By Neal Bolton

Landfill Compactors—Redefined
Getting Information
The Bottom Line
Studying and Increasing Compaction
What Next?

The garbage industry is dynamic. It’s moving fast, though not always in what many would consider to be a good direction. Take, for example, the concept of compaction. It’s a simple concept that can be applied in a practical fashion. Even my kids understand it. On Tuesday morning, as the last of the trash is put out for the garbage truck, they’ll sometimes say, "Hey, Dad, the can’s too full, can you come and push it down?" Though they might not know about Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, they understand the concept. Big feet, more weight equals greater compaction. Now, Newton might not have had landfill compactors in mind, but his law certainly applies to them.

There is, however, another law that affects many compactor-equipped landfills. It is the law of supply and demand. Here’s how it works: The competitive landfill market demands lower tipping fees, and you supply by cutting costs anywhere you can. This often means trading long-term gains in areas like waste compaction for short-term savings in cash flow. In other words, our industry is being forced to look at short-term savings at the expense of long-term benefits in compaction.

Over the years, there’s been a lot of information put forth regarding landfill compactors. In the early 1980s, compaction was straightforward and simple: Get a compactor and get better density. The goal was to get as much compaction (density) as possible.

Many landfill owners performed tests to try and measure how much compaction their machine(s) could produce. Tests were conducted to measure how compaction varies with type of waste, type of wheel, machine weight, and so on. Waste compaction became a science.

But this article is not about science. It’s not about ground pressure. It’s not a comparison of static loads versus dynamic loads. Nor is it a study of the molecular erosion that results when steel wheels hit garbage. We’re going to take a step back and simplify. We’re going back to basics—finding out why landfills buy compactors. Cutting to the quick, the question becomes. Why in the world do you have a compactor?

Landfill Compactors—Redefined

What makes a good landfill compactor? One would think the answer is as simple as the question: A good landfill compactor is one that compacts. And while compaction certainly is a major consideration, it’s not the only defining criterion for a good compactor. In fact, when it comes to compactors and compaction there are lots of other considerations.

Based on a recent thumbnail survey of landfills from across the country, those who buy and use landfill compactors are also looking at such issues as durability, service and support, and upfront and long-term costs. And, as a matter of fact, a machine’s ability to provide maximum density is not always first on the list. Here are some results from that survey. You might be surprised at what we found.

Purchase Criteria. When asked to rank several criteria in regard to the purchase of their current compactor, 50% of those surveyed listed a machine’s ability to achieve maximum density as the most important issue. Surprisingly, 38% ranked machine/component "durability, life, and warranty" as their number-one consideration in selecting a compactor—more important than its ability to compact.

This finding should tell us something about where our industry is headed. It appears that many landfills are more concerned with stabilizing their expenses (in the short term) than on making the most of their airspace resource (in the long term). This is another piece of fallout from a competitive, dog-eat-dog business environment. And make no bones about it, this affects both private and municipal landfills.

When it comes to what’s important in regard to purchasing a compactor, long-term costs and the manufacturer’s reputation were the least important factors considered for purchasing a compactor.

Since it appears that a machine’s ability to provide maximum compaction is still the most important factor (though not by much), it’s interesting to hear where landfill decision-makers go for information regarding compaction and which machine works best.

Getting Information

When we asked those surveyed where they go for reliable information in regard to landfill compaction, the highest-ranking choices were one’s own experience and onsite density tests. No, our survey wasn’t limited to landfills in Missouri, though the landfill professionals surveyed certainly had a "show-me" attitude. Obviously when it comes to compaction, seeing is believing.

Ranking lowest in regard to information sources were equipment dealers, followed closely by trade journals or associations and consultants or engineers. Again, it seems as though generally, landfill folks rely more on what they see and know than on what they hear or read.

That trait, while speaking volumes for independent thinkers, also whispers of a serious limitation. When we must rely on our own experience to make trusted decisions, we are all limited indeed. I recently spoke at a landfill-operations conference in Kansas. As I stood in front of 140 landfill operators, my 22 years of experience paled in comparison to the well over 1,000 years of landfill experience of my audience.

Three hundred years ago, Isaac Newton calculated the force required to put an object into orbit around the earth. But alas, he never left the ground. It took thousands of knowledgeable people, building on each other’s experience, to get it done.

Most other industries have reliable standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials has established material standards for steel, plastic, wood, soil—virtually every building material with the exception of garbage. Similarly, if you want to build a house, a bridge, or a road, there are standards (like the Uniform Building Code) that are reliable. Few carpenters feel the need to test every type of wood to know which one is right for a given application. Most feel comfortable using cedar shakes for the roof, yet few have participated in a cedar-versus-pine demonstration project.

In terms of standards, landfill operations are lacking. Despite the variation from site to site, we’d all benefit by having a trusted clearinghouse of information. Keep networking and sharing information. If you’re in the landfill business, get busy. Here’s what can you do to increase the bottom line (in order of importance): (1) waste compaction, (2) cover-soil ratio, (3) labor reductions, (4) machine maintenance costs, (5) liner construction costs, (6) closure funding, (7) engineering costs, and (8) litter control.

The Bottom Line

We’re familiar with the ancient adage that all roads lead to Rome. But certainly when it comes to running a landfill, all roads eventually lead to the bottom line. In that regard, we asked the question, If you wanted to improve your site’s bottom line, where would you focus your effort?

Over three-fourths of those surveyed listed waste compaction as number one. This was followed by cover-soil ratio and labor reductions. Not entirely surprising, litter ranked last, but liner construction costs, closure funding, and engineering costs also received low priority.

Creative Acquisition. Mickey Ceorli, landfill compactor specialist for Bomag/Compaction America in Kewanee, IL, states, "Our clients are becoming more sophisticated. They’re looking for more of a turnkey arrangement. Leasing is becoming more important as a means of avoiding the hassle of buyback agreements and resale. Of course, cost is a major consideration too. A landfill can lease a machine without tying up as much money as it would with an outright purchase." Ceorli’s assessment was mirrored in comments received from other manufacturers in the landfill compactor business.

Certainly this trend has some positives. The landfill industry is maturing. We’ve fought off the attack of disposable diapers and survived ravages of the barge-spawned "landfill crisis." Landfills that are still in business have in one way or another brought themselves into conformance with Subtitle D and its offspring. And now, after some major asset reshuffling, landfill owners are focusing on the business of running a landfill. But are we leaving something behind even as we, in many ways, move ahead? Maybe so.

Focusing on the Near Term. Have you heard the story about the guy who was hungry so he went to town to get something to eat? On the way he stopped at the hardware store, where he became so preoccupied in all the stuff on sale that he forgot he was hungry, spent all his time and money on tools, then got all the way home before he realized he’d forgotten to eat.

In terms of landfill compaction, our industry is in many ways focusing so much on the short-term bottom line that we’re forgetting why we came to town in the first place.

Jim Caron, president of Caron Compactor Company in Modesto, CA, says, "Today, at many landfills, airspace isn’t perceived to be as critical as it once was. Many landfill operators are looking for increased equipment life and long-term warranties. We’ve met them by developing new products. Even so, we’ve got to remember that landfills are still in the business of selling airspace."

For the landfill that has no development costs and unlimited life, it’s hard to argue that increasing compaction saves airspace and money that’s so far out in the future that it has little value right now, today. Basic economics tell us that there is indeed a time value of money. Also, if your landfill is in a very competitive marketplace, it’s vital that you manage your short-term expenses or you might not be in business next year.

But for landfills that are spending big bucks on permitting, design, liner construction, and closure, even in the short term time is money. Ken Pratt, president of Al-jon in Ottumwa, IA, says, "A customer who buys a compactor from us is really buying time." Pratt affirms the short-term view of the industry, however. "It’s not uncommon for a customer to ask, ‘I may not have a job next year. What can you do for me this year?’"

As a landfill-operations consultant, it’s sad to see a landfill having to build a liner this year because it missed next year’s construction season by two or three months. In many of those cases, that extra two to three months is sitting right there in the middle of the operation, hidden in lost compaction and mismanaged airspace.

While doing landfill audits, it’s common for consultants to find examples of poor compaction and excessive use of cover soil that end up robbing a landfill’s capacity by as much as 20%. That translates directly to an increase in liner and closure costs. For the manager who wants immediate results, there they are.

Studying and Increasing Compaction

Does this mean that many landfill managers sacrifice density in exchange for a short-term payback? Yep. Does this trend toward short-term planning mean that landfill managers have forgotten density? Not at all. Compaction is still a major issue. It’s the mother of all operational yardsticks. Sharp landfill managers have always known it.

Most of the managers we surveyed spend considerable time evaluating and trying to increase compaction. It’s just that when it comes to revenues and expenses, if it doesn’t have a quick payback, it’s not going to receive much support in terms of financial investment.

In our survey we asked: "In regard to your regular schedule, how much time do you spend studying, measuring, tracking, or finding ways to increase compaction?" On the average, the managers surveyed spend slightly over 5% of their time on compaction. Their responses ranged from less than 1% of their time to "an hour per day or more" spent on compaction. How much time do you spend studying, measuring, or increasing compaction?

What Next?

The bottom line is that compaction is still important. Landfill managers know it. But if they want to be around long enough to do something about it, they’ve got to be competitive—even to the point of giving up short-term density for cost savings.

It may not be the ideal situation, but it’s where we are. That being the case, the burden is on the machine manufacturers to do more. Doing more means providing durable equipment that compacts well; selling, financing, or leasing equipment for reasonable prices to keep landfills’ cash flows flowing; backing up the equipment with a solid warranty; and continuing to advance the science and capabilities of compaction.

This is a tall order for manufacturers who are themselves feeling the pinch of a competitive industry. Yet compaction equipment and those who build it are coming through. Here’s a rundown on how these issues are being addressed.

Compaction. No doubt about it, if you’re looking to maximize compaction, today’s machines can provide it. Thanks to advances in wheel and tooth design and increased weight, landfill compactors can achieve amazing waste densities. It’s no longer a game where 1,200 lb./yd.³ promises a blue ribbon. Landfill compaction is out of the envelope and out of the box. Many landfills today are reporting waste densities that are much greater. At the risk of being labeled as one who believes only what I know or see, I’ve measured MSW densities that exceeded 1,700 lb./yd.³. Frequently I’ve seen results in the range of 1,300-1,400 lb./yd.³ These kinds of results, now fairly common, are the result of a combination of better machines (e.g., wheels, teeth, and unit), heavier machines, and a better understanding of operational technique.

Financing. Equipment manufacturers are offering many options for equipment financing. Says Pratt, "In some cases we’re asked to offer a guaranteed buy-back at three-month intervals for a five-year period. While this provides the customer with lots of flexibility, it also adds to the cost of the machine." This apparently is not a matter for many landfill managers, as long as it provides short-term savings and flexibility.

Durability and Warranty. Manufacturers are answering the call of landfill operators to provide equipment warranties that are longer, stronger, and easier to understand. For example, on some products, Caron Compactor offers a 10,000-hour warranty on teeth and a 20,000-hour warranty on wheel drums. Other manufacturers are moving in this direction too.

Advancing the Science of Compaction. Most equipment manufacturers are continually working to improve their products. Compaction-equipment manufacturers have recently come up with larger, more powerful machines; special blades built to increase production and compaction; and various types of new wheels.

While it’s true that most equipment manufacturers and some landfill operators are making progress in the science of compaction, for many landfills MSW compaction is still a black box. Here’s where networking comes in.

MSW
January /February 2000