iteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
Decision -/Makers
Guide
in Solid Waste
/Management
iteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
-------
o \
a> 9,
°0,
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
I \
o *
O (J
i- *>>
1
criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
5
This guide (SW- 500 ) was prepared by the *
' ~* »•" - ^S
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs 3
5,
~*»
(0
\
Decision-yHakers
Guide
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
-------
Foreword
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
111
-------
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
IV
-------
Contents
PAGE
SUMMARY viii
INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES 1
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
COLLECTION 25
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
TRANSFER STATIONS AND HAULING TO DISPOSAL SITES 70
PROCESSING 75
Baling 75
Shredding 79
Incineration 84
RESOURCE RECOVERY FROM MIXED WASTES 88
Energy Recovery 88
Materials Recovery 98
SANITARY LANDFILLING 109
REDUCING WASTE GENERATION 118
SPECIAL WASTES 122
Hazardous Wastes 122
Hospital Wastes 129
Sewage Sludge 132
Tires 137
Waste Lubricating Oil 142
APPENDICES 146
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
VI
-------
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
vil
-------
l\
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
\
SUMMARY
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, „
3
3
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.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION-MAKING
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
Energy
Materials
Land
• 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
vm
-------
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 MANAGEMENT DECISION ALTERNATIVES
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
~~ 20-30 gallon container*
~~ paper and plastic bogi
— bulli bini
— other
^piggyback colUi
L—separate vehicle
direct haul
transfer station
plruck
Lrail
••barge
SHRED/ BALE
SHRED/ PULP
I incin
e ration 1
ENERGY
RECOVERY/
THERMAL
REDUCTION
| pyro
ysis [
rafut*
at fuel
MATERIALS
RECOVERY
/•»"
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.
IX
-------
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
residues.
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-
straints.
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
xi
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS AND FEASIBILITY OF MAJOR RESOURCE
RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Alternative
Feasibility
Net
operating
cost per
ton*
Sanitary landfill
Conventional
incineration
Small
incinerator
Steam generation
from waterwall
incinerators
Solid waste as fuel
in utility or
industrial boiler
Pyrolysis:
Solid waste
converted into
combustible
gas and oil
Heat recovery
to generate
steam
Materials
recovery:
Newsprint,
corrugated, and
mixed office
papers
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
day.
Technical—feasible.
Economic—cannot economically meet
new air pollution standards.
Technical—feasible.
Economic—varies with particular case.
Technical—several incinerators are in
operation, only 2 are marketing the
steam produced.
Economic—markets for steam are
limited.
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
industry.
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
encountered.
Economic—markets for steam are
limited.
Technical—separate collection, possibly
with baling, is required.
Economic—markets are variable; when
paper prices are high, recovery can be
profitable.
$1.50-$8
$8-$15
$8-$15
$4-$10
$6-$10
$4-$12
$4-$8
(Continued)
Xll
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS AND FEASIBILITY OF MAJOR RESOURCE
RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS— Concluded
Alternative
Mixed paper
fibers
Feasibility
Technical— technology has been
demonstrated at 150-ton-per-day plant
in Franklin, Ohio.
Net
operating
cost per
ton*
$7-$13
Economic—fiber quality from Franklin
plant is low, suitable only for construction
uses.
Quality can be upgraded by further
processing.
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
appropriate.
The following pages (Tables 2-13) present a brief overview of major
issues and the alternatives available in dealing with them, plus the
xui
-------
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 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CURBSIDE/ALLEY AND
BACKYARD COLLECTION, AND CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
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
injuries
Requires more fuel
XIV
-------
TABLES
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL'WASTE STORAGE
CONTAINERS, AND CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR THE USE OF EACH
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Paper or plastic
bags
Metal or plastic
• cans (20- to 30-
gal)
Bulk contain-
ers for
mechanized
collection
Stationary
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
lift
Economical
More efficient than manual
collection
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
None
Curbside collection
Must be cleaned regularly
when not used with liners
Residents oppose storage of
other people's waste on their
property
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
escape
Rust holes at bottom of drum
allow rodents to feed on waste
Inefficient—must be emptied
manually
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
storage
Unacceptable alternative
Unacceptable alternative
XV
-------
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES
OF COLLECTION, AND CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Once per week
Potential
advantages
Less expensive
Requires less fuel
Potential
disadvantages
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
requirements
More than twice Reduces litter in urban areas
per week Reduces storage volume
requirements
More expensive
Requires more fuel
More expensive
Requires more fuel
Quality of service provided
more important criterion than
economics
Warm climate
Seriously restricted storage
space
Dense population
TABLE 5
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOURCE SEPARATION OF
RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FROM SOLID WASTE, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR IT
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
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
recovered
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
XVI
-------
TABLE 6
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF METHODS FOR COLLECTION IN
RURAL AREAS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Disposal by
residents on
their property
Hauling by
residents to
landfills
Centrally
located bulk
containers
No cost to local government
No cost to local government
Operating costs are
relatively low
Promiscuous dumping is
reduced
Public acceptability is high
Sites can be located near users
Mailbox system Collects from largest number
of people
Difficult to monitor and
control
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
landfill
Poses hardship for persons
without means of
transportation
Initial capital cost may be
high
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
service
Residents must remember
collection day
Isolated areas
Landfills are easily
accessible
Roads allow passage of
collection vehicles
"• frw £,**, ^Vl»t.V,l
-------
TABLE 7
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIRECT HAUL TO DISPOSAL SITES AND
USE OF TRANSFER STATIONS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH METHOD
Alternative
Direct haul by
collection trucks
to disposal site
Potential
advantages
Requires no capital
expenditure
Potential
disadvantages
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
available
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
equipment
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
XVlll
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOLID WASTE PROCESSING AND
DISPOSAL METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
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
wastes
Sanitary
landfilling of
baled solid
waste
Sanitary
landfilling of
shredded solid
waste
Extends life of landfill (double
that of a fill for unprocessed
wastes)
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
pollution
Production of methane gas can
constitute a fire or explosion
hazard
Obtaining adequate cover
material may be difficult
Resource recovery is precluded
once bale is formed
Leachate may create water
pollution
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
noise
Leachate may create water
pollution
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
obtain
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
(Continued)
XIX
-------
TABLE 8
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOLfD WASTE PROCESSING AND
DISPOSAL METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Materials
recovery
systems
Energy
recovery
systems
Less land required for solid
waste disposal
High public acceptance
Lower disposal costs may
result through sale of
recovered materials and
reduced landfilling
requirements
Landfill requirements can be
reduced
Finding a site for an energy
recovery plant may be easier
than finding a site for a
landfill or conventional
incinerator
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
favorable
Technology for many
operations still new, not fully
proven
Requires markets for
recovered materials
High initial investment
required for some techniques
Materials must meet
specifications of purchaser
Requires markets for energy
produced
Most systems will not accept
all types of wastes
Specific needs of the energy
market may dictate
parameters of the system
design
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
proven
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
XX
-------
TABLE 9
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Borrowing:
General
obligation
bonds
Potential
advantages
One of the most flexible and
least costly public borrowing
methods
Potential
disadvantages
Requires voter approval, and
elections may be expensive
Conditions which
favor alternative
Size of community is small or
medium
Municipal
revenue
bonds
Requires no technical or
economic analysis of
particular projects to be
funded
Small projects may be grouped
to obtain capital
Least difficult to market
Bank loans
Projected revenues guarantee
payment
Can be used by institutions
lacking taxing power, such as
regional authorities and
nonprofit corporations
Does not require voter
approval
Is not constrained by
municipality's debt
limitations
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
bank
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
$500,000
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
projects
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
/Continued)
XXI
-------
TABLE 9
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL FINANCING
METHODS, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Bank loans
(cont.)
Leasing
Essentially no minimum
Relatively inexpensive
Voter approval generally not
required
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
made
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
limited
Lease terms are generally 5
years or less
Some States prohibit
municipalities from entering
multiyear, noncancellable
contracts
C ity will not own asset unless
it purchases facility upon
completion of lease period
Equipment needed before
appropriations available
Municipality has good credit
rating
Current revenue Least complex mechanism No cost in the conventional Amount of capital necessary is
capital
financing
available
No consultant or legal advice
required
No need for formal financial
documents
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
demands
Private
financing
Municipality need not borrow
capital
Provides long-term flexibility
for municipality
Leveraged
leasing
Reduces demand on municipal
capital funds
Interest rate on entire
financial package may be
lower than general obligation
bonds
Municipality must locate
acceptable firm and negotiate
contract
Higher cost of capital reflected
in system charges
There may be legal
constraints which prevent
signing of long-term contract
Displacement of city-
employees
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.
XX11
-------
TABLE 10
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TAXES AND USER CHARGES AS SOURCES
OF OPERATING REVENUES, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Property tax
Sales tax
Municipal
utility tax
Special tax
levies
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
required
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
operations
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
operation
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
XX111
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF MULTIJURISDICTIONAL APPROACHES
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Authority
Nonprofit
public
corporations
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
constraints
Can generate income to make
service self-supporting
Capital financing is tax
exempt
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
approval
Special districts
Governmental
agreements
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
officials
Difficult to dismantle even if
better service can be provided
by other sources
Financing is not backed by full
faith and credit of
community
Member communities lose
some autonomy
Ability to raise capital
depends on lead community's
debt capacity and financing
strength
Lead community can be hurt
financially unless contracts
with other communities are
written properly
Powers limited by State
statute
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
complex
XXIV
-------
TABLE 12
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
AND OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Public:
Municipal
department
Private:
Private
firms with
contract
from govern-
mental unit
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Economies of scale
City has administrative
control
Can institute separate
collection for recycling
Can institute mandatory
collection
• Management and policies are
continuous over time,
resulting in experienced
personnel and permitting
long-range planning
Records can be kept over a long
time
Competitive bidding for
contracts) helps keep prices
down
City retains administrative
control
Can institute separate
collection for recycling
Can institute mandatory
collection
Private
firms in
open compe-
tition
Monopolistic
Lack of incentive to maximize
efficiency
[Financing
often influenced by political
constraints
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
strikes
Restrictive budget policies
may affect equipment
replacement and maintenance
Policies of job-support inflate
labor costs
Competition may reduce costs
Self-financing
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
economics
Public agency must regulate
contractors
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
contractors
Public predisposition towards
private sector involvement in
public services
Newly incorporated
communities, or where
population growth is
outpacing ability of
community to provide public
services
City has no administrative
control
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
fuel
Cannot institute citywide
separate collection for
recycling
Difficult to enforce mandatory
collection ordinances
Unacceptable alternative
(Continued)
XXV
-------
TABLE 12
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TYPES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION OF COLLECTION SERVICES, AND THE CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH—Concluded
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Private
firms with
exclusive
franchises
Self-financing
Combination of
public and
private:
Municipal
system and
private
firms under
contract
Competition
between
municipal
system and
private
firms
Competition helps keep price
down
Alternative available if either
sector cannot deliver service
City has administrative
control
Can institute separate
collection for recycling
Can institute mandatory
collection
Competition helps keep prices
down
City has no administrative
control
Monopolistic, can lead to high
prices
Cannot institute separate
collection for recycling
Difficult to enforce mandatory
collection ordinances
Unacceptable alternative
Municipality is expanding
through annexation or
merger with other
jurisdictions
Changing from separate
garbage and trash collection to •
combined collection
Overlapping routes, waste of
fuel
Can't institute citywide
separate collection for
recycling
Lack of mandatory collection
Unacceptable alternative
XXVI
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
AND OPERATION OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, AND THE
CONDITIONS THAT FAVOR EACH TYPE OF OPERATION
Alternative
Potential
advantages
Potential
disadvantages
Conditions which
favor alternative
Public
Tax-free
Nonprofit
Can obtain low-interest rates
and/or government grants for
capital-intensive systems
Private
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
expertise
Restrictive budget policies
may affect equipment
replacement and
maintenance
Community may have no
control of fees if only privately
operated facilities are
available
Operator may base decisions
on basis of financial reward
rather than community needs
Legal constraints may prevent
city from signing long-term
contract
Displacement of city
employees
Municipality must locate
acceptable firm and
negotiate contract
Public predisposition towards
government operation of
public'services
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
available
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
facilities
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
products
Desire to bypass civil service
regulations
XXVll
-------
\.
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
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?"
ALTERNATIVES
Residential collection service is most fre-
quently provided through one of four basic
arrangements:
• 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-
ment.
• 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.
COSTS
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
costs.
The question of whether costs are lower
under either municipal or private operation
should be evaluated by each community.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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
waste.
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,
tern.
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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
Programs.
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
haulers.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS. Public regu-
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.]
NATIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND SOLID WASTE MANAGE-
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.
ALTERNATIVES
The institutional alternatives available
range from totally public to totally private
ownership and operation with variations in
between.
• 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
waste.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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-
ing.
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-
nance.
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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-
cility.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Practical guidelines for acquisition of resource recovery systems. Bedford,
Mass., MITRE Corporation, Mar. 1975. 148 p., app. (Unpublished
report.)
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
AUTHORITIES
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
self-supporting.
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
exempt.
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
self-serving.
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-
reaucracy.
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
rendered.
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
service.
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-
10
-------
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
fee.
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-
feasible.
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Authorities
Advantages:
• • 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.
Disadvantages:
• Financing is administratively complex.
• Can become remote from government or
public control, thus may become self-
serving.
• Can compete with private industry in
some areas of operation, reducing the
efficiency of both.
Nonprofit Public Corporations
Advantages:
• Financing is outside government debt
limits and can be obtained without voter
approval.
• Corporation gives assets to cities after
bonds are paid.
• No real estate or Federal taxes, and
capital financing is tax exempt.
Disadvantages:
• 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
Advantages:
• 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.
Disadvantages:
• Member communities lose some autono-
my in locating waste disposal sites, set-
11
-------
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
communities,
Special Districts
Advantages:
• 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.
Disadvantages:
• 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
Advantages:
• 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
money.
• If agreements are not formalized in de-
tail through a contract or other mecha-
nism, misunderstandings may arise
later.
• Since there is no single corporate body
all participants must reach agreement
each time a new issue arises.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
12
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
X
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-
13
-------
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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
implementation.
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-
14
-------
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
container.
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
user.
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
necessary.
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
users.
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
15
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
fostered.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
16
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
The basic sources of capital considered
here are these:
1. Borrowing:
General obligation bonds
Municipal revenue bonds
Bank loans
Leasing
2. Current revenue capital financing
3. Private financing:
Industrial revenue and pollution
control revenue bonds
Leveraged leasing
Borrowing
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-
munities.
The transaction costs attendant upon the
issuance of GO bonds impose a benchmark
17
-------
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
bond.
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
purposes.
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
18
-------
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
equipment.
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
crdiary
Operating company
Supplies 60-80%
of capital at market
Loan
Debt service
payments
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
Service
Equipment
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.)
19
-------
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
asset.
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
14).
ADVANTAGES AND CONSTRAINTS
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
capital
• Ideal mechanism for small and medium-
sized communities
• Least difficult to market
Constraints:
• Requires voter approval, and elections
may be expensive
• Must not exceed municipality's debt
limit
• 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
risks
• 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
operators
Municipal Revenue Bonds
Advantages:
• 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
Constraints:
• Effective minimum issue is $1 million,
thus only useful for capital-intensive
projects
• 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
Advantages:
• 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
20
-------
TABLE 14
CHARACTERISTICS OF CAPITAL FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES *
Types of financing
Parameter
Complexity of
application
Ability to
raise capital
Cost of capital
Constraints on use
General obligation
bonds
No project informa-
tion required
No project analysis
required
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
project
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
required
Legal debt ceiling
may exist
Can only be used by
jurisdictions with
taxing powers
Municipal revenue
bonds
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
transaction/admin-
istrative costs
In pure form, not
suited for technologi-
cally risky projects
Maximum is function
of projected project
revenues
Somewhat higher
than general obliga-
tion bond
Is directly related to
the probability of
maintaining adequate
revenue
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
agency
Requires stable, long-
term source of reve-
nue
Municipal bank
loans
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
needs
Maximum limited by
lending capacity of
bank
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
term
Shorter loan terms
than bonds
Smaller dollar
amounts than bonds
Leasing
Relatively simple
Minimal analysis
required
Very short lead time
Good for small short-
term (5-year) loans
Applicable to specific
pieces of equipment,
especially rolling
stock
High effective annual
interest (9-18 per-
cent)
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
alternatives
Current revenue often
not available in
amounts necessary
for major capital
expenditures
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
firm
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-
pality
Could be lowered
through mechanisms
like industrial reve-
nue bond or leveraged
leasing
Legal constraint
against communities
signing long-term
noncancellable con-
tracts
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
required
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
Constraints:
• Low maximum
• Short term
• Not useful for capital-intensive proj-
ects
Leasing
Advantages:
•. Useful as interim financing for equip-
ment needed before appropriations or
long-term capital arrangements can be
made
• Reduces demand on municipal capital
outlays since original capital is raised
by private corporation
• Negotiating agreement is simple and
fast
• Only certification required is assurance
of municipality's credit standing
Constraints:
• 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
contracts
• City will not own asset unless it pur-
chases facility upon completion of leas-
ing period
Current Revenue Capital Financing
Advantages:
• Least complex mechanism available
• No need for formal financial documents
• No consultant or legal advice required
Constraints:
• 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
Advantages:
• Municipality need not borrow capital
• Provides long-term flexibility for mu-
nicipality
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-
ployees
Leveraged Leasing
Advantages:
• Reduces demand on municipal capital
funds
• Interest rate on entire financial pack-
age may be lower than GO bond rates
Constraints:
• Legally complex
• City will not own asset unless it pur-
chases facility upon completion of lease
period
COMPARATIVE COSTS
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
22
-------
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).
CONCLUSIONS
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
EXAMPLE OF COSTS TO FINANCE $10 MILLION THROUGH GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND,
MUNICIPAL REVENUE BOND, AND REVENUE BOND AND LEVERAGED LEASING*
(in thousands)
Item
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
Total
Net proceeds to city
Yearly cost to city §
Effective debt service rate fl
General
obligation
bond (5.7%)
00
Jj>iJ
150
5
10
18
8
6
30
—
—
t
$ 230
$9,770
$ 848
8.7%
Municipal
revenue
bond (6.25%)
$5
250
7
10
40
8
6
40
60
817
—
$1,238
$8,762
$ 883
10%
Revenue bond/
leveraged
leasingf
(4.88%)
$5
170
7
11
30
8
6
35
60
572
—
$ 904
$9,096
$ 788
8.6%
* 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.
23
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
24
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
COLLECTION
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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
place.
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.
COSTS
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).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption for residential packer
trucks is as much a function of time (hours
25
-------
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
COST FOR ONCE-A-WEEK COLLECTION USING 2-MAN CREWS, BY POINT OP COLLECTION
AND INCENTIVE SYSTEM IN 4 CITIES, 1973*
City
1
2
3
4
Incentive
system
Task
Task
8 hours
8 hours
Point of
collection
Curb/alley
Backyard
Curb/alley
Backyard
Cost per
tonf
$9.53
19.26
8.72
18.41
Percent
difference
65
*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
TRUCK AND FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN AREA OF 10,000 HOMES, BY COLLECTION
FREQUENCY, POINT OF COLLECTION, AND LENGTH OF WORKWEEK *f
Once per
5-day
Back-
yard
week
Curb-
side
week
0-day
Back-
yard
Twice per week
week
Curb-
side
5-day
week
Back- Curb-
yard side
6-day
Back-
yard
week
Curb-
side
12
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.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) All systems use three-man crews.
(8) All systems use same routing pattern.
26
-------
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-
ment.
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
recognized.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
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.
27
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
COSTS
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).
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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
28
-------
TABLE 18
COST OF CUKBSIDE COLLECTION BY FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION AND CREW SIZE,
IN FOUR CITIES, 1973*f
City
1
2
3
4
Crew
size
1
1
3
3
Frequency of
collection
1
2
1
2
Cost per
tonj
$8.29
13.48
12.82
14.67
Percent
difference
39
13
* 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
acceptable.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
29
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
There are five main categories of contain-
ers:
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
chapter.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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
emptied.
For these reasons it is recommended that
the use of stationary bins be discontinued.
30
-------
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.
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-
erty.
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
31
-------
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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-
ter.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
32
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
ADVANTAGES
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
service.
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.
DISADVANTAGES
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).
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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
nondegradables.)
2. Although the widespread use of bags
will increase the amount of material
entering the solid waste stream, the in-
34
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
35
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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
36
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
37
-------
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-
tions.
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.
QUANTITY OF PAPER OBTAINABLE
THROUGH SOURCE SEPARATION
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,
38
-------
TABLE 19
COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE, AS DISCARDED,
UNITED STATES, 1973*f
Amount
Component (millions of tons)
Paper
Newspaper
Corrugated
Office paper
Other
Glass
Ferrous metals
Nonferrous metals
Food waste
Yard waste
Other
Total
44.2
8.0
11.8
5.4
19.0
13.2
11.0
1.4
22.4
25.0
17.2
134.8
Percent of total
32.8
6.0
9.0
4.0
14.1
9.9
8.2
1.0
16.6
18.5
12.8
100.0
* 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
excluded.
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-
diction.
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.
METHODS OF SEPARATE PAPER COLLECTION
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-
hicle.
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,
however.
39
-------
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-
taneously.
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
40
-------
FRAME OF 1/8" X 2" X 2" L ANGLE IRON
r 2' 4 3/8"
1/8" FLAT STOCK
SIDE AND BOTTOM
WELDED TO FRAME
3/4" FLAT WIRE MESH
WELDED TO V X 5' DOOR
FRAME AND HINGED TO
RACK FRAME WITH PIANO HINGE
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
WORKS, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.
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-
41
-------
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-
tainers.
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
option.
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.
COSTS
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,
42
-------
TABLE 20
IMPACT OF SEPARATE COLLECTION, USING THE SEPARATE TRUCK METHOD, ON OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS IN 10 CITIES*
Case study
location
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)
Cost
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.
$12.10
13.50
36.00
38.70
27.20
23.10
32.40
14.70
13.50
26.30
$11.60
14.10
38.70
37.70
27.40
25.30
32.20
14.90
13.40
26.50
-4.1
+4.4
+7.5
-2.6
+0.7
+9.5
-0.6
+1.4
-0.8
+0.8
$9.30
11.80
36.50
37.10
26.30
24.10
31.60
13.10
12.40
25.20
-23.1
-12.6
+1.4
-4.1
-3.3
+4.3
-2.5
-10.9
-8.1
-5.7
* 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
IMPACT OF SEPARATE COLLECTION, USING THE RACK METHOD, ON OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS IN THREE CITIES*
Case study
location
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)
Cost
% change Cost
% change
Madison, Wis.
New York, N.Y.f
Sheboygan, Wis.
f22.30
53.50
32.00
$22.00
53.40
31.80
-1.3
-0.2
-0.6
$20.50
53.501
31.50
-8.1
0
-1.6
* 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
43
-------
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.
SEPARATE COLLECTION SUCCESS FACTORS
Markets
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
newsprint.
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
44
-------
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
cities.
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.
Scavengers
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
ordinance.
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
threatened.
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
45
-------
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
diminish.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
encouraging.
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
46
-------
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.
100-J-
90-
80-4-
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
>N (BOWIEI
• N (GREAT NECK)
N (WEST HARTFORDI
IBRIARCLIFF MANOR)
IN IHEMPSTEAD)
IP (MARBLEHEAD)
• P (FORT WORTHI
IDAUASI
• VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
• MANDATORY PROGRAM
N NEWSPAPER
P MIXED PAPER
• N (GREEN BAYI
S-
IP (VILLA PARK)
16 20 24 28 32 36
PROGRAM DURATION (months)
40
48
FIGURE 4. Participation in source separation tends to rise with lengthening
program duration. Source: SCS ENGINEERS, Analysis of source separate col-
lection, 1974.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
47
-------
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
trucks.
ALTERNATIVES
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
RECOMMENDED CREW SIZE AND VEHICLE TYPE FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION BY POINT OF COLLECTION AND HOUSING DENSITY
Housing density
Point of collection
Suburban
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
or
Satellite vehicles
Two men using a side-loader
with low step-in cab
or
For very heavy waste loads,
three men using a rear-load-
ing vehicle with a low step-in
cab
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
49
-------
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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-
tion.
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
vehicles.
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-
60
-------
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
vehicles.
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
fees
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
listed.
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
factors:
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
TYPICAL RANGES IN PACKER TRUCK PRICES
(INCLUDING CHASSIS), 1975
Standard sizes
(cu yd)
Prices
Rear loaders:
16-25
20*
Side loaders: 16-37
Front loaders: 24-41
Roll-off: 35,000 lb-75,000 Ib
$20,000-$45,000
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.
51
-------
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
maintenance.
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:
Diesel
Gasoline'
Backyard service:
Diesel
Gasoline
Gallons per hour
2.38
2.78
1.35
1.72
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)
Tires
Maintenance and repair:
Parts
Labor
Insurance and fees
Total
$ 6,900
2,180
480
1,680
1,600
2,400
3,000
$18,240
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
52
-------
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
931.)
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
590.)
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.
STRAGIER, M. G. [SCOTTSDALE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.] Mechanized resi-
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.
63
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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
compactors.
FIGURE 5. Bulk containers can be emptied mechanically into a rear-loading
compactor truck (as shown) or a side loader.
54
-------
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
hopper.
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
common.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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.
65
-------
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
accidents.
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.
56
-------
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.
COMPARATIVE COSTS
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
24).
TABLE 24
TYPICAL YEARLY COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL COLLECTION
WITH REAR LOADER AND 2-MAN CREW*
Item
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
Consumables:
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
26).
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
TYPICAL YEARLY COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL COLLECTION
WITH FRONT LOADER AND DRIVER-OPERATOR*
Item
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.
67
-------
TABLE 26
TYPICAL YEARLY COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL COLLECTION
WITH TILT-FRAME (ROLL-OFF) TRUCK AND DRIVER-
OPERATOR*
Item
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
$44,293-j-9,750tons/yeart=$4.54/ton
* 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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
58
-------
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
situation.
ALTERNATIVES
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-
lation.
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
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
69
-------
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
CHARACTERISTICS OP RURAL BULK BIN COLLECTION SYSTEMS BY TYPE OF VEHICLE USED*
Item
Crew size
Front-loading
One driver-collector
Vehicle type
Rear-loading
One driver, one to
Side-loading
One driver, one or two
Typical container
servicing time
Container site
development
Container sizes
Site maintenance
Typical packer
body sizes
Types of wastes
collected
Vehicle flexibility
1 to 2 min
Requires pull-off area
from main road, with
gravel or paved surface
common
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
collectors
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
surface
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
collection
* 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.
60
-------
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
EXAMPLES OF RURAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS
Location
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
Estimated
population
47,000
17,000
14,000
14,000
13,800
40,000
30,000
11,702
10,000
7,290
10,000
9,500
3,680
3,000
2,300
2,250
1,016
50,000
17,218
8,796
17,014
9,500
Number
of con-
tainers
t
91
t
170
137
t
335
142
20
2
5
10
70
126
146
14
39
17
10
20
11
12
72
78
7
97
70
134
23
128
17
110
Size of
container
(cu yd)
4
4
4
5,6
3,4,6
8
20
40
3
4
4
4
§12
10
10
§10
§12
§4
§12
6
4
30
6
1FB
6
8
4
6
4
Collec-
tions
per week
1
3
1
1-2
1-2
1
2
3
2
2-3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1-2
2
2-3
2
2
3
Nnmber of
persons per
cu yd
storage
16
14
17
7
6
12
9
10
7
11
4
7
3
4
26
17
4
14
5
Number
of
trucks
14
2
3
1
1
9
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
**
2
1
2
Size of
trucks
(cu yd)
16-23
30
20
30
30
23
30
30
42
roll-off
23
20
25
20
20
20
10
16
20
16
20
30
roll-off
roll-off
30
31
30
30
Initial
capital
cost •
$240,OOOJ
68,000
48,000
62,700
55,900
106,000
310,000
76,058
221,849
60,695
49,787
66,000
t
38,400J
17.540J
50,900t
t
t
141,200
105,465
68,310
93,086
* 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.
61
-------
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
degree.
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,
62
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT or PUBLIC WORKS and GARRETSON-ELMENDORF-
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
468.)
63
-------
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.
INCENTIVE SYSTEMS
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
64
-------
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-
cent)
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,
65
-------
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.
TRAINING
ASSIGNMENT OF CREWS AND ROUTES
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
66
-------
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.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT
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-
able.
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.
SAFETY
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
67
-------
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
work.
UNIONIZATION AND LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
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
unionism.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
68
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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,
SW-124.of.)
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.]
69
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
\
\
TRANSFER STATIONS AND HAULING
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.
ALTERNATIVES
Barging
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
70
-------
near future except in very specialized ap-
plications.
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
doors.
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
71
-------
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
designer.
COSTS
Barging
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.
72
-------
.COLLECTION TRUCK
TRANSFER TRAILER
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
ROUNDTRIP TRANSPORT TIME IN MINUTES
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
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
0.080
0.050
0.130
0.087
0.301
0.060
0.150
0.050
0.200
0.107
0.303
0.015
* 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.
73
-------
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF TRANSFER STATIONS
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-
ment.
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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
crews.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
74
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation.
\
PROCESSING
\
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, n
1$
Baling
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
COST
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
75
-------
TABLE 29
ECONOMICS FOR THE TWO EPA BALING PROJECTS, 1975
Item
Capacity (tons per day)
Capital costs
Operating costs per ton
Baling
Hauling to balefill
Disposal
Total costs per ton
San Diego
78*
$1.50/tonJ
5.93§
1.42**
0.35**
$9.20
St. Paul
425f
Not available
4.10ff
1.29ft
0.99ft
$6.38
* 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
utilities.
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
below.
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.
76
-------
TABLE 30
PROJECTED ECONOMICS FOR OTHER MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BALERS, 1975*
Item
Cobb County, Chadron,
Ga. Neb.
Omaha
Atlanta
Design capacity (tons)
Capital costs per tonf
Operating costs per tonj
Total costs per ton
300 /day
$2.00
4.20
$6.20
20 /hr
—
$4.27
—
400 /day
$3.70
3.00
$6.70
500 /day
$1.65
4.25
$5.90
* 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.
ADVANTAGES
• 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-
nomical.
• 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.
DISADVANTAGES
• 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 CONSIDERATIONS
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-
77
-------
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
weighed.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
78
-------
Shredding
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
comminution.
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.
COSTS
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 per.day.),. 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
79
-------
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.
EQUIPMENT
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
processing.
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
80
-------
TABLE 31
CATEGORIES OF SOLID WASTE AND ESTIMATED MINIMUM HORSEPOWER REQUIRED
TO SHRED
Category of waste
Composition
Minimum
horsepower
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
indicated.
ADVANTAGES
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
dump.
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
81
-------
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.
DISADVANTAGES
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.
Fires
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-
82
-------
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.
Explosions
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
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
83
-------
Incineration
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
further.
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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) .
84
-------
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-
able.
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.
COSTS
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.
85
-------
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Incineration in General
Advantages :
• Solid waste is reduced in weight and
volume, and this extends the useful
life of the available land disposal facil-
ities.
• 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.
Disadvantages:
• 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
Advantages:
• 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).
Disadvantages:
• 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
units.
CONCLUSIONS
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
technologies.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
p.32-64.
86
-------
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.)
87
-------
l\
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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
pressure.
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
88
-------
TABLE 32
LOCATION AND STATUS OF ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS
BY TECHNOLOGY TYPE AND ENERGY PRODUCT, 1975
Energy product
Technology
Electricity
Waterwall
incineration:
Burning of —
unprocessed
solid waste
Pulped or Hempstead, N.Y.**
shredded
solid
waste
Processing for St. Louis, Mo.t
use as supple- Ames, Iowa§
mental fuel Bridgeport, Conn.§
for boilers Chicago, Ill.§
Steam (other
than for
generating
electricity)
Braintree, Mass.t
Nashville, Tenn.f
Saugus, Mass.§
Hamilton, Ontariot
Solid fuel
(other than for
producing steam
or electricity)
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Palmer Town-
ship, Pa.**
Gaseous fuel
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Liquid
fuel
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Milwaukee, Wis.**
Monroe Co., N.Y.**
New Britain, Conn.**
Pyrolysis
Baltimore,
South Charleston,
W. Va.*t
San Diego,
Calif.§
Methane
recovery:
From
sanitary
landfills
Controlled
digestion
Direct combus-
tion/gas
turbine
Los Angeles, —
Calif.*t
Menlo Park, Calif.*} Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Los Angeles, Calif.*+
Mountain View,
Calif.*
Pompano Beach,
Fla.*
Not
applicable
—
—
Not
applicable
'Research or experimental operations.
tSystem in operation.
fin shakedown.
§Under construction.
** Construction not yet started, but system has been selected.
TABLE 33
CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITY OF WATERWALL INCINERATORS PRODUCING
AND SELLING STEAM, IN OPERATION OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION, 1975
Site
Braintree, Mass.
Nashville, Tenn.*
Saugus. Mass.
Startup
date
1971
1974
1976
Total
capital cost
$2,500,000
18,500,000
38,200,000
Capacity
(tons of
waste
per day)
240
720
1,200
Capital
cost per
ton of
capacity
$10,400
25,700
29,200
*System also distributes-chilled water.
89
-------
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-
tems.
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-
tion.
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
Company.
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
market.
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
90
-------
TABLE 34
CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITY OF SYSTEMS PRODUCING
PREPARED WASTES AS A SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL FOR USE
IN UTILITY BOILERS, 1975
Site
Ames, Iowa
Bridgeport, Conn.
Chicago, 111.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Monroe Co., N.Y.
New Britain, Conn.
St. Louis, Mo.
(expansion of
pilot operation)
Startup
date
1975'
1976
1976
1977
1978
9
1977
Total
capital
cost (in
millions)
$5.5
32
16
14*
30*
30
90
Capacity
(tons of
waste
per day)
200
1,200
1,000
1,200
2,000
1,200
8,000
Capital
cost per
ton of
capacity
$27,500
26,666
16,000
11,666
15,000
25,000
11,250
*Does not include retrofitting of boilers and storage facilities for the solid waste.
TABLE 35
CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITY OF PYROLYSIS UNITS
IN OPERATION OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION, 1975
Site
Baltimore, Md.*
South Charleston,
W. Va.
San Diego County,
Calif*
Energy
product
Steam
Gaseous fuel
Liquid fuel
Startup
date
1975
1974
1976
Total
capital
cost
$16,000,000
9
9,600,000
Capacity
(tons of
waste
per day)
1,000
200
200
Capital
cost per
ton of
capacity
$16,000
9
48,000
*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
91
-------
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-
ing.
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
generator.
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.
MARKETING CONSIDERATIONS
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
energy.
• 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.
92
-------
• 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
gas.
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
distance.
• 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
available.
• Operating schedule: steam generation
facility must operate on a schedule
consistent with the customers' operating
schedules.
• Availability of waste: sufficient waste
must be assured to meet steam output
commitment.
• 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
impeded.
• 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
considerations.
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-
93
-------
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
category.
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT
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
methods.
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
considered.
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT
SUCCESS FACTORS
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.
94
-------
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-
bined.
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
reasonable.
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.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
ENERGY RECOVERY
Advantages
In addition to easing energy shortages,
energy recovery offers the following advan-
tages over conventional waste management
methods:
• 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
95
-------
TABLE 36
ESTIMATES OF THE POTENTIAL GROSS REVENUES FOR MATERIALS
RECOVERED FROM A TON OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN A
MECHANICAL PROCESSING FACILITY
Product
Glass
Ferrous metal
Aluminum
Other nonferrous metal
Total
Percent
in total
waste
input*
9.9
8.2
0.7
0.3
19.1
Percent
recov-
ered
70
95
60
80
—
Recovery
as percent
of total
waste
input
6.93
7.80
0.42
0.24
15.39
Esti-
mated
gross
price
per tont
$16
50
300
350
—
Approximate
potential
gross
revenue
per ton of
solid waste
$1.10
3.90
1.26
.84
$7.10
*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
energy.
• 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
disposal.
• 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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
96
-------
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
decision-making.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
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.
97
-------
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
systems.
ALTERNATIVES
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.
ADVANTAGES
A community can receive the following
benefits through implementation of a mate-
rials recovery system.
98
-------
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-
rials.
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.
DISADVANTAGES AND RISKS
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.
99
-------
PREREQUISITES TO SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION
Markets
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.
Shredding
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-
ties.
TYPES OF RECOVERY ACTIVITIES
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
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
100
-------
of composting is well advanced, and there
are no real technological barriers to making
compost.
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
cans.
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.
101
-------
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
used.
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.
EPA PILOT SYSTEMS
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
102
-------
Magnetic Separator
Heavy Fraction
Glass and
Aluminum
Recovery
System
Fiber Recovery
System
Fluid Bed
Incinerator
Inorganic
Residue
5.6 tons
(landfilled)
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.
103
-------
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
standards.
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
10U
-------
TABLE 37
QUANTITY, QUALITY, PURCHASERS, AND PRICES OF MATERIALS
RECOVERED FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AT THE
FRANKLIN, OHIO, PILOT PLANT*
Product
Ferrous
metals
Amount recov-
ered as approxi-
mate 'percent of
incoming solid
waste (dry
weight basis)
9
Quality
Roughly equivalent to
a No. 2 bundle
Generally free of
Purchaser
Armco Steel
Company,
Middletown,
Ohio
Price
per
tont
$13-25
nonmetallics
Density may need to
be upgraded
Paper 20 Generally considered
fiber a lower grade paper
fiber
Color, grease, and
bacterial contaminants
are similar to those
of mixed wastepaper
but fibers are longer
and there is less
shrinkage
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
25-65
Various glass
bottle manu-
facturing plants
in the area
12-20
Alumi- 0.3 Quality varies at
num present
Development work
still underway
Aluminum
industry
200
*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
105
-------
TABLE 38
PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS FOR FRANKLIN-TYPE
WET-PULPING PLANTS WITH CAPACITIES OF
150, 500, AND 1,000 TONS PER DAY, 1975*
Component
Weighing and receiving
Pulping, separation, and dewatehng
Fluid bed incinerator
Fiber recovery
Total
150 TPD
$254,800
876,400
938,000
712,600
$2,781,800
Facility size
500 TPD
$1,103,000
4,289,000
3,291,000
1,912,000
$10,595,000
1,000 TPD
$2,051,000
7,987,000
6,133,000
3,551,000
$19,722,000
•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
PROJECTED NET COSTS PER TON FOR FRANKLIN-TYPE
WET-PULPING PLANTS WITH CAPACITIES OF
150, 500, AND 1,000 TONS PER DAY, 1975*
Facility Size
Costs
150 TPD
500 TPD 1,000 TPD
Facility expenset
Operating expenses
Total expenses
$9.34
15.22
$10.46
9.96
$9.73
9.32
24.56
20.42
19.05
Income per ton of waste processed::):
Paper fiber
Ferrous metal
Sludge disposal
Total income
Net cost
8.06
2.40
1.75
$12.21
$12.35
8.06
2.40
1.75
$12.21
$8.21
8.06
2.40
1.75
$12.21
$6.84
•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-
106
-------
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
CONCLUSIONS
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-
palities.
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-
107
-------
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
108
-------
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation,
!\
1
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-
pacted.
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
variables:
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
time.
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
109
-------
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.
COSTS
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
110
-------
$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
SANITARY LANDFILL' PERMIT APPLICATION COSTS,
BY DESIGN CAPACITY OF SITE, 1975
(In thousands of dollars)
Design capacity in tons per day
Item
Engineering design*
Survey
Borings
Legal work
40
12
6
5
4
100
18.
8
8
6
300
25
10
15
10
Greater
than
300
30+
10
25
• 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
Sitel
(50TPD)
Site 2
(150TPD)
Site 3
(300 TPD)
Item
Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost
(in per (in per (in per
thousands) ton thousands) ton thousands) ton
Planning and
design
Site development -
Facilities
Equipment
Total
'$20
16
52t
329
$411
$0.10
.05
.26
1.64
$2.05
$16
• * ;
7+.
226
$250
$0.07
.03
1.02
$1.12
$130
624*
241
1,033
$2,028
$0.06
.30
.12
.50
$0.98
'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
expenses)
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
ill
-------
TABLE 42
APPROXIMATE SANITARY LANDFILL EQUIPMENT PRICES, 1975
Type
Track loader
Track dozer
Wheel loader
Wheel dozer
Compactor
Weight (tons)
8-11
12-16
21-23
33
7-12
14-20
26-32
41-42
51
5-15
16-27
30-34
53-58
70-100
17-18
28-33
3547
72
11-19
20-33
38-40
Approximate
price
$33,000
50,000
78,000
120,000
30,000
75,000
115,000
170,000
240,000
45,000
90,000
120,000
178,000
275,000
65,000
115,000
147,000
250,000
65,000
115,000
140,000
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.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
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.
112
-------
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
water.
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.
Equipment
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-
113
-------
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
possible.
• Minimize the rate and extent of later
settlement.
• Minimize leachate production and flow
by eliminating voids and decreasing
permeability.
• 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-
114
-------
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-
ered.
Facilities
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
house.
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,
the.city 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
115
-------
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.
Regionalization
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
116
-------
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA, and ENVIRO ENGINEERS, INC. An
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.
117
-------
f\
l\
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.
OPTIONS IN WASTE REDUCTION
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.
IMPLEMENTATION OF WASTE
REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
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-
118
-------
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).
BENEFITS OF MANDATORY
DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
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-
self.
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.
DISADVANTAGES OF MANDATORY
DEPOSIT LEGISLATION
The disadvantages that might result from
the imposition of a deposit on beverage
119
-------
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
located.
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.
120
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPLIED DECISION SYSTEMS, and DECISION MAKING INFORMATION, INC. Study of
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.)
BINGHAM, T. H., and P. F'. MULLIGAN [RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE]. The
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.
121
-------
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
3
3
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-
122
-------
TABLE 43
A SAMPLE LIST OF NONRADIOACTIVE HAZARDOUS COMPOUNDS*
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
cyanide
Cadmium (powdered)
Cadmium sulfate
Calcium arsenate
Calcium arsenite
Calcium cyanides
Chromic acid
Copper arsenate
Copper cyanides
Cyanide (ion)
Decaborane
Diborane
Hexaborane
Hydrazine
Hydrazine azide
Lead arsenate
Lead arsenite
Lead azide
Lead cyanide
Magnesium arsenite
Manganese arsenate
Mercuric chloride
Mercuric cyanide
Mercuric diammonium
chloride
Mercuric nitrate
Mercuric sulfate
Mercury
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel cyanide
Pentaborane-9
Pentaborane-11
Perchloric acid (to 72%)
Phosgene (carbonyl
chloride)
Potassium arsenite''
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Potassium dichromate
Selenium
Silver azide
Silver cyanide
Sodium arsenate
Sodium arsenite
Sodium bichromate
Sodium chromate
Sodium cyanide
Sodium monofluoro-
acetate
Tetraborane
Thallium compounds
Zinc arsenate
Zinc arsenite
Zinc cyanide
Halogens and
Interhalogens
Bromine pentafluoride
Chlorine
Chlorine pentafluoride
Chlorine trifluoride
Fluorine
Perchloryl fluoride
Miscellaneous Organics
Acrolein
Alkyl leads
Carcinogens (in general)
Chloropicrin
Copper acetylide
Copper chlorotetrazole
Cyanuric triazide
Diazodinitrophenol
(DDNP)
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrobenzene
Dinitro cresols
Dinitrophenol
Dinitrotoluene
Dipentaerythritol
hexanitrate (DPEHN)
GB (propoxy (2)-
methylphosphoryl
fluoride)
Gelatinized nitro-
cellulose (PNC)
Glycol dinitrate
Gold fulminate
Lead 2,4-dinitroresor-
cinate (LDNR)
Lead styphnate
Lewisite (2-chloro-
ethenyl dichloroar-
sine)
Mannitol hexanitrate
Nitroaniline
Nitrocellulose
Nitrogen mustards
(2,2',2" trichloro-
triethylamine)
Nitroglycerin
Organic mercury
compounds
Pentachlorophenol
Picric acid
Potassium dinitrobenz-
furoxan (KDNBF)
Silver acetylide
Silver tetrazene
Tear gas (CN) (chloro-
acetophenone)
Tear gas (CS) (2-chloro-
benzylidene malo-
nonitrile)
Tetrazene
VX (ethoxy-methyl phos-
phoryl N,N dipropoxy-
(2-2), thiocholine)
Organic Halogen
Compounds
Aldrin
Chlorinated aromatics
Chlordane
Copper acetoarsenite
2,4-D (2,4-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid)
ODD
DDT
Demeton
Dieldrin
Endrin
Ethylene bromide
Fluorides (organic)
Guthion
Heptachlor
Lindane
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Polychlorinated--
biphenyls (PCB)
*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.
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
123
-------
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.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SOURCES
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-
ever.
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).
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
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.
WHAT To Do WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES
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-
124
-------
TABLE 44
PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
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
Textile
Petroleum and coal . x
Pulp and paper
Leather
XX X XX
XX X XX
X XXX
X X X X X
XX X
XX X
XXX X
X XX
X XX
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*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-
rophenol.
TABLE 45
\^ _
ESTIMATED INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
BY BUREAU OF CENSUS REGION, 1970*
Inorganics
in aqueous
Region
New England
Mid Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
West (Pacific)
Mountain
Tons
95,000
1,000,000
1,300,000
65,000
230,000
90,000
320,000
120,000
125,000
Metric
tons
86,000
907,200
1,180,000
59,000
208.500
81,700
290.000
109,000
113.500
Organics
in aqueous
Tons
170,000
1,100,000
850,000
260,000
600,000
385,000
1,450.000
550,000
5,000
Metric
tons
154,000
1,000,000
770,000
236,000
545,000
350,000
• 1.315.000
.500,000
4,540
Organics
Tons
33,000
105,000
145,000
49,500
75,000
44,000
180,000
113,000
50,000
Metric
tons
30,000
90,600
132,000
45,000
68,000
40,000
163,000
103,000
45,400
Sludges.t slurries,
solids
Tons
6,000
55,000
90,000
18,500
80,000
9.500
39,000
30,500
11.500
Metric
tons
5,450
50,000
81,600
16,800
72,600
8,600
35,400
27,700
10,400
Total
Tons
304,000
2.260,000
2.385,000
393.000
985,000
528,000
1.989.000
813,500
191.500
Metric
tons
275.450
2.047.800
2.163.600
350,800
894.100
480.300
1.803.400
739,770
173.840
Percent
of total
3.1
22.9
24.2
4.0
10.0
5.4
20.2
8.3
1.9
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.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL AND STORAGE
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
125
-------
TABLE 46
FUNCTIONS, APPLICABILITY, AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CAPABILITY OF CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES*
Process
Physical treatment
Carbon sorption
Dialysis
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation/ settling
Reverse osmosis
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment
Calcination
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
Thermal treatment
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Biological treatment
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling filters
Disposal/ storage:
Deep-well injection
Detonation
Engineered storage
Land burial
Ocean dumping
Functions
perform edf
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR,Se
VR
VR,Se,De
De
De
VR,Se
De
VR,De
De.Di
De
De
De
De
Di
Di
St
Di
Di
Types of waste!
i
1,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,6
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,6
1,2,3,4
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2
3,4,6
3,5,6,7,8
3
3
3
3
1,2,3,4,6,7
6,8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 .
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,7,8
Forms
of waste§
L,G
L
L
L
L,G
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
S,L,G
S.L.G
L
L
L
L
L
S,L,G
S,L,G
S,L
S.L.G
Resource
recovery
capability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
*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
631).
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.
126
-------
The Procedures and Their
Applicability
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
127
-------
pesticide user may be acceptable in some
areas.
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
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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
P.
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.
128
-------
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.)
RESPONSIBILITIES
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-
dures.
• 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.
STORAGE
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.
COLLECTION
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
129
-------
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.
PROCESSING
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
potential.
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.
TRANSPORT
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
DISPOSAL
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
community.
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
regulations.
130
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
TASK FORCE ON MEDICAL SERVICES WASTE DISPOSAL. Guidelines for handling and
disposal of hazardous wastes associated with medical services. San
Francisco, Hospital Council of Northern California and Bay Area Health
Association, July 1974. 14 p.
131
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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-
ing.
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
132
-------
render it biologically safe. Several of the
more common means of sludge stabilization
are:
Anaerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion
Heat treatment
Lime stabilization
Pasteurization
Chlorine oxidation
Composting
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
soils.
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
RANGE OF METAL CONTENT IN DIGESTED SEWAGE SLUDGES*
(Dry weight)
Analysis
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Boron
Lead
Mercury
Chromium
Observed range
(ppm)
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
Typical
"domestic"
sludge
(ppm)
2,000
1,000
200
15
(0.1% of zinc)
100 '
1,000
10
1,000
*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.
133
-------
either as is or fortified. Some degree of
drying is required prior to incineration, py-
rolysis, or use of the sludge as supplementary
fuel.
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,
etc.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Utilization on Land
The primary advantage of land applica-
TABLE 48
ESTIMATED TYPICAL COSTS OF SLUDGE
DISPOSAL PROCESSES PER DRY TON, 1974
Methods
Cost per dry ton*
Dewatering:
Vacuum filter
Centrifuge
Sand beds
Land transport (5% solids):
Tank truck
Railroad
Pipeline
Land transport (30% solids):
Dump truck
Railroad
Ocean transport (5% solids):
Barge
Outfall
Ocean transport (30% solids): Barge
Storage:
30% (stockpile)
5% (lagoon)
Disposal (5% solids):
Ocean disposal
Landfill
Land spreading
Disposal (30% solids):
Ocean disposal
Landfill
Land spreading
Miscellaneous disposal methods:
Incineration (total cost including dewatering)
Composting (total cost including dewatering)
$31.00
26.00
30.00
3.00/mile
0.25/mile
1.55/mile
0.65/mile
0.25/mile
0.20/mile
0.60/mile
0.03/mile
2.30
14.00
3.00
20.00
3.00
10.00
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.
134
-------
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
consumption.
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
135
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. Nitrogenous compounds in the environment. EPA-SAB-73-
001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 187 p.
136
-------
Tires
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
future.
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.
ALTERNATIVES
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
137
-------
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
testing.
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
system.
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
138
-------
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
50).
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
Machine
Slicers:
Ascot Tire
Cutter
Branick
Shredders:
Shred-Pax
AZ-7
AZ-15
AZ-20
Tire Gator
Tire-Gon
Tire Hawg
Manufactured by
Parent Mfg. Co.,
Lewiston, Maine
Branick Mfg.,
Fargo, N. Dak.
Teb Inc.,
Addison, 111.
Barclay/Noll Assoc.,
Burlingame, Calif.
Automotive-Industrial
Marketing Corpora-
tion, Portland, Oreg.
Metropolitan Disposal
Corporation,
Portland, Oreg.
Price
$2,000-
3,500
4,000
5,000
8,500
. 19,000
75,000-
90,000
30,000
52,500
Capacity
(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
truck
400, passenger
and truck
Power
require-
ments
110 V '
220V
200V
3-phase
200V
3-phase
200V
3-phase
220/440 V
100 amp
220V
3-phase
440V
3-phase
Weight
(Ib) Comments
1,500 Not rigged for
road use
1,000 Not rigged for
road use
800 Built in Germany,
assembled in
Illinois
1,000
*
* 1,000 tire/hr ca-
pacity would re-
quire 3 men
3,000 Price includes
trailer($2,600);
operating cost as-
sumes 1 ,000 tire/
day operation
24,000 Weight includes
trailer for road
use
*Not available.
TABLE 50
BREAKDOWN OF TIRE-GON OPERATING
COSTS AT 7.5C PER TIRE, 1974*
Item
Labor
Amortization
Maintenance
Power ($10/day)
Miscellaneous
Total
Operating cost
per montht
$600
500
100
200
80
$1,480J
*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.
139
-------
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
fuel).
Goodyear has constructed and is operat-
140
-------
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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
P.
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.
141
-------
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
!
CONSUMPTION OF LUBRICATION OILS, GENERATION OF WASTE
OIL, AND USE OF WASTE OIL*
(In millions of gallons)
Consumption of lube oils:
. Automotive
Industrial and aviation
Other (including government)
Total
Generation of waste lube oils:
Automotive
Industrial and aviation
Other
Total
Current uses of waste lube oils:
Fuel (treated and untreated)
Re-refined for use as lube oil
Road oil and asphalt
Fate unknown
Total
1,100
700
400
2,200
600
400
100
1,100
490
90
200
340+
1.100
*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.
142
-------
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.
COLLECTION
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-
dumping.
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.
DISPOSITION
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.
Re-refining
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.
143
-------
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-
tion.
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.
PROCUREMENT OF RE-REFINED
LUBRICATING PRODUCTS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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
144
-------
TABLE 52
USES FOR WASTE LUBRICATION OIL*
Uses
Provisos
Re-refining for use as lube oil
Processing for use as fuel oil
Burning untreated as a fuel
Spreading on roads for dust
control
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
areas.
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
that—
• make dumping into watercourses ille-
gal
• require a permit for the operation of a
facility to process or dispose of waste
oil.
• 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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
145
-------
3%
l\
conservation, environmental effects decisions: collection, transport, processing, disposal criteria: cost, institutional factors, resource conservation, '
APPENDICES
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
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
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-
ly?
• 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
reports.
Route Information Report
• Motor pool to route—time and miles per
day
• Collection operation—time and miles
per day
• Transport operation—time and miles
per day
146
-------
• Total time to route, collect and
transport—hours
• 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-
pounds
• Collection time per home—minutes
• Collection time per 100 pounds—minutes
• Collection time as percent of total time
worked
• 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—
pounds
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
systems.
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-
fied.
The cost-effectiveness of COLMIS can be
147
-------
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
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
\oad(N):
N •
where
c = time from garage to route
/ Vehicle capacity \ / Waste density capability \
V (cuyd) J\ Ib/cuyd) )
i
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.
148
-------
(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/
required
/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
insurance
Labor cost = salary of driver
+ salary of collectors)
+ fringe benefits
+ indirect labor
+ supplies (e.g., gloves)
+ administrative
overhead
Total cost = vehicle cost and labor
cost
(12) Multiply cost per crew by the number
of crews needed, to get total system
cost.
(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.
HEURISTIC ROUTING
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
time.
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
area.
(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
149
-------
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
route.
(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-
wise.
(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.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
150
-------
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.
OVERALL COLLECTION COST FACTORS
There are eight key cost factors which
should be examined for every collection op-
eration.
Equipment:
• Depreciated vehicle procurement cost
• Maintenance cost
• Consumable items
• Miscellaneous costs (e.g., insurance, li-
cense fees)
Labor:
• Wages
• Fringe benefits
Overhead:
• Management and administrative over-
head
• 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.
RANGES OF COST ELEMENTS
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
151
-------
TABLE 53
TYPICAL YEARLY COLLECTION COSTS FOR 2- AND 3-MAN
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)
Oil
Tires
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)
Total
$6,900
4,000
2,180
480
1,680
3,000
12,480
11,232
7,114
$6,900
4,000
2,180
480
1,680
3,000
12,480
22,464
10,483
$49,066
$63,667
*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 AND PRODUCTIVITY STUDY
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-
ductive.
Since many variables affect crew perform-
152
-------
TABLE 54
PRODUCTIVITY AND COST ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS, 1973*
Collection policies and methodologies
Curb-alley systems
System number
Collections per week
Crew size
Incentive system
Collection patterns
Vehicle' size (cu yd)
and typet
1
1
1
Task
One
side
25
SL
2
1
1
8hr
One
side
25
SL
3
1
•i
Task
One
side
20
RL
4
1
2
8hr
One
side
25
RL
5
1
3
Task
Both
sides
20
RL
6
1
3
8hr
Both
sides
25
RL
7
2
1
Task
One
side
33
SL
8
2
2
Task
One,
side
8
SL
9
2
3
Task
Both
sides
20
RL
Backyard systems
10
1
2
Task
Tote
barrel
20
RL
11
1
2
8hr
Tote
barrel
13
RL
Percent of total crew time spent on various collection activities
Transport
On route:
Driving
Riding/walking§
Collecting
Waiting (including
compaction)tt
Othertt
Total productive time
34.8
17.9
0.0
45.8
0.8
0.7
98.5
32.2
13.5
0.0
51.5
1.8
1.0
97.2
31.5
8.9
7.8
30.6
20.8
0.4
63.0
30.2
12.2
11.6
19.5
26.8
0.2
58.3
24.2
5.8
11.8
35.7
22.2
0.3
61.3
35.4
3.1
5.8
38.2
17.3
0.4
58.7
22.6
24.7
0.2
50.1
1.1
1.3
97.6
27.2
10.0
18.1
27.8
6.5
10.4
69.5
30.0
7.2
14.5
29.3
18.5
0.5
61.0
18.3
t
\
81.7
I
t
*
20.6
t
t
79.4
t
i
t
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
46.2
1.5
2.3
0.7
10.5
46.1
3.8
1.7
5.9
1.8
410
9.4
71.0
1.3
2.7
1.1
6.1
18.8
4.6
2.0
6.7
1.6
254
9.0
49.3
2.6
1.3
0.7
10.1
32.6
4.8
1.9
7.0
2.4
512
12.6
50.5
4.6
0.4
0.5
13.1
29.9
4.7
1.8
6.7
1.9
575
14.5
62.2
3.6
1.5
1.0
10.5
14.3
3.9
1.0
5.2
2.2
407
12.6
64.9
1.5
2.7
1.7
4.5
34.4
4.9
2.5
.7.6
1.6
306
9.7
28.2
0.9
1.6
0.5
13.7
22.2
4.9
1.1
6.3
1.0
410
5.7
24.4
0.5
1.5
0.5
20.5
12.0
4.1
1.4
5.7
4.4
574
7.0
33.1
1.2
1.1
0.4
10.4"
33.4
4.4
1.6
6.3
2.3
854
14.1
33.9
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.9
6.0
5.1
1.0
6.2
1.0
364
6.2
51.1
1.4
2.4
0.5
6.6
17.6
5.5
1.2
6.9
1.9
243
6.2
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
107.3
2.5
107.3
2.5
55.7
2.0
55.7
2.0
107.0
2.6
53.4
1.3
123.3
3.1
57.7
1.5
104.5
3.3
34.9
1.1
62.7
2.0
20.9
0.7
84.2
1.2
84.2
1.2
138.4
1.7
66.6
0.8
200.5
3.3
66.5
1.1
72.1
1.2
35.3
0.6
44.4
1.1
22.1
0.6
Cost efficiency**
Total cost per home
per year
Total cost per ton
$9.88
$8.29
$15.60
$8.46
$11.96
$9.53
$11.44
$8.72
$20.28
$12.82
$28.60
$17.13
$19.24
$13.48
$26.52
$21.15
$24.96
$14.67
$16.64
• $19.26
$24.44
$18.41
* 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.
153
-------
TABLE 55
1972 TRUCK PROCUREMENT COST FIGURES USED IN PRODUCTIVITY
STUDY, SIDE LOADERS AND REAR LOADERS*
Capacity (cu yd)
8
13
16
18
20
25
33
Side loader
$14,900
23,900
30,000
Rear loader
$15,900
16,700
17,000
22,700
23,900
*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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.)
154
-------
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.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
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
successfully.
DISPOSAL DURING AND AFTER CLOSING
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
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
155
-------
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.
EXTINGUISHING FIRES
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-
way.
COVERING THE DUMP
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.
PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY
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.
156
-------
CONSOLIDATED SOLID WASTE
FORMER GRADE J SOIL
y«^
^ EXCAVATED TRENCH J
TRANSFERRED AND COMPACTED
SOLID WASTE
STOCKPILED
SOIL FROM TRENCH
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.
ULTIMATE USE OF CLOSED DUMP
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.
157
-------
DUMPED SOLID WASTE
CONSOLIDATED AND COMPACTED 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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION. Citizen support for
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.
1970.
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
158
yen
------- |