-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to express appreciation and gratitude to the City of Atlanta and in particular to the
Project Director, Mr. John Evans, who provided valuable technical assistance. Staff members of
the Environmental'Protection Agency, Mr. Kent Anderson and Mr. Erik Larson, were very helpful
and extremely courteous.
Compactors for this project were placed on consignment with the City of Atlanta by the
Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool also provided the compactor bags and deodorant spray
used during the project at a reduced rate. Without the use of the "Trash Mashers", it would not
have been possible to evaluate the compactor as a working unit in a solid waste collection
system.
Preceding page blank
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SCOPE 1
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
A. Resident Opinion 5
1. Resident Participation 5
2. Overall Satisfaction with the Compactor 7
3. Weight 8
4. Odor 10
5. Location 10
:6. Safety 11
7. Service 1'1
8. Miscellaneous 12
9. Backdoor Collection (Resident Opinion) 12
10. Curbside Collection (Resident Opinion) 12
B. Disposal Methods 14
1. Sanitary Landfill 14
2. Incineration 15
C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Varying Types
of Collection Techniques 18
1. Comparison of Collection of Non-Compacted
Refuse to Collection of Compacted Refuse 18
2. Comparison of Backdoor Collection Methods to
Curbside Collection of Non-Compacted Refuse 24
' 3. • Comparison of Backdoor and Curbside
Collection of Compacted Refuse One Time
a Week 26
4. Comparative Costs 26
5. Comparison of Segments During Curbside
Collection of Compacted and Non-Compacted
Refuse 28
6. Comparison of Curbside Collection of the
• Open Bed Truck to the Compactor Truck During
Curbside and Backdoor Collection of Compacted
Refuse 28
D. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Compactor
As a Part of a System Approach to Metro
Trash Collection 31
E. Recommendations 36
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
III. Stage 1 39
A. The Test Route and the Contract 39
1. Selection of the Test Route 39
2. Project Promotion 39
3. Compactor Description 40
; 4. The Contract 42
B. Investigate and Evaluate the Existing Collection
System 42
1. East Liddell Route - Base Data 44
2. West Maddox Route - Base Data 48
3. Entire Route - Base Data 51
C. Curbside Collection 51
1. Segmented Data 53
D. Questionnaire I. 56
1. Total Response 56
2. Response Based on Household Size 57
IV. Stage 2 62
A. Phase I. 62
1. East Liddeli Route - Demo Data 62
2. Landfill Disposal of Compacted Refuse 66
3. Questionnaire II. 74
B. Phase II. 79
1. Entire Route - Demo Data 79
2. Questionnaire III. 84
C. Phase III. 91
1. West Maddox Route - Demo Data 91
2. Incineration Disposal of Compacted Waste 94
3. Questionnaire IV. 102
D. Phase IV. 104
1. Curbside Collection 104
2. Questionnaire V. 108
GLOSSARY 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY 119
APPENDICES 121
VIM
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
I. Resident Rating of Gompactor Throughout
the Project 9
II. East Liddell Weekly Averages 19
III. Curbside Weekly Averages 20
IV. West Madoox Weekly Averages 21
V. Comparison of Backdoor to Curbside Collection
of Non-Compacted Refuse 25
VI. Comparison of Backdoor to Curbside Collection
of Compacted Refuse 27
VII. Comparison of Compacted and Non-Compacted
Refuse by Segments 29
VIII. Comparison of Open Bed Truck to Compactor Truck 30
IX. East Liddell Route - Backdoor - Base Data 46
X. West Maddox Route - Backdoor - Base Data 50
XI. Entire Route - Curbside - Base Data SS
XII. Segmented Data - Entire Route Curbside 1-28 54-55
XIII. Questionnaire I 58-61
XIV. East Liddell - Backdoor - Demo Data 64-65
XV. Landfill Test Data 71
XVI. Questionnaire II 75-78
XVII. Entire Route - Curbside - Demo Data 80-81
XVIII. Segmented Data - Curbside - Demo Data 82-83
XIX. West Maddox Route - Backdoor - Demo Data 92-93
XX. Entire Route - Open Bed Truck 105
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
I. Compactor 43
II. Compactor Truck 47
III. Satellite Vehicle 47
IV. Landfill Cell 1 - 100% Compacted Refuse 70
V. Compacted Refuse in Cell 70
IX
-------
Page
VI. Refuse Pit at Incinerator 95
VII. Refuse Storage Pit 95
VIII. Charging Refuse in Incinerator 95
IX. Curbside Collection Open Bed Truck 107
X. Putting Canvas in Place - Open Bed Truck 107
XI. Dogs Scattering Refuse 113
XII. Dogs at Work on Curbside Collection 113
XIII. After Dogs are Finished 114
XIV. Typical Home on Project Route 114
XV. Compactor Bag 115
XVI. Atlanta Officials Look Over Compactor 115
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Map of Project Collection Route, Northwest Atlanta 41
2. East Liddell Route 45
3. West Maddox Route 49
4. Incinerator and Landfill in Relation to Project Route 67
5. Surveyor's Plan for Landfill Cells 68
6. Shape of Test Cells 69
7. Hartsfield Incinerator 96
8. Schematic of Hartsfield Incinerator 97
-------
APPENDICES
A. News Release 121
B. Letter to Residents 122
C. Data Forms and Definitions: 123-126
D. Cost Tables 127-128
E. Data Forms and Definitions 129-132
F. Data Forms and Definitions 133-135
G. Identification of Segments 136
H. Questionnaire I. 137
I. Landfill Data Forms 138
J. Questionnaire II 139-140
K. Questionnaire III 141-144
L. Incineration Test Data Form 145
M. Incineration Operating Rates 146-149
N. Incineration Registered Temperatures 150-155
XI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SCOPE
One of the most important problems facing our cities today is that of solid waste
management. Each day Americans enrich their environment with 500,000 tons of solid waste. The
United States spends $4.5 billion a year disposing of 350 million tons of refuse and Federal of-
ficials expect the tonnage to double in 20 years at a rise in cost of four percent per year. It is
estimated that each American averages five pounds of solid waste each day as compared to 2.75
pounds in 1920. Today there are 205 million Americans as compared to 105 million in 1920.
In terms more realistic, less abstract, think of 30 billion empty bottles each year, 60 billion
cans, 20 million tons of paper, four million tons of plastic, seven million junked cars, 100 million
old ti'res and more than a million burned out television sets. These statistics do not include litter
on the countryside, nor the more than three billion tons of solid waste dumped directly by farms,
mines and industries and never reach public collection and disposal systems.1
The growing mass of refuse of all kinds seems due primarily to four factors: (1) accelerated
population growth, (2) urbanization, (3) growing affluence and (4) planned obsolescence. Ac-
celerated population growth would not alone create a problem if it were not for urbanization. At
present 90 percent of the people live in towns with populations over 2500. These people can af-
ford the cost of disposables. Paper products for every need are abundant and the average
American can purchase a new car every three years. The consumer is urged to buy the new and
trade in or throw away the old. The rise of the non-returnable container, inspite of the fact it costs
the user more than the old type is another illustration of the close relationship between market
strategy and generation of solid waste.2
Higher rates of solid waste production raise another problem of where to put the refuse. Ur-
ban sprawl is erasing space between cities and increased distances to landfills add considerably
to total cost. An incineration process is expensive to build and operate and the residue must be
disposed, however, its greatest handicap is the air and water pollution which are common by-
products.
The solid waste management problem and especially the problem of ever mounting cost of
collection is of special concern to the City of Atlanta. As much as one of every ten municipal tax
dollars is earmarked for collection and disposal of residential refuse. Principally the funds are ex-
pended in the collection operation with approximately 20 percent of the funds used for disposal
systems. Currently the Atlanta Sanitation Department serves an area with population tbtaling
535,798. This figure is projected to increase to 605,710 persons by 1980. The average amount of
solid waste actually collected in the city exceeds 5.3 pounds per person per day. Considering the
likely possibility that the amount of waste material to be collected will increase per capita to eight
pounds per day by 1980, the Sanitation Department will be collecting and disposing over 2,422
tons per day by 1980. Refuse volume is increasing greatly each year and products are manufac-
tured of materials not easily degraded if at all with minimal efforts being made toward recycling.
Labor problems complicate the situation as the job is hard, dirty and salary often lowest on the
municipal wage scale. Adequate work forces are difficult to keep as opportunities for ad-
vancement cut into the labor supply.
'Better Homes and Gardens. Garbage Pollution: What Can You Do To Help. October 1971,
p. 14.
2McLean, Mary, Planning for Solid Waste Management, Planning Advisory Service, Report
No. 275, December 1971, pp. 13-14.
-------
Presently the Atlanta Sanitation System functions with an annual operating budget of
$16.00 per capita exclusive of capital improvements and construction supporting the system. Im-
proved equipment and management techniques have kept the program operational and the
people of Atlanta have, as a result, enjoyed better than average sanitary collection and disposal
services. Residents are accustomed to backdoor collection twice each week. The demand for
manpower and equipment continues to mount and since collection expenditures amount to ap-
proximately 80 percent of the budgeted municipal sanitary service expenditures, Atlanta is
looking for sound ways to further improve the system and reduce collection cost.
The Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project was designed as an at-
tempt to reach a solution to major problems of cost and volume. Collection costs might be sub-
stantially decreased by reducing refuse volume at the source, the home, utilizing the household
refuse compactor. The compactor was designed to reduce 25-30 pounds of 'garbage, a week's
supply for most families, into a small, treated bag. If the compactor is properly located, the
resident would handle garbage less frequently, perhaps once a week and the usual garbage load
of six or seven bags could be reduced by compression approximately to the size of a grocery bag.
The demonstration project was designed to determine if the compactor used as a part of
the solid waste collection system would reduce volume sufficiently to permit collection once a
week. Added anticipated advantages beyond the reduction in collection schedule could include
the possible use of less expensive collection equipment or a reduction in the number of men
presently required for collection crews. The disposal of compacted refuse might also prove ad-
vantageous as opposed to a greater volume of non-compacted refuse. Furthermore, would it be to
the city's advantage to encourage purchase of residential compactors? What specifically are the
advantages and how far can a city go in encouraging purchase of this type of equipment? On the
basis of these suppositions and questions, the Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demon-
stration Project was developed. Study procedures for the project were:
1. Select an appropriate test route and initiate a complete investigation and
evaluation of the existing collection system including personnel and equipment
presently in use.
2. Place a housenold refuse compactor in each residence throughout the test route
for the duration of the test period.
3. Engage in four, three month, test periods designed to evaluate variation in collec-
tion procedures, schedules, equipment and crew sizes as well as customer ac-
ceptance, maintenance requirements and actual operation of the refuse com-
pactors.
-------
During the project the data collection and analysis dealt with two types of information; in-
formation relating to collection and disposal of compacted waste and information relating to the
compactor and its operation. Collection operation variables considered were: crew sizes,
scheduling, curbside and backdoor pickup, equipment and the disposal characteristics of com-
pacted waste. Hardware operation variables considered were: customer acceptance and actual
performance of the compactor.
The deveJopment of the Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project
proceeded in two stages over a two year period. The first stage, covering six months, consisted of
selecting an appropriate test route. The test route chosen was an upper middle income suburban
neighborhood with primarily uniform single family dwellings of average family size. This criteria
presumably represents the typical market for the household compactor as it was assumed this
group of residents would be more willing to cooperate carrying out program details. The route
size of approximately 400 residents provided the desirable number of residents that could con-
sistently and realistically be handled by one crew and one six ton capacity compactor truck in a
single day. In addition, the route size provided an adequate and realistic sample on which project
findings could be based.
A complete investigation and evaluation of solid waste management techniques currently
provided on the selected demonstration route were documented for use in program evaluation
and as a basis for measuring change. The study of existing conditions concerned with basic time
and motion data included personnel, materials and equipment. This data covered 16 collections
over an eight week period. Four weeks of the evaluation were concerned with backdoor collec-
tion and four weeks were directed to the characteristics of curbside collection.
The second stage covered a full year and is divided into four three month test phases
designed to evaluate variations in crew sizes, pickup schedules, curbside and backdoor pickup,
different type collection trucks, customer acceptance, and finally, the actual characteristics and
performance of the refuse compactor and the standard incineration and landfill capabilities of the
compacted waste. Each phase was followed with a questionnaire evaluating compactor use and
collection.
The first three month study phase specified backdoor pickup of the compacted refuse.
Regular collection equipment was used and the work crew consisted of a driver and two satellite
vehicle drivers. Pickups were scheduled once a week and all compacted refuse was delivered to
the sanitary landfill where test cells were reserved to test landfill capabilities of compacted waste.
Landfills were prepared and operated according to standard accepted sanitary landfill
procedures. A questionnaire was prepared and mailed to residents at the end of this study phase.
The second study phase duplicates the testing procedure outlined in study phase one ex-
cept all compacted refuse was placed at curbside. This test utilized a compactor truck, driver and
two man crew accompanied by the Project Director. Landfill tests continued throughout this
phase. At the close of the second study phase a prepared questionnaire combined specific
questions concerning characteristics of the refuse compactor as well as resident reaction and ex-
perience with curbside pickup.
-------
The third study phase, while concerned with the basic testing procedures earlier outlined
in Stage 1, reverted to backdoor pickup with regular walking crew. All compacted waste was tran-
sported to the incinerator. Incineration tests included an experiment to determine the variable in
the charge rate required to burn varying percentages of compacted waste and normal burn. The
percentage of burnout with varying amounts of compacted waste was measured to normal bur-
nout. The same basic crew arrangement continued to the end of this phase. The next question-
naire was given to the resident.
The fourth study phase combined the convenience of curbside collection with the open bed
truck. The time and motion data was recorded by the Project Director and the system operated
with an open bed truck for six weeks. The final survey and questionnaire was-completed at the
close of the fourth study phase. This questionnaire contained questions related to the total
program and use of the equipment for one year.
In order to examine the report in depth, it is recommended the reader proceed to Part III,
Stage I on page 39 by-passing the Conclusions and Recommendations which .are placed at the
beginning of the report for reference ease.
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions were derived from several sources. 1. The resident has a great deal to say
about the compactor and the varying methods of collecting the compacted refuse. 2. The landfill
method of disposal as opposed to the incineration process is of particular importance as it relates
to the disposal of compacted refuse. 3. Varying modes of collection with cost analysis of each
mode is very revealing. 4. A model city demonstrates the economic feasibility of utilizing the com-
pactor within the solid waste system.
The Recommendations were designed to alleviate the financial burden of collecting solid
waste in the City of Atlanta and at the same time mollify the pain of recommended changes in
collection.
A. Resident Opinion
In order to evaluate the compactor as a viable component within a systems analysis ap-
proach to solid waste handling, it is important to thoroughly examine and measure resident reac-
tion to the compactor. It will be necessary to weigh those obvious advantages and disadvantages
of the unit as described by the participants in the study who have used the compactor for a twelve
month period.
1. Resident Participation
In order to obtain permission from the residents on the test route before compactors
could be placed in their homes, a contractual agreement between the City of Atlanta and the
resident had to be signed. Within the text of the contract, the City of Atlanta agreed to remove the
compactors if at any time the resident no longer wished to participate in the project. During the
course of the project, four percent of the residents did request removal of the compactor. Out-
standing reasons for this request were: (a) The compactor was not utilized to full capability, if at
all and (b) the resident felt participation in the curbside phase of the study just too much trouble.
Normally trash is collected at the backdoor twice each week but once the compactor was placed
in the home, collection began once a week with pickup at the backdoor for three months, curb-
side three months, backdoor three months and curbside three months. The resident, in order to
participate in the study had to agree to the prescribed collection methods.
More importantly, some residents on the proposed route did not wish to sign the con-
tract and allow the city to place the compactors in their homes even though the compactors were
free to use for one year. Because of the lack of interest, one street on the proposed route was
dropped and new streets were added to the route. At the end of the study stamped self-addressed
post cards were sent to the 101 residents who lived on the street that was eliminated from the
project route.
-------
The following question was asked:
The Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project is now almost
complete. In order to clearly evaluate the compactor as part of a refuse collec-
tion system, a reply to the following question would be very helpful. Why were
you not interested in using a compactor and participating in the study?
Forty of the 101 cards sent were returned. Results of this survey are as follows:
19% No place to put the compactor
6% Required to participate in curbside collection
3% Family is away from home a good deal of the time
3% Moved to neighborhood after project was begun
2% Very small family generating little refuse
2% Do not like garbage in the house for a week
1% Expected to move away from Atlanta
1% Failed to return the contract to the city
1% Poor information on the compactor and the project
1% Seemed dangerous with small children around
1% Full bag too heavy to lift and when deodorizer is out of order, the odor is impossible
61% No response
It is not known just how many residents on the street were actually contacted, but it can be
assumed at least 40 did not wish to participate in the project and at least half of the 40 did not
have a place to put the compactor. The problem of finding a location for the compactors in the
home was the major reason for resident refusal to participate in the project. The second factor in-
volved was curbside collection. A few, six percent of 40, did not wish to participate in curbside
collection.
The City of Atlanta was supplied with 400 compactors and an average of 380 com-
pactors were placed. It was not possible to place the remaining compactors on the test route
because of resident refusal to comply. Therefore, those homes on the test route not participating
in the project were supplied normal collection at the backdoor twice each week. Meanwhile,
homes participating in the project were supplied collection service one time a week at the curb-
side and backdoor alternating every three months. The dual collection system necessary during
the test was a nuisance, cumbersome, expensive and a handicap to the collection crew as well as
confusing to the residents on the test route.
The greatest problem to be dealt with when considering the compactor as a part of a
solid waste collection system is convincing the resident to participate. In view of the small num-
ber of people involved, five percent (one percent who refused to participate and .four percent who
requested compactors be removed from their homes after the project was underway), the problem
is not considered significant. The street that was dropped from the route was not considered
within the five percent because of very poor presentations by survey members assigned this
street. These members were replaced and no more problems occurred.
In summary, the chief problems in placing household refuse compactors, irn Atlanta are
finding a location for the compactor and resident unwillingness to cooperate ;with curbside
collection; however, only five percent of the residents were affected and no .doubt these
problems'Would disappear if collection was in fact once a week curbside.
-------
2. Overall Satisfaction with the Compactor
In every questionnaire the residents were asked to give an opinion on general satisfac-
tion with the compactor. In each questionnaire response was very favorable. Approximately 80
percent of the participants rate the compactor as excellent or good. See the summary on Table I.
Almost half the residents felt reduction in volume of wastes generated to be the most
desirable advantage of the compactor. Reduction in volume created positive side effects such as:
(a) elimination of garbage bags, (b) fewer cans required to contain refuse and (c) an overall
neater, more orderly appearance. Another and certainly very important advantage of the com-
pactor for at least a third of the residents was the fact that they did not have to make a trip to the
garbage can every day. Many residents considered the compactor a convenient worksaver and
especially enjoyed storage of trash in one small unit.
The compactor does have some disadvantages according to the residents. It must be
noted that disadvantages are mentioned by a low percentile group and are not considered
serious. The major disadvantage of the compactor is the weight of the bag. Approximately 30 per-
cent of the residents felt the compactor was hard to unload, the bag was heavy, difficult to carry
or hard to handle. The second disadvantage of the compactor was odor emitting from the unit.
And finally, residents complained of difficulty finding a location for the compactor in their homes,
even though most agreed as to where the compactor should be located. Disadvantages of the
compactor will be explained more fully on following pages.
Just how well did the resident on the test route use the compactor? Approximately 85
percent of the residents placed three-fourths of their refuse in the compactor throughout the
study. Most of the residents put refuse in the compactor loosely and the majority changed the bag
every 3-7 days indicating either collection day was at hand or the bag was full. Eighty five percent
of the responses revealed residents felt they must change the bag every seven days. There was
no evidence anyone wanted to keep the bag in the compactor longer than six days or past the
weekly collection day. Since the bags were provided to the resident free of charge, no doubt use
was liberal. Once the resident begins to pay for the bags and collection resumes twice a week, it
is expected the bags will be used for a longer period of time. Eighty five percent of the
households experienced a reduction in volume of at least half and some households experienced
an even greater reduction in volume.
-------
3. Weight
Nearly a third of the residents complained of the weight of the compactor bags. Most of
the residents felt the bag too heavy for the woman of the house to remove from the compactor.
Consequently, the man usually took the bag out of the compactor and to the receptacle.
Protesting residents agreed the bag was difficult to carry and hard to handle. The Project Direc-
tor, in order to determine how heavy the bags actually were, weighed bags during collection.
Compactor bags were picked at random and weighed on simple bathroom scales (accurate +
one pound). This sample was taken during the satellite vehicle demonstration phase and did not
interfere with normal collection procedures.
(D
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(8)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
35
15
15
23
23
31
8
16
38
31
11
20
17
13
12
17
25
18
14
31
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
26
21
21
19
31
18
19
19
17
19
17
15
22
12
13
19
29
18
12
23
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)
(59)
(60)
(61)
23
21
20
16
22
30
22
16
32
20
22
33
15
29
23
17
24
20
19
31
23
(62)
(63)
(64)
(65)
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
(70)
(71)
(72)
(73)
(74)
(75)
(76)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(82)
20
18
28
12
10
23
12
27
19
22
13
11
19
12
23
23
26
22
20
11
28
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
(88)
(89)
(90)
(91)
(92)
(93)
(94)
(95)
(96)
(97)
23
27
14
14
11
21
23
19
21
20
20
19
24
26
19
1981
1981
97
= 20.4
pounds average
bag weight
Average weight of the bags sampled was certainly a reasonable load to handle, however, 14 of
the bags weighed between 28-38 pounds. The manufacturer states a bag of compacted waste
should weigh between 20 and 30 pounds. It is very possible some residents may be filling the
bags extremely full or an unusual number of cans or glass could increase the weight load. At any
rate, practice should increase the ability of the resident to know just how much refuse constitutes
a bag that is full enough to achieve efficient use of the compactor and at the same time will not be
too full as to be heavy or difficult to handle.
-------
TABLE I
RESIDENT RATING OF COMPACTOR THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT
Compactor rating
Q II
372 responses
Q III
308 responses
Q IV
285 responses
Q V
356 responses
total performance for the year
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Completely satisfied
Satisfied
Some dissatisfaction
Completely dissatisfied
Luxury
Convenience
Necessity
No response
Not using the unit
60%
27%
10%
3%
43%
41%
12%
4%
45%
46%
7%
2%
39%
47%
9%
1%
4%
18%
66%
8%
8%
-------
4. Odor
As the project advanced, more than half the residents encountered some problem with
odor emitting from the compactor. According to the majority of residents compactor odor
problems occurred only once or twice during the year. Odor is caused by food waste placed in the
compactor. Chicken, fish and fruit are prime offenders. Meat wrappings were also considered to
be contributors. Residents who have garbage disposals do not have compactor odor problems
whereas those residents who do not have a garbage disposal and place food items in the com-
pactor do experience odor in the unit. The compactor is most ideally used in conjunction with a
garbage disposer, it was not designed to replace the food waste disposer.
The compactor is equipped with a deodorant spray designed to eliminate odor caused
by food placed in the compactor. Since odors occurred only once or twice during the course of
the year, the deodorant spray is doing a fairly good job. Those residents who complained most
vigorously of odor were given an opportunity to test a new spray being developed by the manufac-
turer. All residents, but one, rated the new spray satisfactory.
One of the most surprising answers in Questionnaire III relating to the deodorant spray
was to the question, "How often do you change the deodorant spray?" The residents had been
using the compactor approximately nine months and 15 percent stated they had not changed the
spray. According to the manufacturer, the spray should last four to five months. Either the
residents had a garbage disposer in the home or they experienced some problem with odor
because the spray had not been changed.
In summary, odor problems occurred only once or twice during the year to ap-
proximately half the residents. It was not a serious problem and can be resolved. For those who
do not have a food waste disposer, food items such as meat, chicken and fruit are the prime odor
makers and should not be placed in the compactor. The new deodorant spray tested on the route
by those having odor problems was judged satisfactory. Release of a better spray should
eliminate many odor problems. The compactor was not designed to replace the food waste
disposer and if used in conjunction with a disposer results are very satisfactory.
5. Location
Location is an important consideration concerning the compactor. As stated before,
some residents would not and could not participate in the project because there was no place for
the compactor. The Project Director visited several homes of those who would have liked to par-
ticipate in the project to see if a spot was available that had been overlooked. Often no con-
venient space was available. Older homes on the route have limited kitchen space. Newer homes
have completely built-in kitchens. The manufacturer recommends the kitchen as the best location
for the compactor and approximately 62 percent of the residents did place the compactor in the
kitchen. Another 26 percent of the residents placed the compactor in a room immediately ad-
jacent to the kitchen or in the utility room. During the course of the study, nine percent of the
residents moved the compactor from its original location. Six percent of these residents moved
the unit from another room to the kitchen or moved the compactor already located in the kitchen
closer to the stove, sink or other more convenient location within the confine's Of 'the kitchen.
The majority of the residents agreed the best location for the compactor to be under
the counter and near the sink in the kitchen.
10
-------
6. Safety
As with any sort of equipment involved in solid waste handling, safety is a valid con-
sideration and most especially with equipment designed to crush refuse. As far as the compactor
is concerned, operation is quite safe. Once the ram begins its downward thrust, the drawer can-
not be opened until the unit stops operating or the stop button is pushed, at which time, the ram
returns to the stop position before allowing the drawer to open. One family on the route kept the
compactor in the basement because they felt the unit was not safe around small children. This
was an unusual circumstance. Actually, the drawer must be lifted slightly before opening, an
operation that is very difficult for a small child due to lack of sufficient strength and height for the
operation. The unit is equipped with a lock that will keep the ram from moving.
Care should be taken when handling compactor bags. The residents were asked how
often sharp objects penetrated the bag. Response was:
Every week 11%
Every other week 4%
Sometimes 38%
Rarely 31 %
Never 14%
No response 2%
They were then asked if they considered this a safety hazard.
Yes 33% No 44% No response 23%
During the study a boy was cut while carrying the compactor bag from the house to the
curb. This cut was serious enough to require stitches. Many who felt the situation creates a safety
hazard feared being cut either by glass penetrating the bag or by glass falling to the floor through
a hole in the bag. However, 83 percent of the residents said the bags were penetrated sometimes,
rarely or never and more than half, 67 percent of the respondents, felt the bags do not constitute
a safety hazard. Many participants felt improper handling to be the cause of accidents and with
proper care in packing the compactor, bags would not be penetrated.
One crewman was cut during collection of the compacted bags. A bag was thrown to
him by another collector on the curb. When this occurred, the Project Director instructed the
collectors: (a) Do not throw or toss compactor bags except into the truck, (b) Gloves are to be
worn at all times. Since this instruction no more accidents occurred.
7. Service
The compactors did require service during the course of the project. A rash of calls
were made shortly after placing the units in the home. These calls were due primarily to manufac-
turer's defect, homeowner lack of understanding on the operation of the unit and general getting
acquainted problems. During the year the compactor was in use primary service problems were:
(a) latches becoming inoperative
(b) unit will not switch off properly
(c) drawer stuck
(d) unit would not run
(e) deodorizer out of order
(f) motor burned out
(g) occasionally a paper item would stick behind the ram and the unit would not work
11
-------
8. Miscellaneous
The compactor is fitted with a key lock. When the unit is locked, the ram will not move.
However, when asked if the resident used the key, almost all stated they did not.
The drawer was easy to operate for most residents on the route. Fifteen percent did
find the drawer difficult to operate.
Occasionally pests were found in the compactor. Fruit flies, ants, roaches, maggots
and even a mouse were described by the residents as being present in the compactor. This was
considered a minor problem as it occurred only once or twice to seven percent of the residents.
9. Backdoor Collection (Resident Opinion)
The participants on the test route agreed to try varying collection techniques as well as
collection once a week instead of twice a week. During the first and third quarters of the test year
collection crews picked refuse up at the backdoor once a week. Questionnaire III asked the
resident if backdoor collection was better overall.
before instaliation of the compactor 10%
after installation of the pompactor 63%
it was the same 15%
no response 12%
Questionnaire V, answered at the end of the study, states that 85 percent of the
residents felt the compactor was helpful with backdoor collection and 92 percent felt backdoor
collection once a week would be sufficient if there was a compactor in the home. Eighty five per-
cent of the residents placed one or two parcels at the backdoor for collection once a week.
Approximately one third of the residents felt backdoor collection once a week would
be sufficient even without a compactor in the home.
10. Curbside Collection (Resident Opinion)
Curbside collection is another matter entirely. Normal collection in the City of Atlanta
is effected twice a week at the backdoor and the residents are very opposed to curbside collec-
tion. Therefore, any information pertaining to curbside collection with or without the compactor is
important and any positive response to curbside collection however small is more important than
it might be in other locales. Curbside collection was effected once a week during the second and
fourth quarter of the project.
12
-------
In response to Questionnaire II, 16 percent of 372 residents who replied, complained of
curbside collection.
In response to Questionnaire III, "Was curbside collection better overall"
before installation of the compactor 5%
after installation of the compactor 63%
same 12%
no response 20%
Obviously the resident did feel the compactor was a help with curbside collection
however, in Questionnaire IV, approximately two-thirds of the residents found it inconvenient or
undesirable to take refuse to the curb. Primary complaints concerning curbside collection in or-
der of frequency were:
1. Bags too heavy.
2. Dogs create litter.
3. Too much trouble.
4. It is difficult to remember one pickup day a week and hard to store trash for another
week if you forget.
5. Street looks terrible.
6. Poor health.
7. Steep hill.
8. Bad weather
9. House too far from curb. :
10. Taxes are sufficient for backdoor collection.
As in Questionnaire III most of the respondents to Questionnaire IV agreed the use of
the compactor did reduce the burden of taking trash to the curb. However, it was also discovered
that one-third of the residents did not seal the bag before placing it at the curb. An unsealed bag
is an open invitation to dogs.
It is most important to note that one-third of the residents actually stated they did not find it in-
convenient or undesirable to take refuse to the curb. In an area as opposed to curbside collection
as this area, a response such as this is remarkable.
The majority of the residents agreed that once a week curbside collection is adequate
for an area with a compactor in the home.
Questionnaire V was more explicit on the matter of curbside collection. The chief
problems with curbside collection were:
1. Litter created by dogs. (26%)
2. Trip to the curb in varying weather. (26%)
3. Weight or bulk of refuse. (25%)
4. No problem. (16%)
5. Unsightly streets because of cans. (7%)
13
-------
Three-fourths of the residents felt the compactor to be a help during curbside collection and one-
fourth did not agree. Most agreed it was possible for dogs to tear open a compactor bag even if it
was sealed. When asked "if collection were curbside, with a compactor in the home, which would
you prefer, collection once a week or collection twice a week?" the majority preferred collection
once a week. Most of the residents take one or two items to the curb, the same amount, by the
way, they have at the backdoor during collection once a week with a compactor in the home.
When asked if there was a question of higher taxes and collection at the backdoor
twice a week or curbside collection or collection one time a week at the backdoor with a com-
pactor in the home, which would you choose?
5% higher taxes with backdoor collection twice a week
9% curbside collection twice a week
85% compactor in the home and backdoor collection one time a week
1% no response
Residents do not want curbside collection with or without a compactor. However, in
view of mounting collection costs backdoor collection is rather prehistoric. If some of the "un-
desirables" with curbside collection were eliminated, this method of collection would be more
palatable. For example, a mobile cart to haul the cans or compactor bags would eliminate the
burden of weight and make the trip to the curb in varying weather easier. Dogs prevented from
running would eliminate littering and the resultant unsightly streets.
The majority of residents prefer collection one time a week and With a compactor in the
home collection once a week curbside could become a reality.
i
B. Disposal Methods
Two methods were used to test compacted refuse, landfill disposal and the incineration
process. Compacted refuse was tested with a base of normal refuse from the same general area
as the project route.
1. Sanitary Landfill
During the test period, 199 tons of compacted refuse and 131 tons of normal refuse
ware placed in the test cells. Observation of the landfilling activities showed no discernible dif-
ference in the two test cells. The landfill operator was able to effectively spread and compact the
test refuse without difficulty. When questioned about the compacted refuse, the operator said he
could see "no difference" in the landfilling characteristics of compacted versus normal refuse.
Slowing paper was not a problem in either cell.
Examination of the compacted refuse before compaction by the crawler-tractor
showed most of the bags to be intact, although the majority of the bags were not sealed in any
fashion. After the refuse was dumped out of the collection truck it was spread over the working
face of the cell and compacted by the crawler. Examination of the refuse after'this compaction
ravealed no compactor bags left intact. The grousers on the tractor shredded the bags beyond
recognition.
14
-------
A summary of the landfill test data follows:
COMPACTED NON-COMPACTED
TEST CELL TEST CELL
Pounds of refuse in place 398,790 262,300
Buckets of cover material (3 cu.yd./bucket) 70 53
Pounds cover per bucket (uncompacted dirt) 6,000 6,000
Pounds cover material 420,000 318,000
Volume of each cell (yd1) 572.5 563.0
Landfill density * (final) 700 Ibs/yd3 470 Ibs/yd3
True density ** (final) 1430 Ibs/yd3 1030 Ibs/yd3
Landfill density (9-7-71) 590 Ibs/yd3 400 Ibs/yd3
True density (9-7-71) 1270 Ibs/yd3 850 Ibs/yd3
* Landfill density = refuse weight/volume of cell
**True density = refuse and cover weight/volume of cell
Increases in both landfill and true densities can be noted between the survey taken in September
1971 and the final survey. These density increases may be attributed to the compacting effect of
additional refuse and cover added, and also to the settling effect over time.
Conclusion; Observations by the Project Director and other City of Atlanta officials agree there
are no differences in landfilling compacted waste versus normal waste. Compactor bags will not
interfere with normal biological degrading in the landfill since they are completely destroyed by
the crawler-tractor.
Landfill density is the most meaningful calculation due to the excess amount of cover
necessary in each cell. The above calculations reveal a significant difference in the density which
can be achieved by using household compactors. The use of in-home compactors leads to much
greater density in the landfill; and, subsequently, more efficient land use. Obviously, the com-
pactor in the test home is able to more thoroughly reduce refuse volume than crawler tractor used
at the fill site because landfill density reveals that 50 percent more compacted refuse could be
placed in a landfill cell than non-compacted refuse.
2. Incineration
Two incineration tests of compacted refuse were performed. Test 1, conducted
January 20, 1972, demonstrated the incineration of 100 percent compacted refuse. Test 2, con-
ducted February 24, 1972, demonstrated incineration of a mix of 77 percent compacted refuse
with 23 percent non-compacted refuse. For comparison, base data refuse (non-compacted) was
collected from the same area and over the same period of time as the compacted refuse.
Presumably, this control assured the same general characteristics and moisture content. All test
refuse was weighed at the incinerator scales before being placed in the storage pit. Separate
piles of base data material and demo material were maintained in the storage pit.
15
-------
The following data was collected for each test:
(1) Total charge each test
(2) Time elapsed each test.
(3) Temperature record ignition grate.
(4) Temperature record rotary kiln.
(5) Speed of ignition grate (given as percent of 100%).
(6) Speed of rotary kiln (given as percent of 100%).
(7) Total residue; each test.
A summary of the first incineration test of non-compacted and compacted material is
shown below:
SUMMARY OF INCINERATION TEST 1
Total Refuse Charge
Non-compacted - 86,600 Ibs.
Compacted 90,180 Ibs.
Total Cycle Time
Non-compacted - 2 hrs. 45 'min.
Compacted - 3 hrs. 20 min.
Consumption Rate
Non-compacted — 525 lb/min...or 15.75 ton/hr.
Compacted 451 lb/min...or 13.53 ton/hr.
(Normal capacity standard for this unit - 10.4 ton/hr.)
I
Burning Temperature - Ignition Grate
Non-compacted 1903° F
Compacted 1966° F
Burning Temperature - Rotary Kiln
Non-compacted 1643° F
Compacted 1717° F
Refuse Travel Rate - Ignition Grate (% of 100)
Non-compacted 45.7%
Compacted 38.9%
Refuse Travel Rate - Rotary Kiln (% of 100)
Non-compacted 55.4%
Compacted - 45.6%
Residue
Non-compacted - 23,720 Ibs.
Compacted - 16,900 Ibs.
Weight Reduction
Non-compacted— 27.4%
Compacted 18.7%
16
-------
The summary of the second test of incineration of compacted refuse is shown on the
chart below. Base data refuse was consumed initially; then the demo mix was burned. The demo
mix consisted of 77 percent compacted refuse, 23 percent non-compacted refuse.
SUMMARY OF INCINERATION TEST 2
Total Refuse Charge
Base Data - Non-compacted 87,720 Ibs.
Demo Data - Compacted -,— 80,680 Ibs.
Non-compacted —- 23,920 Ibs. - 104,600 Ibs.
Total Cycle Time
Base Data 4 hrs. 15 min.
Demo Data : 4 hrs. 35 min.
Consumption Rate
Base Data -— 344 lb/min...or 10.3 ton/hr.
Demo Data — 380 lb/min...or— - 11.4 ton/hr.
(Rate capacity this unit 10.4 ton/hr.)
Burning Temperature - Ignition Grate
Base Data 1800° F
Demo Data 1780° F
Burning Temperature - Rotary Kiln
Base Data - - 1626° F
Demo Data - 1697° F
Refuse Travel Rate - Ignition Grate
Base Data 32%
Demo Data 39%
Refuse Travel Rate - Rotary Kiln
Base Data 42%
Demo Data - - 49%
Residue
Base Data 32,140 Ibs.
Demo Data 34,620 Ibs.
Weight Reduction
Base Data 36.6%
Demo Data - 33.1 %
There are several restrictions in the data that should be brought to light before any
conclusions are formed from the analytical data. The charge weight may be accurate + 10 per-
cent due to variations of scales during weighing and handling by the crane man to and from
storage piles. The cycle time is extremely difficult to measure. A large marker (55 gallon drum)
was used to mark the test charge and then observed as it passed over the end of the kiln. It is
possible for a marker of this sort to bridge in the hopper and arrive late or it may roll in the kiln
and arrive too early. For this reason, cycle time accuracy is estimated at + 15 minutes. The
17
-------
residue weight is affected by both of the above. Variations in scales are in evidence and the ac-
curacy of the test marker determines the accuracy of residue material. With the above con-
siderations in mind, any small differences found in comparison of compacted versus non-
compacted refuse will be considered insignificant.
The primary objective of the incineration process was to achieve almost complete con-
sumption of solid waste. The simplest way of monitoring the quality of the operation was to
visually inspect the residue for unburned combustible material. The quality of residue in each test
was excellent. Occurrence of unburned combustibles in the residue was almost non-existent. Tin
cans were salvageable and there were no unburned materials.
The good quality of residue was achieved (in each test) under normal operating con-
ditions. No special attention was directed toward compacted refuse because none was needed.
At this point, the overall test objectives were met because no inherent problems were in evidence.
Examination of test data results reveal that in Test 1, the compacted refuse was con-
sumed slightly slower than non-compacted; however, the reverse is true in the results of Test 2.
One must conclude that these differences are of no real significance. Likewise, the results of
weight reduction calculations are contrary in the two test runs.
In summary, comparative data reveals no significant differences in the burning charac-
teristics of compacted versus non-compacted refuse. In the rotary kiln type unit used in the tests,
it is obvious that temperatures between 1600°F and 1800°F are adequate for complete burning.
Any differences in the rate at which refuse is consumed is determined mainly at the discretion of
the operator and not due to compacted refuse. After testing 85 tons of compacted material in the
incineration process, no problems and ho difference in incineration characteristics of compacted
refuse were found. However, in comparison of the landfill disposal method and the predisposal in-
cineration process certain facts are relevant. Compacted refuse can be disposed of in less space
than required for non-compacted refuse, a critical factor when many cities are running low on
land suitable for landfills. At $6.00 a ton to incinerate solid waste in Atlanta (page 101) as opposed
to $.94 (page 74) a ton to landfill the same solid waste, the most efficient and economical method
of disposing compacted refuse is landfill disposal.
C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Varying Types of Collection Techniques
During this section discussion will center on the possible advantages and disadvantages
of varying types of collection techniques. Backdoor collection of compacted refuse will be com-
pared to collection of non-compacted refuse. Curbside collection of compacted refuse will be
documented in comparison to curbside collection of non-compacted refuse. The pros and cons of
backdoorcollection and curbside collection in and for the City of Atlanta will be examined. Some
brief attention will be directed to the open bed truck curbside method of collecting compacted
refuse as opposed to compactor truck curbside method and compactor truck backdoor method
collection of the same.
1. Comparison of Collection of Non-compacted Refuse to Collection of Compacted
Refuse
When collecting compacted refuse, that is, refuse from homes usiflg the household
compactor, it is possible to reduce service from two days a week to one day a week with resultant
reduction In costs. The residents have no important problems in connection with-service once a
week and many preferred collection once a week backdoor as opposed to curbside collection.
One-thfrd of the residents preferred curbside collection once a week, instead of two times a
week. See Tables II, III and IV.
18
-------
TABLE II
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
EAST LIDDELL WEEKLY AVERAGES
Equipment: 1 compactor truck, 2 satellite vehicles
Crew: 1 collection driver, 2 satellite vehicle drivers
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Definitions are in Appendix C
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Lost time
Break down time
Productive time
(lbs./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Number stops
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Lost time
Total
Collection 2/t Wk.
Base Data
8.0
14.4
1.1
.1
.1
.08
.08
942
15.9
467
13,660
.03
Man 1 Man 2
230.5 236.5
7.3 7.1
.6 .6
.1
.1
.1
8.2 7.7
Collection 1/t Wk.
Demo Data
3.9
7.1
.6
.05
-
.05
-
1842
7.8
230
13,081
.03
Man 1 Man 2
113.6 115.3
3.6 3.5
.4 " .2
.05
-
.05
4.05 3.75
-------
TABLE III
CURBSIDE WEEKLY AVERAGES
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: 1 collection driver, 2 collectors
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time-
Ride Time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(lb./hr.)
Total time*
Number stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Time Per DU**
Collection 2/t Wk.
Base Data
6.2
3.0
.1
.1
2.3
.5
.2
3434
6.2
556
18,202.5
.01
.02
Collection 1/t Wk.
Demo Data
3.8
1.7
.2
.
1.4
.3
.2
6077
3.8
329
18,840
.01
.01
'Total: time does not include total route time. Definitions are in Appendix F.
*'DU is based on 380 dwelling units.
-------
TABLE IV
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
WEST MADDOX WEEKLY AVERAGES
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: 4 collectors, 1 collection driver
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Lost time
Productive time
(lbs./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Number stops
Time collecting
Clean up time
Collection 2/t Wk.
Base Data
-V
3.4
8.9
.6
1.1
.8
.3
.5
786
12.4
294
7620
.04
Man 1 Man 2 Man 3 Man 4
81 63 90 60
2.3 2.0 2.5 2.1
.1 .1 .2 .1
Collection 1/t Wk.
Demo Data
1.3
4.0
.3
.3
.4
.2
.02
1872
5.2
128
8238
.04
Man 1 Man 2 Man 3 Man 4
37 32 32 30
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.09 .08 .1 .05
Definitions are in Appendix E.
-------
In each case, only one day is required to collect approximately ths same number of pounds of
refuse. Servicing the route one day each week instead of the normal two day collection reduces
collection cost by more than half for backdoor collection and by almost half for curbside collec-
tion.
Average Collection Cost
City of Atlanta
Route
East Liddell - Backdoor***
2 satellite vehicles
West Maddox - Backdoor
4 man walking crew
Entire Route - Curbside*****
2 man walking crew
Demo & Base
Cost
Per Hour
$14.73
$19.31
$12.81
Demo* & Base
Cost
Per Day
$117.80
$154.42
$102.42
Base* *
Per
Week
$235.60
$308.84
$204.84
'Demo - collection of compacted refuse one time a week.
'*Base - collection of non-compacted refuse twice a week.
' * * East Liddell cost table is on page 44.
""West Maddox cost table is on page 48.
"***Entire route cost table is on page 53.
Backdoor Collection For The Route
East Liddell
2 satellite vehicles
West Maddox
4 man walking crew
Base Cost Per Hour
$14.73
19.31
$34.04 -T- 2 = $17.02 cost
per hour to collect refuse at the backdoor on the project route.
22
-------
Backdoor Collection
Non-compacted Refuse
East Liddell (Backdoor) 15.9* average hours to collect route
West Maddox (backdoor +12.4* average hours to collect route
28.3 average hours to collect project
route backdoor two times a week of non-compacted refuse.
$17.02 (cost per hr.)x 28.3 (no. hrs.)=$481.67 average cost to collect non-compacted refuse at the
backdoor twice a week.
Cost per dwelling unit (380 units) is $0.58 a week.
*15.9 on Table II
*12.4 on Table IV
Backdoor Collection
Compacted Refuse
East Liddell (Backdoor) 7.8* average hours to collect route
West Maddox (Backdoor) 4- 5.2* average hours to collect route
13.0 average hours to collect compacted refuse one time a week
at the backdoor on the project route.
$17.02 (cost per hr.) x 13 = $221.26 average cost to collect compacted refuse at the backdoor once
a week on the project route.
Cost per dwelling unit (380 units) is $0.58 a week.
*7.8 is on Table II
*5.2 is on Table IV
Curbside Collection of Non-Compacted and Compacted Refuse
Entire Route $12.81'average cost per hour to collect.
$12.81 x 6.2 (no. hrs.)* = $79.42 average cost per week to collect non-compacted refuse curbside
twice a week on the project route.
Cost per dwelling unit (380 units) is $0.21 a week.
* $12.81 - page 53
**6.2 on Table III
$12.81 (cost per hr.) x 3.8* (no. hrs.) = $48.68 average cost to collect compacted refuse curbside
once a week.
Cost per dwelling unit (380 units) is $0.13 a week.
•3.8 is on Table III.
23
-------
2. Comparison of the Backdoor Collection Method to Curbside Collection of Non-
Compacted Refuse
In the preceding section primary savings are achieved by utilizing the household com-
pactor and collecting one time a week instead of the normal two times a week. This section com-
pares data on curbside and backdoor collection of non-compacted refuse two times a week. See
Table V for the considerable time saving evident during curbside collection.
Utilizing the average time to collect non-compacted refuse twice a week at the back-
door and curbside the following costs are deducted.
Method Time Cost
Curbside Collection*
(2 times week - noncompacted refuse) 6.2 hrs.
2 man walking crew - 1 truck driver at $12.81 an hr. = $79.42 week
Cost per dwelling unit is $0.21
Backdoor Collection*
(2 times week - noncompacted refuse) 28.3 hrs.
4 man walking crew - 1 truck driver at $17.02 an hr. = $481.67 week
Cost per dwelling unit is $1.27
'Curbside and backdoor costs are explained on page 23.
Cost is based on actual time to collect these routes. The curbside method of collecting non-
compacted refuse twice a week is one-fifth the cost of backdoor collection of the same route non-
compacted refuse twice a week.
3. Comparison of Backdoor and Curbside Collection of Compacted Refuse Collected
One Time a Week
The considerable time and cost savings evidenced in curbside collection of non-
compacted refuse as opposed to backdoor collection of non-compacted refuse is reinforced in
the comparison of backdoor and curbside collection of compacted refuse. See Table VI.
Utilizing the average time to collect compacted refuse once a week, the following
costs are shown.
-------
TABLE V.
COMPARISON OF BACKDOOR TO CURBSIDE COLLECTION
NON-COMPACTED REFUSE
BASE DATA
WEEKLY AVERAGE
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Break down time
Productive time
(lbs./hr.)
Total time***
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Time Per DU
(380 dwelling units)
Entire Route
Curbside*
6.2
3.0
.1
.1
2.3
.5
.2
3434
6.2
556
18,202.5
.01
.02
W. Maddox - E. Liddell
Backdoor* *
11.4
23.3
1.7
1.2
.9
.3
.58
.08
879
28.3
761
21,280
.04
.07
* Curbside definitions are in Appendix F.
"Backdoor definitions are in Appendix C and E.
*°*Total time does not include time collecting during the W. Maddox backdoor collection.
-------
Method
Curbside Collection*
(1 time a week - compacted refuse)
2 man walking crew - 1 truck driver
Cost per dwelling unit is $0.13 a week.
Backdoor Collection*
{1 time a week - compacted refuse)
2 satellite vehicles - 1 truck driver
4 man walking crew - 1 truck driver
Cost per dwelling unit is $0.58
Time
3.8 hrs.
at $12.81 hr.
13.0 hrs.
at $17.02 per hr.
Cost
$48.68 week
$221.26 week
'Curbside and backdoor collection costs are explained on page 23.
4. Comparative Costs
Presently the City of Atlanta Sanitation Department collects refuse at the backdoor two
times a week using either a compactor truck and walking crew or the compactor truck and
satellite vehicles. During the Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project, data
was obtained on the collection of non-compacted refuse using varying crews and collecting at
the backdoor as well as curbside. The same procedure was used during the test collection of
compacted refuse.
Savings in cost to the city become evident in two areas:
(1) Comparative costs of non-compacted refuse collected at the backdoor twice a week to
curbside collection of the same.
Route
Backdoor
Entire Rt.
Curbside
Entire Rt.
Per Week
Lbs. Collected
21,280*
18,202.5**
Per Week
Ave. Tons
10.6
9.1
Cost
To Collect
$ 481 .67
$ 79.42
Cost
Per Ton
$45.44
$8.73
•21,280 is on Table V
"18,202.5 is on Table
Presently the City of Atlanta is paying $45.44 a ton to collect refuse at the backdoor twice a week
on this route.
Conclusion: Curbside collection twice a week of non-compacted refuse would result in a savings
of $36.71 a ton to collect this route each week. '*
26
-------
TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF BACKDOOR TO CURBSIDE COLLECTION
COMPACTED REFUSE
DEMO DATA
WEEKLY AVERAGE
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(lbs./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Time Per DU (380 units)
Entire Route
Curbside
3.8
1.7
.2
-
1.4
.3
.2
6077
3.8
329
18,840
.01
.01
W. Maddox - E. Liddell
Backdoor
5.2
11.1
.9
.35
.4
.2
.07
1854
3.0
361
21,319
.04
.03
-------
(2) Comparative cost of compacted refuse collected at the backdoor once a week to curb-
side collection of the same.
Weekly Average Cost Cost
Route Lbs. Collected Ave. Tons To Collect Per Ton
Backdoor
Entire Rt. 21,319* 10.6 $221.26 $20.87
Curbside
Entire Rt. 18,840* 9.4 $48.68 $5.18
'See Table VI
Conclusion; Curbside collection of compacted refuse one time a week would result in a collec-
tion savings of $15.69 a ton to collect this route.
Conclusion; Total savings for the City of Atlanta utilizing curbside collection once a week of com-
pacted refuse at $5.18 a ton instead of backdoor collection twice a week of non-compacted refuse
at $45.44 a ton would be $40.26 a ton.
5. Comparison of Segments During Curbside Collection of Compacted and Non-
Compacted Refuse
Segment comparison of curbside collection of compacted and non-compacted refuse
substantiates the previously mentioned variables in the amount, not volume, of refuse collected
as well as the time involved in collection. See Table VII. During collection of compacted refuse an
average of 12.5 cans per week are handled as opposed to an average of 20 cans per week during
collection of non-compacted refuse. An average of seven bags per segment are handled during
collection of compacted refuse and an average of 18 bags per segment are handled during
collection of non-compacted refuse. Collection time per segment during collection of compacted
refuse was three minutes 20 seconds as compared with six minutes 15 seconds to collect non-
compacted refuse.
6. Comparison of Curbside Collection of the Open Bed Truck to the Compactor Truck
During Curbside and Backdoor Collection of Compacted Refuse.
As previously stated, use of the open bed truck was a most undesirable method of
collection. It was not safe, it was time consuming, more tedious and more trips were required to
take the refuse to the disposal site. For more data on the open bed truck method of collection see
pages 104-107 and Table VIII.
Conclusion: Any incorporated area utilizing the open bed truck would be well advised to discon-
tinue this method of collection and add the compactor truck before consideration of the
household compactor within its system. Curbside collection two times a week is. a desirable
prelude to the addition of a household compactor within the solid waste collection system.
28
-------
TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF COMPACTED AND NON-COMPACTED REFUSE
BY SEGMENTS
Item
Stops/Week
Cans/Week
Bags/Week
Odds/Week
Collection Time
Travel Time
Clean-Up
Pack Time
Cost Time
Compacted* — 28 Segments
Total Avg/Seg Avg/DU**
298 11
349.2 12.5 .9
195.05 7 .5
208.38 7 .5
1:33:23 3:20 :14
1:18:39 2:27 :12
13:48 :29 :02
18:31 :39 :02
5:12 :11 :01
Noncompacted* —
Total
529
551
502.75
111.50
2:41:07
1 :59:45
14:20
18:27
12:12
Avg/Seg
19
20
18
4
6:15
4:28
:52
1:07
:43
28 Segments
Avg/DU
-
1.5
1.6
.3
:25
:18
:02
:02
:01
* Data for each segment is found on Table XVIII, Compacted Refuse and Table XII, Non-compacted
Refuse.
'DU is 380 dwelling units.
-------
TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF OPEN BED TRUCK CURBSIDE
TO
COMPACTOR TRUCK CURBSIDE
TO
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
Item
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Ride time
Wait time
Pack
Lost time
Productive time
(IbsVhr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Open Bed Truck
Curbside
Compacted Refuse
1 driver - 2 men
4.7
2.6
.3 .
1.5
-
.
.1
3750
4.5
310
15,373
.01
Compactor Truck
Curbside
Compacted Refuse
; 1 driver - 2 men
3.8
1.7
.2
1.4
-
.
.2
6077
3.8
329
18,840
.01
Compactor Truck
Backdoor
Compacted Refuse
1 driver - 4 men
1.3
4.0
.3
.4
.3
.2
.02
1872
5.2
128
8238
.04
-------
D. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Compactor as a Part of a System Appro&ch to
Metro Trash Collection
Imagine, if you will, a city of 50,000 people. Each person in Metro* generates an average
of five pounds of solid waste each day. In toto, 875 tons of refuse is generated each week. Presen-
tly this refuse is collected twice a week at the backdoor. Collection is accomplished by com-
pactor trucks, satellite vehicles, and walking crews making use of the appropriate method in the
appropriate area. Metro presently employs two methods of disposal, the sanitary landfill and the
incinerator.
Collection costs are mounting. Appropriate land for disposal sites is diminishing. In-
cineration of wastes is expensive and a source of pollution in the atmosphere and the water. Year
by year the amount of refuse generated by each person is increasing.
Metro needs to cut cost of collection and provide a more efficient method of handling
refuse. Heretofore, the residents have resisted a change from backdoor to curbside collection
but something must be done.
Current collection costs for Metro are shown on the following chart.
Weekly Cost Yearly Cost
875 tons 45,500 tons
Collection Cost Per Ton Cost Per Ton Cost
Backdoor
(2 times a week) $45.44** $39,760.00 $2,067,520.00
If Metro collected curbside instead of backdoor, cost would be:
Curbside
(2 times a week) $8.73*** $7,638.75 $397,215.00
$1,670,305.00 each year could be saved if Metro utilized the curbside method of collection twice a
week.
'Metro is an econometric model of a municipality of 50,000 persons using compactors in a
solid waste collection system.
"Figure based on cost to collect project route backdoor two times a week, non-
compacted refuse, City of Atlanta. See p. 26.
* "Figure based on cost to collect project route curbside two times a week, non-
compacted refuse, City of Atlanta. See p. 26.
31
-------
However, a new device has been marketed for the homeowner to help maintain the
volume of trash at a controllable level. The household refuse compactor reduces volume of refuse
at the source so there are fewer trashcans to handle, fewer trips to the trashcan and, in general,
less mess. Does the compactor reduce the volume of refuse by half? If so, would it be possible to
collect refuse one day a week instead of two?
In order to find out how the compactor functions within a solid waste •collection system,
Metro set aside a collection route for a demonstration project. Metro tested the compactors in the
homes of residents providing varying types of collection service but collecting only once a week.
The project proved collection of compacted refuse can be accomplished once a week. The
majority of residents complained of curbside collection because of dogs getting into the trash,
weight of the bags and because the cans looked messy on the street. Most preferred backdoor
collection but practically all agreed curbside collection was easier with the compactor in the
home.
Metro then asked, "Is it possible for the city to purchase and install compactors in order
to effect collection one time a week?" "What are the costs and what are the benefits?"
Using the 1970 U.S. Census figure of 3.19 persons per household, the 50,000 people in
Metro would makeup 15,674 households. Each household would require a compactor. Cost of the
compactor is $140.00' each if ordered in carload lots of 208 compactors. The $140.00 figure in-
cludes shipping anywhere in the United States and one year parts and service warranty. An ad-
ditional figure of 75c2 each month per compactor should be included to cover cost of service,
maintenance and scrap-out.
If the 15,674 compactors necessary to provide each home with a unit were ordered two
problems would arise: (1) Location, where to store the units until they can be delivered and (2)
available crews to install the units. One crew, two men and a driver, can install approximately 50
compactors a week.
Metro is going to use five crews to install the compactors in the homes. One thousand
compactors can be installed each month. Every month an order will be placed for five carload lots
of compactors until 76 carloads have been ordered. An extra 134 units will have been ordered but
these units will be needed on hand as scrap-out occurs or loss by theft or fire. The order is placed
every month because the city has no space available for storage of more than 1,040 compactors.
By the arrival date of the new lot, the first lot of compactors would have been installed.
Cost
208 compactors per carload lot
$140 each compactor
,76 carload lots
$2,213,120 total cost
At 6% over 8 years* the cost would be $29,278 a month or $1.85 a unit.
'Expected life of the compactor.
'Correspondence from the Whirlpool Corporation dated 8-28-73.
'Willman, Martha. "Trash Collector Gives Compactors to Homes." Les Angeles: Los
Angeles Times, Feb. 11, 1973, V., p. 4.
32
-------
In addition to compactor cost, installation cost must be considered.
Installation Cost
Item Per Week
5 supervisors @$225.00 $1125.00
1 Clerk @$150.00 150.00
Drivers (5) @$171.87 859.35
Crew (5)@$312.74 1563.70
Truck (5 open bed)@$26.39 each 131.45
Total $3829.50
$3829.50 (cost per week for 5 crews) x 4 =$15,318 (cost per month for 5 crews) x 16 months to in-
stall = $245,088.00 total installation cost.
Five crews were used in Metro. These crews can install 1000 compactors each month
and approximately 16 months will be needed to install the 15,674 compactors to be used. In the
formulas shown on the following pages, installation cost is show as It and the total cost of in-
stallation is computed within the first year. The second through the eighth years the $245,088 can
be added to the total savings figure.
A figure of 75c per month per compactor must be added to take care of service, main-
tenance and scrap-out. Total service and maintenance figure each year is $141,066.
For a city the size of Metro, 50,000 persons or 15,674 households, it would cost $2,213,120
to place compactors in each home plus installation cost of $245,088 and service and maintenance
cost of 75c per compactor per month or $141,066 per year.
Cost of collection of compacted refuse is $20.87 a ton once a week at the backdoor and
$5.18 a ton once a week curbside.* Cost of non-compacted refuse per ton collected at the back-
door twice a week is $45.44 and cost of non-compacted refuse per ton collected at the curbside
twice a week is $8.73.
Current Cost
Collection Cost Per Ton Tons Per Year Yearly Cost
Backdoor
(2 times a week) $45.44 45,500 $2,067,520
Curbside
(2 times a week) 8.73 45,500 397,215
Difference $1,670,305
$1,670,305 annual savings possible by using curbside collection two times a week instead of
backdoor collection.
'See page 26.
33
-------
Proposed Cost
Collection Cost Per Ton Tons Per Year Yearly Cost
Backdoor
(1 time a week) $20.87 45,500 $949,585
Curbside
(1 time a week) 5.18 45,500 235,690
Difference $713,895
$713,895 annual savings possible using the curbside method of collection of compacted refuse 1
time a week instead of backdoor collection of compacted refuse one time a week.
Utilizing the following definitions, formulas for determining varying collection costs can
be devised.
B2 = Backdoor collection of non-compacted refuse two times a week. $2,067,520
B1= Backdoor collection of compacted refuse one time a week. $949,585
C2= Curbside collection of non-compacted refuse two times a week. $397,215
C1 = Curbside collection of compacted refuse one time a week/ $235,690
S = Savings
CCpy = Cost of compactors per year. $351,336
It = Installation total cost. $245,088
Spy = Savings per year.
SM = Service and Maintenance per year. $141,066
34
-------
CONCLUSIONS
B2-C'=Spy
$2,067,520 - $397,215=$1,670,305 annual savings possible in Metro using curbside collection two
times a week instead of backdoor collection two times a week.
(BJ- B1) - (CCpy + It + SM) = Spy
($2,067,520 - $949,585) - ($351,336 + $245,088 + $141.066)=$380,445 savings per year possible by
changing from backdoor collection two times a week of non-compacted refuse to backdoor
collection one time a week of compacted refuse including cost of the compactors for the year and
total installation cost. The second through the eighth year an additional $245,088 or a total of
$625,533 each year could be saved because there are no installation costs.
(B8 - C1) - (CCpy + It + SM) = Spy
($2,067,520 - $235,690) - ($351,336 + $245,088 + $141,066) = $1,094,340 savings possible each
year by converting from backdoor collection of non-compacted refuse two times a week to curb-
side collection of compacted refuse one time a week. Figure includes cost of compactors for the
year. An additional $245,088 savings each year or a total of $1,339,428 could be saved years two
through eight because there is no installation cost during these seven years.
Benefits of curbside collection one time a week utilizing the compactor in the home in-
clude:
(a) Noise pollution is lower. Rattling cans, dogs barking, truck starting and stopping and
compacting is noisy. This would occur only once a week instead of twice.
(b) Accident potential is reduced.
(c) Streets are littered only once a week.
(d) Wear and tear on streets by trucks is reduced.
(e) Traffic congestion is lessened.
(f) Fifty percent more compacted refuse can be placed in a sanitary landfill than non-
compacted refuse.
(g) Resident takes refuse to the curb only one time a week and has fewer bags to handle.
(h) Municipalities would be able to better cope with the declining labor force.
(i) Inventory of equipment on hand could be reduced.
(j) Approximately half as much fuel would be required to operate vehicles.
35
-------
E. Recommendations
The City of Atlanta is disbursing far too much revenue to collect solid waste. Such ex-
penditure is unnecessary. An immediate change in the method of collection from backdoor twice
a week to curbside twice a week would affect considerable savings. In order to obtain the fullest
measure of economy and efficiency, it is recommended the City immediately stop backdoor
collection twice a week and begin curbside collection twice a week aiming toward a goal of
collecting compacted refuse curbside once a week.
To achieve the goal of collecting compacted solid waste once a week curbside, the
following measures are recommended:
1. The City of Atlanta should strictly enforce the dog leash law. In the project area many
families own more than one dog and the dogs are allowed to roam unsupervised. These dogs are
a positive public nuisance and should be controlled.
2. Residents within the City should be informed:
(a) Curbside collection twice a week will begin at once. Set a date within a few weeks.
(b) During the next two to three years compactors will be available for sale for a
limited time by the City to aid the resident with curbside collection and pave the way for curbside
once a week.
(c) Announce target date for curbside collection one time a week. Ideally within three
to five years of changeover from B2 to C2.
3. A wheeled vehicle should be used by the resident to take refuse to the curb. The
resident should be informed of the advantages of such a vehicle. The Sanitation Services Division
should urge local stores to make such vehicles available for sale to residents. These vehicles
would relieve some of the dissatisfaction with the curbside method of collection when the
changeover from B2 to C2 occurs. The weight and bulk of trash would not be a factor and the trip
to the curb would not be as unpleasant during inclement weather. The elderly would not be
required to lift or carry.
4. Initiate a program plan whereby compactors could be made available and restricted to
the residents of the City of Atlanta presently receiving household collection service. Such a plan
should be organized by service routes. Compactors would be placed at neighborhood centers for
sale by the City and pickup by the resident. The City of Atlanta would pay half ($70.00) of the com-
pactor cost and the resident would pay half, $70.00.
5. Amend the building code to require compactors and food waste disposers in all new
residential construction.
36
-------
6. Once the target date for changeover from C2 to C1 is met, the City of Atlanta should
terminate the compactor sale operation. Any future purchases of compactors by city residents
should be accomplished elsewhere.
7. The sanitary landfill method of disposal is recommended for compacted refuse. Fifty
percent more compacted waste can be placed in the same volume of non-compacted refuse
leading to far more efficient land use.
Utilizing this approach, all residents would be aware curbside collection once a week
was eminent. The resident could elect to purchase the compactor during the availability interim or
he could simply purchase additional cans.
The City of Atlanta would not be plagued with a large outlay of funds because initial
savings from B2 to C2 would supply the necessary revenue for compactor cost. The resident would
pay half the cost, own the compactor and assume liability for ownership, maintenance and
replacement. By distributing the compactors from neighborhood centers and allowing the
resident to pick up the unit, delivery and installation costs are reduced. The City would not have
to obtain permission to place compactors in resident's homes. Ownership would become strictly a
resident decision.
8.' Specific Recommendations
The compactor overall was judged by the residents as quite a success. Some specific
items however, should be improved.
(a) Compactor bags should be fitted with some sort of tie in order to seal them
securely before collection.
(b) The compactor was not designed to replace the food waste disposer and if used in
conjunction with a disposer, results are very satisfactory. Otherwise, items such as
meat, chicken or fruit waste should not be placed in the compactor.
(c) The best location for the compactor is in the kitchen under the counter beside the
sink.
(d) The compactor bag should be packed according to manufacturer's instructions
and handled with care to avoid accidents, as sharp objects will penetrate the
bags.
(e) Waste collectors should not throw or toss compactor bags and should wear gloves.
37
-------
Stage 1.
The purpose of the first stage of this project was to obtain all meaningful data possible
prior to the installation of the compactor in each home in order to have a base which later could
be used in comparison with demonstration data collected once the compactor was in the home. A
test route had to be selected and contracts had to be obtained from each household agreeing to
participate in the study before data could be obtained of normal working conditions on the collec-
tion route. Once contracts were signed, base data, that is, data relating to normal collection for
the route prior to the installation of the compactors, was collected. After base data was completed
compactors were placed in the homes and a survey team member completed Questionnaire I.
A. The Test Route and the Contract
1. Selection of the Test Route
Five areas in the city were recommended by the Sanitation Services Division as
possible and workable neighborhoods for the project. The areas were visited and it was deter-
mined a southwest area known as Cascade Heights (approximately 95 percent black) and a nor-
thwest area, Margaret Mitchell (98 percent white), were the only areas suitable for the demon-
stration.
These areas were chosen for several reasons. A stable neighborhood to minimize
change of participation by residents in the demonstration was important. Selection of a neigh-
borhood which was middle income in character was desirable in order to represent homeowners
most likely to purchase the equipment under normal circumstances. Location and distance to
suitable landfill and incinerator sites were important considerations. The educational levei of the
inhabitants was as important as an area where it was not necessary for both husband and wife to
work in order to handle finances. With these factors in mind, search continued for a better racial
balance. However, in areas having relatively equal racial balance, a high degree of transition was
taking place. The transition factor was unacceptable because of technicalities involved in placing
the compactors in the homes, moving the units from home to home and questionnaire response
could not reflect continued use. The possibility of using 200 homes in the southwest area and 200
homes in the northwest area to achieve racial balance was discussed. The requirements of ad-
ditional time and employees made this scheme undesirable. Actual savings as well as time and
motion data would be distorted to a considerable degree. A decision between the southwest area
and the northwest area had to be made and it was decided to allow residents of the respective
areas to make this decision.
2. Project Promotion
In order to help the resident with this decision, the public relations phase of the project
was initiated. It was essential to project success that users of the compactor sign a contract with
the City of Atlanta and cooperate throughout the study period. In order to assure willingness on
the part of the household occupants, all phases of public relations were purposefully designed to
assure cooperation.
The public in general and the head of the household in particular must be assured of
the validity of the Atlanta Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project. An an-
nouncement of the demonstration project and the importance of the test route was made by Mayor
Sam Massell at a press conference in Atlanta. Local radio, television and press personnel were
present as well as reporters from three national magazines and the Associated Press. The Mayor
stressed the importance of the demonstration to the city and the nation and fried to impress the
Preceding page blank
39
-------
public by emphasizing the honor and privilege connected with the study. The 400 families on the
test route would be fortunate, stated the Mayor, to have the opportunity to test the compactor and
hopefully participate in the development of more economical and efficient trash collection
methods. The press release is found in the Appendix under Item A.
One week after the press conference, 400 letters (Item B, Appendix) were mailed to
residents in the northwest Atlanta area and the southwest Atlanta area. A stamped, self-
addressed postcard was included in each letter for return by the resident stating whether or not
he was interested in participating in the project. Selection of the test route was made on the basis
of the most favorable response from the area. As of December 4, 1970, (date selection had to be
made) total response was:
N Yes No
Northwest route 400 49% (195) 4% (14)
Southwest route 400 39% (156) 2% (8)
Based on response received, the northwest route was selected. Figure 1 is a map of the test route.
The analysis of Questionnaire I on page 56 provides a complete description of residents on the
route.
3. Compactor Description
The survey team destined to make the initial contact with the householders on the test
route met to see the compactor and a unit was demonstrated by the manufacturer's represen-
tative. Each member of the survey team was given an opportunity to examine and operate the
machine.
The Whirlpool Trash Masher compactor used in this study was designed by the
manufacturer to save up to a week's worth of trash in a bag, approximately the size of a grocery
bag. It was designed to eliminate daily or semi-daily trips to the outdoor trash can and was ad-
vertised to end unsightliness and the bother cf litter blowing over the yard.
According to the manufacturer, the compactor is easy to operate. The housewife opens
the drawer, drops in the paper products, cans, bottles and household trash, then closes the
drawer and presses the start button. When the drawer is closed, two sprays of deodorant are
released into the drawer. This spray was developed to prevent odors. Once the spray is depleted,
the ram, driven by one-third horsepower motor, moves down on twin screws exerting 2000 pounds
of force compacting the contents. A key lock controls the electrical circuit and is an added safety
device. Once the ram has started the downward thrust, the drawer cannot be opened unless the
stop button is pushed. When the stop button is pushed, the ram returns to normal stop position
and the drawer can be opened. The unit completes a cycle in approximately 60 seconds. When
the bag is full, it is removed and carried to a location for pickup by the collection crew.
40
-------
FIGURE 1
ROUTE CHOSEN FOR
/ THE DEMONSTRATION PROJEC
" NORTHWEST ATLANTA
41
-------
The manufacturer further states the compactor is a handsome appliance that can be
installed under the counter or used free standing. No special equipment is needed for installation,
just plug the unit into a standard wall plug. The unit operates for approximately 60c a year. Pur-
chase of the bags and deodorizer is necessary. The bags are leakproof polyethylene lined, are
packaged in sets of 12 at $3.99 a package, and should last the average family of four three mon-
ths. One can of deodorizer spray ($1.99) should last four to five months.
Following demonstration of the compactor, the survey team was instructed as to the
proper procedure to follow in personal contact with the resident. The contract between the City of
Atlanta and the resident was explained to the group in order that they, in turn, could explain the
contract to the residents.
4. The Contract
The survey team, within the time span of one week, attempted to contact all residents
on the chosen test route and secure a contract with them. The contract was a simple agreement
to allow placement of the compactor in the home with certain stipulations as to liability and con-
tract dissolution.
Initial contact proved difficult and discouraging. Because of the season (Christmas)
and various other reasons, it was extemely difficult to find residents at home. The problem was
alleviated to some degree by telephone appointment and finally by leaving the contracts and in-
formation in the mailbox. Mail response was far better than expected. The press conference and
introductory letter seemed to have been worthwhile. All residents were aware of the study and
very few questioned the validity of the project.
An order was placed for 400 Whirlpool Trash Masher compactors, accompanying bags
and deodorizer with the Whirlpool Corporation. Participants in the test area were permitted color
preference and the units were ordered accordingly. The Whirlpool Corporation agreed to provide
the compactors on consignment. Compactor bags and deodorizer were provided to the city for
use during the study at a discount price and were free to project participants.
B. Investigate and Evaluate the Existing Collection System
Once the route was selected and the contracts had been obtained from the residents
on the route, forms were designed to evaluate initial pickup at backdoor and for the curbside
study of current collection techniques.
The test route chosen for this project was a combination of two separate and distinct
refuse pickup routes. The routes were combined to obtain a representative cross-section. The
east half of the route is normally serviced by a compactor truck and two satellite vehicles which
are driven to the backdoor to effect collection. The west portion of the route is serviced by
walking crews who carry refuse to the collection truck from the backdoor by means of a plastic
"tote" barrel.
Base data was gathered on the test route utilizing the current or normal collection
technique before installation of the compactor. Backdoor collection (two times a week) was un-
dertaken for a period of four weeks on the east route and four weeks on the west route.
42
-------
This page is reproduced ut the
back of the report ; r(,nt
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTOGRAPH !
The "Trash Masher" Refuse
Compactor Used In the Project
43
-------
1. East Liddell Route (Base Data)
The east route, East Liddell, is slightly more than half of the entire route as indicated
on Figure 2. The crew used to obtain the base data for this area consisted of the truck driver and
two men operating satellite vehicles. Equipment consisted of a Loadmaster rear-loading, 20 yard
capacity truck on a Chevrolet chassis with a two cubic yard hopper. Two satellite vehicles, one
and one-half cubic yard International scouts, were also used. The Project Director used a wrist-
watch, stop watch and odometer to measure time and motion. Base data collected on the East
Liddell route during four weeks and eight collection periods is shown on Table IX. Forms used
during this collection are found under Item C in the Appendix as well as definitions applicable to
Table IX.
Cost of backdoor collection twice each week prior to compactor installation for the
East Liddell route using the compactor truck, two satellite vehicles and three drivers is as follows:
TOTAL COST
Item
Truck
Two satellite vehicles
Labor
1 Waste collector Driver
2 Waste Collector III**
Total
Per Hour
$ 2.63
1.64
3.68
6.78
$14.73
Per Day
$ 20.97
13.18
29.45
54.20
$117.80
Per Week*
$ 41.94
26.36
58.90
108.40
$235.60
'Based on two eight hour days.
** Waste Collector III operates the satellite vehicle.
Basic cost tables for collection equipment and labor as prepared by the City of Atlanta are found
in the Appendix, Item D.
44
-------
FIGURE 2
FAST LIDDELL ROUTE
45
-------
TABLE IX
EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
BASE DATA 4 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 8 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck, 2 satellite vehicles
Crew: 1 waste collection driver, 2 satellite vehicle drivers.
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Lost time
Break down time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
1
4.5
8.2
.5
.1
848
2
4.2
7.3
.7
.1
.1
1014
3
4.2
7.7
.6
.1
.2
919
4
4.3
7.6
.6
.1
888
5
3.7
6.6
.5
.1
.1
776
6
4.6
8.1
.7
.1
.3
1264
7
3.8
5.6
.3
.1
867
8_
3.7
6.6
.5
.1
881
Total
33.0
57.7
4.4
.4
.5
.3
.3
Wk. Ave.
8.0
14.4
1.1
.1
.1
.08
.08
942
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Weekly Averaqes
Number stops
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Lost time
TOTAL
8.9
232
7040
.03
for Waste
8.2 8.4
234 237
7400 7080
.04 .03
Collectors
8.5 7.3 9.2
239 226 233
6840 5200 10240
.04 -03 .04
Man 1
230.5
7.3
.6
.1
.1
.1
8.2
6.0 7.3 63.8
227 240 1868
4940 5900 54640
.03 -03
Man 2
236.5
7.1
.6
7.7
15.9
467
13660
.03
* Productive time includes only time collecting and ride time.
-------
PHOTOGRAPH II
COMPACTOR TRUCK
This i reproduced at thr
'•port by a difli
icthod to pn>
ft
F : : -V
IE VEHICLE DUMPING INTO COMPACTOR IRi ! K
47
-------
2. West Maddox Route
The west route, West Maddox, as shown on Figure 3, was serviced by a four man
walking crew and a truck driver. The truck used was a Hobbs 20 yard capacity rear loader with a
hopper capacity of one and one-half yard. A summary of backdoor collection base data on the
West Maddox route for a period of four weeks, eight collection periods is shown on Table X.
Forms used during this collection and definitions applicable to Table X are found in the Appendix
under Item E.
Cost of backdoor collection of non-compacted refuse for the West Maddox route using
the compactor truck and a four man walking crew is shown below:
TOTAL COST
Item
Truck
Labor
4 Waste Collector II***
Waste Collection Driver
Total
Per Hour
$ 2.63
16.68
$19.31
Per Day*
$ 20.97
133.45
$154.42
Per Week"
$ 41.94
266.90
_
$308.84
'Based on an eight hour working day.
"Based on two eight hour working days.
***Waste Collector II is a walking crewman.
Base cost of equipment and crew is found in the Appendix, Item D.
48
-------
.FIGURE 3
ROUTE
49
-------
TABLE X
WEST MADDOX ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
BASE DATA 4 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 8 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: 4 man walking crew
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period 12345678 Total Wk. Ave.
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.) 941 686 714 659 832 713 711 955 786
Total time
Number stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Weekly Averages for Waste Collectors Man 1 Man 2 Man 3 Man 4
Number stops 81 63 90 60
Time collecting 2.3 2.0 2.5 2.1
Clean up time .1 .2 .2 .1
1.6
3.6
.4
.4
.1
.4
.5
1.5
3.9
.2
.7
.3
.2
1.6
4.6
.2
.7
.5
.1
1.3
3.2
.1
.4
.5
.8
2.2
6.3
.6
1.0
.6
.2
.3
1.4
4.2
.2
.5
.4
.2
.1
2.4
5.6
.4
.3
.5
.1
.3
1.5
4.5
.3
.5
.4
.1
.1
13.5
35.9
2.4
4.5
3.3
1.3
2.1
3.4
8.9
.6
1.1
.8
.3
.5
5.5
99
3480
.06
5.3
140
2880
.04
6.1
138
3640
.04
4.9
135
2440
.04
9.0
168
5740
.05
5.7
166
3280
.03
7.2
156
4340
.05
5.9
173
4680
.03
49.6
1175
30480
12.4
294
7620
.04
-------
3. Entire Route
Primary totals of the information gained during the eight weeks study of backdoor
collection for the east and west route are:
Entire Route Backdoor Collection Weekly Average
Refuse 21,280 Ibs.
Stops 777
Time Collecting Refuse 28.3 hr.
C. Curbside Collection
Base data was also compiled on the entire route during curbside collection. Normally
Atlanta's refuse is collected at the backdoor, however, for purposes of this study, the results of
backdoor pickup of normal refuse are to be compared to backdoor pickup of compacted refuse as
well as a comparison of curbside collection of normal refuse to curbside collection of compacted
refuse. Therefore, for a period of four weeks and eight collection periods, a study was made of
curbside collection over the entire route. A summary of curbside collection of normal refuse prior
to installation of the compactor using a compactor truck and two man crew is shown on Table
XI. Forms used during this collection are found in the Appendix under Item F as well as
definitions applicable to Table XI.
51
-------
TABLE XI
ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
BASE DATA 4 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 8 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: I waste collection driver, 2 waste collectors
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total time
Number stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
2896
2648
3751
3357
3696
3217
4770
2992
Total Wk. Ave.
3.3
1.5
.2
1.0
.3
.3
3.3
1.9
.1
1.0
.3
3.3
1.7
1.2
.3
.1
2.7
1.1
.1
1.2
.2
.1
3.8
2.0
.1
1.2
.4
.1
2.7
1.1
.1
1.2
.2
.1
3.1
1.5
.1
1.2
.3
2.7
1.2
.1
1.2
.2
.1
24.9
12.0
.4
.4
9.2
2.2
.8
6.2
3.0
.1
.1
2.3
.5
.2
3434
3.3
237
7240
.01
3.3
269
7680
.01
3.3
277
10880
.01
2.7
263
7720
.01
3.8
323
11830
.01
2.7
279
7400
.01
3.1
318
12880
.01
2.7
259
7180
.01
24.9
2225
72810
6.2
556
18202.5
.01
-------
1. Segmented Data
The test route was reduced to 28 segments or blocks to obtain more specific data on
the curbside collection. Such data will allow comparison on a segment by segment basis of curb-
side collection of normal refuse to curbside collection of compacted refuse. Item G in the Ap-
pendix identifies the segments by streets. The segmented base data of curbside collection of nor-
mal refuse is tabulated on Table XII.
Cost of curbside collection of normal refuse for the entire test route using the com-
pactor truck and a two man walking crew is shown below:
TOTAL COST
Item
Truck
Labor
Two Waste Collector Ms
Total
Per Hour
2.63
10.18
$12.81
Per Day*
20.97
81.45
$102.42
Per Week**
41.94
162.90
$204.84
'Based on one eight hour day.
** Based on two eight hour days.
***Waste Collector II is a walking crewman.
53
-------
TABLE XII
SEGMENTED DATA OF ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
BASE DATA 4 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 8 COLLECTION PERIODS
Segment
Ave. no.
cans/week
Ave. no.
cans/week
Ave. no.
bags/week
Ave. no.
odd/parcels
Ave.
coll. time
Ave.
travel time
Ave. clean
up time
Ave. pack
time
Ave. lost
time
27 20
24 13
11
1:20
15
10 11 12 13 14
24 22 18 17 19 18
34 23 8 10 27 40 18 26 38 26
16 6 10
17 13 23 15 10 10 13 10
27
:05
13
12
6:57 6:32 2:23 2:23 6:55 7:30 6:56 4:07 4:21 5:20 3:19 4:20 2:31 3:07
3:07 5:31 2:21 3:21 5:21 3:07 3:05 2:54 4:23 4:56 3:58 8:06 1:54 2:22
1:01 1:31 :29 1:05 2:51 1:18 :08 :39 :35 1:28 :06 :32 - :31
1:21 :29 :06 :57 :29 :03 :54 :26 :06
:07
1:01
1:07
:40
-------
TABLE XII CONTINUED
SEGMENTED DATA OF ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
BASE DATA 4 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 8 COLLECTION PERIODS
Segment
Ave. no.
odd/parcels 2
1
6 .75
.75
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
22 10 29 9 80
8 11 33 15 122
32 16 22 3 34
Ave. stops
per week
Ave. no.
cans/week
Ave. no.
bags/week
9
10
8
23
31
6
42
45
33
22
7
28
Ave. coll.
time 4:21 6:32 15:05 3:30 6:18 3:20 8:07 2:06 25:33
Ave.
travel time 4:08 4:57 9:05 9:19 6:20 2:30 4:20 2:07 11:20
:03 :03' 1:17 - - - - - :38
Av.ei. cl'eaw
up; time
AVes pack
time :05 :31 1:05 :54 :55 :04 1:06 :31 3:06
Ave. lost
time
:33
4:01
1:20
1:01
Avg.
Per
24 25 26 27 28 Total Segment
7 20 1 28 529 19
.25
10 35
43 551 20
1 .50 5 .25 14 502.75 18
1.75
4 111.50
:31 1:55 6:55 1:15 8:31 2:41:07 6:15
:55 1:30 2:57 :27 5:241:59:45 4:28
:05 14:20 :52
:32 :14 :06 :07 1:06 18:27 1:07
:27 :07
1:07 12:12 :43
-------
0. Questionnaire I.
Once the collection of base data was completed, the Project Director began installation
of the compactors in the homes of the residents. Approximately 380 compactors were installed
and more units were later placed in service to satisfy resident mobility. At the same time the com-
pactors were installed, a survey team member accompanied the Sanitation Services team in order
to explain the operation of the unit and to complete the first questionnaire of the project.
1. Total Response
The first questionnaire (Item H Appendix) was very informative. Definitive data con-
cerning the total route as well as specific information relating to household size is available. Most
residents have had some college education and upper incomes are fairly evenly split at three
levels. Practically all residents own their homes and most have two or more cars. This group
should be very responsive to future questions involving compactor evaluation as well as
evaluation of the type of collection service they are receiving. There were 382 responses to
Questionnaire I. Questions and responses are as follows:
1. How many large outside cans do you have?
Cans 12 3 4 56
Households 3% 50% 30% 12% 3% 2%
2. How often are the cans filled?
Cans are filled 1 time/week Viz time/week 2 time/week 3 time/week
Households 382 25% 6% 63% 6%
Normal collection in Atlanta is twice a week. Most residents fill their cans two times a week and
have the number of cans necessary to accommodate refuse to the day of pickup without overflow.
3. Is collection adequate for the residents of the test route?
Normal collection service, that is two times a week, is adequate for practically all residents. Ten
percent of the residents stated collection twice a week was not sufficient, however, of this num-
ber, five percent fill the cans they have twice a week suggesting they would like service three
times a week rather than require service three times a week. Five percent would prefer service
more often than twice a week.
4. Do you have a garbage disposal?
Yes 50% No 50%
5. Do you purchase frozen or canned goods?
Frozen 34% Canned 38% Equal of both 28%
6. Are magazines a part of the trash?
Yes 65% No 35%
56
-------
7. Are newspapers a part of the trash?
Yes 63% No 37%
8. What is the age of the head of the house?
20 years - 5%
30 years - 25%
40 years - 31%
50 years - 28%
60 and up - 11%
9. What is the average educational level of the head of the house?
84% have had some college education.
1.0. What is the income of the residents?
$ 5-15,000 .- 24%
15-25,000 - 32%
25-40,000 - 27%
40,000 up - 17%
11. How many residents own their homes?
97% of the residents own their homes.
12. How many residents have more than one car?
1 car - 14%
2 cars - 62%
3 cars - 24%
13. Do the residents have a maid?
Yes 58% No 42%
In summary, most residents have two or three cans they fill once or twice a week.
Collection at the backdoor twice a week is satisfactory. The residents purchase an equal number
of canned and frozen goods and approximately 65% place newspapers and magazines in the
trash even though the Parent-Teacher Association at local schools is involved in an active con-
tinuing paper recycling project. Approximately half the residents have a garbage grinder. The
majority of the residents are between 30 and 50 years of age, in the upper 'income level, own
homes, have two cars and have had some college education. About half the residents employ a
maid.
2. Response Based on Household Size
Questionnaire I was divided into household size to obtain information relating directly
to the number of residents per household. A summary of Questionnaire I by h'oifsefio'ld"count is as
follows oh Table XIII.
57
-------
Question
TABLE XIII
QUESTIONNAIRE I
1 Resident
7 Households
2 Residents
93 Households
3 Residents
81 Households
4 Residents
113 Households
1. How many
large outside cans
do you have?
2. How often are
these cans filled?
3. Is collection at
the backdoor
adequate for this
group?
72% - 2 cans
14% - 3 cans
14% - 4 cans
71% of the residents with 2
cans fill these cans once or
twice a week. 29% of the
residents with 3 or 4 cans fill
them once a week.
yes
3% - 1 can
63% - 2 cans
24% - 3 cans
9% - 4 cans
1 % - 5 cans
This group has 2 or 3 cans
they fill 1 or 2 times a week
with the exception of 3
households. One household
has only 1 can and no garbage
disposal. Household 2 raises
dogs with 10 dogs at all times
and no garbage grinder.
Household 3 has 52 parties
each year. Collection service
is adequate for this group with
the exception of the 3 just
mentioned
With the exception of 3.
1% - 1 can
56% - 2 cans
30% - 3 cans
6% - 4 cans
2% - 5 cans
5% - 6 cans
Most of this group has 2 or 3
cans they fill 1 or 2 times a
week. 4 households could use
collection service 3 times a
week.
Yes, all but 4 households.
4% - 1 can
43% - 2 cans
36% - 3 cans
13% - 4 cans
4% - 5 cans
Most of this group has 2 or 3
cans that are filled 1 or 2 times
a week. 10 households
requested collection service 3
times a week.
Yes, all but 10 households.
-------
TABLE XIII - CONTINUED
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Question
5 residents
62 Households
6-7 Residents
21 Households
8-9 Residents
6 Households
1. How many large
outside cans do you
have?
2. How often are
these cans filled?
3. Is collection at the
backdoor adequate for
this group?
2% - 1 can
40% - 2 cans
37% - 3 cans
16% - 4 cans
2% - 5 cans
3% - 6 cans
Most of the group has 2 or 3
cans that are filled 1 or 2 times
each week with the exception
of 5 households who fill their
cans 3 times a week and
would prefer collection 3 times
a week.
Yes except for 5 households.
10%
38%
14%
28%
5%
- 1 can
- 2 cans
- 3 cans
- 4 cans
- 5 cans
5% - 6 cans
90% of this group fill their
cans 1 or 2 times a week. The
remainder would prefer
collection 3 times a week.
10% would prefer collection 3
times a week.
20% - 2 cans
20% - 3 cans
20% - 4 cans
40% - 6 cans
Collection is adequate for all
but 1 household that would
prefer collection 3 times a
week. All cans are filled twice
a week.
Yes with the exception of 1
household.
-------
TABLE XIII - CONTINUED
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Question
1 Resident
7 Households
2 Residents
93 Households
3 Residents
81 Households
4 Residents
113 Households
4. How many have a garbage
grinder?
5. How many place
newspapers and magazines in
the trash?
6. Is the majority of refuse
generated by this group
paper?
7. What is the median age of
this group?
8. Education?
57%
Almost all
Yes
50-60
Approximately
50% have had
some college
education.
40%
Almost all
Yes
50-60
81% have had
some college
education.
43%
Almost all
Yes
30-60
88% have had
some college
education.
48%
Slightly more than half.
Yes
30-60
The majority of this
group has
had some college
education.
9. Income?
57% - $5-15,000
29% - $25-40,000
14% - $40,000 up
24% - $5-15,000
41% - $15-25,000
21% - $25-40,000
14% - $40,000 up
33% - $5-15,000
21% - $15-25,000
26% - $25-40,000
20% - $40,000 up
20% - $5-15,000
37% - $15-25,000
31% - $25-40,000
12% - $40,000 up
-------
TABLE XIII - CONTINUED
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Question
5 Residents
62 Households
6-7 Residents
21 Households
8-9 Residents
6 Households
4. How many have a garbage
grinder?
5. How many place
newspapers and magazines in
the trash?
6. Is the majority of refuse
generated by this group
paper?
7. What is the median age of
this group?
8. Education?
9. Income?
61%
Approximately half of this
group places newspapers and
magazines in the trash.
Yes •
30-50
Most of this group has had
some college education.
16% - $5-15,000
31% - $15-25,000
34% - $25-40,000
19% - $40,000 up
90%
Just about half place
newspapers and magazines in
the trash.
No, less than half.
40
Most of this group has had
some college education.
20% - $5-15,000
20% - $15-25,000
15% - 25-40,000
45% - $40,000 up
60%
Most save newspapers for the
schools and put magazines in
the trash.
Yes
30-40
All have had some college
education.
25% - $5-15,000
25% - $15-25,000
50% - $25-40,000
-------
STAGE 2.
All data to be collected prior to installation of the compactor was completed and the com-
pactors were installed in the homes of the residents on the project route. The residents were
given an opportunity to use the compactors for a few weeks to become adjusted to this method of
handling trash and were provided with routine backdoor collection twice a week during the trial
period.
The purpose of Stage 2 was to gather detailed information relating to every facet of refuse
collection with a compactor in the home. Questionnaires were given to the residents to complete
relating to the compactor and its performance. Specific data was obtained during backdoor
collection using the satellite vehicle and walking crews for comparison with data of the same ob-
tained prior to installation of the compactor. Data was also compiled on curbside collection using
the rear loading compactor and open bed trucks. Disposal of compacted waste at the landfill and
the incinerator was observed and data gathered on methods used.
During Stage 2 (one year) collection service was provided one day a week instead of the
normal two days a week. The year was subdivided into quarterly phases. Each phase was
designed to gather information concerning varying types of collection techniques, disposal
methods and resident opinion of the compactor.
A. Phase I.
This phase dealt with three areas of information. (1) Specific time and motion demon-
stration data was taken on the East Liddell route after the installation of the compactor utilizing
the satellite vehicle for backdoor collection. (2) Data was also compiled on the disposal of com-
pacted waste at the landfill and (3) the second questionnaire of the study was completed by the
residents.
1. East Liddell Route (Demonstration Data)
This route was described previously. See Figure 2, page 45. The same data forms used
to obtain base data were also used to obtain demonstration data, (Appendix, Item C). The crew
used during the collection of demo data consisted of the truck driver and two satellite vehicle
drivers. Equipment consisted of a Loadmaster rear-loading 20 yard capacity truck with a two
cubic yard hopper. Two satellite vehicles, International scouts, were also used. The Project Direc-
tor used a wristwatch, stopwatch and odometer to measure time and distance. Demonstration
data collected on the East Liddell route during 11 weeks and 11 collection periods is shown on
Table, XIV and applicable definitions are in Appendix C.
62
-------
Cost of backdoor collection once a week after installation of the compactor on the
East Liddell route using the compactor truck and two satellite vehicles is as follows:
TOTAL COST
Item
Truck
2 Satellite vehicles
2 Waste Collector III***
1 Waste Collector Driver
Total
Per Hour
$ 2.63
$ 1.64
$10.46
$14.73
Per Day *
$ 20.97
$ 13.18
$ 83.65
$117.80
Per Week"
$ 20'.97
$ 13.18
$ 83.65
$117.80
'Based on one eight hour day.
"Collection is once a week, one eight hour working day.
***Waste Collector III is a satellite vehicle driver.
Your attention is directed to basic cost tables in the Appendix, Item D.
63
-------
TABLE XIV
EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION DATA 11 WEEK SUMMARY OF 11 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck, 2 satellite vehicles
Crew: 1 waste collection driver, 2 satellite vehicle drivers
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Lost time
*£. Break down time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per DU
1
4.0
7.2
.7
.1
1811
8.0
227
13,040
.04
4.0
7.2
.6
1858
7.9
226
13,380
.03
3.6
6.5
.6
.1
1820
7.2
236
11,830
.03
4.3
7.8
.6
1782
8.5
230
13,900
.04
3.9
7.0
.5
.1
1900
7.6
230
13,300
.03
4.2
7.5
.6
.1
1763
8.2
234
13,220
.04
Weekly Averages for Waste Collectors
Number stops
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Lost time
Man 1
113.6
3.6
.4
.05
Man 2
115.3
3.5
.2
.05
Total time
4.05
3.75
-------
TABLE XIV - CONTINUED
DEMONSTRATION DATA
EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
11 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 11
COLLECTION PERIODS
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Lost time
Break down time
Pioductive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total cime
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per DU
2055
1961
1986
10
1482
11
1829
Total
Wk. Ave.
3.8
6.9
.6
.1
3.6
6.7
.6
.1
3.7
6.7
.5
.1
4.3
8.2
.6
.1
.1
3.7
6.8
.6
.1
.1
43.1
78.5
6.5
.5
.6
3.9
7.1
.6
.05
.05
1842
7.7
228
14,180
.03
7.4
229
13,140
.03
7.3
233
13,304
.03
9.0
231
12,155
.04
7.5
228
12,440
.03
86.3
2532
143,889
7.8
230
13,081
.03
-------
2. Landfill Disposal of Compacted Refuse
Primary objectives of the landfill test were to determine what problems, if any, exist in
the landfilling of compacted refuse and whether or not efficient land use can be achieved with
compacted refuse. All compacted refuse collected during this six month test was transported to
test cells reserved at a local landfill convenient to the demonstration route. Figure 4 shows the
location of the disposal sites in relation to the project route.
Two cell-type test units were excavated. The surveyor's plan of the cells is shown on
Figure 5 and Figure 6 represents shape of test cells and layers of refuse and cover material. Test
Cell No. 1 received compacted refuse from the test route. Test Cell No. 2 received normal
residential refuse collected in a standard rear-loading compactor truck. In order to maintain
similar refuse characteristics, the base material (Cell No. 2) was collected from the same
proximity as the test route over the same time period.
Daily operation of the test cells was performed under normal sanitary landfill
procedures. Major elements in this process were the proper placement of refuse, effective com-
paction and adequate cover. Refuse was dumped from the collection truck then spread and com-
pacted by the crawler-tractor. The operator was instructed to make 20 compactor passes over
each load of compacted and non-compacted refuse in order to maintain similar test conditions.
The limited amount of compacted refuse available created a situation of abnormality in the test
cells. Normally, daily cover is applied to very large amount of refuse, however, only two
truckloads of compacted refuse were available daily. In order to apply adequate daily cover, the
operator was forced to use an excess amount of cover dirt in proportion to refuse. In order to
assure uniformity, Test Cell No. 2 (non-compacted refuse) was operated in the same manner as
the compacted refuse cell.
An experienced operator was used throughout the test period. Daily activities of the
test cells were recorded on a form provided by the operator. Data recorded each day of operation
included the weight of refuse placed, amount of cover material and machine-man-hours worked
in each cell. The form used is Item I, Appendix. An International Model 250 crawler-type tractor
was used during the landfill test. The tractor has a weight of approximately 42,000 pounds. The
tractor is equipped with a three cubic yard front loading bucket and grouser bars on the track.
During the test period, 199 tons of compacted refuse were placed in Cell No. 1 and 131
tons of normal refuse were placed in Cell No. 2. Observation of the landfilling characteristics
revealed no discernible difference in the two test cells. The landfill operator was able to ef-
fectively spread and compact the test refuse without difficulty. The operator observed no dif-
ference in landfilling characteristics of compacted versus normal refuse. Blowing paper was not a
problem in either cell.
Examination of the compacted refuse before compaction by the crawler-tractor
showed most of the bags to be intact, although the majority were not sealed in any fashion. After
the refuse was dumped, it was spread over the working face of the cell and compacted by the
crawler. Examination of the refuse after compaction revealed no compactor bags left intact. The
tractor grousers shredded the bags beyond recognition. A summary of landfill test data is shown
on Table XV.
66
-------
^"i.
vJK& < -
' ^^V^"
. ^si\x
r W>>*»u ••'* y ,»
' O>':: ..--» .rf^r-,* ^,
5 ivv.-«./7-..- / "-"------v^-3s?*Sj!K'-i /^ '•**f~ff;t'::l
wJ&^\^$&?*~H
w A -—'-. --'"^ '\ '%. • v )
sW-''v!7V'"" \ !A '%, >.H
• <&-**:&/^//jft
S:<-A-^\M£
\ •••• w
FIGURE 4
INCINERATOR AND
LANDFILL IN RELATION
PROJECT ROUTE
-------
FIGURE 5
SURVEYOR'S PLAN FOR
LANDFILL CELLS
-------
I
THIS GEOMETRIC FIGURE IDEALISTICALLY REPRESENTS THE SHAPE OF THE TEST CELLS.
Refuse L.::".^! Cover dirt
THIS CROSS-SECTION REPRESENTS THE LAYERS OF REFUSE AND COVER MATERIAL.
FIGURE 6 SHAPE OF TEST CELLS
-------
PHOTOGRAPH IV
LANDFILL CELL 1
100% COMPACTED REFUSE
This page is reproduced at tiie1
back of the report by a cliin
reproduction method to pr<
belter detail.
PHOTOGRAPH V
COMPACTED REFUSE IN CELL
70
-------
TABLE XV
LANDFILL TEST DATA
Item
Pounds of refuse in place
Bucket cover material
(3 cu. yd./bucket)
Pounds cover material
Volume of each cell (yd3)
Landfill density* (final)
True density** (final)
Compacted
Test Cell No. 1
398,790
70
420,000
572.5
700 IDS. /yd.3
1430 Ibs./yd.3
Non-Compacted
Test Cell No. 2
262,300
53
318,000
563.0
470 Ibs./yd.3
1030 Ibs./yd.3
'Landfill density - refuse weight/volume of cell.
"True density = refuse + cover weight/volume of cell.
Increases in both landfill and true densities were noted between the survey taken three months
after the test began and the final survey. The test was designed to similate four months use of a
landfill cell. Density increases are attributed to the compacting effect of additional refuse and
cover added and also to the settling effect over time.
71
-------
Cost of landfill disposal in Atlanta is based on a Special Services Division, Public
Works Department, City of Atlanta, report on landfill disposal cost.
AVERAGE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST EACH TRACTOR
Item
Fuel
Oil
Grease
Parts
Labor
Depreciation*
Total
Cost Per Year
$ 914.57
61.72
6.80
5,155.03
2,118.24
3,991.00
$12,247.76
Cost Per Day
$ 4.30
.29
.03
24.26
9.97
18.78"
$57.63
'Based on an estimated life of eight years.
"Based on 2,125 operating days for ten tractors.
Landfill Operator Costs
Average base cost per day
Average base cost per day
Total cost per day*
Total cost per year*
'Includes fringe benefits
$ 35.32
$ 9,183.20
$ 41.48
$10,784.75
Landfill Laborer Costs
Waste Collector I per week
Waste collector I per year
Total cost per week*
Total cost per year*
'Includes fringe benefits
$ 114.40
$ 5,948.80
$ 134.85
$ 7,012.20
72
-------
Supervision and Administration
Total supervisory cost per year for 1 landfill
Total administrative cost per year, 1 landfill
$4,229.17
$ 399.00
TOTAL LANDFILL COST
6 LANDFILLS
CITY OF ATLANTA
Operating Cost**
(10 tractors)
Depreciation Cost
(10 tractors)
Operators Cost*
(9 operators)
Laborers Cost*
(4 laborers)
Supervision Cost*
(2 supervisors)
Administrative Cost
(1.3% ad. budget)
Total
Total Cost 6 Landfills
$ 82,563.60 -MO =
39,91 0.00 -MO =
97,062.75 H- 6 =
28,048.80-:-6 =
25,375.00 -T- 6 =
2,394.00 -T- 6 =
1 Landfill
Per Year
$ 8,256.36
$ 3,391.00
$16,177.13
$ 4,674.80
$ 4,229.17
$ 399.00
$37,727.46
1 Landfill
Per Day
$ 38.96
$ 16.00
$ 76.31
$ 22.05
$ 19.95
$ 1.88
$177.96
* Includes fringe benefits
"Based on 212 days, average no. days each year 10 tractors are in use.
73
-------
Cost is further defined by the City of Atlanta Sanitation Department in terms of cost per load (ex-
clusive of land cost). Total cost of operation of the city's six landfills was determined to be ap-
proximately $275,350 per year. During 1971 total revenue received from landfill operation was
$12,200 yielding a net operation expense of $263,150. Based on a total of 170,052 loads, 1, 377,216
yards and 291,750 tons landfilled, the following is determined:
Cost per load received $1.55
Cost per yard received $0.19
Cost per ton landfilled $0.94
Cost per ton, net* $0.90
'Revenue received is subtracted from cost.
Analysis reveals landfills in the City of Atlanta dispose of solid waste at a cost of about $0.94 per
ton, exclusive of land cost.
3. Questionnaire II.
This questionnaire was divided into household size in order to determine exactly what
effect, if any, results from the use of the compactor in varying size households will have and to
determine, if possible, the size household most likely to achieve optimum use of the compactor.
Questionnaire II is Item J in the Appendix. Advantages and disadvantages of the unit to varying
size households, if any exist, would also become evident. A tabulated summary of this question-
naire is shown on Table XVI.
74
-------
TABLE XV!
QUESTIONNAIRE II
Household by Sizes
Total
Total responses
Number households wiih at least 1 pet
Complained of curbside pickup
Complained of collection once a week
90-100% of trash placed in compactor (1)
80-90% of trash placed in compactor
70-80% of trash placed in compactor
25-70% of trash placed in compactor
Compactor located in kitchen (2)
Would prefer another location
How convenient do you consider the unit?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Do you have a garbage disposal? Yes (3)
Do" yo'u use your garbage disposal
a's7 you previously have?
1
7
3
-
-
71 %
-
•-
29%
100%
71%
14%
86%
14%
.
_
100%
57%
57%
2
87
43
12
-
50%
10%
24%
16%
100%
65%
30%
50%
30%
15%
5%
100%
65%
56%
3
86
42
14
•
50%
15%
20%
15%
100%
60%
33%
45%
35%
15%
5%
100%
50%
40%
4
91
75
17
2
50%
15%
20%
15%
100%
60%
40%
55%
30%
10%
5%
100%
50%
40%
5
80
51
12
-
32%
25%
33%
10%
100%
65%
35%
54%
30%
14%
2%
100%
70%
62%-
6-7
17
13
3
-
24%
-
60%
16%
100%
60%
40%
30%
50%
15%
5%
100%
94%
88%-
8-9
4
3
2
-
50%
-
50%
-
100%
75%
25%
100%
-
-
-
100%
50%
50%-
372
230
60
2
Average
46%
9%
30%
15%
100%
65%
31%
60%
27%
10%
3%
100%
62%
56%
-------
TABLE XVI
QUESTIONNAIRE II CONTINUED
Household by Sizes
Average
Do not feel the unit is noisy (4)
Feel unit is too noisy
Have experienced some problem with odor
Do not find unit difficult to clean
How do you place trash in compactor?
Loosely
In bags
In bags and loosely
Store trash in receptacle
How often is the bag changed? (5)
1-3 days
3-7 days
7-10 days
10-14 days
Who removes the bag? (6)
Man
Who replaces the bag?
Woman
1
71%
29%
.
100%
57%
43%
-
100%
57% •
85%
15%
-
100%
50%
50%
2
85%
15%
30%
85%
45%
35%
20%
100%
75%
4%
88%
-
8%
100%
65%
65%
3
85%
15%
50%
85%
40%
40%
20%
100%
85%
1%
65%
34%
-
100%
60%
60%
4
80%
20%
50%
80%
50%
30%
20%
100%
75%
5%
60%
30%
5%
100%
60%
80%
5
75%
25%
40%
75%
32%
20%
48%
100%
77%
1%
98%
•
1%
100%
50%
Majority
of time
6-7
90%
10%
40%
70%
40%
10%
50%
100%
84%
35%
57%
-
8%
100%
60%
78%
8-9
100%
-
50%
75%
50%
25%
25%
100%
75%
75%
25%
-
-
100%
Majority
time
Majority
time
83%
17%
36%
81%
45%
29%
26%
100%
75%
17%
69%
11%
3%
100%
of
of
-------
TABLE XVI
QUESTIONNAIRE II CONTINUED
Household by Sizes
Average
Is once a week collection adequate? (7)
Yes
No
Maximum number of days household
can go between collections -
1 - 7 days
8 - 10 days
10 - 14 days
Over 14 days
No response
Has service been required?
Yes
Reduction in volume experienced (8)
By one-half or less
No reduction
Same
No response
1
100%
-
100%
86%
14%
-
•'••<• "
-
100%
14%
86%
14%
.
.
100%
2
95%
. 5%
100%
78%
12%
-
10%
_
100%
1%
70%
5%
15%
10%
100%
3
95%
5%
100%
76%
3%
17%
-
4%
100%
20%
85%
10%
-
5%
100%
4
85%
15%
100%
95%
- ,
5%
-
-
100%
16%
86%
-
14%
100%
5
85%
. 15%
100%
70%
15%
-
15%
.
100%
21 %
92%
-
8%
100%
6-7
60%
40%
100%
81%
6%
.
- .
13%
100%
29%
94%
-
6%
100%
8-9
100%
-
100%
100%
-
-
-
-
100%
.
75%
-
-
100%
89%
1.1%
100%
84%
8%
3%
3%
2%
100%
14%
84%
4%
6%
6%
100%
General Comments refer back to the preceding numbers:
(1) Items not placed in the compactor include: aerosol cans, coat hangers, cardboard boxes, wood
scraps, broken toys, large plastic containers, disposable diapers, light bulbs, yard clippings,
newspapers and magazines.
-------
TABLE XVI
QUESTIONNAIRE II CONTINUED
(2) Relocation was not possible. The question was asked to determine whether or not residents fell
location of the compactor of any importance. They do. Many who have the compactor in the kit-
chen would like it better "under the counter", "nearer the sink" or moved to "the other side of the
kitchen". The kitchen was the most desirable location.
(3) Some used the compactor in preference to their garbage disposal for two reasons: 1. Do not care
to sort trash. 2. Compactor relieves the burden on the septic tank.
(4) Odor is the major complaint about the compactor in this questionnaire with 36% complaining of
odor problems.
(5) The bag is removed because it is full or as full as the resident wants it to be. It is also removed
because it is garbage collection day.
(6) This is generally true for the entire route. Women state the bag is too heavy to lift.
(7) A few did not answer this question. The small percentage for whom once a week collection was
not adequate felt they simply had more trash than they could store or they did not care for gar-
bage around the house seven days.
(8) This question did not seem to be understood by a small proportion of the residents. They
overlooked the word "volume" and stated "trash" was same as always. A few did not answer the
question.
-------
B. Phase II.
In this particular phase of the demonstration, extensive data was compiled on the curb-
side method of collection of compacted refuse one time a week on the entire test route. During
this phase the landfill was used for disposal of refuse and this data was. included with information
pertinent to the landfill in Phase I. Therefore, Phase II will deal primarily vyith t\y,o areas, data ob-
tained from curbside collection and Questionnaire III.
1. Entire Route (Demonstration Data)
The entire route was serviced once a week with curbside collection after the com-
pactors were installed to obtain demonstration data for later comparison with the base data ob-
tained during curbside collection prior to installation of the compactors. A compactor truck and
two man crew was used during the 12 weeks of curbside collection. A sum.mary of curbside
collection of compacted refuse is shown on Table XVII,
The test route during this phase was also reduced to 28 segments to obtain demon-
stration data necessary for comparison with base data of the same segments obtained prior to
compactor installation. The segments are identified in Item G of the Appendix. Demonstration
data of street segments during curbside collection of refuse after the compactors were placed on
the route is tabulated on Table XVIII.
.Cost of curbside collection of "compacted" refuse for the entire test route using the
compactor truck and a two man crew is similar to that shown for the base data cost of such
collection except, curbside collection of normal refuse required collection twice a week and cur-
bside collection of compacted refuse required collection once a week. Total cost is shown below:
Total Cost
Item Per Hour Per Day* Per Week"
Truck $ 2.63 $ 20.97 $ 20.97
Waste Collection Driver 3.68 29.45 29.45
2 Waste Collectors II*** 6.50 52.00 52.00
Total $12.81 $102.42 $102.42
'Based on an eight hour day.
** Collection is one time a week, one eight hour day.
***Waste Collector II is a walking crewman.
79
-------
TABLE XVII
ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF COMPACTED REFUSE
DEMONSTRATION DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: 1 waste collection driver, 2 waste collectors
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period 1 2 3 i 1 §.
Total route time 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.9 3.6 4.0
Time collecting 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.7
Clean up time .1 .2 .3 .2 .1 .3
Ride time 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1-4
S Pack time .4 .4 .3 .4 .2 -3
Lost time .2 .2 .1 .6 .1 -3
Productive time
(Ib./hr.) 6290 5709 6160 7779 6988 5729
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
'Applicable definitions are in Appendix F.
3.8
312
19,500
.01
4.2
336
18,840
.01
3.7
331
18,480
.01
3.9
327
21,780
.01
3.6
341
22,360
.01
4.0
337
17,760
.0.1
-------
TABLE XVII - CONTINUED
ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF COMPACTED REFUSE
DEMONSTRATION DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
10
11
12
Total Wk. Ave.
3.2
1.4
.3
1.2
.3
.1
4.1
1.8
.4
1.4
.4
.1
4.3
2.0
.3
1.5
.4
.1
3.3
1.5
.1
1.3
.3
3.6
1.5
.3
1.3
.3
.1
3.6
1.6
.2
1.5
.3
45.3
20.3
2.8
16.2
4.0
1.9
3.8
1.7
.2
1.4
.3
.2
7008
3.2
335
18,220
.01
6600
4.1
336
21,120
.01
5731
4.3
330
20,060
.01
6221
3.3
307
17,420
.01
5293
3.6
326
14,820
.01
5071
3.6
329
15,720
.01
45.3
3947
226,080
6077
3.8
329
18,840
.01
-------
TABLE XVIII
SEGMENTED DATA OF ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
IS
Segment
Stops/week
Cans/week
Bags/week
Odds/week
Collection time
Travel time
Clean-up
Pack time
Lost time
J_
18
14
16
20
5:15
3:17
1:41
:59
:16
2
5
6
2
5
1:53
1:56
:17
:22
:03
3
3
3
2
2
:53
1:01
:08
:05
:25
4
1
1
.8
.5
:14
:25
-
:03
_
5
15
15
11
6
4:19
3:41
:03
:40
:07
6
15
13
14
19
5:50
2:43
2:25
1:13
:15
7
13
20
6
11
4:39
2:36
:37
1:02
:04
8
15
20
14
19
6:37
2:22
:39
1:00
:05
9
11
23
7
13
3:51
3:05
:46
:54
:14
10
11
14
8
13
3:58
3:07
:41
:34
:10
11
7
14
3
4
1:33
2:29
:02
:15
:09
12
15
16
10
6
4:22
3:07
:58
:57
:20
13
3
1
4
3
1:10
1:09
:26
:10
„
14
5
6
3
3
1:49
1:25
:08
:23
.
See Glossary and Appendix F for definitions.
-------
TABLE XVIII - CONTINUED
Segment
Ave. stops
per week
Ave. no.
cans/week
Ave. no.
bags/week
Ave. no.
odd/parcels
Ave. coll.
time
Ave.
travel time
Ave. clean
up time
Ave. pack
time*
SEGMENTED DATA OF ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION-DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Avg.
per
28 Total Seg.
7 12 21 11
5 17 24
7 18 4 43
2 10 2 13 298 11
8 6 24 6 50 .2 3 12 2 20 349.2 12.5
6 3 13 10 8
3 4 11 11 8
8 4 22
1 6 .25 6 195.05 7
2 18 .33 .8 4 .75 7 208.38 7
1:43 3:53 7:20 2:12 2:21 1:46 5:57 1:22 11:43 :13 :38 2:51 :31 4:30133:23 3:20
2:52 2:58 5:13 3:41 3:18 1:31 3:01 1:46 b:03 :30 :33 1:55 :27 2:281:08:39 2:27
:07
1:06 :22 :22 :05 :43 :01 1:52
:04 :02 :02
13:53 :29
:44 1:06 1:38 :52 :30 :19 :47 :18 1:47 :09 :09"> :33 :03 :49 18*21 :39
Ave. lost
time
:23 :07 :45
:02 :30 :06 :40
:09
5:12
-------
2. Questionnaire III.
It was soon discovered that location was an important consideration concerning the
compactor. Some residents refused to participate in the project because there was no place to
put the unit in their homes. Actual use and satisfaction with the compactor would no doubt largely
depend on where the unit was located in the home. Therefore, Questionnaire III was very con-
cerned with location. Questions were also concerned with resident satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with curbside and backdoor collection. Questionnaire III is Item K in the Appendix. A summary of
this questionnaire is as follows:
QUESTIONNAIRE III
1. Now that you have been using the compactor for some time, how would you rate
your satisfaction with the unit?
Completely satisfied 39%
Satisfied 47%
Somewhat dissatisfied 9%
Completely dissatisfied
Not using the unit 4%
No response 1%
If not satisfied with the unit, why is that?
Weight 1%
Odor 3%
Too much trouble or inconvenient 3%
Poor service from manufacturer 1%
Miscellaneous 2%
Drawer difficult to open
Curbside collection
Unit too small
Not designed for wet garbage
Not safe for small children
Undesirable location
Only one person in household
2. A. Where in your home do you have the compactor?
Kitchen 62%
Room adjacent the kitchen 13%
(pantry, breakfast room)
Utility room 13%
Carport or garage 4%
Basement 4%
Back porch 1%
Elsewhere (closets, etc.) 2%
No response 1%
'o
84
-------
2. B. Because these homes were constructed prior to the introduction of the com-
pactor to the market, most homes do not have adequate space for the com-
pactor in the kitchen, therefore, many residents placed it in "make do"
locations.
C. Where would be the best location for you?
Kitchen related areas:
near sink 51%
near sink under counter 6%
near stove 5%
by dishwasher 2%
near sink and stove 2%
kitchen corner 2%
near sink, stove & under
counter 1 %
7 feet from sink 1%
near refrigerator 1%
kitchen 1%
TOTAL 72%
Miscellaneous
garage
breakfast room
pantry
near table
laundry room
miles & miles away
carport
utility room
outside
near backdoor
TOTAL 4%
No response 24%
85
-------
2. D. Why would it be best in that location?
36% of the residents did not respond to this question. 17% of the residents
chose the given location because it was convenient to where most of the gar-
bage and trash generated. 16% of the residents stated it was convenient and
7% of the residents do most of their work there. Other reasons stated were: only
location available, out of the way, centrally located, no odor, anywhere in the
kitchen is ok, ideal location and it keeps garbage and trash away from food
preparation.
Has the compactor always been located where it is now?
Yes 90% No 9% No response 1%
Original Location
kitchen
another room
kitchen
by refrigerator
near stove
across kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
near refrigerator
kitchen
breakfast area
by refrigerator
dinette
laundry room
under bar
kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
basement
living room
carport
kitchen
breakfast nook
kitchen
kitchen
breakfast room
New Location
kitchen
kitchen
under carport
by dishwasher
breakfast room
near stove
kitchen
dining room
kitchen
near stove
kitchen
kitchen
near sink
kitchen
pantry
near sink
kitchen
carport
utility room
kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
pantry
garage
utility room
kitchen
kitchen
kitchen
Reason for Move
more convenient location
more convenient location
kitchen too small
more convenient location
not enough space
saves space
remodeling
in the way
convenience and space
more functional
needed space for table
needed space for table
convenience
remodeling
too messy
needed space
to make room
odor
needed space
needed space
no good in basement
ha!
convenience
odor
in the way
in the way
remodeled
convenient
3. A. Was curbside collection better overall
before installation of the compactor
after installation of the compactor
same
no response
5%
63%
12%
20%
86
-------
B. Was backdoor collection better overall
before installation of the compactor 10%
after installation of the compactor 63%
same 15%
no response 12%
4. Do you normally operate the compactor....
Each time an item is added 19%
Usually just when larger items are added 44%
Each time the container gets full 24%
Once a day 6%
Other 5%
No response 2%
5. Do you use the key to lock the compactor?
Yes 10% No 87% No response 3%
What percent of the refuse in your home do you put in the compactor?
52% of the residents place 90-100% refuse in the compactor
26% place 70-89% refuse in the compactor
10% place 30-69% refuse in the compactor
4% place 15-29% refuse in the compactor
1% place 1-14% refuse in the compactor
7% no response
6. What percent of the garbage in your home do you put in the compactor?
52% of the residents place 90-100% garbage in the compactor
11% place 70-89% garbage in the compactor
7% place 30-69% garbage in the compactor
4% place 15-29% garbage in the compactor
13% place 1-14% garbage in the compactor
8% place none
5% no response
7. Have you encountered odors from the compactor?
Yes 63% No 35% No response 2%
Which of the following best describes the frequency of odor?
Only once or twice 34%
During hot weather only 6%
Once a month or so 16%
Every week 12%
Daily or almost daily 4%
No response 28%
87
-------
When you have odors, do they appear to be caused by specific items which
have been put into the compactor?
Yes 41% No 27% No response 32%
If yes, what items? Food, specifically: Meat and fruit. Chicken and fish are
strongest offenders. Meat wrappings are also considered to be a cause.
8. Have you had an insect or bug problem in connection with the compactor?
Yes 7% No 89% No response 4%
Which of the following describes the frequency of the problem?
Only once or twice 19 responses
During hot weather only 8
Once a month or so 5
Every week
Daily or almost daily 2
No response
Obviously, some of those who answered no to the problem answered the
frequency of the problem section of this question.
Specifically, what type of bug or insect was present?
Fruit flies, ants, roaches, tiny insects, maggots and a mouse (also listed even
though it is not considered to be bug or insect.)
When this happened did it appear to be caused by specific items which you put
in the compactor?
Yes, food. Meat, chicken and corn.
9. A. Is the deodorant spray mechanism operating correctly in your compactor?
Yes 81% No 11% No response 8%
B. How long ago did you replace the deodorant spray can?
Every 1-2 weeks 10%
Every 3-5 weeks 23%
Every 6-8 weeks 21%
Every 10-15 weeks 10%
Every 16-24 weeks 2%
Never replaced can 15%
Many months 2%
Used 2 cans 2%
Once 1 %
Weeks ago • 3%
No response 10%
-------
C. Does the spray have an objectionable odor?
Yes 7% No 89% No response 4%
10. A. How would you rate the compactor drawer?
Easy to operate 77%
Difficult 15%
Not easy, not hard 4%
Varies 1%
No response 3%
B. If difficult, is it so difficult as to restrict your use of the compactor?
Yes 5% No 14%
11. A. How often do you change bags in the compactor?
Every
1-2 days .
2 days
2-3 days
3 days
3 1/2 days
3-4 days
3-7 days
4 days
1%
3%
4%
7%
1%
8%
1%
8%
4-5 days
5 days
5-6 days
6 days
6-7 days
7 days
7-10 days
10 days
14 days
7%
8%
5%
11%
2%
23%
1%
1%
1%
Miscellaneous answers by individuals - 8%
Comment: Collection once a week encourages the homeowner to change the
bag in time for this collection. Also, the resident did not have to pay for the
bags and it is reasonable to assume he would use the bags for a longer period
of time because of cost and when collection resumes twice a week the resident
is not pressured to have all his refuse out for collection.
65% of the residents change bags every 4-7 days and 17% change bags every
three days.
B. Have there been problems or difficulties removing the bag from the compactor?
Yes 34% No 64% No response 2%
If yes, what is that? Heavy (71), breaking, leaking or tearing open (4), too full or
tight fit (16), drawer problems (4), location problem (1), side sticks (5), hard to
open (1), and too hard (2).
C. Have there been any problems or difficulties putting a new bag into trfe com-
pactor?
Yes 8% No 89% No response 3%
If yes, what is it? Bags should be prefolded.
89
-------
D. Have you encountered any difficulties or problems with tearing or ripping of the
bags?
Yes 28% . No 69% No response 3%
E. After the full bag is removed from the compactor, how is it secured?
Turn flaps down 63%
Folded and stapled 3%
Flaps down and sealed with tape 19%
Placed in a garbage can 6%
None 1 %
Plastic bag tied with wire tape 1%
Tied with twine 2%
No response 4%
F. Please describe any other problems or difficulties you have experienced with
the bags.
181 no response, 71 no problems, 12 tearing, 11 heavy, 88 soggy and breaking,
7 dogs, 5 won't fit in cans, 1 sides tear, 1 inferior insulation.
Percentages are not given because some residents found more than one
problem with the bags.
12. Have you required service on your compactor since the last questionnaire?
Yes 22% No 66% No response 12%
Note: Some confusion existed on the part of the respondent as to whether they
had required service during the course of the project and some could not
remember exactly when the service was received.
Most persistent service problems were: drawer would not close properly, unit
would run continually, replaced switches and latches and unit would not stop
compressing.
In summary, the best location for the compactor is in the kitchen, ideally under the
counter beside the sink. Eighty six percent of the residents are satisfied with the compactor and
more than half feel curbside and backdoor collection was better with a compactor in the home.
Approximately half the residents have had odor emitting from the compactor at least
once or twice and food items as well as meat wrappings are definitely the culprits. Very few have
had any problem with bugs in or around the compactor.
The majority of residents find the drawer easy to operate, do not compact every time an
item is placed in the unit and do not use the key.
Only 34% have had problems removing the filled bag from the unit and the majority do
not have any problems replacing a new bag. More than half the residents remove the'bag every
four to seven days.
90
-------
C. Phase III.
Demonstration data gathered during this phase of the study is to be used in comparative
analysis with data obtained during the base data study of backdoor collection on the West Mad-
dox route. During this period, the compacted refuse is taken to the incinerator for processing to
determine if compacted material incinerates adequately in a rotary kiln incinerator. It is also
necessary to know what changes, if any, are required to incinerate compacted material
adequately and whether or not the changes affect efficiency and cost per ton of refuse con-
sumption. In Phase III another questionnaire is analyzed to gain deeper insight as to use of the
compactor in the home by residents on the project route.
1. West Maddox Route (Demonstration Data)
Equipment used to serve this route during the 12 week collection period consisted of a
driver and four man walking crew. Equipment used consisted of a 20 cubic yard rear loading com-
pactor truck. A summary of backdoor collection demonstration data on the West Maddox route for
a period of twelve weeks and twelve collection periods is shown on Table XIX. Data terms and ap-
propriate definitions are in Appendix E.
Cost of backdoor collection once, a week after installation of the compactor on the
West Maddox route using the compactor truck and four man crew is as follows:
TOTAL COST
Item
Truck
Waste Collector Driver
Waste Collector II***
Waste Collector II
Waste Collector II
Waste Collector II
Total
Per Hour
$2.63
3.68
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
$19.31
Per Day*
$20.97
29.45
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
$154.42
Per Week**
$20.97
29.45
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
$154.42
'Based on an eight hour day.
** Collection is once a week, one eight hour day.
***Waste Collector II is a walking crewman.
Cost tables are in Appendix D.
91
-------
TABLE XIX
WEST MADDOX ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 compactor truck
Crew: 1 waste collection driver, 2 waste collectors
Time is measured in hours and tenths of an hour.
Collection Period 12 3 4 _5_ 6
Total route time 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.2
Time collecting 4.7 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.9 3.6
Clean up time .4 .4 .3 .4 .3 .4
Wait time .6 .4 .3 .4 .2 .3
Ride time .5 .5 .4 .3 .4 .5
Pack time .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1
Lost time .1 .1
Productive time
(Ib./hr.) 1577 1671 1864 1371 1460 2146
Total time 6.5 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.9 4.7
Total stops 137.5 124.5 127 134 138 133
Total pounds 8200 8020 8200 7680 7740 8800
Time Per Stop .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04
Weekly Averages for Waste Collectors Man 1 Man 2
Number stops 37 32
Time collecting 1.0 1.0
Clean up time .09 .08
-------
TABLE XIX - CONTINUED
WEST MADDOX ROUTE
BACKDOOR COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION DATA 12 WEEKS SUMMARY OF 12 COLLECTION PERIODS
Collection Period
10
11
12
Total
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Wait time
Ride time
Pack time
Lost time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total time
Number stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
Weekly Averages
1.0
3.6
.1
.3
.4
.1
.1
1970
4.7
125
7880
.04
for Waste Collectors
Number stops
Time collecting-
Clean up time
2375
1876
1898
2000
2048
Man 3
32
1.0
.1
Man 4
30
1.0
.05
Wk. Ave.
1.0
3.6
.1
.3
.4
.1
.1
1.2
3.5
.2
.3
.5
.1
1.2
3.8
"A
.2
A
.2
1.2
3.8
.4
.2
.5
.1
1.2
3.7
.3
.3
.4
.1
1.3
3.7
.4
.3
.5
.1
15.5
48.0
4.0
3.8
5.3
1.8
.3
1.3
4.0
.3
.3
.4
.2
.02
1872
4.7
125
7880
.04
4.6
128
9500
.04
4.8
130.5
7880
.05
4.8
130
8160
.04
4.7
133
8200
.04
4.9
133
8600
.04
62.2
1573.5
98,860
5.2
131
8238
.04
-------
2. Incineration of Compacted Refuse
The primary objective of the incineration test was to determine what problems, if any,
were evidenced during incineration of compacted refuse. All compacted refuse was taken to the
Hartsfield Incineration Plant. (See Figure 4 for location of the incineration site in relationship to
the test route on page 67.)
The plant was first placed into operation in April of 1963. It has three rotary kiln units
which have a designed capacity of 250 tons/kiln/24 hour. Inclined reciprocating grates are used
in the drying and ignition chambers. The ignition chamber is sometimes referred to as the "fire
box". Further combustion is achieved in the kiln and mixing chamber. The combustion products
from each furnace pass through separate water scrubbers and are discharged into the at-
mosphere through a common stack. The residue drops from the kiln into the quench tank where a
drag conveyor removes the residue and discharges it into a residue truck for removal to a
disposal site. Waste water from the scrubbers and quench tank flows through a grit chamber prior
to its final disposal in a watercourse. Note Figures 7 and 8 for diagrams of the Hartsfield In-
cineration Plant.
Kiln No. 3 was used during all tests. This kiln is identical to the other two with the ex-
ception of age and kiln No. 3 is equipped with a "cyclone" dust collector. Although the dust
collector had no direct effect on the tests at hand, it provided more valid results because it tended
to make the unit maintain a more uniform temperature over time. This unit is equipped with four
thermocouples. Temperatures were monitored during each test with primary attention directed to
temperatures in the ignition grates and kiln.
All test refuse was weighed at the incinerator scales before it was placed in the
storage pit. A dumping stall was reserved to house the test refuse until the test run and two piles
of refuse were kept for the two test runs. One test stock pile contained 100 percent non-
compacted refuse for the control base test. The refuse was collected from the same proximity as
the test route and at the same time as the compacted refuse to assure uniformity in refuse charac-
teristics and moisture content. The second pile of refuse was compacted refuse or the proper por-
tion of compacted and uncompacted mix.
94
-------
PHOTO VI
REFUSE PIT AT INCINERATOR
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTO VII
REFUSE STORAGE PIT
PHOTO VIII
CHARGING REFUSE
IN INCINERATOR
95
-------
Pathological
Incinerator
A. Furnace.
B. Kiln
C. Scrubber
D. Stack
E. Quench tank
F. Residue hopper
G. Can hopper
H. Hammermill
I. Magnetic separator
Nonferrous metal
residue hopper
K. Railroad car for
ferrous metals
FIGURE 7
HARTSFIELD INCINERATOR
-------
CRANE
StACK-
DRYING GRATES
IGNITION GRATE
UNDERFIRE AIR PLENUM
OVERFIRE AIR DUCTS
SPRAY
BANKS
QUENCH
WATER
SCRUBBER
GUILLOTINE
DAMPERS
FIGURE 8
SCHEMATIC OF HARTSRELD INCINERATOR
-------
Two test runs were made, one with 100 percent compacted wastes, another with 70
percent compacted waste and each with a control base run of normal uncompacted refuse. Forms
used in this test are shown as Item L in the Appendix. Information obtained during the in-
cineration test is given in three major sections: (1) The first section gives the recorded charge
and residue for each test burn. (2) The second section gives operating rates for the ignition grates
and rotary kiln for each test burn. (3) The final section provides the recorded operating tem-
peratures for each test burn.
The following chart supplies the recorded charge of refuse and recorded residue
assembled during each test burn.
Test No. 1 Pounds Pounds
Base Charge 86,600 Residue*
Demo Charge
100% Compacted 90,180 Residue
Test No. 2
Base Charge 87,720 Residue
Demo Charge
Compacted Refuse 80,680
Non-compacted 23,920
Total Demo Charge 104,600 Residue 34,620
"Includes high moisture content from quench water.
Recorded operating rates of the ignition grates and rotary kiln for each test burn were
tabulated by the unit operator during all tests. Each time there was a change in operating rate the
operator noted the change and the time the change was effected. In order to obtain a weighted
average operating rate, the incremental time in minutes was multiplied by the operating rate to
yield a time factor. The time factor was then divided by the time in minutes to yield an average
operating rate during each test of compacted and noncompacted refuse.
For charts demonstrating comparison of operating rates during incineration of com-
pacted and non-compacted refuse see Appendix, Item M. Temperatures monitored during burn of
compacted and non-compacted material are available in the Appendix, Item N.
98
-------
The summary of the second test of incineration of compacted refuse is shown on the
chart below. Base data refuse was consumed initially; then the demo mix was burned. The demo
mix consisted of 77 percent compacted refuse, 23 percent non-compacted refuse.
SUMMARY OF INCINERATION TEST NO. 2
TOTAL REFUSE CHARGE
Base Data - Non-Compacted — 87,720 Ibs.
Demo Data - Compacted 80,680 Ibs.
Non-Compacted —- 23,920 Ibs.-- - 104,600 Ibs.
TOTAL CYCLE TIME
Base Data - 4 hrs. 15 min.
Demo Data - 4 hrs. 35 min.
CONSUMPTION RATE
Base data 344 Ib./min. or - 10.3 ton/hr.
Demo Data 380 Ib./min. or 11.4 ton/hr.
(Rate capacity this unit 10.4 ton/hr.)
BURNING TEMPERATURE - IGNITION GRATE
Base data —- - 1800° F.
Demo data 1780° F.
BURNING TEMPERATURE - ROTARY KILN
Base data - - - 1625° F.
Demo data -—• - 1697° F.
REFUSE TRAVEL RATE - IGNITION GRATE
Base data 32%
Demo data -—.- 39%
REFUSE TRAVEL RATE - ROTARY KILN
Base data - 42%
Demo data 49%
RESIDUE
Base data 32,140 Ibs.
Demo data 34,620 Ibs.
99
-------
A summary of the first incineration test of non-compacted and compacted material is
shown below:
SUMMARY OF INCINERATION TEST NO. 1
TOTAL REFUSE CHARGE
Non-compacted 86,600 Ibs.
Compacted - —- r — 90,180 Ibs.
TOTAL CYCLE TIME
Non-compacted 2 hrs. 45 min.
Compacted 3 hrs. 20 min.
CONSUMPTION RATE
Non-Compacted — 525 lb./min...or - - 15.75 ton/hr.
Compacted 451 lb./min...or 13.53 ton/hr.
(Normal standard capacity this unit - 10.4 ton/hr.)
BURNING TEMPERATURE - IGNITION GRATE
Non-Compacted - 1903° F.
Compacted - 1966° F.
BURNING TEMPERATURE - ROTARY KILN
Non-Compacted - 1643° F.
Compacted -. 1717° F.
REFUSE TRAVEL RATE - IGNITION GRATE (% of 100)
Non-Compacted - - 45.7%
Compacted - 38.9%
REFUSE TRAVEL RATE - ROTARY KILN (% of 100)
Non-Compacted - 55.4%
Compacted 45.6%
RESIDUE
Non-Compacted —- 23,720 Ibs.
Compacted 16,900 Ibs.
100
-------
Recent cost studies completed by the City of Atlanta Finance Department have
established a cost of $6.00 a ton to incinerate municipal waste in Atlanta. Burn rates (in tons per
hour) will be established for each test run and a cost differential between compacted and non-
compacted refuse is calculated in terms of cost per ton. Costs as calculated for non-compacted
and compacted refuse during Test No. 1 and Test No. 2 are shown as foljows:
Test No. 1
Non-compacted charge 86,600 Ibs.
Non-compacted cycle time - 2 hrs. 45 min.
Consumption rate - 15.75 ton/hr.
Cost per hour $94.20
Cost of this burn - $258.95
Compacted charge 90,180 Ibs.
Compacted cycle time 3 hrs. 20 min.
Consumption rate 13.53 ton/hr.
Cost per ton $81.18
Cost of this burn $270.54
Test No. 2
Non-compacted charge 87,720 Ibs.
Non-compacted cycle time —4 hrs. 15 min.
Consumption rate —- -- 10.3 ton/hr.
Cost per hour —^ -— $61.80
Cost of this burn - - $262.65
Compacted mix charge
compacted 80,680 Ibs.
non-compacted .. 23,920 Ibs. 104,600 Ibs.
Cycle time 4 hrs. 35 min.
Consumption rate - 11.4 ton/hr.
Cost per hour - $68.40
Cost of this burn $313.50
101
-------
3. Questionnaire IV
The following is a copy of Questionnaire IV with the number of responses to the par-
ticular question in the appropriate blanks. All residents on the route did not reply, however,
response was sufficient for an adequate sample.
QUESTIONNAIRE IV
1. Do sharp objects penetrate the bag?
11% every week, 4% every other week, 38% sometimes, 31% rarely, 14%
never, 2% no response.
2. Is it possible for the lady of the house to remove the compactor bag from the
unit? 67% Yes 29% No 4% No response
3. Do you seal your compactor bag before placing it on the curb?
36% Yes
45% , No
17% No, I put it in a garbage can.
2% No response
4. Have you required service on the compactor since the last questionnaire?
12% Yes 84% No 4% No response
Residents were confused as to when they had received their last service call
and confused the question further by answering yes if they had received a ser-
vice call since the study began. The response to this question is unreliable.
5. How far is your house from the curb? This question was asked to determine if
distance Jrom curb had a significant bearing on dislike of curbside collection.
30% 0-55 feet
48% 55-100 feet
10% 100-150 feet
3% 200-250 feet
1% 300-350 feet
1% 500 feet
7% no response
6. Do you hand carry your trash to the curb? 73% Yes 25% No, a wheeled aid is
used and often, the car. 2% No response.
102
-------
7. Do you find it inconvenient or undesirable to take your trash to the curb?
68% Yes 30% No 2% No response
Complaints concerning curbside collection are listed in the order of frequency.
1. Bags are too heavy.
2. Dogs create litter.
3. Too much trouble.
4. One pickup day a week is difficult to remember and if forgotten, it is more dif-
ficult to store trash for another week.
5. Street looks terrible.
6. Poor health.
7. Steep hill.
8. Bad weather.
9. House too far from curb.
10. Taxes are sufficient for backdoor collection.
8. Does the use of the compactor in the home reduce the burden of taking trash to
the curb? 68% Yes 28% No 4% No response
Why not? Reasons are listed in order of frequency.
1. Did not have to take it to the curb before.
2. Bags are too heavy.
3. Amount of trash is the same even though it is compressed.
4. Resident wheels it to the curb anyway.
5. Dogs molest the trash.
9. Now that you are more accustomed to the compactor, is once a week collection
adequate for your home? 90% Yes 8% No 2% No response
10. How dp you rate the compactor as a home appliance?
41% Excellent
39% Good
11 % Fair
4% Poor
5% No response
17% Luxury
64% Convenience
7% Necessity
4% No response
103
-------
0. Phase IV.
Curbside collection was again instituted during this phase and the final
questionnaire of the project was completed.
1. Curbside Collection
Phase IV, curbside collection, was effected by the use of the open
bed truck in order to determine whether or not compacted refuse could be
collected by means of the open bed truck since this truck is less expen-
sive than the compactor truck. Problems were immediately encountered
with this method of collection and because of these problems, the open bed
truck was used for six weeks curbside collection once a week, rather than 12
weeks as planned.
The primary problem with the open bed truck according to the
Project Director was safety. Trre high lift required to load the open truck was an
invitation for back injury. Refuse was lifted above the worker's head and
presented a danger of debris falling into the eyes. (The amount of crushed glass
in the compacted refuse increases the danger.) A third worker is required to
stack refuse inside the truck, an unsanitary and unsafe area.
A secondary problem associated with the open-bed truck dealt with
the number of trips to the disposal site. Two trips to the disposal site were
required when using the compactor truck. Three to four trips to the incinerator
were necessary when using the open bed truck. A canvas covering which was
large and difficult to manipulate was necessary to cover debris in the truck and
approximately ten minutes were spent putting the canvas in place and removing
it for dumping. Maximum truck speed when the canvas was not in place was 10-
15 miles per hour because of the blowing paper, therefore, transport time was
much greater than with a rear loading compactor truck. A summary of demon-
stration data for this collection phase is shown on Table XX.
Cost tables for the open bed truck including operating costs were
not possible because the City of Atlanta has no data available on operating
costs of open body trucks in refuse collection. However, a comparative cost
report of the open bed truck and the compactor truck has been prepared and is
shown as follows on page 106.
104
-------
TABLE XX
ENTIRE ROUTE
CURBSIDE COLLECTION
DEMONSTRATION DATA 6 WEEK SUMMARY OF 6 COLLECTION PERIODS
Equipment: 1 open bed truck
Crew: 1 waste collection driver, 3 waste collectors
Time is calculated in hours and tenths of an hour.
o
01
Collection Period
Total route time
Time collecting
Clean up time
Ride time
Lost time
Productive time
(Ib./hr.)
Total time
Total stops
Total pounds
Time Per Stop
i
4.7
2.2
.5
1.5
.2
2
4.6
2.5
.3
1.5
.1
3
4.6
2.5
-3
1.4
.1
4
5.5
2.9
.3
1.6
.1
5
4.6
2.7
.2
1.5
6
4.4
2.6
.1
1.6
.1
Total
28.4
15.4
1.7
9.1
.6
Wk. Ave.
4.7
2.6
.3
1.5
.1
3757
4265
3831
3507
3757
3519
3750
4.4
292
13,900
.02
4.5
311
17,060
.01
4.3
307
14,940
.01
4.8
318
15.780
.02
4.5
322
15,780
.01
4.3
311
14,780
.01
26.8
1861
92,240
.08
4.5
310
15,373
.01
-------
DEPRECIATION AND DIRECT LABOR COST REPORT ON OPEN-BED VERSUS COMPACTOR
TRUCK
Equipment Cost
OPEN-BED, 1971 International with high sides, 14 cu.yd $ 6,015
GARBAGE TRUCK, 1971 International, rear loader, 20 cu.yds. $18,166
Labor Cost
SALARY, waste collector (average) $ 6,760
Five Year Cost Analysis
Depreciation and Direct Labor*
Open-bed truck Garbage truck
(requires 3 laborers) (requires 2 laborers)
$ 6,015 Truck cost $ 18,166
101.400 Labor cost 67.60Q
$107,415 Total $ 85,768
SAVINGS on depreciation and direct labor
by using garbage truck over five years $ 21,649
(5 years is life of each type truck.)
No data is available on operating costs of open body trucks in garbage collection. Only truck cost
and labor cost are compared. It is expected that garbage trucks would require slightly more main-
tenance due to the packing system.
'Salary of truck driver is excluded from above calculations because there is no differential in
salary for open-bed and garbage truck drivers.
106
-------
iw-»w*iww«~
0p£f~ -. >• ^ '*^Lu
P.HC
CURBSiDE COLLECTION OPEN BED TRUCK
PHC'
PUTT !N PLACE
OPEr
107
-------
2. Questionnaire V.
The final questionnaire of this project was designed to obtain an overall opinion from
the participants of the compactor operation, of curbside collection and of backdoor collection.
The questionnaire with appropriate responses is as follows:
QUESTIONNAIRE V.
Answers to questions 1 and 2 concerning the chief advantages and disad-
vantages of the compactor were extremely varied and resident opinion con-
flicted on the use of the unit. For example, one resident stated the chief ad-
vantage to be the cleanliness and sanitary method of handling trash. Another
resident stated the chief disadvantage was having trash in the house for a week
and it was unsanitary. Such responses were in the minority, the majority of
responses were clearcut with numerous supplementary responses by groups of
a very few individuals.
A. The Compactor
1. What do you consider to be the chief advantage of the compactor?
79 less garbage
7 less garbage to take out
36 compacts trash
7 mashes bottles and cans
2 takes care of bottles
4 no messy garbage to handle
2 eliminates bags
1 bag fits can better
5 neat appearance of trash
5 cleanliness
32 storage of trash in 1 small unit
98 do not have to take trash to the can everyday
53 convenience
1 less work
6 saves time and steps
1 beautiful furniture
1 unit holds so much
1 do not like the unit
1 advantage to Sanitation Department
11 no advantage
3 no response
108
-------
A summary of the above follows:
42% reduces volume of trash by compacting with resultant advantages of
elimination of garbage bags, neater appearance of trash and no messy bags to
handle.
9% storage of trash in one small unit.
27% do not have to go to the trashcan every day.
17% convenience and less work.
5% miscellaneous
2. What do you consider to be the chief disadvantage of the compactor?
20% no disadvantage
29% weight, hard to unload, difficult to carry out the compactor bag, and
bag hard to handle.
16% odor
7% no place to put compactor - location problem
4% expense of compactor bags
4% bags tear, no seal on bags
4% changing bag
2% difficult to clean
2% too much extra work
2% drawer difficult to open
2% does not handle garbage adequately
2% do not like having unit in kitchen for a week, unsanitary
Miscellaneous
unit too small
service inadequate
noisy
no response
. cord too short
0 bag doesn't fit cans
bugs
takes up too much space
messy and smelly
not enough collection
Weight, odor and location are clearly the most important problems in con-
nection with the compactor and these problems as a whole amount to less than
half total resident response.
109
-------
3. Do you rate the compactor deodorant spray?
61% satisfactory 9% unsatisfactory
29% less than satisfactory 1% no response
If you tested the new spray, did you find it:
76% satisfactory 2% less than satisfactory
4% unsatisfactory Why? Compactor still smells and the
odor of the new spray is unpleasant.
4. Do you rate the compactor bag:
78% satisfactory
18% less than satisfactory
3% unsatisfactory Why? Always tear, leaky.
1% no response
5. How do you rate the total performance of the compactor over the year's period?
45% excellent
46% good
7% fair
2% poor
6. Are you purchasing the compactor because:
21% the price is right
21% it is a work saver
39% the price is right and it is a work saver
8% no response
I am not purchasing the compactor because:
1 % the price is not right
3% no place for the unit
4% dissatisfaction with the unit totally
1% too small a family
1 % moving
1 % cannot afford
110
-------
B. Curbside Collection
1. What do you consider the chief problem with curbside collection?
25% weight or bulk of trash
26% trip to the curb in varying weather
26% litter created by dogs
7% unsightly streets because of cans
11% no problem
2% trying to remember to put the trash out
2% no response
2. If collection were curbside, would a compactor be a help to you?
78% yes
20% no
2% no response
3. If the compactor bag is properly sealed at the top, is it possible for dogs to get
into the bag?
64% yes
33% no
3% no response
4. If collection were curbside and a compactor was in the home, which would you
prefer:
72% collection 1 time a week
27% collection 2 times a week
1 % no response
5. Once a week, what do you take to the curb?
74% of the residents usually have 1 or 2 parcels at the curb, the parcel may be a
can, compactor bag or plastic bag or any combination of the three. Answers are
not precise because respondent stated 1 bag, sometimes 2, etc. 19% of the
residents take three parcels to the curb. The remainder, 7%, take more than
three items to the curb.
6. If there was a question of higher taxes and collection at the backdoor twice a
week or curbside collection or collection one time a week at the backdoor with
a compactor in the home, which would you choose?
5% higher taxes with backdoor collection twice a week
9% curbside collection twice a week
85% compactor in the home with backdoor collection 1 time a week
1% no response
111
-------
C. Backdoor Collection
1. With backdoor collection, is the compactor a help to you?
85% Yes 14% No 1% No response
2. With a compactor in the home, would backdoor collection once a week be
satisfactory?
92% Yes 8% No
3. Would backdoor collection once a week be possible without a compactor in the
home?
32% Yes 68% No
4. Do dogs ever strew trash at the backdoor?
42% Yes 58% No
5. How many cans do you fill once a week at the backdoor with a compactor in the
home?
84% of the residents stated they place 1 or 2 parcels at the backdoor. As
before, this could be any assortment of compactor bag, can or cans or plastic
bag. 12% of the residents placed 3 parcels at the backdoor and the remaining
4% had more than 3 parcels of trash at the backdoor.
In summary, the majority of the residents enjoy the reduction of volume by compacting
with the resultant advantages of elimination of garbage bags, neater appearance of trash, no
messy bags to handle, storage of trash in one small unit, convenience and the fact they do not
have to go to the trashcan every day. Chief disadvantages of the compactor is the weight of the
bag and that it is hard to handle. Most residents are satisfied with the deodorant spray and the
compactor bags and 91 percent of the residents rate the compactor excellent or good after a
year's use.
Chief problems identified with curbside collection were the weight and bulk of the
trash, trip to the curb in varying weather and the litter created by the dogs. The majority of
residents felt the compactor did make curbside collection easier and actually preferred curbside
collection once a week rather than two times a week.
Most residents felt the compactor was a help with backdoor collection and felt collec
tion once a week would be satisfactory if a compactor was in the home.
Conclusions and Recommendations are on page 5.
112
-------
This reproduced it ft. 3
back of the report by H di!:,
reproduction method to provide
belter detail.
XI
S SCATTERING REFUSE
PHOTO XII
DOGS AT WORK ON I ;. iDE REFUSE
113
-------
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
1 better detail.
PHOTO XIII
AFTER DOGS ARE FINISHED
PHOTO XIV
TYPICAL HOME ON PROJECT ROUTE
114
-------
PHOTO XV
COMPACTOR BAG
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction methocl to provide
better detail.
PHOTO XVI
ATLANTA OFFICIALS LOOK OVER COMPACTOR
LEFT TO RIGHT: JOHN EVANS, PROJECT DIRECTOR. RALPH HULSEY, SUPT OF SANITATION,
FORMER MAYOR, SAM MASSELL.
115
-------
GLOSSARY
Bags
Base Data
Cans
Compacted Refuse
Demo Data
East Liddell Route
Entire Route
Non-Compacted Refuse
Odds
Waste Collector II
Waste Collector III
Waste Collector Driver
Refer to Compactor Bags.
Data gathered during routine collection of the project route, that
is, collection backdoor twice a week and curbside twice a week.
Conventional metallic, fiberboard or other re-useable refuse con-
tainer fitted with a handle and a lid.
Refuse taken from homes in which household compactors have
been placed.
Data gathered after the household compactors were placed on the
route during backdoor and curbside collections utilizing varying
crews and techniques.
This route is normally serviced backdoor twice a week with a com-
pactor truck, two satellites, truck driver and two satellite drivers.
Refers to East Liddell and West Maddox during curbside collection
and mention of entire route denotes curbside collection unless
backdoor is specified.
Refuse taken from homes that do not have a household refuse
compactor.
Any extra items placed for collection that are not in a can or com-
pactor bag.
A walking crewman.
A satellite vehicle driver.
Driver of the compactor truck.
Preceding page blank
117
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Garbage pollution: what you can do to help. Better Homes and Gardens,
U9(10):lU, 18, 22, 125, Oct. 1971.
McLean, Mary. Planning for solid waste management. Report No. 275.
Chicago, Planning Advisory Service, Dec. 1971- PP- 13-1** •
Willman, Martha. Trash collector .gives compactors to homes. Los Angeles
Times, Feb. 11, 1973, Sect. 11, p. k.
Preceding page blank
119
-------
CITY OF ATLANTA APPENDIX A
NEWS RELEASE
For Further Information
Call: Rosemary Thomas
Research and Information Officer
For Release November 16, 1970
Atlanta Mayor Sam Massed today announced that the City has received notice of a $92,120
grant from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The grant is to be used for a study-in
a demonstration project on trash collection techniques and procedure. In commenting on the am-
mouncement, Mayor Massell said, "One of the most pressing problems facing the city today is
that of collection and disposal of residential refuse. Volume and cost are overwhelming."
"Today one out of ten tax dollars in the average American city is spent for the collection
and disposal of residential trash. Since the collection expenditures amount to approximately 80
percent of most municipal sanitary budgets, Atlanta has been looking for a sound way to improve
the system and reduce the cost. The demonstration project is an experiment in this direction. W©
can reduce collection costs if we can reduce collection and volume at the primary source."
One method of reducing volume can be realized by utilizing a new home appliance recently
introduced by the Whirlpool Corporation called the Trash Masher compactor. This unit compacts
about a week's trash (about three 20-gallon trash containers full) for the average family of four
into a neat bag a little larger than the average grocery bag.
The Mayor pointed out that, "by utilizing equipment such as the Trash Masher compactor,
trash collection would only be necessary once a week; thereby, enabling us to cut the cost of
collection."
Mayor Massell went on to explain that "the test program will include 400 households in the
City of Atlanta. This gives us a clearly designed representative model with which to measure the
potential effectiveness of a similar type program for the entire city. I feel that Atlanta is very for-
tunate to have this demonstration grant and the opportunity to discover a better method of solid
waste management, not only for our city, but possibly for the nation."
Preceding page blank
121
-------
APPENDIX B
November 23, 1970
Dear Resident of Southwest Atlanta:
Your area is under consideration as a test site for a Demonstration Study of the Household Refuse
Compactor.
The Household Refuse Compactor Demonstration Project, recently described in the radio,
television and newspaper media is sponsored by the Public Health Service of the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare and the Sanitation Department of the City of Atlanta. It is an effort
to solve some of the ever increasing problems of trash collection. Today one out of ten tax dollars
is spent for collection and disposal of residential trash. For this reason Atlanta has been looking
for a way to improve the system and reduce the cost.
We will need your help. The demonstration Project introduces a home appliance called trie
TRASH MASHER Compactor. This unit compacts a week's trash for the average family of four into
a neat little bag about the size of a grocery bag. The trash masher, with your consent, will be
placed in your home for 12 months at no cost to you. You will be able to test the trash masher for
us. Every three months a Project Representative will contact you with a supply of bags and a
questionnaire to evaluate the performance of the unit.
Are you interested? If so, please fill out the enclosed card. The area will be selected on the basis
of interest by those who are to participate. If your area is selected, a Project Representative will
visit you during the week of December 7-11. He will explain the Project fully and will solicit your
participation.
Yours very truly,
R. E. Hulsey
Superintendent of Sanitation
122
-------
APPENDIX C
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
Date:
No. Scouts
Name:
Area:
Truck No:
Type Service
Total Lbs:
Total Route Mileage:
Total Route Time:
Clock No: Daily Rate:
Driver
Man No. 1
Man No. 2
Man No. 3
Man No. 4
.Total Non-Route Mileage:
.Total Non-Route Time: —
Man No. No. Stops Collect Tm Dump Tm Wait Tm Ride Tm Pack Tm Lost Tm Total Tm
Total
123
-------
APPENDIX C CONTINUED
'ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
SECTION I:
Type Service:
Crew size:
Weather:
Disposal
Truck Data: Body Manufacturer:
Hopper size: (yds) Chassis:
Scout Data: No. used: Type:
Location:
Capacity: —
-Obs)
-(yds)
SECTION II:
Route Information
Leave station
Arrive route
Leave route (1st load)
Arrive disposal site
Leave disposal site
Arrive route
Leave route (2nd load)
Arrive disposal site
Leave disposal site
Arrive station
Lunch
Leave route
Arrive lunch
Leave, lunch
Arrive route
Wristwatch
Time:
Odometer
Mileafcje:
Net Weight:
124
-------
APPENDIX C CONTINUED
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - EAST LIDDELL ROUTE
SCOUT 1 - No: SCOUT 2 - No:
Collection Lost Collection Lost
Stops Time Time Reason Stops Time Time Reason
125
-------
APPENDIX C - CONTINUED
Definition of terms applicable to the East Liddell Route, base data collection and Table IX.
1. Base data - information collected before the compactors>we re placed in;'service on the
project route.
2. Time collecting is measured from the time the scout leaves the collection truck until the
scout returns to the truck to dump its load. Actually, all collection time is not spent in
collection itself; that is, this time includes traveling to each collec'tion point, effecting
collection, emptying refuse into the scout, repeating this process until scout is full'and
returning to collection truck.
3. Wait time occurs when both scouts need to dump at the same time. Since this is not
possible, one scout must wait for the other to finish. The resultingvdelay is a form of lost
time.
4. Ride time is the time man is transported to the next pickup point.
5. Lost time can include numerous unproductive activities. They include breakdown and
repair, accidents, rest, drink water, tie shoe and others. Any significant difference in lost
time in the various stages is purely accidental and more dependent on weather than
anything else.
6. Total route time is the time actually spent on the route and includes time collecting for the
one man who required the most time to collect the route.
7. Total time is a total of time collecting, clean up, ride, lost, wait, break down and so forth.
Any discrepancy between total time and sum of actual time shown is due to rounding 'the
figures off to tenths of an hour.
126
-------
APPENDIX D
COST TABLES
Basic cost of collection in the City of Atlanta is as follows:
Operating Cost of 1 Compactor Truck
Item
Fuel
Oil
Grease
Tires
Parts
Labor
Depreciation*
TOTAL
Per Hour
-35
-0°
-°°
-16
-30
-35
1-46
$2-62
Per Week***
* Based on a 213 day use and five year life.
"Based on an eight hour working day.
• • • Based on two eight hour working days.
Labor Cost
---
Crew
Waste Collection Dr.
Waste Collector III*
Waste Collector II"
Per Hour
$ 3.68
3.39
3.25
Per Dav*
Per_Day_
$ 29 45
^ ^
2goo
Per Week**1
- _
^ 58.90
54 2rj
52 00
'Waste Collector III operates the satellite vehicles.
** Waste Collector II is a walking crewman.
*' * Based on an eight hour working day.
""Based on two eight hour working days.
127
-------
APPENDIX D - CONTINUED
Operating Cost of Satellite Vehicles
Item Per Hour Per Day** Per Week**'
Fuel $ .12 $ ;93 $1.86
Oil .00 .02 .04
Grease .00 .01 .02
Tires .03 .23 .46
Parts .19 1.55 3.10
Labor .21 1.70 3.40
Depreciation* .27 .2.15 4.30
'Based on 225 operating days, five year life.
** Based on an eight hour working day.
**'Based on a two day week.
128
-------
APPENDIX E
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - WEST MADDOX ROUTE
Date Area Trunk Nln
Nn Men Type Sen/ire Total Ihs
Name Clock No. Daily Rate
Driver:
Man 1
Man 2
Man 3
Man 4
-
Total Route Mileage.
Total Route Time
.Total Non-Route Mileage.
.Total Non-Route Time
Collection
Man No. No Stops Tm Dump Tm Wait Tm Ride Tm Pack Tm Lost Tm Total Tm
1
Total
129
-------
APPENDIX E CONTINUED
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORM - WEST MADDOX ROUTE
Type Service:
Crew size: —
Weather:
Disposal type:.
Observer;
Truck Data: Body Manufacturer:
Hopper size: (yds) Chassis:
Scout Data: No. used: _ Type:
Capacity:
Axles;
. Collection area;
Location:
(yds) Type:
Max load:
Capacity:
-(Ibs)
.(yds)
SECTION II:
Route Information
Leave station
Arrive route
Leave route (1st load)
Arrive disposal site
Leave disposal site
Arrive route
Leave route (2nd load)
Arrive disposal site
Leave disposal site
Arrive station
Lunch
Leave route
Arrive lunch
Leave lunch
Arrive route
Wristwatch
Time:
Odometer
Mileage:
Net Weight:
130
-------
APPENDIX E CONTINUED
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORM - WEST MADDOX ROUTE
SCOUT 1 - No: SCOUT 2 - No:
Collection Lost Collection Lost
Stops Time Time Reason Stops Time Time Reason
131
-------
APPENDIX E CONTINUED
Definition of terms applicable to the West Maddox route and base data collection as enumerated
on Table X.
1. Time collepting is defined as the period of time elapsed from the time the collector leaves
the truck to the time he returns after collection is made. Collection time, when measured
this way, includes the time it takes to walk from the truck to the pick-up point and return
trip as well as the actual time involved in collection of refuse. Collection time is the most
important parameter in this phase.
2. Ride time is the time taken when a man is transported to the next pickup point.
3. Pack time is a form of non-productive time necessary to operate the compaction
mechanism of the collection truck.
4. Wait time occurs when a collector emerges at the curb ahead of the collection truck and
must wait a period of time before he can dump his barrel.
5. Lost time is an all-inclusive category for all miscellaneous types of non-productive time
such as tie shoe lace, break, receive instructions and so forth.
6. Pounds of refuse collected is determined by weighing the collection truck immediately
upon completion of the test route.
7. Total route time is the time actually spent on the route and includes time collecting for the
one man who required the most time to collect the route.
8. Total time is a total of time collecting, clean up, wait, ride, pack, lost and so forth. Any
discrepancy between total time and sum of actual time shown is due to rounding the
figures off to tenths of an hour.
132
-------
APPENDIX F
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - CURBSIDE COLLECTION
Date _
No. Men
.Area
Type Service
Truck No.
Total Ibs.
Name
Clock No.
Daily Rate
Driver:
Man 1
Man 2
Man 3
Man 4
Total Route Mileage.
Total Route Time
.Total Non-Route Mileage.
.Total Non-Route Time
Collection
Man No. No Stops Tm Dump Tm Wait Tm Ride Tm Pack Tm Lost Tm Total Tm
1
Total
133
-------
APPENDIX F - CONTINUED
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
DATA FORMS - CURBSIDE COLLECTION
No. No. No. Begin Begin Begin
Stops Cans Bags Other Collection Travel Other Explanation
134
-------
APPENDIX F - CONTINUED
DEFINITION OF TERMS APPLICABLE TO CURBSIDE SERVICE
AS SHOWN ON TABLE XI
DESIRED DATA RESULTS
Analysis of curbside collection affords our most valuable means of determining the value of the
household compactor. Unlike backdoor collection, the curb method allows the observer to
visually examine the entire collection procedure and therefore obtain more accurate and reliable
data. This phase is the only one in which the observer has the opportunity to count the number of
cans, bags, and parcels that are placed out for collection. The most important determination to be
made is whether or not significant time savings can be attributed to (1) fewer items handled and
(2) more disposable containers as a result of the household compactor.
DEFINITION OF TERMS:
(1) Number of cans is visually noted by the observer before collection begins. The size of cans
used is generally 32 gallons, however, there are several smaller and larger sizes in use.
(2) Number of Trash Masher bags are those visually in evidence before collection is effected.
Many of the participants put the compactor bag in a garbage can - in this case only the can
was counted. Other residents put the compactor bag in an opaque plastic bag - in this case
it would be recorded as a plastic bag.
(3) Plastic bags and all other disposable bags are noted in this classification.
(4) The number of boxes is noted in the next column. Like Trash Masher bags and plastic bags,
boxes are disposable containers.
(5) Collection time is measured from the time the collector departs from the truck until he
begins the next activity, such as traveling. Collection time in this phase is measured for the
collection team (2 men), not for each man individually. Collectors were urged to work
together in order to minimize lost time. Collection time is by far the most important
parameter of this phase since it depends primarily on the number of disposable and non-
disposable containers which must be handled.
(6) Travel time is a measure of time between pick-up points. Travel time is a function of the
distance between homes and the speed of the truck and is uneffected by compacted or non-
compacted refuse.
(7) Packing time is a measure of lost time due to the operation of the packing mechanism. If
collection of refuse is not interrupted by this action, then no time is charged to Packing.
Packing time is a function of the type of equipment used and is of no major importance.
(8) Clean-up time is a form of lost time spent in collecting loose litter from the street and curb
area. This litter is mainly attributable to scattering by animals and in a lesser instance to
negligence on the part of the resident. Comparison of clean-up time between phases I and II
will indicate the frequency and severity of the problem.
(9) Lost time is the same.for each phase, all inclusive for tying shoe laces, breaks, giving in-
structions and so forth.
135
-------
APPENDIX G
SEGMENTS - CURBSIDE COLLECTION
( 1) Sequoyah Dr.
( 2) R. of Margaret Mitchell to Peachtree Battle
( 3) Peachtree Battle to Moores Mill Rd.
( 4) Moores Mill (r) to Margaret Mitchell (1 house)
( 5) Margaret Mitchell to Peachtree Battle; then R. side to Ridge Valley Rd.
( 6) Ridge Valley Rd. from Margaret Mitchell to Ridge Valley Ct.
( 7) Ridge Valley Ct.
( 8) Ridge Valley Rd. from Ridge Valley Ct. to Wesley Pky.
( 9) Wesley Pky. to Margaret Mitchell
(10) Ridge Valley Rd. from Wesley Pky. to Sequoyah
(11) W. Wesley from Sequoyah to Margaret Mitchell
(12) Margaret Mitchell from W. Wesley to Wesley Pky.
(13) W. Wesley from Moores Mill to Bohler Rd.
(14) Bohler Ct.
(15) Bohler Rd. (two parts)
(16) Battleview Dr.
(17) Peachtree Battle from Bohler Rd. to Moores Mill
(18) Moores Mill R. side to Wesley
(19) Moores Mill R. side from Wesley to Peachtree Battle
(20) Moores Mill R. side to Ridgemore Rd.
(21) Ridgemore Rd. to Ridgemore PI.
(22) Ridgemore PI.
(23) Ridgemore Rd. from Ridgemore PI. to end
(24) Moores Mill R. side to Warren Rd.
(25) Warren Rd.
(26) Ridgewood Rd. from Warren Rd. to Moores Mill
(27) Moores Mill R. side to Ridgewood Terr.
(28) Ridgewood Terr.
136
-------
APPENDIX H
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Name
Address.
.Telephone
Personal Information:
Please list all members of the household and include educational level, age and employment:
Name relation age education employment
List all others on the back of this questionnaire.
Income (please check one category)
$5,000 - $15,000 _,
$25,000 - $40,000
Do you own home
Do your children attend public schools
How many cars do you own?
Do you have a maid? How often?.
$15,000 - $25,000
$40,000 - up
.or rent?.
or private schools.
On this questionnaire we are not concerned with the trashmasher unit because we do not feel it
has been in the home long enough for a proper analysis. These questions are directed to you as
though you did not have a trashmasher at all.
Where in the house do you have trashcans located:
How many? How often do you empty it?
Bedroom 1
Bedroom 2
Bedroom 3
Bedroom 4
Bath 1
Bath 2
Basement
How many large outside cans do you have?
week? twice a week?
collection service three times a week?
How many? How often do you empty it?
Playroom
Dining Room
Kitchen „
Living room
Den :
Garage ____-
Other
Do you fill these cans once a
four times a week? Could you use
four times a week?
On the average how many meals a week does your family eat out?
bage disposal? Do you purchase more frozen goods
goods ? Are your newspapers taken to the schools
. Do you have a gar-
or canned
your trash?
of your trash?.
etc.?
garbage
Comments:
.Are your magazines taken to the schools?.
. or are they a part of
or are they a part
Do you purchase many paper products, paper towels, napkins,
.Would you say your trash is largely paper ;, metal or
137
-------
APPENDIX I
HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION 'PROJECT
LANDFILL TEST DATA SHEET
TEST CELL NO:
Tractor Operator
Date
-Tractor Shop No:.
Machine hours worked
.Buckets Cover Dirt Used
Number of compaction passes made
First Load:
Second Load:
Third Load:
Fourth Load:
Number of pounds disposed
Cubic Yards Disposed
Number of Pounds Disposed
Number of cubic yards
Number of Pounds Disposed
Cubic Yards Disposed
Number of pounds disposed
Cubic Yards Disposed
138
-------
APPENDIX J
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
QUESTIONNAIRE II
Please complete this form and mail immediately in the enclosed envelope. Your cooperation is
greatly appreciated.
Name
Address
How many persons reside at this address? Members of this household attending
college elsewhere? _,
If you have a pet, please specify kind and number.
(For example, dog (1) cat(2)
1. a Is this Trash Masher currently being used in your home?
YES ( ) Please fill out the remainder of the questionnaire.
No ( ) Please answer Question No. 2 and then explain why you are not using it
in the space provided for COMMENTS.
b. What percentage of the refuse (garbage and trash) in your home would you say you put in
the Trash Masher? %.
c. Please check any of the following items which you do NOT put in the Trash Masher.
_ Newspapers/Magazines Glass Items
___ Food Scraps Tin Cans
Other (specify)
2. a. Where is your Trash Masher located?
b. Would you, if you had space, relocate your Trash Masher? Where?
c. How convenient do you consider the unit? Ex-
cellent; Good; Fair; ! Poor. Why do you describe it
that way?
3. a. Do you have a garbage disposal?
b. Do you use your garbage disposal as you previously have? Or do you now
place the majority of your garbage in the Trash Masher,?
139
-------
APPENDIX J - CONTINUED
4. a. Do you place garbage and trash in the Trash Masher loosely? Or do you place
garbage and trash in the Trash Masher in a paper bag? _
b. Do you find your Trash Masher unduly noisy?
c. Do you have a problem keeping your Trash Masher clean?.
d. Do you have a problem with odor from the Trash Masher?.
5. a. How often do you change the bag in the Trash Masher?
Every days.
b. Why do you change it then?
c. Who in the household usually removes the full bag from the Trash Masher?.
d. Who in the household usually takes the bag out of the house?
e. Who in the household usually puts the new bag into the Trash Masher?.
f. How do you store full bags until collection day?
In a receptacle Not in a receptacle.
6. a. Now that you are using the Trash Masher, is once a week collection adequate for your
needs? ,
YES ( ) NO ( )
How is it not adequate? . .
b. What would you consider to be the maximum number of days your household should be
able to go between collections?
Days.
c. Have you required service on your Trash Masher?
How often? : For what reason?
d. Have you experienced a reduction in the volume of trash generated for collection day?
How much before? __
How much now? ^_ .__
COMMENTS:.
140
-------
APPENDIX K
QUESTIONNAIRE
Once again, we are asking you a number of questions about the Trash Masher compactor in your
home. We realize that you may have already answered some of them in a previous survey but
would you do it again. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
1. Now that you have been using the Trash Masher Compactor for some time, how would you
rate your satisfaction with the unit?
Completely satisfied ( )
Satisfied ( )
Somewhat dissatisfied ( )*
Completely dissatisfied ( )*
Not now using the unit ( )*
If not satisfied or not using the unit, why is that?
2. A. Where in your .home do you have the Trash Masher?.
B. If in the kitchen, please complete the drawing enough to show the relationship of the
Trash Masher Compactor to the sink.
C. Where would be the best location for you?
(If you can, draw it in the diagram above and label it "best".)
D. Why would it be best in that location?
E. Has the Trash Masher Compactor always been located where it is now?
Yes ( ) No (
Where was it originally?
Why was it moved?
141
-------
APPENDIX K - CONTINUED
3. A. Was curbside collection better overall
before installation ,of the Trash Masher compactor ( )
after installation of the Trash Masher compactor ( )
\
B. Was backdoor collection 'better overall
before installation of the Trash Masher compactor ( )
after installation of the Trash Masher compactor ( )
4. Do you normally operate the Trash Masher Compactor...
Each time an item is added ( )
Usually just when larger items are added ( )
Each time the container gets full ( )
Once a day ( )
Other:
,5. Do you use the key to lock the Trash Masher Compactor?
Yes ( ) No ( )
6. A. What percent of the TRASH in your home do you put in the Trash Masher?
B. What percent of the GARBAGE in your home do you put in the Trash Masher?
7. Have you encountered odors from the Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
A. Which one of the following best describes the frequency of odors?
Only once or twice ( )
During hot weather only ( )
Once a month or so ( )
Every week ( )
Daily or almost daily ( )
B. When you have odors, do they appear to be caused by specific items which you put in the
Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, what items? _ . .
8. Have you had an insect or bug problem with the Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
142
-------
APPENDIX K CONTINUED
8. A. Which of the following describes the frequency of the problem?
Only once or twice ( )
During hot weather only ( )
Once a month or so ( )
Every week ( )
Daily or almost daily ( )
B. Specifically, what type of bug or insect was present?
C. When this problem happened, did it appear to be caused by specific items which you put
in the Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, what item(s)?
9. A. Is the deodorant spray mechanism operating correctly in your Trash Masher?
(To find out, open the drawer completely. Close it and notice: 1) the sound of the aerosol
can applying two "shots" of spray; 2) the sight of two damp circles about 2 inches in
diameter upon the top of the refuse when you reopen the door; 3) the dampness on your
hand when you place it palm up at the top of the opening under the inverted spray can as
you slowly close the drawer until it touches your arm. If none of these occurs, your
mechanism is NOT operating correctly.)
Yes ( ) No ( )
B. How long ago did you replace the deodorant spray can?
Weeks ago
( ) Never replaced the spray can.
C. Does the spray itself have an objectionable odor?
Yes ( ) No ( )
10. A. How would you rate the Trash Masher compactor drawer?
Easy to operate ( )
Difficult to operate ( )
B. If difficult, is it so difficult as to restrict your use of the compactor?
Yes ( ) No ( )
11. A. How often do you change bags in the Trash Masher?
Every days
143
-------
APPENDIX K - CONTINUED
11. B Have there been any problems or difficulties in removing the bag from the Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
If yes, what is that?
C. Have there been any problems or difficulties in putting a new bag in the Trash Masher?
Yes ( ) No ( )
D. If yes, what is that? ,
Have you encountered any problems or difficulties with tearing or ripping of the bags?
Yes ( ) No ( )
E. After the full bag is removed from the Trash Masher, how is it secured. (With tape? Twine?
The flaps rolled down? etc.)
Please describe.
F. Please describe any other problems or difficulties you have experienced with the bags.
12. Have you required service on your Trash Masher compactor since answering the last
questionnaire?
If yes, describe the problem
13. One option at the end of this test period could be to offer the Trash Masher compactors
for sale to the testers. Would you have an interest in purchasing the unit if the price was
"reasonable"?
Yes ( ) No ( )
Thank you for your cooperation.
Your Name
Your Address
Use the space below for any comments you would like to make.
144
-------
APPENDIX L
ATLANTA HOUSEHOLD REFUSE COMPACTOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
INCINERATION TEST DATA COLLECTION FORM
DATE OBSERVER
NO. POUNDS COMPACTED REFUSE CHARGED
NO. POUNDS NON-COMPACTED REFUSE CHARGED.
TIME BEGIN CHARGE: AM/PM TIME BEGIN ACTUAL TEST AM/PM
TIME FIRST MARKER PASSES KILN AM/PM TIME FINAL CHARGE AM/PM
TIME FINAL MARKER PASSES KILN AM/PM
DESIGNED KILN TEST TEMPERATURE IS 1800°F., ACTUAL AVERAGE KILN TEM-
PERATURE °F.
KILN FLOW RATES: (% OF FULL SPEED)
%@ (time) %@
AVERAGE KILN RATE:.
NO. POUNDS OF RESIDUE:.
RESIDUE CONDITION:
COMMENTS:
PROJECT DIRECTOR:.
CRANE OPERATOR:—
INCINERATOR OPERATOR:.
PLANT MANAGER:
145
-------
APPENDIX M
OPERATING RATES DURING NON-COMPACTED REFUSE TEST
The following charts give the operating rates of the'ignition grates ana rotary kiln as a per-
cent of 100 during the first test of non-compacted refuse.
Ignition Grates - Test No. 1
Non-compacted Refuse
Time in Minutes
8
25
15
15
105
Total of 168 minutes -r- 7692
Rate Operated
34 %
34
42
46
50
Rotary Kiln - Test No. 1
Non-compacted Refuse
Factor
272
850
630
690
5250
45.7%
Time in minutes
8
25
135
Total of 168 minutes-:-9310
Rate Operated
50
54
56
Factor
400
1350
7560
55.4%
146
-------
APPENDIX M - CONTINUED
OPERATING RATES DURING COMPACTED REFUSE TEST 1
The following charts provide the operating rates of the ignition grates and rotary kiln as a
percent of 100 during the first test of compacted refuse.
Ignition Grates - Test No. 1
Compacted Refuse
Time in Minutes x Rate Operated = Factor
10 21 210
10 21 210
15 30 450
20 36 720
7 20 140
5 30 150
8 20 160
15 30 450
15 36 540
30 44 1320
5 50 250
40 60 2400
Total of 180 minutes -<- 7000 = 38.9%
Rotary Kiln - Test No. 1
Compacted Refuse
Time in Minutes X Rate Operated = Factor
10 38 380
10 44 440
15 44 660
20 46 920
7 30 210
5 46 230
8 30 240
15 42 630
15 50 750
30 50 1500
5 50 250
40 50 2000
Total of 180 minutes •*• 8210 = 45.6%
147
-------
APPENDIX M - CONTINUED
-.OPERATING RATES DURING NON-COMPACTED REFUSE TEST 2
During the second test operating rates for ignition grates and rotary kiln as a percent of 100
were obtained during incineration of non-compacted refuse. The following charts supply the
operating rates for this test.
Ignition Grates - Test No. 2
Non-compacted Refuse
Time in Minutes X
40
60
60
60
35
Total of 255 minutes •+• 8220
Rate Operated
30
30
30
36
36
Factor
1200
1800
1800
2160
1260
32%
Rotary Kiln - Test No. 2
Non-compacted Refuse
Time in Minutes X
40
60
60
60
35
Total of 255 minutes -s-10770
Rate Operated
40
40
40
46
46
Factor
1600
2400
2400
2760
1610
42%
148
-------
APPENDIX M - CONTINUED
OPERATING RATES DURING COMPACTED REFUSE TEST 2
Operating rates for ignition grates and rotary kiln as a percent of 100 during the second
test of compacted refuse are illustrated on the following charts.
Ignition Grates - Test No. 2
Time in Minutes X Rate Operated = Factor
70 36 2520
5 30 150
40 30 1200
30 36 1080
60 40 2400
10 38 380
10 40 400
10 42 420
15 44 660
25 44 1100
20 42 840
45 46 2070
15 40 600
Total of 355 minutes •+• 13820 = 39%
Rotary Kiln - Test No. 2
Time in Minutes X Rate Operated = Factor
70 46 3220
5 30 150
40 38 1520
30 46 1380
60 50 3000
10 48 480
10 50 500
10 52 520
15 52 780
25 54 1350
20 52 1040
45 56 2520
15 50 750
20 56 1120
Total of 375 minutes-i-18330 = 49%
149
-------
APPENDIX N
TEST NO. 1
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
NON-COMPACTED REFUSE
The charts on the following pages offer registered temperatures in the ignition grate and
rotary kiln for each test burn. Temperatures were monitored by thermocouples and transmitted
approximately 23 times an hour to a scale graph. Temperatures listed were taken from the scale
graph during the time interval in which the test was operated.
Temperature measured Temperature measured
in Ignition Grate (°F) in Rotary Kiln (°F)
1940 1910 1500 1845
1930 1920 1470 1900
1990 2030 1450 1860
2000 2050 1450 1780
2000 1990 1500 1740
1980 1905 1520 1730
1965 1880 1550 1750
1880 1950 ' 1530 1700
1790 1975 1495 1770
1800 2030 1465 1850
1940 2025 1470 1850
2000 2010 1480 1820
1970 1985 1550 1780
1980 1960 1560 1825
2055 1835 1550 1800
2020 1710 1520 1765
1965 1680 1540 1710
1925 1685 1565 1640
1885 1660 1605 1615
1865 1635 1630 1600
1845 1655 1615 1600
1825 1745 1600 1605
1855 1855 1590 1690
1850 1930 1605 1700
1775 1950 1625 1680
1760 1925 1605 1665
1835 1980 1610 1630
1950 2015 1670 1610
2000 1960 1,800 1605
1980 1945 1,855 1600
1950 1895 1£25 1590
1820 1560
1825 1515
Total 64 readings Total 64 readings
Av. temp. 1903.5°F Av. temp. 1643.4°F
150
-------
APPENDIX N - CONTINUED
TEST NO. 1
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
COMPACTED REFUSE
Temperature measured
in Ignition Grate (°F)
Temperature measured
in Rotary Kiln (°F)
1870
1840
1790
1775
1750
1780
1835
1860
1855
1860
1870
1875
1880
1965
1985
2040
2050
1970
1895
1845
1875
1875
1885
1860
1880
1895
1895
1940
1990
1995
1980
2020
2000
2000
2000
2010
2020
2065
2080
2075
2090
2065
2070
2075
2020
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
1990
2020
2030
1935
1880
1915
2020
2025
2070
2070
2070
2005
2030
2000
2030
2040
2120
2095
2070
2000
2000
1980
1970
1970
1950
1950
1530
1520
1490
1480
1520
1640
1680
1670
1620
1625
1630
1580
1540
1565
1660
1715
1700
1650
1575
1520
1520
1675
1740
1690
1700
1800
1805
1800
1870
1895
1835
1750
1720
1815
1810
1790
1770
1845
1830
1800
1825
1800
1780
1745
1755
1765
1825
1770
1725
1705
1690
1680
1665
1630
1620
1645
1770
1770
1845
1830
1840
1890
1825
1835
1815
1770
1740
1735
1710
1680
1695
1710
1700
1740
1810
1810
Total of 76 readings
Av. temp. 1966.5°F
Total of 76 readings
Av. temp. 1717.2°F
151
-------
APPENDIX N - CONTINUED
TEST NO. 2
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
NON-COMPACTED REFUSE
Temperatures measured in Ignition Grate (°F)
1605
1595
1605
1610
1625
1640
1650
1640
1645
1665
1660
1690
1655
1615
1530
1645
1645
1655
1720
1785
1845
1880
1865
1895
2005
2035
1900
1905
1885
1835
1805
1835
1910
1925
1880
1825
1785
1775
1810
1820
1815
1765
1745
1770
1775
1820
1800
1785
1820
1840
1870
1860
1840
1790
1840
1870
1875
1850
1810
1805
1800
1755
1770
1780
1795
1760
1750
1720
1660
1645
1700
1770
1770
1785
1785
1815
1855
1825
1790
1800
1850
1850
1800
1785
1800
1795
1785
1815
1825
1805
1810
1840
1840
1830
1815
1825
1850
1830
1795
1780
1750
1720
1740
1775
1760
1775
1805
1860
1875
1965
1980
1970
1975
1950
1930
1940
1935
1960
1920
1890
1880
1850
1900
1950
1850
1745
1715
1695
1680
Total 129 readings
Av. temp 1800°F
152
-------
APPENDIX N - CONTINUED
TEST NO. 2
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
NON-COMPACTED REFUSE
Temperatures measured in Rotary Kiln (°F)
1480
1450
1445
1585
1550
1560
1570
1615
1535
1435
1385
1375
1360
1360
1395
1425
1460
1490
1505
1530
1560
1560
1545
1495
1495
1495
1510
1510
1505
1505
1530
1520
1490
1555
1565
1560
1550
1550
1520
1520
1545
1580
1645
1660
1630
1680
1675
1640
1625
1610
1610
1615
1585
1555
1510
1460
1510
1550
1590
1620
1640
1640
1600
1585
1575
1570
1610
1675
1705
1700
1695
1685
1685
1725
1735
1735
1730
1740
1805
1805
1760
1745
1720
1710
1690
1680
1675
1645
1660
1645
1695
1695
1695
1700
1695
1715
1775
1805
1840
1840
1830
1830
1820
1785
1815
1855
1800
1750
1740
1705
1705
1715
1715
1700
1710
1710
1715
1690
1640
1650
1665
1690
1675
Total 119 readings
Av. temp. 1635°F
153
-------
APPENDIX N - CONTINUED
TEST NO. 2
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
COMPACTED REFUSE
Temperatures measured in the Ignition 'Grates (°F)
1605
1555
1590
1710
1780
1745
1680
1640
1615
1615
1625
1635
1640
1645
1660
1635
1670
1640
1670
1630
1770
1800
1800
1795
1775
1785
1850
1900
1920
1960
2000
1895
1860
1860
1900
1865
1795
1780
1795
1795
1745
1740
1790
1795
1810
1790
1755
1775
1810
1815
1850
1870
1845
1775
1770
1790
1780
1750
1710
1695
1685
1700
1710
1700
1700
1675
1665
1700
1780
1790
1810
1890
1910
1875
1910
1870
1860
1890
1905
1915
1940
1940
1920
1920
1880
1860
1870
1895
1910
1885
1830
1840
1860
1900
1915
1940
1960
2005
1995
1920
1930
1945
1965
1975
1950
1880
1820
1835
1795
1780
1755
1755
1770
1775
1745
1755
1780
1790
1755
1740
1720
1725
1675
1635
1630
1630
1635
1635
1655
1665
1650
1600
1550
1530
1540
1585
1640
Total 137 readings
Av. temp. 1780°F
154
-------
APPENDIX N - CONTINUED
TEST NO. 2
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
COMPACTED REFUSE
Temperatures measured in the Rotary Kiln (°F)
1675
1630
1585
1570
1625
1670
1675
1690
1685
1655
1620
1620
1650
1685
1700
1720
1700
1700
1696
1695
1785
1850
1895
1880
1900
1895
1910
1830
1735
1660
1625
1670
1705
1710
1680
1640
1600
1580
1620
1690
1730
1715
1680
1645
1610
1580
1595
1600
1605
1590
1570
1590
1625
1655
1625
1620
1620
1620
1610
1575
1565
1565
1595
1630
1690
1770
1745
1755
1785
1760
1670
1640
1635
1655
1635
1630
1615
1640
1685
1690
1680
1665
1685
1715
1740
1800
1880
1850
1840
1805
1760
1770
1785
1790
1775
1735
1700
1665
1630
1595
1685
1735
1745
1725
1675
1635
1600
1590
1625
1655
1690
1655
1640
1635
1620
1600
1605
1615
1595
1580
1625
1660
1680
1690
1690
1680
1655
1625
1605
1610
1665
1695
1750
1775
1820
1810
1890
1885
1790
1700
1650
Total 141 readings
Av. temp. 1697°F
/oo(*
155
-------
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
-------
:
i This page is reproduced at the
J back of the report by a different
•at* reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTOGRAPH I
The "Trash Masher" Refuse
Compactor Used in the Project
43
-------
PHOTOGRAPH II
COMPACTOR TRUCK
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTOGRAPH III
SATELLITE VEHICLE DUMPING INTO COMPACTOR TRUCK
47
-------
PHOTOGRAPH IV
LANDFILL CELL 1
100% COMPACTED REFUSE
This pa,,<' is reproduced at the
back of tin- ri-port liy it different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTOGRAPH V
COMPACTED REFUSE IN CELL
70
-------
PHOTO VI
REFUSE PIT AT INCINERATOR
PHOTO VIII
CHARGING REFUSE
IN INCINERATOR
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTO VII
REFUSE STORAGE PIT
95
-------
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTO IX
CURBSIDE COLLECTION OPEN BED TRUCK
PHOTO X
PUTTING CANVAS IN PLACE
OPEN BED TRUCK
107
-------
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTO XI
DOGS SCATTERING REFUSE
PHOTO XII
DOGS AT WORK ON CURBSIDE REFUSE
113
-------
This page is reproduced at the
buck of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
„ better detail.
PHOTO XIII
AFTER DOGS ARE FINISHED
PHOTO XIV
TYPICAL HOME ON PROJECT
114
-------
PH< " ' XV
CON:F:A' roR ;-
This page is reproduced at the
buck of the report by a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
PHOTO XVI
ATLANTA OFFICIALS LOOK OVER COMPACTOR
LEFT TO RIGHT JOHN EVANS, PROJECT DIRECTOR. RALPH HULSEY, SUPT OF SANITATION.
FORMER MAYOR SAM MASSELL.
115
-------