liquid metal of high
vapor pressure)
Sulphur compounds
Turpentine, Cresol, Phenol
Acids, Alkalies
Alkaloids and Clucosides
(Ptomaines1)
Disease - carrying microorganisms2
Notes: ' See Tables 58, 59.
2 See Tables 62,63.
in the following sections. As a lule, dusts can harbor
large numbers—in the millions—of microorganisms.
However, only disease-carrying organisms are of
concern.
With respect to the liquid components mentioned
in Table 57, it should be recognized that these
substances can emit vapors in addition to being able
to attach themselves to dust particles. They can,
therefore, contribute to air pollution in the absence
of dusts. However, with th3 exception of the
substances produced during the decomposition of
foods, and mercury, none appe?.r to warrant special
attention. Exposure to air containing 0.00012
percent mercury has been found to cause
poisoning.16
Since mercury tends to remain in small crevices,
it might accumulate in spite of housecleaning. Simple
tests are available for detecting mercury vapors, and
so are noncorrosive powdered chemicals, which can
be sprayed onto the contaminated area to convert the
metal into compounds of low vapor pressure which
are easily accessible to ordinary cleaning methods.
Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, Fourth Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969.
Insecticides, germicides, weed
Killers, rodent killers
Pigments in paints
Thermometers, UV lamps
Industrial dusts, chemicals
Liquid solvents in paints and
household chemicals
Household chemicals
Decomposed food (solids and
liquids)
Contaminated food, feces, textiles,
solid objects and dusts
The main source of air pollution in
transfer/compaction stations, other than dust,
therefore, is the formation of liquid and gaseous
decomposition products from decaying organic
matter.
Toxic Substances and Odor
Degradation of Food Wastes
As previously mentioned, decomposed wastes can
contain toxic substances. Toxic solid, liquid, and
gaseous products may be formed as a result of
progressive chemical decomposition of organic
matter, especially from proteins of animal origin.
During the putrefactive degradation by anaerobic
bacteria, the proteins are decomposed to toxic amino
compounds (alkaloids) which often emit foul-smelling
odors. These putrefactive alkaloids, and some toxic
glucosides, belong to the class of Ptomaines. A
number of Ptomaines, and the waste from which they
originate, are listed in Table 58.
Many of the liquid and solid putrefactive
compounds give off vapors of foul odors. These,
together with other decomposition compounds, are
presented in Table 59.
The concentration of vapors and gases emitted
131
-------
TABLE 58
PTOMAINES:*1 TOXIC, PUTREFACTIVE ALKALOIDS
PRODUCED BY BACTERIAL DEGREDATION OF FOOD WASTES
Toxic Amino Components Source
Betain (s) Cadaveric cleavage product
Cholin (1) Cleavage product: animal &
vegetable tissue
Hydrox>choline Decaying fish
Secaline (g) Putrefying cholin
Aminovaleric acid (1) Decomposed meat
Creatoxin Decomposed meat
Cadaverine (1) Decomposed animal tissue
Putrescins(l) Decomposed animal tissue
Caprylamine (1) Rancid animal oil & yeast
Morrhuine (1) Decomposed fish oil
Tyrotoxine (s) Decomposed dairy foods
Diethylanune(l) Decomposed fish
Triethylamine(l) Decomposed fish
Collidine (1) Putrefying fish
(s) solid (1) liquid (g)gas
(') Ptomaines are also produced in putrefied flesh (Mydin & Mydatoxine),
and from carbohydrates by the action of ammonia (Glycosins).
TABLE 59
TOXIC AMD FOUL SMELLING VAPORS & GASES PRODUCED BY
BACTERIAL DEGREDATION OF FOOD WASTES
Origin of Vapors & Cases Odor
Ptomaines:*
Cadaverine (animal tissue) putrefactive
Aminovaleric acid (meat) putrefactive
Caprylamine (animal oil) foul
Secaline (animal tissue) fishy
Triethylamine (fish) fishy
Diethylamine (fish) . fishy
Tyrotoxine (dairy) stale
Others:
Indol (intestinal putrefaction) fecal
Skatole (feces, putrefied albumins) fecal
Butyric acid (oils, fats, cheese, sugar, starch) rancid
Valeric acid (oils, meat) caprylic
Ammonia (NH3) (proteins) ammonical
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) (sulphur-) foul egg
(proteins)
Mercaptans (-SH-) foul
Carbon monoxide (CO) (no odor)
*See also Tr.ble 58
132
-------
from decaying organic matter is: quite small. However,
traces of odorous substances are sufficient to
contaminate the air. Simple control measures such as
good ventilation of the building can prevent the
buildup of noxious gases and vapors. Ventilation of
the storage areas for loose an-* uncompacted refuse,
and around the press, could be used to remove the
gases and vapors at their source.
Foul odors are not always emitted from wastes,
since the main source, raw moat and fish scraps, are
not always present. During a previous study,17 it was
found that compacted bales containing a high
proportion of spring cleaning materials from gardens,
decomposed appreciable without developing
foul-smelling odors. Analysis of the gas samples and
temperature taken at the time of sampling (Table 60)
indicated that the bacterial activity was primarily
aerobic. The collected gases contained mainly carbon
dioxide; only traces of carbon monoxide and no
methane was detected. The maximum temperature
recorded was 129° for a bale compacted at 2,000 psi.
teachings from Wastes during
Compaction and in Landfills
Ordinarily, the amount of leachings extracted
from household wastes, during compaction, is small.
Extracts are not obtained from dry refuse. Wet refuse
releases only part of its moisture, and as a result, an
17 Development and Testing of High-Pressure Compaction
and Baling of Solid Wastes for Ratt -You/, City of Chicago,
September 1969.
initially wet refuse remains wet after compaction.
The leachings, which contain liquids, suspended
solids, and a high proportion of sludge, tend to
release very unpleasant odors if left to stand.
To avoid pollution of the working area by
stagnant leachings, provision should be made to
collect and dispose of the extracts below the press.
Design provisions should also control the release of
leachings, especially pulps, through tiny clearings at
the top of the press. The latter type of extraction
occurs only if the refuse is very wet. However, due to
the buildup of pressure during compaction, the
extract can be expelled with great force, and if not
controlled, could be sprayed over a large area of the
building.
An analysis of leachings was carried out during
the City of Chicago compaction program, (Table 61).
The results indicate that they are likely to contain
mainly organic matter.
A microbiological analysis of press leachings,
Table 62, also carried out during the City of Chicago
compaction program, indicated the presence of only
one pathogenic microorganism, a virus. Although the
investigation was limited to leachings obtained from
one load of refuse, the finding is in accordance with
previous experience which indicates that
disease-carrying microorganisms are, as a rule, not
abundant in household wastes. Refuse-related
TABLE 60
GAS ANALYSIS AND BALE TEMPERATURE OF COMPACTED SPRING CLEANING
RESIDENTIAL WASTES
Bales
Residential — Loose
(3500 psi)
Residential - Loose
(2000 psi)
Papersacked
(3500 psi)
Papersacked
(2000 psi)
Plastic Covered
(3500 psi)
Plastic Covered
(2000 psi)
Time of1
Sampling
(days)
4.5
8
4.o
8
4.5
8
4.5
8
4.5
8
4.5
8
Percent of Gas
COj Oa CO Cft,
7.0
2.9
6.4
7.3
4.2*
4.5
—
6.9
3.5
3.7
7.6
4.7
13.1
17.5
14.2
12.4
16.2
15.6
—
13.2
17.3
16.7
12.4
15.5
0.009
trace
0.011
trace
0.013
trace
—
trace
0.019
trace
0.013
trace
none .
n
none
a
none
II
none
ti
none
//
none
n
Bale
Temperature (°F)
Inside Surface
105 95
102 . 93
129 125
105 119
113 113
100 110
115 103
115 103
106 98
106 90
97 9T
92 89
1 Time elapsed after bale was made.
2 Mean value of both papersacked samples.
133
-------
TABLE 61
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHINGS1
Sludge
Organic Matter
Silica as SiO2
Aluminum as A1203
Phosphates as P2 05
Calcium as CaO
Magnesium as MgO
Iron as Fe203
Sulphates as SO3
Carbonates as CO2
Liquid
PH
Total dissolved solids
Organic Matter
Bicarbonates
Sulphates
Chlorides
Sample 1 Sample 2
38.9%
30.8
15.2
8.9
2.0
1.4
0.5
Trace
0.0
7.8
6090 ppm
1720
90
250
21
Heavy metals (suspension) Large % amt.
76.7%
6.9
5.8
4.4
1.3
0.0
0.6
Trace
0.0
4.5
6040 ppm
4480
610
200
218
Small % amt.
1 Development and Testing of High-Pressure Compaction and
Baling of Solid Wastes for Rail Haul, City of Chicago, Sep-
tember 1969.
TABLE 62
MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LEACHINGS1
Bacteriology
Aerobic plate count
Anaerobic plate count
8.3 x 106 organisms/ml.
7.7 x 106 organisrns/ml.
Identified Bacteria (to genus)
Yeasts
Molds
1. Bacillus sp.
2. Coliform group
3. Streptococcus sp.
(alpha hemolytic and
non-hemolytic noted.)
5. Alcaligenes sp.
6. Micrococcus sp.
(coagulese negative)
7. Flavobacter sp.
8. Aerobacler sp.
Yeast cells were observed
I. Pcnicillium
2. Streptomyces
3. Paecilomyces
4. Mucor
Parasitiology
A number of free living amoebae
as well as ciliates were noted.
Water Bacteriology
1. Standard plate count @ 35° C:
2. MPN technique:
3. Fecal streptococci (membrane
filter)
4. Staphylococci (membrane filter)
4.9 x 107 organisms/ml.
9.2 x 10* organisms/100 ml.
7.0 x 106 organisms/100 ml.
5.7 x IP7 organisms/100 ml.
Virology
Virus isolated and identified as
ECHO by anti-serum neutralization
Chemistry
pH: 7;D.O.: none
1 High Pressure Compaction and Baling of Solid-Wastes, City of Chicago
epidemiological data presented In the next section
show that the number of reported incidences of
disease, related to loose household wastes, are
limited. This is understandable since many
pathogenes cannot survive outside their host
organism. The environmental conditions for survival
of pathogenes are even more unsuitable in the
compacted bales than in loose refuse. As a result of
the rapid development of high temperatures (see
Table 60) during storage and transport, the landfill
leachings from compacted bales should contain
relatively few pathogenes.
Kpidemiological Information on Disease
Associated with Refuse and Selected factors
Affecting the Survival of Pathogenes
Previous experience on disease associated with
refuse indicates that severe disease problems are not
encountered in handling loose household wastes. A
limited number of incidences of a variety of diseases
have been reported, although definitive information is
largely lacking. The possibilities of disease transfer by
loose solid wastes has been discussed at length in a
previous report,18 but very little concrete supporting
evidence has been developed.
To provide a basis for the evaluation of whether
or not disease-carrying organisms are likely to be
present in compacted bales, and to allow for future
developments of handling loose wastes, an attempt
was made during the present study to gather available
epidemiological data and correlate these data with
information on factors which affect the survival of
pathogenes in refuse.
The epidemiological information prcscnled in
Table 63 relates to diseases which have been
associated with loose refuse. Taken at its face value, it
Hanka, Thrift (.!., Solid Waste/Disease Relationships.
Fuhlic Health Service Publication No. 999 UIH-6. Cincinnati.
1967.
134
-------
might suggest that Streptococal disease could be
associated with refuse more often than any other
disease. However, in the absence of well-documented
studies it is not clear whether it is more prevalent;
Nevertheless, it appears advisable that this disease,
and at least those for which more than 10,000 cases
from all sources, and comparatively high mortality
rates for the total United States population have been
reported, be investigated in more detail. Diseases,
thus, suggested for further study include:
Streptococal disease,
Tuberculosis,
Infectious hepatitis,
Salmonellosis,
Shigellosis, and
Encephalitis.
Background information (see also Table 64)
shows that streptococci are mainly transmitted by
direct contact with human carriers and that casual
contact rarely leads to infection. However, the disease
also can be transmitted through indirect contact with
contaminated objects, although if the Streptococci
are dried they do not produce infection. The tubercle
bacillus is found to be more resistant to
environmental factors than many other human
pathogenes. It is resistant to drying. It can remain
viable for many months in watei and food, and in the
dry state, if surrounded by organic matter such as
paper, is resistant to dry heat at 100°C up to 45
minutes. However, it is easily killed by sunlight and
UV radiation. The hepatitis virus appears to be
affected by seasonal influence. Increases in incidences
of the disease have been reported during autumn and
winter. Salmonella bacteria have been found to be
only moderately viable outside the human body,
however, these organisms survive and multiply
considerably in food. Shigella bacteria are easily
killed by drying, chemicals, and sunlight. They are
found to survive for months in water and for days in
soiled bedding and textiles.
Encephalitis viruses have been associated with
refuse; however, no specific data on their viability
other than indicated in Table 64 have been found.
The information given in Table 64 has beep
developed with a dual purpose. One, to provide input
data on the resistance of pathogenes in loose refuse
and two, to evaluate the survival possibility of
pathogenes, associated with loose refuse, in
compacted bales. Only the resistance to temperature,
moisture and the refuse media in which the organisms
could survive are listed. Other factors, such as pH and
light, have not been considered primarily because
only small portions of refuse are exposed to sunlight
and the pH of refuse can vary from load to load. The
information on pathogene destruction as a function
of temperature and time has been specifically selected
because of its relevance to rail-haul.
Experiments carried out during the High-Pressure
Compaction program showed that the temperature of
compacted bales rises rapidly after compaction and
that it remains high over a period of days. The
maximum temperature recoided after a lapse of 4.5
days was about 50°C. In addition, it was found, both
during storage and during transport, that the rise in
temperature was accompanied by the development of
a large quantity of moisture. Since the destruction of
microorganisms is appreciably more effective with
moist heat than with dry heat, the generation of
moisture in the bales has a beneficial effect.
The thermal-death-time data given in Table 61
indicate the interrelationship between temperature
and time of exposure. It should be recognized that
the values recorded are those reported in the
indicated references and that other values have been
obtained mainly as a result of variations of factors
such as nature of the medium, number of organisms,
and pH. However, the resistance to temperature and
moisture, as given, is sufficiently accurate for the
evaluation purposes of this report. It should be
recognized also that the destruction of organisms can
be accomplished at lower temperatures than
indicated, if the time of exposure is increased.
As shown in Table 64, most of the agents of
diseases associated with wastes are destroyed at about
55° to 60°C in 30 minutes. Experience with
compacted bales indicates that the highest
temperatures generated in the bales is likely to be in
the vicinity of the above figures. In addition, the
temperature in stacked or enclosed bales was found
to rise more rapidly and to remain relatively high over
a long period of time (see Table 60). Since the
temperature requirement is lowered as the time of
heat exposure is increased, and since the bacterial
action in the bales generates not only heat but also
moisture, it can be concluded that bales compacted at
high pressures provide a most suitable environment
for killing pathogenes.
135
-------
TABLE 63
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH SOLID WASTES
Disease
Streptococal disease
(includes sore throat
& scarlet fever)
Tuberculosis
Infectious hepatitis
Salmonellosis
shigellosis
Acute conjunctivitis
Agents
Streptococcus
pyogenes
40 different
serotypes
Mycobactorium
tuberculosis
Virus
Salmonella
numerous
Serotypes of
genus shigella
bacteria
Haemophilus
aegyptus
H. influenzae
Moraxella
lacunata
Staphylococci
Streptococci
C. diphtheriae
Incubation
Period
1 -3 days
Maybe yrs.
6 to 12mos.
after infection is
most hazardous
15-50 days
Commonly
25 days
5-48 hrs.
Usually
12-24 hrs.
1-7 days
Usually less
than 4 days
24-72 hrs.
Incidence-Mortality
(1966) (1965)
427,752 63
47,767 7,938
32,859 707
15,841 87*
•(includes paratyphoid)
11,888 99
. 7,072
(25 states)
Important
Vector
Flies
Flies : "
Hies
Ries
Eye gnats
of
Flies
"
Source & Mode of
Transmission
Contact with contaminated
objects
Inhalation of contaminated
dust
Airborne dust
Contaminated articles
Human fecal waste
Feces
Contaminated milk,
food (contact)
Contaminated dust
Food: meat, sausage,
poultry or poultry
products; milk or dairy
products
Animal feces
Feces
Objects soiled with feces
Contaminated foods,
.water, milk
Contaminated objects
-------
Table 63 (Continued)
Disease
Hookworm disease
Staphylococcal
disease
Amebiasis
Encephalitis
Trachoma
Coccidiomycosis
Ascariasis
Typhoid Fever
Agents
Necator
americanus
Staphylococci
bacteria
(many strains)
Entamoeba
histolytica
Eastern Equine
Western Equine
The filterable
agent of trachoma
A Bedsonia
Coccidioides
immitis
Ascaris
lumbricoides
Salmonella
typhi
Incubation
Period
6 wks.
(for egg to
appear in feces)
4- 10 days
5 days to
seven mos.
Commonly
3-4 wks.
5-15 days
5-12 days
10 days to
3 weeks
2 mos.
1-3 wks
Reported
Incidence-Mortality
(1966) (1965)
3,756
(10 states)
3,522
(6 states)
2,921 66
2,121 500
1,165
(3 states)
347 52
(10 states)
451
(6 states)
378 6
Important
Vector
Flies
(not proven)
Flies
Mosquitos
Birds
Flies
Hies
Flies
Source & Mode of
Transmission
Feces larvae: penetrate
skin
Contact with contaminated
objects
Airborne dust
Contaminated vegetables
Human and dog feces
Bit of mosquitos
Materials contaminated with
occular discharges
Inhalation of spore laden
dust: soil, dry vegetation
Transmission of embryonated
eggs in soil
Dust
Human fecal waste
Contaminated food: raw fruits,
vegetables, milk, milk products,
shellfish
Contaminated human fecal waste
-------
Table 63 (Continued)
Disease
Schistosomiasis
Rocky Mountain
Spotted Fever
Brucellosis
Histoplasmosis
Tularemia
Trichinosis
Poliomyelitis
Coxsackie virus
Agents
Schistosoma
mansoni
Rickettsia
rickettsii
Brucella
melitensis
B. Abortus
B. suis
Histoplasma
capsulatum
Pasteurella
tularensis
Trichenella
spiralis
Poliovirus
types 1,2,3
Virus
Incubation
Period
4-6 wks
(288-N.Y.City,
1-New Mexico)
3- 10 days
5-18 days
Commonly
10 days
1-10 days
Usually
3 days
2-28 days
Usually
9 days
7-12 days
Reported
Incidence-Mortality
(1966) (1965)
289
268 16
262 6
236 74
(10 states)
208 2
115 3
113 16
51
(3 states)
Important
Vector
Snail
Dermacentor
variabilis
D. Anderson
Amblyomma
americanum
Flies
Rats
Flies
Ticks
Mosquitos
Flies
Source & Mode of
Transmission
Contaminated human fecal
wastes
Contact with crushed tissues
or feces of tick
Infected tissues or animal
secretions; milk and
dairy products
Inhalation of spore laden
dust
Ingestion of spore contamianted
foods
Infected animals (contact)
Contaminated flesh of
animals
Contaminated milk
Human feces
-------
Table 63 (Continued)
Disease
Cryptococcosis
0 Fever
North American
Blastomvcosis
Anthrax
Larva Migrans
visceral
Lumphocytic
choriomeningitis
Enlerobiasis
Diphyllobothriasis
Paratyphoid Fever
Taeniasis and
Cysticercosis
Strongyloidiasis
Agents
Cryptococcus
neoformans
Rickettsia
burneti
Blastomycfcs
deimotitidis
Bacillus
anthracis
Toxicana canis
or
Toxicana cati
The virus of
lymphocytic
choriomeningitis
Enterobius
vermicularis
Diphyllobothrium
latum
Salmonella
paratyphi
Tagenia solium
Taenia saginata
Strongyloides
stercoralis
Incubation
Period
No data
Usually
2-3 wks.
Few weeks
4-7 days
weeks or
mos.
8-13 days
15-21 days
(meningeal
symptoms)
3-6 wks.
3-6 wks.
1-20 days
8- 10 wks.
17 days
(for larvae to
appear in feces)
Reported
Incidence-Mortality
(1966) (196S)
31 62
21
(5 states)
. 19 2?
(47 states)
5 0
2
(1 state)
rare
*
"Included in Salmonellosis
Important
Vector
Flies
Flies
Anthropods
Mice
Flies
Flies
Flies
Flies
Source & Mode of
Transmission
Inhalation of spore laden
dust
Airborne dust
Infected milk
Inhalation of resistant spores
in spore laden dust
Products of infected
animals (contact)
Contaminated meat ingestion
Embryonated eggs in soil
Contaminated food
Dustborne inhalation
Raw or inadequately
cooked fish
Food, milk, shellfish
Raw or inadequately cooked
beef, pork
Infected feces
Filariform larvae in feces
penetrate skin
-------
TABLE 64
SELECTED FACTORS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CONTROL AND SURVIVAL
OF PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS ASSOCIATED WITH REFUSE
. Pathogenic
• Organisms
Streptococcus
pyogenes
(Bacteria)
Mycobacterium
tuberculosis
Infectious
hepatitis
(filterable
virus)
Salmonella
(Bacteria)
Shigella
(Bacteria)
Haemophilus
aegyptus
H. influenza
1 Moraxella
lacunata
(Bacteria)
Necator
americanus
(Helminth)
Resistance
Temperature — Time
Thermal Death Thermal Death
Point (TOP) Time(TDT)
Some varieties:
TDPatS5°Cin lOmin.
Practir ally all species:
TPP at 60°C in 30 60 min.
Pasteurization of miik:
TOP at 62°C in 30 min.
Moist heat:
TDPat60°Cin 15-20 min.
Survives heating at:
56°C for 30 min.
Survives in frozen feces at:
-10°C to -20°C for 1& years
Inactive at: -70°C after 32 months
Readily destroyed by pasteurizatior
at: 60°-63°C
Easily destroyed by pasteurization
TOP at 55°C in 1 hour
TDP at 55°C for 30 min.
Below 70°F and above 85°F
development is retarded. It is
never complete at 45°F.
i
Refs
11
10
6
4
11
10
5
2
Moisture
Survives for days in dust, especially
if protected from sunlight. (Ref. 10)
Dried streptococci though viable do
not produce infections. (Ref. 2)
Resistant to drying
(Refs. 10, 2, 4, 1 1)
No data
No data
Killed in few min. by drying. (Ref. 2)
Viable in water for months. (Ref. 1 1)
Rapidly killed by dessiccation. (Ref. 1 1)
Hookworm disease is endemic only in
regions where the rainfall averages 50
or more inches per year. (Ref. 7)
Drying rapidly destroys larva and even
the eggs. (Ref. 2)
Media in which Pathogen is
is likely to survive
Contaminated food, bedding,
clothing, dust. (Ref. 7)
Streptococci usually g'ow
best at z pH between 7.4
and 7.6 (Ref. 1 1)
Optimum growth temperature:
37.5°C.
Dried sputum, food, paper.
(Refs. 10,2,4,11)
Human feces and blood.
(Ref. 6)
Capable of considerable multi-
plication in bland and moist food.
(Ref. 4)
Water or mucoid discharge
Remains viable on clothing for
many days. (Ref. 1 1)
No data
Feces, damp textiles (Ref. 2)
Optimum growth temperature: —
75° to 85°F
-------
Table 64 (Continued)
Pathogenic
Organisms
Staphylococci
(Bacteria)
Entamoeba
histolytica
(Protozoa cysts)
Eastern equine
Western equine
Japanese B
Murray Valley
(Viruses)
Trachoma
(Filterable Virus)
Coccidicides
immitis
(Spore-forming
fungus)
Ascaris
lumbricoides
(Helminth)
Salmonella typhi
(Bacteria)
Schistosoma
mansoni
S. haemotosium
S.japonicum
(Trematoide worms)
• Resistance
Temperature - Time
Thermal Death Thermal Death
Point (TDP) Time (TDT)
TOP 62°C for 30 min.
Some strains resist:
80°C for 30 min.
Resist freezing
Resists freezing up to 1 year
TDP at 20° to 25°C in a few wks
Rapidly killed at 55°C.
Viability of the virus depends on
that of the tick.
TDPat45°Cin 15 min.
Inactivated by freezing
Resistant at:
80°-90°F; and 39°-530F
Resistant below 70°C
Resists freezing .
TDP ~56°C
Resists freezing
No data
Refs.
10
12
JO
2
6
6
9
7
2
10
2
Moisture
May survive for many months in dust
(resists drying) (Ref. 10)
Quickly killed by drying (Ref. 2)
Survives in water. (Ref. 2)
No data
No data
Highly resistant to drying. (Ref. 1 1)
Rainfall of 5—20 in. per yr. is favorable
(Ref. 9)
Resists desiccation. (Ref. 2)
Viable in water (Ref. 2)
Not resistant to drying. (Ref. 2)
Seldom survives longer than a week
in water. (Ref. 2)
No data
Media in which Pathogen is
likely to survive
Ubiquitous, e.g. threads, paper,
cloth, pus. (Ref. 1 1)
Dust (Ref. 10)
Water — no data on feces.
Resists chlorination
No data
Mucoid discharges (Ref. 3)
Soil, moisture, dust (Ref. 9)
Feces, soil. (Ref. 2)
Feces may provide some
protection (Ref. 2)
Various marnals, birds, snails.
Human feces and urine.
Contaminated water. (Ref. 8)
-------
Pathogenic
Organisms
Richettsia
richettsii
(Intermediate
between smaller
bacteria and (Ref.10
larger viruses
Brucella melitensis
B. abortus
B. suis
Melitensis abortus
(Bacteria)
Histoplasma
capsulatum
(spore-forming
fungus)
Pasteurella
tulerensis
(Bacteria)
Trichinella
spiralis
(Helminth)
Poliovirus
(types 1,2, 3)
(Viruses)
Coxsackie
(Virus)
Table 64 (Continued)
Resistance
Temperature - Time
Thermal Death Triermal Death
Point (TOP) Time(TDT)
Viability is dependent upon that of
the tick-;
TOP at 55°C in 1 hour
TDPat58°Cin 10- 15 min.
All killed at 60°C.
Resists freezing
Excessive temperature changes may
limit infection
TDP56°Cin lOmin.
Resists freezing
TDP at 58°C in few min.
Refrigeration at 5°F for 20 days
• at-10°Ffor 10 days
at -20°F for 6 days is
considered an effective safeguard
Inactivated by heating at:
55°C for 30 min.
Resists freezing
I Survives 55°C for 30 min.
1 TDP at 60°C after 30 min.
• Resists freezing.
Refs.
2
11
13
5
5
4
2
6
6
11
6,11
Moisture
No data
Resistant to drying; may survive 1 month
in dust; survives in water. (Ref. 2)
Rainfall of 35— SO inches per year is
associated with survival. (Ref. 13)
Survives in water. (Ref. 4)
No data
Inactivated by drying. (Ref. 6)
Survives in water (Ref. 6)
Resembles poliomyelitis virus in its
resistance to physical and chemical
agents. (Ref. 6)
Media in which Pathogen is
likdy to survive
Feces and tissue of ticks
Cheese; milk, dust, water,
backyard soil (Refs. 7,2)
Bird manure. (Ref. 2)
Moisture. (Ref. 13)
Rabbit carcasses. (Ref. 4)
Infected pork and pork products
(Ref. 2)
Human feces. (Ref. 6)
Feces; can survive over a wide
range of pH.
-------
Table 64 (Continued)
Pathogenic
Organisms
Cryptococcus
neoformans
(spore-forming
fungus)
Coxiella burneti
(Rickettsia)
Blastomyces
dermatitidis
(spore-forming
fungus)
Bacillus anthracis
(spore-forming
bacteria)
Toxicana cam's or
Toxicana cati
(Helminth)
Virus of
lymphocytic
choriemeningitis
Enterobius
vermicularis
(Helminth)
Resistance
Temperature - Time
Thermal Death Thermal Death
Point (TOP) Time (TDT)
TD? at 60°C in 5 min.
Can withstand 60°C for 1 hour
TOP at 56°C in 60 min.
Highly resistant to dry heat
140°Cfor 1-3 hours
Resists moist heat: 100°C for
2—15 min. Resists freezing
Eggs highly resistant to desiccation
Survives at -70°C at least a year
TOP at 55°C in 20 min.
No data
Refs.
11
5
11
10
2
6
Moisture
Resistant to drying at room temperature
for several months. (Ref. 1 i)
Survives for years in dried tick feces.
(Ref. 5)
Viable in water. (Ref. 10)
No data
Viable for many years in soil (Ref. 3)
No data
No data
No data
Media in which Pathogen is
likely to survive
Soil, dust. (Ref. 10)
Tick feces. (Ref. 5)
Dust
Dust
Products of animal hides
and hair. (Ref. 2)
Optimum survival temperature
Feces of dog and cat. (Ref. 2)
May survive for years in soil
Dust, contaminated food
(Ref. 6)
Dust, clothing, bedding, food.
(Ref. 3)
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL RAIL-HAUL
SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITES
Photo-survey flights were made on the Penn
Central trackage in several states. The altitude of the
aircraft varied from 500 to 2,500 feet above local
terrain and all photographs were taken with
hand-held 35 mm cameras. Flight planning and
location plotting were performed on the latest
available U. S. Geological Survey, 7 1/2 minute and
15 minute series, topographic maps, which have scales
of 1:24,000 and 1:62,500, respectively. Metropolitan
areas were avoided.
Sites which met the selection requirements were
observed and photographed during the
reconnaissance. These requirements included.
1. Proximity to the rail line, existence of a rail
spur, or reasonable terrain features to
construct a spur.
2. Sufficient site size to assure use over a period
of time or the capability of considerable
expansion.
3. Density of population in the immediate site
locale.
4. Screening of the site by natural vegetation
and landform features.
5. Availability of sufficient cover material for
back-filling the site.
6. Consideration of local water features and
water table in regard to possible pollution.
7. Local road pattern and general
transportation network.
8. Social features such as reservoirs, cemeteries,
schools, etc., which could cause political and
public relations problems.
Soil and geological structure factors were
considered to the extent observable from the air and
interpretable from the maps, tempered by the
capabilities of the survey personnel. "On-the-ground"
observations of these factors would, of course, be
made by more experienced and competent personnel.
It was observed that the water table could present a
problem in many of the areas surveyed.
Four examples are given from the surveys of the
states of New York, Michigan and Ohio to give an
indication as to the various types of potential sites
which are within convenient rail-haul distance of
major urban areas and served by just one carrier.
Location and ownership have not been detailed,
rather the information is given only for the purpose
of illustrating types of facilities which would be
considered for a rail-haul project.
144
-------
EXAMPLE I
Description: Quarry
Location: This active quarry is adjacent to the Perm Centra! mainline and the Hudson
River.
Preliminary Analysis
This large quarry measures approximately 4.00 ; at its widest points. The
site is also quite deep and well screened by trees. 0 is readily available and
water should cause no problems. The site also appc >ie of expansion to the North
and South. A loading facility capable of serving both rail and water transportation
systems is currently in operation.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
!iim method to provide
Description: Group of Quarries
Location: These 'arge, deep, active quarries arc . ,n the Penn Central mainline.
Preliminary Analysiv.
This group covers an area measuring approxinuitr-ly I mile x 3/4 mile at its widest
points. They are net screened by trees, but cover material should be available. The site is
served by several rail spurs from the mainline. Expansx ; possible to the North
and water does not appear to present a problem.
145
-------
Description: Claypit
Location: On a spur of the Michigan Central trackage.
Preliminary Analysis
This partially water-filled pit appears to be abandoned. The site is fairly well screened
by trees and cover material should be abundant. The immediate locale is sparsely
populated. The rail spur from the Michigan Central line is approximately 3,500 feet long
extending nearly the full length of the pit. Damming the nearby drain could alleviate the
water problem.
This page is reproduced at the
I >.n I •'! the report liv a different
lion method to provide
Description: Sanitary Landfill
Location: Railroad Bran-Ji line
Preliminary Analysis
This appears to be a large working sanitary landfill fora[medium-sized]city. The site
is ideal from a number of points of view:
1. Zoning is an accomplished fact
2. Operation is currently under way
3. The area is rural in character
4. The niihoad is a hiancli line with daily service which should i.ilion.
5. The properh seems capable of expansion
[46
-------
APPENDIX l>
PHOTOGRAPHS OF BALED SOLID
WASTES AND SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS WITH BALED WASTE
Throughout the study of the
feasibility of rail-haul of solid wastes
and the study of high-pressure
compaction and baling of solid wastes,
considerable interest was exhibited by
various private industries. Several press
manufacturers helped to evaluate the
experimental press; the comments be-
ginning on page 37 of the report were
derived from their evaluations.
T~wo baling facilities began
operating in 1971: a plant built by
Reclamation Systems, Inc., of Boston,
Mass., was opened early in the yeai,
and American Solid Waste System
later opened a facility in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., area.
The four photographs on the^e
pages show American Solid Waste
System's operation - from receipt of
refuse, to weigh hopper used to charge
the baler, to sanitary landfill
composed entirely of baled refuse.
This full-size facility has independent-
ly demonstrated the feasibility of
baling as a processing step that makes
possible the economics of handling
and movement as described in this
report.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report l>y a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
1. An 8-ft. wide conveyor carries refuse to the baler weigh hopper. A
dozer (left rear) pushes aside salvageable metal for baling and recycling.
2. Weigh hoppflf dumps 2,500—2,700 Ib. of refuse into chary I
three-stroke compression. Final stroke is held 8 sec. to eliwio?
pockets, reduce spring back. Entire process takes 90 sec.
3. Bale being taken from baler by forklift truck. The bale has expanrtod to 3<
weighs 2,700 Ib. Bales also can be handled by tongs, overhead crane, a'vl
147
-------
4. Transfer truck unloads bales on
table at left. Two levels have been
placed in landfill site.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
5. Dozer pushes bales into place atop
earlier layer that has been cove/ed
with earth taken from slope in back-
ground.
6. Closeup shows that bales retain
shape without strapping or adhesives.
Loosa, blowing refuse is minimal.
148
-------
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DUPLICATES OF
ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REPORT. THEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED HERE BY
A DIFFERENT METHOD TO PROVIDE BETTER DETAIL
-------
EXAMPLE 1
Description: Quarry
Location: This active quarry is adjacent to the Penn Central mainline and the Hudson
River.
Preliminary Analysis
This large quarry measures approximately 4,000 x 2,000 feet at its widest points. The
site is also quite deep and well screened by trees. Cover material is readily available and
water should cause no problems. The site also appears capable of expansion to the North
and South. A loading facility capable of serving both rail and water transportation
systems is currently in operation.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
EXAMPLE 2
Description: Group of Quarries
Location: These large, deep, active quarries are located on the Penn Central mainline.
Preliminary Analysis:
This group covers an area measuring approximately 1 mile x 3/4 mile at its widest
points. They are not screened by trees, but cover material should be available. The site is
served by several rail spurs from the mainline. Expansion may be possible to the North
and water does not appear to present a problem.
145
-------
«r
Description: Claypit EXAMPLE 3
Location: On a spur of the Michigan Central trackage.
Preliminary Analysis
This partially water-filled pit appears to be abandoned. The site is fairly well screened
by trees and cover material should be abundant. The immediate locale is sparsely
populated. The rail spur from the Michigan Central line is approximately 3,500 feet long
extending nearly the full length of the pit. Damming the nearby drain could alleviate the
water problem.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
FYAMPI F 4
Description: Sanitary Landfill
Location: Railroad Branch line
Preliminary Analysis
This appears to be a large working sanitary landfill fora[medium-si/,ed]city. The site
is ideal from a number of points of view:
1. Zoning is an accomplished fact
2. Operation is currently under way
3. The area is rural in character
4. The railroad is a branch line with daily service which should allow easy operation.
5. The property seems capable of expansion
146
-------
APPENDIX D
PHOTOGRAPHS OF BALED SOLID
WASTES AND SANITARY LANDFILL
OPERATIONS WITH BALED WASTE
Throughout the study of the
feasibility of rail-haul of solid wastes
and the study of high-pressure
compaction and baling of solid wastes,
considerable interest was exhibited by
various private industries. Several press
manufacturers helped to evaluate the
experimental press; the comments be-
ginning on page 37 of the report were
derived from their evaluations.
Two baling facilities began
operating in 1971: a plant built by
Reclamation Systems, Inc., of Boston,
Mass., was opened early in the year,
and American Solid Waste System
later opened a facility in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., area.
The four photographs on these
pages show American Solid Waste
System's operation — from receipt of
refuse, to weigh hopper used to charge
the baler, to sanitary landfill
composed entirely of baled refuse.
This full-size facility has independent-
ly demonstrated the feasibility of
baling as a processing step that makes
possible the economics of handling
and movement as described in this
report.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
1. An 8-ft. wide conveyor carries refuse to the baler weigh hopper. A
dozer (left rear) pushes aside salvageable metal for baling and recycling.
2. Weigh hopper dumps 2,500-2,700 Ib. of refuse into charge box for
three-stroke compression. Final stroke is held 8 sec. to eliminate air
pockets, reduce spring back. Entire process takes 90 sec.
3. Bale being taken from baler by forklift truck. The bale has expanded to 38 x 38 x 51 in. and
weighs 2,700 Ib. Bales also can be handled by tongs, overhead crane, and conveyors.
147
-------
4. Transfer truck unloads bales on
table at left. Two levels have been
placed in landfill site.
This page is reproduced at the ;,-
back of the report liy a different
reproduction method to provide J^
better detail.
\
5. Dozer pushes bales into place atop
earlier layer that has been covered
with earth taken from slope in back-
ground.
6. Closeup shows that bales retain
shape without strapping or adhesives.
Loose, blowing refuse is minimal.
-
•*!
148
------- |