1985 report from chicago's department of planning

7/28/2019 1985 Report from Chicago's Department of Planning

1/18

Dep ortment of PlanningElizabeth L. HollonderCommissionerCity Hall, Room 100 0121 No rth LaSalle StreetChicogo Illinois 60602(312) 744-4471

FOREWORD

Four fifths (80%) of th e garbage generated in th eCity of Chicago is disposed of in s a n itar yl a n d fills l o ca te d on th e S o u th e as t Side. Whilestill th e cheapest method of waste d is p o s a l,primary r eli a n c e on la n d fills has becomeu n ac ce p tab le t ad j a c e n t ne ighborhood re s id e n ts ,r e s u l ts in en vi ronm ental d e g ra d a t i o n , and is ofli m i t ed physica l c a p a c it y .The tim e has come for th e City to s e r io u s ly pursu ea lt e rn a t i v e waste d is p o sa l methods which balanc eth e conce rns of af f e c t e d neighborhoods, the f isc a lc o n s t ra i n t s of th e C i t y , the b u si n ess needs ofcommerce and in d u s tr y and the jobs they g e n er a tefo r a ll Chicago ans .The ch oices to be made are not easy on es. Alls o lu ti o n s to waste d is p o sa l are fra u g h t withc o n s tr a in ts and impediments. Still, it is th ere s p o n s ib ili ty of th e City to face th e se is s u e ssq u a re ly and h o n e s tly , to f u ll y examine theo p ti o n s a v a i l a b le and th e impacts of each , and toc ha rt a new cour se for managing Chicagos w a st e s .Waste Management Options fo r Chicago was preparedby th e Department of Plann ing du ring the oneyearmoratorium on new waste facility s it i n g ando p era tion which expired on Janua ry 31, 1985. TheDepartment was a s s is te d by an in te r d e p a r tm e n ta lTask Fo rce c o n s is tin g of the Departments ofConsumer S e rv ic e s , Economic Developmen t, F ir e ,Law, Pub lic Works, and S tr e e ts and S a n it a tio n .Inpu t from in te r e s te d community , e n v ir o n m en tal ,and in d u s tr y groups, and o th e r p u b li c agencies wasa ls o in c o rp o r ate d in to th is e f f o r t.As a r e s u lt of t h i s st u d y , Mayor Washington hassubmitted to City Council a s e t of d ra f to rd in an c es which will ban the c re a ti o n of any news a n i ta ry la n d f ills in Chicago, st ren g t h e nen vironmenta l review criteria fo r expandinge x is ti n g landfills, ban the d is p o sa l of hazardouswastes in landfills, and le g i tim iz e p ri v a t ere c y cl in g c e n te rs .I encourage your critical rev iew of th is st u d y .My s ta f f st a n d s ready to b r ie f you , open ly d is c u s syour concerns and work with you to so lve theC itys waste management problems. For morein fo rm a tio n , p le as e c o n ta c t Paul Borek at 744-8572.S in c e r e ly ,

ELI ABETH L. HOLLANDERCommissioner

City of ChicogoHa rold Washington. Mayor


2/18

CONTENTS

PageExecutive Summary. . ..................... ................ ... .1

Chapter I Solid Waste GenerationIn troduction ...............................................1Waste Catagories... ........ .. .. ....................Mu n I ci pal Soli d Waste ( MSW ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21. Low Dens ity Household Refuse........................32. High Density Household Refuse .. .. ... ... ......... ... .43. Commercial Institional Refuse.. ................ ... . .6Other (NonMSW) Wastes and Refuse.. .......,. .... ....... ...

1 . Bu 1 1 di n g Demo ii t i on Deb ri s . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 .P ow erandS teel PlantResidue.......................83. Manu factur ing and Industrial Wastes.................84. Sludge....... . . . .. . . .. . . . . ........ .. ... ........... .9Waste Generation Trends for Chicago.... ............ .. .... .. .9Findings...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . .12Footnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Chap ter II Hazardous WasteIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 ye r vi ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5Fl nd 1 ng s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter III Waste Collections and Handling Procedu resIntroduction..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .21City MSW Collection Procedures...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Private MSW Colle ction Procedures...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Public lyUsed Transfer Stations........................... .24Private Transf er Stations.... ........ .... .. .. ...,Other Waste (NonMSW) Processing Procedures ...............29Alternative Processing and Transporta tion Methods..........30F i ndi ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Footnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Chap ter IV - Sanitary Landfi ll sIntroduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a a . .36Current Landfi ll Operations.... .... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. . . ..... .36Regula tion and Licensing............................ ... ... .39Operation and Site Preparation............................ .40Soil Condi td i ons and Geology ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Environmen tal Analysis................. ........... ........ .42EndUse Considerations.... .......... ............. .. ..... ... 45Capac ity and Site Life...... . . . . . . . . . . . .46F i ndi ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Footnotes. . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50


3/18


4/18

CHAPTER IIIHASTE COLLECTIONS AND HANDLING PROCEDURES

Intr oductionAnalysis of waste colle ction and handling procedures iden tifiesfour d istinc t steps with specific opera ting and equipm entcharac teristics. These are refuse pickup, short dista ncehauTing, transfer, and longdistance hauling.

Colle ction in cludes refu se pickup from a source household ,business or in stitu tion and its haulin g by the coll ection vehicleto a disposal or tr ansfer facility. Transfer facilities, whichare widely used, constitu te a separate step in the process inwhich re fuse is tr ansferred from colle ctio n vehicles to much

larger hauling vehic le s. Hauling enta il s longer distance

transportatio n of re fuse by transfer vehic le s to a disposalfacility such as an incinerato r or a sanitary landfill. Inlocations where the collec tio n area is clo se to a disposalfacility, transfer is not nece ss ary and hauling becomes anextension of the colle ction procedure . Both municipal andprivate colle ction serv ices operate in Chicago.

Some discarded mate rials are by defin itio n not included asmunicipa l solid waste (MSW) and entail specia l or particu larcolle ctions and handling procedures. This in cludes demolitionrubble , junked vehicle s, sludge, ash and sla g.

21


5/18

City MSW Colle ctio n ProceduresCollection of low density M un icip al Solid Waste (MSW) in C hic ag ois the responsib ilit y of the D epartm en t of Stre ets andSanit atio n (D SS ), Burea u of Sanita ti on . Collection servic es areprovided to homes and residential build ings w ith four or few erunit s and to various public facilities. A total of 68 0,000households and 577 public schools are serv ed. App roximately 1. 1million tons of MSW are collecte d annually by the DSS.

MSW is colle cted in en closed co m pa ctor tr ucks, ba se d in each ofthe Citys 50 ward yards. A to tal fle et of 400 trucks ismaintained w ith an av erage of 8-1 0 tru cks ass igned to ea chWard. A typic al co m pa cto r truck has a capacity of 5 tons or 20cubic yards and costs $80,000. Commonly used re cepta cles are 55ga l lon steel drums and alle y or curbside col lect ion s are madeonc e w ee kl y .

Typical coll ecti on cre w s consis t of fou r workers, a truck driverand three la bore rs. In early 19 84, some wards began using lig htweight carts as recepta cles. Loaded mechanicaH y, these cart spermit re duction of tru ck crew s to th ree men. Current plans callfor expansion of th is sy stem and proje ct substantial savings incollectio n costs after initial eq uipm ent exp en ses areamort iz ed.

At one tim e the Bu reau of Sanita tion also provided separa te bu lkpickup. Open to p dump trucks were us ed to collect bu lky item s

22


6/18

(w hite goods) such as re frig erato rs , ra nges, washer s, tubs,fu rn itu re , etc . These item s were then shredded prio r todis posal. Pickup service ty pically was provided mon thly. Underpre se nt procedure s bu lk goods together with MSW are collected incompactor trucks by regular crew s. While th is elim inate s theneed fo r extra collections, it resu lts in opera tional anddisposa l prob lems due to the bu lk and size of these items.

Each crew collects two loads (10+ tons) of MSW per day and,depending on lo cation , transports it to the Northwestinc in erator, a sanitary landfil l or a tr ansfer sta ti on .

The Bureau of Sanitations 1984 budget fo r MSW collection was $55million, which av erages out to $50+ per to n. However, thisfig ure does no t in clude the cost of vehicle purchase andmai ntenance nor the cost of fi nal dis posal. If equi pment costsare in cluded, the tota l collection cost would be an est imated$60+ per to n . Disposal and transfer costs are considere d fu rth erin th is chapte r.

In addition to their regular co lle cti ons no ted above, the Bureauof Sanitation also pro cess es sm alle r quantities of variousmunicipal discardable s such as plant materials , str ee t dirt,construction debris , etc., which are colle cte d by other agenciesand deposited at transfer or disposa l facilities. (This factoraccounts fo r some discrepancies between City collection anddisposal vo lumes.)

23


7/18

Private MSW Collection ProceduresPrivate scavengers collect approximately 1.3 million tons of MSWpe r year. They make forfee collections from business andindustrial establishments, such as stores, restaurants,factories, offices, etc. Also, they collect from residentialbuildings containing more than four dwelling un its in cluding manycondominiums. In all, it is estimated that private scavengerscollect from 490,000 households and 50,000 businesses.

Neither rates no r areas of operation are regulated. Any licensedscavenger can operate anywhere in the City and in some areasnumerous collectors compete.

Private collectors also us e transfer stations fo r shorttermwaste storage and consolidation. Al l privately collected MSW isdisposed of at sanitary landfi l ls within and outside the City.

PubliclyUsed Transfer StationsChicago, like most large cities, uses transfer stations asintermediate consolidation points fo r wastes that are collectedin communities distant from final disposal sites. At transferstations MSW is deposited by collection vehicles and subsequentlyloaded into large transfer trailers fo r transport to a disposalfacility. Approximately 60% of the MSW collected by the Bureauof Sanitation is processed through transfer stations.

24


8/18

w

At present the City uses seven tr ansfer stations. Of these, twoare City-owned and operated, two are City-owned bu t privatelyoperated and th ree are privatelyowned and opera ted. Table 3.1pro vides key information relati ng to th ese facilities.

A typic al modern transfer sta tion has two levels. Collectionvehicles ente r at the upper level and dump refu se in to chutesbeneath which the tr ansfer trailers are parked. In the case ofolder facilities, such as those in Chicago, coll ectio n vehic lesdump at storage areas from which waste is loaded by crane intothe trailers. All wastes re ceived at a tr ansfer statio n areremoved the same day. Genera lly, each transfer trailer can carrythe equivalent of 45 collection vehicle loads or 20-25 tons.

The judic io us use of tr ansfer statio ns can decrease the co st ofwaste dis posal. However, the benefi ts in hauling co st reductionneed to be balanced against the added cost of tr ansferopera tions. The Chicago Waste Transfer Station Study conc ludedtha t transfer statio n use becomes economical if coll ectio nvehicles have to tra vel more than 25 minutes (one-way) to adisposal facility.

The above-cited study also concluded th at a need currently exis tsfo r a new tr ansfer statio n on th e Citys southwes t side. A newstatio n may soon be needed on the nor thwest side to replace theag ing Medill facility.

25


9/18

Tabel 3.1Transfer Stations Used By the Bureau of Sanitation

*Name Location Owner Operator 1982 Volume

Calumet E. 103rd St . City Private 162,000 Tons& Do ty Ave.Laramie W. 38th St . Private Private 34,600& Laramie Ave.Sti ckneyMedill 1633 W. City Private 248,000Meclill St.Southwest 1400 W. City City 189,000Pershing Rd.SSFPF W. 34th St. City City 127,800& Hamlin Ave .IX Disposal 2464 S. Private Private 21,400Laflin St

Total 782,800 Tons

*Vo lume includes refuse deposited by City agencies other than the Bureau ofSanitation

27


10/18

Table 3.2Private Transfer Stations (Not Used By Bureau Of

Sanitation)

Location Owner or Operator

360 West Green Street1220 West Carroll Street2750 West 35th Street6833 North Elmhurst Road1300 North Hooker Street11834 South Ewing Avenue1800 West Carroll Street22852401 South Laflin Street

Speel manHoving & SonMetroGrootWaste ManagementSouth Chicago DisposalNati onalD & D (Pending)

28


11/18

Other Waste (NonMSW) Processing ProceduresIn addition to municipal solid waste (MSW), other substantialwaste streams accumulate and require special processing anddisposal. These in clu de d emo litio n rubble, junked vehicles,sludge, ash and slag.

Rubble resulting from demolition of commercial and residentialstructures is generally cdllected by private firms andtransported by dump truck or dumpster to landfills. To variousdegrees some materials such as brick, structural members anddecorative features are salvaged fo r reuse.

Junked or abandoned vehicles are usually collected and processedby p rivate opera to rs . Vehicles abandoned on public streets areremoved by the Department of Streets and Sanitation and towed toone of nine City auto pounds. Unclaimed vehicles are ultimatelyconveyed to private scrap yards. To the extent practical, scrapyard operators salvage usable parts and remnants are recylced asscrap metal. Demand fo r scrap metal and parts is sufficient toprevent any large accumulation of junked vehicles in the City.However, old tires cause disposal problems, particularly steelbelted types which are difficult to process.

Sludge produced at sewage treatment plants by the MetropolitanSanitary Distr ict (MSD) is an earthlike material which isdisposed of on land. Sludge is dried by natural or mechanical

29


12/18

wmethods and then t r a n s p o r t e d to a d i s p o s a l s ite where it isdumped and spread o v er land. A major d i s p o s a l s i t e is areclaimed City l a n d f i l l located at th e north end of Lake Calumetbetween th e Calumet Expressway and Stony I sland Avenue. S inceslu d ge is an o r g a n i c a l l y rich m a t e r i a l , d i s p o s a l s i t e s ar ev e g e t a t e d , landscaped and used fo r park or r e c r e a t i o n a lp u r p o s e s .

At one time th e MSD t r a n s p o r t e d sludge by barge to s t r i p - m i n e ddow nstate a r e a s where it was used as p a r t of a land r e c l a m a t i o np r o c e s s . However, t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s have been t e r m i n a t e d due tocommunity opposition and r e l a t i v e l y high c o s t s .

Some heavy i n d u s t r i e s and e l e c t r i c generating s t a t i o n s pr oducelarge q u a n t i t i e s of ash and s l a g . These e n t e r p r i s e s a reg e n e r a l l y l o c a t e d along n a v i g a b l e waterways in th e Calumet Areaor along th e S a n i t a r y and Ship Canal. Pr ocessing and d i s p o s a l ofash and s la g is managed by th e p r o d u c e r s . These wastes ar edisposed of on land and b arg es are sometimes barged to mored i s t a n t l o c a t i o n s . Some slag can be used fo r c o n s t r u c t i o n andland s t r u c t u r i n g p u r p o s e s .

A l t e r n a t i v e P r o c e s s i n g & T r a n s p o r a t i o n Methods

A l t e r n a t i v e methods and pr ocedur es have been developed and ar eused in some l o c a t i o n s which can r e s u l t in reducing refuse volumeand t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t and improve f i n a l d i s p o s a l o p e r a t i o n s .

30


13/18

Such procedures include shredding, grinding, sort ing, baling,compacting and barge hauling; and might be suitable fo r futureapplication in Chicago.

Shredding and grinding refer to mechanical cutting up of refusematerial into small pieces. Sometimes, p rio r so rtin g is requiredto remove large and/or hard objects . Heavy duty grinders arealso available fo r white goods (refrigerators, bathtubs, etc.)an d large items were at one time used in Chicago. Shredding andgrinding ca n be done at a transfer station or at a final disposalfacility. It enables greater refuse compaction, therebyminimizing landfill requirements or, improving combustioneffic iency at resource recovery plants .

Baling refers to the compaction of refuse into uniform highden sity b ales. Various systems are available fo r this processwhich is best accomplished in a transfer station. The resultingbales weigh 2000-5000 pounds arid ca n be handled by forklifts.Density of up to 1500 pounds pe r cubic yard can be obtained, Inpractice, bailing improves refuse transportation efficiency andlandfill operations. Landfil l ing becomes neater and moreorderly, less equipment is needed, odors are minimized and therear e fewer problems w ith vermin and blowing debris . Furthermore,du e to th e greater density of bails, landfill life ca n beextended by 30-50%.

31


14/18

In some munic ipalit ie s refuse is sorted after collection toseparate out materials suitable fo r recycling such as paper,cans, bo ttl es, etc., as well as reusable goods. Sorting can takeplace at a transfer station or a landfill. This is a laborin te nsiv e system th at reduces the waste stream and generateseconomic activity.

Barge transportatio n is availa ble in Chicago and could be analternative refuse hauling method fo r longer trips. As notedabove, at one time MSD used barges extensively to haul sludge todownstate lo catio ns. This mode offers economies of scalebecause a single barge is able to carry 1000 tons or theequivalent of 50 tr ansfer trailer loads. All of the Cityslandfills are adjacent to or in close proximity to navigablewaterways as is the Medill Transfer Station . Sim ilarly , newtr ansfer stations might be located along the waterways. Eventhough additional handling costs would be involved, th is mode ofhauling could be cost effective under some conditions.

Source separation and recycling are methods aimed at recoveringrefuse materials that can be reused as raw materials tomanufacture new products. This can result in substa ntialreductions of the waste stream, minimizes waste disposal costs ,extends landfill life and generates sig nificant economicactivity. A detailed discussion of these procedures is found inChapter VI.

32

V


15/18

Findings -

The Citys Bureau of Sanitation collects nearly half of thetotal MSW generated in Chicago, or an average annual volume of1.1 to 1.3 million tons. Collections are made from 685,000 lowdensity households (buildings with 4 units or less), 577 publicschools and other public facilities.

Private scavengers collect approximately 1.2 to 1.3 milliontons of MSW annually from 490,000 high density housing units,including 65,000 condominiums, and from various businesses,commercial establishments and private institutions.

More than half of Chicagos MSW (60%) is transported bycollection/compactor trucks to public or private transferstations where the material is transferred to large transporttrailers fo r hauling to a final disposal facility (i.e.,sanitary landfil l or incinerator) . The remaining 40% istransported in compactor trucks directly to the CitysNorthwest Waste-to-Energy incinerator or to sanitary landfills.

The Bureau of Sanitation collects MSW in compactor trucks whichare based in each of th e Citys 50 ward yards. The collectionsystem is combined whereby mixed household organic andinorganic wastes including paper, metal, glass, plastics,yard wastes, etc., are colle cte d toge ther with large bulkitems such as refrigerators, sinks, and bathtubs.

33


16/18

Traditionally , City co llectio n crews have consiste d of four (4)workers per truck. Beginning in 1984, the Bureau of Sanitationbegan using th re e (3) man crews in some wards on a trialbasis as a costcutting mea sure.

The Citys 1984 budget fo r waste collection was $55 mu lio n -an average of approxim ately $Q per ton collected orapproxim ately $70 per household per year.

34

1


17/18

Disposal, tre atm ent and re cycling of hazardous was tes bychemical methods and in cineration are currently re gula ted bystate and fe dera l laws, and shou ld be continued as they arevital to business, industry and the Citys economic base .

Users of hazardous mate ria ls should be required to re portregula rly on th e type and volume of materials used and theirpro visions for disposa l or storage.

Severe penalties should be institutedfor haza rdous wastedumping at unlicensed lo cations.

Collection Systems

Department of Streets and Sanitation should evaluate thefeasibility and cost effectiveness of reinst ituting separatebulk item co llecti ons and reac tiva tin g th e bu lk pro cessingshredder. This could simplify co llections, improveincineratio n and reduce the Citys land fill tipping fees.

*Department of Streets and Sanitati on shou ld evaluate thefeasibility and cost effectiveness of modifying collectionvehic le s with inexpensive racks to permit source se para tedpickup of some re cyclable materials such as new spapers .Lim ited testing of methods and equipmen t should also beinitiated.

139


18/18

Exclus ive area franchishould be evaluated.C ity, improve collectreduce traffic congestion

sing or licensin g of private scavengersThis could produce revenue s for the

ion effic ie ncy, redu ce user costs and

Licensed private scav engers should be required to file anannual re port on the ir collection vo lume.

A deta iled study should be undertaken to determ ine thecomposition of Ch icago MSW so re cycling and in cinerationprog rams can be more precis ely targete d and effectivelyoperated.

The City should proceed with plans fo r constructio n of a newtransfer sta tion to be lo cated in the Southwest Area.

Sanitary Landfills

Mimimize the

banning therestrictingexpansion of

City s dependence on sanit ary landfills bycreation of new la ndfills by ord inance andadditional la ndfill capacity to controlledexis ting facilities on an as needed basis .

Strengthen environmen ta l review criteria fo r the opera tion andexpansion of existing landfills, to include buffer zones ,ero sion and drainage con trols, environmental assessments on

140

1985 report from chicago's department of planning

Documents