CREATING A COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Case Study of Humphreys County, Tennessee
This publication (SW-110) was written
by M. A. KRUTH, D. H. BOOTHf and D. L. YATES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
2d pr i nt i ng
1973
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-110)
For sale by. the Superintendent ol Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 45 cents
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Background of the Area 1
History of the Project 2
System Design and Operation 5
City Participation in the System 9
Operating Costs and Calculations 10
Financing the System 11
Highlights 12
Conclusions 14
Credits 15
Table
1 Capital costs and system components 6
2 Actual operating costs for the container collection
system and sanitary landfill 10
3 Projected annual operating costs including
amortization 11
Figures
1 Documenting Dumps 2
2 The McEwen City Dump 3
3 Slide Show at Humphreys County Fair 5
4 Sanitary Landfill Site Being Prepared 7
5 Map of Humphreys County 8
6 Humphreys County Container Collection Truck 9
7 Entrance Road to County Sanitary Landfill 13
8 Trench Being Covered at Landfill 14
i i i
-------
-------
CREATING A COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
The Case Study of Humphreys County, Tennessee
ABSTRACT
Rural cities and counties need economical solid waste management
systems that eliminate promiscuous and open dumps. This paper discusses
the creation of one such system in Humphreys County, Tennessee. Three
open burning dumps and approximately 40 promiscuous roadside dumps were
eliminated, while the county developed a container collection system and
a central sanitary landfill.
No Federal or State financial aid was used in the project. Capital
costs (November 1970) for the container collection system were $58,091
and the estimated cost per ton of solid waste collected, including
amortization is $7.25. The sanitary landfill capital costs were $39,318,
including equipment and site preparation. Operating costs at the
sanitary landfill are estimated to be $2.32 per ton of solid waste,
including amortization.
Highlights of the project were a continuous public information
system and rapid implementation. The lack of a written agreement for
allocating operating costs at the sanitary landfill has been a source
of difficulty. The experiences of Humphreys County should be carefully
appraised by other agencies considering the creation of solid waste
management systems in rural areas.
-------
-------
CREATING A COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
The Case Study of Humphreys County, Tennessee
by Maurice A. Kruth,* David H. Booth,t and D.L. Yates*
The Humphreys County, Tennessee, countywide solid waste
management system is an outstanding example of how local action can
find a satisfactory, economical solution to an area's solid waste
management problems. Without State or Federal financial aid,
Humphreys County established a countywide solid waste container
collection system, a central sanitary landfill, and closed three
open burning dumps. While patterned after the Chi 1 ton County,
Alabama system, public acceptance and support have been even more
evident for this project.
Background of the Area
Humphreys County is 65 miles southwest of Nashville in central
Tennessee. Humphreys County had a 1970 population of 12,930 and has
555 square miles; three towns contained roughly 40 percent of the
population: Waverly (3,680), McEwen (1,500), and New Johnsonville
(900).
Kentucky Lake, which borders the county on the west, provides
water transportation and access for industry.
*0ffice of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
tDirector, Solid Waste Management Section, Tennessee Department
of Public Health
^Environmentalist, Humphreys County Health Department, Humphreys
County, Tennessee
1
-------
History of the Project
In January 1970, the Humphreys County Court, governing authority
for the County, appointed a five-man solid waste study committee.
Dorcie Yates, County Environmentalist, was elected chairman. The
other members reflected the economic structure of the county: two
were farmers; one represented industry; and one was a city alderman.
Jerry Jolly, District Soils Conservationist with the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, acted as a special advisor to the group. The
committee became active quickly and met at least oner weekly.
Figure 1. One of meny roadside dumps that were ,
documented with slides ard data to use in the public
information program.
-------
The committee documented the county's solid waste situation with
slides and data (Figure 1) and provided the local radio station and
newspaper with news of the progress and findings it made. David Booth,
Director of Tennessee State Solid Waste Management Section, was contacted
for advice and technical assistance.
In March 1970, the solid waste study committee visited Chilton
County in Alabama to observe the countywide management system
introduced there. Their container collection system and central
sanitary landfill appeared adaptable to Humphreys County.
The committee reported its preliminary findings to the County
Court in April 1970. Promiscuous dumoing by its citizens and the
operation of open burning dumps by each small town were the two
main problem areas (Figure 2). Air pollution, odors, and vectors
were common to all the disposal sites.
\,
Figure 2. The McEwen city dump before it was closed
and covered.
-------
Upon initial examination of these findings, however, the reaction
of the County Court was to table any action. Undaunted, the committee
continued its public education programs. Local service clubs were
visited by the committee members and pressure from the city governments
upon the County Court grew, since municipal disposal problems were
becoming more urgent.
By the July 1970 County Court meeting, Judge J. L. Bradley was
convinced of the need for a countywide solid waste management system
and he and the Board authorized the appropriation of $100,000 from
general funds for the purchase of equipment. David Booth had
estimated that this amount would be sufficient. The County's
legal counsel advised the solid waste study committee that it did
not have authority to spend county revenue. Consequently, a County
Board of Sanitation was formed so that it could legally, call for bids
on equipment.
The public education program continued even after the project
was approved. A slide show was; presented at the County Fair to
illustrate the local solid waste problems and the accomplishments of
the Clean and Green Project in Chi 1 ton County, Alabama. The local
radio station assisted by preparing a sound tape to accompany the slide
series (Figure 3).
Enlarged, mounted pictures; of the county's solid waste problems were
another good visual arts technique that was used at the fair and speaking
engagements.
-------
Figure 3. Fairgoers at the Humphreys County Fair
had an opportunity to see their own solid waste problems
and to look at Chi 1 ton County's solution during a slide
show.
Meanwhile, the search for an acceptable sanitary landfill site
had begun. An 80-acre site was located three miles from Waverly
that could be leased for $1.00 per year, if the county would build
a one-mile access road. A 20-year lease was obtained, bids for
equipment were let, and other preparations were made. On November 27,1970,
the county solid waste management system began operations.
System Design and Operation
The solid waste collection and disposal system design was done by
Don Shackelford of the Tennessee State Solid Waste Management Program.
The experiences of Chi 1 ton County and the population of Humphreys
County were the main design considerations. Actual capital expenditures
were $94,409 (Table 1).
5
-------
TABLE 1
CAPITAL COSTS AND SYSTEM COMPONENTS*
Item Description Cost
Packer truck 30-cu-yd Dempster,
with automatic $31,453
transmission
Radio system For packer truck 1,047
94 containers! 6-~u-yd, 10-gauge, 25,591
Dempster
Capital costs for container collection $58,091
Crawler tractor Caterpil'.^r D-5 $30,613
wi th accessories
Land for sanitary 20*
landfill
Site preparation,
access road, fences,
signs, and gate 8,685
Capital costs for sanitary landfill $39,318
Total capital costs $97.409
*Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement
by the U.S. Government.
tEleven additional containers were purchased for $3,830 and sold
at cost to schools and local firms; they are not included in the figures
shown above.
per year for 20 years.
The County Road Department prepared the sanitary landfill site,
(Figure 4), and its site preparation charges were included in capital
costs (Table 1). The site preparation costs include funds expended for
the access road required by the lease agreement.
-------
Figure 4. The sanitary landfill site was prepared
by the Humphreys County Road Department. '
Location of the containers was based on anticipated waste loads
and estimated population densities (Figure 5). The containers were
placed on wooden pads to keep them out of mud.
In a study by the TVA in March 1971, 212 container pickups were
made 1n a typical 6-day week, when 101 containers were available in
the system. The collection vehicle covered each of the six half-day
routes twice and traveled 685 miles during the week (Figure 6).
Preliminary figures from this survey indicated that an average of 2.5
pounds of solid waste was collected for each person per day. The actual
municipal solid waste generation rate is estimated to be 3.5 pounds per
person per day, since some citizens and businesses transport solid wastes
directly to the sanitary landfill.
-------
'• GORMAN
WAVERLY
X*°^C(
<*nty
• "
^
\
\\
\\
MCEWE
».
, Humphreys County, Tennessee
Sanitary Landfill
Container Locations
3 miles/Inch
Figure 5. Map of Humphreys County
8
\»
i?
(i
I <">
I o
I C
(%
v,
-------
'•'
\
-------
Proper rat poisoning was conducted at all sites during closure
of the dumps. The apparent imbalance in the number of containers
for McEwen and New Johnsonville can be explained by the location of
other containers in the overall system.
Operating Costs and Calculations
Actual operating costs are shown for January through October 1971
(Table 2). Annual operating costs including amortization were projected
(Table 3).
TABLE 2
ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS, JANUARY THROUGH OCTOBER 1971*
Item
Salariest
Fuel and oil
Ti res
Insurance
Repairs
Misc.
Miles driven
Cost/mile
Collection
system
$7,715
1 ,480
2,046
1,346
801
540
$13,928
37,2!15 mi.
37*
Sani tary
landfill
$7,945
743
--
172
375
45
$9,280
--
--
*0perating costs exclude anortization of capital costs.
tThe accounting system was revised in this budget period,
requiring some minor approximation of costs.
10
-------
TABLE 3
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND AMORTIZATION
Container system Sanitary landfill
Population served
Estimated operating
costs/year
Amortization costst
9,250*
$16,800
$13,790
12,930
$11,100
$ 8,025
Total operating costs
per year $30,590 $19,125
Total operating
cost/person
served/year $ 3.3] $ 1.48
Estimated solid waste
tonnage collected* 4,220 8,260
Cost/ton $ 7.25 $ 2.32
*Waverly's population (3,680) is not included since they receive
municipal collection services.
tAmortization of the Container System = $58,091 X .2374 (erf -
6% - 5 years). Amortization of the sanitary landfill equipment = $30,613
X .2374 (erf - 6% - 5 years) + $8,685 X .08718 (erf - 6% - 5 years).
tThe estimated solid waste tonnage for the container system =2.5
Ibs/person/day X 9,250/2,000 X 365. The estimated solid waste tonnage
disposed of at the sanitary landfill =3.5 Ibs/person/day X 12,930
2,000
Financing the System
The general fund of the county was used for the initial capital
purchases. Judge Bradley disclosed that the capital costs would be
distributed in the budget over several years. No State or Federal
financial aid was used in the project.
11
-------
The capital cost distribution among the various agencies was
based on political compromise and on an acceptance by the county
of all capital costs of the container collection system. Sanitary
landfill capital costs ($39,318) were tentatively allocated on the basis
of population.
The operating costs for the container collection system are borne
by the county. The operating costs associated with the sanitary landfill
are allocated on the basis of population. Unfortunately, a written
agreement was not prepared for distributing the operating costs of the
sanitary landfill between the cities and the county. Renegotiation of
these costs has occurred.
Population was used as the primary criterion in the cost allocations,
since it was considered to be the most equitable means available. Charges
based on the weight of solid waste disposed of at the sanitary landfill
were considered, but rejected.
Highlights
An outstanding feature of tie Humphreys County solid waste
management system has been excellent use of public relations, both
to build support for the system before adoption and then to educate
the public after the approval of the system. Visual aids, news
releases and lectures all contributed to gaining the public's support
for the project. Other features were the speed of implementation
and the exclusive use of local funds. The credit for this project
belongs to the county residents. The only outside aid enlisted for
the project was technical assistance from the State's Solid Waste
Management Section.
12
-------
The overall aesthetic improvement that resulted from the project
is the most visible effect. Three open burning dumps were closed, and
about 40 roadside and promiscuous dumps were eliminated. One sanitary
landfill that will ultimately become pasture land now handles the
entire county's solid waste (Figure 7).
Figure 7. The mile-long entrance road to Humphreys
County sanitary landfill was built as required by the
lease in order to give access to the site.
However, two problem areas arose in developing the regional
system. One of these was the lack of a formal agreement between the
cities and the county to provide for the cost of sanitary landfill
operations. The original solid waste study committee nearly erred
when it sought equipment bids without the legal authority to do so.
The County Sanitation Board was created to assume this responsibility
within the framework of the County's legislation.
13
-------
Figure 8. A trench that is being covered at
Humphreys County sanitary landfill.
Conclusions
Efficient and acceptable solid waste management systems can be
developed in rural areas without State or Federal financial aid. The
Humphreys County system, utilizing container collection and a central
sanitary landfill, is a prime example of a quality rural system.
The cost of this solid waste management system is most reasonable
when compared to other services., like water pollution treatment. Open
burning and promiscuous dumps were eliminated and replaced with a system
that costs an estimated $4.79 per person served per year, including
amortization of capital expenditures. The higher level of service now
provided to the county's citizens has earned their strong support for
this project.
14
-------
Credits
1. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2. Humphreys County Board of Sanitation, Brown Rochelle, Chairman,
3. Humphreys County Soil Conservation District.
uo 72311r
15
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 O - 491-569
-------
------- |