USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY!!!UNIT II QUESTION CAN BE FOUND IN THE SYLLABUS. THE WORK MUST BE COMPLETED IN THE TEMPLATE PROVIDED IN THE SYLLABUS. THIS CONSIST OF MATH AND WRITING. I HAVE PROVIDED AN EXAMPLE OF THE MATH AND THE SYLLABUS WITH QUESTIONS AND TEMPLATE. THE TABLE 3-1 FOR MANY OF THE QUESTIONS. PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS. DO NOT PLACE A BOOK IF YOU CANNOT COMPLETE THIS ASSIGNMENT CORRECTLY.
TEXTBOOK CHAPTER IS INCLUDED
Worrell, W. A., Vesilind, P. A., & Ludwig, C. (2017). Solid waste engineering: A global perspective (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Course Description
A study of the growing and increasingly intricate problems of controlling and processing the refuse created by urban society.
Includes discussion of issues concerning regulations and legislation with major emphasis on solid waste engineering
principles.
Course Textbook(s)
Worrell, W. A., Vesilind, P. A., & Ludwig, C. (2017). Solid waste engineering: A global perspective (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Course Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Assess the fundamental science and engineering principles of solid waste management.
2. Evaluate the evolution of technologies related to solid waste management.
3. Assess the political environment as it relates to solid waste and solid waste management.
4. Summarize laws and standards related to solid waste management.
5. Describe best practices of solid waste management in an urban society.
6. Relate leadership and management principles to effective solid waste management.
7. Examine the impact of solid waste on human populations.
8. Solve solid waste related problems through collaborative methods of problem solving.
Credits
Upon completion of this course, the students will earn 3 hours of college credit.
Course Structure
1. Study Guide: Course units contain a Study Guide that provide students with the learning outcomes, unit lesson,
required reading assignments, and supplemental resources.
2. Learning Outcomes: Each unit contains Learning Outcomes that specify the measurable skills and knowledge
students should gain upon completion of the unit.
3. Unit Lesson: Unit Lessons, which are located in the Study Guide, discuss lesson material.
4. Reading Assignments: Units contain Reading Assignments from one or more chapters from the textbook and/or
outside resources.
5. Suggested Reading: Suggested Readings are listed within the Study Guide. Students are encouraged to read the
resources listed if the opportunity arises, but they will not be tested on their knowledge of the Suggested Readings.
6. Learning Activities (Non-Graded): Non-Graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of
study.
7. Discussion Boards: Discussion Boards are part of all CSU Term courses. More information and specifications can
be found in the Student Resources link listed in the Course Menu bar.
8. Unit Assignments: Students are required to submit for grading Unit Assignments. Specific information and
instructions regarding these assignments are provided below. Grading rubrics are included with each assignment.
Specific information about accessing these rubrics is provided below.
9. Ask the Professor: This communication forum provides you with an opportunity to ask your professor general or
course content related questions.
10. Student Break Room: This communication forum allows for casual conversation with your classmates.
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid
Waste Management
1
CSU Online Library
The CSU Online Library is available to support your courses and programs. The online library includes databases, journals,
e-books, and research guides. These resources are always accessible and can be reached through the library webpage.
To access the library, log into the myCSU Student Portal, and click on “CSU Online Library.” You can also access the CSU
Online Library from the “My Library” button on the course menu for each course in Blackboard.
The CSU Online Library offers several reference services. E-mail (library@columbiasouthern.edu) and telephone
(1.877.268.8046) assistance is available Monday – Thursday from 8 am to 5 pm and Friday from 8 am to 3 pm. The library’s
chat reference service, Ask a Librarian, is available 24/7; look for the chat box on the online library page.
Librarians can help you develop your research plan or assist you in finding relevant, appropriate, and timely information.
Reference requests can include customized keyword search strategies, links to articles, database help, and other services.
Unit Assignments
Unit I Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit I Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this assignment, the CSU Math Center has created an example problem using the
necessary formulas. Click here to access this example.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit II Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit II Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this assignment, the CSU Math Center has created an example problem using the
necessary formulas. Click here to access this example.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit III Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit III Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this Assignment, the CSU Math Center has created example problems using the
necessary formulas.
Click here to access the example for question 1. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Click here to access the example for question 2. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Click here to access the example for question 3. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit IV Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit IV Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this Assignment, the CSU Math Center has created example problems using the
necessary formulas.
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 2
mailto:library@columbiasouthern.edu
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitI_Assignment x
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitI_FrontLoaderGarbageTruckandDumpsterExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitII_Assignment x
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitII_MunicipalGovernmentandTransferStationExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_Assignment x
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_CoarserParticleSizeDistributionExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_CoarserParticleSizeDistributionExampleTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_HigherBulkDensityRefuseExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_HigherBulkDensityRefuseExampleTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_SellingLandfillCapacityExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIII_SellingLandfillCapacityExampleTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIV_Assignment x
Click here to access the example for question 2. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Click here to access the example for question 3. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit V Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit V Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this Assignment, the CSU Math Center has created an example problem using the
necessary formulas.
Click here to access the example for question 2. This example contains a recorded lesson with audio. Click here for a
transcript of this lesson.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit VI Scholarly Activity
A local municipality expects to close its landfill in one year, and it has decided to adopt a thermal technology for the
treatment of its municipal solid waste. The city needs your help to choose between a traditional municipal waste incinerator
and a pyrolysis unit. As a solid waste professional, you have been hired by the city council to provide an analysis of these
two technologies.
You are tasked with preparing an executive summary that compares the two technologies. Your summary should contain
the following items:
a short description of the technologies, their advantages and disadvantages, their waste products, and their economics;
the fundamental science and engineering principles of solid waste management that are involved;
the laws or standards that factor into your decision;
how your decision will affect the population of the community; and
your recommendation and rationale to the city.
Your executive summary should be a minimum of three pages in length. You must use your textbook and at least one
resource from the CSU Online Library in your paper, but other academic sources may be used in addition. Any outside
information used must be cited in accordance to APA style, and your paper should be formatted in APA style to include a
title page, running head, and reference page.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit VII Assignment
For this Assignment, you will complete the Unit VII Assignment worksheet. This Assignment will allow you to demonstrate
what you have learned in this unit.
Click here to access the template for this Assignment. Save all of your work directly to the template, and submit it in
Blackboard for grading.
To assist you with the math required in this Assignment, the CSU Math Center has created an example problem using the
necessary formulas. Click here to access this example.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit VIII Scholarly Activity
You are an engineer in a design, build, and operate construction firm. The firm has received four requests for proposals
(RFPs) and can only respond to one of these. You have been asked to review the RFP from Washentaw County, Michigan,
and write up a three-page executive summary for the marketing team. After reading all of the executive summaries, the
marketing team will make a decision about which, if any, of the RFPs to respond to.
The RFP from Washentaw County is located here:
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/finance/purchasing/online_bids/bid-status-previous-years/previous-
year-assets/assets_2010/rfp6518
Your executive summary should include the following items:
an introduction that includes a detailed overview of the project scope;
identification of the required information to be included into the company response to the RFP;
your concerns about any of the obligations in the RFP;
how any negotiations with Washentaw County could affect the decision (i.e.,What collaborative methods of problem
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 3
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIV_SeparatingPlasticfromShreddedWastesExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIV_SeparatingPlasticfromShreddedWastesTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIV_MunicipalityBudgetforRecyclingProgramExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitIV_MunicipalityBudgetforRecyclingProgExampleTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitV_Assignment x
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitV_NaturalGasGenerationataLandfillExample
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitV_NaturalGasGenerationAtALandfillTranscript
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitVII_Assignment x
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/Courses/Emergency_Services/MEE/MEE5901/16E/UnitVII_MethaneProductioninBTUperYear
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/finance/purchasing/online_bids/bid-status-previous-years/previous-year-assets/assets_2010/rfp6518
solving could be used to solve the marketing team’s problem of choosing an RPF? How could these methods be applied
to this situation?); and
your justified recommendation to respond or to pass on this business opportunity. This should include a description of
the leadership and management principles that factored into your decision.
Also, as stated in the RFP, the criteria for making a decision will depend on the following three areas: price, collection and
methodology, and responsiveness to the bid. While you cannot address the price issue, you can cover in your
recommendation discussion the collection methodology and the level of detail that you would recommend when responding
to the bid.
Your response should be at least three pages in length. At a minimum, you should use information from your textbook to
support your answer, but other academic resources may be used as well. Any resources used should by cited in
accordance with APA guidelines. Format your response in APA style to include a title page, running head, and reference
page.
Information about accessing the grading rubric for this assignment is provided below.
APA Guidelines
The application of the APA writing style shall be practical, functional, and appropriate to each academic level, with the
primary purpose being the documentation (citation) of sources. CSU requires that students use APA style for certain papers
and projects. Students should always carefully read and follow assignment directions and review the associated grading
rubric when available. Students can find CSU’s Citation Guide by clicking here. This document includes examples and
sample papers and provides information on how to contact the CSU Success Center.
Grading Rubrics
This course utilizes analytic grading rubrics as tools for your professor in assigning grades for all learning activities. Each
rubric serves as a guide that communicates the expectations of the learning activity and describes the criteria for each level
of achievement. In addition, a rubric is a reference tool that lists evaluation criteria and can help you organize your efforts to
meet the requirements of that learning activity. It is imperative for you to familiarize yourself with these rubrics because
these are the primary tools your professor uses for assessing learning activities.
Rubric categories include: (1) Discussion Board, (2) Assessment (Written Response), and (3) Assignment. However, it is
possible that not all of the listed rubric types will be used in a single course (e.g., some courses may not have
Assessments).
The Discussion Board rubric can be found within Unit I’s Discussion Board submission instructions.
The Assessment (Written Response) rubric can be found embedded in a link within the directions for each Unit
Assessment. However, these rubrics will only be used when written-response questions appear within the Assessment.
Each Assignment type (e.g., article critique, case study, research paper) will have its own rubric. The Assignment rubrics
are built into Blackboard, allowing students to review them prior to beginning the Assignment and again once the
Assignment has been scored. This rubric can be accessed via the Assignment link located within the unit where it is to be
submitted. Students may also access the rubric through the course menu by selecting “Tools” and then “My Grades.”
Again, it is vitally important for you to become familiar with these rubrics because their application to your
Discussion Boards, Assessments, and Assignments is the method by which your instructor assigns all grades.
Communication Forums
These are non-graded discussion forums that allow you to communicate with your professor and other students.
Participation in these discussion forums is encouraged, but not required. You can access these forums with the buttons in
the Course Menu.
Click here for instructions on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and post to the Communication Forums.
Ask the Professor
This communication forum provides you with an opportunity to ask your professor general or course content questions.
Questions may focus on Blackboard locations of online course components, textbook or course content elaboration,
additional guidance on assessment requirements, or general advice from other students.
Questions that are specific in nature, such as inquiries regarding assessment/assignment grades or personal
accommodation requests, are NOT to be posted on this forum. If you have questions, comments, or concerns of a non-
public nature, please feel free to e-mail your professor. Responses to your post will be addressed or e-mailed by the
professor within 48 hours.
Before posting, please ensure that you have read all relevant course documentation, including the syllabus,
assessment/assignment instructions, faculty feedback, and other important information.
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 4
http://www.columbiasouthern.edu/downloads/pdf/success/citation-guide
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/common_files/instructions/DB/Create_New_Thread_Subscribe
Student Break Room
This communication forum allows for casual conversation with your classmates. Communication on this forum should
always maintain a standard of appropriateness and respect for your fellow classmates. This forum should NOT be used to
share assessment answers.
Schedule/Grading
The following pages contain a printable Course Schedule to assist you through this course. By following this schedule, you
will be assured that you will complete the course within the time allotted.
Unit I Integrated Solid Waste Management [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit I Study Guide
Chapter 1: Integrated Solid Waste Management
Chapter 2: Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Quantities
Discuss: Unit I Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit I Assignment 10%
Unit II Collecting and Handling Municipal Solid Waste [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit II Study Guide
Chapter 3: Collection
Discuss: Unit II Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit II Assignment 10%
Unit III Unit Operations for Processing Municipal Solid Waste [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit III Study Guide
Chapter 4: Mechanical Processes
Discuss: Unit III Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit III Assignment 10%
Unit IV Unit Operations for Separating Municipal Solid Waste [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit IV Study Guide
Chapter 5: Separation Processes
Discuss: Unit IV Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit IV Assignment 10%
Unit V Role of Biological Processes in Stabilizing Municipal Solid Waste [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit V Study Guide
Chapter 6: Biological Processes
Discuss: Unit V Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit V Assignment 10%
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 5
Unit VI Role of Thermal Processes in Solid Waste Management [ Weight: 14% ]
Read/View: Unit VI Study Guide
Chapter 7: Thermal Processes
Discuss: Unit VI Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit VI Scholarly Activity 12%
Unit VII Structure and Design of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills [ Weight: 12% ]
Read/View: Unit VII Study Guide
Chapter 8: Landfills
Discuss: Unit VII Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit VII Assignment 10%
Unit VIII Integrated Resource Management [ Weight: 14% ]
Read/View: Unit VIII Study Guide
Chapter 9: Toward Integrated Resources Management – Environmental, Political, and
Economic Issues
Discuss: Unit VIII Discussion Board 2%
Submit: Unit VIII Scholarly Activity 12%
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 6
- MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management
Course Syllabus
Course Description
Course Textbook(s)
Course Learning Outcomes
Credits
Course Structure
CSU Online Library
Unit Assignments
Unit I Assignment
Unit II Assignment
Unit III Assignment
Unit IV Assignment
Unit V Assignment
Unit VI Scholarly Activity
Unit VII Assignment
Unit VIII Scholarly Activity
APA Guidelines
Grading Rubrics
Communication Forums
Schedule/Grading
Collection
Solid waste collection is an exercise in reducing entropy. The pieces that lllil
~
up the solid waste are scattered far and wide, and-the role of the colk« II
I
I
is to gather this material’together into one container. In .most parts I li
t
developed world, solid waste collection systems are invariably person/ru II 1
systems. With only a few minor exceptions, the collection of MSW is don« I,V
men and women who traverse a town in trucks and then ride with the II III I
to a site at which the truck is emptied. This may be an intermediate stopover
where the refuse is transferred from the small truck into trailers, larger v.m I
barges, or railway cars for long-distance transport or the final site, such a lilt
landfill, waste to energy plant, compost site, or materials recovery facility.
3-1 REFUSE COLLECTION SYSTEMS
!~e proc~ss of refuse collection should be thought of as a multiphase process, aII( I
It ispossible to define at least five separate phases, as shown in Figure 3-1. HISI,
the m?IVldu~1homeowner must transfer whatever is considered waste (defined .1
/(
~a~enal haVl~gno further value to the occupant) to the refuse can, which may Ill’
inside or outside the home. The second phase is the movement of the refuse Clil
or bin to the collection truck, which is usually done by the collection crew and i.
called backyard collection. If the can is moved to the street by the waste generato I
or the home occupant, the system is called curbside collection.
More.and mor~ separated materials (commonly called recyclables) and yar d
wastes, which sometimes include food waste, are collected separately, either in sep
arate compartments of the same trucks as the mixed refuse or in separate vehicles.
The ~ollo~ng ~nalysis applies to any or all of these materials, although most 01
the dISCUSSIOnISabout mixed (nonseparated) waste.
‘Iru ‘1
Q Disposalor, transfern ,, , ,I I ,, , ,, , ,,,
CD , 8)
,
0), CD , ,I I I~I-c •• • -,- •• 1•• ——-I !rIll I’ I Can Truck from house I Truck I TruckI, I routing III’ I to to I I to
III I truck house I I disposalI II , ,
I
ivephases of municipalsolid waste collection.
III ‘ truck must collect the refuse from many homes in the most efficient way
Ihl,’, and when it is full (or at the end of the day), it must travel to the mal ri
/II IIV ‘Iy facility, the point of disposal, or the transfer site. The fifth phase of the
IIr II Ill! system involves the location of the final destination (materials recovery
II/y, lisposal site, or transfer station). This is a planning problem, often involv-
IIIIH ‘ than one community.
Phase 1: House to Can
II II!lUS -to-can phase has received almost no attention or concern by researchers
IIV -rnment because the efficienciesand convenience’sgained here are personal
11.1 IlIll ommunal. Asdiscussed later under source separation, one major drawback
’11I11t’ ting separated material is the inconvenience suffered by the individual.
Some communities use tax funds to operate the solid waste collection and
Ii 1″111.1 system, or they charge for the service just as they charge for water con-
IlIIqHi n and wastewater disposal. Such a system gives the generators of waste
1/ III iii mche to generate as much as they please because the cost is the same regard
” or how much they contribute. The need to manage and control the amount
” ~llstegenerated has led communities to try novel ways of funding solid waste
1’lIll\l(lms.Some communities have adopted a volume-based fee system to pay ()I’
u] d waste collection and specify the containers that must be used. In a volume
“, I’ I feesystem, residents are offered cans in three sizes-such as 19-, 30-, 60-, (JI’
III f\1111on(72-, 110-, 230-, and 340-liter) cans. The fee for refuse service is based
“” Ihe size of can used. Over 4000 communities have adopted volume-based
1 II IS for solid waste collection. The EPAreports typical reduction of 25% to 3~)’Y.1
!r II ommunities that have gone to volume-based rates.’ Other communiti ‘S OII’l’
I,d 1111III “PI’IOIII” I II’ 11’1Iuuh ‘) II WI’ till “l ‘WI (.III III I Illllif “l II 1111III
W ‘1\111;II • Is 1;,11′ 1111’ 1I1l’1.1{/II·tIllS(‘t/ jll(‘ .”‘.~II’III.
Vt IUII\l’ I ase I /’ syst ms an ‘ilb’l’ I ‘ I()O%) varlnblc 1′,11′ 01′ Ii’ III I
I 0%. F r .xnn I I ,II’ ( mrnunity r I’S 0·, 0·, r t O·g, II n w, Ill’ WIWI’II’I III
garbag s rvi , th m m mity must I i I h w I I ri II S rvl ‘to 1′;1IH’ III
ficient r V nu . In a 100% variable rate community, th O-gall 11w, ste Willi I I
would be twice as expensive as the 30-gaBon wast wh el r. whil the I)() 11,1111111
waste wheeler would be three times as expensive as the 30-gallon waste wll.,. II I
Thus 30-gallon service might cost $12 per month, 60-gallon service wOlIlII • II I
$24 per month, and 90-gallon service would cost $36 per month. Th IOO’YiIv,111
able pricing encourages the public to maximize waste reduction. However, 1111’• II~I
to provide the service is not 100% variable. Thus with the exception of the 1.111111111
fee, it may cost as much to collect a 30-gallon waste wheeler as a 90-gall n W,IIIII
wheeler.
Some communities try to more closely tie the cost of service to the g,lI h.It,1
fee. In the above examples, instead of charging $12/$24/$36, another Coml11\11I1I\
might charge $20/$24/$28. While these rates might more closely match the 11I1I
to provide the service, the cost difference between the different size waste whcrh I
is smaller and thus there is not as large a financial incentive to reduce the amount
of waste being generated.
One study looked at 8 similar communities with the same type of service (11.1\’
for garbage based on the size of the container and no additional charge for recyc 111’I
and green-waste service”). Four communities had 100% variable rates and 11 h,1I1
rates that varied by 23 to 88%. The communities with the 100% variable rates had ,III
average garbage service level of 41 gallons. The communities with the less than 1 O( )1111
variable rates had a garbage service level’ of 51 gallons.
Pay-as-you-throw may have generated renewed interest in the home COlli
pactor. This device, originally introduced in the 1950s without much success,
sits under the kitchen counter and compresses about 20 lb (9 kg) of refuse into .1
convenient block within a special bag. The bulk density of the compacted refuse
is about 1400 lb/yd” (830 kg/m3), which yields a compaction ratio of about 1:5.
A family of four people generates solid waste at a rate of 2 lb/cap/
day, and the bulk density of refuse in a typical garbage can is about
200 lb/yd” If collection is once a week, how many 30-gallon garbage
cans will the family need, or alternately, how many compacted 20-lb
blocks would the family produce if it had a home compactor? How
many cans would the family need in that case?
2 Ib/cap/day X 4 persons X 7 days/week = 56 Ib refuse
56 Ib/200 lb/yd? = 0.28 yd3
0.28 yd3 X 202 qal/yd? = 57 gal
60-9 lion c n.
i compacted into 20-lb blocks, th family would
thr e such compacted blocks to take care of th
. If ach block of compacted refuse is 1400 lb/yd”, the
lume is
II
1111IlInlly would need only one 30-gal can.
hase 2: Can to Truck
II IIIIll’, II . most common system of getting the solid waste into the truck was
11111’1101″oing to the backyard, emptying the garbage cans into large tote con-
” I I III’ I trying these to the w.~iting truck. This system was not only expensive
I tll.lI st to the community, but it was expensive in terms of the extremely
It III III rate to the collectors. At one time, solid waste collectors had the high Sl
I 1111′ f any vocation-three times higher than the injury rate for coal min-
fill ‘ , mple. Even now, with all ofthe improvements in collection technology,
I I I I ollection is still one of the most hazardous jobs in America. A survey
Iii II.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration
I II ) Statistics Department found that fully 40% of solid waste workers had
I Ii time during the preceding year due to various injuries, including strains,
I II I ,tlnd fractures.’
l’h traditional trucks used for residential and commercial refuse col-
1111111re rear-loaded and covered compactors called packers and vary in
I I 1111I design, with 16- and 20-yd3 (12- and 15-m3) loads being common
1 III’ -2). The truck size is often limited not by its ability to store refuse but
1 wheel weight. Residential streets are not designed to carry large wheel
ul I and refuse trucks can easily exceed these limits. Commonly, the refuse
111’1t i d from garbage cans into the back of the packers, where it is scooped
III I) hydraulically operated compaction mechanisms that compress the refuse
1111111::1loose density of about 100 to 200 lb/yd” (60 to 120 kg/rn”) to about
, 111110 700 lb/yd” (360 to 420 kg/rn”). The compaction (packing) mechanism
I 1111’manufacturer is shown in Figure 3-3. In addition, many companies are
IIIIVbuying natural gas fired vehicles (Figure 3-4). In combination with biogas
IIIIHI~Ition from green and kitchen waste or landfills, these trucks could run
tll I I gas from waste.
Two revolutionary changes are occurring that have had a great impact on
IlIlh the cost of collection as well as the injury rate of the collectors. The first is
hi’ acceptance of the can-on-wheels idea, known as waste wheelers. These con-
11111(,1’are provided to the customer by either the garbage company or the local
municipality. The resident fills the large plastic container on wheels and then
IIII h s it to the curb for collection. These containers can be used for mixed refuse,
Figure 3-2 A rear-loading packer truck for collecting residential solid waste.
(Courtesy William A. Worrell)
!!-3 Compacting mechanism for a packer truck.
recyclables, and/or yard waste (Figure 3-5). The collection vehicles are equipped
with hydraulic lifters that are used to empty the contents into the truck as shown
in Figure 3-6. The collectors do not come into contact with the refuse, thus avoid
ing dangerous materials that can cut or bruise. In addition, the collectors do not
lift the heavy container, thus avoiding back injuries. This system, referred to as
(“,’funcill9pr01idedbythe
s.ttlis~Airi’ltlIutitnCootro/District
~
I 3 4 Natural gas powered packer truck. (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
– – -.”,/ ‘~i~ ,.~·i,”‘” -‘1″‘:”~’ ,(I,~ n::””’ ~~ “‘1~ : ~
t.
~. ” ~..__ ~t ;:L:.;t~~’.c.”,:..i!..-…L~ ,,’:”‘_ ~: L1 J ~~ ..::_ _ _
Igure 3-5 Separate containers for recyclables, yard waste, and mixed refuse at the
urb. (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
Figure 3-6 Blue mixed recycling container being dumped into a truck.
(CourtesyWilliam A. Worrell)
semi-automated collection, typically requires a driver and one or more collector:
A further development in solid waste collection technology is the can snatcher, .,
truck equipped with long arms that reach out, grab a can, and lift it into the bark
of the truck (Figure 3-7). Such systems, called fully automated collection, can 111′
operated by a single driver. Communities that have converted from the manu.il
system to the fully automated system have saved at least 50% in collection costs,
much of it in reduced crew size and medical costs.’
3-1-3 Phase 3: Truck from House to House
Once the refuse is in the truck, it is compacted as the truck moves from house to
house. The higher the compaction ratio, the more refuse the truck can carry before
it has to make a trip to the landfill.
Assume each household produces 56 Ib of refuse per week (as in
Example 3-1). How many customers can a 20-yd3 truck that compacts
the refuse to 500 lb/yd” collect before it has to make a trip to the
landfill?
yd3 X 00 lb/yd” = 10,000 Ib
1 ,000 Ib/56 Ib/customer = 178 customers
(Not th t the refuse weighs 5 tons, and if the truck itself w igh
tons, the common 6-ton residential load limit can be exceed
I fore the truck is full.)
I 3-7 Automated garbage truck. Source:PeterCron/San LuisObispo C01111ly
I I listed Waste Management Authority.
‘I’ll’ , 1’1(‘ )f Il\(‘ 11111 I I I ‘W ,\1\ 1,lIlf1′ 1101\1 Oil’ II OV ‘1’1 V’ I (‘upl’, II hilt I
yard I i kUI Is )r~,1′ xl. fl larger I’ will>’.’ \ 11′ ‘d ‘ I I ‘(:llh • [II, I’ ‘w nilist Si’l II
ans that might b at S m Ii tan rl’ III the )11′ Ii n v hi I’, ~lld skle pll IIIi’
requires a smaller crew, and, of cours ,ru”y ut mal I YSl rns I’ tuirc 0111 1111
person. Studies have shown that the great st v rail ffi i n i n b alt.1 III Ii
with the smallest possible crews. For curbside refuse collection, thr -p rs n (11”1′
do not collect three times as much refuse as a one-person crew.
As a rough guideline, for most residential curbside collections, a si nglc 11111 I
should be able to service between 700 and 1000 customers per day if th . I1IIII,
does not have to travel to the landfill. In one California community, an autorn.uh
collection system allows a truck to average about two and a half loads I (‘I d,l\
(J Ovhour shift) at 10 tons per load.” Realistically, most trucks can service only ahl HI1
200 to 300 customers before the truck is full and a trip to the landfill is nee SS,III’
Suppose a crew of two people requires 2 minutes per stop, at which
the crew can service four customers. If each customer generates 56 Ib
of refuse per week, how many customers can crew members service
if they did not have to go to the landfill?
A working day is 8 hours, minus breaks and travel from and to the
garage-say 6 productive hours, 6 X 60 = 360 minutes. At 2 minutes
per stop, a truck should be able to make 180 stops and service 180 X
4 = 720 customers.
(Note, however, from Example 3-2, that the truck has to go to the
landfill after only 178 customers or fewer still if its wheel loading is
exceeded for the streets!)
An organized way of estimating the amount of time the crew actually works
in collecting refuse is to enumerate all of the various ways crew members spend
time. The total time in a workday can be calculated as
Y = a + c(b) + c(d) + e + f + g
where
Y = the total time in a workday
a = time from the garage to the route, including the marshaling time or that
time needed to get ready to get moving .
b = actual time collecting a load of refuse
c = number of loads collected during the working day
d = time to drive the fully loaded truck to the disposal facility, deposit the
refuse, and return to the collection route
e = time to take the final (not always full) load to the disposal facility and
return to the garage
ull d,111 rcnl S In luding rim ‘It ‘010 the I il l
nth ‘I’I )sl time su h S [I’ m jams, breakd wns, ‘l .
II ill ,II I ‘S, 0 urse. hav t b in consistent time units, such a minut s.
11111 \1\ nllt lysis, whil it may not be very useful for calculations, strikingly
11111 lilill Ihfll ( working day is not the same as the time spent collecting soli I
II III – ~’ III f b i.n the equation (the amount of time the crew a tually
I 11111- ling I’ fus ) IS known, the number of customers served by that truck
I II \ (.111 I ‘ stirnated.
II II 1(‘,1 )11 is fairly homogeneous, travel times (d in the previous equation)
I I I Innl d by driving representative routes and generalizing the data. One
, I IIIIII,IV il-time data are available, the data can be regressed against the “crow-
I lillH.. ne such regression” for New Jersey resulted in the expression
1.<::'0 - 0.65
II a tuaJ one-way travel time, min
I ne-way travel time as the crow flies, assuming different truck speeds
along the route, min
1/ h crew can service 1.25 customers in one minute, what can crew
mbers do in 4 X 60 minutes?
1.25 X
–=—
1 4 X 60
X = 300 customers per day
If the number of customers that a single truck can service
luring the day is known, the number of collection vehicles needed
I r a community can be estimated by
N = SF
XW
where
N = number of collection vehicles needed
S = total number of customers serviced
F = collection frequency, number of collections per week
X = number of customers a single truck can service per day
W = number of workdays per week
mmunity w ul n
rs) th t are to be coil ct
A single truck can service 300 customers in a single day and still hav
time to take the full loads to the landfill.The town wants to collect on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, leaving Wednesdays for
special projects and truck maintenance.
SF 5000 X 1
N = XW = 300 X 4 = 4.2 trucks
The community will need five trucks.
3-1-4 Phase 4: Truck Routing
The routing of a vehicle within its assigned collection zone is often called mia 1/
TOuting to distinguish it from the larger-scaleproblems (phase 5) of routing to IIII’
disposal site and establishing the individual route boundaries. The latter problem
is commonly known as macrorouting or districting and is discussed later.
The present question is how to route a truck through a series of one- or two
way streets so that the total distance traveled is minimized. Put another way, thr
objective is to minimize deadheading, which is passing a collection point again
after a previous pickup. The assumption is that if a route can be devised that ha:
the least amount of deadheading possible, it is the most efficient collection route,
The problem of designing a route to eliminate all deadheading was actu
ally addressed as early as 1736. The brilliant mathematician Leonhard Eulci
was asked to design a route for a parade across the seven bridges of Konigsberg,
a city in eastern Prussia, such that the parade would not cross the same
bridge twice but would end at the starting point. The problem is illustrated ill
Figure 3-8 together with a schematic diagram. The routes are shown by lines
called links, and the locations are known as nodes. The system shown has fall I
nodes and seven links.
Euler not only proved that the assignment was impossible, but he general
ized the two conditions that must be fulfilled for any network to make it possible
to traverse a route without traveling twice over any road. These two conditions are
1. All points must be connected (one must be able to get from one place to
another).
2. The number of links to any node must be of an even number.
The first condition is logical. The second similarly makes sense, in that if one trav-
els to a location such as island A or B in Figure 3-8, one must be able to get off
again-hence two roads. Euler’s parade problem had all the nodes with an odd
I III 3-8 The bridges of Konigsberg.
. . ible situation. The number of links connecting
11111111or of links-sa clearly Impossth. f any odd degree nodes in a sys-. . d e and e existence a -III’ I deSIgnatesIts egree, d dh di I’Simpossible A system that has, th te without ea ea lllg . .
hili ndlcates at a rou . al network and an Euler’s tour IS
II I I ) I s of even degree is known as a untcours ,
1111 I’ ti ally possible.
6
d d ends and other restrictions can often
In the real world, one-way streets, ea. 1 ‘I is difficult One-way streets
licati f the theoretica ana YSI .11111′ practical app icauon 0 b . ing again .that one must be able to
IIII onsidered in Euler’s theory y recogmzl . Th ode with three one-
1 ti s as one leaves It. us a n
11\ I) a node ex~cty a~many I~e one-wa street leading away from it imrn ‘.
‘,IYIllreetsleading to It and a s.mgle I YthOUghthe number of links at that
1111\ ·Iy makes a network nonUllicoursa , even
‘1111\ i even. . 1 aki g a system unicollrS:1I
The development of a leas~-ckostFroutemvolveths;K6~gsberg bridge problemI 1 b of added lin s or examp e., I 1 the ea~tnum er ,. I (deadhead) links to make the system unicoursnl
IIIlid require only t~o addltlOnath ‘I E Ids tour exists, and the problem isII lure 3-9), With this system, a eoretlCa u
IIIIW ne of finding the proper route, f chi . the most efficient unicoursnl
7 h .d d a means 0 a ievmgKwan as provi e c tho rocedure’ the Chinese post /111/11
( d I ided the name lor IS p .”I (work an a so provi k lly a series of loops where each no I’,I )b b .ng that networ s are rea””rJem yo servi . . . in the additional connecting links (deadhend~)
‘III ars exactly~nce, By ~mlml~ g e can in fact achieve an overall opu-
11I1• sary to achieve a umcoursa sys~em,o~ k f the Konigsberg bridg’
1IIIImsystem. For example, the umcoursa networ 0
Figure 3-9 One possible route for the king’s parade.
problem shown in Figure 3-9 is clearly a poor choice. (A new bridge is rcqui II d I)
It would make much more sense to trade the two deadheads shown in Figlll t’ I I,
for the two in Figure 3-10. The latter is an obviously more efficient solution, 1111
skill of the route planner must come into play in such tradeoffs, since a sll(lIlll
street with many traffic problems, in fact, may be a more expensive alternat iVI’ III
a longer but clear street.
Once a unicoursal network has been designed, it remains to route Ihe 111111
through this network. The method of heuristic (commonsensical) routius; I”,
found wide application.” The following set of rules apply to microrouiing. SIIIII
of these are pure commonsensical judgment. and some are useful guid lilll”1 “II
determining overall strategy when planning a network.
1. Routes should not overlap, should be compact, and should no: III
fragmented.
2. The starting point should be as close to the truck garage as possibl ‘.
3. Heavily traveled streets should be avoided during rush hours.
4. One-way streets that cannot be traversed in one line should b 100111II
from the upper end of the street.
5. Dead-end streets should be collected when on the right side of th ‘ sIll’. I
6. On hills, collection should proceed downhill so that the truck can (101’1
FigurEo’ 3-10 An It rnativ route for the parade.
(:I{ kwise turns around blocks should be used whenever possible.
t\ Lon ,straight paths should be routed before looping clockwis .
” JI II’ rtain block patterns, standard paths, as shown in Figure 3-11, siloldd
11’1i d.
III II turns can be avoided by never leaving one two-way street as the Oil!
I and exit to the node.I” (‘rules can be used to develop effective routes with minor deadheading.
I I I is an example of some of these routing rules applied to a large ill'(‘,\,
III r nmputer programs have been developed by a number of res arCil(‘IH,
I III,Hll ,it has been found that the tours constructed manually arc allll(l, I
1II’Il’I’ than those done by mechanical tour-building codes.’
I \I !
I 1\ i.’Il D D
Start
Finish D D
tart
Fini h e- ,—– ,—–,1
D D D Di
I D D D DI1I
D D D D IIII
I
iD D D D
I—— – – – – –
11 Large loops usually result in efficient collection.
Figure 3-12 A sample routing for a collection truck.
3-1-5 Phase 5: Truck to Disposal
For smaller isolated communities, the macrorouting problem reduces to one 0/
finding the most direct road from the end of the route to the disposal site. FOI
regional systems or large metropolitan areas, however, macrorouting in terms 01
developing the optimum disposal and transport scheme can be used to great advan
tage. The available techniques, called allocation models, are all based on the concept
of minimizing an objective function subject to constraints, with linear program
ming being the most common technique.
The simplest allocation problem is the assignment of solid waste disposal 10
more than one disposal site. Often the solution is obvious-the closest sources
are allocated first, followed by the next closest, and so on. With more complex
systems, however, it becomes necessary to use optimization techniques. The
most appropriate one is the transportation algorithm, which is a type of linear
programming. This technique is illustrated in Appendix 3-7.
is aim l always collected with dumpsters, which ar I rg
” “I,ll II nt in I” that are commonly lifted overhead by a fron.t load
,111111111 I (Figur -1), Dumpsters range in size from 1.5 to 8 cubic yards,
I IIII III(I, I mm n sizes being 3 or 4 cubic yards, As with the can snatchers,
II I do’s n t hay to get out of the truck, which is both an advantag,e an I
III, tllLlj,\’, In b th ases. the driver does not see what has been placed ill the
t I III I. l lnz I’d us or dangerous materials can be transferred to the truck and
1101 I III ‘ It ng rous situations in the landfill or combustor. At the landfill, the
I I 1\ III- ull truck is then pushed out (Figure 3-14),
1I'(t’nl innovation has been the development of the split container. In
III I I’ mrnunities the dumpster is placed inside an enclosure. These
·13 A dumpster used for commercial collection.
I Ire 3-14 Dumpster collection truck being emptied at a landfill.
Figure 3-15 Split containerfor recyclables and garbage. (Courtesy William A. W “, “I)
enclosures hide the dumpster from public view. Unfortunately the enclosuu-
typically only have room for one dumpster. Thus it is difficult to add recycli111\
service because there is no room for the recycling dumpster. The San Luis Obixpn
County Integrated Waste Management Authority solved this problem by creati III’, ,\
split dumpster. This dumpster has two separate locking compartments, which (,11\
b.e se~iced by a standard front loader truck. When dumping garbage the recycling
SIde IS locked, and when dumping recycling the garbage side is locked. SpC(i,Ii
signs were developed to inform users about the split dumpster (Figure 3-15).
Roll-off containers (Figure 3-16) are commonly used on construction si(rs,
The roll-off containers typically range in size from 10 to 40 cubic yards. The 10-yd I
Figure 3-16 Roll-off containers. Source: Peter Cron/San Luis Obispo County
Integrated Waste Management Authority.
II!) 1111 I. 111′(‘1I, l’d for d ‘J))oIILiOIl 111111 -rlal, whll ‘lh ‘1l0-ytl \ PO-iiI I) unlt: (‘1111
t •• I I 111\’,11(I’, nsf r SL li ns ~ I’ hOUR h I I garbag . ‘l’h main rs ar II 111’1
1111I11.IIII.Hlhn tak th full ontain rs to th lanlfills.Asp ialtrll”‘klrans-
I III loll, rr onu in r c La tirn to the landfill.
ANSFER STAllONS
II II • wn ( lisposal unit is remote to the collection area, a transfer station
“11II ‘d, 1\( a transfer station, waste is transferred from smaller colleen n
I “Ii I I Inrg r transfer vehicles, such as a tractor and trailer, a barge, 0r a raiI-
I, II
11111\1″1’stations can be quite simple, or they can be complex facilities. The
II I I tit . F, ility is based on its intended use, with small transfer stations typi-
It I 11’14011a tipping floor where collection vehicles drop their loads. Wast ,
I II I . IOe led into open-top trailers using a wheeled loader. More complex
Ilf I IlilHi1L mploy pits for vehicles to dump into. Transfer vehicles then an
II Iii II I y using a compacting unit. A facility also might have a tunnel for the
I It I \'” I I to drive into. Chutes or an opening in the floor would allow thes
III Ill’ I aded by having waste pushed over the edge into them. Some typi al
I Ii I I \Iions are shown in Figure 3-17.
luu fer vehicles can be as large as 105 cubic yards (80 cubic meters). The
I I I If 111 f a transfer vehicle is limited by allowable wheel loads up to 80,000 lb
1111111fI), In addition, many states also have weight limits on each axle. Some
I II I i 111ns employ scales so that trailers can be loaded to their maximum
IllId wet ht. The available payload is usually about 40,000 Ib (18,000 kg).
II II 1V ‘hides are constructed from either steel or aluminum, which can affe I
.1 III I payload.
I \I of four methods is used to unload the transfer trailer:
I. tlve bottom, or walking floors, on the floors of the vehicles. The back-an 1-
[orth movement of the longitudinal floor sections causes the refuse to be
I ushed out of the trailer.
• Push blade, similar to the blade in a packer truck. A telescoping rod push’s
11 blade from the front ofthe trailer, which forces the waste out. .
I, I rag chains. Some vehicles have chains on sprockets that go from rhr
r nt to the back of a trailer, and by pulling on the chain, the-refuse is
d ragged out of the vehicle.
I. ‘/’ipper. Some units have no unloading mechanism, and a large (iPI’I’1 Iii
(h landfill lifts the entire transfer vehicle up at an angle, causing 1111’1111111
10open and the refuse to slide out.
II insfer stations can also transfer refuse to trains or even barges. III NI’~ Iill
II111waste was transferred onto barges, which then moved the 1’\,(11,’1\’II. III
l uudfill on Staten Island until the landfill closed in 2001. In St’,IItII. llil
I. Iransferred to railroad shipping containers that are then pl.ll \’111111I I I
It IIIlli] ment to eastern Oregon. Durham, North Carolina, sends .iI1111I II III
I I 11ll.I.to southern Virginia. Los Angeles is also planning 10 , IiiI’ /11111.\
(a)
(b)
(e)
(d)
Several typical transfer stations. (a)Dump to container. (b) Dump to trailer. (c)Store and
-cktrailer. (d) Dump to compactor.
11111101′ lundllll II Illlp ‘I’ Iii ;OUllly, C,IiIl()11l II. Oil :l murl: ,Illltlkl’ H(‘,lk,
III II I “lid nr ‘liS IIL1h nil \11′ Ullin 01’\ nil’ I HI”‘ll Of’Sflll I 1’1-\ .ouuty hrln
, ” \II Ililih cr S\, Ii I1S with 40-y II ( 0-111′) r II-off bins, whi h (I” then
II” 1111′ 11.1 os: I sit,
I” III 1)11 l build r n L LO buil I a transfer station is often an economi
11111111 I’isi n. If th one-way haul distance from the point of the full-
1111 ‘Ii I t th dis harge point is short, then it is likely that no transfer
I I II” I’d. n th other hand, if the discharge point is far away and the
11’11 v’hl 1 will have to be away from its primary role of collecting refuse
It” 1\, lit -n c transfer station might be warranted. The relationship is illus-
\I 1 f \11′ I ‘ – I 8. Where the two curves cross is the breakeven point. Longer
II wa rra n t the construction of a transfer station, while shorter hauls
I III \ 1111′ nornical.
\11I It I I III if a transfer station is economical, the cost of direct haul must be
II II \11 III ‘ st of a transfer station. Direct haul is a variable cost based on
Illdl ‘1 t) mil s that have to be traveled. A transfer station also has a variable
I II 1111 th transfer vehicle mileage but also has a fixed cost based on the
III I npcr ling cost of the transfer station. The variable cost for direct haul
I 1\ II I vchi Ie is typically expressed as a cost per mile. The fixed cost for a
I I 1.11on is based on cost per ton.
III •• unple, if it is 40 miles round trip to a landfill and it costs $1.50 per mile
I .ul a truck carrying 5 tons of garbage, the cost would be $12 per ton. If a
I II I’ [Lying20 tons of garbage cost $2 per mile and the fixed cost at the
\.1\ Oil i $5 per ton, the cost would be $9 per ton. Thus, a transfer station
1’1 11111′) onomical.
Haul distance to disposal
Breakeven point of transfer stations.
SOIIl ‘(1111 •• ,I (I’lll, / -r 1,,11011 1111’ ‘(/ll I ‘li IPI.lldl’, 0/ dl,lollH ‘ ((J” LInd/II III
minimize th unl’n an I, ir I lIuli I) 11111 fl 11I.Il.l 1,111 1111, ,I I l’I’l\lil ma Illllll III
landfill to only riving wa l fl’ m trans ,.Sl,lli ns. ‘this si nif antly I’ ‘dwI’ 1/11
number of vehicles travelling to a Iandf II.
In situations where the sophistication of linear programmin m d ‘Is l. 11111
warranted, a brute-force technique using a simple grid system an b (V:lI’I1′ III
this case, the region is divided into equal blocks on an X-Y grid, and the ,11/ ”
waste generation is then estimated based on population. The sites for 11’:111’01, I
stations and final disposal facilities are initially screened to eliminate bvioll’liI
inadequate areas [e.g.. urban areas for landfills). Trial-and-error siting of (;leiIIII,_
is then used to obtain the most reasonable combination of solid waste displI~1I1
facilities.
3-4 COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Recycling entered the mainstream of solid waste management in the I C).)(}
No longer was recycling conducted by underfunded, idealistic individuals, 11111
rather, multinational garbage companies were now involved. Recycling, reg.url
less of the price paid for recycled material, could be profitable. While some 10111
for the days of the idealistic recycler, no one can dispute that more materi.il I
being recycled today. In 2008, approximately one-third of the MSW being grlll’l
ated is recycled.
Two factors have caused recycling to succeed. First, government has provider]
leadership in the area of waste reduction. Over 40 states have adopted waste red I/(
tion goals, and some states have set mandatory goals, with noncompliance result
ing in fines of up to $10,000 per day. Second, the public has accepted the conrcp]
that recycling is not free. lust as residents pay for garbage service, they also IIOW
pay for recycling. Over 8600 curbside recycling programs have been implemeJlI(‘(I,
resulting in 86.2 million tons-or 34.5% of all solid waste-being recycled
Table 3-1 highlights the progress of recycling in the United States.
Some groups, such as the Grassroots Recycling Network, see this as only 1111′
beginning and are calling for a zero waste goal.’ 1
To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the
land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in
undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we
ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
-Theodore Roosevelt, Seventh Annual Message, December 3, 190’1
Progressive communities, such as San Francisco, have adopted a zero wasu:
goal. The California Integrated Waste Management Board has embraced the zcn I
waste goal and uses the slogan, “Zero Waste-You Make It Happen.”
A major barrier to the increasing expansion of recycling is finding markels
for the material. Recycling cannot occur without markets for the recycled material,
and markets are created by using post-consumer material in the manufacture 01
a product.
Recovered
(millions of tons) (percent of generation)
rbo rd 64,6
27.7
33.0
19.8
68.0
8.8
17.9
15.7
15.2
28.3
4.8
57.7
34.5
44.4
3,0
5,6
0.7
1.4
2.8
1.4
2.3
2.4
1.3
1.7
19.6
86.6
I’ll) lu rs are being urged to take responsibility for the products they produce
II ‘II ‘ that the material is either recyclable or that it uses post-co.nsumer.recy-
I IIhll ‘rial. For example, the soft drink industry sells its product~ III aluminum
111,11 asily can be recycled, and these cans already contain a high per.centage
I” YI I’d aluminum. On the other hand, the industry also sells products m.PEfE
I I I I mtainers that are much more difficult to recycle a~d are rarely used m ~he
“,1111 lure of new bottles (unlike in Europe and. Australia, where the soft drink
III Ii uses plastic containers with recycled plastic). .
II’ ause the recycling industry is still young, there has n~t b~en time to se~tle
” 01 NI, ndard system that has a high probability of succee?mg !n every applica-
.u 1\11 h community has almost an infinite number of options m how to design
III ling program. . .. . th
Many communities have switched to havmg their citizens place all e
, l.ible material into one container. A separate truck takes the recyclable to .a
II iI,11 recovery facility (clean MRF) for processing. ~ecause. the recyclable~ ale
It \ P rated by commodity but instead placed comm~ngled mt~ one contaI~er,
II ailed commingled collection of recyclable ~atenals (~.eeFIgure 3-~9). Ihe
III for processing commingled recyclable matenals (see FIgure 3-201) IS much
uuller than a MRF that must process both recyclable and non-recyclable ~aste
“/’l’ MRF). However, the tradeoff is that ano~her truck must travel the same route
I I’ I up the garbage. In addition, the resI.dents. must separate the recyclable
I til’lials and place them in a container for this option to work. .
orne jurisdictions have used one truck to pick up both ~ohd waste and
uuningled recyclables in a dual-compartment packer truck (~lgure 3-21). The
1111 has two lifters and is fitted with dual compartments: one SIde for recyclable
I ill’rials and one side for solid waste. The contents of the two compartments
t
Figure 3-19 Commingled recyclables on the receiving floor. (Courtesy William
A. Worrell)
Figure 3-20 Storage bays for the separated recyclables. (Courtesy William
A. Worrell)
(a)
(b)
HI 3·21 (a) Dual-compartment packer truck, one side for garbage and one side
I If mrninqled recyclables. (b) Two tippers, one for the garbage side and one for
I 1 r yclables side. (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
1111I1 n split during the dumping process, and the mixed refuse then an ht:
“”11>’ ted to achieve a full load. The advantage of this system is that nly OIl(‘
11111 and driver is needed to collect both the solid waste and recyclable m:lI(‘1’1
I II wever, the amount of material collected must be balanced so 111:11 h0111
‘111’1 f rtments fill at the same rate. If only one compartment is full and Ill(‘ 01111’1
lilli, the system loses its advantage. Because the truck now has to disch,llg’ ,II
II I cations, the landfill and MRFalso must be near each other to mni nt.i II IIII
II Ii ncy of this option.
1\110111’I’oprlou tor « 11’llilll ‘0111111111,1(‘dI ‘( (I.lhl’ 1″.lll’l ,II , 111(‘//1,11′ /,,1 One disadvantage of any system that collects commingled re y I bl ‘S i,’ 1111 Yard waste also typically is placed in a separate container. These yard W<1~tl'
programs are being expanded to include food waste and in some cases paper ,11111
compostable bags and utensils. A third truck is needed to collect the yard W.l~II·
and take this material to a mulching or composting operation.
In addition to these items, some communities have implemented curbside Both experience and mathematical modeling suggest that collection of COlli A curbside recycling program can divert between 15% and 30% of tll,’ Everett et al. have developed a model that estimates the cost of collecting (b) .22 (a) Workers place different recyclables in separate. bins (b) Bins are I’I\Wl time is estimated as
D L(I-e-1ID)C
I’ \I d I = travel distance between two consecutive stops, m (ft) L I(
~rew Size (km m I) ~ne person 18.8 Two persons 24.3 30urce: Based on Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, Everett, S. Maratha, R. D rah.i], .\11,1 L = calculated coefficient, km h-I (mile h-1) iiJehicle,the acceleration, driver ability, and road conditions. The values of L ,llltl/,’ The time to walk to the containers and bring them back to the truck ,III III W = O.86A W = walk time, seconds The sorting time is estimated as
S = 21.3 + 2AB S = 23.2 + 1.8B S = average sorting time of a single set-out, seconds :)n average, the set-out amount for a typical curbside program varies between (U Finally, the truck has to navigate the streets, and if the traffic is heavy andl .vhere Ms = mean time spent at stop signs, seconds III lllod’l (with these varial lcs) has be ’11 foun I I prcdi l rhc time (e. I’ 1I1’1\l’V ‘I’ r urbsid pr gram is initiat d in a ornrnunity, th l ad r want III hid III rh ‘8 :
II Ii I IIII or r fus rnponents diverted from the landfill, tons/week II III lit IS rn thods are useful, but they have to be well defined and used consistently. 1111 Ililll’ hold or business generates. To determine how much refuse is generated, t! II ,I h usehold has three containers, one for garbage, one for recyclables, and II 111111 r uency identification (RFID) chip) and the associated empty weight. This , ill W -lght, it is now possible to determine how much refuse was collected. I III II ,'(RFID chip), reader, and recording device. After much difficulty one com- 1111 Iii) ontamers was the opposite of the weight, with recycling containers being 111I,dly, the average generation by weight for the households was 43% garbage, 30% ” .unount of refuse being generated on the household level, one must be cautious LITTER AND STREET CLEANLINESS
11111’1′ is a special type of MSW. It is distinct from other types of MSW in that it is till w rid, it is fascinating to see all the different receptacles developed for garbage, We usually think of litter as existing in public places, but litter ould b n ~ 3-23 A collage of public receptacles. (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
examples. Litter is also a drain on our economic resources, because the public m IISI The collection of litter is of secondary importance to a community, because The composition of roadside litter can vary considerably from place to place, I Ilhll 111’1”I ()IIS 1.111to sp’clly Ill’ !-\ulddil1 ‘S IIS(‘I in the 011′((i()n nnd 111111iII1(’11ISw ‘I” (I ul l d. I,’ J ample, a br k n b III an b unrcd ouru
1I’lii I Y( tual count
II 11\l’It k of a standard counting technique, the following guidelines for I :1Hill I as one item all pieces larger than 2.5 cm (1 in.). This count indu lcs , I)() n l count rocks, dirt, or animal droppings. II .1I roken bottle. Otherwise, count each piece of glass, newspaper, and 1)0 11 t count small, readily decomposable material, such as apple cores. n.u d right of way. IIII’ lin r survey, if conducted along a road, should be started by driving I 11″111.nt as feasible. The collected items are then weighed and the volum ” I 1111is only about 6% of the total litter count! These data also confirm that a Por ommunity litter surveys, the photometric technique developed for Keep •. und the locations on those blockfaces to be measured are selected. As shown II,III ard is used to identify the location and date. To facilitate the counting of 1 00,————————–,0-,
II) 500:::0.- –_/- – – – ..0~~–~._—L~~-i——L—~o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Figure 3-24 Results of a litter survey on a rural road. Source: Vesilind, P.A. 1976. Camera _———M;rker ,/”” 15ft,+——- Survey area 1#”” t Side view
Chalkboard
6}1~1==========~§~~:~~~~ Top view
Figure 3-25 Keep America Beautiful litter measurement technique. Source: The 6 6 16 36
6 64 116
Il'” 1111.11 1.11’1\’1111′ plwloWlIpils H\ ‘ i1l1aly'” ‘U all I Ill’ I. , (ill< u·
'\ ( I'sall1l ling Sll '$ nc .ssary (111be HI ulat -d "8
,H)8i
N ample .iz n eel d to make a O.5-poi.ntdifference between two (tv .\ ,I ulated as
II., F(LY (,~ FLy n – 1 n(n – 1)
I I Ii Ll r rating of the ith photograph III pose that a to~n has 600 blackfaces .and that ~ 5% sampl~, or I II n s (L) are as shown: L F FL FU
1 Ilow many blackfaces need to be photographed for a litter survey? 2 = 116 _ (36)2 = 2.5 If SZ = 2.5, the number of sampling sites necessary is
N = 22.8 (2.5) = 57 1,I11(,lllwOI:’Ih’,II! (“III h’wllIl’OIIl’1 h (IIH”I V’, ,()( ,II, lUl(l 11’111111111I The first option demands an explanation of why peopl liucr, II lIllI ilil E = 0.019 + 0.414(A) + 0.1654(C) + 0.1532(D) E is the probability that a person would litter except that From the study, it is clear that age is quite important-younger IWIII’/l person littering a dirty
That is, of 100 people answering that description, 33 would probably Such studies yield clues as to how persons might be induced not to litter 111111II (11()lof y ,111(/ ” ,iI Ollt 111’1 l”Iv’ h ‘(‘II II ‘( 1(‘ I ,II I IId”If’ (lIll I ‘I’ll/Oil 11, ‘I’hc r ‘suits sh w d that m a ures su h as I r nal xh rtari n Ihlll II Illl ‘I”.Th I ar indication is that self-interest, such as placing a sub- 1’1I’ ‘/I hi ng the consumer. In the earlier example of the hot dog wrapp 1’, I) I “LISIi bags is a practical means of controlling this type of litter. 11111[s mmonly used in sports stadiums and other public areas where no III 111,11th most economical litter control alternative is actually frequent II ‘I~’ live means of litter control is to enlist the help of the community 11111111gr ups, Rotary Clubs, sports teams, and even private businesses have 1111II\ ) I f litter control not only keeps roadways and streets cleaner, but i1 I I .itur lay to the hot and dirty job of collecting litter along the roadway will urnipts also have been made to design mechanical litter collection II I Iii!’ series of rotating plastic teeth that fling the litter into a collection I n.illy, street cleanliness can be negatively affected by the very people who I iything into the truck. The second reason was that the city had initiated :1 ‘”1111 refuse into a can if they stomped on the refuse and packed it into th 3-6 FINAL HOU H S
In “the good old days,” the garbag man arnc twi ‘a w “I, went lO OIl! It I The limits to recycling are still unknown. Learned people are debating will III II Finally, it is important to recognize that garbage collection is still a 1.111111 3-7 APPENDIX: DESIGN OF COLLECTIO N
SYSTEMS
Systems analyses can be used to design collection systems so as to minimize 1111 At the same time, several requirements must be met (constraints in an opil 1. The capacity of each disposal site (e.g., a landfill) is limited. amount of refuse hauled from each collection area must be greater 1It.lll 4. Total cost equals hauling cost plus disposal cost.
Collection (source)
ments of a simple solid waste management system.
Iin VI1g notation is adopted: \ I total quantity of waste generated at source 1, per unit nme I’lfillitllll then boils down to minimizing the following objective function:
N ‘fXilh” + ± (F,,’fX;II) I ~ I() th following constraints. N X;II :S E” for all k 1I.IHraint2. The sum of all the waste hauled from a sectio? of the c~mmll- K
Xik = W; for all i ‘onslr,IIIL . ‘I’ll’ w.ISI ‘ h.iu] xl OUI 11,\. I( Ill’ po. IIVI’ (Il()l II ‘H,Illv ‘), III
Xiii ~ ° for allf, u :erm is disposal costs. For the case shown in Figure 3-22, the I j IiV(‘ rill\( 11111 + X C + FI(xn + X21 -I- X3\ + X41) -I- P2(X12 + Xl) subject to the following constraints:
Xli + X21 + X3\ + X41 S BI + xn -I- X32 + X42 S B2 This problem can be solved using any linear programming algorithm. The 1,,111 Assume the solid waste generation and disposal figure for the system Cost of Transport, Cik Source; (tonnes/week) ($/tonne) ($/tonne)
I 1 100 2 130 7 5 ~ 4 85 13 6
Disposal Site, k Capacity, e, Cost, Fk($/tonne) We can hand calculate the cost for any option. Suppose all of the 100 tonnes/wk X $5/tonne = $500/wk
th r ti n ,th ost w uld e $910, $ 0, /wk X $4/ton = $1760/wk I hi i only one solution, and it might not be the least-cost iiI 11111 ort tion algorithm and find the following:
II I To Disposal Waste Hauled Transport Cost Disposal Cost 1 100 500 400 I” r fore, the total system minimum cost is $4350/week, substan- I ‘I1lS in which transfer stations are used also can be optimized by sys- I II r ummunity with four sources of waste and two disposal sites, but now I I I ,II rrnediate facilities. As before, these facilities have processing costs and ] . “}= cost per quantity of hauling the waste from source i to intermediate }”= cost per quantity of hauling the waste from intermediate facility j to Xy = quantity of waste hauled from source i to intermediate facility j, per X’I = quantity of waste hauled from intermediate facility j to final disposal Bj = capacity of intermediate facility j, in waste quantity, per unit time remains for disposal (P. = 1.0 if the facility is a transfer station, but P. = 0.2 if it is an incinerator) J = number of intermediate facilities j This objective function is subject to the following constraints: I I Constaint 1. The quantity 0 w to the J intermediate sites allll ) K . .
“‘x + ‘” x = W for aU1~ ik ~ III 1 . f the ith intermediate site, Bj, must be more than 01 Add·lng transfer stations to the collection system plan.Figure 3-27
. . . ize the following objective function: N K J K± iC,)X,) + ~~ClkXI11 + ~~lClkXIII J N K N
+ 2,Fj 2,xij + 2,FI/2,Xill N ‘” x, :5 B. for all j.t:’…J ‘/ I =
Ih I JlI S 811 f rail k ” .\ I I II. what ver waste is shipped to an intermediate site I11USI hc : Ilippl’lI IIIH I’dllng i d noted by Pr I’, ,1″/ /( :2’>jll = 0 for all j III hi 111 ~. The nonnegativity constraints are
0; XIII ~ 0; xjk ~ 0 for all i, j, k
PPENDIX: POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS I Ii wi, S towns have littering problems. Because tourism is an important ceo I. I IIV I’ nment has noted that the greatest litter problem occurs in city enters. 11111111 LO carry out national measures. In Switzerland various combinations of’ 1,,1111111 lion and Awareness-Raising Campaign II. II, ing advertising posters, newspaper advertisements, anti -litter am bassado rs, III1 lltter posters can be ordered free of charge in all three national languages 1111′ s ubere Umwelt-IGSU) or from the Summit Foundation. Communitlr: luturrnation and Education J, C()(\~,of I\l-havlol’ f(1I 11ll’ Rtlull Sl'(‘~c)I’ uml SI)(‘dlll(‘lI (:ollln\(‘1 fell I 4. Financial Incentives for Consumers 5. Sanctions References
1. Unit-Based Pricing in the United States: A 2. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 3. Getting More for Less; Municipal Solid Waste 4. DeWeese, A. 2000. “Mandates Motivate to 5. Greenberg, M. R., et al. 1976. Solid Waste Brunswick, N.J.: The Center for Urh,11I 6. Liebman, J. c.. J. W. Male, and M. 7. Kwan, K. 1962. “Graphic Programming 8. Shuster, K. A. and D. A. Schul. 1974. {U’I\\I,.n+ions U
IIIVIIIIlIIIII’III,tll’IIIII’1 III
Iq”‘p t\lill’II(‘;1 Ik.Ili1I1III, /)I’II’llIilll\’ Ilit, lillll’ 11’1/\: MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Assess the fundamental science and engineering principles of solid waste management. 6. Relate leadership and management principles to effective solid waste management. Reading Assignment Chapter 3: Unit Lesson There are four broad kinds of wastes that make up municipal wastes: municipal solid waste from residences, The management of municipal solid waste begins with the collection of waste at the locations where these Between the point that waste is collected and its disposal at the municipal landfill, there are some operations In large municipalities, waste transfer stations are a normal part of the municipal solid waste management UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
Collecting and Handling
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title station are consolidated and shipped to a materials recovery facility that further segregates out different Transfer facilities bring flexibilities to local communities by being a buffer between the generator of the waste In 1991, regulators responsible for permitting landfills began to mandate that federal criteria be used in the Many citizens operate by the out of sight, out of mind principle meaning that if they cannot see it, they do not United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Waste transfer stations: A manual for decision- References United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Municipal solid waste landfills, volume 1: Summary
of the requirements for the new source performance standards and emission guidelines for municipal
MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Learning Activities (Non-Graded) Practice the skills learned in this unit by answering the following questions: 1. The landfill of a local municipality is filling to capacity, and the city is looking for ways to extend the life
2. Not all wastes can be recycled or reused, especially when there are no post-consumer markets.
Describe the ways that municipalities are seeking to implement a Zero Waste program. Describe
3. A community is experiencing a serious litter problem from local citizens. The city council has hired
your firm to propose a program to be implemented. Design a community program that addresses the
4. Define the key elements that go into designing a refuse collection route. Which of the elements
accounts for the most time in the collection of residential trash? What is your proposal to bring more
Non-graded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to I
CSU Math Center | 1-800-977-8449 x6538 | teamsucceed@columbiasouthern.edu
Math Center Requests: Math Center Request Form
Municipal Government &
Transfer Station
Problem: A municipal government has agreed to provide once per week waste collection services to a
new residential community of 25,000 people. The city council has hired you to make a preliminary of the initial data that the municipal engineer has collected.
* The round trip distance from the residential community to the landfill is 40 miles. * The round trip distance from the proposed site of the transfer station will be 45 miles. * The transfer station has a fixed operating cost of $15/ton. * The cost to operate the long haul truck is $0.75/mile. * The United Nations estimates waste generation rate is 4.8 lbs. per person per day. (b) If the community operated a recycling program, would this change or support your
recommendation to the city council? Show all work on how you came to your answer. Solution:
(a) We will use the estimated waste generation rate of 4.8 lbs. per person per day in this calculation.
Step 1 person/day 1 week each week
Step 2 30 yd3 x 700 lbs. = 21,000 lbs. of waste collected per truck
truck yd3
Step 3 840,000 lbs. = 40 trucks (round up) Step 4
Determine the cost to travel to landfill by garbage trucks:
40 trucks x $1.50 x 40 miles = $2,400 per week mailto:teamsucceed@columbiasouthern.edu https://mycsu.columbiasouthern.edu/student/forms/courses/math-center-request/ Step 5 420 tons = 17 trucks (round up) Step 6 17 trucks x $0.75 x 45 miles = $573.75 Step 7 420 tons x $15 = $6,300
ton
Step 8 $573.75 + $6,300 = $6,873.75
Therefore, the community should not build and operate a transfer station. Doing so will increase $2,400.00
* 286% 100% = 186%
(b) We will use the total recycled municipal waste generation of 33.2%. This also means that 66.8% waste generation rate of 4.8 lbs. per person per day in this calculation.
Step 1 25,000 people x 4.8 lbs. x 7 days x 0.668 = 561,120 lbs. or 281 tons
person/day week (round up)
Step 2 561,120 lbs. = 27 trucks (round up) Step 4 27 trucks x $1.50 x 40 miles = $1,620 per week Step 5 281 tons = 12 trucks (round up) Step 6 12 trucks x $0.75 x 45 miles = $405.00 Step 7 281 tons x $15 = $4,215
ton $405 + $4,215 = $4,620
No, implementing recycle programs still leads to the collusion that the community should not build $4,620 x 100 = 285% or 185%* higher cost * 285% 100% = 185% MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management Unit II Assignment This assignment will allow you to demonstrate the following objectives: · Assess the fundamental science and engineering principles of solid waste management. · Relate leadership and management principles to effective solid waste management.
Instructions: In this unit, the management of municipal solid waste starts to be viewed from the perspective of the local government. This involves looking at questions that need to be answered to properly develop waste management policies and practices for the community. Some of the economic aspects of waste management are explored, as all these activities need to be funded and budgeted and paid for by the community. Answer the questions directly on this document. When you are finished, select “Save As,” and save the document using this format: Student ID_Unit# (ex. 1234567_UnitI). Upload this document to BlackBoard as a , docx, or .rtf file. The specified word count is given for each question. At a minimum, you must use your textbook as a resource for these questions. Other sources may be used as needed. All material from outside sources (including your textbook) must be cited and referenced in APA format. Please include a reference list after each question. 1) Describe three key factors that help to determine the likelihood that a person will litter. Which of these factors is most likely to contribute to the probability that a person will litter. State how you came to this conclusion. To fight litter in your community, design a six- step actionable litter plan that you can give to a project team to implement. In your plan, include the management principles that go into making this plan. Justify to the implementation team why your plan will be successful. (Your total response for all parts of this question should be at least 300 words.)
2) A municipal government has agreed to provide once- per- week waste collection services to a new residential community of 10,000 people. The city council has hired you to make a preliminary assessment to determine if they it should build and operate a transfer station to support the collection. For the initial analysis, assume that the community does not have a recycling program. Here is some of the initial data that the municipal engineer has collected. The round- trip distance from the residential community to the landfill is 58 miles. · The round- trip distance from the proposed site of the transfer station will be 63 miles. · Size The size of the residential garbage truck that collects waste from the community is 28 cubic yards. · The garbage truck is capable to of compacting the refuse to 650 pounds per cubic yard. · A long- haul truck is capable to of transporting 23 tons of compacted waste per trip. · The transfer station has a fixed operating cost of $10/ton. · The cost to operate the garbage truck is $1.30/mile. · The cost to operate the long- haul truck is $0.56/mile. a) Using what you have determined from the information above, assess using the principles of solid waste management. Would you recommend to the city council that a transfer station should be built and operated? Show all work on how you came to your answer. Note: Pg.p. 39 – The United Nations (UN) estimates the waste generation rate is 4.8 pound per person per day. b) If the community operated a recycling program, would this change or support your recommendation to the city council? Show all work on how you came to your answer. Note: Pgp.. 99 – Table 3.-1 – total Total recycled municipal waste is 34.5% of generation. (Your total response for all parts of this question should be at least 200 words.)
3) Phase 1 of the refuse collection system discusses volume-based fee systems and weight-based fee systems. a) For a residential community, explain why a volume-based fee system would be recommended. b) Give the reasons for the fee based system that you would recommend for a commercial operation. c) For a construction site, defend your recommendation for the fee based system that you would recommend. d) What leadership and/or management principles factored into your recommendation? (Your total response for all parts of this question should be at least 200 words.)
4) Table 3.-1 (pg.p. 99) is a listing of materials collected in recycling programs in 2012. · Which of these would you recommend to go to a compost pile? What percent of the 2012 recycled materials does this divert? · Provide your recommendations to the city council for how you would keep materials destined for composting from comingling with the other recycled materials. (Your total response for all parts of this question should be at least 200 words.)
system in whi h the I’ Y I blcs r place I ill II sP’ ‘ial bill’ h.\ I iov] 1’1 to III 1,\
each customer. The same rruck that pi ks up L1I’ S lid w
potential contamination of the paper products by residual liquids in the gl.,” ,
aluminum, or plastic containers. In addition, the sorting costs for co111III illl’,l1d
recyclables can be high. In the 1990s communities initiated collection prUgJ,lIll11
where the residents separated the materials and placed them into two or IhIII
containers. For example, bottles and cans go in one container, newspaper i” ,I
second, and mixed paper in the third. This eliminates the need to sort newsp.uu-i,
which is the most common recyclable (by weight) and shifts the cost of so 1111’1\
to the waste generator. This system requires trucks with multiple comparuncuu
(Figure 3-22). While this method has a low initial cost, the participation 1.111′
may be low. In the past 10 years, as more MRFs were built, many corn mun
ties switched to the single commingled waste wheeler for recyclables. When 111’1
Angeles switched from this method to a commingled container, the recycling 1.111′
increased by 40%.12
used motor-oil collection. Residents are allowed to place their used motor oil .11
the curb, where it is collected to be recycled into new oil. Other communities haw
tried curbside collection of batteries, paint, and other products.
mingled recyclables on a per-ton basis is more expensive than the collection (ll
mixed refuse. As would be expected, the cost on a per-ton basis decreases with
higher participation rate and conversion to a single stream automatic collection
system. If the income from the sale of recycled materials is taken into aCCOUI11,
however, the cost of collecting recycled items is not significantly different from till’
cost of collecting mixed, unsorted refuse.
residential waste and costs between $2 and $5 per month per customer, depend
ing on various options. An organics program can divert between 15% and
30% of the residential waste and also costs between $2 and $5 per month.
One study concluded that the cost of a typical suburban recycling program
is between $114 and $120 per ton of material collected, based on a 50’V<1
set-out rate. 13
partially separated (commingled) recyclables at curbside.” The model estimates
the time to collect such waste and to sort it at the truck into various individual
components. Three variables in the model are travel time, sorting time, and wait
ing time (at stop lights, for example).
I into separate compartments in the truck. (Courtesy William A. Worrell)
‘1’=—–
I’ “” travel time between two consecutive stops, secon s
(m I)
2.2 X 10 7
1.7 X 10 2
=>. Riley, “Curbside Collection of Recyclables I: Route Time Estimation Model,” Pages N . 1// I’)
k = calculated coefficient, rn” (tr ‘)
C = conversion factor, 1.467 for American standard units, 0.278 for SI 1\11\1
The factors Land k vary with crew size, the maximum speed attaine I hy 1111
3S estimated by Everett et al., are shown in Table 3-2.
estimated as
iOVhere
A = average walk distance at a single stop, m
=or a one-person crew, and
=or a two-person crew, where
B = average set-out amount, kg
and 12 kg.
:::>rif there are many stop signs and traffic lights, there could be considerable w.il:
jme. This can be estimated as
E = average wait time at traffic lights and stop signs, seconds
Ns = number of stop signs
ML = mean time spent at traffic lights, seconds
NL = number of traffic lights
111111 wlrhln IO’l/o flh tual valu ,1’1
11111 v how su ssful it has b en. Success can be measured in many ways,
II II I (Ill If h us holds participating in the program; participation can be defined
II 1111111 ways, such as having set out recydables at least once a month
II Ii I IIIl h useholds participating on any given week
1’1\ II I (‘I’ rn the sale ofrecydables, $/week
III th world of MSW, the holy grail is to be able to weigh how much refuse
III \ l’I,h, of each container must be measured every time the container is ernp-
III 1m r n waste, then each container must have a unique identification number
I II I lus has to be developed for all the containers in the city. When the truck
tlljll •• the container, the truck must be able to record the container number and
II ,II III I weight of the container. With the unique identification number and the
‘1’11 difficulty is that trucks must be retrofitted with a scale, identification
I uulry r trofitted identification numbers on containers, developed a data base, and
,hil’l the scale and other equipment on the truck. What was measured was mat
I HI .n-waste container weighted on average 49.8 pounds, the garbage container
I III unds, ~nd me recycling container 18.4 pounds. However, the set-out frequency
•I IIIIl most frequently, followed by garbage and green waste the least frequently.
I .Inbles, and 27% green waste. While this was one of the first attempts to quantify
II • tr polating from the results because of the small sample size.
ulid waste that is not deposited into proper receptacles. As one travels around
I I lables, or organic material (see Figure 3-23). Unfortunately, if the public do s
IIII 1I e these receptacles, litter is generated.
I’rlv,Itepremises as welL Although litter is usually considered to b visual affro11 I
IliI , it also may be a health hazard. Broken glass and f od (or rats HIT bill two
pay to have it collected and removed when it is on public property.
it does not represent a critical public service as do police and fire protection, watci
treatment, and collection of refuse from residences and commercial establish
merits. Litter removal is expensive, costing municipalities in the United States and
Europe billions annually.
as can the method of data collection. One major problem with any litter dat.i
111i111111l111’I’Hllds’ldctnsl ifylh way in whi h th I r ‘Illng’softh’
I 111111(’11\)I” 111
hi I “I 1111’I’ studies are suggested: IS
!I’II\ ivable tabs from beverage cans.
:OIIlHas one item all pieces of any item clearly belonging together, su h
() 011 ingly.
I 1101’r adside litter surveys, measure all items within the officially deslg-
I Empty liquids out of all bottles and cans before collecting them.
III lit’ I’ d at a slow speed and having a passenger record the visible items into
I” 1\'(order for future transcription. Next, the litter is identified, recorded, and
1111111llected. The items should be separated during collection into as many
I 1III’cLThe relationship between visible items and total items along a roadside
II,’ vn in Figure 3-24. It is interesting that along fairly clean roads, the visible
, 1,,1lion of our visible litter is bottles and cans.
\11I 1.\ Beautiful, Inc. (KAB) may be used.” The blockfaces of a community ar
I I numbered. and a preliminary sample size is established. About 5% of the
I I. I /.\ s are usually adequate. Using the random number technique, the block-
I HilI’ 3-25, a marker is located in the front center of the survey area, and a
1111 I II’ m the developed photographs, a picture is taken of a clean pavement laid
III with white marking tape in a 1 ft grid, 6 ft wide X 16 ft long, which is parallel
1.1 II’ et curb. A transparency ofthe grid is prepared, and the resulting 96-square
lid Is placed on top of each litter photograph. The litter is then counted and
I, fi d using a magnifying glass. The first photographs are used for establishing
III ha eline litter conditions. The litter rating (L) is calculated for each pictur
“lIlllion) as the squares containing some litter compared to the total number of
Total litter (items/mile)
Measurement of Roadside Litter. Durham, N.C.: Duke Environmental Center,
Duke University.
—–:;;..•T
I” 16ft .+-7.5 ft –l
“”1″~——16 ft —– .•.•f-7.5 ft :.J
Photometric Index. n.d. Stamford, Conn.: Keep America Beautiful.
3
1
4
1
6
3
5
12
9
25
II – lit; r ratings (L) in an area, significant at the 90% conf II . level
v.u lan or the litter ratings (L) of the initial photographs
/1 __ –
1/ I tal number of photographs
/1 [r quency, or the number of photographs with anyone L
( lockfaces, is photographed as explained previously. The litter
Number of Photographs
2
3
4
5
he SZ is calculated as
S 30 – 1 30(29)
In other words, 57 – 30 = 27 more sites are needed in order to have
a statistically satisfactory baseline.
111ans. A gnltlvc solutl I) would I OIlV nrlu I ‘Ol/(‘ 1101 II) 111(‘1;.1 II I
solution would b d priving th publi f Items Ihfll mil hi IW(()IIH’ 1111I
finingpeoplewholitterheavilyiftheyar aught: nd a i hnlcal : lutlun ‘11111
be simply cleaning up after littering has occurred.
requiring studies on the psychology of litterers. ln one study.” Ih :II I 1111 ,
272 persons were observed when they bought a hot dog wrapp d in P’II” I I I
interest was the final deposition of the wrapper. Ninety-one p pi’ (1IiI”
dispose of the wrapper improperly (they littered). The probability or ,111\ III
person littering, based on this sample, could be calculated as
where
A, C, and D = 0
A = 1 if the person is 18 years old or younger
C = 1 if there are no trash cans conveniently located
D = 1 if the area is already dirty with litter
being much more likely to litter than are older persons. There was no stat i~111.11
difference between 19- to 26-year-olds and persons older than 26 years. Celli II,
was found to be statistically insignificant. Because the study was conducted II
1973, its validity to today’s urban populations may be questionable. Intuitivrlv
however, the role of younger persons as the major contributors to urban lilill
remains valid.
litter the street.
(e.g., put out more trash cans and clean up the street) and who the target popula
tion is (e.g., young people).
111111’tll’ Jl ‘op/(‘ 11)( 10 III “‘.111 011’, III ly.” movie th ‘HI ‘I’ PUll’OIISdurln]
II 111111ill'” W ‘I” nsk ‘<1by S'V ral 111.ans 11 I I liu I' rh . III 'fll 'I'. 'I'll ' rotnl
III III 111'1 was th 'I) JiI' SLlI' I I1d us d as 11indi c 1 I' r ih su 'IlS thut
II I It Ii I1I1.uid arui-liu I’ artoons had no effect on litter, but that I ayrn nt
“‘ \ 101 plc ‘S r llu I’ at the end of the showing resulted in about a 9~%
1,1 ” III I )11b v rage containers, is an effective force in convincing peoj I
,lilli,
IIll I (III l rn th d of litter control is to prevent items that might become lit-
‘1’11Ir ‘< s nable to suggest that 100% litter-free results could be obtained
11114List rners a paper wrapper around their hot dog. The banning or
IIII thlr I m thod of litter control is to clean up the mess once it has occurred.
“I 11111[ ‘t ask people to properly dispose of their waste. For roadside litter,
I III’
, III}\organizations “adopt” a section of roadway. Organizations as varie I
I III kc .p sections of roadways clean by conducting periodic litter pickups.
Iii 11K the litter problem down to a personal level. Anyone who has contrib-
IIIIIIWIr
111111′, ne towed device has proven both inexpensive and effective. It works
I. I (11lL!h like a leaf collector connected to a lawn mower). 19A more sophis-
II II .md ambitious unit uses a vacuum arm on a truck to suck up the roadside
I
II I I III household refuse. In a study at the University of Florida, litter was
I 1111d using the KAB method on typical residential streets before and after
I, ‘I I llection.” An almost 300% increase in litter was noted. The collection
I” I I or believed the reason was twofold. First, he believed that his automated
II 111011vehicles were poorly designed and that they were not always able to
1111111′.ased refuse collection charge. He suggested that the residents had been
I. III II the “Seattle Stomp” -a tricky two-step that originated in Seattle when
I I t switched to volume-based collection. Residents had figured they could
II l hl led to the garbage being stuck in the can and to the potential for spillage
111111the transfer to the truck.
yard, and collected all your garbage. Today, sorn mn uniti s have 1111\’1’dill
ent-sized garbage cans, three recycling containers, a yard W:lSI ol1l:1iIWI,.11111
used oil container. Collection may involve up to 3 fully automat d v .h iell’s, d II
by a man or women who collects these materials using a joystick instead 01 I III
a 70 pound can. The instructions on how to put your garbage out arc ,1111111I
complicated as those for operating your cell phone. Yet, with all this ompk: \I
is working. Why? Because many people have an environmental ethic and It’llllIlll
the need for integrated waste management. In 2012, only 40% of the Unil(‘d ‘.111
population voted, while at the same time 58% routinely recycled.
is possible to even think about recycling all of the materials we consider wasIl’ ~Ii
likely, fundamental principles of physics” and thermodynamics” and mass 11.IIIhliI
make the goal of 100% collection of materials impossible. It is quite likely Ih,ll, wll II
the environmental effects of recycling are compared to the impact of disposal (1111ItIII
there will be some point at which more recycling will actually have increasingly IIIIII
mental effectson energy use and materials conservation. At the present time, II(IWI’II
one of the major objectives in solid waste engineering is to effectively and eml Ii III
collect all of the materials people no longer want. Because the collection of 111111111I11I
solid waste accounts for between 50% and 75% of the total cost of refuse 111.111111′
ment, it is important that solid waste engineers properly design collection SyS\(,111
intensive job. Any system developed is going to be only as good as the rnru .11111
women who operate it. As one solid waste director of a major city said, “‘I’lli’ll I
nothing more beautiful than watching my fleet of one hundred garbage 11111I
leaving the yard silhouetted against the rising sun.”
cost of such systems. Consider the simple system pictured in Figure 3-26. ‘1111
waste generated at four sources (denoted by centroids of the collection area, wi I I It
is a poor assumption, especially if the disposal sites are close to the coll« 111111
routes) is to be allocated to two disposal sites. The objective is to achieve this ill II
minimum-cost manner.
mization model).
2. The amount of refuse disposed of must equal the amount generated.
3. The collection route centroids cannot act as disposal sites, or the loll”
or equal to zero.
route centroids
I,~ quantity of waste hauled from source i to disposal site k, per unit .tim
f ,~ 0 t per quantity of hauling the waste fro~ source 1,to disposal sLt:eIt
I~ disposal cost per waste quantity at disposal.slte k (cap.lta~plus operating]
II~ apacity of disposal site k, in waste quannty per um,t H.me
N number of sources i
I’ number of disposal sites k
I 11,-] k= I ,=1
C 1.11t raint 1. The sum of all the solid waste hauled out of each, section ?f the
I 1111 ~ 111unity must be equal to or less than the capability of the disposal sites to
II I Iv that waste, or
/ I
IIIy (to any disposal site) has to equal the amount generated m that secnon. or
/i-I
The first term in the objective function is [ran p rtati n su and III ‘111’11111,1
Minimize [xnclI + X21C21 + X31C31 + X41C4\ + xlil2 + XnC22 -I- x,) ”
42
42
+ X32 + X42)]
X
21
XlI + X21 + X31 + x4\ = WI
XI2 + X22 + X32 + X42 S W2
XlI ~ 0, XI2 ~ 0, … , X23 ~ 0, X24 ~ 0
~ortation algorithm is particularly useful for such applications.
pictured in Figure 3-26 is as follows.
Generation, Wi To Site 1 To Site 2
5 12
3 125 4 8
1 450 4
2 200 6
waste was to be sent to disposal in site 1 (h = 1). The cost for deliver-
ing the refuse from the first source (i = 1) is
I cost of $3015/wk.
II, It I I co t is therefore $4775/wk.
111111 }11. find the least-cost solution (minimize cost), we can use
I II Site k (tonnes/week) ($/week) ($/week)
1 25 175 100
2 105 525 630
1 125 500 500
2 85 510 510
II Illy I ss than if all the refuse were shipped to disposal site 1. Note
I111I considerable capacity remains unused in landfill 2.
tlll,liy is, using the scheme introduced previously. Figure 3-27 shows the
III I ‘I’ station is placed in the town. The trucks now have K disposal points
111htll~ id capital, plus operating costs. F. is the annual cost for the transfer sta-
111 , 1111 I P” is the annual capital and operating costs for the disposal sites. The
111 I vnriables are
facility j
final disposal facility k
unit time
facility h, per unit time
Pj = proportion of waste at intermediate facility j that, after processing,
]
]
. f aste generated at source i, W, must equa I 11
sum of all the waste hauled from that source
K disposal points.
r= J 11=1
Constaint 2. The capacry 0 h J . If this constraint is omitted, the model
equal to the total waste broug t t~ It. .
can be used to determine the requIred capaoty.
The problem now IS to rmrurn
i=lj=1
j=1 ;=1 1/=1 1=1
1 I
I I
III III II III. lOSt I site. The proportion of waste that remains f r dispo: ill .IfII’1
N
, I
1/-1
THE PROBLEM OF LITTERING
It I lor ill Switzerland and because the country is known for its deann ss, IIH’
III pi )11 m has caught the attention of the authorities. The Swiss Federal mn’
lit ~ lilt ring problem requires targeted actions at a local level, which l11C1k(‘s
I 1111′ adapted to the local circumstances are being pursued, such as:
I” III • d ily struggle against littering, it is essential to keep the public inform -d
III 110 I’ ise awareness about the problems of littering and about the corr ct way
II I dl .11 with potential items oflitter such as cigarettes, take-out food packagi IIg,
111111, packaging, free newspapers, and chewing gum. This can be put into prnr
.” II ntly organized paper rubbish campaigns in the community and parishes.
1111111 the Interest Group for a Clean Environment (Interessengerneinschaft (‘Or
u.l rowns may also book without cost and for a limited time, anti-litter arnbns
111m from the IGSU for litter-intensive events or cleanup of public places.
I III ‘ important measure against littering is education about the environment ill
I II) Is, because the correct way to deal with waste cannot be learned early enough.
Newspapers
With the Code of i3ehaYior the retail outlets selling rake-out f()()d IlHII(I’ ,I \’TI
untary commitment to supporting the communities in the flglu agaln/H 1111(
The Code regulates responsibilities and defines the cooperation bCIW(‘t’lI 11\/11
outlets and event promoters on the one hand (without regard to tlw sl~,I’ r r] 1111
retail outlet or the scope of the event) and the local authori Iics Oil I III’ II( II
hand. On this basis anti-litter measures can be implemented in puhlh Id,lI
on an amicable basis. With regard to free newspapers dropped in puhlir ,III ,
there are several initiatives between the cities (and communities) a nd IIII III
newspapers. A model contract, which includes a list of specifications for III1 III
newspaper publishers and distributors, is offered by the Swiss Federal Ofli •• 1111
the Environment as a guide to help communities achieve transparent, 111,11111111
agreements in the fight against free newspaper litter.
For events that take place in a clearly defined area, a deposit on recyclable pilI I
aging such as plastic bottles or reusable cups increases the rate of rcuu n ‘”hl
reduces litter. This knowledge has been gathered and documented at v.ulnl]
public events in recent years.
Awareness-raising measures can make sense in relation to certain PO))III.IIIIIII
groups, but with some groups they have no effect. In these cases, sanctions ‘111111
as fines may be considered. Some cantons and cities, of which the Canioux It!
Thurgau, Solothurn, and St. Gallen and the City of Berne were the first, p,I’I~1Ii
anti-litter laws that included fines for those caught littering. Other cities, lill\~
ever, deliberately avoided laws that included fines for littering because it 1,111
be difficult to enforce the law. The lack of a uniform approach has been IllIi
troversial.
Tally of Communities. 1999. Washington,
D.C.: EPA.
Safety and Health Statistics
Department. 1998. Washington, D.C.
As reported by Waste Age (July): p. 20.
and Recyclables Collection Workbook.
1996. Washington, D.C.: Solid Waste
Association of North America.
Automate.” Waste Age (February).
Planning in Metropolitan Regions. New
Policy Research, Rutgers University.
Wathne. 1975. “Minimum Cost ill
Residential Refuse Vehicle Routes.”
Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE, v. 100,
n. EE 3:339-412.
Using Odd or Even Points.” Chinese
Math. 1:207-218.
Heuristic Routing for Solid Waste
Collection Vehicles. EPA OSWMP
SW-113. Washington, D.C.
1110111’1 htls Wi OV(‘IY/,1(II
pit’ll’ ” ill/litH dlld l’lllpl
I II’/II,~(‘ 11)11(‘1 Iltlll vI’lill
Collection
commercial business locations, government institutions and industry; yard wastes; recyclables that are
processed to reenter commerce with a renewed purpose and function; and construction debris. All of these
categories are non-hazardous wastes approved for handling, processing, and disposal in municipal landfills.
When it comes to hazardous wastes from commercial businesses (e.g., spent solvent and process streams)
and from households (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] in florescent fixture ballasts, oils, paints, mercury,
lead acid batteries, radioactive material, etc.), these must be separated out of municipal wastes to protect
transporters, workers handling and processing municipal wastes, and the microbial populations that exist in
municipal landfills tasked to convert organics to carbon dioxide and methane.
wastes are generated. When a municipality sends out bids for selecting and purchasing garbage trucks, there
are many options in that marketplace to consider. For residential collections, trucks that are automated, semi-
automated, or rear-loading work well. The choice will depend on the type of collection containers used and
the number of employees working on each truck. If the containers are uniform in size and placed on the
street, an automated truck with a single driver will be able to complete the collection; whereas, semi-
automatic trucks require workers to bring the containers to a hoist located on the side of the truck. The third
option involves rear-loading trucks that are manually operated. In some smaller communities, garbage trucks
are divided to include recycling and refuse. When it comes to collecting waste from commercial locations,
front loading trucks that have the capability to pick up bins with a set of front-end forks are mostly used. For
larger commercial operations, roll-off compactors are the prime means for collecting non-hazardous wastes.
that can be used to help segregate and stabilize the different classes of waste. There are compost piles that
are operated to stabilize materials high in organic content such as yard and food wastes. Compost piles
operate aerobically, and the microbes rapidly degrade the wastes to generate a mix that can serve as a soil
conditioner or as fill at the municipal landfill. What the compost pile is able to accomplish in one year can take
a landfill from 10 to 30 years to provide the same level of stabilization. A second option is to use a facility
known as a transfer station. These operations have many purposes: to compile waste collections into larger
quantities for long-distance shipment to a landfill disposal sites, to pull out recyclable and hazardous materials
that should not go into municipal landfills, to provide a hazardous waste drop-off point for citizens or to drop
off wastes that need to be processed prior to going to the landfill, and to hold wastes in a safe location if the
final disposal site cannot be accessed for reasons such as adverse weather.
plan for a community (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). These facilities are often
designed and operated to recover metals, paper, and plastics. Materials that are pulled out at the transfer
Municipal Solid Waste
categories of materials. The higher the level of the sort, the higher the price that is paid to the recovery facility
by the downstream customer taking in the sort as a raw material to its operations. Transfer stations are able
to remove hazardous materials that are identified in the waste collection. All this recovery results in a reduced
quantity of material going into the landfill, which extends the life of the municipal landfill before it must be
capped and closed.
and its final disposition. After the local landfill is filled and closed, the transfer facility is able to repurpose itself
to facilitate the shipment of wastes to other landfills throughout the state or country. It is not uncommon for
communities to put waste into rail cars and send these to a neighboring state while the local government
works out a long-term solution. Looking at the economics of transport, it generally costs about $0.43/mile
(United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2002) for each ton of waste that is shipped to a
distant site when the trip is made by the local garbage truck. On top of this is the added salary of the workers
making the trip with the truck and the increased cost of maintenance and depreciation of these trucks.
However, if the waste is consolidated into large long-haul vehicles, the cost is reduced to $0.14/ mile (EPA,
2002) for each ton of waste hauled to a distant location using one driver for the trip.
design and assessment of new landfill facilities (EPA, 2002). Municipalities that had previously operated older
landfills found the costs of bringing a new landfill facility online to be exorbitant. By aligning with other local
communities, it is generally very attractive to develop and permit a regional facility. Not only does this spread
out the costs among many parties, but it also reduced the number of employees on the city payrolls. Regional
landfills can also become profit centers by selling disposal capacity to rural communities and to municipalities
unable to have their own local landfill. Regional facilities also help municipalities to attract new businesses
and investments into the community. Having an adequate and well-functioning infrastructure is one of the key
decision criteria that corporations use when selecting a community for their headquarters or
manufacturing/distribution facilities.
think about it, and few give any thought to how waste is collected, processed, and disposed. However, when
cities begin to construct and operate transfer stations, many of these same citizens begin to operate by the
not in my back yard (NIMBY) principle, which means that they oppose the construction because it is close to
them. Due to the fact that many transfer stations were being located in high-density, low-income areas, over
the years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received many complaints due to noise, odors, litter,
and the large volume of heavy trucks passing through their neighborhoods. The National Environmental
Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) was formed in 1993 to provide the EPA with an independent voice related
to the matters of environmental justice raised by affected citizens. The NEJAC provides the EPA with social,
political, and geographical recommendations that addressed these complaints and provided the EPA with a
basis for publishing criteria to be considered when designing and operating these facilities.
making. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
03/documents/r02002
solid waste landfills. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/landfill/lf-vol1
Title
of the facility until a new landfill can be constructed and permitted. The city has hired you to look at
two options to cover the transition period: (a) construct a transfer station with the idea of shipping the
waste out of state, or (b) construct a mixed–waste-materials recovery facility and continue using the
local landfill. In a table, do a side-by-side comparison of the facilities and then analyze these
differences to make a recommendation to the city council as to which option you are recommending.
Explain the criteria and rationale that you used to come to your recommendation.
three challenges when these programs are implemented, and propose a solution for each.
causes and reasons for the litter problem. Show how the program will incorporate citizen education
and awareness. How will the program hold citizens accountable when they continue to litter after the
program is launched?
efficiency into the design of the collection route?
submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information.
assessment to determine if they should build and operate a transfer station to support the collection.
For the initial analysis, assume that the community does not have a recycling program. Here is some
* The size of the residential garbage truck that collects waste from the community is 30 cubic yards.
* The garbage truck is capable to compact the refuse to 700 lbs./yd3.
* A long haul truck is capable to transport 25 tons of compacted waste per trip.
* The cost to operate the garbage truck is $1.50/mile.
(a) Would you recommend to the city council that a transfer station should be built and operated?
Show all work on how you came to your answer.
(See page 39 of the textbook)
* Total recycled municipal waste is 33.2% of generation.
Residential waste generated = 25,000 people x 4.8 lbs. x 7 days = 840,000 lbs. or 420 tons
Calculate the waste collected in each truck:
Calculate the number of trucks needed:
21,000 lbs./truck
week mile
Calculate the number of long haul trucks based on residential waste generated:
25 tons per truck
Determine cost to travel to transfer station by long haul trucks:
mile per truck
Calculate cost of transfer station:
Calculate cost by long haul truck:
costs by :
$6,873.75 x 100 = 286% or 186%* higher cost
of waste goes to the landfill per total waste that is generated. We will also use the estimated
Calculate residential waste generated:
Calculate the waste collected in each truck:
30 yd3 x 700 lbs. = 21,000 lbs. of waste collected per truck
truck yd3
Step 3
Calculate the number of trucks needed:
21,000 lbs./truck
Determine the cost to travel to landfill by garbage trucks:
week mile
Calculate the number of long haul trucks based on residential waste generated:
25 tons per truck
Determine cost to travel to transfer station by long haul trucks:
mile per truck
Calculate cost of transfer station:
Step 8
Calculate cost by long haul truck:
and operate a transfer station. Doing so will increase costs by:
$1,620
