id Waste Management
in
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES
This report (SW-35c) was prepared
by Greenleaf/Telesca, Planners, Engineers, and Architects
under Contract No. CPE. 70-136
for
Division of Environmental Factors and Public Utilities
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20*flO
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
-------
For ule by ihe Superintendent of Document*. U.S. Government Prinling Office
Wuhington, O.C. 20402 • Price S3
Slock Number 5502-0060
-------
FOREWORD
Major emphasis in improving waste management practices has been
generally limited to the public and private systems of collection and
disposal serving the entire community. Too few studies have been
directed at the various types of building complexes and their respective
waste system requirements. This study was designed for the investigation
of the state of the art for such systems for hpusing complexes and
the individual dwelling unit.
With increasing domestic waste production, new systems and devices
are needed as solutions for handling, storage, and processing of waste
materials at the point of generation in the dwelling unit and within the
housing complex.
It is hoped that this study will aid the developer-designer team
in: (1) identifying the internal solid waste problems in new building
projects; (2) providing early guidelines for system requirements in the
conceptual planning stages of such projects; (3) ultimately, selecting
system components that will receive user acceptance and be compatible
with local area solid waste management practices; (4) stimulating
the continued engineering study of this vital problem.
--SAMUEL HALE, JR.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
i 11
-------
PREFACE
This study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (USDHUD), and performed through interagency cooperation
with the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This report was prepared by the consulting firm of Greenleaf/
Telesca, Planners, Engineers, and Architects, Miami, Florida, under
Contract CPE 70-136 with EPA. It results from studies and investigations
carried out by the firm for the primary purpose of determining alternative
solid waste systems for those residential complexes in HUD's Operation
Breakthrough Program, and recommending those conventional or innovative
systems compatible with each site.
This report further identifies the basic solid waste system
components and functions required in residential complexes and illustrates
methods of evaluation of the different typ^s of systems. It explores in
some detail the types of hardware being marketed, or in the developing
stage, from which these systems can be constructed.
These findings should be useful to designers, developers, and
mortgagors of housing developments in both the public and private sectors.
It is hoped this report will further stimulate continuing research in this
field.
Iv
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY TO THE REPORT xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxv
INTRODUCTION ]
Purpose of Study 2
Study Objectives 3
Characteristics of Solid Waste Systems 3
Functions of the System 3
Nomenclature of the System 5
Definitions of Solid Waste Materials 6
Description of Dwelling Unit and Building Types 10
REQUIREMENTS OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS 11
System Variations by Dwelling Unit Types 11
User Habits lA
Level of Service Required 15
System Loadings (Quantities and Types of Wastes) 19
METHODS AND EQUIPMENT FOR USE IN SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS 22
Handling Methods and Equipment 27
-------
Cart, Collection, Refuse 28
Chute, Gravity 31
*%A
Conveyor, Litter, Vacuum °*
Conveyor, Pneumatic 36
Hoist, Container, Rear Loading 45
Hoist, Tiltframe, Container, Packer 48
Packer, Mobile ^
Packer, Trailer 53
Train, Container ^
Vehicle, Collection, Satellite 57
Storage Methods and Equipment 62
Bag, Paper, Disposable 63
Bag, Plastic, Disposable 65
Barrel 69
Cart, Hand-pushed 72
Cart, Packer, Stationary 74
Container, Open-top, Roll-off 75
Container, Packer, Mobile 77
Container, Rear Loading 80
Container, Receiving, Packer, Stationary 82
Container, Standard, Household 83
vt
-------
Processing Methods and Equipment 84
Baler 85
Baler, Portable 86
Baler, Stationary 89
Chipper, Brush 92
Collector, Dust ^3
Compactor, Bag "'
Compactor, Console ?9
Compactor, Rotary Type 103
Compactor, Stationary 1^6
Compactor, Under-counter ''0
Crusher, Bottle, and Can 113
Grinder, Dry 113
Grinder, In-sink 116
Hogger 12°
Incinerator, Package 122
Pulper 125
Pulverizer, Paper 130
Shredder 131
On-Srite System's Effect on Final Processinn and Disposal
Methods 134
vii
-------
Summary
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Identification of Basic Systems
140
System Capabil Ities
Economic Factors
Summary of Systems Evaluations
Site Factors 157
SELECTION OF SYSTEMS FOR OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH PROJECTS 158
Macon , Georgia
183
Memphis, Tennessee
St. Louis, Missouri
Indianapolis, Indiana ^'
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Jersey City, New Jersey
Sacramento, California 242
Seattle, Washington 254
King County, Washington 263
RESEARCH PLAN FOR OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS A-l
Pneumatic Waste Collection Systems A-2
Design Procurement Specifications A-2
vi I i
-------
Research Program Covering the Pneumatic Waste System A-5
The Design Stage A-5
The Construction Stage A-7
The Operational Stage A-8
Research Requirements on Other Recommended Systems A-12
APPENDICES
A Numerical Identification of Equipment Manufacturers A-lA
B , Product List (Type, Manufacturer, and Trade Name) A-18
C Alphabetical Listing of Equipment Manufacturers A-42
D Classification of Wastes and Incinerators A-65
E Incinerators Meeting Emission Standards as Specified
in the Code of Federal Regulations Cf2CFR76) for
Federal Activities A-66
F Performance Specification for a Pneumatic Solid
Waste System A-?0
G Performance Specification for Stationary Solid
Waste Compactors A-106
TABLES
1 Classification of Refuse Materials 9
2 Suitability of Processed Wastes for Various Disposal
Methods 137
3 Basic Solid Waste Systems for Residential Complexes 1^2
IX
-------
k Summary of System Capabilities
5 Summary of System Evaluation '
6 Summary of Project Descriptions
7 Initial Selection of Basic Candidate Systems 1^2
8 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
109
Macon, Georgia I0*
9 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
195
Memphis, Tennessee J
10 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
St. Louis, Missouri (East Site) 212
11 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
St. Louis, Missouri (West Site) 213
12 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
Indianapolis, Indiana 223
13 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
Kalamazoo, Michigan 233
I'* Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
Jersey City, New Jersey 241
-------
15 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
Sacramento, California
16 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
Seattle, Washington 262
17 Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste System Alternatives
King County, Washington 271
A Summary of Project Descriptions xiv
B Basic Solid Waste Systems for Residential Complexes xviii
C Summary of System Evaluation xx
D Economic Summary of Recommended Solid Waste Systems xx''
xi
-------
SUMMARY TO THE REPORT ON
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES
During the conceptual planning stages of the Operation Breakthrough
project, Greenleaf/Telesca was selected to assist in the investigation
and selection of solid waste systems for each of the projects. This
assignment involved six principal tasks:
1. The accumulation of planning data on these projects.
2. Cataloguing data on equipment components and devices adaptable to
solid management.
3- Determining requirements of solid waste systems for residential
complexes.
A. Identification of systems' functions and structure and evaluation
of the types of systems that could be considered.
5- Matching of candidate systems to sites with recommendations for
a system installation at each site that would be compatible with
planning objectives.
6. Recommendation of the scope of the continuing research program
on systems selected for installation.
Planning Data
The accumulation of basic planning data was carried out by the
initial review and reports prepared by the Site Planners and the
xii
-------
continuing contact with the planners during the study period. Due to
the general state of flux in the conceptual planning stage, data for
purposes of this study was not firmed up on all projects until the
latter part of October 1970. The summary of project descriptions
(Table A) provides descriptive data then available on each of the
projects.
Equipment Investigation
The investigation of equipment was carried out to identify the
various types of devices and mechanical components that may be
considered in structuring on-site solid waste systems.
The investigation of those equipment components either designed
exclusively for or adaptable to solid waste system functions involved
contact with about 150 manufacturers throughout the country.
Various types of processing equipment (such as compactors, balers,
grinders, pulpers, incinerators) all offering a wide range of
capacities have been developed for solid waste systems in buildings.
Reduced storage space requirements can be accomplished by the use of
such waste volume reduction devices and general building sanitation and
safety can also be improved. Lesser progress is evident in on-site
transport systems designed exclusively for solid waste. In addition
to the practical and economical chute systems, available methods are
xiii
-------
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS
P.oj
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
»
Loco' ion
Mocon
Memphil
Si. Lcwit
East Sit*
W«t Sir*
Indionapolii
•Ut&MR
Kolomozoo
jcne/City
Socromcn'o
Seattle
(ing Co.
Type
ll) lJ) < 3)
LR 70 LO
Lit ?A LO
Ut MF MO
MR MF HO
HR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SrA MD
IR MF MD
Ut MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF HD
MR MF HO
MR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SFA MD
LR MF MD
MR MF HD
HR MF HD
ITOTALI
LR JO LD
LR SFA MD
• MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR 3=0 LD
LR SFA MD
LR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF MD
MR MF HD
HR MF HD
1 TOTAL)
LR SfD LD
Ut SFA LD
Lit MF MD
HR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF HD
MR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SO LD
IR SFA ID
LR MF MD
I TOTAL)
S 1 « •
Elf. 1 BR 2(3 3SR 4SR SB*
I 12 -
45 99 26 -
12 20 4 - .
18 6 - -
33 22 - - -
45 105 117 38 -
18 58 6 -
72 X - -
100 100 92 - - -
100 100 182 88 6 -
17 7 65 41 - -
9 - 18 - - -
20 40 20 4 - -
46 47 103 45 - -
10 25 40 -
10 40 - - -
25 - - -
18 43 II - - -
18 53 86 75 *0 -
13 SO 50 -
42 40 - -
50 55 - - -
50 110 90 50 -
IS 3 -
71 29 7 1
3 SO 33 8 - -
3 50 104 52 10 1
25 155 190 100 30 -
9 11 .
24 97 60 -
38 SO 8 - -
-. 110 - - - .
148 74 114 71 -
23 11 3
JO ...
23 23 It 3
10 30 18
20 40 20 -
12 12 - -
~ : 35 6? 50 18
Total
'of
DU
20
170
3o
24
55
305
82
102
292
476
130
77
84
241
75
SO
25
72
222
113
82
10S
300
18
108
94
220
NA
NA
NA
500
20
181
96
no
407
37
23
60
58
80
24
16?
Total
Lend
Acrei
50
12
7.6
8
52
35
6.5
37
1.7
30
Oen-
• ily
OU A
6
40
31
28
6
6.3
77
12.7
35
5.4
A»9.
OU
Popul.
4.1
3.2
3.0
3 6
4. 1
3.4
3 3
3 9
4 6
5.5
Eii.
R*i!d«nt
Popul.
1,256
1.523
720
605
l.2»
756
!.<.-:•
1.5s5
?::>
960
ANCILLARY FACILITIES
'Building Area - Squo-e F«*t)
Comm. A dm 4 C/ih*»
Center Main! Focil.
4,250 1,150 300
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
K A N A r i A
3 . COD N A 5 . •;•: 3
) .ox Ni 7 c :o
:.:•.•- •-••• -5.0X1
3. co ).:••• : 4,000
,6V, NA <£500
3,660 NA 2,6M
Total
Area
5,700
NA
11,000
B(700
8. COO
9,0..
68. 00:
i8,cc:
6, ICO
5.0W
Explanation of Dwelling Typ" 11), 12), and |3)
(I) HR - Hig'i-riie (over 7 Ho-Ici)
MR - Medium-rite (4 lo 7 tio'lei)
Ut - Low-riic (under 4 tforiei)
(7) MF - Multlfam.'ly.
SFA - Single Family AtlocKcd
SFD - Single Family Detached
(3) HO - High Oerait/ (over 20 DU'A)
MO - Medium Denilty (II to 20 OU 'A)
10 - low Demit/ (I lo 10 OU. A)
xiv
-------
limited to prototype pneumatic conveyors and slurry pipelines.
Where such methods can be adapted, interim storage points in building
complexes can be further minimized.
Requirements of Systems
Requirements of solid waste systems for residential complexes are
influenced by the mix of dwelling unit structures, site configuration,
expected loadings, user habits, and the level of service required.
The total system must meet the varying requirements of the
different types of dwelling unit structures (low-rise, medium-rise,
and high-rise) and the ancillary structures. Reasonable standards and
habits were adopted for handling the storage of wastes by the residents.
Minimum standards were also adopted to establish the desired level of
service compatible with Operation Breakthrough program objectives.
The criteria for the level of service was influenced by those
planning objectives concerned with the environment and economics
generally common to all Operation Breakthrough projects. Prime
significance was given the environmental aspects of the level of service,
It was determined that selection of a solid waste system and the
management practices can be compatible with those planning objectives
concerned with environmental characteristics. However, upgrading the
level of service over conventional methods will likely increase cost
xv
-------
of service and this condition is in conflict with the objectives to
minimize development costs.
Identification and Evaluation of Systems
The four principal functions of a solid waste system can be
identified as handling, storage, processing, and disposal. This study
was concerned with the potential on-site systems and their relationship
with these four functions and with their compatibility to the public
collection and disposal practices in use at the Operation Breakthrough
si tes.
The system can be defined into four basic components or sub-systems:
1. The Unit System—Those initial functions in containing and moving
waste from its point of creation to and including point of
storage, processing, or disposal within the unit. The unit may
be defined as a single dwelling unit or ancillary service area.
2. The Inter-Unit System—Those functions performed in the vertical
and horizontal transport of waste from two or more unit storage
areas to and including an intermediate storage, processing, or
disposal point serving a group of units.
3. The Inter-Building System—Those functions performed in the transfer
of waste from intermediate storage points to and including a
central on-site storage processing or disposal facility.
xvi
-------
4. The Off-Site System—Those functions performed in external
transfer of waste from the central storage area to and including
off-site processing or disposal.
In the investigation of solid waste systems suitable for
residential complexes, nine basic functional variations were found
(Table B). These variations are generally concerned with methods of
transport, processing, and storage within each of the sub-systems.
These functional variations in most cases suggest a broad classification
of hardware that may be used and do not identify specific selection of
equipment components. These systems also vary in the types of dwelling
units to which they are adaptable and the types of waste materials to
be handled.
Evaluation of identifying systems involves a comparison of system
characteristics. The comparison is illustrated by a simplified
deficiency rating of sub-systems characteristics of each system
(Table C). These characteristics are generally concerned with various
aspects of environmental quality, performance, adaptability,
compatibility, and economy.
This comparison indicates advantages that may be expected by
processing waste in the dwelling units and the subsequent transport of
waste materials within a closed system. The advantages of such a
xvii
-------
TABLE B
BASIC SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES
System
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Moferiols
Handled
6
o
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-C
15
n'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-C
3
V—
X
X
Dwelling Types
Recommended
a
U_
S
X
X
X
LJ_
§
X
X
X
X
u_
X
X
X
X
X
1 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUB- SYSTEMS
Dwelling Unit(DU)
Preparation
Segregate
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Processing
Garbage
Grinder
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
n»
NR
Under- Counter
Compactor
Storage
NR
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Cunloi ner
Li neu1
Container
Lined
Cental ncr
Compactor
Bog
Inter-Uni t(|U)
Transport
Hor.
Waste
Line
Manual or
Vehicle
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Vert.
Waste
Line
Manual
Manual
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Oiutc
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Manual
Processing
NR
NR
Console
Compactor
NR or
Stationary
Compactor
NR
NR
Dry
Grinding or
Shredding
Wet
Grinding or
Pulping
NR
Storage
NR
NR or Bin
Bag or
Bale
Bog, Bale
or Container
Bin or
Container
Buie of
Chute
NR or
Container
NR
Bin or
Container
Inter-Building (IB)
Transport
Sewer
Line
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Pneumatic
Tube
Pneumatic
Tube
Slurry
Pipeline
Vehicle
Processing
NR
NR
NR
NR
Stationary
Compactor
Stationary
Compactor
or Incin.
NR or Camp.
or Incin.
Dewotering
NR
Storage
NR
NR or Bin
NRor
Storage area
NRor
Storage area
Container
Container
Conta! ner
Container
NR or
Container
NR - Not Required
-------
combination are illustrated by the low deficincy rating in the case
of System 1 which utilizes grinders with sewer line transport of the
processed materials.
Recommendations for Operation Breakthrough Projects
The established requirements of solid waste systems provide basic
guidelines that must be considered for any residential complex in the
planning stage. In addition, specific project conditions that would
influence solid waste management must be considered for individual
projects. These include the physical characteristics of the site
(size, shape and proportion, topography and soils), site planning,
local regulations, and the solid waste management practices. Other
factors such as characteristics of the surrounding community,
environmental quality requirements and area climatic conditions must
also be considered in the selection of candidate systems.
With the analyses of site factors and the previous evaluation of
systems (Table C) , certain combination of systems appeared to satisfy
the planning objectives of the Operation Breakthrough projects:
1. Garbage grinder installations appeared warranted for all projects.
2. The pneumatic collection system with a central compactor station
seemed best suited to the needs of Jersey City and Memphis.
xix
-------
TABLE C
MIMMMV or roiirt CVMIMIIOH
IttMul
CHAlACTCIIftlCS
.. ,„.-*-..
b 1 »U TA '
t )»•»!»
7. S^-O^k^,
J. .,..:«*.«„ -lew**,,
4. (c«n^**C Ck««c*Mrit*io
b' I'^'wr***"*
'• >;'^^Mi"
4. «*-..*«.,
''• r^xtrT"*'
i. *«»-»., ..*.. 1^1
•• r^'^r1"
f — f^.; ****<;*<•
... «... WO-.!*
• . £»•**•.«•
11. W«tp
7. 0*— C,~—
'" 7,^,11^
i. V**-**!** IM *•*<*
"• ZZZ'XX?
k H/VA
«.' ww
SVSIIM NUMIII
N.. 1
OU
NA
. NA
1
0
0-
2
}
1
0
NA
NA
1
2
a
0
D
0
1.
,1.
»
1 7.
NA- 0
• NA! 0
.< 1 1
« IM
1
0
,
1 _
1
0
f-
,
t*
,
r:'
70
N^7
OU | IU | II
It1 '
i t i i
0 ' 1 ' 0
-, i 1
JJA- 7 0
1 1
NA NA 0
1 ' 1 • 7
1 ' 0 ' 0
1 0 ' 0
•i!,!.
.U.
1 I '7
,!,L
» •» ' i
! 1
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
N,.,
oul iu
2
1
II
1
2 ' 1 1
7
0
0
1
NA
7
1
1
1
1
7
7
1
<
NA
FK
l±m±
40 I4|l» 1 40
4
1
1
1
1
t
0
~o"
_0
1
1
1
«
0
1
c
7
6~
9
0
N.. »
tMJi IU »
1
7
0
1 '
1 .
1 1
1
1
1
1
-i-:
i
NA
1
7 ' 2
1 1
1 I
1 • 1
1 1
1 '»
7 7
I J
*•*.•**
I 1
i
NA VI
7 1
i i i ! i
i
•
H!-
0
1 • { •
> ' 1 >
1
i
m
'NA
'NA
-y
4)
• ! i
tli
NA
•NA
NA-
' 0
7T"
w
lJ-.>-
-1-4-
-H-
:
i • i
i i
i
i i
, •,
1 i
0
-J
MA
N*
n
NA NA
nOt»,
NX ivlMU* n lni«n«|l»
-------
3. Individual chute-fed stationary compactor installations were
compatible with the high-rise and medium-rise structures in
the Macon, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Sacramento, and
Seattle projects and suitable alternatives for such structures
at Jersey City and Memphis.
4. Under-counter compactor units were recommended as the basic
components in systems for low-rise structures in Macon, St. Louis,
Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, Sacramento, and King County, and as
suitable alternatives for such structures at Memphis and Seattle.
5. The console compactor was best suited for Seattle and a suitable
alternative for clustered townhouses and low-rise apartments in
all projects.
The project reports prepared during this study present the
evaluation of various types of solid waste systems for each of the
Operation Breakthrough sites, together with recommendations of system
alternatives that would be compatible with site conditions and project
objectives.
^v
Economic summary of the recommended sytems (Table D) illustrates
estimated capital costs and estimated total annual system costs for
each project, with the latter reduced to annual costs per dwelling unit
for comparison purposes.
XXI
-------
TABLE D
ECONOMIC SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
System
No.
Mocon
1,4,49
Memphis
1, 4, 49
or 146
St. Louis
*1,4, 49
••1,4, 49
Indiono polls
1,4,49
Kolomozoo
149
Jersey City
6
Sacramento
1,4,49
Seattle
143 or
1,4,49
King Co.
149
Dwelling Units
Type
LR, MR, HR
LR,MR, HR
LR,MR, HR
LR, MR, HR
LR, MR, HR
LR,MR
LR
LR, MR, HR
LR,HR
LR; MR
LR
No.
305
476
241
222
300
220
500
407
60
162
Capital
Cost
$ 95,725
120,500
579, 500
67,425
64,100
99,225
74,050
470,000
120,535
13,500
19,300
54,430
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
$4,375
7,880
2,555
3,605
3,605
3,272
2,500
-
4,935
1,277
946
1,300
Other
Operating Costs
$12,111
16,921
13,292
8,667
8,239
13,335
9,080
10,700
15,291
3,210
2,636
6,671
Municipal or
Contract Costs
$5,490
6,816
5,712
4,338
4,096
5,400
3,960
9,000
7,326
1,080
1,060
2,916
Total
$21,976
31,617
21,559
16,612
15,940
22,007
14,860
19,700
27,452
5,567
4,668
10,887
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$13,105
15,492
42,612
9,477
9,024
13,615
10,180
31,320
16,536
1,840
2,641
7,481
Total Annual Cost
Project
$35,081
47,109
64,171
26,089
24,964
35,622
25,040
51,020
43,988
7,407
7,309
18,368
Per
Du
$115
99
135
108
112
119
114
102
108
123
122
113
* East Sit*
•• West Sit*
-------
The planning stages of all projects have progressed resulting in
changes in the characteristics of projects, and it is likely that some
features of the systems adopted herein are now obsolete. However, we
feel that the guidelines for analysis contained in the report are sound.
Preliminary economic analysis of the various improved alternative
systems show initial capital costs ranging from about $230 to $1,200 per
dwelling unit, depending on the type of system and project density.
Considering annual operating cost of each improved type of system and
prorating capital cost over the life expectancy of system components,
total annual costs per dwelling unit generally prevail in the range of
$102 to $123 or about $8.50 to $10.50 per month. It is of interest to
note that the pneumatic systems supplemented with kitchen grinders as
considered for the Memphis project, where systems' capital costs (per
dwelling unit) are the highest, total annual costs per dwelling unit
are expected to be about $135 or $11.25 per month.
Proposed Continuation of this Study
The foregoing has described the principal activities undertaken
under this contract. It was anticipated that certain of the recommended
systems would be installed and that a continuing research program of the
systems would be carried out. Tentative selection of the Memphis and
Jersey City locations has since been made by HUD for installation of the
xxiii
-------
pneumatic collection systems. In connection with this performance
specifications (Appendix F) for the pneumatic collection systems
were prepared as guidelines for procurement and evaluation of the
system design.
As part of the current study (Phase I), the general
scope of the continuing research program (Phase ll) was prepared. The
total scope of work to be undertaken in Phase II was subdivided into
the design, construction, and operational stages with basic objectives
in each stage identified in detail within this report.
xxiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and, through interagency cooperation with the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
was coordinated with activities and goals of EPA.
The consultants wish to acknowledge the assistance of EPA during
the preparation of this study and the cooperation of staff members of
HUD's Operation Breakthrough program, as well as the Site Planners and
Developers of each Breakthrough project.
Sincere appreciation is also extended to the numerous equipment
manufacturers who contributed time and effort in this study.
XXV
-------
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES
This study was developed as a result of interdepartmental coopera-
tion of the USDHUD and EPA. The Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs was selected by HUD to direct an investigation and research
of solid waste management practices for the nine housing developments
in HUD's Operation Breakthrough Program, with the activities to be
carried out during conceptual planning stages of these projects.
Need for the study was based on the concept that solid waste man-
agement practices in all types of building complexes are dictated by
identifiable systems that require initial consideration in conceptual
planning stages, not unlike considerations given to heating, air-
conditioning, and plumbing systems.
Although the extent of mechanization of the solid waste system
today is highly variable due to the relatively high costs and limited
types of equipment adaptable to such systems, it is the goal of this
study to emphasize the need for mechanization, wherever possible, as the
sole permanent means of improving standards of operations of solid waste
handling. This neither discounts the need for resident cooperation and
skill of operating personnel required for satisfactory performance of
-1-
-------
such systems, nor does it omit the desired segregation of wastes as a
function within the system for ultimate reclamation and recycling.
Purpose of Study
This study is primarily concerned with solid waste systems in
individual types of residential buildings, ranging from the conventional
single family detached dwelling to the high-rise multifamily dwelling,
as well as combinations of dwelling types found in contemporary
residential complexes, and including those ancillary facilities within
the complexes.
The purposes of this study are multiple, including (1) evaluation
of conventional and unconventional devices and methods that may be
considered in the various types of dwelling units and complexes,
(2) development and identification of systems (combinations of devices
and methods) that are feasible in housing complexes, (3) establishment
of procedures for the evaluation and selection of such systems as
guidelines for system design by planners and developers, CO application
of these theories to the actual projects of HDD's Operation Breakthrough,
and (5) selection of those Operation Breakthrough projects where
improved systems are feasible, and prepare a proposed plan for conducting
research on such projects that may be implemented.
-2-
-------
Study Objectives
The ultimate objective of this project is to improve solid waste
management in individual dwelling units and residential complexes. The
initial objectives under Phase I, as^reported herein, are to recommend
solid waste systems for the Operation Breakthrough housing developments
which will provide an improved level of service. Under Phase II, a
proposed continuation of this study, broad objectives will include
(l) the evaluation of design and construction of selected systems for
various Operation Breakthrough sites, and (2) testing and evaluation of
the performance of these systems over an extended operational period.
Characteristics of Solid Waste Systems
The descriptive nomenclature of solid waste systems in residential
complexes, and the definitions of functions within the system, have
been adopted in part from an earlier "Study co-authored by the
consultants.
Functions of the System: For purposes of this study, the four
principal functions of a solid waste system are limited to waste handling,
storage, processing, and disposal.
*Solid Waste Handling and Disposal in Multistory Buildings and
Hospitals, County of Los Angeli
les
-3-
-------
The term "waste handling" includes all those functions associated
with the transfer or movement of solid waste materials after creation,
excluding storage and actual processing and/or ultimate disposal methods
that may be employed. These waste handling fuctions are limited to and
defined as follows:
collection - methods and equipment used in (l) the pickup of
accumulated wastes from the initial point of deposit
or subsequent storage points and (2) loading of
vehicles or other means of conveyance for transport.
transport - methods and equipment used in the vertical or
horizontal movement of materials.
discharge - methods and equipment used to unload wastes from the
carrier or transporter.
Storage of wastes is the interim containment of accumulated
materials in either loose, compacted, or other processed form prior to
subsequent handling, processing, or disposal.
Waste processing is considered as those preparation functions, such
as bagging or encapsulating of waste materials as well as treatments
Involving volume reduction through changes in size and shape, uniformity
or consistency. The degree of volume reduction and corresponding
-4-
-------
increase in density varies with the method or combination of methods of
these processes which precede ultimate disposal may include:
Bagging Shredding Pulverizing
Encapsulating Chipping Dewatering
Compaction Grinding Baling
Crushing Pulping Extrusion
Disposal is considered herein as the final treatment or combination
of treatments in the conversion of wastes to innocuous materials or
useable by-products. Generally, within the scope of this study, the
significance of disposal is limited to the compatibility of residential
solid waste systems to prevailing off-site disposal methods. However,
destructive disposal processes, such as on-site incineration and grinding
of domestic food wastes will later be considered as alternatives within
the building system.
Nomenclature of the System: Identification of the system's basic
components and working parts or functions of these component's is a
prerequisite to detailed investigation and analysis of actual working
systems. For this identification, the requirements of the solid waste
system (handling, storage, processing, and disposal), serving a
residential complex and ancillary buildings, were resolved into four
basic components or sub-systems:
-5-
-------
I. The unit system--those initial functions performed in
containing and moving waste from Its point of creation to
and including the point of storage, processing, or disposal
within the unit. A unit may be defined as a single dwelling
unit or ancillary service area.
2. The inter-unit system—those functions performed in the
vertical or horizontal transfer of wastes from two or more
unit storage areas to and including an intermediate storage,
processing, or disposal point serving a group of units.
3. The inter-building system—those functions performed in
the transfer of wastes from intermediate storage points to
and including a central on-site storage, processing, or
disposal point.
1». The off-site system—those functions performed in external
transfer of wastes from the central storage area to and
including off-site processing or disposal.
Definitions of Solid Waste Materials
The comprehensive terminology and definitions as employed by the
American Public Works Association (APWA) in their publication "Municipal
Refuse Disposal" describing wastes and the nature and character of refuse.
materials have been adopted for use in this study. APWA terminology and
-6-
-------
definitions pertinent to this study are as follows:
1. Waste refers to the useless, unwanted, or discarded
materials resulting from normal community activities,
including solids, liquids, and gases.
2. Solid wastes are classed as refuse.
3. The physical state of wastes may change in their
conveyance or treatment. Dewatered sludge from waste water
treatment plants may become solid wastes; garbage may be
ground and discharged into sewers becoming waterborne
wastes; and fly ash may be removed from stack discharges
and disposed of as solid or as waterborne wastes.
k. Refuse comprises all of the solid wastes of the community,
including semi-liquid or wet wastes with insufficient
moisture or other liquid contents to be free-flowing.
5. The component materials of refuse can be classified by
(a) point of origin, (b) the nature of the material itself,
and (c) character of materials.
6. Special wastes are defined as (a) hazardous wastes by reason
of their pathological, explosive, radioactive, or toxic
nature, and (b) security wastes: confidential documents,
negotiable papers, etc.
-7-
-------
Table 1 presents the APWA classification of refuse materials
defining the character, nature, and kinds of typical materials as well
as their conventional point of origin. Nearly all these kinds of
refuse materials are produced in major building complexes. However,
for purposes of this study, identification of solid waste materials
generated in residential complexes will be generally limited to garbage,
rubbish, bulky waste, and trash, with the latter defined as all waste
materials exterior to buildings.
-8-
-------
Kinder
Character
TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF REFUSE MATERIALS
Composition or Nature
Origin or Source
Garbage
Rubbish
or
Mixed Refuse
Ashes
Bulky
Wastes
Street
refuse
Dead
animals
Abandoned
vehicles
Construction
& Demolition
wastes
Industrial
refuse
Special
wastes
Animal and
Agricultural
wastes
Sewage
treatment
residues
Wastes from the preparation, cooking, and
serving of food.
Market refuse, waste from the handling,
storage, and sale of produce and meats
Combustible
(primarily
organic)
Noncombustibl e
(primarily
inorganic)
Paper, cardboard, cartons
Wood, boxes, excelsior
Plastics
Rags, cloth, bedding
Leather, rubber
Grass, leaves, yard trimmings
Metals, tin cans, metal foils
Dirt
Stones, bricks, ceramics,
crockery
Gloss, bottles
Other mineral refuse
Residue from fires used for cooking, heating
buildings, incinerators, etc.
Large auto parts, tires
Stoves, refrigerators, other large appliances
Furniture, large crates
Trees, branches, palm fronds, stumps, flotage
Street sweepings, dirt
Leaves
Catch basin dirt
Contents of litter receptacles
Small animals: cats, dogs, poultry, etc.
Large animals: horses, cows, etc.
Automobiles, trucks
Lumber, roofing, and sheathing scraps
Rubble, broken concrete, plaster, etc.
Conduit, pipe, wire, insulation, etc.
Solid wasted resulting from industrial
processes and manufacturing operations,
such as: food-processing wastes, boiler
house cinders, wood, plastic, and metal
scraps and shavings, etc.
Hazardous wastes: pathological waste:,
explosives, radioactive materials
Security wastes: confidential documents,
negotiable papers, etc.
Manures, crop residues
Coarse screenings, grit, septic tank sludge,
dewatered sludge
From:
households,
institutions,
and commercial
concerns such
as:
hotels,
stores,
restaurants,
markets, etc.
From:
streets,
sidewalks,
alleys,
vacant lots, etc .
From:
factories,
power plants,
etc.
Households,
hospitals,
institutions,
stores,
industry, etc.
Farms,
feed lots
Sewage treat-
ment plants,
septic tanks
SOURCE: APV/A - REFUSE COLLECTION PRACTICES
-9-
-------
Description of Dwelling Unit and Building Types
Prevailing descriptive terminology of dwelling units and building
types, as used by the Site Planners of the Operation Breakthrough
projects, has been adopted for purposes of this study.
Classifications of buildings are limited to low-rise (LR) as
under four stories, medium-rise (MR) between four to seven stories,
and high-rise (HR) as seven stories or more.
Classifications of dwelling units are limited to multifamily (MF) ,
single family attached (SFA) , and single family detached (SFD).
Combinations of dwelling unit types with building height
classifications are generally limited to the following:
LR-SFD - the conventional detached dwelling unit
LR-SFA - the conventional row-house or townhouse
LR-MF - the conventional garden apartment
MR-MF - conventional apartment buildings four to seven
stories
HR-MF - conventional apartment buildings seven stories
or more
Contemporary housing developments, including Operation
Breakthrough's prototype communities, may contain any combination of
building classifications, dwelling unit types and size mix, presenting
complex requirements in on-site solid waste management.
-10-
-------
REQUIREMENTS OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Certain factors affecting the selection of solid waste system
components are common to all housing developments as well as the
Operation Breakthrough projects. These factors are generally related
to the system variations that are peculiar to the various types of
dwelling units and the occupants' expected habits. Other factors such
as types and quantities of wastes produced, the level of service
desired, and economic considerations must be related to the individual
project.
System Variations by Dwelling Unit Types
Mechanical accessories for handling, storing, or processing of
solid wastes in the home are limited. With the exception of the kitchen
garbage grinder, none of the available accessories are compatible with
the system requirements of all types of dwelling units.
Occupants of single family attached (SFA) and detached (SFD)
dwelling units are conditioned to the self-contained do-it-yourself
aspects of waste storage and normally tolerate such facilities as the
backdoor garbage can. Recent modifications in storage systems have
seen the advent of various types of liners and bag systems, including
special bag-holding devices which eliminate the need for the
conventional container. Special mobile containers which are compatible
-11-
-------
with automatic loading devices on rear and side loading packer trucks
have also been introduced. A kitchen compactor appliance now being
marketed is one of the latest devices that appears compatible with the
single family unit waste system. All of the above have the common
purpose of providing interim storage for collection services of varying
frequencies. However, each of the methods vary in characteristics or
level of service. The occupants may also be provided with "backdoor"
collection service, although gradually increasing costs of such service
are dictating that curbside collection will likely prevail in most
areas in the future.
Occupants of low-rise multifamily (LR/MF) dwelling units (such
as garden apartments or the older two and three story apartment buildings
with common stairs and interior or exterior corridor access to individual
apartments) have a differing requirement in storage and handling of
wastes. Although in some cases facilities provided for storage are
comparable to those provided for single family dwelling, including
rows of garbage cans in alleys or service areas, minor improvements
such as common storage bins are gradually being adopted. In the case
of buildings over two stories, chutes may also provide vertical transport
to a central storage room and/or bin. More recent modifications to such
systems include central compactors or balers at the base of chutes in
-12-
-------
buildings over two stories, or self-contained console compactors on the
ground floor. If elevators are available for servicing the units and
handling the large bales, locating console compactors on upper floors
may also be practical.
The conventional systems found in medium-rise multifamily
(MR/MF) and high-rise multifamily (HR/MF) apartment buildings, are
generally limited to the trash chute for the vertical transport of
solid wastes to a central storage room and/or bin and often coupled with
on-site incineration. Advances in systems for these types of dwelling
units have been largely limited to improvements in on-site incinerators
and the development of compactors, both being adaptable for manual or
chute feeding.
Contemporary housing developments may consist of any of the above
building types exclusively or a mix of any combination of types. The
Operation Breakthrough developments are likely representative of the
combination of types of dwelling units, building types, and ancillary
facilities that will be encountered in contemporary projects.
Selection of solid waste systems for such complexes may include
consideration of a conventional system for each type of building and
may prove feasible. However, building arrangements and access within
the complex may limit the use of conventional storage and collection
-13-
-------
methods or in fact require management to implement an on-site system
which replaces or supplements local municipal services. In case of
large high density developments, mechanization of collection and storage
functions by use of pneumatic conveyor systems or slurry pipelines may
prove feasible. However, for conventional size projects, the usual
solution within limits of proven methods will rely largely on manually
operated vehicular transport. Economies in such methods will rely on
compaction of wastes before transport to minimize bulk handling.
User Habits: Selection of systems for each housing development
and the various types of dwelling units within the complex will, to a
large extent, be governed by the judgement of user acceptance (the willing
maximum effort and continuing cooperation of the tenant). For purposes of
this study, the following basic assumptions are made:
1. Residents of LR/SFA, SFD, and MF can be expected to remove daily
accumulations of wastes from within the dwelling unit to a
conveniently located storage facility adjacent to the service
entrance.
2. Residents of LR/SFA, SFD, and MF can be expected to hand-carry
weekly accumulations of contained wastes a nominal distance of 100
feet to a point of deposit (interim storage).
-14-
-------
3. Residents of LR/MF apartments (above first floor level) will remove
daily accumulations but will not by choice remove the heavy and
bulky accumulations of longer periods.
A. Residents of MR and HR/MF apartments can be expected to hand-carry
daily accumulations of wastes a nominal horizontal distance of
100 feet to a point of deposit (such as the trash chute room)
5. Vertical transport of wastes in elevators by residents will not be
permitted.
6. Distance limitation indicated above may be modified, providing the
route of travel is a common route to other ancillary facilities such
as parking areas, laundry, etc.
Level of Service Required; The criteria for the level of service
indicated for Operation Breakthrough projects can be directly related
to several basic design objectives which appear common to all those
projects in the program. These objectives are as follows:
1. Preserve the natural assets of the site.
2. Create an optimum living environment.
3. Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts.
k. Maintain recreational areas that are safe and secure with easy
survei1 lance.
5. Provide methods of central service and facility design to reduce
development and operating costs.
-15-
-------
6. Minimize dwelling unit development costs.
Selection of the solid waste system and management practices can be
compatible with those design objectives concerned with environmental
characteristics and site configuration. However, it is unlikely that
development and operating costs can be minimized while, at the same time,
upgrading the level of service over conventional methods. Compromises,
either in the level of service and/or economics, may be necessary in the
final selection of the system.
The level of service and related solid waste management practices
that are compatible with broad design objectives of the Operation
Breakthrough projects must be identified preceding system design. The
desired level of service for purposes of this study shall include the
following minimum standards of operation:
1. Installation of garbage grinders is preferred in all dwelling
units to process and evacuate the majority of putrescible wastes at
the source,
2. Where garbage grinders are not installed, a minimum frequency
of collection of wastes containing putrescible materials shall be
established as twice weekly.
3. Where garbage grinders are installed, the collection frequency
of mixed wastes shall be established as at least once weekly.
-16-
-------
*t. Accumulations of loose wastes shall be evacuated daily from
dwel1 ing uni ts .
5. Accumulations of compacted wastes in a closed container shall be
evacuated from dwelling units at least once weekly.
6. Individual outside storage facilities for waste materials, serving
single family dwelling units, shall be limited to closed sanitary
containers (lined cans or bag system) located above grade for safe
handling by collectors and screened from public view.
7. A central storage facility, serving a group of dwelling units, shall
be limited to adequately sized closed containers for loose bagged
wastes, stationary packer containers, or a resident-operated
console compactor station, screened from view, yet readily
accessible to selected collection vehicles and service personnel.
8. Vertical transport of mixed wastes in medium- and high-rise
structures shall be limited to a gravity chute.
9. Upon discharge of wastes from the vertical transport element in
medium- and high-rise structures, materials shall be processed
and/or containerized until collection or transport can be continued
via an adaptable mechanized system.
10. Conventional collection vehicles will be permitted on principal
access streets and drives where safe forward maneuverability of
vehicles is possible.
-17-
-------
11. Small satellite collection vehicles or multipurpose maintenance
vehicles will be permitted in constricted service areas and
pedestrian ways where safe forward maneuverability of vehicles is
possible.
12. Vehicular collection of wastes shall be limited to daylight and
offpeak traffic hours.
13. Central storage and/or processing areas serving the total housing
complex shall be situated in a non-public enclosed area with
adequate protection against fire, noise, air pollution, and
unauthorized access, yet permitting easy and safe access to
service vehicles and operating personnel.
1*». All mechanical transport systems such as pneumatic conveyors shall
have adequate protective devices at charging stations to permit
maximum safety in operation.
The above suggested standards, related to various methods of waste
transport, processing, and storage, are basically concerned with
environmental quality control within systems operation. Such standards
are broadly applicable to all projects, yet may likely be refined when
a specific project is considered.
-18-
-------
System Loadings (Quantities and Types of Wastes): The principal
classifications of solid wastes generated in residential complexes are
identified in this study as garbage, rubbish, bulky waste, and trash as
defined by APWA classifications presented earlier. For the purpose of
this study, an average daily per capita (resident) production factor
of four pounds has been used in estimating daily quantities of wastes
expected to be generated. This allowed production factor is based upon
an expected average generation of 0.5 pounds of garbage, 3.0 pounds of
rubbish, including bulky wastes, and 0.5 pounds of trash. For purposes
of distribution within the residential complex, it is expected that the
majority of garbage and rubbish will be generated in the dwelling
units, with an allowance of only about 10 percent of the rubbish to be
generated in ancillary areas. The allowance for trash is expected to
consist of all materials generated in the outdoor areas, including
parkways, parking, recreation, and pedestrian areas.
The above per capita production rate for wastes generated within
the dwelling units is comparable to the national average of 3.0 pounds,
as determined in the 1968 National Survey of Community Solid Waste
Practices. This survey also cited an average annual increase of about
k percent could be expected. Additional unpublished studies by the
Office of Solid Waste Management further estimated the average density
-19-
-------
of normal residential wastes at 170 pounds per cubic yard or about
6 pounds per cubic foot.
Utilizing the density factor of 6 pounds per cubic foot, source
distribution of daily per capita production of total wastes is further
summarized as follows:
Source
Owe 11i ng Un i t
Anci1lary Areas
Outdoor Areas
Total (Ibs)
Total (cu ft) 0.08
Total estimated quantities of wastes later determined for each of
the Operation Breakthrough sites are based upon the above average per
capita production factors, together with population estimates of the
respective projects. The adoption of average per capita production
factors are considered reasonable and adequate for estimating daily
waste quantities generated in residential complexes such as proposed
in the Operation Breakthrough program, including basic resident related
services and recreational facilities. However, additional allowances
should be provided for non-resident related facilities such as
Garbage
Ibs
0.5
-
_
0.5
0.08
Rubbi sh
Ibs
2.7
0.3
_
3.0
0.5
Trash
Ibs
-
-
0.5
0.5
0.08
T<
Ibs
3.2
0.3
0.5
k.O
-
Dtal
cu ft
0.53
.05
0.08
-
0.66
-20-
-------
commercial space, office space, and schools that may be incorporated in
these complexes. Present data available on ancillary facilities within
the Operation Breakthrough are inconclusive at the time of preparation
of this report, and the above noted allowances have been adopted, in
most cases, without further adjustment.
-21-
-------
METHODS AND EQUIPMENT FOR USE IN SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
This study involves the investigation of the various methods and
equipment which can be used in residential complexes to form a system for
accomplishing the on-site transfer of solid wastes from points of origin
or generation to areas for storage or processing prior to off-site
disposal. It is also concerned with the effect of such systems on
off-site transfer and disposal methods.
The problems considered are those encountered in ridding the
individual household of its daily accumulation of wastes. Within the
household itself the materials to be disposed of will include food
wastes, paper, glass, metal, and plastic products, and miscellaneous
unwanted or broken articles which are of no further use. Outdoor wastes
such as grass, shrubbery cuttings, and general yard litter are also
cons idered.
The primary function of any solid waste system is to reduce manual
operation to a minimum by the proper use of devices and mechanisms
without compromising sanitation. The components of such systems may be
as simple as a special paper bag suspended in a holder; a plastic bag
or liner for a barrel or other container; or they may be quite complex
and semi-automated installations such as a stationary compactor with a
pneumatic conveyor to load it. Regardless of simplicity or complexity,
-22-
-------
any system should accomplish its purpose safely and efficiently,
reduce human handling as much as reasonably possible, and be economically
feasible.
The installation of a solid waste system in any residential complex
will not automatically solve the problems of handling and disposal. No
system will function satisfactorily unless it is properly used. All
tenants or other users must perform some manual operations and they
should be adequately instructed. Some hand separation of wastes may be
required, especially if salvage and recycling is to be practiced.
The evaluation of various types of equipment and system components
has taken into consideration many factors. They include, but are not
limited to, the following items:
Capabi1? ties - What will the device or mechanism do? Will its use
be an improvement over common or usual practices?
Reliabi1i ty - Will the equipment carry out its designed functions
with little attention beyond periodic preventive maintenance?
Has its effectiveness been demonstrated in use over a reasonable
period of time or merely predicted?
Service - Servicing beyond the capabilities of the local building
maintenance staff may be occasionally required. Are properly
trained service men readily available through the equipment
manufacturer or his local distributor?
-23-
-------
Safety of Operation - Some operation of equipment and systems will
be carried out by tenants or, at best, by building personnel with
limited mechanical knowledge or abilities. Is the proposed
equipment reasonably foolproof? Does it have safeguards which
discourage careless use?
Ease of Operation - Unless functions and actual operations of
systems are easily carried out or operated, they may be ignored or
"short circuited" by paid personnel and certainly by "paying"
tenants. If tenants or others are deterred in the use of systems,
because of the complicated mechanical nature or difficult use of
system components, then existing problems have not been solved and
new ones may have been created, including the continuing cost of the
system without benefit of use.
Efficiency - The component selected must perform efficiently and
with a minimum of attention. It must be relatively trouble-free
and require only very occasional servicing. It should carry out its
complete cycle of functions each and every time it is used or
actuated.
Pollution of the Environment - No component selected should pollute
or contaminate the environment. Components should, if possible,
-24-
-------
reduce environmental pollution below the levels presently
associated with like functions. Some increase in operational
cost is justifiable if pollution or contamination levels can
be made lower.
Economy - Several economic factors have already been touched upon
but of course, the principal ones are capital investment and
operational costs. The precedence which these two factors may
take, one over the other, cannot be categorically stated for all
conditions. Each must be weighed against the other for every
type of equipment under consideration. First cost is of the
utmost importance but, in many instances, it may be offset by
the probability of the long and trouble-free life of specific
mechanisms. Components produced by well established companies,
having a proven history of satisfactory operation, should be
given appropriate consideration, all other factors being equal.
Health Hazards - No hazard to health should be created or amplified
by any device or mechanism.
Esthetics - Equipment and its arrangement should not be offensive
to the senses. The processes of the handling and disposal of
solid wastes do not lend themselves to beaut ification, of
themselves, but every effort must be made to reduce or eliminate
offending sights, odors, and noises.
-25-
-------
Total Feas ibi1 i ty - Any final selection must be governed by analysis
of the several factors which contribute to project feasibility.
Some factors cannot be reduced to numerical values which can be
subjected to common arithmetical manipulation. In the final
analysis, human judgment must be the deciding factor.
The foregoing factors are not necessarily arranged in proper
sequence of their relative importance, nor has every possible
consideration been included. The various items will carry differing
weights and values, depending upon the type of device or equipment
being considered.
The materials included in this section of the report have been
organized by the following functional classifications:
Handling Methods and Equipment
Storage Methods and Equipment
Processing Methods and Equipment
Descriptions of various types of equipment are provided in brief
form. Some of the equipment included in the discussion is still in the
conceptual or experimental stage. Still other components or systems are
available but not yet well tried in practical operation. All of the
equipment discussed may not be particularly applicable to the housing
projects under study. They have been included to provide a better
-26-
-------
rounded report on possible methods of handling, storage, processing, and
disposal of solid wastes. Some of them, while somewhat exotic today, may
be commonly accepted practices tomorrow.
Also included are tabulations of currently available models or types
of devices and equipment. These tabulations include, where applicable and
available from manufacturers' data, space requirements and approximate
prices. In general, prices shown are those given by manufacturers and/or
distributors as list. Freight and/or installation costs are riot included
in the tabulations. The various manufacturers are identified only by code
numbers in the tabulations. The code numbers applicable to the specific
manufacturers are provided in Appendix A. Listing of manufacturers by
equipment types is provided in Appendix B. An alphabetical list of
manufacturers, including many whose products are not included in the
tabulations, is also provided in Appendix C.
Handling Methods and Equipment
Included in this section, as well as in those following, are brief
descriptions of various means of handling solid wastes and some of the
equipment which is available to accomplish the objectives through the
reduction of manual operation. It is recognized that some of the data
included is not applicable to all, or possibly, any of the housing
complexes which comprise the present project, but may have value for
future reference or further study.
-27-
-------
The information is arranged alphabetically, by types of equipment,
and is not ranked in any order of value or precedence.
Cart, Col lection, Refuse; Wheeled and castered refuse collection
carts can provide both storage and transport facilities in a single
piece of equipment. Many styles are available, such as tilting, pickup,
lift, hamper, etc. Those made of resilient, heavy plastic materials are
durable, safe to handle, and can be readily cleaned.
The approximate capacities of the wheeled carts vary from 12 cubic
feet to one cubic yard. Castered carts, generally of the hamper-type,
vary in capacities from eight to 36 cubic feet. They are less convenient
to use than the tilting type but also are less costly.
Castered carts of the hamper and barrel types are made by
Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc. and Fusion Rubbermaid.
An innovation in the use of large, wheeled carts is a lifting
mechanism which can be attached to the receiving hoppers of mobile
packers. Two such systems are on the market and, although without long
experience records, appear to be practical additions to refuse collection
methods. These hydraulically operated lifts cost about $500 each and are
of such size as to permit a pair to be attached to the rear of most
mobile packers. One of these systems can also be used with side-loading
packers. Their attachment does not appear to interfere with the
-28-
-------
CART, COLLECTION, REFUSE
to
Make
unco
14001
14002
Model
1010
1014
1015
4010
2008
2012
2014
2020
2029
w«
Type
Pick up
Tilt
Tilt
Tilt
Lift
Hamper
Hamper
Hamper
Hamper
Hamper
Lift
Wheeled
or
Costered
Wheeled
Wheeled
Wheeled
Wheeled
' Wheeled
Castered
Castered
Castered
Castered
Castered
Wheeled
Approximate
Capacity
8 cu ft
.5 cu yd
1 cu yd
1 cu yd
80 gals
8cu ft
12cuft
17cuft
24cuft
36 cu ft
82 gals
Maximum
Load
Lbs
NA
700
800
1000
200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
200
Overall
Dimension
Inches
31x20x37H
55x29x36H
65x36x42 H
65x36x42 H
37x27x46H
34x22x28H
36x25x34H
39x28x36H
' 48x31x30H
51x39x43H
37x28x41 H
Weight
Lbs
28
138
159
170
54
35
60
71
83
125
45
Lids
Available
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lift ••-
System
Available
No
No
No
No
$500
No
No
No
No
No ;,
$500
Price
$ 50
135
160
175
45
55
75
87
111
155
40
REMARKS
(see also #10004)
Lifts can be attached
to mobile packers
Lifts can be attached
to mobile packers
-------
INDIVIDUAL CONTAINER LIFT MECHANISMS
-30-
-------
conventional methods of loading mobile packers.
The special carts used with these lift systems consist of a
two-wheeled, sturdy, tubular metal frame to which is attached a plastic
container of 80 gallons, or about eleven cubic feet capacity. The
cart frame has convenient handles and the container is fitted with a
plastic lid.
In use, the container-cart can be kept indoors or outside and can
be easily wheeled about for the collection of yard rubbish and cuttings.
When filled it can be readily moved to a collection point or to a mobile
packer. The appearance of the cart is not objectionable in residential
areas and its use avoids bodily contact with a dirty container by both
the householder and the collector.
The materials and construction of these carts are durable. The
handling of the heavy plastic container does not create objectionable
noise.
Chute, Gravi ty: Although this classification of transport
equipment includes such types as spiral chutes, this discussion is limited
to the vertical tube type. Tubes are commonly fabricated of aluminum,
aluminized steel, or stainless steel, and range upward in cost in the
order named. Aluminum is not recommended for high-rise rubbish chutes,
but if used, should not be thinner than #16 Brown & Sharpe gauge.
-31-
-------
Aluminum being softer is less durable than steel. The walls of an
aluminum chute are subject to abrasion and possible puncture from
heavy and sharp objects which might be put into a chute. Tubes made of
#18 or #16 U.S. gauge aluminized steel are most commonly used in
apartment installations for the handling of rubbish or trash. In
high-rise structures the heavier gauge is used for the lower floors and
the lighter gauge sheet may be used for the upper stories. Stainless
steel Types kQS and ^30, of #18 or #16 gauge is also used. Unlike
aluminized steel, it has no coating to wear; has higher impact strength
and a longer life, but is more expensive.
The chutes are commonly made in cylindrical form, as opposed to a
square configuration, to provide greater strength with the use of less
material for a given diameter than the same dimensioned square shape.
The cylinder, having no corners, is more readily cleaned and provides
less probability of the accumulation of dirt and putrescible matter
which might attract insects. It is possible to prefabricate cylindrical
sections of tubes which might be made of cement-asbestos material or
lightweight precast concrete but the weight of long sections of tubes of
these materials would be much greater than the same length of metal tube,
Chutes are available in diameters from 12" to 36", with 2V being
average and usual. All sizes can be furnished with suitable intake
-32-
-------
CHUTE, GRAVITY
Make
2000
2001
CO
CO
i
Diameter
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
24"
Intake
Door
15"xl8"
15"xl8"
15"xl8"
15"xl8"
15"xl8"
15"xl8"
Chute
Material
Alumlnized
Steel
Aluminum
Stainless
Steel
Aluminized
Steel
Aluminum
Stainless
Steel
U.S.
Gage
'16
#16
#16
'16
'16
'16
PRICE
Per Story Erection Total
$186.00
$140.00
$264.00
$158. 00 to
$167.00
$165.00
$220. 00 to
$240.00
$48.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
$60.00
$234.00
$190.00
$314.00
$208. 00 to
$237.00
$215.00
$280. 00 to
$300.00
REMARKS
Optional equipment: sprinklers; disinfecting system; sound
Insulation; horizontal belt conveyor
Optional equipment: sprinklers; disinfecting system; sound
insulation; smoke detectors
-------
doors, either side or bottom hinged, for installation on various floor
levels. Accessories such as back draft baffles at intake stations;
door locks; sprinklers; disinfecting systems; sound insulation; roof
vents, etc. can be furnished. A disinfecting and sanitizing unit can
(and should be) added at the top of each vertical riser in the trash
chute system. These units are pressure-operated sprays which add
disinfectants to the spray water. The general cleanliness and odor-free
condition of the chute is largely dependent upon the frequency of the use
of the sanitizing unit.
Prices of basic standard chutes, excluding required building
enclosures (chase walls), will vary from $HfO to $270 per story,
depending upon the materials of which they are made. Erection cost will
be about $50 to $60 per story. If an aluminized steel chute, 2V1 in
diameter, is used as a base or standard and its cost, not including
erection, is considered to be 100 percent, then a chute made of aluminum
in similar gauge will cost about 25 percent less. A comparable
stainless chute will cost about ^2 percent more. Aluminized steel is
considered by chute manufacturers to be standard and to have a life
equal to that of the average building in which it is installed.
Conveyor, Li tter, Vacuum: This unique vacuum device, originally
designed for collecting leaves and cleaning small dry debris from shallow
-34-
-------
LITTER VACUUM CONVEYOR
-35-
-------
ditches, also has other applications and capabilities such as cleaning
general litter from around trash dumping or processing areas.
This accessory, manufactured by Truck Equipment Corporation and
called a Tecorp Leaf Collector, can be added to Truxmore side-loader
mobile packers at an added cost of about $3,500. It consists of a
gasoline motor driven vacuum unit which can be mounted between the packer
body and the truck cab. A large diameter, flexible hose and nozzle are
connected to the unit when in use and can easily be handled by one man.
The manufacturer claims collected debris passes through a self-cleaning
impeller which chops the material and blows it into the packer body.
The suction hose is easily detachable for storing.
Conveyor, Pneumatic: This method of conveying consists of a system
of tubes in which air, either under positive or negative pressure, is used
to move specially designed carriers, loose or bagged objects, or bulk
materials. In its simplest, and probably best known form, it is used to
transport documents or small objects, in special containers, within
commercial or institutional buildings.
Pneumatic conveying of loose or bulk materials is a common method
used by industry today. The same principles are being applied
successfully to the transport of solid wastes in building complexes.
-36-
-------
There are presently three known systems of different origin in limited
use today and each will be briefly discussed.
Envirogenics Company: One transport system was developed in Sweden
under the trade name "AB Centralsug". It is now produced and marketed
in the United States by Envirogenics Company, a division of
Aerojet-General Corp. under the trade name "AVAC"—Automated Vacuum
Collection systems. A pilot system was built by Aerojet-General at its
El Monte, California, plant. Originally conceived and designed to handle
soiled linen and solid wastes in hospitals, its use for those purposes
is fairly extensive in Sweden and to a lesser degree elsewhere in
Europe. This system has also been adapted to the transport of solid
wastes in large residential complexes in Sweden.
The AVAC system is described by the manufacturer as a horizontal
system of pipes with an exhauster at one end and air inlets at the end
of each branch line. When the system is in operation, a vacuum is
developed at the inlet of the exhauster and a high velocity air stream
is drawn through the transport pipes from the air inlets, one at a time.
Throughout the system, vertical gravity chutes are provided with valved
transitions to the horizontal pipe system. Waste material is collected
and stored at the base of the vertical chutes and then dropped into
the moving air stream, one chute at a time. The air stream carries the
-37-
-------
SECONDARY AIR INLETS
M
SOLID WASTE 1- ] 4-LINEN
DISPOSAL CHUTE I | J DISPOSAL CHUTE
^VERTICAL GRAVITY CHUTES
^TH MULTIPLE CHARGING STATIONS
SOUND ArrENUATOK
-'PROCESS OR TRANSFER EQUIP-*- I \\
mcin.rotof. compocior. arina.r, tic I } J >\
\
MANIFOLD VALVES
Schematic Diagram of an A VAC System
Shown above It a simplified diagrammatic sketch of o typical dual system for transporting solid woite and soiled linen. Directly above in the sketch ti
the air Inlet, a screened openin0. In o system with bronchei, butterfly valve* are provided downstream of the air inlet to enture that only one branch
Operate* at any given time.
Proceeding to the right of the air inlet, the tlcetch port ray i two vertical gravity chutei - one for wild waste and the other for toiled linen - with
chorglnQ l Ha r Ion i on each floor of the structure. At the bottom of the chutei, material iloroge sections and pneumatic cylinder-operated slide-type
discharge valve* ore incorporated.
In multilhwy buildings, bypouei normally will be provided around the valves to allow a constant air How ond to maintain o slight negative pressure
In the vertical chutes. This Is maintained by a mall exhaust blower. As Indicated, secondary Inleti ore provided at rhe top of the chwtei on the
exterior of the structure. This arrangement continually removes air carrying dust, odon, or contaminant* from the vertical gravity chutei. When
the ty(tv*n includes a seriei of vertical chutei in one branch, the discharge valves will operate In sequence; the first valve to open will be the one
closest to the exhauster. To the righr of the gravity chutes (the next branch downitream) Is a typical floor-mounred charging iration. Such unitt
con be provided in the garden for cutn'ngi, in the kitchen for cans, boxes, bogi, wrappings and other waste; or In any area in which there might be
o ropld accumulation of waste.
A high velocity air stream came* the iroteriati from the (notarial storage sections ond discharge valves through the material rronqgort pipes to their
respective collection hoppers In the laundry service area, and in the equipment room or service building. The air continues through the collection
hoppers leaving the material load in the hopper. A grating or screen ii provided in the hopper to protect the exhauster by preventing coarse
materiall fam being carried further downitream. Provisions are generally made far automatic removal of trash from the solid waste collection
hopper to luch processing equipment as thredd«n, balen, compocton, incinerators or other equipment used for troth disposal. From the soiled
linen collection hopper, automatic removal is generally provided to a truck loading facility, or to transfer equipment far removal to appropriate
tfatiom In the laundry.
The air then flows through air exhaust pipn and manifold valves to on air-cleaning device (identified In the sketch 01 an air filter). The extent
of nitration Is detemined by specific customer requirement*, A wide range of Hirers Is available, from throw-away types of nominal capability
ID bog ft I ten, electrostatic filters, or absolute filters.
Finally, the air discharges through the •»Kou»t*r, which \* o heavy duty blower. The capacity of the exhauster is determined by the length of
the runs, the materials to be carried, piping configuration, and other design parameters.
The sketch indicatei a sound attenuator at the cxhauir end of the line on rhe exterior of the equipment room or service bwildTng. Reouirements
for noise reduction devicei -ill vary dependent upon the distance of th« exhaust from occupied buildings and the nahjre of the occupancy.
Noise reduction con be accomplished by enlarged exhamr outlet ducts, insulation, baffled chamber*, or mufflers.
PNEUMATIC CONVEYOR
-38-
-------
material to a collection hopper, leaves the material in the hopper,
continues on to the exhauster, and then discharges to the atmosphere.
Air moves in the system at the rate of 80 feet per second or about
60 miles per hour.
The system is not continuous in its operation. After each cycle,
»
the collection hoppers are emptied automatically into equipment for
ultimate disposal and processing. The system must be actuated either
by pushbutton or it may be placed under a time cycle control or on a
demand basis through limit switch controls at storage points.
Construction materials and sizing of the tube system can, of course,
vary if special requirements of a particular project so dictate. However,
a typical system utilizes the following materials:
20-inch diameter pipe of carbon steel, coated and wrapped when
used underground;
A pipe wall thickness of l/^J-inch for all buried lines and for trash
lines aboveground;
A pipe wall thickness of 1/8-inch for air exhaust lines aboveground
and material storage sections;
Wall thickness of trash lines is increased to 3/8-inch for bends;
Aluminized steel vertical chutes of 16 gauge is generally used
although l*t gauge metal may sometimes be required.
-39-
-------
The pipe presently being used in the United States may be either
spirally wound or of the longitudinal seam type. The weight of pipe
with 1/^-inch wall thickness is about 53 pounds per foot. Insulation and
sound deadening is accomplished by the use of l/6A-inch "Acoustilead"
and 2-inch thick "Fiberglas". Cathodic protection is recommended for
pipe subject to corrosive soil conditions.
The AVAC system has capability to move material in any direction,
under air power, after material is discharged from chute storage into
the airstream. Initial vertical movement is limited to a downward
direction utilizing conventional gravity chutes. The manufacturer has
demonstrated in the pilot plant that material can be lifted about 30 feet
vertically. Although vertically upward travel is entirely feasible the
manufacturer does not recommend it for transport of unclassified trash
that often contains broken glass, discarded tools, rocks and other
objects of high density that will not travel vertically when segregated.
The use of heavy-duty trash bags would remedy this but becomes
prohibitive, cost-wise when bags are used in large quantities.
Therefore, the manufacturer usually limits the upward angle for trash
transport piping to 30 degrees. With this angle, dropped out objects
are shoved forward with each passing trash load and eventually reach
-40-
-------
the collection silo, as demonstrated in existing Swedish systems as
well as in the manufacturers test unit.
Eastern Cyclone Industries, Inc.: The "Air-Flyte" system was
originally designed and developed by E.C.I, to handle linen in laundries,
especially those providing diaper services. It has since been adapted
for installation in hospitals and has been recently designed for the
transport of wastes in residential complexes. An installation,
handling solid wastes, is in use at Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley,
California. A prototype demonstration system is operating at the E.C.I.
plant at Fairfield, New Jersey.
The "Air-Flyte" system uses negative air pressure to move bagged
wastes to points of processing or disposal through a tube or piping system
from depository stations strategically located within buildings or a
building complex. The most common system employs a single tube,
usually between 12 and 20 inches in diameter. For hospital installations,
automatic switching devices make it possible to divert linens or trash
to the proper destination. Single tube systems can be equipped with
either one or two door depository stations, although both in the
latter case are connected to the same single tube. Systems can be
installed in which separate tubes are provided for linen and trash.
The operations of single or two door systems and single or dual tube
-41-
-------
systems are controlled by pushbutton at the loading station.
Each loading station consists of a built-in housing with an
outer access door flush with the wall. An inner door, which is air
operated, provides the closure between the station and the main air
tube of the system. The outer door can be opened only when the inner
door is closed and thus no air from the system is expelled into the
building nor can inside air be drawn into the system.
When bagged or loose trash is introduced into the system, the
outer door is opened, the bag placed inside the receiving station, the
outer door is closed, and the actuating button (which can be key locked)
pushed. By means of an electronic memory system and a series of
actuating relays, the inner door is automatically opened and the bag
is drawn into the air tube for transport to its destination.
The basic system is engineered to dispatch but one bag from one
loading station to a selected destination at any given time. The memory
system, like the type used for elevator control, will record demands
from a number of stations and actuate the inner doors of the various
receivers throughout the system in a time sequence corresponding to
the order in which the demands were placed. When one delivery is
completed, the next in the demand sequence will be commenced and
subsequently completed before a new cycle will begin.
-42-
-------
Modifications are now in the development stage to adapt this
pneumatic conveyor system to conventional gravity chutes with a valved
transition admitting accumulated wastes to the pneumatic pipeline.
Necessary fire control devices can be incorporated in the
pneumatic systems. Fire dampers, which are accordion-pleated devices
that drop vertically across the airstream, are controlled by fusible
links and can be installed in accordance with prevailing codes.
Likewise, sprinkler systems can be installed to comply with local
regulations.
Trans-Vac Systems: This division of Montgomery Industries, Inc.
is corporately related to the Jacksonville Blow Pipe Company, the latter
being long time designers and manufacturers of shredders, hoggers and
other material destructing equipment, as well as pneumatic transport
systems designed primarily for heavy industrial uses.
Trans-Vac is offered for applications which would utilize a
vacuum system, a combination gravity-pneumatic system, or a positive
pressure system. The vacuum application consists of a closed tube
system in which negative pressure is maintained during operation. It
is recommended for installations where there will be offsets in vertical
risers and/or when double door loading stations are desired, such as in
-43-
-------
hospitals and institutions where both soiled linens and trash would
be handled by the main airstream. Gravity-pneumatic applications
employ a system of vertical risers, without any offsets, such as
standard gravity chutes which allow materials to fall by gravity to a
horizontal pickup point for lateral transfer to a collection point.
A make-up air source is required at the lateral transfer point. Positive
pressure applications require a closed tube system with roof mounted
blower. This eliminates a long lead pipe run where collectors are
located at a low level within the building structure.
Because of its long experience in shredding and granulating a
wide variety of materials and the transport of materials before and
\
after size reduction, Montgomery Industries, Inc. and Jacksonville
Blow Pipe Company have custom designed waste disposal systems which
are capable of shredding glass, plastics, metal, and other types
of waste materials prior to their delivery to various types of
containers, stationary compactors, or to incinerators.
Typical specifications for a waste disposal transport system
include the use of standard, tubular gravity chutes, 16 inches in
diameter and of 18 gauge galvanized steel constructed in 8-foot long
sections. Elbows are commonly made of 16 gauge galvanized steel.
-44-
-------
Underground piping would be designed to meet the conditions of the
particular installation. Insulating and sound-deadening materials
are employed where required.
As in other pneumatic systems necessary fire control devices can
be incorporated. These include fire dampers, controlled by fusible
links. Sprinkler systems can also be installed to comply with local
regulat ions.
Manufacturers of Trans-Vac think of it as an especially engineered
system, specifically designed for a particular application--as opposed
to the accumulation of standard components. An operating prototype
system has been built at the Jacksonville, Florida, plant of
Montgomery Industries, Inc. and for which the manufacturer claims full
capability for the movement of bagged or loose wastes within or between
buildings to a central collection station for processing and/or storage.
Hoist, Container, Rear Loading: These heavy duty truck mounted
hoist systems are designed to handle large special purpose containers,
including tanks and bins. This type of unit is not to be confused
with a mobile packer hoist. Container hoists are capable of lifting,
transporting, and dumping or depositing containers having capacities as
large as 15 or 16 cubic yards. This type of equipment is largely used
in industry for handling many types of materials, including loose and
compacted wastes and can be handled by one man on a truck.
-45-
-------
The "Dempster Dumpster" by Dempster Brothers and the "Load
Lugger" by The Heil Company have somewhat similar features although
the actual hoisting systems differ slightly. These lifting systems
are hydraulically operated and utilize a lift, swing and set
operation which is accomplished by a pair of heavy arms pivoted at the
bottom of the hoist, at chassis level. Both types of hoist are mounted
on medium size truck chassis of relatively short wheel base. They are
capable of lifting, transporting, depositing or dumping large special
type containers of a wide variety of styles.
Although the Dempster Dumpster is available in several sizes and
capacities the typical rig having lifting capacity of 9,000 pounds
will readily handle containers varying in size from six to ten cubic
yards. The approximate cost of this hoist, mounted on a suitable
2^,000 pound GVW truck chassis costs approximately $11,000. The price
of the containers varies from $900 to $1,000 each.
The Heil "Load Lugger", referred to above is available in several
sizes. For handling six or ten cubic yard containers the manufacturer
recommends a hoist model having a total lifting capacity of 20,000 pounds,
Such a unit would be mounted on a 36,000 pound GVW truck chassis and
would cost about $13,000. Six cubic yard closed containers are priced
-46-
-------
CONTAINER REAR LOADING HOIST
-47-
-------
at about $700. The ten cubic yard size would cost about $1,000.
Ho i s t, TiItframe, Container, Packer: A tiltframe hoist is designed
for attachment to a large truck chassis for. the purpose of pulling a
large container or body onto the chassis and allowing it to slide off
at a desired location. They are used for loading, transporting, and
unloading the large closed containers used with stationary packers and
also for open top containers used to haul loose and uncompacted wastes
to points of processing or disposal. In its simplest form, the tiltframe
hoist is a heavy frame which is attached by a hinge at the rear of the
main structural members of a truck chassis. The point of attachment
will be about one fifth of the length of the tiltframe from the end
which overhangs the chassis. A hydraulic ram-type lifting device
is attached to the chassis and is capable of raising (tilting toward
the rear) and lowering the frame and its load. A cable and winch
are used to pull the container onto the tilted frame and to restrain
it when being unloaded. Hydraulic stabilizing jacks are optional
equipment available with most tiltframe hoists. Unlike rear loading
hoists, which lift and swing loads onto the truck chassis, the
tiltframe slides the container onto the truck by means of pulling
cables. Exclusive of the truck chassis, list prices of tiltframes
range from about $5,000 to $7,000. Several manufacturers of this
type of equipment will be found in Appendix B.
-48-
-------
CONTAINER PACKER TILT FRAME HOIST
-49-
-------
Packer, Mobile: Mobile packers are of three general types,
classified by the methods used to load them—from the side, rear, or
front. When loose refuse is to be handled or trash cans are to be
emptied manually it is common practice to use side or rear loading
packers, although both can usually be fitted with lift mechanisms by
means of which large containers can be lifted and emptied into the packer
for compression. Front loading mobile packers are used exclusively to
handle large containers mechanically. After wastes have been placed in
the hopper of the packer or the container to be lifted, the hopper
or the lifting mechanism is actuated and the loaded hopper or
container is emptied into the body of the packer, where it is
subsequently compressed to 20 percent or 25 percent of its original
bulk. When fully loaded and with contents compressed, the packer
is driven to a disposal area where the load is mechanically discharged
from the body.
Mobile packers or compactors are available in a wide range of
sizes from 13 to 28 cubic yards. A 31 cubic yard semi-trailer type
is also available. It has its own self-contained power supply system
for full operation.
There have recently appeared on the market small lift mechanisms
capable of handling individual containers of about 80 gallons capacity.
-50-
-------
PACKER, MOBILE
i
Ui
Make
5000
5001
Model
—
PR
PRP
Capacity
5 cu yd
1 0 cu yd
10 cu yd
Power Plant
Horsepower
'8
P.T.O.
22
Compaction
Factor
4:1
MA
600#/=o yd
TYPE
Truck
Mounted
X
Trailer
Mounted
X
•_•
X
Truck Size
Required
Pick up
1 ton
Pick up
Approximate
Size
feet
12x5x7H
12x8x9H
MA
Approximate
Weight
Ibs
3800
4000
NA
Price
$5,300
•4,500
6,000
REMARKS
*With container lift.
Side load-rear eject.
Contailers available.
Add $3,000 for 1 ton
Truck
Similar to Model PR.
* NOTE: Appendix B lists a number of manufacturers of mobile packers of larger sizes than the above.
-------
REAR LOADER
FRONT END LOADER
MOBILE PACKERS
-52-
-------
These lift units can be attached to most conventional side or rear
loading packers.
There are also available small sized mobile packers of 5 to 10
cubic yard capacities. These are quite suitable for use around housing
complexes in conjunction with transfer stations and large stationary
packers. Some of the models can be mounted on small trucks while
others are designed to be trailed behind a pick up truck. Some details
of the latter will be included on the section on trailer type packers.
Packer, Trailer: Appendix C lists several manufacturers of
compaction trailers. This type of equipment consists of a complete
packer and container mounted on a semi-trailer. These packers can
be used in place of a stationary packer and/or a transfer trailer at
a transfer station. Two sizes as manufactured by Dempster Brothers, Inc.
are available--65 and 75 cubic yards. The trailer, with its compaction
unit is 39 feet long, 8 feet wide, and from 12 to 13 feet high, depending
upon the model. The hoppers of the two models will hold 16 and 19
cubic yards respectively. Gross weight of the vehicles is about 13 tons.
The hopper opening is in the top of the box and is 100 inches by 88 inches
in size. Materials can be dumped from other trucks or packers or chuted
into the hopper of the trailer. Packing action is from front to rear.
An 85,000 pound thurst is claimed. At the disposal site, the rear
-53-
-------
I
~.* '*
TRAILER PACKERS
-54-
-------
tailgate of the trailer is opened and the load is pushed out through
the rear.
The M-B Company and the Val-Jack Manufacturing Co., Inc. make
small towable packers, referred to in a previous section, generally
available in five cubic yard capacities. They may be either side or
rear loaded. Their small size and easy maneuverability make them
particularly adaptable for use where roadways are narrow and space
limited. This type of packer is usually loaded and its hopper is low
enough to allow refuse cans to be emptied into it with ease. The
manufacturers claim compaction values of about 600 pounds per cubic
yard for one of the self-powered trailer type packers.
Trailer models are priced from $5,000 to $6,000 for 5 and 10 cubic
yard sizes. Ten cubic yards models to be mounted on trucks are $^,500
to $5,000. One ton trucks would cost about an additional $3,000.
Train, Container: Several manufacturers of this type of collection
equipment are listed in the Appendix, Fairly typical of these are the
Train Transfer System manufactured by LoDal and the Trux-"Train"
manufactured by Truck Equipment Corporation. The LoDal system consists
of two wheeled, open-topped containers of A, 5, or 6 cubic yard
capacities. Each container has its own nylon cover to prevent trash
-55-
-------
CONTAINER TRAIN
-------
from blowing about. A "train" consists of a light towing vehicle,
commonly with four-wheel drive, and three containers which can be
attached to each other. The containers can be lifted by LoDal's
Load-A-Matic, front loading mobile packer. Prices of the containers
vary from about $700 for the four cubic yard size to $800 for the six
cubic yard size. A front end loading mobile packer, having a capacity
of 25 cubic yards will cost about $1^,000, truck chassis included.
The Truxmore Trux-"Train" usually consists of a light towing
vehicle and either four 3 cubic yard two-wheeled containers, or three
k cubic yard containers. These containers can be picked up by a
Truxmore packer and emptied. The 3 cubic yard containers list at about
$J»00 and the k cubic yard containers about $^75. They weigh from
1,300 to 1,500 pounds each. A 23 cubic yard mobile packer to work with
the Trux-"Train" would cost about $15,000, including truck chassis.
Although primarily intended for use in conjunction with a mobile
packer these containers could, with some ingenuity be adapted to other
unloading methods. An unloading ramp with a simple tilting mechanism
could be developed so that loads could be dumped into stationary
packer for subsequent processing and disposal.
Vehicle, Col lection, Satel 1ite : These small, powered collection
vehicles are available in several models, including dump bodies of two
-57-
-------
different heights and capacities; flatbed; and pick up bodies. There
is only one known manufacturer presently producing this type of
equipment. Another maker has recently ceased production.
The dump type bodies come in 1-1/A and 2 cubic yard, 1,000 pound
capacities, and 1-1/2 cubic yard, 500 pound capacity. The former are
standard dumping lifts which dumps 41 inches "above the g'round'. The
latter, elevated lifts, dumps at a height of 55 inches above the ground.
This type of equipment is used as satellite vehicle to service
individual homes, as part of the total collection systems of some
municipalities. Having a turning diameter of fifteen feet, the vehicle
may be driven into residential driveways, turned around, and driven out
again, thus eliminating the need to operate in reverse. Where backing
is necessary, the driver has good visibility and, maneuvering a small
vehicle, the safety factor is favorably improved over that experienced
with a large truck. After refuse from individual residential structures
has been picked up, the satellite vehicle can rendezvous with a large
mobile packer, into which it mechanically empties its load.
Within large housing complexes these vehicles could be used for
building collection and then emptied into a mobile packer container or
into a stationary packer hopper, by means of a dumping ramp, up which
the vehicle could be driven. The unit is capable of negotiating steep
-58-
-------
grades, even when fully loaded.
The power plant of these vehicles is an 18 horsepower, 2 cylinder
horizontally opposed, air cooled, k cycle engine. The required
hydraulic system operates from a power take off.
The manufacturer's claims of the overall economy achieved by
the use of these satellite vehicles are based upon low first cost and
capital investment; one man operation; rapid maneuvering; lower
maintenance and mechanical operating costs. The manufacturer states
that when the Cushman Haulster vehicles were put in use to provide
back yard waste collection services in the City of Claremont,
California that the costs for weekly pickups were reduced from $1.75
to $0.875 per house per month, a savings of 50 percent, while
maintaining the same level of service that had been previously
established.
-59-
-------
VEHICLE, COLLECTION, SATELLITE
Moke
12000
i
O *Cob heig
Model
40571
Mod. 612
Mod. 567
ht70"
1 Add 5' to height fa-
body in c
ump position
Hopper Capacity
cu yd
1-1/4
2
1-1/4
Ibi
1000
1000
500
Dump Lift
Stand.
Stand.
High
Overall*
Dimension
Inches
11 5x46x41 H
11 5x64x4 1H
129x46x55H
Net Weight
Ibs
1130
1207
1250
Engine
Horsepower
18
18
18
Turning
Grcle
Diameter
15
15
15
Price
$2,425
2,500
2,650
REMARKS
Also make flatbed models
-------
SATELLITE COLLECTION VEHICLE
-61-
-------
Storage Methods and Equipment
The storage of solid wastes, as the term is here used, is of a
temporary nature and for a very limited period of time. The brief
holding of kitchen and other household wastes is a varying necessity
and every effort must be made to discourage or eliminate the attraction
of insects, rodents, other vermin, or domestic animals and the reduction
of noticeable odors. The covering of waste material storage receptacles
and the sealing of any containers or packages of household wastes is
essential to the health and well-being of residents and of the
community but such covering or containment and sealing does not guarantee
that insects or animals will not be attracted, but will act as a
reduction of the degree of attractiveness which the wastes might
otherwise have. Rigid plastic, covered containers or metal containers
with tight fittings lids are not animal proof but are more resistant
to attack than are paper or plastic-film type bags. A flexible
paper or plastic bag, when properly sealed, and for such period as the
bag remains intact will keep odors reasonably well contained.
The equipment included in this section varies from such simple
devices as paper bags and plastic bags or container liners to large and
semi-mechanical containers which are used in conjunction with and
handled by mobile packers or compactors.
-62-
-------
Bag, Paper, Disposable: These containers are made by a number
of major paper companies, which also handle suitable holders or
containers to facilitate the use of the bags.
The bags are usually made of heavy kraft paper. The papers have
high wet strength and some are plastic-coated. They come in at least
three classifications:
Standard - For general refuse, paper, glass, metal,
plastics, bones, wire, etc.
Leak-resistant - For moist refuse, especially mixed
materials, both wet and dry, as found in
processing plants, food preparation areas,
etc.
Leak-proof - For wet refuse, such as kitchen waste and
other highly saturated materials. Holds
garbage, liquids, wet trash—even coffee
grounds, without leaking.
Capacities vary from 20 to 55 gallons with 30 gallons being the most
common size. The dimensions of the 30-gallon bag are approximately
15" x 12" x A3". Those of the 2^-gallon size are approximately
15" x 12" x 35". The bags can be closed by folding the tops and can
be sealed either with tape or by stapling.
-63-
-------
BAG, PAPER, DISPOSABLE
I •
Make
3000
3001
3002
3003
BAG
Size
gallons
30
20
30
20
30
30
24
30
24
30
24
30
55
55
40
40
30
30
30
Type
Standard
Leak Resist.
Leak Resist.
Leakproof
Leakproof
Standard
Standard
Leak Resist.
leak Resist.
Leakproof
Leakproof
Dry waste
Standard
*Special
Leak Resist.
Leakproof
Gen. Purpose
Grease Resist.
Heavy, Wet
Waste
Price
Per 100
$14.00
18.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
16.00
15.00
22.00
20.00
29.00
25.00
12.00
13.00
15.00
22.00
25.00
16.00
18.00
22.00
HOLDER
Interior
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exterior
X
X
X
X
X
X
Price
$27. 00
34.00
8.00
16.00
4.00
9.00
7.00
14.00
15.00
4.00
29.00
50.00
14.00
15.00
13.00
9.00
13.00
32.00
56.00
REMARKS
Swing-top lid
Wall mounted
Adjustable stand
Casters for above
Wat! mounted, w/!id
No lid
Stand
Adjustable stand
Casters for above
Cabinet w/lid
Cabinet w/swing-top
W/casters
Wall mounted
Wall mounted
Stand
Cabinet w/swing-top
Cabinet w/push-top
•Heat sealed
-------
Prices per 100 bags range from $l*f to $29 for the 20 to 30 gallon
sizes, in small quantities. Prices can be expected to be lower by
about 15 percent in large quantities.
Various styles of indoor and outdoor containers and holders are
available from about $8 for a wall-mounted holder to $50 for a cabinet
with a swing top 1 id.
jteg, Plastic, Disposable; The versatile plastic bag can be used
either as a liner for a container, as a container itself, or as an
emergency storage container. It is available in a variety of capacities
from 20 to 55 gallons, with the 30 gallon size being most common. The
latter size has dimensions of approximately 18" x 15" x ^tO".
This style container is resistant to tears but subject to puncture
by sharp objects. Unless it is broken, it is leak-proof. Bags are
available in packages of 100, 200, 300, 500, and 1,000 quantities and
also in rolls. The roll-type bags are perforated in such a manner as
to allow each bag to be torn from the roll when needed for use. Bags
can be purchased at retail in very small quantities but the manufacturers
and distributors discounts apply only in quantities of 100 or more,
depending upon the size of the bags. In order to make prices comparable
the tabulations are for packages of 100.
Prices for bags, in quantities of 100, range from about $3.25
-65-
-------
BAG, PLASTIC, DISPOSABLE
BAG
Make
4000
4001
4002
Size
Gallons
23
20
32
44-50
20-32
55
30
20-30
31-32
40-45
55
30
Price
Per 100
$ 4.23
3.77
5.03
4.35
4.50
10.05
9.95
3.24
4.76
6.72
10.44
7.36
Thickness
(Mils)
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.5
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.25
HOLDER
Interior
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exterior
X
X
X
X
X
Price
$ 8.00
16.00
19.00
20.00
35.00
17.00
22.00
30.00
REMARKS
Wall mounted
Floor stand
Floor stand W/casten
23 gallons - square
50 gallons - square
20 gallons - round
32 gallons - round
44 gallons - round
Distributor Price
-------
for the 20-gallon size to about $10 for the 55-gallon size or the
30-gallon size, made of heavier walled plastic. Larger quantity
prices can be expected to be about 10 percent lower.
Various types of holders and containers are made for use with
plastic bags or can liners. These are made to accommodate particular
sizes of bags. They vary in prices from about $8 for a wall-mounted
unit to $35 for a 50-gallon size cabinet suitable for either interior
or exterior use.
Filled bags or liners can be easily closed and tied with special
twist-type wires. This seals in odors and prevents the spillage of
the contents. The bags are suitable for use as waste containers for
curbside collection. The sealing of the bags does not provide a rodent
or animal-proof container but the reduction or elimination of odors
reduces their attraction.
The various manufacturers produce bags of varying wall thicknesses
from 1.2 mils to 2.5 or 3 mils. Frequently the manufacturer specifies
a range of thickness for a given bag (such as 2.1^ to 2.61 mils) since
manufacturing tolerances are not too exact. Manufacturers claim
that the materials which go into the construction of the bags, rather
than their actual thickness, govern their tear resistance and other
desirable qualities. A range of bag wall thickness from 1.5 to 2.5
-67-
-------
DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAG
DISPOSABLE PAPER BAG
-68-
-------
mils for sizes ranging between 20 and 55 gallons is suitable for
average uses.
Barrel : Only barrels made of plastic, aluminum or fiber have
been considered in this study. Steel barrels have not been included
because of their weight and maintenance requirements.
Fiber barrels are made from tough fibrous vulcanized materials.
They will withstand rough, hard usage; are more suitable for indoor
rather than outdoor use. In comparable sizes they are somewhat lighter
in weight than either plastic or aluminum. They are slightly less
costly than plastic but considerably cheaper than aluminum. They are
available with lids, casters, and hand grips.
Aluminum barrels are made with 18 gauge sides and 14 gauge bottoms,
Bottoms and the top rims are reinforced with ribs or bands. Rounded
shoulder rests are provided in the bottom of the barrel. Seams are
welded but handles are riveted on. Lids are not readily available in
aluminum but the manufacturer states that aluminum barrels can be built
to fit standard galvanized or plastic lids now on the market. The cost
of these containers is about three times that of comparable capacity
barrels made of fiber and about twice that of good grade plastic ones.
-69-
-------
BARREL
Moke
10000
10001
10002
10003
i 10004
xl
o
1
10005
10006
Approximate
Capacity
gallons
60
80
35
45
60
32
44
60
44
58
44
58
55
65
32
20
32
44
33
45
65
40
49
Size
Av.Dio.xHgt.
inches
27x30
33x30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24x30
24x36
24x20
20x23
22x27
24x32
20x25
22x29
24x33
19x30
19x36
Approximate
Weight
Ibs
10
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
16.5
12
13
NA
NA
NA
6
8
14
12
14.5
20
13
14
Material
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Plastic
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Fibre
Fibre
Handles or
Grips
No
No
Optional
Optional
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Extra Charge
Extra Charge
Extra Charge
Extra Charge
Extra Charge
Extra Charge
Yes (2)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Colors
Available
Orange only
Orange only
No
No
No
No
No
No
Gray only
Gray only
Gray only
Gray only
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Green/Brown
Green/Brown
Wheels or
Casters
Available
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
PRICE*
Barrel Lid
$13.50
18.00
13.50
13.50
13.50
14.00
21.00
27.00
20.40
21.00
14.75
15.50
17.50
21.00
15.00
8.40
12.40
18.90
29.00
38.00
41.00
11.15
1:2.10
$4.50
5.00
_~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
---
4.50
4.50
4.50
1.50
2.40
5.00
___
—
—
2.70
2.70
REMARKS
Tapered or straight
Tapered or straight
Tapered or straight
Tapered - Heavy side
Tapered - Heavy side
Tapered - Heavy side
One year guarantee
One year guarantee
Six months guarantee
Six months guarantee
One flat side
Dolly $12.30
Dolly $12.90
Dolly $16. 90 (see also '14001)
Casters $6.00
Casters $5.85
'Minimum of 6 units.
-------
BARRELS
-71-
-------
Plastic barrels are available in a wide variety of sizes. They
are made with hand grips or handles. Casters or castered dollies are
available, as are standard lids. Some manufacturers can provide barrels
in a limited number of colors. Color-coded barrels could be used
to aid in the segregating of wastes by either building occupants or
maintenance personnel. Plastic barrels are competitively priced; are
safe, silent, and easy to handle and have reasonably long life. Their
availability in colors can be an advantage.
Cart, Hand-pushed: Carts are utilized in both storage and
handling functions but have been included in this chapter on storage for
purposes of this report. Many styles are available from the simple
two-wheeled hand-truck for moving barrels to special purpose designs.
Units suitable for handling solid wastes are manufactured with steel or
aluminum frames and special purpose bodies are produced in aluminum,
fiberglass, and stainless steel. Hamper-type carts of various sizes
are also available with or without casters or bottom drain assemblies.
Fiberglass carts or trucks are of the hamper or tub styles. Molded in one
piece, of fiberglass reinforced polyester, they have smooth and seamless
surfaces. They are non-rusting and are easily cleaned.
Hamper-type carts, fitted with swivel casters having ^-inch
wheels are available in several sizes. A cart 36" x 26" x 27" deep
-72-
-------
HAND PUSHED CART
STATIONARY PACKER CART
-73-
-------
costs about $1^0. Cart sizes and costs of larger units range from
upwards to 60" x 29" x 32" deep, costing about $250.
The relatively simple, two-wheeled hand cart is available in
aluminum for approximately $40.
A relatively heavy-duty flat bed cart, with extendable ends will
provide two additional feet of carrying space on each end of the cart,
which is approximately five feet long without the extensions pulled out.
Made of aluminum, it is lightweight yet has a capacity of approximately
one ton. It is equipped with heavy-duty casters which make it steerable
in four directions. This type of cart sells for approximately $350.
In between the hand carts just described and priced in the general
area of $100 to $150 are a number of flat bed steel; steel and wood;
or aluminum; or aluminum and wood combinations which are available.
Cart, Packer, Stationary: Although known as a cart, this device
is a heavy-duty steel box which requires the use of a large special
dumping device which, in turn, is attached to a large capacity stationary
packer. The cart is castered and may be drawn or pushed by some
type of towing unit or tractor. It can be coupled with similar carts
and thus made into a train. They are made in sizes ranging from three
to five cubic yard capacity, but usually the three or four cubic yard
sizes are used with a five cubic yard stationary packer. The three
-74-
-------
cubic yard size will cost approximately $^00 and the four cubic yard
size about $425.
In use, these containers require a special type of dumping device
which permits them to be pushed onto a platform either at ground level
or at truck height. The dumper, when actuated, lifts and tilts the
container, which is securely latched onto the dumper platform, and
empties it into the charging box of a stationary packer. The ground
level model of this dumper costs approximately $2,500. The dock type
dumper requires a special metal ramp and costs approximately $2,100.
Con t a i n e r, 0pen- top, Ro11 -of f: Built of heavy steel,
substantially reinforced, these containers are designed for the
mechanical dumping of loose wastes and very large, generally
non-compactable objects. They are frequently used in connection with
self-dumping hoppers handled by forklifts.
Capacities of these containers range from six to forty or more
cubic yards. Overall widths are about eight feet. Heights vary from
three to eight feet. Lengths run between 17 to 21 feet.
These big boxes are handled onto and off truck chassis by tiltframe
hoists of various designs. Dumping the contents of the container is
accomplished by raising the box and opening its rear doors.
Prices on the largest size are not available, but $400 for the
-75-
-------
ROLL-OFF OPEN TOP CONTAINER
-76-
-------
10-yard size and $700 for the 20-yard container will provide some
basis for estimates.
Container, Packer, Mob?le: Containers used with mobile packers
vary in sizes, shapes, and styles, depending upon the type of packer
they are to be used with, the manner of dumping, and the manufacturer.
The three general classifications of mobile packers, front-loader,
rear-loader, and side-loader, require containers of similar
characteristics and these are identified by the same descriptive
nomenclature. Containers having from one to six yard capacities are
in general use. Some special industrial styles are somewhat shallow
pan shaped and may hold up to 12 or 15 cubic yards. The mobile packers
which handle and dump these containers are equipped with special hoists
and their several methods of use are described in detail below.
This class of container is made by many different manufacturers
and used with a variety of front-loading packers. The descriptions
and comments that follow are general in nature and represent a somewhat
composite picture of available equipment. Generally rectangular in shape
and holding from one to eight, or in some cases ten cubic yards, these
containers are intended for the temporary storage of loose wastes.
They may be chute loaded under certain conditions but are usually filled
by hand or from hand pushed carts. They are commonly placed on the
-77-
-------
ground and left in such a position that packers may be easily
maneuvered into position for the pick up of the container by the
trucks' loading mechanism. They are used extensively as parts of
store, shopping center, apartment, and institutional waste collecting
systems. The pick up and emptying operations are handled by municipal
or private hauling contractors' crews. After emptying into the mobile
packer, the container is replaced on the ground for reuse.
Containers are equipped with hinged covers to prevent deposited
refuse from being scattered by the wind. Some covers are spring loaded.
The smaller sizes of containers are usually castered to allow for hand
pushing. This is especially so where they are for use inside buildings
where headroom and/or other clearances will not allow trucks to reach
the usual locations of the containers. Where loading docks are
available, the larger sizes of containers are feasible. They can be
placed on the ground and loading from hand pushed carts can be
accomplished from the dock level.
The designs of loading lugs and container shapes vary with the
different manufacturers. In general, the lifting mechanism is a forked
arrangement and requires matching slots or holders on the sides of the
containers.
Front loader packers, and hence the containers used with them,
have the advantage of requiring less handling labor since the truck
-78-
-------
driver has a much better view of the container to be lifted than he
does with rear-loading packers. The front-loaders are usually
/•
operated by the driver, but in congested areas where maneuverability
and vision is limited a helper is required. Rear-loaders require a
minimum of two men and commonly three make up a crew.
Prices of these containers will vary, depending upon design,
weight, and corresponding delivery costs. However, they will generally
be found in the following range: 1 cubic yard at $150; 2 cubic yards
at $195; 3 cubic yards at $2*»5; A cubic yards at $275; 5 cubic yards
at $320; 6 cubic yards at $3^5; and 8 cubic yards at $*fl5.
There are fewer types of rear-loaders designed to handle
containers than there are front loaders and, hence, there are a limited
number of sizes and styles of rear loading packer containers available.
Shapes vary from generally rectangular, with sloping fronts for smaller
containers, to large, somewhat shallow pan styles on the 10-15 yard
sizes. Like the front loader containers, these are equipped with hinged
tops, some being spring loaded. The smaller sizes are usually caster
mounted.
The side loading packer container serves in much the same manner
as does the front loader container. Two general styles are common.
One has a flat top while the other is slightly peaked. Both are
-79-
-------
equipped with lids. Sizes range from 1-1/2 to *» cubic yard capacities.
Containers are castered and the manufacturer claims ease of handling
and spotting. Weights of empty containers range from about 300 to
600 pounds.
Container, Rear Loading: These containers differ greatly from
those used with mobile packers and are not to be confused with them.
These units are large special purpose containers, frequently used in
industry. Open topped, tank type, and other styles of closed
containers are available. They are equipped with special lifting
ears or lugs and can be handled only by the special hoists (described
earlier under the heading: Hoist, Container, Rear Loading). The
rear loading container is lifted by the special hoist, which is usually
mounted on a short wheel heavy duty truck chassis. It can then be
transported and subsequently deposited or dumped at a disposal site.
Containers are generally of two basic types — tilt and skip, or bottom
dump. In addition to styles already mentioned, hopper, sludge, and
pallet styles are available. Although, as previously mentioned, these
containers are used in industry for hauling bulk materials, they have
applications for moving wastes around building complexes and can be
chute or mechanically loaded.
-80-
-------
DROP-BOTTOWTYPE
TANK CONTAINERS
from 250 to 1,200 gal. cap.
TOP
SKIP
TYPE
OVAL TOP TYPE
>\
UTILITY TYPE
REAR LOADING CONTAINERS
-81-
-------
Rear-loading containers come in several sizes ranging from
one to ten cubic yards. The four most popular sizes and their approximate
costs are:
Two cubic yards $185
Four cubic yards $325
Six cubic yards $/*00
Eight cubic yards $500
Container, Receiving, Packer, Stationary: Unlike containers used
with mobile packers, of which there are a variety of shapes, those used
with stationary packers are more uniform in general configuration.
These containers, generally box-like in appearance, usually have an
opening in the lower half of one end of the box to allow the packer ram
to operate inside the container during the compaction cycle. This
loading end is also hinged as a tailgate to permit it to swing fully
open for the dumping of refuse from the container at the point of
disposal. The container is equipped with a pair of cables which are
used to retain the compacted load during transport to the disposal area.
The stationary packer is equipped with a ratchet locking device
used to secure the container to the packer during the filling and
compacting operations. V/hen the container is full, the ram has been
entirely withdrawn and the retaining cables or tubes and the
-82-
-------
tarpaulin are in place, the full container is winched onto a tiltframe
hoist and can be carted away. The full container is replaced by an
empty one, which is strapped or locked to the packer and the entire
unit is again ready for operation. The sides and top of the container
are tapered slightly to facilitate refuse slideout when dumping.
The following data will indicate the price range of the various sizes
of containers available:
Capacity (cu yd) Length (feet) Approximate Price
27 16 $3,000
30 18 3,100
37 20 3,^00
k2 22 3,500
Container, Standard, Household: The most commonly used storage
container for residential wastes are plastic or galvanized metal
containers or barrels in sizes which vary from 20 to 30 gallons. The
heavy-duty varieties of these containers are listed under the heading
of "Barrels". The lighter weight containers are readily obtainable
by the householder in such retail outfits as supermarkets and hardware
stores. They are relatively inexpensive and range from $2 to $*».
-83-
-------
Processing Methods and Equipment
Under this heading are the many kinds of equipment designed to
change the original size, shape, volume, density, or other general
characteristics of solid wastes generated in residential complexes.
Some of these devices and mechanisms have sufficient abilities to
handle industrial castoffs as well. Included are machines for the
reduction in size and nature of tree, shrub, and yard trimmings; the
crushing of glass and metal containers; grinders and shredders capable
of reducing general wastes to flaked or particle form; and pulpers
which employ hydraulic shear to reduce wastes to a slurry for pipeline
transport and ultimate treatment. The processing considered here
is intermediate, rather than final. The latter will be covered
elsewhere.
The nomenclature of this type of equipment sometimes may be
confused with equipment previously reviewed due to the similarity
of titles. In general, these machines are intended to change or
destruct a variety of materials. Among them are industrial components
which can be adapted to the processing of solid wastes. These include
grinders, shredders, hoggers, crushers, and pulverizers. Some crushers
are known as hammermills by their makers while other similar machines
may be called grinders or pulverizers. Hoggers are frequently known by
-84-
-------
a variety of names, largely related to the type of material which they
are called upon to handle. A volume could be written upon this subject
of confusing and overlapping nomenclature but limited space here will
not allow complete elaboration. Suffice it to say that awareness of
the existence of this condition is important and that sometimes only the
fineness of the end product may change the name of the device.
The selection of intermediate processing equipment will be greatly
affected by the hourly or daily volumes of wastes to be handled. Some
of the equipment discussed cannot be practically used unless volumes are
large and the rate of flow is reasonably uniform. Still other types
require the almost steady attention of trained personnel. Certain
machines, although quite safe in general operation, present some possible
accident dangers unless provided with safeguards against improper and
unauthorized use.
Several of the devices described can be adapted to a chute-fed
operation and can be semi-automated so as to minimize the amount of
human attention necessary. Still others require such attention at the
start and/or completion of the processing operation. Some of the
balers and compactors are in that category.
Baler: This type of compacting equipment reduces the original
loose volume of compressible materials fed into it and produces a dense
-85-
-------
compact package of manageable size and weight. Some finished bales
are bound with metal strapping, wire, or twine; others are retained
in a plastic bag or a corrugated board box which may be bound by
restraining strapping or wires.
There are many styles and kinds of balers; some portable but
most stationary. Again, as with such equipment as compactors and
grinders, crushers and shredders, there is ambiguity in nomenclature.
For the purposes of this report the following terms are used to identify
compacting devices:
Type Restrainer
Baler, Portable Wire, twine, or strapping
Baler, Stationary Wire, twine, or strapping
Compactor, Bag Plastic bag
Compactor, Console Plastic bag or corrugated box
Compactor, Rotary Plastic or paper box
Compactor, Stationary Steel box
Compactor, Undercounter Paper bag
Each type will be discussed under its most commonly accepted
name.
Baler, Portable: These balers are of two principal types:
horizontal, mounted on casters; vertical, mounted on pneumatic tires
and towable.
-86-
-------
The horizontal types have gross weights between 3/k and one ton.
They will range in size upward to 10 feet long x 3 feet wide and 3 feet
high. They produce bales which must be tied with twine or bound with
wire or metal strapping. Bales will be between 10 and 15 cubic feet in
volume and weigh from 100 to 300 pounds, depending upon the nature of the
contents. These balers are powered by electricity and usually manually
operated and are not normally chute-fed.
The vertical type portable baler is a self-contained baling
press mounted on four pneumatic tires. It weighs about 3 tons and must
be towed. A small gasoline engine provides the power for the hydraulic
operating system. The baler is 13 feet high, 12 feet long, and 8 feet
wide. The manufacturer's brochures do not give the size of the bales
produced but state that the equipment is "producing bales weighing up
to 1,000 Ibs or more." Bales must be bound with wire. The equipment
is manually operated and does not appear to be adaptable to
chute-feeding. Balers of this type are made by Maren Engineering Corp.
and the Tamaker Corp. Prices of horizontal type balers range from
about $2,500 for the smaller machines to about $12,000 with those
having a greater capacity. Portable machines cost about $5,500.
-87-
-------
PORTABLE BALER
-------
Baler, Stationary; Balers are made in a wide range of sizes
and types but only the smaller ones are considered in this section of
the report. Included in the tabulation are machines capable of
producing bales weighing from 150 to 800 Ibs or more; and having volumes
from about 6-1/2 to 35-1/2 cubic feet.
The compaction ratios shown in manufacturers' data sheets cannot
be implicitly relied upon. Obviously, the composition of the materials
making up bales of refuse will vary greatly. Bulk reduction of three or
four to one normally can be expected. Based upon a density of 6 pounds
per cubic foot for loose wastes as adopted for purposes of this report,
the density of compacted wastes can be expected to be about 20 pounds
per cubic foot. Relating this factor to the baler capacity, a small
baler of say 6-1/2 cubic feet would contain about 130 pounds of
compacted wastes or the average daily waste production of about ^3
persons per bale based upon a daily per capita production of 3 pounds.
Ultimate capacity of the baler, of course, is largely dependent on the
frequency of service that is practical by maintenance personnel.
Some models, being chute-fed, are quite fully automatic, requiring
an attendant's time only to fasten restraining wires and remove the
bale. Other types must be hand fed and although less expensive than
the chute-fed models, require more operational manpower. The size
-89-
-------
BALER, STATIONARY
o
I
Moke
15000
15001
Model
PT-1C30
PT-11
PT-12
LHD-36
LHD-45
LHD-54
Overall
Dimension
Inches
1 06x65x82 H
41x30x94H
48x30x94H
53x29x95H
62x40x1 OOH
72x41xl21H
CONTAINERIZED PACKAGE
Weight
Lbs
150
150
225
175-300
300-600
350-800
Size
Inches
30x16x24
30x16x24
36x20x24
36x20x20-30
45x24x22-34
54x27x23-42
Volume
cu ft
6.7
6.7
10.2
8.4-12.5
13.7-21.2
19.5-35.5
Density
Per cu ft
20-24
20-24
20-24
20.8-24.0
21.9-28.3
17.9-22.5
Claimed
Compaction
Ratio
6-8:1
6-8:1
6-8:1
NA
NA
NA
Compaction
System
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Horsepower
5
3
5
3
5
7-1/2
Price
$6,400
2,700
3,100
2,100
2,600
4,900
REMARKS
.(see also *6000)
NOTE: The above data and claims are those presented by respective manufacturers.
-------
STATIONARY BALER
-91-
-------
of the bales produced by some models will permit the enclosure of the
bale in a plastic bag to reduce nuisance from odors and to reduce the
attraction of flies and rodents.
Balers do not lend themselves well to the handling of excessively
wet wastes. Bagged or loose wastes can be handled by this equipment.
If salvage of wastes is to be achieved, then selective segregation must
be practiced, prior to baling. In municipalities utilizing incineration
or sanitary landfill for disposition of solid wastes, the baling of
residential refuse can provide a satisfactory processing method, but
some cities require that baling wire be cut at the disposal site.
Chipper, Brush: These machines are designed to reduce brush, tree
limbs, and cuttings to shredded material by passing the debris through
a rapidly revolving drum equipped with cutters. The brush or limbs are
hand fed into a receiving hopper at the back of the machine. The
revolving drum pulls the material through the cutters and the resulting
shredded wood and leaf particles are blown through an inclined delivery
tube into a truck. The chipper is usually towed by the open truck used
to haul the shredded materials to a disposal point. Models with 12- and
16-inch wide drums and cutting knives are available. The rotors are
driven at 3,000 rpm by heavy duty industrial type combustion engines.
-92-
-------
The approximate cost of a 16-inch machine is $^,200. A machine with the
12-inch drums and cutting knives would be somewhat less.
Col lector, Dust: Several varieties of dust collectors are made.
The least complicated is the bag type, of which there are variations such
as shakerless and intermittent types. The basic type forces dust-laden
air upward through a series of cylindrical bags. The air passes through
the walls of the bags and into the clean air manifold, leaving the dust
deposited on the inside surfaces of the bags. The bags are periodically
shaken by pneumatic or electrical mechanical devices. The dust falls into
a hopper and is usually removed by a screw conveyor. The shakerless
collectors rely upon reverse air flow for cleaning. This type has fewer
moving parts. The intermittent collector is similar to the basic type
but must be periodically shut down for shaking.
The centrifugal collector employs a series of clusters of dual
vertical cylinders, one inside the other. Dirty air is forced in a
downward spiral in the circumferential space between the outer and inner
cylinders. The dust is collected in a hopper at the bottom of the
cluster, while the cleaned air is exhausted upward through the inner
cylinder. The dust is removed from the hopper by air.
Collectors operating on the cyclone principle consist of a circular
outer cone of high velocity air and an inner column of swirling rising
-93-
-------
air. At the lower end of the funnel, a partial vacuum exists. The
dust-laden air enters the collector tangentially and follows a spiral
pattern to the bottom of the cone. The centrifugal action, which
forces the heavier dust particles to the periphery of the collector
increases as the velocity increases and the radius of the vortex is
reduced. This combination of gravitational and swirling forces causes
the dust to move downward to the dust outlet. The cyclone collector
has many applications to waste systems and is available in a number of
sizes and capacities.
Cyclonic separators are rated by air volumes and unless details
of a specific installation were known it is not possible to make
more than the roughest kind of estimate of cost. For a cyclone
capable of handling the dust and particles from a paper hogging
and baling operation of medium size might run about $3,000. In
addition there might be from $1,000 to $3,000 cost of connecting
piping and incorporation of the cyclone into the system where it is
to be used.
Cyclonic separators are used in waste processing installations
such as hogging or shredding operations and in pneumatic waste conveyor
systems.
-94-
-------
Compactor, Bag: A wide variety of this type of equipment exists,
some of it proven by use but other makes and models that are barely
beyond the conceptual stage. Variations among types are:
Horizontal ram Vertical ram
Single bag Continuous, multi-bag
Pre-shredding Available accessories
Optical controls Sonic controls
One manufacturer combines a shredder with the compactor and has a
line of accessories which include a rotary or carrousel platform,
stationary bag holder, large detachable container, and a conveyor for
handling continuous multibags.
Bag type compactors can be chute-fed and manufacturers claim
productive capacities of equipment ranging from 7 to M cubic yards per
hour. The production of any of these machines is dependent upon the
time and attention given by building personnel. Single bags must be
removed when full and replaced by empty ones; continuous, multibags
must be tied off, removed, and replaced; filled castered containers
must be replaced, all of which emphasizes the necessity for matching
equipment to anticipated daily volumes and the availability of
maintenance personnel.
-95-
-------
Compaction ratios from k:\ to 8:1 and package densities from
18 to 60 Ibs per cubic foot are claimed by manufacturers dependent
upon the composition and mix of solid wastes which will vary over a
wide range. Based upon a density of 6 pounds per cubic foot for
residential wastes as adopted for this study and a realistic compaction
ratio of 3 or k to 1, a density range of 18 to 2k pounds per cubic foot
may be expected. Containerized packages weighing as much as 200 Ibs, as
claimed for one model, present handling problems which may require the
use of more than one man for their removal and transport.
A compactor which combines a shredder is a recent addition to the
line of pulverizer-extruder equipment made by one manufacturer. The
descriptive information provided by the maker is sketchy and vague and
its usage in service is presently limited.
A variation of conventionally designed bag packers has a duplex
ram. A smaller diameter independently operated ram is built into the
center of the main ram. Three hydraulic pistons actuate the rams--two
for the main ram and one for the secondary ram. The device has a cone
on its output snout. The primary ram compresses the waste materials into
the larger portion of the compression cone, after which operation the
secondary ram is actuated, thus further compacting the refuse and
forcing the compacted materials into a receiving bag or can.
-96-
-------
COMPACTOR, BAG
Make
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
Model
16
20
900
—
BC-16
48-02
Overall
Dimension
Feet
13x3x6H
13x4x7H
7x3x4H
8x4x7H
NA
8x3x4H
8x2x1 OH
CONTAINERIZED PACKAGE
Approximate
Capacity
30 gals
55 gals
NA
3.5cuft
3.5cuft
NA
3.5cuft
Approximate
Weight
100 Ibs
200 Ibs
NA
60-90 Ibs
55-1 10 Ibs
NA
40-1 00 Ibs
Density
Per cu ft
50-60 Ibs
50-60 Ibs
NA
18-27 Ibs
Varies
NA
12-38 Ibs
Packer Face
Pressure
psi
293
187
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Claimed
Compaction
Ratio
8:1
8:1
8:1
NA
5:1
NA
7:1
Volume
Per Hour
cu ft
450
960
216
NA
NA
1200
Varies
Horsepower
3
3
7.5
7.5
NA
NA
3
Price
$3,800
4,600
4,700
5,300
3,500
NA
4,500
REMARKS
Single bag
(see also #9000)
Single bag
Continuous, multi-bag,
combined with shredder.
Can eject into packer
container
(see also '8001 and #1 1000)
Continuous, multi-bag
Single bag
(see also *9002)
Single or multi-bag
Special paper bags -
9
-------
BAG COMPACTOR
STATIONARY COMPACTOR
-98-
-------
Paper bags of the "sausage link" type are available. These are
made with 10 "links" and are stapled in such a manner as to permit
longitudinal expansion as the links are filled. The machine extrudes
the compressed wastes in slugs, into the attached string of bags. The
bags can be conveniently tied off, cut apart and thus become individual
units which can be conveniently handled. The manufacturer claims over
300 installations in the first two years of marketing. Most of these
machines serve high-rise apartment buildings in New York City.
Compactor, Console: Thi.s class of equipment employs a vertical
compacting ram, which may be either mechanically, hydraulically, or air
operated and is usually hand fed. Chute-fed models are in the
development and testing stage. These units compress waste into a
corrugated box container or a plastic or paper bag.
Models are available to process one container or two containers
side-by-side, but housed within the same cabinet. There are also
available in-line type compactors, some of which will accommodate up to
eight containers, but these are not within an enclosed cabinet and are
not intended for operation by building tenants as are the two previously
mentioned ones. The containerized packages are about 3-1/2 cubic feet in
volume but models by one manufacturer produce packages of from 5 to 6
cubic feet. The densities of containerized packages range between 12 and
-99-
-------
30 Ibs per cubic foot. Claimed compaction ratios run as high as ten
to one. One type provides for the suspension of the receiving bags from
special holders mounted on a castered cart. This permits the filled
bags to be transported within a building without need for a separate
cart.
The claimed weight of containerized packages ranges from *»0 to
120 Ibs. It is estimated that a single unit would handle the daily
wastes of up to kQ persons (based upon a per capita production rate of 3
pounds per day) before a full bag or container would have to be removed
from the machine and be replaced with an empty one. The capacity of the
unit is limited by the frequency of service furnished by maintenance
personnel.
This type of compactor can be chute-fed, but such adaptation
generally is considered practical for only low density housing because
of the small capacity of this type of machine, between servicings, or
where frequent service is feasible.
The first compactor of this type was developed in Sweden and
several hundreds are reported to be in use in Western Europe. This same
machine and other types developed by the same originator are now being
made and marketed in the United States. At least two somewhat similar
lines of compactors have been designed by U.S. manufacturers.
-100-
-------
COMPACTOR, CONSOLE
Moke
6000
6001
i
o
i
Model
100
ST-1
1-1000
2-1000
Overall
Dimension
Inches
30x28x65H
29x2 0x81 H
30x24x77H
41x24x77H
CONTAINERIZED PACKAGE
Weight
Lbs
60-100
100
40-75
40-75
Size
Inches
16x24x18-26
16x24x27
17x14x26
17x14x26
Volume
cu ft
4.0-5.8
6.0
3.5
3.5
Density
Lbs per cu ft
12-20
16-20
11-21
11-21
* Claimed
Compaction
Ratio
10.1
10.1
NA
NA
Compaction
System
Worm Drive
Hydraulic
Air
Air
Horsepower
3/4
1-1/2
5
5
Price
$1,000
2,750
2,750
3,600
REMARKS
Package height can
be preset
(see also '15000)
One-bag model
Two-bag model
Compaction ratios are those claimed by the manufacturers.
-------
CONSOLE COMPACTOR
-102-
-------
This method for compaction and packaging of solid household and
institutional wastes is semi-automatic in operation, but does require
attention by building personnel. Such attention may be once or twice
daily, or more frequently under certain conditions. The equipment can
be provided with alarm devices to notify an attendant when bags are
full or the machine malfunctions. No unusual or expensive equipment
is needed to handle the containerized waste. One man can easily transport
the packaged material on a two-wheeled hand truck and this material can
be transported over the road in pick up trucks or larger flatbed trucks.
Compactor, Rotary Type: This style of compactor sometimes called
a carrousel type, consists of a ram mechanism which packs loose wastes
into paper or plastic bags held in open positions on a rotating platform.
When the bag directly under the packing ram is filled to a predetermined
depth, the platform indexes one position, thus moving the full bag from
under the ram and replacing it with an empty one. The bags are held in
place within a compartment which confines the bag and prevents it from
rupture during the packing cycles. These compactors are made in standard
models of 8 or 10 bag compartments but are available to accommodate 20 or
30 bags. Originally of Swedish design and manufacture, they are now being
made and marketed in the United States.
-103-
-------
COMPACTOR, BAG, ROTARY
Moke
8000
.L 8001
e
1
Model
500-8
500-10
800-10
1150-10
900
Overall
Dimension
Inches
55x55x79H
66x66x79H
65x65x82H
65x65x90H
84x33x48H
CONTAINERIZED PACKAGE
Weight
Lbs
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
NA
Size
Inches
16x17x27
16x17x27
16x17x27
16x17x27
Varies
Volume
cu ft
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
NA
Density
Per cu ft
17-20
17-20
17-20
17-20
,vJA
• Claimed
Compaction
Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
8:1
Compaction
System
Air
Air
Air
Air
Mechanical
Horsepower
3
5
5
5
7.5
Price
$4,700
5,300
5,800
9,300
6,500
REMARKS
Eight-bog, chute fed
(see also '6002)
Ten-bag, chute fed
Ten-bag, chute fed
Ten-bag, chute fed
with hopper
Shredder-compactor .
Converted by adding
carousel bag carrier
(see. also '7001 and
'11000)
* Compaction ratio as claimed by the manufacturer.
-------
ROTARY TYPE COMPACTOR
-105-
-------
The advantages of multibag machines are obvious. Each bag will
hold about 3-1/2 cubic feet of compacted wastes, estimated by the
manufacturer to have a density of up to 20 pounds per cubic foot.
It is estimated that a ten bag compactor can handle the refuse generated
by 200 to 250 persons for each servicing. Removal and replacement of
bags can be accomplished in less than an hour by one man.
Rotary compactors having at least eight-bag capacities can be
used in multistory low density residential structures. They can be
chute-fed and can readily be equipped with optical or sonic controls.
Another manufacturer markets a carrousel device holding several
bags. The bags are held in their open position and the waste, having
been previously shredded by related equipment is dropped into them.
The manufacturer's data sheets are in preliminary form and1detailed
information is not available. This equipment was also mentioned in
the section on bag type compactors.
Compactor, Stat ionary: The stationary compactor is quite frequently
known as a stationary packer. Both manufacturers and users employ the
terms interchangeably. In its fairly standardized form it is a
compaction unit having a hydraulically operated ram which moves in a
-106-
-------
COMPACTOR, STATIONARY
Make
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
Model
1850 Stand.
1830-2000
1830 Super
DP- 18
SP-5-20
SP-10-42
SP-42-50
SP-42-90
Apartment
1 FLPC
2 FPC
3FPLI
P- 811
P- 10
P-40
B- 101
B- 102:
B- 103
LSP- 10
Charge
Box Cap.
cu yd
0.33
0.30
0.35
1.8
0.6
1.2
2.1
2.8
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.3
2.7
1.3
2.3
3.6
NA
* Volume
per Hour
cu yd
31.0
39.6
46.0
155.4
..__
87.6
118.2
259.2
61.8
139.2
138.6
27.6
146.4
202.2
63.6
140.4
213.6
103.8
** Claimed
Compaction
Ratio
10:1
1
i
_L_
5:1
1
4:1
5:1
1
_i_
NA
J_
4:1
1
_1_
5:1
Maximum
Force
Ibs
15,000
25, 000
25, 000
39,000
20,100
42,400
50,900
91,800
7,300
25,000
40, 000
56,500
28, 000
56, 000
90,000
42,300
57,500
88, 000
39,000
Packer Face
Pressure
psi
21.0
46.5
46.5
38.7
23.3
29.9
28.0
38.8
21.3
27.4
22.2
31.2
32.0
40.0
50.0
33.0
32.0
49.0
30.0
Overall
Dimension
Inches
71x43x70H
68x43x70H
68x43x70H
1 OOx66x60H
44x84x45H
52x98x52 H
182x98x62H
183x98x62H
72x40x57H
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
132x67x45H
148x67x53H
1 84x67x53 H
120x60x54H
Price
$2, 800
3,300
4,000
4,500
3,000
3,400
4,000
5,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,000
REMARKS
2 cuyd .rear loading container $300
2 cuyd front or loading container $300
2 cuyd front or loading container $300
60" height without hopper
3 cu yd container $400
1 0 cu yd container $1 1 00
Containers available to 45 cu yd
Containers available to 45 cu yd
With one container (see also *7003)
With one container
6 cu yd containers $640
Loose Volume.
'Compaction ratios furnished by manufacturers did not identify variations
in the composition of wastes.
-------
horizontal direction. Wastes are fed into a receiving hopper and the
ram, when actuated, either manually or by optical or sonic devices.
compresses the wastes into a steel container which, although an important
part of the equipment, is a separate component which can be easily
attached to or detached from the packer mechanism. The filled container,
if small, can be moved by hand on its casters. The larger capacity
containers must be handled mechanically by special types of equipment as
discussed previously.
The stationary packer is a proven type of solid waste processing
equipment. It is capable of reducing wastes to 20 percent-25 percent,
or less, of their loose volume. Charging box capacities of these
packers range from about one third of a cubic yard to several yards.
Packer capacity is rated in cubic yards per hour and is dependent upon
charging box capacity and cycling time. Chute feeding is a common
practice when these packers are used. Optical and sonic controls are
available to provide automatic operation, which requires only periodic
attention of maintenance personnel.
Containers for use with packers are made in various sizes. They
are provided with casters and are usually fitted with lifting sockets
which allow them to be mechanically lifted and emptied by a front or rear
loading mobile packer. This labor saving procedure is all too frequently
-108-
-------
impeded or ignored by building planners who fail to provide adequate
maneuvering space, headroom, and accessibility from the exterior of the
building. It is interesting to note that except for only one known
manufacturer these containers are interchangeable with the various makes
of mobile packers. In a few instances some modifications of the lifting
sockets must be made on the containers.
This type of compactor — because of its large container capacity,
requires less frequent attention by building maintenance personnel.
The smaller sizes can be fitted with containers varying from 2 or 3
cubic yard capacities upward. This improves maximum capacities from
50 percent to 100 percent over bag type compactors. Attendants' time
is correspondingly reduced.
Prices of these compactors range between $3,000 and $5,000,
depending upon size. Containers cost from about $300 for the two yard
size to over $1,000 for the ten yard size. Compactors are available
from more than ten manufacturers and the list of container makers is
even longer.
The selection of the proper size compactor and containers will be
governed by the number of persons to be served in a given residential
building. It is also possible that compactors of this type, which can
also be manually fed, might be located as a central processing and
-109-
-------
storage area in a housing complex.
Compactor, Undercounter: About two years ago, a smal1 compactor
for individual residences was introduced in.test markets. It was
designed as a free standing appliance or could be installed under the
work counter in the kitchen or in a utility room. It occupies 2-}/k
square feet of floor space and is less than 3 feet high.
The lower portion of the compactor is a drawer, into which a
special paper bag is fitted for receiving kitchen wastes and refuse.
The drawer is pulled out and wastes may be dropped into the bag. The
drawer is then closed, causing the deposited wastes to be automatically
sprayed with an odor reducing solution. When the drawer is fully and
properly closed, a starting button is pushed thus energizing the
compacting ram mechanism. Two power screws operate the ram, which is
said to transmit 2,000 Ibs of force to a ram plate of 6" x 12" or an
equivalent pressure of about 28 psi to the loose refuse in the drawer.
Bulk reduction ratio of four to one is claimed by the manufacturer.
The energizing button can be locked out with a special key to prevent
tampering by children. The maker states that "almost all household
items can be put in the unit, including bottles, cartons, food wastes,
and aerosol cans."
The resulting "package" measures 9" x 16" x 18", contains 1-1/2
-no-
-------
COMPACTOR, UNDERCOUNTER
Make
13000
Mode!
SVC-80
Overall
Dimension
Inches
24xl5x35H
CONTAINERIZED PACKAGE
Weight
Lbs
20-30
Size
Inches
9x16x18
Volume
cu ft
1.5
Density
Per cu ft
Varies
Claimed
Compression
Ratio
4:1
Compaction
System
Mechanical
Horsepower
1/3
Price
$ 230
REMARKS
Bags cost 33? each
-------
cubic feet of compacted wastes and is said to weigh between 20 and
30 Ibs, although a dealer admits that 30 Ibs is not unlikely. Using
the production factor of 3 Ibs per capita as adopted for purposes of
this report, then the compactor would serve a family of k for about 3
days before the package need be sealed and removed for disposal. However,
the manufacturer claims that test market data indicates that a family of
four averages only one bag per week, when excluding deposit of magazines
and papers.
The current list price of the machine is about $230 to $250. A
discounted price of about $170 is indicated by the manufacturer for large
quantity purchases by housing developers. The odor reducing aerosol sells
for about $1 per can. With normal operation, about 3 cans per year are
required. Bags cost about $3-60 per dozen. It is reasonable to assume
than an average of 1-1/2 bags might be required per week for a family of
four persons. This could conceivably mean an addition to the operating
cost of the equipment of about $25 per year.
The compactor was developed jointly by a large household appliance
manufacturer and a major mail order and retail merchandiser. Marketing
is presently through the stores of the merchandiser and the dealer outlets
of the manufacturer. Due to the short history of this unit, sales and
user experience, factual data on capacity, life expectancy, and
maintenance problems are limited.
-112-
-------
Crusher, Bottle, and Can: These machines come in several models.
Some crush only bottles, other flatten cans, while the larger models
can handle both bottles and cans. The latter may be equipped with a
sloped conveyor to carry the materials to be crushed to the top of the
machine. The crushing principle involves the use of three horizontal
drums revolving in close proximity to each other. The drums have
intermeshing vee-shaped protrusions which force the cans or bottles
between the rollers. The manufacturer claims a size reduction ratio of
ten to one. Prices range from about $900 for a small combination
crusher to about $3,300 for a large capacity machine equipped with a
conveyor.
Grinder, Dry: Trade nomenclature for this type of equipment is
highly variable. Unlike pulpers, garbage grinders, and related types,
this equipment does not require a substantial flow of water for proper
operation. For the purposes of this study, dry grinders include machines
sometimes known as hoggers, pulverizers, grinders, shredders, hammermills,
etc. Three somewhat distinctive types will be discussed.
Though almost unknown outside of the wood and paper industries,
the wood hog effectively reduces fibrous as well as friable materials.
It will readily shred logs, railroad ties, paper, and plastics. It
shatters and granulates glass and similar materials and destroys metal
-113-
-------
GRINDER, DRY
Make
11000
i
JX
11001
11002
Mode!
100
HD-17-F-18
Claimed
Reduction
Ratio
15:1
4:1
Claimed
Density
Ibs/cu ft
24-93
_ _ _
___
Volume
Per Hour
15 cu yd
to 5 tons
to 5 tons
Overall
Dimension
Inches
78x61x70H
88x58x99 H
76x59x69H
Motor
Horsepower
100
100
Price
$14,000
19,500
6,500
REMARKS
With input screw conveyor and
accessories.
Includes hammermill and
compactor.
Produces very dense slugs.
(see also #7001 and #8001 )
Blow-hog with 40" fan and
motor .
-------
containers efficiently. A version of this shredder combines a
wood hog with a powerful blower, thus providing air transport for the
processed materials. The shredded materials can be removed from the
airstream by a cyclonic separator. Municipal and institutional wastes
have been successfully handled by such a blow-hog system. The final
product can be emptied into large packer containers or blown into an
incinerator.
Another type of dry grinder manufactured by Eidal International
Corporation employs a vertically rotating assembly. A series of stacked
star gears revolving loosely about vertical axes are mounted on this
assembly. The case housing the assembly is tapered, with its narrower
section at the bottom. The interior of the case is lined with heavy
grinding plates. The material to be processed is introduced at the top
and falls downward between the outer grinding plates and the revolving
cutter assembly. Larger articles are crushed at the top of the grinder
and, becoming smaller, are eventually shredded by the lower gears. The
equipment has been successfully used to shred apartment, institutional,
and municipal wastes.
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc. markets a vertically shafted hammermill to
shred or grind solid wastes. The material can be reduced to such size
that, by the addition of a very slight water spray, it can be compressed
-115-
-------
and extruded as a dense briquette. The manufacturer claims a 15:1
bulk reduction ratio. Solid wastes can be chute-fed to the machine
or an inclined screw conveyor can lift the waste material for deposit
in the top of the machine.
Consideration of the use of any of the described dry grinders must
take note of their relatively high noise factors. Installations must be
remote from living units or located in sound insulated equipment
rooms.
Grinder, In-sink: Although their use is banned by some cities,
New York being an example, in-sink garbage grinders are reliably reported
to be installed in over twelve million kitchens throughout the United
States. Made by at least a dozen manufacturers and sold under numerous
labels, 60 to 75 models are available, ranging in prices from less than
$25 to $150.
These waste food processors are designed to reduce wet garbage to
particles small enough to be flushed into a sanitary sewer line. They
are of two general classes; continuous-feed and batch-feed. In the
former, as the name implies, wastes can be continuously fed into the
grinder while it is operating. It is controlled by a wall switch. The
latter type is fed in batches and is controlled by its stopper, which
actuates an electrical switch when in the closed position. Batch types
are considered safer to operate and are usually slightly higher in cost
-116-
-------
GRINDER, IN-SINK
Moke
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
Model
300
400
500
600
700
NPD-100
NPD-200
KWF-100
KWD-100.
KWI-100
KWS-100
2000
2700
2900
3000
6300
8000
9000
40
50
60
80
Size or
Capacity
1 Qt
2 Qts
2Qts
2Qts
2 Qts
1-1/4 Qts
1-3/4 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Gits
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
2 Qts
1-1/2 Qts
1-1/2 Qts
1-1/2 Qts
1-1/2 Qts
Horsepower
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/3
1/2
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Feed
Continuous
NA
Batch
NA
NA
Continuous
Conti nuous
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Reversing
Switch
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Yes
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Automatic
Automatic
Automatic
Impeller
Blades
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Swivel
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Price
$ 24
32
45
43
53
40
60
80
100
130
150
25
NA
NA
32
45
55
70
*29
*50
*45
*63
REMARKS
Service motor
Induction motor
Sound shield
Custom switch cover
Deluxe model
Made by #1002 as "Budget" model
Made by #1002 as "Feature" model
Rotation reverses with each start
Rotation reverses with each start
Rotation reverses with each start
Rotation reverses automatically if machine jams-
Top Control Kit ($12) converts any model to batch feed
Sound insulation
Sound insulation
Sound insulation
Sound shield. Reverses if jammed
Sound shield. Reverses if jammed
Switch cover plate. Reverses if jammed
-------
GRINDER, IN-SINK (con't)
oo
i
Ma'
-------
than the continuous feed types.
Impellers are of two general types: Fixed blade and swiveled
hammer. At least one manufacturer makes a version of the fixed blade
impeller to permit adjustment for wear of the blades. The swiveled
hammer type has less tendency to jam in use than the fixed blade impeller.
It is more desirable provided that the rivets which serve as hammer axles
are strong enough to withstand long usage.
Some makes and models are equipped with a device which will
automatically reverse the rotation of the impeller if it becomes
jammed. Several others are wired so as to reverse or alternate the
rotation of the impeller at each start >of the grinder. Machines having
fixed blade impellers and which are not equipped with some convenient
means of reversing their rotation electrically are subject to jamming
and may prove to require frequent service.
It follows that price is an important factor in the selection of /
I
any equipment, particularly of a type such as the in-sink garbage
grinder, which is attached to the household plumbing system. Low initial
price may mean higher maintenance costs and shorter life. The so-called
"list prices" of garbage grinders can be quite misleading and are almost
invariably subject to appreciable discounts, even when only one grinder
is bought.
-119-
-------
This equipment has a useful life expectancy of ten years,
when properly used by the householder and when furnished with either a
motor overload protective device or reversing switch to prevent jamming of
the unit with non-grindables. Some form of sound shielding should
be provided. Parts which are particularly subject to corrosion should be
made of resistant materials such as stainless steel or plastic. Coatings
are subject to scratching and abrasion and do not provide adequate long
time protection. A grinder should be capable of satisfactorily reducing
to small particles such wastes as citrus rinds, corn husks, and bone
scraps, as well as the more common items generally found in household
garbage. Ease of connection, disconnection, and general accessibility to
the mechanism for servicing should have prime consideration, as should the
availability of parts and qualified maintenance service.
Hogger: The hogger fits into that gray area which has been
previously discussed where nomenclature confuses rather than enlightens.
The hogger can be generally classified as a dry grinder, which has been
previously covered in this report, but at the risk of some possible
reiteration a brief discussion on related equipment follows. Under
the general heading of destructive mi'lls are hammermills, grinders,
crushers, hoggers, and pulverizers--al1 of which belong to the same
-120-
-------
family group. The action of these mills is to shatter friable materials
by impact as opposed to grinding them between two harder objects or
materials. There are many types of mills available, some with fixed
hammers or swinging hammers and still others are equipped with knives.
It is to the latter group that the hogger belongs.
The hogger is classified by some manufacturers and users as a
hammermill and it may also be correctly classified as a shredder. It
was originally designed to break up wood scraps for further processing,
easier disposal, or for fuel. This particular type of mill is frequently
referred to as a "wood hog." The predominating design feature is that of
a hammermill, although some hogs are made with knives instead of hammers.
The hammer type hogger is generally classified as knifeless.
Another type of hogger is known as a "blow hog." A blower is
incorporated into the design of a system which provides for the pneumatic
transfer of the chopped up or shredded materials through tubes or
conduits. This type of system has many industrial applications and has
been adapted to the destruction and handling of solid wastes by the
Jacksonville Blow Pipe Company, makers of the Montgomery "Bio-Hog."
This system includes a cyclonic separator which deposits the shredded
wastes into a receiving hopper.
-121-
-------
jncinerator, Package: The discussion of incinerators will be
limited to those types of equipment which are most applicable to the
problems with which this report is concerned and will include the smaller
capacity equipment, those usually identified as package and on-site
incinerators. A review of the Standards of the Incinerator Institute of
America (See Appendix D--Classification of Wastes and Incinerators) is
essential to the proper selection of equipment of this type.
Typical of the conventional package incinerators marketed for
on-site installation is the 600 Ibs per hour retort incinerator as
manufactured by Sargent NCV Division, described below.
The R 600-1 incinerator is classified as a heavy destructor of
the retort type capable of handling Class I or Class II wastes. The
manufacturer claims it meets the standards of the Incinerator Institute
of America for this type of equipment and complies with the requirements
of Class III, Class IV, Class VI, or Class VII incinerators. Advantages
claimed for retort type over in-line incinerators include substantial
space savings due to reduced length of the retort equipment and some
increase in burning efficiency of this type of unit. The R 600-1 retort
incinerator requires a space of about 13'-0" x 9'-0" with about 1A feet
of vertical clearance. The unit is 7'-6" high without allowances for
stack connections. The cost of this unit is about $8,000 f.o.b. plant
excluding installation.
-122-
-------
The gas scrubber unit (model 600) for this incinerator is of the
wet impingement type and has a capacity of 6,^80 Ibs of gases per hour,
at temperatures up to 2,000 F- This equipment requires 6 gallons of
water per minute at 30 psi. Standard models include stainless steel
inlet sections with alloy steel outer shell. However, complete
stainless steel construction should be specified for acid or pathological
wastes. Space requirements will vary slightly depending upon whether
the scrubber is equipped with either a top or side inlet, but generally
a space 8'-0" x 6'-0" with 13 feet of vertical clearance will
accommodate either model. Approximate cost of the model 600 scrubber
is $*f,500. Other accessories such as a pyrometer and control panel are
priced at $150 and $500 respectively.
Small incinerators used for the processing of residential wastes
require little fuel use beyond the start-up time. The nature of
residential solid wastes, with a relatively high content of readily
combustible materials, will continue to support combustion once the load
is well ignited. Where available, gas is a commonly used fuel for
start-up and to assist in the burning of extremely wet wastes, but some
incinerators may be equipped to burn fuel oil.
The above described equipment is typical of the smaller package
incinerators which are presently available from several manufacturers.
-123-
-------
PACKAGE INCINERATOR
-124-
-------
Manufacturers of small incinerators that meet the emission standards in
the Code of Federal Regulations are listed in Appendix E. Improvements
in this type of equipment over the years have been largely confined to
design changes of components, such as the shape of combustion chambers,
kinds of refractory linings, methods of introducing and controlling
combustion air, modification of afterburner principles, and other air
pollution control devices. Advances have also been made in the design
of stacks, stoking methods, and ash removal. The development and in-
stallation of automated controls have improved the operation of small
on-site incinerators. In short, incineration is a highly complex
process. Increased automation and decreased human interference have
improved this waste reduction method and decreased resulting environ-
mental pollution. The design of installations cannot be left to catalogue
selection of equipment nor can proper evaluation of problems and their
solutions be left to the layman. It should be stressed that qualified
engineers experienced in incineration design should establish criteria
and supervise the necessary plans, specifications, and operating
procedures for any type of incinerator installation.
Pulper: There are several solid waste processing systems on the
market and in operation which utilize pulpers as the principal means of
-125-
-------
reduction. Generally, pulpers consist of a pulping bowl with
a pulping impeller and a waste sizing ring in the bottom. Accessory
equipment includes a junk ejector and a dewatering press. The pulper
and junk ejector are mounted directly adjacent to each other but the
dewatering press may be located at some distance from the pulper and
connected to it by piping. It is possible to utilize multiple pulping
stations and one dewatering press and in general, units can be located
in the most convenient places since the slurry goes to the press and
water is returned to the pulper by pipelines. Wastes can be
introduced into the pulper by chute in floor models, manually fed into
pit models, or carried by belt conveyor into these or other models.
Capacities of pulpers vary from about 1/2 to 2 tons of waste per hour.
In general, where only food wastes, paper, and light residential
or institutional wastes are being processed, the equipment is reported
to perform satisfactorily. During the development stages of some of
these pulpers, considerable difficulty was encountered in the satisfactory
handling of plastics, especially including polyviny1-chloride containers,
plastic tubing and some of the occasional heavier materials which are
found in unselected wastes. The Somat Corporation and Wascon Systems,
Inc. have produced standard models whose design was originally based upon
-126-
-------
PULPER WITH AUTOMATIC JUNK EXTRACTOR
-127-
-------
the requirements for the pulping of solid wastes in institutions but
which, of course, would also handle residential wastes. The Somat
Corporation estimates that water requirements for their pulpers is
based generally on 20 to 25 gallons per 100 pounds of dry solid wastes
processed. Through the use of dewatering devices the majority of water
used is reclaimed and recycled in the pulping operation. It is not
possible to obtain firm figures on the cost of this equipment since
an appreciable portion of such costs is for installation.
Since all installations must be designed to fit particular problems
and buildings, the manufacturers are reluctant to provide cost estimates
or guidelines.
The Black-Clawson Company, designers and manufacturers of pulpers
and other specialized equipment for the paper making industry, have
recently introduced a system utilizing pulping as its operating principle.
This firm's experience with heavy duty pulpers has given their waste
reduction system some desirable features which appear to have improved
the ability of a waste pulper to handle heavier and more dense materials.
The manufacturer claims that tests already made indicate the hydrapulper
can handle the full range of plastics and unselected residential wastes.
-128-
-------
An important element in the satisfactory performance of this
equipment is attributed by the manufacturer to the type of rotor and
extractor bed plate used in the pulper. It is of a design which has
been modified from the heavy duty equipment which has had years of
continuous operation in the paper industry. Limited experience
indicates that this pulper can satisfactorily handle the high density
materials found in general solid wastes. The statement has been made by
the manufacturer that the pilot plant has successfully pulped—among
other things, small animals; garden trimmings, including branches and
leaves; wire bound crates; and 2" x 4" lumber.
This sytem uses a junk ejector to remove large particles of metal,
glass, and other unpulpable materials. These are deposited in containers
for separate disposal. The slurry is piped from the hydrapulper to a
dewatering press and the resulting residue or sludge is deposited as very
moist, shredded material in containers for later disposal. It could be
thoroughly dried to save transported weight or disposed of moist in a
sanitary landfill, according to current practices.
The pilot plant was observed in operation at Middletown, Ohio.
A large pile of freshly collected municipal garbage and refuse was
available for testing purposes. The various materials were fed into the
pulper bowl, using a portable belt conveyor. Observations indicate that
-129-
-------
all wastes were adequately pulped. Only a small percentage of the
input was rejected as unpulpable and removed by the junk ejector.
At the time it was seen at the manufacturer's plant, the equipment
being used to pulp municipal wastes was in an advanced state of design
and demonstration, but had not then reached the point of development
where definite figures concerning capacities, water requirements and other
data were available. An installation for the handling of municipal
wastes has since been placed in operation in Franklin, Ohio. A
commercial installation is expected to go into operation at Portland,
Oregon, some time in June 1971. Based upon the manufacturer's present
data, he estimates that pulpers having capacities varying from 1,000 to
^,000 pounds per hour are feasible. He estimates that maximum water
requirements for the 1,000 pound per hour capacity pulper might reach
a maximum of 500 gallons per hour. However, reuse of water through
dewatering devices minimizes actual consumption of water. The costs
of installation will vary widely but are estimated to range between
$25,000 and $60,000 for the 1,000 to ^,000 pound per hour installations.
Pulping, as a method of processing solid wastes for ultimate
disposal, has much merit. A distinct advantage to pulping is the ease
with which the wastes can be transported as slurry in pipelines.
Pulverizer, Paper: This is a special purpose pulverizer, which,
it is claimed, will pulverize all types of paper, including IBM cards,
-130-
-------
photographs, medical, and personal records and even offset plates and
glass slides. The end product appears similar to coarse cotton. The
complete system includes a cyclone separator, dust collector, and a
small compactor. The actual reduction device is a swing hammer impact
mill with a built-in pregrinding shredder. Models with capacities
ranging from 300 to 10,000 Ibs per hour are available. Pacific Paper
Company, Inc., the manufacturer of a pulverizer of this type, states
that a complete system for the pulverizing and compacting of the
processed paper would run about $8,700 for a 400 pound per hour
installation. An installation with a capacity of 1,000 pounds per hour
would be about $16,400.
Shredder: Shredders are mills which are frequently used to
reduce non-friable materials and are quite similar in principle to
hammermilIs, grinders, and crushers, although the shape of hammers or
knives may be different from some other mills. Hammer shapes may be of
the heavy "slugger" style or of the "hog" style. Others may be variations
of ring hammers, with star shapes or roughly serrated edges.
Shredders are of two main types. The down running shredder has
material fed to it on the down swing of the hammers. The over running
-131-
-------
SHREDDER AND FAN
SHREDDER AND BALER
-132-
-------
type receives material at the top of the mill and on the upswing of the
hammers. Over running, sometimes called uprunning, shredders, or
crushers, are used with less friable materials, when a longer cycle
in the mill is desired. Generally speaking, the size of grate
openings and the arrangement and pattern of breaker plates will regulate
the sizes of the finished products.
Manufacturers' catalogs give little that is specific about the
capacities of shredders. This is understandable when the wide variety
of uses to which the equipment might be put is considered. However,
one manufacturer alone lists about thirty sizes each for down and over
running shredders. Weights of the equipment run from 7,500 to 170,000
Ibs in a wide range of capacities to suit almost any requirement.
Prices of shredders vary from a few thousand dollars to over
$100,000 depending upon sizes, the nature of the materials to be
shredded and many other factors. One shredder, or grinder, having a
capacity of "up to five tons per hour, based on packer truck refuse"
sells for about $20,000.
-133-
-------
On-Site System's Effect on Final Processing and Disposal Methods
Accepted methods of final processing and disposal now prevailing in
solid waste management are limited to reclamation, sanitary landfill,
and incineration. It is likely in the foreseeable future that methods
such as composting, pyrolysis, and other processes will be in prominent
use.
Aside from the improved methods of disposal, open dumping and
burning of solid wastes is one of the most commonly practiced methods.
Although this study is not directly concerned with ultimate disposal
methods employed in the community, it is concerned with the effect and
compatibility of on-site processing with local disposal practices.
Discussions herein will be limited to these aspects.
Conditions of solid wastes, subsequent to removal for off-site
disposal, are broadly classified as follows:
Uncompacted, loose, or bagged wastes
Compacted or baled wastes
Dry, shredded wastes
Wet, pulped, and dewatered wastes
Incineration residue
The general suitability of each kind of processed material can
be related (Table 2) to the respective disposal methods previously
-134-
-------
mentioned; however, some qualifications are necessary.
It will be noted that open dumping and burning of wastes have
./
been listed. Although not acceptable by today's standards, it is
reemphasized that these methods are practiced in many communities. It
must also be reemphasized that the purpose of this discussion is not
the evaluation of acceptable disposal methods but that of the
compatibility of the processed waste material with all types of disposal
practiced.
Whether the physical conditions of raw waste materials are
uncompacted or compacted, little effect is m.ade upon any of the methods
•of disposal. This observation is based upon the effects of normal
"working" of material at any disposal site. In each method of disposal,
a series of activities occurs which conditions material before the
final process is undertaken. Compacted material normally will be
broken up into a loose state in the unloading process and/or by site or
plant equipment.
Waste materials processed by shredding, pulping, or on-site
incineration have received pre-conditioning with each process, offering
certain advantages to various disposal systems. All these processes
reduce raw wastes to a state whereby conventional scavenging is
eliminated.
-135-
-------
Shredded wastes are compatible with nearly all types of disposal,
being a workable homogenous material. Decomposition will be accelerated
in sanitary landfill, composting, or open dump operations. Combustion
will be improved by the more uniform fuel for incineration, pyrolysis, and
open burning, and the condition of the material lends itself well to
mechanical separation in reclamation processes.
Dewatered pulped waste, in some respects, has similar qualities
as shredded materials; however, is initially not as suitable for the
combustion processes. Pulped material is more suitable for sanitary
landfill and open dump operations, but can also be handled in composting
and reclamation processes.
Ultimate disposal of solid waste residue after on-site
incineration is limited primarily to sanitary landfill and open dumping.
Reclamation of non-combustibles is also possible, although not
significant except in large quantities.
In effect, regardless of the known methods of on-site processing
used, the end product will not be incompatible with local disposal
methods. In extreme cases where on-site compaction of wastes is
accomplished using a baling system with positive ties, possible problems
may arise. In such cases where disposal site equipment is not capable
of breaking up baled material in normal handling operation, baling straps
must be cut before deposit at the site.
-136-
-------
TABLE 2 - SUITABILITY OF PROCESSED WASTES FOR VARIOUS DISPOSAL METHODS
Final Processing and
Method of Disposal
Reclamation
Sanitary Landfill
Incineration
Composting
Pyrolysis
Open Dumping
Open Burning
Condition of Waste Material
Uncompacted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Compacted
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Shredded
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pulped
0
+
-
0
-
+
_
Incinerated
0
+
NA
NA
NA
+
NA
CO
XI
I
Notes;
+ more suitable
0 suitable
less suitable
NA not applicable
-------
Summary
The preceding review of equipment has been carried out to identify
and describe the various types of devices and mechanical components
that may be considered in structuring on-site solid waste systems.
Generally, the total system concept has not yet been developed
and marketed that will provide solutions to all of the many different
problems of processing, storage, and handling of solid wastes in building
complex systems. However, substantial progress is being made in the
development of individual components.
Various types of processing equipment (such as compactors, balers,
grinders, pulpers, incinerators, etc.), all offering a wide range of
capacities, have been developed for solid waste systems in buildings.
Reduced storage space requirements can be accomplished with the use of
such waste reduction devices, and building sanitation and safety can
also be improved. Lesser progress is evident in on-site transport
systems exclusively for solid wastes. In addition to the practical
and economical gravity chute, available methods are limited to prototype
pneumatic conveyors and slurry pipelines. Where such methods can be
adapted, interim storage points in building complexes can be further
minimized. It is the goal of this study to identify the solid waste
problems in residential complexes, evaluate suitable equipment and
-138-
-------
methods, and seek alternative solutions to these problems through
identification and evaluation of available systems.
-139-
-------
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS
Identification of Basic Systems
In the investigation of solid waste systems suitable for residential
complexes, nine basic functional variations were found (Table 3).
These variations are generally concerned with methods of transport,
processing, and storage within each of the sub-systems (Dwelling Unit,
Inter-Unit, and Inter-Building). These functional variations, in
most cases, only suggest broad classifications of hardware that may
be used and do not identify specific selections of equipment components.
These systems also vary in the types of dwelling units to which they
are adaptable and the types of waste materials to be handled.
The intent of this broad classification of solid waste systems is
to provide basic guidelines for selection of candidate systems for
residential complexes during planning stages. Once basic systems
are narrowed down for a given project, then variations of such systems
can be developed employing specific selection of equipment that appears
applicable to actual conditions of the project.
System Capabilities
Further investigation involved evaluation of pertinent
characteristics of the sub-system components of each basic system
-140-
-------
(Table 4). The characteristics are generally concerned with various
aspects of environmental quality, performance, adaptability,
compatibility, and certain economic aspects of the systems. This
rating involved a judgement of the capability of each component and
sub-system to meet applicable criteria and is not a direct
comparison between systems.
First of all, it must be stated and re-emphasized that this
overall study is not a literature review, that little, if any,
statistics have been recorded on the operating characteristics or
capabilities of "in-plant" solid waste systems, or, for that matter,
even identification and functioning of such total systems. Consequently,
evaluations of total systems herein, to a large extent, are based upon
related observations and experience, a little pioneering and the
application of a common sense approach in the assessment of system
components, related characteristics and capabilities of these
components and the intra-system effect of each component and
sub-system.
The ratings, as shown in Table k, and the deficiency ratings,
shown later in Table 5, provide a means of evaluating the ability of
the various system components to provide the recommended level of
-141-
-------
TABLE 3
BASIC SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES
System
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Moteriols
Handled
"j
o>
o
o
CD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_c
.0
cr?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
1 —
X
X
Dwelling Types
Recommended
Q
*
X
X
X
<
^
X
X
X
X
u_
1
X
X
X
X
X
u_
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
u_
§
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUB- SYSTEMS
Dwe 1 1 1 ng Uni t(DU)
Preparation
Segregate
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Processing
Garbage
Grinder
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Under- Counter
Compactor
Storage
NR
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Lined
Container
Compactor
Bag
Inter-Uni t(|U)
Transport
Hor.
Waste
Line
Manual or
Vehicle
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Manual
Vert.
Waste
Line
Manual
Manual
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Gravity
Chute
Manual
Processing
NR
NR
Console
Compactor
NR or
Stationary
Compactor
NR
NR
Dry
Grinding or
Shredding
Wet
Grinding or
Pulping
NR
Storage
NR
NR or Bin
Bag or
Bale
Bag, Bale
or Container
Bin or
Container
Base of
Chute
NRor
Container
NR
Bin or
Container
Inter-Building (IB)
Transport
Sewer
Line
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Pneumatic
Tube
Pneumatic
Tube
Slurry
Pipeline
Vehicle
Processing
NR
NR
NR
NR
Stationary
Compactor
Stationary
Compactor
or Incin.
NR orComp.
or Incin.
Dewatering
NR
Storage
NR
NR or Bin
NRor
Storage area
NR or
Storage area
Container
Container
Container
Container
NRor
Container
to
I
NR - Not Required
-------
TABLE
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM CAPABILITIES
•N
CO
I
SYSTEMS
CHARACTERISTICS
». Typ.ofW<»..
O. Gorboge
c. Troih
2. State of Development
3. Practicability ond Operabilily
4. Economic Charactemtici
a. Economy of Increoie Loading
Expected Ufa
5. Reliability and Durability
o. Demonnrai«d
b. Predicted
o. Maintainability
7. Adap(ob!i;iy of Integration wilh,
a. Oher utility tyilemt
b, Oiner momrenonce lervicei
9. Adaptability for Di. penal to,
a. Sanitary landfill
h. Incineration
c. Recovery of reiourcfli
10. Environmental Quality
b. Noise
c. Air pollution
d. Eiinehct
11. SaFely
O. Fire and enploiiorn
12. Ope f oi Ion Comtrointi
13. Adoptability lo,
o. Increased loading
charocleriiiict
14. Availability For Meeting
Construction Schedulel
15. Compatibility wilh Houtlng Typei
o. LR/SFO
C. LR/Mr
d. MR/MF
.. HR/MF
SYSTEM NUMBER
No.)
OU
+
NA
+
*
p
NA
*
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
+
t
0
0
*
*
~r
*
IU
NA
*
+;
'
t
NA
*
t
NA
NA
NA
NA
+
+
+
+
t
0
*
*
T~
+
V
IB
NA
+
+
f
NA
•f
•f
NA
NA
NA
NA
•h
+
t
•f
*
P
*
•f
•*•
No. 2
DU
0
*
p
t
p
NA
P
NA
0
0
0
0
P
P
0
0
p
p
p
p
NA
*
0
NA
NA
IU
U
P
0
0
p
p
NA
P
NA
P
P
+
*
0
P
-
U
p
0
p
0
NA
P
U
NA
NA
IB
0
P
P
P
P
P
NA
P
NA
0
P
t
P
0
-
p
0
p
p
P
NA
P
0
NA
NA
No. 3
DU
P
P
•t
0
NA
P
NA
P
P
P
P
P
P
0
P
-
0
0
p
P
NA
NA
— o~
NA
NA
IU
•f
n
p
p
+
p
NA
P
t
+
p
+
+
+
t
*
t
P
NA
—
NA
NA
IB
0
P
P
NA
+
NA
P
P
«•
0
P
+
P
t '
P
t
t
*
NA
o
NA
No. 4
DU
0
0
*
+
p
NA
P
NA
P
P
0
P
P
0
0
p
-
0
p
p
p
NA
NA
NA
P
P
IU
t
*
+
P
NA
P
NA
P
+
+
f
P
0
0
u
0
p
p
+
p
NA
NA
IB
P
n
p
NA
*
NA
P
P
•f
+•
P
0
+
0
t
p
t
+
*
NA
NA
P
P
No. 5
DU
0
P
+
P
NA
P
NA
P
P
P
P
P
P
0
P
-
P
P
P
P
NA
NA
NA
• o
IU
V
-
n
p
NA
-
NA
P
P
+
P
U
-
-
.
-
9
NA
NA
-
IB
•f
P
P
NA
+
NA
P
P
t
0
P
P
P
P
P
P
t
+
•f
NA
NA
No. 6
DU
P
P
0
NA
P
NA
P
P
P
p
P
P
P
0
-
P
P
P
p
NA
NA
NA
0
0
IU
p
+
p
NA
P
NA
P
t
•*-
P
P
U
P
P
P
0
*
NA
NA
»
IB
0
+
P
+
0
+
p
+
p
p
+
+
•*•
p
t
*
NA
NA
+
No. 7
DU
P
*
P
P
NA
P
NA
P
P
P
0
. 0
0
p
0
-
p
p
p
p
NA
NA
NA
P
P
IU
-
+
+
P
P
NA
*
*
P
(t
-
0
+
0
p
p
NA
NA
+
IB
0
*
0
•f-
0
-f
0
+
0
0
+
+
t
0
+
t
NA
Nft
+
No. 8
DU
0
>
P
0
NA
P
NA
P
P
P
p
P
0
0
p
_
0
p
0
p
NA
NA
P
P
IU
~Z~~
-
*
a
+
p
NA
»
-
P
n
_
p
+
•
0
p
NA
NA
t
IB
~T~
t
*
NA
*
+
0
_
0
0
+
+
•f
9
NA
NA_
*
+
No. 9
OU
0
0
0
+
0
+
*
0
0
p
a
p
«•
*
+
p
p
0
+
4-
~
N4
NA
IU
^
~
P
*
N4
»
NA
•t-
+
4-
*•
0
t
+
0
NA
P
P
NA
NA
IB
t
-r4
*
p
p
0
*
NA
*
NA
P
0
+
P
0
+
P
P
*
NA
P
0
NA
NA
No.
DU
IU
IB
—
i-
Mori Illltobll DU • Dwelling Unit
SullobU IU - Inl«(-Utill
Uii lulfobll IB • Intar-Bulldlng
NA- Not Applltobl.
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMAIY OF SYSTEM EVALUATION
SYSTEMS
CKAXACTEftlSTICS
1 T,,>« e'Woli«
(.. Troth
?. Slot* of {>«.•• lopmcnl
3. ProcticobHity ond Op»'«ib>'ii>
4. Economic CKoroclcnilic.
O. Economy of Irttrrai.* Laodino.
b. Economy IhrovgKovl
£j-p«cl»-d Lit.
5. lUf.ab.'l.t, «nd DvrobU-lY
«. Mointolngblllly
7. Adop'oblllrx of (migration wifh.
a. O'h*» otllity ivUfm
b. GiK*f o SI|« Rrqt,.f«m*ntt
9. Adoptability Tor D.ipotol to.
0. Sanitary londOII
10. Env.ro~««nral Quality
o. Soni'loi.on
0. Nc.ii*
b. £.'**«;«:»
t. SaUi,
0. f'tt and vnplotiora
2. Op*roiton Conjoint.
3, Adoptability to,
O. tnc'*owd tooding
b. Variation !« -«»'•
cKofocrrrittici
4, Availability for Moling
5. Co^?o'-b-!.fy with Homing Typ.il
o LtVD
b U UA
< 1. -V'Mr
d. M«t''i\tf
• . M VH(f
SYSTEM NUMBER
No. 1
OU
0
NA
NA
1
0
0-
2
?
0
NA
0
NA
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)»n- loncy lot] it* t 12
IU
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IB
0
NA
0
0
0
1
1
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
No. 2o
DU
3
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
NA
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
IU
7
7
1
1
2
2
7
NA
2
1
~l
2
3
1
2
7
0
0
1
IB
7
2
1
1
2
2
7
NA
2
1
1 1
2
J
1
2
2
0
0
1
1 1
Ol 0 ( NAlNA NA
0
2
0 ' NA
2 I 40
IMA
47
NA
47
No 2b
DU
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
NA
2
1
1 — '"
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
40
IU
1
1
3
3
7
2
NA
1
1
I
2
1
\
\
1
0
0
0
U
NA
NA
42
IB
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
NA
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
44
No 2c
DU
2
2
0
0
1
2
NA
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
0
NA
0
0
NA
NA
IU
1
0
0
0
1
1
NA
1
1
1
1
2
2
J
1
1
0
NA
0
I)
NA
NA
40 IK
15
3
1
1
2
7
2
2
NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
NA
0
0
NA
±14.
37
No. 3
OU
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
NA
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
NA
0
0
NA
_NA
40
IU
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
NA
1
0
1
'r
i
~r
0
i
0
NA
0
U
NA
NA
26
IB
1
1
0
0
2
2
2
1
NA
1
1
1
I"
1
~
i
i
i
0
NA
0
0
NA
30
No. 4
OU
2
2
2
0
0
1
2
NA
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
40
IU
1
0
0
0
2
2
NA
\
0
1
—f
1
1
2
1
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
2:
IB
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
NA
2
1
1
—1 —
1
2
1
1
2
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
No. 5
OU
2
2
0
0
1
2
NA
IU
2
3
3
5
3
NA
2 2
2
1
T
2
2
— 5 — '
2
2
2
0
NA
\_ NA
""NA
0
3
-I
4
3
T
4
4
4
J
0
NA
NA
NA
0
IS
1
1
3
3
2
NA
2
1
3
3
3
2
H| —
2
2
2
0
NA
NA
NA"
0
000
37 1 40 Ul
52
No. i
DU
2
2
0
0
1
NA
IU| IB
I
1
0
0
0
2
NA
2 2
1
2
2
1
1
1
. L
2
2
2
,
0
7
-,|.
NA
NA
- NA
0
O O 0 0
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1 —
0
0
1
2 — 1
2
0
1
0
fl
No. 7
DU
2
2
2
0
0
1
IU 1 IB
I
4
1
1
,
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
NA
2
NA
2
0
0
1
1 —
r 3
2
1 — r~
2
2
0
NA
0
0
rf
2
4
—
1
,
NA
FO 1 NA NA
0 1 NA..NA
0 • 0 . 0 ( 0
40 1 25 1 20 i 40
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1-
1
NA
ISo. B
OU IU
7
2
2
0
0
1
NA
4
I
1
1
T
II
1
1
1
1
0
0
t
2 >NA' 0
1
0
0
10 0
2
3
2~
3
-? .
1
2
2
0
1 NA
NA NA
NA T" NA
1 48 1 22 1 40
1
j
1
2
0
0
No. 9
DU t IU IS
1
1
2 22
1 ' 1 1
2,1 I
1 | 1 1
1 2 2
1 22
12 2
1 2 2
NA NA s-
i i :
1 2 1
1 ,1,1
11 1
— l..-l_'_. 1-
t
1
Oil 1
0 1 1
• 0 • 2 1
01 1
1 — IT T"
1 * '. ' '
0 < 1 1 2
2 I 1 2'2
-1-
NA
'NA
'NA
0
0
43
NA
'NA"
'NA
0
-»—
0 00
000
r o r o" ' o"
10.00
i NA NA NA
1 NA NA NA
17 1 19 31 !32
i DcRclMcy Gndlngt 0 N*rf*fIcUncy
1 V*ry pood o* mar* 0d*qvQt«
2 Good w adtqwot*
3 Folf or >•» od*qv«l«
S NW itoltobU or
-------
service compatible with Operation Breakthrough's general planning
objectives and within the limits of user habits discussed earlier.
A general discussion on types of factors considered in
development of these ratings is presented on each of the System
Characteristics identified in Tables k and 5.
Type of Waste Handled: Rating the capability to handle the
various types of wastes within the limitations of the systems' design
is based substantially on the efficiency of the initial preparation or
processing of wastes performed in the DU and the subsequent effect such
handling will have in the III and IB sub-systems. This basis is further
explained by the following discussion of all DU sub-systems.
System 1 - In-sink grinder is capable of handling garbage only,
but efficiently at the source without reh,andling. Assumes that
users do not include small children.
Systems 2 through 8 - Al1 employ deposit of wastes in lined
containers. Waste materials must then be transported daily at
frequent intervals to outside lined container for DU storage or
prov'ided insnde storage for daily accumulations in lined containers
for subsequent transport to IU storage or processing. These systems
are capable of handling all types of wastes but assumes capability
of handling wet garbage wastes without frequent mishaps is unlikely.
-145-
-------
Assumes DU users of all ages including small children as frequent
users.
System 9 - Under-counter compactor capable of handling all types
of wastes in DU, and adjacent to, or at source of, generation
minimizing handling. Also capable of inside protected storage of
relatively large quantities of wastes and minimizes frequency of
transport outside of DU and opportunities of subsequent mishap en
route. Assumes operation of unit and handling of compacted
bagged wastes -will not be performed by small children.
State of Development: Considers factors such as historic use
of common components or principals of mechanics and operation of newer
components. Also, probability of improvement in functioning or quality
of components.
Practicability and Operability: Considers factors of simplicity
of use, user acceptance and/or adequacy for intended purpose together
with the resulting level of service.
Economic Characteristics: Assumes that economic justification of
the system has been established and reconciled with the level of service
desired for initial operating conditions. However, the following factors
concerned with future loadings and use are also pertinent.
a. Economy of increased loading: Considers such factors as
-146-
-------
required addition of components, labor, repairs, and
supplies, system modifications or abandonment of system.
b. Economy throughout expected life: Considers the capability
of components to handle future loadings at reasonable
increase in costs together with a reasonable life
expectancy of system components.
Reliability and Durabi1ity: Considers demonstrated capabilities
of system components to handle various types of waste materials to which
they are subjected. Mechanical principles, quality and use tests are
also considered for those newer components on the market. The latter
factors, together with present technology, are the principal bases for
predicted improvements in these components.
Maintai nabi1i ty: Considers demonstrated or predicted efficiency
in maintenance (mechanical and housekeeping) and costs of maintenance
related to the resulting quality of service.
Adaptabi 1 ? ty o_f_ Integration wi th lit i 1 i ty Systems and Other
Maintenance Services: Considers characteristics of labor, equipment, and
maintenance required for system operation and the compatibility of such
characteristics with other similar in-plant requirements.
Adaptability to Site Requ ? rements: Considers the design,
installation, and operating characteristics of systems versus the
-147-
-------
requirements of design, construction and occupancy stages of the types
of housing projects with which the systems are compatible.
Adaptabi1 i ty _tp_ Disposal by_ Sani tary Landf ? 11 , Incineration or
Recovery of Resources: Considers the ultimate effect of the individual
components on the methods of final processing or disposal.
Environmental Quality: Considers the effect of the individual
components on controlling environmental quality (sanitation, noise, air
pollution and esthetics) and considers that preceding methods (components)
used in the system may have subsequent effect throughout the system.
In the case of noise ratings, location, frequency, and duration of use
and associated actions in connection with use are considered as well as
the level of such noise.
Safety; Considers susceptibility of components to fire and
explosion under normal operating conditions. Also considers hazards to
users and general public under such conditions. Protective devices
available on mechanical components are of major concern, as are the
unprotected non-mechanical components or methods employed in the system.
Operation Constraints: Considers limitations in use of the
components and the progressive effect throughout the system. Types of
waste handled, conditioning of materials for subsequent handling,
efficiency of handling, simplicity of operation by user and/or operator
are types of factors considered.
-148-
-------
Adaptabi11ty to Increased Loadings and Variations of_ Waste
Handled: Considers required modifications, additional supplies, labor,
and maintenance for components and system operation under increased
loadings and the efficiency in handling the various types of wastes.
Availab?1ity for Meeting Construction Schedules: Assumes that
consideration and selection of the waste system will be made during
planning stages and that scheduling, procurement, and installation of
"built-in" components will receive normal attention during construction.
The size or complexity of the system alone are not considered to govern
this rating. Other factors such as normal availability of construction
materials, standard mechanical components, and special fabrications
required for the system installation, and the ability to merge the
installation in the overall construction schedule are of major
signi ficance.
Sub-systems which are composed of accessory items, such as
vehicular transport, cans, and containers, not affecting construction are
classified as "not applicable."
Compatibility with Housing Types: Considers the types of
complexes to which the systems are primarily compatible. For example,
the pneumatic collection system (System 6) is primarily intended for
-149-
-------
considered use in high density (MR/MF and HR/MF) complexes, the console
compactor (System 3) is intended for grouped low-rise housing while the
under-counter compactor (System 9) is intended for all types of
low-rise units.
Summary: To further elaborate on this method of evaluation, a
brief analysis of the rating of System No. 1 is presented. This system,
employing the garbage grinder in the Dwelling Unit (DU) Sub-system,
received a relatively high ranking. Although the garbage grinder only
handles a single type of waste, it does it efficiently, as reflected in
the DU rating. The pipeline handling of the processed wastes is also
rated with high efficiency in the Inter-Unit (IU) and Inter-Building
(IB) Sub-systems. The rating basically suggests that this proven
system provides a high level of service, within reasonable economic
limits, and that it is adaptable to all types of housing. The rating
further implies that the loading capacity of the unit is not a critical
factor and that standard components are readily available so as not to
unduly affect construction.
This rating in Table ^ does not intend to make a direct comparison
between systems, although, unavoidably, certain conclusions can be drawn.
Certain repetition in ratings have been made in cases where
similar or identical methods are used in the different systems. For
-150-
-------
example, the DU Sub-system in Systems No. 2 through 8 are similar
and the transport component in the ID Sub-system of Systems No. A
through 8 are identical.
Economic Factors
Basic economic evaluation of systems should consider the initial
capital investment and annual operating cost that may be incurred by
the developer, which, in turn, is passed on to the resident (owner or
renter), as well as the continuing costs that may be incurred only by
the resident.
In a residential complex where site configuration is such that
all residences may be served by conventional municipal services, capital
investments for special system facilities may be totally eliminated, and
the resident may directly incur all costs.
Typical direct charges per single family residence for conventional
municipal collection and disposal services generally range between $2*»
and $36 annually. Such charges vary with the area and type of service
available. In many instances the direct charges assessed to the residence
do not include all costs of municipal services and overcosts are funded
from tax revenues. In many cities the total costs of municipal solid
waste services are funded from tax revenues. The trend is for increasing
costs in municipal solid waste services which is highly influenced by
-151-
-------
escalating labor rates. In addition to these costs, the recipient of
this service incurs the cost of storage containers, liners, and other
required accessories. Assuming the average dwelling unit will require an
average of 3~30 gallon liners per week at a cost of about $0.07 each,
costs of liners alone will be about $11 annually- Together with the
cost of containers and sanitizing, it is estimated that to provide a
recommended level of service, costs of total accessories will likely
range from $12 to $18 per year.
Should the developer or resident elect to install accessory
processing devices for wastes such as garbage grinders or under-counter
compactors, substantial capital investment is required, as well as
continuing costs.
The conventional kitchen garbage grinder of reasonable quality will
range between $75 to $150 installed. With a life expectancy of about
ten years, this unit will likely cost the user between $15 and $25
annually, including capital expense (amortization of installed cost),
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs. The above estimate is based
on the following allowances:
Purchase price range $50 $125
Installation, handling, and electrical service 25 25
Installed cost $75 $150
-152-
-------
Equivalent annual cost:
Amortization (10 yrs @ 6 percent -
Rate 0.1360) $10.20 $19-1»0
Maintenance, repairs, and operating costs 5-00 5.00
Estimated average annual cost $15.20 $2*t.40
The under-counter compactor, currently being marketed at discounted
prices as low as $170 in quantities and a retail cost of about $230 with
an assumed life expectancy of about ten years, will likely cost the user
about $60 to $67.50 annually, including capital expense (amortization of
installed cost), maintenance, repairs, and supplies. The above estimate
is based on the following allowances:
Purchase price range $170 $230
Installation, handling, and electrical service 20 20
Installed cost $190 $250
Equivalent annual cost:
Amortization (10 yrs @ 6 percent -
Rate 0.1360) $25.84 $3^.00
Maintenance, repairs, and operating costs 8.50 8.50
Supplies (bags and sanitizing spray) 25.00 25.00
Estimated average annual cost $59.3^ $67-50
-153-
-------
The installation of devices, such as kitchen grinders and
compactors, provides advantages to the collection agencies by elimination
or volume reduction of materials handled and possible reduction in
frequency of collection required. The residents' benefits are limited
to the convenience and improved environmental standards at increased
cost. This comparison illustrates that to achieve improved standards of
system operation in the single family dwelling unit, a substantial
increase in total annual costs will be incurred.
In large residential complexes of mixed dwelling unit types, several
of the basic systems may be required and may require contract or
management collection services. In such complexes, possible economies
in collection may be passed on to the residents to partially defray
increase costs. This factor may become more significant considering
the increasing cost of collection labor and long-range economies that
may 1i kely result.
Summary of Systems Evaluations
Variations of the conventional collection system (System No. 2)
as shown in Table 5 are identified as follows:
System 2a - The conventional municipal collection, consisting
of house-to-house collection with a conventional mobile packer.
System 2b - House-to-house collection using either a satellite
-154-
-------
collection vehicle or multi-purpose maintenance vehicle
for transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage
locat ions.
System 2c - Occupants are required to deposit accumulated waste in
bins, centrally located in clusters. Multi-purpose maintenance
vehicles will tow these bins to intermediate storage locations.
Evaluation of the previously identified systems involved a
comparison of system characteristics. The comparison is illustrated by a
simplified deficiency rating of characteristics of the sub-systems of
each system (Table 5). The determination of deficiency values of
systems' characteristics was based on similar factors considered in the
rating of system capabilities (Table k). This deficiency value rating
method was resolved to a six step grading proces (0 to 5) of each
characteristic in each sub-system and collectively represent a deficiency
rating of the total system.
This comparison indicates advantages that may be expected by
processing in the dwelling units and subsequent transport of waste
materials in a closed system. The advantages of such a combination are
illustrated by the low deficiency rating in the case of System 1, which
utilizes grinders with sewer line transport of the processed materials.
-155-
-------
System 9, employing under-counter compactors for improved
storage of wastes in the dwelling unit and conditioning for subsequent
transport, also reflects a relatively low deficiency rating.
Systems 2 through 8 employ the same or similar conventional
methods in the dwelling unit sub-system and consequently have identical
ratings.
System 6, employing pneumatic pipeline conveyance of waste
materials would provide a desirable level of service in the Inter-Unit
and Inter-Building sub-systems.
Variations in the deficiency ratings of the other systems shown
are affected by differing methods in the Inter-Unit and Inter-Building
sub-systems only.
Development of devices for processing of waste materials in the
dwelling unit and/or devices for direct admission of waste materials
from the dwelling unit into a pneumatic pipeline system, coupled with
the Inter-Unit and Inter-Building pneumatic conveyor system, would
likely provide an optimum system for handling of all types of domestic
wastes. Such a system would be comparable to the deficiency rating of
System 1, which is limited to the handling of garbage.
-156-
-------
Site Factors
The earlier discussion of general requirements of solid waste
systems provides basic guidelines that must be considered for any
residential complex in the planning stage. In addition, specific project
conditions that would influence solid waste management must be considered
for individual projects. These include the physical characteristics of
the site (size, shape or proportions, topography, and soils), site
planning, local regulations, and solid waste/ management practices. Other
factors such as characteristics of the surrounding community,
environmental quality requirements, and area climatic conditions must
also be considered in the selection of candidate systems.
The following sections of this division of the report present
general descriptive details of the site analysis made on each of the
Operation Breakthrough projects, together with the planning analyses of
solid waste systems for each, based upon data available on proposed
site conditions at the time of this study.
-157-
-------
SELECTION OF SYSTEMS FOR OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH PROJECTS
This division of study is concerned with the investigation of each
of the nine housing developments in the Operation Breakthrough program.
This investigation, conducted during the conceptual design stages of
these projects, has included a review of initial planning studies,
available interim reports and site plans, as well as conferences with
Site Planners, in efforts to obtain adequate data for identification
of the solid waste system requirements of each project.
The location and respective number of dwelling units proposed in
these housing developments are listed as follows:
1. Macon, Georgia 305
2. Memphis, Tennessee
3. St. Louis Missouri
k. Indianapolis, Indiana 300
5. Kalamazoo, Michigan 220
6. Jersey City, New Jersey 500
7. Sacramento, California *»07
8. Seattle, Washington 60
9- King County, Washington 162
-158-
-------
Within this group of projects, a wide variety of dwelling unit
types and sizes will be found, as well as a wide variety of building
types and site configurations. A summary of project descriptions
(Table 6) indicates such characteristics as housing mix, size mix,
average DU density, resident population, and size and type of ancillary
facilities of each complex. Certain of these projects will contain
extensive community facilities such as schools, commercial establishments,
and offices, in addition to recreational and. social centers generally
common to all. All of the functions in the respective projects must be
accommodated by a combination of components of the solid waste systems
considered. Specific characteristics of waste system requirements are
identified in the individual project studies.
Initial selection of candidate systems (Table 7) for the Operation
Breakthrough projects can be based on the types of dwelling unit
structures proposed in each project. However, refinement of this
selection and evaluation of systems require that individual analyses
be made for each project and the actual selection of systems may be
either further limited or expanded.
The preliminary cost estimates of the various systems considered
for these projects are based "on reasonable allowances for maintenance,
repair, and labor, as well as purchase of equipment and supplies. To
-159-
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS
Proi.
No.
J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location
Mocon
Memphis
St. Louis
East Site
West Site
Indianapolis
•LR&MR
Kolamozoo
Jersey City
Socramenfo
Seattle
King Co.
Type
(!) l2t i3>
LR SFD LD
LR SFA LD
LR MF MD
MR MF HD
HR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SFA MD
U MF MD
LR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF HD
MR MF HD
MR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SFA MD
LR MF MD
MR MF HD
HR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SFD LD
LR SFA MD
• MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR SFD LD
LR SrA MD
LR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF MD
MR MF HD
HR MF HD
1 TOTAL)
LR SFD LD
LR SFA LD
LR MF MD
HR MF HD
(TOTAL)
LR MF HD
MR MF HD
( TOTAL 1
LR SO LD
LR SFA LD
LR MF MD
i TOTAL)
Size
Eff. 1 BR 2B* 3BR 4BR 5BR
8 12 -
45 99 26 -
12 20 4 - -
18 6 - -
33 22 - - -
45 105 117 38
18 58 6
72 30 - -
100 100 92 - - -
100 100 182 88 6 -
17 7 65 41
9 - 18 - - -
20 40 20 4 - -
46 47 103 45
10 25 40 -
10 40
25 -
18 43 11
18 53 86 25 40 -
13 50 50
42 40 - -
50 55 - - -
50 110 90 50 -
15 3 -
71 29 7 1
3 50 33 8 - -
3 50 104 52 10 1
25 155 190 100 30 -
9 11
24 97 60 -
38 50 8 - -
- 110 - - -
148 74 114 71
23 11 3
23 -
23 23 11 3
10 30 18
20 40 20
12 12 - _-
32 62 50 18
Total
'of
DU
20
170
36
24
55
305
82
102
292
476
130
27
84
241
75
50
25
72
222
113
82
105
300
18
108
94
220
NA
NA
NA
500
20
181
96
110
407
37
23
60
58
80
24
162
Total
Land
Acres
50
12
7.6
8
52
35
6.5
32
1.7
30
Den-
sity
DU A
6
40
31
28
6
6.3
77
12.7
35
5.4
Avg.
DU
Popul.
4.1
3.2
3.0
3.6
4.1
3.4
3.3
3.9
4.8
5.5
E>t.
Resident
Popul.
1,256
1,528
720
805
ANCILLARY FACILITIES
(Building Area - Squo'e Feet)
Comm. Adm.& Other
Center, Mainl. Focil.
4,250 1,150 300
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
1,230 | 3,000 NA 5,000
756
1,640
1,585
285
900
2,000 NA 7,000
3,000 NA 65,000
13,000 1,000 4,000
1(600 NA 4,500
3,000 NA 2,000
Total
Area
5,700
NA
11,000
8^700
8,000
jO
66,000
18, CCO
_i/'o°
"F.MT
Explanation of Dwelling Types (1), (2), and (3)
(1) HR - High-rise (over 7 stories)
MR - Medium-rise (4 to 7 stories)
LR - Low-rise (under 4 stories)
(2) MF Multifamily
SFA - Single Family Atloched
SFD - Single Family Detached
81
(3) HD - High Density (over 20 DU A)
MD Medium Density (II to 20 DU/A)
LD - Low Density (1 to 10 DU/A)
-160-
-------
avoid repetition in descriptions and calculations of these preliminary
estimates and their components certain qualifications are made herein.
Capital investment or costs as identified for each system include
allowance for initial purchase and cost of installation where applicable,
Equivalent annual capital costs cover amortization of the total capital
investment (average annual principal and interest) over the expected
life of the equipment installation. In all cases an interest rate of
6 percent per annum has been allowed. The following amortization rates
have been used in calculation of equivalent annual capital costs:
Expected Life Term Annual Amortization Rate
5 Years 23.75%
10 Years 13.60%
50 Years 6.35%
Labor allowances of $3-50 per hour for semi-skilled maintenance
personnel have been used at all locations. These allowances are
intended to include all payroll taxes, insurance, and fringe benefits.
No escalation factor is allowed for labor costs over the life term of
the installation. Adjustments to the preliminary cost estimates would
•
be required for these variables when factual data is available for each
project.
-161-
-------
TABLE 7
INITIAL SELECTION OF BASIC CANDIDATE SYSTEMS
Project Dwelling Units Basic Candidate Systems
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location
Macon
Georgia
Memphis
Tennessee
St. Louis, Missouri
East Site
West Site
Indianapolis
Indiana
Kalamazoo
Michigan
Jersey City
New Jersey
Sacramento
California
Seattle
Washington
King County
Washington
Type
LR SFD
LR SFA
LR MF
MR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR SFA
LR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR MF
MR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR SFA
LR MF
MR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR SFD
LR SFA
LR-MR MF
TOTAL
LR SFD
LR SFA
LR MF
TOTAL
LR MF
MR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR SFD
LR SFA
LR MF
HR MF
TOTAL
LR MF
MR MF
TOTAL
LR SFD
LR SFA
LR MF
TOTAL
No.
20
170
36
24
55
305
82
102
292
476
130
27
84
241
75
50
25
72
222
113
82
105
300
18
108
94
220
NA
NA
NA
500
20
181
96
110
407
37
23
60
58
80
24
162
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
•A
y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-162-
-------
Statistical cost data on municipal and private collection and
disposal services are often expressed in terms of the annual service
charge per residence, cost per ton or cost per cubic yard. Wide
variations in costs often exist within the community and between
communities. These variations are due to many factors such as:
1. Type and frequency of collection service
2. Quantities and types of waste collected
3. Type of collection equipment used
k. Type of disposal facilities used
5. Labor requirements for collection and disposal
6. Density of collection districts
7- Hau.1 distance to disposal facilities
Many other factors exist, but as above, nearly all are subject to
change and all are cost factors. The trend is for escalation in costs
of service, or reduction in the level of service in efforts to
hold-the-1ine on costs.
Where direct annual service charges are made for residential
services they are today popularly found in a range between $2^ to $36
a year. These charges do not necessarily include all costs and quite
often exclude capital expenses. A few cities are going to a full service
charge basis and attempting to develop self-sustaining solid waste
-163-
-------
management divisions. Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, is
representative of this type of system where the current rate of charge
to residences is $5^ annually. Metro officials presently are exploring
alternatives in service to hold costs within this limit.
In this study of Operation Breakthrough projects, costs of service
involved determination of direct service charges per dwelling unit
where applicable and estimates of alternative cost for commercial
services. In the latter case, costs are generally based on costs per
ton or cubic yard. To assist in the evaluation and comparison of service
costs the following tabulations are made based upon average annual
dwelling unit waste production of say 2 tons or 2*4 cubic yards (average
DU population of 3.5 persons x 3 pounds daily per capita production = 10.5
pounds per day per DU x 30 days = 315 pounds per month per DU x 12
months = 3,800 pounds per year per DU or 1.9 tons. 3,800 pounds / 6
pounds per cubic foot = 633 cubic feet / 27 = 23.^ cubic yards).
Comparison of Methods of Charge
Annual Rate Equivalent Equivalent
Per DU Cost Per Ton Cost per C.Y.
$12 $ 6 $0.50
18 9 0.75
2k 12 I.00
-164-
-------
30 15 1.25
36 18 1.50
k2 21 1.75
48 2k 2.00
54 27 2.25
Basic cost components of municipal or private contractor services
are the disposal, collection, and haul costs.
Extremely wide variations in disposal costs will be found by
comparison of such methods as open dumping, sanitary landfill, and
incineration. However, with the present emphasis on upgrading disposal
methods, realistic cost factors for disposal for purposes of this
evaluation should be limited to either sanitary landfill or the
alternative of acceptable incineration processes. Charges to the
recipient of sanitary landfill disposal services will generally range
between $0.125 to $0.25 per cubic yard or $1.50 to $3.00 per ton. Charges
for disposal by incineration will be at least double the cost of sanitary
landfill (from $0.25 to $0.50 per cubic yard or $3-00 to $6.00 per ton).
Collection and haul costs though highly variable can be summarized
by the following hypothetical example of municipal systems. A typical
20-cubic yard compactor truck with a three-man collection team has a
normal capability of collecting and transporting two loads of wastes per
-165-
-------
day. Assuming a compaction ratio of three to one, this team will handle
about 20,000 Ibs (2 loads x 60 cu yds x 170 pounds per cubic yard) or 10
tons per day. Assuming labor costs of about $8*4 per day (3 men x 8
hours x $3-50 per hour) and equipment costs of $AO (8 hours at $5.00 per
hour), total daily costs of about $12*» result. Approximately 75 percent
of daily costs may be attributed to collection and 25 percent to haul or
an estimated average cost of about $8.30 per ton for collection and
$4.10 for haul.
Relating the above to annual dwelling unit costs with an average
waste production of two tons annually the following breakdown of the costs
of service results.
Cost Range of Sanitary Landfill $ 3.00 $ 6.00
Haul Costs 8.00 8.00
Collection Costs 17.00 17.00
Total Annual DU Costs $28.00 $31.00
Cost Range of Incineration $ 6.00 $12.00
Haul Costs 8.00 8.00
Collection Costs 17.00 17.00
Total -Annual DU Costs- $31.00 $37.00
-166-
-------
Costs of commercial service for bulk handling of containerized
wastes may reflect savings in the order of 50 percent in collection and
haul costs, but disposal costs remain generally constant. The
ultimate effect of such savings on costs of the total service to a
dwelling unit can be summarized as follows:
Cost Range of Sanitary Landfill $ 3.00 $ 6.00
Collection and Haul Costs 12.50 12.50
Total Annual DU Cost $15.50 $18.50
Cost Range of Incineration $ 6.00 $12.00
Collection and Haul Costs 12.50 12.50
Total Annual DU Cost $18.50 $2*4.50
Comprehensive solid waste management studies were not available on
the communities in which Operation Breakthrough projects are located.
However, information that was available on services, generally indicated
that charges or costs of service for single family dwelling units are in
a range of $2A to $3*» annually and in some cases lower costs for
multifamily units. In a few cases such costs are included in the tax
burden rather than a direct charge basis. Considerable discussion was
carried out during the course of this s.tudy on handling of such "hidden"
costs in the cost analysis and comparison of system costs. Tv/o methods
-167-
-------
of handling were considered: (1) hidden costs should be identified as
zero costs or (2) show such unidentified costs as minimal allowances,
i.e. a real cost that is also subject to future escalation and not a
misleading fixed zero increment. The latter method was adopted for
purposes of this study due to the present trend by cities to convert to
a direct charge basis. It also appears reasonable to assume that
municipalities should willingly encourage negotiations with developers of
large residential complexes to improve the internal level of collection
service without penalty to the developer or resident of dual payment
or payment for services not received.
In the following studies actual costs of municipal service is
identified in the case of direct service charges and an allowance of
$2*» per year per dwelling unit has been made to cover hidden costs in
the tax structure for such services.
-168-
-------
Macon, Georgia
This Operation Breakthrough development, to be situated on a
50-acre wooded parcel, will contain 305 dwelling units, including 20
single family detached, 170 single family attached, 36 low-rise
multifamily, 24 medium-rise multifamily, and 55 high-rise multifamily
units. The medium-rise and high-rise structures are grouped in the
western portion of the site, together with the community center. The
latter facility will provide approximately 5,700 square feet of building
area for community recreational and social functions as well as management
services. The low-rise structures are located in twelve principal
clusters situated on both sides of a periphery loop road. Vehicular
parking and required service is generally oriented to the inner parking
court of each cluster with access from the loop road.
A natural lake and park area, centrally located within the site,
will be preserved in this development. The perimeter area for housing
development surrounding this natural setting generally slopes down to the
lake.
Site Planners initially established the following program objectives
preceding the evolution of this design:
1. The creation of an optimum living environment with a variety of
housing types and densities clustered within a unifying open space
system.
-169-
-------
2. The provision of a design and scale appropriate to the climate
and physical characteristics of the site, preserving the natural
assets of the landscape as well as being complementary to
surrounding development.
3. The establishment of a site design which will minimize site
development costs per unit.
k. The provision of a circulation system which minimizes vehicular and
pedestrian conflict while serving the ultimate needs of the
residents with maximum efficiency and safety.
5. The establishment of a variety of housing types and densities to
accommodate a broad spectrum of the population.
6. The provision of a unifying open space system which offers a variety
of daily recreational activities appropriately related to housing
clusters.
7- The provision of a community center facility to serve initially as
a visitor's preview center and ultimately as the nucleus of social
activity for the residents; the gathering place.
8. The provision of a site design responsible to the application of
technological innovations in construction techniques.
9. The establishment of a resource management program at the inception
of development to provide a basis for immediate and long-range
protection of the natural amenities of the site.
-170-
-------
10. The establishment of appropriate site design controls to preserve
the inherent character of the varied environmental subareas of the
site.
The present development schedule calls for site preparation to
commence 29 October 1970 with completion ready for occupancy by
30 September 1971. The organization of a Cooperative Management is
planned to administer those common services required for this project.
The initial planning study, as prepared by Reynolds, Smith, and
Hill, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, Jacksonville, Florida, and
site plan received 12 October 1970 are the principal bases for this
study of solid waste systems for this project.
Estimated Quant i ties and Types of_ Wastes _t£ be_ Handled: Based
upon an estimated resident population of 1,256 and a monimal waste
production factor of k Ib per capita per day, it is expected that average
daily waste production will be about 5,000 Ibs. Distribution of this
waste material by type and source of generation is estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Capita
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 *».0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 628 3,768 628 k,32k
-171-
-------
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 628 3,392 - *»,020
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 188 - 188
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 188 628 816
It is anticipated that about 13 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average A.I persons) each day and
will consist of approximately 2 Ibs of garbage, with a balance of about
•11 Ibs of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: The City of Macon provides separate
collection of residential garbage and trash (garbage from the backyard
and trash from the curb) with disposal by landfill. Approximately 80
percent of commercial wastes also are collected by the municipal agency
with the balance handled by private haulers.
Regulations of storage, collection, and disposal of waste materials
are presently enforced by the operational authority. Storage requirements
for residence restrict container size to 30 gallons. Onsite burning of
wastes other than construction, demolition, and land clearing materials
is not generally practiced.
-172-
-------
Costs of service are provided from the General Fund and are not
directly charged to the residents at the present time. However, the
city is expected to impose in the near future a monthly service charge
of $2 per residence. This direct charge basis is considered herein.
Selection of Candidate Solid Waste Systems: The physical
characteristics of this proposed development and the program objectives
as outlined previously are considered herein as guidelines for selection
of candidate systems. To stay within the framework of the program
objectives, alternative basic systems (as identified previously) for the
various types of dwelling units are limited to the following:
20 Low-rise single family detached Systems No. 1, 2, and 9
170 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
36 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
2k Medium-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and k
55 High-rise mulifamily Systems No. 1 and A
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in all
dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total capital
investment of about $38,125 will be required for the 305 dwelling units
in this project. With a life expectancy of ten years and including
capital expense, maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total
-173-
-------
annual cost of about $22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of
each dwel1 ing un i t.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all (226) low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, consisting of
•
house-to-house collection with a conventional packer truck, although in
minor conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic
comparison. This system, requiring no capital investment on the part of
the developer, will cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant about $2^
annually for service and an additional cost of about $12 annually for
containers and accessories (liners, cleaning and disinfectant supplies).
System 2b--House-to-house collection service (management furnished)
twice weekly, using either a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose
maintenance vehicle for transfer of collected waste materials to
intermediate storage locations may be considered as an alternate to the
above. Weekly production of wastes in these dwelling units and outdoor
areas likely to be served by this system is estimated at about 23,350
pounds (11.6 tons or 1^0 cubic yards). Assuming this system will be
operated on a five-day basis, an average of ^,670 pounds (2.3^ tons or
28 cubic yards) will be collected daily. An average of 110 dwelling
-174-
-------
units will be served daily plus the required outdoor stations. It is
estimated that intermediate storage requirements for the weekly production
(with twice weekly collection from the storage areas) could be
accomplished with eight intermediate stations, each providing about a nine
cubic yard storage capacity. These stations can be located centrally
along the collection route to minimize hauling time. It is estimated
that this service could be accomplished by a properly equipped
operator-collector in an average period of four hours per day.
It is estimated that capital investments for this system will be
about $5,100 (based on an allowance of 50 percent for vehicle cost of
$3,000 and intermediate storage stations at about $^50 each). Considering
a five-year life expectancy on such equipment, an equivalent annual
capital cost (amortization of principal and interest) of about $1,180
can be expected. In addition to the above cost, an estimated expense
of $1,500 annually will be incurred in vehicular equipment operation,
maintenance, and repairs as well as maintenance of the storage facilities.
It is also estimated that labor costs will approach $3,6^0 annually for
collector-operator (1,0^0 hours at $3-50 per hour). Collectively, costs
of this internal system are expected to approach $6,320 annually or
-175-
-------
about $28 per dwelling unit, in addition to municipal costs of $24
for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories. Quantities
collected (28 cubic yards daily or 140 cubic yards weekly) and deposited
at the intermediate storage points would require a minimum of twice
weekly pickup by the municipality. Cost of such municipal collection
(necessary rehandling of bagged materials) together with haul and
disposal of the loose bagged wastes from these storage yards would not be
expected to be materially reduced from the $24 annual dwelling unit charge
or the annual cost of $5,424. By comparison, minimum rates from private
contractors could be expected at about $0.75 per cubic yard or $5,460
annually, only if containerized for mechanical loading. Bin
containerization not provided in this system is investigated in System
2c.
System 2c--0ccupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in
bins centrally located in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles will
tow these bins to intermediate storage locations. This transfer would
also be handled by management's general maintenance service.
This system, handling the same quantities of wastes described in
System 2b, would require about 20 conveniently located storage stations,
each equipped with a 2 to 3 cubic yard mobile bins. It is estimated
-176-
-------
that a properly equipped collector operator could move these bins to one
or more centrally located service points and return the emptied bins in
an average period of two hours daily.
The capital investment required for this system is estimated at
about $4,750 (based on an allowance of 25 percent for vehicular cost of
$3,000 plus 20 storage containers at about $200 each). Considering a five
year life expectancy on vehicular equipment and ten years on mobile
storage bins, an equivalent annual capital cost (amortization of principal
and interest) of about $720 can be expected. In addition to this cost,
an estimated expense of about an equal amount should be allowed for
vehicular equipment operation, maintenance and repairs as well as
maintenance of the storage units. Labor costs will be about $1,820
(520 hrs at $3-50 per hour). Collectively, annual costs of this internal
system are expected to be about $3,260 or under $15 per dwelling unit,
in addition to estimated minimum contract costs of $5,460 (for haul and
disposal) or $24 per dwelling unit and $12 per dwelling unit for
containers and accessories. In the latter case the resident must still
provide containers with liners for transporting packaged wastes to the
storage bins.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
the clustered low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily
-177-
-------
units. The occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the
hoppers of these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle.
Management's maintenance personnel would be required to service these
units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of once
weekly would be required although a daily haul and disposal contract
would be preferred. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is estimated
that about 16 stations could be situated within the complex clusters
to provide reasonably convenient access to these 206 dwelling units or an
average of about 13 dwellings per compactor station. Initial capital
investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000 per
station or $32,000. With a life expectancy of about ten years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $4,^00 will be incurred.
Materials and supplies (box liners, bag liners, cleaning and disinfectant)
and other operating costs (power, lubricants, maintenance, and repairs) of
this equipment are estimated at $2 per day per station or about $11,680
per year. Labor costs for servicing this equipment by management
personnel are estimated at $14 (^ hrs at $3.50) daily (7~day basis) or
$5,100 per year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are
estimated at $21,180 or about $104 per dwelling unit in addition to the
estimated haul and disposal contract cost of $18 per dwelling unit and
$12 for containers and accessories in the dwelling unit.
-178-
-------
System No. k considers the use of separate chute-fed stationary
baler installations, in the medium- and high-rise buildings. Initial
capital investment for equipment for the two installations is expected
to approach $10,000. With a life expectancy of about ten years, an
equivalent annual capital expense (amortization of principal and interest)
of about $1,360 will be incurred. Materials and supplies (bale liners,
ties, cleaning, and disinfectants) and other operating costs (power,
lubricants, maintenance, and repairs) are estimated to average about $2
per day per station or about $1,^60 per year. Labor costs for servicing
this equipment by management personnel are estimated at $7 (2 hrs at
$3.50) daily (7-day basis) or $2,555 per year. Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at $5,000 for the 79 dwelling
units, or about $68 per dwelling unit, in addition to the estimated haul
and disposal contract cost of $18 per dwelling unit and $12 for containers
and accessories.
System 9 considers the use of undercounter compactors in all (226)
low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190, a
total capital investment of about $^2,9^0 will be required. With an
estimated life expectancy of about ten years an equivalent annual capital
-179-
-------
expense (amortization of principal and interest) of about $5,8^0
or $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials and supplies
(liners, disinfectants, etc.) and other operating costs to be incurred
directly by the dwelling unit occupants will be about $33 per year per
unit or a total of $7,^58. Occupants of clustered units would be
required to deposit packaged wastes in intermediate storage points within
each cluster. With this system, collection of this packaged material
could be made once weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or
multipurpose maintenance equipment, with transfer to intermediate storage
locations. Cost of equipment for intermediate storage as well as labor,
vehicular equipment and equipment operating costs for transfer of wastes
to a central collection point would be about the same as required for
System 2c. Estimated cost of this internal collection service would be
about $3,260 or $!*» per dwelling unit per year. Collectively, the annual
costs of this system are estimated at about $73 per dwelling unit in
addition to the estimated contract costs of $18 per dwelling unit for
haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
-180-
-------
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and supplemented
by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. k in the
medium- and high-rise structures.
The economic summary (Table 8) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the
respective types of dwellings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1, k, and 9 are the most
suitable selections for the project, requiring an initial capital
investment of about $95,725 with total annual costs of $35,081 or about
$115 per year or $9.60 per month per dwelling unit.
-181-
-------
00
NJ
TABLE 8
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - MACON, GEORGIA
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*4
*9
*Comb
Dwelling Units
Type
All Du's
All LR
All LR
All LR
LRSFAMF
AIIMRHR
All LR
i nation of Rt
4, &9 1
No.
305
226
226
226
206
79
226
scomme
Capital
Cost
$38, 125
-
5,100
4,750
32,000
10,000
47,600
nded System
H
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$3,640
1,820
5,100
2,555
1,820
s
$95,725 I $4,375
Other
Operating Costs
$ 1,525
2,712
4,212
3,432
14,140
2,408
8,178
$12,111
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$5,424
5,424
5,460
3,690
1,422
4,068
$5,490
Total
$ 1,525
8,136
13,276
10,712
22,930
6,385
14,066
$21,976
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$ 5,185
-
1,180
720
4,400
1,360
6,560
$13,105
Total Annual Co
Project
$ 6,710
8,136
14,276
11,432
27,330
7,745
20,626
$35,081
Per
Du
$ 22
36
63
51
134
98
91
$115
-------
Memphis, Tennessee
The Memphis Operation Breakthrough development to be situated on a
12-acre elongated parcel will contain k~?6 dwelling units, including 82
single family attached, 102 low-rise multifamily, and 292 high-rise
multifamily units. The single family attached structures are grouped in
the eastern portion of the site. Low-rise multifamily structures are
grouped in four principal clusters in the western portion of the site
together with two high-rise structures.
This urban site is surrounded by light industrial, small
warehousing, and supply houses. However, it is also situated within
walking distance of the central business district and the Mid-South
Medical Center complex. Initial planning studies indicated a strong
market potential existed due to this location and relatively high
density development was warranted. Site planners concluded that, with
high densities, economic support for more amenities existed at lower
unit development costs. Development concepts established that vehicular
and pedestrian conflicts should be avoided and that ground space occupied
by buildings, streets, and parking should be recaptured and made available
for more amenable uses.
These basic concepts are obvious in the final design. Vehicular
service access and parking for the eastern portion of the site is limited
-183-
-------
to private roadways (on grade) on the north and south boundaries of this
parcel. In the westerly portion of the site, vehicular access is limited
to an inner court area (on grade) occupying the majority of open space
between the clustered low-rise structures and high-rise structures.
This service and parking area is covered by an elevated deck that contains
recreational areas and pedestrian ways. The low-rise structures are
situated on an intermediate grade between the service level and upper
deck. Ramps and stairs provide access to these areas from the low-rise
clusters. Elevators and stairs provide access from the high-rise
buildings. Functions beneath the deck, in addition to vehicular movement
and parking, will include all building services and auxiliary storage for
occupants.
The initial planning study, site plan (dated 2k July 1970), and
Task II interim report (dated 27 July 1970), prepared by Miller, Wihry
and Brooks, Landscape Architects and Engineers, Louis and Henry,
Architects and Associates, and Stephen Sussna Associates. Planners, are
the bases for this study of solid waste systems for this project.
Estimated Quant i t ies and Types of_ Wastes _tp_ be_ Handled : Based
upon the estimated resident population of 1,528 and a nominal waste
production factor of k Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
-184-
-------
average daily waste production will be approximately 6,000 Ibs.
Distribution of this waste material by type and source of generation is
estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Da?1y Per Capita
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 764 4,584 764 6,112
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 764 4,124 - 4,888
Ancillary Areas
(Ibs) - 230 - 230
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 230 764 994
It 5s anticipated that about 10.5 Ibs of waste will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3.2 persons) each day and will
consist of 1.5 Ibs of garbage, with a balance of about 9-5 Ibs of mixed
wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: City provides backyard collection for
all residences at a charge of $2.50 per month included on the utility
-185-
-------
bill. For apartment houses of five or more units, the charge is $2
per unit per month but all waste must be in standard cans or bags. No
bulk containers are serviced. No commercial service is provided.
Satellite vehicles are used for twice per week collection.
Private collection is available for bulk collection of almost any
kind and is used at most apartment houses, and all of the Memphis Housing
Authority developments. A typical charge for an apartment house is $1.80
per unit per month. Service to a central compaction station at a single
collection point at this site could be provided by contract with an
expected cost of $1 to $1.50 per dwelling unit per month. No charge is
made by the city to those using private collection service.
Selection of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are compatible
with the physical characteristics of this proposed development and the
general program objectives of Operation Breakthrough are limited to the
followi ng :
82 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
102 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
292 High-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, ^, 5, and 6
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in all
dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total capital
investment of about $59,500 will be required for the ^76 dwelling units
-186-
-------
in this project. With a life expectancy of ten years and including
capital expense maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total
annual cost of about $22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of
each dwel1 ing uni t.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for low-rise dwelling units. These variations are Identified
as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, consisting of
house-to-house collection with a conventional packer truck, although in
minor conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic
comparison. Use of this system would be limited to the 82 townhouses in
the east block. This system would not require capital investment on the
part of the developer and would cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant
about $24 annually for service and an additional cost of about $12
annually for containers and accessories.
System 2b--House-to-house collection service twice weekly for all
(184) low-rise units, using either a satellite collection vehicle or
multipurpose maintenance vehicle for transfer of collected waste
materials to intermediate storage locations, may be considered as an
alternate to the above. The following cost estimate of capital
investment in equipment, equivalent annual capital costs, operating costs,
and labor are proportionate to the dwelling unit costs as determined in
-187-
-------
the preceding Macon study. It is estimated that capital investment in
equipment will be about $4J50. Considering a five-year life expectancy
on such experiment, an equivalent annual capital cost of about $970
can be expected in addition to an estimated expense of $1,220 annually in
equipment operation, maintenance, and repairs. It is also estimated that
labor costs will approach $2,960 (845 hrs at $3-50 per hour) annually for
the collector-operator. Collectively, costs of this internal system
are expected to approach $5,150 annually or about $28 per dwelling unit,
in addition to costs of up to $18 for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in
bins centrally located in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles will
tow these bins to intermediate storage locations. This transfer would
also be handled by management's general maintenance service. As in the
case of the above, costs of this system are proportionate to the dwelling
unit costs as determined in the Macon study. It is estimated that such
service could be provided for an annual cost of about $2,660 or $15 per
dwelling unit, in addition to costs of up to $18 for haul and disposal
and $12 for containers and accessories.
System No. 3 (console" compactor stations) is considered for use
in the clustered low-rise units. The occupants are required to deposit
-188-
-------
accumulated wastes in the hoppers of these compactors and actuate
the compaction cycle. Management's maintenance personnel would be
required to service these units twice daily or as required. A minimum
collection frequency of once weekly would be required. Based on the
conceptual site plan, it is estimated that about lA stations could be
situated within the complex clusters to provide reasonably convenient
access to these 18A dwelling units or an average of about 13 dwellings
per compactor station. Initial capital investment of installed equipment
is estimated at about $2,000 per station or $28,000. With a life
expectancy of about ten years, an equivalent annual capital expense
of about $3,800 will be incurred. Materials, supplies, and other
operating costs of this equipment are estimated at $2 per day per station
or about $10,200 per year. Labor costs for servicing this equipment
by management personnel are estimated at $10.50 (3 hrs at $3-50) da.ily
(7-day basis) or about $3,800 per year. Collectively, the annual
costs of this system are estimated at $17,800 or about $97 per dwelling
unit in addition to an estimated cost of $18 for haul and disposal and
$12 for containers and accessories in the dwelling unit.
-189-
-------
System No. 4 considers the use of separate chute-fed stationary
baler installations in each of the high-rise buildings. Initial capital
investment for equipment for the two installations is expected to
approach $15,000. With a life expectancy of about ten years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $2,040 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs are estimated to average
about $6 per day per station or about $4,380 per year. Labor costs for
servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated at
$17-50 (5 hrs at $3.50) daily (7-day basis) or $6,400 per year.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $12,820
for the 292 dwelling units, or about $44 per dwelling unit, in addition
to an estimated minimum cost of $12 for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System No. 6 considers the use of a pneumatic waste collection
system serving all dwelling units in this project. The collector conduit
or pipeline will interface with gravity chutes, in the high-rise
structures and should contain about 14 remote charging stations
conveniently located to the clustered housing. Wastes will be
transported to a centrally located compactor station for processing and
storage. Based on preliminary estimates, the pneumatic system is expected
to cost about $500,000. With a life expectancy of about 50 years
-190--
-------
(amortization rate of 0.0635) the equivalent annual capital expense
will be about $31,800. The cost of the central compactor station is
expected to approach $20,000 and with a life expectancy of ten years
(amortization rate of 0.1360) the equivalent annual capital expense will
be about $2,720.
Manufacturers of the pneumatic system estimate that annual
maintenance, repairs, operating labor, and other operating costs will be
equivalent to about 1 percent of the installed cost of $5,200.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $A2,275
or about $89 per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost
of $12 (per dwelling unit) for haul and disposal and $12 for containers
and accessories in the dwelling unit.
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all
(18*0 low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of
$190, a total capital investment of about $3^,960 will be required. With
an estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual
capital expense of about $^,780 or $26 per dwelling unit will be
incurred. Materials, supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred
directly by the dwelling unit occupants will be about $33 per year per
unit or a total of $6,077- Occupants of clustered units would be
required to deposit packaged wastes in intermediate storage points within
-191-
-------
each cluster. Using this system, collection of the packaged material
could be made once weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or
multipurpose maintenance equipment, with transfer to intermediate
storage locations. Estimated cost of this type of internal collection
service, based upon dwelling unit costs determined in the Macon study,
would be about $2,6^0 or $1A per dwelling unit per year. Collectively,
the annual costs of this system are estimated at about $73 per dwelling
unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of $18 for haul and
disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems and
the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
Systems No. 1 and 6 should be considered for all dwelling units.
Alternatively System No. 1 could be supplemented by a combination of
-192-
-------
System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. A in the high-rise
structures.
The economic summary (Table 9) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the
respective types of dwellings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate that the combination of Systems No. 1 and 6 would
offer the highest level of service in the inter-unit and inter-building
systems benefiting the project at large. Although it is estimated that
a large capital investment ($579,500) would be required, annual
dwelling unit costs ($135 per dwelling unit or about $11.25 per month)
would not be significantly higher than costs of other combinations of
systems where an improved level of service can be obtained.
By comparison, a combination of Systems No. 1, k, and 9, also a
suitable selection for the project, would require an initial capital
investment of about $120,500 with total annual costs of about $^7,109
or $99 per dwelling unit per year or about $8.35 per month.
-193-
-------
TABLE 9
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*4
*6
*9
Dwelling Units
Type
AH Du's
All LR
All LR
All LR
All LR
MR & HR
All Du's
All LR
No.
476
82
184
184
184
292
476
184
Capital
Cost
$ 59,500
-
4,150
3,850
28,000
15,000
520, 000
46,000
*Combi nation of Recommended Systems
,4,&9J
1 &6 I
i Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$2,960
1,480
3,800
6,400
2,555
1,480
476 1 120, 500 1 7,880
476 I 579, 500 1 2,555
Other
Operating Costs
$ 2,380
984
3,428
2,798
12,408
7,884
10,912
6,657
16,921
13,292
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$1,968
3,312
3,312
3,312
3,504
5,712
3,312
6,816
5,712
Total
$ 2,380
2,952
9,709
7,590
19,520
17,788
19,179
11,449
31,617
21,559
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$ 8,092
-
970
590
3,800
2,040
34,520
5,360
15,492
42,612
Total Annual Cost
Project
$10,472
2,952
10,670
8,180
23,320
19,828
53,699
16,809
47,109
64,171
Per
Du
$ 22
36
58
45
127
68
113
91
99
135
-------
St. Louis, Missouri
The Operation Breakthrough development in St. Louis will contain a
total of A63 dwelling units on two non-contiguous sites. These sites are
separated by an existing 600-unit housing development (Laclede Town)
developed and managed by the same site developer selected for the
Operation Breakthrough development.
A 7-6-acre site east of Laclede Town will contain 2^1 dwelling
units. These multifamily apartment buildings, ranging from three to ten
stories in height, are to be grouped in a campus-like setting. All of
the ground floor apartments will have private patios. Seven low-rise
buildings share common stairways. Four additional low-rise buildings are
free-standing, as are the medium-rise and high-rise buildings.
Recreational facilities are located on the northerly boundary of the
site. Vehicular access and parking is limited to four conveniently
located parking courts on the perimeter of the site.
An 8-acre parcel west of Laclede Town will contain 222 dwelling
units, including 75 low-rise single family attached, 50-low rise
multifamily, 25 medium-rise multifamily, and 72 high-rise multifamily
units. Buildings are grouped in five major clusters. The multifamily
apartments are contained in one large grouping oriented to an inner
recreational courtyard with a swimming pool. Vehicular access and parking
-195-
-------
is situated on three sides of the perimeter of this group. Single
family attached units are grouped in four additional clusters. Buildings
in each of these clusters are oriented to an inner landscaped courtyard.
Each dwelling unit has a private patio oriented to the street or parking
court. Vehicular access and service is limited to four parking courts and
access drives.
Site Planners initially established the following program objectives
preceding the development of this design:
1. Develop intensive pedestrian community space as the major
organizational element.
2. Maximize potential for private outdoor space.
3. Minimize automobile intrusion but maximize its convenience:
(a) Maximum walking distance from car to front dqoi—200 ft.
(b) Automobile to be kept out of pedestrian precincts.
k. Public neighborhood places should be easily accessible and visible
to residents.
5. Small children should have safe, secure, easily surveiled places
to play.
6. Pedestrian circulation should be designed to allow for convenient
pathways to off-site community facilities.
7. Maximize use of large hardy trees as the main vegetation.
-196-
-------
°' All age groups should have their own identifiable outdoor space.
'0- Provide some unassigned outdoor places.
The initial planning study, as prepared by Hellmuth, Obata and
Kassabaum, Inc., Architects, Landscape Architects, and Engineers,
St. Louis, Missouri, together with the site plan (received 26 October
1970) are the principal bases for this study of solid waste systems for
this project.
Estimated Quantities and Types of Wastes to be Handled: Waste
projections for the St. Louis development have been calculated separately
for the East and West Sites. Based upon an estimated resident population
of 720 for the East Site, and a nominal waste production factor of k Ibs
per capita per day, it is expected that average daily waste production
will approach 3,000 Ibs. Distribution of this waste material by type and
source of generation is estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Capita
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3-0 0.5 *».0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 360 2,160 360 2,880
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 360 1.9M - 2,304
-197-
-------
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 108 - 108
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 108 360 468
It is anticipated that about 9-5 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3-0 persons) each day, and will
consist of approximately 1.5 Ibs of garbage, with a balance of about
8 Ibs of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Based upon an estimated population of 805 for the West Site, and
assuming similar waste production factors, a daily average of 3,200 Ibs of
waste materials may be generated. Distribution of this material is
estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Da i1y Per Capi ta
Production (Ibs) 0.5 4.15 0.5 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 402 2,415 403 3,220
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 402 2,175 - 2,577
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 120 - 120
-198-
-------
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 120 - 523
It is anticipated that about 11.5 Ibs of waste will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3.6 persons) each day and will
consist of approximately 1.8 Ibs of garbage, with a balance of about
9.7 Ibs of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: The city provides twice a week
collection from residences only and no direct charge is made. However
for purposes of this study an allowance of $2^ per dwelling unit per
year has been adopted for conventional haul and disposal services
furnished by the municipality. No bulk containers are serviced and
waste must be in 20-26 gallon containers. Collection is provided
from alleys (where they are maneuverable) or from curbside and only 20
cubic yard packer trucks are used. Heavy trucks are not permitted
on private streets.
At Laclede Town, separating the east and west sites, door to door
collection of solid waste in plastic or paper bags is provided daily by
the developer who places the bags at a central storage point. The city
then picks up the bags from the storage area. Although costs of
management furnished collection service was not made available, it was
-199-
-------
determined that two collector-operators each equipped with tractor drawn
trailer rigs were required to perform this service. It was also indicated
that a ^0-hour week for both operators was normally required. Annual
costs of this management service for approximately 600 dwelling units in
Laclede Town are estimated at about $19,280 or $32 per dwelling unit in
addition to the occupants cost of containers and accessories as well as
costs of haul and disposal incurred by the tax payers. Costs of this
management service are based on estimated labor costs of $14,560
(*»,160 hrs at $3-50 per hour), capital costs of equipment at $1,600
annually (2 tractor trailer units at $3,500 = $7,000 amortized over 5
years at annual rate of 0.2375) and vehicular operating costs of $3,120
(1»,160 hrs at $0.75 per hour).
Solid waste collection for low-rise dwelling units at the Operation
Breakthrough site could be handled in the same manner as Laclede Town,
especially since they will probably be under the same management. If
the streets or the site are public, however, city trucks could collect
on the site from curbside.
Selection of Candidate Systems — East Site: Basic systems that are
compatible with the various types of dwelling units, other physical
characteristics of this proposed development, and the general program
objectives of Operation Breakthrough are limited to the following:
-200-
-------
130 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
27 Medium-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and 4
8^ High-rise-multifamily Systems No. 1 and A
Sustem No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in
all dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total
capital investment of about $30,125 will be required for the 2Al dwelling
units at this site. With a life expectancy of 10 years and including
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all (130) low-rise multifamily dwelling units at this site.
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection system consisting
of house-to-house collection with a conventional packer truck or
System 2b--House-to-house collection service, using either a
satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance vehicle for
transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage locations
does not appear feasible at this site.
System 2c--Where occupants are required to deposit accumulated
wastes in centrally located bins is the only variation which appears to
be compatible, other than the present system used in Laclede Town. In
System 2c multipurpose utility vehicles will tow these bins to
-201-
-------
intermediate storage locations. This transfer would be handled by
management's general maintenance service and would also be compatible
with the waste system provided at Laclede Town. It is estimated
that such service could be provided for about $2,070 annually or $16
per dwelling unit in addition to estimated minimum costs of $2^ for haul
and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories. The costs for
internal service are generally proportionate to the dwelling unit costs
as found in the Macon study. Annual labor costs are estimated at
$1,050 (300 hrs at $3.50 per hour), other annual operating costs at
$380, and an equivalent annual cost of equipment at about $6^0.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use
in the low-rise multifamily units. The occupants are required to deposit
accumulated wastes in the hoppers of these compactors and actuate the
compaction cycle. Management's maintenance personnel would be required to
service these units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection
frequency of once weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual
site plan, it is estimated that about 8 stations could be situated within
the complex clusters to provide reasonably convenient access to these 130
dwelling units or an average of about 16 dwellings per compactor station.
Initial capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about
$2,000 per station or $16,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years,
-202-
-------
an equivalent annual capital expense of about $2,160 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $5,840 per year. Labor
costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $7 (2 hrs at $3.50) daily (7-day basis) or $2,555 per year.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $10,555
or about $8l per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost
of $18 for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories in the
dwelling unit.
System No. k considers the use of separate chute-fed stationary
baler installations in the medium- and high-rise buildings. Initial
capital investment for equipment for the two installations is expected to
approach $10,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent
annual capital expense of about $1,360 will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs are estimated to average about $2 per
day per station or about $1,^60 per year. Labor costs for servicing this
equipment by management personnel are estimated at $7 (2 hrs at $3.50)
daily (7~day basis) or $2,555 per year. Collectively, the annual costs
of this system are estimated at $5,375 for the 111 dwelling units or
about $^8 per dwelling unit, in addition to an estimated minimum cost
of $18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories.
-203-
-------
System 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all 130
low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190, a
total capital investment of about $2^,700 will be required. With an
estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital
expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by the
dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a total
of $4,290. Occupants of these dwelling units would be required to deposit
packaged wastes in centrally located storage bins. With this system,
collection of this packaged material could be made once weekly with a
satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance equipment,
with transfer to an intermediate storage location. Estimated cost of this
internal collection service would be comparable to those costs as shown
in System 2c or about $2,070 ($16 per dwelling unit per year).
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $9,800
or about $76 per dwelling unit in addition to the estimated minimum
cost of $18 for haul and disposal.
Selection of Candidate Systems—West Site: Basic systems that are
compatible with dwelling unit types, other physical characteristics of
this proposed development, and the general program objectives of Operation
-204-
-------
Breakthrough are limited to the following:
75 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
50 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
25 Medium-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and 4
72 High-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and b
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in all
dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total capital
investment of about $27,750 will be required for the 222 dwelling units in
this project. With a life expectancy of 10 years and including
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all 125 low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, consisting of
curbside collection with a conventional! packer track, although in minor
conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic comparison.
The cost of this system, requiring no capital investment on the part of
the developer, will be limited to the estimated minimum indirect cost
of $2*t per dwelling unit for haul and disposal service and an additional
cost of about $12 annually for containers and accessories.
-205-
-------
System 2b--Curbside collection service twice weekly, using either
a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance, a vehicle
for transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage
locations may be considered as an alternate to the above. Costs of this
system are proportionate to the dwelling unit costs as determined in the
Macon study. It is estimated that capital investment in vehicular
equipment and storage facilities will be about $2,600. Considering a
5~year life expectancy on such equipment, an equivalent annual capital
cost of about $6^0 can be expected in addition to an estimated expense
of $825 annually in equipment operation, maintenance, and repairs. It is
also estimated that labor costs will approach $2,000 (570 hrs at $3.50 per
hour) annually for the collector-operator. Collectively, costs of this
internal system are expected to approach $3,^75 annually or about $28
per dwelling unit, in addition to the estimated minimum indirect costs of
$2^» for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in
bins centrally located in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles will
tow these bins to intermediate storage locations. This transfer would be
handled by management's general maintenance service and would be
compatible with the waste system provided at Laclede town. It is
estimated that such service could be provided with about the same
-206-
-------
equipment and labor requirements of System 2c at the East Site or for
an annual cost of about $2,070 or $16 per dwelling unit, in addition to
the estimated minimum costs of $2*» for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
the clustered low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily
units. The occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the
hoppers of these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle.
Management's maintenance personnel would be required to service these
units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of once
weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is
estimated that about 9 stations could be situated within the complex
clusters to provide reasonably convenient access to these 125 dwelling
units or an average of about 1^ dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000
per station or $18,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $2,AAO will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $6,570 per year. Labor
costs for servicing ths equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $7 (2 hrs at $3-50) daily (7-day basis) or $2,555 per year.
-207-
-------
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at
$11,565 or about $92 per dwelling unit in addition to the estimated
minimum cost of $18 for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories in the dwelling unit.
System No. k considers the use of separate chute-fed stationary
baler installations in the medium- and high-rise buildings. Initial
capital investment for equipment for two installations and costs of
operation are expected to be equivalent to the two installations
at East Site. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are
estimated at $5,375 for the 97 dwelling units, or about $56 per dwelling
unit, in addition to the estimated minimum cost of $18 for haul and
disposal and $12 for containers and accessories.
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in
all (125) low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of
$190, a total capital investment of about $23,750 will be required. With
an estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual
capital expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by
the dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a
total of $4,125. Occupants of clustered units would be required to
-208-
-------
deposit packaged wastes in centrally located storage bins within each
cluster. With this system, collection of this packaged material could be
made once weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose
maintenance equipment, with transfer to an intermediate storage location.
Estimated cost of this internal collection service would be comparable
to those costs shown in System 2c or about $2,070 ($16 per dwelling
unit per year). Collectively, the annual costs of this system are
estimated at about $9,^5 or $75 per dwelling unit in addition to the
estimated minimum cost of $18 for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these
candidate systems involved both the comparison of system characteristics
and economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and
supplemented by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. A
in the medium- and high-rise structures at both the East and West Sites.
-209-
-------
The economic summary (Tables 10 and 11) of these candidate systems
for both sites illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and
total annual costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for
the respective types of dwellings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate that a combination of Systems No. 1, ^, and 9 is the
most suitable selection for the project, requiring a total initial
capital investment of about $131,525 with total annual costs of $51,053
or about $111 per year or $9-25 per month per dwelling unit.
-210-
-------
TABLE 10
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI - EAST SITE
System
No.
*1
2c
3
*4
*9
*Comb
Dwelling Units
T y pe
All Du's
All LR
All LR
MR HR
All LR
ination of 1
4, &9 1
No.
241
130
130
111
130
iecomme
Capital
Cost
$30,125
2,730
16,000
10,000
27,300
nded System
i
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
$1,050
2,555
2,555
1,050
s
„_.,.__ $3,605
Other
Operating Costs
$1,205
1,940
7,400
2,792
4,670
$8,667
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$3,120
2,340
1,998
2,340
$4,338
Total
$ 1,205
6,110
12,295
7,347
8,060
$16,612
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$4,097
640
2,160
1,360
4,020
$9,477
Total Annual Co
Project
$ 5,302
6,750
14,455
8,707
12,080
$26,089
Per
Du
$ 22
52
111
78
93
$108
-------
I
ro
ro
i
TABLE 11
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI - WEST SITE
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*4
*9
*Comb
Dwelling Units
Type
All Du's
All LR
All LR
All LR
All LR
MR HR
All LR
nation of R
No.
222
125
125
125
125
97
125
ecomme
Capital
Cost
$27,750
-
2,800
2,730
18,000
10,000
26,350
nded System
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$2, 000
1,050
2,555
2,555
1,050
5
4,&9 I 1 222 I $64,100 1 $3,605
Other
Operating Costs
$1,110
1,500
3,325
1,880
8,070
2,624
4,505
$8,239
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$3,000
3,000
3,000
2,250
1,846
2,250
$4,096
Total
$ 1,110
4,500
7,325
5,930
12,875
7,025
7,805
$15,940
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$3,774
-
650
640
2,440
1,360
3,890
$9,024
Total Annual Cc
Project
$ 4,884
4,500
7,975
6,570
15,315
8,385
11,695
$24,964
Per
Du
$ 22
36
63
52
122
86
93
$112
-------
Indianapolis, Indiana
The Indianapolis Operation Breakthrough development will be
situated within a 120-acre parcel that was formerly a state farm complex.
This prototype housing development will be limited to a parcel of
approximately 52 acres generally confined to the southeast quadrant of
the total site. A special school for handicapped children is being
constructed on a parcel in the northeast quadrant. The balance of the
site is being reserved for future housing development to complement the
Breakthrough program.
A public school site of four acres has been reserved in the
northerly portion of the Breakthrough site, and a 15-acre site at the
southeastern corner will be developed in parks, recreational fields, and
a community center. The initial Breakthrough housing development will
contain 300 dwelling units, including an assumed 113 single family
detached, 82 single family attached, and 105 multifamily units (low-rise
and medium-rise buildings). The single family detached units are
situated along the south and east borders of the site with the single
family attached and multifamily units grouped in the interior of the site.
Vehicular traffic to the site is limited to one access street from
the east and one from the south. An interior system of minor streets with
numerous cul de sacs and common drives branch from these principal access
-213-
-------
streets. No through streets are provided in the development. Vehicular
access and service to all dwelling units is oriented to this interior
street system. In addition to the street system, an interior system of
pedestrian walks is proposed. It is expected these walks would also
accommodate small multipurpose maintenance vehicles that may be required.
The initial planning study as prepared by Skidmore, Owings and
Merrill, Urban Designers, Architects, and Engineers, Washington, D.C.,
together with the Site Plan (dated 19 June 1970) are the principal bases
for this study of solid waste systems for this project.
Estimated Quant J ties and Types of_ Wastes _to t>e_ Handled: Based
upon the assumed dwelling unit mix, an estimated resident population of
1,230 is expected to generate about 5,000 Ibs of wastes daily.
Distribution of this waste material by type and source of generation is
estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Cap!ta
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 615 3,690 615 4,920
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
615 3,320 - 3,935
-214-
-------
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 185 - 185
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 185 615 800
It is anticipated that about 13 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 4.1 persons) each day and will
consist of approximately 2 Ibs of garbage, with a balance of about 11 Ibs
of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: The city provides collection once
per week at the property line for all residential dwellings. No
commercial service is provided by the city. Waste must be in cans or
bags—no bulk container service is provided. Apartment houses are served
if cans are used. Licensed private operators are available for bulk
container collection.
The cost of collection and disposal is paid through property taxes
and no direct charges are made. However for purposes of this study an
allowance of $24 per dwelling unit per year has been adopted for
conventional haul and disposal services furnished by the municipality.
Selection of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are
compatible with the various types of dwelling units, other physical
characteristics of this proposed development and the general program
-215-
-------
objectives of Operation Breakthrough are limited to the following:
113 Low-rise single family detached Systems No. 1, 2, and 9
82 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
*55 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
*50 Medium-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and A
*Estimated from site plan dated 6-19~70
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in
all dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total
capital investment of about $37,500 will be required for the 300 dwelling
units in this project. With a life expectancy of ten years and including
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all (250) low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--Although the conventional municipal system of curbside
collection with a conventional packer truck is in minor conflict with
program objectives and access for larger vehicles is a problem, it is
considered for economic comparison. This system, requiring no capital
investment on the part of the developer, will cost the dwelling unit owner
-216-
-------
or occupant an estimated minimum indirect cost of $2A annually per
dwelling unit for service and an additional cost of about $12 annually
for containers and accessories.
System 2b--Curbside collection service weekly, using either a
satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance vehicle for
transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage locations
may be considered as an alternate to the above. Costs of this system
are proportionate to the dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon
study. It is estimated that capital investment in vehicular equipment
and storage facilities will be about $5,610. Considering a five-year
.life expectancy on such equipment, an equivalent annual capital cost of
about $1,3^*0 can be expected in addition to an estimated expense of
$1,650 annually in equipment operation, maintenance, and repairs. It is
also estimated that labor costs will approach $A,000 annually for the
collector-operator. Collectively, costs of this internal system are
expected to approach $6,990 annually or about $28 per dwelling unit, in
addition to estimated minimum indirect costs of $2*» for haul and disposal
and $12 for containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants of low-rise single family attached and
multifamily units are required to deposit accumulated wastes in centrally
located bins. Curbside collection of single family detached units will
-217-
-------
also be provided. Multipurpose utility vehicles will provide all
collection and tow these bins to intermediate storage locations. This
transfer would also be handled by management's general maintenance
service. The costs for internal service are generally proportionate to
the dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon study. It is
estimated that capital investment in vehicular equipment and storage bins
will be about $5,225, resulting in an equivalent annual capital expense
of about $795 and an equal sum for operating costs (including maintenance
and repairs) of equipment. In addition, labor costs are estimated at
about $1,995 (570 hrs at $3.50 per hour). Collectively, costs of this
internal system are expected to be about $3,585 annually or under $15 per
dwelling unit, in addition to an estimated minimum cost of $2A per
dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use by
low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily units. The
occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the hoppers of
these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle. Management's
maintenance personnel would be required to service these units twice
daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of once weekly
would be required. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is estimated
-218-
-------
that about 10 stations could be situated within the complex clusters
to provide reasonably convenient access to these 137 dwelling units or
an average of about 14 dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000
per station or $20,000. With a life expectancy of about ten years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $2,720 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $7,300 per year. Labor
costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $7 (2 hrs at $3-50) daily (7-day basis) or $2,555 per year.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $12,575
or about $91 per dwelling unit in addition to the estimated cost of
$18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories in the dwelling unit.
System No. k considers the use of separate chute-fed stationary
baler installations in the three medium-rise buildings. Initial capital
investment for equipment for the three installations is expected to
approach $9,000. With a life expectancy of about ten years, an equivalent
annual capital expense of about $1,220 will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs are estimated to average about $2 per
day per station or about $2,190 per year. Labor costs for servicing this
-219-
-------
equipment by management personnel are estimated at $3.50 (l hr at $3-50)
daily (7-day basis) or $1,277 per year. Collectively, the annual costs
of this system are estimated at $^,687 for the 50 dwelling units, or
about $9^ per dwelling unit, in addition to the estimated cost of $18
per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories.
System 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all (250)
low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190, a
total capital investment of about $1*7,500 will be required. With an
estimated life expectancy of about ten years, an equivalent annual capital
expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by the
dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a total
of $8,250. Occupants of grouped units would be required to deposit
packaged wastes in centrally located storage bins. With this system
collection of this packaged material could be made once weekly with a
satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance equipment,
with transfer to intermediate storage locations. Estimated cost of this
internal collection service would be comparable to those costs in System
2c or about $3,585 ($!*» per dwelling unit per year). Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at about $73 per dwelling unit
-220-
-------
in addition to the estimated cost of $18 for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems and
the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and
supplemented by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. k
in the medium-rise structures.
The economic summary (Table 12) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the respective
types of dwell ings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1, A, and 9 are the most
suitable selections for the project, requiring an initial capital
investment of about $99,225 with total annual costs of about $35,622 or
about $119 per year or $9-90 per month per dwelling unit.
-221-
-------
TABLE 12
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
.3
M
*9
*
1,4,9
Dwelling Units
Type
All DU's
All LR
All LR
All LR
All SFA&
MF
MR
All LR
Combinatior
No.
300
250
250
250
137
»
50
250
i of Rec
Capital
Cost
$ 37,500
-
5,610
5,225
20,000
9,000
52,725
Dmmended S>
i
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$ 4,000
1,995
2,555
1,277
1,995
'stems
300 1 $ 99,225 1 $ 3,272
Other
Ope rat ing Costs
$ 1,500
3,000
4,650
3,795
8,944
2,790
9,045
$13,335
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$ 6,000
6,000
6,000
2,466
900
4,500
$ 5,400
Total
$ 1,500
9,000
14,650
1 1 ,790
13,965
4,967
15,540
$22,007
A mrtrf i yrifi on rtT
^AMIWI 1 1 ^U 1 IvJII \J\
Capital
Investment
$ 5,100
-
1,340
795
2,720
1,220
7,295
$13,615
Total Annual Cost
Project
$ 6,600
9,000
15,990
12,585
16,685
6,187
22,835
$35,622
Per
DU
$ 22
36
64
51
121
124
91
$119
-------
Kalama200, Michigan
The Kalamazoo development, to be situated on a 35-acre irregular
shaped parcel, will contain 220 dwelling units, including 18 single
family detached, 108 single family attached, and 9^ low-rise multifamily
units. The site is buffered from public thoroughfares by existing single
family housing on the east and south boundaries, low-rise apartment
buildings on the west, and Spring Valley Park to the north.
Access streets are provided in the southeast and southwest corners
of the site and are linked together with a frontage street along the
south border of the property. Recreational areas and a community center
are situated on the north side of this street, together with a 48-unit
low-rise multifamily apartment building and parking area. The two
access streets also continue northward into the property. One terminates
in a cul de sac; the other in a parking courtyard. The single family
detached units are grouped in two clusters on the east side of the site
and are served by common drives from the access street. The balance of
the low-rise multifamily units and all single family attached units are
grouped in seven clusters. Vehicular access and service are provided by
parking courts centrally located within each cluster. A proposed system
of pedestrian walks, also suitable for light multipurpose maintenance
vehicles will provide a network of access routes to the rear of nearly
-223-
-------
all buildings. In most cases, service entrances to ground floor
dwellings are oriented to the rear of buildings.
Site Planners initially established the following program
objectives preceding the evolution of this design:
1. Develop maximum linkage to existing environment.
2. Develop maximum interface compatibility.
3. Encourage joint (public/private) development.
k. Minimize intra-site vehicular/residential friction.
5. Develop a rational and comprehendible circulation and land use
system.
6. Make optimum use of existing land.
7. Develop a rational and comprehend!ble open space system.
8. Maximize use of existing topography.
9. Maximize visual potential of Spring Valley Park.
10. Allow maximum use of diverse sub-systems.
11. Develop a structured vehicular and pedestrian circulation system
which responds to the Breakthrough visitor requirements but
minimizes disruption of normal residential activity patterns.
12. Allow maximum flexibility for housing systems developers.
13. Provide an equitable parceling system for housing systems
developers.
-22k-
-------
14. Allow maximum use of housing types.
The initial planning studies, as prepared by Perkins and Will,
Architects, Chicago, Illinois, together with the Site Plan (dated
15 October 1970), are the principal bases for this study of solid waste
systems for this project.
Estimated Quant i t ies and Types of_ Wastes to_ be_ Handled : Based
upon an estimated resident population of 756 and a nominal waste
production factor of 4 Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
average daily waste production will be approximately 3,000 Ibs.
Distribution of this waste material by type and source of generation is
estimated as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Capita
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 378 2,268 378 3,024
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1i ng Uni ts
(Ibs) 378 2,040 - 2,418
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 114 - 114
-225-
-------
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 114 378
It is anticipated that about 11 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3.k persons) each day, and will
consist of approximately 1.7 Ibs of garbage, with the balance of about
9.3 Ibs of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: The city provides no collection. It
is all done by private contractors who have a highly organized
association. Most of the private companies serve only residences with
standard containers but bulk and commercial service is also available.
A typical charge is $2.85 per residence per month for collection
service every third working day (about 1-1/2 times per week). Garbage
must be wrapped and only one 20 gallon can is collected.
Selection of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are compatible
with the various types of dwelling units, other physical characteristics
of this proposed development and the general program objectives of
Operation Breakthrough are limited to the following:
18 Low-rise single family detached Systems No. 1, 2, and 9
108 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
91* Low-rise multi family Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
-226-
-------
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in
all dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total
capital investment of about $27,500 will be required for the 220 dwellings
in this project. With a life expectancy of 10 years and including
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all (220) low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional residential collection, consisting of
curbside collection with a conventional packer truck, although in
conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic comparison.
This system, requiring no capital investment on the part of the developer,
would cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant about $3^ annually for
service and an additional cost of about $12 annually for containers and
accessories.
System 2b--House-to-house collection service weekly, using either
a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance vehicle for
transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage locations
may be considered as an alternate to the above. Costs of this system are
proportionate to the dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon study.
-227-
-------
It is estimated that capital investment in equipment will be about
$5,000, resulting in an equivalent annual capital cost of about $1,180
in addition to an estimated expense of $1,500 annually in equipment
operation, maintenance, and repairs. It is also estimated that labor
costs will approach $3,640 annually for the collector-operator.
Collectively, costs of this internal system are expected to approach
$6,320 annually or about $28 per dwelling unit, in addition to estimated
minimum costs of $24 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants of low-rise single family attached and
multifamily units are required to deposit accumulated wastes in bins
centrally located in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles provide
collection to detached waste and will tow these bins to intermediate
storage locations. This transfer would be handled by management's general
maintenance service. Costs of this service are proportionate to the
dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon study. It is estimated
that such service could be provided for an annual cost of about $3,260
or $15 per dwelling unit, in addition to an estimated minimum cost of
$24 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
-228-
-------
the clustered low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily
units. The occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the
hoppers of these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle.
Management's maintenance personnel would be required to service these
units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of
once weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is
estimated that about 14 stations could be situated within the complex
clusters to provide reasonably convenient access to these 202 dwelling
units or an average of about 1*» dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000
per station or $28,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $3,800 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $10,220 per year. Labor
costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $10.50 (3 hrs at $3-50) daily (7-day basis) or $3,830 per year.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $17,850 or
about $88 per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of
$18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories in the dwelling unit.
-229-
-------
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all
(220) low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of
$190, a total capital investment of about $**1,800 will be required. With
an estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual
capital expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly
by the dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a
total of $7,260. Occupants of clustered units would be required to
deposit packaged wastes in intermediate storage points within each
cluster. With this system collection of this packaged material could be
made once weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose
maintenance equipment, with transfer to intermediate storage locations.
Estimated cost of this internal collection service would be comparable
to those costs in System 2c or about $3,260 or $15 per dwelling unit per
year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at
about $7^ per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of
$18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
-230-
-------
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
Systems No. 1 and 9 should be considered for all dwelling units.
The economic summary (Table 13) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual costs
of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the respective types
of dwel1 ings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1 and 9 are the most
suitable selections for the project, requiring an initial capital
investment of about $7^,050 with total annual costs of $25,0^0 or about
$11^ per year or $9.50 per month per dwelling unit.
-231-
-------
TABLE 13
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
System
No.
• | •
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*9
1 &9
m
Dwelling Units
Type
All DU's
All DU's
All DU's
All DU's
LR SFA MF
All DU's
* Combination
I
No.
220
220
220
220
202
220
of Recc
Capital
Cost
$27,500
-
5,000
4,750
28,000
46,550
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$3,640
1,820
3,830
1,820
>mmended Systems
it
220 1 $74,050 I $2,500
Other
Operati:.vj Costs
$ 1,100
2,640
4,140
3,360
12,644
7,980
$ 9,080
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$ 7,480
5,280
5,280
3,636
3,960
$ 3,960
Total
$ 1,100
10,120
13,060
10,460
20,110
13,760
$14,860
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$ 3,740
-
1,180
720
3,800
6,440
$10,180
Total Annual Cost
Project
$ 4,840
10,120
14,240
1 1 , 1 80
24,126
20,200
$25,040
Per
DU
$ 22
46
64
51
118
92
$114
-------
Jersey City, New Jersey
This Operation Breakthrough development is a part of a large urban
renewal project. This housing development will be situated on an
elongated irregular shaped parcel of 6.3 acres, with a frontage of about
1,000 ft on Newark Avenue, the south boundary, and a depth varying from
about 160 to 360 ft. Summit Avenue borders the site on the east and
Kennedy Boulevard on the west.
The site will contain 500 dwelling units, including 3 low-rise,
k medium-rise, and A high-rise structures ranging from three to
twenty-four stories in height above two levels of parking and service
areas. A 3-story structure at the northwestern corner of the site above
the two service levels will contain about 50,000 square feet of
commercial and office space. Vehicular access to parking and service
levels is provided from the south and east boundary streets. Proposed
areas for a preschool center of 5,000 square feet, a public school of
about 20,000 square feet, and community recreational facilities are
centrally located within the development.
The initial planning study, as prepared by David A. Crane and
Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, together with the Preliminary
Site Plan (dated 11 August 1970), are the principal bases for this study
of solid waste systems for this project.
-233-
-------
Estimated Quant i ties and Types of_ Wastes _t£ be_ Handled : Based
upon an estimated resident population of 1 ,640 and a nominal waste
production factor of 4 Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
average daily waste production will be about 6,560 Ibs. Additional
generation of waste should be anticipated in the school plant and
commercial building. Although these facilities are not fully defined, a
waste production allowance of approximately 500 Ibs for the school and
2,500 Ibs for the commercial building should be adequate. Distribution of
this waste material by type and source of generation is estimated as
fo11ows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Cap!ta
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0
Daily Resident
Production (Ibs) 820 4,920 820 6,560
Other Production (Ibs) 1,000 2,000 - 3,000
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1i ng Uni ts
(Ibs) 820 4,430 - 5,250
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 245 - 245
-234-
-------
Outdoor Common
Areas (ibs) - 2k$ 820 1,065
School Plant
(Ibs) - 500 - 500
Comme re i a 1
Building (ibs) 1,000 1,500 - 2,500
It is anticipated that about 10.5 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3-3 persons) each day and will
consist of approximately 1.6 Ibs of garbage, with the balance of about
8.9 Ibs of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: Solid waste collection and disposal
are controlled by the Jersey City Incinerator Commission which contracts
with private firms for both collection service and incinerator operation.
The collection contractor, headquartered in Paramus, New Jersey,
provides twice a week collection from residences only at no direct charge.
The waste must be placed at the curbside in cans or bags of no greater
than 100 pounds in weight. They service no bulk containers but have made
arrangements for a 1,500 townhouse development to collect bagged waste
from a central storage point, with onsite collection provided by the
developer.
For the Operation Breakthrough site, where assembly of individual
-235-
-------
cans or bags is impractical, it may be necessary to contract for bulk
container service unless special arrangements can be made with the city s
contractor. Based upon gross annual waste production of 20,4^0 cubic
yards or 1,7^0 tons at this complex, an equivalent annual production of
k] cubic yards or 3-5 tons per dwelling unit has been calculated. A
minimum allowance of $18 per dwelling unit per year (which is equivalent
to $0.^3 per cubic yard or $5-15 per ton bulk rate) for haul and disposal
has been adopted for purposes of this study. Collection of bulky items
from a central storage point would be provided by the city on a call
basis at no fee.
Selection of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are compatible
with the various types of dwelling units, other physical characteristics
of this proposed development and the general program objectives of
Operation Breakthrough are limited to Systems No. 1, k, and 6. However
local authorities will not permit use of garbage grinders (System No. 1)
at this location.
System No. 4 considers the use of 12 separate chute-fed stationary
baler or compactor installations for this complex. Initial capital
investment for equipment for the installations is expected to approach
$84,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual
capital expense of about $ll,i»00 will be incurred. Materials, supplies,
-236-
-------
and other operating costs are estimated to average about $2 per day
per station or about $8,760 per year. Labor costs for servicing this
equ-ipment by management's personnel are estimated at $30 (8 hrs at
$3.50) daily (7-day basis) or $10,950 per year. Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at $31,110 for the 500
dwelling units, or about $62 per dwelling unit, in addition to an
estimated minimum cost of $18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal
and $12 for containers and accessories in the dwelling units.
System No. 6 considers the use of a pneumatic waste collection
system serving all dwelling units in this project. The collector conduit
or pipeline will interface with gravity chutes, in all structures. As in
the case of System No. k, it is estimated that approximately 12 chutes'
would be required. Wastes will be transported to a centrally located
compactor station for processing and storage. Based on preliminary
estimates, the pneumatic system is expected to cost about $450,000.
With a life expectancy of about 50 years, the equivalent annual capital
expense will be about $28,600. The cost of the central compactor station
is expected to approach $20,000 and with a life expectancy of 10 years,
the equivalent annual capital expense will be about $2,720.
Manufacturers of the pneumatic system estimate that annual
maintenance repairs and other operating costs will be equivalent to
-237-
-------
about 1 percent of the installed cost or $^,700. Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at $36,020 or about $72 per
dwelling unit, in addition to the estimated minimum cost of $18 per
dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories in the dwelling unit.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these
candidate systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics
and economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project.
The economic summary (Table 1*0 of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the respective
types of dwel1 ings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate that System No. 1 would offer the highest level of
service in the inter-unit and inter-building systems benefiting the
-238-
-------
project ar large. Although it is estimated that a large capital
investment ($^70,000) would be required, the total costs of $102 per
dwelling unit per year or $8.00 per month would be slightly higher
than the alternative system.
-239-
-------
TABLE 14
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY
System
No.
4
*6
Dwelling Units
Type
All DU's
All DU's
No.
500
500
Capital
Cost
$ 84,000
470,000
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
$10,950
_
Other
Operating Costs
$14,760
10,700
Municipal or
Contract Costs
$ 9,000
9,000
Total
$34,710
19,700
Capital
Investment
$1 1 ,400
31,320
Total Annual Cost^
Project
$46,110
$51,020
Per
DU
$ 92
102
The Recommended System
(1) Total annual costs include cost of handling commercial and other ancillary facility wastes
-------
Sacramento, California
The Sacramento housing development, to be situated on a 32-acre
square shaped parcel, will contain ^07 dwelling units, including 20
single family detached, 181 single family attached, 36 low-rise
multifamily: and 110 high-rise multifamily units. The site is bounded
on the south by an existing public street (Broadway). Proposed access
streets to the site will be located on the east and west boundaries.
A connecting street between these boundary streets will bisect the site
at the northerly quarter.
All single family detached units and 25 single family attached
units will be located in the northerly quarter of the site, grouped into
four clusters, with vehicular access from the connecting road into cul de
sacs serving each cluster. The balance of single family attached units
and low-rise multifamily units are generally grouped in clusters around
the perimeter of the remaining parcel. These clusters are separated and
oriented to ten elongated parking courts with vehicular access from the
perimeter streets.
The inner area (approximately five acres) of this remaining parcel
is reserved as open recreational space, with a community center and
high-rise apartment building situated immediately to the south. Parking
for these facilities is provided by two of the previously mentioned
-2k]-
-------
parking courts. A vehicular service drive is extended from one of the
parking courts to the high-rise structure.
The initial planning study, as prepared by Wurster, Bernard! and
Emmons, Inc., Prototype Site Planners, San Francisco, California, together
with the Master Site Plan (dated 19 October 1970) are the principal bases
for this study of solid waste systems for this project.
The planning study set forth the following project objectives
preceding design:
1. To provide living densities which will reduce per unit land and
site development costs.
2. To provide for methods of service and site facility design,
construction, and operation that can reduce site development and
operating costs and improve the living environment.
3. To create a physical and social pattern that will be harmonious
with the surrounding community and in the case of presently
undeveloped surrounding community, the pattern should not unduly
restrict development.
4. To make maximum use of the natural features.
5. To plan for housing (rental and owner occupied) with varied family
sizes, income levels, and sponsorship methods to assure a
socioeconomic tenant mix.
-------
6. To provide visitor facilities adaptable for community usage after
prototype rev Tew and evaluation.
7- To assure proper consideration is granted to wishes of the
surrounding community and prospective occupants of the site.
8. To provide an environment superior to, yet compatible with the
surrounding community.
9. To develop the project on a scale compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
10. To search out potential linkages and relationships which exist in
the surrounding community.
11. To suggest innovative concepts in site design.
12. To suggest additional community facilities which will assist in
unifying the project and the surrounding community.
13. To develop a system of unit locations which will maximize assets of
each unit while minimizing differences in scale, color, texture,
and form.
The following is a list of possible alternatives considered by the
Site Planner at the primary design focus:
1. Develop the project as a cohesive community fitting comfortably
into the surrounding neighborhood and containing a racial mix and
an economic mix to the extent to which this income mix can be
-2^3-
-------
accommodated on a small site. This focus would be designed to
create a mass-produced housing community specifically oriented to
avoid the stigma associated with public housing and to achieve
maximum developer and consumer acceptance.
2. Develop the project to demonstrate the maximum number of innovations
including new financing techniques. Such an approach would require
absolute cooperation between the Prototype Site Planner and the
Housing Systems Manufacturers.
3. Develop the project as a complex to serve for a period of time, say
two years, as a supermarket of mass-produced housing types where
prospective buyers, including individual residential unit owners
and developers, could look at the different building systems and
select the one they wish to develop or purchase at other locations.
Estimated Quant i ties and Types of_ Wastes ^£ b_e_ Handled : Based
upon an estimated resident population of 1,585 and a nominal waste
production factor of k Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
average daily waste production will be about 6,300 Ibs. Distribution of
this waste material by type and source of generation is estimated as
fo11ows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Cap!ta
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 k.Q
-------
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 792 4,755 793 6,340
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 792 4,275 - 5,067
Ancillary Areas
(Ibs) - 240 - 240
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 240 793 1,033
It is anticipated that about 12.5 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 3-9 persons) each day and will
consist of about 2 Ibs of garbage with a balance of about 10.5 Ibs of
mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: A variety of service is available
from the city and direct charges are made on the utility bill. The
following rates are charged:
$1.65 per dwelling per month for once a week collection of one can.
$2.65 per dwelling per month for once a week collection of two cans,
$3.65 per dwelling per month for twice a week collection of one can,
-245-
-------
Selection of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are compatible
with the physical characteristics of this proposed development and the
general program objectives of Operation Breakthrough are limited to the
following:
20 Low-rise single family detached Systems No. 1, 2, and 9
181 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
96 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
110 High-rise multifamily Systems No. 1 and k
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in all
dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total
capital investment of about $50,875 will be required for the *»07 dwelling
units in this project. With a life expectancy of ten years and including
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for all (297) low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, consisting of
house-to-house collection with a conventional packer truck, although in
minor conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic
comparison. This system, requiring no capital investment on the part of
-------
the developer, will cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant about
$3^ annually for municipal service and an additional cost of about $12
for containers and accessories.
System 2b--House-to-house collection service weekly, using either
a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance vehicle for
transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage locations
may be considered as an alternate to the above. Costs are proportionate
to the annual dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon study. It
is estimated that capital investment in equipment will be about $6,625
with an equivalent annual capital cost of about $1,5^0 in addition to an
estimated expense of $1,965 annually in equipment operation, maintenance,
and repairs. It is also estimated that labor costs will approach $^,760
(1,360 hrs at $3-50 per hour) annually for the collector-operators.
Collectively, costs of ths internal system are expected to approach $8,265
annually or about $28 per dwelling unit, in addition to estimated minimum
costs of $2A per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in
bins centrally located in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles will
provide collection service to single family detached and two these bins
to intermediate storage locations. This transfer would be handled by
-2k7-
-------
management's general maintenance service. The following costs are
proportionate to annual dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon
study. It is estimated that such service could be provided for an
annual cost of about $^,260 or under $15 per dwelling unit, in addition
to the estimated minimum cost of $2A per dwelling unit for haul and
disposal and $12 for containers and accessories.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
the clustered low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily
units. The occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the
hoppers of these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle.
Management's maintenance personnel would be required to service these
units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of once
weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is
estimated that about 1*4 stations could be situated within the complex
clusters to provide reasonably convenient access to these 277 dwelling
units or an average of about 20 dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000 per
station or $28,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $3,^10 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $10,220 per year. Labor
-2k8-
-------
costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $14 (4 hrs at $3.50) daily or $5,100 per year. Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at $18,730 or about $60 per
dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of $18 per dwelling
unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories in the
dwelling unit.
System No. 4 considers the use of a separate chute-fed stationary
baler installation in the high-rise building. Initial capital investment
for equipment for the installation is expected to approach $7,000. With
a 1ife expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital expense
of about $955 will be incurred. Materials, supplies, and other operating
costs are estimated to average about $3 per day or about $1,095 per year.
Labor costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are
estimated at $7 (2 hrs at $3-50) daily or $2,555 per year. Collectively,
the annual costs of this system are estimated at $4,605 for the 110
dwelling units, or about $42 per dwelling unit, in addition to an
estimated minimum cost of $18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and
$12 for containers and accessories.
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all
(297) low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190, a
total capital investment of about $56,430 will be required. With an
-249-
-------
estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital
expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by the
dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a total of
$9,801. Occupants of clustered units would be required to deposit
packaged wastes in intermediate storage points within each cluster. With
this system, collection of this packaged material could be made once
weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance
equipment, with transfer to intermediate storage locations. Estimated
cost of this internal collection service would be comparable to those
costs in System 2c or about $4,260 or under $15 per dwelling unit per
year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at
about $73 per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of
$18 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems and
the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection of
-250-
-------
the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and supplemented
by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. 4 in the
high-rise structure.
The economic summary (Table 15) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the respective
types of dwel1 ings .
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1, k, and 9 are the most
suitable selections for the project, requiring an initial capital
investment of about $120,535 with total annual costs of $/»3,988 or
about $108 per year or $9.00 per month per dwelling unit.
-251-
-------
vn
1*0
i
TABLE 15
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*4
*9
Dwelling Units
Type
All DU's
All LR
All LR
All LR
LR SFAMF
HR
All LR
No.
407
297
297
297
277
110
297
Capital
Cost
$ 50,875
-
6,625
6,225
28,000
7,000
62,660
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$4,760
2,380
5,100
2,555
2,380
* Combination of Recommended Systems
l,4,9l
407 I' $120,535 1 $4,935
Other
Ope rat ing Costs
$ 2,035
3,564
5,529
4,504
13,544
2,415
10,741
$15,291
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$10,098
7,128
7,128
4,986
1,980
5,346
$ 7,326
Total
$ 2,035
13,662
17,417
14,012
23,630
6,950
18,467
$27,452
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$ 6,919
-
1,540
940
3,410
955
8,662
$16,536
Total Annual Cost
Project
$ 8,954
13,662
18,957
14,952
7,905
27,129
$43,988
Per
DU
$ 22
46
64
51
98
72
91
$108
-------
Seattle, Washington
The Seattle housing development is expected to be situated on a
1.7~acre square-shaped parcel and will contain approximately 60
multifamily dwelling units in low-rise and medium-rise structures. The
proposed site is bounded on the north by Yeasler Street and on the west by
l8th Avenue. Adjacent property to the south and east are reserved as
open space and future ancillary facilities, not fully defined at the
present time. This property extends east to 20th Avenue and south to
Main Street.
A medium-rise building of about five stories will be situated on
the north boundary. Low-rise buildings of three stories will be situated
on the west and south boundaries of the housing site.
The principal public entrance to the housing complex will be
located at the northwesterly corner of the site joining the medium-rise
and one of the low-rise buildings. Common stairs as well as elevator
service will be located in this lobby area. All buildings will be on
grade. Basements will not be provided in this complex. All ground floor
apartments will have private patios with service oriented to the inner
court. The inner court formed by these structures will contain surface
parking and open space. Vehicular access to the parking court will be
provided from 18th Avenue.
-253-
-------
The initial planning study and supplemental reports, as prepared
by Building Systems Development, San Francisco, California, together
with the Site Plan (dated 9 October 1970) are the principal bases for
this study on solid waste systems for this project.
Estimated Quant i ties and Types of_ Wastes _t£ b>e_ Handled: Based
upon an estimated resident population of 285 and a nominal waste
production factor of 4 Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
average daily waste production will be about 1,140 Ibs. Distribution of
this waste material by type and source of generation is estimated as
follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Dai1y Per Capi ta
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.3 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 142 855 143 1,140
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1i ng Uni ts
(Ibs) 142 770 - 912
Anci11ary Areas
(Ibs) - 1,2 - k2
-254-
-------
Outdoor Common
Areas (l.bs) - 43 1*»3 186
It is anticipated that about 15.2 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 4.'8 persons) each day and
will consist of about 2.4 Ibs of garbage with a balance of about 12.8 Ibs
of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Ava?lable Municipal Services: The city provides no collection but
operates a transfer station and disposal site. Collection is provided
by private collectors on contract to the city. The city charges residents
$2.70 per dwelling unit per month for the combined collection and
disposal service.
Selection^ of Candidate Systems: Basic systems that are compatible
with the various types of dwelling units, other physical characteristics
of this proposed development and the general program objectives of
Operation Breakthrough are limited to the following:
37 Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
23 Medium-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 3, and 4
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in all
dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total capital
investment of about $7,500 will be required for the 60 dwelling units
in this project. With a life expectancy of ten years and including
-255-
-------
maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost of about
$22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each dwelling unit.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may be
considered for the (37) low-rise dwelling units. These variations are
identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, although in minor
conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic comparison.
This system, requiring no capital investment on the part of the
developer, will cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant about $32
annually for service and an additional cost of about $12 annually for
containers and accessories.
System 2b--Due to the relatively small size and configuration of
this project, house-to-house collection vehicle or multipurpose
maintenance vehicle for transfer of collected waste materials to
intermediate storage locations, does not appear feasible.
System 2c--0ccupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in
bins centrally located to the low-rise units. Multipurpose utility
vehicles will move these bins a short distance to an intermediate
storage location. This transfer would be handled by management's general
maintenance service at minimum cost. Annual costs for this service
(proportionate to the dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon
-256-
-------
study) are estimated at $538 or about $15 per dwelling unit in addition
to an estimated minimum cost of $2*t for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
the low-rise and medium-rise multifamily units. The occupants are
required to deposit accumulated wastes in the hoppers of these compactors
and actuate the compaction cycle. Management's maintenance personnel
would be required to service these units daily. A minimum collection
frequency of once weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual
site plan, it is estimated that about 3 stations could be situated within
the complex to provide reasonably convenient access to these 60 dwelling
units or an average of about 20 dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000
per station or $6,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $820 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $2,190 per year. Labor
costs for servicing this equipment by management's personnel are
estimated at $3-50 (l hr at $3-50) daily (7-day basis) or $1,277 per
year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at
$4,287 or about $71 per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated
-257-
-------
minimum cost of $18 for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and
accessories in the dwelling unit.
System No. A considers the use of a chute-fed stationary baler
installation in the medium-rise building. Initial capital investment for
equipment for the installation is expected to approach $^,000. With a
life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital expense
of about $5^*4 will be incurred. Materials, supplies, and other operating
costs are estimated to average about $2 per day or about $730 per year.
Labor costs for servicing this equipment by management's personnel are
estimated at $1.75 (1/2 hr at $3-50) daily (7-day basis) or $638 per year.
Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at $1,912 for
the 23 dwelling units, or about $83 per dwelling unit, in addition to
the estimated minimum cost of $18 for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all
(37) low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190,
a total capital investment of about $7,030 will be required. With an
estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital
expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by the
dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a total
-258-
-------
of $1,221. Occupants of these units would be required to deposit
packaged wastes in intermediate storage bins. With this system transfer
of these bins could be made once weekly to a central loading station at
minimal cost. Estimated cost of this internal collection service would
be comparable to the costs of System 2c or about $538 or $15 per dwelling
unit per year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are
estimated at about $7^ per dwelling unit in addition to an estimated
minimum cost of $18 for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these candidate
systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics and
economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types of
dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates that
System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and
supplemented by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. k
in the medium- and high-rise structures.
-259-
-------
The economic summary (Table 16) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the
respective types of dwellings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1, 4, and 9 are suitable
selections for the project, requiring an initial capital investment of
about $19,300 with total annual costs of $7,309 or about $122 per
dwelling unit or $10.20 per month. Economically-, the combination of
Systems No. 1 and 3 are competitive and consideration is warranted.
-260-
-------
I
f
CT\
TABLE 16
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
System
No.
*1
2a
2c
*3
*4
*9
*Comb
Dwelling Units
Type
All Du's
All LR
All LR
All Du's
MR
All LR
ination of R
1
1&3
1,4&9 I
No.
60
37
37
60
23
37
ecomme
1
Capital
Cost
$ 7,500
-
770
6,000
4,000
7,800
nded System
i
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$ 308
1,277
638
308
s
60 $13,500 $1,277
60 1 19,300 1 946
Other
Operating Costs
$ 300
444
559
2,910
1,006
1,336
$3,210
2,636
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$1,184
888
1,080
414
666
$1,080
1,080
Total
$ 300
1,628
1,755
5,267
2,058
2,310
$5,567
4,668
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$1,020
-
115
820
544
1,077
$1,840
2,641
Total Annual Co
Project
$1,320
1,628
1,870
6,087
2,602
3,387
$7,407
7,309
Per
Du
$ 22
44
51
101
113
92
123
122
-------
King County, Washington
This Operation Breakthrough development, to be situated on a 30-acre
parcel, will contain 162 dwelling units, including 58 single family
detached, 80 single family attached, and 2k low-rise multifamily units.
Vehicular access to the housing development is limited to single access
streets from the east (N.E. lAgth Street) and west (N.E. 148th Street),
which connect to an inner loop road (Circle Drive). The single family
detached units are grouped in nine major clusters in the westerly portion
of the site. Vehicular access and service to these clusters is by a
system of cul de sacs and common drives. The balance of structures is
contained in seven major clusters served by off street parking courts.
In five of these clusters (containing 62 dwelling units), service areas
are located in private rear patios remotely oriented from streets and
parking areas. In the remaining two clusters (containing 32 single
family attached units), service areas are located in private rear patios
remotely oriented from streets and parking areas. In the remaining two
clusters (containing 32 single family attached units) service access is
oriented to parking courts where maneuverability of large service vehicles
would be limited as well as undesirable.
The inner portion of the parcel, bounded by the loop road, will be
maintained as open park area. A community center, fronting on the loop
-262-
-------
road, will adjoin this park area. A network of pedestrian ways
interconnects the clusters of dwelling units to the community center in
this parcel.
The initial planning study, as prepared by Dean, Eckbo, Austin, and
Williams, Landscape Architects and Planners, San Francisco, California,
and Site Plan (dated 8 October 1970) are the principal bases for this
study of solid waste systems for this project.
Estimated Quanti 11 es and Types of_ Wastes _to be_ Handled;_ Based
upon an estimated resident population of 900 and a nominal waste
production factor of 4 Ibs per capita per day, it is expected that
average daily waste production will approach 3,600 Ibs. Distribution of
this waste material by type and source of generation is as follows:
Type of Waste Garbage Rubbish Trash Total
Daily Per Capita
Production (Ibs) 0.5 3.0 0.5 4.0
Total Daily Production
(Ibs) 450 2,700 450 3,600
Distribution of Total Daily Production:
Dwel1 ing Uni ts
(Ibs) 450 2,430 - 2,880
-263-
-------
Anci1lary Areas
(Ibs) - 135 - 135
Outdoor Common
Areas (Ibs) - 135 ^50 585
It is anticipated that about 17.8 Ibs of wastes will be generated
within the average dwelling unit (average 5.5 persons) each day and will
consist of approximately 2.8 Ibs of garbage with a balance of about 15 Ibs
of mixed wastes for separate storage, collection, and disposal.
Available Municipal Services: Collection is provided by 22 private
haulers who transport to a county-owned transfer station. Rates for
collection are set by the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission and average $2.70 per dwelling per month. The range is from
$2.1*0 to $2.90. An additional charge of 30< per dwelling per month is
made for backyard collection.
Selection of Candidate Systems; Basic systems that are compatible
with the various types of dwelling units, other physical characteristics.
of this proposed development and the general program objectives of
Operation Breakthrough are limited to the following:
58 Low-rise single family detached Systems No. 1, 2, and 9
80 Low-rise single family attached Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
2k Low-rise multifamily Systems No. 1, 2, 3, and 9
-26k-
-------
System No. 1 (garbage grinders) is desirable for installation in
all dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $125, a total
capital investment of about $20,250 will be required for the 162
dwelling units in this project. With a life expectancy of 10 years and
including maintenance, repairs, and operating costs, a total annual cost
of about $22 is expected to be incurred by the occupants of each
dwel1 ing uni t.
System No. 2 (variations of conventional collection system) may
be considered for all (162) low-rise dwelling units. These variations
are identified as follows:
System 2a--The conventional municipal collection, consisting of
curbside collection with a conventional packer truck, although in minor
conflict with program objectives, is considered for economic comparison.
This system, requiring no capital investment on the part of the developer,
would cost the dwelling unit owner or occupant about $32 annually for
service and an additional cost of about $12 annually for containers and
accessories.
System 2b--House-to-house collection service weekly, using either
a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance vehicle for
transfer of collected waste materials to intermediate storage locations
-265-
-------
may be considered as an alternate to the above. The following costs of
this system are proportionate to dwelling unit costs as determined in the
Macon study. It is estimated that capital investment in equipment will be
about $3,660, resulting in an equivalent annual capital cost of about
$8^5, in addition to an estimated expense of $1,666 annually in equipment
operation, maintenance, and repairs. It is also estimated that labor
costs will approach $2,600 annually for the collector-operator.
Collectively, costs of this internal system are expected to approach
$A,6ll annually or about $28 per dwelling unit, in addition to an
estimated mininum cost of $2^ per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and
$12 for containers and accessories.
System 2c--0ccupants of the single family attached and multifamily
units are required to deposit accumulated wastes in bins centrally located
in clusters. Multipurpose utility vehicles will provide collection to the
single family detached units and tow the bins to intermediate storage
locations. This transfer would be handled by management's general
maintenance service. Annual costs for this service (proportionate to the
dwelling unit costs as determined in the Macon study) are estimated at
about $2,330 or under $15 per dwelling unit, in addition to an estimated
minimum cost of $2*4 per dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for
containers and accessories.
-266-
-------
System No. 3 (console compactor stations) is considered for use in
the clustered low-rise single family attached and low-rise multifamily
units. The occupants are required to deposit accumulated wastes in the
hoppers of these compactors and actuate the compaction cycle.
Management's maintenance personnel would be required to service these
units twice daily or as required. A minimum collection frequency of
once weekly would be required. Based on the conceptual site plan, it is
estimated that about 9 stations could be situated within the complex
clusters to provide reasonably convenient access to these 10*t dwelling
units or an average of about 12 dwellings per compactor station. Initial
capital investment of installed equipment is estimated at about $2,000
per station or $18,000. With a life expectancy of about 10 years, an
equivalent annual capital expense of about $2,A^8 will be incurred.
Materials, supplies, and other operating costs of this equipment are
estimated at $2 per day per station or about $6,570 per year. Labor
costs for servicing this equipment by management personnel are estimated
at $7 (2 hrs at $3-50) daily or $2,555 per year. Collectively, the
annual costs of this system are estimated at $11,573 or about $111 per
dwelling unit in addition to an estimated minimum cost of $18 per
dwelling unit for haul and disposal and $12 for containers and accessories
in the dwel1 ing unit.
-267-
-------
System No. 9 considers the use of under-counter compactors in all
(162) low-rise dwelling units. Allowing an installed unit cost of $190,
a total capital investment of about $30,780 will be required. With an
estimated life expectancy of about 10 years, an equivalent annual capital
expense of about $26 per dwelling unit will be incurred. Materials,
supplies, and other operating costs to be incurred directly by the
dwelling unit occupants will approach $33 per year per unit or a total of
$5,3^6. Occupants of clustered units would be required to deposit
packaged wastes in intermediate storage points within each cluster.
With this system collection of this packaged material could be made once
weekly with a satellite collection vehicle or multipurpose maintenance
equipment, with transfer to intermediate storage locations. Estimated
cost of this internal collection service would be comparable to those
costs in System 2c or about $2,330 or under $15 per dwelling unit per
year. Collectively, the annual costs of this system are estimated at
about $7^ per dwelling unit in addition to the municipal cost of $18
for haul and disposal.
Evaluation of Candidate Systems: The evaluation of these
candidate systems involved both the comparison of systems characteristics
and economics of the respective systems installations.
The evaluation of system characteristics (Table 5) provides a
deficiency rating of all pertinent characteristics in the sub-systems
-268-
-------
and the total deficiency rating of each system. Comparisons of these
individual ratings between systems provide guidelines for the selection
of the system(s) which may be more desirable for the respective types
of dwelling units in the project. This method of ranking indicates
that System No. 1 should be considered for all dwelling units and
supplemented by System No. 9 in the low-rise structures and System No. k
in the medium- and high-rise structures.
The economic summary (Table 17) of these candidate systems
illustrates the comparison of initial capital costs and total annual
costs of each as well as equivalent dwelling unit costs for the respective
types of dwel1 ings.
Relating system costs and deficiency ratings to the program
objectives indicate a combination of Systems No. 1 and 9 are the most
suitable selections for the project, requiring an initial capital
investment of $5^,^30 with total annual costs of $18,368 or about $113
per dwelling unit per year or $9.^5 per month.
-269-
-------
I
N>
~vJ
O
TABLE 17
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF SOLID WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
System
No.
*1
2a
2b
2c
3
*9-
*Comb
Dwelling Units
T xpe
All Du's
All Du's
All Du's
All Du's
SFA MF
All Du's
i not ion of R
,«,
No.
162
162
162
162
104
162
i
ecommer
Capital
Cost
$20,250
-
3,660
3,400
18,000
34,180
ided System
i
Annual Operating Cost
Labor
-
-
$2,600
1,300
2,555
1,300
s
(I
.* $54,430 » $1,300
Other
Operating Costs
$ 810
1,944
3,110
2,459
7,818
5,861
$,6,671
Municipal or
Contract Costs
-
$5,184
3,888
3,888
1,872
2,916
$2,916
Total
$ 810
7,128
9,598
7,647
12,245
10,077
$10,887
Amortization of
Capital
Investment
$2,754
-
845
515
2,448
4,727
$7,481
Total Annual Co
Project
$ 3,564
7,128
10,445
8,162
14,693
14,804
$18,368
Per
Du
$ 22
44
64
51
141
92
$113
-------
APPENDIX
-------
RESEARCH PLAN FOR OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Based upon the preceding studies of the Operation Breakthrough
program and the need for research on improved solid waste systems,
Memphis, Jersey City, and other sites were considered as locations for
pilot projects. It is anticipated that continuing investigation of
solid waste systems will be carried out at several selected locations in
Phase II of this study.
Specified in the scope of this current study (Phase I) was the
determination of the scope of the research program for those systems
selected for continuing study. The plan should consider detailed
requirements for laboratory and pilot scale tests and a suggested plan or
guidelines to be followed during the design, construction, installation,
and operational phases of the full scale systems.
Details of this concluding section of study are related to the
broad requirements of each type of system considered in the proposed
projects.
Among the systems considered and discussed herein, are those
employing pneumatic conveyors and various types of compaction devices.
A-l
-------
Pneumatic Waste Collection Systems
Pneumatic waste collection systems, coupled with stationary
compactor stations for processing and storage requirements, have been
recommended previously as the primary systems for both the Memphis and
Jersey City projects and considered as warranted for continuing
investigation. It was anticipated, due to the development schedules
of these projects, that the award of the waste systems design contracts
would be made in advance of the completion of this study (Phase l),
and that overlapping of the continuing study (Phase ll) will occur.
Based upon this premise, the schedule of this section was accelerated with
completion occurring in advance of certain portions of the preceding
background material.
Design Procurement Specifications: Initial requirements were for
the development of criteria for systems design procurement. The
development of these would be intended for use at any location, not a
spec!fie si te.
Earlier investigations of pneumatic systems established that
there were only three which were marketed and adaptable to housing
complex installations. Each of these systems varies in characteristics
of materials and special equipment components used. However, all operate
on basically the same principle.
A-2
-------
After trial comparisons and evaluations of these systems, design
procurement specifications were prepared that were broad enough for
participation and compliance by the known manufacturers of these
systems, and that provided a comprehensive basis for evaluation of
design standards compatible with HDD's systems evaluation methods.
As this criteria was developed, basic design standards were
identified, including broad parameters such as (1) space, illumination,
and ventilation for the mechanical equipment center and valve rooms,
(2) routing, installation, insulation, protection, transitions, and
special fittings of the conduit or piping, as well as access
requirements for maintenance, (3) operational and user safety,
(4) maintainability, (5) warranties, (6) user acceptance,
(7) environmental quality in operation, (8) operational control system,
including protective devices in the event of malfunction, etc.
This specification (Appendix F) establishes basic standards and
limitations to which the mechanical design engineer and manufacturers
must adhere, and provides the necessary guidelines for the comparison
and evaluation of the similar systems available. Compliance with
certain of these suggested standards must be documented or justified
by the manufacturers. The engineers responsible for such review will
evaluate the manufacturer's claims.
A-3
-------
Concurrently with the development of the basic specifications
for the pneumatic solid waste system the Office of Solid Waste
Management Program, EPA, developed a Performance Specification for
Stationary Solid Waste Compactors (Appendix G). This document
provides basic guidelines for evaluation and selection of various
types of compaction devices for housing complexes.
Although these specifications may be utilized for any housing
project, they were developed principally for application to the
Operation Breakthrough projects. Following such application and the
selection of specific systems for the demonstration projects, the
proposed continuing study (Phase ll) will commence. The following
section investigates and suggests the scope of work to be undertaken
in Phase II as related to the solid waste systems at Memphis and
Jersey City.
A-4
-------
Research Program Covering the Pneumatic Waste System
Observations and evaluations associated with the demonstration
projects may be divided into three major work tasks. These tasks
can be identified as the design stage, the construction stage, and
operational stage. Each stage of study should be independently
reported with the appropriate summations and recommendations. The
study should be progressive in nature with qualified review of preceding
studies in each subsequent report.
The Design Stage: This initial stage of study will involve
working with the individual system designers, manufacturers, site
"planners, and developers to establish the research protocol to be
followed. Concurrently with this activity, instrumentation, monitoring
devices, and equipment that will be required should be specified for
installation in order to facilitate the following stages of this research.
In addition to the activities associated with the actual system
design, all experimental facilities and practices that will be later
implemented in the research period should be delineated.
During the design stage it may also be desirable to develop and
carry out a test program at the manufacturers' pilot plants on those
basic components which have either been modified or specially designed for
A-5
-------
these projects. With the cooperation of the manufacturer, probable
components for testing will include such items as:
1. Chute base valves
2. Tenant operated charging stations
3. Discharge hoppers at central storage location
k. Exhaust air filters and silencers
5. Waste screening devices between receiving hopper and exhaust
ai r discharge 1i ne
Such tests would be carried out by independent observers or local
testing agencies for the purpose of determining operational capabilities,
safety, and maintenance requirements.
Detailed reviews of the total system design should be made at
various stages in the design process. Criticism of design details and
specifications should be coordinated with the developer and/or designers
review of such plans. Final review of the design, prior to approval for
construction, should be held jointly by all parties involved. All
prior criticisms, not previously resolved, should be redefined and
evaluated. Estimated costs of the system should be re-analized with
separate identification of accessory devices and equipment required for
the research program.
A-6
-------
An interim report should be prepared on the design stage for
each project. Modification of design evaluation criteria should be
made incorporating all changes deemed necessary, identifying those
additional parameters which may have materialized during the design
process. Such reports should be prepared in collaboration with all
parties involved in design.
The Construction Stage: General activities during the construction
stage of these systems will include review of contract documents and
shop drawings; inspection of special components during fabrication;
and site inspections during installation of the piping network,
mechanical equipment and control system. Field activity in this stage
of work will be concluded with observations during the initial testing
period of the system. These activities will be independently carried
out, in addition to similar responsibilities of the Site
Developer-Planner team. However, findings should be coordinated with
thei r efforts.
Observations and evaluations should be comprehensive in nature
with principal goals to include possible improvements and/or economies
that could be realized either during the construction stage of these
projects, or the design and construction of future projects.
A-7
-------
Specific requirements in this stage of work will include the
supervision of the installation and testing of all research equipment
required for the operational stage of this continuing program.
An interim report will be prepared following the completion of
construction and the initial testing of systems at each project. The
summation of findings should be concluded with those recommendations
in design and construction techniques resulting during this stage of
the program.
The Operational Stage: Observations and evaluation of systems
operating characteristics will cover such characteristics as the physical
and mechanical aspects of the systems operation, systems loadings,
environmental quality maintained during operation, and the economic and
sociological aspects of systems operation.
The evaluation of the physical and mechanical aspects of the
system will require assessment of all components, including chutes,
charging units, pipeline, exhausters, filters, discharge hoppers,
compactor station, and the control system. Resistance to erosion,
corrosion, collapse, and blockage will be among the prime considerations
in operation of the storage and transport elements. Adequacy of the
automated control system to maintain reliability of operation and prompt
A-8
-------
identification and location of malfunctions will be of major significance.
Facility for prompt maintenance and repair of the total system as well
as alternatives during breakdown will also be of prime concern. Such
evaluations will consider the design and installation details of this
mechanical system, as well as the functional capabilities of all
components. Such evaluations may modify design criteria for future
project installations.
Observations will be made of the variations of loadings, including
types, characteristics, and quantities. Tests will also be conducted
to determine maximum loadings and design limitations that may be
recommended. Such tests will also include characteristics and limitations
of waste materials the system can handle, such as:
1. Maximum density of materials
2. Types of hazardous materials
3. Mixed loose wastes
k. Mixed containerized or bagged wastes
5. Controlled cycling of segregated wastes for recovery
6. Maximum quantities handled by various types of charging stations
Determinations will be made on the advantages and disadvantages
of manual activation, time cycle activation, and demand activation of
the system for various types of charging stations under differing loading
condi tions.
A-9
-------
The economics of operation will be thoroughly analized considering
applicable capital costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs
experienced during the program period. The evaluation of direct
operating and maintenance costs should consider those modifications
of mechanical components and/or the control system where annual economies
may be achieved. The economic evaluation should also consider those
reduced or increased indirect costs, such as liability and property
damage insurance that may be expected. Anticipated future costs will
be projected based upon this experience, considered modifications,
expected life, and indicated reliability of the total system.
Standards of environmental quality will be evaluated during the
operational stage of this program. Such factors as sanitation and
safety will be assessed, as well as the esthetic qualities resulting
from systems operation. In the latter case, the effectiveness of
control over such nuisance characteristics as noise, odors, air
pollution, litter, and general appearances normally associated with
waste systems, will be fully evaluated. Included in the assessment of
safety factors will be the effectiveneas of preventive measures against
personal injury and property damage resulting from fire, explosions,
or general operation of the system. Resident as well as operator
safety should be of major significance in this evaluation.
A-10
-------
The evaluation of the sociological impact will be based upon
on-site observations and investigations of ancillary benefits resulting
from the improved methods of transport and minimal storage requirements,
Advantages that may be realized by the reduction of service vehicles,
and the control of insects and rodents, will be investigated. Periodic
interviews with residents, employees, and management will be carried
out to determine changing attitudes in the level of acceptance and
service of the system, and their assessment of the esthetic quality of
its operation. The convenience of the systems, as compared to
conventional systems, will be evaluated, as well as their compatibility
with the life style of the resident and routines of the employees and
management. Such evaluations should indicate those characteristics
of systems operation where modifications may be needed to improve user
acceptance.
The conclusion of this research program should require a final
report which reviews the findings of the design and construction stages
of the program, together with comprehensive detail of activities during
the operational stage.
The evaluation of these findings should produce adequate
specification requirements, design criteria, and operational standards
for the application to similar projects in the future.
A-n
-------
Research Requirements on Other Recommended Systems
In addition to pneumatic conveyor systems coupled with central
compaction stations, as recommended for Memphis and Jersey City, other
types of systems to be considered for the research program include
various types of compaction devices.
Under-counter compactors were recommended as the preferred
system for the King County site. A combination of under-counter
compactors (for single family dwelling units) and chute-fed stationary
compactors (for multifamily dwelling units) were recommended for the
sites at Macon, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Kalamazoo, and Sacramento.
Console compactors were recommended to best serve the site at Seattle,
but were also considered as an alternative system for the low-rise
clustered dwelling units in certain of the other projects.
Various types of collection were considered for these projects,
ranging from management operated services to conventional municipal
services.
Although it would be desirable for research purposes to implement
all systems recommended, it is recognized that funding all projects is
unlikely. It is recommended, however, that sites be selected where
representative types of these different systems can be installed and
A-12
-------
included in the research program in Phase II of this study. As in the
case of the research program covering the pneumatic conveyor systems,
these demonstration projects would be divided into three major work tasks
covering the design, construction or installation, and operational
phases. Separate and complete reports would be required on each system
by phases.
Performance evaluation criteria, comparable in scope and format to
Appendices F and G, should be developed initially in the design phase
of each of these systems.
The research program would be similar in scope as detailed in the
design, construction, and operational phases of the Memphis and Jersey
City systems previously discussed.
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A
NUMERICAL IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
The following list, arranged numerically, identifies the
manufacturers shown in tabulations in this report. Elsewhere will be
found an alphabetical list of these and other manufacturers, together
with their addresses. The manufacturers included in the list are for
purposes of aiding in the discussions of various types of equipment.
The inclusion of any name does not indicate particular approval or
recommendation of a particular product nor does any exclusion indicate
disapproval.
1000 Hotpoint Dishwasher and Disposal Dept.
1001 National Disposer Co.
1002 Kitchenmaid Dishwasher Div.
1003 Waste King Universal
lOO^t Whirlpool Corporation
1005 Atomic Disposer Corporation
1006 Kelvinator, Inc.
1007 Bus Boy Disposer, Inc.
1008 In-Sink-Erator
1009 Disposall
2000 Wilkinson Chutes, Inc.
A-14
-------
2001 Construction Products, Inc.
3000 International Paper Company
3001 Westvaco
3002 Gilman Paper Company
3003 St. Regis Paper Company
4000 Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.
4001 Mobil Chemical Co.
4002 Phillips Films Co., Inc.
5000 M-B Company
5001 Val-Jac Manufacturing Co., Inc.
6000 Compackager Corporation
6001 Automatic Refuse Systems, Jnc.
7000 Auto Pak Company
7001 Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
7002 Research-Cottrel1 , Inc.
7003 E-Z Pack Company
7004 Waterbury Hydraulic & Pollution Sciences, Inc.
7005 Compactor Corporation
8000 Loewy Machinery Supplies Co., Inc.
8001 Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
9000 Auto Pak Company
A-15
-------
9001 Dempster Brothers, Inc.
9002 E-Z Pack Company
9003 Anchor Machine Company, Inc.
900^ S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
9005 Heil Co., (The)
9006 LoDal, Inc.
9007 Industrial Services of America
10000 Chili Plastics, Inc.
10001 County Plastics Corp.
10002 Florsheim Manufacturing Co., Inc.
10003 Refuse Disposal Equipment Co., Inc.
10004 Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.
10005 Grand Aluminum Welding
10006 Metal Edge Industries
11000 Mil-Pac Systems
11001 Eidel International Corporation
11002 Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co.
12000 Cushman Motors
13000 Whirlpool Corporation
H»000 Verse Cart Containers
1^001 Fusion Rubbermaid Corporation
A-16
-------
14002 Moulded Products, Inc.
15000 Compackager Corporation
15001 Logemann Brothers Company
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
PRODUCT LIST
(TYPE, MANUFACTURER, AND TRADE NAME)
Hand 1? ng Equ i pment
CART, Collection, Refuse
Fusion Rubbermaid Corp. "Mobil Toter
Moulded Products, Inc. "Waste Aid
Versa Cart Containers
CHUTE, Gravity
Comstock Engineering Co.
Construction Products Co., Inc. "Haslett"
Kirk 6 Blum Mfg. Co., The
Lamson Division Diebold, Incorporated
Matthews Conveyor Co.
Olson Div. -- American Chain & Cable
Co., Inc.
Standard Conveyor Co.
Wi1kinson Chutes, Inc.
11
A-18
-------
COLLECTOR, Litter, Vacuum
Truck Equipment Corporation
CONVEYOR, Pneumatic
Butler Manufacturing Co.
Eastern Cyclone Industries, Inc.
Envirogenics Company
Fisher-Klosterman, Inc.
Flo-Tronics Air Conveyor Div.
Fuller Company
Lamson Division Diebold, Incorporated
Montgomery Industries, Inc.
Quickdraft Corporation
Salina Manufacturing Co., Inc.
HOIST, Container, Rear-Loading
Bremen Equipment Corp.
Bynal Products, Inc.
Converto Mfg. Co. - Div. of Golay & Co.,
Inc.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
"Tecorp"
"Air-Flyte"
"AVAC"
"Ai rveyor"
"Trans-Vac"
"Tripsaver"
"Convertainer"
"Dumpster"
A-19
-------
Heil Co., The "Load Lugger"
Perfection-Cobey Company
Div. of Harsco Corp. "Liftainer"
Western Body & Hoist Co.
HOIST, Tiltframe, Container, Packer
Anchor Machine Company, Inc. "Anchor!ift"
S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
Converto Mfg. Co. - Div. of Golay £ Co.,
Inc. "Leav-A-Trainer"
Dempster Brothers, Inc. "Dinosaur"
E-Z Pack Company
Gar Wood Industries, Inc. "Dispos-Haul"
Heil Co., The "Huge-Haul"
Hobbs Hyd-Pak - Div. of Fruehauf Corp. "Pack-Saddle"
Industrial Services of America - Tri-Pak
Division "Tri-Pak"
King Container, Inc.
Perfection-Cobey Company - Div.
of Harsco Corp. "Fleetainer"
Swiftainer Industries Corp. "Swift-Hoist"
Universal Handling Equipment Co.
A-20
-------
Wayne Engineering Corporation
Western Body 6 Hoist Co.
PACKER, Front-Loader, Mobile
S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
D-V Metal Fab Co. - Div. of
Data-Veyor Corp.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
E-Z Pack Company
Heil Co., The
King Container, Inc.
LoDal, Inc.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Perfection-Cobey Company - Div.
of Harsco Corp.
Sanitary Controls, Inc.
Toledo Industrial Fabricating Co., Inc.
Western Body & Hoist Co.
"Dumpster"
"Load-A-Matic"
"Pak-tainer" 6
"Fork-tainer"
"Full-Pak",
"Jet Full-Pak"
& "Top-Pak"
A-21
-------
PACKER, Rear-Loader, Mobile
Atlas Hoist & Body, Inc.
City Tank Corp.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Elgin Leach Corp.
E-Z Pack Company
Gar Wood Industries, Inc.
Hei1 Co., The
Hobbs Hyd-Pak - Div. of Fruehauf Corp,
Jafco Systems
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Perfection-Cobey Company - Div.
of Harsco Corp.
St. Regis Environmental Systems Div.
Tampo Mfg. Co., Inc.
PACKER, Side-Loader, Mobile
D-V Metal Fab Co. - Div. of
Data-Veyors Corp.
E-Z Pack Company
Hobbs Hyd-Pak - Div. of Fruehauf Corp.
"Load-Master"
& "Roto-Pac"
"Packmaster"
"Colectomatic"
"Hyd-Pak"
"Load Liner"
"Cobey"
"Seal-Press"
"Fastpack"
"Com-Pak"
A-22
-------
Lodal, Inc.
Marion Metal Products Co.
M-B Company
New Way Manufacture
Pak-Mor Mfg. Co.
Perfection-Cobey Company - Div.
of Harsco Corp.
H.E. Smith, Inc.
Sterling Mfg. Co.
Tampo Mfg. Co., Inc.
Truck Equipment Corp.
Val-Jac Mfg. Co., Inc.
Wayne Engineering Corp.
Western Body & Hoist Co.
PACKER, Trailer
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Elgin Leach Corp.
Gar Wood Industries, Inc.
King Container, Inc.
"Swift-Pak"
"Smithpac"
"Hippo"
"Seal-Press"
"Truxmore Pakker"
"Pak-Rat"
"Mighty-Pack"
"Shu-Pak"
A-23
-------
M-B Company
H.E. Smith, Inc.
Val-Jac Mfg. Co., Inc.
Wayne Engineering Corp.
TRAIN, Container
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Elgin Leach Corporation
E-Z Pack Co.
LoDal, Inc.
Perfection-Cobey Co. - Div.
of Harsco Corp.
Sanitary Controls, Inc.
Truck Equipment Corporation
VEHICLE, Collection, Satellite
A-Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Cushman Motors - Division of
Outboard Marine Corp.
Portec Inc., Butler Division
Systems Manufacturing Corp.
Trash Mobile - Division of Hanna
West Coast Machining
"Moto-Pack"
"Portapac"
"Pak-Rat-Pup"
"Mighty-Pack"
"Trux-Tra in"
A-24
-------
Storage Equipment
BAG, Paper, Disposable
Bancroft Bag, Inc.
Bern is Co., Inc.
Crown-Zellerback Corp.
Gilman Paper Co. "DisPOzit!"
Hudson Pulp and Paper Co.
International Paper Co. "Garbax"
St. Regis Environmental Systems Division
Southern Bag Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
U.S. Gypsum Co.
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Corp. "Westvaco"
BAG, Plastic, Disposable
American Can Co.
Bemis Co., Inc.
Broyhill Industries
Cherrin Products Co.
Ethyl Corporation
Extrudo Fi1m Corp.
Gulf Plastic Products Co.
A-25
-------
Handi-Bag Corp.
Mobil Chemical Co. - Plastics Division
Monsanto Co. - Plastic Products and Resins
Di vi's i on
Phillips Films Co., Inc. - Subsidiary
of Phillips Petroleum Co. "Piggie Pokes"
W. Ralston £ Co., Ltd.
Rapco Plastics, Inc.
Republic Molding Corp.
Rexa11 Chemical Co.
Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.
St. Regis Environmental Systems Division
Sinclair-Koppers Co.
Surrey Steel Components Ltd.
Union Carbide Corp.
USI Film Products - Div. of U.S.
Industrial Chemical Co.
Wai ton-March
A-26
-------
Webster Industries, Inc. - Environmental
Controls Products Division - Subsidiary
of Chelsea Industries, Inc.
The Witt Co.
BARREL, Ah ninum
Grand Aluminum Welding
BARREL, Plastic
Chili Plastics, Inc.
County Plastics Corp.
Florsheim Mfg. Co., Inc.
Refuse Disposal Equipment Co., Inc.
Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.
CART, Aluminum, Hand-pushed
McClintock Division - Unarco
Industries, Inc.
Rol-Away Truck Mfg. Co., Inc.
CART, Fiberglas, Hand-pushed
Container Development Corp.
"Chi lite Toter"
"Aerospace"
"Brute Group"
A-27
-------
CART, Steel, Hand-pushed
Bloomfield/Silex Industries, Inc.
Fort Steuben Metal Products Co.
McClintock Division - Unarco
Industries, Inc.
Metropolitan Wire Goods Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Tradewind Industries, Inc.
CART, Packer, Stationary
E-Z Pack Company "E-Z Pack Trash Cart"
Swiftainer Industries Corp.
CONTAINER, Front-Loader, Packer, Mobile
Burtman Iron Works "Dyna-Bilt"
Bynal Products, Inc. "Hand-E-Can"
Dempster Brother, Inc.
E-Z Pack Company
Gen Sani-Can Corporation
King Container, Inc.
LoDal, Inc. "Load-A-Matic"
National Compactor 5 Technology
Systems, Inc.
A-28
-------
New York Sani-Can, Inc.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Universal Handling Equipment Co.
CONTAINER, Rear-Loader, Packer, Mobile
Apex Metal Products
Burtman Ironworks "Dyna-Bilt"
Bynal Products, Inc. "Hand-E-Can"
Elgin Leach Corporation
E-Z Pack Company
Gen Sani-Can Corp.
King Container, Inc.
National Compactor £ Technology
Systems, Inc.
New York Sani-Can, Inc.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Universal Handling Equipment Co.
CONTAINER, Side-Loader, Packer, Mobile
Burtman Iron V/orks "Dyna-Bilt"
Bynal Products, Inc. "Hand-E-Can"
Gen Sani-Can Corp.
A-29
-------
Hobbs Hyd-Pak
King Container, Inc.
National Compactor & Technology
Systems, Inc.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Tampo Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Truck Equipment Corp.
Universal Handling Equipment Co.
Val-Jac Manufacturing Co., Inc.
CONTAINER, Open-top, Roll-off
Bremen Equipment Corp.
Gar Wood Industries, Inc.
Heil Co., The
CONTAINER, Rear-Loading
Apex Metal Products
Bynal Products, Inc.
Converto Mfg. Co.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Heil Co., The
Perfection-Cobey Company
"Handi-Lift"
"Seal-Press"
"Truxmore Container"
"Dispos-Haul"
"Huge-Haul"
"Spill-Tainer"
"Load-Lugger"
A-30
-------
CONTAINER, Receiving, Packer, Stationary
Anchor Machine Co., Inc.
Auto Pak Co.
S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
E-Z Pack Company
Heil Co., The
Hobbs Hyd-Pak
Industrial Services of America
King Container, Inc.
Marathon Equipment Co., Inc.
National Compactor & Technology
Systems, Inc.
New York Sani-Can, Inc.
Swiftainer Industries Corp.
Tubar Waste Systems
"Anchortainer"
"Dual-Pak"
"Huge-Pac"
•Tri-Pak"
"Ram-Jet"
"Swiftainer"
"Tubartainer"
A-31
-------
Processing Equipment
BALER, Bag-Type
(Compactor Bag)
Automatic Refuse Systems, Inc.
Auto Pak Co.
Compaction Equipment Co., Inc.
Compactor Corp.
E-Z Pack Company
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
Piezo Manufacturing Corp.
Research-Cottrel1, Inc.
Waterbury Hydraulics & Pollution
Sciences, Inc.
BALER, Carrousel-type
(Compactor, Rotary)
Loewy Machinery Supplies Co., Inc.
Mi1-Pac Systems, Inc.
BALER, Portable
Maren Engineering Corp.
Tamaker Corp.
"ARS"
"Gobbler"
"Gator"
"Wastepactor"
"Piezo-Pak"
"Kompex"
A-32
-------
BALER, Stationary
American Baler Machine Co. - Div.
Nat'l. Compactor 6 Technology Systems, Inc.
Compackager Corporation
Consolidated Baling Machine Co.
Logemann Bros. Co.
Tamaker Corp.
CHIPPER, Brush
Wayne Manufacturing Co.
COLLECTOR, Dust, Bag-type
John Zink Co.
COLLECTOR, Dust, Centrifugal
Fisher-Klosterman, Inc.
COLLECTOR, Dust, Cyclone
Balemaster Div - East Chicago
Machine Tool Corp.
Bartlett-Snow
Eastern Cyclone Industries, Inc.
"Balanced Air"
£ "Cluster-Clone" r,<
"ECI" &
"Air-Flyte"
A-33
-------
Fisher-Klosterman, Inc.
Gruendler Crusher & Pulverizer Co.
Quickdraft Corporation
Salina Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Williams Patent Crusher £
Pulverizer Co., Inc.
John Zink Company
COMPACTOR, Bag
Auto Pak Co.
Compactor Corp.
E-Z Pack Company
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Waterbury Hydraulic & Pollution
Sciences, Inc.
COMPACTOR, Console
Compackager Corporation
Automatic Refuse Systems, Inc.
COMPACTOR, Rotary
Loewy Machinery Supplies Co.
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
"Balanced Air"
& "Cluster-Clone"
"Wastepactor"
"Trash Masters"
"ARS"
"Kompex"
A-34
-------
COMPACTOR, Stationary
American Johnson Compactor Co., Inc.
Anchor Machine Company, Inc.
Apex Metal Products - Div. of
Hydraulic Refuse Systems Corp.
Automatic Refuse Systems, Inc.
Auto Pak Company
S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
Compaction Equipment Co., Inc.
Compactor Corp.
Data-Veyors Corp.
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
Ecological Assistance Corp.
E-Z Pack Company - Div. of Hercules
Gallon Products, Inc.
Gladco Compactors, Inc.
Gull Products Co.
Heil Co., The
Hobbs Hyd-Pak - Div. of Fruehauf Corp.
"Anchorpac"
"Concentrator"
"Dual-Pak" &
"Pitch 'N Pak"
"Pac-King"
"Wastepactor"
"Dinopacker I I"
"Huge-Pac"
"Hyd-Pak"
A-35
-------
Industrial Services of America, Inc. "Tri-Pak"
King Container, Inc.
Lodal Inc.
Machine Products Corp.
Marathon Equipment Co., Inc. "Ram-Jet"
McDowel1-WelIman Co.
McMearty Equipment Co., Inc. "Pak-King"
Mid Equip. Corp.
Mil-Pac Systems - Unit of SFM Corp.
Moto-Pack M-B Co.
National Compactor & Technology
Systems, Inc.
New York Sani-Can, Sanitary Controls, Inc.
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
Perfection-Covey Company - Div. of
Harsco Corp. "Station-pak"
Piezo Manufacturing Corp.
Seco Electronics Corp.
Swiftainer Industries Corp. "Swift-Pac"
Toledo Industrial Fabricating Co., Inc.
A-36
-------
Tri-Pak Division - Tri-City
Industrial Services, Inc.
Tubar Waste Systems
Universal Handling Equip. Co.
Western Body £ Hoist Co.
COMPACTOR, Undercounter
Whirlpool Corporation
CRUSHER, Bottle
Qualheim, Inc.
CRUSHER, Can
Qualheim, Inc.
GRINDER, Dry
Buffalo Hammer Mill Corp.
Eidal International Corp.
Ecological Assistance Corp.
Gruendler Crusher and Pulverizer Co.
Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co.
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc. - Unit of
SMF Corporation
Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer Co., Inc.
"Tubartainer"
"Trash Masher"
"Mini-Mill"
"EAC/Refuse Compactor"
A-37
-------
GRINDER, In-sink
(Grinder, Wet)
Atomic Disposer Corp.
Bus Boy Disposer, Inc.
Disposal 1 - General Electric Company
FMC Corporation
In-Sink-Erator Mfg. Co.
Kelvinator, Inc.
Kitchen Aid
National Disposer Co.
Salvajor Company
Swimquip Inc.
Waste King Universal
Whirlpool
HOGGER
Balemaster Div. - East Chicago
Machine Tool Corp.
Gruendler Crusher 6 Pulverizer Co.
Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co.
"Atomic"
"Bus Boy"
"Disposal 1"
"In-Sink-Erator"
"Kelvinator"
"Hobart"
"Hobart"
'Waste King Universal"
"Whirlpool"
"Cyclomatic"
"Montgomery Bio-Hog"
A-38
-------
Logemann Bros. Co.
Stedman Foundry £ Machine Co., Inc.
The Engineer Company
Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer
Co., Inc.
INCINERATOR
Air Preheater Company, Inc.
American Incinerator Corp.
Automated Disposal Systems, Inc.
Brule Incinerators
Calcinator Corporation
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Comtro, Inc.
Despatch Oven Company
Federal Enterprises
Carver-Davis, Inc.
Joseph Coder Incinerators
I .P.C. Industries
Midland-Ross Corporation
Morse Bougler - Div. of Hagan
Industries, Inc.
"Nife-Less"
"TEC Convept"
"No-Nife"
"Combustall"
"Disposacon"
"Calcinators"
"Combustopak"
"Comtro"
"Des-lnerator"
"Federal Enterprises
"Destructur"
"Radicator"
A-39
-------
Nash, Cadmus £ Voelker, Inc.
Nichols Engineering £ Research Corp.
Piibrico Company
Sargent NCV Division of Zurn Industries, Inc.
Si lent Glow Corp.
Smokatrol, Inc.
Thermal Research £ Engineering Corp.
Vulcan Iron Works, Inc.
Waste Combustion Corporation
Wasteco, Inc.
PULPER
Black Clawson Company, The
Somat Corp.
Wascon Systems, Inc.
PULVERIZER, Paper
Pacific Cutter Co., Inc.
W-W Grinder Corp., The
SHREDDER
American Baler Co., The
American Pulverizer Co.
Gruendler Crusher £ Pulverizer Co.
"Hydrox-0-Lator"
"Smokatrol"
"Consumat"
"Wasteco"
"Chemi-Pulper"
A-40
-------
Hammer-mills, Inc. "Bull Dog"
Pennsylvania Crusher Corp.
Stedman Foundry and Machine Co., Inc.
Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer
Co., Inc. "Fragmenitzer"
A-41
-------
APPENDIX C
ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
A-Manufacturing Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 6
Bedford, Texas 76021
Aerojet-General Corporation
(see Envirogenics Co.)
Environmental Systems Division
9200 East Flair Drive
El Monte, California 9173**
Air Preheater Company
Wellsville, New York 1^895
Al-Jon, Inc.
P. 0. Box 592
Ottumwa, Iowa 52505
Alvey Conveyor Manufacturing Co.
9301 01ive Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63132
American Baler Company, (The)
1000 Hickory Street
Bel levue, Ohio ^811
American Baler Machine Company
Div. National Compactor & Technology
Systems , Inc.
839 - 39th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11232
American Can Co.
Plastics Division
100 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
A-42
-------
American Incinerator Corp.
5710 East Nevada
Detroit, Michigan 1*823**
American Johnson Compactor Co., Inc.
839 - 39th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11232
American Pulverizer Company
12^*9 Mackl ind Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Anchor Machine Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 260
Jackson, Michigan 1*920**
Apex Metal Products
Div. of Hydraulic Refuse Systems Corp.
101 Louise Street
Rochester, New York 11*606
Atlas Hoist £ Body, Inc.
7600 Cote de Liesse Road
Montreal 376
Quebec, Canada
Atomic Disposer Corp.
7110 Fenwi ck Lane
Westminster, California 92683
Auto Pak Company
1»908 Lawrence Street
Bladensburg, Maryland 20710
Automated Disposal Systems, Inc.
11*01 Ellsworth Industrial Blvd.
P. 0. Box 19858
Atlanta, Georgia 30325
A-43
-------
Automatic Refuse Systems, Inc.
33201 Harper Avenue
St. Clair Shores, Michigan 1»8083
Balemaster Div.
East Chicago Machine Tool Corp.
A801 RaiIroad Avenue
East Chicago, Indiana
Bancroft Bag, Inc.
P. 0. Box 307
West Monroe, Louisiana 71291
Barlett-Snow
6200 Harvard Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 4^105
Bauer Bros. Co., (The)
P. 0. Box 968
Springfield, Ohio 45501
Bemis Co., Inc.
800-T Northstar Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Black Clawson Company, (The)
Shartle Division
Pandia Division
Middletown, Ohio 45042
Bloomfield/Silex Industries, Inc.
4546 W. 47th ,Street
Chicago, Illinois 60632
S. Vincen Bowles, Inc.
12039 Branford Street
Sun Valley, California
A-44
-------
Bremen Equipment Corp.
3113 So. Gertrude Street
P. 0. Box 2656
South Bend, Indiana 46613
Broyhill Industries
Polymer Processing Division
Lenore, North Carolina 28645
Brule ("Bru-lay") Incinerators
13920 South Western Avenue
Blue Island, I 11 inois 60406
Buffalo Hammer Mill Corp.
1245 McKinley Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14218
Burtman Iron Works
Readville, Massachusetts 02137
Bus Boy Disposer, Inc.
Amsco Div., Champion Industries, Inc.
13150 Saticoy Street
North Hollywood, California 91605
Butler Manufacturing Co.
7400 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64126
Bynal Products, Inc.
11990 Franklin Avenue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
Calcinator Corporation
P. 0. Box 400
Bay City, Michigan 48706
A-45
-------
Central Vac International
3008 E. Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90023
Cherrin Products Co.
63^0 Miller Road
Dearborn, Michigan A8126
Chili Plastics, Inc.
2278 Westside Drive
Rochester, New York 1^62^
City Tank Corporation
Box 711
Culpeper, Virginia 22701
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Compackager Corporation
2135 Wisconsin Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Compaction Equipment Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 2206
Silver Spring, Maryland 20902
Compactor Corp.
Subsidiary of Carrier Corp.
25-33 Edward J Hart Road
Jersey City, New Jersey 07305
Compactor Refuse Handling Systems
900 North 137th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98133
Comstock Engineering Co.
2311 East Eighth Street
Los Angeles, California
A-46
-------
Comtro, Inc.
North Wales, Pennsylvania
Consolidated Baling Machine Company
Division, N.J. Cavagnaro 6 Sons
Machine Corp.
kOO Thi rd Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11215
Construction Products, Inc.
Route #7
Brookfield, Connecticut 06804
Container Development Corp.
Watertown, Wisconsin 5309*1
Converto Mfg. Co.
Div. of Golay & Co., Inc.
Cambridge City, Indiana 47327
County Plastics Corp.
100 Verdi Street
Farmingdale, New York 11735
Crown-Zellerback Corp.
One Bush Street
San Francisco, California 94119
Cushman Motors
Division of Outboard Marine Corp.
10004 N. 21st Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68501
D-V Metal Fab Co.
(Div. of Data-Veyors Corp.)
3246 Ettie Street
Oakland, California 94608
Data-Veyors Corp.
3250 Ettie Street
Oakland, California 94608
A-47
-------
Dempster Brothers, Inc.
P. 0. Box 312?
Knoxville, Tennessee 37917
Despatch Oven Company
P. 0. Box #1320
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55^1**
Disposal 1
Dishwasher and Disposal 1 Dept.
General Electric Company
Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky k0225
E-Z Pack Company
(Div. of Hercules Gallon Products, Inc.)
P. 0. Box 607
Gal ion, Ohio kW$3
Eastern Cyclone Industries, Inc.
15 Daniel Road
Fairfield, New Jersey 07006
Ecological Assistance Corp.
18-01 Pollitt Drive
Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07^01
Eidal International Corporation
2kS Woodward Road, S.W.
Alburquerque, New Mexico 87103
Elgin Leach Corporation
222 West Adams Street
Chicago, I 11inois 60606
Envirogenics Company
Div. of Aerojet-General Corp.
9200 East Flair Drive
El Monte, California 91734
Ethyl Corporation
330 South Fourth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23217
A-48
-------
Extrudo Fi1m Corp.
Ill West 50th St.
New York, New York 10019
Federal Enterprises, Inc.
2800 W. Battlefield Road
Springfield, Missouri 6580*1
Fisher-Klosterman, Inc.
2901 Magazine Street
Louisville, Kentucky 1*0211
Florsheim Manufacturing Company, Inc.
825 No. Lessing Street
Chicago, Illinois 60622
Flo-Tronics
Air Conveyor Div.
1820 Xenium Lane
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55^*27
FMC Corporation
Hoopeston, Illinois 609*»2
Fort Steuben Metal Products Co.
Fort Steuben Road
Weirton, West Virginia
Fuller Company
123 Bridge Street
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania 18032
Fusion Rubbermaid Corporation
Box 5338
Statesville, North Carolina 28677
Gar Wood Industries, Inc.
Wayne, Michigan W]8k
General Hydraulics of California, Inc.
k\] South Flower Street
Burbank, California 91502
A-49
-------
Gen Sani-Can Corp.
21 Gear Avenue
Lindenhurst, New York 11757
Gilman Paper Company
Kraft Bag Division (DisPOzit Div.)
Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center
111 West 50th Street
New York, New York 10020
Gladco Compactors, Inc.
14500 Eureka Road
Southgate, Michigan 48195
Coder Incinerators, Joseph
2483 Green leaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Grand Aluminum Welding
1232 Commercial Street, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97301
Gruendler Crusher and Pulverizer Co.
2915 No. Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63106
Gulf Plastic Products Co.
Gulf Oil Corp.
200 Maitese Drive
Totowa, New Jersey 07512
Gull Products Co.
1523 N. Burdick Street
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007
Hammermills, Inc.
(Subsidiary-Pettibone Mulliken Corp.)
625 "C" Avenue, N.W.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52405
A-50
-------
Handi-Bag Corp.
181 Spencer Avenue
Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150
Heil Co., (The)
3000 W. Montana Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Hobbs Trailers
Division of Fruehauf Corp.
609 North Main
Fort Worth, Texas 76106
Hotpoint Dishwasher & Disposal 1 Dept.
General Electric Company
Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky ^0225
Hudson Pulp and Paper Co.
^77 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
I.P.C. Industries
687 So. Post Avenue
Detroit, Michigan A8217
Indiana General
Magnetic Equipment Div.
6001 South General Avenue
Dudahy, Wisconsin 53110
Industrial Services of America
Tri-Pak Division
P. 0. Box 21-070
Louisville, Kentucky *f0221
In-Sink-Erator
Div. of Emerson Electric Co.
kJOQ 21st Street
Racine, Wisconsin 53^06
A-51
-------
Internationa] Paper Company
Garbax Disposal System
220 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co.
P. 0. Box 3687
Jacksonville, Florida 32206
Jafco Systems
5 W. Street
Hyde Park, Massachusetts 02136
Kelvinator, Inc.
1545 Clyde Park Avenue, S.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49509
King Container, Inc.
1111 South 12th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66105
Kirk 5 Blum Manufacturing Co., (The)
3120 Forrer Street
Cinci nnati , Ohio
Kitchen Aid Dishwasher Division
The Hobart Manufacturing Co.
Troy, Ohio 45373
Lamson Division
Diebold, Incorporated
Lamson Street
Syracuse, New York 13201
LoDal, Inc.
Kingsford, Michigan 49802
Loewy Machinery Supplies Co., Inc.
305 East 47th Street
New York, New York 10017
A-52
-------
Logemann Brothers Company
3150 West Burleigh Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 532^5
McClintock Division
Unarco Industries, Inc.
15005 So. Marquardt Avenue
Santa Fe Springs, California 90670
McDowel1-WelIman Co.
113 St. Clair Avenue, N.E.
Cleveland, Ohio Mll4
McMearty Equipment Co., Inc.
8830 Piney Branch Road
P. 0. Box 1988
Silver Springs, Maryland 20902
M-B Company
1635 Wisconsin Avenue
New Holstein, Wisconsin 53061
Machine Products Corp.
1111 South 12th Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66105
Marathon Equipment Co., Inc.
1300 Borden Avenue
P. 0. Box 160
Leeds, Alabama 3509^
Maren Engineering Corporation
I62*t6 School Street
P. 0. Box 143
South Holland, Illinois 60^73
Marion Metal Products Co.
Marion, Ohio
Matthews Conveyor Company
190 Tenth Street
Ellwood City, Pennsylvania
A-53
-------
Metal Edge Industries
Barrington, New Jersey 08007
Metropolitan Wire Goods Corp.
N. Washington St. & George Ave.
WiIkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18705
Mid Equip. Corp.
Highway 175 West
Grundy Center, Iowa 50638
Midland-Ross Corporation
P. 0. Box 751
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Mil-Pac Systems, Inc.
1110 Globe Avenue
Mountainside, New Jersey 07092
Mobi1 Chemical Co.
Plastics Division
38^8 Richard Street
Macedon, New York H»502
Monsanto Co.
Plastic Products and Resins
Oivis ion
200 North Seventh St.
Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Montgomery Industries, Inc.
2017 Thelma Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32206
Morse Boulger
Div. of Hagan Industries, Inc.
53-09 - 97th Place
Corona, New York 11368
A-54
-------
Moulded Products, Inc.
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359
Nash, Cadmus & Voelker, Inc.
70 West Sunrise Highway
Freeport, New York 11520
National Compactor £ Technology
Systems, Inc.
839 - 39th Street
Brooklyn, New York 11232
National Disposer Co.
Div. of the Hobart Manufacturing Co.
Troy, Ohio 45373
New Way Manufacture
600 N.E. 48th Place
Des Moines, Iowa 50313
New York Sani-Can, Inc.
225 Marcus Boulevard
Deer Park, New-York 11729
Nichols Engineering & Research Corp.
150 Wil1iam Street
New York, New York 10038
Olson Division
American Chain & Cable Co., Inc.
10601 W. Belmont Avenue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
Pacific Cutter Co., Inc.
3690 Santa Fe Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90058
Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company
1123 S.E. Military Drive
P. 0. Box 14147
San Antonio, Texas 78214
A-55
-------
Pennsylvania Crusher Corporation
Subsidiary of Bath Industries, Inc.
Box 100
Broomal, Pennsylvania 19008
Perfection-Cobey Company
Div. of Harsco Corp.
Gallon, Ohio 44833
Phi 11ips Fi1ms Co., Inc.
Polyolefin Division
(Subsidiary--Phi11ips Petroleum Co.)
5570 Creek Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Piezo Manufacturing Corporation
193 Main Street
Madison, New Jersey 07940
PIibrico Company
1800 N. Kingsbury Street
Chicago, I 11inois 60614
Portec Inc.
Butler Division
P- 0. Box 678
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186
Qualheim, Inc.
1225 - 14th Street
P. 0. Box 368
Racine, Wisconsin 53403
Quickdraft Corporation
1525 Perry Drive, S.W.
Canton, Ohio 44708
W. Ralston & Co. , Ltd.
Rexdale, Canada
A-56
-------
Rapco Plastics, Inc.
P. 0. Box 659
612 E. McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
Refuse Disposal Equipment Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 421
Highland Park, Illinois 60035
Republic Molding Corp.
6330 W. Touhy Avenue
Chicago, 111inois 606A8
Republic Steel Corporation
1315 Albert Street
Youngs town, Ohio ^505
Research-Cottrel1, Inc.
Box 750
Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805
Rexall Chemical Co.
P. 0. Box 37
Wills Century Road
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Rogers Manufacturing Co., Inc.
220 No. Mahaffie
Olathe, Kansas 66061
Rol-Away Truck Manufacturing Co., Inc.
6H3 S.E. Foster Road
Portland, Oregon 97206
Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Inc.
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Rudolph Poultry Equipment Co.
Vineland, New Jersey 08360
A-57
-------
St. Regis Environmental Systems
D i v i s i on
633 Thi rd Avenue
New York, New York 1001?
Salina Manufacturing Co., Inc.
606 N. Front Street
P. 0. Box 26
Salina, Kansas 67^01
Salvajor Company
^530 East 75th Terrace
Kansas City, Missouri 6^132
Sanitary Controls, Inc.
(N.Y. Sani-Can)
225 Marcus Blvd.
Deer Park, New York 11729
Sargent NCV Division
of Zum Industries, Inc.
610 Devon Street
Kearny, New Jersey 07032
Seco Electronics Corp.
1001 Second Street, South
Hopkins, Minnesota 553^3
Shredmaster Corporation, (The)
891 South Ocean Avenue
Freeport, L.I., New York 11520
Silent Glow Corporation
850 Windsor Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Sinclair-Koppers Co.
Dept. TR69
Koppers Bldg.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
A-58
-------
H.E. Smith Inc.
2300 Cole Street
Birmingham, Michigan *f8008
or
1069 S. Jackson Street
Defiance, Ohio
Smokatrol, Inc.
66th Pulaski Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 20237
Somat Corporation
Box 831
Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320
Southern Bag Corp.
P. 0. Box 389
YazoO City, Mississippi
Standard Conveyor Company
9*»0 Indiana Avenue
North St. Paul, .Minnesota 55109
Stedman Foundry and Machine Company, Inc.
Subsidiary-United Engrg. & Foundry Co.
Aurora, Indiana ^7001
Sterling Manufacturing Company
2k\ North Thi rd Street
Laurens, Iowa 5055^
Sturtevant Mill Company
Park and Clayton Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02122
Surrey Steel Components Ltd.
Surrey Sac
High Street
Barnes, London S.W.B.
A-59
-------
Swiftainer Industries Corp.
2345 Hollers Avenue
Bronx, New York 10469
Swimquip, Inc.
3301 GiIman Road
El Monte, California 91732
Systems Manufacturing Corp.
Box 610
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
T & S Equipment Company
Albion, Michigan 49224
Tamaker Corp.
P. 0. Box 20k
Ventura, California 93002
Tampo Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Seal Press Refuse Collection Body Div.
1146 West Laurel Street
P. 0. Box 7248
San Antonio, Texas 78207
Toledo Industrial Fabricating Co., Inc.
1100 Bush Street
Box 3556 Station D
Toledo, Ohio 43608
Tradewind Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 96
Liberal , Kansas 67901
Trash Mobile
Division of Hanna Enterprises
1122 Williams Avenue
P. 0. Box 3736
Portland, Oregon 97208
A-60
-------
Tri-Pak Division
Tri-Pak Industrial Services, Inc.
7100 Grade Lane
P. 0. Box 21070
Louisville, Kentucky *»0221
Truck Equipment Corporation
9^00 Midlothean Turnpike
Richmond, Virginia 23235
Tubar Waste Systems
Div. of Uhrden, Inc.
Sugarcreek, Ohio AA681
US I Film Products
Division of U.S. Industrial
Chemical Co.
k] Brooklyn Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11216
Union Camp Corp.
1600 Valley Road
Wayne, New Jersey 07^70
Union Carbide Corp.
Chemicals and Plastics
270 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Oakmont Packaging Division
1155 Allegheny Avenue
Oakmont, Pennsylvania 15139
Universal Handling Equip. Co.
100 Burland Crescent
Hamilton, Ontario
Vacuum Can Company
19 South Hoyne Avenue
Chicago, 111inois 60612
A-61
-------
Val-Jac Manufacturing Co., Inc.
5650 N. Broadway
Wichita, Kansas 67219
or
110 N. Park
Maize, Kansas 67101
Versa Cart Containers
P. 0. Box ]k2
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
Vulcan Iron Works, Inc.
Wi Ikes-Barre, Pennsylvania
W-W Grinder Corporation (The)
2957 North Market
Wichita, Kansas 67219
Wai ton-March
1620 Old Deerfield Rd.
P. 0. Box 3^0
Highland Park, Illinois 60035
Wascon Systems, Inc.
Subsidiary -- Robins & Myers
210 Bonai r Avenue
Harboro, Pennsylvania 190^0
Waste Combustion Corporation
P. 0. Box 6295
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Waste King Universal
3300 East 50th Street
Los Angeles, California 90058
Wasteco, Inc.
17825 S.W. Pacific Highway
Sherwood, Oregon 971kO
A-62
-------
Waterbury Hydraulic & Pollution Sciences, Inc.
58 Lafayette Street
Waterbury, Connecticut 06798
Wayne Engineering Corp.
1st and Iowa Streets
Cedar FalIs, Iowa 50613
Wayne Manufacturing Co.
1201 East Lexington Street
Pomona, California 91766
Webster Industries Inc.
Environmental Control Products
Divis ion
A Subsidiary of Chelsea Industries, Inc.
58 Pulaski St.
Peabody, Massachusetts 01960
West Coast Machining
P. 0. Box 8600
Stockton, California 9520^
West Virginia Pulp and Paper Corp.
Bag Division, Papercan System
P. 0. Box 5207
North Charleston, South Carolina 29^06
Western Body & Hoist Co.
8901 Juniper Street
Los Angeles, California 90002
Westvaco
Bag Division
Box 5207
North Charleston, Charleston County
South Carolina 29^06
Whirlpool Corporation
Benton Harbor, Michigan ^9022
A-63
-------
Wilkinson Chutes, Inc.
619 East Tallmadge Avenue
Akron, Ohio ^310
Williams Patent Crusher and Pulverizer
Co., Inc.
2701 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
The Witt Co.
kW Steel Place
Cincinnati, Ohio ^5209
Zink Company, John
^01 South Peoria
Tulsa, Oklahoma 7^105
A-64
-------
APPENDIX D
CLASSIFICATION OF WASTES AND INCINERATORS
Tbt &A/IJ for sttitjfftory incinerator operation it tbt proper wlytu of tbt wtitt to bt dtitroyed, and tbt ttlectte* of
prefer equipment to btit destroy tbat p*rttc*Ur wtjtt.
At * g*ide, mixtures of tv*ite most commonly encountered bjvt been cUssifud into typtt of wait, logttbtr wifb tbt
B.T.U. velmts mnd moitture commit of ibt mtxturet. A concentration of one tptcifa waste t* tbt mixtttrt mey tbongt tbt
B.T,U. «Ww tnd/or tbt mo inure content of tbt mixtttrt. A concentration of mort tbtn 10% by weight of CAtekgius,
m*gsxmi, or ptckjged p+prr wtU cbe-ngt tbe density of tbt mixture and tjecJ burning rttu.
Similarly, tnctnerttorj b*vt been cUstifad, by ibeir c*pe,citits and by tbt type of wastes they are capable of incinerating.
CLASSIFICATION OF WASTES
Type 0 — Trash, a mixture of highly combustible waste
such as paper, cardboard, canons, wood boxes, and com-
bustible Boor sweepings, from commercial and industrial
activities. The mixrures contain up ro 10% by weight of
plastic bags, coated paper, laminated paper, treated corru-
gated Cardboard, oily rags and plastic or rubber scraps.
Thii type of waste contains 10% moisture, 5% incom-
bustible solids and has a heating value of 8500 B.T.U. per
pound as fired
Type 1 — Rubbish, a mixture of combustible waste such as
paper, cardboard canons, wood scrap, foliage and com-
bustible floor sweepings, from domestic, commercial and
industrial activities. The mixture contains up to 20% by
weight of restaurant or cafeteria waste, but contains little
ox no created papers, plastic or rubber wastes.
This type of waste contains 25 % moisture, 10% incom-
bustible solids and has a heating value of 6500 B.T.U. per
pound u fired.
Type 2 — Refuse, consisting of an approximately even
mixture of rubbish and garbage by weight.
This rype of waste is common to apartment and residen-
tial occupancy, consisting of up to 50/t moisture, 7% in-
combustible solids, and has a heating value of 4300 B.T.U.
per pouod as fired.
Type 3 — Garbage, consisting of animal and vegetable
wastes from restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, hospitals, mar-
kets, and like installation!.
This type of waste contains up to 70% moisture, up to
5% incombustible solids, and has a heating value of 2500
B.T.U. per pound as fired.
Type 4 — Human and animal remains, consisting of car*
CT*v«p organs and solid organic wastes from hospitals,
laboratories, abattoirs, animal pounds, and similar sources,
consisting of up to 85% moisture, 5% incombustible
solids, and having a heating value of 1000 B.T.U per
pound as fired.
Type 5 — By-product waste, gaseous, liquid or semi-liquid,
such as car, paints, solvents, sludge, fumes, etc., from indus-
trial operations. B.T.U. values must be determined by the
individual materials ro be destroyed.
Type 6 — Solid by-product waste, such as rubber, plastics,
wood waste, etc., from indusrriaJ operations B.T.U. values
must be determined by the individual materials to be
destroyed
CLASSIFICATION OF INCINERATORS
Class .1 — Portable, packaged, completely assembled, direct
fed incineraton, hiving not over 5 cu. ft. storage capacity,
or 25 lb*. per hour burning rate, suitable for Type 2 Waste.
Class IA — Portable, packaged or job assembled, direct fed
incinerators 5 cu. ft. no 15 cu. ft. primary chamber volume;
or a burning rate of 25 Ibs. per hour up to, but not includ-
ing, 100 Ibs. per hour of Type 0, Type 1, or Type 2 Waste;
or a burning rate of 25 Ibs. per hour up to, but DOC includ-
ing, 75 Ibs. per hour of Type 3 Waste,
Class II — Flue-fed, single chamber incinerators with more
than 2 sq. ft. burning area, for Type 2 Wasre. This type
ut incinerator is served by one vertical flue functioning
both as a chute for charging waste and to carry rhe produces
of combustion to atmosphere. This type of incinerator has
been installed in apartment houses or multiple dwellings.
(See notes on page 2B,)
Class HA — Chute-fed multiple chamber incinerators, for
apartment buildings with more than 2 sq. ft. burning area,
suitable for Type 1 or Type 2 Waste. (Not recommended
for indin"1-'1 installations.) This rype of incinerator is
served by a vertical chute for charging wastes from two or
mure floors above the incinerator and A separate flue for
carrying the products of combustion to atmosphere.
Class III — Direct fed incinerators with a burning rate of
100 Ibs. per hour and over, suitable for Type 0, Type i Of
Type 2 Waste,
Class IV — Direct fed incinerators with • burning rate of
75 Ibs. per hour or over, suitable for Type 3 Waste.
Class V — Municipal incinerators suitable for Type 0,
Type 1, Type 2. or Type 3 Wastes, or a combination of
til four wastes, and are rated in tons per hour or tons per
24 hours.
Class VI — Crematory and pathological incinerators, suit-
able for Type 4 Waste-
Class VII — Incineraron designed for specific by-product
wastes. Type 5 or Type 6.
PACE—1963—J A
Standards of the Incinerator Institute of America
A-65
-------
APPENDIX E
Incinerators Meeting Emission Standards as Specified
in the Code of Federal Regulations
(42CFR76) for Federal Activities"
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Rate:
Di sposacon
Automated Disposal Systems, Inc.
1^01 Ellsworth Industrial Blvd.
P.O. Box 19858
Atlanta, Georgia 30325
666 with the HWH-19 waste charger
330 Ib/hr of Type 1 waste
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Rate:
Wasteco
Wasteco, Inc.
17825 S.W. Pacific Highway
Sherwood, Oregon 971^0
SCR-450 multiple chamber incinerator and
S-500 scrubber and induced-draft fan
300 Ib/hr of Type 1 waste
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Rate:
Comments:
Smokatrol
Smokatrol, Inc.
66th & Pulaski Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21237
AB 600 Securi ty
318 Ib/hr
Afterburner input--600 Btu/lb waste
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model:
Consumat
Waste Combustion Corporation
P.O. Box 6295
Richmond, Virginia 23230
V-75. V-18, V-32, V-130, H-125. H-200, H-325, H-760
--Current as of 3-23-71 .
A-66
-------
Rate:
Comments
Maximum Burning Rate Ib/hr
Type
Waste
0
1
2
V-18
75
75
55
V-32
140
140
110
V-75
300
300
230
V-130
465
465
355
H-125
555
555
425
H-200
795
795
615
H-325
1,050
1,050
320
H-760*
1,650
2,100
2,900
Must have a collar around the stack above the
afterburner that induces air into the stack.
Both a primary burner and an afterburner are
requi red.
*Model H-760 is also manufactured by Waste Control
Systems, Inc., 3700 Greenway Plaza, Houston,
Texas 77027
Name:
Manufacturer:
Combustal 1
Air Preheater Company
Wellsville, New York
Model :
Rate:
Type
Waste
0
1
2*
200,
400,
600, 800,
Maximum Burning
200
150
200
300
400
300
400
550
600
450
600
775
800 1 ,
600
800 1 ,
1 ,000 1 ,
14895
1 ,000
Rate
000 1
750
000 1
250 1
, 1,200
Ib/hr
,200
900
,200
,600
Comments:
*Auxiliary Burner Required Btu/hr as follows:
1,000 300 400 500 600 700
Mechanical loader required for model 800 and larger
A-67
-------
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model :
Rate:
Type
Waste
0
1
2
Comments :
Radicator
Midland — Ross Corporation
P.O. Box 751
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Mark VI , XV, XX
Maximum Burning Rate Ib/hr
VI XV XX
A45 1,070 1,425
625 1,500 1,910
795 1,910 2,540
The Mark XV and XX are equipped wi
loaders and are fired with either
oil
th mechanical
gas or 1 ight
Name:
Manufacturer:
Mode 1 :
Rate:
Cotntro
Comtro, Inc.
North Wales, Pennsylvania
A-20
160 Ib/hr of Type 1 waste
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model & Rate:
Joseph Coder
Joseph Coder Incinerators
2^83 Green leaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Model Burning Rate (Ib/hr)
Scrubber
1301
1311
1331
1341
1361
50
100
250
350
550
none
none
Model
Model
Model
C*
D*
E*
-Joseph Coder Hydro Cycle Scrubbers
A-68
-------
Name:
Manufacturer:
Model & Rate:
Federal Enterprises
Federal Enterprises, Inc.
2800 W. Battlefield Road
Springfield, Missouri 6580^
Maximum Burning Rate Ib/hr
Type 0
Type 1
Type 2
Burner
Btu/hr
Type 0
Type 1
Type 2
Burner
Btu/hr
FE-1
55
70
110
Sizes
150,000
FE-8
280
370
560
S izes
450,000
FE-2
70
90
135
200,000
FE-10
400
520
780
600,000
FE-3
110
HO
210
250,000
FE-12
600
780
1 ,180
750,000
FE-5
187
245
370
350,000
FE-15
740
970
1,450
900,000
Comments:
All models shall have nameplates which list the
capacity. Mechanical loaders will be necessary
for the larger models.
A-69
-------
APPENDIX F
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION FOR A PNEUMATIC
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH
Prepared by
Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Research and Technology
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20^10
March 12, 1971
A-70
-------
OBJECTIVE
The contractor shall design a system to provide for pneumatic
solid waste collection services for the HUD BREAKTHROUGH site
at . The system shall consist of the interface with
vertical solid waste chutes, the loading stations, the collector
conduits, the pneumatic equipment, the central collection station
or stations, and the necessary control devices. The system may
be the subject of a field study, after acceptance, to explore
its performance with respect to economy, effectiveness, technical
design, reliability, versatility, maintainability, noise
environmental factors, safety, and occupants' acceptance. To
prepare for the field study, the system must be designed to
incorporate or provide for the attachment of certain instruments
and transducers, which will be further specified and described
by HUD during the design process.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this specification, the pneumatic solid waste
system shall consist of components capable of accepting site
and occupant generated solid waste and transporting the waste
pneumatically to a central collection station or stations.
The structure to house the equipment and the storage area for the
A-71
-------
solid waste may be designed by others, but in all cases will
conform to the criteria covered by this specification.
2.1 Vertical solid waste chute:
The interface between the vertical chute and the. pneumatic
system in all cases is covered by this specification and
includes the appropriate devices to provide controlled
admission of solid waste to the main pneumatic system
and isolation of that vertical chute from the main
pneumatic piping. The vertical solid waste chute may, in
some instances, be designed by others to specifications
provided by the PTC contractor. These specifications should
include, as a minimum, the following requirements: The
vertical chute interior shall be free of all protrusions
which could trap material deposited therein. If a circular
chute is employed, the ID of the chute shall not exceed
the inside diameter of the main pneumatic line into which
it feeds. In the event a square or rectangular shape is
employed, the ID diagonal dimension shall not exceed the ID
of the pneumatic line. Provision for attaching the chute
to the PTC system shall be specified by the PTC contractor.
A-72
-------
The maximum dimension (diameter or diagonal measurement)
of the charging hopper, provided as part of the chute,
to receive trash, shall not exceed the minimum cross
sectional dimension of the chute to which it is immediately
connected.
2.2 Loading station:
The station will receive, temporarily store, and dispatch
solid waste. Loading stations are not part of a vertical
chute sub-system and may service residents of individual
dwelling units or a number of dwelling units. In certain
cases, stations may be limited to access or actuation
by service personnel only.
2.3 Collector conduit:
The collector conduit (pneumatic transport tube) will
transport the waste from termination of chute or loading
station to central collection station.
2.k Pneumatic equipment:
The pneumatic equipment will provide necessary vacuum or
air flow on the collector conduit to transport the solid
waste to the central collection station and provide
compressed air for valve actuation if required.
A-73
-------
2.5 Central collection station:
The central collection station will receive the waste from
the collector conduit and discharge it to other processing.
It will also remove all air-borne debris from the system
and provide final filtration and biological treatment
as may be required before exhausting the conveying air
to the outside atmosphere.
2.6 Control system:
Control devices will monitor the pneumatic system, provide
automatic cycles, provide shut-off capability and comply
with the other design parameters given. The control system
will be compatible with the energy and other mechanical
systems available.
2.7 Structures:
The structures shall comprise the buildings for enclosing
the solid waste system; the chimneys or stacks for exhaust
of air; and the structures, shields, materials, and
landscaping required to provide acoustical control, air
pollution control, odor control, limitations on magnetic
interference, and visual privacy as further specified herein,
A-74
-------
ECONOMICS
Within the limits imposed by the following sections of this
specification covering Design Requirements, Future Expansion,
Integration of Service Systems, and Quality Assurance, the
pneumatic solid waste collection plant shall be designed for
minimum cost of waste service to the users based on Present
Value Techniques employing a discount rate of ten percent and
a lifetime of AO years for the plant.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Calculation of design loads:
The system will be designed to accept loading at an assigned
rate per dwelling unit, consisting of household solid wastes,
commercial solid wastes, and yard wastes. Assigned loading
rate will be calculated using known statistical averages
in the applicable community. Adequate factors to cover
peak load days and projected periodic future increase in
waste generation will be considered in calculations.
lj.1.1 Individual sub-system components will be based
on the assigned loading rate, the assumed probable
types and the maximum size and mass of the
generated waste. The system shall be capable
A-75
-------
of accepting and transporting waste of sizes
which will physically enter it and having a
mass not exceeding 50 pounds per cubic foot.
4.1.2 Waste materials may be loose or containerized
when initially placed in the system.
4.1.3 Multifamily, multistory buildings will be served
by centrally located chutes or by individual unit
loading stations. Low-rise single family
attached structures and garden type units will
be served by individual or shared loading
stations.
4.2 Equipment selection:
4.2.1 Chute interface:
The chute-pneumatic transport and tube interface
shall be size compatible with the chute as
described in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 and shall
provide for resistance to impact of waste falling
free in the chute.
The interface will provide for intermediate
retention of waste and include the devices for
controlled admission of the solid waste to the
col lector condui t.
A-76
-------
Provision shall be made at the interface to
provide for disposition of liquids such as wash
or fire sprinkler water entering the chute.
Alternate designs incorporating chutes as an
integral part of the system may be a desirable
adaptation for some projects.
Methods to lock charging hoppers immediately
before cycling the chute shall be considered
in the design.
J».2.2 Loading stations:
Loading stations shall be designed for maximum
occupant safety. Provision shall be made for
adequate instructional signs, interlocks to
prevent station operation when outer door is
open, absence of sharp projections and
accessibility for misdeposited articles. To
deter access and operation of the station by
small children, the outer door or the operating
device for the outer door shall be located a
minimum of 4 feet 6 inches from finished floors.
A-77
-------
The loading stations shall provide for
intermediate retention of waste and include
devices for controlled admission of the solid
waste to the collector conduit.
k.2.3 Collector conduit:
The collector conduit shall be designed with
consideration being given to loading, air
velocity and pressure, erosion from the
transported waste, corrosion (internal and
external) initial cost, replacement cost, soil
conditions, cleanabi1ity, and other parameters
affecting operation and service life.
In collector conduit layout, access shall be
provided for all bends in the horizontal plane
and intermediate access to the interior of long
runs at intervals not to exceed the capability
of readily available inspection and cleaning
equipment, but not to exceed ^00 feet.
The main pneumatic transport tube and branch
lines shall be designed so that, in proceeding
toward the central collection station, the
A-78
-------
inside diameter of the tube shall remain
constant or increase.
Bends in the pneumatic tubing, drop T's, etc.,
shall have a minimum radius of curvature of 5
times the pipe diameter. Acceptable methods of
connecting pipe sections include bolted flanges
and welded flanges. For underground installation,
welding is the only acceptable method.
The transport tube wall thickness selected for
the system life, shall be supported by
experimental data pertaining to erosion and
corros ion.
k.2.k Pneumatic equipment:
The exhausters shall be designed to provide flow
of air at no less than 60 mph, and to maintain a
vacuum sufficient in the system to transport
solid wastes defined in paragraph 4.1. Support
final designs with calculations, source of
empirical or rational formulas used and other
back-up data as required to enable HUD to
perform a detailed technical evaluation.
A-79
-------
The pneumatic equipment is to be compatible
in voltage, phase, and other electrical
characteristics with the availability energy
system. Motors furnished will be constructed
according to NEMA standards, Class B insulation
with a maximum 80 C average rise above ambient
and a 10 C hot spot allowance. Low current
starting shall be employed. If pneumatic
actuators are employed, plant air or a separate
compressor system may be employed.
k.2.5 Central collection station:
The collection hopper shall provide for
deceleration of the conveying air to achieve
maximum fallout of loose waste. Automatic
cleaning of the internal screen shall be provided
in addition to automatic cleaning of the final
fiIters.
The collection station shall be designed to
provide for cleaning of discharge air with the
efficiency specified in paragraph A.6. Cleaning
and filtering devices will be easily accessible
for maintenance.
A-80
-------
The collection station shall be designed for
compatibility with subsequent processing
methods and local waste handling service, and
the collection station air discharge end point
shall be compatible with specific site
restrictions.
4.2.6 Operating and safety controls:
A. General :
1) Operating controls may be designed for
pneumatic, hydraulic, or electrically
driven actuators. Justification for
selection shall be prepared by
contractor.
2) The system shall be designed for
automatic operation.
3) The pneumatic system should be
programmed in the following manner:
a) Start blowers.
b) Open air inlet or branch
nearest to collection station.
c) Cycle trash discharge valves
as in A) below.
A-81
-------
After the valves in a branch have
been cycled, air flow should be
maintained for a period of time to
insure that all trash has been
removed from the line. The cycle
time estimate should be supported by
detailed analyses, and provision made
for adjusting the cycle time during
the check-out phase. Consideration
should be given to incorporating
instrumentation to indicate line
cleanliness.
In establishing the sequence of
admitting solid wastes to the main
pneumatic transport tube, the branch
line closest to the collection hopper
shall be activated first. The valve
closest to the main pneumatic
transport line on that branch shall
be activated, and that branch
completely cycled (moving from the
A-82
-------
closest in, to that valve nearest
the air intake) before moving on to
the next branch away from the
collection station.
5) Control signals (to and from main
panel) and instrumentation readouts
can utilize hard wire or multiplex.
Justification for selection of one
must be prepared by the contractor.
6) Operating instrumentation shall
include, but not be limited to:
a) Air flow prior to hoppei—low
reading will shut down system.
b) Pressure drop across hopper
screen — high pressure drop will
activate screen cleaning
procedures.
c) Humidistat in main pneumatic
line just prior to cyclone
hopper referenced to outdoor
humidistat. High moisture in
A-83
-------
pneumatic transport tube will
shut down the system.
d) Trash level sensors in chutes
expected to encounter
extraordinary conditions.
Sensor will activate the system.
e) Valve position indicators.
f) Last valve actuated indicator.
g) Pressure drop at critical system
points to aid in locating
blockage.
7) Controls shall include automatic
operation of self-cleaning screens
and filters.
8) Provision should be made to obtain
samples for biological analysis of
discharge air.
9) Except for pressure loss, fire, or
other safety features, design controls
to provide for manual overrride.
A-84
-------
10) Additional operating and control
functional parameters are specified
in paragraph k.3 System Reliability
and paragraph ^.10 Safety
Requi rements.
B. Chute system:
If valve fails to close, provision is to be
made to cycle that valve an additional two
times (if necessary) before going on to next
valve. If a chute discharge valve does not
operate after three attempts, the entire
system shall be shut down until valve is
serviced.
C. Individual loading stations:
Triple actuation as in B above shall be
incorporated; however, if valve fails to
close after third time, this event shall
appear on annunciator panel, appropriate
events sequenced to obtain maintenance,
but system shall continue to operate going
to next valve.
A-85
-------
k.3 System reliability:
4.3-1 Provide sufficient pneumatic equipment redundancy
so that the failure of any one unit will not cause
the shutdown of the entire solid waste system and
so that planned overhaul of each unit of
pneumatic equipment can be accomplished without
jeopardizing the ability of the system to
transport the solid waste. Provide a
justification for the number of pneumatic units
selected for the system.
A.3.2 The pneumatic equipment, motors, load dispatching
devices, air cleaning devices and control devices
shall be designed for high reliability, supported
by maintenance instructions directed towards this
end, such that interruptions to solid waste
collection service shall not exceed a frequency
of one interruption per month on the average,
and no single interruption of service shall
exceed 2k hours duration.
A.3-3 The solid waste system shall be designed for
automatic operation of the pneumatic units, load
A-86
-------
dispatching devices and the discharge-air
cleaning devices. Equip each pneumatic unit,
load dispatching device, discharge air cleaning
device with instruments and relays that will
sense abnormal conditions of load, pressure,
temperature or other parameter that could
permanently damage a unit, the plant, or
personnel or interrupt solid waste service; that
will automatically shut down the affected unit
and transmit a signal to start an alternate unit;
and will provide, at a location to be designated,
visible and audible signals indicating a distress
condition. Coordinate signaling systems with the
management concept of the site developer.
Coordinate the instrumentation for sensing
distress conditions with the instruments to be
installed for long-term study of the system
operation by the appropriate Government agencies.
Maintenance requirements:
k.k.] Design all mechanical and electrical equipment,
blowers, compressors, motors, etc., so all
A-87
-------
removable parts can be renewed or replaced on
site during major overhauls such that the
performance can be restored to essentially that
of new equipment without removing the chassis
from the plant.
k.k.2 Design all mechanical and electrical equipment
to operate at least 15,000 calendar hours
between major overhaul periods.
A.5 Noise and vibration control requirements:
A.5.1 With all equipment operating that is required to
meet maximum design load, air-borne noise
generated by the pneumatic solid waste collection
plant shall not exceed * at
any of the following locations:
A. At any window or door opening in the walls
of occupied buildings directly visible from
the pneumatic solid waste collection plant,
throughout the height of the occupied
building, measured three feet outside the
wal1 surface.
B. Within the boundaries of any outdoor
*S ite specific condition
-------
recreation area or other regularly occupied
outdoor area in the zone surrounding the
pneumatic solid waste collection plant,
measured five feet above the immediate
surface.
C. Along the boundary line between the
Breakthrough site and all adjacent property,
measured five feet above ground level.
The reference ambient sound pressure level at
these stations shall be determined by site noise
surveys conducted by the National Bureau of
Standards before and after construction on the
site is completed.
4.5.2 Any common wall, floor, or ceiling between the
pneumatic solid waste collection plant and
adjoining occupied spaces shall have a sound
transmission loss sufficient to meet the NC levels
specified in the Guide Criteria for the Design
and Evaluation of Breakthrough Housing and in
Chapter 20 of the book "Noise Reduction", edited
by L.L. Beranek, McGraw-Hill 19&0, referenced
therei n.
A-89
-------
1*.5.3 Operation and maintenance personnel required
to work in the pneumatic solid waste collection
plant shall be protected against exposure to
noise in excess of the limits specified in the
Walsh Healy Act. The required acoustic
environment may be attained by selection of
equipment, by acoustical treatment of equipment
and enclosures, by providing adequate protective
devices for the personnel, or by a combination
of these techniques.
A. The noise level in the area of the pneumatic
solid waste collection plant occupied by
the control systems and instrumentation
panels shall not exceed 70 dBA when all
of the mechanical equipment required to
handle the maximum load is in operation
in order to promote reliability of voice
communication between operating personnel.
Acoustically protected areas of booth size
are not considered adequate to meet this
requ i rement.
A-90
-------
B. In order to promote reliability of
communication, and the safety and health
of operating and maintenance personnel,
the noise level in the areas of the
pneumatic solid waste collection plant
where two or more personnel must cooperate
in carrying out regularly assigned operating
or maintenance duties shall be controlled
at 85 dBA or lower by permanent or
portable acoustical treatment.
.5.^ All rotating and reciprocating equipment shall be
mounted on vibration isolators providing a
minimum isolation efficiency of 85 percent at a
frequency corresponding to the design speed of
the equipment for this plant.
.5.5 Metal piping connected to power-driven equipment
shall be resiliently supported from or on the
building structure for a distance of 50 pipe
diameters from the power-driven equipment. The
resilient isolators shall provide a minimum
A-91
-------
isolation efficiency of 85 percent at a
frequency corresponding to the design speed of
the equipment for this plant.
J».5.6 Vibration eliminators shall be used to connect
rotating machinery to pipe and duct systems.
k.6 Air pollution control:
A.6.1 The amount of particulate matter in the system
exhaust shall meet the air pollution limitations
contained in the Federal Regulations and
Amendments issued by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development pursuant to Executive
Order 11282, "Prevention, Control, and Abatement
of Air Pollution by Federal Activities", or the
local codes whichever is more stringent. Bacteria
count in the system exhaust shall not increase the
normal background level as determined by the
appropriate Government agency.
k.6.2 The ventilation air from the equipment room, and
the exhaust air from the system shall not be
discharged directly toward any nearby building,
recreation area, or other occupied space, and
A-92
-------
shall not result in offensive odors, detectable
by sense of smell, in any regularly occupied
building or recreation area, or in any regularly
used thoroughfare. Any moist air from the system
shall not create visible fog nor produce
detectable mist or frost in recreation or traffic
areas. The air in the central collection room
shall be filtered to remove particulate matter
and odor prior to discharge to the surroundings.
.6.3 Any exhaust stack used to discharge exhaust air
shall comply with the requirements of the local
buiIding code.
.6.k The exhaust air from the pneumatic solid waste
collection plant shall not impinge upon or
envelop any door, window, air intake opening,
outdoor recreation area or other regularly
occupied outdoor space for wind velocities in the
range from 0-15 miles per hour from any direction
as determined by tracer gas techniques or other
methods.
A-93
-------
A.7 Thermal environment and ventilation:
4.7-1 The air temperature at the five-foot level
in all enclosed spaces in the pneumatic solid
waste collection plant that are utilized by
operating or maintenance personnel shall be
maintained in the range from 65 F to 90 F for the
specified range of design outdoor conditions, by
a combination of heating, air conditioning, and
ventilating systems.
4.7.2 The pneumatic solid waste collection plant shall
be ventilated with outdoor air to satisfy fresh
air requirements for the equipment and
maintenance personnel in the equipment rooms,
offices, shops, and toilets.
4.8 Aesthetic requirements:
4.8.1 Provide architectural, landscaping, or other
decorative treatment for plant stacks, air
intake or discharge openings, exterior loading
stations, and other exterior or rooftop
auxiliaries that are in direct line of sight
from ground level or window of an occupied
A-94
-------
building at a distance of 200 feet or less
from the perimeter of the pneumatic solid
waste collection plant.
4.8.2 Provide a scale model of the pneumatic solid
waste collection plant; the architectural,
landscaping, and decorative features identified
above; and the pertinent nearby building
exposures, along with the working drawings and
specifications for visual evaluation of the
aesthetic features of the design. A model of
the interior of the plant shall be provided
as a basis fee evaluation of equipment
accessible for maintenance and replacement.
Illumination requirements:
Provide a level of illumination of 30 footcandles in the areas
occupied by the mechanical and electrical equipment.
Illuminate the front faces of vertical switchboards and
control panels at a level of 30 footcandles in a manner that
will prevent glare and reflections from meter faces and
panels. Provide level of illumination on the rear of
switchboard panels of at least 10 footcandles, and 20
footcandles in areas occupied by auxiliary equipment.
A-95
-------
Safety requirements:
Design the pneumatic solid waste collection plant for an
acceptable level of personnel safety, fire safety, equipment
safety, and plant safety. Recognized standards pertaining
to prevention of explosions, fires, floods, and unnecessary
equipment failures are listed in the Appendix and form a
part of this specification.
^.10.1 Explosions:
Each component in the pneumatic solid waste
collection system shall be designed and
constructed according to recognized national or
industry standards and must comply with applicable
local codes. Pressure or vacuum vessels and
system piping shall be designed in accordance
with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
All pressure vessels must be registered by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers and
must have ASME numbers stamped on the outer
shell. All pressure vessels shall be designed
with ASME approved safety valves. System piping
shall be designed according to good practice
and ANSI standards.
A-96
-------
^.10.2 Fires:
A central fire alarm system meeting the
requirements of NFPA and local codes must be
installed and connected to the alarm system
for the entire site. All wiring and electrical
components must comply with the National
Electrical Code. Where applicable, the
electrical components and systems must be UL
approved and also comply with the local code.
Jf.10.3 Floods:
The pneumatic solid waste collection plant
shall be designed to guard against flooding from
either internal or external causes. Drainage
systems and overflow features in the plant and
utility areas must be sized to permit rapid
drainage to prevent flooding of electrical
components and mechanical equipment in the event
of accidental breakage of water-containing
systems.
Outside grading shall be designed to provide
rapid run-off away from the plant under
A-97
-------
anticipated normal and abnormal rainfall
conditions. Gravity run-off may be supplemented
or replaced by an automatically-started sump
pump system.
4.10.J* Equipment and operator safety:
Equipment shall be arranged and spaced for safe
and effective operation, servicing, and repair.
Maintenance of one piece of equipment should
not endanger an adjacent piece of operating
equipment or place the personnel in a dangerous
position relative to other equipment. Rotating
machinery, hot surfaces, sharp projections,
components with low clearance, and operating
levers of switches, relays, and safety devices
shall be protected from accidental contact by
operating and maintenance personnel.
Magnetic interference suppression:
Magnetic interference suppressors shall be provided for the
commutators of motors and other electrical systems, controls,
and apparatus, if needed to control interference with radio
and television reception in the buildings on the Breakthrough
site and the immediate vicinity.
A-98
-------
*».12 Collector conduit:
The design of the pneumatic collection system shall use a
minimum of above grade and visible components. The design
of the pneumatic conduits shall utilize the procedures and
criteria described in the District Heating Handbook,
International District Heating Association, 1969, and in
Underground Heat Distribution Systems BRAB-FCC Report
30R-6A, with respect to expansion and contraction of
pipes, methods of supports, protection of pipes from water
and corrosion, for insulation requirements, and for
mechanical protection of the conduits from surface loads
or shifting earth.
FUTURE EXPANSION
The design of the pneumatic solid waste collection system shall be
sized to accommodate a future increase in load of 25 percent.
INTEGRATION OF SERVICE SYSTEMS
6.1 If economy, performance, environmental quality, or space
saving is enhanced thereby, the structures and distribution or
collection systems for the energy system, the solid and liquid
waste disposal systems, and any other service systems for the
site shall be integrated in accordance with good engineering
design.
A-99
-------
6.2 The electrical demand schedule of the site shall be taken
into account in determining the operating cycle in the
pneumatic solid waste collection system.
6.3 Common or adjacent plant space shall be used for all
centrally located service systems, if possible, and the
methods used to control air pollution, noise, vibrations,
odor, and undesirable aesthetic appearance shall be designed
to serve the common needs of all service systems.
6.k Annunciator panels, alarms, safety controls, etc., shall be
designed to satisfy the requirements for all service systems,
insofar as possible.
6.5 The design of the various service systems should facilitate
joint use of operating and maintenance personnel.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Assurance of compliance with the design and performance requirements
of this specification will be provided by a combination of reviews
of design procedures, plans, and specifications; pre-installation
tests of components; examination of manufacturers' test data;
inspection of equipment; certification and labelling of components
and systems; and monitoring of acceptance tests at the time the
plant is put into service. The quality assurance activities will be
A-100
-------
carried out by technical representatives of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and other organizations as
directed by HUD. These quality assurance activities are further
detailed as follows:
7.1 Adequacy of the load calculations; the calculations of
monthly energy use; the aesthetic treatment of the plant
components; and the required capacity of the principal
system components will be determined by detailed review
of the preliminary plans and the working drawings and
specifications at prearranged stages in the design process.
7.2 Cost estimates for energy, capital equipment, and maintenance
and operation will be reviewed by technical representatives
of HUD and their designees. These estimates shall include
the cost of final disposition of the solid wastes.
7.3 Test results obtained by the suppliers of major equipment
components in their own laboratories will be reviewed for
comparison with ratings and performance used in design.
Prequalificat ion tests will be requested if existing
information is inadequate.
7.*» The design, performance test results, and national labelling
and listing of instruments, controls, and relays designed for
A-101
-------
sensing abnormal operating conditions and as operating
controls will be studied prior to installation. The
performance of these devices will be observed during
prequalification tests and/or during the acceptance tests
of the plant.
7.5 The models of the equipment and storage rooms proposed for
the installation will be studied in advance for
maintainability, ease of repair, and potential for complete
renewal.
7.6 Compliance with safety requirements will be determined by
inspection, labelling, certification, and comparison of
design with the requirements of safety standards.
7.7 The acceptance tests performed by the contractor on the
site after the installation is completed will be monitored
for completeness and for compliance with plans and
spec!fi cat ions.
7-8 Tests for compliance with the performance requirements on
noise and vibration control, air pollution control,
ventilation, thermal environment, aesthetics, magnetic
interference, and illumination will be performed during
the acceptance tests of the plant or as soon thereafter
A-102
-------
as the necessary climatic and operating conditions occur.
Corroborative tests may be made by HUD or their designees
if required.
7-9 Long-term reliability and durability can be evaluated only
during long-term field observations or tests. These
aspects of the performance specification will not be covered
by the acceptance tests.
7.10 Systems, equipment, or apparatus which do not comply with
the details of this specification, but which perform in
accordance with its intent, may be approved for installation
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
A-103
-------
Appendix
List of Standards Related to Fire, Safety, Explosions, and Protection
against Equipment Failures
NFPA No. 54-1969 "Combustion Air and Ventilation".
NFPA No. 70-1968, ANSI C 1 - 1968 (Rev. of C 1 - 1965), "National
Electrical Code".
NFPA No. 30-1969 "Flammable & Combustible Liquids Code".
NFPA No. 328-1964 "Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Gases in
Manholes and Sewers".
NFPA No. 13-1969 "Installation of Sprinkler Systems".
NFPA No. 29-1969 "Installation of Centrifugal Fire Pumps"
NFPA No. 211-1969 "Chimneys, Fireplaces and Venting".
NFPA No. 12-1968 "Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems".
NFPA No. 14-1969 "Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems".
NFPA No. 15-1967 "Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection".
NFPA No. 26-1958 "Supervision of Valves Controlling Water Supplies for
Fire Protection".
NFPA No. 291-1935 "Marking of Hydrants".
NFPA No. 71-1969 "Installation, Maintenance and Use of Central Station
Protective Signalling Systems (Watchman, Fire Alarm and Supervisory
Service)".
NFPA No. 72B-1967 "Installation, Maintenance and Use of Auxiliary
Protective Signalling Systems for Fire Alarm Service".
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code - 1965 (amendments to 19&9). Section
IV, Heating Boilers (1966).
ASME Boiler and Pre.-.sure Vessel Code - 19&5 (amendments to 1969). Section
VIM, Unfired Pressure Vessels (1965).
ANSI Standard Safety Code for Mechanical Refrigeration, B 9-1 1969-
ANSI National Electric Safety Code, Part 1, Rules for the Installation
and Maintenance of Electric Supply Stations and Equipment (1970).
ASHRAE No. 52-68 Method of Testing Air Cleaning Devices Used in General
Ventilation for Removing Particulate Matter.
A-104
-------
INFLUENCE MATRIX FOR PNEUMATIC SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
DESIGN PROCUREMENT SPECIFICATIONS
\
V
"^N.'Sf
\Jk
.rS.
<-®\
\\
Interface
Waste System - Energy Source
Interface
Waste System - Chute
Interface
Waste System - Occupant
Interface
Discharge Air - Site
Pneumatic Equipment
Collector Conduit
Collection Station
Operating Controls
Safety Controls
Structural Characteristics
Interface
Waste System - HSP
FUNCTION
ut
_C
'o
O
xU
7~ O
_a •.£
o a
a. a.
O-O
4.2.4
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.5
4.8.2
4.2.4
4.2.3
4.2,5
4.2.6
4.2.6
4.1
41
£
5
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.2.4
4.2.3
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
—
\-9
Durability
Time Relic
4.3.1
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.1
4.2.3
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.3
X
£z
15
Maintaina
4.4.1
4.4.1
4.4.1
4.5.3
4.2.5
4.4.2
4.4.2
tn
U
tn
01
H
-c %
^-> u
u u
I) I/)
Performan
Primary -
4.2.4
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.5
4.2.4
4.2.3
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.6
4.1
SAFETY
Occupant
4.10 .4
4.2.2
4.6.4
4.2.3
4.2.6
4.2.6
4.12
Operator
4.10.4
4.2.6
4.2.2
4.10.4
4.2.3
4.12.4
4,y
4.10 .4
4.10 .4
4.7.2
01
iZ
4.105
4.105
4.10.2
4.105
4.105
4.105
4.10.5
4.3.3
4.3,3
4. 10.. 2
4. 10.. 2
Structural
4.2.1
4.5.4
4.2.3
4.2.5
4.12
01
H
V
a.
o
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.5
4.2.6
ENVIRONMENTAL
-8
O
4.6.2
4.6.2
4.6.2
4.6.2
4.6.2
4.6.2
J
3
1
<
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.1
4.6.3
S
'5
4.5.6
4.5.3
4.5.1
4.5.1
4.5.6
4.5.1
4.5.2
Vibration
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.4
4.5.2
01
c
a
a.
a*
u
<
Occupant
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.2
OTHER
C
o
u
£
Economic
6.2
3.0
4.2.5
6.4
6.4
3.0
X
15
Transporta
4.4.1
c
o
-t
t>
C£
O
J
u
c
UJ
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
c
O
1
i.
o
u
3
i S
4.2.
4.2.
—
01
•2
Oversize
4.1.1
4.1.1
4.1.1
-------
APPENDIX G
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOLID WASTE COMPACTORS
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
March 1971
A-106
-------
OBJECTIVE
Several types and sizes of stationary compactors for solid waste
are to be selected for some of the HUD Operation Breakthrough
housing sites. They must be capable of satisfactorily compacting
and storing solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and
institutional facilities located on the sites according to the
requirements specified herein.
DEFINITIONS
2.1 Stationary solid waste compactor: A machine that reduces
the volume of loose solid waste by not less than two-thirds
by means of mechanical force, and which places the waste
into a container for storage.
2.2 Containers: The receiving unit into which the compacted
solid waste is placed by the compactor. A container is
either returnable or disposable, and will be evaluated with
its compactor as a system.
2.3 Normal residential solid waste: All items normally
discarded as refuse at a household, excluding bulky items
that will not fit into a 30-gal waste container. This
includes a wide variety of items of the following approximate
A-107
-------
composition given as a percent by wet weight of each
component with ranges at the 90 percent confidence
interval:
Component Mean (%) Range (%)
food waste 18 11-22
paper products W 38 - 49
metals 9 8-10
glass and ceramics 9 7-10
plastics and rubber 3 2 - k
textiles 3 1-3
wood 2 1-3
garden waste 8 2-9
rocks, dirt, ash, etc. k 1-5
It is expected that the composition of residential solid
waste generated at Operation Breakthrough sites will be
within the ranges given above. In addition, normal
residential solid waste may be expected to contain about
25 percent moisture and have an average density of about
170 Ib per cu yd.
A-108
-------
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Stationary solid waste compactors for residential applications
in Operation Breakthrough shall be capable of compacting
normal residential solid waste by at least two-thirds its
original volume. Compactors for commercial and other
applications shall be capable of compacting the specific
type of waste to be encountered by not less than two-thirds
its original volume. These capabilities shall be verified by
certified test data or actual observed tests as directed by
HUD or its representative.
3.2 The capacity of a compactor system shall be determined for
each installation, based upon the cost of the equipment and
the cost of servicing at the frequency required by the amount
and type of waste to be handled.
3-3 A compactor used for solid waste which contains by weight
more than ^0 percent moisture, or more than 30 percent food
waste, shall be specially designed to accept and retain
moisture set free during the compaction process. The liquid
shall either be retained in the container or drained by
direct connection to a sanitary sewer.
A-109
-------
3.A Manually-fed compactors shall have self-closing doors
which adequately seal the entrance when the doors are shut,
so that access by rodents and insects is precluded, and
interior odors are not transmitted to the ambient air.
Chute-fed compactors shall be attached to the chutes in a
manner that similarly seals the connection between them.
Although not a part of the compactor, the chute should also
be equipped with self-closing, well sealed access doors.
3.5 Exterior exposed surfaces and interior surfaces which come
in contact with solid waste shall be readily cleanable
without the need for special tools or dismantling.
Adequate clearance is also required for cleaning underneath
the compactor unless the compactor bottom is sealed and is
designed to be set flat on the floor.
3.6 Chute-fed compactors shall have a suitably by-pass on the
inlet side of the compactor to permit hand removal of solid
waste in case of system failure.
3.7 Chute-fed compactors shall have a suitable shut-off gate of
sufficient strength to withstand the impact of the maximum
size package that could enter the system, of 50 Ib/cu ft
density, falling from the maximum chute elevation, to retain
A-110
-------
solid waste in the chute to allow for proper maintenance
and safety. This gate shall close automatically when access
is made possible to the interior of the compactor.
3.8 Other suitable safety devices shall be provided and
additional devices may be required at the direction of
HUD or its representative.
3.9 Chute-fed compactors shall be automatically actuated to
avoid accumulation of solid waste in the chutes.
3.10 Chute-fed compactors shall have adequate sensing devices
to alert maintenance personnel when they need attention
either for normal servicing or because of malfunction.
3.11 Adjustments affecting the output density of the solid waste
shall be pre-set and not controllable by the operator.
3.12 Returnable containers must be capable of withstanding
compaction pressures without deforming, and of easily
discharging the compacted solid waste by gravity; and shall
be readily cleanable.
3.13 Disposable containers shall not break or tear during
compaction and normal handling.
3.1*» All containers shall be fly-tight and moisture proof
while either attached to the compactor or removed for
storage.
A-lll
-------
3.15 Both compactor and container shall be so designed that
spillage of waste does not occur when the filled container
is removed from the compactor.
3.16 Each compactor shall have an identification plate attached
to it identifying the manufacturer, model, serial number,
and power requirements.
3.17 A maintenance manual shall be provided to the purchaser of
each compactor. A copy of the manual shall also be provided
to HUD or its representative. The maintenance manual should
include the following information:
3.17.1 Periodic cleaning, maintenance and lubrication
chart.
3.17.2 Parts list and labeled drawings.
3.17.3 Trouble shooting procedure.
3.17-** Electric circuit diagram.
3.17.5 Hydraulic circuit diagram, if applicable.
3.17.6 Description of sequence of operation.
3.17.7 Name, address, and telephone number of the
authorized repair and parts source.
3-17.8 All other necessary items.
A-112
-------
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
^•1 All local codes and ordinances shall be adhered to except
where they conflict with these specifications, in which
case the conflicts shall be resolved by HUD or its
representative.
k.2 The size, shape, weight, and density of the compacted solid
waste including the container or binding, if used, shall be
compatible with locally available collection and disposal
services.
4.3 Prior to the purchase of a solid waste compactor for
Operation Breakthrough, the seller shall provide the
following items to HUD or its representative:
4.3.1 A description of the criteria used in selecting
the proposed compactor model, including analysis
of the waste to be compacted, design calculations,
and assumptions.
4.3.2 A complete description of the proposed compactor
model including literature, photographs,
dimensional drawings, electric and hydraulic
circuit diagrams, technical specifications, and
operating and maintenance manuals.
A-113
-------
4.3.3 The list price of the proposed compactor model
and estimated operating costs with a description
of the basis for this estimation.
4.3.4 A complete parts list including any special
tools needed for maintenance with part numbers,
prices, and source.
4.3.5 Certified test data as described in paragraph
3.1 of these specifications.
4.3.6 A certified letter which states that:
A. A minimum warranty of one year for all
components of the system shall be provided
and any service or parts required under
the warranty shall be provided within 24
hours during the warranty period, at no
charge.
B. Service and parts will be available within
24 hours during the expected life of the
compactor and the name, address, and
telephone number of the nearest service
station shall be included. Present
A-114
-------
nominal charges for service calls and
labor, or for a service contract, shall
be included.
4.3.7 The names and addresses of the solid waste
collection and disposal agencies or
companies that are capable of handling
the compacted solid waste, the level of
service available, and the expected
charges. (The waste should be removed
for disposal at least once a week).
4.3.8 A document which clearly establishes the
responsibility of regular cleaning and
maintenance of returnable containers, if
used, and which indicates acceptance of
this responsibility by the appropriate
party.
5 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
The purchaser of a compactor shall be responsible for proper
installation as described in these requirements.
A-115
-------
5.1 Hot water of at least 1^0 F, in sufficient quantities,
shall be made available to all compactors for cleaning
purposes. Compactors of greater than 1/2 cu yd capacity
(final compacted package) and all chute-fed compactors
shall have this hot water piped to as close as practicable
to the compactor with a hose connection provided.
5.2 All compactors shall be placed on Portland cement concrete
or other satisfactorily finished floors that can be easily
cleaned.
5-3 Compactors greater than 1/2 cu yd in capacity (final
compacted package), and all chute-fed compactors, shall
be served by floor drains connected to sanitary sewers for
draining all water used in washing the compactors and their
containers. Such drains shall be properly screened and
protected from rain-water runoff by adequate shelter and
curbing. The drains shall be readily accessible for
cleaning and shall not be located under the compactor or
container.
A-116
-------
5.*» Compactors which use returnable containers shall be
installed with adequate guides for the containers to
assure proper alignment when being re-attached.
Steel plates shall be installed in areas where rolling of
large containers can cause excessive wear on the floor.
Where wheeled containers must be rolled through a corridor
or other confined space in a building, adequate guides
shall be provided to eliminate damage to the structure by
mishandling of the containers.
5-5 When compactors are installed in enclosed spaces, the air
temperature at the five-foot level shall be maintained in
the range of 65 F to 90 F and ventilation of at least
20 cu ft per min of fresh air shall be provided.
5.6 The noise level in the area of a compactor shall not exceed
70 dBA when the equipment is operating at maximum load.
5.7 Illumination at a level of at least 30 footcandles shall
be provided at all points that require access by compactor
operating and maintenance personnel; and on the faces of
switchboards and control panels. All other areas around the
compactor shall be illuminated at 10 footcandles measured
3 feet above the floor.
A-117
-------
5.8 The compactor installation shall be designed for an
acceptable level of personnel safety, fire safety, and
equipment safety.
5.8.1 Each component of the compactor system shall
be designed and constructed according to
recognized national or industry safety standards
and must comply with applicable codes. Pressure
and vacuum vessels and piping shall be designed
in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code and shall be provided with ASME
approved safety valves.
5-8.2 A compactor greater than 1/2 cu yd in capacity
(final compacted package) and which is located
within a structure or closely adjacent to a
structure or to any combustible material shall
have a fire alarm which meets the requirements
of NFPA and local codes.
5-8.3 All wiring and electrical components shall comply
with the National Electrical Code and, where
applicable, be UL approved and comply with
local codes.
A-118
-------
5.8.J* Compactor installations shall be designed to
guard against flooding of electrical or
mechanical equipment from either internal or
external causes. Outside installations shall
provide for rapid run-off and drainage of
rainfal1.
5.8.5 Compactors shall be installed for safe and
effective operation, servicing, and repair.
Maintenance of a compactor or other nearby
equipment should not endanger an adjacent piece
of operating equipment or place the personnel
in a dangerous position relative to other
equipment. Rotating machinery, hot surfaces,
sharp projections, objects with low clearance
and operating levers of switches, relays and
safety devices shall be protected from accidental
contact by operating and maintenance personnel;
and shall be protected from unauthorized access.
5.8.6 Loading openings for compactors in residential
applications shall be no higher than k ft 6 in.
above the floor to provide for a safe loading
A-119
-------
height and shall be designed to deter access
by small children. In commercial and other
applications where stairs and platforms are
required, they shall be fitted with suitable
railings, non-skid treads and other necessary
safety devices.
5.9 Magnetic interference suppressors shall be provided for the
commutators of motors and other electrical apparatus, if
needed to control interference with radio and television
reception in the immediate vicinity.
TESTING
These procedures shall be followed if pre-purchase testing of a
solid waste compactor is judged to be necessary by HUD or its
representative. These procedures may also be used after
installation to determine the acceptability of a compactor.
6.1 Tests may be performed either at an operating installation
or a pilot installation.
6.2 Input material for testing compactors for residential
applications shall be normal residential solid waste with a
loose density range of 150 to 230 Ib per cu yd which shall be
A-120
-------
determined before compaction. For compactors to be
instalTed in other than residential applications, the type
of material to be compacted in normal operation shall be
used for the tests.
6.3 The density of the compacted solid waste shall be determined
and shall fall within the range of ^50 to 700 Ib per cu yd
corresponding to at least three times the input density.
6.A The compactors shall be loaded continually during the tests
until they reach their capacity.
6.5 Chute-fed compactors shall be fed through a chamber of at
least 3 cu ft capacity and shall operate under a continuous
head of solid waste.
6.6 HUD or its representative shall provide a test engineer who
will help conduct the tests, record the data and determine
the number of trials required to complete the tests.
6.7 The seller shall provide the necessary laborers and mechanical
personnel and equipment required to conduct the tests, and
shall be responsible for expenses incurred during the test.
6.8 Failure to meet the required density of compacted solid waste;
malfunction of equipment; breaking, tearing, or leaking of
containers; or other significant faults shall be grounds for
disapproval of the compactor.
Ma590
A-121
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O—456-672
------- |