R€GIOML
Of- 9OLID Wd9T€9
A PMMMIMG 9TUDY
-------
-------
RGGIOIW
OF TOLID W/49TGS
A PL/INNING STUDY
This condensation (SW-80.1)
of an unpublished report
by John H. Sweeten was prepared
for the Federal solid waste management program
by IRENE KIEFER
Envi:>" ' -. ":-•_,!• ion Agency
T,: ,-> • .
i Nort.'i ';-•: -. j-
Chicago, IlliiioiG G0606
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ 1973
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management senes (SW-801)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
o
! B
,£) Piecemeal collection systems, disposal
• operations so small that they can't operate
•*£"=
f* effectively or economically—these are charac-
teristic of the methods being used to manage
municipal solid wastes in many localities. These
1 methods waste money at a time when municipal
governments are hard pressed as never before to
keep up with the demands being made on their
limited funds. But these methods do more than
just waste money. Frequently, they also stand
in the way of solving today's solid waste
problems economically and in environmentally
sound ways. And yesterday's methods stand in
the way of planning adequately to solve tomor-
row's even bigger problems
Cooperating with nearby communities is
an obvious answer, one that an ever-increasing
number of American communities are adopting.
One such cooperative effort, which took place
in the Eastern Appalachia Health Region, merits
a closer look, since the problems solved there
are probably typical of those facing many
American communities.
Of the 168,000 people living in that
particular four-county area in west central
North Carolina, more than a third had no
solid waste collection service. The wastes that
were collected were taken to 24 authorized
land disposal sites — 23 were open burning
dumps, 1 was a sanitary landfill. Some of the
-------
wastes that were not collected ended up in the
more than 325 scattered dumps that lined the:
area's roads in promiscuous fashion, others were:
burned m the open.
The North Carolina State Health Depart-
ment will soon be closing those dumps, forcing
local governments in the region to find new
systems for managing their solid wastes. Look-
ing to this time, the Regional Health Council of
Eastern Appalachia asked the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency for help. A technical
assistance team from the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs (OSWMP) went to North
Carolina, studied the situation there, and con-
cluded that the basic problems were:
• Authority over solid waste collec-
tion and disposal was fragmented
• Rural residents—as well as recrea-
tional visitors—had no collection
service.
Whatever new system the area was to use
would have to solve these two problems m an
economical and environmentally acceptable
way. Incineration was one alternative. But it
was an expensive one, since the quantities of
solid wastes were small—only about 154,000
tons annually. Furthermore, the population was
fairly well dispersed over the 1,679 square miles
of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and McDowell
Counties.
Land suitable for sanitary landfills was
relatively cheap and abundant, however. If
haphazard and uneconomical development could
be avoided, the sanitary landfill alternative
would be attractive. Eleven municipalities were
providing collection service, some of them
serving only a few hundred people. Seventeen
of the land disposal sites were publicly owned;
some of them received only a few hundred tons
of solid wastes a year. If more municipalities
-------
chose to act independently, further fragmenta-
tion and inefficiencies were inevitable. Accord-
ingly, OSWMP recommended that the four
counties form a commission to operate a solid
waste management system for the entire region.
Analyzing Costs
To determine the most economical alter-
native, OSWMP made a detailed analysis of the
costs involved in operating systems of one,
three, four, or five sanitary landfills. Two costs
were considered: the cost of administering and
operating the fills, and the cost of transporting
the wastes to the fills. The alternative with the
lowest combined costs would be the most
economical solution.
For each of the four alternatives, OSWMP
drew up zones to be served by one sanitary
landfill. Zones were based on population, pop-
ulation distribution, and accessibility via all-
weather roads. Costs to administer and operate
each system were estimated by totaling:
• Annual project fixed costs—for ex-
ample, salaries for the project director
and office staff, office supplies, con-
sulting services, and travel of the
project director.
• Annual fixed costs at each landfill
that are independent of size—for
example, personnel-related costs, util-
ities, access roads, fences, signs, and
mechanical supplies.
• Annual costs at each landfill that are
dependent on size—for example, cost
to buy the site, to prepare it for filling,
and to own and operate the necessary
equipment.
From these figures, OSWMP calculated
the annual cost per ton to dispose of all wastes
generated m the four counties. Since large
-------
sanitary landfills are cheaper to operate, the
one-fill system showed the lowest operating
cost per ton.
The next step was to find the best site
for a sanitary landfill in each zone. This was
done by the trial-and-error process of minimiz-
ing the total number of miles the wastes in a
zone would have to be transported to the
proposed site. The site usually lay within or
near the city limits of the major city in each
zone.
After pinpointing the best locations by
this process, the costs of transporting the wastes
were determined for three situations. The first
was a theoretical situation in which all house-
holders transported their own wastes. This
situation was intended to provide a benchmark
for measuring transportation costs for alterna-
tive numbers of landfills. These figures showed
that the per-ton costs decreased drastically as
the number of disposal sites increased.
The second was the existing situation, in
which organized collection was provided to 62
percent of the residents, while the remaining 38
percent (largely rural) hauled their own wastes.
Analysis of these cost figures showed some
important trends: transportation costs to the
region decreased markedly when the number of
regional sanitary landfills increased from one to
four. However, little or no further reduction in
transportation costs was expected from setting
up more than four. And, finally, it cost the
rural resident much more to transport his own
wastes than when it was done by regular
collection vehicles. He had to travel long
distances to disposal sites and his family vehicle
was not designed for the job.
The third situation involved keeping the
present municipal and private collection serv-
ices and adding a new service for the region's
60,000 to 65,000 rural residents. A network of
-------
roadside bulk containers would be set up so
that no resident would have to transport his
wastes more than 5 miles one way—as opposed
to the 20 miles he might have to travel to a
centrally located landfill. This system was
patterned after one successfully demonstrated
m Chilton County, Alabama, with the assistance
of an OSWMP grant.
Transportation costs for this improved
system were calculated for three-, four-, and
five-landfill systems. (The one-landfill alterna-
tive had been ruled out by earlier analyses
because transportation costs were too high.)
Transporting rural wastes, even from the bulk
containers, cost several times more per ton than
transporting urban wastes. Providing this service
was, nevertheless, absolutely essential if the
new regional system was to put an end to
backyard burning and promiscuous dumping.
On this basis, OSWMP recommended use of the
bulk containers for rural residents, as well as for
recreational visitors.
OSWMP also recommended that the re-
gional commission set up four sanitary landfills.
The four- and five-landfill systems cost about
the same (Table 1), but there were advantages
to the four-landfill site alternative. The four
zones followed county boundaries. This was
done for a number of reasons. First, the
centers of population (and thus of solid waste
generation) fell near each county seat, and the
disposal site should be close to population
centers. Secondly, the county seat was the hub
of highway transportation, which was desirable
in operation of the landfill. Finally, political
and public support were likely to be stronger
if each county was a zone with its own landfill.
Thus this alternative combines the advantages
of central planning and management with
those of locating a fill in each county.
The first step in implementing the new
-------
system is to legally constitute the regional
solid waste commission and to authorize it to
regulate solid waste management practices under
uniform ordinances and regulations. The com-
mission should establish four sanitary landfills
as close as possible to the population centers of
each county and adopt acceptable design and
operating procedures for the fills. Then the
commission should close all the dumps, using
recommended procedures.
Finally, the regional commission should
install bulk containers so that rural residents
and recreational visitors can dispose of their
wastes safely and conveniently.
The new system could be installed in
several phases as funds become available. Initial
and operating costs of the system could be:
derived from uniform taxation of all residents
and businesses in the four counties. Other
sources of revenue could include Appalachia
Regional Commission's grant program, loans,
and sale of revenue bonds.
Analyzing Other Solid Waste Systems
The solid waste management problems of
the Eastern Appalachia Health Region are
probably typical of those facing many American
communities. The problems often cross political
boundaries and can be solved only on a broad,
geographical basis. The systematic and co-
ordinated efforts of several communities will
serve the best interests of all the people, over
both the short and long term.
For information on the detailed analytical
procedures developed for the study and how
they could be used to bring the advantages of
regional solid waste management to your area,
write Processing and Disposal Division, Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 5555 Ridge
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213.
-------
s
o
H
<
cr
LLJ
Q.
o
1
_J
il
Z H
rf ^
r^- O
CC Q_
<£ CO
- h- Z
LLJ —,<
_l 5 EC
5 00 ^
^t 1 U
1_ LL. t~
O ^
'— ' CO
00 <
I -^
fe ^
0 Q
0 J
-2 °
< 00
^^
^ Q
0 2
CD <
LJJ
QC
d
LLJ
Z
m
^
o
CJ
ro
c ,
0 "> -0
5) £ c
^"gl§
~& o % g-t;
c *• ra -y>
— ^-- t"^ Q
^ o o
§0°-
CJ
c
0
ro "O ra
£ •= c *
O O Q
&>& a. g
DC O c 1—
2 SHW
0 0 o
H"S
ro
g
u
l-Sfclg
°- s E "it
™0t5 "**
o w -1
1-
o >J2
oi ro ^
ja *: -D
c c c
C ra CD
3 c/3 — 1
z
CO t CO
i^ u^ in
I co CM" CM'
0 E
0 ra
tfl V>
C »
0 £
Q >
^^
i =
!s
+.- (D
o £
0 nj
C £
0 0
si
a?
c -
03 ^
h 2
* 0)
'-
EU
u
PC72407
-------
-------
-------
snl^1 I"-- : -jv-i ion Agency
Library, F-=; :. •- .
1 North V'M,:...- :.-.: , :
Chicago, Illinois G0606
-------
-------
------- |