TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT (SW-6ts)
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE STUDY
JOHNSON CITY. TENNESSEE
U.S. I»I IVAHIMI \J OF lit: A I.'I-II. EDUCATION, AND U HI.I A It I
Public Health Service
-------
A
TECHNICAL SERVICES REPORT (SW-6ts)
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE STUDY
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
NATIONAL CENTER FOR URBAN AND INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
Solid Wastes Program
Cincinnati
May 1968
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS „ 1
INTRODUCTION „....„ 2
PROCEDURE ........ 3
CURRENT SOLID WASTE HANDLING SYSTEM . . . . , 6
Storage
Collection
Municipal Wastes
Industrial Wastes
Transfer and Disposal of Solid Wastes
Private Collection and Disposal
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SYSTEM . 11
Storage and Fly Spraying
Residential Collection
Labor Productivity and Use
Commercial Waste Handling
Industrial Waste Handling
COST ALLOCATION AND FINANCING THROUGH SERVICE CHARGES .... 20
EQUIPMENT USE 24
Compactor Vehicles
Bulk Containers
Solid Waste Transfer
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL „ 29
City Dump
Composting
DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCES COVERING SOLID WASTES HANDLING IN
JOHNSON CITY 31
REFERENCES •> 33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 34
11
-------
APPENDIX A. ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF THE
ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF SOLID
WASTE HANDLING 36
I. Alternate Equipment
II. Bagged Storage
III. Planning for Future Annexation
APPENDIX B. ITEMIZED COST OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF SOLID
WASTE HANDLING 46
I. Annual Costs of Compactor Trucks
II. Annual Cost of Bulk Container Hoists
III. Annual Transfer Costs
IV. Annual Overhead Costs
APPENDIX C. RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS BY PHYSICAL
SEPARATION 51
Description
Maps of Sample Areas
Results
APPENDIX D. COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS 57
APPENDIX E. COMBINED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SOLID
WASTE ANALYSIS 58
APPENDIX F. STUDY SCHEDULE AND FORMS 59
I. Study Schedule
II. Hospital Survey
III. Commercial Survey
IV. Industrial Survey
V. Clinic Survey
111
-------
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The solid waste handling system of Johnson City is clean and well
equipped. Collectors are thorough and their service is adequate.
It appeared, however, that the system is over-equipped and engaged
in some uneconomical practices that are apparently caused by the
absence of operations records and slow evolution of the system
without cost-saving innovations.
The findings suggest that (1) collection routes be more carefully
controlled, (2) a new system of handling bulk containers be
inaugurated, (3) direct haul to the disposal site replace a portion
of the transfer operations, and (4) twice-weekly collection replace
container spraying for fly control.
Changes are suggested in the ordinances covering solid waste handling.
The major changes needed would assign resposibility for collection
and disposal to a single city official and would define forms of
service to individual homeowners. Further regulation of hospital
waste handling and landfill operations is advised.
The detailed analysis of the nature of the solid wastes of Johnson
City was made primarily to aid research at the U.S. Public Health
Service--Tennessee Valley Authority Composting Plant„ It was found
that on the average each person disposes of 1.1 pounds of solid
waste daily* and that this is nearly equaled by his share of the
community's commercial wastes. These wastes contain a slightly
higher fraction of food wastes than anticipated, amounting to 26
percent by weight. No significant solid wastes high in nitrogen
content were found other than wastes from residential and commercial
sources.
It is suggested that the City engage a competent consulting engineer
to further study the system and to develop detailed plans for imple-
mentation of the findings of this report.
*This is lower than the National average per capita figure possibly
because some wastes are salvaged, some burned in backyards, and others
are collected privately.
-------
INTRODUCTION
In October, 1965, Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(PL 89-272) charging the Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare to initiate a Federal program in solid
waste management. Sec. 2O2(b) (2) defined the purpose of the
Act "To provide technical... assistance to state and local
governments and interstate agencies in planning, development,
and conduct of solid waste disposal programs."
At the request of the officials of Johnson City, Tennessee, and
the Joint U.S. Public Health Service--Tennessee Valley Authority
Composting Project, Technical Services and other elements of the
Solid Wastes Program conducted a study of the solid waste manage-
ment system of Johnson City. Johnson City is an active partner
with the Public Health Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority
in conducting composting operations and the City's participation
is vital. The study was intended to aid in improving the system's
operation and to aid the City in its continued participation in the
project for the years to come.
The study was conducted in October 1967. The current efficiency of
the system was evaluated and features noted that may need particular
attention during its future growth. Johnson City's solid wastes
were also analyzed to aid research activities at the compost plant.
The study lasted one week. Data collected during that week were
supplemented by prior information on the system gained from personnel
of the composting plant, former reports on the system by the City
and advanced information provided by City officials. The data are,
however, considered limited due to the short period of the study,
and should be resubstantiated before the recommendations based on it
are fully implemented.
-------
PROCEDURE
This report describes the solid waste management system of Johnson
City, Tennessee, and is based on information gathered during a
five-day study, conducted by Technical Services, Solid Wastes
Program, and the City prior to the study. The study was planned
during September, 1967, and conducted during the week of October
16 to 20, 19670 During the five-day study, members of the study
team followed the schedule described in Appendix F-I.
Preliminary information on the quantities and nature of hospital
wastes handled by City collection forces was gathered by personnel
of the Public Health Service—Tennessee Valley Authority Composting
Plant during the month of September, 1967. All hospitals were
surveyed to determine the disposal techniques for pathogenic wastes.
Information useful to the study collected during this survey in-
cluded an estimate of waste composition and quantity as well as
its collection frequency. The form on which this data was collected
is reproduced in Appendix F-II.
A survey conducted by the National Communicable Disease Center,
Atlanta, Georgia, in August, 1967, established that the incoming
solid wastes was the primary source of fly larvae at the plant.
This information led the study team to concentrate on determining
the cause of fly production in the City. This was done by observing
evidence of fly breeding in and under residential solid waste
storage containers.
Data on solid waste handling, compiled by the City prior to this
study, included maps, ordinances, and a report on the system by
the former City Engineer.
Maps of collection routes were used to establish the number of
services on each route. Another map provided by the City Planning
Office showed average family incomes for various neighborhoods of
the City. This was used, along with the collection route map in
selecting areas for the special collection of solid wastes which
were physically separated.
Johnson City's ordinances governing solid waste handling are dis-
cussed on page 31 of the report. Suggested changes in the ordi-
nances are proposed in the body of the report.
The City also provided a 1966 report on the activities of the
solid waste collection force by the former City Engineer. The
report, and a portion of the time study data that substantiated
its findings were valuable in establishing the nature and extent
of special services and in determining which businesses required
above average collection times.
-------
A study of the industrial and commercial sectors was conducted by
interview with establishments receiving city collection service.
Waste generation rates and waste composition were noted from
truck weights and visual observation when collection trucks un-
loaded at the transfer station.
During the study, quantities of commercial solid wastes were
obtained by weighing the city trucks servicing commercial estab-
lishments. Certain trucks did not collect commercial wastes
entirely. The percent of the commercial solid waste collected
by these trucks was estimated by the drivers and the superinten-
dent.
City compactor trucks were weighed on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday,
and Friday of the study week (October 16, 17, 19, 20, 1967).
Trucks hauling bulk containers from commercial establishments
were weighed on Monday and Tuesday (October 16, 17, 1967). The
volumes of waste arriving in all bulk containers were estimated
by noting the container capacity and percent full. The weights
of the contents of the unweighed containers received on Thursday
and Friday were estimated using the densities estimated on the
first two days of the study.
Twenty large commercial establishments were interviewed. They
were selected for study based on their size or data from the 1966
City Engineer's report which indicated that the time required to
collect their solid wastes was great. The interviews were con-
ducted using the form in Appendix F-III. The adequacy and fre-
quency of the service, as well as methods of private disposal
or salvage were surveyed.
Information on industrial wastes came primarily from interviewing
32 of the largest industries in Johnson City. Very little indus-
trial waste is collected by city forces. For this reason, it was
not possible to weigh industrial solid wastes and estimates of
their quantity came primarily from interviews. These interviews
also helped estimate composition and practices of salvaging and
disposing these wastes„ This information was compiled using the
form found in Appendix F-IV0
Quantities of residential solid wastes were obtained by weighing
truck loads on four days of the study. On the fifth day, a
special collection in the areas previously described provided
solid wastes for separation into physical categories, as described
in Appendix "C". Information on composition will be used to aid
research at the composting plant.
Interviews were conducted at all clinics and small medical centers
to determine waste characteristics, quantities generated, and dis-
posal techniques employed. This was done to augment the previous
study on hospital wastes. The interview form used is in Appendix
F-V.
-------
The study team inspected all sites at which Johnson City solid
wastes are disposed. These sites included the Cash Hollow Dump,
the Chilhowie disposal site, and the private dump near Jonesboro.
Determinations were made of the standards of these operations.
Information on the activities of the single private collector in
the area, the Washington County Utility District, was obtained
through its records which were made available to the study team.
These records afforded a good picture of the routing and services
provided by the District.
Areas contemplated for annexation by the City were surveyed by
automobile to get an accurate picture of their stage of develop-
ment and to count the number of homes and businesses which will
require service. Other features that might pose special collec-
tion and disposal problems were also noted.
-------
CURRENT SOLID WASTE HANDLING SYSTEM
Nearly all solid wastes in Johnson City are collected by city
forces at regular intervals and are taken to the city's transfer
station where they are routed to either the compost plant or the
city dump. Solid wastes are collected by both the Sanitation
Department and the Street Department. The Sanitation Department
is responsible for commercial and residential wastes while the
Street Department collects leaves and brush and is responsible
for snow removal, street sweeping and storm sewer cleaning.
Storage
Only the Sanitation Department is concerned with wastes which
require storage prior to collection. Residential and commercial
sources contribute the majority of the city-collected solid wastes,,
Since these wastes may be stored for as long as a week prior to
collection, the condition of the storage containers is important
because proper storage is one of the first steps in securing
vector control and elimination of community health hazards.
Residential solid waste storage in Johnson City is generally
good. Cans are covered and shielded by protective racks which
ward off animals and alley traffic. Covers are usually carefully
replaced by the collector after the cans are emptied; a consideration
ignored in many cities,,
There were instances of deteriorated racks and containers as well
as overflowing containers. In the cases noted, collectors inverted
rusted containers to call their condition to the attention of the
homeowner. Collectors, however, have made no attempt to inform
the supervisor or to confiscate containers as authorized in
Section 14-5 of the Ordinances of Johnson City. Both deteriorated
and overflowing containers create ideal conditions where flies
and rodents can feed and propogate. Such conditions present a
hazard to public health and increase collection costs.
Collection
Solid wastes in Johnson City are collected by a variety of methods.
Residential and some commercial wastes are collected by city and
private compactor trucks while wastes from some industries and
large commercial establishments are collected by special city
crews and equipment.
-------
Residential wastes and 40 percent by weight of the commercial
wastes are collected weekly by 5 three-man crews with compactor
truckse These crews are assigned weekly "large routes" broken
down into daily routes which have indefinite finishing points.
The result is that residences near one end or another of a daily
route may wait an extra day for service or receive service a day
early, depending on the progress of the crews.
Collection in the city's alleys is most convenient and efficient
because it provides easy access to great numbers of residences
with minimum time and effort. It is also convenient for the
homeowner who is not expected to set cans at curbside on a
specific collection day. This is particularly important since
truck crews operate on weekly rather than on strict daily sche-
dules .
The situation is not as convenient for those homeowners who are
expected to set cans at specific accessible points (usually at
the curb) on collection day. The inconvenience of having to move
cans to and from the collection point is compounded when collec-
tion days are indefinite. This problem has been eliminated by
some homeowners who store their containers at curbside.
Approximately 9 percent of the residences receive the special
service of having containers carried from and returned to their
backyards. In some cases trucks are backed into driveways to
service the containers. This service is found most frequently
in higher income neighborhoods but is not restricted to them.
Special services are not restricted to contiguous neighborhoods.
Many instances were noted of backyard services spotted between
alley and curbside services along the same street.
About 10 percent of the homeowners in Johnson City, however, burn
some wastes in their backyards. The resulting volume reduction
allows them to get by with the limited number of cans their racks
will hold. Others employ private collectors to provide supple-
mental service once a week. To receive twice-weekly collection,
130 homeowners pay extra monthly fees to private collectors. The
municipal collection service to these segments of the population
were judged to be inadequate.
Municipal Wastes
The City itself contributes wastes which are collected primarily
by the Street Department. Leaves are collected from street
gutters by 2 trucks equipped with suction systems. During the
fall 2 three-man crews (each composed of a driver and two rakers)
are employed at these tasks. The trucks are each filled about
twice daily and deposit their 14-cubic-yard loads at the city
-------
8
dump, in private gardens, or on the old Chilhowie disposal site.
Eight cubic yards of" street sweepings are deposited daily at the
Chilhowie disposal site from the city's street sweepers.
Street Sweepings
Leaves-
Brush-
Catch Basin
Sediment
seasonal
Chilhowie Landfill
Private Property
City Dump
Figure 1
WASTES COLLECTED BY THE STREET DEPARTMENT IN CUBIC YARDS PER WEEK
No wastes collected by the Street Department are transferred
through the Sanitation Department's transfer station because the
City fears that the abrasive nature of the wastes might harm the
runners of the packing mechanism in the transfer van.
Industrial Wastes
Industries in Johnson City generate 13O tons of solid waste weekly,
The majority of the wastes are hauled to disposal by employees
of the industries themselves (Figure 2). Large quantities of
cardboard and metals are salvaged for reuse in other processes.
The Sanitation Department collects from 7 industries accounting
for approximately 9 tons per week.
-------
Collector
Disposal
Site
Johnson
Industrial
Wastes
jra nsf e r
Station
___ 4
"^T
Compost
p|ant
Washington County
Utility District
Private
Self Hauling
Jonesboro
Dump
Private
' Sites
Salvage
Reuse
Figure 2
DISPOSAL OF 130 TONS OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES WEEKLY
Transfer and Disposal of Solid Wastes
All solid wastes (with the exception of brush) collected by the
Sanitation Department are hauled by collection trucks to the
transfer station adjacent to the city garage. Wastes are hauled
from the transfer station to either the compost plant or the
city dump. The City uses 2 compactor transfer trailers for this
purpose. The trailers have a combined capacity of 118 compacted
cubic yards and each makes 2 trips a day to the disposal sites.
-------
10
The compost plant accepts that portion (5O to 75%) of Johnson
City's solid wastes that it can effectively process. The re-
mainder of the wastes are transferred to the city dump.
The city dump receives 35 tons of residential, commercial, and
industrial wastes daily. Sawdust, leaves, and brush are segre-
gated and burned separately. The disposal area receives some
final, but no daily or intermediate, cover. Its standards of
operation are below those advocated by the U. S. Public Health
Service and the State of Tennessee. In order to upgrade the
operation the City must cease burning, compact, and cover the
wastes daily.
Private Collection and Disposal
Private collection in and around Johnson City is conducted by
the Washington County Utility District, a private firm. This
company serves 13O homes within the City and about 900 in ad-
jacent areas. Neighborhoods in these areas receive collection
coverage ranging from 2O to 90 percent.
Collected solid wastes are dumped at a site shared with the
City of Jonesboro, Tennessee. Although more attention is paid
to earth cover and housekeeping, this site was considered equal
to the Johnson City dump. It is not a sanitary landfill,, Re-
cords of routing and the number of customers served by collec-
tion crews were readily available from the Washington County
Utility District.
-------
11
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SYSTEM
It cannot usually be said that the solid waste handling system
of any city is uniformly adequate or inadequate. Instead, the
various facets of" a system must be analyzed and compared to ideal
standards. The present analysis considers the adequacy of col-
lection and vector control services, and describes how the costs
of the system should be allocated to the sectors (residential,
commercial, industrial..,) requiring service. It reports on the
efficiencies of the collectors, equipment, and methods employed
as well as the acceptability of the disposal techniques. Finally,
it analyzes the ordinances pertaining to solid wastes handling
in Johnson City.
Storage and Fly Spraying
The storage of solid wastes in Johnson City was generally good
but there was evidence that it is inadequate to control flies.
Fly larva are carried to the compost plant and the city dump in
the collected waste, where they mature to become a severe nui-
sance. Cool weather prior to the study hindered intensive survey
of the fly problem by depressing the fly population. Nevertheless,
evidence of it was still present in the form of pupae discovered
by surveyors in some garbage cans.
To establish the extent of fly breeding in storage containers,
another, more intensive study during the summer months is needed.
Technical Services is prepared to make such a study if desired
by the City and the compost plant.
Flies are recognized mechanical vectors of disease. They have
been known to carry organisms which cause typhoid, dysentery, pin
worms, tape worms, conjunctivitis, anthrax, and other diseases.
Other studies have been conducted under conditions not identical
to those found in Johnson City, but they lead us to believe that
during the summer months an average of 7OO larva migrate from each
storage container each week.
Attempts by the City to restrict fly breeding in solid wastes
storage containers have consisted of policing the containers as
mentioned earlier and residual spraying at intervals with a_
moderate dose of an organophosphorus insecticide, Malathion^.
It is felt that adequately policed storage is an essential part of
any solid waste handling system but that container spraying for fly
control provides only short-term abatement. Homeowners who periodi-
cally rinse cans to avoid odors also rinse out insecticide residuals.
The City spends between $8,OOO and $1O,OOO per year based on 1966
and 1967 budget figures for container fly spraying.
-------
12
The most effective fly production control is to collect solid
wastes at least twice weekly. This removes food and breeding
media before the cycle of fly reproduction is completed. Col-
lection at least twice weekly in Johnson City would also reduce
the need for most open burning and some collections which are
now specially scheduled. The City now spends $65,40O annually
for collection of residential solid wastes. Should the City
collect more frequently there would be fewer cans at each home,
collectors would work faster, and daily routes would lengthen.
The more frequent service will prompt greater quantities of
wastes due to decreased reliance on private collectors and open
burning, but because the crews are faster, the cost of service
will increase only about 8O percent.
Residential Collection
Residential solid waste collection in Johnson City is a clean and
thorough operation. Its other attributes are difficult to define
because few records are maintained. The costs of various aspects
of the operation are unknown even to those most intimately associ-
ated with it. In order to determine the costs of the system,
several changes in management techniques are suggested.
Daily and definite routes are recommended to replace the weekly
routes now assigned each driver. Collectors who follow daily
routes with an indeterminate finish, excessively inconvenience
the homeowners of the community and make it more difficult for
the managers to measure labor force productivity. Weekly routes
assigned to only one crew give no comparative data to evaluate
whether efficiencies are attributed to the crew or to the routing.
It is, for instance, difficult to judge whether the crew with
driver "P" finished early because of efficiency or because of
covering a smaller-than-normal route section. Some routes are
laid out to absorb growth in the areas they cover. On these, the
crew will someday be pressed to finish, but can finish now with
time to spare.
The existing system not only allows the drivers to collect daily
as much of their weekly routes as they wish. It also permits
choice of the sequence in which each "daily" segment is collected.
No records of routing sequences or boundaries exist except in the
memory of the crews. A substitute driver must rely on his memory
and on directions from his helpers to complete a route.
This system of crew organization allows each driver, rather than
the manager of the entire system, to determine the optimum sequence
of his route.
-------
13
An ideal written route description would include the following
essential features:
1. An accurate description of the route by management
to optimize both the individual route and the inter-
locking system of routes. It should include check
points and the times these should be passed. The
check points should be placed to encourage a reasonable
but high level of productivity.
2. An accurate count of the units served, i.e., the number
of homes and businesses, not the number of cans. It
should include the date on which the route was last
verified.
3. A space for notes concerning the operation of the
system. All notes should be initialed so that
further details can be obtained.
4. Space at the end for a summary which should explain the
time spent on the route as an average brought up to date
weekly. It should also include a record of the last
truck weighing and a computation of manpower productivity.
A copy of the route description without detailed notes on
performance should accompany all trucks and men should be
encouraged to note all irregularities in the route (see
Figure 3).
-------
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE
SANITATION DEPARTMENT
Suggested Solid Waste Collection Route Description
Sheet
of
Route Number
Route Description Current On
Time Getting To Route
Collection Day_
Route Miles
Crew
ON
FROM
TO
TURN
UNITS SERVED
RES. COMM.
ROUTE SUMMARY: Total
Units
Served
NOTES AND COMMENTS
TRUCK WEIGHED ON
GROSS
TARE
NET
Time To Complete Route_
Average Time To Complete Route_
Figure 3
-------
15
Once the City has obtained thorough descriptions of all routes,
crews and drivers may be switched among them to compare their
efficiencies.
Labor Productivity and Use
As has been suggested, Johnson City has no specific measures for
labor productivity except intuitive estimates by personnel famil-
iar with the work accomplished. This management method provides
no data on which to justify what may, in fact, be sound judgment
of the needs and efficiency of the system.
Productivity in solid waste management is a measure of the quantity
of waste collected per unit time by members of a collecting crew.
It is tempting to measure quantities according to their volume (by
number of containers, number of truck loads, etc.); while this
system is convenient, it yields obvious inaccuracies because den-
sity of material in trucks and in containers varies considerably.
During the week of the survey, density ranged from 1O6 pounds per
cubic yard to 633 pounds per cubic yard. The measure of producti-
vity should be versatile enough to equate the efficiency of all
modes of collection (some compacting and some not) and all crew
sizes. For this reason, productivity should be expressed on a
weight basis. The traditional value is in man-minutes per ton
collected with adjustments for travel time to and from the regular
route and for lunch and other legitimate breaks.
The average productivity during the week of the study was 186 man-
minutes per ton for three-man compactor truck crews. The more
productive crews showed lower man-minutes per ton figures (Figure
4).
While worker productivity is an important gage of the efficiency
of the system, it does not describe whether daily routes are
equitably distributed among the crews. Figure 5 charts the aver-
age weight collected by each crew on 3 days of the survey.
-------
16
28O-
260-
240-
220-
200-
ISO
c
£ 160
to
| 140
I
^ 120
o
5 100
80
60-
20
0
irM" "N" "0" "P" "Q"
Figure 4
PRODUCTIVITY OF CREWS
Represents 3 Days of Data
(October 17, 19, and 20, 1967)
-------
17
16-
14-
12-
8-
6-
0
10
2-
0-
"M"
110"
»p.
"Q"
Figure 5
WORK LOAD BALANCE BETWEEN CREWS
Represents 3 Days of Data
(October 17, 19, and 20, 1967)
Figures 4 and 5 together give an idea of which crew was most produc-
tive or which route was best laid out on the three days on which the
data were noted. Whether the efficiencies come from productive crews
or well sequenced routes can be discovered only by switching crews
among routes or by inaugurating different, and more carefully
sequenced routes. The City should conduct further measurements to
detect seasonal or weekly variations in the work load and producti-
vity between crews. An attempt to distribute the work load and
balance productivity requires written route descriptions, maps,
thorough planning, an'd the will to innovate new techniques.
A short-term study cannot result in explicit suggestions to improve
routing and the use of labor. These matters require continuing
analysis and innovation with supervision sympathetic to the fact
that such systems are not optimized overnight and are full of numer-
ous local constraints discovered only by trying other methods of
organization, some of which will be unsuccessful.
-------
18
It is important that collection records be available and that they
be adequate to recognize one innovation as better than another.
Such records will not be really useful without the weights of col-
lected solid wastes. These weights can be obtained periodically
at local scrap and coal yards for nominal fees.
It is recommended that records of the system's operation be
reported monthly. It is also recommended that such reports should
include:
1. Route changes and costs or savings resulting from
attempts to improve the system.
2. Labor productivity for each route and for the entire
system.
3. Costs and performance figures for each part of the
operation (collection, transfer, overhead and disposal).
4. Equipment costs for each vehicle including repair costs,
down time and reasons for it, and miles traveled. These
figures might well be reported monthly and annually, and
be related to the amounts of solid waste handled. These
figures will be useful in determining the economic life
of equipment and its true cost.
As the occasion arises, the Sanitation Department should submit
justification based on former monthly reports, for additional
bulk container service and new equipment purchases.
An annual report should state all costs incurred and describe
all innovations in the system for that year.
Commercial Waste Handling
The solid wastes from commercial establishments are collected by
two modes; compactor trucks and bulk containers. There are 98 bulk
containers which store and transport 60 percent of the City's com-
mercial wastes. Wastes collected by this means cost $4.00 per ton
based on the cost of 3 trucks and 2 drivers but excluding the cost
of containers. (The cost climbs to $5.00 per ton with a third
driver.) Smaller commercial establishments served by compactor
trucks contribute 40 percent of the commercial wastes at a collec-
tion cost of $15.OO per ton based on a three-man crew. (The cost
of the same crew and truck in a residential area is $9.00 per ton.)
The relatively low cost of service by bulk containers is explained
by the short haul to the transfer station and by the fact that only
generators of large quantities of waste own them. The high cost of
compactor truck service to smaller establishments results from stor-
age facilities which are less convenient to collectors and from the
high cost of three-man crews.
-------
19
Much hand labor is usually required to collect commercial wastes.
The wastes, consisting primarily of paper and boxes, are usually
light. Truck hoppers are quickly filled and much time is spent
awaiting completion of the packing cycle. Because of the neces-
sary wait, the City might consider using a two-roan crew, with the
driver assisting in loading the hopper.
Commercial collection is adequate in most respects. Daily commer-
cial collection is provided for most establishments and for the
others, far more frequently than in the residential sector. As a
result, few problems exist with flies. Collection frequencies were
maintained as scheduled during the week of the survey and with few
exceptions, containers were collected as records stated. In a
number of cases, however, the recorded container size was in error.
Productivity varied greatly between drivers. The more productive
driver averaged 21 minutes per collection while the less productive
driver averaged 25 minutes per collection.
No criteria exist for the use of bulk containers, their purchase
being primarily the option of the particular waste generator. This
results in special time consuming compactor crew service to a few
establishments who have not been motivated to purchase them. City
time-motion records gathered in June, 1966 and personal interviews
conducted by study team members during the week of the study revealed
that as much as an hour is spent at one supermarket where cartons are
retrieved from the basement. Another commercial stop requires col-
lectors periodically to shovel ash residue from a masonry bin.
Commerce in Johnson City produces 38 percent of the city-collected
solid wastes at a cost of about 40 percent of the total.
Industrial Waste Handling
Industrial solid wastes are an insignificant fraction of the city-
collected wastes. The fact that seven industries are served, however,
points to weakly defined policies and ordinances governing the City's
collection of industrial wastes. The City should define its role in
the regulation and collection of industrial solid wastes and apply a
uniform policy throughout the City.
-------
20
COST ALLOCATION AND FINANCING
THROUGH SERVICE CHARGES
The costs of solid waste collection from the residential, commer-
cial, and industrial sectors should be equitably allocated among
those sectors. Many communities feel that the cost of service to
the commercial sector, for instance, should be proportional to the
waste it generates and equal to the tax money it contributes toward
the service. Should the costs of solid waste collection of any
sector be greater than justified by taxes to that sector, the true
costs of the services contributed by that sector are not reflected
in the price of the service. In effect solid waste collection from
that sector receives a subsidy from the other sectors. Wastes from
schools and libraries and from other municipal activities such as
street and storm drain cleaning receive this subsidy. whether or
not such diseconomies are practiced by the City is a matter of
policy.
Two basic philosophies dominate financing solid wastes handling
systems. When solid waste collection is regarded as a utility,
charges are proportional to the amount of service provided. How-
ever, when collection is conducted as a necessary measure to main-
tain community health, it is financed as are roads and schools
through a general tax revenue.
Costs and allocations of solid waste collection are charted in
Figure 6. Detailed tax data were not available to determine whether
or not costs and charges were properly allocated, however, such infor-
mation is easily applied when obtained.
Cities which finance solid waste handling with a service charge
attempt to allocate the costs of the service strictly as a utility.
As a utility, the charge to each user is proportional to the service
rendered. The primary advantage of this system is that it frees
general tax revenues for other purposes. It also requires that cost
records be kept and used to justify innovations and charges in the
system.
The service charge,•however, is not a universal panacea for the pro-
blems of solid waste management. Before such a charge can be inaugu-
rated, numerous details must be considered.
-------
62,600
20,4OO
* 11,000:
m ' * - *
5,0001
104,400
84,600
85,000
'14,200
••*7,70'o:
69,600
-,200
COLLECTION
FLY SPRAYING
TRANSFER
OVERHEAD
VY/////A DISPOSAL ON
CITY LAND
Total Annual Cost
$ 270,000
>•>
3,200
'5,600
RESIDENTIAL STREET DEPT. COMMERCIAL
ANNUAL COST OF SOLID WASTE
INDUSTRIAL
HANDLING
SCHOOLS
OTHER
BY ITEM AND SECTOR
•
Figure 6
-------
22
A workable service charge requires a simple means of fixing charges,
billing householders, and dealing with delinquent accounts. Such a
system must also meet or completely exclude competition from private
collectors. This move in Johnson City would require additional
regulatory codes if the City is to maintain control over the quality
of service.
Several methods of fixing charges are used in the many cities using
the service charge system of financing. The three which seem most
applicable to residential collection in Johnson City are:
1. Flat rate for all residences
2. Rate proportional to the time spent collecting at
each residence
3. Rate proportional to the volume or weight produced
at each residence.
A flat rate charged all residences is the most economically adminis-
tered system. It works on the assumption that services do not differ
appreciably between residences and that all receive equal service.
This, of course, is not always true.
Billing at a rate proportional to the time spent on individual col-
lections is certainly the most equitable means of distributing costs.
However, this system requires extensive records and manpower to
obtain basic time data which must be collected and averaged regularly.
Solid waste collection charges based on the volume (number of con-
tainers) or weight collected from each household are easily deter-
mined and seldom change significantly. Such a system encourages
overloaded cans and the use of unauthorized containers or boxes.
The system also encourages backyard burning to reduce volume, a
practice which should be discouraged because of its contribution
to air pollution. Extensive records are required when this system
is used.
Financing solid waste collection with a service charge makes the
service sound optional. Some citizens may seek to avoid any
collection or may haul wastes themselves in order to avoid the
charges. Experience has shown that people electing this option
often do not provide themselves with adequate service. For this
reason it is wise to legislate so that all citizens receive regular
collection service by approved collectors. If private collectors
are allowed to provide this regular service in competition with
city forces, they should be licensed to insure compliance with city
standards.
Billing commercial and industrial establishments is more difficult
than billing households. One finds great variance in the quantities
of wastes from commerce and industry as well as variation in
-------
23
collection frequency. Johnson City also employs two distinct
modes of collection which must be considered. For these reasons
a flat rate charged to commerce and industry is unworkable.
Instead, a fee based on time required or quantity collected is
more appropriate.
Special fees for solid waste collection are usually billed on
existing accounts because of the great expense of separate bill-
ing. Most cities include charges or fees with water or tax bills
regularly sent to citizens. Special billing to commerce and indus-
try is hard to avoid because special bills should go to building
tenants, and not the land owners who pay taxes on the property.
Unless tenants are forewarned, the sudden appearance of a special
bill for solid waste collection will cause great confusion.
-------
24
EQUIPMENT USE
Solid wastes are collected by many types of trucks in Johnson
City. The Street Department uses standard street sweepers,
suction leaf collectors and open trucks for brush collection
and catch basin cleaning. The Sanitation Department uses en-
closed compactor trucks, bulk container hoist trucks and semi-
trailer transfer vans.
No detailed information was gathered to evaluate the use of
Street Department equipment. It was felt that the equipment
was standard and that its effective use depended principally
on the skill of the labor operating it.
The Sanitation Department received closer scrutiny because its
equipment is closely associated with the efficiency and economy
of their highly routine system.
Compactor Vehicles
Collection trucks with compactor mechanisms were not operated
at true capacity during the week of the study. Since wastes
are pressed into truck bodies of constant volume, they are not
considered full until they are "packed out", until the packing
blade meets a resistance too great to overcome. Whether a truck
is actually full when "packed out" can only be determined by
obtaining weights and calculating the density of material in the
truck,, A truck can be "packed out" long before it contains waste
at maximum densities. This happens when hoppers are loaded too
full between packing operations and the material bridges creating
voids in the load. The average density of wastes in compactor
trucks was 357 pounds per cubic yard with a maximum value of 633
pounds per cubic yard. The latter is about what can be expected
with optimum operation.
It should be pointed out that maximum densities are not required
of most collectors under the present work loads and productivity.
Extra capacity is available when it is needed, however, and can
be attained by more careful operation.
The Sanitation Department operates 5 compactor trucks daily,
holds a sixth truck in reserve and has a seventh truck for a
night route. This practice actually leaves 2 trucks idle during
the day. The reasons behind this practice arenot clear. It is
assumed that one reserve truck is adequate to assure uninterrupted
service and that reserving a truck strictly for night service is
unnecessary. A night crew could use any of the 4 trucks used for
daily residential routes (Figure 7).
-------
25
DOMPSTER HDIST
DUKiSTEH HOIST
I
EXTRA DUKPSTER HOIST
I
CCMPAGT-Jil RESIDENTIAL
I
C( ,L,
RESIl JEI.; TIAL
I
C'.l-lAC'fO;t RESIDE-TIAL
GOMlAGTOii RESIDENTIAL
COMPACTOR COMMERCIAL
EXTRA C^KPACTCR
OPEN 'iRUSH TRUCK
n
COLPACTOR C01-.I E.iCIAL
TRAFSPER \TAN
6AM
I2N
6PM
12 M
Figure 7
TIMING OF SANITATION DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT USE
-------
26
Bulk Containers
The bulk container system used by the City is the Dempster Dumpster*
line. Large privately owned containers throughout the City are
serviced by trucks which carry them to the transfer station, empty
and return them to the owner. Large containers allow mechanized
handling of large quantities of solid waste generated at single
points. It provides clean and uncluttered storage for areas which
would require as many as 20 to 30 small cans.
The Dempster Dumpster system used differs from most other bulk
container systems by requiring a full round trip to the disposal
site for each container. With regularly scheduled service every
container is not filled to capacity. Most containers are serviced
frequently enough that owners are not inconvenienced by a receptacle
which is too full to use. However, containers filled with food
wastes must be serviced not necessarily when full, but when their
contents start to smell excessively and are attractive to rodents
and flies. During the week of the study containers carried on
the average, only 54 percent by volume of their design capacity
(See Figure 8.) Annual costs of the current Dumpster system are
detailed in Appendix B-II.
Other bulk container systems employ trucks which mechanically empty
containers without transporting them. These trucks also compact
the waste to between one-third and one-quarter of their original
volume. Johnson City's current Dumpster system hauls uncompacted
wastes. It is estimated (Appendix A) that 1 unit which empties
containers on site (one brand name is the Dempster Dumpmaster )could
replace 3 Dumpster hoist trucks at a considerable savings. Unfor-
tunately, manufacturers have not made interchangeable containers for
the two systems. Johnson City, in going to the more economical sys-
tem, would probably have to modify existing containers or aid present
owners in purchasing different ones.
Solid Waste Transfer
Transfer of solid wastes in large vans is economically justified
when the cost of transfer is less than the cost of all collection
trucks traveling to a disposal site. Calculations shown that the
cost of transfer operations exceed the cost of direct haul by
$13,000 each year (Appendix A**.) Calculations further show that
if transfer operations were stopped and the Dumpmaster type system
of bulk containers were used, and excess equipment sold, the City
would save $37,6OO annually over the systems now in use.
*The use of names of commercial products does not imply endorsement
by the U. S. Public Health Service.
**Appendix A shows a savings of $27,OOO from this change. This
savings is for operations with only 6 of the present 7 trucks.
-------
27
+ 50
+ 40
« +30
M
Q.
E
Q
•5
k.
0)
E
20
.0
20 40 6O
Percent Full
Figure 8
USE OF BULK CONTAINERS
Represents 4 Days of Data
(October 16, 17, 19, and 20, 1967)
80
EOO
-------
28
The transfer operation falls short of its goal of cost reduction
because the haul distances to the disposal sites (dump or compost
plant) are so short. The round trips can be made easily in 30
minutes. Street Department trucks make the trip daily to the city
dump since they do not use the transfer system.
Operation of the transfer system is well conducted, although drain
cocks on the trailers were never closed and vans trailed a spray
of polluted water on each trip. Drain cocks should be open only
when the vehicle is being cleaned.
A full discussion of the alternatives to solid waste transfer is
found in Appendix A.
-------
29
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
City Dump
As previously described, operation of the city dump falls well
below approved levels and is not operated as well as the private
dump near Jonesboro, which is in a more isolated location. To
be operated properly, open burning must be stopped, daily cover
provided, and operations planned to make full use of the land.
The City should keep in mind the use to which the land will be
put once filling operations are completed and the land reclaimed,
The old Chilhowie site exemplifies use of reclaimed land. A
portion of this site is now Civitan Park, while the rest of the
site is not finished and is still used for dumping leaves and
catch basin wastes.
Composting
The only wastes regularly collected in or around Johnson City
that are particularly detrimental to the composting process are
hospital and medical center wastes. These hospital wastes con-
sist of used hypodermic needles and dressings. Although it has
not been proven, it is likely that these wastes threaten the
health of the composting plant workers who must remove them, by
hand, from the process. It is estimated that 12,OOO pounds of
such wastes are collected weekly by the City, some of which may
reach the compost plant.
A few sources of wastes particularly beneficial to composting
were noted. Large supermarkets and restaurants generate sub-
stantial quantities of produce and other food wastes which are
high in nitrogen,, Such wastes are prized as hog feed by area
farmers and this constant demand for them would seem to preclude
their collection by city forces and their being processed at the
composting plant.
Johnson City has a very active salvage market and most large
quantities of commercial solid wastes are collected and sold,
or used privately. Many supermarkets segregate cardboard boxes
and store them in large bins for private collectors. Meat scraps
from restaurants and butcher shops are collected for rendering.
High-grade broken soft drink bottles are collected from local
bottling plants and reclaimed in Knoxville, Tennessee.
-------
30
The best source of organic wastes seems to be the residential
sectors in and around the city. Almost 26 percent by weight of
the residential solid wastes are food wastes and will compost well,
The only major source of additional residential wastes around
Johnson City are those collected by the Washington County Utility
District. Trucks serving the peripheral areas of Johnson City
are within haul distance of the compost plant and contain solid
wastes from almost purely residential sources. The owners of the
Washington County Utility District have expressed a sincere
interest in cooperating with the plant in the delivery of these
wastes.
City transfer vans now deliver solid wastes to the compost
plant before the processing crews arrive. This early arrival
is achieved by holding a full transfer van overnight and driving
it out early in the morning. This seems satisfactory and is
probably the best procedure possible under the current system
of transfer.
Should the city cease transferring wastes and haul directly to
the compost plant or city dump, other arrangements will be
required. It has been suggested that routing also be revised
to use manpower more efficiently and decrease the average haul
to the disposal site. It is believed that direct haul by
individual trucks can provide working schedules similar to
those followed now.
-------
31
DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCES COVERING SOLID WASTES
HANDLING IN JOHNSON CITY
The collection of solid wastes is covered in Chapter 14 of the
Johnson City Code (1951). These codes cover many contingencies
in great detail but fail to describe the solid wastes handling
system as it exists in the City.
The code fails to assign responsibility for solid wastes collec-
tion and does not describe the service the citizens should expect
from collectors.
Responsibility for collection of all residential and commercial
solid wastes should be entrusted to a single official. This
person should be bound by ordinance to provide adequate and
equitable service to the citizens. Requirements should include
that detailed records of costs and procedures be regularly
forwarded to supervisory officials.
Article II entitled "Garbage" actually deals with solid wastes
collection from residential and commercial sources but is
extremely vague about collection from industry. The ordinance
holds owners and tenants of these establishments responsible
for storage of the wastes they generate. It does not describe
the important detail of how food wastes are to be prepared for
storage. Food wastes should be thoroughly wrapped in newspaper
to prevent flies from laying eggs on the organic material.
The ordinance permits the use of metal cans only, yet fails to
describe the minimum capacity required at each site. Recent
technology has made plastic cans as satisfactory as metal ones
and their use should not be discouraged. The City should pro-
vide more definite guides to the quantity of storage required.
It is reasonable to require on-site storage sufficient for a
week and a hair" where there is weekly collection, to allow for
unforeseen delays in service.
The ordinance states that storage containers will be "placed
in a convenient, accessible location for trucking." It does
not state that this placement is required only on collection
days designated by a responsible authority. As a result, many
cans are always stored in these places convenient to trucking
but all too visible to the public.
-------
32
The rationale for special services to 9 percent of the citizens
of Johnson City is the result of varying interpretations of which
places are convenient to trucking. In many instances cans are
"made accessible" by backing trucks into driveways. Ordinances
should specify collection points.
Only burning on bituminous pavement is prohibited in the ordinance.
It is recommended that all open burning, except that done for
recreational purposes, be outlawed both within the City and at the
city dump. Such a prohibition would be Johnson City's first step
toward air pollution control that is considered desirable in most
American cities.
The third article of the ordinance entitled "Sanitary Garbage Fill"
deals with disposal of solid wastes. This article contains no
definitions for the various terms used, such as "Garbage Fill" and
"Refuse Fill". As mentioned previously in this report, the city
disposal site is not a sanitary landfill because there is no daily
compaction and cover and open burning is practiced. It is strongly
recommended that ordinances specify higher standards for operating
this site.
It is felt that the exclusion of sawdust and mica dust at the dump
is an unwarranted measure which only provokes disposal by other less
controlled means. City officials should seriously consider special
provisions for infectious hospital, clinic, and animal clinic wastes.
The Tennessee Department of Public "Minimum Standards and Regulations
for Hospitals", Section 305.5, states that "all infected dressings,
surgical and obstetrical wastes shall be incinerated".5 Only the
Veterans Administration Hospital incinerates such waste regularly.
In the other hospitals and clinics great leeway is taken in inter-
preting what is indeed infectious. It is felt that sizeable quantities
of wastes dangerous to personal health are regularly handled by city
forces.
-------
33
REFERENCES
1. Rogers, P. A., and G. J. Bellenger. Fly and economic evaluation
of urban refuse systems. II. An efficiency analysis of paper
bag containers. California Vector Views, 14(5):29-36, May 1967.
2. Scott, H. G., and K. S. Littig. Flies of public health importance
and their control. V. A training guide in the insect control
series. Atlanta, National Communicable Disease Center, 1962.
3. An analysis of refuse collection and sanitary landfill disposal.
Technical Bulletin No. 8. Sanitary Engineering Research Project.
Richmond, University of California, Dec. 1952. Series 37. p. 46.
-------
34
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
Technical Services wishes to express its appreciation to the City
of Johnson City for its assistance in developing and conducting the
study. The maps, study, and data provided by the City helped make
the study a success.
The State of Tennessee Department of Health provided assistance to
the study by assigning Mr. Ronald Gasser to aid Technical Services
in conducting the study.
Members of the study team from the Solid Wastes Program were:
Morris G. Tucker Charles S. Spooner, III
Charles W. Reid Billy P. Helms
John J. Giar Tobias A. Hegdahl
Walter W. Liberick Joseph E. Shandling
We wish to acknowledge the help of Mr. Gordon Stone, U. S. Public
Health Service--Tennessee Valley Authority Composting Plant for his
assistance in conducting the hospital solid wastes survey.
Technical Services is also indebted to the Systems and Operations
Planning Activity of the Solid Wastes Program for providing vehicle
operating costs data used in the report.
This report was prepared by Charles S. Spooner, III, Staff Engineer,
Consultation and Investigations, Technical Services, Solid Wastes
Program.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
36
APPENDIX A
ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM
OF SOLID WASTE HANDLING
APPENDIX A-I
ALTERNATE EQUIPMENT
The purpose of this appendix is to evaluate the alternatives to
the current system of solid waste collection and transfer. Three
alternatives discussed are:
1. Continue to use the present svstem
2. Change portions of the system immediately
3. Change portions of the system in the future.
The costs of continuing to use the present system are detailed in
Appendix B. The costs there are not based on the original cost
of the equipment, but on its present estimated resale, "realizable",
value. A summary of those costs appears below.
Estimatedl^j37_AnTtual Cost of the Present System
Overhead $ 19,221
Compactor Collection 91,189
Bulk Container Collection 16,492
Transfer 28,010
Disposal 14,673
Total $169,585
In changing the system immediately, there are two choices:
(1) Eliminate transfer operations and sell the transfer vans for
their realizable value; (2) Sell the transfer vans and the bulk
container hoists trucks and purchase an alternate Dumpmaster type
truck to handle bulk containers.
-------
37
If transfer were eliminated, collection trucks would have to haul
directly to the disposal site with an obvious increase in operating
costs of those trucks. The compactor trucks which make two trips
to the transfer stations, would make 2 trips to a disposal site
each day. Assuming a round trip of 30 minutes, the increase in
time would be an hour each day. During the study week crews spent
an average of 6 hours and 2O minutes collecting and received 8 hours
pay. If this much time is spent collecting throughout the year, the
additional hour for the trip to the disposal site should be possible
without overtime pay. If needed, the last trip could be made with
the driver only to provide incentive for the crew to finish early.
Annual Cost of an Average Compactor Truck
Depreciation $ 800 Unchanged
*r 4
Maintenance & repair 1,647 $500 increase
Insurance 88 Unchanged
Tires 366 $10O increase
Fuel & lubrication > 610 $200 increase
Crew 1O , 296 Unchanged
Total $13,7O7 vs. a former cost of $13,027
The annual cost for 6 trucks would be about -$07,500 assuming the
extra truck is sold as suggested in the section on equipment use.
As one might expect, the cost of operating the bulk container
hoists is greatly increased without transfer. This results
from the relatively short economic haul distance when trucks
must load, haul, empty, and return each container.
Without transfer, the third duropster hoist would be used.
Currently drivers average 23.3 minutes per collection and work
an average of 7 hours per day. The extra distance to the disposal
site would require an extra 30 minutes, or 53.3 minutes per
service. This would require 24 man-days per week for service, or
3 daytime crews and a night crew six days per week.
-------
38
Annual Cost of an Average Dumpster Hoist Truck
Depreciation of hoist
Depreciation of chassis
Maintenance and repair
Insurance
Tires
Fuel and lubrication
Crew at $1.80 per hour
Total
$ 214 Unchanged
345 Unchanged
1,OOO $2OO increase
88 Unchanged
16O Tire costs
double
1,OOO Costs doubles
5,986 Reflects the
cost of four
drivers
$8,793 vs. a former
cost of $5,497
The annual cost of three trucks: $26,379
Based on the cost estimates mentioned previously, eliminating the
transfer station will result in the following annual costs to the
City:
Annual Cost Without Transfer
Overhead
Compactor collection
Bulk container collection
Disposal
Total
$ 19,221 Unchanged
82,250 See above
26,379 see above
14,673 Unchanged
$142,523
The annual savings over the present system: $ 27,062,
Although eliminating the transfer station allows some savings,
the cost of bulk container service nearly doubles in the system
without transfer. It is desirable to look toward alternate
-------
methods of handling bulk containers. Two alternate schemes seem
to be: (1) Replace hoist trucks with a more economical truck
which does not haul uncompacted wastes and containers to the
disposal site; (2) Retain the present bulk container trucks and
use only one transfer van exclusively for them.
The type of truck described above to replace the hoist trucks is
manufactured by several companies. The compacting mechanism in
them can reduce the 180 cubic yards of waste collected daily in
bulk containers to 6O cubic yards. If the new truck had 3O cubic
yard capacity, this would result in 2 trips to the disposal site
and service to 35 bulk containers each of six days a week. The
annual cost of such a system would be:
Capital cost
Useful life-years
Salvage
Annual depreciation
Maintenance and repair
Insurance
Tires
Fuel and lubrication
Crew (2 men)
Total
This would be an apparent savings of nearly £31,08-3 annually from
the present system -- but there are complications. The manufacturer
has not made the containers to fit both types of trucks, thus the
existing containers will have to be replaced or modified. The effort,
however, might be justified since the number of bulk containers is
certain to increase as are the savings between the systems.
It is helpful 'to look into the economics of operating one transfer
van on a limited scale for the sole use of the existing bulk con-
tainer system. Such a system may prove to be the only one feasible
because of the costs of replacing or modifying the existing containers.
It might also prove a satisfactory scheme while converting existing
bulk containers to fit a new truck.
-------
40
If a single transfer van is used, it must be decided which one
Johnson City should keep. The selection must be based on both
cost and capacity. Appendix B-III shows the current annual cost
of transfer. It shows that the older vehicle costs more each
year than the newer one - that it has reached its economic life
and should be sold. Required capacity has already been discussed
and is 18O uncompacted cubic yards a day. This can be handled by
the newer transfer truck in two loads.
With such infrequent use, it seems reasonable to hire only a
driver who could clean the transfer station between his runs.
The resulting transfer costs would be:
Vehicle depreciation
Operations and maintenance
Transfer station amortization
Vehicle operator at $1.85/hr.
Total
The costs for the entire system would then be:
Overhead $ 19,221
Compactor collection 82,250
Bulk container collection 16,490
Transfer 13,718
Disposal 14,673
Total $146,352
This would be an annual savings of $23,233 from the present system
but still $14,400 more than a new bulk container system without
transfer would be.
-------
41
Conclusions
There are a variety of systems more economical than the present
one. Operating a. transfer station for all solid wastes in
Johnson City is unjustified, as was its original purchase. The
original cost of the system cannot be recouped, however, and
the best system must be rebuilt with the existing investment.
It is recommended that one compactor truck and the older transfer
van be sold immediately, and that compactor trucks haul directly
to the disposal site. Bulk container hoist trucks should use
the remaining transfer van, while a new truck for bulk container
handling is purchased and bulk containers are modified or replaced.
-------
42
APPENDIX A-II
BAGGED STORAGE
City officials have shown particular interest in the "bagged
system" of solid waste storage. The system replaces metal
cans with special paper bags which are thrown away along with
the wastes they contain. Articles in public works magazines
have claimed spectacular cost savings from their use although
records of their true cost are still shrouded in the mist of
exaggerated claims. Most reports of savings from the system
result from concurrent operational changes (such as going from
carry-out to curbside service) or other efficiencies suggested
by representatives of the bag manufacturers.
The bag-system generally costs the homeowner more money than
he would otherwise pay, but because collection efficiency is
increased, collection costs are lower. Unless the savings to
the City are passed on to the citizen through lower fees or
taxes or through subsidized bag purchases, the system will be
less favored by the citizen.
Few credible studies on which to base true cost estimates exist,
Estimates based on one study show a probable savings in col-
lection costs of 15 percent. This would amount to an annual
savings to Johnson City of $10,OOO but this would be counter-
balanced by a cost of more than $5O,OOO annually for bags.
These figures do not include the cost of bag holders, which
are about $6 each nor the loss of an estimated $60,OOO invested
in cans throughout the City.
^Rogers, P. A., and G0 J. Bellenger. Fly and economic evaluation
of urban refuse systems II. An efficiency analysis of paper
bag containers. California Vector Views, 14(5):29-36, May 1967.
-------
43
APPENDIX A-III
PLANNING FOR FUTURE ANNEXATION
In planning for future annexation, Johnson City will be faced
with two waste-related problems. The City Sanitation Department
will have to provide collection service to the citizens of these
areas, and city ordinances will have to cover solid waste storage
in these areas.
The eight areas of possible annexation are noted on the map in
Figure 9 where they are denoted by letters. Detailed information
on the necessary men and equipment to service each section are
noted in Table 1-A. The figures are based on the generation of
30 pounds per household per week. There are too few commercial
establishments in any of these areas to warrant separate commercial
routes but small groceries and restaurants will require service
more frequently than once a week.
Complete annexation of all the areas noted will replace private
collection service with municipal service. If all sections are
annexed, the private collector would lose about one-third of his
customers.
Ordinances covering solid waste handling, if ammended as suggested
in this report will be sufficient to regulate the annexed areas
with the exception of junked automobiles. Junked automobiles,
both in organized junk and salvage yards and on private land, are
serious problems in sections D and G. Most cities and some states
require that collections of more than 4 or 5 inoperable automobiles
be shielded from public view. Other cities limit the time junked
or abandoned automobiles may remain on private property. The City
should be prepared to meet this problem when annexing these areas.
-------
AREAS OF POSSIBLE ANNEXATION
Johnson City, Tenn.
Figure 9
-------
SOLID WASTES IN AREAS CONSIDERED FOR ANNEXATION
Sector Number
of
homes
A 387
B 11
Cd 325
De 375
E 450
F 4
Gf 942
H 469
Private Collection
Number of
homes now
served
185
0
93
8
390
0
426
101
Percent of
homes now
served
47.8
0
28.6
2.1
20.0
0
45.2
21.5
Collection Active
day collection
hours
required
Thurs, Fri 7.5
-
Monday 6.5
Monday 7,5
9.0
-
Mon, Tues 19.0
Tues, Wed, Fri 9.3
Anticipated
lb/wka
11,610
330
9,750
11,300
13,500
28,200
14,100
MH/wkD
18
0.5
15
16
21
44
22
Collection
costs/yrc
4,945
142
4,193
4,859
5,800
12,126
6,192
a Based on 30 lb/household/wkc
° Based on 186 man min/ton,
c Based on current cost of $15.5O/ton for collection only.
^ Section C contains demolition salvage operation,
e Section D contains 3 automobile junk yards, promiscuous dumps, and yards littered with junked cars0
•^ Section G contains 1 automobile junk yard.
TABLE 1-A
in
-------
46
APPENDIX B
ITEMIZED COST OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM
OF
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
The costs cited in this appendix are approximate but were estimated
or extrapolated from known data. They are presented here to sub-
stantiate conclusions drawn from them and are itemized to allow
updating when necessary.
Most of the items footnoted as "estimated" are resale values or
remaining life of the equipment currently owned. These figures
were estimated with the aid of Johnson City officials, equipment
dealers and advertized prices of used equipment.
The items whose costs were based on 1O months of records were
taken from the official records of Johnson City. These costs were
extrapolated over an entire year.
The cost of collection labor were those given the study team by
the Head of the Department of Sanitation.
-------
APPENDIX B-I
ANNUAL COSTS OF COMPACTOR TRUCKS
Truck Number 825 872 879 889 890 891 898
Remaining life-yearsa
Net realizable valuea
Salvagea
Depreciation/year
Maintenance and
Repair^
Insurance"
Tiresb
Fuel and lubrication*3
Crewc
2
$ 3,800.00
2,800.00
500 . 00
2,012.93
88.40
266.47
310.26
10,296.00
5
$ 9,800.00
2,800.00
1 , 400 . 00
525.36
88.40
452 . 64
688.46
10,296.00
5
$ 9,800.00
2,800.00
1,400.00
500.80
88.40
220. OOa
600.98
10,296.00
1
$ 3,200.00
2,800.00
400.00
1,336.67
88.40
171.80
345.35
10,296.00
1
$ 3,200.00
2,800.00
400.00
1,249.31
88.40
278.35
328.75
10,296.00
2
$ 3,800.00
2,800.00
500.00
1,323.83
88.40
347.33
295.36
10,296.00
4
$ 6,600.00
2,800.00
950.00
1,083.10
88o40
90.76
420.26
10,296.00
Total annual cost $13,474.06 $13,450.86 $13,106.18 $12,638,22 $12,740.81 $12,850.92 $12,928.52
Total Annual Cost for All Compactors $91,189.57
aFigures estimated.
Based on 10 months of records.
°Based on 260, 8-hour days/yr at $1.60/hr for each of two helpers and at $l«75/hr for drivers.
-------
48
APPENDIX B-II
ANNUAL COST OF BULK CONTAINER HOISTS
Truck Number
Net realizable value of hoista
Remaining life (years) a
a
Salvage
Annual depreciation of hoist
Net realizable value of chassis
Remaining life (years) a
a
Salvage value
Annual depreciation of chassis
b
Maintenance and repairs
b
Insurance
b
Tires
b
Fuel and lubrication
Q
Driver (6 day week)
Total Annual Cost
Total Annual Cost for Dumpster Hoist
841
$4,OOO
(1)
5OO
350
1,800
(1)
1,500
300
697
114
79
565
4,46O
$6,565
Service $16,492
892
$4,OOO
(12)
500
292
2,80O
(3)
1,500
434
1,502
88
8O
528
4,460
$7,384
8O9
$ 500
(1)
50O
0
1,80O
(1)
1,500
30O
1,597
88
165
393
d
$2,543
Estimated from best available sources.
^Based on 1O months of records.
cBased on $1.8O per hour.
°Truck currently without a driver, used as an extra truck.
-------
49
APPENDIX B-III
ANNUAL TRANSFER COSTS
Vehicle No. 864
£a
Remaining life in years 6
Net realizable value $26, OOO
a
Salvage value 5,OOO
Depreciation 3 170
a
Operations and maintenance 6 OOO
Vehicle Noc 876
Remaining life in years 1
a
Net realizable value $ 7 000
a
Salvage value 5,000
Depreciation 2, OOO
b
Operations and maintenance 9,171
Transfer station amortization 700
Vehicle operator at $1.85/hr 3,848
Transfer station maintenance at $1.05/hr 3,120
Total Annual Transfer Cost $28,009
aEstimated.
Based on 10 months of records, includes fuel and tires.
GBased on straight line depreciation over 15 years for a cost
estimated at $1O,9OO.
-------
50
APPENDIX B-IV
ANNUAL OVERHEAD COSTS
Budget No. Item
246 Utilities
2?4 Car fares
314 Supplies
325 Miscellaneous
423 Lumber
259 Professional services
359 Wearing apparel
212 Building repair
226 Electrical
624 Office machines
333 Lettering
3O8 Drugs
230 Equipment repair
245 Laundry
257 Pressing uniforms
276 Tool repair
3O9 Diesel fuel
841 Supervisor's vehicle
Amortizing structures
Supervisor's salaries
Total
Costa
$ 459
12
3,584
26
24
589
1,893
29
90
372
83
42
185
1 , 726
342
12
32
689
1,OOO
8,000
$19,221
Extrapolated from 1O months of records.
Estimated.
-------
51
APPENDIX C
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTES ANALYSIS
BY PHYSICAL SEPARATION
Residential solid wastes were collected from four distinct
economic areas of the City. These areas were taken from a map
prepared for Technical Services by the City Planner of Johnson
City who used an up-to-date census in their preparation. A
sample was chosen in each economic area weighted to the total
number of units estimated in that area. The total sample of
136 homes was broken down into:
Economic area Percent of _
, . ._._ , _._. No. of samples
annual income city population
0
$3000 -
$600O -
over
$3000
$6OOO
$9000
$90OO
22.2
44.6
19.4
14.8
30
60
26
20
The sample size of 136 homes was chosen to yield a quantity of
solid wastes which the study team could sort easily in one day
and which would give reliable projections for the solid wastes
composition of the entire residential sector of Johnson City.
The work of Bell provided the statistical justification for a
sampling ratio of 1.27 x 1O~2 (population sampled to total popu-
lation) which allows the sampled composition to be projected to
the total population with 97 percent accuracy. This procedure
insured that the sample reflected wastes generated during the
study week. Further samples are needed to detect seasonal varia-
tions.
A city crew and truck collected on Tuesday (the regular collec-
tion day) from the sample areas shown in Figures C-l through C-3.
The compactor truck made two trips with small loads to avoid sig-
nificant compaction. It is felt that for future work it would be
acceptable to collect an entire sample of this size in one truck.
The sample was mixed and quartered with a front-end loader at the
compost plant. It was separated into large cartons and on plastic
drop cloths. The first half, third quarter and fourth quarter
were separated individually in order to estimate the sample size
necessary for future studies in Johnson City with more limited
manpower.
*Bell, J. M. Characteristics of municipal refuse. In Proceedings,
National Conference on Solid Waste Research. Chicago, American
Public Works Association, 1963, p. 28-38.
-------
52
The fourth quarter was separated less carefully than the preceed-
ing fractions. Shovels were used to turn the pile while all large
pieces of paper, glass and food wastes were removed, categorized,
and weighed. The final pile of fine material was weighed and its
composition estimated visually as: 35 percent paper; 45 percent
food wastes; 10 percent glass; and, 10 percent metal. The accuracy
of these results, as Table C-l shows, suggests this method might
prove sufficient for future separations where time and manpower are
limited.
The sample showed two surprising characteristics. The percentage
of food wastes was higher than expected, and the total contribu-
tions from each residence was lower than expected. The high
fraction of food wastes probably resulted from a seasonal reliance
on fresh and home-canned rather than pre-packaged foods, and from
the small number of garbage grinders in the City. The small
quantity of waste from each residence was verified from truck
weights and is attributed to active salvage operations, special
collections for yard wastes, backyard burning and the fact that
some wastes were privately hauled.
-------
53
Less Than $3,OOO Average Income
(30 Sample Points)
*3S^
$3,OOO - $6,OOO Average Income
(12 Sample Points)
Figure C-l
-------
54-
<^Xj*^\ '\k'' »•<• > ^ ^
if^^f^
^:,^M;^V;^:.-'
i^M'fo •"•<" ^"•-•' \<
fy
-\ y-^^vV ^'.\\ Jf' >' s
-------
•
Over $9,000 Average Income
(2O Sample Points)
Over $9,OOO Average Income
( Suggested substitute sample area )
Figure C-3
-------
.Jonnson city, xennessee; t»c"CODer 17, 1907
PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE IN POUNDS PER CATEGORY
Categories
Food wastes
Glass products
Metalsb
Cloth & synthetics
Paper products
Plastics
Leather & rubber
Yard wastes
Wood
Brick, rock, dirt, etc.
Load: First Half
583.9
220.5
236.5
25.5
900.0
34.0
18.5
61.0
5.5
15.0
Third Quarter
211,0
97.5
88,O
12.5
420.0
15.0
12.O
0
0.5
8.5
Fourth
147.0
97.0
87.0
18.0
397.0
18.0
9.5
2.5
9.5
15.5
Quarter
95. Oa
21.1
21.5
73.4
Total
1O36.5
436.1
433. 0
56.0
1820.4
67.0
40. 0
63.5
11.5
39. 0
Totals
2100.0
895.0
1008.0
PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE IN PERCENT PER CATEGORY
Components of 2110O Ib. special category.
Percent nonferrous metals was very small - not weighed,
4003.0
Food wastes
Glass products
Metals^
Cloth & synthetics
Paper products
Plastics
Leather & rubber
Yard wastes
Wood
Brick, rock, dirt, etc.
27.8
10.6
11.3
1.2
42.9
1.6
O.8
2.9
0.2
0.7
23.6
10.9
9.8
1.4
50.3
1.7
1.3
_
0.1
0.9
24.0
11.8
10.8
1.8
46.7
1.8
0.9
0.2
0.5
1.5
25.9
10.9
10.8
1.3
45.5
1.7
1.0
1.6
0.3
1.0
Ul
TABLE C-l
-------
57
APPENDIX D
COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS
Category Percent
by weight
Food wastes 16
Glass products 3
Metals 4
Cloth and synthetics 1
Paper products 76
Plastics
Leather and rubber
Yard wastes
Wood <1
Bricks, rocks, dirt, etc. <1
Estimated visually from bulk containers.
-------
58
APPENDIX E
COMBINED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE ANALYSIS
Category Percent
by weight
Food wastes 21 i
Glass products 7 Q
Metals 7 5
Cloth and synthetics ]_ 3
Paper products 59.8
Plastics 0 9
Leather and rubber 006
Yard wastes 0 9
Wood 0^3
Bricks, rocks, dirt, etc. 0.6
alncludes estimated values for commercial wastes.
-------
59
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX F-I
STUDY SCHEDULE
Study element Date conducted Men
(October, 1967)
Industrial survey 16, 17, 19, 2O 1
Commercial survey 16, 17, 19, 20 1
Fly breeding survey 16 2
Compactor truck weighing 16, 17, 19, 20 1
Bulk container truck weighing 16, 17
Storage survey 17 2
Survey of annexable areas 16, 20 2
Clinic survey 16, 17 1
Interview with Wash. Co. Utility Dist. 17 1
Collecting sample for physical separation 17 3
Physical separation 18 8
-------
60
APPENDIX F-II
HOSPITAL SURVEY
Name of the Institution
Persons Interviewed
Description of Activities (Type of hospital, No. of beds, Cafeteria,
No. of residences, etc.)
Types and Quantities of Waste Produced:
Garbage __
Yard Clippings
Clinical & Surgical
Rabbish
Biopsy
Autopsy
Collection:
Collection Agency
Disposal Site
General:
Prevalent Contagious Diseases
Other
-------
61
APPENDIX F-III
COMMERCIAL SURVEY
Name of establishment
Address
Day & Date
Solid Wastes
Quantity
T./wk
CYD./
Composition (est. percent)
Paper
Wood
Food
Collection
Mode
Textiles
Metal
Other (specify)
Frequency
Collector
/wk.
s m t w t f s
Disposal Site
On-Site Disposal:
Burning
Burial
Containers
Number
Size
Notes:
-------
62
APPENDIX F-IV
INDUSTRIAL SURVEY
Company Name Day & Date
Address
Type of Industry
Employees: Production
Total
Operations Hrs./Day Hrs./Wk,
Description of Physical Plant (No. and Type and Size of Building,
Acreage, Cafeteria..«)
SOLID WASTES
SOURCES
Office Shipping Process Cafeteria Other
Frequency of
Collection
Wt./
CYD./
Composition*
(visual)
Collector
Disposal Site _;
*Paper, Glass, Wood, Metal, Food Wastes ...
Notes:
-------
APPENDIX F-V
CLINIC SURVEY
1. Name of Clinic Date
Address
Person Interviewed Title
2. Type of Clinic
Employees: Number Position
Patients/Day
Operation (Day/Week)
Specialities of Clinic
Contagious Disease Treated and Frequency
63
3. Quantity of Solid Waste Per Week
Type and Composition
Paper Pathogenic Tissue
Glass Metal
Chemicals Other (specify)
Pathogenic Tissue Other (specify)
4. How Stored in Clinic
How Often are Containers Cleaned
How Stored Outside Clinic
How Often are Containers Cleaned
5. Collection Frequency Per Week
s m t w t f s
Collection Agency
Method
Destination of Refuse
------- |