EPA-600/8 78-001
February 1978
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS AND PNEUMATIC TRASH COLLECTION
Executive Summary
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the "SPECIAL" REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports targeted to meet the technical information needs of specific
user groups. The series includes problem-oriented reports, research application
reports, and executive summary documents. Examples include state-of-the-art
analyses, technology assessments, design manuals, user manuals, and reports
on the results of major research and development efforts.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/8-78-001
February 1978
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS AND PNEUMATIC TRASH COLLECTION
Executive Summary
Contract No. 68-03-0094
Project Officer
Robert A. Olexsey
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This study was conducted
in cooperation with
Office of Policy Development and Research
Division of Energy, Building Technology, and Standards
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publi-
cation is one of the projects of that research; a most vital communications
link between the research and the user community.
This report is a summary of the major findings from a comprehensive
study of solid waste management systems at the housing complexes operated
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and under that
Department's Operation Breakthrough program. The information synopsized in
this document will aid planners in deciding that they have a need to obtain
the complete series of reports dealing with the Operation Breakthrough
solid waste management systems. Further details on the PTC system can be
found in a complete test report entitled, "Evaluation of the Refuse
Management System at the Jersey City Operation Breakthrough Site."
Francis T. Mayo
Di rector
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Operation
Breakthrough programs demonstrate quieter, more sanitary, more
convenient, and more economical waste collection systems within
buildings, complexes, and municipalities. In the study summa-
rized here, nine Operation Breakthrough sites were analyzed and
compared as to economics, effectiveness, environmental factors,
efficiency of operation, and acceptance by residents.
Eight of the sites used various trash collection methods
ranging from conventional curbside pickup to centralized compac-
tion and pickup. The sites were in:
Indianapolis, Indiana;
Kalamazoo, Michigan;
Macon, Georgia;
Memphis, Tennessee;
St. Louis, Missouri;
Seattle, Washington;
Sacramento, California; and
King County, Washington.
The ninth site, Jersey City, New Jersey, used a pneumatic trash
collection (PTC) system, the first installation of its kind in a
residential complex in the United States. This report summarizes
the evaluation of the refuse management systems at Operation
Breakthrough sites, particularly the PTC system evaluation and
the refuse system user acceptance surveys at eight of the nine
sites.
The report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
Number 68-03-0094 by Hittman Associates, Inc. The work was per-
formed for the Environmental Protection Agency and was sponsored
by the Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of
Energy, Building Technology, and Standards, Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The program was performed from December
1971 through May 1977.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword....- i ii
Abstract 1 v
Tables vi
Abbreviations, Conversion Units vii
Acknowledgment viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions .-• 8
3. Recommendations. 20
-------
TABLES
Number Pa;
Operation Breakthrough Sites Refuse
Management Systems
2 Summary of Economic and Technical
Analysis Results 9
vi
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
SFA
SFD
MFLR
MFMR
MFHR
MFM/HR
PTC
CEB
OSHA
container
can
single-family attached dwelling units
single-family detached dwelling units
multifamily low-rise dwelling units
multifamily medium-rise dwelling units
multifamily high-rise dwelling units
multifamily medium and high-rise dwelling units
pneumatic trash collection
Central Equipment Building
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
an enclosed container of the type designed for
being emptied by a packer truck
a standard garbage can of usually 30 to 40 gallons
capacity which can be manually emptied
CONVERSION UNITS
1 cubic foot
1 cubic yard
1 ton
0.0283 cubic meters
0.7646 cubic meters
907.2 kilograms
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of EnVirogenics, Inc., AVAC Systems, Inc.,
the design firm of the pneumatic trash collection system; site
management; municipal employees; private refuse service contrac-
tors; and site residents is greatly appreciated. Without their
help and enthusiastic support, this project could not have been
completed as thoroughly at each site within the limited resources
available.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Jerome Rothenberg of HUD
for his guidance and assistance and to the project personnel of
EPA who include Messrs. Leland Daniels, Patrick Tobin, and
Robert A. Olexsey.
vi i i
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
One aspect of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Operation Breakthrough Program concerns the demonstration of
experimental and innovative building and design concepts for resi-
dential construction. A provision of this program is to evaluate
the refuse collection methods in the program in order to: (1)
determine the most practical, convenient, quiet, sanitary, and
economical waste collection systems, and (2) guide development of
solid waste management systems for future projects. The various
collection schemes are being demonstrated and tested at the nine
Operation Breakthrough sites. Eight sites use various trash col-
lection methods ranging from conventional curbside pickup to
centralized compaction and pickup. The ninth site, Jersey City,
has a PTC (pneumatic trash collection) system. These sites and a
description of their refuse management systems are presented in
Table 1.
The overall objective of this study is to evaluate the eco-
nomics, effectiveness, and feasibility of using improved solid
waste collection systems in new communities. The results include
evaluation and comparative analyses of economy, effectiveness,
technical design and performance, reliability, maintainability,
environmental factors, and user acceptance and will be used to
guide the development of larger scale projects in the future.
It should be noted that the major emphasis of the contrac-
tor's work effort was placed upon evaluating the PTC system at the
Jersey City site. It is of particular importance since this was
the first time a PTC system has been installed in a residential
complex in the United States. Similar systems have been installed
in hospitals and other non-residential complexes.
A pneumatic trash collection (PTC) system is a solid waste
management system that automatically collects all the solid waste
generated at a site, with the exception of bulky waste, and com-
pacts this refuse into sealed containers. It is designed to be a
quieter, more sanitary, and odorless service as well as to be
convenient for users. The system is ultimately designed to reduce
operating costs, manual labor, and energy requirements and thereby
to provide for a more effective and efficient refuse collection
service than conventional systems.
-------
TA'BLE 1. OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITES REFUSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
ro
On-site
Site
Indianapolis, IN
Kalamazoo, MI
Hacon, GA
Memphis, TN
St. Louis, MO
King County, HA
Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
Jersey City, NO
Type of
Housing
SFA
SFD
MFLR
MFMR
SFA
SFD
MFLR
MFMR
SFA
SFO
MFLR
MFM/HR
SFA
MFLR
MFHR#1
MFHR#2
SFA
MFLR
MFMR
MFHR
SFft
SFD
MFLR
SFA
SFD
MFLR
MFHR
SFA
MFLR
MFLR
MFMR
MFHR
No.
Units
140
103
16
36
127
14
52
52
159
6
42
80
69
99
144
206
731
68
147
174
SO
74
24
179
20
96
306
38
20
12
64
410
Parameters
Collection
Manual
Manual
Manual
Chute
Manual
Manual
Manual
Chute
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Manual
Manual
Manual
Packer Truck
Curbi sde/HanuaT
Curbslde/Manual
Packer Truck
Backyard/Manual
Backyard/Manual
Manual
Chute/Container
Manual/Pen
Manual/Chute
j
; Pneumatic
)
Storage
Pens
Pens
Container
Container
Compactor
Compactor
Compactor
Compactor
Container
Container
Container
Compactor S
Container
Container
Container
Container
Compactor &
Container
Pen &
Container
Compactor,
Container, &
Pen
Compactor 4
Container
Compactor &
Container
Cans
Cans
Container
Cans
Cans/Pens
Cans/Pens
Container
Container
Container
Compactor
Container
Off -site Parameters
Pickup Freq. Transport
1/wk
1/wk
3/wk
3/wk
Daily
Dally
Dally
Daily
2/wk
2/wk
2/wk
3/wk
3/wk
3/wk
6/wk
2/wk
6/wk
6/wk 6/wk
6/wk 6/wk
6/wk 2/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
5/wk
6/wk
6/wk
2/wk
2/wk
Not
Applicable
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Packer Truck
Pull-on Con-
tainer Truck
Disposal
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fin
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Power Plant
Power Plant
Power Plant
Power Plant
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fin
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Land Fill
Remarks
Municipal service
Municipal service
Private service
Private service
Transport on-site by site
owned dump truck. Off -site
transport by private service
twice each week.
Transport on-site and off-
site by private service.
Transport on-site and off-
site by private service.
Municioal service 2/wk
Municipal service 2/wk
Municipal and private service 2/wk
Private service 2/wk
Private service
Private service
Private service
Municipal service
Municipal service
Municipal service
Municipal service
Private service provided
under municipal contract,
Private service
-------
This report is a summary of the results developed in three
reports prepared in the contract:
• "Evaluation of the Refuse Management System at the
Jersey City Operation Breakthrough Site."
• "Evaluation of the Refuse Management Systems of Opera-
tion Breakthrough Sites."
• "Survey of User Acceptance of the Solid Waste Removal
Systems at Operation Breakthrough Sites."
All reports were prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housif.i and Urban
Development under contract number 68-03-0094.
EVALUATIONS
All of the sites were evaluated to ascertain the economics,
the technical aspects, the environmental factors, and the resident
and management acceptance elements of each system. Data were
gathered during short site visits to each site. However, because
the pneumatic trash collection system at the Jersey City site was
so unique, it required extensive, detailed investigations. An
instrumentation package was designed and installed at the site to
monitor the system for 18 months of operation. Specific tests and
experiments were performed to determine overall system performance
with respect to design specifications and effects on air quality
and sanitation.
Technical Evaluation Objectives
The technical aspects of each of the waste management systems
were analyzed to determine the effectiveness and efficiency. This
was accomplished by examining the following aspects of the systems
• Quantity of solid waste collected in terms of. type and
number of containers at each service and the number and
type of dwelling units.
• Distances traveled between services and total distance
to collect on site.
• Time spent on various collection activities including
productive collection time, handling and •,•;*'! kino time,
waiting time, and time spent on other activities.
•. Mechanical equipment performance effectiveness, safety,
convenience, user acceptance, noise, odor, sanitation,
aesthetics, and other aspects pertinent to each system.
-------
• Compactor (where installed) load capacity and the
weight, size, and handling requirements of compacted
packages.
• Storage containers effectiveness, sanitation, user
acceptance, and other aspects pertinent to each system.
More detailed technical analyses were required for the PTC
system. Overall system performance was evaluated by investigating
the system reliability and maintainability; performance; and
expected service life.
Reliability and Maintainability--
The PTC system reliability and maintainability was evaluated
by analyzing operational data to determine:
• The availability of the system and the probability that
the system will be in an operable mode at any time;
• The probability that the system can continue to collect
refuse automatically after the completion of a specified
number of cycles;
• The probable repair time required to correct malfunc-
tions;
• The effects of system malfunctions on the collection
service;
• The effects and probability of a major system breakdown;
and
• The reliability and maintainability characteristics of
the system.
Performance--
The system performance was evaluated to determine the effec-
tiveness of the PTC system in terms of:
• The ability to meet design criteria for the refuse loads
and economics for the site;
• The ability to transport various shapes and densities of
refuse;
• The capacity of the system for the design loads, actual
loads, and operating schedule, including determination
of the optimium operating schedule;
• The ability to safely handle dangerous materials;
• The adaptability of the system to recycle specific solid
waste classes;
-------
• The ability to recover valuable items mistakenly placed
in the system; and
• The adequacy of safety equipment.
Expected Service Life--
The service life of the PTC system was determined by evalu-
ating the operational degradation and wear with respect to service
time.
In addition, a special study was conducted at the King
County, Washington site. A comparative study was made of plastic
bag versus standard containers for curbside collection. For this
study, half of the King County residences were furnished plastic
bags for lining trash cans. On pickup day, the plastic bags were
tied and set at curbside. The other half of the residences uti-
lized standard cans in the usual manner by setting them at curb-
side on pickup day. The data were collected over a one month
period.
Economic Evaluation Objectives
The objectives of the economic evaluations were to determine
the costs of each system. The particular costs considered were:
• Capital costs of equipment (including installation
costs, where applicable;
0 Operating costs such as electrical power, labor, main-
tenance, parts and supplies, fuel, repair costs, con-
tainer rental, disposable liners, transport and disposal
fees; and
• Recurring costs such as taxes and insurance.
Here again, because of its nature, the PTC system at the
Jersey City site required additional economic evaluations. Not
only were the capital and operational costs examined, but the
maintenance and annualized costs were considered as well. All of
these costs were compared to design estimates. Furthermore, the
economics of the PTC system were compared to the estimated costs
of conventional refuse collection systems which might have been
installed at the site.
All cost results were compared to the "1968 National Survey
of Community Solid Wastes Practices"* and the results derived from
"1968 National Survey of Community Solid Wastes Practices," an
Interim Report, EPA, USPHS, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1968.
-------
that survey by Hagerty, Pavoni, and Heer.* To obtain comparative
costs, all site cost data and the results of Hagerty, et. al.,
were modified to a common base in October 1975 using the building
and common labor cost indexes found in the Engineering News
Record.
Environmental Evaluation Objectives
The objectives of the evaluation were to define the environ-
mental effects, if any, each refuse collection system presented.
Specifically, the following areas were explored.
• Sanitation effects such as litter, cleanliness, odor,
and presence of rodents and vermin.
• Noise levels produced by the refuse collection activi-
ties compared to background noise levels and accept-
ability to residential use of the system.
• Aesthetic qualities attributed to the system.
• Advantages of a reduced number of service vehicle visits
to the site to pick up and dispose refuse.
Aside from evaluating the effects that the PTC might have on
the aforementioned environmental areas, the air quality of the
system, including both internal and exhaust air, was assessed.
This included running tests on both airborne particulates and
viable particles.
User Acceptance Survey
Resident and management acceptance of the solid waste manage-
ment systems was determined by surveying a sample of the residents
and the management at each site and by conducting interviews using
an approved survey questionnaire. Residents and site management
personnel were surveyed at the Jersey City site and seven other
Operation Breakthrough sites to learn their perceptions of and
reactions to the various trash storage, handling, and collection
methods in use at those sites. St. Louis was not surveyed because
of the site management's unwillingness to participate in the
survey. The results of the analyses were used to determine:
• Type of resident at each site;
Soli
and
1973
d Waste
John
» P-
E.
16.
Management, Hagerty, D.
Heer,
Jr. ,
Van
Nostrand
Joseph, Joseph L.
Reinhold Company,
Pavoni ,
New York
-------
• User solid waste disposal requirements;
• Suitability of the system to the user; and
• Suitability of the system to the environment
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The major results of the evaluations of the solid waste
management system data gathered at the nine Operation Breakthrough
sites are summarized in Table 2. In addition, the results are
presented for a four week study of the curbside pickup of plastic
bags versus standard garbage cans at the King County, Washington
site. The findings are based on the overall objective of the
study, namely to evaluate the economics, effectiveness, and feasi-
bility of using improved solid waste collection systems in new
communities.
The evaluations indicate that the methods employed at Macon,
Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; Sacramento, California; and King
County, Washington were the most economical and effective. The
St. Louis, Missouri site desperately needs modifying because it
was extremely costly and very ineffective. The pneumatic trash
system as the Jersey City site was found to be unreliable, over
designed, and costly. Specific conclusions for each follow.
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
The system is satisfactory in that refuse is collected and
disposed. The city charges for collection for the entire site
even though the MFMR and the maintenance buildings are serviced by
a private contractor. The costs are $2.22 per cu yd which is
reasonable and equates to $44.38 per dwelling unit per year. The
costs could be reduced if the city services the entire site. The
total costs are $12.62 per capita per year (average) which is
higher than the adjusted national average of $12.08 per capita per
year. Site labor requirements could be reduced if residents were
required to store refuse in their homes until pickup day. The
manual pickup by the city incurs a high nonproductive rate with 35
percent of the active collection time spent waiting.
Site environmental aspects are generally good. Site aes-
thetics could be greatly improved if shrubbery were planted around
the pens. Restriction of residents to placing refuse in pens only
on collection days could minimize odors, insects, and animal
problems. Chronic overloading of the central storage bins caused
littering, odors, pet and weather scattering of garbage, and
problems with insects and vermin.
8
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC AND
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
Site
Indianapolis
Ka 1 amazoo
Macon
Memphi s
St . Loui s
Seattle
Sacramento
King County
Jersey City
Annual
Costs
$13.091
•15,072
21,105
22,614
124,541
4,727
14,486
9,540
120,021
Cost/DU/
Year
$44. 3b
51 .09
73.53
43. 6b
111 .20
81 .50
24.10
53.90
246.96
Cost/
Cap./lyr
$12.62
14.52
28.52
25.35
46.00
22.19
11 .34
13.65
96.02
Cost/
cu yd
$2.22
2.55
3.52
2.25
8.24
5.56
2.68
4.54
N/A
Miles
per stop
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
33.1 miles
per week
0.03
0.1
0.1
N/A
DUs
per stop
8.4
13.6
4.9
26.1
32.6 DUs
per mile
18.7
20.1
8.4
N/A
Man-mi nutes
per stop
8.2
9.7
8.0
9.4
11.3 man-
mi nutes
per DU
26.5
9.6
6.5
N/A
Man-mi nutes
per cu yd
2.5
15.2
4.1
3.0
42 .9 man-
minutes per
cu yd
5.0
7.8
3.4
N/A
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Indi anapol1s
Kalamazoo
Macon
Memphis
St. Louis
Advantages
Low cost
Proper compactor use could re-
sult in low costs and reduction
in required service frequency.
Good aesthetics. Free from
odors, insects, vermin.
High effectiveness. Low capital
costs. Clean and free from
odors, insects, vermin.
Low capital costs. Very effec-
tive. Good aesthetics. Free
from odors, insects, vermin, -No
sanitary problems.
The compactors in the Operation
Breakthrough portions would be
an advantage if properly
utilized.
Pi sadvantage^
35 percent nonproductive use of labor,
weather effects occur.
Odors, insects
Poor effectiveness. Residents do not use compactors.
High capital costs. High maintenance costs. 17 percent
nonproductive use of labor. Excessive refuse handling
which is labor intensive.
Improper compactor installation causes increased costs,
High maintenance costs. 13 percent nonproductive use
of labor. Serviced too frequently, Noisy collection,
Litter in MFM/HR trash room.
Municipal inspection fee of SO.50 per OU per month.
High operating costs. Overhead clearance not suffi-
cient for front loader truck. Containers do not fit
pens. 23 percent nonproductive labor utilization.
Safety problem moving containers on casters.
Excessive costs. Compactors are not effectively
utilized. Excessive handling of refuse which is
labor intensive. Poor effectiveness. Sanitary
problems with odors, insects, vermin. Storage pen is
over!oaded.
Seattle
Sacramento
King County
Jersey City
Low capital costs. Very effec-
tive. Excellent appearance.
Clean and free from odors,
i nsects, vermi n.
Low costs particularly low
capital costs. Good effective-
ness. Excellent appearance.
Clean and free from odors, in-
sects, vermin.
Low costs for subscribers to
refuse service contractor. No
problems with odors, insects,
vermi n.
Convenient to
and free from
vermi n.
residents, Clean
odors, insects,
High collection service costs, 22 percent nonpro-
ductive labor utilization. One portion serviced
too frequently.
High collection
pens.
costs. Labor intensive. Overloaded
High costs for residents disposing their own refuse.
Cans left curbside detract from site aesthetics.
High capital costs. The system is over sized for the
site load; consequently, it is not used to capacity.
The reliabi1i ty is poor.
-------
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
The system is not being properly utilized and thus the full
effectiveness of the design of the system is not being achieved.
Excessive costs are incurred for pickup labor, plastic bags, on-
site hauling, and disposal costs. The total costs observed are
$2.55 per cu yd of loose refuse. Costs could be reduced to
$2.29 per cu yd if proper compactor operation were performed by
site residents. The $2.29 per cu yd is based upon proper utili-
zation of the compactors which would then allow reduction of
pickups from seven to three per week by site maintenance personnel
and reduction to one pickup per week by the private service
contractor.
Residents do not start the compactors. Trash is placed
inside the compactors if the chamber is not full, but the resi-
dents do not push the start button after placing refuse inside.
Subsequent visits by .residents result in refuse being left on the
ground around the compactor rather than compacted in the -chamber.
Household pets worsen the problem of scattered trash at this site.
The use of plastic bags in the chamber of the compactor
created a safety hazard due to broken glass. This has resulted in
the need to segregate glass from the trash. It is recommended
that a metal, hinged carrying "caddy" or similar device be devised
for handling compacted packages which are removed for disposal.
MACON, GEORGIA
The refuse system is effective, efficient, and fairly eco-
nomical. A lack of design consideration is evident in the refuse
chute to compactor interface. Future projects should specifically
give more consideration to refuse room location, refuse chute
location, and compactor installation so that the necessary space
is allowed for a proper installation of the equipment. The
containers as well as the pens in most cases blend well into the
site. Consideration should be given to specifying the color of
containers such that they do not detract from the site. Also,
container locations should receive more consideration for access
by the service truck.
Walking time and some nonproductive labor can be reduced. It
will not reduce overall costs much, but consideration for future
sites should include planning to improve labor utilization. The
containers inside of pens must be rolled out and positioned in
front of the packer truck. After emptying the container must be
rolled back. Future sites should contain provisions for allowing
direct access to the container by the truck. Packer trucks should
have some provision to prevent liquids from being squeezed out of
the truck onto the parking lot or grounds of a residential area.
11
-------
This type of refuse system should not be affected by weather
conditions except ice or snow which may p'—vent the packer truck
from being operational.
Noncompliance with the site regulation that trash be disposed
in the containers aggravated environmental concerns.
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The refuse collection system is economical. However, future
compactor installations should consider the basis of hauling and
disposal charges during the planning stages. If reduced volume
does not save money, the only reason to install the equipment is
reduce the number of pickups. The system as installed at Memphis
requires a private contractor to remove and dispose refuse which
is the single most expensive part of the system. The contracts
account for 55 percent of the annualized system costs.
The concrete pens serve to blend the containers into the
site. However, future sites should more closely match pen size to
container size so that the container will fit into the pen. Pen
orientation should be considered for ease of emptying by the
truck. Presently a hazardous situation exists because the con-
tainers must be manually pushed down inclined ramps to the truck.
This requires dexterity and a fair amount of strength to prevent
the heavily ladened containers from running wildly down the
inclines possibly crashing into automobiles in the parking lots or
injuring personnel. Also, container size and method of emptying
should be considered where there may be limited overhead space.
The manual movement of the containers is consumptive of time
and labor. The 144-unit MFHR building should have been a serious
candidate for compactor installations because of the number of
tenants. At present, the containers are emptied once each day,
six days a week. Installation of compactors should reduce the
number of pickups to a maximum of three pickups per week. This
would not reduce dumping charges, but it should reduce pickup fees
and reduce the labor expended in removing backed-up refuse in the
chute.
The system has no apparent odor, sanitation, or noise pro-
blems.
ST LOUIS, MISSOURI
The system is not economical for the entire site. The effec-
tiveness and efficiency of the refuse collection system is degraded
by the labor intensive efforts and excessive handling of refuse.
Curbside pickup would benefit the La Clede Town portion of the
site by eliminating the need to place refuse in containers and
12
-------
then move refuse from containers to street areas for pickup.
Similarly, the refuse is then placed in pens to await pickup and
disposal by the municipal service and by private contractor. A
recommended improvement is to eliminate excessive handling of the
refuse.
The existing system is not aesthetically obtrusive. All
containers and pens are well disguised by shrubbery. The storage
pens are outside and the sanitation is questionable because refuse
builds up in the pens, decays, attracts flies, causes extreme odor
problems, and probably attracts vermin. Also, excessive handling
of the bagged refuse caused bag tears and refuse spillage which
increases the probability that storage problems occur.
A complete study should be performed so that the refuse
management system could be improved. A study of once-only-han-
dling of refuse sho.uld be included in the study. By decreasing
handling, it would probably decrease costs and sanitary problems
and increase efficiency and effectiveness. Curbside pickup and
disposal by the site, the city, or a private contractor may offer
cost benefits to the site.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The Seattle site refuse system is effective, efficient, and
environmentally satisfactory. The annual costs appear high due to
the costs of the city provided collection and disposal service.
The costs could be lowered by servicing the chute-fed containers
once a week.
The efficiency of the collection crew could be improved at
the site if a one or two man crew was used in place of the three-
man crew. With a three man crew, one man stands idle while
collection is performed at the site. This reduction may not be
possible due to requirements for personnel when servicing urban
areas other than the Operation Breakthrough site.
Over half of the respondents surveyed said they saw potential
personal hazards (primarily from falls and criminal assault) in
their use of the external storage facilities.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The capital costs for the Sacramento site refuse system are
low and the operation and maintenance costs are high. Collection
and disposal fees account for 71 percent of the costs of the
refuse system. Overall, the costs per dwelling unit, per capita,
and per cu yd of refuse are fairly low and are less than national
averages.
13
-------
Excellent efficiency is achieved in refuse collection activi-
ties at the site. The effectiveness and efficiency of collection
in terms of cost are high, but the volume of refuse collected per
unit of time appears low which is due to the backyard collection
activities required to service 295 dwelling units.
Odors occur in the trash can pens in hot weather but the
system exhibits no environmental problems associated with aes-
thetics, noise or sanitation. Resident requirements for handling
refuse are minimal.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Refuse collection and disposal at the King County site is
very effective with the exception of the residents who dispose of
their own refuse. Curbside collection once a week using a two-man
crew is efficient and environmental problems are minimized. The
refuse system would be much more economical if all SFA and SFD
residents subscribed to the private collection service. It is an
option of the homeowner to subscribe or dispose of his own refuse.
KING COUNTY PLASTIC BAG STUDY
The use of plastic bags in place of standard trash cans
results in $17.41 higher annual costs to the homeowner. Refuse
collection activities are more efficient and require less labor
when plastic bags are utilized. Refuse is collected faster but
the contractor will not reduce pickup fees even if bags are used.
The collection crew prefers plastic bags because of increased
pickup speed.
The site appearance is improved because cans are not left
curbside in the SFD areas after pickup of refuse. Site environ-
mental conditions are as good or better when plastic bags are used
and there is less collection noise. Odors are minimized, and
there appears to be less possibility of sanitation problems when
plastic bags are used.
Overall, a site would appear to be improved if plastic bags
are used in place of trash cans for curbside pickup; however,
heavy duty bags (3-mil thickness) were used in the study and bags
of less strength might have different results.
JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY
The Jersey City site, which utilized pneumatic trash collec-
tion, was monitored for 18 months of operation while the other
sites were monitored for only several days. Thus, considerably
more conclusions could be drawn.
14
-------
Technical Conclusions
Reliability and Maintainability--
The availability of the PTC system was calculated to be 54
percent. However, design specifications stated that the system
should be in an operable mode around 97 percent of the time.
The probability that the system would successfully operate
(without failure) for a given number of cycles decreases dras-
tically as the number of cycles increases. There is a 50 percent
probability of failure for 16 hours (15 cycles) of operation and a
90 percent probability of failure for 40 hours (37 cycles) of
operation. The system exhibited 16 hours (15 cycles) mean time
between failures. This represents a very, very low reliability.
Total calendar downtime increased with the extent of the
system malfunction. Fifty percent of the malfunctions were
repaired within three hours of total downtime while 10 percent of
the malfunctions required 36 hours. However, 60 percent of the
malfunctions were repaired within one-half hour after repair work
was actively begun. Considerable amounts of downtime were attrib-
utable to the slow response of site personnel in reacting to
system problems.
The design specifications called for all system malfunctions
to be repaired within 24 hours. The operational data indicated
that 16 percent of the malfunctions required more than 24 hours
for repairs, which did not comply with the design criteria.
The probability of a major system breakdown was found to be
directly related to the probability of a failure with six critical
components. Th.ese components were the main transport line, the
programmer, the discharge valves, the control panel, the vertical
trash chutes, and the compactor. They contributed to 88 percent
of all system malfunctions, 94 percent of all downtime, 89 per-
cent of the total repair time, and 91 percent of the total man-
hours needed to effect repairs. It was found that design improve-
ments for these components could reduce the total number of system
malfunctions by 51 percent, total downtime by 62 percent, total
repair time by 46 percent, and total man-hours for repair by 51
percent. Furthermore, the system availability would be increased
by 32 percent, or be about 86 percent.
The effects of system malfunctions were found to be more
pronounced as the amount of time that the system did not operate
increased. Minor problems with sanitation, litter, and odor were
experienced with short downtime periods. Whenever the downtime
exceeded 24 hours, major problems ensued. As a result of the
PTC system being inoperable for periods longer than 24 hours, an
15
-------
alternative refuse collection service was required. During these
periods, the site personnel manually collected refuse which was a
highly labor-intensive activity.
The prolonged downtime and the alternative collection service
combined to cause a variety of problems with litter, odor, and
vermin. At times, these sanitation conditions were so repulsive
that the residents complained to the site management.
Performance--
The PTC did meet the design capacity criteria for the refuse
loads, however, the loads at the site were only about one-sixth of
design load criteria. The observed load was about 248 tons per
year, while the design load critaria was from 1300 to 1600 tons
per year.
The design specifications stated that the system must be able
to collect refuse with densities ranging to 50 pounds per cubic
foot. Under normal operating conditions, the system complied with
these qualifications. Additionally, it was noticed that many
overweight, oversize, and other bulky items were collected without
any problems.
The operating schedule of 18 cycles per day more than adequate-
ly handled the actual loads of the PTC system because the actual
loads were only one-sixth of the design loads. It was determined
that for the actual loads, the optimum operating schedule would be
between seven and nine cycles per day. The times for the cycling
of the system would vary due to daily, seasonal, and other load
factors.
The PTC system did have the ability to safely handle some
types of dangerous materials.
The investigations into the adaptability of the system to
recycle specific solid waste classes showed that the system could
be modified to do so without major design changes and with reason-
able success. The modifications would most likely be centered
around the collection hopper. The quantities of recycled solid
waste annually could be about 196 tons, or 79 percent of the
annual refuse loading.
Valuable items mistakenly placed into the system could be
recovered; however, the probability of retrieving the item undam-
aged is small. The chances of recovery and the effort required
for recovery depend upon the extent of system operations.
The design specifications for the system called for equipment
to prevent component and plant failures, service interruptions,
fires, and personnel injuries. Many of the PTC system safety
features did not satisfy these requirements. However, for the
16
-------
most part, the safety equipment for the PTC system did prevent
injury and property damage.
The performance of the system was found to deteriorate with
low room temperatures. Because components were located in rooms
that were not properly heated and components were built to operate
properly at normal room temperatures, component failures occurred.
Most of these failures were related to ice formation in the
pneumatic air actuation lines for the air inlet and discharge
valves and the sluggish behavior of the hydraulic oil used in the.
compactor.
The design specifications stated that the service life of the
PTC system should be 40 years. It was determined through wear
measurements that two system components did not meet this design
criteria. The main transport line would fail after 36 years of
operation while the compactor would fail after 38 years.
Economic Conclusions
The PTC system was not, as stated in the design specifica-
tions, cost effective. The total annualized cost of the system
(i.e., capital, operating, and maintenance) to collect 248.3 tons
of refuse per year is $120,021. The annual costs for three alter-
native conventional systems, which might have been installed, to
collect 248 tons of refuse ranged from $26,231 to $74,699. Hence,
the PTC system was from 161 to 458 percent more costly than con-
ventional approaches.
The costs for all four refuse collection systems were pro-
jected to the year 1995. The annual cost in 1995 for the PTC
system to collect 248.3 tons of refuse is about $178,389. The
corresponding costs for the three conventional systems ranged from
$66,782 to $213,228. Thus, the annual cost for the PTC system was
about 0.84 to 2.67 times the costs for the conventional systems.
As previously di ussed, the PTC system was not utilized to
its design capacity. If the actual refuse loads were six times
the loads observed which would then equal the design load crite-
ria, the cost per ton of refuse disposed by the PTC system would
be from $99 to $116. The corresponding values for the three
alternative conventional systems would range from $104 to $341.
Thus, the PTC system could be cost-effective if the refuse loadings
at the site approached the design criteria of 1300 to 1600 tons of
refuse per year.
The capital costs of the PTC system, which totaled to $89,782
per year, accounted for about 75 percent of the annual cost. The
major capital expenditures were: (1) the main transport line
($36,751 per year or 31 perce.nt of the annual cost), (2) the
equipment space in the Central Equipment Building (CEB) ($15,451
17
-------
per year or 13 percent of the annual cost), and (3) engineering
($12,906 per year or 11 percent of the annual cost). If measures
were implemented to reduce the capital costs of the PTC system,
especially with the main transport line, equipment space, and
engineering, the conomics of the system would become more attrac-
tive.
User Acceptance Conclusions
In general, it can be deduced that both residents and manage-
ment accepted the PTC system. The acceptance was attributable
to: the ease in using the system, relatively few sanitation
problems, the infrequent visits by service vehicles, the removal
of most of the visible and audible signs associated with refuse
collection system, the disappearance of vermin and rodents, and
to other advantages which were intrinsic to the PTC system.
Although site management accepted the PTC system, they felt
that many problems associated with the system could have been
avoided if the tenants had used the system properly. Specific
problems cited by the site management included:
• Residents breaking PTC system components by forcing
large, bulky wastes into the chute door;
• Residents causing chute blockages by not pushing refuse
all the way down the chute;
• Residents leaving food wastes and moist garbage on
charging station floors or in hallways and stairways;
and
t Residents improperly wrapping refuse which created
unsanitary and unhealthy conditions in discharge valve
rooms, especially during periods of operating problems.
Environmental Conclusions
Sanitation effects such as litter, cleanliness, odor, and
presence of rodents and vermin were minimal. The effort of site
personnel, combined with attributes of the PTC system, controlled
litter and odor, and this clenliness kept the vermin population
down. Furthermore, it should be noted, that during the entire
monitoring program no rodents were observed. The problems with
litter, odor, and vermin occurred only during prolonged system
downtimes, particularly during hot, humid weather.
Although the internal air of the system had excessive levels
of airborne particulates and viable particles, the dust collector
effectively removed the matter such that the concentration levels
in the system exhaust air were consistently lower than the
18
-------
levels in ambient air. Additionally, the concentration of air-
borne particles in the system exhaust air never exceeded the
Primary Standard for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for particulate matter which was 3.28 x 10~5 grains per cubic
foot. The average values of total airborne particulate matter
were 13.74 x 10~s, 2.11 x 10"5 and 3.97 x TO'5 grains per cubic
foot for system internal air, system exhaust air and ambient air,
respectively. Thus, the system exhaust air had lower levels of
airborne particulates than the ambient air which also complied
with the design criteria.
The viable particle concentrations for the system internal
air, system exhaust air, and ambient air were 7.3, 3.8, and 5.8
colonies per cubic foot, respectively. The concentration of
viable particles in the system exhaust air was lower than in the
ambient air. This met the design criteria. In addition, the
odor, which was negligible, from the exhaust air was undetected
by the residents.
The noise produced by the PTC collection activities was
generally lower than background noise levels. Much of the noise
was isolated from the residential areas by locating many of the
noise-producing components in the CEB. Furthermore, the noise
attributed to the PTC system never exceeded OSHA requirements.
As such, the effects of the noise from the PTC system were
limited and not a factor to residents.
The design of the system considered retaining the site
aesthetics; hence, most of the PTC system components were located
underground, behind walls, or in the CEB. Those components that
were visible were made to blend into the site. These measures
were most effective in removing the visible signs of the PTC
system.
There were definite advantages to a reduced number of ser-
vice vehicle visits to the site to pick up and dispose refuse.
These advantages ircluded:
• Less noise,
• Less expense,
0 Less tenant awareness,
• Less chance of accidents, and
• Freed service vehicles for other
operations.
19
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning for future developments should include detailed
consideration of refuse management requirements. The require-
ments should be incorporated into designs during development of
site plans and buildings to assure adequate considerations for
installation, location, and operation. Particularly important is
the planning required for innovative systems which may have
unusual requirements or may not be acceptable to residents. The
results and conclusions of the study demonstrate that conventional
collection methods such as curbside, chute, and dumpster containers
are easily used by residents whereas innovative methods are not
properly utilized by residents. Recommendations for each site
follow:
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
The site is serviced by a stationary bin/plastic bag system.
The site itself contains 295 units of single and multifamily
housing.
Methods should be studied to allow municipal servicing of
the MFMR building as well as the rest of the site because the
site pays the city for the service even though it is not used.
The $1824 per year paid to the private contractor could be saved
if the city serviced the MFMR building and the site hauled bulky
wastes away.
A regulation not allowing residents to place bags of refuse
in the pens except on pickup days should be considered. This
would influence residents to properly close and tie bags and
prevent exposure to weather and animals (pets, mostly cats and
dogs). Drainage or windscreen facilities should be studied to
prevent weather scattering of garbage.
Collection crew performance efficiency could be greatly
increased if the truck driver participated in refuse handling.
Methods should be considered to install a slope from the
vertical chute to the container in the MFMR building. The cur-
rent design results in chute clogging and backups with scattered
refuse in the container room.
20
-------
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
There are 245 single and multifamily dwelling units at this
site. The SFD, SFA, and MFLR units use communal compactors
located outside of buildings. The MFMR units use a chute-fed
compactor.
Considerable effort on the part of the site management has
not resulted in residents using the communal compactors so that
maximum benefits of refuse volume reduction are realized. It is
doubtful that the residents will ever properly utilize the equip-
ment; therefore, it is recommended that curbside pickup once a
week be initiated at the site with a one or two-man crew.
Another alternative is to use centrally located containers
serviced by a private contractor.
If communal compactors are considered for future develop-
ments, automatic cycling would be a desirable feature. The
charging chamber should also be located at least 36 to 42 inches
above the ground to prevent entry by adventuresome youngsters.
The higher location would allow easier servicing by the collec-
tion crew. The greatest benefit that automatic cycling attains
is the reduction of refuse volume which requires fewer servicing
trips by the collection crew. A special carrying device should
be used with compacted refuse to prevent injuries to service
personnel. A two handled device could be easily developed as a
caddy for bags of compacted refuse.
MACON, GEORGIA
Dumpsters are the major form of storage and collection
facilities available to the residents of the 287 single and
multifamily units at this site. Singlefamily unit residents are
required to dispose of their trash in the containers.
The use of central containers works very well. Future site
planning should incorporate better locations for containers to
allow easy access by the pickup truck. Container enclosures
should be oriented to prevent the containers from being very
noticeable. The planting of shrubbery instead of (or in addition
to; using frame enclosures might also be considered to improve
aesthetics.
The compactor installation under the chute of future multi-
level buildings should consider the interface problems before
installation so that adequate space is allowed to provide a
proper fall for refuse to enter the compactor chamber. Refuse
container rooms should be locked to prevent entry by people and
pets. Compactor containers should have metal or canvas com-
pactor-port covers to prevent spillage when moving or emptying
the containers.
21
-------
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
The site contains 518 single and multifami1y units. Cen-
trally located bins serve the single-family units, chute-fed
containers serve residents of one multifamily structure, and a
chute-fed compactor serves residents of the other multifamily
structure.
The site is charged landfill fees on a loose refuse basis.
A four t$ one compaction ratio means the site is charged four
times the loose refuse price. Therefore, compacting the refuse
has not saved money. Future developments should consider the
basis of landfill fees before installing compaction equipment.
The equipment does allow fewer service trips by the contracted
pickup service.
Future sites which use container enclosures should design
and install enclosures of sufficient size to allow the container
to be fully inserted into the enclosure. Site management should
provide either additional storage containers or more frequent
trash collection.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
This site is composed of 1120 single and multifamily dwelling
units. The single-family unit residents use external refuse
storage containers. The multifamily units utilized a household
trash compactors and chute-fed compactors.
The St. Louis site refuse system has many problems and a
complete in-depth study of the refuse management system is
desparately needed. Such a study is recommended and it should
incorporate the following minimum features: (1) the possibility
of once or twice a week curbside pickup in La Clede Town to
reduce refuse handling and storage, (2J picking up the refuse
from the Operation Breakthrough portions (La Clede Town East and
West) only once a week since all households have compactors, and
(3) storing refuse in containers which can be dumped by trucks
rather than requiring manual loading.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
A bulk container system provides trash storage and collec-
tion service for the 58 multifamily units.
The chute-fed containers do not need emptying twice a week.
Either by adding one or two containers, once a week service could
reduce the costs of servicing the site.
22
-------
The management should survey and correct physical features
of the disposal system which might cause falls. Site management
should also secure the trash bin areas to lessen resident fears
of criminal assault.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
The 601 single and multifamily units at this site are served
by a municipal agency. SFD AND SFA units are serviced with
curbside and backyard pickup. The MFLR units have central stor-
age pens. The MFHR structures use chute-fed containers.
The Sacramento site refuse management system is very effec-
tive. Some overloading in some of the multifamily low-rise
(MFLR) pens occurs while other pens are virtually unused. It is
suggested that the pens be better located for use by residents.
The pens near automobile parking areas are frequently overloaded;
therefore, additional pens in those areas might solve the prob-
lem. Another approach is to move the three pens in the MFLR
alleys to the curbs of the parking lots. Ten pens appear ade-
quate for the load.
The high-rise buildings should have compactors installed to
reduce pickup frequency. The buildings have plenty of space
under the refuse chutes where compactors would easily fit. The
installation could easily reduce servicing from six days a week
to three times (or less) a week.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
A private contractor provides curbside or garage trash
pickup service for the residents of the 178 units of single and
multifamily housing at this site.
All residents of the King County site should subscribe to
the refuse collection service. Thirty-five residents that haul
their own refuse away could save money by subscribing to the
service. Also, the Homeowners Association should take an active
role in monitoring the collection system.
JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY
Here again because of the extensive data collected and
analyzed on the PTC system at this site, detailed recommendations
can be made.
Technical Recommendations
First and foremost, the design loads of refuse should be
carefully estimated to insure that the actual loadings of a
proposed site would justify the capital costs of a-pneumatic
23
-------
trash collection system. This can be achieved by observing the
refuse loads of similar nearby residential complexes.
Future designs should consider features to provide an
efficient and effective service to handle: (1) the collection of
bulky refuse that cannot be collected by the system, and (2) an
alternative refuse collection service during prolonged system
c,wntimes. The present system had no such provisions.
Design of future PTC system applications should also con-
sider methods of resolving:
• Water infiltration and refuse blockages in the main
transport line.
• Design changes for the following system components
which were identified as critical for proper system
operations.
main transport line,
programmer,
discharge valves,
control panel,
vertical trash chutes, and
compactor.
• Blockages in discharge valves and chutes.
• Proper operation of the container handling system.
• Proper heating of the rooms housing system components.
The problem of water infiltration could be solved by placing
a water trap and pump at the lowest points in the transport line.
The pump should be able to handle solids, such as refuse, as well
as liquids.
The observed PTC system had six critical components (the
main transport line, the programmer, the discharge valves, the
control panel, the vertical trash chutes, and the compactor)
which created most of the problems with the system operations.
Improvements in the design of these components could benefit in
lower downtime costs as well as providing for an improved collec-
tion service.
As for refuse blockages in the line, the PTC system was
designed and built with access plates at strategic points along
the line. These plates allowed equipment to be placed in the
line to remove the blockages. However, many of these plates were
inaccessible. Future design of PTC systems should consider
24
-------
placing more access plates at locations more convenient for the
equipment needed to remove blockages and no further apart than
thirty feet.
To alleviate problems with chute blockages, future chutes
should be designed without bends and restrictions, and with
larger cross-sectional areas. The addition of energy absorbing
baffles would also prevent refuse compaction when objects free
fall on to loose refuse at the bottom of chutes.
To resolve problems with blockages in the discharges valves,
future designs should consider either improvements in the dis-
charge valves themselves or alternative means for passing refuse
from the chutes to the main transport line. Positive suction
through the trash chute rather than gravity feed through a dis-
charge valve would improve this situation.
The container handling system used at the site was insuffi-
cient, basically due to two problems: (1) the hydraulic lefts
could not raise a fully loaded refuse container, and (2) the
power assisted rollers frequently failed. Future PTC system
designs should make certain that the components for the container
handling system are properly sized to.handle the weight and
stress of a fully loaded refuse container.
Future systems should take into account the temperatures at
which system components best operate. Measures should be incor-
porated so that the temperatures of rooms housing system com-
ponents can be maintained at the proper levels.
Discharge valve rooms should be designed to be more acces-
sible to site personnel. Better locations would facilitate
manual collection services when needed and aid in proper main-
tenance activities.
Future PTC systems should consider placing the central
control panel in a more conveninet location for all authorized
site personnel. New systems should be designed with new and
improved alarm systems. Additionally, future designs should
incorporate methods to control litter and spillage from trash
chutes.
When considering the service life for future PTC systems,
requirements for components should be investigated more thoroughly,
It is not enough just to design a better system. Measures
should be taken to insure that new systems meet the design require-
ments. This would entail detailed inspections of all system
components, safety equipment, and other related pieces. Further-
more, inspections and test methods should be implemented to
assure proper installation.
25
-------
Pneumatic trash collection systems could operate more effec-
tively and with less wear and problems if users are fully aware
of the system capabilities and their responsibilities. Precau-
tions should be taken to insure that users not only are aware of
how to properly use the system, but do in fact consistently do
so.
Some measures that might be taken to achieve this goal would
be:
• A special clause in leases about PTC system operation
and use;
• The posting of signs at strategic places promulgating
system capabilities and use;
• An indoctrination as to proper system use; and
• A different concept of operation, similar to those used
successfully at other PTC installations such as allow-
ing only site personnel to charge refuse into the
system.
With better educated system users and operators, the PTC
system could more fully attain its expectations.
Economic Recommendations
The design loads of refuse should be carefully estimated to
insure that the capital expenditures justify the use of a PTC
system. This can be achieved by observing refuse loads of
similar nearby residential complexes. The PTC system at Jersey
City could be less costly if it were used to its design capacity.
The PTC system could appear to be easily modified for re-
cycling resource materials such as paper, plastics, glass, and
metals. Future system applications could consider reclamation of
these materials and determine the suitability of this innovation.
Future PTC systems should also consider educating personnel
responsible for the system in its use, operation, and mainten-
ance. Considerable money, time, and effort can be saved when
operating personnel fully understand the system. This can be
achieved by conducting indoctrination and training classes,
preparing manuals, and by additional measures.
Preventive maintenance programs for future PTC systems
should be a major concern. There was no preventive maintenance
program at the site studied. However, with a properly planned
and executed preventive maintenance program, the service of the
system would be improved. Furthermore, benefits of a good pro-
gram would be savings in time, labor, and money.
26
-------
Environmental Recommendations
The design of the PTC system effectively controls odors and
the discharge of participate and viable particles. The bag
filter arrangement should be used in future PTC installations.
Proper maintenance of the system would insure that litter in
valve rooms and the compactor room is minimized. The use of PTC
systems offers improvements in site aesthetics, noise reduction,
and generally excellent sanitation benefits.
SUMMARY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Single-family attached (SFA) and detached (SFD) housing
developments appear to be most effectively serviced by curbside,
once a week pickup of refuse. Multifamily low-rise (MFLR) build-
ings can effectively utilize curbside pickup but should probably
be serviced with centrally located containers. Household com-
pactors can only be recommended if once a week pickup will be
used and residents are taught to use their compactors. Communal
compactors are not recommended; but, if used, they should auto-
matically cycle without relying on residents to actuate the
units.
Communal compactors must also be carefully designed and
installed to preclude entry by children and injury to personnel
when handling the compacted package.
Multifamily medium (MFMR) and high-rise (MFHR) buildings
should always be candidates for chute-fed compactors. Specific
attention should be focused on allowance of space for proper
equipment installation. Also, designs should provide easy access
for servicing by a packer truck to minimize manual handling of
containers.
The special plastic bag study at the King County site showed
definite advantages to use of plastic bags in place of containers.
A warmer time of day for pickup or a warmer climate might change
the results if bags weaken. Only heavy duty bags are recommended
if a plastic bag requirement is instituted.
The installation of a pneumatic trash collection system
requires careful study of site dwelling unit and resident density
and refuse load. The system is high in capital costs and these
costs must be projected and compared with other refuse collection
methods. Extreme care should be taken in future PTC system
installations to insure accomplishment of maintenance and the
provision for full-time attention to the system operations.
Proper installation is required to prevent problems with water
infiltration. If properly installed to match the load, if
27
-------
properly operated, and if properly maintained, the PTC system can
have many advantages such as costs comparable to other systems,
beneficial environmental effects, few labor requirements, reduced
volume of refuse for disposal, and excellent environmental and
aesthetic benefits for a site.
28
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read JusOuctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/8-78-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
OPERATION BREAKTHROUGH SITE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS AND PNEUMATIC TRASH COLLECTION
- Executive Summary -
5. REPORT DATE
February 1978 (Issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jack Preston Overman, Terry G. Statt,
and David A. Kolman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0094
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also EPA-600/2-77-013, NTIS PB 260 495
and EPA-600/2-78-017
16. ABSTRACT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Operation Breakthrough programs
demonstrate quieter, more sanitary, more convenient, and more economical waste
collection systems within buildings, complexes, and municipalities. In the study
summarized here, nine Operation Breakthrough sites were analyzed and compared as
to economics, effectiveness, environmental factors, efficiency of operation, and
acceptance by residents. Eight of the sites used various trash collection methods
ranging from conventional curbside pickup to centralized compaction and pickup.
The ninth site, Jersey City, New Jersey, used a pneumatic trash collection (PTC)
system, the first installation of its kind in a residential complex in the U.S.
This report summarizes the evaluation of the refuse management system at Operation
Breakthrough sites, particularly the PTC system evaluation and the refuse system
user acceptance surveys at eight of the nine sites.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Refuse, Collection, Housing,
Housing Projects
Solid Waste Collection
High Rise Buildings
Residential Complexes
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public.
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
37
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
29
BUS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC6:1978 Z60-880/27 1-3
------- |