\
\
Solid Waste Management
in Recreational Forest Areas
\
-------
-------
^ Solid Waste Management
4n Recreational/Forest Areas
\
The Solid Waste Management Office conducted this study (SW-16tsj
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the report was prepared by
CHARLES S. SPOONER
- ••' :<';v;ion Agency
1 Horlh \] ..^'. •...* ". i'. v'o
Chicago, Illinois 60606
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
Environmental Protection Publication
This publication is also in the Public Health Service
numbered series as Public Health Service Publication
No. 1991; its entry in two government publication
series is the result of a publishing interface reflecting
the transfer of the Federal solid waste management
program from the U.S. Public Health Service to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office , 1971.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1
ENVIRONMENTAL niOT.ICIlCvI AG£NCJT
-------
FOREWORD
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, requested the Bureau of Solid Waste Management*
•*-. to conduct a study of National Forest recreation areas. Its objectives were to establish waste generation rates
^ for major recreation activities and to determine the cost of solid waste handling for selected Forest Service
Districts. The study was implemented by the Forest Service's San Dimas Equipment Development Center in
their Equipment Development and Testing (ED&T) Project 1848: "A Systems Study of Solid Waste Disposal."
The present report (SW-16ts) resulted from the joint project and serves as both the Bureau of Solid Waste
**) Management's report to the Forest Service and the ED&T project report.
O
t The 1968 solid waste generation rates for all major recreation activities in the Forest Service are
e*~ described, as well as the various methods of solid waste storage, collection, and disposal encountered. Some
•^ proposed changes of these practices are also discussed in this report.
"0
f- Solid waste generation rates will enable officials to make more accurate estimates of the volume and the
^£> weight of wastes generated by various recreation uses and by new recreation facilities. These estimates will
allow better selection of collection and disposal systems to meet expanding needs.
The report discusses the economics of, as well as the equipment used in, the various solid waste
handling systems encountered during the study. Twelve Districts not visited were surveyed by letter and
telephone. Data from these surveys provide a method of describing District solid waste handling costs and
guides to reduce them.
The number of Americans visiting our parks and recreation areas has been growing rapidly. It is hoped
that this report will assist in maintaining the beauty and healthfulness of these areas and in preserving them
for the enjoyment of future generations.
RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
This was the official name of the Federal solid waste management program at the time of this study, and thus is used throughout
the report. The program has now been transferred from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
m
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
INTRODUCTION 5
PROCEDURES 6
Site Selection 6
Individual Studies 6
Measuring Recreation Use 6
Obtaining Cost Information 10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 11
Rates of Waste Generation 11
Campgrounds 11
Variation in the Solid Waste Generation Rate from Campgrounds 11
Picnic Grounds 17
Organization Camps 19
Recreation Residences 19
Winter Sports Areas 19
Recreation Sites Generating Minor Quantities of Solid Wastes 19
Administrative Sites 19
Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers 20
Resorts 20
Value of Solid Waste Generation Rates 21
Solid Waste Storage Practices 21
Solid Waste Collection Practices 24
Collection Cost Study 24
Improving Solid Waste Collection 25
Solid Waste Disposal 27
Planning New Solid Waste Handling Systems 28
REFERENCES 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY 29
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 30
APPENDIX 1 NATIONAL FOREST CAMP AND PICNIC SITE (DEVELOPMENT SCALE) 31
APPENDIX 2 DESCRIPTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES 33
-------
Page
APPENDIX 3 VARIATIONS IN WASTE GENERATION RATE AND IN WASTE COMPOSITION ... 71
APPENDIX 4 COSTS OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION 81
APPENDIX 5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COST QUESTIONNAIRE 85
APPENDIX 6 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11282 89
TABLES
1 Waste Generation Rates for Recreation Sites 2
2 Locations and Dates of Studies 8
3 Units of Waste Generation and Methods of Conversion 10
4 Picnic Waste Generated per Picnicker 17
FIGURES
1 Location of study sites 7
2 Frequency distribution of the waste generation rate for 31 campgrounds 12
3 Cumulative distribution of the waste generation rate for 31 campgrounds 13
4 Frequency distribution of the waste generation rate for 31 campgrounds 14
5 Cumulative distribution of the waste generation rate for 31 campgrounds 15
6 Observed composition of camping and recreation residence solid waste and comparison with
urban residence values 16
7 Variation in campground solid waste generation, Wayne—Hoosier National Forest 18
8 Pounds of solid waste per occupant day at four organization camps 19
9 Pounds of solid waste per corpsman day at two Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers .... 20
10 Pounds of solid waste per occupant day at resorts studied 20
11 Types of solid waste containers observed 22
12 Economic effect of employing a second collector 26
VI
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From the data for all the sites studied, the
rate of waste generation for each activity was
averaged and the 90 percent confidence interval was
calculated (Table 1).
The 22 cost questionnaires revealed that,
although the budgeted amount for handling solid
wastes in each District varied greatly, an average of
70 percent was spent on collection manpower and
only 4 percent was spent on disposal. The remaining
26 percent was divided evenly between the cost of
equipment and plastic liners. Collection and disposal
costs per estimated ton ranged between $28 and
$302 per ton, with a median of $88. In some
Forest Service Districts, collection by private
contract was less expensive than collection by
District forces; in other Districts, the reverse was
true. Although the amount paid private contractors
was influenced by many factors, competing
employment opportunities appeared most
important. Study teams found no established
methods for evaluating the relative economic merits
of the two systems. Forest Service solid waste
collection crews were usually composed of two or
three men. Long travel distances consumed many
man hours, making route miles a costly item.
The following conclusions were drawn from
the study:
1. The solid waste generated in a recreation area
can be related to the visitor use the area
receives.
2. Recreational solid waste generation rates
could not be shown to vary regionally or with
the level of campground development. *
3. Few Forest Service Districts operated
specially adapted equipment for solid waste
collection. Most relied on equipment used for
other tasks.
4. Few Forest Service Districts used any
equipment for solid waste disposal even when
it was available.
5. In some Forest Service areas, private contract
collectors could collect the solid wastes at the
most reasonable cost; in other areas, District
collection crews provided the service at costs
far below contract bids.
6. Solid waste containers in Forest Service
recreation areas are generally well designed
and maintained. Plastic container liners aid
both container sanitation and collection
efficiency.
7. The distance from the Forest Service
recreation area to the disposal site and the
intensity of recreation use in the area had the
most influence on the cost of solid waste
collection.
8. All Forest Service land disposal sites
encountered during the study were de facto
dumps, not operated to local, State, or
Federal standards.
*Level of development denotes the degree to
which the area has been improved for the
convenience of the recreator (See Appendix 1).
-------
TABLE 1
WASTE GENERATION RATES FOR RECREATION SITES
Average rate of waste generation
Recreation site 90 percent confidence interval
Campgrounds (Ib/camper day) 1.26 + 0.08
Campgrounds (Ib/visitor day) 0.92 + 0.06
Family picnic area (Ib/picnicker) 0.93 + 0.16
Group picnic area (Ib/picnicker) 1.16+ 0.26
Organization camps (Ib/occupant day) 1.81 ± 0.39
Job Corps Civilian Conservation Corps Camps
Kitchen waste (Ib/corpsman day) 2.44 + 0.63
Administrative and dormitory waste
(Ib/corpsman day) °.70 ± °-66
Resort areas
Rented cabins (with kitchens)
(Ib/occupant day) 1-46 ± 0.31
Lodge rooms (without kitchens)
(Ib/occupant day) 0-59 ± 0.64
Restaurants (Ib/meal served) 0.71 + 0.40
Overnight lodges in winter sports areas
(wastes from all facilities) (Ib/visitor day) 1-87 + 0.26
Day lodge in winter sports areas
(Ib/visitor day) 2.92 ± 0.61
Recreation residences (Ib/occupant day) 2.13 + 0.54
Observation sites (Ib/incoming axle) 0.05 + 0.03
Visitor centers (Ib/visitor) 0.02 + 0.008
Swimming beaches (Ib/swimmer) 0.04 + 0.01
Concession stands (Ib/patron) 0.14 (1 site)
Administrative residences (Ib/occupant day) 1.37 ± 0.35
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Forest Service compliance with Executive Order 11282 should develop in three stages: (1) Open burning
must be discontinued. (2) Individual Forest Service Districts must create small sanitary landfills for
recreation and administrative solid wastes. (3) The Districts should then use these sanitary landfills as
models and convince small communities using District land to adopt similar techniques. The Forest
Service should insist on model operation of all solid waste disposal sites permitted on its land.
2. Individual Forest Service Districts should use equipment they already own to operate small sanitary
landfills.
3. The Forest Service San Dimas Equipment Development Center should develop methods, equipment, and
equipment modifications that will make sanitary landfills practical in Districts that have no readily
usable landfill equipment.
4. Limiting collection to twice per week and increasing the storage capacity to hold accumulated wastes
can reduce solid waste collection costs in some Forest Service Districts.
5. Forest Service District solid waste collection crews are often larger than justified, and many should be
reduced in size. One man can usually service even the largest recreation area for the least overall cost.
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Forest Service has been aware of the
growing solid waste problem in recreation areas for
some time. In 1967, the Forest Service, through its
Equipment Development Center in San Dimas,
California, completed a study of a mobile
incinerator. Although the results of the 1967 study
provided a good evaluation of the mobile
incinerator, the Equipment Development Center did
not have sufficient data to evaluate the costs of
existing, competing collection and disposal systems.
The problems involved in gaining this
background information prompted the Equipment
Development Center to request that the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management conduct a study to
establish waste generation rates for major recreation
activities and determine the costs of solid waste
handling in representative Districts.
The project was funded separately by each
agency. Both the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management personnel and San Dimas Equipment
Development Center personnel participated in field
studies. Personnel of the Ranger Districts visited
contributed valuable time and equipment in assisting
the study teams.
A review of the literature revealed that data
on the quantities of waste generated from recreation
activities and on the cost of waste collection in
those areas were unavailable from published sources.
The conclusion was reached that a special study
would have to be conducted to gather the needed
information.
Weaver's authoritative study of solid waste
management in recreation areas, 1 which was
conducted in 1954, is inapplicable to the type and
composition of solid waste generated today. New
techniques have outmoded some practices the
use of plastic container liners has eliminated the
need for frequent can cleaning, the attendant
collection practices and cleaning facilities, as well as
increased the efficiency of collectors. The life style
of campers has changed camping hardware and
food packaging have possibly changed waste
generation rates and composition. At the time of
Weaver's report, there were no Federal efforts to
control pollution or to encourage the standards for
disposal that now apply to all Federal installations.
-------
PROCEDURES
Site Selection
The study sites were chosen for the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management by the Forest Service and
were locations that represented various elevations
and climatological conditions. The Weather Bureau's
temperature—humidity index values for the 4
hottest months of the year were used 1o
characterize the climate. This method gave a
reasonable site distribution across the country
(Figure 1). Other factors such as recreation area
accessibility and proximity to urban areas were
considered in selecting the sites.
Members of the staff of the Division of
Technical Operations, Bureau of Solid Was:e
Management, and the staff of the San Dinus
Equipment Development Center, Forest Service,
scheduled and conducted 11 studies between June
and September 1968 and a study of winter sport
areas in March 1969 (Table 2). Details of each
study are given (Appendix 2).
Individual Studies
Each site was studied for 4 days, Friday
through Monday. The weekends were chosen to
ensure heavy recreation use. The study team arrived
on Thursday of the study week, discussed the study
with District personnel, and collected wastes from
the study area to ensure that wastes collected
during the study period would be generated during
that period.
The study on the Wayne—Hoosier National
Forest in Ohio was extended to observe variations
in the waste generation rates over a 3-wk period
and to gather data from picnic areas from which
visitor-use figures could be easily obtained.
Many Forest Service engineers from regional
water and sanitation activities participated in ttie
studies. Each District furnished a truck, driver, and
platform scales.
The study team collected solid wastes from
recreation areas on each day of the study. The
wastes were weighed and sorted into three
categories: food wastes, other combustibles; arid
noncombustibles. The waste quantities produced by
each recreation activity were correlated to the use
the area had received during a 1—day period of
waste accumulation.
Measuring Recreation Use
Measuring recreation use was a persistent and
difficult problem. The standard measure of Forest
Service recreation use is the "visitor day." A visitor
day is 12—hr use of a recreation facility by one
person, or use by many persons whose aggregate
time in an activity equals 12 hr.
The techniques Forest Service recreation
personnel use to estimate visitor days vary from
Forest to Forest. One of the most reliable is the
double sample technique. On 12 randomly selected
days during the recreation season, District personnel
count the visitor use each activity receives while
also counting some other variable such as axles on
vehicles entering and leaving the area or the gallons
of water consumed. A functional relationship
between the two counts yields a formula to
estimate visitor use (in visitor days) from more
easily obtained counts of axles or gallons of water.
Each formula derived is unique, and although its use
is limited to the area where it was empirically
derived, it yields statistically eliable use estimates.
In another technique, locally convenient
measures of use were counted such as the number
of swimmers on a beach or the number of campsites
occupied. At the end of the season these counts
were converted to visitor days by using subjective
conversion factors.
At other Forests, personnel merely relate the
current year's use to that previously reported
without making an actual count.
Although these methods of use measure were
adequate for normal Forest Service reporting, none
was very accurate over short time intervals such as
the 1 or 4 days used in the study. Therefore, the
study teams estimated use at most study sites
independently of the Forest Service. Counts by
compliance checkers or periodically counting the
people using the site are used for this report.
Measuring use in intermittent activities such as
boating and picnicking was often impossible, and
double sampling, where it existed, proved unreliable
for verifying estimates.
-------
1~
el
s=s
>-. CD
O O v.
O <->
T3 ^
CA
CD
O
O
to
8
K S3
.y a
•a'"
^6
•f 6 S
s §§s
2P -3 E T3
£ S ~ ^
D V> >,
111
-------
TABLE 2
LOCATION AND DATES OF STUDIES
National
Forest
Allegheny
(Pennsylvania)
Cache
(Utah)
Deschutes
(Oregon)
Eldorado
(California)
Gallatin
(Montana)
Huron— Manistee
(Michigan)
Kaniksu
(Idaho)
Lincoln
(New Mexico)
National Forest
of Mississippi
Study
dates
June 26- July 1
1968
Feb. 28-Mar. 7
1969
July 12-15
1968
July 19-22
1968
July 10-15
1968
June 21-24
1968
July 19-22
1968
Sept. 5-9
1968
June 14-17
1968
Ranger
District
Sheffield"
Bradford"
Ogden
Fort Roclc*
Crescent
Lake Valley*
Hebgen
Lake
Manistee*
Cadillac
Sandpoini;*
Priest Lake
Clark Fork*
Cloudcroft*
Bienville
Strong River*
Campground
Buckaloons
Hearts Content
Minister Creek
Kiasutha
None
Paulina Lake
Prairie
East Lake
Cinder Hill
Princess Creek
Trapper Creek
Fallen Leaf
Bakers Hole
Beaver Creek
Sand Lake
Lake Michigan
Samowen
Pine
Sleepy Grass
Deerhead
Silver
Raworth
Shongelo
Other sites
Buckaloons — picnicking
Kiasutha — swimming, boating
Jakes Rock Overlook
Camp Cornplanter Organization Camp
Gelande Lodge (day use)
Ski lift area
Hill Air Force Base Lodge
Paulina Lake-boating, recreation
residences
East Lake-resort cabins, boating,
restaurant
Lava Butte Visitor Center
Cinder Hill— boating
Princess Creek— boating
Trapper Creek— boating
Crescent Lake— Organization Camp
Odell— Summit -lodge, cabins
Camp Richardson-cabins, restaurant,
lodge
Lake Tahoe Visitor Center
Camp Concord Organization Camp
Spring Creek— recreation residences
Cabin Creek— picnicking
Earthquake Visitor Center
Lakeshore "Block E"— recreation
residences
Administrative residences
Sand Lake -picnicking, administrative
residences
Hoxey Job Corps Civilian Conservation
Center
Garfield Bay— recreation residences
Priest Lake Ranger Station
Samowen-picnicking
Sleepy Grass— picnicking
Slide— picnicking
Raworth— picnicking
Shongelo— picnicking and swimming
-------
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
LOCATION AND DATES OF STUDIES
National
Forest
Ozark
(Arkansas)
Study
dates
June 21-24
1968
Ranger
District Campground
Mt. Magazine* Spring Lake
Cove Lake
Other sites
Spring Lake— picnicking, swimming,
concession
Cove Lake— picnicking, swimming,
concession
Mt. Magazine— picnicking, lodge,
cabins
Rio Grande
(Colorado)
Wasatch
(Utah)
Wayne—Hoosier
(Ohio)
Aug. 23-26
1968
Alder*
Del Norte
Feb. 28-Mar. 7 Salt Lake
1969
Aug. 13-Sept. 2 Ironton
1968
Palisade
Beaver Creek
Big Meadows
South Fork
None
Iron Ridge
Oak Hill
Beaver Creek Organization Camp
Rustler Lodge
Alta Lodge
Snow Pine Lodge (day use)
Shallow Shaft Tavern
Big Bend Beach—concession
Vesuvius—picnicking, Job Corps
Civilian Conservation Center
* Forest Ranger Districts contributing data on cost of handling solid waste. Additional contributing Districts and
their National Forest are: Lakewood (Nicolet); Aurora, Isabella, and Kawishiwi (Superior); Wayah and Pisgah
(North Carolina); Redlands and Uncle Remus (Georgia); and Manilla and Vernal (Ashley).
Study teams did develop proxy units that
could be converted to visitor days. A daily count of
the number of campers spending the night (and
assumed to have contributed wastes from both
evening and morning meals), for example, led to
"camper day" units. Camper days were converted to
visitor days by subtracting the assumed number of
hours the average camper spent on noncamping
activities (boating, swimming, etc.) and dividing by
12. The number of picnickers was counted without
regard to their length of stay. Because most
picnickers stayed for only one meal, the length of
their stay was considered irrelevant to waste
generation. The unit "pounds of waste per
picnicker" can be simply converted to "pounds per
visitor day" by multiplying by 12 and dividing by
the length of the average picnic in hours.
A summary of factors that can be used to
convert the units of waste generation for each
recreation activity to waste generation in terms of
visitor days is given (Table 3).
-------
TABLE 3
UNITS OF WASTE GENERATION AND METHODS OF CONVERSION
Recreation
site
Campgrounds
Campgrounds
Unit expressing
waste generation
pounds/visitor day
pounds/camper day
Multiplier factors used
to express waste generation
in terms of visitor days
1
12 v (hours average camper
Picnic area
Organization camps
Cabins
Observation sites
Visitor centers
Swimming beaches
Boat launching areas
pounds/picnicker
pounds/occupant day
pounds/occupant day
pounds/incoming axle
pounds/visitor
pounds/swimmer
pounds/boat
spends in camp daily)
12 -f (length of average
picnic, in hours)
1/2
12 ~ (hours average guest spends
at his cabin daily)
12 x (number of axles/vehicle)
v (the average stay in hours
x the average number of
people/vehicle)
12 -f (length of the average
visitor's stay, in hours)
12 -f- (length of the average
swimmer's stay, in hours)
12 x (average number of persons
per boat) -f- (average length
of boat use, in hours)
Note: To convert 1.26 Ib/camper day to Ib/visitor day:
Ib/visitor day = (1.26 Ib/camper day) x
12
(16.4 hr average
camper spends in
camp daily)
0.92
Obtaining Cost Information
Questionnaires to discover the costs of
handling recreational solid waste were distributed to
representatives from 22 Ranger Districts (Table I).
They were asked to describe the costs of manpower.
supplies, and equipment for both collection and
disposal operations. Each interview was recorded on
the cost questionnaire form (Appendix 5). Costs of
solid waste handling for each District were
correlated with the recreation use regularly recorded
in the Forest Service Recreation Information
Management (RIM) system.
10
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rates of Waste Generation
Campgrounds. The average rate of solid
waste generated at campgrounds was 0.92 Ib per
visitor day; the standard deviation was 0.08, or 9
percent of the mean. The frequency and cumulative
distributions of visitor—day averages of the waste
generation rate for 31 campgrounds were
determined (Figures 2 and 3). From these figures,
the waste generation rate that is exceeded on only a
certain fraction of occasions can be selected. This
curve is useful in determining the size of collection
and disposal facilities to handle waste generation
rates occurring, for instance, 90 percent of the time.
Camping waste generation rates can also be
described in terms of the previously described
"camper day." The frequency and cumulative
distributions of the camper-day averages of this
waste generation rate for 31 campgrounds on each
of the study days have also been charted (Figures 4
and 5). The average generation rate was 1.26 Ib per
camper day; the standard deviation was 0.10, or 8
percent of the mean. Waste generation expressed in
terms of camper days is most useful in estimating
quantities of waste that accumulate over short
periods because camper days are easily related to
campground capacity.
Although waste composition from
campgrounds varied greatly, the average composition
of the waste was: food wastes, 37 percent; other
combustibles, 30 percent; noncombustibles, 33
percent. When the composition of campground
wastes is compared with typical residential waste^
(Figure 6), it is apparent that campers generated a
higher percentage of food wastes than that found in
residential areas. Campers generated less other
combustible waste, partly because they did not
receive newspapers or mail and because they often
burned much of their waste in camp fireplaces. The
amount of noncombustibles was higher in camps
than in homes primarily because of the number of
convenient, disposable bottles and cans used in
camping.
Variation in Solid Waste Generation Rate
from Campgrounds. There was speculation, at the
inception of the study, that amounts and
composition of solid waste generated in recreation
areas might vary from region to region.
Campgrounds were studied as an indicator of this
variation because they contribute the largest
fraction of most District's solid wastes and because
camping was the only activity contributing enough
samples to give statistical reliability to the
conclusions drawn from the data.
The data were evaluated (Appendix 3), and
analyses sought to detect the existence of statistical
differences between total waste generation rates in
23 campgrounds. Waste generation rates were also
compared for the three types of waste composition
(food wastes, other combustible wastes, and
noncombustible wastes). Campgrounds were also
grouped by level of development (see Appendix 1)
and by type of use: those that received overnight
use predominantly and those that were destinations,
where the campers visited for longer periods.
An analysis was performed to detect
statistical differences between the total solid waste
generation rates in different campgrounds. The
conclusion reached was that there are no
statistically significant differences among the average
total waste generation rates in the campgrounds
studied.
In considering the total waste for all 23
campgrounds, the day on which the wastes were
generated (Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday)
was not a significant factor. Day of generation was
significant, however, when destination campgrounds
developed to level four were considered. This
significance was strong enough to make day of
generation significant when both level three and
four destination campgrounds were considered
together, but not when level three destination and
overnight campgrounds were considered alone.
11
-------
in
<
o
o:
o
CD
CO LL)
I-
<
O
I-
Ct
LJ
Z
UJ
o
(A
0
O
o
q,
(D
"
* ro cu
9Nij.naidJ.Noo SAVQ yoiisiA jo
o
o
Q,
a,
o
a.
•a
I
VH
?P
a,
o
CO
o
0)
00
I
O
ts
-------
-o
UJ
(VI
6
10
O
UJ
O
111
Ul
o
X
111
cc
llJ
Ul
o
UJ
i
z
Ul
I
in
Ul
1-1
8,
I
O
O
I
O
a
q
in
o
to
q
cvi
CM O
MOIISIA/QI) 31Vd NOIJ.Vy3N39 31SVM
13
-------
8
O
o
O
o
^ K
10 m
Q.
» 3
cvi —
O
o
-------
Q
liJ
Q
UJ
UJ
O
X
LU
V)
cc
UJ
O
UJ
tu
I
UJ
O
UJ
cc
CE
D
O
O
O
S 5
oo
0)
-»-»
C/3
CO
O
C
•a
3
p
u>
p
in
p
10
p to
cvi —
3iva Nouvy3N39
15
-------
RESIDENCES
Vi
UJ
1
f~
o>
<
£
Q
O
O
U.
— —
t
m
UJ
o
UJ
o
UJ
o:
z
g
t_
i
UJ
cr
0
UJ
cr
#
o
If)
J>
5-
S
o
z
Q.
*
<
O
I
<
c
(
#
r-
0
^
u>
^
0>
UJ
2
,UJ
19
otn
• UJ
30:
^H
in
UJ
u
z
UJ
Q
o
^i
0«
CJ
I/I
UJ
_l
99
h-
tf\
>J I
D
QD
E
D
L)
r
jj
i
o
13
Z
CL
Z
o
y
u.
a.
I—
tr
DC
2
O
UJ
u
z
UJ
o
in
UJ
oc
1 #
h— lO
< *
UJ
a.
o
UJ
a:
in i
B J
|S
mu)
(£ U
30:
#
o>
Cd
#
00
#
N
1
O
Z
Q.
S
-------
Analysis of variance of solid waste generation
rate by composition category was conducted on the
data from only 19 campgrounds; four campgrounds
with incomplete data matrices were omitted.
Although previous discussion shows that there were
no statistically significant differences in total wastes
generated among campgrounds when all 23 of them
were considered, there was a difference in
generation rate of the different waste composition
categories. At any one time, there were apt to be
large differences caused by both the regular and
unpredictable variation in the waste generation rate
from a particular campground. The difference in
generation by waste composition existed because
the Samowen campground, which openly
encouraged campsite burning of combustible
materials other than food wastes, contributed data
showing a low percentage of such other combustible
waste.
The variation in the daily waste generation
rate from within a particular campground prompted
an extended study at the Wayne National Forest to
gather data to further investigate this variation. Two
campgrounds on the same small lake in this Forest
were studied (Figure 7). The different rates charted
for identical days are the result of the combined,
highly variable waste generation rates of individual
campers at each campsite. A regression analysis of
the data charted (Figure 7) and data on the
concurrent movement of campers showed that the
waste generation rate generally increased on the
days when several parties left the area, apparently
leaving accumulated or disposable items behind.
Campers arriving or staying contributed lower,
though widely varying, waste generation rates.
Several circumstances that influenced
variations in the generation of wastes at individual
campsites were individual burning, campers' visitors,
trailer campers with their own trash containers, and
rain. Efforts to encourage campers to burn
combustibles other than food wastes in their
fireplace had a noticeable effect. In campgrounds
where burning was not encouraged, some campers,
nevertheless, always burned these combustibles.
Some campgrounds, particularly in the East, were
adjacent to small towns and local people often
visited their friends camping there. An evening's
visit often resulted in large quantities of
noncombustible waste. The opposite effect was
encountered when campers ate dinner, and perhaps
other meals, in town. These cases were accepted as
reasons for variations in the daily camping waste
generation rate.
Another factor that influenced waste
generation was the frequency with which the
camper deposited his wastes in the waste container.
Trailer campers who had trash cans in their trailers
and emptied them only every other day created
waste generation rates that varied considerably. Data
on the effect of rain on solid waste generation
allowed no specific conclusion about it. Subsurface
containers easily collected water that increased the
weight of material collected, but this did not occur
commonly in well—covered above-ground
containers.
Picnic Areas. Family picnickers generated an
average of 0.93 Ib per picnicker. Picnickers in
organized groups generated more an average of
1.16 Ib per picnicker.
Among the 136 family picnics studied, there
was a very small variation in the rate of waste
generation: the standard deviation was only 0.07, or
8 percent of the mean value. The rate from group
picnics varied more widely: the standard deviation
was 0.29, or 25 percent of the mean value. There
was no indication that the length of time of either
type of picnic influenced waste generation.
Group picnickers' average generation rates for
the three waste components are compared with that
of family picnickers on a per pound basis (Table 4).
The increase in noncombustibles generated by group
picnickers came primarily from cans and bottles.
TABLE 4
PICNIC WASTE GENERATED PER PICNICKER
(in pounds)
Picnic
type
Family
Group
Food
wastes
0.41
0.34
Other
combustibles
0.27
0.36
Non-
combustibles
0.25
0.46
Totals
0.93
1.16
17
-------
UJ
UJ
< -
v>
13
o
•
o
o
0>
O
s
r-
a>
I
E
o
p
(V)
to
N
O
IO
O
o
o
c>
18
-------
Organization Camps. Scout, church, and city
camps with permanent facilities on National Forest
land are known as organization camps. There is no
significant source of waste from these camps other
than from the kitchen. Solid wastes were generated
at an average rate of 1.81 Ib per camp—occupant
day or about 0.6 Ib per occupant per meal served;
the standard deviation was 0.31, or 17 percent of
the mean.
The average generation rates varied in the
four organization camps studied (Figure 8). Wastes
from organization camps were primarily wet garbage
and paper. Boxes and packaging material were
frequently thrown out at the beginning of the week
as shipments were unpacked. The composition of
the average waste, by weight, was: food wastes, 59
percent; other combustibles, 18 percent; and
noncombustibles, 23 percent.
Recreation Residences. These are defined as
private homes located within a National Forest;
they may be occupied on an intermittent or
year—round basis. A total of 90 such recreation
residences were sampled during the study. The
average rate of solid waste generation was 2.13 Ib
per occupant day. The standard deviation was 0.44,
or 21 percent of the mean. The composition of
average wastes, by weight, was: food wastes, 24
percent; other combustibles, 41 percent; and
noncombustibles, 35 percent.
Winter Sports Areas. Many winter sport sites
are operated through permits on National Forest
land. From a special study of two winter sport areas
in Utah, information was gained on both waste
composition and waste generation from three
overnight lodges, two day lodges, a tavern, and ski
1.77
1.68
lift base area. Wastes, primarily from rooms and
kitchens of overnight lodges, were generated at an
average rate of 1.87 Ib per visitor day, with a
standard deviation of 0.80, or 43 percent of the
mean. The composition of the average waste, by
weight, was: food wastes, 34 percent; other
combustibles, 33 percent; and noncombustibles, 33
percent.
Wastes from all facilities in the day lodges
averaged 2.92 Ib per visitor day, with a standard
deviation of 0.66, or 23 percent of the mean. The
composition of the average waste, by weight, in day
lodges was: food wastes, 17 percent; other
combustibles, 59 percent; and noncombustibles, 24
percent.
Recreation Sites Generating Minor Quantities
of Solid Wastes. Observation sites, visitor centers,
and boating and swimming sites generate only minor
quantities of waste, and little data were collected
concerning them. Meaningful use figures to
accompany the weight data were often difficult to
obtain. At some of the isolated sites, accurate use
counts were time consuming and impractical. The
following solid waste generation rates are
approximate (this shortcoming is not serious,
however, since these activities only justify
containers to prevent littering): observation sites,
0.05 Ib per incoming axle; visitor centers, 0.02 Ib
per visitor; swimming sites, 0.04 Ib per swimmer;
boat ramps-, 0.24 Ib per boat; and concession stands,
0.14 Ib per patron.
Administrative Sites. The administrative sites
studied were: administrative residences, work
centers, and a mess hall at a firefighters camp.
Wastes were collected from staff residences at ranger
2.01
1.83
ALLEGHENY DESCHUTES ELDORADO RIO GRANDE
Figure 8. Pounds of solid waste per occupant day at four organization camps.
19
-------
stations and at one Job Corps Civilian Conservation
Center. The average waste generation rates were
1.37 Ib per person per day from homes around
ranger stations and 1.77 Ib per person per day from
the homes of the Job Corps Center staff.
2.83
2.10
0.81
0.36
n
MANISTEE
WAYNE MANISTEE
WAYNE
KITCHEN WASTES
ADMINISTRATIVE
AND
DORMITORY
WASTES
Figure 9. Pounds of solid waste per
corpsman day at two Job Corps Civilicin
Conservation Centers.
Quantities of wastes from work centers varied
greatly: between 5 and 100 Ib of dry trash per day
depending on the activity in shops. There was no
measure of activity to correlate with waste quantity.
One barracks for firefighters was studied. The
most significant waste contribution came from the
kitchen, at a rate of 0.98 Ib per person per meal
served.
Job Corps Civilian Conservation
Centers. Wastes from two Job Corps Centers
studied were classified into two categories: kitchen
wastes, and combustible administrative and
dormitory wastes.
Kitchen wastes were produced in slightly
greater quantities than in restaurants and
organization camps. Waste generation is stated in
terms of corpsman days. Because of the variable
number of bagged lunches, one corpsman day was
approximately three corpsman meals.
Average waste generation for one center was
2.83 Ib of kitchen waste and 0.81 Ib of
administrative arid dormitory waste per corpsman
day. At the other center, 2.10 Ib of kitchen waste
and 0.36 Ib of administrative and dormitory wastes
per corpsman day were generated (Figure 9). The
average amount of kitchen wastes for the two
centers was 2.44 Ib per corpsman day (or about 0.8
Ib per meal served).
Resorts. The resorts studied contained
restaurants, rented cabins with kitchens, and rented
rooms without kitchens. Wastes at the restaurants
studied were generated at a rate similar to the rate
for kitchen wastes at Job Corps Centers and
organization camps: 0.71 Ib per meal served. In
cabins, wastes were generated at an average rate of
1.46 Ib per occupant day, with a standard deviation
of 0.38, or 26 percent of the mean. In rented
rooms, wastes were generated at an average rate of
0.59 Ib per occupant day, with a standard deviation
of 0.28, or 47 percent of the mean (Figure 10).
Wastes from rooms without kitchens were primarily
paper whereas wastes from cabins with kitchens also
contained small amounts of food wastes.
1.46
0.59
RENTED
CABINS
WITH
KITCHENS
LODGES
AND
RENTED
ROOMS
Figure 10. Pounds of solid waste per occupant
day at resorts studied.
20
-------
Value of Solid Waste Generation Rates. The
solid waste generation rates established in this
report allow Districts to predict the total amount of
waste they will receive in a given week or season.
This information can be used to estimate the size of
storage facilities, collection vehicles, and sanitary
landfill space needed in an area.
After estimating the volume of solid waste in
storage containers, collection trucks, and enclosed
transfer sheds, a density of 170 Ib per cu yd*
appears applicable in calculating the related weight
values.
The density of solid wastes in sanitary
landfills varies with the compaction imparted by the
techniques and equipment used. There is most
compaction when waste is spread and compacted in
thin layers, not exceeding 2 ft in depth. The
compaction imparted by various equipment types is
not well documented, but for landfill design
purposes, a density of 600 Ib per cu yd is
reasonable in small Forest Service sanitary landfills.
Small sanitary landfills for recreation and
administrative wastes will contain about 40 percent
cover material when completed because small
quantities are frequently covered. Required sanitary
landfill volume for each season would then be:
V =
0.6 x 600
360
where V is volume in cubic yards and P is waste in.
pounds.
Solid Waste Storage Practices
Because adequate solid waste storage is
important to campground aesthetics, good storage
facilities are expected. Except for solid waste
storage capacity in overflow camping areas and the
use of paper container liners in one district, solid
waste storage in the Forest Service was found to be
adequate.
Forest Service solid waste storage containers
are generally well maintained. Although the study
members encountered many different configurations
of solid waste storage containers (Figure 11), most
*Division of Technical Operations has estimated that
170 Ib per cu yd is the average density of solid wastes as
collected. This figure is based on past experience. Density
was not regularly measured during the study.
employed standard G.S.A. welded 32—gal cans with
lids. Most cans had fastened—down lids, were
designed to stay upright, and were on concrete
pads. All above ground containers were reasonably
water tight.
Districts generally provided adequate storage
capacity. The only consistent exception to this was
found in overflow camping areas. One campground
that was frequently marauded by bears had
elaborate "mail box" hoppers locked to each can to
keep bears from feeding on garbage. The only can
serving the overflow camping section of this same
area, however, held only about one—third of the
wastes deposited there daily. The rest of the waste,
stacked around the can, was easy bait for bears.
The containers cost between $35, for the
simple post and concrete pad, and $125, for the
elaborate bearproof cans (Figure 11). Where
improvements had been made on the basic can and
post (lid fasteners, locks, etc.), the small increase in
cost was believed justified; this study did not find
otherwise.
Reasons for container placement were as
varied as the container designs encountered. Where
cans were placed beside the road under "garbage"
signs, the conspicuous container supposedly
discouraged littering by openly suggesting its use.
Where cans were hidden underground beneath
camouflaged green lids or where inconspicuous cans
were used, the enhanced campground beauty was
believed to discourage litter. Each of these
unverified assumptions probably has merit.
However, our observations suggest that the
prominence of containers was not of prime
importance in campground litter control.
When each campsite had its own container,
the camper was more careful of litter than when the
container was shared with neighbors. Shared
containers were usually placed between campsites
on ground that neither camper felt responsible for
keeping clean. A personal can at the campsite
openly exhibited the camper's housekeeping,
however, and the site was usually well kept.
At picnic areas and other areas used
intermittently, prominently displayed containers
were absolutely necessary for litter control. The
picnicker or hiker did not always feel the need to
control his clutter at a site he was visiting for only
a short time. Prominently displayed, densely spaced
containers were the only answer in these areas.
Almost every District in the Forest Service
used plastic can liners. The Districts surveyed spent
between $22 and $1,460 on plastic liners, with a
median of $200 per District each season.
21
-------
Container held off the ground by posts. Lid held
on by a rubber strap. Plastic liner in place.
Paper container liner
Container with lid attached to post by a chain
Pivoting bearproof containers
Figure 11. Types of solid waste containers observed.
22
-------
Container with lid attached to post
Bearproof "mail box" container
Subsurface container
Figure 11. (continued)
23
-------
In the Forest Service Districts, plastic liners
increased collection efficiency. A collector couid
empty several cans before returning to the truck. A
two—man crew could work independently; one
working with the truck, the other tying bags from
the cans he emptied and then placing them at
curbside. The liners reduced the needed frequency
of can cleaning and added generally to recreation
area sanitation. Because the liners were frequently
changed, there was little chance for messy deposits
to form on the bottom of the can. Periodic cleaning
required only hosing down with a fire pumper.
Open trucks could be used for collection because
the wind did not blow the solid waste when it was
enclosed in plastic liners and properly stacked.
Unmodified pickup trucks could then be used for
solid waste collection as well as for other tasks. Use
of the liners allowed intermediate refuse storage. Cln
two Districts surveyed, wastes were collected from
the recreation areas and then moved to enclosed
bins for later transfer to larger trucks going to
disposal sites. The filled plastic liners, tied shut wi th
twists, could easily await weekly collection.
Kraft paper can liners were encountered on
one Forest. There were no apparent advantages to
their use. Instead, when compared with plastic
liners, they cost nearly three times as much, weie
brittle and easily torn, required more time to unfold
and place in cans, and were not easily tied or
twisted closed.
Solid waste storage by permittees in winter
sport areas was often poorly conducted because of
heavy snows and poor access. This can be serious
because these facilities are often in protected
watersheds. Operating standards specified in land use
permits for these areas should receive immediate
enforcement, and those that specify less than
Federal standards should be rewritten.
Solid Waste Collection Practices
Solid wastes in recreation areas were collected
by District forces or private contractors. Some
Districts contracted for private collection during
the season of heavy recreation use and deployed
Forest Service crews only during seasons of ligit
use. There was no evidence to suggest that one
system was always less expensive or more efficient
than the other. Attitudes toward private collection
varied from District to District and were based on
past experience with local contractors.
Forest Service and private collectors used
open pickup or stakebed trucks most often.
Volume, rather than weight, usually determined
truck selection. In Districts where additional truck
volume was required, an added stock rack increased
the bed height or the truck pulled a trailer. A
3/4—ton pickup can carry about 9 cu yd of solid
waste before exceeding designed weight capacity
since the waste density averages only 170 Ib per cu
yd.
A crew of one or two men was usually
assigned the task, of waste collection. These crews
were often assigned other tasks such as cleaning
toilets, supplying firewood, and maintaining walks
or drainage. Containers were spaced for the
convenience of users and for litter control, not to
minimize the cost of collecting from them.
Solid waste containers must be emptied either
when they are full or before their contents become
offensive. Collection twice weekly is recommended
to control fly breeding. Since each collection
involves manpower and probably many travel miles,
collection more than twice weekly is unnecessarily
expensive. Containers at campsites should be spaced
between waste sources so they will be full twice
each week, provided that the spacing provides
adequate litter control.
Collection Cost Study
Cost information was obtained from 22
Districts in 15 Forests. The staff member most
familiar with solid waste handling in the District
was asked to itemize the seasonal cost of plastic
liners, collection manpower, collection truck rental
and mileage, and the cost of disposal. The sum of
these costs was related to the seasonal route miles
traveled in collection as well as seasonal picnic area
and campground use retrieved from the Recreation
Information Management (RIM) system. Picnicking
and camping activities contributed the most solid
waste, and for that reason, were used in the
correlation. Details of the analysis are found in
Appendix 4.
Data describing the economics of collection
varied greatly. Because some interviews were
conducted by mail and telephone, there may have
been misinterpretations. District accounting
techniques also made it awkward to retrieve the
desired information. A third source of variation was
the questionable reports of visitor use by some
District Rangers to the RIM system.
Conclusions from the collection cost study
data include: (1) Cost per estimated ton of solid
waste collected and disposed of in each District
ranged from $28 to $302, with a median of $88.
24
-------
(2) The number of plastic liners used on each of 22
Districts was linearly related to the weight of solid
waste collected in those Districts. (3) Collection
route miles traveled was the variable most highly
related to solid waste handling costs, followed by
campground capacity and thousands of picnic visitor
days.
An equation to describe this relationship was
developed from a stepwise regression analysis:
C = 0.77 RM + 1.13 PAOT + 27.6 PVD - 403
where: C = Total solid waste handling cost
for the time period considered,
in dollars,
RM = Collection route miles traveled
during the time period
considered including distance to
dispoal site,
PAOT = Capacity of the campgrounds in
number of campers, and
PVD = Thousands of picnicker visitor-
days incurred over the time
period considered.
The precision of the equation is illustrated
(Figure A4—1, Appendix 4).
Improving Solid Waste Collection
When solid waste containers in camping areas
are spaced between two or three campsites, they
require more frequent collection than when each
site has its own container. Frequent collection,
particularly in remote areas, adds to the total travel
distance involved in collection and disposal.
Supplying more containers reduces the needed
collection frequency and the route miles traveled.
Using the average waste generation rate for
one camper, 1.26 Ib per camper day, and an average
density (as collected) of 170 Ib per cu yd, and a
solid waste container reasonably full at 24 gal, each
container will accommodate the wastes of 16
camper days. When five persons per campsite is
assumed, one can, spaced between every three sites,
will hold wastes accumulated in 1.1 days. This
situation will require collection daily. If containers
are spaced between each two sites, they will hold
the wastes that accumulate every 1.7 days, and
collection every 2 days will be adequate. A solid
waste container at every site, however, will hold the
wastes accumulated in 3.4 days and will require
collection only twice a week.
An example will illustrate the economy of
reduced collection frequency. A well—occupied
campground of 48 campsites served by 16
containers will require collection six or seven times
a week. If the campground is 15 miles from the
work center, collection entails at least 180 miles of
travel each week. If the campground Vere provided
with 32 more cans, collection would be reduced to
twice weekly. The District would spend about $50
for each of 32 new containers, or $1,600.
Distributed over 5 years, this cost amounts to only
$320 a year. At least 120 collection route miles
would be saved each week by decreasing the
collection frequency. Over a 12—wk recreation
season, this would amount to 1,440 miles. By
applying the formula for total solid waste handling
costs (Appendix 4), a reduction of 1,440 route
miles would mean a saving of $1,110, or a net
saving of $790 each season after subtracting the
cost of cans. The saving resulting from less frequent
collection far outweighs the cost.
As previously mentioned, two men were
usually assigned the job of waste collection. In
many cases this was an uneconomic use of
manpower. Although the use of two men ensures
the quickest collection, the long travel times to and
between recreation areas offset the contribution of
a second collector. No private collectors observed
employed two men. The value of employing a
second collector can be analyzed graphically (Figure
12) given the travel time (to and from the
recreation area) and the collection time in the area.
The decrease in collection time necessary to
economically justify the travel of a second collector
is illustrated. This assumes both collectors are paid
at the same rate; a second collector paid more than
the first collector will have to contribute even more
toward reducing collection time.
The use of transfer sheds to reduce the
frequency of haul from recreation areas to disposal
sites may be justified in Districts where the seasonal
cost of manpower, supplies, and equipment used in
the transfer—shed storage, collection, and disposal
system is lower than it could be with the use of any
other system. Modifying a collection system with an
innovation such as a transfer shed may reduce
seasonal cost but, at the same time, not reduce it as
much as an entirely new system.
25
-------
i o
O
o
(0
C7>
.c
•o _
3 0)
«J ~
X O
o
o
10
8
O)
n ° E
° * 2
c o H-
o, T3 "D
C 0) C
tt» O
o
o
O
o
ao
C
'§•
I
o
o
O O
N «>
puooas o 40 d|di| 344
Duuinsdj (auji4 |3ADJ4 Buipnpxa)
uo!4D3||oo uouj-auo u; asoajoap
o
o
eg
8
0) "-
— o»
o E
o .=
II
I o
0* kl
c *-
O
26
-------
Solid Waste Disposal
The economic questionnaires submitted to 22
Districts indicated that an average of less than 4
percent of their solid waste handling money
financed final disposal. About one—half of the
Districts reported no expenditure for disposal at all.
Nearly every Forest Service District has a different
approach toward disposal of solid wastes because
nearly every District is affected by different local
circumstances.
Many Districts use community dumps
operating on National Forest land; other Districts
prohibit community dumps, but use their own small
dumps for recreation wastes. Most Districts practice
open burning when the forest fire hazard is not
great, but there is little incineration on National
Forest land. Some Districts, feeling a responsibility
to provide disposal areas to nearby communities,
freely offer sites. Some of these Districts limit the
number of these sites; others do not. Most Districts
require the city or county to operate the disposal
site according to standards cited in the special land
use permit they issue. In most cases, these standards
specify that the site be operated at the level
required by State laws and local ordinances.
At this time, few local areas have standards
for land disposal site operations; and in remote
areas, few States are able to enforce existing
legislation. Study personnel found no land disposal
sites that conformed to local standards where they
existed.
At the District level, there was widespread
misunderstanding of Federal standards concerning
open dumps on Forest land. The May 1966
Executive Order No. 11282 ("Control of Air
Pollution Originating from Federal Installations")
revised Mar. 28, 1969 (Appendix 6), regulates all
disposal operations on Federal land, whether
federally, municipally, or privately conducted.
Standards to implement the objectives of the Order,
Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
76.8 (Appendix 6), prohibit open burning on
Federal lands and require that "refuse shall not be
left in dumps," and must be compacted and covered
every evening after the landfill has been used
regardless of its size or isolation. The methods used
should be in accordance with those described in the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management publication
Sanitary Landfill Facts.^
Incineration, which is also covered by the
Executive Order, is little used in the Forest Service
for economic reasons. Where incinerators operate,
they undoubtedly do so in violation of the strict
emission standards set by the Order.
Capital and maintenance costs of incinerators
cannot compete with free dumps. The mobile
incinerator, used in experiments and field studies
conducted by the Forest Service, has proven
expensive, and like some small incinerators, probably
will not meet Federal air pollution control
standards.
The value of incineration in recreational areas
is questionable. Between 21 and 45 percent of the
components of solid waste encountered at
campgrounds are noncombustibles. Another 10
percent of the remaining combustibles will probably
remain unburned in the ash. As a result, only 45 to
70 percent of the weight will be reduced by
incineration and about 80 percent of the volume.
The remaining organics in the residue will still
require daily cover. Although incineration will
reduce waste volume, the Forest Service will not
benefit from the reduction because the small
volumes handled are not difficult to transport and
because disposal sites need not be remote from
recreation areas.
The problems of acceptably disposing of
Forest Service recreation and administrative wastes
should receive increased attention. Each District
must see that their wastes receive acceptable
disposal, whether in Forest Service—operated
sanitary landfills or city—operated sanitary landfills
or incinerators. Disposal, even without open
burning, in private, city, or Forest Service dumps
sets an unacceptably bad example.
The best way to improve existing community
disposal sites on Forest Service land is to first
demonstrate sanitary landfill techniques on Forest
Service wastes in separate model sanitary landfills.
Trenches for these landfills could be dug by private
contract, just as they are for some dumps. Nearly
every District has equipment that can compact and
cover small amounts of solid, waste after each
collection, which as a minimum should be twice a
week. Small tractors can in some cases be used and
still be ready for other assignments if the sanitary
landfill is located near its storage area.
Four—wheel—drive pickups with blades, although
not imparting optimum compaction, might do an
adequate job. If these trucks are used for collection,
they have the added advantage of already being at
the disposal site when compaction and cover are
needed.
27
-------
Planning New Solid Waste
Handling Systems
This report defines the major problem areas
in managing solid wastes handling systems and also
offers suggestions on how to improve the three
major components of handling systems: storage,
collection, and disposal.
New storage and collection systems or
existing ones improved to include the suggestions in
this report will not be drastically different from
those existing in most Districts. Knowledge that the
number of route miles collection crews travel is
costly will encourage reduced crew sizes, enlarged
interim storage capacity, and reduced collection
frequency. Sanitary landfills will be located near
major waste generating areas to reduce route miles
of collection, but near enough to equipment storage
areas to allow otherwise idle equipment to be used
for compaction and cover.
Private collection and disposal will become
more expensive as strict disposal standards are
enforced. As solid waste management receives more
attention, however, more enlightened analysis of the
costs and benefits of private collection and disposal
will ensure that, when private collection is selected,
it will represent a true cost saving.
The need and the means to end open burning
and open dumping have been shown. Sanitary
landfills located near equipment garages permit
existing equipment to be used with a minimum of
interruption to other assigned tasks. The innovation
of a collection-disposal vehicle is needed that will
allow sanitary landfills to operate near waste
sources, with a reduction in the number of
collection route miles traveled.
Sanitary landfills need be operated only on
collection days. Careful management of storage
systems will reduce the need for frequent collection,
and infrequent collection will reduce the frequency
of disposal and will reduce solid waste management
costs.
28
-------
REFERENCES
1. [Weaver, L.] Refuse sanitation in the national parks. Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Apr. 1955. 70 p.
2. Sorg, T. J., and H. L. Hickman, Jr. Sanitary landfill facts. Public Health Service Publication No. 1792.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 36 p.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Columbia Basin Inter—Agency Committee and Pacific Southwest Inter—Agency Committee. Administrative
guide covering public health problems in recreational areas. Reprinted, Washington, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1961. 41 p.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Environmental health guide for travel trailer parking
areas; with a recommended ordinance. Chicago, Mobile Homes Manufacturers Assoc., Jan. 1966. 33 p.
Environmental health practice in recreation areas; a guide to the planning, design, operation, and maintenance
of recreational areas. Public Health Service Publication No. 1195. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1965. 134 p.
Hickman, H. L., Jr. Characteristics of municipal solid wastes. Scrap Age, 26(2):305-307, Feb. 1969.
Report of a refuse sanitation and incinerator evaluation study in Everglades National Park, Florida.
Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Feb. 1959. 17 p.
RIM [recreation information management] handbook. Forest Service Handbook 2309.11. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Sept. 1967. (Loose-leaf.)
Pacific Southwest Inter—Agency Committee and Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. Suggested design
criteria for refuse storage, collection, and disposal in recreational areas. Reprinted, Washington, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963. 19 p.
Trailer—mounted incinerator evaluation tests. Equipment Development and Test Report 2300. Unpublished
report. San Dimas, Calif., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Feb. 1968. 31 p.
Weaver, L. Refuse and litter control in recreation areas. Public Works, 98(4): 126-128, 160, Apr. 1967.
29
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management's
Division of Technical Operations acknowledges the
contributions of all participants of this study.
District and Regional Forest Service personnel who
helped arrange and conduct each District study are
listed with each study site description (Appendix 2).
The study team members visited the Lake
George District on the Ocala National Forest before
establishing a method or a schedule of study.
Personnel from that District, from the National
Forests of Florida, and from the Forest Service
Region 8 provided the initial influence and guidance
that were instrumental in conducting the studies
forming the basis for this report.
Walter Weaver and Richard Spray of the San
Dimas Equipment Development Center coordinated
the participation of the Forest Service in the
project, and they also conducted three of the
studies. Their zeal and guidance was essential to
success.
Members of the Technical Assistance and
Investigations Branch, Division of Technical
Operations, participating in the field work were:
Morris G. Tucker, Harry R. Little, F. Owen Irvine,
Howard R. Ludwig, Ronald A. Perkins, and Charles
S. Spooner.* Statistical work was done by Betty L.
Grupenhoff and Albert J. Klee, Operations Analysis
Branch, Division of Technical Operations.
*Mr. Spooner is now Environmental Engineer,
Department of Health and Environmental Protection,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C.
30
-------
APPENDIX 1
NATIONAL FOREST CAMP AND PICNIC SITE*
ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION
LEVELS OF:
&
RECREATION EXPERIENCES
Minimum site modification. Rustic or
rudimentary improvements designed for
protection of the site rather than comfort
of the users. Use of synthetic materials
avoided. Minimum controls are subtle. No
obvious means of regimentation. Spacing
informal and extended to minimize
contacts with others. Motorized access not
provided or permitted.
Little site modification. Rustic or
rudimentary improvements designed for
protection of the site rather than comfort
of the users. Use of synthetic materials
avoided. Minimum controls are subtle.
Little obvious regimentation. Spacing
informal and extended to minimize
contacts with others. Motorized access
provided or permitted. Primary access over
primitive roads.
Site modification moderate. Facilities
designed about equally for protection of
site and comfort of users.
Contemporary/rustic design of
improvements is usually based on use of
native materials. Inconspicuous vehicular
traffic controls usually provided. Roads
may be hard surfaced and trails formalized.
Development density about three family
units per acre. Primary access to site may
be over high— standard well-traveled roads.
Visitor Information Service, if available, is
informal and incidental.
DEVELOPMENT
SCALE
1
primitive
2
secondary
primitive
3
inter-
mediate
Primitive forest environment is
dominant. Rudimentary and isolated
development sites beyond the sight or
sound of inharmonious influences.
Maximum opportunity for experiencing
solitute, testing skills, and compensating for
the routines of daily living. User senses no
regimentation. Feeling of physical
achievement in reaching site is important.
Near primitive forest environment.
Outside influences present but minimized.
Feeling of accomplishment associated with
low standard access is important but does
not necessarily imply physical exertion to
reach site. Opportunity for solitude and
chance to test outdoor skills are present.
Forest environment is essentially
natural. Important that a degree of solitude
be combined with some opportunity to
socialize with others. Controls and
regimentation provided for safety and
well— being of user sufficiently obvious to
afford a sense of security but subtle
enough to leave the taste of adventure.
* From: RIM [recreation information management] handbook. Forest Service Handbook 2309.11. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Sept. 1967.
31
-------
Site heavily modified. Some facilities
designed strictly for comfort and
convenience of users, but luxury facilities
not provided. Facility designs may tend
toward and incorporate synthetic materials.
Extensive use of artificial surfacing of roads
and trails. Vehicular traffic controls present
and usually obvious. Primary access usually
over paved roads. Development density of
three to five family units per acre. Plant
materials usually native. Visitor
Information Service frequently available.
High degree of site modification.
Facilities, mostly designed for comfort and
convenience of users, include flush toilets
and may include showers, bath houses,
laundry facilities, and electrical hookups.
Synthetic materials commonly used.
Formal walks or surfaced trails.
Regimentation of users is obvious. Access
usually by high— speed highways.
Development density of five or more
family units per acre. Plant materials may
be foreign to the environment. Formal
Visitor Information Service usually
available. Designs formalized and
architecture may be contemporary. Mowed
lawns and clipped shrubs not unusual.
(Class 5 sites only provided in special
situations or close to large cities where
other lands are not available.)
4
secondary
modern
5
modern
Forest environment is pleasing and
attractive but not necessarily natural.
Blending of opportunities for solitude and
socializing with others. Testing of outdoor
skills on site mostly limited to the camping
activity. Many user comforts available.
Contrasts to daily living routines is
moderate. Invites marked sense of security.
Pleasing environment attractive to
the novice or highly gregarious camper.
Opportunity to socialize with others very
important. Satisfies urbanites' need for
compensating experiences and relative
solitude but less intensive than in classes 1
to 4. Obvious to user that he is in secure
situation where ample provision is made for
his personal comfort and he will not be
called upon to use undeveloped skills.
32
-------
APPENDIX 2
DESCRIPTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES
The agencies involved in these studies and their organizational structure, with the abbreviations used in
Appendix 2, are as follows:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare HEW
Public Health Service PHS
Consumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service CPEHS
Environmental Control Administration ECA
Bureau of Solid Waste Management BSWM
U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA
Forest Service FS
San Dimas Equipment Development Center SDEDC
Washington Office WO
National Forest NF
Ranger District RD
In the tables of Appendix 2, a dash indicates that no data were available, a zero indicates that the
observed Value of an item was zero, and blanks mean that the corresponding items were not studied.
33
-------
INDEX OF SITES STUDIED
Forest Page
Allegheny National Forest, Pennsylvania 35
Deschutes National Forest, Oregon 39
Eldorado National Forest, California 45
Gallatin National Forest, Montana 47
Huron—Manistee National Forest, Michigan 49
Kaniksu National Forest, Idaho 51
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico 53
National Forest of Mississippi 55
Ozark National Forest, Arkansas 57
Rio Grande National Forest, Colorado , 61
Wayne—Hoosier National Forest, Ohio 63
Winter Sports Areas:
Cache National Forest, Utah 67
Wasatch National Forest, Utah 69
34
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JUNE 26 - JULY 1, 1969
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST,PENNSYLVANIA
SITES STUDIED:
Hearts Content Campground (1)
Minister Creek Campground (2)
Buckaloons Campground (3) and Picnic Area (5)
Kiasutha Campground (4), Swimming Area (6), and Boat Ramp (7)
Jakes Rock Overlook (8)
Camp Cornplanter Organization Camp (9)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Charles S. Spooner and F. Owen Irvine, BSWM, ECA; and Walter S. Weaver, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: James Sleeper, Region 9, FS; and Richard Schmeltzer, Marienville RD, Allegheny NF.
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(1) Hearts Content Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/car/lper day
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(2) Minister Creek Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
16.3
26.7
0.61
16
1.02
37.2
25
1.49
15
2.48
27.0
26.7
1.01
16
1.69
39
18
43
22.0
33.4
0.66
20
1.10
38.3
19.5
42.2
94.0
71.7
1.31
43
2.19
61.6
17.2
21.2
42.8
70.0
0.61
42
1.02
32.3
21.7
46.0
100.0
165
0.61
99
1.01
48.5
21.2
30.3
64.0
85.0
0.75
51
1.25
43
18
39
35
-------
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(3) Buckaloons Campground
Pounds of waste generated 98.2 104.0 215.4 192.0
Visitor days contributing 118.9 152.7 188.9 198.2
Pounds/visitor day 0.83 0.68 1.14 0.97
Camper days contributing 102 131 162 170
Pounds/camper day 0.96 0.79 1.33 1.13
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 23.0 35.6 41 37
Other combustibles 27.5 24.4 24 22
Noncombustibles 49.5 40.0 35 41
(4) Kiasutha Campground
Pounds of waste generated 426.4 325.9 668.0 578.4
Visitor days contributing 666 672 688 675
Pounds/visitor day 0.64 0.48 0.97 0.86
Camper days contributing 444 448 459 450
Pounds/camper day 0.96 0.73 1.45 1.28
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 47.9 37.5 40.7 42.2
Other combustibles 24.0 36.1 35.2 27.3
Noncombustibles 28.1 26.4 24.1 30.5
(5) Buckaloons Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated 6.3 11.1 21.0 34.2
Picnickers contributing — 13 7 —
Pounds/picnicker — 0.85 3.0 —
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 23 37 45 37
Other combustibles 27 23 21 22
Noncombustibles 50 40 34 41
(6) Kiasutha Swimming Area
Pounds of waste generated 53.6 18.7
Swimmers contributing 425 600
Pounds/swimmer 0.13 0.03
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 33 12
Other combustibles 32 43
Noncombustibles 35 45
36
-------
ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(7) Kiasutha Boat Ramp
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
(8) Jakes Rock Overlook
Pounds of waste generated
Number of incoming axles
Pounds/incoming axle
(9) Camp Cornplanter Organization Camp
9.0
74
0.12
0.75
80
0.01
47.5
83
0.57
16.1
328
0.05
13.5
45
0.30
1.0
52
0.02
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
487 0
220
2.21
74.2
13.1
12.7
162
196
0.83
46.3
28.9
24.8
354
150
2.36
62.1
18.1
19.8
* All percents by weight.
37
-------
38
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JULY 12-15, 1968
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST, OREGON
SITES STUDIED:
Prairie Campground (1)
Paulina Lake Campground (2), Boating Area (14), and Recreation Residences (11)
East Lake Campground (3), Resort Cabins (10), Restaurant (12), and Boating Area (15)
Princess Creek Campground (4) and Boating Area (16)
Trapper Creek Campground (5) and Boating Area (17)
Cinder Hill Campground (6) and Boating Area (18)
Crescent Lake Organization Camp (7)
Odell-Summit Lodge (8) and Cabins (9)
Lava Butte Visitor Center (13)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Harry R. Little, Ronald A. Perkins, and Howard R. Ludwig, BSWM, ECA; Ransom H.
Martin, TVA (assigned for training to the BSWM); and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: Douglas C. Roth, Region 6, FS; and Bert Houston, Fort Rock RD, and Lyle Greenwood,
Crescent RD, Deschutes NF.
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(1) Prairie Campground
Pounds of waste generated 15.5 14.5 8.5 34.0
Visitor days contributing 22 15 18 7
Pounds/visitor day 0,70 0.97 0.47 4.86
Camper days contributing 22 15 18 7
Pounds/camper day 0.70 0.97 0.47 4.86
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes 25.7 30.9 17.0 41.2
Other combustibles 32.9 27.8 29.8 22.0
Noncombustibles 41.4 41.3 53.2 36.8
(2) Paulina Lake Campground
Pounds of waste generated 264.0 109.5 188.0 231.0
Visitor days contributing 206 182 221 188
Pounds/visitor day 1.28 0.60 0.85 1.23
Camper days contributing 155 137 166 141
Pounds/camper day 1.70 0.80 1.13 1.64
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 32.6 35.2 26.4 26.8
Other combustibles 31.5 39.8 29.5 30.8
Noncombustibles 24.6 20.1 36.2 37.3
Fish cleaning wastes 11.3 4.9 7.9 5.1
39
-------
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(3) East Lake Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Fish cleaning wastes
(4) Princess Creek Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Trapper Creek Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(6) Cinder Hill Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Fish cleaning wastes
Thursday
166.5
153
1.09
115
1.45
37.5
26.4
30.1
6.0
181.5
162
1.12
122
1.49
33.6
40.3
26.1
228.5
158
1.44
119
1.92
37.0
29.7
33.3
209.0
246
0.85
185
1.13
28.2
37.6
32.8
1.4
Day of waste
Friday
118.5
197
0.60
148
0.80
30.7
35.0
27.0
7.3
122.5
176
0.70
132
0.93
44.1
34.4
21.5
146.0
193
0.76
145
1.01
46.0
31.0
23.0
210.0
315
0.67
237
0.89
26.2
38.6
35.2
0.0
generation
Saturday
166.0
202
0.82
152
1.09
27.6
31.0
35.2
6.2
146.5
216
0.68
162
0.90
42.3
33.3
24.4
234.5
325
0.72
244
0.96
40.6
32.3
27.1
329.0
301
1.09
226
1.46
26.8
29.0
37.7
6.5
Sunday
206.5
138
1.49
104
1.98
37.0
19.2
39.8
4.0
160.5
158
1.01
119
1.35
44.4
31.9
23.7
217.5
193
1.13
145
1.50
38.0
30.7
31.3
215.0
128
1.68
96
2.24
26.7
32.1
37.6
3.6
40
-------
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(7) Crescent Lake Organization Camp
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(8) Odell-Summit Lodgef
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Meals served
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
129.0
96
1.34
57.3
34.1
8.6
8.5
—
7
52.9
35.3
11.8
Day of waste
Friday
175.5
58
3.03
59.0
26.8
14.2
44.5
-
25
47.2
27.0
25.8
generation
Saturday
0
26.0
—
48
32.7
23.1
44.2
Sunday
80.0
75
1.07
3.7
25.6
70.7
37.0
-
57
37.8
20.3
41.9
(9) Odell-Summit Lodge Cabins (without kitchens)
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(10) East Lake Resort Cabins
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
(11) Paulina Lake Recreation Residences1^
Pounds of waste generated
Cabins contributing
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
6.5
3
2.20
70
15
15
53.0
35
1.51
12.5
4
14
0.89
38.5
15.3
46-2
10.0
19
0.53
25
60
15
87.5
57
1.53
73.0
4
15
4.86
80
20
0
26.0
19
1.62
38.4
38.4
23.2
145.5
66
2.20
107.0
4
15
7.13
83
0
17
21.0
15
1.40
26.2
40.5
33.3
111.0
25
4.44
18.5
3
14
1.32
40
20
40
41
-------
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(12) East Lake Resort Restaurant §
Pounds of waste generated
Number of meals served
Pounds/meal
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(13) Lava Butte Visitor Center
Pounds of waste generated
Visitors contributing
Pounds/visitor
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(14) Paulina Lake Boating Area
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
(15) East Lake Boating Area
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
(16) Princess Creek Boating Area
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
(17) Trapper Creek Boating Area
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
Thursday
69.5
14
4.96
8.6
87.3
4.1
30.5
500
0.06
8.2
60.7
31.1
9.5
19
0.50
7.5
11
0.68
1.0
40
0.02
0.0
24
0.0
Day of waste
Friday
24.0
39
0.62
43.8
39.5
16.7
5.5
289
0.02
9.0
72.8
18.2
3.0
22
0.14
1.0
11
0.09
0.0
28
0.0
1.0
34
0.03
generation
Saturday
40.0
23
1.74
31
54
15
14.5
350
0.04
6.9
79.3
13.8
1.0
19
0.05
0.0
24
0.0
1.0
26
0.04
2.0
46
0.04
Sunday
68.0
12
5.67
16.3
38.9
44.8
4.0
500
0.01
0.0
37.5
62.5
7.5
16
0.47
5.0
15
0.33
1J3
11
0.09
3.0
29
0.10
42
-------
DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(18) Cinder Hill Boating Area
Pounds of waste generated
Boats contributing
Pounds/boat
9.0
23
0.39
3.0
28
0.11
16.0
33
0.48
10.5
7
1.50
* All percents by weight.
t Wastes were collected from lodges, boat ramps, office, and kitchen.
^ Wastes from one home on Saturday consisted of 50 Ib of wood chips.
§ This restaurant was a small hamburger stand.
43
-------
44
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JULY 19-22, 1968
ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA
SITES STUDIED:
Fallen Leaf Campground (1)
Camp Richardson Cabins (2), Restaurant (3), and Lodge (4)
Lake Tahoe Visitor Center (5)
Camp Concord Organization Camp (6)
Spring Creek Recreation Residences (7)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Harry R. Little and Howard R. Ludwig, BSWM, ECA; and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: Robert McLaughlin, Region 5, FS; and James Olson, Lake Valley RD, Eldorado NF.
ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(1) Fallen Leaf Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(2) Camp Richardson Cabins
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(3) Camp Richardson Restaurant
Pounds of waste generated
Meals served
Pounds/meal served
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
520.0
640
0.81
640
0.81
22.2
38.3
39.5
708.7
705
1.01
705
1.01
28.7
35.6
35.7
258.5
180
1.44
26.6
44.4
29.0
69.5
183
0.38
72.6
23.0
4.4
857.5
795
1.08
795
1.08
28.7
31.5
39.8
288.5
180
1.60
23.8
43.5
32.7
196.0
228
0.86
69.3
24.2
6.5
712.5
644
1.11
644
1.11
34.2
39.6
26.2
164.5
180
0.92
28.5
51.3
20.2
51.0
141
0.36
37.2
52.9
9.9
45
-------
ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST
CONTINUED
Area
Thursday
Day of waste generation
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(4) Camp Richardson Lodge
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Lake Tahoe Visitor Center
Pounds of waste generated
Visitors contributing
Pounds/visitor
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(6) Camp Concord Organization Camp
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(7) Spring Creek Recreation Residences
5.8
.503
0.012
0
100
0
129.1
94
1.37
68.6
23.8
7.6
10.0
37
0.27
0
80
20
3.0
413
0.007
0
70
30
218.5
90
2.43
25.6
26.5
47.9
8.0
58
0.14
0
75
25
6.5
625
0.010
0
75
25
169.0
95
1.78
73.4
20.7
5.9
24.5
25
0.98
0
82
18
4.5
536
0.010
0
70
30
173.5
97
1.79
65.7
28.5
5.8
Pounds of waste generated
Cabins occupied
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
67.0
7
30
2.23
20.3
27.6
52.1
94.5
14
54.5
1.73
36.5
33.3
30.2
113.0
12
65.5
1.73
31.6
48.5
19.9
149.5
12
52.5
2.85
19.8
31.6
48.6
* All percents by weight.
46
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JULY 10-15, 1968
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA
SITES STUDIED:
Beaver Creek Campground (1)
Bakers Hole Campground (2)
Cabin Creek Picnic Area (3)
Earthquake Visitor Center (4)
Lakeshore "Block, E" Recreation Residences (5)
Administrative Residences (6)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Charles S. Spooner and F. Owen Irvine, BSWM, EGA; and Walter S. Weaver, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: Howard Challinor, Assistant District Ranger, and Guy Hanson, Recreation Technician, Hebgen
Lake RD; and Larry Cronenwett, Project Engineer, Gallatin NF.
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(1) Beaver Creek Campground
Pounds of waste generated 356.8 318.2 330.0 356.8
Visitor days contributing 217.5 156.0 220.5 117.0
Pounds/visitor day 1.64 2.03 1.50 3.05
Camper days contributing 145 104 147 78
Pounds/camper day 2.46 3.06 2.24 4.57
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes 28.7 42 30.5 39.0
Other combustibles 27.4 25 25.8 21.5
Noncombustibles 43.9 33 43.7 39.5
(2) Bakers Hole Campground
Pounds of waste generated 229.0 166.2 254.8 210.5
Visitor days contributing 242.7 346.3 448.9 420.9
Pounds/visitor day 0.94 0.48 0.57 0.50
Camper days contributing 283 297 385 361
Pounds/camper day 0.81 0.56 0.66 0.58
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 34 39.3 35.6 42.3
Other combustibles 31 28.3 31.0 20.5
Noncombustibles 35 32.4 33.4 37.2
47
-------
GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area Thursday
(3) Cabin Creek Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Estimated picnickers contributing
Pounds/picnicker
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(4) Earthquake Visitor Center
Pounds of waste generated 17.0
Estimated visitors contributing 785
Pounds/ visitor 0.022
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 8.8
Other combustibles 58.8
Noncombustibles 32.4
(5) Lakeshore "Block E" Recreation Residences
Pounds of waste generated
Cabins contributing
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(6) Administrative Residences
Pounds of waste generated
Homes contributing
Occupants
Pounds/occupant
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Day of waste
Friday
14.1
10
1.4
19.5
47.9
32.6
10.8
622
0.017
13.9
35.2
50.9
61.3
6
29
2.12
33.0
17.1
49.9
38.5
4
31
1.24
29.4
37.4
33.2
generation
Saturday
21.7
20
1.1
38.7
26.5
34.8
13.2
619
0.021
6.1
31.8
62.1
61.5
4
27
2.28
50.8
11.8
37.4
17.8
4
14
1.27
16.9
19.5
63.6
Sunday
76.0
36
2.1
36.5
25.9
37.6
25.3
778
0.033
32.0
23.3
44.7
9.4
3
10
0.94
_
—
-
31.8
4
14
2.28
45.7
28.3
26.0
* All percents by weight.
48
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JUNE 21-24, 1968
HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST, MICHIGAN
SITES STUDIED:
Lake Michigan Campground (1)
Sand Lake Campground (2), Picnic Area (3), and Administrative Residence (4)
Hoxey Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center (5)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Charles S. Spooner and F. Owen Irvine, BSWM, ECA; and Walter S. Weaver, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: James Sleeper, Region 9, FS; and Kenneth Ruehle, Manistee RD, Huron-Manistee NF.
HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(1) Lake Michigan Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(2) Sand Lake Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
4.3
3.33
1.29
2
2.15
8.0
33.2
58.8
89.8
281.7
0.32
169
0.53
34.0
26.4
34.6
15.0
30.0
0.50
18
0.83
125.0
281.7
0.44
169
0.73
42.5
21.9
35.6
37.5
68.3
0.55
41
0.91
53.5
13.2
33.3
316.4
378.4
0.84
227
1.39
53.2
18.7
28.1
43.5
96.7
0.45
58
0.75
45.5
16.5
38.0
149.5
335.1
0.45
201
0.74
45.9
22.9
31.2
49
-------
HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(3) Sand Lake Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated 38.0 0.0 25.5 24.5
Picnickers contributing — — —
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 51 32 45
Other combustibles 15 29 34
Noncombustibles 34 39 21
(4) Sand Lake Administrative Residence
Pounds of waste generated 8
Occupant days contributing 6
Pounds/occupant day 1 .33
(5) Hoxey Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Kitchen wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Corpsmen days contributing
Pounds/corpsmen day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Administrative and dormitory wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Corpsmen days contributing
Pounds/corpsmen day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Staff residence wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Staff days contributing
Pounds/staff day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
6
6
1.00
396
160
2.47
54
39
7
78
160
0.49
0
100
0
54
28
1.93
32.0
37.5
30.5
7 5
6 6
1.16 0.83
451
139
3.25
68
23
9
169
139
1.22
0
100
0
169
98
1.73
20
41
39
* All percents by weight.
50
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JULY 19-22, 1968
KANIKSU NATIONAL FOREST, IDAHO
SITES STUDIED:
Samowen Campground (1) and Group Picnic Area (2)
Garfield Bay Recreation Residences (3)
Priest Lake Ranger Station (4)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Charles S. Spooner and F. Owen Irvine, BSWM, ECA; and Walter S. Weaver, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: David Rudd, Assistant Forest Engineer, Kaniksu NF; and Maxwell Cochrane and Gary
Stensatter, Region 1, FS.
KANIKSU NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(1) Samowen Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percentf)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(2) Samowen Group Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds/picnicker
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
155.2
239
0.65
151
1.03
36.2
9.3
54.5
108.1
244.8
0.44
142
0.76
27.1
21.6
51.3
67.1
57
1.18
23.2
35.3
41.5
178.8*
303.9
0.59
192
0.93
50.6
11.4
38.0
91.4
120
0.76
23.2
31.4
45.4
238.3
337.2
0.71
213
1.12
49.8
11.9
38.3
51
-------
KANIKSU NATIONAL FOREST
CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(3) Garfield Bay Recreation Residences
Pounds of waste generated
Cabins occupied
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(4) Priest Lake Ranger Station
Kitchen wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Number of meals served
Pounds of waste/meal
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
39
43
0.91
89.7
2.6
7.7
13.6
3
9
1.51
38.0
23.2
38.8
25.3
25
1.01
61.4
32.7
5.9
26.0
5
29
0.90
61.3
10.5
28.2
51.8
51
1.02
79.3
12.0
8.7
12.9
4
20
0.65
44.3
18.3
37.4
Administrative and warehouse wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Composition (percent)
Combustibles
Noncombustibles
80
.O
100
0
5.1
88
12
12.3
S3
47
Bunk house wastes:
Pounds of waste generated
Occupants contributing
Composition (percent)
Combustibles
Noncombustibles
6.0
36
71
29
1.0
36
100
0
5.3
29
43
57
* Campground signs encouraged burning combustibles in camp fireplaces. The large fraction of com-
bustible wastes collected on Saturday indicated heavy rains on Friday discouraged many people from doing so.
f All percents by weight.
52
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, SEPTEMBER 5-9, 1968
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST, NEW MEXICO
SITES STUDIED:
Pine Campground (1)
Sleepy Grass Campground (2) and Picnic Area (5)
Deerhead Campground (3)
Silver Campground (4)
Slide Group Picnic Area (6)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Harry R, Little and Howard R. Ludwig, BSWM, EGA; and Walter S. Weaver, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: T.C. Hogsett, Region 3, FS; and Roy McKeag, State of New Mexico Health and Social
Services Department.
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(1) Pine Campground
Pounds of waste generated 2.0 25.4 60.6
Visitor days contributing 6 21 42
Pounds/visitor day 0.33 1.21 1.44
Camper days contributing 6 21 42
Pounds/camper day 0.33 1.21 1.44
Composition (see below)
(2) Sleepy Grass Campground
Pounds of waste generated 2.0 19.1 46.5 27.3
Visitor days contributing 3 14 27 8
Pounds/visitor day 0.67 1.36 1.72 3.4
Camper days contributing 3 14 27 8
Pounds/camper day 0.67 1.36 1.72 3.4
Composition (see below)
53
-------
LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(3) Deerhead Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (see below)
(4) Silver Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (see immediately below)
Composition (percent*)f
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Sleepy Grass Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds/picnicker
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Combustibles
Noncombustibles
(6) Slide Group Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds/picnicker
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Combustibles
Nonco mbustibles
Thursday
3.0
2
1.50
2
1.50
_
—
—
—
—
26.6
36.7
36.7
24.3
29
0.83
21.2
34.6
44.2
0
Day of waste
Friday
14.5
8
1.82
8
1.82
20.0
15
1.33
15
1.33
38.3
32.8
28.9
12.5
14
0.89
60
14
26
0
generation
Saturday
49.7
26
1.91
26
1.91
87.4
47
1.86
47
1.86
37.2
35.3
27.5
17.6
—
—
30
34
36
91.8
55
1.67
27.2
36.3
36.5
Sunday
38.8
12
3.23
12
3.23
99.8
35
2.85
35
2.85
31.3
45.1
23.6
231.3
214
1.08
44
33
23
0
* All percents by weight.
| Because there was so little camping, composition was measured for all campgrounds together.
54
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JUNE 14-17, 1968
NATIONAL FOREST OF MISSISSIPPI
SITES STUDIED:
Raworth Campground (1) and Picnic Area (3)
Shongelo Campground (2), Picnic Area (4), and Swimming Area (5)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Harry R. Little and Morris G. Tucker, BSWM, ECA; and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: James Armfield, Region 8, FS; and Henry W. Gilreath, Bienville RD, NF of Mississippi.
NATIONAL FOREST OF MISSISSIPPI
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Area
(1) Raworth Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
17
—
—
6
2.83
23.5
53.0
23.5
Day of waste generation
Friday Saturday
0 9
-
-
5
1.80
11.0
44.5
44.5
Sunday
9
-
-
5
1.80
0.0
77.8
22.2
(2) Shongelo Campground
Pounds of waste generated 0 1 16 9
Visitor days contributing — — —
Pounds/visitor day — - —
Camper days contributing 444
Pounds/camper day 0.25 4.00 2.25
Composition (percent)
Food wastes - 18.7 11.1
Other combustibles - 25.0 22.2
Noncombustibles - 56.3 66.7
55
-------
NATIONAL FOREST OF MISSISSIPPI - CONTINUED
Area
(3) Raworth Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(4) Shongelo Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Shongelo Swimming Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
43
25
1.72
34.9
39.5
25.6
43
10
4.30
48.9
9.3
41.8
—
—
-
0.0
46.1
53.9
Day of waste
Friday
37
21
1.76
13.6
43.2
43.2
5
2
2.50
0
80
20
—
—
-
0
70
30
generation
Saturday
75
43
1.74
46.6
26.7
26.7
42
10
4.20
83.4
11.9
4.7
—
-
-
0
50
50
Sunday
112
64
1.75
30.4
26.8
42.8
38
10
3.80
60.5
29.0
10.5
27 1
155 t
O.l7t
0
50
50
* All percents by weight.
t Total for entire 4 days.
56
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, JUNE 21-24, 1968
OZARK NATIONAL FOREST, ARKANSAS
SITES STUDIED:
Spring Lake Campground (1), Picnic Area (3), Swimming Area (6), and Concession Stand (8)
Cove Lake Campground (2), Picnic Area (4), Swimming Area (7), and Concession Stand (9)
Mt. Magazine Picnic Area (5), Cabins (10), and Lodge (11)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Harry R. Little and Morris G. Tucker, BSWM, EC A; and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: James Armfield, Region 8, FS; William E. Gates, Forest Engineers Office, FS; and
Leonard A. Minton, Mt. Magazine RD, Ozark NF.
OZARK NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(1) Spring Lake Campground
Pounds of waste generated 33 22 59 81
Visitor days contributing 34.5 27.0 78.0 84.0
Pounds/visitor day 0.96 0.81 0.76 0.96
Camper days contributing 23 18 52 56
Pounds/camper day 1.43 1.22 1.14 1.45
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes 39.9 23 30.7 37.2
Other combustibles 30.1 32 34.2 29.7
Noncombustibles 30.0 45 35.1 33.1
(2) Cove Lake Campground
Pounds of waste generated 96 150 142 140
Visitor days contributing 117.0 97.5 123.0 97.5
Pounds/visitor day 0.82 1.54 1.15 1.44
Camper days contributing 78 65 82 65
Pounds/camper day 1.23 2.31 1.73 2.16
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 37.5 45.9 53.2 60.2
Other combustibles 36,5 33.3 26.0 21.3
Noncombustibles 26.0 20.8 20.8 18.5
57
-------
OZARK NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(3) Spring Lake Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(4) Cove Lake Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Mt. Magazine Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(6) Spring Lake Swimming Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(7) Cove Lake Swimming Area
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
44
—
—
59.2
22.7
18.1
143
—
—
44.0
30.8
25.2
30
-
35
45
20
4
-
-
0
50
50
11
—
-
0
82
18
Day of waste
Friday
36
—
—
72.2
13.9
13.9
47
-
-
43.7
34.0
22.3
5
-
40
40
20
11
-
-
45.5
54.5
0.0
10
—
-
0
90
10
generation
Saturday
28
—
—
39.3
35.7
25.0
16
—
—
25.0
31.2
43.8
9
-
60
20
20
3
-
-
0
100
0
2
—
-
0
100
0
Sunday
106
221 1
0.97 f
66.0
17.0
17.0
58
272 1
0.97t
34.5
37.9
27.6
27
—
73.9
17.4
8.7
3
221 1
O.lOt
33.3
33.3
33.4
8
272 f
0.1 It
0
50
50
58
-------
OZARK NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
Thursday
Day of waste generation
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
(8) Spring Lake Concession Stand
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(9) Cove Lake Concession Stand
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Composition (percent)
0
60
40
14
0
75
25
20
11
9
73
18
19
* All per cents by weight.
t Total for 4 days; double sample techniques employed to estimate visitor days.
15
7
60
33
17
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(10) Mt. Magazine Cabins (without kitchens)
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(11) Mt . Magazine Lodge
Pounds of waste generated
Overnight guests contributing
Pounds/overnight guest
Meals served
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
7
60
33
12
—
—
58.7
21.5
19.8
16
-
—
—
93.8
6.2
0.0
0
60
40
12
-
—
41.7
33.3
25.0
12
-
-
—
50.0
41.6
8.4
0
75
25
19
-
-
26.3
31.6
42.1
105
-
-
—
92.4
3.8
3.8
9.1
72.7
18.2
40
84 1
0.99 1
20
30
50
60
54 t
3.57t
326 t
88.3
10.0
1.7
59
-------
60
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, AUGUST 23-26, 1968
RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST, COLORADO
SITES STUDIED:
Palisade Campground (1)
Big Meadows Campground (2)
South Fork Campground (3)
Beaver Creek Campground (4) and Organization Camp (5)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Walter S. Weaver and Richard Spray, SDEDC, FS.
Local Staff: William Kolzow, Region 2, FS.
RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area
(1) Palisade Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(2) Big Meadows Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
41
27.2
1.50
30
1.37
39.0
29.3
31.7
99
110.0
0.90
66
1.50
35.7
39.8
24.5
Friday
110
88.0
1.25
28
3.93
15.9
36.4
47.7
180
103.4
1.74
62
2.90
38.3
32.8
28.9
Saturday
56
62.0
0.90
46
1.22
28.5
42.9
28.6
68
130.0
0.52
78
0.87
23.5
42.1
34.4
Sunday
33
73.0
0.45
32
1.03
23.5
32.3
44.2
117
86.7
1.35
52
2.25
30.5
38.9
30.6
61
-------
RIO GRANDE NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area
(3) South Fork Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(4) Beaver Creek Campground
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
(5) Beaver Creek Organization Camp
Pounds of waste generated
Occupant days contributing
Pounds/occupant day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
Thursday
61
68.9
0.89
42
1.45
46.6
36.6
16.8
70
117.8
0.59
41
1.71
31.3
28.7
40.0
57
60.0
0.95
65
18
17
Day of waste
Friday
48
49.1
0.98
15
3.20
26
36
38
76
229.5
0.33
37
2.05
33.3
38.1
28.6
94
60.0
1.57
54
31
15
generation
Saturday
31
84.6
0.37
27
1.15
35.3
35.3
29.4
40
141.3
0.28
44
0.91
28.5
43.0
28.5
219
64.0
3.42
51
34
15
Sunday
45
53.2
0.85
37
1.22
22.3
40.0
37.7
73
110.3
0.66
45
1.62
30.1
36.8
33.1
0
0.0
-
* All percents by weight.
62
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, AUGUST 13 - SEPTEMBER 2, 1968
WAYNE-HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST, OHIO
SITES STUDIED:
Iron Ridge Campground (1)
Oak Hill Campground (2)
Vesuvius Family (3) and Group (4) Picnic Area and Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center (7)
Big Bend Beach Area (5)
Big Bend Beach Concession Stand (6)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Charles S. Spooner, Harry R. Little, Howard R. Ludwig, and F. Owen Irvine, BSWM, EGA.
WAYNE-HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(1) Iron Ridge Campground
(first week)
Pounds of waste generated - 72.1 78.8 92.6 100.9 131.1 149.9
Visitor days contributing - 62.0 78.3 116.5 127.0 175.0 106.8
Pounds/visitor day - 1.16 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.75 1.40
Camper days contributing - 52 55 87 106 98 96
Pounds/camper day - 1.39 1.43 1.06 0.95 1.34 1.56
(second week)
Pounds of waste generated 101.3 62.1 64.9 67.8 89.4 67.0 115.2
Visitor days contributing 61.3 62.8 69.9 63.6 71.9 76.3 84.2
Pounds/visitor day 1.65 0.99 0.93 1.07 1.24 0.88 1.37
Camper days contributing 55 42 52 46 55 66 70
Pounds/camper day 1.84 1.48 1.25 1.47 1.62 1.02 1.64
(third week)
Pounds of waste generated 47.9 80.6 59.4 112.3 108.5 247.1 200.2
Visitor days contributing 64.4 93.9 95.0 93.3 142.7 193.0 206.5
Pounds/visitor day 0.74 0.86 0.63 1.20 0.76 1.28 0.97
Camper days contributing 54 76 67 67 120 123 122
Pounds/camper day 0.89 1.06 0.89 1.68 0.90 2.01 1.64
63
-------
WAYNE-HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Day of waste generation
Area
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
(2) Oak Hill Campground
(first week)
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
(second week)
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
(third week)
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Camper days contributing
Pounds/camper day
86.1
106.6
0.81
68
1.27
(3) Vesuvius Family Picnic Area
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
Pounds of waste generated
Picnickers contributing
122.5
98.4
1.24
63
1.94
56.3
98.8
0.56
76
0.74
112.6
83.3
1.35
65
1.73
68.8
86.2
0.80
53
1.30
121.8
140.5
0.87
95
1.28
109.0
88.8
1.23
71
1.54
86.1
104
0.83
83
1.04
80.2
120.1
0.67
97
0.83
205.2
133.8
1.53
98
2.09
139.6
104.8
1.33
96
1.45
148.1
110.8
1.34
96
1.54
120.3
128.8
0.93
89
1.35
111.8
112.3
1.00
96
1.16
61.0
67.3
0.91
53
1.15
Date
8/13
14.8
15
60.0
85.5
0.70
54
1.11
of waste
8/15
3.9
7
75.7
90.8
0.83
79
0.96
generation
8/16
28.1
17
66.9
126.5
0.53
100
0.67
8/17
17.3
43
110.3
170.2
0.63
109
1.01
8/18
117.3
149
211.3
163.6
1.29
112
1.89
8/19
34.5
52
8/20
15.0
38
8/26
2.5
9
9/1
93.4
131
8/21
22.5
37
8/27
7.0
11
9/2
122.8
121
8/22
28.4
53
8/28
14.3
14
8/23
26.2
31
8/29
9.7
5
8/24
36.5
33
8/30
14.7
22
8/25
155.4
128
8/31
24.1
35
64
-------
WAYNE-HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
Area Date of waste generation
(4) Vesuvius Group Picnic Area 8/18 8/20 8/24 8/25 8/29 8/31 9/2
Pounds of waste generated 188.5 25.3 14.7 130.0 132.8 45.6 41.8
Picnickers contributing 130 35 15 120 68 75 38
Average composition (percent*)
Food wastes 41f
Other combustibles 21f
Noncombustibles 38f
(5) Big Bend Beach Area
The Big Bend Beach Area is a swimming area with a snack bar. During the study, 7,382 swimmers
were counted. The study team gathered 262.0 Ib of solid waste, at an average rate of 0.04 Ib per swimmer.
(6) Big Bend Beach Concession Stand
During the study, 961 concession—stand patrons, not swimming, generated 135.6 Ib of solid waste.
They averaged 0.14 Ib per patron, with a standard deviation of 0.16 Ib per patron.
Wednesday Friday
(7) Vesuvius Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Kitchen wastes:
Pounds of waste generated 409.3 310.5
Corpsman days contributing 176 166
Pounds/corpsman day 2.32 1,87
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 73.5 77.4
Other combustibles 10.0 22.6
Noncombustibles 16.5 0.0
Administrative and dormitory wastes:
Pounds of waste generated 98.8 27.3
Corpsman days contributing 176 166
Pounds/corpsman day 0.56 0.16
Composition (percent)
Combustibles 78 100
Noncombustibles 22 0
Maintenance shops wastes:
Pounds of waste collected 212.8 78.0
Days of activity contributing 2 2
Pounds/day 106.4 39.0
Composition (percent)
Combustibles 94 100
Noncombustibles 6 0
* All percents by weight.
t Total of 7 days.
65
-------
66
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 7, 1969
WINTER SPORTS AREA
CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, UTAH
SITES STUDIED:
Gelande Lodge (1)
Ski Lift Area (2)
Hill Air Force Base Lodge (3)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Walter S. Weaver and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, USFS.
Local Staff: Floyd Ingram, Region 4, FS; and Bruce Hronek, Ogden RD, and Preston Jackson, Snow
Ranger, Snow Basin Ski Area, Cache NF.
CACHE NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Area
(1) Gelande Lodge*
Date of waste generation
2/28 3/1 3/2 3/5
3/6
Pounds of waste generated 62 130 119 85 50
Visitor days contributing 25.0 44.0 56.0 23.0 5.7
Pounds/visitor day 2.48 2.95 2.13 3.70 8.77
Composition (percentf)
Food wastes 14.6 11.6 21 23.5 34
Other combustibles 54.8 67.6 63 56.5 56
Noncombustibles 30.6 20.8 16 20.0 10
(2) Ski Lift Area 3/1 3/2 3/5 3/6
Pounds of waste generated 19 25 17 19
Visitor days contributing — — — —
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 0.0 0 5.9 0.0
Other combustibles 78.9 41 41.2 68.4
Noncombustibles 21.1 59 52.9 31.6
(3) Hill Air Force Base Lodge 2/28 3/1 3/2
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
41
45.0
0.91
0.0
73.2
26.8
60
53.0
1.13
13.3
65.0
21.7
46
17.0
2.71
4.4
73.9
21.7
Day use.
All percents by weight.
67
-------
68
-------
SOLID WASTE STUDY, FEBRUARY 28 - MARCH 7, 1969
WINTER SPORTS AREA
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST, UTAH
SITES STUDIES:
Rustler Lodge (1)
Alta Lodge (2)
Snow Pine Lodge (day use) (3)
Shallow Shaft Tavern (4)
PERSONNEL:
Study Team: Walter S. Weaver and Richard H. Spray, SDEDC, FS
Local Staff: Floyd Ingram, Region 4, FS; and Ames Harrison, Salt Lake RD, Wasatch NF.
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Fri Sat Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri
(1) Rustler Lodge
Pounds of waste generated 134 178 209 195 365 205 167
Visitor days contributing 113 111 126 108 113 115 100
Pounds/visitor day 1.19 1.60 1.66 1.81 3.23 1.78 1.67
Composition (percent*)
Food wastes 35.0 54.5 64.1 57.5 51.2 40.0 42.5
Other combustibles 36.6 12.4 20.6 24.6 39.2 35.1 35.3
Noncombustibles 28.4 33.1 15.3 17.9 9.6 24.9 22.2
(2) Alta Lodge
Pounds of waste generated 1818f 242 276
Visitor days contributing 858 180 165
Pounds/visitor day 2.12 1.34 1.67
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 27.4 23.6 12.7
Other combustibles 29.1 42.2 50.0
Noncombustibles 43.5 34.2 37.3
(3) Snow Pine Lodge ^
Pounds of waste generated 80 14 13.5 21
Visitor days contributing 24.0 4.7 5.8 8.4
Pounds/visitor day 3.33 2.98 2.33 2.50
Composition (percent)
Food wastes 8.7 35.7 0 0.0
Other combustibles 60.0 35.7 37 52.3
Noncombustibles 31.3 28.6 63 47.7
69
-------
WASATCH NATIONAL FOREST - CONTINUED
GENERATION AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
Day of waste generation
Area Fri Sat Mon Tue Wed Thurs Fri
(4) Shallow Shaft Tavern
Pounds of waste generated
Visitor days contributing
Pounds/visitor day
Composition (percent)
Food wastes
Other combustibles
Noncombustibles
32
8.4
3.81
0.0
40.6
59.4
12
8.3
1.46
0.0
33.3
66.7
16
12.5
1.28
0.0
31.3
68.7
9
2.9
3.10
0.0
44.4
55.6
* All percents by weight.
f Wastes collected on Wednesday had accumulated since Friday.
f Day use.
70
-------
APPENDIX 3
VARIATIONS IN THE WASTE GENERATION
RATE AND IN WASTE COMPOSITION
Data from 23 campgrounds were analyzed in
an effort to explain the variation encountered in
waste composition and in the total weight generated
per person.
Data from 19 of the campgrounds included
information on waste composition as well as total
waste generation rates encountered on each of 4
study days. In the other four campgrounds, the
total waste generation rate was measured for each
of the 4 days, and data from two of these four
campgrounds consisted of total waste generation
rates for three separate Thursday—through-Sunday
intervals.
Each campground was developed to level
three or four (Appendix 1) and received either
predominantly overnight use or use as a recreation
destination for campers planning extended stays.
(The data for all analyses are shown in Table A3-1.)
Seven analyses of variance were conducted on
the data arranged in different ways. A confidence
level of 90 percent was used in each analysis. To
satisfy the basic assumption made in the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) that the variances are
homogeneous (i.e., that the sources of variance in
waste generation rates are essentially the same and
that the variances in the population of all
campgrounds are equal), a square root transform
was used on the data before analysis. All work was
done on an IBM 1130.
Waste Generation Rates
To detect regional variations in waste
generation rates, the first analysis sought to
determine statistically significant variation in the
daily mean of the total waste generated per person
in 24 campgrounds.
The ANOVA showed that at least one mean
was significantly different from the other means.
The least significant differences (LSD's) were
computed to locate the statistical differences the
ANOVA selected. (The LSD is used to compare
daily means of the total solid waste generated per
person. The LSD value is split and half its value
added to and half subtracted from the data means.
If the length of two or more bands of the LSD
overlap, the means at their center are not
considered statistically different. Bands that do not
overlap others are considered significantly different.
LSD's are usually applied only after an F test in an
ANOVA has shown that differences existed
somewhere between the means.) The LSD revealed
the data from Hot Springs to be significantly
different from the other campground data. When
the data were rechecked, Hot Springs was
disqualified as a valid data point because of poorly
controlled recreation use measured during the study.
A second ANOVA, which excluded Hot Springs
data and used data from 23 campgrounds, revealed
no significant difference among the waste generation
rates in those campgrounds. Both analyses revealed
no significant difference among the daily mean
waste generation rate on the 4 study days.
Fifteen campgrounds judged to receive use as
a camper's destination were considered separately.
An ANOVA was conducted to detect whether the
daily mean of the total waste generation rate varied
significantly among the campgrounds and among the
days of the studies. The conclusions differed from
those reached when all campgrounds were
considered. In this analysis, the day on which the
wastes were generated proved significant, and the
campground generating the waste proved nearly
significant. The LSD's revealed that waste quantities
generated on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday were
significantly different from those waste quantities
generated on Sunday (Figure A3-1). The
developmental level (three or four) of the
destination campground also proved significant.
"Destination" campgrounds were considered
again with further subdivision to detect the extent
of the differences among their development levels.
The eight destination campgrounds developed to
level three were considered separately for
71
-------
differences in total waste generation. Neither the
campground nor the day of waste generation proved
significant.
When the seven "destination" campgrounds
developed to level four were considered, the
campground generating the waste was not significant
but the day on which the wastes were generated
proved to be. The LSD's for this ANOVA showed
that wastes generated on Friday were significantly
different from wastes generated on both Saturday
and Sunday (Figure A3-2).
Analysis of total waste generation rate data
from campgrounds judged to receive overnight use
developed to level three revealed no statistically
significant differences among the campgrounds or
the day on which the wastes were generated. Hence,
all significant variation among destination
campgrounds was caused by the fraction developed
to level four.
Waste Composition
Three factors of waste composition were
analyzed from 19 campgrounds: the day on which
the wastes were generated, the type of waste (food
waste, other combustibles, noncombustibles), and
the campground from which they came.
When the LSD's considered the three waste
components for the 4 study days, the wastes
generated on Sundays were found to differ
significantly from those generated on Saturdays
(Figure A3-3).
The distribution of means for three individual
waste types reveals no regional trends (Figures
A3-4 through A3—6). One campground,
(Samowen) where campsite burning of some
combustibles was encouraged, showed significantly
fewer combustibles (other than food wastes) than
did most other campgrounds.
TABLE A3-1
DATA USED TO DETECT VARIATION
IN THE WASTE GENERATION RATE
Forest Campground
Overnight (0)
Scale of or
development destination (D)
(Appendix 1) campground
Waste categories:
FW=Food waste
OC=Other combustibles
NC=Noncombustibles
T=Total
Days of waste generation
Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun.
Waste (Ib/camper day)
Allegheny Kiasutha 4 D
FW
OC
NC
T
0.46
0.23
0.27
0.96
0.27
0.26
0.19
0.73
0.59
0.51
0.35
1.45
0.54
0.35
0.39
1.28
Buckaloons
Deschutes Prairie
Paulina Lake 4
D
0
D
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
0.22
0.26
0.48
0.96
0.18
0.23
0.29
0.70
0.75
0.54
0.41
1.70
0.28
0.19
0.32
0.79
0.30
0.27
0.40
0.97
0.31
0.16
0.31
0.80
0.55
0.32
0.47
1.33
0.08
0.14
0.25
0.47
0.39
0.33
0.41
1.13
0.41
0.25
0.46
1.13
2.00
1.07
1.79
4.86
0.52
0.51
0.61
1.64
72
-------
TABLE A3-1 - CONTINUED
Forest Campground
Overnight (0)
Scale of or
development destination (D)
(Appendix 1) campground
Waste categories:
FW=Food waste
OC=Other Combustibles
NC=Noncombustibles
T=Total
Days of waste generation
Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun.
Waste (Ib/camper day)
Deschutes (continued)
East Lake 4 D
Cinder Hill 4 D
Princess Creek 3 D
Trapper Creek 3 D
Eldorado Fallen Leaf 3 0
Gallatin Bakers Hole 3 0
Beaver Creek 3 O
Huron- Sand Lake 4 D
Manistee
Kaniksu Samowen 4 D
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
0.63
0.38
0.44
1.45
0.34
0.42
0.37
1.13
0.50
0.60
0.39
1.49
0.71
0.57
0.64
1.92
0.18
0.31
0.32
0.81
0.28
0.25
0.28
0.81
0.71
0.67
1.08
2.46
0.18
0.14
0.21
0.53
0.36
0.09
0.55
1.03
0.30
0.28
0.22
0.80
0.24
0.34
0.31
0.89
0.41
0.32
0.20
0.93
0.46
0.31
0.23
1.01
0.29
0.36
0.36
1.01
0.22
0.16
0.18
0.56
1.29
0.76
1.01
3.06
0.31
0.16
0.26
0.73
0.21
0.17
0.40
0.76
0.37
0.33
0.38
1.09
0.49
0.42
0.55
1.46
0.38
0.30
0.22
0.90
0.39
0.31
0.26
0.96
0.31
0.34
0.43
1.08
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.66
0.68
0.58
0.98
2.24
0.74
0.26
0.39
1.39
0.47
0.11
0.35
0.93
0.81
0.38
0.79
1.98
0.68
0.72
0.72
2.24
0.60
0.43
0.32
1.35
0.57
0.46
0.47
1.50
0.38
0.44
0.29
1.11
0.25
0.12
0.21
0.58
1.78
0.98
1.81
4.57
0.34
0.17
0.23
0.74
0.56
0.13
0.43
1.12
73
-------
TABLE AS-
CONTINUED
Forest
Lincoln
Ozark
Rio Grande
Wayne—
Hoosier
Overnight (0)
Scale of or
Campground development destination (D)
(Appendix 1) campground
Deerhead 3 O
Sleepy Grass 3 0
Cove Lake 3 D
Spring Lake 3 D
Palisade 3 0
Beaver Creek 3 D
South Fork 3 O
Big Meadows 3 D
Oak Hill (A)* 4 D
Oak Hill (B)
Oak Hill (C)
Iron Ridge (A) 3 D
Iron Ridge (B)
Iron Ridge (C)
Waste categories:
FW=Food waste
Days of waste generation
OC=Other Combustibles Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun.
NC=Noncombustibles
T=Total Waste (Ib/camper day)
T
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
FW
OC
NC
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
1.50
0.67
0.46
0.45
0.32
1.23
0.57
0.43
0.43
1.43
0.52
0.39
0.42
1.37
0.53
0.49
0.68
1.71
0.68
0.53
0.24
1.45
0.54
0.60
0.37
1.50
1.73
1.45
0.96
1.06
1.47
1.68
1.82
1.36
1.06
0.77
0.48
2.31
0.28
0.39
0.55
1.22
0.72
1.39
1.82
3.93
0.69
0.78
0.59
2.05
0.83
1.15
1.22
3.20
1.11
0.95
0.84
2.90
1.30
1.54
0.67
0.95
1.62
0.90
1.91
1.72
0.92
0.45
0.36
1.73
0.35
0.39
0.40
1.14
0.35
0.52
0.35
1.22
0.26
0.39
0.26
0.91
0.41
0.41
0.34
1.15
0.21
0.37
0.30
0.87
1.28
1.35
1.01
1.34
1.02
2.01
3.23
3.40
1.30
0.46
0.40
2.16
0.54
0.43
0.48
1.45
0.24
0.33
0.46
1.03
0.49
0.59
0.55
1.62
0.27
0.49
0.46
1.22
0.69
0.88
0.69
2.25
1.54
1.16
1.89
1.56
1.64
1.64
* A, B, and C denotes three Thursday—through—Sunday periods on which data were collected.
74
-------
1.4
UJ
I
UJ
I
1.3
UJ
»-
<
or
1.2
-
o 2
o
o
or
UJ
or
o
or
UJ
2
UJ
O I.I
1.0
Interval
of Least
Significant <
Difference
-------
1.3
UJ
L
i <
U- 2
O O
Z)
O
(O
1.2
I.I
1.0
0.9
Interval f
of Least
Significant \ -
Difference
<*=O.IO ^
Shows
Value
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
DAY OF WASTE GENERATION
Figure A3—2. Comparison of means of day of waste generation at seven level-four campgrounds.
76
-------
UJ
V)
I
UJ
UJ
h- <
8(E
LU
or z
UJ O
rr
o
V)
.75
.70
o;
p .65
.60
.55
Intervol <
of Least
Significant < -
Difference
exrO.IO 1^
Shows
-VMeon
Value
t
t
\
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
DAY OF WASTE GENERATION
Figure A3-3. Comparison of means of day of waste generation at 19 campgrounds studied.
77
-------
o
8)(DT PUDS
3|OH
4SD3
op
6
(0
6
0,1
d
C
§
t-l
CS
1
fSi
rS
'•4-*
on
I
o
o
o
c
o
VI
'S
§•
o
CO
t,
3Hj. do iooy savnos.
78
-------
o o
c. o> o
C 0)
«- O "
I s * |2
V ™ *^
£ o png
PUDS
SSSDUIJd
CO
o
us
o
o
T3
c
o
ob
o<
m
o
ON
o
o
o
«
O
O
U
u.
SHI jo iooa
79
-------
C 0)
«- o o
- , r
o tH 5
gtnos
saposi|Dd
Buuds
UBMOUJOS
suoo|D>ong
puos
J9AD3Q
H!H
cq
o
•O
O
ob
I
o
ON
O
>
3
"o
JO
o
o
§
Cfl
'S
I-
o
s,
iooy
80
-------
APPENDIX 4
COSTS OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Interviews conducted in 22 Districts in 15
Forests provided descriptions of 28 separate
collection systems. Collection systems were privately
operated, on contract, for seven of these Districts.
For this analysis, a collection system was
defined as one where collection costs and recreation
use could be defined for the same time period.
Private service to a single recreation area for an
entire season and well—described Forest Service
collection to several recreation areas for portions of
a season provided necessary data.
Data used in the analysis are reproduced in
Table A4—1. Total handling costs, as described in
the text, were the sum of costs of manpower,
container liners, vehicle use and mileage, and
disposal.
The use figures (columns 4 through 9 on
Table A4—1) were taken from district RIM
printouts. District estimates were used to assign the
fraction of the total use that occurred during the
period for which collection—cost figures were
available.
A stepwise regression analysis was computed
on an IBM 1130. The variables (columns 3 through
9) were considered in the order of their
contribution to the total costs. The most significant
variable was first entered; then the first and second
variables together; then the first three together, and
so on. The one variable that contributed most to
the total cost (total collection route niiles traveled)
explained 68 percent of the variation in the data;
the best three variables together explained 81
percent of the variation. Since other variables did
not increase this percentage appreciably, only three
variables were used in the final equation:
C = 0.77 RM + 1.13 PAOT + 27.6 PVD - 403
where C = Total solid waste handling cost
for the time period considered,
in dollars,
RM = Collection route miles traveled
during the time period
considered including distance to
dispoal site,
PAOT = Capacity of the campgrounds in
number of campers
PVD = Thousands of picnicker visitor-
days incurred over the time
period considered.
This equation will be of little use over short
time periods or in Districts with an unbalanced
mixture of recreation use. If a preponderance of
recreation activities are those not considered by the
equation, error will also result. Picnicking and
camping were considered because they contribute
the most waste, but the equation covers the cost of
all collection service. Pay increases to Forest
workers will increase the coefficient in the equation;
reduced crew sizes will lower it.
The Districts surveyed spent an average of less
than 4 percent of their total solid waste handling
costs on disposal. In the future when this fraction is
increased, the equation should be revised.
The precision of the equation is illustrated by
Figure A4-1 where predicted and actual values of
"C" are plotted together. Statistically, the equation
possesses a standard error of 46.3 percent of the
average "C" for all districts. This equation should
not be used to predict costs when the merits of
private collection contracts are evaluated.
Another, perhaps more important, use of the
equation has been noted in the report text (p. 25).
It shows that the total number of route miles
(because of the manpower required) is the most
significant cause of cost, and that reducing the miles
traveled will reduce costs.
81
-------
TABLE A4-1
DATA USED TO COMPUTE FORMULA
PREDICTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION COSTS
Total
handling
Data cost
number ($)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
$1,367
1,000
767
1,734
901
1,500
574
1,168
2,066
6,560
4,714
9,434
1,451
2,477
409
768
6,566
1,903
559
Total Camper
route visits
(miles) (thousands)
990
1,210
2,970
1,536
4,256
840
1,350
4,050
3,612
6,500
3,840
5,525
812
2,940
800
1,015
4,620
2,364
645
8.4
63.5
2.1
7.6
6.4
71.2
12.4
24.0
9.5
154.0
20.9
108.0
24.5
3.4
1.2
37.9
99.0
17.7
9.1
Campground
capacity
555
555
295
185
395
45
230
195
2.5
495
75
3,546
355
475
25
235
740
75
200
Camping
visitor days
(thousands)
7.4
58.8
12.2
13.9
16.2
71.8
9.3
25.6
4.2
47.4
15.5
95.6
14.9
10.9
1.8
26.0
58.3
8.3
5.0
Picnicker
visits
(thousands)
4.5
4.2
5.9
2.6
0.9
-
16.0
-
24.0
2.1
4.8
-
5.6
7.9
13.2
3.4
16.7
17.2
1.4
Picnic-
ground
capacity
178
105
195
40
150
-
100
-
65
700
265
-
95
600
315
128
135
465
60
Picnic
visitor days
(thousands)
1.1
1.4
2.1
4.9
0.4
-
4.0
-
3.1
32.1
7.2
-
2.2
2.0
3.4
1.0
4.6
39.1
0.7
82
-------
TABLE A4-1 - CONTINUED
Data
number
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Total
handling
cost
($)
2,793
843
$5,220
6,952
1,101
976
130
595
4,761
Total
route
(miles)
2,580
975
4,000
7,000
1,050
2,057
273
1,953
5,000
Camper
visits
(thousands)
63.0
26.6
339.0
46.0
3.9
5.9
4.4
3.4
12.0
Campground
capacity
455
885
3,509
1,670
200
150
65
90
480
Camping
visitor days
(thousands)
25.3
15.6
137.0
97.8
6.6
6.9
3.4
0.5
25.4
Picnicker
visits
(thousands)
_
15.3
29.9
36.4
7.1
18.7
4.9
10.2
14.2
Picnic-
ground
capacity
—
155
460
159
220
120
95
120
500
Picnic
visitor days
(thousands)
_
0.5
7.7
5.9
7.6
4.9
1.9
2.6
15.7
83
-------
1
en
en
o
o
o
llj
^—
0
o
tu
cc
0-
^
o
X
en
a
1
e
0 |
1
1 n
0 1
CO
CO
o
o
_l
1
r—
1
D
_o
C/5
o
O
oo
,£3
•3
e
43
3
0
H
.
ONHONVH 31SVM CHIOS NO !N3dS
savnoo jo SONVSDOHJ.
84
-------
APPENDIX 5
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COST QUESTIONNAIRE
Data reference No.
Region Forest District
Person interviewed Position
Interviewer Date
1. The major recreation-use season is from to
(months or dates), and % of the year's total use occurs during this period.
2. Solid waste containers:
a. Are bulk (larger than 35 gallons) containers used? Where?
b. Are plastic or kraft paper liners used?
3. Is the on—site burning of combustible portions of camping and picnicking waste encouraged?
Practiced?
4. What are the days of scheduled solid waste collection for each of the following?
Circle appropriate items.
Area Collection Days Collector
SMTWTFS FS Contract
SMTWTFS FS Contract
SMTWTFS FS Contract
SMTWTFS FS Contract
SMTWTFS FS Contract
SMTWTFS FS Contract
85
-------
I. Private Collection
a. Extent of private collection
b. Duties of contractor other than solid waste collection
c. Annual cost of Forest-Service-furnished supplies for private solid waste collection:
Item Cost
d. If contract for solid waste collection are let to bidder, what have been the trends in contract costs?
II. Forest Service Collection
a. Extent of Forest Service collection
b. Manpower assigned to the task
Man days spent
No. of men Classification on collection
c. Equipment assigned to the task (identify in W.C.F. Catalog)
86
-------
d. Supplies expended on Forest Service solid waste collection
Item $/
III. Disposal
a. Disposal sites
Site Type
User
Operator
Cost
$/
Frequency of
use or cover
b. Costs incurred by Forest Service in disposal
Equipment:
Item W.C.F. designation
Personnel:
No.
Classification
on disposal
Notes and comments:
Time equipment is
comitted to solid
waste disposal
Man days spent
87
-------
Z
o
co
K
C/
H
co
O
0 1 I ,~,
tpll
I
•o
3 ™ -M'
as'3
£ 2 6
s* a
o
o
rSOO«oO CO O
(N i— 1 O\ r- (
o
o
£
li
.g .&
£ £
U4 fa
it
i
ill!
1
1
O
•o
-------
APPENDIX 6
Control of Air Pollution Originating
From Federal Installations
Announcement of Signing of Executive Order
11282.
May 26, 1966
President Johnson today signed an
Executive order requiring all Federal agencies
to take steps to prevent and control air
pollution from Federal installations.
The order directs the heads of all Federal
agencies to lead in the administration's efforts
to improve the quality of the Nation's air.
Today's order is similar to one the President
issued last November directing the Federal
Government to provide effective leadership in
the battle against water pollution.
The air pollution Executive order is the
result of extensive consultation with Federal
agencies and with industries affected by the
order. The Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare is issuing standards to supplement
the order, by setting precise limitations on
emissions which will be allowed From Federal
buildings and facilities.
Today's order requires that plans for new
Federal facilities and buildings in the United
States include provisions for air pollution
control measures necessary to comply with
the standards issued by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition,
the order directs the head of each agency to
examine existing installations and to present
to the Bureau of the Budget, by July 1, 1967,
an orderly schedule for bringing all such
installations up to the required standards.
In signing the order, the President stated
that the most difficult problem encountered
in writing the order was the lack of an
economically feasible technology for
controlling emissions of sulfur. The Federal
Government has proposed spending more
than $3 million in 1967 on research to
control sulfur emissions. This includes $1
million for designing four sulfur-removal pilot
plants, the construction of which plants
would cost a total of $8 million. The
President has directed the Secretaries of the
Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare
to explore with the Bureau of the Budget the
feasibility of increasing the Federal effort to
find a solution to the sulfur emission
problem.
The President said that a major part of the
responsibility for sulfur research rests with
the utilities, the coal and oil industries, and
other groups which will feel the economic
efforts of more stringent air pollution
regulations. He pointed out that these
industries had increased their expenditures for
air pollution research in the past few years,
but stated that much greater efforts are
needed.
The President emphasized that, although
there were great technological and economic
problems in the abatement of air pollution,
the battle for cleaner air remained a major
objective of his administration, and an
essential element in a better environment for
America.
NOTE: For the text of Executive Order 11282, see the
following item.
-------
Control of Air Pollution Originating
From Federal Installations
Executive Order 1 1282. May 26, 1966
Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air
Pollution by Federal Activities
By virtue of the authority vested in me as
President of the United States and in
furtherance of the purpose and policy of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857),
it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. The heads of the
departments, agencies, and establishments of
the Executive Branch of the Government shall
provide leadership in the nationwide effort to
improve the quality of our air through the
prevention, control, and abatement of air
pollution from Federal Government activities
in the United States. In order to achieve these
objectives—
(1) Emissions to the atmosphere from
Federal facilities and buildings shall not be
permitted if such emissions endanger health
or welfare, and emissions which are likely to
be injurious or hazardous to people, animals,
vegetation, or property shall be minimized.
The procedures established in section 3 of this
Order shall be followed in minimizing
pollution from existing facilities and
buildings.
(2) New Federal facilities and buildings
shall be constructed so as to meet the
objectives prescribed by this Order and the
standards established pursuant to section 5 of
this Order.
(3) The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare shall, in administering the Clean
Air Act, as amended, provide technical advice
and assistance to the heads of other
departments, agencies, and establishments in
connection with their duties and
responsibilities under this Order. The head of
each department, agency, and establishment
shall establish appropriate procedures for
securing advice from, and consulting with, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(4) The head of each department, agency,
and establishment shall ensure compliance
with section 107(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857f(a)), which declares
it to be the intent of Congress that Fedejal
departments and agencies shall, to the extent
practicable and consistent with the interests
of the United States and within available
appropriations, cooperate with the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and with any air pollution control
agency in preventing and controlling pollution
of the air.
Sec. 2. Procedures for new Federal facilities
and buildings. A request for funds to defray
the cost of designing and constructing new
facilities and buildings in the United States
shall be included in the annual budget
estimates of a department, agency, or
establishment only if such request includes
funds to defray the costs of such measures as
may be necessary to assure that the new
facility or building will meet the objectives
prescribed by this Order and the standards
established pursuant to section 5 of this
Order. Air pollution control needs shall be
considered in the initial stages of planning for
each new installation.
Sec. 3. Procedures for existing Federal
facilities and buildings, (a) In order to
facilitate budgeting for corrective and
preventive measures, the head of each
department, agency, and establishment shall
provide for an examination of all existing
facilities and buildings under his jurisdiction
in the United States and shall develop and
90
-------
present to the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget, by July 1, 1967, a phased and orderly
plan for installing such improvements as may
be needed to prevent air pollution, or abate
such air pollution as may exist, with respect
to such buildings and facilities. Subsequent
revisions needed to keep any such plan up to
date shall be submitted to the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget with the annual report
required by paragraph' (b) of this section.
Future construction work at each such
facility and the expected future use of the
facility shall be considered in developing such
a plan. Each such plan, and any revision
therein, shall be developed in consultation
with the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare in order to ensure that adoption of
the measures proposed thereby will result in
the prevention or abatement of air pollution
in conformity with the objectives prescribed
by this Order and the standards prescribed
pursuant to section 5 of this Order.
(b) The head of each department, agency,
and establishment who has existing facilities
and buildings under his jurisdiction in the
United States shall present to the Director of
the Bureau of the Budget, by July 1, 1968,
and by the first of each fiscal year thereafter,
an annual report describing progress of his
department, agency, or establishment in
accomplishing the objectives of its air
pollution abatement plan.
Sec. 4. Objectives for Federal facilities and
buildings, (a) Except for discharges of
radioactive emissions which are regulated by
the Atomic Energy Commission, Federal
facilities and buildings shall conform to the
air pollution standards prescribed by the State
or community in which they are located. If
State or local standards are not prescribed for
a particular location, or if the State or local
standards are less stringent than the standards
established pursuant to this Order, the
standards prescribed pursuant to section 5 of
this Order shall be followed.
(b) The emission of flyash and other
particulate matter shall be kept to a
minimum.
(c) Emission of sulfur oxides shall be
minimized to the extent practicable.
(d) Wherever appropriate, tall chimneys
shall be installed in order to reduce the
adverse effects of pollution. The
determination of chimney height shall be
based on air quality criteria, land use, and
meteorological, topographical, aesthetic, and
operating factors.
(e) Solid fuels and ash shall be stored and
handled so as not to release to the atmosphere
dust in significant quantities. Gasoline or any
volatile petroleum distillate or organic liquid
shall be stored and handled so as not to
release to the atmosphere vapor emissions in
significant quantities.
(f) In urban areas refuse shall not be
burned in open fires and in rural areas it shall
be disposed of in such a manner as to
reasonably minimize pollution. Refuse shall
not be left in dumps without being covered
with inert matter within a reasonably short
time. Whenever incinerators are used they
shall be of such design as will minimize
emission of pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases.
(g) Pollutant dusts, fumes, or gases (other
than those for which provision is made above)
shall not be discharged to the atmosphere in
quantities which will endanger health or
welfare.
(h) The head of each department, agency,
and establishment shall, with respect to each
installation in the United States under his
jurisdiction, take, or cause to be taken, such
action as may be necessary to ensure that
discharges of radioactive emissions to the
atmosphere are in accord with the rules,
regulations, or requirements of the Atomic
Energy Commission and the policies and
guidance of the Federal Radiation Council as
published in the Federal Register.
91
-------
(i) In extraordinary cases where it may be
required in the public interest, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare may
exempt any Federal facility or building from
the objectives of paragraphs (a) through (g) of
this section.
Sec. 5. Standards, (a) The Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare shall prescribe
standards to implement the objectives
prescribed by paragraphs (a) through (g) of
section 4 of this Order. Such standards may
modify these objectives whenever the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
shall determine that such modifications are
necessary in the public interest and will not
significantly conflict with the intent of this
Order. Prior to issuing any changes in such
standards, the Secretary of Health, Educalion,
and Welfare shall consult with appropriate
Federal agencies and shall publish the
proposed changes in the Federal Register
thirty days prior to their issuance. All such
standards prescribed by the Secretary shall be
published in the Federal Register.
(b) The permits authorized by section
107(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1857f(b)), may be used to carry out
the purposes of this Order as the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare may deem
appropriate.
Sec. 6. Prior Executive Order
superseded. Executive Order No. 10779 of
August 20, 1958, is hereby superseded.
Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House
May 26, 1966
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 8:49 a.m.,
May 27, 1966]
92
-------
Title 42—PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter I—Public Health Service, De-
partment of Health, Education, and
Welfare
SUBCHAPTER F—QUARANTINE, INSPECTION,
AND LICENSING
PART 76—PREVENTION, CONTROL,
AND ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLU-
TION FROM FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT ACTIVITIES: PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS AND TECHNIQUES OF
MEASUREMENT
Pursuant to section 5 of Executive
Order No. 11282, the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare hereby amends
Subchapter F of Title 42, Code of Fed-
eral Regulations, by adding a new Part
76, as follows:
Sec.
76.1 Definitions.
76.2 Intent.
76.3 Applicability.
76.4 Combustion of fuel.
76 5 Sulfur oxides.
76 6 Stacks.
76.7 Storage and handling of fuels and ash.
76.8 Disposal of refuse.
76.9 Other pollution producing processes.
AtrraoRrrY: The provisions of this Part
76 Issued under section 5 of Executive Or-
der 11282.
§ 76.1 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) "Executive Order" means Execu-
tive Order No. 11282.
(b) Nonurban areas" means all areas
other than urban areas.
(c) "Ringelmann Scale" means the
Ringelmann Scale as published in the
latest U.S. Bureau of Mines Information
Circular entitled "Ringelmann Smoke
Chart".
(d) "Secretary" means the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(e) "Smoke Inspection Guide" means
the U.S. Public Health Service Smoke
Inspection Guide described in Part 75
of this title.
(f) "Urban areas" means those areas
classified as urban in the latest available
Federal census, or as Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas by the Bureau
of the Budget.
(g) "Unit" means all indirect heat ex-
changers connected to a single stack.
(h) "Particulate matter" means any
material, except uncombined water, that
exists as a solid or liquid at standard
conditions.
(i) "Standard conditions" means a
temperature of 70° Fahrenheit and a
pressure of 14.7 pounds per square inch,
absolute.
(j) "Waste" means any solid, liquid,
or gaseous substance, the disposal of
which may create an air pollution
problem.
§ 76.2 Intent.
It is the intent of these standards that
emissions to the atmosphere from Fed-
eral facilities and buildings shall not be
permitted if such emissions endanger
health or welfare and that emissions
which are likely to be injurious or haz-
ardous to people, animals, vegetation, or
property shall be minimized.
§ 76.3 Applicability.
(a) Unless otherwise indicated, the
standards in this part apply to both new
and existing Federal facilities and build-
ings. These standards are effective upon
publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER, ex-
cept for those facilities and buildings
which are likely to require installation of
improvements under the plan to be sub-
mitted in accordance with section 3 of
the Executive Order.
(b) Except for discharges of radio-
active effluents which are regulated by
the Atomic Energy Commission, Federal
facilities and buildings shall conform to
the air pollution standards prescribed
by the State or community in which they
are located. If State or local standards
are not prescribed for a particular loca-
tion, or if the State or local standards
are less stringent than the standards
prescribed herein, the standards in this
part shall be applicable to discharges
from such Federal facilities and build-
Ings except as otherwise Indicated.
(c) Temporary operations that may
result in potential air pollution prob-
lems, such as those associated with re-
search, development, test, evaluation,
space, and military activities, shall be
conducted with such precautions and
safeguards as are needed to achieve the
intent of these standards.
(d) The Secretary may, upon applica-
tion of the relevant department, agency
or establishment, exempt any Federal
facility or building from the objectives
contained in section 4 of the Executive
order and from any or all of these stand-
ards whenever he determines that the
activities of such building or facility will
not significantly conflict with the intent
of the Executive order and that such
an exemption is in the public interest.
§ 76.4 Combustion of fuel.
(a) The following standards apply to
the combustion units of facilities and
buildings having a heat input of less than
1,000 million B.t.u./hour, other than fire-
places, stoves, or grills burning wood or
charcoal:
(1) Manually fired equipment shall
not be installed as new or replacement
equipment, except for the burning of
anthracite, coke, or smokeless fuel.
93
-------
(2) (i) For new units, except during
startup, cleaning of fires, or soot blow-
ing, the density of any emission to the
atmosphere shall not exceed No. 1 on
the Ringelmann Scale or the Smoke In-
spection Guide.
(ii) For existing units, except during
startup, cleaning of fires, or soot blow-
ing, the density of any emission to the
atmosphere shall not exceed No. 2 on
the Ringelmann Scale or Smoke Inspec-
tion Guide.
(3) A photoelectric or other type
smoke detector, recorder, or alarm shall
be installed on units larger than ten
million BTU per hour input, except
where gas or light oil (No. 2 or lighter),
is burned.
(4) During routine operation, the
emission of particles larger than 60
microns shall not normally occur.
(5) Means shall be provided in all
newly constructed units and wherever
practicable in existing units to allow
the periodic measurement of flyash and
other particulate matter.
(6) All new or replacement spreader
stoker installations shall be of a type
that automatically discharges ashes to
the ash pit either continuously or in
very frequent small increments, and fly-
ash shall be reinjected only from boiler
passes.
(7) For units of less than 10 million
BTU/hour heat input, the emission of
flyash and other particulate matter
shall not exceed 0.6 pounds of particu-
late matter per million BTU heat input,
as measured by the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers Power Test
Code No. 27 for "Determining Dust Con-
centrations in a Gas Stream," or equiva-
lent test method.
(8) For units between 10 million and
1,000 million BTU/hour heat input, the
emission of flyash and other particulate
matter shall not exceed that specified in
figure 1, as measured by the test method
2 '-°
5 0.9
H 0.8
0.7
2-5
to H 0.6
J2 m
S§ °-5
0.4
fc0- 0.3
U~ ^j
^^ 0.25
xfc 0.20
II
o 0.15
0.10
i T i n i n
r T i i iii
i i i I I 111
l i i i 1.1.1.1.1
I i i i 11 i i
I 13 IOO IpOO
TOTAL INPUT—MILLIONS OF BTU PER HOUR
Figure 1. Maximum emission of particulate matter from fuel burning installations.
94
-------
specified In subparagraph (7) of this
paragraph. Existing units shall meet
this standard within the time designated
by the plan submitted In accordance
with section 3 of the Executive order
except that with respect to existing
spreader stoker units the plan may
specify certain units which may emit
particulate matter at an Interim rate not
exceeding 0.6 Ibs/million BTU heat
input.
(b) For units having a heat Input of
more than 1,000 million BTU/hour, the
appropriate department, agency, or es-
tablishment shall seek special advice
from the Secretary with regard to smoke,
flyash, and other particulate emissions.
§ 76.5 Sulfur oxides.
(a) Combustion units of facilities or
buildings not located In areas specified
by the Secretary under paragraph (c) of
this section and whose heat input is less
than 1,000 million BTU/hour shall burn
the lowest sulfur content fuel that is rea-
sonably available. In determining rea-
sonable availability, the factors to be
considered Include, among others, price,
firmness of supply, extent of existing
pollution, and assurance of supply un-
der adverse weather and natural dis-
aster conditions.
(b) For combustion units or Federal
facilities or buildings not located in areas
specified by the Secretary under para-
graph (c) of this section and whose heat
input is more than 1,000 million BTU/
hour, the appropriate department, agen-
cy, or establishment shall seek special
advice from the Secretary with regard
to sulfur-oxide emissions.
(c) (1) Effective October 1, 1969, com-
bus.tion units of all Federal facilities or
buildings located in the following areas
shall comply with applicable emission
limitations and control measures set out
below:
(i) In the New Jersey-New York-Con-
necticut Interstate Air Quality Control
Region as defined by 42 CFB Part 81, the
emission rate of sulfur oxides (calculated
as sulfur dioxide) from fuels used in
combustion units shall not exceed 0.35
pounds per million B.t.u. (gross value)
heat^ input.
(ii) In the Metropolitan Chicago In-
terstate Air Quality Control Region (In-
diana-Illinois) and in the Metropolitan
Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Con-
trol Region (Pennsylvania-New Jersey-
Delaware) as defined in 42 CFR Part 81,
the emission rate of sulfur oxides (cal-
culated as sulfur dioxide) from fuels used
in combustion units shall not exceed
0.65 pounds per million B.t.u. (gross
value) heat input.
(2) Such limits or measures shall be
established only after consultation with
appropriate Federal, State and local offi-
cials and affected parties. Not less than
30 days prior to prescribing such limits
or measures, the Secretary will publish
in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of his in-
tention to adopt such limits or measures,
and will thereafter publish in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER the limits or measures es-
tablished. The Secretary may at any
time designate other urban areas which
suffer from extremely high air pollution
levels, and after similar consultation, and
publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER, pre-
scribe such limits or measures as he de-
termines are necessary to carry out the
intent of this order.
(d) The emission of the oxides of sul-
fur the atmosphere shall be monitored at
regular intervals by determining the sul-
fur content of the fuel used or by deter-
mining the sulfur content of flue gases.
§ 76.6 Stacks.
For buildings or facilities in nonurban-
ized areas, the particle emission stand-
ards of § 76.4(a) (7) and (8) may be re-
vised for an individual installation by an
amount to be determined by the Secre-
tary, when:
(a) The stack height exceeds by 2V2
times the height of the highest building
in that area, and
(b) The pollution level in any area will
not be significantly increased thereby.
For large plants the determination of
chimney height shall be based on air
quality criteria, land use, and meteor-
ological, topographical, aesthetic, and
operating factors.
§ 76.7 Storage and handling of fuels
and ash.
(a) Solid fuels and ash shall be stored
and handled so as not to release to the
atmosphere dust in significant quantities.
(b) In quantities of 40,000 gallons or
more, gasoline or any volatile petroleum
distillate or organic liquid having a vapor
pressure of 1.5 p.s.i.a. or greater under
actual storage conditions shall be stored
in pressure tanks or reservoirs or shall be
stored in containers equipped with a
floating roof or vapor recovery system or
other vapor emission control device.
(c) Stationary gasoline storage tanks
with a capacity of 250 gallons or more
shall be equipped wjth either submerged
filling inlets or with vapor recovery or
emission control systems such that loss
of vapor to the atmosphere during filling
operations shall be minimized.
(d) Gasoline or petroleum distillate
tank car or tank truck loading facilities
handling 20,000 gallons per day or more
shall be equipped with submersible fill-
ing arms or other vapor emission control
systems.
§ 76.8 Disposal of waste.
-------
of waste at any number of sites within
a 1-mile radius, except that these quan-
tities may be exceeded in the case of on-
site burning of waste produced in con-
nection with operations performed at
railroad rights-of-way intenirban high-
ways, Irrigation canals, forests, agricul-
tural sites, etc., and provided that care
is exercised to prevent creation of local-
ized air pollution which endangers health
or welfare. Deteriorated or unused ex-
plosives, munitions, rocket propellants,
burned in open fires, in accordance with
recognized procedures.
(3) Wastes shall not be left in open
dumps.
(4) Wastes that are disposed of In
sanitary landfills shall be disposed of in
accordance with procedures described in
"Sanitary Landfill Pacts" (PHS publica-
tion No. 1792, 1968) and any amend-
ments or revisions thereof. Said docu-
ment is available to any interested per-
son, whether or not affected by the pro-
visions of this part, upon request to the
National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Arlington, Va. 22203, which
maintains an official historic file of the
document, or to the Public Health Serv-
ice Information Center as listed in 45
CFR5.31 (32P.R. 9316).
(b) (1) Waste shall be burned only in
facilities especially designed for that
purpose, except as provided in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(2) For incinerators acquired on or
after June 3, 1966 the density of any
emission to the atmosphere shall not
exceed number 1 on the Ringelmann
Scale or the Smoke Inspection Guide for
a period or periods aggregating more
than 3 minutes in any 1 hour, or be of
such opacity as to obscure an observer's
view to an equivalent degree.
(3) For incinerators acquired prior to
June 3, 1966 the density of any emission
to the atmosphere shall not exceed num-
ber 2 on the Ringelmann Scale or the
Smoke Inspection Guide for a period or
periods aggregating more than 3 minutes
in any 1 hour, or be of such opacity as to
obscure an observer's view to an equiv-
alent degree.
(c) (1) In addition, for installations
burning more than 200 pounds of waste
per hour, emissions shall not exceed 0.2
grain of particulate matter per stahdard
cubic foot of dry flue gas corrected to 12
percent carbon dioxide (without the con-
tribution of carbon dioxide from auxil-
iary fuel), measured in accordance with
the test procedures described in "Specifi-
cations for Incinerator Testing at Fed-
eral Facilities" (PHS publication, Octo-
ber, 1967) and any amendments or re-
visions thereof. Said document is avail-
able to any interested person, whether
or not affected by the provisions of this
part, upon request to the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Arl-
ington, Va. 22203, which maintains an
official historic file of the document, or
to the Public Health Service Information
Center or Regional Office Information
Center as listed in 45 CFR 5.31 (32 F.R.
9316).
(2) For installations burning 200
pounds of waste per hour or less, emis-
sions shall not exceed 0.3 grain of par-
ticulate matter per standard cubic foot
of dry flue gas corrected to 12 percent
carbon dioxide (without the contribution
of carbon dioxide from auxiliary fuel),
measured in accordance with the test
specifications described in ''Specifications
for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facil-
ities" (PHS publication, October 1967)
and any amendments or revisions
thereof.
(3) Test procedures which are ap-
proved by the Commissioner, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, as
equivalent to those prescribed by para-
graphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) of this section
may be used for the purpose of deter-
mining an installation's compliance with
the emission standards for particulate
matter contained in such paragraphs.
§ 76.9 Other pollution producing proc-
esses.
For austs, fumes, or gases from any
process not heretofore described, except
for discharges of radioactive effluents
regulated by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, whatever measures may be nec-
essary to comply with the intent of these
regulations shall be applied. This will
generally require the installation of
equipment or devices to minimize such
emissions to the point where they will
meet the standards contained in these
regulations. For processes which emit
toxic substances in quantities which
might endanger health or welfare and
for fires which emit smoke or fumes at
official firefighting schools, the appro-
priate department, agency, or establish-
ment shall seek special advice from the
Secretary.
(None: The Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare will, from time to time,
and after consultation with Industries con-
cerned. Issue "Guides of Good Practice" for
Specific operations to aid Federal depart-
ments, agencies, and establishments In the
selection of equipment and methods for
meeting the performance standards. For
emissions not covered herein, or for which
there have been Issued no applicable "Guides
of Good Practice," the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare will provide techni-
cal material and consultation to depart-
ments, agencies, and establishments request-
Ing such assistance. Bequests for "Guides
of Good Practice," technical material, or con-
sultation should be directed either to the
Federal Facilities Section, Abatement Branch,
Division of Air Pollution, Public Health Serv-
ice, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D.C., 20201, or to the
appropriate Regional Air Pollution Program
Director of the Public Health Service located
In the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Regional Offices.)
Dated: March 28,1969.
JOHN W. GARDNER,
Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
[F.R. Doc. 69-3918; Filed, Apr. 3, 1969;
8:46 a.m.]
96
-------
-------
Environ.:••': " ~ i
Litrat"',
1 North l'_c . ._• . _...v :
Chicago, Illinois tiO.606
------- |