1972 NATIONAL DUMP SITE SURVEY REPORT
Prepared by
Special Projects Section
Disposal Technology Branch
Processing and Disposal Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 1973
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SURVEY OPERATIONS 1
.III. SURVEY FORMS 2
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 3
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
During the period 1966-1969, the majority of the State
solid waste management agencies surveyed solid waste disposal
practices within their jurisdictions. That survey indicated
that 94 percent of the country's land disposal sites were
environmentally unacceptable. Since the 1968 National Survey,
many States have established solid waste management agencies
with authorities and resources to upgrade land disposal
practices.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as an integral
part of the Mission 5000 program, conducted the 1972 National
Dump Site Survey in the summer and fall of 1972. The objective
of the 1972 Survey was to make an estimate of the number of open
and burning dumps in the United States so that at least general
comparisons of the progress in upgrading land disposal practices
over the past four years could be made. The Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, as the coordinator of the Survey,
presents this report to the Regional Offices for their use in
evaluating their Region's status regarding solid waste land
disposal practices.
II. SURVEY OPERATIONS
The 1972 Survey was initiated at the July 6 and 7, 1972,
Mission 5000 Summer Intern Orientation Session held in Cincinnati.
The Regional Office staff was briefed on the Survey; and the
summer interns were familiarized with the Mission 5000 Program,
-------
survey procedures, completion of survey forms, identification
of dump sites, and general personnel information.
The Regional Office staff sent the survey data they collected
to OSWMP, Cincinnati, where the Special Projects Section, Processing
and Disposal Division, staff recorded and verified the data and
then gave it to the Computer and Statistical Support Section,
Assistance Branch, Systems Management Division, for statistical
analysis. The statistical procedures and basic results are pre-
sented by Betty L. Grupenhoff, Statistician, Systems Management
Division, in her correspondence regarding the 1972 Survey (see
Appendix A).
III. SURVEY FORMS
The form used in surveying the sites is identical to the
one used in the 1968 National Survey; however only certain items
on the form were reported for this Survey due to limited manpower,
time, and scope of the Survey. Information gathered was used by
the Regional staff in determining whether a disposal site was in
fact a dump. The Special Projects Section performed a separate
review of the survey forms and made the final determination as
to whether a reported site was in fact a dump. If a site had
any one of three major environmental problems—inadequate cover,
burning, or water pollution—the site was recorded as a dump. A
copy of the form used and the information gathered is attached in
Appendix B.
-------
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the 1972 National Dump Site Survey, we estimate that
there are 17,339 dump sites existing in the 46 States surveyed.
This is the best estimate we have of the number of existing dump
sites. The 1968 Survey reported approximately 14,895 dump sites
for the same 46 States; therefore, it would be reasonable to say
that there are approximately 2,500 more dump sites existing now
than in 1968. The fact that this is an estimate of the net change
in the number of dumps existing then and now must be emphasized
and cautions given to prevent anyone from trying to make improper
conclusions from our data. The net change is due to the closing of
some dumps and opening of others and not due only to dumps being
opened.
In Table A the number of estimated 1972 dump sites, the 95
percent confidence interval for the 1972 estimate, and the number
of dump sites counted in 1968 are listed for each State. Also the
table shows the percent change in the dump sites for each State.
It should be noted that the data cannot be used to say anything
about the number of dump sites being closed or opened. For instance,
one cannot say from Table A that Alabama has closed 13 dumps since
1968 because during the four years they may have opened and closed
some greater number of dumps that would not affect the total that
we estimate exist in 1972. A similar concept is true when looking
at Arkansas. One cannot correctly say that 47 sites have been
opened during that time. The same caution applies to the data
for all of the States.
-------
The data in Table A shows that the percent of change in
dump sites among the States ranged from a decrease of 90 percent
for Delaware to an estimated increase of 260 percent for Georgia.
If we assume that a change between the number of dumps in
1968 and 1972 is significant when it results in at least a 10
percent change, then Table A shows that 24 States had a decrease
in the number of dumps, 15 States had no change, and 7 States had
an increase in the number of dump sites.
Since it was our engineering judgement that formed the basis
for assuming that at least a 10 percent increase or decrease in
the number of dump sites was required to show a real change, it
should be noted that other assumptions can be made. Perhaps the
most logical would be to assume that the percent of increase or
decrease calculated is the best estimate of the actual change.
If the data is used on an absolute basis then Table A would show
that 32 States had a decrease in the number of dumps, one State
had no change, and 13 had an increase in the number of dump sites.
Figure A shows the data in a cumulative frequency diagram.
On an absolute basis, Figure A shows that approximately 70 percent
of the States have fewer dump sites existing now than in 1968
and roughly 30 percent of the States have more dump sites now
than in 1968.
-------
Estimated
Dump Sites in
1972 1'6
177
33
342
243
189
125
2
356
508
163
480
295
348
527
262
242
380
86
313
771
547
414
436
57
29
169
214
114
691
355
345
228
241
220
248
39
265
355
236
587
157
115
292
338
115
51
TABLE A
95% Confi-
dence
Interval
160-194
20-47
309-376
231-256
182-196
117-133
1-4
350-362
475-541
129-197
438-522
-284-313
325-371
523-531
232-292
239-245
377-383
77-95
306-321
747-795
497-597
401-427
421-451
42-72
7-51
165-173
205-223
112-116
671-711
326-384
336-354
216-240
231-251
215-225
238-258
35-43
254-276
350-360
221-251
555-620
153-161
105-125
281-303
326-350
96-134
47-55
Number of
Dump Sites
In 19683
190
100
295
720
285
129
20
424
141
55
534
447
303
536
215
249
358
150
328
986
589
389
483
95
51
140
247
111
831
458
403
658
295
209
560
39
256
387
267
835
172
154
223
334
179
65
Percent
Decrease In
4
Dump Sites
7
67
66
34
3
90
16
10
32
2
3
43
5
22
7
10
40
43
13
17
25
14
65
18
56
0
8
12
30
9
25
36
22
Percent
Increase In
Dump Sites 5
16
260
196
15
22
6
6
21
3
5
4
31
1
STATE
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
1 Estimates from 1972 National Dump Site Survey.
2 Denotes that there is 95% confidence that the true 1972 value
lies within this range.
3 Number from 1968 National Survey.
4 (1968 Number - 1972 Estimate/1968 Number) x 100.
5 (1972 Estimate - 1968 Number/1968 Number) x 100.
6 A vertical summation of this column will not equal the 1972 best estimate for
the national number of dumps because of statistical considerations.
-------
- FIGURE
of States vs. % increase or decrease in number of dumps 1968 to 1972
100 ^
SO ..
* 1968 National Survey
** 1972 National Dump
Site Survey
60 -•
40 -.
w 20 -•
e
•J
100
80
60
40
20
20 40
!40
!60
% decrease in number
of dumps 1968 to 1972
% increase in number
of dumps 1968 to 1972
-------
APPENDIX A
Correspondence of Betty L. Grupenhoff, Statistician,
Computer and Statistical Support Section, Assistance
Branch, Systems Management Division regarding 1972
Survey: .
1) Final description of procedures and results,
2) Determination of sample selection for 1972 Survey;
and,
3) Explanation of sample selection sent to several
Project Officers.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
REPLY TO
ATTNOF: ABSS DATE: February 8, 1973
SUBJECT: Survey for Mission 5000
TO:
Mr. Donald Kee, Project Officer
Special Projects Section, DTB, P&DD
Through: Mr. S. Jackson Hubbard
Technical Advisor, DTB, P&DD
Mr. Walter Liberick, Chief, DTB, P&DD
The survey for Mission 5000 has been completed. A description
of the procedures used in this survey and the results are presented
in this report.
Three basic activities were involved in this project. These
activities were (1) design of an economical sampling plan and
selection of a sample, (2) data collection and (3) data analysis.
In previous memos, copies of which are attached, and conservations,
the sampling plan, the sample selection procedures, and the
assumptions and constraints imposed by the chosen plan were
discussed. Rather than reiterate these specifics, only general
comments concerning these will be presented.
From the 1968 survey, it is known how many unacceptable
sites were observed in each county surveyed in each State.
According to survey sampling theory, it is normally possible to
increase the efficiency of the sampling efforts if related
external information is used in the design and analysis phases
of the study. In order to use this information an independent
random sample of counties surveyed in 1968 was selected from
almost every State in the United States. Counties were not
selected from Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska or Wisconsin. These
States were not included for one of the following two reasons:
(1) they are currently conducting a survey that will furnish
the information desired, Nebraska and Wisconsin (2) to survey
Alaska and Hawaii was not economically feasible because of
travel costs.
From the survey we obtained the number of unacceptable sites
or dumps existing in the selected counties. The reasoning for
this approach was, that for each State it would be possible to
use the 1968 and the 1972 sample results to determine the
magnitude of the increase or decrease in number of unacceptable
-------
sites for the sampled counties. Since these counties were selected
at random, the measured increase or decrease can be applied to each
State as a whole.
The third main activity began with the reception of the data.
A ratio of the number of unacceptable sites in 1972 to the number
of unacceptable sites reported in the National Survey of 1968 was
calculated for each State considered in this project. This ratio
times the number of unacceptable sites in 1968 was used to
estimate the total number of unacceptable sites existing in each
State in 1972. The formulas used to estimate the State totals
are the following:
n _
r = E W. x.
h=l h h
n
where W. = '\_ = number of counties selected in State h
Nu total number of counties in State h
h
x. = average number of unacceptable sites per county in 1972
y. = average number of unacceptable sites per county in 1968
T = Y . r = estimated total number of unacceptable sites in the
State in 1972
where Y = total number of unacceptable sites in the State in 1968
Since a sample can only provide an estimate of the total
results, it seemed advisable to calculate the confidence limits
about the estimated totals in order to see how far off the sample
estimates might be. This does not mean that the sample estimate
is wrong but only gives the outer limits of possible error due to
sampling variation. The sample estimate of the total is the
best estimate of the actual number of unacceptable sites within
each State. Both 95% and 80% confidence intervals about the
estimates were calculated for each State and these are presented
in Table 1.
-------
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Estimated
Sites in
1972
177
33
342
243
189
125
2
356
508
163
480
298
348
527
262
242
380
86
313
771
547
414
436
57
29
169
214
114
691
355
345
228
241
220
248
39
265
355
236
587
157
115
292
338
115
51
TABLE I
Variance of
Estimate of
Total Dump Sites
76.47696
47.30310
291.84684
40.54256
14.20800
18.45855
0.60768
8.05000
283.09500
308.88462
467.45193
54.35577
134.28909
4.87340
238.79592
2.75625
3.09729
21.81267
14.60710
151.61300
650.05884
44.96500
57.47481
55.82400
126.64736
3.67608
19.09800
1.20832
105.39584
219.90468
20.10176
40.14320
24.25203
7.51275
25.40664
4.34826
31.90104
5.39136
61.23775
274.75200 .
3.67608
25.55318
33.19294
34.26720
95.52600
4.22100
95%
Confidence
Interval
160-194
20-47
309-376
231-256
182-196
117-133
1-4
350-362
475-541
129-197
438-522
284-313
325-371
523-531
232-292
239-245
377-383
77-95
306-321
747-795
497-597
401-427
421-451
-42-72
7-51
165-173
205-223
112-116
671-711
326-384
336-354
216-240
231-251
215-225
238-258
35-43
254-276
350-360
221-251
555-620
153-161
105-125
281-303
326-350
96-134
47-55
80%
Confidence
Interval
166-188
24-42
320-364
235-251
184-194
120-131
1-3
352-360
486-530
141-186
452-508
289-308
333-363
524-530
242-282
240-244
378-382
80-92
308-318
755-787
522-573
405-423
426-446
47-67
15-43
167-172
208-220
113-115
678-704
336-374
339-351
220-236
235-247
217-224
242-254
36-42
258-272
352-358
226-246
566-608
155-159
109-121
285-299
331-346
102-128
48-54
-------
In order to calculate the confidence intervals the standard
deviation of the ratio must be calculated. Since the statistic
being analyzed was a ratio the following formula for calculating
the variance of a ratio was used:
var(r) = "( T (var(x) + r2var(y)-2r cov(xy))
Ex
where r = j- = number of sites in selected counties in 1972
y number of sites in selected counties in 1968
N = total number of counties in State
n = number of counties in sample
— = average number of unacceptable sites per county in the
y State in 1968
var(x) = Z (x.-'xj = variance of x
i=l • V1
n-1
n / _
var(y) = E (y^-yj = variance of y
i=l ^
n-1
xy
cov(xy) = E (xi~x) (y-j~y) = covariance of
n-1
var(T) = y2var(r) = variance of the estimate of total
T ± t /var(T) = confidence intervals for T
where t = standard normal deviate for appropriate confidence
level
-------
Procedures similar to those used to calculate State results
were utilized to obtain estimates of the number of unacceptable
sites in each region. These results are presented in Table 2.
However, it should be noted that these regions are not identical to
the EPA regions since some of the States and territories were not
studied in the survey.
To obtain the regional calculations the combined ratio estimate
method was used. In this method we computed unbiased estimates, x" and y
of the means of the X-values and of the Y-values in the universe as
estimated from a stratified simple random sample. For our purposes
the X-values were the number of unacceptable sites per county in
1972. The Y-values were the number of unacceptable sites per county
in 1968. The universe is the region and the strata are the States
in the region.
The actual formulas used in the combined ratio estimate method
were:
n
x" = I W. x.
hh
where Yh = average number of unacceptable sites per county in State h
n in 1972
y. = average number of unacceptable sites per county in State h
n in 1968
W. = _h_ = number of counties in State h
N number of counties in region
and n = number of States in region;
-------
TABLE 2
Estimated Total Variance of Est.
Region Sites in 1972 of Total Dump
Sites
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
1142
1081
966
3588
3502
2345
2243
1453
490
955
79.56640
109.94390
226.00197
1566.96120
1261.78080
2401.81675
190.33085
150.80780
129.99490
194.28480
.. 95% Confidence
Interval
1125-1159
1060-1102
937-995
3510-3666
3432-3572
2249-2441
2216-2270
1429-1477
468-512
928-982
80% Confidence
Interval
1131-1153
1068-1094
947-985
3537-3639
3456-3548
2282-2408
2225-2260
1437-1469
475-505
937-973
-------
r = T = number of unacceptable sites in 1972 for each
_ unacceptable site in 1968;
Nu = number of counties in State h
n. = number of counties surveyed in State h
S?v = variance of unacceptable sites per county in
nx State h in 1972
u.. = variance of unacceptable sites per county in
ny State h in 1968
Sh = covariance of unacceptable sites per county in
nxy State h in 1968 and 1972
Finally a number of unacceptable sites existing in the Nation
was projected. In these calculations as in those for regional
estimates the combined ratio estimate method and the associated
formulas were used. The results are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Estimated number of sites in the Nation in 1972 = 17339
Variance of Estimate of Total Dump Sites = 7680.92960
95% Confidence Interval: 17,167-17,511
80% Confidence Interval: 17,227-17,451
-------
8
In conclusion, there are a few points which should be made
about the actual data and the analyses. First, a simple random
sample of counties from each State was drawn and the properties
associated with this type of sample hold. Second, some of the
assumptions which were made in selecting the counties were as
follows:
(1) There is a relationship between the number of unacceptable
sites observed in 1968 and those in 1972;
(2) The same definition for "unacceptable" was used both in
1968 and in 1972;
(3) The same criteria for identifying a land disposal site
was used both in 1968 and 1972;
(4) The purpose of the study was to determine the number of
unacceptable sites in 1972.
It is very unlikely that an error in the third assumption will
affect the results and in an example to follow it will be shown why
an error of this type will have little effect on the final results.
However, the one thing that could affect the results is a change in
criteria during the 1968 survey. Third, it would have been desirable
to survey more counties in some of the States in order to improve
the reliability of the estimates. However, due to the limited
manpower and time it was necessary to keep the sample size small
enough so that the survey could be completed within the desired time
limits. This does not mean that the survey estimates are invalid.
It only means that a larger sample size would have resulted in less
possibility of error.
There has been some concern expressed because the statistic
used was a ratio of the number of unacceptable sites in 1972 to the
number of unacceptable sites in 1968. The question was raised as
to whether the results of the 1968 survey should have been used at
all. To allay these fears, let me say that it is a standard
statistical procedure to use as much previous data as possible to
form a basis for a new study. This is what was done in the case
of the Mission 5000 survey.
After the results of the survey were analyzed some concern was
expressed that if the 1968 data was incorrect then the estimated
totals for 1972 may be incorrect. It is very unlikely that an
error in 1968 would have any effect on the present estimate of the
total number of unacceptable sites. An example that should
illustrate this point is as follows:
-------
Suppose:
1. In 1968, State "X" reported 144 unacceptable sites
whereas State "X" actually had 160 unacceptable sites
(10% error). This error could be the result of
negligence or the use of different criteria for
identifying land disposal sites.
2. In 1972, a sample of five counties was selected.
In 1968, these counties reported 27 unacceptable sites
but they actually had 30 unacceptable sites.
In 1972, it was found that these counties had 24
unacceptable sites.
24
Then the estimate of total unacceptable sites in 1972 is 27 (144) = 128
since the 1968 error is not known.
Suppose now that it was possible to redo the 1968 survey so that
it was exactly correct.
Then the new estimate using the perfect 1968 figures would be
24
30 (160) = 128.
Therefore, assuming the same negligence was used in all counties
within a State there is nno basis for questioning the validity of the
survey results. The assumption of uniform negligence within a State
should be reasonable since normally one team performed all survey
work within a State.
The only problem I see arises in trying to compare the results
of the Mission 5000 survey in 1972 with the results of the 1968
National Survey. There are a number of reasons for this difficulty.
First, the objective of this project was to estimate the total
number of unacceptable sites existing in 1972 and not to determine
whether there were more or less unacceptable sites than in 1968.
Any attempt to compare the results in 1972 with those in 1968 in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of Mission 5000 will be risky
due to the potential error in the 1968 results. This study was not
designed to measure the number of unacceptable sites that have been
-------
10
closed since 1968. Even if the 1968 study was perfect and there
were no sampling variation in 1972 data, a comparison of the results
for 1968 and 1972 in order to determine the number of closed
unacceptable sites is completely meaningless. The only way that
this comparison would be valid is if rw new unacceptable sites
were opened since 1968.
/
Betty L. Grupenhoff
Statistician
Computer & Statistical Support Section
Assistance Branch
Systems Management Division
Attachment
-------
REPLY TO
ATTN OF:
SUBJECT-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
AB, SMD
Na.ti qn.al,. Dump Site Survey
DATE: August 8, 1972
TO:
Mr. Thomas A. Strickland
Mission 5000 Project Officer
I understand that there is some question as to how" the counties
were selected for the National Dump Site Survey. I will try to allay
some of these fears by explaining how we made the sample selection.
First, we decided that approximately 1600 sites could be
surveyed in the given time frame and with the personnel available
for this project. This number of sites was arrived at by using an
estimate of the average number of interviews that can be done in a
day by-each person.
Next we determined the number of substandard sites to be
surveyed in each State. We used a combination of two different
methods to accomplish this task. First, the 1600 site visits
considered as reasonable for this project were apportioned to each
State proportionate to the total number of existing substandard
sites in the country; the data used for this allocation was the
1968 National Survey results.
In those States which were apportioned less than 30 interviews
a second method was utilized to determine the sample sizes. From a
statistical inference standpoint it is desirable to have at least 30
interviews from each State. The criteria used in this method was
the following:
.. 1. If 0-5 sites in a State, survey all.
2. If 6-61 sites in a State, survey 1/2 of them with a minimum
of 5 sites per State.
3. If 61 or more sites in a State survey 30 sites.
Using this'supplemental method, 320 interviews were added
making a total of 1920 sites that needed to be surveyed. It is this
method that we decided to use.
-------
Having determined the number of sites to be surveyed from each.
State the next step was to pick the sites. It was decided prior to site
'selection that we would do a census of all sites in a selected county.
This decision was made for the following reasons: to reduce travel time
and to increase the number of sites that could be surveyed in the
limited time.
All of the sites in each State were serialized. Then random
numbers were selected. The sites corresponding to the selected random
numbers were then determined. Once a site was chosen in a county all
the sites in that county were considered. This selection method
guarantees that the counties with the larger number of sites would have
a greater probability of being selected.
The sites were randomly selected and therefore all of the
properties associated with random selection will apply to the data
obtained. It will be possible to obtain an estimate of both the
average number of substandard sites per county in each State and the
standard deviation of the numbers. From these county estimates of the
number of substandard sites we will project a number of substandard
"sites for each State and confidence limits for the total estimate.
No confidence limits will be possible if a judgment sample (i.e., the
" 'counties be selected on basis of subjective judgment) is used since
we will not be able to obtain an estimate of the standard deviation.
I hope that I have been able_to answer most of the questions that
~yOLTmay~tiave"arid to ins'tilT'some "appreciation of the importance of
maintaining the randomness of the sample by surveying the selected
counties. If time is available to survey additional counties
contact me and I'll randomly select more counties. You may survey
•—eminties -which may be of particular-interest, to you but these counties
will not be used in the estimates.
~PTe"ase~ contact" me~TrTcan~~be ~6f any further assistance
L. Grupenhoff
./ Statistician
Computer & Statistical Support Section
Assistance Branch
Systems Management Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs ;
REPLY TO
AT7NOF:
SUBJECT:
TA 01.B.239/2
Sample Selection for Mission 5000
DATE
: May 31, 1972
TO:
The Record
On .May 18, 1972, Dan Greathouse and I met with Jack Hubbard
and Don Kee to discuss a resurvey for Mission 5000. This meeting
was a follow-up to one in which they requested that we select a
sample of counties within each state for the purpose of resurveying
the substandard disposal sites located in these counties to
determine their current status. Using the results obtained from
this sample of counties, a national profile will be developed.
At this earlier meeting, we agreed that the first step to be
taken was to determine the total number of disposal sites and
the number of substandard sites for each county within each state.
Charles Hampel said that he would get this information from the
National Survey data. :
At the meeting on May 18, we made some estimates of the
number of interviews that could be handled with the available
manpower and within the desired time frame. There will be
10 full time people available from July 10 until September 10
to conduct the surveys. Assuming 20 v/orking days a month,
there will be a total of 40 working days per person for the
project. Based on his past experience, Mr. Hubbard estimated
that one person could visit 4 sites each working day.
Using these figures we concluded that approximately 1,600 sites
could be covered in the given time frame and with the personnel
available for this project.
A combination of two different methods were used in
determining the number of substandard sites to be surveyed
within each state. First, the 1,600 site visits considered as
reasonable for this project were apportioned to each state
proportionate to the total number of existing substandard
sites in the state vs. the total number of substandard sites
in the country; the data used for this allocation was the
1968 National Survey results. It should be noted that there
is no existing national Survey data for Nebraska and Wisconsin
-------
and therefore no information to use 1n determining sample sizes. These
states did not initially have grants to conduct a survey but since that
time they have received grants. Wisconsin has finished its survey ,
but we do not have the data yet and Nebraska is just starting its survey.
In those states which were. apportioned less than 30 interviews,
a second method was utilized to determine the sample sizes. From a
statistical inference standpoint.it is desirable to have at least
30 interviews from each state. The criteria used in this method was
the following:
1) If 0-5 sites in a state, survey all
2) If 6-60 sites in a state, survey 1/2 of them with a minimum of
5 sites per state
3) If 61 or more sites in a state, survey 30 sites
Using this supplemental method, an additional 324 interviews were
added making a total of 1,924 sites that need to be surveyed. This was
the method we recommended. It, as well as the first method, was
established on the basis that a census of all sites in a selected
county would be taken. This census was decided upon by Messrs. Hubbard
and Kee.
On May 18, Messrs. Hubbard and Kee expressed concern that the
number of sites was too large. They decided to check with some of the
planners and see if the data from some state surveys are current
enough to eliminate the need to resurvey these states.
Since the last meeting, Messrs. Hubbard and Kee have decided that
the recommended sampling procedure is realistic and they are going to
use it. Today they told us to start selecting counties to obtain the
desired 1924 sites.
After we select the counties to be surveyed, Mr. Hampel has agreed
to furnish us with a list of the names and addresses of all the sites
in the selected counties as they are reported in the National Survey.
Betty L. Grupenhoff
Statistician
Computer & Statistical Support Section
Assistance Branch
-------
I
I
APPENDIX B. ;
The Land Disposal Site Investigation Report'is
the form utilized in the 1972 National Dump Site
Survey. Note that only certain pertinent items
were completed.
13
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs COMMUN|TY SOL,D WA5TES PRACT}CES
' _• - LAND DISPOSAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
OMB No. 158-b 71017
2. ^COUNTY
ITS LOCATION (Political Jurisdiction)
456
7 89 10
4. NAME O F SITE
11 12 13
7. KAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM
5. 1ADDRESS OF SITE
DATE OF SURVEY
DAY MONTH
YE'AR
8. JTITLE
.^ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS
10. POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS SERVED BY LAND DISPOSAL SITE
NAME OF
POLITICAL JURISDICTION
30
32
45 46 47 48
ESTIMATED
PERCENTAGE OF
JURISDICTION
SERVED BY SITE
AVERAGE DISTANCE
OF SITE FROM
CENTER OF SOURCE
AREA (Miles)
FOR ADDITIONAL ENTRIES, CHECK HERE (~1 (53) AND MAKE ENTRIES IN ITEM #45
JSITE OPERATED BY
I I PUBLIC AGENCY
| | PRIVATE AGENCY
JSITE OWNED B.Y
PUBLIC AGENCY
| | PRIVATE AGENCY
54
S3
13. IS OPERATION
REGULATED BY A
HEALTH AUTHORITY?
0°
IF YES. INDICATE LEVEL
OF PRINCIPAL AUTHORITY
(Check one only)
I[COMMUNITY
I[COUNTY
I[STATE
||OTHER.
(Soecify)
14^GENERAL CHARACTER OF SITE (Check one only)
V
PJ QUARRY OR BORROW PIT [~~| HILLSIDE
( [GULLY-CANYON [""[MARSH, TIDELAND
Zr OR FLOOD PLAIN
( | LEVEL AREAS
(Specify) Do
not st
use
15. YEAR SITE PLACED IN OPERATION 19
16
. ANTICIPATED LIFE REMAINING (Years)
<— v
17.JTOTAL AREA OF SITE (Acres)
H»
<
1 18-jAREA TO BE USED FOR LAND
^-^DISPOSAL (Acres)
19. ZONING/ LAND USE SURROUNDING FACILITY (Check predominant typ
ZONING
Q NONE [~~1 INDUSTRIAL
^RESIDENTIAL |~~| AGRICULTURAL
[ 1 COMMERCIAI I [OTHFB
e only)
LAND USE
L_J RESIDENTIAL QAGR.CU
FJ COMMERCIAL BOTHER
1 I INDUSTRIAL
64
61
65
59
62
66
to
13
«7
68 69 70 71
LTURAL
( Specify)
72 73
(Specify)
20. IS USE OF '
COMPLETED
IF YES. CHECK
PREDOMINANT
USE ONLY
i 1 RECREATIONAL
' ' AREA OR PARK
i LIGHT
'CONSTRUCTION
iHEAVY
AGRICULTURE '
,USE NOT
I DETERMINED
23. NUMBER OF DAYS DISPOSAL SITE COULD NOT BE USED BECAUSE OF WEATHER CONNECTED CONDITIONS (Enfer average
per year)
SNERAL CHARACTER OF OPERATION (Judgment evaluation -check appropriate categories)
21.
r->
23.
^
WILL PUBLIC AGENCY CONTROL j— -
COMPLETED SITE USE? ,
[FREQUENCY
OF COVER
(Check one only)
| | NONE
I | DAILY
(End ol each
working day)
YES '
NO
| | DAIL
I [OTH
22.1MATERIAL USED
I*-S poR COVER
(Check one only)
Y (Except lace) (
ER
(Spscity)
24
<^>
CONSTRUCIION ' l "
QNONE | [OTHER
n EARTH
(Specity)
(Specify)
|IS SPREADING AND COMPACTION
OF REFUSE HANDLED IN APPROX-
IMATELY TWO-FOOT LAYERS OR LESS?
DYES
FjNO
75 76
77 78
AE^^ARANCE
[~| SIGHTLY
f~~| UNSIGHTLY
15
IS BLOWING PAPER
CONTROLLED?
FjYES
[UNO
18
is BLOWING PAPER
CONSIDERED. TO BE
A NUISANCE?
FjYES
d|NO
17
ROUTINE BURNING
Q NONE
| | UNCONTROLLED
n PLANNED AND
LIMITED
18
ARE THERE SUR-
FACE DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS?
FjYES
rjNo
19
ARE THERE
LEACHING
PROBLEMS?
CD YES
HMO
20 J
EPA-150-2 (Cin) (Rev. 7-71)
-------
LAND DISPOSAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT (Page 2)
7. JC
7. CONTROL PROGRAMS
RODENT C.ONTROL
PROGRAM
FLY CONTROL
P.R O G R A M
BIRD CONTROL
PROGRAM
DUST CONTROL
PROGRAM
ODOR CONTROL
PROGRAM
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
YES NO
LJ LJ
D EH
n LJ
a a
n . a
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a
Do
not
use
25
23.JIS LOWEST PART OF FILL IN WATER TABLE?
YES
NO
29. FIRE [~]NONE
PROTECTION
[~]OTHER.
(Specify.)
30. NUMBER OF TIMES FIRE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
WAS REQUIRED AT SITE IN THE PAST YEAR
33 34 35
IS SALVAGING PERMITTED?
| | YES
IS SALVAGING PRACTICED? Q YES | | NO
33. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LOADS DEPOSITED DAILY (Average)
FROM PUBLIC
COLLECTION
VEHICLES
(Enter
number)
38 39 40
FROM PRIVATE
COLLECTION
VEHICLES
(Enter
number)
41 42 43
FROM OTHER VEHICLES
( Enter
number)
(Specify)
44 45 46
37
34. ARE QUANTITATIVE RECORDS
KEPT IN ANY FORM?
J-, YES PH NO „
' - ' > - >
37. CHECK ANY ITEMS LISTED BELOW WHICH ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE
3
14
33. QUANTITIES OF SOLID WASTES RECEIVED ANNUALLY
TONS WEIGHED
TONS ESTIMATED
CUBIC YARDS
. — .SEWAGE
LJ
48 49 50 51 52 53 54
59 60
1 — [ALL
LJPUTRESCIBLES LJ SOLIDS
a ALL . — .JUNKED
, NON-COMBUSTIBLES LJ AUTOMOBILES
la 22
. — . LARGE
1 — 1 APPLIANCES
23
r— i ALL
L—l COMBUSTIBLES
1 7
62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
3S.BUERAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTES
AT DISPOSAL SITE (Check those accepted)
18
GARBAGE
QHOUSEHOLD
I [INSTITUTIONAL
i — iDEAD
L—J ANIMALS
WASTE
PlCOMMERCIAL n^o'.^1"" PI ' N C 'N ER ATOR
L-J . L_JTURAL RESIDUE ONLY
20
OIL
24
. — .CONSTRUCTION
LJ DEBRIS
. - .STREET
LJ SWEEPINGS
n HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
28
QOTHER (Specify)
29
[ IOTHER (Speedy)
31
QJOTHER (Specify)
38. EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE
(Average utilized daily)
DRAGLINE OR SHOVEL-TYPE EXCAVATORS
SCRAPERS (Self-propelled)
TRACTORS (Track or Rubber Tire)
(Bulldozer or High Lift Loader)
TRUCKS
OTHER.
(Specify)
Do
not
use 43
OTHER
(Specify)
Do
not I
use 46
NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON SITE (Average dally)
35
37
39
49 so
36
40. HOURS OF DAILY
OPERATION
(On a 24- hour clock)
~f..,,.
BEG1N
END
38
4I-
NUMBER OF DAYS OPERATED PER WEEK
40
41 42
42. ANNUAL OPERATING COST
(Including supervision and
equipment maintenance)
56 57 58 59 60 61 62
44 45
43IS THIS A SANITARY LANDFILL?
47 48
C]YES
CD NO
'44.1IF SOURCES OTHER THAN REPORTER DESIGNATED IN ITEM 7 WERE UTILIZED IN COMPLETING THIS FORM, INDICATE BELOW
SOURCES USED AND ITEM NUMBERS
NAME OF PERSON
*
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
ITEM NUMBER(S)
EPA-150-2 (Cin)
(Ppu 7.711
-------
LAND DISPOSAL- SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT (Page 3)
ITEMS
ITEM NO.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I
46. jftEMARKS (Attach additional sheet it necessary)
EPA-150-2 (Cin)
(Rev. 7-71)
U.S. GOVtRNMENT mrnirra OfTICt 19/2— 759-3l5/E701
------- |