The Development of Automated Vacuum Collection
Gibbs and Hill recommended pneumatic collection in their preliminary 1970 study, provided certain criteria were met:
The AVAC pneumatic system has too much potential to be dismissed. However, since there is no operating installation in the United States, it should not be accepted without further in-depth study of operating and maintenance history.
This further investigation is required to confirm that AVAC is a mechanically reliable system, appropriate for U.S. municipal refuse service, and that the costs for its installation and maintenance will not be excessive.
If shown to be feasible, it is without question the method most appropriate to minimize noise, litter, odors, traffic congestion and high labor costs associated with conventional urban refuse collection.
The benefits of pneumatic collection would all contribute to the overall objectives:
Cleanliness Concealment Expected minimization of labor costs No traffic interference Reduced pedestrian accident hazard Utilization of the newest technology
Before Gibbs and Hill would recommend negotiating with the US distributor Aerojet-General, the engineers suggested meetings between the UDC and the City Environment Protective Administration to decide the extent of conventional pickup service that the City would provide under the terms of the lease. They also recommended visiting Swedish installations in Sundbyberg and Hallenbergen to observe the operations, and meeting with Stockholm City Council’s subcommittee on pneumatic collection.
Engineers in several countries had developed pneumatic conveying systems for disposal or reclamation of material in the 1950s. The first patent was issued to an American engineer who designed a system for collecting soiled linen in 1951, for Eastern Cyclone Industries, but vacuum collection of refuse was invented and elaborated in Sweden.
Pneumatic refuse collection is not the first alternative to curbside collection. The Garchey system was installed in housing projects in France in the 1930s. All domestic refuse was collected in a unit installed under the kitchen sink and then flushed into an underground tank. Solid wastes were extracted by truck and water was routed to the sewer system. The technology was later incorporated into British housing estates built in the 1940s and 50s. While it can handle bottles, cans and food scraps, input size is limited so at least half of a household’s garbage has to be carried out.
In 1938 American architect John W. Hammes began marketing the garbage disposal: a small grinder that fits under the sink and processes food waste before it is flushed into the sewer system. Unlike the Garchey and pneumatic systems, it was marketed as a kitchen appliance and distributed through plumbers and contractors one home at a time. Proponents of the garbage disposal have argued that it takes pressure off sanitation departments and landfills. Others worry that it burdens sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants. Garbage disposals were banned in New York City as a precaution until a 1996 study found no evidence of undue impact.
The first urban scale vacuum collection system was installed in the Sundyberg development in 1966. Over the next decade Centralsug and Flakt, another Swedish firm, began exporting urban-scale systems. Roosevelt Island in 1975 was one of the first generation of installations, along with Disney World in 1971, Munich Olympic Village in 1972, Parque Central, Caracas in 1973, and Chertanovo, Moscow in 1975.
The first US distributor for Centralsug was Envirogenics Systems Co., a subsidiary of Aerojet-General in El Monte, California. They built a demonstration system at their headquarters to explain the system to clients building hospitals, airports, large commercial complexes and new developments in the US.
Satisfied with urban scale pneumatic systems they saw in Sweden, Gibbs and Hill contracted Aerojet-General to prepare a cost estimate and found that annual cost for a pneumatic system would be about the same as curbside collection, but without the need for trucks the City’s contribution could be cut in half. Envirogenics’ figures, quoted in an early 1970s issue of Civil Engineering, describe a savings of 13.5 million dollars for on- and off-site waste handling over a system’s 40-year life span. The engineers recommended that Roosevelt Island invest in the infrastructure because even containerized collection, which is more efficient than curbside collection, would require truck accessible service areas and compacting stations. The system was compatible with the planner’s concept for the island, the City’s financial situation, and the growing demands of waste collection.
