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 39 2 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 7 1 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- lo x wed 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- ties T 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 the 1 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 ) f spjJBg 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 76,95 6 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 7 J 4 995 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, 7 11 96,600 5,422,643 452,439 2,059,188 3 J 5-9C9 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 !95 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 t2,0 37 i ,o t;o i,398 i 800 Rubbish I O ^O i 126 3 OO Street sweepings 2 O32 i ^8 ^UJ 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. . $ 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 Ai T * 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\ 00 suox z\ jo a3Biuaoja. \o t-oo 0000 1 1^ W O HI N ON "frvO O 000 8 M " jo . o> M . *> F^OX jo aSB^uaoaaj 00. II O O 00 t> C\ M I^vO f 1 * W T 6dwo*6od444 ^*oo jo suox HI N ro O ^f\O 1^ O\ \O*^t^t^OtONMN 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 S3 1 -40 508.05 582.70 560 . 79 690 .40 559-23 622 .62 619 . 55 6 94-73 636 .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 . <; , 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 , 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 fV l'-. ^ S^MM 3ao a aoooo U S & : 52M-IS SMM"|S M^ |, CJ &* O f>O O tr. OOPOO 00 vOroOO * O*OOO >C SS2SI2 828S S 8^8l^ II M'tNtCvd 5 SS " S 5 SS<0 2 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 000 S CMCJ- g 8j2|i fi tn <5 > II Q z ft |o =.-'- O oo O O 0-00- S .0-000 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 - - 00 - s 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 CM eJ OC O tC CM oc 10 C*J O* O 5 ^"O'CMO t*5* CM O vo 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 g M 2~ 1 8 S^S- 8 O CMIO O ooO 9 ON O ro Oio * OCMCO 1 5w2 IS - - - - ~ Q. !n^ *?-. S" Jgo K W ^cS " . " 2 ws P Is 85SS 3 oooo SSS , 2 8-8S 3 88 5 o^ O II CM r^ O ^ | \O OOio so vO Tf* ir> O r>- rf* to 5 10 -00 |88-| o UJ _l 1 -I . ^ f M 00 MOO M t- ro "goO 1 " 1 " 1 10 II a -S M 'oo > PI "^ 'pi 00 o ^ J**4 1? ~ ' - 1010O MwOvM OMO>U-> ^ O too M- Ov O I- U 5c r5 (> _c Is * 'Sv '1 &3 m N * 00 00 00 tf) JS*C v C 00 jj y rt y rt S'lCS^ MI^* "ovoi^ 1 " rt O ^ OO^ M ^ M f*> MOM u CO W to a "2 | ^r o^S, M S! ^oS5 i i! 1 MO oo * 00 00 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 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 w c ^ * h CO ffl 0, cs 1 in u. " o w ; 1- VO o ? (0 ^ ^ ^ Ul 05 O M 00 O P, : : K" 1 00 o h < ^ >, ' : o O H V o j J | Ul fe K O "SJgja^ I o H "*^~ ^ ^ tO h H ^" 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 t^ CO Q Ul -0 cs H DC Z ll IL h 1 i : z UJ & : o c tc Ul G .2 '^ : d "rt ^5 UJ 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. I 3 .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 | MM ro OO IO -M N cu II ;-, 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 - : S 55 fc - g-^a co-s : g ^ S| |g | ^^l^la^ll "S gclsfl^l 3 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 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 < & ^ \ i > m o e i -* & h < OXIMATt U I o p Amount 600 Ibs. COMPAR J; ! . APPR 1 H Sg O J 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 6 4 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 :. S 5 ^ 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 I 9 2 > an d 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 | uo<-4JJ2a " "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 ; "8.8 1 .Is j 8 . . ii ! # cj 3 JJ.S*5 " rt rt wS.2 C 0> -s T.*8** %i * uA rt -3 ^i-J y u w ^S.- -<' "" * * *i ^g.. 55 v2> ggMS- \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 ' tOo' ' O ci ' t* &tn ' O ' 'o* ' ; ;<> M ! M . tube- A^ ,cc<:Q^cflOi- : .WWQ(5wwOPQQ l -J>c5Si-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 "Ert {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- ie ,;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.g8,&s as/Bo &c.o faEn cQPQcofaQ^O OOOOMOPn OOfaOOOJgOOCQH COOfc - 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\mO'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 ibt 1 :<3&& |||3 :2 ijSS * ** :g : :J : :*-*|*| : : ^||^ yilfi^iiMii n ;ii^lliiiiil^ QQQQ>QC^HQQ^^Qffi'&L3O^Gjl: 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 J v o 0v 0v0s ..-..A-*' ..-.-... illJ SBS -a. -Ji B '-'ot I '''"S.-S-"!'. c Ba 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 *. 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' O 1 ^ 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 OsOsOOOOOOOO 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* 2 1 * <* o <* e q of% o* '"'S a * * ^ ^ 2 1 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-55-3-^ a^S'Sts^s^-S-S'SvS'S^-a-S'a-S'S^* " O eS OO c8rt O cSrtrtrtrtrtnJcS rt -S.S oJo rtrtrt O rtrtrtrtrtrt 2 rtrtnJrtrtrtrtrt 4> 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 4 in 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 >'|SS : _-2~*,>. ill ' 1 1 illij .r :J . m siij Ml If II * ., QW i 81== o^ u S^^SvovaaovaiSooooooooooooooo 5 ??? >< ', ooooococoooooooooooo O k 9tOe9>O l >OtOt4ltOtS 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 . ISB 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 !S 5 (S Ls --^-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 the 1 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 Pioe 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 doo r s. 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 6y 2 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 T abor 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 (I 1 ). 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 (H 1 ) pass over the garbage, are reinforced at the second firebox (H 2 ), and pass under trie grates and over the sand pit, thence through the open- ing (I) to the flues (I 1 ), 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 (a 1 ), 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^e 1 ) 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 (d 2 -e 2 ), 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 (T 1 ) is carried to one of the garbage chambers (a 1 ). On its passage it receives the air from the regenerator and combustion takes place within the garbage chamber. From the chamber (a 1 ) 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 (a 1 ) discharge into small chambers inclined from the middle line to the furnace walls, and terminating in a chute (a 3 ) controlled by a sliding fire clay dumper (H 2 ). This upper chamber is then discharged upon a lower drying hearth (D 1 ), 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 (D 1 ) or narrow flue, floored with water grates, below which the ashes are removed. The two fire-boxes (F F 1 ) 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 (B 1 ) 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. i8 7 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 i50 - M 8.-^ 2 IW 8 M < W ,oS H C6 ^ ^ 2 as n u 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 3 2 -5 2 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 - 6 9 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 Z (0 s Z J s Tj Q Q C/2 * r; rt O u*> J? >0 Zj M ^ O ^ aT ^ 5 tn 5 % Ofe I' S II^ i-T o iai? |v| 65 65 00 tw H ifJil i^ J? i tl M ^^ w rt co - -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 ^ |4|| o o^ 'Co' 'C* ^ ^ 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 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 u fume 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, CO 2 , 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 2oooF. 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% 3 2 9- 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., 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 2 3,995 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 2i2F. 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 C0 2 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>0 X ir>oo i standing |2| s 1 1 8, 2 13 =3 c l^ i ^ s a! a :s 55 o H 1 5 . . . ; ; till * * * * * * * jfS (0 v * 4 oo- 00 N ^ o ^ & ^ ^ OO K M i Wl rrj OO D *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 E c ' C z *^ t/> ^ D i* 1 I 1 4 \ : a 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 * 5- - 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 7SOF. feed water 460F. 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 w r here 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 municipa 1 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 3 2 Hughes & Stir- ling Co 7 o 8 Jos. Baker & / Sons 1 2 I 4 33 2 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- 2 5 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 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 9 1 no 93 116 161 156 170 J 53 133 114 9 2 197 170 170 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 !9 5 J 97 1910 ^9 1 5 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 i l / 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 an d 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 T HE 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 J u ly 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 cit Y 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 35 2 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. 37 2 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 i95 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 b v 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 6,473.75 554-9 2 **,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 ? 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 y 2 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 $55695-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) i l / 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. v 7 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 3 8 9 FISHER, E. H 39 1 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. . . , 3 2 3 SMEAD, ISSAC D 145, X 97 SMITH, H. B i7 2 SMITH, M. V 1 74 SMITH, SEYMOUR R. . 1 7 8 SMITH, FRED P 163, 186 SPRINGBORN, W. J 399,405 STABLE REFUSE 84 ST. Louis REDUCTION Co 3 J 4 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) : p AGE 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