iteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,

       Decision -/Makers
          in  Solid  Waste

iteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.

                                  o \
                                  a>  9,
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
                                  I      \

                                  o        *
                                  O         (J
                                  i-         *>>

criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,

          This guide (SW- 500 ) was prepared by the   *
           ' ~*     »•"        -        ^S
          Office of Solid Waste Management Programs   3
               in Solid Mfaste
               Management               /
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ 1976

                               Second Edition

             An  environmental  protection  publication  (SW-500)

                   in  the  solid  waste  management series.
 Mention of commercial products or organizations does not constitute endorsement
                            by the U.S. Government.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

  In solid waste management, as in other aspects of city administra-
tion, good decision-making is nearly synonymous  with good city
management. In the past, however, decisions regarding solid waste
management have been based largely on intuition and local custom
rather than on the experience of many communities and methodically
developed information. To provide local officials with a broader basis
for  decision-making, the Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams  (OSWMP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
developed the Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management.
The guide draws on information which has been developed over the
last 9 years from contractual efforts, demonstration grants, and in-
house analyses.
  The  purpose of the  guide is to help managers in municipal
government deal with the problems of major concern in the field of
solid waste management. It is not suggested that use of the guide will
always lead to the best solutions, but it can assist in placing the issues
within  a decision-making framework that is based on the latest
available information.  This is the second edition  of the guide;
OSWMP plans to publish updated versions regularly so that it will
continue to  reflect  the rapidly  changing  field  of solid waste
management. Suggestions for improvements and other comments
from readers are welcome.
  While all parts of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
contributed to the writing of the guide, the Systems Management
Division was responsible for its planning and development. Special
acknowledgment is made to Cynthia McLaren,  the project officer
responsible for coordinating the development of this guide for the
Division, and to Emily  Sano, who  edited it. A list of OSWMP staff
members who authored  various sections of the guide appears on the
following page.

                 —ROBERT A. COLONNA
                   Director, Systems Management Division
                   Office of Solid Waste Management Programs

      Contributing Authors
Kent Anderson

Truett DeGeare

Yvonne Garbe

Allen Geswein

Penelope Hansen

Denise Hawkins

Steven Hitte

Donna Krabbe

Steven Levy

Robert Lowe
Lawrence McEwen

Cynthia McLaren

Martha Madison

Jon Perry

Charles Peterson

Larry Prior

Robert Randol

Kenneth Shuster

John Thompson

Sidney Wener

SUMMARY	  viii

Public or Private Ownership and Operation of Collection Services 	    1
Public or Private Ownership and Operation of Processing Facilities	    6
Multijurisdictional Approaches	    8
Operating Revenues	   13
Capital Financing 	   17

Point of Collection	   25
Frequency of Collection 	   28
Storage Containers 	   30
Paper and Plastic Bags	   33
Collection of Bulky Hems	   36
Source Separation and Collection of Paper	'	   38
Residential Collection Equipment and Crew Size 	   48
Equipment Systems for Collection of Commercial Wastes	   54
Rural Collection 	   59
Manpower Management and Labor Relations 	   64


Baling	   75
Shredding	   79
Incineration  	   84

Energy Recovery	   88
Materials Recovery 	   98



Hazardous Wastes 	  122
Hospital Wastes 	  129
Sewage Sludge	  132
Tires	  137
Waste Lubricating Oil	  142

A   Residential Collection Management Tools	  146
B   Collection Costs and Productivity	  151
C   Closing Open Dumps 	  155

FIGURE                                                              PAGE
 1  Solid Waste Management Decision Alternatives	   ix
 2  Leveraged Leasing Structure	   19
 3  Piggyback Newspaper Rack	   41
 4  Participation in Source Separation Programs	   47
 5  Rear-Loading Compactor Truck	   54
 6  Front-Loading Compactor Truck	   55
 7  Tilt-Frame Vehicle	   55
 8  Round-Trip Time at Which Transfer .Operation Is Justified	   73
 9  Franklin, Ohio, Resource Recovery Plant	  103
10  Trench Method of Covering a Dump 	  157
11  Area Method of Covering a Dump	  158

TABLE                           ,                                    PAGE
 1  Comparative Economics and Feasibility of Major Resource Recovery
      and Disposal Options	   xii
 2  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Curbside/Alley and Back-
      yprd Collection, and Conditions That Favor Each	  xiv
 3  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Residential Waste
      Storage Containers, and Conditions That Favor the Use of Each 	   xv
 4  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Frequencies of
      Collection, and Conditions That Favor Each 	  xvi
 5  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Source Separation of Re-
      cyclable Material From Solid Waste, and the Conditions That Favor It  xvi
-6 • Potential. Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods for Collection in
      Rural Areas,  and the Conditions That Favor Each 	 xvii
 7  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Haul to Disposal Sites
      and Use of Transfer Stations, and  the Conditions That Favor Each
      Method	xviii
 8  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Solid Waste Processing
      and Disposal Methods, and the Conditions That Favor Each 	  xix
 9  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Capital Financ-
      ing Methods, and the Conditions That Favor Each	  xxi
10  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Taxes and User Charges as
      Sources of Operating Revenues, and the Conditions That Favor Each xxiii
11  Potential Advantages and  Disadvantages of Types of Multijurisdic-
      tional Approaches 	 xxiv
12  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Types of Public and Private
      Ownership and Operation of Collection Services, and the Conditions
      That Favor Each 	 xxv
13  Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Public and Private Owner-
      ship and Operation of Processing  and Disposal Facilities, and the
      Conditions That Favor Each Type of Operation  	xxvii
14  Characteristics of Capital Financing Methods Available for Solid Waste
      Management Facilities	   21
15  Example of Costs to Finance $10  Million Through General Obligation
      Bond, Municipal Revenue Bond, and Revenue  Bond and Leveraged
      Leasing 	   23
16  Cost  for  Once-a-Week Collection  Using  2-Man  Crews, by Point of
      Collection and Incentive System in 4 Cities, 1973	   26
17  Truck and Fuel Requirements for an Area of 10,000 Homes, by Collection
      Frequency, Point of Collection, and Length of Workweek 	   26
18  Cost of Curbside Collection  by Frequency of Collection and Crew Size,
      in Four Cities,  1973	   29
19  Composition of Municipal Solid Waste, as Discarded, United States,
      1973	   39
20  Impact of Separate Collection, Using the Separate Truck Method, on
      Overall Residential Solid Waste Management Costs in 10 Cities	   43
21  Impact of Separate Collection, Using  the Rack Method, on Overall
      Residential Solid Waste Management Costs in Three Cities	   43
22  Recommended  Crew Size  and Vehicle Type for Residential  Solid
      Waste Collection by Point of Collection and Housing Density	   49
23  Typical Ranges in Packer Truck Prices (Including Chassis), 1975	   51
24  Typical Yearly Costs for Commercial Collection With Rear Loader and
      2-Man Crew	   57
25  Typical Yearly Costs for Commercial Collection With Front Loader and
    Driver-Operator	   57
26  Typical Yearly Costs for Commercial Collection With Tilt-Frame (Roll-
      Off) Truck and Driver-Operator	   58

TABLE                                                               PAGE

27  Characteristics of Rural Bulk Bin Collection Systems by Type of Vehicle
      Used 	   60
28  Examples of Rural Solid Waste Collection Equipment Systems 	   61
29  Economics for the Two EPA Baling Projects, 1975	   76
30  Projected Economics for Other Municipal Solid Waste Balers,  1975 	   77
31  Categories of Solid Waste and Estimated Minimum Horsepower Required
      to Shred	   81
32  Location  and Status of Energy Recovery Systems by Technology Type
      and Energy Product, 1975	   89
33  Capital Costs and  Capacity of Waterwall Incinerators Producing and
      Selling Steam, in Operation or Under Construction, 1975	   89
34  Capital Costs and Capacity of Systems Producing Prepared  Wastes as
      a Supplemental Fuel for Use in Utility Boilers, 1975	   91
35  Capital Costs and  Capacity of Pyrolysis Units in Operation or Under
      Construction, 1975	:	   91
36  Estimates of the Potential Gross Revenues for Materials Recovered From
      a Ton of Municipal Solid Waste in a Mechanical Processing Facility ..   96
37  Quantity, Quality, Purchasers, and Prices of Materials Recovered From
      Municipal Solid Waste at the Franklin, Ohio, Pilot Plant	  105
38  Projected Capital Costs for Franklin-Type Wet-Pulping Plants With
      Capacities of 150, 500, and 1,000 Tons Per Day, 1975  	  106
39  Projected Net Costs Per Ton for Franklin-Type Wet-Pulping Plants With
      Capacities of 150, 500, and 1,000 Tons Per Day, 1975  	  106
40  Sanitary  Landfill Permit Application Costs, by Design Capacity  of Site,
      1975	  Ill
41  Initial Costs for Three Sanitary Landfills, 1975	  Ill
42  Approximate Sanitary Landfill Equipment Prices,  1975	  112
43  A Sample List of Nonradioactive Hazardous Compounds	  123
44  Presence  of Representative Hazardous Substances in Waste Streams of
      Selected Industries	  125
45  Estimated Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by Bureau of Census
      Region, 1970	'...  125
46  Functions, Applicability, and Resource Recovery Capability of Currently
      Available Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Processes	  126
47  Range of Metal Content in Digested Sewage Sludges 	  133
48  Estimated Typical  Costs  of Sludge  Disposal Processes Per Dry Ton,
      1974	  134
49  Costs and Operating Parameters of Tire Slicers and Shredders, 1974	  139
50  Breakdown of Tire-Gon Operating Costs at 7.5c Per Tire, 1974	  139
51  Consumption of Lubrication Oils, Generation of Waste Oil. and Use of
      Waste Oil	  142
52  Uses for Waste Lubrication Oil	  145
53  Typical Yearly Collection Costs for 2- and 3-M an Crews, Including Vehicle,
      1975	  152
54  Productivity  and Cost Analvsis  for  Residential Collection Systems,
      1973	"	  153
55  1972 Truck Procurement Cost Figures Used in Productivity Study, Side
      Loaders and Rear Loaders	  154

conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, „
    This guide presents the key issues of solid waste management in a
  decision-making context. It  attempts to  anticipate  all  of the
  important decisions which local government managers must make in
  the  effort to. develop  and  operate solid waste programs  in  a
  responsive,  cost-effective manner. Each chapter presents an issue,
  describes the alternatives, gives the advantages and disadvantages,
  and concludes with a summary statement which may include an EPA
  recommendation on the issue.


    There are four basic categories of criteria by which decisions are
  made in the solid waste field: costs, environmental factors, resource
  conservation, and  institutional factors. The key  points in each of
  these categories are as follows:

    • Costs
       Operating and maintenance
       Capital (initial investment)
    • Environmental factors
       Water pollution
       Air pollution
       Other health  factors
       Esthetic considerations
    • Resource conservation
    • Institutional factors
       Political feasibility
       Legislative constraints
       Administrative simplicity

    These criteria determine most decisions in the solid waste field. The
  cost criteria are among the most important to local managers, and
  therefore cost information is presented for as many of the issues as
  possible. Environmental criteria are most important in the areas of
  waste  storage   and disposal  because  these  functions  represent
  prolonged exposure of wastes to the environment. Collection and

 processing are usually short-term operations and therefore do not
 cause major environmental problems.
   Resource conservation is a criterion just beginning to be considered
 seriously by  local  governments as  citizens  become increasingly
 conscious of this issue.
   Certain institutional factors are sometimes the most important
 criteria, although not as easy to quantify or deal with as costs. Also,
 these criteria are less easily generalized, so each manager has to
 identify the institutional criteria peculiar to his locale. Nevertheless
 institutional  factors  should always be of major concern  to  the
 decision-maker since they frequently prevent a decision from being
 made or  eliminate an alternative.

                       DECISIONS To BE MADE
   Solid waste management is concerned largely with  four major
 functions: collection,  transport, processing, and disposal (Figure 1).
                             SOLID WASTE GENERATION
                                            ~~ 20-30 gallon container*
                                            ~~ paper and plastic bogi
                                            — bulli bini
                                            — other
             ^piggyback colUi
             L—separate vehicle
                                              direct haul
                                              transfer station

       SHRED/ BALE
                                                SHRED/ PULP
                I incin

e ration 1

| pyro
ysis [

at fuel

reiidue I
   FIGURE 1.  This flowchart illustrates the decisions which must he made from the
point of generation to the ultimate disposal of residential solid waste. These decisions
encompass the four major solid waste functions: collection i including storage, level of
service, and the separation of materials for recycling)'.transport: processing (including
volume reduction through  shredding and or  haling and  resource recovery i: and
ultimate disposal.

  In designing a  solid waste collection system, one of the first
decisions to be made is where the waste will be picked up: the curb or
the backyard. This is an important decision because it affects many
other collection variables, including choice  of storage containers,
crew size, and the selection of collection equipment.
  Another key decision is frequency of  collection.  Both point of
collection and frequency of collection should be evaluated in terms of
tfieif impact on collection costs.  Since collection costs generally
account for 70 to 85 percent of total solid  waste management costs^
and labor represents 50 to 75 percent of collection costs, increases in
the productivity of collection manpower can dramatically reduce
overall costs.
  Systems with once-a-week curbside collection help maximize labor
productivity and result in significantly lower costs than systems with
more frequent collection and/or backyard pickup. The main reason
many communities retain twice-a-week backyard service is that the
citizens demand this convenience  and are willing to  pay for it.
  The choice of solid waste storage containers must be evaluated in
terms of both environmental effects and costs. From the environmen-
tal standpoint, some storage containers can present health and safety
problems to the collectors as well as to the general public. Therefore,
the decision facing a community  is, Which storage system  is both
environmentally sound and the most economical given the collection
system  characteristics? For example, paper and plastic  bags are
superior to many other containers from a health and esthetic
standpoint and can increase productivity when used in conjunction
with curbside collection. However,  with backyard collection systems,
bags have little effect on productivity.
  Another factor  to be considered in examining storage alterna-
tives is home separation of various materials for recycling. In a
number of communities, newsprint is collected for recycling  by
either the regular collection truck equipped with a special  bin  for
the paper or a separate truck. The primary factor to consider in
implementing a separate collection system is whether the benefits
of paper recovery outweigh the costs involved. The economic viabil-
ity  of separate collection  depends primarily on the local  market
price for the paper and the degree  of participation by thie citizens. If
these factors are positive,  it may  be possible to implement a paper
recovery system with no increase and perhaps even a savings in
collection operating costs; often no additional capital expenditures
are required.
  The distance between the disposal site and the center of the city will
determine the advisability of including  a transfer  station in the
transport system. In addition to distance traveled to the disposal site,
the time required for transport is  a key factor, especially in  traffic-
congested large cities.
  The tradeoffs involved in transfer station operations are the capital
and operating costs of the transfer station as compared to the costs
(mostly labor) of having route collection vehicles travel  excessive
distances to the disposal site. These tradeoffs can be computed to find
the point at which  transfer becomes economically advantageous.
  The sheer quantities of solid waste to be disposed of daily makes the
problem of what to do with the waste, once it has been  collected,
among the most difficult problems confronting community officials.

A crisis situation can develop very quickly, e.g., in the case of an
incinerator or land disposal site forced to shut down because of failure
to meet newly passed environmental regulations, or it can build
gradually over a period of time if needed new facilities are not
properly planned for and put into service.
  There are three basic alternatives for disposal, with subalterna-
tives for some of them (Table 1). The three major alternatives are:
direct disposal of unprocessed waste in a sanitary landfill; processing
of waste followed by land disposal; and processing of waste to recover
resources (materials and/or energy) with subsequent disposal of the
  Direct haul to a sanitary landfill (with or without transfer and long
haul) is usually the cheapest disposal alternative in terms of both
operating and capital costs. It may not always be the best from an
environmental standpoint because of the danger of water pollution
from leachate. This alternative is also wasteful of land and resources.
  With the second alternative, processing prior to land disposal, the
primary objective of the processing is to reduce the volume of wastes.
Such  volume  reduction has definite advantages since it reduces
hauling costs and ultimate disposal cost, both of which are, to some
extent,  a function  of waste volume.  However,  the capital  and
operating cost to achieve  this volume reduction is significant and
must be balanced against  the  savings achieved. An  additional
consideration is the environmental benefits which might be derived
from the volume reduction process.
  The third category of disposal alternatives are those processes
which recover energy or materials from mixed solid waste. In terms of
economics, there are significant capital arid operating costs associat-
ed with-all these energy and/or. materials recovery systems. Revenues
from the  sale of recovered products will reduce the net costs of
recovery, however. Not only do resource recovery systems achieve the
goal of resource conservation, but the residuals of the processes
require much less space for land disposal than unprocessed wastes.
  Affecting all four major functions are basic decisions regarding
how the solid waste system will be managed and operated. This
includes how the system will be financed, which level of government
will administer it, and whether a public agency or private firm will
operate the collection, transport, processing, and disposal functions.
The criteria most relevant for making  these decisions are the
institutional factors  of political feasibility and  legislative  con-
  Financing is needed for operating costs and capital costs. For
operating revenues, there are two sources: the city's general tax fund
or a direct charge on the users of the system. A direct charge may be a
fixed sum or vary according to the level of service rendered. The issue
of political feasibility becomes relevant when a change from tax
financing to a user charge is being considered. There is often citizen
opposition to receiving  a  bill for a service which was  previously
provided "for free" (hidden in the property tax).
  For capital  expenditures, municipalities  have  basically  two
alternatives: borrowing and current revenues. The decision of which
method will be used is affected by factors such as the financial status
of the city, citizen attitudes, legislative constraints on debt limits or


                                  TABLE 1

                       RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
 cost per
 Sanitary landfill

 Steam generation
 from waterwall
 Solid waste as fuel
 in utility or
 industrial boiler
    Solid waste
    converted into
    gas and oil
    Heat recovery
    to generate
    corrugated, and
    mixed office
 Institutional—there may be active citizen
 opposition to potential locations.
 Technical—depends on geological
 characteristics of the land.
 Economic—decided savings in cost per
 ton if facility handles over 100 tons per

 Economic—cannot economically meet
 new air pollution standards.

 Economic—varies with particular case.

 Technical—several incinerators are in
 operation, only 2 are marketing the
 steam produced.
 Economic—markets for steam are

 Institutional—owner/operator must
 contract with utility for sale of electricity.
 Technical—combustion in utility boiler
 as supplement to coal has been
 demonstrated in St. Louis.
 Economic—practical feasibility depends
 on cooperation of local utility or user
Technical—has been demonstrated at
200-ton-per-day pilot plant.
Economic—transportability and quality
of the fuel produced are primary factors.
Ability to store and transport fuel offers
broad market application.

Technical—1,000-tpn-per-day plant is in
shakedown operation in Baltimore. Air
pollution problems have been
Economic—markets for steam are
Technical—separate collection, possibly
with baling, is required.
Economic—markets are variable; when
paper prices are high, recovery can be



                           TABLE 1

              RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS— Concluded
Mixed paper
Technical— technology has been
demonstrated at 150-ton-per-day plant
in Franklin, Ohio.
cost per
                 Economic—fiber quality from Franklin
                 plant is low, suitable only for construction
                 Quality can be upgraded by further

    Glass and      Technical—technology being developed.
    aluminum      Economic—market potential is adequate
                 but system economics uncertain as yet.

    *Includes amortization of capital equipment.

long-term contracts, and the size of the project to be undertaken.
  The ownership and operation of residential collection systems
range from  completely  public collection  to collection by private
contractors  in  open competition. One  common pattern is the
collection of  residential waste within the city limits by a municipal
system under the public works department and collection of adjoining
suburban  areas by  private  contractors.  In  other  communities,
collection is  divided between the public and private sectors with
private contractors operating under exclusive franchises  with the
city. These are just two of the  many patterns  of ownership and
operation of the collection function which exist within the country
today. The ownership  and operation of processing and  disposal
functions are also under public and private auspices and combina-
tions of both.
  Regardless of whether solid  waste management systems are
operated by  the public or private sector, the local community must
establish regulatory control over these activities. A local regulatory
.program should include:  developing and implementing ordinances
and regulations; establishing inspection, monitoring, and complaint
procedures and programs; initiating  enforcement procedures and
programs; and developing bid specifications and awarding contracts
for services to be provided by private  firms. EPA has promulgated
"Guidelines  for Thermal Processing  and Land Disposal of Solid
Waste" (40 CFR 1, 240  and 241), and  is currently in the process of
developing guidelines for the storage  and  collection of solid waste,
source separation for materials  recovery,  beverage containers, re-
covery of resources from mixed solid waste, and the procurement of
goods that contain recycled materials. These guidelines are ma'ndato-
ry only for Federal facilities; however, they can provide guidance to
local officials and should be incorporated in local ordinances where
  The following pages (Tables 2-13) present a brief overview of major
issues and the alternatives available in dealing with  them, plus the

              advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the condi-
              tions which favor one alternative over another. These and related
              issues are presented in detail in the chapters of this guide.
                                            TABLE 2

                     Potential                        Potential                Conditions which
   Alternative	advantages	disadvantages	favor alternative

Curbside/alley   More efficient               Cans at curb look messy      High collection costs
                Less expensive              Special arrangements must   Unwillingness on part of
                D™ .;„-. !„«,= i«k«,           be made for handicapped and  residents to pay higher taxes
                Kequires less labor           elderly                     or uger charge

                Facilitates use of paper or     Residentfl must remember day
                plastic bags                 of collection
                Reduces collector injuries
                Requires less fuel

Backyard        No effort required by         More expensive             Quality of service provided
                residents                    High labor turnover          more important criterion
                No mess at curbs             lncnaaes number rf collector  *•» econom.cs
                                           Requires more fuel


       Conditions which
       favor alternative
 Paper or plastic
 Metal or plastic
• cans (20- to 30-

 Bulk contain-
 ers for
 storage bins
Easier to handle—'no lids to
be removed or replaced
Less weight to lift
Reduces spillage and blowing
litter when loaded in truck

One-way container—no cans
left at curb
Eliminates odors and
necessity to clean dirty cans
Prevents fly entrance
Increases speed and efficiency
of collection
Reduces contact of collector
with waste

Reasonable size for collector to


More efficient than manual
Cost per bag

Bags can fail if overfilled
or if too thin

Susceptible to animal attacks
Not suitable for bulky, heavy,
or sharp objects
May be difficult to obtain due
to energy crisis
 Drums (55-gal)    None
Curbside collection
Must be cleaned regularly
when not used with liners
Residents oppose storage of
other people's waste on their
Lower collection efficiency
Excessive weight can result in
back injury and muscle strain
Difficult to handle
Lack of lids allows insects to
breed in waste and odors to
Rust holes at bottom of drum
allow rodents to feed on waste

Inefficient—must be emptied
Lack of proper cover leads to
insect and rodent infestation
Necessity for hand shoveling
of wastes poses health hazard
to collectors
Backyard collection
Alley space available for
                                                           Unacceptable alternative
Unacceptable alternative

                                               TABLE 4

Once per week
Less expensive
Requires less fuel
Improperly stored waste can
create odor and fly problems
Conditions which
favor alternative
Adequate storage provisions
Cold to moderate climate
 Twice per week
 Reduces litter in urban areas
 Reduces storage volume
 More than twice  Reduces litter in urban areas
 per week         Reduces storage volume
More expensive
Requires more fuel
                             More expensive
                             Requires more fuel
Quality of service provided
more important criterion than
Warm climate

Seriously restricted storage
Dense population
                                               TABLE 5

      Conditions which
      favor alternative
All alternatives:
separate collec-
tion, piggyback
collection, re-
cycling centers
Simple to implement          Requires citizen cooperation    Markets exist for the materials
Reduces solid waste volume at  Requires market for separated
sanitary landfill              waste materials               Citizen support of resource
                If paper prices are high there  Results in separation of only a
                may be a decrease in collection small portion of the total waste
                costs                        stream

                                             Scavengers may take material
                                             for private gain
                                                          recovery is high

                                               TABLE 6

   Conditions which
   favor alternative
Disposal by
residents on
their property
Hauling by
residents to
located bulk
No cost to local government
No cost to local government
Operating costs are
relatively low
Promiscuous dumping is
Public acceptability is high

Sites can be located near users
Mailbox system  Collects from largest number
                 of people
Difficult to monitor and
Can lead to roadside dumping
and open dumping
Requires extensive
educational campaign to
ensure proper disposal

Distance to landfill may
discourage regular trips
Can lead to roadside dumping
and open burning

Generates excessive traffic at
Poses hardship for persons
without means of

Initial capital cost may be
Vandalism may occur at
unattended sites
Difficult to assess user fee
Poses hardship for persons
without transportation
If implemented near
municipalities containers
may be used by town residents
to avoid paying for collection

Residents must remember
collection day
Isolated areas
Landfills are easily
Roads allow passage of
collection vehicles
                 "• frw £,**,                     ^Vl»t.V,l
                                                TABLE 7

Direct haul by
collection trucks
to disposal site
Requires no capital
Changes in disposal site
location require rerouting of
all collection trucks
Nonproductive time spent in
transport increases costs
Conditions which
favor alternative
Close-in disposal sites
Low labor rates
Nonurban area
Transfer station
Cuts down on nonproductive
collection time
In-town location where
residents can bring their waste
Makes collection operation
independent of the actual
disposal site
Facilitates the addition of
resource recovery or volume
reduction  equipment at the
transfer site
Permits land reclamation
(e.g., filling in strip mines) at
location distant from
generation point
Capital and operating costs of
collection  vehicles are reduced.
Requires extra materials
handling step
Requires capital expenditures
for land, structures, and
To achieve savings in existing
system, a reduction in the
number of crews is needed
Difficult to find recipient of
waste outside of immediate
political jurisdiction
There is usually citizen
opposition to proposed
transfer sites if located near
residential areas
High labor costs
Distant disposal site
Large collection crews
Shortage of land for sanitary
landfills at reasonable price
Urban areas

                                              TABLE 8

      Conditions which
       favor alternative
Sanitary        Simple, easy to manage
landfilling       Initial investment and
                operating costs are low
                Can be put into operation in
                short period of time

                May be used to reclaim land
                Can receive most types of solid
                waste, eliminating the
                necessity for separation of
landfilling of
baled solid
landfilling of
shredded solid
Extends life of landfill (double
that of a fill for unprocessed
Lowers operating costs at the
disposal site

Reduces hauling costs where
distant sites are used

Extends life of landfill

Does not require daily cover
under some conditions
Waste is more easily placed
and compacted
Vehicles do not become mired
in waste in inclement weather
Reduces problems with vectors
Does not support combustion
or lead to blowing litter
Shredding at transfer station
or at landfills may be first step
in implementing a resource
recovery system
Incineration     Extends life of landfill
                 May be more economical
                 than hauling unprocessed
                 waste to distant landfill
                                                         unprocessed waste or for the
                                                         residues resulting from
                                                         processing facilities
Proper sanitary landfill       All solid waste systems must
standards must be observed or  have a landfill for
the operation may
degenerate into an open dump
Difficult to locate new sites
because of citizen opposition
Leachate may create water
Production of methane gas can
constitute a fire or explosion

Obtaining adequate cover
material may be difficult
Resource recovery is precluded
once bale is formed
Leachate may create water
Jamming and bridging of the
feeding equipment can
reduce throughput of the mill
High level of component wear,
especially of hammers
Danger to employees from
flying objects, explosions,
, fires within the mills, and
Leachate may create water

Maintenance and repair costs
are high
                             Large capital investment
                             High operating cost
                             Large expenditures may be
                             required for air pollution
                             control equipment
                             Conventional incinerators
                             generate large quantities of
                             wastewater which must be
                             treated and disposed of
Long hauls needed to reach
landfill sites

Shortage of landfill sites
requires maximum utilization
of available land
Cover material is difficult to
Shortage of landfill sites
requires maximum utilization
of available land
                              Land available for sanitary
                              landfilling is at a premium
                              Few if any conditions favor
                              conventional incineration

                                              TABLE 8

      Conditions which
       favor alternative
Less land required for solid
waste disposal
High public acceptance
Lower disposal costs may
result through sale of
recovered materials and
reduced landfilling
Landfill requirements can be
Finding a site for an energy
recovery plant may be easier
than finding a site for a
landfill or conventional
Total pollution is reduced
when compared to a system
that includes incineration for
solid waste disposal and
burning fossil fuels for energy.
May be more economical than
environmentally sound
conventional incineration or
remote sanitary landfilling
High public acceptance
As cost of fossil fuel rises,
economics become more
Technology for many
operations still new, not fully
Requires markets for
recovered materials
High initial investment
required for some techniques
Materials must meet
specifications of purchaser

Requires markets for energy
Most systems will not accept
all types of wastes
Specific needs of the energy
market may dictate
parameters of the system
Complex process requiring
sophisticated management
Needs relatively long period
for planning and construction
between approval of funding
and full-capacity operation
Technology for many
operations still new, not fully
Markets for. sufficient-
quantities of the reclaimed
materials are located nearby
Land available for sanitary
landfilling is at a premium
Heavily populated area to
ensure a large steady volume
of solid waste to achieve
economies of scale

Heavily populated area to
ensure a large steady volume
of solid waste to take
advantage of economy of scale
Availability of a steady
customer for generated
energy to provide revenue
Desire or need for additional
low-sulfur fuel source
Land available for sanitary
landfilling is at a premium

                                           TABLE 9
One of the most flexible and
least costly public borrowing
Requires voter approval, and
elections may be expensive
Conditions which
favor alternative
Size of community is small or
            Requires no technical or
            economic analysis of
            particular projects to be
            Small projects may be grouped
            to obtain capital

            Least difficult to market
Bank loans
Projected revenues guarantee

Can be used by institutions
lacking taxing power, such as
regional authorities and
nonprofit corporations
Does not require voter
Is not constrained by
municipality's debt
Small-scale capital
requirements for short-term
funding (5 years or less)
Some medium-term funding
applicability since notes may
be refinanced as they expire
Relatively low interest cost
because interest paid by
municipality is tax-free to
Source of funds on short notice
No external technical or
economic analysis required
municipality's debt limit
Issuing jurisdiction must have
power to levy ad valorem
property tax
Transaction costs impose a
benchmark minimum of
Capital raised becomes part of
general city treasury, thus
other city expenditures could
draw on amount, unless
specifically earmarked for
solid waste
Since careful project
evaluation is not required,
decision-makers may be
unaware of technological and
economic risks

Ease of raising capital is a
deterrent to change in existing
public/private management
mix, little incentive for
officials to consider use of
private system operators

Effective minimum issue of $1
million, thus only useful for
capital-intensive projects
Information requirements of
the bond circular are extensive
Technical and economic
analysis of project must be
performed by experts outside
the municipal government
Cost is higher than general
obligation bonds
Can be used only for specific

Low maximum
Short term
Not useful for capital-
intensive projects
Capital-intensive projects
Regional facilities desired
Municipality's debt limit has
.been reached
Initiating institutions lack
taxing power
Capital requirement is small
Funds needed on short notice

                                               TABLE 9

                        METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
       Conditions which
       favor alternative
    Bank loans
Essentially no minimum
Relatively inexpensive
Voter approval generally not
No debt ceilings
Can be used by institutions
lacking taxing power

Useful as interim financing for
equipment needed before
appropriations or long-term
capital arrangements can be
Negotiating agreement is
simple and fast
Only certification required is
assurance of municipality's
credit standing
Reduces demand on
municipal capital outlays
since original capital raised by
private corporation
Relatively high annual
interest rate (9-18 percent)
Amount of capital is usually

Lease terms are generally 5
years or less

Some States prohibit
municipalities from entering
multiyear, noncancellable

C ity will not own asset unless
it purchases facility upon
completion of lease period
Equipment needed before
appropriations available
Municipality has good credit
Current revenue  Least complex mechanism     No cost in the conventional    Amount of capital necessary is
No consultant or legal advice
No need for formal financial
sense (but higher taxes result)  small

Communities' ability to
generate surplus capital is
frequently lacking
Current taxpayers should not
have to pay for a system that
will be used far into the future
Solid waste projects must
compete with other municipal
Municipality need not borrow
Provides long-term flexibility
for municipality
Reduces demand on municipal
capital funds
Interest rate on entire
financial package may be
lower than general obligation
Municipality must locate
acceptable firm and negotiate
Higher cost of capital reflected
in system charges
There may be legal
constraints which prevent
signing of long-term contract
Displacement of city-

Legally complex
City will  not own  asset unless
it purchases facility upon
completion of leasing period
Municipality's debt limit has
been reached

Municipality wishes to avoid
administrative details of
operating solid waste facility.

                                              TABLE 10

       Conditions which
       favor alternative
Property tax
Sales tax
utility tax
Special tax
User charges
Simple to administer—no
separate billing and collection
system necessary

If part of local property tax, it
is deductible from Federal and
State income taxes
Simple to administer
Simple to administer

More equitable than ad
valorem taxes
Can be instituted without
voter approval

Voter approval usually not
Enables localities to balance
the cost of providing solid
waste services with revenues
Citizens are aware of costs of
service and can provide
impetus for more efficient
Solid waste management is    Tradition of tax financing for
often a low-priority item in the  most public services
budget and receives
inadequate funds

Costs are hidden—less
incentive for efficient

Commercial establishments
pay taxes for service they may
not receive
Variable monthly income
Requires voter approval
Income may not be adequate

Commercial establishments
pay taxes for service they may
not receive

Variable monthly income
Income may be inadequate
Recreation areas with high
tourist trade
Amount limited by statute
Ceiling on property tax rates
Tradition of tax financing for
most public services
Ceiling on property tax rates
Tradition of tax financing for
most public services
More complex to administer    Ceiling on property tax rates
Can cause problems for users
on fixed incomes

                                               TABLE 11

       Conditions which
       favor alternative
 Can finance without voter
 approval or regard to local
 debt limit

 Political influence minimized
 because board members are
 private citizens
 Autonomous from municipal
 budgetary and administrative

 Can generate income to make
 service self-supporting

 Capital financing is tax

 Tax-exempt status

 Can finance without voter
 approval or regard to local
 debt limit

 Assets revert to community
 after bonds  are paid
Multicommunity  Tax-exempt status is available
cooperative      Does not require State
Special districts
Constituency is a distinct
group of residents, not
scattered bond-holders

Local autonomy can be
protected by having county
officials serve on board
Flexible and enforceable
method of cooperation

Basic governmental structures
are not changed
Can be implemented quickly
and easily
 Financing is complex
 Can become remote from
 public control
 Can compete with private
 industry in some areas,
 reducing efficiency of both
 Political influence may be
 exerted because board
 members are government

 Difficult to dismantle even if
 better service can be provided
 by other sources
 Financing is not backed by full
 faith and credit of

 Member communities lose
 some autonomy
 Ability to raise capital
 depends on lead community's
 debt capacity and financing

 Lead community can be hurt
 financially unless contracts
 with other communities are
 written properly

 Powers limited by State
 Must rely on special tax levies
 requiring voter approval
 Creates an additional unit of
• government not directly
 elected by citizens

 May be difficult to raise
 capital since each community
 must borrow

 No single corporate body, so
 all communities must agree on
 any decision

 If contracts are not carefully
 written, misunderstandings
 may arise
Debt ceiling prohibits
financing by the municipality
Voter approval of financing
will delay urgent project
Political activity has hindered
activity in past
Autonomy from municipal
budgetary and administrative
control would mean more
efficient delivery of service
City wishes to shift financing
requirements to an
organization  outside
municipal bureaucracy

City wishes to avoid
administrative details of
providing solid waste
management services
                                                          One city is willing to take lead
                                                          in securing financing
No other governmental unit
can provide service
Service or function to be
provided is not costly or

                                              TABLE 12
                                   Conditions which
                                    favor alternative
     firms with
     from govern-
     mental unit

Economies of scale
City has administrative
Can institute separate
collection for recycling
Can institute mandatory
• Management and policies are
continuous over time,
resulting in experienced
personnel and permitting
 long-range planning
Records can be kept over a long
 Competitive bidding for
 contracts) helps keep prices
 City retains administrative
 Can institute separate
 collection for recycling

 Can institute mandatory
     firms in
     open compe-

Lack of incentive to maximize
often influenced by political
Frequently financed from
general tax fund and subject to
1-year budgeting process
Solid waste management often
low-priority item in budget
Labor pressures may result in
inefficient labor practices and
Restrictive budget policies
may affect equipment
replacement and maintenance
Policies of job-support inflate
labor costs
  Competition may reduce costs
                             Past history of unsatisfactory
                             contractual operations for
                             public services
                             Public predisposition towards
                             government .operation of
                             public services
                             Quality of service provided
                             more important criterion than
Public agency must regulate
Danger of collusion in bidding Flexibility is needed to make
                             changes in operations that
                             J ^^ ^ lafeor sayings

                             and other cost reductions

                             Existence of qualified private

                             Public predisposition towards
                             private sector involvement in
                             public services

                             Newly incorporated
                             communities, or where
                             population growth is
                             outpacing ability of
                             community to provide public
 City has no administrative

 Danger of collusion among
 haulers to reduce competition
 and keep prices high
 Cutthroat competition can
 result in business failures and
 service interruptions
 Overlapping routes, waste of
 Cannot institute citywide
 separate collection for

 Difficult to enforce mandatory
 collection ordinances
                              Unacceptable alternative

                                              TABLE  12

       Conditions which
       favor alternative
    firms with
Combination of
public and

    system and
    firms under
   system and
Competition helps keep price
Alternative available if either
sector cannot deliver service
City has administrative
Can institute separate
collection for recycling
Can institute mandatory

Competition helps keep prices
City has no administrative
Monopolistic, can lead to high
Cannot institute separate
collection for recycling
Difficult to enforce mandatory
collection ordinances
Unacceptable alternative
                             Municipality is expanding
                             through annexation or
                             merger with other
                             Changing from separate
                             garbage and trash collection to •
                             combined collection
Overlapping routes, waste of
Can't institute citywide
separate collection for
Lack of mandatory collection
Unacceptable alternative

                                              TABLE 13
       Conditions which
       favor alternative
Can obtain low-interest rates
and/or government grants for
capital-intensive systems
Local government does not
need to raise capital
Often easier for private firms
to buy land for a processing or
disposal site
Community does not bear
entire risk associated with
new technology
Community may not have
expertise to operate
sophisticated capital-
intensive facility
City may lack marketing
Restrictive budget policies
may affect equipment
replacement and

Community may have no
control of fees if only privately
operated facilities are
Operator may base decisions
on basis of financial reward
rather than community needs
Legal constraints may prevent
city from signing long-term
Displacement of city
Municipality must locate
acceptable firm and
negotiate contract
Public predisposition towards
government operation of
Creation of public jobs desired
Government employees are
available to operate facility
Borrowing power of
community and/or voter
approvals for bond issues
needed for capital
improvements in disposal
facilities are limited or not
Flexibility is needed to make
changes in operations that
would result in labor savings
and other cost reductions
Desire of local government to
avoid administrative details
in operation of disposal
Community lacks sufficient
technical and management
expertise for efficient
operation of the type of
advanced system it would like
to install
Territorial flexibility is needed
to permit operation across
political boundaries, where
appropriate regional
agencies do not exist
Commercial markets are,
available for recovered
Desire to bypass civil service

conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,


                                           APPROACHES      <
                                                                        2 •?
          Public or  Private Ownership and  Operation
                         of Collection Services
  In contrast to many other public services,
solid waste collection is  often under mixed
public and private auspices rather than be-
ing exclusively a government service. A key
decision  in  solid  waste management is,
"Who should collect the waste?"

  Residential collection service is most fre-
quently provided through one of four basic
  • Public  (municipal)  collection, usually
    under a governmental department  such
    as the  department  of  public works.
    Under  this  structure,  collections are
    made by city employees with city equip-
  • Private  firms with a contract from a
    governmental unit to collect from  resi-
    dences in a given area. Under this ap-
    proach the  contractor owns the equip-
    ment but must  meet all performance
    criteria established by the contract. The
    contract may or may not be awarded on
    the basis of competitive  bidding.
  • Private firms in open competition, with
    little, if any, city  regulation. Under this
    approach, the  private collector  makes
    his own arrangements with the custom-
    er for pickup.
                                         • Private firms operating under exclusive
                                           franchises by which each is licensed to
                                           operate alone in  a given area. A fran-
                                           chise may or may not be awarded on the
                                           basis of competitive  bidding.

                                         In addition, there are numerous variations
                                       on these four basic types  and various combi-
                                       nations of public and private  systems  in
                                       some cities. An  example  of such a combina-
                                       tion is the situation where a municipally
                                       operated  system collects a  portion  of  the
                                       residences and private collectors under con-
                                       tract to the city collect the remaining stops.

                                         One  of the key issues that has been de-
                                       bated is whether municipal or private col-
                                       lection results in lower  collection costs. It
                                       has  been  argued that  municipal systems
                                       should  cost less  since they  do  not have to
                                       earn a profit nor pay taxes, and they pay
                                       lower interest rates when  they borrow. A
                                       private collector, on the  other hand,  has to
                                       earn a profit, and must include taxes and
                                       interest on capital in his costs. In addition,
                                       there is the expense to the  municipality of
                                       licensing  and monitoring the operation  of
                                       private collectors.
                                         The  most frequently  cited  reasons  for
                                       lower private costs are: better management,

more efficient use of labor, and  revenues
from the recycling of reusables. In all cases
the desire for profits is seen as a key element
in reducing costs. The loss of tax revenues
if the public owns and operates the system
must also be taken into account in comparing
   The question of whether costs are lower
under either municipal or private operation
should be evaluated by each community.


      Public  (Municipal) Operations

   Ownership and operation of the residential
collection service by the  local government is
a common  practice. A recent survey by the
International  City Management Association
of cities over 10,000 population indicated
that 61  percent of the cities operated a resi-
dential  collection  system. However,  only a
little over  half of these  municipal  systems
collected all  of the city's residential solid
  The advantages of this alternative include
the  nonprofit  tax-exempt status  of public
operations  which can  result in reduced costs
or additional service. Municipalities, espe-
cially the larger cities that have centralized
their purchasing operations, can also reduce
costs by buying  equipment,  gasoline, and
other supplies in large quantities.
  In addition to potential cost savings, pub-
lic collection  systems  have management and
policies  which are continuous over  a  long
period. This makes it possible to profit from
long experience and  training, and  develop
long-range  plans. Continuous records may be
kept over a long  time, and these can be a
valuable resource. Also,  administrative con-
trol  of  the collection system by a public
agency  is  often necessary for the  imple-
mentation  of  collection  policies which  re-
quire systemwide compliance to be effective.
Examples of such policies include mandatory
collection requirements and the implementa-
tion  of separate collection of newsprint and
other materials for resource recovery.
  The disadvantages  of public ownership
and  operation of the collection  system in-
clude the monopolistic nature  of such opera-
tions which can result in a lack of stimulus
toward efficiency.  In establishing labor poli-
cies such as crew  size and daily work tasks,
administrators  of public systems  may be
constrained by labor-union pressures  and
stated or unstated policies of  job support.
Labor pressures for higher pay, less work,
and greater job security limit the flexibility
of many public  systems to implement labor-
saving techniques. Also, labor strikes caus-
ing discontinuities in service are more preva-
lent in the public sector  than in  private
collection firms.
  In the area of  financing, the solid waste
system may be  affected by the  low priority
it is given in many city budgets. This situa-
tion can inhibit innovation,  and  efficiency
may be reduced  due to inadequate equipment
replacement policies.

      Private Firms under Contract

  The potential  advantage of having  private
firms perform solid waste collection  is that
the  competition between  the various firms
should keep costs down. Where contracts are
awarded under a competitive bidding system,
the community can retain control of collec-
tion policies and derive the efficiencies of a
competitive, profit-motivated collection  sys1,
  The disadvantage of this alternative cen-
ters upon the need for active regulation by a
public agency. Contracts should be awarded
on  a bid basis  with specifications featuring
positive incentives for  contractor  firms to
maintain and improve efficiency.  The absence
of  these controls may result  in excessive
collection costs.

    Private Firms in Open Competition

  While competition may keep prices low,
a situation  with no administrative  control
over solid  waste  collection can degenerate
into cutthroat competition and  severe- price
cutting, leading to a  high rate of business
failure and  interruptions  in service.  There
is also the danger that the collectors will in-
formally agree  to honor  each  other's  ter-
ritories, thus removing the competitive  ele-
ment and resulting in  higher  prices.  This

alternative  results in the duplication of re-
sources and inefficient use of fuel.

  Private Firms with Exclusive Franchises

  The purpose in limiting the number of col-
lectors that operate in a given area is to coun-
teract the negative aspects of excessive com-
petition (business failures, discontinuities in
service). Having several collectors operating
in the same area also  leads to overlapping
routes and inefficient use of fuels. The exclu-
sive franchise, on the other hand, creates  a
monopolistic situation  without administra-
tive control  by the city.  Without such control
the collectors holding the franchise may take
advantage of  the  situation  by charging ex-
cessive rates and  lowering  service.


  If a community's present collection system
is unsatisfactory, a change in the institution-
al organization  of the  system may  be one
means of alleviating the problem. The risks
in such a change include high initial costs
involved in instituting a new organizational
structure and the possibility of dramatic so-
cial and economic impacts in terms of losses
or gains in  the number of jobs. Without
redesign or  reorganization,  however, it may
be very difficult to change inefficient prac-
tices, traditions, and policies, bring in better
management, or increase reliability and pro-
ductivity of the labor force.
  The institutional arrangement chosen by
a particular community depends on many
conditions. Some community situations sug-
gest the preferability  of  public  operation,
while others suggest private operation as be-
ing more appropriate.
  Conditions favoring public ownership and
operation would include:

  • Public predisposition is toward govern-
    ment operation of public services.
  • Quality of  service provided  is  valued
    more highly than economics.
  • Past history of contractual  operations
    for public service is unsatisfactory.

  Conditions  favoring  private  ownership
and operation would include:
   • Public predisposition is toward private-
     sector involvement in public services.
   • Flexibility is needed to make shifts in
     operation  which would produce savings
     in  labor costs and other expenses.
   • Local government wants  to avoid ad-
     ministrative details in  operation of col-
     lection system.
   • Population growth is outpacing ability
     of  community to provide public services.
   • Qualified private collectors are available.

   If contracting with a private firm  is de-
cided upon, it  becomes the job of the local
government  to   administer  the   bidding
process and to monitor and enforce the terms
of the contract.
   The  tools  of enforcement consist  of the
government's ability to withhold payments
and ultimately cancel  the  contract  if the
firm does not  meet minimum performance
standards. Besides these drastic  measures,
positive incentives in the contract for firms
to maintain and improve efficiency can have a
major effect on their performance. The de-
sign of  the contract specifications is a crucial
factor in assuring that a reputable collection
firm is chosen in the bidding process.
  The contract specifications must be suffi-
ciently  general to  attract a  reasonable num-
ber of  bidders, but  at the same  time re-
strictive enough to discourage bidding by
incompetent or disreputable collection  firms.
A large number of bidders  is  important to
minimize  possible collusion  in  the bidding
process. If there  are very  few bidders for
the contract areas, there  is always the po-
tential  that competitors will fix their bids
so everyone gets a share.
  One way to encourage a larger number of
bids  is  to  allow sufficient time  between
awarding of the contract  and start  of the
contract period, so that small firms can ob-
tain the additional resources that may be re-
quired should they have the winning bid.
  To discourage  bidding   by  disreputable
firms, governments frequently require a per-
formance bond  from each prospective bidder.
Such a  bond makes the issuing financial in-
stitution liable, up to the amount of the face
value of the bond, in the event that the bond-

ed contractor fails to abide by the terms of
the cpntract.
  Other key issues to be considered in con-
tracting with private firms are: the  number
of subareas into  which a given jurisdiction
should be divided; whether or not contracts
on all areas  should be let simultaneously or
staggered over time; the maximum  number
of subareas  any one contractor  should  be
allowed to service; and the length of  the con-
tract period.
  The  greater  the number of subareas into
which the jurisdiction is divided, the greater
the number of collectors the jurisdiction can
support, and the  greater the number of col-
lectors who must be available for bidding.
Care must be  taken in dividing  the juris-
diction so that  each  subarea is in  fact large
enough to support a collector. In addition, it
is desirable to  stagger  the  bidding  for the
various subareas  so that the  competition for
each is more intense.
  The number of simultaneous contracts one
firm can hold should be restricted to maintain
an adequate number of bidders in the area.
If one firm holds a large number of contracts,
the total number  of collection firms the area
will  support  is reduced, and there will  be a
smaller number of available bidders.  How-
ever, the limit  on the number of contracts
one firm can hold should not be too severe, or
the  competitive  spirit  will  be diminished
among the firms holding  current  contracts.
The  length of  the contract period can also
affect the success of the bidding process. A
contract period  that is too long can reduce the
collector's incentive to maintain high quality
service, but  the contract  should be  long
enough to allow amortization of the collection
equipment. EPA recommends a contract peri-
od of 3 to 5 years.
  Another problem that must be anticipated
in contracting with  private collectors is the
possibility of requests for midterm rate ad-
justments of a  contract. The need to adjust
a contract may arise from underbidding  by
the collector, either  deliberately or through
inaccurate  calculations  or  unforeseen cir-
cumstances   such as   severe  inflation  or
 changes in collection procedures. If such mid-
 term adjustments are relatively easy to ob-
 tain, there will be little  incentive for accu-
 rate bidding and efficient operation over the
 life of the contract. For this reason, any pro-
 cedure  for  permitting midterm adjustments
 should  be rigorous.
   To aid cities in designing a contract, EPA
 and the National Solid Waste Management
 Association (NSWMA)  have  developed a
 model contract. A copy can be obtained from
 EPA's  Office of Solid Waste Management
   Another  form of control over private col-
 lectors  under contract is complaints. A re-
 sponsive complaint procedure  that includes
 inspection and followup must be an integral
 part of administering a contract system.

      Collection of Commercial  Wastes

   Collection from commercial establishments
 (including  apartment buildings)  is handled
 primarily by private collectors in open com-
 petition. However, the survey conducted by
 the International City Management Associ-
 ation indicated that  approximately 40  per-
 cent of the cities  surveyed provided some
 commercial/industrial solid waste collection.
 In  many cases municipal  involvement in
 commercial collection  is limited to those
 stops  where  residential collection vehicles
 can be used. Establishments which  generate
 large volumes of waste and require daily col-
 lection service are usually served by private


   In examining whether public or private
 personnel,  equipment,  and facilities  should
 be used for solid waste collection, the follow-
 ing issues should be considered:  the relative
 economics and efficiencies of public or private
 ownership  or operation;  the ability  of the
 governmental  agency  to manage  a  public
 system and/or contracts; possible legal  con-
, straints on the powers of the governmental
 unit to enter into contracts for services; and
 the attitudes of the public.


APPLIED MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, INC.  The private sector in solid waste man-
          agement; a profile of its-resources  and contribution to collection and
          disposal, v.1-2.  Environmental Protection  Publication  SW-51d.l.
          Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  1973. 239 p.
KENT, C. A., R. OPPEDAHL, and L. STEVENS.  Municipal franchising and regu-
          lation; an evaluation of policy related research. Vermillion, S. Dak.,
          University of South Dakota, School of Business, Sept. 30,1974. 645 p.
Model solid  waste ordinance for local governments.  Washington,  National
          Association of Counties Research  Foundation. 1974.  23 p.
          lation concept in  solid waste management;  a  feasibility study. En-
          vironmental Protection Publication SW-54d.  [Washington],  U.S. En-
          vironmental Protection Agency, 1973.  [118 p.]
          MENT OFFICE.  Technical guides and  model contract for collection  of
          residential solid wastes. Environmental  Protection Publication SW-
          81ts.  [Cincinnati],  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  1971.
          30 p.
YOUNG, D.  How shall we collect the garbage? A study in economic organization.
          Washington, The Urban Institute, 1972. 83 p.

         Public or  Private  Ownership and  Operation
                        of  Processing  Facilities
  In planning for new solid waste processing
facilities, whether they are shredders, balers,
or resource recovery plants, communities will
be considering not only which types of facili-
ties to choose but who should own and oper-
ate  them.

  The institutional  alternatives   available
range from totally public  to totally private
ownership and operation with  variations in

  • Public. Ownership  and Operation.   A
    publicly owned and operated facility can
    be operated either by an established city
    department  or by  a  public  authority
    which is  financially self-supporting and
    administered  separately  from   other
    agencies  of  city government.
  • Public Ownership and Private  Opera-
    tion.  A  publicly owned facility could
    be operated privately either by the sys-
    tem contractor who built the facility for
    the city,  or  by an independent service
    contractor who had nothing to do with
    plant design or construction.
  • Private Ownership  and Public  Opera-
    tion.  This is a rare option but can take
    place under what financiers call a lever-
    aged lease. Therein the city could lease
    a plant from  investors who  help the
    city finance the facility in exchange  for
    formal ownership of it and the tax ad-
    vantages  such ownership brings  (see
    chapter on Capital  Financing).
  • Private Oivnership  and Private  Opera-
    tion.  Under  this approach  a  system
    contractor has full responsibility  for
    financing, design, implementation, con-
    tinued operation,  and ownership of the
    facility. In reality, this full-service con-
    tractor is offering the city a service in-
    stead of a facility. He will usually charge
    the city a dump fee for delivered solid


  While solid waste processing may be car-
ried out by either the public or private sec-
tor, it is the responsibility of the government
(usually  at  the local  level)  to  ensure that
needed facilities are available, that they are
environmentally acceptable, and that future
needs are planned for. As processing techr
nologies  become more sophisticated, cities
must take into consideration such things as
technological risk and the degree of manage-
ment expertise required  for a given project,
as well as availability and cost  of capital.
Cities must examine these factors in deciding
whether to own and operate their own fa-
cilities or have a private firm provide these
services.  The following  discussion presents
the advantages and disadvantages to a city

of involving private firms in waste process-
  One advantage associated   with private
ownership and  operation is that  the local
community does not have to finance the sys-
tem. This is important if the city's borrow-
ing power is limited.  The involvement of a
private firm also ensures that  a community
does  not bear  the entire risk  associated
with implementing new kinds of technology.
A certain degree of risk  to the city will al-
ways be  present, however, since implement-
ing a particular process, through private or
public means, usually implies forgoing some
other approach. Thus, if a system owned and
operated  by a private firm fails,  the  city
may not  lose any money directly but may
find  itself in a position of not having ade-
quate disposal facilities.
  A  potential advantage of private operation
lies in the fact that there are  private firms
which have greater expertise in management
of capital-intensive processing facilities than
most public agencies. Also, private manage-
ment tends to be more  adaptable to the needs
of new systems.  In some cities, the operation
of such  facilities by  public employees has
been unsatisfactory for a number of reasons,
including: union and civil service  rules and
pay scales that make it difficult to  hire and
promote  only  motivated and competent em-
ployees, the city's lack of necessary technical
and  marketing sophistication,  and  the lack
of profit incentives to run an efficient  opera-
tion. Also, restricted budgetary policies often
affect  equipment  replacement and mainte-
  The primary  disadvantage  of private
ownership and operation  is the limited con-
trol  the  city has over the facility.  There  is
the danger that private interests may pursue
profits in lieu of service,  and that  substand-
ard disposal practices or possible plant shut-
downs may result.

  Conditions favoring public ownership and
operation would include:
  • An  economic study  shows  this  to be
    more cost-effective.
  • The creation of public jobs is desirable.
  • Implementation may be easier because
    government ownership fits in with exist-
    ing policy.
  • Government employees are available for
    operating the facility.

  Conditions favoring private ownership and
operation would include:
  • Commercial markets are  available for
    recovered products.
  • Private  financing is preferred and can
    be obtained more efficiently.
  • An economic  study shows it to be the
    most cost-effective.
  • Local policy favors private operation.
  • A proprietary technology  is involved.
  • There is a desire to bypass civil  serv-
    ice regulations.
  • The operation requires people with ex-
    perience in that particular type  of fa-


  It is the responsibility of the public sector
to ensure that needed processing  facilities
are provided and are operated in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner, whether or not
they are actually  owned and operated by a
unit of government. In deciding between pri-
vate and  public operation and  ownership of
a given facility, a  city must evaluate factors
such as ability to raise capital, the degree of
technological risk  involved, the management
expertise required, and the  expected  oper-
ating cost.

             Practical  guidelines for  acquisition of resource recovery systems.  Bedford,
                      Mass., MITRE Corporation, Mar. 1975. 148 p., app. (Unpublished
             SHILEPSKY, A.  Resource recovery implementation; an interim report. Environ-
                      mental Protection Publication SW-152.  Washington, U.S.  Environ-
                      mental Protection Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)

                   Multijurisdictional Approaches
  Each year environmental regulations af-
fecting the management of solid waste grow
more stringent, while the  quantity of waste
increases  along with  capital  and operating
costs. Many communities are looking toward
regional approaches to solid waste manage-
ment in order to accomplish  together what
they cannot attain  alone. Regionalization
offers  a  number  of  potential  advantages
to both large and  small municipalities. For
example, cooperative procurement of equip-
ment by  an intergovernmental  entity can
frequently lead to lower  prices.  A vehicle
pool can be maintained by such an agency
while small municipalities may not be able
to afford  even one standby  vehicle. There
may be environmental, financial, and esthetic
advantages  to having one large,  properly
run landfill serving an area rather than nu-
merous, often inadequately equipped  sites,
each serving a small community in the area.
The  planning  and  development of resource
recovery plants of  economical size generally
require intergovernmental agreements; re-
gional  management of solid waste may also
be necessary in order to ensure an adequate
supply of  waste  to the plant  and to design
the  most  efficient  transportation  routes
throughout the area.
  An intergovernmental entity created for
the regional management of solid waste can
solicit and accept funding from State, Feder-
al, and  other sources; it can allocate costs
fairly among local jurisdictions; it can plan
comprehensively for transportation and land
use as well as waste  processing and dispo-
sal;  it  can  make a  systems  approach  to
resource recovery more feasible; and it can
eliminate the need for direct Federal and
State controls by being better able to meet
standards and laws. The  task  facing  local
governments  is to determine the conditions
under which  a multijurisdictional approach
is best for them, and  which type  will best
meet their needs.

  Several types  of regional organizations
that have been  created for financing and
management of solid waste systems are: (1)
public authorities, (2) nonprofit public cor-
porations, (3) multicommunity cooperatives,
and  (4)  special districts. There is  consider-
able variation among  existing organizations
in each of these categories as a result of dif-
fering local and State laws and specific needs
and  peculiarities  of the participants. The
differences between various approaches is in
the method of formation and the allowable
powers. Each type of organization is formed
under enabling legislation  of the State. The
powers of each, such as financing, operating,

regulating, and administering, may be gen-
erally described as follows.


  An authority is  a  corporate body which
usually has a charter, is authorized and ap-
proved by a State legislature, and can func-
tion  outside the regular structure of govern-
ment to  finance,  construct,  and  operate
revenue-producing public enterprises. It can
be established by municipalities and counties
and  may  have regulatory abilities, usually
limited to its own operations, if so stated in
its charter.
  Most municipalities or groups of munici-
palities establish an  authority to  provide  a
revenue-generating service when confronted
with one or more of the following situations:
  •  The constitutional debt ceiling prohibits
    financing by the municipality.
  •  Gaining voter approval for financing will
    be too time  consuming in  view of the
    urgent need for it.
  •  Political activity related to the service
    has hampered previous programs.
  •  Greater  autonomy  and freedom from
    municipal budgetary and administrative
    control will mean more efficient delivery
     of service.
  The authority is well suited for  financing
and  managing  solid  waste services. It can
raise capital dollars  from short-  and long-
term notes and from revenue bonds. It can-
not, in most States, raise capital or operating
dollars from taxes. The authority normally
does not  have power  to tax and cannot rely
on the tax base of a given political jurisdic-
tion  unless officials of that jurisdiction allo-
cate  funds.  Therefore,  the operating  funds
and a portion of the capital funds are raised
by levying charges on the users of the au-
thority's service; the charges should gener-
ate  sufficient income to make the service
  Financing  through an authority is admin-
istratively complex  because  the authority
must be  designed and approved by another-
governmental body or bodies. The ability of
the authority to raise capital depends on the
debt provisions of its  charter, and also on the
performance of its management  in day-to-
day operation and in meeting all the authori-
ty's financial obligations. The cost of capital
to an authority will depend on  what type of
debt issue is used plus how well the authori-
ty has performed. Capital  financing is  tax
  Although there are potential advantages
to establishment  of an authority,  there is a
danger that it can become remote  from gov-
ernment or public control.  Separated from
the municipal bureaucracy,  protected by a
board of directors, the authority can become
      Nonprofit  Public Corporations
  The nonprofit public corporation is similar
in many respects  to the authority as a means
of financing and managing a solid  waste sys-
tem. The creation of this corporate entity re-
quires approval of articles  of  incorporation
by member jurisdictions and by  the  secre-
tary of state or other official of the State as
designated by  law.  These corporations  are
limited  in  scope  and most  depend on local
action for all  regulatory  functions.  Using
this form of corporate body, a  city can shift
its  financing requirements  to  an organiza-
tion outside the  immediate municipal  bu-
  The major reasons for  a community to
create a nonprofit corporation to perform
solid waste services are  ease of administra-
tive and legal approval and the presence of a
long-term commercial interest in the services
  The nonprofit  corporation can be  estab-
lished by one or  more cities, counties, or by
a group of private  individuals. The  impor-
tant feature is that the  organization  is tax
exempt and can issue tax-exempt bonds. To
gain tax-exempt status, the corporation must
satisfy the following Internal Revenue Serv-
ice criteria:
   •  The city council must approve the proj-
     ect and accept the assets after  bonds
     are paid.
   •  The corporation must  agree  to give its
     assets to the city  after bonds are paid.
   •  The city must provide all easements to
     the corporation at no cost.
   •  The directors of the corporation must be
     city or State officials.

   •  The corporation must provide a public

A municipality thus has more control over a
nonprofit public corporation than  it  does
over a profitmaking firm.     .   .
   The ability of the nonprofit corporation to
raise capital depends on its ability to secure
contracts for its services and its performance
of the service, as well  as any provisions in
its charter which limit the type of debt or the
amount of debt. The cost of capital to a non-
profit corporation will depend on the type of
debt issued and the performance of the cor-
poration. In theory the  cost of capital to the
nonprofit corporation should  reflect the de-
gree of risk  perceived in  realizing revenues
because it will not have the  security of the
full faith and credit of  a  community  behind
it. Hence there  is incentive to make  invest-
ments that  are  quite certain to  work tech-
nically and  to ensure that costs  of services
are covered, at least to the break-even point,
by contracts with users.
   Many nonprofit corporations provide serv-
ices  through the private sector by contract-
ing with commercial solid waste collection
and/or disposal firms on an areawide basis.

       Multicommunity Cooperatives

   The multicommunity  cooperative is a sys-
tem  developed by one community to provide
service to itself and several other communi-
ties. The purpose is to achieve economies of
scale through better utilization   of capital
and  more efficient management.
  The approach offers several attractive fea-
tures.  It  enables member  communities  to
provide large-scale  services not otherwise fi-
nancially possible. It centralizes waste proc-
essing and disposal, and reduces the number
of small, inefficient, environmentally unsound
systems operating in the  area. Urban com-
munities with no landfill area and with limit-
ed opportunities for incineration  would ben-
efit from a regional arrangement where the
options are  broader. This approach  enables
one  political jurisdiction  to  take the lead,
while contractually bound supporting com-
munities indicate to the  financial interests
that the service  will be used and sufficient
revenues will be generated. The regulatory
functions are borne entirely by the individ-
ual local governments.
   Evaluation of  the multicommunity  ap-
proach as a financing mechanism is really an
analysis of the community which will issue
the debt in behalf of the other communities.
Although each city council must approve the
concept  and the  working  agreements,  the
ability to  raise capital will depend  on  the
lead community's debt capacity and financial
strength, which may be strained by the extra
load. Tax-exempt  status  is available  for
financing of multicommunity cooperatives.
   The multicommunity approach obviously
depends  largely on the willingness of inde-
pendent  communities to work together and,
in particular, to  let one community take a
dominant role. The process of organizing the
communities for  cooperative action is time
consuming. Where the problems can be sur-
mounted, however, the multicommunity  ap-
proach should encourage more efficient, bet-
ter quality systems.

             Special Districts

   A "special district" is an agency of govern-
ment which operates outside  the  regular
structure of government to perform usually
a single function  and which relies for finan-
cial support primarily on special tax levies.
Its creation requires the cooperation of  the
State and the political entities already exist-
ing within the region. To  implement a suc-
cessful program, the special-purpose district
must continue to be responsive to local needs
and to cooperate with local jurisdictions.
   In some  States special districts can regu-
late, levy assessments, operate, contract,  or
do whatever is necessary  to perform their
single function.
   In some instances, special-purpose govern-
ments must  be used because  of State  re-
strictions or because no other governmental
unit can  be used.  The special district has an
advantage  over the public  authority in that
the district has  a distinct constituency  of
residents, not merely a group of bondholders
living in widely scattered places.
   If a special district is used for providing
solid  waste  services, the  overall  planning
function  of the general-purpose governments
can be protected by having elected county of-

ficials  with responsibility for solid  waste
management serve as the governing body of
the new unit of government.

            Other Techniques
  Governmental agreements can be made on
a formal or informal basis. A county can, for
example, make a formal agreement with one
or many cities within its boundaries to per-
form a certain service for a predetermined
  Informal agreements between local govern-
ments are frequently made but are not ad-
visable since they can lead to misunderstand-
ing. Any initial  agreement  should  be put
down in writing in adequate detail to avoid
later disagreement.
  Agreements and contracts are without a
doubt the most widely used formal method of
cooperation  among  governments in  the
United States. They constitute a flexible yet
predictable  and enforceable approach.  They
can be used  to accommodate special program
needs  without affecting basic  structure and
organization. Consequently, needed services
can  be provided and necessary projects un-
dertaken without waiting for major decisions
on governmental reorganization, which ulti-
mately may be necessary. The ideal organi-
zational pattern may well  be  politically un-
  Another relatively simple arrangement is
the transfer of function, which occurs when
one  level of government delegates responsi-
bility for a function to another level or juris-
 diction. For example,  in  Broome County,
 few York, most of the cities and  towns
 ave agreed to transfer the function of solid
-/aste disposal  to  the county.   Similarly,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, gained
responsibility  for solid waste management
in all parts of  the county because an  in-
crease in its population caused it to  be re-
classified under the State's system.


•  •  Ability' to  finance without  regard  to
  .   local  debt ceiling and without  obtain-
     ing voter approval.
   •  Service  cannot  be hampered  by local
     political activity because board members
     are usually private citizens.
   •  Autonomy and freedom from municipal
     budgetary and  administrative  control
     means more efficient delivery of service.
   •  Can generate sufficient income to make
     service self-supporting.
   •  Capital financing  is tax exempt.
   •  Financing is administratively complex.
   •  Can become remote from government or
     public  control, thus may become self-
   •  Can compete with private industry in
     some areas of operation, reducing the
     efficiency of both.

      Nonprofit Public Corporations
   •  Financing is  outside government debt
     limits and can be obtained without voter
   •  Corporation gives assets to cities after
     bonds are paid.
   •  No  real estate  or Federal taxes,  and
     capital  financing is tax exempt.
   •  Political influence may be exerted  and
     flexibility lost because  board  members
     are city, county, and State officials.
   •  Difficult to  dismantle  even if  better
     service  becomes available.
   •  Does not have full faith  and  credit of
     communities  behind the financing.

      Multicommunity Cooperatives
   •  Achieves economies of scale because of
     better utilization of capital or more ef-
     fective contractual arrangements.
   •  Enables member  communities  to pro-
     vide service not otherwise financially or
     administratively feasible.
   •  Encourages more efficient, better quali-
     ty systems.
   •  Member communities lose some autono-
    my  in locating waste disposal sites, set-

    ting charges  for use  of  system, and
    other decisions.
  • Increased interest costs when  leading
    community  is  less  creditworthy than
    other members.
  • Leader  community could be hurt finan-
    cially  unless   proper   contractual  ar-
    rangements are  made with  member

             Special Districts
  • The district has a distinct constituency
    of  residents,  not merely  a  group  of
    bondholders living in scattered places.
  • Governments can be protected by hav-
    ing elected county officials serve as gov-
    erning body of district.
  • Powers are limited by State statute.
  • Must rely  on  special tax levies requir-
    ing voter approval.
  • Creates an additional governmental  en-
    tity removed  from  the electorate and
    thus  less responsive  to  citizens than
    directly elected entities.

        Governmental Agreements
  • Contracts present a flexible, predictable,
    and enforceable method of cooperation.
  • Basic governmental structures and  or-
  ganizations are not affected.
  • Since  no  reorganization  is required,
    much time can be saved.
Disadvantages:    '

  • It may be difficult to obtain capital fi-
    nancing since each of the communities,
    rather than a single  unit, must borrow
  • If agreements are not formalized in de-
    tail through a contract or other mecha-
    nism,   misunderstandings  may  arise
  • Since there is no single corporate body
    all  participants must reach agreement
    each time a new issue arises.


  Control of  a  multijurisdictional disposal
operation should be  such  that users have a
voice  in  decisions  affecting them, including
the location of offload points, the condition
of access roads, hours of operation, and re-
strictions on  items  received. On the other
hand, disposal operations can  be run more
efficiently if disposal managers  have some
control over the  timing and amounts of solid
waste received.  Facilities  can then be run
at efficient levels of input, and waiting lines
for offloading vehicles can  be  minimized.

  Multijurisdictional approaches can be used
to hire  better  management,  spread  unit
costs over a larger population base, thereby
taking advantage of economies of .scale,
and  avoid  costly  duplication  of  services.
Therefore, such approaches are to  be  en-
couraged wherever possible.

                            Operating Revenues
  A critical problem confronting many local
governments is the generation of operating
revenues for  solid waste management.  In
some communities, costs for solid waste man-
agement have increased  faster  than any
other municipal budget item. While most of
this cost is  attributable to increased  wages
and equipment costs, the increasing volume
of waste collected and the need to meet more
stringent environmental standards in dis-
posal operations have also been substantial
contributing factors. It is estimated that
nationally about 80 percent of costs are for
collection, 20 percent for disposal.

  Traditionally, municipally operated solid
waste  systems have been funded from tax
revenues. With increasing pressure on munic-
ipal budgets, there has been a trend toward
raising new or increased  revenues  through
"user" or "service"  charges. In the survey
conducted by the International City Manage-
ment Association of  cities over 10,000 popu-
lation, of the  631  cities responding, 41 per-
cent had a user charge  for  solid  waste
collection while 46 percent allocated operat-
ing revenues from the  general fund.  These
percentages were  about the same  for com-
munities who operated  their own collection
service and those  who  contracted  it  out to
private haulers.
  Although many communities  have insti-
tuted a service charge as the primary method
of funding their solid  waste management
system, it does not always cover total system
costs. The  ICMA survey reported  only  39
percent of the cities with service  charges
said that the charges covered  total collection
costs. Thus one can assume that supplemen-
tal  funding from  general  revenue  sources
was necessary in  the  other  61 percent of
communities with user charges.
  Communities must know their operating
costs and the level of service  desired before
they can make a rational decision on the
best means of funding.  This  information is
also necessary to  help justify  changes in
taxes or user charges to  the public.
  In the absence of a good accounting mech-
anism, costs of solid waste services tend to
be underestimated. Most of the underestima-
tion is  in  the area of overhead costs for
items such as  inspection and  enforcement
programs,  information  and education  pro-
grams,  legal and accounting  services, and
payroll  preparation. Often these items are
part of the overall  city budget and are not
apportioned to solid waste management.
  In addition, wastes of  public or nonprofit
institutions, such as schools, churches, hospi-
tals, fire stations, municipal  buildings, and
county homes, are often collected on  a gratis
basis with  no charge or accounting record.
In some communities fees  charged  to  com-

mercial establishments are the same as resi-
dential  charges,  although  a  commercial
source usually  generates  much  more  waste
than a private residence.
  A second important consideration for city
officials is  the level of service desired. Fre-
quently,  municipalities  have  directed  all
their efforts  toward  increasing  the tons of
refuse collected per man-hour in an attempt
to hold down -costs.  Switching  to curbside
service, bagged trash, and once-a-week col-
lection can lower costs  substantially. But
sanitation, appearance,  convenience,  and
public satisfaction may  also be  affected.
Many communities faced  with the need for
increased operating revenues have chosen to,
lower service as an  alternative to raising
additional  revenue or converting from gen-
eral  revenue  funding t& user charges.


              Tax Financing

  Traditionally, most municipalities funded
their solid waste system from  the general
fund whose primary source was the property
tax.  Pressed for  more operating  revenues
for solid waste services, many communities
have sought  other sources of revenue such
as the sales tax,  a municipal utility tax, or
some type  of special assessment.
  Property Tax.  Many  communities have
successfully utilized a portion of the proper-
ty tax to support the solid  waste manage-
ment system. This tax has the advantage of
being easy to administer since  no separate
billing or  collection  system  is needed, and
payment is virtually guaranteed. Also, many
citizens prefer this method of financing since
the tax is  deductible on  Federal and State
income  tax  returns.  The  primary disad-
vantage is that  solid waste is  often con-
sidered  a  low-priority item and must com-
pete with other municipal needs for funding.
Second, since solid  waste  operating costs
often are  not broken out from  other costs,
there is less incentive for efficient operation
of the system. If  cost savings are instituted,
the savings  usually  accrue  to  the general
fund rather than  the solid waste system.
  Sales Tdx.  Another possible source of
funding for  solid waste  operations is the
sales tax. This  option appears particularly
attractive in recreational areas with a high
tourist  trade. The potential  disadvantages
are  a variable  monthly income, an inade-
quate amount of income, and the voter ap-
proval that  usually must be obtained before
  Municipal Utility Tax.  A third method of
tax financing  for a solid  waste system. is a
municipal utility tax. The tax may be levied
on some or all of the  utilities in a communi-
ty whether  municipally or privately  owned.
Utilities commonly subjected to a municipal
tax  are the telephone,  electric, gas, water,
and  cable TV franchises. Use of  this  tax
eliminates billing problems, and it is more
equitable than ad  valorem taxes. Usually a
municipal utility tax can be set by ordinance
without referendum. The disadvantages may
be that the amount of income is too limited,
the income is variable, and commercial estab-
lishments  who must  contract  with  private
haulers still may pay the tax,  for a service
they do not receive.
  Special  Tax Levies.  Some  State statutes
give communities  or counties authority to
levy a special tax other than those already
mentioned.  Usually, the amount is limited
by statute and is based on the assessed valu-
ation of property; a referendum of the citi-
zens is  usually not required. It is often the
case, however, that many special  tax levy
statutes have already been instituted to cover
nonbudgeted items  such as hospitals, parks,
playgrounds, museums, etc.,  and the  solid
waste system  would  have to  compete  with
these projects for funds.

              User Charges

  Funding  solid waste  management serv-
ices  through user or service  charges is  an
equitable method if properly administered.
It allows  a community the opportunity to
establish fees  on the basis of actual costs of
collection and  disposal. Although many com-
munities charge a uniform rate, others base
their charges on the amount and kind of
service  rendered.
  A straight user charge allocates an equal
share of  the  costs  to  all users within  a
service-level group. A user receiving back-

yard  collection may pay more  than a user
receiving curbside service, but  all  backyard
users are charged  the same, regardless of
the amount  of waste  they generate.  This
type  of user charge  can  be  collected  by
adding  a separate  solid waste  charge to a
periodic utility billing or the yearly property
tax billing, or through  a  separate billing
system. To avoid added overhead cost and to
facilitate collection of bills, it is  usually pref-
erable to attach  the charge  to an already
existent billing system.  This type of user
charge  is the most efficient and least  costly
to administer.
  A progressive  user  charge represents an
attempt to  correlate  costs and service  by
charging the  resident  according to  the
amount  of waste he generates. The assess-
ment can be calculated in two ways:  (1) a
charge  for each  container collected, or (2)
a minimum  charge that would cover  col-
lection  of a certain  number of containers
plus an extra charge  for  each additional
  The first method of assessing progressive
charges  is well  illustrated  by the system
which requires that plastic bags sold by the
collection agency be used, with the charge
per bag including  both collection, and  dis-
posal  costs, as well as the cost of the bag.  On
the whole, this approach does not achieve the
objective of relating charges to costs, since
the increase in collection  costs per  addition-
al container is not a linear  one. The cost of
loading  the second  or third bag  does not
equal the cost of driving, stopping, and load-
ing the  first  bag.  Under this  system, the
high-volume user subsidizes the low-volume
  The second method  of assessing progres-
sive charges is more equitable than the first,
but it is more difficult to administer.  It  re-
quires a more complex accounting system to
keep track of customers' use of extra con-
tainers. A serious problem is controlling the
system  so that customers get billed for only
the number  of containers  they are  using
and collectors  know how many containers
are  supposed  to be  collected  from  each
customer. These administrative difficulties
can be alleviated  by use of specially marked
containers. The distribution  of  the contain-
ers provides a record of how many contain-
ers a customer  uses, and collection of only
specially marked containers guarantees that
no extra waste is collected.
  Several recent studies indicate that where
user charges are instituted or increased, the
volume of waste collected decreases. This is
because residents charged on  a volume or
container basis  have a tendency to overfill
their containers  or engage in illegal dump-
ing  to  minimize their  solid waste charge.
This can result  in loose litter, higher street
cleaning costs,  and public dissatisfaction.
  In actual practice,  user charges seldom
cover the total cost of operating a municipal
solid waste  system. Often, the citizens have
become accustomed to  a nominal service
charge  and  city officials feel  the  public
would raise strong  objections to a service
charge that actually reflects  total operating
costs. Obviously, a solid waste system which
is self-supporting is highly desirable because
money  for  replacement of  equipment, re-
pairs, etc., will  be available  and an annual
fight for additional  revenue  will not  be
  The primary  advantages of the user fee
are: localities can balance the cost of provid-
ing  the solid  waste service  with revenues,
and  citizen  awareness of the -cost can pro-
vide an impetus for more efficient operation.
Primary problems with user charges are bill-
ing,  difficulties  in  administration, and  the
fact that if they  are truly reflective of costs,
they may be too high for low-income or fixed-
income persons.
  Disposal Site Fees.  The ideal solid waste
management system would offer free use of
landfill sites. The advantage of free disposal
is that  it  encourages use, whereas charging
discourages use.  Many communities have
compromised by not charging  automobiles
and  pickup trucks while charging commer-
cial  haulers, large  trucks,  and  industrial
  In setting  fees the  total landfill  costs
should be taken into consideration. Generally
fees should be scaled according to the amount
of waste dumped. Accurate determination of
the waste load carried by each vehicle enter-
ing the disposal area can be a difficult prob-
lem. The use of scales is the most equitable

method of load determination and should be
instituted where  possible. Estimating the
weight or volume is inadequate, particularly
since compaction can vary from 400 to 1,000
pounds per  cubic  yard.  Often  fees  also
depend on  the  type  of  refuse  received;
for example fees are  charged for stumps,
brush,  tires,  and  building  and demolition
refuse because these materials are more dif-
ficult to compact and cover.

  Regardless  of the  financing  system  se-
lected, three things are essential to achieving
maximum benefits  from it.  First, accurate
cost accounting is needed to  establish and
maintain  a  cost-effective operation. Second,
the funds collected for financing the system
should be set aside in a dedicated, or  ear-
marked,  fund so that they are available as
needed  for  capital replacement  and oper-
ating expenses. Third, the revenues received
should be reflective of the cost of the service
provided. Otherwise,  not  only   may  the
amount of operating revenue be insufficient
for the service  expected,  but awareness of
the cost of  service among the users  is not
  Because of the many factors impacting on
solid  waste  management costs, none  of the
financing methods described above  can be
precisely equitable nor would some communi-
ties desire them to be. In many cases, one
sector of the population subsidizes service to
another  sector  by  paying  a price higher
than the service actually costs.

             ZAUSNER, E. R.  An accounting system for solid waste collection. Public Health
                      Service Publication No. 2033. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
                      Office, 1970. 24 p.
             ZAUSNER, E. R.  Financing solid waste management in small communities. En-
                      vironmental Protection Publication SW-57ts. Washington, U.S. Gov-
                      ernment Printing Office, 1971.14 p.

                             Capital  Financing
  Estimates of cumulative capital expendi-
tures over the next 10 years for solid waste
management range from $1.0 to $7.5 billion.
These sums will be spent to construct new
solid waste facilities and maintain  and up-
grade existing ones. This immense expendi-
ture is, in part, the  result of the  need to
conform  to new Federal and State  regula-
tions, the development  of  more  capital-in-
tensive systems, and  public demands about
the environment. Financing  these expendi-
tures has become  an increasingly  complex
and demanding task for municipalities.
  Municipalities commonly draw from two
basic sources to obtain  capital  for facilities
and equipment: borrowed funds and current
revenues. A third  alternative is to  contract
with private firms for the service and shift
the capital-raising burden  onto them. The
decision  facing the local government man-
ager is which  of  these alternatives is the
best for  his situation—the local  conditions
and needs. The decision  will be controlled by
such factors as the financial status of the
city, voter attitude, legal constraints on debt
limits or long-term contracts, and the mag-
nitude of the project to be undertaken.


  The basic sources  of capital considered
here are these:
  1.  Borrowing:
       General obligation  bonds
       Municipal revenue bonds
       Bank  loans
  2.  Current revenue capital financing
  3.  Private financing:
       Industrial  revenue  and pollution
         control revenue bonds
       Leveraged leasing


  General  Obligation Bonds.  Among  all
public   borrowing  mechanisms  available,
general obligation (GO) bonds are, in gen-
eral, the most flexible and least costly alter-
native. The issuing municipality guarantees
a GO  bond  with  its full faith and  credit
based  on its  ability to  levy on all taxable
real property such ad valorem taxes as may
be necessary to pay the  principal and inter-
est on  the bonds.
  A  GO bond issuance  requires  no  techni-
cal or  economic analysis of particular proj-
ects  to be funded.  Small projects may  be
grouped to obtain capital, making GO bonds
an ideal  funding mechanism for solid waste
facilities in  small and  medium-sized com-
  The  transaction costs  attendant upon the
issuance  of GO bonds impose a benchmark

minimum of $500,000 on the debt issuance.
Any amount below this level prohibitively
increases the "effective interest rate."
  If total capital requirements of a small or
medium-sized community are less than $500,-
000, it must adopt an alternative financing
mechanism, such as borrowing from a bank,
leasing equipment and facilities, or contract-
ing for the service from the private sector.
  Municipal Revenue Bonds.  A mechanism
that is  often used to circumvent  the  con-
straints associated with GO bond issuance is
the municipal revenue bond. A revenue bond
is issued  to finance  a  single project with
revenue-producing services.
  Revenue' bonds do not have the full faith
and  credit clause.  Rather, they pledge  the
net revenue generated by the project to guar-
antee payment. The increased risk associated
with revenue bonds yields a correspondingly
higher interest  rate. The  coupon  rates on
revenue bonds  depend strictly on  the reve-
nue-generating capacity of the project being
financed.  Revenue  bonds  require  extensive
bond circulars  describing  the economics of
the project.
  Bank  Loans.  A municipal  bank  loan
ought not to be  considered an alternative to
long-term bond financing. However, relative-
ly small-scale capital requirements  may be
met in the short run (5 years or less)  at a
low cost by securing a bank loan.
  The most typical use of bank loans in the
solid waste field has been to supply short-
term funding for rolling stock. Since interest
on a loan to a municipality is tax free to the
bank, the corresponding interest will com-
pare favorably  with the  coupon on a  GO
  Municipalities often use bank loans to sta-
bilize cash flow, and occasionally large cities
use bank notes in  anticipation of a bond
issue. The  notes,  often substantial if  ar-
ranged with a large bank,  are refinanced as
they expire. A medium-term source of fund-
ing is thus provided.
  Leasing. In lease agreements, the leasing
company  (the lessor)  purchases and  holds
title to the asset and the lessee pays rent for
the use  of it during the lease term, usually
not more  than 5 years for  equipment. Long-
er leases are often  made on land. Lease
agreements in the  solid waste area have
usually been  arranged by  local equipment
representatives, who place the financing with
either a bank or leasing company. Currently,
interest rates  on lease agreements are aver-
aging between 9  and 18 percent of the capi-
tal cost. Often, stipulations  will be included
in the contract agreement  which allow  the
city to purchase the equipment at "fair mar-
ket value" at the end of the lease.
   The use of leasing by private solid waste
companies is quite prevalent. Small private
collection  companies  that are trying to  ex-
pand  their business may find themselves in a
cash flow  bind and use this type  of financing
extensively. Leasing  is "not  so  unprofitable
for them  because the cost of leasing can be
written off as a business expense  for  tax
    Current Revenue Capital Financing
   The most common method for obtaining
capital equipment for use in a  solid waste
system has been to buy it as needed. The prin-
cipal advantage is simplicity, with no institu-
tional, informational, analytical, or legal ar-
rangements required. This method, however,
is dependent on the ability of the community
to generate surplus capital.
   In  the  solid  waste area,  current  revenue
financing  has been used mainly for collection
vehicles and selected landfill disposal  sys-
tems.  Municipalities  that  dispose  of solid
waste using landfills are usually able to main-
tain  the   system with  current  revenues.
Equipment replacement is  not likely to  be
a major expense and can be  handled  periodi-
cally.  Land can be leased or  purchased as an
investment. On the other hand, municipali-
ties requiring either extensive upgrading of
their  systems  in  the short run or a  capital-
intensive  solution to solid  waste problems
will have  to raise capital by  borrowing or by
contracting with a private firm.
            Private Financing
   A third alternative for  a community is
to contract with a  private firm for solid
waste management   services. The  private
firm  will  then raise the capital, purchase
the equipment,  and  operate  the  system.
This  approach  relieves  the  municipality
entirely of having to devote capital funds

to solid waste management and presumably
provides the most long-term flexibility.
  Industrial Revenue and Pollution Control
Revenue Bonds.  Industrial  revenue  bonds
(IRBs) and pollution control revenue bonds
(PCRBs) are issued by  a municipality for
or on  behalf  of  a private enterprise.  The
municipality technically  owns  the facility
and equipment, which it leases to the private
firm.  The  lease  payments are specified to
meet  the scheduled payments of  debt  and
interest on  the bond. The municipality thus
acts  as a vehicle through which a corpora-
tion  may obtain  low-cost financing. If pay-
ment arrangements between the corporation
and  the  municipality  are structured  as an
installment  sale,  the corporation may claim
ownership for tax purposes.  This  gives the
corporation a tax benefit in the form  of ac-
celerated depreciation  or  the investment tax
credit, which should be  reflected  in  lower
service fees charged to the  municipality.
  The major  distinctions between  the  two
types of  bonds are (1)  the IRBs are limited
to $5 million in the amount of capital that
they can be used to raise while PCRBs have
no such limit, and (2) capital raised through
IRBs  must be for industrial development
while PCRBs must finance pollution control
  In  the solid  waste field, PCRBs  have
seldom been used.  There  are  administrative
complexities, and broadly defined tax guide-
lines frequently require IRS rulings  which
may delay financing by 6 months. Solid waste
disposal and resource recovery facilities gen-
erally qualify as  pollution control  projects
under section 103c of the IRS regulations,
but at this time it is not clear whether entire
systems of certain types  will qualify. This
ambiguity may inhibit the broadest applica-
tion of PCRBs to finance  resource recovery
systems.  •
  Another major stumbling block for PCRBs
concerns a community's ability to sign long-
term contracts with corporations, guarantee-
ing a minimum supply of solid waste. While
the security of  these issues  requires long-
term agreements, many States prohibit com-
munities from entering into long-term serv-
ice contracts.
  Leveraged Leasing. Leveraged leasing is
technically not a financial instrument. Rather
it is a financial package that combines several
financial options. The concept is based upon
the benefits (lower long-term capital and in-
terest costs) that accrue to a city if a finan-
cial  intermediary, a  corporation or  indi-
vidual, is  interposed between a  long-term
source of capital and the  municipality.
  Leveraged leasing, using tax-exempt funds
as a debt source, is a new concept that has
been  applied only twice in the  public  sec-
tor.  Its future,  however,  is promising  and
it has stirred a great deal  of interest  in the
public financing investment community.
  Leveraged  leasing  is   a  most complex
mechanism to initiate. It involves two  major
participants, a financial intermediary (les-
sor) and a city (lessee) (Figure 2). It differs
            long-term capital source
                                                                 Operating company
Supplies 60-80%
of capital at market

Debt service
Owns equipment
Equity interest 20-40%
expense (or
lax purposes
Services debt with
Return on equity
tax benefits and
excess of lease
payments over debt
Lease payments

Obtains equipment
at capital cost below
Committed to
long-term lease

                 FIGURE 2. A typical leveraged leasing  structure uses a financial inter-
             mediary to transfer the capital from the capital source. The intermediary leases
             the equipment bought with the capital  to the operating company and uses the
             lease payments to  service the debt to the capital source.  Source: RESOURCE
             PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. Financing  methods for solid  waste facilities. U.S.
             Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 376 p. (Distributed by National Tech-
             nical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-234 612.)

from traditional leasing  in  that both the
lessor and the city provide capital funds to
purchase the asset. Usually, the lessor puts
up 20 to 30  percent of the cost of the asset,
and the city finances  the remaining  portion
through a typical borrowing method.
  The  financial intermediary  acquires the
tax advantages of ownership, and therefore
can pass on to the city a very low  interest
rate (lower  than GO  bond interest rate) on
his share of the cost of the asset. The inter-
mediary is able to provide funds to a  munici-
pality at a very low interest rate  because he
is the owner of the entire facility  from a tax
standpoint and he can depreciate  the invest-
ment and, in addition, claim  a 7-percent in-
vestment tax credit if the facility  is run by a
private  corporation. Essentially,  the depre-
ciation and tax credit  act to shelter the finan-
cial  intermediary's  other  income,  which
allows him to receive an adequate after-tax
return  on  his  initial investment  in the
  The characteristics  of each mechanism for
financing solid waste systems should be ex-
amined  so that the means best suited to the
particular community will be selected (Table
         General Obligation Bonds
Advantages :
  • One of the most flexible and least costly
    public borrowing methods
  • Requires no technical  or economic analy-
    sis of particular projects to be funded
  • Small projects may be grouped to obtain
  • Ideal mechanism  for small and medium-
    sized communities
  • Least difficult to  market
  • Requires  voter approval, and elections
    may be  expensive
  • Must not  exceed  municipality's debt
  • Issuing jurisdiction must have power to
    levy ad  valorem property taxes
  • Transaction costs impose a  benchmark
    minimum  of  $500,000  on amount of
    debt issuance
  • Capital raised becomes part of general
    city treasury, thus other city  expendi-
    tures  could  draw  on  amount,  unless
    specifically earmarked for solid waste
  • Since  careful project evaluation is not
    required,  decision-makers  may be un-
    aware of  technological and economic
  • Ease of raising capital is a deterrent to
    change in existing  public/private man-
    agement mix;  little incentive  for offi-
    cials to consider use of private system

        Municipal Revenue Bonds


  • Project revenues guarantee  payment
  • Can be used by institutions lacking tax-
    ing power, such as regional  authorities
    and nonprofit corporations
  • Relatively low interest  cost because in-
    terest  on debt is tax exempt
  • Does not require voter  approval
  • Is  not constrained by municipality's
    debt limitations

  • Effective minimum issue is  $1  million,
    thus  only  useful  for capital-intensive
  • Information  requirements of the bond
    circular are extensive, which may cause
    delays in raising capital
  • Technical  and  economic  analysis   of
    project must be  performed by experts
    outside the municipal government
  • Cost is higher than for GO bonds
  • Can be used only for specific projects

               Bank Loans
  • Small-scale  capital requirements for
    short-term funding (5 years or less)
  • Relatively low interest  cost because in-
    terest  paid by municipality is  tax free
    to bank
  • Some medium-term  funding applicabil-
    ity since  notes  may be  refinanced  as
    they expire
  • Source of funds on short notice

                                                                            TABLE  14

Types of financing
Complexity of

Ability to
raise capital

Cost of capital

Constraints on use

General obligation
No project informa-
tion required
No project analysis
Short lead time

Minimum $500,000
due to fixed transac-
tion costs but can
combine several
smaller unrelated

Function of commu-
nity credit, not a

Lowest interest rates
for long-term capital
Interest cost 2-3 per-
cent less than cor-
porate bonds
Indirect costs hiclude
bond counsel and
possibly financial con-
sultant, but costs are
relatively low

Voter approval often
Legal debt ceiling
may exist
Can only be used by
jurisdictions with
taxing powers

Municipal revenue
Most complex
Bond circular must
contain detailed eco-
nomic and technical
information that has
been certified by out-
n n

Requires more time
to arrange

Minimum $1,000,000
due to heavy fixed
istrative costs
In pure form, not
suited for technologi-
cally risky projects
Maximum is function
of projected project

Somewhat higher
than general obliga-
tion bond
Is directly related to
the probability of
maintaining adequate
Municipality can min-
imize cost of capital
by giving revenue
bond the risk attri-
butes of a general
obligation bond
Indirect costs higher
than for general ob-
ligation issue
Can be used only for
specific projects
Good only for rela-
tively large amounts
of long-term capital
Must be managed by
district authority or
Requires stable, long-
term source of reve-

Municipal bank
Less complex than
bonds, particularly if
community has bank
line of credit
Very short lead time
No need for external
advice or certification

Absence of heavy
fixed transaction
costs makes it useful
for smaller dollar
Maximum limited by
lending capacity of
Better for short- and
medium-term loans
than bond
Similar to general
obligation bond, in
terms of risk and
security but affected
by loan size and

Shorter loan terms
than bonds
Smaller dollar
amounts than bonds

Relatively simple
Minimal analysis
Very short lead time

Good for small short-
term (5-year) loans
Applicable to specific
pieces of equipment,
especially rolling

High effective annual
interest (9-18 per-
Same rate for private,
public lessees

Short term
Small dollar amounts
State-imposed restric-
tions on municipali-
ties about signing
multi-year noncan-
cellable leases

Current revenue
capital financing
Least complex of
municipal finance

Current revenue often
not available in
amounts necessary
for major capital

No legal constraints
Economic constraint
of amount of avail-
able capital

Private financing
Problems may include
locating acceptable
firm, negotiating con-
tract and proposed
facilities site, public
job reductions, other
organizational or
management issues
Technical and eco-
nomic analysis per-
formed by private
Depends on credit
rating of firm and
soundness of project
Firms may be limited
to smaller amounts
of capital than mu-
nicipality with gen-
eral obligation bond

Higher for private
firm than for munici-
Could be lowered
through mechanisms
like industrial reve-
nue bond or leveraged

Legal constraint
against communities
signing long-term
noncancellable con-
Insufficient profit po-
tential to compensate
firm for risk
Administrative legal
complexities of poten-
tial mechanisms (in-
dustrial revenue bonds
and leveraged leasing)
Mechanisms available
do not benefit mar-
ginal firms
Leveraged leasing
Legally complex
New to public finance
May require IRS rul-
ing in beginning.
therefore requires 6-
month lead time

Raises 20 to 50 per-
cent of the capital
In pure form, not
suited for technologi-
cally risky projects
Good potential

If city provides the
remaining 50 to 80
percent capital re-
quired for the project.
the cost of the money
is lower than with
general obligation
bond financing
Indirect costs ab-
sorbed by lessor

State restrictions on
city's signing multi-
year contracts
Public decision-
makers unfamiliar
with concept

   • RESODBCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC.  Flnnnclnc methods for solid waste facilities.  D.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1974. 376 p.  (Distributed by National  Technical
Information Service. Springfield. Virginia, as PB-234 612.)

   • No external technical or economic anal-
     ysis required
   • Essentially no  minimum
   • Relatively inexpensive
   • Voter approval generally not required
   • No debt ceilings '  -•••- -
   • Can be used by institutions lacking tax-
     ing  power


   • Low maximum
   • Short term
   • Not  useful  for capital-intensive proj-



   •. Useful as interim  financing for equip-
     ment  needed before appropriations  or
     long-term capital arrangements  can  be
   • Reduces demand on municipal  capital
     outlays since original capital is raised
     by private corporation
   • Negotiating  agreement  is  simple  and
   • Only certification required is assurance
     of municipality's credit standing


   • Relatively high annual  interest  rate
     (9-18 percent)
   • Amount of capital  is usually limited
   • Lease terms  are generally 5  years
   • Some  States  prohibit  municipalities
    from entering multiyear, noncancellable
   •  City will  not own  asset unless  it pur-
    chases facility upon completion of leas-
    ing period

    Current Revenue Capital Financing


   • Least  complex  mechanism  available
   • No need for formal financial  documents
   • No consultant or legal advice required

   • No cost in the  conventional  sense, but
    higher taxes result
   • Communities frequently lack ability to
     generate surplus capital
   • Current taxpayers have to pay for the
     entire capital cost of a system that will
     be used far into the future
   • Solid waste projects must  compete with
     other municipal demands

             Private Financing


   • Municipality need  not borrow capital
   • Provides long-term flexibility for mu-

Constraint's: .^

   • Municipality ^must  locate  acceptable
     firm and negotiate-contract
   • Higher cost  of capital reflected in sys-
     tem charges
   • There  may  be legal  constraints  pre-
     venting  signing of  long-term contract
   • There may be displacement of city em-

            Leveraged Leasing


   • Reduces demand on  municipal capital
   • Interest rate  on entire financial  pack-
     age may be lower than GO bond  rates


   •  Legally complex
   •  City will not own  asset unless it pur-
     chases facility upon completion of lease


   When  comparing costs  of  different fi-
nancial mechanisms,  it  is important  that
one not fall into the trap of just reviewing
coupon  (interest)  rates. Coupon  rates un-
derstate the true costs  a  city must pay on
the capital it borrows.  Rather, the munici-
pality should compare  the  effective interest
cost and the debt service rate on the funds
it  finances. A comparison of costs of raising
$10  million  through  GO  bonds, municipal
revenue  bonds, and  revenue'  bonds  with

leveraged leases shows how the effective debt
service rate  differs from  the coupon rate
and is the significant variable in assessing
capital costs  (Table 15).

  Because of its simplicity, current revenue
financing is.the means most commonly used
by  municipalities  to  finance  collection  ve-
hicles  and landfill  disposal systems.  This
method, however, is dependent on the ability
of the community to generate surplus capi-
tal.  Thus  it  is frequently inadequate  for
capital-intensive projects.
  For a project requiring  capital in  excess
of  $500,000,  a  GO bond  is  probably  the
quickest and  easiest mechanism, provided it
has voter  support and does not exceed the
legal  debt limit.
  For projects requiring capital in excess of
$1 million, the municipal revenue bond may
be a desirable source of financing. Although
it is  a complex approach  and  may  take a
great deal of time to  arrange, it forces the
community to  plan carefully,  to  design a
low-risk project, and to conduct a thorough
economic  analysis  in order  to  assure the
necessary  revenue-generating  capability.
  Finally, leveraged leasing should be con-
sidered as a source  of long-term asset fi-
nancing.   Its  disadvantages—newness  and
complexity of application—seem to be more
than  offset by the potential cost sayings to
the municipality.
                                           TABLE 15


                                          (in thousands)

Front-end costs
Rating agency fees
Commission to underwriter
Counsel to underwriter
Counsel to city
Bond counsel
Accountants' fees
Initial trustee fees
Printing and engraving
Third party
Debt service reserve
Election costs
Net proceeds to city
Yearly cost to city §
Effective debt service rate fl

bond (5.7%)

$ 230
$ 848

bond (6.25%)

$ 883
Revenue bond/

$ 904
$ 788
                  * Costs for industrial revenue and pollution control revenue bonds  are not
              detailed, since all costs are passed through to the involved corporation.  The as-
              sumed interest rate for each debt instrument  was arbitrary. The actual rate
              will vary according to the credit-worthiness of  a project (or city) and the cur-
              rent capital market conditions.
                  t $7 million by revenue bond, $3 million by lessor.  The interest rate is the
              weighted average  cost of capital for the financial package.
                  J Election costs are unknown.
                  § This is the  dollar amount the city would have to pay to retire and  pay
              the interest on the debt. It was assumed that a city made steady payments for
              the life of the financing to retire the, debt. The payments would be made semi-
              annually for 30 years.
                  fi The effective debt service rate is the yearly percentage cost to the city.
              This is calculated by dividing the yearly cost  (interest plus debt retirement)
              by the net proceeds a city receives.


RANDOL, R.  Resource recovery plant implementation guide; financing. Environ-
          mental Protection Publication SW-157.4. Washington, U.S. Environ-
          mental Protection Agency, 1975. (In press.)
RESOURCE  PLANNING ASSOCIATES.  Financing methods for solid waste facilities.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 376 p. (Distributed by
          National Technical  Information Service, Springfield, Va., as  PB-
          234 612.)

      conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
      conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, ,
                              Point of  Collection
  Probably the aspect of level of collection
service most apparent to the average resi-
dent is the point of collection, that is, where
the waste is picked up. The decision on this
issue affects other aspects of the collection
system design such as crew size and storage
and is ultimately a controlling factor in  the
cost of providing the collection service.


  The main issue is  who should be  the  one
to carry the refuse  from the house to  the
curb. There are two basic options:

  1.  Curbside/alley  collection,   which  re-
quires the resident to place the solid waste
at the curb or alley for collection  and to
retrieve  any empty  storage containers.
  2.  Backyard  collection,  which  usually
takes one of four forms:
  Tote barrel—the  collectors walk to  the
    storage containers and empty them into
    an intermediate container,  leaving  the
    storage containers in place.
  Set  out—the collectors carry  the refuse
    in the  storage  containers  to the curb
    for collection, and the resident retrieves
    the containers.
  Set out and set back—the collectors carry
    the refuse  containers to the curb for  col-
    lection and return them to their storage
  Satellite  vehicle  system — small-capacity
    vehicles are used to traverse long dis-
    tances  between the refuse  containers
    and the larger vehicle  (e.g., street  to
    backdoor via driveway).
  Approximately  60  percent  of the  col-
lection  systems in  the United States are
curbside and alley; 40 percent  are back-
yard. Recent trends, as  evidenced  in  St.
Petersburg  and  Tampa, Florida;  Atlanta,
Georgia;  Fort Worth, Texas; and  Akron,
Ohio, are away from backyard and toward
curbside.   Some  communities  provide  a
choice  of  curb  or  backyard  service  and
charge  a different rate for each.

  Time spent walking back and forth from
curb to backyard is costly, and cost factors
have brought pressures for greater efficien-
cy in solid  waste collection.  Curbside/alley
collection yields the  highest productivity.
A savings  of 50  to 55  percent  may  be
achieved  by  using curbside/alley   rather
than backyard collection (Table  16).

            Fuel  Consumption
  Fuel  consumption for residential packer
trucks is as much a function of time  (hours

of usage)  as miles driven. For many hours
each  day,  the trucks  idle their engines on
the route  while the collectors are handling
wastes (particularly in backyard  service);
also,  the  hydraulic compaction mechanism
consumes  substantial  amounts of fuel.  In-
deed,  figures for  truck  usage in curbside
systems show 42.6  percent of the time is
spent  idling  on route, 20.7 percent in  on-
route  driving,  30.3  percent  in   off-route
transport  and dumpirig, and 6.4  percent in
compaction.  For  backyard  systems  idling
time  is even more (61 percent),  while off-
route transport and dumping (21 percent,;,
on-route  driving  (13  percent),  and  com-
paction (5 percent) times are less.
  Since  trucks  in curbside  systems  spend
more time  driving and compacting and less
time idling, they consume slightly more fuel
per day than trucks in backyard systems. The
curbside trucks, however, serve  more homes
and collect more tons per day, and therefore
fewer  trucks  are  required.  Conversion of
three-man  backyard  systems to three-man
curbside systems produces  an average  sav-
ing of 40 percent in fuel consumption (Table
                                           TABLE 16

                              AND INCENTIVE SYSTEM IN 4 CITIES, 1973*
8 hours
8 hours
Point of
Cost per
                 *ACT SYSTEMS, INC. Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary.
              Environmental Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington],  U.S. Environ-
              mental Protection Agency, 1974.  106 p.
                 t Labor  rates for the cities  have been normalized to permit intersystem
              comparisons; therefore, these figures do not reflect actual collection costs.
                                           TABLE 17

Once per
Twice per week
Back- Curb-
yard side
                    10     6
Trucks required      8574
Gasoline consumed
per day if all trucks
are gas (gal)       320    200    280   160    480    280    400    240
Diesel fuel consumed
per day if all trucks
are diesel (gal)     192    120    168    96    288    168    240    144
   * GRECO,  J.  R.  Transfer station feasibility  is measured  against direct
haul. Solid Waste Maiutgement, 17(4) :12, 75, Apr. 1974.
   t The following is assumed:
        (1) In once-per-week backyard service each truck makes 260 stops/ day.
           In twice-per-week backyard service each truck makes 350 stops/day.
           In once-per-week curbside service each truck makes 450 stops/day.
           In twice-per-week curbside service each truck makes 600 stops/day.
           Each diesel truck uses 24 gallons of fuel per day.
           Each gasoline-powered truck uses 40 gallons per day.
                     (7)  All systems use three-man crews.
                     (8)  All systems use same routing pattern.

17).  Change of  crew  size  in  addition to
change of  point  of collection  would  alter
productivity  and  thus  affect  the  savings
which could be expected. Changing  of  rout-
ing  patterns can  also  affect the  expected
saving. For example,  a change from  two-
sides-of-the-street  collection  to one-side-pf-
the-street collection could almost double the
on-route travel distance and therefore  in-
crease fuel  consumption  per truck.

            Effect on Collectors

  Due to the greater distances the waste
must  be carried,  backyard  collection is
physically  more demanding than  curbside
collection. The result is that many backyard
collection systems have  a  difficult time  re-
cruiting  collectors  and  have a high  turn-
over  rate.  In addition, the greater risk of
backstrain  and the hazards  in yards  from
such  things  as clotheslines,  holes  in the
ground,  objects in  the grass  (toys, rakes),
and  dogs, increases the rate  of collector in-
juries in backyard collection systems.

            Separation of Wastes

  If citizens  are required  to separate  their
solid  waste, the different  classes of waste
will  normally be  collected separately.  It is
not necessary to use the same point of collec-
tion for  all  waste types; for example, news-
print could  be picked up  at the curb or  alley
and  other refuse  at the backdoor.  Because
backyard collection costs more and separate
collection of  reusable  items is usually  in-
tended to be  as self-supporting as possible,
curbside/alley collection is recommended for
these wastes.
   Separate  collection of  newspapers  and
other  materials will substantially  increase
fuel consumption, but the energy saved when
the  materials  are recycled  (compared  to
manufacturing with  virgin raw materials)
typically  offsets the additional fuel require-

           Effects  on Residents

   In some communities, citizens will express
a  preference for  backyard  collection even
though it costs more. In these communities,
the  true  cost  difference between backyard
and  curb/alley collection  should  be  calcu-
lated and made known so  that the  effect of
choosing,  the  more costly service  is  well
   In other communities, where curbside/al-
ley service is the custom, the effects of  this
policy  on the aged and handicapped should
be  examined.  In  cases  where individuals
are unable to carry their waste to the curb,
special service should be arranged.


   On the basis of increased  efficiency  and
productivity, fuel conservation, better labor
force stability  (less absenteeism and turn-
over) ,   and reduced  injuries to collectors,
EPA recommends collection from   curbside
or alleys  rather than from backyards. This
recommendation is included in the collection
guidelines being promulgated by the EPA.

             ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary. En-
                      vironmental Protection Publication SW-97c.l.  [Washington], U.S.
                      Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
             ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems; final  report, v.2. Detailed
                      study and analysis. Environmental Protection Publication SW-97c.2.
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 254 p. (Distributed by
                      National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239
             NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRODUCTIVITY.  Opportunities for improving produc-
                      tivity in solid waste collection; report of the Solid Waste Management
                      Advisory Group. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
                      46 p.        •
             SHUSTER, K. A. Fuel conservation in solid waste management. Virginia Town
                      & City, 9(12): 7-9, Dec. 1974.

                         Frequency  of Collection
  For health and esthetic reasons, the mini-
mum acceptable frequency of collection for
residential waste containing food  wastes
and  other putrescible material  is  once  a
week. In  certain situations, particularly in
inner-city areas, more  frequent  service is
required because of  dense  population  and
seriously  restricted  storage  space.


  There are three acceptable choices of col-
lection  frequency:  once  a  week,  twice  a
week, and more than twice a week.  It is
estimated that 50 percent of the  urban sys-
tems have once-a-week  service.  They are
concentrated  on the West Coast, the  Mid-
west, and the Northern States. Systems with
twice-a-week  collection are primarily in the
Southern  (especially  Southeastern) States
and  account  for approximately  45 percent
of the urban systems. More frequent service
is provided in  about 5 percent  of urban
communities. Sometimes such service is pro-
vided only to particularly  crowded neigh-
borhoods; some parts of New  York  City
receive  daily or twice-daily  collection.

  An increase in frequency of collection will
naturally  increase costs due to the greater
use of  labor  and equipment. A comparison
of collection costs for four cities shows that
savings of 13 to 39 percent may be made
by collecting once a week rather than twice
a week (Table 18).

  The  primary  advantage  of once-a-week
over twice-a-week collection is that it costs
less and  uses  less fuel.  For relatively  effi-
cient systems, 23 to  33 percent  fewer ve-
hicles  are  required  for once-a-week  col-
lection.   Fuel   consumption  is   about  30
percent less. The reduction in trucks, man-
power, and miles driven can cut costs by as
much as  50 percent.
  The  advantage  of  more  frequent  col-
lection  is that it reduces littering in  urban
areas and  reduces  the amount  of  space
required  for storing solid waste.


             Fly Generation
  Studies in  California have shown that
frequency of collection can be an  important
factor in the control  of  flies,  with twice-a-
week collection more effective in fly control
than once-a-week collection. However, con-
trol of  flies  is  more closely linked to proper
selection  and  maintenance of storage con-
tainers than to frequency of collection. Use
of proper containers to retard fly production

                                            TABLE 18

                                       IN FOUR CITIES, 1973*f
Frequency of
Cost per
                   * ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems,  v.l. Report summary.
               Environmental  Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
               mental Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
                   t Using task incentive system.
                   J Labor rates for the cities have been normalized to permit  intersystem
               comparisons; therefore, these figures  do not reflect  actual collection costs.
 makes  once-a-week
collection  of  garbage
            Separation of Wastes
   When citizens  are  required  to  separate
 their solid waste, a frequency should be set
 for each waste category. For instance, news-
 print may be collected once a month, while
 other household refuse is  collected once a
 week. Each decision on frequency should be
 made independently,  taking into considera-
 tion the characteristics and storage require-
*ments of each waste type.

   In  determining  frequency  of  collection,
 the following major  factors must be  taken
into  account:  sanitation,  collection  costs,
fuel consumption, and the storage facilities
available to the  residents.  In old,  crowded
inner-city neighborhoods, for example,  the
inadequacy of the  storage facilities for the
amount of waste generated makes  relative-
ly frequent collection  necessary. The EPA
collection  guidelines state that  solid  waste
that  includes food wastes should  be  col-
lected at least  once every 7  calendar days.
Apart from this the  guidelines  recommend
that collection frequency should be the mini-
mum consistent with public health and safety
in order to keep down collection costs  and
fuel  consumption.  In  general, once-a-week
collection of combined wastes  should be ade-
quate except in certain inner-city areas.

               ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.l.  Report summary. En-
                        vironmental Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington],  U.S.
                        Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
               ACT SYSTEMS,  INC.  Residential  collection systems, v.2. Detailed study and
                        analysis. Environmental Protection Publication SW-97c.2.  U.S. En-
                        vironmental Protection Agency, 1975. 254 p. (Distributed by National
                        Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239  917.)
               NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRODUCTIVITY.  Opportunities for  improving produc-
                        tivity in solid waste collection; report of the  Solid Waste Manage-
                        ment Advisory Group. Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Office,
                        1973. 46 p.
               SHUSTER, K. A. Fuel conservation in solid waste management. Virginia Town
                        & City, 9(12) :7-9, Dec. 1974.
               U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Residential,  commercial  and  in-
                        stitutional solid wastes; proposed guidelines for storage and collec-
                        tion. Federal Register 40(134): 29404-29408, July 11, 1975.

                             Storage Containers
  To choose the best storage containers for
a collection system, the effects on the users,
public  health, and collection  efficiency have
to be considered. Proper containers can save
collectors' energy,  increase the speed of col-
lection, and  possibly  reduce crew size in
some communities. Once selected, the types
of containers that residents may use should
be denned either  by  ordinance or  regula-
tion, and citizens  should  be. informed of
what is expected of them and why.


  There are five main  categories of contain-
  1.  Stationary storage bins are permanent,
     immovable  structures  used either to
     surround another type of container or
     for direct storage of solid waste.
  2.  Fifty-five-gallon   drums  are   large,
     heavy,  cylindrical containers,  usually
     having  no  lids.   They  are  commonly
     discarded oil  or chemical drums.
  3.  Containers  designed  for  mechanized
     collection come in a  great variety of
     shapes  and  sizes and are used  with
     specialized   collection  vehicles;  they
     eliminate the manual loading of solid
     waste into the vehicle.
  4.  Standard, lightweight, 20- to 32-gallon
     metal or plastic cans are readily moved
     rigid containers which  normally come
     equipped with lids.
  5. Paper and plastic bags are usually used
     as liners for  rigid  containers.  These
     are discussed  separately, in the next


          Stationary Storage Bins

  Stationary storage  bins  (most frequently
made of concrete)  are inefficient  and un-
sanitary and  sometimes  constitute  a fire
hazard.  They   require  the  collectors  to
carry  out  the  time-consuming,  hazardous,
and  costly procedure  of shoveling the solid
waste  out by hand. Usually  they are hard
to clean out and are not covered properly.
Such bins are usually found at  apartment
buildings and  low-income housing projects.
A combination  of  the inadequacies of the
bins plus insufficient maintenance  or care-
less  use frequently leads  to  a severe  litter
problem around  the bins.
  When the bins are used to house remov-
able containers, the waste is easier to  collect
but pieces of it usually fall into the bins, and
then both the bins  and containers  must be
  For these reasons it is recommended that
the use of stationary bins be discontinued.

          Fifty-five-Gallon Drums

  A remnant of the backyard burning era,
55-gallon  drums continue  to be  used  as
waste containers in many areas. Their  use
causes health and  safety problems  to  the
collectors  as well as  to  the  general  public,
and  they  contribute to lower collection effi-
ciency and  higher  costs. Most of the diffi-
culty stems from  their  weight  and  the
absence  of  lids.   The  drums  themselves
weigh  35  to 40 pounds  and  so can  nearly
double the  total weight usually  lifted  by
collectors. This  increases the risk of back
injury and  muscle strain.  The  size  and
shape of the drums also contribute to diffi-
culty in handling;  a  drum that  slips or is
dropped can cause  serious injury. Also, the
drums are  rarely  covered  and so  collect
rain and  snow, adding  even more  weight.
This moisture causes the waste to stick to
the drum, requiring manual handling of the
waste itself.
  Coverless drums  also cause health,  safety,
and  odor  problems.   During  the  summer
months, insects  can breed in the waste. If
rainwater works its way to  the bottom  of
the  drum,   the metal   eventually   rusts
through, allowing rodents  to  feed from  the
containers.  As the rust progresses, sharp
edges are formed which  can injure the col-
lector as well as others.
  Since the drums are  heavy,  many col-
lectors resort to the  hazardous practice of
picking out  the waste by hand, or they may
leave the waste for the next  collection.
  Because they  are inefficient storage  con-
tainers  and  could cause health and  safety
problems, EPA  recommends  that 55-gallon
drums not be utilized as  solid waste storage

   Containers for Mechanized Collection

  Mechanized collection  from bulk contain-
ers has long been  regarded as an efficient
and  acceptable way of servicing apartment
buildings  and commercial  establishments.
Several of the more efficient residential solid
waste  systems  in  the  United States  use
clustered storage and mechanized pickup  by
which more than one residence can be serv-
iced  per stop. Scottsdale, Arizona,  uses  80-
gallon  plastic containers for  single-family
units, and 300-gallon  plastic containers  in
alleys for four  units.  Both types  of  con-
tainers  are emptied mechanically by a ve-
hicle with an  arm controlled by the driver,
who never has to leave the cab. An interest-
ing sidenote about clustering wastes is  that
containers for two families are  not as ac-
ceptable to residents  as  four-family  con-
tainers, since  in the first case  each  resident
knows  whose  waste is  whose,  while in the
second,  anonymity is preserved. People also
tend to  oppose even the temporary storage
of other people's solid waste on their prop-
  Where  there  are proper storage areas
and  sufficient access space, and economic
analysis  shows  a  cost savings  could  be
achieved,  mechanized  collection  should  be
considered.  Further  discussion   of   such
specialized collection systems is provided in
the chapter,  Residential Collection Equip-
ment and Crew  Size.

           Metal or Plastic Cans
  The  most commonly  used  storage  con-
tainer is the rigid galvanized metal  or plas-
tic  can.  These  containers are  acceptable
when  they  are  lightweight,   not  rusted
through or cracked, kept reasonably clean,
and have tight-fitting  lids. Containers  out-
side the 20- to 32-gallon range are usually
not acceptable.  Use of many  smaller  cans
at each  stop increases the handling  time re-
quired   to  load  the  refuse into the truck
while the use  of larger or heavier  cans in-
creases  the weight the men have to lift.

          Other  Types of Storage

  Use of  subterranean containers should  be
discouraged. They are extremely difficult for
the collectors  to lift out of the ground, and
in the winter  they can freeze to the ground,
making it impossible  to collect  them.  The
extra time it  takes to handle these  contain-
ers lessens efficiency  and  increases costs.
Maintaining the pits is  difficult. Loose ref-
use can get down around  the  can  and  into
the pit,  attracting insects and  rodents.
  Makeshift'containers, such  as cardboard
boxes, can also present problems because of

awkward shape  or size,  or flimsiness, or
because they do not tightly enclose wastes.
Regulations on acceptable  sizes and weights
should be  set  so  as  to safeguard  the col-
lectors and prevent excessive slowdown of
the work by the handling of awkward items.


              Fly Generation

  Control  of  flies  is  closely linked to the
adequacy of solid waste storage. If the stor-
age  containers  are kept  reasonably  clean
and  have tight-fitting  lids,  and if all house-
hold wastes  are  kept in  such containers,
the problem of flies will be minimized.

           Separation of Wastes
  If the householder is required to separate
his solid waste, there may be  a significant
impact on storage. With  the exception of
newsprint, which can be bundled and stored
without containers, any separation of either
food  wastes or reusable materials will re-
quire extra storage  containers and  space.
This  can become a problem if more than
two or three  categories of  wastes are  to
be  stored  separately,  or if the  collection
frequency  is low, such as once a month.

  Whatever type  of  storage  container  is
chosen, all  solid waste  should  be  stored  so
that it  does not constitute a fire, health,  or
safety hazard or provide food or harborage
for insects or rodents.
  For  multiunit  collection, EPA  recom-
mends the use of bulk  containers designed
for mechanized collection. Individual hous-
ing units should  use  properly maintained,
lightweight metal or plastic cans of no more
than 35 gallons in volume, or paper and plas-
tic bags as  described in the  following chap-

             U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Residential, commercial and in-
                      stitutional solid wastes; proposed guidelines for storage and collec-
                      tion. Federal Register 40(134) :29404-29408, July 11, 1975.

                          Paper and Plastic  Bags
  Collection of residential solid waste is a
labor-intensive activity, and the method of
solid waste storage used by residents can
have important implications for the  choice
of equipment and crew size used in a system.
In recent years, paper and plastic bags have
been increasing in popularity both as liners
for rigid containers and as storage contain-
ers. Household refuse compactors have also
recently  emerged,  as  a  volume-reducing
storage device; these  utilize either a plastic
or paper bag as a liner.


  Any bag selected to be part of a collection
system  should  meet  National Sanitation
Foundation standards. For plastic bags, the
standards  include resin used, strength  at
folds and seals, film thickness including toler-
ances, film  strength, bag dimensions, weight,
and closures. The paper bag standards  in-
clude material used, adhesives, tape, thread,
capacity, and strength.  In addition to these
standards,  the  EPA storage and  collection
guidelines  require that plastic bags not be
made  of polyvinyl chloride, and recommend
that they have at least a 2-mil thickness to
avoid  punctures and  tears.
  Currently plastic bags are used more fre-
quently than paper bags because  they cost
less. However, during the 1974 energy crisis
many solid waste systems that were depend-
ent on  plastic  bags, which are petroleum-
based products, had difficulty in  obtaining
them. Because  of the general shortage of
plastics the industry was able  to be selective
about what products they would make and
who they would sell them to.  Because most
cities had procurement  requirements such
as year-long contracts and special specifica-
tions, the plastics industry preferred to sell
to other customers with  more flexible pro-
curement policies. As  a result,  some cities
had  difficulty receiving  bids  for  the bags
they needed. To prevent this situation from
recurring, collection agencies which  have
bag-dependent systems may have to be more
flexible  in their bid specifications and allow
for contracts with  price  escalation clauses,
shorter-term contracts, and use of standard
production-run bags.

            Economic Benefits
  Bag  systems  are well accepted by  col-
lection  workers.  Compared to conventional
containers, bags  are easier to  handle and
carry,  no lids  have to be removed or re-
placed,  no time or effort  is required to dis-
lodge the contents,  no set-back motion is

required, and there is less weight to be lifted.
The result is faster, more efficient, and less
costly service. Even  greater collection effi-
ciency can  be realized in the collection of
solid waste when home compactors are used
since the volume of waste has been reduced
and there are fewer  items to be picked up.
Studies show that  use of bags can result in
collection cost  savings  of up to 35 percent
per service, holding all other system charac-
teristics  constant.  However, this  will often
not be sufficient-to cover the cost of the bags
(at  3 to 5  cents each  for  plastic bags, 15
cents each for paper bags, or 30 to 42 cents
each  for compactor bags). The increases in
efficiency realized by introducing bags  into
the system are translated into reduced  costs
only  when  they are combined with other
cost-saving measures such as reduced  crew
sizes or a switch from backyard to curbside
  When  used with backyard service, employ-
ing either tote barrels or satellite vehicles,
bags  will help reduce spillage and  blowing
litter but will  not produce  adequate  cost
savings to offset the cost  of the bags.

     Esthetic Benefits and Convenience
              to Householder

  When additional  storage volume is needed,
it is  relatively easy to  use  additional bags.
The bags are  disposable, so containers do
not line the  street after collection. Bags can
eliminate odors and  the  cleaning of dirty
containers.  Collection  is quieter  because
noise from  handling of  conventional  con-
tainers is eliminated and  because the trucks
remain on each street  a shorter  length of
time. Because the bags are kept closed, spil-
lage of waste is reduced.

              Health Benefits

  Flies and  other insect pests that breed in
wastes can be reduced  or held in check be-
cause the bag can be closed tightly. Although
rats can  enter bags, the use of bags will not
attract rats  to areas free  of them.
  Bags help minimize the collector's contact
with  the waste and so  with toxic or infec-
tious  substances that  it may  contain, al-
though he must be careful to avoid injury
from sharp protruding objects.
  Empty  bags  are  practically  weightless
compared to conventional containers.  Less
weight to lift should mean a lower incidence
of back injuries and  muscle  strain  among
collectors  and,  consequently, less sick leave
and  reduced medical expenses.


  There  are disadvantages  to the  use  of
bags as storage containers for solid  waste:
(1)  replacing conventional containers  with
a sufficient number of bags costs more  than
continued use of the containers without the
bags, and the distribution of the bags costs
money (some of these costs can be offset by
the  savings in  collection cost);  (2)  bags
can  fail  (this  can be minimized by using
reasonably thick bags and by using them
sensibly) ;  (3)  bags are  susceptible  to ani-
mal  attacks (leash laws are an effective pre-
ventive  measure as  far  as  dogs  are  con-
cerned) ; and (4)  bags are not suitable for
such  items  as  branches,  cardboard  boxes,
heavy objects, or objects with sharp or point-
ed edges  (injuries cari occur when sharp or
heavy objects are  hidden in bags).


  In a sanitary landfill, the compaction proc-
ess  rips  open the  bags,  allowing  the  con-
tained waste to undergo normal degradation.
Plastic bags themselves are nonbiodegrada-
ble,  but this presents no real problem for
the following reasons:

  1.  Settlement  of the landfill mass,  includ-
     ing  the  nondegradables, is caused  by
     decomposition of the biodegradables.
     (This decomposition can result in  pro-
     duction of gas and leachate which  may
     require special control measures. Thus,
     the degradables  have a greater poten-
     tial   environmental   impact  than   the
  2.  Although the widespread use of bags
     will increase the amount of  material
     entering the solid waste stream,  the in-

     crease would be relatively small. A re-
     cent  study supported  by EPA  deter-
     mined that the average weight of solid
     waste in  a plastic  bag  is about 15
     pounds and the bag itself weighs about
     0.1 pound. The additional  waste  load
     caused by the use of plastic bags is only
     two-thirds of 1 percent based  on total
     weight. Another measure of the effect
     of plastic bags is the increase in nonde-
     gradable waste. For  typical residential
     waste  (about  27  percent  nondegrad-
     able), the increase would be about 2.5
     percent. The same study determined the
     average weight  of   residential  solid
     waste in  paper bags  to  be about 20
     pounds,  while  the  bag itself  weighs
     about 0.5  pound. The additional waste
     load caused by the use of paper bags is
     less than  3 percent by  weight.

  Paper and plastic bags  are  reduced to
harmless  products  of  combustion  when
burned in  a properly designed  and operated
incinerator.  Plastic  storage  bags currently
do  not contain poly vinyl chloride  (PVC).
This  material  should not be  used  in  the
manufacture of bags because of the poten-
tial  to  produce  hydrogen  chloride  when
burned,  with resulting corrosion of  incin-
erator equipment. In general, polyethylene
and  paper  yield water  and  carbon dioxide
when  incinerated in  the  presence of  an
abundant oxygen supply.

   Properly designed and manufactured pa-
per bags, plastic bags, and  paper bags with
plastic liners are acceptable as  storage con-
tainers for  residential  solid  waste. Plastic
bags  should not contain polyvinyl  chloride,
should have a minimum thickness of 2 mils,
and meet all other National Sanitation Foun-
dation standards. The advantages and bene-
fits from their  use far outweigh their few
disadvantages. Paper and plastic bags offer
economic and  sanitary advantages  which
make  them superior  to  rigid  • containers;
they  present no significant problems when
placed  in   a  sanitary landfill  or  when
burned in  a properly  designed  and oper-
ated  incinerator. EPA supports their use.
   Solid waste put through a home compactor
presents no significant problems in collection
or disposal. The advantages of the home
compactor for improving collection efficiency
and as a household convenience  are evident.
However, considering  the cost  of  the ma-
chines,  the  energy and materials expended
in their manufacture, and the electrical en-
ergy required to operate them, any  net eco-
nomic advantage resulting from their use  is
certainly not as  clear as it  is in the case of
using paper or  plastic bags alone.

BRADBURY ASSOCIATES, INC. The Atlanta household refuse compactor demonstration project. Environmental
         Protection Publication SW-66d. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 155 p. (Distributed
         by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-234  605.)
GRUPENHOPF, B. L., and K. A. SHUSTER.  Paper  and plastic solid waste sacks; a  summary of available in-
         formation. [Cincinnati],  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 17 p.
National Sanitation Foundation standard no. 31 relating to polyethylene refuse bags.  Ann Arbor,  The Na-
         tional Sanitation Foundation, May 22,  1970. 6 p.
National Sanitation Foundation standard no. 32 for paper refuse sacks. Ann Arbor, The National Sani-
         tation Foundation, Nov. 13, 1970. 7 p.
RALPH STONE and COMPANY, INC.  The  use of bags for solid  waste storage and  collection. Environmental
         Protection Publication SW-42d. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 264 p. (Distributed
         by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-212 590.)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Residential,  commercial and institutional' solid  wastes; pro-
         posed guidelines for storage and  collection. Federal Register 40(134) :29404-29408, July  11, 1975.

                        Collection of Bulky Items
  Collection of bulky items such as large
appliances, furniture, and  tree stumps can
be a problem in many places; often separate
procedures are.needed for their collection.

  There are four methods  of providing for
bulky item collection:
  1. Bulky items are collected along  with
     other refuse using compaction vehicles
     and regular crews.
  2. The  homeowner calls  the  collection
     agency to  request  that  the item  be
     picked up, and the agency sets the date
     it is to be collected by a separate bulk-
     pickup crew.
  3. Bulky items are collected periodically
     along defined routes comparable to the
     regular solid waste routes. Bulk collec-
     tion is scheduled to  cover  the whole
     city in a designated time  period, usu-
     ally 1 week.
  4. The resident sets out the bulky item,
     the regular refuse collection crew re-
     ports it, and it is picked up  by a sepa-
     rate bulk-pickup crew.

      Collection with Other Refuse

  This system requires that the compaction
vehicles be capable of handling the items and
that the crew be able to lift them. It would
not be feasible for one man operating a side-
loading vehicle to collect a refrigerator. But
the task would be a reasonable one for men
using a rear-loading  truck having a large
enough  hopper.  The primary advantage of
this system  is that it  is more economical
than having a separate crew to collect bulky
items. A disadvantage is that it does not lend
itself to the charging of a fee for bulk pickup.

        Request or Call-in System
  This system has several advantages.  The
collectors  need  only  go where  there  are
pickups to be made, and proper scheduling
makes it possible to concentrate pickups in
compact areas. The result is an efficient sys-
tem with  good utilization of the collector's
time. A pickup fee may be incorporated very
easily. However, this system has serious
drawbacks in inner-city  areas where there
are a large  number of items  set out to be
collected and a  lack of cooperation by the
residents in requesting pickup.

      Periodic Bulk Collection along
              Defined Routes
  This system works very well in inner-city
areas where there are many  pickups  close
together. But in areas  where pickups are
more scattered, this system can be wasteful
since collectors must traverse  streets where

there is nothing to collect. Therefore the effi-
ciency varies according to the type of dis-
trict in which it is used. A disadvantage of
this method is that it is difficult to assess fees
for the service. Bulk  collection days should
be  scheduled  at  a minimum  of once  every
3 months.

 Collection  Crews Report Items, Separate
               Crew Collects

  This alternative requires the use of radio
communication, otherwise bulky items could
sit  outside  for more  than 1  day. Also, the
sporadic reports from the refuse collectors
are not likely to result in efficient routing of
bulk-pickup vehicles. However, this system
does insure the pickup of all bulky items.


  The selection of the method of bulky item
collection must be based upon the character-
istics of  the  overall solid waste  collection
system  (crew size and truck)  and the nature
of the  area  being served  (inner  city  or
suburban, and income level).  In any case, it
is a service which must be provided.
  Citizens should be advised  of the  need to
remove all doors from large household ap-
pliances  to  prevent  the possibility  of a
child  becoming trapped.

             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY.  Residential, commercial and in-
                      stitutional solid wastes; proposed guidelines for storage and  collec-
                      tion. Federal Register 40(134): 29404-29408, July 11, 1975.

           Source Separation  and Collection  of Paper
  Materials can be recovered from waste for
recycling  through   "source   separation."
Source separation is  denned  as the  setting
aside of  recyclable waste materials (such as
paper, glass, and  metal containers)  at their
point of generation (the home, office, or other
place of business)  by  the generator. This
separation is followed by transportation of
the recyclable materials from their point of
generation to a secondary materials dealer
or directly to a manufacturer. Transporta-
tion may be provided by the generator, city
collection vehicles,  private haulers,  scrap
dealers, or by voluntary recycling organiza-
  Source separation  followed by  regular
municipal or private collection has been used
widely for recovery of wastepaper. Recovery
of glass  and cans by  this method has been
tried in only a few communities and then on
a monthly basis; the  economic balance  of
these systems has been poor to date. EPA
is currently in the process of developing a
system in which several recyclable elements
of household waste will be source separated
and then collected simultaneously every week
by means of a compartmentalized truck. The
projected economics of this system appear to
be excellent, and it will be demonstrated and
evaluated in 1976. As most of the data  on
actual programs relates to paper at this time,
only the  methods of  separately collecting
paper are discussed here.
  Source separation of paper is feasible pri-
marily for newspapers from homes, corru-
gated containers  from  commercial  and in-
dustrial  establishments, and printing and
writing papers from  offices. It is at these
points  that recyclable grades are generated
in a  relatively  homogeneous  and  concen-
trated  form. Since the latter two situations
are typically handled by private haulers who
collect  commercial and  industrial wastes,  a
municipal government is mainly concerned
with source  separation of newspaper by
residents. From 1970 to 1974,  a period of
rising wastepaper prices as well as increased
environmental awareness,  the  number of
cities with  separate  paper collection  pro-
grams  rose from  3 to around 135. In cases
where  an appropriate market exists, mixed
paper from residences can also be separated
and collected with the newspaper.

  Paper makes up a large part of the aver-
age municipal solid waste stream—about  a
third by weight (Table  19). Municipal  solid
waste is  generated at an estimated rate of
3.52  pounds per person per day. By using
the national estimates for waste  composition,

               TABLE 19

             UNITED STATES,  1973*f
Component (millions of tons)
Office paper
Ferrous metals
Nonferrous metals
Food waste
Yard waste
Percent of total
    * SMITH,  F. A., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Unpublished data.
    f Includes wastes generated in households, com-
mercial and business establishments, and institutions
(schools, hospitals, etc.); excluded  are  industrial
process wastes, agricultural and animal wastes, con-
struction and demolition wastes, mining  wastes,
abandoned automobiles, ashes, street sweepings, and
sewage sludge. Wastes now being recycled are also
a city can roughly estimate the quantity of
materials which might be recovered through
its source separation program.  Specific gen-
eration and composition data  for a  given
city  would permit a  more accurate pre-
  The  amount  of  discarded  newspaper
varies from house to house, neighborhood to
neighborhood, and city  to city. This varia-
tion  is related to such factors as individual
household purchasing habits, size and num-
ber of newspapers  published in a particular
area, and the  socioeconomic  level  of  the
residents. The waste newspaper generation
rate  in a high-income neighborhood  may be
two  or three  times that of  medium-to-low-
income neighborhoods in the same  area.
  Newspapers comprise about 18 percent of
discarded  paper  and about 6 percent  of
total municipal solid wastes, according to  the
national estimate. For a city of 100,000 popu-
lation with a 50-percent participation rate,
the  approximate  quantity  of  recoverable
newspapers can be determined as follows:
100,000 persons  x  3.52 Ib per person  per
day x 0.06 x 0.5 = 10,560 Ib, or about 5 tons
per  day.  At  a  price of $15 per ton,  the
weekly revenue would be  $525.

  There are two basic methods for separate
paper  collection presently in use.  The most
common system utilizes separate vehicles to
collect the paper, while the other uses a rack
attached to the regular  refuse collection ve-

          Separate Truck System

  Trucks. Standard packers, usually taken
from the standby fleet, are the vehicles most
commonly used for separate collection. Vans
and  open-bodied trucks may also  be used,
although they are more expensive to operate
than a standard packer  because   they  re-
quire an  extra crew member to  stack  the
paper  inside the truck.
  Crew Size. One  man for a side-loading
packer and  two for a rear loader are suffi-
cient to collect paper. As noted above, a third
worker is needed if trucks other than pack-
ers are used. Because of the higher cost of
backyard collection,  curbside or  alley col-
lection is generally used in these programs.
  Routing. The paper collection vehicle can
cover three to five normal collection routes
each day. This is  due to such  factors  as:
fewer  items  to handle per stop, no require-
ment to return containers to the curb, usu-
ally less than 100-percent  participation, and
the fact that even households that partici-
pate may not do so every collection day.
  Unloading Point.  If the wastepaper deal-
er  is  within  a reasonable distance,  the
truck  can unload  directly  at  his facility.
Paper  dealers in distant locations usually
place a large van at the transfer station  or
disposal  site; the paper is loaded  into this
van, which  remains at  the  site until it is
full, at which time the dealer  removes it
and replaces it with another.
  Frequency  of  Collection.  Collections are
usually monthly, every 2  weeks, or weekly.
EPA data indicate that the overall level  of
participation, and  thus the  total  quantity
of paper collected,  will  be greater for pro-
grams that  collect weekly or every 2 weeks
than for monthly collection programs.  Col-
lection  costs are  correspondingly  higher,

  Standardization of Collection. To achieve
maximum cooperation from the householder,
collections  must be  conducted on a regular
basis. Also, citizens  must be fully  informed
of what is expected  of  them  (e.g.,  news-
papers to be wrapped with twine or placed
in paper grocery sacks, etc.)  and when the
truck will be there.
  Capital Investment. Capital is  required
only for any additional  collection  vehicles
required by the program. Actual case studies
conducted for  EPA  found that only  1  of
the 10  cities  studied  actually purchased  a
vehicle  (a  small, used packer in this case)
for their program.  Most  of the  vehicles
used  for  separate  collections  have  been
either standby packers normally used when
a breakdown  in the regular  fleet occurred,
older trucks  retained after   new  packers
were  purchased, trucks  no longer needed
regularly because  of more efficient  routing,
or other trucks not fully utilized.
  Two communities  that  regularly collected
refuse 4 days a  week instituted  separate
collection on the  5th day  using the same
trucks used in their  regular collection.  In
the cities studied, the institution  of  sepa-
rate collection resulted in increased utiliza-
tion of  existing equipment  rather  than the
purchase of new equipment.  The fact that
this  form  of  resource recovery can  often
be implemented with little or no additional
capital  investment is  one of  its most  ap-
pealing  aspects.
  Maintenance,  Operating, and  Overhead
Costs. When a vehicle is  used for separate
collection, these costs are incurred just  as
they are  for  any  collection  operation.  In
addition, the costs for establishing and  main-
taining  public participation by means of  a
public information program must be  taken
into account.
  Labor. Separate  collection  requires that
more hours be spent on the collection  route.
In all but 2 of the 10 cities studied, however,
no additional labor was hired to implement
separate collection. In  these two cities, part-
time personnel were employed for periods
of heavy volume.  It should also be  noted
that in every case studied, three-man  crews
were  used only because  it was standard
 collection practice to have three-man crews.
 As noted  above, two-man  crews are  suffi-
 cient for  paper collection. The  additional
 labor—and its cost to the cities—would have
 been considerably less had they not  included
 this unneeded crewman.

               Rack System

   The rack, or "piggyback," system  of sepa-
 rate collection has been  used by a private
 collector in San Francisco since  1962, but
 its use  in  Madison,  Wisconsin,  has  received
 the most  publicity.  There, piggyback  col-
 lection was instituted by the city in  coopera-
 tion  with the  Paper  Stock  Conservation
 Committee of the American Paper Institute.
   Truck Modification. To employ this  sys-
 tem, a rack is installed beneath the  body of
 a  standard packer  (Figure 3). The  racks
 vary  in size from %  to l1/^ cubic yards.
 Because of placement of auxiliary gas tanks
 and hydraulic  equipment,  not  all packer
 trucks can be fitted  with  this type of rack."
   Collection Procedures. As in the separate
 truck method,  bundled newsprint is placed
 at the curb.  Collection of  mixed paper by
 this method is not recommended due to the
 space constraints of the racks. A  major ad-
 vantage of the  rack  system  is that  the
 householder  need not  be  concerned   with
 which  day is  paper  collection  day.   The
 bundled  paper is placed next to mixed  ref-
 use containers on any  normal  pickup  day.
 Refuse  and paper are thus collected simul-
   Overloading.  Compared  with   separate
 truck collection,  the rack  method  has ap-
 parent advantages in that the route  must be
 covered  only once, when regular collection
 is  performed. A drawback  is the tendency
 of the racks to fill up before the body of the
 truck does. In Madison,  with a 60-percent
 participation rate (i.e., about 60 percent of
 the residents  place  bundled newspapers at
the curb on any given collection  day), the
crews must off-load the paper  bins one or
 two times before the compactor  body is full.
 To accomplish this with the least  delay, the
public works department  stations  bulk con-
tainers  at  strategic  points  in the collection

                   FRAME OF 1/8" X 2" X 2" L ANGLE IRON
                                                                              r   2' 4 3/8"
    1/8" FLAT STOCK
               3/4" FLAT WIRE MESH
               WELDED TO V X 5' DOOR
               FRAME AND HINGED TO
                FIGURE 3. This is an example of a newspaper rack designed for installation
             beneath a packer truck for the collection of newsprint separately from other
             residential solid waste. Source: CITY OF MADISON, Wis., DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
areas. The crews unload the paper into the
bulk containers and proceed along the route.
Approximately 10 minutes off  the route are
required for each  unloading  (driving time
plus  unloading). Although the  amount of
time  spent in collection has been longer, no
overtime costs have been incurred.
  New  Equipment  Developments.  Cities
and  waste haulers are now experimenting
with  racks designed to hold a greater quan-
tity  of newspapers, thus reducing  time  off
the route.
  One equipment manufacturer, Maxon In-
dustries, Inc., has designed and is now test-
ing a two-compartment truck for  separate
collection.  The  paper compartment is de-
signed to have a capacity of about 3 cubic
yards, or  10 percent of  the  truck's  total
volume.  This compartment is loaded by a
hydraulically  operated bin  located behind
the truck's cab. Unloading of the  paper is
done  automatically, after the  mixed refuse
has been unloaded.  The volume of the paper
compartment is large enough  so  that the
truck does not have to leave its regular col-
lection  route  to off-load it. The device is
expected to add approximately $2,000 to the
cost of  Maxon's "Shu-Pak" model trucks.
  An elevated  rack,  developed by  Bynal
Products, Inc.,  is being  used  in Rockford,
Illinois.  The  crew  members  throw  news-
papers  up  into the rack and stow  mixed
refuse in the main body of the truck. While
the size of this rack is larger  than the one
used in  Madison, its main advantage lies in
the fact that it need  not be  manually un-
loaded.  When  the  rack  is filled, the truck
backs up to a stationary compactor or bulk
bin, the rear wall of the rack is lowered, and
the contents are dumped. This reduces un-
loading  time to a minimum.
  Such   developments,  should  they  prove
operationally  feasible,   could  significantly
improve the economics of separate collection.
  Capital Investment. Costs  for materials
and installation of the standard, "under-the-
truck"  rack range from  $80  to $250  per
rack.  Madison's cost of $170 is about aver-

age. In addition, when participation reaches
20  to  30  percent, bulk  containers  may  be
needed. In Madison, the  cost for a bulk con-
tainer was $550.
  Labor. Time-and-motion studies conducted
in Madison and  San  Francisco  show  that
between 10 seconds  (Madison)  and 14 sec-
onds  (San Francisco) are required to  pick
up and load bundled newsprint at each stop
in addition to the approximately  5 to  15
minutes required for  off-loading the paper
when the racks are filled. In alt cases studied,
no  additional  labor costs were actually ex-
perienced  because employees had not been
working a  full day  in  normal  waste col-
lection. Nonetheless, either the existing col-
lection system must be  able to absorb  the
additional time needed, or the revenue from
the paper and/or  diverted  disposal  costs
must offset added  labor costs.  Additional
labor is  required  also to collect off-loaded
newspapers placed  in the bulk containers.
For Madison,  1 to 3 man-hours per  day per
truck were required for servicing  the  con-

        Private Separate Collection
  Private  collection  of  wastepaper by  a
scrap dealer or waste hauler is one of the
newer arrangements currently being tried in
a number of communities, particularly on the
West Coast. This system involves the least
amount of time,  money,  and manpower  on
the part of the city. For cities which  con-
tract for   regular waste removal  services,
private collection  of paper may be their only
  City management may have  no  involve-
ment at all, as in the case of San Francisco
where the  private waste hauler carries out
all  facets  of the  program. Other communi-
ties have decided  to share both the responsi-
bility and the income from the  program.
They request  bids from private scrap deal-
ers  and waste haulers  for the privilege
of an exclusive contract  to pick up source-
separated paper. In return for a percentage
of  the income, the  city usually agrees  to
support and publicize the program and to
prohibit   others   from  removing  paper
through  an antiscavenging  ordinance.

  Due to the large number of variables, it is
difficult to  give  meaningful  average costs
for  separate  collection.  Its  economic via-
bility depends to a large extent on such fac-
tors as: (1) type of regular collection prac-
ticed (i.e.,  frequency  of collection, size  of
crews, etc.); (2)  disposal costs; (3)  revenue
received for the paper; (4) participation rate
of residents;  (5) availability of underuti-
lized men and equipment; (6) efficiency with
which the separate collection is carried ou.t;
(7) extent to which regular vehicles are re-
routed to take advantage of reduced  volumes
of mixed wastes.
  Separate  Truck Systems. EPA has stud-
ied the costs of collecting mixed  refuse and
source-separated  paper  in  10 communities
utilizing separate trucks for paper collection
(Table  20). The analysis  included labor,
ownership  and maintenance  of  equipment,
and  overhead  costs for both the  regular
waste  collection  system and  the  separate
collection subsystem. Credit was given  for
revenue from the sale of the paper  and for
a proportionate percentage of the  variable
disposal cost for landfill and incineration.
In cases where the community paid a second
party for disposal, the entire  unit  disposal
charge was  deducted for each ton of paper
sold. Important transportation savings may
also  result  if recovered  newspapers are
hauled to a  nearby off-loading point  or mar-
ket instead  of  a remotely  located  disposal
facility.  These   savings were  considered
where appropriate.
  On the basis of the high wastepaper prices
of March 1974, the net  effect of instituting
separate truck collection on overall collection
costs in these 10 cities  ranged from  a  de-
crease of 23 percent  to an  increase of 4
percent. On  the average there was a decrease
of about 6 percent. During a  low waste-
paper  market period  (April  1973), the ef-
fect of separate truck  collection in the same
10 cities ranged  from an overall collection
cost decrease of 4 percent to an  increase of
more than   9 percent; the  average change
was an increase of 1.6 percent. Many of the
cities experienced little change  in overall
costs during either period. It should be noted,

                                            TABLE  20

                 Case study
Collection and disposal
 cost per ton prior to
  separate collection
                                                    Collection and disposal cost per ton
                                                        after Implementation of
                                                          separate collection f
 Low paper market
(average $8 per ton)
                                                                     High paper market
                                                                    (average $25 per ton)
                                                            change  Cost
                                                 % change
Dallas, Texas
Fort Worth, Texas
Great Neck, N.Y.
Green Bay, Wis.
Greenbelt, Md.
Marblehead, Mass.
Newton, Mass.
University Park, Texas
Villa Park, 111.
West Hartford, Conn.
                 * SCS  ENGINEERS.  Analysis  of  source  separate  collection  of  recyclable
             solid waste; separate collection studies. Environmental Protection Publication
             SW-95c.l. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 157 p.  (Distributed by
             National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 775.)
                 t Credit given for diverted disposal costs and revenue generated from the
             sale of separately collected wastepaper.
                                            TABLE  21

               Case study
 Collection and disposal
  cost per ton prior to
   separate collection
                                                         Collection and disposal cost
                                                           after Implementation of
                                                             separate collection
   Low pnper market
  (average $8 per ton)
 High paper market
(average $25 per ton)
                                                          % change    Cost
                                                 % change
Madison, Wis.
New York, N.Y.f
Sheboygan, Wis.
                 * SCS ENGINEERS. Analysis of source separate collection, 1974.
                 t Queens District 67 only.
                 j The small quantities of newspaper separately collected had an insignificant
             effect on. overall costs.
however,  that many of  the programs were
relatively new and few had been refined to
any significant degree.  Additional informa-
tion on  case studies and on computer model
analysis is available from OSWMP.
  Rack  Systems. Cost data on rack  collec-
tion systems from three case  studies were
compared  with  the  analysis  including  the
                          same elements described above for the sepa-
                          rate  truck  systems  (Table  21).  Separate
                          rack  collection  tended  to lower overall col-
                          lection costs,  but the reduction was slightly
                          less than with  the separate  truck systems.
                          As already noted, the  effectiveness  of  the
                          rack  approach depends  on the ability of the
                          existing  refuse collection system  to absorb

the incremental time requirements for col-
lection and transfer operations. If the extra
time for off-loading cannot be absorbed, an
increase in collection costs will result. Based
on  experience to date, it appears  that the
specific conditions in each city would dictate
the choice between  separate truck and rack
collection. The ability to fit racks on existing
collection trucks, the  number of available
men and trucks at  the city's disposal, and
the manner in which collection is carried out
would be some of the major factors relating
to this choice.


  Shortages  of  woodpulp, increased  waste-
paper exports, and other factors created a
strong  market  for used  newsprint,  corru-
gated containers, and  even mixed paper in
1973. By the end of 1973, prices for  waste-
paper were at historically high levels. Fore-
casts by the  American  Paper Institute  pre-
dicted   a  7-percent increase  in domestic
consumption  of old  newsprint from  the
beginning of 1974 through  1975, a  steady
but not dramatic growth.
  In  addition,  most   observers expected
exports of old newsprint  to  increase, while
several  domestic paper companies were re-
portedly considering building mills to make
newsprint from  old newspapers. Availability
of an   adequate supply of  old newsprint
seemed  to be their primary concern.
  The  advent of the recession dramatically
altered  the booming wastepaper market in
the second and third quarters of 1974.  The
production of such construction materials
as roofing felt and wallboard, which  utilize
wastepaper, slowed with the decline in  new
home building. Also, the production of  box-
board, the largest end-use of reclaimed news-
print, fell some  33  percent between Decem-
ber  1973  and December  1974, in keeping
with the  general sales decline. Recession
abroad  caused  curtailment  of  wastepaper
exports, compounding  the domestic market
problems.  It  is now the consensus of EPA,
the American Paper Institute, and various
paper-producing industries that wastepaper
prices and demand will rise as the economy
improves, and then level off.
  What is important for the municipal de-
cision-maker in relation to markets is not to
try to predict price fluctuations but to deter-
mine the minimum price that he can receive
and still  have a  break-even program.  He
should then negotiate a contract  of a year
or more duration  with that minimum price
as a floor. If the price rises above  that level,
so much the better.
  It is incumbent  upon any city considering
resource recovery, therefore, to conduct a
market study as the first order of business.
In  a small  city  or  suburban  community,
this may take the  form of a few phone calls
to  wastepaper dealers or  to  local  manu-
facturers  who utilize wastepaper  to manu-
facture such  products as boxboard,  chip-
board, insulation and roofing materials, and
  These  contacts  should  be followed  by
meetings with those dealers and manufactur-
ers who show interest  in  buying the  re-
covered  paper.  At  these   meetings,   the
quality specifications of the buyer, shipping
and hauling arrangements,  and  other  re-
quirements  which both  the city  and pur-
chaser must meet can  be clarified. Larger
cities are advised  to conduct a more formal
market study, and to seriously consider re-
questing bids from  prospective buyers.  To
proceed further  with the project,  cities  are
advised to procure  letters  of intent  from
reputable dealers.
  If the results of further investigation into
the  other  aspects  of a source separation
program are deemed  to be positive and  the
project is approved, it is advisable to enter
into a formal contract  with the buyers.  If
possible, the contract should  first guarantee
that  the paper will be  purchased  for a
specified period  of time (this  is  usually 1
year, although  some  companies  have  of-
fered contracts of  5 and 10 years); second-
ly, it should guarantee a minimum or floor
price which the city considers  reasonable.
The  price  received by  the city  may float

above the floor price and is  usually deter-
mined by the weekly quotations in Official
Board  Markets. This  publication  reports
wastepaper prices  by  grade in  12 major

             Public Education

  The success of a source separation pro-
gram depends heavily on citizen awareness,
cooperation, and concern.  None of these is
possible without a vigorous public education
campaign to explain the goals and methods
of the  program. Such  a  campaign  should
begin well in advance of the institution of
the program. Information techniques  such
as radio and TV spot announcements, news-
paper articles  and advertisements, posters,
door hangers, flyers, and oral presentations
are the usual modes of  publicity. The active
participation  of local  environmental  and
service  organizations  is an excellent means
of developing public interest. These organiza-
tions  can  be extremely  effective through
their  contacts with schools and other  civic
groups. They are  usually willing to  give
speeches,  make  posters, and  conduct door-
to-door  canvassing at no  cost to the  city.
  Public education must continue after the
program  is  begun.  Occasional  flyers in-
serted in public utility bills as well as weekly
or monthly newspaper followup articles are
recommended. Continued support of  citizen
organizations is most helpful in sustaining
interest and increasing participation.  One
large eastern city  includes information  on
the  program with each  house  title  and
lease to assure that new arrivals in the  com-
munity are informed.

           Householder Impact

  Home separation is neither expensive nor
time consuming for the  householder.  In  a
recent  study,  15  families  kept detailed
records of all factors  relating to the separa-
tion of glass, cans, and newsprint in  their
homes for a period of  6  weeks.  Expenses
(twine  for bundling, water for washing,
etc.)  amounted to 2 cents per month per
family.  The average time spent on  these
activities  was about  15 minutes  per week.
The separate bundling of newspapers, which
is the separation activity that seems most
universally  acceptable, took only  2.3 min-
utes per week and required less than 1 cent
per month in out-of-pocket costs.  A recent
survey  of housewives'  attitudes  on solid
waste found  that 73 percent of those inter-
viewed  felt separation would  be  "easy" to
"very easy" for them  to carry out.


  Due to the value of secondary  materials,
many cities have experienced difficulties with
unauthorized  persons  picking up source-
separated materials before the authorized
truck arrives.  This does  not  represent  a
legal  problem for municipalities which have
chosen  to grant  an exclusive  franchise to
a private firm for waste collection. In such
municipalities,  sanctions  which   normally
exist  to discourage collection by firms other
than the licensee may be brought to bear on
scavengers.  In  communities in which such
sanctions do not exist, an antiscavenging
ordinance should be passed. Judicial prece-
dent indicates that in  most States  it  is per-
missible for  municipalities to  grant exclu-
sive contracts  for the  collection  of solid
waste and to prohibit collection by all  but
city employees  or licensees. This  authority,
combined with the municipalities' tradition-
al power to protect public health and  safety,
should  provide  a legal  basis  for such an
  Antiscavenging ordinances  do  not  pre-
clude volunteer groups from collecting news-
papers  as one  of their  traditional revenue
producers. If residents prefer  to save their
newspapers for  such  volunteer drives, they
should not be discouraged from  doing  so;
however, to avoid confusion as to the owner-
ship of  the material, accumulated paper for
these drives  should  not be set out  at  the
curb. This distinction  can  be made clear in
the antiscavenging ordinance  so  that  the
paper drives of  volunteer groups are  not
  The antiscavenging ordinance passed in
Hempstead, New York, in 1971  has been
used  as a prototype in  many  communities.
The ordinance states that all  waste  placed

at the curb  becomes  the property of the
city. Stringent fines are imposed upon scav-
engers.  Strict enforcement, particularly  at
the beginning of a  program,  is  strongly
urged. As much publicity as possible should
be given to enforcement efforts in order  to
discourage potential offenders.

       Voluntary versus Mandatory
             Paper Separation

  Most  separate  collection  programs are
voluntary in  that  they request  citizen sup-
port.  An increasing  number  of  cities, how-
ever,  are passing ordinances which require
separation. A recent study of 17 cities found
that mandatory  programs received coopera-
tion  from 60  percent  (average)  of the
population, while voluntary programs had a
participation   rate  of  30  percent.  These
numbers are  misleading, however,  in  that
most  of the systems have only  recently be-
gun. Other data from the same study indi-
cate that participation rises over  time, and
that as these  systems reach the 2- and 3-year
level,  the relative difference between volun-
tary and mandatory programs will probably

              Pilot Programs

  Most  programs begin with  a pilot  area
and expand later. This procedure allows the
city to adjust gradually to the new system,
and to experiment with methods which might
reduce costs  and minimize risk. It  also al-
lows  time  for the market to  adjust to the
new source of supply.
  The duration  of a pilot program should
be no less than 6 months. Because waste
in our  society  has  been so long ignored,
the handling of it  is largely  a mindless
function. Time is needed to change  the habits
of citizens and to acquire their cooperation
in any new program. A 1- or 2-month pro-
gram will demonstrate little about full-scale
economics, because  participation  will  in-
crease over time, with resultant increases  in
tonnage  and  revenues. Participation  rates
of cities at various stages in their  programs
indicate that rates tend to rise for at least
a  year (Figure 4). Participation may con-
tinue to rise after that if a strong publicity
and awareness program is maintained.


   Recovery of secondary materials through
source  separation and municipal collection
on a regular basis is a new phenomenon,
having been practiced only in isolated in-
stances until  1970.  Since that time, it  has
grown  rapidly  as  a  means  of  recovering
paper—primarily newsprint—from  munici-
pal waste.
   Separate collection requires careful plan-
ning and administration on the part of the
city, as well as the cooperation of citizens.
Special efforts must be made to educate and
inform residents as  to  the goals and pro-
cedures of the program. The public informa-
tion aspects of the  program cannot be over-
emphasized.  A  system  which is  properly
sustained through a  continuing public edu-
cation  program will  attain a growing rate
of participation. To  date,  participation  in
existing programs  that are  properly orga-
nized,  implemented, and sustained has been
   Cost of separate collection varies consider-
ably from city to city, partly because sepa-
rate collection is usually implemented to fit
in with the collection system that  exists.
However, the  data  indicate that, depending
on markets for the  paper, separate paper
collection can be accomplished with little or
no increase in  costs  to a city and possibly
even with a net savings. This has been the
case even  with  relatively new systems  for
which  maximum citizen  participation and
optimal routing have not yet been achieved.
   Costs can be reduced by:  (1) mounting a
good public awareness campaign to increase
the participation rate;  (2) obtaining an as-
sured  market through competitive bidding
procedures  and  contracts;   (3)   utilizing
existing equipment  and manpower as much
as possible;  (4) instituting and enforcing
an antiscavenging ordinance.
  On the basis of these factors and the exr
periences  of existing programs,  it  seems

reasonable to assert  that a  revenue  of $15
per ton delivered to a nearby transfer point
(the  floor price) should cover  the costs of
a newspaper recovery collection program in
many instances.
  Source separation and collection  of news-
papers  helps to  conserve a  resource  with
                             significant economic value. At the same time,
                             it effectively reduces solid waste quantities.
                                EPA recommends that  communities look
                             into  separate  collection  of paper  and  that
                             implementation  be given serious considera-
                             tion by any city in which markets are found
                             to exist.










                                                     >N (BOWIEI
                           • N (GREAT NECK)

                           N (WEST HARTFORDI
                            IBRIARCLIFF MANOR)
                    IN IHEMPSTEAD)
          • P (FORT WORTHI
                                        16   20   24    28   32   36

                                           PROGRAM DURATION (months)
                    FIGURE 4.  Participation in source separation tends to rise with lengthening
                program duration.  Source: SCS ENGINEERS, Analysis of source  separate col-
                lection, 1974.

               Residential  paper recovery; a community action  program. Washington, U.S.
                        Government Printing Office, 1975. (In preparation.)
               NATIONAL ANALYSTS, INC.  Metropolitan  housewives' attitudes toward  solid
                        waste disposal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. [114 p.]
                        (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
                        Va., as PB-213340.)
               SCS  ENGINEERS.  Analysis  of source separate collection  of  recyclable  solid
                        waste; separate collection  studies. Environmental Protection Publi-
                        cation  SW-95c.l.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 157
                        p. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Spring-
                        field, Va., as  PB-239775.)

      Residential Collection Equipment and Crew Size
  When designing or modifying a collection
system, decisions on type of equipment and
size of the crews should not be made until the
policies on level of service have been estab-
lished  (e.g., point of collection and type of
storage containers). On the basis of these
policies, preliminary selections can be made.
Many other factors, such as round-trip time
to the  disposal  site,  street  widths, local
weight and height limits on vehicles, housing
density, labor wage rates, and the amount of
waste at each stop, will also have an impact
on the decisions concerning the selection of
vehicle type and crew size (Table 22). Final-
ly, cooperatioii  from labor and the  commu-
nity  are  very  important in  the  ultimate
success of the system selected.
  There are  many types  of  collection  ve-
hicles available, some of which are designed
for specific jobs.  All the collection methods
described below use a compaction vehicle to
reduce  haul  cost and prevent  the  litter
problems  that  often  occur  with  open-top

              Side Loaders
  Most side loaders are in  the  size range
between 13 and 32 cubic yards. Their main
use is  in  collecting from residences and
small  commercial establishments, but they
can also collect from bulk containers. Most
bodies manufactured have hopper loading
on either side of the vehicle body, although
for reasons of safety and  convenience  the
right side is most often used.
  Single-family residential  curbside service
can be most economically provided by a one-
man  side-loading  vehicle with  right-hand
drive,  a low  step-in cab,  and  a .separate
power source for compaction.  In this case,
collection should  be from one side of  the
street at a time. This system is  best suited
for  areas  with relatively  few  items  per
stop  and  some   distance  between  stops
rather than in areas with a high percentage
of multiple-family buildings.
  High population density areas with more
waste  at each stop, very  narrow streets,
and  alley collection  may be collected with
two-man crews using a side-loading vehicle.
Both sides of the street or alley are collected
at the same time (assuming street width and
traffic  volume do not present  problems).

              Rear Loaders

  Rear loaders normally range in size from
16 to 25 cubic yards, and, like the side load-
ers,  their main use  is in  collecting  from
residences and small commercial establish-
ments  although they can also  be used with
bulk containers.

                                          TABLE 22

                                                Housing density
              Point of collection
              Inner city
           high-density areas
              Curbside/alley One man using a side-loading
                             right-hand-drive vehicle with
                             a low step-in cab
              Backyard     Two men  with  tote barrels,
                             using  a  vehicle with  a low
                             step-in cab
                           Satellite vehicles
     Two men using a side-loader
       with  low step-in cab
     For very heavy waste loads,
       three men using a rear-load-
       ing vehicle with a low step-in
     Three men with tote barrels,
       using a rear-loading vehicle
       with a low step-in cab
  High population density areas with more
waste at each stop, very narrow streets, and
alley collection may be collected  with rear
loaders and three-man crews  (including the
driver  who  also  collects at  heavy  stops).
Both sides of the street or alley are collected
at the  same  time  (assuming street width
and traffic volume do not present problems).
  Backyard service in high population den-
sity  areas containing closely  spaced single-
family dwellings or a predominance of multi-
ple-family dwellings  with  short street-to-
storage distances  should be collected with a
three-man crew  (including the driver who
also  collects)  using tote  barrels  and rear-
loading vehicles.
  Satellite vehicles  are sometimes employed
in conjunction with rear-loader  operations.
Where backyard service is provided in medi-
um-  and  low-density  single-family  residen-
tial 'areas, the use of satellite vehicles may be
economical. These vehicles are usually driven
to the area where they will be used each day
or they may be towed behind the "mother"
truck on  a trailer.  They may be stored in
decentralized garages.  The small,  usually
noncompacting, three- or  four-wheeled ve-
hicle is driven up the driveway  as  close as
possible to the waste. When  filled,  the ve-
hicle is returned to  the  mother truck for
emptying. The selection  of a satellite ve-
hicle system  rather than tote  barrels de-
pends on the accessibility of the waste stor-
age point to the vehicle,  the distance  from
street to storage, and  the distance between
stops.  Another consideration is the  avail-
ability of a mother truck with a hopper com-
patible to the hopper of the satellite vehicle
when dumping.

      Specialized Collection  Vehicles
  In addition  to the  more traditional col-
lection truck types, there are many special-
ized vehicles used today. Some have mechani-
cal arms, such as the "Son of Godzilla" used
in  Scottsdale,  Arizona.  Some  communities
use  container  trains,  which  are  basically
very  primitive  and inefficient.  Still  other
methods involve  the  use of multifamily bulk
bins to collect residential waste; these meth-
ods  include  the  system  of alley collection
from bulk metal  bins used in Odessa, Texas,
the "Son of Godzilla,"  and the  barrel-tipper
for alley collection  used in Tolleson, Ari-
zona.  In  Covina,  California,  a  one-man
mechanical   bag collector,  the  "jumping
bean," which shows  promise for specific ap-
plications, is being developed.
  In addition,  two types  of vehicles general-
ly used for collecting commercial wastes are
sometimes used in residential collection. The
front-end loader has shown  some merit in
sparsely  populated  areas.  These  trucks,
which range  in  size  from 24  to  41  cubic

yards, collect from bulk containers  usually
varying  in size from 2 to 10 cubic yards.
Trucks with roll-off containers are also used
in rural  areas for residential collection. The
containers are placed at strategically located
collection  points  and  are picked  up  and
dumped on a regular basis.
   The use of specialized or commercial ve-
hicles  under the appropriate  conditions can
substantially reduce' collection  costs. Some
of  these  systems  require a large initial
capital investment, however,  and others re-
quire extra citizen cooperation.


   Many  additional factors  must be  con-
sidered before the  final decision  is made on
vehicle type and  crew size. For  example,
crew size  selection will be affected  by the
amount of waste per stop, haul  time to the
unloading point, wage rates, and labor's pref-
erence  and persuasion.  Preliminary  re-
sults from an  OSWMP safety study show
that a large percentage of accidents during
collection occur when workers are distracted
by conversation among themselves, and this
may be  a  factor in  favor of small crews.
In high population density areas, the larger
quantity of  waste  at  a given  stop makes
larger trucks with three-man crews economi-
cally competitive with  smaller  crew sizes.
Where crew size reduction is  a goal,  labor's
resistance  may pose a serious obstacle. In-
creased  wages  and  labor force reduction
through  attrition and  assignment to other
city  departments can help smooth the transi-
tion  to smaller crews.
  Vehicle selection is affected by such  local
factors as  haul time  to the  processing or
disposal site, street or alley width and inter-
section size, types and amounts of waste, and
highway load limitations  (number of axles
required).  Haul time  is important because
time on the route is reduced by the amount
of time spent driving to the unloading site.
Haul time  can be reduced by either reducing
the number  of trips to the unloading site
through increased vehicle capacity or by lo-
cating an  unloading site closer  to the  col-
lection area, i.e., setting up a transfer sta-
  Vehicle  size  depends  partly  on  street
width  since  narrow streets can  preclude
large vehicles with  wider turning radii. If
this  is not a problem  and there is a long
haul time, a larger vehicle is indicated. Tan-
dem axles may be required for vehicles over
a given size because of highway load limits,
however. Tandem axles have several disad-
vantages that can increase  costs:  The ve-
hicles  themselves  are substantially  more
costly. They  are  not designed'for the turn-
ing and maneuvering most collection vehicles
must perform. Therefore,  unless these trucks
are run in a straight  line down the street,
their maintenance cost will increase. In ad-
dition, they cause more wear  on the roads
and  are more  difficult  to  drive.  Overall,
these  disadvantages may be  greatly  out-
weighed by reduced hauling costs, but they
must be considered. As  a general rule of
thumb, when lengthy haul times are not a
problem and street  widths permit it, a 20-
cubic-yard  vehicle should be selected. This
vehicle size provides the  maximum amount
of flexibility to handle increasing waste loads
and  changing disposal  site locations without
the problems encountered with tandem-axle
  Other considerations before  purchasing a
vehicle include  overhead  clearances  under
bridges and  at the  garage,  the  availability
of parts, and warranty service. Also, deci-
sions on such items as transmission  and fuel
type need to be made.  Automatic transmis-
sions are initially more expensive, but over
the life of  the vehicle  the cost of clutch re-
placement  exceeds  the initial differential.
Also, automatic transmissions  are easier to
drive and safer in hilly areas.
  Currently diesel engines are initially more
expensive  than  gasoline-fired  engines,  but
over the life  of the engine the operating and
fuel cost savings  of the diesel engine exceeds
the initial cost difference.  Diesel engines also
cause  less  air  pollution.  One  drawback of
diesels is that they  may  be  harder to start
in cold weather.  They  are also noisier.
  Chassis  and  body   replacement  policies
should  be  included  in long-term  purchase
plans.  Chassis  replacement depends  upon
engine operating hours, which is related to
mileage, and also upon  drivers' habits. How-

ever, most communities  prefer  to  think in
terms of years of use. As a general rule, the
chassis should  be  replaced  every  3 to  4
years and bodies every 6 to 8 years.  Need for
replacement should be  calculated  for each
truck individually,  being sure to take into
account the cost of downtime for the older
  Another  important  consideration  before
purchase  is safety.  When the safety stand-
ards  developed by  the American  National
Standards  Institute  for  rear-loading and
side-loading collection vehicles  are  imple-
mented, all vehicles  manufactured will be re-
quired to  meet rigid safety standards. Adop-
tion and publication of the ANSI standards
is expected in the fall  of 1975. Compliance is
mandatory 2 years  from publication, which
means  the fall of  1977. It is advisable to
include in bid specifications the requirement
that once  these standards are adopted, any
"vehicle  delivered must meet them.
  The costs related  to collection vehicles are
described  in greater detail below.

               Vehicle Costs
  The  costs are generally divided into  the
following  categories:
  I.   Vehicle capital cost (fixed cost)
        A.  Chassis
        B.  Packer body
        C.  Volume and type of purchase
  II.  Operating cost (variable cost)
        A.  Consumables (gas, oil, tires)
        B.  Maintenance and repair
          (labor  and parts)
  III. Overhead  cost (fixed cost)
        A.  Insurance
        B.  Registration, license, and permit
        C.  Garage (rent and utilities)

For equipment replacement analysis, the cost
of downtime from breakdowns should be in-
cluded, with  the fixed and variable costs
  Vehicle  capital cost is based primarily on
the following factors:

  A. Chassis
      1. Make  (Ford,  Dodge, CMC, Interna-
        tional, White, etc.)
      2. Horsepower
      3. Fuel type (diesel vs. gas)
      4. Number of axles
      5. Other options (automatic vs. stand-
        ard transmission,  power vs. regular
        steering, power takeoff vs. auxiliary
        engine,  right-hand drive)
  B.  Packer body
      1. Manufacturer
      2. Type (front, rear, or side loader)
      3. Capacity  (cu yd)
      4. Compaction capability (reinforce-
        ment and power)
  C.  Volume and type of purchase  (number
      of trucks, bid basis)

  There are at least 24  manufacturers  of
solid  waste  packer trucks:  13 make rear
loaders, 13 make side loaders, and  11 make
front loaders. There are at least 14 manu-
facturers of chassis for packer trucks. Con-
siderable ranges are to be found in the prices
(Table 23).
  Operating costs are based  on the following

  A.  Consumables:  Gas, oil, and tire costs
      are functions of equipment usage.
      1. Gas  and  oil consumption  is more
        closely related  to  hours of use than
        miles. It is affected  also by point of
        collection  (backyard vs.  curbside),
        type of collection  (residential, com-
        mercial, rural), and haul distance to
        the disposal site.
                TABLE 23

           (INCLUDING CHASSIS), 1975
     Standard sizes
        (cu yd)
Rear loaders:
Side loaders: 16-37
Front loaders: 24-41
Roll-off:  35,000 lb-75,000 Ib
 25,000- 32,000
 20,000- 38,000
 35,000- 50,000
 30,000- 45,000
    * The prices for the 20-cu-yd rear loader are
shown separately because of the prevalence of this
vehicle size.

      2. Tire  life is closely related to the
        vehicle's disposal point.  The chance
        for punctures is greatly increased if
        the disposal point is at a land dispos-
        al site rather than a transfer station
        or  other  concrete  pad  discharge
        point. Other major factors affecting
        tire life are total miles driven, con-
        dition of  roads, and  air pressure
  B.  Maintenance  and  repair costs  are re-
      lated to  the effectiveness of the preven-
      tive maintenance  program,  how  care-
      fully  the  packers are  driven,  and
      reliability and sturdiness of the equip-
      ment (initial cost).
  Fuel consumption rates for residential col-
lection are shown  below. These  figures are
based on data for 1 month in 1973, on 24
diesel and 20  gas packers from 11 communi-
ties  using the  EPA Data  Acquisition and
Analysis  Program  (DAAP).  It  should be
pointed out that while the figures below indi-
cate that backyard service uses less fuel per
hour, that does not mean it is the most cost-
effective.  In curbside collection, the truck is
moving from house to house with much more
speed  and therefore the  hopper must be
cleared more  frequently. The more frequent
cycling of the  hopper  requires  the engine
to run at a faster  rpm and use  more fuel
per  hour. The cost-effectiveness is shown
only  when you also take  into account the
greater number of homes per hour that the
same truck can service with curbside rather
than with the slower backyard service.
Curbside service:

Backyard service:
Gallons per hour

  Typical annual  costs of  operating a  20-
cubic-yard, rear-loading  diesel  packer  for
curbside  residential  pickup,  averaging  7
hours per operating day, are:
Depreciation  ($30,000 at 6 percent interest
  amortized over  5 years)
Fuel (at $0.36/gal)
Oil  (engine and hydraulic)
Maintenance and  repair:
Insurance and fees
       $ 6,900

  In  summary,  the  determination  of  the
optimum combination of equipment type and
crew  size is very complex. There are many
dependent variables  which  impact  on  the
decision. Furthermore, the problem is a  dy-
namic one in the sense that  changes in sys-
tem parameters such as waste  generation,
traffic congestion, or haul distance may mean
there is a new optimum combination. Man-
agers of collection systems must continually
review the influencing factors in order to be
sure  that  their  current  decisions on equip-
ment  and crew size are optimal.

              ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary. En-
                      vironmental  Protection Publication  SW-97c.l. [Washington],  U.S.
                      Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
              ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems;  final report,  v.2. Detailed
                      study and analysis. Environmental Protection Publication SW-97C.2.
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 254 p. (Distributed by
                      National  Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as  PB-
                      239 917.)
              BOGUE, M. D.  Clean and green solid waste system in  Alabama is widely copied.
                      Waste Age, l(5):4-6, 10-11, 36, Sept.-Oct. 1970. Reprinted. [Wash-
                      ington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.  8 p.
              CLARK, R. M., B. L. GRUPENHOFP, G.  A. GARLAND, and A. J. KLEE.  Cost of
                      residential solid waste collection. Journal of the Sanitary Engineer-
                      ing Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
                      97(SA5):663-568, Oct.  1971.

DAVEE, W., and  M. G. STRAGIER [Crrv OP  TOLLESON, ARIZONA].  Mechanized,
          non-stop residential solid waste collection. Environmental Protection
          Publication  SW-76d. U.S. Environmental Agency, 1974.  55 p.  (Dis-
          tributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
          as PB-239 196.)
DELANEY, J.  E.   Satellite  vehicle waste   collection systems.  Environmental
          Protection Publication  SW-82ts.l.  Washington,  U.S.  Government
          Printing Office, 1972. 14 p. [Condensation.]
GOLDBERG, T. L.  Improving rural solid waste management practices.  Environ-
          mental  Protection Publication  SW-107. Washington, U.S. Govern-
          ment Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
PERKINS, R. A.  Satellite vehicle systems for solid waste collection; evaluation
          and application. Environmental Protection Publication SW-82ts. U.S.
          Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. 243 p.  (Distributed by Na-
          tional  Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as PB-197
RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.  The use  of bags for solid waste storage and
          collection. Environmental  Protection  Publication SW-42d. U.S. En-
          vironmental Protection  Agency,  1972.  264 p.  (Distributed by Na-
          tional  Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as PB-212
SHUSTER, K. A., and D. A. SCHUR.  Heuristic routing for solid waste collection
          vehicles. Environmental Protection Publication SW-113. Washington,
          U.S. Government  Printing Office, 1974.  45 p.
          dential solid waste  collection. Environmental Protection  Publication
          SW-74d. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 176 p.  (Dis-
          tributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
          as PB-239 195.)
U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Residential,  commercial and in-
          stitutional solid wastes; proposed guidelines  for storage  and  collec-
          tion. Federal Register 40(134) :29404-29408,  July 11, 1975.

                Equipment Systems  for Collection
                        of Commercial Wastes
  Most public solid waste collection systems
handle residential wastes only, but some also
handle commercial solid waste (defined as
wastes generated by business or  industrial
establishments and by residential apartment
buildings with more than four to six units).
The following discussion of equipment sys-
tems for collection of commercial waste as-
sumes  that  the  community has sufficient
volume of such wastes  to justify collecting
it separately from residential refuse.

  There  are  three basic systems for col-
lection of commercial  waste. The first is
based on  the  residential-type  vehicle—the
side or rear loader  (see previous chapter on
Residential Collection  Equipment). Wastes
can be fed into the hopper of this type of ve-
hicle either by hand or mechanical dumping
devices  (Figure  5). Metal bulk containers
designed to work with side loaders usually
range in size from  1 to 4 cubic yards. Con-
tainers  used  with   rear loaders  are  most
commonly 1 to 3 cubic yards in size. Some
rear loaders accept larger containers, but
they are rarely larger than 8 cubic yards.
The containers for both side and rear loaders
can be used in conjunction with stationary
               FIGURE 5. Bulk containers can be emptied mechanically into a rear-loading
            compactor truck  (as shown) or a side loader.

   The other two systems utilize trucks and
 containers  specifically  designed  for com-
 mercial  collection. In one of these systems
 a front-loading truck lifts metal  bulk con-
 tainers over the front of the truck cab and
 empties  them into the top of the body (Fig-
 ure 6).  The  containers range in  capacity
 from 1 to 10 cubic yards. These containers
 also can be used with stationary compactors.
   Unlike the  side or rear loader,  the front
 loader is not designed  for  hand loading.
 Another  difference is  that the  containers
 used with front loaders are usually  larger
 and have no casters to  facilitate movement
 to the truck. This means that the  container
 has to be placed so that the  truck can be
 driven to it. The body capacity of the front
 loader ranges from  20  to 41  cubic  yards.
 It is operated by one man (the driver), and
   FIGURE 6.  The front-loading  compactor truck
collects waste by picking up bulk containers, lifting
them over  the cab,  and  emptying them into  the
 he does not have to leave the  cab to  carry
 out the collection.
   The third basic system is the  tilt-frame
 truck  with  roll-off container  (Figure  7).
 This truck has a pair of guide rails that tilt
 to facilitate  the loading and unloading of a
 boxlike container.  The containers may be
 open-top  or enclosed.  Either  type may be
 loaded by hand, by mechanical devices (e.g.,
 conveyor belt, loader,  etc.), or by stationary
 compactor. When the  container is full, it is
 loaded onto  the truck  chassis and taken to
 the disposal area where it is emptied and
 then returned.  A variation of this system is
 to bring an empty container and swap  it for
 the full container. This does reduce the time
 needed  to service  the container  but may
 not always be feasible or desirable. For ex-
 ample, a container may be located in a  small
 alleyway  downtown with the disposal site
 only a few minutes away. All the time gained
 in not having to make a round trip to the
 disposal site would be  offset by the addition-
 al maneuvering needed to effect the  swap.
 Roll-off containers vary in size from  10 to
 55 cubic yards. This system, like the front-
 loader system, is a  one-man operation. Al-
 though  there are  other  methods of  com-
 mercial collection for more specialized ap-
plications, the three described are the most

       Residential Collection Trucks
  Residential-type  trucks  (rear  and  side
loaders), have some definite advantages over
the two  purely  commercial  vehicles.  The
first is  lower initial investment.  A side or
                FIGURE 7.  Tilt-frame vehicles are used to transport roll-off containers.

rear loader costs  about half  as  much  as a
front loader. It is also more versatile. Since
the  truck can be loaded  manually or  by
mechanical devices, a wide choice of storage
containers can be used, including bags, 20-
to 30-gallon cans, or bulk containers 1 to 8
cubic yards in capacity. Spare equipment can
be kept to a minimum because of this sys-
tem's  versatility  and  compatibility  with
residential collection, thus helping to reduce
overall budget requirements. If there is not
at least 500 cubic yards (35  tons)  of  non-
compacted commercial solid waste generated
daily,- the acquiring of separate  commercial
collection  vehicles would hardly be justified.
  The service area  is  another important
consideration. Certain streets  and alleyways
along collection routes,  particularly in cen-
tral  business  districts, may not be able to
accommodate the larger commercial vehicles.
There often is no space for the larger  stor-
age  containers or for  the maneuvering of
the truck to pick  them  up, making the use
of side or rear loaders with smaller  caster-
equipped  containers the only solution.
  On the  negative side, the most important
disadvantage of using residential trucks for
commercial collection is the relatively  high
operating cost when  large waste quantities
are collected.  Per ton costs are higher be-
cause of lower productivity; this system is
much slower, and the capacity of the bodies
is smaller, meaning more frequent trips to
the disposal site.  If mechanical storage con-
tainers are used, there are other costs. The
containers used with  side  or  rear loaders
are generally  not made very well and the
lids  and  casters require  constant mainte-
nance. Also, these small, unbalanced  con-
tainers  are easily toppled and  can cause

           Front-Loader System

  This system has many advantages over the
residential system.  The front   loader  can
handle much  more tonnage per man-hour.
In an 8-hour work shift, if a rear loader can
collect 10 tons, a front loader  will  collect
20 tons.   This  is  possible because a front
loader can dump an  8-cubic-yard container
as quickly as  a 2-cubic-yard container. The
same cannot be said for the rear loaC    with
its smaller hopper capacity. The front load-
er has the advantage of simplicity of design,
especially compared to the rear loader, and
lower  maintenance  costs  result  from  the
fewer moving parts.
  If there is a sufficient quantity  of com-
mercial solid waste  to be collected,  the dis-
advantages for the front-loader system  are
minor  compared to the advantages.  The re-
quirement of space in which to maneuver a
big truck to a stationary container is a dis-
advantage. The high initial investment can
be a deterring element. The large chassis
size means a more  specialized driver must
be trained or hired. Satellite services and
equipment  (container  delivery truck,  weld-
ing  and painting  apparatus)   must   be
requisitioned.  Finally,  sufficient  backup
equipment  must be  available to  assure  un-
interrupted  collection.

            Tilt-Frame System
  When  large  volumes  of  waste occur  in
each of a number of locations, the tilt-frame
or roll-off  system  may  be the  most cost-
effective. To  get full utilization of the sys-
tem, a container should be emptied  at least
once each  week, and  a minimum  of four
containers  should  be taken to the disposal
site per day. The weekly minimum volume of
waste that would  justify placing a roll-off
container at a given commercial stop would
be about 160 cubic yards of uncompacted
waste or enough to fill a 40-cubic-yard com-
pactor container. A large, sprawling service
area can best be served by the roll-off. Many
county governments station roll-off contain-
ers as "minidisposal sites"  in  rural  areas
rather than  provide individual  service  to
residents.  Special  or  short-term  cleanup
projects  also lend themselves very  well to
this  system.  And  finally,  the unit  can  be
versatile—different containers make the ve-
hicle a dump truck, leaf collector, sludge
hauler,   snow-removal  apparatus,  liquid
wastes truck, and heavy bulk debris truck.
There is  even one type of roll-off that can be
converted to a front loader.
  The  disadvantages  are  the high initial
equipment  costs  for  limited applications,
need for  special driver experience and skills,
and the  large  maneuvering  area required.

 This  system  also has  very little compati-
 bility with the other two systems.  A  rear
 loader or  front loader could  not fill in if
 there was a 40-cubic-yard container  full of
 debris that had to be moved, and the  roll-
 off truck was  not available. The reverse is
 also true—the  roll-off truck could not collect
 on a route normally serviced by a rear loader
 or front loader. The roll-off system also re-
 quires a large storage area for spare contain-
 ers and support equipment.

   By  making certain assumptions, costs  of
 the three systems can be compared on a per
 ton basis  (Tables 24-26).
   For the rear loader, it is assumed  that a
 two-man crew  manually collects two  loads a
 day, 5 days a week, working 8 hours per  day.
 The truck's capacity is 20 cubic yards, and it
 compacts  to  an  average density  of  500
 pounds per cubic yard (4-to-l ratio). On this
 basis, the estimated total yearly cost,  includ-
 ing the  cost of the truck, labor, overhead,
 maintenance,  fuel,  insurance  and licenses,
 would be  $49,478, or $19.03 per  ton  (Table

                 TABLE 24
                                  Cost per year
Truck cost ($30,000 at 6 percent
  interest amortized over 5 years)     $6,900
Labor, including 20 percent fringes:
    Driver  ($5.00/hr)                12,480
    Helper  ($4.50/hr)                11,232
    Fuel (7,200 gallons  X $0.36)       2,592
    Oil                                480
    Tires                            1,680
Truck maintenance                    4,000
Management and administrative over-
  head (30 percent of direct labor)       7,114
Miscellaneous (insurance and fees)       3,000
     Total                        $49,478
$49,478 4- 2,600  tons/yearf = $19.03/ton

    * Costs  are for a 20-cubic-yard packer that is
manually loaded. Average compacted waste density
is 600 Ib/cu  yd,  and two loads are collected each day.
    t 20-cu-yd body X 500 lb=10,000 Ib, or 5 tons;
5 tons X 2 trips/day=10 tons per day; 10 tons/day
X 260 days=2,600  tons per year.
   To estimate costs for  a front loader, the
 following assumptions were made: 2.5 loads
 per day,  5  days a week, and 8-hour  work
 shifts; an average of six containers are emp-
 tied per hour; the average container size is
 6 cubic yards; the body capacity is 30 cubic
 yards,  with a 4:1  compaction  ratio; and the
 average weight per compacted cubic yard is
 500 pounds. The  initial  investment  in the
 storage containers is assumed to be covered
 by a rental  fee or sale to the  users. On this
 basis, the yearly  operating cost is $48,993,
 or $9.92  per ton  (Table 25).
   The  assumptions underlying the cost esti-
 mates  for the roll-off  system are as follows:
 5 loads per day,  5 days a week, in 8-hour
 work shifts. The  average container size is
 30 cubic yards, and  the average density  of
 the compacted waste  is 500 pounds per cubic
 yard. The cost of the containers and/or com-
 pactors is assumed to be passed on  to the
 user and  is not considered as  part  of this
 estimate.  With these  assumptions,  the year-
 ly operating cost of the roll-off truck is esti-
 mated  at $44,293, or $4.54 per ton  (Table

   The roll-off system,  with a cost per ton of
 $4.54, is clearly the most cost-effective. The
 next most cost-effective  system  is the front

                 TABLE 25
                                 Cost per year
Truck cost ($50,000 at 6 percent interest
  amortized over 5 years)             $11,500
Driver's wages and 20 percent fringes
  ($6/hr)                             14,976
Management and administrative overhead
  (30 percent of direct labor)             4,493
Truck maintenance                     10,200
Fuel (8,400 gallonsX $0.36)               3,024
Insurance and licenses                   4,800
     Total                          $48,993
$48,993-f-4,940 tons/yearf=$9.92/ton

    * The truck  is a 30-cu-yd packer;  the average
waste density is 500 Ib  per cu yd; and 2.5  loads
are  collected each day.
   130-cu-yd body   X  500 lb=15,000 Ib or  7.5
tons; 7.5 tons X.2.5 trips per day=19 tons per day;
19 tons per day X  260=4,940 tons per  year.

               TABLE 26

                                 Cost per year
Truck cost ($40,000 at 6 percent interest
  amortized over 5 years)               $9,200
Driver's wages and 20 percent fringes
  ($6/hr)                            14,976
Management and administrative overhead    4,493
Truck maintenance                      7,800
Fuel (8,400 gallons X $0.36)              3,024
Insurance and licenses                   4,800
      Total                          $44,293

    * The truck  takes  on a  30-cu-yd  container;
the  average density of the compacted  waste is 500
Ib per cu yd; and five loads are handled per day.
    130-cu-yd  body  x  500 lb=15,000 Ib  or  7.5
tons; 7.5 tonsx5 trips per day=37.5 tons per day;
37.5 tons per dayx260=9,750 tons per year.
loader with a cost of $9.92 per ton. The least
cost-effective system shown is the rear load-
er with  a cost  ofj $19.03 per ton. It should
be noted that the costs of operating a resi-
dential-type truck (rear or side loader) with
mechanically emptied bulk containers would
fall somewhere between those for the front-
loader system and the manually loaded rear-
loader system on a per ton basis. The more
bulk  containers are used  with the  rear or
side loader,  the closer its costs will  come to
those of the front loader, but it can never be
quite as cost-effective.


  If  a  community has  commercial  solid
waste to collect, a thorough analysis has to
be made to determine which collection sys-
tem is best suited to its needs. The volume of
commercial solid waste is the main criterion.
Without  sufficient  amounts of  wastes  to
justify purchase of a commercial  system,  it
would be  more cost-effective to  collect the
commercial waste with  the residential  col-
lection equipment. Unfortunately there is no
rule of thumb  for  deciding when a switch
in collection methods should be made. It  is
simply a matter of which  system or  com-
bination of systems is the most cost-effective
for each community,  and  this can  be de-
termined by cost accounting.
  The system to be utilized is dictated  by
several  important  criteria  in addition  to
waste volume  and  cost-effectiveness. The
service area must be surveyed to assure that
the equipment  can be safely  used on  the
roads, streets, and alleyways without damage
to structures' or equipment. Other factors
include the type and size  of storage facili-
ties needed and distance between the serv-
ice  area and the disposal  site. The  wishes
and reactions of users  of the service and the
collection  workers  must be given careful
consideration in the decision-making.

             CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA.  A handbook for  initiating or improving  com-
                      mercial refuse collection. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
                      Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)
             GOLDBERG, T. L.  Improving rural solid waste management practices. Environ-
                      mental Protection  Publication SW-107. Washington, U.S.  Govern-
                      ment Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
             HUDSON, J.  F., el al. Evaluation of policy-related  research in the  field  of
                      municipal solid waste management; final report. Research  Report
                      R74-56.  Cambridge,  Massachusetts  Institute of Technology,  Civil
                      Engineering Systems Laboratory,  Sept. 1974. 364 p.

                                Rural  Collection
  The collection methods used in urban areas
have  little applicability to  rural  areas  be-
cause of the much greater distance between
stops. However, there are techniques  avail-
able for rural collection, and local officials
must decide which of these best suits their


  Four techniques can be  used  for solid
waste management in rural areas. These are:
disposal of waste  on one's own property,
direct haul by the resident to the disposal
site, the use of centrally located  bulk con-
tainers, and  house-to-house "mailbox"  col-
lection of solid wastes.
  Each of  these systems requires citizen co-
operation.  Some States empower  local  au-
thorities to require mandatory solid  waste
collection throughout  their jurisdiction. In
these areas,  the governing agencies  must
provide adequate service, and residents must
accept and pay for the service. Exceptions
are allowed where the householder can prove
that he is  privately disposing of  his  waste
in a satisfactory manner, usually by burying
the waste  on his property in a location ap-
proved by  the governing agency.
  There are three requisites for instituting
mandatory collection. State  enabling legisla-
tion must  exist to allow local  government
agencies to enact ordinances requiring man-
datory  collection; an  economically  feasible
system  must  be available to provide  col-
lection service to all residents; and govern-
ing agencies must be available to operate the
system. Legal, political, or economic reasons
often preclude mandatory  solid  waste  col-
lection in rural areas  even though it might
be  desirable.  The  logical  alternative  is  a
voluntary system. A mandatory system will
theoretically collect 100 percent of the  resi-
dential solid waste generated within a polit-
ical  jurisdiction, whereas a voluntary sys-
tem  may collect much  less. The real crux of
the  matter  is whether the resident is re-
quired to pay for solid waste collection serv-
ice or not. Voluntary acceptance of charges
for solid waste collection should not be ex-
pected from a large percentage of the popu-
  Although  data  on collection costs are not
generally available for rural systems, a  total
operating cost  of $7 to $15 per ton can be
anticipated for the average bulk container
collection system.

          Disposal by Residents

  The simplest method is the direct disposal
of wastes on one's own property. It  pro-
vides the least service at the least expense to

the  rural government.  However,  it  is  the
system that is the most difficult to monitor
and  control.  It  also  encourages  roadside
dumping as well as open burning, which are
unacceptable practices.  In order to be suc-
cessful, an extensive educational campaign is
needed to ensure proper disposal of wastes.

     Raiding  by Residents to Landfills
  The direct haul of wastes  by the resident
to a  central sanitary landfill eliminates some
of the problems associated with disposal of
wastes on one's own property. The distance
to the  landfill may discourage some residents
from using it regularly, however.  Roadside
littering  as well  as  traffic at the disposal
site  may also create problems.

           Bulk Container System
  In a  bulk  storage container system, a
number of containers, enough to  serve  the
needs  of the  rural population,  are  strate-
                                gically located along highways or roads easi-
                                ly traversed by a collection vehicle. The indi-
                                vidual resident is  required to transport his
                                waste to  the bulk containers,  which are
                                serviced by collection vehicles; the collected
                                wastes are transported to  a central sanitary
                                landfill  or processing facility.
                                  There  are  two   different  types of  bulk
                                storage container  systems. In one  system,
                                the  containers are boxes with lids or doors
                                ranging in size from 3  to  8 cubic  yards
                                and serviced  by emptying into  a collection
                                vehicle. The  other type  of  bulk container
                                system  uses large  open boxes with a capac-
                                ity  of approximately 20 to 40 cubic yards.
                                These large boxes are not emptied, but  in-
                                stead  are replaced  regularly by empty boxes,
                                with  the  full  boxes being taken  directly to
                                the  processing or disposal site.
                                  There are  three basic types of bulk bin
                                collection vehicles: front-loading, rear-load-
                                ing, and side-loading,  each  with its own
                                characteristics and capabilities  (Table 27).
                                           TABLE 27
Crew size

One driver-collector
Vehicle type
One driver, one to

One driver, one or two
 Typical container
 servicing time
 Container site
 Container sizes

 Site maintenance

 Typical packer
 body sizes
 Types of wastes
 Vehicle flexibility
1 to 2 min

Requires pull-off area
from main road, with
gravel or paved surface
0.8 to 8 cu m (1 to 10
cu yd)
Usually a special crew
cleans sites periodically
15.3 to 30.2 cu m (20 to
40 cu yd)
Any wastes that will fit
inside container
Can service only front-
loading containers
three collectors
2 to 6 min (includes
some litter cleanup)
Requires area in which
to back up to container;
gravel or paved surface
is common
0.8 to 4.5 cu m (1 to
6 cu yd)
Collection crew cleans up
as containers are emptied
12 to 22.7 cu m (16 to
30 cu yd)
Any wastes that will fit
into rear-loading hopper
Can service both rear-
loading containers and
house-to-house collection
1 to 3 min (includes
some litter cleanup)
If users and collection vehicle
can stop  safely along  road,
site needs to be only slightly
larger  than  containers;
otherwise  pull-off  area  is
common with gravel or paved
0.8 to 3.1 cu m (1 to
4 cu yd)
Collection crew cleans up as
containers  are emptied
9.9 to 24.5  cu  m  (13 to
32 cu yd)
Any waste that can be placed
through the side doors
Can service both side-loading
containers and house-to-house
     * GOLDBERG, T. L. Improving rural solid waste management practices. Environmental Protection Agency
 Publication No.  SW-107. Washington,  U.S. Government  Printing Office,  1973. 83 p.

  A slight  variation  of the bulk  bin col-
lection system has been demonstrated in Lee
County,  Mississippi, where  wheel-and-axle-
mounted 5-cubic-yard  mobile waste contain-
ers are utilized. Because many of the small-
er  secondary roads and bridges were not
designed to  carry as much weight as that of
a large packer truck, a conventional station-
ary waste container could not be used. How-
ever, by  towing the mobile  containers with
a pickup truck to a major road, they can be
emptied by the packer truck. Other areas of
the county with better roads are able to use
standard stationary containers.
  In calculating the bulk container capacity
required for an  area,  it may be  useful  to
consider that the average number of  per-
sons served per cubic yard of bulk contain-
er  space,  based  on  figures  from selected
areas,  is  10.1  for  once-a-week  collection
(Table 28).  However,  the ratio of persons
per cubic yard varies  widely depending on
local conditions.  To determine  the number
of containers that can be emptied into a
collection truck, the following estimates can
be used.  For loose solid waste, a density  in
the container of 75 to 150 pounds  per cubic
yard can be  expected. A density in the col-
                                        TABLE 28
Baldwin, Co., Ala.
Chilton Co., Ala.
Choctaw Co., Ala.
Coffee Co., Ala.
Macon Co., Ala.
Madison Co., Ala.
Tuscaloosa Co., Ala.
Clark Co., Ark.
Humboldt Co., Calif.

Evans Co., Ga.

Grady Co., Ga.
Screven Co., Ga.
Benewah Co., Idaho
Bonner Co., Idaho
Boundary Co., Idaho
Kootenai Co., Idaho

Shoshone Co., Idaho

DeSoto Co., Miss.

Lee Co., Miss.

Humphreys Co., Tenn.

Jefferson Co., Tenn.

Polk Co., Texas








of con-

Size of
(cu yd)




per week








Nnmber of
persons per
cu yd
















Size of
(cu yd)





cost •








    * Data were gathered in 1974 but capital costs vary from 1968 to 1973.
    t Mailbox system.
    j Contracted.
    § Hand unload.
    fl Mobile containers.
   ** Three pickup trucks for towing containers.

lection  vehicle of 450 to  1,000 pounds per
cubic yard of compacted  waste can be ex-
pected.  Data on the density that  can be
achieved  by any specific type of collection
truck can be obtained from a list of speci-
fications for that model or the dealer.
   Site locations should be chosen according
to commonsense  criteria. For example, con-
tainers  should be located  so that they  will
be on  the  way  for users  going  to town,
church, or school. Containers  should be lo-
cated with regard to where the people  are.
The maximum distance of a container from
any user  should not be over 3 to 5 miles. If
containers are placed near existing  dumps,
they are  more apt to be successful because
of the strength of habit of the users.
   The climatic conditions and terrain of the
area will  affect the cost of establishing con-
tainer sites.  Occasionally a wide fork in the
road or a  natural  gravel  area beside the
road can be utilized with little or no prepara-
tion. Normally, however, a certain amount of
grading followed with  gravel  or  blacktop
surfacing is  required. The cost of preparing
container sites can vary  greatly.  Average
costs reported for three county systems are:
Clark   County,  Arkansas—$67 per  site;
Wayne  County,  Ohio—$100  per site;  and
Chilton  County, Alabama—$221.43 per site.
These  figures  are  relatively low since  all
sites do not require extensive work. Clark
County, Arkansas, found that costs for those
sites requiring work averaged from $300 to
$400 per  site.
   There are  several major advantages to
bulk bin collection systems. The first is that
a collection system  is provided where usu-
ally none had existed before. Promiscuous
dumping  and use of community dumps are
generally  reduced.   Public  acceptability is
usually high. The sites can be located close to
the users, and population and waste-genera-
tion changes can be easily adapted  to by
changing  the number and  locations  of the
containers.  A  centralized  sanitary  landfill
that incorporates economies  of scale  can be
used. Servicing of commercial and industri-
al establishments and recreational areas  can
be easily  done. Not the least  advantage is
that the costs of this kind of system, once
established, can be  predicted to a  reliable
  As with any system, there are also  dis-
advantages.  The initial capital  investment
cost may be quite high. In 1975, prices for
front loaders for rural use started at ap-
proximately  $40,000 and  for smaller con-
tainers at $200 each.  (There are models of
front  loaders that  sell for less,  but they
are not as suitable for the long daily mile-
ages on unimproved roads that rural  collec-
tion entails.) Another possible  problem is
that initiation of a new program may cause
existing collection systems, whether private
or municipal, to immediately decrease serv-
ice in the area. Also, on some models  of the
small containers, the lids  are too  heavy or
are difficult for children or small  adults to
open. As  a result lids  may be left open or
wastes may be placed outside of the contain-
er. With the larger  roll-off type containers,
lids  are usually not  provided or are  left
open  at the container site, allowing rain-
water  and flies to enter and the blowing of
litter. At a minimum the containers need to
be covered for hauling to the disposal site.
  The  system  can  be financed  by  user
charges but only with difficulty.  As with
any  unattended site, vandalism  may  occur
and unsanitary  conditions may develop un-
less the sites are properly maintained.  Users
of the system'must carry their own waste to
the containers,  which may  be a hardship for
those without means of transportation. To
work well, this kind of service must supply
a substantial number of containers at  acces-
sible sites. The amount of waste picked  up
at each site may be unpredictable and cause
scheduling problems, at least until new sites
or more  containers  are  supplied.  Finally,
if this kind  of rural service  is used near
municipalities,  the  containers  may be used
by  town  residents  if  there  is  inadequate
town service.

             Mailbox System

  In this house-to-house collection system, a
collection vehicle travels rural postal delivery
routes collecting waste  that has been placed
next to mailboxes.
  This system assumes: (1) if a mail truck
can travel a route,  a collection vehicle  can
travel  the same route; (2) over the years,

the postal system has probably developed the
most efficient routes for traveling the region;
(3)  since all mailboxes on a rural route are
required to be accessible to a driver and on
the  same side of the  road, containers will
have to be picked up  from only  one side of
the  road. For households  that do not have
mailboxes on the postal routes, the  resident
and  collection agency must agree on a mu-
tually  acceptable collection site. A house-to-
house  system such  as  the mailbox  requires
that collection days and times be designated
so that residents know when to set out their
waste. Recently the mailbox system has be-
come very  popular in Alabama, where  67
percent of the unincorporated population is
now served by this method in comparison to
23 percent served  by bulk  containers.
  The advantages to this type of system are
that it collects  the largest percentage  of
generated household waste of any system, it
permits a high level of scheduled service to
the  rural resident  and  business establish-
ments, and  it provides a  system for  which
user charges can be established.
  The mailbox system does have some dis-
advantages  in that homeowners  must coop-
erate in  setting out containers on the road-
side and following service schedules.  Litter
problems may occur if bags are  torn or if
containers  are  upset along the road. Also,
the system  may be time consuming and cost-
ly to provide in isolated areas.
   In considering the use of a house-to-house
system for rural solid  waste  collection, nu-
merous factors must be evaluated in terms
of the funds available, such as frequency of
collection, type of  storage container, kind
and  size of equipment,  and crew  size. Most
critical is  the expected level  of  participa-
tion by residents.

  Two of the four methods of rural waste
management  rely heavily  on  the  residents
themselves, since they  must either  dispose
of the waste on their own property or haul
it to a sanitary landfill.
  If  a bulk  storage container  system  or
house-to-house system  is  proposed   for  a
given rural area, a thorough  investigation
must be undertaken to  determine  what the
population is willing to  support. In order to
rationally  select  between  system alterna-
tives, there must be an understanding of the
level  of service desired as well as the cost
for each system.

              Clean and Green. Clanton, Ala., Chilton County, 1972. 4 p.
              GOLDBERG, T. L.  Improving rural solid  waste management practices. Environ-
                       mental Protection  Publication SW-107. Washington,  U.S. Govern-
                       ment Printing Office, 1973. 83 p.
                       ZINOV-REIBIN, CONSULTANTS.  Rural storage and collection container
                       systems. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, 1972. 146 p.  (Dis-
                       tributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
                       as PB-212 398.)
              KRUTH, M. A., D. H. BOOTH, and D. L. YATES.  Creating a countywide solid
                       waste management system;  the case  study of Humphreys County,
                       Tennessee. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 15 p.
              LEE COUNTY BOARD OF  SUPERVISORS. Lee County, Mississippi, solid waste dis-
                       posal project. Environmental  Protection Publication  SW-83d. U.S.
                       Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 134 p. (Distributed by Na-
                       tional Technical Information  Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as PB-241

       Manpower Management and Labor  Relations
  In  any service  or  industry  that  is  as
labor-intensive as solid waste management,
a key to productivity is management's abili-
ty to lead and to work with employees. Yet
many municipal  departments  in charge  of
solid waste management are facing problems
such as high turnover  rates and  changing
attitudes toward  manual work which all too
frequently produce  a negative  attitude  on
the part of management  toward labor  in
general. Often it is not recognized that many
labor  problems are rooted  in management's
inability or  lack of desire to manage in a
fashion  appropriate to current conditions.
Moreover, labor  is  often  overlooked as  a
powerful means for increasing its own pro-
ductivity.  Indeed, public and  private solid
waste systems have found that it pays  to
overcome the typical management view  of
labor as an inevitable source of productivity
problems which must be dealt with on  an
adversary basis at the bargaining table.
  Management  must  first recognize the
problems experienced by workers  in solid
waste systems.  Many of  them have little
education, are from  racial  or ethnic minori-
ties, and are defensive towards the public
since they feel their jobs carry low status.
These workers may have entered  this field
of employment as a last resort. Job satis-
faction  is often  low since most tasks are
highly repetitive and routinized. Opportuni-
ties for advancement are  few because job
stratification  makes  it difficult to provide
nonmonetary  incentives for  increased pro-
ductivity.  Therefore, productivity  increases
are often dependent on management's efforts
to improve morale.
  Some of the areas  management should
examine in assessing its approach to labor
relations are incentive systems, crew sched-
uling, training, opportunities for  advance-
ment, safety, and the effects of unionization.

  In many communities, incentive systems
have increased productivity  in solid  waste
collection while increasing employee morale.
The  potential  for providing effective in-
centives should be considered for each of the
following basic workload systems: (1) the
flat 8-hour day, (2) a task incentive system
in which  a set task is assigned  to  each
collection crew or  group of crews and, when
the task is completed, the crews are permit-
ted to go home,  and (3)  a monetary in-
centive system in  which each crew or group
of crews has a standard task and is paid an
extra  amount  for  any  work completed be-
yond that task.
  The flat 8-hour day requires that all  crew
members remain  on the job until their  8

hours  are up.  Conversely,  if they do not
finish the assigned work in 8 hours and must
stay longer to complete it, they receive over-
time pay. The result is that there is no real
incentive to "hustle" on the routes.
  The task system allows the  men  to  set
their own work speed, skip breaks and lunch,
and  go home early when  their  routes are
completed,  provided   that  no   crew  has
fallen behind during the day  due to  break-
downs or other unusual delays. In the event
of such delays, the first crews to finish are
asked to pitch in and help.
  When the task is assigned  to a group of
truck crews (typically all trucks under one
foreman), no crew is permitted  to go home
until  the entire task  is completed or "cov-
ered." This combined  task system is  often
referred to as the reservoir system since on
a given day all  crews end up in a central or
"reservoir" area. With the reservoir system,
all crews work a similar number of  hours,
and  peer pressure  to  set  a good  pace  in-
creases productivity.
  The advantage of task incentive systems
is that they encourage  crews to work faster,
thereby  increasing  productivity.  Also, task
systems  tend to result in a more satisfied
work force as long as  the task is perceived
as a reasonable day's work. A major disad-
vantage of the task system is that, by work-
ing fast to complete the route, there is the
potential  for a reduction in the quality of
service. Additional  supervision may  be  re-
quired to ensure that each house receives
service  and that the  solid waste and cans
are handled properly. Task systems may also
increase the probability  of unsafe working
practices  and fatigue which could result in
an increased injury rate. Another considera-
tion  is  that unions have  been reluctant to
accept the task system  provision in their
contracts because it conflicts with opportu-
nities for overtime pay.
  There are several methods of  providing
monetary incentives. One is to give addition-
al pay to crews which, having finished their
own  tasks, assist other  crews which have
fallen behind their normal pace  because of
breakdowns, absenteeism, or other problems.
Additional pay may be  given also for  in-
creased productivity, decreased overtime, or
decreased costs. In a private firm a  profit-
sharing system might be instituted whereby
the crews are paid a part of the profits or
of increased profits in a specific period. In a
public agency, incentive pay could be a share
of cost savings.
  Another type  of monetary  incentive  is
premium  pay for  difficult tasks.  In Fort
Worth, where the system changed from back-
yard to curb  service, a premium of  10 cents
per stop per week was paid for stops which
still  required backyard  service. Unskilled
workers interested in this incentive could
request routes with some  backyard service
and make an  additional $15-$20 per week.
The  effect of this  incentive on  the system
was an additional cost to management which
was  partially overcome  by  a  premium
charge to the backyard customers.
  Other incentives  include such  diverse ar-
rangements as hot breakfasts,  which  are
served by a  landfill operator in Milwaukee
and help to get his people  to work on time,
and  cash bonuses  for crews missing  the
least pickups and having the cleanest truck,
which are used by firms in Washington, B.C.
  A  number  of collection systems have im-
plemented a  "piecework"  method of  opera-
tion. A  firm  in  St.  Paul pays its  crews
according to  the  number of stops serviced.
The effect is improved productivity, and the
benefits can be passed on  to the consumer.
  Detroit has successfully combined a mone-
tary incentive with a  task incentive. Gains
from  increased  productivity are  split be-
tween the city and the crews. Those crews
with the best performance records  receive
the  largest   bonuses.   The  performance
measures  used by  Detroit and the relative
weight of each are:
  Paid  man-hours per ton  (50 percent)
  Overtime reductions (20 percent)
  Percentage  of routes completed (20 per-
  Quality of pickup (10 percent)

  Regardless of the workload system used,
it is important to have a standard for a fair
day's work  for  each  route  in terms  of
number of stops. Clearly, all routes should
not have  the  same number of  stops since
housing density,  road width, street traffic,

distance from disposal site, the presence of
hills or alleys, and other factors introduce
variability among routes. A fair day's work
can be determined  for each route  through
time-and-motion studies, and  tasks  can be
negotiated with the union or the workers.
In many  situations, the drivers and crews
know the  areas far better  than anyone  else
and they  should  therefore be participants
in any rerouting effort. In addition, if they
help "design"  the route, they have less basis
for complaints about the assignments.
  In summary, a flat 8-hour-day system re-
quires careful 'management  to keep  pro-
ductivity high and to maintain quality  con-
trol. An incentive system should lead to high
productivity because of the desire  of  the
crews to finish their  tasks quickly. But man-
agement must keep  the tasks  balanced  and
make  sure the work is done properly. Either
system can be effective with good manage-
ment.  If  cost is  the  major criterion,  a
switch to  an  incentive  system  may make
increases  in direct productivity possible. If
a high level of service is  more important,
it may be easier to achieve with  a flat 8-
hour-day system.
assignments by letting the foreman or super-
visor know with whom they prefer to work;
permanent work assignments are then de-
termined based  on  this information. There
is  no easy solution, however, and the best
answer appears to  be an astute  supervisor
who has the ability to recognize traits, per-
sonality  characteristics, and the ability of
people to work together, and to cajole per-
manent crews into accepting replacements
or new personnel.
  The assignment  of crews  to  particular
routes can also be complicated.  Managers
can often identify the rry>st efficient crews
and they may wish to use this information
to increase productivity. Research has shown
that in an  incentive system  it  is best to
assign equal tasks to all crews. With a fixed
8-hour day, however, unbalanced routes may
result  in optimum  productivity.  Assigning
higher productivity crews to routes in areas
with  higher  concentrations  of  waste  and
lower productivity crews to routes with more
travel  time between  stops may result in
greater tonnage collected per day.


  By more efficient and rational assignment
of men to jobs, productivity can be increased
and working conditions improved.
  Most solid waste managers make an at-
tempt to organize compatible  crews who
like  to  work together,  and in theory this
should lead to higher productivity. A major
problem is that absenteeism  and turnover
make continual reassignment necessary.
  One of the simplest suggestions for crew
assignment has been to distribute question-
naires to crew  members which ask  their
preferences  regarding those  persons  with
whom they would and would  not choose to
work. The questionnaires are kept confiden-
tial and used to make permanent crew as-
signments.  This system can  work well in
communities  where absenteeism  and  turn-
over are low, but in other cities it may be
difficult to  implement. In  many instances,
crew  members  play a major  role  in  crew
  Training  is  important  in  establishing
good  labor-management relations  and  in
helping the collectors,  drivers, equipment
operators, mechanics, and  other employees
to better understand both their jobs and the
system. Employee orientation should include
introductions to supervisors and managers.
Training  in  basic  public  relations,  work
rules,  unit operations,  safety, and equip-
ment use  and  care  should  be  scheduled for
optimum participation at regular intervals.
  Such training sessions may be difficult to
schedule and it may be necessary to  offer
incentives for participation, but when well
planned they  can  help reduce equipment
breakdowns, improve relations between the
collectors  and the community, reduce injury
rates, and save money. These sessions also
provide a useful forum for  the discussion
of problems and demonstrate management's
interest in the  worker.
  EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs has  developed materials for two

major training courses: Operation Respon-
sible;  Training  for Safe Rejuse  Collection
and Training for Sanitary Landfill Opera-
tions (see  bibliography). Many State  agen-
cies have also produced similar materials.
  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  has provided its
employees  with  the opportunity to  study
for  high school  equivalency  tests  at  the
city's expense. The city has also  conducted
extensive  in-house  training  programs on
driving skills, safety,  and  technical  aspects
of solid waste management. The program has
resulted in a definite  improvement  in  em-
ployee morale and more efficient operations.

  Advancement in the form of promotions
is slow in solid waste systems because of the
relatively few supervisory positions in rela-
tion to the total work force. However, it may
be advantageous  for  management  to spend
time  developing  a career  ladder  for  em-
ployees.  Numerous studies of the  behavior
of unskilled workers have shown  that  the
perception of a career ladder improves per-
formance since the workers do not  feel they
are in dead-end  jobs. Career advancement
should not  become an  automatic  process,
however, but depend on the qualifications of
the employees.  In order to develop a success-
ful  career ladder, opportunities for further
education or training should also be avail-
  One public system that has achieved some
significant success in  career advancement is
the one in Inglewood, California. Inglewood's
system  operates  on  the premise  that  its
solid  waste  workers  should  not remain on
the job for  more than 3 years and actively
assists employees in moving out of the sys-
tem into higher level jobs. This is possible
because  the  community  is willing  to  pro-
vide training in  various skills  for its em-
ployees through local community colleges and
night schools  so that they  can eventually
obtain "better" jobs  as  policemen,  firemen,
accountants,  etc.
  In general, little has been done to develop
career ladders in solid waste management.
Most  systems  utilize other motivating fac-
tors, primarily pay raises and improvements
in benefits.


  Solid waste collection workers  have an
injury frequency that is the highest of any
industry recorded by  the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and an injury severity rate (total
days lost due to injury per fixed number of
man-hours worked) that is among the top 10.
This very serious injury problem represents
not only human costs but also high financial
costs, both direct  and indirect,  and creates
difficulties in labor relations. National Safety
Council data indicate that the problem has
been worsening over the past several years.
  This  poor safety record  shows  evidence
of neglect,  apathy, and poor  management
by both municipal and private collection sys-
tems. Attempts have been made to improve
collection   safety   through  training  and
changes in equipment  design and standards
development. Such  safety devices as gloves,
safety  glasses, respirators, and special foot-
wear   can  contribute  significantly  to  the
health  and  safety  of  collection employees.
The  use  of  plastic   leakproof  tubs  for
manual carryout collection rather than such
primitive containers as pieces of burlap will
help to minimize  physical contact between
the collector and the wastes. The prohibition
of practices such as scavenging will also help
to avoid injuries.
  Dramatic  cost savings can be realized by
implementing safety programs.  The city of
Milwaukee instituted Operation Responsible,
a training program developed by EPA, in
their  solid  waste  operation and  reduced
their injury  frequency rate by 32  percent
from 1972 to  1973. This resulted in  savings
of $46,655  in salaries and wages. In  1974,
however, Milwaukee put less emphasis  on
the safety training program and injuries in-
creased again. The city's  experience con-
firms the belief that safety training must be
a continuous program.
  EPA has  developed  and is currently field
testing a recording system that can be used
to collect reliable  and useful data on  in-
juries  in the  solid waste field.  The Injury
Reporting Information System  (IRIS) has

been  in use in 11 public and 5 private col-
lection systems for the past year.
   Preliminary findings indicate that in most
of the systems studied, management, while
aware of  the  general seriousness of the in-
jury problem, was not aware of the specific
details or costs and felt that the experience
of their organization  was  typical and  in-
herent in  this type of  work. This  view was
not borne out by the  data collected. Even
allowing  for  inconsistencies  and  unreli-
ability, it was  clear  that  there  are very
wide  variations in injury experience  from
one  organization to another, both  in  fre-
quency and type of injuries. Finally, it was
found that presenting the  management of
an organization with data on its injury pat-
terns and  costs as compared to those of other
organizations  appeared to motivate  action
which would reduce injury  rates.  These re-
sults, and  experiences  such  as that of Mil-
waukee, indicate that the injury rate can be
reduced and is not inherent  in this type of

  Many  public employees  are  demanding
what they consider to be their legitimate
rights in a  free, democratic society: the
right to  organize; the right to bargain col-
lectively; the  right  to enter into a  bind-
ing agreement reached through  meaningful,
good-faith negotiations. They demand  to be
heard when they have grievances. Refusing
to recognize legitimate rights of public em-
ployees to organize has been a common fail-
ure in many  public officials.
  Strikes by sanitation workers  have shown
that State laws prohibiting strikes are not
effective.  Public  employees  are willing to
strike (or to use various devices as substi-
tutes for the direct strike) to gain bargain-
ing  rights—in  violation of  the  law,   if
necessary.  However,  thousands  of agree-
ments  negotiated  without strikes  between
government agencies and their  employees
furnish proof that sound labor-management
relations can exist within a framework of
  Local governments should provide for re-
ceiving, evaluating, and taking appropriate
action  on  employee  complaints  and  sug-
gestions.  Complaints  should  be  handled
through  established grievance procedures.
If no  formal grievance  and appeals pro-
cedures exist, frustrations will grow when
an airing of views might have led  to satis-
factory solutions. Both agency management
and  employees  must understand and  have
confidence in the procedures.
  When there is a collapse in labor-manage-
ment negotiations, the causes  are related to
the experience and approach of each of the
two  sides and will vary from case to case,
but they may well include:

  1. Management  is unprepared to "meet,
     confer, or  bargain" with their employ-
     ees: management representatives have
     no position to bargain from, or goal to
     bargain toward; they have no expertise
     in the  bargaining process; their man-
     agement role  is unclear.
  2. There is no established machinery for
     working out the resolution of impasses.
  3. The variety of procedures available for
     resolving  labor-management  problems
     are not well recognized.


  Management has open  to it a number of
ways of developing better labor  relations,
including incentive systems, safety measures,
training and career opportunities, and clear
acceptance  of   the  employees'  bargaining
rights.  Such  improvements can  not  only
help avoid those critical total collapses  that
have occurred  in  some cities but also  pro-
mote good morale, efficiency, and lower costs
in the  long run.


HUDSON, J. F.,  et al.  Evaluation of policy-related  research in the field  of
          municipal solid  waste management;  final report.  Research Report
          R74-56.  Cambridge,  Massachusetts  Institute of  Technology,  Civil
          Engineering  Systems Laboratory, Sept. 1974. 364 p.
Manpower  for solid waste management;  profile  and analysis;  report to Con-
          gress. Delivered to the President and the  U.S.  Congress, Jan.  16,
          1973.  Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of
          Solid  Waste Management Programs [35 p.].  (Unpublished report,
NATIONAL  COMMISSION  ON PRODUCTIVITY.-  Improving municipal productivity;
          the Detroit refuse collection  incentive plan. Washington,  U.S. Gov-
          ernment Printing Office, [1974]. 26 p.
Operation responsible;  training for safe refuse collection  [Three-part  safety
          training package including a 16-mm film  (22-min, sound, color); an
          instructor's  manual  with 24 color slides, 35-mm;  and  a  trainee's
          manual  with 241 color slides,  35-mm. Purchase  from the  National
          Audiovisual  Center,  General Services Administration, Washington,
          D.C. 20409;  a few sets  are available on a free loan  basis to govern-
          ment agencies from Solid Waste  Information Materials Control Sec-
          tion, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.]
Report of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Group on'  opportunities for
          improving productivity in solid waste collection—1973. Washington,
          National Commission  on Productivity, 1974. 46 p.
Training for  sanitary  landfill  operations. Washington, U.S.  Environmental
          Protection Agency, 1973.  [Three-part training package  including a
          16-mm film (22-min, sound, color); an instructor's manual  with 206
          color  slides, 35-mm;  and a trainee's manual with  10 color  slides,
          35-mm.  Purchase  from  the  National  Audiovisual Center, General
          Services Administration,  Washington, D.C.  20409;  a few sets are
          available  on  a  free loan  basis to government agencies from  Solid
          Waste Information Materials Control Section, U.S.  Environmental
          Protection Agency, Cincinnati,  Ohio 45268.]


     conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,

                                          TO  DISPOSAL SITES
     conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, n   <•
  In  many areas of the country, sanitary
landfills  are distant from urban areas be-
cause suitable land is  not available nearby.
The result is that many man-hours can be
spent in  hauling solid waste from the collec-
tion zone to the disposal area. This situation
can be alleviated by using a transfer station.
  A transfer station is a facility where the
solid  waste  from several relatively  small
vehicles is  placed into one large vehicle be-
fore being hauled to the disposal site. The
small vehicles can  be private automobiles,
pickup trucks, or,  more commonly, collec-
tion vehicles. The  large  vehicles  can  be
barges, railcars, or trucks.
  Although a transfer operation offers po-
tential savings,  it requires an extra  mate-
rials-handling step  and  the construction of
a transfer facility. The associated costs must
be recovered or money, will  be  lost in the
transfer  operation. The costs that are  in-
curred are as follows:
  1. The  capital  expenditures  for  land,
     structures,  and equipment
  2. The costs for  labor,  utilities,  mainte-
     nance,  operation,  and overhead at the
     transfer plants
  3. The costs for labor, operation, mainte-
     nance,  and  overhead incurred in  the
    bulk hauling to the disposal site
   Costs are  saved with the utilization of a
 transfer operation because:

   1. The nonproductive time of collectors is
     reduced since they no longer ride to and
     from the disposal site; it may be pos-
     sible to reduce the number of collection
     crews needed because of increased pro-
     ductive collection time.
   2. Any reduction in mileage traveled  by
     the collection trucks results in a sav-
     ings in  operating costs.
   3. The maintenance requirements for col-
     lection  trucks  can  be reduced  when"
     these vehicles are  no  longer required
     to drive into the landfill site. Much of
     the damage to suspensions, drive trains,
     and tires occurs at landfills.
   4. The capital cost of collection equipment
     may be reduced; since the trucks will
     be traveling only on improved roads,
     lighter duty, less expensive models can
     be used.


  New York City and Seattle are among the
few  cities now using barges to haul waste
to disposal sites. Barge haul does not seem to
have much potential for development in the

 near future except in very specialized ap-

                 Rail  Haul

   Rail haul has generated considerable inter-
 est in the past several years, but to date no
 city has solved all the political problems as-
 sociated with  the  concept. Rail haul  does,
 however, have  the potential  to  become  a
 major  factor  in  the  national solid  waste
 management system. Most of  the  proposed
 rail haul projects  designate strip  mines as
 the disposal site. When this is  the  case, two
 environmental  problems can be solved: the
 proper  disposal of waste materials and the
 reclamation of the strip-mined  areas.

             Truck Transport

   The popularity of truck transfer systems
 has  led to  the development of equipment
 specifically  suited  to  this purpose.  Early
 transfer station operations relied completely
 on equipment built by various manufacturers
 to specifications of the operating authority.
 In the 1960s,  solid waste equipment manu-
 facturers developed  specialized  processing
 and hauling equipment. At the present time
 those interested in a truck transfer operation
 have the option of either designing their own
 system and  writing specifications for desired
 equipment or  buying specialized equipment
 from the manufacturers and designing the
 system  around it.
   Two basic types of transfer  systems have
 developed as a result of these  options. The
 first is the direct-dump system where a col-
 lection truck dumps by gravity into a large
 open-top trailer. The trailer is located under
 a  funnel-shaped hopper to prevent spillage,
 and  a backhoe  is usually used to compact
 and  distribute the  load after it has been
 placed in the trailer. A variation of this sys-
 tem  utilizes a  dumping pit where a crawler
 tractor  crushes and compacts the waste be-
 fore pushing it into the trailer via the  hop-
 per.  Because x>f the densities achieved with
 the crawler  tractors, a  backhoe  is usually re-
 quired for load distribution only.  The com-
 paction  pit system is used primarily in high-
 volume   transfer stations  because of the
expense  of  incorporating the  extra equip-
ment, whereas the basic direct-dump system
has been used in both small and large instal-
lations. All direct-dump systems are charac-
terized by  the fact that open-top trailers are
used and the equipment employed is usually
not  specially predesigned  for  solid  waste
transfer. Some type of cable system is  usual-
ly employed to pull the loads out of the rear
of the trailer at the disposal site.
  The second basic transfer system utilizes
hydraulic pressure to achieve horizontal com-
paction of the waste within the trailer. Two
methods have been used to achieve compac-
tion.  Both are characterized by the  use of
enclosed reinforced-steel trailers specifically
manufactured for solid waste transfer. The
first compaction method is partially a  direct-
dump  operation  in  that waste  is dumped
directly  into the trailer, near the front. A
hydraulic-powered  bulkhead  traverses  the
length of the trailer and compacts the waste
against the rear doors.  The entire compac-
tion  process  is  self-contained within  the
trailer body. At the disposal site, the bulk-
head  pushes the load  out  through the rear
  The second  compaction  method requires
the  use  of  a  stationary   compactor. The
transfer vehicle is backed  up and securely
fastened to  the compactor.  Waste is fed by
gravity into the compactor* chamber from an
overhead hopper.  The  compaction   ram
forces the waste  forward  into  the trailer
through  the rear in horizontal reciprocating
cycles. This trailer is  also equipped with a
hydraulic-powered bulkhead which traverses

the length of the trailer for unloading at the
disposal site.
  The maximum legal payload for any trans-
fer system is governed by State regulations
for gross weight, axle weight, as  well  as
limitations on length,  width,  and  height of
the trailers  and/or  rig.  To determine  the
optimum configuration,  the  designer  must
work backward from  these limitations.  Di-
rect-dump systems with limited compaction
require large-volume trailers to reach maxi-
mum payloads. Compaction  systems need
smaller volumes because of the higher den-
sities, but structural reinforcement of these
trailers increases the tare weight and lowers
the payload. The maximum  legal  payload
can vary from 15 to 25 tons depending on
local  limitations and  options  chosen by the


  There  are no representative cost figures
available on barging.

                Rail Haul

  Because  of  the lack  of  any  sustained
operating experience  in  rail hauling solid
waste, it is  impossible to provide accurate
cost figures. The city  of  Philadelphia, how-
ever, now has  under consideration propo-
sals for rail hauling 1,000 tons of solid waste
per day, and the estimated cost is $13  per
ton.  Under  this plan, the wastes would be
placed unprocessed in large containers which
would be loaded into flatcars for shipment.
  A project that includes rail hauling 8,000
tons of unprocessed solid waste per day is
being planned in St. Louis.  The waste will
be delivered to five transfer stations in the
city, compacted into 100-cubic-yard contain-
ers,  and loaded onto flatcars. The waste will
be rail hauled an average of 25 miles to a
powerplant  for  processing.  Ferrous  metal
will  be recovered magnetically, and the com-
bustible waste will  be used as supplemental
fuel in a coal-fired utility boiler.

             Truck  Transport
  For truck transfer operations, the best
method of reporting the  cost is to use two
categories. The first category is the cost of
owning and operating the transfer facility.
Data collected between 1968 and 1971 show
costs ranged from  $1.25 to $2.25 per ton.
The second category is the haul costs.  These
costs ranged from  $1.50 to $2.50 per ton.
From the facilities that do not report costs
in these categories, total costs ranging from
$2.25 to $4.50 per ton were reported.
  In general, anyone considering a transfer
operation must determine if the savings will
exceed the costs. The primary variable is the
distance to  the disposal site. Attempting to
apply a rule of thumb (such as "A 10-mile
haul distance justifies transfer") to this de-
termination is  unrealistic and  mere guess-
work unless a study is made of local  condi-
tions. A decisive distance in one area may be
totally insignificant in another. Factors such
as wage rates, type of access  roads, collection
truck capacity, and size of collection  crews
 (one-man, two-man, etc.)  can  change  the
break-even  distance considerably.
  Although distance to  the  disposal site  is
important in comparing  direct  haul with
transfer and haul, a more realistic criterion
is the time  necessary to travel  the distance,
since the major  item in total  haul cost  is
labor, which is directly related to time and
not distance. Variables such  as routes  taken,
traffic conditions, and speed limits could re-
sult in a time of 15 minutes to cover 10 miles
in one area and an hour in another area.

                                                                .COLLECTION TRUCK
                                                                 TRANSFER TRAILER
          10    20    30   40    SO    60    70   80   90   100
    FIGURE 8.  This  chart, based  on hypothetical data,  illustrates a  typical
method for evaluating costs of transporting waste to  the disposal site. For the
transfer rig, the haul cost is imposed on the cost of transfer operations. A cost
for transfer of $2.50  per ton  has been assumed.  Ultimately the curve for the
transfer rig plus the transfer station will intercept the steeper curve for the
collection packer truck. The point  of interception, when projected downward,
will show the round-trip time at which a transfer operation is justified. The data
used to derive this graph is presented below, solely for  the purpose of demon-
strating the method.  (Source:  GRECO, J. R. Transfer station feasibility is meas-
ured against direct haul. Solid Wastes Management,  17(4) :13, Apr. 1974.)
         Transportation costs per vehicle
                                                        Direct haul   Transfer
Time-based costs per year
    Vehicle amortization*                                 $5,260     $9,468;
    Driver's salary, fringe benefits!                       10,625     12,500
    Collector's salary, fringe benefits!                      9,375          0!
    Vehicle insurance, licenses, taxes                       1,500      2,500
         Subtotal                                          26,760     24,468
         Subtotal per minutej                            $0.214     $0.196

Mileage-based costs per mile
    Fuel,§ oil, tires
    Maintenance and repair
         Subtotal per minuteff
         Total per minute
         Total per ton per minute

Estimated cost per ton  for owning and operating
  transfer facility                                        0          2.00

Estimated cost per ton for maneuvering and unloading
  transfer vehicle                                         0          0.50
    * Diesel compactor truck ($25,000) with a 5-ton payload capacity and diesel
tractor trailer ($45,000) with 20-ton payload capacity amortized over 6 years
at 8 percent per annum.
    t Fringe benefits  approximated as  25 percent of salaries  (collection truck
driver, $8,500; collector, $7,500; transfer trailer driver, $10,000).
    $ Assumed 5-day workweek, 8-hour  workday.
    § Fuel costs dependent upon price (e.g., 30  cents per gallon) and consump-
tion (e.g., 6 miles per gallon).
    fl Round-trip transport, 40 miles; round-trip transport time, 60 minutes for
collection truck, 75 minutes for transfer trailer.

   For these reasons, the usual unit of com-
parison, the cost per ton per mile, should be
replaced  by the more realistic unit of cost
per  ton per minute  when  making transfer
station calculations  (Figure 8). In  general,
a larger vehicle has  a greater  payload and a
lower cost  per ton/minute  (or mile).  Thus
the 20-ton transfer rig has a flatter haul cost
curve than  does  a  5-ton collection  packer
truck, but the haul cost  for  the transfer rig
must be  superimposed  on  the  cost of the
transfer station.


   Even though a transfer operation requires
an extra materials-handling  step and the
construction of a facility, its use may reduce
the system's total  costs by reducing  nonpro-
ductive use of collection  labor and equip-
   In a  system 'using a  transfer station, the
opening or closing of a particular disposal
site  will  not affect  the  collection  routes. A
transfer  system makes  the collection  oper-
ation independent of the disposal facility.
  The major disadvantage  of setting  up a
transfer  station  is the  problem of public
opposition, which is common to almost all
solid waste  management  facilities. While
many people will recognize the  need for a
facility,  very few  will allow  it  to be  built
near their homes.

  The economic  justification  of  a transfer
system  requires a  reduction in the  number
of collection crews needed in an  established
collection  system.  This will bring about a
surplus of men and equipment  within the
operating agency, as well as a need to redis-
tribute  the workload among the remaining

  Transfer systems offer an economical al-
ternative to direct haul of solid waste by the
collection crew  to a distant disposal site. No
rule of thumb  exists to determine when to
use a transfer  system. Each case should be
evaluated  individually  on the basis of dis-
tances to  disposal sites, local labor costs, and
other factors.

              AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION.  Rail  transport  of solid wastes. En-
                       vironmental Protection Publication  S.W.-22d. U.S. Environmental
                       Protection Agency, 1973. 148 p. (Distributed by National  Technical
                       Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-222 709.)
              HEGDAHL, T. T. Solid waste transfer  stations;  a state-of-the-art report on
                       systems incorporating  highway transportation. Environmental Pro-
                       tection Publication SW-99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                       1972. 160 p. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
                       Springfield,  Va., as PB-213 511.)
              KAISER ENGINEERS.  Solid waste  management  study for  the Port of Tacoma.
                       Environmental Protection Publication SW-55d. U.S. Environmental
                       Protection Agency, 1973. 107 p. (Distributed by National  Technical
                       Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-226 042.)
              LEONARD S.  WEGMAN COMPANY, INC.   Rail haul and land reclamation for the
                       city of Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania, and  Centre County, Pennsyl-
                       vania; system feasibility and cost  analysis.  Lewisburg, Pa., June
                       1973. 52 p.
              LEONARD S.  WEGMAN COMPANY, INC.   Rail haul and land reclamation for the
                       city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Zerbe Township,  Northum-
                       berland County, Pennsylvania; system  feasibility and cost analysis.
                       Lewisburg, Pa., May 1973. 58 p.
              NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESOURCE  RECOVERY, INC.  Municipal  solid waste col-
                       lection. Lexington,  Mass., Lexington  Books, 1973. p. 75-87.
              WOLF, K. W., and C. H. SOSNOVSKY.  High pressure compaction  and  baling of
                       solid  waste; final report on a solid waste management demonstra-
                       tion grant.  Environmental Protection  Publication  SW-32d. Wash-
                       ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.  163 p.
              ZAUSNER, E. R.  An accounting  system for  transfer  station operations. Pub-
                       lic Health Service  Publication No. 2034. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                       ment Printing Office, 1971. 20 p.

       conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
      conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, n
  Baling is a method of reducing the volume
of solid waste. It has the potential to achieve
cost savings when transfer and  long haul
are necessary prior  to  disposal  and when
land disposal space is at a premium. It also
has an added benefit in that baling makes
the waste  potentially easier to handle  and
transport.  The decision  to  be  made is how
well baling and  the operation of the balefill
compete with nonbaling processes  (discussed
in  following  chapters)  and  conventional
landfilling.  The comparison should be made
on an economic and environmental basis for
the  particular  community.  The  different
forms of baling must be compared with each
other as well.


  There are, at present, three main types of
solid waste balers. One type, developed from
the metal  scrap  baler, achieves  densities
which  are high enough to eliminate the need
for baling  wire. Raw solid waste is baled in
a multistage baler without any preprocess-
ing.  This  is a  batch-feed  operation;  it is
multistage  because  two or  more  platens
compress the material. This type of unit has
been evaluated in St. Paul, Minnesota.
  The second  type,  which  was  developed
from the hay baler, is a horizontal, continu-
ous push-through type  of solid  waste baler.
Use  of this system  requires preshredding in
order to obtain a homogeneous  material for
the continuous feed hopper, thereby minimiz-
ing bridging, or blockage, in the hopper. The
bales are also secured by tie wires to retain
their compaction.
  A  third type of solid waste baler was de-
veloped from the baler used with corrugated
cartons at supermarkets and other commer-
cial  establishments. This system requires no
preprocessing though tie wires  are required
due to the lower density obtained. Two man-
ufacturers have sold most of the solid waste
balers now being used; others are now enter-
ing this market, however.

  Because  of the relative iferwness  of solid
waste baling technology, firm cost figures are
very difficult to establish. For  the two bal-
ing  projects in  which  EPA has been  in-
volved, costs per ton were $6.38  and $9.20,
respectively (Table 29). In all fair ness to the
baling concept, it should be noted that high
costs have very  often  been  attributable to

                                           TABLE  29
                          ECONOMICS FOR THE TWO EPA BALING PROJECTS, 1975
Capacity (tons per day)
Capital costs
Operating costs per ton
Hauling to balefill
Total costs per ton
San Diego
St. Paul
Not available
                   * Design  capacity of 150 TPD or 19,500 tons per year was not  achieved
               because this was a pilot plant. During the evaluation period 7,523 tons were
               processed or 78 TPD.
                   t Design  capacity of 50  tons  per hour was not achieved since this  was  a
               demonstration plant. During this evaluation 155,614 tons were processed  or
               425 TPD, a utilization rate of 80 percent.
                   % Based on a capital cost of $347,151 including engineering and equipment
               but not site costs. Amortized for  20 years  at 6 percent.
                   § Includes labor, materials, supplies, equipment maintenance, rental, and
                   U Includes labor, utilities, equipment  maintenance,  supplies,  equipment
               rental, taxes  and fringes, and depreciation.
                  ** Includes labor and equipment rental.
                  ft Includes labor, equipment maintenance, supplies, equipment rental, taxes
               and fringes, and depreciation.
the pioneering nature of the projects; that is,
because  of stoppages to make adjustments
and refinements,  the balers have not been
running at full capacity for sustained peri-
ods of time. Consequently,  costs are spread
over a reduced  tonnage. In a demonstration
project in San  Diego using the shredding/
baling process, the capital and operating
costs for processing 78 tons per day (6 hours'
production time)  were  $9.20 per ton exclu-
sive of land costs.  Operating costs for  the
St. Paul  evaluation project were $6.38  per
ton  for  processing  425 tons  per day  (15
hours' production time).  No capital  costs
were available for this  project,  but  the
facility is identical to the  plant installed in
Cobb County, Georgia,  which  is  discussed
   Information from a telephone  survey in-
dicates that solid waste baling facilities  are
planned  for  over  12  locations across  the
United States. Projected economics are avail-
able for four of these locations that are or
will be  operational by 1976  (Table 30).
One facility in operation since January 1975
is the $2.4 million  baler  in Cobb County,
which processes 300 tons  per day (TPD).
Projected  capital  and  operating  costs  for
this facility  are $6.20  per ton  excluding
land.   In April  1975, Chadron,  Nebraska,
dedicated their $220,000 baler. This facility
is processing  11-15  TPD  and  serves  the
needs of this city's 6,000 population, but with
a design capacity of 20 tons per hour, it is
capable  of handling additional waste  from
surrounding  communities.   The   operating
costs  over a  2-month period are $4.27  per
ton, which excludes  equipment depreciation
but includes disposal at the adjacent balefill.
Omaha,  Nebraska,  will be implementing a
$4.5 million  three-unit baler  operation  in
late 1975, processing 400 TPD. Two of these
balers will have a smaller capacity than  the
third  and  will be  used for backup. Capital
and operating costs are projected to be $6.70
per ton, excluding land. The city of Atlanta
is constructing a $2.5 million shredding/bal-
ing plant which will be processing 500 TPD.

                                            TABLE 30
                                             Cobb County,  Chadron,
                                                Ga.       Neb.
Design capacity (tons)
Capital costs per tonf
Operating costs per tonj
Total costs per ton
300 /day
20 /hr
400 /day
500 /day
                   * Personal communications to S. J. Hitte, EPA, April-June 1975.
                   t Includes engineering, building,  equipment, and construction but not site
                costs. Amortized for 20 years at 6 percent.
                   | Includes labor, utilities,  equipment maintenance, and miscellaneous ex-
                penses. Does not include hauling or disposal costs.
Projected  capital and operating costs are
$5.90 per  ton excluding  land. All of  these
projected costs were based on 1975 figures
and, except in the case of Chadron, do not
include transfer  and disposal costs.


  •  Baling nearly doubles the  life of the
     land disposal site and therefore reduces
     the number  of times the city govern-
     ment  must  go  through  the politically
     difficult process of acquiring a new dis-
     posal site. Densities vary from 1,000 to
     more than 1,700 pounds per cubic  yard,
     depending on the type of baler used.
  •  Balers can handle most types of wastes.
  •  Cost  is  comparable  to costs of  other
     forms of solid  waste processing; bulk
     reduction makes long hauls more eco-
  •  Bales  are  easier to  handle  and trans-
     port than unprocessed waste; they are
     therefore more  convenient  for opera-
     tions such as rail hauling.
  •  Baling should permit more  immediate
     use of the disposal site upon completion
     since minimal settling is anticipated.
  •  In shredding/baling operations, ferrous
     metal  can be recovered for  recycling
     via magnetic separation after shredding.
     Also  corrugated containers  and  white
     goods  can be handpicked and baled  sepa-
     rately and sold.

  • Baling involves a greater  initial invest-
    ment than a conventional transfer sta-
    tion handling the same tonnage.
  • Baling precludes resource  recovery once
    the bale is formed.
  • There are gaps in knowledge about the
    economics of baling and effects of baling
    on  decomposition in landfills, gas and
    leachate formation,  and settling.


  Other issues to be  examined in deciding
whether or not to bale are:

              Utilization Rate
  The results of. the EPA evaluation in St.
Paul  indicated that a baler operating at a
utilization rate of 80 percent or greater was
economically competitive with other  forms
of solid waste processing such as shredding
or small-scale incineration. On a^hroughput
tonnage basis this translated to 425 TPD for
the St.  Paul baler.  If a  utilization rate of
100 percent (510  TPD)  was maintained,
that is, if no breakdowns occurred  within
the baler or the support equipment, then the
costs  would be expected to improve  on.the
order of  30 percent. Conversely, if  lower
utilization rates—between 50 and  80 per-
cent  (255 to  425 TPD)—were maintained,
then the  economics  might become noncom-

petitive. Economics,  though, should not al-
ways be  the determining factor; the  en-
vironmental  effects  of  baling and  other
solid waste processing systems must also be

              Type of Waste

  Grass, yard  clippings, and  leaves cannot
be included in concentrations  greater than
50 percent by weight, or  the  bales in some
operations will  not  retain  their  integrity.
Under  normal  operating  conditions, such
material can be dispersed at the baler plant
so that this is not  a problem.

   Environmental Quality of Landfill Site
  The balefill in St. Paul was  monitored for
leachate generation,  temperature, gas, and
settlement for  14  months as  a part  of  the
evaluation project. The  results showed that
leachate was generated  in sufficient quanti-
ties to  require treatment, though  the high-
density bales hindered leachate flow for the
first 8  months.  These results  disprove  the
theory that baling  prevents leachate produc-
tion. As expected, the temperatures  in  the
bales fluctuated according to the ambient air
temperature. The  density  of the solid waste
caused initial intense decomposition due to
the lack of oxygen  and high moisture con-
tent; this resulted in high initial bale tem-
peratures.  Gas  analysis  showed the  usual
trends: carbon  dioxide and methane  levels
increased with time, while oxygen decreased.
As expected, the bales within the balefill re-
mained basically stable over the 14 months;
long-term  monitoring will be necessary to
determine the extent of settling over time.

  EPA  recommends  that baling  of  solid
waste  be considered by cities generating  a
sufficient volume of waste  (currently defined
as those cities  generating  more  than  400
tons per day or  populated by 250,000 people
or more), especially if close-in land for  dis-
posal sites  is unavailable and long hauls are
inevitable.  Cities with less  than this  mini-
mum tonnage or with a  smaller population
should  examine  the prospects  of a  joint
venture  with neighboring communities  be-
fore  abandoning, the. baling   concept.  It
should be  noted, however, that baling pre-
cludes  any  subsequent  resource  recovery
process.  Recovery must be accomplished be-
fore the baling  step is begun, as was done
with corrugated  containers and  white  goods
in St. Paul.

              CITY OP  SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.  Baling  solid waste to conserve sanitary
                      landfill space. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  1974. (In
                      preparation; to be distributed by the National Technical Information
                      Service, Springfield, Va.)
              RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC. Evaluation of solid waste baling and bale-
                      fills. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. (In preparation;
                      to1 be  distributed  by the National  Technical Information  Service,
                      Springfield, Va.)
              WOLF, K. W., and C. H.  SOSNOVSKY.  High-pressure compaction  and baling of
                      solid waste;  final  report on a solid waste demonstration grant. En-
                      vironmental  Protection Publication SW-32d. Washington, U.S. Gov-
                      ernment Printing  Office, 1972. 163 p.

  Shredding reduces  the volume of solid
waste and turns it into a relatively homoge-
neous material.* Experience in Europe and,
more recently, the United  States indicates
there are  several  potential advantages to
shredding waste before placing it in a land-
fill. It was  found that shredded  waste  did
not attract vectors, support combustion, have
an objectionable odor, or lead to littering—
problems often associated with the disposal
of solid waste on land. The most attractive
feature is the bulk reduction achieved. When
compacted  in a landfill, shredded waste  has
fewer  voids than  unprocessed  waste;  the
density is 25 to 60 percent greater, depend-
ing  on whether daily  cover is required.
Shredding of bulky items also facilitates in-
cineration and is a necessary part of  many
resource recovery systems. Shredding equip-
ment has been used in solid waste manage-
ment at over 40 U.S. locations, and OSWMP
has sponsored several projects  and studies
concerning the process.
    * "Shredding" is used here as the generic term
for  all similar  size-reduction  processes,  including
pulverization, milling, hammermilling, grinding, and
  The decisions to be made are whether the
total benefits realized by shredding outweigh
the cost of such an operation, and whether
the environmental effects  of a shredded ref-
use disposal site are acceptable.


  For projects in which  EPA has been in-
volved,  costs  per  ton ranging  from  $8.60
up  to $10.60  have  been  observed.  In  a
demonstration  project in  Madison, Wiscon-
sin, capital and operating  costs through 1974
were reported at $8.60 per ton. This is based
on a  processing rate of  180 tons per day
(TPD)  and  includes  hauling  (20  miles
round trip)  and disposal costs. In a recently
concluded demonstration   project in  Syra-
cuse,  New York, 1 year's capital and oper-
ating costs  were  $10.60  per ton including
disposal. This facility operates on a single-
shift basis (8 hours,. averaging for
a 1-year period a throughput of 284  TPD.
It is  estimated that  this  cost  could drop
around $1 as a result of  higher  throughput
tonnages that are  expected as startup prob-
lems are resolved.
  In some other cities which practice shred-
ding,  the reported costs have run lower. De

Kalb  County, Georgia,  has been shredding
their  waste since April 1973. They have two
installations;  operating  and  maintenance
costs  for  their 534-TPD facility was $4.80
per ton,  and,  for  their  400-TPD facility,
$4.35 per ton.  One  of  the most recently
established operations went on line in June
1974  in Charleston, South  Carolina. Capital
and operating  costs are estimated at $4.10
per ton including hauling (0.5  mile)  and
disposal. The facility processes 1,000 TPD on
a two-shift operation.


  There are 11 basic  types of size reduction
equipment commercially available—crushers,
cage  disintegrators,  shears, shredders,  cut-
ters and chippers, rasp mills, drum pulveriz-
ers, disk  mills, wet  pulpers, hammermills,
and grinders. The Waste Equipment Manu-
facturers  Institute now  designates all of
these pieces of  equipment under the general
term  "shredder" with the  exception of wet
pulpers. To date, wet pulpers, hammermills,
and grinders have been used in the United
States for the  size reduction of municipal
solid  waste,  with the  hammermills being
the most commonly used.
  The only place in the United States  that
the wet pulper is being used for large-scale
municipal operations  is  a resource recovery
plant in Franklin,  Ohio, funded partially by
an EPA  demonstration  grant; paper fibers
are recovered after the pulping process.
  Another type of equipment currently used
for size reduction of solid waste is the verti-
cal shaft grinder. This machine uses rolling
star-wheels protruding  from the rotor cir-
cumference which  grind the refuse by  roll-
ing it between  the wheels and the housing
sidewalls.  The  material  flows  through the
machine assisted by gravity.
  The most common  kind  of size reduction
equipment used is  the  hammermill.  There
are two basic  types—the  horizontal shaft
and the vertical shaft. The horizontal-shaft
hammermill  is  the more  common. As the
name implies, the rotor or shaft  is horizon-
tal and supported at  each  end.  Some manu-
facturers  offer  reversible  rotor  horizontal
hammermills to save maintenance costs. The
vertical shaft hammermills have the rotor
placed in a vertical position with the input
material moving parallel to the shaft axis,
assisted by gravity.
  There are two basic variations of both the
vertical and horizontal shaft hammermills:
the swing-hammer type and the rigid-ham-
mer type. They are  similar except that, in
the swing-hammer type, the hammers are
pivoted on  the rotor,  thereby potentially
reducing the  chances  of  internal  jams or
damage to the hammers. The swing-hammer
type  is the  most common in solid  waste

               Particle Size
  The  size  of  the  particles  produced is
quite important to the effectiveness of the
step following shredding, whether it is ener-
gy recovery, disposal, or a combination.  The
shredding system must be capable of meeting
the particular size requirements. Each of the
shredders  described  has   provisions  for
mechanical  particle-size  control.  Besides
these provisions, however, other factors can
affect  particle size, including wear of com-
ponents within the  shredder, the moisture
content of the waste,  number  of  hammers
used within the shredder, waste composition,
and feed rate  (tons per hour).

         Motor-Size  Requirements
  The machine size and the power  required
for a solid waste shredder are determined by
the size and nature  of the input material,
the processing rate desired (tons per hour),
and the output  particle size required.  The
particle-size  requirement  determines  the
minimum energy theoretically required.  The
size and nature of the  input material deter-
mines  the minimum  horsepower required to
attain an acceptable level of  performance
without  frequent  jams or  damage to  the
machine (Table 31).  The processing rate, or
capacity, determines  the physical size of the
machine and the total horsepower required.
  The total  machine horsepower needed is
simply the  product  of capacity  (tons  per
hour)  and  unit power  required   (horse-
power-hours per ton). For  example, if the
needed capacity is  50 tons per hour, and the

                                           TABLE 31

                                           TO SHRED
               Category of waste
              Medium         Packer truck wastes, such as paper, cardboard,    200
                                bottles, cans, garbage, lawn trimmings, small
                                crating, small appliances, small furniture, bi-
                                cycles, tree trimmings, and occasional auto tires.

              Bulky           Oversize and bulky items of the above plus stoves,    500
                                refrigerators, washers,  dryers,  doors,  large
                                furniture, bed-springs, mattresses, tree  limbs,
                                and truck tires.

              Heavy           Large and dense materials of above categories   1,000
                                plus  items such  as demolition  rubble, logs,
                                stumps, and automobile parts.

              Automobiles                                                 1,500
unit power requirement is  20 horsepower-
hours per ton, a 1,000-horsepower  motor is


             Reduction in Bulk

  Shredding can reduce the volume of wastes
significantly; in fact, with bulky wastes, the
reduction is around 90 percent. This is obvi-
ously an advantage  in hauling,  handling
during any process, and landfilling.

           Extends Landfill Life

  The results of the various EPA  shredder
demonstration projects have tended to con-
firm the positive reports from Europe  on
landfilling shredded waste. It has been found
that, because milled waste is not esthetically
insulting, it can often be disposed of on land
without  daily or  intermediate cover where
hydrogeological conditions permit;  however,
careful consideration must  be given to the
character of the waste material  and neces-
sary  leachate control. Shredded  waste is
easily placed and compacted.  If there is no
need  for daily or intermediate cover, and
density of  the waste  has been greatly in-
creased by the shredding and by good com-
paction, it is easy to see how  the life of the
landfill  can be optimized; in  some cases, it
can be  almost doubled. Shredding thus re-
duces  the  need to acquire additional land,
as well as  reducing the often burdensome
problem of locating suitable cover material.
It must be recognized, however, that even
where regulatory  agencies  permit  landfill-
ing of shredded  waste without daily cover,
the other engineering and operating princi-
ples   associated  with  traditional  sanitary
landfilling  techniques must be  followed to
ensure that the site  does not revert to  a

             Public Acceptance

  To date, public  acceptance of shredding
facilities has been  relatively good compared
to acceptance of  more conventional solid
waste  processing   or  disposal   facilities.
Shredded waste  is far more  unobtrusive in
appearance than nonprocessed solid waste.
Also, there are no  air  pollutants from com-
bustion or water  pollutants  from  process
waters associated with shredding. However,
litter, odor, and vector problems can develop
if housekeeping is  poor.

            Relatively Low Cost

  The  initial   investment  and  operating
costs for shredding  as compared to  other
reduction processes are relatively low. The
increase over that of conventional  sanitary
landfilling  is relatively small. Calculation of

 the  economics of shredding should include
 the  savings in hauling costs due  to the de-
 crease in waste volume and the savings as-
 sociated with the shredding facility acting
 as a transfer station between the collection
 area and the disposal site.
   Where favorable  market conditions exist
 or develop, the  sale of materials  separated
 from shredded waste can be used to further
 offset the  cost of shredding or  to subsidize
 the  solid waste system. Shredding  can  en-
 hance the marketability of certain fractions
 of the solid waste stream.

      Most Wastes  Can Be Shredded

   A large portion of the total solid waste
 load can be shredded. Some wastes, however,
 cannot  be put through the mill because of
 size  or density or because they are hazardous,
 have high moisture content, or have  other
 qualities that normally call for specialized
 handling in any system.

   Use with Incineration and Recovery of
           Energy and Materials
   It has been found that shredding can be
 used in conjunction  with  a number  of solid
 waste  treatment  processes. For instance,
 bulky combustible waste can be shredded  for
 incineration. Ordinarily many  such items
 have to bypass the incinerator because they
 are too large to charge or burn well.
   Variations of standard solid waste incin-
 erators, such as  the vortex suspension burn-
 er or the fluidized bed incinerator,  require
 that waste be shredded for  proper  feeding
 and  combustion. Other  thermal processes,
 such as pyrolysis or use of solid waste as a
 powerplant fuel  supplement, may necessi-
 tate  shredding.
   Shredding is  necessary for many other
resource recovery processes  in  which feed
material of uniform size is needed, such as
air classification. It also facilitates magnetic
separation of ferrous metal.

       Materials Handling Problems
   Long-term experience  in  shredding solid
waste is still lacking, but the major problems
have  been  identified  and significantly  re-
duced. These problems usually center around
the materials handling aspect of feeding the
mill and subsequent removal of the shredded
material. Jamming of the shredder and  un-
even  feeding can significantly reduce  the
throughput of the mill,  although  this  has
generally  been solved on a  local basis by
simple improvisations. This uneven feeding
can result in uneven  hammer loading and
wear,  as  well  as  surges  in  power. At  the
other end, unless  the shredded material is
rapidly removed from the mill,  a  backup
jam may occur.
  Experience has  taught those responsible
for operating shredding facilities to  install
interlocks that stop^the input conveyor when
the shredder drive  motor overloads. This
prevents further feeding of material into the
shredder,  reduces  the load,  and  gives  the
shredder an opportunity to  "clean out" a
potential jam before it develops. The typical
design is to have an automatic cutoff which
stops  the input conveyor,  with restart  being
manual, thereby alerting the operator to
the stoppage. Many  managers of shredding
facilities consider the shredder-motor-con-
veyor  interlock the  single most important
automatic control in  the entire facility.

             Component Wear
  Another problem that has contributed sig-
nificantly  to overall cost and downtime is
component wear, particularly hammer  wear.
Recent developments such as reversible  ro-
tors,  improved hammer  tipping materials,
and easier  access to  internal  components
promise to significantly reduce costs.  Many
of the problems caused by bearing wear have
been nearly  eliminated through  proper  lu-
brication,  strict specifications, and minimiz-
ing of longitudinal  movement or vibration of
the rotor.

  Due to the high percentage of flammable
materials in municipal solid waste, fires can
occur  in the shredder. Normally, a fire can
be snuffed  out by  continued  feeding of  the
shredder, but fires associated with jams or
stoppages  must be  extinguished.  Manually
activated carbon dioxide or water extinguish-

er systems are available. Additionally, heat-
sensitive  detectors  can be  installed at the
beginning of the  output  conveyor.  When
workers notice a fire in the input conveyor,
the shredder and the  output conveyor can
be immediately stopped to keep from spread-
ing the fire.

  It is almost inevitable that some poten-
tially explosive  materials will enter the  fa-
cility. The majority of  these, such as aerosol
cans and nearly empty  gas cans, may explode
within the shredder with little or no  conse-
quence. There are, however, some materials
which  may cause extensive damage to the
facility and,  more importantly, cause danger
to the  workers. Placing the shredder out-
doors,  special pressure  relief devices,  and
other measures should be explored  to mini-
mize potential danger and damage. The man-
ufacturers of shredding  equipment should
be consulted  about such provisions. Attempts
should  be made  to screen  input  material,
where possible,  to  keep potentially  explo-
sive items from entering the shredder.


  Dust and  small bits of debris are a con-
stant problem around a solid waste shredder.
Two techniques are used  to minimize the
problem. The simplest  is a continuous water
spray inside the shredder; this reduces the
dust  and  causes most debris  to exit the
shredder with the discharge. If wet, shredded
waste goes into a landfill, however, the added
water may increase the potential for leach-
ing. Also if the waste is to be burned as fuel,
wetting will reduce its heating value.
  Pneumatic  dust  collection is  the  other
technique  used.  Typically,  pneumatic col-
lectors are  used  when waste is shredded for
burning  in an incinerator  or boiler where
additional  water content is undesirable. The
device usually consists of a  cyclone placed
downstream of  the shredder and  is  more
efficient than water sprays.
  Spillage of shredded material can be mini-
mized by placing some form  of cover, such
as a wire  mesh, over the output  conveyors.


  EPA recommends that cities with a severe
shortage of landfill space and/or  cover ma-
terial consider shredding if  hydrogeological
conditions permit. Local regulatory authori-
ties should be contacted  to determine how
present regulations would affect landfilling
of  shredded wastes.  Other  than  cover re-
quirements, all  normal  sanitary  landfilling
procedures must be followed in  landfilling
shredded  waste; under  certain  conditions,
consideration must be  given to  leachate col-
lection and treatment.

               KONSKI ENGINEERS.  Evaluation of shredding facilities; Rock Cut Road Plant
                        No. 1, Onondaga County Solid Waste Disposal Authority, Onondaga
                        County, New York. Washington, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
                        Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)
               LEONARD S. WEGMAN COMPANY, INC.  Buffalo's crusher facility for bulky solid
                        waste. Environmental Protection Publication SW-60d. U.S. Environ-
                        mental Protection Agency, 1973. 79 p. (Distributed by National Tech-
                        nical Information Service,  Springfield, Va., as PB-225 159.)
               MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE.  Size-reduction equipment  for municipal solid
                        waste. Environmental Protection Publication SW-53c. U.S. Environ-
                        mental Protection Agency, 1974. 126 p.  (Distributed  by National
                        Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-226551.)
               OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.  Position statement on land-
                        filling of milled solid waste. Apr. 9, 1973.  (Unpublished  report.)
               REINHARDT, J. J., and  R. K. HAM.  Solid waste milling and disposal  on land
                        without cover.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, 1974. 2  v.
                        (Distributed by National Technical Information  Service, Springfield,
                        Va., as PB-234930 and PB-234931.)
               ROGERS, H. W., and S. J. HITTE.  Solid waste shredding and shredder selection.
                        Environmental  Protection Publication SW-140.  [Washington], U.S.
                        Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 1974. 86 p.

  Incineration  is the controlled burning  of
solid, liquid, or gaseous wastes. Reductions
of 80 to 90 percent of the total volume  of
municipal solid waste, and 98 to 99 percent,
by  weight,  of  the  combustible portion are
possible through incineration. There are end
products of municipal incineration, however,
that require further processing or disposal;
these include the particulate matter carried
by the gas stream, incinerator residue, grate
sittings, and process water. Incinerator resi-
due  consists of noncombustible  materials
such as metal  and  glass, as well as incom-
pletely burned  combustible materials.  Com-
paction of  this residue results in  further
volume reduction, so  that solid waste proc-
essed in an incinerator and then compacted
in a landfill  may occupy only 4 to 10 percent
of its original volume in the storage pit. Re-
covery of metals and other minerals  from
the residue would reduce  the volume even
  Bulky burnable wastes (logs, tree stumps,
mattresses, large furniture, large signs, dem-
olition lumber, etc.)  usually  are not  proc-
essed in  a municipal  incinerator  since they
are either too large to load in the combus-
tion chamber,  burn too slowly, or  contain
frame  steel of dimension and shape that
could foul grate operation or the  residue
removal systems. A few incinerators include
grinding or shredding equipment for reduc-
ing bulky items to manageable sizes. In re-
cent years, special incinerators  have been
designed  and constructed to handle  some
bulky combustible wastes without pretreat-
ment. Other large items, such  as  washing
machines, refrigerators, water heater tanks,
stoves,  and  large auto  parts,  cannot be
handled  by  incineration.  Such  materials
make up  about 20 percent, by volume, of
community  solid  waste  at the  collection
point, and under good compaction in a land-
fill, can be reduced to approximately  half
their volume as collected. The volume  con-
servation  advantage of incineration plus san-
itary  landfilling of residue  and remaining
wastes over landfilling alone can be expected
to be 2  to 1. In other words, an incinerator
can double the  life of a land disposal site.


  The changing technology of thermal proc-
essing has resulted in many new processes
that are now available as  alternatives to in-
cineration. These  processes  have been  de-
veloped  primarily as energy and/or materials
recovery  systems  rather  than  strictly  for
volume reduction, which is the basic purpose
of incineration  (see chapter on  Energy Re-
covery) .

         Conventional Incineration

  Since 1920, 322 municipal-scale  incinera-
tors have  been built  and 42  modifications
have been  made to increase the capacity of
these facilities. As of May 1972,193 of these
plants  were still  operating.
  Conventional refractory-lined incinerators
are usually continuously fed, large rectangu-
lar chambers, although inclined rotary kilns
have also been used. The amount of air sup-
plied to the combustion chamber  is greatly
in excess  of  the amount theoretically re-
quired for combustion. The excess air serves
as a cooling medium, but it also causes tur-
bulence and entrains large amounts of par-
ticulate matter.  The  air  pollution control
equipment  must  be  large enough to  handle
the great  volumes of air and particulates.
With  increasingly  stringent  air  pollution
control requirements, it has  become  very
costly  to build air pollution control systems
for these incinerators. The result  has  been
a substantial  decrease in the popularity of
the refractory-lined  incinerator. The air pol-
lution  control systems of the more recently
developed waterwall incinerators, which are
cooled  by water  and therefore require less
air (and which recover energy in  the form
of  steam), cost  almost one-fourth less to
build and  two-thirds less to  operate.  (The
waterwalls are described in the Energy Re-
covery chapter).

            Small Incinerators

  Smaller  incinerators with capacities  of 5
to 12  tons per day (compared with  50 to
300  tons for most  conventional  municipal
incinerators)  are being  used  in commercial
and industrial facilities, as well as approxi-
mately 30  communities. Almost  any size
community will generate enough solid waste
to utilize the  capacity of one  of these incin-
erators.  Frequently  more than one unit is
installed at  the  same location to provide
backup capacity  or to  handle the normal
waste  load. In fact, the waste from any size
city could  conceivably be handled by this
type of incinerator if enough units  are avail-
  The combustion chambers of these incin-
erators are usually cylindrical, with either a
fixed  grate or  no grate and are almost al-
ways  batch fed. Combustion air is  supplied
at a velocity low  enough to keep  from en-
training large quantities of particulate mat-
ter in the exhaust gases. The total amount
of air supplied is only slightly more than the
amount theoretically required for  combus-
tion. An afterburner is almost always used
in the stack and is frequently the  only air
pollution  control device needed to  meet ap-
plicable codes.  Auxiliary fuel  is  used for
startup,  maintenance of  uniform  furnace
temperatures, and the afterburner. Either
natural gas or fuel oil can be used.
  EPA is in the process of evaluating this
type of incinerator. The results of the study,
which should be available in  late 1975, will
include data on the operating characteris-
tics and economics.
         Conventional Incineration
  One of  the most recently constructed re-
fractory-lined incinerators is in Washington,
D.C., where  it is identified as Solid  Waste
Reduction Center  No.  1.  The construction
costs for  this plant were approximately $19
million. Operations began in June 1972. The
plant  has  six  250-ton-per-day   furnaces.
Normal operations call for five of the six
furnaces  to be in operation, with the sixth
shut  down for  routine  maintenance.  The
working capacity is  approximately 450,000
tons per year.
  The operating budget for this facility was
$1.6 million in fiscal year 1973. Assuming a
6-percent interest  rate and a 20-year life,
the total operating cost for  this  plant  is
slightly over $7 per ton. The 1974 replace-
ment cost was estimated  to  be nearly $29
million. Using  a 6-percent interest rate and
a 20-year life, a facility built in 1974 would
process solid waste at a cost of over $10 per
ton. These cost estimates  assume that the
incinerator  can operate at 100 percent of
the  working  capacity.  If  less  tonnage  is
processed, the cost per ton would increase.
            Small Incinerators
  Very limited data  are available  on the
operating costs  of the small  incinerators.

Fuel costs, which are a major portion of the
operating costs, can be expected to rise, and
if natural  gas  is the  auxiliary  fuel,  the
availability of fuel may be a problem in the
near future.
   One detailed study was conducted in an
Oklahoma  city  using  a small  incinerator.
The results  of that  study indicate  a total
cost of over $14 per ton, including fuel costs
of approximately $5 per ton. However, this
facility was operating at approximately one-
half of its rated  capacity. Further estimates
showed that, if  the plant were  operated at
capacity, the  cost would drop  to between
$7 and $8 per ton.
  A cost estimate of $5 to $9 per ton for a
small incinerator has been obtained  from a
Florida city. A breakdown of this estimate
is not  yet available, but  these costs will be
studied further during the evaluation proj-
ect mentioned above.


         Incineration in  General

Advantages :
  •  Solid waste  is reduced in  weight  and
     volume,  and this  extends  the  useful
     life of the available land disposal facil-
  •  Where waste must be hauled long dis-
     tances to a landfill, incineration may be
     economically advantageous if close-in lo-
     cations can be found for the incinerator.
  •  Incineration is adaptable to energy re-
     covery processes such as steam genera-
     tion and to  recovery of  minerals from
     the residue.

  •  The process requires large capital  ex-
     penditures and high operating costs.
  •  Skilled  labor is required  to properly
     operate and maintain the facility.
   •  Improper  operations can result in air,
     water,  and land pollution.
   •  Residents may object to having an in-
     cinerator built in their neighborhood.

  Conventional Incinerators,  in Relation to
             Small Incinerators


   •  Conventional refractory-lined incinera-
     tors  can  more  readily  process  large
     quantities of solid waste.
   •  Conventional  incinerators   do not  re-
     •quire auxiliary fuel.
   •  Because they operate continuously, con-
     ventional incinerators are potentially  a
     more reliable  source of energy  recov-
     ery (steam generation).


   •  Only large cities can economically oper-
     ate conventional incinerators.
   •  Conventional incinerators produce large
     quantities of process water that must
     be treated.
   •  Conventional  incinerators   require   a
     much   longer  construction   time  than
     small incinerators,  which  are package


  The  use  of conventional   incinerators  is
on the decline because of high  capital arid
operating cost as compared to other alterna-
tives,  stringent air pollution requirements,
and  the  availability of  other  processing
  The use of small incinerators is increasing
among communities  of various  sizes.  The
economics  of small  incinerators  have not
yet been fully evaluated, but the total cost
per ton appears to be at least equal to that
of conventional incineration.

              ACHINGER, W. C., and L. E. DANIELS.  An evaluation of seven incinerators. In
                       Proceedings; 1970 National Incinerator Conference, Cincinnati, May
                       17-20, 1970. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

DEMARCO, J., D. J. KELLER, J. LECKMAN, and J. L. NEWTON.  Municipal-scale
          incinerator design and operation. Formerly titled "Incinerator guide-
          lines—1969." Public Health Service Publication No. 2012. Washington,
          U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 98 p.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Thermal processing and land dispo-
          sal of solid waste; guidelines. Federal Register, 39(158):29327-29338, Aug.
          14. 1974.
WEINSTEIN,  N. J.  Municipal-scale thermal processing of solid wastes. Wash-
          ington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
          Management Programs. (In preparation.)

                                                                               I  \
           conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, *    V-
                                         RESOURCE  RECOVERY
                                         FROM  MIXED WASTES     /
           conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, „
                              Energy Recovery
  Mixed municipal solid waste is composed
 largely of combustible  materials.  On  the
 basis  of weight, more  than 75 percent is
 combustible, but more important from  the
 point  of view  of disposal is the fact that
 greater than 90 percent of the volume can be
 eliminated by means of thermal reduction.
 Historically, thermal reduction has  referred
 exclusively to incineration carried out mostly
 in refractory-lined chambers. Recently, how-
 ever, solid waste  disposal technology has
 found many new ways of thermally  treating
 refuse to utilize its energy value. This in-
 cludes the development of steam-generating
 (waterwall) incinerators, pyrolysis technolo-
 gy, and various ways to use refuse as a fuel.


  There  are several different technologies
presently being evaluated that recover ener-
gy from solid waste (Table 32). Although no
technology is as yet risk-free, two methods
are  commonly  considered "commercially
available." Other, possibly better, technolo-
gies are being developed and are projected to
become commercially available throughout
the 1977 to 1982 period.

          Available Technology

  The technology that is now commercially
available includes (1) the generation of steam
(for  district  heating  and  cooling  o*- for
industrial processing) in a waterwall inciner-
ator fueled solely by unprocessed solid waste
and (2) the use of processed (shredded and
classified) solid  waste as a supplement  to
pulverized coal in electric utility boilers.
  These technologies are defined as commer-
cially  available because  they have been
demonstrated  in large-scale  facilities  and
because private industry is offering systems
based on them for sale.
  Waterwall Incinerators.  There are a num-
ber of waterwall incinerators in operation in
the United States, although the steam pro-
duced by only a few has  been successfully
marketed  (Table 33).  Waterwall  furnaces
have  almost entirely  replaced refractory-
lined combustion chambers in current incin-
erator design. In this type of construction, the
furnace walls consist of vertically arranged
metal tubes joined side to side with metal
braces. Radiant energy from burning solid
waste is absorbed by water passing through
the tubes. Additional boiler packages, located
in the flue, control the conversion of this
water to steam of a specified temperature and
  In Europe many municipalities  combine
waterwall solid-waste-fired units with sepa-
rate fossil-fuel-fired units in the same facility.
Steam from the two separate units is integrat-
ed to drive one turbine generator system. One
reason this concept is widely used in Europe
but has not been used in this country is that
many  European municipal  governments,
unlike  most  American  counterparts,  are

                                             TABLE 32

                            BY TECHNOLOGY TYPE AND ENERGY PRODUCT, 1975
Energy product
Burning of —
solid waste
Pulped or Hempstead, N.Y.**
Processing for St. Louis, Mo.t
use as supple- Ames, Iowa§
mental fuel Bridgeport, Conn.§
for boilers Chicago, Ill.§
Steam (other
than for

Braintree, Mass.t
Nashville, Tenn.f
Saugus, Mass.§
Hamilton, Ontariot

Solid fuel
(other than for
producing steam
or electricity)


Palmer Town-
ship, Pa.**
Gaseous fuel




               Milwaukee, Wis.**
               Monroe Co., N.Y.**
               New Britain, Conn.**
South Charleston,
W. Va.*t
San Diego,
Direct combus-

Los Angeles, —


Menlo Park, Calif.*} Not



Los Angeles, Calif.*+
Mountain View,
Pompano Beach,




     'Research or experimental operations.
     tSystem in operation.
     fin shakedown.
     §Under construction.
    ** Construction not yet started, but system has been selected.
                                             TABLE 33

Braintree, Mass.
Nashville, Tenn.*
Saugus. Mass.


capital cost
(tons of
per day)
cost per
ton of
                 *System also distributes-chilled water.

 responsible not only for solid waste disposal
 but also for power generation, distribution of
 steam for district heating, and the operation
 of electrically powered transportation sys-
   Solid Waste as  a Supplementary Fuel. Sol-
 id waste can  be used in  solid form  as a
 substitute  for conventional  fossil  fuels in
 existing or newly designed combustion units.
 The major markets for solid waste fuel are (1)
 utility steam-electric boilers, (2) industrial
 steam and  steam-electric  boilers,  and  (3)
 downtown steam arid chilled water distribu-
   The prerequisite for entry into these mar-
 kets is that the  boilers must be capable of
 handling both bottom ash and fly  ash. All
 boilers designed  to  burn  coal have  ash-
 handling equipment. Many coal-burning
 boilers have been retrofitted to burn oil or gas,
 but the ash-handling equipment   is still
 operable in  most  cases.
   There  are two  ways to enter the  markelj:
 construction of a new boiler or modification of
 an existing one. It is usually less expensive to
 modify an existing boiler than to build a new
 one. The largest and  most readily available
 existing  boilers are electric  utility boilers.
 Because most of them are suspension-fired
 (the fuel burns in midair in a residence time of
 1 or 2 seconds), the pieces of solid waste fuel
 must  be reduced in size  (by  shredding,
 milling,  or  pulping)  so  that they  can  be
 burned in the boiler's short residence time.
   The  shredded-waste  fuel  system  being
 demonstrated by the city of St. Louis, the
 Union Electric Company, and EPA in St.
 Louis shreds mixed municipal wastes, separ-
 ates combustible from noncombustible mate-
 rial, and burns the combustible portion in an
 existing coal-fired electric-power-generating
 boiler.  Magnetic  metals are extracted from
 the noncombustible  portion  and sold  to a
 steelmill. Glass, aluminum,  and other  non-
 magnetic materials can also be extracted for
 resale  when  technology and economics per-
 mit. The system  thus conserves  resources
 and, since  95  percent  by volume  of the
 system's throughput is recovered, reduces the
 community's landfill requirements.
  Similar systems are already being imple-
mented in several other communities, even
though the concept is still being tested (Table
34). The  Union Electric Company has an-
 nounced a $70 million program to expand the
 demonstration operation to serve the entire
 metropolitan St. Louis area. In Ames, Iowa, a
 prepared solid waste fuel will be used in a
 municipally owned powerplant.  In Chicago,
 it will be used by the Commonwealth Edison
   Investigations are being  undertaken of
 other possibilities for solid fuel prepared from
 solid waste: as a supplemental fuel in oil-fired
 boilers, pelletizing for use on grates in stoker-
 fired boilers, and  preparation  by a wet-
 pulping method.
   The pulped fuel concept is an extension of
 the wet-pulping separation technique demon-
 strated by EPA  at Franklin, Ohio, using the
 Black Clawson Company's system.  After
 pulping and  removal  of  noncombustible
 materials, the remaining material, with  a
 moisture  content of about 50 percent after
 dewatering, can be used as the primary  fuel in
 boilers that are designed to handle materials
 with high,moisture content, such as wood
 bark from papermill wastes or  sugar cane
 wastes. The pulped fuel could also be dried
 further and used as a supplementary fuel in
 existing boilers burning coal or oil. Recovery
 of heat energy from  pulped  waste has  not
 been demonstrated on a large scale; however,
 tests by the Black Clawson Company have
 been encouraging enough for the company to
 promote the  system in the waste disposal

      Technology under Development

  Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis systems  which con-
vert  solid waste  into gaseous or  liquid fuels
are being demonstrated with EPA solid waste
demonstration grant support in  Baltimore,
Maryland, and San Diego County, Califor-
nia,  and without Federal support in South
Charleston, West Virginia (Table 35). These
systems are expected to become fully opera-
tional during the 1977 to 1980 period.
  Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of
materials in the  absence or near absence of
oxygen.  The  high  temperature and the
"starved-air" situation cause a breakdown of
the materials  into  three parts: (1) a gas
consisting primarily of hydrogen, methane,
and  carbon monoxide; (2) a  liquid fuel that
includes  organic chemicals  such as acetic
acid,  acetone, and methanol;  (3) a  char

                                       TABLE 34
                                  IN UTILITY BOILERS, 1975
Ames, Iowa
Bridgeport, Conn.
Chicago, 111.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Monroe Co., N.Y.
New Britain, Conn.
St. Louis, Mo.
(expansion of
pilot operation)
cost (in
(tons of
per day)
cost per
ton of
               *Does not include retrofitting of boilers and storage facilities for the solid waste.
                                       TABLE 35

                           IN OPERATION OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION, 1975

Baltimore, Md.*
South Charleston,
W. Va.
San Diego County,


Gaseous fuel

Liquid fuel






(tons of
per day)


cost per
ton of


               *EPA solid waste demonstration projects.
consisting of almost pure carbon, plus any
glass,  metal, or rock that may  have been
processed. The design  of the  individual
system determines which  of  these outputs
will be the predominant product.
  Pyrolysis is under development by nearly a
score of different private and public organiza-
tions. The primary motivation is the desire to
develop a system that can convert solid waste
into a storable; transportable fuel—either
liquid or gas.
  The  Garrett  Research and  Development
Company's "Flash Pyrolysis" system, which
will be demonstrated by EPA in  San Diego
County, California, will  produce  an  oil-like
liquid that will  be used by the San Diego Gas
and Electric Company as a supplemental fuel
in an  existing  oil-fired boiler. The fuel has
about 65 percent of the heating value of No. 6
fuel oil .on a volumetric basis. In this system,
mixed municipal  solid  waste is coarsely
shredded  and  then separated  by  an air
classifier into a light fraction and  a heavy
fraction. The light  material  is  dried  and
reshredded to one-sixteenth of an inch before
undergoing pyrolysis at a temperature of 900
F. Liquid fuel is produced at the rate of one
barrel per ton of solid waste.
  A gaseous fuel is being produced by the
Union Carbide "Purox" system that is being
tested at a 200-ton-per-day facility in South
Charleston, West  Virginia. The  system  is
characterized by its slagging vertical shaft
furnace, its use of pure oxygen rather than
air, and the fact  that it  does not require
shredding.  The gas  product is  a clean-
burning fuel comparable to natural gas in
combustion  characteristics   but  with  30
percent of the heating value of natural gas. It
is essentially free  of sulfur compounds and
nitrogen oxides and burns at approximately
the same  temperature as natural gas. This

 gas can be substituted for natural gas in an
 existing facility; the only plant modification
 necessary  would  be  enlargement  of  the
 burner nozzle to increase the flow rate.
  The new pyrolysis system being operated in
 Baltimore  with EPA  demonstration grant
 support combines a waste-heat boiler with
 the pyrolysis kiln to produce steam. The
 plant, designed by Monsanto, uses the boiler
 to recover the heat value from the pyrolysis
 gases, which are combusted in an afterburner
 separate from the kiln. When in full opera-
 tion, 200,000 pounds of steam per hour will be
 recovered from processing 1,000 tons of solid
 waste per day. The steam will be transported
 by  pipeline  three-fourths of a mile  to an
 existing steam distribution  system that is
 operated by the local utility.
  Methane Recovery.  The natural biological
 decomposition of organic waste creates gas.
 Under anaerobic  conditions, the  bacteria
 associated with the decomposition process
 will generate methane and  carbon dioxide
 in  about equal quantities. Methane is  the
 primary component of natural gas.
  Anaerobic  digestion takes place naturally
 in  a landfill, and efforts to-  recover landfill
 gases  as an energy source are underway in
 several  locations. More information  on
 recovery of methane from landfills  is pre-
 sented in the chapter on Sanitary  Landfill-
  Methane can  also  be produced by the
controlled digestion  of solid  waste  in  a
digestion tank. The various components of a
controlled digestion system,  such as  shred-
ders,  digestion tanks,  and  gas-cleansing
units, are commercially available. However,
to date anaerobic digestion of solid waste has
not been demonstrated on a large scale.
  A controlled digestion system for methane
recovery from solid waste will be demonstrat-
ed by the Energy Research and Development
Administration in Pompano Beach, Florida.
This pilot digester will handle 50 to 100 tons
of solid waste per day.
  Direct Generation  of  Electricity. The
direct  generation  of electricity from solid
waste combustion is being explored through a
research project funded by EPA. The Com-
bustion Power  Company  has developed a
completely  integrated solid  waste  combus-
tion and power generation system known as
the  CPU-400. A 100-ton-per-day pilot plant in
Menlo Park, California, is currently in the
development phase.
  In this system, incoming municipal solid
waste is shredded and air-classified to re-
move  the  noncombustible material, from
which metal and glass are recovered. The
combustible fraction is transported pneumat-
ically into a pressurized fluid bed combustor.
The hot, high-pressure gases from the com-
bustor are cleaned and then passed through a
gas  turbine that  drives  a  1,000-kilowatt
  Performance problems have caused accel-
erated deterioration of the turbine blades and
have  thus  slowed  the development of this
process. The deterioration and other prob-
lems  must be solved before this approach
becomes a technically and  economically
feasible system for energy recovery.

  The key to marketing energy from solid
waste is to produce a form of energy that can
be utilized without significant inconvenience
to the user. A fuel product should be storable
and transportable so that the solid waste
facility can be built and operated independ-
ently of the fuel market.
  Marketability of Fuels Derived from Solid
Waste.  Fuels derived from municipal solid
waste have different  physical and chemical
properties than conventional fuels and thus
have  different handling  and  combustion
characteristics. In  analyzing  the market
potential for these fuels, some general factors
which must be considered are:
  • Quantity of fuel produced: enough of the
    product must be available to justify any
    expenses to the  user in modifying his
    facility to accept the new fuel.
  • Heating value:  the heat value of each
    fuel must be high enough to minimize the
    effect of the fuel on the boiler or furnace
    efficiency. Also the costs of transporting,
    sorting,  and handling the  fuel  will
    increase  as  the  heat  value decreases
    since greater tonnages or volumes must
    be handled to obtain the same amount of
  •  Reliability: a high degree of reliability of
    the supply of the fuel will increase its
    value because the user will not have to
    maintain standby equipment or fuel.

  • Particle size, ash content, and moisture
    content of shredded fuel: particles must
    be small  enough  to  permit complete
    combustion when burned in suspension.
    Ash  content should be kept to a  mini-
    mum so as to prevent erosion of the fuel
    firing system and the furnace walls, and
    reduce problems of handling fly and bot-
    tom  ash. If the moisture content of the
    fuel is too high it will reduce the combus-
    tion efficiency of the boiler.
  • Viscosity, volumetric  heating  value,
    chemical stability, and special handling
    requirements of liquid fuels.
  • Heating value and transportability are
    prime considerations for gaseous  fuels.
    The distance which gaseous fuels can be
    economically transported is limited by
    the cost of compressing and pumping the
  Anaerobic digestion  is  the  only known
process that produces an energy form (meth-
ane gas)  in large quantities that can be used
directly by the consumer for home heating,
cooking,  and other such purposes. When the
gas produced is upgraded to pipeline quality
(1,000 Btu per cubic foot), it is easily marketed
because it can be injected directly into the
local utility pipeline system. All other energy
recovery processes require  conversion  to
steam or electricity.
  The  waste-derived solid and liquid fuels
can be transported and can even be stored for
brief periods of time (several days to several
weeks). However, both fuels require the user
to install special storing and firing facilities.
In addition,  the  user  must follow special
handling procedures to minimize problems of
air pollution and  corrosion. Waste-derived
gaseous fuels are less likely to require special
handling or  need separate  facilities  for
storage and firing, but those currently being
produced (other than methane from anaero-
bic digestion) cannot economically be com-
pressed for extended storage and shipment.
The best of the gaseous fuels cannot be
shipped more than 2 miles.
  Marketability  of Steam  or  Electricity.
Steam and electricity derived from waste can
both be  used without significant inconven-
ience to  the user, but there are constraints
which must be considered. For steam distri-
bution systems these include:
   • Proximity to customer: the facility must
    be located close to  the  steam market.
    Generally steam can be transported only
    about 2 miles; in congested areas, exten-
    sive  piping  may further  restrict this
  • Value: the price of the steam delivered to
    customers must be competitive  with
    alternative energy sources.
  • Quantity: the amount of steam must be
    sufficient to  serve  customers' needs,
    allowing for peak demand periods. Oth-
    erwise,  standby provisions  must  be
  • Operating schedule: steam generation
    facility  must  operate on  a schedule
    consistent with the customers' operating
  • Availability of waste: sufficient waste
    must be  assured to meet steam output
  • Steam quality: temperature and pressure
    of steam produced  must be consistent
    with optimal   performance of  steam
    generating plant and the limits accept-
    able to the customer.
  • Reliability: contingency plans must be
    available in case  solid waste flow is
  • Disposal option: should  the facility fail
    to operate, either technically or economi-
    cally (e.g., depressed steam  market),
    disposal  of solid waste must still  be
    provided for.  Condensing  units  or a
    backup landfill may be necessary.
  • Timing: steam must be  available when
    needed and upon demand. Also, unantic-
    ipated  delays  in construction of the
    facility may divert potential customers
    to alternative commitments.
  The marketability considerations for solid-
waste-to-electricity systems are basically the
same as those for steam systems, since steam
production  is usually the interim  step in
generating  electricity. However, electricity
systems  are  not limited  by the need  for
proximity to  the customer or steam quality
  Market Opportunities.  Markets for solid-
waste-derived fuels  are  likely  to  be  large
utilities or industrial users who could supple-.
ment conventional fuels with  solid waste fuel.
Major industrial operations  such as cement
plants, steelmills, papermills, etc., and dis-

trict heating/cooling plants are also poten-
tial market outlets. Market opportunities for
steam  similarly include metropolitan areas
with commercial and campus district heating
and cooling networks and industrial plants
which  operate steam-electric powerplants.
  The major concern in marketing electricity
is that it can be marketed only to the electric
utility  serving the area because, within that
service area,  the utility is generally exempt
from competition. The only exception to that
would  be  a municipally  owned utility, but
only  a  small  fraction  of the  nation's
electricity-generating  capacity falls in this
             COST ESTIMATES

  Cost is usually the major factor in decisions
about  whether  to  implement  large-scale
mixed-waste resource  recovery plants. Cost
considerations are  also important in formu-
lating State and Federal policies relating to
such implementation. Thus it is important
that sound methods of evaluating and com-
paring cost figures be  used.
  Unfortunately, very little  economic data
are available. As of August 1975, no full-scale
mixed-waste  separation plants were yet in
regular operation. In the absence of operating
data, cost projections must  be based upon
preliminary  estimates  by  consulting
engineers  and system development compa-
nies ; these estimates are derived from experi-
ence with pilot-scale  operations and from
equipment supplier quotations.
  A  major problem in .projecting costs has
been the general lack of comparability among
cost estimates. There are two apparent causes
for  this.  First, different  cost-accounting
methods are employed by various designers,
making it difficult to compare cost projections
in proposals from companies bidding on the
same contract.
  Second,  most estimates have been site-
specific and reflect a  wide range of factors
which vary from site to site. Capital costs on a
1,000-ton-per-day plant may range from $10
to $35 million,  depending on the type of
system chosen,  land  and site preparation
costs, and construction costs, including labor,
materials, and equipment.
  Annual  costs, which include amortized
capital cost and operating and maintenance
 costs, may vary from $11 per input ton to $24
 per input ton, depending on, among other
 things, the utilization of capacity, the interest
 rate on borrowed funds, wage rates, utility
 rates, fuel prices, local taxes, and residual
 waste disposal costs.
  Selling prices for the recovered products
 also constitute a great source of uncertainty.
 They exhibit  large variations among geo-
 graphic regions and have been subject to ex-
 treme  fluctuations over time. Future nego-
 tiable prices for recovered fuels and materials
 are subject to additional uncertainties due to
 technical questions about product quality.
  Product revenues could range from $4 to
 $16 per input ton, depending on the types and
 quality of materials and energy  recovered,
 the current  market prices, and  the  cost of
 transporting the materials and energy.
  Based on these estimates for annual costs
 and product revenues, the annual net results
 may range from a~profit of $5 per ton to a cost
 of $20 per ton.
  Whether the net cost of a resource recovery
 system  is  acceptable  depends  upon  a
 comparison  with the present and projected
 costs of alternative solid waste management
  Even those  systems  that  can be called
 "commercially available" involve consider-
 able risk. However, as more operating experi-
 ence is accumulated and as more develop-
 ment work is done, better cost estimates can
 be  made and improved systems  will be
 available. There is also a cost of waiting.
 Inflation  is likely to increase the cost of
 resource recovery systems, and the remain-
 ing capacity of current disposal sites must be


  The decision to build a resource recovery
plant must be based on a thorough analysis of
local conditions. However, a thorough analy-
sis  is  costly   and  time  consuming,  and
decision-makers need to have a rough  idea
about the feasibility  of resource  recovery
before undertaking such a study. It is possible
to make a superficial but meaningful assess-
ment  of feasibility by  considering  a few
factors that are basic to the success  of a
resource recovery system.

           Economies of Scale

  Resource recovery systems require  large
quantities of waste delivered for processing at
one site in order to achieve economies of scale.
For this  reason, resource recovery appears
feasible  only  in more densely populated
urban and suburban areas within  which it
would be economical to haul large quantities
of waste  to a single location. The minimum
amount  of waste required for economical
operation has not been determined, but the
consensus  of  the solid waste  engineering
community is that 200 to 250 tons per day is
the lower limit and that plants in the 500- to
2,000-ton-per-day range are likely to be the
most economical. Current activity gives the
best indication of practical plant size: of the
systems currently being designed, construct-
ed, or operated in the United States (exclud-
ing demonstration and test facilities), only
three—those  at  Ames, Iowa  (200  tons per
day),  Braintree, Massachusetts (240 tons),
and Nashville, Tennessee (720  tons)—have
capacities smaller than 1,000 tons per day.

      Markets and Product Revenues

  To be  economical, resource recovery sys-
tems must be able to sell their products, and
sell them at a satisfactory price. It  is impor-
tant to consider markets first and then select
a system to recover the appropriate products.
  The decision-maker's first step should be to
investigate energy markets. The reason for
this is that, in most cases, energy  products
can contribute more revenue per ton of waste
processed than all other materials combined.
In  addition,  landfill requirements can be
reduced more by recovering energy (up to 80
or 90 percent of the waste input by volume)
than by  recovering all other products com-
  Once a market has  been identified, the
decision-maker can estimate the potential
revenues from recovered energy products.
This can be done in two steps:
  1. Estimate gross revenue  per  ton  by
converting the  value  of the  prospective
customer's current source  of  energy  into
dollars per ton of solid waste. The question
may be raised, What is the effect on  revenues
from  energy  recovery  if paper is  recycled
instead of converted to energy? The recovery
of paper products has the potential of signifi-
cantly reducing revenues by reducing the
quantity and quality of combustible material.
However, at current and past levels of paper
recycling,   its effect  on  energy recovery
product revenues would be to reduce them by
only about 5 or 10 percent. The effect on any
particular system must be considered in a
detailed feasibility analysis.
  2.  Estimate net revenue per ton by deduct-
ing from gross revenue the amount per ton of
the customer's cost of using the product. In
addition, the price to the customer may have
to be discounted in order to make the product
more competitive. Data on these costs and
discounts  are not available, but for purposes
of a preliminary feasibility approximation, a
30-percent reduction  in  gross  revenues  is
  Revenues from materials should  also be
estimated  (Table 36). Steel recovery is proven
commercially and is economically attractive
in almost all instances where shredding is
already being performed. Glass, aluminum,
or other nonferrous metals may or may not be
recovered, depending  on local markets and
other economic  and  technological factors.
Technology for recovery of glass and nonfer-
rous metals from municipal solid waste has
not yet been fully demonstrated.
  It should be noted that transportation costs
could greatly reduce the revenue contribution
of glass and steel due to their relatively low
values.  Revenues from  nonferrous metals
would be less significantly affected.


  In  addition to easing energy shortages,
energy recovery offers the following advan-
tages over conventional waste management
  •  Landfill  requirenTen*ts~can  be reduced.
     The present landfill can be used longer,
     and the task of finding the next landfill
     site will be less urgent.
  •  Finding a site  for  an energy recovery
     plant may be easier than finding a site
     for a landfill or conventional incinerator.
  •  Energy  recovery is  environmentally
     preferable  because  total  pollution  is
     reduced when compared to a system that
     includes incineration  for  solid waste

                                     TABLE 36
                             MECHANICAL PROCESSING FACILITY
Ferrous metal
Other nonferrous metal
in total
as percent
of total
per tont
per ton of
solid waste
              *Based on national average composition.
              tExcludes costs of transporting to markets. Transport costs could significantly
           reduce the net revenue from glass and ferrous metal.
  disposal and burning  fossil  fuels for
• Public opinion favors energy  recovery.
  Many communities  are opposing new
  solid waste management ventures unless
  they  include  resource  recovery. Some
  communities have even said that they
  would pay more for  resource recovery
  because of its environmental benefits.
• Energy recovery appears to  be more
  economical than environmentally sound
  conventional  incineration  or  remote
  sanitary landfilling.
• The future prospects  for favorable eco-
  nomic justification for energy recovery
  are very good because of the soaring
  costs   of  fossil  fuels and  increasing
  environmental constraints being placed
  on  other  alternatives for solid waste
• Most energy recovery systems  facilitate
  the recovery of materials for recycling.

      Disadvantages and Risks
• Most systems will not accept all types of
  wastes and will  produce some  residues.
  Therefore  a sanitary landfill will still be
  needed as a part of the total system.
• Developmental work is still underway on
  many of the energy recovery options.
• The municipality will have to market
  recovered  products or  hire a private
  company to do this. This is a new task for
  most  municipalities,  requiring special
  skills and possibly changes in municipal
    regulations regarding the disposition of
    "surplus property."
  • Specific needs of the energy market may
    dictate parameters of the system design.
    This could include type of facility, size,
    site location, or operating hours.
  • Most energy recovery systems require
    raising large sums of investment capital.


  The recovery of energy from solid  waste
can create mutual benefits for the communi-
ty and the purchasers of the energy product.
Some benefits may be expressed in dollars;
others may not. For example, the communi-
ty may benefit from lower waste disposal
costs, less air pollution, and longer landfill
life. At the same time, the energy user can
benefit  from  lower fuel  costs,  a reliable
source of low-sulfur fuel, and an opportunity
to provide a community service.
  If  a  community  wishes  to implement  a
resource  recovery system, it must consider
both the markets and the technologies that
are available. If the decision must be made
now, waterwall  incineration or the use of
shredded solid waste as  a supplementary
fuel should be considered, recognizing that
there are still economic  uncertainties inher-
ent in solid waste fuel systems. If a commu-
nity  has a  year  or so to make the decision
about building a system, it should delay the
decision until then because by that time the
degree of economic viability of solid  waste

fuel systems should be much clearer. If the
decision-making  time is  from 2  to 5 years
away, oil or gas pyrolysis should also com-
mand major emphasis in the community's
planning,  for these systems should be fully
demonstrated during this time. It should be
remembered,  however, that the time  be-
tween   system   selection   and  actual
operation—the  time  for procurement,  de-
sign,   construction,   and   shakedown
operations—could conceivably be as long as
5 years. This must be considered when de-
termining  the   lead  time  available  for

             HITTE. S. J.  Anaerobic digestion of solid waste and sewage sludge to methane.
                      Environmental Protection Publication SW-159. Washington, U.S. Envir-
                      onmental Protection Agency, July 1975, 13 p.
             HOPPER, R. E. A nationwide survey of resource recovery activities. Environmental
                      Protection Publication SW-142. [Washington,] U.S. Environmental Protec-
                      tion Agency, Jan. 1975. 74 p.
             LEVY, S. J.  Markets  and  technology  for recovering energy from  solid waste.
                      Environmental Protection Publication SW-130. Washington. U.S. Envir-
                      onmental Protection Agency, 1974. 31 p.
             SUSSMAN. D. B.  Baltimore demonstrates gas  pyrolysis:  resource recovery  from
                      solid waste. Environmental Protection Publication SW-75d.i. Washington.
                      U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. 24 p.
                      PROGRAMS. Resource recovery  and waste reduction;  third report to Con-
                      gress. Environmental Protection Publication SW-161. Washington. U.S.
                      Government Printing Office, 1975. 96 p.

                           Materials Recovery
  The decision to be made is whether or not
to engage in recovering the various materi-
als in solid waste and to what extent. In this
context materials recovery is considered to
be any  manual  or  mechanical process  in
which one or  more of the  various compo-
nents in the solid waste stream are separat-
ed, concentrated, and  sold. The recovery of
steel cans and  other ferrous metals from the
waste stream using a magnet is an example
of one type of  materials recovery. Materials
recovery  systems vary in cost, complexity,
and risk  from  the relatively simple process
of ferrous metal recovery to systems that
extract not only ferrous  metals  but also
glass, paper, and aluminum and other non-
ferrous metals  from the waste stream.
  The decision to proceed with  such a syst-
em is based primarily  on costs versus benef-
its and on anticipated technical feasibility,
although there are likely to be other con-
straining  prerequisites for  many of these

  There are two basic kinds of materials
recovery:  precollection and postcollection.
Precollection recovery, or recovery before
the materials become  mixed in a collection
vehicle,   is discussed in  the  chapter  on
Source Separation. This  chapter  will deal
with postcollection materials recovery, that
is, recovery of marketable materials from
mixed municipal solid waste.
  There are three approaches to implemen-
ting such a materials recovery system.
      Complement to Land Disposal
  A  growing number "of communities  are
adding  shredding  and  ferrous metal rec-
overy systems to their landfill operations.
Shredding may be done to improve landfill
operations  and reduce landfill volume re-
quirements (see the chapter on Shredding).
Shredding also provides the important first
step  in a materials recovery system of "lib-
erating" the various components from each
other. Ferrous metals are then magnetically
extracted. As new separation techniques are
demonstrated  to  be  technically  feasible,
they may be added to the system.

 Complement to Energy Recovery Systems

  Technology is being developed to recover
various noncombustible materials either be-
fore or after energy recovery takes place.
     Total Materials Recovery Systems

  Systems are now being developed which
recover as many of the components of the
waste as are economically feasible. An ex-
ample of this approach is the EPA demon-
stration project in Franklin, Ohio.


  A community can receive  the  following
benefits through implementation of a mate-
rials recovery system.

          Resource Conservation

  Net   environmental  benefits  can  be
achieved   through   materials   recovery.
Through  recycling,  the drain  on limited
natural resources is reduced. Also the manu-
facturing  of products from recycled materi-
als has been shown to  be less polluting in
most  cases  and requires less energy than
manufacturing which relies on virgin mate-

          Reduced Landfill Usage

  Removal of materials from the solid waste
stream for recycling will reduce the quantity
of waste which must be  disposed of.

          Lower Disposal Costs

  The sale of recovered materials will proba-
bly never result in actual  profits for  the
waste   management   system.   However,
enough revenues may be  generated to pay
not only for the increased cost to the system
of separating  and marketing the materials
but also for some  of the cost of the overall
disposal operation.

             Citizen Support

  The implementation of a recovery system
is in consonance with mounting  citizen con-
cern about resources and  the  environment.
Siting should  be less of a problem for re-
source recovery  facilities than for conven-
tional disposal facilities.


        Still-Emerging Technology

  The degree  of technological  risk varies
with the complexity of the system. Adding a
magnetic  separator to pull out ferrous me-
tals at a shredding/landfilling operation
should have a minimal risk,  but in general
the methods of  recovering other materials
that are  marketable are  still in stages of
development. There is a great deal of work
going  on  in this  field in private  industry,
universities, municipalities, and  the Federal
Government. Many concepts are now being
demonstrated; some of  the demonstrations
are described later in this chapter.
             Economic Risks
  Due  to  the  newness  of this field, well-
documented cost and performance informa-
tion  on commercially available equipment
that is actually being used to process solid
waste is largely unavailable.  Estimates of
economic feasibility are primarily based on
projected maintenance costs, the separation
system's recovery rate or yield, and an as-
sumed value for  the  product. These three
items in  particular  should be scrutinized
during  the  decision-making  process.  The
economic evaluation also depends, of course,
on capital costs,  operating costs, and pro-
duct transportation  costs, but  these  esti-
mates are generally more reliable than the
previous three.
           Marketing Problems
  The payoff for a materials recovery syst-
em is the sale, at a reasonable price, of the
extracted  materials. Marketing tactics and
negotiations with purchasers  represent un-
familiar waters  for  most  municipalities,
however.  The community should  prepare
itself with as  much knowledge as  possible
about  the  marketplace  they  are about to
enter. Of particular importance are  the pre-
cise material specifications of the purchaser.
These  should  be closely compared to the
anticipated  quality of the separated materi-
als.  Prior to  the commitment  of capital
funds the community should secure  as bind-
ing and explicit a commitment as  possible
from the  purchaser. The best would  be  a
contract which specifies acceptable quanti-
ty, quality, price, transportation or  transfer
mechanism, and term of the agreement.
  The risks noted above may be reduced, but
never eliminated, through the use of a pri-
vate operating contractor or system promo-
ter. The execution of an equitable contract
with the private sector "is "riot 'a straightfor-
ward task here either, but this option  may
reduce the community's  headaches  in some
areas and shorten the implementation  peri-
od. The municipality should be aware, how-
ever, that it can never totally eliminate the
risk  factors, and therefore the responsibility
to scrutinize and evaluate these factors con-
tinues. Finally, the community should ex-
pect to pay  something extra for any special
services provided or any  risks shared by the
private sector.



  A  comprehensive market survey specific
to the local area must indicate that the re-
covered materials will in fact be purchased
at a reasonable price.
  Early discussions with  potential buyers
are extremely important in  order to make
sure  that the separation  system produces
materials of sufficient quality and quantity
to be useful to the buyer. Any conclusions
reached should be reinforced through a con-
tractual agreement before committing funds
to construct the facility.


  Even  the  simplest  form of mechanized
materials recovery, ferrous metal extraction,
requires at least some processing of the solid
waste stream to open  up paper and plastic
bags  and "liberate"  the tin cans. This
function is performed by some form of shred-
ding operation, which can  vary from  an
extremely coarse shredder, little more than a
bag opener, to a more sophisticated shredder
that  reduces  all the incoming materials to
particles less  than a cubic inch in size.
  This  size   reduction equipment can  be
quite costly,  ranging  up to  hundreds of
thousands of dollars. The many benefits that
shredding alone offers to a solid waste han-
dling and disposal system are sufficient to
justify the capital expenditure in some cases.
  Current economic projections indicate that
the revenues  from  the sale of the recovered
materials cannot completely offset the added
cost of the shredding operation. Therefore, to
add  a materials  recovery system  onto a
disposal operation that  does not already
include  a shredder would increase the net
costs of the whole operation. This increase
must be  weighed  against  the  auxiliary
benefits that shredding provides.
  If  the solid waste management program
has already justified the need for a shredder
to improve the disposal operations, then the
additions of various levels of materials re-
covery appear to be very attractive. That is to
say,  the revenues generated  can  more than
offset the equipment  and operating costs
required to perform the separation.
             Minimum Size

  Capital-intensive  facilities  require large
throughputs to  achieve reasonable process-
ing costs  per ton. Even  the  addition of a
shredder alone  could probably not be justi-
fied by  a  small community with less than,
say,  150 tons of  solid waste per day. The
larger the facility—up to 2,000 or more tons
per day—the lower the cost per ton. This type
of materials recovery system may thus be
ruled  out  for smaller communities unless
several combine their wastes at one location
for processing. Separate collection of news-
paper is not so  constrained and may  be
appropriate for  even the smallest communi-

           Manual Separation

  Handpicking  is  a long-used form of separ-
ation. In this type of  operation, a conveyor
passes the solid waste by a group of workers
who pick  out the valuable components  by
hand. This method has a number of serious
drawbacks. It can be  a very costly form of
separation. Secondly,  it is a limited separa-
tion because the pickers can usually extract
only the bulky materials. Finally, there are
potential  health  and safety  hazards, and
handpicking is  not a  job that attracts con-
scientious workers. Therefore, EPA does not
recommend this practice.
  Handpicking  of bundled  newspapers is
nevertheless being promoted by the Nation-
al Center for Resource Recovery and Ameri-
cology, Inc. They  propose that homeowners
bundle  their newspapers before they  set
them  out for  collection. The bundles  are
thrown  in the  truck  with  the rest of the
wastes,  and, at  the processing facility, these
bundles are handpicked from  a conveyor
and set  aside to be sold.


  Composting of municipal solid waste has
been practiced  in Europe and the United
States for many years. European activity in
composting has included research in such
diverse  areas  as  engineering  technology,
public health and pathogen  survival, and
use in strip mine reclamation, in vineyards,
and in general  agriculture. The technology

of composting is well advanced, and there
are no real technological barriers to making
  In the United States, composting  plants
have been established in various communi-
ties over the last 20 years. In general, these
plants have met with little success and most
have-closed. The major problem for these
plants is the lack of a viable market  for the
compost. Currently, only one plant, Altoona
FAM,  Inc., in Altoona, Pennsylvania, is
known to be operating on a regular basis.
  In the  Fairfield-Hardy process used at
Altoona,  solid  waste is ground in  a wet-
pulper  and passed  through  dewatering
presses before it is fed into the digestor for a
5-day decomposition cycle. The material is
stirred in the digestor by augers suspended
from a rotating bridge in the circular tank.
Air is provided by means of a blower and air
pipes embedded in the floor of the tank. This
digestion system  of Fairfield Engineering
Company, compared with other composting
techniques, appears  to  offer  a  superior
engineering design, a more automated oper-
ation, and a superior humus product.
          Ferrous Metal Recovery
  Ferrous metal recovery is a significant
revenue generator for three reasons. There
is a significant quantity of ferrous  metal,
around 7 percent, in the solid waste stream.
The  value of this  metal is typically  $12 to
$20 per ton. And, ferrous metals  are relative-
ly easy to extract.
  While the technology for extracting  fer-
rous metals is readily available, upgrading
of the separated metal may also be required
for salability in some cases. Initial attempts
at ferrous metal recovery have resulted in
products that were contaminated with paper
and  other organic materials. Some purchas-
ers found the density undesirable.
  There  are three basic markets  for  re*
covered ferrous metals: reuse in a steelmill,
in precipitation of copper from low-grade
copper ore,  and in the  detinning industry,
which  recovers  the valuable tin  from  the tin
  Each of these markets  has  specific re-
quirements  for  the ferrous scrap that they
will  buy.  The technology for upgrading to
meet these requirements is now  being devel-
oped.  It  is important  to  note that these
market constraints may be significant fac-
tors in selecting the type of shredder to be
used in the initial processing step. Some
shredders  such as  ring  mills and wet-
pulpers tend to ball up the tin cans, which
makes them less desirable for copper preci-
pitation and detinning but acceptable  for
the steel industry.
  Impact  of Beverage  Container  Legisla-
tion.  Several proposals to reduce the gener-
ation of solid waste are being introduced in
State and local legislatures. The most popu-
lar of these requires a mandatory deposit for
beverage  containers  and would have  an
impact on the  amount of steel,  aluminum,
and glass containers discarded in the waste
stream (see chapter on Reducing Waste Gen-
eration). Steel cans would probably be re-
duced by 15 percent.  A  1,000-ton-per-day
facility recovering ferrous scrap could real-
ize a "yield loss"  of approximately 2,000
tons per year of scrap cans, and the annual
revenue losses  would amount to $40,000 at
$20 per ton. On  a per ton basis, revenue
from ferrous metals would be reduced from
$1.25 to approximately $1.06 for each ton of
solid waste processed.
             Paper Recovery

  Paper represents 30 to 35 percent  of mu-
nicipal wastes, and the sale  of the various
paper fractions can be a major source of
revenue where  markets can be found. It is
important to note that paper has  a  higher
value when  it is reused as paper than when
it is used as an energy source.
  While source  separation and separate col-
lection constitute the main means of paper
recovery,  there are also two  types  of me-
chanized recovery from mixed wastes: wet
separation and dry separation. Wet separa-
tion  has  been  demonstrated in Franklin,
Ohio, as described below. The marketability
of the material recovered by this method is
still  limited. Operational  systems  for dry
separation of paper fibers exist in Europe,
and there are attempts underway to develop
feasible systems in this country.
  In paper recovery as in all other resource
recovery activities, the availability and sta-
bility  of markets  are necessary for contin-
uing success. The issues related to  waste-
paper  marketing   are  discussed   in  the
chapter on Source Separation.

      Glass and Aluminum Recovery

  Glass and aluminum recovery systems are
now being  developed, but their technical
and economic viability is uncertain at this
time. The  EPA demonstration project in
Franklin is investigating this issue.
  Glass represents between 6 and 10 percent
of the solid waste stream. Its  value is be-
tween  $12 and $20  per  ton.  Color-sorted
cullet may sell for more, depending on the
market location. The real  advantage to
color-sorted glass is that there are at least
twice as many markets for it as for mixed-
color glass. However, the technical and ec-
onomic feasibility of color-sorting glass to
acceptable  quality levels has not  yet been
demonstrated. Potential  uses for  glass in
construction  materials exist  but have not
yet been developed to a significant  degree.
  In glassmaking,  cullet  is in some  ways
preferable to virgin  raw materials because
its use reduces fuel consumption and refra-c-
tory wear. The industry generally limits the
use of cullet in the glass formula to approxi-
mately 20 percent by weight, although 80 to
100  percent cullet formulations have been
  Aluminum makes  up less than 1 percent
of the solid waste stream, but this compo-
nent has an extremely high value of $200 or
more per ton. Aluminum therefore could be
an  important revenue generator, and much
technology development is underway to sep-
arate  and concentrate this  material. Be-
cause of its value, the recovered aluminum
is not expected to pose any significant mar-
keting problems.
  Although the economi'c viability of alumi-
num  recovery  technology  is  uncertain at
present,  there are plans to include alumi-
num recovery in some of the facilities which
will be built within the next 2 to 3 years.
These  include a new plant  to be built in
Ames, Iowa,  in 1975 to recover ferrous and
nonferrous metals and aggregate from raw
waste; a dry separation plant to be built in
New Orleans in 1975 for  recovering glass,
metals, and paper; and a dry-shredded-fuel
recovery facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut,
scheduled to begin operation in  1976.
  Impacts of Beverage  Container Legisla-
tion.  It is estimated that beverage contain-
er legislation can reduce the glass content in
the waste stream (currently about 9 percent)
by a third. At current market prices ($20 per
ton), the reduction in glass recovery would
mean revenue losses totaling $100,000 each
year, or $0.40 per ton of raw waste processed,
for  a  1,000-ton-per-day   plant.  At  this
point, the impact of the loss on glass rec-
overy feasibility is uncertain since  the basic
economics are not yet known.
  A beverage container deposit would re-
duce the aluminum content in waste by 30
percent.  For a  1,000-ton-per-day  recovery
plant, this would reduce the yield of alumi-
num by roughly 300 to 400 tons per year,
which,  at prices of  $300  to  $400  per ton,
translates to $90,000 to  $160,000 of lost
revenue. On the basis  of tonnage of raw
waste input, the reduction in revenue would
be $0.34 to  $0.61 per ton.  At this time,  the
economics of aluminum  recovery are  too
uncertain to accurately judge the impact of
deposit legislation.

       Wet Separation and Disposal

  System Description. Franklin, Ohio's sol-
id waste processing facility, developed by
the Black Clawson Company, has  a design
capacity of  150  tons per 24-hour operation
and is made up of three  subsystems: a solid
waste disposal  system that includes a fer-
rous metal separator, a paper fiber recovery
system,  and  a glass and aluminum recovery
system (Figure 9).
  The disposal  system,  called the  "Hydra-
sposal System," consists primarily  of a wet-
pulper, a liquid cyclone, and a fluidized bed
incinerator.  Wastes delivered to the Fran-
klin plant by private contractors and indi-
vidual citizens  are fed by a  conveyor into
the pulper. The pulper is  somewhat like a
kitchen  sink disposal unit; it consists of a
tub 12 feet  in diameter with a  high-speed
cutting blade in the bottom driven by a 300-
horsepower motor. Water is mixed  with the
solid wastes in  the pulper, and all  soft and
brittle materials are ground  into  a slurry.
Large pieces of metal, cans, and other non-
pulpable materials are thrown out the side
of the pulper and down a chute that leads to
a  specially  designed bucket elevator, the
"Junk   Remover."  These  materials  are

                                            Magnetic Separator
       Heavy Fraction
        Glass  and
                               Fiber Recovery
                                  Fluid  Bed
5.6 tons
Aluminum  Color-sorted
 800 Ib      glass
            4 tons
Paper   Residue   Ferrous
Fiber    4 tons    9 tons
20 tons  (landfilled)
       FIGURE 9. The Franklin, Ohio, pilot plant for the  demonstration of a wet
   separation and disposal system consists of three disposal and recovery subsystems:
   a solid waste disposal system  that includes a ferrous metal separator, a paper
   recovery system, and a glass and aluminum recovery system.

washed,  then  conveyed under  a magnetic
separator where steel cans and other ferrous
objects are separated for recycling. The non-
magnetic materials are buried in the plant's
sanitary  landfill.
  The slurry, which  contains almost all of
the organic materials plus most of the glass,
small pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of
the  aluminum,  leaves  the   wet-pulper
through  a  perforated  plate beneath  the
blade.  The  slurry is then pumped to the
liquid cyclone, where the heavier materials
such as  glass, metals, ceramics, and wood
are separated from the lighter fibrous mate-
rial by centrifugal action.
  After the  metals and glass are removed,
the slurry moves into the fiber recovery or
"Fibreclaim" system.  In  this process the
longer  paper  fibers  that can  be  used in
making paper are mechanically separated.
The separation is accomplished by a series
of screens that isolate  the paper fiber from
the coarse organic materials, such  as rub-
ber, textiles, leather, and yard wastes; and
the fine contaminants, such as  food waste,
paper  coatings  and fillers, shorter paper
fibers, and the very small pieces of glass or
dirt. The recovered fibers are pumped to the
Logan  Long Company, about a half mile
away,  where  they  are used to make felt
paper for asphalt roofing shingles.
  The  heavier  materials ejected from the
liquid cyclone are conveyed to the glass and
aluminum recovery system, which was de-
veloped by the Glass Container Manufactur-
ers Institute. The system uses a series of
screening and classifying operations to ex-
tract extraneous materials and produce an
aluminum-rich  concentrate,  which  can be
upgraded for  recycling, and a glass-rich
stream. The stream of  glass particles is
passed through  an optical sorting  device,
developed by the Sortex Company of North
America,  which  separates the  glass into
clear, amber, and green fractions suitable
for use in making new bottles.
  The nonrecoverable combustible material
from the  fiber recovery system and the glass
recovery  system are  combined and  sent to
the fluid bed incinerator, the final  step in
the Hydrasposal System. The incinerator is
a  vertical  cylindrical  unit with a  25-foot
inside  diameter and  was supplied by Dorr
Oliver, Inc. Air is blown  upward into this
unit through a layer of hot sand. The organ-
ic residue is thus blown into the fluidized
bed of sand, where the combustibles burn
completely. The exhaust gases pass through
a  venturi scrubber that removes the ash
particles. The gases discharged to the at-
mosphere meet Federal air pollution control
  Status of  Project.  The Hydrasposal and
fiber recovery systems began operating in
June 1971. The plant is now in daily com-
mercial operation, processing about 50 tons
of municipal solid waste in one 8-hour shift
per day. It is  the sole solid waste disposal
facility  for  the  city of Franklin  and the
adjacent areas.  The glass and aluminum
recovery system began operating in Septem-
ber 1974, but technical problems have so far
prevented  its continuous  operation; the
revenues from the sale  of these  products
may eventually  reduce the net cost of the
operation (Table 37).
  Economics.  On  the  basis  of  approxi-
mately  3; years'  operating  experience in
Franklin, the wet separation of solid wastes
into recoverable  products appears to be an
economically attractive  resource  recovery
and waste disposal option. This, of course, is
a judgment  that depends upon the costs of
alternative  means  of disposal. The Black
Clawson system  will not break even without
charging a fairly high dump fee to the users,
but indications  are that it will  be  cost-
competitive  with  incineration and in  some
situations may  even be competitive with
sanitary landfilling where there  is a long
haul involved.
  Capital and net cost projections have been
made for 150-, 500-, and  1,000-ton-per-day
plants   based  on  the  Franklin  operating
experience (Tables 38 and  39).  The capital
cost for a 1,000-ton-per-day facility would be
on the  order of $20 million. Typical project-
ed costs per ton  for operating the system,
including amortization at 8 percent for 20
years, are about $19, while the anticipated
revenue is around $12 per ton. This yields a
net cost of around $7 per ton.
      Incinerator Residue Separation

  The U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Raythe-
on Service  Company have developed and
demonstrated on a pilot scale a technically
feasible  method  for recovering the metal

                                          TABLE 37
                                   FRANKLIN, OHIO, PILOT PLANT*
Amount recov-
ered as approxi-
mate 'percent of
incoming solid
waste (dry
weight basis)
Roughly equivalent to
a No. 2 bundle
Generally free of
Armco Steel

                                    Density may need to
                                    be upgraded

             Paper         20        Generally considered
             fiber                   a lower grade paper

                                    Color, grease, and
                                    bacterial contaminants
                                    are similar to those
                                    of mixed wastepaper
                                    but fibers are longer
                                    and there is less

                                    Suitable for use in
                                    making roofing felt
                                    and other construc-
                                    tion papers

                                    Contaminants can
                                    be removed and up-
                                    graded for use in
                                    higher grades of paper

             Glass          4        Expected to be clean
                                    and sorted by color
       Logan Long
       Roofing Plant,
       Franklin, Ohio
       Various glass
       bottle manu-
       facturing plants
       in the area
             Alumi-        0.3      Quality varies at
             num                   present

                                    Development work
                                    still underway
                *ARELLA, D. G. Recovering resources from solid waste using wet-processing;
             EPA's Franklin, Ohio, demonstration project. Environmental Protection Publication
             SW-47d. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 26 p.
                tPrice at the plant; transportation from the plant is paid for by the purchaser.
and mineral values from  incinerator resi-
dues. The process uses conventional proven
mineral engineering equipment along with
a series of shredding,  screening,  and mag-
netic separation procedures to produce clean
ferrous metals, aluminum,  copper/zinc com-
posites, glass,  and an aggregate for road
construction. The system can also be adapt-
ed  to handle noncombustible  waste  frac-
tions other than incinerator residue, such as
the heavy fraction from an air classifier.
  This  system was to be demonstrated by
the city of Lowell, Massachusetts, with EPA
funding assistance, but the project has been
cancelled  at the city's request. The city's
action followed its decision to close down its

                                          TABLE 38

                              WET-PULPING PLANTS WITH CAPACITIES OF
                               150, 500, AND 1,000 TONS PER DAY, 1975*
Weighing and receiving
Pulping, separation, and dewatehng
Fluid bed incinerator
Fiber recovery

150 TPD
Facility size
500 TPD

1,000 TPD
                 •SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. Technical and economic evaluation of the
             Franklin, Ohio, resource recovery facility. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protec-
             tion Agency. (In preparation.)
                                          TABLE 39

                              WET-PULPING PLANTS WITH CAPACITIES OF
                               150, 500, AND 1,000 TONS PER DAY, 1975*
                                                          Facility Size
150 TPD
500 TPD    1,000 TPD
             Facility expenset
             Operating expenses

                  Total expenses
Income per ton of waste processed::):
Paper fiber
Ferrous metal
Sludge disposal
Total income
Net cost
                •SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. Technical and economic evaluation of the
             Ff anklin, Ohio, resource recovery facility.
                tBased on 20-year depreciation.
                ^Assumes that the recovered ferrous metal sells for $25 per ton, and recovered
             paper fiber sells for $42 per ton. When the glass and aluminum recovery system is in full
             operation, the revenue from the sale of these products will reduce the net cost.
incinerator rather than  undertake very  ex-
pensive  capital improvements needed  for
pollution control. Nevertheless, much of the
experience and information gained in plan-
ning the project is still considered valuable
and will be documented in a  report which
should  be available by late 1975.  Capital
costs for a facility processing 750 tons  of
residue per 24-hour day, roughly equivalent
to 2,000  tons of solid waste  input to the
incinerator,  would  be on the  order  of $4
million.  Projected  operating  costs, which
include  amortization  at 6 percent  for  15
years, are  $17.80 per ton  of  residue. The
projected revenue is around $17.25 per ton of
 residue  input,  which yields a  net cost of
 $0.55. The revenues are dependent upon the
 ability to market the products of the system.
   Some  empirically derived costs for a plant
 of  this  type have  been  prepared  by  the
 Bureau  of Mines and may  be obtained  by
 requesting the Bureau of Mines Information
 Circular No. 1C 8533, "Cost  Evaluation of a
 Metal and  Mineral  Recovery Process for
 Treating Municipal Incinerator Residues."

          Other Separation Systems

   EPA's other resource recovery projects are
 demonstrating various unit operations, such
 as  magnetic separation and air classifica-

tion, for separating and recovering materi-
als. Virtually all current or proposed energy
recovery  facilities also involve materials
recovery to a significant degree. There are
numerous  companies involved in private
research efforts toward developing resource
recovery systems.  Generally the approach
has been to follow the shredder with mag-
netic separation and then some form of air
classification to concentrate the heavy and
light fractions. The heavy fraction is further
processed  in  one of a number of types of
equipment that rely on different densities to
perform the next separation. The products
from the heavy fraction are generally limit-
ed to ferrous  metals, glass, and aluminum.
The  light,  combustible fraction would  be
either landfilled,  put through  a paper re-
covery process,  or used as a fuel in a boiler.
  Some of the organizations that are devel-
oping these systems  are listed here, and
additional  information  may  be  obtained
directly from them:

    U.S. Bureau of Mines
    College Park, Maryland 20740
    National Center for Resource
     Recovery, Inc.
    1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20036

    Combustion Power Company
    Menlo Park, California 94025
    American Can Company
    Americology System
    American Lane
    Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
    Raytheon Company
    12 Second Avenue
  .  Burlington, Massachusetts  01803
    Garrett Research and Development
     Company, Inc.
    1355 Carrion Road
    LaVerne, California 91750

    Grumman EcoSystems Corporation
    1111 Steward Avenue
    Bethpage, New York 11714

 Complement, to Energy Recovery Systems
  Materials, recovery systems are not incom-
patible with  energy recovery systems. Al-
most  all resource recovery  systems being
developed include the recovery of both mate-
rials  and energy. Generally the  preferred
approach is to recover as many of the mate-
rials  as  the  technology and markets  can
justify and then to recover the energy value
in  the  remaining  combustible  fractions.
This approach can provide a nearly compre-
hensive  resource recovery  system by  re-
covering over 90  percent of the material or
energy values in the solid waste stream.
  Some of the various resources available in
our solid wastes represent significant quan-
tities  in relation to our national supply and
demand  for these materials. Also, we have
found that manufacturing processes using
recycled  materials  generally  require  less
energy and create less pollution than proc-
esses  using virgin materials.

    Technological and Marketing Risks
  Implementation  of  materials  recovery
systems  has  significant risks which should
be fully  identified prior to commitment of
capital   funds. Municipalities  should  be
aware that resource recovery concepts offer
tremendous promise, but that their decisions
are being made at the forefront of .existing
technology and that marketing of the mate-
rials represents a new field for most munici-
  Ferrous metal recovery operations carry
the least technological risk, while the more
complex  separation systems are less devel-
oped.  The  Franklin,  Ohio,  demonstration
plant is the most highly developed  materials
recovery  system, but the final evaluation of
the plant is just now being completed. Many
other  systems are being developed, and
some  of  them  should be ready for imple-
mentation with minimized risk  in the next
few years.

    Marketing Groundwork Necessary

  Adding a ferrous metal recovery  operation
onto an existing shredding facility offers a
high  degree of probable success if markets
are identified and  secured ahead of time.
Currently over 25 communities are recover-
ing and selling ferrous metals in this type of
operation, but there have also been  a num-

her  of dismal failures  in cases where the      the need for this marketing groundwork  as
need for advance marketing work was over-      the  first  stage  toward  implementing  any
looked. EPA cannot emphasize too strongly      resource recovery system.


              ARELLA, D. G.  Recovering resources from solid waste using wet-processing; EPA's
                       Franklin, Ohio, demonstration project. Environmental Protection Publi-
                       cation SW-47d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1974.
                       26 p.
              CAMPBELL, J. A.   Electromagnetic separation of aluminum and nonferrous metals.
                       Presented  at  103d  Annual  Meeting,  American Institute of Mining,
                       Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Feb. 24-28, 1974. 17 p.
              HERBERT,  W., and W. A. FLOWER.  Glass and aluminum recovery in recycling
                       operations, Public Works, 102(8):70,  110, 112, Aug. 1971. Reprinted, [Cin-
                       cinnati], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1972. 2 p.
              HOPPER, R.  A nationwide survey of resource recovery  activities. Environmental
                       Protection Publication SW-142. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                       Washington, 1975.
              McCHESNEY, R. D., and V. R. DEGNER.  Hydraulic, heavy media, and froth flotation
                       processes applied to recovery of metals and glass from municipal waste
                       streams.  Presented  at  78th  National Meeting, American Institute of
                       Chemical Engineers, Salt Lake" City, Aug. 18-21. 1974. 27 p.   -
              MOREY, B., and S. RUDY.  Aluminum recovery from municipal trash by linear
                       induction motors. Presented at 103rd Annual Meeting, American Institute
                       for Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Dallas,  Feb. 24-28,
                       1974.'15 p.
              SKINNER, J. H. The demonstration of systems for recovering materials  and energy
                       from solid waste. Presented at National Materials Conservation Sympo-
                       sium, National Bureau  of Standards, Gaithersburg, Md., Apr. 29, 1974.
                       [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 20 p.

          conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
                                       SANITARY LANDFILLING
          conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, ,
  Sanitary  landfilling is  an  engineered
method of disposing of solid wastes on land
in a manner that minimizes environmental
hazards  and nuisances. At a site that is
carefully  selected, designed, and prepared,
the wastes are spread in thin layers, com-
pacted  to the  smallest practical  volume,
and, at least at the end of each operating
day, covered with earth, which is also com-
  Every community needs access to a sani-
tary landfill for environmentally safe dis-
posal of its solid wastes. The rate at  which
landfill capacity is used up can be reduced
through resource recovery, incineration, bal-
ing, shredding, and measures to slow down
the generation of waste. Resource recovery
and waste reduction measures are also vital
for conservation of resources. Even if widely
applied,   however,   such  practices cannot
eliminate solid waste  altogether, and com-
munities will continue to require a means of
final disposal.

             SITE SELECTION

  Obtaining  a  proper site  is  perhaps the
most difficult problem in the development of
a sanitary landfill.  Opposition by local citi-
zens can  effectively eliminate otherwise ac-
ceptable  proposed   sites.  Such opposition
often arises because:

  1. Citizens are not familiar  with sanitary
     landfills and equate them with disposal
     operations  they  are  familiar  with—
     open burning  dumps.  A lowering of
     property values is a major concern.
  2. Citizens are unaware that public dis-
    posal facilities are needed even where
    resource recovery is practiced.
  3. It may be necessary to use prime land
    for the landfill. Citizens may object to
    the temporary removal of the land from
    revenue-producing  use and  to  having
    the disposal operation in a visible loca-
    tion. Some types  of marginal lands
    (swamps, flood plains, gravel pits, etc.)
    which have been used in the past have
    generally been unsatisfactory as land-
    fill sites.

To allay such opposition, an intensive public
information  campaign  is  an  essential
early step in  site acquisition.  Supportive
informational materials are available from
EPA's Office  of Solid Waste Management
Programs,  including  a film,  Sanitary
Landfill—You're the Operator, and publica-
tions, such as Sanitary  Landfill Facts.
  In choosing a location  for a landfill, con-
sideration should  be  given to the following

  1. Hydrogeology and  surface waters.
  2. Cover material availability.
  3. Accessibility  of site  to collection vehi-
    cles (including traffic obstacles  such as
    traffic lights, bridges, underpasses, rail-
    way gates, etc.),  and haul distance and
  4. Public opposition.

  As the procedures for site evaluation, ac-
quisition, zoning, environmental impact as-
sessment, and design often require consider-
able time, officials are encouraged  to plan

far ahead for their sanitary landfill needs.
Environmentally acceptable sites with  all
required approvals and  permits  should be
available well before they must be used in
order to assure continuous safe disposal of
waste. Communities contemplating the ap-
plication of new resource recovery technolo-
gies still must provide sanitary landfill sites
for the many nonprocessables and residues.
  The cost of a sanitary landfill consists of
the  initial investment associated with ac-
quiring the site ~alid"equipment and  with
construction, and the operating costs.

            Initial Investment

  The magnitude Of the initial investment
depends on the  size and complexity of the
landfill. The major items normally covered
by the initial investment are:
  1. Land
  2. Planning and engineering:
     a. Site investigation
     b. Design, plans, specifications
     c. Permit application
  3. Site development:
     a. Land development—clearing,  land-
       scaping, drainage, etc.
     b. Access roads
     c. Fencing, signs
  4. Facilities:
     a. Administration
     b. Equipment maintenance
     c. Sanitary facilities, utilities
     d. Weight scales
  5.  Equipment—tractor, scraper, etc.
  In most cases, the  initial investment for
land can be recovered on completion of the
sanitary landfill through subsequent devel-
opment  or use of the land. A sanitary land-
fill  may even increase  the value of some
plots of land by making them more suitable
for recreational or agricultural uses.
  Planning  and design costs vary, depend-
ing on the extent of effort required.. At a 50-
acre urban site in the Midwest, these costs
amounted to about $90,000 (1970); prorating
over the site capacity of 496,000 tons.yields
a  unit  cost  of  $0.18 per ton. A 23-acre,
135,000-ton  capacity  site in  the West re-
quired costs of $11,000,  or $0.08 per.-ton
(1975). Another western site of 160 acres and
5.8-million-ton  capacity  required costs  of
$11,000, or $0.002 per ton.
  There is a trend among  States to require
operators of all sites to apply for and obtain
permits to operate. State permit programs
are desirable in that they  provide  (1)  a
consistent and  rigorous check on the selec-
tion and design of sanitary landfill sites to
minimize environmental impact and  (2)  an
efficient  direct  enforcement  tool to  ensure
that  high  quality  operations  are  main-
tained. In most States  requiring permits,
application procedures  are   wejil defined.
Generally, the  applicant must  submit for
approval information on the site investiga-
tion and engineering  design. Engineering
and legal fees to prepare the information for
permit   application  (Table  40)  seldom
amount to less  than $15,000.  Litigation and
prolonged  hearings  can raise fees  to the
$100,000  range. Permit   application fees
range up to $1,000. Local permit procedures
are less predictable, but may require costs of
$500  to  $5,000,  especially  where zoning
changes  or variances are sought.
  Site  development  costs  reflect the site's
size and the improvements  required before it
can be used (Table 41). The 50-acre  urban
site mentioned above  required extensive
improvements  to  protect  against ground
water  pollution.  Site  development  costs
amounted  to about  $400,000, or $0.84 per
ton. A site serving a rural southern county
required  an expenditure of $22,400 for devel-
opment.  Site development costs  of  about
$430,000 were incurred at a 1,500-acre  site in
the Southeast  which required special con-
struction   for  ground   water  protection.
Another   southern  site  required  costs  of
about $28,300 (1975); capacity of the 27-acre
site is 171,500  tons.  A 23-acre western site
having a capacity of 135,000 tons incurred
costs  of  $24,000. Costs for a 160-acre, 5.8-
million-ton capacity site in  the West were
reported  as $24,102  (1975). At some sites,
monitoring wells are required for detection
of ground  water pollution. Such wells can
usually be installed for $8 to $12 per foot of
depth (cased).
  Facilities   costs   amounted  to   about
$100,000  ($0.21  per ton) at the midwestern
site, $13,500 at the rural southern site, and

$150,000  at the  southeastern  site  (1973).
Facilities at the 27-acre southern site cost
about $13,000 (1975). Facilities costs for the
two western sites of 23 and 160 acres were
$51,000 and $45,000, respectively (1975).
  Equipment costs vary with size and de-
                 sign (Table 42). The costs should be depre-
                 ciated over about 8,000 operating hours. At
                 2,000 operating hours per  year, the equip-
                 ment life would be 4 years; if the deprecia-
                 tion is stretched to 5  years, equity value, in
                 most cases, would be significantly lessened.
                                         TABLE 40

                                 BY DESIGN CAPACITY OF SITE, 1975
                                    (In thousands of dollars)
Design capacity in tons per day
Engineering design*
Legal work
• 10+
                *If an environmental impact report is required and/or unfavorable liydrogeologi-
             cal conditions are encountered, site development costs may be increased substantially,
             perhaps even dwarfing expected engineering design costs.
                                         TABLE 41

                          INITIAL COSTS FOR THREE SANITARY LANDFILLS, 1975
                      Site 2
  Site 3
(300 TPD)
  Total    Cost    Total    Cost    Total    Cost
   (in      per      (in      per      (in      per
thousands)   ton   thousands)  ton   thousands)  ton
Planning and
Site development -



• * ;




                'Includes 3-mile paved road.
                tlncludes fencing.
                JNo fencing.

              Operating Cost

  The operating cost of a sanitary landfill
depends mainly on  the cost of labor and
equipment, the method of operation, and the
efficiency  of the operation. The principal
items in operating cost are:

  1.  Personnel
  2.  Equipment:
     a. Operating expenses—gas, oil, etc.
     b. Maintenance and  repair
                      c. Rental, depreciation, or amortization
                    3. Suitable  earth  cover (cost depends on
                      availability, type  of soil, and hauling
                    4. Administration and overhead .
                    5. Miscellaneous  tools,  utilities,  insur-
                      ance, ^maintenance of' roads,  fences,
                      facilities, drainage features, etc.

                    Operating costs in 1974 for three sanitary
                 landfills  in California  were reported as $4

                                        TABLE 42

Track loader

Track dozer

Wheel loader

Wheel dozer


Weight (tons)
per ton (72-tons per day), $5.40 per ton (33
TPD),  and $8 per ton (18 TPD). In 1975, a
900-TPD site in Washington operated at a
cost of $1.50 per ton, while a 15-TPD site in
Indiana reported costs of $7.20 per  ton. A
site  in northern Virginia handles 900 TPD
at a cost of $2.75 per ton.

           Land Requirements
  The  land area required  is primarily de-
pendent upon the character and quantity of
the solid wastes, the efficiency of compac-
tion of the wastes, the depth of the fill, and
the desired lifetime of the site as a landfill.
  National estimates for 1973 indicate that
the total residential and commercial solid
waste generation rate per person per day is
approximately  3.5 pounds. However,  the
volume requirement for a sanitary landfill
should, be determined on the basis of specific
information developed  for  the  individual
project. Given a solid waste density of 1,000
pounds per cubic yard in place, and one part
(volume) earth  cover  to  four  parts solid
waste,  a population of 10,000 people would
require approximately 10 acre-feet of space
per  year  for residential  and  commercial
wastes. Actual  densities  may  vary from
about  800 to 1,200 pounds per cubic yard,
and cover ratios may vary from 1:1 to 1:4.
  This volume requirement may be signifi-
cantly reduced  where wastes are processed
for volume reduction prior to disposal in the
sanitary landfill. Incinerators achieve aver-.
age weight and volume reductions of 75 and
90 percent, respectively. Baling can achieve
densities of 1,000 to 1,750 pounds per cubic
yard.  Size  reduction measures  such  as
shredding or grinding also help to eliminate
voids and aid compaction. Shredded solid
waste placed in a sanitary landfill can have
a density 25 percent greater than that of
unprocessed  solid  waste  where  the same
compaction  equipment and techniques  are
used. In special situations where site geolo-
gy  and hydrology permit, shredded waste
may be disposed of on the land without  the
daily cover required  for unprocessed waste.
Where soil for the  covering is obtained  off-
site, doing without the cover will in effect
increase by about 20 percent the site volume
that can be used for solid waste disposal.

              Vector Control

  In a properly operated and maintained
sanitary landfill, insects and rodents are not
a problem. Good compaction of wastes and
cover material is the most important factor
in achieving vector control. A  compacted
earth cover of at least 6 inches in thickness,
applied daily, is recommended for preven-
ting the emergence of flies and for discour-
aging rodents from burrowing through the
fill. Good  housekeeping and daily covering
of unprocessed solid wastes are musts for
vector control. In the  case  of shredded
waste, landfilling  without cover does not
seem to result in vector problems.

             Water Pollution

  Under certain hydrogeological conditions,
the disposal of  solid wastes  on land can
cause chemical and microbiological  conta-
mination  of ground  and  surface waters.
Contamination results from the leaching  of
substances from the solid waste by ground
or  surface  waters,  including infiltrating
precipitation, that  come in contact with the
wastes.  In  many  cases, the  leachate has
traveled to and polluted surface streams and
ground water aquifers. The sanitary landfill
method of disposal can  eliminate or mini-
mize such effects.
  Leachate  production is enhanced  by (1)
exposure of uncovered wastes to precipita-
tion and  surface  runoff, (2) deposition  of
solid wastes into bodies of ground or surface
waters,  and (3)  use of sites having direct
hydrologic connection to underlying ground
  Proper planning and site selection, com-
bined with good  engineering design and
operation  of a sanitary landfill, can normal-
ly minimize the possibility of either surface
or ground water pollution.  Some common
preventive measures  are: (1)  locating the
site at a safe distance from streams, lakes,
wells, and other water sources; (2) avoiding
site  location above the kind of subsurface
strata that  will  lead the leachate from the
landfill area to water sources, e.g., fractured
limestone; (3) providing suitable drainage to
carry the  surface water away from the site;
(4) tightly compacting the solid waste in the
fill; (5) providing  a compacted daily cover
sloped to encourage  runoff; (6)  collecting
any  leachate generated and treating it  to
remove contaminants before releasing it  to
the environment; and (7) never depositing
solid waste in direct contact with surface  or
ground water.
  Guidance on proper site selection and on
designs which can  be used to improve site
acceptability is available from the literature,
State  solid   waste  management  agen-
cies, various  consulting  engineering  and
hydrogeologic science firms,  the Soil Con-
servation Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture,  and  EPA's  Office of Solid
Waste.Management Programs.


  A wide variety of equipment is available
from which the proper type, size, and num-
ber may be selected for a particular opera-
tion. Factors to be considered in selecting
equipment include:

  • Solid waste types, quantities, and times
    of delivery
  • Soil types and sources
  • Climate
  • Availability and dependability of main-
    tenance and repair service
  • Method of site operation (trench, slope,
    area, etc.)
  • In-place densities desired
  • Amount of excavation required
  • Experience and preference  of site de-
    signer and equipment operators

Once the  individual requirements  of the
particular sanitary landfill have been de-
fined, guidance on equipment selection can
be obtained from consulting  engineers and
equipment  manufacturers   and  dealers.
Another excellent  source of guidance  is
experienced sanitary landfill operators.
  The  most  common equipment  used on
sanitary landfills is  the  crawler dozer  or
crawler loader. Crawler units are versatile
and can perform a variety  of  operations:
site  preparation,  spreading, compacting,
covering,  and construction   and  mainte-
nance of access roads. They are  all-weather
machines with excellent flotation and trac-
tive  ability. Note, however, that the flota-
tion' design does not allow the crawlers the
same compaction ability inherent in a sani-

 tary landfill compactor, which is designed
 primarily for compaction.
  Crawler dozers are well suited to area fill
 operations due to their ability to excavate
 and economically bulldoze cover material up
 to 300 feet. The larger trash or landfill blade
 can be  used in place of the  straight dozer
 blade, thereby increasing -the  volume  of
 solid waste which can be dozed.
  Crawler loaders are often used on trench
 fills due to their excavating ability. They are
 also able to compact directly adjacent to the
 vertical wall of the trench. Crawler loaders
 also have the ability to lift materials off the
 ground for carrying. They can economically
 provide cover material from about 300 feet.
 Loaders can be  fitted with a  device which
 allows the bucket to be very easily detached;
 the machine is then able to attach and carry
 bulk solid waste containers.
  Rubber-tired  machines are  used  where
 mobility is  important. Due to their speed,
 they  often  economically  transport  cover
 material from distances of 600 feet or more.
 Rubber-tired machines  have  less flotation
 and traction than  crawler units, and less
 traction and higher flotation than a sani-
 tary landfill compactor. Traction may be-
 come especially  troublesome  on wet or icy
 surfaces.  In selecting  rubber-tired  equip-
 ment, the potential for tire punctures must
 be  considered. Steel wheels are sometimes
 added to rubber-tired machines to increase
 traction  and  compaction  while  avoiding
 puncture problems.
  Although relatively new, sanitary landfill
compactors  are  being  used  increasingly.
They  are  unique in being specifically  de-
signed  for  sanitary landfill application.
Their steel wheels are equipped  with load
concentrators (teeth or  lugs) of varying
shape and configuration for more effective
crushing of waste. These machines can pro-
vide high  densities  in the fill, thereby con-
serving landfill capacity.
  Other equipment  used at sanitary land-
fills include scrapers, water wagons, drag-
lines, and  graders.
  All  equipment should  be capable of with-
standing the heavy abuse of landfill work,
which is generally much more rugged than
earthwork.  Rollover protection   systems,
seatbelts, fire extinguishers, and other safe-
ty equipment should be provided. Special
 precautions should be taken in equipment
 selection and operation to avoid the poten-
 tial of engine overheating due to trash and
 dust  accumulation. Undercarriages  should
 be shielded to prevent damage by the solid
 waste. All  moving parts should be enclosed
 to the greatest extent possible in order to
 avoid exposure to and accumulation of solid
 waste. Torque converters,  gearing  ratios,
 and differentials  should be  matched to the
 job to be done in order that the machine can
 work the desired slopes, travel effectively on
 solid waste, minimize spinout, and  deliver
 maximum  compaction.
  The need for compaction of the waste and
 cover material has been emphasized. Good
 compaction is necessary to:

   • Extend landfill life by placing as much
    solid waste in the available  space  as
   • Minimize the rate  and extent of later
   • Minimize leachate production and flow
    by eliminating voids and decreasing
   • Reduce the possibility of fire  by elimi-
    nating voids.
   • Provide vector control.
  Proper use of equipment is as important
 as wise selection of equipment  for an effec-
 tive,  economical landfill operation. For ex-
 ample, in applying daily cover,  the operator
 may  readily achieve optimum  soil density,
 but unless he takes care to back-drag his
 blade to smooth the surface, pockmarks left
 by his machine's treads or wheels can col-
 lect precipitation, leading to leachate gener-
 ation, or allow vectors access to solid waste.
 Quality control of such operations requires
 care, observance,  and training.  Training
 materials  are available from EPA, as well
 as some State solid waste management a-
 gencies and equipment manufacturers.
  Provision  must  be  made  for  standby
 equipment; the flow of incoming solid waste
 does  not stop, but equipment  does  break
 down and require servicing. It is preferable
• to purchase an extra piece of equipment for
 use  as a  replacement  during  breakdowns
 and routine maintenance. It is likely that
 the extra machine will be found to contri-
 bute  significantly to routine operations,  as
 well as provide necessary backup.  Arrange-

ments can normally be made, however, with
another public agency or private concern for
the use of rental or replacement equipment
on short notice.
  Since  efficiently operating equipment  is
essential, the machines must be cleaned and
serviced regularly.  Manufacturers' recom-
mendations  for  servicing  the machines  in
sanitary  landfill  application  should  be
closely adhered  to.  As trash accumulation
can  be especially  damaging, cleanliness
deserves  special  attention.   Protection
against vandalism  should also, be consid-
  A maintenance and storage garage should
be provided to  protect sanitary landfilling
equipment. The  garage can also be used  to
store  and  protect handtools and equipment
parts. The cost of a simple steel structure (a
paved floor is desirable but not essential) to
serve'this purpose may be expected to range
from $20,000 to $30,000.
  Many landfills have found it most equi-
table, accurate, and easy to relate their fees
and costs  to the weight of incoming wastes.
Weight of waste can also be used to indicate
the rate of fill capacity utilization (for plan-
ning  purposes)  and as a control for collec-
tion operations. Costs of scale facilities vary
considerably with  size (which-is  usually
related  primarily to the  size of incoming
vehicles) and with the  sophistication of the
readout system  (usually related to rate  of
incoming  vehicles, since this  determines
required speed of scale operation, and type
of records desired).  Small, simple scale sys-
tems  can  be  expected to cost about $11,000,
including  pit and  excluding scale house.
Larger, faster systems may cost $20,000 to
$25,000, including pit  and excluding scale
  It is desirable to have an office at the site
for recordkeeping  (personnel  and equip-
ment) and  billing; it  might be combined
with  the garage and/or scale house.  Sani-
tary  facilities should be available for em-
ployees,  and locker  rooms  and  showers
would be desirable. New or used mobile
homes are often used for such purposes and
can be obtained at relatively low cost.

        Completed Sanitary Landfill
  Information   on  the  decomposition  of
waste in a sanitary landfill is limited. The
rate of decomposition is primarily depend-
ent on moisture content and may take place
at a very slow rate. Paper has been found
unchanged in landfills that have been com-
pleted for 15 to 25 years.
  Decomposition  of the wastes will result in
the production of gases, principally methane
and  carbon   dioxide  plus  small
amounts of nitrogen, hydrogen, and hydrog-
en  sulfide. The rate of gas production is
likely to  reach  a peak  within  the first  2
years and then slowly  taper off. However,
due to the continuous placement of wastes
in the fill over time, this peaking effect is
not likely to be observable.
  Methane causes the most concern because
of  its  explosive  character.  Precautions
should be taken to prevent the gas from
concentrating in  sewers  or other structures
located on or near the landfill. Methane will
seek an easy exit  from the fill. Thus, depend-
ing on site conditions and design, the meth-
ane may flow up vertically through the fill
and disperse harmlessly in the atmosphere
above, or it may  flow laterally from the site
to concentrate in adjacent structures such
as  buildings  and pipes. Relatively simple
and inexpensive techniques can be employed
to vent the gas in  a controlled manner on site
and minimize lateral migration. Devices such
as gravel-filled trenches and naturally vented
stand pipes have been used successfully. In
Winston-Salem,  N.C., a forced  ventilation
system has been successfully demonstrated.
  The potential   for recovering,  purifying,
and marketing methane generated by sani-
tary landfills  is  being  explored. Methane
recovery  offers a dual benefit in controlling
gas migration, thereby eliminating a poten,-
tial hazard, while harnessing  an otherwise
wasted energy source. Since January  1974, of Los Angeles has been  successful-
ly recovering methane from one of its land-
fills. The gas is extracted from a well and is
used to run an internal  combustion engine.
The engine is  used to produce 200 kilowatts
of electrical power for about 350 residences.
The  NRG NuFuel Co.  and the  sanitation
districts  of Los Angeles County have also
embarked on  an  effort to recover methane
from a landfill. The gas  extracted  from a
series of wells is  being cleansed through a
molecular sieve system  for sale to  a local

gas utility. The cleansed gas is of pipeline
quality and ready for direct insertion into a
natural gas pipeline. The city of Mountain
View, Calif., and the Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. are cooperating with  EPA in a pilot
effort to define some of the parameters in-
volved in gas  extraction and to investigate
gas marketing alternatives.
  Completed   landfills  generally  require
maintenance because of uneven settlement.
Maintenance consists primarily of regrad-
ing the surface to maintain good drainage
and  filling in  small  depressions. Where
ponding of water in depressions is not pre-
vented,  seepage into the fill may result in
pollution of ground or surface waters.
  Several of the Los Angeles area sanitary
landfills, 90 to 110 feet deep, have settled 2.5
to 5.5 feet in 3 years. Settlement is depend-
ent on the depth of the fill, its composition,
compaction of the material, moisture con-
tent, and other factors. Studies have indicat-
ed that approximately 90 percent of  the
ultimate settlement may occur in the first 5
years,  with the final 10 percent occurring
over a much longer period.
  Although underground fires rarely occur
in a completed landfill, the possibility does
exist. All underground  fires should be exca-
vated and  extinguished. The cell construc-
tion .of a sanitary landfill  helps to confine
and  restrict the spread of the  fire, should
one occur.
  Completed landfills  have been used  for
recreational purposes—parks, playgrounds,
and  golf courses.  Parking, storage areas,
and botanical  gardens are  other final uses.
An early formal dedication of the sanitary
landfill to its ultimate use as a  recreational
area may help to overcome local objections
to future site locations.
  Because of settlement and potential gas
problems, construction  of buildings on com-
pleted landfills should generally be avoided;
in several locations,  however, one-story,
rambling buildings and airport runways for
light aircraft have been constructed directly
on  completed  sanitary landfills.  In  such
cases, it is important  for  the  designer to
avoid  concentrated foundation  loading,
which can  result in uneven settlement and
cracking of the structure. The designer also
must provide the means to dissipate gas to
the atmosphere and not into the structure.
Spaces  where methane  could  accumulate,
such as basements, crawl spaces, and sani-
tary and storm  sewers, should be avoided,
or,  if that is not  possible, they  should  be
ventilated. Competent engineering design is
essential  to  insure continued safety and
stability of the facility.
  Multistory  buildings  can  be built  over
completed landfills using steel and concrete
pilings and special engineering design. Be-
cause of the complexity of design that must
provide for differential settlement and con-
trol of gases, EPA does not recommend this
use  for a completed  sanitary landfill  or
reclaimed dump  site.


  While sanitary landfilling is an essential
service, small   communities in  particular
may find the cost of maintaining an accept-
able operation to  be burdensome. By com-
bining  their resources  and  efforts into  a
joint or regional operation, two or more such
communities can realize the greater econo-
mies of larger scale operations.  Regionaliza-
tion can aid in reducing the unit costs while
providing a  higher quality operation. For
example, through regionalization communi-
ties can more readily finance superior equip-
ment which  would enable greater compac-
tion and  the resultant  saving of landfill
capacity. Regionalization might also justify
the use of an extra machine, which would
provide a backup  capability while  meeting
the needs of the  larger operation.


  Sanitary landfills are a necessary part of
all solid waste management systems. In the
short run, sanitary landfilling of  unproc-
essed waste will continue to  be the most
frequently used and least expensive method
of solid waste disposal, especially in areas
where adequate  land close to the source of
waste is available at a, reasonable price.
Increasingly, resource recovery and volume
reduction  processes should be used in con-
junction  with sanitary  landfilling of the
residues   and nonprocessable  wastes  to
create a disposal system that is more con-
serving of land and other resources.
  To avoid environmental damage,  proper

procedures must be followed in landfill site
selection, design, and operation. Pollution of
surface and ground waters is the most seri-
ous of the potential problems.
  Public   education   about    sanitary
landfills—what they  are really  like, why
they  are essential, how  the sites will look
when completed,  etc.—is  very  important.
The opposition of citizens to having a land-
fill in their vicinity is often based on insuffi-
cient information and wrong assumptions.
  Through regionalization, small communi-
ties  can afford better quality landfill opera-
tions at lower cost. Also, by agglomerating
larger quantities of solid waste to achieve
economies of scale, regionalization of sani-
tary landfilling could serve as the first step
in implementing a resource recovery system.

              ASCE manuals of engineering practice no. 39; sanitary landfill. New York, Ameri-
                       can Society of Civil Engineers, 1959. 61 p.
              BECK, W. M. Building  an amphitheater and coasting ramp of municipal solid
                       waste, v.1-2. Environmental Protection Publication SW-52d.of. U.S. Envir-
                       onmental Protection Agency, 1973. 265 p. (Distributed by National Techni-
                       cal Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-225 346.)
              BRUNNER, D. R., and  D. J. KELLER. Sanitary  landfill design  and operation.
                       Washington, U.S. Government Printing 0£6ce, 1972. 59 p.
                       evaluation  of  landfill  gas migration and  a  prototype gas migration
                       barrier. Environmental Protection Publication SW-79d. U.S. Environmen-
                       tal Protection Agency, 1975. 154 p. (Distributed by National Technical
                       Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 357.)
              DAIR, F. R., and R. E. SCHWEGLER. Energy recovery from landfills.  Waste Age,
                       5 (2):6-10, Mar./Apr. 1974.
              GESWEIN, A. J.  Liners for  land disposal sites; an  assessment.  Environmental
                       Protection Publication SW-137. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protec-
                       tion Agency, 1975. 66 p.
              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE  MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.  Available information materi-
                       als; solid waste management. Environmental Protection Publication SW-
                       58.24.  [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1975.
                       48 p.
              SORG, T. J., and H.  L. HICKMAN, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts. 2d ed. Public Health
                       Service Publication No.  1792.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing
                       Office, 1970. 30 p.
              Training for Sanitary Landfill Operations.  Washington, U.S. Environmental Pro-
                       tection Agency, 1973. [Three-part training package including a 16-mm
                       film (22-min, sound, color), an instructor's manual with 206 color slides,
                       and a trainee's manual with  10 color slides. Purchase from the National
                       Audiovisual Center, General  Services Administration, Washington, D.C.
                       20409; a few  sets  are available on a free loan basis  to government
                       agencies from  Solid Waste Information Materials Control Section, U.S.
                       Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.]
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY. Thermal processing and land dispo-
                       sal of solid waste; guidelines. Federal Register. 39(158):29327-29338, Aug.
                       14, 1974.

                                                                         ration,     ?•
         conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conserv;
                       REDUCING WASTE GENERATION
         conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, ,
  Local government decision-makers  have
generally been involved in the two tradition-
al  areas  of  solid  waste  management-
collection  and  disposal. As  the cost  and
environmental concerns associated with dis-
posal have increased, growing numbers of
local  governments  have begun to include
resource recovery within their solid  waste
management functions. While these three
aspects of solid  waste management deal
with waste once it has been generated, they
do not deal with the primary cause of solid
waste  management problems—the rapidly
expanding quantity of waste being generat-
ed. In order to address this basic problem, a
relatively new solid waste management con-
cept called waste reduction, or source reduc-
tion, has evolved. The waste reduction con-
cept involves policies that  are designed to
reduce the consumption of materials  and
products in order to reduce the generation of
solid wastes.


  There are four technical options in redu-
cing waste generation: product reuse,  re-
duced  material use in  products, increased
product lifetime,  and decreased consump-
tion of products.
  The product reuse option  is  applicable to
the broad and increasing category of con-
sumer goods designed to be used once and
thrown away. Reusable products could be
substituted in  many instances. A  prime
example of this option is the use of refillable
beverage containers as a substitute for non-
refillable beverage containers.
  The second option is to decrease the mate-
rials consumed in each product; for exam-
ple, the elimination of  excess packaging or
the selection of smaller automobiles by con-
sumers. This option could involve savings
in energy as well as materials.
  The increased product lifetime or durabili-
ty option would involve the redesign of
products for  sturdier construction  and/or
improved ease  of maintenance. In general,
the option would  apply to so-called  durable
goods  such  as automobiles, tires, appli-
ances, and furniture.
  The  fourth  option—decreased  consump-
tion—would mainly involve a reduction in
the per capita consumption of packaging or
disposable products.


   The implementation of any of these four
 waste reduction  options would  involve an
 alteration  of the existing production and
 marketing structure of numerous compan-
 ies, as well as a  significant change in con-
 sumer habits. Since production and distribu-
 tion systems are often national  in  scope,  a
 local government is generally limited in its
 ability to implement a waste reduction pro-
 gram beyond its own  procurement policies
 (e.g., the purchase of longer life  radial tires
 for its vehicles—see chapter on Tires).
   While in general little attention has been
 given to waste reduction at the  local level,
 there has  been  one exception.  In recent
 years, many communities and States across
 the nation have  considered laws and ordi-

nances that would encourage or require the
use of returnable or refillable containers for
beer and soft drinks. The most common of
these is a requirement for mandatory depo-
sits on beverage containers sold within the
community or State. This type of legislation
has  been enacted by  both the States of
Oregon and Vermont and several local com-
munities,  including Bowie,  Md.;  Loudoun
County, Va.; and'Ann Arbor, Mich. The
local laws, however, have not been imple-
mented due to legal challenges.
  The object of placing a deposit on bever-
age  containers is to provide  a monetary
incentive  for consumers to return the con-
tainers.  The containers  could then be  re-
filled or, if they are not refillable, the metal
or glass could be recycled. The economics of
a  deposit law  generally favor a shift  by
beverage companies to refillable containers,
and this shift has developed in both Oregon
and Vermont.  However,  it is important to
note that  a mandatory deposit law does not
ban nonrefillable containers. In fact, in both
Oregon  and Vermont, there are still bever-
ages sold in nonrefillable containers  (one-
way glass and cans).
  The benefits  that can be derived from a
mandatory deposit system include not only
reductions in the quantity of litter and solid
waste,  which  are direct benefits for  local
governments, but  also national benefits in
terms of savings in materials and energy. In
addition,  beverages in refillable containers
are generally cheaper to the consumer.
  Highway Litter. Studies for EPA indicate
that a mandatory deposit  law is likely to
result in decreases of 60 to 95 percent in the
number of beverage containers discarded as
litter. These calculations have been con-
firmed by data provided by both the Oregon
and Vermont State Highway Departments
which indicate at least a 65-percent reduc-
tion. The extent of litter reduction for a local
community  will depend  on the percent of
beverage  containers that were already  re-
turnable and other local conditions.
  Municipal Solid  Waste.  Beer and soft-
drink containers constitute around 6 percent
of municipal solid waste. A mandatory  de-
posit system could reduce  this amount by
three-fourths—a decrease of 5 to 6 million
tons per year nationwide. As with highway
litter, the extent of solid waste reduction in
each community will depend in part on the
degree to which returnables  are already
being used  and also on the  efficiency of
current solid waste management practices.
The reduction in waste collection and dispo-
sal requirements for  a  community is not
likely to be great, but this is probably true of
any single waste reduction measure by it-
  Energy.  It is clear that the reuse and
recycling  of containers  would  provide  a
significant savings in energy. A comparison
of the different types of containers for the
amounts of energy required to  manufacture
and use them in packaging the same volume
of beverage  has found  that the refillable
glass bottle, used 10 times,  consumes  33
percent less energy than any one-way con-
tainer now on the market.  If 90 percent of
aluminum  cans are recycled,  the energy
savings would amount to 70 percent of that
required  to manufacture  aluminum  cans
from  virgin  ore. Steel can recycling also
results in an energy savings.
  Consumer Savings.  Beer and soft drinks
sold in  refillable containers are  generally
cheaper to the consumer than  beverages in
one-way bottles and cans. Savings as much
as 3 to 5 cents per 12-ounce container have
frequently  been  observed.  However,  the
costs of handling and transporting returned
containers  may not be fully reflected  in
retail prices. These costs have been estimat-
ed to range from less than 1 to 2 cents per
container; therefore, even  with these  costs
added on, beverages in refillable containers
should cost less to the consumer.
  It should be pointed out that a rapid wide-
scale shift to an all-refillable-bottle system
would  require   considerable   equipment
changeover  in  the brewing and soft-drink
industries and  would result  in  costs that
could be passed on to the consumer. If the
transition to refillables takes place gradual-
ly over a period of years, the costs of-rapid
changeover  would be avoided.

  The disadvantages that might result from
the  imposition  of a  deposit  on beverage

containers range from a potential decline in
sales to a temporary industrial dislocation,
consequent unemployment, and reduced tax
revenues. These disadvantages would occur
primarily  in  those communities where can
or glass container manufacturing plants are
  Sales.  Beverage  sales growth in both
Oregon and  Vermont declined  somewhat
after the enactment of the law. But it is not
clear whether any real change in the long-
term  growth  rate will occur as  a result of
mandatory deposit legislation.
  Industrial  Dislocations  and  Unemploy-
ment.  If there was a major sudden shift by
the beverage industry to refillable contain-
ers, one result would be the loss of employ-
ment in the manufacture of nonrefillable
containers. To reduce this effect, beverage
container  legislation could  be  phased  in
gradually over a long period. This will  not
eliminate job losses, however.
  A  deposit law would also result in addi-
tional jobs  being created  in  large  retail
outlets and in firms involved in the distribu-
tion  and  collection of the returnable con-
tainers. Estimates indicate that jobs lost are
balanced by jobs gained, but the jobs gained
tend to be lower paid.
  Tax Revenues.  A decline in tax revenues
could result during the period of transition
to a  refillable system. This decline would be
the result of corporate writeoffs for obsolete
can  lines  and  estimated losses  in revenue
from beer excise taxes.
  Storage  and Sanitation.  A  returnable
beverage  container system imposes  addi-
tional storage requirements  on retail stores
and  beverage distributors. There has been
some concern about insect  problems asso-
ciated  with the storage of containers con-
taining beverage residues.  On  the  other
hand,  refillable beverage containers have
been used in  many parts of the country for
years' without  significant adverse  public
health  effects.  The problem  can be  mini-
mized  by  proper  enforcement of  public
health  laws and sanitation  codes  and by
frequent collection of containers.

         Conflicts with Resource
            Recovery Systems

  One of the issues of concern to local solid
waste management authorities is whether
reducing the generation of waste through
mandatory deposit legislation would signifi-
cantly affect the economics of resource rec-
overy plants. In this  regard it is important
to note that approximately 80 percent of the
municipal  waste   stream   is  organic
material—paper,  plastics, etc. This fraction
should be the primary concern of a resource
recovery facility, as it represents the bulk of
the waste and provides  the revenue  ($5 to
$15 per ton of waste processed) needed to
make resource  recovery competitive with
other means of solid waste disposal.
  Beer and  soft-drink containers represent
35 to 45 percent of the glass  in the munici-
pal waste stream,  15 percent  of the steel,
and, where  use of  aluminum cans is sub-
stantial, 30  to 40 percent of the aluminum.
Revenues  that could be derived from  the
beverage  container  fraction  of the  waste
stream amount to about $1 to $2 per  ton of
waste processed. When the costs of recover-
ing these fractions are  considered, the  net
revenue contribution  is  considerably less.
Removal of the beverage container fraction
through a mandatory deposit system  would
probably not cause a net revenue reduction
in excess of $1 per ton of waste processed.
  In light of the uncertainties of separating
and marketing  aluminum and  glass from
solid waste, beverage container legislation
does not entail undue risk  to  the economics
of resource recoverv facilities.


         the effectiveness and impact of the Oregon minimum deposit law; project
         completion report. Salem, State of Oregon Department of Transportation,
         Highway Division, Oct. 1974. 1 v. (various pagings.)
         beverage container problem: analysis and recommendations. U.S. Envir-
         onmental Protection Agency, Sept. 1972. 190 p. (Distributed by National
         Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-213 341.)
Bottle survey '71; a California supermarket report on the cost of handling returnable
         soft drink bottles. La Habra, Calif., Alpha Beta Acme Markets, Inc., 1971.
         [16 p.]
CLAUSSEN, E.  Oregon's bottle bill: the first six months. Environmental Protection
         Publication SW-109. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
         14 p.
FOLK, H.  Employment  effects of the mandatory deposit regulation. [Springfield],
         Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Jan.  1972. 29 p.
GUDGER, C. M., and J. C. BAILES.  The economic impact of Oregon's "Bottle Bill."
         Corvallis, Oregon State University Press, Mar. 1974. 73 p.
HUNT, R.  G., et al. [MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE]. Resource and environmental
         profile analysis of nine beverage container alternatives; final report, v.1-2.
         Environmental Protection Publication  SW-91c. Washington, U.S. Envir-
         onmental Protection Agency, 1974. 178 p.
Impacts of beverage container regulations in Minnesota; a report to the Governor
         and the Minnesota Legislature. [Minneapolis], Minnesota State Planning
         Agency, Jan. 1974. 140 p.
LOUBE, M.  Beverage containers; the Vermont experience. Washington,  U.S. Envir-
         onmental Protection Agency, 1975. (In preparation.)
LOWE, R. A., M. LOUBE,  and F. A. SMITH.   Energy conservation through improved
         solid waste management. Environmental Protection Publication SW-125.
         Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 39 p., app.
No deposit, no  return; a report on beverage containers. Albany, New  York State
         Senate, Task Force on Critical Problems, Feb. 1975. 106 p., app.
O'BRIEN, M.  Returnable containers for Maine; an environmental and economic
         assessment. Portland, Me., Maine Citizens for  Returnable Containers,
         Mar. 17, 1975. [13 p.]
Ross, M. H.  Employment effects of a ban  on nonreturnable beverage containers in
         Michigan. Kalamazoo, Mich., Kalamazoo Nature  Center for Environmen-
         tal Education,  Apr. 1974. 15 p.
SCHEINMAN, T.'  Mandatory deposit legislation for beer and soft drink containers in
         Maryland; an  economic analysis. Annapolis, State of Maryland, Council
         of Economic Advisors, Dec. 11, 1974. 20 p., app.
SMITH, F. A.  Technical possibilities for solid waste reduction and resource rec-
         overy; prospects  to 1985.  Washington, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
         Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Dec.  10, 1974. 18 p.
STERN, C., et al.  Impacts  of beverage container legislation on Connecticut and a
         review of the experience in Oregon,  Vermont  and  Washington State.
         Storrs, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural  Economics,
         Mar. 20, 1975.  181 p.

           conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
                                                  SPECIAL WASTES
          conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, A
                            Hazardous Wastes
  Increasingly, .environmental managers at
all  levels of government will be required to,
make decisions on how to cope with hazard-
ous wastes. A brief and simple definition of
a  hazardous  waste,  for purposes  of  this
document,  would encompass those wastes
which cannot or should not be handled or
disposed of in  the  same  manner as  the
community's normal residential solid waste
load. The determination of whether a waste
is hazardous would stem from a judgment
that a significant potential exists for caus-
ing adverse public health or environmental
impacts if the  waste is handled, stored,
transported, treated, or disposed of in  the
manner generally accepted for ordinary sol-
id wastes.
  General categories of hazardous waste are
toxic  chemical, flammable,  radioactive,  ex-
plosive, and biological.  Such wastes  can
take the form of solids, sludges, liquids or
gases. There  is  no  "master list" of sub-
stances or compounds which are hazardous
when placed onto or under the land. How-
ever,  work  done  by and for the Office of
Solid  Waste Management Programs  has
identified  a number  of likely candidates
(Table 43).  Numerous wastes contain  such
compounds in quantities which render the
waste unacceptable for  normal methods of
waste management.

             THE PROBLEM
 Hazardous wastes comprise only a small
fraction of the nation's solid wastes. The
environmental impact of hazardous wastes,
however,  is  out  of all  proportion to the
amounts because of the threats of severe
health  and  environmental  effects,  both
chronic and acute.
  EPA  estimates  that the generation  of
nonradioactive hazardous waste is approxi-
mately  10  million tons per year. About 40
percent by weight of these wastes are inor-
ganic materials,  60 percent organic.  It  is
also estimated that 90 percent of hazardous
waste exists in liquid or in semiliquid form.
  At the present, there is no Federal legisla-
tion and very few State or  local statutes
regulating  the disposal  of hazardous waste
on  land. To fill this gap, EPA proposed the
Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1973.
Other bills of similar nature have also been
introduced in the Congress recently. It  is
hoped that one of these bills will be enacted
into law shortly.
  As enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  and
the "Ocean Dumping" Act closes off the air
and the water as places in which to dispose
of this waste, communities are going to feel
the pressure of waste generators disposing
of it in  the only place  left—the land. State
and local governments,  then,  have to be
aware  of  the  problem of what hazardous
wastes are and of what can and cannot be
done with them  without threatening the
public health or insulting the environment.
  The  problem  of environmental insults
caused by improper land disposal of hazard-

                                            TABLE 43

Miscellaneous Inorganics
Ammonium chromate
Ammonium dichromate
Antimony pentafluoride
Antimony trifluoride
Arsenic trichloride
Arsenic trioxide
Cadmium (alloys)
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium cyanide
Cadmium nitrate
Cadmium oxide
Cadmium phosphate
Cadmium potassium
Cadmium (powdered)
Cadmium sulfate
Calcium arsenate
Calcium arsenite
Calcium cyanides
Chromic acid
Copper arsenate
Copper cyanides
Cyanide (ion)
Hydrazine azide
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenite
Lead azide
Lead cyanide
Magnesium arsenite
Manganese arsenate
Mercuric chloride
Mercuric cyanide
Mercuric diammonium
Mercuric nitrate
Mercuric sulfate
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Perchloric acid (to 72%)
Phosgene (carbonyl
Potassium arsenite''
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Potassium dichromate
Silver azide
Silver cyanide
Sodium arsenate
Sodium arsenite
Sodium bichromate
Sodium chromate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium monofluoro-
Thallium compounds
Zinc arsenate
Zinc arsenite
Zinc cyanide

         Halogens and
Bromine pentafluoride
Chlorine pentafluoride
Chlorine trifluoride
Perchloryl fluoride

     Miscellaneous Organics
Alkyl leads
Carcinogens (in general)
Copper acetylide
Copper chlorotetrazole
Cyanuric triazide
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitro cresols
  hexanitrate (DPEHN)
GB (propoxy (2)-
Gelatinized nitro-
  cellulose (PNC)
Glycol dinitrate
Gold fulminate
Lead 2,4-dinitroresor-
  cinate (LDNR)
Lead styphnate
Lewisite (2-chloro-
  ethenyl dichloroar-
Mannitol hexanitrate
Nitrogen mustards
  (2,2',2" trichloro-
Organic mercury
Picric acid
Potassium dinitrobenz-
  furoxan (KDNBF)
Silver acetylide
Silver tetrazene
Tear gas (CN) (chloro-
Tear gas (CS) (2-chloro-
  benzylidene malo-
VX (ethoxy-methyl phos-
  phoryl N,N dipropoxy-
  (2-2), thiocholine)

        Organic Halogen
Chlorinated aromatics
Copper acetoarsenite
  2,4-D (2,4-dichloro-
  phenoxyacetic acid)
Ethylene bromide
Fluorides (organic)
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl parathion
  biphenyls (PCB)
hazardous wastes; report to Congress. Environmental Protection Publication SW-115. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
 ous waste is widespread. EPA has on record
 a large number of such incidents, of which
 the following are representative samples:

   • As a result of the burial of lead arsenate
     pesticide in  Minnesota  over 30 vears
                         ago, 13 people were hospitalized with
                         arsenic poisoning in 1972. The poison-
                         ings were traced to ingestion of water
                         from wells near the pesticide burial site.

                         For  several  years,  a large municipal

    landfill in Delaware accepted both do-
    mestic and industrial wastes. In 1968,
    this disposal site had to be closed be-
    cause chemical and biological contami-
    nants had leached into the ground wa-
    ter. By 1974, this incident had affected
    the drinking water  supply of over
    40,000 residents; their water is present-
    ly provided  by alternate sources. The
    cleanup costs are estimated to be up to
    $10 million.
    For 20 years, a laboratory in Iowa used
    a particular site for solid waste dispo-
    sal. Over 250,000 cubic feet of arsenic-
    bearing wastes  have  been deposited
    there.  Monitoring  wells  around  the
    dump have  established that there is
    over   175-ppm arsenic in the ground
    water. The U.S.  Public Health Service
    drinking water standard for arsenic is
    0.05  ppm. The  dump site is located
    above a limestone bedrock aquifer from
    which 70 percent of the nearby city's
    residents obtain their drinking and crop
    irrigation water. Although there is no
    evidence  that the  drinking water  is
    being affected, the potential for conta-
    mination cannot be underestimated.
  • A Tennessee chemical company for a
    number  of years was burying highly
    toxic  pesticide wastes at a dump in
    shallow unlined trenches, at the rate of
    about a hundred 55-gallon steel  drums
    per week. The containerized chlorinated
    hydrocarbon  wastes gradually escaped
    into   the    subsurface   environment,
    contaminating not only the ground wa-
    ter but also a nearby creek.


  Sources  of hazardous wastes are numer-
ous and scattered throughout the country.
Obvious ones are industry, certain Federal
facilities  (chiefly Department of Defense
and nuclear energy facilities), agricultural
activities (see below for recommended proce-
dures for pesticide disposal), hospitals, and
laboratories. It is estimated, however, that
most  hazardous  .wastes are generated by
industrial sources.
  Representative   hazardous   substances
have been matched with industrial sources
(Table 44). There are many other industrial
hazardous waste generating sources, how-
  According to a rough geographic distribu-
tion of industrial hazardous waste genera-
tion, about 70 percent of the country's indus-
trial hazardous waste is generated in  the
Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast
areas (Table 45).


  As  concluded in EPA's 1973 report to
Congress  on  hazardous  waste  disposal,
technology for the proper treatment  and
disposal  of  hazardous waste  is generally
available. However, the lack of regulation
and economic incentive discourages the use
of  environmentally  acceptable  treatment
and land disposal methods.
  Treatment processes for hazardous waste
should perform the following functions:  vol-
ume reduction, component separation, de-
toxification, materials recovery.
  No  single process  can perform all these
functions; a series of several processes are
generally required for adequate treatment.
  The general applicability of various treat-
ment  processes  to  types  and  forms of
hazardous  waste  has  been  determined
(Table 46). Many of these processes  have
been  utilized previously for managing  haz-
ardous waste in industry and government.
Several processes  have capabilities for re-
source recovery.  Selection  of appropriate
methods depends upon the type, form, and
volume of the waste, and the relative econ-
omics of the processes.


  Those wastes which cannot be disposed of
safely  in  ordinary landfills should receive
adequate  treatment  to   render   them
nonhazardous prior  to disposal.  A small
private hazardous waste management in-
dustry has emerged in the last decade, offer-
ing treatment and disposal services to gen-
erators. A preliminary compilation has been
made  of firms that are in the business of
accepting  hazardous  waste  for disposal;
copies are available from OSWMP.
  Requests for further information and tech-
nical  assistance which relate to  manage-
ment of hazardous wastes should be direct-

                                           TABLE 44

                              IN WASTE STREAMS OF SELECTED INDUSTRIES*
Hazardous substances
Chlorinated Miscellaneous
Industry As Cd hydrocarbonsf Cr Cu Cyanides Pb Hg organicsj Se Zn
Mining and metallurgy x x
Paint and dye x
Pesticide x
Electrical and electronic
Printing and duplicating x
Electroplating and
metal finishing x
Chemical manufacturing
Explosives • x
Rubber and plastics
Battery x
Pharmaceutical x
Petroleum and coal . x
Pulp and paper









     *U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Disposal of hazardous
  wastes; report to Congress. Environmental Protection Publication SW-115. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
  Office, 1974. 110 p.                                                                   .      .
     tlncluding poly chlorinated biphenyls.
     fFor example, acrolein, chloropicrin, dimethyl sulfate, dinitrobenzene. dinitrophenol, nitroaniline, and pentachlo-

                                          TABLE 45
                          \^ _
                                BY BUREAU OF CENSUS REGION, 1970*
in aqueous
New England
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West (Pacific)
in aqueous
• 1.315.000
Sludges.t slurries,
of total
              3.345,000  3.034.900  5.370.000  4,874,540   794,500   717,000  340,000   308.620  9.849,500  8.929.060   100.0
    *BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE. Program for the management of hazardous wastes. U.S.  Environmental
 Protection Agency, 1974. 2v. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., asPB -233 630-
 PB-233 631.)
    tPredominantly inorganic.
ed   to   OSWMP's   Hazardous   Waste
Management Division or to the Solid Waste
Management Representative  in EPA's Re-
gional Offices.


  The potential seriousness of health and
environmental hazards due to improper dis-
posal  and  storage  of pesticides  and  their
containers became increasingly clear in the
late 1960's as documented case studies  accu-
mulated. Expanding use of pesticides in the
United  States (an  estimated  665  million
pounds in 1968) and increasing numbers  of
spent  containers  requiring  disposal   (240
million  in  1968, up 50  percent  over the

                                           TABLE 46
Physical treatment
Carbon sorption
Flocculation/ settling
Reverse osmosis
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment
Ion exchange
Thermal treatment
Biological treatment
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling filters
Disposal/ storage:
Deep-well injection
Engineered storage
Land burial
Ocean dumping
perform edf





Types of waste!




1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 .
of waste§











     *OTTINGER, R. S., et al. Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery or disposal of hazardous
  waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aug. 1973. 16 v. (Distributed by National Technical Information
  Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-224 579-set.) ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. Alternatives to the management of hazardous
  wastes at national disposal sites. Environmental Protection Publication SW-46c. U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency,  1973. 85 p. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-225 164.)
  BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE. Program for the management of hazardous wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency, 1974. 2 v. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-233 630—PB-233
     tFunctions: VR, volume reduction; Se, separation; De, detoxification; Di, disposal; and St, storage.
     IWaste types: 1, inorganic chemical without heavy metals; 2, inorganic chemical with heavy metals; 3, organic
  chemical without heavy metals; 4, organic chemical with heavy metals; 5, radiological; 6, biological; 7, flammable; and
  8, explosive.
     §Waste forms: S, solid; L, liquid; and G, gas.
number in 1963) indicated that these prob-
lems  were  increasing.   Since  little  was
known  of the  extent of  the problem,  or
proper methods of disposal and storage, the
Working Group on Pesticides, composed of
representatives from several Federal depart-
ments, was asked to study the subject. More
recently, in 1972, a Task  Force on Excess
Chemicals,  with representation  from  all
parts of the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, was formed to study disposal problems
relating to pesticides and other hazardous
chemicals,    and    to   recommend
solutions.  Using the knowledge and infor-
mation gathered by these  two groups, as
well as by other Federal and State agencies
and the private sector, EPA drew  up recom-
mended procedures for the disposal of pesti-
cides. These recommended procedures were
published  in the Federal Register  on May 1,
1974. Additional proposed regulations were
published October 15, 1974.

        The Procedures and Their

  EPA's recommended procedures represent
broadly based judgments regarding the dis-
posal and  storage  requirements  for pesti-
cides and their containers that are  neces-
sary  to   protect  the   environment.
Compliance is achievable using existing
technology; however, facilities utilizing this
technology are not  readily available in all
geographic areas.
  The recommended disposal procedures ap-
ply  to all  pesticides  and  pesticide-related
wastes, including those which are or may in
the future  be  registered for general  use or
restricted use, or  used under an experimen-
tal use permit. Additionally, they also apply
to full containers, spent or used containers,
and  container residues. For packages and
containers  of pesticides intended  for use in
the  home and garden or when single con-
tainers are to be  disposed of on farms and
ranches,  the agency  does  not  require that
these disposal procedures be followed. Dis-
posal of such items will have only minimal
environmental impact, and it is  preferable
to dispose of them individually rather than
concentrate them.
  The storage criteria and procedures apply
to pesticides, pesticide-relate^  wastes., and
contaminated  containers which are classifi-
ed as "highly toxic"  (DANGER,  POISON)
or "moderately toxic" (WARNING) accord-
ing to EPA's classification system for pesti-
cides. The storage  of pesticides  and their
containers  which are in the  mildly toxic
category is judged not to present any undue
hazards to public health or the environment
and  is therefore  excluded from  the proce-
dures. The temporary  storage of limited
quantities of pesticides in the other catego-
ries, if undertaken  at environmentally safe
sites, is also excluded.

          Disposal Methods

  First preference in considering disposal
techniques should  be given  to procedures
designed to recover some useful value from
excess pesticides and  containers.  Where
large quantities are involved, one of the first
recommendations is that the excess materi-
al should be used for the purpose originally
intended, provided this use is legal. Another
alternative is to return the material to the
manufacturer for potential reuse or reproc-
essing.  A  third  alternative  may  be  the
export of the material to countries where its
use is desired and legal.
  Should none of these alternatives be ap-
plicable,  the  ultimate  disposal   method
should be determined by the type of hazard-
ous  material  involved. Organic pesticides
which do not contain mercury, lead, cadmi-
um,  arsenic, beryllium, selenium,  or other
toxic materials may be disposed of by incin-
eration at  temperatures which will  ensure
complete destruction. Maximum volume re-
duction is achieved by incineration, and the
incinerator emissions can be treated so that
only relatively innocuous products are emit-
ted. Incineration is not, however, applicable
to those organic pesticides which contain
heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmi-
um,  or arsenic, nor is it applicable to most
inorganic pesticides or metallo-organic pest-
icides which have not been treated for remov-
al of heavy metals. Metallo-organic pesti-
-cides may be incinerated after treatment to
remove the metal  or metalloid atoms from
the hydrocarbon structure.
  If incineration is not applicable or avail-
able, disposal in specially  designated land-
fills  is  suggested  as an alternative. How-
ever, encapsulation  prior  to  landfilling is
recommended for certain materials such as
those containing mercury, lead, cadmium,
arsenic,  beryllium, selenium, or other toxic
materials  and  all  inorganic compounds
which may  be highly  mobile in  the soil.
Encapsulation of these will retard mobility
and contain them within a small area which
can  be permanently marked  and  recorded
for future reference.
  Other  disposal processes, such as soil in-
jection, well  injection,  and chemical degra-
dation, may be acceptable in  certain areas
for some materials. At  present, such meth-
ods have been neither sufficiently described
nor classified to suggest their general use.
Regional Offices of EPA may be contacted
for advice on specific areas.
  Among the disposal  procedures  not ac-
ceptable are  water/ocean dumping, open
dumping, and open burning, except  that
open burning of small quantities of certain
containers  and open field burial of single
containers  on farms and  ranches by  the

pesticide user  may be  acceptable in  some
  EPA's recommended triple rinsing proce-
dure  will clean containers  well enough  so
that insignificant contamination will occur
when  such containers  are legally  refilled
with  another  pesticide belonging  to the
same  chemical class. Triple  rinsing  also
prepares containers for crushing or  shred-
ding  and recycling as scrap. Provisions for
this resource  conservation  step have been
included  in the  recommended procedures;
they  specifically  require that adequate rin-
sing be undertaken before reuse or recycling
of containers.

  Storage sites  and facilities should be lo-
cated and constructed to prevent escape of
pesticides and contaminated materials into
the  environment. Provision for  separate
storage of different classifications of pesti-
cides according to their chemical type, and
for routine container inspection, should  be
considered.  Special  procedures should  be
followed in case of fires or explosions, and
the fire and  police officials should be pro-
vided with the names and telephone  num-
bers  of the  persons responsible  for  each
pesticide storage facility.
  These recommended  procedures are  de-
signed  to  alert all Federal, State, and local
government agencies and private manufac-
turers,  handlers, and users of pesticides to
the need for  proper disposal and storage of
excess  pesticides, pesticide containers, and
pesticide-related  wastes. EPA will conform
to these recommended procedures in its own
operations.  State  and  local agencies  are
cautioned  against adoption of recommended
procedures as  regulations  without  careful
study  of the environmental  and economic
factors applicable to their own situations,
including  the availability of disposal sites
and facilities.

             ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC.  Alternatives to the management of hazardous wastes at
                      national disposal sites. Environmental  Protection Publication SW-46c.
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  1973. 85 p. (Distributed by Na-
                      tional Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-225 164.)
             BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE.  Program for the  management  of hazardous
                      wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 2 v. (Distributed by
                      National Technical Information Service,  Springfield, Va., as PB-233 630-
                      PB-233 631.)
             Booz ALLEN APPLIED RESEARCH, INC.  A study of  hazardous waste materials,
                      hazardous effects and disposal methods. U.S. Environmental Protection
                      Agency, 1973. 3 v. (Distributed by National Technical Information Ser-
                      vice, Springfield, Va., as PB-221 464.)
             HAYES, A. J.  Hazardous waste management facilities in the United  States. Envir-
                      onmental Protection  Publication SW-146. [Washington], U.S. Environ-
                      mental Protection Agency, Dec. 1974. 39 p.
             LACKEY, L. L., et al.  Public attitudes towards hazardous waste disposal facilities.
                      U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, 1973. 181 p.  (Distributed  by
                      National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-223 638.)
             LEHMAN, J. P.  Federal  program for hazardous waste management. Waste Age,
                      5(6):6-7,66-68, Sept. 1974.
             OTTINGER, R. S., et  al.   Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, rec-
                      overy or disposal of hazardous waste.  U.S. Environmental Protection
                      Agency, Aug. 1973. 16 v. (Distributed by  National Technical Information
                      Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-224 579-Set.)
             SCURLOCK, A. C., A. W. LJNDSEY, T. FIELDS, JR., AND D. R. HUBER.  Incineration in
                      hazardous  waste management. Environmental  Protection Publication
                      SW-141. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. 104
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Pesticides; EPA proposal on disposal
                      and storage. Federal Register, 39(200):36847-36950, Oct. 15, 1974.
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Pesticides and pesticide containers:
                      regulations for  acceptance and recommended procedures for disposal and
                      storage. Federal Register, 39(85): 15235-15241, May 1, 1974.
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,  Office of Solid Waste Management
                      Programs.  Disposal of hazardous wastes; report to Congress. Environ-
                      mental Protection  Publication  SW-115.  Washington, U.S. Government
                      Printing Office,  1974. 110 p.

                              Hospital  Wastes
  It has been estimated that approximately
10 pounds or more of solid waste per day per
patient is generated in an acute-care medi-
cal facility.  Of this amount, 2 to 4 percent
can  be  denned as potentially hazardous.
Such wastes include pathological and surgi-
cal waste, clinical and biological laboratory
waste, animal carcasses, needles, syringes,
patient-care items  (such as linen,  and per-
sonal and food service items), drugs, chemi-
cals, and radioactive wastes. The following
describes  basic methods for dealing with
these potentially hazardous medical wastes.
(The special handling and disposal of radi-
oactive  material should be carried out in
accordance with the appropriate State laws
and Federal guidelines.)


  Each  medical facility which generates
hazardous waste should be responsible for:

  • Providing  proper  storage,  collection,
    processing, transport,  and disposal of
    such wastes.
  • Adopting  written  procedures for the
    above, and insuring that all personnel
    involved are cognizant of these  proce-
  • Providing training to all personnel who
    will  be involved in the handling and
    disposal of such wastes so that they can
    prevent, eliminate, or minimize the pot-
    ential health and safety hazards.
At the same time, the communities in which
these medical facilities are located are re-
sponsible for both the enactment and enfor-
cement of regulations for dealing effectively
with potentially hazardous wastes generat-
ed by these facilities.
  Hospital waste should always be stored so
as  to prevent  transmission  of disease or
causing of injuries.
  Acceptable containers for hazardous hos-
pital  wastes include double-strength bags
(either plastic or paper) which are impervi-
ous to moisture,  double tied, and have  a
strength sufficient to resist ripping or tear-
ing under normal use. If sharps (needles,
blades, etc.)  have been pulverized, melted, or
otherwise  processed so as to  make them
incapable  of puncturing and cutting, they
may also be disposed of in such containers.
Containers  for wastes containing -sharps
that have  not  been so treated should be
punctureproof and should be taped closed so
as to prevent escape of any material. All
containers for storing  or transporting haz-
ardous wastes within the facility should be
colored  international  orange and labeled
"HAZARDOUS WASTE" in black letters at
least 3 inches high.

  When the  storage containers of hazardous
wastes are to be emptied into a processing
or disposal  system or simply into another
container, precautions should be taken to
avoid accidental  contact with the waste.
These precautions  will  depend  upon the

particular conditions but may include prac-
tices such as wearing impervious gloves and
other  protective  clothing,  providing  for
single-pass air ventilation and negative air
pressure, and  wearing appropriate respira-
tors and face shields.
  Hazardous wastes should be collected at
least daily from the hospital for transport to
a processing or disposal system or an inter-
im storage site.

  Two processes which should be used when
feasible are:

  • Sterilizing of  infectious wastes to des-
    troy the disease transmission potential
    by methods  such  as  autoclaving  or
    chemical treatment.
  • Grinding,    melting,   or  pulverizing
    sharps to destroy their injury-producing

  Both of these processes should be carried
out as soon as possible  and with as little
handling as possible.
  In  any   processing,  the  dispersal   of
hazardous material in such forms as aero-
sols and liquids  should be avoided through
the use of proper  coverings, seals, ventila-
tion, etc., and personnel should be protected
against contact  with  the material through
the use of protective clothing and gear.


  Hazardous  waste materials  should  be
packaged  in  appropriate containers, and
such materials should not  come in direct
contact with any transport vehicle such as
pushcarts, chutes,  and trucks.
  Reusable rigid containers, such as metal
or  plastic  canisters,  should  be sanitized
immediately after  their  contents are dis-
charged. The following are approved meth-
ods for sanitizing such containers:
Heat: Exposure to heat of at least 180 F for
  a minimum of 15 seconds
Chemical rinse or immersion:
  Hypochlorite—100 ppm for a minimum of
    30  seconds
  Chlorine/bromine combination—100 ppm
    for 30 seconds
  Quaternary ammonia  compounds (State-
    approved)—200 ppm  for 30 seconds
  lodoforms, iodine—25 ppm for 30 seconds


  The  preferred disposal methods for haz-
ardous hospital wastes are:

  1. For  liquids: Treatment in a sewage
    treatment  plant capable  of rendering
    the waste  innocuous (secondary treat-
    ment, at least).
  2. For combustible solids: Complete incin-
    eration followed by disposal of the ash
    in a sanitary landfill. If incineration is
    not feasible, then disposal should be by
    landfilling as set forth in "3" below.
  3. For noncombustible  solids:  Burial in a
    sanitary  landfill  while packaged in
    containers which clearly identify them
    as hazardous  wastes. Burial  should
    take place immediately upon receipt at
    the landfill.
  If operations such as shredding or baling
occur at the sanitary landfill, they  should
not include loads of hazardous wastes asso-
ciated with medical services.


  Potentially hazardous waste from medical
facilities, if handled properly,  should not
pose a threat to the health and safety of
patients, staff,  or  the community. The re-
sponsibility for insuring proper handling
rests both with the  medical facility and the
  The community should enact and enforce
regulations in respect to  the collection, pro-
cessing, transport,  and disposal of the po-
tentially hazardous wastes, while the medi-
cal facility should insure that those  wastes
that are  disposed  of on-site,  and  those
wastes that are transported and  disposed of
off-site, are treated in accordance with such


BURCHINAL, J. C., AND E. P. WALLACE.  A study of institutional solid wastes. U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 245 p. (Distributed by National
         Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-223 345.)
IGLAR, A. F., AND R. S. BOND.  Hospital solid waste disposal in community facili-
         ties. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. 350 p. (Distributed by
         National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-222 018.)
SINGER, R. D., A. G. DuCHENE, AND N. J. VICK.  Hospital solid waste; an annotated
         bibliography.  Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct.
         1973.  205 p.  (Distributed by  National Technical Information Service,
         Springfield, Va., as PB-227 708.)
         disposal of hazardous  wastes associated  with medical  services. San
         Francisco, Hospital Council of Northern California and Bay Area Health
         Association, July 1974. 14  p.

                              Sewage Sludge
  The ultimate disposition of sewage solids
generated by  municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants is a perplexing problem of great
concern to many wastewater treatment au-
thorities. In past years, national emphasis
has  been placed  on developing improved
solids  removal techniques  and attaining
higher air and water quality standards with
little regard for the problems of disposal on
land or in utilization of the vast quantities
of sludge being generated.
  Sewage sludges  from municipal waste-
water treatment plants vary considerably in
their  chemical,  physical,  and biological
characteristics. This variability is largely a
result of the types of wastewater treatment
processes employed  and the composition of
the  wastewaters  entering  the treatment
plants. In many cases the decision to utilize
or dispose  of a particular sludge hinges
upon its inherent characteristics; a complete
and detailed analysis of the sludge is there-
fore highly recommended.
  The Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments  of 1972 set deadlines for the  imple-
mentation of secondary and best practicable
treatment for municipal wastewater; in ef-
fect these deadlines require the upgrading of
a large portion of the wastewater treatment
plants throughout the country within the
next 10 years. This  upgrading  of treatment
levels will  result in increased  volumes of
sewage sludges—in many cases, a doubling
or tripling  of current  sludge generation
rates. Such dramatic  increases could have
devastating effects unless they are  planned
for properly, with careful consideration giv-
en to the environmental, legal, economic,
and social factors involved.

           Utilization on Land

  There are many  ways of using sewage
sludge on land as a soil conditioner and/or
as a  low grade  fertilizer.  Sludge can  be
applied to crop and forest land to maintain
or restore depleted soil fertility levels and to
reclaim abandoned strip-mined and margin-
al lands. Other potential uses  of sewage
sludge include erosion control projects and
application  on  golf courses,  cemeteries,
highway median  strips, parkland,  and air-
ports, and for  turfgrass and ornamental
shrub production, beautification programs,
etc. Sewage solids  may  be applied in the
liquid (2 to 8 percent solids), dewatered (18
to 30 percent solids), or dried state (40 to 100
percent solids). The two most common meth-,
ods  are  liquid   application  and   open
dumping followed by plowing. Several less
common  methods  are burial in trenches,
ridge  and furrow  irrigation,  spray irriga-
tion, plow injection, and irrigation by flood-
  Of major importance when contemplating
the use of sewage  solids on food chain crops
is the viability of pathogenic organisms and
the uptake and accumulation of  heavy me-
tals in the edible portion of plants grown for
human  or  animal  consumption.  Various
methods are used to stabilize sludge which

render it biologically  safe. Several of the
more common means of sludge stabilization

    Anaerobic digestion
    Aerobic digestion
    Heat treatment
    Lime stabilization
    Chlorine oxidation
    Chemical fixation
    Long-term storage

  Although properly stabilized, the possibil-
ity still exists for toxic metal accumulation
in food chain crops. The metal elements of
most importance in sludge are zinc, copper,
cadmium,  lead, and nickel. These  are  all
potentially toxic to crops, and cadmium and
lead may be hazardous if allowed to enter
the food chain. The element that is of most
concern  from a public health viewpoint is
cadmium. EPA's soon-to-be-published Tech-
nical Bulletin on municipal sludge manage-
ment practices for utilization and disposal
of sewage sludge suggests application con-
trols that will, if strictly followed, limit the
accumulation of cadmium and  other toxic
metals in plants grown on sludge-amended
  A  wide range of metals  content has been
observed in digested  sludges taken  from
various  communities;  estimates of typical
levels have been made (Table 47). In gener-
al, sludges with excessively high metals
 content should not be applied on land used
 to grow forage or food chain crops.

             Sanitary Landfill

  Sewage sludge can be disposed of in sani-
 tary landfills with or without mixed munici-
 pal solid waste.
  For disposal with mixed municipal solid
 waste, dewatered, digested sewage sludge is
 placed on the working face in a  sanitary
 landfill and promptly covered with earth or
 municipal refuse. Opinion is divided as to
 the  need for digestion  and  dewatering of
 sewage sludge prior to incorporation in a
 sanitary landfill.
  While not  widely  practiced, it is possible
 to  operate  a sanitary  landfill for  sludge
.disposal alone. In such cases, sewage sludge
 would  at  a  minimum  require dewatering
 prior to placement in a landfill.

            Thermal Processing
  While incineration  of sewage sludge or
 solid waste  is often considered a  disposal
 alternative, it is  in fact  merely a volume re-
 duction  technique since there remains a
 residue that requires disposal. Other forms
 of thermal processing include heat drying,
 wet air oxidation,  pyrolysis, and  use of
 sludge as supplementary fuel.
  Sludge may be heat-dried prior to its utili-
 zation on land. This stabilization technique
 provides a high  quality product (90-99 per-
 cent solids)  that can be used as fertilizer,
                                        TABLE 47

                                        (Dry weight)
Observed range
500 to 50,000
250 to 17,000
25 to 8,000
5 to 2,000
(0.1 to 40% of zinc)
15 to 11, 000
100 to 10,000
1 to 100
50 to 30,000
(0.1% of zinc)
100 '
                *MENZIES, J., AND R. CHANEY. Waste characteristics. In Factors involved in land
             application of agricultural and municipal wastes. Washington, U.S. Department of
             Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service, July 1974. 200 p.

either as  is or  fortified.  Some degree of
drying is required prior to incineration, py-
rolysis, or use of the sludge as supplementary

              Ocean Disposal

  Sewage  sludge has been deposited in the
ocean by coastal cities, using either a pipe-
line or barges.  The  continued  use of this
disposal method is in  doubt as a  result of
more stringent water pollution control laws.

   Sludge  Utilization and Disposal Costs

  Until recent years, decision-making bod-
ies have been  able to avoid identification of
the specific cost of sewage sludge handling
and disposal by attaching such cost to the
sewage treatment facility or sanitary land-
fill budget. As a  result,  there is  a general
lack of reliable comparative cost data  on
current and  past  disposal  activities, and
only  approximate  figures  are  currently
available (Table  48). Actual cost will vary
for each locale, depending upon such factors
as  volume of  sludge to be handled, haul
distances, local labor  rates, cost of land,
equipment  cost,  soil  absorption  capacity,


            Utilization on Land

  The  primary advantage of land applica-
                                          TABLE 48

                                ESTIMATED TYPICAL COSTS OF SLUDGE
                               DISPOSAL PROCESSES PER DRY TON, 1974
               Cost per dry ton*
                 Vacuum filter
                 Sand beds
             Land transport (5% solids):
                 Tank truck

             Land transport (30% solids):
                 Dump truck
             Ocean transport (5% solids):
             Ocean transport (30% solids): Barge
                 30% (stockpile)
                 5% (lagoon)

             Disposal (5% solids):
                 Ocean disposal
                 Land spreading
             Disposal (30% solids):
                 Ocean disposal
                 Land spreading

             Miscellaneous disposal methods:
                 Incineration (total cost including dewatering)
                 Composting (total cost including dewatering)





             50 to 85
            Not accurately known
              at this time
                *DERR, D. A.,etal.  Economic considerations for planning sewage sludge disposal
             systems. In A. Freiberger, ed. Pretreatment and Ultimate Disposal of Wastewater
             Solids; Proceedings; Research Symposium, Rutgers University, State University of
             New Jersey, May 21-22, 1974. [New York], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
             Region II. 476 p.

tion  of sludge is that a relatively inexpen-
sive soil conditioner and low-grade fertilizer
is  made  of what would otherwise be mere
waste. A secondary advantage  is that re-
quirements for other fertilizers are reduced,
thus conserving natural resources used in
their production.
  The  major  disadvantage relates  to the
heavy metals  and pathogenic organisms in
sewage solids. In large quantities, such con-
taminants, especially  heavy  metals,  can
restrict the types of crops planted and can
limit  the ultimate  use of the  land. High
concentrations of certain metals can  also
result in  plant toxicity  and reduced  crop
yields. Plant  uptake of heavy metals, espe-
cially arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
selenium, as well as the presence of patho-
genic organisms on the surface of plants, can
render the crops unfit for human or animal
  There are two additional disadvantages of
land  application. The  most obvious is the
large amount of land  that is generally re-
quired to utilize the sludge from a municipal
wastewater  treatment  plant.  Application
rates of  10 to 25 dry tons of sewage solids
per acre per year are typical; however, actu-
al application rates can be determined  only
on a case-by-case basis depending upon the
metals content of the  sludge, soil type, cli-
matological conditions, the type of crop or
vegetation,  application   techniques,  and
whether  the sludge is  being applied in the
liquid, dewatered, or dry state.
  The other disadvantage is the potential
that exists for ground and surface water
pollution  from infiltration  and runoff of
sludge contaminants,  both biological  and
chemical. Proper selection, design, and oper-
ation of  a sludge application site in accor-
dance with  EPA's forthcoming Technical
Bulletin  on municipal sludge management
practices  will minimize the potential for
environmental   degradation.  A   site-
monitoring program should be  established
to fully assess the degree of environmental
degradation, if any, taking place.
            Sanitary Landfill

  A sanitary landfill, if properly operated in
accordance with EPA's guidelines on  land
disposal, will provide a safe and economical-
ly sound means of sludge disposal.  Mu-
nicipal solid waste layered with the sludge
will  help absorb  excess moisture  in  the
sludge. Operational problems  such as bog-
ging down of present equipment and  site
operator  objections may be created as a
result of incorporating sewage sludge into a
sanitary landfill, however.
  Critical attention must be devoted to site
selection,  engineering design,  leachate and
gas control monitoring systems, and operat-
ing plans in the development of any sani-
tary landfill receiving sewage sludge.
  Very few advantages exist for operating a
landfill solely for sludge disposal unless its
proximity to the sewage treatment plant
reduces transportation  costs to near zero.
The  establishment  of  a landfill  only for
sludge results in unnecessary duplication of
land disposal sites, and solves none of the
potential  problems  in a combined sludge/
solid waste sanitary- landfill. In fact, opera-
tional problems may  be aggravated by the
absence of the absorptive and bearing ca-
pacities of mixed municipal refuse.

           Thermal Processing
  When sludge is incinerated  or  used in a
pyrolysis  unit or as  supplementary boiler
fuel, it must be dewatered. Dry sludge solids
have a relatively high heat value, but con-
siderable energy is required to drive off the
water in the sludge and to bring the sludge
to the combustion point. Since thermal proc-
essing alternatives  require the use of sub-
stantial quantities of  auxiliary fuels which
may be very expensive and of limited avail-
ability,  an  economic analysis  should be
done and the energy balance calculated.
  The potential for  air pollution from ther-
mal  processing of sewage sludge is another
serious disadvantage. Thermal  processing
facilities   are extremely capital-intensive
largely  because of  the pollution control
equipment required.
             Ocean Disposal
  The main advantage of this alternative is
the low overall cost to coastal cities, result-
ing  from  limited  sludge,trcatnient and de-
watering requirements and cheap pipeline or
barge transportation. The main  disadvan-
tage is the environmental and esthetic de-
gradation of coastal waters which may result

from this practice. In addition, the continued
use  of this disposal  method  as a viable
solution to any city's sludge disposal dilem-
ma is in doubt  as a result of EPA regula-
tions on ocean dumping and transportation
for dumping purposes.


  EPA (Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, and Office of Water Programs), the
Department of  Agriculture, the Food  and
Drug  Administration,  and others are  cur-
rently supporting research and demonstra-
tion efforts involving sewage sludge utiliza-
tion and disposal.
  The application of sewage sludge on land
as a soil conditioner or fertilizer supplement,
although commendable from a conservation
point  of view, could present environmental
and health-related problems  if it  is not
managed  properly.  Therefore it is strongly
recommended that any sludge utilization
system be designed and operated in accord-
ance with the Technical Bulletin on munici-
pal sludge management practices that will be
issued shortly.
  Furthermore,  until  such  time  as   more
information becomes available  concerning
the effects of disposing of liquid and unsta-
bilized sewage sludges in a sanitary landfill,
it is advisable to dispose  of only properly
digested  or  otherwise  stabilized  sewage
sludge in  accordance with  recommended
sanitary landfill practices. Liquid or  undi-
gested sludge disposal by  sanitary landfill-
ing  may  be  acceptable  if supported  by a
thorough environmental assessment.

              BERNARD,  H.  Alternative methods for sludge management. In Proceedings; Na-
                     tional Conference on Municipal Sludge Management, Pittsburgh, June 11-
                     13, 1974. Washington, Information Transfer, Inc. p. 11-19.
              BURD, R. S.  A study of sludge handling and disposal. Water Pollution Control
                     Research Series, FWPCA Publication No. WP-20-4. Washington,  U.S.
                     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968. 326 p.
              Factors involved in land application of agricultural and muni'cipal wastes. Belts-
                     ville, Md., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
                     July 1974. 200 p.
              FREIBERGER, A., ed.  Pretreatment and Ultimate Disposal of Wastewater Solids;
                     Proceedings; Research Symposium, Rutgers University, State University
                     of New Jersey, May 21-22, 1974. [New York], U.S. Environmental Protec-
                     tion Agency, Region II. 476 p.
              HECHT, N.  L., D. S. DUVALL, and A. S. RASHIDI. Characterization and utilization of
                     municipal and utility sludges and  ashes. Dayton, Ohio, University  of
                     Dayton, Research Institute, Oct. 1973. 217 p.
              Municipal  sludge  management:  environmental factors; technical bulletin-
                     supplement to Federal guidelines: design, operation and maintenance of
                     wastewater treatment facilities. Washington, U.S. Environmental Protec-
                     tion Agency [Apr. 1975]. 30 p. (Unpublished report.)
              Proceedings; Joint Conference  on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
                     Land, Champaign,  111., July 9-13, 1973. Washington, U.S. Environmental
                     Protection Agency.  244 p.
              Proceedings; National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management, Pittsburgh,
                     June 11-13, 1974. Washington, Information Transfer, Inc. 218 p.
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.   Ocean  dumping; final regulations
                     and criteria. Federal Register, 38(198):28610-28621, Oct. 15, 1973.
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.   Thermal processing and land dispo-
                     sal of solid  waste; guidelines. Federal Register, 39(158):29327-29338, Aug.
                     14, 1974.
                     COMMITTEE. Nitrogenous compounds in the environment. EPA-SAB-73-
                     001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 187 p.

  Used tires pose significant disposal prob-
lems for  municipalities, industries, and pri-
vate citizens. If incinerated in large quanti-
ties, tires  produce unacceptable levels of
particulates and sulfur emissions in the air.
Wben landfilled, whole tires will resist com-
pacting and burying and will  rise to the
surface, where they pose potential problems
as breeding places for  vectors and as fire
hazards.  The  alternatives currently  avail-
able in dealing with the tire disposal prob-
lem are in four categories:
  Waste  reduction through longer-life tires
and retreading. These actions which reduce
the generation of waste tires can be explored
along with  disposal and recovery  alterna-
tives which best suit a community's needs
and capabilities.
  Immediate disposal or recovery options.
These  disposal  methods or  tire recovery
alternatives can be put into effect now, with
no capital expenditure.
  Short-term disposal or recovery options.
These  alternatives  require  minor  capital
investment in equipment that is currently
available or will be available in the near
  Long-term disposal or recovery options.
These alternatives require significant capi-
tal  investment and, in  most cases, utilize
technology which so far has been demon-
strated only on a pilot scale.
            Waste Reduction

  The term "waste reduction," as used here,
refers to a reduction in the consumption of
products which results in a reduction in the
generation  of  solid  wastes.  While waste
reduction measures will not solve the tire
disposal problem, they can  decrease the
number of tires being discarded. (About 200
million   are  being discarded  each year.)
There are two waste reduction options that
are applicable  to tires—increased lifetime
and retreading.
  The increased tire lifetime option can be
implemented by government  agencies and
consumers through two actions:  the  pur-
chase of more  durable tires  and  improved
tire maintenance. At the present  time, the
most durable tires available are radial tires
with lifetimes approximating 40,000 miles.
This is a considerable improvement in dura-
bility compared to belted-bias and bias tires,
which  average approximately  30,000 miles
and 20,000 miles, respectively.
  The initial cost of  more durable  tires is
generally higher; however, when the cost
per mile of operation is considered, radial
tires are generally more economical  than
less durable tires.
  Regardless of the type of tire purchased,
tire lifetime can be increased with proper
maintenance. Assuring that tires are bal-
anced  and  wheels are alined and  careful
monitoring of inflation pressure are the key
elements of proper tire maintenance. The
implementation  of a  tire maintenance pro-
gram should be relatively  easy for govern-
ment agencies since these  procedures could
be accomplished in conjunction with regular

vehicle maintenance. In addition to increa-
sing tire lifetime, regular maintenance has a
positive effect on retreading.
  Forestalling  tire disposal  by retreading
reduces the  number of tires entering the
solid waste system. The practice of retread-
ing  has been prevented from expanding,
however, by  two principal barriers, both of
which  can  be  affected  by  government
decision-makers. These barriers are:

  •  Shortage of usable casings (tires suit-
     able for retreading).
  •  Reservations about the performance of
     retreaded tires.
  The  number of  usable casings  could be
increased  through   the  institution  and
enforcement  of tire standards as a part of
periodic motor vehicle safety  checks. A gov-
ernment agency can also generate higher
quality casings from  their  own vehicles
through the establishment of a regular tire
maintenance program.
  The   second  barrier  to the  growth  of
retreading—reservations  concerning  per-
formance reliability—can be  reduced as far
as government agencies and  other  large
users are concerned through the establish-
ment of closed-loop retreading systems. A
closed-loop system involves supplying cas-
ings from an agency's motor vehicle fleet to
a retreader,  who then  retreads the usable
casings  and  returns  the retreads to  the
agency. This approach  to retreading is  a
proven method to  obtain quality retreaded
tires. Commercial  truck  fleets have been
using  a closed-loop approach for  many
years with very good results.
  The establishment of a closed-loop system
does  not  by  itself  insure  quality tire
performance  from  retreads.  It does,  how-
ever, involve two factors that should contri-
bute to performance quality. First, the main-
tenance and use of the tires to be retreaded
are controlled by  the agency that will be
receiving  the  retreads.  Second,  since  a
closed-loop system  would involve an  ex-
tended interaction  between a retreader and
an agency,  a contract will probably be estab-
lished which  would give the agency control
over  the quality of the retreads received.
  Identifying  a qualified retreader  with
whom  to establish a contract may be an
obstacle. There are two methods of evaluat-
ing retreaded tires. The first would involve
the testing by an independent tire examiner
of a representative sample of retreaded tires
from  a supplier.  In  the second method the
agency would place the retreaded tire sam-
ples on random fleet vehicles for actual road
  It is important to note that the quality of
a retread is cost-dependent; that is, a high-
quality  retread  will generally cost more
than  a lower quality retread. Therefore,  if
an agency elects to contract with a retreader
that produces  a  quality  product, the tires
received will probably cost more than lower
quality retreads.
  In summary, the recommended approach
to reducing the generation of tire waste is
the initial purchase of more durable tires,
preferably radial tires, the proper mainte-
nance of these tires, and finally the retread-
ing of usable casings through a closed-loop
         Immediate Alternatives

  There  are  several possible end uses for
scrap tires that do not require capital ex-
penditures. They  involve  reuse of the tires
intact  or sale to  rubber reclaimers. Rubber
tires,  properly ballasted  and secured  in
groups, apparently make satisfactory artifi-
cial reefs. Experimental reefs constructed of
tires have been placed along the east coast
by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries  and Wild-
life. Estimates of the cost of reefbuilding,
based on a free supply of tires assembled at
a dockside area, range from $0.50 to $4 per
tire, depending on the type of reef construct-
ed. Because of transportation  costs, this
option is feasible  only in coastal areas.
  Intact tires may also be used  as  crash
barriers around   obstructions near  high-
speed freeways, as bumpers  for docks and
towing vessels, and as retaining walls for
soil erosion control. Costs for these applica-
tions  will depend entirely on local condi-
tions,  and  no generalized  estimates  are
•'available at this time.
  Another outlet  is the  reclaimed  rubber
industry, which uses scrap rubber in mak-
ing compounds for manufacture of new tires
and other rubber products.  This industry
consists of 12 facilities  located  primarily
near  tire manufacturers  in  Ohio and  the
Northwest.  These facilities can draw tires

from within a radius of 300 miles. Reclaim-
ing plants are listed at the end of this chapter.

         Short-Range Alternatives.
  These  alternatives,  landfilling and road-
building, involve some capital expenditure—
from $2,000 to $100,000—for either tire split-
ting or shredding equipment (Tables 49 and
  Generally less expensive than tire shred-
ders, tire slicing/cutting  machines can  be
obtained  for  between  $2,000  and $4,000.
                                         TABLE 49

                             COSTS AND OPERATING PARAMETERS OF TIRE
                                  SLICERS AND SHREDDERS, 1974
Ascot Tire
Tire Gator
Tire Hawg
Manufactured by
Parent Mfg. Co.,
Lewiston, Maine
Branick Mfg.,
Fargo, N. Dak.
Teb Inc.,
Addison, 111.

Barclay/Noll Assoc.,
Burlingame, Calif.
Marketing Corpora-
tion, Portland, Oreg.
Metropolitan Disposal
Portland, Oreg.
. 19,000
(tires per hr)
and tire type
300, passenger
and truck
300, passenger
and truck
60, passenger
60, passenger
and light truck
300, passenger
and truck
1,000, passen-
ger and truck
125, passenger
and small
400, passenger
and truck
110 V '
220/440 V
100 amp
(Ib) Comments
1,500 Not rigged for
road use
1,000 Not rigged for
road use
800 Built in Germany,
assembled in
* 1,000 tire/hr ca-
pacity would re-
quire 3 men
3,000 Price includes
operating cost as-
sumes 1 ,000 tire/
day operation
24,000 Weight includes
trailer for road
    *Not available.
                TABLE 50

          COSTS AT 7.5C PER TIRE, 1974*
Power ($10/day)
Operating cost
per montht
   *Manufacturer's data.
   +No allowance has been made for transportation,
dumping fee, revenue from sale of chips, or cost of capital.
   jCost per tire is 7.5C given  1,000 tires processed per
day with 20 days per month operation.
These machines generally require one man
to operate and can process from 60 to 300
tires  per  hour. Sliced tires have been  suc-
cessfully  landfilled; some size reduction is
effected, which is advantageous not only for
landfilling but also for transportation. Most
tire slicers*are portable and so can be taken
to suppliers of tires, making possible signifi-
cant  savings in transportation costs of the
tires. At  the present time, there are only
limited uses for sliced tires.
  Portable tire shredders are relatively  new
to  this  country.  Ranging in  price from
$5,000  to $100,000, several  makes   of tire
shredders are currently available and more
are   in  varying  stages   of  development.

Shredders enable landfill operators to effi-
ciently dispose of tires. Even more than sli-
cers, they make tires cheaper to transport
for either disposal or reuse. It appears that
economics will generally favor bringing the
shredder to the tires rather than bringing
whole tires to the shredder. Some concentra-
tion of tires  would be  required,  however,
making the  portable shredder most appli-
cable for use at retreaders' installations and
tire collection points.
  There is increasing interest in making use
of shredded tires as an additive to asphalt
for roadbuilding and  repairing. However,
most proven  asphalt-additive applications
require  rubber particles  smaller (minus 16
plus 25 mesh) than present shredder output.
It is also necessary to remove any steel belt
or bead material from the rubber used for
roadbuilding. Therefore, for most roadbuild-
ing applications rubber reclaimers are relied
on for the supplies of shredded tires.
  Several governmental  units are currently
using rubber as an asphalt additive, includ-
ing the city of Phoenix, Ariz., the New York
State Department  of Transportation, and
the New York State Thruway System.
  Information on  the economics of operat-
ing  tire slicers and shredders is sparse;
costs will vary considerably with the num-
ber of tires processed and the availability of
power-operated equipment to move and han-
dle the  tires. Most of the machines require
one worker full time just to load or operate
the machine. Additional  labor is required to
maintain higher rates of tire processing.

         Long-Range Alternatives

  There  are several  relatively  capital-
intensive uses for scrap  tires that  are cur-
rently under study by private and govern-
mental organizations.
  Destructive distillation and carbonization
are two specific forms of pyrolysis—a con-
trolled,  oxygen-deficient heating  process
that decomposes organic substances. Tires
are made up of carbon (83 percent), hydrogen
(7  percent),   and   ash  (6  percent),  with
trace quantities of  nitrogen, oxygen, and
sulfur.  In pyrolysis, these constituents are
yielded  in the form of chemically complex
oils  and gases  and a  solid residue.  The
proportions of these yields vary according to
the temperatures used in the process. The
major product of high-temperature carboni-
zation is carbon black, a major ingredient in
synthetic rubber  production.  Destructive
distillation,  a  lower temperature process,
yields about 50 products—mainly gases but
also oils (both  light and  heavy) and a dry
high-carbon residue. This residue has a Btu
value equivalent to coal but is relatively
high in sulfur content (1.5 percent). The
economics  for  all  of these processes  are
marginal, but recent trends in  the  energy
field may stimulate their development.
  Hydrogenization is a process of chemical
synthesis in which the addition of hydrogen
(the element which is removed from oil to
make synthetic rubber) converts scrap rub-
ber to chemicals from which new rubber can
be  synthesized. It is estimated  that much
more development  of this process  will  be
required before it will be economically com-
petitive  with traditional  synthetic  rubber
production. Current fossil fuel cost  escala-
tions may well speed up the time when this
process too will become economically viable.
  Energy can be  recovered from tires by
shredding them and using them as supple-
mental fuel in conventional coal-fired instal-
lations  or as the sole fuel in specially de-
signed furnaces for industrial applications.
The Btu value of tires is equal to or greater
than that of coal.
  While even large cities  may not generate
enough tires to provide a continuous supply
of supplemental fuel to a  utility powerplant
at  this time, there would  be enough for
smaller coal-fired industrial boilers  at  cer-
tain locations. The General Motors Corp. is
currently utilizing shredded tires as supple-
mental fuel at one of their plants.
  A pilot installation in England has used
tires as fuel in specially designed furnaces
to generate steam.  Because of the combus-
tion properties of tires, such a furnace would
probably  operate  at  about  30  percent
efficiency—about half that of a comparable
coal-fired furnace. However,  even at this low
efficiency, the pilot operation in England
consumes 700  tires  per  hour,  generating
3,500 pounds of steam per hour,  and effects
savings of about $110 per day over the cost
of coal (the cheapest available conventional
  Goodyear has constructed and is operat-

ing a cyclone furnace for whole-tire inciner-
ation and-steam generation at its plant in
Jackson, Mich.
  It has been estimated that tire-fueled pow-
er could be competitive with  gas- or  oil-
fueled power.  The total estimated cost of
generating power from tires is about $0.50
per million Btu. These costs include amorti-
zation of capital equipment and operating
costs of storage, handling, preparation, and
emissions control (50 percent higher than
for coal)  but  not collection. Comparable
costs for other fuel sources range between
$0.60 per million Btu for gas and $0.75 for
oil. These costs were calculated prior to 1973
price increases for petroleum products.

  Although the  disposal of discarded tires
has  proven to  be  a difficult  solid  waste
problem in the past, new developments such
as portable tire shredders now permit  the
sanitary landfilling of tires. In addition to
this short-range solution to tire disposal, the
potential currently  exists for  reducing  the
flow  of tires into the  solid waste stream
through such means as increased consump-
tion  of longer-wearing  tires instead of  the
less durable types, and retreading. Studies
are now underway to  expand  present re-
covery markets  and to develop long-range
uses for discarded tires.
                             RECLAIMING PLANT LOCATIONS
A. Baker Manufacturing Company
South Bend, Indiana

Centrex Corporation
Findlay, Ohio

Eastern Rubber Reclaiming Company
Chester, Pennsylvania

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio

Laurie Rubber Reclaiming Company
New Brunswick, New Jersey

Midwest Rubber Reclaiming Company
East St. Louis, Illinois
Nearpara Rubber Company
Trenton, New Jersey

Uniroyal Chemical Division
Naugatuck, Connecticut.

U.S. Rubber Reclaiming Company
Vicksburg, Mississippi

F. Perlman and Company
Memphis, Tennessee

Uniroyal Chemical Division
Ville d'Anjou, Quebec, Canada

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Reclaim Division
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada

             KIEFER. I.  Incentives for tire recycling and reuse. Environmental Protection Publi-
                    cation SW-32c.l. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 28
             PETTIGREW, R. J., F. H. RONINGER, W. J. MARKIEWICZ, and M. J. GRANSKY. Rubber
                    reuse and solid waste management, pt. 1-2. [Public Health Service Publi-
                    cation No. 2124.] Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.120
             STONE, R. B., C. C. BUCHANAN, and F. W. STEIMLE, JR. Scrap tires as artificial
                    reefs. Environmental Protection Publication  SW-119.  Washington,  U.S.
                    Government Printing Office, 1974. 33 p.

                                                                                      I  \
            conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, *   \
                                                 Waste  Lubricating  Oil
           conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation
  Waste lubricating oil causes environmen-
tal problems when it is disposed of in unac-
ceptable ways such as uncontrolled burning
as a fuel, which can result in the emission of
lead and other heavy metals; uncontrolled,
dumping on land, which can result .in the
contamination of ground water from leach-
ate  or  contamination  of waterways  from
runoff;  and dumping in waterways,  which
can  result in  damage  to fresh water and
marine organisms.
  Of the over 2 billion gallons of lubricating
oils  purchased  annually  in  the  United
States,  approximately 1 billion gallons are
burned or otherwise lost  in  the process of
lubrication; 600 million gallons of waste oil
are generated from automotive use and 500
million gallons from industrial, aviation,
and miscellaneous applications (Table 51).
  Of the known uses of waste oil, burning is
most  common;" it accounts for approximate-
ly 500 million gallons. Use as road oil and
in asphalt consumes another 200  million
gallons; 90  million gallons  are re-refined
into lube oil; and 300 million gallons are not
accounted for. A significant portion of this
latter quantity is probably burned as a fuel
supplement during  fuel shortages. The gen-
                                         TABLE 51
                                  OIL, AND USE OF WASTE OIL*
                                    (In millions of gallons)

             Consumption of lube oils:
               . Automotive
                Industrial and aviation
                Other (including government)

             Generation of waste lube oils:
                Industrial and aviation

             Current uses of waste lube oils:
                Fuel (treated and untreated)
                Re-refined for use as lube oil
                Road oil and asphalt
                Fate unknown
                *U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Waste oil study: report to the
             Congress. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1974. 402 p.
                tlncludes 30 million gallons of re-refining wastes.

eration of waste oil appears to be increasing
only slightly (1.3 percent annually) as long-
er periods between oil changes tend to offset
the effect of increases in numbers of vehicles
on the road.


  Waste oil is generally collected from serv-
ice  stations,   garages,   and  commercial
fleets by   small,  independent  companies.
There are approximately 1,500 of these col-
lectors located in urban areas of the United
States. They generally derive revenues from
either a collection fee and/or from the sale
of waste oil. The oil is sold generally  to
processors  who prepare it for use as a fuel,
to re-refiners who make it reusable as lube
oil, to manufacturers of road oil  or asphalt,
or directly  to users of fuel. If the prices of
petroleum products  are low, then economic
factors  encourage collectors to  dispose  of
their cargo in the most expedient manner-
  In the less densely populated regions of
the country, markets for waste oil are scarce
and  consequently there are very few waste
oil collectors. As a  result, the likelihood of
waste oil dumping  is increased. Municipal
governments can take the lead in stimulat-
ing  the  recycling  of  waste oils  and  the
reduction  of oil dumping at a relatively
small cost. The  essential element  is  the
assembling of sufficient quantities of waste
oil to justify its collection. Either controls or
incentives could be employed to concentrate
the waste oils.  Certain gas stations- or con-
verted storage tanks could be designated as
collection points.  Receptacles for collecting
crankcase drainings can be fabricated from
surplus  gasoline  cans  or  purchased from
retail stores.

               Use as a Fuel

  The market  for waste oil  as  a fuel,  the
major market for waste oil  collectors, has
two  segments. The first is made up of waste
oil  processors  who remove many  of  the
contaminants in the waste oil prior to distri-
buting it to users who mix it with conven-
tional  fuels. Some  waste oil is  distributed
directly to  users who mix the oil with con-
ventional fuel  without removing the con-
taminants.  The  contaminants  will  vary
with the source of the waste oil  and can
include: lead, copper, barium, zinc, phospho-
rus, tin, and chromium.
  The most serious of these contaminants
appears to be the lead in automobile waste
oil. If this oil is burned undiluted, signifi-
cant emissions of lead can  result. Although
mixing with other fuel oils can dilute these
lead emissions considerably, the burning of
unprocessed waste oil is not recommended
unless sophisticated emission control equip-
ment is employed.


  Another  market for waste oil is the re-
refining industry, which in 1972 processed
90 million gallons of waste oil into lube oil.
Although this industry has  experienced a
decline (in 1960, 300 million gallons were
processed), recent price levels for petroleum
products have improved the economics of re-
refining.  Most of the problems facing  the
expansion  of  this industry center around
questions regarding product quality. Reser-
vations about the quality of re-refined lubri-
cating oil  led to Federal labeling require-
ments  and purchasing  restrictions. As a
result,  re-refined lube oil  is often ranked
only with  low-grade  virgin lube oils. The
economic  disadvantages  that  result  are
compounded by an unfavorable tax treat-
ment (IRS ruling 68-108). Under the terms of
this ruling, re-refiners are required to pay a
nonrefundable tax of 6 cents per gallon on
virgin oils which are blended with re-refined
oil and sold for  off-highway use. A similar
tax on lube oil composed completely of vir-
gin oil and used off highways is refundable.
  A typical re-refining operation consists of
dewatering, treatment with acid to remove
additives and impurities, mixing with clay
to remove low-boiling components, blending
with virgin stocks to improve viscosity, and
the use of additiv«.,packages to meet engine
oil standards. The most serious environmen-
tal  problem associated with re-refining is
the disposal of the  sludges and bottoms
from the re-refining process. These wastes
are generally highly acidic or contain high
concentrations  of heavy metals, primarily
lead.  These wastes   can be satisfactorily
disposed of in a properly managed landfill.

one  which prevents leaching of acids  and
heavy metals into ground waters. The  pre-
cautions recommended  for the satisfactory
landfilling of sludges and bottoms in EPA's
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category;
Effluent Guidelines  and  Standards (1974)
include the following:

   In order to ensure long-term protection
 of the environment from harmful constitu-
 ents, special consideration of disposal sites
 should be made. All landfill sites should be
 selected so  as to prevent horizontal and
 vertical migration of these  contaminants
 to  ground   or surface  waters.  In cases
 where geological  considerations may  not
 reasonably ensure this, adequate mechani-
 cal  precautions  (e.g.,  impervious liners)
 should be taken to  ensure long-term pro-
 tection of the environment. A program of
 routine periodic sampling and analysis of
 leachates is advisable. Where appropriate,
 the location of hazardous  materials dis-
 posal sites should be permanently recorded
 in the appropriate office of legal jurisdic-

                Road Use
  Use of waste oil for dust control on roads
and  in asphalt manufacture accounted for
200  million  gallons of waste  oil in 1972.
Tests of the  use of oil for dust control indi-
cate  that as much as  70 percent  of the oil
applied either migrates to the air on  dust
particles or onto adjoining lands and water-
ways through water runoff. The application
of waste oil as   a  dust control measure
should therefore be carefully controlled,  tak-
ing into account such elements  as the type
of road surface, the amount of oil applied,
and  the type of vegetation  near the road
being oiled.  When used in the manufacture
of asphalt, waste  oil can cause significant
increases in  emissions  into the air. These
emissions represent a  potential hazard if
they contain significant quantities of lead or
other heavy metals.

             Land Spreading

  Many petroleum refineries currently  dis-
pose of oily wastes by a technique known as
land spreading. If deep, fine-textured soils
are selected  for this practice, then limited
amounts of oil will  adhere to the soil  and
ground-water contamination  can  be
 avoided. However, indiscriminate dumping
 of oil on coarse, porous, or shallow soils is
 likely to result in water pollution. Although
 under certain carefully controlled conditions
 land spreading may  be  environmentally
 acceptable, it represents an extremely ineffi-
 cient utilization of a nonrenewable resource.


  Cities may want to consider the use of re-
 refined  lubricating products in city-owned
 vehicles. This may result in savings as re-
 refined  products  are usually available at
 lower prices  than comparable virgin prod-
 ucts. However,  it is important that cities
 insure that  the products  will  perform as
 intended. One or more of the following pre-
 cautions should be taken:

  1. Perform independent laboratory analy-
     sis of the re-refiner's  base stocks  and
     level of additives.
  2. Obtain  a  certification of product  per-
     formance by an additive manufacturer.
  3. Seek  testimonials  from  current  local
     customers using re-refined products for
     similar lubricating applications.
  4. Require  certification from the re-refiner
     that his product meets or  exceeds en-
     gine manufacturers' specifications.
  5. Perform periodic laboratory monitoring
     of products to detect  changes in proc-
     essing or additive content.
  At least one major  city, San  Diego,  is
 currently using re-refined  lubricating prod-
 ucts in city-owned  vehicles.  The city  has
 been using re-refined products  since 1974;
 no  loss  in engine  performance has  been
 detected thus far. EPA will be "working with
 the city to  fully evaluate the performance of
 re-refined  products  after  2 years  of  use.
 Upon  completion of the  tests, EPA  will
 make available the results to others wishing
 to explore the use of these products.


  Cities and  municipalities should identify
quantities and  sources of waste oil genera-
tion. Collectors  of waste oil should  also be
identified as  well as forms  of disposition of
the  waste oil.
  All methods  of disposition  of waste  oil

                                             TABLE 52
                                   USES FOR WASTE LUBRICATION OIL*
              Re-refining for use as lube oil
              Processing for use as fuel oil
              Burning untreated as a fuel
              Spreading on roads for dust
              Mixing with asphalt in road
              construction and repair
Re-refining sludges and bottoms should be prop-
erly disposed of. Follow acceptable procedures
for   landfilling   of  sludges   and  bottoms.

Processor removes heavy metal contaminants
(primarily   lead)  and  processing  bottoms
are disposed of in an acceptable manner.

User employs sophisticated emission control
equipment (including baghouses) to remove
preventable lead emissions.
Oil use governed by ability of road surface to
absorb oil, limiting significant migration on dust
particles and oil runoff with water to adjacent
Process residuals containing concentrations of
heavy metals  should be disposed of in  an ac-
ceptable manner.
                  *U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY. Waste oil  study;  report to the
               Congress. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr.  1974. 402 p.
should be controlled  to avoid unfavorable
environmental effects (Table 52).
  Cities  can  stimulate  the  collection  of
waste  oil  by providing and/or  promoting
facilities at which waste oil will be accepted.
  Cities should consider the use of re-refined
lubricating products in city-owned vehicles
if adequate  precautions regarding  product
quality are observed.
  In  order to control the collection and dis-
position  of waste  oil, communities  should
issue   appropriate  laws  and  ordinances
          • make dumping  into watercourses ille-

          • require a permit for the operation of a
            facility to process  or dispose of waste

          • require a  permit for the  collection  of
            waste oil.

          • require that all major waste oil genera-
            tors contract with certified collectors for
            the hauling of this  product.

              CHANSKY, S., et al.  Waste automotive lubricating oil reuse as a fuel. EPA-600/5-74-
                       032. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1974. 158 p., app.
              CUKOR, P., M. J. KEATON, and G. WILCOX  [Teknekron, Inc., and the Institute of
                       Public Administration].  A  technical and  economic study of waste oil
                       recovery, pt.3. Economic, technical and institutional barriers to waste oil
                       recovery. Environmental Protection Publication SW-90c.3.  U.S. Environ-
                       mental Protection Agency, 1974.143 p. (Distributed by National Technical
                       Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-237 620.)
              IRWIN, W. A., and R. A. LIROFF.   Used oil  law in the United States and Europe.
                       EPA-600/5-74-025.  Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Office,  July
                       1974. 289 p. (Distributed by National Technical Information  Service,
                       Springfield, Va., as PB-239 449.)
              U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Waste  oil study; report to the Con-
                       gress.  Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1974. 402 p.
                       (This is the most comprehensive report available on waste oil and one that
                       should be read by anyone interested in the subject.)
              WEINSTEIN, N. J. Waste oil recycling  and disposal. U.S. Environmental Protection
                       Agency, 1974. 328 p. (Distributed by National  Technical Information
                       Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-235 857.)

          conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, '
          conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, ,
                                Appendix A
          Residential  Collection Management Tools
  This appendix describes three tools that
EPA has developed to help managers evalu-
ate and improve the efficiency of their resi-
dential collection systems. These tools are:
  Collection Management Information
    System (COLMIS)
  Route balancing procedure
  Heuristic routing technique

  The basis of effective  management and
decision-making is reliable information on
the system being managed. While lack of
information can lead to loss of control, good
information can serve as the basis for im-
provements and cost savings.
  In solid waste management, definitive
information is  needed  on the  operational
aspects  of collection and the costs involved
in providing this service. This information
should  provide the answers to such key
questions as:
  • What are the actual collection costs per
    home and per ton?
  • How much waste is collected per home
    per week? How does this vary seasonal-
  • How many homes are collected per crew
    per collection hour?
  • Which are the most productive  and
    least productive crews?
  • How are  productivity and costs affect-
    ed by different collection frequencies,
    crew sizes, equipment types, and stor-
    age devices?
  • How effectively are the equipment ca-
    pacities  being utilized? What  is their
    density capability?
  • How many homes constitute a  load for
    different generation rates?
  • What are equipment  operating costs?
    When should equipment be replaced?

  A good method  of obtaining the required
information is through the use of a compu-
terized reporting system. One such system is
COLMIS, Collection Management Informa-
tion  System,  available  from  EPA at no
charge. This system generates reports with
different levels of detail  for the  various
levels of management.
  There are  three basic reports  which the
COLMIS  system  generates on  a weekly
basis. Each of these  reports includes daily
data for each  route plus a weekly  average
and a year-to-date average. The following
lists the categories of data included in the
        Route Information Report

  • Motor pool to route—time and miles per
  • Collection  operation—time  and miles
    per day
  • Transport  operation—time  and miles
    per day

  • Total   time  to  route,  collect  and
  • Downtime—hours
  • Lunchtime—hours
  • Weight per day—pounds and tons

      Collection Information Report

  • Homes served per collection day
  • Weight in pounds per collection day
  • Persons served per collection day
  • Generation rate per person per day-
  • Collection time per home—minutes
  • Collection time per 100 pounds—minutes
  • Collection time as percent of total time
  • Total  time worked as percent of stand-
    ard time
  • Loads per day to incinerator, landfill, or
    transfer station
  • Weight  per cubic yard  of  first load—

   Collection Cost Information in Dollars

  • Cost from motor pool to route
  • Cost of collection, operation
  • Cost of transport operation
  • Equipment costs
  • Manpower costs
  • Total  costs
  • Costs of manpower during equipment
    down  periods
  • Incentive costs
  • Overtime costs
  • Cost per ton
  • Cost per home-^per  week, per year

  While serving as a creditable record of
operations and costs, these reports  are  a
valuable planning  tool.  Information  from
these reports can  be used  to evaluate the
present system and to design new systems.
They provide the  specific  data needed to
determine a "fair day's work" for each crew,
truck and crew requirements for the entire
city, boundaries for daily routes and  dis-
tricts, and costs of operation. They can also
aid in determining the useful life for equip-
ment and thus help in  planning a capital
replacement program.

          Regional Application

  COLMIS  can be useful  in  solid  waste
management in cities of almost every size.
It can also be used effectively by groups of
neighboring communities, such as members
of a disposal  authority,  council of govern-
ments, or planning council. Such a regional
approach gives additional benefits to each
community: It provides  a  standard data
base so that each community can compare
its system with those of its neighbors. This
standard base will facilitate the exchange of
ideas among managers. Regional sharing of
information makes it possible for managers
to see the productivity  of  other types  of
collection systems and to assess more easily
the impact of system changes which they
may consider introducing. The regional ap-
proach can also lower data-processing costs.
  Regional systems are most easily imple-
mented when there is a central agency that
can coordinate the effort. The agency's func-
tion  would include collection of  the back-
ground  data needed to start the COLMIS
system, receiving the daily forms from the
communities, providing or contracting  for
computer services,  and distribution of the
COLMIS  reports to the  communities. The
communities may  also  want  the  central
agency to function as a consultant  to help
them interpret the COLMIS reports and  to
advise them in  improving their  collection
            Cos* Effectiveness

  Effective use of this type of analysis can
lead to significant results. Fourteen of the 35
communities  in  which  the  COLMIS pro-
gram has been  installed are in  the same
regional  authority in Michigan, the South-
east Oakland County Incinerator Authority,
which serves  a  population  of 360,000.
Management  information from  COLMIS
and assistance from the authority and EPA
in routing and evaluating crew sizes, equip-
ment types,  and  collection  methodologies
have  enabled  these communities to main-
tain  the same level of  service (once-per-
week, curbside) while cutting direct collec-
tion costs by 16.7 percent (within a 6-month
period) and demonstrating a potential  re-
duction of another  21  percent if all  the
communities and routes are converted to the
most efficient system which has been identi-
  The cost-effectiveness of COLMIS can be

 seen by comparing its costs to the savings
 achieved. The total computer cost, including
 keypunching, for processing  the  data for
 this 360,000 population is $5,200 per year, a
 1.4 cents per person  per year investment
 with  a resultant savings of 73  cents per
 person  per year.

  Route balancing is the process  of deter-
 mining the  optimum  number of services
 that constitute a  fair day's work and divid-
 ing the collection task among the crews so
 that all have equal workloads. Route balan-
 cing can  have any of the following objec-
 tives: (1) to estimate the number of men and
 trucks required to collect waste in  a new or
 revised solid  waste system; (2)  to aid in
 developing or evaluating a bid price for a
 collection contract; (3) to aid in evaluating
 the performance of the collection crews, as a
 whole or individually; (4)  to establish  a
.work standard to be used in a task system,
 in which the crews may go home when their
 predetermined tasks are completed for the
 day, or in a wage incentive system, in which
 the crews are rewarded by financial bonuses
 for any increases in  productivity over  a
 prescribed standard or over a previous peri-
 od; or  (5) to balance  or  equalize the work-
 loads among collection crews.
  Route balancing is  necessary  if a new
 collection system is being instituted, or a
 major change in the  present system, e.g.,
 backyard to  curbside collection, is going to
 take place, or if  a collection contract is up
 for bid. Route  balancing should  also  be
 conducted if crew performances have  never
 been  evaluated or need reevaluation,  if the
 present routes are not balanced,  or  if the
 present routes do not provide a fair  day's
 work for the crews.
  A fair day's  work  is  determined and
 routes are balanced by analyzing each com-
 ponent of time in the collection day, that is,
 how the crew spends its time.
  Adding the component times of a collec-
 tion day results in an  equation for the total
 time in the workday (Y):
  b = total collection time on route
  Ci = time from route to disposal site
  02 = time from disposal site to route
  d - time at disposal site
  e = time from disposal site to garage
  / = time for official breaks
  g = slack time: lost time due to breakdowns
      and other delays, lunchtime, ,and in-
      centive time
  n = number of loads
  This equation is the basis of the analysis
for a fair day's work and route balancing.
  The data required for this analysis are: (1)
time and distance data related to the compo-
nents of the collection day, (2) the number of
services by type and where they are located,
(3) the amount of waste generated per service,
including seasonal variations,  and (4) basic
equipment and labor costs.
  One method for gathering this data is by
using COLMIS as already discussed. Values
for each time variable are readily obtainable
for any existing system from  the COLMIS
reports or other records. Values for each of
these time elements  for each route may be
compared to ascertain their reasonableness.
  In designing a new collection system it is
necessary to determine the appropriate num-
ber of services per crew per day, which tells
how many trucks and men are required. The
steps required are:
   (1) Add variables  a, e, f, and g, and sub-
      tract Ci. These variables are  readily
      obtainable from the existing system.
   (2) Add variables c\ + 02 +•  d (round-trip
      haul and dump time for one load) for
      specific route  areas, which are also
      available from the existing system.
   (3) Select the equipment type  and size,
      and crew size.
   (4)  Determine the  number of services per
 N •
  c  = time from garage to route
  / Vehicle capacity \ / Waste density capability \
  V    (cuyd)   J\     Ib/cuyd)      )
        Generation rate (Ib/home/wk)
(5) Determine the collection time per serv-
   ice through obtaining statistics (such
   as COLMIS data) from other commu-
   nities which have similar systems and
   good labor productivity or by conduct-
   ing an experiment on one of the exist-
   ing routes.

 (6) Determine how much time it takes to
    collect one load  by multiplying the
    results of steps 4  and 5.
 (7) Set the total day  equal to the number
    of hours  the collectors are to work,
    e.g., 8 hours.
 (8) Add the times from steps 1, 2, and 6
    and compare to step 7.
 (9) Add  steps  2  and  6 to step 8 and
    compare again to step 7. Repeat this
    until the total time is  close to the
    total day value selected in step 7.
(10) Calculate  the number  of  trucks re-
    quired to serve the community.
          /Total No\
Trucks  .  \8erviceS/
                     /Collection frequency^
                     \  '  Per week    J
          / Services per \   /No. workdays\
          Itruck per day!   y  per week  1
     In this equation, the value of services
     per  truck per day is a function of
     frequency of collection and point of
     collection (curb or backyard) and is
     the  value calculated  in step 9 based
     on on-route versus transport time.
(11) Calculate the cost of a crew and truck

    Vehicle cost  = depreciation
                 + maintenance
                 + consumables
                 + overhead
                 + license fees  and
    Labor cost   = salary of driver
                 + salary of collectors)
                 + fringe benefits
                 + indirect labor
                 + supplies (e.g., gloves)
                 + administrative
    Total cost   = vehicle cost and labor

(12) Multiply cost per crew by the number
     of crews needed, to get total system
(13) Divide cost per vehicle by  number of
     customers the truck can  serve per
     week to find the cost per customer.
(14)  Evaluate the effects of peak and low
     generation periods by performing the
     calculations for  steps  1  through  6
     using data from these periods.
(15)  Repeat steps 1  through  7  for  any
     other system that could provide the
                                                   service. Some figures such as time per
                                                   stop and vehicle costs may have to be
                                                   obtained from other sources.
                                              (16) Comparison of total cost and cost per
                                                   customer for each system  examined
                                                   helps  give a picture of  relative de-
                                                   grees of efficiency. The choice may be
                                                   to  pick  a system different from the
                                                   present one. Or it may be shown that
                                                   level-of-service   or  other   policies
                                                   should be reconsidered.

  Routing is the process of determining the
path  or  route  the  collection  vehicle is to
follow as it collects waste from each service
in a specific area. The objective is  to mini-
mize the noncollection distance, e.g., streets
with no  services or repeat streets,  and de-
lays due to U-turns, rush hour  traffic, left
turns, etc., for each  collection vehicle.
  Once the number of services for each route
has been determined through route balan-
cing analysis, routing can be performed. All
the data required  for  routing can be re-
corded on community maps. The data in-
clude: (1) the number of each type of service
on each side of each street segment,  (2) all
one-way, dead-end, and  heavily  traveled
streets,   (3)  corner-lot  residents,   and (4)
streets that should be collected one side at a
  EPA has developed a "heuristic" routing
technique that  can  be applied by the collec-
tion system supervisory personnel  without
the use of computers or a consultant. The
heuristic technique is  based on applying
some common-sense rules of thumb in con-
junction  with specific routing patterns. The
major rules of thumb are:

  (1) Routes  should not be fragmented or
     overlapping.  Each  route  should be
     compact, consisting of street segments
     clustered  in  the  same  geographical
  (2) Total collection plus haul time should
     be reasonably constant for each route
     in  the community, i.e.,  workloads
     should be equal.
  (3) The collection route  should be started
     as close to the garage or motor pool as
     possible, taking into account heavily

    traveled streets, route elevations, and
    possible patterns (see rules 4, 6, and 9).
(4)  Heavily traveled streets should not be
    collected during rush hours.
(5)  Services on  dead-end streets can  be
    considered as services on the  street
    segment that they intersect since they
    can only be collected by passing down
    that street segment. To keep left turns
    at a  minimum, collect  the dead-end
    streets  when they are to the right of
    the truck.  They must be collected  by
    walking down, backing down, or mak-
    ing a U-turn.
(6)  When  practical, steep hills should be
    collected on both sides of the  street
    while the vehicle is moving  downhill
    for safety, ease,  and speed of collec-
    tion,  to reduce  vehicle  wear, and to
    conserve  gas  and  oil. Higher eleva-
    tions should be  at the  start of1 the
(7) For  collection  from  one  side of the
    street at a time, it is generally best to
    route  with   many  clockwise  turns
    around blocks and to  collect waste
    when it is to the right  of the vehicle.
(8) For  collection from both sides of the
    street at the same time, it is generally
    best to route with long straight paths
    across the  grid before looping clock-
(9) For specific block configurations with-
    in  the route, routing  patterns should
    be  applied.  (Specific routing patterns
    are available in the third and fourth
    publications listed below.)

            ACT SYSTEMS, INC. Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary. Environ-
                    mental Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
                    Protection Agency, 1974.106 p.
            ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.2. Detailed study and analysis.
                    Environmental'Protectiori Publication SW-97c.3. U.S. Environmental Pro-
                    tection Agency, 1974. 254 p. (Distributed by National Technical Information
                    Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 917.)
            SHUSTER, K. A.  A five-stage improvement process for solid waste collection systems.
                    Environmental Protection Publication SW-131. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                    ment Printing Office, 1974.38 p.
            SHUSTER, K. A., AND D.A. SCHUR. Heuristic routing for solid waste collection vehicles.
                    Environmental Protection Publication SW-113. Washington, U.S. Govern-
                    ment Printing Office, 1974. 45 p.
            User's manual for COLMIS; a collection management information system for solid
                    waste management, v.l. Environmental Protection Publication SW-57c.
                    Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 99 p.

                                  Appendix  B
                Collection Costs and  Productivity
  The cost and productivity tradeoffs faced
by a city official or private  contractor in
operating a collection system are complex.
Preceding papers have attempted to deal
with subsets of these tradeoffs on an issue-
by-issue basis, e.g., point of pickup compar-
isons  can  be  made by holding  all other
variables  constant and comparing the dif-
ference in cost between curbside and back-
yard  collection. This  appendix  discusses
overall collection cost factors,  ranges of cost
elements that  appear to be reasonable, and
the results of a study of costs and productiv-
ity of systems  in 11 cities.

  There are eight key cost factors which
should be examined for every collection op-

  • Depreciated vehicle procurement cost
  • Maintenance cost
  • Consumable items
  • Miscellaneous costs (e.g.,  insurance, li-
    cense fees)


  • Wages
  • Fringe benefits

  • Management and administrative over-
  • Office and garage rental, utilities, and
    supplies, etc.

  While it is difficult to make national esti-
mates of these costs because of wide varia-
tions, broad ranges can be determined.
  The  typical annual  costs  for two- and
three-man crews working with a 20-cubic-
yard rear-loading  vehicle have  been esti-
mated (Table 53).
  Clearly, labor costs (including fringe benef-
its)  account for  the  largest  portion  of
total collection costs (48 to 55 percent). Us-
ing these and similar sample figures, collec-
tion operating officials can begin to identify
deviations in their costs. Many of the stand-
ard factors, e.g., 18 percent for fringe benefits
or  13  percent  for  management and  ad-
ministrative overhead, vary  from  city  to
city. Each city should derive  its own num-
bers for these cost factors where possible.
  Collection cost per ton and collection cost
per service per year are other useful indexes
because they relate costs to a productivity
measure. Since., cost per. ton is the ratio
normally  used to  express processing and
disposal costs, collection cost per ton  is
useful in calculating the overall collection,
processing, and disposal costs for a system.
Cost or price per ton is  also  the measure

                                        TABLE 53
                                CREWS, INCLUDING VEHICLE, 1975
                           Cost elements
       2-man crew   3-man crew
             Depreciated vehicle procurement cost*
             Maintenance cost
             Consumable items:
                Fuel (6,065 gallons x $0.36)
             Miscellaneous (insurance, fees)
             Labor, including 20 percent fringes:
                Driver ($5.00/hbur)
                Helpers) ($4.50/hour)
             Management and administrative
              overhead (30 percent of
              direct labor)




                *Straightrline depreciation over 5 years at 6 percent interest. Vehicle is 20-cubic-
             yard rear loader.
used  for  quoting the market value of re-
claimed materials. Thus, the additional col-
lection  and processing costs  per ton for  a
reclamation  program can be  readily com-
pared to the revenues per tori from recycled
materials and savings per ton in disposal.
The cost per service per year ratio is a more
meaningful figure to the homeowner since  it
tells  him how much solid waste collection
and disposal are costing him.

  Cost constitutes only half of the decision-
making factors in evaluating a  collection
system. Productivity is the other side of the
ledger,  and  an  operating  manager  must
attempt to balance the two sides.
  Several indexes have  been  developed to
show system productivity. Some of  these
are: services/day/truck, services/man/hour,
tons/day/truck,  and  tons/man/hour.  As
can be seen from these measures, crew size,
tonnage collected, and time to  collect are
elements in achieving high productivity.
  Results are available of a study compar-
ing the productivity and costs  of nine curb-
side and two backyard systems with differ-
ent equipment types and crew sizes (Table
54). Overall,  three-man crews  proved to
have  a significantly higher cost. Both the
cost/home/year figures and cost/ton figures
should  be  examined since   the average
weight per service directly affects the num-
ber of services a crew can collect.
  The data for the study was obtained from
the EPA Data Acquisition and Analysis
Program (DAAP) and from time-and-motion
study information from systems in various
parts of the country. The DAAP is similar to
COLMIS  (see Appendix  A).  The figures
shown in Table 54 represent the average
values for four  different routes for each
system. The  DAAP information represents
data  collected each working day  for each
route for  a full year. The time-and-motion
study information represents data collected
for 1  day for each  crew for each quarter of
the year.  The first column presents data
from Utah; the second, from California; the
third,  Michigan;  the  fourth,  Illinois;  the
fifth,  Rhode  Island; the sixth, Illinois;  the
seventh  and eighth, Arizona;  the  ninth,
Florida; the tenth, California; and the elev-
enth, Wisconsin.
  The first section of the table describes the
systems being evaluated. The next section
shows on a percentage basis how the total
man-hours  of  the crew  are  distributed
among activities. Next is a summary of how
much of the crew time is spent on productive
activities:  those  activities  which  must be
performed to pick up the  waste and haul it
away. Transport, for example, is productive
time for the driver but not for ,the collectors,
which penalizes the larger crew sizes. Col-
lecting, driving, riding, walking, and com-
paction times are considered as productive
times. Waiting and other time are nonpro-
  Since many variables affect crew perform-

                                             TABLE 54

Collection policies and methodologies
Curb-alley systems
System number
Collections per week
Crew size
Incentive system
Collection patterns
Vehicle' size (cu yd)
and typet
Backyard systems
Percent of total crew time spent on various collection activities
On route:
Waiting (including
Total productive time






















Route characteristics (daily averages)
Pounds per home
per collection
Number of bags per
home per collection
Number of cans per
home per collection
Number of miscellaneous
items per home
per collection
Collection miles per day
Transport miles per day
Collection hours per day
Transport hours per day
Hours worked per day
Loads per day
Services per day
Tons per day

































On-route productivity
Services per crew
per collection hour
Tons per crew per
collection hour
Services per crewman
per collection hour
Tons per crewman per
collection hour






















Cost efficiency**
Total cost per home
per year
Total cost per ton
• $19.26
    * ACT SYSTEMS, INC. Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary. Environmental Protection Publication
SW-97c.l. [Washington], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
    tRL, rear loader; SL, side loader.
    JNot available.
    §Driving, riding for one-man crews.
    tfNonproductive time.
    **Costs have been normalized across all'l 1 systems to permit intersystem comparisons,- therefore, these figures do
not reflect actual collection costs.

                                        TABLE 55

                             STUDY, SIDE LOADERS AND REAR LOADERS*
Capacity (cu yd)
Side loader
Rear loader
                *ACT  SYSTEMS, INC. Residential collection systems, v.l.  Report summary.
             Environmental Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington], U.S. Environmental
             Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
ance, the  next section is provided to en-
able better comparisons.  For example,  an
important determinant of collection time for
curbside pickup is the percent of one-way
storage (bags and miscellaneous) items ver-
sus cans.
  The  next section shows how productive
the crews are on the route in terms of services
per  man-hour  and  tons  per   man-hour.
These  two variables must  be  considered
jointly,  although the amount of waste tends
to be the major time determinant.
  The last section  shows costs on a service
and tonnage basis.
  In order to enable a better comparison
between equipment types and crew sizes, all
the basic  cost figures were normalized  by
using the average values for the 11 cities
being evaluated. For example,  the procure-
ment costs  of the collection vehicles were
based on average prices paid,  in 1972 dol-
lars (Table  55). The depreciation used was
straight line.over 5 years. Maintenance cost
for the first year was 0.055 multiplied by the
initial cost  of the vehicle. The consumable
cost was actual fuel  and oil consumption
multiplied by $0.17 per gallon  for fuel and
$0.23 per quart for  engine  oil. Wages in
dollars  per  hour were $4.34  for drivers and
$4.15 for collectors. Fringe benefits were 18.3
percent of wages. Personnel overhead was
13.1 percent of wages. The  overtime factor
was 1.5 multiplied by  the hourly wage for
drivers  and collectors,  and insurance and
fees were $100 per month per vehicle.

             ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.l. Report summary. Environ-
                     mental Protection Publication SW-97c.l. [Washington], U.S. Environmen-
                     tal Protection Agency, 1974. 106 p.
             ACT SYSTEMS, INC.  Residential collection systems, v.2. Detailed study and analy-
                     sis. Environmental Protection Publication SW-97c.2. U.S. Environmental
                     Protection Agency, 1974. 254 p. (Distributed by National Technical Infor-
                     mation Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-239 917.)

                                Appendix C
                         Closing Open  Dumps
  Governmental  agencies,  industry,  citi-
zens, and environmental groups should all be
considered in developing a plan to eliminate
a dump and to establish an acceptable sub-
stitute. The plan should provide for inform-
ing everyone about the need for closing the
dump and the procedures  that will be fol-
lowed.  The  plan should also outline the
funding arrangements necessary  to carry
out the operation and the anticipated use of
the closed site. It is often  more feasible to
convert the  dump  into a sanitary landfill
than to establish a new site.


  It is  imperative that the  public, industry,
and municipal agencies be  kept informed of
activities pertaining to  the dump closing.
They are the source of the necessary funds
and their cooperation  is critical to a satis-
factory solid waste disposal program. They
should, therefore, be told:

  • Why the dump is being closed
  • How the job will be done
  • What method of acceptable waste dispo-
    sal will replace the dump
  • What the costs are

  A vigorous public information program is
essential to success,  and  all the various
techniques   of information  dissemination
can be used to help win a favorable press.
Keeping  the public informed  should begin
when the planning starts and continue with
progress reports until the dump is closed
and  the new disposal method is operating

  A dump cannot be closed in a day. The rat
extermination program alone normally re-
quires up to 2 weeks, and extinguishing fires
may take another week. Compacting and
covering may take over 2  months,  depend-
ing upon the size of the dump.
  Open dumping should be stopped before
rat extermination starts, and only author-
ized  personnel should be allowed on the site
during the closing operation. An approved
alternative disposal  site,  with  fixed • and
posted hours of operation, must be estab-
lished for the former users of the dump.

  Rat extermination must  be given special
attention when closing an  active dump. At
an old open dump where the food source has
been exhausted, rats and insects  are unlike-
ly to be  present. Where there is a nearby
food  source, the old dump may still  be used
by rats for harborage. It is necessary, there-
fore,  to establish conclusively the absence of
rats.  If rats are present, an extermination
program must be conducted. If  the dump-
closing operation is improperly  conducted,
the rat problem may be compounded.
  Rats are potential carriers of numerous
diseases; if they are not killed when a dump

 is closed, they may migrate in numbers to
 populated areas in search of food and har-
 borage. At  a minimum, this  would cause
 unfavorable reaction  to the dump closing,
 and the situation would worsen if there were
 a rise in the incidence of rat bites.
  Only trained personnel should be allowed
 to conduct the operations since the improper
 use  of poisons is  dangerous.  The work is
 best done by a pest control specialist or by a
 government  rodent control expert.  Assist-
 ance may be obtained from State and local
 health officials, pest  control  services, the
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, the Center
 for  Disease  Control  of  the  U.S.  Public
 Health Service, or the Office of Solid Waste
 Management Programs.


  Fires at dumps may  be  difficult and ex-
 pensive  to extinguish.  In  some cases the
 burning solid waste may have to be exposed
 and spread out, requiring  the use of heavy
 earth-moving equipment. The operator must
 work very carefully to prevent injuring him-
 self or damaging his equipment. Spreading
 the waste generally allows the fire  to par-
 tially burn itself out, and water can then be
 applied to the smoldering remains. Caution
 must be exercised to  avoid causing water
 pollution through use of excessive quantities
 of water. Fires can usually be  extinguished
 while the rat poisoning program is under-


  Immediately after the rat poisoning and
fire extinguishing, the dump surface should
be graded, compacted, and  covered with at
least 2  feet  of compacted  soil. In closing
large dumps, the rat extermination program
should be maintained  while successive sec-
tions of  the dump are  covered.  To grade,
compact,  and  cover  most dumps,  large
crawler dozers will be  necessary. Either the
trench or the area method is generally used
in closing the dump.
  In the  trench method, wastes are  spread
in thin layers in an excavation, compacted,
and  then covered  with  the excavated soil
(Figure 101. This achieves maximum density
and minimum settlement. The cover materi-
al should be compacted to  keep flies in and
 rats out, and it  should be graded  to keep
 surface water from ponding. The bottom of
 the trench should be kept above the level of
 high ground water.
   The area method also involves spreading
 the wastes in thin layers, compacting it, and
 then covering it with a minimum of 2 feet of
 compacted soil (Figure 11). If the solid waste
 is  spread over  a large  area, it must be
 consolidated and compacted  to reduce  the
 amount  of settlement and cover material
 required. The cover material must be graded
 to avoid ponding of surface water.


   If the dump is in a marshland or an area
 where the ground water or surface waters
 have been  contaminated, remedial  action
. should be taken by removing the solid waste
 from the water "or treating the water. The
 latter step is normally not feasible because
 of the difficulty in collecting  and treating
 contaminated water. The solid  waste and
 water can be separated by  diverting the flow
 of water or by removing the solid waste
 from the watercourse. If necessary,  surface
 streams  may be  relocated and the ground-
 water  level lowered,  but  it is often more
 economical to remove the solid waste from-
 the stream using  draglines.

            COVER MATERIAL

   Cover  material should be selected accord-
 ing to its ability  to limit the  access of vec-
 tors to  the solid waste,  control moisture
 entering the fill, control  the movement of
 gas from the decomposing waste, provide a
 pleasing appearance, control blowing paper,
 and support vegetation.
   Not all soil types perform these functions
 equally well. While the soil is usually select-
 ed from  the types available nearby, consid-
 eration needs' to  be given to  its suitability
 before using it as cover material.
  The  depth of the cover  material depends
 on the use planned for the closed dump and
 the  soil  type. Usually  2 feet of earth is
 sufficient, and it  should be compacted and
 graded to  a slope of  2  percent or greater.
 Proper grading  is important  since it pre-
 vents excessive  soil erosion  and ponding.
 Ponding tends to infiltrate and saturate  the
 fill, resulting in water pollution.

                                      CONSOLIDATED SOLID WASTE
                                                  FORMER GRADE       J  SOIL
                                             ^  EXCAVATED TRENCH J
                           TRANSFERRED AND COMPACTED
                                  SOLID WASTE
                            COMPACTED COVER MATERIAL
                FIGURE 10.  With the trench method of covering a dump, wastes are spread in a
             thin layer in an excavation, compacted, and then covered with the excavated soil,
             compacted, and graded. Source: BRUNNER, D.R., S.J. HUBBARD, D.J. KELLER, and
             J.L. NEWTON. Closing open dumps. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
             1971. 19 p.
  To further reduce erosion, the area should
be seeded  with grass or other vegetation.
Two feet of  soil is usually sufficient for
grass, but more is necessary for shrubs and
trees. If the dump is along  a lake front or
the edge of S'stream, riprap is often required
to prevent water from  eroding the edge of
the cover material.


  A closed dump need not remain an unused
parcel of wasteland. The site may have been
changed from a ravine or gully to a relative-
ly flat area. It is no longer unsightly since it
is covered  with soil and with' grass and
other vegetation. It is almost inevitable that
uneven   settlement will be  extensive, and
recognition of this fact should influence the
ultimate use of the site.
  In general, it is not advisable to construct
buildings over  a closed dump because it
makes a poor foundation. Furthermore,  gas
from the decomposing waste may accumu-
late in explosive concentrations in or  be-
neath  buildings constructed on or adjacent
to the fill. Playgrounds, golf courses, and
similar recreational facilities do not normal-
ly have to support appreciable concentrated
loads,  and converted dumps are often used
for these purposes,  but they  still require
careful planning. Maintenance costs may be
greater for recreational areas constructed on
dumps than  on natural ground because of
excessive and irregular settling and possible
cracking of the cover material.

                                            DUMPED SOLID WASTE

                                                                    FORMER GRADE

                                                                          BORROW AREA
               FIGURE 11. With the area method of coverings dump, wastes are spread in thin
            layers, compacted, and covered with a minimum of 2 feet of compacted soil. Source:
            BRUNNER, D.R., S.J. HUBBARD, D.J.  KELLER, and  J.L. NEWTON. Closing open
            dumps, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 19 p.

            BJORNSON, B. F., H. D. PRATT, and K. S. LJTTIG. Control of domestic rats and mice;
                     training guide—rodent control series. Public Health Service Publication
                     No. 563. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 41 p.
            BRUNNER, D. R., S. J.  HUBBARD, D. J. KELLER, and J. L. NEWTON.  Closing open
                     dumps. Environmental Protection Publication SW-61ts. Washington, U.S.
                     Government Printing Office, 1972. 19 p.
            BRUNNER, D. R.,  and D.  J. KELLER.  Sanitary  landfill design and  operation.
                     Washington,  U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. 59 p.
            CLARK COUNTY, ARKANSAS. A model countywide collection and disposal system for
                     Clark  County, Arkansas. Environmental Protection Publication SW-84d.
                     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  1975. [166 p.]  (Distributed by
                     National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-243 029.)
            JOHNSON, W. H.,  and B. F. BJORNSON.  Rodent eradication and poisoning pro-
                     grams. Atlanta, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964.
                     84  p.
            MALLIS, A.   Handbook of pest control. 3d ed. New York, MacNair-Dorland Com-
                     pany,  1960. 1,132 p.
                     solid waste management. [Washington, U.S.  Government Printing Office,
                     1970.]  20 p.
            NATIONAL COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER. 1970 National Communicable Disease
                     Center report on public health pesticides.  Pest Control, 38(3):15-54, Mar.
            SHERMAN, E. J., and J. E. BROOKS.  Roof rat elimination from a refuse disposal site
                     before closure. California  Vector Views, 13(2):14-15, Feb. 1966.
«U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1976   634-013/116  1-3