COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
IN CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA
Final Report on a Solid Waste Demonstration
This publication (SW-6d) was prepared by
Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., Consulting Engineers
for the Board of County Commissioners of Cascade County, Montana
under a Demonstration Grant (No. 1-DO1-UI-00095-01)
from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Environ^4-,-n ?'..^.iotj Agency
I- _ - / <
j i,,, 0:1 Wad:.!- Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1970
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLICATION NO. 2002
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2
-------
FOREWORD
An estimated 900 million pounds of wastes in the solid state are
produced in the United States every day. What to do with these solid
% ^
wastes, how to dispose of them without needlessly endangering public
health and welfare, and how to recover and reuse valuable materials
V- now "thrown away" are among the most challenging and perplexing of
'~*w
-,4J current national problems. Because of lack of suitable planning, in-
s
terest, and public understanding, these problems have reached such
f -
v~ proportions that nationwide attention is demanded and action for the
r-
,u development of adequate solutions must be taken.
Intensified action concerning these problems was made possible
by the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Title II of Public Law 89-272, which
was signed by the President on October 20, 1965. This legislation
directs the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare to initiate, encourage, and support a national program aimed
at discovering and evaluating better methods of coping with the solid
waste problem.
The Secretary is authorized (1) to conduct and support research
on the nature and scope of the problem, on methods of more safely
and efficiently collecting and disposing of solid wastes, and on
techniques for recovering from solid wastes potentially valuable
materials and energy; (2) to provide training and financial and tech-
nical assistance to local and State agencies and other organizations
ill
-------
in the planning, development, and conduct of solid waste management
programs; (3) to encourage and support projects that may demonstrate
new and improved methods of solid waste collection, handling, and
disposal. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management carries out these
responsibilities.
Among these responsibilities, the Bureau provides grant support
for demonstrations relating to the development and application of new
and improved methods of solid waste collection, storage, processing,
and ultimate disposal; arid grants for studies and investigations that
may lead to a demonstration of improved disposal practices, or may
provide solutions for regional or national solid waste disposal prob-
lems. Associated with this is the responsibility for collecting and
making available by appropriate means the results of, and other
information pertaining to, such federally supported demonstrations,
studies and investigations.
This report was prepared by the Consulting Engineering firm of
Thomas, Dean &: Hoskins, Inc. , for Cascade County, Montana. It is
the result of studies and investigations carried out by the firm for the
purpose of analyzing the county's existing solid waste management
systems, and for developing comprehensive plans for storage, col-
lection, and disposal of all solid wastes generated in Cascade County.
Three alternative systems are outlined and the various aspects of
implementation are discussed. The study was supported in part
by demonstration grant DO1-UI-00095, made to the county by the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management under provisions of Public Law
89-272, the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
iv'
-------
This report is comprehensive, and thus it may serve as a
good example of the general scope and specific details required
to complete such a study of solid waste management. However,
it is felt by reviewers in the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
that Section VI - STANDARD METHODS OF REFUSE COLLECTION,
is not complete. An addendum to the paragraphs, "Public Collection"
and "Private Collection" follows this foreword.
-- RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
-------
ADDENDUM
To Section VI, page 61
Public Collection
Public collection is performed by public employees and equipment. Some
advantages of public collection over the other three alternatives
follow. Profits do not have to be earned in a public operation.
Therefore, refuse collection can be less expensive by the amount of the
profit. Citizens cooperate more readily with municipal operation than
with privately controlled enterprises. Sanitation and health protection
are main goals of collection systems operated by public entities.
There are also disadvantages to public collection systems. Political
interference with collection practices could demoralize collection
personnel or result in unqualified supervisors being appointed. Many
communities favor cheapness rather than economy in administration.
Adequate retirement plans for employees are often not provided in
public collection operation and salaries are relatively low.
Contract Collection Same as report as written except add to second
paragraph on page 62 the following:
Collection equipment costs represent considerable investment and could
not be justified for short term use, thereby requiring a reasonable length
for a contract. Careful development of the contract document will
protect the community and allow the contractor to provide the service
desired.
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
SECTION VIII
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Page No.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 5
EXISTING CONDITIONS 19
STANDARD METHODS OF STORING REFUSE 49
ON-SITE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES 55
STANDARD METHODS OF REFUSE COLLECTION 61
STANDARD METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL 81
CASCADE COUNTY-WIDE PLAN 93
Cascade County Population Projection 136
Summary to 1988
Refuse Collection Quantities 137
Sanitary Landfill Volumes Required for 138
1968-1988
1968 County-Wide Collection Routing 139
1988 County-Wide Collection Routing 142
Sanitary Landfill Areas and Volumes Required 145
Summary of Initial Costs 146
Replacement of Capital Outlay for Land 147
and Landfill Equipment
Landfill Operation and Maintenance Costs 148
Collection Costs 149
Summary of Operation, Maintenance and 151
Replacement Costs
Sample Field Daily Report 152
Definitions
Bibliography
Exhibits 1 through 26 - indexed in Appendix
153
155
vii
-------
-------
SECTION I - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In Cascade County unsightly open dumps, junk automobile hulks and
other forms of rubbish litter the countryside. Conditions are getting worse.
Efforts by the Great Falls City-County Beautification Committee, the Junior
Chamber of Commerce and other civic minded groups have not produced the
desired results.
This report considers the various forms of solid wastes and the related
problems in their storage, collection and disposal. The text of this report
discusses in detail the entire solid waste problem and methods to improve
existing conditions.
To produce an effective and lasting solution, we recommend a county-
wide refuse collection and disposal system to be operated by the City-County
Health Department.
We recommend that Chapter45 of Title 69 of the Revised Codes of Montana
be amended to clarify the existing authority of the Board of Health to operate
such a system and to charge for the service provided.
We recommend that the Montana Statutes be amended to prohibit the
disposal of abandoned automobiles on private land and provide for licensing
and regulating junk yards . A county-wide refuse disposal system would have
the capabilities of disposing of junk automobiles at each of the landfill sites.
A concise summary of our conclusions follows:
1. Solid wastes have been shown conclusively to be associated with
some diseases in the United States. Epidemiologic information supports the
claim that solid waste bears a definite relationship to some diseases. Where
-1-
-------
solid wastes are not disposed of properly, the morbidity and mortality rates
from solid waste-borne diseases can be high,
2. Flies reproduce at an enormous rate in organic wastes. The fly
population is largely regulated by the breeding opportunities afforded by
solid wastes. Many human diseases found in this area can be transmitted
by flies.
3. The rat also thrives in refuse and because of its habits and close
association with man, it exposes man to various disease agents which are
transferred by human contact, by ectoparasites of the rat, or by contam-
ination of the human environment.
4. There are more than 5,000 abandoned cars and trucks located in
Cascade County at unauthorized disposal sites. Another 5,000 junk auto-
mobiles are located in junk yards throughout the-county. Over 500 old car
hulks are placed along streams and rivers for use as riprap.
5. Due to the status of the commercial market for certain scrap metals
and the freight rates to the processing centers, it is not economical to set
up automobile processing equipment for preparing junk auto scrap for the steel
processing plants,
6. The most satisfactory method of disposal of junk automobiles for
Cascade County is to crush the hulks with heavy equipment and bury them.
Donated labor or refuse collection crews could be used during slack periods
to perform this work.
7. Residential storage should be standard 32-gallon galvanized con-
tainers fitted with fly-tight covers. Stakes or holders should be furnished
for all containers. Lids should be chained to the rack or holders.
-2-
-------
8. For collection, refuse containers should be located in the alleys
or set out by the homeowner if there are no alleys.
9. Metal bulk storage containers of a type suitable for the dump
mechanism on the collection vehicle should be required for all services
needing more than four 32-gallon containers.
10. An organized collection system should serve the areas of con-
centrated population. From a health standpoint, it is less critical to have
collection service in a sparsely populated area than in an area of concen-
trated population.
11. Excluding the area within the corporate limits of the City of
Great Falls, Cascade County has been divided into 3 separate routing
systems: (1) the eastern area which includes Belt, Neihart, Monarch,
Tracy, Sand Coulee, Centerville and Stockett; (2) the western area which
includes Ulm, Cascade, Simms, Fort Shaw, Sun River and Vaughn; and (3)
the area surrounding Great Falls outside the city limits.
12. From a health standpoint twice per week collection has definite
advantages over once per week collection, and is recommended for the
Great Falls area. Because of the lower population densities and the travel
distances involved, once per.week collection is recommended for the rural
routes.
13. On a once per week pickup basis, twelve 18-cubic yard collection
vehicles are presently required in the Great Falls city limits. Twice per
week pickup would require 20 collection vehicles of the same capacity. The
Great Falls fringe area requires 1 collection vehicle. Two vehicles will be
able to collect the rest of the county.
-3-
-------
14. By 1988 the Great Falls metropolitan area will require 50 collection
vehicles.
15. The U.S. Public Health Service has a demonstration grant program
which provides for Federal grants for new and improved methods, practices,
programs and techniques oฃ solid waste storage, collection and disposal.
Such a grant could help initiate a county-wide program.
16. The cost for initiation of the solid wastes disposal program, with
once per week collection on the rural routes and twice per week collection
in the Great Falls metropolitan area, is $941,949 per year. On this same
basis the rate including the operation, maintenance and replacement costs is
approximately $36.00 per residential dwelling per year.
17. The cost for initiation of the solid wastes disposal program, with once
per week collection on the rural routes and also in the Great Falls metropolitan
area, is $635,854 per year. On this same basis the rate including the operat-
ion, maintenance and replacement, costs is approximately $24.00 per resident-
ial dwelling per year,,
18. The cost for initiation of the solid wastes disposal program, exclud-
ing Great Falls within the city limits, based on a once per week pickup freq-
uency, is $96,277 per year. On this same basis the rate including the operation,
maintenance and replacement costs is approximately $36.00 per residential
dwelling per year.
-4-
-------
SECTION II - INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
As the population of the United States increases, more people are becoming
concentrated in the cities and towns. From 1950 to 1960 the total population of
the country increased by about 18.5 per cent. The rural population decreased
by a fraction of 1 per cent and the urban population increased by nearly 30 per
cent. By the year 2000 the population of the United States will probably double
in size from the 1960 census count of 179 ,323) 175. With this tremendous
increase in growth in the United States the methods of storage, collection and
disposal of refuse are becoming more and more of a problem. The average amount
of refuse produced each year is increasing at a rate of 2 per cent per year, com-
pounded by a 2 per cent population growth which results in an overall rate of
increase of refuse production of about 4 per cent each year. During 1967 approx-
imately 165 million tons of solid wastes were produced during the year whereas
by 1987 330 to 360 million tons of refuse will be produced yearly.
Due to this fast rate of increase in refuse production, many towns and cities
have inadequate methods of refuse collection and disposal which creates a serious
problem affecting public health and welfare. If our living standards are going to
continue to rise, so must our sanitation standards.
The public health significance of a sanitary system of storage, collection
and disposal of refuse has long been recognized and recently other areas are
causing concern. As towns and cities increase in population it becomes more
difficult to obtain land for disposal facilities. The sanitary landfill method of
disposal requires a land area that can be used for burying the refuse. This site
-5-
-------
must be located close enough to the area it serves to prevent long haul dis-
tances. The longer the amount of time spent traveling on the road by a col-
lection crew and the vehicle going from the pickup area to the landfill site,
the higher is the cost of operation. This high cost of unproductive road travel
illustrates the importance of reserving or obtaining land areas large enough to
serve as future disposal sites. This would include sites for incineration plants
and compost plants or even refuse transfer stations.
The word "waste" refers to useless, unwanted, or discarded materials
resulting from normal community activities and it includes solids, liquids and
gases. The liquids consist mainly of sewage and the fluids from industrial
wastes, the gases are fumes and smoke and the solids are classed as refuse.
Solid wastes consist of putrescible and non-putrescible material excluding
body wastes. Solid wastes include garbage, rubbish, street refuse, ashes,
demolition debris, construction refuse, junk automobile hulks, old refriger-
ators, stoves and furniture, and the wastes from slaughter houses, canneries,
manufacturing plants and hospitals. Available per capita quantities indicate
that in Cascade County 75,300 tons of solid wastes will be produced in 1968,
whereas by 1988, 187,000 tons will be discarded. The problem of what to do
with this waste material is not as critical in Cascade County as it is in many
other areas of the United States. Refuse is often handled without regard to
sanitation standards, health hazards or area appearance in many communities.
The American Public Works Association and the United States Public Health
Service conducted a survey which indicated that less than 50 per cent of the
cities in the United States with populations of more than 2500 dispose of
-6-
-------
community refuse by approved sanitary and nuisance-free methods. The survey
also showed that approximately 80 per cent of the urban and rural communities
with populations between 1,000 and 5,000 dispose of refuse in open dumps.
Open dump sites contribute to air pollution, due to burning refuse; and water
pollution, due to surface water contamination. They also create potential
breeding places for disease-carrying insects and rodents such as flies, mos-
quitos and rats. Accumulations of litter, refuse and junk cause fire hazards,
contribute to accidents, emit unpleasant odors and destroy the beauty of towns,
cities and countrysides.
Cascade County has 10 existing refuse disposal sites; 8 of these would now
be classified as open dump sites. Many of these sites contribute to air and
water pollution, are a source for breeding insects and cause blight areas along
the roads. Incineration and composting are not presently being used in Cascade
County as a means of community refuse disposal. Another critical problem in the
county is the continuous growth of junk automobile graveyards due to the lack of
an adequate market for salvaging the scrap. Air pollution, although visible at
times, is not currently a large problem in the county.
Storage, collection and disposal of solid wastes could become a major health
and economic problem in Cascade County if better methods for handling refuse are
not developed and practiced in the near future. Improper disposal of refuse can
perpetuate insect and rodent vectors of disease and cause health hazards. An
area that does not take care of its refuse problems finds itself overwhelmed by the
increased costs involved, lack of suitable space for disposal, lack of proper col-
lection and disposal equipment, lack of suitable legal powers and authorities, and
7
-------
most important, lack of public interest and support.
SOLID WASTE / DISEASE RELATIONSHIPS
Solid wastes have been shown conclusively to be as-sociated with some
diseases in the United States. Although the incidence of disease due to wastes
is low in this country as a whole, it is demonstrably higher in certain groups --
particularly those without proper waste disposal means. In the chain linking
disease from waste to human host, the major point of attack must be upon those
wastes which contain disease agents or serve as sources of propagation for
carriers of disease. Wastes must be handled or so treated that the pathogens
they contain are destroyed not merely reduced in numbers -- and carriers of
pathogens denied access to the wastes for breeding or for food purposes.
Literature fails to supply data which would permit a quantitative estimate of
any solid waste/disease relationship. However, epidemiologic information avail-
able does support the claim that to some diseases, solid waste bears a definite
well-defined etiologic relationship. The diseases implicated are infectious in
nature. Non-communicable disease agents associated with solid waste cannot
be substantiated for the most part due to the lack of data.
Where these solid wastes are not disposed of properly and in a sanitary
manner, the morbidity and mortality rates from solid waste-borne diseases in
a population can be high. Despite the fact that other factors are known to con-
tribute to some reduction of these rates, the inescapable conclusion is that the
continued presence in the environment of the wastes themselves is the basic
causative factor. Therefore transmission whether by direct contact, indirect
contact or vector transfer is due to environmental contamination by these wastes.
-8-
-------
Fly-Borne Disease
Flies are carriers of many disease agents and recent fly-control experiments
indicate that they are significant transmitters of bacillary dysentary (shigellosis)
The known ability of flies to reproduce at an enormous rate in organic wastes and
then to contaminate man and/or his environment, incriminates the fly as a second-
ary hazard. The wastes from which the fly arises, or by which it is contaminated
constitutes the primary hazard. Any solid waste then which promotes fly production
can contribute to an increased incidence of a disease provided the agent for the
disease is available, transmission of the agent is possible, and there is close
proximity of flies to the required host. Since these contributing conditions may
vary from place to place and from human population to human population, the
important factor must be the domestic fly population, which in turn is largely
regulated by the breeding opportunities afforded by solid wastes.
Some flies, depending on the species, are able to travel from 15 to 20 miles
from their propagation source. When aided by air currents these figures may
double. Flies are able to carry parasites pathogenic for humans and to transmit
them to humans and so cause minor infection. Flies are aided or hindered in this
by certain characteristics and factors of human origin, among which are socio-
economic, cultural and personal hygenic practices. When personal 01 community
practices permit accumulations of fly-breeding media, the potential for human
infections is increased.
Following are listed some of the more important human diseases found in this
area which are said to be transmitted by flies: enteric diseases (typhoid fever,
-9-
-------
paratyphoid fever, bacillary dysentary and amebic dysentary); tularemia (rabbit
fever); conjunctivitis (pink eye); salmonellosis; trachoma; poliomeylitus; hepa-
titis; and parasitic worm infections.
Rat - Borne Disease
The commensal rat is a known source of zoonoses (diseases of animals
transmittable to man), and thriveswherever carelessness in food waste handling
and disposal is found. Because of its habits and close association with man,
it exposes man to various disease agents which are transferred by direct contact,
ectoparasites of the rat, or by contamination of the human environment.
Rats are attracted to, and multiply in, refuse and other associated residues *
Rats have also been found at waste disposal sites such as stabilization ponds
and poorly operated sanitary landfills. *
Rats harbor ectoparasites which are known vectors of disease, and exchange
parasites with other animals that are hosts to disease transmittable to man. Fleas,
ticks, and mites frequent rodent nests and burrows of both domestic and wild
rodents and are the means of transferring disease from one rodent to another. The
arthropods are frequent feeders on man when in proximity to him. Such proximity
occurs when man invades the wild reservoir territory or when domestic or wild
rodents invade man's domicile. The latter situation is encouraged by careless
waste disposal.
The more common human diseases of this area associated with the rat are
plague, rat-bite fever, rat-mite dermatitis,,rat tapeworm infection, Rocky
Mountain spotted fever, salmonellosis, trichinosis, leptospirosis (Weil's dis-
ease), tularemia, murine typhus and rickettsial pox.
* A poorly operated landfill oould not be considered to be a sanitary
landfill, (_BSm)
-10-
-------
Mosquito - Borne Disease
Solid wastes provide a source of breeding media for mosquitos which are
the vectors of disease agents pathogenic for man. These mosquitos will de-
posit eggs in rainwater held in solid waste materials. The organic debris
associated with solid wastes serve to nourish the mosquito larvae either di-
rectly or indirectly by permitting the growth of microorganisms upon which the
larvae feed. In the presence of infected hosts, the emerging adult mosquitos
will become infected and transmit the disease agent to human hosts.
Only two diseasesare associated with mosquitos in the United States,
malaria and encephalitis. The latter is of greater importance in this area.
Safety Aspects
There is strong evidence that solid waste handling is a hazardous occu-
pation because insufficient attention has been paid to prevention of injury
among sanitarian workers, salvaging personnel and to children who frequent
such areas for recreational purposes. There is also reason to believe that
some of the high rates of injury are due in considerable degree to the absence
of or limited safety programs. Some of the more important hazards associated
with solid waste disposal sites are vehicular operations, dust, fires, contam-
ination, explosives, mechanical hazards, pesticides, and poisons.
HISTORY
Systematic methods of collecting and disposing of refuse are relatively
new in the civilized world. The ancient civilization disposed of some refuse
by dumping and periodic burning of the material. Collection and disposal of
solid wastes was not commonly practiced in major cities of the world until the
-11-
-------
19th Century. It was not uncommon prior to that time for the people living in
the cities to dump their refuse and excrement, into the dirt streets to combine
with the animal droppings. During the Middle Ages in many cities and towns
in Europe the streets were littered with large amounts of refuse. It is believed
that many epidemics and plagues which swept across the countries during that
period were a direct result of the lack of sanitary methods of refuse disposal.
There were some local ordinances against open dumping in cities of the
western world but there was no enforcement of the laws until bacteriology and
epidemiology studies laid the foundation for today's sanitary science. These
studies indicated that there is a diregt relationship between Unsanitary disposal
methods and transmission of diseases through flies, mosquitoes, rats and other
vermin causing numerous health hazards.
The actual disposal of refuse by open dumping and burning goes back many
years to ancient times. The disposal of garbage by feeding it to hogs as well
as the disposal of inorganic wastes in fill areas are also both ancient methods
of refuse disposal. The practice of composting refuse to form a soil conditioner
can be traced back to the Kouloure pits in Cnossus, an ancient capital of Crete,
which existed some 40 centuries ago. Refuse disposal by burying goes back to
biblical times and probably goes back before that period. This would be the
forerunner of our modern sanitary landfill type method of disposal. During the
latter parts of the 19th Century the first fired furnaces were designed for burn-
ing refuse. Since that time a great deal of progress has been made in the design
of large incinerators with pollution control on flue gas emissions. In the early
1920's garbage grinding was introduced as a method of disposal.
-12-
-------
The most common present day methods of disposal consist of (1) the san-
itary landfill method of compacting and daily burying the refuse with cover soil;
(2) the incineration method of controlled burning of the refuse with burial of the
ash residue; (3) the compost method of decomposition of ground-up refuse, af-
ter the non-decomposable material has been removed, to form a soil condition-
ing material; and (4) the salvage method of reclaiming the saleable material
and disposing of the remaining refuse by one of the other methods of disposal,,
Engineering planning for refuse disposal has not been practiced in many areas
until recently.
In the past, refuse disposal has been ignored and left undeveloped until
a crisis has occurred and only then was a temporary solution sought for the
problem. People only recently began to realize that it is necessary to plan
and develop programs for storage, collection and disposal of refuse in order
to get good sanitation, esthetics, economy and service for the public. The
larger urban areas were the first to realize the magnitude of the refuse prob-
lem and several engineering studies have been done by these larger cities
concerning refuse collection and disposal.
The disposal problem has reached serious proportions due to the steady
disappearance of available land for landfill sites, the more rigid air, water
and land pollution controls and the decline of the markets for salvageable
items such as ferrous metal and paper products. It was at this point that
the United States Congress passed the "Solid Waste Disposal Act" (Public
Law 89-272) on October 20, 1965. The purposes of the Act are:
-13-
-------
1. To initiate and accelerate a national research and development program
for new and improved methods of proper and economic solid waste disposal,
including studies directed toward the conservation of natural resources by
reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery
and utilization of potential resources in solid wastes; and
2. To provide technical and financial assistance to State and local govern-
ments and interstate agencies in the. planning, development, and conduct of
solid-waste disposal programs.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act authorizes action in 6 areas. It provides for
(1) up to 2/3 support for local and State projects to demonstrate new and improved
waste disposal technology; (2) a comparable level of Federal aid for the develop-
ment of area-wide solid waste management Systems to end fragmentation of dis-
posal responsibilities among small communities; (3) up to 50 per cent support
for State surveys of solid waste requirements; (4) research to lay the basis for
new approaches to solid waste disposal without the health or environmental haz-
ard; (5) training programs to alleviate critical shortages of qualified personnel;
and (6) technical assistance to local and State governments with solid waste
problems. Under the Solid Wastes Disposal Act the Federal Government supports
the local and State agencies in attacking the solid wastes problem, however, the
responsibility for carrying out programs for improved practices is left mainly at
the local and State levels.
In addition to the changes in methods of collecting and disposing of refuse
that have developed over the years, there have also been definite changes in the
quantity and quality of the solid wastes produced. Several years ago food wastes
-14-
-------
or garbage contributed the major portion of refuse. Now there are an increasing
amount of throw-away items on the market such as paper, cardboard, plastic,
aluminum and tin food containers, glass and tin beverage containers and other
types of packaging materials which all contribute to the quantity and quality of
the refuse. The percentage of food wastes or putrescible garbage in the total
refuse collected has continually decreased due to the increase of throw-away
cartons and containers. Another cause of the decrease of food wastes in col-
lected refuse is the introduction of kitchen sink garbage disposal units, now
being used in many areas, which dispose of the food wastes through the sani-
tary sewer system. Printed material such as newspapers, magazines and throw-
away advertising also are on the increase and form a large portion of the total
refuse collected. The total amount of refuse produced per capita continues to .
increase at a much faster rate than it has in the past which indicates the neces-
sity of planning for future disposal sites and devising better methods of disposal.
STATE LEGISLATION AND DEFINITIONS
During the 1965 session of the Montana Legislature it was declared the pub-
lic policy of this State to control refuse disposal areas to protect the public
health and safety. Sections 69-4001 to 69-4010 of the State Code, Control of
Refuse Disposal Areas, were passed by the Legislature. On February 11, 1966,
the Montana State Department of Health adopted Regulation 52-46, Regulation
Governing the Control and Licensing of Refuse Disposal Areas, to set standards
for proper sanitary refuse disposal. Experience has demonstrated that public
health problems are often associated with the improper disposal of refuse in
urban and rural areas.
-15-
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT
In requesting that all disposal sites in Cascade County comply with the
above adopted standards, the City-County Health Department did considera-
ble investigation of the conditions of the refuse disposal sites throughout the
county. It became evident from the findings and from discussions with com-
munity and county officials that problems associated with solid wastes were
not going to be easy to resolve. The majority of the disposal sites were in-
adequate and did not meet the minimum requirements as set forth by the Mon-
tana State Department of Health. Since the problems are not confined to
individual communities but involve areas, it is difficult to make valid recom-
mendations to the individual communities. This indicated a definite need for
a comprehensive plan based on current as well as anticipated needs. The
Board of Commissioners made application to the Public Health Service for a
study grant. A grant was approved for a "Comprehensive Study of Solid Waste
Disposal - Cascade County, Montana", with authorization to commence work
on June 1, 1967.
The objective of the study is:
1. To investigate and define existing conditions as to solid waste storage,
collection and disposal in the county.
2. To determine the most economical, efficient and effective methods for
storing, collecting and disposing of solid wastes in the county.
3. To implement study findings by preparing a comprehensive solid waste
disposal report for Cascade County.
-16-
-------
The study was conducted through the joint efforts of the County of Cascade,
City of Great Falls, City of Belt, Towns of Cascade and Neihart and the consult-
ing engineering firm, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc.
IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE SOLUTIONS
Sanitary collection methods and disposal sites are an immediate necessity
for Cascade County. However, as land becomes more expensive and population
continually increases, it becomes more apparent that for health reasons as well
as economics, it is necessary to design collection and disposal facilities for
long-range use. As the towns and qities grow, the distance from the center of
population to a rural or out-of-town disposal site continues to increase until it
becomes uneconomical to have collection vehicles travel the extra distance. By
this time it is also difficult to locate a site for refuse disposal facilities within
the developed area of the town or city. As a result, the total cost of operating
the disposal system increases due to the higher cost of the land site in the devel-
oped area or the extra cost of the longer collection vehicle haul distances. The
cost of solid waste disposal can be kept to a minimum by obtaining future dis-
posal sites before the area gets developed and the cost gets unreasonable.
The disposal of junk automobiles also needs immediate attention. Through-
out the county the junk automobiles have accumulated without adequate methods
of disposal. It will require additional effort to dispose of the existing junk auto-
mobiles around the county due to the long period of time they have been allowed
to accumulate. However, a long range program for continuous removal will have
to be developed to keep the county rid of these unsightly junk cars and automobile
graveyards.
-17-
-------
Air pollution laws and restrictions are now coming into effect, and al-
though air pollution is not a current problem in Cascade County, it could
develop into one with increased population and industry. The enforcement
of necessary air pollution controls now will prevent any long-range problems
from developing.
A practical refuse control program can be accomplished through the com-
bined efforts of the people in any community or area. However, much more than
technical knowledge is involved in setting up a successful program of refuse
sanitation. Before technical solutions can be put to work, it is necessary for
the citizens to understand the need for adequate and safe refuse practices
Civic improvement in health and safety is seldom brought about by laws en-
forced by the police, but rather, by the desire and cooperation of the citizens
to improve their community. People become more aware of existing problems
when rats and flies create obvious hazards, or when their children play in
hazardous junk piles. When the communities and populated areas are aware
of the difficulties or dangers connected with inadequate or unsanitary refuse
storage, collection and disposal, then is the time for a workable program to be
initiated. In all cases, it is essential that the people affected by the solid
wastes program in Cascade County be informed of why this study is being made
and what the solutions will be. Once the solutions to the solid waste disposal
problems have been developed, it will require not only an initial effort, but a
continued effort, on everyone's part to make the workable program a success.
-18-
-------
SECTION III - EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing methods and conditions of storage, collection and disposal
of refuse are indicated here for each individual town or city in Cascade County.
Conditions of the storage and disposal sites vary with the seasons in Montana.
During the warm summer months the open dump sites are potential breeding
places for vector such as flies and mosquitoes, are potential fire hazards and
they emit offensive odors. In the cold winter months the same sites have no
fly, mosquito or odor problems and fires are easily controlled.
The yearly total average rainfall for the county varies from approximately
14 inches at Great Falls to 28 inches at the Kings Hill reporting station in the
southeastern tip of the county. Snowfall is heaviest in the mountainous areas
with an average of 270 inches falling at the Kings Hill reporting station per
year while Great Falls receives an average of only about 55 inches per year.
The county-wide temperature varies, with Great Falls maximum and minimum
recorded temperatures for the last 70 years being +107ฐ and -49ฐ, respectively,
whereas a 16 year record at Kings Hill gave the maximum-minimum temperatures
recorded at +90ฐ and -41ฐ, respectively.
Although the vector, odor and fire problems are of little concern during the
winter months, the heavy winter snow as well as the melting spring snow makes
many access roads to disposal sites impassible during as much as 6 months out
of the whole year. Many of the areas in the county have a clay type soil which
becomes very slick when wet, thereby making roads impassible. Gravel or as-
phalt surfacing is required on roads in these areas in order to insure year around
-19-
-------
accessibility. A unique weather aspect of this area is the chinook warming
wind that causes considerable temperature variances throughout the year
This wind which originates on the Pacific Coast and descends down the
Montana side of the Rocky Mountains has been known to increase the temp-
erature as much as 25ฐ in only a few minutes. Chinook winds occurring during
the winter months sometimes cause the frozen clay soil to thaw and becomy muddy
Even though winter weather causes some access problems, the majority of the
well traveled roads in Cascade County are kept open throughout the year, with
only brief periods of closure due to hazardous snow conditions. The condition
of the access roads to the dump sites from the highways and county roads causes
some of the problems that have developed in Cascade County. Individuals who
are unable to drive their vehicles to a refuse disposal site because of mud or
snow have a tendency to dump refuse along the access road or in other unauth-
orized areas.
Winds are not at all uncommon in this area during the summer and winter
months and any existing dump sites located on hill tops or knolls develop a
blowing paper problem. The papers and refuse may not blow into a populated
area but they do litter the countryside. The majority of Cascade County is a
treeless, rolling prairie-type terrain with only the southern mountainous portion
of the county supporting a tree cover. Due to the lack of tree cover the winds
blow unchecked throughout most of the county so any open dump sites or even
sanitary landfill sites located on high unprotected areas are subject to a great
deal of wind. Obtaining a future site becomes more difficult when the public
has seen the littered area around an existing site. Fencing will control some
-20-
-------
blowing papers if the wind is not too gusty or strong.
Storage and collection of refuse also represent a problem throughout the
county. Presently only two cities in Cascade County have organized collec-
tion systems with the remaining communities disposing of their refuse on an
individual basis. Infrequent disposal of refuse, coupled with inadequate
storage facilities, produces high potential health hazard areas. From a
health standpoint these unsanitary refuse storage areas are more critical than
the inadequate disposal sites because they are always located near a dwelling
unit. People are constantly in direct contact with their own storage area and
therefore subject to these unsanitary conditions if they prevail. In a relatively
populated area such as a small community, one unsanitary refuse storage area
can be a health hazard to the whole surrounding area. Storage, collection and.
disposal of refuse are all important phases of refuse handling and deficiencies
in any phase can represent a hazard from a health standpoint.
The Cities of Belt and Great Falls and the Towns of Cascade and Neihart
make up the incorporated cities and towns in Cascade County. The unincor-
porated communities that have existing refuse disposal cites are: the Fort Shaw-
Simms-Sun River area, the community pf Monarch, the Sand Coulee-Tracy area,
the Stockett-Centerville area, the community of Ulm and the community of Vaughn.
BELT
The City of Belt has a population of 900 and is located in the east portion
of the county near U.S. Highway 87-89. Refuse is collected under a private
contract and is disposed of at a site owned by the City of Belt and located 1-1/2
miles north of the city on the lower Belt Creek road. Refuse is stored at the homes
-21-
-------
in many different size containers as there is no ordinance governing the size to
be used. The environmental sanitation survey made by the City-County Health
Department in July of 1968 revealed that 44 per cent of the homes and businesses
were using inadequate refuse storage containers. Also 38 per cent were burning
refuse on their premises. Rubble was evident on 68 per cent of the premises.
Contract collection is performed by a private collector who picks up refuse twice
a week using a pickup truck. The city-owned disposal site is located about 300
feet west of the paved Lower Belt Creek road and covers 3.1 acres. Table 6
indicates that there is limited future usage at this site. The short access road
into the area is graveled and adequate for vehicle use except at certain times
during inclement weather. Dumping at unauthorized sites occurs in the area
around Belt; however, this is not caused by the short periods of closure of the
dump site during bad weather. The site would be classified as an open dump
site with the refuse being covered with soil once or twice a year. Woven wire
fencing exists on 3 sides of the site and a barbed wire fence covers the fourth
side. There are no signs to indicate the areas to be used for dumping and the
people tend to dump refuse throughout the entire area. There are no special
areas designated for disposing of junk automobiles, appliances and scrap
metals. All the refuse is mixed together in the disposal area. Any papers
that are picked up by the wind will probably not be deflected and confined
to the disposal area by the woven wire fencing due to the terrain of the site.
The refuse is dumped in some pre-dug trenches but a good portion of the
refuse is dumped on the side of the hill, and winds tend to blow the paper
-22-
-------
over the fences and out into the adjacent fields. There is no local program
for insect and rodent control and flies are numerous throughout the site during
the warm summer months. Rats could be a problem but none have been sighted
in the area. The area is open to the public 24 hours a day. Surface water flow
and ground water flow are no problem on this sloping hillside area. Stream pol-
lution would not be a problem due to the location of the site. There are a few
junk automobile hulks at this disposal site. Since there is a junk yard dealer
in the area who purchases old cars for salvage parts, this nelps prevent dis-
posal of automobile hulks at unauthorized sites. Located in and around Belt
there are approximately 227 junk automobile hulks that could oe scrapped.
BELT
DUMP
SITE
-23-
-------
CASCADE
The Town of Cascade with a population of 730 is located in the south-
western section of the county along Interstate Highway 15. Treeless rolling
prairie type terrain makes up the area surrounding Cascade with the edge of
the Rocky Mountain Range approximately 8 miles to the southwest. Cascade
has no ordinance governing storage of refuse at the homes so there are no
requirements controlling the size of refuse containers used. The environ-
mental sanitation survey performed by the City-County Health Department
indicated that 41 per cent of all the residences and businesses utilized poor
refuse storage containers and 38 per cent had rubble on their premises. Refuse
burning was being practiced on 29 per cent of the premises. The lack of ordi-
nances stems from the fact that the pickup or collection of the refuse is left
entirely to the homeowner. Every individual must dispose of his own refuse
as often as he feels is necessary and by use of his own vehicle. The disposal
site serving the Cascade area is located 1/2 mile northeast of town along the
old Ulm-Cascade Highway 91 and near the Missouri River. The Town of Cascade
owns the existing disposal site which covers an area of 3.8 acres. Enough volume
is available there for about 10 years future usage as given in Table 6. The site
terrain slopes toward the river with the relatively flat area being used for disposal
and the steeper portion forming the bank of the river. The refuse is kept back from
the edge of the river. This type of disposal would be classified as a controlled
open dump site since the refuse is dumped in specified areas although soil Is
seldom used to cover the refuse. A sign directs one to 2 separate areas for dump-
ing old car bodies, appliances and scrap metal. The garbage and other house
-24-
-------
wastes are dumped in a dug trench and generally are not spread over
the whole disposal area in a disorderly fashion.
A person going to the disposal site travels on a pavsd road to the
site location and then on an unpaved road a short distance through the
site to where he can dispose of his refuse The roads are accessible
throughout the year and inclement weather does not isolate the site.
The area is open to the public 24 hours a day. The majority of dumping
is confined to the disposal site with little dumping occurring at unauth-
orized locations. Fencing consists mainly of barbed wire and does not
encircle the entire urea. Papers and other lightweight material blow
away from the area .
During the warm summer months flies are prevalent around the
refuse, Rats are no problem; none have been sighted at this location.
Warm temperatures combined with the exposed refuse causes offensive
odors in the immediate area and creates a fire hazard as well. With
proper control of the dumping and subsequent covering of the refuse
with soil, there should be no problem of water pollution resulting from
surface or ground water runoff
Junk automobile hulks total about 137 inside the city limits and on
the surrounding farms and river banks (See photos next page).
-25-
-------
CASCADE
DUMP SITE
GREAT FALLS
The City of Great Falls is located in the north-central portion of Cascade
County at the intersection of Interstate 15 and U.S. Highways 87 and 89.
Great Falls is one of the two largest cities in Montana with a population of
76,000. The major industries, in terms of employment, supporting the eco-
nomic base of Great Falls are: (1) Malmstrom Air Force Base; (2) the Ana-
conda Company; (3) wholesale and retail trade, and (4) agriculture. The
terrain in the surrounding area consists of low rolling hills supporting a grass
cover and generally void of tree life. Land use there consists mainly of farm-
ing, with some ranching, usually as a side line to farming.
Great Falls Ordinance No. 1375 pertaining to refuse storage, collection
and disposal specifies that garbage containers for other than bulk accumula-
tion shall not exceed 55 gallon capacity or weigh more than 45 pounds, and
-26-
-------
that fly tight covers, attached by a chain to a stationary object shall be used
for covering the containers. See Ordinance No, 1375 for other limitations per-
taining to the storage, collection and disposal of refuse. Data obtained from
an environmental sanitation survey covering the entire City of Great Falls indi-
cated that only +27 per cent of the containers used for storage of refuse were
30 gallon galvanized containers whereas the majority of the remaining _+73 per
cent were 55 gallon barrels. Eighty five per cent of these containers are stored
in alleys for collection whereas the remaining 15 per cent are set out by the
curb for street collection
Collection of refuse in Great Falls is done by the City in specified areas
and by a private contractor in the remaining area within the city limits, The
private contractor charges and collects his service fee from the individual
homeowner and in turn pays the City of Great Falls a dump fee for using the
city landfill site for disposal. Charges for collection of refuse by the City
of Great Falls range from $13.90 up to $33.10 for a residential home based
on the number of rooms per dwelling. This charge is for once a week pickup
throughout the year. The private contractor service charges a flat rate of
$2.00 per month for twice a week pickup in a residential area. The City of
Great Falls uses mostly 18 cubic yard mechanical packer vehicles for col-
lection routes. The private collector also uses enclosed mechanical packer
units.
Individual outdoor home burners or incinerators are allowed in Great Falls,
for burning combustible material, when approved by the Fire Marshall. All
indoor incinerators have to be constructed according to the Uniform Building
-27-
-------
Code. The Great Falls City Code (Section 8-10-4) states "No person shall
bum garbage, swill, or rubbish at any place, or in any manner violating a
provision of the sanitary code or likely to create a health hazard or a nuisance.
In the near future the Montana State Department of Health expects to have
restrictions on emissions of particulate matter from incinerators. This will
place additional controls on indoor and outdoor incinerators. An environmental
sanitation survey made by the City-County Health Department indicated that
there are presently 299 incinerators in the City of Great Falls and L62 in the
fringe area.
The disposal site for refuse is located 1.5 miles northeast of town near
the Rainbow road. It is confined to the low areas of a coulee in the North-
east Quarter of Section 32 , Township 21 North, Range 4 East and lying north
of the Rainbow county road. The site is owned by a private individual who
farms in that area and the city has a renewable lease for the land use. The
site covers 105 acres and consists of a drainage course or coulee which
originates at the west edge of the 1/4 Section and transverses the entire
1/2 mile of the area. Refuse is being dumped, compacted and buried at the
upper end of the ravine and will progress downward through the area in the
future. After all the low-lying areas are filled, the owner plans to use the
site for farming. Depending on the depth of fill requested by the owner, this
site could last about 7 more years. See Table 6.
Refuse appears to be separated into 3 dumping areas throughout the site.
Refuse from city and private collection vehicles is disposed of at the upper
-28-
-------
end or west end of the ravine, whereas larger refuse such as combustible rub-
bish is dumped in the center area. The ferrous material such as scrap metal,
old appliances and junk automobile hulks are piled in the lower or east end of
the area for crushing and subsequent burial. The refuse from the collection
vehicles is compacted and buried daily. A gravel surfaced road into the dis-
posal site from the paved Rainbow road allows year around accessibility to
the site.
An equipment operator is at the site all day long, 5 days a week, and
he directs people to the proper dumping areas when possible. The site is
open 24 hours a day throughout the year so people dumping refuse in the
early morning, late evening or on weekends dump refuse at their own dis-
cretion. There are no signs on the site specifying where material can be
dumped. There is a small sign on the Rainbow road indicating the direction
to the disposal site.
The existing site is not fenced and blowing papers are a problem in that
some of them blow across the wheat fields. Many of the blowing papers
settle in the small ravines at the disposal site. The prevailing winds are
from the southwest and blow paper away from town and the populated areas
jf
Insects are not too numerous at the Great Falls sanitary landfillsince
the garbage is covered daily., Rats are non-existent there. Burning of the
rubbish occurs almost daily and could cause a fire hazard during the summer,
Stream and ground water pollution is unlikely due to the grade of the ravine
and the method of disposal.
* Operating practices at this facility make its designation as a "sanitary landfill"
inappropriate. It should, rather, be termed a "landfill." (BSWM)
-29-
-------
Salvaging of resaleable material is allowed under city control and per-
mission is given to only one firm. The firm doing the salvaging pays a fee
to the city for the salvage rights. The method of salvaging the material ap-
pears to be satisfactory as the collector never hampers any of the other ac-
tivities in the area.
Junk automobile hulks are disposed of at the landfill site after partial
crushing. However, the site is limited in the number of hulks that can be
buried there. In the Great Falls metropolitan area there are an estimated
1,500 junk cars located in automobile graveyards, along river banks and
behind houses. These old hulks are unsightly and if not cleaned up in the
future will surely devaluate the surrounding land to a great degree. Once
several automobiles have been allowed to pile up in an area, the area be-
comes labeled as an automobile graveyard and future dumping is almost
impossible to control. The City-County Health Department made a junk
automobile count within the Great Falls city limits during February, 1968,
and 1 ,350 cars were counted. Great Falls city Ordinance No. 1487 prohibits
the abandonment of non-operating or wrecked vehicles on property in the city
limits, but a person can keep a wrecked vehicle in his garage. A non-opera-
tive car can be kept in the backyard providing the vehicle is being restored,
and is not inoperative and outside the garage for more than 6 months following
proper notice of violation of the Ordinance. When the grace periods specified
in the ordinance have elapsed, the city can have the non-operating vehicle
impounded until lawfully claimed or can dispose of it according to the official
code. The Great Falls landfill site can be used to dispose of a limited number
-30-
-------
of car bodies. The majority of the space at the landfill site is to be used
for disposal of solid waste other than old automobiles. The exclusion of
the majority of the large junk car hulks will prolong the life of the landfill
site.
GREAT FALLS
LANDFILL
SITE
NEIHART
The Town of Neihart is located in the southeastern corner of Cascade
County on U.S. Highway 89. The population there has fluctuated tremen-
dously depending on the mining conditions in the area, the summer tourist
trade, and the winter skiing trade. The incorporated town of Neihart has
a population of 170 which falls off in the winter and increases in the summer
-31-
-------
in conjunction with the tourist trade and influx of summer cabin owners. The
elevation of Neihart is approximately 5,635 and the surrounding terrain consists
of rugged mountains covered with growths of evergreen trees.
Refuse storage is the responsibility of the individual, resulting in varied
sizes of containers being used. There is no limit to size and there are no ordi-
nances governing storage of refuse at the homes. The City-County Health
Department's environmental survey indicates that 51 per cent of the business
and residential premises have inadequate refuse storage containers and 58 per
cent have rubble around the area. Burning is practiced on 41 per cent of the
premises; Collection and disposal of the waste is taken care of by the indi-
vidual when he feels it is necessary. The disposal site is located about 1
mile southeast of Neihart on U. S. Highway 89 and approximately 700 feet
northeast of the highway. The Town of Neihart owns 20 acres in the area and
the disposal site is located on a small portion of this. The site is on a fairly
steep sideslope of the mountain and the lightly graveled access road is usu-
ally impassible during the winter months due to the snow accumulation. When
snow removal equipment opens the road, the area is accessible to trucks only.
The access road is plowed open several times during the winter months and
homeowners must use the facility at this time or continue to accumulate their
refuse at their own home.
The disposal site is an open dump site located in a small clearing in the
evergreen trees. It is open 24 hours a day but due to the inaccessibility of
the road in the winter, there is some dumping along the access road and at
other unauthorized sites. There are no signs to indicate the site location or
to control dumping at the site. Junk car hulks, scrap metal and all other refuse
-32-
-------
are mixed together at the same location. The heavier materials such as the car
bodies have a tendency to roll down the steep hill until they come to a stop against
the trees below. The site is not fenced but there is no problem with blowing papers
due to the trees forming a protective barrier against the wind. Flies are numerous
at the site during the summer and there is also a noticeable refuse odor that de-
velops at all open dumps in warm weather. However, no residents are near enough
to the site to be affected by the odor. Because of the tree growth in the immediate
area, fire at this site could be disastrous . Stream and ground water pollution are
very unlikely because of the location of the dump site in relation to the existing
streams and ground water table.
A junk auto count revealed 25 abandoned vehicles in the area.
NEIHART
DUMP SITE
NEIHART LANDFILL]
ACCESS ROAD
LATE SPRING
-33-
-------
FORT SHAW-SIMMS-SUN RIVER
The communities of Fort Shaw, Simms and Sun River are located on State
Route 200 in the northwest portion of the County. The total population of these
three communities is 430. Terrain around this area consists of gentle knolls
with grass cover and the majority of the area is treeless except for deciduous
trees along the creeks.
The environmental sanitation survey made by the City-County Health
Department revealed that 87 per cent of the business and residential premises
have inadequate refuse storage containers and 67 per cent have rubbish around
the area. Burning is practiced on 80 per cent of'the premises. Disposal of
the refuse is left up to the homeowners. A disposal site serving the three
communities is located on the Doctor Russell Road about 1 mile southwest of
Fort Shaw. The site is owned by the Fort Shaw Irrigation District and it covers
3.4 acres. It is located on top of a small knoll with no protection against the
wind,and blowing papers are difficult to control. The refuse at the open dump
site is covered with soil only when brought to the attention of the county and
it appears this is not very often.
The county access road is graveled and the site is open 24 hours a day.
A large sign appears at the entrance to the site but it is not readable due to
destruction and wear. There are no signs within the enclosed area to separate
dumping areas for large waste material from household wastes. Even though
the site is open 24 hours a day there is still some dumping at unauthorized
sites outside the enclosed area. Woven wire fencing is used to enclose the
site and prevent papers and trash from blowing out of the enclosure. However,
-34-
-------
the portion of the site that is used for the majority of the dumping is located
on top of the knoll with the surrounding fence at a lower elevation.
During the summer very unsanitary conditions exist with decaying refuse
giving off offensive odors. Flies and mosquitoes are numerous, and breed
extensively in the refuse. Pollution of streams or ground water is not likely
due to the location of this site.
Junk car hulks are, for the most part, piled along one side of the disposal
site. It would be difficult to dispose of very many junk cars there because of
the excavation required to completely bury the hulks. A junk car count in the
Fort Shaw-Simms-Sun River area indicated approximately 100 cars deposited
along stream banks, behind homes and down in coulees.
FORT SKAW DUMP SITE
-35-
-------
MONARCH
Monarch is located on U. S. Highway 89 in the southeastern portion of
the county. Summer and winter population varies in this area due to the summer
tourist travel and mountain cabin inhabitants. The winter population is 27 with
the summer population reaching 170.
Refuse is stored and disposed of by the homeowner since there is no col-
lection service available. The environmental sanitation survey made by the
City-County Health Department revealed that 53 per cent of the businesses and
residences had inadequate refuse storage containers and 38 per cent had rubble
on the premises. Thirty-two per cent of the homeowners burn their refuse at
home in backyard burners. The 1.5 acre disposal site serving this area is lo-
cated 1.5 miles east of town and approximately 500 feet north of the Hughes-
ville road on a gentle slope at the base of a mountain ridge. The existing site
will adequately serve the area for the next 9 years as indicated in Table 6. The
United States Forest Service owns the site and the county maintains it. Refuse
is dumped at the edge of the fill and periodically covered with soil removed from
the sideslope of the mountain. The access road is graveled and adequate for year
around use. A good sign identifies the site and specifies what, can be dumped
in the area. The site is open 24 hours a day and there does not appear to be
dumping at unauthorized areas. The lower portion of the disposal area is fenced
on 3 sides with a well constructed woven wire fence to prevent blowing papers
from leaving the area. The combination of the surrounding trees, forming a wind
barrier, and the fencing seems to prevent papers from blowing away from the area.
Flies are noticeable at the site although not as numerous as at most of the sites
-36-
-------
around the county. Fire could be a problem here if the refuse ignited and
spread to the trees in the area surrounding the site. The tree cover is not
as heavy as at Neihart and could possibly bum itself out before causing
extensive damage. Stream and ground water pollution are not probable at
this sidehill location.
There are no junk cars at the disposal site and a car count indicated
only 8 hulks around the Monarch area. It would be difficult to attempt to
dispose of very many junk cars at the existing disposal site.
MONARCH LANDFILL SITE
SAND COULEE-TRACY
The Sand Coulee-Tracy area is located in the east central section of
Cascade County on Route 227. Sand Coulee has a population of 350 and
-37-
-------
the population of Tracy is 200. These communities are located in a farming
area consisting of rolling, grass covered hills with little tree growth. There
is no collection service and individuals store and haul their own refuse to an
open dump site located above the community of Sand Coulee. The environ-
mental sanitation survey conducted by the City-County Health Department
indicated that 82 per cent of the business and residential premises had unsat-
isfactory refuse storage containers and 59 per cent of the premises had rubble
on them. Sixty-two per cent of the homeowners attempt to reduce the volume
of their refuse by burning. However, inadequate combustion usually results
in a fly problem around the burner. The disposal site of 5.0 acres is one mile
south of Sand Coulee and forms along the bottom of a ravine owned by Mr.
Ernest Chartier who also owns the surrounding land.
Refuse is dumped indiscriminately throughout the bottom of the ravine
which extends more than 0.3 of a mile in length. The county gravel road
passes close to the site . During periods of wet weather the access road
between the county road and the diposal site becomes muddy and impassible.
The area is open to the public at all times. There are no signs specifying the
ravine as a disposal site or indicating specific places for dumping along the
ravine. Disposal of refuse at unauthorized sites is evident around the Sand
Coulee-Tracy area. Blowing papers are not too much of a problem since the
site is in a coulee protected from the wind. Insects are prevalent throughout
the warm summer months due to the unburied garbage.
A spring fed stream flows through the bottom of the ravine and surface
water pollution is apparent from the refuse floating in the stream. The polluted
-38-
-------
water flows through the center of Sand Coulee and is a health hazard to all the
people who use the water. Drainage from this area discharges into the Missouri
River upstream from the intake for the Great Falls water system.
SAND COULEE
DUMP SITE
SAND COULEE CREEK
FROM DUMP SITE
STOCKETT-CENTERVILLE
The Stockett-Centerville area, with a population of 565, is also located
in the east central portion of the county on Route 227. The grass covered land
surrounding this area is primarily used for fanning. Coal mining was evident
throughout this area for many years but the coal mines are no longer in operat-
ion. Individual homeowners store and dispose of their own refuse as they feel
necessary. The environmental sanitation survey revealed that 82 per cent
-39-
-------
of all the residential and business premises had inadequate refuse storage con-
tainers and 54 per cent had rubble on the premises. Sixty-eight per cent of the
homeowners attempt to reduce the volume of refuse for disposal by burning. An
open dump site of 3.6 acres is located 1/2 mile west of Stockett on property owned
by Robert Klasner. Paper and rubbish is spread over a large -area, not only through
indiscriminate dumping practices, but by the wind as well. Fencing is non-existent
in the area. There are no signs to indicate the location of the site or to control the
dumping areas. The site is open 24 hours a day but the impassible condition of the
poor access road often isolates the site. As a result, dumping occurs at unauth-
orized places around the Stockett-Centerville area. Insects are prevalent around
the exposed refuse in the summer. Water pollution is not probable since the site
is located on top of a hill.
Junk automobiles are numerous around Stockett with approximately 54 being
counted in the area. The Centerville count came to 16 cars.
STOCKETT
DUMP SITE
-40-
-------
ULM
Ulm, with a population of 415, is located in the west central area of the
county along Interstate 15. This is also a farming area with relatively flat,
grass covered terrain. Trees are not evident in this area except for limited
growths along the Missouri River and smaller creeks.
There are no ordinances governing the types of refuse storage containers
required or the methods of storage to be used at Ulm. At one time there was
private collection here but it was discontinued because of a road hauling
technicality. Now disposal is left up to the individual homeowner. Infor-
mation from the City-County Health Department's environmental sanitation
survey indicates that 89 per cent of the residential and business areas have
inadequate refuse containers and 36 per cent have rubble on the premises.
Seventy-one per cent of the services practice burning on their premises.
There is an open dump site located 1/2 mile north of Ulm and adjacent to
the Ulm road. The site is owned by the Ulm Volunteer Fire Department and
covers 0.8 acres of relatively flat terrain. Limited space will prevent usage
of this site much longer. Adjacent to one side of the area is a small creek
which flows only during the spring runoff period but could become polluted
from the refuse in-the area Refuse is spread all over the small area and
encroaches very close to the graveled Ulm road making the unsightly area
noticeable to every passing motorist. The site is open throughout the year.
A sign along the road indicates what can be dumped in the area. Unauthorized
dumping is occurring at times across the road and at some other places around
Ulm. Barbed wire fencing around the site allows blowing papers to spread
-41-
-------
across the road and into the surrounding fields. Insects are not controlled
in the summer and are prevalent throughout the area. During warm weather
a fire could spread to the surrounding grass covered land due to the accumu-
lation of burnable refuse in the enclosure. It is impossible to prevent people
from burning refuse at the site when there is no one there to take charge of
the area.
The junk cars in and around Ulm number approximately 51 including those
dumped along the river banks.
ULM
DUMP
SITE
-42-
-------
VAUGHN
Vaughn, located on U. S. Highway 89 in the northwest area of the county,
has a population of 335. This farming community has no collection service and
the individual landowner is left with the responsibility of disposing of his own
waste material. The City-County Health Department's environmental sanitation
survey indicated that 91 per cent of the premises in Vaughn had inadequate ref-
use containers and 70 per cent of the premises had rubble on them. Some back-
yard burning is done to reduce the volume of waste for disposal. The disposal
site is a small open dump of 0.5 acres, located 0.3 of a mile north of Vaughn
adjacent to the county road. The site is owned by Bruce Nelson and maintained
by the county. Immediately adjacent to the road the site is relatively flat with
the terrain dropping off towards the back of the area. As the refuse becomes
piled up along the road it is dozed back into the lower portion of the site. The
county road is paved to the site and the road into the area is very short making
the site accessible all year around. There is no limit on hours of dumping and
there is a sign specifying the area as a dump site. Refuse is not segregated
into types for dumping in specified areas but is all mixed together including
car bodies, dead animals and other bulky refuse. Woven wire fencing exists
around part of the area although refuse has been piled against the fence until
the fence has collapsed. Blowing papers are a problem due to the lack of a
wind barrier. Dumping occurs outside of the fencing as well as at other places
around Vaughn. Flies and other insects are prevalent in the area during the
summer although no rats have been sighted. Even if this small disposal area
wasn't filled almost to capacity, the type of terrain here would not be suitable
-43-
-------
for conversion to a sanitary landfill type of operation. The existing material
should be compacted and buried when a new site is obtained for a sanitary
landfill. Water pollution is not likely due to the location of the site in
relation to the streams nearby.
Old car bodies are disposed of on the open prairie around Vaughn and
135 total hulks were counted. Only 20 of these were around private homes
in Vaughn and the remainder were along creeks and piled up on the prairie.
VAUGHN DUMP SITE
INDUSTRIAL REFUSE
Industrial refuse consists of solid waste materials from factories, pro-
cessing plants and other manufacturing enterprises. The collection of this
waste is rarely regarded as the responsibility of the city but as an obligation
-44-
-------
of the industry. Refuse falling into this category would be putrescible garbage
from food processing plants and slaughter-houses, condemned foods, building
rubbish and manufacturing refuse.
Since putrescible industrial refuse may cause problems and even endanger
public health, the storage, collection and disposal of it is subject to local
governmental control. Most of the larger industries are handling and disposing
of their industrial wastes in accordance with local regulations.
The Anaconda Company is the number one manufacturer in Cascade County
in terms of both employees and payroll. The majority of their solid waste materi-
al for disposal is paper and trash and they handle it themselves. All of the metal
products are returned to the furnaces.
Meat packing plants have to dispose of a large amount of waste or by-products
of the meat packing process. Instead of disposing of the material, the majority
of it is put through a rendering process which produces tallow and grease for use
in the manufacture of soap and livestock feed, meat scraps for livestock feed, hog
hair for insulation material and stuffing for furniture, hides for leather products
and blood for manufacturers of adhesives and livestock feed. Rendering plants
at meat packing facilities eliminate the disposal problems at the plant and also
help to eliminate the county-wide disposal problem. In addition to their own
by-products, dead livestock from stockyards, farms and ranches and inedible
items from other meat packing plants, meat markets, restaurants, etc. are ren-
dered at these plants. When rendering plants are not available for the disposal
of dead livestock, many carcasses are left unburied around farms and ranches,
-45-
-------
As a result these carcasses decompose and are a health hazard. During the
winter months in Montana the frost reaches depths of 6 or 7 feet. The ground
thaws very slowly in the spring even though the air temperature is well above
freezing. Any carcasses lying out in the open are subject to warm temperatures
a long time before the ground is thawed enough to easily dig a hole for burying
Even though the frozen ground is difficult to excavate, it is essential that pro-
visions be made for promptly disposing of the carcasses during the winter
months.
In Great Falls there are two rendering plants to which livestock owners can
haul their animal carcasses and sell for 3 small amount. It is not economical
for the rendering plant to pick up the carcasses, but they do pay a nominal fee
for the carcass at the plant, provided it has not decayed to any extent. If an
animal has started to decay, it becomes a solid waste problem and should be
promptly buried. It is often difficult to locate the owner of the animal and
get him to bury the decaying carcass .
A problem has occurred at the meat packing plants when the rendering
plant was overloaded and the excess material was wasted outside in open dumps
This type of disposal results in a very unsanitary condition, forming a breeding
place for insects and rodents. The City-County Health Department is working
with the plants in an effort to eliminate this problem.
The hospitals in Cascade County are all located in Great Falls . Each hos-
pital has its own garbage disposal units for grinding garbage and wasting it to
-46-
-------
the sanitary sewer system. Gas fired incinerators are also installed at each
hospital for destroying waste material. Waste that is not contaminated and
non-combustible is disposed of at the Great Falls sanitary landfill.
Malmstrom Air Force Base located near Great Falls has its own disposal
facilities. It has its own collection trucks and disposes of the waste at an
open dump site on the base grounds. Bulk containers are used for storage
of the refuse at the pickup points.
Great Falls International Airport collects and hauls its own refuse from
the airport and restaurant to the Great Falls sanitary landfill.
A brewery located in Great Falls sells its malt waste to the local dairies
for use as livestock feed. The remainder of its waste is collected by the City
of Great Falls and disposed of at the city landfill.
The feed lots and dairies in the county generally dispose of any dead
livestock either by selling the carcass to a rendering plant or by burying it.
Manure from the livestock creates some problems in the spring due to accu-
mulations in the animal pens. However, in the spring the pens are cleaned
and the waste is usually spread over large fields for drying to help prevent
fly production. Some odors do persist in these areas. The location of feed
lots or stock pens near any river and particularly near any running water should
be considered a source of water pollution. Many other solid wastes produced
by the feed lots and dairies are disposed of at the Great Falls sanitary landfill
or on the owner's property at his disposal site.
Other industries in Great Falls usually have indoor incinerators for reduc-
ing the volume of their refuse. In addition to this they utilize the Great Falls
-47-
-------
City collection service for disposal of the remainder of their refuse. The
industrial waste material that would cause problems at the sanitary landfill
usually does not reach the landfill site. It is disposed of by the producer
although his methods of disposal may not be satisfactory according to health
standards.
-48-
-------
SECTION IV - STANDARD METHODS OF STORING REFUSE
The appearance of a city, town or community depends a great deal on
the storage of solid wastes. Good storage techniques are extremely impor-
tant for health and sanitation reasons to prevent vectors from breeding
around the storage sites. Offensive odors develop in areas of improper
storage. Efficient collection service depends on uniform and adequate
storage facilities. If refuse is spread all over the storage area and stored
in all types of containers, the collection procedure will not be efficient
and the homeowner will pay more for the service. Better health and better
economy are obtained through good refuse storage practices.
IMPROPER REFUSE STORAGE
PROPER REFUSE STORAGE
The responsibility for storage is borne by the individual homeowner. Guide-
lines and ordinances are usually set up by the collector, whether it be the city,
-49-
-------
town or a private contractor, and anyone not conforming to the regulations
will not have his refuse collected. If the homeowner allows the refuse to
accumulate in an unorderly manner, it is declared a misdemeanor and the
homeowner is subject to prosecution.
REFUSE STORAGE CONTAINERS
In establishing standards on refuse storage containers for residential
districts there are several factors which must be considered. The size of
the container should be limited to 20 - 32 gallons to allow for easy mobil-
ity. A durable galvanized container tapered for ease of emptying should
be required for all services. Large barrels of 50 - 55 gallon capacity are
easily obtained from industry and many homeowners use these for refuse
storage. Some collectors allow the use of these large cumbersome con-
tainers providing they are covered with fly-tight lids and do not weigh
more than a given amount when filled with refuse. Two collection employ-
ees are normally required to handle these containers. A container should
be constructed in such a manner that it can be easily cleaned.
Storage containers are now available in either plastic, metal or paper.
Disposable containers are being used by some municipalities. They con-
sist of wet strength kraft paper or plastic bags of various capacities from
20-30 gallons. Several types of metal bag holders are available for
securing these bags in place and for covering the bag with a metal lid. The
kraft paper bags have one advantage over the plastic bags when disposed of
at a sanitary landfill. The kraft paper will decompose and allow the refuse
to decompose whereas the plastic will prevent the refuse from decomposing
for many years.
-50-
-------
Another factor to consider in establishing container standards is the
requirement of a fly-tight lid for exclusion of insects and rodents, for pro-
tection from the weather, and for prevention of scattering papers.
LOCATION OF CONTAINERS
Refuse containers when not set out for pickup are usually placed in one
of 4 places: (1) in an attached garage or basement, (2) at the rear or side
of the house, (3) at the rear of the property by the alley, and (4) in recessed
containers at the curb site.
The most convenient container location for the collectors is at the rear
of the property by the alley. This location is not as convenient for the home-
owner and this container isolation often results in littered storage areas and
makeshift containers.
In areas where alleys are non-existent, recessed storage containers are
often located in front of the homes by the street. On the scheduled day of
pickup excess refuse is piled on the ground in front of the homes detracting
from the general appearance of the area.
During the cold winter months recessed
containers often become frozen in the
hole and require heat to thaw them out.
One advantage of this curb side con-
tainer location is that the storage area
is usually kept clean during that part
of the week after collection is com-
pleted.
RECESSED STORAGE
-51-
-------
LOCAL CUSTOMS AND ECONOMIC LEVELS
Other factors that affect storage practices are the local customs and the
economic levels of the district. Many people tend to conform to the practices
of their neighborhood. If all the neighbors maintain a clean storage area for
refuse containers, a homeowner will usually try to conform to the same prac-
tice. The lower economic levels usually have less refuse although their
storage facilities are often inadequate in spite of the smaller storage con-
tainers required. The upper economic levels usually have more refuse to
dispose of and generally they can afford to buy sanitary refuse containers for
storage. However, economic level does not always indicate the type of stor-
age area condition that will prevail in a certain district.
INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The storage of refuse at commercial and industrial operations is the
responsibility of the firms and the local government. The nature and quantity
of the refuse produced may be a unique type requiring special handling and
disposal. When a commercial or industrial firm disposes of its own refuse,
the storage containers are usually designed in accordance with the type of
collection vehicle or the hauling vehicle that is used and also the type of
waste that is discarded. The storage containers set out for city collection
vehicles must meet the requirements of the city. Many commercial and indus-
trial firms dispose of their own industrial waste and use city collection service
for disposal of refuse such as waste paper.
-52-
-------
CONTAINERS FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE
Containers for refuse storage of industrial waste are of a shape, volume
and construction to meet the particular needs of the nature and volume of waste
produced.
Detachable containers are available from 1/2 cubic yard to 40 cubic yard
capacities with facilities for end loading or top loading. The smaller size bulk
containers can be emptied into mechanical packer collection vehicles that are
used for regular refuse collection. A container lift system picks up the bulk
container and empties it into an opening in the top of the packer truck or into
the opening in the back of the truck where the household waste is dumped. Fully
enclosed water-tight bulk containers are available in most sizes up to 16 cubic
yard capacities. The bulk containers from 16 cubic yards to 40 cubic yards are
normally open on top and can be covered with canvas when en route to the dis-
posal site.
BULK CONTAINERS FOR REFUSE STORAGE
-53-
-------
STATIONARY COMPACTOR UNITS
Stationary compactor units are bulk containers equipped with a mechanical
packing device for compressing the refuse into a smaller space. These com-
pactor units are for individual commercial firms or industrial firm that have
a large amount of waste material. By compressing the refuse in the container,
the hauler can make fewer trips to the disposal area and haul more refuse.
Stationary compactor units are stored on platforms or on the ground and when
filled to capacity, they are winched or hoisted on to a specially designed
flat bed truck for hauling. Stationary compactor units are generally used by
commercial and industrial firms and not by local government collection systems.
-54-
-------
SECTION V - ON-SITE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES'
On-site disposal is not a method of final disposal of refuse but only a
means of reducing the volume of the material before final disposal. Any fac-
tory, restaurant, institution, multiple-dwelling unit or private home that
reduces the volume of the solid wastes before having it collected for final
disposal is doing so by one of the methods of on-site disposal. There are
several types of volume reduction or on-site disposal: mechanical compac-
tion, incineration, pulping, and composting. For health and economic
reasons on-site volume reduction is beneficial. Elimination or reduction
of food wastes helps prevent production of flies, mosquitoes and rats.
Storage areas are generally kept neater when smaller quantities of refuse are
stored. Also, with smaller amounts of refuse there is less handling and cor-
respondingly lower labor costs for pickup and final disposal.
MECHANICAL COMPACTION
Mechanical compaction of refuse is a method by which the refuse is com-
pressed into a smaller volume and then stored in a bulk container for pickup
at a later date. This method decreases the volume of the material and requires
fewer haul trips to the final disposal site.
BACKYARD BURNING
Another method of refuse volume reduction is backyard burning on the ground,
in wire mesh containers, in barrels or in outdoor fireplaces. The advantages here
are the same as for any type of on-site disposal method in that the volume of the
refuse is reduced for subsequent collection and disposal. However, the dis-
advantages of this method of home disposal will probably eventually cause it to
-55-
-------
be prohibited in most states. Air pollution is the primary drawback of open
burning and it results from low burning temperatures and incomplete com-
bustion. Garbage and wet papers do not incinerate completely and after cooling,
could attract vermin to the container. Odors also become offensive around the
cans. After the refuse is burned, the residue is usually set out for pickup by
the city or private collection service. The smoldering ashes in the refuse con-
tainer can create a fire hazard. Collection vehicles are especially susceptible
to fire because of the flammable nature of the refuse they carry.
Backyard burning has been practiced throughout the United States for many
years until recently when municipalities realized the amount of air pollution
caused by the burners. Multiple units and commercial establishments often
use burners to reduce the volume of waste for disposal.
BACKYARD BURNER
-56-
-------
INCINERATION
Incinerators, without auxiliary fuel supplies, are less satisfactory than
outdoor backyard burners as far as air pollution is concerned. Fuel fired
furnaces are of varied types and should be designed to suit the type of material
to be burned and also to conform to the air pollution requirements. Gas fired
incinerators are used extensively throughout the country by many commercial
establishments. With the advent of more rigid controls on air pollution,
incinerators that pollute the air will eventually be declared unsatisfactory as
a means of disposal.
ON-SITE INCINERATOR
-57-
-------
COMPOSTING
Composting is a method of making a soil conditioning material through the
decomposition of refuse. This is a method of volume reduction or on-site dis-
posal that is not practiced to any great degree in the United States. The refuse
is stored on the ground or in buried containers and after a certain period of time
decomposes and forms a soil conditioner. The refuse does not decompose very
effectively when piled on top of the ground unless the refuse was originally
ground up or shredded into smaller pieces. Open piles of refuse are obvious
health hazards, being sources for breeding insects and rodents such as flies
and rats. If the refuse is placed in bottomless cans with tight fitting lids, the
food wastes-shrink and decompose to about 1/4 of their original volume. Com-
posting is practiced more in the rural areas than in the urban areas. It is a
slow process and would not reduce the yearly volume of refuse to any great
degree. Composting as a type of on-site disposal or volume reduction of
refuse is not recommended due to the unsanitary conditions that usually devel-
op during the process and the inefficiency of the lengthy period of decomposi-
tion. Composting would be used more on farms or for individual homes than
it would be for a method of volume reduction by a commercial establishment.
PULPING
Another method of refuse volume reduction that is used for multiple-
family units, hospitals, and office buildings, is pulping. This is a process
in which paper wastes are ground up in a water vortex and then squeezed semi-
dry. Originally this process was designed for elimination of secret documents
at banks. It is a fast method and reduces the volume of paper by up to 80 per
-58-
-------
cent. Chute disposals reduce the amount of handling required. The waste
travels down the chute and into the pulping equipment and eliminates any
additional carryout handling. The equipment is expensive when initially
installed and since it does use water in the grinding process, the water con-
sumption in the building will increase some after the equipment is put into
use. Chutes used to carry the refuse from the rooms to the pulping equip-
ment may plug up and require periodic cleaning. After the paper waste is
pulped it is collected by the city or private collection service and hauled
to the final disposal site. If final disposal consists of municipal incinera-
tion, problems could develop due to the wetness of the pulped paper causing
incomplete combustion during incineration. The reduction of the refuse by
pulping would be an advantage if final disposal consisted of burying at a
sanitary landfill. This compacted paper waste would require less space
than collected refuse compacted in a mechanical packer, and would increase
the life of the sanitary landfill. Pulping is a relatively new process in the
United States and is being used in areas where incinerators are being legis-
lated out.
COMPACTION
Compaction of refuse on a small ^cale is also being used for volume
reduction for multiple-family units, hospitals and office buildings. This is
a method of compressing the refuse into paper sacks or containers for dis-
posal. This is similar to the large mechanical compactors previously men-
tioned, although this method is on a smaller scale and the compacted refuse
-59-
-------
is packaged in bags here. The high compaction ratio reduces the volume up
to 75 per cent. Small refuse compactors with subsequent packaging of the
compacted material eliminates the need for rubbish barrels and for on-site
incineration. Usually city or private collection service is used to dispose
of the packaged refuse material. The bags or containers are so heavy, even
though they are not large, that special facilities for loading the compacted
refuse containers on the collection trucks are required. Compactor units
such as these are being used in Europe and recently have been installed at
some locations in the United States. They are of value in areas where on-
site incineration has been prohibited.
Because of the solid waste disposal problems that have developed in
the United States due to the scarcity of land for sanitary landfills and the
new air pollution laws, volume reduction or on-site disposal of refuse may
become more prevalent. New methods of volume reduction of waste will
probably develop in the future and should help to eliminate some of the
problems.
-60-
-------
SECTION VI - STANDARD METHODS OF REFUSE COLLECTION
COLLECTION
The collection of refuse is a very important phase of the total operation
of solid waste disposal. The collection operation is the act of transferring
refuse from the householder's premises to the collection vehicle. Approxi-
mately 70 - 85 per cent of the total cost of pickup and disposal of refuse
is spent on the collection phase of the service. Collection of refuse is
therefore very important from an economic standpoint.
METHODS OF COLLECTION
Collection of refuse can be performed by any of 3 different methods or
any combination of the 3. They are: (1) public (usually municipal) collec-
tion, (2) contract collection, and (3) private collection.
Public Collection
Public collection is performed by public employees and equipment. The
municipality has the responsibility of collection of refuse. Because of public
pressure the collection service cost is often kept at a minimum and the result-
ing service rendered is not adequate from a health or esthetic standpoint.
However, one of the main advantages in having a public agency collect the
refuse is that the public agency will usually furnish the type of service the
public wants and pays for, whereas, private collectors are sometimes diffi-
cult to work with.
Contract Collection
Contract collection is performed by a private collection firm paid by the
municipality with money collected by the city from the homeowners. The
-61-
-------
municipality enforces ordinances pertaining to the homeowner as well as
to the collector. The contractor operates this pickup service as a business
and his help has to be skilled enough to allow him to earn a profit,, Any of
his employees who do not work efficiently are of course replaced. Results
are a more efficient collection service unhampered by political interference.
Normally the collection equipment is owned, operated, and maintained by
the contractor and the city has nothing to do with the equipment as long as
it conforms to the ordinances. However, some municipalities are ex-
perimenting with furnishing the equipment and contracting for the labor
force to do the collecting. Equipment maintenance problems could develop
under a system such as this.
There are some disadvantages to a contract collection type of system.
With a contract service the cost of the pickup is determined in advance
of signing the contract agreement, which results in less flexibility of the
service. There is also the possibility that if for some unforeseen reason
the contract is broken, there would be no alternate means available to
continue the collection service. Collection equipment costs represent
considerable investment and could not be justified for short term use,
thereby requiring a reasonable-length contract. Careful development
of the contract document will protect the community and allow the
contractor to provide the service desired.
Private Collection
Private collection is performed by an individual or a company who makes
its own arrangements with the private homeowners for providing the service
-62-
-------
and collecting fees. The private collector may be required to conform to the
city ordinances controlling the type of equipment used and the methods of
collection. However, public officials have a minimum of control over this
type of collection service. In many instances, without the private collector
there would be no collection service available.
No matter which type of collection service is used, it is important that
some governmental agency takes the responsibility to insure the public that
the service is adequate.
FACTORS AFFECTING COLLECTION METHODS
The proper design and operation, of a collection system depends on many
factors which are all interrelated. These factors must be considered before
a satisfactory program can be set up for collection of refuse. The major
factors to be considered are listed below.
Population of Area
From a public health standpoint, the need for refuse collection is direct-
ly related to the population density. The refuse of an isolated rancher can-
not be considered a public health hazard whereas the proper storage and col-
lection of refuse in populated areas is essential.
It is not economical to organize a collection service for a sparsely pop-
ulated area due to the travel distance between pickups. However, commun-
ities in which the pickups are all located in one general area, are usually
economically able to support a collection service. A study made by the
University of California indicates that a pickup density between 25 and 175
-63-
-------
services per mile has relatively little effect (+ 5 per cent) on the pickup time.
A collection route of 175 services or dwelling units per mile would be similar
to a populated area in a metropolitan district. When there are less than 25
dwelling units per linear mile, the man-minutes required to pick up each ton
of refuse increases to such a degree that it is not economical. When the rural
areas become populated to the point of having a minimum of 25 services or
dwelling units per mile, the costs for collection in that immediate area should
be comparable to the costs for a more populated area. It should be mentioned
here that it would not be economical to organize a collection system to serve
only 25 dwelling units located in a remote area. The initial cost of the equip-
ment and operating costs would be too high. The minimum of 25 services per
mile mentioned above would apply only to the fringe areas around a city or the
populated area of a smaller community. The 25 services per mile indicates a
density only and the population of the collection area would have to be con-
siderably more to make it feasible to organize a collection service for the area,
Topography
The topography of an area can affect the collection service in 2 different
ways. Collection vehicles are usually large and weigh a considerable amount
when loaded to capacity. Even when empty,these large trucks with their
lower gear ratios, require more travel time and cost more to operate in hilly
areas or on long grades as compared to flat areas. Where collection routes
are located in hilly districts the refuse trucks should proceed first to the
highest portion of the collection route and work downhill. The starting and
-64-
-------
stopping action of a large vehicle on uphill grades is costly due to fuel con-
sumption and wear on the clutch, brakes and other mechanical equipment.
Savings result from operating downhill where possible.
In areas where homes are located on sidehills and refuse collection
employees are required to carry refuse containers up and down steps, the
pickup time will increase over that required on flat terrain.
Physical Layout of Area
The physical layout of an area determines the routes that will be used for
collection of refuse. Homeowners living in areas that are subdivided without
alleys have to set their refuse containers by the street for pickup. Alleys are
usually wide enough for easy access with a collection vehicle and refuse con-
tainers are conveniently located along the edges of the alleys. For street
pickup, the trucks usually have to travel over each street twice picking up
containers on one side at a time. On residential streets that aren't congested
with traffic, the collectors may pick up the containers on both sides of the
street while making only one pass down the street with the truck but there is
always the danger of a pedestrian-car accident. Generally, street pickup is
more hazardous, more time consuming, and therefore more costly than alley
collection.
Collection routes should be laid out in such a manner that travel to and
from the collection area is done on uncongested streets. The loading opera-
tion should begin in the less accessible areas or in the residential areas and
progress toward the thru streets or highways that are to be used for travel to
the disposal site. Thru streets and highways carrying heavy traffic loads
-65-
-------
should be avoided. By starting the loading operation at the far end of a route
and working toward a well traveled road or highway, considerable time can be
saved in travel to the disposal site. The truck is filled to capacity when it
reaches the highway and time is not wasted maneuvering a heavily loaded
truck through a residential area.
Type of Refuse Produced
The economic level of residents may vary from one community to another,
and this often affects the quantity and quality of the refuse set out: for collec-
tion. Varying economic levels may impose certain demands on the collection
agency with respect to the frequency of the collection and the location of the
refuse container.
Garbage grinders are becoming more popular and they have a definite
effect on the type of waste set out for collection. If a sink garbage grinder
is used, the garbage is carried through the sanitary sewer system to the sewage
disposal site. Refuse obtained from a district using garbage grinders consists
primarily of combustible paper waste without any putrescible matter. Garbage
grinders are practically non-existent in rural areas or communities that use
septic tanks for sewage disposal.
Climate
Climatic conditions vary from one area to another and should be considered
in determining the frequency of collection. During warm periods garbage will
rot much faster than on cool days. The rate of decomposition of putrescible
refuse is a function of the temperature and the humidity of the area where the
-66-
-------
refuse is stored. Twice a week collection during the summer as opposed to
once a week may be necessary to prevent the stored refuse from becoming
objectionable.
Different seasons of the year affect the amounts of refuse set out for
collection. During the spring when homeowners clean up their yards, col-
lectors are subjected to an increase in tree and yard trimmings and other
rubbish. This increase may require an extra pickup per week or special
trucks to handle the different types of waste if it is picked up by the reg-
ular collection service. Most city ordinances place limits on the types of
material collected. During the fall months when the trees are dropping
leaves, the collection crew will again be faced with an increase in waste.
Special suction equipment, along with added weekly routes, may be required
to pick up and dispose of the leaves during the peak periods.
Weather extremes will affect collection vehicles and crew efficiencies
to a certain degree. Frozen lids, cans and garbage are difficult to handle.
Heavy snowfalls can limit access to disposal sites and through alleys.
Zoning
Commercial areas will produce a different type of refuse than residential
areas. Downtown business districts dispose of a large amount of paper and
combustible waste. Restaurants contribute some putrescible matter to the
waste. Industrial areas may produce many varied types of waste, some of
which may require special handling by the collector. Material that has to
be handled in a special manner is usually not collected by the regular
-67-
-------
collection service but is the responsibility of the industry producing the
waste. The zoning of an area, whether it be residential, commercial,
industrial, or agricultural, will have a definite effect on the type of waste
produced there.
Storage
Storage practices will affect the method of collection required for an
area. Two men will be required for lifting and dumping large 50 - 55 gallon
storage barrels. The smaller 32 gallon tapered galvanized can, if not over-
loaded, can be easily handled by one collector.
Refuse containers are stored in back of residences near the alley, along-
side of houses or out in front of the houses near the street. Different loca-
tions for refuse storage require different methods of pickup and different size
crews. Crew size will be discussed more in detail in another portion of this
study.
Some municipalities have separate pickup service for garbage (putrescible
waste) and other waste. The garbage is usually sold to farmers for feeding to
hogs and the other waste is discarded at the disposal site. This causes some
confusion for the collection agency because many homeowners do not wish to
be bothered with separating the garbage from the remaining waste.
Frequency of Collection
Field studies made by the University of California and Northwestern Uni-
versity indicated that twice per week collection generally results in consider-
ably greater quantities of refuse being collected from each service per week
-68-
-------
than once per week collection. The frequency of the pickup service does
affect the amount of refuse produced and collected. The more frequent the
collection the greater the amount of refuse collected per service or per capita.
It appears that families are making broader use of refuse service when it is
on a twice weekly basis.
Twice per week collection may be desirable to prevent vector from hatch-
ing and garbage from rotting. In some cases the size of a satisfactory refuse
container may determine the frequency of the refuse collection. Excessive
accumulation of refuse at the household should be avoided as it invariably
encourages inferior sanitation practices. Also an excess number of small
storage containers slows down the normal loading operation.
Time studies of the effect of collection frequency on labor requirements
of the pickup operation indicate that twice per week collection requires
approximately 1.55 times as much manpower per ton of collected refuse as
once per week collection, assuming the same total amount of refuse is col-
lected from each service each week regardless of the frequency of collec-
tion. However, the total amount collected increases when the pickup
frequency increases and this would further increase the manpower required.
Collection Equipment Used
Collection methods are directly related to the type of equipment used.
The pros and cons of the various types of available collection equipment
are discussed later in this section.
-69-
-------
CREW ORGANIZATION
Collection crew organization is directly related to the overall efficiency
of the collection system. Incentive programs are used by many collection
agencies to obtain faster and more efficient work from the collectors. These
incentive programs, which allow the collector to leave work for the day follow-
ing completion of a pre-set route, often result in a more efficient collection
system than the required 8 hour per day system.
Daily Route
The daily route method of crew organization is one type of incentive system
for a collection route. The crew is assigned to collect the refuse from a differ-
ent pre-set area each day. Following completion of this daily pre-set route,
the collector may leave even though he has not worked the full 8 hours. How-
ever, should he work overtime because of an above normal amount of discarded
refuse, he will not be paid overtime. This daily route method usually is set
up so that the average hours worked are less than 8 per day. Each worker is
paid for 8 hours per day. If a collector knows he has to work an 8 hour day he
will probably space his work accordingly, showing little ambition., However,
if he realizes that he can leave work upon completion of his work route, he
will normally work faster and harder in hopes of finishing his work early.
The amount of services that a crew will pick up on the incentive program will
normally be more than the amount a crew on a regular 8 hour shift will collect.
Weekly Route
Another type of incentive program consists of setting up a route on a week-
ly basis. There are no pre-determined stopping places each day and when the
-70-
-------
crew is finished with the weekly route it is through for the week even though
it didn't work the normal 40 hours. On this type of route the homeowner does
not know when his refuse will be collected, and this type of incentive program
could not be used where the homeowner is required to set out his container at
the curb.
Definite Working Day
When a crew is required to work 8 hours a day, the daily routes are some-
times pre-set and upon.completion of the route the truck crew must wait until
quitting time before leaving. Under this system the routes are usually set up
to keep the crews busy 8 hours a day during the high collection periods.
During the seasons when the refuse production decreases, the men complete
their routes early, but are required to stay until quitting time.
Irregular Frequency
Routes are sometimes set by the week and collectors are still required
to work 8 hours per day. The crew, after working 8 hours, is through for the
day no matter where they are at quitting time. Homeowners have no idea when
their refuse will be collected under this type of system. They know only that
it will be collected on an average of once or twice per week. After the crew
finishes the pre-determined weekly route, it immediately starts all over again
even if it didn't require the whole week to complete the route. Collectors
continually work the same route over and over again and their speed is deter-
mined in part by the refuse quantities produced in that area. There are no set
days for certain pickups. This is not an incentive type program.
-71-
-------
Conclusions
The disadvantage in the incentive type program is that it is difficult to
determine the length of the collection route that will give the maximum work
from the collectors. However, once the route is determined the pickup time
will not vary to any degree. The system appears to work well where it is
being used. The primary disadvantage of the 8 hour required working day
system is that there is a lack of incentive on the part of the collector. When
the collectors are finished with their fixed daily route they are required to
wait around until quitting time. Collection crews standing idle while waiting
for quitting time are prime subjects for unfavorable criticism by taxpayers.
Schedules are also affected by holidays. When a collection crew works
on a holiday it should be paid double the normal hourly rate. If they do not
work the holiday they must work on Saturday to bring their pre-set route back
on schedule. In a situation such as that they should receive 1-1/2 times
their normal hourly rate for the actual amount of Saturday work done with a
maximum of 8 hours overtime paid. Since they do not work the holiday they
receive regular pay for the holiday if it falls during their regular work week,
COLLECTION EQUIPMENT
Vehicles used for refuse collection should be sanitary, reliable, easy
to load and unload, and safe for the workmen. A pleasing appearance is
also desirable. The dimensions of the vehicle should be limited to allow
for easy maneuverability through alleys and streets. The capacities of
the vehicles will depend on the frequency and methods of collection, length
of the haul to the disposal site, and the width of alleys and streets. Other
-72-
-------
details to be considered are loading heights, covers, loading and unloading
devices, motive power, speed of travel, water tightness, and legal payload.
Collection vehicles are usually classified according to the type of truck
body incorporated on the unit. Generally there are three different types of
units employed by municipal refuse collection which are: (1) open-body
trucks, (2) enclosed or covered body trucks, and (3) packer or mechanical
compaction trucks (also enclosed body).
Open Body Vehicles
In operating the open type refuse truck it is often hard to control insects
and blowing papers. Due to the height of the sideboards on these vehicles,
they are usually equipped with retractible running boards or stair steps for
the collector to stand on while emptying containers. Some trucks are also
equipped with hinged sideboards to lower the loading height of the vehicle
when partially full. Other trucks have hydraulically actuated buckets that
lower to ground level for ease of loading and then lift the refuse over the
elevated sideboards. One esthetic disadvantage to open body trucks is the
exposure of the refuse during the loading operation. Tarpaulin covers are
usually used to contain the refuse during the haul to the disposal site. Over-
loading practices on open type vehicles often cause scattering of refuse through-
out communities and in any event are not generally justified from a labor utiliza-
tion standpoint. Open trucks used for refuse collection normally have a dump
type box for easy unloading at the disposal site. The most practical applica-
tion of an open type vehicle is for use in collecting bulky waste items including
-73-
-------
yard rubbish and tree trimmings Some industrial wastes are easily handled
in these vehicles also.
Enclosed or Covered Body Vehicles
Covered body vehicles are usually equipped with sliding steel sectional
covers throughout the length of the truck. Running boards or ladders are often
available for easy access to the truck bed for dumping refuse containers.
Enclosed vehicles have fewer insect and blowing paper problems than open
type vehicles. They are also more pleasing to the eye because the refuse is
not exposed. Large doors at the rear of the unit open the entire end of the
bed and provide an unrestricted area for easy dumping. This type of body
tilts up for normal dumping operation. A well designed covered-body truck
often fills an appreciable need for an economical, sanitary, refuse collection
vehicle.
Mechanical Compaction Trucks
Trucks equipped with mechanical compaction units for collection of refuse
are becoming very popular. These units have greater capacities than open
type trucks because of the compaction capabilities of the mechanical apparatus,
Compaction of the refuse is usually accomplished by one or two different types
of mechanical equipment. One type has a rear retaining panel that holds the
refuse inside the body. When the loose refuse fills the empty space in the
packing area, a rear compacting panel packs the refuse into the truck. This
type of packing mechanism does not pack the refuse in the forward part of the
unit as well as it does in the rear part near the packer mechanism. Units such
as this usually have dump bodies that tilt upward for discarding the refuse.
-74-
-------
Another type of packing mechanism has an ejection plate which is utilized
in conjunction with the rear packing mechanism. When the truck is empty the
vertical ejection plate is located near the rear of the truck and close to the rear
packing mechanism. The refuse is continually compressed against the vertical
plate until enough pressure is reached to shove the ejector plate toward the front
of the packing space. As more refuse is shoved forward and compacted against
the plate, the vertical plate is pushed ahead of the refuse. This vertical plate
gives a more uniformly compacted mass because the refuse is compacted through-
out the complete loading operation.
MECHANICAL PACKER
REFUSE COLLECTION
VEHICLE
-75-
-------
Mechanical compaction bodies are available in many different types with
capacities ranging from 10 to 40 cubic yards. One of the principal advantages
of this type of collection vehicle is the low loading height of the refuse hopper
in the rear of the vehicle. The bodies are covered, leakproof, and built to with-
stand corrosion and abrasion under normal use. Design of the bodies allows
for easy cleanability and gives a respectable appearance. A general disadvan-
tage to all packer type collection vehicles is the additional aoise created by
the operation of the packing mechanism. The dead weight of mechanical packer
type bodies is generally equal to or greater than the actual weight of the refuse
carried. Because of the body weight, mechanical packers require heavier frames
and chassis than do the open or covered body trucks of equivalent capacity.
Proper crew conveniences such as safety devices, handholds, steps, mirrors,
and turn and emergency stop signals are available for most mechanical packers.
However, too often safety devices are eliminated to reduce initial costs and
employee safety is sacrificed in order to save a few dollars of the taxpayers'
money.
Refuse compaction will vary on different mechanical packer
trucks. An average of 97 loads collected In 6 California
towns gave an average compacted density of 440 pounds per
cubic yard. The same study indicated the average weight of
uncompacted refuse collected from 5 California towns in open
body trucks had a density of 323 pounds per cubic yard. In
summary, the mechanical packers were found to compress, on
the average, 1.36 cubic yards of oper. truck type refuse to
1 packer yard of refuse. A check in Great Falls, Montana
of five mechanical packer type trucks indicated they are
capable of packing refuse to a density of approximately
420 pounds per cubic yard. Since the check on density was
made during cold weather, we anticipated a somewhat higher
density on a. year-round basis.
The existing packers being used in Great Falls are
several years old. The future compacted refuse volumes,
as shown on pages 137-144, were based on 475 pounds per
cubic yard. We felt that with new and improved packers,
a higher density could be obtained in Great Falls.
-76-
-------
CREW SIZE
The size of a collection crew that is most suitable for a given route
depends on several variables.
Alley collections usually are accomplished by a driver and two loaders,
whereas set-out, set-back service requires larger crews. These extra workers
are required to carry the containers from the homeowners' premises to the street
or alley for pickup and then return the empty containers to their original place
of storage.
As the services become more spread out, in less densely populated areas,
a large portion of the collection time is spent in travel. This would indicate
that a smaller crew would be more economical where the travel distances are
long and the quantities of refuse for collection are small. As previously
mentioned, pickup time is not affected until the density of services drops
below 25 per mile.
It is interesting to note that in the study made by the University of Cali-
fornia there appeared to be no significant difference in the pickup time in man-
minutes per ton between 2-man and 3-man collection crews; hence, no signifi-
cant difference in the efficiency of the pickup operation. Nevertheless, a
gross lack of efficiency may result from the use of 3-man crews, depending
on the length of the haul operation and the number of collection trips per day.
In order to obtain the same labor efficiency in the overall collection operation
for a given haul distance, a 3-man crew must collect 1.5 times as much refuse
as a 2-man unit.
-77-
-------
When-deciding on a crew size the question often arises as to whether
the driver of the collection vehicle should also help load. The driver's time
is more fully utilized if he does help load and it makes it possible to use only
2 men per truck. However, for safety reasons, it is not advisable for the
driver to continuously leave the truck unattended at every stop. There may
also be some conflicts with the union policies governing drivers. Usually
the driver remains in the truck unless the collectors need assistance in lift-
ing a large item or in carrying numerous containers.
TRANSFER
Following collection of refuse it is necessary to determine the most eco-
nomical method of hauling the refuse to the disposal site. The obvious approach
is to haul the refuse in the vehicle in which it was collected. However, if the
haul distance is long, it is not economical to tie up collection crews and vehi-
cles in highway travel and lengthy hauls. In a situation such as this, it may
be necessary to use a large transfer vehicle, which is usually capable of
carrying loads up to 60 cubic yards capacity. The smaller collection trucks
transfer the refuse into the larger truck at a centralized point. The large
vehicle then transports the refuse to the disposal site. In this system the
expensive collection trucks are utilized for continuous pickup while-the
larger transfer vehicle does the hauling to the disposal site.
Large capacity transfer trucks are not the only modes of transportation
being used to transport refuse. In some areas rail cars are being used to haul
refuse away from populated areas. Large barges also have been used to trans-
port waste. The added cost of transfer operations brings to attention the
-78-
-------
advantages of obtaining disposal sites for refuse before an area becomes
congested and land costs go up.
RECORDS
Records pertaining to all phases of refuse collection and disposal are
essential for providing data for future design of facilities. The general lack
of records throughout the country has been one of the major setbacks in deter-
mining adequate methods for solid waste disposal. Detailed records should
be kept on field data, equipment, accident, and administrative information.
Field data should .include information concerning the collection phase
of the solid wastes handling operation. Each collection truck route should
be mapped and its schedule logged in a field book each day to indicate start-
ing and stopping times of actual loading operations. Notes should be kept to
indicate whether the type of refuse collected consists primarily of household
waste, tree trimmings, grass cuttings, empty paper cartons, etc. Usually
peak refuse production periods are indicated by the empty boxes and wrap-
pings that appear at Christmas time and the tree and lawn trimmings that
appear during the summer months. Each trip to the disposal site should be
recorded. Probably the most useful information would be a record of the net
weight of refuse disposed of at the site each trip. In determining the future
requirements for a disposal site, the knowledge of weights and volumes of
refuse produced by a certain area is an absolute necessity. See Table 12.
Equipment records are always important in any type of business; not only
for determining the existing conditions of the equipment but also for indicating
-79-
-------
preventive maintenance required. Collection vehicles and heavy equipment
used at the disposal site receive rough usage and eventually the maintenance
costs reach a level where it is economically more feasible to purchase a new
vehicle than to continue maintaining the old one. Without records it is diffi-
cult to determine when the added cost of maintenance reaches this unsatis-
factory level. Operation expense data is also very helpful in determining
total costs of a collection system.
To prevent accidents on any job, all the information concerning past
accidents should be known. What were the causes of the accident; when did
it happen; how could it have been prevented? Records of accidents are essen-
tial for insurance purposes and necessary for any court action that may devel-
op. Whether the accident caused personal injury or property damage, complete
records should be maintained. Refuse collectors have always had an extremely
high injury frequency rate due to back ailments, hernias, skin diseases, crushed
limbs and other ailments. A record of these injuries will help to determine when
and where safety devices can be installed and whether different type equipment
can be purchased to eliminate unnecessary accidents.
Administrative records are usually available concerning the dwelling units'
services and the billing data. It is also helpful to keep records of any com-
plaints made regarding the collection and disposal service. Personnel records
are normally kept to indicate salaries, individual performance, length of employ-
ment and any additional training received. Personnel records are a necessity
for any type of business and are of increased value as the employment figure
becomes larger.
-80-
-------
SECTION VII - STANDARD METHODS OF REFUSE DISPOSAL
There are several different methods of refuse disposal being practiced in
the United States, including sanitary landfilling, central incineration, com-
posting, feeding of food wastes to swine, and salvage and reclamation. The
only satisfactory complete method of disposal of all types of refuse is the
sanitary landfill method . All other types only reduce the volume of the refuse
leaving a certain portion of refuse for further disposal.
SANITARY LANDFILL
The sanitary landfill method of disposal involves depositing the refuse in
a natural or man-made depression (area fill method) or trench (trench method),
compacting the refuse in layers to the smallest practical volume, and daily
covering it with compacted soil. Some areas are using coulees or even can-
yons for sanitary landfill sites. Each day the refuse is brought into the upper
end of the coulee and compacted and buried. As the process continues, the
refuse begins to fill the coulee with a series of cells of refuse separated by
compacted soil layers. For public health reasons the compacted refuse is
covered daily with a minimum of 6 inches of compacted soil. Before any oper-
ations can begin, a site must be selected and surveyed to determine the volume
of space available for refuse disposal and hence, the future years' usage avail-
able there. In the area selected for the site there should be suitable cover soil
available, preferably a sandy loam soil. Other soils can be used to cover the
refuse as long as they can be well maintained and prevent the refuse from being
exposed to the atmosphere. It may be necessary to haul the soil to the site from
some other location if the existing soil is inadequate. Winter operations may
-81-
-------
require that soil be stockpiled for later use as cover material due to winte;r
frost depths. Site preparation will include: building all-weather access roads,
determining controlling grades of fill, and providing drainage around and through
the area. The final step before operations can begin is to select the equipment
needed to spread, compact and bury the refuse. Other provisions may have to
be made depending on the climate and the site. Fences for controlling blowing
papers, personnel facilities including washing units, signs for dumping direc-
tions, emergency fire fighting equipment, telephone units for emergency calls,
and a means of watering down or controlling dust, are all facilities that should
be considered before beginning operati6n. For record data weigh scales have
been installed at many landfill sites to determine the total amount of refuse
received at the site daily. This also provides a convenient method for deter-
mining a dump charge for private collectors, who are charged by the weight
and type of refuse dumped. Periodic topographic surveys of a landfill also
indicate the rate at which an area is being filled.
The advantages of a well planned and operated sanitary landfill are:
(1) it is economical; (2) it requires a relatively small capital investment;
(3) it may reclaim land that is otherwise useless; and (4) it causes
no air pollution.
There are also disadvantages: (1) it frequently requires longer and more
costly hauls than other methods; (2) it requires more land than some other
methods; and (3) operational problems may occur during inclement weather.
-82-
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL
H.A MILTON, OHIO
COVERING
COMPACTED REFUSE
AT LANDFILL
WAUKEGAN. ILL.
It is often difficult to obtain a site for a landfill until officials can
demonstrate that it can be operated in a sanitary manner. Because of past
inadequate operations, public resistance often dictates that a site be located
a long distance from any populated area. Inadequate cover material may permit
flies to emerge from eggs or larvae in the raw refuse. Even though the refuse
-83-
-------
is covered daily it may be necessary to institute some fly control measures
around a sanitary landfill.
Fires may result in the interior of a landfill due to carelessness in oper-
ation. These fires are difficult to extinguish and may smolder for a long time
adding to air pollution in the area. Fly problems and fires are public health
and welfare aspects that require consideration. Another concern of public
health officials, as well as water pollution control authorities, is the poss-
ibility of contaminating surface and ground waters through the use of sani-
tary landfills. Even though there is little evidence of pollution of ground
water being caused by buried refuse under normal conditions, surface water
pollution is possible at almost any sanitary landfill site if it is not operated
properly.
With the steady increase in population throughout the country, land costs
continue to climb. This is one of the reasons for the practice of reclaiming
land. Land depressions are often filled with compacted refuse and once the
areas are filled they are covered with 2 feet of cover soil. As the refuse
decomposes the ground will subsequently tend to settle. It is therefore not
feasible to construct buildings or structures on the fill but the filled land
can be used for parks, golf courses, camping areas, parking lots, and farm
land. These recreational and agricultural developments on reclaimed land
are proving to be very satisfactory in many areas in the United States.
(See photo next page)
-84-
-------
COMPLETED LANDFILL - CITY PARKING LOT
CENTRAL INCINERATION
A central incineration plant consists of one or more large furnaces for
burning refuse at very high temperatures. The temperatures are controlled by
varying the amount of air supply to the combustion chamber. Auxiliary fuel
supplies are rarely used in municipal or privately owned central incineration
plans . The added cost of the fuel does not warrant the use of it when con-
trolled air supplies give satisfactory results.
Refuse from collection trucks is dumped in large storage pits at the
receiving area of the plant. Overhead cranes then pick up the refuse in
-85-
-------
large clamshell buckets and deposit it in charging hoppers or chutes, which
guide the refuse into the furances where the temperatures and the drafts are
carefully controlled to insure combustion. The ash residue is then carried
through a water bath for cooling and dumped into waiting trucks for hauling.
The ashes and noncombustible residues are disposed of in sanitary landfills
or salvaged.
Incineration has the following advantages: (1) it does not require a
large site for the plant, (2) it can be centrally located in a collection area,
and (3) it produces an end product that can be used as a fill material. The
initial costs of a central incineration plant are high and the operating costs
are higher than those for a sanitary landfill operation. It should also be
noted that a landfill site is needed in conjunction with an incinerator plant.
Ashes and residues from the plant should be disposed of by burial. Very
wet or densely packed refuse often does not completely burn and when dis-
carded at an open dump site may form breeding places for insects and ro-
dents. The volume of the refuse fed to a furance is reduced by approximate-
ly 80 per cent through the combustion process.
From a health standpoint, central incineration is one of the most desir-
able methods. Recently many states have placed stricter controls on the flue
gases emitted from incinerator stacks. To prevent air pollution many incinerat-
ion processes now require the installation of certain apparatuses for removing
the particulate matter from the flue gases. (See photo next page)
-86-
-------
CENTER HILL INCINERATOR - CINCINNATI, OHIO
COMPOSTING
Refuse can be disposed of through the process of composting, which is
the decomposition of organic matter, primarily garbage, to a relatively stable,
humus-like material. This material is then used as a soil conditioner. Mixed
municipal refuse is first sorted and then ground up into coarse particles 2 inches
in diameter or less. Constant or intermittent mixing of the particles, dis-
persion of air throughout the material, and control of the moisture from 50 - 60
per cent are essential for good composting. This process produces considerable
heat which is necessary for destroying disease producing organisms.
One of the advantages of this type of solid waste disposal is that the end
product can be sold on the market. However, to date the market for compost
-87-
-------
has been very small and seasonal. Compost is not a fertilizer but is used
only as a soil conditioner. Since it is not readily marketed, efforts at
composting have failed many times in the United States. Compost is usually
not purchased by farmers and local bag sales will dispose of only a fraction
of the compost produced from a city plant. The total cost of the composting,
less the revenue obtained from the sales, could give a cost comparable to
that of incineration.
JOHNSON CITY, TENN. - COMPOST PLANT
FEEDING FOOD WASTES TO SWINE
Garbage can be disposed of by feeding it to swine providing it is properly
cooked to destroy any disease organisms. Some commercial hog ranches in
the United States collect garbage, excluding inedible refuse, on regular routes
for feed for their hogs. The municipality has the responsibility of collecting
all the refuse with the exception of the edible garbage that is stored in separate
cans on each premise.
-88-
-------
Because all states require that garbage be cooked before it is fed to hogs
and most farms and ranches are located long distances from town, it has proven
an uneconomical disposal method.
SALVAGE AND RECLAMATION
Until recently it has been common practice to regard salvage as not being
an economical method of reclaiming materials. The terms "salvage" and "rec-
lamation" indicate several methods of disposal: sorting of refuse either man-
ually or mechanically, for metals, tin cans, glass, paper,, rags, and other
materials that can be resold; rendering of animal wastes to obtain fats, meat
scraps for livestock feed and hair for insulation; dehydration of garbage to be
used for hog feed; and composting.
Several studies are being made to develop economical, attractive, metal-
lurgical or chemical processes for more efficient utilization of waste materials
as opposed to permanent disposal. Residues from incinerators are being studied
to determine what portion can actually be salvaged. The studies pointed out
that the salvage of glass and all metallic materials in the residue could provide
a source of revenue for municipalities. Salvage would also reduce by 50 per
cent the volume of landfill required for disposal of the balance of the residues,
thus doubling the life expectancy of residue landfill sites and reducing haulage
costs by half. There is the possibility that further studies may bring to light
more improved and more economical methods of salvaging materials. No city
today uses salvage as a principal means of disposal; it is usually a partial
method or a side-line of some other method. Decreasing prices for salvage
materials and increasing labor costs frequently make it uneconomical.
-------
DISPOSAL IN SANITARY SEWER
Some garbage now is disposed of in kitchen sink garbage disposal units
which grind up the putrescible wastes and dispose of them in the sanitary
sewer system. This method utilizes the sewage treatment facilities to render
the garbage inert. Extensive use of garbage grinders by homeowners would
contribute a tremendous amount of additional waste to the sanitary sewer system
and in turn place a heavy burden on the treatment plant facilities. Wide usage
of individual grinder units would in most cases require construction of additional
treatment facilities including grinders and shredders to prepare the refuse for
treatment. The material that could not be discarded into the sanitary sewer
would have to be disposed of by some other means. This process is only a
partial method of disposal and at present would not be practical for extensive
use.
OPEN DUMPING AND BURNING
Open dumping and burning is now prohibited in most states as a means of
disposal due to air pollution laws and other health reasons.
INCINERATION AT SEA
This method of disposal, considered by some cities, involves constructing
an incinerator aboard a ship and locating it a considerable distance from shore.
Garbage would be hauled from the city on barges to the incinerator for burning.
This type of system is one of many different methods of disposal being
considered by large cities faced with the tremendous problem of too much waste.
-90-
-------
BURIAL AT SEA
When garbage is compressed it sinks under water provided the mass is
denser than the water. However, unfortunate results have plagued those who
have attempted to dispose of waste in this manner. Water tends to swell some
materials and to separate the compacted refuse. When the waste separates, a
good portion of the material rises to the surface. As a result the garbage and
waste floats and even comes into shore. This method of disposal is obviously
not adequate from a health standpoint due to contamination and pollution of
water and beach areas.
OTHER METHODS OF DISPOSAL
In Rosenheim, Germany an incinerator burns household and commercial
refuse and transforms the energy into usable steam heat and electric power
for the surrounding area. The electricity produced by the plant is nearly
enough to supply all of Rosenheim. In addition the steam heat produced
serves 90 stores, banks, schools, factories, office buildings and 458 private
dwellings.
Munich, Germany also has an incinerator plant being used to produce
steam and power. This plant is designed to burn both refuse and coal in
different burners. It burns about 45,000 tons of refuse a month, disposing
of 80 per cent of the debris created by Munich's 1,300,000 inhabitants.
A Tokyo industrialist has developed a process of converting refuse into
cement-like building blocks. The blocks are made by compacting the baled
refuse under immense pressures and encasing the resultant solid material in
asphalt, cement, vinyl or iron sheeting. The blocks can be any shape and
-91-
-------
made for interlocking if desired. A standard-size block weighs 2 tons.
This process has several advantages: (1) the volume of the refuse is
reduced, (2) the cost of the process is claimed to be less than thai: of
incineration, (3) there are no smoke or fumes produced to cause a.ir
pollution, and (4) the building blocks are a marketable by-product
(of limited use).
Another method utilizes pulverizers with power driven hammers
which smash up all types of rubbish and refuse into a compact granular
pulp that reduces the volume by one-half. The compacted pulp is then
buried in landfills.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is examining
ways to use -waste matter for conversion to space fuel. After lift-off,
a manned spacecraft could use fuel made of waste for propulsion. The
waste produced from inside the craft would be mixed with some type of
material to aid in combustion and the combination would be used as fuel.
-92-
-------
SECTION VIE- CASCADE COUNTY-WIDE PLAN
GENERAL
Physical Characteristics
Cascade County is located in north central Montana, is bordered on the
south by the Big Belt and Little Belt Mountains, on the east by the Highwood
Mountains, and on the west by the Rocky Mountain Range. The terrain con-
sists of a series of low divides and basins forming a transitional area between
the different mountain groups and the rolling plains to the north and east of
the county,
Drainage
From southwest to northeast the Missouri River flows diagonally across
the county through a wide valley. The Sun River drains the northwest portion
of the county; the Smith River drains the south central portion and Belt Creek
drains the east section.
Climate
Since it is located in the Central Plains Region east of the continental
divide, semi-arid climate prevails over the majority of Cascade County,
More moisture is experienced in the south and east portions of the county
with comparatively lower precipitation amounts falling in the northwestern
area. Most of the precipitation occurs from latter March or early April through
September in the form of rain and small amounts of snow. The average frost
free growing season in the county is about 135 days.
-93-
-------
Soils
There are 26 different types of soils in the county, including clay loams,
silt loams, fine sand loams, gravel loams and stony loams. Some of the stony
and rocky areas are not suitable for farming, but the majority of the loam soils
are suitable for either small grains or grazing land.
Population Density
In an area that is sparsely populated it is uneconomical to set up an organ-
ized refuse collection program to serve every farm, ranch and remote dwelling.
In Cascade County the majority of the populace is located in and around Great
Falls. Excluding Great Falls, the population density of Cascade County is close
to 6 people per square mile. However, this figure is misleading as it includes
13 cities, towns and communities in the county with populations varying from
100 to 900. It is evident then that Cascade County with a land area of 2673
square miles and a total population of about 91,800 is sparsely populated in
the rural areas. The majority of the population is concentrated in the cities,
towns and communities. Farming and ranching are the major sources of Income
for the populace living in the rural areas. The population density of an area
determines the need and feasibility of an organized collection service. In
rural or fringe areas where the population density is small, refuse is disposed
of by the individual homeowners without causing a nuisance. In these rural
areas it would be uneconomical to attempt to provide collection service for
the people. As the population density increases public health dictates the
need for organized collection service. Random dumping and the appearance of
unsightly roadside dumps emphasize the esthetic, public health and nuisance
-94-
-------
aspects of the existing methods of refuse disposal. Roadside dumps and
indiscriminate dumping practices are becoming more prevalent every year
in Cascade County.
Organized System
In Section III of this report the existing methods of collection and the
conditions of the disposal areas were discussed in detail for each city, town
and community in Cascade County. It was brought out that Great Falls and
Belt were the only areas that have an organized collectipn service. Great
Falls has the only sanitary landfill site where refuse is covered daily. The
majority of the remaining areas in Cascade County use open dump sites for
refuse disposal and periodically bury the refuse when accumulations of the
waste become too great. Even though the residents of these areas are aware
of the unsightliness of the disposal areas, they are unable to do anything to
eliminate the problem. A community with a population of 100 or 200 is usually
financially unable to purchase a vehicle for use in collection or a dozer for
use at a landfill operation. Many of the people in these areas have their own
wells for water supply and a septic tank is utilized for sewage disposal. The
charge for an adequate community collection and disposal service would
appear too expensive since many of the homeowners pay no water or sewer
charges. Generally the people living in these small towns and communities
are in the farming or ranching business, and have trucks which can be used
for hauling refuse to the disposal site.
-95-
-------
Areas Served by Collection and Disposal Service
The quantity of refuse produced by a community with a population of less
than 900 could be collected in one day. If a community obtained its own col-
lection equipment and used it one day per week the remaining portion of the
week the equipment would be idle,, However, if several communities, towns
and cities shared the same collection and disposal equipment, the rate
charged for the service would be much more reasonable. Collection service
would include the small communities and surrounding areas but would gener-
ally exclude the rural ranches, farms and dwellings.
Disposal areas would be located to serve the entire populace of the
county and not just the densely settled areas Sanitary landfill sites located
throughout the county would be used for disposing of refuse collected on the
county-wide collection system and also refuse disposed of by individuals off
the collection route. Equipment transported from site to site would be used
to maintain the sanitary landfills in a satisfactory, economical manner.
Cascade County is quite large and the outlying landfill sites are serving
moderately populated areas. It would probably not be necessary or economical
to service the landfill sites daily due to the small amounts of unscheduled
dumping occurring there. Landfill operation equipment obviously can be best
utilized on a multi-site basis.
Existing Private Collection Services
There are several private collectors presently operating in Cascade County.
These private refuse collectors should be allowed to continue their service, on
a contract basis, after an organized county wide collection program is put into
-96-
-------
effect. All collectors, however, should be required to conform to the regu-
lations set forth by the city-county controlling body.
Adequate Disposal is Required
The Montana State Department of Health adopted a regulation during 1966
governing the control and licensing of refuse disposal areas throughout Montana,
This regulation prohibits operation of open dump sites for refuse disposal,
ALTERNATE STUDY AREAS
To determine a workable program of storing, collecting and disposing of
refuse 2 different study groups of cities, towns and communities were used to
determine the most effective combination.
Exclude Great Falls Urban Area
The first analysis excludes the City of Great Falls from the county-wide
program but includes the Great Falls fringe area outside the city limits. Under
this analysis the Great Falls urban area would be the only populated area in the
county excluded from the county-wide collection program. All other areas of
concentrated population would be included. The Great Falls urban area has
been excluded from the first analysis because the City of Great Falls presently
operates its own organized collection service and sanitary landfill.*
Include Great Falls - Alternate
The alternate analysis of the comprehensive study includes Great Falls as
well as all the other populated areas in the county. This analysis assumes
that the City of Great Falls would become an integral part of the county wide
collection and disposal service.
* Operating practices at thie facility make its designation as a "sanitary landfill"
inappropriate. It should* rather, be termed a "landfill." (BSWM)
-97-
-------
The advantage in making two analyses is that it will indicate which
method will be more economical for all concerned
STORAGE
Type of Containers
A collection service in Cascade County would include mostly residential
pickups with limited commercial pickups, A container used for mixed domestic
refuse which includes garbage should be constructed of rust resistant metal or
galvanized iron, be watertight, and be fitted with a fly-tight cover or lid.
Rubber garbage containers are not recommended due to the deterioration effect
caused by exposure to greases and fats. All containers and covers should be
equipped with handles to aid the collector in the pickup operation. Adequate
covers should be used at all times on refuse containers to curtail fly produc-
tion and to prevent the scattering of papers by the wind. Tight fitting lids
also discourage animals from tipping the cans over in search of food.
Well constructed seams and tight fitting joints are a must on refuse con-
tainers to prevent accumulations of garbage from forming in corners, joints,
ledges or other uneven surfaces. Smooth interiors are essential to allow for
adequate cleaning of the containers. Structurally the containers should be
strong enough to withstand normal handling stress. Tapered sides are also
advantageous in that the refuse is easily emptied from the container,
Capacity of Containers
A refuse container should be of sufficient capacity to keep the number
required to a minimum, but not so large that normal refuse will make the con-
tainer too heavy for easy handling by one man. The conventional heavy duty
-98-
-------
galvanized garbage can with the recessed bottom is the best type of storage
container available. It is recommended that only this type of container with
a 32 gallon maximum capacity be used throughout Cascade County.
The results of an environmental sanitation survey completed by the City-
County Health Department in Great Falls in early 1968 indicated the following:
of 3,861 premises using galvanized containers 87 per cent had acceptable gar-
bage storage; of 9,490 premises using barrels 30 per cent had acceptable gar-
bage storage. Cascade County has fallen behind most cities of the nation by
continuing to allow the use of 55 gallon drums for garbage storage.
Racks
All containers kept outside should be elevated 12 inches above the ground
on a suitable rack. The area surrounding the cans should be enclosed on 3
sides to maintain the cans in an upright position. The lids should be attached
to the rack with a chain to prevent them from being lost or damaged. Racks,
stakes or holders shall be designed so as to prevent the containers from being
tipped. Well arranged containers convenient to the collectors result in better
and faster service for the customer.
Location of Containers
Refuse containers should be placed in a location convenient to the col-
lection crew. Alleys should be utilized for container storage or placement on
the scheduled day of pickup. The collectors should not be required to walk
on the homeowners' premises to pick up the refuse. In areas where there are
no alleys, refuse containers should be set out in front of the homes on the
scheduled day of pickup. The homeowner has the responsibility of setting the
-99-
-------
container out for pickup with the understanding that the collection crew will
not stop if the container is not out. Each homeowner would be informed of
the scheduled day for collection. Should bad weather prevail there may be
delays in the collection service and the homeowners may be required to leave
the containers set out for several days until the collection crew can get to
their area. The alley location for storage containers is preferred since the
containers can be stored there permanently without causing undue nuisance
conditions. Another advantage of alley storage is that collection delays
caused by inclement weather or holidays will not necessitate leaving unsight-
ly containers in front of homes. Homes located on travel routes between
communities are eligible for collection service if their refuse container is
located on a turnout or frontage road. Storage containers placed along front-
age roads or in front of homes must be removed after collection to prevent
unsightliness.
Use of Bulk Containers
Bulk containers are effectively used to decrease pickup time when the
number of 32 gallon containers per service becomes too large. We recommend
that a maximum of four 32 gallon containers be allowed per service. If more
than four 32 gallon containers are required to hold the accumulation of refuse,
the home or establishment should obtain a bulk container. Three 32 gallon
containers are nearly equivalent to the capacity of a 1/2 cubic yard bulk con-
tainer. The use of bulk containers would decrease the loading time and result
in better sanitary conditions. The metal bulk storage container must be of a
type suitable for the dump mechanism on the collection vehicle. Since the
-100-
-------
loading time for bulk containers is less than for numerous small containers,
consideration in the service charge should be given to businesses with bulk
containers.
Storage of Rubbish
Accumulations of lawn and yard trimmings, small scraps of wood and other
rubbish should not be placed in the regular refuse container but should be placed
in a durable container not exceeding 2 feet x 2 feet x 2 feet dimensions. Bulky
material should be reduced in size so that it can be placed in this box and
handled by one man. An acceptable alternate to this would be tying yard trimm-
ings into bundles not exceeding 4 feet in length, 18 inches in diameter and 50
pounds in weight. Cardboard boxes used for containers would not be acceptable
if deteriorated by the weather. Metal containers should not be used for grass
cuttings due to the dampness that develops in the container and the subsequent
rotting action on the grass.
Ashes should be stored in fire-resistant containers with close-fitting covers,
The containers should be equipped with adequate handles and should be of a
weight easily handled by one man. Ashes containing hot embers should not be
placed in containers for collection.
It should be unlawful to permit refuse to accumulate on premises except
in adequate containers. However, bulky rubbish that does not cause a nuisance
would be an exception to this limitation.
-101-
-------
ON-SITE DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
On-site disposal facilities are normally used by commercial firms that
haul their own refuse to the disposal site. Less haul trips are required if
the volume of refuse is reduced before loading. Presently there are numerous
types of compacting units available on the market and any commercial firm
interested in on-site volume reduction should have no problem satisfying its
needs. The use of incinerators and backyard burners is expected to decline
as restrictions are placed on emissions of particulate matter.
COLLECTION
It is recommended that a county-wide system be initiated to serve all
those areas of concentrated population. A county-wide collection service
would consist of several collection vehicles serving designated areas through-
out the county.
Collection Areas
It is not feasible or necessary to collect refuse from every home, ranch,,
farm and commercial establishment on a county wide basis. The areas to be
served by an organized collection system would include the City of Belt, the
Town of Cascade and the communities of Centerville, Fort Shaw, Monarch,
Neihart, Sand Coulee, Simms, Stockett, Sun River, Tracy, Ulm and Vaughn.
If the City of Great Falls chooses to be included in the county-wide system,
collection for the entire metropolitan area will be integrated. If Great Falls
is not included in the system, collections will be made in the areas adjacent
to the city limits.
-102-
-------
Collection vehicles en route from one scheduled collection area to another,
would pick up services along the route. It is not feasible to drive off the main
route to service isolated homes. Areas to be served on a travel route would
include services located between Monarch and Neihart, those southwest of
Cascade on U. S. Highway 91 and those between Simms and Vaughn on U. S.
Highway 89.
Population Projection of Collection Areas
In order to estimate the amount of refuse produced by an area it is necessary
to determine the population of the area. A population study, using several
approaches, was made by the Great Falls City-County Planning Board during
February of 1968. Consideration was given to Volume IV of the "Great Falls
Urban Transportation Survey" of 1961, the "United States Census of Population"
and Rand McNally's"Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide". Population was
projected on the basis of the 1960 to 1967 school district census. These pro-
jections were then confirmed by interviews with residents of the various towns.
A summary of the resulting populations are given in Table 1. A discrepancy
exists between the projections made using the transportation study and those
made using the school census material. The discrepancies could be caused
by unsimilar boundaries between school districts and population census areas.
The 1968 and 1988 population figures may be high but they are on the safe side
for computing refuse quantities. Populations of cities, towns and communities
were increased to indicate the population of the total areas that would be served
by the county-wide collection service and these figures are shown in Table 2.
The populations indicated for the collection routes for 1968 and 1988 include
-103-
-------
the metropolitan areas, and an allowance for people on travel routes between
towns. The population of metropolitan Great Falls has been separated into
that within the city limits and that in the fringe area.
Refuse Production per Collection Area
Because of the lack of records it is difficult to determine the quantity of
refuse produced per person in Cascade County. None of the disposal sites
operate a weigh scale to determine the daily weight of refuse hauled,, To
effectively determine the routing and type of equipment required for an organ-
ized collection system, it is necessary to know how much refuse will be pro-
duced. National averages, from other studies, indicate that total refuse
production in 1967 was between 4.5 and 5.1 pounds, per capita. Total refuse
includes residential, commercial and industrial wastes.
To determine the amount of refuse produced in this area, an actual field
study was made on the collection vehicles used by the City of Great Falls.
Each day of the field study a different three-man collection vehicle was followed
on its route by the survey crew. Five different collection vehicles representing
routes from five different areas in Great Falls were studied. Each of the 18 cubic
yard collection vehicles served three routes per day and dumped refuse at the
disposal site three times per day. During the collection phase the survey crew
recorded the number of services (dwellings), the number of containers collected,
and the length of each collection route. At the completion of each route, the
collection vehicles were weighed to determine the weight of refuse collected.
Scales are not available at the Great Falls landfill site so normal operation does
not include weighing refuse collected. By using the weight of refuse collected
on each route, the number of services picked up, and an average of 3.2 persons
per service, it was possible to determine a per capita refuse production rate.
An average of the 15 residential collection routes equaled 1.9 pounds per capita
per day during the winter. Since refuse production increases during the summer,
2.1 pounds per capita per day was used as an annual average. As a verification
of the per capita figure, a cross check was made by totaling all the loads
collected in the entire Great Falls area per day and multiplying the total number
by the average truck weight determined from the field study in Great Falls of
specific collection routes. The resulting total weight of all the refuse collected
in Great Falls by collection vehicles was divided by the population on the routes,
to determine the per capita figure. This method gave a daily rate of 2.2 pounds
-104-
-------
per capita. Other areas around the United States indicate an average over the
year of about 2.5 pounds per capita per day for residential areas. Because
of the short period of time covered during the Great Falls field survey and the
time of the year that the survey was completed (winter), it was felt that the
more conservative figure of 2.5 pounds per capita per day should be used for
the quantity of refuse collected by collection vehicles on regular routes. Refuse
production is currently increasing at a 2 per cent rate per year. At this rate
by 1988 residential refuse production will be 3.5 pounds per capita per day.
These rates are required to project the needs for collection facilities.
In Table 2 the volumes of compacted refuse produced per week by the
cities, towns and communities in Cascade County are shown for 1968 and 1988.
The compacted volumes are based on the use of mechanical packer vehicles for
collection.
The total amount of refuse discarded at a disposal site will be greater than that
actually hauled to the site in collection vehicles, since private individuals, as
well as industrial and commercial organizations, will be hauling additional refuse
to the disposal sites. To determine the necessary volume of disposal sites, a
total refuse production of 4.5 pounds per capita per day has been used. This figure
allows for residential, commercial and industrial wastes. Using a 2 per cent increase
per year, the average refuse production rate between 1968 and 1988 will be 5.6 pounds
per capita per day. Table 3 shows the "Sanitary Landfill Requirements"
Route Analysis
To determine the equipment and labor requirements for an organized collection
route, it is necessary to compute the time required for the pickup operation in each
area, the travel time between areas, and the travel time to the sanitary landfills.
Collection Vehicles
Mechanical packer type collection vehicles are used throughout the Great Falls
area and this type of vehicle is recommended for county-wide use. Obviously,
crew efficiency decreases with an increase in the number of trips to the disposal
site. To keep the number of haul trips at a minimum, mechanical packer units can
be utilized successfully.
-105-
-------
A mechanical packer collection vehicle is capable of carrying more
refuse than a non-compacting truck body of the same capacity. Initial costs,
as well as operation and maintenance costs are higher for mechanical packer
units than for non-compacting units. Present prices for -17-18 cubic yard mech-
anical packer collection vehicles, complete with 3-5 ton chassis, will range
from $11,000 to $14,000. A 3-5 ton truck, complete with an 18 cubic yard open
body, may be obtained for approximately $8,500 to $10,000, The operation and
maintenance costs of a non-compacting vehicle will be approximately 75 per cent
of those for a mechanical packing unit. The primary advantage of the mechanical
packer unit is that less haul trips are required from the collection area to the
disposal site. Other advantages are the low loading heights of the refuse re-
ceiving hoppers and the esthetic and public health benefits derived from a com-
pletely enclosed refuse truck. In computing collection and hauling time require-
ments, an 18 cubic yard mechanical compactor vehicle was used for design com-
putations. Mechanical packers compress 1.36 cubic yards of open truck type
refuse to 1 packer yard of refuse. This ratio was used in determining the volumes
of refuse given in Table 2
Crew Size
In determining a routing system it is necessary to determine the siz:e
of crew that will be the most economical for the operation. A study made by
the Refuse Disposal Division of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
in California indicates that there is comparatively little difference in the col-
lection cost per route for different sizes of crews However, with a county-
wide collection system which entails considerable road travel, 3-man crews
are more costly than 2-man crews. The amount of time required for each man to
-106-
-------
pick up a ton of refuse is nearly the same for either a 2-man or 3-man crew.
The haul distance to the disposal site therefore becomes the governing factor
in determining the relative efficiency of 2 and 3 man crews. All routings for
the county-wide collection program excluding the Great Falls area are com-
puted on a 2-man crew basis. One-man crews are not recommended for operating
mechanical packer equipment.
The City of Great Falls is served weekly by 11 vehicles collecting, 167
routes and 1 private vehicle collecting 17 routes for a total of 184 routes per
week. Three-man crews have proven satisfactory in thi's area where travel
distances are relatively short. We are therefore recommending 3-man crews
for the Great Falls metropolitan area.
Scheduling
Cascade County has been divided into 3 separate routing systems.
Great Falls and the surrounding area make up 1 .-section. The geographical
layout of the towns and highways in the county indicate a natural dividing
of the county into eastern and western sections. The eastern area includes
Belt, Neihart, Monarch, Tracy, Sand Coulee, Centerville, and Stockett.
The western division includes Ulm, Cascade, Simms, Fort Shaw, Sun River,
and Vaughn. Table 4 gives the routing for 1968 and Table 5 gives the routing
for 1988.
In the eastern division the collection vehicle would be headquartered at
Belt. On Monday, for once per week collection, the truck would be driven
to the Tracy-Sand Coulee, Centerville, Stockett area for collection of refuse
there. The collection operation in this area would require 11 hours 20 minutes,
rot including travel time to the disposal site, Monday night the collection
-107-
-------
vehicle would be left at the county shop in Stockett. After completing col-
lection Tuesday morning the truck would proceed back to Belt to finish out
the day. Wednesday the truck would be taken to Neihart, collect refuse
there, drive to Monarch, collect refuse there, and haul material to the dis-
posal site in that area. Wednesday afternoon the truck would return to the
Belt county shop. Thursday the collection crew would finish collecting the
Belt area. The total collection time and road travel time for this route,
based on once per week pickup, would be about 30 hours, excluding travel
time to sanitary landfills. The time required for the same routing using
twice per week collection would be about 52 hours.
Routing for the western division could be based at any of the commun-
ities along the route. However, collectors v/ould want to arrange the rout-
ing so as to be within commuting distance of home each night. An auto-
mobile or pickup would be provided for the required commuting. If the
route begins at Vaughn on Monday morning, the refuse collectors would
cover the Vaughn area, dump the refuse at the area landfill and proceed
south over the Ulm-Vaughn road to Ulm. Monday night the collection vehi-
cle would be left at Ulm. Tuesday morning the Ulm area would be completed
and the crew would proceed to Cascade and collect the refuse there. Dump-
ing would be accomplished in that area by Tuesday night. Wednesday morn-
ing the truck would proceed north out of Cascade to Fort Shaw. The Fort
Shaw, Simms, Sun River area would be collected and the refuse dumped at
the area landfill site. Wednesday night the truck would proceed back to
Vaughn. Additional route pickups may be necessary on U. S. Highway 91
southwest of Cascade near Hardy and also on State Route 200 and U. S.
-108-
-------
Highway 89 between Simms and Vaughn. This western route should require
about 24 working hours for once per week pickup. The same route with twice
penweek collection would require about 40 hours when figured on a 1968 refuse
production basis.
Table 5 shows that by 1988 the eastern route time would be about 58
hours and 99 hours for once per week and twice per week pickup respectively*
The times for the western route would be 44 hours and 74 hours.
The third area is adjacent to the Great Falls city limits. Actual pop-
ulation figures for this area vary from year to year depending on how much
area is annexed to the City of Great Falls but it is estimated that 4,000 people
live in the fringe area at the present time.
Assuming that Great Falls continues their operation of collection in the
city limits, the Great Falls fringe area analysis as given in Table 4 indicates
that it will take a 2-man crew about 37 hours for once per week pickup and 63
hours for twice per week pickup. For a 3-man crew and twice per week service,
the total time required for collection would be 40-1/2 hours. A 3-man crew
using 1 packer type collection vehicle could serve the Great Falls rural or
fringe area adequately with twice per week service in a regular work week.
The times given here do not include travel time to and from disposal sites and
collection time for additional pickups on scheduled routes. Initially, this
time would be of little significance because the disposal sites are in close
proximity to the collection routes.
Because of the continuous growth in the Great Falls area an evaluator
is needed to assist the superintendent in establishing collection routes.
Refuse hauled to the sanitary landfill should be either continuously or periodically
-109-
-------
weighed to determine the amount of refuse being collected per crew. By
periodic re-evaluation of the routes, more effective service can be main-
tained. It is impossible to determine truck routes without getting out in
the field and working with the men and the trucks. The effectiveness of
an organized collection program depends a great deal upon how well the
routing system is laid out for the collection crews. The evaluator will
also determine the charge rates for the commercial services. The rates
of commercial services should be continuously re-evaluated. If volume
or type of business changes the amount of refuse, a corresponding rate
adjustment should be made.
An analysis was made, during the winter of 1^67-1968, of the
time required to collect refuse by the crews operating in Great Falls.
A 3-man crew collecting once per week averaged 100 man-minutes per
ton of refuse collected. A California study indicates an average collec-
tion time of 135 man-minutes per ton of refuse collected. Tables 4 and
5 are based on 100 man-minutes per ton in the densely populated areas
and 135 man-minutes per ton in the rural areas. The latter rate has been
applied to the 2-man crews which are proposed for the rural areas.
According to the California study, collection crew requirements vary with
the frequency of collection. Results from the study indicate that the twice
per week total labor requirement would be 1 67 times that required for once
per week pickup. This adjustment has been applied to the collection time
required for twice per week pickup.
-110-
-------
Frequency of Collection
From the preceding section it can be seen that twice per week pickup
requires about 74 per cent more time than once per week pickup for the
eastern and western area routes. Great Falls and the surrounding area
requires about 65 per cent more time for twice per week pickup. As pre-
viously mentioned, twice per week collection is desirable from a public
health aspect. The need is more critical in the congested area. We are
therefore recommending twice per week collection in the City of Great
Falls and once per week in the other areas.
Going to twice per week pickup for the City of Great Falls will require
1.67 times as many collection vehicles. This is an increase from 12 to 20,
with one additional vehicle being required for the area outside the city limits.
Refuse produced by commercial establishments may require more than
once per week pickup service. The collection vehicles in rural areas may
not be able to serve some of these firms more than once per week. In Great
Falls and the surrounding area, additional service would be available.
Collection Equipment Required
Non-compacting versus compacting type collection vehicles were pre-
viously discussed under "Route Analysis". It was brought out that mechan-
ical packer collection vehicles would give the best service on a county-
wide basis. The units should not be too large in capacity so as to hamper
their maneuverability through alleys or excessively reduce their ability to
travel mountain grades,
-111-
-------
Capacity of Vehicles
Capacities of packer units available on the market vary from 10-40
cubic yards with 15-25 cubic yard units being the most widely used. An 18
or 20 yard mechanical packer unit would adequately serve each of the 3 areas
specified for the county-wide collection service. Three collection vehicles
would service the county-wide collection area excluding Great Falls.
Safety Devices
Employee health and accident prevention are important considerations
in a solid waste program. Injuries are often directly related to the types of
equipment used. Although safety devices are a must on collection vehicle
equipment to help prevent accidents, they are often eliminated in order to
lower the price of a unit ฃo fit a budget.
Mechanical packer units are available with many safety features which
should be purchased with the unit. Safety doors are available to cover loading
hoppers during the packing cycle. Dual packer controls can stop the packing
mechanism should either loader become entangled in the refuse or equipment.
Brakes should beirequently.schecked on all collection vehicles to
make sure they are in good working order. Hand brakes often will riot hold
on relatively flat grades. All parts of the collection vehicles should be kept
in good working order at all times.
Crew Organization
Incentive type collection programs are excellent means of promoting col-
lector efficiencies. A crew that is allowed to leave a job early after complet-
ing a predetermined route will normally give better performance than one that
is required to work a set hourly day or week.
-112-
-------
In setting up a multiple area collection route it may be convenient for
the crew to work some long days and some short, either to complete a certain
pickup area or to decrease travel time the next day. It is very important that
the collection day for each area be the same every week to accommodate those
people who have to set out their refuse containers.
Once the collection areas are set up, the sanitation superintendent can
figure the routing on a daily basis. The route can be determined to allow the
workers to complete 40 hours work in about 36 hours per week. For those
routes that can initially be collected in only a 4-day week, the crews can be
used for restitution of unsightly, abandoned dumps.
It is necessary to have a superintendent in charge of all county collec-
tion routes. He would be required to set up the routes for all crews, check
crew efficiencies on incentive type routes, increase and decrease routes as
necessary and insure that the public is getting 40 hours work from every
crew. Any complaints from the public or the collection crew will also be field
investigated by the superintendent.
DISPOSAL
General
In Section VII several different methods of refuse disposal were discussed.
The only complete method of disposal of all types of refuse is the sanitary
landfill, which is the most suitable means for disposing of refuse in Cascade
County.
-113-
-------
Sanitary Landfill Disposal Sites
Areas Served
As mentioned previously, the county-wide collection service would
be set up to serve only the areas ot concentrated population. However,
the disposal sites would be available for serving the entire county popu-
lation. The sanitary landfill sites would be located near the more populated
areas to serve the majority ot the population. Even though the distance
across the county varies from 50 to 80 miles, the maximum distance trom
any remote dwelling in the county to a landfill disposal site would be 25
miles.
Existing or New Sites
Existing open dump sites will be converted and re-designed to
serve as sanitary landfills if they are suitable tor this type of operation.
Those sites that have unacceptable features such as surface water flow,
hilltop location, steep and inaccessible access roads, or lack ot space
would be abandoned. The Cascade County map shown in the appendix of this
report indicates the proposed sanitary landfill sites. Existing sites to be used
are at Monarch and Cascade. Proposed new sites are shown for: Belt, Stockett-
Sand Coulee-Tracy area, South Great Falls (Rural), Vaughn-Ulm area, and Simms-
Fort Shaw-Sun River area. Should the City of Great Falls choose to be included
in the county-wide program, the existing sanitary landfill north ot Great Falls
would be utilized for the refuse produced in the metropolitan area north of
Central Avenue and the remaining portion would use the proposed sanitary
-114-
-------
landfill south of the city. The City of Great Falls would benefit by having
2 sanitary landfill sites controlled and operated by one city-county organi-
zation. As the city enlarges, the land costs will increase, and landfill
disposal sites will become more difficult to obtain. Many growing cities
have not had the foresight to obtain land for future disposal sites and have
been forced to use the more costly method of central incineration for refuse
disposal,
Landfill Site Acreage Required
A 20 year design period has been used for landfill requirements.
Table 3 gives the acre footage required for each landfill site, (One acre
foot equals one acre of area one foot deep) A 1967 figure of 4.5 pounds
per capita per day was used for the total amount of refuse produced per
person. This figure is the result of several studies run throughout the
United States and refers not only to refuse picked up by collection vehicles
but also includes tree trimmings, old car bodies, etc. Using a 2 per cent
increase per year for refuse production gives a 1988 figure of 6.8 pounds
per capita per day. The average refuse production during the 20 year period
would be 5.6 pounds per capita per day. Based on a density of 1,000 pounds
per cubic yard for compacted refuse, 25.8 acre feet would be needed per
1 ,000 people for 20 years. The acre feet of volume required for refuse is
obtained by averaging the population figures for 1968 and 1988 given in
Table 2, and multiplying by 25.8 acre feet per 1,000 population.
-115-
-------
Proposed Sanitary Landfill Sites
Proposed sites are shown on the Cascade County map and on the
township maps in the appendix of this report. The existing sites near
Monarch, Cascade and Great Falls proper are the only sites presently being
used that are suitable for future sanitary landfills. New sites are proposed
for all the remaining areas as listed in Table 6.
The Monarch site which will serve the Monarch-Neihart area is
located in Section 3, Township 15 N, Range 7 E. The general type of soil
in this area consists of silts and silty loarns with a Federal Aviation Agency
classification of E-6. The site should be enlarged to the west of the
existing site to include one more acre of disposal area, or a total of about
1.7 acres of useable disposal area. In computing the landfill volume
requirements an average population of 339 and a landfill depth of 6 feet
were used.
In the Belt area a minimum of 5.5 acres with an average depth of
6 feet are required. The existing disposal site is too small and a new site
adjacent to the Orr Coulee road in Section 23, Township 19 N, Range 6 E
is proposed. The site location, which is near the county road, appears to
be the only available site in the area. Surface water is a problem around
Belt and adequate cover soil is difficult to obtain. At the proposed location
the gentle slope of the existing ground will be suitable for the trench type
method of sanitary landfilling. Soil in this area consists of a poorly graded
fine granular soil with a classification of E-5.
A proposed site for the Stockett-Centerville-Sand Coulee-Tracy area
-116-
-------
is located in Section 20 and 21, Township 19 N, Range 5 E. This site
would begin at the upper end of a coulee located near the Hasting road and
run parallel to the Frenchman Hill road. Minimum acreage required for this
site would be 5 1 acres with an average depth of 8 feet. By using the upper
portion of the coulee, the site will be partially hidden from the view of
passing motorists This site would serve all four towns in the area. The
soil classification for the proposed area is E-6, and consists of silts and
silty loams.
Future use is limited at the existing open dump sites at Ulm and Vaughn.
Because of the limited space, conversion of the existing sites to sanitary
landfills is not possible. A site located 1/2 way between Ulm and Vaughn
in Section 18, Township 20 N, Range 2 E will serve both towns. Figuring
a depth of 6 feet the landfill minimum acreage requirement is 4.7 acres.
The Ulm-Vaughn road requires some additional gravel to upgrade the sur-
face. Although the soil types vary throughout the area, a large portion is
E-6. The area also contains some clay type (E-7) soils.
Cascade presently has an open dump site located in Section 26, Township
18 N, Range 1 W which can be converted to a sanitary landfill site. The
existing acreage should last approximately 10 more years. Adjacent land
to the northeast should be obtained for future expansion. Figuring a 6 foot
depth of refuse the landfill acreage requirement is 4.5 acres. Since the
existing site has 2.3 acres of land available, an additional 2.2 acres are
required. The land to the northeast is not contiguous with the existing site
because of a coulee that must be maintained for drainage. The trench method
-117-
-------
could be used on this land to the northeast of the coulee. The soil in this
area consists of silts and silty loams, classification E-6.
A new sanitary landfill site located in Section 18, Township 20 N,
Range 1 W would serve the Fort Shaw-Simms-Sun River portion of the county.
Figuring a 6 foot refuse depth, the minimum landfill area requirement Is
2.2 acres. The proposed new site would begin at the upper portion of the
coulee and proceed downward. Knapstad road, which is well graveled, is
within 1,500 feet of the proposed location of the sanitary landfill. This
site, being close to Fort Shaw, is centrally located to serve Simms, Sun
River, and the surrounding area. The soil here consists of a fine sandy
material with a classification of E-2 .
South of Great Falls in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 30, Township 20 N,
Range 4 E is the proposed site for a new sanitary landfill which will serve
the surrounding area of Great Falls. A 22 acre area is needed based on a
6 foot depth and a 20 year design period. Filling would begin at the upper
portion of the 1/4 section and proceed downward in the coulee. Care would
be taken to provide for proper drainage around the fill. The best location
for an access road would be an extension of 26th Street South. A sandy
soil exists in this area. The capacity of this site is near 5,000 acre feet
which would serve the rural area and a large portion of Great Falls proper
for more than 20 years.
The City of Great Falls is presently disposing of refuse in a sanitary
landfill>:
-------
for use as farm land. Future projections as given in Table 6 indicate that
the existing site will last for about 7 more years. An additional area adjacent
to the existing site will serve another 6 months to a year giving a total of
about 8 years useage.
A large portion of the soil in the area now being used is classified
as E-6. A clay type soil, classification E-7, is also prevalent.
Proposed sanitary landfill disposal sites are shown on topographic maps
in the appendix of this report. Proposed access roads, fences, and ditches
are also indicated.
Bulk storage containers would be located near the entrance to unattended
landfill sites for receiving waste hauled to the site by private individuals.
The waste dumped in the bulk containers would be buried in the landfill on
the scheduled collection day for that area. Bulk containers from 1 to 2 cubic
yards capacity can be emptied into the loading hopper of a mechanical packer
vehicle using standard apparatus. However, for containers in the 2 to 8
cubic yard capacity range, an additional winch must be installed on the
mechanical packer unit for lifting and dumping the larger bulk containers.
OPERATING EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR LANDFILLS
In the Cascade County-Wide program both the area fill method and
the trench method will be used for disposal of solid wastes. Because of
the different soil conditions of the sites and the different methods of disposal
to be used, a multi-purpose piece of equipment is required to operate and
maintain all of the sites. The equipment must be capable of transporting
refuse, spreading and compacting it, and covering it with soil. A piece of
-119-
-------
equipment should be capable of excavating and carrying cover soil several
hundred feet.
It is not feasible to purchase equipment for assignment to each landfill
in the county. It appears that the most economical way to maintain these
landfill sites is to utilize equipment on a transport basis. 3Ehe equipment
would be hauled from site to site at least once a week. Other equipment
as may be needed could be rented. No open disposal would be made at the
sites except during the day that equipment is at the site to cover the refuse.
Covered containers would be available for refuse disposal on other days.
A wheel loader is the most versatile piece of equipment available for
county-wide landfill maintenance. The prime drawback of this type of unit
is the susceptibility of the tires to puncture. Either steel impregnated
puncture-resistant tires or rock tires are available for protection against
breaks, punctures, and blowouts. The wheel loader has maneuverability,
is capable of carrying refuse and cover soil, and can excavate cover soil
when necessary. A multi-purpose bucket fitted to a wheel loader is a utility
tool which can haul and bulldoze both topsoil and debris. The wheel loader
should be in the range of 100-115 fly-wheel horsepower. Such a unit
equipped with a multi-purpose bucket costs from $25,000 to $31,000. The
rubber tired wheel loader can be loaded on a lowboy trailer for transporting
from site to site. Tilt type trailers, which eliminate the need for a loading
and unloading dock, are available for hauling loaders behind trucks. The
Montana Highway Department specifies the maximum width of the loader and
trailer.
It is always advisable to have a piece of standby equipment available
in case of emergency. A crawler tractor with a dozer blade could be used for
-120-
-------
excavating refuse trenches periodically and for serving in emergencies when
other equipment is being repaired. Because of the minimal need for the crawler
tractor and dozer it is advisable to rent this equipment.
If punctured tires become a problem, steel cleated traction wheels are
available for installation over and around the rubber tires. These steel
encasements completely cover the rubber tires and provide steel cleats
for crushing and demolition action. Steel wheels such as these cost from
$5,000 to $6,000 for a set of four.
A tilt type lowboy trailer for transporting the wheel loader costs $3,000
to $3,500. It is necessary to have substantial truck rear axle weight ahead
of the trailer to control the load. A 1-1/2 ton flatbed truck with a 375 to
400 cubic inch engine would be suitable for towing the trailer. This truck
could also be used to carry a fuel tank, tools, fencing and other accessories
for landfill maintenance. The truck can be purchased for approximately $4,000
to $4,500.
The Great Falls sanitary landfill presently uses a Caterpillar 977 crawler
loader, an International TD 15 crawler dozer, and a Hell 11 cubic yard scraper
or earth mover. The Caterpillar 977 crawler loader, which was purchased in
1961, has extremely high maintenance costs. The TD 15 crawler dozer, pur-
chased in 1966, is used in the refuse compacting and burying operation. After
the final lift of refuse is dumped, the scraper is attached to the TD 15 and
used for hauling and placing a cover of 2 feet of soil. The TD 15 is under-
powered and cannot effectively operate the scraper in the area where they are
now working.
-121-
-------
The replacement of the Caterpillar 977 crawler loader appears necessary
at this time. A 150 horsepower crawler loader, which costs between $37,000
and $43,000, would be the proper size of unit to purchase. The existing
equipment that is replaced could be kept for standby use.
The use of track type equipment appears to be working out satisfactorily
Some time is lost in moving from one end of the site to the other but in general
the units are working effectively. Track type units appear more feasible for
use at the Great Falls site due to the large quantities of refuse arid relative
amounts of sharp metallic items.
ELIMINATING OLD OPEN DUMP SITES'
The existing open dump sites which are considered inadequate should be
abandoned. Dump sites to be abandoned are located at Neihart, Belt, Stockett,
Sand Coulee, Ulm, Fort Shaw and Vaughn, Refuse dumped at these areets
should be buried in trenches and the whole area should be graded for proper
drainage. To prevent further dumping in the area, the access road to the area
should be fenced off and signs installed indicating the location of the new
site. Drawings showing the approved methods of burying refuse are shown in
the appendix of this report. Periodic cleanup in the abandoned area may be
necessary for a short period of time.
JUNK AUTOMOBILES IN CASCADE COUNTY
Junk automobile hulks usually originate from one of three sources: (1)
abandoned vehicles left on public or private land, (2) do-it-yourself wreckers
and (3) commercial wreckers The automobile hulk represents the final re-
mains of what was once licensed, taxed and classed as titled private property.
-122-
-------
The number of licensed automobiles in Cascade County has tripled (from
12,588 to 37,032) in the last 20 years. Obviously the problems we have
today are certain to multiply unless methods for suitable disposal are found.
A junk automobile survey conducted in Cascade County showed that more
than 5,000 abandoned cars and trucks are located in back yards, streets, high-
ways, rivers, creeks, and are scattered at random across the countryside.
These cars are usually stripped of tires, wheels, lights and other salvagable parts.
AUTOMOBILE
GRAVEYARDS
CASCADE COUNTY
-123-
-------
AUTOMOBILE GRAVEYARD - CASCADE COUNTY
Over 5,900 automobiles are stored in junk yards throughout the county. A
9-acre area located near Great Falls is covered with old Crushed auto hulks to
a depth of about 10 feet. More than 500 auto hulks are placed along streams
and rivers for use as riprap. The survey indicates that Cascade County does have
a motor vehicle disposal problem.
From a national viewpoint auto hulks are a major raw material resource
providing millions of tons of metals for resmelting. The scrap metal industry
has been processing and selling automotive scrap for many years. However, in
recent years there has been a decline in the scrap metal market because of changes
in the methods of steel processing.
The scrap industry has its own terminology which is used to distinguish the
different grades and types of automotive scrap. Scraps purchased as "number 2
bundle" can contain burned or hand stripped automobile bodies and fender stock
which has been compressed to a size that will fit a furance. The unit weight of
the bundle cannot be less than 75 pounds per cubic foot. These bundles are not
-124-
-------
to contain tin-coated, lead-coated or vitreous enameled material. Another
classification "bundled number 2 steel" may contain, in addition, to auto bodies,
such parts as chassis, drive shafts and bumpers. "Automotive slab" is another
type of steel scrap produced by shearing a compressed automobile hulk into
slabs of desired dimensions. "Shredded scrap" is a grade of scrap espec-
ially suited for-electric furnace melting. It consists of small pieces of frag-
mented automobile bodies ranging in size from 1/2 inch to 12 inches in length
or width. "Number 2 heavy melting scrap" includes automotive parts such as
frames, axles, springs, shock absorbers , wheels, transmissions, differentials,
drive shafts, bumpers, brake shoes and steering linkages. Specifications
governing the purchase of scrap consider the types of material contained in
the bale as well as the physical size of the scrap.
The auto hulks must be stripped of all salvagable material as well as
material not suitable for baling. Foreign matter in a certain class of bale
affects the price received for the bale. After the car is stripped and the diff-
erent classes of material segregated, the junk automobile is compressed into
a bale as required by the market areas. An alternate to this would be a shredder
which cuts up the material into small pieces.
Equipment for baling scrap can cost from $40,000 up to several hundred
thousand dollars. Portable balers are available. Shredders that will handle
automobile hulks are available from about $275,000 and up. Any equipment
that is used for grinding, shredding or compacting large metallic items will
obviously receive rough wear and require maintenance.
Some of the scrap markets located near Cascade County are: Seattle,
Washington; Portland, Oregon; Geneva, Utah; Pueblo, Colorado; Regina,
-125-
-------
Saskatchewan, Canada; and Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Current prices on
"number 2 bundles" vary from $15.00 to $23.00 per ton at the markets men-
tioned above. Seattle and Portland, at the time of this writing, were buying
"number 2 bundles" at $23.00 per ton.
Freight rates from Great Falls to Portland or Seattle are currently $13.00
to $14.00 per ton. With a market value of $23.00 per ton and a freight cost
of $14.00 per ton, only $9.00 per ton remains for obtaining and processing
the junk automobile hulks, and it takes 2 to 3 stripped car bodies to make a
ton of scrap. Obviously a scrap processor cannot obtain an abandoned car,
strip it and bale or shred the hulk for $3.00 to $4.50 per car.
The definition of "rubbish" as used in Chapter 40 of the Revised Codes
of Montana, dealing with refuse disposal areas, includes "abandoned auto-
mobiles. . .and similar materials". It would appear that at .the present time a
motor vehicle is considered to be "abandoned" when left on public highways,
streets, roads or public property for more than 5 days. Once having been
abandoned by this definition the automobile may be impounded and sold.
However, it would not appear that sale of such a vehicle would necessarily
result in a desirable form of disposal. The purchaser of such a vehicle would
not be obliged to take any particular action with regard to the vehicle other
than to take it from the storage facility of the city or county law enforcement
officials conducting the sale. Such vehicles allowed to accumulate on private
property are not within the definition of abandonment set forth in the act cited
above dealing with abandoned vehicles. Certainly the provisions of Chapter 40
of Title 69 would provide some assistance in dealing with abandoned automobiles
-126-
-------
to the extent they are dumped in an unlicensed area. However, even that
act expressly provides that it is not to be construed as prohibiting any
person from disposing of rubbish (abandoned automobiles and similar materials)
upon his own land as long as such disposal does not create a nuisance. Thus
the scrap or junk dealer who accumulates car bodies on his own property would
have to be dealt with on the basis that such dumping or disposal constitutes
a nuisance. Before any lasting improvement can be expected, legislation
would be required prohibiting the disposal of abandoned vehicles on private
land. Existing statutes which require the licensing of refuse disposal areas
could be expanded to require licensing of the areas to be used by scrap or
junk dealers to store abandoned autos. Such dealers are now subject to
certain screening requirements enacted in conjunction with our Interstate High-
way system under Section 32-4514(4) but only if located within 1,000 feet from
the edge of the right-of-way of a highway in the Interstate or primary systems
Once suitable legislation is enacted, donated labor and equipment, com-
bined with the effects of a county-wide collection agency, could proceed
with cleaning up the country-side that is now littered with junk automobiles
Provisions would be made at each disposal site to crush and bury old car
hulks.
RECORDS
The efficient management of any enterprise depends a great deal on proper
control of men and materials. Part of this control is gained through detailed
records on field data, equipment, administrative data and accidents. Records
essential for solid waste information were discussed in Section VI of this
-127-
-------
report. These records are not only important for future design but are
necessary for satisfactory management of continuing collection and disposal
operations.
FINANCING
Initial Costs
Alternate 1-Includes rural routes with once per week collection
and Great Falls with twice per week collection.
Alternate 2 -Includes rural routes with once per week collection
and Great Falls with once per week collection.
Alternate 3 -Includes rural routes arid the area adjacent to the
Great Falls city limits with once per week collection. Under this alternate
Great Falls would continue to operate its existing system and would not be
included in the county-wide program .
The breakdown of initial costs is given in Tables 7 & 8. Alternates 1 ,
2, and 3 show initial costs of $632,000, $520,000 and $174,000, respectively,
The final determination of whether to use Alternate 1, 2, or 3 will depend on
Great Falls' participation in the program and the frequency of collection in
the Great Falls area.
Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs
Upon initiation of the Cascade County-wide program, it will be necess-
ary to obtain funds for operating, maintaining and administrating the program.
The yearly depreciation on all the equipment and landfill sites has been in-
cluded in the costs shown in Table 11. Deposits made periodically into a
sinking fund would be available in the future for replacement of the equipment
-128-
-------
and purchase of land. Table 8 shows the years of depreciation allowed for
each item of capital outlay. All replacement costs are based on no salvage
value at the end of the period. Replacement costs for land and heavy equip-
ment are based on a 5 per cent increase per year, and for trucks are based on
a 3 per cent increase per year. Landfill operation and maintenance costs are
shown in Table 9 for two different alternates - one including the entire county
and the other including the rural portion of the county and the fringe areas of
Great Falls. The table is self-explanatory and gives the costs for only the
major items required for landfill maintenance and operation. An allowance
has been made for supplies required at landfills.
Collection Costs
Collection costs are shown in Table 10. Hourly rates are computed for
collection vehicles complete with crews. A basic wage rate was expanded
to include administrative costs and overhead. By combining truck and labor
costs, 1968 total hourly costs were determined for 2-man and 3-man crews
operating an 18 cubic yard vehicle. The total number of hours required for
collection per year was then determined for the different collection areas.
Total collection costs were computed and used in Table 11 to determine the
cost per dwelling.
Summary of Operation. Maintenance and Replacement Costs
From Table 2 it is possible to determine the tons of refuse produced per
year for each area, and thereby calculate the cost per ton of refuse. Approx-
imately 73 per cent of the total revenue collection in Great Falls is from resi-
dential services and 27 per cent is from commercial services. Using the data
-129-
-------
shown in Table 2, and 3.2 people per dwelling, the refuse production is
calculated to be 1.84 tonsper dwelling per year.The actual refuse from each
home is somewhat lower because the refuse from commercial services was not
deducted. The cost per ton of refuse collected is $26.46. Of this cost 73
per cent ($19.32 per ton) or a total cost of $36.00 per year, is to be paid
by each residential service per year. This rate would apply to Alternate 1
which includes twice per week collection in Great Falls and once per week
collection in the rural areas.
Alternate 2, which is for once per week collection in all areas, would
cost an average of $24.00 per residential service per year.
Since the majority of the commercial establishments in Cascade County
are located in Great Falls, which is excluded from Alternate 3, the cost per
ton for collection and disposal for Alternate 3 is based on 100 per cent resi-
dential revenue. Using 3.2 people per dwelling and the rural population
given in Table 2, the cost is $36.00 per residential dwelling per year.
Application for a demonstration project grant may be considered as one
method of obtaining funds to initiate an organized system of collection and
disposal of refuse throughout Cascade County. The Solid Waste Disposal
Demonstration Project Grants are authorized by the Solid Waste Disposal Act -
Public Law 89-272 which provides for Federal grants for new and improved
methods, practices, programs and techniques of solid waste dispose!.
-130-
-------
RATES
Residential Rates
The most accurate method of paying for any service is on a quantity
basis. Each family would pay for the exact amount of refuse it discards, as
measured on a weight or volume basis. Obviously collection crews cannot
take the time to weigh the refuse discarded from each home and keep records
of these amounts. The bookkeeping would be costly and subject to error.
It appears that the flat rate method of assessment for refuse collection
and disposal for residential services is one of the most practical means of
obtaining revenue. Variations can be made to allow the smaller dwellings a
rate reduction, while the larger dwellings would pay an increased rate over
and above the average flat rate.
The City of Great Falls has based the residential charge rates on the
number of rooms in each home. To a limited degree, the number of people
and the amount of refuse varies with the number of rooms. To simplify account-
ing procedures, we recommend that only 3 charge rates be used for residential
services. Separate rates would be charged for homes with 3 rooms and under,
for homes with 4 and 5 rooms, and for homes with 6 rooms and over.
Vacant Charges
Owners of rental property should be required to pay the standard rate
specified whether their units are vacant or occupied. Once or twice a year
the owner could report and sign an affidavit that the rental unit was empty
during a certain period of time. Refunds could be made after necessary
-131-
-------
checking to verify that the unit was vacant. This would eliminate the
situation where the owner has the collection fee discontinued because hi<;
unit is vacant and then conveniently forgets to inform the city that he has
rented the unit again. The collection crew is often unable to determine when
a new service is placed out for collection, particularly in multi-family dwell-
ings.
Commercial Rates
Commercial rates for refuse collection and disposal should vary with the
quantities of refuse produced and the type of containers used. Bulk containers
are much easier to dump than several small containers of equal total volume.
Obviously pickup time and refuse quantities are both matters to be considered
in figuring the cost per commercial service.
In order to rate each commercial service on a time and quantity basis, it
is necessary to determine the time required for the crew to collect the refuse,
and the volume of refuse collected should be estimated. After several ob-
servations have been made at each service, it is possible to determine an
equitable charge for each commercial service. This field data should be ob-
tained under the direction of a superintendent of the Sanitation Department.
AUTHORITY FOR COUNTY-WIDE PROGRAM
There are certain legal matters connected with the organization of a
Cascade County-wide program for regulation of storage, collection and dis-
posal of solid wastes. The primary concern is whether or not there is exist-
ing legislation allowing for the establishment of such a county-wide program
and, if so, what type of organization can be set up to control the system.
-132-
-------
A legal review of existing statutes has brought out some uncertainties
involving the basic power of agencies of the executive branches of state
and local governments, as well as the basic relationship of county and city
governmental agencies.
One of the basic problems with existing legislation is the absence of
any concentrated authority for implementation of a county-wide solid waste
disposal program in any single governmental entity. At the present time
cities, towns and counties are equipped to deal with the problem on only a
piecemeal basis. The local Board of Health, particularly where such local
board is a city-county board of health, is the logical entity for actual reg-
ulation and conduct of the contemplated program.
In order to eliminate any question about the jurisdiction of local boards
of health, it is recommended that Chapter 45 of Title 69 of the Revised Codes
of Montana be amended to affirmatively state what is believed to be the
current law, namely, that the jurisdiction of county boards of health extends
to all incorporated cities and towns within the boundaries of the county which
are of less than second class. Cities of first and second class may have a
separate board of health and are empowered to, by mutual agreement, unite
with the county in a city-county board of health under Section 69-4506 of the
Revised Codes of Montana.
The powers of local boards of health set forth in Section 69-4509 (2)
should then be expanded to allow establishment by such local boards of a
comprehensive system of regulation governing the collection, storage, trans-
portation and disposal of garbage, refuse and rubbish as these terms are
-133-
-------
defined in Section 69-4002 (relating to solid waste disposal areas) . Such
a provision should further authorize in conjunction with the establishment of
such a system the creation and maintenance of an exclusive collection service
throughout the area subject to the board's jurisdiction or in such portions there-
of as in the discretion of the board would best serve the health of the area's
residents. Further provision would be made to provide this service on a fee
basis to be conducted by board employees or contract collectors licensed by
the board, or both. The board should be authorized to utilize the facilities
of the respective offices of the city and county treasurers for collection of the
service fees.
In order to finance the initial acquisition of land for disposal sites and
the equipment necessary to maintain these sites and provide the collection and
service needed, the board should further be given the power to establish a
garbage, refuse and rubbish district encompassing the area of its jurisdiction.
This power would be exercised pursuant to a more detailed district provision
in the nature of that found currently in Section 16-1031 providing for estab-
lishment of garbage and ash collection in certain areas of a county.
The district provision established (perhaps by amendment of Section 16-
1031) should provide for creation of the district upon resolution of the local
board of health and perhaps, in the alternative, the county commissioners,
but nevertheless subject to the regulation and supervision of the collection,
storage, transportation and disposal of waste by the local board of health.
Some provision for notice of creation of the district and of its levies or assess-
ments would have to be made with an opportunity for hearing of protestants
prior to collection of any assessment. If the present Section 16-1031 were
-134-
-------
attempted to be utilized, it would be necessary to eliminate the current
prohibition against dual use of fee for service and levy as sources of
revenue. It would appear to be necessary under the program contemplated
to utilize a combination of these two sources to equitably fund a county-wide
program.
The local board of health should also be empowered to employ such
personnel as required to supervise and operate the comprehensive system
contemplated. In addition, the rule-making power of the local board found
in Section 69-4509 (2)(j)(ii) should be broadened to include rules for regulat-
ion of collection, storage, transportation and disposal of garbage, refuse
and rubbish.
-135-
-------
TABLE 1
CASCADE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTION TO 1988 *
1960 Projections for 1968 Projections for 1988
City or Town Census A 13 C A 13 C
Great Falls
Vaughn
Sun River
Fort Shaw
Simms
Ulm
Cascade
Tracy
Sand Coulee
Stockett
Centerville
Monarch-Winter
Monarch-Summer
Neihart
Belt
55,244
265
100
100
200
350
604
170
300
400
85
(20)
r (150)
150
757
331
112
112
224
438
755
212
375
500
106
(22)
(168)
168
946
342
103
109
198
335
652
149
262
350
75
(3D
(230)
54
723
76,000
335
110
110
210
415
730
200
350
475
90
(27)
(170)
170
900
527
134
134
268
696
1,202
338
597
796
169
(27)
(201)
201
1,506
-136
535
110
131
193
297
773 1
96
168
225
49
(58)
(429)
0
639 1
,000
530
125
130
240
665
,140
320
565
755
150
(45)
(220)
220
,430
Totals 58,810 80,193 142,403
A . Based on "Great Falls Urban Transportation Survey" 1961, Volume IV,
and United States Census of Population, Bureau of Census, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, and "Commercial Atlas and Marketing CJuide",
98th Edition, 1967, printed by Rand McNally & Co.
B. Based on School District census material taken from 1960 - 1967.
School census trends were extrapolated for projections of the towns
after correlating 1960 school census to 1960 town population.
C. Population used for this study.
* Data obtained from Great Falls City-County Planning Board
-136-
-------
TABLE 2
REFUSE COLLECTION QUANTITIES
City or Town
Great Falls
Adjacent Gt. Falls
Vaughn
Sun River
Fort Shaw
Simms
Ulm
Cascade
Tracy
Sand Coulee
Stockett
Centerville
Monarch-Winter
Monarch-Summer
Neihart
Belt
Total
Total-Cascade Co.
1
A
76,000
335
110
110
210
415
730
200
350
475
90
(27)
(170)
170
900
968
B.
*
76,000
4,000
370
120'
120
230
455
800
220
385
520
100
(30)
(185)
185
990
*
1
A
988
B.
*
136,000
530
125
130
240
665
1,140
320
565
755
150
(45)
(220)
220
1,430
136,000
6,000
580
135
145
265
730
1,250
350
620
830
165
(50)
(240)
240
1,570
*
CY/Wk.
1968
C
2,795.0
147.0
13.9
4.7
4.7
8.8
17.0
29.3
8.3
14.4
19.0
3.6
1.0
6.7
6.7
36.5
Packed
1988
D
7,000.0
309.0
29.9
7,2
7.7
13.9
37.6
64.3
18 .0
32.0
42.7
8.8
2.6
12.4
12.4
80.7
80,193
91.800
84,603
91,800
142,403
153,000
149,025
153.000
3,112.8
7,672.0
A . Population projection from Table 1.
B , Town population increased to allow for total population on collection
route. Great Falls city limit and adjacent population listed separately
C . Refuse collection (1968) = 2.5 Ibs ./cap./day. Loose weight =
3501bs./Cu. Yd. Volume of packed = .735 times volume of loose
D. Refuse collection (1988) = 3.5 Ibs ./cap.day. Loose weight =
350 Ibs./Cu.Yd. Volume of packed = .735 times volume of loose
* 3,530 people living on Malmstrom Air Force Base dispose of waste at
the base disposal site and are not included.
-137-
-------
TABLE 3
SANITARY LANDFILL VOLUMES REQUIRED FOR 1968-1988
Acre Feet
City or Town A B_
Great Falls 106,000 2,740.0
Adjacent Great Falls 5,000 129.0
Vaughn-Ulm 1,068 27.5
Sun River, Simms & Fort Shaw 509 13.1
Cascade 1,025 26.5
Tracy, Sand Coulee, Stockett
& Centerville 1,596 41.1
Monarch-Neihart 339 8.8
Belt 1,280 33.0
A. 1968 and 1988 populations on collection routes (Table 2) averaged '*
to give 20 year overall average for each area.
B . Sanitary landfill volume required for 20 year design period (1968-1988)
using average refuse production rate of 5.6 Ibs ./cap./day and a com-
pacted landfill refuse density of 1,000 Ibs./cu.yd;- 1.29 acre feet of
land required per year per 1,000 people.
-138-
-------
^
CQ
1
5
PH
H
W
ง
O
g
3
E-}
O
X
B
O
i i
ฃ>
O
Oi W
% *
o o
i _i > '
EH i*
O ^
O ra
O <
w
w
Q
HH
^
>H
EH
!2I
| )
O
o
oo
CD
*
o> c CD
^ .5 >-
ฃ ฃ U
f*\ c- ซ
g ง S p
ฃ o S
& -* 1
EH p* CM
ป 6 1
CD H O
n
ll?
O PL, CM
T3
CD T3
,V CD
0 O
(0 3
OH T3
y_, O ^
ฐ P- CD
"I-* CU -^
3 w ^ CQ
2 ^ CD
ฃ CD P*
< Pi
>i
(0
> (
S CD CD
Sg|<
CD C
Oi CD
(0 CD m
^ ^ rO
S CD ฃ
,2 CQ <
^ ฐ H
1
1
1
1
C
ฃ
if
is
C
o
. 1
CD
CQ
C
-i-l
S
o
cr>
S_
-C
CD
C
^H
S
o
^
^
LO
O
LO
O
LO
II
cj
CO
CM
: c
: I
5 LT
5 r-
3 Lf
]
T3
Tracy-San
Coulee
c
"e
o
CO
^
CD
g'
E
o
31
S-,
-C
LO
O
o
LO
LO
||
0
oo
CM
: c
3 E
-> c
H U
> r
O
1
CD
Centerv ill
Stockett
|
1
s*
F"
j
t
h-
: s
:
3 u
3 C>
C 0
a o
T 1
CD
CQ
C
"g
^
LO
_g
CM
g'
"g
^
"31
IM
i 1
O
vT
LO
. 1
||
0
*
7 JC
H j
3, !
3 C
2 j
= J
0 C
0 0
H
O C
T
Neihart
c
- <
S
^r
LO
-G
CM
g"
S
-------
. .
X- -X
CO
k-^l
ฃ?
EH
W
0
O
EXCLUDIN
1
\-J r
i i
ฃ> 0-
o s
OS OS
^ ฃ
0 co
h-H Pi "1
H ฃ
O >
w
r-3
O
o
w
Q
i i
^*
"j
f*
K
O
O
OO
CD
CD
i i
-V CD 5
CD ฃ CD
CD -5 IH
^ H O
a c ^
^ 3 fo Q
fl?
H PH CM
CD 5
-^ C CD
Q) tn
^ H 0
> a c
c "2 ?
O di CJ
of Packed
'reduced
reek
ง W CD
O p t
s ซ
ซ
ฃ H H
CD C
Cn 0 en
(0 CD (0
r^ B 2
ฃ 0) <
2 03
ts C
s b 1
O H
C
S
OO
T
_
-C
LO
C
6
OO
CM
^
00
O
00
o
OO
II
o
1 i
-fl
E
00
t
i
c"
-. 1
S
OO
rH
ฃ
^
0
00
11
O
r 1
C
f-1
S
LO
x^^
"CD
>
(0
>_
CD
o
i i
Vaughn
'!-<
S
LO
_
-ci
CM
i (
C
6
i
r i
in
-C
"^
O
CD
OO
UD
II
O
CD
CM
c
"i
o
rH
S
i
C
S
LO
S-i
^
CM
C
-i 1
E
LO
i )
^
rH
O
-t-l
I I
I 1
II
0
LO
g
'i
CD
1 1
I>
fO
Mr
Si
O
CM
CD
Cascad
.
C
-t 1
6
^t*
i-H
00
f^
'i
, 1
S-,
CM
ง
-t-i
CO
CD
i f
II
O
CD
e*
r-l
S
LO
1 I
CD
^
(0
-C
CO
+J
PH
C
-r-l
E
LO
.C
CM
C
-. 1
a
LO
i (
^"
1
O
i (
n
0
LO
S '
E
o
OO
o
1 (
Simms
1
i
l
C
E
CM
CD
S-H
CD
-f-H
K
C
CO
Vaughn
c
S
o
LO
In
CM
CO
C
6
'ฃ>
j_^
OT
-*
C
.1
S
LO
CO
J3
OO
CD
CD
TOTALS
i i
CD
Cn
rO
0,
.
LO
T3
C
<0
W
CD
[Q
(0
EH
O
CO
CD
-i->
O
ฃ
4-J
O
o
m
i i
(0
O
1
a
CD
CO
B
O
*
O
CO
-140-
-------
en
CO
H-l
<;
Cn
H
f^H
W
S
O
H
O
cฃ
^ 2
3 2
S S
H H
i-l
O
o
w
P
">
i
H
^
,__
o
0
CO
1 <
"J d)
V (U ,N
cu .5 w
^* ^"* s
a a> Q
ฎ 3 h
O J/ ฐ
"~4 U >-
? -)- 0)
H OH Q,
w
<0 CB
"^ 6 w
9j --"
^ H E
a) 3 o O
ri -^
fH O ^
O ol a
> CD
S-H
O co
a
0 T3
pSu Q^
o o
<0 3
OH T3 -^
u. O 0)
o &!
g (U ^ 03
3m
^ QJ
y MH OH
6 a)
< Pi
S*i
(0
-C > CD
ฐ> rd S <
K H H
cu C
Dl OJ
(0 (0
rd b
0) 3
O *
.
1-4
ฃ
fs^
.c
i4
t-^
LO
g'
1
O
*
J
J^
r-H
OO
00
s
4-1
LO
1 1
us
II
F^
\*s
LO
CD
CM
O
O
C/J W
i I +->
l-H -rH
* ฃ
PH --"
^ -!
(0 s.
(D +J
in "H
O O
rr
^r
-------
M
0?
r-1
ง
H
Oi
O
0
B
p
0
X
w,
fn
g |
ฃ3 CD
O &
* 8
2 ง
EH CO
O g
rJ
r-1
O
O
W
Q
t"^
^
1
S
5
^}
o
o
CO
oo
i i
"CD S 1
;JT G (_\
^ r r **i
>
8 3 go
H ^ ^
^ -rJ 1
EH OH CM
^
"^ C 0)
Q) *"^ t_\
0> EH O
^ a d ,.
CD 3 ro O
ฐ o ^
O OH CM
b
CD 73
^ CD
O O
rd 3
CLj *T3 yy
m P CD
O n* el)
C g^m
^ rn
r* ^^ ^<
< ซ
>1
(0
^ "3
-H1 ง 1 <
W H H
CD C
D> CD W
(0 CD ft)
3 OJ <
S CQ
>^ g
s s !
O H
l
l
i
d
-r-1
E
CO
^J*
J
-C
o
CM
d
r- 1
E
CO
CM
LH
-C
CM
i 1
O
EH
O
rH
i 1
II
>H
O
0
LO
d
"e
^
CO
t-l
X
f-H
CM
d'
..-1
ฃ
ID
LO
l_
-d
(N
i-H
O
LO
i-H
i-H
II
IX
O
CSl
LO
^
-. i
6
o
CO
^
-d
CO
CO
g
-1 1
E
o
J_l
-d
o
CM
O
OO
i-H
II
o
oo
d'
r-1
S
p*x
LO
i-H
x;
<3<
.
-l-l
e
oo
LO
jj
-d
^*
O LO ^T LO CO
CM CM CM i 1
4->
c 1
CD
CQ
T3
Tracy-Sa
Coulee
1
CD
Centervi]
Stocket
r-H
CD
CQ
Monarch
1
1
1
1
r H
i 1
d
ฃ
d
E
o
CD
OO
CO
Neihart
i-H
CD
CQ
d'
|H
E
[^
t_i
.d
CD
OO
d
g
o
CO
jj
-d
i-H
LO
d
E
LO
LO
-d
LO
LO
CM
1 1
TOTALS
^
g<
Cn
!Q
OH
LO
a
C
<0
w
CD
3
H
VH
'*"'
w
CD
4->
O
C
+->
o
(O
M
r H
03
O
i <
a
-M
CD
CD
* *
Q
O
CQ
-142-
-------
LO
CD
3
<
PH
H
W
O
0
"
G (EXCLUD1
OUTE
S ฐ5
H
i i
H
O
w
O
o
H
Q
1 H
\-r
Y~*
f-J
O
U
oo
CO
,1
,V CD ฃ
CD g CD
> H O
CX d
S 3 fo Q
" "o S
H PU CM
-11
Q) t-i
ป H 0
> a d n
g-35
d s f
O CU CM
T>
CD T3
^ CD
r \ r \
mount of Pac
efuse Produc
Per Week
B
> CD
"^ CD <
2 oa
^
0 ฐH
d
S
CM
S-i
-d
CM
i 1
d
LO
CM
S-i
[^
c
O
4-"
CD
^D
II
O
o
CO
i
1
U
^
s-
1
1
S
c.
-ซ1ป
c
ฃ5
Cn
(0
^>
d'
S
LO
jj
J5
LO
i 1
.S
B
LO
CM
-d
CD
|
to
CO
CO
II
o
oo
CO
-<
-1
o
f
*
-H
D
>
0
-H
5
D
H
B
i 1
h^
C
^
^
1-
d
S
LO
LO
jj
-C
to
CM
d'
r-l
S
LO
-ฃ
ID
i 1
d
o
CO
II
o
LO
to
*
-4
3
1*
tf
H
CD
(0
0
(0
O
(
i
(
%
t
c
d'
6
CT>
i 1
_ci
CO
d
S
en
LO
-d
i i
d
o
4-ป
ID
II
o
CO
d
i
o
.0
q-
CD
0
S-i
J
o
M
(0
-d
CO
-M
p-l
d'
S
CD
SH
.d
LO
-i-l
6
oo
CM
.d
CO
S
CO
o
CO
II
>H
0
1 1
-r-H
B
LO
i 1
to
CO
6
-.-4
CO
(
<
(
r
r!
6
LO
S-H
CM
d
^r
"3<
-d
i i
d
0
+->
LO
i 1
II
U
"^
d'
r-l
S
o
~r>
D
-H
l_,
CD
f-4
d
CO
1
1
1
d
6
LO
CM
CD
ฃ
J^
&
(0
J>
i-4
S
oo
S-i
.d
t--
d
E
to
B
o
d
"i
LO
CO
S-i
-*-
CO
CD
CD
CO
2
o
^r
i i
CD
Cn
(0
D-,
LO
T3
d
^P
W
CD
fO
H
<2
w
CD
0
PI
O
O
m
i
(0
O
'S.
CD
CD
CO
p
O
pa
X
-------
CO
t-q
nJ]
<
PH
H
<
H
Cd
0
O
ฃ
i i
ABLE 5
CTION ROUT:
H H
i-J
_q
O
O
H
Q
1 1
I^J
l>*
H
g
JD
O
O
co
CO
CD
. l
CQ
tO ,
CD
_i,; CD N
c E "5
CD --I
l^,^ r i ป^
^ H ^
8fBซ
"5 O <"
ฃ -H CD
H a, a
w
* CD
^ i-
CD ง W
^H $
^ a 2
8.3 ฐo
r- O "-1
C iJ a;
O PL, a
>
? CD
2 ซ
o S
-o
Q) TD
^ CD
0 0
Amount of Pa
Refuse Produ
Per Week
B
>,
to
> -I
^ n)
& > u
01 a E *+
ฃ a ฃ <
ffi H H
CD C
01 CD rn
(0 CD W
s B S
^ ฎ ฃ
,ง CQ ^
C
5* >
+j ,. 5
-< ซ O
0 ฐ H
C
'i
o
. t
t-,
CO
CM
i (
,
C-
f-4
E
0
oo
i_
-C
to
t^
CM
ง
4->
OO
to
II
s
CT)
0
00
C
"i
o
LO
o
CM
CO
. l
ป H
fO
PL,
*J 75
(8 g
CD g
(-. .5
Oซ
C
I-*
E
^
CM
)-,
LO
co
ซ
C
g
O
ll
1 1
LO
oo
ง
+->
oo
CD
II
s
CD
O
OO
C
E
O
LO
0
CM
W
. l
fo
JH
4-> rS
(0 2
CD N
t-. .d
O *
c
-r-4
S
[~-
^
1_
CO
CM
Tf
c 1
(l
c
i
oo
00
u.
LO
LO
oo
t
o
o
o
o
r^
0
o
CQ CQ
~H i->
t-H **
to s
P., -5
V ซ->
s ^
CD -M
C -^4
oo
ci w
. S to
CM .2 ฃ
+J i-l
cu o ^
13 b
tO "T? MH
EH O
M O CD
5* ฃ
71 CD -^ .S
CJi ra CD +j
r^ n\
f- CD _
-> > a
o ^ 3
i-i ni \ _v
0 ^ CD o
o o o -id
U < ' rv
; | B ? 0-
<ฐ (- O '3 Ql
T3 C ^ ~j ซ
2 -2 - 2 -
& o o -S ซ
i_ CD sr +e (0
S S ซ c ฃ
ฃ 0 0 c ^
o O t! w
3 ni ni
& & -S 0 CD
O SH ^ -T-J m
HH M Q u G
^ 5J ^ o o
c jo c w o
m a tO r-<
g _ a 3 8 ง1
fO ^H ^ . O r;
H CD ฃ ฃ i! '-
> ป- ซ) ^
o
MH LO
CQ -0
ง s
G ^
S CQ
O CD
4_( .ji;
-H -^
10 fO
0 E-1
,^_j
a g
3r ฐ
s s
CD -4-J
CO O
c
ซ
Q 8
En
O "I
- S
ซ -g
* s.
< H
CD T3 g -U o
-1 CD 5 C C
(H ^ \ tO
o ฐ
co ^ S
a *- o ฃ .
CQ , MH _< -O
^ m S D 2
o ง, 2 2 w
2 n<^-
^ " W 4J CD
CD -ง ^ ^ W
& H 3 ^ 0
<0 J? ฃ U Jl
>i \ .J3 c +-1
S -3 s f g
18 S c o ^
-& ง P C:S
S a ฃ S
b LO ^ S ^
u, ^ oo 0 5
CM * "- Q 0
" *
< oa O Q
-144-
-------
CO
a
CQ
Q
J?|
H P W
i
c T3
fll
W .
"rj rO <
-^ CD 3
73 13 tJ*
73 < 0
< PS
ro
CD
H
CD 'co'
|| 8
o 0 S-
CM ฐ^
CD
73 ฎ
CD W
3 W co
0) >< CD
PS 0 .Q
. CM (0
*^ ซ^ L ~i
O Q
> ฃ
>_ CD
*ซ O co
o ^ ID
Estimate
Area left
Future
Cn
-S , co
ฃ ฃ 0
"l~l .ifl O
X ^^ rf4
W
t* c
Enlarge
Existing
Site
CQ
l-i
ro
0
0)
CQ
0
>-,
U
(0
oo
o
4-1
a
ฃ CO
73 CD
^ ง
X
5 -!
4-1
0
0
M 1
0
b
ro
CD
CO
0
b
rO
O
CO
0
b
rO
LO
r-!
-C
H ฃ
111
sฐS
CO
CD CO
4-1
ro >
o LO
"J .
0
CD
M-H
CD
U
rO
CO
CO
CO
CD
O
ro
O
CO
CD
b
rO
i i
CO
. I
CD
CQ
CD
4-j
ฃ CO
ro >
U &
O ฎ
1
O
1
CQ
CD
y
rd
r-l
.
LO
-C
a
CD w
T3 CD
co b
rO
c*t
*-*
^ LO
4-J
CD
CD
M-H
OJ
b
rO
i i
^r
73
CD
T3
C
CD
<, i
ฃ o
O Q)
^^ DM
CO CO
CD CD
b b
rO ro
CD O
0
CO LO
+1+1
' 0)
_CD QJ
+J "^ O
CD ^ CD ^
^ CD O
O -g T3 rO
2 CD S H
CO O CO
ro
Obtain
Adjacent L.
CO
to
CD
^
CO
CD
O
rO
t^
oo
-C
a
CD
TJ w
- CD
r~\
S ^
ฃ .-H
^j
CD
CD
CD
VH
U
O
"^
CM
50 acres
CO
CD
^ l
^ O
CO
ro LO
CD O
.-! -i
CO
i 1
i-H
t* CD
4-. a
ro O
o^
CD
4->
ฃ CO
fO ^
ฐ CD
C
CQ
X
Sa
& CO
CO
CD
l_
O
(0
CM
CM
-C
4-1
a
CD
73 co
- CD
CD ฃH
X ro
^ CM
4-1
CD
CD
CD
b
ro
CD
CM
,__!
i
o
i
i
o
1
CO
1
r 1
(0
" --H
-4-* (^
ro h!
CD ^
O
Locate
Site
ro
CD
i i
CO
CD
S-i
O
ro
T
^
a
CD to
T3 CD
-C
'f-l '.
^"*
4^
CD
CD
m
CD
l-i
O
rO
oo
CM
CO CO
CD CD
l-i l-i
0 0
rO ro
CM CM
O O
CO W
CD CD
l-i l-i
O O
(0 ro
OO LO
e
O O
c
e 3
-H ro
ฃ >
CD
Enlarge
Existing Si
CQ
l-H
ro
CD
O
i i
CO
CD
l-i
O
rO
CNI
.
CM
-C
4-1
a
CD w
73 0
I-l
f?
4J LO
i-i .
5 ^
4-<
CD
0
m
CD
O
rO
CM
CO
0
b
rO
CO
CM
CQ
0
b
ro
oo
e
CO
CD
73
ro
O
CQ
rO
O
0
lo >
ฐ 0
1
O
1
1
CQ
0
l-i
U
rO
CM
ป
CM
^
a
0 CQ
73 CD
i-i
^ %
(~*
4-J CM
5 CM
0
0
M-l
n\
UJ
I-l
O
rO
CO
73
0
73
C
None
Recomme
CO
0
b
rO
^
i
CO
'O
1
qj >
> _ฃ
CO PL, CO
-145-
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF INITIAL COSTS
ALTERNATE 1
Initial Costs Including Great Falls - Twice per Week Pickup
Landfill sites and implementation $250,000
Landfill equipment - rural $ 42,000
Collection vehicles - rural (2 units @ $15,000 each) $ 30,000
Landfill equipment - Great Falls $ 86,000
Collection equipment - Gt. Falls (16 units @ $14,000 ea.) $224.000
$632,000
ALTERNATE 2
Initial Costs Including Great Falls - Once per Week Pickup
Landfill sites and implementation $250,000
Landfill equipment - rural $ 42,000
Collection vehicles - rural (2 units @ $15,000 each) $ 30,000
Landfill equipment - Great Falls $ 86,000
Collection equipment - Gt. Falls (8 units @ $14,000 ea.) $112.000
$520,000
ALTERNATE 3
Initial Costs Excluding Great Falls - Once per Week Pickup
Landfill sites and implementation $ 87,000
Landfill equipment $ 42,000
Collection vehicles - (3 units @ $15,000 each) $ 45.000
$174,000
-146-
-------
H
rf\
\JJ
O
o
g
o
1 1
EH
O
w
>j
O
o
S3
HH
P
ID
i-5
g
W,
EH
g
M
S
OH
B
a
w
l_)
fl
HH
P
1^7
ฃ-*
<
CO M
a ง
ง <
H P
5
<
3
/v*
C-C
O
PH
ง
EH
t .
P
O
3
EH
E
-l Tj
H 0
CD
a
CD
P
M
w
o
o
-H OO
05 10
-*H m
+-> ^
-r-< ' 1
ฃ
hH
6
CD
+J
i i
_^
M
1**^'
O 04
03 10
r-l 04
LO LO
r-H -CO-
-co-
s s
0 0
O 0
o o
*1 *
o ^
o r-
LO i-H
CO- -CO-
o
CM
s
o o
O 0
o o
*. *
o r^.
LO OO
CM
CO-
1
1
-r-l
+->
"3
Wheel Loader & mi
purpose bucket
oo
o
CD
i i
-co-
O
o
00
CD
O4
i l
co-
to
o
o
o
^
1
r i
t-H
CD
Truck, trailer and
accessories for
transportation loac
c^
04
t^s
CD
CO-
OQ
o
LO
t^
CO
LO
CO-
LO
o
o
o
*>
CO
^
Crawler loader for
Gt. Falls North
CO
[^
CO
00
co-
o
o
o
o
00
co-
co
1
o
1
Gt. Falls existing
equipment
c^
04
C^
CD
CO-
PQ
0
LO
tปป
CO
LO
CO-
LO
o
o
o
^
CO
^
Crawler loader for
Gt. Falls South
^.^
H
CO CO
t^ 00
00 i-H
i-H "tf
LO i-H
co- -co
TOTALS
CD
+->
(d
>_i
4-*
w
2
M
CD
y
c
"J
sง
O LO
S 0>
3 B
m W
Q JH
QJ 3
f-H ^
- %
ซซ .2
1 J
HH *3
o .2
Q) O
1 2
^o a
> CD
? T3
01 M
0 fl
S* u
S s.
w c
CD g>
"2 ^
ฃ Oi
i l **
O u
C CD
*!-* +J
M-t
3 ^
c to
w . O
CD VH 0
ง 8 -S
i ^S 1
s s.s-1
CD ฐ
!r_ . 0 -H (0
^ 55 CD ฃ
^, LO a a
a^ S
CO r"
XP rrt '-I
o4- TD .. --i
10 OJ to 2
m 3 -a -Q
10 .01 CD 0 .
"TD MH ^ Q t/3
CD ., fd Z CD
i_ +i (J) +j
3 5 d T3 -ฃ
Oi CD 4H QJ W
-* H rrt J-t _
^ a J2 -3 ^
"ง "3 a & -3
5 & 2 ฎ tin
-2 C?i3 v- ^
A= Rising cost of
B. Rising cost of
C , Rising cost of
D, Yearly deposit
E. Excludes Greal
-147-
-------
TABLE 9
LANDFILL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Operating Costs - Annual Incl. Great Falls Rural Only
Payroll - Great Falls
2 equipment operators @ $650/mo. $15,600
Payroll - Rural
1 equipment operator @ $650/mo. $ 7,800 $ 7.800
Total Labor Per Year $23,400 $7,800
Plus 20% for vacation, sick leave, retirement,
etc. $28,080 $ 9,360
Plus 20% for supervision & administration
overhead TOTAL $33,700 $11,230
Equipment Maintenance - Annual
Great Falls -(140 hrs./wk)(50 wks .)(50
-------
TABLE 10
COLLECTION COSTS
LABOR COSTS PER HOUR
Basic wage rate for collection crew member $3.50
Plus 20% for vacation, sick leave, retirement, etc. $4.20
Plus 20% for supervision & administration overhead $5.04
Total hourly labor cost per man (for this study) $5 .05
VEHICLE COSTS PER HOUR
Initial cost of 4-ton payload vehicle $14,000.00
Amortization cost - per hour $1.37 *
Operation & maintenance cost - per hour $2 .50
$3.87
Total hourly vehicle cost (for this study) $3.90
TOTAL VEHICLE AND LABOR COSTS 2-man Truck 3-man Truck
Total vehicle cost per hr. (4-ton unit) $3.90 $3.90
Labor cost per hour $10.10 $15.15
Total hourly cost (1968) $14.00 $19.05
YEARLY WORKING HOURS (1968) (Using 9 holidays per year)
Great Falls: (40 hrs./wk.)(52 wks./yr.) - 72 hrs. = 2,008 hrs./yr.
Rural: (32 hrs./wk,)(52 wks./yr.) - 72 hrs. = 1,592 hrs./yr.
Great Falls Metropolitan Area (3-man crew - twice per wk. pickup)
(21 trucks) (2,008 hrs.) = 42,168 hrs./yr.
Rural Area (2-man crew - once per wk. pickup)
(2 trucks)(l,592 hrs.) = 3,184 hrs./yr.
Great Falls Metropolitan Area (3-man crew - once per wk. pickup)
(13 trucks) (2, 008 hrs.) = 26,100 hrs./yr.
Rural Area Only, excluding Great Falls inside city limits (2-man crew-once
per wk. pickup)
(3 trucks) (1,592 hrs.) = 4,776 hrs./yr.
* Amortization based on 6 years without interest or salvage value. Replacement
cost increase based on 3%/yr.
-149-
-------
TABLE 10 (CONTINUED)
ANNUAL COLLECTION COSTS
Alternate 1
Metropolitan Great Falls Area - (42,168 hrs ./yr.)'($19 .05/hr.) = $803,300
Rural Area - (3 ,184 hrs ./yr.) ($14.00/hr.) = $ 44.576
TOTAL $847,876
Alternate 2
Metropolitan Great Falls Area - (26,100 hrs ./yr.) ($19.05/hr.) = $497,205
Rural Area - ( 3,184 hrs ./yr.) ($14.00/hr.) = $ 44.576
TOTAL $541,781
Alternate 3
Rural Area - ( 4,776 hrs ./yr.) ($14.00/hr.) = $66.864
TOTAL $66,864
-150-
-------
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT COSTS
ALTERNATE 1
Replacement of land and landfill equipment (Table 8) $51,873/yr.
Landfill operation and maintenance (Table 9) $42,200/yr.
Collection costs incl. vehicle replacement (Table 10) $847,876/yr.
TOTAL $941,949/yr,
Cost per ton produced $941.949 = $26.46/ton
35 ,600 ton/yr.
*
$26.46/ton x 73% = $19.32/ton for residential dwelling
**
$19.32/ton x 1.84 ton/res, dwelling/yr. = $35 .55/res .dwelling/yr.
ALTERNATE 2
Replacement of land and landfill equipment (Table 8) $51,873/yr.
Landfill operation and maintenance (Table 9) $42,200/yr.
Collection costs incl. vehicle replacement (Table 10) $541, 781/yr.
TOTAL $635,854/yr.
Cost per ton produced $635 . 854
35,600ton/yr. = $17.86/ton
*
$17.86/ton x 73% = $13.04/ton for residential dwelling
**
$13.04/ton x 1.84 ton/res, dwelling/yr. = $24.00/res .dwelling/yr,
ALTERNATE 3
Replacement of land and landfill equipment (Table 8) $14,183/yr.
Landfill operation and maintenance (Table 9) $15,230/yr.
Collection costs incl. vehicle replacement (Table 10) $66,864/yr.
TOTAL $96,277/yr.
Since commercial firms are a small percentage of total rural services,
rates are based on residential charges.
Total cost per dwelling: $96.277 = $35 . 79/res/dwelling/yr.
2,690 dwellings
* For the City of Great Falls, 73% of the total revenue is from residential
billing and the remaining 27% is from commercial
** Obtained by dividing the total refuse produced by the total number of
residential dwellings
-151-
-------
OO
W
t-J
O.
2
<
co
W
O
fr.
s
g
Q
Ol
c
1 t
c >
1-4 >
(0 (0
ฃ -^
^ CO
T3
0 +j
3 ฃ
w ^
w O
I 1 4->
T3
i i
O
si
0
CO
3
O
K
0
tJ
w
> ^
> O
rO
ฃ CO
ro
"-1 .
. 4->
4-1 CO
PH H
C
i 1
E
LO
i 1
S
<
o
CM
O
i i
^4
2
<
O
1 1
CO
ฃ
rO
_C
CO
4->
PH
CD
CO
\
O
^
\
CO
i-,
CO 0
-V C
o ฃ
8 -2
c
ฃ ฐ
4-1 0
C co
0 3
T3 "+!
." 0
CO ^
2S
0
CO
3
*4H
0
Pi
Ai
O
1.4
H
i-,
0
^
0
(0
OH
^/
ro
0
S-4
Ja
1
1
1
o 'S
o t
-C ^
fl) xP
^ o^
W 0
3 r: c
0 ฐฐ -5
tn ซs ฃ
0
ti *
w s. 0
.. ft 2
^ o *-
M H
S ^ t,
ฃ ^ 0
CO j"
4-j' O
f-1 co rO
1X1 PH O-
C ._
-I -C
s g
0 3
CD ,_q
2
PH
O
r>J
CO
i*r;
2,
<
O
LO
o
. i
Simms
CD
CO
\
O
^
\
CD
0*
CO
1 1
rO
a
rO
S
rO
0
u
(0
C
O
S
0
Uc
0
a
0
ฃ
of pickup
:ion of routes
0 rO
q ฃ o
S 5 o
3 O j
7J
O - CM
CD
4-"
3
O
j_
"8
g
-r-4
t:
5
a
_c
u
ro
0
o
C
o
1 1
4->
(0
i_
ni
loading opi
started each
CD
e
-_t
H
CO
ง
O
i_
'o
1
4-"
b
a
_c
o
ro
0
O
|
4->
opera
tn
r-4
TD
rO
O
i i
-C
O
completed ea
0
S
-r-l
H
F i
3
0
-C
CO
0
_6
4-ป
ซ4-l
0
-C
4-J
C7^
C
/1\
0
1 1
0
-C
4->
o'
4^1
0
CO
C
1
T3
,*
(0
0
^
0
i
O
., 1
-C
0
J>
CO
JK;
(0
2
X!
0.
^0
m
O
O
-C
O
3
r-H
SN
-Q
-o
0
interrupt
CO
f-l
0
S
*-4
M
Dl
C
T3
(0
o
i-H
1 1
LO
>,
i 1
C
O
0
_S
4-1
&
C
*H
TS
rO
O
i i
1o
3
4->
O
(0
0
XI
TD
i i
o
Column 3 3
CO
CO
0
i-H
Column 4
dicated here.
_g
0
.Q
CO
0
1 I
rO
O
CO
4-1
.r;
D)
i-4
0
$
o
{H
'4-4
"0
0
4->
o
0
i 1
"o
o
4->
Dl
iH
0
>
i-H
O
CO
T3
ro
SN
O
X3
3
Q
0
CO
3
MH
0
1-4
quantity of
o
rO
-o
0
CO
3
0
.t:
CO
'ro
w
O
a
CO
"D
'4H
O
0
tH
4 >
rO
O
O
t-J
'XI
0
e
3
"3
C
C
|
u
T3
^
1-4
rO
-o
C
rO
i
M-H
^
u
2
4-<
5?
0
4->
rO
/ailable , esti
K"
m
0
rO
.ฃ
O
tO
0
*n
CJ
4->
0
O
S-4
0
a
0
4->
tO
E
-1-4
4-"
W
PJ
o'
4->
0
CO
C
O
tt
rO
O
V-ซ
0
a
ro
a
CO
o>
c
E
S
1-4
>H
4->
T3
u
rO
>,
0
4->
CO
rO
ฃ
ID
"3
ouseh
si
CO
ro
T3
0
4->
O
0
i H
"o
o
0
CO
<4-H
2
^4-1
O
0
a
>,
H
[^
0
O
rg
r-t
T3
c3
*4H
o
CO
i*
O
4-*
rO
i
0
O
4->
S
(D
>-,
0
:x
ja
0
^D
rO
E
rnings
rO
* c
&s
(0 rO
u E
0 0
10 ^y
4-> C
by residen
pertinent i
3 t->
o S
:xฃ
o o
^ T3
0 C
TD ro
10
c w
b C
.0 ^
r ฐ
b -a
'd any cornpla
vehicle break
(3 0
o +e
0 O
(X &
00
-152-
-------
DEFINITIONS
Refuse
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Industrial
Refuse
Swill
Commercial
Refuse
Disposal
Area
Domestic
Refuse
Mixed Dom-
estic Refuse
Incineration
On-site
Disposal
All putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes, (except body
wastes), including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings,
dead animals, abandoned automobiles, and solid market and
industrial wastes.
Putrescible animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
Nonputrescible solid wastes, including ashes, consisting of
both combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as paper,
cardboard, tin cans, yard clippings, wood, glass, bedding,
crockery, metals, dirt and similar materials.
Residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, refuse or other
combustible materials.
All solid wastes which result from industrial processes and
manufacturing operations such as factories, processing plants,
repair and cleaning establishments, refineries and rendering
plants.
Semi-liquid waste material consisting of garbage and free liquids.
All solid wastes produced by businesses such as office buildings,
stores, markets, theaters, and privately owned hospitals and
other institutional buildings.
A site, location, tract of land, area, building, structure or
premises used or intended to be used for partial and/or total
refuse disposal.
All the refuse, excluding garbage, which normally originates
in a residential household or apartment house.
Includes domestic refuse and garbage.
The process of burning solid, semisolid, or gaseous combustible
wastes to an inoffensive gas and a sterile residue containing
little or no combustible material.
Includes all means of disposal or, more usually, volume reduction,
of refuse on premises before collection. Examples are garbage
grinding; burning or incineration; burial; compaction; or slurrying
at homes and commercial establishments.
-153-
-------
Particulate
Matter
Putrescible
Vector
Refuse
Producer
Abandoned
or Junk
Vehicles
Any liquid or any solid which is so finely divided as to be
capable of becoming windblown or being suspended in air or
gas.
Capable of being decomposed oy micro-organisms with
sufficient rapidity as to cause nuisances from odors, gases,
etc. Kitchen wastes, offal, and dead animals are examples
of putrescible components of solid wastes.
An organism, usually an insect, which carries and transmits
disease causing microorganisms.
Any firm, establishment, group of persons or person that pro-
duces, obtains or has any refuse for disposal. Includes
residential homeowners and commercial firms.
Unwanted non-operable passenger automobiles, trucks, and
trailers that are no longer useful as such and have been left
on city streets, public areas, river banks of on private land.
Sanitary A method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances
Landfill or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of
engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area, to
reduce it to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a
layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation or at such
more frequent intervals as may be necessary.
-154-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Municipal Refuse Disposal; American Public Works Association, Chicago,
Illinois; Public Administration Service, 1966.
An Analysis of Refuse Collection and Sanitary Landfill Disposal; University
of California, Sanitary Engineering Research Project, Technical Bulletin No. 8,
Series 37, December, 1952.
Waste Management and Control; National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council, Washington, B.C., Publication 1400, 1966.
Solid Waste Research and Development; Engineering Foundation Research Con-
ference; University School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 24-28, 1967.
Planned Refuse Disposal; County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
California, A Report to the Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County, California, September, 1955.
Elements of Solid Waste Management; U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Public Health Service; National Center for Urban and Industrial
Health - Solid Wastes Training Operations; Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1967.
Seminar and Equipment Show; Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the
Governmental Refuse Collection and Disposal Association, Inc., Long Beach
California, November 10 - 12, 1966.
Automobile Disposal, a National Problem; U.S. Bureau of Mines; Washington,
D.C.; U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines, 1967.
Koch, A. S . and Storm, M . I. , County of Orange-Master Plan of Refuse Disposal;
Orange County Highway Department, October, 1959.
Rand McNally 1967 Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide; Chicago, New York,
San Francisco; Rand McNally and Company, 98th ed.
1960 Census of Population; Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of the
Population, Part I, U.S. Summary, United States Department of Commerce.
Great Falls Urban Transportation Survey 1961; Planning Survey Division of
Montana State Highway Commission, Bureau of Public Roads and City of Great Falls,
Volume IV.
Small, Cooley and Associates, Great Falls Transportation Plan, 1964-1981.
Denver, Colorado
-155-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED)
Solid Waste Handling in Metropolitan Areas; Bureau of Disease Prevention
and Environmental Control, National Center for Urban and Industrial Health
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
February 1964, and reprinted December, 1966.
"Refuse Collection and Disposal"; The 1967 Sewerage Manual and Catalog
File , p. 236-243 Public Works Journal Corporation
Albertson, L.M. "Revamped Refuse Dump Draws Praise", Public Works,
January, 1967, p. 88-89
Cannella, A. A. "The Refuse Disposal Problem". Public Works, February,
1968, p. 116-120.
Smith, C.D. "A Sdnitary Fill Inside the City", The American City, April
1968, p. 90-92.
Coppa, R.B. "How to Start a Sanitary Landfill", The American City. March,
1968, p. 85-87.
Spitzer, E.F. "Composting Works in Houston", The American City. October,
1967, p. 97-99.
Shatzel, L.R. "How to Handle Hauling Fee Increases", Refuse Removal
Journal - Solid Wastes Management, April, 1968, p. 16-18 & 50.
"Possible Use of Waste Matter As Fuel For Rockets Examined", Refuse
Removal Journal - Solid Wastes Management. December, 1967, p. 18.
"Houston Forces Compost Plant Shutdown", Refuse Removal Journal - Solid
Wastes Management. July 1967, p. 6 & 36.
Susag, R.H., Ph.D. "Developing Classifications For Refuse", Refuse Removal
Journal - Solid Wastes Management, March, 1968, p. 20 & 37.
"National Survey of Disposal Needs, Practices", Refuse Removal Journal,
Solid Wastes Management . March, 1968, p. 22 & 46.
"Preventing Landfill Site Adjacent to Highway", Refuse Removal Journal - Solid
Wastes Management, June, 1967, p. 16-18 & 38.
"Portable Crusher Speeds Auto Salvage", Refuse Removal Journal - Solid Wastes
Management , September, 1965, p. 32-33.
"Sanitation Equipment", Refuse Removal Journal - Solid Wastes Management,
1968, p. 52-101.
-156-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED)
Refuse Collection and Disposal for the Small Community. A joint study and
report of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Public Health
Service and the American Public Works Association, November, 1953.
Ludwig, H.F. and Black, R.J. "Report on the Solid Waste Problem". Journal
of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, April, 1968, p. 355-370.
Let's Not Overlook Salvage; College Park Metallurgy Research Center, United
States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines; Reprint from A.P,W.A.
Reporter, Vol. 34, Number 3, March, 1967.
A National Solid Wastes Program; U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare - Public Health Service; Office of Solid Wastes, April, 1966.
Demonstration Project Abstracts - Solid Wastes Program; U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare - Public Health Service; S.W.I.R.S., August,
1967.
Manchester, H. "Better Way to Deal with Waste" Readers' Digest . March,
1968, p. 39-46.
Sorg, T.J., and Hickman, H.L. Sanitary Landfill Facts; U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare - Public Health Service, National Center for
Urban and Industrial Health, Publication No. 1792, 1968.
Hanks, T.G.,M.D. Solid Waste Disease Relationships - A Literature Survey;
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare - Public Health Service,
P.H.S. #999 U.I.H.6, 1967.
-157-
-------
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No.
AERIAL VIEWS OF EXISTING REFUSE DISPOSAL SITES
Belt 1
Cascade 2
Monarch 3
Neihart 4
Sand Coulee and Tracy - 2 sheets 5
Stockett & Centerville 6
Sun River, Fort Shaw and Simms 7
Ulm 8
Vaughn 9
Great Falls 10
SANITARY LANDFILL METHODS OF DISPOSAL
Area Fill Method 11
Trench Method 12
AREA CLEANUP OF OPEN DUMP 13
PROPOSED SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
County Map 14
Township Maps;
Belt 15
Cascade 16
Fort Shaw,'Simms and Sun River 17
Great Falls - North 18
Great Falls - South 19
Monarch - Neihart 20
Sand Coulee, Tracy, Stockett & Centerville 21
Ulm - Vaughn 22
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS OF PROPOSED LANDFILL SITES
Simms, Fort Shaw, Sun River 23
Stockett 24
Cascade - Ulm and Vaughn 25
Belt - Monarch and Neihart 26
158
-------
159
-------
160
-------
161
-------
162
-------
163
-------
164
-------
165
-------
166
-------
i
^;
GO
*
s
X
LJ
LU
(T
CO
O
Q.
CO
LU
CO
ID
LL.
UJ
o:
CO
X
UJ
167
-------
168
-------
tPF
AREA CLEANUP OF OPEN DUMP
LOOSE SCATTERED REFUSE
REFUSE PUSHED BACK
I- i
In >
o 5
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CONSTRUCTION OF TRENCH
>
z>\
m
>
REFUSE COMPACTED IN TRENCH AND COVERED
-------
Q
o
I
t-
ui
s
_Sfe
S s ซ
SD = S
sis5
?sg
PE
< ^ < o: _j E
sgj^jssi
SES^tSSg
sP
o z
a. o
co o
00
i I
-------
-------
NOISN31X3 3J.IS "'Hid QNV1 OSSOdOHd
l^l-l SJSUKHUO3
SlN3M3AOMdHI QBSOdOMd
O^ Ul^S 1ฐ ^^I^IOIA 9 UMCH 3M1
axis "nid QNVI aasodObd
/
P/ v
-------
Hi
; 5
i I
I
if
D
2
I i
z
n
, co
i ~u
i co
CO
>
33
5
n >
ง3
* 5-
*
a
KMUPUbtU LANU t ILL bl I t
For the towns & vicinities of Simms, Ft Shaw & Sun River, Montana
-------
I 8
M
of
O CO
2 w
g
o3
2. o
CO
AREA CLEANUP OF OPEN DUMP
rmrxYxvmwzmr.
LOOSE SCATTERED REFUSE
REFUSE PUSHED BACK
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CONSTRUCTION OF TRENCH
'XXXXXXXxKXXXX
REFUSE COMPACTED IN TRENCH AND COVERED
-------
-------
' JBAI^J Ung B WDMS * J 'SUJtUIS JO S3IJIUI3IA 6 SUMO) 3
3iis nu QNVI
-------
PROPOSED LAND FILL SITE
For the town 9t vicinity of Stocketl, Montane
-------
-------
PROPOSED LAND FILL SITE
For the town ft vicinity of Belt, Montana
PROPOSED LAND FlLi. SITE EXTENSION
For the towns 8 Vicinities of Monarch 8 Neihort, Mont
-------
CASCADE COUNTY
Exhibit # 14
175
-------
BELT
Township Number 19 N.
Range Number 6 E.
f, r i- ft ji-\
_U\--\-4
-itr-Y-vt
v-. - i---,,
\\ iTTMTi \i
Exhibit 4* 15
176
-------
CASCADE
Township Number 18 N.
Range Number 1 W.
Exhibit #16
177
-------
FORT SHAW, SIMMS a SUN RIVER
Township Number 20 N.
Range Number 1 W.
Exhibit
178
-------
GREAT FALLS NORTH
Township Number 21 N.
Range Number 4E.
Exhibit 4H8
179
-------
GREAT FALLS SOUTH
Township Number 20 N. Range Number 4 E.
Exhibit #19
180
-------
MONARCH-NEIHART
Township Number 15 N.
Range Number 7 E.
Exhibit #20
181
-------
SAND COULEE, TRACY
STOCKETT 8 CENTERVILLE
Township Number 19 N. Range Number 5 E.
Exhibit #2!
182
-------
ULM- VAUGHN
Township Number 20 N.
Range Number 2 E
Exhibit #22
183
-------
Er.vircnrcsntal Protection Agency
Li' ;,,:; , f. -;,ion V
1 ;-i,i-i,/. i j.c.:or Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
------- |