650 MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE
sanitary fill will vary between $3 and $10 per ton, depending
on location and size of the fill. Small fills, handling less than
50,000 tons per year, will have a unit cost of $5 to $10 per
ton. A large urban fill more typically shows costs of $3 to
$6 per ton. The wide variation is a result of location differences,
which include differences in land acquisition costs, labor costs
and operating differences due to local surface conditions and
requirements.
The use of landfill will continue; however, its future, par-
ticularly in densely populated urban areas, is in doubt. Land is
at a premium for this type of application close to urban centers.
What land is available must be preserved for non-combustible
material and ashes. For examples, one urban county in New
Jersey has less than three years landfill capacity available and
in portions of Long Island no more land for landfill is available.
Hauling costs too, as well as public resistance in more rural
areas is making landfill less attractive for urban areas such as
metropolitan New York. Finally, landfill does not provide for
maximizing the value of refuse as a source of raw materials.Recent studies to find alternatives to traditional landfill
practices include a demonstration of shredding prior to fill-
ing. Only domestic refuse was shredded; the product was a
superior fill compared to “raw” refuse. It could be left uncov-
ered with satisfactory sanitary and aesthetic results and was
easier to dump and compact. Flies and rats did not breed on
the shredded refuse.
The compacted, uncovered fill also had better weathering
and load bearing characteristics. This can be achieved at a cost
of about $5.00 per ton in a 65,000 ton per year operation.^17
The method has some attractive features, and some commer-
cial facilities including one in Monmouth Country, NJ, which
incorporates some recycle, use this principle. However, oper-
ating and investment costs do appear to be higher than the
more traditional method of filling “raw,” as collected, refuse.
Baling of refuse may be particularly attractive where
landfill sites are not locally available. A feasibility study
was carried out in Chicago which showed that this method
overcomes many of the present objections to landfill. TheTABLE 8
Waste generation for large fi rms^13Industrial classificationTitle Employment 1a Annual wastes vol. Cu yd 2b Annual wastes per employee cu yd 3cOrdnance and accessories 29,356 131,404 4,476
Canning and preservingd 11,389 102,238 8,977
Other food processing (except 203) 2,012 17,545 8,720
Tobacco ee e
Textiles ee e
Apparel 601 1,248 2,077
Lumber and wood products ee e
Furniture and fixtures ee e
Paper and allied products 250 9,360 37,440
Printing, publishing and allied 968 7,020 7,252
Chemicals and allied ee e
Petroleum refining ee e
Rubber and plastics 481 9,069 18,854
Leather ee e
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete 1,258 6,617 5,260
Primary metals ee e
Fabricated metal products 3,565 47,078 13,206
Nonelectrical machinery 8,872 101,153 11,401
Electrical machinery 7,807 57,252 7,333
Transportation equipment 4,100 100,776 24,580
Instruments ee e
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries ee e
a Column 1: Data on employment were obtained for those large firms which were surveyed and included in the wastes calculation from the research
department of the Association of Metropolitan San Jose (Greater San Jose Chamber of Commerce).
b Column 2: FMC report, Solid Waste Disposal System Analysis (Preliminary Report), Tables 10 and 11, 1968. [5]
c Column 3: Column 2/Column 1.
d For Canning and Preserving (SIC 203), no individual firm data were available. The industry total developed for the county as a whole was divided by the
total employment in the industry (specially tabulated) to arrive at the multiplier. See text for further explanation.
e Data not available.C013_002_r03.indd 650C013_002_r03.indd 650 11/18/2005 2:27:19 PM11/18/2005 2:27:19 PM