Part 25

─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────── Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT ├──────────────┬────────┬──────────────── │ If Not, Why? │Distance│ Any Odor at │ │of Plant│ Plant │ │ from │ │ │ Center │ │ │of City │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┼──────────────┼────────┼──────────────── Albany, N. Y.│ │Two │ │ │ miles.│ Atlanta, Ga. │ │4–7 │Not sufficient │ │ miles.│ to cause │ │ │ inconvenience. │ │ │ Akron, Ohio │ │ │ Alliance, │No technical │1 mile. │Yes. Ohio │ supervision.│ │ │ Large │ │ │ quantities │ │ │ of roof │ │ │ water during│ │ │ storms. │ │ Auburn, N. Y.│5 miles. │ │ Brockton, │Sand beds in │3 miles.│During damp Mass. │ operation 22│ │ weather │ years and │ │ │ have reached│ │ │ capacity. │ │ Bloomington, │ │1½ │Not over 1,000 Ill. │ │ miles.│ ft. under │ │ │ worst │ │ │ conditions. Bristol, │ │2 miles.│Not much. Conn. │ │ │ Columbus, │Insufficient │5 miles.│Yes. Ohio │ capacity. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Canton, Ohio │ │8 miles.│Very little. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Danbury, │ │2½ │None from beds; Conn. │ │ miles.│ sometimes when │ │ │ flow exceeds │ │ │ maximum it is │ │ │ turned into │ │ │ swamp, and │ │ │ during hot │ │ │ weather there │ │ │ is odor. Dallas, Tex. │ │3½ │ │ │ miles.│ │ │ │ Fond du Lac, │ │1 mile. │No. Wis. │ │ │ │ │ │ Fresno, Cal. │ │7 miles.│Yes. │ │ │ │ │ │ Gloversville,│ │2 miles.│Some. N. Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Houston, Tex.│ │2.5 │None expected. │ │ miles.│ Independence,│ │ │ Kas. │ │ │ Lackawanna, │ │1 mile. │No. N. Y. │ │ │ Milwaukee, │ │Centre │No. Wis. │ │ of │ │ │ city. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Mt. Vernon, │ │1 mile. │A few days N. Y. │ │ │ noticeable ¼ │ │ │ mile. New Britain, │Voids almost │3 miles.│ Conn. │ completely │ │ │ clogged by │ │ │ pickling │ │ │ liquor. │ │ Oswego, N. Y.│ │¼ mile. │ [31]Pasadena,│5 miles. │ │ Cal. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Providence, │ │ │ R. I. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Philadelphia,│ │12 │ Pa. │ │ miles.│ │ │ │ Reading, Pa. │ │3 miles.│Some at times of │ │ │ cleaning. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rochester, N.│ │ │ Y. │ │ │ Schenectady, │ │2½ │At first, but N. Y. │ │ miles.│ not now. │ │ │ │ │ │ Sumter, S. C.│ │1½ │Slight as it │ │ miles.│ empties at │ │ │ mouth of │ │ │ outfall. │ │ │ Tallahassee, │ │1 mile. │Only when Fla. │ │ │ cleaning grit │ │ │ chamber. │ │ │ Woonsocket, │ │1 mile. │No, except R. I. │ │ │ slight smell │ │ │ like dish │ │ │ water. Worcester, │ │3 miles.│Very little. Mass. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┴──────────────┴────────┴────────────────

Footnote 29:

Includes depreciation and interest on investment.

Footnote M.G.:

Million gallons.

Footnote 31:

City has a sewage farm of about 518 acres, and the effluent from the septic tank is used to irrigate about 450 acres of the farm. The cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Alhambra have purchased a new sewage farm where they plan jointly to purify their sewage.

Footnote 32:

“Same force of men can handle one acre as one-half acre, or twice as great a flow.”

Footnote 33:

Does not include interest and depreciation.

Footnote 34:

In winter draw as little as possible; in summer draw as much as possible; the aim being to leave the tanks as free as possible from good sludge when cold weather comes.

Footnote 35:

Operation of Imhoff tanks costs nothing as city allows a man to use two acres of land to compensate him for caring for tank. The septic tank is attended to only once a year, and probably does not cost more than $30 annually.

ASHES AND RUBBISH COST AND METHODS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES— EQUIPMENT—REGULATIONS—BY-PRODUCTS

So many cities either collect ashes and rubbish together or the two are collected by the same department or under the same contract that any attempt to give the experience of American municipalities with the collection of each of these wastes would be of little value. The collection of both kinds of waste will, therefore, be discussed with the idea of presenting such information as will give any city, large or small, a basis for determining the feasibility of ash and rubbish collection by municipal employees or by contract, giving the various methods used in the larger American communities, so that the one best adapted to local conditions may be adopted, and the price a city should pay for the service.

Any city contemplating the collection of its refuse or wishing to determine the efficiency and economy of the service it is giving or receiving must consider:

(1) Type of Collection system: a. Combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes. b. Separate collection of each kind of refuse.

(2) Method of Collection: a. By whom done. b. Districting of city. Number and location of districts. c. Organization of collecting force. d. Kind of equipment. Receptacles. Vehicles. Incinerators. Paper presses. e. Location of receptacles. f. Frequency of collection. g. Time of removal. (3) Enforcement of collection regulations.

(4) Disposal: Dumping exclusively. Incineration, wholly or in part.

(5) By-products:

Collection Systems

The systems of collection and disposal are so closely related that they must be considered together. There are two kinds of collection systems, the combined and the separate. The combined system may be further divided.

Many large cities collect garbage, rubbish and ashes separately. Garbage is then incinerated or disposed of by the reduction method. Ashes are used for fill and the rubbish is sorted either at the dumps or in utilization plants and the unsalable material either dumped or incinerated or both.

The separate system is profitable only in the larger cities where reduction plants can be operated at or near a profit, where an incineration plant can be centrally located in order to reduce the cost of haul or the heat can be used to produce power or where the reclaimable rubbish is sufficient to pay for rescuing it.

A system that can be used with nearly all methods of disposal is the separate collection of garbage and the combined collection of rubbish and ashes. This is the most popular system in America, for in many cities garbage is disposed of separately and rubbish is dumped. In many such cases, and especially where the ashes are used for fill, separation is required to allow the disposal of the ashes in places not suitable for mixed material.

In cities which have destructors for the incineration of garbage and rubbish and which use the ashes for fill, the separate collection of ashes and the combined collection of garbage and rubbish is the best system. In some cases a part of the ashes is added to the garbage to aid combustion.

Where the combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes is used the city disposes of all these wastes either by dumping or by total incineration.

In a few places furnace ashes are collected separately and rubbish, garbage and stove ashes together. When this system is used the furnace ashes are used for fill and the other wastes are incinerated.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to which plan is desirable, but practically all agree that local conditions should contribute the chief factor in determining which system is the best for a city.

The method of disposal is another factor. Reports agree that if all wastes are collected together as a rule the cost of collection will be less than if each is collected separately.

John H. Gregory, sanitary expert, says that separate collection will be found in many instances to be less convenient at the house and more complicated and more expensive than the combined collection. He asserts that the combined collection will usually prove to be cleaner and to have fewer objectionable features, and with this system it should be easier to secure and to keep a better grade of employees. He points out that the mixing of garbage with rubbish and ashes will prevent in a large measure the blowing about of the latter, will lessen the dust nuisance, and indirectly may lessen the cost of street cleaning. The decomposition of garbage is far less noticeable and from the point of view of preventing a nuisance the receptacles and wagons will not require such frequent cleaning. He says, also, that the fly nuisance is reduced to a minimum and that there is less likelihood of odor should the refuse be stored up for final disposition. As but one type of wagon is required for collection Mr. Gregory believes that the system is probably easier to adopt and easier to enforce, fewer regulations being required.

In a discussion of the advantages of the incineration method of disposal the _American Journal of Public Health_ says that ashes may be used for incineration on account of the percentage of unburned coal which they usually contain. The percentage of unburned coal in ashes is between 19½ and 24½. Several experts call attention to the cost of incineration. Mr. Gregory believes that when refuse is incinerated it may be more expensive to burn all ashes with garbage and rubbish than simply to burn the garbage and rubbish. He points out that in some cities it may be found advantageous to adopt the combined system in certain districts and separate collections in others, depending upon local conditions.

Careful consideration should be given to the following reasons for and against keeping ashes and garbage separate: It is not necessary to collect ashes so frequently as it is garbage; different methods of disposal require separate handling; garbage with its moisture when mixed with ashes will not freeze in the can as readily in winter, thus facilitating collection. Some experts, however, assert it is more desirable to keep the wastes separate in order to use the ashes for fill and to sell the reclaimable rubbish. Many cities require the separation either of all wastes or of garbage. Of the fifty largest cities in the United States and all cities in New York State only thirteen do not require that each class of refuse be kept separate. One or two report that the plan had to be abandoned as it was found difficult to get the people, especially those living in the poorer districts, to comply with the rule of keeping the wastes separate. Other cities, which do require a separation, report that while it was found difficult at the beginning to enforce the regulation, persistent educational work and patience eventually brought their reward. Where all of the waste is dumped many cities prohibit the mixing of paper or combustibles with ashes and rubbish. If this is not done the experience of many cities is that there are liable to be serious dump fires.

Methods of Collection

Some cities have ash and rubbish collection done by contract; in others the work is done by city employees; in a few both plans are used; and in many small communities the work is done by licensed collectors. The last Census Report shows that in eighty-five of the 158 cities for which statistics are given the collection is made either by contract or by the city, 72 per cent. being collected by the cities and 28 per cent. by contract.

Collection by private collectors is by no means confined to the small cities, as the following table indicates:

TABLE III.—_Ash Collection by Private Collectors_

┌──────────┬────────────┬────────────┬─────────┬────────────┬────────┬────┐ │Population│Name of City│ How Much │ Does He │ │ │Does│ │ │ │ Does │ Furnish │ │How are │City│ │ │ │ Collector │ Can and │ Type of │ Ashes │Own │ │ │ │ Charge │ if so, │ Wagon Used │Disposed│ or │ │ │ │Householder?│ Does He │ │ of? │Rent│ │ │ │ │ Require │ │ │Dump│ │ │ │ │Deposit? │ │ │ │ ├──────────┼────────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼────────┼────┤ │ 100,000│Duluth,[36] │15¢ per can │ No │ Box │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Minn │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 17,000│Glens │10¢ per can │Furnishes│ │ │ │ │ │ Falls,[36]│ │ can, no │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ N. Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │ │ 10,447│Johnstown, │50–75¢ trip │ No │ │ │ │ │ │ N. Y │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12,273│Little │$1 a load │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Falls, N. │ │ No │1 horse, box│ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 40,093│Elmira, N. │10¢ per can │ Yes, $1 │ │ Dump │Rent│ │ │ Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │ │ 13,000│Cortland, N.│$1 per load,│ │ Any wagon │ │ │ │ │ Y. │ 15¢ per │ │ with tight │ │ │ │ │ │ can │ No │box approved│ Fill │Rent│ │ │ │ │ │by sanitary │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ inspector, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │canvas cover│ │ │ │ 110,000│Albany, N. Y│10 to 13¢ │ No │ │ Dump │Free│ │ 10,474│Oneonta, N. │ │ │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 165,000│New Haven, │15¢ per can │ No │ │ Fill │ │ │ │ Conn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 11,136│Fulton, N. │10–15–25¢ a │ No │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ can │ │ │ │ │ │ 8,317│Oneida, N. │75¢ to $1. │ No │ Any type │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 23,368│Oswego, N. Y│10 to 15¢ │ │ │Dump and│Own │ │ │ │ │ No │ │ fill │and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │rent│ │ 131,000│Grand │15¢ a week │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rapids, │ for │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Mich. │ residence,│ │ │ Dump │ │ │ │ │ special │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ for others│ │ │ │ │ │ 10,711│Rensselaer, │10 to 13¢ │ No │ Covered │Fill and│Own │ │ │ N. Y. │ │ │ │ dump │ │ │ 58,571│Portland, │10¢ barrel │ │ │Fill and│Free│ │ │ Me. │ │ No │ Open cart │ dump │and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │own │ └──────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴────────┴────┘

Footnote 36:

City also collects.

John H. Gregory is of the opinion that, as a general rule, the best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of collection equipment. The Chicago City Waste Commission reports that where the householder hires a private scavenger to remove ashes and rubbish it usually results in greater cost than when the work is systematically done by the city at public expense. If work is done by contract supervision at public expense is almost imperative when the best results are desired. Regulation must be strict and well enforced. The experiences of cities which have used all three methods are in favor of municipal collection.

The stringent contract regulating the collection of garbage and ashes by contract in West Orange, New Jersey, contains some suggestions. That part referring to the collection of ashes provides that the contractor must have an office in town with a telephone and a person in attendance from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. If notified of the failure of any employee to remove ashes the same must be removed within two hours. Ashes must be kept separate from garbage and collected in a different vehicle. Ashes must be placed in covered wagons and “properly constructed so as to conceal the contents and to prevent scattering on public streets and highways. Rubbish, papers, tin cans, etc., shall be considered ashes.” It further requires that wagons must not be overloaded, must be numbered and painted once a year and cleaned each day. The contractor must discharge employees guilty of neglect or insolence. The dumping ground must be kept clean, and papers, tin cans, etc., must be covered with three inches of dirt. “If the work is unsatisfactory the Council may by resolution terminate the contract and the surety company will be compelled to make good the damages the city shall suffer as a result of the breach of contract.”

In some cities where the refuse is disposed of by incineration, the municipality does the collecting and delivers to a privately owned disposal plant.

Districting the City

The number and location of the districts into which a city is divided depends upon the size, topography and population of the municipality. The layout should also be influenced somewhat by the kind of collection equipment used. Particular attention should be given to the various kinds of collection vehicles and especially to the desirability of employing motor or horse-drawn vehicles or a combination of both, before the city is districted. The location of the dumps or incinerators and the frequency of collection are also important factors. It is generally agreed that the division should be such as to shorten the length of haul as much as possible and to avoid steep grades with loaded wagons.

Organization of Collection Force

The organization of the force depends upon the kind of equipment, system of collection, districting of city, location of receptacles, frequency of removal and time of collection. The common system abroad where the can is placed at the curb, is to have one or two workmen accompany the wagon, one acting as driver, while the other empties the cans. Some authorities say this is the most economical way. The common method of operating in this country is to have the driver make the collection from the back yard. This is claimed by many to be uneconomical, as the whole collection work is retarded. In some cities the so-called gang system is used. Workmen go down each side of the street about one hour ahead of the wagon and roll the cans to the curb. The driver empties the cans and workmen following the wagon take the empty cans to the back yard. Many believe that this makes the best use of the more expensive part of the equipment. John H. Gregory points out that when possible one man should always have the same route in order that he may become acquainted with the district and households.

The organization of the collecting force must be elastic so that changes may be easily and quickly made on account of the seasons and weather conditions. More wagons and more men are employed in winter than in summer. It is also found necessary to increase the collection force when traffic conditions are made difficult by a snow storm and other causes.

Type of Equipment

The essential features to be considered in connection with the design and installation of equipment are sanitation, freedom from nuisance and selection of proper apparatus for economical operation.