Skip to main content

Full text of "The collection and disposal of municipal waste"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


The 

Collection  and  Disposal 

of 

Municipal  Waste 


Bv 

Wm.  F.  Morse 

\^ 

Consulting  Engineer 

Member  of  Boston  Society  of   Civil    Engineers    (Sanitary   Section) 

Member   Franklin   Institute   of   Philadelphia  ;    Member 

of  the  American  Public    Health   Association 


FIRST  EDITION 


Publishers: 

The  Municipal  Journal   and  Engineer 
231-241  West  39th  Street 
New  York 


Copyright,  1908 

By 
WM.  F.  MORSfc 


TO  THE  AMERICAN  MUNICIPALITIES 


190819 


PREFACE. 

THE  subject  of  waste  collection  and  disposal  in  American  and 
Canadian  municipalities  has  from  the  first  been  a  perplexing  and 
difficult  problem  of  municipal  administration.  It  has  not  been 
given  the  attention  bestowed  upon  other  branches  of  municipal 
service,  but  most  cities  have  followed  the  primitive  methods  in 
use  from  the  settlement  of  the  country  and  along  lines  that  are 
now  proven  too  unsatisfactory  and  too  insanitary  to  be  continued. 

There  is  an  increasing  demand  that  more  economical  and  sani- 
tary results  be  obtained  in  this  class  of  work,  and  to  secure  these 
it  seems  to  be  necessary  that  improved  methods  be  employed, 
larger  sums  of  money  spent,  and  that  the  plants  be  designed  and 
operated  under  more  scientific  and  expert  supervision.- 

In  this  work  the  author  presents,  in  as  compact  a  form  as  pos- 
sible, data  gathered  by  him  during  nearly  twenty-one  years  of 
continuous  work  along  these  lines,  together  with  information  col- 
lected from  scattered  reports,  papers,  and  a  great  variety  of  other 
sources. 

The  purpose  of  the  author  is  to  give  a  slight  historical  sketch 
of  the  work  in  the  North  American  communities  from  the  time 
when  the  subject  first  assumed  general  importance,  about  1885, 
down  to  the  present  time.  It  is  also 'his  purpose  to  present  an 
account  of  the  various  methods  of  waste  collection  and  disposal 
that  are  in  use  in  this  country,  together  with  a  comparison  of 
the  older  with  the  more  modern  systems  of  collection  and  waste 
treatment.  There  is  also  a  short  account  of  the  progress  of  the 
work  of  refuse  disposal  in  other  countries  of  the  world,  for 
which  th.e  author  is  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  Francis  Goodrich,  of 
London. 

The  author  begs  to   acknowledge   the  assistance   of   Mr.   C. 


vi  PREFACE. 

Herschel  Koyl  and  Mr.  F.  C.   Tryon   for  papers  upon  special 
phases  of  the  utilization  .and  disposal  question. 

The  thanks  of  the  author  are  tendered  for  the  assistance  of 
other  gentlemen — Mr.  Rudolph  Hering,  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston, 
Mr.  X.  H.  Goodenough,  Mr.  J.  H.  Gregory,  Mr.  F.  K.  Rhines 
and  Mr.  W.  J.  Springborn  for  reports  upon  work  in  their  several 
localities. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  book  may  be  of  assistance  to  those  in- 
terested in  the  subject,  and  perhaps  help  to  solve  some  of  the 
many  problems  connected  with  the  collection  of  waste  and  its 
disposal  in  American  communities. 

WILLIAM  F.  MORSE. 

New  York  City,  Oct.,  1908. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PART  I. 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 
PRELIMINARY  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  PRESENT  CONDITIONS  OF  WASTE  COLLECTION 

AND  DISPOSAL  IN  AMERICAN  COMMUNITIES i 

The  means  of  collection  and  disposal ;  by  individual  service ;  by  licensed 
collector;  by  contract  service;  by  municipal  agency.  Statistics  of  garbage 
collection  in  many  towns. 

Disposal  by  feeding  to  swine;  tipping  into  water;  dumping  and  earth 
burial.  Insanitary  conditions  of  dumps  and  dumping  grounds.  Sorting 
at  dumps.  General  prevailing  conditions. 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTES 13 

The  terminology  of  the  subject.  Classification  of  the  American  Public 
Health  Association.  English  division  of  wastes.  Subdivision  of  American 
wastes.  Definition  of  garbage  by  various  cities.  Refuse  and  ashes.  Ex- 
creta ;  collection,  disposition  and  statistics.  Dead  animals  and  offal.  Street 
sweepings.  Trade  and  industrial  waste. 

Quantities  and  proportions  of  waste.  Reports  of  New  York  City  com- 
mission. Tables  of  population,  loads,  volume,  weights  and  amounts  per 
capita.  Composition  of  waste  according  to  seasonal  variations.  Reports 
of  Boston  commission.  Tables  of  population  and  quantities.  Methods 
of  collection  and  disposal.  Syracuse  garbage  collection.  Collection 
statistics  of  the  general  Government.  Reasons  for  separate  garbage 
collection.  Analysis  of  separated  parts  of  waste.  Garbage ;  its  composition, 
analysis,  weight  and  fertilizing  properties.  Agricultural  utilization 
methods.  Refuse  as  distinguished  from  rubbish.  New  York  sanitary 
code.  Proportion  of  refuse  and  rubbish  in  five  cities.  Volume  and  value 
of  refuse. 

CHAPTER  III. 

MUNICIPAL  REFUSE  AND  RUBBISH  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSITION 46 

First  refuse  utilization  station  in  New  York.  Returns  and  percentages 
recovered.'  Boston  refuse  utilization  station  and  its  refuse  destructor. 

vii 


viii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Forty-seventh  Street  Station,  New  York;  amounts  and  composition. 
Delancey  Street  Station;  description  and  reports.  Collection  and  final 
disposition  of  refuse  in  Brooklyn.  Buffalo  refuse  utilization  station. 
Refuse  disposal  at  Lowell,  Mass. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

MUNICIPAL  ASHES.     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 77 

Ashes  from  various  coals.  Analysis  of  ashes  in  New  York;  percentage 
of  unburned  coal,  clinker  and  fine  ash  and  values.  Ashes  from  other 
wastes.  Garbage  ashes ;  quantity,  analysis  and  value.  Refuse  ash,  analysis 
and  amounts.  Street  sweepings  and  stable  manure.  Approximate  values 
in  the  combined  and  in  the  separated  items  of  waste.  Methods  for  utiliza- 
tion of  these.  Reasons  for  utilizing  values  in  waste.  Final  disposition  of 
mixed  municipal  waste. 

PART  II. 

THE    DISPOSAL    OF     AMERICAN     MUNICIPAL     WASTE    BY 
CREMATORIES     AND     INCINERATORS. 

CHAPTER  V. 

METHODS  OF  WASTE  DISPOSAL  IN  AMERICAN  TOWNS  BY  INCINERATION 96 

Historical  sketch  of  early  work.  Control  of  the  health  officer  of  towns. 
American  Public  Health  Association ;  its  committees ;  their  reports  and 
papers.  Business  development.  Lack  of  accurate  data  in  early  installa- 
tions. City  engineers.  Earliest  garbage  furnaces  at  Allegheny  City, 
Montreal,  Wheeling,  Pittsburgh,  Chicago,  Norfolk,  Richmond,  Trenton, 
Atlantic  City,  San  Francisco,  with  reports  of  operation.  Operating  condi- 
tions of  the  American  crematories  and  incinerators. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  AMERICAN  MUNICIPAL  CREMATORIES 114 

From  1885  to  May,  1908,  with  notes  and  observations. 
CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  CREMATORIES   INSTALLED  BY  U.   S.  GOVERNMENT. 

Notes. 
LIST  OF  GARBAGE  CREMATORIES  AT  PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE  INSTITUTIONS. 

Notes. 

Number  of  unsuccessful  furnaces.  Reasons  for  municipal  failures. 
Share  of  responsibility  of  municipal  officers.  An  engineering  problem. 
Action  of  several  cities  in  appointing  commissions.  Reasons  for  slow 
progress. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  ix 

PAGE 
CHAPTER  VII. 

AMERICAN  GARBAGE  CREMATORIES 145 

Need  for  a  better  classification  of  garbage  furnaces.  Terms  now  em- 
ployed. Proposed  classification.  American  garbage  crematories  and  their 
inventors.  Engle  Sanitary  &  Cremation  Company.  Dixon  Sanitary  Cre- 
matory Company.  Davis  Garbage  Furnace  Company.  Morse-Boulger 
Garbage  Destructor.  Municipal  Engineering  Company.  The  Standard 
Construction  Company.  National  Equipment  Company. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

AMERICAN  CREMATORIES.     (Continued.) 168 

American  Garbage  Cremator  Company.  Brownlee  Garbage  Furnace. 
Bridgeport  Boiler  Works.  Smith-Siemens  Garbage  Fprnace.  Seaboard 
Garbage  Cremator  Company.  Decarie  Manufacturing  Company.  Dundon 
Incinerating  Garbage  Furnace.  Bennett  Garbage  Crematory.  Garbage 
Crematory  of  Lewis  &  Kitchen.  Thackeray  Incinerating  Company. 
Universal  Destructor  Company. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

PORTABLE  CREMATORIES.     CALORIFIC  VALUES  OF  WASTE  MATERIALS.     FORMS  OF 

AMERICAN  FURNACE  CONSTRUCTION 194 

Portable  garbage  crematories  of  Fellenbaum,  McClelland,  de  Berard  and 
Smead.  New  York  City  portable  rubbish  incinerator.  Traveling  destruc- 
tors of  British  builders.  Calorific  Values  of  Municipal  Waste.  Table  of 
quantities,  proportions  and  values  in  combined  and  separated  waste.  Table 
of  theoretical  coal  equivalents.  Calorific  values  according  to  seasonal 
variations.  Range  of  values  as  compared  with  coal.  Calorific  values  of 
other  waste  material.  Conclusion  of  American  furnace  work. 


PART  III. 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR 
SYSTEMS. 

CHAPTER  X. 

HIGH  TEMPERATURE  REFUSE  DESTRUCTORS 206 

The  classification  of  destructors.  American  conditions.  Destructors  in 
American  practice.  Examples  of  successful  work  in  this  country.  Division 
of  destructors  into  groups.  The  cell  group  of  British  destructors.  Air 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

supply.  Utilization  of  heat.  Continuous  grate  destructors.  Heat  regener- 
ation for  air  supply.  Chimneys  and  dust  prevention.  Delivery  of  waste 
to  the  destructors.  Disposal  of  residuums.  Quantities  consumed  per  grate 
or  cell.  Nuisances  dependent  upon  temperature.  Gradual  development 
of  high  temperature  in  destructors.  The  operation  of  destructors  without 
nuisance.  Meldrum  Simplex  Destructors  at  Westmount,  Seattle  and 
Schenectady.  Heenan  and  Froude  Destructors  at  Vancouver  and  New 
Brighton.  The  Power  Specialty  Company. 


CHAPTER  XL 

BRITISH  DESTRUCTORS  THROUGHOUT  THE  WORLD 262 

Special  article  by  W.  Francis  Goodrich,  M.  I.  C.  E.  First  English 
destructor.  Destructors  combined  with  departments  of  municipal  service. 
Sewerage  disposal  works.  Uses  of  clinker.  Results  in  power  production 
for  electricity  works.  Destructors  combined  with  water  works.  Conti- 
nental progress  in  destructor  installations.  Germany,  Switzerland,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Russia,  France.  Progress  in  the  East.  Egypt,  India, 
Siam,  Singapore.  Progress  in  Australia,  Melbourne,  Prahran,  Anandale, 
Wellington,  Auckland,  Sydney.  In  South  Africa  and  South  America. 
Table  of  distribution  of  British  destructors  throughout  the  world. 


PART  IV. 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION  AND  EXTRACTION 

PROCESS. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  PROCESSES  OF  REDUCTION  AND  EXTRACTION  IN  THE  U.  S 290 

Sanitation  in  American  towns.  Necessity  for  improved  methods.  Be- 
ginning of  movement  in  1885.  Treatment  of  garbage  by  reduction 
methods.  Merz  process.  First  plant  at  Buffalo.  Description  of  apparatus. 
New  Merz  process.  Chicago  Merz  plant  the  latest  installation. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

MERZ    PROCESS.      (Continued.)      SIMONIN  PROCESS 309 

At  St.  Paul,  Milwaukee,  Paterson,  St.  Louis,  Columbus.  Reports  on 
conditions  in  Columbus  and  estimated  cost  of  construction.  Simonin  Ex- 
traction Process,  at  Providence.  Notes  on  feeding  municipal  garbage  to 
swine.  Simonin  process  at  Cincinnati  and  New  Orleans, 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  xi 

PAGB 
CHAPTER  XIV. 

ARNOLD  REDUCTION  PROCESS  IN  BOST'  //  AND  NEW  YORK 332 

Three  Boston  plants.  Solvay  process  for  the  recovery  of  ammonia. 
General  disposal  work  in  Boston.  Waste  disposal  in  New  York  City. 
Reports  of  earlier  commissions  on  waste  disposal.  Col.  Waring's  investi- 
gation of  garbage  treatment,  Beginning  of  garbage  reduction  by  the 
Arnold  process  in  New  York  City.  Barren  Island  reduction  plant;  de- 
scription; sanitary  questions  involved.  Result  of  Col.  Waring's  work  as 
Commissioner  of  Street  Cleaning. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

ARNOLD  REDUCTION    PROCESS  IN   NEW   YORK,   PHILADELPHIA,   BALTIMORE  AND 

ATLANTIC  CITY  , 354 

Renewal  of  contracts  in  New  York  and  Brooklyn.  Accidents  by  fire 
and  flood  at  Barren  Island  plant.  Continuation  of  contracts  for  disposal. 
Disposal  of  garbage  and  refuse  in  Borough  of  Bronx.  Garbage  disposal 
in  Borough  of  Richmond.  Preliminary  studies  of  conditions  and  reports. 
Specifications  for  destructor.  Establishment  of  destructor  plant  for  gar- 
bage disposal.  Arnold  reduction  plant  at  Philadelphia.  Ashes  and  refuse 
of  Philadelphia.  Contracts  for  reduction  by  the  Arnold  process  at  Balti- 
more and  Atlantic  City.  Early  methods  of  disposal  at  Washington.  • 
Crematories  and  the  Smith-Siemens  incinerator.  The  Arnold  method  at 
Newark  and  Wilmington. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

CHAMBERLAIN  OR  LIQUID  SEPARATING  PROCESS  ;  OTHER  PROCESSES 373 

Washington,  D.  C,  plant  of  the  Chamberlain  process.  First  plant  at 
Detroit.  Description  of  apparatus.  Indianapolis  plant.  Chamberlain 
process  at  Cincinnati.  Holthaus  Reduction  Process  at  Bridgeport,  Syra- 
cuse and  New  Bedford.  Weislogel  Process.  Plant  at  Vincennes ;  descrip- 
tion of  apparatus.  American  Reduction  Company  at  Reading  and  York. 
Penn  Reduction  Process  at  Rochester. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

EDSON  REDUCTION  PROCESS  ;  CLEVELAND  MUNICIPAL  PLANT  ;  AMERICAN  EXTRAC- 
TOR PROCESS 395 

Dayton  plant.  Municipal  reduction  plant  at  Cleveland.  Description  of 
works.  Report  of  operation,  and  results.  Financial  statement  for  years 
1905-6-7.  American  Extractor  Company  Process  at  New  Bedford.  Resume 
of  reduction  and  extraction  processes.  Arguments  in  favor  of  reduction 
systems. 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

PART  V. 

THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

REVENUE  TO  BE  HAD  FROM  WASTE  MATERIALS.     METHODS  OF  UTILIZATION 420 

Refuse  recovery  by  sorting.  The  sanitary  questions  involved.  Refuse 
for  power  production.  The  paper  manufactured  in  the  United  States. 
Need  for  return  of  waste  paper  from  cities.  The  commercial  value  of 
garbage.  Municipal  reduction  plants.  The  utilization  of  waste  for  steam 
power.  Comparison  of  crematory  and  destructor  methods.  Operating 
costs.  Municipal  ashes  and  coal  recovered.  Special  article  by  C.  H.  Koyl, 
C.E.  The  utilization  of  waste  by  gas  producers.  Special  article  by  F.  C. 
Tryon,  C.E.  Utilization  by  crushing  and  manufacture  into  fuel.  The 
present  situation  of  waste  disposal  in  this  country. 


LIST   OF  TABLES. 


TABLE  No.  PAGE 

I.  Night-Soil  Collection  and  Disposal 17 

II.  Areas  and   Population   of  the    Five    Boroughs   of   New 

York  City 20 

III.  Quantities  of  Waste  Collected  by  Cart  Loads,  New  York 

City 20 

IV.  Quantities  of  Waste  by  Volume,  New  York  City 20 

V.  Quantities  by  Weight,  New  York  City 21 

VI.   Average  Weights  of  Refuse,  New  York  City 21 

VII.   Weights  per  Capita,  New  York  City 22 

VIII.  Average  per  Capita  for  Three  Years,  New  York  City.  ...  22 
IX.  Composition    of    Household    Refuse    by    weight,    New 

Brighton 22 

X.  Household  Refuse  as  Collected,  New  Brighton,  N.  Y 23 

XI.  Garbage  Collection,  Syracuse 24 

XII.  Average  Daily  Refuse  Collection,  Boston 28 

XIII.  Average  Weekly  Refuse  Collection,  Boston 29 

XIV.  Average  Yearly  Refuse  Collection,  Boston 31 

XV.  Refuse  Collections  in  Boston  and  New  York  City  Com- 
pared    32 

XVI.  Collection  Statistics,  U.  S.  Government 35 

XVII.   Percentage  Composition  of  Garbage 37 

XVIII.  Chemical  Analysis  of  Garbage 37 

XIX.   Approximate  Percentage  of  Refuse  in  Whole  Collection .  .  43 

XX.   Returns  from  i6th  St.  Refuse  Station,  New  York  City ...  47 
*^     XXI.   Percentage  of  Salable  Portions  in  One  Hundred  Parts 

Refuse 48 

XXII.   Quantities  received  at  Refuse  Disposal  Station,  Boston. .  52 

XXIII.  Quantities  received  at  4yth  St.  Station,  New  York  City.  .  57 

XXIV.  Quantities  Sorted,  47th  St.  Station,  New  York  City 57 

.  .    XXV.  Test  for  Steam  Power,  47th  St.  Station,  New  York  City.  .  57 

XXVI.  Volume  and  Weights  of  Refuse,  New  York  City 58 

-    XXVII.   Evaporative  Tests,  Delancey  St.  Station,  New  York  City.  63  , 

XXVIII.   Quantities  of  Refuse  and  Disposition,  Buffalo 73 

XXIX.   Quantities  of  Refuse,  Four  Years,  Lowell 75 

XXX.   Analysis  and  Heating  Values  American  Coal 77 

XXXI.   Analysis  of  Ashes  of  Anthracite  Coal 78 

XXXII.   Heating  Power  and  Value  of  Waste  Coal 79 

XXXIII.  Analysis  of  Destructor  Ashes 80 

XXXIV.  Analysis  of  Garbage  Ash  and  Wood  Ashes . . . ; 82 

xiii 


XIV 


LIST  OF  TABLES. 


TABLE  No. 

XXXV. 

XXXVI. 

XXXVII. 

XXXVIII. 

XXXIX. 

XL. 

XLI. 
XLII. 


XLIII. 

XLIV. 

XLV. 

XLVI. 

XLVII. 

XLVIII. 

XLIX. 

L. 

LI. 

LII. 

LIII. 

LIV. 

LV. 

LVI. 

LVII. 

LVIII. 

LIX. 

LX. 

LXI. 

LXII. 

LXIII. 

LXIV. 

LXV. 

LXVI. 

LXVII. 

LXVIII. 

LXIX. 

LXX. 


/ 


PAGE: 

Ashes  from  One  Ton  of  Refuse  and  Rubbish 84 

Analysis  of  Street  Sweepings  and  Stable  Manure 87 

Values  of  Recoverable  Coal  and  Refuse 87 

Approximate  Values  of  Municipal  Waste 87 

Analysis  of  Garbage  Tankage 89 

Chronological    List    of    American    Garbage    Crematories 

from   1885 114 

List  of  Garbage  Crematories  of  U.  S.  Government 126 

List   of   Garbage   Furnaces  at   Public   Institutions  and 

Business  Establishments 129 

Consolidated  Table  of  Calorific  Values 203 

Theoretical  Values  in  Equivalent  Coal 204 

Calorific  Values  per  Pound  for  Different  Periods 204   -~ 

Laboratory  Analysis  Steam  Ashes 205 

Range  of  Calorific  Values  of  Waste 206 

Calorific  Values  of  Various  Wastes 208 

Tests,  Harlan  &  Wolfe  Destructor,  Belfast 208 

Official  Test,  Westmount  Destructor 243 

Operating  Costs,  Westmount  Destructor 247 

Report  on  Seattle  Destructor 252 

Report  on  Heenan  Destructor,  Vancouver 255 

Summary  of  Official  Tests,  West  New  Brighton 261 

Twelve  Combined  Destructor  and  Sewage  Works 267 

Watford  Combined  Sewage  and  Destructor  Plant 267 

Report  on  Eccles  Destructor 268 

Powder  Production,  Electricity  and  Destructor  Works ...  272 

British  Destructors  Throughout  the  World 283 

Report  on  Praharn  Destructor 285 

Equivalent  Coal  in  Garbage 302 

Average  Monthly  Collection,  Milwaukee 303 

Average  Daily  Collection,  Milwaukee 303 

Collection  Statistics,  Columbus 3 1 6 

Construction  and  Operating  Expense,  Columbus 317 

Collection  and  Disposal,  Philadelphia 367 

Collection  Costs,  Rochester ....  392 

Collection  of  Ashes,  Rochester 392 

Income  and  Expenses,  Cleveland  Reduction  Plant 401 

Summary    Sales    and    Inventory,    Cleveland    Reduction 

Plant -403 

Quantities    Garbage     Delivered,     Cleveland     Reduction 

Plant 403 

Cost  Collection  and  Disposal  per  Ton,  Cleveland  Reduc- 
tion Plant . .                                        404 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

FIGURE  PAGE 

1.  The  Refuse  Utilization  Station,  Boston 49 

2.  Receiving  Room  and  Conveyor,  Boston 49 

3.  Power  and  Hand  Presses,  Boston 50 

4.  Conveyor,  Destructor  and  Boiler,  Boston 51 

5.  The  Forty-seventh  St.  Refuse  Station,  New  York  City 54 

6.  Conveyor  and  Sorting  Bins,  47th  St.  Station,  New  York  City.  ...  55 

7.  Charging  the  Incinerator,  47th  St.  Station,  New  York  City.  ....".  56 

8.  The  Delancey  St.  Refuse  Disposal  Station,  New  York  City '59 

9.  Conveyor  and  Sorting  Bins,  Delancey  St.,  New  York  City 60 

10.   Unloading  of  Scows  at  Sea,  New  York  City 62 

n.  Tipping  Ashes  and  Rubbish  into  Scows,  New  York  City 65 

12.  The  Carts  for  Ash  Collection,  Brooklyn  and  New  York  City 66 

13.  Ash  Bins  Removed  by  Trolley,  Brooklyn 66 

14.  Method  of  Discharging  Ash  Bins,  Brooklyn. 68 

i  5.   Rubbish  Incinerator,  South  Brooklyn 69 

1 6.  The  Refuse  Utilization  Station,  Buffalo 70 

17.  Tipping  Floor  and  Conveyor,  Buffalo 71 

1 8.  Conveyor  and  Sorting  Bins,  Buffalo 71 

19.  Destructor  and  Boiler,  Buffalo 72 

20.  First  Garbage  Crematory  in  U.  S.,  Governors  Island,  N.  Y 101 

21.  Engle  Cremators,  World's  Fair,  Chicago 104 

22.  Original  Engle  Cremator 149 

23.  The  Latest  Engle  Cremator 151 

24.  The  Dixon  Crematory,  Direct  Draft i  53 

25.  The  Dixon  Crematory,  Return  Draft 1 54 

26.  The  Dixon  Crematory,  Exterior  Steel  Case 1 54 

27.  The  Dixon  Crematory,  Fort  Wayne,  Ind 155 

28.  The  Dixon  Crematory,  Lexington,  Ky 156 

29.  Davis  Garbage  Furnace ; 157 

30.  Thackeray  Garbage  :Incinerator i  58 

3 1 .  Boulger  Crematory,  First  Design 159 

32.  Boulger  Crematory,  Latest  Design 160 

33.  Morse-Boulger  Destructor 161 

34.  Municipal  Engineering  Co.  Crematory 162 

35.  Wright  Garbage  Incinerating  Furnace 164 

36.  Branch  Garbage  Incinerator 166 

3  7 .   Brown  Garbage  Cremator 1 68 

38.  Brownlee  Garbage  Furnace 1 71 

39.  H.  B.  Smith  Garbage  Crematory 172 

xv 


xvi  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

FIGURE  PAGE 

40.  Smith- Siemens  Garbage  Furnace 174 

41.  Vivarttas  Garbage  Furnace 177 

42.  Decarie  Garbage  Incinerator 179 

43.  Decarie  Fume  Cremator 180 

44.  Decarie  Garbage  Incinerator,  Latest  Form 181 

45.  Sanitary  Engineering  Co.  Garbage  Crematory 184 

46.  F.  P.  Smith  Crematory  (Plan) 185 

47.  F.  P.  Smith  Crematory,  Longitudinal  Section 186 

48.  F.  P.  Smith  Incinerator,  Longitudinal  Section 187 

49.  Cross  Section  and  Exterior,  Smith  Incinerator 189 

50.  Morse  Destructor  Furnace .  . .  .  . 192 

51.  De  Berard  Portable  Crematory 196 

52.  Smead  Travelling  Crematory 198 

53.  Meldrum  Portable  Destructor 200 

54.  Horsfall  Portable  Destructor 201 

55.  Fryer  Cell  Destructor 221 

56.  Beaman  &  Deas  Cell  Destructor 222 

57.  Horsfall  Cell  Destructor 223 

58.  Warner  Cell  Destructor 224 

59.  Sterling  Double  Cell  Destructor 225 

60.  Meldrum  Continuous  Grate  Destructor  (Plan) 227 

61.  Meldrum  Destructor  with  Boiler  (Section) 228 

62.  Meldrum  Destructor  (Cross  Section) 229 

63.  Meldrum  Destructor  (Lancashire  Boiler) 230 

64.  Heenan    &    Froude    Continuous    Grate    Destructor    (Plan    and 

Section) 231 

65.  Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor 232 

66.  Combined  Electricity  Works  and  Refuse  Destructor,  Westmount  241 

67.  Hopper  and  Charging  Holes,  Westmount 245 

68.  Front  of  Destructor,  Westmount 245 

69.  Boiler  of  Destructor,  Westmount 246 

70.  Plan  of  Destructor,  Westmount 248 

71.  Cross  Section  of  Destructor,  Westmount 248 

72.  Exterior  Destructor  Building,  Seattle 249 

73.  Front  of  Destructor  Building,  Seattle 250 

74.  The  Meldrum  Destructor,  Seattle 251 

75.  The  Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor,  Vancouver 254 

76.  Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor,  New  Brighton 257 

77.  Front  of  Destructor,  New  Brighton 258 

78.  Plan  and  Sections,  Destructor,  New  Brighton 259 

79.  First  Destructor  Cells,  Great  Britain 263 

80.  Thirty  Years'  Progress  with  British  Destructors 265 

81.  Destructor  with  Lancashire  Boiler 268 

82.  One  Day  Record  Steam  Pressure  (Watford) 269 

83.  Destructor  at  Stoke-on-Trent 274 

84.  Destructor,  Borough  of  Woolwich,  London. 274 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS.  xvii 

FIGURE  PAGE 

85    Destructor  at  Annandale    Australia 280 

85.   Destructor  at  Christchurch,  New  Zealand 280 

87     Destructor  at  Johannesburg.  South  Africa    281 

83,   Destructor  at  Prahran.  Australia 285 

87.  Mortar  Mill  and  Clinker  Separator.  Prahran  287 

93    Meldrum  Destructor.  Paris 288 

91.  The  Weislogel  Reduction  Plant.  Jacksonville   ....  387 

92    The  Reduction  Works  of  American  Extractor  Co,,  New  Bedford  .  .   406 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 
L!  FOR  tilt* 


t 

PART  I. 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 

CHAPTER   I. 

THE  PRESENT  CONDITIONS  OF  WASTE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 
IN  AMERICAN  COMMUNITIES. 

The  production  of  waste  and  effete  matter  is  the  penalty  of 
living.  Everything  that  enters  into  the  life  of  the  person  which 
by  assimilation  sustains  Nature,  or  becomes  a  part  of  his  environ- 
ment, is  subject  to  change  and  the  gradual  process  of  decay,  and 
must  be  removed,  since  its  accumulation  will  inevitably  produce 
annoyance,  discomfort  and  insanitary  conditions  tending  to  shorten 
life. 

If  this  be  true  of  individual  cases,  it  applies  still  more  closely 
when  individuals  are  gathered  into  families  and  communities 
and  the  larger  associations  of  towns  and  cities;  hence,  the  need 
for  cleanliness,  as  applied  to  the  whole  body  politic,  becomes  im- 
perative for  the  common  protection. 

Taking  the  family  as  the  unit  of  communal  life,  there  was  at 
first  no  trouble  in  the  disposal  of  waste  matters;  as  the  com- 
munity increased  in  numbers,  the  primitive  methods  of  dealing 
with  effete  matter,  used  by  the  individual  and  the  family,  were 
extended  and  enlarged  to  meet  the  increased  production.  The 
garbage  was  fed  to  swine  or  dumped  on  the  nearest  vacant 
ground,  into  adjacent  swamps  or  ravines,  or  thrown  into  the 
nearest  stream  or  ocean  bay.  No  particular  care  or  oversight 
was  exercised;  none  was  at  first  thought  to  be  needed,  the  chief 
purpose  being  to  get  the  material  out  of  sight,  if  possible  out  of 
mind,  at  the  least  cost  and  trouble. 

FEEDING  TO  SWINE. 

In  the  rural  districts  and  smaller  towns,  each  family  kept  a  pig, 
raised  on  the  family  swill  and  slaughtered  at  the  approach  of  cold 

I 


2       THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

weather.  As  population  increased  this  became  objectionable, 
and  the  swill  was  often  given  away  for  the  cost  of  removal,  and 
afterwards  sold  to  farmers  as  food  for  stock.  As  the  municipali- 
ties became  alive  to  the  need  for  public  collection  and  removal, 
they  arranged  with  contractors  for  its  regular  collection,  or  al- 
loxwed  these  to  make  private  terms  with  the  individual  citizen. 
his  was  almost  the  universal  custom  in  New  England  towns 
and  is  still  the  method  there  most  commonly  used.  /UlLJto  1884, 
Boston  sold  the  whole  of  its  swill  collection  for  delivery  by  wagon 
and  train  to  farmers  in  Massachusetts,,  New  Hampshire  and 
Vermont.^  With  the  exception  of  four  years,  1890-94,  Providence 
has  always  sold  its  garbage,  as  do  Pawtucket,  Fall  River,  Taunton, 
Brockton,  Newton,  Cambridge,  Brookline,  Somerville,  Maiden, 
Lynn,  Lawrence,  Salem,  Haverhill,  Chelsea,  Lowell,  Springfield, 
Holyoke,  New  Haven,  New  Britain,  and  many  smaller  places. 
Several  of  the  Western  cities — St.  Paul,  Denver,  Omaha,  Sag- 
maw,  Bay  City,  Superior,  Cedar  Rapids — continue  this  custom. 
The  city  of  Worcester,  Mass.,  maintains  a  municipal  hog-farm, 
from  which  it  derives  a  very  considerable  revenue.  In  1903  the 
return  from  the  sale  of  pork,  pigs,  tallow,  etc.,  was  $11,941.  The 
cost  of  collection  of  garbage  was  $18,140.  'The  appropriation 
from  the  city  was  $6,000,  which  represents  the  net  cost  of  collec- 
tion and  disposal  for  the  year. 

This  custom  of  feeding  is  advocated  by  some  health  officials 
as  being  economical,  not  more  objectionable  than  some  methods 
of  reduction  or  cremation  and  capable  of  being  carried  on  with 
profit,  and  very  little  or  no  nuisance,  if  proper  attention  be  given 
to  transportation  and  feeding.  The  cost  at  Providence  for  collec- 
tion and  removal  of  garbage  has  averaged,  for  thirteen  years,  i$l/2 
cents  per  capita  per  annum.  In  other  towns  the  profit  from  the 
sale  of  garbage  or  from  the  sale  of  swine  fed  by  the  contractor, 
reduces  the  cost  of  collection  one-third  to  one-half. 

But  there  are  some  drawbacks  to  this  admittedly  economical 
system.  Milk  from  badly  nourished  cows  fed  on  swill  is  poor 
in  quality,  often  offensive  to  taste  and  smell,  and  is  condemned 
by  nearly  every  health  authority.  Garbage-fed  pork  is  liable  to 
trichinosis,  as  shown  by  the  reports  of  the  Massachusetts  State 
Board  of  Health  (1889)  when  thirteen  per  cent,  of  hogs  fed  on 
the  public  garbage  of  Boston  were  subject  to  this  disease,  a  far 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  3 

larger  proportion  than  is  found  in  Western  swine.  The  dumping 
of  municipal  garbage  in  large  amounts  on  open  ground  for  feed- 
ing is  attended  with  consequences  objectionable  in  the  highest 
degree.  No  one  who  has  been  at  these  feeding  grounds  in  hot 
weather,  and  seen  the  process,  can  say  it  is  sanitary.  The  clouds 
of  flies  and  insects,  the  multiplied  streams  of  the  lowest  forms 
of  animal  life  radiating  from  heaps  of  fermenting  swill,  the 
nauseating  odors  arising  from  the  polluted,  trampled  ground,  all 
unite  to  create  nuisance.  It  has  sometimes  happened  that  epi- 
demics of  hog  cholera  have  swept  away  the  whole  herd,  entailing 
expense  for  their  disposal  and  renewal. 

The  chief  claim  for  this  means  of  disposal  is  on  the  score  of  7 
economy,  since  it  appears  to  be  almost  the  only  way  as  yet 
devised  by  which  a  town  can  recover  some  return  for  the  outlay 
for  collection  and  disposal.  The  foremost  advocate  of  this 
method,  after  stating  the  arguments  for  and  against  the  practice, 
says,  "By  this  attempt  to  minimize  the  evil  of  the  disposal  of 
garbage  by  feeding  to  swine,  the  writer  does  not  intend  to  main- 
tain that  it  is  a  desirable  method,  and  would  simply  venture  the 
opinion  that,  under  certain  conditions,  it  is  not  a  very  bad 
method." 

The  smaller  cities  are  not  alone  in  this  way  of  treatment.  The 
large  hotels  and  restaurants  of  New  York  City  sell  their  garbage 
to.  private  parties  as  food  for  stock.  The  collection  is  made,  under 
permit  from  the  Health  Department,  in  barrels  conveyed  in 
large  covered  water-tight  wagons,  an  empty  barrel  being  left  to 
take  the  place  of  each  full  one  removed.  All  collections  are  made 
at  night  or  in  the  early  morning  hours.  The  swill  is  emptied  into 
large  kettles,  where  it  is  cooked  for  twenty-four  hours,  or  until  s 
the  return  of  the  wagons  on  the  following  day.  The  grease  v_J 
rising  to  the  top  is  skimmed  off,  pressed,  and  run  into  barrels  for 
sale,  the  remaining  contents  being  fed  to  pigs  or  cattle,  mixed 
for  the  latter  with  hay  or  bran.  I  This  cooking  is  essential  to  fit 
the  swill  for  feeding.  Formerly,  the  high  price  of  grease  yielded 
a  profit  from  this  source  alone,  but  at  2,^/2.  cents  per  pound  it  is 
claimed  that  the  grease  product  fails  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  coal 
burned.  The  quantity  of  garbage  thus  treated  is  estimated  at 
30,000  tons  per  year. 


4       THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

THE  INDIVIDUAL  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL. 

Those  who  pay  any  attention  to  the  subject  are  familiar  with 
garbage  dumps  in  all  stages  of  beginning,  growth  and  completion, 
since  there  is  no  release  from  the  ever  present  evil.  In  the 
early  days  of  any  town,  the  vacant  lots  in  the  suburbs  are  gar- 
nished with  all  sorts  of  refuse  matter,  until  some  strong  objection 
is  made  by  the  property  owner.  As  the  town  grows,  this  refuse 
is  consolidated  at  convenient  points  where  low  ground  offers  an 
excuse  or  roads  need  to  be  raised  in  grade.  The  dumps  then 
include  putrescible  matter  which  under  the  hot  sun  of  summer 
gives  out  noxious  odors.  A  ravine  or  valley  on  the  line  of  a 
small  stream  becomes  a  favorite  place  of  deposit,  or  ground 
excavated  for  sand,  clay,  gravel  or  stone  offers  a  favorable  point 
because  a  large  quantity  can  be  disposed  of  in  a  small  area.  The 
cartmen,  being  under  no  restriction,  select  the  nearest  place  to 
dump  their  loads,  where  there  is  least  trouble  or  objection.  Some- 
times ashes  or  earth  covers  the  surface,  but  as  it  is  nobody's 
business  to  see  that  the  dumps  are  kept  covered,  nobody  cares 
much  for  the  consequences. 

THE  LICENSE  SYSTEM. 

Under  pressure  of  complaints  and  with  an  increasing  knowl- 
edge of  better  sanitary  conditions,  the  town  authorities  regulate 
the  dumping  of  putrescible  matters,  place  the  service  under  in- 
spection of  the  Health  Department,  and  license  certain  cartmen 
to  collect  and  remove  the  waste.  It  is  usually  made  obligatory 
to  employ  these  men,  the  cost  of  the  work  being  paid  by  the 
individual  householder  according  to  the  objectionable  character 
of  the  waste,  the  quantity,  and  the  distance  it  must  be  hauled 
for  dumping.  As  the  population  increases,  the  expenses  rise.  If 
there  are  no  sewers,  the  night-soil  collection  and  removal  adds 
to  the  burden.  Those  who  are  ready  and  willing  to  encourage 
civic  cleanliness  are,  in  a  sense,  compelled  to  pay  for  the  whole, 
for  many  refuse  to  avail  themselves  of  a  service  which  should 
be  employed  by  all.  (The  dumps  are  often  a  serious  interference 
with  the  rights  of  adjoining  property  holders,  and  further  re- 
moval from  the  town  entails  more  cost  for  service  and  inspection. 
The  number  of  collectors  increases,  it  is  difficult  to  establish  and 
maintain  a  satisfactory  standard  for  equipment  of  carts  and 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  5 

apparatus,  and  as  the  town  continues  to  grow,  this  service  be- 
comes unwieldly  and  unsatisfactory. 

THE  CONTRACT  SYSTEM. 

Succeeding  the  system  by  licensed  collectors  comes  the  method 
of  collection  and  disposal  of  city  wastes  by  contract  for  a  specific 
term.  This  may  include  the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  waste ;  usually 
it  includes  the  garbage  only,  leaving  the  ashes  and  rubbish  to  be 
dealt  with  by  the  licensed  men  or  by  private  contract. 

The  service  is  performed  daily,  or  every  other  day,  for  the 
thickly  settled  part  of  the  town,  and  bi-weekly  for  the  remainder. 
The  contract  provides  for  a  standard  equipment  of  carts,  to  be 
kept  clean,  the  collection  to  be  made  without  nuisance,  the  dis- 
posal to  be  at  places  designated,  or  by  satisfactory  apparatus. 

The  contract  system  is  the  most  convenient  way  for  the  authori- 
tiesT  but  less  efficient  than  the  municipal  service.  Under  stress  of 
competition,  the  contractor  is  often  compelled  to  work  for  a 
small  margin  of  profit,  yielding  poor  service  and  giving  rise  to  \ 
complaints.  There  is,  in  fact,  but  a  limited  responsibility,  the 
contractor  seeking  to  do  the  least  possible  work  for  the  greatest 
payment.  But  this  is  often  the  only  way  the  work  can  be  done, 
and  when  performed  under  vigilant  inspection  and  rigid  enforce- 
ment of  terms  of  contract,  fairly  good  service  can  be  secured. 

THE  MUNICIPAL  SYSTEM. 

In  this  case  the  town  does  all  the  work  with  its  own  equipment 
and  employees.  The  preliminary  expenses  are  large,  but  the 
force  can  often  be  used  for  other  municipal  work,  dividing  the 
cost.  The  responsibility  for  cleanly  work  is  better  defined,  com- 
plaints are  more  promptly  attended  to,  and  with  good  executive 
officers  the  employees  can  be  brought  to  take  pride  in  their  work 
and  give  the  most  efficient  service.  jWhile  most  of  the  larger  cities  "~ 
and  towns  have  municipal  service,  and  many  smaller  ones  the 
contract  or  licensed  methods,  the  greater  number  of  places  still 
use  the  primitive  ways  of  treating  waste.  There  is  no  rule  of 
general  application  .to  methods  of  waste  collection,  but  there  is 
an  evident  preference  for  the  municipal  system  if  it  can  be  had 
at  not  too  great  a  cost.  .One  eminent  authority  says  :[_^ There  ap- 
pears to  be  a  well-nigh  unanimous  demand  on  the  part  of  health 
officers,  and  oftentimes  of  the  public  generally,  fpj  the  municipal 


6      THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

collection  of  garbage."  If  municipal  ownership  be  of  advantage 
in  other  civic  departments,  it  certainly  should  be  in  this,  so  inti- 
mately connected  as  it  is  with  the  health  and  comfort  of  the  public. 

TIPPING  INTO  WATER. 

Towns  on  the  seaboard,  that  could  conveniently  do  so,  formerly 
dumped  everything  overboard,  regardless  of  consequences.  New 
York  City  for  many  years  sent  outside  the  harbor  thousands 
of  tons  of  waste  which  ultimately  floated  to  neighboring  shores 
and  gave  rise  to  endless  complaints.  This  was  stopped,  in  part, 
by  Col.  G.  E.  Waring,  and  of  late  has  wholly  ceased,  except  when 
the  work  of  disposal  is  interrupted  by  fires,  or  other  accidents  at 
the  reduction  plant.  The  garbage  is  now  reduced  at  the  Barren 
Island  plant  of  the  Sanitary  Reduction  Company,  the  ashes  and 
street  sweepings  deposited  behind  bulkheads  at  Riker's  Island  and 
the  rubbish  partly  sorted  out  and  burned  and  partly  dumped  with 
the  ashes.  With  few  exceptions,  all  the  northern  seaboard  towns 
now  deal  with  their  wastes  on  their  own  land.  But jNewport  and 
Lynn  send  their  garbage  to  sea,  ano^  Boston  annually .  deposits 
outside  its  harbor  122,000  loads  of  ashes  and  street  sweepings. 

Many  of  the  inland  cities  on  the  great  rivers  continue  to  use 
the  primitive  method  of  stream  dumping.  A  report  made  by  the 
I  Health  Commissioner  of  a  Western  city,  some  years  ago,  gave 
ngures  of  startling  magnitude.  According  to  this  "eight  cities 
dumped  into  the  Mississippi  River,  152,675  tons  of  garbage, 
manure  and  offal,  108,250  tons  of  night-soil  and  3,765  animals. 
Four  cities  on  the  Missouri  River  discharged  36,110  tons  of 
garbage,  22,400  tons  of  night-soil  and  31,160  dead  animals.  Five 
cities  on  the  Ohio  River  dumped  46,700  tons  of  garbage,  21,150 
tons  of  night-soil  and  5,100  dead  animals." 

The  present  situation  on  the  great  rivers  is  somewhat  improved, 
but  St.  Louis  still  continues  to  dump  annually  179,000  loads  of 
rubbish  and  street  dirt  into  the  river;  while  many  towns  use  the 
Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers  as  a  common  receptacle  for  all 
wastes.  New  Orleans  discharges  all  its  waste  into  the  river,  but 
there  are  no  cities  below  it  to  receive  the  doubtful  benefit  of  this 
proceeding. 

The  General  Government  has  published  a  digest  of  the  laws* 

*Department  of  the  Interior,  U.   S.  Geological  Survey;  Water  Supply  No.  152,  1905. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  7 

forbidding  the  pollution  of  inland  waters,  which  may  be  studied 
with  advantage.  The  book  is  a  comprehensive  review  of  all 
State  laws  on  the  subject,  with  citation  of  cases  and  authorities. 
The  principles  laid  down  are  briefly : 

a.  No  riparian  owner  of  a  stream  may  appropriate  all  the1  water  that 
comes  to  him,  neither  may  he  so  corrupt  or  pollute  it  as  to  injure  the  other 
owners «by  diminishing  the  value  of  their  property  in  the  natural  stream. 

b.  Whenever  the  pollution  of  a  stream  or  other  body  of  water  injuri- 
ously affects  the  health,  or  materially  interferes  with  the  peace  "and  com- 
fort of  a  large  and  indefinite  number  of  people  in  the  neighborhood,  such 
pollution  becomes   what   is   known   as   a   public  nuisance.     .     .     .    When 
there  is  a  public  nuisance  caused  by  the  pollution  of  water,  it  is  the  duty 
of  public  authorities  to  cause  its  abatement,  and  their  right  to  do  so  has 
been  sustained  in  numerous  cases. 

c.  Where   municipalities   are  expressly   authorized   by   statute   to  con- 
struct a  system  of  sewerage,  and  to  cause  the  sewage  matter  to  be  dis- 
charged into  any  particular  waters,  the   statutory  authority  is  to  be  so 
exercised,  subject  to  the  implied  condition  that  such  discharge  will  not 
constitute  a  nuisance. 

d.  Speaking  generally,  jurisdiction  over  the  pollution  of  waters  in  the 
United   States  is   confined  to   the  several   States,   except   so   far  as   such 
powers  are  restricted  by  the  National  Constitution  or  expressly  delegated 
thereby  to  the  General  Government. 

STATISTICS  OF  GARBAGE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL. 

Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  collect  statistics  on  waste 
collection  and  disposal,  but  all  have  met  with  very  indifferent  suc- 
cess. The  records  of  most  American  towns  on  this  subject  are 
incomplete  and  badly  kept.  No  standard  of  measurement  is  taken 
for  a  basis,  the  vague  report  of  so  many  cartloads  being  usually 
considered  sufficient;  there  are  few  reports  of  cart  capacity  and 
no  knowledge  of  the  average  weights  at  different  seasons  of  the 
year ;  the  weights  and  volume  of  different  classes  of  waste  are  not 
separately  tabulated.  The  percentage  of  moisture  in  garbage, 
of  unburned  coal  in  ashes,  of  salable  paper  and  rags  in  refuse, 
and  of  the  proportion  of  manure  in  street  sweepings — all  these 
points  must  be  arrived  at  by  comparison  with  the  returns  and 
reports  from  one  or  two  large  cities.  Manifestly  conditions  and 
surroundings  in  different  places  vary  widely,  and  each  individual 
place  should  have  its  own  system  of  records,  with  a  basis  for 
measurement  common  to  all. 

In  1902  an  inquiry  was  made  by  Messrs.  Winslow  &  Hansen, 
of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology,  into**  the  general 
facts  of  garbage  collection  and  disposal  in  161  representative 


8       THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

cities  of  the  United  States.  These  range  in  population  from 
28,000  up  to  the  largest,  situate  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  and 
include  the  most  progressive  and  active  as  well  as  some  of  the 
least  enterprising.  The  reports  include  the  figures  for  collection 
service  separated  from  other  matters,  as  follows : 

Number 
Methods  of  Garbage  Collection  of  Qities. 

Municipal  Collection  System 54 

Contract  Collection   System 48 

Private  Parties 41 

No  Systematic  Collection.  / 12 

Not  Reported  6 

Total   161 

It  is  understood  that  the  term  "private  parties"  includes  the 
collection  by  the  individual  and  license  system,  as  opposed  to 
contract  and  municipal  methods.  The  statement  in  the  paper  of 
the  authors  is  that  out  of  155  places  twenty-nine  have  no  sys- 
tematic method ;  in  146  places  reporting  on  collection  method, 
sixty-one  adopt  the  municipal  plan,  and  in  eighty-five  the  work  is 
done  by  contractors.  Almost  universally,  the  ashes  are  dumped 
on  low  ground  or  used  for  filling,  but  in  a  few  cases  they  are 
dumped,  in  whole  or  in  part,  into  the  nearest  water.  Rubbish  is 
dumped  with  ashes  in  seventy-four  places,  burned  on  the  ground 
in  twenty-six,  cremated  in  furnaces  or  utilized  in  nineteen,  and 
thrown  into  water  in  six.  The  means  of  garbage  disposal  are  thus 
stated : 

Dumping  on  land 44 

Burning  in  dumps 9 

Dumping  in  water 14 

Plowing  into   ground 18 

Feeding  to  stock 41 

Cremation  in   furnaces 27 

Reduction  or  utilization 19 

Irregular  disposition   1 1 


NOTE. — In  several  places  different  methods  are  used  in  different  parts  of  the  same 
city.  Thus,  in  Boston  49,000  tons  are  delivered  to  a  reduction  company  and  15,000 
are  taken  away  by  contractors  and  presumably  fed  to  swine  or  dumped  with  ashes  aJid 
refuse  on  land. 

It  would  appear,  from  this  report,  that  the  primitive  methods 
are  still  the  most  popular;  as  out  of  161  places  only  102,  or  63  per 
cent.,  have  any  systematic  methods  for  collection,  and  out  of  147 
reporting  on  methods  of  disposal  only  forty-six,  or  less  than 
one-third,  have  any  improved  methods  of  final  disposition. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  9 

If  this  be  true  of  161  places  of  the  best  class,  it  is  still  more 
significant  when  towns  smaller  in  population  and  of  less  enterprise 
in  sanitary  science  are  considered. 

Mr.  M.  N.  Baker,  in  the  Municipal  Year  Book  for  1902,  says : 
'The  stubbornness  with  which  most  American  communities  cling 
to  primitive  and  unsanitary  methods  of  garbage  disposal  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  only  ninety-seven  of  the  1,524  cities  and  towns 
included  in  the  Year  Book  have  reported  either  garbage  crema- 
tion or  reduction  plants." 

That  is  to  say,  only  6.3  per  cent,  of  the  towns  of  the  United 
States,  having  a  population  of  3,000  and  upwards,  have  in  fifteen 
years  made  any  real  progress  on  the  lines  of  enlightened  and 
scientific  disposition  of  the  communal  wastes.  This  is  not  a  very 
encouraging  result  for  the  expenditure  of  time,  energy  and  money 
in  this  work,  but  still  it  represents  progress  which,  though  small 
in  itself,  will  serve  to  indicate  what  will  be  the  future  of  the  work 
now  fairly  under  way. 

INSANITARY  CONDITIONS  PRODUCED  BY  DUMPING. 

The  deposit  of  organic  matter  in  thin  layers  upon  ground  fully 
exposed  to  the  salutary  influences  of  light  and  air  is  far  more 
sanitary  than  when  the  putrescible  waste  is  buried  in  mass.  De- 
composition in  the  open  air  proceeds  rapidly  by  the  propagation 
of  aerobic  bacteria  which,  assisted  by  the  absorbent  action  of 
the  earth,  resolve  the  compounds  into  simpler  forms,  while  the 
disengaged  gases  are  oxidized  by  the  air. 

But  when  deposited  in  masses  and  covered,  the  chemical 
changes  are  produced  by  anaerobic  organisms  only,  the  released 
gases  are  greater  in  volume  with  intensely  disagreeable  odors,  and 
these  find  exit  through  the  adjacent  soil.  Even  when  mixed  with 
ashes  the  putrescible  matter  is  not  rapidly  changed,  but  continues 
in  a  putrefactive  state  for  long  periods.  Many  instances  are  re- 
ported of  the  presence  of  organic  matter  in  offensive  and  danger- 
ous forms,  though  years  have  passed  since  its  deposit. 

When  ground  made  by  such  methods  is  covered  by  buildings, 
the  health  of  the  occupants  is  endangered.  The  statement  made 
to  the  writer  by  the  Health  Commissioner  of  one  of  our  large 
cities  was  that  the  continued  presence  of  cases  of  diphtheria  and 
scarlet  fever  in  houses  standing  on  ground  filled  with  waste  was 


io     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

undoubtedly  due  to  the,  insanitary  conditions  of  the  foundations. 
These  diseases  followed  the  line  of  previous  waste  dumping, 
while  adjoining  dwellings  on  original  ground  were  comparatively 
free. 

Dr.  Ezra  Hunt,  of  the  State  Board  of  Health  of  New  Jersey, 
says : 

"Whole  groups  of  zymotic  diseases  are  traceable  to  ground  conditions. 
When,  as  in  some  parts,  soils  are  composed  of  an  accumulation  of  decay- 
ing matters  or  of  foul  material  removed  from  the  streets,  the  building  of 
houses  over  it  may  conceal  but  cannot  destroy  the  contamination.  More 
or  less  of  the  foul  air  must  find  its  way  out  of  the  soil  and  endanger  the 
health  of  the  people  living  upon  it." 

It  is  stated  by  some  eminent  medical  men  that  the  continued 
tipping  of  refuse  near  South  American  cities  largely  accounts 
for  the  yellow  fever  scourge.  That  this  standing  menace  to  health 
is  now  becoming  understood  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  one  of 
the  largest  South  American  cities  is  seeking  for  means  to  dispose 
of  400,000  cubic  yards  of  refuse,  the  accumulation  of  centuries, 
deposited  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  city. 
*  It  may  be  said  that  there  is  a  general  consensus  of  opinion,  all 
over  the  world,  that  this  practice  of  tipping  organic  waste  and 
putrescible  matter  of  any  sort  upon  land  or  into  small  bodies  of 
water,  objectionable  and  filthy  in  itself  and  productive  of  nuisance 
and  obnoxious  conditions,  will,  if  continued,  cause  the  inception  of 
certain  classes  of  disease  which  otherwise  would  be  avoided. 

There  is  an  aesthetic  side  to  the  question  that  should  be  con- 
sidered— the  continued  presence  of  these  unsightly  heaps  of  refuse 
matter  on  the  outskirts  of  towns  is  not  agreeable  to  the  sight 
of  residents  or  prospective  citizens.  Though  care  be  taken  to 
keep  dumps  covered,  there  are  always  floating  paper,  straw,  litter 
and  light  particles  scattered  by  the  wind  that  cannot  be  controlled, 
and  too  often  the  bases  of  these  heaps  terminate  in  stagnant  water, 
formed  by  the  rains  percolating  through  the  mass. 

One  Health  Commissioner  says : 

"Hauling  of  garbage  to  the  dump  pile  is  certainly  .not  garbage  disposal, 
but  only  the  removal  of  filth  from  one  locality  to  another.  The  germs 
of  deadly  diseases  are  deposited  on  the  dump  piles  coming  from  the  ash 
barrels  of  infected  houses,  and  are  in  turn  carried  by  flies,  mosquitoes, 
cats,  rats  and  dogs  and  by  the  wind  into  the  homes  of  our  people  who 
are  thus  made  ill,  and  not  infrequently  death  ensues  from  such  out-of-date, 
outrageous  practice.  Such  methods  are  not  in  keeping  with  the  teaching 
of  the  progressive  spirit  of  to-day,  or  in  harmony  with  claims  our  city 
would  want  to  assume.  The  public  dumps  are  made  the  receptacle  of  old 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  n 

mattresses,  rags  and  filth  of  every  description;  they  are  unsightly,  un- 
sanitary and  discreditable.  The  present  dilemma  can  be  met  with  more 
carts  and  more  active  service,  but  the  final  solution,  according  to  present 
lights,  must  lie  in  the  cremation  of  all  garbage." 

REFUSE  SORTING  AT  THE  DUMPS. 

When  municipal  and  private  waste  taken  to  dumps  contains 
anything  that  can  be  recovered  and  sold,  it  is  picked  out  and  taken 
to  market.  As  a  rule,  the  trash  collection  will  have  paper  of  many 
kinds,  books,  cardboard,  rags,  carpets,  bagging,  clothes,  shoes, 
bottles,  iron,  and  a  host  of  miscellaneous  articles  of  no  service 
to  the  original  owner,  but  of  some  small  value  when  brought  to- 
gether in  quantities.  When  this  mixed  mass  is  tipped  at  the  edge 
of  the  dump  it  is  pulled  apart  and  sorted  by  men,  often  by 
^vomen  and  children,  who  make  this  their  livelihood. 

The  recovered  things,  covered  with  dirt  and  dust,  often  satu 
rated  with  filth,  in  the  last  stages  of  decay  or  usefulness,  are 
thrown  into  heaps  until  enough  accumulate  for  a  cartload.  The 
dry  paper  is  roughly  baled  on  the  spot;  the  wet  rags  and  paper 
are  exposed  to  sun  and  air  for  drying ;  the  clothing,  bottles,  iron, 
etc.,  are  conveyed  back  to  the  town  and  again  sorted  and  sold 
for  junk.  This  is  done  in  almost  every  place  where  there  is  a 
licensed  or  contract  collection  service,  and  many  towns  having 
municipal  service  permit  it  on  condition  that  the  dumps  are  kept 
leveled  off  without  expense  to  the  town. 

TJie  system  has  to  recommend  it  only  the  fact  that  many  poor 
people  get  a  precarious  living,  and  that  contractors  recover  enough 
of  value  to  enable  them  to  do  the  collection  work  cheaper  than 
they  otherwise  could.  Some  large  cities  sell  the  rights  for  picking, 
and  some  positively  prohibit  all  sorting,  but  most  pay  no  attention 
to  the  custom  and  allow  its  continuance  unless  complaints  be  made 
by  adjoining  property  holders. 

The  recovery  of  these  articles,  as  usually  carried  out,  is  ob- 
jectionable for  several  reasons.  It  is  not  sanitary,  as  all  persons 
connected  with  it  are  necessarily  exposed  to  dust,  dirt  and  possible 
infection  from  contaminated  matters.  The  recovered  portions 
again  handled  in  sorting  and  baling,  are  in  too  filthy  a  condition 
to  be  returned  to  the  town.  The  practice  increases  the  nuisance 
of  the  dump,  and  is  a  frequent  source  of  complaints.  The  refuse 
is  not  finally  disposed  of  or  rendered  inoffensive,  but  becomes 
subject  to  further  inspection  and  possible  expense. 


12     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

This  recovery  of  the  marketable  constituents  of  refuse,  if  done 
at  all,  should  be  under  municipal  oversight  and  regulation,  and 
the  articles  saved — the  property  of  the  town — should  be  credited 
to  it  as  an  asset  against  the  expense  of  the  collection  service.  The 
agency  by  which  this  work  can  be  done  in  a  sanitary  and  profitable 
way  will  be  considered  later. 

The  method  of  waste  disposal  at  dumps  has  been  the  subject 
of  many  reports  by  the  various  health  and  sanitary  associations, 
the  State  associations  of  the  Health  Officers,  the  civic  improve- 
ment leagues  and  the  clubs  and  societies  for  the  betterment  of 
municipal  conditions  and  all,  without  exception,  condemn  the 
method  as  usually  practiced,  and  in  many  instances  cite  particular 
cases  where  epidemics  of  diseases  are  traced  directly  to  the  pres- 
ence of  these  piles  of  decaying  matter. 

When  in  some  cases  this  means  of  disposal  seems  to  be  the 
only  practicable  one,  a  stricter  oversight  of  the  collections  and 
more  attention  to  the  final  processes  at  the  dumps  will  do  much  to 
mitigate  the  evil  consequences. 

This  question  is  now  discussed  with  greater  interest  since  the 
latest  reports  showing  that  the  common  house  fly,  which  finds  its 
best  breeding  places  in  these  piles  of  waste,  can  carry  the  bacteria 
of  some  forms  of  zymotic  diseases  for  long  distances. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CLASSIFICATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

Terminology:  The  Need  of  Definite  Terms. — There  is  need 
of  a  better  defined  vocabulary  of  specific  terms  for  use  in  discuss- 
ing this  subject,  as  the  words  and  phrases  now  employed  for  the 
purpose  frequently  have  different  meanings  in  different  places 
or  when  used  by  different  writers. 

The  American  Public  Health  Association  defines  the  various 
classes  of  municipal  waste  as  follows : 

ORGANIC. 

Garbage The  rejected   food  wastes. 

Night-soil The  contents  of  vaults  and  cesspools. 

Sewage Water-conveyed   excreta. 

Offal The  refuse  from  slaughter  houses,   and  animal  sub- 
stances  only. 

INORGANIC. 

Ashes Household,   steam  and   factory 

Refuse Combustible  articles  from  all  sources;  also  glass, 

iron,  crockery,  house  sweepings  and  generally 
everything  from  the  house  not  included  in  gar- 
bage and  ashes. 

Street  sweepings       Compounded  of  organic  and  inorganic  substances. 

This  classification  is  accurate  and  comprehensive,  but  it  is  ex- 
tended, and  should  be  condensed  for  general  use.  Nearly  every 
writer  uses  terms  for  defining  particular  items  that  are  appli- 
cable to  others  quite  dissimilar  in  nature.  Some  invent  new  words 
and  phrases  that  befog  the  subject-matter.  In  describing  appa- 
ratus and  machinery  there  is  frequently  a  conflict  of  technical 
terms  which  are  not  common  to  all,  and  in  reckoning  quantities 
there  is  the  same  uncertainty  for  lack  of  a  definite  standard  of 
measurement.  This  confusion  in  nomenclature  is  largely  due  to 
the  fact  that  waste  disposal  by  modern  methods  is  a  comparatively 
new  subject,  with  a  very  limited  literature  in  this  country,  and 
with  foreign  terms  and  precedents  not  always  applicable  to  our 
conditions.  The  terms  employed  by  the  author  are  those  estab- 

13 


14    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

lished  by  the  American  Public  Health  Association,  with  such 
modifications  as  are  suggested  by  the  conditions  attending  prac- 
tical use. 

In  Great  Britain  the  general  term  "towns'  refuse" — sometimes 
called  "dust" — is  applied  to  the  whole  miscellaneous  waste  col- 
lection of  the  town.  It  includes  animal  and  vegetable  matter 
("soft  core"),  ashes,  breeze  (cinders  mixed  with  unburned  coal), 
bones,  rags,  paper,  glass,  iron,  metals,  crockery  ("hard  core") 
dust  and  dirt.  This  is  placed,  at  the  house,  in  a  general  receptacle 
called  the  ashbin,  and  taken  from  there  in  a  mixed  condition  for 
final  disposal.  Where  there  is  no  sewerage  system,  the  excreta 
are  received  by  the  earth-closet,  pail  or  pan  method,  and  treated 
and  disposed  of  apart  from  other  refuse. 

The  American  term  "municipal  waste"  is  held  to  include  the 
whole  miscellaneous  city  collection  of  rejected  foods,  rubbish, 
ashes  and  street  sweepings.  But  there  is  here  a  further  sub- 
division of  wastes,  and  a  separate  collection  of  each  which  has 
brought  specific  terms  into  use. 

"Garbage"  means  the  animal  and  vegetable  matters  removed 
from  houses,  stores,  and  markets.  It  does  not  include  dead 
animals,  night-soil,  slaughter-house  offal,  street  sweepings,  ashes 
or  cinders,  or  anything  but  organic  household  waste  subject  to 
rapid  decay. 

This  term  is  subject  to  modification  in  various  places,  as  in 
New  England,  where  "swill,"  meaning  rejected  foods  only,  is 
used  instead  of  "garbage."  In  Philadelphia  it  is  known  as  "slop." 
In  some  places  it  is  called  "offal,"  and  in  the  South  and  some 
parts  of  the  West  "garbage"  includes  rubbish  or  refuse,  but  not 
ashes. 

Definition  of  Garbage. — Where  reduction  methods  are  em- 
ployed, garbage  is  more  strictly  defined.  In  New  York  City  it 
means  "refuse  of  an  organic  nature  consisting  of  swill,  every 
accumulation  that  attends  the  preparation,  decay,  dealing  in, 
storage  of,  meats,  fish,  fowls,  birds  or  vegetables,  including  all 
food  wastes,  and  not  including  street  sweepings — and  not  con- 
taining more  than  5  per  centum  by  weight  of  other  refuse." 
Buffalo  defines  it  as  "all  kitchen  or  table  waste  of  an  animal  or 
vegetable  nature,  vegetables,  fish,  meat,  bones,  fat  and  all  offal, 
carrion  and  general  kitchen  refuse,  as  clear  of  ashes  and  rubbish 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          15 

as  it  is  possible  to  keep  same/'  The  Chicago  definition  is,  "any 
and  all  rejected,  abandoned  or  discarded  waste  of  household, 
vegetable  or  animal  food,  offal  and  swill."  In  Washington  it  is 
"the  refuse  of  animal  or  vegetable  matter  which  has  been  used  or 
intended  for  food." 

The  word  "garbage"  is  used  in  places  where  a  clear  distinction 
is  required  as  to  the  character  of  the  organic  waste,  and  as  now 
commonly  used,  the  word  is  limited  to  rejected  food  waste  in  all   I 
its  forms,  and  will  be  so  employed  by  the  author  in  referring  to  ' 
waste. 

In  some  sections  of  the  country  waste  is  not  separated  except 
by  excluding  ashes.  Indianapolis  provides  that  the  word  garbage 
shall  be  taken  to  mean  all  organic  household  waste,  offal,  animal 
or  vegetable  matter,  such  as  has  been  prepared  for  or  intended 
to  serve  as  food,  and  in  addition  shall  be  construed  to  mean  other 
industrial  refuse,  such  as  paper,  cans,  bottles,  discarded  tin  ware, 
iron,  and  other  similar  material,  excepting  ashes,  household  sweep- 
ings and  sweepings  from  stores,  business  houses  and  apartments. 
Though  this  wording  is  doubtful,  it  is  assumed  that  sweepings 
and  ashes  are  removed  separately. 

"Refuse"  includes  all  combustible  matters  like  wood,  paper, 
straw,  rags,  mattresses,  broken  furniture,  house  sweepings,  dis- 
carded clothing  of  all  kinds;  also  glass,  iron,  tin  cans,  crockery, 
and  the  miscellaneous  collection  not  comprised  under  garbage, 
ashes  or  street  sweepings. 

"Ashes"  includes  the  household  ashes  from  all  varieties  of 
coal  and  wood,  but  not  steam  or  factory  ashes  from  boilers  or  the 
large  furnaces  in  hotels  and  trade  and  manufacturing  establish- 
ments. 

"Excreta"  When  there  are  no  sewers,  the  night-soil  contained 
in  vaults  and  cesspools  must  for  sanitary  reasons  be  removed 
periodically.  This  is  usually  done  by  the  license  method,  the 
contractor  for  the  work  providing  a  suitable  excavating  apparatus, 
and  sealed  tanks  or  barrels  for  transportation.  The  cost  of  re- 
moval is  paid  by  the  property  owner  under  a  sliding  scale  of 
charges  fixed  by  the  town,  and  disposal  is  usually  made  outside 
the  city  limits  by  dumping  or  burying,  sometimes  by  composting. 

The  final  disposition  of  this  very  dangerous  matter  should  be 
under  the  strict  superintendence  and  frequent  inspection  of  town 


16     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

health  officers,  and  should  not  be  left  to  the  convenience  or  caprice 
of  the  contractor. 

Too  often  its  insanitary  disposal  on  ground  draining  into  the 
water  supply  of  the  town  has  been  accompanied  by  disastrous 
epidemics  of  typhoid  fever,  as  witnessed  by  the  outbreaks  of 
this  disease  at  Plymouth  and  Butler,  Pa. ;  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  and 
Columbus,  Ohio. 

Excreta  are  sometimes  composted  with  earth  or  manures,  and 
many  attempts  have  been  made  to  manufacture  a  commercial 
product  called  "Poudrette"  by  a  process  of  drying  the  excreta 
and  mixing  with  marl  and  other  substances,  but  the  offensive 
character  of  the  material,  together  with  its  uncertain  value  in 
comparison  with  other  fertilizers  of  standard  composition,  has 
made  the  method  unprofitable. 

In  one  or  two  places  where  the  collection  of  night-soil  is  done 
under  the  direct  charge  of  the  town,  the  large  returns  received 
have  paid  for  the  cost  and  left  a  surplus  to  apply  to  the  general 
expense  of  other  waste  collection. 

Night-soil  can  be  disposed  of  by  fire  in  specially  constructed 
furnaces,  and  many  thousands  of  barrels  of  this  waste  have  been 
and  are  now  thus  destroyed  annually.  The  removal  of  excreta  by 
a  sewerage  system  is  a  separate  department  of  municipal  work, 
independent  of  the  disposal  of  other  wastes. 

The  statistics  of  collection  and  disposal  of  night-soil  are  re- 
ported from  36  cities  by  Prof.  A.  Prescott  Folwell,  secretary  of 
the  American  Society  of  Municipal  Improvements,  in  the  Munici- 
pal Journal  and  Engineer,  of  New  York,  July  i,  1908.  This  in- 
formation was  obtained  for  the  benefit  of  the  members  of  the 
society  and  includes  reports  from  eight  cities  of  the  first  class, 
six  of  the  second,  seventeen  of  the  third,  and  five  of  the  fourth 
class,  and  is  condensed  in  the  table  following : 

The  amount  of  night-soil  removed  depends  entirely  upon  local 
conditions  and  the  sewerage  systems  in  each  place.  In  this  table 
the  yearly  quantities  vary  from  3,000  barrels  in  one  place  to  492,- 
ooo  barrels  from  another  city.  The  expense  of  removal  is  almost 
invariably  a  charge  upon  the  property  owner,  the  frequency  of 
removal  depending  upon  conditions,  usually  once  a  year  and 
within  certain  months.  The  cost  is  usually  fixed  by  ordinance, 
and  varies  from  33^  cents  to  75  cents  per  barrel  of  from  36  to 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


NTROL  OF 
REMOVAL 


F  CONSIDERED 
SATISFACTORY 


EXPENSE 
BORNE 
BY 


SJ9DIJJO     }i 


9UOQ  9q 


ON 


sjapjoqasnojj 


) 


fspjJBg  Xg 


i3  Xg 


00  NO  »>- 


i8    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

45  gallons.  When  no  regulations  are  made  as  to  cost,  the  con- 
tractor makes  his  own  agreement.  The  control  of  the  vault 
cleaning  service  is  under  inspection  of  the  city  officers  or  boards 
of  health.  The  final  disposition,  if  outside  the  city  limits,  re- 
ceives but  limited  attention,  unless  complaints  are  made  by  ad- 
joining townships. 

"Dead  Animals  and  Offal"  In  nearly,  every  one  of  the  larger 
towns  the  carcasses  of  larger  animals,  such  as  horses,  cattle, 
swine  and  sheep,  are  taken  by  private  parties  who  conduct  render- 
ing works  which  are  not  directly  under  the  control  of  the  town 
except  as  concerning  the  sanitary  operation  of  the  plant.  A 
payment  is  usually  made  by  the  town,  or  by  the  owner  of  the  dead 
animal,  for  its  removal  by  the  rendering  company  in  a  special 
wagon  built  for  the  purpose. 

By  various  processes  the  carcasses  are  converted  into  many 
forms  of  commercial  articles  or  substances  which  afford  a  reve- 
nue. Smaller  animals,  such  as  dogs,  cats,  rats,  etc.,  are  not  usually 
thus  treated.  They  go  with  the  ashes  to  the  dumps  or  with  the 
night-soil  for  burial.  Where  crematory  furnaces  are  installed, 
these  carcasses  are  burned  with  the  waste,  and  where  there  are  no 
rendering  plants  the  carcasses  of  the  larger  animals  are  also  easily 
disposed  of  in  this  manner.  Sometimes  the  collection  and  dis- 
posal of  large  dead  animals  is  a  part  of  the  general  contract  for 
disposal  of  garbage,  but  it  is  usually  a  separate  contract. 

Condemned  animal  food,  market  and  butcher  shop  offal,  and 
all  miscellaneous  animal  refuse  are  also  disposed  of  by  the  private 
rendering  companies  without  cost  to  the  town.  Generally  every 
remnant  of  animal  life  can  be  utilized  in  one  form  or  another  by 
various  economical  means. 

"Street  Sweepings,"  while  included  under  the  general  term  of 
municipal  waste,  are  not  in  usual  practice  collected  or  disposed 
of  except  by  the  town  itself,  separately  from  the  other  wastes, 
and  they  are  not  included  in  the  contracts  for  collection  and 
disposal  of  household  wastes. 

Trade  and  Industrial  Wastes. — There  are  many  kinds  of  trade 
and  industrial  wastes  which  are  not  generally  included  in  munici- 
pal disposal  work,  but  which  are  still  under  control  of  the  town 
and  are  sometimes  provided  for  by  its  agency. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  19 

When  small  in  amount  and  organic  in  character,  requiring  fre- 
quent removal,  the  town  sometimes  comes  to  the  aid  of  the 
factory,  or  the  merchant,  and  makes  disposal  of  the  waste  by  its 
own  means,  for  a  fixed  sum.  When,  however,  the  weight  or 
volume  of  the  waste  is  large,  and  the  material  is  of  inorganic 
character,  means  are  often  provided  by  the  town  for  its  trans- 
portation and  final  disposition  by  enlarging  its  own  equipment, 
and  it  then  receives  payment  pro  rata  for  the  quantity  handled. 
In  such  cases  the  cost  of  the  work  is  a  matter  of  private  agree- 
ment, the  town  performing  its  duty  by  publicly  assisting  a  private 
enterprise  for  the  common  good  of  the  community.  But  the 
point  at  which  municipal  control  ceases  and  private  responsibility 
begins  is  uncertain  and  indefinite  and  the  fruitful  source  of  much 
trouble. 

In  some  localities  the  right  to  have  waste  removed  by  the 
town  is  determined  by  the  number  of  persons  or  families  in  the 
building  or  buildings;  or  again,  the  volume  of  waste  must  not 
be  over  a  stated  amount;  or  only  certain  kinds  of  waste,  strictly 
defined,  may  be  removed.  Manifestly,  for  a  town  to  favor  a 
private  individual  or  corporation,  by  the  removal  and  disposal  of 
private  refuse  without  a  return  of  some  sort,  is  an  injustice  to 
the  rest  of  the  community,  and  an  exercise  of  arbitrary  power 
which  should  not  be  permitted. 

As  a  rule,  all  classes  of  private  trade  and  industrial  waste,  and 
household  waste  of  all  kinds  above  a  certain  fixed  quantity,  must 
be  removed  and  disposed  of  at  the  cost  and  risk  of  the  parties 
concerned,  and  not  through  the  agency  of  the  town,  unless  pay- 
ment be  made  of  the  cost  of  the  work  so  performed.  But  the 
town  is  expected  to  furnish  ground  for  dumping,  or  other  satis- 
factory means  for  the  disposal  of  all  waste,  when  collection  is 
made  by  private  agency. 

QUANTITIES  AND  PROPORTIONS  OF  WASTE. 

It  has  been  very  difficult  to  give  accurate  data  determining 
the  quantities  of  waste  materials  from  American  towns.  Until 
the  last  three  years  there  has  been  little  attention  paid  to  the  tabu- 
lation of  amounts,  and  hardly  any  effort  made  to  fix  the  relative 
proportions  of  each  class  or  give  the  seasonal  variations.  But 
the  investigations  lately  made  by  commissions  and  engineers  in 
some  of  the  larger  cities  have  shown  the  value  of  accurate  details 


2o     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

in  this  direction,  and  by  their  assistance  the  towns  are  better  able 
to  say  exactly  with  what  amounts  they  are  dealing,  and  to  govern 
their  costs  of  collection  and  disposal  accordingly. 

The  study  of  this  question,  in  respect  to  amounts  and  propor- 
tions, made  in  New  York  by  the  commission  appointed  by  Mayor 

TABLE    II.— AREAS    AND    POPULATIONS    OF    THE    FIVE    BOROUGHS   OF 
NEW    YORK    CITY. 


BOROUGHS 

Area  in 
vSquare 
Miles 

PoPULATIONf 

1904 

1905 

1906 

Manhattan  
The  Bronx  

22  .00 
40  .  50 
77-50 

130  .00 

57-25 

2,060,041 
3OI,l6l 
1,349,129 

199-359 
74,969 

2,112,528 
326,324 
1,394,766 
210,949 
76,956 

2,165,015 
351,487 

1,440,403 
222,539 

78,943 

Brooklyn  

Queens                      

Richmond  
Greater  New  York.  . 

327-25 

3,984,659 

4,121,523 

4-258,387 

tCalculated  from  United  States  Census  of  1900,  using  same  rate  of  increase  as  between 
1890  and  1900. 

TABLE    III.— QUANTITIES    BY    CART    LOAD,    NEW    YORK    CITY. 


TOTAL  REFUSE 


1904 

1905 

1906 

Manhattan  : 
The  Bronx: 
Brooklyn  : 
Queens: 
Richmond  : 

New  Yc 

Number  of  cart  loads  .  .  . 
Number  of  cart  loads  .  .  . 
Number  of  cart  loads  .  .  . 
Number  of  cart  loads  .  .  . 
Number  of  cart  loads  .  .  . 

1,928,946 
163,170 
7J4  995 

1,998,820 
178,529 
740,755 
89,756 
64,400 

2,130,646 
182,640 
.  738,058 
125,122 
72,979 

>rk  City                       

3,072,260 

3,249  445 

TABLE    IV.— QUANTITIES   BY  VOLUME,    NEW   YORK   CITY. 


1904 

1905 

1906 

Manhattan  : 
The  Bronx  : 
Brooklyn  : 
Queens: 
Richmond  • 

New  Y< 

Volume  in  cubic  yards  .  . 
Volume  in  cubic  yards  .  . 
Volume  in  cubic  yards  .  . 
Volume  in  cubic  yards  .  . 
Volume  in  cubic  yards 

5,009,179 

405,424 
1,930,082 

5  oio  607 

435,453 
2,081,200 

215,  711 
96,600 

5,422,643 

452,439 
2,059,188 

3J5-9C9 
109,469 

Drk  City 

7-839-571 

8,359,648 

TOTAL  REFUSE 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


21 


George  B.  McClellan,  consisting  of  Messrs.  H.  De  B.  Parsons, 
Rudolph  Hering  and  Samuel  Whinery,  engineers  of  high  stand- 
ing and  practical  acquaintance  with  the  subject,  is  undoubtedly 
the  most  comprehensive  yet  published. 

The  report  made  by  these  gentlemen  deals  with  the  quantities 
and  proportions  of  waste  in  the  five  boroughs  of  Greater  New 
York  for  a  period  of  three  years. 

TABLE  V.— QUANTITIES    BY  WEIGHT,    NEW   YORK    CITY. 


TOTAL  REFUSE 

1904 

!9°5 

1906 

Manhattan  : 
The  Bronx: 
Brooklyn: 
Queens: 
Richmond  : 

Weight  in  tons  
Weight  in  tons  
Weight  in  tons  
Weight  in  tons 

1,933,982 

165,529 
629,144 

2,021,500 
181,861 
648,169 
83,823 
60,656 

2,146,453 
185,297 
645,925 
115,964 

65,543 

Weight  in  tons  

New  York  Citv.  . 

2  .OO6.OOO 

3.1  SO.I82 

TABLE   VI.— AVERAGE  WEIGHTS  OF   REFUSE,   NEW  YORK   CITY. 


KINDS  OF  REFUSE 

*Man- 
hattan 
and  The 
Bronx 

*  Brook- 
lyn 

Queens 

*Rich- 
mond 

Average  weight  per  cart  load  in  Ibs.  : 
Garbage  
Ashes  

2,037 

2    172 

t2,037 

i  ,o  t;o 



i,398 
i  800 

Rubbish 

I   O  ^O 

i  126 

•3  OO 

Street  sweepings 

2    O32 

i  ^8 

^U«J 

2    7OO 

Average  cubic  yards  per  cart  load  : 
Garbage  

i   8q 

ti   85 

I      <%O 

Ashes 

2     OO 

I      ?O 

Rubbish 

7-3  i 

7-2  I 

j.  .  $<j 
I      ^O 

Street  sweepings  .  . 

2     OO 

2     OO 

I      'CO 

Average  weight  per  cu.  yd.,  Ibs.  : 
Garbage  

1,1  IO 

"j"I,IOO 

032 

Ashes      .    . 

I   086 

07  ^ 

I    2OO 

Rubbish  

143 

I  54 

2OO 

Street  sweepings  

i  o  1  6 

760 

I    8OO 

Average  weight  per  cu.  yd.,  tons: 
Garbage  
Ashes 

o-55o 

O     ^4.3 

to-  55° 
o  488 

o  .466 

Rubbish 

O    O7  2 

O    O7  7 

Street  sweepings  

o  .  508 

0.385 

o  .  900 

*From  measurements. 

|No  figures  given;  taken  the  same  as  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx. 


22     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


TABLE     VII.— WEIGHT     OF     REFUSE     PER     CAPITA     IN     POUNDS,     BY 
BOROUGHS,   NEW  YORK  CITY. 


Garbage 

Ashes 

'Rubbish 

Street 
Sweep- 
ings 

Total 
Ref- 
use 

Manhattan  .    . 

217 

i  327 

108 

•7  -5  O 

i  082 

The  Bronx  
Brooklyn  

119 
14  c 

708 
406 

5i 
88 

I76 

168 

1,054 
807 

Queens 

I  02 

C44 

61 

2  A.  Z 

I   O4.2 

Richmond  

2  «;6 

<;6i 

40 

804 

i  661 

New  York  City  

184 

940 

93 

267 

1,484 

TABLE   VIII.— PER    CAPITA    AVERAGES   OF   YEARS    1904,    1905  AND  190«, 
NEW   YORK    CITY. 


Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Street 
Sweep- 
ings 

Total 
Ref- 
use 

181 

076 

O3 

260 

I.J.7O 

To  carry  these  reports  still  further  and  determine  the  composi- 
tion of  the  several  parts  of  the  waste,  and  the  seasonal  variations, 
the  tables  made  by  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  of  the  West  New 
Brighton  District,  Borough  of  Richmond,  are  added : 

TABLE     IX.— COMPOSITION     OF     HOUSEHOLD     REFUSE     BY    WEIGHT, 
DISTRICT   OF    WEST    NEW    BRIGHTON. 


FROM  MECHANICAL  ANALYSIS 

1 

o 

4-> 

0) 

E 

o> 

»rj 

GARBAGE 

MONTH 

z 

G 

a 
u 

*c3 

O 

Ashes  and 
Percentage 

Garbage 
Percentage 

Fine  ash 
Percentage 

Clinker 
Percentage 

Glass,  Met 
Percentage 

Coal  and 
Percentage 

Vegetable 
Percentage 

Animal 
Percentage 

Free  Water 
Percentage 

Rubbish 
Percentage 

1906 

January  

83-5 

16.5 

40.5 

i  .4 

3-1 

34-7 

14-3 

0.6 

0.7 

4-7 

February.  . 

87.6 

12  .4 

40-3 

i-3 

3-4 

38-3 

10  .9 

0.4 

o-3 

5-i 

March 

86.0 

Id.    O 

42   6 

I  .  2 

•2       I 

•2  C  .    C 

12.2 

o  .  5 

0.6 

4  •  3 

April  

79-3 
78.7 

AiT    *  w 

20-7 
21.3 

i^t,    .  w 

40.8 
37-7 

I  .O 

0.6 

O 

3-2 

5-7 

O  J     J 

31-5 
31.8 

17.9 
l8.7 

0.8 
0.7 

0.8 
0.7 

t  •  o 

4.0 
4.1 

May  

June  

71.9 

28.1 

So  .  7 

ii  .  i 

8-4 

16.2 

24  .4 

I  .0 

i  .4 

6.8 

July  

58.3 

41.7 

'3.8 

0.8 

9.0 

12.6 

36.3 

1.6 

i-7 

14.2 

August  

54-3 

45-7 

20  .O 

o-5 

10  .9 

9.0 

39-7 

1-7 

2  .0 

16.2 

September.. 

So    5 

49.1 

21.7 

0.6 

8-5 

7-7 

42.5 

1.9 

2  .2 

14.9 

1905 

October  .  .  . 

60.  i 

39-9 

29  .O 

3-5 

6.6 

iS-2 

3°-9 

3-1 

i-5 

IO  .2 

November  . 

71  .4 

28.6 

31.8 

0.7 

5-2 

30.8 

22.6 

1.8 

I  .0 

6.1 

December  . 

76.6 

23-4 

34-4 

0.9 

3-1 

34-6 

19.6 

i  .1 

0.8 

5-5 

Averages  . 

73  -3 

26.7 

34-7 

1.8 

4.8 

26.7 

22.6 

I  .2 

i  .  i 

7-1 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


OK»  O  0\  0  00 


suox 


z\ 
jo  a3Biuaoja<i 


spjBA  ojqno 


lO  ON  •*  W  "1  N   r^vo   TJ-  «*5O   -<r 

M  ON  M  «  w  O  t-  1^-00  OS  O  M 


06  «>.    \o  0  0    t-oo  0  0000 


1 1^  W  O  HI   N   ON  "frvO  O   000 


8    M" 


jo 


.  o> 

M 
.     «*> 


F^OX 


jo  aSB^uaoaaj 


00.  0 


II 


O  O  00  t>»  C\  M  I^vO  f1*  W   T 

6d»wo*6od444        ^*oo 


jo 


suox 


«  HI  N  ro  O  ^f\O  1^  O\ 
\O*^t^t^O»tONMN 
ONOO  O  ONOO  «»  ^  ^  •V 


M  i«  m  <*5  rf  t^  ovoo  fO     M  O  r- 

'  tij/ioovd  ro  osoo  10         \d  N  \d 

0000  r»  »»  t^^O  \O  \O  ^O  t-  *-• 


jo 


24    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


The  following  table  of  quantities  of  garbage  only,  collected  in 
the  city  of  Syracuse  (population  115,000)  for  four  years,  is  in- 
tended to  give  a  basis  for  comparison  from  a  city  where  this  waste 
has  been  accurately  recorded  for  disposal  by  reduction  process : 

TABLE  XI.— GARBAGE  COLLECTION,  SYRACUSE,  N.  Y.,  FOR  FOUR 

YEARS,    1904-1907. 


MONTH 

To 

NS 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

January  
February  
March  
April  

S31  -40 
508.05 
582.70 
560  .  79 

690  .40 

559-23 
622  .62 
619  .  55 

694-73 
636  .96 
730.16 

675  .  57 

938.70 

636-55 
686.25 

770  .  32 

May 

546  02 

736.20 

728  03 

860   o^ 

June 

710  .44 

811  .7s 

704  .  80 

832  .  <;<? 

July  . 

664.83 

733  .45 

781  .  15 

970  .  80 

August  

865.66 

921  .85 

1,002  .  65 

I  023  .  50 

September 

i  090  62 

I    112     OO 

aSs   66 

I    080     12 

October 

748   36 

886  65 

i  088   07 

I  OQ4    Q3 

November 

736  oo 

861    1  5 

i  o  <c8    73 

031  .  8  1; 

December  .  .        

m.  IO 

701  .  <?  5 

896  .  30 

798  .  60 

Totals  

8,279  -°° 

9,257  .00 

9,985   oo 

10,634  .  oo 

Average  per  week 

T  SO  .  2 

178.0 

192  .  o 

204  .  5 

"    day  
Maximum  per  month.  .  .  . 

26.5 
41  .9 

29.7 
42  .8 

32.0 
40.3 

34-o 
40-5 

COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE,  BOSTON. 

In  August,  1907,  Mayor  John  F.  Fitzgerald,  of  Boston,  Mass., 
appointed  a  commission  to  report  upon  the  current  conditions  of 
the  waste  collection  and  disposal  service  of  the  city,  and  to 
formulate  recommendations  for  future  action.  The  commission 
comprised  .  Prof.  Sedgwick,  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology;  Mr.  X.  H.  Goodnough,  chief  engineer  of  the  State 
Board  of  Health,  and  Mr.  W.  Jackson,  city  engineer.  The  pre- 
liminary report  upon  the  quantities  and  proportions  and  disposal 
means 'for  the  several  city  districts  is  contained  in  a  paper  entitled 
"The  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse/'  presented 
by  Mr.  Goodnough  before  the  Sanitary  Section  of  the  Boston 
Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  January  i,  1908  (Journal  of  the 
Association;  of  Engineering  Societies,  May.  1908,  Vol.  XL.,  No. 
5). 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  25 

This  excellent  report  comes  at  an  opportune  moment,  and  is 
herewith  condensed  for  purposes  of  examination  and  comparison. 

The  collection  and  disposal  of  municipal  waste  in  Boston  is 
carried  on  by  a  separate  bureau  called  the  Sanitary  Department, 
which  is  unler  the  control  of  the  Commissioner  of  Streets. 

The  city  is  divided  into  ten  districts,  the  boundaries  of  which 
follow  in  part  the  natural  topographic  divisions  and  in  part  the 
original  boundaries  of  former  municipalities  which  have  been 
annexed  to  the  city  at  various  times.  These  districts  and  the 
population  of  each  are  as  follows : 


District  No.     i 
District  No.     2 
District  No.    3 
District  No.    4 
District  No.     5 
District  No.     6 
District  No.     7 
District  No.     8 
District  No.     9 

South  Boston  
East  Boston  
Charlestown  
Brighton  
West  Roxbury  
Dorchester  
Roxbury  
South  End  
Back  Bay  

Population 
71,000 
.......        5!,ooo 
40,000 
22,000 

37.00° 
89,000 
109,000 

\   103,000 

District  No.  10 

North  and  West  Ends  

73,000 

Total 

CQ  c  ooo 

Pooulation. 

census  of  IOCK.  . 

595,380 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  IN  THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON. 

In  the  city  of  Boston  the  principal  municipal  wastes  requiring 
disposal  fall  into  six  general  classes : 

1.  Ashes,  including  house  and  store  dirt. 

2.  House  offal. 

3.  Combustible  waste  and  rubbish. 

4.  Market  refuse. 

5.  Street  cleanings. 

6.  Cesspool  and  catch  basin  cleanings. 

With  the  exception  of  No.  3,  the  above  divisions  apply  to  all 
parts  of  the  city.  The  third  item,  combustible  waste  and  refuse, 
is  known  as  the  third  separation  and  represents  an  attempt  to 
•keep  separate  from  the  other  wastes  materials  which  if  dumped 
into  the  harbor  are  likely  to  float  ashore.  It  applies  to  that  por- 
tion of  the  city  lying  north  of  Massachusetts  Avenue,  but  does 
not  include  Charlestown  and  East  Boston. 

COLLECTION  OF  WASTES. 

House  Dirt  and  Ashes. — At  the  present  time  213  single  and  20 
double  carts  are  used  for  collecting  house  dirt  and  ashes  in  all 


26    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

parts  of  the  city.  All  of  the  carts  are  of  wood,  are  fitted  with 
canvas  covers  and  so  constructed  that  their  contents  can  be  readily 
dumped.  This  class  of  material  is  collected  by  the  employees  of 
the  Sanitary  Department  except  in  the  districts  of  Dorchester 
and  West  Roxbury.  In  Dorchester  all  this  work  is  done  by  con- 
tractors, while  in  West  Roxbury  less  than  one-third  of  the  total 
quantity  of  ashes  is  collected  by  contractors. 

House  Offal. — About  138  carts  are  used  for  collecting  house 
offal  throughout  the  city.  Fifty-seven  are  iron— 40  of  which 
have  a  capacity  of  about  50  cubic  feet  each,  while  17  have  a  ca- 
pacity of  about  80  cubic  feet  each.  Of  the  81  wooden  carts  in  use, 
7  are  large  carts,  having  a  capacity  of  about  80  cubic  feet  and 
the  remainder  are  small  ones,  having  a  capacity  of  40  cubic  feet. 
All  of  the  carts,  with  the  exception  of  those  last  mentioned — 
the  small  wooden  ones — are  covered  with  wooden  or  canvas  covers 
so  arranged  that  the  carts  can  be  readily  dumped.  The  small 
wooden  carts  are  emptied  by  shoveling  out  the  offal. 

Waste  and  Rubbish. — The  collection  of  this  class  of  refuse  is 
done  entirely  by  employees  of  the  Sanitary  Department,  most  of 
the  material  collected  being  delivered  at  an  incinerator  plant  on 
Hecht  Wharf  near  Atlantic  Avenue.  There  are  56  carts  used  in 
this  work.  Thirty-four  of  these  have  a  capacity  of  109  cubic  feet 
each,  while  the  remainder  will  hold  double  this  amount.  All  the 
carts  are  of  wood  and  are  fitted  with  canvas  covers.  They  are 
not  so  arranged  that  they  can  be  dumped.  The  material  has  to 
be  removed  by  hand  through  doors  in  the  rear  of  the  carts. 

Street  Cleanings. — Street  cleanings  are  collected  by  the  Street 
Department,  which  uses  104  carts  in  this  work.  They  have  a 
capacity  of  about  50  cubic  feet  each,  are  made  of  wood  and  are 
not  covered.  Sixty-eight  of  the  carts  are  owned  by  the  city  and 
the  remainder  are  hired.  Part  of  the  work,  that  in  Brighton  and 
West  Roxbury,  is  in  charge  of  the  Street  Paving  Department.  ' 

Cesspool  and  Catch-basin  Cleanings. — Cesspool  and  catch-basin 
cleanings  are  collected  by  the  Sewer  Department,  and  during  the 
year  1906  42  carts,  22  single  and  20  double  were  in  use  at  one 
time  or  another  on  this  work.  Of  the  single  teams,  16  belong 
to  the  city  and  6  were  hired  from  contractors,  while  of  the 
double  teams,  i  is  owned  by  the  city  and  19  by  contractors.  The 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          27 

double  wagons  are  all  of  wood,  and  are  fitted  with  wooden  covers, 
but  part  of  the  single  wagons  owned  by  the  city  are  in  the  form 
of  a  half-cylinder  fitted  with  covers  so  arranged  that  the  material 
can  be  easily  dumped.  The  half-cylinder  carts  have  a  capacity  of 
about  30  cubic  feet,  while  the  larger  wooden  carts  hold  35  cubic 
feet. 

FREQUENCY  OF  COLLECTION. 

House  dirt  and  ashes  are  collected  either  once  or  twice  a  week; 
during  the  winter  time  and  only  once  a  week  in  summer.  Paper 
and  rubbish  are  collected  chiefly  on  Mondays  and  Thursdays,  in 
the  portion  of  the  city  north  of  Dover  Street,  and  on  Wednesdays 
and  Saturdays  in  the  remaining  districts.  In  the  districts  of  the 
city  where  there  is  no  third  separation,  such  material  is  mixed 
with  the  ashes. 

House  offal  is  removed  from  the  dwelling  houses,  as  a  rule, 
once  a  week  in  the  winter  and  twice  a  week  in  the  summer,  ex- 
cept in  the  Back  Bay,  where  it  is  removed  twice  a  week  through- 
out the  entire  year,  while  in  the  business  portion  of  the  city — 
Districts  8,  9  and  10 — the  large  hotels  and  restaurants  are  visited 
daily. 

The  following  tables  indicate  that  the  quantity  of  ashes  and 
house  dirt  per  capita  collected  daily  throughout  the  city  was 
greatest  in  the  North  and  West  Ends  and  in  the  South  End  and 
Back  Bay,  the  districts  which  include  the  business  portions  of  the 
city  and  the  larger  hotels.  Next  to  these  districts,  the  quantity 
was  greatest  in  the  suburban  residential  districts  of  Brighton  and 
West  Roxbury.  Practically  all  of  the  combustible  waste  and 
rubbish  is  collected  in  the  downtown  districts. 

The  quantity  of  garbage  is  greatest  per  person  in  the  South 
End  and  Back  Bay,  Districts  8  and  9,  and  next  largest  in  the 
North  and  West  Ends,  District  10,  the  districts  of  the  great 
hotels.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  quantity  of  garbage  collected  in 
East  Boston  is  much  greater  per  capita  than  that  collected  in 
South  Boston  or  Charlestown.  The  explanation  offered  is  that 
East  Boston,  being  a  very  large  shipping  point,  contains  a  large 
floating  population  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  the  district, 
including  sailors  and  employees  of  vessels,  not  recorded  in  the 
census. 


28     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


OQ 

dl 

<0^ 

z»S 


50? 

pi 

^oj: 

WlU< 

SE^ 


*? 

K« 

zo 

Or- 

si 

m< 


xu 

111 

J 

00 


II 

M^S*  5 

S33S  S 

•*-•          <N             V 

t 

|fc5§8  J 

r 

a  ,  oo  <*>    , 

O^JOCN      CO 

|~ 

$ 

&>> 

—  10  OCN      00 

SSSM'g 

JS2SIS 

O^MSIO' 

SSSS  s 

g^^^l^ 

^^5^12 

II 

«  3  [2 

>o"     M"       oe 

\O        M"           00 

,"     M        a 

oo"     M       a 

a     M        ~- 

«"-  ! 

rtV 

oc  a  5?    »c 

VO  00  00  00   1C 
rfOCNO  \V 

£S£§  8 

,  <N  O  CN      **. 

00  -OO  O     , 

§2  =  1  S 

(N  OO  ,  *-_  | 

H 

w 
u 

PH 

4° 

^^2    |S 

IOMM                  t^ 

WMM           JOC 

,MM       a 

0—         | 

CJ 

5 

S3 

8S§2  S? 

0,00   , 

838SS 

agggg 

OCNO  O    CN 

IO  CN  to  vO      OO 

||S5I 

|l 

«^2 

SIoS      1  a 

CN 

CN  *"                  »O 

1*     5 

S«*     3 

%**>             C? 

,W«         | 

x        . 

< 

September 

October 

November 

December 

•  '•  «     ; 

• 

,,000    a 

aSSS  la 

•    •  3     « 

|I 

a.^S™    S 

CN 

M 

00          CN             M 

M 

JM 

ll!|l 

o 

§3 

SS^M        § 

M^^M    a 

O^M       ^ 

§33:2  § 

a^o£  la 

|£ 

: 

M                                  M 

M                                  M 

M                                       M 

~ 

*~~~\« 

1 

$!b 

-55-      00 

°°fVl'-.™        ^ 

S^MM       § 

3ao£    a 

aoooo  U 

S 

& 

:                        0 

52M-IS 

SMM"|S 

«M^             |, 

CJ 

&* 

O  f>O  O      tr. 

OOPOO    00 
vOroOO     •* 

O*OOO     >C 

SS2SI2 

828S       S 

8^8§l^ 

II 

M'tNtCvd      « 

5SS"     S 

5SS<02 

SO.O,, 

gSS^|| 

|:   :    : 

OCN  o  O 

M            MM 

:  :  :  . 

:  :  :  : 

k               v 

:  :  :  : 

:  ;  :  :    : 

k    1 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse  .  . 

Total... 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse  .  . 

Total... 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse  .  . 

,  Total  . 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse  .  . 

Total.... 

ur 

Ashes  ........ 
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse  .  . 

Total  .  .  . 

o 

i—  > 

1 

1 

| 

I 

i 

, 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS 


, 

H 

CO 

z 

&i 

—  CM  10 

00       ^ 

8 

OCMO—     g 

OCMOCM' 

8 

^  tMlO  — 

8 

CM  CM  »r>  —    o 

00—0 

SCMCJ-     g 

8«j2|i 

fi 

0 

tn 

<5     >» 

II 

Q 

z 

ft|o 

«=.-'-0 

O  —  oo  O    O 

0-00- 

S 

.0-000 

0 

o  —  ooo   o 

0-000     — 

II 

8 

.no  a 

1 

uX 

It 

-^SS 

oo 
~ 

o-sss  § 

oo 

§5^5 

g 

SSSS  ?! 

S^S    S 

S!?5^  2 

1 

-JIU 

0        -           - 

00         -            0 

s 

•0 

SE 

s 

l| 

00  O  Ol^ 

°. 
§ 

10  o  —  oo    O 

o-S""  8 

•J^OCM 

° 

8 

0^.^-0 
00  T»<10  — 

o  —  — 

i 

ZZZ-  8 

00  10  10  CM     O 
•*  —  CM  —     O 

«^  —  —          o 

CM  CM  ro  —     O 

3 
o 

i=o 

K 

Si 

O  00  O  O 

00 

s 

85:S§  £: 

8S8S 

c^ 

o  o  o  o 

2 

SS82  5 

SSSSIS 

—  00  O  O     •* 

<|| 

6 

|l 

gSK" 

O  10  S           0 
CM                     e«J 

OC  O  —  tC 
CM 

oc 

10  C*J  O*  O 

5 

^"O'CMO      t*5* 
CM  O  vo           «0 

o  o  o  ^    t*i 

5S3-  K 

£ 

WEEKLY  G 
G  EACH  MO 
ION,  1905,  59E 

1" 

j 

September 

October 

November 

December 

g 
t 

uj  z  |— 

|ii 

*s 

00        —  ^ 

8 

g-2-  8 

g-"2*^ 

8 

gM2~ 

1 

8 

S^S-  8 

O  CMIO  —    O 

oo—O 

9 

<t? 

g 

N^ 

Oio  oo  oo 
vO  •*  00  O 

- 

GO  —  00  O      00 

r^  —  oo  O 

S 

£-000 

0 

S22S  3 

0010  OO      CM 
CM  —  00  O   '  fO 

£ 

0 

oo 

3d  & 

1 

^E? 

2?, 

SSS* 

§ 

*O  fO  C1  fO      *-*• 

???;??* 

a 

O  t  O"> 

ON 

O  ro  Oio     •* 

OCMCO  —      0 

1 

5w2 

IS 

- 

-           - 

® 

- 

~ 

Q. 

!n^ 

0 

*«•?-.  ° 

S" 

Jgo 

K 

W 

^cS 

" 

.    " 

2 

w°s 

P 

Is 

85SS 

3 

oooo 

SSS0, 

2 

8-8S  3 

8£8§  5 

o^ 

O 

II 

—  CM  r^  O 

^ 

| 

\O  OOio  so     vO 
Tf*  ir>  O          r>- 

rf*                           to 

5 

10 

-00 

0 

|88-| 

<N                       •* 

1 

«3i 

3 

^8 

:  :    : 

l[[j  ; 

1 

CO 
7-D 

;  ; 

•d 

II.—  BOSTOf 
OF  REF 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage.  .  .  . 
Market  refuse 

1 

jJi 

III! 

•g  »  S| 

Ashes  
Rubbish.  .  .  . 
Garbage  
Market  refuse 

H 

Ashes  
Rubbish.  .  .  . 
Garbage.  .  . 
Market  refuse 

1 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse 

Total. 

Ashes  
Rubbish  
Garbage  
Market  refuse 
Total.. 

|||  " 

3 

•si 

TABLE  XI 

i 

b 

£ 

.c 
g 

1 

I 

% 

1 

Average 

•5J  days  per  we 

30    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

COMPARISON  OF  QUANTITIES  OF  WASTE  AND  REFUSE  COLLECTED 
IN  THE  CITIES  OF  BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK. 

Before  leaving  the  question  of  the  quantity  of  wastes  it  will 
be  of.  interest  to  compare  the  quantities  collected  per  capita  in 
the  city  of  Boston  with  those  collected  in  the  boroughs  of  Man- 
hattan and  the  Bronx,  kindly  furnished  by  Mr.  Wm.  Mac- 
donough  Craven,  recently  Street  Commissioner  of  the  City  of 
New  York.  These  figures  are  for  ashes,  rubbish  and  garbage. 
They  show  a  very  remarkable  similarity  in  the  total  quantity  of 
such  wastes  collected  in  the  two  cities. 

METHODS  OF  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  AND  REFUSE  IN 
THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON. 

Ashes  and  House  Dirt. — Of  the  total  amount  of  466,000  tons 
of  this  material  collected  in  the  entire  city  in  the  year  1906, 
132,000  tons,  or  28  per  cent.,  were  delivered  at  Fort  Hill  wharf, 
on  Atlantic  Avenue,  discharged  into  scows  and  dumped  at  sea  off 
the  mouth  of  the  harbor.  All  of  the  remainder  of  this  waste  and 
refuse  is  disposed  of  by  dumping  it  upon  low  grounds  in  various 
parts  of  the  city. 

Combustible  Waste  and  Refuse. — Of  the  total  quantity  of  waste 
and  refuse,  so  called,  collected  in  the  city,  amounting  to  3,108,000 
cubic  feet  in  the  year  1906,  2,829,000  were  delivered  to  an  in- 
cinerator plant  on  Hecht  Wharf  and  the  remainder  deposited 
on  dumps  in  various  parts  of  the  city,  where  a  part  of  it  was 
burned. 

Garbage. — Of  the  55,700  tons  of  house  offal  collected  in  the 
entire  city  in  1906,  41,960  were  conveyed  to  scows  at  the  Fort 
Hill  and  Albany  Street  Wharves — 17,660  tons  to  the  former  and 
24,300  tons  to  the  latter — and  towed  to  the  garbage  reduction 
plant  at  Spectacle  Island.  The  remainder — 13,740  tons —  col- 
lected in  East  Boston,  Brighton,  West  Roxbury  and  Dorchester, 
was  sold  for  the  feeding  of  swine. 

During  the  past  year  the  sale  of  offal  from  Dorchester  for  the 
feeding  of  swine  has  been  discontinued,  and  this  offal  is  now 
delivered  at  Fort  Hill  Wharf.  Difficulty  has  been  experienced 
on  account  of  the  disposal  of  offal  from  East  Boston  for  the 
purpose  of  feeding  swine,  and  it  is  likely  that  that  method  of  dis- 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


IL? 
°0 


M 

z  z 

<0 

rl 


=  o 

gt 


u  o 

OU, 
Bf 

^ 

OS 

>  o 

£  UJ 

0  _l 

1  -I 
<o  o 

o 

i! 

i-z 

^d 


§ 


il 


Ul  X 

eg 

Ul  O 
=  0 

li 

fe  w 
o  o 

CO  Z 

li 

^ 

o 
u 

J 
m 

i£ 


0                         0 

.a' 

•Is 

Q                                                    1^.                                       l>.     ^                                      f—     M 

£ 

0 

£        00    MOO    M          t-  0    ro               "goO1"1"1 

10 

II 

•a  -S 

M 

'oo>      •       PI  "^            'pi00          o°°  ^ 

J**4 

1? 

~—  '     -          1010O                 MwOvM         OMO>U-> 
^       O   too               M»-                    Ov  O  I- 

U 

5c 

r»5                                                      (> 

_c 

Is    * 

'Sv                                                          °0 

'1 

&3     m 

N                           •*                  00  00                   00   tf) 

•¥ 

JS*C  v 

C  00 

jj 

0 

•y    rt    y 

rt°0         S'lCS^         MI^°*            "ovoi^1" 

rt 

O        ^ 

OO^                    M     ^  M                            f*>                           MOM 

u 

CO      W 

to                                               a 

"2 

|      ^r      o^S,      M0S!      ^oS5 

i 

i! 

1 

MO                  oo                    •* 

«• 

00                             00 

<n 

«-                           10                     O    t                     O    Oi 

.Q 

^^M         o       OOO         MOOv1"*-        MOr-O 

11 

^  ^J        O   O  t—             too  OO              too  O   M 

QQ            f*5ON                   W1OM                   1OIO^~ 

0 
| 

u 

10                                t-                                 N 

bj 

*> 

1 

il 

^5  *?         t>-        O~                vO    M'    Tt                 1*5  O    O    M 

f*5          M           M                        00                          N    10  PI 

-3 

CO                                                                  MO 

^> 

M 

CJ 

o                  o 

8 

5 

.Q                           00                     00    •*        ^        00    M 

^o      «7     «  M.      o  o  '7  <?     «7   .  "?  «? 

^ 

00 

•c 

1 

1 

s 

J  c 

^^J         •*         010         0  ro^  M          fjf^lo'r? 

6 

11 

v2  ^         to  N    O    M          TfO    f)             OO  00    Tf  M 

I1* 

6 

e»5              o                            M                           00 

M                                                                                     M 

« 

«     2;                           «     M 

si 

+*  o 

]?           P4           1OOO            PI    tO  M    PI            ^  IOO    M 

rt  w 

W  o 

PQ 

^  ^        4  fO  N              oo'  too'     '         Pi  00  00   M 

10                  PI                                 PI                                  I" 

4 

M"                                   M' 

5 

a 

.« 

r*5          O                00                        10  «~-                       10  10 

cS 

*^  o 

o? 

^  o        "        .       H.    . 

^                OtOM         OOO^O                OOvOPIM 

rt 

COpQ 

*"         °.                N                 N. 

w 

fO                                                          to 

0. 

IH 

:  :     :     :  :  1   :  :          :  :  : 

3 

o 

:  :     :     :  :|  :  :          :  :  : 

~*~ 

i 

Q 

1 

>• 

M 

•< 

irl  j-jj  :j|  j|    i    j|  :j 

I 

s 

Z 

5|c3||  g  g|l|  8  §  i  83  8§ 

1 

c2 

•C3  ^  h-JOHOn^iJOHPH^.JOHPK 

•o 

5c2w                 O                H 

10 

* 

32     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


:> 

w 

j2 

Ul 

z 

g 

o 

:"" 

o 

oo 

c. 

i 

Q 

0. 

£ 

O   M   O 

Z 

H 

^4) 

l/^   M     V) 

** 

H! 
^ 

M- 
H 

t-i              M 

Z 

3 

O    ^>  f^ 

II    II    II 

0 

w 

c 

^  *  £ 

0 

h 

CO 

0 

ffl 

0, 
cs 

1 

in 

•0 

u. 

"«    • 

o 

w    ; 

1-  0  VO 

o 

? 

(0 

^ 

•^ 

0 

^    •    • 

Ul 

05 

O 

M  00     O 

0 

P,  :  : 

K"1 

00 

o 

h 

< 

^ 

>,  '   : 

o 

O 

H 

V 

•o  j  J  | 

Ul 

fe 

K 
O 

"SJgja^ 

I 

o 

H 

"*^~  ^  ^  tO 

h 

H 

<?°s  ? 

8 

z 

H 

O 

I 

t^  w   O 

00         M 

8 

rt  ' 

M 

0 

M 

u 

Ul 

PQ 

•g 

(0 

OH 

p3 

D 

o 

u. 

M     M     M 

Ul 

T  <»5  t 

M 

1 

DC 

o 

^o'S. 

H 

M 

u.    . 
zf 

a 

•j 

U 

1 

oo" 

1 

0  - 

(X 

OLLECTI 
YORKf 

3 

8 

AVERAGE 

1 
PQ 

2p? 

00 

0   0 

0 

0_ 

00 

O 

o 

£•  M.  N 

01 

Vj 

o^° 

c  N 
o 

POSAL 

I 

« 

n 

1 

fe 

V 

S,t« 

III 

(£ 

to 

S 

|     •    • 

o 

°  X     ' 

E 

ro^  :  • 

O  00    O 

«^°    •    ' 

Ul 
(0 

D 

8 

| 
1 

2     M     S- 

X  w    '    ' 

U. 

PQ 

OH;; 

Ul 
DC 

~1  •  ^ 

Z 

••g  <  :  : 

0 

H     '     " 

h 

Q.  ^     '     • 

§ 

£|  :  : 

1 

*s  :  : 

1 

o   '.   ' 

X 

_; 

E  :  ; 

J 

-2 

o  c  . 

fl 

^    BJ      . 

TABLE 

Ashes.  .  . 
Rubbish 
Garbage 

o  2   • 
§^g 

?S-2 
SPQ 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  33 

posal  will  soon  be  discontinued  and  the  offal  from  that  district 
delivered  to  the  reduction  plant  at  Spectacle  Island. 

The  works  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  in  the  city  of  Boston 
were  originally  constructed  on  the  mainland,  and,  though  located 
more  than  a  mile  from  any  dwellings,  yet  nuisance  was  severe,  and 
the  plant  was  subsequently  removed  to  Spectacle  Island.  Ref- 
erences to  serious  nuisance  from  this  plant  in  its  present  loca- 
tion have  been  made  in  the  newspapers  during  the  past  summer. 

Street  Cleaning. — Of  the  5,850,000  cubic  feet  of  street  clean- 
ings collected  in  the  entire  city,  1,965,000  cubic  feet,  or  34  per 
cent.,  are  delivered  to  Fort  Hill  Wharf  and  dumped  at  sea.  The 
remainder  is  dumped  with  the  ashes  and  other  refuse  for  the  rill- 
ing of  low  lands. 

Catch-Basin  Cleanings. — Cesspool  and  catch-basin  cleanings 
amounted  in  1906  to  837,000  cubic  feet,  of  which  190,000  or  23 
per  cent.,  were  shipped  at  Fort  Hill  Wharf  and  dumped  at  sea, 
while  the  remainder  was  dumped  with  the  other  refuse  in  the  low 
grounds  about  the  city. 

Market  Refuse. — The  market  refuse,  amounting  to  about  8,600 
tons,  was  dumped  into  scows  at  Fort  Hill  Wharf  and  disposed  of 
at  sea.  A  considerable  quantity  of  market  refuse  is,  however,  dis- 
posed of  on  the  land  dumps  in  various  parts  of  the  city. 

DUMPING  ON  LAND. 

The  great  bulk  of  the  refuse  material  disposed  of  from  the 
city  is  dumped  upon  the  low  grounds,  and  at  the'present  time  the 
number  of  such  dumping  places  in  use  in  the  city  of  Boston  is  in 
the  neighborhood  of  60. 

The  total  number  of  loads  of  waste  and  refuse  dumped  at  these 
places  was  counted  during  certain  weeks  in  the  month  of  June, 
1907,  the  results  showing  that  at  the  largest  of  these  dumps  477 
loads  of  material  were  disposed  of  in  a  single  week.  At  the  next 
largest  dump  282  and  283  loads,  respectively,  were  disposed  of  in 
different  weeks.  At  ten  other  dumps  more  than  200  loads  per 
week  were  disposed  of,  and  at  eight  others  between  100  and  200 
loads  per  week  were  disposed  of. 

These  dumps  are  used  in  many  places  as  a  playground  by  chil- 
dren and  are  a  source  of  constant  annoyance  to  the  Health  Depart- 
ment from  foul  odors  and  especially  from  smoke  caused  by  fre- 


34     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

quent  fires.  They  are  usually  very  unsightly  and  at  times  of 
high  winds  many  acres  of  ground  are  sometimes  covered  by  flying 
debris,  chiefly  paper,  from  a  large  dump. 

OBSERVATIONS. 

This  paper  by  Mr.  Goodnough  is  particularly  valuable  because 
of  its  division  of  the  city  into  districts  with  the  population  of  each 
carefully  noted  and  the  records  of  relative  proportions  of  every 
class  of  waste  in  each  district.  It  is  also,  as  far  as  is  known,  the 
only  published  report  that  gives  reliable  data  in  regard  to  the 
quantities  of  catch-basin  cleanings  from  a  given  area.  While  this 
class  of  refuse  is  not  usually  included  in  the  waste  disposal  service, 
it  is  still  well-known  as  one  of  the  troublesome  items  with  which 
every  municipality  has  to  deal.  With  the  figures  presented, 
which  include  the  number  of  teams  and  the  labor  required,  it 
should  be  a  simple  matter  for  the  officials  of  any  town  to  make 
calculations  of  costs  according  to  the  system  desired. 

Although  this  paper  does  not  give  details  of  the  operation  of 
the  Refuse  Utilization  Station,  it  points  out  that  the  disposal  of 
light  refuse  and  rubbish  by  this  method  has  relieved  the  city  of  a 
great  volume  of  troublesome  refuse  which  formerly  caused  a  nui- 
sance by  flotation  to  adjoining  shores  when  dumped  into  the  bay. 

The  disposal  of  2,829,000  cubic  feet,  equivalent  to  104,407  cubic 
yards,  or  11,067  tons,  which  was  handled  by  the  Refuse  Disposal 
Station  in  1906,  shows  the  value  of  this  method  of  treatment  in 
strong  contrast  to  the  insanitary,  untidy  disposal  at  dumps. 

This  paper  is  an  acceptable  contribution  to  the  literature  of 
waste  disposal  in  the  New  England  States.  (Note:  House  offal 
as  here  used  means  garbage.  House  dirt  and  ashes  does  not  mean 
garbage  and  ashes,  but  other  house  refuse.  Rubbish  means  paper 
and  light  refuse.) 

GENERAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

• 

In  bringing  together  the  reports  of  the  various  commissions 
and  expert  engineers  it  has  been  the  author's  intention  to  select  the 
most  practical  information  from  all  the  available  sources.  Tables 
derived  from  reports  in  other  localities  might  be  added,  but  as 
quantities  are  contingent  upon  local  conditions  and  vary  for  many 
reasons,  a  general  recapitulation  would  be  of  little  or  no  service. 

With  the  aid  of  the  figures  given  in  the  foregoing  tables,  the 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


35 


officials  of  any  town,  after  making  due  allowances  for  local  con- 
ditions, may  obtain  a  close  estimate  of  their  quantities  of  separated 
waste,  their  special  seasonal  variations  and  some  idea  of  the  com- 
position of  each.  This  is  the  information  needed  when  new 
methods  for  disposal  are  under  consideration,  and  no  uncertain 
and  indefinite  rough  estimate  of  cart  loads  will  afford  a  clear  idea 
as  to  what  the  amounts  are  to  be  dealt  with  or  of  what  special 
character  they  may  be  composed.  Without  a  fairly  close  esti- 
mate, the  town  is  at  the  mercy  of  the  contractor,  who  proposes 
to  collect  or  dispose  of  the  waste  by  guessing  at  the  quantities — 
and  these  are  never  on  the  smaller  side — and  then  takes  a  chance 
as  to  the  equipment  he  must  provide,  and  the  capacity  of  the  in- 
cinerator he  proposes  for — and  neither  are  ever  too  large.  Be- 
tween the  two  guesses  there  is  frequently  a  wide  variation  from 
the  facts,  which  makes  trouble  for  both  parties  when  the  test 
comes  for  making  good  the  contractor's  guaranteed  figures. 

THE  COLLECTION  STATISTICS  OF  THE  GENERAL  GOVERNMENT. 

The  statistics  published  by  the  General  Government  (Depart- 
ment Commerce  and  Labor,  Census  Bureau,  1905)  contain  tabu- 
lated reports  from  154  cities  having  a  population  of  30,000  up- 
wards. These  figures  are  not  conclusive,  nor  do  they  accurately 
represent  the  conditions.  They  are  usful  as  giving  some  general 
idea  of  the  work  of  collection  and  disposal.  From  the  tables  the 
following  condensation  has  been  made  : 

TABLE  XVI.— STATISTICS  OF  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  REFUSE 
(FROM    U.   S.   CENSUS,    1905). 


CENSUS 

GARBAGE 

OTHER  REFUSE 

DISPO- 
SITION 

According  to  Population 

Not  Reported 

Collected 

Burned 

Reduced 

Otherwise  Dis- 
posed of 

Animals 

1 
1 

I 

4 
4 

7 

21 

Night  Soil 

Other  Refuse 

Disposed  of  by 
Householders 

1 
1 
1 

Group     i  —  15     cities,     with 
300,000  or  over  
Group     2  —  25     cities,     with 
100,000  to  300,000  
Group    3  —  47    cities,    50,000 
to  100  ooo.  .  . 

2 

3 

12 
21 

13 

20 

3° 
43 
1  06 

4  ' 
6 
13 
ii 

7 
5 
6 

2 

5 
ii 
ii 
28 

9 
19 
8 

27 

10 

9 
16 
18 
53 

3 
i 
5 
9 
1.8 

4 
5 
4 

5 

2 

1  1 
i 

21 

2 

3 
5 

27 

Group    4  —  67   cities,    30,000 
to  50  ooo  

154  cities  

38 

34 

2O 

55 

63 

:i8_ 

35 

36     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

As  compared  with  the  government  reports  of  1900  on  this  sub- 
ject there  is  a  great  improvement  in  conditions,  as  at  that  time 
53  places  failed  to  make  any  reports  whatever,  and  the  returns 
actually  made  were  much  less  complete  than  those  cited  above. 

SEPARATE  GARBAGE  COLLECTIONS. 

'There  are  several  reasons  for  a  separate  garbage  collection. 
The  amount  is  approximately  only  ten  to  twelve  per  cent,  of  the 
whole  bulk  of  waste,  it  is  the  most  objectionable  class,  and  it 
must  be  removed  more  frequently  than  any  other.  When  in  a 
cleanly  condition  it  may  be  utilized  in  the  reduction  process  or  fed 
to  swine.  In  most  places  the  regulations  for  separation  impose 
fines,  or  the  refusal  to  remove  the  garbage  when  it  is  mixed  with 
foreign  matters. 

In  Southern  towns  it  is  the  custom  to  collect  garbage  and 
rubbish  together.  Sometimes  ashes  and  manure  are  included,  and 
occasionally  dead  animals,  and  when  thus  mixed  the  only  practi- 
cable disposal  is  by  cremation,  or  by  burying  in  the  ground. 

In  only  a  few  of  the  larger  cities  is  the  separation  of  ashes 
from  garbage  and  rubbish  completely  accomplished.  New  York, 
Brooklyn,  Boston,  Washington  and  Buffalo  have  means  for  the 
recovery  of  the  salable  parts  of  the  rubbish,  and  other  large 
cities  are  considering  the  installation  of  rubbish  stations.  In  the 
remaining  towns  and  cities  the  ash  collection  includes  the  rubbish ; 
the  whole  is  discharged  together,  a  small  part  of  the  refuse  being 
recovered  by  dump  picking. 

Where  there  is  a  separate  collection  the  burden  of  it  comes 
upon  the  householder,  as  he  is  required  to  have  three  cans  or 
vessels  and  to  keep  them  in  accessible  places ;  he  is  also  held  re- 
sponsible for  their  cleanly  and  serviceable  condition.  The  room 
used  for  their  storage  and  the  care  exercised  in  filling  them  are 
a  considerable  tax  upon  the  patience  and  convenience  of  the  house 
occupants. 

THE  COMPOSITION  OF  GARBAGE. 

In  dealing  with  separated  garbage,  its  character  and  composi- 
tion must  be  taken  into  account.  Several  analyses  have  been 
made,  but  there  is  need  of  a  more  extended  and  accurate  quan- 
titive  anaylsis  than  any  we  now  have. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


37 


TABLE  XVII.— AVERAGE  PERCENTAGE  COMPOSITION  OF  GARBAGE. 


Waring; 
New  York 
1896 

Craven; 
New  York 
City, 
1899 

Fethers- 
ton; 
Atlantic 
City,  1901 

Hering; 
Trenton, 
1903 

Moisture  
Solids,  animal  and 
vegetable  

Per 
Cent.       Weight 
71  =  1,420  Ibs. 

20  =     400 

Per 
Cent. 

70 

25  1 

Per 
Cent. 
82 

Q    1 

Per 
Cent. 
80 

Grease  recoverable.  . 
Non-combustible.  .  .  . 

2  =       40 

7  =     140    ' 

1} 

18  } 

16 
4 

ioo  =  2,000  Ibs 

IOO 

TOO 

IOO 

Waring's  report  in  1896  was  upon  the  average  of  3,000  tons 
of  summer  garbage  from  different  cities,  treated  by  different 
methods  of  reduction.  Craven's  report,  on  one  reduction  plant, 
shows  better  methods.  Fetherston's  and  Hering's  figures  were 
from  cremation  plants,  where  nothing  of  value  was  recovered. 

The  paper  by  Mr.  B.  F.  Welton  in  the  discussion  before  the 
American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  December  18,  1907,  gives 
the  following  analysis  of  dry  samples  of  waste,  including  garbage 
representing  collections  for  the  years  1905-06  in  New  York  City : 


TABLE    XVIII.— CHEMICAL   ANALYSIS   OF   DRY   COMPOSITE   SAMPLES. 


CONSTITUENTS 

Coal 
and 
Cinders 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Percentage  by  weight  of  — 
Carbon  .  . 

r  cr    77 

A.T.     IO 

4.2     3  0 

Hydrogen  

0.71; 

6  24 

4      •  JV 
e    06 

Nitrogen  
Oxygen  

o  .64 

2.37 

3-70 

27  .  74 

3-41 

33  .  <2 

Silica  

^O  .OI 

7.  <;6 

6  .40 

Iron  oxide  and  alumina 

8   08 

O    A.  I 

2     O3 

Lime  

I     21 

426 

2     26 

Magnesia  
Phosphoric  acid  

Trace 
None 

0.28 

I  .47 

o-57 

O  .  IO 

Carbonic  acid 

None 

O     ^Q 

I    4.O 

Lead  

Trace 

f    Sulphides  1 

O     52 

Tin  

Trace 

o  20  1 

_y  •  j* 
Trace 

Alkalies  and  undetermined  

0.27 

4-45 

I  .21 

IOO  .00 

IOO  .00 

IOO  .  OO 

38     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

In  an  analysis  of  Milwaukee's  garbage  made  by  Prof.  R.  E.  W. 
Sommer,  he  found  in  dry  garbage  8.77  per  cent,  of  grease,  1.61 
per  cent,  of  nitrogen,  12.50  per  cent,  of  glucose,  and  2.31  per  cent, 
of  phosphoric  acid.  Total  combustion  gave  61.88  per  cent,  of 
ashes  and  38.12  per  cent,  of  combustible  matter.  Wet  garbage 
contained  78  per  cent,  of  water.  It  was  found  that  if  placed  to  a 
height  of  8  inches  in  a  barrel,  0.67  per  cent,  of  water  drained  off ; 
at  a  height  of  16  inches,  7.05  per  cent,  drained  off;  and  at  a  height 
of  24  inches,  9.33  per  cent,  drained  off. 

THE  WEIGHT  OF  GARBAGE. 

There  is  no  absolute  standard  of  weight  for  garbage  that  can 
be  applied  to  all  conditions.  Heretofore  it  has  been  the  practice 
to  estimate  the  average  weight  for  one  cubic  yard  from  1,500  to 
1,700  pounds.  This  includes  the  liquids  which  may  be  thus 
divided. 

(1)  The   contained  moisture   in   the  organic  composition  of   all  vege- 
table substances,  varying  according  to  the  nature  of  the  vegetable.     The 
summer  garbage  of  American  towns  during  the  melon  and  fruit  season 
carries  a  much  larger  quantity  of  liquid  elements  than  the  same  amount 
of  garbage  does  in  the  winter,  when  it  is  composed  of  the  drier  and  more 
compact  vegetable  refuse. 

(2)  The  free  water,  or  liquids  held  in  suspension  in  the  interstices  of 
the  garbage  by  capillary  attraction,  coming  from  household  cooking  and 
washing,  or  from  snow  and  rain  falling  into  the  uncovered  garbage  cans 
or  carts.  .  When  this  free  water  is  allowed  to  drain  off,  the  integral  char- 
acter of  the  garbage  is  unchanged,  but  the  weight  is  reduced. 

The  latest  examinations,  as  previously  quoted,  would  indicate 
that  the  volume  of  contained  water  in  average  city  garbage  has 
been  placed  at  too  high  a  figure.  It  seems  probable  that  the 
average  weights  of  the  liquid  elements  of  garbage  should  be 
given  as  70  per  cent.,  72^  per  cent.,  or  1,400  to  1,450  pounds  per 
ton. 

The  probabilities  are  that  there  is  an  average  of  1,450  pounds  to 
the  cubic  yard,  54  pounds  per  cubic  foot,  and  38  cubic  feet  to  the 
ton,  and  this  may  be  taken  as  representing  the  average  collection 
of  Northern  towns  where  the  garbage  contains  a  normal  pre- 
centage  of  moisture. 

If  the  free  water  (estimated  at  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent,  by 
weight)  be  omitted,  then  the  figures  would  be  1,270  pounds  per 
cubic  yard,  47  pounds  per  cubic  foot,  and  42^2  cubic  feet  per  ton. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          39 

THE  FERTILIZING  ELEMENTS  OF  RAW  GARBAGE. 

There  is  some  value  in  garbage  as  a  fertilizer  for  poor  soils,  but 
the  proportion  of  plant  food  is  less  than  is  popularly  estimated. 
The  fertilizing  values  are  approximately,  phosphoric  acid,  0.65 
per  cent.;  ammonia,  0.65  per  cent.;  potash,  0.15  per  cent.  These 
small  proportions  of  plant  food  are  present  in  the  green  garbage, 
and  when  the  application  of  this  to  the  soil  is  made  by  the  crude 
method  of  plowing  under  it  is  attended  with  difficulties  that 
are  hard  to  overcome.  It  is  strongly  advocated  by  many,  who 
argue  that  there  must  be  a  return  to  the  ground  of  organic  matter 
taken  therefrom,  to  prevent  a  possible  food  famine  in  some  far 
distant  future,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  efforts  in  this  direc- 
tion are  successful.  Many  American  towns  have  tried  this 
method,  and  nearly  all  have  abandoned  it  because  of  the  nuisance 
produced,  or  for  financial  reasons.  Large  areas  of  suitable  lands 
are  seldom  found  in  the  vicinity  of  large  towns ;  the  presence  of 
foreign  substances  in  the  garbage  is  embarrassing  and  detrimental, 
and  the  soil  so  treated  must  have  time  to  oxydize  and  assimilate 
the  garbage  before  another  dose. 

When  garbage  passes  through  the  various  stages  of  grease  ex- 
traction by  steam  or  naphtha,  pressing  and  grinding,  drying 
commonly  known  as  the  reduction  or  extraction  process,  the  fats 
are  separated  and  the  solid  portions,  called  "tankage,"  then  con- 
tain the  fertilizing  elements  in  a  concentrated  form.  This  method 
of  treatment  will  be  considered  later. 

AGRICULTURAL  UTILIZATION. 

This  method  is  used  in  all  parts  of  Europe  except  Great  Britain, 
and  the  reports  made  in  Paris  by  the  chief  engineer  in  charge  of 
this  work  are  instructive : 

In  Paris  house  refuse  is  known  as  garbage  (gadoues),  and  is  com- 
posed of  all  kitchen  refuse  and  any  remnants  produced  by  the  sweeping 
of  the  inside  of  public  properties  or  private  buildings,  not  mixed  with 
industrial  waste,  earth,  gravel  or  rubbish.  It  is  contained  in  pails  having 
a  maximum  capacity  of  thirty  gallons.  The  broken  crockery,  glass,  etc., 
are  deposited  in  separate  receptacles.  The  garbage  is  collected  by  the 
city  laborers,  and  removed  by  contractors  in  carts  of  six  cubic  metres 
(7.85  cubic  yds.),  and  sent  directly  to  the  fields  by  wagon,  rail  and  water, 
where  it  is  delivered  to  the  farmers.  The  quantity  is  six  hundred  thou- 
sand tons  yearly.  But  the  contractors  have  raised  their  bids,  because 
the  fields  on  which  it  is  possible  to  utilize  the  garbage  are  growing  fewer 
near  Paris,  and  the  suburban  towns  are  refusing  to  allow  it  to  be  de- 
posited on  their  grounds ;  and  the  farmers  are  able  to  buy  chemical  f er- 


4O     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

tilizers  at  cheap  rates,  and  will  pay  only  a  low  price  for  the  garbage- 
fertilizer,  which  requires  careful  sorting.  Without  such  sorting  their 
fields  are  strewn  with  tin  cans,  broken  crockery  and  glass,  etc.,  which  are 
dangerous  to  their  horses'  hoofs. 

To  bring  it  into  a  better  condition  for  use  by  the  farmers,  the 
garbage  is  sometimes  ground  into  a  homogenous  mass,  at  grind- 
ing stations  located  as  near  as  possible  to  the  centers  of  collection. 

This  process,  as  reported  by  M.  Tur,*  has  some  interesting  and 
novel  features : 

The  ground  garbage  looks  like  vegetable  earth,  mixed  with  bits  of 
paper  and  straw.  Its  odor  is  hardly  perceptible,  can  be  endured  for  a 
long  time,  and  may  be  removed  by  sprinkling  with  lime  water. 

The  ground  garbage  can  be  used  in  the  fields  without  giving  the  same 
trouble  as  the  original  garbage,  all  debris  troublesome  or  dangerous  to 
the  farmers  having  been  removed. 

Hygienic  considerations  do  not  seem  to  enter  into  the  question  of  the 
adoption  of  one  or  the  other  method  (utilization  or  incineration)  pro- 
vided the  agricultural  utilization  does  not  bring  the  garbage  storehouses 
near  the  inhabited  centers. 


This  method  seems  to  have  been  invented  to  overcome  the 
reluctance  of  the  farmers  to  receive  the  garbage  in  its  rough 
state,  as  "they  will  not  take  the  least  trouble  to  procure  this 
fertilizer." 

Experiments  in  incineration  showed  that  the  garbage  was  self- 
burning,  i.  e.,  that  it  would  burn  without  any  addition  of  coal, 
and  it  was"  recommended  that  there  be  installed  a  destructor  of 
the  English  type  as  near  as  possible  to  the  center  of  the  borough 
which  it  serves,  to  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  charge  for  hauling. 

The  disposal  of  refuse  in  Paris  is  complicated  by  the  existence 
of  rag-pickers,  numbering  upwards  of  25,000,  who  from  long-con- 
tinued custom  have  a  vested  right  to  first  sort  over  the  refuse. 
They  are  authorized  by  the  janitors  of  houses  to  make  the  first 
collection  from  the  pails  before  emptying,  a  second  picking  is 
being  made  while  the  carts  are  being  filled,  and  the  third  in  the 
stations  at  the  trans-shipment  of  the  garbage. 

This  method  of  grinding  up  the  refuse  to  obtain  a  class  of 
fertilizer  more  acceptable  and  better  suited  to  the  farmers'  uses 
has  been  tried  in  three  of  the  districts  of  Paris.  The  disposal  by 
incineration  in  three  other  districts  is  now  being  done  at  three 


'Proceedings  Amer.   Soc.  Civil  Engineers,   1904  International  Engineering  Congress. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  41 

destructor   plants    built    by    Meldrun    Brothers,   of    Manchester, 
England,  the  united  capacity  of  these  being  700  tons  per  day. 

These  experiments  in  the  city  of  Paris  by  opposing  methods  of 
utilization  by  preparing  the  waste  for  ground  fertilizer,  and  its 
total  destruction  by  fire,  developing  steam  power  for  various 
purposes,  will  be  watched  with  great  interest  by  other  cities  of 
Europe  where  agricultural  utilization  has  been  employed  for 
centuries.  Another  large  city  of  France,  St.  Etienne,  has  adopted 
the  destructor  system  of  the  Meldrum  Company,  and  still  others 
are  investigating  the  subject. 

DRY  REFUSE  OR  RUBBISH  COLLECTIONS. 

The  term  "refuse,"  often  used  to  designate  the  collective  mass 
of  municipal  wastage,  is  also  applied  to  any  one  particular  item 
or  part  of  the  same  mass.  The  author  has  preferred  to  follow 
the  definition  previously  given,  and  to  apply  the  word  to  the  dry 
refuse  and  rubbish,  as  distinguished  from  other  parts  of  city 
waste.  Properly  speaking,  it  should  be  used  to  designate  only 
the  very  last  stage,  or  the  ultimate  form  of  any  kind  of  worthless 
matter,  but  this  is  a  technical  definition,  and  it  is  believed  that  it 
will  be  clearer  and  less  confusing  to  employ  it  as  defining  that 
part  of  the  genuine  wastage  known  as  dry  refuse  and  not  to  use 
the  word  in  connection  with  every  form  of  waste  as  is  generally 
done. 

The  separate  treatment  of  refuse  for  the  recovery  of  its  salable  •• 
parts  has  shown  the  need  of  a  subdivision  of  the  term  "refuse." 
When  the  final  disposition  is  by  fire  the  refuse  must  be  com- 
bustible in  character,  and  after  sorting  out  the  valuable  parts  the 
remainder  can  be  easily  burned,  leaving  a  small  amount  of  ash 
that  gives  no  trouble  to  dispose  of.  But  the  non-combustible  part 
is  more  difficult  to  deal  with,  as  it  contains  for  recovery  only 
metals  and  bottles  that  can  be  sold  as  junk,  leaving  the  greater 
part  absolutely  worthless  for  any  purpose.  This  is  "rubbish," 
the  last  form  of  refuse,  and  the  final  residue  of  the  whole  collected 
mass  of  city  waste. 

This  component  (refuse)  of  city  wastage  represents  many  dif- 
ferent things  in  -different  places.  In  the  eastern  part  of  the 
country  it  is  called  dry  refuse  or  rubbish,  and  includes  all  the 
inorganic  rejected  substance  from  the  house,  except  ashes.  It 


42     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

also  frequently  comprises  out-of-door  waste,  such  as  cut  grass, 
the  sweepings  of  lawns  and  walks,  leaves,  the  branches  of 
trees,  etc.  In  the  west  it  is  also  termed  refuse  and  rubbish,  and 
is  called  collectively  "garbage."  In  the  south  it  is  "trash,"  and 
while  generally  including  nearly  every  kind  of  waste  except  garb- 
age, frequently  contains  this  also. 

There  is  no  clear  distinction  possible  except  in  cities  where 
a  separate  collection  service  has  been  established ;  it  then  becomes 
necessary  to  define  it  accurately. 

Regulations  and  ordinances  have  been  adopted  in  practically 
all  the  municipalities  of  any  size  throughout  the  country,  and 
these  differ  widely  in  various  places.  The  question  is  receiving 
serious  consideration  by  the  authorities  everywhere,  and  in  time 
there  will  undoubtedly  be  more  uniformity  in  the  laws  relating 
to  the  subject. 

The  Sanitary  Code  of  New  York  City,  probably  the  first  to 
use  definite  terms,  and  which  has  guided  most  other  places  in 
this  matter,  defines  the  separation  of  wastes  as  follows : 

CARD   OF   INSTRUCTION    FOR    HOUSEHOLDERS. 

Put  into  Garbage  Put  into  Ash  Put  into  Rubbish 

Receptacles  Receptacles  Bundles^ 

Kitchen  or  Ashes,  Sawdust,  Bottles,  Paper, 

Table  Waste,  Floor  and  Pasteboard,  etc. 

Vegetables,  Street  Sweepings,  Rags,  Mattresses, 

Meats,  Broken  Glass,  Old  Clothes,  Old  Shoes, 

Fish,  Broken  Crockery,  Leather  and  Leather  Scrap, 

Bones,  *  Oyster  and  Clam  Carpets,  Tobacco  Stems, 

Fat.  Shells,  Straw  and  Excelsior 

Tin  Cans.  (from  households  only) . 

*NOTE. — Where  there  is  a  quantity  of  shells,  as  at  a  restaurant,  they  must  be 
hauled  to  the  dump  by  the  owner.  x 

tAll  rubbish  such  as  described  in  this  third  column  must  be  securely  bundled  and 
tied,  or  it  will  not  be  removed. 

REVERSE  OF  CARD. 

It  is  forbidden  by  city  ordinance  to  throw  any  discarded  scrap  or 
article  into  the  street,  or  paper,  newspapers,  etc.,  ashes,  dirt,  garbage, 
banana  skins,  orange  peel,  and  the  like.  The  Sanitary  Code  requires 
householders  and  occupants  to  provide  separate  receptacles  for  ashes  and 
garbage,  and  forbids  mixing  these  in  the  same  receptacle.  This  law  will 
be  strictly  enforced. 

Boston  follows  the  same  code  and  regulations,  but  requires 
that  bottles  and  cans  that  have  held  food  shall  be  put  with  the 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


43 


garbage,  and  all  others  with  the  ashes.  Other  large  cities  follow 
the  same  regulations,  with  local  changes. 

The  item  of  tin  cans  gives  trouble  everywhere;  no  one  wants 
them,  as,  except  in  large  numbers,  their  value  is  nothing.  When 
in  bulk  the  solder  and  tin  can  be  recovered  by  heating,  and  the 
iron  will  bring  something  for  rough  purposes.  Tin  cans  properly 
belong  with  ashes,  as  any  impurity  is  speedily  deodorized  by  the 
fine  ash. 

There  is  a  collection  of  refuse  in  some  of  the  larger  eastern 
towns,  though  little  attention  is  paid  to  its  disposal.  About 
twenty  New  England  towns  have  weekly  or  bi-weekly  service, 
and  some  fifteen  other  places,  west  and  south,  collect  refuse  once 
a  week. 

THE  PROPORTIONS  OF  REFUSE  AND  RUBBISH. 

So  few  reports  of  the  actual  percentages  of  refuse  are  available 
that  it  is  difficult  to  give  any  data  except  that  obtainable  from 
estimate  and  observation.  The  subjoined  table,  compiled  by  the 
writer  some  years  ago,  is  believed  to  be  fairly  representative  : 


TABLE 


XIX.—  APPROXIMATE     PERCENTAGE    OF    DRY 
WHOLE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


REFUSE      IN 


Per  Cent, 
by 

Weight 

Per  Cent. 

by 

Volume 

Wt.  per 
Cubic 
Yard 

New  York  

7  to  10 

20  to  2  $ 

140  Ibs. 

Ready  for  sorting 

Brooklyn  

8  to  12 

20  to  25 

ICC       " 

Boston  

4  to  6 

15  to  20 

202     ' 

Gross  weight 

Buffalo 

8  to  10 

2  c  to  3  =; 

2  I  C.      " 

Philadelphia  

6  to  8 

15  tO   20 

J75    ' 

Estimated 

The  lighter  weights  in  New  York  or  Brooklyn  represent  the 
amount  collected  by  the  city  teams,  but  in  reality  the  amounts 
produced  are  far  greater.  The  best  part  of  the  dry  refuse  of 
New  York  City  never  comes  to  the  city's  carts.  All  large  business 
houses  sell  their  waste  privately,  or  give  it  away  on  condition  that 
their  steam  boiler  ashes  are  removed  free  of  cost.  The  janitors 
of  apartment  houses  and  the  superintendents  of  office  buildings 
control  the  waste  paper  for  their  own  benefit.  The  city  collects 
from  private  houses  of  the  better  class,  and  from  the  tenement 


44     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

districts  and  smaller  shops,  and  all  this  is  often  picked  over  by 
junk  dealers  before  the  arrival  of  the  city  teams.  Preliminary 
sorting  for  private  sale  is  done  in  every  large  town  to  a  greater 
or  lesser  extent ;  it  is  more  noticeable  in  New  York  because  of 
the  relatively  larger  quantities. 

The  Boston  collection  is  greater  in  weight  and  quantity,  but 
of  less  value  for  market.  The  Buffalo  refuse  has  a  larger  per- 
centage of  dust,  dirt,  iron  and  wood.  That  of  Brooklyn  is  of 
the  best  average  quality,  as  the  paper  and  rubbish  from  the  resi- 
dential districts  is  cleaner  and  better  than  from  the  business  sec- 
tions. Chicago  and  some  other  places  have  a  system  of  collec- 
tion in  stationary  iron  boxes  at  street  corners,  supposed  to  be 
for  waste  paper  only,  but  which  receive  a  large  quantity  of  other 
matters.  The  franchise  for  the  boxes  is  held  by  a  company  whose 
chief  purpose  is  to  use  them  for  advertising  purposes.  The 
usefulness  of  this  box  service  is  very  doubtful,  considering  the 
valuable  room  surrendered  by  the  city  at  street  intersections  and 
the  payment  made  of  a  small  percentage  upon  the  income  received 
by  the  company. 

THE  VOLUME  OF  DRY  REFUSE. 

The  amount  of  paper  produced  and  consumed  in  this  country 
is  enormous  in  weight  and  bulk.  Houses,  shops,  wholesale  and 
department  stores,  office  buildings,  banks,  factories  and  institu- 
tions, where  the  waste  produced  cannot  be  destroyed,  send  outside 
the  building  quantities  of  articles  which  have  become  worthless 
through  use,  or  are  not  worth  preservation  owing  to  their  cheap- 
ness and  profusion. 

Of  this  amount,  paper  in  many  forms  is  the  largest  proportion. 
The  consumption  of  paper  in  the  United  States  is  stated  on  good 
authority  to  be  38  pounds  per  capita  per  annum.  Asuming  a 
population  of  eighty  millions,  this  is  1,520,000  tons  per  year.  To 
produce  this  paper  whole  countries  and  territories  are  laid  under 
contribution,  thousands  of  acres  of  forest  trees  are  turned  into 
pulp;  the  world  is  explored  and  ransacked  for  old  or  new  forms 
of  manufactured  and  vegetable  products  to  be  worked  into  paper 
stock,  great  factories  and  many  firms  and  companies,  with  huge 
amounts  of  capital,  are  all  busy  trying  to  satisfy  the  insatiable 
demand  of  the  public  for  more  paper. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  45 

An  instance  of  the  use  of  paper  in  New  York  City  may  be 
cited.  The  combined  weight  of  one  number  of  each  of  six  Sun- 
day newspapers,  on  March  5,  1906,  was  5%  pounds,  an  average 
of  15  1-3  ounces  for  each  paper.  The  whole  number  of  sheets, 
if  spread  out  flat,  would  cover  52  square  feet  of  surface.  The 
length  of  these  sheets,  if  placed  end  to  end,  the  long  way,  would 
be  393  feet,  more  than  one  city  block.  It  is  estimated  that  the 
newspapers  of  New  York  City  daily  consume  350  tons  of  paper, 
and  that  fully  two-thirds  of  this  remains  in  the  city  aqid  is  not 
sent  out  through  the  mails.  This  is  upwards  of  85,000  tons  to  be 
accounted  for  yearly,  to  which  must  be  added  the  stream  of  other 
matter — circulars,  posters,  advertising  and  trade  matter  of  all 
sorts,  besides  the  great  value  of  paper  in  the  weekly  and  monthly 
journals  and  magazines. 

By  far  the  largest  proportion  of  paper  manufactured,  after 
serving  temporary  and  transient  purposes,  is  thrown  aside  as 
worthless.  It  is  so  cheap  as  to  be  hardly  worth  saving;  its 
abundance  makes  it  a  nuisance,  and  it  is  the  custom  to  get  rid 
of  it  as  soon  as  possible, 


CHAPTER  III. 

MUNICIPAL  REFUSE  AND  RUBBISH  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSITION. 

The  history  of  the  efforts  made  in  this  country  to  systematize 
the  collection  and  saving  of  this  kind  of  municipal  waste  dates 
from  the  beginning  of  the  experiments  made  by  the  late  Col. 
George  E.  Waring,  when  Street  Cleaning  Commissioner  in  New 
York,  twelve  years  ago.  He  saw  at  Budapest  a  certain  method 
of  sorting  the  city  waste  by  placing  it  in  thin  layers  on  an  endless 
movable  belt  or  platform,  driven  by  power,  and  stationing  on 
either  side  a  file  of  women  who,  as  it  passed,  picked  out  certain 
specific  articles  or  substances  which  had  a  market  value,  or  which 
could  be  put  to  some  useful  purpose.  Not  a  cleanly,  but  a 
practical  way  of  recovering  things  which  would  otherwise  be 
wasted  and  lost.  (jGoJ.  Waring  applied  this  idea  at  one  of  the 
New  York  Street  Cleaning  District  Stations,  and  found  that  a 
large  proportion  of  the  rubbish  could  be  saved,  and  that  it  repaid 
the  effort  and  cost  of  recovery.  He  afterward  built  an  experi- 
mental station  to  which  was  brought  the  refuse  from  three  dis- 
tricts ;  erected  a  movable  platform  for  sorting,  and  a  furnace  for 
burning  the  residue.  The  station  built  by  the  city,  was  run  by 
contract,  and  the  city  received  from  it  a  revenue  based  upon  a 
sliding  scale,  according  to  the  quantities  delivered,  allowance 
being  made  for  delay  and  stoppages.  The  collection  of  refuse 
was  made  by  the  city,  and  householders  were  asked  to  keep  it 
separated  from  the  garbage  and  ashes. 

This  experiment  proved  that  there  was  a  far  greater  value  in 
city  refuse  than  had  been  generally  known ;  that  the  preliminary 
separation  could  readily  be  made  at  the  house;  that  a  separate 
force  of  men  and  carts  could  be  profitably  employed  for  collec- 
tion ;  that  the  refuse  could  be  sorted,  baled  and  marketed,  the 
.worthless  portions  being  destroyed  without  nuisance  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  works,  and  that  there  was  revenue  for  the  city 
in  the  process.  Though  the  furnaces  and  machinery  were  not 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


47 


adequate  for  the  work,  yet  the  results  were  reasonably  good, 
considering  all  the  circumstances. 

The  returns  from  the  Waring  experimental  station  from  Jan- 
uary i,  1898,  to  August  n,  1900 — two  years,  seven  months  and 
eleven  days — are  shown  by  reports  made  by  the  Street  Cleaning 
Bureau  and  by  private  observation.  The  amount  of  combustable 
refuse  collected  in  three  street  cleaning  districts,  Numbers  12,  14 
and  1 6,  respectively  included  in  the  territory  bounded  by  Sixth 
and  Seventh  streets,  south,  the  Bowery  and  Fifth  avenue,  west, 
Twenty-second-street,  north,  containing  116,525  persons,  and 
having  a  fair  average  of  houses,  shops,  stores,  department  stores 
and  factories  is  as  follows : 

TABLE    XX.— RETURNS     FROM     EAST    SIXTEENTH     STREET     REFUSE 
DISPOSAL    STATION,    NEW    YORK    CITY. 


Year 

Loads 

Collections 

Payments  to 
City  by 
Contractor 

Value  to  City 
per  Ton 

1898 
1899 
1900 

1  5,3  56 
12,946 
7,422 

6,710 
5,660 
3.30° 

$4,141 
3,!°9 
3,680 

61.7  cents 

54-9 
$1.10  (7  mos.) 

THE    QUANTITIES    AND    COMPONENT   PARTS   OF   REFUSE   RECEIVED 

IN    1899. 

Paper,  books,  strawboard,  etc 3,058,616  Ibs. 

Rags,  carpets,  clothing,  shoes,  etc 576,812 

Iron,  copper,  brass,  lead,  rubber 132,438 

Bottles,  proprietary 29,000  No. 

Bottles,  common 3  50  bbls. 

Nearly  all  this  refuse  came  from  houses  and  shops,  the  large 
department  stores  contributing  about  1,500  loads  of  wrapping 
paper  and  strawboard.  A  smaller  proportion  of  factory  waste 
was  received,  useless  except  for  fuel.  These  items  may  be  still 
further  classified. 

Of  the  whole  annual  quantity  by  weight  thus  treated,  37  per 
cent,  was  sorted  and  sold,  60  per  cent,  was  burned,  and  3  per  cent, 
to  5  per  cent,  was  incombustible  and  was  taken  away  with  the 
ashes,  which  formed  about  17  per  cent,  of  the  quantity  burned. 
About  75  horsepower  in  steam  was  derived  from  combustion,  of 
which  less  than  25  per  cent,  was  utilized.  This  station  was  dis- 
continued by  a  new  city  administration,  and  for  two  years  all  the 


48     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

TABLE  XXI.— PERCENTAGE  OF  SALABLE  PORTIONS  IN  ONE  HUNDRED 
PARTS   OF    REFUSE. 

Paper,  six  different  grades 74.5 

Rags,  clothing,  bagging,  twine 12.2 

Carpets,  four  grades 3.3 

Bottles,  common  and  proprietary 2.5 

Metals,  iron,  brass,  lead  and  zinc 2.1 

Tin,  all  sizes  and  kinds 1.4 

Leather,  shoes  and  scraps 1.9 

Rubber,  shoes,  hose  and  mats 2 

Barrels,  whole 1.4 

Other  salable  material .5 


city's  refuse  was  gathered  and  marketed  for  the  benefit  of  one 
contractor,  who,  after  rough  sorting  it  at  the  clumps,  conveyed 
the  remainder  of  the  refuse  in  scows  to  fill  land. 

THE  REFUSE  UTILIZATION  STATION  IN  BOSTON. 

Up  to  1898  the  city  of  Boston  collected  the  refuse  and  rubbish 
with  the  ashes,  and  towed  the  larger  part  to  sea  outside  the  har- 
bor. Under  the  influence  of  tides  and  winds  the  lighter  portions 
were  carried  to  adjoining  beaches,  causing  complaints  and  threats 
of  litigation.  The  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  city  Board  of 
Health,  under  the  leadership  of  Dr.  Samuel  H.  Durgin,  president, 
resulting  in  action  by  the  Mayor  and  the  City  Council,  who  asked 
for  plans  and  estimates  for  a  disposal  station  for  dry  refuse. 

The  designs,  estimates  and  superintendence  of  the  author  were 
accepted  by  Mayor  Josiah  Quincy,  and  a  contract  was  made,  in 
1898,  with  a  company  organized  for  the  purpose,  for  a  term 
of  ten  years,  with  the  privilege  of  purchase  by  the  city  at  the  end 
of  five  years,  or  an  extension  to  the  company  for  the  same  length 
of  time. 

The  city  furnishes  the  ground,  collects  and  delivers  all  the 
refuse,  and  pays  the  company  $5,500  annually.  The  plant,  which 
cost  $30,000,  was  erected  and  is  maintained  and  operated  by  the 
company,  which  receives  all  revenue  from  the  material  sorted, 
and  disposes  of  the  residue. 

The  station  is  located  at  the  Fort  Hill  dumping  wharf,  on 
Atlantic  avenue,  about  one-half  mile  from  City  Hall,  nearly  in  the 
geographical  center  of  the  city,  and  on  the  line  of  the  elevated 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


49 


and  surface  car  lines,     It  consists  of  a  building  162  feet  long, 
80  feet  wide,  with  brick  walls  and  steel  columns  supporting  a 


FIG.   1.— THE   REFUSE   UTILIZATION   STATION,    BOSTON. 

wooden  roof.    (Fig.  I.)    There  is  a  sub-basement  under  one-half  of 
the  building  containing  the  baling  presses  and  destructor.   A  large 


FIG.  2.— THE   RECEIVING  ROOM  AND  CONVEYOR,  BOSTON. 


5O    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

storage  space  is  provided  for  receiving  the  waste,  the  carts,  dis- 
charging with  no  delay,  except  for  weighing  each  load.  (Fig.  2.) 
From  this  receiving  room  the  refuse,  with  a  little  preliminary  sort- 
ing to  remove  heavier  articles,  is  placed  on  an  endless  belt  or  mov- 
able iron  platform  4  feet  wide  and  150  feet  long,  which  carries  it 
slowly  toward  the  other  end  of  the  building.  On  each  side  of 
this  moving  conveyor  stand  files  of  men  who  pick  out  the  several 
grades  of  paper,  rags,  cardboard,  etc.,  and  place  in  bins  behind 
tfiem. 

/  The  bottoms  of  these  bins  discharge  into  power-driven  presses 
placed  in  the  basement,  which  press  the  paper  and  rags  into  bales 
of  600  pounds.  (Fig.  3.)  The  other  articles,  glass,  iron,  leather, 


FIG.  3.— POWER  AND  HAND  PRESSES,   BOSTON. 

twine,  etc.,  are  removed  to  separate  bins.  The  portions  of  refuse 
not  worth  saving,  which  remain  on  the  conveyor,  are  discharged 
in  a  continuous  stream  into  the  destructor  placed  across  the  rear 
end  of  the  building,  everything  worthless  being  burned  without 
delay,  and  without  rehandling  or  sorting. 

This  destructor  is  of  a  special  and  peculiar  type,  built  with 
interior  walls  of  heavy  fire-clay  blocks,  and  exterior  walls  of  red 
brick,  solidly  braced  with  buckstays  and  tie-rods;  it  is  provided 
with  fire-clay  covers  for  the  feeding  holes,  and  doors  for  remov- 
ing ashes  and  clinker.  (Fig.  4.) 

At  the  rear  end,  between  the  furnace  and  the  chimney,  is  a 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  51 

6o-horsepower  steam  boiler  with  an  independent  fire-box,  operated 
solely  by  heat   from  the  destructor,   and   furnishing  the  power        ~ 
for   moving   all   the   machinery    for    sorting,    baling,    driving    a  v 
dynamo  for  lighting  the  building  (ten  arc  and  thirty  incandescent 
lamps),  and  for  heating  it  in  winter.     No  fuel  has  ever  been  used 
except  the  refuse,  and  but  a  portion  of  the  heat  developed  is  used. 
A  boiler  of  200  horsepower  can  be  maintained  at  its  full  ca- 
pacity by  the  heat  from  the  destructor.    The  draft  is  regulated  by 


FIG.  4.— THE  CONVEYOR,  DESTRUCTOR  AND  BOILER,  BOSTON. 

heavy  fire-clay  dampers,  the  surplus  heat  going  through  a  bye- 
pass  to  the  chimney — a  self-supporting  steel  shaft  140  feet  high, 
lined  with  fire  brick.  The  plant  operates  from  8  to  12  hours  a 
day,  dependent  upon  the  supply  of  refuse,  and  has  a  capacity  of 
500  cubic  yards  in  24  hours. 

The  refuse  is  collected  from  city  districts  which  include  the 
business  and  a  part  of  the  manufacturing  section,  besides  a  large 
area  of  the  residential  part,  the  estimated  population  being  200,- 
ooo,  and  covering  95  to  100  miles  of  streets.  The  collection  is 
made  daily  by  17  large  market  wagons,  and  by  31  paper  carts,  the 


52     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


daily  average  being  from  50  to  65  loads ;  a  maximum  of  100  loads 
has  been  dealt  with. 

The  character  and  composition  of  this  refuse  is  very  nearly  the 
same  as  in  New  York,  but  the  separation  of  the  various  grades  of 
paper  and  saving  of  minor  articles  is  much  more  thoroughly  done. 
The  quantities  sorted  cannot  be  accurately  stated,  but  in  a  general 
way  it  can  be  said  that  50  per  cent,  by  weight  and  65  per  cent, 
by  volume  is  sorted  available  for  market.  The  amount  burned  is 

TABLE  XXII.— APPROXIMATE  QUANTITIES  OF  REFUSE  RECEIVED 
AT  BOSTON  STATION. 


Year 

Loads 

Estimated 
Lbs.  per  Load 

Cubic  Yds. 

Tons 

1899 

IQOO 
I9OI 
1902 

!903 

1904 
1905 

1906 

16,926 
16,423 

17,585 
16,684 

15,875 
16,234 
16,008 

796 

,045 
,045 
,045 
,045 
,045 
,405 

...... 

6,736 
8,581 
9,188 

8,717 
8,294 
8,482 

8,364 
11,067 

104,407 

I 

Total  amou: 
Yearly  aver 
Weekly 
Daily 

nts  (8  years)  

69,429 
8,678 
167 
28 

age  . 

about  25  per  cent,  by  volume ;  10  to  12  per  cent,  is  worthless  and 
is  removed,  with  the  15  per  cent,  of  ashes  remaining  from  com- 
bustion, to  the  adjoining  dumping  scows  and  towed  to  sea. 

The  destructor  was  the  first  of  its  type  erected,  being  a  radical 
departure  from  the  experimental  furnace  of  Waring,  and  in  many 
points, unlike  the  existing  types  of  American  crematories.  It  is 
a  down-draft  furnace,  taking  all  the  material  through  a  chute 
kept  continuously  supplied  by  the  conveyor  belt,  the  air  for  com- 
bustion entering  through  the  same  opening  on  the  top  of  the 
furnace.  This  kind  of  bulky  waste  requires  larger  furnace  ca- 
pacity and  more  air  than  the  usual  garbage  and  rubbish,  and 
the  grates  and  flues  must  be  arranged  to  allow  the  free  and  un- 
interrupted passage  of  a  larger  volume  of  gases,  to  avoid  back 
fire  when  the  furnace  is  full.  There  must  also  be  ample  provision 
for  detaining  small  floating  particles  of  ash  or  partly  burned  bits 
of  paper,  a  point  usually  overlooked  in  American  practice. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          53 

The  boiler  was  intended  only  for  the  work  of  this  plant,  as  no 
use  could  be  made  of  the  surplus  heat,  and  the  power  now  em- 
ployed is  less  than  50  per  cent,  of  the  capacity  that  can  be  de- 
veloped. If  an  opportunity  offered,  a  boiler  of  200  horsepower 
could  be  operated  by  the  gases  of  combustion,  and  the  earning 
capacity  of  the  plant  in  steam  power  be  increased  nearly  four 
times. 

The  automatic  charging  by  the  conveyor  belt  requires  only 
two  men  to  operate  this  furnace,  an  important  saving  as  com- 
pared with  incinerators  where  four  to  six  men  are  constantly 
needed  to  fire  by  hand,  stoke,  and  remove  ashes.  There  was  at 
first  a  secondary  fire  box  provided  for  consuming  gases  by  extra 
fuel,  but  as  this  was  not  needed,  in  repairing  the  furnace  after 
six  years  of  continuous  use  it  was  deleted.  But  few  changes  or 
alterations  have  been  found  necessary,  these  comprising  power 
presses  instead  of  hand,  an  ash  lift  for  removing  ashes  and  rub- 
bish, and  a  hoist  for  loading  the  bales  of  paper.  While  there  is 
no  direct  revenue  from  this  plant  to  the  city,  it  receives  the 
greater  benefit  from  this  system  of  disposal,  as  the  delivery  of 
the  refuse  at  this  central  station  is  less  expensive  than  before,  -the 
cost  of  transportation  outside  the  harbor  is  saved  and  the  sanitary 
disposal  is  a  vast  advantage  over  the  former  methods  with  their 
attendant  nuisances  and  constant  complaints. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  contract  of  the  Refuse  Utilization 
Company  the  city  proposes  to  erect  a  larger  station  on  the  same 
site  and  conduct  the  work  by  its  own  agents  for  its  own  benefit. 

The  work  of  this  station  for  a  continuous  period  of  ten  years 
is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  value  of  practical  business  methods 
applied  to  the  recovery  of  waste  materials  heretofore  lost. 

It  also  points  a  moral  in  favor  of  successful  municipal  service 
by  contract  as  contrasted  with  other  works  of  the  same  general 
character,  where  the  station  has  been  operated  by  city  employees, 
with  apparatus  theoretically  designed  to  be  perfect,  but  practically 
proved  to  be  altogether  inadequate. 

THE    FORTY-SEVENTH    STREET    REFUSE    UTILIZATION    STATION, 
NEW  YORK  CITY. 

At  the  incoming  of  the  reform  city  government  of  New  York, 
in  1902,  the  Commissioner  of  Street  Cleaning,  Dr.  J.  McG.  Wood- 


54     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

bury,  caused  to  be  erected  on  a  pier  extending  into  the  Hudson 
River  at  Forty-seventh  street,  a  rubbish  incinerator  described  by 
the  designer,  Mr.  H.  De  B.  Parsons,  C.  E.,  as  follows: 


FIG.  5.— THE  FORTY- SEVENTH  STREET  REFUSE  STATION,  N.  Y.  CITY. 

The  design  of  the  incinerator,  Fig.  5,  consists  of  three  cells,  each 
having  thirty  square  feet  of  grate  area.  The  products  of  combustion 
pass  over  the  cells  into  the  smoke  flue  in  such  a  manner  that  the  product 
from  cell  No.  i  has  to  pass  over  cells  Nos.  2  and  3 ;  the  product  of  com- 
bustion from  cell  No.  2  mixes  with  the  products  from  cell  No.  I,  and 
together  they  pass  over  cell  No.  3;  and  that  from  cell  No.  3  mixes  with 
the  products  from  cells  Nos.  i  and  2,  and  is  intimately  mixed  again  in 
passing  along  a  tortuous  flue  to  the  base  of  the  stack.  The  result  of  this 
arrangement  has  been  highly  satisfactory,,  as  regards  the  non-production 
of  smoke.  Taking  a  stormy  day,  when  the  material  was  brought  to  the 
incinerator  wet,  the  smoke  was  seldom  visible  for  more  than  about 
seventy-five  feet  from  the  top  of  the  stack,  and  then  only  during  the 
period  of  stoking  one  of  the  grates. 

This  incinerating  plant  was  constructed  as  an  experiment.  In  order 
that  it  might  be  free  from  any  hindrance  from  injunction  or  otherwise, 
lest  it  might  create  a  nuisance  to  neighboring  property,  it  was  decided  to 
locate  the  plant  on  one  of  the  city  piers,  about  250  feet  from  the  bulkhead 
line.  The  permanency  of  location,  of  course,  was  not  considered,  the 
idea  being  that  if  the  plant  could  be  constructed  quickly,  and  show  that 
combustion  could  be  carried  on  without  creating  a  nuisance,  it  would  lead 
to  the  introduction  in  the  future  of  other  stations,  more  favorably  situ- 
ated, and  at  which  better  facilities  could  be  provided  for  the  reception 
of  the  material  and  for  picking  the  same. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


55 


Shortly  after  the  incinerator  was  built  some  changes  were 
found  necessary.  The  flues  connecting  with  the  chimney  were 
simplified  to  allow  a  shorter  passage  of  the  gasses.  A  larger 
boiler  was  installed  with  more  direct  connection  with  the  furnace ; 
a  picking  belt,  or  conveyor  (Fig.  6),  with  bins  for  sorting  the 


FIG.  6.— CONVEYOR  AND  SORTING   BINS,   NEW  YORK  STATION. 

refuse,  and  an  engine  and  dynamo  for  electric  lighting  were 
added. 

An  effort  was  made  to  change  the  method  of  charging  by 
using  an  automatic  conveyor  direct  to  the  charging  openings,  but 
it  was  found  impracticable  owing  to  the  peculiar  construction  of 
the  incinerator.  After  a  period  of  about  four  years  the  cells  were 
found  to  be  greatly  damaged  by  the  heat,  and  specifications  were 
prepared  by  Mr.  Parsons  calling  for  a  new  construction  of  a 
two-cell  incinerator  to  be  connected  with  the  large  boiler. 

These  two  cells  were  to  be  built  with  interior  walls  of  concrete 
9  inches  thick,  and  with  exterior  red  brick  walls  13  inches  thick, 
the  whole  bound  together  with  buckstays  and  angles  in  the  usual 
manner.  There  were  two  top-charging  holes  for  each  furnace 
with  heavy  doors  protected  by  fire-clay  slabs. 

The  concrete  walls  for  interior  lining  was  to  be  made  with 


56     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

one  part  Atlas  cement,  two  parts  powdered  slate,  and  one  part 
of  clean  steam  ashes  from  not  less  than  l/%  inch  in  diameter.  The 
grates  were  in  sections  five  inches  deep,  tapering  in  thickness  24 
down  to  5/1 6  inch  and  spaced  ^4  inch. 

No  reinforcement  of  the  interior  walls  was  used.    The  contract 
was   let,   the   incinerators   built   and   work  begun.      Cracks   and 


FIG.   7.— CHARGING   THE    INCINERATOR,    NEW   YORK   STATION. 

breaks  presently  appeared  in  the  interior  walls,  rapid  disintegra- 
tion of  the  whole  structure  took  place,  and  in  a  month  it  was 
practically  destroyed.  No  incinerator  has  as  yet  taken  its  place 
and  the  refuse,  after  rough  picking,  is  removed  with  the  ashes 
to  Riker's  Island. 

The  tables  following,  condensed  from  the  reports  of  Mr.  F.  L. 
Stearns,  engineer  of  Street  Cleaning  Department,  show  the  work 
done  in  two  incomplete  trials  of  the  first  incinerator.  There  are 
no  reports  from  the  second  one : 

REPORT  OF  FORTY-SEVENTH   STREET  INCINERATOR,  NEW  YORK, 
OCTOBER  7,  1904. 

The  measurements  for  weights,  bulk,  and  fuel  value  of  waste 
were  made  on  the  loads  received  for  one-half  day.  The  tests 
for  power  were  made  on  the  entire  day. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 
TABLE   XXIII.— QUANTITIES   RECEIVED. 


57 


No. 

of 
Loads 

Cubic 
Yards 

Cubic 
Yds.  per 
Load 

Weight 
Pounds 

Weight 

per  Cubic 
Yard 

City  carts  

44 

33i 

7  .6    , 

48,100  1 

140  Ibs. 

Private  carts 

10 

•3  n 

•J       Q 

4    Oo    1 

TABLE    XXIV.— SORTED    MATERIAL. 


Cubic 
Yds. 

Wt., 
Lbs. 

Cubic 
Yds. 

Wt., 
Lbs. 

Newspapers 

08 

c  184. 

Raes 

6-\ 

i  007 

Manila  paper 

<?4* 

T    2  50 

Baggingf 

i 

184 

Pasteboard  

10  ^ 

4..QCQ 

Carpets  

i± 

Mixed  paper  
Mixed  paper    and 
rags  

53 
6 

2,613 
62  < 

Shoes  
Hats  

i 
\ 

180 
1  7 

Books  

4 

2  ^0 

Rope  

I 

ill 

Iron  and  tin  

16 

1,942 

Barrels  

2  I 

2,826 

Bottles 

± 

363 

Boxes 

I  i 

I    4OO 

Totals  

333? 

jy.MS 

Totals  

42  \ 

5,999 

Total  picked  out,  23,114  Ibs.;  48.8  per  cent,  by  weight,  63.5  per 

cent,  by  volume. 
Total  burned,  24,275  Ibs.;  51.2  per  cent,  by  weight,  36.5  per  cent. 

by  volume. 
Total  ashes   from   combustion,   3,529   Ibs.  =  6.8   cubic   yards,   at 

519  Ibs.  per  yard. 
Percentage  of  ashes  of  amount  burned,  10.7  by  weight,  3.1  by 

volume. 

TABLE    XXV.— EXPERIMENTAL    TRIAL    FOR    STEAM    POWER    OF    47TH 
STREET  INCINERATOR. 

Duration  of  test 4^  hours 

Quantity  of  rubbish  burned 23,011  .o    Ibs. 

Average  horse-power  developed 232  . 7 

euantity  of  rubbish  to  produce  i  horse-power  per  hour .  21.9    Ibs. 

rate  surface 1 54  .  o    'sq.  ft. 

Horse-power  per  hour  per  square  foot  of  grate  area.  .  .  i .  51 

Heating  surface  of  boiler 2,759  .9    sq.  ft. 

Heating  surface  per  square  foot  of  grate  area 17  .9    sq.  ft. 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  rubbish i .  59  Ibs. 

Percentage  of  ash  from  rubbish 14  .  5 

Weight  of  rubbish  per  cubic  yard in  .o    Ibs. 


58     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

No  use  could  be  found  for  the  power  developed,  though  this 
was  estimated  at  $8,000  per  year  in  value.  Owing  to  the  peculiar 
construction  of  the  furnace,  it  was  fed  by  hand  through  front 
side  doors  by  the  continuous  work  of  three  men.  The  ashes 
were  removed  through  the  back  side  doors  by  two  other  men. 
The  work  required  a  foreman,  an  engineer  and  his  assistant  and 
two  laborers  for  charging  the  boiler  fire-box  with  large  bulky 
articles  that  could  not  be  burned  in  the  incinerator.  The  force 
employed  was  nine  to  eleven  men  daily,  varying  with  the  quan- 
tities brought  by  the  city  teams.  The  city  received  payment  for 
the  sorted  paper  and  rubbish  at  the  rate  of  about  $3.20  per  ton  of 
recovered  paper.  Applying  this  amount  toward  the  expenses  of 
the  plant  there  was  a  deficiency  of  approximately  $300  per  week 
on  the  whole  operation  of  the  refuse  station. 

The  following  table  of  volume  and  weights  per  cubic  yard  is 
from  the  report  of  Mr.  Stearns  on  the  Forty-seventh  Street 
Station* : 

TABLE  XXVI.— VOLUME  AND   WEIGHTS   OF   REFUSE    N.   Y.   CITY. 


Newspapers,                      picked.  .  .  . 

5,185  Ibs.          98    cu. 

yds. 

Manila  paper,                        "       ... 

1,2  50 

54*    ' 

M 

Pasteboard. 

4,909 

^05 

" 

Mixed  paper, 

2,613 

53 

" 

Rags, 

.  .  1,007 

6*    ' 

" 

Mixed  rags  and  paper 

62  s 

6 

" 

Iron  and  tins, 

16       " 

" 

Bagging, 

184 

i 

" 

oo        o  ' 

Carpets, 

274 

" 

Barrels                                   " 

2   826 

7i       " 

" 

Books 

2  ^Q 

o 

« 

Bottles, 

363 

i     " 

« 

Shoes 

186 

^    " 

" 

Hats 

17 

\    " 

« 

Rope, 

Ill 

m 

" 

Boxes 

1,400                      II 

" 

Total 

yds. 

23,114  Ibs.        372     cu. 

Waste 

24,272     "           218^    " 

Total.  . 

S.            <?Qoi    CU. 

yds. 

47,^80  It 

Percentage  picked 48  . 8%  by  weight,  or  63%  by  bulk 

of  waste 51-2%    "  "  37%" 


'Transactions  A.   Soc.   C.   E.,  Vol    LX.,  p.  345,  1908. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 
THE  VALUE  OF  REFUSE. 


59 


The  method  of  recovery  and  the  value  of  marketable  refuse  in 
the  whole  of  New  York  City  is  thus  stated : 

The  rubbish  is  picked  over  at  the  dumps  [and  utilization  stations]  by 
a  trimming  contractor,  who  pays  the  city  for  the  privilege.  The  value  of 
this  marketable  refuse  to  the  city  is  about  $3.20  per  ton.  The  Commis- 
sioner of  Street  Cleaning  has  stated  that  this  figure  is  too  low ;  probably 
it  should  be  increased  50  per  cent.  It  is  figured  thus :  The  average  rub- 
bish collections  are  300  tons  per  day,  or  1,800  tons  a  week,  of  which  the 
marketable  proportion  is  35  per  cent.,  say  600  tons.  For  this  the  con- 
tractor pays  the  city  approximately  $1,920  weekly,  or  at  the  rate  of  $3.20 
per  ton.  In  this  case  the  "City"  comprises  the  boroughs  of  Manhattan 
and  Bronx  only,  as  Brooklyn,  Queens  and  Richmond  deal  with  their  own 
refuse.  The  total  yearly  amount  of  marketable  material  is  93,600  tons, 
and  the  payment  made  for  the  privilege  of  sorting  everything  saleable 
is  $110,000. 

DELANCEY  STREET  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATION,  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

Following  the  construction  of  the  Forty-seventh  Street  Sta- 
tion, the  Department  of  Street  Cleaning  caused  to  be  erected  in 
November,  1905,  a  combined  refuse  incinerator  and  power  plant 
in  Delancey  street  beneath  the  Williamsburg  Bridge.  The  build- 
ing (Fig.  8)  which  contains  the  furnaces  and  boilers  is  a  one- 


FIG.  8.— THE  DELANCEY  ST.   REFUSE   DISPOSAL  STATION,  N.  Y.  CITY. 

story  structure  70  x  150  feet  in  area,  with  brick  walls  and  a  steel 
trussed  roof.     It  is  divided  into  two  rooms  by  a  fire  wall,  in  the 


6o     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

front  of  which  is  the  receiving,  baling  and  sorting  floor;  at  the 
rear  end  are  the  boilers  used  for  steam  generation. 

From  the  sorting  floor  a  short  conveyor  (Fig.  9)  carries  the 


FIG.  9.— THE     CONVEYOR     AND     SORTING     BINS,     DELANCEY     STREET 
STATION,   NEW  YORK   CITY. 

refuse  to  the  top  of  the  furnaces,  discharging  between  them,  so 
that  they  may  be  fed  by  hand  simultaneously.  During  the  pas- 
sage of  the  refuse  over  the  conveyor  the  trimming  contractor's 
/men  pick  out  a  small  proportion  of  the  paper,  which  is  baled  by 
power  presses  and  removed  from  the  building.  The  remainder 
of  the  refuse  furnishes  fuel  for  the  operation  of  the  furnaces  and 
the  development  of  steam  power. 

There  are  two  furnaces  placed  back  to  back,  with  a  common 
smoke  flue  connection  to  the  chimney.  These  furnaces  are  the 
same  dimensions,  but  are  unlike  in  interior  construction.  Fur- 
nace No.  i,  designed  by  Mr.  H.  De  B.  Parsons,  originally  fol- 
lowed the  same  general  construction  as  that  of  the  Forty-seventh 
street  incinerator,  except  that  there  were  two  separate  cells  instead 
of  three,  and  two  charging  holes  placed  on  the  side  and  de- 
livering the  refuse  over  a  short  incline  to  the  fire  grates  which 
form  the  floor  of  each  of  the  two  cells.  The  grates  consist  of 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  61 

wrought-iron  bars  riveted  up  in  sections.  Each  cell  is  a  com- 
plete furnace  in  itself,  having  a  charging  hole,  and  stoking  and 
ash  pit  doors. 

The  gases  of  combustion  pass  upward  to  a  cross  flue  which  is 
connected  with  the  boiler  and  the  stack,  and  is  controlled  by 
large  fire  clay  dampers.  Each  cell  has  a  sliding  door  in  the  front 
end  for  the  admission  of  large  pieces  of  furniture,  mattresses,  etc. 

The  second  furnace,  designed  by  Mr.  F.  L.  Stearns,  of  the 
Department  of  Street  cleaning,  is  practically  the  same  size,  but 
has  a  different  arrangement  of  feed  holes  and  grates.  There  is 
but  one  side  feed-hole,  which  is  a  straight  passage  from  the 
charging  floor  to  the  fire  grates,  the  other  feed-hole  being  on  the 
top  near  the  outlet,  and  large  enough  to  receive  barrels  and  other 
bulky  matter.  There  are  two  sets  of  iron  fire  grates,  placed 
horizontally,  one  above  the  other, 'so  that  partially  burned  matter 
from  the  upper  set  of  grates  may  fall  to  the  lower  and  there  be 
wholly  consumed^  the  ashes  being  raked  out  of  the  ash  pits  below. 

There  are  two  2oo-horsepower  Sterling  water  tube  steam  boil- 
ers, each  with  1,950  square  feet  of  heating  surface.  These  are 
provided  with  the  regular  fire  grates  for  using  coal,  and  can  be 
run  independently  of  the  incinerators.  The  boilers  are  fed  from 
a  pump  in  the  adjoining  building,  the  feed  line  passing  through 
an  economizer  coil  in  the  base  of  the  stack,  which  heats  the  feed 
water  to  a  high  temperature. 

In  the  adjoining  building  are  placed  two  loo-k.w.  and  one 
5o-k.w.  direct  connection  engines,  with  generators  of  multipolar 
direct-current  type,  wound  for  250  volts,  operating  a  three-wire 
system.  Their  ratings  permit  an  overload  capacity  of  25  per 
cent.  The  distribution,  which  is  controlled  by  an  eight-panel 
switchboard,  provides  for  two  circuits  for  local  lighting  and  five 
for  the  bridge,  which  are  arc  lamps  connected  on  the  multiple 
system. 

The  chimney  of  these  incinerators  is  of  the  radial  brick  type, 
and  is  200  feet  high;  inside  diameter  4^2  feet  at  the  top.  The 
foundation  is  concrete,  14  feet  thick,  on  30  foot  piles  over  an 
area  24  feet  square. 

The  cost   of  the  building,   chimney,    furnaces,   conveyor 

and  outside  driveway  was $34,193.00 

Boilers  and  Electrical  Equipment 49,391.00 

$83,584-00 


62    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  saving  effected  by  this  method  of  disposal  over  the  former 
one  of  dumping  was  expected  to  be  $30,300  a  year.  This  is  36.8 
per  cent,  of  the  cost,  and  at  this  rate  the  whole  expense  of  the 
plant,  maintenance  and  repairs  would  have  been  paid  in  three 
years.  The  amount  of  refuse  handled  daily  (approximately 
1,050  cubic  yards)  is  about  one-fifth  of  the  total  daily  output  of 
the  boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  Bronx. 


FIG.   10.— THE    UNLOADING   OF   SCOWS   AT  SEA,    NEW   YORK   CITY. 

After  the  construction  of  this  incinerator  many  changes  were 
made.  The  charging  holes  were  removed  from  the  side  and 
placed  in  the  middle  line  of  the  furnace.  The  inner  partitions 
between  the  cells  were  removed,  and  the  incinerator  thus  became 
a  rectangular  open  chamber  floored  with  cast-iron  fire  bars  and 
charged  by  two  openings  through  the  roof. 

After  its  operation  for  six  months  the  walls  showed  signs  of 
weakness,  and  repairs  were  made.  Subsequently,  the  strain  put 
upon  this  furnace  for  developing  high  temperature  for  electric 
lighting  proved  its  inability  to  withstand  the  pressure,  and  after 
an  intermittent  use  of  about  two  years  the  east  incinerator  was 
in  too  bad  a  condition  to  be  operated. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          63 

At  the  present  time  the  west  furnace  is  used  for  destroying 
refuse  rejected  by  the  picking  contractor,  but  no  steam  power  is 
developed.  The  boilers  have  been  removed,  the  machinery  for 
electric  lighting  is  dismantled  and  the  whole  plant  is  in  poor 
condition  for  anything  like  satisfactory  work. 

TABLE     XXVII.— DATA     AND     RESULTS     OF     EVAPORATIVE     TESTS; 

RUBBISH    INCINERATOR   AND    ELECTRIC    LIGHTING   STATION, 

DELANCEY   SLIP,    BOROUGH    OF    MANHATTAN, 

NEW   YORK. 

Trials  made  by  H.  De  B.  Parsons. 


DATA 

West  Boiler 

East  Boiler 

Grate  surface  of  furnace          .  . 

113  sq.  ft. 
1,890 

60 

Dec.  20,  1905 
5.5  hours 
Fair 
Dry 
3i,i93lbs. 

8,926    " 

22,267  Ibs. 
10% 

29,  92  5  Ibs. 
36,568    " 

6,435 
610 
200 

2 
2 

74  sq.  ft. 
1,890 

60 

Dec.  21,  1905 
5.5  hours 
Rainy 
Wet 
21,175  Ibs. 

7.245    " 

Effective  water-heating  surface  . 
Surface  of  feed-water  heater  coil 
in  flue  

TOTAL  QUANTITIES 
Date  of  Trial  

Duration  of  trial 

Weather 

Condition  of  rubbish                 .  . 

6,876 
1,800 
250 

Weight  of  rubbish  delivered.  .  .  . 
Weight  of  rubbish  picked  out  as  : 
marketable.  .  . 
paper.  .  .  . 
rags  
cans  
Weight  of  rubbish  burned  
Weight  of  ash  estimated 

13,  930  Ibs. 
.        10% 

24,  67  5  Ibs. 
30,054    ' 

Total    weight    of    water    fed    to 
boiler  

Equivalent    water    evaporated, 
from  and  at  2  12°  
Number  of  furnace  men  : 
stokers  
feeders  
Boiler  horse-power  developed  .  .  . 

ECONOMIC  RESULTS 
Water   evaporated,    actual,    per 
pound  of  rubbish  

6 
3 

192.7 

i  .34  Ibs. 
i  .  64  " 

I58-4 

i.  77  Ibs. 
2.16  " 

Equivalent   evaporated   per   Ib. 
of  rubbish 

From  an  article  contributed  by  Mr.  F.  L.  Stearns  to  the  dis- 
cussion before  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  the  fol- 
lowing explanation  is  included : 

The  plant  began  by  furnishing  250  amperes  at  250  volts  and  lighting 
only  a  part  of  the  bridge.  Later  the  load  was  increased  until  800  am- 


OF  THC 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


64     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTK. 

peres  at  the  same  voltage  was  generated,  lighting  the  whole  bridge.  In 
creating  this  power,  however,  the  plant  was  run  beyond  its  reasonable 
capacity,  'resulting  in  the  melting  of  the  fire  brick  in  the  flue  leading  to 
the  boilers,  which  it  is  now  realized  was  too  small.  This  portion  of  melted 
brick,  together  with  ashes  and  other  elements  carried  from  the  furnace 
in  suspension,  filled  the  flues  with  a  slag  like  iron  ore ;  while  the  melting 
brick  gradually  disappeared  until  the  top  of  the  flues  caved  in  and  the 
plant  was  obliged  to  discontinue  lighting  the  bridge  and  was  used  simply 
to  dispose  of  the  rubbish. 

The  Edison  Company  about  this  time  offered  to  light  the  bridge  at  the 
rate  of  3^  cents  per  kw-h.,  which  was  cheaper  than  it  could  be  done 
by  a  plant  of  this  kind,  however  efficiently  run,  and  this  offer  was  there- 
fore accepted  and  the  use  of  the  plant  for  lighting  discontinued.  Another 
furnace  has  been  built  close  to  the  boiler,  the  connection  between  the  two 
being,  instead  of  a  flue,  an  opening  the  full  width  of  the  boiler  and  fur- 
nace. This  has  as  yet  been  run  for  only  a  year,  producing  steam  to  run 
the  conveyor  and  presses  without  any  repairs,  melting  of  brick  or  pro- 
duction of  slag.  As  there  seems  no  use  to  put  the  power  to  other  than 
lighting,  and  as  this  was  being  obtained  more  cheaply  than  the  cost  of 
furnishing  it  by  the  incinerating  plant,  this  is  used  now  simply  for  in- 
cinerating rubbish  and  the  waste  heat  is  permitted  to  go  up  the  stack  to 
the  outside  air. 

The  failure  of  the  incinerating  plant  to  light  the  Williamsburg  Bridge 
does  not  prove  that  rubbish  is  not  a  good  fuel,  neither  does  it  prove  that 
it  is  impractical  to  generate  steam  power  with  rubbish  as  a  fuel.  Only 
twelve  years  ago  this  burning  of  rubbish  alone  was  untried,  and  to-day 
we  are  not  only  trying  to  compete  with  coal-burning  plants  of  the  same 
capacity  but  with  the  large  plants  of  the  Edison  Company.  Experience 
with  this  plant  seems  to  have  demonstrated  that,  in  competition  with 
coal-fed  plants  of  equal  size,  rubbish-incinerating  power  plants  can  fur- 
nish steam  power  economically.  But  no  small  plant  can  furnish  power 
as  cheaply  as  a  large  one ;  and  a  large  incinerating  plant  is  impracticable 
because  of  the  undesirability  and  great  cost  of  hauling  the  rubbish  from 
such  great  distances  as  would  be  necessary  to  provide  fuel  for  such  a 
plant. 

This  statement  by  Mr.  Stearns  treats  the  question  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  lighting  plants  very  tenderly.  The  facts  appear  to  be 
that  the  design  of  the  furnaces  was  not  based  upon  correct  prin- 
ciples. It  is  true  that  the  combustion  of  this  class  of  waste  had 
not  been  done  in  an  extended  way  except  at  one  point  in  the 
United  States,  but  the  calorific  value  of  the  fuel  was  fairly  well 
understood,  the  quantities  to  be  dealt  with  were  known,  the  boiler 
power  to  be  developed  was  a  fixed  quantity,  and  with  these 
factors  there  should  have  been  no  great  difficulty  in  constructing 
a  furnace  which  should  be  equal  to  the  work. 

The  actual  results  were  most  lamentable,  one  furnace  having 
collapsed  within  six  months  after  the  first  installation,  necessitat- 
ing many  repairs,  and  even  after  changes  were  made  in  the  de- 
sign, there  were  still  unfortunate  results  in  the  production  of 
steam  and  in  the  maintenance  of  the  furnaces  themselves. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  65 

They  were  theoretical  designs  evolved  from  calculated  formula, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  failed  almost  completely  when  it  came 
to  a  practical  trial  under  existing  conditions.  It  is  a  demonstra- 
tion of  a  truth  that  sometimes  occurs  in  practical  mechanics,  that 
a  theoretical  design  from  carefully  prepared  data  does  not  do  the 
work  nearly  as  well  as  even  a  rough  construction  by  a  practical 
man  who  understands  the  power  of  heat,  and  who  can  design  and 
maintain  his  constructions  from  his  own  personal  experience. 


FIG.  11.— TIPPING  ASHES  AND  RUBBISH  INTO  SCOWS,  N.  Y.  CITY. 

FINAL  DISPOSITION  OF  ASHES  AND  REFUSE  OF  BROOKLYN. 

In  July,  1903,  a  five-year  contract  was  made  with  the  American 
Railway  Traffic  Company,  organized  to  take  over  the  contract 
from  private  parties  for  the  final  disposition  of  the  ashes,  street 
sweepings  and  refuse  collected  in  the  borough.  There  were 
established  thirteen  receiving  stations,  built  and  maintained  at  the 
expense  of  the  company,  at  which  the  wastes  (not  including 
garbage)  were  delivered  by  the  city  carts.  At  two  stations  the 
carts  (Fig.  12)  discharged  directly  into  cars  run  over  the  trolley 
lines  of  the  Brooklyn  Rapid  Transit  Company  to  a  dumping 
ground  near  Coney  Island.  At  eleven  other  stations  the  city 
carts  discharge  the  ashes  and  sweepings  into  steel  bins  having  a 
capacity  of  9^4  cubic  yards,  weighing,  when  loaded,  from  five  to 
eight  tons.  Four  bins  constitute  a  load,  which  is  taken  to  the 


66    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


FIG.  12.— THE  CARTS  FOR  COLLECTION  OF  ASHES,  NEW  YORK  AND 

BROOKLYN. 


FIG.    13.— ASH     BINS    REMOVED    BY    TROLLEY,    BROOKLYN. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          67 

dumping  ground  by  trolley.     All  ashes  and  street  sweepings  are 
disposed  of  in  this  manner.    (Fig.  13.) 

The  refuse,  separated  at  the  houses,  is  delivered  by  the  city 
carts  at  the  stations  in  separate  buildings,  wherein  the  marketable 
portions  of  the  rubbish  are  recovered  by  sorting,  the  residuum 
being  sent  with  the  ashes  to  the  dumps,  or  to  the  East  New  York 
Disposal  Station,  where  it  is  destroyed  and  the  steam  power 
generated  is  utilized. 

THE  EAST  NEW  YORK  DISPOSAL  STATION. 

The  largest  station  operated  by  the  American  Railway  Traffic 
Company,  under  their  contract  with  Brooklyn,  is  at  East  New 
York,  a  suburb  of  Brooklyn  proper. 

The  building  of  this  station  is  150  feet  by  75  feet,  wooden 
frame,  corrugated  iron  covering,  two  stories  high.  One-half  the 
area  of  the  upper  floor  space  is  devoted  to  the  ash  collection 
teams  which  dump  their  loads  into  pockets,  or  bins,  beneath  which 
the  cars  of  the  trolley  line  are  loaded. 

The  other  half  of  the  upper  floor  contains  a  short  belt  con- 
veyor for  sorting  the  refuse  brought  by  city  teams,  the  picking 
bins,  and  the  office.  The  second  half-floor  below  has  another 
conveyor  which  receives  the  rubbish  brought  from  the  other 
stations,  and  which  is  burned  without  further  sorting. 

Conveyor  No.  i,  above,  discharges  into  Conveyor  No.  2  below, 
and  the  latter  discharges  directly  into  the  furnaces. 

The  incinerator  is  a  double  furnace  of  the  "bagasse  burner" 
type,  the  fire  boxes  being  divided  by  a  bridge  wall,  so  that  either 
may  be  run  independently  of  the  other.  There  are  two  grates 
placed  horizontally ;  the  upper  consists  of  iron  pipes  connected 
into  headers  outside  the  furnace,  for  water  circulation,  and  spaced 
one  foot  apart.  The  lower  grates  are  of  the  usual  cast-iron  fire- 
bar pattern.  There  are  two  doors  at  the  front  of  each  furnace 
for  stoking  and  for  removing  ashes.  Both  furnaces  connect  with 
a  common  combustion  chamber,  and  this  with  a  Sterling  water- 
tube  boiler  of  300  horsepower.  The  chimney  is  of  radial  brick 
type,  100  feet  high. 

The  steam  power  employed  is  about  one-half  the  capacity  of 
the  plant,  and  is  utilized  for  operating  an  air  compressor  for 
drills  and  hammers  in  the  neighboring  repair  shop  of  the  Brook- 


68     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

lyn  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  Company,  and  for  heating  the  build- 
ings and  running  the  conveyors.  The  ash  collection  is  from  50 
to  70  loads,  and  the  refuse  20  to  40  loads  daily.  All  the  baling 
is  done  by  hand. 

There  are  no  available  data  in  regard  to  the  amounts  sorted 
and  destroyed  at  this  station,  since  this  is  a  private  contract  and 
is  not  under  the  control  of  the  city.  The  American  Railway 
Traffic  Company  is  annually  transporting  one  million  yards  of 
material,  which  represents  the  ashes,  street  sweepings  and  rubbish 
left  after  sorting.  The  company  receives  35  cents  per  cubic  yard 
for  this  work  of  final  disposition,  besides  the  revenue  from  all 
recovered  material  and  the  value  of  the  steam  power  generated 
at  the  incinerator  plant. 

During  the  period  that  this  system  has  been  in  operation,  three 
and  one-half  years,  about  eighty-five  acres  of  sunken  marsh  land 
have  been  raised  to  the  grade  of  the  surrounding  country  and 
made  good  taxable  area. 

THE   DECARIE   REFUSE    INCINERATOR,    BROOKLYN. 
The  American  Railway  Traffic  Company  has  a  small  Decarie 


FIG.  14.— METHOD   OF   DISCHARGING   ASH    BINS,    BROOKLYN. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          69 

incinerator  in  use  in  one  of  the  Brooklyn  districts.  This  is  a 
square  box  of  steel  plate  10  x  10  feet  and  about  10  feet  in  height, 
with  steel  smoke  stack  125  feet  high.  The  usual  water  jacket 
construction  is  followed  in  this  case,  the  double  walls  having 
space  for  water  circulation,  which  is  connected  with  the  water- 
tube  grates  and  the  steam  generator  or  square  boiler  box  which 
forms  the  interior  roof  of  the  furnace.  There  is  no  steam  power 
obtained  from  the  plant,  the  conveyor  for  sorting  being  driven 
by  electric  motor  supplied  by  currents  from  the  street  connections. 
The  incinerator  burns  no  garbage  or  other  material  than  the  dry 
combustible  matters  rejected  in  the  process  of  picking.  The 
capacity  of  the  plant  is  stated  at  30  to  40  cart  loads  daily,  about 
200  to  250  cubic  yards.  There  are  no  reports  of  quantities  re- 
ceived, sorted,  or  burned,  and  nothing  is  known  as  to  the  cost  of 
operating  and  necessary  repairs. 

THE  THIRTY-SEVENTH    STREET   RUBBISH    INCINERATOR,   SOUTH 

BROOKLYN. 

For  the  disposal  of  the  refuse  of  this  district  of  South  Brooklyn, 
the  Street  Cleaning  Bureau  has  built  a  small  incinerator  of  a 
simple  design.  This  is  a  square  box  of  steel  plate  (Fig.  15),  lined 


FIG.  15.— RUBBISH   INCINERATOR,  THIRTY-SEVENTH  STREET,  SOUTH 

BROOKLYN. 


70    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

with  fire  brick,  floored  with  cast-iron  grates,  with  ash  pit  below, 
and  flue  connection  with  a  short  chimney  at  the  rear  above  the 
fire  bars.  The  furnace  is  charged  through  one  large  door  at  the 
level  of  the  tipping  platform.  There  is  a  corrugated  iron  covering 
house  and  inclined  approach  and  platform  for  the  collection  carts. 
The  work  is  carried  on  by  one  man  who  recovers  whatever  of 
value  he  can  pick  out  of  the  refuse  as  his  payment  for  destroying 
the  remainder. 

THE  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATION  IN  BUFFALO. 

In  1903  the  city  of  Buffalo  had  under  consideration  a  plan  for 
the  reorganization  of  its  service  for  the  collection  and  disposal 
of  waste;  also  for  the  disposal  of  sewage  from  a  large  district 
of  the  city  that  was  below  the  level  of  the  main  sewerage  system. 
An  examination  made  by  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works, 
Col.  Francis  G.  Ward,  of  several  plans  and  methods,  decided  him 


FIG.  16.— THE   REFUSE   UTILIZATION  STATION,   BUFFALO. 

to  accept  the  designs  of  Mr.  C.  M.  Morse,  deputy  engineer  com- 
missioner, for  the  erection  of  a  combined  sewage  pumping  and 
refuse  disposal  plant  on  ground  owned  by  the  city  at  the  Ham- 
burg Canal. 

The  contract  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the  ashes,  garb- 
age and  refuse  for  a  term  of  five  years,  was  awarded,  after  com- 
petition, to  the  Buffalo  Sanitary  Company,  and  provided  for  the 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  71 

erection  of  a  refuse  disposal  station  adjoining  the  sewage  pump- 
ing station,  which  was  completed  in  June,  1905. 

The  building  is  of  brick,  is  200  feet  long,  50  feet  wide  and  25 


FIG.   17.— TIPPING   FLOOR   AND   CONVEYOR,    BUFFALO. 

feet  high  at  the  eaves,  with  a  steel  trussed  roof.  (Fig.  16.)  A 
division  of  the  building  into  two  parts  is  made  by  a  fireproof 
wall ;  the  main  receiving  room  is  100  by  50  feet,  and  affords  ample 
space  for  dumping  the  four  or  five  hundred  cubic  yards  of  refuse 


FIG.    18.— CONVEYOR    AND    SORTING    BINS,    BUFFALO. 


72     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

received  daily.  Beyond  the  fireproof  wall  is  the  destructor, 
separated  from  the  adjoining  sewerage  pumping  station  by  an- 
other wall,  through  which  the  flues  connect  to  the  fire  box  of 
the  steam  boiler  in  the  pumping  station. 

Between  the  receiving  floor  and  the  destructor  is  placed  the 
conveyor,  which  carries  the  refuse  up  an  incline  to  the  floor  of  the 
sorting  room,  and  thence  60  feet  between  the  sorting  bins.  (Fig. 
18.) 

After  passing  the  second  floor  the  remaining  worthless  rubbish 
passes  up  the  inclined  conveyor  (Fig.  18),  and  is  discharged 
through  a  chute  into  one  or  another  of  the  three  charging  holes, 


FIG.    19.— DESTRUCTOR    AND    STEAM    BOILER,    BUFFALO. 

as  may  be  desired.  When  the  works  are  operating  this  stream 
of  combustibles  is  constant,  no  hand-firing  being  required. 

The  destructor  is  33  feet  long,  12  feet  wide  and  13  feet  high. 
The  exterior  is  strongly  braced  by  buckstays  and  tie-rods,  and 
by  longitudinal  angle  bars  to  which  the  frames  of  all  doors  are 
bolted.  (Fig.  19.) 

The  interior  construction  really  comprises  a  double  furnace, 
with  independent  fire  boxes  and  fire-brick  grates  for  sustaining 
the  refuse.  The  area  of  the  fire  boxes  is  36  square  feet,  that  of 
the  refuse  grates  160  square  feet;  a  total  of  196  square  feet  of 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          73 

grate  surface.  The  fire  boxes  are  separated  by  a  bridge  wall,  so 
that  they  may  be  worked  independently  under  forced  draft.  Be- 
hind the  fire  bars  are  two  sets  of  fire-brick  grates,  one  above  the 
other,  but  divided  from  each  other  by  a  longitudinal  bridge  wall. 
Above  the  upper  set  of  grates  is  the  main  receiving  chamber  of 
the  destructor,  approximately  20  feet  long,  8  feet  wide  and  6 
feet  high,  interior  dimensions.  At  the  rear  end  is  a  combustion 
chamber  common  to  both  furnaces  to  which  all  the  gases  are 
directed  and  from  whence  they  are  taken  into  the  boiler  of  the 
sewage  pumping  station,  or  direct  to  the  chimney  by  a  bye-pass. 

A  small  75-horsepower  boiler  is  set  in  connection  with  the 
destructor  for  the  purpose  of  electric  lighting,  operating  the  con- 
veyor and  bailing  presses,  and  for  furnishing  forced  draft.  By 
means  of  sliding  dampers  this  boiler  can  be  put  out  of  commission 
when  connection  is  made  with  the  boilers  of  the  sewerage  plant. 

The  combustion  of  refuse  is  accelerated  by  forced  draft  from 
a  6o-inch  blower,  introduced  on  each  side  of  the  destructor  under 
the  ash  pits  of  the  fire  boxes.  The  chimney,  which  is  connected 
with  the  boilers  of  the  sewage  pumping  station  and  with  the 
destructor,  is  150  feet  high,  of  radial  brick,  reinforced  by  a  lining 
of  fire  brick  to  withstand  the  high  temperature  generated  by  the 
destructor. 

The  rooms  which  contain  the  dynamo  and  engine  are  separated 
from  the  main  destructor  room,  and  bathrooms  and  all  other 
necessary  conveniences  have  been  provided  for  the  comfort  of  the 
employees.  The  approximate  cost  of  the  refuse  disposal  station 
and  all  machinery,  inclusive  of  the  chimney,  was  $50,000. 

The  quantities  of  refuse  received  at  the  station  for  the  first  six 
months  of  its  work,  when  under  the  control  of  the  Buffalo  Sani- 
tary Company,  was  reported  as  follows : 

TABLE   XXVIII.— QUANTITIES  AND   DISPOSITION   OF    REFUSE, 
BUFFALO. 

Quantities  Disposition 

June,  T9°5 I2.736  Rubbish,   dirt,   ashes  sent  to 

July,  I9°5 I4.599  dump    from   station,    2,116 

September,  1905 15,176  cubic  yards. 

October,       1905 1 5,3 9 5  Tins  marketed,  452  cubic  yds. 

December,    1905 10,887  Iron  marketed,  2  tons. 

January,       1906 10,924  Paper  marketed  not  reported. 

Delivered  at  Station .  .     79,7 17  cubic  yards. 


74    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OK  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

In  May,  1907,  the  city  purchased  the  buildings  and  equipment 
from  the  Sanitary  Company  for  a  payment  of  $50,000,  and  have 
since  operated  the  station  for  its  own  benefit.  The  gross  returns 
for  recovered  articles  and  steam  supplied  to  the  sewage  pumping 
plant  for  4  months  10  days,  May  20  to  September  30,  1907,  was 
$11,957.83.  After  deducting  the  cost  of  operating  and  adding 
the  allowances  formerly  made  to  the  Sanitary  Company  for 
steam,  the  net  returns  from  the  station  for  the  period  named  is 
about  $5,000,  or  at  the  rate  of  $1,250  per  month,  or  $15,000  per 
year. 

The  recovered  articles  included  2,362,417  pounds  of  paper,  83,- 
703  pounds  of  rags,  53,626  bottles  and  four  car-loads  of  tins. 

The  quantities  received  and  sorted  for  one  day,  Oct.  14,  1907, 
were : 

14  bales  of  newspapers ' 9,07  5  Ibs. 

34  "  mixed-paper 22,980  ' 

i  Manila 53  5  ' 

i  Rags 650  ' 

i  Flour  bags  (paper) 63  5  ' 

51  bales 43.875  Ibs. 

FINAL  DISPOSITION  OF  REFUSE  AT  LOWELL,  MASS. 

Since  1892  this  city  has  destroyed  its  garbage  by  cremation  in 
an  Engle  Cremator,  except  during  times  when  it  has  been  sold  to 
the  farmers  for  feeding  swine.  This  cremator  was  not  of  suf- 
ficient capacity  for  the  work  required,  and  in  1904  the  city 
erected  a  small  incinerator  for  the  disposal  of  the  refuse. 

The  Decarie  incinerator  built  at  this  place  in  1904,  at  a  cost  of 
$10,000  for  the  furnace  only,  is  a  departure  from  the  usual  type 
of  construction  of  this  company.  It  is  a  circular,  double-jacketed 
vertical  boiler  8  feet  in  diameter  and  10  feet  high,  having  interior 
hollow  pipe  grates,  arranged  in  a  circle  and  at  their  upper  ends 
tapped  into  the  bottom  sheet  of  the  steam  generator.  On  the 
front  outside  are  two  fuel  grates  arranged  one  above  the  other, 
the  purpose  being  to  make  a  down-draft  from  one  grate  through 
the  other,  the  heat  then  passing  into  the  incinerator.  These  grates 
and  fire  box  are  of  no  service  and  are  not  used.  On  the  rear  side 
exactly  opposite  to  this  is  a  square- jacketed  brick  chamber,  having 
a  grate  at  its  upper  and  farther  end,  over  which  the  gases  from 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


75 


the  incinerator  are'  supposed  to  pass  before  reaching  the  chimney. 
The  incinerator  is  charged  through  one  large  opening  on  the  top 
24  inches  in  diameter.  There  are  nine  doors  for  firing  and  re- 
moving ashes,  one  large  charging  hole  above,  and  eight  smaller 
circular  4-inch  openings  for  stoking.  The  water-jacket  and  the 
hollow  grates  are  part  of  the  circulating  water  system.  This 
steam  boiler  system  generates  a  small  amount  of  steam,  not 
enough  to  utilize  for  power  and  which  is  allowed  to  go  to  waste. 

The  kinds  of  materials  burned  at  this  incinerator  are  rubbish, 
paper,  small  amounts  of  wood,  sawdust,  sweepings,  barrels,  and 
generally  combustible  refuse,  with  condemned  food-stuffs  from 
the  market  houses.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  burn  garbage, 
but  all  the  matter  of  this  kind  is  found  to  pass  through  the  grates 
into  the  ashpit  below  and  is  removed  when  partly  burned,  with 
the  ashes.  The  furnace  is  not  suited,  nor  is  it  used  for  the  con- 
sumption of  garbage  in  any  considerable  amount. 

The  official  report  of  quantities  for  the  week  beginning  April  i, 
1907,  is  47,125  pounds,  or  an  amount  of  3  1/3  tons  per  day. 
Time  occupied,  8  in  the  morning  until  5  o'clock  at  night.  Fuel 
used  daily,  150  pounds  of  coal  and  about  i  to  2  cubic  feet  of 
wood.  The  following  report  of  quantities  and  cost  of  operating 
is  condensed  from  the  official  report  of  the  city  for  the  years 
named — 1904  to  1907  inclusive  : 

TABLE   XXIX.— RUBBISH    AND   MARKET   REFUSE,    LOWELL,   MASS. 


PAPER  AND 
RUBBISH 

Market 
Refuse 
Number 
Tons 
Reported 

Total 
Tons 
Collec- 
tion 

TOTAL 
COSTS 

YEAR 

Number 
Loads 
Collected 

Tons  Tak- 
ing 6  Yds. 
to  Load, 
200  Ibs.  to 
Yard 

Per 
Year 

Per 

Ton 

1904..  .  . 
1905..  .  . 
1906  .  .  . 
1907..  . 

Totals. 

536 
606 

723 
708 

32i 
363 
433 
424 

3°3 
664 
1,046 
i,i95 

624 
1,027 

*,479 
1,619 

$992-92 
1,101  .20 
1,762  .45 
1,489.80 

$i-59 
i.  06 
1.19 
.89 

2.573 

i,54i 

3,208 

4,749 

$5,346.37 

1.18 

A  report  recently  published  has  the  following  paragraph : 

Garbage  crematories  have  been  installed  in  many  cities  in  this  coun- 
try, but  in   a  very  large   number   of   cases  they   have  been  reported   as 


76     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

unsatisfactory  or  have  later  been  superseded  by  other  designs  or  by  a 
different  method.  The  crematories  which  are  seen  in  American  cities 
are  furnaces  operated  under  ordinary  draft,  usually  with  coal  as  a  fuel. 
A  recent  examination  of  a  furnace  of  this  kind  used,  in  this  case,  for 
the  burning  of  market  wastes,  showed  serious  defects  from  a  sanitary 
point  of  view.  The  heat  was  not  great  enough  to  destroy  the  odors  at 
all  times,  and  the  heavy  gases  generated  in  the  furnace,  though  dis- 
charged through  a  tall  chimney,  fell  to  the  ground  and  were  very  offen- 
sive. The  refuse  was  not  completely  burned,  and  the  charred  mass  dis- 
charged from  the  furnace  containing  unburned  material  was  offensive 
and  much  of  it  had  to  be  reburned.  Coal  was  being  used,  though  not 
in  large  quantities,  as  the  wastes  contained  much  combustible  material. 
The  operation  of  this  furnace  in  or  near  a  populated  district,  in  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  being  operated  when  examined,  would  be  in- 
tolerable. 


* 


CHAPTER  IV. 


MUNICIPAL    ASHES. — COLLECTION    AND   DISPOSAL. 

The  largest  item  in  waste  disposal  work  is  municipal  ashes. 
The  average  quantity  from  towns  using  coal  for  domestic  fuel 
is  from  70  per  cent,  in  winter  to  50  per  cent,  in  summer,  an 
average  of  65  per  cent  of  the  total  waste  collection  for  the  year 
through. 

The  composition  and  character  of  municipal  ashes  varies  not 
only  with  the  kind  of  coal  used  but  also  with  other  local  conditions. 
The  character  of  the  people  has  much  to  do  with  this.  In  wealthy 
residential  towns  the  ashes  are  far  greater  in  quantity  and  contain 
more  unburned  coal.  The  reverse  of  this  is  true  in  populous 
towns  largely  made  up  of  working  people.  The  geographical 
locality  has  perhaps  the  most  noticeable  effect.  In  the  cold  winter 
season  of  the  north  the  consumption  of  fuel  goes  on  at  a  much 
higher  rate  than  in  the  temperate  and  warmer  regions  of  the 
Middle  and  Southern  States. . 

These  various  considerations  make  it  impossible  to  assign  any 
fixed  percentage  of  ashes  to  any  community  unless  the  particular 
conditions  are  known. 

The  variation  in  American  coals  used  for  household  fuels  is 
roughly  shown  in  the  following  table : 

TABLE    XXX.— APPROXIMATE    ANALYSIS    AND    HEATING    VALUES    OF 
AMERICAN    COAL. 


Fixed  Car- 

Volatile 

Ash 

Heat 

KINDS  OF  COALS  AND 

bon,  Per 

Matter,  Per 

per 

Units 

LOCALITIES 

Cent.  Com- 

Cent. Com- 

Lb. 

Per  Lb. 

bustible 

bustible 

Coal 

Coal 

Anthracite,  Penn.  and  Col  

100  to  92 

o  to  8 

10  .0 

13,700 

Semi-  Anthracite,  Penn.  and  W. 

Va..    . 

92  to  87 

8  to  13 

8     7 

Semi-bituminous:    111.,  Ind.,  la., 

Mo  
Bituminous:    Pa..  W.  Va.,  Va., 

87  to  78 

13  to  25 

5-6 

14,700 

Ga.,  Ky.,  Tenn  

78  to  50 

2  5  to  50 

6.0 

13,600 

Lignite:  Mon.,  Wy.,  Col.,  Wash., 
Id.,  Cal.... 

Below  co 

'\bove  co 

77 


78    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  refuse  of  a  coal  fire  includes  fine  ash,  clinker,  slate,  coal 
partly  coked,  and  unburned  coal.  The  proportion  of  each  varies 
with  the  variety  of  coal,  the  kind  of  furnace,  and  the  skilfulness 
of  the  fireman.  The  ashes  of  anthracite  coal  burned  in  the  houses 
of  the  larger  Eastern  cities  have  been  analyzed,  and  the  results 
given  by  Waring,*  tabulated  and  reported  by  Koyl  and  Craven, 
are  accepted  as  the  standard. 

TABLE  XXXI.— ANALYSIS  OF  ASHES   FROM   ANTHRACITE  COAL,  NEW 
YORK    CITY.    (CRAVEN.) 


AVERAGE  HOUSE  COLLECTION 

Apart- 
ment 
Houses 

Large 
House 
Furnaces 

Factory 
Egg 
and  Nut 

Steam 
Boilers, 
Pea  Coal 

Unburned  coal  recoverable.  .  .20% 
Clinkers     and     partly-burned 
coal  1  5% 

35% 

20% 

40% 

I  5% 

25% 
30% 

20% 
40% 

Coarse  ash  and  slate                  T  5% 

Fine  ash                        „            •  •  5°% 

4<r% 

4r% 

4S% 

40% 

The  proportions  of  unburned  coal,  clinker  and  fine  ash  by 
volume  are  very  nearly  the  same  as  those  by  weight  given  above. 
This  analysis  was  made  shortly  after  the  separation  of  wastes 
was  instituted  in  New  York  City,  and  the  quantities  of  unburned 
coal  quoted  in  this  table  were  then  thought  to  be  very  large,  but 
have  since  been  found  to  be  correct. 

Any  one  who  wants  to  see  the  coal  that  is  carried  from  his  own 
and  other  households  has  only  to  inspect  an  ash  dump  after  a  rain- 
storm has  washed  away  the  upper  coat  of  fine  ashes.  He  will  see 
enough  unburned  coal  in  sight  to  convince  him  of  the  fact  that 
an  average  of  20  per  cent.,  or  400  pounds  of  coal  per  ton  of  ashes 
is  a  comparatively  safe  estimate. 

The  figures  of  the  New  York  Commission  are,  for  1906,  for 
Greater  New  York,  two  million  tons  of  ashes  taken  from  the 
households  to  Riker's  Island  and  other  dumping  places.  At  an 
average  of  20  per  cent.,  or  400  pounds  of  coal  per  ton  of  ashes,  this 
city  is  annually  burying  400,000  tons  of  coal  per  year  in  preparing 
the  foundations  for  the  future  municipal  buildings  to  be  built  on 
this  ground.  By  simply  sifting  out  the  coal  and  saving  50  per 
cent,  of  it,  at  the  present  market  prices  (and  it  will  never  be 


•Disposition  of  the  wastes  of  New  York  City,  G.  E.  Waring,  1899. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


79 


lower)  the  city  would  provide  in  five  years  for  enough  money  to 
erect  the  buildings  to  cover  the  site. 

What  is  true  of  New  York  is  true  of  all  American  cities  in  a 
greater  or  lesser  degree.  All  are  equally  wasteful  and  indifferent, 
because,  perhaps,  it  is  nobody's  particular  business  to  look  after 
trifling  details  of  this  sort. 

The  value  of  this  fuel  for  heat  production  is  an  important 
factor  in  waste  disposal  work.  Assuming  that  20  per  cent,  of 
the  coal  and  burnable  clinker  is  recoverable  it  represents  400 
pounds  of  fuel  per  ton  of  ashes,  and  the  value  in  heat  units  and 
rate  per  ton  is  shown  in  the  following  table : 


TABLE  XXXII.— HEATING  POWER  AND  VALUE  OF  WASTE  COAL 

(KOYL). 


Average 
Heat 

Units 

Per  Ct. 
of  Heat 

Units 

Value  per  Ton 
Recovered  Coal 

New  coal  

I  I,OOO 

100% 

$5-5° 

Recovered  coal  and  clinker  .  .  . 

8,000 

73% 

4.00    from   ashes   of 
new  coal. 

Later  tests  of  these  ashes  from  households  has  shown  the  coal 
and  clinker  that  can  be  utilized  as  fuel  under  forced  draft  to  be 
larger  in  quantity  but  less  in  volume  of  heat  units,  averaging 
coal  and  clinker  35  per  cent,  and  5,000  B.T.U.  of  heat.  The  ques- 
tion of  fuel  value  is  discussed  at  length  under  other  heads. 

The  utilization  of  clinker  from  clean  steam  ashes  for  concrete 
manufacture  of  certain  kinds  is  well-known,  and  is  increasing  in 
favor.  In  many  places  fine  ash  is  screened,  sifted  and  ground,  and 
used  as  a  constituent  of  mortar,  with  good  results.  Tests  of 
this  mortar  demonstrate  that  it  possesses  the  tensile  strength  of 
65  pounds  per  square  inch,  as  compared  with  that  of  ordinary 
lime  and  mortar  of  15  pounds  per  square  inch,  and  that  it  has  a 
crushing  strength  of  1,000  pounds  as  against  150  pounds  strength 
of  ordinary  mortar. 

A  large  factory  in  New  York  uses  fine  coal  ashes  as  a  substi- 
tute for  sand  in  certain  kinds  of  brick-making,  with  entirely 
satisfactory  results.  It  is  also  widely  used  for  fireproofing  in 
floor  filling  and  similar  construction  work. 


8o     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

When  dealing  with  disposal  of  wastes  by  incineration  the  ash 
resulting  from  combustion  of  the  several  kinds  of  refuse  becomes 
an  interesting  factor.  Not  all  waste  produces  the  same  returns  in 
quantity  or  character  when  burned  under  different  conditions. 

ASHES  FROM  THE  COMBUSTION  OF  ENGLISH  TOWNS'  REFUSE. 

Under  the  English  practice  of  burning  all  house  refuse  and 
ashes  in  furnaces  operating  at  high  temperature  under  forced 
draft,  the  residuum  of  ash  and  clinker  is  thoroughly  calcined  and 
freed  from  organic  matters.  There  is  a  small  amount  of  fine  dust 
deposited  in  the  combustion  chamber  and  dust  catchers  of  the 
furnaces,  which  is  used  as  the  basis  of  several  kinds  of  disinfect- 
ing powders.  The  clinker,  which  is  removed  through  the  firing 
and  stoking  doors  of  the  destructors  is  screened,  ground,  and 
mixed  with  hydraulic  lime  and  cement,  and  is  formed  into  paving 
blocks,  flagging,  tiles,  bricks,  and  gravel  for  concrete  filling  in- 
stead of  broken  stone.  At  Liverpool  some  of  the  smaller  munici- 
pal buildings  are  made  altogether  of  this  material,  and  the  blocks 
and  bricks  used  are  suitable  for  many  kinds  of  construction  work, 
as  they  can  be  moulded  in  any  form  or  made  in  any  color.  When 
properly  seasoned  these  bricks  are  50  per  cent,  stronger  than  the 
ordinary  building  brick,  and  are  manufactured  at  far  less  cost. 

The  best  selected  clinker  from  English  destructors  is  so  per- 
fectly vitrified  that  it  is  in  demand  for  use  on  the  filter  beds  of 
sewage  works,  and  is  found  to  perfectly  supply  the  place  of  an 
equal  volume  of  broken  stone  at  much  less  than  the  cost  of  the 
latter. 

TABLE  XXXIII.— ANALYSIS  OF  DESTRUCTOR  ASHES  (GOODRICH); 
FROM  REPORT  OF  MR.  J.  M.  TAGGERT,  BRADFORD,  ENGLAND. 


SAMPLE 

Fine 

Medium 

Silicious  matter                                               

61  .08 

21  .  t^O 

7  .80 
Traces 
4.12 
5-5o 

67  .  10 
19.30 
6  .00 
Traces 
i.  80 
5-8o 

Iron  and  alluminia  Oxide                   

Carbonate  of  Lime  .                 

Magnesia 

Organic  and  Volatile  Matter  
Moisture  .  .                             

100  .00 

100  .OO 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  81 

The  clinker  from  destructors  burning  mixed  garbage,  refuse 
and  ashes,  and  operating  at  a  temperature  of  1,800°  to  2,500°,  is 
a  very  different  product  from  the  ashes  of  American  crematories 
burning  garbage  and  refuse  only,  at  a  temperature  of  from  600° 
to  1,500°. 

No  American  form  of  crematory  has  yet  succeeded  in  burning 
large  quantities  of  mixed  municipal  waste  (garbage  refuse  and 
ashes)  with  any  reasonable  success.  It  s  not,  indeed,  attempted, 
nor  is  the  form  of  furnace  suitable  to  obtain  and  continue  the 
higher  temperatures  reached  in  British  practice.  It  is  possible 
for  American  furnaces  to  attain  high  heat  for  brief  periods,  and 
under  certain  unusual  conditions  a  clinker  may  be  formed  that  is 
similar  to  the  one  described  above,  but  this  is  the  exception,  not 
the  rule.  The  American  garbage  crematories  deal  only  with 
garbage  and  refuse  under  natural  draft  conditions,  and  do  not 
attain  the  highest  temperatures  nor  produce  an  ash  that  is  com- 
pletely vitreous  and  free  from  organic  matter.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  a  value  to  American  crematory  ash  that  should  be  taken 
into  account  when  the  values  of  all  waste  materials  are  considered. 

ASHES  FROM  AMERICAN  CREMATORS. 

Fourteen  years  ago  the  writer  caused  an  analysis  to  be  made 
of  the  ashes  from  the  Engle  Crematory  in  Des  Moines,  Iowa. 
This  analysis  gave  the  following  proportions  of  fertilizing 
elements : 

Calcium  carbonate 8  . 007 

Magnesium  Phosphate 3-oio 

Calcium  phosphate 66.855 

In  transmitting  the  analysis  Prof.  Call,  of  Drake  University, 
Iowa,  after  preliminary  observations  on  the  relative  quantities  of 
the  constituents,  says : 

"Now  as  to  the  usefulness  of  this  ash ;  I  believe  that  the  analysis 
shows  this  material  to  have  value  for  fertilizing  purposes.  There 
is  a  relatively  small  amount  of  insoluable  matter,  and  a  large 
amount  of  matter  which  can  be  readily  dissolved  in  water,  and  by 
the  ordinary  processes  of  nature  made  useful  ...  I  have 
no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  this  sample  shows  a  high  grade  of 
value." 

The  opinion  of  Prof.  Call  has  been  confirmed  and  supplemented 
by  the  opinions  of  others,  and  the  value  of  the  ash  is  well  estab- 


82     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


aiqniosuj 

f»       w                      M       oo 

M          00                     •          00          00 

aptxQ 

to       e*                        o)        co 
•<t         ON                            ON         t- 

um^ 

OO               M                            •               M               CO 

-XQ  uinppQ 

00            N                                                -<t 

CO             N                        M              t^            tO 

CO             O                        M             NO               't 

9pix0 
umipos 

IO                    •           IO 

NO                         •            NO 

10                    .           10            - 

o  n 

NO         r^-                        OO         CNI 

M             t-»                    t^          NO              CO 

rt         00                 00          00            M 

g    umu™m 

t^       NO                           NO        NO 

Tf             M                        f»            M              O 

0  K 

NO               M                                           M               <N, 

CO          M                   ^J-          M          OO 
WO                   10          0            <N 

CO             M                        MM 

oaa^v 

t^       co                     Th       co 

ON         M                   •         OO         NO 
CO          *O                                IO          IO 

j-8 

||                    uiH 

10          (M                                00            W 

0»           t-                00          NO            M 

M              CO                    CN,             10            M 

CO             M                        IO             M             NO 

00          O                N          O         00 
00        NO                O        NO        00 

9Jnq.STOJ\[ 

NO          M                O          1^-        t^ 
00          0                0          t^        M 

Tf             CO                    NO               O               M 

sgsXjBiiy 
jo  jgquin^ 

10         co                t»         CS           O 

M                                                                                ^" 

EXPERIMENTAL  STATIONS 

Hatch  Exp.  Sta.,  Mass.  Agr.  Coll.,  Am- 
herst ;  ashes  from  cremation  of  swill 
The  same  ashes  from  cremation  of  gar- 
bage   
New  York  Agricultural  Exp.  Sta., 
Geneva;  ashes  from  cremation  of 
garbage  
Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Des  Moines; 
ashes  from  cremation  of  garbage.  .  .  . 
Hatch  Exp.  Sta.,  Amherst;  wood 
ashes  

ON        NO 
<o           ON        NO 

-O           rj-          co 

00            ON 
UJ            **>           ^" 

• 

ON        NO 

m 

0)               CO           NO 

e\T 

00               M 

*«O          "-^        \C 

U. 

^ 

o 

ON 

I 

-O          co 

DC 

111 

ON         co 
to         cs         c* 

-0            <N 

Q. 

Q 

z 

D 

Q. 

Z 

Q 
LU 

t^            ON           M 

h 

^                           M 

D 

0 

_J 

0 

(0 

h 

Ul 

00            CO 

ts>              t^»            CO 

Q 
Ul 

-0                     cs 

H 

DC 
0 

Z 

ll 

IL 

0 

h 

1    i  : 

z 

UJ 

&        : 

o 

c    • 

tc 

Ul 

G         0     • 

.2    '^  : 

d 

"rt       ^5     • 

UJ 
0 

c/2     ^    ; 

AVERA 

+*       '    i—  * 

1 
t| 

X     !p2    • 

^1^1 

OS  rt   o3  ^ 
ffi       ffi 

THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  83 

ished.  The  preceeding  table  gives  several  anaylses  of  garbage 
ash,  and  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  an  analysis  of  wood-ash, 
a  well-known  commercial  fertilizer,  is  added : 

Although  there  are  no  nitrates  found  in  garbage  ash  there  is  a 
large  amount  of  calcium  oxide  (lime)  present  in  its  superior  form. 
When  animals  are  burned  with  the  garbage,  the  ash  is  rich  in 
phosphate  and  lime. 

The  value  of  ashes  for  land  dressing  does  not  depend  altogether 
upon  the  amount  of  soluble  phosphates  and  acids  which  by 
chemical  analysis  are  shown  to  be  present,  but  is  due  also  to  the 
fact  that  the  ashes  are  an  assistance  or  addition  to  the  ground  and 
act  as  filling  for  the  interstices  in  loose  and  sandy  soil,  favoring  the 
rise  and  retention  of  moisture,  and  on  stiff  clay  soils  rendering  the 
texture  pliable  and  easily  worked.  It  also  corrects  acidity  in  some 
soils  by  the  addition  of  alkaline  properties.  In  the  author's  ex- 
perience the  use  of  garbage  ashes  as  a  fertilizer  has  been  attended 
with  uniformly  successful  results. 

Household  garbage  burned  under  ordinary  conditions  leaves  10 
per  cent,  of  residuum.  From  this  is  screened  out  the  broken 
crockery,  tins,  glass,  and  all  other  foreign  matter,  leaving  about 
5  per  cent.,  or  100  pounds  of  ash  per  ton  of  garbage  available  for 
use.  This  is  a  conservative  estimate,  and  is  probably  less  than 
the  average. 

For  fertilizing  purposes,  garbage  ashes  must  be  kept  separate 
from  coal  and  refuse  ashes,  should  be  housed  under  cover,  foreign 
matter  screened  out,  and  samples  frequently  analyzed  to  show 
the  proportions  of  fertilizers  present.  The  ash  should  include 
all  bones  even  though  partly  calcined. 

ASHES  OF  REFUSE  AND  RUBBISH. 

When  municipal  dry  refuse  (rubbish)  is  burned  in  incinerators, 
the  residuums  include  large  amounts  of  iron  in  many  forms,  tin, 
glass,  and  other  incombustibles.  If  these  be  previously  removed, 
leaving  the  combustible  matters,  the  percentage  of  ashes,  which 
is  fairly  constant  in  amount,  can  be  ascertained.  There  is  always 
present  a  large  per  cent,  of  silica  in  various  combinations,  the 
quantity  depending  upon  the  cleanliness  of  the  collection  and  the 
locality  from  whence  the  refuse  comes.  The  following  table  gives 
an  approximation  of  the  ashes  of  refuse  from  all  available  data : 


84     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


TABLE  XXXV.— ASHES  FROM  ONE  TON  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE  AND 

RUBBISH. 


PLACES 

Authority 

Percent- 
age 

Weights, 
Lbs. 

New  York  Utilization  Station  
Boston                                             
New  York                                     47th 
Street  

Craven  .... 
Morse  

Stearns  .  .  . 

i? 

15 

14  .  c 

360 

300 

290 

New  York  Utilization  Station  Delan- 
cey  Street 

Parsons 

14    O 

208 

Buffalo  Utilization  Station   

Morse  

10     ^ 

3QO 

New  Brighton.      Average  of  test  for 
i  year  

Fetherston. 

I3.8 

376 

The  ashes  from  combustion  of  refuse  in  New  York  City  were 
analyzed  at  the  Lederle  Laboratories  as  follows : 

Sample  of  ashes  from  West  Forty-seventh  Street  incinerator : 

Moisture 2.12% 

Potassium  carbonate 2  .65% 

Calcium  phosphate i  .  98% 

Alkaline  earth  carbonates,  silicates,  soda,  oxides    of    iron    and 

alumina,  etc 68  .05% 

Organic  and  volatile  matter  (loss  on  ignition) 25  .20% 

100  .00% 
Sample  of  ashes  from  Delancey  Street  incinerator : 

Moisture 0.7  5% 

Nails  and  other  metal 5  •  4&% 

Broken  glass 4  •  °  5  " 

Bone  phosphate 2.71% 

Potash . 0.46" 

Alkaline  earth  carbonates,  silicates,  soda,  oxides  of  iron  and 

alumina,  etc.  > 60  . 91  % 

Organic  and  volatile  matter  (loss  on  ignition) 25  .64% 

joo  .00% 

STREET  SWEEPINGS — QUANTITIES  AND  VALUES. 

Street  sweepings  is  the  last  constituent  of  municipal  waste  to  be 
considered,  and  although  usually  not  a  part  of  waste  disposal 
work,  still  is  an  item  of  the  whole  mass  of  waste  from  which  some 
returns  may  be  expected. 

In  1898  the  General  Government  collected  data  in  regard  tc 
sweepings,  from  which  the  following  is  quoted  :* 

*The  fertilizing  value  of  street  sweepings,  U.  S.  Agricultural  Bulletin  No.  55, 
H.  W.  Wiley  and  E.  E.  Ewell,  Chemists. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  85 

Of  354  cities  to  which  inquiries  were  sent,  150  made  no  report,  and  of 
the  204  reporting,  70  had  no  method  of  utilization;  74  used  them  (street 
sweepings)  for  filling  land,  and  60  cities,  or  about  17  per  cent,  of  the 
whole  number,  with  a  population  of  10,000  to  100,000,  used  them  for 
fertilization.  For  the  cities  reporting,  the  average  quantity  collected  was 
168.9  tons  for  i  ,000  population.  Assuming  this  to  be  a  true  average, 
then,  for  all  the  cities  of  the  United  States  the  total  amount  would  be 
three  million  tons. 

THE  FERTILIZING  VALUE  OF  SWEEPINGS. 

The  value  of  sweepings  for  land  dressing  depends  greatly  upon 
the  nature  of  the  paving  from  which  they  are  taken.  It  is  practi- 
cally nothing  when  it  comes  from  macadamized  roads,  and  only 
approaches  good  stable  manure  from  the  well-kept,  hand-swept 
streets  of  crowded  cities.  Sweepings  are  often  mixed  with  much 
foreign  matter,  which  lowers  their  value.  There  are  few  reports 
of  the  value  of  sweepings  available.  These  are  presented  in  the 
table  XXXVI  following. 

Street  sweepings  when  dried  average  50  per  cent,  of  sand, 
powdered  stone,  abraided  iron  and  other  foreign  matter,  and  50 
per  cent,  of  combustible  organic  matter.  During  continued  fine 
weather  the  sweepings  become  finely  divided  and  pulverized,  and 
when  taken  up  by  the  wind  are  a  nuisance  to  the  public  and  a 
positive  injury  to  property.  It  is  claimed  that  disease  germs 
are  communicated  in  this  manner,  and  it  is  reported  by  physicians 
in  the  larger  cities  that  the  increase  in  catarrhal  and  kindred 
diseases  during  periods  of  dry,  windy  weather  are  noticeably  above 
the  normal  percentage. 

In  1905  New  York  City  separately  collected  the  street  sweepings 
and  delivered  them  in  bags  at  the  dumps  to  the  Long  Island 
Railroad,  which  sent  them  to  the  farmers,  charging  only  the  cost 
of  freight  and  handling.  This  experiment  was  not  satisfactory, 
as  the  cost  of  the  bags,  which  quickly  rotted,  and  the  freight 
charges,  were  more  than  the  value  of  the  material.  There  being  no 
storage  facilities,  no  disposal  could  be  made  in  winter,  and  the 
attempt  to  utilize  sweepings  in  this  way  was  abandoned.  They 
are  now  sent  with  ashes  to  fill  land  on  Riker's  Island.  Though 
the  approximate  value  of  this  waste  is  about  $i  a  ton,  only 
under  exceptional  conditions  of  cheap  transportation  can  it  be 
made  to  return  a  revenue. 

The  government  reports  from  farmers  using  sweepings  are  to 
the  effect  that  their  value  is  about  two-thirds  that  of  farmyard 


86     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

manure,  giving  best  results  when  used  as  top  dressing.  The 
cost  varies  from  15  cents  to  $2  per  ton,  to  $6  per  carload.  They 
contain  a  considerable  amount  of  stones,  cans,  etc.,  that  must  be 
removed  by  the  purchaser,  and  they  should  be  well  rotted  before 
using. 

STABLE  REFUSE. 

The  waste  from  private  stables  is  not  generally  considered  as 
municipal  waste.  The  view  taken  by  most  places  is  that  this 
comes  under  the  head  of  trade  refuse  or  private  waste  with  which 
the  city  has  no  concern.  The  waste  from  the  city  stables  is  com- 
monly removed  with  ashes  and  dumped,  and  the  householders 
make  private  agreement  for  the  removal  of  stable  refuse.  Stable 
refuse  in  New  York  City  is  removed  by  a  private  company  for  the 
payment  of  a  fixed  sum  averaging  about  $i  per  load  of  2,000 
pounds.  This  is  sent  by  rail  to  country  depots  for  distribution 
to  farmers. 

The  quantities,  according  to  the  data  furnished  by  the  great 
express  companies,  average  about  30  to  32  pounds  per  horse  for 
each  24  hours.  The  total  quantities  removed  in  New  York  cannot 
be  stated,  but  the  amounts  are  diminishing  each  year  by  reason 
of  the  adoption  of  self-propelled  vehicles  in  place  of  horses. 

Stable  manure,  when  the  liquids  are  drained  off  and  the  horse- 
bedding  is  of  straw,  peat,  wood  shavings  or  saw-dust,  is  com- 
bustible with  forced  draft  without  other  fuel.  Several  large  ex- 
press companies  burn  their  stable  refuse  under  their  steam  boilers, 
and  by  adding  a  small  quantity  of  slack  coal,  obtain  power  for 
electric  lighting  and  workshop  purposes. 

Some  of  the  larger  cities  class  manure  as  a  municipal  waste 
and  in  calling  for  tenders  for  incineration  include  stable  manure 
in  the  general  waste  to  be  destroyed.  In  one  city,  the  average 
quantity  to  be  destroyed  is  nearly  40  tons  daily,  the  manure 
weighing  about  970  pounds  per  cubic  yard,  and  is  nearly  13  per 
cent  of  the  total  city  waste  collection.  Undoubtedly  the  disposal 
of  stable  manure  will  be  done  by  city  agency  in  an  increasing 
number  of  places  wherever  incinerating  plants  are  installed,  as 
the  value  of  manure  for  steam-producing  uses  is  more  than 
equivalent  to  an  equal  volume  of  mixed  city  waste.  In  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Westmount  Destructor  fresh  stable  manure  is  de- 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


fH 

\O         O         O         O         "-1         "^ 

CO          ^ 

pq 

O         ON        O         10        ON       \O 

^        1 

8      $ 

00 

°        o 

N              P-l 

O            13 

"Z,          ^   U 

^" 

£  r 

-O 

*      AS 

00 

S  M 

g 

Kj                                                                             H             2 

I 

.        00            •          ON 

II 

Tf                  •                O 

.             .                        fO            •           <r> 

| 

MM                        ro        OO           IO 

-M 

£N 

cu 

II 

«     •     •     • 

0  ;-, 

t      OO        VJ      *•       ^        « 

^ 

.a  u 

cs         T 
ro          .        r-        rr          • 

ffS 

0^ 

1 

llillJJ 

"tfl    03 

•§§ 

*  "  ;  !  !  -  I 

s 

ro           -          ^         r>         M         vo 

Bk   8    :     :     ;     : 

&  |      •:  : 

M         II  : 

r?    «        F 

w    .«            |  c 

^5           co.2          • 
•3,    w^  •     "SjS 

g     S3  8   -:     S55        fc 
-     g-^a    co-s  :     g 

^    «S|    |g§    | 
^^l^la^ll    "S 

gclsfl^l3  s 
IRi|lbP||! 

^^S^^MCW^W  g« 

III  11  1 

•^          -i- 

"3     I 
$>     «> 

M'jOgO            « 

i 
co 

K 
tn 
D 

1 

AwOMHi 

980  Ibs. 

ui 

i  M  \ 

m 
m 

D 
DC 

Q 

W 

0 
O 

1     5 

L  WAST 

1  :     :     : 

3     '.     '.    '.         '. 

•a   ... 

Err:     : 

>>  •  •  • 

< 

UJ 
0) 

D 
Li. 

U 

O 

•e 

s 

Amount 
i  ,020  Ibs. 

UNICIPA 

S  :  :.:     : 

^  '.'.'. 

UJ 

nc 

J 

< 

& 

<to 

"S. 

IL 

o 

*  :  :  *   £ 

O 
O 

UJ 

_l 
m 

** 

"B      % 

VALUES 

ECOVER; 

"w 

0) 
_C 

1  I 
1   1 

IMATE 

%'.'.:     : 

DC 

U. 
0 

1           .0 

'O        4 

K 

PROX 

8  :  :  :     : 

ej    .   .   . 

(0 

1 

Q. 

< 

IO  »O  d                 N 

D 
_J 
< 

a 

1           1 

UJ 
> 

^  \  i 

> 

m 

o 

e 

i 

•-*         & 

h 
< 

OXIMATt 

U 

I 

o 

p 

¥ 

Amount 
600  Ibs. 

COMPAR 

J;  ! 

.—  APPR 

1 

H 
Sg 

0 

O 

J         0 

1 
X 

o-C*"  fe 

li'ig 

> 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

"s  ° 

"3              M 

UJ 

J 

CD 

:  :  : 

TABLE 

^  o 
cSJ 

2  d 

A  mount 
Ibs. 

< 

h 

•  tn 

i    i« 

gi  :  :|  ^ 

1° 

^o 

c§ 

88    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


stroyed  with  a  greater  rapidity  than  any  kind  of  waste,  with  a 
proportional  development  of  heat. 

APPROXIMATE  COMMERCIAL  VALUES  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

If  garbage,  refuse  and  rubbish,  coal  and  clinker  and  other 
waste  products  of  the  city  can  be  successfully  dealt  with  by  the 
contractors  after  being  delivered  to  them  in  a  separated  condition, 
and  if  such  work  be  remunerative  to  the  contractors,  why  should 
not  the  town  itself  do  its  own  work  of  waste  disposal  and  recover 
at  least  a  part  of  the  profit  it  now  allows  others  to  make,  applying 
this  profit  to  the  expense  of  the  collection  and  disposal  service? 

There  are  several  reasons  for  the  present  contracting  methods. 
It  has  long  been  the  custom  to  allow  this  work  to  be  done  by 
contract,  and  it  is  often  difficult  to  break  through  traditions  and 
precedents,  and  the  personal  influence,  political  pull  and  actual 
graft  that  too  often  govern  matters  of  this  kind.  But  modern, 
sanitary  and  economical  methods  can  be  established  if  the  town 
authorities  are  willing  to  investigate  and  to  act  upon  their  con- 
victions. 

MARKET   QUOTATIONS    FOR    REFUSE. 


Per  100  Lbs. 

Per  Ton 

Paper       7    grades.    .  . 
Rags         6                ... 
Bagging  4                •    •  • 
Carpets    3 
Twines     2                 ... 
Rubber  

$0.25  to  $0.80 
•30    "         -85 
.65    "       i.oo 

.60  "      .75 

.36  ;;     .50 

•3°    "         -5° 

$5.00  to  $16 
6.00   "      17 

13.00     "         20 
I2.0O     "         15 

7.20    "      10 
6.00    "      10 

These  are  whole- 
sale prices  for  car- 
load lots.  The 
retail  prices  for 
smaller  quantities 
are  15%  to  25% 

lower. 

The  value  of  a  ton  of  ashes  in  an  unsorted  condition  is  practi- 
cally nothing  except  for  ground  filling.  A  load  (1,500  Ibs.)  of 
this  brings  from  10  cents  to  25  cents,  according  to  the  demand  and 
cost  of  hauling.  Although  the  actual  values  in  coal,  clinker  and 
fine  ash  are  there,  they  must  be  established  by  the  separation  and 
utilization  of  the  several  parts.  (See  Table  XXXVII.)  This  can 
be  done  economically  on  a  large  scale  only,  with  large  volumes  of 
ash  to  deal  with,  and  with  a  market  for  the  several  portions.  The 
coal  in  ashes  will  always  be  salable ;  the  clinker  is  coming  more 
into  use,  and  the  fine  ash  is  already  being  manufactured  with  lime 
and  cement  into  building  bricks  of  any  desired  color,  possessing 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS. 


greater  strength  and  density  than  ordinary  brick,  to  which  it  is 
superior  in  every  way.  It  is  made  in  less  than  one-tenth  the  time 
of  the  ordinary  brick,  and  is  sold  at  no  greater  cost.  This  industry 
will  undoubtedly  be  extended  to  include  a  wide  variety  of  forms 
and  shapes  for  building  material  in  which  ashes  as  a  substitute  for 
sand  will  be  used  in  large  quantities. 

The  value  of  the  refuse  in.  the  above  table  is  based  upon  the 
present  market  price  of  newspaper  "commons,"  or  the  lowest 
class  of  printed  matter  sorted  from  city  collections. 

VALUE  OF  GARBAGE  TREATED  BY  REDUCTION  PROCESSES. 

^ 

No  statement  of  the  value  of  American  waste  would  be  com- 
plete unless  it  included  some  estimates  of  the  amounts  returned 
by  garbage  when  treated  for  the  recovery  of  its  commercially 
valuable  constituents. 

There  are  three  reduction  processes — by  steam  only,  by  naphtha, 
and  by  a  combination  of  these  two  in  one  system.    Although  these 
three  methods  are  fairly  well  known  there  are  no  complete  and      > 
accurate   data   obtainable   from  the   companies   employing   them,  * 
hence  all  estimates  in  regard  to  them  must  be  made  conservatively. 

The  following  table,  compiled  from  official  sources,  is  an 
analysis  of  the  identical  product  of  different  processes  in  different 
localities : 

TABLE    XXXIX.— ANALYSIS  OF    GARBAGE   TANKAGE. 


LOCALITIES  —  PROCESS 

Nitro- 
gen 

Phos- 
phoric- 
Acid 

Potash 

Bone 
Phos- 
phate 

]  2  . 
12  . 

Lime 

New  York  City,  Pierce  Process  

3   4 
3-5 
37 
3- 
3 

2  .9 
2  .Q 

3-7 
2    9 

2    5 

2  .  I 
I     64 
2.50 

3-1 
3  -5 
3-9 

2.6 

1.6 

o 

3  •'* 

6. 

!:, 

g'oS 
6  .92 

•7 
i  . 

".66 

i  -15 
.6 
.6 

:.S5 

^ 

I   .  20 

5° 
.64 

56 

Providence,  Simonin  Process   
Buffalo,  Merz  Process  

Philadelphia,  Arnold  Process  
Pittsburg,  Flynn  Process  
Paterson,  Merz  Process     

Bridgeport,  Holthaus  Process.      
Philadelphia  (Terne)  Maximum  
Minimum  
Baltimore,  Arnold  Process  (Gascoyne) 
Penn.  Experiment  Station  
•American  Reduction  Co.,  *Brooklyn  . 
Hatch  Experiment  Station.  Mass.  .  .  . 

Average... 

2  .  OO 

3  .  in 

*  6 

*This  analysis,  made  some  ten  years  ago  from  samples  submitted  by  a  company 
not  now  operating,  is  included,  although  the  sample  probably  contained  a  larger 
percentage  of  animal  matter  than  is  usually  present. 


90     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  value  of  garbage  for  commercial  products  lies  chiefly  in 
the  amount  of  grease  extracted.  This  is  assumed  to  be  3  per 
cent.,  which  equals  60  pounds  from  an  average  ton  of  garbage — 
larger,  perhaps,  than  is  usually  obtained.  This  grease  is  extracted 
from  garbage  by  the  process  of  boiling  the  garbage  with  steam 
in  digestors,  and  .afterwards  pressing  out  the  grease  and  water, 
which  are  then  separated ;  or  by  using  naphtha  as  a  solvent,  which 
is  afterwards  recovered  from  the  grease.  This  grease  is  a  dark 
brown,  heavy  oil  containing  many  impurities  and  some  moisture, 
and  must  be  repeatedly  refined  before  it  is  fit  to  be  used.  It  is 
largest  in  amount  in  winter  and  least  in  summer.  There  is  a  con- 
stant market  for  the  grease  at  prices  which  vary  from  2^  cents 
to  3  cents  per  pound.  Great  quantities  of  it  are  sent  abroad  for 
use  by  soap  manufacturers,  and  a  considerable  amount  is  bought 
here  for  the  same  purpose. 

Tankage  is  the  solid  part  of  the  garbage  that  comes  from  the 
dryers  after  the  extraction  of  the  grease.  It  is  mostly  the  fibrous 
skeletons  of  vegetable  matter,  with  a  small  percentage  of  animal 
substance.  The  proportions  vary  according  to  the  amount  of 
water  present  in  the  original  mass  of  material,  and  averages  about 
400  pounds  of  tankage  to  each  ton  of  garbage. 

The  value  of  tankage  depends  largely  upon  the  nitrogen  present, 
obtained  from  animal  substances,  and  the  amount  of  which  is 
determined  by  an  analysis  of  samples,  the  whole  being  sold  upon 
the  guaranteed  percentage  of  fertilizing  elements  present.  The 
market  is  not  constant,  as  at  certain  seasons  the  supply  exceeds 
the  demand,  and  tankage  is  frequently  disposed  of  by  being  burned 
under  the  boilers  of  the  plant  in  place  of  coal.  When  the  grease 
has  been  extracted  by  naphtha,  tankage  is  often  highly  inflamma- 
ble ;  sometimes  there  is  an  occurrence  of  spontaneous  combustion. 
Four  or  five  plants  have  been  destroyed  from  this  cause,  and 
many  cases  of  fires  are  constantly  reported  from  reduction  works. 

The  manufactured  material  does  not  readily  lend  itself  to 
transportation  to  distant  places  because  of  its  bulkiness  in  pro- 
portion to  the  weight.  It  quickly  deteriorates  in  character,  and 
must  be  marketed  soon  after  production.  As  a  fertilizer  it  is  not 
applied  in  the  tankage  stage,  but  is  used  as  a  "filler'  for  super- 
phosphates or  other  ingredients  for  making  a  complete  manure. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.  91 

ENGLISH  METHOD  OF  UTILIZATION  BY  HAND  SORTING. 

The  method  of  utilization  by  sorting  out  salable  artices  from  a 
mixed  mass  of  "town  refuse"  brought  together  at  one  point  has 
been  severely  condemned  by  several  English  authorities.  The 
conditions  attending  the  work  at  one  station  in  London  are  thus 
reported  to  the  London  County  Council  by  the  medical  officer  and 
the  engineer : 

"The  process  carried  on  in  a  London  dust  contractor's  yard  has 
not  undergone  much  alteration  since  the  following  description  by 
Dr.  Ballard  was  written :  'On  a  load  of  dust  being  upset  from  the 
dust  cart  on  the  surface  of  the  yard  men  and  boys  proceed  to  sort 
it.  They  are  provided  with  a  fork  and  an  instrument  called  a 
drag,  which  has  a  short  handle  and  three  cast  iron  teeth  set  about 
three  inches  apart,  and  with  these  they  fork  and  drag  over  the 
heap  so  as  to  separate  from  it  obvious  pieces  of  vegetable  and 
animal  refuse,  bones,  rags,  paper,  iron,  crockery  and  glass.  These 
are  distributed,  some  into  heaps,  others  into  baskets ;  the  bones  are 
put  into  a  bin  or  heap  by  themselves  for  sale  to  bone-boilers.  The 
rags  and  paper  are  also  usualy  set  aside  for  sale ;  the  iron  and  old 
tins  are  always  set  aside  for  sale,  and  usually  also  the  glass,  while 
the  broken  crockery,  brickbats,  etc.,  etc.,  are  laid  in  a  heap  to  be 
used  as  material  for  making  new  roads.' ' 

These  are  practically  the  same  conditions  that  apply  to  American 
dumps  where  we  still  allow  the  pawing  over  of  ashes,  refuse  and 
rubbish,  and  where  the  situation  is  not  unlike  that  described  above. 
This  practice  is  to  be  strongly  condemned,  and  should  be  prohibited 
as  unsanitary  and  in  every  way  objectionable. 

AMERICAN  METHODS  AT  UTILIZATION  STATIONS. 

But  these  conditions  do  not  apply  to  the  refuse  utilization 
stations  that  are  established  in  large  cities  and  operated  under 
restrictions  that  compel  cleanly  work.  True,  there  is  dust,  but  it 
can  be  drawn  off  by  proper  ventilating  apparatus,  and  there  is 
dirt  which  is  burned  and  not  permitted  to  accumulate.  All  stages 
of  disposal  work  are  accompanied  by  these  difficulties,  which  are 
unavoidable  but  which  may  be  regulated  and  made  less  harmful 
and  annoying  by  the  employment  of  adequate  means. 

In  this  method  of  utilization  by  sorting  at  central  stations  the 


92    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

daily  collection  of  refuse,  the  burden  of  the  system  comes  upon 
the  householder,  who  must  do  the  first  sorting.  If  there  is  no 
separation  in  the  first  stage  than  there  can  be  none  thereafter  that 
is  complete  and  satisfactory. 

The  householder,  therefore,  is  the  one  that  makes  it  possible  for 
something  to  be  saved,  but  he  profits  only  in  an  indirect  way.  The 
separately  collected  garbage  goes  to  a  reduction  company  that 
agrees  to  accept  paymeent  from  the  city  for  its  disposal  upon  con- 
dition that  clean  garbage  is  delivered  to  the  company.  The 
rubbish  and  dry  refuse,  in  al  cases  cited  except  one  (Buffalo),  goes 
to  a  contracting  company  that  benefits  by  the  benevolent  action  of 
the  housewife,  who  gives  it  clean  paper  to  handle.  The  sole  actual 
benefit  that  the  householder  receives  is  the  removal  of  matter  that 
has  become  embarrassing  and  with  which  he  cannot  deal  alone. 
In  places  where  there  are  no  contractors  and  no  municipal  force 
to  perform  the  service  he  must  pay  for  its  removal,  out  of  his 
own  pocket,  from  five  to  ten  times  the  amount  he  would  be  assessed 
for  the  service  on  his  property  valuation  if  the  town  performed  its 
work  properly. 

GENERAL  SUMMARY  OF  WASTE  UTILIZATION  METHODS. 

In  this  table  (No.  XXXVIII)  are  brought  together  the  items  of 
waste  separately  analyzed  and  classified  in  the  previous  tables,  and 
it  represents  the  theoretical  commercial  values  which,  although 
undoubtedly  present  in  the  waste,  are  in  such  combination  with 
one  another  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  utilize  them  when  collected 
in  a  mixed  mass.  But  when  separated  into  their  classes  at  the 
houses  there  is  no  difficulty  in  providing  treatment  for  the  recovery 
of  the  commercially  valuable  of  each  class.  This  is  done  now  by 
the  separation  of  garbage  for  reduction,  but  the  separation  of  ref- 
use for  market,  and  by  the  use  of  a  part  of  the  ashes  for  concrete 
work  and  brick  making.  It  is  necessary  only  to  carry  this  one  step 
further  and  in  providing  for  waste  disposal  add  the  equipment 
required  by  each  class  of  material  and  deal  with  all  the  waste, 
instead  of  dividing  it  up  among  several  opposing  methods  or 

/mong  several  different  contractors. 
A  return  will  always  be  available  from  the  waste  when  it  is 
properly  treated  by  the  best  means.     Coal  will  never  be  cheaper 
than  it  is  now,  and  a  partial  supply  from  whatever  source,  even  if 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN   TOWNS.  93 

of  a  poor  quality,  will  always  command  a  market.  Clinkers  and 
ashes  have  just  been  discovered  to  be  of  real  worth,  and  we  have 
only  to  note  the  many  uses  to  which  these  unpromising  materials 
are  put  abroad  to  see  what  may  be  done  with  the  same  things 
here.  Paper  stock  is  cash  on  demand,  and  nearly  everything  of  a 
fibrous  nature  can  be  manufactured  into  one  or  another  form  of 
paper.  The  return  to  the  earth  of  the  waste  of  households  in  the 
form  of  fertilizers,  of  garbage  concentrated  into  ash  by  fire  or  .x 
into  tankage  by  mechanical  processes,  is  an  economical  means  of  * 
dealing  with  large  volumes  of  matter  which  returns  a  revenue,  or 
profit,  over  all  expenses. 

Bringing  all  the  waste  to  one  station  and  using  each  method 
best  adopted  to  each  material  means  economy  in  equipment  and 
operation,  as  the  residuum  from  one  class  of  refuse  will  furnish 
power  and  heat  for  the  treatment  of  the  whole. 

Now  that  the  real  value  of  certain  parts  of  discarded  matter 
are  better  known  and  have  a  recognized  standing  in  the  world's 
markets,  there  may  be  expected  a  movement,  which  is  indeed 
already  begun,  that  will  give  the  benefit  of  the  economical  treat- 
ment of  waste  products  to  the  people,  who  are  the  ones  chiefly 
concerned,  and  who  should  chiefly  benefit  by  the  wisely  ad- 
ministered, economical  and  sanitary  methods  at  the  service  of 
municipal  authorities. 

EXAMPLES  OF  THE  UTILIZATION  OF  WASTE  MATERIALS. 

Frequent  reference  has  been  made  by  many  writers  to  the 
methods  and  appliances  used  abroad  for  the  recovery  of  some 
useful  by-product  of  the  municipal  waste,  and  many  valuable  hints 
are  to  be  had  from  the  records  of  towns  that  have  had  longer 
experience  in  this  line  than  most  of  our  American  cities. 

We  have  little  to  learn  from  the  examples  of  Continental  cities, 
except  that  some  of  their  methods  of  careful  collection  and  sys- 
tematic service  might  well  be  adopted,  but  in  Great  Britian  there 
are  many  ways  of  dealing  with  waste  matter,  born  of  the  press- 
ing necessity  for  economy  and  efficiency,  that  may  well  apply  to 
our  own  needs.  The  quotation  given  in  this  chapter  concerning 
the  unsanitary  method  of  sorting  general  refuse  applies  to  the 
conditions  of  twenty  years  ago,  when  they  were  beginning  the 
serious  study  of  the  question.  Great  advances  have  been  made 


94     THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

since  those  days  by  the  use  of  mechanical  devices  for  conveying, 
separating  and  utilizing  the  various  parts  of  the  town's  refuse. 
All  these  are  made  possible  by  the  use  of  steam  power  generated 
by  the  waste  itself,  and  this  steam  power  is  the  principal  factor  in 
the  various  methods  and  forms  of  utilization.  But,  aside  from  the 
value  of  the  power  developed  in  the  larger  English  cities  by  the 
employment  of  powerful  refuse  destructors,  and  which  is  used  for 
municipal  lighting,  traction,  water  and  sewage  pumping,  etc.,  is 
the  great  field  for  the  manufacture  of  certain  forms  of  building 
material  made  from  the  clinker  and  ashes  left  after  the  destruction 
of  the  combustible  part  of  the  waste. 

We  have  practically  the  same  kind  of  waste  to  deal  with,  and 
one  that  contains  a  larger  proportion  of  valuable  matters  than 
that  of  any  foreign  community.  The  American  people  enjoy  a 
plentiful  supply  of  food,  clothing  and  fuel  easily  and  cheaply 
obtained,  and  are  more  wasteful  in  their  habits  of  life  than  any 
other  nation.  The  absence  of  economy  in  the  disposal  of  all 
residue  excites  the  wonder  and  astonishment  of  foreign  observers. 
This  habit  of  wastefulness,"  probably  caused  by  exceptional  abun- 
dance, is  a  national  trait  that  cannot  and  need  not  be  changed,  but 
there  is  every  opportunity  to  profit  by  the  example  of  others  who 
have  advanced  the  art  of  economic  waste  disposal  by  a  quarter  of 
a  century. 

DISPOSAL  OF  MIXED  WASTE. 

There  is  but  one  opinion  as  to  the  means  of  sanitary  disposal 
of  municipal  waste  when  it  is  collected  in  an  unseparated  mixed 
condition  by  the  city's  cart — it  should  be  destroyed  by  fire.  The 
mass  contains  every  class  of  waste  intimately  mingled  by  gathering 
from  every  source  alternate  layers  of  garbage,  ashes,  refuse,  trade 
waste,  street  sweepings,  leaves  and  park  refuse,  and  sometimes 
manure  also.  The  ashes  of  this  mass  furnish  a  temporary  relief 
from  the  odors  as  the  liquids  are  absorbed  and  the  particles  of 
animal  and  vegetable  matter  become  coated  with  the  fine  ash,  which 
arrests  putrefaction  for  a  short  time. 

When  these  loads  of  mixed  wastes  are  discharged  at  the  dumps, 
in  order  to  save  the  expense  of  covering,  and  to  avoid  the  nuisance 
of  flying  papers,  frequently  the  refuse  is  set  on  fire  and  may  burn 
for  days,  sending  out  clouds  of  nauseating  smoke.  The  suburbs 


THE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  OF  AMERICAN  TOWNS.          95 

of  most  towns,  where  there  are  no  means  of  disposal  except  by 
dumping,  are  nearly  always  subjected  to  this  nuisance.  In  one 
New  England  city  the  dump  fire,  after  burning  for  days,  was  so 
offensive  that  the  Fire  Department  was  called  in  for  the  relief  of 
adjoining  householders. 

For  the  larger  towns  where  separation  is  made  there  is  less 
difficulty  in  disposal,  for  each  class  can  be  treated  by  itself,  but 
for  th6  smaller  places  where  a  mixed  collection  by  private  or  con- 
tract service  is  made,  the  final  disposition  is  the  hardest  problem 
that  the  town  has  to  solve,  and  the  most  practical  and  sanitary 
solution  is  destruction  by  fire. 


PART  II. 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  AMERICAN   MUNICIPAL  WASTE 
BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 

CHAPTER    V. 

METHODS  OF  WASTE  DISPOSAL  BY  INCINERATION  IN  AMERICAN 

TOWNS. 

In  attempting  to  collect  and  reduce  to  intelligible  form  the  data 
existing  on  the  subject  of  disposal  of  municipal  waste  in  American 
towns  in  early  stages,  it  has  been  very  difficult  to  procure  accurate 
and  extended  accounts  that  are  of  value  as  records. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  work,  in  the  years  1885  to  1890,  the 
control  was  almost  exclusively  in  charge  of  the  local  health 
officers  of  the  cities.  They  first  recognized  the  importance  of  the 
question,  and  being  responsible  for  the  public  sanitation,  were  the 
first  to  advocate  better  methods  of  removal  and  disposal  of  those 
parts  of  the  waste  which  were  most  offensive  and  dangerous  to 
the  public  health. 

There  was  no  system  of  concerted  action.  Each  Health  Officer 
treated  the  matter  in  his  own  way,  always  under  the  strong  eco- 
nomical pressure  of  the  City  Council,  which,  as  a  rule,  would  only 
vote  money  to  suppress  an  epidemic  of  disease,  but  could  never 
be  brought  to  recognize  the  wisdom  of  preventive  measures. 

The  question  was  taken  up  in  1887  by  the  largest  sanitary  society 
in  the  country — The  American  Public  Health  Association  (which 
afterwards  included  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  Mexican  and 
Cuban  Republics),  by  the  appointment  of  a  Special  Sanitary  Com- 
mittee for  the  collection  of  data  and  publication  of  reports  on  the 
subject.  For  nearly  twenty  years  the  committee  continued  its 
reports,  which,  with  the  papers  contributed  by  the  members 
of  the  Association  upon  the  special  and  local  conditions  of  their 
cities,  formed  the  only  definite  and  accurate  accounts  of  the  work. 

In  1894  a  special  effort  was  made  by  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering,  C.E., 
then  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  to  obtain  data  on  the  subject. 

96 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  97 

The  replies  to  the  circulars  sent  out  contained  much  information, 
but  it  was  so  indefinite  and  irregular  in  arrangement,  and  so 
obscurely  expressed  that  it  was  never  reduced  to  tabulated 
form.  The  papers  of  the  members  in  all  parts  of  the  country  con- 
tained the  best  details  and  suggestions,  and  when  made  public  were 
of  great  assistance  to  others.  The  Association  continued  its  work 
through  its  committee  up  to  1904. 

Meantime  the  business  side  of  the  matter  was  being  developed 
by  companies  and  persons  who  brought  forward  many  furnaces  for 
destruction  of  waste  by  fire,  and  means  and  apparatus  for  treat- 
ment for  recovery  of  the  valuable  parts  of  the  waste. 

Still,  the  practical  application  of  these  means  remained,  as  a 
rule,  under  the  charge  of  the  Health  Officers.  These  gentlemen 
were  not  always  fitted  by  experience  in  previous  business  and 
professional  training  to  consider  the  detail  of  the  best  forms  of 
construction  and  working  of  garbage  crematories  and  reduction 
plants.  Thus  it  happened  that  there  were  many  failures  both  in 
methods  and  appliances,  much  time  was  lost  and  large  sums  of 
money  wasted  before  the  Boards  of  Health  were  willing  to  accept 
the  conclusion  that,  in  all  the  practical  details  of  means,  apparatus 
and  application  of  inventions,  this  is  an  engineering  question  to  be 
solved  by  men  whose  special  training  fits  them  for  the  work,  and 
the  responsibility  that  comes  with  it. 

Meanwhile,  the  reliable  literature  of  the  subject  did  not  keep 
pace  with  the  growth  of  the  work.  The  builders  of  crematories 
at  widely  separated  points  were  intent  upon  pushing  their  in- 
dividual ideas  and  their  particular  designs,  each  claiming  his  to  be 
the  best  yet  brought  out,  and  paying  little  attention  to  what  was 
happening  elsewhere. 

There  are  many  accounts  of  the  operation  of  crematories, 
written  mostly  by  those  directly  interested  on  behalf  of  the 
builders  or  the  town  authorities.  Probably  the  largest  number 
of  these  were  drawn  up  by  newspaper  writers,  who  designed  to 
give  a  record  of  the  current  news  items  for  home  consumption, 
sometimes  for  personal,  political  or  financial  reasons,  to  exploit 
the  efforts  of  their  local  authorities,  or  the  particular  device  in 
use,  and  these  reports  were  often  inaccurate  and  not  always 
true.  In  the  absence  of  correct  returns,  these  items  were  put 
forth  as  authoritative  accounts  of  the  work,  were  used  as  an 


98    THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

indorsement  of  the  particular  furnace  elsewhere,  and,  being  ac- 
cepted without  investigation,  perpetuated  and  multiplied  the 
errors.  While  in  many  cases  these  accounts  must  be  accepted  as 
the  only  existing  record,  they  must  be  taken  with  the  utmost 
caution,  until  verified  by  other  and  more  independent  observers. 

The  sharp  competition  of  opposing  interests  developed  mutual 
misrepresentation  and  recrimination.  Contracts  were  obtained  by 
personal  and  political  favor,  by  influential  pull,  by  manipulation 
and  graft,  with  little  regard  to  the  interests  of  the  city  or  town. 
Each  place  having  adopted  a  system,  the  local  authorities  felt  con- 
strained to  endorse  it  to  others.  There  was  no  standard  for  com- 
parison except  these  indefinite  newspaper  reports.  But  more  than 
all  else,  there  was  no  accurate  system  of  trials  or  tests  to  deter- 
mine the  initial  efficiency  of  apparatus,  and  in  most  cases  no  sub- 
sequent official  record  of  continuous  operating  results,  tabulated 
for  use. 

In  this  connection  the  great  engineering  journals  have  exercised 
a  wise  discretion  and  admitted  to  their  columns  the  detailed 
description  and  illustrations  of  plants  installed,  accepting  no  re- 
sponsibility for  their  operation  and  refraining  from  comment  upon 
the  claims  made  for  successful  design  or  performance  of  any 
particular  plant.  This  course  has  compelled  accurate  and  better 
accounts,  and  it  is  to  the  columns  of  these  journals  that  we  must 
look  for  reliable  details  of  construction  and  operation. 

This  state  of  affairs  continued  for  nearly  seventeen  years, 
from  1885  to  I9°2>  and  this  whole  period  is  marked  by  the  succes- 
sive appearance  of  something  like  twenty-five  or  thirty  different 
forms  of  apparatus  and  methods  for  the  disposal  of  municipal 
garbage,  for  almost  every  one  limited  their  constructions  to  the 
treatment  of  this  item  of  waste. 

It  was  in  the  year  1902  that  the  first  examination  and  report 
upon  the  operation  of  an  American  crematory  was  made  by  a 
competant  engineer  qualified  by  training  and  acquaintance  with 
other  incineration  systems  to  report  upon  the  merits  and  de- 
ficiencies of  the  particular  one  noted. 

The  City  Engineers  of  most  places  have  not,  as  a  rule,  taken  up 
the  subject  with  intent  to  familiarize  themselves  with  its  details. 
Heretofore,  they  have  not  been  anxious  to  offer  suggestions,  or 
perhaps  they  were  not  consulted  by  the  Boards  of  Health  or  Com- 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  99 

mittees  of  Council  who  had  the  matter  in  hand.  But  whatever  be 
the  reason  the  Engineers  of  the  country  have  shown  but  little 
interest  in  the  matter  and  allowed  it  to  "drag  its  slow  tortuous 
length  along"  with  little  help  from  them. 

There  are  several  notable  exceptions  to  this  where  exhaustive 
studies  were  made  and  accurate  reports  submitted,  and  in  some 
few  cases  the  City  Engineers  have  taken  charge  of  and  caused  to 
be  successfully  operated  crematory  furnaces  in  their  towns  for 
continuous  years.  But  within  the  last  three  years  there  has  been 
a  marked  change  in  the  engineering  aspect  of  the  subject.  Six  of 
the  larger  cities  have  appointed  commissions  or  employed  special 
engineering  experts,  and  in  one  case  the  department  controlling 
the  collection  and  disposal  of  wastes  has  through  its  Chief  En- 
gineer, made  a  thorough  study  and  formulated  an  admirable 
report.  The  reports  already  made  by  these  gentlemen  have  been 
drawn  upon  in  the  previous  tables,  and  will  be  still  further  cited. 

FIRST  GARBAGE  CREMATORIES. 

Up  to  1884  there  was  little  or  nothing  known  in  this  country 
of  the  methods  of  destroying  offensive  waste  by  fire.  In  England, 
a  Fryer  furnace  had  been  built  at  Manchester  in  1876,  and  this 
destructor,  with  some  changes  and  modern  attachments,  is  still 
operating.  This  furnace  was  followed  by  the  "Beehive"  and 
several  others.  The  Sanitary  Engineer  and  Weekly  Journal 
(now  the  Engineering  Record),  of  New  York,  in  its  issue  of 
September,  1884,  gave  a  brief  account  of  these,  with  such  illus- 
trations as  were  available,  but  little  interest  was  shown  in  the 
matter,  and  no  similar  furnaces  were  built  here  until  1886. 

FIRST  U.  S.  GOVERNMENT  GARBAGE  FURNACE. 
In  December,  1884,  Lieut.  H.  J.  Reilly,  U.  S.  A.,  at  that  time 
Post  Quartermaster  at  Governor's  Island,  New  York  Harbor, 
addressed  the  Editor  of  the  Sanitary  Engineer,  saying  that  he  had 
a  daily  average  of  five  cubic  feet  of  garbage  which  he  wished  to 
cremate,  and  asked  where  he  could  find  information  as  to  the 
proper  construction  and  size  of  a  furnace  for  the  purpose.  In 
reply,  the  Editor  referred  to  the  previous  issues  of  the  Sanitary 
Engineer  describing  the  "Fryer"  destructor,  the  "carbonizer"  at 
St.  Pancras,  London,  the  Leeds  destructor,  and  the  "Beehive" 
destructor  at  Burnley,  England. 


ioo  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

In  the  August  13,  1885,  issue  of  the  Sanitary  Engineer  appeared 
the  letter  of  Lieut.  Reilly  reporting  the  construction  of  a  gar- 
bage furnace  at  Governor's  Island,  New  York  Harbor,  as  follows : 

Office  Post  Quartermaster,  Governor's  Island,  X.  Y. 

July  29,   1885. 

SIR: — I  enclose  herewith  a  sketch  to  scale  of  the  garbage  furnace  which 
is  in  use  here,  as  it  may  interest  your  readers. 

The  garbage,  varying  in  daily  quantity  from  ten  to  thirty  cubic  feet, 
used  to  be  buried,  but  the  small  extent  of  good  ground  available  for  the 
purpose  became  so  saturated  that  in  the  summer  time  especially  the  odor 
was  distinctly  perceptible,  and  not  agreeable.  For  this  reason  it  was  finally 
decided  to  burn  the  garbage,  and  I  made  many  unsuccessful  attempts  to 
get  some  information  as  to  the  proper  construction  of  a  furnace  for  the 
purpose. 

I  finally  appealed  to  you,  and  it  was  on  information  derived  entirely 
from  your  valuable  paper  that  the  furnace  now  in  successful  operation 
was  built.  An  experimental  one,  which  gave  excellent  results,  was  first 
tried  by  obtaining  an  old  brick  oven  so  as  to  get  something  similar  to 
"Fryer's  Destructor"  which  was  described  in  your  paper. 

The  one  now  in  use  consists  essentially  of  a  chamber  4x5x3  feet,  lined 
with  fire  brick  and  divided  into  three  spaces  by  two  gratings,  composed  of 
34-inch  round  iron  bars,  with  inch  openings  between  them,  and  the  neces- 
sary doors,  grate  bars  (surface  six  square  feet),  and  ashpit.  The  gratings 
are  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  the  garbage,  so  the  heat  can  get  through 
and  dry  it  and  to  prevent  it  from  stopping  the  draft  or  putting  out  the 
fire. 

The  operation  was  commenced  by  making  a  coal  fire  and  putting  the 
garbage  on  the  right  side  to  dry;  the  next  day's  garbage  was  put  in  on 
the  left  side  and  the  dry  garbage  was  raked  over  the  fire.  By  putting 
garbage  in  on  the  left  and  right  sides  alternately  dry  garbage  is  supplied 
and  the  fire  kept  constantly  burning. 

The  chimney,  owing  to  its  location,  had  to  be  built  fifty  feet  high, 
although  it  was  intended  originally  to  have  it  only  thirty,  which  would 
have  given  ample  draft.  The  total  cost  was  about  $350.  There  was  a 
slight  inoffensive  odor  from  the  chimney  which  is  perceptible  in  certain 
conditions  of  the  atmosphere ;  it  is  very  similar  to  that  given  off  by  burn- 
ing letter  paper.  No  fuel  of  any  kind  other  than  the  garbage  is  used  or 
needed,  unless  the  fire  is  allowed  to  burn  out,  when,  of  course,  some 
fuel  is  necessary  to  start  the  new  fire.  One  man  has  charge,  and  after 
putting  in  the  day's  garbage  generally  limits  his  attention  to  raking  the 
dry  garbage  over  the  fire  at  noon  and  again  at  sunset. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  J.  RKILI.V. 

This  form  of  furnace  was  afterwards  built  by  the  U.  S.  Govern- 
ment at  many  of  the  Army  posts  and  depots,  and  continued  in 
use  up  to  1894,  when  the  last  example  was  built  by  the  author  at 
Fort  Totten,  Willets  Point,  New  York  Harbor.  The  capacity  of 
all  is  very  small,  rarely  exceeding  one  ton  daily. 

The  same  construction  as  that  described  bv  Lieut.  Reillv  was 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


101 


followed  at  Fort  Totten,  except  that  the  grates  for  sustaining  the 
garbage  were  made  of  steel  railroad  bars  set  in  heavy  cast-iron 
headers  at  the  top  and  bottom.  But  the  weakness  of  this  form 
of  grate  bar  exposed  to  the  direct  action  of  the  fire  made  constant 
repairs  necessary,  and  the  absence  of  any  device  for  consuming 
the  gases  that  passed  direct  to  the  chimney  was  a  fatal  defect. 

As  the  first  example  of  the  "garbage  cremator"  in  this  country 
it  did  the  duty  for  which  it  was  required  quite  as  successfully  as 
some  of  its  later,  more  complicated  successors.  This  furnace  at 
Governor's  Island  was  removed  in  1904,  after  nineteen  years  of 
continuous  service,  and  replaced  by  a  furnace  of  a  different  form 
of  construction. 


FIG.  20.— THE   FIRST  GARBAGE  CREMATORY  IN  THE   UNITED  STATES, 
GOVERNOR'S    ISLAND,    1885. 


THE  FIRST  MUNICIPAL  GARBAGE  FURNACE. 

Next  following  the  Government  garbage  crematory  built  by 
Lieut.  Reilly  at  Governor's  Island,  was  that  constructed  by  the 
Rider  Company,  at  Allegheny  City,  Pa.,  in  1885.  This  appears 
to  be  the  first  one  which  engaged  in  the  disposal  of  the  garbage 
of  a  municipality.  The  cost  of  the  plant  was  about  $5,700,  its 
capacity,  30  tons  daily,  it  was  operated  by  two  men,  and  used  the 
cheapest  coal  as  fuel.  The  enclosing  building  was  a  cheap  con- 
struction and  the  whole  installation  was  largely  in  the  nature  of 
an  experiment,  although  it  continued  in  service  some  six  or  seven 
years. 


102  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

It  was  a  plain  brick  rectagonal  box,  with  one  horizontal  set 
of  grates,  the  main  firing  chamber  being  divided  by  a  heavy 
bridge  wall,  over  which  the  flames  passed  from  the  front  to  the 
rear.  It  was  charged  through  ten  small  openings  on  top,  the 
waste  falling  on  the  grates  in  small  conical  piles.  The  front  sec- 
tion was  fired  with  slack  coal,  and  the  heat  generated  was  suffi- 
cient for  combustion  in  the  second  compartment.  The  ashes  were 
removed  through  doors  on  the  grate  level. 

In  the  year  following — 1886 — a  Rider  garbage  cremator  was 
built  in  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  of  the  same  general  description  as  the 
one  in  Allegheny  City.  In  this  furnace,  natural  gas  was  the  fuel 
employed,  the  work  being  carried  on  by  four  men.  The  arrange- 
ment of  the  plant  was  not  convenient  for  receiving  and  charging 
the  waste,  and  the  expense  of  operating  was  very  great. 

During  1889  an  attempt  was  made  to  record  the  quantities  of 
waste  destroyed,  reported  at  23,400  cubic  yards,  equivalent  to 
9,384  tons,  an  average  of  about  75  cubic  yards  per  day.  The  cost 
was  about  90  cents  per  ton. 

This  furnace  was  not  adopted  by  other  cities,  as  the  operation 
was  found  to  be  very  expensive,  and  there  were  many  complaints 
of  nuisance  from  the  chimney. 

The  Pittsburg  cremator  was  discontinued  in  1901. 

THE  WHEELING  NIGHT-SOIL  CREMATORY. 

In  September,  1885,  Dr.  Baird,  Health  Officer  of  Wheeling,  W. 
Va.,  appealed  to  the  Sanitary  Engineer  for  information  on  a 
night-soil  furnace,  and  was  responded  to  by  a  reference  to  the 
destructors  used  abroad,  and  to  the  Government  cremator  at 
Governor's  Island.  None  of  these  suited  the  case,  and  the  town 
authorities  began  a  series  of  experiments  in  destroying  night-soil 
by  fire.  At  first  the  waste  was  mixed  with  coal  slack  and  burned 
in  gas  retorts,  which  was  too  expensive ;  later  an  old  steel-heating 
furnace  was  used  with  better  success.  Finally  the  city,  in  1886, 
contracted  with  Mr.  M.  V.  Smith,  of  Pittsburg,  to  build  a  furnace 
of  the  Siemens  regenerative  plan,  employed  for  obtaining  high 
temperature  in  iron  and  steel  mills.  The  capacity  was  to  be  sixty 
tons  daily  of  garbage,  night-soil  and  dead  animals.  The  location 
was  on  a  top  of  a  hill,  chosen  probably  for  fear  of  offensive  fumes. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  103 

The  furnace — afterwards  known  as  the  Smith-Siemens  crematory 
— has  been  continuously  in  use  for  upwards  of  21  years.  Many 
repairs  have  been  made,  but  the  original  design  has  been  sub- 
stantially followed.  Natural  gas  is  the  fuel.  No  available  reports 
of  costs  of  construction,  repairs  or  operation  can  be  had,  and  so 
far  as  known  there  are  no  pictures  or  cuts  of  the  plant  in  ex- 
istence. 

It  is  understood  the  city  is  about  to  advertise  for  bids  for  a 
modern  disposal  plant. 

THE  FIRST  CANADIAN  FURNACE. 

The  first  furnace  in  Canada  was  in  the  year  1885,  built  by  Mr. 
Wm.  Mann,  for  the  disposal  of  night-soil  in  Montreal. 

This  was  a  square  brick  chamber  floored  with  grate  bars,  with 
ashpit  below  and  at  the  back,  a  flue  to  the  chimney  in  which  was 
placed  a  secondary  fire-box.  Subsequently,  in  the  following  year 
a  second  furnace  of  the  same  general  description  was  built  in 
another  part  of  the  city.  This  one  continued  in  use  for  about  four 
year.  Both  these  cremators  were  employed  for  night-soil  in  their 
first  intention,  though  garbage  in  considerable  quantities  was 
burned  in  the  later  design.  The  large  amount  of  fuel  required  for 
this  work  led  to  the  discontinuance  of  these  first  cremators  in 
1891. 

REPORTS  UPON  EARLY  CREMATORIES. 

The  earliest  furnace  that  came  into  general  use  was  the  Engle 
cremator,  the  first  example  being  in  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  in  1887. 
During  the  following  years  up  to  1893  there  were  twenty-five 
Engle  cremators  designed  and  built  for  destroying  garbage  and 
night-soil,  using  various  fuels.  These  furnaces  were  described 
and  reports  of  operation  were  given  by  many  local  authorities, 
but  no  official  report  was  had  until  Mr.  William  S.  MacHarg, 
civil  engineer,  in  charge  of  water  and  sewage  disposal  of  the 
World's  Columbian  Exposition,  Chicago,  1893,  made  a  test  of  the 
two  Engle  cremators  designed  and  built  by  the  author,  and  con- 
tinuously used  for  the  six  months  of  the  Exposition.  From  this 
report  the  following  is  condensed : 


IO4  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

THE     ENGLE     CREMATORS     AT     WORLD'S     COLUMBIAN     EXPOSITION, 

CHICAGO,   1893. 

Number  of  Cremators,  two,  capacity  each 5o  Tons 

Fuel,  Crude  Petroleum,  fed  by 'Air  Compressor. 

Tons  of    garbage  destroyed 5,009 

sewer  sludge  destroyed,    1,854,  equivalent  to  tons 

of  garbage  destroyed 4,000     " 


Total  destroyed  during  six  months 9,009 

Gallons  of  oil  consumed 169,839  gals. 

Labor,  3  shifts  of  5  men  and  engineer  eight  hours  each. 

Cost  of  disposal  of  garbage $o  .67^ 

"     sewage  sludge 0.75! 


FIG.  21, 


•THE   ENGLE  CREMATORS,    COLUMBIAN      EXPOSITION, 
CHICAGO,   1893. 


The  operation  of  the  cremators  was  entirely  satisfactory.  All 
the  material  was  thoroughly  burned  without  producing  fumes  or 
odor.  The  carcasses  of  many  animals  were  also  destroyed. 

These  cremators  were  removed  from  the  grounds  at  the  close 
of  the  Exposition.  The  Engle  Company  was  awarded  the  grand 
prize  for  its  work  in  connection  with  this  exhibit,  and  another 
prize  for  the  Engle  Fire  Closet,  for  the  destruction  of  night-soil, 
also  employed  in  exposition  work. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  105 

THE  ENGLE  GARBAGE  CREMATOR,  RICHMOND,  VA.,  1893  TO  1908. 
The  official  reports  of  this  city  show  the  continuous  disposal  of 
garbage,  market  refuse,  rubbish  and  the  smaller  animals  for  a 
period  of  fifteen  years  by  the  Engle  Cremator,  built  under  the 
superintendence  of  the  author  in  1893.  The  quantities  of  waste 
destroyed  are  estimated  from  the  detailed  yearly  reports  of  loads 
of  garbage,  market  refuse  and  miscellaneous  matter  consumed. 
This  approximates  6,182  tons  per  annum  of  mixed  garbage,  refuse 
and  animals,  but  includes  no  night-soil,  street  sweepings  or  ashes. 
The  cost  for  operating  expenses  and  repairs  (which  includes  the 
addition  of  \en  feet  to  the  cremator,  raising  the  brick  stack  twenty 
feet  and  complete  relining  of  furnace),  was  68  to  70  cents  per 
ton  of  waste  destroyed.  At  this  time  all  the  garbage  is  destroyed 
without  difficulty,  and  the  cremator  seems  likely  to  fulfill  its  pur- 
pose for  some  years  to  come.  It  has  been  under  the  charge  of  one 
Superintendent,  Mr.  W.  P.  Belton,  for  the  past  fourteen  years. 

ENGLE  GARBAGE  CREMATOR,  NORFOLK,  VA. 
The  following  data  are  taken  from  the  report  of  W.  T.  Brooke., 
City  Engineer,  1893  to  1902.     The  year  1896,  when  the  cremator 
was  operated  by  the  contractor,  is  omitted : 

Total  loads  mixed  garbage  and  refuse,  58,793. 

Expenses  of  operation  and  maintenance: 

Labor $16,735.64 

Fuel  (coal) 9,237.31 

Repairs  and  sundries 3,263.39 

Total  expenses .  $29,236.34 

The  collection  is  done  by  city  teams,  the  carts  holding  forty-one 
cubic  feet  and  averaging  over  one  ton  to  a  load.  Assuming  the 
quantity  to  be  60,000  tons  for  the  period,  this  would  give  fifty 
cents  per  ton  as  the  cost  of  operating,  including  also  maintenance. 
During  this  time  two  steel  chimneys  have  been  supplied,  and  the 
furnace  has  been  completely  relined  once,  besides  usual  repairs  to 
grates,  etc. 

For  the  past  six  years,  1902-1908  the  quantity  of  waste  has 
increased,  because  of  nearly  doubled  population  of  the  city;  and 
the  cremator  is  now  too  small  for  the  work  demanded.  The 
cremator  has  been  under  the  charge  of  one  superintendent  for 
twelve  years. 

These  cremators  of  the  improved  Engle  type  (Warner  patent) 


io6  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

at  Richmond  and  Norfolk,  have,  with  the  exception  of  the  furnace 
at  Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  probably  been  in  continuous  use  longer  than 
any  of  the  American  garbage  furnaces.  The  first  cost  was  small, 
about  $7,500  each;  the  repairs  and  extensions  have  not  changed 
the  original  designs,  and  there  has  been  no  serious  complaint  or 
stoppage  on  the  score  of  nuisance,  though  both  are  located  in  close 
proximity  to  dwellings.  In  these  two  cities  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion and  increase  in  quantities  of  garbage  has  made  these  furnaces 
too  small  for  present  demands. 

SMITH-SIEMENS  CREMATOR,  ATLANTIC  CITY,  N.  J. 

In  1902  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  engineer  in  charge  of  Street 
Cleaning  Service,  Borough  of  Richmond,  New  York  City,  made 
a  report  upon  the  construction  and  operation  of  the  Smith- 
Siemens  garbage  furnace  at  Atlantic  City,  N.  J.,  built  in  1894, 
which  included  some  features  of  interest.  The  period  reported 
was  from  September  i,  1901,  to  September  I,  1902. 

ANALYSIS   OF   GARBAGE,   AUGUST,    1902. 

96   Ibs.  vegetable  and  fine  animal  matter 64  per  cent. 

19  meat,  fish  and  bones 12 

12  oyster  shells,  crockery,  tins,  etc 8 

15  free  water  drawn  off  before  analysis 10 

9  water  lost  in  making  analysis 6 

100  per  cent. 

Tons  of  garbage  burned  yearly 9,663    tons 

Cost  of  labor  and  repairs $14,698 

Cost  per  ton  of  garbage  burned $i .  52 

Total  amount  of  coal  used 1,728    tons 

Garbage  burned  per  ton  steam  coal 5.6 

Tons  of  gas  coal  used 1,298 

Garbage  burned  per  ton  of  gas  coal' 7.4 

COST  OF   SERVICE   FOR   TWO   YEARS,   1900-1902. 

Average  cost  for  two  years  of  garbage  burned $i  .48^  per  ton 

Garbage  burned  per  ton  of  coal  (total)  2  years 6.15  tons 

Garbage  burned  per  ton  of  gas  coal  (total)  2  years 7  .70 

1900 — Total  amount  collected 10,477  tons;  cost,  $11,594 

1901—  9.663  12,931 

Totals 20,142  tons;  cost,  $24.525 

Average  cost  of  collection,  $1.22  per  ton. 

haul,  2  miles;  cost  per  ton  mile,  61  cents. 
Weight  of  garbage  per  cubic  yard,  1,560  Ibs. 

This  Smith-Siemens  cremator  was  operated  by  producer-gas 
generated  at  the  plant  and  employed  only  in  this  work. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  107 

This  disposal  plant  was  greatly  damaged  in  the  great  storm  of 
October,  1903,  and  the  following  year  was  replaced  by  a  reduc- 
tion system,  operating  under  the  Arnold  process. 

REPORT  ON  DAVIS  CREMATORY,  TRENTON,  N.  J.      (1899.) 
By  RUDOLPH  HERING,  C.E.,  AUGUST  4-9,  1902* 

Garbage  unmixed  with  ashes,  in  following  proportions: 

Moisture 81  per  cent.  =  1,620  Ibs 

Garbage 15  =      300 

Refuse 4  =        80    " 

100  per  cent.  =  2,000  Ibs. 

Total  garbage  burned 188        tons 

Total  coal  for  main  and  auxiliary  fires J  3  •  7 

Total  garbage  burned  per  ton  of  coal 13-8 

Approximate  average  hours  per  day 14. o  hours 

Equivalent  number  of  days  24  hours 3.5  days 

Garbage  burned  per  square  foot  of  grate  surface  per  day 

of  24  hours i, 080       Ibs. 

Garbage  burned  per  square  foot  of  grate  surface  per  hour .        45       Ibs. 
Garbage  burned  per  cell,  25  square  feet,  per  day  of  24 

hours 13  .  5  tons 

Percentage  moisture  in  garbage 81 .0% 

Corresponding  water  evaporated  daily 25.5  tons 

Coal  required  to  evaporate  this  water  on  basis  of  10  Ibs. 

water  per  Ib.  coal 2.5  Ibs. 

Range  of  temperature  of  flue  gases 600°   to    1,000°   Fah. 

Total  daily  capacity  (24  hours) 53  . 7   tons 

The  report  does  not  include  the  cost  of  labor  and  fuel,  but  this 
was  unofficially  reported  at  about  62  cents  per  ton. 

This  report  of  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering,  an  engineer,  who  had 
previously  made  investigations  of  this  subject  in  Great  Britain 
and  Germany,  was,  as  stated  by  Engineering  News,  "the  first 
thoroughgoing  engineering  investigation  of  the  operations  of  the 
American  garbage  crematories  of  which  we  have  knowledge." 

It  was  undertaken  under  instructions  of  a  Committee  of  the 
City  Council  "appointed  to  investigate  the  workings  of  the  city 
crematory,  against  which  numerous  complaints  have  been  made," 
and  a  brief  synopsis  of  the  subject  matter  and  the  conclusions 
reached  will  be  of  value. 

The  garbage  proper,  or  house  refuse,  is  not  of  a  combustible 
nature,  containing  much  fruit  and  being  almost  saturated  with 
water.  The  garbage  from  stores,  markets,  etc.,  is  collected  by 

• "Engineering  News,  New  York,  Sept.   u,   1902. 


io8  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

private  parties,  and  much  of  it  is  very  combustible,  such  as  paper, 
rags,  straw,  wooden  boxes,  barrels,  etc. 
The  sources  of  the  trouble  were : 

(1)  The  odors  arising  from   the  garbage  when  collected  by  the  city 
teams  and   delivered  at  the  works.     This  may  be  abated  by  exercise  of 
more  care  in  loading  and  better  regulations  at  the  furnace. 

(2)  Odors  from  ashes  after  burning.     These  arise  from  piles  of  ashes 
containing  unburned  animal  and  vegetable  refuse   and  occur  because  of 
the  furnaces  not  being  competent  to  thoroughly  consume  the  waste,  and 
also  because  of  the  unskillfulness  of  the  attendants. 

(3)  The  dust  escaping  from  the  chimney.     This  is  due  to  the   faulty 
design  of  plan  or  to  improper  manipulation  of  dampers,  or  both,  and  can 
be  avoided  by  the  construction  of  a  dust  chamber  between  the  furnace  and 
the  stack,  and  by  adding  properly  designed  dampers. 

(4)  Unburned  particles  escaping  from  the  chimney.    This  is  annoying 
because  of  their  charry  or  greasy  nature,  and  dangerous  because  of  the 
burning  particles  setting  fire  to  roofs.     Unburned  particles  were  noticed 
at  a  distance  of  one-quarter,  one-third  and  one-half  miles,  varying  from 
one-quarter  to  three-quarters  of  an  inch  square.     The  cause  was  incom- 
plete   combustion    and    the    remedy   was    a    dust-collecting    chamber,    and 
dampers  to  be  closed  when  charging. 

(5)  Odors  from  the  stack.     This  is  usually  the  most  serious  trouble 
from  garbage  cremation  and  due  largely  to  the  design  of  the  furnace.     A 
discussion   of   this   question   involves    (a)    the   character   of   the   material 
delivered    for   cremation   and    (b)    the   essential   parts   of   the    furnace  to 
obtain  complete  combustion.     The  burning  of  garbage  depends  upon  the 
amount  of  combustible  it  contains  and  the  amount  of  dust,  chiefly  of  an 
incombustible  nature,  which  obstructs  the  free  access  of  air,  and  also  the 
amount  of  moisture  present. 

In  European  cities,  where  the  garbage  and  rubbish  is  mixed  with  ashes, 
the  combustible  matters  are  sufficient  in  properly  constructed  furnaces  to 
burn  the  whole  without  the  addition  of  fuel.  In  our  own  country  it  has 
become  the  custom  to  separate  the  ashes  and  garbage,  and  the  burning 
becomes  a  more  difficult  matter  and  can  only  be  done  by  adding  fuel. 

FUEL  VALUE  OF  GARBAGE. 

The  combustible  value  of  garbage  alone  is  thus  stated : 

Taking  31  tons  per  day,  with  81  per  cent,  of  moisture,  there  would  be 
present  21  tons  of  water.  Assuming  that  all  this  water  must  be  evaporated 
in  the  furnace,  and  taking  10  pounds  of  water  evaporated  by  one  pound  of 
coal,  it  would  require  2.4  tons  of  coal  to  drive  off  this  water.  Again, 
assuming  that  20  per  cent,  of  solid  material  in  the  garbage  will  yield 
roughly  six  tons  of  dry  combustible  material  of  about  equivalent  value  of 
one-third  that  of  coal,  this  is  equal  to  20  tons  of  coal,  thus  leaving  an 
average  of  0.4  tons  of  fuel  which  must  be  added  daily  to  consume  the 
garbage  with  its  present  quantity  of  moisture. 

The  amount  of  coal  actually  used  per  day  was  2.3  tons,  and  it  is  clear 
that  the  arrangement  of  the  furnace  or  that  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
operated  is  not  economical.  The  British  cell  destructor,  with  its  sloping, 
drying  hearth,  the  sloping  fire  grates  with  forced  draft  beneath,  the  com- 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  .         109 

bustion  chamber  for  mixing  the  gases  before  passing  to  the  steam  boiler 
and  the  dampers  for  regulating  the  draft,  is  more  efficient  than  the 
American  crematory,  with  its  large  areas  of  horizontal  grate,  resulting  in 
piling  up  the  garbage  in  heaps,  requiring  laborious  and  careful  stoking  to 
distribute  the  material,  and  compels  a  slower  combustion  of  a  larger 
surface  of  exposed  matter  and  the  need  of  some  secondary  fire  for 
destroying  odors. 

The  brick  chimney  (120  feet  high)  of  this  crematory,  collapsed 
on  September  17,  1906,  and  in  its  fall  damaged  an  adjoining 
house,  injuring  an  inmate.  A  special  committee  of  investigation, 
appointed  by  the  City  Council,  reported  October  2,  1906,  that  it 
"believed  the  wreck  of  the  chimney  was  due  to  an  explosion  at  the 
base  of  the  stack."  The  chimney  was  replaced  by  one  150  feet 
high,  of  the  radial  brick  construction,  at  a  cost  of  $4,500. 

THACKERAY  INCINERATOR,  MONTREAL,  CANADA.    1894. 

In  1894  Mr.  Charles  Thackeray  built  for  Montreal,  Canada,  an 
incinerator  of  the  English  type,  following  closely  the  designs  of 
the  Fryer  destructor  at  Manchester,  England  (1886),  but  with 
modifications  and  additions  made  by  the  inventor.  The  contract 
called  for  the  disposal  of  150  tons  per  day — 24  hours — at  a  cost 
not  to  exceed  90  cents  per  hour,  equivalent  to  14.4  cents  per  ton. 
The  chimney  is  180  feet  high  and  7  feet  internal  diameter. 
Natural  draft  is  used.  The  approximate  cost  of  the  plant  was 
$50,000. 

In  1902  Dr.  E.  Pelletier,  Secretary,  Superior  Board  of  Health, 
Province  of  Quebec,  made  a  report  upon  Refuse  Disposal  which 
includes  some  facts  respecting  the  Thackeray  Incinerator. * 

His  analysis  of  Household  Refuse  is : 

In  summer       In  winter 

Kitchen   wastes 65  25 

Paper     (combustibles) 15  10 

Tins,  bottles,  rags,  etc 10  5 

Ashes    ...  10  60 


100%  100% 

The  collection  is  made  in  a  mixed  or  unseparated  state  by  the 
city's  wagons.  Only  the  refuse  of  the  West  District  is  burned ; 
that  of  the  two  other  districts  (East  and  Central)  is  tipped.  The 
incinerator  had  the  same  number  of  cells  as  when  constructed,  but 

*Proceedings  A.  P.  H.   Assn.,   Vol.   28,    1901. 


1 10  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

had  been  somewhat  simplified  by  the  removal  or  non-use  of  steam 
jets  and  mechanical  fans  for  forced  draft,  the  steam  boiler  re- 
moved from  the  main  flue,  the  lower  horizontal  flue  being  dis- 
continued, also  the  fourteen  small  supplementary  cells,  and  the 
fume  cremator  at  the  base  of  the  stack.  There  was  added  a 
screen  or  ash  separator  for  removal  of  fine  ash  in  winter  season, 
as  the  large  amount  of  fine  particles  interfered  with  the  com- 
bustion of  other  matter. 

From  personal  inspection  Dr.  Pelletier  found  that  the  house- 
hold refuse  of  Montreal  is  auto-combustible  during  the  summer, 
when  the  amount  of  ashes  is  10  to  15  per  cent.  Mr.  Dore,  the 
Sanitary  Engineer  of  the  city,  estimates  the  moisture  of  Montreal 
garbage  and  refuse  to  be  60  per  cent. 

The  cost  of  incineration  at  Montreal,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Pelletier, 
follows : 

From  figures  furnished  by  the  Department  in  charge,  the  quantity  of 
household  refuse  during  1901  was  17,445  loads,  equivalent  to  13,659  tons, 
destroyed  at  a  cost  of  93^  cents  per  ton.  However,  this  does  not  give  an 
exact  idea  of  the  cost  of  incineration,  either  on  account  of  interruptions 
in  the  running  of  the  incinerator  (repairs  or  an  insufficient  amount  of 
garbage),  the  wages  of  the  men  continuing  to  run  just  the  same,  or  for 
other  reasons.  It  is  now  well  established  that  the  net  cost  for  the  in- 
cineration of  a  ton  of  garbage  is  39  cents  per  ton  (note).  I  did  not  on  any 
of  my  visits  detect  any  bad  smell  resulting  from  incineration,  and  every 
one  I  have  spoken  to  about  the  matter  has  always  answered  that  they  never 
heard  any  complaints. 

NOTE. — It  is  understood  this  is  operating  cost  only,  not  including  interest  charges 
on  capital  cost  or  depreciation.  In  addition  to  the  ash  separator,  a  picking  belt  for 
recovery  of  marketable  refuse  is  also  employed,  but  the  power  is  not  obtained  from 
the  incinerator  to  operate  the  screen  and  conveyor. — [Eo.] 

THACKERAY  INCINERATOR,  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.,  1897-8. 

Following  the  installation  at  Montreal,  four  years  later,  a 
private  company,  The  Sanitary  Reduction  Company,  of  San 
Francisco,  Cal.,  bought  the  rights  to  build  a  Trackeray  incinerator 
and  acquired  from  the  city  a  franchise  for  the  disposal  of  its 
wastes  for  the  term  of  fifty  years. 

This  private  company  is  the  successor  of  two  others  organized 
for  this  work,  and  has  encountered  many  difficulties  in  the  pros- 
ecution of  its  work.  The  incinerating  plant  erected  in  1897  con- 
tinued up  to  April,  1906,  when  it  was  partly  destroyed  by  earth- 
quake. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  in 

From  a  report  made  to  the  Engineering  News,  May  17,  1900, 
the  following  facts  are  condensed : 

Number  of  cells 32 

Daily  capacity,  each  45  yards,  or 20  tons 

Total  rated  capacity  of  plant 1,500  yards 

Equivalent  in  weight 600  tons 

Square  feet  grate  surface  per  cell 96  sq.  f t. 

Average  quantity  of  charge  per  cell 15  yards 

Time  required  for  combustion  of  charge 4  to  8  hours 

Average  amount  consumed  per  hour  per  square  foot  of  grate .  17.3  Ibs. 

Average  daily  amount  at  time  of  report 650  yards 

Equivalent  in  weight 260  tons 

Cost  of  labor  (23  men)  per  day $40.00 

Average  cost  operating  per  ton .15 

Approximate  cost  of  plant $75,000.00 

Amount  charged  for  incineration  per  yard .25 

THE  WASTE  COLLECTION  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO. 

The  collection  of  city's  waste  in  San  Francisco  is  made  under 
the  direction  of  a  Scavengers'  Association,  which  controls  the 
entire  service,  making  its  own  charge  for  collection  from  house- 
holds and  delivering  the  refuse  at  the  works  for  disposal,  paying 
25  cents  per  cubic  yard  to  the  Reduction  Company.  The  waste 
includes  garbage,  refuse  and  ashes  mixed  together,  and  is  taken 
at  the  works  just  as  it  comes. 

These  disposal  works  are  the  largest  in  this  country,  covering 
three  sides  of  a  square  of  265  feet ;  the  buildings  are  of  brick  with 
steel  corrugate  roofing,  and  the  tipping  platforms  and  approaches 
wide  and  convenient.  The  chimney  was  the  largest  of  its  class  on 
the  Pacific  coast,  262  feet  high,  32  feet  square  at  the  base,  with 
a  central  circular  shaft  of  210  feet  and  14  feet  in  internal  diameter. 

At  the  time  of  the  earthquake  the  upper  third  of  the  chimney 
was  broken  off  and  in  falling  destroyed  the  flues  connecting  with 
the  eastern  battery  of  cells  and  so  wrecked  this  set  of  cells  as  to 
put  them  out  of  use. 

These  two  Thackeray  crematories  are  the  only  example  of  the 
English  cell  destructors  yet  built  in  this  country.  They  followed 
in  all  main  particulars  the  construction  of  the  Fryer  destructor, 
but  neither  made  use  of  the  "fume  cremator"  which  was  an  essen- 
tial feature  of  the  English  construction.  In  some  respects  the 
work  of  these  furnaces  was  an  advance  over  the  methods  of  the 
American  crematories.  There  was  no  separation  of  the  wastes,  the 
mixed  collection  of  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse  being  received ;  the 


ii2  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

high  chimneys  gave  draught  for  combustion  with  small  additional 
fuel,  and  the  operating  costs  were  low. 

Owing  to  the  slow  rate  of  combustion  (about  17  Ibs.  per  sq.  ft. 
of  grate  surface)  the  time  required  for  disposal  compelled  the 
construction  of  a  much  larger  plant  than  is  now  required  for  the 
same  relative  quantities. 

Because  of  the  low  temperatures  neither  plant  can  develop 
steam  power  for  its  own  uses,  much  less  for  any  other  purpose. 
It  is  probable  both  these  installations  will,  as  have  the  Fryer  de- 
structors abroad,  be  replaced  by  other  more  modern  and  efficient 
types.  The  city  of  San  Francisco  has  passed  an  ordinance  appro- 
priating one  million  dollars  for  the  waste  collection  equipment 
and  establishment  of  a  modern  destructor  system  for  disposal. 

Montreal  is  proceeding  on  the  same  lines,  and  is  about  sub- 
stituting a  more  efficient  destructor  to  develop  steam  power  to  be 
employed  in  electric  lighting  work. 

SUMMARY  OF  EARLY  AMERICAN  CONDITIONS. 

In  attempting  to  gather  data  respecting  the  earliest  American 
crematories,  from  which  reliable  reports  can  be  had,  it  has  been 
found  very  difficult  to  record  anything  except  the  briefest  outline 
of  the  work.  In  the  first  twenty  years  after  1885,  some  twenty- 
five  different  sompanies  and  firms  came  forward  with  incinerating 
furnaces,  warranted  by  the  owners  to  destroy  everything  with  no 
trouble  to  the  towns  and  with  a  profit  for  themselves  and  their 
backers.  The  most  extravagant  claims  were  made,  based  upon 
patents  as  yet  untried,  reinforced  by  promises  to  perform  feats 
that  were  opposed  to  all  accepted  natural  laws  of  combustion. 
Naturally,  when  put  to  the  test  they  failed,  and  in  failing  they 
brought  discredit  upon  the  whole  subject  of  waste  disposal  by 
fire. 

The  business  of  the  few  companies  that  had  shown  ability  to 
do  satisfactory  work  was  hindered  and  obstructed  by  competitors, 
eager  for  contracts,  but  not  at  all  anxious  to  make  good,  if  it 
involved  a  loss  to  themselves,  as  it  mostly  did.  The  progress  was 
slow,  the  returns  small,  the  changes  in  companies  many,  and  the 
general  conditions  both  for  towns  and  builders  became  unsatis- 
factory. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          113 

All  of  the  earlier  forms  of  furnace  constructions,  with  one  ex- 
ception followed  the  type  of  furnace  first  made  known  by  Andrew 
Engle  in  1887.  This  was  a  long  rectangular  open  interior  furnace 
chamber,,  floored  with  transverse  bars  of  iron  or  fire  brick.  The 
main  fire  box  was  placed  at  the  front  end,  with  a  secondary  fire 
box  at  some  point  within  the  furnace  or  immediately  before  the 
chimney  flue.  The  flames  and  heat  from  the  primary  fires  passed 
over  and  under  the  waste,  and  were  intercepted  at  some  point  by 
the  secondary  fire  which  completed  the  combustion. 

This  was  the  type  of  what  is  known  as  the  American  crematory 
as  distinguished  from  the  English  destructor  form. 

The  general  conditions  attending  this  type  may  be  thus  stated : 

All  of  the  American  garbage  furnaces  are  designated  as  cremators, 
crematories  or  incinerators,  following  the  descriptive  titles  used  by  the 
builders. 

Those  that  survived  preliminary  stages  and  can  show  a  record  of  four  or 
five  years  of  successful  use  follow  the  same  general  form  of  construction, 
with  minor  differences  of  exterior  walls  of  brick  or  steel  plate,  but  with 
the  same  charging  and  stoking  methods,  and  the  same  employment  of  a 
secondary  fire. 

All  without  exception  require  fuel  for  primary  combustion  of  the  waste 
and  secondary  destruction  of  the  gases. 

They  were  built  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  and  light  refuse  and  some- 
times included  the  larger  animals  and  a  small  amount  of  night-soil. 

They  did  not  dispose  of  ashes  or  street  sweepings,  nor  did  they  deal 
with  the  general  miscellaneous  collection  of  mixed  waste. 

They  did  not  employ  steam  boilers  in  connection  with  the  crematory,  and 
could  not  guarantee  steam  power  for  any  general  service. 

The  exceptions  to  these  general  principles  apply  only  to  the  form  of 
grates,  which  in  one  case  are  hollow  iron  tubes  filled  with  water,  and  in 
another  case  the  burning  chamber,  instead  of  being  open  from  end  to  end, 
is  divided  into  short  cells  by  transverse  partition  walls. 


ii4  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


s 

i 

s  i 

a  8 

S  u 

5  g 

a>  ~ 

i  : 

t  *" 

~  ui 

e  O 

"  < 

1  C 

S  £ 

I  in 

o>  O 

£.  < 

m 

i  i 

u 

d  I  I 

2 


> 


W    - 

if 

<  i 
w  1 

o   = 


i   s 


I  < 

"  S 

a  i 

s  I 

K  K 

£  5 

i  ( 

*  I 

I  ? 


•SB 


-1 

.W° 


#si  •  i  * 

•flji^Sji^  ^  .rt 

R  R  !!f-I  o  o    t«  S 


• 


M 

l't 


7:'S"35'^3'^'^sSfl5c;vS'^::>P<S«>|uo<«-4JJ2«a<uS«j'c 


-'j  O  o  K  O 


;  o  ^  1« 

£S<S 


^ 


in  O     -0 

.«  «  .« 


•   •    •    •  o    ' 

«n  »^    "  r~  t^    '          '     '  O>    " 

"i  to   .  to  f*»  *    .    .    .  n   . 


*.  C 


5;  ^>  4)  >  Q)  ^  4> 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


G         *" 

o^g    SI    2 


--  3*  t 
i.s  .^  * 

a 


•d  bb  <g 

c  c  t, 

V&  >;  §• 

"8.8  1 

.Is  j  8  . 

.  i«i !  # 

cj       3  JJ.S*5  "  rt  rt       wS.2  C  0> 

-s  T.*«8«**  £%i  *°  uA 

rt      -3  ^i-J  y  «u  w      ^S.-0  — -<'  "" 

*  *          *i  ^g..  55  v2>» 

ggMS-0 


\O  •     M  \O 

3\          •   O  O 
00  •  0>0» 


>» 

P 


I  V        ^ 

ilM 


88 


OO     •  -OO  -OOO  -O  •  -O     •  • 

OO     •  -OO  -O^OO  -O  •  -O     •  « 

°.  °.  •  '  °.  °.  •  M.  °1  °.  '  °.  •  •  o    •  ' 

tO«o'  '   O  ci  '  t*  &tn  '  O  '  '«o*  ' 

«     ;  ;<>  M  !  M    «  . ««  • 


tube- 

A^ 


,cc£<u<ucoT;ee  «i  o     «     <u  «  c  cjs^3  .  5  c-,t:  «  w  c—  c  g 

,|PQPQ-g-gdSQ  £«  §  ssd  gd1|.§  Sfll  1 8  8  g|  |  g  8  §  § 

w<<WWwPQ^><:Q^cflOi-:.WWQ(5wwOPQQl-J>c5«Si-55pQ 


Illl- 

»3  OS  b  - 

PQf^ZSuO 


.O^So 

»°fifl 


1^ 


i 


100  t^OO   O*  O   M 


n6  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


II 


"J5 


.2  3 

«l 

^1 

•O-OB 

i- 


~  a 

i  <  4* 

^  .3  § 

*  8>  S 


o    s32 


H  "E»rt 

{2  <#5 

33  «^  a 

2  '£"3° 

n3  do 

-  51-^ 


l 


•a 

.T3 

M< 


iTi    ^ 


t    S-aS 


&sn  *..» 


saJ 

Q^    1S1 


:'^  .2  o 

Isi      «5 


=3- 


i»e 

,;«c 


•^^2 


1 


i       '  G 

1*0  O'^ 


-OOOCOOOOOOOOXOOl 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


117 


! 

6 

J 

£3*;«?* 

/??-;    _:  *  +e  ;<  M  •-  M          .._ 

ftfiljfi 

|i  fe         CiST3  !i  +->  O<+->  •*-> 

II  pg'IB.ss,     s.H.B.a&B.g'  :aB.g£8,&s  as/Bo  &c.»o 

faEn     cQPQcofaQ^O         OOOOMOPn     OOfaOOOJgOOCQH     COOfc 

°<S   rt.O  oOOOO-O'O'OO--.'o--o'-O'''O 

C  O*CNO\O*O*«O\.O*-O*O*»«--O*»'O*»«OH'»*O\'«  .^•••O^ 

^  ^g         ui        ^,j-u-uou--oi^o--t>- 

H 

ui   I 

T) 

£  I 

oooo-o-ooo-'O-      o-o-ooo-ooooo          o-no 

TT'TTrO     -O     -OOOO     •      -w.         O     -O         OOO     -t^OOOO  O      -NOOO 

PP       •*->  o^o\O\m»O't^O^O'-O'        O-O         OH)t**flV)O^f1'l  O'WQC^ 

U  "    •         •'  H  N         '•    '•         '• 

00    ">      •    1/5  ^      •       -(^vr- 

Q 

::::::  '^ocScSo  ':  ;6c3     :  -600  • 

£3         bbbb  :^?  :^bb«  Sb  :^  :  :  :  :  icrbbbbcS  ibt1     :<3&& 
£«         |||3  :2  ijSS0*0**  :g  :  :J  :  :*-§*|*|  :§•§     :^||^ 

yilfi^iiMiin;ii^lliiiiil^ 

QQQQ>QC^HQQ^^Qffi'&L3O^G<QQQQOSaQQO^)SQbbffi 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::  :"3 

sy,y;inNNjnyjn:Ni^!H^^ 

s>jl: 

2;  ^' -e' :  c/^  o,  .  -a  .  _r  >. «;o:  :=iu3  w~  _r ~  . ..-  .z  R  c  c  .  s*-1 1*( 

i 

g§,g§,aagimimiHlim 

IHIHMMMMIHMMMMMMMHlHHMMMHIHMHtHMHMMMMHMMl-l 

O  I    t^OO   O\  O   w   N    fO  ^  lAvO  I^OC   O  O   w   ts   m  TT  i^\O   «^00   Ov  O   HI   N   rr  t  i/)vC  «~-00   O\  O   w   N 

^  i      O   O  O   M   »«   »«    M  »^   »••   H  •«   I*  X    *   «  «   tl   »  «    «    *l   «   *I'«O  «**>  *»  «^  «O  •9**>  *»  «^  *  ' 

I       MHHHHHHMMHHMHHHMMHMI-IHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH         j 


u8  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


itC 


>> 

pi 


iinO   O     •   O   O   O 

H    MVO       •     O    1DTT 


1: 


yj^KlMSl^^yfeSflllllfla 

Jvo0v0v0s    ..-..A-*'  .•.-.-...•  illJ 


SBS  -a.  -JiB'-'otI'''"S.-S-°"!'. c  B»™a  bZit^S  -3  X"1  >  « 

||l|  j 


^•S3S 

2      CL.V, 


OOOOOOOOOOOO 


O      OOOOOO 

o>   aoooxM^ 


OOOOOO 


f*^  ^  i/^\o  r^-OO   Ov  O   ^-   M   ro  ^t  mo  I^-OO      ^vO^Wf)^  u^^O  i^QO   O*  O   H   w   *o  ^t  u^ 

5  5  ^  5°^.  ^  S>  ^  ^  I/;  w  w  ^  u,t?,  wo  «  «<o<e<o  >o<o3<d  t«  c«  t«  *>•» *. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


119 


•f    i 
1  11  1 

III!  5 

2||22222    ^28&  2 
aSSB,2121S,a   ^a^ 

CZ^OOOOO 


§. 


4, 

II  "J 


:8ooo 

•  \r>  10  O   O 


10  N  t^ 


:  :^8S> 

•   ;  \o  <>  o~ 


•  o   •   •  o   •  »»  •   •   -oo 

.  0_    •    •  0_    •  <*    •     •        O^  «o 


'o'c 


II 

fl 


rtrtCftow'         O1^  w       CPU  C       O  C'°'         C       C  « 


>-   N    i"0  t  tovO  t^OO  O>  O   M  csi  tr>  ^  ir.vO  t^OO  Os  O   w   M   r^,  n  V) 
00  00  00  00  00  00  00  00  <M7sOOsONONO>OsOsO»OOOOOOO 


I2O  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

THE  CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE. 

In  compiling  this  list  (Table  XL)  it  was  the  writer's  purpose 
to  place  on  record  the  complete  series,  in  chronological  order  of 
construction,  of  the  municipal  garbage  cremating  furnaces  built 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada  since  1885.  The  Dominion  of 
Canada  is  included  because  of  the  almost  simultaneous  beginning 
of  the  work  in  the  two  countries  in  1885,  and  also  for  the  reason 
that  two  of  the  furnaces  in  use  in  the  United  States  originated  in 
Canada.  There  are  also  included  the  furnaces  built  by  American 
constructors  in  five  foreign  countries — Panama  (Columbia),  San 
Salvador,  Cuba,  Equador  and  Guatemala — as  a  part  of  the  Ameri- 
can constructive  work  in  regular  order. 

The  list  is  restricted  to  municipal  furnaces — those  employed 
either  directly  by  the  towns,  or  by  private  contractors  in  municipal 
disposal  work — and  does  not  comprise  the  large  number  of  instal- 
lations for  the  United  States  Government,  or  the  still  larger  num- 
ber built  for  public  institutions  and  private  establishments.  There 
are  two  exceptions  to  this — Nos.  I  and  20 — both  the  first  of  their 
respective  types. 

The  list  also  includes  the  crematories  built  at  the  three  great 
world's  expositions,  Chicago,  1893;  St.  Louis,  1904,  and  James- 
town, 1907,  but  these  were  for  temporary  purposes,  and  not  con- 
sidered as  permanent  municipal  plants  either  by  the  authorities 
or  the  builders. 

Again,  to  preserve  the  chronological  order  of  erection,  those 
plants  for  the  treatment  and  disposal  of  dry  refuse  are  included, 
though  all,  with  two  exceptions — Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  and  Lowell, 
Mass. — are  owned  and  operated  by  private  companies.  In  sev- 
eral cases  where  "no  reports"  can  be  secured,  the  furnaces  are 
understood  to  be  discontinued,  and  should  be  so  accounted.  In 
some  others  where  the  reports  are  not  conclusive,  they  are  be- 
lieved to  be  operating  and  noted  accordingly. 

Number  of  Installations. — The  whole  number  of  plants  re- 
ported upon  is  208,  counting  each  as  a  separate  installation, 
whether  containing  one  or  more  furnaces.  This  includes  some 
five  plants  of  the  same  type,  replaced  for  reasons  of  their  own 
by  the  .same  builders  or  designers,  and  also  about  six  others  now 
under  construction  or  contracted  for,  which  are  yet  to  pass  their 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  121 

final  trials  for  acceptance,  but  are  here  classed  as  operating. 
Those  noted  as  experimental  are  also  included.  Several  of 
these  were  large  and  very  costly  structures,  and  as  all  were  in- 
tended for  municipal  service,  they  should,  with  justice,  be  com- 
prised in  this  list. 

Number  of  Furnaces  or  Cells. — This  is  governed  by  the  plan 
of  construction.  In  the  so-called  American  plan  with  one  large 
receiving  chamber,  they  are  frequently  built  in  pairs,  one  on  each 
side  of  a  central  stack.  The  cell  construction  allows  an  indefinite 
number,  contiguous  to  each  other,  and  connected  with  a  common 
chimney.  Hence  the  increase  in  the  number  of  separate  furnaces 
over  the  number  of  plants  or  installations. 

Years  of  Installation  and  the  Builders. — It  has  been  stated  that 
the  first  municipal  furnace  for  waste  disposal  was  that  at  Wheel- 
ing, W.  Va.,  but  this  is  probably  not  the  case.  It  appears  that 
the  next  after  Lieut.  Reilly's  first  construction  for  the  United 
States  Government  at  Governor's  Island  was  that  of  L.  P.  Rider 
at  Allegheny,  Pa.,  and  following  this  was  the  Walliam  Mann 
furnace  for  night-soil  at  Montreal,  Canada,  both  of  which  pre- 
ceded Wheeling,  W.  Va.  All  were  in  the  same  year,  and  it  is  only 
a  question  of  the  month  of  construction  of  the  first  four  installa- 
tions. Andrew  Engle's  first  experimental  furnace  for  night-soil 
was  in  the  same  year,  but  his  first  garbage  municipal  furnace  at 
Des  Moines,  Iowa,  came  two  years  later.  In  the  years  1889  to 
1894,  many  crematories  were  built  by  the  Engle  Sanitary  and 
Cremation  Company,  but  not  until  the  plan  of  the  furnace  was 
changed  and  more  durable  material  used  in  1891  did  it  take  the 
lead. 

In  1892-93-94  many  other  builders  came  forward,  and  shortly 
after  the  World's  Fair  in  1893  several  large  plants  were  built; 
the  Anderson  and  Heavey  at  Chicago,  111. ;  the  Vivarttas  and 
Smith-Siemens  at  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  the  latter  at  Atlantic  City, 
N.  J.,  and  Washington,  D.  C,  and  the  Thackeray  at  Montreal. 
Of  these,  the  Thackeray  only  has  survived,  the  others  being  re- 
placed by  reduction  processes. 

The  Dixon  Crematory  Company,  after  its  change  in  plan  of 
construction  and  personnel  of  its  organization  in  1894,  acquired 
a  firm  foothold  in  the  field  which  has  never  been  relinquished, 


122  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  has  now  the  longest  list  of  installations  to  its  credit,  the  great- 
est number  being  in  towns  and  cities  of  the  third  and  fourth  class 
in  population. 

From  1895  to  1899  six  new  types  of  furnaces  were  brought 
out,  but  none  of  these  succeeded  in  their  first  attempt,  one  only 
surviving  for  future  work  after  a  radical  change  in  its  form  of 
construction. 

The  years  1899  to  1903  were  the  period  of  greatest  activity, 
nearly  sixty  installations  being  made  of  twelve  different  types, 
seven  of  which  proved  unsatisfactory  and  did  not  continue.  Near- 
ly all  the  plants  erected  were  of  small  capacity,  two  only  being  of 
one  hundred  tons.  In  this  period  the  first  refuse  disposal  stations 
were  built,  as  well  as  the  greatest  number  of  installations  for  the 
United  States  Government  and  for  institutions. 

During  the  last  two  years  three  new  installations  of  new  patents 
have  been  built.  These  are  the  Heenan  &  Froude  at  Vancouver, 
B.  C.,  and  New  Brighton,  N.  Y.;  the  Meldrum  destructors  at 
Seattle,  and  Schenectady  under  contract,  and  the  incinerator  of 
the  Public  Service  Co.  at  Cambridge,  Mass.  This  last  is,  with 
some  changes,  the  same  as  installed  at  East  New  York  for  dry 
refuse.  The  Bennett  Crematory  at  Wilkes-Barre  is  the  same  as 
previously  built  at  Elmira,  N.  Y. 

The  installations  of  the  older  companies  are  fewer  in  number 
than  in  previous  years,  and  with  less  rated  capacity,  except  in 
one  notable  Canadian  instance,  which  is  still  unaccepted  by  the 
city  after  prolonged  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  company  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  contract. 

Locations  Indicated  in  the  Table  cover  the  widest  possible 
range  of  territory,  from  the  northern  limit  of  population  to  the 
tropical  countries  of  the  South,  and  the  whole  width  of  the  con- 
tinent frm  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  oceans,  and  in  five  foreign 
countries. 

PATENTS  ISSUED  BY  UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENT. 

The  patents  for  apparatus  to  burn  wet  fuels  began  with  No. 
383,  reissued  August  15,  1856,  and  this  was  followed  by  a  long 
series  of  inventions  to  burn  bagasse,  mill  waste,  tan  bark,  stumps, 
and  many  forms  of  combustible  refuse.  The  first  patent  recorded 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  123 

for  cremating  garbage  was  that  of  H.  R.  Foote,  Stamford,  Conn., 
January  21,  1879,  No.  21,203.  Mr.  Foote's  claims  included 
nearly  all  of  the  ideas  that  were  afterwards  made  the  subject 
of  separate  inventions  by  others,  but,  as  a  whole,  his  scheme 
was  in  many  ways  quite  impracticable.  The  rotary  cylinder  form 
of  furnace  was  one  of  the  earliest  types,  but,  like  most  of  the 
first  devices,  was  too  elaborate  and  complex  to  come  into  use.  The 
first  inventors  tried  to  do  too  much,  and  did  not  clearly  under- 
stand the  character  of  the  material  to  be  destroyed. 

The  list  of  patents  issued  in  this  country  from  1885  up  to  date 
includes  over  160  for  garbage  cremating  furnaces  alone.  Besides 
these  are  some  75  others  for  methods  and  processes  for  treating, 
converting,  manipulating,  and  manufacturing  municipal  waste 
matter,  and  about  25  smaller  devices  for  household  use  in  con- 
nection with  kitchen  stoves,  and  for  disposal  of  night-soil  from 
isolated  dwellings. 

These  inventors  display  great  ingenuity  and  skill  in  their  theo- 
retical apparatus,  but  a  lamentable  lack  of  practical  knowledge  of 
the  complex  and  conflicting  character  of  the  waste  to  be  dealt 
with.  The  patents  enumerated  in  the  table  are  the  ones  that 
have  undergone  a  practical  trial  under  working  conditions,  and 
of  these  only  a  limited  number  have  stood  the  test  of  con- 
tinuously successful  service. 

Cost  of  Construction. — The  prices  given  as  the  costs  for  in- 
stallation are  gathered  from  the  published  reports  when  bids  are 
asked  for  or  accepted  by  the  towns.  There  is  no  way  of  determ- 
ining whether  they  include  a  complete  installation  of  building, 
chimney  and  furnace,  with  all  driveways,  etc.,  or  are  only  con- 
fined to  the  furnace  and  chimney.  As  a  rule  the  towns  usually 
buy  a  complete  plant,  but  sometimes  have  separate  contracts  for 
buildings,  or,  if  in  conjunction  with  other  works,  the  furnace 
is  only  a  part  of  a  general  contract. 

There  is  no  standard  for  comparison  of  costs  of  construction 
by  the  rated  capacity  of  the  plant  that  can  be  assumed  to  be 
accurate,  nor  is  there  any  uniformity  in  the  prices  of  the  same 
construction  by  the  same  builders  at  different  places,  where  the 
conditions  are  similar.  It  is  true  the  expense  is  often  influenced 
by  difficulties  in  site,  or  local  cost  of  freight,  material,  and  labor, 


124  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

but  this  does  not  account  for  the  wide  variation  in  many  cases 
which  are  substantially  the  same  in  all  important  features. 

Operating  Cost. — An  attempt  has  been  made  to  ascertain  the 
operating  cost  for  fuel  and  labor  per  ton  of  garbage  destroyed 
at  these  plants,  but  this  has  been  given  up  as  impracticable.  The 
reports  obtained  were  conflicting  and  contradictory,  tending  only 
to  mislead  any  seeking  accurate  detail.  For  lack  of  a  common 
standard  of  measurement,  there  was  no  starting  point  to  work 
from.  Until  there  is  some  system  brought  into  use  for  measur- 
ing and  tabulating  returns  and  reports  from  operating  plants, 
with  the  items  of  quantities,  time,  fuel,  labor,  maintenance  and 
capital  charges,  continued  over  at  least  one  year's  period,  there 
cannot  be  any  definite  and  serviceable  details  to  record. 

Capacity  of  Furnaces— -The  crematories  were  at  first  rated  by 
the  cubic  yard  of  material  consumed  in  one  day,  a  day  being  12 
hours  and  the  cubic  yard  used  because  it  could  be  easily  com- 
puted by  taking  the  measurement  of  collection  carts.  Later  it 
was  necessary  to  provide  for  continuous  service,  and  the  capacity 
is  rated  by  the  tons  to  be  destroyed  in  24  hours,  and  this  is  com- 
monly taken  as  the  standard,  but  unless  there  is  an  actual  weigh- 
ing of  the  waste  in  cases  where  accuracy  is  required,  there  is 
usually  little  reliance  to  be  placed  on  reported  figures  of  capacity. 

Discontinued  Installations. — This  column  indicates  the  years 
when  the  plants  ceased  to  be  active  factors  in  waste  disposal 
work,  and  were  discontinued,  abandoned,  or  replaced  by  others. 

Taking  the  whole  number  reported,  208,  and  deducting  those 
previously  noted  as  not  to  be  counted  as  municipal  garbage  de- 
stroying stations,  20  in  all,  there  are  remaining  188  installations 
built  in  American  and  Canadian  towns  in  the  past  twenty-three 
years.  Of  this  number  more  than  one-half,  about  108  in  all,  are 
permanently  discontinued,  leaving  80  still  in  use,  including  those 
built  or  under  contract  for  the  year  1908. 

In  some  cases  these  have  been  replaced  by  other  furnaces  that 
are  still  operating ;  in  several  instances  they  were  retired  in  favor 
of  reduction  processes,  and  in  a  very  few  waste  disposal  by  cre- 
mation has  been  abandoned  and  the  town  has  reverted  to  its 
former  methods  of  tipping  or  else  feeding  to  swine.  The  reasons 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  125 

for  these  repeated  failures  in  this  department  of  municipal  work 
need  not  be  discussed  here,  but  will  be  reviewed  later. 

Explanatory  Notes. — These  must  be  very  brief  in  so  condensed 
a  table  as  the  following,  and  but  little  in  this  line  has  been  re- 
corded. The  division  and  classification  of  the  various  types  and 
constructions  will  also  be  attempted  later. 

This  record,  made  up  from  statistics  gathered  in  years  past, 
is  necessarily  incomplete  in  some  details,  but  it  shows  in  a  com- 
prehensive way  the  work  of  the  last  twenty-three  years  in  dis- 
posal of  municipal  waste  by  methods  of  destruction  by  fire  in 
towns  on  the  North  American  continent. 

Thus  the  list  represents  the  achievements  of  some  ten  builders 
whose  furnaces  to  the  number  of  two,  or  more,  have  continued  in 
service  and  the  entrance  in  the  past  two  years  of  five  others  who 
are  just  beginning  construction  in  this  line.  There  remains  some 
thirty  other  builders  whose  furnaces  have  been  permanently  dis- 
continued. 

GARBAGE  FURNACES  INSTALLED  FOR  THE  UNITED  STATES  GOV- 
ERNMENT SINCE  1885. — TABLE  XLI. 

The  first  employment  of  Government  furnaces  devoted  ex- 
clusively to  the  disposal  of  offensive  matter  seems  to  have  been 
in  the  garrisons  of  the  British  Army.  An  American  physician, 
Dr.  Kilvington,  while  Health  Commissioner  of  Minneapolis,  in  a 
paper  read  before  the  American  Public  Health  Association  at  Mil- 
waukee in  1888,  described  a  garbage  furnace  seen  by  him  at  Gib- 
raltar in  1865,  devoted  exclusively  to  the  destruction  of  waste 
matters.  This  was  the  simplest  form  of  a  brick  oven  floored 
with  fire-bars,  having  an  ash  pit  beneath,  and  connected  to  a  short 
brick  chimney,  the  refuse  being  charged  through  the  doors  in 
front.  This  was  perhaps  the  first  instance  of  the  ''hand-shovel- 
fed"  destructor  of  the  British  type,  which  has  since  followed  this 
same  method  of  charging. 

The  American  Army  posts  found  the  same  need  of  sanitary  dis- 
posal of  waste  matters,  and  in  1885  the  first  American  garbage 
furnace  was  built  at  Governor's  Island,  New  York  Harbor,  by 
Lieutenant  H.  J.  Reilly,  as  described  and  illustrated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter. 


126  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


_  O  o_:   OO'OOO         OOOOOtubflO^OOO     •  O   O   O  O   O   O 

«  2* w  «  2*  2«  2*  21  °*    <*  £• »  o  <*  e  q  of%  »  o*  '"'S  a  °*  °*  ^  ^  21 

C  60-rt  B  99  5  9  M  00  4  M  9  W  bf  Cic'H  'SMcMMMcMMMMbiiMCiMtititiaiMMti^ 

•E  c-°-S  cc-5cccccccc  c^^  c.5ccc-Bccccccccccqccccg 

S3S'23ta:y3tS-5«5-3-«»^  «  a^S'Sts^s^-S-S'SvS'S^-a-S'a-S'S^*  " 

OeSOOc8rtOcSrtrtrtrtrtnJcS  rt-S.S  oJortrtrtOrtrtrtrtrtrt2rtrtnJrtrtrtrtrt4> 

j^Ja^aaas.^^a^^a.^B.^aaaas.aaaaas.aaas.'S 

OOHBOOQOOOOOOOOOS5J5OSOOOSOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOP 


111 


68860608808088 


6668 


O  O  >0 
O  >nl^ 
t^  O  O 


•  O  O  »r  O   HI  O  O     •  \O  O  O 


»r  O 
w  O 


O  O   N     • 
J^  O    N      . 


•^   ...    -o    .    -H    ...... 

i-a'l§ :  i  iJiii^^  ;  i 


-  w  00  Co  COrjO  C       C  CO  C  q  C 


oo  o  o 

ocooooc 


00    M    M    N    N 


t-OO    00    M    N 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          127 

This  furnace,  known  as  the  "Government  Garbage  Crematory," 
was  installed  at  many  stations  of  the  Army,  but  has  now  been 
abandoned  at  nearly  all,  the  surviving  examples  being  at  Ft. 
Sheridan,  near  Chicago,  Forts  Wadsworth  and  Totten,  New  York 
Harbor,  and  at  one  or  two  of  the  smaller  Army  Depots. 

The  first  departure  from  the  Government  type  was  made  by 
Col.  W.  Jacobs,  then  A.  A.  Q.  M.,  U.  S.  A.,  at  McPherson  Bar- 
racks, Atlanta,  Ga.,  who  caused  to  be  built  in  1892  an  Engle 
garbage  cremator  of  a  special  design,  under  the  superintendence 
of  the  author.  In  this  cremator  (which  was  the  distinctive  term 
given  to  all  the  early  Engle  constructions),  a  radical  change  in 
form  of  construction  from  the  original  Engle  patents  was  made, 
which  was  afterwards  secured  by  new  patents  and  became  the 
regular  type  of  Engle  furnace.  This  first  Government  cremator  at 
Atlanta  is  still  in  use,  and  in  the  sixteen  years  of  its  service  has 
required  less  than  $50  for  repairs. 

First  Furnace  for  Navy  Yards. — The  first  cremator  for  our 
naval  service  was  also  an  Engle,  built  at  the  Brooklyn  Yard  4in 
1895  from  the  designs  of  the  author.  It  was  removed  in  1904, 
as  the  site  was  included  in  the  new  dry  dock  location,  and  was 
replaced  in  1905  by  a  Morse-Boulger  destructor. 

These  furnaces  were  followed  by  others  at  the  various  army 
posts  and  naval  stations,  and  are  becoming  a  recognized  part  of 
the  equipment  for  the  disposal  of  waste  at  all  the  Government 
reservations,  including  the  military  camps  and  the  equipment  de- 
pots of  the  Panama  Canal  Zone. 

Construction  and  Capacity  of  the  Furnaces. — Up  to  1902  the 
design  of  the  house  and  furnace  and  the  capacity  was  left  to 
the  judgment  of  the  builders  who  submitted  proposals,  but 
at  League  Island  (Phila.,  1902),  the  Government  specifications 
first  defined  the  required  combustion  per  square  foot  of  grate,  and 
the  specified  quantity  of  fuel  to  be  burned  per  ton  of  garbage  de- 
stroyed. The  present  specifications  are  usually  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  eight  to  twelve  tons  of  garbage,  containing  the  average 
quantity  of  moisture  (65  to  72  per  cent.)  in  a  period  of  from  six 
to  ten  hours,  with  the  consumption  of  a  guaranteed  amount  of 
coal  per  ton  of  waste  consumed.  This  is  practically  one-half  the 
actual  capacity  of  the  furnace,  the  maximum  being  reached  only 


128  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

when  the  stations  are  crowded  with  the  ships  of  a  great  squadron, 
at  the  army  posts  contain  a  large  number  of  troops  for  a  limited 
period. 

Since  the  contracts  usually  go  to  the  lowest  bidders,  the  house 
construction  at  many  of  the  army  posts  is  of  the  cheapest  char- 
acter, not  in  harmony  with  the  other  permanent  buildings  of  the 
post.  The  disposal  stations  at  the  Navy  Yards  of  brick  construc- 
tion are  more  sightly  and  better  suited  to  the  purpose  required. 

The  contract  prices  vary  widely,  being  controlled  by  the  dif- 
ficulties of  foundation,  the  local  cost  of  material,  the  accessibility 
of  the  station,  and  consequent  cost  of  freight  and  labor.  As  a 
rule  the  contract  includes  the  covering  houses  and  approaches, 
with  furnace  and  chimney  and  all  apparatus  for  operating. 

After  erection  there  have  been  thorough  tests  or  trials  of  the 
furnaces,  and  when  accepted  they  have  been  operated  under  over- 
sight of  engineers  in  charge  of  government  work,  or  of  those  in 
control  of  the  machine  equipment  of  the  institutions. 

Government  furnaces  cover  a  limited  period.,  only  from  1900 
to  date.  Once  established,  however,  their  use  has  been  almost 
without  failure,  removals  being  for  reasons  other  than  those  of 
furnace  construction  or  performance.  But  it  must  be  held  in 
mind  that  these  government  disposal  plants  are  not  called  upon 
to  do  their  work  for  long  daily  periods  under  exacting  conditions ; 
and  also  that  they  have  a  reserve  capacity  of  one-half  of  their 
maximum  rating,  all  of  which  tends  to  preserve  the  construction. 
As  government  officers  do  not  report  quantities  destroyed  or  the 
cost  of  fuel,  labor,  or  repairs,  there  is  no  basis  for  comparison 
between  the  several  types  of  furnaces  at  any  point  except  the 
cost  of  the  installation. 

THE  FURNACES  FOR  INSTITUTIONS  AND  BUSINESS  ESTABLISH- 
MENTS.— TABLE  XLII. 

The  need  for  a  sanitary  and  convenient  way  for  disposal  of 
waste  matters  has  always  been  recognized  by  those  in  charge  of 
institutions  devoted  to  the  prevention  and  mitigation  of  human 
suffering,  the  care  of  the  feeble  and  infirm,  and  the  control  of 
those  mentally  or  criminally  unable  to  care  for  themselves.  These 
hospitals,  asylums,  sanitaria,  and  prisons  have  always  presented 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


129 


II 


K, 

I! 


:| 


:fc  : 


ill| 

*   "  r*JS 

>'|S«S 

:_-2~*<? 


21; 


f: 

l! 


irfrfJjK&G'ft  :  :  :  : .:«•§ 

•  5  ei^a  a 5  .-55  g P2" 

ill-SoJesJ  : ; : :  :^rt- 
ilsiiiau  : : :  '•  ;|l 


<«S       o 


*         <^  J<j   *^   M  Q^rt 

!  i 


•  o  o 

:  >,>. 
ill 

' 


1 1 


illij 


.r  :J  . 


m 


siij 


Ml 


If 
II 


* 


., 
QW 


i« 

81== 
o^ 


u 

«        S^^SvovaaovaiSooooooooooooooo5???© 
><      •',  ooooococoooooooooooo  »Ok9tO«e«9>««Ol>Ot»«Ot4ltOtS<S«jh9i 


130  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


(0 

z 
o 

h 

D 
h 

h 
CO 

z 
111 

> 

DC 
H 

Q 
Z 

s! 


:     : 


otic  o 

a  Maffi 


I 


*•*?. 


;+j  3 
'  1/2+3 
:£S 


;1  il  1 

:S  :cS  :£ 


•-1  :  >•  1*3 


:33 


$ 

:.Q  C 

:^^ 


:£  :•§  :jf 

:3  :s  :« 


6  :^ 


l| 

ill  :  :  i 

:||«o> 


affi3^w 
•ab.e 


••c 


w'-sc 

>,wTlH 


•affe  . 

I«§SB« 


i 

S 

ffiw 

11 
fe^, 

ow 


M|&j 


i  rf 

;  :.s 

I 

ill 

•  0,5 

;si 

•CJW 

:«£ 
:aa 
"coeo 


ycb'lj'"      CO^C 

rojiiajzs    l^tls 
:d«!S5(SLs  --^-2  ^  s  s  & 

rijdri'O'vHJ 

•  ti  5;?  o.rt  S>H^;'->^*TI^ 


iKKSOwSCQwo?  i^-X  w  w 


I 


rt 

§8 

00 


§ 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  131 

the  problem  of  dealing  with  waste  in  a  larger  volume  than  would 
be  produced  by  the  same  number  of  persons  under  ordinary 
conditions  of  life,  and  are  often  at  a  serious  disadvantage  as  com- 
pared with  the  means  of  disposal  offered  by  the  usual  municipal 
agencies,  the  use  of  which  they  are  in  most  cases  debarred  from 
enjoying.  Commonly  this  institutional  waste  is  burned  under 
the  boilers  and  heaters,  always  to  the  detriment  of  the  boilers 
and  the  cause  of  complaints  from  engineers  and  firemen,  whose 
regular  work  is  interfered  with.  Certain  kinds  of  hospital, 
medical  school  and  laboratory  refuse  cannot  be  disposed  of  in  this 
way,  but  must  be  removed,  often  at  great  expense. 

Again,  the  accumulation  of  a  large  volume  of  refuse,  inevitable 
in  large  business  establishments,  becomes  troublesome,  and  the 
same  difficulty  arises  in  hotels  and  other  places  where  people  are 
brought  together  for  special  reasons  for  short  lengths  of  time. 
As  a  rule  the  towns  do  not  provide  for  the  removal  of  institu- 
tional or  trade  waste,  and  the  burden  is  on  those  in  charge  of  the 
buildings. 

Hence  the  development  of  destruction  methods  for  institutions 
and  business  houses  by  incineration  in  properly  constructed  fur- 
naces has  been  far  more  rapid,  more  satisfactory  and  more  sani- 
tary than  the  development  of  disposal  by  municipal  agencies. 

Institutional  Crematories — In  Table  XLII,  are  brought  together 
the  American  installation  of  garbage  and  refuse  cremating  fur- 
naces other  than  those  for  municipal  and  government  use.  They 
comprise  a  large  variety  of  forms  and  methods  for  disposal 
by  incineration  that  are  not  familiarly  known. 

First  Laboratory  Furnace. — In  1886  Dr.  John  S.  Billings,  the 
well-known  sanitarian,  then  connected  with  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity, of  Baltimore,  designed  a  furnace  for  the  destruction  of 
small  dead  animals,  for  use  in  connection  with  the  work  of  the 
Pathological  Laboratory  at  the  University.  This  was  a  small  fire- 
box built  alongside  the  main  chimney  of  the  building  in  the  labora- 
tory room,  having  an  inclined  hearth  or  small  chamber  at  the  left 
side,  with  a  door  for  receiving  the  bodies,  and  above,  a  second 
inclined  hearth,  with  door,  which  leads  to  a  second  fire-box  be- 
low the  fire-bars. 

The  principal  fire  below  consumes  the  bodies  placed  on  the  two 


132  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

inclined  hearths,  the  fumes  and  products  of  combustion*  .passing 
through  the  upper  fire-box  are  consumed  or  deodorized  before 
being  discharged  into  the  chimney. 

This  is  believed  to  be  the  first  laboratory  furnace  brought  into 
use,  and  is  still  in  service,  but  limited  to  the  disposal  of  very  small 
animals,  and  the  debris  of  bacteriological  investigations  that  must 
be  burned. 

First  Municipal  Institutional  Furnaces. — Beginning  with  the 
Engle  cremator,  built  by  the  author  in  1889,  at  the  disinfecting 
station,  East  Sixteenth  street,  New  York  City,  there  followed  a 
long  series  of  installations  for  the  great  hospitals  in  New  York, 
Brooklyn,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia,  and  many  smaller  places, 
built  mostly  by  one  concern. 

This  first  furnace  in  New  York  (see  table  XL)  is  a  striking  in- 
stance of  the  value  of  such  an  apparatus  in  times  of  great  emerg- 
ency, as  when  the  health  of  the  city  is  menaced.  During  the 
typhus  fever  epidemic  of  some  ten  years  ago  for  weeks  together 
there  were  burned  in  this  furnace  many  thousands  of  infected 
articles,  mattresses,  bedding,  clothing,  furniture,  etc.,  and  in  the 
eighteen  continuous  years  of  its  service  several  millions  of  in- 
fected pieces  have  been  destroyed  with  rapidity  and  perfect  sani- 
tary protection  from  contagion. 

Taken  in  connection  with  the  steam  and  formaldehyde  dis- 
infection apparatus  installed  by  the  author  in  the  adjoining  build- 
ing it  is  one  of  the  chief  agencies  in  the  city  for  sanitary  protec- 
tion, and  the  largest  of  its  kind  in  the  world. 

New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  have  four  installations  at  the 
various  groups  of  institutions,  and  three  others  in  the  largest 
hospitals  under  municipal  control.  Boston  has  four  furnaces  in 
different  departments  of  the  great  City  Hospital.  Chicago  has 
a  large  equipment  at  the  Cook  County  institutions,  and  Jersey 
City  a  large  crematory  at  the  Hudson  County  institutions.  Many 
of  the  larger  cities  and  towns  are  still  without  this  most  neces- 
sary appliance  for  the  efficient  disposition  of  dangerous  forms 
of  waste.  It  would  seem  that  if  there  is  any  place  where  such  a 
device  is  useful  it  is  certainly  at  the  stations  and  hospitals  where 
the  worst  forms  of  infectious  and  contagious  diseases  are  received 
and  treated.  Instances  are  on  record  where  the  employees  of  the 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  133 

street  cleaning  service  have  contracted  disease  resulting  in  death 
from  exposure  to  infected  matter  during  its  removal  by  the  city 
carts  from  the  public  institutions. 

The  First  Hospital  Installation  was  that  of  the  New  York  Hos- 
pital in  West  I7th  Street,  in  1891.  This  is  a  special  design  by  the 
author  after  the  Engle  pattern  and  the  first  steel  case  garbage 
furnace  construction  built  in  this  country. 

This  was  followed  by  others  at  St.  Luke's,  Bellevue,  Lying-in, 
Mt.  Sinai,  German,  St.  Francis  hospitals,  and  several  smaller  ones. 
Philadelphia  has  furnaces  at  the  Pennsylvania,  Samaritan,  Episco- 
pal, Jefferson  and  several  of  the  smaller  hospitals,  and  other  towns 
have  followed  these  examples. 

The  need  of  this  help  to  efficient  sanitation  is  universally  recogr 
nized  by  the  officers  in  charge,  but  there  is  sometimes  difficulty 
in  finding  convenient  room  in  the  older  institutions,  and  often  a 
lack  of  funds  for  construction.  The  latest  modern  hospitals 
usually  provide  space  for  destructor  furnaces,  though  not  all 
build  them.  There  are  few  reports  from  these  installations,  but 
their  usefulness  is  so  great  that  once  they  are  built  they  are  rarely 
allowed  to  go  out  of  commission,  and  there  are  but  one  or  two 
cases  of  discontinuance. 

Medical  Schools  and  Laboratories. — Following  the  example  of 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  the  medical  colleges  have  found  it 
greatly  to  their  advantage  to  install  small  powerful  furnaces  for 
the  disposal  of  a  very  refractory  and  objectionable  form  of 
refuse.  These  special  constructions  in  one  or  two  cases  employ 
oil  as  fuel ;  in  others,  gas,  natural  or  artificial,  is  used  with  equally 
good  results. 

All  laboratories  use  fire  for  the  destruction  of  certain  sub- 
stances, but  for  pathogenic  and  bacteriological  work  a  different 
and  larger  form  of  destructor  is  found  to  be  indispensable.  These 
constructions  are  of  special  form,  placed  often  on  the  upper  floor 
of  buildings,  using  any  available  fuel,  and  are  compact,  very  pow- 
erful and  serviceable. 

Installations  for  Hotels. — The  addition  of  a  garbage  furnace  to 
the  machinery  equipment  of  a  great  modern  hotel  involves  but 
comparatively  small  cost,  and  provides  a  rapid  and  satisfactory 
way  to  get  rid  of  objectionable  waste — the  removal  of  which  en- 


134  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

tails  cost  and  often  causes  nuisance.  When  the  usual  agencies  of 
removal  are  interrupted  by  storms  or  unforeseen  accidents,  there 
is  always  trouble,  and  the  accumulation  of  two  or  three  days  be- 
comes a  serious  question  to  deal  with.  The  architects  and  en- 
gineers of  the  latest  great  hotels  now  provide  for  the  installation 
of  furnaces,  and  arrange  for  their  flue  connection  with  the  smoke 
flue  or  direct  with  the  chimneys.  The  great  height  of  these 
chimney-stacks  and  strongly  induced  draft  does  away  with  the 
necessity  of  a  forced  draft  at  the  destructor.  The  capacity  of 
these  furnaces,  burning  every  form  of  waste  matter  produced,  ex- 
cepting only  the  ashes  from  the  boiler  fires,  is  sometimes  five  to 
eight  tons  daily,  as  large  as  would  be  built  in  a  town  of  5,000  to 
8,000  people. 

The  heat  developed  is  sometimes  utilized  in  separately  attached 
steam  boilers  employed  in  the  minor  service  of  the  hotel,  or  may 
be  used  for  heating  the  feed  water  of  the  main  battery  of  steam 
boilers. 

For  apartment  houses  a  smaller  form  of  furnace  is  constructed, 
and  this  may  be  fitted  with  coils  of  piping  for  the  hot  water  sup- 
ply of  the  building.  All  these  furnaces  must  be  provided  with 
approved  apparatus  for  destroying  the  noxious  gases  thrown  off, 
or  there  may  be  complaints  o£  nuisance. 

BUSINESS  INSTALLATIONS. 

Business  men  of  the  present  day  as  a  general  rule  recognize 
the  value  of  by-products,  and  do  not  destroy  refuse  of  any  kind 
until  the  last  salable  item  that  can  be  extracted  is  taken  out. 
There  are  many  examples  where  the  by-product  to  be  had  from 
apparently  worthless  matter  when  intelligently  treated,  brings 
large  returns. 

But,  whatever  may  be  the  process,  there  still  remains  a  last 
and  ultimate  form  of  refuse  that  is  best  disposed  of  by  incinera- 
tion, and  there  is  probably  no  better  illustration  of  the  usefulness 
of  special  furnaces  for  destruction  by  fire  than  instances  shown 
in  table  XLII. 

Under  the  head  of  trade  refuse  is  included  every  class  of  waste 
produced  or  remaining  unsalable  in  trading  or  business  establish- 
ments or  manufacturing  industries.  As  a  rule  the  removal  of  this 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  135 

is  not  done  by  the  town,  though  the  town  furnishes  a  place  for 
its  deposit,  and  the  oversight  of  the  means  for  handling  it. 

Within  the  past  few  years  it  has  become  evident  that  incinera- 
tion on  the  premises  is  more  convenient  and  economical,  as  the 
cost  of  a  properly  constructed  furnace  can  be  saved  in  a  year 
or  two. 

First  Installation. — The  Macy  Department  Store,  New  York 
City,  in  1902,  was  the  first  of  this  class  of  business  establishments 
to  destroy  its  waste  within  the  building.  A  special  form  of  fur- 
nace was  designed  by  the  author  and  placed  in  connection  with 
one  of  the  steam  boilers  of  the  building. 

The  waste  from  each  floor  is  discharged  through  a  chute  to  the 
receiving  room,  the  salable  parts  sorted  out,  and  the  remainder, 
with  the  refuse  from  the  restaurants  and  all  worthless  matters,  is 
destroyed.  This  same  design  was  afterward  adopted  at  several 
large  department  stores,  and  at  various  warehouses  and  factories 
with  equally  good  results  in  every  case. 

The  waste  from  great  railroad  stations  is  destroyed  quickly 
and  without  offense,  but  demands  a  special  form  of  furnace  suited 
to  the  mixed  character  of  refuse. 

This  method  can  be  employed  with  great  advantage  in  a  great 
variety  of  cases  when  the  disposal  of  waste  is  difficult  to  deal  with 
in  the  usual  way. 

In  General. — Beginning  in  1900  the  author  designed  and  built 
many  furnaces  for  hospitals,  colleges,  hotels  and  business  estab- 
lishments. In  most  instances  these  were  of  special  form  of  con- 
truction  intended  for  particular  purposes,  and  included  a  wide 
variety  of  designs  in  their  application  to  the  disposal  of  every 
class  of  waste  produced  by  these  buildings.  Since  then  a  great 
number  of  furnaces  of  this  character  have  been  built,  and  they 
have  increased  so  rapidly  that  it  is  impossible  to  furnish  data  in 
regard  to  them. 

In  addition  to  the  styles  of  furnace  enumerated  there  are  a 
considerable  number  of  smaller  incinerators  used  in  the  Regular 
Army  camps  and  in  the  cantonments  of  State  Militia,  when  these 
troops  are  assembled  for  annual  practice  manoeuvers,  and  in  many 
such  places  the  grounds  are  provided  with  stationary  crematories 


136  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

of  differing  types,  suited  to  temporary  use,  and  installed  by  the 
Government  at  moderate  cost. 

There  are  also  several  builders  of  still  smaller  incinerators 
which  are  used  in  camps  and  the  dwellings  of  summer  residents. 
These,  and  several  other  forms  of  small  furnaces,  do  not  properly 
come  under  the  classification  of  institutional  furnaces,  and,  there- 
fore, are  not  included  in  the  foregoing  lists. 

SUCCESSFUL  PRIVATE  INSTALLATIONS. 

Under  this  title  are  included  all  forms  of  construction  that  are 
not  limited  to  municipal  and  governmental  service.  Here  there 
is  a  wide  range  covered,  a  remarkably  successful  use  of  every  op- 
portunity, and  a  gratifying  absence  of  failure  as  compared  with 
the  larger  and  more  ambitious  forms. 

These  installations  have  not  only  been  able  to  meet  all  the  con- 
ditions imposed,  but  they  have  maintained  and  extended  their  use- 
fulness and  have  established  a  reliable  means  for  the  destruction 
of  every  class  of  worthless  matter. 

This  country  has  long  been  under  the  imputation  of  signal 
failure  in  methods  and  apparatus  for  the  treatment  of  public 
wastes,  perhaps  a  deserved  reproach  when  we  consider  what  has 
been  done  elsewhere  on  similar  lines  of  public  work.  But  this 
cannot  be  said  to  apply  to  cases  of  individual  waste  disposal  in 
institutions,  in  manufacturing  establishments  and  in  private  busi- 
nesses. 

We  may  be  behind  in  the  branch  of  municipal  work,  owing 
chiefly  to  causes  and  conditions  peculiar  to  our  country  and  which 
do  not  exist  abroad,  but  we  not  only  lead  in  the  variety  of  small 
furnace  designs  and  their  adaptation  to  the  special  work  required 
— we  have  a  far  larger  number  of  them  in  use  and  they  are  fully 
as  efficient  and  economical  as  any  of  their  class  built  elsewhere. 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  type  of  furnace  construction  does 
not  follow  any  foreign  pattern,  but  that  it  is  the  logical  develop- 
ment along  certain  lines  of  the  crude  beginnings  of  twenty  years 
ago,  marking  each  difficult  progressive  step  by  improved  apparatus 
and  better  results.  Within  a  well-defined  and  limited  field  of 
work  the  furnaces  have  been  uniformly  successful. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  137 

REASONS  FOR  MUNICIPAL  FAILURES. 

The  large  percentage  of  failures  of  installations  for  municipal 
work  has  previously  been  briefly  noted. 

Of  two  hundred  and  eight  the  whole  number  built  and  here  re- 
ported, one  hundred  and  eight,  or  50  per  cent.,  have  been  dis- 
continued and  abandoned.  On  the  other  hand,  only  4  per  cent, 
of  the  total  number  of  furnaces  built  for  government  or  private 
use  have  failed  of  continuance.  The  reasons  for  this  striking 
difference  may  be  thus  stated : 

1.  A  lack  of  professional  knowledge  necessary  for  the  accurate  analysis 
of  the  character  of  the  various  kinds  of  waste,  and  in  lieu  of  this  in- 
formation the  estimate  of  quantities  and  qualities  by  guesswork,  without  a 
definite  standard  for  reference  and  comparison. 

2.  The  want  of  sound  engineering  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  com- 
bustion, heat  and  resulting  gases ;  mistakes  in  estimating  the  proper  dimen- 
sions and  proportions  of  the  working  parts  of  the  installation,  and  from 
lack  of  scientific  training  the  inability  to  remedy  defects  or  correct  errors. 

3.  Faults  in  design  and  construction  arising  from  an  apparent  disin- 
clination to  profit  by  the  experience  of  others,  leading  to  a  repetition  of 
futile  experiments  and  forms  of  construction  tried  elsewhere  and  abandoned. 

4.  An  overconfident  opinion  that  a  machine  or  process  that  deals  suc- 
cessfully with  certain  kinds  of  waste  material  will  produce  equally  good 
results  from  municipal  waste. 

5.  The  unskillful  management  of  garbage  crematories  by  men  appointed 
for  reasons  other  than  their  fitness  for  the  work.     This  is  forcibly  stated 
by  an  authority  as  follows : 

"The  expert  garbage  fireman  who  is  considered  essential  to  success  in 
England  is  generally  supplanted  here  by  a  man  whose  only  qualification  for 
this  position  may  be  that  he  can  shovel  coal  or  pull  out  clinker,  but  gen- 
erally has  not  the  remotest  knowledge  or  even  conception  of  the  difficulties 
of  burning  on  a  large  scale  the  most  heterogeneous  mass  of  all  forms  of 
solid  mater  to  be  gathered  from  a  modern  community."  (Transactions  of 
Am.  Soc.  Civil  Engineers,  Vol  XXIX,  p.  82.) 

6.  There  are  too  few  official  reports  that  give  quantities,  costs  and  other 
details  to  show  what  is  being  done  from  year  to  year,  thereby  enabling  the 
authorities  to  correct  errors  and  improve  the  service.     These  reports,  if 
truthful  and  complete,  would  soon  fix  the  responsibility  for  bad  apparatus 
and  poor  management,  and  would,  moreover,  be  of  great  assistance  to 
other   communities   seeking   information.      But   the   truth    should   be    told 
without  fear  or  favor,  or  there  will  be  a  misrepresentation  of  conditions 
and  a  perpetuation  of  errors. 

THE  SHARE  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESPONSIBILITY. 

The  responsibility  for  failures  is  not  all  on  the  side  of  the  de- 
signer or  builder.  The  municipal  authorities  are  themselves  a 
large  factor  of  uncertainty  in  the  general  result. 

When  the  nuisance  of  incompetent  waste  disposal — or  the  want 


138  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

of  any — becomes  plainly  evident,  and  the  protests  of  the  people 
are  loudly  insistent,  the  matter  is  referred  to  a  committee  with  in- 
structions to  obtain  information,  examine  and  report.  Details  are 
asked  for,  and  straightway  a  great  bulk  of  pamphlets,  plans, 
reports,  schemes  and  suggestions  from  all  sorts  of  interested 
parties  are  submitted.  To  deal  with  this  mass  of  conflicting  de- 
tail, and  to  reduce  it  to  any  sort  of  intelligent  order  and  formulate 
a  report,  demands  more  technical  knowledge  and  time  than  the 
average  official  can  give.  The  town  officers  and  employees  who 
are  competent  to  give  assistance  have  their  own  departments  of 
duty  and  are  not  always  available,  for  practical  help  in  this  pre- 
liminary stage.  They  are,  moreover,  not  anxious  to  offer  advice 
or  suggestions  upon  a  subject  with  which  they  have  had  little  or 
no  experience,  and  certainly  no  technical  training. 

The  inspection  of  plants  operating  under  conditions  like  their 
own,  in  towns  of  similar  size,  seems  to  be  considered  a  necessary 
part  of  the  preliminary  work  as  it  is  conducted  at  present.  Junket- 
ing excursions  to  distant  places  must  be  made  at  some  one's  ex- 
pense. For  town  officials  it  is  part  of  the  "perquisites  of  office"; 
to  a  prospective  builder  who  pays  traveling  expenses,  it  is  an  in- 
vestment for  a  purpose  and  sometimes  returns  to  him  with  com- 
pound interest. 

When  the  specifications  are  to  be  issued  for  bids  the  uncertainty 
as  to  just  what  is  really  needed  makes  it  impossible  to  state  defi- 
nite terms  and  conditions.  Usually  it  is  left  for  open  proposals 
from  all  interested  parties,  frequently  ending  with  the  rejection  of 
all,  and  the  process  is  repeated  until  a  choice  is  at  last  made. 

The  methods  that  sometimes  determine  this  final  selection  do 
not  always  procure  the  best  results  for  the  town.  One  writer  has 
expressed  himself  clearly  on  these  questions:  * 

It  should  in  justice  to  the  builders  of  municipal  plants  be  added  that  the 
fault  of  most  failures  lies  at  the  door  of  the  municipal  authorities,  on  one 
or  another  of  the  following  scores :  Acceptance  of  an  untried  installation 
designed  by  some  local  party  without  substantial  experience  or  attainment 
in  this  line  of  work.  Contracting  in  good  faith  for  an  unsuitable  in- 
stallation, because  of  ignorance  by  the  purchaser  of  what  the  conditions  to 
be  met  really  are.  Determination  by  the  municipal  authorities  to  award 
work  to  contractors  who  will  pay  the  largest  sum  to  those  who  have  the 
power  to  determine  who  shall  secure  the  contract. 

Unfortunately,  in  spite  of  the  recent  outcry  against  graft,  the  affairs  of 

'"Garbage  Crematories  in  America."  W.  M.  Venable,  N.  Y.,  1906.  Jno.  Wiley  & 
Sons. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  139 

most  American  cities  and  towns  are  controlled  by  persons  who  either 
demand  contributions  from  public  contractors  for  themselves  or  permit 
their  subordinates  to  demand  them  in  order  to  retain  the  services  of  those 
subordinates.  So  many  and  so  various  and  subtle  are  the  methods  by 
which  political  prostitutes  may  cheat  the  people  of  money  that  few  con- 
tractors and  few  engineers  are  able  to  withstand  the  pressure  brought  to 
bear  upon  them,  if  they  seek  to  serve  a  public  where  the  grafters  are  in 
control,  or  even  in  the  minority,  on  the  city  council  or  other  public  body 
in  control  of  the  municipal  administration. 

This  is  a  plain  statement  of  facts  which,  though  often  difficult 
to  prove,  can  still  be  well  substantiated  in  many  cases.  There  is 
probably  no  department  of  municipal  service  in  which  greater  op- 
portunities are  afforded  for  doubtful  and  crooked  work,  and  cer- 
tainly none  where  it  is  so  persistently  and  openly  practised.  It  is 
not  an  attractive  nor  always  an  agreeable  branch  of  work,  but 
yet  it  is  one  that  deserves  more  rigid  attention  and  more  honest 
treatment  than  is  commonly  given  it. 

SHARE  OF  RESPONSIBILITY  OF  THE  ADVISORY  BOARDS. 

Not  all  the  blame  for  mismanagement  and  incompetency  in 
disposal  work  should  attach  to  the  financial  and  executive  depart- 
ments. The  advisory  boards  of  health,  whose  province  should 
be  strictly  limited  to  investigation,  report  and  advice  on  matters 
that  concern  public  hygiene,  are  frequently  placed  in  positions  that 
require  them  to  select  and  install  apparatus  with  which  they  are 
either  unacquainted  or  in  the  purchase  of  which  they  may  be 
personally  interested. 

While  the  physician  is  recognized  as  the  authority  upon  ques- 
tions that  concern  the  prevention,  discovery  and  treatment  of 
disease,  whether  of  the  individual  or  of  the  community,  there  is  a 
distinction  to  be  made  between  that  which  relates  to  the  profes- 
sional and  medical  side  of  the  subject  and  that  which  applies  to 
the  mechanical  and  physical  side. 

Undoubtedly  the  whole  general  question  can  be  dealt  with  by 
the  medical  fraternity,  but  in  a  municipal  administration  there 
should  be  separation  of  the  advisory  and  executive  branches  of 
the  Health  Department,  as  each  phase  of  the  subject  requires 
technical  education  and  special  training  in  order  to  achieve  the 
best  results, 


140  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

WHAT  is  HYGIENE  AND  WHAT  SANITATION. 

Hygiene  in  its  widest  sense  is  "the  science  that  treats  of  the 
preservation  of  health,"  and  this  term  includes  sanitation  as  the 
means  of  specific,  well-defined  method  of  health  preservation. 

The  difference  has  been  well  defined  by  an  eminent  authority, 
whose  services  in  both  branches  are  well  known :  * 

The  sphere  of  hygiene  is  naturally  separable  into  two  distinct  hemi- 
spheres, one  dealing  directly  and  chiefly  with  individuals  or  masses  of 
individuals,  the  other  directly  and  chiefly  with  their  environments.  .  .  . 
In  spite  of  its  admitted  importance,  hygiene  occupies  only  a  very  small 
place  in  our  medical  schools,  partly,  I  believe,  because  sanitation  has 
become  so  large  a  part  of  hygiene,  and  sanitation  belongs  in  schools  of 
engineering.  ...  It  is  to-day  absurd  for  the  average  well-trained 
medical  student  to  think  of  becoming  an  expert  in  such  branches  of 
hygiene  as  water  supply,  sewerage,  heating  and  ventilation,  street  building, 
cleaning  and  watering,  garbage  collection  and  disposal,  gas  and  other 
forms  of  light,  ice  supply,  milk  supply,  the  abatement  of  nuisances,  etc. 
Those  belong  rather  to  the  sanitary  engineer,  sanitary  chemist  and  sani- 
tary biologist ;  to  sanitation  rather  than  hygiene.  .  .  .  As  for  research, 
it  is  idle  to  expect  the  ordinary  medical  man  to  spend  much  time  upon  or 
to  be  greatly  interested  in  the  detailed  problems  of  water  or  sewerage 
purification,  even  if  he  has — as  he  generally  has  not — the  requisite  training. 

AN  ENGINEERING  PROBLEM. 

Briefly,  then,  sanitation  as  concerned  with  waste  disposal  is  an 
engineering  problem,  and  the  difficulties  encountered  can  best 
be  overcome  when  competent  engineers  are  employed  for  the  spe- 
cial purpose. 

As  compared  with  the  usual  way  of -conducting  this  work,  the 
engineer  has  many  advantages  that  can  be  hardly  overestimated. 
An  examination  made  by  a  competent  man,  trained  in  this  special 
line  of  municipal  work,  would  proceed  on  this  line : 

The  review  of  the  municipal  records — if  there  were  any — of 
the  past,  to  know  what  has  been  done,  and  the  preparation  of  a 
clear  and  concise  tabulation  of  this  as  a  basis  for  future  work,  is 
only  the  beginning.  Then  comes  a  careful  study  of  reports, 
papers  and  writings  on  this  subject  that  may  bear  upon  this 
particular  case.  It  must  be  remembered  there  is  but  little  reliable 
literature  on  this  subject,  foreign  experience  does  not  always 
agree  with  our  local  conditions,  and  a  good  deal  of  ground  must 
be  covered  with  relatively  poor  returns. 


*Prof.    W.    T.    Sedgwick,    "Contributions   from   Sanitary  Research  Laboratory,"  Vol. 
III.     Mass.   Institute  of   Technology. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  141 

Later  the  investigation  of  the  various  methods  available  is  taken 
up,  and  here  the  technical  training  in  fundamental  principles  that 
underlie  the  many  schemes,  plans,  processes  and  sytems  is  abso- 
lutely essential.  He  must  be  able  to  distinguish  between  the  true 
and  the  false,  and  to  be  proof  against  the  plausible  arguments, 
misrepresentations  and  appeals  brought  to  bear  through  personal, 
political  and  financial  pressure.  When  all  this  is  finally  threshed 
out,  and  a  well-defined  plan  or  policy  fixed  upon,  the  report  is 
drawn  up  and  the  specifications  prepared,  which  eliminate  the 
weak,  crude,  impracticable  and  vicious  elements  and  state  clearly 
what  the  town  desires  to  obtain  and  what  conditions  the  tenders 
must  conform  to;  and  this  final  report,  with  the  diagrams  and 
plans,  is  submitted  for  action. 

The  responsibility  is  thereafter  upon  the  town  authorities.  They 
have  before  them  a  clear  and  accurate  report,  that  covers  every 
phase  of  the  question  they  must  decide  upon,  and  which  is  un- 
biased and  unpartisan,  and  presumed  to  be  unconnected  with  any 
local  clique  or  party,  and  not  in  the  interest  of  any  particular 
builder,  machine,  apparatus  or  process.  The  actual  expense  con- 
nected with  this  work  is  usually  less  than  would  be  incurred  by 
the  present  method  of  united  or  separate  personal  investigation  by 
the  members  of  a  committee  of  the  Council  or  Board  of  Health. 

THE  INTEREST  OF  BOARDS  OF  TRADE. 

This  means  of  arriving  at  the  facts  is  often  undertaken  by  the 
Boards  of  Trade,  the  Citizens'  Business  League,  or  other  local 
associations  that  act  independent  of  the  local  authorities,  and  sub- 
mit the  results  of  their  efforts  in  the  form  of  recommendations  or 
resolutions  for  consideration  of  the  City  Council. 

The  Woman's  Societies  and  Improvement  Leagues  often  take  a 
prominent  part  in  these  movements  for  better  conditions  of  clean- 
liness, health  and  civic  improvements,  and  especially  in  the  con- 
trol and  abatement  of  nuisances,  too  often  overlooked  and  ignored 
by  the  town  officers. 

The  effect  of  this  concerted  action  of  these  representative  bodies 
of  leading  citizens,  whose  purpose  is  the  good  of  the  town  gen- 
erally and  not  the  up-building  of  a  political  machine,  or  the  pro- 
motion of  private  interests,  is  always  for  the  betterment  of  the 


142  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

civic  welfare.  When  their  remonstrances,  protests  and  petitions 
are  presented  in  a  clear,  forcible  and  intelligent  manner,  they 
sometimes  carry  greater  weight  and  are  productive  of  greater 
benefit  than  the  half-hearted,  hesitating  and  spineless  official  meas- 
ures of  the  town  authorities. 

Public  sentiment  is  the  power  behind  the  throne,  and  when  this 
is  fairly  interested  in  behalf  of  a  movement  there  are  apt  to  be 
surprising  results. 

REASONS  FOR  SLOW  PROGRESS. 

Since  the  preparation  of  data  for  this  book  was  begun  the  author 
has  received  many  letters  relating  to  the  points  touched  upon.  One 
of  these  points  is  that  of  the  reason  for  the  lack  of  progress  in 
disposal  work  in  this  country  during  the  past  twenty  years. 
Among  those  who  have  expressed  themselves  most  forcibly  is 
Mr.  F.  K.  Rhines,  until  recently  Secretary  and  Engineer  of  the 
Dixon  Engineering  and  Construction  Co.,  who  has  for  many  years 
studied  the  matter  from  a  practical  standpoint,  and  who  has  had 
wide  experience  in  dealing  with  the  various  phases  that  are  pre- 
sented. His  statement  may  be  read  with  the  respect  due  an  hon- 
est expression  of  experience  and  a  desire  to  contribute  to  the  so- 
lution of  the  problem.  His  statement  is  as  follows : 

Without  considering  at  present  those  municipal  governments  (by  no 
means  as  uncommon  as  they  should  be)  which  are  controlled  by  political 
bosses,  individual  or  corporate,  and  ignoring  for  the  moment  that  element 
of  public  life,  let  us  be  thankful  for  the  case  of  the  honest,  intelligent  public 
official  who  earnestly  desires  to  serve  the  people  who  elected  him.  His 
case  is  of  interest,  for  in  it  only  is  found  any  present  promise  of  fulfillment 
of  the  real  function  of  the  officeholder — the  service  of  the  people. 

Honest  and  intelligent  the  man  may  be,  but  how  often  are  these  ad- 
mirable, but  insufficient,  attributes  combined  with  the  complementary 
qualification  of  competency?  The  practice  has  so  established  itself  through 
long  custom  that,  although  we  usually  put  a  C.  E.  in  the  City  Engineer's 
chair,  and  demand  a  Health  Officer  who  can  show  a  doctor's  degree,  men 
are  set  up  as  law-makers  for  their  city  without  question  as  to  their  qualifi- 
cations, provided  only  that  they  can  show  the  required  number  of  votes. 

But  honesty  and  intelligence  are  quoted  too  high  in  public  life  to  be 
lightly  discarded.  Let  us  be  thankful  for  these,  and  content — for  a  be- 
ginning. That  we  are  still  only  at  the  beginning  of  many  things  municipal 
which  will  be  considered  as  elementary  necessities  half  a  century  hence,  is 
no  great  wonder  when  it  is  remembered  that  so  comparatively  short  a 
time  has  elapsed  since  the  beginning  of  everything  in  this  country  that  we 
have  been  obliged  to  face  our  manifold  problems  of  civic  life  in  the  order 
of  their  insistence. 

There  are  scores  of  cities  whose  Mayors  went  swimming  as  boys  where 
the  City  Hall  or  Post  Office  now  stands,  which  have  had  their  whole  civic 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  143 

growth  compressed  into  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  surely  they  may  plead 
the  excuse  of  a  "busy  day"  if  they  have  neglected  some  of  the  more 
modern  arts  and  principles  of  municipal  well-being.  But  there  are  plenty 
of  others  that  were  well-groomed  cities  before  their  present  Mayors  were 
born,  which  still  have  made  no  pretence  of  establishing  even  a  system  of 
public  refuse  collection,  to  say  nothing  of  disposal,  and  which,  apparently, 
have  not  even  commenced  to  awaken  to  a  sense  of  civic  responsibility  in 
the  matter. 

So,  when  many  of  our  cities  and  towns  have  not  yet  recognized  the  fact 
that  there  is  any  "garbage  disposal  problem,"  and  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
city  fathers  are  still  far  from  being  specialists  in  such  familiar  matters  as 
street  paving,  lighting,  water  works  and  sewerage,  is  it  not  more  cause  for 
regret  than  wonderment  if  they  are  all  at  sea  when  it  comes  to  handling 
those  newer  departments  of  municipal  endeavor  which  are  still  unknown, 
unheard  of,  to  so  many? 

But  ignorance  is  merely  an  explanation — not  an  excuse!  And  it  is  be- 
coming more  inexcusable  every  day.  If  by  mistakes  we  learn  and  by 
failures  we  advance,  then  the  past  twenty  years  of  American  experience  in 
garbage  disposal  cannot  be  without  value ;  yet  it  would  almost  seem  to  be 
so,  as  far  as  concerns  the  usual  way  of  getting  at  the  facts. 

It  is  a  distinctly  American  trait  to  yearn  for  first-hand  experience.  As 
cities  we  are  not  willing  to  take  anybody's  word  for  anything.  But  in  the 
case  in  question,  is  it  not  generally  true  that  the  desire  to  be  "shown" 
arises  from  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  there  is  any  one  whose  opinion  is  of 
value, — for  whose  expert  advice  money  spent  is  not  merely  spent,  but  well 
invested? 

The  most  superficial  survey  of  the  experience  of  almost  any  dozen  cities 
in  this  country  cannot  but  convince  one  of  the  haphazard  nature  of  the 
efforts  put  forth  in  this  direction.  When  bids  are  invited  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  garbage  disposal  plant,  not  one  city  in  a  hundred  can  give 
prospective  bidders  any  intelligent  idea  of  the  amount,  character  or  com- 
position of  the  waste  matter  to  be  dealt  with.  Frequently  it  has  not  been 
even  decided  whether  the  reduction  or  incineration  method  will  be  em- 
ployed, where  the  plant  will  be  located,  what  classes  of  waste  will  be 
handled,  whether  it  is  desirable  to  attempt  power  production,  or  what 
disposition  is  to  be  made  of  the  residue.  Yet  these  are  all  data  to  which 
the  bidder  is  entitled,— which  he  must  have  in  order  to  design  and  build  a 
plant  suited  to  the  city's  individual  needs,  and  in  order  to  be  at  all  certain 
of  accomplishing  the  results  sought  after.  Without  this  information,  which 
the  city  receiving  proposals  is  rarely  able  to  give,  and  which  the  bidder  is 
still  more  rarely  able  to  secure  for  himself,  the  installation  of  any  system 
must  be  made  more  or  less  at  random,  and  results  are  bound  to  be  in  the 
same  degree  problematical. 

Yet  instead  of  securing  the  services  of  some  competent  consulting  engi- 
neer who  has  made  a  special  study  of  refuse  disposal,  the  average  city, 
when  it  finally  does  step  out  and  determine  to  do  something  toward 
cleaning  up  and  becoming  a  pleasanter,  decenter  place  to  live  in,  goes  about 
the  matter  as  if  it  were  exploring  unknown  wilds.  Little  heed  is  given  to 
the  mistakes  and  failures,  or  even  the  successes,  of  other  cities — too  little, 
at  any  rate,  to  learn  why  failure  or  success  resulted.  Some  energetic 
Health  Officer  conceives  the  idea  of  inaugurating  better  methods  of 
garbage  disposal,  and  brings  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  City 
Council.  At  best  an  inevstigration  and  report  are  asked  of  the  City 
Engineer:  or  perhaps  it  is  referred  back  to  the  Health  Officer,  whose 
hands  are  already  more  than  full,  if  all  his  duties  are  properly  attended  to, 
even  if  he  were  competent  to  furnish  the  expert  knowledge  needed — but 
more  often  the  whole  question  is  turned  over  to  a  committee  of  Council- 


144  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

men  who  are  still  less  qualified  to  solve  the  technical  difficulties  of  the 
problem. 

Incompetent  builders  certainly  share  with  incompetent  officials  the  blame 
for  much  that  is  wrong  and  unsatisfactory  in  existing  conditions, — but  the 
former  are  the  direct  result  of  the  latter.  When  competent  engineers 
make  the  necessary  preliminary  investigations,  draw  the  plans,  compile  the 
specifications  and  supervise  the  construction,  none  but  competent  builders 
can  do  the  work. 

On  the  fingers  of  one  hand  can  be  counted  the  American  cities  which 
have. confronted  this  question  in  a  really  intelligent  way.  In  many  others 
tolerably  satisfactory  results  have  been  attained,  but  chance  has  always 
had  a  hand  in  the  game  and  it  merely  happened  that  good  luck,  not  bad 
luck,  held  the  trumps. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  at  the  present  time  some  of  our  most 
important  cities  are  commissioning  Consulting  Engineers  to  make  reports 
and  recommendations  in  reference  to  refuse  disposal,  but  this  is  an  inno- 
vation, whereas  it  ought  to  be  the  ordinary,  everyday,  matter-of-course 
procedure, 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE  AMERICAN  GARBAGE  CREMATORIES. 
NEED  FOR  A  BETTER  CLASSIFICATION  OF  GARBAGE  FURNACES. 

There  is  evident  need  of  a  better  classification  of  the  terms  at 
present  used  for  the  description  of  the  several  classes  of  Ameri- 
can garbage  furnaces.  Since  there  is  no  distinction  made  in  the 
words  cremator,  crematory,  garbage  furnace,  incinerator,  or 
destructor,  when  used  in  connection  with  phrases  defining  crema- 
tion of  waste  or  refuse,  there  is  a  confusion  and  uncertainty  as  to 
what  kind  or  class  of  furnace  is  intended  to  be  meant,  when  these 
terms  are  used. 

The  titles  garbage  furnace  and  night  soil  furnace  were  used  by 
Rider  and  Mann  in  the  two  first  installations.  The  word  cremator 
was  adopted  by  the  Engle  Sanitary  and  Cremation  Company  and 
described  all  their  municipal  furnaces.  They  applied  the  term 
fire-closet  to  the  small  installations  for  domestic  and  schoolhouse 
purposes. 

Crematory  was  the  term  employed  by  the  Dixon  Sanitary 
Crematory  Company  and  until  lately  it  was  a  part  of  their  official 
title. 

When  the  Montreal  installation  was  made  by  Mr.  Charles 
Thackeray,  he  used  the  "Thackeray  patent  incineration  and  crema- 
tion systems"  and  called  his  refuse  furnace  an  incinerator.  This 
was  a  misnomer,  as  the. furnace,  copied  from  the  "Fryer,"  was 
properly  a  destructor. 

The  Davis  Company  called  their  furnace  a  garbage  furnace, 
and  their  apparatus  for  burning  bodies  a  cremation  furnace. 

Mr.  I.  Smead,  of  Toledo,  in  building  closets  for  the  disposal  of 
night  soil  in  school  buildings,  called  them  dry  closets,  but  his 
large  furnace  for  municipal  work  was  a  garbage  crematory. 

Col.  Waring,  when  building  his  furnace  for  dry  refuse  at  East 
Sixteenth  street,  New  York,  called  it  an  incinerator,  and  this  title 
has  been  followed  by  Mr.  H.  De  B.  Parsons,  who  calls  his  two 
New  York  installations  for  dry  refuse  rubbish  incinerators. 

i45 


146  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  author,  when  installing  the  Boston  plant  for  dry  refuse, 
chose  the  term  destructor,  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  a  distinctive 
name  not  previously  used  in  this  country.  This  was  continued  in 
the  title  of  the  Morse-Boulger  Destructor  Company.  This  is  a 
furnace  that  burns  garbage  and  refuse,  not  ashes,  and  the  word 
destructor  has  not  the  broad  application  as  employed  in  British 
practice. 

One  American  author*  writing  on  this  subject  has  made  a 
classification  which  does  not  appear  to  give  much  help.  He 
divides  the  crematories  into  five  groups : 

Those  where  the  garbage  is  burned  by  direct  heat  without  previous 
drying. 

Where  it  is  partially  dried  before  burning. 

Where  it  is  burned  on  a  hearth  or  grate  by  fires  from  other  grates. 

Where  it  is  extensively  dried,  then  stoked  to  another  grate  to  be  burned. 

Where  gases  from  one  grate  or  cell  are  passed  through  others  to  dry  the 
garbage  thereon. 

He  further  proposes  a  sub-division  of  these  groups  with  re- 
spect to  the  garbage  grates : 
Solid  grates  of  iron. 
Grates  of  fire  cjay. 

Grates  of  hollow  iron  cooled  by  water. 
Grates  of  hollow  cast  iron  cooled  by  air. 

This  classification  is  not  exact  in  terms,  altogether  too  confus- 
ing and  unwieldly  for  reference,  and  conveys  but  little  idea  of  the 
constructions  of  our  crematories.  His  list  of  patents  cited  illus- 
trates the  difficulties  of  these  divisions,  as  many  furnaces  are 
built  under  two  or  more  of  these  groups,  and  some  are  altogether 
outside  this  list. 

The  classification  of  this  apparatus  by  the  U.  S.  Patent  Office 
was  at  first  made  under  the  title  "furnace  for  cremating  garbage." 
Afterwards  "garbage  crematory"  was  used,  and  infrequently 
"furnace  for  incineration  of  garbage  or  night  soil."  The  present 
custom  is  to  include  everything  under  the  title  "furnace,"  with 
a  sub-division,  "garbage  furnaces"  or  "crematories,"  and  "in- 
cinerators" for  the  destruction  of  other  substances. 

The  popular  use  of  all  the  foregoing  terms  is  combined  in  the 

•Garbage  Crematories  ii\  America.     Capt.  W.  M.  Venable.     Jno.  Wiley  &  Son,  N.  Y. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          147 

term  "garbage  crematory,"  but  this  does  not  appear  to  be  suffi- 
ciently distinctive  for  the  three  separate  types  or  forms  now  em- 
ployed, since  it  is  applied  to  furnaces  quite  unlike  in  construction 
and  for  different  uses. 

Since  the  purposes,  the  construction,  and  the  limitations  of 
the  various  apparatus  are  now  much  better  defined  than  formerly, 
and  since  there  is  a  need  for  a  better  distinctive  classification,  it 
seems  only  wise  to  separate  them  by  using  such  terms  as  will 
distinctively  indicate  the  particular  uses  for  which  they  are  built. 

PROPOSED  CLASSFICATION. 

Thus,  a  crematory  would  mean  a  furnace  for  burning  garbage 
and  refuse  mixed  or  not  separated,  but  not  ashes ;  an  incinerator 
would  mean  a  furnace  for  refuse  or  rubbish  only,  and  a  destructor 
would  imply  the  destruction  of  all  classes  of  waste  together  in  an 
unsorted  condition,  following  the  British  term  and  practice.  If 
this  nomenclature  were  adopted,  it  would  simplify  and  make  the 
whole  subject  clearer  to  those  whose  knowledge  is,  as  yet,  some- 
what limited. 

There  would  undoubtedly  be  opposition  from  some  builders 
who  now  use  and  claim  one  or  another  of  these  terms  as  their 
own  title  and  property,  but  no  valid  objection  can  be  made  on  this 
score,  as  each  builder  now  constructs  furnaces  of  different  plans, 
for  quite  different  uses,  under  the  same  patents,  and  may,  with 
advantage  to  themselves  as  well  as  to  the  public,  adopt  a  dis- 
tinctive title  for  each,  prefixing  their  own  or  the  company's  name 
to  the  fusnace. 

OPERATING  CREMATORIES. 

In  attempting  to  describe  the  cremating  furnaces  now  mostly 
in  use  the  writer  has  found  it  difficult  to  get  accurate  descriptions, 
except  from  the  patent  drawings,  and  as  each  builder  departs 
somewhat  from  his  original  plans  according  to  local  conditions, 
these  drawings  do  not  precisely  represent  the  furnaces. 

The  intention  is  to  give  such  descriptions — not  in  technical 
terms — and  illustrations  as  will  enable  the  reader  who  may  be 
interested  in  the  subject,  to  understand  something  of  the  con- 
struction and  operation  of  the  various  forms. 

As  far  as  possible  the  builder's  own  terms  and  description  are 


148  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

followed,  and  there  is  added  some  slight  sketches  of  those  who 
have  longest  been  identified  with  this  work. 

INVENTIONS  OF  MR.  ANDREW  ENGLE. 

This  inventor  was  one  of  the  first  whose  devices  for  sanitary 
work  came  prominently  before  the  public.  As  early  as  1884  he 
took  out  a  patent  for  an  apparatus  that  "conveyed  solid  and  fluid 
matter  through  tubes  to  a  retort  in  a  furnace,  subjected  this  to 
heat,  and  conveyed  the  volatile  matter  into  a  superheater,  con- 
verting it  into  inflammable  gas,  at  the  same  time  converting  the 
solids  remaining  in  the  retort  into  charcoal." 

This  and  another  invention  were  purchased  by  a  company 
formed  for  the  purpose,  and  were  extensively  exploited.  Sub- 
sequently, Messrs.  Engle  and  Thompson  secured  a  new  patent 
(508,511,  1893)  and  under  the  title  of  the  Engle  Crematory 
Company,  built  furnaces  at  .Vancouver,  Portland,  O.,  and  Topeka, 
and  Mr.  Thompson  built  one  at  Wichita,  Kan.  None  of  these 
are  now  operating.  Mr.  Engle's  latest  invention  is  "Engle's  Fuel 
and  ^Fertilizer,"  "a  combination  of  garbage,  night  soil  and  manure 
with  a  material  that  renders  it  valuable  for  the  purposes  of  fuel 
or  fertilizer.  The  product  may  be  made  in  bricks  with  a  press 
and  stored  for  use,  or  it  may  be  used  while  green  for  making 
fires  in  kilns,  steam  plants,  or  crematories.  The  fertilizer  is  equal 
to  bone  meal." 

The  inventor  further  says :  "I  seek  to  devise  means  by  which 
the  wastes  may  be  kept  from  the  streams  at  a  financial  compen- 
sation to  the  town  so  doing.  While  I  recognize  I  cannot  hope 
to  do  it  all,  I  feel  ambitious  to  give  to  the  world  results  that 
will  save  life  and  aid  the  world  in  better  health  and  consequently 
greater  happiness." 

Mr.  Engle  has  for  more  than  twenty-five  years  been  identified 
with  sanitary  work  in  manv  lines,  and  is  a  student  and  analyst 
of  very  consicieraole  attainments.  The  Engle  fire  closet  and 
Engle  cremator  have  made  his  name  known  all  over  this  country. 

Engle  Sanitary  and  Cremation  Company  was  formed  at  Des 
Moines,  la.,  early  in  1886  to  take  over  the  patents  of  Mr.  Andrew 
Engle. 

The  officers  were :  J.  C.  Savery,  president ;  Jas.  Callanan,  treas- 
urer; G.  H.  Warner,  secretary.  The  Western  business  manager 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


149 


was  W.  C.  Smith.  The  Eastern  business  was  done  from  a 
New  York  office  of  which  W.  F.  Morse  was  manager  and  Benja- 
min Boulger  constructor.  This  was  the  first  company  to  sys- 
tematically push  its  business,  and  during  the  sixteen  years  of 
its  work  built  many  cremators  in  this  country.  The  most  suc- 
cessful installation  was  as  the  World's  Fair,  Chicago,  in  1893. 
It  was  the  first  company  to  build  abroad ;  its  Panama  furnace 
(1892)  is  still  in  active  use.  During  the  panic  of  1893  tne  officers 
of  the  company  suffered  financial  reverses  and  few  constructions 
were  made  thereafter.  The  two  last  ones  at  Grand  Rapids  and 
Milwaukee  were  not  under  the  Engle  patents,  though  under  their 
name. 

The  success  of  this  company  and  the  development  of  this  idea 


FIG.  22.— THE  ORIGINAL  ENGLE  CREMATOR. 

of  destroying  worthless  matter  by  fire  in  this  country  was  largely 
due  to  the  unfailing  financial  support  of  Mr.  James  C.  Savery, 
the  president  of  the  Engle  company.  He  took  the  keenest  in- 
terest in  the  work  and  was  a  firm  believer  in  the  benefits  to  be 
had  from  improved  sanitary  conditions  brought  about  largely  by 
these  cremators. 

Mr.  Savery  died  in  1905  and  his  place  in  the  business  of  the 
company  and  in  the  progressive  spirit  of  this  line  of  sanitary  work 
has  never  been  filled. 

ENGLE  CREMATOR. 

The  early  form  of  the  Engle  cremator  (Fig.  22)  was  a  rectan- 
gular brick  construction  whose  exterior  dimensions  in  height 
and  width  were  each  about  one-third  of  its  length.  There  was 


150  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

usually  a  steel  chimney  of  75  feet  and  a  wooden  covering  house 
with  inclined  wooden  approaches  and  wide  platform  for  wagons. 

The  interior  was  lined  with  fire  brick  and  divided  by  a  hori- 
zontal set  of  grates,  made  at  first  of  hollow  iron  pipes,  and  below 
these  a  platform  of  fire-clay  tiling. 

The  garbage  was  discharged  direct  from  the  carts  through 
three  circular  openings  to  the  upper  or  first  set  of  grate  bars, 
the  liquid  not  held  in  suspension  in  the  garbage  passing  through 
to  the  platform  where  it  was  evaporated.  At  the  rear  end  of 
the  cremator  was  the  first  or  primary  fire-box,  separated  from 
the  chimney  by  a  damper.  The  secondary  fire  was  at  the  front 
end  and  below  the  level  of  the  drying  platform.  Dampers  con- 
trolled the  volume  of  gases  in  such  a  manner  that  the  heat  from 
the  primary  fire  passed  over  the  garbage  piled  on  the  upper 
grates,  and  under  these  over  the  platform,  or  under  the  platform, 
as  desired,  or  direct  to  the  chimney  as  determined  by  the  damper 
between  them. 

The  theory  of  this  furnace— which  is  indeed  the  theory  of  its 
successors  and  imitators — was  that  the  gases  and  vapors  of  the 
combustion  of  the1  waste  piled  up  on  the  grates  should  be  com- 
pelled to  pass  ater  the  secondary  fire  before  being  released  to 
the  stack.  By  arrangement  of  the  dampers  the  second  fire  may 
become  the  primary  fire,  and  the  first  one  in  turn  consume  the 
gases. 

One  of  the  openings  for  charging  in  the  top  was  large  enough 
to  admit  the  carcass  of  a  horse.  The  evaporating  hearth  received 
all  moisture  and  also  the  ashes  from  the  grates  above ;  but  with 
this  exception,  no  attempt  was  made  to  dry  out  the  moisture 
before  burning.  The  operation  was  without  nuisance  when  prop- 
erly conducted,  and  the  cremator  used  any  available  fuel,  gas, 
coal,  wood  or  coke.  Very  large  quantities  of  night  soil  and  satur- 
ated garbage  were  destroyed  when  required,  with  reasonable  ex- 
pense for  fuel  and  labor. 

The  points  of  weakness  in  this  form  were  the  grates  of  iron 
piping,  the  damper  of  cast  iron,  and  the  tiling  of  the  evaporating 
hearth,  which  gave  way  under  high  temperatures  when  saturated 
with  moisture.  A  new  form  of  stronger  construction  was  finally 
adopted  and  became  the  standard. 

In  this  furnace  (Fig.  23)  -the  same  general  exterior  dimensions 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  151 

and  appearance  are  kept,  but  the  interior  is  greatly  modified. 
There  are  two  fires  placed  on  horizontal  lines  at  opposite  ends 
of  the  grate,  which  is  made  of  a  series  of  railroad  bars,  spaced 
and  inverted  and  held  in  this  position  by  clips.  The  lower  hearth 
is  omitted,  the  liquids  passing  into  the  bottom  compartment,  being 
helped  in  evaporation  by  the  hot  ashes  from  the  grates  .above. 
The  dampers  are  fire-clay  slabs  and  the  interior  walls  of  heavy 
blocks  of  fire  clay.  Subsequently  the  iron  rails  of  the  garbage 
grates  were  replaced  by  a  specially  fire-clay  grate,  and  this  by  a 
series  of  flat  fire-brick  transverse  arches  which  are  still  used. 
In  all  furnaces  of  this  type  the  garbage  grates  are  difficult  to 
maintain.  Those  of  hollow  pipe,  even  when  brought  through  the 


FIG  23.— THE  LATER  ENGLE  CREMATOR. 

furnace  walls  to  the  outside  to  obtain  a  circulation  of  cold  air, 
speedily  gave  way.  Afterwards  these  grates  were  connected  to 
headers  and  a  circulation  of  water  kept  up,  but  the  loss  of  heat 
and  incomplete  combustion  of  garbage  in  contact  made  it  neces- 
sary to  discard  this  system.  The  steel  railroad  bars  are  probably 
the  best  for  iron  grates  and  give  better  service  than  any  form 
of  triangular  hollow  cast-iron  bars,  or  of  water  grates  where  the 
heat  taken  up  by  the  water  is  a  very  large  item  of  loss. 

There  are  still  some  ten  or  twelve  of  the  Engle  cremators 
operating.  The  largest  in  continuous  service  and  the  oldest  in- 
stallations in  this  line  in  this  country  are  at  New  York,  Panama, 
Richmond  and  Norfolk,  Va. 

The  Engle  Cremator  was  the  first  in  garbage  disposal  work 


152  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  the  general   features  of   its  construction  were   followed  by 
those  who  same  after,  with  such  modifications  as  were  patentable. 

THE  DIXON  SANITARY  CREMATORY  COMPANY. 

This  organization  was  formed  at  Findlay,  O.,  in  1893,  to  take 
up  the  patents  of  S.  W.  Dixon  (October,  1891,  and  April,  1894). 
After  remodeling  the  Engle  cremator  at  Findlay  the  first  crema- 
tory was  built  at  Elwood,  Ind.,  followed  by  others  at  McKeesport, 
Pa.,  and  Atlanta,  Ga.  In  1898  the  patents  and  business  passed 
into  the  hands  of  a  new  company  at  Toledo,  O.,  with  D.  C.  Shaw, 
president;  G.  H.  Breyman,  vice-president,  and  E.  J.  Little,  secre- 
tary and  treasurer.  In  the  succeeding  years  this  company  secured 
new  patents  and  built  many  crematories  all  over  this  country,  in- 
cluding nine  installations  for  the  United  States  Government  and 
several  institutional  plants.  This  was  the  first  company  to  unite 
with  local  corporations  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  all 
municipal  waste,  as  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  and  Oakland,  Cal. 

A  large  share  of  their  success  was  due  to  the  energy  and  enter- 
prise of  Mr.  E.  J.  Little,  who  was  the  active  manager.  His  im- 
provements in  furnace  construction  and  methods  of  collection 
service  were  of  great  value  to  his  company,  as  also  to  the  gen- 
eral work  of  waste  disposal  for  municipalities.  By  reason  of  the 
long  railroad  journeys  and  the  tremendous  labor  of  oversight  of 
contract  and  construction  at  widely  separated  points,  Mr.  Little 
died  in  1905.  He  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  F.  K.  Rhines,  who  for 
some  time  had  been  his  chief  assistant.  Mr.  Rhines  was  the 
Secretary  and  Chief  Engineer  up  to  January,  1908,  when  he  re- 
tired from  the  association.  The  corporation  changed  its  title  in 
1907,  and  is  now  The  Dixon  Engineering  and  Construction  Com- 
pany. 

THE  DIXON  CREMATORY. 

The  Dixon  crematory  of  the  earlier  form  (Fig.  24)  is  an 
elongated  rectangular  brick  structure,  enclosing  a  fire  brick  cham- 
ber divided  by  horizontal  transverse  garbage  grates  into  two 
nearly  equal  compartments.  There  is  a  double  fire  box  at  the 
front  end,  from  which  the  heat  passes  over  and  under  the  gar- 
bage grates,  the  gases  uniting  to  pass  through  a  flue  at  the  rear 
end  to  a  combustion  chamber  fitted  with  a  fire  box,  and  over  this 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


153 


a  series  of  staggered  fire  brick  "stench  bars,"  for  deodorizing 
and  destroying  the  products  of  combustion. 

The  earlier  forms  used  cast-iron  bars  for  garbage  grates,  since 
discarded  for  a  more  durable  arch  of  fire-clay  tile  in  two  sections. 
This  furnace  is  charged  through  the  openings  directly  from  the 
carts  to  the  garbage  'grates  with  no  attempt  at  preliminary  drying. 
The  passage  of  the  flames  to  the  chimney  is  uninterrupted,  except 
by  the  stench  bars,  and  this^ constitutes  the  "direct  draft." 

In  the  later  forms  the  rectangular  top  is  arched  and  rounded 
to  form  a  segment  of  a  circle,  and  the  exterior  casing  is  of 


t  Pio»e  Receiving  rippr 


LONGITUDINAL    SECTION  TriROUGM  CENTER  OF  FURNACE 
Receiving  Plotter  m 


TRANiVCR3E  JtCTlON  Q  TRANiVERiE 

FIG.    24.— DIRECT    DRAFT    DIXON    CREMATORY. 

steel  plate,  braced  and  strengthened  by  angle  bars.  The  top 
charging  platform  is  of  steel  plate  supported  on  standards  bolted 
to  the  iron  jacket  of  the  furnace.  The  chimneys  are  usually  of 
steel,  placed  on  the  end  of  the  crematory  above  the  combustion 
chamber. 

The  other  form  of  the  Dixon  crematory  has  three  important 
changes  of  the  interior  construction  differing  from  the  direct 
draft  type  as  shown  in  Fig.  25. 

The  purpose  of  the  inventors  was  "to  provide  means  for  dry- 
ing the  garbage,  so  that  itself  will  serve  as  fuel  for  its  own  com- 


154  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


bustion,  and  for  the  rapid  evaporation  of  water  and  other  fluids, 
and  for  feeding  to  the  furnace  at  such  points  and  in  such  quanti- 


FIG.    25.— RETURN    DRAFT    DIXON    CREMATORY. 

ties  as  may  be  desired,  the  dried  or  partly-dried  substances  to  be 
consumed." 

The  crematory  is  divided  into  three  compartments,  the  upper 


FIG.    26.— EXTERIOR    OF     DIXON     CREMATORY,     READY     FOR    TRANS- 
PORTATION. 

one  called  a  drying  chamber  receives  the  charge  of  green  garbage 
from  above,  and  has  a  series  of  trap  doors  with  covers  operated 
by  chains,  through  which  it  is  passed  to  the  destruction  chamber 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  155 

below.  When  partially  or  completely  burned,  it  passes  to  the 
third  or  lower  evaporating  chamber,  from  which  the  ashes  are 
withdrawn  The  liquids  pass  to  the  lower  compartment. 

The  fuel  boxes  are  at  the  chimney  or  rear  end,  the  heat  pass- 
ing under  the  floor  of  the  destruction  chamber,  and  through  this, 
or  above  through  the  drying  chamber,  as  may  be  desired. 

The  same  arrangement  of  secondary  fire  and  stench  bars  in 
the  combustion  chamber  of  the  stack  is  continued,  or  this  may  be 
replaced  by  a  series  of  horizontal  fire-clay  tubes,  heated  from 
below  by  the  primary  fire  box,  in  which  the  gases  of  combustion 
are  finally  destroyed. 


FIG.   27.— DIXON   CREMATORY,    FORT   WAYNE,    IND. 

This  combination  of  three  chambers,  for  different  purposes, 
with  the  necessary  doors  and  dampers,  is  somewhat  complicated, 
and  needs  attention  to  secure  good  results.  This  "return  draft" 
furnace  is  used  mostly  for  the  smaller  installations,  and  employed 
but  three  times  in  municipal  work. 

As  stated  by  the  manager  of  the  Dixon  company:  "In  all 
forms  of  crematories  built  under  the  'Dixon'  name,  there  is  mani- 
fest a  desire  to  adhere  to  the  simplicity  of  principles  which  was 
the  key  to  the  success  of  the  original  invention." 


156  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  work  of  this  company  has  extended  all  over  this  country, 
and  the  largest  number  of  operating  disposal  plants  stands  to  its 
credit.  There  are  two  Dixon  crematories  in  South  America, 
and  a  small  furnace  was  built  in  Cuba  during  the  Spanish-Amer- 
ican war. 

The  company  was  awarded  the  Grand  Prize  for  its  work  at 


FIG.    28.— DIXON    CREMATORY,    LEXINGTON,    KY. 


the  World's  Fair,  St.  Louis,  in  1904,  and  the  Dixon  crematory 
was  installed  at  the  Jamestown  Exposition  at  Norfolk,  in  1907. 

THE  DAVIS  GARBAGE  FURNACE  COMPANY. 

The  Davis  Garbage  Furnace  was  the  invention  of  Dr.  M.  L. 
Davis,  Lancaster,  Pa.,  October,  1891.  The  first  installation  was 
at  Lancaster,  1891,  followed  by  furnaces  at  Reading,  Pa.,  and 
Trenton,  N.  J.,  1899.  The  Reading  furnace  was  discontinued  in 
1899.  Others  were  built  at  Oil  City  and  Coudersport,  Pa.,  and 
for  the  United  States  Government  at  Havana,  now  discontinued. 
The  Trenton  furnace  is  the  best  known  one  of  this  company,  and 
was  reported  upon  by  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering  (previously  noted). 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  157 

The  Davis  furnace  as  described  by  Mr.  John  H.  Hook,  secre- 
tary of  the  company,  is  composed  of  three  separate  compartments 
or  chambers. 

The  Primary  fire  chamber  for  fuel  to  begin  the  work,  after- 
wards for  the  garbage  dried  upon  the  grates  of  the  drying  cham- 
ber. 

The  Garbage  drying  chamber,  which  is  charged  from  above 
through  a  circular  opening  in  the  roof,  and  which  is  floored  by 
a  movable  iron  grate  which  may  be  raised,  or  inclined  toward 
the  primary  fire  box  for  dumping  the  dried  charge  when  desired. 

Beneath  this  inclined  grate  is  an  iron  evaporating  pan,  which 
receives  the  liquids  from  the  garbage  above.  The  evaporated 
vapors  pass  through  the  grate,  and,  with  the  products  of  com- 


FIG.  29.— DAVIS  GARBAGE  FURNACE. 

bustion  of  the  garbage,  pass  through  a  short  flue  into  the  third 
division. 

The  Smoke  consuming  chamber  is  at  a  higher  level,  and  so 
arranged  with  a  fuel  box  and  ash  pit  below  that  the  smoke  and 
gases  of  combustion  must  pass  completely  over  this  fire  to  reach 
the  flue  connecting  with  the  stack. 

The  furnace  is  a  large  cell  with  a  capacity  of  about  eight  tons 
per  day,  and  two  or  more  may  be  built  in  battery  connected  with 
a  chimney  in  common. 

The  patentee,  Dr.  M.  L.  Davis,  has  made  several  useful  inven- 
tions in  the  line  of  sanitary  work,  the  Davis  cremation  furnace 
and  the  Davis  Hospital  for  Contagious  Diseases  being  among 
those  best  known. 


158  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

THACKERAY  INCINERATOR  COMPANY. 

The  garbage  and  refuse  furnace  built  at  Montreal  by  Mr. 
Charles  Thackeray  in  1894  was  the  first  departure  from  the  popu- 
lar form  of  American  crematory.  He  took  the  "Fryer"  de- 
structor as  his  model  in  all  the  essential  points,  except  that  each 
cell  or  furnace  was  made  independent  of  the  others,  and  placed 
back  to  back  to  form  a  battery  or  series  of  cells  having  a  common 
charging  platform  on  top.  (Fig.  30.) 

Each  cell  is  charged  from  the  top,  the  garbage  falling  on  a 
short,  sharply-inclined  hearth  of  fire-brick  (f)  just  above  the  fire 
bars.  These  inclined  fire  grates  are  two  sections,  the  upper  ones 
stationary  (a),  the  lower  ones  are  rocking  grates,  by  the  motibn 


FIG.  30.— THACKERAY   GARBAGE    INCINERATOR. 

of  which  the  refuse  is  gradually  moved  forward  and  the  clinkers 
deposited  on  the  dead  plate  are  removed  through  the  doors. 

The  gases  and  products  of  combustion  pass  through  side  flies 
into  passages  between  the  cells  and  back  and  downward  to  the 
smaller  longitudinal  flue  (e),  which  at  the  end  discharge  into  the 
main  central  flue  (c)  to  the  chimney.  There  was  at  first  a  steam 
boiler  set  in  this  central  flue,  as  shown  in  the  figure,  but  as  this 
obstructed  the  draft,  and  did  not  develop  steam  sufficient  to  fur- 
nish a  forced  draft  or  move  the  rocking  grates,  it  was  removed. 

The  furnaces  are  operated  by  natural  draft,  the  chimney  being 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


159 


180  feet  heigh.     Additional  details  of  cost  of  construction  and 
operating  expenses  are  reported  in  preceding  chapters. 

GARBAGE  FURNACES  OF  W.  F.  MORSE  AND  BENJAMIN  BOULGER. 

Some  time  after  the  Engle  Company  had  suspended  business, 
W.  F.  Morse  and  Benjamin  Boulger,  who  had  been  connected 
with  this  company,  obtained  a  contract  for  a  crematory  at  San 
Salvador,  Central  America.  All  the  material  needed  was  sent 
from  New  York,  and  Mr.  Boulger  installed  the  furnace  in  1895-6 
under  the  patent  obtained  by  him  in  1893. 

Externally  this  furnace  (Fig.  31)  was  of  the  usual  form  of 
American  crematories,  but  provided  with  an  extra  number  of 
charging  holes.  It  was  divided  by  a  vertical  bridge  wall  into 
three  compartments,  one  long  upper  chamber,  with  garbage  grates 


FIG.  31.— FIRST  BOULGER  CREMATOR,  1895. 

continuous  from  end  to  end,  and  below  this  two  smaller  divisions 
with  grates  parallel  to  the  upper  tier,  but  with  openings  for  the 
passage  of  the  gases.  At  the  chimney  end  the  combustion  cham- 
ber was  divided  by  a  vertical  wall  for  the  lower  half  of  its  height. 
The  fire-box  was  at  the  front  end,  but  placed  outside  the  furnace. 

The  theory  of  this  furnace  was  that  the  heat  from  the  exterior 
fuel-box  should  pass  up  through  the  two  sets  of  grates  of  the 
first  compartment,  then  over  the  garbage  on  the  grates  of  the 
second  division,  and  beneath  these  to  the  combustion  chamber  and 
the  chimney.  A  secondary  fire-box  was  placed  on  the  lower  flue 
of  the  second  division  at  some  point  before  the  combustion 
chamber. 

But  one  installation  of  this  form  was  made — at  San  Salvador, 
Central  America — and  this  is  not  now  in  operation. 

In  November,  1906,  Mr.  Boulger  took  out  a  patent  (No.  835,- 


160  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  or  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

699)  for  new  and  useful  improvements  in  garbage  furnaces,  the 
construction  and  operation  of  which  are  thus  described  by  the 
patentee : 

In  feeding  this  destructor  the  drier  matter  is  dumped  preferably  into  the 
charging  hole  nearest  the  main  fire-box.  The  wet  swill  is  received  on  two 
tiers  of  fire-brick  arches  laid  in  rings  spaced  several  inches  apart,  the  whole 
forming  drying  and  burning  hearths,  through  which  the  waste  and  fire  can 
readily  make  their  way. 

The  iron  sloping  grates  in  the  fire-box  may  be  given  an  oscillating  down- 
ward movement.  This  slowly  carries  the  waste  and  garbage  thereon  to 
the  lower  end,  where  the  resulting  ashes  and  clinker  may  be  dumped. 
These  sloping  grates  have  an  independent  ash-pit,  into  which  hot  air  is 
forced  by  steam  jet  blowers,  situated  under  the  back  end  of  the  furnace. 
The  air  passes  along  through  the  ducts  under  the  furnace  and  absorbs 
some  of  the  waste  heat  from  the  bottom  of  same  before  reaching  the  ash- 
pits. Passing  up  through  the  grates  and  garbage  of  the  main  fire-box,  this 
heated  air  assists  in  the  drying  and  combustion  process. 

The  heat  and  flames  from  the  primary  fire  and  sloping  grates  pass  the 


FIG.    32,— BOULGER    GARBAGE    CREMATORY. 

length  of  the  furnace  over  the  garbage  deposited  upon  the  first  fire-brick 
hearth  and  return  underneath  them  and  over  the  second  tier,  igniting  and 
destroying  all  the  material  thereon,  and  finally  turning  down  under  the 
second  tier.  At  this  point  the  secondary  fire  contributes  its  heat  to  the 
flaming  gases,  which  pass  into  the  combustion  chamber  and  expand,  and 
in  their  incandescent  state  are  drawn  against  and  through  the  fire-brick 
checker  work.  The  resulting  carbondioxide  is  discharged  into  the  chimney 
or  carried  up  the  by-pass  to  the  boiler. 

All  ashes  are  removed  through  the  lower  clean-out  doors.  The  main 
fire  doors  can  be  placed  on  the  side  with  the  other  door  openings  to 
economize  floor  space. 

When  the  destructor  is  started  and  attains  the  necessary  temperature, 
little,  if  any,  additional  fuel  is  needed,  as  long  as  the  garbage  is  supplied 
for  consumption. 

This  form  of  furnace  is  employed  in  the  smaller  installations, 
for  institutional  and  business  purposes.  For  the  larger  sizes  a 
small  vertical  steam  boiler  is  connected  with  the  combustion  cham- 
ber and  operated  by  the  furnace  heat.  The  power  from  this  is 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


161 


employed  for  a  forced  draft,  and  for  rotating  the  oscillating  iron 
sloping  grates.  There  is  a  small  surplus  of  power  available  when 
the  furnace  is  burning  at  its  greatest  capacity. 

The  only  municipal  installation  of  this  furnace  is  at  Butler,  Pa. 

THE  MORSE-BOULGER  DESTRUCTOR. 

In  1898-9  Mr.  Morse  designed  and  constructed  the  Refuse 
Utilization  Station  at  Boston,  Mass.,  and  here  for  the  first  time 
was  built  that  form  of  furnace  that  afterwards  came  to  be  known 
as  the  Morse-Boulger  Destructor. 

In  this  Boston  furnace  the  original  horizontal  garbage  grates 
of  the  early  Engle  pattern  were  used,  but  the  front  end  of  the 


FIG.  33,— MORSE-BOULGER   DESTRUCTOR. 

upper  tier  was  inclined  sharply  down  to  the  fire-box.  These 
grates  were  parallel  arches  of  fire-clay  brick  with  spaces  for 
passage  of  ashes. 

The  secondary  fire  was  in  the  lower  flue,  over  which  all  prod- 
ucts of  primary  combustion  passed,  the  light  particles  and  fine 
dust  being  detained  by  perforated  vertical  walls.  There  is  also 
a  6o-h.p.  vertical  boiler  on  the  top  of  the  rear  end,  operated  by 
the  furnace  heat,  but  having  its  own  fire-box.  The  plant  has  been 
in  continuous  work  for  ten  years,  and  is  fully  described  and  illus- 
trated in  Chapter  II. 

Though  this  Boston  furnace  was  for  dry  refuse,  the  forms  of 
grates  and  position  of  fires  made  it  well  adapted  for  the  dis- 
posal of  garbage.  It  was  improved  upon,  and  many  installations 


162  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

for  institutions  and  other  private  purposes  were  made  by  Morse 
&  Boulger  up  to  1904. 

The  Boston  plant  was  duplicated  with  many  improvements,  at 
Buffalo,  and  a  large  destructor  was  built  at  Manila,  P.  I.,  with  a 
steam  boiler  for  obtaining  forced  draft.  This  was  the  first  in- 
stance of  the  application  of  blast  under  ash  pits  in  American 
disposal  work. 

In  1902  the  business  of  Morse  &  Boulger  was  capitalized  under 
the  title  of  the  Morse-Boulger  Destructor  Company,  and  a  new 
patent  taken  out  in  1904,  This  company  held  the  American  rights 


FIG.  34.— CREMATORY  OF  THE   MUNICIPAL   ENGINEERING   COMPANY. 

for  the  Meldrum  Brothers'  Destructors,  of  Manchester,  England, 
but  did  no  work  under  these  patents.  Mr.  Morse  retired  in  1904, 
and  the  business  has  since  been  continued  by  Mr.  Boulger  as 
President,  Treasurer  and  Manager,  with  a  nominal  Board  of 
Directors.  The  control  of  the  Meldrum  Destructors  was  assumed 
by  Mr.  Morse. 

THE  MUNICIPAL  ENGINEERING  COMPANY. 

The  Municipal  Engineering  Company,  of  New  York,  was  or- 
ganized in  1901  by  Messrs.  F.  Brown,  Lyon,  C.  McFarland  and 
Fred  P.  Smith.  Shortly  afterward,  Col.  Willard  Young  became 
a  stockholder  and  president.  The  crematories  erected  by  this 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  163 

company  under  the  patents  of  F.  P.  Smith  were  at  Long  Branch, 
N.  J.  (the  only  municipal  plant),  and  at  Forts  Leavenworth, 
Moultrie,  Brady,  Slocum,  and  at  Governor's  Island,  New  York 
Harbor.  All  these  furnaces  were  of  small  size. 

Fig.  34  is  a  longitudinal  section  of  the  crematory  of  this  com- 
pany. The  exterior  walls,  as  a  rule,  are  of  steel  plates  lined 
with  fire-brick,  the  general  design  and  dimensions  corresponding 
to  the  plan  of  the  American  crematories.  The  primary  fire-box 
(2)  at  the  front  is  a  series  of  hollow  cast-iron  bars  (4),  arranged 
to  discharge  the  air  heated  by  passing  through  these  above  and 
behind  the  grate.  The  garbage  grates  are  also  of  this  same  con- 
struction of  hollow  bars.  They  are  placed  in  a  series  of  steps, 
ascending  from  the  primary  fire,  and  separated  by  narrow,  arched 
bridge  walls  of  fire-brick  (7). 

Below  these  grates  is  a  shallow  iron  evaporating  pan  (12), 
which  catches  the  drippings  from  the  wet  material  on  the  grates 
above.  There  are  dampers  (14-15)  behind  each  set  of  grates, 
which  lead  to  the  chimney,  and  below  the  evaporating  pan  is  a 
passage  (13)  open  to  the  chimney,  but  controlled  by  a  damper 
(16). 

There  are  doors  for  fuel  boxes  and  for  stoking  the  garbage 
from  the  highest  grate  downward  to  the  fire-box,  where  it 
furnishes  fuel  for  drying  and  burning  the  successive  charges. 
By  the  intelligent  operation  of  the  dampers  at  proper  intervals, 
the  air  and  heat  are  drawn  through  the  garbage  on  the  grates, 
carrying  off  the  fumes  and  gases  direct  to  the  chimney;  or  by 
closing  the  dampers  the  gases  are  directed  downward  beneath  the 
evaporating  pan  through  the  lower  passage. 

All  of  this  interior  construction,  except  the  bridge  walls  and 
lining,  is  of  cast-iron,  the  special  features  being  the  hollow  grate 
bars,  through  which  a  current  of  air  is  induced  by  the  stack 
draft,  preserving  the  bars  from  giving  way  and  providing  heated 
air  for  combustion.  This  company  was  the  assignee  of  six 
patents  of  Mr.  F.  P.  Smith  for  various  forms  of  furnaces  for 
waste  materials,  but  no  others  than  the  one  described  were  built. 


164  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


STANDARD   CONSTRUCTION    Co.    AND    MR.    W.    B.    WRIGHT   OK 

CHICAGO. 

In  1899  Mr.  W.  B.  Wright  erected  under  patent  No.  575,088. 
1897,  an  incinerator  for  the  garbage  and  refuse  of  the  group  of 
institutions  of  Chicago  at  the  "Bridewell." 

This  invention  (Fig.  35)  is  known  as  the  Wright  Garbage 
Incinerating  Furnace,  and  follows  in  its  general  plans  the  cell 
type  of  the  English  dectructors.  It  is  practically  two  cells  placed 
back  to  back,  having  a  charging  port  (2)  in  common.  The  gar- 
bage falls  upon  a  sharply  inclined  fire-brick  hearth,  having  its 
surface  serrated  or  notched  to  form  shallow  gutters  or  steps  (7)  ; 
the  purpose  being  to  separate  the  liquids,  draining  these  off  at 
the  sides,  and  to  break  up  the  masses  of  packed  garbage  in  their 
descent  to  the  fire-box. 

The  grates  of  the  fuel-box  (13)  are  inclined  from  back  to 
front  and  have  over  them  an  arch  of  fire-brick  (9)  deflecting  the 


FIG.  35,— THE  WRIGHT  GARBAGE   1NCINERATORY   FURNACE. 

flames  from  the  fuel-box  downward  to  the  garbage  below,  and 
also  by  the  radiated  heat  above  the  arch  assist  in  the  combustion 
of  the  gases  passing  through  the  flue  (10)  downward  between  the 
walls  of  the  furnaces  and  backward  to  the  main  central  flue  ( 1 1 ) 
leading  to  the  chimney.  There  is  provided  a  hinged  iron  plat- 
form or  plate  (17)  between  the  fire-bars  and  the  foot  of  the  in- 
clined drying  hearth,  for  removal  of  ashes,  and  a  similar  arrange- 
ment at  the  front  end  of  the  grates,  where  coal  is  employed  for 
fuel.  This  furnace  may  be  fired  by  any  oil  or  gas,  through 
burners  above  the  fuel  box. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  165 

There  is  also  provided  a  forced  draft  of  steam  or  air  under 
the  fire-bars,  and  a  special  set  of  dumping  grates  for  the  clinkers 
and  ashes.  The  construction  of  this  incinerator  is  always  upon 
the  double-cell  principle.  Though  both  cells  are  recorded  as  one 
furnace,  each  may  be  separately  operated.  In  the  experimental 
furnace  erected  for  a  trial  of  this  system  a  steam  boiler  was 
placed  in  connection  with  the  main  flue,  and  about  seventy-five 
horsepower  was  developed  and  maintained.  This  experimental 
furnace  was  not  continued.  The  special  features  of  this  in- 
cinerator are  the  serrated  surface  of  the  drying  hearth,  which 
retains  the  liquids  and  decomposes  the  garbage;  the  high  tem- 
perature and  consequently  complete  destruction  of  the  waste,  and 
the  cell  form  of  construction,  which  permits  of  the  use  of  a 
greater  or  lesser  number  of  furnaces,  according  to  the  seasonal 
collection  of  waste. 

The  only  example  of  this  incinerator  now  operating  is  at  the 
''Bridewell,"  Chicago,  in  use  since  1899,  having  a  rated  capacity 
of  thirty  tons  per  day. 

The  construction  of  the  Wright  garbage  incinerating  furnaces 
is  in  the  control  of  the  Standard  Construction  Company,  Chi- 
cago, 111. 

NATIONAL  EQUIPMENT  COMPANY  AND  THE  BRANCH  INCIN- 
ERATOR. 

Mr.  Joseph  G.  Branch,  M.E.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  has  brought  out 
many  valuable  inventions  in  various  lines  of  mechanical  equip- 
ments and  apparatus  for  industrial  uses.  He  is  also  the  patentee 
of  the  Branch  garbage  incinerator  (patented  November  21,  1905), 
a  furnace  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  and  refuse.  This  may  be 
built  in  several  sizes  and  combinations,  but  all  follow  the  same 
type  of  construction. 

The  incinerator  is  of  a  single  unit  or  furnace,  in  exterior 
dimensions  and  appearance  similar  to  the  general  form  of  the 
American  crematories.  The  furnaces  are  inclosed  in  a  steel  ex- 
terior casing  strengthened  by  stays  and  tie  rods  in  the  usual  man- 
ner. There  are  three  charging  ports  on  the  top  for  garbage  and 
one  large  circular  opening  for  carcasses.  The  chimney  is  at  the 
rear  end,  connected  by  flues  with  the  furnaces,  or  placed  beyond 
the  battery  of  boilers  if  these  are  employed.  There  are  two  fire- 


i66  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

boxes,  one  above  the  other,  with  the  usual  fire  bars  and  ash  pit. 
The  garbage  charged  through  the  ports  in  the  top  is  received 
in  a  V-shaped  basket  formed  of  hollow  water  grates  connected 
on  the  upper  ends  to  headers,  on  the  sides  of  the  incinerating 
chamber,  and  tapped  by  threaded  screw  joints  at  the  lower  ends 
into  a  single  large  header  placed  in  the  middle  line  of  the  cham- 
ber. The  headers  and  the  water  grates  form  a  circulating  water 
system,  intended  for  heating  feed  water  for  the  boilers  when 


FIG.  36.— BRANCH   GARBAGE   INCINERATOR. 

used.  Below  this  garbage  grate  is  an  iron  evaporating  pan  to 
receive  the  liquids.  At  the  sides  of  the  incinerator  are  two  chutes 
of  steel  which  receive  very  wet  portions  of  waste  and  are  con- 
nected at  their  lower  ends  with  the  evaporating  pan,  forming  a 
part  of  the  lower  hearth.  Doors  are  provided  for  firing  the  two 
fuel  boxes,  stoking  the  garbage  in  the  central  chamber  and  for 
removing  ashes. 

The  secondary  fire  for  destroying  gases  is  omitted.     There 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  167 

is  an  offset  or  break  in  the  rear  of  the  furnace,  by  means  of 
which  the  unconsumed  gases  from  the  upper  and  cooler  compart- 
ment are  brought  down  into  the  hotter  and  larger  furnace  com- 
partment below,  where  they  are  mingled  and  consumed  before 
being  discharged  into  the  chimney  or  under  the  boilers,  when 
these  are  used. 

The  advantages  claimed  for  this  incinerator  are:  no  odors  or 
dust,  no  sorting  or  handling  of  waste,  no  auxiliary  furnace  or 
checkerwork  needed,  no  firebrick  for  garbage  grates,  no  uneven 
distribution  of  heat  in  the  furnace,  the  fewest  number  of  threaded 
joints  of  piping  exposed  to  the  fire,  no  water  jackets  or  stay 
bolts,  a  complete  and  positive  circulation  through  water  grates 
and  ease  of  access  at  all  times.  When  the  units  are  arranged  in 
pairs  the  increased  length  of  travel  given  to  the  heated  gases 
insure  better  combustion  and  higher  temperature  under  the 
boilers. 

Since  the  invention  of  this  incinerator  only  one  experimental 
plant  has  been  put  into  operation,  and  no  municipal  plants  are 
yet  built.  There  are  as  yet  no  records  of  experimental  trials,  and 
but  little  is  known  as  to  the  powers  of  the  incinerator  in  the 
actual  municipal  disposal  work. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

AMERICAN   GARBAGE   CREMATORIES— Continued. 

AMERICAN  GARBAGE  CREMATOR  Co.  AND  MR.  SAMUEL  G.  BROWN, 

BOSTON. 

Early  in  1893  the  City  Council  of  Boston,  Mass.,  appointed  a 
committee  to  examine  into  the  subject  of  garbage  disposal  with 
instructions  to  report  upon  the  methods  in  use  elsewhere  and 
their  adaptability  for  that  city.  This  committee  held  meetings 
at  which  several  of  the  representatives  of  reduction  and  crema- 
tion companies  were  present,  and  described  their  systems  and 
apparatus.  Afterwards  the  committee  made  an  extensive  tour 
for  the  inspection  of  these  methods  as  employed  in  other  cities. 

For  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  the  efficiency  of  the  furnace 
of  the  American  Garbage  Cremator  Company,  of  Boston,  Mr.  S. 
G.  Brown  designed  and  erected  an  experimental  plant  upon  the 
city's  ground  at  Albany  street,  which  was  operated  for  some  time 
in  March  and  April,  1893. 


FIG.   37.— THE    BROWN    GARBAGE    CREMATOR. 

The  Brown  Cremator,  Fig.  37,  was  28^  feet  long,  9  feet  wide 
and  6y2  feet  high.  The  exterior  casing,  of  steel  plates,  was 
bound  together  with  buckstays  and  tie  rods.  The  interior  was 
lined  with  fire  brick  with  a  flat  arched  roof  of  two  parallel  arches 
of  fire  brick  with  air  space.  The  furnace  was  divided  by  a 
longitudinal  horizontal  iron  grate,  the  bars  of  which  were  A- 
shaped,  hollow,  triangular  sections  10  inches  high.  The  hollow 
spaces  of  these  bars  were  filled  with  a  refractory  metallic  com- 

168 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  169 

position,  the  secret  of  the  inventor.  Below  this  grate  a  longi- 
tudinal bridge  wall  divided  the  lower  compartment  into  two  equal 
chambers,  or  long  flues,  which  connected  with  the  chimney. 

At  the  rear  end,  on  the  same  plane  with  the  grates,  was  a 
brick  chamber  that  contained  the  oil  burner  for  generating  heat. 
This  burner  consisted  of  three  concentric  pipes,  the  innermost,  of 
small  dimensions,  carrying  steam ;  the  second  conveying  the  oil, 
and  the  third  larger  outer  one  containing  hot  gases  drawn  from 
the  lower  heated  flues  of  the  chimney. 

The  simultaneous  discharge  from  these  pipes  converted  the  oil 
to  gas,  and,  mixing  this  with  the  hot  gases  from  the  flues,  formed 
a  new  combustible  gas,  which  was  assisted  by  transverse  currents 
of  heated  air  from  the  air  spaces  of  the  roof  and  sides  of  the 
furnace. 

By  the  force  of  the  blast,  this  was  driven  over  a  transverse 
bridge  wall  onto  the  garbage  piled  upon  the  grates,  and,  passing 
the  length  of  the  furnace,  was  returned  through  the  lower  flues 
to  the  chimney.  The  blast  was  maintained  by  a  blower  driven 
by  a  separate  small  steam  boiler  fired  with  coal. 

The  operation  of  this  furnace — the  first  to  attempt  the  de- 
struction of  garbage  by  liquid  fuel — attracted  attention,  and  was 
tested  by  the  City  Engineers,  and  temperatures  were  recorded  by 
Professors  Holman  and  Wendell  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute 
of  Technology. 

At  the  final  trial,  April  25,  1893,  the  following  reports  were 
tabulated  by  the  city  authorities  : 

TEST    OF     BROWN'S    CREMATOR,    BOSTON,    APRIL    25,    1893. 

Time  occupied 10  hours 

Garbage  consumed 19 \  tons 

Garbage  consumed  per  hour 1.95  tons 

Area  of  garbage  grates 60  square  feet 

Quantity  consumed  per  square  feet  grate  per  hour 65  pounds 

Oil  consumed,  10  hours 323  gallons 

Oil  consumed  per  hour 32.3  gallons 

Coal  used  in  steam  boiler 400  pounds 

Labor  (i  engineer,  i  stoker,  2  laborers),  per  hour $1.00 

Total  cost  per  hour,  labor  and  fuel $2.39 

Cost  per  ton  garbage  consumed $1.22 

Weight  of  ash  residuum 1085  pounds 

Weight   of  ash  per  ton   garbage 55  pounds 

Temperature  near  bridge  wall,  first  trial 2580°  Fah. 

Temperature  near  bridge  wall,  second  trial 2460°  Fah. 

Temperature  outer  end  of  furnace 1850°  Fah. 

Temperature  opening  in  top  of  furnace 1760°  Fah. 

Temperature  flue  gases 1680°  Fah. 


170  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

So  far  as  known  this  was  the  only  official  report  of  garbage 
disposal  by  liquid  fuels  where  the  temperatures  were  accurately 
recorded.  The  operation  of  the  furnace  was  at  a  higher  cost  than 
similar  work  at  the  Chicago  Exposition  by  an  Engle  Cremator, 
where  the  expense  for  Tabor  and  fuel  was  63  cents  per  ton. 

The  Brown  Cremator  was  built  at  Wilmington,  Del.  (1894), 
with  the  double  exterior  water-jacket  casing,  the  first  recorded 
instance  of  this  form  in  American  practice. 

Because  of  the  expense  of  operation,  using  oil  as  fuel,  this 
crematory  was  dicontinued  in  1897.  The  Brown  cremator  was 
built  at  Troy,  N.  Y.,  and  Washington,  D.  C.,  but  all  are  now 
discontinued.  Petroleum  is  an  ideal  fuel  for  garbage  disposal 
work,  but  too  expensive  for  use  unless  at  the  points  where  the 
oil  is  procured  direct  from  the  ground. 

In  1900,  Mr.  Brown  took  out  patents  for  a  cremator  of  nearly 
similar  construction,  using  coal  as  fuel,  but  there  are  no  records 
of  installations  in  this  form.  The  American  Garbage  Cremator 
Company  did  not  continue  the  Brown  furnaces  after  the  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.,  installation. 

BROWNLEE  GARBAGE  FURNACE. 

In  1891,  Mr.  Alex.  Brownlee,  of  Dallas,  Tex.,  formerly  a 
representative  of  the  Engle  Company,  procured  a  patent,  No. 
448,115,  for  a  garbage  furnace,  under  which  he  built  several 
furnaces  in  Texas.  Subsequently,  in  1895,  he  took  out  another 
patent  for  an  improved  form  of  this  crematory,  the  chief  installa- 
tion being  at  West  New  Brighton,  Saten  Island,  N.  Y. 

This  furnace,  Fig.  38,  follows  closely  the  form  and  construc- 
tion of  the  Engle  cremator,  being  almost  exactly  identical  in 
exterior  dimensions  and  differing  slightly  in  interior  arrangement. 
There  is  the  large  upper  combustion  chamber  (B),  charged 
through  circular  opening  in  the  roof  (D),  the  transverse  longi- 
tudinal garbage  grates  (C),  and  the  fireboxes  (H)  at  each  end 
of  the  grates.  Below  the  grates  is  an  enclosed  pit  (G),  filled  for 
half  its  depth  with  sand  to  catch  and  retain  the  liquids  dripping 
through  the  garbage  grate,  and  provided  with  drainage  pipes. 

Below  this  sand  box  is  a  lower  flue  (I),  at  the  end  of  which 
is  the  passage  to  the  chimney  (I1).  The  third  fire  for  consuming 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


171 


the  gases  is  at  some  point  in  this  flue  or  outside  at  the  chimney 
connection. 

The  grate  bars  (C)  are  hollow  iron  pipes,  supported  in  their 
middle  line  by  a  larger  pipe,  the  whole  system  of  piping  being 
connected  with  an  exterior  tank  or  boiler  (F)?  which  provides  for 
a  continuous  water  circulation  through  all  the  grates  exposed  to 
the  fire. 

The  flames  and  heat  from  the  main  firebox  (H1)  pass  over 
the  garbage,  are  reinforced  at  the  second  firebox  (H2),  and  pass 
under  trie  grates  and  over  the  sand  pit,  thence  through  the  open- 
ing (I)  to  the  flues  (I1),  and  over  the  third  firebox  to  the 
chimney.  The  usual  doors  for  stoking  and  ash  removal  are 
provided. 


FIG.  38.— THE  BROWNLEE  GARBAGE  FURNACE. 

In  practical  operation  of  this  crematory  it  was  found  hard 
to  secure  the  passage  of  the  smoke  through  the  tortuous  flues 
to  the  chimney,  and  still  more  difficult  to  obtain  the  temperature 
for  perfect  combustion  because  of  the  loss  of  heat  taken  up  by  the 
water  grates.  In  one  instance  the  furnace  was  discontinued  by 
legal  proceedings  because  of  nuisance  from  the  stack  caused  by 
incomplete  combustion.  There  is  now  but  one  example  of  the 
Brownlee  crematory  operating,  and  this  has  been  radically  changed 
in  construction  from  the  plans  and  inventions  of  the  original 
builders. 


172  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

BRIDGEPORT  BOILER  WORKS,  AND  MR.  H?  B.  SMITH  OF  BRIDGE- 
PORT, CONN. 

This  invention  is  another  example  of  a  garbage  furnace  with 
water  grates  for  receiving  the  garbage  and  of  alternate  action 
in  passing  the  heat  from  one  to  the  other  of  the  chambers.  The 
crematory  was  first  built  at  Waterbury,  Conn.,  in  1901,  and  has 
been  intermittently  used  since  then.  The  largest  installation  made 
by  the  Bridgeport  Boiler  Works,  who  were  the  builders  under  the 
patents  of  Mr.  H.  B.  Smith,  was  at  Newport  News,  Va.,  in  1902. 

The  crematory  (Fig.  39)  comprises  two  seperate  chambers, 
connected  by  a  flue  or  opening  for  the  passage  of  the  gases,  from 


FIG.  39.— CREMATORY  OF    H.    B.  SMITH,   BRIDGEPORT,   CONN. 

one  to  the  other  alternately.  In  each  chamber  is  suspended  a 
cage  or  basket  made  of  hollow  iron  piping,  with  larger  pipes  at  the 
top  and  bottom.  This  basket  receives  the  garbage  through  cir- 
cular opening  in  the  roof.  The  cages  are  set  away  from  the 
walls  to  form  a  passage  to  permit  the  passage  of  the  flames  around 
and  over  the  cages  and  their  charges  of  garbage,  and  their  final 
exit  through  the  opening  (26)  into  the  second  chamber,  where, 
after  passing  around  and  over  the  baskets,  the  gases  descend 
through  the  second  fire-box  (20)  to  the  lower  flue  (26)  to  the 
chimney.  The  pipes  of  each  set  of  baskets  are  connected  with 
headers  and  these  with  a  water  tank  or  exterior  boiler,  which 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  173 

maintains  a  circulation  of  water  through  the  system  of  piping. 
There  are  provided  doors  (35)  for  stoking  or  stirring  the  garbage, 
and  a  series  of  iron  rods  (18)  between  the  lower  tier  of  garbage 
pipes,  which  may  be  drawn,  permitting  the  dried  charge  of 
garbage  to  fall  into  the  fire-box  (13)  and  be  consumed. 

The  theory  of  this  furnace  is  the  alternate  firing  of  the  cham- 
bers, the  heating  and  drying  of  the  charge  of  garbage  by  the 
iron  pipes  of  the  basket,  and  the  combustion  of  the  waste  without 
the  need  of  a  secondary  stench-cremating  fire. 

The  installation  at  Newport  News  did  not  fulfill  the  conditions 
of  the  contract  and  was  not  accepted  by  the  city.  No  other  ex- 
amples of  the  H.  B.  Smith  furnace,  except  at  Waterbury  and 
Newport  News,  have  been  built. 

WATER  GRATES. 

In  addition  to  the  furnaces  already  described  (Decarie,  Branch, 
Brown,  Brownlee  and  Smith),  there  are  some  seven  or  eight 
others  which  include  water  bars  as  an  important  part  of  the 
construction.  These  are  mostly  examples  of  patents,  only  one  or 
two  having  reached  the  stage  of  experimental  construction. 

Besides  those,  six  or  seven  other  inventions  have  been  brought 
out  for  small  water  heaters  and  refuse  consumers,  using  this 
prinicple  of  water  grates.  For  the  disposal  of  small  amounts  of 
dry  combustible  refuse  this  form  of  small  furnace  is  used  in  many 
installations,  but  they  are  not  so  successful  when  wet  masses  of 
garbage  are  to  be  burned,  since  the  maintenance  of  the  tempera- 
ture to  destroy  the  garbage  requires  large  amounts  of  fuel,  and 
there  is  no  provision  for  consuming  the  smoke  and  gases  of  com- 
bustion, threatening  a  discharge  of  noxious  fumes  from  the 
chimney. 

The  Cragin,  Dube,  Long,  and  other  refuse  burners  and  water 
heaters  are  used  in  apartment  houses  and  dwellings,  and  in  a 
limited  way  are  quite  successful,  but  this  method  is  distinctly 
confined  to  individual  small  installations  for  private  work,  and  in 
no  sense  can  be  considered  as  a  plant  for  municipal  service. 
Several  of  these  water  heaters  have  the  double  water  jacket  con- 
nected with  the  hollow  pipe  grate,  forming  a  circulatory  system 
for  the  protection  of  the  parts,  but  owing  to  the  loss  of  heat  taken 
up  by  the  water  their  power  as  garbage  burners  is  very  limited. 


174  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

SMITH-SIEMENS  GARBAGE  FURNACE  AND  MR.  M.  V.  SMITH  OF 

PITTSBURG. 

One  of  the  earliest  furnaces  for  garbage  and  night-soil  dis- 
posal was  that  invented  by  Mr.  M.  V.  Smith  in  1885,  at  Wheeling, 
W.  Va.  The  history  of  the  first  furnace  of  this  type  has  been 
briefly  alluded  to. 

The  subsequent  installations  of  Mr.  Smith  were  in  many 
particulars  different  from  the  early  forms,  and  as  built  at  Phila- 
delphia and  Atlantic  City  it  was  one  of  the  most  interesting  and, 
in  a  way,  successful  attempts  to  cremate  larger  amounts  of 
garbage  than  had  been  heretofore  deal  with. 


FIG.  40.— SECTION. 


FIG.  40.— SMITH-SIEMENS  GARBAGE  FURNACE,   PLAN. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  175 

The  Smith-Siemens  garbage  furnace  (Fig.  40)  was  an  imitation 
or  modification  of  the  Siemens  process  for  attaining  high  tem- 
peratures in  the  work  of  iron  manufacture.  .  There  are  three 
distinct  constructions,  which  together  formed  the  complete  ap- 
paratus. 

These  were  (Fig.  40,  plan)  (a-b)  the  two  garbage  furnaces, 
the  two  regenerators  (d-e),  and  the  gas  producer  (f).  Each 
of  these  separate  constructions  consisted  of  a  steel  exterior  cir- 
cular wall,  which  was  lined  with  fire  brick,  and  all  were  con- 
nected by  a  system  of  flues,  controlled  by  dampers.  The  garbage 
chamber  is  charged  through  the  roof,  the  waste  falling  on  the 
bottom,  and  forms  a  conical  pile.  There  are  doors,  through  which 
the  mass  may  be  stirred,  and  at  the  bottom  is  a  discharge  spout 
(a1),  which  is  opened  for  drawing  of  the  liquids  and  afterward  the 
slag,  or  residual  products,  from  the  chamber. 

The  regenerator  chambers  (d-e)  are  filled  with  checker  work 
of  fire  brick  and  provided  with  flues  (d^e1)  leading  downward, 
so  as  to  throw  the  flames  directly  upon  the  mass  of  garbage  in  the 
chamber  (a).  From  the  base  of  each  regenerator  is  an  air  flue 
(d2-e2),  connecting  into  a  common  chamber,  which  is  provided 
with  a  reversible  valve.  These  flues  are  also  connected  with  the 
escape  flue  (i),  which  leads  to  the  stack  or  chimney  (L). 

The  producer  (f)  is  provided  with  charging  ports,  through 
which  the  coal  is  passed  for  conversion  into  gas,  and  also  has  a 
garbage  port  which  may  receive  waste  for  conversion  into  gas. 
There  are  valves  and  dampers  to  regulate  and  cut  off  the  flow  of 
gas  and  air,  the  purpose  being  to  produce  the  gas  for  combustion 
from  the  garbage  itself  when  the  proper  temperatures  are  reached. 

The  operation  is  begun  by  starting  a  fire  in  the  gas  producer, 
and  as  soon  as  gas  is  generated  it  is  fed  through  the  main  gas 
flue  (n)  to  the  distributing  chamber  and  by  the  flues  (T1)  is 
carried  to  one  of  the  garbage  chambers  (a1).  On  its  passage  it 
receives  the  air  from  the  regenerator  and  combustion  takes  place 
within  the  garbage  chamber.  From  the  chamber  (a1)  the  heat 
passes  into  the  adjoining  chamber  (a)  to  the  second  regenerator 
(d)  and  from  this  through  the  air  flue  to  the  stack. 

When  the  garbage  in  the  first  chamber  is  consumed  the  action 
is  reversed,  the  gas  then  flowing  through  the  ducts  from  the 
producer  to  the  furnace  (a),  thence  to  the  second  furnace,  which 


176  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

has  meanwhile  received  a  fresh  charge,  and  through  the  first 
regenerator  (e)  to  the  chimney.  It  is  claimed  that  when  the 
highest  temperatures  are  reached  the  garbage  alone  will  produce 
the  gas  for  its  own  combustion,  with  little  or  no  assistance  from 
the  producer,  but  this  seems  to  occur  only  when  the  garbage  is 
comparatively  dry  and  contains  little  mosture.  During  the  opera- 
tion of  this  furnace  in  Philadelphia  and  Atlantic  City  the  repairs 
necessary  for  maintaining  the  complicated  apparatus,  exposed  to 
very  high  temperatures,  were  made  at  a  very  considerable  cost. 

SEABOARD  GARBAGE  CREMATOR  Co.  AND  MR.  A.  VIVARTTAS,  NEW 

YORK  CITY. 

One  of  the  early  furnaces  for  disposal  of  waste  was  invented 
by  Mr.  Aloha  Vivarttas,  of  New  York,  who  in  1887  built  a  large 
plant  at  East  Seventeenth  street,  New  York,  under  the  style  and 
title  of  the  Seaboard  Garbage  Furnace  Company,  Patent  No. 
390,922,  October,  1888. 

This  was  the  first  furnace  of  its  kind  in  New  York  City  and 
was  intended  for  the  disposal  of  all  classes  of  waste  then  col- 
lected together — ashes,  garbage  and  refuse — which  was  then 
dumped  at  sea. 

The  furnace  of  Mr.  Vivarttas,  Fig.  41,  was  very  high  in  pro- 
portion to  the  length  and  width,  the  exterior  walls  of  the  usual 
construction,  the  interior  of  fire  clay,  brick,  and  tiles.  The  top 
charging  ports  (a1)  discharge  into  small  chambers  inclined  from 
the  middle  line  to  the  furnace  walls,  and  terminating  in  a  chute 
(a3)  controlled  by  a  sliding  fire  clay  dumper  (H2).  This  upper 
chamber  is  then  discharged  upon  a  lower  drying  hearth  (D1), 
inclined  at  a  sharp  angle  in  the  opposite  direction  from  the  one 
above.  Thus  there  was  formed  an  interior  drying  and  burning 
chamber  (B)  of  large  capacity,  into  which  all  the  smaller  cham- 
bers above  discharge,  and  in  which  the  final  combustion  was 
made.  The  sides  of  this  middle  chamber  (B),  inclined  to  the 
center,  led  the  ashes  and  residuals  of  combustion  down  to  a 
throat  (D1)  or  narrow  flue,  floored  with  water  grates,  below 
which  the  ashes  are  removed. 

The  two  fire-boxes  (F  F1)  are  supplied  with  coal,  the  heat 
passing  under  the  inclined  hearth  of  the  burning  chamber  and 
through  narrow  passages  behind  the  smaller  charging  chambers, 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


177 


and  then  downward  through  the  four  downtakes  (B1)  to  the 
chimney,  by  underground  passages.  In  this  New  York  installa- 
tion there  was  also  a  conveyor  for  receiving  the  mixed  refuse  and 
ashes  and  passing  this  through  a  water  bath  to  separate  the 
heavy  and  lighter  portions  before  charging  into  the  furnace. 


FIG.    41.— VIVARTTAS    GARBAGE     FURNACE. 

But  the  conditions  attending  this  disposal  of  mixed  waste  by 
fire  were  not  then  well  understood.  It  was  found  impossible  to 
produce  and  maintain  combustion  in  the  central  burning  chamber, 
there  was  poor  provision  for  the  removal  of  residuals,  the  furnace 
construction  was  too  weak  to  stand  the  strain,  and  after  many 


178  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

vain  efforts  to  continue  operation  the  attempt  was  abandoned  in 
1888. 

Subsequently  Mr.  S.  R.  Smith,  of  Plainfield,  N.  J.,  became 
manager  for  this  company  and  installed  plants  in  Philadelphia, 
Plainfield,  Scranton,  and  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.  Three  of  these  were 
in  service  for  two  to  three  years,  but  at  this  time  none  are  operat- 
ing. 

DECARIE  MANUFACTURING  COMPANY. 

The  Decarie  Incinerator  was  the  invention  of  Mr.  F.  L.  De- 
carie,  of  Montreal,  Canada,  in  1897.  The  original  invention, 
described  in  U.  S.  Patent  No.  596,421,  was  probably  the  most 
complicated  apparatus  yet  devised  for  the  destruction  of  munici- 
pal waste.  There  is  no  record  of  this  ever  having  been  used  in 
the  original  form.  About  June,  1901,  Mr.  Decarie  applied  for 
another  patent  which  was  issued  January  12,  1904,  No.  749,269. 
This  is  the  basis  of  the  present  form  of  this  incinerator,  though 
many  changes  are  made  in  the  latest  constructions. 

Two  forms  of  furnaces  were  included  in  this  plant,  alike  in 
exterior  dimensions  but  differing  in  interior  details.  The  first 
is  an  incinerating  chamber,  with  interior  length  about  twice 
its  width  and  height.  These  exterior  walls  are  of  brick  built  and 
stayed  in  the  usual  manner.  The  floor  of  this  chamber  is  a  series 
of  heavy  firegrates,  supported  on  bearing  bars,  with  an  ash-pit 
beneath,  the  bottom  of  which  is  a  shallow  double- jacketed  iron 
pan,  holding  water. 

The  walls  of  the  incinerating  chamber  support  a  shallow  rect- 
angular iron  box  or  "steam  generator,"  covering  all  the  roof  of 
the  chamber.  Above  this  box  is  another  of  a  larger  capacity,  also 
of  iron,  and  provided  on  the  top  with  four  charging  ports,  with 
covers.  One  large  charging  hole  extends  through  the  drying 
chamber  and  the  steam  generator  to  the  incinerating  chamber 
below;  the  others  do  not  connect  with  the  incinerating  chamber, 
but  discharge  into  the  drying  chamber  only.  This  generator  is 
made  after  the  usual  boiler  construction,  with  a  multiplicity  of 
stay-bolts  and  provided  with  pipes  for  steam  and  water  supply. 
The  garbage  grates  are  a  series  of  hollow  pipes  connected  at 
their  upper  ends  by  screw-threaded  joints  tapped  into  the  bottom 
plate  of  the  generator.  The  grates  describe  a  curve  or  incline 
to  the  middle  of  the  lower  part  of  the  incinerating  chamber, 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


179 


where  they  are  connected  with  one  large  header,  just  above  the 
fire  bars.  These  grates  form  a  basket  to  hold  the  garbage 
charged  through  the  generator,  but  are  placed  on  the  sides.  The 
circulating  system  includes  the  steam  generator,  the  water  grates, 
the  headers,  and  the  double  steel  outer  water-jacket,  which  is 
sometimes  used  instead  of  the  brick  walls,  the  purpose  of  this 


FIG.  42.— THE  DECARIE  GARBAGE   INCINERATOR. 

water  system  being  to  preserve  the  iron  parts  from  destruction 
by  the  heat  from  the  fires  below.  In  some  constructions  the  roof 
of  the  furnace  is  of  fire-brick,  and  the  generator  is  replaced  by 
two  large  headers  at  the  upper  corners  of  the  chamber. 

In  the  other  form  described  in  the  patent,  the  brick  construc- 
tion for  the  exterior  walls  is  replaced  by  a  double  steel  casing, 
secured  by  many  hundreds  of  stay-bolts  and  connected  with  the 
water  circulating  system. 

A  later  form  of  construction  is  shown  by  Fig.  42,  and  is 
similar  in  exterior  dimensions  to  those  previously  noted,  with 


180  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

some  interior  changes.  Here  the  steam  generator  is  made  deeper 
and  occupies  all  the  space  above  the  incinerating  chamber,  leaving 
out  the  drying  chamber  altogether.  The  charging  holes  on  top 
extend  completely  through  the  generator,  but  are  placed  on  the 
sides.  On  the  outside  of  the  sides  and  ends  are  smaller  charging 
chutes,  for  very  wet  material,  the  liquids  from  which  are  con- 
ducted to  the  evaporating  pan  under  the  ash-pit. 

The  garbage  grates  are  inclined  from  the  middle  line  of  the 
steam  generator,  where  their  upper  ends  are  tapped  into  the 
bottom  sheet,  to  the  headers  along  the  sides  of  the  chamber. 


FIG.  43.— THE   DECARIE  FUME  CREMATOR. 

There  is  a  union  or  connection  in  these  pipes  and  a  short  level 
section  of  piping  just  before  the  connection  with  the  headers. 

These  grates,  inclined  from  the  middle  of  the  generator  to  the 
furnace  walls,  from  a  basket  of  iron  pipes,  enclosing  a  triangular 
space,  which  receives  the  garbage  charged  through  the  holes 
above.  All  the  parts  that  will  admit  of  it  are  of  hollow  iron 
spaces  with  water  circulation,  somewhat  resembling  a  magnified 
locomotive  steam  boiler.  The  partially  dried  garbage  which  is 
confined  within  the  suspending  basket,  may  be  mechanically  stoked 
down  into  the  fires  below  by  bars  thrust  through  the  stoke-holes 
in  the  walls  of  the  furnace  at  various  points.  To  reach  the  inner 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


181 


surfaces  of  the  basket  the  rakes  must  be  thrust  through  doors 
on  the  opposite  sides  of  the  furnace,  or  through  the  larger  doors 
at  the  front  and  rear  ends.  There  are  upwards  of  forty  doors 
and  openings  of  various  sizes  in  each  incinerator  and  fume 
cremator  of  50  tons  capacity. 

To  consume  the  gases  and  products  of  combustion  there  is, 
in  the  latest  forms,  a  "fume  cremator"  (Fig.  43),  placed  between 
the  incinerator  and  the  chimney.  This  is  a  separate  brick  chamber 
enclosed  in  steel  plate  with  many  doors  for  removal  of  ashes, 


FIG.  44.— THE   LATEST  DECARIE  INCINERATOR. 

supply  of  fuel  and  water.  The  gases  from  the  incinerator  first 
pass  through  a  perforated  brick  partition,  then  into  a  descending 
flue  floored  with  a  water  tank,  then  between  two  fuel  boxes, 
are  then  deflected  upwards  by  the  bridge  well  and  downward 
by  the  hanging  wall,  passing  over  the  surface  of  the  two  water 
tanks  and  through  the  curtain,  or  scrubber,  of  water  or  steam 
from  the  perforated  pipes  to  the  chimney.  This  complicated 


1 82  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

arrangement  of  walls  and  water  tanks  is  necessary  to  arrest  the 
flying  particles  of  paper  and  dust,  and  to  reheat  and  reburn  the 
carbon  in  the  smoke  and  gasses  of  the  combustion  products  from 
the  incinerator. 

The  latest  form  of  the  Decarie  incinerator  is  wholly  of  an  all- 
steel  water- jacketed  design,  with  double  shell  throughout,  and 
water-jacketed  crown  and  steam  space.  The  arrangement  of  the 
charging  hoppers  permits  dry  rubbish  to  be  charged  in  front, 
the  heavy  ordinary  garbage  to  be  charged  through  the  top  hop- 
pers, and  the  storage  of  very  wet  material  in  the  side  hoppers, 
which  are  provided  with  facilities  for  draining  off  the  liquids 
before  discharging  on  to  the  upper  grates.  The  evaporating  pan 
below  the  fire  bars  is  for  the  disposal  of  these  liquids  by  steam 
jets  turned  into  the  evaporating  steel  pan,  the  vapors  passing 
up  through  the  fire  bars.  There  is  also  what  is  termed  an  ex- 
tension fuel  grate  placed  at  the  front,  provided  with  two  grates 
constituting  an  up-and-down  draft  fire-box,  which  may,  on  oc- 
casion, assist  in  the  more  rapid  evaporation  of  the  liquids.  The 
gas  consuming  chamber  is  connected  with  the  main  garbage 
chamber  by  heavy  continuous  steel  construction,  and  forms  a  part 
of  the  complete  incinerator,  instead  of  being  a  separate  construc- 
tion, as  previously  used. 

DUNDON  IRON  WORKS,  OF  SAN  FRANCISCO,  AND  THE  DUNDON 

GARBAGE  INCINERATOR,  AT  SACRAMENTO,  CAL.  . 
In  1905  a  plant  was  erected  at  Sacramento,  Cal.,  by  the  Dundon 
Iron  Works,  of  San  Francisco.  The  original  designs  were  fur- 
nished by  the  Mildrum  Bros.,  of  England,  but  these  were  changed 
in  many  essential  features,  and  it  was  built  quite  different  from 
the  plans  of  the  patentees.  It  was  claimed  that  this  furnace 
failed  to  meet  the  conditions  of  the  contract,  and  it  was  not  ac- 
cepted by  the  city.  No  other  installation  of  the  Dundon  Excelsior 
Garbage  Incinerator  has  as  yet  been  made. 

BENNETT  GARBAGE  CREMATORY,  ELMIRA,  N.  Y.,  AND  WILKES- 

BARRE,  PENN. 

The  Bennett  Garbage  Disposal  Company  is  capitalized  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  collects  and  disposes  of 
street  sweepings,  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse,  junk,  dead  animals 
and  other  waste  matters.  Its  capital  is  $35,000.  This  company 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  183 

has  been  given  franchises  at  Elmira  and  Wilkes-Barre  for  terms 
of  ten  years.  At  Wilkes-Barre  the  collections  are  to  be  made 
from  the  household  in  garbage  cans  of  a  uniform  size  to  be 
furnished  by  the  company,  transported  upon  special  platform 
wagons.  The  company  has  certain  protective  rights  against  com- 
petitors for  collection,  and  gets  its  remuneration  from  the  house- 
holder at  a  rate  fixed  by  ordinance.  The  householder  pays  15 
cents  per  can,  and  the  disposal  of  larger  amounts  is  subject  to 
special  prices  and  discounts. 

The  disposal  stations  as  described  by  Mr.  Bennett  will  consist 
of  modern  fireproof  buildings  designed  to  meet  the  most  dis- 
criminating laws  of  sanitation  in  the  handling  and  disposal  of 
the  various  kinds  of  garbage,  with  entire  freedom  from  objection- 
able odors  of  any  kind/' 

SANITARY  ENGINEERING  COMPANY. 

This  corporation  in  1904  acquired  the  property  and  patents  of 
the  Municipal  Engineering  Company,  the  principal  stockholders 
being  Col.  Young,  Mr.  F.  Nevins  and  Capt.  Wm.  M.  Venable. 
They  secured  a  patent  (830,027,  September  4,  1906)  for  an 
"improvement  .in  crematories,  in  which  garbage  or  refuse  is 
burned  on  grates  with  an  updraft,  either  with  or  without  previous 
drying." 

In  exterior  dimensions  and  construction  this  furnace  (Fig.  45) 
was  nearly  the  same  as  the  other,  though  the  exterior  walls  may 
be  of  brick  construction  if  desired.  The  garbage  is  charged 
through  the  ports  (4)  and  is  received  on  the  iron  drying  floor 
formed  of  a  series  of  hollow  triangular  cast-iron  grates  (11-12- 
13).  Beneath  these  are  a  number  of  fire-boxes  (5),  separated  by 
bridge  walls  of  fire  brick  extending  below  to  the  bottom  of  the 
furnace  to  form  ash  pits. 

A  flue  or  passage  (10)  connects  with  a  secondary  chamber  for 
combustion  of  the  gases  (9),  above  which  is  a  space  (19)  for 
receiving  the  heated  air  generated  in  the  hollow  grates  of  the 
drying  floor  and  the  air  spaces  at  the  sides  of  the  lining.  The 
chimney  is  connected  with  the  secondary  consuming  chamber, 
which  in  the  larger  construction  is  supplied  with  a  fuel  grate. 

Doors  are  provided  for  the  fires  and  ash  pits  and  for  stoking 
the  garbage  on  the  drying  floor.  The  grates  may  be  rotated 


184  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

from  the  outside  of  the  casing  to  assist  in  the  stoking  and  drying 
process. 

The    operation    of    this    crematory    is    somewhat    complicated, 
depending  upon  the  passage  of  the  currents  of  air  heated  by 


viv  y iwyi v.,vi>y.»viv  v 


FIG.  45.— THE  CREMATORY  OF  THE  SANITARY    ENGINEERING  CO. 

passing  through  the  hollow  grates,  and  their  introduction  into  the 
space  (19)  above  the  secondary  combustion  chamber,  from  which 
they  are  passed  through  the  openings  (20)  to  the  upper  consum- 
ing chamber.  The  special  features  are  the  hollow  prismatic  air- 
cooled  grates,  forming  the  drying  floor,  and  below,  the  indepen- 
dent fire-boxes,  for  the  partially  dried  garbage  and  for  fuel  to 
complete  combustion.  The  only  construction  of  this  furnace  is  at 
Fort  Barancas,  Fla.  No  municipal  plant  has  yet  been  built  under 
this  patent. 

GARBAGE  CREMATORY  OF  MESSRS.  LEWIS  &  KITCHEN  AND  FRED 
P.  SMITH,  OF  CHICAGO. 

The  inventions  of  Mr.  F.  P.  Smith  for  the  disposal  of  municipal 
waste  are  marked  by  versatility  and  bold  designs.  There  are 
several  forms  of  fire  closets,  incinerators  and  furnaces  under  his 
patents,  some  of  which  have  been  built  by  the  United  States 
Government  and  by  private  contractors.  In  1904,  as  engineer 
for  Messrs.  Lewis  &  Kitchen,  he  designed  and  built  at  Fort  Sam 
Houston,  Texas,  a  new  form  of  crematory,  which  was  also  in- 
stalled at  Fort  Dupont,  Del.,  1906,  and  which  is  described  in  the 
Engineering  World,  Chicago,  as  follows  (Fig.  46)  : 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


Garbage  and  refuse  is  dumped  from  sanitary  carts  upon  a  steel  platform, 
whence  it  is  thrown  upon  the  garbage  grates  above  the  incinerating  fires. 
When  the  garbage  is  dried  and  is  partially  burned  upon  the  upper  grates 
of  clay,  it  is  stoked  to  the  lower  grates  for  final  combustion  and  to  become 
the  fuel  for  the  drying  of  the  succeeding  charges  of  wet  garbage.  Fumes 
are  destroyed  and  dust  is  arrested  in  the  chamber  at  the  base  of  the 
chimney.  Air  for  combustion  is  heated  before  admission  to  the  furnace 
by  heavily  flanged  castings,  which  form  the  sides  of  the  fire-boxes  and  the 
evaporating  floors. 


FIG.  46.— PLAN  OF    SMITH   CREMATORY  OF  LEWIS  &  KITCHEN. 

The  exterior  is  constructed  of  cast-iron  sections  with  heavily  reinforced 
flanges.  The  lining  is  of  fire  clay  bricks  with  molded  refractory  clay 
blocks  for  the  openings  of  doors  and  garbage  hoppers.  The  garbage  grates 
are  of  refractory  fire  brick. 

This  description  does  not  clearly  explain  the  construction  or 
work  of  this  furnace. 

Fig.  47,  of  a  crematory  of  larger  capacity,  shows  more  clearly 
the  plan.  The  outer  wall  is  of  sectional  cast  iron  flanged  divi- 
sions, held  by  bolts  and  presumed  to  be  rigid  and  strong  enough  to 
hold  the  thrust  of  the  fire  pressure.  The  interior  lining  is  of 
sections  of  fire-clay  tile,  corresponding  in  size  to  the  exterior 
casing,  and  having  an  air  space  next  to  this.  The  grates  are  heavy 
blocks  of  fire-clay,  spaced  to  permit  passage  of  garbage,  and 
carried  by  projection  of  the  interior  lining.  These  bars  are  10  x 
10  inches  in  cross  section  and  6  feet  in  length,  weighing  upwards 
of  500  pounds  each.  The  arrangement  in  two  horizontal  planes 


i86  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

at  different  heights,  with  intervals  between,  is  a  novel  departure 
from  the  usual  methods. 

.  The  lower  division  of  the  furnace  is  a  series  of  cast-iron 
evaporating  platforms,  alternating  with  transverse  fuel-boxes, 
and  so  placed  below  the  garbage  grates  to  receive  the  partly  dried 
waste,  the  liquid  falling  upon  the  evaporating  surfaces. 

The  secondary  fire  is  placed  in  the  combustion  chamber  at 
the  base  of  the  stack.  The  exterior  casing  is  pierced  at  intervals 
for  air  inlets,  and  the  doors  are  arranged  for  stoking  and  firing 


FIG.  47.— LONGITUDINAL  SECTION,   F.   P.  SMITH   CREMATORY. 

in  the  usual  way.  The  larger  sizes  have  four  charging  ports,  one 
being  large  enough  for  a  large  carcass. 

The  operation  of  this  crematory  is  somewhat  complicated.  By 
reason  of  the  longitudinal  division  wall  the  crematory  is  divided 
into  two  furnaces,  alike  in  construction,  and  so  arranged  with 
connecting  flues  and  dampers  that  the  heat  from  fuel-boxes  may 
be  directed  over  either  upper  compartment  and  return  above  or 
below  the  adjoining  compartment,  passing  finally  through  the 
common  combustion  chamber  to  the  chimney.  This  action  is 
assisted  by  the  currents  of  heated  air  from  the  hollow  fire-grates, 
and  from  a  special  heating  device  placed  under  the  evaporating 
platforms. 

The  constructions  described  in  Figs.  46  and  47  were  those 
employed  by  Mr.  Smith  up  to  1906.  During  this  time  no  munici- 
pal plant  was  built  by  Messrs.  Lewis  &  Kitchen  under  the  Smith 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


i87 


patents,  but  four  or  five  small  crematories  for  government  use 
were  installed  at  several  army  posts. 

The  next  installations  showed  a  radical  change  in  the  use  of 
material  for  the  inner  linings  and  grates.  The  cast-iron  evaporat- 
ing surfaces  were  abandoned,  the  double  form  of  furnace  changed 
for  a  single  unit  which  was  made  longer  and  wider  than  before, 
and  in  which  the  garbage  grates  were  made  of  heavy  blocks  of 
fire  clay  and  the  iron  evaporating  surfaces  replaced  by  the  hollow 
cast-iron  revolving  bars.  The  name  incinerator  was  used  to  de- 
scribe the  furnace  as  distinguished  from  the  term  garbage  crema- 
tory previously  employed. 

Fig.  48 — the  longitudinal  section  of  one  of  the  latest  incinera- 
tors— shows  the  present  construction.  The  furnace  is  charged 


FIG.  48.— LONGITUDINAL  SECTION  OF  LATEST  SMITH   INCINERATOR. 

through  side  ports  on  the  top,  the  carts  dumping  the  loads 
through  large  openings  directly  to  the  upper  tier  of  garbage 
grates,  which  is  called  "the  primary  garbage  grate."  When  the 
charge  is  dried  out  it  is  stoked  through  open  passages  and  around 
the  ends  of  this  upper  grate  to  the  "secondary  garbage  grate," 
where  final  combustion  is  made.  There  are  four  principal  fire- 
boxes for  fuel,  and  two  secondary  boxes  floored  with  revolving 
hollow  cast-iron  bars,  called  the  clinkering  grates. 

The  theory  of  the  combustion  is  that  the  heat  generated  from 
fuel  in  the  two  fire-boxes  at  either  end  of  the  furnace  (Nos.  i 
and  2)  must  first  pass  over  the  clinkering  grates,  then  upwards 
around  the  ends  of  the  upper  grates,  meeting  in  the  two  openings 
or  passages  through  this  upper  grate  and  passing  downward 
along  the  upper  side  of  the  secondary  grate  and  turning  again 
downward,  pass  over  the  fire-box  No.  3  on  its  way  to  the  chimney 


1 88  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

flue  placed  below  the  level  of  the  floor.  The  heat  from  the  second 
left  hand  fire-box  (No.  4)  is  added  to  the  other  two  boxes  when 
required. 

The  division  of  the  upper  grate  into  two  unequal  parts  is  for 
the  purpose  of  burning  a  small  amount  of  waste  on  the  left 
hand  division,  when  the  whole  area  of  the  furnace  is  not  needed 
for  so  small  a  quantity.  The  arrows  show  the  direction  of  the 
gases  from  the  primary  fires.  To  distinguish  the  fire  grates,  these 
are  numbered  i,  2,  3,  and  4;  the  clinkering  grates  lettered  A 
and  B. 

The  stoking  or  moving  of  the  charge  is  done  through  five  doors 
on  the  upper  grate,  six  doors  on  the  lower  tier  and  two  doors 
on  the  floor  line.  Stoking  may  also  be  done  through  the  charging 
ports  from  the  top  of  the  furnace. 

The  Interior  Walls  of  this  incinerator  are  formed  of  heavy 
sections  of  fire  clay,  the  dimensions  of  each  corresponding  to  the 
sections  of  cast-iron  which  form  the  exterior  shell  of  the  furnace. 
These  sections  of  fire  clay  and  iron  must  be  of  the  same  dimen- 
sions to  permit  the  unbolting  and  removal  of  the  cast-iron  section, 
and  then  the  removal  of  the  interior  fire-clay  section  to  take  out 
any  one  of  the  garbage  grates  which  may  have  been  broken. 

These  garbage  grates  are  blocks  of  fire  clay  6  to  8  feet  long 
and  8  by  10  inches  in  cross  section.  They  are  not  arched,  but 
depend  for  their  strength  upon  their  size  and  thickness.  Because 
of  their  dimensions  and  weight  (each  grate  bar  weighing  400  to 
500  Ibs. )  they  cannot  be  replaced  when  broken  except  by  removing 
the  top  of  the  furnace  or  a  cast-iron  section  of  the  sides  and  the 
corresponding  interior  fire-clay  section  of  the  wall,  which  will 
give  an  opening  through  which  the  broken  grate  bars  of  the  lower 
tier  may  be  withdrawn  and  new  ones  substituted. 

The  Fig.  48  shows  the  construction  of  the  garbage  grates  to 
have  eight  exposed  edges  over  which  the  heat  must  pass,  turning 
a  right  angle  in  each  case,  and  also  over  which  the  charge  of 
garbage  when  dried  on  the  primary  or  upper  grate  must  be 
stoked  down  to  the  secondary  grate  or  to  the  clinker  boxes. 
There  are  then  eight  hanging  fire-brick  bars  unsupported  on  one 
side,  over  which  liquids,  metals  and  incombustible  matters  must 
pass,  besides  being  exposed  to  action  of  slice  bars  and  rakes  used 
to  move  the  dried  charge. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


iBg 


This  construction  provides  for  a  series  of  blocks  of  fire  clay 
of  heavy  cross  section,  placed  side  by  side  horizintally  from 
one  wall  to  the  other  across  the  furnace,  forming  a  platform  16 


FIG.   49.— CROSS-SECTION   SMITH    INCINERATOR. 


FIG.    49.— EXTERIOR    SMITH    INCINERATOR. 

feet  long  and  6  feet  wide,  which  is  to  carry  a  weight  of  five  tons 
of  garbage  with  the  lower  surface  exposed  to  a  temperature  of 
1,500  degrees  or  upwards.  This  same  construction  is  repeated  in 
the  secondary  garbage  grate  with  greater  risk,  as  these  grates  are 
directly  over  the  two  fire-boxes,  3  and  4.  Fig.  49. 


190  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  upper  surface  of  the  grates  which  receive  the  charge  of 
garbage  direct  from  the  collection  carts  must,  at  times,  be  covered 
with  saturated  garbage  containing  60  to  70  per  cent,  of  water. 
If  night-soil  be  charged  into  the  furnace  the  liquid  contained 
may  be  as  high  as  80  to  90  per  cent.  At  the  same  time  there  must 
be  a  high  temperature  on  the  secondary  grate,  which  radiates  its 
heat  to  the  under  side  of  the  grate  above.  If  this  be  the  case,  there 
will  be  a  condition  of  liquid  saturation  and  consequent  contrac- 
tion of  the  upper  surface,  and  an  expansion  of  the  lower  surface 
of  the  same  bar  or  block  caused  by  the  high  heats  of  the  secondary 
grate.  Heretofore  it  has  been  found  very  difficult  to  maintain 
garbage  grate  of  double  fire-clay  blocks  of  short  length  dove- 
tailed together  in  the  middle  and  arched  to  support  the  weight 
of  the  garbage  charged  from  above. 

If  fire-clay  bars  can  be  maintained  in  such  a  case  as  this  and 
be  found  durable  and  efficient,  it  will  be  an  advance  in  the  art 
of  using  fire  clay  garbage  grates  such  as  has  not  been  attained 
by  any  previous  builders.  The  stability  of  this  form  of  con- 
struction depends  upon  the  garbage  grates  being  able  to  maintain 
their  place  under  all  conditions  of  unequal  and  varying  tempera- 
ture, and  also  be  able  to  support  the  weight  of  five  to  eight  tons 
of  garbage  received  for  one  charge. 

The  latest  incinerators  of  this  type  are  at  Hattiesburg,  Miss., 
Oak  Park,  111.,  and  at  the  U.  S.  Naval  Training  Station,  New- 
port, R.  I. 

The  construction  of  the  F.  P.  Smith  crematories  is  carried  on 
by  the  engineering  firm  of  Lewis  &  Kitchen,  Chicago,  111. 

PUBLIC  SERVICE  COMPANY,  OF  NEW  YORK. 

In  October,  1907,  the  city  of  Cambridge,  Mass.,  advertised  for 
bids  for  a  refuse  disposal  plant  to  burn  sixty  tons  of  house  ashes 
and  refuse  per  day,  no  garbage  being  included.  Upon  a  second 
advertisement  the  contract  for  the  construction  of  the  plant  was 
awarded  to  a  New  York  corporation  under  the  title  of  the  Public 
Service  Company,  at  the  price  of  $25,975.  The  plant  included 
a  brick  building  60  x  65  feet,  a  radial  brick  stack  125  feet  high, 
and  a  cremating  furnace  following  the  same  lines  of  construction 
as  that  adopted  at  the  refuse  incinerator  of  the  Railway  Traffic 
Company,  of  Brooklyn.  The  special  features  of  this  construction 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  191 

include  a  long  fire-box  which  is  charged  through  four  openings 
on  the  top  of  the  furnace.  About  two  feet  above  the  fire-bars 
is  a  series  of  horizontal  water-tube  grates  which  receive  the  refuse 
thrown  from  above.  There  is  a  longitudinal  fire  brick  bridge 
wall  dividing  the  furnace  into  two  equal  cells,  both  of  which  are 
connected  with  the  common  combustion  chamber.  The  rear 
end  of  the  fire  grates  are  inclined  sharply  upward,  and  behind 
them  is  placed  a  dust-receiving  chamber  to  allow  the  settlement 
of  light  particles  of  unburned  matter.  From  the  combustion 
chamber  the  gases  pass  into  a  Sterling  water-tube  boiler  of  200 
h.p.  There  is  provided  a  fan  driven  by  the  steam  power  from 
the  boiler,  which  conveys  a  current  of  air  into  the  ash-pit  under 
.the  fire  bars.  The  provisions  of  the  contract  call  for  the  disposal 
of  60  tons  of  mixed  ashes  and  refuse  per  day.  At  the  first  trial 
of  the  incinerator  it  was  found  impossible  to  consume  this  quan- 
tity within  the  require  time.  Subsequently,  the  collection  service 
was  changed,  and  a  smaller  amount  of  ashes  brought  for  disposal. 
At  the  present  time  the  city  is  reported  to  have  accepted  the  plant. 
The  power  development  from  the  amount  of  refuse  burned  at 
present  is  only  sufficient  for  the  operation  of  the  plant  itself. 

MORSE  DESTRUCTOR  FURNACE  AND  THE  UNIVERSAL  DESTRUCTOR 

COMPANY. 

In  1906  Mr.  W.  F.  Morse  obtained  patents  for  certain  new  and 
useful  improvements  in  garbage  furnaces.  In  exterior  propor- 
tions this  invention  follows  closely  those  of  the  American  type  of 
furnace,  as  previously  described.  The  Morse  Destructor  Furnace 
(Fig.  50)  is  charged  from  the  top  through  circular  holes  with 
sliding  fire  clay  covers.  When  desired  it  may  also  be  fed  through 
the  large  front  doors. 

The  interior  arrangement  provides  for  a  primary  fire-box  (6) 
of  greater  or  lesser  dimensions,  according  to  the  material  to  be 
burned,  with  fire-bars  inclined  from  *-°ar  to  front.  Behind  the 
fire-bars  are  two  drying  and  burning  platforms  of  fire  brick 
arches,  arranged  in  an  inclined  position,  the  upper  tier  (i)  be- 
ginning at  the  fire-bars  (6)  and  gradually  rising  nearly  to  the 
arch  of  the  furnace  roof. 

Below  this  is  a  second  platform,  or  closed  curtain  arch  (n), 
that  forms  a  flue  (12)  for  the  passage  of  the  smoke  and  gases, 


192  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  as  this  becomes  incandescent  it  radiates  the  heat  to  the  under 
side  of  the  grates  above,  greatly  aiding  to  dry  out  the  moisture 
and  increasing  the  combustion. 

Underneath  this  platform  is  an  expanding  chamber  (9)  tri- 
angular in  shape,  extending  from  the  partition  or  bridge  wall  of 
the  fuel  box  (13)  to  the  curtain  wall  (21),  which  encloses  the 


FIG.  50.— THE   MORSE   DESTRUCTOR   FURNACE. 

combustion  chamber  (18)  and  the  secondary  fire-box  (17). 
Above  the  secondary  fire-box  in  the  combustion  chamber  is  a 
series  of  transverse  arched  partitions  perforated  to  admit  free 
passage  of  the  gasses. 

Below  the  floor  of  the  expanding  chamber  (10)  is  a  hot-air 
conduit.  Through  the  cold-air  inlets  at  the  rear  end  of  the 
furnace  air  is  drawn  by  the  action  of  the  stack  draft,  or  by  a 
system  of  steam  jet  blowers  into  the  space  beneath  the  floor  of  the 
furnace.  This  air  in  its  slow  passage  is  raised  in  temperature 
by  the  radiated  heat  through  the  bottom  of  the  furnace,  and 
when  brought  under  the  bars  of  the  primary  fire-box  the  tem- 
perature is  increased  to  upwards  of  150°  F.  The  blowers  are 
connected  with  a  steam  jet  from  the  boiler,  which  gives  increased 
combustion  in  the  material  on  the  fire-bars  above. 

The  addition  of  this  regenerating  system  of  heating  the  air 
brought  under  the  fire-bars  of  the  primary  fire  is  a  means  of  in- 
creasing combustion  not  before  recognized  in  American  practice. 
This  heated  air  may  be  increased  to  any  desired  pressure  by 
means  of  the  fan  or  steam  jet,  upon  the  well-known  principle  of 
the  English  destructors,  and  any  proportions  of  mixed  waste, 
garbage,  ashes  and  refuse  may  be  destroyed  without  change  in  the 
apparatus  except  by  increasing  the  blast. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  193 

The  sloping  platform,  which  gradually  diminishes  the  area 
of  the  combustion  grates,  causes  a  more  intimate  contact  with 
the  heat,  and  greatly  aids  in  the  downward  movement  of  the 
garbage  to  the  fire-grate  to  form  additional  fuel.  The  delay 
of  the  gases  in  the  expanding  chamber  permits  the  deposit  of 
fine  dust,  which  is  withdrawn  through  doors  on  the  bottom. 

At  the  top  of  this  furnace  above  the  combustion  chamber,  or 
at  the  side  or  back  of  this,  may  be  placed  a  steam  boiler  of  the 
vertical  or  water-tube  type  having  its  own  independent  fire-box, 
and  so  connected  with  the  furnace  by  a  system  of  flues  and 
dampers  that  it  may  be  operated  altogether  by  the  crematory,  or 
partly  or  entirely  by  the  heat  from  its  own  fuel  box.  By  enlarg- 
ing or  diminishing  the  area  of  either  the  primary  fire  or  of  the 
sloping  garbage  grilles  the  destructor  may  consume  a  larger 
proportion  of  either  refuse  or  garbage  as  conditions  may  require. 

There  is  no  iron  surface  exposed  to  the  direct  attack  of  the 
heat  except  the  upper  surface  of  the  fire-bars  of  the  primary 
and  secondary  fires.  It  is  believed  that  the  simplicity  of  con- 
struction, and  the  few  essential  elements,  make  it  almost  im- 
possible to  get  out  of  order  or  to  be  destroyed  by  high  tempera- 
tures unless  by  gross  carelessness. 

This  destructor  may  be  built  in  many  forms  and  dimensions 
suited  to  the  different  kinds  of  waste  and  differing  conditions 
of  service. 

The  present  installations  of  the  Morse  Destructor  are  at  the 
Government  post,  new  Fort  Lyon,  Col.,  the  Hudson  Terminal 
Building,  New  York,  with  special  installations  at  Loeser's  Depart- 
ment Store.  Brooklyn,  in  conjunction  with  two  i5O-h.p.  B.  &  W. 
steam  boilers,  and  are  so  arranged  that  the  power  from  one  or 
both  boilers  may  be  utilized  as  desired. 

The  Universal  Destructor  Company  is  the  American  repre- 
sentative and  agent  of  Meldrum  Brothers,  Ltd.,  of  Manchester, 
England,  and  controls  the  installation  of  the  Morse  Destructors 
and  Meldrum  Simplex  Destructors  and  the  Beaman  and  Deas 
Destructors  in  the  United  States,  Canada,  Mexico,  the  Central 
American  States  and  Cuba.  The  Meldrum  Destructors  now  oper- 
ating in  this  territory  are  described  and  illustrated  in  the  chapter 
on  British  destructors  in  America. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

AMERICAN   GARBAGE  CREMATORIES— Continued. 
CALORIFIC  VALUES  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

PORTABLE  OR  TRAVELING  GARBAGE  CREMATORIES. 

The  idea  of  a  garbage  cremator  that  should  come  to  the  prem- 
ises, and  not  only  take  away,  but  destroy  at  once  all  useless  matter, 
has  been  the  dream  of  inventors.  If  such  an  apparatus  could  be 
made  to  work  quickly,  efficiently  and  without  objectionable  noise, 
odors,  smoke  or  dust,  there  would  be  many  advantages  in  its 
favor  as  against  the  prevailing  methods  of  removal  by  collection 
carts.  Some  of  the  American  cities  have  experimented  with  this 
form  of  garbage  and  refuse  destroyer,  but  so  far  as  known  none 
are  now  employing  a  portable  traveling  furnace  as  a  part  of 
their  disposal  work. 

The  first  American  Portable  Garbage  Incinerator  appears  to 
have  been  invented  in  1895  by  H.  C.  Fellenbaum,  of  Philadelphia. 
Patent  546,396,  September,  1895.  "The  purpose  of  the  inventor 
was  threefold,  to  provide  a  compact,  efficient  incinerator  which 
shall  do  its  work  without  noise  or  noxious  fumes,  to  so  construct 
that  it  may  be  drawn  or  propelled  to  permit  of  the  destruction 
as  it  is  collected  or  while  the  apparatus  is  in  motion,  and  to  ar- 
range the  various  parts  of  the  apparatus  so  they  shall  be  pro- 
tected from  injury  by  burning,  bending  or  warping."  There  is 
a  fire  box  of  large  capacity  lined  with  firebrick.  Above  this  are 
horizontal  tubes  forming  a  steam  boiler,  and  above  this,  on  the 
outside  of  the  boiler  casing,  an  engine  connected  with  the  steam 
pipes  of  the  boiler.  At  the  front  end  of  the  boiler  tubes  is  a 
sloping  platform  of  water  pipes  arranged  to  pass  liquid  to  a 
chamber  below.  Above  this  platform  is  a  set  of  circular  revolv- 
ing cutters  or  knives,  rotated  by  the  engine,  and  above  these 
knives  is  the  hopper  or  bin  for  receiving  the  garbage.  There  is 
a  hollow  tube  of  large  size  extending  through  the  length  of  the 

194 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  195 

machine,  which  contains  a  screw  to  move  the  finely  divided  par- 
ticles of  garbage  after  passing  the  knives,  drying  the  garbage  in 
its  passage  and  dropping  it  into  the  fire  box  to  serve  as  fuel. 

The  smokestack  is  at  the  front  end,  and  may  be  telescopic,  to 
permit  its  being  raised  above  windows  of  adjoining  houses. 
The  incinerator  is  presumed  to  generate  steam  for  operating  the 
cutting  knives,  for  driving  the  conveyor,  and  for  power  for  its 
own  locomotion.  Oil  burners  are  placed  in  the  fire  box  to  begin 
the  work  or  raising  the  initial  steam ;  thereafter  the  dried  garbage 
continues  the  operation.  The  front  chamber  below  the  boiler  is 
a  smoke  box,  in  which  all  gaseous  products  are  consumed  or 
deodorized  before  passing  to  the  stack. 

This  incinerator  is  a  remarkably  ingenious  theoretical  attempt 
to  combine  in  a  small  compass  all  the  various  machinery  and 
methods  for  chopping,  drying  and  burning  the  garbage,  for  pro- 
ducing steam  power  for  its  own  uses,  and  for  destroying  the 
products  of  combustion  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  produce  nuisance. 
In  practical  use  there  are  still  some  points  to  be  dealt  with,  and 
it  is  possible  that  the  claims  for  its  continuous  successful  oper- 
ation might  not  be  realized.  There  is  no  record  of  trials  or  actual 
work  performed. 

The  Apparatus  for  Treating  and  Cremating  Garbage  of  Mr. 
Oscar  D.  McClellan,  Philadelphia,  patents  Nos.  558,974-5-6-7, 
April,  1896,  include  several  novel  and  ingenious  arrangements  for 
the  treatment  of  garbage  by  a  tapering  screw  to  press  out  the 
moisture,  its  drying  for  fuel,  and  the  operation  of  a  powerful 
vertical  tubular  boiler.  The  later  patents  describe  another  method 
of  drying  the  garbage,  the  vaporizing  of  the  moisture  and  the 
development  of  steam  power  for  the  work.  These  methods  are 
described  at  great  length,  and  seem  to  cover  several  theoretically 
successful  ways  of  dealing  with  the  waste,  but  there  is,  so  far  as 
known,  no  reports  or  records  of  the  apparatus  being  in  experi- 
mental or  actual  service. 

The  Traveling  Garbage  Crematory  of  Mr.  Chas.  J .  de  Berard, 
of  Chicago,  patent  581,686,  May,  1897,  was  brought  into  actual 
use  in  Chicago  in  1897-8.  The  purpose  of  the  inventor  was  to 
provide  means  for  the  disposal  of  garbage,  both  dry  and  wet,  of 
suitable  construction  and  size,  to  be  mounted  upon  wheels,  and 


196  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

to  be  drawn  through  streets  and  alleys.  The  crematory,  Fig. 
51,  is  a  circular  iron  shell,  8  ft.  long,  5  ft.  in  diameter.  The  lower 
part  of  this  shell  is  divided  transversely  by  the  bridge  wall  (7) 
into  two  compartments  (8-9),  and  above  the  first  compartment 
(8)  are  placed  grate  bars  (10)  forming  the  primary  fire  box 
( 1 1 ) .  Above  this  primary  fire  box  is  a  horizontal  diaphragm 
(12),  strengthened  by  bars  and  flanges  (13)  to  prevent  warping. 
Below  the  primary  fire  box  is  an  ash  pit  with  door  (15).  Above 
the  second  compartment  (9)  is  a  second  set  of  grate  bars  (17), 
inclined  from  front  to  rear,  with  a  door  (18)  for  moving  the 
dried  material  from  the  floor  (12).  There  is  an  ash  pit  below 
these  grates  with  a  door  (19)  for  removal  of  ashes.  The  smoke 


FIG.    51.— THE    DE    BERARD    PORTABLE    CREMATORY. 

pipe  is  directly  above  the  last  burning  chamber  of  the  bars  (17). 
There  are  oil  tanks  (23-24)  with  openings  into  the  spaces  above 
the  fire  bars  for  assisting  combustion.  The  garbage  is  charged 
through  the  hopper  (21),  which  is  controlled  by  a  slide  valve 
(22). 

In  operating  this  crematory  the  refuse  and  combustible  matter 
is  charged  into  the  primary  fire  box,  and  furnishes  fuel  for  dry- 
ing the  charge  of  wet  garbage  placed  upon  the  drying  hearth  (12) 
above.  When  this  charge  is  sufficiently  dry  to  ignite  it  is  pushed 
or  pulled  forward  to  the  secondary  chamber  (17),  and  the  com- 
bustion assisted  by  oil  until  it  is  reduced  to  ashes.  All  offensive 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          197 

odors  are  driven  off  while  the  garbage  remains  on  the  floor  (12), 
and  these  mingle  with  the  flames  from  the  burning  material  on  the 
bars  (17)  and  are  intercepted  and  consumed  on  their  passage 
to  the  stack.  This  Berard  crematory  was  used  in  Chicago  for 
several  months,  and  from  the  reports  and  criticisms  of  the  daily 
press  was  successful  in  its  work.  It  was  discontinued  early  in 
1898  and  has  not  been  employed  since.  Since  there  was  no 
lining  of  fire  brick  the  iron  shell  must  have  been  injured  or  de- 
stroyed after  a  short  time.  It  is  also  doubtful  if  the  methods  for 
destroying  the  gases  were  altogether  successful  in  this  most  im- 
portant point  of  a  portable  furnace. 

The  Inventions  of  Mr.  Isaac  D.  Smead  and  Smead's  Traveling 
Crematory. — The  inventions  of  Mr.  Isaac  D.  Smead,  of  Toledo, 
now  of  Cincinnati,  are  among  the  most  numerous  in  the  line  of 
sanitary  appliances  which  deal  with  excrement  and  similar  wastes. 
The  Smead  Dry  Closet  (patented  1891-2)  was  formerly  in  use 
at  a  great  number  of  isolated  buildings — mostly  school  houses — 
and  is  still  employed  in  places  where  no  sewerage  facilities  are 
accessible.  The  Smead  Combined  Crematory  and  Heating  Sys- 
tem (patent  691,328,  May,  1902),  is  an  apparatus  for  consuming 
garbage  and  refuse  matter  and  applying  the  heat  for  the  circula- 
tion of  water  for  heating  buildings.  It  is  intended  for  uses  of 
large  buildings,  is  operated  by  using  coal,  and  is  ingenious  and 
elaborately  complicated  in  the  arrangement  of  the  working  parts. 

The  Smead  Garbage  Crematory  (1902)  was  an  amplification 
and  extension  of  the  ideas  contained  in  the  heater,  and  was  ex- 
perimentally tried  on  a  large  scale  at  Toledo.  There  is  no  record 
of  the  continuance  of  this  crematory. 

The  Smead  Traveling  Crematory,  Fig.  52,  is  Mr.  Smead's  latest 
contribution  to  the  long  list  of  patents  standing  in  his  name. 
This  first  portable  crematory  was  built  for  experimental  purposes 
at  Springfield,  Ohio,  in  September,  1905,  where  several  trials 
were  made  dealing  with  the  usual  garbage  and  refuse  collection. 
At  a  public  exhibition,  at  which  the  city  officials  were  present,  a 
severe  test  was  made  with  very  wet  garbage,  which,  according  to 
the  published  reports,  was  quite  successful.  Subsequently  the 
machine  was  brought  back  to  the  makers  to  be  "tractionized"  or 
made  self-propelling.  A  second  trial  was  made  in  February, 


198  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

1906,  but  the  city  did  not  then  purchase  the  crematory.     Since 
then  this  crematory  has  been  improved  in  several  ways,  and  is 


FIG.  52.— THE  SMEAD  TRAVELING  CREMATORY. 

now  offered  for  the  disposal  of  all  classes  of  garbage,  refuse  and 
rubbish  in  competition  with  the  other  forms  of  stationary  furnaces. 

PORTABLE    RUBBISH    INCINERATOR    OF    THE    STREET    CLEANING 
DEPARTMENT  OF  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

The  people  of  New  York  City  pay  but  little  attention  to  the 
ordinances  forbidding  the  throwing  of  litter  and  refuse  into  the 
streets.  What  becomes  of  the  newspaper,  the  parcel  wrapper, 
the  paper  fruit  bag,  and  the  banana,  orange  and  fruit  rinds,  no- 
body knows  or  cares,  once  they  are  thrown  aside  into  the  gutter. 
The  cans  for  deposit  of  refuse  are  infrequent,  being  mostly  placed 
at  the  park  entrances  and  walks,  and  at  the  wider  street  inter- 
sections are  not  always  available.  The  quantity  of  this  refuse 
scattered  about  the  streets  is  enormous  in  bulk  and  is  one  of  the 
chief  sources  of  trouble  to  the  Department,  as  it  must  be  swept 
up  and  held  until  the  daily  collection  of  the  street  cart. 

The  idea  of  burning  this  on  the  spot  has  long  been  entertained, 
but  no  serious  attempt  was  made  until  February  of  last  year,  when 
there  was  brought  into  service  a  small  portable  furnace,  described 
as  follows  by  the.  inventor : 

The  portable  refuse  destructors  are  formed  from  two  wornout  street 
cans,  making  a  furnace  by  superimposing  one  on  another.  The  lower  one 
has  a  grate  introduced  above  the  bottom  just  far  enough  to  leave  a  space 
for  an  ash-pit.  The  sides  of  the  can  are  perforated  to  allow  of  the 
admission  of  air  necessary  for  the  combustion.  The  upper  can  is  inverted 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.  199 

and  fits  to  the  lower,  forming  a  dome,  which  prevents  the  escape  of  the 
fire  in  the  lower  one.  This  furnace  is  placed  on  the  ordinary  can  carrier 
now  in  use  by  the  street  cleaners  and  is  fed  by  them  as  they  patrol  their 
beat,  and  the  operation  of  disposal  is  continuous  and  effective.  The  re- 
sultant ash  is  placed  in  the  ordinary  street  cans.  When  not  in  use  these 
furnaces  are  stored  at  the  sections,  and  the  carrier  is  used  for  its  original 
function.  The  cans  used  measure  18  inches  across  the  top  and  are  from 
16  to  21  inches  high.  The  grate  is  placed  10  inches  above  the  bottom. 
The  perforations  are  in  three  rows  around  the  can  and  alcove  the  grate, 
the  top  hole  being  10  inches  above  the  grate.  The  feed  door  is  8  x  10 
inches.  The  capacity  of  the  furnace  is  about  two  cartloads  of  rubbish  per 
day,  and  the  resultant  ash  about  one  pailful.  As  the  material  is  on  hand, 
the  cost  is  only  for  labor,  being  the  wages  of  two  men  at  $4.00  per  day,  or 
$8.00 — that  is,  $1.00  per  furnace.  The  advantages  of  these  portable  de- 
structors are  obvious,  as  they  clean  up  the  rubbish  that  would  otherwise 
be  mixed  in  with  the  street  sweepings  and  ashes.  They  also  handle  the 
litter  on  the  street  surface,  and  when  the  man  has  reached  the  end  of  his 
route  there  remains  to  be  handled  but  a  small  quantity  of  ash.  The  first 
one  of  these  furnaces  was  put  in  operation  on  Saturday,  February  16.  At 
this  writing  there  are  about  twenty-five  at  work.  The  reports  from  the 
district  superintendents,  the  section  foremen  and  also  from  the  men  who 
handle  them  are  favorable,  and  it  appears  that  this  is  a  reasonable  proposi- 
tion and  one  that  will  save  considerable  trouble  and  add  very  largely  to 
the  sanitary  state  of  the  work  of  this  Department. 

In  the  practical  use  of  this  portable  incinerator  some  points  of 
difficulty  developed,  which  will  probably  cause  its  discontinuance 
in  the  present  form.  The  furnace  will  keep  up  combustion  with- 
out serious  emission  of  smoke  if  it  be  fed  continuously  with  small 
pieces  of  light  paper,  but  will  not  burn  fruit  rinds  or  wood.  When 
there  is  a  large  quantity  of  paper  charged  at  once  then  there  is 
smoke  followed  by  flames  and  sparks  from  the  top  of  the  upper 
can.  The  expense  of  collection  and  slow  feeding  is  greater  than 
that  of  the  old  method  of  sweeping  and  removal  by  carts.  The 
slight  thickness  of  iron  soon  warps  and  gives  way  under  the  heat 
and  is  not  worth  the  trouble  and  cost  of  repairs.  Since  nothing 
but  light  paper  and  cardboard  can  be  burned  there  is  left  a  large 
amount  of  other  refuse,  which  must  be  swept  up  and  cared  for 
in  the  usual  way,  making  double  work  for  the  sweepers.  During 
the  strike  of  the  cart  drivers  of  the  Department  in  1907  these 
incinerators  were  of  very  considerable  service,  but  could  deal 
with  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  total  street  refuse.  Of  the 
twenty-five  built  there  are  but  few  left  at  work,  the  number  is  not 
increased,  and  at  this  writing  the  Department  had  decided  not  to 
continue  their  manufacture  or  use  in  this  form. 


2OO  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

THE  PORTABLE  FURNACES  OF  THE  ENGLISH  DESTRUCTOR 
BUILDERS. 

The  construction  of  portable  furnaces  has  been  carried  on  by 
the  English  builders,  following  in  their  main  details  one  general 
form,  but  each  builder  adding  such  special  features  as  are  com- 
mon to  their  own  standard  destructors. 

The  Meldrum  Simplex  Portable  Destructor  (Fig.  53)  is  per- 
haps one  of  the  best  examples,  being  specially  designed  for  mili- 
tary camps  and  for  sparsely  settled  communities,  where  the  cost 
of  refuse  collection  and  .haulage  to  a  central  station  would  be 
excessive. 

The  destructor  is  a  steel  cylinder  mounted  on  wheels  and  pro- 
vided with  large  doors  at  the  rear  end  for  light  refuse  with  a 


tj- 


FIG.   53.— THE   MELDRUM    PORTABLE    DESTRUCTOR. 

smaller  door  on  the  side  for  wet  offal.  The  grate  surface  of  the 
fire  box  is  as  large  as  possible  and  there  is  provision  for  obtaining 
forced  draft  from  the  steam  boiler.  High  temperatures  are 
maintained,  and  there  is  a  special  apparatus  for  destroying  the 
fumes  of  all  combustion,  as  in  the  standard  Meldrum  furnaces. 
The  Horsfall  Destructor  Company  also  manufactures  a  portable 
destructor  for  use  in  districts  too  thinly  populated  to  justify  the 
use  of  a  destructor  of  the  usual  type,  also  for  military  camps  and 
similar  purposes.  This  portable  destructor  consists  of  three 
pieces,  destructor  proper,  the  boiler  and  the  smoke  box  containing 
a  dust-catching  arrangement.  It  is  built  on  the  well-known  prin- 
ciple of  the  Horsfall  Destructor,  and  may  be  relied  upon  to  con- 
sume miscellaneous  rubbish  economically  and  without  nuisance. 
The  boiler  is  of  the  locomotive  type,  and  supplies  steam  for  the 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


201 


blowers,  and  is  provided  with  a  junction  to  which  can  be  coupled 
the  steam  pipe  of  an  engine  for  doing  any  useful  work,  such  as 


FIG.  54.— THE  HORSFALL  PORTABLE  DESTRUCTOR. 

driving  a  mortar  mill  or  a  small  lighting  plant,  or  a  steam  dis- 
infector  may  be  connected.  This  destructor  may  be  easily  re- 
moved from  place  to  place  by  horses  or  by  traction  engine,  and 
will  readily  burn  six  tons  or  more  of  refuse  every  24  hours. 

There  are  two  sizes  manufactured,  with  capacity  of  500  and 
1000  Ib.  per  hour,  respectively,  being  the  usual  mixed,  unsorted 
waste  collections. 

There  is  no  record  of  the  use  of  these  portable  furnaces  con- 
tinuously in  municipal  disposal  work.  Their  chief  purpose  is  the 
destruction  of  large  amounts  of  light  refuse  produced  by  the 
temporary  presence  of  a  considerable  number  of  persons,  where 
the  cost  of  the  regular  service  would  be  too  great.  In  times  of 
epidemic,  when  the  occasion  might  arise  for  the  prompt  and  ef- 
fectual destruction  of  dangerous  matters,  a  powerful  portable  fur- 


202  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

nace  would  be  of  great  help  to  the  sanitary  authorities.  Since 
there  is  a  boiler,  raised  to  any  desired  pressure,  there  would  al- 
ways be  a  current  of  steam  at  high  temperature  to  assist  in  the 
disinfection  work,  so  necessary  in  times  of  emergency. 

PORTABLE  FURNACE  STILL  EXPERIMENTAL. 
There  is  undoubtedly  a  place  for  a  portable  furnace,  and  with- 
in its  powers  it  will  be  a  useful  adjunct  to  the  other  methods  of 
municipal  waste  disposal.  But  it  does  not  seem  to  have  passed 
the  first  experimental  stages  of  construction.  Those  that  have 
been  tried  here  have  developed  inefficiency  in  some  essntial  point, 
or  prhaps  too  much  has  been  expected  of  thm  and  too  great  claims 
made  for  their  work.  To  burn  large  quantities  of  wet  garbage  in 
a  traveling  furnace  with  a  chimney  necessarily  low,  and  to  dis- 
charge the  smoke  and  gases  incompletely  destroyed  into  the  air 
on  a  crowded  street  would  manifestly  be  an  unwise  proceeding. 
Even  the  best  and  most  powerful  forms  of  furnaces  are  not 
always  at  their  highest  efficiency,  and  with  the  varying,  uncertain 
amount  and  character  of  usual  city  waste,  the  results  of  portable 
furnace  work  would  be  exceedingly  doubtful. 

THE  CALORIFIC  VALUE  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

In  determining  the  most  suitable  forms  of  cremating  furnaces 
for  the  disposal  of  waste  by  fire  it  becomes  desirable  to  ascertain 
the  calorific  value  of  the  waste  in  mixed  and  separated  collec- 
tions of  the  usual  and  average  composition  in  American  towns. 

It  is  only  within  the  past  two  years  that  reports  upon  this 
point  have  been  available,  and  in  only  one  town  have  they  been 
prepared  with  the  aid  of  scientific  laboratory  tests.  The  theo- 
retical values  obtained  through  the  medium  of  a  calorimeter  have 
been  checked  by  practical  trials  made  with  various  classes  of 
municipal  waste,  extended  over  the  period  of  a  year.  The 
average  of  each  experiment  may  be  accepted  as  representing 
approximately  the  calorific  value  of  waste  in  American  towns 
where  conditions  are  similar,  making,  of  course,  whatever  allow- 
ance is  necessary  for  exceptional  proportions  of  any  waste 
constituent. 

The  following  table  has  been  made  by  the  author  from  the 
reports  of  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston  upon  the  municipal  wastes  of 
West  New  Brighton,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y. : 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


203 


sqj  'asnpj  'aScqaeS  'saqsc 

1  Jlr- v  «  l>.>>v.mt,>-.  1(369  UO) 
»uo  ill  jnp-A  juo.i  4  pjAint'.i 


*S 


0000 
i»50 
-  M 


8.-^   2 

IW  8 


M 


<    W 


,oS 

H  C6 


^ 

^ 

2« 


as 

n  u 
0 


ii 


2O4  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


Assuming  these  figures  as  correctly  representing  the  accurate 
and  theoretical  values,  in  the  table  following  they  are  extended 
to  cover  the  various  collections  of  mixed  waste,  and  expressed 
in  equivalent  coal  values. 

In  all  these  tables  the  author  has  used  the  word  "refuse"  to 
mean  the  dry  combustible  light  waste,  and  employed  the  word 
"rubbish"  to  mean  the  residuum  left  of  incombustibles,  after 
sorting  out  the  marketable  and  combustible  portions.  Rubbish 
properly  includes  the  glass,  metals,  tins,  crockery,  and  generally 
all  unburnable  matter. 

TABLE     XLIV.— THEORETICAL     CALORIFIC     VALUES     OF     AMERICAN 
CITY    WASTE,    IN    EQUIVALENT    COAL. 


Combined  waste :  -i  i 

I  i 

i  , 

Separated  waste: 


f  i  ton  ashes,  garbage,  refuse  and  rubbish  480  Ibs.  coal 

garbage,  refuse  and  rubbish 502  ' 

ashes,  refuse  and  rubbish 532  ' 

i     "    ashes 487  ' 

i     '    garbage , 363  ' 

i     '    refuse 1,298  ' 

i     "    rubbish. . 


It  must  be  noted  that  these  equivalent  coal  values  are  theo- 
retical results  only — since  the  determinations  are  based  upon 
laboratory  tests,  and  the  ratios  calculated  from  these. 

These  theoretical  results  are  to  be  considered  as  indicating  the 
amount  of  heat  units,  but  do  not  show  the  actual  product  of 
power  developed  by  the  burning  waste. 

TABLE    XLV.— CALORIFIC    VALUE    PER    POUND    OF   WASTE    FOR    DIF- 
FERENT   PERIODS. 


Calorific 

Power  of 

Moisture 

Ash. 

Combus- 

PERIOD 

Combus- 

Per 

Per 

tible 

Remarks 

tible, 

Cent. 

Cent. 

Per  Cent. 

B.  T.  U. 

Spring  

4,747 

14.03 

50.06 

35-9i 

Computed        results 

based   on   average 

Summer.  .  . 

3,477 

28.86 

39-74 

31  .40 

figures    for    corre- 

sponding   periods, 

Autumn,  .  . 

3,833 

27  .74 

39-74 

32-52 

except    that  aver- 
^      age  calorific  values 

Winter.    .  . 

4.358 

13.11 

52.72 

34-17 

for   summer   com- 

ponents were  used 

Year  

4,274 

19-74 

46.03 

34-23 

in  arriving  at  Sep- 

tember  results. 

September 

3,265 

35.83 

33  -69 

30.48 

DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          205 

The  actual  measurements  of  heat  values  of  unseparated  city 
waste,  according  to  the  observations  and  deductions  of  several 
experts,  are  shown  in  the  table  XLV : 

Mr.  Hering  gives  the  following  estimate  of  calorific  values  of 
the  waste  of  Milwaukee  as  collected: 

Garbage  (as  collected) 1.500  B.  T.  U.  per  pound 

Rubbish  and  ashes  mixed S,ooo 

Manure 2 ,000 

These  computations  vary  according  to  the  different  constituents 
of  waste,  and  its  physical  conditions  as  containing  more  or  less 
water.  They  agree  in  one  point  only,  that  the  actual  heat  units 
per  pound  of  waste  is  sufficient  to  continue  combustion,  and  if 
taken  together  in  mixed  collections  require  no  additional  fuel  for 
combustion.  But  the  conditions  of  combustion  are  those  of 
forced  draft  or  of  a  chimney  draft  of  equivalent  power. 

THE  CALORIFIC  VALUE  OF  ASHES. 

In  examining  these  calculations  there  are  some  unexpected 
and  surprising  results.  For  instance,  the  fuel  value  contained 
in  ashes  seems  to  be  far  greater  than  has  been  supposed.  House- 
hold ashes  are  known  to  have  from  25  to  35  per  cent,  of  unburned 
coal  mixed  with' cinder  and  slate,  and  also  contains  nearly  40  per 
cent,  of  finely  burned  ash.  This  ash  has  not  been  held  to  pos- 
sess any  heat  value,  and  under  the  usual  furnace  conditions  with 
natural  draft  does  not  develop  power.  But  when  treated  by 
itself  it  contains  a  considerable  proportion  of  combustibles.  This 
is  illustrated  by  laboratory  tests  made  in  July  last,  with  samples 
of  steam-boiler  ashes  from  the  plant  of  one  of  the  largest  manu- 
facturing works  in  this  country,  where  the  daily  output  of  ash  is 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  tons.  All  of  the  boilers  are  fired  by 
mechanical  stokers  of  various  patterns.  All  use  the  same  semi- 
bituminous  coal. 

TABLE   XLVI.— LABORATORY  ANALYSIS  OF  STEAM   ASHES. 

Moisture o.  54  per  cent. 

Ash 51.42     "        " 

Total  combustible 48.04    "        " 

Calorific  power 7,737  B-  T.  U. 

Following  the  same  line  of  calculations  as  in  previous  tables, 
it  would  appear  that  one  ton  of  these  ashes  has  a  theoretical 
equivalent  coal  value  of  1,100  pounds.  Assuming  the  combusti- 


206  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


O 

DC 
Q. 

Ill 

I 

0 

Z  (0 

<g 

CO  J 


111 

h  til 

^< 

Z  Ul 


X  Ul 


mo 


|8§ 

65          65 

E 

£<« 

0                 0 

||l 

«      ^"^co 

o              <o 

1 

I 

1* 

lslp" 

vO                    0 

w 

w 

0 

W 

H 

9 

2       -o? 

III 

in                   0 

Z 

^,  <^  rt 

1 

2 

i 

"  ^         C  P 

^'o> 

s          Z 

J 

s 

Tj     Q             Q  C/2 

*        r;   rt 

O                    u*> 

<J 

s 

^  PQ      JO  ro 

tlO         .Sn     S  "*"* 

w              \o 

Bi 

o 

!&                "    N 

£  .2  -t*  ^  "H 

^1 

0 

o 

J 

c2    w^^ 

s 

g 
o 
H 

2  J* 

fS« 

65           65 

S 

§ 

3 

|?-o? 

wi 

III 

i>                  0 

J?                  >0 

Zj 

M      ^                 O  ^ 

aT    ^  5  tn 

5        % 

Ofe 

I'SII^ 

i-T             »o 

•iai? 

|v| 

65           65 

00                   0 

tw 

H 

ifJil 

i^ 

J?                  i 

tl 

M 

^^  w  rtco 

-    -clS 

00                     N 

< 

*2 

o 

t/3      fH  *Q      (V) 

W)     »5-2  £  ^ 

^                   JL 

O 

j 

^£;i^ 

rt-S'C  «^ 

to              >n 

p 

u 

S 

rt    w^_ 

o 

o 

a 
a 

H 
« 

3 
§ 

o 

sl 

i|S 

'g   60  4) 

jil 

65           65 

r^                 O 
>o                 O 

* 

fe^     H 

Hji 

00                   •* 

ANTHRACITE  COAL 

DEPARTMENT  OF 
WATER  SUPPLY, 
GAS  AND 
ELECTRICITY 
NEW  YORK  CITY 

From 
Pennsylvania 
(56  Samples) 

|!| 

65           65 

^                   0 

|4|| 

o              o^ 

'Co'     'C*0    • 

^  °  •    ^     • 

o"o    •      3       • 

o       !      u*d    • 

w 

5|  :   ^§  : 

1 

"o  S.  :   "S  8,  j 

i||  i|] 

o        o 

DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          207 

bles  according  to  another  determination  at  5,000  B.  T.  U.,  the 
coal  equivalent  would  be  768  pounds.  These  results  seem  to  be 
unexplainable  except  upon  the  supposition  that  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  fine  coaldust  falls  through  the  grates  and  is  removed 
with  the  ash,  clinker,  and  cinders. 

The  table  (XLVII)  by  Mr.  Welton  gives  the  range  of  the  theo- 
retical values  of  the  three  classes  of  waste;  at  New  Brighton,  as 
actually  collected,  and  on  the  basis  of  a  dry  sample.  The  cam- 
parison  made  with  the  kinds  of  coal  shows  the  approximate 
calorific  value  of  the  waste. 

With  respect  to  the  foregoing  table  Mr.  Welton  says : 

To  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  the  calorific  values  of  the  staple 
fuels,  such  as  anthracite  and  bituminous  coals,  it  may  appear  that  no  great 
confidence  should  be  placed  in  the  results  of  these  tests  on  material  which 
would  naturally  be  expected  to  vary  widely  in  character.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  experiments  have  shown  a  uniformity  of  character  in  the  material 
which  is  all  the  more  remarkable  in  that  it  was  not  anticipated.  Indeed, 
now,  when  all  the  data  are  at  hand,  the  conclusion  might  easily  be  drawn 
that  in  the  instances  where  the  largest  variations  in  calorific  values  per 
pound  of  combustible  occur,  this  variation  is  more  likely  to  be  due  to  the 
difficulty  of  obtaining  representative  samples  from  the  collections  than 
from  actual  differences  in  character. 

Moreover,  few  who  have  had  no  occasion  to  study  the  mater  of  analyses 
and  calorific  tests  of  coal  are  aware  of  the  variation  in  fuel  value  of  its 
combustible  portion  or  what  is  known  as  "pure  coal." 

THE  CALORIFIC  VALUES  OF  OTHER  WASTE. 

The  subject  of  the  disposal  of  many  forms  of  waste  matter 
other  than  municipal  refuse  is  attracting  attention  all  over  the 
world.  Abroad,  the  large  industrial  corporations  which  have 
trade  waste  or  a  large  output  of  steam-boiler  ashes  are  taking  up 
the  question  of  their  economical  disposal.  At  several  places  in 
England,  where  the  colliery  waste  will  frequently  spontaneously 
ignite,  causing  much  trouble,  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  these 
fuels  of  low  calorific  value  and  a  high  percentage  of  incom- 
bustibles  can  be  profitably  consumed.  Similarly  in  shipyards, 
railway  shops,  and  large  manufacturing  concerns  where  there  are 
large  quantities  of  wood  chips,  shavings,  sawdust,  paper,  cinders, 
and  ordinary  works  refuse,  the  saving  in  fuel  when  burned  in  a 
specially  designed  plant  has  warranted  the  outlay  for  equipment 


208  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


and  overcome  the  difficulty  of  disposing  of  these  waste  materials. 
The  following  table  gives  the  approximate  calometric  values  of 
some  waste  matters  that  can  be  advantageously  consumed : 

TABLE    XLVIII.— CALORIFIC    VALUES    OF    WASTE    MATERIALS. 


CLASS  OF  MATERIAL 

Lbs.  Water  per 
Lb.  Fuel  From 
and  at  212°  Fah. 

COLLIERY  REFUSE 

Lbs.  Water  per 
Lb.  Fuel  From 
and  at  2  12°  Fah. 

Cotton  waste  
Sugar  refuse  
Newspaper  

4-i 
2-35 
6.85 

Fine  washings  .  .  .  . 
Pond  settlings  .... 
Shale  pickings  .... 

10.20  tO       5-01 

10.3  to  12.04 
4.45;  to    9.62 

Tissue  paper 

6     2 

Fine  coke  dust.  .  . 

0.4 

Brown  paper  
Wood  chips,  wet  
dry  

5-6        . 

3-5 

8.2 

A       8 

Screen  pickings.  .  . 
Tank  settlings  .... 
Coke  and  coal  dust 

8.05  to  13. 
5-75 

10.2 

Shoddy  refuse 

4  .  o 

r    2 

Peat  dry 

10  62 

Cider  refuse,  wet  .... 
dry.  .  .  . 
Spent  tan  bark,  dry  .  . 
wet  . 

I  .9 

8-4 
5-46 

T>  -84 

wet  
Straw,  dry  
wet  
Sawdust  

7-65 
6-5 

5-6 

C.  I 

The  value  of  some  forms  of  industrial  waste  is  shown  in  the 
following  report  of  a  test  made  in  January,  1908 : 

XLIX.— RESULTS   OF   TESTS   CARRIED   OUT    BY    MESSRS.    HARLAND  & 
WOLFF,   BELFAST,   IRELAND,  ON  A  3-GRATE   (75  SQ.   FT.)    MEL- 
DRUM  SIMPLEX  DESTRUCTOR  INSTALLED  FOR  BURNING 
THE   REFUSE   COLLECTED  IN   THEIR  SHIPBUILDING 
YARDS  AND  SHOPS,  JANUARY  21,  1908. 

Hrs.     Mins. 

(1)  TOTAL  DURATION  OF  TEST 10          20 

Less  for  meals i  40  Hrs.      Mins. 

Net  duration  of  test -  8  40 

(2)  FUEL  CONSUMED:  Tons  Cwt.  Qrs. 

General  rubbish 14      18       o 

Sawdust,  shavings  and  lighter 

stuff. .  9       I2       ° 


Gross 

24      i 

[O          O 

Less  iron,  wood 

,  etc.,  sorted  out 

i 

0          0 

Tons 

Cwt. 

Qrs. 

FUEL  BURNT  PER 

HOUR.  . 

Tons 

2T, 

Cwt. 

IO 

Tons 

=2  .71 

(3) 

Hrs.    Mins. 
8  40 

(4)  TOTAL  WATER  EVAPORATED  DURING  TEST  (weighed) 102,933  Ibs. 

(5)  WATER  EVAPORATED  PER  HOUR.  .     102,933  Ibs.  =11,890  Ibs. 


Hrs. 
8 


Mins. 
40 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS. 


209 


(6)  WATER  EVAPORATED  PER  LB.  OF  FUEL  (actual) r-955  Ibs. 

(7)  TEMPERATURES: 

Gases  leaving  boiler 540°  F. 

Temperature  of  steam  leaving  superheater 650°  F 

Temperatuie  of  steam  at  laige  separator 410°  F. 

Temperature  of  steam  at  No.  2  Engine 400°  F. 

NOTE. — Temperature  of  saturated  steam  at  our  working  boiler  pressure 
of  200  Ibs.  per  square  inch=388°  F. 

(i)   The  normal  evaporation  of  the  Scotch  Marine  boilers  in  our  Generat- 
ing Station  is  10,300  Ibs.  of  saturated  steam  per  hour. 

(Signed)   HARLAND  &  WOLFF,  Limited. 

E.  W. 

As  illustrating  the  power  to  be  had  from  refuse  coal  waste, 
there  is  appended  the  details  of  a  trial  made  at  the  North  Naviga- 
tion Collieries,  South  Wales,  on  two  Meldrum  Simplex  Colliery 
Destructor  Furnaces,  coupled  to  two  Lancashire  boilers,  30  feet 
long  by  8  feet  6  inches  diameter,  consuming  coke  oven  breeze 
and  pond  settlings,  with  evaporation  from  cold  feed  water. 


DURATION  OF  TEST 

8  a.m.  to  9  a.m. 

12  noon  to  4:30  p.m. 

Fuel  used  

Water  evaporated  per  hour 
Total  water  evaporated  
Temperature  feed  water  .  .  . 
atmosphere.  . 
Steam  pressure 

C.  breeze  and  P.  settlings. 
1,872  gals  

C.     breeze     and     P. 
settlings. 
1,620  gals. 
7,400  gals. 
40°  Fahr. 
45°  Fahr. 
125  Ibs. 
Two  furnaces  cleaned 
during  test. 

1,872  gals  

40°  Fahr  

4S°  Fahr 

125  Ibs 

Fire 

Clean  at  start  

The  utilization  of  trade  waste  in  developing  steam  power  in 
private  business  establishments  is  rapidly  coming  to  the  front  in 
this  country.  Not  only  does  the  incineration  produce  power,  but 
it  also  provides  a  practical  way  of  getting  rid  of  forms  of  worth- 
less matter  which  are  frequently  troublesome  to  deal  with  and 
costly  to  convey  away  from  the  works.  Every  manufacturing 
company  has  to  deal  with  this  problem  in  a  greater  or  lesser 
degree,  and  the  examples  of  this  method  of  disposal  reported 
from  foreign  factories  are  being  followed  by  American  manu- 


cio  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

facturers.  The  installation  of  a  Meldrum  destructor  at  the  great 
works  of  the  General  Electric  Company,  at  Schenectady,  N.  Y., 
will  turn  all  the  waste  matter  of  the  plant  into  steam  to  be  utilized 
in  the  premises.  The  same  means  is  to  be  employed  in  a  large 
department  store  in  New  York  City,  and  a  hotel  in  New  York  is 
about  to  install  two  separate  destructors,  each  with  steam  boilers 
for  obtaining  power  from  the  combustion  of  the  refuse  of  the 
building. 

In  each  one  of  these  instances  a  special  form  of  powerful 
destructor  furnace,  with  forced  draft  and  air  regenerating  ap- 
paratus, is  employed.  The  usual  form  of  American  crematory 
cannot  deal  with  such  problems,  since  up  to  the  present  time  only 
one  or  two  constructions  have  been  able  to  produce  boiler  power 
more  than  barely  sufficient  for  the  needs  of  the  furnace  itself. 

SURVEY  OF  AMERICAN  CREMATING  METHODS. 

With  this  chapter  the  history  of  American  crematory  furnaces 
down  to  October,  1908,  is  brought  to  a  conclusion.  Those  that 
have  been  built  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  in  1907-8, 
with  few  exceptions,  are  either  of  an  improved  American  type 
under  American  patents,  or  of  the  British  type,  which  has  now 
acquired  a  foothold  in  this  country  in  four  or  five  installations. 
These  are  separated  and  taken  up  later  as  a  distinct  advance  from 
the  cremators  and  incinerators  of  the  preceding  descriptions. 

Did  space  permit,  there  might  be  added  an  account  of  many 
attempts  made  in  the  past  to  construct  and  operate  garbage 
cremating  disposal  works,  some  of  which  were  costly  and  in- 
genious experiments  that  barely  failed  of  success.  Others  that 
simply  implied  stupidity  and  ignorance  in  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  art,  and.  still  others  that  were  built  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  making  a  show  to  secure  a  contract. 

Undoubtedly  there  will  be  still  brought  forward  many  forms 
of  furnaces  for  this  work  that  are  destined  to  fail,  and  some  that 
may  achieve  a  success  that  will  be  permanent.  The  field  is  a 
wide  one,  the  opportunities  many,  the  necessity  undeniable  and 
the  rewards  great  in  promise. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  with  the  experience  of  past 
years  behind  them,  with  the  assistance  of  expert  engineers  who 
are  now  turning  attention  to  this  neglected  branch  of  municipal 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          211 

service,  and  with  a  better  knowledge  of  what  the  several  com- 
munities really  need,  the  municipalities  are  not  disposed  to 
accept  offers  of  furnace  builders  unless  there  be  positive  and 
reliable  evidence  of  the  capacity,  durability,  efficiency  and  sanitary 
operation  of  the  forms  of  furnaces  offered. 

This  evidence  should  not  consist  of  the  profuse  and  glittering 
statements  of  prospective  builders,  even  though  they  be  sup- 
ported by  flowery  newspaper  accounts  of  a  trial  made  at  the 
instance  of  and  in  the  interests  of  the  builder,  nor  the  telegrams 
of  a  far  distant  city  official  whose  knowledge  comes  solely  from 
an  employee  whose  place  depends  upon  putting  the  most  favorable 
aspect  upon  what  is  really  a  lamentable  failure,  or  at  best  only  a 
partial  success. 

Nothing  but  an  official  record  of  costs  and  results  over  a  period 
of  at  least  one  year  should  be  accepted,  and  this  should  be  verified 
by  the  personal  inspection  and  unbiased  report  of  a  competent 
engineer  of  their  own  city,  or  from  one  whose  knowledge  of  this 
branch  of  work  includes  experience  and  study  of  all  the  various 
forms  universally  used. 

Only  by  a  thorough,  exhaustive  examination  of  all  the  points 
involved  can  the  town  authorities  be  certain  that  they  are  securing 
the  best  and  the  most  suitable  apparatus  for  the  particular  work 
they  want  done. 

DIFFERENCES  IN  FORMS  OF  FURNACE  CONSTRUCTION. 

When  considering  and  comparing  the  various  forms  of  Ameri- 
can garbage  cremating  furnaces,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  may  be 
divided  broadly  into  two  general  classes  or  groups,  the  members 
of  each  group  having  many  points  in  common,  similar  methods 
in  operation,  and  all  arrive  at  practically  the  same  results  in  their 
general  work.  In  each  class  there  are  some  minor  subdivisions, 
but  none  that  depart  widely  from  the  distinguishing  type. 

The  first  class  or  group  have  the  following  distinctive  points: 

1.  They  are  the  crematories  and  incinerators  that  burn  only  garbage 
and  refuse  upon  long  horizontal  garbage  grate  bars,  either  in  single  or 
double  arrangement,  and  charge  the  waste  through  circular  or  rectangular 
openings  in  the  roof. 

2.  They  deposit  the  garbage  upon  the  largest  area  of  surface  that  the 
plan  of  the  furnace  will  permit,  piling  up  the  largest  quantity  possible  to 
charge  without  stopping  the  passage  of  the  flames.     In  one  form  of  fur- 


212  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

nace  these  bars  are  of  hollow  iron  inclined  from  the  middle  line  to  the 
sides  instead  of  being  horizontal. 

3.  The  heat  is  not  utilized  for  operating  a  steam  boiler,  nor  does  the 
construction  permit  the  use  of  a  boiler  with  any  certainty  of  obtaining 
power. 

4.  They  consume  the  waste  by  heat  applied  from  fuel  boxes  at  one  end, 
one  side,  or  below  the  grates,  and  pass. the  heat  over  and  under  the  masses 
of  garbage,  since  it  is  practically  impossible  to  force  the  passage  of  flame 
or  heat  through  thick  masses  of  wet  household  garbage  by  chimney  draft. 

5.  For  the  purpose  of  stoking  or  stirring  the  garbage  there  must  be  a 
series  of  doors  on  the  line  of  the  grates,  and  below  a  second  series  for 
removing  ashes.  These  doors  admit  large  volumes  of  cold  air,  which  must 
be  heated  to  the  temperature  of  the  furnace  interior  before  combustion  can 
continue. 

6.  This  operation  of  stoking  causes  moisture  and  unburned  garbage  to 
pass  through  the  grates  into  the  lower  compartment,  where  it  is  slowly 
dried  out  until  in  a  condition  to  burn.  The  evaporation  from  this  moisture 
is  not  completed  or  destroyed  until  the  secondary  fire  is  brought  to  bear, 
and  then  only  when  this  fire  is  at  a  temperature  of  1,500°  or  above. 

7.  There  is  an  average  low  temperature  in  all  parts  of  the  furnace 
except  immediately  adjoining  or  above  the   fuel  box.     The  presence  of 
moisture  in  masses  of  household  waste  over  which  the  flames  and  heat 
pass  to  the  chimney,  the  continual  admission  of  volumes  of  cold  air  reduce 
the  temperatures  until  the  smoke  and  gases  are  not  destroyed.     In  one 
experiment  where  an  electrical  pyrometer  recorded  the  temperature  the 
heat  immediately  behind  the  fuel  box  was  1,500  degrees,  but  decreased  for 
each  four  feet  of  the  garbage  grate  300  degrees,  finally  leaving  the  burning 
chamber  at  600  degrees  in  the  shape  of  smoke  and  watery  vapors  taken  up 
but  not  consumed.     In  one  instance  the  sides  and  top  of  the  furnace  are 
double  jacketed  steel  plates,  with  which  are  connected  all  the  water  grate 
bars  for  sustaining  the  garbage.     This  to  some  extent  maintains  the  con- 
struction, but  lowers  the  temperature,  as  the  heat  is  absorbed  by  the  sur- 
rounding water  surfaces. 

8.  There   is   always   an   imperative   need   for   a   secondary  or   smoke- 
consuming  fire  in  the  furnace  itself  or  in  immediate  conjunction  to  reheat 
and  reburn  the  incomplete  combustion. 

9.  And  it  follows  that  fuel  must  be  used  in  greater  or  lesser  amounts  to 
keep  up  the  initial  heat  of  the  furnace  fire  and  maintain  the  smoke  and 
gas-consuming  temperatures  of  the  secondary  fire. 

Conditions  Necessary  to  Success. — When  crematories  are  re- 
quired to  burn  garbage  and  refuse  (excluding  ashes)  in  the  usual 
proportions  as  collected  in  American  towns,  and  when  these 
wastes  are  separately  collected  and  brought  to  the  crematory  to 
be  destroyed  by  natural  draft,  the  work  of  combustion  is  not 
performed  in  the  most  efficient  way. 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          213 

The  conditions  of  success  of  burning  wet  fuels,  as  stated  by 
Prof.  R.  H.  Thurston,  are  "the  surrounding  of  the  mass  so  com- 
pletely with  heated  surfaces  and  with  burning  fuel  that  it  may  be 
rapidly  dried,  and  then  so  arranging  the  apparatus  that  the  rapid- 
ity of  combustion  be  precisely  equal  to  and  never  exceed  the 
rapidity  of  desiccation."  How  far  these  conditions  are  met  in 
the  construction  and  arrangement  of  cremators  and  incinerators 
can  be  easily  seen  by  inspection  of  the  previous  plans  and 
descriptions. 

When  garbage  and  refuse,  separately  collected,  are  brought  to 
an  incinerator,  or  crematory,  and  charged  separately  into  the 
furnace,  what  then  takes  place  is  further  described  by  Prof. 
Thurston:  "When  this  rapidity  of  combustion  is  exceeded  the 
dry  portion  is  consumed  completely,  leaving  the  uncovered  mass 
of  wet  fuel,  which  refuses  to  burn."  This  is  precisely  what 
happens  when  large  volumes  of  dry  rubbish  are  burned  with  an 
excessive  amount  of  cold  air,  and  the  heat  is  rapidly  carried  to 
the  chimney,  leaving  the  wet  mass  of  garbage  on  the  grates.  Coal 
or  other  fuel  must  then  be  added  to  continue  the  combustion. 

These  imperfect  conditions  in  crematories  are  inseparable  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  construction.  Natural  chimney  draft, 
operating  with  equal  force  in  all  parts  of  the  interior  and  drawing 
cold  air  in  through  the  many  doors  and  other  openings,  does 
not  exert  the  same  power  for  combustion  of  material  upon  a  grate 
as  does  a  forced  draft  powerfully  applied  under  the  limited  area 
of  the  burning  fire  surface.  In  the  one  case  the  fire  is  at  one  end 
of  a  long  series  of  grates  piled  with  wet  material,  over  which  the 
heat  is  drawn  by  chimney  draft.  In  the  other  case  the  heat  is 
increased  by  forced  draft  below  each  grate  to  such  an  extent  that 
the  waste  is  consumed  without  other  fuel.  The  calorific  elements 
of  the  waste  are  utilized,  combustion  is  accomplished  in  shorter 
time  and  at  far  higher  temperature  than  in  the  first  example. 

The  second  group  of  crematories  used  in  American  disposal 
work  is  composed  of  those  whose  construction  follows  the  cell 
type  and  are  largely  imitations  of  the  British  cell  destructors  of 
an  early  date. 

They  are  built  with  partitions  or  divisions  between  the  fuel 
grates,  and  with  sloping  drying  hearths  to  receive  the  initial 


214  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

charges  of  waste.  They  proceed  by  stoking  down  the  waste  when 
partially  dried  to  the  first  division  of  the  fire  bars,  and  complete 
the  combustion  on  the  second  or  lower  set  of  bars,  withdrawing 
the  ashes  through  the  front  clinkering  doors.  Additional  fuel 
is  supplied  to  the  second  set  of  fire  bars  when  needed.  The 
smoke  and  gases  from  the  furnace  pass  through  side  flues  to  one 
main  flue  and  thence  to  the  chimney.  No  fume  cremator  or 
secondary  fire-box  is  employed. 

The  heat  in  this  large  main  flue  is  not  sufficient  to  raise  steam 
in  a  boiler,  and  no  forced  draft  can  be  obtained  from  the  com- 
bustion of  the  waste.  The  chimneys  are  necessarily  of  extreme 
height,  since  the  unconsumed  smoke  and  gases  must  be  dis- 
charged at  a  high  altitude  to  avoid  cause  for  complaints  of 
nuisance. 

The  rate  of  combustion  per  square  foot  of  grate  surface  is  low, 
and  a  long  time  is  required  to  consume  a  charge  by  natural  draft. 
This  compels  a  greater  number  of  cells,  with  a  corresponding 
increase  in  the  cost  of  the  plant  in  order  to  destroy  a  given 
quantity  per  day. 

CREMATORS  AND  DESTRUCTORS  COMPARED. 

The  differences  pointed  out  between  the  cremators  and  de- 
structors, and  the  comparison  of  the  results  of  the  work  of  each, 
are  obviously  in  favor  of  the  destructor  system  of  disposal. 

This  statement  is  made,  not  with  the  purpose  of  unfair 
criticism  or  harshly  condemning  the  work  of  the  past  years  of 
American  furnace  builders.  The  author  has  been  identified  with 
a  large  number  of  these  crematory  installations  in  many  varied 
forms,  and  knows  at  what  cost  of  money,  time  and  earnest  effort 
they  have  been  built  and  operated.  But  taking  the  record  of  the 
years  past  and  comparing  the  results  accomplished  with  the  ex- 
pected and  promised  returns,  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a 
failure  to  achieve  anything  more  than  a  partial  success.  The 
future  of  this  work  as  at  present  carried  on  does  not  offer  an 
encouraging  outlook,  and  it  seems  absolutely  necessary  that  a 
change  be  made,  and  some  better  form  of  apparatus  be  brought 
into  service.  The  experience  of  other  countries  should  be  brought 
to  our  aid,  now  that  we  know  the  conditions  of  the  American 
communities  are  almost  identical  with  those  existing  abroad, 


DISPOSAL  BY  CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS.          215 

where  successful  methods  of  destroyal  of  municipal  refuse  by 
fire  are  in  use. 

In  the  past  two  years  there  have  been  four  destructors  installed 
that  have  met  the  guarantees  made  for  their  performance,  and 
proved  their  ability  to  deal  with  the  municipal  waste  of  the 
country  precisely  as  is  done  by  other  destructors  in  more  than 
three  hundred  installations  in  other  parts  of  the  world. 

This  has  led  to  the  thorough  examination  of  the  subject  by 
engineers  sent  from  this  side,  and  in  four  cases  these  destructor 
methods  have  been  adopted  by  American  and  Canadian  cities. 
Other  citfes  are  engaging  competent  engineers  to  examine  and 
report  upon  their  own  requirements  with  the  intention  of  adopt- 
ing that  method  which  may  be  most  suitable  for  them. 

All  this  means  progress;  it  means  the  application  of  the  best 
engineering  talent  obtainable  and  the  permanent  establishment 
of  durable  and  successful  methods ;  and  let  us  hope,  it  also  means 
the  end  of  the  crooked  and  doubtful  ways  of  obtaining  conces- 
sions and  contracts  that  react  alike  upon  the  builders  and  the 
towns  and  are  a  reproach  and  a  menace  to  all  who  are  connected 
with  this  work. 


PART  III. 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR 

SYSTEMS. 

CHAPTER    X. 

HIGH  TEMPERATURE  REFUSE  DESTRUCTORS. 

Mr.  W.  Francis  Goodrich,  the  well-known  English  writer  on 
destructors  and  their  work,  gives  the  following  three  classes  into 
which  refuse  destructors  may  be  divided : 

First,  the  original  type  of  low  temperature  and  slow  combustion  cells, 
with  which  little,  if  any,  use  was  made  of  the  escaping  gases  for  power 
production. 

Second,  destructors  provided  with  artificial  draft,  and,  therefore,  more 
efficient  as  destructors,  by  reason  of  the  higher  temperature  obtained,  and 
greater  destroying  capacity,  but  which  only  provide  power  for  work  pur- 
poses or  clinker  utilization,  and 

Third,  destructors  of  modern  types  providing  the  maximum  amount  of 
power  available  from  the  refuse,  and  available  for  the  generation  of 
electricity,  for  pumping  sewage,  for  gas  works  or  other  municipal  purposes 
for  which  power  is  required. 

Mr.  Goodrich  further  says : 

With  the  early  type  of  destructor  of  the  low  temperature,  slow  com- 
bustion type,  boilers  were  but  rarely  installed,  and  no  attempt  whatever 
was  made  to  develop  power.  The  low  temperature  gases  were  useless  for 
steam  raising  purposes,  very  frequently  not  being  sufficiently  high  in  tem- 
perature to  avoid  nuisance. 

The  residuum  or  clinker  was  soft  and  objectionable,  having  no  com- 
mercial value,  it  being  impossible  to  produce  a  good,  serviceable  vitreous 
clinker  unless  a  high  temperature  be  reached  and  maintained  in  the  cell. 

The  above  description  of  results  obtained  by  the  early  forms 
cf  the  British  destructor  may  be  applied  to  the  present  forms  of 
crematories  and  incinerators  used  in  this  country,  without  the 
change  of  a  single  word.  That  this  description  was  true  of  the 
first  installations  in  England  is  agreed  to  by  all  writers  who  have 
published  accounts  of  the  work  of  destructors  abroad.  That  it 
is  true  of  the  results  obtained  by  prevailing  methods  and  apparatus 
in  this  country  will  be  equally  obvious  to  anyone  who  will  note 
the  beginning,  progress  and  present  state  of  disposal  of  municipal 
waste  by  fire. 

216 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  217 

We  are  practically  at  the  point  in  this  country  that  they  were 
in  England  when  the  ufume  cremator,"  or  secondary  fire,  was 
established  as  a  necessary  accessory  to  the  furnace. 

If,  after  experience  of  more  than  twenty  years  and  the  con- 
struction of  nearly  two  hundred  different  furnaces  by  more  than 
fifty  different  builders,  we  have  not  succeeded  in  evolving  a 
satisfactory  and  efficient  means  of  consuming  wet  fuels,  despite 
the  repeated  attemps  made  to  do  so  by  means  of  inadequate 
apparatus,  it  would  ssem  that  it  is  high  time  for  a  change  in 
methods  in  one  direction  or  another.  Either  let  us  give  up  the 
question  as  one  impossible  to  deal  with,  bring  forward  some  new 
furnace  of  more  powerful  design  than  its  predecessors,  or  adopt 
the  methods  and  apparatus  which  have  been  proved  to  be  satis- 
factory in  nearly  parallel  conditions. 

The  foregoing  characterizes  our  present  position  in  waste  dis- 
posal work.  A  point  has  been  reached  where  to  go  back  means 
defeat,  and  to  go  on  with  the  appliances  of  to-day  means  simply 
a  continuation  of  past  results.  The  alternative  is  to  bring  the  ex- 
periences of  other  nations  to  the  aid  of  American  communities 
and  achieve  an  advance  that  will  be  radical  and  permanent. 

American  Conditions. — When  considering  the  situation  here  as 
compared  with  that  of  English  towns  we  must  take  into  account 
the  varying  nature  and  proportions  of  the  waste  with  which  we 
have  to  deal,  and  we  must  also  accept  the  conditions  imposed  by 
the  communities  which  ask  help  in  the  matter. 

The  English  method  of  procedure  is  to  collect  all  kinds  of  mu- 
nicipal waste  (except  night-soil)  in  one  receptacle  with  no  separa- 
tion, and  to  burn  this  mixed  mass  at  one  operation,  utilizing  the 
power  when  practicable,  or  allowing  it  to  go  to  waste,  when 
necessary.  There  is  no  attempt  to  separate  the  wastes,  nor  in  any 
place,  except  in  a  limited  way  in  some  of  the  largest  cities  is  any 
effort  made  to  recover  anything  for  market.  Probably  this  is 
because  the  population  is  more  economical  in  habit  and  less  waste- 
ful than  that  of  the  American  communities. 

But  here  the  conditions  are  somewhat  different.  Unless  there 
is  a  practical  and  unmistakably  evident  way  in  which  power 
derived  from  the  combustion  of  its  waste  can  be  employed  a  town 
does  not  usually  elect  to  dispose  of  its  waste  by  the  use  of  a 
destructor.  Garbage  is  burned,  refuse  or  rubbish  is  now  also 


218  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

being  burned,  but  ashes  are  conveyed  to  dumps  or  used  for  mak- 
ing land  and  roads. 

The  separation  of  garbage  from  other  forms  of  waste  is  rightly 
considered  a  necessary  step  to  secure  sanitation  in  the  household ; 
it  is  also  a  convenience  to  the  towns,  because  where  this  system 
obtains,  garbage  can  be  handled  by  itself,  apart  from  the  volume 
of  ashes  which  forms  the  largest  portion  of  town  waste.  Hence 
the  need  of  furnaces  that  deal  with  garbage  alone,  or  garbage  in 
conjunction  with  rubbish,  ashes  being  entirely  eliminated.  The 
crematories  do  this  by  using  coal  to  burn  wet  masses  of  garbage 
by  itself;  also  by  the  building  of  larger  furnaces  to  receive  the 
rubbish,  employing  it  as  fuel  as  far  as  possible.  Because  of  the 
limited  draft  obtained  through  the  chimney  there  is  slow  com- 
bustion and  low  temperature,  causing  frequent  objection  on  the 
score  of  nuisance. 

Manifestly,  an  improved  means  of  disposal  by  fire  must  deal 
with  conditions  as  they  are,  and  must  be  prepared  to  destroy  the 
separated  waste  when  it  is  not  mixed  with  large  amounts  of  ash. 

These  are  the  conditions  confronting  the  engineers  that  have 
the  special  cases  of  various  cities  in  hand,  whose  specifications  for 
the  construction  of  disposal  plants  contain  precisely  this  feature, 
the  cremation  of  garbage  and  rubbish  that  is  practically  without 
the  admixture  of  ashes. 

The  preceding  tables  of  calorific  values  of  American  wastes 
prove  that  waste  is  auto-combustible  when  fired  under  favorable 
conditions.  The  reports  of  operating  destructors  in  this  country 
show  that  waste  containing  the  largest  proportions  of  wet  garbage 
mixed  with  rubbish  is  destroyed  without  fuel,  with  steam  develop- 
men  of  reasonable  power. 

As  far  as  we  have  gone  the  results  have  been  satisfactory,  not 
perhaps  equal  to  all  that  was  expected,  but  still  up  to  the  standard 
set  by  the  makers  of  the  destructors,  and  in  every  case,  so  far, 
exceeding  the  guaranteed  capacity  and  power  development. 

This  practically  fills  the  description  by  Mr.  Goodrich  of  the 
destructor  operating  as  a  destructor,  and  destroying  a  greater 
quantity  at  a  higher  temperature  than  can  be  done  by  furnaces 
without  the  special  features  of  a  destructor.  This  authority  says : 

No  real  progress  was  made  until  it  was  clearly  recognized  that  the  old 
system  of  low  temperature  working  was  wrong,  and  that  it  must  be  super- 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  219 

seded  by  artificial  draft.  With  the  introduction  of  forced  combustion  and 
high  temperature  working,  complaints  concerning  nuisance  ceased.  The 
cremator  having  fulfilled  its  purpose,  was  but  rarely  heard  of  and  was  no 
longer  adopted.  .  .  .  Instead  of  the  slow,  low  temperature  distillation 
of  the  gases,  or  cooking  of  the  material,  the  fires  were  new  made  vigorous 
and  the  temperature  high;  the  clinker,  previously  soft,  offensive  and 
worthless,  was  now  vitreous  and  serviceable,  and  not  only  was  nuisance 
prevented,  but  the  destroying  capacity  of  a  plant  of  given  size  was 
doubled,  a  large  and  constant  volume  of  hot  gases  passing  through  the 
boiler  to  the  chimney. 

Destructors  in  American  Practice. — When  the  destructors  are 
required  to  furnish  power  for  works  purpose  only,  that  is,  for 
forced  draft  for  the  furnace,  and  for  driving  mortar  mills  and 
crushing  machines  for  preparing  the  clinker  for  tile  or  bricks,  the 
boilers  are  smaller  than  when  power  is  to  be  developed  for  electric 
lighting.  An  example  of  this  is  at  Vancouver,  B.  C,  where  the 
destructor  deals  with  the  garbage,  refuse  and  a  limited  quantity  of 
ashes  having  a  low  calorific  value.  Here  the  boiler  is  65  horse- 
power instead  of  the  usual  200  horsepower  commonly  installed 
with  a  5o-ton  destructor. 

At  Seattle,  Wash.,  and  at  New  Brighton,  N.  Y.,  the  destructors 
are  at  present  operated  for  disposal  only,  no  use  being  made  of 
the  power,  although  each  of  these  installations  has  a  200  horse- 
power B.  &  W.  boiler,  with  all  accessories.  The  purpose  is  to 
employ  power  at  these  plants  later  on. 

A  good  example  of  the  advantages  of  an  installation  for  dis- 
posal only,  and  the  subsequent  utilization  of  the  power  for  the 
production  of  revenue,  is  at  Prahran,  Australia,  where  at  first  the 
power  was  not  employed,  but  was  subsequently  found  to  be  of 
sufficient  value  to  nearly  defray  the  operating  expenses  of  the 
plant.  (See  Chapter  XI,  Prahran  Destructor.) 

DESTRUCTORS  OF  MAXIMUM  POWER. 

The  third  classification  made  by  Mr.  Goodrich,  of  destructors  of 
the  modern  type  providing  the  maximum  amount  of  power, 
available  for  many  municipal  purposes,  is  well  illustrated  in 
American  practice  by  the  work  of  the  Meldrum  Simplex  Destruc- 
tor at  Westmount,  Canada. 

This  combined  electrical  and  refuse  disposal  station  was  de- 
signed for  the  utilization  of  the  steam  power  to  be  had  from  the 


22o  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTF 

waste  as  auxiliary  to  the  regular  boiler  equipment  of  the  station. 
The  reports  for  two  years  show  that  the  disposal  of  the  town's 
refuse  in  an  unseparated  condition  is  perfectly  done ;  that  the 
steam  power  has  an  annual  value  of  $5,000,  and  that  the  operat- 
ing expenses  are  brought  down  to  a  figure  lower  than  the  average 
cost  of  disposal  at  any  other  place  of  corresponding  size.  There 
is  besides  an  annual  decrease  of  the  previous  cost  of  collection 
and  transportation  expenses,  due  to  the  central  location  of  the 
plant. 

These  successful  examples  of  disposal  by  the  destructor  system 
have  been  noted  by  many  engineers,  and  several  of  the  large  cities 
are  preparing  specifications  for  the  installation  of  destructors  to 
dispose  of  the  waste,  and  are  considering  means  for  the  use  of  the 
derived  power.  It  is  no  longer  an  experiment,  but  an  accom- 
plished fact  that  American  city  waste  can  be  destroyed  with 
absolute  sanitary  protection,  with  a  certainty  of  obtaining  results 
in  efficiency  and  a  durability  of  construction  heretofore  im- 
possible. 

The  Two  Types  of  Destructors. — The  prevailing  forms  of  Brit- 
ish destructors  in  present  use  are  broadly  divided  into  two  groups 
or  classes,  differing  in  forms  of  construction  and  in  means  of 
utilizing  the  heat  obtained  from  the  combustion  of  the  waste. 

First,  group,  the  Cell  Destructors  follow  the  original  cell,  or  separate 
burning  chamber  type. 

Second  group,  the  Continuous  Grate  furnaces,  with  burning  chamber 
common  to  all  the  grates.  The  whole  list  of  destructors  operating  by 
high  temperatures  can  be  classed  in  these  two  types,  and  it  seems  desirable 
to  give  brief  descriptions  of  these  in  order  that  a  clear  idea  may  be  formed 
of  their  relative  value  when  applied  to  the  disposal  of  American  municipal 
waste. 

THE  CELL  DESTRUCTOR. 

The  Cell  Destructor. — Figs  55-59,  consists  of  two  or  more  cells 
completely  isolated  from  each  other,  but  discharging  into  a 
common  combustion  chamber.  This  construction  of  cells  in  pairs 
is  together  called  a  unit.  Each  is  charged,  fired  and  clinkered  by 
itself.  One  cell  cannot  be  of  assistance  to  its  neighbor,  except  so 
far  as  the  gases  from  both  commingle  after  leaving  the  cells.  The 
arrangement  of  the  cells  may  be  side  by  side  or  back  to  back,  or 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  221 

built  in  rows,  with  a  combustion  chamber  or  large  flue  common 
to  all,  but  for  the  utilization  of  heat  to  produce  steam  power  there 
are  usually  one  or  more  units  of  two  cells  with  a  boiler  common 
to  both.  Some  makers  place  the  cells  on  each  side  of  the  boiler. 
Others  arrange  them  in  rows  with  the  main  flue  beneath.  These 
arrangements,  though  apparently  different,  are  for  the  same  pur- 
pose— insuring  the  destruction  of  the  gases  from  fresh  charges 
of  waste,  so  that  these  in  turn  shall  be  made  to  pas  over  hot 
surfaces  or  be  mixed  with  hot  gases. 

Each  cell  has  a  fire  bar  area  of  at  least  25  square  feet,  where 
the  actual  combustion  takes  place,  and  at  the  back  of  the  bars  a 


FIG.  55.— THE   FIRST   FRYER  CELL   DESTRUCTOR. 

sloping,  drying  hearth  of  fire  brick,  upon  which  the  fresh  charge 
is  received.  The  area  of  this  hearth  varies  with  the  style  of 
destructor,  and  may  be  made  larger  or  smaller,  according  to  the 
character  of  waste  consumed.  This  hearth  is  usually  inclined  at 
an  angle  of  25°  to  the  horizontal,  but  may  be  varied  as  desired. 
The  fire  bars,  as  a  rule,  are  heavy,  solid  cast  or  wrought  iron 
plates,  set  edgeways  with  very  narrow  spacing  to  admit  the  steam 
or  air  blast  from  beneath  and  not  permit  the  passage  of  clinker  or 
ashes.  Some  makers  use  a  short  rocking  grate  at  the  front  of  the 
furnace  with  larger  stationary  bars  behind. 

The  Air  Supply  to  the  Cells. — The  ash  pits  of  all  forms  of 
destructors  are  closed  air-tight  and  made  capable  of  sustaining 


222  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

pressure,  and  the  air  for  combustion  is  delivered  to  the  ash  pits 
below  the  grates,  passing  up  through  the  waste  upon  the  fire  bars. 
Each  ash  pit  is  thus  divided  from  its  neighbor,  and  in  each  the 
forced  draft  may  be  applied  or  discontinued  at  will.  This,  of 
course,  is  when  forced  draft  by  steam  or  air  is  a  part  of  the  partic- 
ular construction. 

The  air  supply  is  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  connection 
with  the  cremation  of  municipal  waste.  With  a  limited  supply 
the  combustion  is  delayed  and  temperatures  are  low.  With  a  too 
abundant  volume,  the  available  fuel  is  consumed  to  heat  the  air, 
which  leaves  the  furnace  too  rapidly  to  destroy  the  waste. 

In  cell  destructors  a  pressure  of  one-half  to  one  inch  water 
gauge,  equivalent  to  2.6  to  5.2  pounds  per  square  foot  of  grate  is 


EEB 


FIG.    56.— THE    SEAMAN    &    DEAS   CELL    DESTRUCTOR. 


the  most  desirable  medium.  While  a  certain  quantity  of  air  is 
necessary  for  the  combustion,  and  while  this  varies  according  to 
the  calorific  value  of  the  material  destroyed,  if  a  larger  volume 
at  greater  pressure  be  supplied,  there  arise  different  conditions 
which  materially  affect  perfect  combustion.  With  the  oxygen  of 
the  atmosphere  is  mixed  four  times  its  weight  of  nitrogen,  a  gas 
perfectly  inert  for  assisting  combustion,  but  having  its  own 
specific  ability  to  absorb  heat. 

The  surplus  volume  of  oxygen  not  actually  required  for  com- 
bustion, united  to  the  correspondingly  larger  volume  of  nitrogen, 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  223 

rapidly  takes  up  the  available  heat,  and  the  whole  uncombined 
volume  is  carried  off  to  the  chimney,  lowering  the  temperature 
of  the  burning  mass  upon  the  grates.  Hence  the  admission  of  a 
larger  volume  of  air  than  is  actually  needed  for  combustion  is  as 
detrimental  to  successful  work  as  is  the  limitation  of  the  air 
supply. 

Heating  the  Air  Supply. — The  heating  of  the  air  supply  is 
another  important  consideration  as  affecting  the  rapidity  of  com- 
bustion. When  air  at  atmospheric  temperature  enters  a  furnace 
it  must  be  raised  to  the  temperature  of  the  incandescent  carbon 
in  the  fuel  with  which  it  is  to  combine  before  it  can  aid  com- 


FIG.  57.— THE  HORSFALL  CELL  DESTRUCTOR. 

bustion,  hence  a  certain  amount  of  heat  that  has  been  generated 
is  delivered  to  the  incoming  air,  and  the  temperature  of  the  burn- 
ing mass  is  lowered  to  that  extent.  For  the  ordinary  refuse- 
burning  furnace,  this  means  a  loss  of  efficiency  and  an  increased 
quantity  of  fuel.  For  destructors  with  forced  draft  that  must 
maintain  high  temperatures,  this  is  a  more  serious  matter,  and  in 
the  most  efficient  destructors  there  are  arrangements  for  heating 
the  air  supply.  In  one  destructor  of  the  cell  type  the  air  is  made 
to  pass  through  flues  alongside  the  main  chimney  flue,  and 
thence  to  the  furnace  through  iron  boxes  built  into  the  sides  of 
the  furnace  at  the  level  of  the  grates,  But  most  destructor^ 


224  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

of  this  type  do  not  provide  for  heating  the  air,  but  force  it  at  the 
temperature  of  the  outside  air  by  fans  or  steam  jets  into  the  ash 
pit-and  up  through  the  fire  bars.  Whatever  be  the  means  for  ob- 
taining the  forced  pressure  of  air  supply  under  the  fire  bars,  the 
result  is  the  same  in  all  methods,  a  continuous  current  of  air,  which 
is  at  all  times  under  control  and  may  be  increased  or  diminished 
according  to  the  conditions  required,  and  the  character  and 
amount  of  waste  charged  into  the  furnaces  at  different  periods  of 


FIG.   58.— THE    WARNER    CELL    DESTRUCTOR. 


time.      This    is   especially    desirable   when    destroying   bodies   of 
animals. 

Utilization  of  the  Heat  Generated. — In  all  installations  of  the 
best  destructors,  the  heat  generated  by  the  combustion  of  refuse 
is  utilized  in  one  or  another  way.  The  general  use  is  for  generat- 
ing steam  in  a  boiler,  the  power  from  which  is  employed,  first  for 
the  operation  of  the  destructor  itself  and  the  surplus  for  any  work 
where  it  can  be  used  to  advantage. 

The  type  of  boiler  is  commongly  a  water-tube  so  placed  behind 
the  combustion  chamber  that  the  gases  pass  directly  to  the  tubes 
with  no  loss  of  heat.  A  Lancashire  boiler  with  large  flues  is 
frequently  employed  on  account  of  the  heat  stored  in  the  volume 
of  water.  The  horizontal  multi-tublar  boiler  of  large  size  set 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  225 

in  the  main   flue  to  the  chimney   was   formerly   used,  but  now 
discontinued  as  an  obstruction  to  the  free  passage  of  the  gases. 

The  best  efficiency  of  a  destructor  demands  that  the  tempera- 
ture from  the  combustion  of  refuse  shall  be  at  least  1,500°  Fahr. 
This  is  the  point  at  which  all  injurious  organisms  in  the  waste  and 
the  inflammable  gaseous  carbon  compounds  resulting  from  im- 
perfect combustion  are  destroyed.  A  lower  temperature  would 
permit  these  to  pass  through  the  boiler  and  chimney  flues  and  be 
distributed  from  the  chimney  top  through  the  surrounding  air.  A 
higher  temperature,  1,800°  to  2,500°,  not  only  gives  better  boiler 
efficiency,  but  also  positively  insures  destruction  of  all  noxious 
gaseous  and  organic  elements.  Hence  the  efforts  of  all  destructor 


FIG.  59.— THE  STERLING  DOUBLE  CELL  DESTRUCTOR. 


builders  are  directed  to  the  production  and  maintenance  of  the 
highest  possible  temperature  within  the  furnace  and  in  the  com- 
bustion chamber  or  flues  immediately  adjoining.  This  naturally 
leads  to  the  development  of  the  greatest  boiler  efficiency  and  the 
use  of  this  power  for  returning  a  revenue  in  some  form  to  the 
advantage  of  the  town. 

But  it  must  always  be  noted  and  remembered  that  the  first  con- 
sideration is  the  disposal  of  objectionable  matters.  This  is  the 
purpose  of  a  destructor — the  main  object  of  its  installation. 
Whatever  power  may  be  obtained  is  a  side  issue,  a  by-product,  to 
be  utilized  if  possible ;  if  not,  then  to  be  ignored  until  an  oppor- 
tunity offers. 

If  this  power,  obtained  from  waste  that  would  cost  large  sums 
to  dispose  of  in  other  ways,  can  be  employed,  then  the  town  is 


226  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

so  much  to  the  good.  If  it  cannot  be  at  once  profitably  employed, 
the  waste  is  still  disposed  of  at  no  greater  cost  and  with  the 
certainty  of  perfectly  sanitary  destruction,  and  permits  the  even- 
tual use  of  the  power  and  the  clinker. 

UTILIZATION  OF  HEAT  FOR  AIR  SUPPLY  TO  THE  FURNACE. 

After  the  gases  have  passed  the  boiler  there  is  still  a  large 
amount  of  heat  remaining  in  them  which  should  be  utilized.  In 
practical  service  the  cell  form  of  destructor  has  heretofore  been 
unable  to  conserve  this  heat  for  its  subsequent  use.  In  one  form 
only  has  this  been  tried,  and  the  results  claimed  are  equal  to  the 
best  designs  of  the  continuous  grate  destructor,  which  are  better 
adapted  for  this  purpose,  but  no  results  from  actual  practice  have 
yet  been  reported. 

Manifestly  the  heating  of  the  air  supply  is  a  gain  to  the  general 
efficiency  of  combustion  too  important  to  be  ignored.  When  the 
air  is  raised  to  350°  to  400°  Fahr.  before  being  supplied  to  the 
grates,  there  is  a  corresponding  gain  in  the  time  and  the  force  of 
combustion  upon  the  grates.  The  method  .of  air  delivery  is  by  two 
different  forms  of  apparatus. 

The  cell  destructors,  as  a  rule,  use  a  fan  driven  by  a  motor, 
delivering  the  air  at  atmospheric  temperature  under  the  ash  pits 
at  any  required  pressure.  In  this  case  the  temperatures  of  the 
current  are  those  of  the  volume  entering  at  the  fan  and  but  slightly 
above  this  at  the  grates,  and  the  air  has  to  be  heated  to  the  fur- 
nace temperature  to  continue  the  combustion. 

In  the  continuous  grate  system  the  gases  from  the  boiler  are 
drawn  by  the  chimney  draft  down  through  a  series  of  iron  pipes, 
entering  at  an  average  of  691°  and  leaving  these  pipes  at  359° 
Fahr.  The  difference  between  these  figures  represents  the  tem- 
perature of  the  current  of  air  drawn  between  the  rows  of  pipes 
and  by  steam  jets  forced  into  each  ash  pit  and  up  through  the  fire 
bars. 

This  is  the  regenerator  system  of  the  continuous  grate  destruc- 
tors which  deliver  the  air  for  combustion  at  350°  to  400°  instead 
of  at  70°  to  80°  as  furnished  by  the  fan  system.  There  is  an 
obvious  advantage  by  this  means  not  obtained  in  the  other  cases, 
and  the  most  recent  plants  of  all  types  generally  adopt  the  steam 
forced  draft. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  227 

THE  SECOND  GROUP  OF  DESTRUCTORS. 

Continuous  Grate  with  one  Burning  Chamber. — The  destruc- 
tors built  upon  this  principle  (Figs.  60-65)  differ  from  the  cell 
construction  in  several  particulars.  Instead  of  separate  and  dis- 
tinct cells  isolated  one  from  the  other,  there  is  one  long  chamber 
common  to  all  the  grates,  but  divided  below  the  grates  into  sepa- 
rate ash  pits. 

There  may  be  a  number  of  grates,  each  of  approximately  25 
square  feet  of  surface,  arranged  side  by  side,  and  offering  a  con- 
tinuous area  of  burning  surface  the  whole  length  of  the  series, 


Sectional  Plan. 

FIG.  60.— THE   MELDRUM   CONTINUOUS  GRATE   DESTRUCTOR. 

which  may  be  two,  three,  four,  five   or  six,  as  the  conditions 
require. 

Since  each  grate  has  its  own  ash  pit  and  its  separate  forced  air 
supply,  each  may  be  operated  separately,  precisely  as  is  done  in 
the  single  cell,  with  no  interference  or  interruption  with  the  work 
of  its  neighbor.  As  the  grates  are  charged  periodically,  there 
is  always  one  or  more  at  the  highest  point  of  temperature  in  full 
working,  while  the  adjoining  one  is  being  supplied  with  green 
material.  Thus,  there  is  no  loss  of  time  or  temperature  in  the 
immediate  destruction  of  smoke  and  gases  thrown  off  from  the 
fresh  charge,  since  the  active  grates  supply  the  heat  necessary 


228  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

to  continue  the  combustion  and  maintain  the  average  tempera- 
ture in  the  combustion  chamber. 

The  continuous  grate  is  better  adapted  to  the  various  forms  of 
feeding  or  charging  of  the  waste,  since  it  may  be  charged  from 
the  top  through  the  roof,  from  the  back  through  charging  doors, 
or  from  the  front  through  the  larger  clinker  doors. 

Choice  between  these  various  methods  depends  largely  upon 
the  character  of  the  waste — the  purpose  for  which  the  power  is 
used,  or  the  location  of  the  several  working  parts  of  the  destruc- 
tor. In  each  case  the  arrangement  may  be  made  to  conform  to 
the  special  conditions,  and  any  well-designed  destructor  may  be 
adapted  to  the  site. 


FIG.  61.— THE  MELDRUM   CONTINUOUS  GRATE  WITH    BOILER.   (LONGI- 
TUDINAL SECTION.) 

Regenerator  System  of  Heating  Air  for  Combustion. — The 
first  practical  application  of  air  regeneration  to  the  destructor 
practice  was  in  connection  with  a  continuous  grate  destructor  of 
the  Meldrum  type,  at  Darwen,  in  1897.  The  use  of  this  system 
has  in  effect  changed  and  revolutionized  the  art  and  made  it 
possible  to  destroy  waste  of  low  calorific  value,  and  obtain  a 
higher  temperature  with  a  corresponding  increase  in  rapidity  of 
combustion  and  boiler  efficiency.  By  this  method  of  drawing 
the  air  for  combustion  through  the  series  of  pipes  comprised  in 
the  "regenerator,"  aided  by  the  action  of  the  steam  jet  blower, 
the  exhaust  heat  from  the  boiler  flues  heretofore  wasted  has  been 
saved,  and  the  saving  brought  to  the  aid  of  the  furnace. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  229 

The  method  of  supplying  this  heated  air  after  its  passage  be- 
tween the  vertical  tubes  of  the  regenerator  is  by  means  of  steam 
jets.  Underneath  each  of  the  grates  in  the  enclosed  ash  pit  is 
placed  a  short  tube  of  cast  iron  which  is  connected  at  one  end 
with  a  small  pipe  direct  from  the  boiler — the  other  end,  expanded 
in  area,  terminating  under  the  middle  of  the  fire  bars.  The 
steam,  in  its  passage  through  the  blower,  carries  a  volume  of 
heated  air  from  the  hot  air  duct,  which  is  forced  up  between  the 
grates  and  through  the  mass  of  material  thereon.  Thus  the  air 
for  combustion  is  supplied  at  a  temperature  of  nearly  300°  above 


Cross      Section 


FIG.    62.— THE    MELDRUM    CONTINUOUS    GRATE. 

the  normal  temperature  of  the  current  which  would  be  supplied 
by  a  fan  blast. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  advantage  of  the  steam  jet  system.  In 
passing  upward  through  the  bed  of  fire  upon  the  grates,  the  steam 
is  decomposed  and  "water  gas"  is  formed,  consisting  of  hydrogen 
and  carbon  monoxide.  Both  of  these  gases  are  burned  when 
they  enter  the  main  chamber,  increasing  the  temperature  at  that 
point  where  it  is  most  wanted,  while  the  oxygen,  which  is  set 
free  by  the  decomposition  in  the  early  stage  of  this  process,  assists 
the  combustion  of  the  refuse. 

Again,  the  formation  of  water  gas  in  the  bed  of  incandescent 
fuel  on  the  grate  greatly  assists  in  the  removal  of  the  clinker, 


230  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

* 

and  in  some  instances  exhaust  steam  is  admitted  under  the  grates 
for  this  purpose.  The  under  side  of  the  clinker  thus  formed  has 
a  clean  and  vitreous  appearance,  leaving  the  fire  bars  with  com- 
parative ease,  making  the  work  of  clinkering  less  arduous  and 
prolonging  the  life  of  the  fire  bars. 

The  Chimney  and  Dust  Prevention. — High  chimneys  are  not 
wanted  in  connection  with  forced  draft  destructor  installations. 
If  the  chimney  be  of  small  diameter  and  of  unusual  height,  the 
gases,  in  their  passage,  acquire  a  considerable  velocity  and  carry 
with  them  a  larger  proportion  of  dust.  On  their  arrival  at  the 


FIG.  63.— THE   MELDRUM   GRATES  WITH   LANCASHIRE   BOILER. 

top,  the  spreading  of  the  gases  issuing  from  the  confined  area 
lowers  their  velocity,  precipitating  the  dust  on  the  ground  and 
and  buildings  in  the  neighborhood.  But  with  a  chimney  of  lower 
height  and  larger  internal  area,  the  ascent  of  the  gases  is  slower 
and  the  velocity  at  the  top  no  greater  than  in  the  interior,  and 
the  dust  precipitation  is  minimized.  There  are  several  devices 
for  intercepting  the  dust  on  its  way  to  the  chimney.  In  one  de- 
structor installation  there  is  a  brick  chamber,  or  "dust  catcher," 
immediately  before  the  chimney,  comprising  two  concentric  cir- 
cular chambers  with  an  annular  space  between.  The  gases  enter 
the  outer  chamber,  and  in  passing  around  this  acquire  a  whirling, 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  231 

circular  motion.  The  centrifugal  force  imparted  causes  the  dust, 
as  the  heavier  substance,  to  move  to  the  outer  wall,  the  lighter 
gases  passing  into  the  inner  chamber  and  thence  up  the  chimney. 
Th'*s  device  has  been  employed  in  a  few  installations. 

A  better  method  is  an  expanding  settling  chamber  interposed 


FIG.  64.— THE   HEENAN  &  FROUDE  CONTINUOUS  GRATE  DESTRUCTOR. 
(PLAN    AND    SECTIONS.) 

in  the  path  of  the  gases,  delaying  their  passage  and  causing  a 
deposit  of  the  dust  after  their  velocity  has  been  much  reduced. 
This  is  an  important  feature  in  the  continuous  grate  type  of 
destructor. 

Delivery  of  the  Waste  to  the  Destructor. — There  are  several 


232  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

methods  of  delivering  the  waste,  dependent  largely  upon  the 
special  character  of  the  material  to  be  destroyed. 

The  destructors,  as  a  rule,  deal  with  mixed  or  unsorted  waste — 
the  miscellaneous  collection  as  it  comes  in  the  city  carts.  The 
proportions  of  each  class,  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse  or  rubbish, 
to  which  may  also  be  added  street-sweepings  and  the  carcasses 
of  animals,  are  dependent  upon  many  varied  conditions,  only  to 
be  determined  by  special  survey  or  inspection.  Some  of  the 
more  common  conditions  attending  the  usual  collections  of  Amer- 
ican municipal  waste  have  been  alluded  to  in  previous  chapters, 
and  so  far  as  can  now  be  done,  the  proportions  of  each  class  have 
been  defined. 

Following  the   practice   of  those   towns   where   these   various 


FIG.  65.— THE  HEENAN  &  FROUDE  CONTINUOUS  GRATE  DESTRUCTOR. 

forms  of  destructors  are  used,  and  employing  the  same  method 
of  a  mixed,  unsorted  collection  of  the  wastes,  it  may  be  positively 
stated  that  the  American  municipal  waste  can  be  destroyed  suc- 
cessfully with  apparatus  similar  to  that  used  abroad. 

Not  only  can  American  municipal  waste  be  burned  economi- 
cally with  no  noxious  results,  but  there  can  be  obtained  power 
from  this  waste,  in  exact  proportion  to  the  calorific  value  of  the 
waste. 

But  when  the  several  classes  of  American  municipal  wastes 
are  separated  at  the  houses  and  the  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse  are 
separately  collected  and  brought  either  singly  or  together  to  the 
destructor,  the  means  of  disposal  must  be  adapted  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  waste  to  be  consumed.  Here  lies  one  of  the  chief 
points  of  advantage  of  the  high  temperature  destructor  systems. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  233 

The  furnace  may  be  so  designed  as  to  cremate  one  class  or  kind 
of  waste  and  yet  be  capable  of  consuming  other  kinds  or  classes 
without  change  in  construction  and  with  only  changes  in  method 
of  charging  and  operating.  The  addition  of  power  supplied  by 
its  own  boiler  provides  an  accessory  impossible  to  furnaces  not 
equipped  with  this  aid. 

In  most  American  towns  the  custom  is  to  separate,  in  the 
households,,  the  garbage  from  the  refuse  and  ashes  and  bring 
this  to  the  crematory  for  destruction. 

This  led  to  the  introduction,  at  first.,  of  a  special  form  of  cre- 
matory to  burn  garbage  only,  and  in  the  older  forms  of  furnaces 
this  is  all  they  can  accomplish.  Subsequently  the  rubbish  and 
refuse  upon  the  dumps  became  objectionable  and  the  crematories 
were  enlarged  in  area  to  burn  this  also.  The  bodies  of  the 
smaller  animals  are  included  and  very  infrequently  the  carcasses 
of  the  larger  animals  must  be  destroyed. 

As  the  quantities  of  garbage,  rubbish  and  animals  increase,  the 
crematories  must  be  made  of  larger  capacity.  Because  of  their 
operation  by  slow  natural  chimney  draft,  the  rate  of  combustion 
cannot  be  increased,  and  the  installations  must  be  made  of  larger 
size,  or  more  numerous,  which,  of  course,  means  greater  expense 
to  the  tcwns. 

If  the  cost  of  operating  were  lowered  with  the  proportional 
increase  in  size,  there  would  be  some  reason  for  this,  but  this  is 
not  the  case,  for  the  larger  the  plant,  the  more  men  needed  to 
work  it,  with  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  payroll,  to  which 
is  added  the  larger  amounts  of  fuel. 

An  illustration  of  this  is  one  incinerator,  which  in  1902  began 
its  work  by  the  installation  of  a  plant  costing  $31,000  which  de- 
stroyed 100  tons  daily,  followed  in  1904  with  a  plant  having  a 
capacity  of  120  tons  at  a  cost  of  $70,000,  and  in  1907  a  plant  of 
140  tons  capacity  was  contracted  for  at  a  cost  of  $126,000.  The 
reported  cost  of  operating,  for  fuel  and  labor  at  this  latest  plant 
is  more  than  double  that  at  the  first  installation. 

Since  the  practice  of  many  American  towns  is  to  make  sepa- 
rate collections  of  the  wastes,  and  since  this  requires  the  destruc- 
tion of  these  separately,  the  destructor  builders  have  now  de- 
signed the  apparatus  to  meet  this  demand.  For  the  disposal  of 


234  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

very  wet  substances  there  is  a  drying  hearth  of  greater  or  less 
area,  which  receives  the  charge  of  fresh  garbage  and  by  its 
radiated  heat  united  to  the  high  temperature  of  the  radiant  heat 
of  the  destruction  chamber,  the  moisture  is  driven  off  and  com- 
bustion begins  almost  at  once. 

This  change  in  the  forms  of  destructors  has  been  noted  and 
provided  for  in  the  designs  of  the  builders  in  this  country.  There 
are  many  instances  of  destructors  dealing  with  the  most  refrac- 
tory classes  of  wet  refuse,  like  sewage  sludge  and  wet  trade  waste, 
with  nearly  the  same  efficient  results  as  though  there  was  present 
a  greater  calorific  value.  The  development  of  steam  power  is 
not  so  large,  but  the  destruction  is  equally  efficient  and  the  results 
quite  as  free  from  offensive  odors  and  gases. 

The  method  of  supplying  the  waste  to  destructors  is  then 
determined  by  the  character  of  the  material.  If  it  be  wet  and 
difficult  to  handle,  the  charging  may  be  done  by  special  cars  or 
chutes  direct  to  the  drying  hearth.  If  more  free  from  moisture, 
there  is  provision  for  tipping  into  receiving  hoppers  or  storage  bins 
that  will  retain  a  day's  collection  without  nuisance.  Should  these 
wastes  be  comparatively  dry  and  homogeneous  in  character,  they 
may  be  fed  by  hand  firing  as  coal  is  fed  to  a  furnace.  Thus  the 
means  of  feeding  the  waste,  and  the  construction  or  arrangement 
of  the  destructor  is  governed  largely  by  the  special  conditions  of 
each  case,  insuring  economy  of  labor  and  expense,  and  producing 
the  best  results  in  efficiency. 

The  Disposal  of  Residuums. — It  has  been  noted  previously  that 
the  ash  of  American  crematories  is  not  in  a  perfectly  vitrified 
form.  There  is  present  a  considerable  proportion  of  organic 
matter,  mixed  with  fine  ash  from  substances  that  burn  more  freely, 
and  with  the  debris  and  fragments  of  incombustible  matter  which 
the  low  temperatures  of  the  crematory  cannot  affect.  This  ash 
has  little  or  no  value,  except  as  a  surface  fertilizer  for  top  dress- 
ing, and  therefore  must  be  removed  to  dumps. 

But  the  clinker  or  hard  vitreous  matter  from  the  combustion  at 
high  temperatures  of  a  destructor  is  residuum  of  quite  another 
character.  The  anaylsis  of  the  two  ashes  given  previously  shows 
clearly  the  difference.  The  value  of  clinker  when  thoroughly 
calcined,  lies  chiefly  in  its  ready  use  as  foundation  for  roads,  walks, 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  235 

and  all  forms  of  municipal  service  where  concrete  is  employed. 
It  is  also  used  in  many  kinds  of  private  contract  work,  where 
broken  stone  is  costly  or  unattainable.  It  is  also  found  to  be 
suitable  for  the  covering  for  sewage  filter  beds  and  is  used  for 
under  drains.  It  may  be  ground  up  for  mortar  or  mixed  with 
cement,  formed  into  slabs  or  bricks  or  in  many  ways  and  forms 
used  in  various  industrial  enterprises.  A  market  can  nearly 
always  be  found  for  this  destructor  product,  and  it  is  an  important 
asset  in  the  accounts  of  all  waste  disposal  work. 

The  Quantities  of  Waste  Consumed. — The  early  forms  of  cell 
destructors  destroyed  daily  from  five  to  eight  tons  of  refuse  per 
cell,  or  about  twenty-two  pounds  per  square  foot  of  grate  area  per 
hour,  but  these  are  now  mostly  changed  or  improved  by  the  addi- 
tion of  forced  draft,  and  their  power  for  combustion  greatly 
increased. 

The  continuous  grate  destructors  burn  from  twelve  to  twenty 
tons  per  grate  daily,  contingent  upon  the  character  of  the  waste, 
the  average  being  fifteen  tons.  This  is  at  the  rate  of  fifty-six 
pounds  per  square  foot  of  grate  per  hour,  and  may  perhaps  be 
taken  as  the  average  destroyed  for  these  forms  of  grates.  This 
is  exceeded  in  some  of  the  later  types  of  destructors,  where  the 
amounts  run  from  sixty- four  to  one  hundred  and  three  pounds  per 
square  foot  of  grate  area.  The  work  of  an  English  destructor 
in  this  country,  burning  American  mixed  waste,  was  58.7  pounds 
per  square  foot  of  grate  per  hour. 

THE  LOCATION  OF  THE  PLANTS. 

This  is  the  most  important,  often  the  most  difficult  point  to 
determine  in  a  proposed  refuse  disposal  station.  Since  the  re- 
peated failures  in  this  country  of  crematories  and  incinerators 
because  of  nuisance,  there  is  prevalent  an  idea  that  all  waste- 
consuming  plants  must  necessarily  be  offensive  in  their  operation ; 
thus  the  authorities  nearly  always  meet  with  opposition  no  matter 
where  they  select  a  site,  ending  sometimes  in  abandonment  of 
th*  scheme. 

Economy  in  the  collection  service  demands  that  the  location 
shall  be  central  with  respect  to  the  collection  district,  as  this 
reduces  the  haul  to  the  shortest  distance ;  also  that  the  road  grades 


236  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

for  the  loaded  teams  shall  not  be  too  steep.  As  the  average  cost 
of  hauling  one  ton  of  garbage  one  mile  is  from  60  to  80  cents, 
according  to  the  number  of  horses  and  men  employed,  the  saving 
in  distance  of  transportation  is  an  important  consideration. 

In  most  American  towns  there  is  no  site  at  the  geographical 
center  that  would  permit  the  establishment  of  a  refuse  disposal 
station  except  in  the  neighborhood  of  dwellings,  and  in  this  case 
the  cost  of  ground  is  frequently  excessive,  and  the  opposition  of 
property-holders  very  strenuous.  Usually  a  point  (preferably  on 
the  northern  side  of  a  thickly  populated  district)  can  be  had, 
where  the  collection  carts  will  not  be  so  much  in  evidence,  and 
where  the  work  can  be  done  with  lessened  chances  for  complaints. 
When  a  suitable  location  can  be  found  within  reasonable  distance, 
the  objections  and  arguments  against  it  should  be  carefully  stated 
and  fully  considered.  Opposition  for  sentimental  reasons  or 
through  ignorance  of  the  facts  involved  should  not  be  allowed 
to  outweigh  the  mature  judgment  of  those  best  acquainted  with 
the  subject. 

NUISANCES  DEPENDENT  UPON  TEMPERATURES. 

The  discharge  of  offensive  gases  from  a  chimney  of  a  refuse 
disposal  plant  is  caused  by  incomplete  combustion  of  organic 
matter.  Ths  gases  thrown  off  are  oxygen,  O,  nitrogen,  N,  car- 
bonic acid,  CO2,  carbon  monoxide,  CO,  and  water  vapor  or 
steam.  In  theoretically  perfect  combustion  the  carbon  monoxide 
burns  by  uniting  with  oxygen,  leaving  the  nitrogen — which  is  inert 
and  incombustible — to  be  discharged  from  the  chimney.  But,  in 
practice,  this  perfect  combustion  is  rarely  reached,  hence  the 
proportion  of  the  empyreumatic  gases,  present  in  larger  or 
smaller  amounts,  that  are  capable  of  being  burned  but  still  are  not 
destroyed,  must  be  taken  as  an  evidence  of  the  character  of  the 
work. 

A  competent  authority  says :  "On  heating  organic  compounds, 
decomposition  takes  place  which  is  known  as  destructive  distilla- 
tion. Many  of  the  resulting  gaseous  compounds  have  a  more  or 
less  objectionable  odor.  When  such  an  admixture  of  gases  is 
exposed  to  a  higher  temperature — which  has  been  fixed  at  1,500° 
Fahr.  as  the  safety  point — they  are  themselves  dissociated  or  de- 
composed, and  the  resulting  simple  gases  are  without  odor." 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  237 

Another  writer  says :  "It  may  be  stated  as  an  absolute  principle, 
that  the  destruction  of  organisms  must  be  done  within  the  furnace 
itself.  If  any  of  the  gases  are  allowed  to  escape,  with  the 
organisms  in  suspension,  the  destructor  ceases  to  be  of  any  value 
if  it  does  not  become  an  actual  source  of  danger." 

This  is  perhaps  an  extreme  view  of  the  case,  but  it  emphasizes 
the  fact  that  the  temperature  must  in  the  first  place  be  high 
enough  to  destroy  all  forms  of  organic  life,  and  that  once  begun 
the  work  must  go  on  to  the  end  at  a  temperature  at  or  above  the 
point  of  safety. 

GRADUAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  HIGH  TEMPERATURES. 

It  is  in  the  particular  feature  of  temperatures  that  destructors 
with  forced  draft  differ  so  widely  from  the  usual  form  of  crema- 
tory and  incinerator  used  in  this  country.  The  evolution  of  the 
modern  destructor  from  the  early  cell  type  was  comparatively 
slow  until  the  introduction  of  forced  draft.  For  years  the  cells 
continued  to  burn  small  quantities  by  natural  draft  with  repeated 
complaints  of  nuisance.  The  introduction  of  the  "fume  cremator" 
by  Mr.  Chas.  Jones,  of  Baling,  England,  was  a  step  in  the  right 
direction  and  materially  advanced  the  work.  This  was  a  wide 
"fuel  box,"  placed  in  the  main  flue  of  the  chimney  outside  the 
cells,  or  sometimes  in  a  detached  chamber,  and  was  kept  supplied 
with  coke  or  good  coal.  All  the  gases  of  combustion  from  the 
cells  were  made  to  pass  over  this  live  fire.  • 

It  was  not  until  1897,  when  this  method  was  abandoned  in 
favor  of  a  powerful  forced  draft  under  the  fire-bars,  that  real 
progress  was  made.  At  the  present  time  all  destructor  builders 
guarantee  a  positive  temperature  maintained  within  the  furnace, 
and,  as  a  rule,  fifteen  hundred  degrees  in  the  combustion  chamber 
is  the  point  below  which  the  temperature  must  not  fall.  One  set 
of  specifications  issued  by  an  English  city  provides,  "that  the 
general  arrangement  of  the  grates  and  flues  shall  be  such  that  the 
whole  of  the  gases  generated  in  the  process  of  combustion  shall 
be  submitted  to  a  temperature  of  not  less  than  2,000°  Fahr.  for 
a  sufficient  time  to  allow  the  noxious  germs  to  be  destroyed." 

The  reports  of  the  trials  and  continuous  operation  of  the 
destructors  abroad,  now  invariably  contain  accurate  and  extended 


238  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

data  of  the  temperatures  in  various  parts  of  the  destructor  and 
flues.  These  serve  a  double  purpose,  since  they  show  the  absolute 
destruction  of  offensive  gases  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  town 
authorities,  and  also,  by  comparison  of  the  temperatures  taken  at 
the  same  points  in  the  several  installations  of  the  builder,  it  is 
possible  to  detect  a  failure  of  any  part  to  come  up  to  the  general 
standard. 

These  temperatures  range  from  1,500°  to  2,800°  Fahr.  A 
table  made  by  a  well-known  engineer  of  twenty-six  towns  with 
installations  of  six  different  makers,  shows  the  average  tempera- 
tures in  the  combustion  chambers  immediately  before  the  boilers 
to  be  1,900°,  and  at  the  base  of  the  chimney  600°  Fahr.  Some  de- 
structors, fitted  with  economizers,  feed-water  and  super-heaters, 
obtain  a  still  greater  heat,  instances  being  recorded  of  the  fusing 
of  wrought  iron  in  the  combustion  chambers  at  a  temperature  of 
3,000°  Fahr. 

HIGH  TEMPERATURES  NOT  ATTAINED  IN  AMERICAN  PRACTICE. 

In  American  practice  this  requirement  of  temperature  is  seldom 
or  never  made  in  specifications  drawn  up  by  municipalities,  nor  is 
it  brought  prominently  forward  by  the  furnace  builders.  What- 
ever form  of  "fume  cremator"  or  "smoke-consumer"  the  builders 
may  propose  is  assumed  to  afford  sufficient  protection  for  the 
town.  Hence  the  result  of  the  work  of  the  crematory  or  incin- 
erator so  far  as  relates  to  the  destruction  of  obnoxious  gases 
is  often  unsatisfactory.  Smoke  is  unconsumed  carbon,  and 
when  discharged  from  a  garbage  crematory  loaded  with  the  un- 
consumed gases  from  the  destructive  distillation  of  the  organic 
matter  at  low  temperatures,  these  gases  will  invariably  cause 
nuisance  in  their  gradual  descent  to  the  ground. 

Any  one  desirous  of  obtaining  data  upon  the  temperatures  of  the 
American  crematories,  would  have  to  experiment  for  himself.  In 
all  the  years  this  work  has  been  going  on  there  has  been  but  one 
accurate  report  that  can  be  quoted.  This  is  by  Professors  Holman 
and  Wendel  upon  the  Brown  Crematory,  Boston,  Mass.,  1893,  and 
is  the  only  one,  so  far  as  known,  that  gives  anything  of  value  as 
regards  temperatures.  In  this  case  the  trial  was  made  to  deter- 
mine the  quantities  and  cost  of  burning  the  garbage  with  oil  as 
fuel ;  the  temperatures  were  a  secondary  consideration. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  239 

In  the  same  year  the  work  of  the  Engle  Crematories  at  the 
World's  Fair,  Chicago,  Hi.,  for  six  months  established  the  fact 
that  high  temperatures  could  be  maintained  by  oil  fuel,  with  a 
forced  draft,  with  a  combustion  chamber  of  large  size  and  a  50* 
foot  chimney.  Unfortunately  there  was  no  official  report  of  this 
published  until  long  afterward,  and  there  were  never  technical  and 
authoritative  reports  from  competent  engineers  that  would  have 
directed  attention  to  this  most  successful  work,  and  perhaps  have 
brought  about  better  designed  furnaces  and  more  efficient  results 
in  the  subsequent  installations  of  American  crematories. 

It  is  largely  because  of  this  particular  feature  of  low  tempera- 
tures that  the  garbage  cremating  furnaces  in  this  country  fail  of 
success.  Formerly,  and  but  few  years  ago,  it  was  held  by  all  the 
furnace  builders  that  high  temperatures  were  not  necessary  except 
at  the  fire-box,  and  this  erroneous  idea  is  still  advocated  by  many. 
They  rely  upon  a  secondary  fire,  placed  under  some  division  of  the 
garbage  grates,  or  at  the  rear  end  of  the  main  chamber,  or  in  a 
small  compartment  cut  off  from  the  main  chamber  by  a  division 
wall,  or  else  in  a  separate  and  detached  chamber  not  a  part  of  the 
furnace.  There  is  no  combustion  chamber  in  the  true  meaning  of 
the  term;  all  these  substitutes  are  merely  secondary  furnaces  for 
reheating  the  incomplete  products  of  combustion  from  the  furnace 
proper,  and  all,  without  exception,  must  use  extra  fuel. 

A  reference  to  the  preceding  descriptions  of  American  crema- 
tories will  make  it  clear  that  this  principle  of  this  second  fire  is 
a  necessary  part  of  all  the  various  types  of  American  crematories 
and  incinerators. 

There  are  many  points  in  which  the  cremator  and  the  destructor 
vary  widely,  but  in  none  is  there  so  wide  a  divergence  as  in  the 
means  for  producing  and  maintaining  a  high  temperature  neces- 
sary to  destroy  the  offensive  gases.  From  a  personal  experience 
in  the  construction  and  operation  of  both,  the  author  is  of  the 
opinion  that  that  will  be  the  most  successful  furnace  which  can 
develop  the  temperature  necessary  to  destroy  municipal  waste  and, 
at  the  same  time  and  with  the  same  operation,  consume  the  offen- 
sive products  of  combustion  thrown  off  by  the  waste  within  the 
furnace  itself. 


240  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

OPERATION  WITHOUT  NUISANCE. 

The  operating  works  of  the  British  destructors  seem  to  be  al- 
most completely  free  from  complaints  of  nuisance  from  the  chim- 
neys. From  an  extended  examination  of  the  statements  made  by 
the  local  engineers,  surveyors  and  superintendents  in  charge  of 
these  plants,  it  appears  that  there  are  practically  no  complaints  on 
the  score  of  noxious  odors  from  the  waste,  either  in  the  process  of 
charging  or  in  its  combustion  in  the  furnace. 

In  some  instances  notes  are  made  of  the  fine  dust  in  the  charg- 
ing rooms  when  the  fires  are  clinkered,  but  the  later  installations 
are  provided  with  a  system  of  ventilating  ducts  connected  with  the 
the  air  supply  to  the  grates,  which  in  a  large  degree  remove  this 
objectionable  feature.  Probably  the  most  reliable  accounts  on  this 
point  of  nuisance  in  the  work  of  these  destructors  is  from  those 
American  engineers  who  in  the  past  two  years  have  had  oppor- 
tunities to  inspect  closely  the  English  installations. 

One  observer  in  visiting  destructors  in  f6ur  London  boroughs 
where  the  plants  were  almost  completely  surrounded  by  dwell- 
ings, found  the  dust  at  one  point,  Shoreditch,  very  annoying, 
"but  no  odors  were  noted,  and  the  chimney  was  free  from  smoke." 
At  Wandsworth  "the  plant  was  in  a  generally  clean  condition  and 
only  a  small  amount  of  light  smoke  was  visible  at  the  chimney 
top."  At  Westminster  "no  odor  was  noticed  and  but  little  of  light 
smoke  was  coming  from  the  chimney."  At  Battersea  "there 
were  no  indications  of  nuisance  of  any  sort  in  Or  about  the  de- 
structor, and  the  chimney  top  was  free  from  smoke."  (From 
"Notes  on  British  Refuse  Destructors,"  by  M.  N.  Baker,  Associate 
Editor,  Engineering  News,  New  York.) 

Another  experienced  engineer  says :  "In  our  country  odors 
from  such  works  have  been  complained  of  in  many  instances,  and 
a  number  of  crematories  have  been  abandoned  as  nuisances.  In 
England,  however,  such  has  not  been  the  case.  Furnace  ex- 
tensions are  built  every  year.  Complaints  are  rare.  In  Hamburg, 
Germany,  where  is  the  largest  garbage  plant  in  existence,  this  is 
giving  no  offense,  although  adjoining  a  built  up  section  of  the 
city."  (Mr.  Rodolf  Hering,  in  Proc.  Anier.  Soc.  Civil  Eng.,  Vol. 
29,  No.  i.) 

The  conditions  attending  the  work  of  an  English  destructor  in 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  241 

this  country,  burning  the  mixed  waste  of  the  town  of  Westmount, 
Canada,  a  surburb  of  Montreal,  are  stated  in  the  Report  of  th? 
Consulting  Engineers  to  the  City  Council  at  Westmount,  upon 
the  Combined  Refuse  Disposal  and  Electric  Lighting  Station. 
"The  first  piece  of  apparatus  put  into  operation  was  the  refuse 
destructor,  which  was  tested  May  5,  1906.  Since  that  time  the 
destructor  has  been  in  continual  operation,  successfully  destroying 
with  absolutely  no  smell  or  smoke,  whatever  has  been  brought, 
varying  in  quantity  from  fifty  tons  per  day  down  to  five  tons." — 
Ross  &  Holgate,  Consulting  Engineers,  Montreal,  Jan.  i,  1907. 

BRITISH  DESTRUCTORS  IN  AMERICA. 

The  first  installation  of  a  British  destructor  for  the  disposal  of 
American  municipal  waste  was  at  Westmount,  a  surburb  of  Mon- 
treal, P.  Q.,  where  a  Meldrum  Simplex  Destructor  was  erected  in 
1906.  This  was  followed  in  1907  by  a  Heenan  and  Froude  de- 
structor at  Vancouver,  B.  C.  The  success  of  these  two  installa- 
tions in  Canada  led  to  a  thorough  personal  examination  of  the 
destructor  systems  of  England  by  the  City  Engineer  of  Seattle, 
Wash.,  Mr.  R.  H.  Thomson,  and  by  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  Street 
Cleaning  Commissioner  of  the  Borough  of  Richmond,  New  York 
City. 

The  city  of  Seattle  accepted  the  tenders  of  Messrs.  Meldrum 
Brothers,  Manchester,  and  a  destructor  was  installed  by  them 
which  went  into  operation  in  January,  1907,  and  was  transferred 
to  the  city  in  February. 

The  tenders  of  Messrs.  Heenan  and  Froude  were  accepted  by 
the  Borough  of  Richmond,  and  a  destructor  installed  in  1907 
began  work  in  March,  1908,  and  was  accepted  by  the  borough  in 
May. 

These  four  installations  are  at  present  the  only  ones  operating, 
though  contracts  have  been  closed  for  a  Meldrum  Destructor  at 
Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  for  the  General  Electric  Company's  special 
service,  and  at  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  for  a  Heenan  and  Froude  destructor 
for  the  disposal  of  light  refuse.  The  following  reports  give  the 
results  of  the  work  to  date : 


242  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

WESTMOUNT    (MONTREAL),    P.    Q.      MELDRUM    SIMPLEX    DE- 
STRUCTOR. 

The  town  of  Westmount  is  a  suburb  of  the  City  of  Montreal, 
having  its  own  municipal  government,  and  being  in  all  respects 
an  independent  borough,  though  really  included  in  the  area  of 
Montreal.  The  population  of  the  borough  is  15,000,  residential 
in  character,  with  few  factories  or  manufacturing  works.  In 
1904  the  authorities  began  an  investigation  of  existing  means  for 
disposal,  and  received  from  Mr.  F.  L.  Fellowes,  borough  en- 
gineer, an  exhaustive  report,  giving  full  details  of  collection 
service,  quantity  and  character  of  wastes,  estimated  costs  for  im- 
proved system,  and  recommending  the  use  of  a  parcel  of  land 
owned  by  the  borough  at  St.  Catherine's  street  and  Rose  avenue, 
for  the  erection  of  a  combined  electric  lighting  and  refuse  disposal 
station. 

The  most  modern  and  best  approved  types  of  generators, 
boilers  and  destructors  were  recommended,  the  whole  equipment 
to  be  of  the  highest  class,  with  provisions  for  additions  to  the 
plant  for  future  extension  of  the  lighting  service.  With  this 
report  were  submitted  plans  and  estimates  for  the  installation 
of  the  various  units  of  power,  including  a  Meldrum  Simplex 
Refuse  Destructor  suited  to  the  work  required. 

The  authorities  called  into  consultation  Messrs.  Ross  &  Hoi- 
gate,  Engineers,  Montreal,  and  with  them  contracted  for  the 
building  of  the  plant,  specifying  that  the  Meldrum  Destructor 
should  be  furnished ;  contracts  for  which  were  made  by  the 
author  in  behalf  of  the  Meldrum  Company. 

The  excavations  for  the  foundations  were  begun  in  October, 
and  the  work  was  continued  through  the  winter  of  1905-6, 
under  the  many  difficulties  attending  the  construction  of  brick- 
work in  Canadian  winter  climate.  The  large  brick  building 
containing  the  Meldrum  Destructor  and  Boilers,  with  the  Alphons 
Custodis  stack,  150  feet  high,  were  finished  about  the  first  of 
April. 

Upon  the  completion  of  the  plant  in  May,  1906,  the  official 
test  was  conducted  by  Messrs.  Ross  &  Holgate,  Engineers,  the 
results  of  which  are  shown  in  the  following  report: 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  243 

TABLE    L.— OFFICIAL    TEST    WESTMOUNT    DESTRUCTOR,    MAY   3,    1906. 

Duration  of  test 8  hrs.  32  min. 

Number  of  cells 3 

Total  grate  area 7  5  sq.  ft. 

B.  &  W.  Boiler,  heating  surface 2,197  sq.  ft. 

Refuse  consumed  (composition  of  waste  material) : 

Garbage,  manure  and  leaves 1 5% 

Ashes  and  unburnt  (anthracite)  coal,  cinders,  etc 65% 

Iron,  wood,  bottles,  tins,  leather,  etc 5% 

Refuse,  including  paper,  branches,  old  furniture,  etc 15% 

Total 100% 

WEIGHTS. 

Unscreened  refuse,  rubbish,  garbage,  manure,  etc 38,090        Ibs. 

Tins,  etc.,  not  burned 540 


Net  amount  consumed 37>55°        Ibs. 

Refuse  consumed  per  hour 4,402 

Refuse  consumed  per  hour  per  sq.  ft.  of  grate 58.7 

Weight  of  clinker  remaining  after  combustion 15, 880 

Percentage  of  clinker  and  ashes  to  refuse  consumed 42.1% 

WATER  EVAPORATION. 

Total  water  evaporated 41,991        Ibs. 

Water  evaporated  per  hour,  actual 4,920 

from  and  at  2 12°  F 5,97° 

pound  of  refuse,  actual 1.12 

of  refuse,  from  and  at  212°  F.  1.36 
Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse  from  and  at  212°  F. 

and  per  sq.  ft.  of  total  heating  surface  per  hour 2.72     " 

PRESSURES  AND  TEMPERATURES. 

Temperature  of  the  outside  air,  average 55°  F. 

Barometric  pressure,  average 29.5  ins. 

Average  steam  pressure ' 123. 5  Ibs.  sq.  in. 

pressure  in  ash  pits 1.74  ins. 

vacuum  at  chimney  base 9-16  in. 

temperature   of   combustion   chamber    (by   Watkins 

heat  recorders) over    1,994°    F. 

Highest  temperature  of  combustion  chamber over  2,318°  F. 

(Copper  melted  in    i|   minutes — wrought   iron   was   also   fused.) 

Lowest  temperature  in  combustion  chamber 1,742°     F. 

Average  temperature  of  air  entering  regenerator 75°     F. 

"  leaving  regenerator 206°     F. 

"  gases  entering  regenerator 427.5°     F. 

Average  temperature  of  gases  leaving  regenerator 333-7°     F. 

Average  temperature  of  feed  water 47°     F. 


GAS  ANALYSIS. 

Percentage  of  CO2  average  of  six  readings 10  .9% 

highest  reading 13.6% 

"     "     lowest  reading  (clinkering  fires) 4-5% 

TIMES. 

Time  taken  to  clinker  one  grate io£  min. 

between  clinkerings 2  hrs.  48 

Times  each  fire  was  clinkered Three 


244  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


DISPOSAL  OF  \\~ASTJE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  245 


FIG.     67.— REFUSE     HOPPER     AND     CHARGING     HOLES,     WESTMOUNT 

DESTRUCTOR. 


FIG.  68.— FRONT  OF   DESTRUCTOR,  WESTMOUNT. 


246  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  destructor  forms  one  part  of  a  combined  Electrical  Light- 
ing and  Refuse  Disposal  Plant  used  to  supply  electric  power  for 
lighting  the  town.  The  surplus  steam  from  the  destructor  boiler 
is  utilized  as  auxiliary  to  the  regular  boiler  plant,  and  at  times 


FIG.    69.— BABCOCK-WILCOX      200-H.P.      BOILER      CONNECTED      WITH 
DESTRUCTOR,    WESTMOUNT. 


has  been  sufficient  to  furnish  all  the  power  required  for  the 
electric  lighting  of  the  whole  district.  The  operation  of  the 
destructor  for  two  years  past  is  thus  reported  by  the  engineers, 
Messrs.  Ross  &  Holgate: 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  247 

The  quantities  and  seasonal  variations  in  composition  of  West- 
mount  waste  are  approximately  as  follows : 

TABLE      LI.— OPERATING     COSTS,     WESTMOUNT     DESTRUCTOR,     FOR 

TWO  YEARS. 

Quantity    1906 —  8  months  —  over   3,000    tons 
1907 — 12  — about    8,000 

COMPOSITION. 
Items  Summer.  Winter. 

Garbage      60%          20%       (including 

Ashes 20%          70%       much  fine 

Refuse 20%          10%       dust.) 

Daily  quantity  destroyed,     Summer,    15-20  tons 

Winter,      30-40 

Estimated  coal  equivalent  per  ton  of  waste  (average) 580. 

(Coal  cost  at  $5.00  per  ton) 

Total  return  in  cash  credited  to  Destructor,    1906 $3,090.00 

1907 4,636  .00 

Total  net  operating  costs  and  fixed  charges,   1907,  including 

interest  4%,  depreciation    4%    and    sinking    fund     i% 

(after  crediting  sale  of  steam  to  electrical  plant) 6,055.00 

Total  net  operating  costs  and  fixed  charges  per  ton,    1907, 

after  crediting  sale  of  steam 75C. 

Total  net  operating  costs,  1907,  after  crediting  sale  of  steam.       2,423  .00 
Total  net  operating  costs  per  ton,   1907,  after  crediting  sale 

of  steam .30 

Temperature  in  combustion  chamber 1500°— 2ooo°F. 

Hours  of  operation,   Summer,    7  A.M.  to  7  P.M. 
Winter,      7  A.M.  to  7  P.M. 

Because  of  the  unusually  large  percentage  of  absolutely  value- 
less fine  dust-like  ash  mixed  with  this  refuse,  especially  in  win- 
ter, due  to  the  great  number  of  sifting  furnaces  installed  in 
Westmount  houses,  and  also  because  of  the  much  higher  rate 
of  wages  paid  for  operators,  the  cost  per  ton  is  higher  than  the 
average  figures  from  English  destructor  service,  but  with  the 
fine  ash  screened  out  (as  is  now  contemplated)  much  larger 
quantities  of  refuse  can  be  handled,  and  far  better  results  ob- 
tained ;  the  cost  of  operation  per  ton  could  also  be  much  reduced 
if  the  refuse  were  fed  to  the  destructor  furnaces  as  fast  as  it 
would  burn,  instead  of  being  fed  comparatively  slowly  as  at 
present. 

It  will  be  clear  that  a  destructor  plant  operated  for  power, 
with  small  amounts  of  waste,  will  be  more  expensive  in  its  work 
than  the  same  plant  operated  for  disposal  only,  for  then  the 


248  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

conditions  of  labor  are  changed  and  a  smaller  number  of  men 
at  less  wages  are  employed.  The  regular  supply  of  the  waste  in 
the  largest  amounts  is  a  most  important  factor  in  this  calcula- 
tion. During  several  months  when  the  quantities  approached 


Sectional  Plan. 

FIG.  70.— PLAN,   MELDRUM    DESTRUCTOR,  WESTMOUNT. 

something  near  the  capacity  of  the  destructor,  the  net  cost  of 
operating  were  7  cents,  15 -cents,  and  27  cents  per  ton,  instead 
of  30  cents.  When  power  is  not  to  be  utilized  a  destructor  can 


Cross       Section 
FIG.    71.— CROSS-SECTION,    MELDRUM     DESTRUCTOR,    WESTMOUNT. 

be  operated  as  cheaply  as  any  crematory  or  incinerator  of  the 
same  relative  capacity. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  249 


SEATTLE,  WASHINGTON.    THE  MELDRUM  SIMPLEX  DESTRUCTOR. 

In  1896  Mr.  Reginald  H.  Thomson,  City  Engineer  of  Seattle, 
Wash.,  was  instructed  to  visit  American  and  foreign  cities  and 
examine  their  methods  of  sewage  disposal,  and  those  used  for 
the  collection  and  disposal  of  refuse  and  garbage,  together  with 


FIG.  72.— EXTERIOR,   MELDRUM    DESTRUCTOR,  SEATTLE,   WASH. 

the  cost  of  maintenance,  with  a  view  to  the  adoption  in  Seattle 
of  plans  for  these  purposes.  He  undertook  an  extended  journey, 
visiting  the  chief  refuse  disposal  plants  in  the  United  States, 


250  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  spending  nearly   four  months  investigating  the  systems  of 
disposal  in  use  in  British  and  European  cities. 

In  his  report  he  says:  "After  mature  reflection  upon  all  the 
information  gained,  I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  best 
refuse  destructor  in  service  at  the  present  time  is  that  made  by 
Messrs.  Meldrum  Brothers,  of  Manchester,  of  the  accumulative 
heat  type  heretofore  described.  *  *  *  Under  all  of  the  ex- 
isting circumstances  I  have  unhesitatingly  recommended  to  the 
City  of  Seattle  the  erection  of  this  plant,  and  have  heretofore 


FIG.  73.— FRONT   OF   DESTRUCTOR   PLANT,  SEATTLE,   WASH. 

submitted  to  your  honorable  body  an  estimate  of  its  probable 
cost." 

This  report  was  adopted  by  the  city  government  and  a  contract 
was  made  with  Meldrum  Brothers,  Manchester,  England,  for  a 
four-grate  destructor  embodying  some  special  features;  the 
destructor  and  regenerator  only  to  be  built  by  Meldrum  Brothers, 
and  the  boiler  foundation,  enclosing  building,  chimney,  ap- 
proaches and  platform  to  be  built  by  the  city.  Under  this  con- 
tract the  iron  and  a  large  part  of  the  fire  brick  were  prepared 
in  England  and  brought  by  ship  to  Seattle.  Construction  of  the 
plant  was  begun  in  November,  1907,  and  finished  in  January, 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  251 

1908.  The  fires  were  started  immediately,  and  the  plant  has 
been  in  operation  from  January  27;  and  after  a  preliminary 
trial  of  thirty  days  the  plant  was  taken  over  by  the  city. 

This  destructor  is  of  the  Meldrum  Simplex  type  known  as 
the  "continuous  grate"  as  distinguished  from  the  cell  system, 
which  is  of  single  cells  or  chambers  acting  in  pairs.  Photographs 
herewith  give  a  clear  idea  of  the  exterior  of  the  house,  both 
front  and  rear,  and  of  the  front  and  one  end  of  the  destructor. 
There  are  two  inclined  approaches  of  broad  timber  planking 
which  lead  to  the  hopper  on  the  front  of  the  house  where  wagons 
tip  their  loads  into  the  receiving  bin  below. 

The  chimney  is   of   reinforced   concrete  construction  80   feet 


FIG.  74.— THE  MELDRUM  DESTRUCTOR,  SEATTLE,  WASH. 

high.  The  house,  which  was  built  by  the  city,  is  of  corrugated 
iron  construction,  with  an  adjoining  smaller  office  building  which 
contains  the  weigh-beam  for  platform  scales  which  loads  coming 
to  the  destructor  pass  over,  the  weights  thus  obtained  being 
recorded. 


252  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

This  is  the  first  plant  of  its  kind  erected  in  the  United  States, 
and  it  includes  the  most  up-to-date  arrangements  of  the  special 
ventilating  ducts,  of  the  offal  hearth  for  burning  very  wet  ma- 
terial, and  the  carcass  cremation  through  special  charging  hole, 
all  of  which  are  entirely  new  ideas  first  introduced  abroad  by 
the  Meldrum  Company  and  included  in  this  installation  by  re- 
quest of  Mr.  Thomson. 

TABLE     LIL— CITY    OF    SEATTLE.       REFUSE     DESTRUCTOR     NO.     1. 

REPORT     FOR     MONTH     ENDING     JUNE     30,     1908. 

TWENTY-SIX   DAYS'  ACTUAL  OPERATION. 

REFUSE   DESTROYED 

Ash  Manure          Garbage          Rubbish 

Percent 37-8%  18.7%  22.2%  21.3% 

Tons  burned 666.6%          329-2%          39°  •«%          378.0% 

Total  tons  refuse  consumed 1,764.0  tons   =  3,528,000  Ibs. 

Average  daily  consumption 67  .846   "    =       135,692 

Total  water  evaporated 437,890      gals.  =   3,650,075    ' 

Average  daily  evaporation 16,842  =       140,372 

Pounds  of  water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse  burned i  .035     ' 

Average  horse-power  per  hour  evaporated  from  and  at  212°  F.    200  H.  P. 

Wages  as  per  pay  roll $1,248  . 2  5 

Cost  of  burning  per  ton .71 

Total  number  of  loads  consumed i ,  500 

Average  number  of  loads  per  day 57-7 

Average  weight  of  loads 2 ,3  56  Ibs. 

AVERAGE  TEMPERATURES  FROM  DAILY   READINGS 


F. 


CO 


Ave.  Temp,  of 
Atmosphere  at 
Time  of  Reading 
62.5°  F. 

Ave.  Temp,  of 
Combustion 
Chamber 
2369.°  F. 

Ave.  Temp,  at         A%let% 
Base  of  Stack               genera 

537°  F-                    86.3° 

Ave.  Temp,  of 
Outlet  from 
Regenerator 
313-  6°  F. 

Ave.  Gain  'in 
Temp,  in  the 
Regenerator 
227.  3°  F. 

Ave.  Gas  Analysis 
Daily  Samples 

CO.,                 0 
8-3%             9-i% 

from 

AVERAGE   WATER  GAUGE,   FROM  DAILY  READINGS 

Water  gauge  readings   at   base   of   stack  without   forced   draft,  5-8  inch. 
Water  gauge  readings  back  pressure  of  ashpit  door,  No.  i  grate,  i  1-8  inch. 

The  destructor  has  a  Babcock  &  Wilcox  water  tube  boiler  of 
200  horse-power.  At  the  present  time  this  power  is  not  utilized, 
but  it  is  expected  that  it  will  be  employed  in  the  municipal  service 
at  a  later  date. 

Reckoning  this  power  at  the  average  value  in  Seattle  of  $50 
per  horse-power  per  annum  if  this  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  253 

station  the  operating  cost  will  be  reduced  to  approximately  28 
cents  per  ton.  This  corresponds  very  closely  with  the  cost  of 
operating  at  Westmount,  where  the  net  operating  costs  are  30 
cents  per  ton. 

MELDRUM    SIMPLEX   DESTRUCTOR,   SCHENECTADY,   N.   Y. 

The  latest  installation  of  the  Meldum  destructor  is  now  under 
construction  at  the  works  of  the  Edison  General  Electric  Co., 
Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  by  the  Universal  Destructor  Company  of 
New  York  City,  agents  for  the  Meldrum  Brothers  in  the  United 
States  and  Canada. 

In  the  course  of  business  this  company — one  of  the  largest 
industrial  organizations  in  the  United  States,  whose  works  cover 
130  acres  of  ground,  with  15,000  employees — there  is  produced 
a  large  amount  of  refuse  of  various  sorts  from  the  different 
departments  of  the  works.  The  removal  and  disposal  of  this 
has  heretofore  been  a  matter  of  some  difficulty,  and  a  contract 
was  made  with  the  Universal  Destructor  Company  to  install  .a 
Meldrum  destructor  of  three  grates  in  connection  with  a  250 
horse-power  Babcock  &  Wilcox  boiler.  The  quantity  of  garbage 
which  comes  from  the  restaurants  being  small,  the  plant  was 
primarily  designed  for  the  disposal  of  the  combustible  refuse, 
including  wood,  shavings,  sawdust,  sweepings  from  the  shops 
with  a  great  amount  of  box  material,  barrels,  etc.,  which  could 
not  be  profitably  treated  in  any  other  way.  The  debris  and 
leavings  from  every  department  of  the  works  is  to  be  all  brought 
to  this  destructor. 

The  area  of  the  grates  is  somewhat  larger  than  in  the  or- 
dinary Meldrum  two-grate  destructors,  and  there  will  be  in- 
cluded an  extra  charging  hole  for  the  reception  of  sawdust  and 
shavings  brought  over  by  conveyor  from  the  carpenter  shops. 
The  charging  is  all  done  from  the  top,  with  the  exception  of 
long  pieces  of  wood,  for  which  a  special  door  in  the  end  is 
provided. 

It  is  expected  that  the  heat  realized  from  twenty  or  thirty 
tons  per  day  of  the  material  to  be  destroyed  in  these  works  will 
be  equal  to  the  evaporation  of  two  to  three  pounds  of  water  to 
one  pound  of  waste  consumed.  This  ratio  of  evaporation  has 
been  obtained  by  other  Meldrum  destructors  at  the  Dock  Yard 


254  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

Works  in  Chatham,  England,  and  the  great  ship  building  estab- 
lishment of  Messrs.  Harlan  &  Wolff,  Belfast,  where  a  similar 
kind  of  material  is  brought  for  disposal.  This  is  the  first  in- 
stance of  the  utilization  of  the  British  destructor  system  for 
private  business  purposes  in  the  United  States,  and  its  operation 


FIG.   75.— HEENAN   &    FROUDE    DESTRUCTOR,    VANCOUVER,    B.    C. 

will  be  watched  with  a  great  deal  of  interest  by  other  business 
corporations  where  the  same  trouble  in  the  disposal  of  their 
waste  and  refuse  are  encountered. 

HEENAN  &  FROUDE  REFUSE  DESTRUCTOR,  VANCOUVER,  B.  C. 

The  city  of  Vancouver,  B.  C.  (population  60,000),  contracted 
in  October,  1906,  with  the  Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor  Com- 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  255 

pany,  of  Manchester,  England,  for  a  refuse  destructor  of  40 
tons  capacity,  with  covering  house,  chimney  and  accessories. 
(Fig.  75.)  The  plant  went  into  operation  in  November,  1907. 
The  following  report,  condensed  from  the  official  reports  for 
five  months  (January  I  to  May  31,  1908),  gives  the  details  of  the 
working  of  this  plant: 

TABLE     LIU. — REPORT     OF     OPERATION,      HEENAN     &     FROUDE     DE- 
STRUCTOR,   VANCOUVER,    B.    C. 

EST.MATED         CoLLECTION  CosT  PER  ToN 

Household  garbage. 82      %  (a)    $1.55  not  deducting  revenue 

Trade  refuse 12      %  (b)       1.15  deducting  revenue. 

Decayed  fruit  and  vegetables    3     % 

Manure i .  5%  Average  Number  of  Animals 

Meat  and  fish  offal i      %     Horses 14 

Sawdust 5%     Dogs 27 

Cows l 

100% 

APPARENT  VALUE  AS  A  FUEL 

From  residential  quarters  very  good,  about  one-half  ashes;  business 
sections  good;    light  refuse.     Chinese  and  Japanese  section  poor, 
large  percentage  vegetable. 
No  fuel  of  any  kind  used  except  what  is  contained  in  refuse. 

LOCATION: 

Central;  200  feet  from  main  street,  and  with  buildings  on  three 
sides. 

TYPE  AND  DESCRIPTION: 

Heenan  and  Froude. 

One  unit.  Three  cells.  6sH.P.,'B&W.  Boiler.  Combustion  cham- 
ber. Chimney  120  feet  (circular).  Fan  draft.  Heated  air. 
Partial  exhaust  to  chimney. 

RATED  CAPACITY: 

50  tons  (2,000  pounds)  per  24  hours. 

APPURTENANCES: 

Fan  engine.  Feed  pump  and  steam  injector.  65  H.  P.  B.  &  W. 
boiler.  Washington-Lyons  steam  disinfector  (single  cradle). 
Two  disinfecting  rooms.  Brick  building.  Cement  floors. 

POWER  UTILIZED  FOR: 

Fan  engine  and  feed  pump.  Steam  disinfector.  Installation  of 
electric  plant — 500  lights,  under  consideration. 


COST  OF  CONSTRUCTION: 

(a)     Building $11, 500  .  oo 

Extras 4-543-30 

(6)     Chimney 3 ,900  .  oo 

(c)     Destructor   plant,    with   boiler  and   accessories,   in- 

cludings  team  disinfector 2 1 ,2  50  . oo 


(d)    Complete $4 1 , 1 93  . 30 


256  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

TABLE   LIN.— (Continued.) 

COST  OF  OPERATION:  Per  Ton  of  Refuse  Destroyed — 
(a)     46  cents  per  ton,    deducting  revenue. 
(6)     56  not  deducting  revenue. 

(c)     91  counting  in  interest  and  sinking  fund. 

STAFF: 

1  engineer at  $8  5  .  oo  per  month 

2  firemen — qualified  engineers "       75.00     ' 

4  firemen "       70  .  oo    " 

i  dumpman "       60  .  oo    " 

Above,  except  dumpman,  work  8-hour  shift. 

REFUSE   BURNED:  Per  Man  Per  Hour — 
i  .  04  tons  (6  men — 8  hours  each) . 

SPECIAL  NOTES  ON  PLANT: 

Combustion  chamber  for  incinerating  dead  animals. 

Storage  Hopper — capacity  30  tons — brick  sides — cement  floor — with 
swill  hopper  and  steam  jet.  Well  lighted  and  roomy.  Driveway 
for  teams  with  dead  animals  for  combustion  chamber. 

OPERATION  OF  PLANT:  Feeding  and  Stoking — 

Back-hand  feed.     Stoking  through   clinkering  doors.      Clinkering — 

from  front  of  furnace  into  hand  barrows. 

Character  of  clinker — 33%  of  refuse  destroyed.  Very  hard,  black, 
well  burned. 

GENERAL  NOTES: 

Destructor  operated  chiefly  to  incinerate   decaying   vegetable   and 

animal  matter  formerly  hauled  to  general  dumping  ground. 
Approximate  temperature  of  main  flue  and  combustion  chamber 
i ,  500°  to  2 ,000°  F.  (vide  Electric  Pyrometer  Jan.  27,1 908— 1,765°  F) . 

Forced  draft  5ii°-6oo°  F. 

REPORTED  EVAPORATION: 

.52  pounds  of  water  per  pound  of  refuse.  (£  pound  of  water  to 
i  pound  of  refuse.) 

NUISANCES: 
None. 

UTILIZATION  OF  BY-PRODUCTS: 

Clinker — reclaiming  tide  lands  west  side  of  incinerator.  Under  ex- 
periment as  road  bottoming 

Flue  dust — used  with  clinker  for  binding  and  rendering  surfaces 
smooth. 

Tins,  etc.,  at  present  no  value — hauled  to  dump. 

HEENAN  &  FROUDE  DESTRUCTOR,  WEST  NEW  BRIGHTON,  N.  Y. 

In  December,  1906,  the  Borough  of  Richmond,  Staten  Island, 
one  of  the  subdivisions  of  Greater  New  York,  contracted  with 
the  Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor  Company  of  England  for  the 
installation  of  a  destructor  at  West  New  Brighton  having  a 
capacity  of  60  tons  in  24  hours  of  mixed  municipal  waste'. 
Under  the  terms  of  this  contract  the  company  furnished  the 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  257 

destructor  and  boiler,  the  city  providing   foundations,   chimney 
and  covering  house,  all  of  reinforced  concrete  construction. 

The  plant  was  finished  for  preliminary  test  in  March,  was 
officially  tested  in  May,  and  accepted  by  the  city  in  June,  1908. 
The  following  description  of  the  destructor  is  furnished  by  the 
builders : 

The  parts  being  all  plainly  marked  in  the  figure,  it  will  be  easy  for  those 
interested  to  follow  the  details  on  the  plan.  The  rubbish  is  dumped  into  a 


FIG.  76.— HEENAN  &  FROUDE   DESTRUCTOR,   NEW   BRIGHTON,  N.  Y. 


hopper  back  of  the  grate  cells,  large  enough  to  hold  one  day's  collection. 
From  here  it  is  fed  to  the  special  grates  of  the  furnace.  Each  cell  has  a 
reverberatory  type  arched  roof  and  a  separate  feeding  door.  Each  also 
has  its  own  clinkering  door  on  the  opposite  side  from  the  feed  door,  while 
the  individual  grates  are  partially  separated  by  low  iron  ridges.  Apart 
from  this  all  the  cells  together  form  one  furnace  chamber,  in  that  the 
gases  from  the  further  cells  pass  through  those  nearer  the  dust  settling  or 
combustion  chamber,  and  consequently  over  the  burning  fuel  which  they 
contain.  The  reason  why  the  refuse  is  shovelled  into  the  cells  by  hand 
instead  of  being  dumped  directly  into  them  is  that,  in  order  to  secure 


258  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

complete  combustion,  a  reasonable  amount  of  selection  should  be  practiced, 
preventing,  for  instance,  a  whole  load  of  wet,  raw  garbage  coming  into  one 
cell  while  its  neighbor  had  perhaps  nothing  but  paper  and  dry  rubbish  in 
it.  Some  care  in  stoking  must  be  exercised  to  secure  good  results. 

The  success  of  the  Heenan  Destructor  is  largely  due  tc  the  complete 
arrangements  for  perfect  combustion.  Forced  draught  is  used  to  accelerate 
and  regulate  burning;  and  is  furnished  by  a  fan  and  engine,  so  as  to  be 
under  complete  control.  Each  ash-pit  is  separately  enclosed,  so  that  air 
pressure  may  be  carried  higher  in  the  grate  most  recently  fired.  The  air 
heated  to  several  hundred  degrees  F.  is  driven  through  valves  in  the  ash- 
pits, and  thence  through  the  grates  and  fuel.  The  reverberatory  arches 
also  greatly  facilitate  the  burning  of  poor  fuel  by  reflecting  back  the  heat 
upon  their  own  grates  and  those  adjoining.  By  this  means  an  average 
temperature  of  2,000°  F.  can  be  maintained  in  the  cells  with  ordinary 
refuse. 

When  the  refuse  has  been  completely  burned  it  forms  a  hard  vitreous 
clinker,  which  is  broken  up  with  steel  slice  bars  and  drawn  out  of  the 
clinkering  doors  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  cell  from  the  feed  doors. 


FIG.  77.— FRONT  OF  DESTRUCTOR,  NEW  BRIGHTON,  N.  Y. 


Here  it  drops  into  wheelbarrows  or  through  clinker  traps  to  mechanical 
conveyors  for  removal  from  the  plant. 

The  hot  and  burning  gases  from  the  cells  next  pass  through  the  dust 
settling  or  combustion  chamber,  where  the  usual  temperature  is  maintained 
at  about  1,800°  F.  Here  combustion  is  completed,  and  all  smoke,  smells 
and  combustible  particles  consumed,  so  that  when  the  gases  pass  under  the 
boiler  in  the  next  compartment  all  flame  has  disappeared.  As  all  objec- 
tionable matter,  whether  solid  or  gaseous,  is  subjected  to  this  temperature, 
no  further  decomposition  and  consequent  nuisance  can  result.  Carcasses 
of  dead  animals  may  be  dropped  into  this  chamber  whole,  and  in  an  in- 
credibly short  time  they  will  have  been  completely  consumed,  leaving  but  a 
handful  of  ashes.  Another  function  of  this  chamber  is  to  remove  from 
the  flue  gas  all  non-combustible  dust,  by  settling.  Passing  through  the 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  259 

boiler,  the  heat  of  the  gases  generates  steam,  at  the  rate  of  one  or  two 
pounds  of  water  evaporated  for  every  pound  of  refuse  consumed. 

Next  the  gases  pass  through  the  air  heater,  where  all  available  heat  units 
are  delivered  to  the  air  blown  through  the  cells  as  forced  draught.  Thus 
heat  otherwise  wasted  is  re-delivered  to  the  furnace  to  facilitate  combus- 
tion. The  average  temperature  of  the  forced  draught  should  be  about 
300°  F.  Finally,  the  expended  waste  gases  escape  through  the  flue  to 
the  chimney. 

A  high  speed,  completely  enclosed  steam  engine  is  used  to  drive  the 
blower  for  the  forced  draught.  The  steam  taken  from  the  boiler  for  this 
purpose  does  not  exceed  about  5  per  cent,  of  the  total  steam  generated. 
The  air  for  the  forced  draught  is  drawn  from  the  feeding  and  clinkering 


FIG.  78.— PLAN  AND  SECTIONS  OF  DESTRUCTOR,  NEW  BRIGHTON,  N.  Y. 


rooms,  thus  removing  all  the  dust  or  smells  that  may  be  liberated  in  this 
part  of  the  plant  and  preventing  their  escape  into  the  open. 

The  following  extract  from  the  advance  sheets  of  the  official 
report  made  to  Hon.  George  Cromwell,  President  of  Richmond 
Borough,  by  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  Superintendent  of  Street 
Cleaning,  gives  additional  details  of  this  plan.  Table  No.  LIV 
is  a  summary  of  the  official  tests  of  the  West  New  Brighton 
Refuse  Destructor: 

The  summary  in  the  table  gives  a  number  of  features  which  may  prove 
of  interest  to  those  concerned  in  the  disposal  of  refuse.  Of  course,  the 
trials  indicate  the  capabilities  of  the  furnace  under  the  conditions  existing, 


260  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  undoubtedly  the  results  obtained  in  such  a  trial  are  rather  better  than 
may  be  expected  in  ordinary  practice.  The  operating  force  engaged  in 
the  work  at  the  plant  during  the  trials  consisted  of  one  steam  engineman 
and  four  stokers  or  firemen.  Three  of  these  men  were  employees  of  the 
local  bureau  who  had  never  before  worked  about  any  steam  raising  plant 
and  had  never  had  any  experience  in  high  temperature  work.  They  had  re- 
ceived only  two  months'  training  in  the  work  about  the  furnace.  Undoubt- 
edly, with  more  experienced  men,  even  better  results  could  be  obtained 
than  those  indicated  in  the  summary  of  the  tests. 

After  the  furnace  had  satisfactorily  met  the  conditions  and  requirements 
of  the  contract  and  specifications,  it  was  accepted,  and  on  May  2ist  it  was 
taken  over  by  the  city.  It  has  continued  to  satisfactorily  dispose  of  mixed 
refuse  during  the  trying  period  when  the  garbage  contained  was  very  high, 
and  bids  fair  to  satisfactorily  perform  its  duty  in  the  future,  though,  of 
course,  until  the  plant  has  been  operated  for  at  least  one  year  its  short- 
comings and  reasons  therefor  will  not  be  known. 


COSTS  ; 

The  capital  costs  of  the  plant  were  as  follows: 

Land  (100'  x  300') $5,000 

Foundations,    building,    chimney,    runway,    retain- 
ing wall,  etc. .  , 39,5oo 

Furnaces,  boiler,  etc 23,995 


There  are  perhaps  more  inquiries  made  concerning  costs  of  disposal  at 
the  new  plant  than  any  other  factor  connected  with  it.  In  every  case  it 
has  been  stated  that  until  the  plant  has  been  operating  continuously 
throughout  a  refuse  cycle,  which  really  covers  a  period  of  one  year,  it  will 
not  be  possible  to  give  any  reliable  cost  data  regarding  maintenance 
charges.  There  are  still  many  factors  concerning  the  more  effective  dis- 
posal of  mixed  refuse  at  the  new  plant,  such  as  the  benefit  derived  from 
the  heat  abstracted  from  the  clinker  in  the  cooling  chamber,  the  ordinary 
amount  of  power  produced  under  average  operating  conditions,  the  best 
utilization  of  such  power  and  the  most  economical  treatment  of  the  other 
by-products,  including  clinker,  tins,  dust,  etc.  No  decision  has  yet  been 
made  regarding  the  use  of  the  by-products,  and  it  is  deemed  prudent  to 
postpone  such  a  decision  till  sufficient  information  has  been  secured  to 
wisely  determine  the  most  economical  use  of  the  by-products. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  261 
TABLE  LIV.— SUMMARY  OF  OFFICIAL  TESTS,  WEST  NEW  BRIGHTON. 


Test 

No. 


Date  of 
Test 


1908 


REFUSE  BURNED 


Descrip- 
tion 


Composition, 
Character 


Total 
Refuse 
Han- 
dled 

Tons 


Refuse 
Burned 


Tons 


*8 


May    6 


September 
Mixture 
as  per 
Specifica- 
tions 


Components 

Garbage 

Fine  Ash 

Coal  &  Cinders  . . 

Clinker 

Glass,  Metal,  etc. 
Rubbish 

Total... 


46.6 

21 .7 

7.7 

0.6 

8.5 

14-9 


100.  O 


Lbs. 

19.875 

9,255 

3,284 

256 

3,625 

6,355 


20.802 


52.0 


42,650 


May    8 


Refuse   as 
Collected 


Wet  from   rain;     Sample   dried 
gave  38%  moisture 


16.315 


16.145 


May  13 


February 
Mixture 
as  per 
Specifica- 
tions 


Components 

Ashes 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Glass,  Metal,  etc. 

Total. . . 


79-5 

it. 8 

5-3 

3-4 


Lbs. 
31,88! 
4,732 
2,125 
1,364 


20.051 


19.827 


49.6 


40,102 


May  15 


Refuse   as 
Collected 


Wet     from     rain     of     previous 


17.43° 


17.235 


62.7 


5       May  16    Refuse   as     Relatively    dry,    representative 
Collected  material 


23.847     23-673       59-2 


RESIDUAL 


EVAPORATION  PER  LB. 
REFUSE  BURNED 


Test 
No. 


Clink- 
r.Lbs. 


Ashes, 
Lbs. 


Dust 
(Ap- 
prox.) 
Lbs. 


Tins, 
etc., 
Not 
Fired, 
Lbs. 


Total 
Lbs. 


Per- 
centage 

of 

Original 
Refuse 


Gross 

Actual 

Lbs. 


Gross 
Equiv. 

From 
and  at 
212°  F., 

Lbs. 


Net 
Useful 
Steam 

for  Pow'r 
from  & 

at  2i2°F. 


10,93° 


787 


426 


1,046 


13,189 


3°-9 


1.41 


1.31 


8,390 


787 


326 


340 


9,843 


30.2 


1.03 


1.25 


1.16 


11,460 


1,978 


448 


14.293 


35-6 


1-33 


12,965 


669 


389 


14,372 


0.91 


17,344 


19,083 


I  .02 
I  .  12 


C02 


Test 
No. 


TEMPERATURES  IN  °FAHR. 


COMBUSTION 
CHAMBER 


P   rt 

go 


I 


17.0 


6.0 


1,846 


1,526 


48.5 


306 


55 


137-4 


16.5 


,526 


380 


287 


55 


133-2 


8.4 


6.0 


1,637 


1,382 


364 


83.9 


268 


12.4 


17.6 


8.6 


1,698 


'.526 


397 


50.6 


288 


54 


136.4 


12.3 


5        12. 9     16.3      7.6      1,792    1,940    1,634     -  •  •  • 


8.a 

is  The 


The  agent  of  Heenan  &  Froude   Destructor   in  the  United  States 
Power  Specialty  Company,  in  Broadway,  New  York. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

BRITISH  DESTRUCTORS  THROUGHOUT  THE  WORLD. 

SPECIAL    ARTICLE. 
BY  W.  FRANCIS  GOODRICH,  A.I.MECH.E.,  F.I.S.E. 

Having  in  mind  the  splendid  services  which  Colonel  Morse 
has  rendered  in  the  cause  of  sanitary  reform  for  many  years  past, 
I  gladly  respond  to  his  invitation  to  present  the  existing  situation 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  British  Colonies  and  Europe,  in  so  far 
as  the  final  and  sanitary  disposal  of  refuse  is  concerned. 

Thirty  years  have  passed  since  the  late  Mr.  Alfred  Fryer 
erected  the  first  furnaces  for  burning  refuse,  coining  the  term 
destructor,  which  is  now  universally  understood  in  all  countries 
as  the  only  satisfactory  means  to  an  end,  the  sanitary  desideratum 
— disposal  by  fire. 

While  in  America  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  during  the 
past  twenty  years  not  much  real  progress  has  been  made,  it  is 
possible  to  record  in  Great  Britain  steady  and  consistent  progress, 
with  but  very  few  failures.  I  shall  be  well  within  the  mark 
if  I  say  that  less  than  ten  destructors  have  been  pulled  down  or 
abandoned  in  Great  Britain  during  the  past  thirty  years.  The 
earliest  destructors  erected  in  this  country  are  still  in  daily  use 
in  Manchester,  Birmingham,  Leeds,  Hull  and  other  cities,  and 
although  they  suffer  by  comparison  with  modern  installations  in 
these  same  cities,  yet  in  fairness  it  must  be  said  that  they  have 
done,  and  continue  to  do,  that  work  for  which  they  were  erected. 

Those  American  writers  who  have  attributed  the  progress 
which  has  been  made  in  Great  Britain  to  the  fact  that  refuse  dis- 
posal has  been  treated  as  an  engineering  problem  may  rest  assured 
that  they  are  correct.  For  many  years  past  a  few  well-known  en- 
gineering firms  in  England  have  devoted  very  close  attention  to 
those  combustion  problems  and  other  problems  involved  in  the  de- 
signing and  erection  of  destructor  furnaces  of  the  highest  all- 

262 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  263 


264  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

round  efficiency,  with  the  result  that  finality  in  the  essential  prin- 
ciples has  now  been  reached,  and  the  only  possible  improvements 
in  the  future  will  be  in  details  affecting  the  labor  cost  for  opera- 
tion, the  clinkering  process,  and  the  profitable  treatment  of  the 
residuals.  Those  who  have  closely  followed  the  progress  in  final 
and  sanitary  refuse  disposal  in  Great  Britain  will  agree  that  the 
demonstration  of  the  fuel  value  of  refuse  has  been  a  potent  factor 
making  for  the  sanitary  ideal.  While  there  must  ever  be  a  con- 
stant striving  after  the  highest  efficiency  in  sanitation,  yet  it 
would  be  idle  to  pretend  that  nearly  250  municipalities  in  Great 
Britain,  would  at  this  time  have  had  destructors  in  operation  had 
the  power  aspect  not  been  so  clearly  and  conclusively  demon- 
strated. 

Many  worthy  councilors  with  but  a  very  hazy  notion  of  sanitary 
necessities  have  been  fascinated  with  the  possibilities  of  power 
production ;  to  their  credit  it  must  be  said  that  they  have  grasped 
the  economic  aspect,  and  realizing  that  the  sanitary  ideal  could 
be  reached  without  any  material  addition  to  the  rates  they  have, 
in  not  a  few  instances,  led  the  municipal  engineer  instead  of  being 
led  by  him. 

I  have  already  observed  that  some  250  municipalities  in  the 
United  Kingdom  now  have  destructors  in  operation ;  in  about 
130  cities  and  towns  the  destructors  are  either  combined  with 
electricity  works,  sewage  works,  water  works,  or  other  municipal 
undertakings,  providing  power  which  would  otherwise  involve  a 
definite  expenditure  for  coal,  gas  or  oil,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Fig.  78  illustrates  the  first  six  destructor  cells  erected  in  Great 
Britain,  these  being  the  original  Fryer  cells  erected  at  the  Water 
street  depot  of  Manchester  Corporation  in  1876. 

Still  in  daily  use  it  is  interesting  to  add  that  within  the  past 
three  years  Meldrum's  forced  draught  and  grates  have  been 
added  to  this  battery  of  cells  at  this  depot,  materially  increasing 
the  temperature  and  destroying  capacity. 

Fig.  79  will  serve  to  convey  to  the  reader  what  has  been  ac- 
complished in  the  thirty  years  which  have  passed  since  the  late 
Mr.  Alfred  Fryer  erected  his  first  destructor  cells. 

This  diagram  will  serve  to  show  (i)  the  total  number  of  in- 
stallations, (2)  the  number  of  plants  erected  by  each  maker,  (3) 
destructors  combined  with  sewage  works,  (4)  with  electricity 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  265 

works  and  (5)  with  water  works,  as  also  the  proportion  of  idle 
or  semi-idle  plants  (i.e. ),  destructors  from  which  the  power  is 
either  only  partially  utilized  for  works  purposes,  or  allowed  to 
go  to  waste. 

While  the  proportion  under  the  latter  category  may  seem  high 
it  must  be  remembered  that  many  of  these  plants  are  old,  being 
erected  long  before  the  power  aspect  of  refuse  disposal  had  re- 
ceived any  serious  consideration. 

Any  contribution  concerning  the  present  position  of  refuse  dis- 
posal in  Great  Britain  would  be  incomplete  without  some  reference 


y 


-  ?<«&««?  inM.fffefr.M^ftb*. 


I.     ™         "  "       "S*r          •» 

Q  -  JS,t  conM***  with  n>wrr  PlanT, 


FIG.    80.— DIAGRAM— THIRTY      YEARS'       PROGRESS      WITH       BRITISH 

DESTRUCTORS. 


to  the  main  combinations  of  destructor  and  power  plant,  which 
have  played  an  important  part  in  the  later  development  of  British 
refuse  destructors.  We  will,  therefore,  briefly  review  the  com- 
binations of  destructors  with  sewage  works,  electricity  works  and 
water  works. 


DESTRUCTORS  COMBINED  WITH  SEWAGE  WORKS. 

This  desirable  combination  has  found  much  favor,  and  at  the 
present   time   some    forty-five    installations    are    in   operation    in 


266  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

various  parts  of  England  and  Wales,  while  many  similar  works 
are  projected. 

In  not  a  few  towns  the  sewage  works  are  so  located  that  the 
combination  is  an  impossible  one  because  of  the  cost  of  haulage. 
This  obstacle,  as  also  the  fact  that  at  many  sewage  works  gas 
engines  or  oil  engines  are  employed,  has  operated  against  the 
more  extensive  adoption  of  destructors,  and,  to  some  extent,  will 
continue  so  to  do.  To  utilize  the  available  power  from  the  solid 
refuse  of  a  community  to  pump  its  liquid  refuse — the  sewage,  and 
further  to  utilize  the  residual  clinker  from  the  solid  refuse  for  the 
bacterial  treatment  of  the  sewage,  appeals  to  many  as  an  ideal 
combination — as  indeed  it  is. 

To  the  Cathedral  City  of  Hereford  belongs  the  credit  of  in- 
stalling the  first  destructor  in  conjunction  with  a  sewage  works. 
This  destructor  of  the  Meldrum  front-fed  type  has  now  been  at 
work  daily  since  1897.  About  one  and  one-half  million  gallons 
of  sewage  is  pumped  to  a  height  of  36  ft.  in  a  ten-hour  day,  the 
total  cost  of  the  destructor  installation  was  about  £1,200,  and  a 
coal  bill  of  about  £400  per  annum  has  been  entirely  saved,  not  one 
pound  of  coal  having  been  burned  since  the  destructor  com- 
menced work,  the  total  cost  of  repairs  and  maintenance  during 
nine  years  has  been  £34  only.  Ten  tons  of  refuse  are  burned 
daily  and,  in  addition  to  pumping,  steam  is  also  provided  for 
operating  sludge  presses,  lime  mixers  and  other  auxiliary  plants. 

The  vexed  question  as  to  whether  or  not  it  is  possible  for  a 
destructor  to  be  operated  as  a  financially  reproductive  undertaking 
has  been  clearly  disposed  of  in  so  far  as  combined  sewage  and 
destructor  works  are  concerned. 

In  fact,  they  have  exceeded  all  expectations  in  most  cities 
where  an  account  has  been  kept  of  operation  and  other  data  of  the 
plant.  In  America  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  their  success,  while  in 
Europe  and  other  countries  each  year  generally  shows  an  increase 
in  saving  when  properly  managed.  There  should  be  little  hesi- 
tancy on  the  part  of  wide-awake  municipalities  in  adopting  this 
plan,  judging  from  the  results  which  have  so  far  been  attained. 

The  following  table,  No.  LII,  clearly  sets  forth  what  has  been 
done  at  twelve  combined  works.  It  will  be  observed  that  in  no 
less  than  seven  towns  a  net  annual  surplus  in  relief  of  the  rates  is 
shown  after  meeting  all  capital  and  standing  charges. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  267 


Capital  Cost  of  Destructor  and 
Steam-  Raising  Plant 

£1,200  exclusive  of  boilers  and  chimney 
£12,600  including  buildings  and  chimney 
£4,500  exclusive  of  boilers  and  chimney 
£4,510  including  buildings  and  chimney 
£800  exclusive  of  boilers  and  chimney 
£6.310  excluding  chimney  only 
£5.000  excluding  chimney  and  one  boiler 
£2  400  including  building  and  chimney 
£4.000  including  building  and  chimney 
£6,000  including  buildings  and  chimney 
£6,800  including  buildings  and  chimney 
£4.600  excluding  one  boiler  and  chimney 

Labor  Cost 
Per  Ton  of 
Refuse 
Destroyed 

(^TJ     M    «    M       •    f>00  OO    M    M    M 

ojS  rt 

•a      *7 
|j     « 

charges. 

Us!* 

t     oo           io«>«0Xir>oo 

i  standing 

|2| 

s    1 

1       8, 

2        13 

=3              0 

c    l^ 

i  ^ 

s  a! 

•a  :s 

55 

o 
H 

1  §5 

.  .  .  ;  ;  

till 

*     *  *  *       *       *  * 

jfS 

(0 

v             * 

4«    oo- 

00 

N     0  ^ 

o 

^ 

& 

•  ^     ^ 

0  OO 

K 

M      i 

Wl  rrj       OO 

0 

0 

D         0 

*2 

O 

.9          vS 

^       (. 

CO 

^ 

^ 

1           1 

II  II    II 

I  1 

II 

u 

DC 

.0                 oo 

>0  M 

g 

1       i 

t"t 

O 

Is            © 

(gN(§) 

D 

^                       VjJ 

I^/\S' 

DC 

§-*-> 

|- 

•»2 

• 

s 

j5  v 

00  vO 

* 

111 

2           ijO 

M 

o 

1  3 

\ 

o 

z 

o,      |2 

HI     Cl 

< 

Q)                   L 

£ 

u 

1 

•^ 

i 

M 

CO 

1    - 

; 

• 
I 

Q 

III 

o 

* 

• 

M 

•   • 

I 

E 

G 

8 

i 

| 

a 

o 

| 

H 

o 

1 

2 

d 

'rt 

J 

^ 

1 

E 

0 

E 

c 

'       C 

z 

*^  t/> 

^ 

D 

i* 

1 

I  1 

4 
\ 

:  a 

<S*^ 

2     S 

H 

0^      I 

5    «H'VJ 

i 

*    "o 

1    h 

!«     1 

IM     I 

i  5  5 

5   0   0 

ilS 

i  1 

0      ^ 

£Q     Q 

a°     I 

JI-5  5 

i 

:S 

1/3  — 

C  rt 

^i   e 

!  1 

.'o'o 

•^  o 

rt 

nnum  saved  in  cai 
3RD  URBAN 

1°     j 

J2"c3           t 

7j        J 

^'U                 ( 

S        ' 
<u"o 

;  :  Ajter  erection 
i  :  After  erection 

clinker.  .  . 

Sale  of  old  i 
:tor:  Saving  in  C 

clinker  and  resid.u 

*    Lu 

.So          « 

)   00 

^  0  ON 

2*0 

1 

-s 

fl>       f~ 

^  O»            *" 

3^ 

tr 

0) 

if 

51     i 

r 
o            N 

1 

1 

1 

is 

1  u 

l«    1 

:*    ^ 

r  ; 

uiJiiiiy  u 

venue  fr< 

£ 

1 

venue  fn 

E-S 

I 

*S 

tn 

e 

rj    < 

«  !> 

3  i  s     .< 
a          i 

s| 

'15 

3 

*-\    ?*• 

-•*-    r- 

> 

£ 

^ 

"3 

1 

•a 

O                  K 

0             •* 

5-  -     « 

0 

c 

268  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  following  interesting  figures  are  available  from  Eccles  for 
the  past  year,  these  being  extracted  from  the  annual  report  of 
the  Medical  Officer  of  Health,  Dr.  W.  M.  Hamilton,  M.D., 
D.P.H. : 

TABLE  LVII.— REPORT  ON  ECCLES  DESTRUCTOR. 

Total  weight  of  refuse  destroyed 10,975  tons 

Average  weight  of  refuse  destroyed  daily 29.79 

Labor  cost  per  ton  of  refuse  destroyed njd. 

Total  water  evaporated 20,429  360  Ibs 

Daily  evaporation 66,550 

Average  evaporation  throughout  the  whole  year  per  Ib.  of 

refuse  destroyed i  .002    ' 

H.P.  developed  continuously  at  20  Ibs.  per  H.P 138  H.P. 

Total  weight  of  clinker. 3,464  tons  12  cwts. 

Percentage 32  .57 

Revenue  from  "       ^433  is.  46.. 


FIG.      81.— PLAN      AND     SECTIONS,      MELDRUM      DESTRUCTOR,      WITH 
LANCASHIRE    BOILER,    WATFORD. 

"The  pumping  and  treatment  of  the  sewage  of  the  borough 
has  been  carried  on  without  intermission  the  whole  year  through. 
The  destructors  (Meldrum's  front-fed  type)  have  also  been  in 
continuous  .operation.  The  whole  of  the  steam  required  for  the 
pumping  engines  has  been  evaporated  by  the  refuse  destroyed  in 
the  destructors." 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  269 

THE  WATFORD  DESTRUCTOR  AND  SEWAGE  PLANT. 

One  of  the  most  successful  combined  sewage  and  destructor 
works  is  that  of  the  Watford  Urban  District  Council,  situated 
about  17  miles  north  of  London. 

Here  a  Meldrum  front-fed  regenerative  destructor  deals  with 
an  average  of  about  27  tons  of  refuse  daily,  working  continuously 
for  about  150  hours  per  week.  Steam  is  supplied  at  a  pressure  of 
1 20  pounds  to  Worthington  pumps  and  air  compressor  engines. 


FIG.     82.— DIAGRAM— ONE      DAY'S      RECORD     OF      STEAM      PRESSURE, 

WATFORD. 

About  one  million  gallons  of  sewage  is  pumped  every  24  hours  to 
a  height  of  84  feet,  while  an  additional  half  million  gallons  is 
dealt  with  by  the  air  compressors  and  ejector  plant. 

The  destructor  was  started  on  March  31,  1904,  and  the  forego- 
ing figures  (Table  LVI)  covering  the  first  two  years  of  working, 
are  perhaps  without  parallel  among  combined  works  of  the  kind. 


270  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

After  meeting  all  capital  and  standing  charges,  there  remains  a 
net  surplus  in  relief  of  the  rates  of  about  £150  per  annum. 

Fig.  8 1  illustrates  the  general  arrangement  of  the  destructor 
plant  at  Watford;  it  will  be  observed  that  in  addition  to  steam 
generation  the  hot  gases  after  passing  the  boiler  are  further 
utilized  for  heating  the  air  for  combustion  in  a  Meldrum  re- 
generator and  also  for  heating  the  boiler  feed  water  in  a  Greens 
economizer,  the  temperatures  being  respectively  about  300°  F. 
and  250°  F.,  the  heating  surfaces  of  the  boiler,  regenerator  and 
economizer  reducing  the  temperature  of  the  gases  from  an  average 
of  1, 800°  F.  in  the  combustion  chamber  before  the  boiler,  to 
about  400°  F.  at  the  chimney  base. 

Fig.  82  is  reproduced  from  steam  pressure  recorder  diagrams 
and  clearly  shows  how  steadily  the  pressure  is  maintained  through- 
out one  day's  ordinary  work.  The  diagrams  of  a  week's  work  are 
almost  exactly  identical  with  this. 

CLINKER  FOR  FILTER  BEDS. 

The  value  of  destructor  clinker  for  bacteria  beds  has  now  been 
clearly  established  and  there  is  an  enormous  and  constant  de- 
mand for  large  quantities  all  over  the  country. 

It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  in  good  vitreous  clinker  has 
been  found  the  most  suitable  material  yet  discovered.  At  Alder- 
shot  Urban  District  Council  Sewage  Works  some  beds  made  up 
with  destructor  clinker  over  five  years  since  are  still  in  use  with 
the  original  material,  while  at  these  works,  coke  which  was 
previously  used  has  disintegrated,  and  after  being  removed  as 
useless  it  has  been  passed  through  the  destructor  with  refuse, 
emerging  therefrom  as  a  useful  clinker  to  be  again  used  in  a 
changed  form  for  the  same  duty. 

A  year  since,  when  the  writer  was  invited  to  give  evidence 
before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Sewage  Disposal  concerning 
the  cremation  of  sludge,  he  was  also  requested  to  lay  before  the 
Commissioners  some  evidence  regarding  the  combination  of  de- 
structors with  sewage  works. 

Some  very  exhaustive  tables  prepared  by  the  writer  for  this 
purpose  will  be  found  in  the  next  report  of  this  Commission,  and 
to  those  especially  interested  in  combined  destructor  and  sewage 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  271 

works   these   tables   should  be  exceedingly   useful,  bringing  to- 
gether a  mass  of  facts  and  figures  in  concise  form. 

What  the  recommendations  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Sewage 
Disposal  will  be  concerning  this  combination  remains  to  be  seen ; 
it  has  been  facetiously  suggested  that  ere  their  labors  are  com- 
plete every  sewage  works  will  be  a  combined  undertaking. 

DESTRUCTORS  COMBINED  WITH  ELECTRICITY  WORKS. 

During  the  past  ten  years  some  70  municipal  authorities  have 
adopted  this  combination,  generally  speaking,  with  very  satisfac- 
tory results.  While  the  production  of  electric  light  from  refuse 
has  held  many  Councillors  with  a  peculiar  fascination,  it  never 
has  appealed  to  the  Electrical  Engineer,  and  although  many  are 
now  disposed  to  adopt  a  more  friendly  attitude  towards  the  com- 
bination, it  is  no  exaggeration  to  state  that  the  progress  which 
has  been  made  is,  on  the  whole,  not  due  to  the  Electrical  Engineer, 
but  rather  in  spite  of  him. 

Electricity  works  are  usually  centrally  located  and  their  position 
offers  an  ideal  site  for  the  destructor  from  the  point  of  view  of 
haulage  costs.  As  the  cost  of  refuse  collection  and  haulage  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  electricity  department,  the  Elec- 
trical Engineer  cannot  be  induced  to  consider  this  factor — an  all- 
important  factor  from  the  ratepayers'  point  of  view. 

The  view  of  the  Electrical  Engineer  has  been  purely  depart- 
mental or  personal ;  he  does  not  want  the  destructor ;  why  should 
he  have  it?  The  question  of  cartage  costs  or  power  utilization, 
both  of  vital  importance  to  the  ratepayers,  do  not,  as  a  rule,  appeal 
to  him,  although  he  is  their  servant. 

While  this  narrow  and  illogical  view  has  not  been  without  its 
effect  in  thwarting  the  adoption  of  destructors  in  combination 
with  electricity  undertakings,  yet  very  satisfactory  progress  has 
been  made.  It  is  not  possible  to  include  figures  such  as  those  in 
Table  No.  LI  I  or  similar  to  those  available  and  here  included  in 
connection  with  combined  destructor  and  sewage  works,  not  be- 
cause the  destructor  is  minus  a  satisfactory  financial  side,  but 
rather  because  accounts  are  not  kept  in  that  clear  and  separate 
form  which  is  so  desirable  with  every  municipal  undertaking. 

While  a  steady  pumping  load  is  undoubtedly  the  better  load  for 
a  destructor,  yet  the  work  which  is  being  done  both  at  lighting 


272  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


and  power  stations,  as  also  at  traction  stations,  is  very  satis- 
factory, and  perfectly  justifies  the  combination  of  destructors  and 
the  fullest  possible  utilization  of  the  power. 

At  the  present  time  about  4,500  tons  of  refuse  are  being  des- 
troyed daily  at  such  works,  the  electrical  output  per  ton  of  refuse 
destroyed  varying  from  25  to  100  Board  of  Trade  units.  The 
highest  recorded  results  are  set  forth  in  Table  No.  LVIII  and  may 
with  advantage  be  compared  with  the  recent  results  obtained  at 
Westmount,  Montreal,  which  are  also  included. 

TABLE    LVIII.— SOME    RECENT    RESULTS    IN    POWER    PRODUCTION    AT 
COMBINED    ELECTRICITY   AND    DESTRUCTOR   WORKS. 


Water  Evap- 

Electrical 

orated 

Board  of 

WORKS 

Duration  of 

Per  Ib.  of 

Trade 

Test 

Refuse  from 

Units  per 

and  at  212 

Ton  of 

F.  Ibs. 

Refuse 

Stoke-on-Trent  

1  5  hours 

2.6 

108.1 

Nelson  

8             max'm 

2-35 



" 

5  weeks  avg. 

2     12 

104 

Todmorden  

ii  hours 

2  .09 

Burnley                  

i  ord'y  week 

2  .OO 

Bangor                  

7  J  hours  

.08 

*Cambuslang 

6         " 

02 

Q7 

t  Woolwich  

24                 

.917 

IOO 

Preston 

9" 

7 

100  24 

^Westmount 

Temperature  of  combustion  chamber  at  start  7SO°F.  feed  water  460°F. 
•j-Test  conducted  by  the  National  Boiler  Insurance  Co.  Ltd. 

PRESTON  COMBINED  ELECTRIC  TRACTION  AND  DESTRUCTOR 

WORKS. 

The  Combined  Electric  Traction  and  Destructor  Works  at  Pres- 
ton are  among  the  most  interesting  and  convincing  in  Great 
Britain.  Here  for  the  past  eighteen  months  the  entire  traction 
service  of  this  important  town  has  been  operated  from  the  town's 
refuse  alone,  not  excluding  Sundays  and  holidays. 

Some  thirty  cars  are  in  operation  for  about  seventeen  hours 
daily  over  about  nineteen  miles  of  track,  and  as  much  at  £1,000 
per  week  has  been  taken  in  fares.  About  21,000  Board  of  Trade 
units  are  generated  every  week  from  refuse  alone,  or  an  average 
of  about  60  units  per  ton  of  refuse  destroyed. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  273 

The  destructor  plant  comprises  4.4  grate  Meldrum  front-fed 
regenerative  destructors,  total  capacity  about  250  tons  daily,  4.30 
x  8  ft.  Lancashire  boilers  for  200  pounds  pressure,  regenerators, 
and  Greens  economizers.  A  special  feature  of  this  installation  is 
the  special  offal  charging  arrangement  and  also  the  unique  pro- 
vision made  for  cremating  large  carcasses  without  handling. 

At  Swansea  (South  Wales)  a  five-cell  back  fed  Horsfall  de- 
structor is  combined  with  a  sub-station  and  provides  power  for 
traction  purposes.  During  a  recent  test  an  evaporation  of  1.20 
pounds  of  water  per  pound  of  refuse  was  obtained,  about  60  tons 
of  refuse  is  destroyed  daily  and  an  electrical  output  of  32  units 
per  ton  of  refuse  destroyed  has  been  obtained. 

This  plant  can,  however,  scarcely  be  compared  with  that  at 
Preston,  as  although  the  weight  of  refuse  destroyed  daily  is 
similar  at  Swansea,  coal  firing  is  there  arranged  for  in  connection 
with  the  destructor  boiler,  while  the  track  at  Swansea  is  only  4^2 
miles  (route  length)  as  compared  with  over  19  miles  at  Preston. 

ELECTRIC  LIGHTING  AND  DESTRUCTOR  WORKS  AT  STOKE-ON- 

TRENT. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  at  Preston  the  whole  of  the 
power  required  for  the  operation  of  the  electric  traction  service 
is  provided  from  refuse  alone.  At  Stoke-on-Trent  it  is  possible 
to  record  over  a  period  of  nearly  two  years  a  similar  result  in 
connection  with  a  combined  lighting  station;  from  about  thirty 
tons  of  refuse  daily  sufficient  steam  is  produced  to  supply  all  de- 
mands for  public  and  private  lighting,  no  coal  whatever  being 
used,  in  fact  no  coal-fired  boilers  are  installed.  The  destructor 
and  power  plant  which  is  similar  (although  smaller)  than  that  at 
Preston  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  83,  while  Fig.  84  illustrates  the 
large  plant  of  twelve  grates  of  the  Meldrum  type  combined  with 
three  250  h.p.  Babcock  &  Wilcox  steam  boilers,  at  the  Borough 
of  Woolwich,  London. 

Nothing  can  be  quite  so  convincing  either  among  combined 
sewage  or  electricity  works  as  those  few  works  where  no  coal 
whatever  is  burned,  and  wrhere  no  supplementary  coal-fired  boilers 
are  installed ;  where  refuse  is  relied  upon  as  the  only  fuel,  there 
can  be  no  criticism,  and  such  instances  afford  a  very  conclusive 
answer  to  those  who  still  doubt  the  fuel  value  of  refuse. 


274  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


The  latest  combined  electricity  and  destructor  works  is  that  at 
H.  M.  Royal  Dockyard,  Chatham;  the  destructor  is  of  the  Mel- 


FIG.    83.— DESTRUCTOR    AT    STOKE-ON-TRENT,    ENGLAND. 


FIG.    84.— DESTRUCTORS     AT     BOROUGH     OF     WOOLWICH,     CITY     OF 
LONDON,   ENGLAND. 

drum  regenerative  front- fed  type  and  will  deal  with  about  three 
tons  of  refuse  per  hour  for  eight  hours  daily,  supplying  steam  at 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  275 

200  pounds  pressure  to  the  adjoining  main  generating  station  re- 
cently constructed  by  the  Admiralty. 

In  thus  deciding  to  utilize  a  large  quantity  of  refuse,  the  British 
Admiralty  have  followed  the  lead  of  many  municipal  authorities. 
The  results  at  Chatham  Dockyard,  owing  to  the  character  of  the 
refuse,  will,  in  all  probability,  be  far  better  than  anything  yet  re- 
corded in  connection  with  combined  undertakings. 

DESTRUCTORS  COMBINED  WITH  WATER  WORKS — SHEERNESS. 

Among  destructors  combined  with  water  works,  the  most  suc- 
cessful example  in  this  country  is  that  at  Sheerness,  a  plant  which 
has  been  inspected  and  was  favorably  commented  upon  by  some 
few  American  engineers.  Here  for  three  years  past  the  destructor 
has  shown  a  net  surplus  in  relief  of  the  rates  of  over  £400  per 
annum,  the  total  cost  of  repairs  and  maintenance  being  less  than 
£10. 

The  destructor  is  of  the  Meldrum  regenerative  front  fed  type, 
and  deals  with  about  fourteen  tons  of  refuse  daily;  the  total  cost 
of  the  plant,  excluding  the  chimney  only,  was  £3,600. 

Only  two  other  works  of  this  kind  are  in  operation,  a  small 
plant  at  Hunstanton  and  a  large  plant  at  Blackburn.  It  is  a  com- 
bination which  does  not  attract,  owing  to  fear  of  contamination, 
but  in  cases  where  the  reservoirs  are  not  located  at  the  pumping 
station  or  where  covered  reservoirs  are  used,  with  a  well-designed 
destructor  plant  no  trouble  need  be  feared. 

While  the  water  works  at  Sheerness  are  in  a  very  central  posi- 
tion, water  works  as  a  rule  are  even  further  removed  from  in- 
habited areas  than  are  sewage  works,  and  for  this  reason,  if  for  no 
other,  the  erection  of  destructors  at  water  works  will  be  limited. 

CLINKER  UTILIZATION. 

Having  destroyed,  or  rather  changed,  the  nature  of  the  refuse, 
we  now  have,  according  to  the  season  of  the  year  and  other  con- 
ditions, from  22%  to  35%  of  vitreous  clinker,  free  from  organic 
matter  and  useful  for  many  purposes.  In  so  far  as  this  country 
is  concerned  the  writer  is  still  firmly  convinced  that  where  a  good 
vitreous  "commercial"  clinker  is  produced  there  is  not,  nor  has 
there  ever  been  a  "clinker  problem."  Where  an  unsatisfactory 
clinker  is  produced,  due  either  to  an  inefficient  destructor  or  ineffi- 


276  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

cient  handling  of  a  good  destructor,  the  authorities  can  only  blame 
themselves  if  they  are  faced  with  what  they  are  pleased  to  term  a 
problem,  and  have  to  pay  to  get  rid  of  a  useless  material. 

Whether  their  choice  of  a  destructor  was  at  fault  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  whether  their  management  is  loose,  they  are  to  blame. 
In  a  few  cases  of  this  kind  the  clinker  is  a  source  of  trouble  and 
expense,  but  these  are  isolated  cases,  fe.w  and  far  between.  Gener- 
ally speaking,  clinker  is  a  good  asset,  and  in  many  cases  it  is  a  very 
material  source  of  revenue. 

Whether  plant  of  any  kind  be  installed  or  not  for  treatment  of 
the  clinker  must  always  be  determined  by  the  local  conditions. 
It  is,  for  instance,  a  sheer  waste  of  public  money  to  install  a 
plant  of  any  kind  if  the  clinker  can  be  sold  at  a  good  price  as  it 
comes  from  the  destructor. 

At  the  destructor  works  of  the  Metropolitan  Borough  of 
Wandsworth,  London,  all  the  clinker  is  thus  sold  just  as  it  comes 
from  the  destructor  at  is.  9d.  per  cubic  yard,  and  so  great  is  the 
demand  for  it  that  all  day  long  it  is  being  shoveled  into  carts 
long  before  it  is  cold. 

At  Watford  Destructor  Works,  all  clinker  is  similarly  sold  at 
is.  8d.  per  ton  on  the  ground  just  outside  the  works.  Under  such 
circumstances  it  would  be  folly  to  incur  a  large  expenditure  for 
brickmaking  plant,  or  even  the  moderate  expenditure  involved  in 
the  purchase  of  a  mortar  mill  or  a  crushing  and  screening  plant ; 
their  products  are  not  wanted,  while  the  untreated  clinker  is, 
and  the  revenue  is  accordingly  a  net  one. 

In  many  towns  there  is  a  great  demand  for  destructor  clinker 
mortar,  and  at  the  present  time  over  300  mortar  mills  are  in  daily 
operation  at  such  works ;  in  every  case  there  is  a  net  profit,  while 
the  mortar  is  considered  by  some  to  be  too  good  for  ordinary 
building  purposes. 

Where  clinker  can  be  utilized  for  bacteria  beds,  or  where  it 
can  be  best  sold  graded,  crushing  and  screening  plants  have  been 
installed.  Some  twenty-five  works  in  this  country  now  have  crush- 
ing and  screening  plants  in  operation. 

The  utilization  of  clinker  for  bacteria  beds  has  already  been 
referred  to;  the  sale  of  clinker  for  this  purpose  or  its  utilization 
instead  of  coke,  coke  breeze,  ballast  and  other  media  is  in  many 
cases  a  source  of  considerable  revenue. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  277 

Some  twenty  municipalities  are  now  operating  clinker  paving 
flag  plants  with  excellent  results ;  given  a  good  clinker,  very  dur- 
able flags  are  produced  at  a  saving  to  the  ratepayers.  Naturally 
the  most  convincing  figures  in  this  connection  are  those  from  the 
larger  towns  and  cities,  where  the  demand  is  such  that  the  plant 
can  be  operated  continuously.  Clinker  brick-making  plants  have 
now  been  installed  in  some  half  dozen  towns  in  England  and 
very  fine  bricks  are  being  produced. 

The  manufacture  of  mortar,  paving  flags  and  bricks  from 
clinker  has  met  with  much  opposition  in  this  country  from  those 
who  are  generally  opposed  to  municipal  trading.  Such  opposition 
is  perhaps  the  most  convincing  testimony  as  to  its  success. 

It  is  contended  that  mortar  must  not  be  made  and  sold  by  a 
municipality  in  competition  with  a  ratepayer,  that  a  local  authority 
should  not  even  be  permitted  to  make  paving  flags  or  bricks,  be- 
cause by  so  doing  established  industries  are  threatened.  The 
height  of  absurdity  has  perhaps  been  reached  when  those  who 
manufacture  and  sell  carbolic  powder  protest  against  the  use  of 
flue  dust  as  a  base  for  carbolic  powder,  although  the  municipality 
purchases  the  carbolic  acid. 

Hampered  thus  on  every  hand,  remarkable  progress  has  been 
made,  and  greater  progress  will  undoubtedly  be  recorded  in  the 
near  future. 

CONTINENTAL  PROGRESS. 

On  the  Continent  refuse  disposal  is  now  engaging  the  atten- 
tion of  many  municipa1  authorities  and,  in  spite  of  the  activity  of 
German  engineers,  British  destructors  are  likely  to  be  extensively 
adopted.  The  Herbertz  destructor,  designed  to  some  extent  on  the 
lines  of  the  most  successful  British  types,  has  been  adopted  at 
Fiume,  Austria,  and  very  satisfactory  results  are  reported,  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  destructor  can  show  such 
efficiency  as  may  be  obtained  with  British  destructors  properly 
adapted  for  dealing  with  the  varying  refuse  of  Continental  coun- 
tries. The  Horsfall  Destructor  at  Hamburg  (Bullerdeich)  which 
has  been  considerably  altered  during  the  past  few  years,  is  re- 
ported to  give  much  satisfaction.  Destructors  of  the  same  type 
have  been  erected  in  Zurich  and  Brussels.  Russia  can  now  boast 
of  two  destructors,  one  at  Czarskoe  Selo,  the  other  a  small  ex- 


278  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

perimentary  plant  at  St.  Petersburg,  both  of  the  Horsfall  type, 
and  curiously  enough,  after  years  of  contemplation,  both  de- 
structors were  erected  during  the  past  year,  when  that  unhappy 
country  was  in  the  throes  of  revolution. 

At  Fredericksburg  (Denmark)  a  destructor  of  British  make 
has  been  erected,  but  at  present  there  is  no  sign  of  further  prog- 
ress in  Scandinavian  municipalities. 

During  the  present  year  the  first  destructors  to  be  adopted  in 
France  will  be  erected  in  Paris,  comprising  three  distinct  in- 
stallations of  the  Meldrum  patent  regenerative  top-fed  type. 

Each  of  the  three  works  will  be  equipped  with  3.4  grate  de- 
structors, Babcock  &  Wilcox  boilers,  9.4  grate  plants  in  all,  hav- 
ing a  combined  total  destroying  capacity  of  between  500  and  600 
tons  daily. 

The  town  of  St.  Etienne  has  ordered  three  Meldrum  destructors 
having  a  total  capacity  of  over  200  tons  per  day. 

Holland,  Greece  and  Turkey  cannot  report  progress  at  present ; 
in  the  former  country  British  destructors  are  now  being  con- 
sidered for  some  of  the  most  important  municipalities.  In  Greece 
there  is  not  a  whisper  of  sanitary  refuse  disposal.  Turkey  is 
equally  apathetic;  the  dogs  of  Constantinople,  ever  multiplying, 
continue  to  account  for  the  garbage  of  this  interesting  and  his- 
toric city  whose  authorities  at  present  seem  quite  content  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  services  of  these  willing  and  unpaid  scavengers 
for  all  time. 

What  has  been  accomplished  in  Great  Britain  has  not  been 
without  its  effect  upon  municipal  engineers  in  Continental  Europe ; 
there  are  abundant  signs  on  every  hand  that  when  the  present  un- 
satisfactory methods  of  refuse  disposal  no  longer  satisfy,  British 
destructors  will  be  favored  as  offering  a  definite  solution  of  what 
must  everywhere  become  a  serious  problem. 

PROGRESS  IN  THE  EAST. 

In  Cairo  a  four-cell  Horsfall  destructor  was  erected  about  two 
years  ago.  Alexandria,  the  Egyptian  city  of  scarcely  less  im- 
portance, has  recently  decided  to  adopt  a  British  destructor. 

Further  east,  in  India,  but  little  progress  can  be  reported. 
A  Baker  destructor  has  been  erected  in  Calcutta,  which  plant  deals 
with  about  130  tons  daily.  At  Karachi,  in  the  Punjab,  are 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  279 

two  Warner  destructors,  erected  some  few  years  ago,  now  op- 
erating. 

At  Singapore  (Straits  Settlements)  a  four-cell  Horsfall  de- 
structor will  be  erected  during  the  present  year. 

Nothing  has  yet  been  done  in  Japan,  but  coincidently  with  the 
advance  of  Western  civilization  there  will  surely  be  a  decided  de- 
mand for  sanitary  improvement.  In  China,  notoriously  dirty,  no 
progress  can  be  recorded;  even  in  the  important  cities  of  Hong 
Kong  and  Shanghai  disposal  by  fire  has  yet  to  be  adopted.  It  is, 
however,  but  fair  to  add  that  the  garbage  of  the  latter  city  is  in 
constant  demand  for  manurial  purposes. 

Kipling  has  said  that  "East  is  East  and  West  is  West,  and  never 
the  twain  shall  meet."  In  final  sanitary  refuse  disposal  they  cer- 
tainly will  meet;  with  advancing  civilization  and  a  growing  de- 
mand for  sanitary  reform  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the 
time  is  coming  when  the  ideal  of  the  West  will  be  the  ideal  of  the 
East. 

PROGRESS  IN  AUSTRALASIA. 

In  Australasia  progress  is  somewhat  slow,  but  interesting-  de- 
velopments may  be  looked  for  during  the  next  few  years.  The 
important  municipalities  of  Australia  have  moved  very  cautiously, 
notwithstanding  the  constant  trouble  arising  from  the  tipping  of 
refuse.  In  Sydney  is  a  six-cell  Warner  destructor  erected  four 
years  ago ;  a  new  plant  of  greater  capacity  was  projected  two 
years  since,  but  tenders  have  not  yet  been  accepted.  A  Manlove 
destructor  was  erected  in  Melbourne  (South)  several  years  ago, 
and  the  authorities  of  this  important  Victorian  city  are  likely  to 
erect  a  modern  plant  in  the  near  future.  The  municipality  of 
Perth  have  recently  decided  to  erect  a  Horsfall  destructor;  other 
cities  such  as  Adelaide,  Brisbane  and  Newcastle  continue  to  con- 
template cremation  as  the  only  way  out  of  an  ever-increasing 
difficulty. 

At  Toowoomba,  near  Brisbane,  a  Meldrum  destructor  of  the 
Beaman  &  Deas  type  was  erected  about  three  years  ago,  specially 
arranged  for  the  cremation  of  refuse  and  excreta.  Annandale 
and  Leichardt,  two  small  townships  on  the  outskirts  of  Sydney, 
have  a  Meldrum  regenerative  front-fed  destructor,  which  deals 
with  the  refuse  of  both  towns,  some  25  tons  daily. 


280  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


New  Zealand  has,  perhaps,  a  better  record  than  Australia, 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  modern  British  practice.  At  Christ- 
church  a  Meldrum  Beaman  &  Deas  destructor  was  erected  about 


FIG.  85.— DESTRUCTOR  AT  ANNAN  DALE,  AUSTRALIA. 


FIG.  86.— DESTRUCTOR   AT  CHRISTCHURCH,    NEW  ZEALAND. 

four  years  ago  in  combination  with  the  municipal  electricity 
works  (Fig.  86).  The  city  of  Auckland  also  has  erected  a  three- 
grate  Meldrum  regenerative  top-fed  destructor  in  conjunction 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  281 

with  the  electricity  works.  This  plant  has  been  in  operation 
for  some  few  months  past  and,  like  the  Christchurch  plant,  with 
very  satisfactory  results. 

Wellington  has  a  destructor  of  the  Fryer  type,  erected  several 
years  ago ;  a  modern  destructor  of  British  make  has  recently  been 
decided  upon  and  will  be  erected  in  the  near  future. 

SOUTH  AFRICA. 

At  East  London  and  Durban  (Natal)  destructors  of  the  Warner 
"Perfectus"  type  were  erected  some  years  ago,  and  these,  the 
first  destructors  in  South  Africa,  required  the  use  of  coal  as  a 


FIG.   87.— MELDRUM    DESTRUCTOR,   JOHANNESBURG,   SOUTH    AFRICA. 

supplementary  fuel.  Within  the  past  two  years  a  Horsfall  three- 
cell  destructor  has  been  erected  in-  Durban,  a  plant  of  the  same 
type  and  size  at  Bloemfontein,  and  a  two-cell  Horsfall  destructor 
at  Lorenzo  Marques. 

At  Kalk  Bay  (Muizenberg),  "the  Brighton  of  Cape  Colony," 
is  a  Meldrum  two-grate  plant  which  is  operated  in  combination 
with  a  large  generating  and  main  drainage  works.  Johannesburg 
has  three  four-grate  Meldrum  patent  regenerative  top-fed  de- 


282  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

structors,  which  deal  with  nearly  200  tons  of  refuse  daily;  here, 
as  at  Kalk  Bay,  the  power  is  fully  utilized.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  the  clinker  at  Johannesburg  is  a  source  of  revenue,  large 
quantities  having  been  sent  even  as  far  as  Bloemfontein  sewage 
works  for  the  bacteria  beds  there.  The  municipality  of  Pretoria 
has  recently  decided  to  install  a  Meldrum  regenerative  top-fed  de- 
structor to  dispose  of  some  40  tons  of  refuse  daily.  The  plant  will 
have  a  capacity  of  60  tons  daily. 

THE  GENERAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF  DESTRUCTORS. 

It  will  now  be  clear  that  the  British  refuse  destructor  is  an 
established  success,  in  many  countries.  The  many  foreign  and 
colonial  installations  are  shown  in  the  following  table  (No.  LIX), 
and  it  must  be  obvious  that  the  experience  gained  in  the  treatment 
of  a  great  variety  of  waste  in  a  number  of  countries  has  placed 
the  leading  makers  of  destructors  in  England  in  a  very  strong 
position. 

It  is  but  fair  to  argue  that  those  destructors  which  are  success- 
fully dealing  with  a  variety  of  waste  in  tropical  and  other  coun- 
tries could  be  readily  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  American 
municipalities  and  in  the  treatment  of  the  waste  of  such  munici- 
palities a  useful  experience  would  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
problem. 

There  are  obvious  difficulties  to  be  faced  in  connection  with  the 
choice  of  the  site ;  there  ever  will  be ;  ignorance  has  always  to  be 
combated,  but  those  who  have  the  interests  of  the  ratepayers  at 
heart  must  be  prepared  for  opposition.  With  well  over  100  de- 
structors in  operation  on  central  sites  in  the  United  Kingdom, 
very  few  complaints  have  been  made. 

Needless  to  add  to  insure  such  a  result  the  destructor  must  be 
well  designed,  contained  within  suitable  buildings,  efficiently 
operated  and  carefully  supervised.  Under  favorable  conditions  it 
should  then  be,  if  not  actually  self-supporting,  at  any  rate  such 
a  small  charge  upon  the  rates  as  would  pass  unnoticed  by  the 
intelligent  citizen  who  realizes  to  the  full  the  great  sanitary  gain. 

The  method  of  disposal  by  fire  may  be  accepted  as  the  most 
satisfactory  and  universal  way  of  dealing  with  all  forms  of  worth- 
less matter,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  beginning  of  the 
movement  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  is  announced  by  the 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  283 

installation  of  four  British  destructors,  all  of  which  have  been 
entirely  successful  in  their  performance.  A  contract  has  also  been 
recently  closed  for  another.  At  the  present  writing  the  American 
towns  are  asking  for  additional  information  regarding  the  opera- 
tion and  capacity  of  these  destructors.  With  the  better  knowledge 
of  the  efficiency  and  capacity  of  these  furnaces  as  applied  to 
American  conditions  there  will  undoubtedly  be  an  expansion  of 
this  business  such  as  has  attended  the  growth  in  Great  Britain 
and  the  Colonies,  and  the  continental  countries  within  the  last 
six  years. 


TABLE     LIX.— BRITISH     REFUSE     DESTRUCTORS    THROUGHOUT    THE 

WORLD. 


MAKER 

Great  BritairJ 
and  Ireland 

Continental 
Countries 

Australasia 

o 

li 

** 
1:1 

w^ 

South 
America 

S 

0} 

w 
1 

Canada 

V) 

•oi 

S3 

•a  co 

fa 

CQ 

3 
8 

Meldrum  Bros.  .  . 

77 

6 

7 

4 

2 

2 

i 

2 

101 

Horsfall  Des.  Co. 

60 

7 

2 

5 

2 

2 

78 

Manlove,  Elliott 

&Co  

63 

i 

2 

i 

2 

69 

H  e  e  n  a  n    & 

Froude  

35 

2 

I 

i 

I 

40 

Goddard,  Massey 

&  Warner  

28 

I 

2 

I 

32 

Hughes    &    Stir- 
ling  Co 

7 

o 

8 

Jos.  Baker  & 

/ 

Sons  

1 

2 

I 

4 

332 

NOTE — Tnis  paper  was  written  by  Mr.  Goodrich  in  1906,  and  all  statements  refer  to 
the  conditions  at  the  end  of  that  year. 

The  table  LIX  is  compiled  by  the  author  from  available  data — ED. 


PRAHRAN,  AUSTRALIA.     THE  MELDRUM   SIMPLEX  DESTRUCTOR 

AT  PRAHRAN. 

In  1907,  Mr.  W.  Calder,  City  Engineer  of  Prahran,  Australia, 
was  instructed  to  proceed  to  England  and  examine  the  several 
types  of  refuse  destructors  in  view  of  an  installation  for  the  city 
of  Prahran.  After  inspecting  a  very  large  number  of  installations 
he  contracted  for  a  Meldrum  Simplex  Destructor  with  some 


284  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

special  features  of  the  latest  design.  This  destructor  was  built 
in  the  latter  part  of  1907,  and  has  been  in  operation  since  the 
spring  of  this  year.  It  is  probable  that  Australian  conditions  are 
very  much  more  similiar  to  our  own  than  they  are  to  those  of 
England,  and  the  reports  that  followed  the  first  operation  of  this 
destructor  will  be  of  interest  to  all  American  readers. 

Prahran  has  40,000  population  and  is  to  some  extent  a  residen- 
tial suburb  of  Melbourne.  All  the  refuse  of  the  town  was  pre- 
viously dumped,  after  being  hauled  a  long  distance,  which  disposal 
created  objectionable  nuisance.  The  recent  composition  of  the 
refuse  we  have  no  record  of,  but  in  1900  that  of  Melbourne  and 
Prahran  was  reported  to  be  as  follows: 

COMPOSITION    OF  TOWN'S   REFUSE. 


Melbourne 

Prahran 

Cinders,  coke  and  ashes  

26   <  t; 

AT.      08 

Sweepings,  fine  dust,  sand,  etc  

42  .81 

26.23 

Vegetable  matter,  garden  refuse,  etc  
Paper,  wood,  straw,  combustibles  

14.31 
•  ••-''•        n-57 

17-57 
9-25 

Rubbish,  glass,  iron,  incombustibles,  etc  

4.76 

3.87 

100  .00 

100  .00 

The  plant  just  completed  comprises  two  independent  units  of 
two  grates  or  cells  each,  and  two  Babcock  &  Wilcox  boilers,  each 
of  200  horse-power.  The  enclosing  structure  is  all  of  brick  with  a 
brick  chimney,  135  feet  high,  and  the  tipping  floor  is  reached  by 
a  ramp,  a  substantially  built  incline  of  earth  between  two  retain- 
ing walls.  The  advantage  of  the  two  independent  units  is  the 
opportunity  offered  to  clean  the  flues  and  furnaces  without  any 
cessation  of  destruction  and  resultant  accumulation  of  refuse, 
which  would  be  very  objectionable  in  this  residential  locality. 

The  amount  of  refuse  destroyed  is  about  thirty  tons  per  day. 
In  the  summer  season  this  is  of  less  calorific  value  than  in  winter, 
because  of  the  large  proportion  of  vegetables,  garden  refuse,  tree 
cuttings,  etc.  One  unit  operating  24  hours  usually  disposes  of  all 
the  refuse.  It  was  originally  intended  to  heat  the  air  used  in  com- 
bustion by  passing  it  over  the  hot  clinkers,  and  the  plant  was  de- 
signed to  permit  of  this.  A  short  trial,  however,  indicated  that 
little  benefit  was  derived  from  this  and  it  has  been  discontinued. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  285 

The  clinkers  are  now  carried  directly  to  the  yard,  where  they  are 
crushed  and  used  for  the  paving  of  roads  and  footpaths. 

A  local  paper  remarks  concerning  the  surroundings :  "Trees, 
flowers  and  shrubs  are  being  planted,  and  the  place  in  time  should 
present  an  attractive  appearance  to  the  eye,  especially  to  passengers 


FIG.    88.— THE    MELDRUM    DESTRUCTOR,    PRAHRAN,    AUSTRALIA. 

who  travel  on  the  Hawkburn  railway  line.  The  site  of  the  de- 
structor is  in  the  center  of  the  city,  surrounded  by  dwellings,  where 
any  nuisance  or  failure  in  its  proper  working  would  be  a  serious 
matter." 

The  following  report  of  the  operation  of  the  destructor  during 
a  test  made  in  May,  1908,  is  furnished  by  Mr.  Calder : 

TABLE   LX.— PRAHRAN    REFUSE   DESTRUCTOR  TEST,   MAY  21,  1908. 

BOILERS: 

Time  of  test 9:45  a.m.  to  10:15  p.m. 

Duration  of  test 1 1%   hours. 

Weather  conditions,  etc Fine.    Wind  North  to  Northwest. 

Number  of  Cells 2 

Total  Grate  Area 50  square  feet. 

One  Babcock-Wilcox  Heating  Surface 1,426  square  feet. 


286  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

TABLE  LX.— (Continued.) 

REPUSB: 

Nature  of  Refuse House  and  Garden  Refuse. 

Amount  of  Moisture  contained  in  Refuse 42.86% 

Total  Weight  of  Refuse  delivered 21  T.     10  C.     i  Q.     14  Ibs. 

as  fired 20         13         o  4 

"  Tins,  bottles,  etc 17          i          jo 

"  Refuse  destroyed  per  hour i          13         0  5 

"    sq.  ft.  per  hr 74.016  Ibs. 

WATER: 

Total  weight  of  water  evaporated 47,067.5  Ibs. 

per  hour 3,765.4    " 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse 1.019  Ibs. 

from    and    at 

212  degrees 1.188     " 

CLINKER: 

Total  weight  of  clinker 5  T.     o  C.     3  Q.     21  Ibs. 

Proportion  of  clinker  to  refuse  fired 24.4% 

Total  weight  of  ash  from  ashpits 9  C.     o  Q.     7  Ibs. 

Proportion  of  ash  to  refuse  fired 2.19% 

STEAM  PRESSURE: 

Steam  Gauge — Average 172.3 

Highest 185 

Lowest ..115 

Ashpit  Draught — Average (No.  i)  .69"  (No.  2)   1.35" 

TEMPERATURE: 

Combustion  Chamber Copper  melted  3  times. 

Maximum  (Watkin's  Recorder)  2, 174    degrees. 

Before  Regenerator — Average ,  .  .  .  694.08 

After  Regenerator  55i-5 

Hot  Air  Conduit  347-6  " 

Building  62  " 

Feed  Water  82.1 

For  the  utilization  of  the  power  developed  by  the  destructor  a 
contract  has  been  made  with  the  Electric  Lighting  &  Traction 
Company,  which  is  a  private  corporation,  and  from  which  the 
city  receives  payment  for  the  surplus  electricity  at  a  price  based 
upon  the  present  rate  paid  by  the  company  for  fuel  for  the  opera- 
tion of  their  own  works.  The  power  developed  during  the  day 
by  the  destructor  is  sent  through  the  high  tension  main  of  the 
electricity  works,  passing  through  a  meter  for  measurement.  It 
is  estimated  that  this  will  bring  in  a  revenue  of  £600  per  annum. 
The  city  council  has  ordered  an  additional  cell  for  one  of  the 
plants,  and  when  this  is  installed  the  working  force  will  be  reduced 
to  two  shifts  of  five  men  instead  of  six  men  in  the  twenty-four 
hours,  as  formerly. 

There  is  also  a  use  found  for  the  clinker,  which  is  crushed  and 
made  into  paving  slabs  to  be  used  in  municipal  work.  The  illus- 
trations herewith  show  a  mortar  mill  and  crushing  and  grinding 
machine  with  screen  for  separating  the  fine  dust  from  the 
clinker.  It  is  expected  that  when  all  these  revenues  are  put 
together  the  cost  of  operation  of  the  destructor  will  be  brought 
down  to  less  than  £20  per  annum.  At  the  present  time  the  ex- 
penditure in  working  the  plant  amounts  to  about  £920  per  year. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  287 

This  will  be  reduced  to  £900  when  the  new  grate  is  at  work,  and 
the  cost  of  maintenance  greatly  reduced. 

This  plant  is  an  illustration  of  what  can  be  done  by  a  modern 
destructor  of  the  best  type  when  operated  under  the  care  of  an  ex- 


FIG.    89.— MORTAR      MILL     AND     CLINKER     SEPARATOR,      PRAHRAN, 

AUSTRALIA. 

perienced  city  engineer,  and  from  which  revenue  can  be  had  not 
only  through  the  power  but  also  from  the  by-products  by  prac- 
tical utilization.  The  conditions  in  Prahran  are  very  much  like 
those  in  an  ordinary  northern  American  town,  and  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  similar  results  can  be  obtained  here  by  using 
the  same  methods. 

REFUSE  DESTRUCTORS  IN  PARIS. 

The  Meldrum  Destructors  in  Paris. — As  previously  noted  Paris 
had  for  centuries  disposed  of  all  its  refuse  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses, but  early  in  1907  a  contract  was  made  for  the  installation 
of  three  destructor  plants  in  different  parts  of  the  city,  which 
should  have  a  combined  capacity  of  700  tons  daily. 


288  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


FIG.   90.— MELDRUM    DESTRUCTORS,    PARIS. 


DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  BRITISH  DESTRUCTOR  SYSTEMS.  289 

These  destructors  are  of  the  standard  Meldrum  top-feed  type,  in 
three  installations  at  Issy-le-Moulineaux,  Romainviile  and  St. 
Ouen.  Each  plant  comprises  three  units  of  four  grates,  making  a 
total  of  36  grates,  or  cells.  Babcock  &  Wilcox  boilers  are  used. 

The  accompanying  illustration  gives  an  excellent  idea  ot  the 
construction  of  the  stations,  and  of  the  method  of  charging  the 
destructors,  by  means  of  conveyor  belts  which  bring  the  refuse  to 
chutes  connected  with  the  charging  holes  of  each  destructor. 

In  1906  the  total  number  of  British  destructors  operating 
throughout  the  world  was  estimated  at  282.  Since  then  the  in* 
crease,  as  shown  in  the  preceding  table,  is  estimated  at  50,  making 
the  total  332.  These  figures  are  given  as  an  indication  of  the 
growth  of  the  destructor  system  in  almost  every  country  in  the 
world.  Besides  the  makers  named  there  are  some  four  or  five 
other  baildtrs  in  Germany  and  Italy  of  furnaces  which  follow 
very  closely  the  lines  of  the  British  destructors.  Undoubtedly 
there  are  many  other  furnace  builders  whose  acquaintance  we 
have  not  vet  made. 


PART  IV. 

THE    DISPOSAL    OF    WASTE    BY    REDUCTION    AND 
EXTRACTION  PROCESSES. 

CHAPTER    XII. 

THE  PROCESSES  OF  REDUCTION  AND  EXTRACTION  IN  THE  U.  S. 

The  movement  for  the  improvement  of  sanitary  conditions  in 
American  towns  actively  began  in  1887.  While  there  were  already 
in  existence  many  State  medical  associations  which  dealt  with 
public  hygiene  as  particular  phases  of  epidemics  were  reported  by 
the  members,  prior  to  this  year,  no  general  attention  was  paid 
to  the  subject  of  municipal  sanitation  as-  represented  by  the  sani- 
tary treatment  of  city  wastes. 

The  leading  national  societies,  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion, the  Mississippi  Valley  Sanitary  Society  and  the  Association 
of  American  Railroad  Surgeons,  did  not  concern  themselves  with 
prevention  of  diseases  that  might  arise  from  unsanitary  waste 
disposal  methods.  The  health  officers  of  towns  and  cities  were 
struggling  with  the  difficulties  that  arose,  but  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  suitable  methods  and  apparatus  for  improving  conditions, 
they  were  content  to  follow  precedents  and  dispose  of  waste  by  the 
easiest  available  means. 

The  first  steps  for  general  improvement  were  taken  by  the 
American  Public  Health  Association,  when,  in  1887,  at  the  meet- 
ing in  Milwaukee,  there  was  read  a  series  of  papers  describing  the 
work  of  certain  garbage  crematories  in  Wheeling,  Des  Moines, 
Milwaukee,  Minneapolis  and  Montreal,  by  which  city  refuse  of 
every  kind  was  destroyed  by  fire.  This  led  to  the  appointment  of 
a  special  committee  to  investigate  and  report  on  the  subject,  and 
this  committee  has  been  continued  for  nearly  twenty  years. 
Papers  published  in  the  official  reports  of  the  association  tabulated 
the  progress  of  the  work,  definitely  defined  the  constituents  of 
waste,  and  from  time  to  time  gave  statistics  from  many  cities 

290 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  291 

and  towns,  advocating  impartial  consideration  of  the  subject  with 
a  view  to  the  improvement  of  sanitary  conditions.  These  reports 
gave  descriptions  of  methods  and  apparatus,  and  generally  in- 
cluded an  indication  of  the  approximate  costs. 

But  in  1888-89  the  subject  came  more  prominently  to  the  front, 
through  an  epidemic  of  yellow  fever  in  Florida,  which  awakened 
widespread  interest  in  the  practical  question  of  protection  by 
quarantine,  and  the  necessity  for  controlling  the  progress  and 
finally  stamping  out  the  cause  of  the  plague.  Among  the  ques- 
tions pertinent  to  the  subject  was  that  of  the  disposal  of  city  waste, 
a  serious. problem  in  the  affected  communities  in  which  there  was 
no  sewerage  system,  nor  any  method,  except  the  most  primitive, 
for  disposing  of  household  refuse. 

The  demand  for  the  safe  and  instant  disposal  of  dangerous 
matter  was  met  by  the  erection  of  cremating  furnaces  in  which 
night-soil,  garbage,  dead  animals  and  combustible  refuse  were 
destroyed.  At  Jacksonville,  St.  Augustine,  Tampa,  Fla.,  Bruns- 
wick, Savannah,  Atlanta,  Ga.,  and  Birmingham,  Ala.,  the  most 
dangerous  forms  of  waste  were  consumed  by  Engle  cremators, 
which  were  invaluable  aids  in  restoring  confidence  in  the  effi- 
cient administration  of  the  Health  Departments.  All  these  installa- 
tions, with  one  exception,  were  made  after  the  design  and  under 
the  supervision  of  the  author.  While  none  were  of  large  capacity 
and  all  were  hastily  built  with  the  material  at  hand,  they  were  all 
on  the  whole  quite  satisfactory  in  operation,  and  for  temporary 
service  admirably  answered  the  purpose.  The  subsequent  growth 
and  progress  of  this  means  of  waste  disposal  by  incineration  has 
been  previously  described. 

THE  REDUCTION  AND  EXTRACTION  METHODS  FOR  THE  TREAT- 
MENT OF  GARBAGE. 

The  reports  upon  crematory  work  published  by  the  engineering 
press  and  in  the  papers  of  the  American  Public  Health  Associa- 
tion gave- some  idea  of  the  composition  and  relative  quantities  of 
American  city  waste.  It  was  observed  that  the  garbage  was  larger 
in  amount  in  this  country  than  in  English  towns,  where  the  work 
of  disposal  by  fire  had  been  carried  on  for  several  previous  years. 
The  reports  of  experiments  made  in  European  cities  established 
the  fact  that  this  item  of  waste  contained  a  certain  proportion  of 


292  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

grease  or  oil  that  was  valuable  for  many  uses,  and  that  there  re- 
mained, after  this  oil  was  extracted,  a  residuum  that  could  be  still 
further  utilized. 

THE  MERZ  PROCESS  OF  REDUCTION. 

In  1886  the  "Merz"  process,  first  experimentally  known  in 
Vienna,  Austria,  was  introduced  into  America  by  Mr.  H.  A. 
Fleischman,  who  in  May  of  that  year  organized,  at  Buffalo,  a 
company  "to  manufacture  grease  and  fertilizer  from  city  refuse." 
The  contract  with  the  city  of  Buffalo  provided  that  the  city  should 
collect  the  garbage,  separated  from  all  other  refuse,  and  deliver  the 
same  at  the  company's  works. 

The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Fleischman  before  the  committee  of 
the  Boston  City  Council  in  March,  1893,  gives  a  concise  account 
of  the  first  "Merz"  Extraction  Process.  Mr.  Fleischman  said : 

We  put  up  the  first  plant  in  the  city  of  Buffalo,  and  I  thought  there 
would  be  a  barrel  of  money  in  it;  and  I  went  before  the  city  council  and 
said,  "Gentlemen,  I  will  take  your  garbage  for  nothing.  I  do  not  want 
any  compensation  for  it."  We  put  up  the  first  plant,  gentlemen.  Our 
company  and  our  friends  invested  $55,000  and  we  received  the  garbage 
for  a  year  and  a  half,  and  after  this  time  we  found  out  we  had  lost 
$18,000,  and  the  people  who  had  invested  their  money  in  the  garbage  busi- 
ness thought  they  had  better  buy  some  other  stock  than  garbage  stock. 
Finally  we  closed  it  up  voluntarily. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  all  you  would  know  the  trouble  we  had,  the  in- 
junctions that  came  in  by  the  dozen  : before  we  built  a  plant,  anybody 
would  be  tired  of  going  into  the  garbage  business.  Well,  after  the  plant 
was  closed  for  about  a  year,  about  five  different  parties  came  there  and 
made  a  bid.  'The  cremation  parties  and  other  parties  had  some  scheme 
to  put  it  on  the  ground  and  put  some  chemicals  on  it. 

Finally  the  people  of  Buffalo  were  satisfied  and  thought  we  had  lost 
our  money,  and  they  gave  us  a  contract  for  two  years,  $20,000  a  year, 
and  our  stockholders  were  delighted.  We  have  worked  that  plant  for 
two  years.  .  .  .  We  get  the  common  garbage  from  the  city,  and  after 
two  years'  work,  we  didn't  make  much  money — we  made  in  two  years 
$5,460. 

Finally  we  went  into  another  competition.  The  two  years  were  out— 
the  city  advertised  again.  .  .  .  The  Sanitary  Committee  of  the  City  of 
Buffalo  unanimously  accepted  my  bid  of  $125,000  for  five  years. 

This  second  plant  of  the  Buffalo  Reduction  Company  was 
built  at  Checktowaga,  outside  the  city  limits,  about  six  and  one- 
half  miles  from  City  Hall. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  293 

The  construction  and  operation  of  the  original  plant  cannot  be 
accurately  described,  owing  to  the  numerous  changes  that  have 
been  made,  but  the  following  description  of  the  second  plant, 
which  information  was  obtained  by  a  personal  inspection  of  the 
works  in  1892,  is  believed  to  be  correct. 

The  city  garbage  carts  deliver  their  loads  upon  an  upper  plat- 
form where  the  tins  and  other  foreign  substances  are  recovered 
by  hand.  The  garbage  is  then  charged  into  horizontal  tanks  or 
digesters  of  about  6,000  pounds  capacity.  Extending  through 
these  digesters  is  a  hollow  shaft  with  projecting  arms  which  is 
rotated  by  power,  steam  at  high  pressure  being  forced  through 
the  shaft  and  arms.  These  cylindrical  digesters  are  jacketed  to 
prevent  the  radiation  of  heat.  The  cooking  process  continues  for 
from  six  to  eight  hours,  during  which  the  bulk  of  the^  garbage 
is  reduced  65  per  cent,  by  the  escape  of  water  which  is  allowed  to 
drain  from  the  digesters.  The  remaining  35  per  cent,  of  matter  is 
removed  to  closed  steel  tanks  which  are  then  flooded  with  naphtha. 
This  fluid  holding  the  grease  or  oil  is  then  removed  by  presses  and 
the  residuum  or  "tankage"  dried  in  rotary  cylinders  and  ground 
for  fertilizer.  The  separation  of  the  grease  and  water  is  then 
complete,  and  the  naphtha,  with  a  loss  of  15  per  cent,  to  20  per 
cent,  is  recovered  and  used  again.  The  oil  obtained  by  this  process 
is  a  dense,  semi-liquid  brown  or  black  mixture  containing  many 
impurities  and  a  considerable  percentage  of  naphtha.  It  is 
barrelled  and  sent  to  market  in  this  crude  form.  The  quantity,  is 
about  3  per  cent,  of  the  total  amount  of  garbage  treated,  equivalent 
to  approximately  60  pounds  per  ton  of  garbage. 

There  is  required  250  horse-power  of  steam  and  the  continuous 
labor  of  twelve  or  fifteen  men  to  carry  on  the  work.  With  the 
exception  of  a  storage  house  and  the  chimney  stack  the  con- 
struction is  wholly  of  wood. 

In  1890  this  company  made  several  experimental  attempts  to 
manufacture  a  fertilizer  from  night-soil  by  means  of  a  huge  rotary 
drying  cylinder,  but  the  process  was  so  offensive  and  expensive, 
and  the  results  so  uncertain  that  the  attempts  were  abandoned. 

The  company  continued  the  work  of  garbage  disposal  up  to 
September  30,  1900,  when  the  works  were  almost  entirely  des- 
troyed by  fire.  Pending  the  reconstruction  of  the  plant,  the  com- 
pany demanded  and  obtained  a  change  in  the  contract  whereby 


294  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

they  received  a  somewhat  larger  amount  of  money,  with  additional 
yearly  increase. 

When  this  contract  expired,  the  Board  of  Works  advertised  for 
bids.  .  As  stated  by  Mr.  Drake,  chairman  of  the  board : 

The  reduction  works  that  had  been  enjoying  the  contract  for  $35,000 
per  year  put  in  a  bid  for  $45,000  a  year.  There  were  three  bids,  however, 
the  lowest  being  for  $15,000,  and  after  weeks  of  delay  and  a  bitter  fight, 
the  contract  was  let  to  the  lowest  bidders.  Within  three  days  thereafter 
the  highest  bidder,  the  reduction  works,  came  with  the  successful  con- 
tractor and  asked  the  board  to  consent  to  the  transfer  of  the  contract 
to  the  reduction  works;  and  to-day  (September,  1899)  they  are  reducing 
the  garbage  for  $15,000  per  year,  the  former  cost  being  $35,000. 

The  present  contract,  dating  from  June,  1903,  is  with  the  Buffalo 
Sanitary  Company,  which  has  the  contract  for  the  collection  and 
disposal  oT  the  city  garbage,  refuse  and  ashes.  The  treatment  of 
twenty-five  thousand  tons  per  year  is  performed  for  the  sum  of 
about  $18,000,  the  reduction  company  receiving  all  the  product  of 
the  work.  This  is  a  rate  of  61.2  cents  for  disposal  only.  The 
company  makes  collections  and  delivers  at  the  works.  This  con- 
tract expires  in  1909,  when  it  is  probable  that  some  other  method 
which  will  be  less  expensive  will  be  used  for  transportation  and 
treatment. 

THE  NEW  MERZ  PROCESS. 

When  rebuilding  the  Buffalo  works  after  the  destruction  by 
fire,  many  changes  and  alterations  were  made,  and  later  on  more 
improvements  were  introduced. 

The  present  Merz  process  as  carried  on  at  Checktowaga  is  thus 
described  by  a  competent  authority: 

The  building  contains  three  large  ovens,  in  each  of  which  are 
six  revolving  cylindrical  dryers.  These  are  48  inches  in  diameter, 
13  feet  long,  inclined,  and  supplied  with  hard  coal  grates,  15  square 
feet  in  area.  The  heated  gases  pass  around  the  dryers  and  are 
then  drawn  through  them  by  mechanical  contrivances.  Outside 
the  building  is  a  cooling  tank,  7  feet  diameter,  10  feet  high, 
furnished  with  a  i^-inch  water  spray  pipe  and  drain,  and  a  large 
vertical  discharge  fan  78  inches  in  diameter,  of  25,000  cubic  feet 
capacity,  speed  280  revolutions  per  minute.  The  fan  is  connected 
with  a  steel  stack  80  feet  high  by  5%  feet  in  diameter.  The  re- 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  295 

maining  apparatus  includes  four  125  horse-power  boilers,  four 
grease  extractors,  two  engines  and  an  electrical  generator. 

The  garbage  is  dumped  into  a  large  hopper  and  taken  by  con- 
veyor to  the  second  floor  where  it  is  ground  into  pieces  of  one 
cubic  inch.  It  then  passes  through  the  same  breeching  that  con- 
veys the  gases  to  the  cooling  tower,  into  the  rotary  dryers  where 
it  remains  for  one  hour  and  a  quarter.  During  this  time  it  slowly 
passes  the  length  of  the  dryers,  subjected  to  the  heat  all  around  the 
cylinders ;  the  hot  gases  are  also  returned  through  the  dryers  and 
brought  into  direct  contact  with  the  garbage.  All  animal  life 
is  now  destroyed  and  a  large  part  of  the  moisture  driven  off. 
The  garbage  is  then  conveyed  to  the  Merz  Grease  Extractors  and 
the  grease  removed  by  a  solvent  of  benzine.  The  tankage  is 
ground  and  stored  for  market  and  the  grease  separated  from  the 
naphtha,  which  is  recovered  with  about  15  per  cent.  loss.  These 
gases  discharged  in  the  drying  process  deposit  a  large  amount  of 
watery  vapor  in  the  cooling  tower  and  are  sucked  into  the  stack, 
passing  over  a  furnace  in  the  bottom  of  the  stack  which  destroys 
any  remaining  offensive  odors.  Although  the  plant  has  reduced 
as  much  as  175  tons  per  day,  with  80  per  cent,  of  moisture, 
equivalent  to  140  tons  of  water,  the  gases  discharged  from  the 
top  of  the  stack  were  odorless  and  almost  invisible. 

The  amount  of  garbage  handled  varies  from  50  tons  per  day  in 
February  to  140  tons  in  September.  To  reduce  this  amount  of 
garbage  the  plant  consumes  about  ten  tons  of  coal  per  day  for  the 
steam  boilers  which  furnish  power  to  operate  the  plant,  and  for 
the  heating  and  evaporating  of  the  naphtha,  and  four  tons  of  coal 
per  day  to  heat  the  rotary  dryers,  also  100,000  gallons  of  water  per 
day  for  steam  and  condensing  purposes,  and  about  50  gallons  of 
naphtha  per  day  to  replenish  losses. 

This  is  the  method  at  present  in  use,  a  radical  departure  from 
the  former  method  of  reduction  by  steam  to  pulp  before  applying 
the  solvent,  and  is  the  result  of  experiments  extending  for  a  num- 
ber of  years. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  great  difficulty  in  reduction  methods 
has  been  that  of  drawing  off  the  moisture  contained  in  garbage, 
which  averages  nearly  85  per  cent.  When  this  is  separated  by 
steaming  there  is  at  one  stage  of  the  process  a  volume  of  water 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  dispose  of  except  through  sewers. 


296  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

This  procedure  invariably  gives  rise  to  nuisance,  as  the  water 
contains  the  most  offensive  and  most  quickly  putrefying  elements 
of  the  garbage.  The  evaporation  of  the  water  at  a  temperature 
sufficiently  high  to  vaporize  it  would  avoid  the  after  difficulties  of 
dealing  with  this  waste,  and  would  deliver  the  residual  in  con- 
dition to  be  treated  by  the  solvent  without  loss  of  the  valuable 
volatile  elements  of  ammonia  and  phosphate,  which  would  re- 
main in  the  tankage  after  the  solvent  had  carried  out  the  grease. 

From  the  first,  complaints  of  the  operation  of  this  plant  have 
been  received.  During  the  summer  of  1904  a  strong  effort  for  its 
discontinuance  was  made  by  the  authorities  of  Checktowaga,  but 
without  avail,  the  argument  of  the  city  being  that  the  work  was  one 
of  necessity  and  that  no  other  means  of  disposal  was  available. 

Milwaukee. — The  Merz  process  was  introduced  at  Milwaukee, 
Wis.,  in  1888,  a  local  company  capitalized  at  $500,000  having  been 
formed  to  take  over  the  patents  and  do  the  work.  This  company 
obtained  a  contract  for  three  years  and  erected  its  works  in  the 
city  limits  upon  ground  in  the  neighborhood  of  fertilizer  factories 
at  a  cost  of  $100,000. 

The  city  paid  $15,000  per  year  for  disposal,  collecting  the 
garbage  for  delivery  to  the  company.  The  same  apparatus  as  that 
installed  in  the  first  Buffalo  plant  was  used,  although  the  quantity 
of  garbage  was  small,  being  about  50  tons  per  day. 

Complaints  of  nuisance  were  made  from  the  beginning  and  con- 
tinued for  the  duration  of  the  plant's  operation.  The  Health 
Officer,  Dr.  Wingate,  says  in  one  report: 

In  the  summer  of  1891,  it  became  evident,  to  the  Health  Department  that 
the  plant  was  being  overworked,  the  water  supply  was  not  sufficient  for 
condensing  the  gases  properly;  the  building  had  become  shaky  and  the 
machinery  was  not  working  properly;  offensive  gases  were  escaping  and 
creating  a  nuisance,  and  not  from  the  fault  of  the  process,  but  from  the 
location,  construction  and  management  of  the  plant,  it  was  deemed  ad- 
visable to  close  the  plant  a  few  months  before  the  expiration  of  the 
contract. 

In  June,  1892,  the  city  contracted  for  five  years  with  the  Wis- 
consin Rendering  Company  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  and  dead 
animals. 

The  collection  was  to  be  made  by  the  company  in  steel  air-tight 
tanks  and  conveyed  without  nuisance  either  by  boat  or  on  cars  to 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  297 

the  plant,  which  was  located  at  Bartels,  about  fourteen  miles  out- 
side the  city  limits.  The  collections  were  made  three  times  per 
week  in  summer  and  twice  a  week  in  winter  from  residences,  and 
daily  from  hotels  and  restaurants.  Dead  animals  were  removed 
upon  notification  to  the  company.  The  city  was  to  pay  for  collec- 
tion, transportation  and  disposal,  the  sum  of  $68,000  for  the  first 
year  and  a  yearly  increase  of  $2,000  per  year  for  five  years,  when  a 
new  contract  could  be  made  or  the  works  purchased  by  the  city. 

The  amounts  in  1890  were  15,000  tons  per  year  or  about  48  tons 
per  day,  with  15,943  small  dead  animals  and  660  dead  horses. 
This  is  about  $4.53  per  ton  for  collection  and  disposal  or  approx- 
imately 26  cents  per  capita.  At  the  expiration  of  this  contract 
it  was  not  renewed. 

Milwaukee's  experience  in  the  various  methods  of  waste  dis- 
posal covers  all  the  stages  of  progress  known  to  this  country.  In 
the  earliest  years,  and  until  it  became  impracticable,  the  garbage 
was  dumped  at  convenient  places  adjacent  to  the  city  limits.  In 
1887-8  the  first  crematory  furnace  was  built  by  Mr.  Forrestal,  a 
contractor.  This  was  a  crude  form  of  the  English  Beehive  de- 
structor, using  coal  as  fuel  and  destroying  a  part  of  the  garbage. 

In  1887-8,  the  Engle  Sanitary  and  Construction  Company,  of 
Des  Moines,  Iowa,  installed  a  cremator  of  small  capacity  which 
operated  for  a  few  months.  This  was  acquired  by  the  Merz  Re- 
duction Company  and  was  discontinued  when  in  1888  they  obtained 
their  contract  for  disposal  by  reduction. 

After  the  suspension  of  the  contract  with  the  Wisconsin  Ren- 
dering Company  in  1897,  the  city  authorities  went  back  for  nearly 
two  years  to  the  old  system  of  dumping,  but  in  1902,  compelled 
by  increasing  public  dissatisfaction  with  prevailing  methods  to 
effect  a  change,  they  contracted  with  the  Engle  Sanitary  and 
Cremation  Company  for  two  large  furnaces,  each  rated  at  100 
tons  daily  capacity.  These  were  built  under  the  patents  and  the 
supervision  of  Robert  Robinson,  associated  at  that  time  with  the 
Engle  Company,  and  were  placed  upon  an  island  in  the  river  in 
an  effort  to  avoid  complaints  of  nuisance.  The  city  paid  $12,500 
for  the  right  to  build  under  the  patents  and  the  sum  of  $29,160  was 
appropriated  for  special  machinery  required  in  construction.  The 
ultimate  cost  for  the  construction  and  equipment  of  the  crematories 
was  upward  of  $80,000. 


298  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  contract  provided  for  a  maximum  cost  for  operating,  but 
the  plant  being  under  political  control,  a  large  number  of  un- 
necessary employees  found  easy  berths.  The  fuel  expense  was 
large,  making  the  cost  of  operation  excessive.  Many  expensive 
repairs  to  the  furnace  were  made,  and  these,  taken  with  the  cost 
of  transportation  by  water,  which  was  necessary  because  of  the 
isolated  situation  of  the  plant,  made  the  cost  of  operation  consider- 
ably larger  than  that  of  any  other  garbage  crematory  in  the 
United  States.  This  plant  is  still  operating,  pending  the  adoption 
of  other  methods. 

REPORT  OF  MR.  RUDOLPH  HERING. 

In  1907  the  city  authorities  commissioned  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering 
to  make  an  examination  of  the  present  conditions  and  to  formulate 
a  report  upon  the  costs  of  collection  of  the  varied  classes  of  city 
waste  and  the  methods  by  which  they  should  be  disposed  of  in  a 
manner  most  sanitary  and  advantageous  to  the  city. 

An  excerpt  from  Mr.  Hering's  report  is  made  as  follows. 
(Condensed  from  the  Municipal  Sanitary  Engineer,  February  12, 
1908): 

The  engineer  considers  at  length  both  reduction  and  incinera- 
tion systems.  His  final  conclusion  is,  that,  since  reduction  works 
have  invariably  been  offensive  they  should  be  located  outside  the 
city,  other  large  places  having  placed  these  at  a  distance  of  five 
to  fifteen  miles  from  the  populous  districts.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  have  been  no  complaints  from  the  present  crematory,  and  in 
some  instances  similar  plants  have  been  operated  in  built-up  sec- 
tions without  serious  nuisance  —  it  was,  therefore,  concluded  that 
an  incinerating  plant  of  the  best  type  could  be  placed  within  the 
city  limits. 

During  1906  the  cost  of  collections  and  disposal  by  the  crema- 
tory was  —  taking  the  year  through: 

Total    public    collection  ......................  38,212  tons 

Total  private  collection  ......................        263 

Total  dead  animals  ..........................          75    ' 

38,550  tons 


Cost  of  collection,  per  ton  ...................................  $i  . 

Cost  of  disposal,  per  ton  ....................................  1-35% 

Largest  quantity  —  September  —  in  tons  ........................  3,9^9 

Smallest  quantity  —  February  —  in  tons  ........................  2,368 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  299 

The  cost  of  hauling  per  ton  mile  obtained  from  an  average  of 
seventeen  representative  districts  was : 

Average  distance  for  each  collection  daily 7.2  miles 

Each  load  averaged  .796  ton 1,594  Ibs. 

Average  for  each  collector,  2  loads  per  day,  3,184  Ibs.,  or...  1.592  tons 

On  a  basis  of  $2.50  per  day,  the  cost  of  collecting  per  man 
employed  was  22C.  per  ton-mile,  or  1.58  for  teams  only. 
Mixed  loads  of  ashes  and  rubbish  measuring  2.5  cubic  yards 

weighed  2,601  Ibs.,  or,  per  yard 1,040  Ibs. 

Dry  material,  2.5  cubic  yards  weighed  2,425  Ibs.,  or,  per  yard..      970  Ibs. 

Ashes  alone,  2.5  yards  weighed  3,025  pounds  per  yard 1,210  Ibs. 

Rubbish  alone,  2.5  yards  weighed  1,625  Ibs.  per  yard 650  Ibs. 

In  connection  with  the  burning  of  ashes  mixed  with  garbage, 
he  argues  as  follows : 

If  coal  is  worth  $3.75  per  ton,  then,  as  the  amount  of  coal  in  domestic 
ashes  can  be  safely  taken  at  20  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  the  fuel  value  of  a 
ton  of  ashes  in  an  incinerator  which  is  kept  at  a  temperature  of  at  least 
1,200  degrees  F.,  when  all  coal  would  be  consumed,  is  worth  75  cents. 
If  we  reckon  the  expense  of  hauling  at  25  cents  per  ton  mile,  it  would 
pay  to  haul  such  ashes  three  miles.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  fill  value 
to  ashes,  but  this  is  maintained  after  complete  incineration.  And  there  is 
the  expense  of  a  larger  grate  area  for  adding  ashes  to  the  incinerator, 
which  must  also  be  considered  in  the  cost  estimate. 

If  rubbish  is  burned,  then,  as  it  has  a  calorific  value  in  American  cities 
of  about  one-fifth  that  of  coal,  and  if  coal  is  worth  $3.75  a  ton,  we  can 
value  a  ton  of  rubbish  also  at  $0.75,  and  it  will  pay  to  haul  it  as  far  as 
the  ashes,  if  it  were  not  a  sanitary  requirement  to  destroy  it  by  fire  even 
at  a  greater  cost. 

If  garbage  is  burned  with  other  refuse,  separation  is  not  customary, 
and,  at  first  glance,  seems  to  have  no  advantage.  In  my  opinion,  how- 
ever, garbage  should  continue  to  be  separately  collected  and  delivered. 
As  garbage  should  at  some  seasons  be  collected  daily,  while  the  other 
refuse  can  be  collected  at  longer  intervals,  there  is  an  advantage  in  limiting 
the  more  frequent  service  to  the  single  material  which  requires  rapid 
delivery.  There  is  also  the  advantage  of  expelling  some  of  the  free  water 
of  the  garbage  (according  to  Prof.  Sommer,  about  9  per  cent),  by  the 
pressure  of  its  own  weight.  There  is  also  the  advantage  of  evaporating 
an  additional  amount  of  water  at  the  works,  as  done  at  your  furnace  at 
present,  in  a  more  economical  manner  than  if  garbage,  rubbish  and  ashes 
were  at  once  mixed.  In  the  latter  case,  the  water  is  at  once  absorbed  and 
only  slowly  evaporated,  perhaps  not  until  this  is  done  by  the  fuel  con- 
tained in  the  refuse,  which  should  be  utilized  rather  for  maintaining  the 
highest  practicable  degree  of  heat  in  the  furnace. 

Whether  the  collection  is  of  garbage  or  of  other  refuse  if  the  roads 
are  good  and  if  the  collection  is  mainly  down-hill,  as  in  Milwaukee,  it 
will  be  cheaper  to  have  double  teams  with  two  men  than  single  teams 
with  one  man.  The  tare  weight  of  a  double  team  wagon  is  not  nearly 
twice  that  of  a  single  team  wagon,  and  the  saving  of  weight  can  be  utilized 
for  an  additional  amount  of  refuse  to  be  hauled  by  the  same  team.  There 
is  further  economy  in  the  fact  that  two  men  together  can  collect  more 
rapidly  than  two  men  singly. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  in  this  city  that  the  collection  of  all  classes 
of  refuse  is  better  done  by  city  employees  than  by  contract.  There  may 


300  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

be  exceptional  conditions  where  this  is  not  so,  but  the  exclusive  Custom 
in  Europe  and  the  experience  of  most  of  the  best  managed  public  works 
in  our  own  country  have  amply  indicated  that,  ordinarily,  where  a 
question  of  nuisance  is  concerned  and  where  the  convenience  and  comfort 
of  the  people  is  first  considered,  the  contract  system  has,  as  a  rule,  not 
given  the  same  degree  of  satisfaction  as  municipal  operation. 

Concerning  the  utilization  of  the  heat,  Mr.  Hering  states : 

From  the  examinations  that  have  been  made,  it  is  safe  to  guarantee  a 
pound  of  steam  per  pound  of  refuse  during  the  fruit  season,  when  the 
degree  of  moisture  in  the  refuse  is  greatest,  and  i*4  pounds  of  steam  per 
pound  for  refuse  in  the  winter,  when  the  discarded  coal  in  ashes  is 
greatest.  .  .  The  practicability  of  utilizing  the  resulting  heat  has  been 
amply  demonstrated  by  experience  in  many  cities.  It  has  been  used  to 
operate  the  plant,  to  furnish  power  for  pumping,  for  repair  shops,  for 
breaking  and  grinding  clinkers,  and  chiefly  for  driving  dynamos  for 
electric  lighting. 

He  estimates  the  investment  cost  of  plants  as  follows : 

1.  Reduction  of  150  tons  of  garbage $225,000 

Incineration  of  100  tons  of  rubbish 89,000 

Total  for  250  tons  refuse $314,000 

2.  Incineration  of  all  refuse,  450  tons 3O7>ooo 

3.  Incineration  of  300  tons 200,000 

The  operation  costs,  including  interest  and  depreciation,  are  estimated 
as  follows: 

Per  Day  Per  Ton 

1.  Reduction  of  150  tons  of  garbage $55-oo  $0.37 

Incineration  of  100  tons  of  rubbish 37.73  -33 

Total  cost  for  250  tons  rubbish $92-73  $O-37 

2.  Incineration  of  all  refuse,  450  tons 47-53  -H 

3.  Incineration  of  300  tons  of  refuse 79-01  .26 

From  this  summary  it  will  be  seen  that  the  reduction  project  is  the 
more  expensive  one.  The  larger  of  the  two  incineration  works  is  cheaper 
per  ton  of  material  burned  than  the  smaller  one,  due  to  the  fact  that 
practically  no  ashes  would  be  hauled  to  the  latter  and  therefore  no  value 
is  derived  from  the  heating  power  of  the  unburned  coal  contained  therein, 
which  is  found  to  be  considerable,  but  which  could  be  utilized  as  the 
area  of  grate  surface  available  at  the  plant  would  be  increased. 

Preliminary  to  the  report  of  Mr.  Hering,  an  investigation  was 
made  by  Prof.  R.  E.  W.  Sommer  upon  the  constituents  of  garbage 
that  brought  out  some  facts  which,  though  not  altogether  new, 
were  stated  in  a  more  definite  form  than  had  been  previously  done. 

The  method  of  proceeding  is  interesting  and  one  that  can  be 
easily  followed  by  any  place  which  desires  to  obtain  similar  in- 
formation. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  301 

In  order  to  obtain  an  average  sample  the  city  was  divided  into  five 
districts,  according  to  the  wealth  of  the  population.  It  was  ascertained 
how  many  team  loads  were  collected  during  the  same  length  of  time  (one 
month)  in  each  of  these  five  districts.  When  the  teams  arrived,  Sep- 
tember 9,  1907,  there  were  taken  as  many  unit  measures  (garbage  cans) 
of  the  garbage  of  each  of  the  five  districts  as  the  district  gave  teams 
within  the  same  time.  The  garbage  was  poured  upon  a  sloping  hard  floor 
and  well  mixed  with  a  spade. 

In  order  to  determine  the  amount  of  liquid  which  is  pressed  out  by 
the  own  weight  of  the  garbage,  a  weighed  quantity  of  the  mixed  garbage 
was  filled  into  a  barrel  having  a  double  perforated  bottom  and  allowed  to 
stand  for  twenty-four  hours,  and  the  liquid  which  was  drained  off  was 
weighed. 

The  larger  quantity  of  the  mixed  garbage  was  piled  up  and  quartered 
down,  just  as  miners  do  in  order  to  obtain  an  average  sample  of  ore. 
After  each  quartering  the  garbage  was  comminuted  with  knives  and 
the  quartering  and  comminution  continued  until  twenty-five  pounds  of 
garbage  were  obtained.  The  liquid  pressed  out  by  these  processes  ran 
down  the  sloping  floor  and  was  collected,  measured  and  each  time  cal- 
culated in  the  right  proportion.  The  remaining  twenty-five  pounds  of 
mixed  comminuted  wet  garbage  was  brought  to  the  chemical  laboratory. 
Here  the  quartering  was  continued  until  about  two  pounds  were  obtained. 

The  approximate  two  pounds  were  accurately  weighed  and  heated  on 
a  water  bath  for  some  days,  until  they  appeared  dry,  and  the  drying 
process  continued  in  a  drying  oven  at  105  degrees  C.  until  constant 
weight.  The  loss  of  weight  plus  the  weight  of  the  liquid  (proportionately 
calculated  for  two  pounds)  which  was  squeezed  out  by  the  process  of 
comminution  gave  the  total  amount  of  water. 

The  dry  garbage  was  poured  in  an  iron  mortar  and  gave  a  coarse, 
brownish-black  powder,  somewhat  resembling  ground  coffee.  The  chem- 
ical analysis  was  made  with  this  powder. 

Since  one  pound  of  dry  garbage  gave  4,522  B.T.U.  and  the 
22  pounds  of  dry  matter  in  the  100  pounds  of  wet  garbage  gave 
99,484  B.T.U.,  it  was  concluded  that  after  the  9.33  per  cent  of 
free  water  had  been  removed  by  its  own  pressure,  garbage  should 
burn  itself  under  perfect  conditions  with  no  additional  fuel. 

These  examinations  of  the  garbage  constituents  are  exceedingly 
valuable  for  the  general  information  of  other  communities  where 
the  same  methods  can  be  used  and  the  results  obtained  in  the  same 
manner. 

Comparison  of  the  reports  of  Prof.  Sommer  with  those  of  Mr. 
B.  F.  Welton  on  garbage  from  West  New  Brighton,  NV  Y.,  and 


302  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


expressing  the  results  in  equivalents  of  coal,  will  make  the  matter 
clearer  to  lay  readers. 

TABLE  LXI.— EQUIVALENT  COAL  IN  ONE  TON  OF  GARBAGE,  DEDUCT- 
ING  FREE   WATER   DRAINED    BY   NATURAL   MEANS. 


bfl 

>s^ 

c 

^  a 

• 

||| 

Per  Cent. 
Drained 

Per  Cent 
Water 
Remaini 

Per  Cen 

Pounds  i 
Water 
Solids 

^        TJ 

PQ      ^ 

.p 

|L 

11 

•30 

cr 
W 

Milwaukee  . 

78 

9-2  •} 

68  67 

I    3  74  62  6 

New  Brighton. 

73.26 

9-33 

66.43 

1,328,672 

>;>•*•* 

4,274 

2,872,128 

*  1  1 
220 

Coal  is  assumed  at  13.000  B.  T.  U.  per  pound. 

If  we  assume  that  9  pounds  of  water  to  be  evaporated  by  one 
pound  coal  under  the  best  conditions,  then  the  evaporation  of 
1,328  pounds  of  water  would  require  147  pounds  coal,  leaving 
70  pounds  for  loss.  This  would  mean  an  efficiency  of  about 
68  per  cent,  in  the  furnace  necessary  to  do  the  work,  which 
might  be  taken  as  the  standard  of  efficiency  required  from  the 
furnace  when  garbage  alone  is  to  be  destroyed.  With  coal  at 
$3.75  per  ton,  the  value  of  this  fuel  would  be  about  46  1-2  cents 
per  ton,  or  about  1-9  of  the  coal  value  of  fuel. 

These  conditions  apply  when  separated  garbage  unmixed  with 
other  matters  is  dealt  with.  When  refuse  or  rubbish  is  burned 
with  garbage  the  conditions  are  far  more  favorable. 

Dry  refuse  (rubbish,  as  termed  by  the  engineer)  contains  a 
coal  equivalent  of  approximately  1,298  pounds  coal  per  ton  of 
refuse,  and  if  this  be  added  in  the  same  proportions  as  are  usually 
collected,  and  burned  without  sorting,  the  evaporation  power  will 
approximate  500  pounds  of  coal  per  ton  of  mixed  garbage  and 
rubbish. 

It  would  seem  that  the  estimates  of  power  to  be  developed  are 
well  within  the  mark,  and  that  the  combustion  will  be  done  with- 
out other  fuel  than  the  garbage  and  refuse  of  the  usual  collections. 

When  the  collections  contain  ashes  and  manure  mixed  with 
garbage  and  refuse,  the  evaporation  is  still  greater.  For  com- 
parison with  the  actual  work  done  under  these  conditions,  ref- 
erence is  made  to  the  report  from  the  Meldrum  Destructor  at 
Westmount. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION. 


303 


TABLE    LXII.— AVERAGE    DAILY    QUANTITY,    IN    TONS,    OF    GARBAGE 
FROM  THE  WHOLE  CITY  OF  MILWAUKEE,  AND  OF  ASHES  AND 
RUBBISH      FROM      WARDS     1      TO     7,      INCLUSIVE,     COL- 
LECTED   EACH    MONTH    DURING   THE    YEAR    1906. 

The  quantity  of  manure  shown  is  figured  to  give  a  total  daily  quantity 
of  refuse  of  300  tons. 


MONTH 

QUANTITY 

TONS  PER  24  HOURS 

Garbage 

Ashes  and 
Rubbish 

Manure 

Total 

January  

95 
91 
no 

93 
116 
161 
156 
170 

J53 
133 
114 

92 

197 
170 
170 
io5 
150 
124 

IO2 
IO4 
IO2 
114 
142 
171 

8 
39 

20 
102 

34 
15 
42 
26 
45 
53 
44 
37 

300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 

February  

March  

April  

May.  .  , 

T    j 
June 

July 

A                  '    ' 

August 

September                 

October                  

November          

December  

NOTES: — Garbage  weighs  1,200  pounds  per  cu.  yd. 

Ashes  and  rubbish  mixed  weigh  about  1,040  pounds  per  cu.  yd. 
Manure  weighs  970  pounds  per  cu.  yd. 

TABLE  LXIII.— PERCENTAGE  OF  GARBAGE,  ASHES  AND  RUBBISH 

AND  MANURE  IN  THE  AVERAGE  DAILY  QUANTITY  OF  REFUSE 

FOR  EACH  MONTH  AS  COLLECTED  IN  THE  YEAR  1906. 


MONTH 

Garbage 
Per  Cent. 

Ashes  and 
Rubbish 
Per  Cent. 

Manure 
Per  Cent. 

Total 
Per  Cent. 

January 

•JI    7 

6<  6 

2  .  7 

IOO 

February                .    ...... 

"*O     3, 

S6   7 

I  7,  .O 

IOO 

March                  

6^  -6 
7,6  .7 

D«    / 

e6  .7 

6.6 

IOO 

April     

"*T  .O 

•?  ^  .0 

34  -O 

IOO 

May  

38.7 

So  .0 

1  1  •  1 

IOO 

June  

C7  .7 

41  •  3 

c  .0 

IOO 

Tulv 

^2     O 

74   o 

14   o 

IOO 

J  ;      •/  

August 

<;6  7 

7,4.    7 

8.6 

IOO 

September  
October 

51.0 

44    3 

34-o 
38  .0 

15.0 

17.7 

IOO 
IOO 

November                  .  . 

2  * 

38  .0 

47  -  3 

14  .  7 

IOO 

December 

3O  .  7 

^7  .0 

12  .  7 

IOO 

The  calorific  value  of  these  materials  as  collected  may  be  taken 
as  follows: 

Garbage  (as  collected) 1,500  B.  T.  U.  per  pound 

Rubbish  and  ashes  mixed 5,000  B.  T.  U. 

Manure 2,000  B.  T.  U.     " 


304  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  preceding  report  made  by  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering  to  the  City 
Council  of  Milwaukee  was  filed  in  January,  1907.  The  council 
deferred  action  until  October,  1908,  when,  after  due  preparation, 
specifications  were  prepared  calling  for  tenders  for  the  Erection 
and  Completion  of  a  Refuse  Incinerator. 

This  movement  for  a  better  system  of  waste  treatment  in  Mil- 
waukee is  due  largely  to  the  efforts  of  Dr.  H.  A.  Bading,  Com- 
missioner of  Health.  From  the  date  of  his  appointment  in  1906 
he  has  earnestly  advocated  this  much  needed  improvement  which 
now  seems  likely  to  be  brought  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

THE  CHICAGO  MERZ  REDUCTION  PLANTS. 

The  sanitary  work  of  Chicago,  111.,  as  connected  with  waste 
collection  and  disposal,  has  from  the  first  been  until  within  two 
years  in  a  condition  of  chronic  negligence  and  resulting  con- 
stant complaint. 

Within  a  radius  of  from  six  to  eight  miles  from  the  city  were 
a  series  of  great  pits  or  excavations  made  by  removing  clay  for 
bricks  used  in  building  the  city.  After  the  layers  of  clay  were 
removed  to  a  depth  of  from  twenty  to  sixty  feet  these  pits  were 
filled  with  mixed  refuse  of  all  kinds,  and  have  for  years  been  the 
only  means  of  waste  disposal.  The  clay  was  used  to  make  bricks 
to  build  the  city,  the  city  filled  the  pits  with  refuse  and  then  built 
houses  thereon,  and  the  process  was  repeated  until  the  hauls  have 
become  so  long  and  the  cost  of  transportation  so  great  as  to 
compel  other  courses.  During  all  these  years  many  efforts  have 
been  made  to  establish  better  means  of  disposal.  The  crematories 
built  by  Anderson,  Heavey,  and  others,  proved  inadequate.  A 
traveling  crematory  was  tried  and  abandoned.  The  practical  ex- 
ample of  the  destruction  of  the  refuse  and  sewage  sludge  of  the 
World's  Fair  in  1893  by  the  Engle  crematories  with  entire  sani- 
tary success  and  at  a  moderate  cost  was  permitted  to  pass  without 
notice,  and  even  when  these  furnaces  were  offered  free  to  the 
city,  on  condition  of  their  removal  and  re-erection  on  the  city's 
ground,  this  was  declined  without  thanks. 

The  collection  service  has  always  been  by  contract.  Either  a 
definite  territory  or  ward  has  been  let  for  a  specified  time  at  a 
given  price,  or  the  carts  have  been  hired  from  contractors  and  the 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  305 

collections  made  by  the  city  employees.  In  either  way  it  is  a  most 
expensive,  unsanitary  and  unsatisfactory  work,  a  striking  example, 
of  the  power  of  contractors  who  own  their  plant  to  compel 
the  city  to  accept  their  terms  for  poor  work. 

This  whole  subject  has  been  examined  and  reported  on,  and 
recommendations  for  municipal  service  have  been  made  by  com- 
petent men  trained  in  the  work,  all  without  avail.  The  influence 
of  the  contractor  has  been  stronger  than  any  consideration  of 
economy,  decency  or  sanitation. 

The  Merz  Reduction  Process  was  established  at  Chicago 
in  1888,  the  first  city  to  adopt  this  method  after  the  in- 
stallation made  in  Buffalo.  The  contract  was  made  with  the 
city  by  a  stock  company  organized  by  owners  of  the  Merz 
patents,  and  a  large  plant  was  built,  at  a  cost  of  $100,000,  at  a 
remote  point  near  the  boundary  line  of  the  city.  The  city  was  to 
pay  at  the  rate  of  50  cents  per  ton  for  all  garbage  treated,  and  to 
collect  and  deliver  the  garbage  at  the  works.  This  payment  was 
found  to  be  insufficient  to  produce  a  revenue.  The  garbage  was 
mixed  with  a  large  amount  of  foreign  matter  impossible  to  com- 
pletely separate  at  the  works,  while  the  city  did  not  enforce  the 
ordinance  for  separation  at  the  houses. 

No  details  of  the  working  of  this  plant  are  to  be  had,  but  it 
is  known  that  an  experiment  made  for  a  short  time  showed  that 
under  prevailing  conditions  the  plant  could  not  be  made  to  pro- 
duce a  revenue.  The  work  was  discontinued,  and  shortly  after- 
wards the  buildings  were  destroyed  by  fire. 

The  Second  Merz  Plant. — Up  to  1906  the  garbage  had  been 
dumped  with  the  other  forms  of  waste.  In  that  year  the  city 
contracted  for  the  separate  treatment  of  this  with  the  Chicago 
Reduction  Company,  a  corporation  formed  to  receive  the  garbage 
from  the  city  teams  at  one  central  station  and  to  treat  it  for  the 
recovery  of  the  grease  and  tankage. 

The  garbage,  separated  by  the  householders  from  other  sub- 
stances, is  collected  by  the  city,  and  taken  direct  to  the  plant  from 
nearby  localities,  or  to  three  shipping  docks  on  the  north  and 
south  branches  of  the  Chicago  River.  The  collections  are  made 
in  600  steel  boxes  on  racks,  or  wagon  bodies,  holding  four. cubic 
yards  each,  watertight,  with  sectional  lifting  lids,  concealing  two- 


306  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

thirds  of  the  contents  while  loading.  The  boxes  are  lifted  from 
the  wagon  bodies  to  the  decks  of  three  scows  for  transportation  by 
water  to  the  reduction  plant.  One  of  these  scows  has  power, 
and  serves  the  double  purpose  of  a  lighter  and  a  tug  for  the 
others. 

The  garbage  collection  service  of  the  city  does  not  include  that 
from  the  hotels,  boarding-houses,  restaurants,  commission  and 
market  houses,  all  of  which  is  collected  by  private  contractors. 
There  are  still  about  twenty-five  tons  of  household  garbage 
dumped  with  the  ashes  and  refuse  in  remote  districts.  About  300 
tons  are  daily  (except  Sundays)  delivered  to  the  reduction  plant. 

The  plant  is  located  at  Iron  and  39th  streets,  four  and  three- 
quarter  miles  to  the  southwest  of  the  center  of  the  city,  with  a 
frontage  of  380  feet  on  the  Chicago  River.  There  is  a  railroad 
connection  with  the  belt  line  encircling  the  city,  and  also  with  the 
street  car  lines. 

The  grounds  cover  three  and  one-half  acres,  of  which  the  re- 
ceiving dock  occupies  an  area  120  by  80  feet.  The  buildings  are 
the  receiving  building,  milling  or  grinding  building,  boiler  house, 
naphtha  storage  building,  naphtha  extra  extraction  building, 
dryer  building,  shops  and  office,  occupying  altogether  30,860 
square  feet  of  ground,  or  about  three-quarters  of  an  acre. 

The  boxes  of  garbage  are  discharged  into  concrete  hoppers  out- 
side the  receiving  house,  and  are  then  cleansed  and  sterilized 
and  returned  to  the  scows. 

From  the  hoppers  bucket  elevators  lift  the  garbage  to  the  upper 
floor  of  the  receiving  building  where  foreign  matter  is  removed 
by  hand  picking. 

The  subsequent  processes  of  crushing,  drying,  extraction  of 
grease  in  percolating  tanks  flooded  with  naphtha,  separation  of 
grease  from  the  naphtha,  which  is  recovered  and  returned  to  the 
storage  tanks,  and  the  barreling  of  the  grease  for  market  are  suc- 
cessive steps  of  the  work  as  previously  described  in  the  Buffalo 
plant.  There  appears  to  be  a  more  thorough  treatment  of  the 
tankage  than  in  other  plants,  as  this  is  reported  to  contain  less 
than  ten  per  cent,  of  moisture  and  one  per  cent,  of  grease  when 
ready  for  sale.  The  grease  is  sold  for  the  manufacture  of  cheap 
grades  of  soap  and  candles,  and  the  tankage  to  jobbers  for  a 
filler  or  base  in  compounding  fertilizers. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  307 

The  sanitary  conditions  of  the  plant  are  described  as  excellent. 
As  far  as  possible  the  process  is  automatic.  The  floors  are  con- 
crete, well  supplied  with  water  for  flushing.  The  day's  collec- 
tion of  garbage  is  disposed  of  promptly.  The  location  of  the 
works  is  immediately  adjoining  the  packing  house  district,  where 
the  odors  (though  believed  to  be  so  disposed  of  at  the  plant  as  to 
be  not  perceptible  should  they  escape)  cannot  be  distinguished 
from  various  odors  emanating  from  the  stock  yards. 

The  contract  with  the  city,  which  went  into  effect  on  Novem- 
ber i,  1906,  for  a  period  of  five  years,  provides  among  other 
things,  that  the  city  shall  have  the  right  to  purchase  the  plant  at 
the  end  of  that  time,  that  the  city  shall  deliver  all  garbage  collected 
free  of  cost  to  the  company  at  its  plant,  the  delivery  shall  be  made 
in  metal  boxes  constructed  for  dumping,  and  that  these  shall  be 
sterilized  at  the  expense  of  the  company,  that  the  garbage  shall  be 
disposed  of  by  reduction,  and  that  the  company  shall  receive  the 
sum  of  $47,500  per  year  for  five  years,  provided  that  the  work  be 
performed  in  strict  compliance  with  the  specifications  of  the  con- 
tract. 

On  the  basis  of  300  tons  per  day,  the  present  quantity  treated, 
for  300  working  days  the  cost  for  disposal  is  52.77  cents  per  ton. 

No  figures  are  obtainable  as  to  the  costs  of  operating  the  works 
or  of  the  percentages  of  grease  and  tankage  obtained  from  the 
garbage. 

A  serious  explosion  occurred  in  these  works  on  May  I,  1908, 
which  is  thus  reported  in  the  public  press : 

NAPHTHA  BLOWUP. 

CHICAGO,  May  2. — The  desolate  district  back  of  the  stock  yards  on  the 
"bank  of  Bubbly  Creek"  was  visited  last  night  by  an  accident  in  which 
at  least  one  man  was  killed,  five  seriously  injured  and  eight  reported  miss- 
ing. The  police  believe  the  eight  may  have  lost  their  lives  in  the  accident. 
The  cause  of  the  disaster  was  the  explosion  of  a  large  tank  of  naphtha 
in  the  plant  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company,  the  concern  which  handles 
the  city's  garbage. 

The  roof  of  the  four-story  brick  and  concrete  building  soared  sky- 
ward, and  the  inhabitants  of  the  sparsely  settled  neighborhood  were  terri- 
fied by  a  terrific  flash  and  roar.  There  was  a  rain  of  burning  naphtha 
which  rendered  "Bubbly  Creek"  a  river  of  flames.  Fragments  of  con- 
crete torn  from  the  steel  framework  were  precipitated  for  blocks  around ; 
freight  cars  were  blown  from  tracks,  and  the  big  plant  was  a  blazing 


308  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

mass  of  ruins  within  a  few  minutes.    Andrew  Marcullus,  30  years  old,  who 
was  working  at  the  vat,  is  the  man  known  to  have  perished. 

In  1892  and  1893  several  forms  of  garbage  crematories  were 
brought  out  in  Chicago.  One  of  these,  known  as  the  Heavey 
crematory,  operated  by  liquid  fuel,  and  as  far  as  its  limited  capac- 
ity went  appeared  to  be  efficient.  But  the  cost  of  the  petroleum  for 
fuel,  and  the  difficulties  of  consuming  the  waste  owing  to  its 
mixed  character  made  the  operating  cost  excessive,  and  the 
crematory  was  abandoned  after  six  months'  trial. 

A  large  and  elaborate  construction  was  the  Anderson  incinerat- 
ing furnace.  This  was  built  on  the  principle  of  a  long  narrow 
brick  furnace  with  perforated  walls  through  which  flames  from  a 
series  of  oil  burners  were  directed  upon  masses  of  garbage  placed 
upon  cars  and  slowly  carried  the  length  of  the  furnace.  By  in- 
direct draft  the  smoke  and  gases  were  gathered  at  one  end  of  the 
long  construction,  and  air  for  the  purpose  of  combustion  admitted 
through  small  openings  on  a  level  with  the  top  of  the  garbage 
cars. 

It  was  expected  that  the  high  temperature  combined  with  the 
slow  rate  of  progress  of  the  cars  would  completely  calcine  the 
garbage.  A  special  form  of  poker,  uniting  a  moveable  steam 
jet  with  a  stirring  implement  was  used  to  turn  over  the  heaps  of 
garbage  and  expose  fresh  surfaces  to  the  action  of  the  flames. 
The  result  of  the  first  week's  trial  was  the  destruction  of  the  cars 
and  of  the  interior  walls  of  the  furnace,  the  garbage  masses  pass- 
ing through  the  ordeal  comparatively  unburned.  This  crema- 
tory was  abandoned  shortly  after  the  first  experiments. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

THE  MERZ  PROCESS. — Continued.     THE  SIMONIN  PROCESS. 

St.  Paul. — The  Merz  reduction  process  was  introduced  in  St. 
Paul,  Minn.,  in  1889  by  an  offer  on  the  part  of  Mr.  H.  A. 
Fleischman,  proprietor  of  the  United  States  patents,  to  construct 
a  plant  of  60  tons  daily  capacity  upon  the  flats  below  the  town 
within  the  city  limits.  The  price  of  the  plant  was  to  be  $100,000 
and  it  was  to  be  operated  by  the  company  at  a  cost  of  $15,000 
per  year  to  the  city,  all  by-products  to  be  the  property  of  the 
company.  This  cost  was  then  at  the  rate  of  83  cents  a  ton ;  col- 
lection and  delivery  of  the  garbage  to  be  made  by  the  city.  The 
fate  of  this  plant  is  thus  graphically  described  by  a  competent 
authority : 

This  investment  proved  to  be  a  very  unfortunate  speculation  for  stock- 
holders. The  price  on  the  fertilizer  and  grease  product  dropped  so  there 
was  no  money  in  shipping  it  and  the  company  undertook  to  carry  on  a 
sort  of  rendering  establishment  for  rendering  dead  animals,  etc.  As  the 
plant  was  located  on  the  flats  near  the  river,  the  rendering  became  an 
intolerable  nuisance;  in  fact,  I  lived  on  the  bluff  at  least  a  mile  and  a 
half  from  the  plant,  and  when  they  were  operating  it  the  stench  was 
fearful,  so  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  Common  Council,  and  they 
were  forbidden  to  use  it  for  rendering  purposes. 

With  the  rendering  cut  off,  I  understood  they  were  running  at  a  loss, 
and  after  a  while  the  whole  thing  providentially  burned  down  and  we 
have  not  had  in  St.  Paul  a  rendering  plant  since. 

The  methods  of  disposal  that  have  obtained  and  are  now  in 
use  in  St.  Paul  are  those  ancient  ones  of  feeding  garbage  to 
swine  and  tipping  the  ashes  and  refuse. 

These  methods  are  set  forth  by  the  health  officials  as  being 
those  most  sanitary,  efficient  and  economical,  and  they  are  vigor- 
ously advocated  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 

Denver,  Col — In  1889  a  company  built  a  plant,  called  the 
Sanitary  and  Fertilizer  Works,  for  the  reduction  of  garbage, 
dead  animals  and  other  offal  and  converting  them  into  com- 

309 


310  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

mercial  fertilizers  and  to  grease  for  soap  and  lubricants,  under 
the  Merz  system.  The  only  available  account  of  this  plant  states 
that  "the  plant  was  a  money-maker,  but  the  land  upon  which 
it  stood  ultimately  became  so  valuable,  and  the  original  owners 
had  done  so  well  in  the  enterprise,  that  on  being  offered  a  large 
profit  on  the  realty,  they  disposed  of  it  and  retired  from  the 
business." 

This  somewhat  surprising  statement  comes  from  a  source 
identified  with  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  install  reduc- 
tion processes  and  must  be  taken  with  a  large  leeway  for  ac- 
curacy. The  facts  appear  to  be  that  the  plant  was  built  under 
the  same  conditions  as  other  Merz  plants  in  Buffalo,  Milwaukee, 
and  Detroit ;  that  it  duly  went  into  operation,  but  continued  only 
for  a  short  time ;  the  works  being  given  up,  were  either  removed 
or  destroyed. 

Had  this  been  a  successful  plant  with  remuneration  as  claimed 
by  the  first  quoted  authority,  the  chances  for  its  continuance  must 
have  been  sufficiently  good  for  its  perpetuation.  That  it  did 
not  continue  was  owing  probably  to  the  same  unfortunate  com- 
bination of  conditions  that  terminated  the  career  of  all  the 
earlier  plants  built  under  this  process. 

Since  the  demise  of  this  plant,  the  city  has  resisted  all  efforts 
made  for  sanitary  progress,  and  continues  to  feed  the  garbage 
to  swine  and  dump  its  refuse  and  ashes  upon  unoccupied  ground. 

Paterson,  N.  J. — A  modified  and  imperfect  form  of  the  Merz 
reduction  process  has  been  employed  here  for  some  years.  In 
1894  a  contract  was  let  by  the  city  to  the  Paterson  Sanitary 
Company  for  the  disposal  of  ashes  and  garbage  at  $34,300  per 
annum.  This  company  erected  works  south  of  the  city  on  the 
Passaic  River,  calculated  to  destroy  50  tons  daily.  The  plant 
was  partly  destroyed  by  fire  two  years  after  construction,  but 
it  was  rebuilt  and  the  work  continued  on  a  modified  scale.  It 
is  believed  that  the  process  of  grease  extraction  is  not  carried  to 
the  full  extent,  but  that  a  portion  of  the  by-products  are  re- 
covered, the  tankage  being  sold  at  low  prices.  The  revenue  of 
the  company  was  derived  from  the  high  price  paid  for  the  work 
by  the  city,  and  not.  from  the  value  of  the  manufactured 
products. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  311 

St.  Louis,  Mo. — This  city  was  one  of  the  three  first  places 
to  acquire  a  Merz  reduction  process  plant.  In  1889  tne  c*tv 
received  bids  through  the  Department  of  Health  for  the  sani- 
tary disposal  of  the  garbage  either  by  incineration  or  reduction 
to  the  amount  of  100  tons  daily.  The  bids  for  cremation  were 
at  the  rate  of  $1.00,  and  for  reduction  at  $1.80  per  ton.  The 
contract  for  10  years  was  awarded  to  the  St.  Louis  Sanitary 
Reduction  Company  at  $1.80  per  ton  for  disposal  only. 

In  1891,  the  first  plant  was  put  at  22nd  Street,  following  the 
general  construction  of  the  first  Buffalo  plant,  and  specially 
treating  the  dead  animals  as  well  as  small  amounts  of  garbage. 

In  1892-3,  the  second  and  largest  plant  was  built  at  28th 
Street  and  St.  Louis  Avenue,  in  the  southern  part  of  the  city 
near  the  river.  This  was  a  very  extensive  and  costly  installation, 
comprising  a  building  250  feet  long,  80  feet  wide  and  two 
stories  in  height. 

The  general  construction  and  arrangement  of  apparatus  in 
this  plant  was  much  the  same  as  in  the  first  Buffalo  installation, 
with  probably  some  modification  of  the  dryers,  which  were  of 
an  improved  pattern,  perfected  by  Mr.  George  Wiselogel,  then 
Mechanical  Engineer  of  Construction  in  the  employ  of  the 
Merz  Company. 

The  quantity  of  garbage  treated  at  this  plant  has  never  been 
made  public.  In  1902,  the  Health  Officer  reported  43,000  tons 
treated  from  April  to  October — seven  months.  In  1893,  Mr. 
H.  A.  Fleischman  stated  that  the  company  received  at  the  rate 
of  $800,000  for  10  years'  contract,  and  that  the  tankage  brought 
$6.80  per  ton. 

The  city  reports  give  no  statement  of  amounts,  nor  any  except 
the  most  general  costs  for  collection  and  disposal.  This  con- 
tract was  terminated  about  November,  1904,  but  a  temporary 
contract  at  somewhat  lower  figures  was  continued  for  two 
years,  pending  some  action  to  be  taken  by  the  City  Council 
upon  the  whole  subject. 

In  1906,  the  Public  Sanitation  Committee  of  the  Civic  Im- 
provement League  of  St.  Louis  published  a  report  upon  "The 
Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste"  after  an  extended  investigation 


312  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

covering  a  period  of  three  years.     The  estimated  quantities  and 
the  cost  of  collection  and  disposal  were  tabulated  as  follows : 

Amount  of  garbage  per  year 70,000  tons 

Cost  of  collection  at  $1.67  per  ton  (actual  rate) $116,900 

Cost  of  disposal  at  $1.00  per  ton  (dumped  rate) 70,000 

Estimated  Total  Amount  Combined  Waste 

Garbage     1 5% : 70,000  tons 

Rubbish     10% 46,660    ' 

Ashes          75% 349,95°    " 


Total  quantity 466,610  tons 

The  report  reviewed  briefly  the  various  systems  in  use  for 
disposal  elsewhere;  gave  some  slight  idea  of  the  values  of  waste 
in  sorting  for  market ;  compared  the  systems  of  incineration  and 
reduction,  and  gave  a  comparative  cost  of  each  as  applied  to 
St.  Louis,  showing  that  "by  these  estimates,  based  upon  ex- 
perience of  other  cities,  St.  Louis  can  collect  and  dispose  of 
her  garbage  by  reduction  and  her  rubbish  by  burning  for  $100,000 
less  than  by  attempting  to  dispose  of  it  collectively  by  the 
incineration  process  within  the  city  limits."  They  also  add,  "if 
the  .disposal  (not  the  collection)  can  be  more  economically  and 
efficiently  done  by  contract,  then  .the  franchise  should  provide 
for  purchase  of  the  plants  whenever  the  city  is  in  a  position 
to  assume  control." 

The  recommendations  of  this  committee  provide  for  separate 
receptacles  for  garbage,  ashes  and  rubbish, — the  householders  to 
make  separation,  daily  collections  of  garbage  in  summer,  special 
steel  collection  carts  and  receiving  stations,  transportation  by 
steam  or  electric  road  to  places  of  final  disposal,  the  erection  of 
a  garbage  plant  outside  the  city  limits,  the  sale  of  marketable 
parts  of  rubbish,  the  erection  of  destructors  for  generation  of 
power  for  heating  and  lighting  public  buildings,  and  the  sale 
of  manure  and  street  sweepings  to  farmers. 

During  the  latter  part  of  the  time  covered  by  this  investiga- 
tion the  garbage  was  taken  to  an  island  in  the  Mississippi  river 
below  the  city  and  fed  to  swine,  the  rubbish  and  sweepings  being 
dumped  into  the  river  from  special  scows.  The  reported  quan- 
tity thus  dumped  overboard  in  1906  was  171,000  loads.  The 
ashes  were  used  for  fill  on  low  grounds. 

For   some   time  after  the   report  of   the   committee   of  the 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  313 

Civic  League  was  made  no  action  was  taken  by  the  city  author- 
ities. In  January,  1907,  the  Board  of  Public  Improvements 
received  contingent  or  preliminary  proposals  from  five  different 
companies.  Two  of  these  were  for  reduction,  two  for  incinera- 
tion, and  one  for  continuing  the  hog  feeding  on  Chesley  Island. 
All  were  rejected.  Subsequently,  in  December,  1907,  new  adver- 
tisements appeared  calling  for  proposals  for  a  reduction  plant, 
and  provided  a  set  of  specifications  under  which  tenders  were 
to  be  received.  Briefly,  these  were  as  follows: 

Garbage  is  defined  as  all  organic  matter  and  small  dead  animals,  and 
all  other  refuse  of  vegetable  or  animal  foodstuffs,  collected  by  the  city 
garbage  collection  wagons,  and  may  contain  some  foreign  substance. 

The  collection  made  by  the  city  wagons  is  to  be  delivered  at 
the  loading  stations.  These  stations  must  be  within  defined  local- 
ities, must  each  have  a  capacity  of  300  tons  a  day,  to  be  fire- 
proof and  be  kept  in  a  strictly  sanitary  condition,  with  suitable 
approaches,  unloading  platforms  and  roadways.  The  garbage 
of  each  day  to  be  removed  before  midnight  by  the  contractor 
and  in  such  a  manner  that  it  will  not  give  offensive  odors. 

The  reduction  plant  shall  be  located  not  less  than  one  mile 
outside  the  city  limits,  upon  property  comprising  five  acres  of 
ground,  upon  one  of  the  railroads,  or  above  the  flood  limit  if 
on  a  river.  The  buildings  must  be  of  fire-proof  construction, 
the  plant  to  be  fully  completed  within  twelve  months  of  con- 
tract, and  to  have  a  capacity  of  400  tons  per  day. 

Hydro-carbon  solvents  shall  not  be  used  in  the  process  of  reduction  of 
said  garbage  matter,  and  no  process  shall  be  used  that  is  not  continuous 
and  does  not  confine  the  garbage  from  exposure  to  the  air  from  the  time 
the  garbage  is  placed  in  the  conveyor  until  it  is  completely  and  finally 
reduced.  Nor  shall  the  products  nor  the  process  of  handling  or  dispos- 
ing of  this  garbage  be  productive  of  offensive  odors. 

A  penalty  of  $10  per  ton  is  to  be  assessed  against  the  con- 
tractor for  each  and  every  ton  of  garbage  tendered  by  the  city 
or  its  agents  which  he  does  not  accept  or  treat  as  provided  for 
by  the  contract.  Ten  thousand  dollars  is  to  be  deposited  and 
maintained,  from  which  sum  the  penalties  are  to  be  paid.  The 
term  of  this  contract  is  for  ten  years,  the  work  to  begin  within 
one  year  after  approval  of  bond  and  contract  by  the  Council. 

The  contract  was  awarded  to  the  Sf.  Louis  Standard  Reduc- 


314  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

tion  Company  in  February,  1908,  at  the  price  of  27  cents  per 
ton.  This  company  includes  capitalists  who  own  or  control  the 
Flynn  process  of  reduction  used  in  Pittsburg,  and  are  now 
reported  as  trying  to  secure  ground,  but  find  difficulty  in  secur- 
ing a  desirable  location  owing  to  the  usual  opposition  to  such 
plants. 

In  commenting  upon  these  specifications,  one  leading  engineer- 
ing journal  makes  these  pertinent  observations: 

It  may  be  said  that,  since  the  city  is  possibly  to  purchase  this  plant, 
it  is  perfectly  proper  that  it  should  specify  beforehand  any  of  its  essen- 
tial features  which  it  may  desire  to.  But  the  exclusion  of  hydro-carbon 
solvents  and  the  provision  for  continuous  treatment  would  exclude  bids 
from  certain  companies.  Even  though  those  having  this  matter  in  charge 
may,  from  their  investigations  have  concluded  the  processes  which  they 
have  excluded  possess  undesirable  features,  such  information  could  be 
used  as  well  after  bids  were  received  as  before,  and  it  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly known  beforehand  that  these  clauses  might  not  exclude  other 
processes,  unknown  at  present  to  the  authorities,  which  might  other- 
wise have  met  with  their  approval.  We  believe  the  better  plan  in  all 
such  applications  is  to  carefully  define  the  results  to  be  obtained — in  this 
case  presumably  disposal  without  creating  a  nuisance — and  then  use  such 
knowledge  and  judgment  as  is  available  in  determining  which  of  the 
various  propositions  is  most  likely  to  meet  these  requirements. 

It  will  be  interesting  to  note  the  working  out  of  the  specifica- 
tions, especially  in  the  point  of  allowing  foreign  matters  to  be 
gathered  with  the  garbage,  and  requiring  the  contractor,  under 
penalty,  to  accept  the  collected  load  from  the  city.  This  is  one 
of  the  chief  points  of  difficulty  in  reduction  work,  only  to  be 
overcome  by  strict  ordinance,  defining  the  possible  admixture 
of  foreign  substances  within  certain  proportions  and  by  the  aid 
of  the  police  and  the  courts,  enforcing  this. 

Unless  the  proportions  are  settled  at  first,  there  is  no  standard 
fixed,  and  it  will  be  hard  for  the  collector  to  judge  what  he 
shall  admit  and  what  reject,  and  worse  for  the  contractor,  for  he 
cannot  afford  to  haul  to  the  works  and  sort  out  the  worthless 
matter  for  27  cents  per  ton. 

Columbus,  Ohio. — A  reduction  plant  employing  the  Merz 
process  was  installed  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  in  1896.  The  ten- 
year  contract  given  by  the  city  to  the  Columbus  Sanitary 
Company  was  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  and 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  315 

dead  animals  at  the  price  of  $15,800  per  year.  In  1904,  the 
amount  of  garbage  collected  and  treated  was  16,221  tons,  the 
cost  to  the  company  being  reported  as  $20,000.  Assuming  a 
population  of  160,000  the  cost  of  collection  and  disposal  is  less 
than  10  cents  per  capita,  much  lower  than  in  other  cities  of 
the  same  size. 

Before  the  expiration  of  the  contract,  the  Columbus  Sanitary 
Company  found  itself  in  difficulties,  as  the  payments  from  the 
city  and  the  revenue  from  by-products  did  not  afford  a  profit, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  the  operation  of  the  plant  is  reported  to 
have  resulted  in  a  yearly  deficit  of  $5,000. 

While  no  accurate  description  of  the  works  is  available,  they 
are  believed  to  have  been  similar  in  construction  and  operation 
to  those  of  the  early  Merz  methods  in  Buffalo  and  St.  Louis. 
The  conditions  early  in  1906  are  thus  described: 

The  company  collects  the  garbage  in  iron  wagon  bodies,  and  hauls 
it  to  a  loading  switch  on  the  T.  &  O.  R.  R.  at  West  Mound  Street,  where 
the  iron  tanks  containing  the  garbage  are  removed  from  the  wagons 
and  loaded  on  flat  cars.  Each  morning  these  are  hauled  to  the  works  of 
the  Sanitary  Company,  located  on  the  west  bank  of  Alum  Creek,  four 
and  a  half  miles  southeast  of  the  Capitol.  Dead  animals  are  hauled  in 
wagons  to  the  works.  There  is  no  thorough  collection  made  at  present, 
as  any  increase  over  present  quantities  would  mean  a  net  loss  to  the 
company.  This  condition  of  affairs  is  unsatisfactory.  The  collections  are 
irregular,  the  intervals  between  them  long,  the  routes  are  not  well-defined, 
and  the  householders  are  forced  to  employ  private  scavengers  to  remove 
the  garbage.  No  attempt  is  made  to  collect  from  restaurants  and  hotels. 
Commission  houses,  tradesmen,  etc.,  haul  and  dump  their  own  waste,  aside 
from  that  which  is  thrown  carelessly  into  the  streets  and  alleys.  The 
city  collects  the  waste  from  the  public  markets. 

The  conditions  at  the  reduction  works  have  given  cause  for  complaint, 
partly  through  odors  emanating  from  the  digestors  and  the  tankage,  but 
mainly  from  the  pollution  of  Alum  Creek,  into  which  greasy  water  is 
discharged.  Owing  to  the  breakdown  of  the  drier  it  has  been  impossible 
to  dry  the  tankage  and  make  it  suitable  for  shipment  to  fertilizer  works, 
and  during  the  last  season  it  has  been  allowed  to  accumulate  in  a  large 
pile  just  south  of  the  works.  Aside  from  its  unsightliness,  this  accumula- 
tion of  the  tankage  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  nuisance. 

In  1905,  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering  made  a  survey  of  the  conditions 
in  Columbus  and  submitted  a  short  report  advising  the  collec- 
tion of  garbage  and  rubbish  and  its  disposal  at  a  general  station 


316  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

by  cremation.  The  estimated  cost  of  a  garbage  and  rubbish 
crematory  and  building  was  $100,000  to  $125,000.  No  system 
for  the  collection  or  treatment  of  ashes  was  suggested,  except 
that  they  be  used  for  rilling.  The  output  of  ashes  in  Columbus 
is  relatively  small  because  of  the  use  of  natural  gas.  Subse- 
quently, in  January,  1906,  Mr.  J.  H.  Gregory,  Assistant  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  Board  of  Public  Service  Works  of  Columbus, 
reported  in  detail  upon  the  methods  in  use,  the  quantities  of 
waste,  the  approximate  cost  to  the  householders  for  imperfect 
scavenger  service,  together  with  detailed  engineering  estimates 
for  providing  the  city  with  a  complete  plant  for  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  each  class  of  refuse. 

The  following  excerpts  from  a  synopsis  of  Mr.  Gregory's 
report  are  taken  from  the  Engineering  News  of  March  15,  1906, 
Vol.  LV: 

The  chief  points  included  in  his  recommendations  are  that  the  city  col- 
lect the  garbage,  rubbish  and  dead  animals  by  its  own  employees  and 
equipment;  that  it  build  a  crematory  for  disposal  of  collected  material; 
that  the  collection  of  night-soil  be  continued  by  scavengers,  to  be  disposed 
of  in  connection  with  the  new  sewage  works;  that  street  sweepings  be 
continued  to  be  dumped  on  low  ground ;  that  municipal  collection  and  dis- 
posal of  ashes  be  postponed,  and  that  municipal  collection  and  disposal  of 
stable  refuse  is  neither  desirable  nor  warranted. 

TABLE   LXIV.— COLLECTION  STATISTICS,  COLUMBUS,  O. 

The  populations  and  the  tonnage  of  various  wastes,  both  estimated,  for 
1905  and  for  future  years  are  given  as  follows: 

Periods !905  J9°7  1910              ^915  1920 

Population.....  160,000  176,000  202,000  254,000  326,000 

Ashes.    ..  (tons).  64,000  70400  80,000  101,000  128,000 

Garbage.  17,600  19,400  22,200          27,900  35,200 

Rubbish.       "  8,000  8,800  10,100           12,700  16,000 

Manure.  .      "  45.000  47,000  50,000          55,000  60,000 

Night-soil  3,900  4,500  5,000             5,600  6,000 

Carcasses 350  380  420               470  500 

Mr.  Gregory's  estimate  of  the  cost  of  construction  is  based  upon  per- 
manent fireproof  plants  to  include  crematories  having  a  capacity  of  175 
tons  per  day  of  twenty-four  hours,  with  chimney  and  building  to  con- 
tain a  plant  of  250  tons  capacity,  together  with  all  the  necessary  equip- 
ment for  the  collection  of  garbage  and  refuse,  and  a  building  for  the  dis- 
posal of  night-soil,  including  all  expense  for  operation,  maintenance  and 
fixed  charges.  These  items  may  be  thus  condensed: 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  317 

TABLE     LXV.— SUMMARIZED     ESTIMATES     OF     CONSTRUCTION     AND 
OPERATING   EXPENSES. 

CONSTRUCTION 

First  Cost: 

For  collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish $116,050 

For  disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish 168,300 

For  disposal  of  night  soil 5, 500 

Total $289,850 

OPERATING  EXPENSES.— 1907 
Fixed  Charges : 

Collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish : 

Interest ; $4,642 

Sinking  fund '. 3,897 

8,539 
Disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish: 

Interest $6,732 

Sinking  fund 5,652 

12,384 
Disposal  of  night  soil: 

Interest $220 

Sinking  fund 185 


405 

Total  interest • $11,594 

Total  sinking  fund 9,734 


Total  fixed  charges $21,328        $21,328 

Maintenance  and  Operation: 

Collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish '.  .  $53,720 

Disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish 32,020 

Disposal  of  night-soil 1,200 

86,940 

Total  cost,  collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish $62,259 

Total  cost,  disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish 44,404 

Total  cost,  disposal  of  night-soil 1,605 


Total  operating  expenses $108,268      $108,268 

Operating  Expenses  Per  Capita  for  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Garbage 
and  Rubbish  and  Disposal  of  Night-Soil  in  1907. 

Maintenance 
Fixed  and 

Charges  Operation         Total 

Collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish $o .049       $0.305       $o  .354 

Disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish "o  .070         o  .  182          o  .252 


Total $0.119.     $0.487  $0.606 

Disposal  of  night-soil o  .002          o  .007  o  .009 

Grand  total $0.121        $o  .  494  $0.615 

Operating   Expenses   Per  Ton   for  Collection  and   Disposal  of  Garbage 
and  Rubbish  in  1907. 


318  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

•Maintenance 
Fixed  and 

Charges     Operation      Total 

Collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish. $o  .303        $i  .905       $2  .208 

Disposal  of  garbage  and  rubbish o  .439          i .  135          i .  574 

Total $0.743        $3.040       $3.782 

Operating  Expenses  Per  Cubic  Foot  for  Disposal  of  Night-Soil  in  1907. 

Maintenance 
Fixed  and 

Charges     Operation     Total 
Disposal  of  night-soil $0.0032     $0.0093     $0.0125 

Cremation,  in  theory  and  practice,  is  discussed  at  some  length  in  the 
report.  The  absence  of  coal  ashes  at  Columbus,  as  in  other  cities  in  the 
natural  gas  district,  gives  the  refuse  a  distinctive  character.  The  garbage 
and  dead  animals  in  the  refuse  delivered  to  a  crematory  in  Columbus  would 
be  from  65  to  70  per  cent,  of  the  total,  instead  of  8  per  cent.,  as  in  Eng- 
land, and 

70  to  75  per  cent,  of  the  garbage  will  be  water,  and  the  calorific  value  of 
the  remainder  will  be  so  low  that  the  garbage  cannot  be  consumed  without 
previous  drying  or  the  addition  of  fuel. 

Then  follow  other  data  to  show  how  different  is  the  material  brought  to 
English  furnaces  from  that  td  be  expected  in  Columbus,  after  which  Mr. 
Gregory  says : 

The  calorific  value  of  the  combined  refuse,  garbage,  dead  animals  and 
rubbish  of  which  a  crematory  in  Columbus  must  dispose  will  not  average 
above  2,000  B.T.U.  per  pound  of  refuse,  and  the  total  amount  of  water, 
the  free  water  and  that  liberated  by  the  breaking  up  of  the  carbon- 
hydrates,  etc.,  will  amount  to  about  0.8  Ib.  per  pound  of  refuse.  The  pro- 
portion of  water  will  run  much  higher  than  this  in  the  summer  months, 
and  the  calorific  value  will  be  correspondingly  reduced.  In  burning  this 
low  class  of  fuel  a  larger  percentage  of  excess  of  air  will  be  required 
than  with  a  good  fuel,  and  it  is  probable  that  more  than  100  per  cent, 
excess  of  air  will  be  required  rather  than  less  with  100  per  cent,  excess 
of  air,  with  perfect  combustion  and  with  no  allowance  for  losses  by 
radiation,  etc.,  the  maximum  furnace  temperature  possible  is  1,100  degrees 
F.  By  extracting  25  per  cent,  of  the  water  before  burning,  the  theoretical 
temperature  would  be  increased  to  1,450  degrees  F.,  which  is  still  much 
below  that  temperature  to  which  it  is  desirable  to  heat  the  gases  to  prevent 
any  possible  emanation  of  noxious  fumes. 

I  am  firmly,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  additional  fuel  must  be 
burned  in  order  to  reach  the  desired  furnace  temperatures,  providing  that 
the  garbage  is  not  previously  dried  out  by  the  waste  heat  from  the  furnace 
gases,  the  expense  of  which  treatment  might  be  greater  than  the  cost  of 
additional  fuel. 

The  evaporative  power  of  English  town  refuse  is  quoted  (from  Dawson) 
as  from  2  pounds  of  water  evaporated  from  a  212  degrees  F.  per  pound  of 
refuse  fuel,  for  "screened  ash  pit  refuse,"  to  i  pound  and  even  0.75  pound 
inferior  "unscreened  ash  pit  refuse."  These  are  not  the  net  evaporative 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  319 

efficiencies  available  for  power  production  in  English  furnaces,  since  from 
the  figures  given  must  be  deducted  about  0.125  pound  of  steam  for  forced 
draft.  In  the  New  York  furnaces  for  rubbish,  only,  evaporation  on  test, 
with  fan  blast,  did  not  exceed  il/2  pounds  of  water  to  i  pound  of  refuse. 

At  Columbus,  even  after  adding  to  the  refuse  the  fuel  which  it  appears 
will  be  necessary  to  get  a  sufficiently  high  temperature  for  combustion  of 
the  refuse,  Mr.  Gregory  thinks  "it  is  unlikely  that  an  evaporation  of  more 
than  0.5  pound  of  steam  per  pound  of  refuse  can  be  obtained." 

In  reviewing  and  approving  Mr.  Gregory's  report,  Mr.  Hering  stated 
that  in  designing  garbage  furnaces  for  Columbus  provision  should  be 
made  for  operation  with  and  without  drying  the  garbage  preliminary  to 
burning,  thus  making  it  possible  to  defer  the  decision  whether  fuel  should 
be  used  to  dry  the  garbage  or  to  burn  it.  Likewise  the  decision  as  to 
heat  utilization,  beyond  that  for  works  purposes,  may  be  postponed.  Heat 
utilization,  if  practiced  at  Columbus,  would  be  "but  a  secondary  considera- 
tion," and  could  not  be  expected  "to  reduce  the  expense  otherwise  neces- 
sary for  burning  garbage." 

A  separate  collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish  at  Columbus  is  advisable, 
because  if  dumped  in  the  same  wagon  the  rubbish  would  absorb  much 
water  which  might  be  drained  off  from  the  garbage  alone,  before  putting 
the  latter  on  the  fires.  Moreover,  different  types  of  carts  can  be  used  ad- 
vantageously for  garbage  and  for  rubbish,  and  the  latter  need  not  be 
collected  so  often  as  the  former.  It  is  possible,  also,  that  refuse  sorting 
may  prove  advisable  at  Columbus,  if  refuse  and  garbage  are  collected 
separately. 

As  to  the  apparently  high  cost  of  garbage  and  refuse  disposal  at  Co- 
lumbus, shown  by  the  estimates,  it  must  be  remembered  that  much  of  the 
similar  work  elsewhere  is  imperfectly  done  and  is  generally  less  compre- 
hensive there,  and  that  the  data  and  estimates  for  Columbus  are  unusually 
complete. 

Mr.  Hering  suggests  that  the  city  prepare  a  design  for  furnaces,  "in 
accordance  with  the  best  knowledge  and  practice,"  and  that  in  view  of  the 
large  and  successful  experience  of  European  cities  with  the  burning  of 
city  refuse  both  American  and  the  more  prominent  English  firms  building 
such  furnaces  be  given  an  opportunity  to  submit  designs  and  bids,  "as 
well  as  bids  to  supervise  the  operation  for  one  year,  guaranteeing  the 
results  to  be  obtained  thereby."  In  view  of  the  unsuccessful  results  ob- 
tained with  many  American  furnaces  heretofore,  the  need  for  great  care 
in  the  Columbus  designs  is  apparent.  It  will  also  be  necessary  to  employ 
a  high  grade  of  operators  when  the  furnaces  are  put  in  use. 

In  examining  this  report  it  would  seem  that  the  estimates 
for  specified  capacity  of  the  crematory  and  the  enclosing  build- 
ings are  needlessly  large. 

The  actual  quantities  estimated  for  1907,  the  first  year  when 
the  plant  would  be  available,  are  19,200  tons  of  garbage  and 


320  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

8,000  tons  of  refuse,  or  about  85  tons  to  be  burned  in  a  furnace 
of  175  tons  capacity  enclosed  in  a  building  of  250  tons  capacity. 
Undoubtedly  the  quantities  would  increase  considerably,  but  the 
maximum  would  only  be  reached  after  fifteen  years,  and,  in 
the  meanwhile,  the  maintenance  and  capital  charges  compound- 
ing each  year  are  a  heavy  tax  to  pay  upon  unused  equipment. 

The  charges  for  engineering  service  also  appear  to  be  very 
great,  considering  that  the  plant  is  charged  with  superintendence 
supposed  to  be  sufficient  for  carrying  on  the  work  successfully. 

The  calculation  as  to  the  calorific  value  of  waste  and  the 
resultant  steam  power  to  be  had  is  too  low.  At  that  time 
(Jan.,  1907)  there  was  no  plant  in  the  country  of  the  English 
destructor  type,  as  the  Westmount  Destructor  did  not  begin 
work  until  May,  1907,  so  that  there  was  no  standard  for  meas- 
urement for  American  Engineers  except  the  reports  and  opinions 
of  British  Engineers,  and  the  deductions  to  be  made  from  these 
for  American  work  on  similar  lines. 

Since  then  the  four  destructor  plants  operating  under  Amer- 
ican conditions  have  proved  that  not  only  no  fuel  is  needed,  but 
that  the  evaporation  of  water  instead  of  being  .05  Ibs.  is  nearly 
1.33  Ibs.  of  steam  per  pound  of  refuse  destroyed. 

The  New  York  test  of  burning  rubbish  only  in  incinerators 
'is  hardly  comparable  with  destructor  work  when  the  design 
and  construction  of  the  New  York  incinerators  are  taken  into 
account. 

Mr.  Gregory's  reference  to  the  recently  completed  reduction 
plant  at  Toledo,  which  was  found  to  be  "conducted  with  re- 
markable freedom  from  any  objectionable  features,"  is  not  par- 
ticularly fortunate,  as  these  works  were  closed  in  July,  1907, 
for  reasons  of  nuisance  and  inability  to  do  the  work  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  either  to  its  stockholders  or  to  the  city 
authorities. 

The  marketable  values  of  rubbish  were  not  considered,  as  all 
of  the  combustible  matter  was  to  be  burned.  The  estimated 
quantity  of  8,000  tons  per  year  seems  to  be  too  small.  In  any 
place  where  natural  gas  is  used  in  the  households  the  light 
refuse  is  greater  in  amount  than  in  other  places  where  coal  is 
the  usual  fuel,  ard,  therefore,  the  quantity  in  Columbus  would 
appear  to  be  greater  than  the  amount  given.  The  value  of  at 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  321 

least  60  per  cent  of  this  refuse  which  can  be  recovered  for  sale 
without  serious  objections,  would,  if  saved,  give  a  return  in 
cash  nearly  equal  to  half  the  cost  of  operating  the  plant. 

As  Columbus  was  the  first  city  of  the  United  States  to  under- 
take a  thorough  examination  of  conditions  and  to  report  upon 
an  engineering  basis  with  the  assistance  of  skilled  experts,  it  is 
interesting  to  note  the  concluding  and  expected  results. 

This  report  was  submitted  early  in  1906,  and  on  December  6, 
1906,  was  approved  by  the  Board  of  Public  Service.  Shortly 
after,  this  Board  was  retired  from  office  for  adequate  reasons, 
and  a  new  Board  was  installed.  A  resolution  was  offered  pro- 
viding for  action  by  the  Common  Council  to  advertise  for  bids 
for  the  plant,  but  this  resolution  was  not  passed.  Opposition  was 
made  to  the  plans  and  estimates  on  the  ground  that  no  oppor- 
tunity was  offered  for  tenders  for  any'  means  other  than  crema- 
tion. Later,  in  January,  1908,  the  city  advertised  for  bids  for 
the  disposal  of  garbage  by  reduction  methods  only,  but  received 
none  that  were  acceptable. 

In  May,  1908,  revised  forms  of  specifications  for  tenders  for 
reduction  works  were  again  issued  by  the  city  calling  for  bids 
on  June  24th. 

These  specifications  are  written  with  the  advantage  of  the 
knowledge  gained  in  noting  the  operation  of  the  present  reduc- 
tion plant  and  the  experience  acquired  in  the  two  previous  un- 
successful efforts  to  obtain  bids.  Briefly  stated,  they  contained 
the  following  details: 

The  contractor  is  to  design,  construct  and  deliver  complete  reduction 
works,  which  will  dispose  of  garbage  and  dead  animals,  with  the  emis- 
sion of  no  offensive  odors  or  gases,  or  other  obnoxious  wastes,  solid  or 
liquid,  except  those  which  are  inseparable  from  the  handling  of  raw 
garbage  or  dead  animals,  and  from  the  finished  products  of  reduction 
under  the  best  and  more  favorable  methods  now  employed,  and  without 
the  pollution  of  the  Scioto  River. 

The  prices  are  to  be  stated  separately  for  material  and  for 
labor,  and  the  total  (this  is  a  requirement  of  the  State  law). 
The  bidder  must  specify  the  amount  of  labor  and  the  quantity 
of  coal  used  to  reduce  one  ton  of  garbage  and  animals.  He 
must  give  a  list  of  operating  reduction  plants  similar  to  the 
one  proposed,  with  capacity  of  works,  amount  of  garbage  yearly 


322  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

disposed  of,  and  reasons  for  discontinuance  of  plant,  if  not 
now  at  work.  A  bond  in  the  sum  of  fifty  per  cent,  of  the 
amount  of  the  contract  will  be  required  for  faithful  perform- 
ance of  contract. 

The  specifications  provide  in  detail  for  the  plans  for  design 
and  construction  of  the  buildings,  the  capacity  to  be  one  hun- 
dred tons  in  twenty-four  hours,  with  provision  for  increase  to 
one  hundred  and  fifty  tons,  the  machinery  and  equipment  to  be 
in  units  of  suitable  size  to  permit  economical  operation  with 
small  amount  of  material,  and  to  provide  for  repairs.  All  gases 
are  to  be  discharged  through  furnaces  and  all  tank  water  evap- 
orated. Provision  is  made  for  storage  of  grease  and  tankage 
to  avoid  spontaneous  combustion,  naphtha  to  be  stored  in  steel 
tanks  placed  not  less  than  one  hundred  feet  from  the  buildings. 
There  must  be  suitable  means  for  separation  of  tins,  bottles, 
etc.,  and  for  sterilization  by  steam  of  rooms  for  receiving  and 
storing  the  garbage. 

The  waste  is  to  be  handled  by  machinery ;  the  power  obtained 
from  generators  driven  by  the  steam  from  the  boiler  of  the 
plant;  all  work  is  to  be  done,  where  practicable,  by  this  same 
electrical  power.  The  buildings  are  technically  specified  in  every 
part  of  construction  at  great  length  and  detail. 

The  test  shall  be  a  trial  of  sixty  days  by  the  contractor  at 
periods  to  be  fixed  by  the  Engineer  of  the  city  to  determine 
the  capacity  and  efficiency  of  the  works. 

To  determine  the  fulfillment  of  labor  and  fuel  quantities,  the 
works  are  to  be  operated  four  weeks  continuously,  during  which 
time  accurate  measurements  of  quantities  and  conditions  of  gar- 
bage, the  hours  of  labor  on  all  classes  of  the  work,  the  weight 
of  coal  and  all  the  factors  for  making  up  the  cost  of  operation 
per  man-hour,  and  for  fuel,  are  to  be  noted. 

The  total  number  of  man-hours  of  labor  and  the  total  weight  of  coal 
shall  be  divided  by  the  total  number  of  tons  of  garbage  and  dead  animals 
treated,  to  find  the  man-hours  of  labor  and  the  weight  of  coal,  respec- 
ively,  required  for  the  reduction  of  one  ton  of  garbage  and  dead  animals. 

If  the  results  of  this  test  fail  to  fulfill  the  requirements  of 
the  contract  a  penalty  is  provided  of  $1,000  for  each  one-tenth 
(o.i)  man-hour  ton  by  which  the  cost  shall  exceed  the  guar- 
antee, and  $50  for  each  pound  of  coal  per  ton  by  which  the 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  323 

guaranteed  amount  is  exceeded,  provided  that  for  a  maximum 
of  two  man-hours  per  ton,  or  two  hundred  pounds  of  coal  per 
ton  in  excess  of  the  contract  requirements,  the  works  will  be 
rejected. 

These  specifications  are  the  most  comprehensive,  exact  and 
stringent  that  have  yet  been  drawn  up  for  reduction  work.  If 
a  contract  had  been  secured,  it  might  have  determined  many 
questions  of  capacity,  quantities,  values  and  costs  that  now  are 
not  accurately  known. 

There  was  no  award  of  contract  on  the  bids  received  under 
these  specifications.  The  city  is  now  preparing  specifications  for 
its  own  reduction  plant  to  be  built  by  arrangements  with  the 
companies  or  persons  controlling  the  designs  and  apparatus  to 
be  employed. 

THE  SIMONIN  PROCESS  OF  EXTRACTION. 

Providence,  R.  I. — The  Simonin  process  for  the  disposal  of 
garbage  was  first  presented  by  I.  M.  Simonin,  of  Philadelphia, 
Pa.,  who  had  large  works  for  the  manufacture  of  fertilizer  in 
that  city.  In  1888,  active  work  connected  with  the  reduction 
process  was  begun  by  Mr.  I.  M.  Simonin,  who,  in  1890,  built  his 
first  extraction  plant  in  Providence,  R.  I.  The  works  were 
placed  on  ground  in  the  southern  part  of  the  town,  near  the  rail- 
way, and  conveniently  located  for  short  transportation  of 
garbage. 

The  buildings  were  of  wood,  and  the  operating  power  was 
generated  by  two  loo-horsepower  boilers  separated  from  the 
main  works.  The  garbage  collected  by  a  city  contractor  was 
received  upon  a  concrete  floor,  where  the  cans  and  rubbish  were 
removed  and  the  water  permitted  to  escape  by  sewer  to  the 
river  near  by.  The  garbage  was  then  placed  in  shallow  iron 
pans  and  these  in  successive  tiers  in  wire  baskets  which  were 
run  upon  trucks  into  a  horizontal  cylinder  18  feet  long  and  6 
feet  diameter,  and  sealed.  The  cylinder  was  then  charged 
with  naphtha  and  left  for  some  hours,  or  until  the  solvent  had 
penetrated  to  every  part  of  the  garbage.  The  naphtha  was  then 
vaporized  by  steam  introduced  in  coils  of  pipe  and  carried  with 
part  of  the  water  to  a  condenser  where  separation  was  made 


324  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  the  naphtha  recovered.  The  grease  and  water  was  drawn 
off  at  the  bottom  of  the  extractor  and  separated  by  settling  tanks. 
In  the  operation  of  the  Simonin  reduction  system  this  process 
is  repeated  with  successive  charges  of  garbage,  until  the  naphtha 
becomes  surcharged  and  concentrated.  It  is  then  forced  into  the 
settling  tanks  and  again  recovered  for  use.  After  the  extraction 
process  is  completed  the  tankage  is  steamed  until  all  trace  of 
naphtha  is  removed,  and  it  is  then  carried  to  another  building 
where  it  is  ground  and  screened. 

For  one  charge  the  duration  of  the  process  is  about  four 
hours  and  a  half  for  extraction  and  four  hours  for  steaming, 
which,  added  to  the  time  consumed  by  the  settling  and  prepara- 
tion of  tankage,  occupies  from  32  to  36  hours. 

The  works  comprised  two  steam  boilers,  six  extractors,  two 
settling  tanks,  two  stills,  and  a  small  separated  building  for 
naphtha.  The  tankage  shows  five  to  fifteen  per  cent,  of  bone 
phosphate,  three  to  six  per  cent,  of  ammonia,  and  one  per  cent, 
of  phosphate.  It  was  very  dry  and  found  a  ready  sale. 

The  actual  cost  for  operating  this  plant  were  estimated  to  be 
equivalent  to  15%  cents  per  capita  per  annum  of  the  population 
of  the  city,  and  this  amount  has  since  been  assumed  as  the  cost 
of  disposal,  and  continued  to  subsequent  contractors. 

The  Providence  works  were  built  and  operated  by  a  company 
comprised  of  local  capitalists.  Their  operation  continued  for 
about  three  years.  Nothing  was  paid  by  the  city  for  the  dis- 
posal of  this  garbage  but  the  collection  was  made  at  the  cities 
expense  by  contractors.  During  this  time  many  complaints  of 
nuisance  were  received  and  in  1893  tne  removal  of  the  works 
was  judged  necessary.  No  reports  in  regard  to  the  financial 
standing  of  the  company  are  obtainable,  and  there  are  no  reliable 
records  of  the  quantities  and  values  of  the  grease  and  tankage. 

The  Simonin  process  is  one  of  extraction  of  the  grease  by 
powerful  solvents,  with  no  preliminary  process  of  maceration  or 
steaming  to  break  down  the  fiber  of  the  animal  and  vegetable 
matter.  Thus  the  method  requires  a  longer  time  for  each  step, 
and  a  large  quantity  of  solvent,  all  of  which  renders  the  work 
costly.  Necessarily  a  large  volume  of  gaseous  products  accom- 
pany each  stage  of  the  process,  requiring  special  care  to  prevent 
explosions  and  resultant  disasters.  The  products  of  grease  and 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  325 

tankage  retain  a  considerable  percentage  of  naphtha,  which  dim- 
inishes their  marketable  value. 

In  1894,  the  city  of  Providence  returned  to  its  former  method 
of  garbage  disposal.  A  contract  was  yearly  made  with  local 
parties  who  provide  garbage  wagons  of  approved  type,  and  make 
daily  collections  for  a  part  of  the  city,  bi-weekly  and  tri-weekly 
collections  for  the  remainder.  The  garbage  is  carried  outside 
of  city  limits  and  fed  to  swine.  The  argument  in  favor  of  feed- 
ing to  swine  is  ably  stated  by  one  of  the  foremost  sanitarians 
of  New  England. 

(Dr.  C.  H.  Chapin,  Providence,  R.  L,  Proceedings  A.  P.  H. 
Association,  Vol.  XXVIII,  1902:) 

For  ten  years  or  more  the  removal  (at  Providence)  was  in  open 
dump  carts — a  method  which  caused  much  nuisance  along  the  road. 
Nearly  one-half  of  the  quantity  was  sold  to  farmers  at  25  cents  per  cubic 
yard  and  transferred  to  their  wagons  in  the  city,  a  practice  which  was 
very  objectionable,  and  afterwards  stopped.  The  collections  are  now 
made  in  water-tight  wagons,  kept  covered  in  transit  and  unloaded  only 
at  the  place  of  feeding.  On  the  large  farm  where  most  of  the  garbage 
of  Providence  is  fed  to  swine,  the  land  is  divided  into  woodland  and 
open,  where  the  swine  roam  at  will,  having  plenty  of  room.  The  garbage 
is  scattered  about  on  the  ground,  and  is  consumed  so  quickly  and  thor- 
oughly that  very  little  odor  arises,  and  as  the  feeding  grounds  are  away 
from  roads  or  dwellings,  little  nuisance  results. 

In  considering  garbage  disposal  (as  distinct  from  its  collection),  it  is 
seen  that  for  the  last  fifty  years  it  has  never  cost  the  city  a  cent,  but, 
instead,  has  at  times  been  a  considerable  factor  in  lessening  the  cost  to 
the  city  of  the  collection. 

The  cost  to  the  city  for  collection  and  removal  for  the  past  thirteen 
years  has  been  15^  cents  per  capita  per  annum,  which,  I  am  sure,  does 
little  if  any  more  than  pay  the  contractor  for  collecting. 

(Quotations  of  collection  costs  per  capita  per  annum  in  twelve 
New  England  towns,  prior  to  1889,  are  as  follows:  Boston,  20 
cents ;  Cambridge,  29  cents ;  Brockton,  19  cents ;  Lynn,  19  cents ; 
Fitchburg,  9  cents;  Haverhill,  7  cents;  Portland,  10  cents; 
Holyoke,  2  cents;  New  Haven,  5  cents;  Lawrence,  10  cents; 
Somerville,  25  cents;  Worcester,  15  cents.  This  cost  was  (in 
1901)  reduced  by  the  sale  of  garbage  fed  pork  in  Worcester  to 
4  cents,  and  Brockton  to  8  cents.  In  Lynn,  Lowell,  Brockton, 
Somerville,  Cambridge,  Springfield,  a  considerable  revenue  is 


326  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

derived  from  the  sale  of  garbage,  and  formerly  this  was  the  case 
in  Boston.) 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  value  of  the  grease  and  fertilizer  ingre- 
dients of  garbage  is  from  two  to  three  dollars  per  ton,  but,  unfortunately, 
no  one  has  yet  found  an  economical  way  to  reduce  it.  The  food  value  of 
garbage  is  probably  much  less,  but  this  value  can  be  utilized.  Garbage 
can  be  fed  to  swine  at  a  profit,  and  thus  the  net  cost  of  its  collection  can 
be  much  reduced.  Health  Officers  and  Engineers  have,  almost  without 
exception,  opposed  this,  the  only  method  by  which  garbage  can  be  disposed 
of  without  cost. 

The  general  public  is  also,  to  a  considerable  extent,  prejudiced  against 
feeding  garbage  to  swine,  and  the  writer  formerly  shared  this  prejudice, 
but  has  been  led  to  modify  his  views. 

The  objections  to  feeding  garbage  to  swine  are  made  upon 
two  grounds. 

First — It  creates  a  nuisance.  It  is  indeed  true  that  this  practice  does, 
as  a  rule,  create  a  nuisance;  but  so  does  every  other  method  of  garbage 
disposal.  The  writer  has  seen  crematories  and  reduction  works  which 
were  every  bit  as  bad  as  any  hog  farm.  The  only  difference  is  that  the 
reduction  works  cost  money,  while  the  hog  farm  yields  a  profit. 

The  writer  then  quotes  instances  of  nuisance  caused  by  the 
first  reduction  plant  in  Boston,  and  the  crematories  in  Trenton, 
N.  J.,  and  Montreal,  Canada,  and  continues : 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  are  many  cities  near  which  there  is 
land  available  for  raising  swine,  and  where  the  business  can  be  done  with 
very  little  or  no  nuisance  and  with  profit. 

If  attention  be  given  to  transportation  and  feeding,  and  the  best  methods 
are  employed,  this  can  be  done.  Slipshod  methods  will  result  in  nuisance 
and  failure.  Of  course,  very  many  cities  are  so  situated  that  feeding  to 
swine  cannot  be  done,  and  other  and  more  expensive  methods  must  be 
adopted. 

Second— It  is  claimed  that  the  feeding  of  swine  with  garbage  is  danger- 
ous to  health.  It  is  said  that  the  pork  is  likely  to  be  diseased,  and  the 
disease  be  transmitted  to  human  beings.  Practically  the  only  disease  likely 
to  be  transmitted  is  trichinosis,  but  this  is  a  rare  disease,  and  can  be 
avoided  by  avoiding  raw  pork.  *  *  *  Considering  the  rarity  of  this 
disease  and  the  ease  with  which  it  may  be  avoided,  this  supposed  danger 
does  not  deserve  further  consideration. 

The  pork  is  said  to  be  of  poor  quality  and  to  bring  a  low  price  in  the 
market.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  garbage-fed  pork  is  not  as  hard  as  corn- 
fed  pork,  and  often  brings  a  little  less  in  Eastern  markets.  But  no  evi- 
dence has  ever  been  adduced  to  show  that  this  pork  is  in  any  way  un- 
wholesome. It  is  not  unlikely  that  by  better  methods  of  feeding,  perhaps 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  327 

by  cooking  the  garbage  and  skimming  the  grease,  or  by  getting  fresher 
garbage  by  daily  collections,  the  pork  might  be  much  improved. 

Probably  the  chief  reason  that  the  feeding  of  garbage  to  swine  is  ob- 
jected to  is  that  the  filth  theory  of  disease  continues  to  exert  so  much  in- 
fluence. We  have  been  so  long  told  that  filth  and  foul  odors  are  the  cause 
of  sickness  that  it  seems  to  be  very  hard  for  the  public,  and  even  alleged 
sanitarians,  to  give  up  the  idea.  Because  garbage  smells  bad  and  hog 
pens  smell  bad,  they  are  supposed  to  be  unwholesome.  This  is  pure  fic- 
tion. There  is  no  reason  whatever  to  suppose  that  sickness  ever  comes 
from  such  causes.  It  makes  no  difference  to  the  health  of  the  town  how 
its  garbage  is  disposed  of  or  how  it  is  collected,  or,  in  fact,  whether  it 
is  collected  at  all.  It  is  not  a  question  of  health,  but  one  of  comfort. 
Garbage  removal  work  is  not  for  the  Department  of  Health,  but  for  the 
Department  of  Public  Works.  What  is  needed  is  the  advise  of  engineers, 
not  of  medical  men.  Garbage  should  be  collected  with  the  least  public 
nuisance,  and  disposed  of  with  the  least  possible  nuisance.  But  it  should 
be  done  with  some  regard  for  economy.  It  would,  in  Providence,  cost 
many  thousands  of  dollars  more  each  year  to  dispose  of  garbage  in  any 
other  way  than  by  feeding  to  swine,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  the 
method  would  be  any  more  satisfactory  to  the  citizens,  and  would  certainly 
have  no  effect  upon  the  public  health. 

These  arguments  for  the  disposal  of  municipal  garbage  by 
feeding  to  swine  have  been  given  at  length  because  of  their  in- 
fluence upon  this  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  economy  as 
against  the  more  vital  question  of  sanitation. 

There  are  probably  very  few  sanitarians  who  would  agree  to 
the  proposition,  that  the  presence  of  filth  and  the  odors  from 
decaying  animal  and  vegetable  matters  make  no  difference  with 
the  health  of  a  community,  and  there  are  still  fewer  persons  who 
would  accept  the  dictum  that  it  makes  no  particular  difference 
to  health  conditions  if  garbage  is  ever  collected  at  all. 

That  it  is  a  question  of  individual  comfort  is  indisputable, 
and  as  health  depends  very  largely  upon  agreeable  and  salubrious 
surroundings,  personal  comfort  becomes  a  large  factor  of  this 
equation,  and  this  of  itself  is  one  of  the  strongest  elements  for 
a  treatment  that  should  induce  a  more  comfortable  and  hence 
a  more  healthful  state  in  the  community. 

Hog  feeding  by  contract  or  by  municipal  agency  may  not  be 
more  offensive  than  a  poorly  designed  and  operated  reduction  or 
cremation  system,  but  unless  it  can  be  made  better  than  the  other 
means,  it  has  no  right  to  continue  even  though  it  be  at  less  cost. 

Things  that  do  not  go  forward  in  sanitary  movements  are 


328  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

things  that  are  left  behind,  and  while  swine  feeding  may  be  a 
temporary  measure  for  economy's  sake,  it  cannot  be  held  to  be 
inoffensive,  healthful  or  comfortable  for  the  people.  Nor  should 
it  become  a  permanent  continuous  occupation  of  any  American 
municipality. 

Sentimental  Opposition. — There  is  one  objection  frequently 
encountered  by  those  who  deal  with  the  garbage  disposal  prob- 
lem, and  which  may  be  called  "sentimental  opposition."  It  is  a 
stumbling  block  in  the  path  of  progress  invariably  placed  by 
those  who  are  ignorant  of  facts,  and  who  oppose  everything  con- 
nected with  the  disposal  of  waste,  on  general  principles.  Their 
attitude  is  thus  described  by  one  who  has  had  a  long  and  stenu- 
ous  experience  as  Health  Commissioner  in  a  large  city: 

'  It  is  my  opinion  that  there  are  one  or  two  disposal  systems  that  are  all 
that  is  claimed  for  them.  But  I  would  earnestly  advise  that  while  you 
may  claim  for  them  everything  in  sight,  if  you  are  thinking  of  locating  one 
in  your  respective  location — just  go  a  little  way  out  of  town  with  it. 
Why  is  this?  My  experience  has  taught  me  that  the  nomenclature  is 
wrong.  You  attach  the  word  "garbage"  to  a  brand  new,  empty,  covered 
wagon,  allow  it  to  stand  in  a  street  in  a  thickly  populated  district,  and  I 
firmly  believe  that  in  a  very  short  time  a  large  percentage  of  that  adja- 
cent population  would  be  under  medical  treatment  or  threatened  with  some 
dreadful  pestilential  disease*  the  air  would  be  full  of  petitions  to  the 
Health  Department,  injunctions,  threats,  etc.  This  is  not  overdrawn,  for 
I  have  witnessed  just  such  a  performance  as  I  have  described.  So,  until 
the  names  can  be  changed,  dispose  of  your  garbage  and  refuse  material 
on  the  outside. 

•  -Cincinnati,  Ohio. — This  city  has  contributed  but  little  toward 
the  solution  of  the  problem  of  general  waste  disposal,  but  in 
dealing  with  the  garbage,  their  experience  has  been  not  unlike 
others  where  the  early  and  experimental  methods  have  failed 
and  been  succeeded  later  by  more  successful  ones. 

From  the  first  the  organic  waste  was  thrown  into  the  Ohio 
River,  as  is  still  done  with  the  sewage,  but  in  1872  a  contract 
was  made  by  which  the  garbage  and  dead  animals  were  taken  on 
boats  three  miles  below  the  city  limits.  This  defined  garbage  as 
"vegetable  garbage"  or  kitchen  offals  unmixed  with  ashes,  and 
"animal  garbage"  as  soap  grease,  slaughter  house  offal  and  dead 
animals.  The  contractor  paid  householders  for  the  soap  grease, 
and  for  the  carcasses  of  animals,  according  to  the  then  market 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  329 

prices  for  live  stock.     The  price  paid  was  $15,000  per  year  and 
included  the  collection. 

«*• 

This  contract  was  renewed  after  ten  years,  with  the  Cincin- 
nati Desiccating  Company,  but  the  price  paid  was  $2,500  per 
year,  not  including  collection.  During  this  period  much  of  the 
vegetable  garbage  was  dumped  into  the  Ohio  River  until  this 
was  prohibited  by  the  U.  S.  Government. 

In  1892,  a  ten-year  contract  was  granted  to  I.  M.  Simonin  for 
the  disposition  of  the  vegetable  garbage  in  a  manner,  scientific 
and  sanitary,  and  not  injurious  to  health  and  comfort.  By  the 
terms  of  the  contract,  the  city  was  to  pay  $25,000  per  year  for 
the  disposal,  the  vegetable  garbage  was  to  be  collected  by  the 
city  and  delivered  at  the  Company's  boat  at  the  foot  of  Main 
street,  but  the  Street  Cleaning  Department  that  did  the  hauling 
found  it  much  easier  to  haul  the  garbage  mixed  with  ashes  to 
the  dump  than  to  haul  the  long  distances  to  the  river.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  the  Simonin  Company,  instead  of  35,000  tons 
per  year,  got  less  than  15,000  tons. 

The  works  of  the  Simonin  reduction  process  were  built  about 
five  miles  below  the  city  and  were  fitted  up  with  much  the  same 
equipment  as  the  plant  at  Providence,  R.  I. 

Shortly  after  granting  the  contract  for  the  disposal  of  the 
vegetable  garbage,  the  city  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  / 
Jones  Fertilizer  Company,  for  ten  years  from  July,  1893,  f°r  tne  \* 
collection  and  disposal  of  the  animal  garbage,  by  which  the  con- 
tractor was  to  make  no  charge  for  removal  of  dead  animals 
and  receive  no  pay  for  the  privilege  of  doing  so.  Both  these 
means  of  disposal  continued  in  force  until  1902,  when  the  city 
advertised  for  bids  for  the  combined  service  for  five  years  for 
the  vegetable  garbage  from  June,  1902,  and  for  four  years  for 
the  Jones  contract  from  July,  1903.  Proposals  were  accepted 
from  another  reduction  company  and  the  Simonin  Company  dis- 
continued its  work  and  disposed  of  its  plant. 

The  work  of  the  Simonin  Company  was  conducted  at  a  disad- 
vantage because  of  the  relatively  small  amount  received  from  the 
city's  carts  and  the  admixture  of  ashes  and  foreign  substances,  the 
cost  and  difficulties  of  transportation  by  water  on  a  swiftly  mov- 
ing river  with  ice  obstructions  in  winter  and  floods  in  spring, 


330  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  more  than  all  the  absence  of  the  animal  matters,  which  were 
the  property  of  another  company. 

The  quantities  received  were  in  1898  reported  by  Chapin  to  be 
15,000  tons — that  were  disposed  of  at  a  cost  of  $1.62  per  ton. 

New  Orleans. — The  third  and  last  plant  built  under  the 
Simonin  patents  was  in  New  Orleans,  La.,  in  the  summer  of 
1894.  This  was  a  costly  and  elaborate  installation,  designed  with 
the  benefit  of  all  the  experience  derived  from  observation  of  the 
working  of  the  previous  plants,  and  it  was  expected  to  produce 
far  better  results.  But  the  city  ordinances  for  the  separation  of 
garbage  from  foreign  matters  were  inadequate  or  else  were  not 
enforced.  After  a  few  months  of  unsuccessful  efforts  the  con- 
tract was  abandoned  at  great  loss  to  the  investors.  The  city 
resumed  its  former  method  of  disposal  by  dumping  into  the 
Mississippi  River,  a  method  which  prevails  to  this  day. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

THE  ARNOLD  PROCESS  IN  BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK. 

The  first  plant  of  the  Arnold  process  for  municipal  service 
was  at  Boston,  Mass.,  in  1895.  This  was  located  at  Mt.  Vernon 
Street,  Ward  20,  Dorchester,  and  comprised  an  engine  house 
50  x  40  feet,  and  main  building  120  feet  square.  The  construc- 
tion was  from  the  plans  of  Mr.  C.  Edgerton  of  Philadelphia, 
Pa.  The  contract  was  taken  by  the  New  England  Construction 
Company,  operating  under  the  Arnold  process,  and  was  for  a 
period  of  ten  years,  the  city  granting  the  land  rent  free,  deliver- 
ing the  garbage  daily,  and  paying  $2,500  yearly  and  25  cents  per 
ton  on  all  quantities  above  20  tons  per  day.  The  plant  began 
work  in  January,  1895,  and  in  February  was  notified  to  abate 
nuisance  of  odors  from  digestors,  and  the  offensive  water  from 
condensers  which  was  discharged  into  the  sewers.  The  nuisance 
continued,  and  on  March  2ist  the  license  was-  revoked,  and 
subsequently  the  plant  discontinued. 

The  second  Boston  plant  under  the  Arnold  process  was  built 
by  the  New  England  Sanitary  Product  Company  in  1898,  at 
the  Cow  Pasture,  a  point  of  land  one-half  mile  wide  and  one 
mile  long,  extending  into  Boston  Harbor  from  the  town  of 
Dorchester.  There  is,  within  a  radius  of  two  miles,  a  popu- 
lation of  50,000  to  75,000,  and  as  this  plant  represented  the  im- 
proved methods  of  the  Arnold  process,  a  particular  description 
is  added.  This  was  written  when  the  question  of  renewal  of 
the  plant  was  under  consideration. 

The  works  cost,  to  erect  and  equip,  upwards  of  $300,000 — 
the  ground  being  city  property,  200  x  120  feet.  The  buildings 
were  120  x  80  feet,  containing  digestors,  boilers,  engines,  settling 
tanks,  etc.  The  machinery  comprised  a  200  horse-power  engine, 
engine  for  pumps,  conveyors,  presses,  condensing  pump,  etc. 
Twenty-five  men  are  employed  during  the  day  and  four  at  night, 
besides  ten  on  scows. 

The  city  collects  the  garbage   from   a  population  of   about 

33* 


332  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

400,000  and  dumps  it  at  Fort  Hill  wharf,  through  openings  in 
the  platform,  into  scows  lying  below.  These  scows  are  owned 
and  operated  by  the  Garbage  Reduction  Company.  The  scows 
are  towed  to  the  works  and,  by  conveyor,  the  garbage  is  carried 
to  the  upper  story  of  the  digestor  room.  These  digesters  are 
thirty-two  in  number,  in  two  rows  of  sixteen  each,  and  further 
divided  into  eight  sections  of  four  each.  Each  section  contributes 
to  a  single  receiving  tank.  The  digesters  have  a  capacity  of 
eight  tons  each,  are  conical  at  the  lower  end  and  are  fed  by 
the  traveling  conveyor  from  the  scows.  After  being  rilled,  steam 
is  admitted  at  about  60  Ibs.  pressure,  the  cooking  process  con- 
tinued from  ten  to  fourteen  hours,  according  to  the  season  and 
the  character  of  the  garbage,  when  the  steam  is  shut  off  and 
four  hours  allowed  for  the  contents  to  cool. 

The  digesters  are  dumped  into  the  receiving  tank  below. 
The  contents  consist  of  solid  matter  with  five  or  six  inches  of 
water  lying  above  it  and  the  oil  or  grease  floating  on  the  water. 

The  receiving  tanks  drain  into  gutters,  and  the  solid  matter  is 
passed  through  a  rotary  pressing  machine,  the  Edgerton  press. 
The  pressure  is  controlled  by  lo-ton  springs,  allowing  the  pas- 
sage of  cans,  bricks,  stove  lids,  etc.,  without  injury  to  the  press. 
The  liquids  and  grease  pressed  out  pass  to  the  gutters.  The 
water  and  grease  run  along  the  gutter  to  the  grease  room,  deposit- 
ing more  or  less  sand,  dirt  and  finely  divided  parts  of  the 
tankage. 

In  the  grease  room  the  water  and  fats  pass  through  a  series 
of  square  catch-basins,  connected  by  openings  in  the  lower  part 
of  the  partitions  between  them,  which  results  in  the  accumula- 
tion of  oil  or  grease  on  the  surface  of  the  water  in  each  basin. 
This  oil  is  skimmed  out  by  hand  with  long  scoops  into  a  receiver 
and  pumped  to  sedimentation  tanks  on  the  floor  above,  from 
which  it  is  drawn  down  into  a  large  iron  tank  furnished  with 
a  depression  along  the  centre  of  the  bottom,  where  the  water 
and  sediment  may  collect. 

The  oil  or  grease  is  piped  off  into  barrels  from  a  point  a 
few  inches  above  the  bottom  of  the  tank.  It  is  a  slightly  turbid, 
dark  brown  liquid,  and  without  any  offensive  smell.  The  water 
remaining  in  the  catch-basins  escapes  into  the  sea.  The  pressed 
solid  matter,  known  as  tankage,  is  carried  by  the  conveyors  to 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  333 

the  engine  room,  where  it  is  burned  in  the  furnaces  under  the 
boilers. 

The  weight  of  a  cubic  foot  of  garbage  is  from  45  to  56  pounds, 
or  a  maximum  of  i^  tons  for  each  56  cubic  feet.  The  garbage 
contains  from  7  to  10  per  cent,  of  foreign  matters,  and  the 
quantities  are  from  140  to  150  tons  daily.  The  yield  of  grease 
is  2  per  cent,  and  the  tankage  10  to  12  per  cent. 

The  tankage  used  as  fuel  to  the  amount  of  35  to  40  tons 
daily  is  said  to  replace  about  five  tons  of  coal,  and  must,  there- 
fore, be  worth  about  50  cents  per  ton  as  fuel. 

Measure  for  Suppressing  Odors. — The  steam  from  the  di- 
gestors  is  conveyed  by  pipes  to  a  Buckley  condenser,  where  it 
meets  with  a  current  of  sea  water  and  is  carried  off  into  a  "hot 
well,"  whence  part  of  the  odor  is  carried  by  the  water  into 
the  sea. 

Part,  however,  escapes  from  the  hot  well  and  is  conducted 
to  a  Bunsen  burner  at  the  foot  of  the  chimney,  where  it  is  in- 
tended that  it  should  be  consumed.  The  odors  from  the  digesters 
and  grease  room  are  collected  by  means  of  hoods  arranged  one 
over  each  press.  These  hoods  lead  by  vertical  pipes  into  a  ^ 
horizontal  pipe  furnished  with  exhaust  fans,  and  the  odors  are 
thus  carried  to  the  furnaces  and  there  supposed  to  be  destroyed. 
While  the  liquids  are  running  from  the  receiving  tanks  and 
presses,  the  gutters  are  covered  with  iron  plates. 

In  and  about  the  buildings,  a  strong  caramel  odor  is  detected 
continuously  during  operation  and  is  derived  probably  from 
the  tankage  after  dumping  the  digestors.  This  odor  naturally 
escapes  by  open  doors  and  windows  and  is  distributed  by  the 
wind.  The  well-known  raw  garbage  odor  is  also  noticed  when 
the  scows  are  being  unloaded,  but  its  range  is  very  limited. 

The  third  and  most  objectionable  odor  is  traced  to  the  chimneys 
of  the  plant.  It  is  not  observed  near  the  plant,  but  is  carried 
to  a  distance  by  the  winds  and  on  a  cloudy  day  is  especially 
likely  to  be  carried  downward  to  the  ground  level,  where  it  is 
extremely  offensive.  There  were  complaints  of  odors  from  this 
plant  early  in  1899,  and  hearings  were  held  in  June  and  July 
of  that  year.  The  evidence  went  to  show  that  the  odor  com- 
plained of. was  distinct  from  the  sewage  pumping  station  and 
to  the  gas  works;  both  of  which  were  near  the  garbage  plant. 


334  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

In  the  spring  of  1900  there  were  renewed  complaints  and 
hearings,  and  a  second  exhaustive  investigation  by  the  Board 
of  Health  led  to  a  second  formal  declaration  that  the  garbage 
plant  constituted  a  nuisance,  and  in  August  an  effort  was  made 
to  abate  it  as  a  nuisance  under  the  provisions  of  the  contract. 

The  matter  was  taken  to  the  courts,  and  finally  settled  by 
the  removal  of  the  plant  to  Spectacle  Island,  about  three  miles 
further  down  Boston  harbor.  By  the  terms  of  the  contract,  the 
city  paid  $140,000  to  the  company  for  the  costs  of  removal. 

THE  SEMET-SOLVAY  PROCESS  FOR  RECOVERY  OF  AMMONIA  FROM 
GARBAGE  TANKAGE. 

The  use  of  by-product  ovens  as  means  of  recovering  ammonia 
from  garbage  was  the  idea  of  Dr.  Bruno  Terne,  U.  S.  Pat. 
619,055,  while  chemist  of  the  Sanitary  Product  Company  of  New 
York,  which  controls  the  garbage  reduction  process  in  use  at 
New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Boston.  He  saw  an  opportunity 
to  utilize  the  solid  and  liquid  residuum  to  better  advantage  than 
previously  possible,  and  for  obtaining  from  them  a  large  part 
of  their  nitrogen  in  the  more  available  form  of  ammonium 
sulphate,  or  crude  liquor. 

The  project  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Semet-Solvay 
Company  of  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  and  tests  were  made  by  them 
of  twenty  tons  of  pressed  tankage  in  their  coke  ovens  at  Syra- 
cuse. These  tests  showed  that  from  one  ton  of  tankage  con- 
taining 40  per  cent,  of  water,  there  were  obtained  approximately 
164  pounds  of  ammonia,  reckoned  as  sulphate,  488  pounds  of 
carbonized  tankage,  and  4,000  cubic  feet  of  gas  of  about  300 
B.  T.  U.,  together  with  a  small  quantity  of  tar.  On  the  basis 
of  these  results,  the  construction  of  a  coke  oven  plant  to  work 
in  conjunction  with  the  garbage  reduction  plant  at  Boston  was 
undertaken. 

The  reduction  plant  was  installed  at  the  extremity  of  Old 
Harbor  Point,  Dorchester.  The  building  was  brick,  120  feet 
square,  divided  by  a  partition  wall  into  two  equal  parts.  One 
part  contained  the  digesters,  thirty-two  in  number,  and  con- 
veyors, and  was  open  to  the  roof.  The  other  portion,  having 
a  second  story,  contained,  on  the  lower  floor,  the  evaporators, 
boilers  and  engines. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  335 

The  coke  ovens,  condensing  and  washing  plant,  ammonia 
concentrator,  and  dryers,  were  placed  in  a  wooden  mill  con- 
struction, 45  x  54  feet,  immediately  adjoining  the  main  building. 
The  by-product  coke  ovens  were  in  a  construction  off  this  ell, 
54  x  45  feet,  enclosed  in  a  steel  frame  with  galvanized  iron 
covering.  There  was  a  saparate  steel  chimney  for  the  coking 
plant,  80  feet  high,  4  feet  diameter.  The  coke  ovens  were  of 
the  Semet-Solvay  type — seven  in  number,  30  feet  long,  7  feet 
high,  1 8  inches  wide;  a  long  narrow  high  chamber  with  charging 
hole  on  the  top,  the  sides  of  the  chambers  lined  with  fire  brick, 
with  double  walls  forming  flues  through  which  the  heat  and 
flame  from  the  gas  burners  passed.  These  flames  and  heat 
completely  enclosed  the  ovens  and  finally  passed  beneath  them 
to  the  smoke  stack.  There  were  doors  at  each  end  of  each  oven, 
lined  with  fire  brick,  one  set  of  which  was  raised  by  hydraulic 
power. 

The  gas  evolved  in  the  operation  of  coking,  was,  in  the 
Syracuse  test,  about  sufficient  in  calorific  power  to  supply  the 
heat,  but  for  starting,  and  to  bridge  over  any  irregularity  in 
supply,  two  gas  producers  were  installed.  The  dry  tankage 
was  charged  into  the  ovens  through  the  openings  on  top  and 
leveled  off  to  uniform  heights. 

The  residue  from  the  carbonization  or  coking  process,  was 
a  light  granular  substance,  somewhat  resembling  ground  coffee, 
only  darker  in  color.  It  was  withdrawn  from  the  ovens  by  a 
mechanical  extractor,  consisting  of  a  scraper  bucket  conveyor, 
traveling  on  a  steel  beam,  40  feet  long.  This  was  carried  on 
a  frame  running  on  wheels. 

The  carbonized  charge  was  received  in  a  car  and  by  elevator 
raised  to  the  floor  above,  where  it  was  screened  and  mixed  with 
the  requisite  portion  of  "stick"  before  passing  through  the  An- 
derson dryer,  emerging  in  its  final  form  as  a  fertilizer  base. 

The  gas  from  the  retorts  or  ovens  was  passed  through  a 
water-sealed  hydraulic  main,  placed  on  top  of  the  ovens,  and 
then  through  a  pair  of  tubular  surface  condensers  cooled  with 
sea  water,  to  the  exhauster,  which  forced  it  through  a  compart- 
ment washer,  where  the  ammonia  was  removed  by  absorption 
in  water. 

The  exit  gas  from  the  washer  was  led  to  the  oven  burners : 


336  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  the  ammoniacal  liquor,  after  passing  through  a  gravity  tar 
separator,  was  collected  in  storage  tanks.  From  these  it  was 
pumped  to  the  concentrator  feeding  tank  as  required. 

The  ammonia  concentrator  was  of  the  tower  pattern,  consist- 
ing of  a  dozen  or  more  flanged  cylindrical  cast-iron  plates,  40 
inches  in  diameter,  bolted  one  on  top  of  the  other.  Each  con- 
tained a  baffle-plate  of  the  mushroom  type  covering  an  outlet  in 
the  middle  so  as  to  form  a  water  seal.  The  live  steam  admitted 
at  the  bottom  of  the  column  forced  its  way  up  through  the 
water  seals  which  were  maintained  by  the  weak  liquor  fed  into 
the  top  of  the  column  and  passing  from  section  to  section,  the 
ammonia  being  drawn  off  as  the  liquor  passed  down. 

The  gaseous  ammonia  and  steam  passing  up  through  the 
column  were  cooled  by  contact  with  a  series  of  pipes  enclosed 
in  a  continuation  of  the  tower,  at  the  same  time  heating  the 
weak  incoming  liquor,  and  passed  over  to  the  final  condensing 
worm,  where  they  were  condensed,  passing  thence  to  the  storage 
tanks  in  the  form  of  crude  strong  liquor. 

Apparatus  for  the  manufacture  of  sulphate  of  ammonia  was 
also  provided  on  the  upper  floor  of  the  condensing  house.  This 
comprised  lead-lined  saturating  tanks,  acid  tanks,  drainage  bins 
and  piping.  Storage  tanks  for  acids  were  on  the  ground  floor 
near  the  water  front,  and  an  air  compressor  and  auxiliary  tank 
were  provided  to  lift  the  acid  to  the  saturators. 

The  plant  was  started  in  November,  1898,  and  continued 
until  February,  1899,  when,  with  the  reduction  works,  it  was 
partially  destroyed  by  fire. 

Mr.  Terne  says:  "The  difficulties  unavoidably  attendant  upon 
the  working  out  of  a  new  process  prevented  the  immediate 
realization  of  the  results  obtained  in  the  preliminary  experiments, 
but  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  would  have  been  fully  reached 
had  not  the  disaster  intervened." 

When  the  reduction  plant  was  removed,  by  order  of  the 
courts,  and  rebuilt  at  Spectacle  Island,  three  miles  further  down 
the  harbor,  the  ammonia  saving  process  plant  was  not  included. 
No  apparatus  of  this  kind  for  garbage  or  tankage  treatment  is 
now  in  use. 

The  Third  Boston  Plant. — The  removal  and  establishment 
of  the  reduction  plant  under  the  Arnold  system  from  Cow 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  337 

Pasture,  Dorchester  Point,  to  Spectacle  Island,  on  the  Boston 
harbor,  about  three  miles  further  down,  was  made  in  the  year 
1906.  The  works  erected  included  a  house  enclosing  sixteen 
digesters  on  the  upper  story,  beneath  which  were  the  four 
rotary  presses,  and  connected  with  these  were  the  gutters  which 
received  the  water  and  grease  and  conducted  them  to  the  set- 
tling basins.  The  garbage  was  taken  from  the  scows  by  a 
traveling  conveyor,  and  by  means  of  a  chute  placed  in  each 
digester,  according  to  the  quantity  required. 

Besides  the  rotary  presses,  a  powerful  hydraulic  press  is  also 
used  for  the  final  recovery  of  grease  and  water  from  the  finely 
divided  portions  of  tankage  gathered  from  the  gutters. 

At  the  time  of  the  examination  by  the  writer,  in  1907,  the 
plant  was  handling  upwards  of  100  tons  per  day  in  an  efficient 
manner.  The  tankage  at  this  time  was  burned  under  the  boilers, 
as  no  process  had  been  established  for  its  treatment  and  manu- 
facture as  a  fertilizer,  but  it  was  understood  that  additional 
works  were  being  constructed  about  three  hundred  yards  away 
from  this  building,  which  would  receive  the  tankage,  recover  the 
15  per  cent,  of  grease  which  it  contained,  and  manufacture  the 
residuum  for  the  fertilizer  market. 

Subsequently,  in  the  summer  of  1907,  many  complaints  were 
made  against  the  works  on  the  score  of  offensive  odors  carried 
to  nearby  dwellings  in  the  summer,  since  Spectacle  Island  is 
nearly  surrounded  by  the  seaside  residences  of  Boston  people. 
In  every  direction  except  one,  if  the  winds  were  favorable,  these 
odors  would  be  carried  long  distances,  and  would  become  highly 
offensive.  Under  the  contract  with  the  city  the  company  has 
still  one  and  one-half  years  for  its  contract  to  be  continued. 

General  Disposal  Work  in  Boston. — Before  the  establishment 
of  the  reduction  plants  in  Boston,  the  garbage  of  the  city  was 
separated  by  the  households,  then  was  delivered  to  contractors, 
who  carried  it  long  distances  in  the  country  for  feeding  to 
animals.  In  1893  and  1894,  the  city  derived  a  revenue  of  $20,000 
from  this  source,  but  conveyance  by  steam  cars  was  objected 
to  on  the  score  of  nuisance,  and  the  handling  of  garbage  at 
the  various  depots  where  it  was  sold  to  the  farmers  for  feed 
was  exceedingly  offensive.  This  practice  of  selling  the  garbage 
was  abandoned  as  soon  as  the  reduction  plant  was  established, 


338  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  only  in  some  portions  of  the  outlying  suburbs,  as  at  Brigh- 
ton, Roxbury,  Dorchester,  etc.,  is  the  garbage  now  disposed 
of  in  this  way. 

Light  Refuse.— In  1888  and  1889,  at  the  request  of  the  Board 
of  Health,  tenders  for  contract  were  asked  for  by  the  city  for 
the  construction  of  a  refuse  disposal  plant  upon  city  property 
adjoining  Fort  Hill  Wharf.  After  some  delay  a  contract  was 
granted  to  the  Refuse  Utilization  Company,  a  corporation 
formed  for  the  purpose,  which  erected  a  plant  and  received  all 
the  light  refuse  and  rubbish  collected  from  an  area  of  about 
ninety  miles  of  streets,  and  containing  approximately  200,000 
people.  The  city  by  this  contract  paid  $5,500  per  year,  and 
furnished  the  grounds  for  the  company  free  of  rent. 

Since  the  plant  is  in  the  hands  of  a  private  company,  which 
has  jealously  guarded  its  commercial  work,  no  exact  informa- 
tion is  obtainable  as  to  the  value  of  the  product  recovered  for 
market,  or  the  cost  of  doing  the  work.  The  operation  of  the 
plant  was  described  and  illustrated  in  a  previous  chapter. 

In  the  year  1907,  the  Mayor  appointed  a  commission  to  con- 
sider the  general  question  of  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the 
municipal  refuse  of  the  city.  This  commission  comprised  Prof. 
Sedgwick  of  the  Boston  Institute  of  Technology,  Mr.  X.  H. 
Goodnough,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Board 
of  Health,  and  Mr.  Wm.  Jackson,  City  Engineer  of  Boston.  This 
Commission  has  been  for  some  months  obtaining  data  and 
visiting  all  the  principal  installations  throughout  the  country 
and  is  about  to  formulate  a  general  plan  for  some  economical 
collection  service  in  the  city  proper,  and  also  in  adjoining  wards, 
which  include  Dorchester,  Roxbury,  West  Roxbury,  Jamaica 
Plains,  New  Brighton  and  East  Boston.  This  plan  will  in- 
clude complete  methods  for  the  collection  and  the  disposal  of 
the  general  refuse  by  methods  and  systems  suitable  for  each 
individual  case. 

It  is  understood  also  that  the  recommendation  has  been  made 
for  the   construction   of   an   enlarged   and   perfected   utilization    y 
plant  to  be  built  in  the  place  of  the  present  plant  at  Fort  Hill 
Wharf,  and  to  be  operated  for  the  benefit  of  the  city  instead 
of  a  contracting  company. 

The  preliminary  report  of  collections,  quantities,  proportions 


\ 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  339 

and  present  methods  of  disposal,  by  Mr.  X.  H.  Goodnough,  is 
condensed  in  Chap.  VII. 

EARLY  METHODS  OF  WASTE  DISPOSAL  IN  NEW  YORK  CITY. 

In  tracing  the  development  of  the  methods  of  garbage  dis- 
posal by  the  reduction  processes  in  New  York  City,  it  will  be 
of  interest  to  briefly  outline  the  earlier  history  of  the  subject, 
with  some  account  of  the  attempts  to  better  the  sanitary  con- 
ditions, as  carried  on  under  the  advice  and  suggestions  of  ad- 
visory boards  by  the  successive  Commisisoners  and  Superin- 
tendents of  Street  Cleaning  Service. 

The  organization  of  the  street  cleaning  service  as  a  separate 
branch  of  the  administration  work  dates  from  the  year  1881, 
prior  to  which  time  the  collection  and  disposal  of  waste  was 
done  by  contractors  under  the  direction  of  the  Police  De- 
partment. 

The  city  acquired  teams,  built  or  rented  stables,  organized 
the  force  for  cleaning  the  streets,  for  the  collection  of  house- 
hold wastes,  procured  scows,  and  tugs  for  towing  these  outside 
the  harbor  limits. 

The  practice  was  to  dump  overboard,  nominally  at  a  point 
below  Sandy  Hook,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  scows  were 
unloaded  at  any  place  where  it  could  be  done  without  observa- 
tion by  the  officers  of  the  Government  in  charge  of  the  care  of 
the  harbor. 

For  several  years  this  service  for  collection  and  disposal  was 
continued  with  great  complaints  from  the  citizens  for  unsatis- 
factory collection  and  with  repeated  protests  from  the  property- 
holders  on  the  shores  of  Long  Island  and  New  Jersey.  After 
ten  years  of  complaint  and  remonstrances  an  Advisory  Com- 
mission was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  defects  of  this  method 
and  recommend  some  better  system. 

This  Commission,  appointed  by  Mayor  Grant  in  1891,  in- 
cluded Messrs.  Morris  K.  Jessup,  Thatcher  M.  Adams,  Prof. 
C.  F.  Chandler,  D.  H.  King  and  Gen.  F.  V.  Greene.  The 
report  was  devoted  chiefly  to  the  collection  of  the  wastes,  and 
established  some  principles  -defining  the  character  and  treat- 
ment of  general  refuse,  which  became  a  basis  for  after  Com- 
missions to  extend  and  amplify.  It  was  reported  that  street 


340  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

sweepings  were  not  of  enough  value  to  pay  the  work  of  trans- 
portation; that  garbage,  when  kept  separated,  is  valuable  for 
fertilizer  or  for  feeding  swine ;  that  coal  ashes,  when  free  of 
other  matters,  make  good  filling,  and  that  these  three  forms  of 
wastes,  when  mixed,  lose  their  pecuniary  value,  unless  for  filling 
behind  bulkheads,  or  on  land  remote  from  dwellings. 

The  Commission  also  found  that  the  Department  of  Street 
Cleaning  was  badly  managed;  that  the  laborers  were  inefficient 
and  held  their  places  by  political  influence ;  that  the  plant  of  the 
Department  was  insufficient  and  poorly  located;  that  the  manner 
of  disposal  of  refuse  was  unsatisfactory ;  that  the  co-operation  of 
the  other  departments  of  the  city — Police  Justices,  Health  and 
Police — was  largely  lacking,  and  that  the  management  of  the 
Department  required  men  experienced  in  .the  control  of  trans- 
portation means  and  executive  capacity  of  a  high  order. 

The  practical  effect  of  this  report  was  the  reorganization  of 
the  Department  by  Legislative  enactment  in  1892,  with  increased 
appropriations,  but  little  real  progress  in  improving  the  condi- 
tions. There  was  still  the  appointment  of  officers  and  force 
for  political  purposes,  the  work  of  the  Department  being  a 
secondary  consideration. 

Later,  in  1892,  the  inquiries  into  this  subject  were  continued 
by  Messrs.  Theo.  F.  Meyers,  the  Comptroller,  and  Edw.  P. 
Parker  of  the  Board  of  Estimates.  They  took  firm  ground 
^against  sea-dumping,  and  strongly  recommended  cremation  as 
the  best  means  for  disposal,  but  as  it  might  be  some  time  before 
a  cremation  system  suitable  for  the  city's  needs  became  avail- 
able, they  advocated  the  deposit  of  the  waste  to  make  ground 
about  Riker's  Island.  The  adoption  of  this  method  a  year  later 
gave  rise  to  a  nuisance  of  offensive-  odors,  and  subsequent  legis- 
lative action  prohibiting  the  dumping  of  mixed  refuse,  contain- 
ing garbage,  at  Riker's  Island. 

This  was  followed  in  1894  by  the  appointment  by  Mayor 
Gilroy  of  a  second  Advisory  Committee,  composed  of  ex-Mayor 
Franklin  Edson,  Thomas  L.  James,  Lt.  Comr.  D.  Delehanty, 
U.  S.  N.,  Hon.  Chas.  G.  Wilson,  President  of  the  Board  of 
Health,  and  Mr.  W.  S.  Andrews,  Commissioner  of  Street 
Cleaning. 

The  members  of  this  Board,  in  person  and  by  representatives. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  341 

made  an  extended  examination  of  all  methods  in  use  for  gar- 
bage disposal  in  this  country,  one  member  visiting  Europe  for 
a  survey  of  the  means  there  used. 

They  did  not  find  cremation  methods  altogether  satisfactory, 
as  no  plant  of  any  considerable  size  was  then  in  operation.  They 
also  reported  that  reduction  processes  were  "thoroughly  sani- 
tary, and  although  not  free  from  offense,  can  doubtless  be  made 
so."  The  Board  declared  that  light  refuse  could  not  be  deposited 
at  sea  at  a  less  distance  than  200  miles  from  the  harbor  with- 
out contaminating  the  shores. 

To  obtain  some  data  for  further  recommendations  the  Board 
invited  proposals  or  plans  for  final  disposal  of  the  waste  of 
New  York. 

There  were  seventy  different  plans  submitted.  Of  these  forty-  ^ 
nine  were  considered  practicable,  and  were  classified  as  follows : 
Eighteen  proposed  to  burn  all  the  waste,  six  to  burn  garbage 
only,  two  others  had  a  separation  process  with  utilization  of 
the  valuable  parts  and  burning  the  rest,  seven  advocated  reduc- 
tion, four  would  employ  self-dumping  boat  for  long  sea  convey- 
ance, and  twelve  were  included  under  miscellaneous  or  unde- 
fined plans.  Leaving  aside  the  miscellaneous  list,  twenty-six 
were  in  favor  of  cremation,  seven  of  reduction  and  four  of 
continuing  sea-dumping.  Many  of  those  who  presented  plans 
were  afforded  an  opportunity  to  explain  to  the  Board  in  detail 
what  they  proposed  and  the  results  to  be  expected. 

The  author's  contribution  to  the  literature  of  the  Advisory 
Board  was  contained  in  a  small  pamphlet  advocating  the  dis- 
position by  fire  by  two  alternative  methods : 

First — By  several  plants  placed  upon  wharves  at  different  points,  from 
ten  to  twelve  in  number,  at  which  the  putrescible  organic  waste  would  be 
destroyed  in  furnaces  of  approved  design,  the  power  developed  by  this 
combustion  to  be  employed  for  sorting  out  the  marketable  parts  of  the 
refuse  and  for  conveying  and  loading  the  residuum  remaining  and  the 
great  bulk  of  household  ashes  into  scows  for  conveyance  to  Riker's  Island. 

Second — The  disposal  of  the  garbage  at  Riker's  Island  by  establishing  a 
large  cremating  plant  for  destroying  the  putrescible  matter,  the  power 
derived  therefrom  to  be  used  for  conveying  and  distributing  the  ashes  of 
the  city  for  making  new  ground. 

The  pamphlet  gave  a  short  account  of  the  English  destruc- 


342  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

tors,  their  capacity,  cost  of  operating  expenses,  of  construction 
and  other  details  of  some  fifty  installations,  out  of  about  125 
then  in  use  in  Great  Britain.  There  was  added  a  compara- 
tive cost  for  a  plant  to  be  established  in  New  York  for  similar 
work,  with  some  indication  as  to  the  saving  in  annual  cost  to 
the  city,  as  against  the  disposal  of  the  garbage  only,  by  reduc- 
tion, or  the  continued  disposal  by  conveyance  in  self -dumping 
steam  lighters  at  sea. 

Mayor  Gilroy's  Advisory  Board  finally  recommended: 

That  dumping  into  the  harbor  or  its  tributary  waters  should  cease. 

That  the  householders  should  be  requested  to  separate  kitchen  garbage 
from  the  ashes  and  other  house  refuse. 

That  the  collection  should  be  made  in  iron  vessels  with  tight  covers. 

That  the  daily  garbage  collections  should  be  delivered  into  storage  bins 
or  self-dumping  propelled  boats  of  approved  type. 

That  the  garbage  should  be  disposed  of  by  reduction,  and  the  city  should 
invite  bids  from  companies  controlling  these  systems. 

That  a  separate  collection  should  be  made  of  other  refuse  not  other- 
wise provided  for,  which  should  be  taken  to  Riker's  Island,  or  elsewhere, 
and  that  the  conveyance  of  this  should  be  by  self-propelled  boats  to  be 
constructed  and  owned  by  the  city. 

If  there  was  any  market  value  to  street  sweepings  for  fertilizers,  they 
should  be  sold  if  worth  more  than  for  filling  purposes. 

This  last  named  recommendation  of  the  Advisory  Board, 
which  was  adopted  and  followed  out  by  the  city  authorities, 
committed  the  city  to  one  particular  method  that  treated  only 
one-twelfth  of  all  the  refuse,  as  against  the  cremation  system 
that  disposed  of  the  whole.  It  established  a  monopoly  by  con- 
tract, which  has  been  perpetuated,  and  from  which  the  city 
has  since  never  been  able  to  free  itself.  It  further  denied  the 
right  of  competition  by  any  form  of  disposal  by  cremation' 
means,  and  offered  no  opportunity  to  show  what  might  be  done 
by  the  use  of  apparatus  that  was  entirely  successful  in  other 
great  cities  of  the  world.  / 

While  condemning  the  dumping  at  sea,  it  still  recommended 
this  be  carried  on  at  greatly  increased  cost  for  transportation 
with  no  guarantee  that  it  would  be  any  more  successful  than 
in  the  past. 

At  that  time  there  were  only  three  reduction  and  extraction 
companies  at  work.  The  quantities  of  garbage  treated  by  these 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  343 

were  insignificant  compared  with  the  amounts  to  be  handled 
here.  Several  plants  had  failed  or  been  closed  by  reason  of 
nuisance,  and  the  whole  work  in  this  direction  was  largely  ex- 
perimental and  undetermined.  This  unwise  recommendation  of 
a  body  of  estimable  gentlemen,  acting  upon  information,  and 
not  upon  practical  engineering  knowledge  or  any  previous  ac- 
quaintance with  the  questions,  did  much  to  delay  the  progress 
of  the  general  question  of  a  satisfactory  disposal  of  the  com- 
munal waste  of  American  towns. 

INVESTIGATION  AND  EXPERIMENTS  OF  COL.   GEO.   E.  WARING, 

IN  NEW  YORK  CITY,  UPON  GARBAGE  TREATMENT,  BY  THE 

METHODS  OF  EXTRACTION  AND  REDUCTION  IN  1895. 

When  Col.  Waring  became  Commissioner  of  Street  Cleaning 
of  New  York  City,  in  January,  1895,  tne  wastes  of  the  city  were 
towed  to  sea  and  thrown  overboard.  This  had  been  the  practice 
for  years,  one  that  is  both  wasteful  and  objectionable,  but  no  bet- 
ter means  had  been  found  available.  In  1895,  Col.  Waring  made 
.inquiries  into  the  methods  in  use  in  all  civilized  countries  for 
waste  disposal,  visiting  Europe  himself  for  this  purpose,  besides 
carrying  on  an  exhaustive  survey  by  competent  assistants  in  this 
country. 

The  claims  made  for  sanitary  treatment  and  economy  in  the 
disposal  of  garbage  when  separated  from  other  forms  of  refuse 
were  brought  strongly  to  his  attention,  resulting  in  an  invita- 
tion to  the  various  companies  engaged  in  this  work  to  present  in- 
formal bids  naming  the  prices  at  which  they  would  be  will- 
ing to  receive  and  dispose  of  the  garbage  of  the  city. 

Twenty-six  answers  were  received.  The  average  cost  per 
ton  from  those  proposing  to  destroy  by  incineration  was  90 
cents,  and  the  average  for  utilization  by  the  several  extraction 
and  reduction  means  was  55  cents  per  ton,  but  of  all  these  bid- 
ders only  one-half  were  believed  to  be  sufficiently  experienced 
and  responsible  to  make  offers  which  would  be  acceptable  to 
the  city.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  thought  advisable 
to  make  an  independent  investigation  of  the  various  methods, 
and  a  series  of  examinations  was  proposed  in  the  city's  behalf 
which  should  include  the  cost  of  operation,  the  value  of  the 
commercial  products,  and  the  adaptability  of  each  process  to 


344  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

the  needs  of  the  city.  This  invitation  was  accepted  by  several 
companies,  and  in  the  summer  of  1895  more  than  3,000  tons 
of  garbage  in  the  cities  of  New  York,  Brooklyn,  Buffalo,  Phila- 
delphia and  St.  Louis  were  treated  by  different  methods  under 
the  supervision  of  the  inspectors  appointed  by  Col.  Waring. 
These  trials  of  apparatus  took  place  as  follows : 

Merz  Universal  Extractor  and  Construction 

Co . Buffalo June 

Merz  Universal  Extractor  and  Construction 

Co St.  Louis July 

The  Sanative  Refuse  Co.,  Process  No.  i  .  .  .  .New  York August 

At  these  three  plants,  the  grease  was  extracted  by  the  use  of 
hydro-carbon  solvents,  and  the  remaining  solids  converted  into 
fertilizer  base. 

The  Preston  Process Brooklyn,  N.  Y. .  July 

The   Bridgeport  Utilization  Co.,    (Holthaus 

Process) Bridgeport February 

The    American    Incinerating    Co.     (Arnold 

Process) Philadelphia July 

At  these  three  plants,  the  grease  was  extracted  by  cooking 
and  mechanical  pressure  and  the  solids  made  into  fertilizers. 

The    Sanative    Refuse    Co.,    Process    No.    2 

(Pierce) New  York September 

The  American  Reduction  Co Brooklyn May 

Both  of  these  companies  made  the  garbage  into  complete 
fertilizer,  but  the  first  extracted  the  grease  by  solvents,  while 
the  second  used  acid. 

In  method  No.  I  of  the  Sanative  Refuse  Company,  the  raw 
garbage  was  placed  in  steel  tanks  and  covered  with  naphtha, 
the  tanks  then  being  tightly  closed  and  heated  by  steam.  After 
five  hours  of  this  cooking  in  naphtha,  the  liquid  was  run  off 
and  its  constitutents  separated,  while  the  tankage  was  taken  out 
and  dried.  From  New  York  summer  garbage  this  method  ex- 
tracted an  average  of  2.4  per  cent,  of  grease  and  left  the  wet 
tankage  almost  odorless.  The  process  was  rather  wasteful  of 
naphtha,  but  most  satisfactory  from  the  sanitary  standpoint. 

Method  No.  2  of  the  Sanative  Refuse  Company  completed 
the  utilization  process  by  making  the  tankage  into  a  finished 
fertilizer. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  345 

The  American  Reduction  Company  made  a  complete  fertilizer 
by  cooking  the  garbage  in  dilute  acid  and  then  adding  the 
other  necessary  ingredients,  drying  and  grinding. 

The  Standard  Construction  and  Utilization  Company,  Phila- 
delphia, August. — This  company  did  the  preliminary  cooking 
in  steam  jacketed  digesters,  the  grease  afterwards  being  recov- 
ered by  pressing  and  separated  by  flotation  and  skimming. 

The  information  obtained  by  the  Department  was  in  the 
nature  of  confidential  communications,  and  so  far  as  is  known 
has  never  been  made  public,  but  from  the  subsequent  action 
taken,  it  would  appear  that  some  of  the  processes  either  did 
not  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  city  or  were  unable 
to  offer  advantageous  terms  for  the  work. 

This  inquiry  touched  on  many  important  facts  in  connection 
with  the  subject,  dealing  with  the  seasonal  variation  in  char- 
acter and  quantities,  the  system  of  collection  by  contract  or 
by  city  agency,  the  admixture  of  foreign  matters  when  treatment 
by  extraction  or  reduction  is  to  be  used,  the  quantities  of  water 
present  as  affecting  results  in  manufacturing,  the  destruction 
of  noxious  gases  by  condensation  or  cremation,  and  the  use  of 
disinfectants  in  collection  work. 

The  report  also  included  a  general  description  of  the  ap- 
paratus employed  in  each  process  of  extraction  or  reduction, 
with  a  brief  account  of  the  final  means  of  drying,  grinding  and 
preparing  for  market,  used  by  all  the  companies. 

The  selling  value  of  a  ton  of  summer  garbage  was  thus 
stated : 

Grease,  40  Ibs at  30.  $i  .20 

Tankage — 

Ammonia,  13     '      "    8c.  i  .04 

Phosphoric  Acid,  13     '      %> "    ic.  .13 

Potash,  3     '      "   3^c.  .  10 

$2.47 

Appended  to,  or  included  in,  Col.  Waring's  reports  were  ex- 
aminations made  by  his  assistants  upon  the  disposal  of  gar- 
bage from  the  hotels  of  New  York,  not  a  part  of  the  city's 
work,  but  taken  by  private  collectors  and  fed  to  animals  outside 
the  citv. 

Garbage  grease,   its  quantity,   uses  and  value,   was  also  con- 


346  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

sidered,  as  well  as  the  fertilizer  trade  in  general  and  the  prob- 
able effect  of  a  large  new  supply  that  might « result  from  the 
general  adoption  of  these  new  methods.  There  was  also  an 
estimate  of  the  junk  trade  in  marketable  parts  of  the  city's  refuse 
collected  by  cartmen  throughout  the  town. 

All  these  facts,  concisely  put,  gathered  in  one  small  volume, 
form  a  history  of  what  was  then  the  situation,  the  possibilities, 
and  to  some  extent  a  prophecy  of  the  future  work  to  be  done 
in  this  line  of  waste  collection  and  disposal  such  as  has  not 
been  repeated  in  this  country. 

The  thoroughness  which  characterized  all  of  Col.  War- 
ing's  municipal  work,  and  the  able  assistance  of  Messrs.  M. 
Craven,  H.  Hill  and  C.  H.  Koyl,  together  united  to  give  definite 
form  and  a  fixed  method  to  what  had,  up  to  then,  been  uncer- 
tain and  indefinite,  in  the  investigation  of  the  proper  methods 
of  disposal  of  municipal  waste. 

BEGINNING  OF  GARBAGE  REDUCTION  IN  NEW  YORK. 

Pending  the  close  of  the  examination  of  the  possibilities  of 
the  reduction  method,  Col.  Waring  issued  advertisements  call- 
ing for  bids  for  the  disposal  of  the  combined  city  waste  by  any 
method  that  could  be  shown  to  be  sanitary  and  efficient.  Sev- / 
eral  bids  were  received  in  December,  1895,  but  these  upon  exam- 
ination appeared  to  be  deficient  and  they  were  rejected. 

The  next  advertisement,  February,  1896,  asked  for  bids  for 
the  disposal  of  garbage  only.  The  replies  received  were  all  con- 
sidered unsatisfactory,  and  they  were  rejected.  In  March  an- 
other call  was  made  for  tenders  for  garbage,  and  also  for  the 
disposition  of  ashes  and  street  sweepings.  The  bids  received 
for  the  disposal  of  ashes  and  street  sweepings  were  rejected. 
The  proposal  of  the  Merz  Extracting  Company  in  the  sum  of 
$90,000  per  year  was  accepted  by  the  Commissioner,  but  was 
not  accepted  by  the  Board  of  Estimate.  Subsequently,  in  June; 
the  bid  of  the  Sanitary  Utilization  Company  of  New  York  was 
approved  by  this  Board,  and  the  company  was  granted  the  con- 
tract for  a  term  of  five  years  at  the  annual  rate  of  $89,990,  to 
date  from  August  I,  1896.  It  will  be  noted  that  this  price  was 
$10  less  than  that  tendered  by  the  Merz  Company.  The  contract 
price  included  furnishing  scows  for  the  transportation  of  the 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  347 

garbage  and  its  final  disposition  in  an  unobjectionable  manner. 
The  quantity  for  the  old  city  of  New  York,  now  the  Borough 
of  Manhattan,  was  estimated  at  500  tons  per  day  for  313  work- 
ing days,  or  about  156,500  tons  per  year.  This  was  at  the  rate 
of  approximately  575^  cents  per  ton  for  transportation  and  dis- 
posal. 

"Garbage"  was  defined  as  meaning  the  refuse  of  all  organic 
nature,  not  including  street  sweepings,  collected  by  the  city  carts 
or  by  duly  authorized  private  carts,  and  delivered  at  the  dumps 
or  other  places  of  final  disposition,  and  containing  not  more  than 
10  per  cent,  by  weight  of  other  refuse. 

In  November,  1896,  the  city  of  Brooklyn  granted  a  contract 
for  five  years  for  the  collection,  transportation  and  disposal  of 
the  city  garbage  by  the  Brooklyn  Sanitary  Utilization  Company, 
one  of  the  provisions  being  that  the  company  should  receive  the 
garbage  at  its  plant  up  to  May,  1897,  after  which  there  should 
be  ready  a  separate  plant  for  the  disposal  of  the  Brooklyn  gar- 
bage. The  quantity  of  garbage  was  estimated  at  250  tons  per 
day.  The  maximum  capacity  of  the  new  Brooklyn  plant  was  to 
be  500  tons  per  day. 

THE  BARREN  ISLAND  REDUCTION  PLANT. 

The  New  York  Sanitary  Utilization  Company  was  formed  by 
capitalists  from  Philadelphia  who  controlled  the  Arnold  process 
of  garbage  reduction  under  a  corporation  known  as  the  American 
Sanitary  Product  Company.  This  is  the  parent  company  that 
controls  or  is  interested  in  all  the  various  companies  operating 
under  the  patents  of  this  process  in  Philadelphia,  New  York, 
Brooklyn,  Boston,  Baltimore,  Washington,  Newark,  and  Atlantic 
City. 

The  combined  plants  for  New  York  and  Brooklyn  were  built 
in  1895-6  at  Barren  Island,  a  small  island  at  the  mouth  of  Jamaica 
Bay,  on  Rockaway  Inlet,  in  the  rear  of  Rockaway  Beach.  The 
distance  of  this  location  from  the  City  Hall  in  New  York  City 
is  twelve  miles  by  land,  and  about  twenty  by  water. 

The  garbage  is  dumped  by  the  city's  collection  carts  into  the 
company's  scows  at  five  wharfs,  three  on  the  North  and  two 
on  the  East  River.  The  average  towing  distance  from  New 
York  is  twenty-two  miles,  and  about  eighteen  miles  from  Brook- 


348  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

lyn.     The  scows  carry  an  average  of  300  tons  of  garbage,  and 
one  tug  tows  two  scows. 

The  quantities  collected  in  tons  for  three  years  were  as  follows : 

Manhattan  and 

New  York              Bronx  Brooklvn  Total 

1897            1898            1899  1899  1899 

158,500      142,400      151,600  104,000  255,600 

Quantities  per  day 500  tons     455  tons     484  tons  333  tons  817  tons 

Cost  per  ton 570.  640.  590. 

The  scows  were  formerly  unloaded  by  buckets  and  scoops,  dis- 
charging into  a  hopper  from  which  the  garbage  was  carried  by 
a  conveyor  to  the  digestors.  The  present  method  is  by  stationary 
conveyors  or  continuous  steel  troughs,  with  connected  scrapers  or 
drags,  carried  on  sprocket  chains,  the  scows  being  moved  forward 
as  they  are  unloaded.  Over  each  digester  are  sliding  doors  in 
the  bottom  of  the  troughs  which  are  connected  with  a  funnel  and 
feed  pipe  with  a  swivel  joint,  so  that  each  digester  may  be  fed 
in  turn.  The  digestors  are  of  the  usual  type,  vertical  steel  cylin- 
ders, holding  about  eight  tons,  of  ^-inch  steel  plate  strongly  riv- 
eted, dome  shaped  at  the  top,  with  conical  lower  ends  for  deliv- 
ery of  the  cooked  garbage  into  receiving  tanks. 

Every  four  digestors  are  connected  with  one  tank  also  made 
of  steel  plates  14^  feet  long,  12  feet  6  inches  wide,  7  feet  high, 
having  a  bottom  sloping  each  way  to  the  center. 

An  opening  is  provided  at  the  bottom  for  discharging  the  cooked 
garbage  by  means  of  a  pipe  into  cars  where  it  is  built  up  with 
wooden  racks  and  gunny  sacks  into  layers  and  run  beneath  the 
screw  presses.  There  are  sixteen  presses,  operated  at  a  pressure 
of  100  pounds  per  square  inch  on  the  press  screw  head,  or  platen. 
When  this  process  is  completed  the  cars  are  run  to  the  end  of 
the  building,  the  tankage  lifted  to  the  second  floor  and  then  shov- 
elled into  the  dryers. 

There  are  twelve  driers,  each  about  14  feet  long  and  5  inches 
in  diameter,  placed  horizontally,  carrying  a  charge  of  three  tons. 
These  driers  are  jacketed  with  live  steam  at  75  pounds  pressure, 
and  are  provided  with  rotating  blades  on  a  center  shaft  to  keep 
the  tankage  stirred  up. 

From  the  driers  the  tankage  is  discharged  into  cross  conveyors 
leading  to  the  screens.  These  are  the  usual  type  of  rotary  screens, 
and  deliver  the  tankage  in  condition  for  bagging  for  market. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  349 

After  the  bones  are  picked  out  the  tailings  are  burned  or  are 
used  for  filling. 

Going  back  to  the  operation  of  the  presses,  the  liquids  from 
the  pressed  garbage  fall  into  a  system  of  drains  beneath  the  press- 
room floor  which  carries  the  hot  water  and  the  grease  from  the 
presses  into  a  series  of  shallow  tanks  with  partitions  extending 
only  part  way  to  the  bottom.  By  continued  circulation  and  move- 
ment in  these  basins  the  grease  in  cooling  separates  from  the 
water,  is  removed  by  skimming,  and  finally  goes  into  the  barrels 
for  shipment.  In  the  evaporation  process  a  form  of  vacuum  pan 
is  used.  The  final  product,  known  as  "stick,"  a  heavy,  dense  body 
of  fluid  substances,  is  mixed  with  the  highly  dried  tankage  to 
form  a  superior  grade  of  fertilizer. 

Provisions  for  the  prevention  of  nuisances  incidental  to  the 
various  processes. are  an  important  part  of  the  whole  when  such 
enormous  quantities  of  material  are  handled.  In  hot  weather  a 
deodorant  known  as  "electrozone"  was  used.  This  is  a  product 
of  hypo-chlorite  of  sodium  evolved  from  sea  water  by  powerful 
electrical  currents,  and  is  applied  to  lessen  the  odors  from  the 
green  garbage  in  the  scows.  The  scows  are  washed  down  after 
each  trip  and  sprinkled  with  chloride  of  lime. 

The  free  steam  and  gases  in  the  digester  house  are  exhausted 
by  an  immense  fan  and  are  drawn  into  a  long  scrubber  through 
which  about  3,500  gallons  of  sea  water  are  forced  by  pumps.  The 
gases  from  the  digestors,  driers  and  evaporators  are  passed 
through  spiral  jet  condensers;  in  these  the  gases  and  a  jet  of 
cold  water  fall  together  about  30  feet  into  a  receiving  tank.  Un- 
condensed  gases  were  formerly  passed  to  the  chimneys,  entering 
at  the  rear  of  the  boiler,  but  as  the  temperature  of  600°  was  not 
sufficient  to  deodorize  or  consume  these  they  are  now  discharged 
under  water  at  some  distance  from  the  works. 

The  machinery  equipment  includes  seventeen  steam  boilers  of 
250  horsepower  each,  four  Corliss  engines  of  150  horsepower 
each,  two  smaller  engines,  two  air  compressors,  three  dynamos 
for  lighting,  several  pumps  for  lifting  water,  and  fans  for  ven- 
tilation. 

The  Brooklyn  plant  is  practically  a  duplicate  of  the  New  York 
plant.  More  digestors  are  to  be  added  to  make  up  a  total  of  one 
hundred  and  twelve,  which  will  give  the  whole  plant  a  capacity 


350  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

for  the  treatment  of  1,500  tons  per  day.     (Description  condensed 
from  the  Engineering  News  of  February  i,  1900.) 

THE  SANITARY  SIDE  OF  THE  MATTER. 

The  history  of  the  Barren  Island  plant  is  one  of  strenuous 
effort  to  maintain  its  position  against  the  determined  opposition  . 
of  the  surrounding  population  while  at  the  same  time  embarrassed 
by  a  series  of  misfortunes  and  accidents  which  were  beyond  the 
power  of  the  company  to  foresee.  During  the  summer  months 
there  are  probably  three-fourths  of  a  million  people  residing 
within  a  radius  of  three  miles  from  the  island,  with  free  range 
for  the  winds  which  at  this  season  blow  mainly  from  the  direc- 
tion of  the  south  and  southwest.  While  there  are  in  the  locality 
three  other  plants  of  a  similar  nature — P.  White  Sons,  for  dead 
animals ;  E.  I.  McKeever,  for  animals ;  E.  Frank  Coe  Fertilizer 
Co. — it  was  claimed  that  the  nauseous  odors  were  chiefly  due  to 
the  reduction  works. 

The  people  complained  to  the  Board  of  Health,  but  met  with 
no  encouragement.  They  appealed  to  the  Legislature  in  1899, 
and  a  bill  was  passed  and  vetoed  by  the  Governor  on  the  ground 
that  six  months  was  too  short  a  time  for  the  Street  Cleaning 
Department  to  provide  other  means  of  disposal.  The  Legislature 
of  1900  caused  a  hearing  to  be  held  at  which  arguments  were 
presented  resulting  in  the  passage  of  a  bill,  which  was  vetoed  by 
Mayor  Van  Wyck,  and  was  repassed  by  the  Legislature  and 
signed  by  Governor  Roosevelt,  who  at  that  time  clearly  stated 
the  aim  and  purpose  of  this  action. 

On  the  2Oth  of  April,  1900,  he  said: 

The  city  authorities  should  have  presented  a  better  plan  for  the  dis- 
posal of  the  garbage  to  the  last  Legislature,  but,  instead,  they  hang  back 
and  make  no  effort  to  solve  the  Barren  Island  problem.  That's  the  reason 
why  these  bills  were  passed.  The  city  authorities  evidently  prefer  to  allow 
the  present  disposal  contractors  to  profit  by  the  existing  methods  than  take 
the  measures  necessary  to  abate  the  nuisance  and  protect  the  public  health. 
If  I  sign  this  bill  it  will  be  because  they  will  be  compelled  to  do  something 
which  otherwise  they  would  not  do  in  the  public  interest. 

The  bill  allowed  twelve  months  from  the  time  that  it  became  a 
law,  April,  1900,  for  the  securing  of  other  means  of  disposal,  but 
provided  that  the  Board  of  Health  of  the  city  might  extend  the 
operation  of  the  time  to  include  the  then  existing  contracts  up 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  351 

to  August  i,  1901.  The  Garbage  Company  took  the  matter  to 
the  courts,  where,  after  long  delay,  the  act  was  declared  uncon- 
stitutional. 

Under  the  contracts  with  New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  the 
Sanitary  Utilization  Company  carried  on  its  work  at  Barren 
Island  until  1901,  when  the  term  of  the  first  contract  with  New 
York  expired.  In  March  a  fire  which  originated  in  the  storage 
house  destroyed  a  large  amount  of  manufactured  stock  and  the 
buildings  in  which  it  was  kept.  The  loss  was  said  to  be  $50,000. 
Complaints  of  nuisance  from  odors  continued,  but  the  operation 
of  the  works  was  uninterrupted.  The  company  made  great 
efforts  to  install  every  form  of  ventilating  and  preventive  ap- 
paratus that  might  be  of  service,  and  took  all  possible  precautions 
to  stop  the  odors.  On  April  16,  1903,  another  fire  greatly  dam- 
aged the  New  York  plant,  the  losses  being  reported  at  $100,000. 
For  a  short  time  a  part  of  the  garbage  was  dumped  at  sea  until 
repairs  could  be  made  to  the  works. 

THE  RETIREMENT  OF  COLONEL  WARING  AS  COMMISSIONER. 

In  1897  tne  citY  government  changed  politically.  Tammany 
again  came  into  power,  and  on  January  i,  1898,  Mr.  Percy  Nagle 
replaced  Colonel  Waring  as  Commissioner  of  Street  Cleaning. 

The  three  years  of  the  administration  of  the  Department  of 
Street  Cleaning  under  Colonel  Waring  were  years  of  earnest  and 
continued  effort  to  establish  a  system  of  efficient  and  economical 
work  in  all  branches  of  the  service.  He  first  reorganized  the 
personnel  of  the  department,  then  repaired  and  increased  the 
equipment  for  street  cleaning.  He  improved  the  collection  serv- 
ice, and  caused  to  be  built  necessary  stables  and  buildings  for 
the  mechanical  department,  making  extensive  additions  to  these. 
Following  the  suggestions  of  the  Gilroy  Commission  he  installed 
steel  storage  pocket  bins  for  receiving  waste  and  for  quick  work 
in  loading  scows.  The  point  for  sea-dumping  was  carried  nine 
miles  further  out,  and  two  large  self-propelled  steel  dumping 
boats  were  purchased  for  transportation  of  the  waste  in  any  kind 
of  weather.  These  boats  were  experimental,  it  being  the  inten- 
tion of  the  head  of  the  department  to  add  to  these  if  they  were 
found  to  be  practical  and  economical.  He  began  the  dumping 
of  ashes  and  refuse  at  Riker's  Island  after  the  establishment  of 


352  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

the  reduction  plant  which  took  care  of  the  garbage,  and  this  prac- 
tically stopped  sea-dumping. 

For  the  light  refuse  disposal,  Colonel  Waring  established  the 
plant  at  East  Seventeenth  Street,  from  which  in  the  course  of 
three  years  the  city  derived  a  revenue  of  61  cents  to  $I.IG 
per  ton. 

The  Commissioner  also  took  up  the  method  of  street  cleaning 
by  hand,  which  he  had  seen  operative  abroad.  The  streets  were 
divided  into  sections  each  under  the  care  of  one  man  who  was 
responsible  for  its  condition,  each  one  of  the  street  forces  being 
equipped  with  apparatus  invented  for  the  purpose  of  assisting 
him  to  do  his  work  effectually. 

In  order  to  interest  the  people  and  in  a  measure  supplement 
the  exertions  of  the  department  force,  Waring  inaugurated  the 
Juvenile  Street  Cleaning  League,  which  was  popular  among  the 
school  children  and  proved  to  be  a  beneficial  civic  movement. 
Through  the  efforts  of  his  assistants,  under  his  direction,  de- 
tailed information  upon  many  subjects  was  collected,  all  of  which 
up  to  the  time  of  his  administration  had  been  neglected  and 
ignored.  Among  these  special  reports  are  those  upon  the  relative 
advantage  and  comparative  costs  of  disposal  at  sea  and  by  dump- 
ing, for  the  purpose  of  making  land  at  Riker's  Island  and  other 
points ;  the  private  collection  of  garbage  and  its  use  as  food  for 
animals ;  the  garbage  and  tankage  trade  as  connected  with  the 
fertilizer  industry ;  the  value  of  street  sweepings  as  a  fertilizer ; 
the  waste  paper  collection,  its  quantities  and  values ;  the  value  of 
household  ash ;  the  utilization  of  ashes  and  the  products  thereof ; 
a  comprehensive  and  detailed  account  of  the  cost  of  street  sweep- 
ing, including  a  description  of  the  methods  and  machinery  em- 
ployed for  cleaning  every  variety  of  pavement. 

There  are  many  minor  subjects  pertinent  in  one  way  or  another 
to  a  description  of  the  work  of  this  bureau  that  received  his  per- 
sonal attention.  Colonel  Waring  was  always  ready  to  listen  to 
any  new  idea  that  promised  to  help  out,  and  to  give  the  suggestion 
a  trial  if  he  thought  suitable. 

Probably  this  very  efficient  Commissioner  will  best  be  remem- 
bered for  the  creation  of  the  "White  Wings,"  the  Street  Clean- 
ing force  which  he  formed  into  battalions  under  military  disci- 
pline and  rigid  rules  of  behavior,  whose  annual  parade  in  their 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  353 

white  uniforms  was  a  feature  of  the  administration  of  Mayor 
Strong.  The  three  thousand  men  under  his  control  were  im- 
bued with  the  spirit  of  their  chief,  and  inspired  with  personal 
pride  in  their  work,  all  of  which  gave  them  an  esprit  de  corps 
hitherto  conspicuously  absent  in  the  department,  making  them 
better  citizens  and  better  workers. 

His  own  estimate  of  the  results  attained  at  the  end  of  his  term 
of  service  may  be  quoted : 

The  progress  made  thus  far  is  satisfactory.  An  inefficient  and  ill- 
equipped  working  force  long  held  under  the  heel  of  the  spoilsman  has 
been  emancipated,  organized  and  brought  to  its  best.  It  now  constitutes  a 
brigade  three  thousand  strong,  made  up  of  well-trained  and  disciplined 
men,  the  representative  soldiers  of  cleanliness  and  health,  soldiers  of  the 
public,  self-respecting  and  life-saving.  These  men  are  fighting  daily  battles 
with  dirt,  and  are  defending  the  health  of  the  whole  people.  The  trophies 
of  their  victories  are  all  about  us,  in  clean  pavements,  clean  feet,  uncon- 
taminated  air,  a  look  of  health  on  the  faces  of  the  people,  and  streets  full 
of  healthy  children  at  play. 

This  is  the  outcome  of  two  and  one-half  years  of  strenuous  effort — 
at  first  against  official  opposition  and  much  public  criticism.  Two  and 
one-half  years  more,  with  a  continuance  of  the  present  official  favor  and 
universal  public  approval  should  bring  our  work  to  perfection.  It  should 
make  New  York  the  cleanest,  and  should  help  to  make  it  the  healthiest 
city  in  the  world.  By  that  time  the  death  rate  should  be  reduced  to  fifteen 
per  thousand,  which  would  mean  for  our  present  population  a  saving  of 
sixty  lives  per  day  out  of  one  hundred  and  forty  daily  lost  under  the  av- 
erage of  26.78  (1882-94). 


CHAPTER    XV. 

THE  ARNOLD  REDUCTION  PROCESS  IN  NEW  YORK,  PHILADELPHIA, 
BALTIMORE  AND  ATLANTIC  CITY. 

Renewal  of  New  York  Contracts. — The  terms  of  five  years' 
contract  in  New  York  City  for  the  disposal  of  the  garbage  by 
the  Sanitary  Utilization  Company  (using  the  Arnold  process) 
expired  on  August  I,  1901.  The  contract  forms  for  a  new 
advertisement  were  ready  in  January,  1901,  but  they  were  with- 
held by  Mr.  Nagle,  and  not  published  until  June,  the  bids  being 
opened  on  the  27th  of  that  month. 

The  specifications  provided  for  a  plant  of  1,000  tons  capacity 
to  be  ready  for  work  in  30  days,  and  to  be  reduction  or  crema- 
tion methods,  as  the  contractors  might  elect,  the  contracts  to 
include  separate  bids  and  plants  for  the  Borough  of  Bronx  as 
well  as  those  for  Manhattan.  The  following  are  the  bids  received 
for  Manhattan: 

Per  Year 

David  Peoples  (Philadelphia) $385,000 

John  McNamee 390,000 

Seth  L.  Keeney 600,000 

Sanitary  Utilization  Company 232.000 

For  the  Bronx  the  bids  were : 

Sanitary  Utilization  Company  (5  years) $355,000 

Geo.  W.  Hyatt  (5  years) 334,000 

The  acceptance  of  the  bid  of  the  Sanitary  Utilization  Com- 
pany for  Manhattan  was  recommended  by  Mr.  Nagle,  Com- 
missioner of  Street  Cleaning,  and  that  of  Mr.  Hyatt  for  the 
Bronx.  The  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment  rejected 
all  bids  and  instructed  the  Commissioner  to  prepare  new  speci- 
fications for  bids  for  one  year,  instead  of  for  five  years.  The 
new  bids  were  advertised  on  July  20,  and  opened  on  July  30, 
after  long  controversy,  and  the  Board  of  Estimate  awarded  the 
contract  to  the  New  York  Sanitary  Utilization  Company  for 
five  years  at  $232,000  per  year. 

354 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  355 

At  the  time  of  the  award  it  was  claimed  by  the  Sanitary  Utili- 
zation Company  that  the  amounts  of  garbage  had  doubled,  mak- 
ing necessary  an  increased  capacity  of  their  plant.  This  was 
accepted  as  a  fact,  without  verification,  but  it  was  manifestly  in- 
correct, as  is  shown  by  the  reports  of  quantities  for  the  previous 
year  (1899).  Assuming  that  an  average  amount  of  500  tons 
daily  for  Manhattan  was  received,  or  a  total  of  158,500  tons  for 
313  days,  then  the  cost  per  ton  would  be  $1.48,  an  increase  of 
90^  cents  per  ton  over  the  previous  five-year  contract,  and  a 
total  increase  of  over  a  million  dollars. 

The  method  adopted  for  letting  this  contract  one  day  previous 
to  the  expiration  of  the  old  contract,  demonstrated  the  power 
of  a  monopoly  in  controlling  the  public  work  of  garbage  dis- 
posal by  rings  and  the  favor  of  the  local  authorities. 

The  renewal  of  the  Brooklyn  contract  was  obtained  in  a 
similar  way,  at  an  increased  cost  to  the  city,  and  the  disposal  of 
the  garbage  of  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx  by 
the  Arnold  process  at  Barren  Island  was  continued.  In  the 
course  of  the  following  year  the  Sanitary  Utilization  Company 
contracted  for  the  disposal  of  the  Bronx  garbage  at  the  price 
of  $22,500  per  year,  as  against  their  previous  bid  of  $71,000 
per  year  in  1901. 

The  Accidents  of  Fire  and  Flood  at  Barren  Island. — The 
ground  at  Barren  Island  was  originally  about  five  acres  of  salt 
marsh,  to  which  about  three  acres  more  have  been  added  by 
filling.  Around  the  border  of  the  island  spiles  have  been  driven 
to  protect  it  against  the  wash  of  waves  and  the  scour  of  the 
tideway.  It  has  happened  that  the  shifting  sand  of  the  bottom 
has  changed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  undermine  the  bulkhead 
and  allow  the  buildings  to  slip  over  into  the  deep  water  of  the 
channel.  Such  a  collapse  took  place  in  1905,  involving  a  part 
of  the  reduction  plant,  which  was  partially  destroyed.  For 
many  years  parts  of  the  island  have  been  disappearing.  Twenty 
years  ago  a  breakwater  was  built,  and  since  then  many  boatloads 
of  stone  have  been  dumped  off  the  eastern  end  to  prevent  under- 
mining by  the  currents. 

On  April  26,  1907,  a  part  of  the  eastern  end  containing  the 
buildings  of  the  reduction  company's  plant,  and  nearly  two 
hundred  feet  of  the  pier  and  bulkhead  sank  without  warning. 


356  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

These  buildings  contained  the  stock  of  oil  or  grease  barrelled 
for  market.  A  part  of  this  was  saved,  but  nothing  of  the  struc- 
ture was  recovered.  The  loss  is  stated  at  $50,000.  The  work- 
ing force  of  one  hundred  men  was  thrown  into  a  panic,  but 
they  escaped  without  loss  of  life. 

In  May,  1907,  the  buildings  of  the  main  plant  were  destroyed 
by  fire  supposed  to  have  originated  by  spontaneous  combustion. 
Serious  damage  was  done  to  the  digestor  plant,  and  the  works 
were  put  out  of  commission  at  a  time  when  the  warm  season 
was  approaching  and  the  garbage  was  largest  in  amount.  For 
nearly  three  months  this  waste  was  towed  out  to  sea  and  dis- 
charged near  Scotland  Lightship.  The  winds  and  tides  carried 
large  amounts  of  it  to  the  beaches  of  New  Jersey,  where  it 
decayed  under  the  hot  sun  and  gave  rise  to  complaints  of  nuis- 
ance all  along  the  coast.  Remonstrances  were  of  no  avail,  and 
the  matter  was  taken  up  by  Governor  Stokes,  of  New  Jersey, 
who  called  with  several  prominent  citizens  upon  Acting  Mayor 
McGowan,  and  were  assured  by  him  that  the  dumping  scows 
would  be  ordered  twenty-five  miles  out  to  sea  instead  of  fifteen 
as  had  been  the  custom.  Assurance  was  also  given  that  the 
reduction  plant  would  soon  be  ready  to  resume  work,  although 
at  first  with  only  sufficient  capacity  to  handle  one-fourth  of  the 
total  amount  collected. 

During  ten  days  street  cleaners'  strike  of  the  summer  of 
1907  such  collections  as  were  made  consisted  of  a  mixed  mass 
of  garbage,  ashes,  refuse,  etc.,  which  could  not  be  treated  at 
the  reduction  plant.  This  material  was  sent  out  to  sea,  and  the 
same  remonstrances  were  produced  from  the  residents  of  the 
Jersey  coast  as  on  the  previous  occasion.  These  conditions 
were  remedied  in  the  same  way,  by  sending  the  garbage  scows 
literally  out  to  sea  instead  of  only  forty  miles  from  the  city 
wharf. 

Continuation  of  the  Garbage  Disposal  Contract. — In  1902  the 
consolidation  of  the  municipalities  was  made,  and  the  city  of 
Greater  New  York  came  into  existence,  divided  into  the  bor- 
oughs of  Manhattan  (formerly  New  York  City),  Brooklyn, 
Queens  (Long  Island  City,  Jamaica,  Flushing  and  Rockaway). 
Richmond  (including  five  towns  and  all  the  territory  of  Staten 
Island),  and  Bronx  (including  Harlem).  The  population  of 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  357 

the  united  boroughs  was,  in  1906,  4,258,387;  the  area  in  square 
miles,  327.25. 

The  greater  city  assumed  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the 
garbage  in  Manhattan,  Bronx  and  Brooklyn,  leaving  Queens 
and  Richmond  to  deal  with  the  problem  in  their  own  way. 

Near  the  close  of  1901  after  four  years  of  work  of  the 
Street  Cleaning  Department  the  conditions  of  the  service  had 
become  notoriously  bad.  An  investigation  set  on  foot  by  a 
committee  of  citizens,  acting  on  behalf  of  a  Civic  Improvement 
League,  brought  out  astonishing  developments. 

One  writer  says  of  the  work  of  the  Department  of  Street 
Cleaning  as  administered  by  Commissioner  Nagle : 

Beginning  in  1898  with  the  inheritance  of  a  well-organized  and  thor- 
oughly equipped  service,  with  labor  and  money  saving  devices  and  ap- 
paratus in  running  order,  with  plans  and  purposes  well-defined  for  carry- 
ing on  a  practical  and  successful  line  of  work  in  an  honest  and  economical 
way,  now  at  the  end  of  four  years,  as  the  result  of  incompetent  manage- 
ment and  complete  surrender  to  the  machine  politicians,  the  Department 
is  in  a  position  of  absolute  contempt. 

Every  one  of  the  means  established  for  saving  time  and  money  has 
been  abandoned ;  the  pay-rolls  are  rilled  with  the  names  of  political  hench- 
men; the  streets-  are  dirty  and  crowded  with  encumbrances;  the  steel 
dumping  boards  built  for  the  Department  have  been  sold  for  old  junk; 
the  refuse  disposal  station  has  been  abandoned;  the  steam  dumping  boats 
have  been  thrown  out  and  are  rusting  from  disuse ;  a  corrupt  combina- 
tion with  individual  contractors  and  corporations  has  been  made,  by  which 
the  city  pays  double  prices  for  contract  work;  and  the  expenses  are 
increased  by  more  than  one  million  dollars  in  four  years.  Some  parts 
of  the  year's  appropriations  are  even  now  exhausted,  and  still  the  demand 
is  made  for  larger  appropriations  for  next  year. 

The  election  in  November,  1901,  again  brought  the  city  gov- 
ernment under  the  control  of  an  administration  pledged  to  the 
reform  of  all  departments,  and  Dr.  H.  McGaw  Woodbury  be- 
came Commissioner  of  Street  Cleaning  in  January,  1902.  The 
contract  granted  in  1901  to  the  Sanitary  Utilization  Company 
was  faithfully  carri-ed  out  by  both  parties  despite  the  many 
difficulties  and  reverses  of  the  reduction  company. 

On  the  announcement  that  tenders  would  be  received  for  a 
new  five  years'  contract  for  garbage  disposal,  competitors  ap- 
peared. The  specifications  were  issued  for  any  suitable  method, 
and  time  was  allowed  for  the  construction  of  an  entirely  new 


358  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

and  complete  plant.    The  bids  received  in  August  for  a  contract 
to  begin  in  the  following  November  were: 

Per  Year 

The  New  York  Sanitary  Product  Company  (The  Sanitary  Utili- 
zation Company  and  Arnold  Process) .  .  . $148,000 

The  American  Reduction  Company  (The  Modified  Flynn  Pro- 
cess, of  Pittsburg) 1 54,000 

Darlington  &  Co.  (supposed  to  be  a  method  of  incineration) ....  209,000 

E.  J.  McKean  (process  unknown) 300,000 

The  award  was  made  to  the  New  York  Sanitary  Product 
Company,  upon  an  estimated  basis  of  800  tons  per  year;  the 
price  for  disposal  was  about  90  cents,  a  reduction  of  58  cents 
from  the  last  contract  price. 

In  Brooklyn  the  garbage  disposal  contract  was  awarded  to 
the  Brooklyn  Sanitary  Product  Company  for  five  years  from 
November,  1902. 

DISPOSAL  IN  BRONX  BOROUGH. 

In  the  borough  of  the  Bronx  there  was  keen  competition  for 
the  garbage  disposal  contract,  as  the  conditions  were  favorable 
for  the  establishment  of  an  incinerating  plant,  and  the  speci- 
fications provided  for  the  erection  of  a  suitable  plant  with  a 
capacity  of  100  tons  of  garbage  and  100  cubic  yards  of  refuse, 
other  than  ashes. 

The  bids  received  were  as  follows: 

Per  Year 

The  Decarie  Incinerating  Company $16,000 

S.  J.  Subers 22,500 

M.  J.  Meagher 34,500 

Melrose  Company 68,000 

Sanitary  Utilization  Company  (if  disposed  of  in  the  borough) ....  17, 500 

The  same  (if  disposed  of  by  their  plant  at  Barren  Island) 14,000 

The  contract  was  awarded  to  the  Decarie  Company,  which, 
after  some  opposition  and  some  changes  in  regard  to  the  pro- 
posed site,  erected  its  plant  and  began  the  work  of  disposal.. 

The  company  met  with  difficulties  from  the  first  because  of 
its  inability  to  destroy  the  given  quantity,  and  also  because  of 
complaints  on  the  ground  of  nuisance  from  the  chimney. 

The  company  was  given  time  to  remedy  these  defects,  and 
after  many  changes  in  the  apparatus  again  attempted  to  carry 
out  the  contract.  A  trial  of  about  two  months'  time  demonstrated 
that  the  incinerator  could  not  perform  the  work  required  of  it, 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  359 

and  that  the  charge  of  the  offensive  odors  was  a  true  one.  The 
contract  was  terminated  by  peremptory  action  of  the  Board  of 
Estimate,  based  upon  the  adverse  report  of  the  Street  Cleaning 
Commissioner,  Dr.  Woodbury,  but  the  city  did  not  insist  upon 
the  forfeiture  of  the  bond  given  by  the  Decarie  Company  in  the 
sum  of  $20,000  for  the  efficient  performance  of  the  contract. 

The  mechanical  equipment  of  the  company  was  removed  and 
used  at  another  place  to  undergo  a  like  failure  and  like  discon- 
tinuance of  its  work. 

In  1908  the  garbage  of  the  borough  of  the  Bronx  was  by 
five  years  contract  with  the  Sanitary  Utilization  Company  taken 
to  the  Barren  Island  plant  at  a  cost  to  the  city  of  $15,000  up 
to  $25,000  per  year,  or  an  average  of  $19,000  per  year  for  the 
five  years'  contract.  At  present,  under  this  arrangement,  the 
refuse  is  picked  and  sorted  for  market,  the  worthless  rubbish  is 
scowed  to  Riker's  Island  with  the  house  and  steam  ashes,  and  is 
used  for  filling. 

THE  GARBAGE  OF  THE  BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS. 

Formerly  in  the  towns  of  Long  Island  City,  Flushing, 
Jamaica  and  Rockaway,  all  now  included  in  the  borough  of 
Queens,  the  garbage  was  disposed  of  by  tipping  Upon  the  marshy 
grounds  adjoining  the  towns.  This  became  so  objectionable  that 
in  1899  Colonel  Waring  accepted  bids  for  its  disposal  by  five 
garbage  crematories  of  the  capacity  of  twenty-five  tons  each,  tt> 
be  located  in  these  towns,  also  for  one  at  New  Brighton,  in 
the  borough  of  Richmond. 

The  contract  provided  that  the  city  was  to  collect  and  deliver 
the  garbage;  the  contractor,  Z.  H.  Magill,  was  to  purchase 
ground  and  erect  the  crematories,  receiving  45  cents  per  ton 
for  the  incineration  of  garbage  with  small  amounts  of  light 
refuse.  This  undertaking  was  carried  on  for  a  short  time  only. 
The  crematories  were  of  the  Dixon  type,  requiring  large  amounts 
of  fuel,  and  the  capacity  was  not  up  to  the  standard,  the  cost 
of  operating  greatly  exceeded  the  guarantee,  and  the  contractor 
lost  heavily  by  the  work.  After  nearly  a  year's  effort  the  city 
was  induced  to  purchase  these  plants,  and  a  new  administration 
paid  $50,000  for  the  five  crematories  and  the  ground. 

The  crematories  in  Flushing,  Rockaway  and  Jamaica  were 
discontinued,  their  places  being  taken  by  other  furnaces  of  the 


360  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

La  Chapelle  make.  That  at  Long  Island  City  still  continues  at 
work,  but  that  at  New  Brighton  has  been  abandoned  because 
of  the  erection  of  a  modern  destructor  plant. 

At  the  present  time  a  small  part  of  the  garbage  of  Queens 
is  taken  by  scows  to  the  Barren  Island  works,  as  is  also  a  small 
quantity  from  Coney  Island,  the  summer  resort  on  the  shores 
of  the  bay,  immediately  adjoining  Barren  Island. 

DISPOSAL  OF  GARBAGE  IN  THE  BOROUGH  OF  RICHMOND. 

The  borough  of  Richmond  includes  all  of  Staten  Island;  it 
has  a  population  of  78,943,  and  an  area  of  57.25  square  miles. 

Prior  to  the  consolidation  Staten  Island  was  occupied  by  a 
number  of  corporate  villages  and  a  great  many  small  hamlets, 
the  latter  controlled  by  the  usual  township  and  county  system 
of  government,  the  villages  having  a  more  definite  form  of 
administration  by  Trustees  or  a  Board  of  Aldermen. 

One  of  the  towns,  called  New  Brighton,  had  in  1895  erected 
a  garbage  crematory  of  the  Brownlee  type,  which  continued  in 
service  for  only  three  years.  Complaints  were  made  of  noxious 
odors,  and  in  the  effort  to  abate  these  the  work  of  the  crematory 
became  too  expensive  and  it  was  abandoned  early  in  1898. 

In  1899  a  Dixon  crematory,  built  under  the  Magill  contract, 
was  located  at  Port  Richmond,  and  after  being  acquired  by  the 
eity  was  operated  until  the  spring  of  1908,  when  replaced  by  a 
modern  refuse  destructor.  For  some  time  after  the  closing  of 
the  Brownlee  furnace  the  garbage  was  removed  in  scows  to 
Barren  Island. 

Owing  to  the  peculiar  geographical  conditions  of  the  island 
a  long  narrow  strip  of  settlements  bordering  on  the  waters  of 
the  Newark  River,  New  York  Harbor,  and  on  the  southern 
and  eastern  side  of  the  great  South  Bay,  the  distance  for  trans- 
porting the  garbage  was  entirely  too  great  for  its  concentration 
at  any  one  point.  The  attempt  to  deliver  it  to  the  Sanitary 
Company  for  reduction  purposes  was  given  up,  and  the  several 
towns  continued  to  deposit  their  garbage  upon  dumps. 

For  four  years  after  the  new  charter  of  the  borough  went 
into  effect  but  little  was  done  in  the  direction  of  improved  dis- 
posal methods.  In  1902  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works, 
Mr.  L.  Tribus,  C.  E.,  with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Richard  Fox, 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  361 

Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Street  Cleaning,  began  the  needed  im- 
provements. Mr.  Fox  was  in  1904  followed  by  Mr.  J.  T. 
Fetherston,  C.  E.,  as  Chief  of  the  Bureau,  and  the  latter  spent 
two  years  in  a  study  of  the  local  conditions  and  the  establish- 
ment of  a  collection  service  and  the  necessary  equipment. 

In  1906  Mr.  Fetherston  was  authorized  to  investigate  the 
garbage  disposal  methods  in  use  in  other  countries,  as  well  as  in 
America  and  Canada,  and  went-  abroad  for  that  purpose.  On 
his  return,  in  the  autumn  of  1907,  the  borough  authorities  pro- 
ceeded with  the  plans  recommended  for  the  erection  of  an  im- 
proved modern  destructor  plant  that  should  receive  about  half 
of  the  mixed  refuse  of  the  borough  and  destroy  it  by  incineration. 

The  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  published  Mr.  Fether- 
ston's  report  under  the  title  "Municipal  Refuse  Disposal :  An 
Investigation,"  together  with  papers  discussing  it  by  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Society  and  others  interested  in  the  subject.  (See 
Vol.  LX.,  Transactions  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  En- 
gineers.) 

To  ascertain  the  quantities  and  composition  of  the  general 
refuse  the  collection  made  by  the  city  carts  in  one  district  of  the 
borough,  West  New  Brighton  was  selected  as  a  representative 
section  of  the  whole  territory. 

This  district  contained  4,321  houses,  inhabited  by  25,900  peo- 
ple, 90  per  cent,  of  whom  contribute  waste  for  removal.  In 
making  observations  there  were  noted: 

First,  the  quantity  of  mixed  refuse  for  1,000  inhabitants  by  volume  and 
by  weight. 

Second,  the  seasonal  variations  by  volume  and  by  weight. 

Third,  the  components  of  refuse,  and  variations  according  to  the  sea- 
sons. 

Fourth,  the  calorific  value  of  refuse,  both  in  separated  parts  and  in 
general  combination,  according  to  the  season. 

Fifth,  the  incineration  of  mixed  refuse,  together  with  the  probable 
temperature  of  the  gases  resulting  from  the  destruction  of  refuse,  and 
the  boiler  power  obtainable. 

The  exhaustive  study  of  the  conditions  above  noted  was  pub- 
lished in  the  paper  contributed  to  the  discussion  before  the 
American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  December,  1907.  It  is  a 
most  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  the  subject  of 
municipal  waste  disposal  and  especially  interesting  to  engineers 


362   THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

investigating    the    question    with    view    of    undertaking   similar 
studies. 

REPORT  OF  INSPECTION  OF  BRITISH  DESTRUCTORS. 

Following  the  tabulated  results  of  the  preliminary  examination 
of  the  conditions  existing  and  probably  to  be  encountered  in  the 
waste  disposal  of  West  New  Brighton,  it  became  necessary  to 
determine  by  what  method  and  with  what  apparatus  the  work 
should  be  done.  During  May  and  June,  1906,  thirty-nine  de- 
structor installations  in  Great  Britain  were  inspected,  and 
in  August  the  only  destructor  of  British  type  in  this 
country,  that  at  Westmount,  Canada.  Of  the  forty  destruc- 
tors examined  thirty  were  in  England,  three  in  Wales,  three  in 
Scotland,  and  one  in  Canada.  Efforts  were  made  to  obtain  data 
regarding  the  main  factors  in  the  work  of  mixed  refuse  disposal, 
so  that  the  various  features  of  each  installation  might  be  noted 
for  comparison  with  others. 

The  results  of  this  comparison  were  tabulated  in  a  series  of 
extended  notes,  observations,  opinions  and  deductions,  giving  a 
comprehensive  survey  of  all  the  plants,  with  data  for  comparison 
in  each  case.  The  main  points  included  a  mention  of  the  muni- 
cipality visited,  its  population  and  general  character;  estimates 
as  to  the  quantity  and  character  of  the  waste,  the  location,  type 
and  maker  of  plant ;  its  capacity ;  its  buildings ;  the  use  made  of 
the  power  derived ;  construction  costs  and  repairs ;  special  notes 
and  opinions  on  operation,  clinkers  and  ashes,  and  possible  causes 
of  nuisance;  the  most  commendable  and  the  most  obviously  ob- 
jectionable features,  and  general  remarks. 

Following  this  the  author  discussed  the  more  practical  ques- 
tions that  would  concern  the  adoption  of  the  destructor  system 
at  Richmond,  and  gives  many  figures  and  much  general  informa- 
tion bearing  upon  them. 

In  the  final  deduction  he  sums  up  the  commendable  and  ob- 
jectionable features  in  an  impartially  critical  manner,  bestowing 
praise  and  blame  in  about  equal  proportions. 

His  recommendations  were  for  the  installation  of  a  mixed 
refuse  destructor  at  West  New  Brighton,  and  included  the  fol- 
lowing points : 

I.  A  hand-fed  destructor  charged  at  the  back  of  the  furnace  and 
clinkering  on  the  opposite  side  or  front  of  the  furnace. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  363 

2.  That  refuse  be  stored  in  a  bin  or  hopper  with  a  door  or  curtain  to 
contiol  and  prevent  the  escape  of  dust  into  the  destructor  room  while 
the  hopper  is  being  filled. 

3.  That  refuse  be  dumped  into  the  bin  or  hopper  behind  closed  doors ; 
and  that  the  refuse  storage  be  separated  from  the  destructor  portion  of 
the  building. 

4.  That  heated  air  be  required  for  the  combustion  of  refuse. 

5.  That  a  water-tube  boiler  be  specified. 

6.  That   a   steam-jet  blowers,  or  fan-draft,  or  both,  be  provided  so 
that  the  advantage  of  either  may  be  determined. 

7.  That  the  air  for  forced  draft  be  drawn  from  the  upper  portion  of 
the  tipping-room  and  feeding  or  clinkering-room,  so  that  positive  ventila- 
tion may  be  secured. 

8.  That   the   clinkering   process   be   arranged   so   that   hot   clinker   is 
dropped  into  a  pit  and  the  heat  from  the  clinker  is  utilized  in  raising 
the  temperature  of  the  air  for  combustion. 

9.  That  ample  working  space,  light,  and  air  be  provided  in  the  building, 
and  the  plant  be  located  so  as  to  cause  no  trouble  from  escaping  dust. 

10.  That  a  suitable  mess-room,  bath  and  toilet-room  be  provided  for 
the  comfort  of  the  men  employed. 

11.  That  the  exterior  of  the  plant  be  made  attractive  in  appearance. 

This  whole  investigation  is  by  far  the  most  thorough  that  has 
been  conducted  by  any  American  engineer.  The  report  contains 
much  detailed  information  not  previously  accessible  and  the  pre- 
liminary studies  and  experiments  are  of  great  value.  Until  this 
work  was  completed  we  never  had  a  clearly  defined  analysis  of 
municipal  wastes,  nor  had  any  accurate  survey  and  tabulation  of 
relative  quantities  and  seasonable  variations  been  made. 

Mr.  Fetherston  has  done  the  country  a  real  service  by  this 
work,  which  is  valuable  not  only  in  his  own  locality,  but  also  for 
all  American  towns  with  anything  like  the  same  conditions.  From 
this  data  any  place  can,  by  making  necessary  changes,  calculate 
its  own  approximate  quantities,  with  the  relative  composition 
of  each  item,  and  can  then  determine  what  will  be  the  best  way 
to  proceed  for  its  economical  disposal. 

His  observations  as  to  the  construction,  working  qualities  and 
relative  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  type  of  destructor 
are  expressed  strongly  and  fearlessly,  and  evidently  without  bias, 
and  with  no  other  desire  than  to  tell  what  appears  to  him  to  be 
the  facts. 

The  illustrations  of  British  destructor  plants  add  interest  to 
the  text,  although  they  are  not  always  happily  chosen  or  quite 


364  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

successful  in  point  of  clearness  of  execution.  The  remaining 
papers  discussing  this  report  bring  out  no  new  features,  most  of 
the  writers  merely  taking  up  one  or  another  of  the  points  already 
advanced  by  the  first  paper,  with  few  original  additions. 

The  practical  result  of  the  investigation  was  the  issuance  of 
specifications  calling  for  tenders  for  a  refuse  disposal  station  of 
sixty  tons  daily  capacity,  to  be  built  of  reinforced  concrete 
throughout,  chimney  included,  and  to  have  most  of  the  special 
features  included  in  the  recommendation. 

This  advertisement  appeared  in  August,  1907;  the  contract 
was  made  in  September,  the  construction  was  completed  in 
March,  1908,  and  the  plant  has  been  operating  since  that  time. 
A  complete  description  of  this  plant  will  be  found  under  the 
heading  of  Destructors. 

ARNOLD  PROCESS,  BALTIMORE. 

The  collection  and  disposal  of  waste  in  Baltimore,  Md.,  up  to 
1902,  was  by  the  usual  primitive  methods  which  obtained  in  the 
early  days.  The  collections  were  made  by  a  number  of  contrac- 
tors who  took  the  greater  part  of  the  garbage  to  the  wharf  and 
sent  it  off  in  scows,  but  the  remainder,  with  all  the  ashes  and 
general  refuse,  was  dumped  in  the  city  outskirts.  In  1902  a 
movement  w?s  made  towards  better  methods  and  the  city  adver- 
tised for  bidders  for  a  five-year  contract  for  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  all  the  waste.  It  was  found  difficult  to  get  satisfac- 
tory proposals,  but  a  contract  was  finally  awarded  to  the  Balti- 
more Sanitary  and  Contracting  Company,  a  local  business  cor- 
poration. The  contract  was  for  ten  years  from  October  20,  1902 ; 
the  price  paid  for  garbage  collection  and  disposal  was  to  be 
$147,300  per  year. 

The  system  of  garbage  disposal  was  the  same  Arnold  process 
then  in  use  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  having  the  same 
general  features  of  construction.  The  specifications  of  the  city 
provided  for  certain  points  relating  to  the  reduction  process,  as 
follows : 

The  system  of  final  disposition  shall  be  through  thorough  sterilization 
of  all  material  by  the  use  of  live  steam  at  a  temperature  of  292°  F.,  and  it 
must  be  enclosed  in  steam-tight  vessels  at  a  pressure  of  60  pounds  for 
eight  hours.  All  vapors  and  gases  are  to  be  drawn  off  and  condensed. 

From  the  time  that  the  material  is  delivered  into  the  enclosed  vessel  it 
shall  not  be  handled  in  the  open  air  until  after  it  has  been  pressed  so 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  365 

that  the  solid  parts  of  the  material  shall  contain  moisture  not  exceeding 
50  per  cent.,  after  which  it  may  be  destroyed  by  cremation,  acidulation 
or  reduction  to  commercial  dryness  for  use  as  a  fertilizing  material. 

Later,  in  January,  1904,  this  same  company  acquired  the  contract  for 
the  collection  of  the  ashes  and  rubbish  for  seven  years  at  $54,500  per 
year,  with  an  annual  increase  of  $3,000  per  year. 

The  cost  of  the  garbage  plant  was  reported  to  be  $250,000. 

The  work  performed  under  this  contract  was  not  satisfactory 
either  to  the  contractors  or  to  the  city,  and  the  contract  was 
terminated  in  1907,  the  city  agreeing  to  purchase  the  plant  and 
the  equipment  of  the  company  for  the  sum  of  $372,888.19,  pay- 
ments to  be  made  in  cash  and  notes  for  one,  two,  three  and  four 
years. 

The  city  then  readvertised  for  bids,  and  after  it  had  awarded 
the  contract  to  one  company  it  was  declined.  Subsequently  satis- 
factory proposals  were  received  from  a  new  corporation.  The 
Baltimore  Products  Company's  bids  were  accepted,  by  which  this 
company  was  to  reduce  the  garbage  for  ten  years  for  $45,000 
per  year,  to  remove  the  garbage  plant  to  Bear  Creek,  five  miles 
from  the  city,  and  to  purchase  for  $100,000  the  buildings  and 
machinery  of  the  old  company.  A  bond  for  $100,000  was  re- 
quired for  the  performance  of  the  contract.  This  company  was 
also  granted  the  contract  for  the  collection  and  removal  of  ashes 
and  refuse,  the  total  sum  for  the  disposal  of  all  the  waste  being 
$587,000  per  year^for  ten  years. 

Meanwhile,  however,  opposition  to  the  proposed  location  de- 
veloped, and  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Legislature  prohibiting 
the  site  to  be  less  than  fifteen  miles  from  the  city.  This  distance 
was  afterwards  reduced  to  nine  miles.  These  changes  entailed 
greater  cost,  and  a  final  proposal  was  made  by  the  Baltimore 
Products  Company  to  the  effect  that  the  price  be  increased  to 
$52,000  the  first  year,  for  garbage  disposal  only;  $58,000  for 
the  second  year,  and  $2,000  per  year  additional  until  the  expira- 
tion of  the  contract  in  1917.  This  proposal  was  accepted  by  the 
city  and  the  new  disposal  works  are  now  being  erected.  The 
Arnold-Edgerton  reduction  process  is  the  method  to  be  used. 

On  January  i,  1908,  the  city  began  the  work  of  collection  of 
ashes  and  rubbish  by  its  own  equipment  and  finds  this  more  satis- 
factory than  having  this  work  done  by  contract.  For  1907  the 
total  number  of  loads  removed  of  garbage  was  81,319. 


366  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

ARNOLD  PROCESS,  PHILADELPHIA. 

The  city  of  Philadelphia  has  for  many  years  let  yearly  con- 
tracts for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  its  waste.  There  is  a 
peculiar  provision,  or  an  interpretation  of  the  law,  which  pro- 
hibits a  contract  for  a  longer  period  than  one  year.  This  has 
undoubtedly  retarded  the  adoption  of  improved  means  of  dis- 
posal, as  few  contractors  or  companies  would  undertake  the 
risk  of  constructing  large  disposal  plants  for  the  short  time  al- 
lowed for  their  assured  employ.'  On  the  other  hand,  this  short- 
term  contract  at  first  brought  keen  competition  for  the  work,  so 
that  presently  the  smaller  contractors  were  eliminated,  and  the 
bidding  was  concentrated  among  half  a  dozen  contracting  firms 
who  were  provided  with  the  capital  and  equipped  with  the  teams 
for  the  proper  performance  of  the  service. 

Thus  it  happened  that  to-day  the  collection  and  disposal  is  in 
the  hands  of  a  few  contractors  who  divide  among  themselves 
the  five  collection  districts,  and  year  after  year  secure  the  re- 
newal of  contracts  at  practically  their  own  figures.  As  a  natural 
result  the  cost  of  this  branch  of  city  work  has  increased  until  at 
present  the  expense  is  relatively  greater  than  in  any  other  large 
city  in  the  country. 

The  garbage  collection  and  disposal  is  a  part  of  the  yearly 
contract  service.  It  was  begun  in  1894,  when  a  company  known 
as  the  American  Product  Company  secured  one  street  cleaning 
district,  under  competitive  bidding,  for  the  collection  and  dis- 
posal of  garbage  only. 

A  plant  was  built  on  the  Schuylkill  River,  near  Gray's  Ferry, 
about  a  quarter  of  a  mile  from  any  dwelling.  The  capacity  of 
the  plant  was  not  great,  as  the  garbage  from  one  city  collection 
district  only  was  treated.  In  later  years  other  districts  were  se- 
cured, and  the  capacity  of  the  works  increased.  In  1902-3  the 
whole  service  of  garbage  collection  and  disposal  for  the  city, 
except  one  small  outlying  district,  was  concentrated  under  the 
control  of  the  American  Product  Company.  The  increased 
quantities  handled,  the  better  prices  obtained  for  the  service,  the 
experience  gained  through  improved  methods  and  apparatus,  to- 
gether with  the  advantages  of  large  equipment  for  collection  and 
disposal  gave  the  corporation  a  decided  pull  against  competitors 
for  the  yearly  contract. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  367 

The  gradual  increase  in  the  cost  to  the  city  is  shown  by  the 
following  table : 

TABLE   LXVI.— THE    COLLECTION    AND    DISPOSAL  OF      GARBAGE    IN 
PHILADELPHIA,    1894   TO    1909. 

Collection  Cost 

and  Tons          Per 

Year                             Company                              Disposal  Ton 

1894      $294,879      

1895      295,140      

1896      289,000      /. 

1897      322,500      

1898      330,000      

1899      358,000      

1900 398,000      

/  Am.  Pro.  Co 448,000  224,256     $2.00 

1901  \  Am.  Con.  &  Mfg.  Co 333.800        252,238      

1902  Am.  Product  Co. .   440,833         280,000      

1903      488,830      

1904 516,700   300,000   

1905   560,000   340,000   


I"  Jas.  Curran $529,000 


1906  -j  Am.  Pro.  Co. .  479,000  \  479,000 

[  Penn.  Red.  Co 399-575 

1907  Penn.  Red.  Co 418,500    378.964 

1908  Penn,  Red.  Co 488,988  


This  table  includes  the  total  cost  for  the  garbage  during  the 
years  named.  Not  all  of  this  for  all  the  years  was  destroyed 
by  the  reduction  company.  In  1894  the  garbage  was  destroyed 
in  a  Vivarttas  crematory  in  one  district,  and  in  1894-5  still  an- 
other portion  of  the  garbage  was  burned  in  a  Smith-Siemens 
crematory  at  Twenty-fourth  and  Callowhill  Streets.  Both  these 
crematories  were  discontinued  later,  as  the  contracts  for  the  col- 
lection and  disposal  were  acquired  by  other  contractors  who  em- 
ployed reduction  methods.  The  Smith-Siemens  furnace  was 
later  in  temporary  use,  at  a  time  when  the  reduction  plant  had 
been  crippled  by  fire. 

The  competition  for  the  contracts  of  1901  made  no  change  as 
to  the  final  results.  The  award  to  the  American  Contracting 
and  Manufacturing  Company  at  the  lowest  bid,  $333,800,  had 
been  made,  but  after  a  struggle  against  adverse  conditions  and 
inadequate  equipment  the  contract  was  surrendered  to  the  Amer- 
ican Product  Company  at  the  bid  of  $448,000. 

In  1903  an  offer  by  responsible  parties  to  pay  the  city  for  the 
garbage  collected  and  delivered  at  a  plant  to  be  built  was  received 
but  not  acted  upon. 


368   THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

After  the  bids  were  received  in  July,  1906,  suit  was  brought 
by  the  American  Product  Company  to  restrain  the  Mayor  and 
the  Director  of  Public  Safety  from  awarding  the  contract  to 
the  lowest  bidder,  the  Penn  Reduction  Company.  The  judge  in 
dismissing  the  suit  said:  "The  plaintiffs'  point  is  extremely  nar- 
row and  technical.  They  ask  for  the  intervention  of  a  court  of 
equity  to  prevent  the  lowest  bidder  from  getting  a  contract  fairly 
won  in  competition."  The  performance  of  the  contract  awarded 
the  Penn  Reduction  Company  was  begun  by  the  erection  of  a 
large  plant  at  a  point  removed  1,500  feet  from  any  dwelling,  but 
still  within  the  city  limits.  Just  as  the  works  were  ready  to  go 
into  operation  a  fire  destroyed  the  buildings,  November  i,  1906, 
and  so  crippled  the  company  that  they  were  obliged  to  surrender 
the  contract,  which  was  then  taken  over  by  the  American  Product 
Company  at  the  price  they  had  bid,  $479,000. 

The  figures  paid  for  this  work  in  the  years  noted  show  a  con- 
tinuously increasing  cost.  In  1905  this  cost  was  more  than  double 
that  of  the  first  year  reported,  the  exact  ratio  of  increase  being 
53  per  cent. 

The  system  of  garbage  collection  and  disposal  as  carried  on 
in  Philadelphia  affords  a  very  good  illustration  of  the  working 
of  the  short-term  contract  service,  with  a  limited  period  of  ad- 
vertising in  advance  for  the  construction  of  a  new  plant,  and 
the  certainty  of  competition  by  a  powerful  company  which  has 
for  years  enjoyed  a  monopoly  through  the  favor  of  the  local 
authorities. 

The  American  Product  Company  is  the  parent  company  of 
those  that  control  the  Arnold  process.  The  first  plant  built  in 
1894  was  in  most  respects  similar  to  that  built  in  Boston  from 
the  designs  of  the  same  engineer,  Mr.  Charles  Edgerton.  There 
is  a  somewhat  confusing  use  of  corporate  names  in  this  connec- 
tion, which  makes  it  difficult  to  distinguish  the  different  organi- 
zations. 

The  Philadelphia  Company  actually  doing  the  work  was  called 
the  Philadelphia  Sanitary  Utilization  Company,  and  its  personnel 
included  several  of  the  prominent  contractors  and  politicians  of 
the  city.  The  New  York  Sanitary  Utilization  Company,  the 
Brooklyn  Sanitary  Product  Company  and  the  Boston  Sanitary 
Product  Company  are  all  operating  under  the  processes  of  tfie 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  369 

parent  company  in  Philadelphia.     This  is  believed  to  be  also  the 
case  in  Newark,  Baltimore  and  Atlantic  City. 

ASHES  AND  REFUSE  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

These  portions  of  the  municipal  waste  are  separately  collected 
from  five  different  districts  by  contractors  who  bid  under  one- 
year  terms.  Here  again  the  work  appears  to  be  so  divided  that 
it  goes  year  after  year  to  the  same  parties  at  constantly  increas- 
ing rates.  The  contracts  include  the  street  cleaning  and  sweep- 
ing, the  removal  of  all  household  waste  except  garbage,  and  the 
cleaning  of  all  private  alleys  and  paved  streets  once  a  week. 
The  cost  of  the  work  has  steadily  increased  from  $462,394  in 
1894  to  $529,889  in  1900,  and  $720,890  in  1902. 

From  a  personal  examination  made  in  1902  it  was  ascertained 
that  there  were  approximately  823,977  tone  of  total  waste,  of 
which  garbage  was  280,000  tons ;  ashes  and  refuse  529,889  tons. 
The  proportion  of  refuse  was  approximately  30,000  loads,  or 
15,000  tons.  All  this  is  dumped  on  low  grounds  below  and  on 
the  outskirts  of  the  city.  These  dumps  are  picked  over  by 
persons  in  the  employ  of  the  contractors  who  control  the  collec- 
tion service  and  who  recover  from  30  to  40  per  cent,  of  the  light 
refuse  for  market.  This  refuse  is  roughly  baled  on  the  grounds, 
but  much  of  it  is  in  filthy  and  insanitary  condition. 

In  one  year  there  were  six  hundred  complaints  from  property- 
holders  adjoining  one  refuse  dump  at  North  Broad  Street  and 
Hunting  Avenue.  No  relief  was  possible,  as  the  Health  Depart- 
ment held  that  the  dumps  did  not  contain  organic  substances  that 
would  by  decay  become  injurious  to  health. 

The  contractor  at  this  dump  received  pay  from  all  cartmen 
who  picked  out  and  recovered  for  market  a  large  proportion  of 
refuse  by  the  labor  of  women  and  children.  His  only  expense 
was  to  deposit  two  feet  of  earth  upon  the  miscellaneous  debris 
brought  to  the  ground,  which  assisted  in  the  preparation  of  the 
soil  as  a  site  for  dwellings  to  be  built  thereafter.  The  insanitary 
conditions  attending  the  work,  the  complaints  of  neighbors,  and 
the  inevitable  spread  of  zymotic  diseases  that  flourish  under  just 
such  conditions  were  not  the  concern  .of  the  contractor,  nor  evi- 
dently of  the  health  department  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 


37°  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 
ARNOLD  REDUCTION  PROCESS,  ATLANTIC  CITY. 

The  question  of  garbage  collection  and  disposal  at  Atlantic  City 
has  always  been  a  most  perplexing  problem  for  several  reasons. 
The  population  is  variable — roughly,  from  35,000  resident  per- 
sons— at  one  period  up  to  150,000  during  the  crowded  summer 
months.  There  is  no  chance  for  disposal  by  tipping  overboard, 
nor  are  the  facilities  for  feeding  swine  available  as  in  other 
places.  A  summer  and  winter  watering  place  must  be  clean,  and, 
above  all,  must  be  sanitary,  for  the  whole  life  of  a  town  depends 
upon  its  sanitary  and  attractive  features. 

For  many  years  the  waste  was  taken  away  from  the  water 
front  and  tipped  or  buried.  Then  in  1894-5  the  Smith-Siemens 
crematory  was  erected,  and  for  about  five  years  destroyed  the 
garbage  at  great  cost  for  fuel  and  labor.  The  quantity  thus  dis- 
posed of  in  1902  was  10,000  tons — disposed  of  by  artificial  gas 
as  fuel  at  a  cost  of  $1.52  per  ton. 

In  1903  the  city  made  a  contract  with  the  Atlantic  Product  Com- 
pany, a  Philadelphia  corporation,  of  which  Dr.  F.  H.  McFarland 
was  president,  to  collect  and  dispose  of  the  garbage  for  a  period 
of  ten  years.  The  company  was  to  receive  $20,000  per  year  for 
collection  and  $20,000  per  year  for  disposal,  with  an  annual  in- 
crease of  $1,000  per  year.  In  1906  the  amount  paid  for  both  was 
$43,000. 

The  plant  is  located  at  the  north  end  of  the  island  near  the 
inlet,  adjoining  the  abandoned  incinerating  plant.  The  buildings 
occupy  an  area  of  100x150  feet,  and  are  said  to  have  cost 
$125,000.  In  general  arrangement  and  methods  of  operation  the 
works  are  similar  to  Philadelphia,  though  some  more  improve- 
ments have  been  made  over  the  older  forms  of  machinery.  There 
are  twenty  digesters  in  five  groups,  with  five  hydraulic  presses, 
the  usual  catch-basins,  gutters  and  flotation  tanks  for  separating 
the  grease  from  the  water.  The  gases  are  condensed  and  passed 
over  the  boiler  fires.  The  steam  power  is  maintained  by  burning 
the  tankage  for  fuel.  The  capacity  of  the  plant  is  necessarily 
larger  than  the  average  because  of  the  maximum  population  of 
the  city  for  short  periods. 

Probably  the  total  for  the  year  would  not  exceed  20,000 
tons,  but  on  occasion  there  might  be  150  tons  per  day  for  treat- 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  371 

ment.     There  are  no  accounts  or  reports  of  quantities  or  per- 
centage of  manufactured  products. 

THE  ARNOLD  PROCESS,  NEWARK,  N.  J. 

For  many  years  the  disposal  of  the  waste  of  Newark  had  been 
made  by  tipping  upon  the  marshy  lands  surrounding  the  city 
on  three  sides.  A  part  of  the  organic  waste  was  fed  to  the 
swine,  collected  by  private  contractors,  and  a  still  smaller  part 
was  taken  outside  of  the  city  limits  for  ground  burial. 

In  July,  1902,  the  city  received  tenders  for  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  all  waste  matters  for  a  term  of  five  years.  It  was 
provided  that  garbage  should  be  disposed  of  by  any  means  which 
would  be  inodorous  and  sanitary;  that  ashes  and  rubbish  should 
be  dumped  at  any  place  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board  of 
Works. 

The  bids  received  for  this  work  were  from  six  different  con- 
tractors and  companies,  ranging  from  $631,000  to  $817,000  for 
the  five  years'  contract.  The  contract  was  finally  awarded  to  the 
highest  bidder,  Mr.  Benjamin  Meyer,  who  afterwards  organized 
a  company  called  the  Newark  Reduction  Company,  and  erected 
plants  under  the  Arnold  process  at  a  location  in  the  rear  of  the 
city  on  the  banks  of  the  river.  The  reduction  works  were  built 
under  the  Edgerton  patents  for  rotary  presses,  and  were  in  other 
respects  similar  to  the  reduction  plants  of  the  Arnold  process  at 
other  places. 

During  the  term  of  this  contract  the  plant  also  disposed  of 
garbage  from  adjacent  towns — Orange,  East  Orange  and  Harri- 
son— which  was  brought  by  wagons  from  these  places.  Upon 
the  expiration  of  this  contract  in  1908,  bids  were  called  for  by 
the  city  and  the  award  again  made  to  the  same  company  for 
another  term  of  five  years. 

WILMINGTON,  DEL. 

Wilmington,  Del.,  was  among  the  first  to  adopt  improved 
methods  for  disposal  of  its  garbage,  and  in  1893  erected  a  gar- 
bage incinerator  under  the  S.  G.  Brown  patents.  This  was  the 
first  water-jacketed  furnace  to  be  erected  in  this  country,  was 
operated  by  oil,  sprayed  by  steam,  which  was  furnished  by  a 
boiler  independent  of  the  plant. 


372   THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

This  crematory  continued  at  work  for  some  three  or  four 
years,  and  was  finally  put  out  of  commission  because  of  the  great 
expense  of  operating.  It  was  followed  by  a  Dixon  crematory  of 
approximately  fifty  tons  capacity,  erected  on  the  same  ground. 
The  operation  of  this  crematory  was  found  to  be  expensive  be- 
cause of  the  large  amounts  of  liquid  contained  in  the  garbage  and 
the  fact  that  this  was  separately  collected  without  any  admixture 
of  refuse  and  brought  to  the  crematory  for  disposal.  Various 
methods  of  extracting  these  liquids  were  devised,  but  none  found 
to  be  of  practical  service. 

In  April,  1906,  the  city  advertised  for  bids  for  the  disposal  of 
the  garbage  under  conditions  which  required  the  contractor  to 
dispose  of  it  in  a  sanitary  manner,  and  he  should  also  be  allowed 
the  use  of  the  present  city  crematory  and  make  such  alterations 
therein  as  should  be  approved  by  the  Council. 

The  plant  was  required  to  have  capacity  for  the  disposal  of  all 
garbage  within  twenty-four  hours  after  collection.  The  Mayor 
and  Council  should  have  the  option  to  purchase  the  plant  at  the 
termination  of  the  five-year  contract.  This  contract  was  awarded 
to  a  company  formed  for  the  purpose,  which  company  employed 
the  Arnold  process,  and  which  also  had  the  privilege  of  burning 
the  rubbish  in  a  part  of  the  Dixon  crematory  which  was  specially 
altered  for  the  purpose.  There  is  no  report  showing  the  quantity 
treated  or  the  results  of  the  work  at  the  present  time. 

The  company  engaged  to  dispose  of  the  rubbish  as  well  as  the 
garbage,  and  conduct  their  work  on  the  same  ground  and  include 
in  their  plant  the  operation  of  the  Dixon  Crematory. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

THE    CHAMBERLAIN,    HOLTHAUS,    WISEOGEL,     AMERICAN     RE- 
DUCTION AND  PENN  REDUCTION  PROCESSES. 
CHAMBERLAIN  PROCESS,  DETROIT,  MICH. 

This  process,  known  as  the  "Liquid  Separating  Process,"  was 
first  used  at  Detroit,  Mich.,  in  1898.  The  patentee  and  inventor 
was  Mr.  M.  H.  Chamberlain,  who  was  President  of  the  Detroit 
Liquid  Separating  Company,  contracting  with  the  city  for  all 
garbage  disposal  for  a  term  of  five  years. 

The  collection  was  made  in  large  boxes  holding  one  and 
one-half  tons  each,  and  brought  from  all  parts  of  the  city  to 
a  yard  adjoining  the  railroad  station.  The  boxes  were  lifted 
from  the  cart  bodies  and  placed  on  flat  cars,  each  holding 
20  boxes,  and  carried  22  miles  on  the  Wabash  Railroad  to 
French's  Landing  on  the  Huron  River.  At  the  works  the  boxes 
were  discharged  upon  a  platform,  the  refuse  picked  out  and 
the  garbage  shoveled  into  digesters  of  the  usual  capacity  of 
five  tons.  The  bottoms  of  these  digesters  were  provided  with 
three  concentric  circular  cylinders  with  double  walls  closed  on 
the  top  but  open  on  the  bottom,  with  perforated  sides. 

After  the  usual  process  of  cooking  from  six  to  eight  hours, 
steam  at  high  pressure  was  forced  into  the  tank  above  and 
below  the  cylinders,  forcing  these  upward  and  driving  out  the 
liquids  carrying  the  grease,  which  passed  off  through  pipes  con- 
nected with  the  lower  section  of  the  digesters.  This  pressure 
was  Continued  for  five  hours,  until  the  liquids  were  squeezed  out, 
leaving  about  30  per  cent,  of  the  original  mass,  which  was  then 
removed  through  the  side  doors  and  conveyed  to  steam-jacketed 
driers.  At  the  close  of  this  drying  process  the  bulk  of  the 
material  was  reduced  to  15  per  cent,  of  the  original  measure,  and 
was  in  the  form  of  a  homogeneous  brown  mass,  which  was 
screened  and  ground  for  fertilizer. 

The  pressed-out  water  and  grease  are  separated,  the  grease 
collected  and  barreled,  and  the  water  run  off  into  the  Huron 

373 


374  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

River  as  a  dark  brown  effluent  that  rapidly  colors  the  water  of 
the  river.  The  special  features  of  this  process  are  the  collec- 
tions in  closed  tanks  and  transportation  to  the  works  without 
breaking  bulk,  steamed  garbage  in  the  digesters,  and  the  separa- 
tion of  water  and  grease  within  closed  tanks,  the  steam  and 
gases  from  which  were  condensed  or  destroyed  by  discharge 
under  the  ash-pits  of  the  boilers.  There  has  never  been  avail- 
able any  analysis  of  the  products  from  this  process,  and  no 
comparison  of  the  value  can  be  stated. 

This  company  was  the  first  to  use  the  system  of  collection 
in  large  movable  boxes  tightly  sealed  for  transportation  by  rail. 
The  compensation  paid  to  the  company  was  at  the  rate  of 
$47,208  per  year,  which  included  transportation  by  rail  to  the 
works.  No  information  in  regard  to  quantities  is  available. 

After  the  close  of  the  contract  the  city  advertised  in  December, 
1905,  for  new  bids  for  disposal. 

Those  received  were  as  follows : 

Dixon  Sanitary  Crematory  Company,  four  8-ton  plants $80,000 

Detroit  Sanitary  Works  offered  to  sell  their  plant,  200  tons 

capacity,  for 100,000 

Lewis  &  Kitchen,  garbage  crematory  plants;  submitted  seven 

bids,  highest 68,879 

These  bids  were  all  rejected,  and  the  city  advertised  again 
on  December  23,  1905,  when  the  following  proposals  were  re- 
ceived : 

Detroit  Sanitary  Works,  10  years'  contract,  $12,000  per  year. 

Detroit  Reduction  Company,  10  years'  contract  for  no  compensation,  for 
garbage  only ;  also  to  dispose  of  all  other  refuse  at  25  cents  per  ton,  and  to 
dispose  of  ashes  at  20  cents  per  ton,  and  night  soil  at  25  cents  per  barrel. 

The  Detroit  Reduction  Company  also  offered  to  sell  to  the 
city  at  any  time,  on  valuation. 

At  this  time  (Oct.,  1908)  the  city  collects  the  garbage,  about 
35,000  tons  per  year,  and  delivers  it  to  the  Detroit  Reduction  Com- 
pany at  a  central  point  in  the  city.  The  company  sends  it  by  rail 
to  the  works  at  French's  Landing  twenty  miles  outside  the  city. 
The  contract  is  for  ten  years  from  July,  1905. 

CHAMBERLAIN  PROCESS,  INDIANAPOLIS,  IND. 
The  Chamberlain,  or  "Liquid  Separating  Process,"  of  reduc- 
tion was  introduced  into  Indianapolis  in  1898.     A  contract  for 
collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  and  dead  animals  was  secured 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  375 

by     the     Indianapolis     Sanitary     Company,    Mr.    S.    E.    Rand, 
President. 

The  works  were  built  on  a  farm  just  outside  the  city,  the 
collections  made  in  steel  tanks,  or  wagon  bodies,  which  were 
taken  by  rail  from  the  central  station  to  the  plant.  The  process 
of  disposal  was  the  same  as  at  the  Detroit  works,  but  instead 
of  running  off  the  foul  effluent  direct  into  the  river  it  was 
heated  to  a  high  temperature  and  discharged  on  the  gravel  beds 
of  the  river  banks,  through  which  it  found  its  way  to  the 
water. 

This  manner  of  effluent  disposal  gave  rise  to  bitter  and  un- 
ceasing complaints  from  adjoining  property-holders,  and  in  later 
years  the  company  has  taken  other  means  for  the  treatment  of 
the  liquids. 

In  1905  the  city  advertised  for  bids  for  a  five-year  contract 
for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  and  dead  animals. 

The  bids  received  were: 

»          Per  Year 

C.  Jones  (Buffalo) $48,800 

F.  J.  Edengarter 60,360 

Indianapolis  Sanitary  Company 52,000 

The  last-named  received  the  award.  It  is  understood  that 
the  work  is  being  carried  on  at  the  same  plant  and  by  the  same 
methods  as  before.  No  reports  of  quantities  or  value  of  prod- 
ucts are  available. 

Assuming  the  population  to  be  212,198  in  1905,  and  the 
quantity  of  garbage  as  estimated  in  the  tables  of  the  Govern- 
ment Census  Reports  as  30,000  tons,  the  cost  of  collection  and 
disposal  would  be  at  the  rate  of  $1.73  per  ton,  and  at  the  rate 
of  25  cents  per  capita  per  annum.  This  does  not  include  the 
ashes  and  refuse,  for  which  a  separate  contract  is  made.  No 
reports  of  these  amounts  can  be  obtained. 

CHAMBERLAIN  PROCESS,  CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 

As  previously  noted,  this  city  had  in  service  for  ten  years  the 
Simonin  process  of  reduction  for  vegetable  garbage  and  a  con- 
tract with  a  separate  company  for  the  collection  and  disposal 
of  the  "animal  garbage." 

In  1902,  when  the  city  advertised  for  bids  for  the  combined 
work  of  garbage  disposal  and  animal  collections  and  disposal, 


376  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

the  bid  of  Messrs.  M.  H.  Chamberlain  and  J.  H.  Corliss,  after- 
wards known  as  the  Cincinnati  Reduction  Company,  was  ac- 
cepted for  the  fractional  parts  of  the  years  for  the  two  com- 
panies then  performing  the  service.  These  bids  were  on  a  slid- 
ing scale  of  payment:  1902,  part  of  year,  $43,000;  1903, 
$76,000;  1904,  $77,500;  1905,  $78,500;  1906,  $80,400;  1907, 
part  of  year,  $35,000.  The  company  was  to  make  collections 
three  times  a  week  from  residential  parts  of  the  city  during 
April  to  October  and  twice  a  week  in  other  months,  with  daily 
collections  for  markets,  hotels  and  all  places  where  animal  food 
is  prepared. 

The  company  provided  iron  water-tight  wagon  bodies  to  be 
lifted  by  cranes  to  cars  for  transportation  to  the  disposal  works 
a  few  miles  down  the  river. 

The  "liquid  separation"  or  Chamberlain  process  is  the  one 
under  which  this  company  operates,  the  works  and  buildings 
being  of  the  same  general  design  and  character  as  the  Detroit 
plant,  previously  described.  No  reports  of  the  exact  quantities 
received  or  the  value  of  the  product  have  ever  been  obtained. 

On  the  expiration  of  the  contract,  the  city  advertised  for  bids 
for  five  years  and  received  and  accepted  proposals  from  the 
same  company,  the  Cincinnati  Reduction  Company,  at  the  fol- 
lowing terms:  First  year,  $80,000;  second  year,  $91,000;  third 
year,  $93,000;  fourth  year,  $95,000;  fifth  year,  $97,000,  con- 
tract to  begin  June  I,  1908. 

MERZ   REDUCTION    PROCESS    FOLLOWED   BY   CHAMBERLAIN   RE- 
DUCTION PROCESS,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

The  generally  unsettled  state  of  the  refuse  disposal  problem 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  experiences  of  the  Capital  City  in 
this  line  of  municipal  work  during  the  past  decade.  Seventeen 
year  ago  the  swill  was  collected  in  wooden  barrels,  in  an  irregu- 
lar, unsatisfactory  way,  by  the  contract  service.  This  was  an- 
nulled for  breach  of  contract,  and  for  some  months  the  work 
was  done  by  the  municipality  at  an  increased  cost,  but  with 
greater  efficiency. 

In  1891,  under  the  terms  of  a  new  contract,  the  work  was 
better  done,  the  disposal  being  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  being  at  least  in  theory  deposited  by 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  377 

the  contractor  on  farm  land  along  the  Potomac  River,  although 
grave  insinuations  were  made  as  to  the  dumping  of  the  material 
into  the  river  as  soon  as  the  boundary  of  the  District  had  been 
passed. 

In  1892  a  special  appropriation  enabled  the  Commissioner^ 
to  secure  the  removal  of  all  garbage  in  inclosed  tanks,  and  a 
contract  was  made  with  a  company  for  its  disposal  by  reduc- 
tion. This  was  the  Merz  reduction  system,  the  plant  for  the 
work  being  built  in  one  of  the  remote  and  sparsely  settled  sec- 
tions of  the  city. 

The  usual  complaints  were  received,  and  a  bitter  controversy 
arose,  which  was  settled  by  the  accidental  destruction  of  the 
building  by  fire.  No  attempt  was  made  to  rebuild,  and  the 
reduction  company  soon  went  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  who 
conducted  the  business  for  a  short  time,  and  finally  sold  it  to  one 
of  the  members  of  the  company. 

The  service  rendered  was  extremely  unsatisfactory  to  the 
city,  and,  it  was  alleged,  unprofitable  to  the  company,  because 
of  the  inability  of  the  Commissioners  to  enforce  separation  by 
the  householders. 

This  condition  of  affairs  terminated  in  March,  1895,  when 
an  appropriation  of  $60,000  was  made,  and  strict  regulations 
as  to  the  collection  and  sanitary  treatment  of  the  waste  were 
authorized  and  made  a  part  of  the  city  specifications  calling  for 
new  proposals,  so  as  to  bind  the  contractor,  and  were  promul- 
gated as  public  regulations  so  as  to  bind  the  householder.  Each 
bidder  was  permitted  to  select  his  own  means  of  proposed  dis- 
posal. The  city  accepted  a  bid  for  disposal  by  incineration,  by 
which  the  contractor  was  to  erect  two  crematory  furnaces  in 
different  parts  of  the  city. 

A  Brown  crematory  was  chosen  by  the  contractor  as  one  of 
the  means  of  disposal,  and  a  Smith-Siemens  crematory  selected 
by  the  Commissioners  as  the  other.  Upon  trial  of  these  two 
furnaces  it  was  found  that  the  Brown  plant  could  dispose  of 
far  less  than  the  quantity  for  which  it  was  designed,  not  more 
than  40  per  cent,  of  the  daily  output  of  garbage  during  the 
summer  months. 

In  constructing  the  Smith-Siemens  crematory,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  do  away  with  certain  objectionable  features  that 


378  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

attended  the  former  work  of  this  furnace  in  other  cities.  Whether 
from  changes  incident  to  these,  or  for  other  reasons,  the  furnace 
built  in  Washington  was  not  a  success.  It  ran  for  a  time  on  trial, 
but  gave  rise  to  so  many  complaints  based  on  odors  emanating 
from  it,  that,  although  it  had  been  selected  by  the  Commissioners 
in  the  first  instance,  it  was  never  accepted  by  them,  and  never 
regularly  went  into  service.  Moreover,  during  its  experimental 
runs  it  never  approximated  its  estimated  capacity. 

The  contract  was  modified  so  as  to  permit  the  contractor  to 
carry  all  the  garbage  and  dead  animals  down  the  river  on  scows, 
and  dispose  of  them  in  the  same  primitive  manner  which  had  been 
followed  under  the  preceding  cheaper  contract. 

Early  in  1900  efforts  were  made  to  obtain  a  better  means  for 
the  disposal  of  all  the  city  waste,  and  bids  were  invited  for  the 
collection  and  disposal  of  garbage,  dead  animals,  night  soil  and 
miscellaneous  refuse  and  ashes  for  a  period  of  five  years. 

Proposals  were  received  from  responsible  parties,  the  lowest 
of  these  being  at  the  rate  of  $115,000  per  year.  Congress  refused 
to  authorize  the  contract,  and  requested  new  specifications  and 
new  bidding.  When  the  new  specifications  were  received,  in 
June,  1900,  separate  contracts  were  awarded,  as  follows: 

Contract  with  the  Washington  Fertilizer  Company,  for  five 
years,  for  collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  and  dead  animals  for 
$51,600  per  year,  and  $1,000  additional  yearly  for  any  extension 
of  the  service,  but  with  a  deduction  of  50  cents  per  ton  on  all 
over  20,000  tons  collected  during  the  year.  This  company  em- 
ployed the  method  of  the  Chamberlain  or  "Liquid  Separating 
Process"  which  was  then  in  use  in  Cleveland. 

Contract  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  ashes,  five  years,  for 
$29,979  per  year ;  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  miscellaneous 
refuse,  five  years,  $8,000  per  year,  and  for  the  collection  and  dis- 
posal of  night-soil  for  $17,000  per  year. 

These  figures  represent  a  per  capita  expense  for  each  class  as 
follows : 

Garbage $0.173 

Ashes 10 

Refuse 027 

Night  soil. 057 

No  statement  of  quantities  per  ton  could  be  made  with  regard 
to  the  various  classes  of  waste,  except  garbage  that  was  esti- 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  379 

mated  in  1900  at  24,339  tons,  with  12,170  dead  animals  and 
6,157  barrels  of  night-soil.  The  population  of  the  city  for  that 
year  was  278,577. 

The  five-year  contract  with  the  Washington  Fertilizer  Company 
expired  November  30,  1905.  In  July,  1905,  a  new  contract  for 
collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  only  was  made  with  the  same 
company.  New  contracts  for  the  disposal  of  every  class  of 
waste  were  also  made  in  each  case  for  five  years. 

The  expenditures  for  collection  and  disposal  of  city  refuse 
are  as  follows,  for  1906 : 

Garbage  and  animals $60,423  . 06 

Dead  animals 1,3 25. 13 

Ashes 51, 13  7. 15 

Refuse 1 5,488  . 67 

Night  soil 16,470.00 

Incidental  expenses 690  . 10 

Total... $145,554.68 

In  1906  the  cost  of  this  work  was  at  the  rate  of 

$1.54  per  ton  for  garbage. 
.41  cubic  yard  for  ashes. 

.72     '       bbl.   for  night-soil. 

136    '       ton   for   refuse,    assuming   weight   of    211,512    bags   of   paper 
at  150  Ibs.  each. 

The  population  of  the  city  in  1906  was  302,855. 
The  expense  per  capita  per  annum  for  the  year  1906  for  the 
whole  waste  collection  and  disposal  service  was  48  cents. 

HOLTHAUS  REDUCTION  PROCESS,  BRIDGEPORT,  CONN. 

For  years  the  disposal  of  garbage  in  Bridgeport  was  accom- 
plished by  buying  in  the  vacant  ground  on  the  Town  Farm. 
Long  trenches  were  dug,  the  loads  of  garbage  dumped  as  col- 
lected, and  the  earth  thrown  back  over  it.  This  method  has  often 
caused  complaint,  but  as  a  rule  has  been  persisted  in.  When 
complaints  became  too  pressing  the  Health  Department  made 
inspection  and  ordered  four  inches  of  earth  to  be  placed  over  the 
trenches.  The  burying  process  is  somewhat  intermittent,  being 
governed  by  the  necessity  for  immediate  disposal  when  the  gar- 
bage reduction  plant  breaks  down  or  burns  up,  a  frequent  episode 
in  the  history  of  their  disposal  works.  What  will  happen  when 
this  ground  is  needed  for  building  purposes  in  future  years  is 
a  problem  that  the  health  authorities  will  have  to  solve. 


380  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

Bridgeport  for  many  years  enjoyed  the  proud  position  of  pay- 
ing the  largest  sum  annually  of  any  American  town  for  the  col- 
lection of  its  garbage. 

A  contract  for  ten  years  was  granted  to  Mr.  J.  D.  Twohey, 
at  a  price  of  something  like  $2.60  per  ton,  the  weight  to  be 
taken  on  the  city  scales  at  the  entrance  to  the  Town  Farm  before 
burial.  A  casual  examination  made  in  1906  by  reporters  for  the 
newspapers  revealed  the  fact  that  a  very  considerable  percentage 
of  the  garbage  was  water.  The  collection  contract  was  again 
granted  to  Reilly  &  King  for  five  years  from  November  8,  1905, 
at  a  cost  to  the  city  of  $2.32  per  ton. 

A  Dixon  crematory  was  built  in  1899,  and  operated  for  some 
time,  until  the  expense  of  burning  very  wet  swill  became  too 
burdensome. 

This  town  was  one  of  the  first  to  experiment  with  reduction 
methods,  having  in  about  1887  a  plant  of  the  Holthaus  extraction 
system.  This  method  used  naphtha  in  the  first  stages  for  extract- 
ing the  grease,  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  Simonin  process, 
although  the  digesters  were  of  smaller  capacity  and  were  vertical 
in  position  instead  of  horizontal.  The  subsequent  stages  of  the 
separation  of  the  naphtha  from  the  water,  recovering  the  grease 
and  drying  the  tankage  were  like  those  in  other  plants,  but  the 
machinery  and  equipment  was  of  its  kind  more  scientifically 
built  and  better  arranged,  and  the  whole  plant  was  better  con- 
structed. 

There  is  no  available  knowledge  of  the  exact  conditions  of 
the  contract  with  the  city,  but  it  is  believed  that  about  34  cents 
per  ton  was  paid  to  the  company,  the  delivery  of  separated 
garbage  being  made  by  the  city.  At  the  time  of  the  Waring 
inspection  of  reduction  plants  it  was  put  under  a  month's  trial 
by  one  of  the  Commissioner's  staff,  and  was  very  favorably  re- 
ported upon  for  its  cleanliness  and  general  good  performance. 
But  an  explosion  of  the  naphtha  fumes  wrecked  the  plant,  and 
fire  followed,  which  completed  the  almost  total  destruction  of 
the  buildings  and  equipment,  and  the  city  turned  again  to  the 
town  burial  ground  for  the  disposal  of  the  refuse. 

In  about  1900  the  work  of  garbage  disposal  was  taken  up  by 
Mr.  Geo.  E.  Winton,  who  had  an  abattoir  and  rendering  plant, 
and  who  received  50  cents  a  ton  for  garbage  disposed  of.  His 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  381 

plant  also  took  fire  and  was  partly  destroyed,  and  the  Dixon 
crematory  was  again  brought  into  service.  Mr.  Winton  resumed 
operations,  which  for  some  years  were  carried  on  with  consider- 
able friction,  several  competitors  claiming  that  they  could  offer 
better  methods  and  all  making  efforts  to  secure  the  contract. 

In  1907,  when  new  contracts  were  to  be  let,  strong  competi- 
tion was  encountered,  the  contract  for  ten  years  finally  going 
to  the  American  Abattoir  and  Oil  Company,  one  that  had  pre- 
viously had  the  same  contract.  The  works  of  this  company  are 
within  the  city  limits,  on  the  line  of  a  trunk  sewer.  Serious 
charges  of  nuisance  were  made  in  the  summer  of  1907,  which 
resulted  in  the  temporary  shut-down  of  the  plant,  until  the 
sewers,  which  the  company  claimed  were  too  small,  could  be 
rebuilt  with  sufficient  capacity  to  carry  away  the  water  dis- 
charged from  the  works. 

A  proposition  has  been  made  by  the  company  to  take  the 
garbage  of  New  Haven  and  several  towns  in  the  Naugatuck 
Valley  for  treatment.  The  plant  of  the  company  is  believed  to 
be  a  modification  of  the  Holthaus  method,  but  no  accurate  details 
can  be  had,  as  visitors  are  not  allowed  on  the  premises.  The 
quantities  of  garbage  handled  are  also  very  indefinitely  known, 
as  the  records  are  not  obtainable  and  no  replies  are  made  to 
repeated  requests  concerning  the  operation  of  the  plant.  The 
payment  by  the  city  is  50  cents  per  ton  for  disposal. 

HOLTHAUS  PROCESS,  SYRACUSE,  N.  Y. 

Up  to  1899  this  city  made  disposition  of  its  waste  by  the  usual 
primitive  and  unsanitary  methods  employed  in  the  early  history 
of  American  towns.  The  advertisement  for  disposal  by  incinera- 
tion in  1898  produced  no  satisfactory  results,  and  in  the  follow- 
ing year  a  contract  was  let  to  the  Syracuse  Reduction  Company 
for  the  garbage  disposal  at  $26,000  per  year  for  ten  years.  At 
that  time  the  quantity  of  garbage  was  estimated  at  10,000  tons, 
which  made  the  cost  of  disposal  $2.60  per  ton,  the  largest  price 
paid  by  any  city  in  the  country  for  any  form  of  reduction,  extrac- 
tion methods. 

This  contract  expiring  in  July,  1908,  on  May  10  the  city 
issued  specifications  for  bids  for  disposing  of  the  garbage  and 


382  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

dead  animals  in  a  sanitary  manner  for  five  years  from  July  i, 
1908.     These  specifications  provide: 

The  contractor  to  erect  his  plant  on  location  to  be  approved  of  by 
Board  of  Public  Works. 

The  quantities  of  garbage  were  :  1904,  8,279  tons  ;  1905,  9,257  tons  ;  1906, 
9,285  tons;  1907,  10,624  tons. 

The  system  or  process  must  have  been  in  use  for  two  years  preceding 
date  of  bid. 

Pending  time  of  completion  of  plant,  contractor  will  be  permitted  to 
dispose  of  garbage  and  animals  by  burial. 

This  also  to  be  permitted  in  case  of  temporary  suspension  of  plant.  The 
plant  to  be  designed  in  units  to  permit  cleaning  or  repairs  with  no  inter- 
ruption of  work. 

The  disposal  to  be  innocuous  and  without  nuisance,  all  liquids  to  be 
evaporated  and  gases  passed  through  fire. 

Large  dead  animals  to  be  collected  by  contractor. 

City  to  purchase  plant  on  expiration  of  contract  on  six  months'  notice. 

The  bids  received  under  these  specifications  were : 

Syracuse  Reduction  Company   (present  contractors) $17,000 

Municipal    Contracting    Company    14,989 

Albert  Gaffey 18,896 

H.    Bromner    24,000 

These  bids  were  rejected  as  being  too  high  and  new  specifica- 
tions, on  same  terms,  except  that  the  bids  will  be  for  periods 
of  5,  6,  7,  8,  9  and  10  years,  the  plant  to  be  retained  by  the 
contractor,  at  the  expiration  of  contractor's  term.  The  alterna- 
tive proposition  is  identical,  except  that  the  transfer  of  the  plant 
to  the  city  at  the  end  of  contract  term  will  be  made  without 
cost  to  the  city. 

The  award  of  the  contract  to  the  Syracuse  Reduction  Com- 
pany for  ten  years  was  finally  made,  at  $13,975  per  year  for 
disposal  only. 

The  original  Holthaus  system,  as  operated  at  the  Syracuse 
plant,  is  thus  described  by  an  observer  in  1900: 

The  garbage  is  collected  in  barrels  and  from  these  is  dumped  into  a 
car  on  an  elevator  which  carried  it  to  the  top  of  the  building.  The  car 
is  dumped  into  the  digester  with  30  per  cent,  of  water  added  and  the 
garbage  digested  by  steam  in  the  usual  manner. 

The  digesters  arranged  in  groups  of  four,  discharge  into  a  press,  where 
the  water  and  grease  is  pressed  out  and  allowed  to  run  into  the  separating 
tank,  from  which  the  grease  is  drawn  .off  and  barreled. 

The  tankage  falls  into  the  dryers  below,  and  after  passing  these  is 
carried  up  to  the  second  floor,  where  it  is  ground  and  screened. 

The  whole  process  from  the  time  the  garbage  is  put  into  the  digesters 
till  the  dry  tankage  and  grease  appear,  is  conducted  in  apparatus  which  is 
securely  closed. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  383 

Pipes  lead  from  the  different  parts  of  the  apparatus  to  a  vacuum  pump 
which  draws  off  all  gases  through  a  condenser  and  then  passes  them 
through  the  fire.  All  water  vapors  from  the  drying  and  rendering  process 
is  condensed  and  all  water  evaporated  and  then  condensed  so  that  all 
liquid  wastes  from  the  works  are  free  from  offense. 

In  this  description  there  is  no  mention  of  the  use  of  naphtha 
at  any  stage  of  the  work,  and  this  appears  to  be  a  departure  from 
the  first  plant  at  Bridgeport,  which  employed  naphtha  for  ex- 
tracting the  grease  after  maceration  of  the  garbage  by  steam. 
The  present  Syracuse  plant  has  undergone  many  changes  and 
improvements  that  have  made  the  work  less  expensive  and  more 
sanitary. 

A  fire  destroyed  a  part  of  the  buildings  in  January,  1903. 

THE  HOLTHAUS  PROCESS,  NEW  BEDFORD,  MASS. 

One  of  the  earliest  municipal  reduction  processes  was  that 
of  the  Holthaus  system  in  New  Bedford,  Mass.,  about  1893-94. 
The  city  had  contracted  with  a  private  company  for  a  five-year 
term  for  the  garbage  collection  and  disposal.  The  corporation 
was  formed  by  local  investors,  headed  by  Mr.  James  Gannon, 
the  contractor  who  had  previously  held  the  contract  for  collec- 
tion of  the  garbage.  The  works  of  the  company  were  placed 
at  a  point  just  within  the  city  limits,  about  three  miles  from  the 
City  Hall.  These  were  much  the  same  construction  as  the  first 
plant  of  this  system  at  Bridgeport,  and  included  the  use  of 
naphtha  for  extracting  the  grease  from  the  tankage  after  previous 
boiling. 

At  that  time  the  reduction  methods  were  not  well  understood. 
The  difficulties  encountered,  together  with  the  continuous  com- 
plaints of  nuisance,  and  the  small  price  paid  for  the  work  made 
the  venture  unprofitable. 

An  explosion  and  fire  partly  destroyed  the  plant,  which  was 
not  rebuilt.  After  about  three  years  of  unsuccessful  effort, 
the  contract  was  given  up  and  the  city  continued  the  primitive 
means  of  disposal  by  tipping  and  feeding  swine. 

But  little  is  known  of  the  details  of  this  plant,  but  it  was 
presumed  to  have  followed  the  same  methods  of  construction 
and  working  as  the  first  plant  of  the  Holthaus  system  at  Bridge- 
port. 


384  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

WlSELOGEL    PROCESS,    VlNCENNES,    IND. 

The  work  of  Mr.  Frederick  G.  Wiselogel  covers  a  long  period 
of  time  and  connection  with  many  forms  of  apparatus  for  treat- 
ment of  waste  matter.  He  installed  the  Simonin  process  for  ex- 
traction of  grease  by  naphtha  from  abattoir  tankage,  in  1872,  at 
Chicago,  and  was  connected,  as  engineer,  with  several  fertilizer 
companies  up  to  1887,  when  he  joined  the  Merz  company,  as 
chief  construction  engineer  in  the  mechanical  department  of  the 
works  at  Buffalo.  In  1889,  he  built  the  Merz  plants  at  Denver, 
and  subsequently  the  works  at  Paterson,  Detroit,  Milwaukee  and 
St.  Paul.  In  1891  he  installed  the  first  plant  for  the  St.  Louis 
Sanitary  Company,  followed  in  1892  by  the  plant  at  Bartels,  near 
Milwaukee,  and  in  1893,  the  second  installation  of  the  St.  Louis 
plant. 

The  Wiselogel  reduction  process  or  system  probably  came 
first  into  use  at  Indianapolis.  The  first  plant  at  this  place  did 
not  continue,  and  was  subsequently  replaced  by  the  Chamberlain 
liquid  separating  process,  then  used  in  Detroit.  The  plant  at 
Indianapolis  was  popularly  known  as  a  "Wiselogel/'  but  how 
far  this  was  due  to  the  methods  of  Mr.  Wiselogel,  and  what 
part  was  done  by  the  methods  of  Mr.  Chamberlain  is  uncertain 
and  of  little  interest.  The  first  distinctive  installation  of  the 
Wiselogel  system  was  at  Vincennes,  Ind.,  in  1902. 

The  Star  Tankage  and  Fertilizer  Works  obtained  the  contract 
from  the  town  for  reduction  of  its  garbage  and  erected  a  plant  at 
an  approximate  cost  of  $30,000. 

The  apparatus  is  thus  described  by  the  secretary  of  the  com- 
pany subsequently  organized  in  Boston: 

In  further  consideration  of  your  valued  favor  of  the  i6th  inst.,  we 
take  pleasure  in  submitting  the  following  facts  regarding  the  "Wiselogel 
System"  for  the  disposal  of  municipal  waste. 

The  chief  claims  of  our  system  of  reduction,  as  applied  to  garbage,  over 
that  of  any  other,  are  that  it  is  ECONOMICAL,  AUTOMATIC  and 
ODORLESS. 

Our  apparatus  consists  of  a  self-contained,  rendering  tank  and  dryer 
combined.  It  is  a  steam-jacketed  cylinder  of  cast  iron,  5  feet  internal 
diameter  and  12  or  more  feet  long,  provided  with  a  shaft  and  reel  to 
stir  the  mass  within.  The  material  to  be  reduced  is  fed  in  at  the 
top  of  the  tank  to  which  an  air  or  vacuum  pump  is  attached,  and,  being 
constantly  in  motion  produces  an  inward  draft  while  the  tank  is  open, 
thus  preventing  any  odors  from  escaping. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  385 

When  the  tank  is  filled,  the  door  is  closed  and  clamped,  steam  is 
admitted  and  the  reel  is  set  in  motion,  the  air  pump  and  condenser  still 
being  in  operation.  The  water,  together  with  the  grease,  assembles  in 
the  bottom  of  the  machine,  and  is  pumped  into  the  cooling  tank,  where 
the  grease  is  drawn  off  into  barrels  and  is  ready  for  market.  The  water 
is  led  off  as  a  harmless  effluent  into  the  sewer.  Relieved  of  the  water 
and  grease,  the  residuum  is  dried  in  this  same  machine,  and  during  the 
entire  process,  by  the  aid  of  the  vacuum  pump,  all  vapors  and  gases  are 
drawn  from  the  machine  and  forced  through  a  condenser  and  separator, 
where  the  vapors  are  condensed  and  the  gases  diverted  to  a  specially 
constructed  consumer.  When  the  residuum  or  tankage  is  thoroughly 
dried,  it  is  discharged  from  the  machine  a  commercial  fertilizer.  This 
whole  operation  consumes  about  eight  hours'  time. 

The  material  suffers  no  exposure  from  the  time  it  is  fed  in  at  the 
top  until  it  is  discharged  a  dry  and  odorless  product,  ready  for  shipment. 

The  buildings  of  the  plants  under  this  system  are  usually  two  stories 
in  height,  constructed  of  any  good  building  material,  upper  and  lower 
floors  of  concrete  faced  with  best  cement,  sloping  toward  the  center 
and  "splashed"  up  at  the  sides,  posts,  etc.,  at  least  six  inches,  so  that 
they  can  at  all  times  be  kept  scrupulously  clean  with  soap  and  water.  The 
machines  are  set  in  the  basement,  the  feed  pipes  extending  through  the 
second  floor.  All  the  material  to  be  reduced  is  brought  up  an  inclined 
driveway  and  discharged  into  the  tank,  as  above  described. 

This  system  being  composed  of  units  of  reduction,  each  tank  repre- 
senting a  unit  and  holding  about  10,000  pounds  of  wet  garbage  per 
charge,  it  is  but  a  matter  of  more  machines  for  a  twenty-  or  thirty-ton 
plant.  The  same  number  of  men,  engine  and  boiler,  with  but  little  more 
fuel,  will  operate  six  machines  as  well  as  one. 

Our  new  combination  tank  and  dryer,  supplied  with  an  extra  large 
vacuum  pump  and  condenser,  placed  in  the  basement  or  outhouse  of 
a  large  hotel  or  apartment  house,  i>  fully  guaranteed  to  reduce  all  swill, 
table  and  kitchen  refuse,  and  so  do  away  with  the  nuisance  of  garbage 
cans,  flies,  bad  odors  and  the  inconvenience,  and  annoyance  attending  the 
removal  of  cans. 

We  also  make  a  machine  for  the  sanitary  disposal  of  night-soil,  which 
is  operated  under  vacuum,  all  gases  and  vapors  being  conducted  as 
described  above  in  our  combination  machine. 

,  One  plant  at  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  is  equipped  with  such  a  machine  as 
above  described  called  our  Economy  No.  2.  The  Star  Tankage  and  Fer- 
tilizer Works  of  Vincennes,  Ind.,  built  in  1902,  is  also  operating  under 
our  patents,  having  our  separate  digester  and  dryer  and  is  unqualifiedly 
endorsed  by  them. 

The  capacity  of  this  first  Wiselogel  plant  at  Vincennes  has 
never  been  known.  As  the  town,  with  a  population  in  1903  of 
10,669,  could  not  at  best  have  produced  over  five  or  six  tons  of 


386  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

garbage  per  day,  it  seems  probable  that  only  one  dryer  unit  of 
five  tons  capacity  was  used. 

The  difference  between  the  Wiselogel  system  and  that  of  the 
Merz  process  is  in  the  form  of  the  digester,  which  in  this  case 
is  a  cylinder,  steam-jacketed  and  placed  horizontally,  instead  of 
vertically,  and  has  a  specially  powerful  cross-armed  stirrer  for 
thoroughly  breaking  up  and  macerating  the  contents.  The  sub- 
sequent operation  of  drying  the  tankage  remaining  in  the  jacketed 
cylinder  after  the  water  and  grease  has  been  run  off,  is  also  a 
point  of  difference  between  this  and  other  forms. 

The  operation  of  the  Wiselogel  systems  are  under  three 
patents:  No.  442,298,  December,  1890 — Apparatus  for  heating 
garbage.  No.  536,677,  April,  1895 — For  dryer.  No.  554,206, 
February  4,  1896 — Apparatus  for  reducing  garbage  for  fertiliz- 
ers. Other  patents  are  reported  as  pending.  There  are  no 
obtainable  reports  as  to  the  percentages  of  grease  and  values  of 
tankage  under  this  process. 

The  Vincennes  plant  was  reported  as  injured  by  fire  on  Novem- 
ber 2,  1901,  and  was  completely  destroyed  by  fire  on  the  night  of 
February  26,  1908.  It  is  reported  that  contracts  have  been  let 
for  the  rebuilding  of  the  plant  at  a  cost  of  $35,000. 

In  1902,  the  patents  and  business  of  Mr.  Wiselogel  were  taken 
over  by  3  corporation  formed  in  Boston  under  the  name  of  the 
International  Waste  Utilization  Company,  with  a  strong  board 
of  directors  from  prominent  business  men  of  the  city  of  Boston, 
Taunton,  Lynn,  Brockton,  Springfield  and  Providence. 

The  active  work  of  this  company  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Sanitary  Reduction  and  Construction  Company,  a  Boston  corpor- 
ation with  offices  at  Indianapolis,  Ind.  There  was  also  a  third 
corporation,  known  as  the  American  Underwriting  Company, 
which  published  its  intentions  to  revolutionize  the  whole  work 
of  garbage  collection  and  disposal  throughout  this  country  by 
this  system,  and  whose  prophet  and  apostle  was  Mr.  Louis  H. 
Schneider,  president  of  the  company.  His  campaign  throughout 
the  West  will  be  remembered  for  the  extraordinarily  brilliant 
promises  made  and  the  absolute  lack  of  performance  in  any  city 
where  contracts  were  said  to  have  been  made. 

Meantime,  the  Standard  Reduction  and  Construction  Company 
obtained  permission  for  an  experimental  plant  at  Jacksonville, 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION. 


Fla.,  which  was  installed  in  a  small  building  adjoining  the  Dixon 
crematory. 

This  Jacksonville  plant  comprised  one  small  unit  of  the  same 
dimensions  and  capacity  as  at  Vincennes,  but  had  also  a  boiler, 
fired  with  dry  refuse  from  the  city  and  burned  in  the  Wiselogel 
destructor,  a  new  form  of  crematory. 

There  are  no  accurate  reports  of  this  work  obtainable,  but 
after  a  precarious  and  intermittent  existence  for  a  few  months, 


FIG.  91.— THE  WISELOGEL  REDUCTION  PLANT, 
JACKSONVILLE,   FLA. 

a  fire  occurred  which  burned  the  enclosing  building  and  damaged 
the  apparatus.  The  city  would  not  contract  for  the  disposal  of 
garbage  separately  collected  and  the  enterprise  was  abandoned. 
These  two  examples  of  the  practical  operation  of  the  Wise- 
logel garbage  reduction  system  are  believed  to  be  the  only  ones 
built  in  this  country  for  municipal  service. 

AMERICAN  REDUCTION  PROCESS,  READING,  PA. 

The  experience  of  this  city  with  garbage  disposal  methods  has 
not  been  of  a  pleasing  nature.  The  first  attempt  to  improve  exist- 
ing methods  was  in  1897,  when  a  contract  was  made  with  the 
Davis  Garbage  Crematory  Company,  of  Lancaster,  Pa.,  for  a 


388  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

furnace  rated  at  80  tons  capacity,  at  the  price  of  $9,850.  Upon 
the  completion  and  trial  the  furnace  was  found  not  to  meet  the 
terms  of  contract  in  point  of  capacity  and  operation  and  the 
plant  was  abandoned. 

In  the  fall  of  1898,  the  city  contracted  with  the  General  Amer- 
ican Reduction  Company,  a  company  organized  under  New  Jersey 
State  laws,  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  for  a  term  of  five  years 
by  some  satisfactory  reduction  process.  The  City  Trust  Deposit 
Company,  of  Philadelphia,  became  the  bondsman  on  behalf  of 
the  company.  The  company  was  to  receive  65  cents  per  ton 
for  disposal,  and  pending  the  erection  of  their  plant  were  to 
rebuild  the  Davis  crematory. 

The  company  occupied  a  brick  building  at  Millmont,  a  suburb 
of  the  city,  which  was  equipped  with  reduction  apparatus.  After 
a  year's  effort  the  company  ceased  work  and  abandoned  the 
plant  to  the  city,  basing  this  action  on  the  claim  that  not  enough 
garbage  was  being  delivered  to  enable  them  to  operate  at  a 
profit.  The  city,  viewing  the  matter  as  a  breech  of  contract, 
brought  suit  against  the  reduction  company  and  their  bonding 
company  in  1902.  The  latter  went  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver, 
with  no  recoverable  assets.  The  reduction  company  claimed  the 
machinery  in  the  plant,  but  was  enjoined  from  removing  it.  The 
matter  was  compromised  by  paying  the  company  $500  and  allow- 
ing them  to  remove  the  machinery  and  restore  the  building  to 
its  former  condition. 

The  method  employed  was  that  of  the  American  reduction 
process,  but  no  details  as  to  the  quantities  handled  or  the  value 
of  the  products  can  be  had. 

THE  ARNOLD  PROCESS. 

There  was  formed  another  company,  about  1902,  which  was 
called  the  Reading  Sanitary  Reduction  Company,  and  which  had 
a  contract  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the  garbage  for  a 
period  of  five  years  at  the  rate  of  $2.24  per  ton,  by  reduction. 
The  plant  of  this  company  is  at  Grill  Post  Office,  another  suburb 
of  Reading,  and  is  said  to  be  now  operating.  The  Arnold 
methods  in  a  modified  form  are  used,  but  no  reports  of  quantities 
or  costs  are  given.  The  plant  is  in  operation  with  apparent  suc- 
cess, and  there  are  few  complaints  of  imperfect  collection. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  389 

AMERICAN  REDUCTION  PROCESS,  YORK,  PA. 

The  population  of  York,  census  1905,  was  reported  at  38,258, 
but  the  present  figures  are  claimed  to  be  nearly  50,000.  There 
has  been  in  this  city  the  usual  experience  with  various  means 
of  garbage  disposal,  beginning  first  with  removal  to  outskirts 
and  dump-tipping,  collections  of  garbage  by  private  parties  and 
farmers  for  stock  feeding,  and  a  Dixon  garbage  cremator  of 
twenty-five  tons  capacity,  built  in  1896  and  discontinued  1904. 
For  about  two  years  the  York  Chemical  Works  had  the  contract 
for  disposal,  but  the  process  or  method  employed  was  either 
not  profitable  or  was  unsatisfactory.  At  the  expiration  of  this 
contract  the  city  advertised  for  bids  for  collection  and  disposal 
of  the  organic  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse.  The  amount  of  garbage 
was  estimated  at  3,000  tons  per  year. 

A  proposition  from  a  Philadelphia  contractor  to  establish  a 
"feeding  plant"  for  hogs  and  sheep  was  not  accepted. 

The  bids  for  ten-year  contract  for  collection  and  disposal  of 
organic  and  inorganic  matters  were: 

G    W.  Ruch  &  Co.,  Philadelphia $18,405. 12 

Jno.  A   Rayling  &  Co..  York 19,000  .00 

Chas.  C.  Fischer,  Reading   16,260  .00 

The  bid  of  Mr.  Fischer  was  accepted  to  date  from  April  I, 
1906,  with  a  yearly  increase  for  additional  amounts  collected. 
The  present  payment  to  the  company  is  at  the  rate  of  $1,550 
per  month,  $18,600  per  year. 

The  York  Sanitary  Reduction  Company  was  organized,  and 
the  plant  for  reduction  of  the  organic  waste  was  built  just  out- 
side the  city  limits.  The  collections  are  made  three  times  a  week 
for  garbage  in  iron  wagons  with  canvas  covers.  The  wagon 
bodies  are  hinged  to  the  rear  axle  and  discharged  by  hoisting 
blocks.  The  ashes  and  refuse  are  removed  in  wooden  wagons 
to  dumps.  The  company  keeps  a  special  wagon  for  dead  animals 
and  for  the  removal  of  any  cans  overlooked  at  any  time.  A 
fine  of  $i  is  assessed  for  each  complaint  of  non-removal  three 
hours  after  complaints  are  made. 

The  reduction  plant  is  enclosed  in  wooden  buildings  cheaply 
built,  the  whole  costing  not  to  exceed  $10,000.  The  wagons  dis- 
charge their  loads  into  a  pit  provided  with  grated  bottoms, 
through  which  the  liquids  are  drained.  From  the  pit  a  conveyor 


390  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

carries  it  to  the  digester  floor,  the  glass,  tins,  etc.,  being  re- 
moved while  in  transit. 

There  are  four  digesters  of  the  usual  capacity  of  five  to  six 
tons.  The  contractor  claims  his  method  to  be  the  "dry"  extrac- 
tion process.  No  water  is  used  for  cooking  the  garbage ;  steam 
is  introduced  at  the  bottom  of  the  digesters  in  such  a  way  that 
it  permeates  the  entire  mass. 

The  pressure  is  said  to  be  40  Ibs  per  square  inch,  but  may 
be  increased,  if  necessary.  The  superintendent  of  the  works 
claims  "that  the  whole  secret  of  successful  reduction  is  knowing 
when  the  materials  are  properly  cooked."  He  says:  "This  is 
essential  both  for  obtaining  the  maximum  amount  of  grease  and 
preventing  disagreeable  odors.  Testing  valves  are  placed  in 
the  base  of  the  digesters  by  which  the  attendant  may  determine 
this,  as  no  definite  time  for  cooking  is  set.  Two  batches  may 
be  cooked  every  twenty-four  hours.  There  is  no  stirring  or 
moving  the  garbage  when  once  in  the  digester." 

Pipes  from  the  top  of  the  digesters  carry  the  vapors  through 
condensers  and  thence  to  the  fire-box  of  the  boilers.  From  the 
digesters  a  bucket  conveyor  delivers  the  garbage,  of  the  con- 
sistency of  soup,  to  the  hydraulic  presses,  the  grease  and  water 
falling  into  flotation  troughs  or  basins,  and  separation  is  made  in 
the  usual  way,  by  skimming.  What  disposition  is  made  of  the 
water  is  not  known.  The  tankage  is  dried  in  a  rotary  dryer, 
afterward  ground  and  sold  for  fertilizer  base.  The  quantity 
treated  daily  averages  about  twenty-five  tons. 

Mr.  Fischer  states  that  there  was  very  little  profit  in  the  opera- 
tion of  the  reduction  plant,  but  that  it  paid  the  expense  of  a 
satisfactory  disposal.  Any  profit  to  the  company  comes  from 
the  collection  contract. 

The  construction  of  .the  works  and  methods  of  operating  fol- 
low those  of  the  Reading  reduction  plant  where  the  contract 
for  disposal  is  held  by  the  Reading  Sanitary  Reduction  Com- 
pany controlled  by  Mr.  Fischer.. 

The  apparatus  and  means  employed  are  of  the  usual  types  of 
other  reduction  plants,  using  steam  only  for  reducing  the  garbage. 
There  may  be  some  special  method  of  introducing  the  steam 
into  the  digesters,  or  of  regulating  the  pressure  and  observing 
the  progress  of  the  work,  but  these  seem  to  be  the  only  points 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  391 

of  difference  from  others.     No  reports  of  quantities,  values  of 
product  of  grease,  or  tankage  could  be  obtained. 

PENN  REDUCTION  COMPANY:  "BEASTON  PROCESS." 

Extracts  from  special  report  of  E.  A.  Fisher.,  City  Engineer  of 
Rochester,  N.  Y.,  1906: 

This  city  made  no  regular  collection  of  garbage  until  1879. 
Prior  to  that  time,  it  was  taken  by  the  farmers  from  a  few 
small  city  districts  and  carried  into  the  country  in  open  wagons. 
Most  of  the  waste  was  dumped  upon  vacant  lots,  or  an  attempt 
made  to  burn  it  in  the  open  air. 

In  1880,  the  City  Council  passed  resolutions  calling  upon  the 
Executive  Board  to  remove  garbage  from  the  public  lanes  and 
alleys.  This  continued  until  May,  1881,  when  the  supervision 
was  transferred  to  the  Board  of  Health,  and  it  was  collected 
by  day  labor  by  hired  teams.  In  1895  the  Rochester  Fertilizer 
and  Reduction  Company  secured  a  contract  to  collect  and  dis- 
pose of  all  garbage,  night-soil,  dead  animals,  etc.,  at  a  cost  of 
$28,970  per  year  for  the  first  year,  and  additional  amounts  of 
$940  per  annum  for  five  years  following  1894,  and  thereafter, 
beginning  with  1900,  at  the  rate  of  19  cents  per  capita  for  the 
increase  in  the  population  of  the  city  according  to  the  City 
Directory. 

The  location  of  the  plant  was,  after  many  objections  to  other 
sites,  fixed  at  Waynesport,  a  considerable  distance  to  the  east 
of  the  city,  the  garbage  being  transported  on  the  New  York 
Central  Railroad  lines.  In  1896,  the  Health  Department  re- 
ported the  cost  at  $29,910  per  year,  and  that  neither  collection 
nor  disposal  had  been  satisfactorily  carried  out  by  the  company. 

The  power  of  the  Board  of  Health  to  make  this  contract 
having  been  questioned,  the  Council,  in  1899,  made  a  private 
contract  for  the  sum  of  $2,000  per  month,  which  continued  until 
1900,  when,  under  the  new  charter  of  the  city,  the  work  came 
under  the  charge  of  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Works.  Bids 
were  called  for  a  new  contract  let  for  seven  months  of  1900  for 
$12,000.  Thereafter  yearly  contracts  were  let  up  to  1906. 

The  garbage  receptacles  at  the  houses  were  of  iron,  of  a 
capacity  of  one  gallon  for  each  individual  in  the  building.  The 
wagons  were  of  wood  covered  with  canvas. 


392  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


The  records  for  1902  show  that  nearly  all  of  this  garbage  was 
taken  to  farms  outside  the  city  lines,  a  part  dumped  into  a 
trench  and  composted  with  horse  manure. 

TABLE  LXVII.— QUANTITIES  AND  COSTS  COLLECTION  AND    DISPOSAL 
GARBAGE,   ROCHESTER,    FIVE   YEARS. 


QUANTITIES 

COSTS 

Year 

Popu- 
lation 

Tone 

Lbs  pr  Capita 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 
Year 

Per 
Day 

Year 

Day 

Year 

$ 

Ton 

$ 

Cap- 
ita 
Cts. 

1901 

165,000 

16,380 

52.5 

199 

o  64 

27,856 

.70 

17.0 

1902 

168,000 

17.346 

55-5 

206 

o  66 

26,300 

•38 

!5-4 

1903 

17  1,000 

19,026 

61  .0 

223 

0.71 

27,322 

-57 

16.3 

1904 

17  5,000 

22.964 

73-6 

262 

0.84 

39,98i 

•74 

22.8 

i9°5 

181,670 

21,800 

70  .0 

240 

0.77 

35,6i5 

-63 

19  .6 

The  average  for  1906  at  above  figures  would  be  about  83  tons 
per  day. 

The  ashes  and  rubbish  of   Rochester  collected  together   for 
the  period  of  six  years-  are  thus  tabulated: 

TABLE    LXVIII.— QUANTITIES    AND    COST    OF    COLLECTION    AND    DIS- 
POSAL  ASHES    FOR    SIX    YEARS. 


Total 

Quan- 

Quan- 

Cost 

Cost 

Esti- 

Cost 

tity 

tity 

Per 

Per 

Year 

Popu- 
lation 

Cubic 
Yards 

mated 
Weight 

Coll't'n 
and  Dis- 

Per 

1,000 

of 
Popu- 

Cu. 
Yard 

Cap- 
ita 

Tons 

posal 

lation 

$ 

Yards 

Tons 

$ 

$ 

1900 

162,000 

206,208 

94,959 

76,421 

,268 

584 

o-37 

0.47 

1901 

165,000 

216,844 

99,657 

77,664 

,3!4 

605 

o-35 

0.47 

1902 

168,000 

216,912 

99,888 

75-948 

,291 

595 

0-35 

o-45 

1903 

171,000 

219,736 

101,188 

76,670 

,285 

590 

o-35 

0.47 

1904 

175,000 

324,000 

108,125 

93,687 

,342 

618 

o-39 

0-53 

1905 

181,670 

253,000 

116,576 

97,208 

,391 

642 

0.38 

o-53 

Estimated  weight  per  cubic  yard  ashes,  1,600;  of  rubbish,  200 
pounds.  Average  per  cubic  yard  of  ashes  and  rubbish  in  fore- 
going table — 921  pounds.  Estimated  total  amount  of  rubbish 
separated,  at  125,000  cubic  yards  or  12,500  tons  per  annum. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  393 

The  recommendations  made  by  Mr.  Fisher  were  briefly: 

1.  Advertisements  for  proposals  for  collection  and  disposal 
of  garbage  for  five  years;  wagons  to  be  of  approved  pattern; 
collections  daily  in  central  part  of  city — remainder,  three  times 
weekly. 

2.  Contractor  to  satisfy  Board  he  has  sufficient  area  of  land 
outside  city  to  bury  garbage  temporarily  in  case  of  breakdown 
of  disposal  plant. 

3.  That  the  contractor  shall  satisfy  Board  that  the  methods 
he  intends  to  use  are  in  successful  operation  in  some  city  of 
considerable  size,  and  that  the  plant  has  a  capacity  sufficient  to 
take  care  of  maximum  amount  that  may  probably  be  collected 
during  term  of  contract. 

4.  Separation  of  ashes  and  refuse  and  construction  of  plants 
for  burning  unsalable  parts  of  rubbish. 

The  recommendations  of  Mr.  Fisher  were  adopted,  and  the 
work  was  advertised  in  1906.  The  proposal  of  the  Genesee 
Reduction  Company  was  accepted  for  a  term  of  years,  from 
January  i,  1907,  at  a  yearly  rate  of  $59,770. 

The  estimated  amount  of  83  tons  daily  for  1906  was  exceeded 
in  the  first  year's  work  of  the  plant,  the  quantity  being  about 
1 8  per  cent,  more,  or  30,661  tons.  This  disposal  is  made  at  the 
rate  of  36.1  cents  per  capita  per  annum  and  at  a  cost  of  $1.95 
per  ton. 

The  location  of  the  works  of  the  reduction  company  is  on 
the  west  bank  of  the  Genesee  River,  between  the  upper  and 
lower  falls.  This  location  is  within  less  than  one  mile  of  the 
business  center  of  the  city.  The  narrow  shelf  of  the  river  bank 
at  this  point,  on  which  the  works  are  placed,  is  about  150  feet 
below  the  level  of  the  city  streets,  immediately  adjoining.  The 
river  cuts  through  a  canyon  below  the  falls,  with  high  banks. 
At  the  bottom  of  this  canyon,  on  the  east  bank,  are  the  works. 
It  is  a  critical  location  with  respect  to  possible  nuisance  from 
odors  from  the  chimney  or  the  entire  plant. 

The  reduction  plant  has  been  in  operation  since  June  5,  1907. 
At  first  there  were  numerous  complaints,  based  very  largely  upon 
prejudice  against  the  name  "garbage  plant."  These  complaints 
have  almost  entirely  ceased,  and  up  to  the  present  time  the  plant 
has  been  operated  without  serious  offense.  (Paper  of  Mr.  Fisher 


394  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

in  Proceedings  of  American  Society  Civil  Engineers,  December, 

19070 
The  author  made  an  inspection  of  the  plant  in  the  summer  of 

1906  just  before  it  went  into  service.  The  ground  is  admirably 
suited  to  the  delivery  of  the  garbage,  the  conveyor  for  the  diges- 
ters being  but  a  short  distance,  and  all  the  work  being  accom- 
plished by  the  aid  of  gravity,  no  lifting  or  pumping  being  needed. 

The  process  is  said  by  Mr.  Fisher  to  be  a  modification  of  the 
Arnold,  and  is  called  the  "Beaston  Process."  Exactly  wherein 
the  difference  lies  a  casual  survey  did  not  reveal.  There  is  the 
usual  system  of  digesters  from  which  the  macerated  garbage  is 
delivered  into  the  hydraulic  presses  and  the  same  system  of 
gutters  and  skimming  basins  for  the  grease  recovery.  There 
was  no  solvent  used,  the  whole  process  being  like  the  Arnold, 
one  of  treatment  by  steam  and  the  recovery  of  the  grease  by 
pressure,  with  an  improved  means  for  drying  out  the  tankage. 
No  accurate  information  concerning  the  "Beaston  Process"  can 
be  obtained,  and  there  are  no  reports  as  to  the  quantities  and 
value  of  the  grease  and  tankage. 

The  city  engineer  recommends  that  there  be  a  refuse  disposal 
plant  placed  near  this  reduction  plant,  at  which  the  city  rubbish 
may  be  destroyed,  and  that  the  ashes  be  used  for  filling  ravines, 
old  quarries,  etc. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

THE  EDSON  PROCESS — THE  MUNICIPAL  REDUCTION  PLANT  AT 
CLEVELAND — ARGUMENTS  IN  FAVOR  OF  REDUCTION  METHODS. 

The  city  of  Dayton,  Ohio,  had,  in  1896,  a  Dixon  crematory  in 
use — capacity,  80  tons  per  day.  This  was  destroyed  by  fire  in 
1898  and  not  rebuilt.  In  October,  1903,  the  city  received  pro- 
posals from  the  Edson  Development  and  Machinery  Company, 
of  Toledo,  by  which  this  company  agreed  to  receive  the  garbage, 
dead  animals  and  night-soil,  at  a  point  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
city  and  to  dispose  of  this  free  of  expense  to  the  city. 

This  proposal  was  one  of  several  made  at  different  places  by 
the  Toledo  Development  Company,  the  representatives  of  the 
owners  of  the  Edson  process,  by  which  it  was  claimed  that  the 
returns  from  the  products  were  so  lucrative  that  the  company 
could  afford  to  take  the  garbage  free  of  cost.  After  a  long 
delay  to  perfect  their  organization  and  erect  their  plant,  the 
company  proceeded  with  the  contract.  Difficulties  were  encoun- 
tered from  the  outset,  because  of  imperfect  separation  of  the 
garbage,  and  irregular  delivery  at  the  point  where  the  company 
received  the  garbage. 

There  has  been  considerable  trouble  with  its  operation  because 
of  the  excessive  amount  of  naphtha  required  as  compared  with 
the  estimated  amount  on  which  the  original  calculations  were 
made.  There  were  many  complaints  from  nearby  residents  of 
noxious  odors,  and  charges  were  made  that  the  location  chosen 
was  not  the  one  originally  designated  when  the  contract  was 
secured. 

In  1907  a  strong  remonstrance  was  made  by  the  local  im- 
provement association  which  led  to  the  establishment  of  two 
loading  stations  by  the  city,  at  which  the  garbage  is  transferred 
to  the  company's  teams  for  transportation  to  the  reduction 
works,  with  more  attention  to  abatement  of  nuisance. 

The  capacity  of  the  reduction  plant  was  at  first  sixty  tons  per 
day.  No  reports  of  quantities  handled  or  value  of  products  can 

395 


396  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

be  had.     The  present  capacity  of  the  plant  is   100  tons  daily, 
the  cost  of  the  works  being  reported  at  $60,000. 

EDSON  PROCESS,  TOLEDO. 

In  the  summer  of  1903  this  city  received  tenders  for  the  dis- 
posal of  approximately  50  to  60  tons  of  garbage  per  day.  Of 
the  four  proposals  received  that  of  the  Toledo  Development 
Company,  controlling  the  Edson  reduction  process,  was  accepted, 
and  in  July  of  that  year  a  contract  was  signed  with  the  Toledo 
Sanitary  Reduction  Company,  a  local  corporation  formed  for 
this  purpose,  and  working  under  the  patents  of  the  Edson  Re- 
duction Machinery  Company.  The  city  agreed  to  collect  and 
deliver  the  garbage  at  the  plant,  and  the  company  contracted 
"to  do  the  work  of  disposal  by  the  reduction  process,  carried  on 
in  closed  digesters,  dryers  and  percolators  from  which  no  gases, 
vapors  or  odors  shall  escape;  and  that  all  garbage  shall  be  so 
treated  and  all  products  resulting  from  the  same,  before  being 
exposed  to  the  air,  shall  be  made  perfectly  sterile  and  free  from 
offensive  odors." 

The  company  was  to  receive  no  payment  from  the  city,  and 
the  contract  was  for  ten  years. 

Strong  objections  were  made  to  the  proposed  location,  and 
the  final  site  fixed  upon  was  at  Green  Street  on  Swan  Creek, 
where  the  plant  was  constructed  in  1904.  In  1906  it  was  found 
that  the  quantity  of  garbage  was  lessening,  owing  to  the  fact 
that  the  proprietors  of  hotels,  and  others,  delivered  it  to  farmers 
for  the  feeding  of  stock.  The  question  of  the  rights  of  the 
city  over  the  collection  and  removal  of  garbage  was  taken  to 
the  courts,  and  it  was  decided  that  as  the  city  made  its  own 
collections,  under  its  own  regulations,  it  had  power  to  restrain 
others  from  collecting  garbage  inside  the  corporate  boundaries. 

On  this  question  the  decision  of  the  U.  S.  Supreme  Court 
(199  U.  S.,  306,  and  199  U.  S.,  325)  affirms  that  household 
garbage  is  not  private  property  which  can  be  disposed  of  by 
the  producers  in  a  manner  contrary  to  the  requirements  of  city 
ordinances  or  the  rules  of  a  Board  of  Health. 

A  later  decision  in  an  Ohio  Court  is  thus  reported  in  a  local 
newspaper,  under  date  of  March  31,  1908; 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  397 

Refuse  Disposal  is  in  Power  of  City:  Judge  Brown  rendered  the  fol- 
lowing decision  Saturday  morning: 

In  the  case  of  the  Dayton  Reduction  Company  vs.  the  City  of  Dayton, 
demurrer  to  petition  overruled  in  all  respects,  and  defendant  ruled  to 
answer,  the  court  holding  that  the  city  has  the  right  of  ownership  in 
all  garbage,  dead  animals  and  night-soil  within  the  city,  and  has  full 
authority  to  compel  the  collection  and  disposal  of  such  unsanitary  mate- 
rials under  the  statute,  and  under  the  general  police  powers  of  the  city. 

In  January,  1906,  the  company  offered  to  take  the  garbage 
of  the  city  of  Detroit,  about  100  tons  daily,  and  haul  it  sixty 
miles  to  the  Toledo  plant  for  treatment.  This  offer  was,  how- 
ever, declined.  In  October,  1906,  the  company  was  in  financial 
straits,  and  the  business  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver. 
The  capital  of  the  company  was  stated  to  be  $200,000,  but  only 
$50,000  was  paid  in  cash.  Sixty  thousand  dollars  of  bonus 
stock  was  issued,  and  the  indebtedness  was  about  $75,000,  the 
bonded  debt  being  $100,000. 

In  March,  1907,  complaints  of  nuisance  were  made,  which 
were  justified,  as  admitted  by  the  company's  attorneys.  In 
May  the  City  Solicitor  alleged  that  "the  company  knew  that 
the  system  which  it  had  installed  would  not  do  the  work  as 
promised,  and  that  the  plant  has  not  sufficient  capacity,  and  that 
the  conditions  were  decreasing  the  value  of  surrounding  prop- 
erty and  endangering  the  health  of  the  residents." 

On  July  13,  1907,  the  plant  was  closed  by  order  of  the  court, 
the  entry  in  the  case  also  including  the  statement  of  the  receiver 
showing  that  the  plant  was  operated  at  a  loss. 

At  this  time  the  city  is  investigating  the  various  methods 
of  disposal  of  all  classes  of  municipal  waste  by  incineration. 

MUNICIPAL  REDUCTION  PLANT,  CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

Combined  Chamberlain  and  Edson  Reduction  Processes. — 
Prior  to  1905  the  garbage  of  Cleveland  was  collected  and  re- 
moved under  private  contract  with  the  Newburgh  Reduction 
Company,  at  an  annual  cost  of  $69,400  per  year.  The  disposal 
was  made  by  the  reduction  methods  of  the  Chamberlain  process 
at  a  point  outside  the  city  limits.  This  service  was  not  free 
from  complaints,  and  as  most  of  the  transportation  was  by 
wagons,  was  slow  and  expensive. 


398  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

On  January  i,  1905,  the  city  purchased  from  the  Newburgh 
company  the  reduction  works  and  collection  equipment,  at  a 
cost  of  $87,500.  At  that  time  the  works  had  a  capacity  of  100 
tons  per  day  by  the  Chamberlain  or  "Liquid  Separation  Sys- 
tem," employing  fourteen  digesters  and  a  corresponding  num- 
ber of  hydraulic  presses,  settling  tanks  and  steam- jacketed 
dryers. 

Upon  acquiring  the  property,  the  city  installed  an  Edson 
reduction  equipment,  adding  three  units,  each  of  two  digesters 
and  one  dryer,  and  increasing  the  capacity  of  the  plant  to  240 
tons  per  day.  The  work  of  the  first  year  (1906)  was  delayed 
somewhat  by  a  small  fire  in  the  dryer  building,  also  by  delay 
of  constructors  in  furnishing  machinery  not  up  to  the  standard 
of  contract. 

For  the  collection  service  is  used  a  wagon  of  special  design, 
holding  about  3,500  Ibs.  The  wagon  body  is  hinged  to  the 
bolster  and  is  dumped  by  hoisting  chains  attached  to  the  front 
of  the  body  that  raise  it  to  permit  the  garbage  to  fall  out  at 
the  rear  end.  The  purpose  of  this  is  to  keep  the  load  as  much 
as  possible  on  the  front  of  the  wagon  for  easier  hauling  by 
one  horse.  The  wagons  have  canvas  covers,  to  prevent  noise 
usually  made  by  iron  covers. 

The  garbage  is  received  in  special  steel  cars,  made  with  semi- 
circular bottoms,  thirty  feet  long,  supported  on  trunnions  at 
three  points.  The  capacity  of  these  cars  is  about  forty  tons,  and 
ten  are  required  for  the  service. 

To  unload  the  cars  at  the  works,  cables  are  passed  beneath  the 
body  and,  by  means  of  hoisting  blocks,  the  car  body  is  tippe:!, 
unloading  the  garbage  onto  the  concrete  floor  of  the  reduction 
works.  Although  the  capacity  of  these  is  forty  tons,  but  two 
men  are  required  to  tip  them. 

The  loading  station  for  the  cars  and  stables  for  city  teams 
are  on  Canal  Road,  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  from  the 
City  Hall.  The  reduction  plant  is  at  Willow,  Ohio,  outside  the 
city  limits,  about  nine  miles  from  the  loading  station.  The  cars 
are  carried  over  the  tracks  of  the  N.  Y.,  P.  &  O.  R.  R.  to  the 
works. 

The  arrangement  of  the  buildings  is  quite  different  from  the 
usual  design  where  the  several  steps  of  the  work  are  done  in 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  399 

the  same  or  closely  connected  buildings.     Here  they  are  separ- 
ated, each  process  having  its  own  building. 

From  a  description  of  the  works,  contained  in  a  paper  by 
Hon.  W.  J.  Springborn,  President  of  a  Board  of  Public  Service, 
Cleveland,  the  following  excerpt  is  made: 

The  arrangement  of  the  buildings,  tracks  and  so  forth,  at  the  works 
is  shown  in  an  accompanying  illustration.  The  railroad  cars  are 
run  into  a  receiving  building,  where  the  garbage  is  dumped  on  a  con- 
crete floor.  From  this  floor  the  garbage  is  shoveled  into  two  conveyors, 
with  6  x  18  x  24-in.  flights,  which  deliver  it  to  the  top  floor  of  a  digester 
building.  These  conveyors,  which  were  installed  by  the  Jeffrey  Mfg.  Co., 
of  Columbus,  Ohio,  and  all  other  machines  are  driven  by  separate  motors, 
thus  avoiding  the  use  of  main  line  shafts  and  belts.  A  25o-h.-p.  Monarch 
Corliss  engine,  direct-connected  to  a  Triumph  generator,  furnishes  power 
to  operate  the  works.  Steam  is  supplied  from  a  boiler  plant  containing 
five  8o-h.-p.  and  two  iso-h.-p.  return  tubular  boilers. 

The  conveyors  pass  through  the  digester  building  in  a  horizontal  posi- 
tion and  drop  the  garbage  through  tubes  directly  into  the  digesters  or 
tanks,  where  the  same  is  cooked.  Twenty-four  digesters,  each  having 
a  capacity  of  10  tons  per  day,  making  the  total  daily  capacity  of  the  plant 
240  tons,  are  installed.  The  digesters  are  14  ft.  high  and  54  in.  in  diameter. 
When  the  digesters  are  filled,  steam  is  turned  into  the  material  at  a  poinc 
near  the  bottom  of  the  tank  and  the  garbage  allowed  to  cook  from 
six  to  seven  hours,  70  Ib.  steam  pressure  being  used.  When  the  cooking 
process  is  completed,  the  steam  is  shut  off  at  the  bottom  of  the  tank  and 
turned  in  at  the  top,  the  pressure  thus  produced  driving  off  the  free  water 
and  some  of  the  grease  through  a  draw-off  pipe  at  the  bottom.  In  order 
to  prevent  the  material  from  passing  out  with  the  water,  a  strainer  and 
strainer-plate  are  used.  This  mixture  of  water  and  grease  is  pumped 
into  settling  vats  and  allowed  to  cool,  after  which  the  grease  is  skimmed 
off  the  top.  The  solids  remaining  in  the  digester  are  removed  through 
an  opening  in  the  side  of  the  tank  about  12  in.  from  the  bottom  and 
deposited  in  a  small  car,  which  is  equipped  with  a  worm  conveyor,  auto- 
matically unloading  it  into  a  drag  conveyor  that  takes  the  material  to 
the  dryers.  It  is  first  put  into  a  steam-jacketed  dryer  14  ft.  long  and 
5  ft.  in  diameter.  This  dryer  has  a  shaft  through  its  center  with  paddles 
attached.  As  the  shaft  rotates  the  paddles  lift  the  material,  breaking 
it  up  and  at  the  same  time  evaporating  some  of  the  moisture.  This  type 
of  dryer  is  equipped  with  two  manholes  underneath  it,  through  which 
the  material  is  dropped  into  still  another  conveyor  and  conveyed  to  a 
combination  steam  and  hot  air  rotary  dryer,  which  was  designed  by 
Mr.  E.  S.  Peck,  Superintendent  of  the  plant.  The  cylinder  of  this  dryer 
is  30  ft.  long,  57  in.  in  diameter,  with  a  2-in.  space  between  the  inner 
and  outer  shell  for  the  admission  of  steam.  There  is  also  a  14-in.  steam 
pipe  running  through  its  center.  To  the  sides  of  the  inner  shell  are 


400  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

attached  flights,  4  in.  in  width,  which  lift  the  material  as  the  dryer  ro- 
tates. 

The  dryer  is  set  on  a  grade  of  a  /^-in.  per  foot,  and  the  tankage  (as 
the  material  is  called)  is  fed  in  at  the  upper  end  and  discharged  at  the 
lower,  the  process  being  a  continuous  one.  At  the  lower  end  of  the 
dryer  is  a  series  of  steam  coils  with  an  attached  blower,  which  forces 
the  air  around  these  coils,  heating  it  to  about  230°  F.  This  dry  air 
then  passes  through  the  dryer,  absorbing  the  moisture  from  the  tankage 
as  it  falls  from  the  flights  referred  to. 

About  50  ft.  distant  from  the  dryer  building  is  located  the  percolator 
building,  to  which  the  material  is  next  conveyed,  and  where  the  grease 
is  extracted  by  the  use  of  naphtha.  In  the  upper  part  of  this  building 
there  are  three  bins  for  the  storage  of  tankage.  Under  each  of  these 
bins  is  a  tank  8  ft.  high  and  6  ft.  in  diameter,  which  is  called  a  per- 
colator. The  material  is  put  in  through  an  opening  in  the  top.  When 
filled,  the  percolator  is  sealed  and  naphtha  or  gasoline  is  pumped  in  at 
the  top  and  allowed  to  percolate  through  the  material,  being  drawn  off  at 
the  bottom  and  carrying  with  it  the  grease.  The  grease  and  naphtha  flow 
to  a  treating  tank  in  which  there  are  steam  pipes,  where  it  is  heated 
sufficiently  to  vaporize  the  naphtha  and  leave  the  grease  in  the  tank.  The 
vaporized  naphtha  passes  through  a  condenser,  restoring  it  to  its  liquid 
form,  and  from  which  it  is  again  pumped  into  the  percolator.  After  all 
of  the  grease  has  been  extracted  from  the  material  left  in  the  percolator, 
the  flow  of  naphtha  is  turned 'off,  and  in  order  to  recover  such  of  the 
naphtha  still  remaining  in  this  material,  steam  is  injected  into  the  tankage, 
vaporizing  and  driving  off  the  naphtha.  This  mixture  of  steam  and 
naphtha  vapor  also  goes  to  the  condenser  and  thence  to  the  storage  tank. 
The  water  produced  by  the  condensation  of  the  steam  is  drawn  off  from 
the  bottom  of  the  storage  tank. 

To  reduce  the  condensation  of  steam  to  a  minimum,  it  is  first  admitted 
into  the  tank  at  a  point  near  the  top  of  the  percolator.  When  the  mate- 
rial about  this  point  has  been  heated  and  the  naphtha  vaporized,  steam  is 
turned  in  at  about  the  middle  of  the  tank,  and  afterward  at  the  bottom, 
repeating  the  process  until  all  the  naphtha  has  been  vaporized.  The  loss 
of  naphtha  bv  this  system  is  about  25^  gal.  to  the  ton  of  dry  tankage. 
The  openings  in  the  percolator,  through  which  the  grease  and  naphtha 
escape,  are  covered  with  perforated  plates  and  pipes  designed  to  prevent 
carrying  the  tankage  through  same.  The  material  is  removed  both  from 
the  side  and  the  bottom  of  the  percolator,  placed  in  a  conveyor,  and  sent 
toa- small  building  about  20  ft.  distant,  in  which  it  passes  through  .1 
hexagonal  revolving  screen,  taking  out  rags,  tin,  pieces  of  crockery,  glass, 
and  so  forth.  From  here  the  finished  product  is  conveyed  to  the  storag  - 
house  and  there  loaded  upon  cars  for  shipment. 

The  taking  out  of  the  material  from  the  above  type  of  percolator  and 
replacing  the  small  perforated  plates  and  pipes  through  which  the  grease 
escapes,  involves  considerable  time  and  labor.  Mr.  Peck  has  invented  a 
new  type  of  percolator,  which  Mr.  Springborn  believes  will  overcome 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  401 

these  objections,  and  at  the  same  time  greatly  reduce  the  loss  of  naphtha 
and  leave  the  material  much  dryer.  This  percolator  is  similar  in  design 
to  the  dryer  designed  by  Mr.  Peck,  except  that  it  is  but  14  feet  in  length 
and  8  feet  in  diameter.  It  is  placed  in  a  horizontal  position,  has  a  steam 
jacket,  and  is  constructed  to  rotate  in  the  same  manner  as  the  dryer. 
The  material  is  put  into  this  percolator  through  two  manholes  in  its  upper 
side.  The  pipes  for  the  admission  of  gasoline  are  also  connected  through 
the  covers  in  these  manholes.  The  grease  and  naphtha  escape  through 
three  openings  in  the  lower  part  of  the  tank,  and  in  order  to  hasten  the 
process. of  percolation  the  pipes  can  readily  be  disconnected  and  the  per- 
colator rotated  so  as  to  mix  thoroughly  the  entire  mass  of  material  with 
the  naphtha  or  solvent  used. 

In  order  to  recover  the  naphtha  after  the  grease  has  been  extracted, 
steam  is  turned  into  the  drum  and  jacket  and  the  percolator  made  to 
revolve,  thus  while  heating  the  material,  also  moving  the  same  sufficiently 
to  release  quickly  all  of  the  solvent  contained  in  the  tankage.  By  this 
method  no  moisture  is  added  to  the  material  nor  steam  mixed  with  the 
vapors,  which  go  to  the  condenser  and  thence  to  the  storage  tank.  By 
the  use  of  this  type  of  percolator,  it  is  thought  the  loss  of  naphtha  will 
not  exceed  the  one  gallon  per  ton  of  material  treated. 

The  naphtha  storage  building  is  constructed  of  concrete,  the  tanks 
being  placed  below  the  ground  level,  with  only  the  roof  of  the  building 
projecting  above  the  surface. 

In  the  old  process  formerly  used,  the  grease  was  extracted  by  means 
of  hydraulic  presses,  the  tankage  being  placed  between  burlap  on  racks 
in  layers  of  3  inches  thick  and  5  feet  square.  The  cylinder  of  the  presses 
was  14  inches  in  diameter,  and  subjected  to  a  pressure  of  3,500  pounds 
to  the  square  inch.  By  this  means  the  liquids  were  squeezed  out  of  the 
material,  carrying  the  grease  with  same  to  a  vat,  where,  after  cooling  and 
settling,  the  grease  was  skimmed  off.  The  tankage  produced  by  this 
method  is  not  as  desirable  to  the  trade  as  that  which  is  being  made  from 
the  new  process.  There  is  about  12  per  cent,  of  grease  left  in  the  pressed 
tankage,  whereas  in  the  other  there  is  only  about  2  per  cent.  The  grease 
being  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  product,  makes  it  desirable  to  recover 
as  large  a  percentage  as  possible. 

TABLE     LXIX.— COMBINED     INCOME    AND     EXPENSE    STATEMENT, 

CLEVELAND  REDUCTION   PLANT,   FOR  SIX  MONTHS  ENDING 

JUNE  30  AND  DECEMBER  31,  1907. 

GROSS  INCOME 

6  Months  6  Months  12  Months 

June  30,  '07  Dec.  31,  '07  Total 

From  sale  of  product $60,514.61  $55,809.85  $116,324.46 

From  inventory  of  product 6,473.75  5»5°4-92  **,97&  67 

From  sale  of  raw  material 237.50  241.55  479.05 

From  rents 46.00  54  .  5 1  i oo .  5 1 

From  miscellaneous  income: 

Collection  Department 318.95  29.00  347 .95 

$67,590.81      $61,639.83      $129,230.64 


402  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

TABLE   LXIX.  — (Continued.) 

EXPENSES 
AT  WILLOW  OHIO  (DISPOSAL  PLANT)  : 

Labor  at  plant $20,612.72      $23,572.55        $44,185.27 

Coal  at  plant 9,050.57  7,319.18  16,369.75 

Superintendence  and  clerk 

hire 1,721.70  i, 775-04  3,496.74 

Repairs    and    renewals    to 


Press  cloth 

O>OV"  •  ~J 
I    2  6?     6  ^ 

I   80"?    4  1 

»»o»|  "  •  o  J 

3  i  6  i    06 

Press  racks 

427   48 

c^8  02 

06  ?    <o 

Insurance 

124  .  so 

62  .  ^  s 

186   85 

Office  supplies  .  .          

104  .47 

281  .96 

786  4-? 

Oil,  waste,  telephone,  water, 
etc  
Taxes  

3,488.29 
103  .40 

1,843  -60 
265  .00 

5,33i-89 
4  <o  .  30 

Commission,  analysis,  weigh- 
ing cars   etc  , 

32  Z  .  QI 

145  .66 

47  1     ^7 

Freight  on  product,  purchase 
dead  animals,   etc  

795-70 

1,407  .28 

2,202  .98 

$43,508.42     $41,785.25      $85,293.67 

AT  CANAL  STREET  (COLLECTION  PLANT)  : 

Labor,  teamsters,  etc   $25,180.77  $28,919.47        $54.100.24 

Feed 7,896.94  8,743.04          16,639.98 

Freight  on  garbage 2,837.77  2,986.03             5,823.80 

Superintendents  and  clerk 

hire 1,290.00  1,140.00            2,430.00 

Shoeing 1,480.65  1,651.85            3.132.50 

Repairs     and     renewals     t  o 

freight  cars,  wagons,  etc.  2,441.40  3,129.35             5«57°-75 

Repairs  to  harness 490.51  698.55             1,189.06 

All  other  sundry  expenses  not 

itemized  above: 

Supplies  for  barn,  light, 

etc 1,673.95  1,546.07             3,220.02 

Insurance 224 .94              301 . 18      526  . 12 

EXTRAORDINARY  EXPENSES.  $43, 516.93  $49,"  5- 54  $92,632.47 

Auditing $150.00  $150.00  $300.00 

Losses  on  horses,  cars,  etc ...  400.00  276.00  676.00 

Losses  on  bad  accounts 2 1  .  oo  21.00 

Depreciation  on  machinery, 

plant  and  equipment  at 

Willow,  O.,  at  10%  per 

year :..-....  4,072.11  5,829.69  9,901.80 

Depreciation  on  wagons, 

horses,  stable  and  other 

equipment  at  Canal  St., 

at  10%  per  year 2,105.43  2,694. 10          4.79Q-  53 

TOTAL  EXPENSES:                             $6,727.54  $8,970.79  $15,698.33 

At  Willow,  O $43,508.42  $41,785.25  $85.293.67 

At  Canal  Street .    43,516.93  49,115.54  92,632.47 

Extraordinary  and  deprecia- 
tion          6,727 . 54  8,970.79  15,698.33 

$93,752.89  $99,871.58  $193,624.47 

Total  income   67,590.81  61.639.83  129,230   64 

Net  operating  expense.  .  $26,162  .08  $38,231.75  $64,393.83 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION. 


403 


TABLE   LXX.— SUMMARY  OF  PRODUCT,  SALES  AND  INVENTORY, 
CLEVELAND  REDUCTION  PLANT. 


JANUARY   i,   1907  TO  JULY   i,   1907 

Average  Price 

@  $4-25  cwt. 

@     7-85  ton 

@     2  .47  ton 

181  Ibs.  hair '. @         .20  Ib. 

115  tails 

220  hides.  . 


Quantity      Article 

1,225,290  Ibs.  grease 

2,756,281  Ibs.  dry  tankage.. 
2,439,010  Ibs.  pressed  tankage, 
h 


.30  each 
4.65  each 


Total  first  six  months,  1907. 


Amount 

$52,068.44 

10,816 . 14 

3,011  .61 

36.20 

34-50 

I,O2I  .47 
$66,988.36 


JULY   i,   1907,  TO  JANUARY  i,   1908 


Quantity          Article 
i  140  080  Ibs   grease 

Average  Price          Amount 
.  .  .  @  $4  .  2  98     cwt      $49  042    40 

836,406  Ibs.  dry  tankage  
6,353,518  Ibs.  pressed  tankage  
342  Ibs   hair 

@     6.888     ton          2,880.81 
@     2  .50    ton            7,943.25 
@        .  1442  Ib.                  49  30 

307  hides 

@    4  .496    each        i  380  41 

62  tails                                 

@        .30       each             1  8  60 

Total  last  six  months,  1907..  . 


$61,314.77 


TABLE    LXXI.— COMPARISON     OF    GARBAGE     DELIVERED    AT    CLEVE- 
LAND   REDUCTION    PLANT    AT    WILLOW,    O.,    DURING 
THE  YEARS  1906  AND  1907. 


1907 

Month  Lbs. 

January 6,402,000 

February 5,512,000 

March 6,067 »°°° 

April 6,144,500 

May 6,139,000 

June 5,719,000 

July 5,895,400 

August 6,130,700 

September 7,038,000 

October 7,494,300 

November 6, 1 56,700 

December 6,512,900 


Total 

Average  per  month. 
*  Decrease. 


75,211,500 
6,267,625 


1906 

Increase 

Lbs. 

Lbs. 

4,784,000 

1,618,000 

3,994,000 

1,518,000 

4,520,000 

1,547,000 

4,694,000 

1,450,500 

5,430,000 

709,000 

5,936,000 

*2I7JOOO 

5,464,000 

431,400 

8,024,000 

*I,  893,300 

7,478,000 

*44o,coo 

7,098,000 

396,300 

6,204,000 

47,3CO 

6,1  56,000 

356,900 

69,782,000 

5,429,500 

5,815,167 

452,458 

The  preceding  tables  give  the  figures  of  income  and  expenses 
for  the  year  1907,  the  values  of  products  sold,  the  amounts  of 
garbage  per  year,  and  a  summary  of  the  financial  statements 
for  three  years : 


404  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 


FINANCIAL  STATEMENT,  CLEVELAND  REDUCTION   PLANT. 
TABLE  LXXII.— COST  OF  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  PER  TON. 

Condensed  from  auditors'  reports  for  years  1905-6-7  : 


Year 


1905 
1906 


Amounts 
Tons 


30,382 

34.891 
37,6o5 


Cost 
Collection 


$62,803.78 
74,334.32 
92,632.47 


Per 

Ton 


$2.05 
2.13 
2.46 


Cost 
Disposal 


$54.449.88 
83,383-98 


Per 
Ton 


$i-79 
2-39 

2  .26 


Total 
Cost 
Ton 

$3-85 
4-52 
4.72 


ADDING  EXTRAORDINARY  EXPENSES.  DEPRECIATION,  ETC. 


1905 
1906 
1907 


30,382 
34,891 


65,989.03 
79,232.86 
98,419  .00 


2.17 
2.27 
2.62 


60,690.37 
87  377.00 
95,i95  55 


1.99 
2.50 
2.50 


4 . 16 
4-77 
5-12 


INCOME  FROM  DISPOSAL  PLANT 

1905.  From    sale    of    products,    inventory, 

rents,  etc $65,881 . 14 

Total  operating  expenses $54,449  .38 

Extra  expenses  and  depreciation.    ...         6310.99 

60,760.37 

Net  profit  not  including  interest 

charges $5.120.77 

1906.  From  sale  products,  inventory,  rents, 

etc $106,990.41 

Total  operating  expenses $83,383  .88 

Extra  expenses  and  depreciation.    .  .  .        3,993  -25 

87,377-I3 

Net     profit     not     including     interest 

charges $19,613.28 

1907.  From  sale  products,  inventory,  rents, 

etc $129,230.64 

Total  operating  expenses $85,293  .67 

Extra  expenses  and  depreciation 9,901  -80 

95,195-47 

Net  profit     not     including     interest 

charges $34,03  5.17 

Assume  value  of  plant  in  1905  at  $70,495.37.  The  returns 
are  approximately  7.2  per  cent,  on  investment. 

For  1906,  at  a  valuation  of  $146,297.18,  the  returns  are  14 
per  cent,  on  value  of  investment. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  405 

For  1907,  returns  on  total  investment  at  valuation  of  $222,- 
726.92  is  15  per  cent.,  and  on  disposal  plant  alone,  $173,855.92,  is 
20  per  cent. 

These  details  respecting  the  Cleveland  reduction  plant  are 
given  at  some  length,  as  this  is  the  first  of  the  process  methods 
to  be  operated  by  any  municipality,  and  now,  for  the  first  time, 
after  twenty  years  of  work  by  reduction  means,  we  are  fully 
informed  as  to  the  costs  of  the  work  and  the  value  of  the 
products. 

These  results  have  been  obtained  after  persistent  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  President  of  Board  of  Public  Service,  Mr.  W.  J. 
Springborn,  backed  by  a  public-spirited  Mayor  and  City  Council. 

The  record  stands  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  operation  of 
many  private  plants  where  the  work  is  done  for  a  large  bonus 
paid  by  the  city,  together  with  a  still  larger  revenue  derived 
from  the  sale  of  the  manufactured  waste. 

THE  AMERICAN  EXTRACTOR  COMPANY  PROCESS,  NEW  BED- 
FORD, MASS. 

For  some  years  after  the  closing  of  the  Holthaus  reduction 
plant  at  New  Bedford,  the  waste  of  New  Bedford  was  treated 
by  the  usual  means  of  dumping  and  feeding  to  swine. 

In  1904,  a  new  contract  was  made  by  the  city  with  the  New 
Bedford  Extractor  Company,  a  local  corporation  working  under 
license  from  the  American  Extractor  Company,  of  Providence, 
owners  of  the  Wheelwright  hot  water  reduction  process,  a  new 
form  for  treatment  of  garbage  by  reduction. 

This  contract  was  for  a  term  of  five  years,  at  the  rate  of 
$25,000  per  year,  and  included  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the 
garbage  and  dead  animals.  The  collections  were  made  by  a 
sub-contractor,  in  metal  wagons  holding  about  two  cubic  yards 
each.  They  are  weekly  from  May  to  November  and  bi-weekly 
for  the  remainder  of  the  year.  Each  wagon  makes  two  trips 
a  day. 

The  works  of  the  New  Bedford  Extractor  Company  are 
located  on  the  same  ground  as  the  abandoned  Holthaus  plant, 
three  miles  from  the  city  center.  There  are  three  separate 
buildings — the  garbage  house,  the  extractor  house  and  the  boiler 
house,  together  occupying  about  250  x  100  square  feet  of  ground. 


406  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  garbage  house  is  a  brick  building  and  contains  four  bays, 
which  allow  four  wagons  to  be  unloaded  at  once,  and  during  this 
time  the  doors  are  kept  closed  to  prevent  escape  of  odors.  The 
wagons  are  discharged  onto  a  grating,  through  which  the  liquids 


FIG.  92.— THE  REDUCTION  WORKS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  EXTRACTOR 
COMPANY.  NEW  BEDFORD,  MASS. 

pass  to  a  cistern  below,  the  metals,  rubbish  and  foreign  matters 
are  removed  by  hand. 

The  water  drained  from  the  garbage  is  pumped  to  a  hot- 
water  tank,  from  which  it  is  fed  into  the  digesters  as  needed. 
The  inclined  steel  tube  contains  a  drag  chain  conveyor  which 
elevates  the  garbage  to  the  upper  floor  of  the  main  building.  This 
tube  also  acts  as  an  exhaust  pipe  for  drawing  foul  air  from  both 
floors  of  the  garbage  house.  Conected  with  this,  is  a  second  ex- 
haust pipe  that  withdraws  the  gases  from  the  feed  opening  of 
the  digesters. 

The    garbage    is    delivered    through  the  pipe  and   deposited 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  407 

in  the  digester  at  the  rate  of  from  six  to  ten  tons  per  hour  as 
required,  this  being  precipitated  with  a  small  amount  of  boiling 
water  in  the  bottom  of  the  digester. 

The  main  building  of  the  plant  is  of  brick  and  steel  construc- 
tion, 60  x  80  feet,  and  74  feet  high.  The  stack  is  125  feet  high. 
This  building  contains  the  apparatus  for  the  treatment  of  the 
garbage,  the  first  of  which  in  the  series  of  operations  are  the 
digesters.  There  are  two  of  these,  each  weighing  forty-five 
tons  empty  and  ninety-five  tons  loaded,  and  with  a  capacity  of 
thirty  tons  per  day.  They  are  made  of  cast  gun-metal,  two 
inches  thick,  and  corrugated  on  the  inside  to  prevent  the  stick- 
ing of  the  garbage  to  the  sides.  In  the  bottom  of  each  digester 
are  four  1^2 -inch  steam  nozzles,  through  which  enters  the  steam 
for  cooking  the  garbage. 

When  ready  to  be  loaded  the  digesters  are  partly  filled  with 
hot  water,  and  then  garbage  from  the  conveyor  is  dumped  in 
until  they  are  filled.  During  the  filling  the  steam  jets  are  oper- 
ated just  enough  to  keep  the  water  at  the  boiling  point.  After 
a  digester  is  charged  it  is  sealed  and  the  steam -pressure  grad- 
ually raised  to  twenty-five  pounds,  at  which  it  is  held  for  a 
period  of  two  and  one-half  hours.  The  garbage  is  cooked  under 
pressure  for  three  and  one-half  hours  in  summer  and  four  hours 
in  winter. 

After  the  cooking  is  completed  the  steam  jets  are  closed  and 
the  pressure  gradually  lowered.  The  steam  from  the  digester 
is  blown  into  the  hot-water  tank,  where  it  is  condensed  and 
at  the  same  time  heats  the  garbage  water  contained  therein. 
The  use  of  the  garbage  water  for  cooking  saves  the  expense 
of  providing  other  water  and  at  the  same  time  makes  it  possible 
to  extract  the  grease  from  it. 

At  this  point  occurs  an  important  operation  in  the  process, 
called  the  flotation  of  the  grease.  Water  is  pumped  into  the 
bottom  of  the  tank,  and  the  grease,  which  floats  upon  the  sur- 
face, is  removed  by  a  pipe  at  the  top  of  the  digester  to  an  oil 
separator.  The  solids  are  prevented  by  a  grating  from  getting 
into  this  pipe.  After  going  through  the  separator  the  oil  is 
run  into  settling  tanks  in  an  adjacent  building  and  finally  into  a 
storage  tank.  A  3-inch  pipe  runs  from  the  storage  tank  to  a 
railroad  switch  near  by,  where  the  tank  cars  are  loaded.  The 


408  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

oil  is  forced  through  the  pipe  under  fourteen  pounds  air  pres- 
sure, and  27,000  pounds  can  be  loaded  into  a  car  in  one  hour. 

When  the  oil  has  been  completely  removed  the  water  is  drawn 
off,  and  then  the  discharge  pipe  at  the  bottom  of  the  digester 
is  opened  and  the  solid  matter  pases  to  the  extractor.  This  con- 
sists of  a  i6-inch  revolving  worm  inside  of  a  casing,  which  is 
tight  except  for  openings  to  carry  away  the  water  as  it  is  pressed 
out.  The  pressing  is  done  by  means  of  mechanically  operated 
fins,  which  press  into  the  threads  of  the  worm,  forcing  the 
solids  against  the  hub  and  thus  extracting  the  liquor.  This  is 
quite  different  from  the  method  usually  employed  of  pressing 
out  the  liquid  by  means  of  a  hydraulic  press  in  an  open  room, 
whereby  odors  are  occasioned. 

The  water  thus  obtained  is  conveyed  to  a  settling  tank  and 
the  grease  removed  by  flotation.  The  solids  are  carried  by  a 
closed  conveyor  to  a  double  steam-jacketed  dryer  five  feet  in 
diameter  and  ten  feet  long. 

After  being  dried  the  tankage,  which  is  brown  in  appearance 
and  somewhat  caked,  is  placed  on  a  conveyor  that  takes  it  to  a 
disintegrator,  where  it  is  finally  ground,  and  then  passes  to  a 
bagging  machine,  where  it  is  packed  ready  for  shipment. 

The  power  plant  consists  of  two  Kendall  boilers  of  125-horse- 
power  capacity,  working  under  a  pressure  of  eighty  pounds ;  one 
vertical  Westinghouse,  Jr.,  94-horsepower  engine,  making  320 
revolutions  per  minute;  one  35O-gallon  Knowles  service  pump 
and  one  5OO-gallon  fire  pump  of  the  same  make.  A  Green 
economizer  heats  the  water  for  the  boilers,  spring  water  being 
used  for  this  purpose  and  stored  in  a  io,ooo-gallon  tank.  Water 
used  for  other  purposes  is  supplied  by  artesian  wells  and  is 
stored  in  a  3O,ooo-gallon  tank.  Between  fourteen  and  fifteen 
tons  of  coal  are  used  per  week. 

A  most  important  feature  of  this  plant  is  that  all  apparatus 
from  which  disagreeable  odors  might  arise  are  connected  to  a 
Sturtevant  blower.  The  vapors  pass  through  a  condenser  and 
thence  to  the  stack,  where  they  mingle  with  the  hot  gases  and 
from  which  they  emerge  high  in  the  air. 

The  Superintendent  and  General  Manager  of  the  Company, 
C.  K.  Wheelwright,  gave  the  following  information  concerning 
the  operation  of  the  plant: 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  409 

Besides  the  men  who  accompany  the  wagons,  eight  are  employed  at 
the  plant  during  the  day  and  two  at  night,  with  which  number  we  could 
easily  handle  twice  as  much  garbage  as  is  now  received,  and  would  be 
glad  to  do  so  because  of  the  increased  profits  from  the  by-products.  The 
plant  is  designed  to  handle  60  tons  per  day,  but  at  present  receives  on  an 
average  only  about  18  tons. 

The  population  of  New  Bedford  is  about  80,000  (74,362  in  1905,  by  the 
State  census).  There  should,  therefore,  be  about  25  tons  of  garbage  a 
day,  according  to  figures  obtained  in  other  cities  where  careful  investiga- 
tions have  been  made.  The  apparent  deficiency  is  stated  to  be  due  to 
the  extreme  economy  of  the  foreign-born  laborers,  who  constitute  a  large 
percentage  ot  the  population. 

From  each  ton  of  garbage  treated  there  is  obtained  400  to  460  Ibs.  of 
tankage  and  from  53  to  60  pounds  of  grease.  The  tankage  is  sold  to 
fertilizer  companies  as  a  base  for  fertilizer,  and  brings  from  $4  to  $12 
per  ton,  depending  upon  the  amount  of  ammonia  present.  The  grease  is 
sold  to  soap  companies,  and  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  the  finest 
soaps.  In  addition  to  the  money  derived  from  the  sale  of  the  by-products, 
the  company  has  a  contract  with  the  city  whereby  it  receives  $25,500  per 
year  for  the  removal  and  disposal  of  the  garbage. 

(Condensed  from  Municipal  Journal  &  Engineer,  Feb.  26, 
1908). 

The  cost  of  collection  and  disposal  at  New  Bedford,  allow- 
ing 6,000  tons  of  garbage  to  be  gathered  annually,  is  at  the 
rate  of  $4.16  per  ton,  or  about  31.2  cents  per  capita  per  annum. 
This  appears  to  be  the  highest  cost  of  any  city  in  this  country 
using  the  reduction  methods. 

The  value  of  the  by-products  and  the  cost  of  operating,  ac- 
cording to  the  statement  of  the  officers  of  the  company  Septem- 
ber 5,  1907,  is  as  follows: 

The  New  Bedford  Extractor  Company's  plant,  working  under  license 
from  the  American  Extractor  Company,  has  a  daily  capacity  for  reducing 
60  tons  of  garbage  in  24  hours.  Owing  to  the  requirement  of  the  city 
it  was  necessary  for  the  company  to  agree  to  its  contract  that  the  capacity 
should  be  double  the  supposed  collections,  i.e.,  30  tons  per  day. 

The  average  delivery  of  garbage  to  this  plant  has  been  only  20  tons 
per  working  day,  but  the  operation  expense  is  as  much  as  if  30  tons 
per  day  had  been  reduced. 

Taking  the  market  prices  of  the  by-products  of  September  I,  1907 
(greases  and  tankage),  a  ton  of  garbage  as  delivered  at  the  plant  equals 

in  value  $4,282.00 

Actual  cost  of  reduction  at  New  Bedford  plant  of  one  ton  of 

garbage   J[,995-Oo 

Gain  per  ton $2,287.00 

Twenty  tons,  312  days 14,350.88 

Depreciation  on  25-ton  plant,  credit  sinking  fund. 6,500.00 

$7,850.88 


410  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

Yield  of  grease 3-34% 

Yield  of  tankage 15.00% 

Coal  per  ton  garbage  reduced,  284  pounds. 

On  30  tons  per  day  cost  of  reduction  per  ton  would  not  exceed. .          $1.50 

On  full  capacity  of  plant  it  would  not  exceed i.oo 

AMERICAN   EXTRACTOR  COMPANY, 
Charles  S.  Wheelwright,  President. 

The  statement  has  been  made  that  the  cost  of  erecting  a 
15-ton  plant,  not  including  the  ground,  is  about  $40,000.  It  is 
not  the  intention  of  the  American  Extractor  Company  to  erect 
a  plant  or  make  money  from  their  construction  as  builders,  but 
to  grant  licenses  to  those  who  do,  supplying  all  necessary  plans 
and  superintending  the  erection. 


GARBAGE  DISPOSAL  BY  REDUCTION  METHODS.* 
«*  *  *  These  percentages  vary  greatly  with  the  geographical 
location  of  the  community,  with  the  season  of  the  year,  and  with 
the  particular  kind  of  season;  that  is,  whether  rainy  or  dry,  hot 
or  cold.  In  fact,  every  change  in  the  natural  order  of  living 
affects  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  above  values  and  their 
relation  to  one  another.  For  instance,  the  percentage  of  ashes 
in  our  Southern  cities  is  very  much  lower  than  in  our  Northern 
cities;  in  our  Northern  cities  it  is  a  great  deal  higher  in  winter 
than  in  summer,  while  in  the  South  it  is  a  fairly  constant  quan- 
tity throughout  the  year. 

Then  the  percentage  of  garbage  will  increase  materially  in 
the  summer  because  of  the  large  increase  in  vegetable  matter 
containd  therein.  In  our  Southern  cities  the  percentage  of 
grease  in  the  garbage  is  very  low  because  of  the  small  propor- 
tionate consumption  of  meats. 

The  kind  of  season  influences  particularly  the  quantity  of 
garbage;  it  also  influences  somewhat  the  quality  of  the  garbage. 
If  for  any  reason  the  weather  conditions  have  interfered  with 
the  growing  of  melons,  sweet  corn  and  fruit,  the  amount  of 
garbage  in  July,  August  and  September  will  decrease  surpris- 
ingly. On  the  other  hand,  if  the  season  has  been  favorable  the 


"Condensed    from    paper    before    The    Franklin    Institute,    Philadelphia,    by    Roht. 
Yarnell,  C.  E. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  411 

vegetable  matter  assumes  prodigious  proportions  in  these  months. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  the 
garbage  in  our  Eastern  cities,  its  physical  as  well  as  chemical 
changes. 

The  material  collected  in  Baltimore  is  very  inferior,  indeed. 
It  contains  but  a  small  percentage  of  grease  and  a  very  large 
percentage  of  rubbish  and  objectionable  matter.  Baltimoreans 
seem  to  live  largely  on  fish  foods — oysters,  crabs,  etc.  At  cer- 
tain seasons  the  crab  shells  assume  surprisingly  large  propor- 
tions ;  in  fact,  often  at  a  distance  a  load  of  garbage  has  a  decided 
pink  color  due  to  the  crab  shells. 

Philadelphia  garbage  is  in  a  very  much  better  mechanical  state 
than  that  of  Baltimore,  but  the  percentage  of  grease  is  much 
lower  than  in  some  of  the  other  cities,  such  as  Newark,  N.  J., 
New  York  and  Brooklyn,  although  much  higher  than  in.  Balti- 
more. The  reason  for  this  comparatively  low  percentage  of 
grease  in  Philadelphia  is  to  be  found  in  the  non-enforcement  of 
an  ordinance  barring  private  collectors  of  garbage.  A  recent 
Supreme  Court  decision  has  sustained  such  an  ordinance.  The 
"hog  feeders"  go  from  house  to  house  in  the  best  sections  of 
town  and  to  most  hotels  and  boarding  houses  and  collect  only 
the  best  of  the  material  for  feeding  their  swine,  and  leave  for 
the  regular  collectors  the  poorer  materials,  from  which  material 
only  a  small  percentage  of  grease,  as  above  stated,  can  be  ex- 
tracted. This  practice  should  be  stopped  at  once,  not  only 
because  of  the  poor  quality  of  pork  produced  by  swill-fed  hogs, 
but  because  by  so  doing  the  city  will  be  able  to  obtain  lower  bids 
on  the  scavenger  contracts  if  the  material  is  to  be  reduced. 

The  garbage  collected  in  New  York  City  is  the  cleanest — con- 
taining the  least  amount  of  refuse — in  any  city  in  the  East.  The 
reason  for  this  condition  is  found  in  the  rigid  enforcement  of  the 
law  governing  separation  of  the  three  kinds  of  waste.  The  fact 
that  the  material  is  richer — that  is,  contains  more  grease,  am- 
monia, potash,  etc.,  per  ton — in  New  York  City  than  any  other 
Eastern  city,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Atlantic  City,  is 
because  of  the  barring  absolutely  of  all  private  collectors,  and 
also  because  of  the  great  number  of  hotels  and  apartment  houses 
from  which  the  waste  of  foodstuffs  per  capita  is  much  greater 
than  from  private  households,  or  from  a  less  thickly  populated 


412  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

community  where  there  is  an  opportunity  to  scatter  the  material, 
feed  domestic  animals,  etc. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  garbage  collected  in  New 
York  City  is  comparatively  dry  and  can  be  stacked  on  scows 
like  hay. 

The  garbage  from  Boston  is  very  wet  and  sloppy  The  scows 
which  transport  the  material  away  from  the  city  to  the  reduc- 
tion plant  have  to  be  provided  with  high  sides  to  keep  the  ma- 
terial from  running  into  the  bay.  It  is  difficult  to  explain  the 
reason  for  this  condition,  but  it  must  be  because  of  some  method 
of  doing  the  work  about  Boston  kitchens  which  differs  from  that 
employed  elsewhere;  perhaps  the  dishwater  is  added  to  the  gar- 
bage. The  yield  of  grease  from  the  Boston  garbage  is  consider- 
ably less  than  the  yield  from  New  York,  but  is  greater  than  the 
yield  from  Philadelphia,  perhaps  because  of  the  greater  con- 
sumption of  fish  foods,  which  are  poorer  in  grease  than  other 
meat  foods. 

Concerning  the  relative  merits  of  incineration  and  reduction 
methods  for  the  final  disposal  of  this  objectionable  material  much 
has  been  said  and  written.  The  problem  is  a  very  complex  one, 
indeed.  What  is  a  merit  in  one  case  is  a  demerit  in  another. 
What  is  advantageous  in  one  city  is  utterly  out  of  place  in  an- 
other. But  there  are  certain  facts  which  largely  govern  a  deci- 
sion in  all  cases. 

Generally  speaking,  in  a  city  whose  population  is  under  the 
100,000  mark,  the  returns  from  a  reduction  method  of  disposal 
are  too  small  to  warrant  building  a  plant,  unless  the  contract 
price  paid  by  the  city  for  the  work  is  high,  and  the  term  of  con- 
tract long — ten  years  or  more.  For  such  cities  cremation  is 
unquestionably  the  method  to  adopt. 

Again,  generally  speaking,  in  a  city  whose  population  is  over 
100,000  reduction  should  be  the  method  adopted  if  the  cost  alone 
is  considered. 

Referring  for  a  moment  to  the  sanitary  advantages  of  the  two 
systems,  it  has  been  demonstrated  time  and  again  that  a  reduc- 
tion plant  can  be  operated  near  a  thickly-populated  district  with- 
out creating  any  offense  whatever.  To  cite  a  case  in  point,  take 
the  old  plant  of  the  American  Product  Company  on  the  Schuyl- 
kill  River,  in  this  city,  not  over  two  miles  from  the  City  Hall, 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  413 

and  just  across  the  river  from  the  delightful  suburban  district 
of  West  Philadelphia.  This  plant  has  been  in  almost  continuous 
operation  for  the  past  twelve  years,  and  who  ever  heard  of  any 
complaint  as  to  its  being  unsanitary  or  a  menace  to  public  health  ? 
If  care  is  taken  in  the  design  of  a  reduction  plant,  and  intelli- 
gence used  in  its  operation,  there  is  absolutely  no  occasion  for 
complaint. 

A  crematory  can  also  be  conducted  in  a  highly  sanitary  man- 
ner ;  but  against  most  existing  plants  in  this  country,  at  least,       / 
complaints  have  been  entered  based  on  the  fumes,  or  from  the 
small  particles  of  unburned  garbage  and  dust  discharged  from 
the  stacks. 

Success  of  both  systems,  however,  from  a  sanitary  standpoint, 
rests  almost  entirely  with  the  health  officers  of  a  city.  If  they 
are  so  inclined  they  can  prevent  either  method  from  being  objec- 
tionable. It  is  to  be  expected  that  the  contractor  will  object  ^ 
to  any  measures  imposed  by  the  Board  of  Health  necessitating 
his  installing  expensive  vapor  scrubbing  or  disinfecting  devices. 
But  such  measures,  provided  they  are  practicable,  can  be  en- 
forced, and  the  comfort  of  the  complaining  district  assured. 

It  is  pleasing  to  the  medical  mind  to  consider  incineration  as 
the  only  sanitary  method  for  the  disposal  of  garbage,  because  by 
such  a  method  the  doctor  is  reasonably  sure  of  destroying  at 
once  all  microbic  organism,  together  with  their  common  feeding- 
ground.  To  support  him  in  his  theories  about  incineration,  or 
rather  by  reason  of  his  opinions,  there  are  to  be  found  a  great 
number  of  reports  by  engineers  and  others,  both  foreign  and 
domestic,  endorsing  this  method  of  disposal.  It  seems  to  those 
who  are  acquainted  with  reduction  methods  of  disposal  that 
the  opinions  of  these  doctors  and  engineers  have  been  formed  in 
ignorance  of  such  methods.  Their  ignorance  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  practically  no  literature  on  the  subject  of  garbage 
reduction  and  no  reliable  American  data  regarding  the  exact  cost 
of  reduction,  or  the  value  and  quantity  of  products  extracted  per 
ton  of  garbage  treated,  except  in  the  hands  of  the  contractors 
bidding  for  city  contracts,  and  they  naturally  do  not  care  to  dis- 
close their  knowledge. 

It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  may  be  stated  without  fear  of  con- 
tradiction, that  the  net  cost  of  reducing  a  ton  of  garbage  is  less 


414  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

than  the  cost  of  cremating  the  same  quantity.  This  should  be 
apparent  to  everyone.  To  burn  a  ton  of  garbage,  it  is  first  nec- 
essary to  evaporate  the  80  per  cent,  of  water  the  garbage  con- 
tains. It  must  be  remembered  that  less  than  one-third  of  the 
remaining  20  per  cent,  of  the  original  ton  is  combustible.  Now, 
under  the  very  best  conditions  of  draft  and  arrangement  of  heat- 
ing surface  and  design  of  furnace  in  boiler  practice  we  are  able 
to  evaporate  about  ten  pounds  of  water  per  pound  combustible. 
Hence,  to  burn  a  ton  of  garbage  coal  must  be  added  to  it.  To 
be  sure,  it  takes  coal  to  make  steam  to  reduce  a  ton  of  garbage, 
but  to  pay  for  this  coal  are  the  products  extracted.  It  may  be 
said  that  if  the  garbage  were  not  separated  'from  the  other  com- 
bustible light  refuse  it  would  require  practically  no  coal  to  burn 
the  mass.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  this  same  light  combustible 
refuse  were  separated  and  taken  to  the  boiler  room  of  the  reduc- 
tion plant  it  could  be  used  to  help  generate  steam  for  the  latter 
process.  There  should  be  no  uncertainty  about  these  points. 
Given  a  specific  case,  results  can  be  accurately  predicted. 

When  all  is  considered,  as  far  as  sanitation  goes,  there  is  very 
little  to  choose  between  cremation  and  reduction  of  garbage.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  raw  material,  by  reason  of  its 
origin,  is  subject  to  rapid  decay,  and  hence  in  the  hot  season  is 
bound  to  be  obnoxious;  and  it  is  from  the  handling  of  the  raw 
material  itself,  from  the  receptacle  to  the  wagon  and  from  the 
wagon  to  the  plant,  that  complaints  arise  rather  than  from  the 
plant  itself,  be  it  a  crematory  or  a  reduction  plant. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  reduction  plant  to  obtain  every  pound 
of  garbage  that  can  be  collected  from  the  city,  because  the  plant's 
profit  depends  upon  the  amount  of  material  treated,  the  fixed 
charges  being  very  high.  Whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
practically  no  profit  to  be  derived  from  the  burning  of  the  gar- 
bage. The  collector  for  the  crematory  will  therefore  do  every- 
thing in  his  power  to  collect  as  small  a  quantity  as  possible  and 
not  be  detected  by  the  municipal  authorities.  The  only  revenue 
to  be  derived  from  the  burning  of  the  garbage  he  collects  is 
from  the  sale  of  the  ash,  but  in  most  cases  fertilizer  manufac- 
turers do  not  consider  this  ash  of  sufficient  value  for  them  to 
cart  it  away  from  the  plant,  let  alone  pay  a  price  for  it,  because 
of  its  poor  mechanical  condition. 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  415 

It  is  apparent  in  the  case  of  the  reduction  contractor  that 
a  premium  is  placed  upon  honest  and  efficient  collection ;  where- 
as, in  the  case  of  the  burning  method  of  disposal  a  premium  is 
placed  upon  dishonest  service  on  the  part  of  the  collector.  Again, 
does  it  not  seem  manifestly  wrong  to  burn,  up  a  material  which, 
if  intelligently  treated  by  an  approved  process,  maintains  in  a 
community  a  thriving  manufacturing  plant?  Moreover,  is  it 
not  manifestly  wrong  to  utterly  destroy  this  material  when  a  val- 
uable fertilizer  base  can  be  extracted  from  it  by  which,  after 
properly  treating  it  and  distributing  it  throughout  rural  com- 
munities, there  may  be  returned  to  the  earth  a  valuable  plant 
food  which  in  due  time  will  bring  forth  an  abundance  of  fruit — 
a  point  which  will  be  more  appreciated,  perhaps,  as  time  goes 
on  and  our  soils  become  further  exhausted  ? 

Having  decided  that  the  garbage  will  be  disposed  of  by  a 
reduction  method,  it  remains  to  be  determined  which  is  the  best 
reduction  method.  All  of  the  reduction  processes  are  for  the 
purpose  of  separating  the  raw  material  into  four  parts — rubbish, 
water,  grease  and  tankage.  An  average  sample  of  garbage,  taken 
throughout  the  year,  consists  of  rubbish  6  per  cent.,  or  120 
pounds  per  ton  of  garbage;  water  71  per  cent.,  or  1,420  pounds 
per  ton  of  garbage;  grease  3  per  cent.,  or  60  pounds  per  ton  of 
garbage. 

The  1 20  pounds  of  rubbish  is  composed  of  a  great  variety  of 
solid  waste  matter,  such  as  bottles,  tin  cans,  rags,  bits  of  wood, 
shells,  etc.,  which  should  have  been  separated  and  placed  in  the 
light  refuse  box  by  the  householder  and  not  mixed  with  the  gar- 
bage; but  perfect  separation  is  well  nigh  impossible  to  obtain. 
The  tin  cans,  bottles  and  rags  are  generally  separated  from  the 
rubbish,  as  will  be  explained  hereafter,  and  sold  to  different 
parties.  The  cans  are  put  through  a  detinning  and  desoldering 
process,  the  tin  and  solder  finding  a  ready  market,  and  the  iron 
remaining  is  melted  up  into  sash  weights.  The  bottles  that  are 
not  broken  are  cleaned  and  sold  to  junk  dealers  to  be  refilled  with 
cheap  oils,  ketchup,  and  other  food  products.  The  broken  glass 
is  also  separated  and  is  sold  at  so  much  a  ton.  The  rags  are 
washed,  dried  and  sold  to  the  manufacturers  of  paper.  The 
cans,  delivered,  bring  about  $5  per  net  ton ;  the  bottles  about 


416  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

4  cents  per  dozen,  the  broken  glass  $4  per  ton,  and  the  rags 
bring  about  half  a  cent  a  pound. 

The  net  return  from  these  marketable  products  is  very  small 
because  of  the  amount  of  labor  required  to  separate  them  and 
prepare  them  for  market.  The  part  that  is  not  salable  is  gener- 
ally carted  away  to  the  dumps,  or  at  certain  seasons  is  burned 
under  the  boilers  in  the  plant. 

The  1,420  pounds  of  water  in  the  ton  of  garbage  reduced  con- 
tains a  considerable  quantity  of  glucose  and  suspended  matter 
and  a  small  percentage  of  ammonia,  but  it  is  of  only  slight  com- 
mercial value  and  is  allowed  to  run  away  into  the  sewer.  When 
used  at  all  it  is  evaporated  to  the  consistency  of  molasses  and 
added  to  the  tankage  just  before  drying,  the  combination  mak- 
ing what  is  termed  "granular  tankage"  as  distinct  from  "fluffy 
tankage." 

The  sixty  pounds  of  grease  to  the  ton  of  garbage  has  the 
greatest  value  of  any  of  the  products  of  reduction.  This  grease 
is  of  a  comparatively  low  grade  and  sells  for  about  3  cents  a 
pound  the  year  round,  the  price  of  the  grease  varying  with  the 
price  of  tallow,  which,  on  the  basis  of  garbage  grease  at  3  cents 
a  pound,  would  sell  at  4  cents  a  pound.  It  is  of  a  dark  brown  color 
and  has  a  slight  odor  of  burnt  coffee.  This  grease  is  used  large- 
ly for  making  soap  and  candles.  The  greater  part  of  the  Amer- 
ican output  of  garbage  grease  is  shipped  to  foreign  markets, 
mostly  Belgium  and  France.  It  doubtless  returns  to  this  country 
again  in  forms  which  have  successfully  obliterated  their  origin 
and  which  we  would  scarcely  care  to  own. 

The  remaining  400  pounds  in  the  ton  of  garbage  is  tankage. 
Tankage  is  the  term  used  for  the  solid  fibrous  matter  left  after 
the  grease  and  water  have  been  separated  in  the  reduction  process. 
It  is  used,  when  properly  prepared,  as  a  base  for  fertilizers,  as 
it  contains  small  percentages  of  nitrogen,  ammonia,  phosphoric 
acid,  and  potash. 

All  the  American  systems  of  reduction  are  either  modifications 
of  the  Arnold,  or  mechanical  system,  or  the  solvent  system. 

The  solvent  system  reduces  the  garbage  by  first  drying  it  and 
then  treating  the  naphtha  or  the  lighter  petroleum  oils.  This 
solvent  takes  up  the  grease  in  the  process  and  the  grease  is  then 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  417 

recovered  by  evaporating  off  the  solvent.  The  latter  is  condensed 
and  used  over  again  in  the  process. 

The  liquids  are  pressed  out  through  the  perforations  in  the 
apron  slats,  and  flow  down  into  a  center  drain  under  the  press 
and  thence  to  the  catch-basins,  where  the  grease  rises  to  the 
surface  and  is  pumped  up  into  settling  tanks  to  be  prepared  for 
market. 

The  solid  matter,  or  tankage,  is  discharged  from  the  end  of 
the  press  into  a  conveyor  which  carries  it  either  into  the  boiler 
room,  where  it  is  used  for  fuel,  or  into  the  drying  department, 
where  it  is  dried  down  to  10  per  cent,  moisture  and  bagged  and 
subsequently  sold  to  the  manufacturers  of  fertilizers.  The  analy- 
sis of  this  tankage  varies  greatly  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
and  at  different  seasons  of  the  year.  A  fair  analysis  taken  right 
from  the  press  would  be : 

Per  Cent. 

Moisture , 38  to  44 

Grease 5  to  9 

Nitrogen,  equivalent  to  ammonia i .  2  to  2  . 2 

Phosphoric  acid,  equivalent  to  bone  phosphate  of 

lime : 4  . 2  to  7  . 2 

Potash 2  to .  3 

It  is  always  a  problem  to  decide  what  to  do  with  the  tankage 
at  a  given  plant.  At  times  when  grease  is  selling  very  low  and 
coal  is  high  in  price  and  there  is  small  demand  for  low  grade 
ammoniates,  it  pays  to  burn  it  under  the  boilers.  Tankage,  how- 
ever, is  decidedly  inferior  fuel  because  of  its  low  calorific  value, 
and  also  because  of  very  troublesome  clinkers  that  are  continually 
forming.  Tankage  ash  is  worth  $1.50  per  ton  delivered  for  the 
fertilizing  ingredients  it  contains. 

If  there  is  a  demand  for  tankage  in  the  fertilizer  market  it 
pays  to  dry  the  material  down  to  10  per  cent,  moisture,  or  com- 
mercially dry,  when  its  analysis  should  show : 

Per  Cent. 

Moisture 10  . 

Ammonia 2.8 

Phosphates 8.5 

Potash 31 

This  dry  tankage  should  sell  at  from  $6  to  $8  per  net  ton. 

If  the  grease  market  is  strong  and  the  price  of  solvents  within 

reason,  under  certain  conditions  it  is  advisable  to  extract  the 


418  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

6  per  cent,  or  9  per  cent,  grease  which  the  tankage  contains  by 
percolating  it  with  solvents,  such  as  the  lighter  petroleum  oils, 
benzine  or  naphtha,  or  by  the  use  of  carbon  bisulphid,  or  carbon 
tetrachlorid.  The  latter  solvent  is  non-inflammable,  but  unless 
diluted  with  a  cheaper  solvent  its  cost  is  prohibitive. 

The  best  method  of  treatment  is  to  first  dry  the  tankage  and 
then  percolate  it,  using  the  same  liquor  over  and  over  again, 
until  it  is  sufficiently  concentrated,  when  the  system  is  allowed  to 
drain  into  an  evaporator  which  drives  off  the  lighter  solvent  to 
the  condenser,  leaving  the  heavier  garbage  grease  which  is  pre- 
pared for  market.  The  solvent  held  by  the  tankage  is  recovered 
by  the  application  of  heat  to  the  percolating  tank.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  in  this  connection  that  the  tankage  from  which  the  grease 
has  been  extracted  is  now  of  greater  value  as  a  fertilizing  ma- 
terial. The  grease  thus  extracted,  however,  is  not  as  valuable  as 
that  extracted  by  mechanical  means. 

The  catch-basin  liquor,  after  the  grease  has  been  taken  off, 
has  very  small  commercial  value  because  it  is  so  very  dilute. 
It  contains  from  .15  to  .4  per  cent,  ammonia,  and  in  some  cases 
we  have  evaporated  it  down  and  added  the  concentrated  liquor 
to  the  tankage  during  the  drying  process.  This  makes  a  granular 
tankage,  which  is  in  greater  demand  that  the  fluffy  kind,  but  the 
price  obtained  is  only  a  little  better — in  fact,  is  hardly  enough  to 
pay  the  cost  of  evaporation  and  maintain  the  evaporators.  The 
cost  for  evaporator  repairs  is  very  high  because  of  the  acidity 
of  the  liquor,  which  attacks  both  shell  and  tubes,  whether  of  iron, 
steel,  copper  or  brass. 

The  New  York  garbage  plant  on  Barren  Island  is  the  largest 
reduction  plant  in  the  world.  In  the  summer  months  it  disposes 
of  3,000  tons  of  raw  material  every  day.  One  can  scarcely  real- 
ize the  enormous  bulk  this  tonnage  represents  without  spending 
twenty-four  hours  on  the  island  in  August.  The  New  York 
Board  of  Health  is  very  vigilant  in  preventing  obnoxious  vapors 
arising  from  this  plant  because  of  its  close  proximity  to  Rock- 
away  Beach  and  Coney  Island.  It  requires  the  fumes  to  be 
washed  thoroughly  in  great  scrubbers  before  discharging  them 
into  the  air. 

About  two  years  ago  a  disastrous  explosion  occurred  in  the 
Boston  plant.  One  is  never  sure  just  what  ingredients  form 


THE  DISPOSAL  OF  WASTE  BY  REDUCTION.  419 

the  conglomeration  with  which  the  digesters  are  filled,  and  in 
this  case  an  excessive  pressure  was  formed  in  one  of  the  tanks 
from  an  unknown  cause  and  the  explosion  resulted,  completely 
wrecking  the  building. 

The  records  of  the  quantity  of  garbage  treated  at  various 
reduction  plants  are  interesting  when  examined  together.  The 
fluctuation  in  volume  and  character  from  month  to  month  is 
fairly  parallel — the  yield  highest  in  August  and  September — 
except  in  the  case  of  Boston,  where  the  greatest  yield  is  in 
winter,  due  probably  to  the  greater  proportionate  summer  exodus 
of  the  leisure  class.  The  antithesis  of  this  is  observed  in  the 
plotted  curve  of  quantity  at  Atlantic  City,  which  has  a  great 
peak  in  the  middle  of  August,  the  height  of  the  vacation  sea- 
son, as  would  be  expected  from  such  a  resort. 

The  character  of  the  product  varies  also;  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  reduction  plant,  the  value  of  the  material  expressed  in 
terms  of  grease  is  much  lower  per  ton  when  the  quantity  handled 
is  the  greatest. 

These  records  show  that  a  reduction  plant  should  be  made 
sufficiently  large  to  handle  the  peak  of  the  load  in  July,  August 
and  September,  although  during  the  remainder  of  the  year,  in 
most  cases,  two-thirds  of  the  plant  must  remain  inoperative. 
Moreover,  when  this  great  bulk  of  garbage  is  being  treated  the 
yield  of  grease — the  principal  source  of  revenue — is  least,  which 
is  certainly  an  unsatisfactory  condition  from  a  manufacturer's 
standpoint.  This  explains  the  fact  that  the  garbage  reduction 
contractor  cannot  undertake  such  a  contract  without  being  paid 
a  bonus  by  the  city. 


PART   V. 

THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 
CHAPTER    XVIII. 

REVENUE  FROM  WASTE  MATERIALS — METHODS  OF  UTILIZATION. 

The  first  question  asked  by  a  municipal  officer  when  consider- 
ing the  disposal  of  waste  is  "What  will  it  cost?"  He  may  after- 
ward ask  what  benefits  are  to  be  derived  from  the  proposed 
process,  but  in  the  first  instance  the  expense  is  to  him  the  chief 
consideration.  The  Mayor,  the  city  officials  and  the  members 
of  the  City  Council  are  the  ones  who  have  the  control  of  the 
department  of  municipal  work,  which  includes  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  all  wastes.  Up  to  within  the  last  few  years  this 
department  of  municipal  service  has  received  less  attention  than 
almost  any  other,  but  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  these 
gentlemen  by  the  people  acting  through  the  various  civic  organ- 
izations, leagues  and  other  associations  for  the  improvement  of 
the  city,  have  made  it  imperative  that  there  should  be  better 
attention  paid  and  more  money  expended  for  the  treatment  of 
waste  than  has  been  done  in  the  past. 

It  is  a  gratifying  instance  of  progress  to  note  that  many  cities 
are  really  endeavoring  to  obtain  some  accurate  information  from 
the  tabulation  of  their  own  statistics,  and  are  trying  to  bring 
themselves  into  line  with  the  advanced  methods,  which  have  suc- 
ceeded in  bettering  the  conditions  in  other  towns  that  make  a 
more  creditable  showing  in  this  branch  of  civic  work. 

It  has  been  said  that  "utilization  is  the  keynote  of  successful 
policy  in  large  cities,"  and  there  is  no  department  where  utiliza- 
tion theories  can  be  so  practically  demonstrated  as  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  municipal  waste.  It  was  said  by  Colonel  Waring 
in  relation  to  the  wastes  of  New  York  that  there  was  annually 
thrown  away  in  the  discarded  matter  a  sum  of  money  sufficient 
to  pay  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  the  wastes  of  the  city. 
This  was  looked  upon  at  the  time  as  being  a  glittering  generality 

420 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  421 

impossible  of  realization,  a  mere  dream  that  could  never  come 
to  pass.  But  in  the  three  years'  service  of  Colonel  Waring  he 
demonstrated  that  it  was  not  entirely  a  theoretical  idea,  but  one 
that  could  be  carried  out  if  it  were  attempted  with  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  requirements,  a  sufficient  amount  of  money  to 
do  the  work,  and  the  aid  of  a  Mayor  and  Council  who  would 
support  reforms. 

Utilization  of  refuse,  which  Colonel  Waring  began,  and  which 
in  his  short  term  of  office  brought  in  a  return  that  was  sufficient 
to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  refuse  collection  service  in  the  dis- 
trict where  this  was  employed,  was  discontinued  by  his  successor, 
and  was  not  revived  until  another  reform  administration  assumed 
the  reins  of  government.  The  efforts  made  in  the  past  four 
years  for  the  recovery  of  the  marketable  portions  of  the  refuse 
and  rubbish  in  New  York  City  have  shown  that  there  is  a  value 
which  not  only  pays  expenses  of  recovery  but  returns  a  revenue 
if  the  work  is  properly  conducted.  This  revenue  can  be  utilized 
in  two  ways:  First,  by  sorting  it  and  saving  such  parts  of  the 
refuse  as  are  marketable  for  making  paper,  and  second,  by 
burning  the  volume  collected  and  utilizing  the  heat. 

THE  UTILIZATION  OF  REFUSE  BY  SORTING. 

The  actual  cash  value  of  paper  stock  in  New  York  City  is 
to-day  higher  than  it  has  ever  before  been  known  to  be.  Every- 
thing which  is  valuable  for  turning  into  paper  pulp  is  eagerly 
bought  by  the  various  agencies  that  deal  in  this  material. 

The  amount  of  refuse  and  rubbish  discarded  from  the  houses 
in  the  larger  cities  of  the  United  States  is  enormous  in  volume, 
as,  for  instance,  in  New  York  City  it  is  936  pounds  per  capita 
per  annum.  In  Boston  the  quantities  are  about  600  pounds,  and 
in  Buffalo  available  records  show  that  the  proportions  were  still 
larger.  These  quantities  will  probably  be  found  in  all  the  larger 
Northern  towns  and  increase  in  the  places  where  natural  gas  is 
used  for  household  fuel. 

The  value  of  paper  is  at  the  present  time  quoted  at  the  net 
sum  of  about  $4.50  per  ton  for  the  lowest  grade  of  crushed 
newspaper  delivered  at  the  cars  for  transportation  to  the  paper 
mills.  The  better  grades  of  paper  bring  higher  prices.  Every 
form  of  rags  suitable  for  use  by  paper  makers  find  a  ready 


422  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

market.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  these  prices  will  be 
any  less,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  a  measure  of  economy  in  every 
city  where  this  waste  is  available  to  turn  it  to  some  purpose 
of  revenue,  which  can  easily  be  done  by  following  the  methods 
already  introduced  in  four  of  the  largest  cities  of  establishing 
refuse  utilization  stations. 

THE  SANITARY  SIDE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 
Objections  have  been  made  to  the  separation  of  salable  articles 
from  rubbish  on  the  ground  of  possible  communication  of  con- 
tagion to  the  persons  engaged  in  the  separation.  The  argument 
is  that  everything  that  comes  from  the  house  should  be  destroyed 
in  order  to  prevent  any  chance  of  the  spread  of  contagious  dis- 
eases, and  also  because  the  light  rubbish  or  refuse  from  the 
houses  contains  a  large  proportion  of  sweepings  and  other  dirt 
which  must  be  destroyed.  The  records  of  utilization  plants  do 
not  show  that  any  disease  has  ever  been  contracted  in  this  work, 
and'  when  it  is  done  by  the  aid  of  machinery,  with  the  proper 
appliances,  the  employees  are  in  no  danger  of  contagion  if  the 
sanitary  regulations  for  operating  the  plant  are  enforced. 

THE  USES  OF  RUBBISH  FOR  POWER  DEVELOPMENT. 
Some  authorities  have  claimed  that  the  rubbish  and  refuse 
from  the  city  should  never  be  sorted  or  separated,  but  should  be 
promptly  destroyed  by  fire,  and  the  heat  derived  therefrom  be 
utilized  for  the  disposal  of  other  parts  of  municipal  waste.  They 
therefore  advocate  a  separate  collection  of  the  refuse  and  rub- 
bish and  its  being  brought  to  a  disposal  station  where  it  may  be 
destroyed  without  sorting.  The  work  done  in  New  York  City 
at  the  two  incinerators  during  the  past  four  years  has  shown 
that  there  is  undoubtedly  great  value  in  the  heat  to  be  derived 
from  this  operation,  amounting  to  the  evaporation  of  one  and 
one-half  to  two  pounds  of  water  per  pound  of  refuse  and  rub- 
bish destroyed.  Three  large  disposal  plants  in  other  cities  are 
now  sorting  out  and  recovering  the  valuable  portions  of  the 
refuse,  and  employ  the  remainder  as  fuel,  and  have  been  operated 
for  four,  five  and  ten  years  respectively,  returning  large  revenues 
to  the  companies  employing  this  means.  But  in  the  case  of  each 
of  these  companies  the  revenue  comes  in  the  largest  degree  from 
the  sorting  and  not  from  the  power.  The  value  of  this  material 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  423 

as  fuel  depends  upon  its  quantity,  since  it  must  be  continuously 
on  hand  to  be  supplied  to  the  furnace.  If  the  refuse  is  very 
light  it  burns  with  great  rapidity  and  the  heat  is  passed  into  the 
chimney  without  being  utilized.  If  the  rubbish  is  wet  or  moist 
it  burns  more  slowly  and  the  heat-raising  power  is  decreased. 
If  it  is-  received  in  quantities  too  small  for  maintaining  con- 
tinuous combustion  it  is  of  small  value  for  raising  steam,  as  it 
fluctuates  greatly.  At  the  best,  refuse  or  rubbish  in  small 
amounts  must  be  looked  upon  only  as  an  auxiliary  to  be  used 
in  conjunction  with  more  stable  forms  of  fuel. 

Whether  it  is  equal  to  consuming  wet  masses  of  garbage  has 
yet  to  be  demonstrated.  By  the  American  crematory  method  of 
burning  light  refuse  in  a  part  of  the  furnace,  there  is  very  little 
actual  benefit  derived  from  the  heat,  which  quickly  passes  off, 
acting  only  upon  the  surface  of  the  wet  masses  of  garbage  lying 
adjacent.  On  the  other  hand,  when  refuse  and  garbage  are 
mixed  together  and  burned  under  the  action  of  forced  draft 
the  combustion  is  much  more  efficient  and  the  results  in  steam 
raising  are  greater.  This  is  the  method  which  is  required  by 
some  engineers  in  their  latest  specifications  for  destructors 
burning  garbage  and  refuse  together  under  a  powerful  blast  of 
hot  air  or  steam.  By  this  means  all  the  heat  units  contained  in 
the  garbage,  as  well  as  those  of  the  lighter  forms  of  refuse, 
will  be  utilized. 

THE  PAPER  MANUFACTURED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  United  States  is  the  greatest  paper  producing  country 
in  the  world,  the  annual  output  being  upward  of  640,000  tons. 
In  the  local  consumption  of  paper  this  country  also  leads,  with 
an  annual  figure  of  38.6  pounds  per  capita,  England  consuming 
34.3  pounds,  Germany  29.98  pounds,  France  20.5  pounds,  Aus- 
tria 19  pounds,  Italy  15.4  pounds.  Nearly  one-half  of  the  paper 
manufactured  in  the  world  is  used  for  printing  purposes.  Twen- 
ty per  cent,  is  absorbed  in  the  trades  and  industries,  an  equal  pro- 
portion is  applied  for  official  and  school  purposes,  and  the  re- 
maining 10  per  cent,  serves  the  demand  for  private  uses. 

A  late  book  on  the  manufacture  of  paper  gives  a  list  of  860 
different  substances  that  have  been  used  in  manufacturing  paper 
stock.  Of  these  the  soft  woods  are  the  most  valuable  and  easiest 


424  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

obtained.  They  are  the  alder,  aspen,  poplar,  willow,  fir. 
spruce,  birch,  white  pine  and  chestnut.  The  amount  of  wood 
fibre  or  cellulose,  which  is  the  pulp-making  element,  ranges  in 
these  woods  from  33  to  39  per  cent,  of  the  whole  volume  of 
the  wood,  but  as  this  is  obtained  only  from  the  trunk  and  larger 
limbs  of  the  tree,  the  waste  is  enormous. 

One  writer  in  a  monthly  journal  gives  some  startling  figures 
showing  the  "Slaughter  of  the  Trees"  of  the  American  forests 
for  paper-making.  He  says  "Some  one  has  figured  that  a  big 
Sunday  newspaper  needs  twenty  acres  of  pulp  wood  to  make 
the  paper  for  one  edition.  The  Chicago  Tribune,  a  chance  in- 
stance, uses  200,000  pounds  of  paper  each  Sunday,  or  400,000 
pounds  each  week.  A  ton  of  paper  takes  about  two  cords  of 
spruce  in  the  making — to  be  exact,  about  1,750  pounds  of  paper 
pulp — not  allowing  anything  for  waste. 

"The  average  stand  of  spruce  pulp  wood  in  the  regions  where 
it  is  cut  is  probably  about  ten  cords  per  acre.  If  it  costs  twenty 
acres  a  Sunday,  or  forty  acres  a  week,  and  2,080  acres  a  year 
to  print  one  daily  newspaper,  what  does  it  cost  in  acreage  to 
print  all  the  newspapers  in  all  the  cities  and  towns  of  America? 
Add  to  this  the  paper  used  in  books  and  the  enormous  editions 
of  our  magazines  and  the  total  staggers  the  imagination." 

A  few  months  ago,  when  the  advance  in  printing  paper  was 
made  by  the  companies  controlling  the  wood  pulp  manufacturing 
interests,  it  was  claimed  and  shown  that  the  deforestation  was 
proceeding  at  so  rapid  a  rate  that  the -supply  of  wood  suitable 
for  manufacture  in  the  United  States  would  soon  be  exhausted. 
These  statements  emphasize  the  necessity  for  not  only  conserv- 
ing the  forest  to  be  used  in  the  future  manufacture  of  paper, 
but  also  demonstrates  that  every  form  of  material  suitable  for 
the  manufacture  of  various  classes  of  paper  should  be  saved 
for  this  work. 

In  the  larger  Eastern  cities  there  are  many  agencies  for  saving 
the  paper  waste.  The  perambulating  junkman  goes  from  house 
to  house,  begging,  sometimes  paying  for  the  various  classes  of 
paper  until  he  has  collected  a  load.  In  New  York  City  the 
people  freely  deliver  it  to  the  Salvation  Army,  which  makes  a 
business  of  collecting  paper  and  other  marketable  refuse  waste 
for  the  benefit  of  their  fund  for  improving  the  conditions  of 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  425 

the  poor.  A  much  larger  percentage  is  annually  collected  than 
is  generally  known.  The  paper  from  shops  and  stores  is  largely 
collected  by  private  parties  who  receive  this  as  a  bonus  for 
removing  ashes  from  the  premises. 

All  of  these  agencies,  taken  together,  are  working  for  the  col- 
lection and  sale  of  this  form  of  municipal  refuse,  and  all  are 
presumably  receiving  a  sufficient  revenue  from  the  work  not 
only  to  pay  expenses  but  to  make  a  profit.  If  the  forests  of 
the  country  now  being  swept  off  by  the  wood  pulp  industry  shall 
disappear,  manifestly  it  is  only  a  part  of  municipal  wisdom  to 
turn  to  some  useful  purpose  the  printing  and  other  forms  of 
paper  which  have  once  seen  service  and  which  may  repeatedly 
be  renewed  and  transformed  into  salable  forms  of  paper  for 
future  use 

THE  COMMERCIAL  VALUE  OF  GARBAGE. 

The  reports  of  the  reduction  processes  previously  noted  show 
there  is  a  value  in  garbage  of  American  towns  when  this  is 
treated  by  itself  for  recovery  of  commercial  products.  The  3  per 
cent,  (sixty  pounds)  of  grease  in  a  ton  of  separated  garbage, 
with  a  comparatively  steady  value  of  3  to  3^2  cents  per  pound, 
makes  this  item  worth  saving,  if  it  can  be  done  at  not  too  great 
a  cost.  The  tankage  is  of  uncertain  value,  dependent  upon  con- 
ditions not  always  under  the  control  of  the  manufacturers,  hence 
the  returns  from  this  source  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  constant. 
It  has  a  fuel  value  equal  to  about  one-sixth  of  its  weight  in  coal, 
and  can  always  be  burned  under  the  boilers  of  the  plant,  but 
with  a  certainty  of  rapid  deterioration  of  the  boiler  tubes  and 
fittings. 

The  chief  difficulty  in  marketing  the  tankage  seems  to  be 
its  storage  when  prices  are  low,  to  await  a  rise.  Because  of 
its  liability  to  spontaneous  combustion  when  reduced  by  the 
naphtha  process  it  cannot  be  long  held  in  bulk  without  great 
danger  of  fire.  When  reduced  by  steam  process  it  is  probably 
less  dangerous,  but  is  still  very  inflammable  and  readily  de- 
teriorates and  putrefies.  In  short,  it  must  be  used  quickly  if 
at  all,  or  be  burned  for  fuel  if  not  marketed:  The  reports  of 
forty  or  more  reduction  plants  in  this  country,  all  with  scarcely 
a  single  exception,  contain  records  of  explosions  and  fires,  more 


426  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

or  less  costly,  and  seemingly  beyond  the  power  of  the  owners  to 
prevent.  The  most  rigid  regulations  for  safety  from  fire  appear 
to  be  of  little  protection.  The  values  to  be  had  from  garbage 
when  manufactured  depends  greatly  upon  the  nearness  of  a 
market  for  the  grease  and  tankage.  If  far  distant,  the  cost  of 
transportation  cuts  down  the  margins,  and  if  the  quantities 
produced  be  small,  the  storage  and  handling  counts  up  fast 
against  the  profits. 

THE  COSTS  OF  REDUCTION. 

It  seems  to  be  conceded  that  only  when  the  quantities  of 
separated  garbage  are  seventy-five  tons  or  upward  daily,  can 
the  work  be  made  to  pay  as  a  business  venture,  unless  there  be 
a  subsidy  from  the  municipality.  One  writer  says  in  no  place 
of  less  than  150,000  population  can  garbage  reduction  plants  be 
operated  successfully.  Another  puts  the  lowest  profitable  figure 
of  population  at  100,000,  meaning  upon  a  strictly  business  basis, 
without  payment  by  the  city  for  disposal. 

These  statements  are  borne  out  by  the  results  so  far  as  shown 
by  the  evidence  at  hand,  since  all  plants  where  the  work  has  been 
done  for  the  profit  alone  have  heretofore  failed,  and  in  other 
cases,  where  the  quantities  are  small — from  twenty-five  to  fifty 
tons  daily — the  plant  must  have  the  subsidy  from  the  town  to 
continue  its  work.  This  argument  has  always  been  advanced 
when  contracts  for  reduction  were  pending,  and  as  the  costs  of 
the  work  and  the  profits  or  losses  were  trade  secrets  jealously 
guarded,  the  towns  have,  under  pull,  or  influence,  or  a  carefully 
exaggerated  idea  of  the  great  sanitary  value  of  this  means  of 
disposal,  granted  concessions  for  a  term  of  years  at  greater  cost 
to  the  town  than  were  asked  by  other  methods  of  disposal. 

There  was  at  first  an  erroneous  idea  that  the  reduction  methods 
were  very  profitable  to  investors,  and  many  companies  were 
capitalized  for  operating  in  the  larger  cities  under  concessions 
that  required  the  towns  to  pay  but  a  small  sum — from  50  cents 
to  60  cents  per  ton — for  the  disposal  of  the  garbage.  It  presently 
appeared  that  the  returns  were  not  sufficient  to  pay  expenses, 
much  less  dividends,  and  when  the  works  took  fire,  as  they  mostly 
did,  and  were  destroyed  they  were  not  replaced. 

Some  of  the  processes   that   involved  the  manufacture   of  a 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  427 

complete  fertilizer  by  the  addition  of  nitrates  and  phosphates  to 
the  tankage  could  not  compete  with  the  regular  standard  fertilizer 
of  the  same  grades,  and  they  disappeared  from  the  field.  For 
nearly  eight  years  the  reduction  work  was  in  the  hands  of  two 
processes  or  methods,  alike  in  the  main  principles  of  treatment, 
but  differing  in  minor  details  of  apparatus,  and  in  these  years 
there  was  almost  universal  complaints  of  nuisance  from  the 
work. 

Not  until  about  1905,  when  the  older  companies  had  improved 
their  methods  and  apparatus,  and  new  companies  appeared  with 
more  rapid  and  more  thorough  methods  of  extracting  the  oil 
and  drying  the  tankage,  and  with  greater  attention  to  the  sani- 
tary operation  of  the  work,  did  the  process  methods  make 
progress. 

With  improved  machinery  and  methods  there  came  a  sharper 
competition.  The  veteran  corporations  that  had  for  successive 
terms  of  years  in  the  large  Eastern  cities  held  the  undisputed 
control  at  their  own  figures,  were  opposed  by  the  later  comers, 
all  ambitious  to  acquire  a  foothold  in  the  profitable  work. 

Up  to  this  time  there  was  but  little  accurate  information  to 
be  had  as  to  the  real  results  in  a  pecuniary  way  from  the  work. 
The  contract  prices  at  which  the  awards  were  made  for  five- 
year  terms  were  always  large  enough  to  insure  the  expenses  of 
the  works,  leaving  the  profit,  which  was  dependent  upon  the 
quality  of  the  oil  and  tankage  manufactured,  and  the  market 
demand  for  these,  to  represent  the  profit  of  the  stockholders. 

MUNICIPAL  REDUCTION  PLANTS  AND  RESULTS. 

The  sale  of  the  reduction  works  in  Cleveland,  which  com- 
prised two  separate  processes,  to  the  city,  and  the  operation  of 
the  plant  by  the  city  for  the  last  six  months  of  1905  greatly 
interested  other  towns  that  were  about  to  install  disposal  works. 

For  the  first  time  it  was  then  shown  that  reduction  methods 
could  be  made  to  pay  the  operating  costs  under  municipal  owner- 
ship. The 'succeeding  years,  1906  and  1907,  were  still  more  suc- 
cessful demonstrations  of  the  value  of  reduction  methods  hon- 
estly conducted  for  the  benefit  of  the  municipality.  What  this- 
year  will  show  is  still  undetermined,  but  with  greater  experience 
in  management,  with  the  improvement  in  apparatus  already  made 


428  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

by  the  city's  engineers,  and  with  a  better  equipment  and  system 
in  collection  service  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
revenue  from  the  municipal  garbage  reduction  plant  will  not  fall 
below  the  returns  of  the  previous  year. 

This  is  an  instance  of  municipal  ownership  and  administra- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  the  people  that  may  well  be  studied  by 
other  American  cities. 

The  example  of  Cleveland  is  not  lost  upon  other  cities.  St. 
Louis,  that  for  twenty  years  had  paid  a  company  $1.80  per  ton 
for  reducing  its  garbage,  now  contracts  for  the  same  work  under 
more  favorable  conditions  for  27  cents  per  ton.  Columbus,  that 
for  many  years  had  a  part  of  this  work  done  for  50  cents  per 
ton,  at  a  loss  to  the  company,  and  was  unable  to  get  satisfactory 
terms  from  any  reduction  process  companies,  is  now  building  its 
own  plant  for  garbage  reduction. 

Undoubtedly  these  examples  will  lead  to  the  establishment  of 
many  reduction  plants,  the  more  so  as  the  patents  involved  do 
not  seem  to  be  of  any  serious  consideration  to  anybody  wishing 
to  enter  the  field,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  earlier  dis- 
astrous experiences  of  the  experimental  stages,  and  failures  of 
ambitious  and  inexperienced  builders,  may  be  repeated.  It  seems 
almost  impossible  for  these  methods  to  get  a  foothold  in  the 
Dialler  towns  where  the  quantities  of  separated  garbage  are 
small.  During  the  past  year  three  plants  of  small  capacity  have 
been  discontinued,  and  none  of  the  same  capacity  have  been  built 
elsewhere. 

The  treatment  of  American  separated  garbage  for  recovery  of 
the  commercially  valuable  constituents  has  now  become  a  stable 
and  accepted  fact  in  American  disposal  work,  one  to  be  here- 
after recognized  as  an  available  means  for  municipal  service  in 
the  larger  cities,  and  while  these  methods  cannot  always  be  profit- 
ably employed  at  all  places,  owing  to  geographical  or  communal 
limitations,  it  is  certain  they  may  be  made  useful  in  a  large  num- 
ber of  American  towns. 

THE  CREMATORY  METHODS  OF  WASTE  DISPOSAL. 

The  primary  purpose  of  any  apparatus  for  waste  disposal  is 
the  destruction  of  waste  matter.  From  the  viewpoint  of  most 
town  officials  in  charge  of  waste  disposal  that  means  is  best 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.        7     429 

which  most  quickly  and  most  cheaply  does  the  work.  Hence, 
anything  that  will  give  temporary  relief,  and  push  the  final  solu- 
tion to  another's  shoulders,  receives  more  attention  and  has  a 
better  chance  for  adoption  than  another  means  which  is  proven 
more  efficient  and  will  give  better  results  for  a  longer  term,  but 
at  higher  cost  for  apparatus. 

Thus,  in  America.n  towns  the  destroyal  of  garbage  by  fire  was 
at  first  done  in  small  cheaply  built  furnaces  that  required  con- 
stant supply  of  fuel,  and  were  at  great  expense  for  repairs  and 
renewal  of  plant.  Afterward,  when  the  refuse  of  the  town  was 
burned  at  the  dumping  places,  giving  rise  to  volumes  of  nauseous 
smoke,  this  waste  was  brought  to  the  crematories,  which  were 
then  made  larger  for  the  double  work.  There  was  still  the  need 
of  fuel,  for  the  crematory  construction  was  not  well  adapted  to 
retain  and  utilize  the  heat  from  the  combustible  matters. 

The  increased  volume  of  garbage  and  refuse  demanded  much 
larger  furnaces  at  greater  cost  for  buildings  and  more  men  for 
operating.  Thus,  the  expenses  of  the  installations  have  nearly 
doubled  those  of  the  earlier  years,  without  a  proportional  in- 
crease in  capacity  or  efficiency  of  the  plant  or  of  its  sanitary 
performance. 

In  the  larger  cities  the  disposal  of  garbage  by  the  crematory 
has  met  with  very  unsatisfactory  results.  The  largest  plants  now 
operating,  of  four  different  types  of  construction,  do  not  give 
results  that  correspond  with  the  contracts  under  which  they  were 
built.  The  incinerators  at  Atlanta  and  Los  Angeles,  built  under 
a  stipulation  to  burn  200  tons  per  day,  are  not  able  to  destroy 
more  than  one-half  the  amount.  The  140-ton  incinerator  at 
Winnipeg  has  never  yet  been  able  to  meet  the  contract  condi- 
tions as  to  quantity  and  cost,  and  is  not  accepted  by  the  city. 

The  loo-ton  plant  at  Tampa  has  never  been  called  upon  to 
destroy  the  required  quantity  in  continuous  work.  The  cremator 
at  Milwaukee  has  never  met  the  specifications  of  amounts 
destroyed,  Or  costs  of  operating.  The  incinerator  at  Montreal 
does  not  consume  the  specified  quantities,  and  the  operating  costs 
are  more  than  double  the  contract's  requirements.  These  are 
the  largest  garbage  furnaces  now  working  under  municipal  man- 
agement, and  in  each  case  the  guaranteed  quantities  and  the 
operating  costs  have  not  yet  been  fulfilled. 


430  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  smaller  crematories  and  incinerators  are  in  a  similar  posi- 
tion with  respect  to  capacity  and  expense  of  operating,  though 
in  some  few  cases  the  contract  for  capacity  is  more  nearly  met, 
but  the  actual  operating  costs  are  always  greater  than  the  guar- 
antees if  taken  over  a  period  of  a  year.  When  a  trial  under  the 
best  conditions  approaches  the  operating  costs  according  to  con- 
tract, it  is  assumed  that  this  is  the  operating  cost  for  all  other 
furnaces  of  this  make  at  all  places,  and  contracts  are  acquired 
under  the  promise  to  do  similar  work  that  never  are  fulfilled, 
nor  were  expected  to  be  fulfilled  when  they  were  made. 

The  contractor  takes  the  chance  of  getting  his  furnace  ac- 
cepted under  a  guarantee  of  low  costs  of  operating,  largely  be- 
cause of  the  indefinite  way  in  which  the  amounts  and  character 
of  the  waste  to  be  burned  is  stated  by  the  town,  or  if  no  state- 
ment of  quantities  and  character  is  given,  then,  upon  the  pre- 
sumption that  these  will  agree  with  his  own  estimate  of  what  are 
the  amounts  and  kind  of  waste  to  be  destroyed.  He  makes  his 
own  estimate,  guarantees  the  cost  of  disposal,  and  when  he  comes 
short  of  the  guarantees,  sets  up  a  claim  that  his  conditions  are 
not  met,  threatens  litigation,  and  finally  compromises  upon  some 
basis  that  gives  the  town  the  possession  of  a  plant  that  is  not  sat- 
isfactory. Then,  the  contractor  having  received  the  highest  price 
for  his  plant  under  his  promise  of  lowest  operating  cost,  and 
usually  being  paid  a  large  proportion  of  his  price  before  trial, 
leaves  the  town  with  a  more  or  less  comfortable  margin  of  profit, 
and  departs  to  seek  fresh  fields  and  other  confiding  municipal 
officials. 

Sometimes,  but  infrequently,  this  programme  is  interrupted 
by  the  demand  of  the  town  that  the  contracts  be  fulfilled,  and 
then  there  is  trouble,  ending  in  cancellation  of  the  contract  and 
return  of  payments  made  or  a  compromise  that  leaves  both  parties 
dissatisfied.  Better  engineering  advice  and  more  care  in  prepar- 
ing the  first  specifications,  with  more  definite  statements  of  quan- 
tities and  character  of  waste,  and  more  rigid  and  exact  conditions 
for  construction  and  working  costs  over  a  period  long  enough  to 
get  a  knowledge  of  what  is  really  accomplished,  would  go  far  to 
obtain  better  results  and  avoid  the  mistakes  of  the  years  past. 

Disposal  by  crematories  and  incinerators  is  an  absolute  outgo 
for  expenses  of  construction  of  large  plants,  for  the  cost  of  fuel 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  431 

and  labor  to  operate  them,  with  no  return  of  anything  of  value 
from  the  work. 

UTILIZATION  OF  WASTE  BY  DESTRUCTORS   FOR   STEAM    POWER. 

In  contrast  with  the  crematories  and  incinerators  that  receive 
the  garbage  and  refuse  on  large  areas  of  grate  surface,  that 
proceed  by  a  slow  process  of  drying  and  burning  at  low  tempera- 
tures with  the  aid  of  extra  fuel,  and  that  obtain  no  residuum  of 
any  value,  are  to  be  placed  the  destructor  methods  that  proceed 
by  receiving  and  temporarily  storing  the  same  amounts  of  waste, 
either  in  a  separated  or  a  mixed  condition,  and  burn  this  upon 
smaller  area  of  fire  grates,  at  a  far  higher  temperature,  in  no 
longer  time  with  no  added  fuel,  with  a  residuum  of  vitrified 
clinker  useful  for  many  purposes,  and  with  the  production  of 
steam  power  that,  when  utilized,  reduces  the  cost  of  operation  to 
a  figure  impossible  to  be  obtained  by  any  other  means. 

A  comparison  of  these  two  methods  when  applied  to  the 
American  conditions  will  naturally  suggest  some  points  common 
to  both,  which  may  be  stated  thus : 

(a)  Area  of  ground  required:     For  destructor — 20  per  cent,  less  than 
for  incinerators. 

(b)  Initial  cost  of  plant  complete:    For  municipal  work,  in  quantities  of 
30  tons  up  to  75  tons  daily,  the  cost  for  destructor  plant  is  15  per  cent, 
more  than  for  incinerators.     This  is  for  the  added  boiler  and  machinery 
equipment. 

(c)  Capacity  of  plant:   A  reserve  capacity  for  the  same  relative  quanti- 
ties in  favor  of  destructor  because  of  storage  of  waste  and  more  econom- 
ical use  of  time  in  disposal. 

(d)  Durability  of  construction:    Is  greatly  in  favor  of  destructors,  as 
proven  by  continuous  work  of  more  than  300  destructors  against  the  in- 
termittent work  of  180  crematories  or  incinerators,  of  which  over  one-half 
are  discontinued. 

(e)  Temperatures  attained:    In  destructors  the  minimum  is   1250°   F., 
the  maximum  2000°  to  2700°,  the  average  1500°  to  1900°.    This  destroys, 
within  the  furnace,  all  consumable  gaseous  compounds.     In  crematories 
and   incinerators   the    initial   temperature   at  the   fire  box   rarely   attains 
1500°,  with  a  continuous  loss  of  heat  for  every  foot  of  distance  to  the 
chimney. 

(f)  The  addition  of  fuel  is  not  required  in  destructors,  but  is  a  necessity 
in  all  crematories. 

(g)  The  gases  of  combustion  are  consumed  by  the  destructors  within 


432  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

the  furnace;  in  crematories  and  incinerators  they  are  incompletely  de- 
stroyed in  their  rapid  passage  over  fume  cremators. 

(h)  The  power  developed  by  destructors  is  an  asset  or  revenue,  but  in 
crematories  and  incinerators  the  heat  is  passed  direct  to  the  chimney  and 
lost. 

(i)  The  residuums  of  destructor  work  are  vitrified  clinkers  useful  for 
several  departments  of  municipal  service.  The  soft  ashes  from  crematories 
have  no  value  except  for  filling  ground. 

(j)  The  scope  of  usefulness  of  destructors  covers  every  form  of  mu- 
nicipal waste  that  fire  will  affect ;  the  crematories  can  deal  only  with  gar- 
bage, but  are  not  able  to  burn  or  attempt  to  convert  house  ashes  into 
power. 

OPERATING  COSTS. 

There  has  been  much  misrepresentation  of  the  facts  concern- 
ing the  operating  costs  of  American  crematories.  As  before 
stated,  when  preliminary  trials  are  made  under  the  control  of 
the  builders  the  expense  of  operating  sometimes  very  nearly 
approaches  the  guaranteed  costs,  but  not  in  many  cases  is  this 
point  reached.  But  when  the  cost  of  operating  these  crematories 
is  taken  for  one  year's  time  it  invariably  results  in  expenses  being 
much  greater  than  the  guaranteed  cost.  An  examination  of  the 
work  done  by  the  American  crematories  over  a  period  of  over 
twenty  years  makes  it  very  clear  that  the  actual  cost  for  destroy- 
ing garbage  and  refuse,  when  fuel  is  necessary,  will  approximate 
the  sum  of  50  cents  per  ton,  and  this  may  be  taken  as  the  lowest 
price  which  can  be  reasonably  expected  in  all  yearly  periods  of 
the  work  covering  the  successful  operations  of  the  garbage 
crematories. 

Statements  made  that  the  garbage  can  be  destroyed  at  22  cents 
to  35  cents  per  ton  for  operating  costs  and  labor  and  fuel  are 
not  borne  out  by  facts.  If  we  assume  an  average  price  of  coal 
at  $4.50  to  $5  per  ton,  the  costs  for  disposal  will  certainly  rise 
to  nearly  50  cents  per  ton  for  actual  expenses. 

The  operating  costs  of  destructors,  so  far  as  is  demonstrated 
by  the  four  installations  now  at  work,  run  from  50  to  70  cents 
per  ton  for  actual  expense  of  labor.  This  is  because  there  is 
required  a  steam  engine  foreman  competent  to  run  a  boiler, 
whose  wages  are  higher  than  the  ordinary  attendant.  The  re- 
port previously  noted  from  Vancouver  is  an  example  of  this  case. 
Here  the  garbage  and  refuse  is  destroyed  by  destructor  servic  : 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  433 

with  no  utilization  of  the  power,  and  the  cost  approximates  56 
cents  per  ton. 

The  use  of  the  same  apparatus  of  the  modern  high  temperature 
destructor  disposing  of  garbage  mixed  with  refuse  under  forced 
draft  will  in  American  cities  be  found  to  perform  the  work  at 
a  cost  not  to  exceed  from  50  to  60  cents.  Now,  when  a  credit 
is  made  for  the  development  of  power  which  is  produced  by 
the  destructor,  the  operating  costs  will  fall  from  50  cents  to 
30  cents  or  less  per  ton. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  figures  do  not  include  ex- 
penses of  depreciation  or  capital  charges  on  the  cost  of  the  plant. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  what  the  work  in  this  country  can  be 
brought  to  the  same  ratio  of  expense  as  is  done  abroad,  but  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  cost  of  wages  here  is  about  double 
what  is  paid  to  the  same  class  of  labor  in  England.  Therefore, 
the  operating  expenses  must  be  larger  when  compared  with 
destructors  in  other  countries. 

THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  ASHES. 

The  preceding  tables  and  comments  thereon  bring  out  the  fact 
that  there  is  undeveloped  value  in  ashes  removed  from  the  house- 
holds of  the  people.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  ashes  of 
anthracite  coal.  Some  part  of  this  coal  is  now  recovered  from 
the  dumps  by  that  class  of  the  people  who  make  dump-picking 
their  livelihood.  Among  the  many  articles  which  can  be  recov- 
ered, the  coal  is  probably  the  most  valuable  item,  and  of  this  only 
a  small  per  cent,  of  the  total  quantity  is  saved,  as  the  most  part 
is  in  too  small  fragments  to  be  picked  up.  But  when  the  fine 
dustlike  ashes  are  taken  out  by  screens,  and  the  coal  and  clinker 
afterward  separated,  then  the  volume  and  value  of  the  coal  is 
clearly  apparent. 

This  has  been  tried  at  one  city  where  the  waste  disposal  works 
by  incineration  receives  the  mixed  mass  and  separates  the  fine 
ash  before  combustion. 

The  real  value  of  municipal  ashes  as  applied  to  many  purposes 
is  well  illustrated  in  the  following  paper  by  a  gentleman  whose 
labors  in  this  field  of  sanitary  engineering  have  extended  over 
a  long  period,  and  whose  opinion  may  be  taken  as  the  latest 
expression  on  the  value  and  uses  of  this  form  of  municipal  waste. 


434  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

UTILIZATION  OF  CITY  ASHES — BY   C.   HERSCHEL  KOYL,  CON- 
SULTING ENGINEER. 

Clean  anthracite  ash  should  be  an  article  of  commerce  and 
not  a  city  waste. 

It  contains  on  the  average  45  per  cent,  fine  ash,  30  per  cent, 
clinker  and  stone,  and  25  per  cent,  unburned  coal,  much  of  it 
untouched  by  fire. 

The  fire  ash  can  be  made  cheaply  into  excellent  brick  and  mor- 
tar ;  the  clinker  and  stone  are  first-class  material  for  fireproof 
floors  and  for  the  frost-proof  beds  of  sidewalks  and  yard  pave- 
ments; the  coal  has  a  fuel  value  75  per  cent,  that  of  new  coal, 
and  for  some  purposes  is  better. 

The  above  statement  presupposes  the  possibility  of  separating 
these  substances  from  each  other.  This  is  no  longer  difficult, 
and  no  more  costly  than  the  original  mining  of  coal  and  its  sep- 
aration from  slate,  while  this  latter  separation  has  the  advantage 
of  being  made  at  the  doors  of  the  market  instead  of  a  couple  of 
hundred  miles  away,  and  of  leaving  no  waste  product. 

The  separation  cannot  well  be  made  by  the  family,  because  of 
the  dust  and  the  small  value  recoverable  from  a  single  fire.  It 
must  be  made  by  machinery  and  on  a  large  scale.  But  the  family 
can  keep  its  ashes  clean,  and  the  city  must  do  the  same,  for  it 
is  not  easy  to  separate  a  mixture  of  ashes,  street  sweepings, 
newspapers  and  bed-springs.  The  plan  is  practicable  in  any  city 
using  hard  coal,  and  populous  enough  to  warrant  a  separate 
collection  of  ashes — say  a  city  of  100,000  people. 

Statistics  of  the  Borough  of  Manhattan,  New  York  City,  will 
serve  for  general  illustration : 

The  population  is,  say 2,200,000 

The  ashes  collected,  say  (tons) 1,500,000 

The  latter  consisting  of : 

Fine  ash  (tons)    675,000 

Clinker  and  stone  (tons) 450,000 

Coal  recoverable  (tons) , 375,ooo 

1,500,000 

The  weight  of  each  of  these  is  approximately  one  ton  per  cubic 
yard. 

Coal  is  the  most  valuable  and  most  readily  salable  product  of 
the  separation.  It  is  surprising  to  find  in  the  ash  so  much  coal 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  435 

indistinguishable  from  that  fresh  from  the  mine.  It  is  of  all 
sizes  from  furnace  down,  but  is  mostly  nut.  The  mechanical 
process  of  separation  is  so  exact  that  not  only  can  the  coal  be 
separated  from  the  clinker  and  stone,  but  the  fire-marked  coal 
can  be  separated  from  the  unmarked. 

Nearly  half  of  the  product  is  coal  salable  at  the  price  of  new, 
and  I  estimate  the  average  selling  price  of  the  recovered  coal  at 
three-quarters  that  of  new  coal  in  the  same  city.  The  total  cost 
of  separation  is  less  than  one  dollar  per  ton  of  recovered  coal 
(the  operating  expenses  being  about  twenty-five  cents),  and  if 
the  total  cost  of  the  separation  be  charged  to  the  coal  the  profit 
will  be  the  difference  between  this  and  three-quarters  of  the 
wholesale  price  of  new  coal  in  the  place  in  question.  In  New 
York  the  profit  should  not  be.  less  than  $2  per  ton. 

The  uses  of  clinker  and  stone  may  be  illustrated  as  follows: 

There  is  necessary  under  sidewalks,  flagging  and  cellar  floors 
a  substratum  of  loose,  dry  material  which  will  not  readily  bring 
up  the  water  of  the  underlying  earth,  and  which  in  winter  will 
not  readily  be  affected  by  frost,  since  its  porosity  will  furnish 
room  for  internal  expansion.  It  has  been  customary  for  some 
time  to  lay  such  walks  with  a  substratum  of  from  four  to  eight 
inches  of  clinker,  and  men  in  the  business  say  that  nothing  else 
is  so  satisfactory  for  the  purpose,  and  that  nothing  else  would  be 
used  if  clinker  were  always  available. 

There  is  laid  annually  in  Manhattan  not  far  from  900,000  sq. 
ft.  of  new  sidewalk,  and  about  as  much  more  in  flagging  and 
cement  walks  for  rear  yards ;  and  the  annual  area  of  new  cellar 
floor  is  not  far  from  8,500  sq.  ft.,  which  makes  a  total  of  10,- 
300,000  sq.  ft.,  and  this  if  underlaid  to  a  depth  of  six  inches 
would  require  5,150,000  cubic  feet,  or  190,000  cubic  yards  of 
clinker. 

Use  in  Fireproof  Floors. — The  most  extensive  present  use  of 
clinker,  however,  is  in  the  construction  of  fireproof  floors  of 
large  office  buildings,  warehouses,  and  the  first  stories  of  all 
apartment  and  tenement  houses  more  than  four  stories  in  height. 
Here  the  steel  floor-beams  are  from  10  to  15  inches  deep  to 
afford  sufficient  carrying  capacity;  the  support  is  completed  by 
brick  arches  which  rest  upon  the  flanges  of  the  beams,  and  the 
upper  portion  of  such  floors,  to  a  depth  of  about  six  inches,  is 


436  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

filled  in  with  clinker,  preferably,  and  always  when  it  is  procur- 
able. A  large  office  building  requires  more  than  5,000  cubic 
yards  of  clinker.  The  total  annual  amount  of  such  new  floor 
space  in  Manhattan  is  about  600,000  cubic  yards,  and  there  is 
not  enough  clinker  to  fill  it. 

Utilisation  of  Fine  Ash  in  Building. — There  are  several  meth- 
ods of  making  up  fine  anthracite  ash  into  brick,  mortar,  mortar- 
board and  material  for  interior  decoration.  The  ash  must  be 
finely  sifted  but  the  results  are  always  good.  The  cheapest 
method  is  to  combine  ash  with  a  small  proportion  of  freshly 
slaked  lime,  press  it,  and  if  it  is  properly  made  get  next  day  a 
brick  which  in  all  essentials  is  the  equal  of  ordinary  red  brick, 
and  which  makes  a  stronger  wall  because  ash-mortar  is  stronger 
than  lime-sand  mortar.  The  ash  must  be  fine,  and  the  best  re- 
sults are  obtained  by  the  intimate  mixture  with  lime  by  a  ma- 
chine, on  the  order  of  machine-mixed  lime-sand  mortar  now  so 
extensively  used. 

Of  course,  a  new  building  material  must  win  its  way,  but  it 
is  a  safe  statement  that  if  ash-mortar  proves  to  have  greater 
strength  and  more  enduring  qualities  than  lime-sand  mortar  it 
will  be  welcomed  as  a  substitute  by  architects,  and  if  it  can  be 
furnished  at  a.  less  price  it  will  be  welcomed  by  builders.  The 
field  is  large  because  ash-lime  is  lighter,  stronger  and  cheaper 
than  lime-sand  for  mortar,  mortar-board  and  plaster. 

The  present  law  in  many  places  is  that  "mortar  shall  be  made 
from  clean,  sharp  sand,"  but  this  is  merely  a  protection  for  the 
public  against  "mud"  mortar,  and  if  ash-mortar  proves  better 
than  mortar  made  from  "clean,  sharp  sand"  the  law  can  undoubt- 
edly be  amended  to  include  also  the  better  material. 

From  present  indications  I  see  no  reasons  to  doubt  the  early 
and  extended  use  of  fine  anthracite  ash  for  various  building  pur- 
poses, and,  as  I  have  said  in  another  place,  "it  will  be  the  perfec- 
tion of  'waste*  utilization  to  build  dwelling  houses  in  June  from 
the  dwelling  house  ash  of  May." 


UTILIZATION  OF  WASTE  BY  GAS  PRODUCER  METHODS. 

In  January,  1900,  when  the  merger  of  the  gas,  electric  light 
and  power  companies  in  New  York  City  was  about  to  be  con- 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  437 

summated,  and  these  interests  brought  under  one  management  for 
self-protection  and  to  avoid  competition,  the  question  of  obtain- 
ing power  from  the  city's  waste  for  the  uses  of  the  consolidated 
stations  was  brought  forward  in  the  public  press.  Many  com- 
munications on  the  subject  were  printed,  among  them  two  letters 
from  eminent  engineers,  which  gave  clear  ideas  of  the  possibilities 
of  these  means  of  disposal  and  waste  utilization,  and  showed 
what  might  be  done  not  only  in  New  York  but  also  in  all  the  cities 
of  this  country. 

The  two  letters  referred  to,  those  of  Mr.  George  Westing- 
house  and  Prof.  R.  H.  Thurston,  are  given  below: 

THE  GAS  AND  POWER  MERGER. 
To  the  Editor  of  The  New  York  Times: 

The  bringing  together  of  the  gas  and  electric  light  and  power  interests 
in  New  York  should  result  in  great  advantages  to  the  public  and  to  the 
interests^so  combined,  provided  the  latest  developments  in  gas  and  electric 
engineering  are  investigated  and  availed  of.  Among  the  numerous  ques- 
tions affecting  the  health,  comfort,  and  convenience  of  the  citizens  of  New 
York  (and  of  all  communities,  in  fact)  are  three  of  especial  impor- 
tance, viz. : 

The  disposal  of  garbage,  the  abatement  of  the  smoke  nuisance  due  to 
the  increasing  use  of  bituminous  coal  for  steam  power  purposes,  and  the 
securing  of  an  adequate  supply  of  water. 

From  statistics  there  appear  to  be  created  daily  in  New  York  about 
500  tons  of  garbage,  or  at  the  rate  of  one-half  pound  per  capita.  Such 
garbage  is  about  20  per  cent,  carbon  and  80  per  cent,  water.  By  a  process 
which  has  been  well  demonstrated  on  a  small  scale,  and  which  is  being 
rapidly  brought  to  a  commercial  basis,  all  of  this  garbage  can  "be  economi- 
cally, and  without  offensive  odor,  converted  into  a  fuel  gas  of  great  value. 
In  the  same  apparatus  and  by  the  same  process  soft  coal  can  be  made  into 
a  gas  suitable  for  power  and  heating  purposes. 

The  fuel  gas  made  from  garbage  and  soft  coal  can  be  used  to  drive  gas 
engines  with  electric  generators,  and  the  electricity  thus  produced  can  be 
used  for  light  and  to  drive  motors  to  the  exclusion  of  the  thousands  of 
steam  engines  and  boilers  which  make  such  demands  upon  the  water 
supply,  since  the  gas  engine  central  stations  can  be  so  located  that  the 
water  needed  for  engine-cooling  purposes  can  be  taken  from  the  river. 

Bearing  upon  these  questions,  and  of  especial  importance,  are  the  par- 
tially executed  plans  of  the  electric  power  and  light  corporations,  viz.,  the 
Metropolitan,  Third  Avenue,  and  Manhattan  Elevated  Railways,  and  the 
New  York  Gas  and  Electric  Light,  Heat  and  Power  Company  and  the 
United  Electric  Light  and  Power  Company.  If  their  present  plans,  which 
are  fairly  well  known  to  the  engineering  profession,  are  carried  to  com- 
pletion, each  will  have  one  large  steam  station  on  the  East  River  between 
Twenty-ninth  Street  and  the  Harlem  River,  with  about  75,000  horsepower 
6f  engines,  boilers,  and  electric  machinery,  making  an  aggregate  of  375,000 
horsepower,  and  which  may  be  largely  increased  when  the  underground 
rapid  transit  railway  is  completed,  and  still  further  when  the  electric 
locomotive  is  used  on  all  steam  railways  within  the  city  limits. 

If  these  corporations,  which  might  as  well  buy  electricity  as  the  ma- 
chinery, coal,  and  water  with  which  to  produce  it,  were  to  unite  in  a 


438  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

common  plan  to  provide  the  electricity  needed  in  their  operations  by  the 
adoption  of  the  best  available  methods,  the  saving  to  each  in  capital  ex- 
penditure would  be  very  great,  and  the  decreased  cost  of  their  supply  of 
electricity  would  make  an  important  addition  to  their  earnings  applicable 
to  the  payment  of  dividends;  while,  most  important  of  all,  the  citizens 
of  New  York  would  have  solved  for  them  the  garbage,  smoke  and  very 
largely  the  water  questions. 

I  believe  the  contemplated  plans  of  the  corporations  above  named,  which 
can  be  shown  to  be  based  upon  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
will  stand  in  the  way  of  vast  public  interests,  and,  so  believing,  I  have 
said  to  representatives  of  some  of  those  companies  that  the  near  future 
would  demonstrate  the  projected  power  stations  and  systems  of  electrical 
distribution  incidental  to  the  character  of  such  stations,  to  be  as  far  from 
the  best  as  are  the  old  cable  systems  for  the  propulsion  of  cars. 

I  write  this  letter  because  I  believe  these  subjects  are  just  now  worthy 
of  investigation,  discussion,  and  elaboration. 

GEORGE  WESTINGHOUSE. 

New  York,  Jan.  9,  1900. 

PLANTS  FOR  USING  REFUSE. 
To  the  Editor  of  The  New  York  Times: 

I  have  been  much  impressed  by  the  suggestions  of  Mr.  Westinghouse's 
letter  of  the  9th  published  in  The  Times  of  the  loth  inst.  It  suggests 
thoughts  far  more  wide  reaching  than  at  first  may  appear. 

The  primary  principle  which  underlies  its  text  is  that  of  the  combination 
of  all  the  essential  public  utilities  in  such  manner  as  to  insure  the  most 
economical  production  possible.  This  does  not,  in  this  case,  mean  so  much 
a  reduction  of  total  costs  to  the  public  as  an  increase  of  availability  of  the 
product  for  the  average  citizen.  When  gas  is  permanently  reduced  to  50 
cents  per  1,000  cubic  feet  we  may  all  use  it  in  our  kitchens  and  to  some 
extent  for  heating  and  in  manufacturing,  while  the  city  will  employ  it  in 
making  more  extended  and  efficient  the  public  lighting  outside  the  range 
of  the  electric  light.  When  the  electric  light  can  be  supplied  at  a  half  or 
two-thirds  its  present  average  cost,  the  urban  lighting  of  our  communities 
will  be  doubled  in  area  and  efficiency,  and  the  comfort  of  honest  citizens 
and  their  safety  and  the  repression  of  disorder  and  crime  will  be  vastly- 
greater  than  now.  As  is  almost  invariably  the  fact,  the  reduction  of  price 
and  costs  will  be  met  not  so  much  by  saving  as  by  extending  the  benefits 
of  all  utilities.  When  garbage  can  be  made  to  contribute  to  our  comfort 
and  health  instead  of  being  a  perpetual  menace,  our  householders  will  find 
comfort  in  that  fact,  and  our  taxpayers  will  be  relieved. 

In  every  city  in  the  country  this  combination  of  all  sources  of  power  in 
a  single  center  and  the  production  of  heat,  light,  power,  and  electricity, 
and  the  incineration  profitably  and  wholesomely  of  all  garbage  should  be 
provided  for.  Such  a  wise  and  sound  method  of  engineering  these  enter- 
prises would  enable  many  a  small  city  or  even  village  to  supply  its  people 
with  water  and  light,  and  to  relieve  itself  from  the  dangers  of  typhoid- 
charged  water  and  of  fever-breeding  garbage,  whereas  it  must  otherwise 
wait  many  years  for  the  comforts  of  modern  life.  The  gas,  electric,  and 
water  supply  "plants,"  and  the  garbage  incineration  arrangements  should 
all  be  combined,  not  so  much  to  reduce  costs  of  product  and  of  necessary 
expenditures  as  to  make  it  practicable  for  our  cities  to  secure  well-lighted 
streets,  an  ample  supply  of  pure  water — artesian  if  possible — for  drinking 
and  industrial  purposes,  a  complete  and  useful  disposal  of  refuse  matter, 
and  all  at  minimum  charge  in  the  tax  levy.  But  it  is  the  wide  distribution 
of  these  great  blessings  rather  than  the  reduction  of  the  aggregate  cost 
to  the  city  of  such  charges  that  should  be  sought. 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  439 

Mr.  Westinghouse  has  himself  done  much  to  render  this  important 
change  practicable,  not  simply  in  his  contribution  to  the  art  of  electric 
lighting,  but  also,  and  more  extensively  and  in  a  more  important  degree 
than  is  generally  realized,  in  his  work  in  the  direction  of  placing  beside 
the  steam  engine  as  a  source  of  industrial  power  a  distinctly  dangerous 
rival  in  the  gas  engine  of  large  power,  gas  engines  of  500  and  600,  and,  in 
a  few  instances,  of  1,500  horsepower,  and  operating  with  exceptional 
economy,  having  already  been  produced.  The  scheme  for  the  conversion 
of  the  potential  energy  of  our  garbage  into  useful  power,  as  a  part  of  the 
larger  plan,  is  by  these  facts  rendered  so  much  the  nearer  practicable,  and 
the  day  of  this  form  of  industrial  extension  so  much  the  closer  at  hand. 

We  find  ourselves,  as  Mr.  Westinghouse  himself  has  elsewhere  stated  it, 
in  "A  New  Industrial  Situation."  Happily,  it  is  one  in  which  all  parties 
to  the  present  and  older  situation  may  be  advantaged.  The  realization  of 
this  proposed  modernization  of  the  city  public  utilities  in  this  manner  will 
extend  the  market  for  the  sale  of  electric  light  and  for  gas,  and  thus 
increase  the  profits,  as  always  occurs,  on  the  extended  business.  It  will 
make  our  very  wastes,  by  way  of  the  kitchen  door,  a  source  of  health  and 
profit  and  free  us  from  some  of  the  most  serious  of  all  the  risks  and  dis- 
advantages of  crowded  city  life.  Where  it  is  practicable  in  the  usual  case 
— in  fact,  to  introduce  the  provision  of  needed  power  for  a  pure-water 
supply  in  the  scheme,  the  free  use  of  wholesome  water  will  become  a 
continually  growing  source  of  health  and  comfort  and  godliness. 

Nowhere  in  the  world  is  there  a  greater  opportunity  offered  for  the  full 
exemplification  of  this  plan  and  its  economical  advantages  than  in  New 
York,  and  nowhere  is  it  possible  to  accomplish  more  for  a  crowded  popula- 
tion than  in  that  city.  With  pure  water  in  plenty  for  the  poorest,  liberal 
use  of  electricity  for  light  and  power,  and  of  gas,  where  suitable  for 
lighting,  and  in  the  now  common  and  economical  forms  of  gas  engines  of 
every  magnitude,  from  1,500  horsepower  down,  with  sanitary  conditions 
perfected  by  proper  disposal  of  garbage  and  sewage,  New  York  should 
become  an  ideal  residence  city.  Nature  has  there  done  her  best,  and  it 
only  remains  for  man  to  do  his  very  best  in  the  light  of  modern  science. 

This  is  hardly  less  true  of  all  large  cities,  but  that  is  not  the  most  or  the 
best  possible.  The  larger  proportion  of  our  people,  so  far  as  urban  at  all, 
live  in  small  cities,  and  these  may,  under  such  ideal  conditions  as  are  here 
contemplated,  become  at  a  comparatively  early  stage  in  their  growth  well 
lighted,  healthfully  provided  with  water,  and  sanitarily  insured  against 
danger  from  refuse,  now  a  source  of  sickness  and  death,  and  at  a  reason- 
able cost,  may  be  given  all  the  comforts  of  city  life. 

R.  H.  THURSTON. 

Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  Jan.  12,  1900. 

The  exceptionally  good  opportunity  pointed  out  by  these  gen- 
tlemen for  refuse  utilization  and  power  production  in  the  city 
of  New  York  was  never  allowed  to  be  improved.  The  monopolies 
holding  the  control  of  the  gas,  electric  light  and  power  interests 
were  powerful  enough  not  only  to  discourage  any  attempt  at 
utilization  of  waste,  but  also  to  stop  efforts  in  this  direction  made 
by  private  parties  and  the  city  authorities. 

The  situation  in  New  York  to-day  is  practically  precisely  what 
it  was  eight  years  ago.  The  city  gives  to  a  disposal  company 
$1.25  a  ton  to  remove  the  garbage  from  its  wharves,  and  also  gives 


44Q  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

this  company  all  the  valuable  products  derived  therefrom.  It 
turns  over  to  a  contractor  the  dry  refuse,  which  annually  amounts 
to  150,000  tons,  for  which  it  receives  the  nominal  return  of  from 
$40,000  to  $50,000.  This  item  is  the  only  one  from  which  the  city 
derives  revenue  from  waste.  The  volume  of  ashes,  something 
like  2,000,000  tons  per  year,  is  taken  by  a  contractor  from  the 
city's  wharves,  at  a  cost  of  $500,000  per  year  to  the  city,  and  is 
deposited  on  dumps  where  are  annually  buried,  beyond  any 
chance  of  recovery,  400,000  tons  of  good  coal.  This  procedure 
may  be  called  "municipal  wastefulness"  rather  than  "municipal 
waste  utilization." 

TURNING  GARBAGE  INTO  GAS. 

When  the  foregoing  letters  of  Mr.  Westinghouse  and  Prof. 
Thurston  were  written  the  production  of  gas  by  the  "producer" 
method,  and  the  introduction  of  gas  engines  was  just  beginning. 
Since  then  some  important  advances  have  been  made,  and  the 
use  of  engines  driven  by  this  power  has  been  greatly  extended. 
But  the  method  of  producing  gas  from  garbage  has  yet  to  be 
developed.  Some  experiments  have  been  made  by  which  it  is 
proved  that  gas  can  be  made  from  many  forms  of  waste  prod- 
ucts, among  them  being  the  mixed  collection  of  municipal  waste. 
The  subjoined  special  article  by  an  engineer  qualified  by  years 
of  practice  and  experience  in  the  field  of  gas  production  gives 
an  idea  of  this  possible  use  of  unseparated  city  refuse. 

THE  DISPOSAL  OF  CITY  WASTE  BY  GAS  PRODUCERS 
BY  F.  C.  TRYON,  Consulting  Engineer 

The  use  of  city  waste,  such  as  ashes,  refuse  and  garbage  in 
gas  producers  for  the  double  purpose  of  incinerating  the  waste 
and  utilizing  the  products  of  the  process  in  the  form  of  producer 
gas  for  power  purposes  is  perfectly  practical,  and  the  process  of 
disposal  of  this  waste  should  not  be  obnoxious  to  the  surrounding 
territory. 

I  have  examined  the  tables  sent  me  showing  the  calorific  values 
of  the  various  constituents  of  this  waste  material,  which  I  find 
to  be  about  as  follows: 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  441 

Taking   a   quantity   of    50   tons   miscellaneous   city   refuse   as 
gathered  in  New  York  the  proportions  will  be: 

f  Fine  ashes 

Ashes  70% 35   tons •{  Clinker 

I  Coal 

Garbage  20% 10    tons f  Moisture 

oolids 


Refuse  10% 5    tons /  Combustible 

\  Incombustible 

Ashes  (screened)  65% 22.75    to(ns 

clinkers .     20% 7  . oo 

coal 15% 5-25 

Garbage  moisture     70% 7  .00 

solids          30% 3  .00 

Refuse    combustible      95% 4-75 

"       incombustible     5% 25 

From  an  analysis  of  the  above  we  find : 

Coal  5  tons  average  calorific  value 10,000  B.T.U.  per  Ib. 

Garbage  3  tons  solids,  average  cal.  value.  .  .  .    8,243 

7  tons  moisture, 
Refuse  4.75  tons,  average  calorific  value  ....    8,437 

When  the  above  50  tons  of  waste  have  been  screened  and 
sorted  we  have  ready  for  incinerating  19.75  tons-  All  the  re- 
maining 30.25  tons  is  in  the  form  of  fine  ashes,  clinker,  bottles, 
broken  glass,  etc.,  available  for  filling  for  low  lands.  When  sep- 
arated the  clinker  is  an  excellent  base  for  concrete  streets  and 
walks,  and  has  a  value  equal  to  its  removal  expense.  The  19.75 
tons  combustible  material  contains  the  following  B.  t.  u. : 

5        tons  coal 10,000  Ibs.,  10,000  B.T.U.  perlb.  =  100,000,000 

3         tons  garbage,  sols.,     6,000  8,243                        '    =   49>4 58,000 

7  tons  garbage,  moist.,      14,000 

4 . 7  5  tons  refuse 9>5°°       "  8»437        "           "    "    =    79,151,500 


19. 75  tons  39,5oo   Ibs.  228,609,500 

Deducting  the  moisture,  7  tons,  14,000  pounds,  will  leave  12.75 
tons,  or  22,500  pounds  of  dry  matter. 

The  19.75  tons  (39>5°°  pounds)  of  solids  will  carry  7  tons 
(14,000  pounds)  moisture.  This  will  not  be  prohibitory  for 
producer  practice.  The  proper  way  to  handle  this  would  be  to 
have  the  whole  mixed  collection  delivered  at  a  dumping  plant. 
Under  such  a  method  the  ashes  are  elevated  and  dropped  on  to 
screens  separating  the  coarse  clinker,  the  fine  clinker,  coal  and 
fine  ash.  The  clinker  and  coal  are  then  run  through  a  jig  which 
washes  the  coal  from  the  remainder.  The  refuse  passes  over  a 
sorting  belt  where  articles  of  value  and  all  pieces  of  glass  are 


442  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

removed,  and  the  remainder  is  then  carried  to  a  chopping  machine 
where  it  is  all  cut  into  small  pieces.  This  fine  refuse,  which  is 
very  dry,  is  then  mixed  with  the  wet  garbage  and  all  elevated 
into  storage  bunkers  arranged  above  the  producer  plant.  The 
coal  is  also  stored  in  adjoining  bunkers,  and  all  are  arranged  so 
that  the  material  in  each  plant  can  be  spouted  direct  into  the 
producer  without  further  handling. 

The  12.75  tons,  or  25,550  pounds  of  solid  matter,  carries 
226,6x39,500  B.  t.  u.,  or  8,887  B.  t.  u.  per  pound',  available  for  use. 
Since  this  12.75  tons  is  all  perfectly  dry  refuse  it  is  necessary  to 
use  steam  in  the  producer  to  prevent  clinkering  of  fire  bed,  and 
the  usual  practice  is  y2  pound  steam  to  i  pound  fuel.  This  re- 
quires 1,270  pounds  steam  to  the  ton,  therefore  the  addition  of 
7  tons  (14,000  pounds)  moisture  contained  in  the  garbage  is  not 
excessive  to  keep  the  heats  of  producer  in  reasonable  working 
condition. 

A  down-draft  producer  working  with  open  top,  so  that  the 
fuel  can  be  spouted  direct  to  top  of  fire  bed,  will  at  all  times 
have  the  fire  under  the  observation  of  the  attendant,  and  it  can 
be  poked  and  barred  as  necessary.  All  hydro-carbons  are  dis- 
tilled from  fuel  at  top  of  fire  bed  and  drawn  down  through  bed 
of  incandescent  carbon,  passing  from  the  bottom  of  the  pro- 
ducer a  fixed,  noncondensable  gas.  The  ashes  from  the  combus- 
tion of  this  miscellaneous  material  is  barred  down  from  time  to 
time  mechanically  without  opening  the  producer  to  the  inlet  of 
air.  This  ash  removal  can  be  arranged  for  continuous  operation, 
if  desired,  so  that  fuel  will  be  flowing  in  at  the  top  of  the  pro- 
ducer, ashes  be  taken  out  of  the  bottom,  and  gas  drawn  off  near 
the  bottom. 

A  producer  arranged  as  described  above  would  easily  deliver 
in  clean  gas  60  per  cent,  efficiency  of  the  B.  t.  u.  fed  to  it.  Thus 
it  would  produce  135,965,700  B.  t.  u.  in  gas. 

If  this  volume  were  the  product  of  twenty-four  hours  of  in- 
cineration it  would  produce  5,665,237  B.  t.  u.  per  hour,  easily 
driving  45O-horsepower  of  gas  engines  to  full  load,  supplying 
330  kilowatts  of  electric  energy.  If  this  current  were  sold  to  an 
electric  lighting  company  at  its  own  cost  of  production,  say  2 
cents  per  kilowatt  per  hour,  the  income  from  such  a  plant  would 
amount  to  $53,557.55  per  year.  The  expense  of  installation  de- 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  443 

signed  to  handle  50  tons  of  miscellaneous  city  waste  collections 
per  day  would  depend  very  much  upon  the  locality  where  it  was 
erected  and  the  permanency  of  the  plant. 

Assuming  a  permanent  fireproof  building  two  stories  high, 
50  x  60  feet,  on  two  lots  25  x  100  feet,  concrete  construction,  the 
cost  of  building  and  land  in  a  city  of  New  York  equipment 
would  be : 

Two  GAS  PRODUCER  PLANTS: 

Two  gas  engines,  electric  generators  and  necessary  ma- 
chinery for  lifting,  sorting  and  handling  the  50  tons 
per  day,  say $85,000  .00 

COST  OF  OPERATING  PLANT: 

Interest,  depreciation,  repairs,  taxes,  and  in- 
surance, 18% $i  5,300 .00 

Labor,  i  superintendent 


2  foremen 

8  men  to  shift 


13,600 .00 


2  shifts 
Supplies,  Water 

Oil          f- •  • i, 600 .00 

Waste 


Total  cost  yearly  operation $30,500  .00 

Electric  current  sold $53.557-55 

Selected  waste  sold,  855  tons,  $2.50 2,137  -5° 

$55»695-o5 
Cost 30, 500  .  oo 

Profit $25,195.05 

The  above  shows  a  fair  return  on  the  investment,  and  I  am 
convinced  that  the  materials  can  be  utilized  as  described,  and 
that  the  products  will  amply  repay  for  the  investment,  even 
though  the  profits  should  not  be  quite  as  much  as  shown. 

One  great  advantage  of  this  manner  of  disposal  is  that  there 
is  no  smoke,  smell,  or  other  obnoxious  fumes  from  the  plant. 
These  are  saved  in  the  form  of  gas. 

The  garbage  could  be  disinfected  as  delivered  at  the  dump  in 
a  manner  that  would  really  increase  its  calorific  value.  All  dust 
and  dirt  from  the  screening  of  the  ashes  could  be  kept  within 
the  chutes  of  the  building.  The  selection  of  a  site  for  such  a 
plant  should  be  at  a  point  where  the  surplus  refuse  of  fine  ashes 
and  cinders  could  be  handled  and  disposed  of  in  the  least  expen- 
sive manner,  and  at  the  same  time  the  plant  should  be  located 


THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

in  a  place  where  the  gathering  and  delivery  of  a  certain  district 
supplying  the  50  tons  daily  should  not  have  too  long  a  haul  to 
the  dumps,  also  having  in  mind  the  delivery  to  some  main  line 
of  wire  distribution  for  the  electric  current  to  be  disposed  of. 

The  foregoing  answers  the  inquiries  usually  made,  and  may  be 
of  use  in  determining  one  of  the  many  ways  of  utilizing  and  dis- 
posing of  the  waste  of  a  municipality. 


The  calculations  in  the  foregoing  statement  are  based  upon 
data  obtained  by  calorimeter  tests  in  the  laboratory.  The  range 
of  these  theoretical  values  is  much  higher  than  it  is  found  to  be 
in  the  actual  work  of  disposal  by  destructor  processes.  In  prac- 
tice there  is  a  difference  of  nearly  one-half  less  in  the  calorific 
values  per  pound  than  is  assumed  by  Mr.  Tryon;  consequently 
there  would  be  a  corresponding  reduction  in  the  results  as  com- 
pared with  what  he  records.  But  there  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count the  fact  that  the  method  of  the  gas  producer  in  dealing 
with  this  waste  is  more  economical  in  its  operation  than  any 
form  of  incinerator  can  be.  It  is  therefore  fair  to  assume  that 
the  results  obtained  from  municipal  waste  in  a  mixed  state  by 
the  gas  producer  process  would  be  at  least  equally  good  as  those 
developed  under  combustion  by  forced  draft,  and  that  the  figures 
submitted  in  the  foregoing  statement,  while  they  may  appear  to 
be  rather  high,  will,  if  discounted  one-half,  show  that  this  method 
of  waste  disposal  is  one  that  will  return  a  very  fair  revenue,  far 
more  than  sufficient  for  the  operation  of  the  plant.  Experiments 
have  been  made  with  municipal  waste  under  this  form  of  dis- 
posal and  have  proved  successful,  although  there  is  no  gas  pro- 
ducer operating  altogether  by  this  fuel. 

UTILIZATION  OF  REFUSE  BY  CRUSHING  OR  GRINDING,  AND  MANU- 
FACTURE INTO  BRIQUETTES. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  method  of  grinding  up  the 
refuse  of  the  city  of  Paris  to  prepare  it  for  use  at  the  adjacent 
market  gardens  and  farming  lands.  Though  this  method  has  been 
in  use  for  three  years  in  three  of  the  city  districts,  there  are  no 
reports  that  show  more  satisfactory  results  than  those  from 
three  other  districts  of  Paris  where  the  final  disposal  is  made  by 
three  Meldrum  destructors. 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  445 

Meantime,  an  English  town — the  Borough  of  Southwark — 
placed  in  operation  in  October,  1906,  an  apparatus  for  crushing 
or  pulverizing  house  refuse,  practically  without  any  previous 
sorting,  and  using  the  crushed  material  as  a  dressing  for  land. 
The  house  refuse  is  brought  to  the  plant  in  wagons,  dumped  in 
front  of  the  machines,  and  shovelled  into  the  crushers — about 
5  per  cent,  of  large  material  being  thrown  out.  From  the  crush- 
ers the  material  falls  into  conveyors  that  discharge  into  railway 
cars  in  which  it  is  carried  to  purchasers. 

They  have  found  it  valuable  for  use  on  heavy  soils  and  grass 
land  and  the  sales  have  increased  from  203  tons  in  October,  1906, 
to  925  in  March,  1908.  The  average  selling  rate  is  about  56^2 
cents  per  long  ton,  which  includes  hauling.  During  three  months 
in  1907  it  was  necessary  to  store  the  material,  which  was  sold 
later. 

After  operating  for  one  year  it  was  decided  to  double  the 
capacity  of  the  plant  so  as  to  deal  with  all  of  the  refuse  of  the 
town.  The  new  machines  are  made  somewhat  heavier  than  the 
first  ones  and  it  is  believed  that  this  will  permit  reducing  the  cost 
of  beaters  and  grids.  Operating  two  plants  will  also  effect  a 
saving  on  the  labor  of  each. 

The  first  plant  consisted  of  two  machines,  which,  with  motors, 
shafting,  etc.,  cost  about  $8,300,  or  $11,000,  including  foundations 
and  buildings.  At  first,  difficulty  was  experienced  in  the  break- 
ing of  various  parts  of  the  plant  by  the  iron  and  steel  found  in 
the  refuse.  This  was  overcome  by  replacing  these  parts  by 
heavier  ones. 

This  plant  was  described  by  the  borough  engineer  of  South- 
wark, Mr.  A.  Harrison,  in  a  paper  read  at  the  recent  Municipal, 
Building  and  Public  Health  Exhibition.  In  conclusion  he  stated 
that  he  preferred  this  plant  to  a  destructor  as  it  occupied  very 
little  space  and  crushed  the  refuse  without  the  slightest  nuisance 
from  dust  or  smell  and  practically  dealt  with  the  whole  of  it.  It 
has  also  been  found  that  a  considerable  quantity  of  food  con- 
demned by  the  Sanitary  Department  could  readily  be  disposed  of 
by  passing  it  through  the  crushers  with  the  other  refuse. 

The  material  treated  as  above  described  is  the  ash  bin  refuse 
produced  by  English  families,  who  dump  ashes,  garbage  and  all 
house  refuse  into  one  bin  or  receptacle. 


446  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

The  following  extracts  from  a  paper  by  Mr.  Herbert  Coales, 
Town  Surveyor,  Market  Harborough,  describes  the  machinery 
and  his  method  of  treating  this  crushed  or  pulverized  material 
for  manufacture  into  fuel: 

COALESINE  FUEL:    UTILIZATION  OF  HOUSE  REFUSE 

The  author  has  proposed  to  destroy  refuse  in  a  remunerative  manner 
by  converting  it  into  fuel  briquettes — called  "Coalesine" —  and  burning  it 
in  works,  boilers  or  other  grates,  without  the  construction  of  special 
furnaces.  If  such  a  hygienic  and  remunerative  method  of  disposal  can  be 
demonstrated,  then  no  pecuniary  hardship  will  accrue  to  any  town  through 
any  anti-tipping  enactment  that  may  be  hereafter  passed.  Two  main 
reasons  may  be  indicated  for  converting  ashbin  refuse  into  fuel : 

(1)  Crude  refuse  is  a  nuisance,  which  may  be  abated  by  subjection  to 
fire. 

(2)  Crude  refuse  is  a  fuel,  which  may  be  utilized  in  the  production 
of  heat. 

PULVERIZATION  OF  REFUSE 

The  Patent  Lightning  Crusher  Co.,  of  the  Southwark  Engineering 
Works,  have  perfected  a  machine,  known  as  the  dust  manipulator,  which 
instantly  converts  crude  ashbin  refuse  into  a  material  resembling  garden 
mould  in  appearance.  The  machine  is  a  high  speed  centrifugal-force  disin- 
tegrator, pulverizer  and  mixer  combined.  The  hammers,  weighing  50  Ibs. 
each,  of  special  alloy  steel,  are  hung  on  an  axle  in  a  steel  box;  this  axle 
makes  1,000  revolutions  a  minute.  The  refuse  is  fed  by  a  shovel  into  a 
hopper,  and  can  be  passed  through  the  manipulator  at  the  rate  of  from 
4  to  5  tons  per  hour.  The  Southwark  Borough  Council  have  four  of  these 
machines  at  work,  and  the  facility  with  which  they  disintegrate  tins,  old 
sacking,  wood  and  what  not,  is  most  surprising  to  those  who  see  the 
machines  at  work  for  the  first  time.  Such  large  articles  as  old  trays  or 
buckets  are  picked  out  from  the  refuse  by  hand,  and  any  obstinate  metal 
which  cannot  be  reduced  by  the  hammers  is  automatically  ejected  from 
the  machine  by  a  door  at  the  front.  It  has  been  proposed  in  the  past  to 
pulverize  crude  refuse  in  mortar  mills,  etc.,  but  salmon  tins,  old  garments 
and  books,  or  pieces  of  wire,  for  instance,  cannot  be  reduced  to  a  fine 
material  by  such  means.  Therefore,  until  the  Patent  Lightning  Crusher 
Co.  introduced  the  manipulator,  there  was  no  machine  on  the  market  to 
effectually  reduce  crude  ashbin  refuse  to  a  fine  uniform  consistency,  in 
which  state  only  can  it  be  briquetted. 

COALESINE  FUEL 

To  convert  the  pulverized  material  from  the  manipulator  into  innocuous, 
serviceable  fuel  briquettes,  three  things  are  necessary: 

(1)  Addition  of  a  deodorizer. 

(2)  Addition  of  an  agglutinate. 

(3)  Addition  of  an  enriching -ingredient. 

Most  fortunately  for  the  simplicity  and  cheapness  of  the  manufacture 
of  briquettes,  tar  is  both  a  deodorizer  and  an  agglutinate,  as  well  as  a 
high  class  of  fuel;  I  Ib.  of  tar  will  evaporate  n  Ibs.  of  water.  By  the 
incorporation,  therefore,  of  about  18  gallons  of  tar  to  the  ton,  the  pul- 
verized refuse  is  deodorized,  agglutinated,  and  enriched  by  one  operation. 
The  enrichment  has  the  effect  of  adding  100  per  cent,  to  the  calorific  value 
of  poor  refuse,  and  50  per  cent,  to  refuse  of  a  good  calorific  value.  But 
fuel  in  the  form  of  slack  does  not  give  the  best  combustion  results;  it  is 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  447 

necessary,  therefore,  to  make  the  material  up  into  briquettes,  in  Which  form 
it  is  easy  to  handle,  to  store  and  to  burn. 

The  proportion  of  18  gallons  to  the  ton  of  pulverized  material  does  not 
allow  the  tar  to  escape  through  the  grate  bars  when  subjected  to  the  heat 
of  the  fire,  nor  to  give  off  smoke  from  the  chimney  shaft  through  incom- 
plete combustion. 

The  approximate  cost  of  plant,  including  manipulator,  mixer,  briquette 
press,  buildings,  and  power  to  convert  10,000  tons  of  ashbin  refuse  per 
annum  into  coalesine  fuel  is  from  £2,000  to  £2,500;  or,  say,  an  initial 
capital  outlay  of  from  45.  to  5s.  per  ton  of  refuse  .to  be  dealt  with  in 
one  year. 

From  the  tabulated  statement  prepared  by  Mr.  Wm.  Jones,  Assoc.  M. 
Inst.  C*  E.,  of  Colwyn  Bay,  in  October,  1907,  it  appears  that  the  initial 
cost  of  installing  refuse  destructors  complete  (taking  the  average  of  sixty- 
nine  towns)  is  i6s.  5d.  per  ton  of  refuse  to  be  dealt  with  in  one  year. 

The  approximate  cost  of  converting  ashbin  refuse  into  coalesine  fuel, 
including  labor,  power,  tar,  wear  and  tear,  and  loan  charges,  is  calculated 
at  about  45.  per  ton. 

CALORIFIC  VALUE  OF  COALESINE  FUEL 

When  one  pound  of  crude  refuse  will  evaporate : 

(a)  i   Ib.   of  water,  coalesine   fuel  will   evaporate  2%   Ibs.,   or  .25  the 
value  of  best  coal. 

(b)  il/2  Ib.  of  water,  coalesine  fuel  will  evaporate  2^  Ibs.,  or  .31  the 
value  of  best  coal. 

(c)  2  Ib.  of  water,  coalesine  fuel  will  evaporate  3^4  Ibs.,  or  .36  the  value 
of  best  coal. 

(The  calorific  value  of  best  coal  is  taken  at  I  Ib.  evaporating  9  Ib.  of 
water.) 

Roughly  speaking,  then,  coalesine  fuel  may  be  taken  as  having  an 
average  calorific  value  of  one-third  that  of  best  coal.  Where  the  local 
price  of  coal  is  known,  therefore,  the  relative  value  of  coalesine  fuel  may 
be  easily  found  by  dividing  the  price  of  coal  by  three,  and  comparing 
the  results  with  45  a  ton  (the  cost  of  producing  coalesine  fuel).  For 
instance,  taking  coal  at  i8s.  a  ton  and  dividing  by  three  we  get  6s.,  and 
6s.  less  45.  (cost  of  coalesine  fuel)  is  2s.,  this  being  the  balance  in  favor 
of  coalesine  fuel.  Where,  however,  at  present  a  town  is  paying  2s.  a  ton 
(say)  to  dispose  of  its  refuse,  that  town  would  naturally  be  2s.  a  ton  to 
the  good  if  the  coalesine  fuel  were  sold  merely  to  pay  for  itself. 

Coalesine  fuel  can  be  burned  by  itself  or  in  conjunction  with  coal  to 
suit  the  varying  steam  requirements  of  consumers.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
addition  of  coal  in  no  way  detracts  from  the  pecuniary  advantages  obtained 
by  the  use  of  coalesine  fuel,  while  at  the  same  time  the  hygienic  object  is 
equally  attained. 

The  figures  given  by  Mr.  Harrison  as  the  cost  of  operating  the 
original  plant  of  two  pulverizers  are  as  follows: 

The  plant  is  driven  by  two  40  h.p.  electric  motors.  The  cost  of 
power,  labor  and  other  expenses  is  about  37  cents  per  ton  after 
taking  credit  for  amount  realized  by  sales.  This  is  divided  as 
follows:  Electric  power,  16  cents;  labor,  27  cents;  repairs,  6 
cents;  oil  and  sundries,  2  cents;  total,  51  cents  per  ton  deducting 
the  net  14  cents  realized  from  the  sales,  leaves  a  net  cost  of  37 
cents  per  ton  for  disposal  by  the  crushing  process. 


448  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

Now,  if  the  method  of  Mr.  Coales  for  producing  a  practical 
fuel  from  the  crushed  refuse  is  sound,  then  the  returns  from  the 
equivalent  coal  values  should  be  sufficient  to  show  a  large  return 
of  revenue  over  expenses. 

The  value  of  unseparated  house  refuse  containing  from  70 
per  cent,  to  80  per  cent,  of  matters  which  have  no  fertilizer  prop- 
erties seems  very  uncertain  when  applied  directly  to  the  ground. 
In  certain  cases  of  low  marshy  tracts  which  are  to  be  reclaimed 
and  made  suitable  for  better  cultivation,  the  use  of  such  a  pre- 
liminary charge  of  finely  divided  substances  is  undoubtedly  of 
service,  but  the  actual  benefits  to  be  had  when  applied  to  gardens 
and  farming  lands  is  still  to  be  ascertained. 

This  process  seems  to  be  the  latest  English  experiment  in  the 
utilization  of  the  town's  refuse,  and  has  attracted  a  good  deal  of 
attention  from  engineers  and  others  interested  in  the  question. 
The  work  of  this  Southwark  plant  and  its  results  will  be  observed 
with  interest. 

In  this  country  many  attempts  to  manufacture  a  fuel  from 
garbage  have  been  made,  but  so  far  as  known  the  cost  of  the 
preliminary  process  has  exceeded  the  value  of  the  product  The 
experiments  of  Mr.  Andrew  Engel  to  mix  with  night-soil  a 
deodorant,  which  should  also  give  it  a  value  for  fertilizer  or  for 
fuel,  have  been  carried  on  at  two  towns  under  favorable  condi- 
tions, but  as  yet  no  satisfactory  results  are  reported. 

THE  PRESENT  CONDITION  OF  WASTE  DISPOSAL  WORK. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  work  of  the  American  Public 
Health  Association  in  procuring  and  tabulating  the  information 
of  the  various  methods  of  waste  disposal,  and  of  printing  in 
permanent  form  the  results  of  investigations  of  the  members  of 
the  associations  in  various  towns  and  cities.  They  report  only 
accomplished  facts,  and  deal  with  these  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  sanitarian,  and  are  not  concerned  with  the  business  side  of 
the  question. 

Nine  years  ago  at  the  meeting  of  the  association  in  Minne- 
apolis, papers  were  presented  that  gave  a  fairly  accurate  account 
of  the  position  of  this  question  after  some  ten  years  of  effort  to 
establish  better  methods  of  dealing  with  the  disposal  of  waste  in 
American  communities. 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  449 

The  author's  contribution  was  a  statement  of  the  general  con- 
ditions then  prevailing  ending  with  a  summary  as  follows: 

"Ten  years  of  garbage  disposal  work  in  American  cities  has 
seen  the  establishment  of  sixty-five  furnaces  in  fifty-four  cities 
and  towns,  besides  the  trial  and  failure  of  about  ten  experiments 
of  one  kind  or  another  in  crematory  furnaces.  The  same  period 
has  witnessed  the  construction  of  twenty  large  and  expensive 
plants  for  the  reduction  of  garbage  by  mechanical  and  chemical 
methods.  Of  these,  eight  now  survive,  and  of  these  only  three 
or  four  are  reported  to  be  satisfactory  and  economical,  among 
the  latter  being  those  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Boston. 

The  expense  of  construction  in  these  furnaces  has  not  been 
large,  or  the  cost  of  maintenance  excessive  when  compared  with 
the  results  accomplished.  From  the  beginning  the  tendency  has 
been  to  overrate  the  capacity  and  efficiency  of  the  furnace,  and 
underestimate  the  quantity  of  waste  produced ;  for  it  always 
happens  that  when  a  way  is  provided  for  disposal  of  worthless 
matters,  the  quantities  invariably  increase.  When  compared  with 
what  is  yet  to  be .  done,  what  has  actually  been  accomplished  is 
of  small  magnitude.  Because  of  the  limitations  of  the  furnace 
capacity  in  consequence  of  its  principles  of  construction,  there  is 
no  example  on  a  large  scale  of  the  disposal  of  all  classes  of  waste 
by  cremation.  The  smaller  cities  and  towns  have  found  cremators 
useful  and  efficient,  but  limited  strictly  in  capacity  and  perform- 
ance. The  large  cities,  with  one  exception,  have  not  ventured 
upon  their  adoption,  though  there  has  been  shown  a  willingness 
to  put  them  to  trial  under  conditions  that  could  hardly  be  met — 
the  destruction  of  all  kinds  and  quantities  of  miscellaneous  mat- 
ters at  small  cost. 

We  have  reached  a  turning  point  where  some  larger  and  more 
efficient  means  must  be  brought  forward  if  the  best  methods  are 
to  be  adopted.  Clearly,  the  great  interest  shown  in  the  subject, 
and  the  growth  of  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  sanitary  treat- 
ment of  waste  has  created  a  demand  that  must  be  met. 

The  example  of  two  cities  in  turning  to  account  such  part  of 
refuse  as  can  be  easily  selected  from  the  general  mass,  indicates 
what  may  be  done  in  this  direction.  When  once  separation  is 
determined  upon,  and  the  householder  fully  acquainted  with  the 
necessity  and  expediency  of  this  measure,  he  readily  falls  into 


45°  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

line,  and  cheerfully  contributes  his  personal  quota  to  the  general 
reform. 

We  can  depend  confidently  upon  a  sure  revenue  from  what  has 
been  previously  thrown  out  as  worthless — if  not  in  articles  and 
substances  saved  and  sold,  then  in  fuel  value  for  other  uses. 

While  American  cities  have  been  slowly  working  out  the  prob- 
lem of  waste  treatment,  other  countries,  proceeding  on  parallel 
lines,  with  a  wider  experience  born  of  stern  necessity  for  the 
sanitary  disposal  of  the  wastes  of  a  crowded  population,  and  with 
far  more  liberal  expenditure  of  funds  for  this  department  of 
municipal  work,  have  gone  more  directly  to  the  end  and  reached 
conclusions  that  apply  equally  well  in  both  countries.  Why  may 
we  not  profit  by  the  example  set  us,  and  turn  into  power  the  use- 
less matters  we  are  burdened  with? 

There  is  no  good  reason  to  be  urged  against  this.  The  inventive 
genius  of  the  American  engineer  will  speedily  find  means  to  adapt 
methods  and  measures  that  are  labor  and  money  saving,  and  find 
uses  for  power  that,  so  to  speak,  is  created  out  of  nothing.  Give 
him  a  chance  to  do  this,  and  the  cities  of  America  can  realize  the 
predictions  of  scientists  who,  three  years  ago,  said  that  each  com- 
munity may  be  served  with  electric  light  created  from  the  natural 
waste  and  outcast  substances  that  we  now  pay  huge  sums  to  get 
rid  of. 

From  a  consideration  of  the  relative  methods  of  disposal  in 
use  in  this  country,  and  comparison  with  those  which  are  found  in 
favor  abroad,  we  may  fairly  draw  the  following  conclusions: 

First :  But  two  ways  or  means  for  dealing  with  this  question  are  avail- 
able, and  the  relative  advantages  and  special  adaptations  to  the  local 
conditions  can  only  be  determined  by  scientific  and  expert  investigations 
and  comparison.  The  subject  has  gone  beyond  the  speculative  and  experi- 
mental stage,  and  reached  the  point  where  more  definite  and  exact  knowl- 
edge is  needed.  This  can  best  be  had  by  calling  in  the  assistance  of  experts 
who  will  make  full  examinations  and  submit  reports  covering  the  whole 
ground. 

Second:  The  indications  are  that  a  combination  of  the  two  systems 
of  reduction  and  cremation  at  points  where  the  two  can  be  advantageously 
combined  because  of  the  presence  of  sufficient  quantities  of  municipal 
waste,  is  the  ideal  way  in  which  to  treat  city  waste.  Each  of  these  methods 
developing  along  parallel  lines  have  come  to  a  place  where  they  begin  to 
converge  to  a  common  point.  Reduction  has  demonstrated  its  ability  to 
secure  a  percentage  of  value  at  a  greater  or  less  cost,  according  to  the 


THE  UTILIZATION  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE.  451 

imount  of  garbage  treated,  but  it  does  not  provide  for  the  still  greater 
proportion  of  city  waste  left  untouched.  Cremation  destroys  the  com- 
bustible and  a  portion  of  the  putrescible,  and  recovers  little  or  nothing  of 
value  in  the  process ;  but  the  employment  of  the  heat  derived  from  crema- 
tion furnishes  an  additional  source  of  revenue  that  should  now  be  utilized. 

Third:  A  city  which  has  or  will  put  into  force  a  system  of  separation 
and  collection  of  garbage,  ashes  and  refuse,  and  will  erect  a  disposal  plant 
which  shall  proceed  by  treating  the  garbage,  when  in  sufficient  quantities, 
by  the  modern  improved  process  of  extracting  the  valuable  commercial 
products,  and  shall  operate  its  plant  by  the  steam  power  which  is  obtained  v/ 
by  the  combustion  of  such  worthless  parts  of  the  dry  refuse  as  may  be  left 
after  sorting  out  the  salable  portions,  and  that  will,  in  addition,  bring  to 
this  point  such  proportions  of  ashes  from  houses  as  can  be  utilized  for 
fuel  for  the  destructor,  will  then  have  all  its  waste  disposed  of  in  a  way 
entirely  sanitary,  and  will  realize  a  profit  in  the  operation  which,  in  a 
comparatively  short  time  will  repay  not  only  the  cost  of  the  works  and 
their  operation,  but  will  return  in  steam  power,  when  utilized  for  mechani- 
cal purposes,  a  very  considerable  amount  of  profit. 

Fourth:  When  the  quantity  of  garbage  produced  is  insufficient  in 
amount  or  impracticable  for  treatment  by  reduction  methods,  there  can  be 
erected  a  General  Waste  Disposal  Station  which  will  receive  every  class 
of  waste  in  a  mixed  condition,  and  by  employing  the  best  available  de- 
structive agencies  can  transform  this  worthless  matter  into  electrical  energy 
as  principal  or  auxiliary  power  for  steel  lighting  or  other  useful  municipal 
purposes. 

Fifth:  Any  smaller  city  or  town  can  employ  destructive  methods  for 
its  waste  disposal,  with  guaranteed  immunity  from  nuisance,  at  a  smaller 
relative  cost  for  operating  the  work  than  has  been  known  since  the  begin- 
ning of  this  movement  twelve  years  ago. 

At  this  time  (September,  1908)  there  have  been  built  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty  furnaces  of  various  types  of  construction,  of 
which  one  hundred  and  two  have  been  discontinued  and  passed 
out  of  service. 

Of  the  reduction  plants,  including  all  the  various  examples  em- 
ployed in  municipal  work,  forty-five  plants  have  been  or  are  about 
to  be  erected,  and  nineteen  of  these  have  been  discontinued  or 
replaced  by  others.  There  are  now  twenty-three  in  active  service 
and  three  others  under  construction. 

The  conclusions  and  deductions  in  the  foregoing  statements  are 
still  applicable  to  the  present  situations.     There  still  remains  but 
two  ways  to  deal  with  waste  in  a  sanitary  and  satisfactory  way.          v7 
The  choice  between  these  two  means  is  still  to  be  determined  by 
the  particular  conditions  that  apply  to  each  municipality. 


452  THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  WASTE. 

There  is  still  the  need  of  better  engineering  advice  to  determine, 
in  the  shortest  time,  with  the  least  difficulty,  that  form  of  dis- 
posal means  which  shall  be  most  sanitary  and  most  efficient  for 
any  given  case. 

With  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  results  to  be  had  from 
reduction  processes,  and  the  improvement  in  construction  and 
management  of  the  plants,  the  towns  are  now  able  to  determine 
to  what  extent  these  may  be  employed  in  municipal  work,  either 
directly  under  municipal  control  or  by  contract  for  a  term  of 
years. 

The  disposal  of  waste  by  incineration  has  made  slower  ad- 
vances than  was  expected,  but  with  the  elimination  of  the  vision- 
ary, crude  and  vicious  elements  that  have  heretofore  obstructed 
progress,  and  with  a  better  system  of  accounting  and  publishing 
of  results,  and  more  than  all  the  introduction  of  improved  and 
reliable  forms  of  furnaces  and  destructors  proven  by  trial  to  be 
adapted  to  American  work,  this  system  of  waste  disposal  will 
now  be  far  more  serviceable  than  heretofore. 

It  is  perhaps  inevitable  that  any  great  movement  for  bettering 
public  health  and  public  comfort  and  which  is  contingent  upon 
its  success  for  the  favor  and  endorsement  of  the  municipal  au- 
thorities should  be  one  attended  with  many  reverses  and  much 
lost  time,  labor  and  money. 

The  conditions  of  American  municipal  government  with  the 
constant  periodical  change  of  authority  are  not  favorable  to  the 
thorough  investigation  of  this  subject,  and  it  has  not  received  the 
same  attention  and  intelligent  treatment  which  has  been  given  to 
other  departments  of  municipal  work — like  water,  sewage,  roads 
or  parks.  But  with  the  growth  of  public  interest  in  the  question, 
with  the  special  study  now  given  to  public  hygiene  and  municipal 
sanitation  in  the  technical  schools  and  colleges,  and,  more  than  all, 
with  the  demonstrated  public  benefit  to  be  had  from  the  adoption 
of  these  better  means  for  caring  for  the  worthless  and  dangerous 
matters  that  must  be  removed  from  the  life  of  the  people,  we  may 
hope  for  more  rapid  progress,  and  far  more  beneficial  results  to 
the  great  number  of  American  municipalities, 


INDEX. 

AIR  SUPPLY:  PAGE 

To  Crematories 213 

To  Destructors   ...      228 

AMERICAN  ABATTOIR  OIL  Co     380 

AMERICAN  CONDITIONS 406 

AMERICAN  EXTRACTOR  COMPANY     217 

AMERICAN  GARBAGE  CREMATOR  COMPANY 168 

AMERICAN  PUBLIC  HEALTH  ASSOCIATION    6,  13,  96,  290  448 

AMERICAN  REDUCTION  COMPANY 387 

AMERICAN  SOCIETY  CIVIL  ENGINEERS 63,  361,  394 

AMERICAN  SOCIETY  FOR  MUNICIPAL  IMPROVEMENTS   16,  290 

ARNOLD  PROCESS  OF  REDUCTION 332 

ASH  BIN  REFUSE   . . 14 

ASHES,  MUNICIPAL:   77 

Analysis  of 78 

"  Cremator 8 1 

'  Destructor 80 

"  Garbage 8  z 

"  Refuse 84 

"  Wood 82 

Calorific  Values  of 205 

Collection  Costs,  Rochester. 392 

Definition  of 77 

Laboratory  Analysis  of 204 

Volume  of  Coal  in 78 

Value  for  Various  Uses 436 

BAKER   M   N     9,  240 

BALTIMORE  SANITARY  AND  CONTRACTING  Co 292,  364 

BARREN  ISLAND  REDUCTION  PLANT 347,  355 

BENNETT  GARBAGE  DISPOSAL  Co 182 

BEAMAN  &  DBAS  DESTRUCTOR 193 

BILLINGS,  DR.  J.  S     131 

BOSTON,  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATION 48 

Report  of  Commission     24 

Reduction  Plants 331 

General  Disposal  Work  in       337 

Semet-Solvay  Process  at   334 

BOULGER.  BENJ 149,159 

BRANCH,  Jos.  G 165 

BREYMAN,  T./I.    152 

453 


454  INDEX. 

PAGE 

BRIDGEPORT  BOILER  Co 172 

BRITISH  DESTRUCTORS,  REPORT  ON 361 

BROOKLYN  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATIONS 67,  68,  69 

BROWNLEE,  ALEXANDER 170 

BUFFALO  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATION 70 

Reduction  Works 292 

CALDER,  WM 283 

CALORIFIC  VALUES  OF: 

General  Waste 203 

Equivalent  Coal 204 

Per  Pound  of  Refuse 204 

Steam  Ashes 205 

Range  of 206 

Of  Other  Waste  Matters 208 

CAMBRIDGE  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATION 190 

CHAPIN,  DR.  C.  H 325 

CHIMNEYS 230 

CARTS  FOR  COLLECTION  OF  ASHES 66 

CINCINNATI  REDUCTION  Co 376 

CLASSIFICATION  OF: 

Municipal  Waste 13 

Garbage  Crematories 145 

Refuse  Destructors 220 

CLINKER  FOR  FILTER  BEDS 270 

For  Other  Uses 275,  286 

COAL: 

Analysis  of  American , 77 

Heating  Values  in  Waste 79 

Percentage  in  House  Ashes  of 78 

COLUMBUS,  O.: 

Collection  Statistics 316 

Reduction  Works 315 

Report  upon  Disposal  Methods .    317 

CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS: 

Chronological  List  of  Municipal  Installations 114 

List  of  Installations  for  U.  S.  Government 126 

List  of  Installations  for  Institutions,  etc i29 

Anderson  Garbage  Crematory 308 

Bennett                                          182 

Boulger                                          1 59 

Branch                       Incinerator 165 

Brown                        Crematory   1 68 

Brownlee                                        17° 

Davis  Furnace ...    107,  1 56 

De  Berard  Portable  Crematory 196 

Decarie  Garbage  Incinerator 179 


INDEX.  455 

CREMATORIES  AND  INCINERATORS  (Continued)  :  PAGE 

Dixon     Garbage  Crematory 152 

Dundon  Incinerator 182 

Engle  Cremator 104,  149 

Mann  Night  Soil  Furnace 103 

Morse-Boulger  Destructor 161 

Morse  Destructor  Furnace ?9i 

Municipal  Engineering  Co.  Crematory 162 

Parsons  Refuse  Incinerators S3,  59 

Pearce-LaChapelle  Crematory 360 

Public  Service  Co.  Incinerator 67,  190 

Rider  Garbage  Furnace 102 

Sanitary  Engineering  Co.  Furnace 183 

Smead  Travelling  Crematory 198 

Smith,  F.  P.,  Garbage  Crematory 186 

Smith,  H.  B.,         "  /•,.... 172 

Smith-Siemens  102,  106,  174 

Stearns  Refuse  Incinerator 61 

Thackeray  Garbage  Incinerator 109,  1 10,  1 58 

U.  S.  Government  Garbage  Furnace 99 

Vivarttas  Garbage  Furnace 176 

Weislogel  Refuse  Incinerator 387 

Wright  Garbage  Furnace 1 64 

Operating  Costs  of 432 

Method  of  Disposal  by 428 

Conditions  Necessary  for  Success 212 

CRAVEN  MACDONOUGH 78,  346 

DAVIS,  DR.  L.  M 156 

DEAD  ANIMALS 18 

DE  BERARD,  C.  J 195 

DECARIE,  F 178 

DECARIE  MFG.  Co 1 78,  3  58 

DESTRUCTORS: 

Classification  of 220 

Cell  Destructors 220 

Continuous  Grate  Destructors 227 

Combined  with  Electricity  Works 2  7 1 ,  2  74 

Combined  with  Electrical  Traction 272,  286 

Combined  with  Electrical  Lighting  Plants 66,  273 

Combined  with  Sewerage  Works 265 

Combined  with  Water  Works 275 

Delivery  of  Waste  to 231 

Distribution  of  British  Destructors 283 

Beaman  &  Deas  Destructor 222 

Fryer  Destructor 221 

Heenan  &  Froude  Destructor 231,  232 

Horsfall  Destructor 223 


456  INDEX. 

DESTRUCTORS  (Continued)  :  PAGE 

Meldrum  Simplex  Destructor 227 

Sterling  Destructor 225 

Warner  Destructor 224 

In  American  Practice : 

Meldrum  Destructors  at  Westmount,  Canada 242 

"    Seattle,  Washington 249 

"    Schenectady,  N.  Y 253 

Heenan  &  Froude  Destructors  at  Vancouver,  B.  C 254 

New  Brighton,  N.  Y. .  256 

Quantities  Consumed  by 23  5 

Utilization  of  Heat  from 224 

DETROIT  REDUCTION  Co 374 

DISPOSAL  OF  MIXED  WASTE 29 

DIXON-SANITARY  CREMATORY  Co 1 52 

DIXON,  SAMUEL r  52 

DUMPS: 

Insanitary  Conditions  at 9-10 

Sorting  at 1 1 

DUNDON  IRON  WORKS 182 

DUST  PREVENTION 230 

EDGERTON,  CHAS 368 

EDSON  DEVELOPMENT  AND  MACHINERY  Co 395 

ENGINEERING  PROBLEMS 140 

ENGINEERING  RECORD 96 

ENGINEERING  NEWS 316 

ENGLE,  ANDREW 148 

ENGLE  SANITARY  AND  CREMATION  Co 104-149 

EVAPORATION  PER  POUND  OF  MIXED  WASTE 272 

Rubbish 57-63 

EXCRETA : 

Definition  of 15 

Disposal  of 19 

Cost  of  Removal 1 6 

FAILURES,  PRINCIPAL  CAUSES  OF 137-138 

FELLOWES,  F.  L 243 

FETHERSTON,  J.  A 22,  106,  202,  259,  361 

FISCHER,  CHAS.  C 389 

FISHER,  E.  H 391 

FLEISCHMAN,  H.  A ;  .........   292-311 

FOLWELL,  PROF.  A.  PRESCOTT 16 

FORCED  DRAFT 224 

FORTY-SEVENTH  STREET  INCINERATOR,  NEW  YORK  CITY 53 

FRANKLIN  INSTITUTE,  PHILADELPHIA 410 

FRYER,  ALFRED 264 

FUEL: 

Ashes  as 79 


INDEX.  457 

FUEL  (Continued")  :  PAGE 

Garbage  as 108 

Refuse  as 57 

Stable  Refuse  as 86 

FURNACE  CONSTRUCTION : 211 

GARBAGE: 

Agricultural  Utilization  of 39,  448 

Analysis  of 37 

Ashes  of 24 

Collection  Statistics  of £ 

of,  in  Philadelphia 367 

"     "  Rochester. 392 

"     "  Syracuse 24 

"          Statistics  of  General  Government 35 

Composition  of 3  6-3  7 

Definition  of 14 

Feeding  to  Swine , 3.251 

Fuel  Value  of 108 

Methods  of  Collection i 

Municipal  Collection  Costs 325 

Separate  Collection  of 36 

Volumes  of 2  5-29 

Weights  of 38 

GENESSEE  REDUCTION  Co 393 

GENERAL  ELECTRIC  Co.,  SCHENECTADY 210 

GENERAL  GOVERNMENT-STATISTICS  OF  GENERAL  REFUSE  COLLECTION     35 

Laws  Respecting  Water  Pollution 7 

Decision  Respecting  Collections 396 

Fertilizing  Value  of  Street  Sweepings 85 

GOODRICH,  W.  FRANCIS ' 216-218,  262 

GOODNOUGH,  X.  H   . , 24,  338 

GREGORY,  J.  H • 316 

HARLAN  &  WOLFE  DESTRUCTOR  REPORT. 208 

HEENAN  &  FROUDE  DESTRUCTOR 253,  254,  256 

HERING,  RUDOLPH 96,  107,  156,  205,  298,  304,  315,  340 

HOOK,  J.  H .  .  .  .- i  56 

.HOLMAN  &  WENDEL,  PROFS 169 

HORSFALL  DESTRUCTOR 200 

HYGIENE  AND  SANITATION , 140 

INDIANAPOLIS  SANITARY  Co 375 

INCOME  FROM  REDUCTION  PROCESS 404 

From  Refuse  Sorting 47,  52,  59,  74 

JACKSON,  WM 24,  338 

KOYL,  C.  HERSCHEL 79,  343,  434 

LA  CHAPELLE  &  PEARCE , 3  56 

LEWIS  &  KITCHEN 162 

LITTLE,  E.  J 1 52 


458  INDEX. 

PAGE 

LOCATIONS 235 

LOWELL  REFUSE  INCINERATOR 21 

LYON,  J.  B 162 

MASSACHUSETTS  INSTITUTE  OF  TECHNOLOGY 169 

MELDRUM  SIMPLEX  DESTRUCTOR 193-200,  210-247,  251-253 

METHODS  OF  COLLECTION: 

Individual 4 

Licensed 4 

Contract   5 

Municipal 5 

Statistics  of 7 

METHODS  OF  DISPOSAL 4 

MUNICIPAL  REFUSE  DISPOSAL  STATIONS: 

Boston  Utilization  Station 48 

New  York  City,  East  i6th  St 46 

New  York  City,  4?th  St 55 

New  York  City,  Delancy  St 59 

Brooklyn  Refuse  Station,  East  New  York 63 

3rd  St 68 

39th  St 69 

Buffalo  Refuse  Disposal  Station 70 

Lowell                                                 .74 

NATIONAL  EQUIPMENT  Co 165 

NEW  BEDFORD  EXTRACTOR  Co 409 

NEWBURGH  REDUCTION  Co 397 

NEW  BRIGHTON: 

Heenan  Destructor 256 

Compositions  of  Waste  in 22 

Collections  in 20 

NEW  YORK  CITY: 

Sanitary  Code 42 

Refuse  Stations 51,  55,  59 

Waste  Collections  in 20 

Reduction  Works  of 347 

General  Waste  Collection  and  Disposal  Work  in '.  .  339 

ODORS: 

Various  Causes  of 108 

PAPER  MANUFACTURED  IN  UNITED  STATES 422 

PARSONS,  H.  DEB 60,  145 

PATENTS  OF  PRINCIPAL  CREMATORY  BUILDERS •  •  •  •  126 

PECK,  E.  S 399 

POLLUTION  OF  STREAMS 6,7 

PORTABLE  CREMATORIES 194 

Destructors 201 

POWER  SPECIALTY  COMPANY 260,  261 

PRAHRAN  REFUSE  DESTRUCTOR 283 


INDEX.  459 

PAGE 

PROPORTIONS  OF  WASTE 7 

QUANTITIES,  WASTE  IN  VARIOUS  CITIES.  .    20,  27,  21,  23,  22,  24,  28,29, 

30.32,35 
REDUCTION  PROCESSES — IN  CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER: 

Merz  Reduction  Process,  Buffalo 272 

"         Milwaukee 296 

Chicago 304 

St.  Paul 309 

Denver 309 

Paterson 310 

St.  Louis , 3 1 1 

Columbus 314 

Simonin  Extraction  Process,  Providence 323 

"         Cincinnati 328 

New  Orleans 330 

Arnold  Process,  Boston 333 

"    .     New  York  and  Brooklyn 346 

Baltimore 3  64 

Philadelphia 366 

Atlantic  City 370 

Newark 371 

Wilmington,  Del 371 

Holthaus  Process,  Bridgeport 379 

Syracuse 381 

New  Bedford 383 

Chamberlain  Process,  Detroit 373 

Indianapolis 375 

Cincinnati 375 

Washington,  D.  C 376 

Weislogel  Process,  Vincennes 364 

Jacksonville 387 

American  Reduction  Process,  Reading 387 

York 389 

Edson  Process,  Dayton 395 

Toledo 396 

Cleveland 397 

Penn  Reduction  Process,  Philadelphia 368 

Rochester 391 

American  Extractor  Process,  New  Bedford 407 

Costs  of  Operating 426 

Disposal  of  Garbage  by 410 

Municipal  Plants  for 427 

The  Number  of  Plants  for. . . , 451 


460  INDEX. 

REFUSE  DISPOSAL  PLANTS:  PAGE 

Boston 48 

Brooklyn 67 

Buffalo 70 

Cambridge 190 

Lowell 74 

New  York  City 47,  53,  59 

REFUSE: 

Classification  of 42 

Collections  of 43 

Composition  of 48 

Definitions  of   42 

Division  of 47 

Percentages  of. 43 ,  48 

Value  of 44,  58.  88 

REILLY.  LIEUT.  H.  J 99 

RHINES,  F.  K 142,152 

ROSS  &   HOLGATE 241,  243 

RUBBISH: 

Classification  of 42 

Definition  of 1 1 

Proportions  of 58 

Value  of 25 

SANITARY  CODE,  NEW  YORK   42 

SANITARY  ENGINEERING  Co 183 

SANITARY  PRODUCT  COMPANIES 368 

SANITARY  UTILIZATION  Co 346,  3  54 

SAVERY,  JAS.  C 148 

SEABOARD  GARBAGE  CREMATORY  Co 176 

SEATTLE  DESTRUCTOR  PLANT 249 

SEDGWICK,  PROF.  W.  T 24,  140,  338 

SEMET-SOLVAY  AMMONIA  PROCESS 334 

SEPARATE  COLLECTIONS , 36 

SIMONIN,  I.  M. . . , 323 

SMEAD,  ISSAC  D 145,  X97 

SMITH,  H.  B i72 

SMITH,  M.  V 1 74 

SMITH,  SEYMOUR  R. .    1 78 

SMITH,  FRED  P 163,  186 

SPRINGBORN,  W.  J 399,405 

STABLE  REFUSE 84 

ST.  Louis  REDUCTION  Co 3J4 

STANDARD  TANKAGE  &  FERTILIZER  Co 384 

STANDARD  CONSTRUCTION  Co 164 

STEARNS,  F.  L . 61 ,  63 

STREET  SWEEPINGS 13 

Analysis  of 87 


INDEX.  461 

STREET  SWEEPINGS  (Continued)  :  PAGE 

Quantities  of 84 

Fertilizing  Properties  of 85 

SYRACUSE  REDUCTION  Co 381 

TANKAGE  : 90 

Analysis  of 89 

Definition  of   90 

Values  of 90,  416 

Quantities  of 345,417 

TERNE,  PROF.  B 334 

TEMPERATURES: 

Nuisances  Dependent  Upon 236 

Development  of  High 237 

In  American  Practice •. 238 

In  British  Practice 237 

THACKERAY,  CHAS 145,  158 

THOMPSON,  R.  H 249 

THURSTON,  PROF.  R.  H 213,  438 

TOLEDO  SANITARY  REDUCTION  Co 396 

TOWNS'  REFUSE,  DEFINITION  OF 14 

Ashes  from  Combustion  of 80 

TRADE  WASTE 118 

TR'YON,  F.  C 440 

UNIVERSAL  DESTRUCTOR  Co 191 

UTILIZATION  OF  WASTE: 

Ashes  fur  Various  Uses 436 

By  Gas  Producer  Means 436 

By  Crushing  or  Grinding  Process 444 

Garbage  Commercial  Values 425 

General  Summary  of  Methods 92 

Refuse  Utilization 421,423 

VANCOUVER  REFUSE  DESTRUCTOR '. 254 

.VENABLE,  CAPT.  W.  M 146 

VIVARTTAS,  A 176, 183 

WARING,  COL.  G.  E.: 

Report  on  Garbage  Disposal 343 

Work  on  Commissions 351 

WARNER,  GEO.  H 148 

WASHINGTON  FERTILIZER  Co 378 

WASTE,  MUNICIPAL: 

American  Methods  of  Disposal 8 

British  Methods  of  Disposal 217 

Classification  of 13 

Consolidated  Approximate  Values  of 89 

Definition  of 13 

Disposal  of  Mixed 94 

Disposal  by  Various  Means 4,8 


462  INDEX. 

WASTE,  MUNICIPAL  (Continued)  :  pAGE 

General  Conditions  Respecting ...      448 

Terminology  of 13 

Terms  Applied  to  at  Various  Places 14 

Utilization  of 92 

What  May  be  Done  in  the  Future  With 450 

WATER  GRATES 173 

WEISLOGEL,  G 311 

WELTON.  B.  F 207 

WESTINGHOUSE,  GEO 311 

WESTMOUNT  REFUSE  DESTRUCTOR 242 

WEST  NEW  BRIGHTON 256 

WHEELWRIGHT.  C.  S 410 

WOODBURY.  H.  McG   ...    3  57 

WRIGHT,  W.  B 164 

YARNELL,  ROBT 410 

YORK,  SAN.  REDUCTION  Co 389 

YOUNG,  W , r 162 


3FTHE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


Lewis  &  Kitchen 

Engineers  and  Constructors  of 

COMPLETE  REFUSE 
DISPOSAL  PLANTS 

Under   the   Patents   of    FRED.    P.    SMITH,    Civil    Engineer 

These  plants  are  not  excelled  for  efficiency,  good  con- 
struction, durability  or  low  initial  cost,  fl  They  are 
seldom  matched  for  cleanliness,  attractive  appearance 
or  low  cost  of  operation.  ($  Over  thirty  successful  in- 
stallations with  never  a  failure. 


A  very  attractive  Garbage  Incinerator  Plant  at  Oak  Park,  111 
Capacity,  40  Tons  per  day.    Price,  $  1 4,000. 

ADDRESS 

Chicago,  111.,  U.  S.  A.      Kansas  City,  Mo.,  U.  S.  A. 
1200  Michigan  Avenue  901  Broadway 

Learn  about  the  two  new  plants  at  Scranton,  Pa.    Get  Catalogues 


SEWERAGE 


The  Designing,  Construction  and 
Maintenance  of  Sewerage  Systems 

By  A.  Prescott  Folwell 

Editor  of  Municipal  Journal  and  Engineer 

THIS  book  is  generally  recognized  as  the  standard 
work  on  the  theory  and  American  practice  of 
sewerage,  being  used  as  a  text-book  in  most  of 
the  engineering  schools  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as 
by  practicing  engineers.  It  is  now  in  the  sixth  thousand 
of  the  fifth  edition. 

It  aims  to  supply  all  the  general  information  required 
by  city  engineers  in  designing,  constructing  and  caring 
for  sewerage  systems.  In  addition,  85  pages  are  devoted 
to  sewage  disposal.  The  author,  as  a  practicing  engineer, 
has  designed  and  constructed  a  large  number  of  sewerage 
systems ;  and  as  Professor  of  Municipal  Engineering  for 
several  years  gave  instruction  in  the  subject. 

A  brief  summary  of  the  contents  of  the  book  is  as 
follows : 


Part  I:  DESIGNING.  System  to  be  Employed.  Disposal  by 
Dilution.  Amount  of  Sewage.  Flow  in  Sewers.  Flushing  and 
Ventilation.  Collecting  the  Data.  The  Design.  Detail  Plans. 
Specifications,  Contract.  Estimate  of  Cost. 

Part  II:  CONSTRUCTION.  Preparing  for  Construction.  Laying 
out  the  Work.  Oversight  and  Measurement  of  Work.  Practical 
Sewer  Construction. 

Part  III:  MAINTENANCE.  House  Connections  and  Drainage. 
Sewer  Maintenance.  The  Sewage-Treatment  Problem.  Preven- 
tion of  Nuisance.  Filtration.  Septic  Tanks,  Contact  Filters; 
Sprinkling  Filters,  other  purification  methods.  List  of  Purifica- 
tion Plants  in  the  United  States. 


The  Municipal  Journal  and  Engineer 
231-241  West  39th  Street      ::        ::       New  York 


Principles  of 


Treatment 


By  PROF.  DUNBAR 

Director    o?    tHe    Hamburg    State 
Hygienic    Institute 


Translated  from  the  German  by  H.  6.  CalVert,  M.Sc.t  Ph.D..  F./.C. 


294  PAGES     147  ILLUSTRATIONS     PJ^ICE  $4.50 


An  up-to-date  treatise  and 
worth  its  price  to  those  inter- 
ested in  the  question. 


Contents 

Growth  of  River  Pollution — Legal  Measures  Taken  by 
Central  and  Local  Authorities — Rise  and  Development  of 
Methods  of  Sewage  Treatment — Earlier  Views  on  Methods 
of  Sewage  Treatment,  Their  Object  and  Utility — The 
Characteristics  of  Sewage — Objects  of  Purification  Works 
— Description  of  Methods  for  the  Removal  of  Suspended 
Matters — Methods  for  the  Removal  of  Putrescibllity — The 
Disinfection  of  Sewage — Supervision  and  Inspection  of 
Sewage  Disposal  Works— The  Utility  and  Cost  of  the 
Various  Methods  of  Sewage  Treatment. 


THE  MUNICIPAL  JOURNAL  AND  ENGINEER 

231-241   West  39th  Street  New  YorK 


MUNICIPAL 
JOURNAL 

ENGINEER 


A  weekly  publication  devoted  exclusively  to  municipal 
improvements,  the  most  important  of  which  are 

WATER  SUPPLY 
PAVING  AND  STREET  CONSTRUCTION 

SEWERAGE 

SEWERAGE  DISPOSAL 
SANITATION 

THE  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF 
MUNICIPAL  WASTE 

and  all  other  questions  in  connection  with  Municipal 
Public  Necessities.  C[  It  is  well  edited  and  the  infor- 
mation printed  is  both  reliable  and  practical.  C|  Subscrip- 
tion price  $3.00  a  year;  a  trifle  over  5  cents  a  week. 

MUNICIPAL 
JOURNAL 


ENGINEER 

231-241  WEST  39th  STREET       NEW  YORK 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

*  fgjr  J 

University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


AUG.  17 


JAN  ?.S  1936 


20,000  (4/94) 


r 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


C00702351S 


YC  13250 


I