EPA R2-72-011
,- Environmental Protection Series
August 1972
Management Information for
Solid Waste Collection
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
8976
EPA-R2-72-011
August 1972
Management Information for
Solid Waste Collection
Robert M. Clark
Office of Program Coordination
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Program Element 1D2065
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, has reviewed this re-
port and approved its publication. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
To find, through research, the means
to protect, preserve, and improve our en-
vironment, we need a focus that accents
the interplay among the components of our
physical environmentthe air, water, and
land. The missions of the National Envir-
onmental Research Centersin Cincinnati,
Ohio; Research Triangle Park, North Carolina;
and Corvallis, Oregonprovide this focus.
The research and monitoring activities at
these Centers reflect multidisciplinary
approaches to environmental problems; they
provide for the study of the effects of
environmental contamination on man and the
ecological cycle and the search for systems
that prevent contamination and recover val-
uable resources.
Man and his surrounding air, water,
and land must be protected from the multiple
adverse effects of pesticides, radiation,
noise, and other forms of pollution as well
as poor management of solid waste. These
separate pollution problems can receive
interrelated solutions through the frame-
work of our research programsprograms
directed to one goal, a clean livable en-
vironment .
This publication, published by the
National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, reports on the development of
a management information system for solid
waste collection. The evolution of this
system from a pilot study on the collection
of basic data for solid waste management to
an operational management tool is discussed.
ANDREW W. BREIDENBACH, Ph.D.
Director, National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The delivery of solid wastes services
involves a complex interaction of men,
machinery, and politics. Despite these
complexities, very little reliable infor-
mation on solid waste management systems
is available to decision makers.
In recognition of this problem of
data scarcity, a study was initiated on
a pilot scale to collect reliable, uni-
form and continuous data from solid waste
collection routes. The purpose of this
study was to provide insight and experience
into the collection of solid waste data
which would be useful for national compar-
isons.
In this paper/ the pilot study is dis-
cussed, and a case study illustrating the
evolution of the pilot study into a manage-
ment information system for solid waste
collection is presented.
v
-------
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Solid Waste.Management Systems consist of (a) personnel
engineers/ planners, department managers, consultants, fore-
men, machine operators, laborers, etc.; (b) equipmenttrucks,
tractors, sweepers, railroad cars, barges, bulldozers, etc.;
and (c) facilitiestransfer stations, incinerators, open
dumps, sanitary landfills, vehicle garages, etc. These systems
may be operated in whole or in part by cities, counties,
franchises, private collectors, and unlicensed collectors.
Obviously, the delivery of solid waste management services
involves a complex interaction of men, machinery, and politics.
Despite these complexities, very little reliable information
on solid waste management systems is available to decision
makers. Today's needs must be met using resources and re-
source levels allocated in past years so that future plans
are based on incomplete data from today's inadequate system.
Recognizing this fundamental problem of data scarcity,
a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a basic
data network for solid waste management was initiated. A
pilot network was established in the metropolitan areas of
Cleveland, Ohio; Wichita Falls, Texas; and Orlando, Florida.
This network, which was designed to monitor solid waste
collection routes on a continuous basis, proved to be
-------
inexpensive, reliable, and simple to implement. It provided
data which could be useful for national comparisons or as a
tool for managers of municipal solid waste systems. This
paper discusses the pilot system and illustrates the evolution
of the pilot system into a local management information system
for solid waste collection with a case study based on the ex-
perience of Cleveland, Ohio. Data collection from specific
routes for the pilot system proved such a useful local manage-
ment tool that the City in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) expanded the system to an on-line,
city-wide Management Information System (MIS).
Management Information Systems
Management Information Systems (MIS) have been talked
about with great enthusiasm and yet have failed to realize
their apparent potential. Much has been promised regarding
the kinds of decisions that can be made with MIS, but few
examples are available in which this technique proved useful
for on-line decision making. Perhaps part of the problem is
that MIS has not been realistically defined. If this lack is,
in fact, a real obstacle to the use and understanding of MIS,
here is a working definition.
MIS may be defined as a system of people, equipment, pro-
cedures, documents, and communications that collects, validates,
operates on, transforms, stores, retrieves, and presents data
for use in planning, budgeting, accounting, controlling, and
other management processes for various management purposes.
-------
These data concern people, money, physical assets (materials,
equipment, and plant) and other resources that are employed
to fulfill an organization's objectives. The operations and
transformations include recording, comparing, reconciling,
tabulating, summarizing, and mathematically analyzing.
In fact, MIS can exist in one of three stages. The
first stage is a system designed to answer questions about
performance based on data that may be routinely collected
from daily operations. Such systems are often called report
generators and use a data base created by an agency's normal
data processing capabilities. Since the information is already
there or may be gathered easily, the MIS merely gives the man-
ager an opportunity to access that information. A second-
stage MIS is designed to project situations from data already
collected: sometimes by simple trend analysis, sometimes by
simulation models. A more sophisticated simulation system
that may actually look outside the agency and its operation
to analyze certain external effects is the third stage (2).
The system described in this paper is in the first stage;
however, it might easily evolve into a second-stage system.
Development of the National System
Working with the Division of Waste Collection and Dis-
posal, which has the primary responsibility for collecting
and disposing of household solid waste in the City of Cleveland,
the EPA initiated the development of a data system in October
1970. Two routes were selected for continuous evaluation,
-------
and data were obtained from the collection vehicle operator
on each route in the form of daily reports. The reports per-
tained to such activities as the weight of the solid waste
collected, number of miles driven, time required for collection,
weather encountered, and extenuating circumstances including
unusual traffic conditions (1) .
Selected input data elements were collected on two forms
(Figures 1 and 2). The first form, filled out annually, was
based on the assumption that certain information regarding
the system remained essentially constant. The truck driver
on the selected solid waste collection routes daily filled
out the second form. Data from these two forms were utilized
as input to a standardized computer program.
Outputs from this program included such information as
the Collection Route Summary Report and the Detailed Route
Cost Report (Figure 3); the Detailed Route Operations Report
and the Route Characteristics Report (Figure 4); and, the
Detailed Vehicle-Crew Report (Figure 5). Most values in
these reports are self-explanatory and reflect daily averages
which were calculated for a given month; in the example, the
averages are for November 1970. In the Detailed Route Cost
Report (Figure 3), the values reported in columns 2 through 8
do not equal the total cost to operate per day as given by
column 10. The values for manpower costs in these columns
are based on actual hours worked although the crews are paid
on the basis of an eight-hour day. Column 9 contains a ratio
-------
Region
SMS A
City
Route number
Number residences served
Number people served
Economic level
Length of route
Crew size
Land required for motor pool
Number vehicles serviced by motor pool
Land required for storing and servicing vehicles
No. on shift
Crew classifications j 2
1
2
3
4
Cost of crew, actual
Type vehicle used
Size vehicle
Crew size
Cost of vehicle
Pick-up point
OperotfiiQ cost
AAointcnoncft cost
Salary Time between
range steps
Figure 1. Solid waste collection route annual information form.
-------
CITY
VEHICLE NO-.
ROUTE
GAS
DATE.
OIL-
Leave motor pool
Start collection
Leave route for discharge point
Weight
Arrive back on route
Leave route for discharge point
Weight
Arrive back on route
Leave route for discharge point
Weight
Return to motor pool
Time
Mileage
Weight
Maintenance
Wash
Repair
Time
Started
Crew identification
Name
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
finished
Mileage
Classification
Figure 2. Daily collection route form.
-------
COLLECTION ROUTE SUMMARY REPORT
Identi flcatlon
number
511002001
511002002
511005003
Peopl e
served
per
week
5,864
5,214
1 ,570
Length
of route
(miles)
per week
21 .00
34.80
6.00
Wei ght/day
pounds
14,036
17,015
23,474
Cost/day
(dollars)
212
224
105
Pounds
generated
per capita
per day
1.71
2.33
2.14
Cost/ ton
(dollars)
30.15
26.34
8.93
Cost/ capi ta
served per
week
(dollars)
0.18
0.21
0.07
Cost/resi -
dence served
per week
(dollars)
0.49
1 .05
. 0.29
DETAILED ROUTE COST REPORT
(All values in dollars)
Identifica-
tion number
511002001
511002002
511005003
Cost to
travel
to route
per day
5.67
11 .04
2.29
Equi pment
cost to
collect
per day
9.30
17.50
14.90
Manpower
cost to
col 1 ect
per day
50.71
84.00
39.54
Total
cost to
collect
per day
60.01
101 .50
54.44
Equi pment
cost to
transport
per day
6.56
9.82
9.41
Manpower
cost to
transport
per day
35.77
47.14
24.97
Total
cost to
trans-
port
per day
42.33
56.95
34.39
Ratio of
producti ve
cost per
day to
actual cost
per day
0.51
0.75
0.87
Total
cost to
operate
per day
211 .62
224.10
104.86
Cost per
square
fflile per
week
4,809.47
4,030.55
243.29
Figure 3. Examples of reports (Collection Route Summary Report
and Detailed Route Cost Report).
-------
DETAILED ROUTE OPERATIONS REPORT
Identifica-
tion number
511002001
511002002
511002003
From motor pool
to start of route
Distance
(miles)
3.60
2.34
1 .80
Time
(m1n.)
11.80
22.50
10.00
Col lection
operation
D1 stance
(miles)
6.90
6.96
6.00
Time
(m1j)j_
124.90
206.90
237.50
Transportation
operatl on
Distance
jmlles)
21.40
6.18
49.00
Time
(m1n.)
88.10
116.10
150.00
Time for
collection per
residence
served
0.29
0.97
0.65
Qty Generated
per residence
per -day
(pounds)
4.68
11.36
9.19
Qty Generated
per person
per day
(pounds )
1.71
2.33
2.14
ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS REPORT
Identi f 1 ca-
tion number
511002001
511002002
511002003
Length of
route per
day (miles)
4
7
6
Type of
service
yard
yard
curb
Route Characteristics
01 scharge
point
Incinerator
Incinerator
landfill
Schedule
1/wk
1/wk
1/wk
Area served
(sq. miles)
0.220
0.278
0.431
Separation
requl rements
No
No
Yes
Avg. Weight
col lected
per day
14,036
17,015
23,474
Figure 4. Examples of reports (Detailed Route Operations Report and
Route Characteristics Report).
-------
DETAILED VEHICLE-CREW REPORT
Identifica-
tion number
511002001
511002002
511002003
Vehicle Characteristics
Type of
vehicle
Rear
1 oader
Rear
loader
Rear
loader
Size of
vehicle
(cu.yd)
20
16
25
Age of
vehi cle
(years)
4
4
1
Life
expectancy
of vehicle
5
5
5
Maintenance
cost per
operating hr.
(dollars)
2.880
2.880
0.960
Consumable
cost per
operating hr.
(dollars)
0.641
0.463
0.497
Crew
Size
6
6
3
Hourly
rate
(dollars)
4.06
4.06
3.33
Work hours
per week
40.0
40.0
8.0
Figure 5. Example of report (Detailed Vehicle-Crew Report).
-------
obtained by dividing the sum of the values in columns 2 through 8
by the total daily cost in column 10. This ratio indicates the
relationship between total daily cost and productive costs.
Shortly after the data system was initiated, a tax levy
designed to provide funds for city services was defeated and
the Commissioner of the Waste Collection and Disposal Division
was faced with a number of difficult decisions regarding pos-
sible reductions in service levels. Having several months
worth of data available from the routes being monitored within
the city, the Cleveland managers were able to compare their
six-man crews giving back-yard, once-per-week service with
other- routes being evaluated within the pilot data network.
After careful consideration, back-yard service was eliminated
and the collection crew was reduced by two men, leaving one
driver and three laborers. Several months later, the collection
crew was reduced from three to two laborers. Data collected
from both routes from October 1970 through May 1971 are shown
in Table 1. The cost per ton for waste collected for an aver-
age day dropped from a value close to $30.00 per ton to approx-
imately $13.00 per ton with an estimated annual savings of
over $4 million per year. With the results obtained from the
pilot data network, the Cleveland Solid Waste manager, working
with an EPA local and regional planning grant, initiated the
development of a management information system for solid
waste collection.
10
-------
TABLE 1. MONTHLY COST DATA FOR THE TWO PILOT COLLECTION ROUTES
Equipment
cost
per day
($)
18.64
16.69
20.72
19.72
22.16
19.13
24.85
23.85
27.32
25.15
34.07
37.57
37.42
39.12
37.62
29.12
Manpower
cost
per day
(?)
194.88
194.88
194.88
130.56
130.56
130.56
98.48
98.88
194.88
194.88
194.88
130.56
130.56
130.56
98.48
98.88
ROUTE NO. 1
Cost per
Total residence
cost Cost served
per day per ton per week
($) ($) ($)
213.52
211.57
215.60
150.28
152.72
149.69
115.33
123.73
222.20
220.03
228.95
168.13
167.98
169.68
128.10
128.00
30.30
36.50
34.81
22.50
22.40
20.19
14.50
14.14
ROUTE NO. 2
26.10
26.19
27.00
16.60
17.00
15.21
11.28
12.64
.499
.494
.501
.351
.356
.350
.270
.289
1.011
1.005
1.041
.765
.763
.771
.583
.581
Month
(1970-71)
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan .
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Oct.
Nov.
Dec .
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Crew
size
6
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
6
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
-------
The Cleveland Management Information System
The Cleveland MIS was developed by using the basic approach
utilized for the pilot data network. A daily form, similar to
the one shown in Figure 2, is filled out by the truck driver
on all of the routes.
The city is divided into six service areas, each with its
own station and superintendent (Figure 6). Each service area
is then subdivided into an average of six collection districts,
with responsibility for collection in these districts assigned
to a district foreman. Each collection district is then finally
divided into collection routes, with one crew assigned to each
of the 183 collection routes in the city.
Data are collected for an entire week on a given route
and reported as a daily average. The data are then reaggre-
gated, and a daily average is reported for the route super-
visor. Output from these data are given in three reports:
the route information report, the collection information re-
port, and the cost information report (Figure 7). Manpower
costs in the cost information report are based on the number
of hours for which the crews are paid rather than on the basis
of hours worked.
A set of weekly, district reports is computed containing
the daily average performance. These values are given for
each route in the district, for each route supervisor, and
for the entire district. A summary report showing city-wide
performance according to district is sent to the commissioner.
12
-------
SERVICE AREAS
TRUCK STATIONS
Figure 6. Cleveland solid waste collection districts and truck stations
-------
0
ClEVttAMO
DIVISION OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
ROUTE INFORMATION
ROUTE
* DAVS
* OF
DATA USED
*
*
AVERAGE
VEHICLE
SUE
(CU YD)
VEHICLE
TYPE
MOTOR POOL
TO' ROUTE
(PER DAY)
* COLLECTION » TRANSPORT * WEIGHT
* OPERATION * OPERATION * PER DAT
* (PER OAf) (PER DAVI «l POUNDS 1
* * *
************** *«»***««*«»»*««»»*****»«»«**»»«»»»»»»««»»»»»***
*(NILESI* (NINI *(HILESI* (MINI *(NILESI* (MINI *
*******
****«*******************»**»«»*****«»*»***«,»,tt*t*«tt**********«***«********»******>*****************»*********
611.
61Z.
3.
5.
20.
19.
RL
RL
4.5
Z.7
20.7
21.0
4.0
226.7
4-9B.4
19. 5
15.0
96.0
122.0
20660.
21460.
o
CLEVELAND
DIVISION OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
COLLECTION INFORMATION
ROUTE
HOMES * WEIGHT
SERVED* PER
PER * HOME
COLLECT* PER
* COLLECT
(POUNDS)
PERSONS 'GENERATE
SERVED * PER
PER PERSON
COLLECT * PER
* DAY
(POUNDS I
COLLECT
TIME
PER HONE
(MINI
COLLECT
TIME
PER 100LB
(MINI
COLLECT
TIME TO
TOTAL
TIME
(NIN)
ACTUAL LOADS PER MEEK * HEIGHT
TINE TO * * PER
PAID **************** CU YD
TIME * INCIN * LAND * XFER *1ST LOAD
(MINJ * * FILL * STA *(PQUNDSI
* *
*»******************************************+****************************************
611.
612.
439.
286.
47.0
74.9
1410.
919.
2.1
3.)
0.52
0.69
1.10
0.92
0.66
0.98
0.72
0.71
0.
6.
5.
3.
0.
0.
621.
664.
c
CLEVELAND
DIVISION OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
COST INFORMATION
I DOLLARS I
ROUTE
NUMBER
COST TO
ROUTE
PER OAV
COST TO
COLLECT
PER DAY
* TOTAL * TOTAL
COST TO * EQUIP * NANPWR
XPORT * COST * COST
PER DAY * PER DAY * PER DAY
*
TOTAL
COST
PER DAY
INCENT
COST
PER DAY
COST * COST
PER * PER
LOAD * TON
*
COST * COST
PER * PER
HONE * PERSON
PER * PER
MEEK * MEEK
»»»»***»*»»*»*«»**»»****»»»************
611.
612.
613.
6. 04
8.17
8.36
88.16
77.23
87.90
37.34
47.49
43.G3
35.6?
35.22
41.61
97.68
97.68
97.68
133.53
132.90
139.29
27.81 80.12
28.21 73.83
12.87 55,12
12.93
12.39
10 .BA
0.30
0.46
0.43
0.09
0.14
0.13
~1
Figure 7. MIS computer listings.
-------
Several categories have special significance for the commis-
sioner/ and to highlight their importance, a series of excep-
tion reports has been developed that permits the commissioner
to determine the high and low crews in each of the following
categories: average weight collected per day; average time
collecting per day; houses served per day; collection time per
home; collection time per 100 pounds lifted; ratio of actual
time worked to paid time; incentive cost per day; cost per
ton; and cost per home per week. Except for incentive cost,
these items are self-explanatory. Incentive cost for a crew
is determined by multiplying the average number of hours worked
per day by their average wage rate and subtracting the product
from the total paid cost for the crew per day. In the initial
outputs from the system, it was determined that some crews
worked a full eight hours per day whereas others worked as
few as two hours per day.
Uses of the System
In most large American cities, the population refuses to
vote for additional taxes and yet demands more service or re-
fuses to relinquish the services they already have. Cities
are faced with higher wages demanded by workers as well as
increases in the purchase price of equipment, facilities, and
other nonlabor related items. Not only are higher.taxes being
refused at the polls, but the tax base itself is erroding as
middle and upper-income families move to the suburbs and take
with them needed tax dollars. As these families leave,
15
-------
lower-income families who require just as many services from
the city take their place. Property being condemned for high-
ways and other non-taxable uses and being removed from tax
rolls for public use does not reduce the demand for over-all
services.
In Cleveland, this situation, coupled with the defeat of
a much-needed tax levy, created a financial impact felt in all
city departments, but nowhere more acutely than in the depart-
ment responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste.
The City of Cleveland Division of Waste Collection and Disposal
literally removed the waste from the point of generation,
transported it to the disposal point, and disposed of it with
no effort required by the general citizenry. Because of rising
costs and limited revenues, some of these services were sharply
curtailed.
The Cleveland solid waste managers were able to use this
on-line system as a tool to assess their operational problems
and to make some needed decisions. It is important to note
that this assessment should be a continuous process. The use-
fulness of this system lies in its ability to pinpoint problem
areas and to provide timely data for decisions to solve these
problems. The critical nature of solid waste management and
the short and long-range cost of implementating management
decisions require that the latest management tools and tech-
niques be applied. It is in this spirit that the management
information system for solid waste collection discussed in
this report has been presented.
16
-------
REFERENCES
1. Clark, Robert M., John M. Sweeten, and Daniel G. Greathouse,
Basic Data for Solid Waste; A frilot Study/ to be published
in the December issue of the Journal of1 the Sanitary Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineer's"!
2. Field, R., "Bringing the Universal MIS Down to Earth,"
Computer Decision, June 1971.
17
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge
Robert Beasley, Commissioner of the Waste
Collection and Disposal Division of the
City of Cleveland,for the technical guidance
which he provided in the preparation of
this report.
18
ir 111 mERMHTHMIIRCfnCfe M72 759-546/1006
------- |