─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────_Municipal housecleaning

Name of City │ INDUSTRIAL WASTES

├─────────────────┬────────┬────────────────

│ Establishments │ What │ Methods of

│ Which Empty │ Kinds │Treatment Where

│ Wastes Into │ Are │ Wastes are

│ City’s Sewerage │Treated │ Purified

│ System │ Before │ Separately

│ │They are│

│ │Emptied │

│ │ Into │

│ │Sewerage│

│ │ System │

─────────────┼─────────────────┼────────┼────────────────

Albany, N. Y.│ │ │

│ │ │

Atlanta, Ga. │Steel mills, tin │From gas│Plain

│ can works, gas │ works.│ sedimentation.

│ works, coal and│ │

│ gas plants. │ │

Akron, Ohio │ │ │

Alliance, │ │ │

Ohio │ │ │

│ │ │

Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │

Brockton, │Shoe factory and │ │

Mass. │ tannery. │ │

│ │ │

Bloomington, │No. │ │

Ill. │ │ │

│ │ │

Bristol, │ │ │

Conn. │ │ │

Columbus, │Tanneries, │None. │

Ohio │ breweries, │ │

│ starch works, │ │

│ wool cleaners, │ │

│ packing plants.│ │

Canton, Ohio │Various │None. │

│ factories, │ │

│ including iron │ │

│ and steel; │ │

│ chief waste is │ │

│ rags. │ │

Danbury, │Hat factories. │None. │

Conn. │ │ │

│ │ │

Dallas, Tex. │Packing houses, │ │

│ laundries, dye │ │

│ works. │ │

Fond du Lac, │Laundries, │None. │

Wis. │ cleaning │ │

│ establishments.│ │

Fresno, Cal. │Fruit canneries │None. │

│ and packing │ │

│ houses. │ │

Gloversville,│Leather and │All. │Settling tanks.

N. Y. │ canneries; 26% │ │

│ of total is │ │

│ trade waste. │ │

Houston, Tex.│Pressed and dried│ │

│ │ │

Independence,│ │ │

Kas. │ │ │

Lackawanna, │None. │ │

N. Y. │ │ │

Milwaukee, │Breweries, │None. │

Wis. │ tanneries, soap│ │

│ works, │ │

│ laundries, hair│ │

│ works and │ │

│ packing houses.│ │

Mt. Vernon, │ │ │

N. Y. │ │ │

│ │ │

New Britain, │Pickling liquor. │ │

Conn. │ │ │

│ │ │

Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │

[31]Pasadena,│Laundries. │ │

Cal. │ │ │

│ │ │

Providence, │Woolen mills, │ │

R. I. │ bleacheries, │ │

│ dye houses, │ │

│ jewelry │ │

│ factories. │ │

Philadelphia,│No. │ │

Pa. │ │ │

│ │ │

Reading, Pa. │Soap and dye │ │

│ works, │ │

│ tanneries, │ │

│ paper mills, │ │

│ breweries, │ │

│ laundries, hat │ │

│ factories, │ │

│ electroplating │ │

│ works. │ │

Rochester, N.│ │ │

Y. │ │ │

Schenectady, │Laundries, │ │Oil skimmed off

N. Y. │ locomotive and │ │

│ electrical top │ │

│ of tanks. │ │

Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │

│ │ │

Tallahassee, │Chera Cola Works,│None. │All run into

Fla. │ and garages. │ │ grit chamber

│ │ │ before

│ │ │ entering main.

Woonsocket, │ │ │

R. I. │ │ │

│ │ │

Worcester, │Carpet mills, │None. │

Mass. │ tanneries and │ │

│ dye works. │ │

│ │ │

─────────────┴─────────────────┴────────┴────────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────┬────────────────────────

Name of City │ SLUDGE DISPOSAL │ FINAL TREATMENT

├─────────────┬────────┼───────────┬────────────

│How is Sludge│ Any │Is Effluent│ Is there a

│ Disposed of │Revenue │Disinfected│ Secondary

│ │ from │ │ Settling

│ │Disposal│ │ Tank

│ │ Plant │ │

│ │ │ │

─────────────┼─────────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────────

Albany, N. Y.│ │ │No. │

│ │ │ │

Atlanta, Ga. │Filling and │None. │No. │No.

│ fertilizer.│ │ │

│ │ │ │

Akron, Ohio │Burned. │ │ │Yes.

Alliance, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │No.

Ohio │ and hauled │ │ │

│ to farmers.│ │ │

│ │ │ │

Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │No. │No.

Brockton, │Fertilizer │None. │No. │From

Mass. │ and fill. │ │ │ sprinkl’r.

│ │ │ │

Bloomington, │ │ │No. │

Ill. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Bristol, │Plowed into │ │ │

Conn. │ land │ │ │

Columbus, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │Yes.

Ohio │ and spread │ │ │

│ on city │ │ │

│ farm. │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Canton, Ohio │Fertilizer. │ │None. │No.

│ │ │ │

Danbury, │Fertilizer. │$400. │No. │No.

Conn. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Dallas, Tex. │ │ │No. │

│ │ │ │

Fond du Lac, │Filling. │ │ │No.

Wis. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Fresno, Cal. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Gloversville,│Fertilizer │$300. │No. │Yes.

N. Y. │ and fill │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Houston, Tex.│ │ │No. │Yes.

│ │ │ │

Independence,│ │ │ │

Kas. │ │ │ │

Lackawanna, │ │ │No. │No.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

Milwaukee, │Pressed, │ │No. │

Wis. │ dried and │ │ │

│ sold for │ │ │

│ fertilizer.│ │ │

│ │ │ │

Mt. Vernon, │Fill. │None. │No. │No.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

New Britain, │Fill. │None. │No. │

Conn. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │

[31]Pasadena,│Fertilizer. │None. │No. │

Cal. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Providence, │Pressed and │ │ │Yes.

R. I. │ carried │ │ │

│ away on │ │ │

│ scows. │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Philadelphia,│Fertilizer. │None. │Liquid │Yes.

Pa. │ │ │ Chlorine.│

│ │ │ │

Reading, Pa. │Fertilizer. │None. │No. │Yes.

│ │ │ │

Rochester, N.│ │ │Plans made │

Y. │ │ │ for such.│

Schenectady, │Fill. │ │No. │No.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Sumter, S. C.│ │None. │No. │

│ │ │ │

Tallahassee, │ │ │No. │Yes.

Fla. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Woonsocket, │ │ │No. │No.

R. I. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Worcester, │Fill and │None. │No. │No.

Mass. │ fertilizer.│ │ │

│ │ │ │

─────────────┴─────────────┴────────┴───────────┴────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT

├───────────┬───────────┬───────────────┬──────────────

│ Per cent. │ Per cent. │What Degree of │ Is Plant

│ of │of Bacteria│Purity Required│ Operating

│ Suspended │ Removed │ │Satisfactorily

│ Matter │ │ │

│ Removed │ │ │

│ │ │ │

─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────────┼──────────────

Albany, N. Y.│ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │ │Yes.

│ │ │ │

Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │

Alliance, │ │ │ │No.

Ohio │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │Yes. │

Brockton, │61.2. │95. │As high as │Not entirely.

Mass. │ │ │ possible. │

│ │ │ │

Bloomington, │ │ │ │Yes.

Ill. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Bristol, │ │ │ │Yes.

Conn. │ │ │ │

Columbus, │25. │80–90. │Varies with │Some parts

Ohio │ │ │ stream and │ satisfactory

│ │ │ weather │ others not.

│ │ │ conditions. │

│ │ │ │

Canton, Ohio │98. │ │85. │Yes.

│ │ │ │

Danbury, │ │ │ │Yes.

Conn. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Dallas, Tex. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Fond du Lac, │ │ │ │Yes.

Wis. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Fresno, Cal. │ │30. │No standard. │Yes.

│ │ │ │

Gloversville,│ │ │ │Yes.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Houston, Tex.│95–98. │95–99. │85–90. │

│ │ │ │

Independence,│ │ │ │

Kas. │ │ │ │

Lackawanna, │ │ │90. │Yes.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

Milwaukee, │95. │95. │95. │

Wis. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Mt. Vernon, │70. │80. │Non- │Yes.

N. Y. │ │ │ putrescible. │

│ │ │ │

New Britain, │ │ │ │No.

Conn. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │

[31]Pasadena,│ │ │ │Imhoff

Cal. │ │ │ │ satisfactory

│ │ │ │ septic “as

│ │ │ │ well as can

│ │ │ │ be expected

│ │ │ │ of any

│ │ │ │ septic

│ │ │ │ tank.”

Providence, │ │Total │ │

R. I. │ │ bacterial│ │

│ │ 64%; B │ │

│ │ Coli │ │

│ │ 96.9. │ │

Philadelphia,│60. │100 acid │Absence of acid│Yes.

Pa. │ │ formers. │ forming │

│ │ │ bacteria. │

Reading, Pa. │71.1 │86. │State standard.│Yes.

│ exclusive│ │ │

│ of solids│ │ │

│ removed │ │ │

│ by grits.│ │ │

│ │ │ │

Rochester, N.│ │ │ │

Y. │ │ │ │

Schenectady, │40. │70. │ │Fairly so.

N. Y. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Sumter, S. C.│Great │ │ │No objection

│ Portion │ │ │ as it

│ │ │ │ empties into

│ │ │ │ swampy

│ │ │ │ stream.

Tallahassee, │ │ │ │Yes.

Fla. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Woonsocket, │100. │97. │ │Yes.

R. I. │ │ │ │

│ │ │ │

Worcester, │87. │No │Effluent from │

Mass. │ │ standard.│ sand filter │

│ │ │ excellent; │

│ │ │ chemical │

│ │ │ precipitation│

│ │ │ poor. │

─────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────────┴──────────────

─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────

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.

Very definite conclusions have been reached by experts and officials

about the kind of ash can to be used. It is agreed that the size must be

limited because of the difficulty of lifting heavy receptacles into the

collecting wagon. Workman’s compensation insurance for city employees

has forced cities to give more attention to this part of the equipment

than previously for the reason that many employees are injured by

straining. It is also agreed that the receptacles must be of metal or

lined with metal to prevent fire from hot ashes. All receptacles, if

left at the curb, should be covered to prevent dust.

Some cities require householders to use regulation size cans. It is

asserted that this plan facilitates the collection. The attached tables

contain a description of the type and size of can used.