ENT PLANNING SOI D WASTE MANAGEM
SOL
?n
i
STEM
E MANAGEM
WASTE M
MANAGEM
WASTE M
' MANAGEiV
ANAGEMEN PL ANN] NG SOLI D WASTE M
AST
ENT PLANNING SOLID WASTE MANAGEM
[ENT PL ANNI Status Report; , „
ENT PLANNING * 1SBS ^E MANAGEf
ENT PLANNI pi ANN I NT srii in W4STF/IV1,
-------
OMAHA-COUNCIL BLUFFS
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Status Report 1969
.This report (SW-3tsg), which has been reproduced
exactly as received from the grantee with the exception
of a new title page and foreword, was prepared for the grantee
by HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON
under State Solid Waste Planning Grant G05-UI-00041
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
This is an Environmental Protection Publication,
This publication is also in the Public Health Service numbered
series as Public Health Service Publication No. 2117- Its
entry in two government publication series is the result of
a publishing interface reflecting the transfer of the Federal
solid waste management program from the U.S. Public Health
Service to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 71-608770
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, B.C. 20402
Price $2.25
Stock Number $$02-0012
-------
OMAHA-COUNCIL BLUFFS
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TO ENCOURAGE SYSTEMATIC PLANNING for better management of
the Nation's solid wastes, Congress in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal
Act provided grant monies for the States for solid waste planning.
By June 1966, fourteen States had met the stipulations of the Act and
were embarked upon the planning process with the help of the Federal
funds. Today, almost every State has applied for and received a solid
2
waste planning grant. From each of the grants the Federal government
expects two practical results: first, a plan (and report) for the State's
management of its solid wastes; second, development of an agency for
the managing function.
The present document publishes the Omaha-Council Bluffs
interstate plan representing Douglas and Sarky Counties, Nebraska,
and Pottawattamie County, Iowa. This was developed by the interstate
planning agency under a Federal solid waste management planning grant
that went into effect July 1, 1968. The plan reported on here is necessarily
based upon existing data, technology, problems, and objectives. But, the
XThe Solid Waste Disposal Act; Title II of Public Law 89-272, 89th
Congress, S. 306, October 20, 1965. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1966. 5 p.
2
Toftner, R. O. , D. D. Swavely, W. T. Dehn, and B. L. Sweeney,
comps. State solid waste planning grants, agencies, and progress--1970.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2109. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (In press.)
Toftner, R. O. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
iii
-------
planning process is dynamic; future revision is an important part of
the process to take account of changing conditions and better data.
Moreover, a plan is not an end in itself. Its formulation is the key
to action: to legislation, standards, technical assistance, public
relations, and enforcement.
Besides providing the interstate planning agency with a guide
for action, the Omaha-Council Bluffs plan will help to guide regional
solid waste planning and subsequent implementation. The plan can
also provide support for improved local legislation related to solid
waste management.
The plan is designed, therefore, to: (1) begin the planning
process; (2) establish policies and procedures to guide the interstate
planning agency; (3) guide regional planning; (4) provide a documented
base for improved solid waste ordinances and operating regulations.
With these objectives in mind, this plan report presents and analyzes
pertinent solid waste data, identifies problems indicated by the data,
sets objectives that if achieved would solve identified problems, and
finally, proposes immediate, intermediate, and long-range measures
for achieving objectives. This plan should thus provide the interstate
agency with an invaluable management tool with which to begin solving
the solid waste problems in the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area,
--RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Assistant Surgeon General
Acting Commissioner
Solid Waste Management Office
IV
-------
ACKNOW LEDGEMENT
The development of this report has been made pleasur-
able by the cooperation of many persons and organizations that
were contacted during the study period.
Especially grateful acknowledgement is rendered to
Mr. Victor E. Ziegler, P. E. who is the MAPA Environ-
mental Health Director. His thoughtful comments, particu-
larly during the final editing, were valuable and appreciated.
Also grateful acknowledgement is rendered to the mem-
bers of the Technical Review Committee, who met monthly
during the course of the study. This committee listened to
many hours of presentations, offered their criticism and ad-
vice, and in general acted as a knowledgeable technical
sounding Board. Their assistance and enthusiastic coopera-
tion have made a significant contribution to this report.
This solid waste disposal planning project was
supported in part by a grant from the Public Health Service,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Grant Number G05-U1-00041.
-------
METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING AGENCY
COUNCIL OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
President
Vice President
Harry Andersen
Richard Anderson
Cecil Blum
William V. Brooks
George Buglewic(z *
Marvin G. Ellis
Donald Franksen
Arthur Gottsch
Ronald Grear
Robert Haworth
H. F Jacobberger
Russell Johns
Joseph Wager
Lynn L. Landgren
Colonel Anson D. Marston
Robert S. Metzler
John Neuberger
Al C. Pawloski
Lyle Plugge
Omar E. Robb
Eugene Leahy
Thomas Thomsen
Robert Walton
Msgr. Nicholas Wegner
Lynn L. Landgren
Donald Franksen
Mayor of Millard, Nebraska
Mayor of Gretna, Nebraska
Mayor of Walnut, Iowa
Chairman, Sarpy County Board of Commissioners
Chairman, Douglas County Board of Commissioners
President, Bellevue School Board
Mayor of Council Bluffs, Iowa
Mayor of Elkhorn, Nebraska
Omaha Airport Authority
Mayor of Bellevue, Nebraska
President, Omaha City Council
Mayor of Bennington, Nebraska
Mayor of Ralston, Nebraska
Mayor of Papillion, Nebraska
Chairman, Omaha Planning Board
President, Millard School Board
Papio Watershed Board
Chairman, Council Bluffs Planning Commission
President, Ralston School Board
Mayor of La Vista, Nebraska
Mayor of Omaha, Nebraska
Lewis Central School Board
Chairman, Pottawattamie County Board of Supervisors
Chairman, Boys Town Village Board of Trustees
Officially Designated Representative. . . Mr. Jack Cavanaugh
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Secretary
Treasurer
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert S. Walton
George Buglewicz
Al C. Pawloski
William V. Brooks
William V. Brooks
George Buglewicz
Donald Franks en
H. F. Jacobberger
Harry Andersen
MEMBERS
Col. Anson Marston
Al C. Pawloski
Eugene Leahy
Robert Walton
O. A. Kinney, Jr.
Hal L. Taylor
Victor E Ziegler
Larry Snail
Gerald Tartoni
Frank E. Keele
Robert Tallant
Dorothy Renstrom
Donna Collatz
Arleen Winkler
Kirk Crane
MAPA STAFF
Executive Director
Assistant to the Director
Environmental Health Director
Comprehensive Planning Director
Director of Urban Affairs and Trans.
Planning Technician
Planning Technician
Administrative Secretary
Secretary
Bookkeeper-Secretary
Planning Aide
-------
TOPICAL SUMMARY
PART ONE - GENERAL
The Study Area consists of all of Pottawattamie County, Iowa and Douglas and
Sarpy Counties, Nebraska, an area of slightly more than 1500 square miles,
containing a present population of approximately 529, 000. By 1995 this population
is expected to increase to approximately 767,000.
All existing solid waste disposal facilities open to the public, and disposal facil-
ities used by solid waste collectors collecting from the public were examined
and rated. There are 21 of these facilities, seven serve the urban area contain-
ing approximately 95% of the population and 14 serve the remaining rural areas
or were very small facilities in the urban area.
All of the facilities have some deficiencies, some of which could be corrected,
but many of the facilities must be classified as unregulated open burning dumps.
The basic problem in solid waste management is the apathy of the general public,
and the unglamorous nature of solid waste disposal. Until recently, few people
were concerned with these matters. Except in a few cases, little professional
skill has been applied to the storage, collection, transportation and disposal of
solid wastes. As a result, the services being offered are often inadequate in
scope and execution, and cost more than first class, well organized services.
The technology for storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of solid
waste in an efficient, sanitary, nuisance free and economical manner is avail-
able and ready for use, when the public demands proper service and govern-
mental officials supply the necessary management.
PART TWO - SURVEY OF SOLID WASTE
Extensive surveys were made to determine the quantity and characteristics of
the present and future solid wastes in the Study Area. Included were surveillances
of the seven major public disposal facilities, commercial and industrial surveys,
and special studies of special wastes. These surveys were analyzed using
systems analysis methods, and electronic data processing equipment. As a
result, information was obtained describing the wastes as a function of: time
and day of delivery, vehicles used for hauling, classification of haulers, political
subdivision of the origins, geographic areas of origins, centroids, potential
disposal processes, types of wastes by waste classification, volumes and weights
of wastes, compaction factors and seasonal variations. The information obtained
is presented in graphic and tabular form and was used in developing the recom-
mended facilities.
The 1968 annual volume and weight of materials which should have been disposed
of at public facilities was equal to approximately one (1) million cubic yards and
and approximately 700, 000 tons per year. By 1995 these quantities are expected
vn
-------
to increase to 1,600,000 cubic yards and 1,200,000 tons. If accumulated, these
quantities would represent a volume equal to approximately 21, 000 acre feet
and 26 million tons.
In addition to these materials which can be expected to be delivered to public
disposal facilities, a very large volume and tonnage of material will continue
to be disposed of at private facilities serving the disposal needs of the facility
operator.
PART THREE - DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The sanitary landfill method of disposal is recommended for the solid wastes
produced in the Study Area. Reasons and conditions favoring this recommenda-
tion are:
1. Adequate land is available.
2. The method has been proven satisfactory where properly
operated.
3. The method can meet all health and sanitation requirements
and be aesthetically pleasing.
4. The method is adaptable to varying quantities and peak or
slack rates.
5. The method is the most economical.
Criteria for the selection of general areas for sanitary landfills is presented.
The items include;
1. Minimum driving time and distance to site area.
2. Present land use compatible with sanitary landfilling.
3. Accessible to major highways or arterial streets.
4. Economical land costs.
5. General topography, including terrain, ground cover, ground
water and major subsurface conditions must be favorable.
6. Suitable earth cover must be available.
Economic comparisons were made of potential site areas and combinations of
site areas, through the use of simulation methods, to determine which combina-
tion should be recommended. Consideration was given to both the cost of hauling
waste products to disposal facilities and the operation of the facilities in deter-
mining the total cost to the community.
Vlll
-------
Four general site areas in the urban area are recommended;
1. Site Area No. 1 - Vicinity of Interstate 80 and Nebraska
Highway 50 in Sarpy County.
2, Site Area No. 3 - West of the present Douglas County
Sanitary Landfill Site in the general
vicinity of 120th & Fort Streets in
Douglas County.
3, Site Area No. 5 - Between Lake Manawa and the Missouri
River, South of U. S. 275, in Council Bluffs.
4. Site Area No. 7 - North of Dodge Park, near the Missouri
River, north of Omaha in Douglas County.
These general site areas, containing a total of approximately 1, 000 acres, will
be needed to fill the solid waste products expected from the year 1970 to the
year 1995.
In addition to the four general areas for sites to serve the urban area, one addi-
tional site is recommended to serve eastern Pottawattamie County. The general
area for this site is in the vicinity of Hancock, Iowa. To make this single site
economical for the small communities and rural population, an organized collec-
tion service is recommended.
The cost of the initial capital expenditures for the four urban sites and one rural
site, including land, equipment purchase, and initial development, is approxim-
ately $2, 200, 000.
The total cost of operation, including initial capital expenditures plus operation,
is approximately $1. 40 per ton. This is less than what is currently being spent
for some lesser facilities, and estimated to be less than what other inadequate
facilities would cost if their operations were brought up to reasonable standards,
PART FOUR - ORGANIZATION FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The recommended organizational structure for the disposal of solid waste is a
single, non-profit, public agency. This agency would be formed for the purpose
of operating and/or managing all public solid waste disposal facilities in the
three county MAPA area, as one coordinated activity, in accordance with a
Master Plan for area-wide solid waste disposal. It would operate for and on
behalf of all of the member municipalities for their mutual benefit.
Each member would agree to the Master Plan and pass any ordinances or regula-
tions necessary to implement the plan and to grant to the agency exclusive operat-
ing authority within their jurisdiction.
IX
-------
Fees would be charged at ail agency facilities, for disposal services. These
fees would be uniform at all facilities, non-discriminating, and adequate in
amount to produce the necessary revenue to make the entire disposal operations
self-supporting.
The purchase of land, capital improvements to the land and initial complement
of equipment would be paid for with the proceeds of revenue bond issues. The
user fees would pay for the bond debt service, debt service reserve, operation
and maintenance, equipment replacement, site improvements, miscellaneous
and incidental expenses, management and overhead.
The agency membership would consist of one representative of each participating
city, town, village and county. The agency's policy and governing body would
be a Board of Directors consisting of one member from each of the three counties,
three additional members representing the small communities in each of the
three counties, and one member each from the major cities. Each Board Member
would cast one vote for each 50, 000 population in the jurisdiction he represented.
An Inter-governmental agreement creating the recommended agency is presented
in the report. Also presented are proposed ordinances for the collection and
disposal of solid wastes which the various municipalities may find helpful. They
contain the essential technical elements for adequate solid waste matters and
certain procedural items tailored for a municipality participating in an agency
operated solid waste system.
State and Local Legislation is reviewed and recommendations are made to
improve the legal basis for solid waste management.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part One Description Page
GENERAL
A. Scope
B. Definition of Terms
C. Description of the Study Area
1. General
2. Population
3. Land Use
D. Existing Solid Waste Facilities
1 . Name and Location
2. Survey of Existing Facilities
E. Need For Solid Waste Management
F. Present Technology
1. General
2. Collection Systems
3. Transportation Systems
4. Disposal Systems
Part Two
SURVEY OF SOLID WASTE
A. General
B. Commercial and Industrial Surveys
1. Surveys
2. Waste Quantity
3. Total Industrial & Commercial Waste
C. Residential Survey
D. Special Studies
1. General
2. Automobiles and Scrap Metal
3. Special Tree Waste
4. Meat -packing Industry Waste
5. Disposal of Feedlot Waste
I -
I -
I
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
II -
II -
11 -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
II -
i^ahwv
1
2
5
5
7
9
9
9
12
18
21
21
21
23
25
1
1
1
1
2
2
6
8
8
9
14
17
20
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Part Two Description Page_
E. Landfill Surveys .II - 23
1. General 11-23
2. Computer Programs 11-30
F. Volume, Weight and Vehicle Analysis II 52
G. Origin of Landfill Waste H 61
H. Present Quantities n - 63
1. Measured Area ^ ^3
2. Total Study Area 11-67
I. Future Quantities 11-67
Part Three
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. General in 1
B. Recommended Method of Disposal III - 2
C. Selecting General Areas For Solid Waste III - 2
Disposal Facilities
1. General III 2
2. Driving Time and Distance III - Z
3. Land Use HI 5
4. Accessibility III - 5
5. Land Cost in 5
6. General Topography III - 5
7. Earth for Cover Material III - 6
D. Selection of Proposed Facilities III - 6
1. Transfer Station III - 6
2. Economic Simulations of Potential
Sanitary Landfill Sites HI - 13
3. Domestic Solid Waste Collection and Dis-
posal in Eastern Pottawattamie County III - 23
4. Sanitary Landfill Cost Estimates III - 31
a General III - 31
b Basic Cost Data III 32
c Annual Cost III - 33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Part Three Description
4. (continued)
d. Fixed and Variable Annual Costs
e Quantities for Unit and Total Cost
f. Unit and Total Costs of Operation
g. Bond Debt Service Reserve
h. Summary of Unit Costs
i. Individual Site Data
5. Summary - Resulting Site Combination^" III - 42
6. Recommended Disposal Facilities ni - 45
7. Recommended Disposal Fees 111 - 48
E. Site Development III - 50
1. Development of Flat Site III 50
2. Development of a Hilly Site III 55
F. Final Use and Iterim Use of Sanitary Landfill Sites HI - 58
Part Four
ORGANIZATION FOR SOLID WASTE
A. General IV 1
B. Collection of Solid Waste IV - 1
C. Legal Status of the Agency IV - 1
D. Membership IV - 7
E. Formation of the Agency IV - 7
F. Operation of the Agency IV - 8
G. Financing IV - 10
1. Disposal Service IV- 10
a. Revenue Bonds IV - 10
b. Operating Revenue IV - 21
c. Revenue Required IV - 21
d. Income IV - 22
e. Disposal Fees IV - 22
2. Collection System IV - 22
H. Interim Activities IV - 23
I. State Legislation IV - 24
1. Financing and Eminent Domain IV 24
2. Authority of the Various Subdivisions of the IV - 25
State
30.11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Part Four Description
2, (Continued)
a. Collection of Garbage and Refuse
in Iowa Cities and Towns
b. Collection of Garbage and Refuse in
Iowa and Nebraska Counties
c. County Disposal of Refuse in Nebraska
3. State Regulatory Agency
J. Local Legislation
1. Disposal Ordinance
2. Collection Ordinance
3. Junked Automobiles
K. Sanitary Landfill Standards
L. Alternate Possibilities
1. Organizational Structures
2. Operation of Agency Facilities
Page
IV - 25
IV - 31
IV - 31
IV 31
IV - 33
IV - 33
IV - 33
IV - 33
IV - 34
IV - 34
IV - 34
IV - 36
M. Federal Participation IV - 37
APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES. FIGURES. DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS
Part Table, Figure
One or Document
Table I - 1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table 1-4
Figure I - 1
Figure 1-2
Figxire 1-3
Figure 1-4
Exhibit I - 1
Exhibit 1-2
Title Page Number
Existing Land Use
Major and Minor Public Disposal
Facilities (2 pages)
Sanitary Landfill "Must" Items and
Ratings
Inventory of Collection Practice
Metropolitan Solid Waste Study Area
Population Trends
Existing Disposal Sites
Comparing Solid Waste Collection
and Disposal Cost With Other
Services and Utilities
Sample Land Disposal Site Investigation
Report form USPHS
Samples Tentative Landfill Rating Form
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I -
I _
I -
11
13
17
24
6
8
10
20
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES. FIGURES. DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS (continued)
Part Table, Figure
Two or Document
Table II - 1
Table II - 2
Table II - 3
Table II - 4
Table II - 5
Table II - 6
Table II - 7
Table II 8
Title
Page Number
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table-
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
II - 9
II -10
11-11
II -12
11-13
II -14
11-15
II -16
II -17
II -18
II -19
II -20
II -21
II -22
II -23
Table II -24
Table 11-25
Table II -26
Figure II -1
Figure II -2
Figure II -3
Figure II -4
Commercial and Industrial Survey-
Material Quantities Per Employee
Commercial and Industrial Survey-
Material Quantities
Summary of Commercial and Industrial
Annual Waste Quantities
Meat-packing Industry Waste Quantities
Annual Daily Manure Production and
Composition
Estimated Annual Manure Production -
Commercial Feedlots in Study Area
Days and Dates for Landfill Surveys
Materials, Compaction Factors,
Seasonal Factors and Unit Weights
Computer Program A
Computer Program B
Computer Program C
Computer Program D, Pages 1 and 2
Computer Program E
Computer Program F
Computer Program G
Computer Program H, Pages 1 and 2
Computer Program I
Computer Program J
Computer Program K
Computer Program L
Computer Program M
Computer Program N
Comparison of Waste as Received From
Political subdivision
Annual Quantities and Accumulations
of Refuse for the Measured Area
Major Categories of Waste
Annual Quantities and Accumulations
of Refuse for the Total Study Area
II - 3
II - 4
II - 5
11-19
II - 21
II - 22
II - 24
11-33
11-36
11-37
II - 39
11-40
H - 42
II - 43
11-44
11-45
11-49
11-49
II 49
II 50
11-51
11-51
11-62
II - 64
II - 66
11-68
II
Disposal Surveillance Questionaire
Comparing the Several Sites for Waste n
Quantities and Vehicular Traffic
Comparing the Vehicle Types for 11
Waste Quantities and Vehicular Traffic
Comparing the Hauler Types for Waste 11
Quantities and Vehicular Traffic
26
- 53
-54
-56
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES. FIGURES. DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS (continued)
Part
Three
Table, Figure
or Document
Title
Page Numbejr_
Figure II - 5 Comparing the Seven Days of the
Week for Waste Quantities and
Vehicular Traffic
Figure II - 6 Comparing the Hours of the Day for
Waste Quantities and Vehicular
Traffic
Figure II - 7 Comparing the Hours of the Day and
Vehicle Count for the Types of
Vehicles
Exhibit II 1 Elm Tree Statistical Information
Exhibit II - 2 Unit Weights
Table III 1
Table III - 2
Table III 3
Table III - 4
Table III - 5
Table III - 6
Table III - 7
Table III - 8
Table III - 9
Table III -10
Figure III - 1
Figure III - 2
Figure III - 3
Figure III - 4
Figure III - 5
Exhibit III - 1
Exhibit III - 2
Exhibit III 3
Transfer Station - Basic Data for
Cost Estimate
Economic Site Simulations
Economic Site Simulations
Economic Simulation No. 98 (typical)
Eastern Pottawattamie County Domestic
Refuse Collection and Preliminary
Daily Work Schedule
Cost Estimate, Domestic Waste
Collection, Eastern Pottawattamie
County
Recap Cost Estimate
Basic Cost Data For Sites 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8
Basic Site Data For Sites 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8
Comparative Figures - Five Site
Combinations
Potential Disposal Site Locations and
Quantities by Geographic Areas
Transfer Station
Recommended Sanitary Landfills
Typical Flat Site Operation
Typical Hilly Site
Site Simulation No. 65
Site Simulation No. 87
Site Simulation No. 92
II - 58
II 59
II - 60
III - 11
III - 14
HI - 17
III - 19
III 27
III - 30
III - 38
III - 39
III - 41
III - 43
III - 3
III - 8
in - 21
III - 53
HI - 57
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES. FIGURES. DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS (continued)
Part Table, Figure
Throe or Document
Exhibit III - 4
Exhibit III - 5
Exhibit III - 6
E xhibit III - 7
Exhibit III - 8
Title
Page Number
Cost Estimate - Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, Sanitary
Landfill Sites 3, 5 and 7
Cost Estimate Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, Sanitary
Landfill Sites 3 and 5
Cost Estimate - Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, Sanitary
Landfill Sites 1, 3 and 5
Cost Estimate - Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities, Sanitary
Landfill Sites 1,3, 5 and 7
Cost Estimate - Solid Waste
Disposal Facility, E. Pottawattamie
County Sanitary Landfill Site No. 8.
Table IV - 1
Figure IV - 1
Document
IV - 1
IV - 2
IV - 3
IV - 4
Exhibit IV - 1
Revenue Requirement and Income IV - 21
for Agency Disposal of Solid Waste
Proposed Organizational Structure IV - 9
for the Agency - 1969
Intergovernmental Agreement Creating IV - 2
the Omaha - Council Bluffs Metropolitan
Area Solid Waste Agency
Proposed Refuse Disposal Ordinance IV - 11
for Cities Contracting with the Omaha-
Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area
Solid Waste Agency
Proposed Refuse Collection Ordinance IV - 17
for Cities, Towns, and Villages
Contracting with the Omaha - Council
B luffs Metropolitan Solid Waste Agency
Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Act IV - 26
Disposal Fees
XVTl
-------
PART ONE - GENERAL
A_. SCOPE. The objective of this study is to make a detailed analysis
of solid waste disposal in the Study Area and to make recommendations for
the most feasible program of disposal, both for the present and for the fore-
seeable future.
The principal items of study and recommendation include the following:
1. Determination of present solid waste quantities, character-
istics, and origin by performing the following:
a_. Reviewing and analyzing existing records.
b_. Surveying major disposal facilities.
£. Surveying minor disposal facilities.
d.. Determining major waste categories.
e^. Locating and surveying major waste contributors.
f_. Surveying and studying the effect of backyard inciner-
ation on domestic wastes.
£. Surveying and studying governmental subdivision pro-
cedures and wastes.
h. Determining quantities of special problem wastes.
2. Determination of future quantities of solid waste based on pres-
ent quantities, land use and population projections to 19.95.
3. Determination of centroids of the various solid wastes gener-
ated within the Metropolitan Study Area.
4. Feasibility of storage or transfer stations.
5. Study of methods available for solid waste disposal and recom-
mend method of appropriate future solid waste disposal.
6. Study of existing laws regulating solid waste disposal and recom-
mend appropriate legislation.
7. Study of potential financing of recommended solid waste dis-
posal facility.
8. Study of existing administrative procedures and recommend es-
tablishment of appropriate solid waste management program.
1-1
-------
B_. DEFINITION OF TERMS
lm Abandoned Vehicles. Passenger automobiles, trucks and
trailers that are no longer useful as such which have been abandoned on
streets, highways and other public places.
2. Bulky Waste. Large items of refuse such as appliances,
furniture, large auto parts, trees and branches, stumps, and similar large
items not easily crushed or reduced in volume using light landfilling equip-
ment.
3. Commercial Waste. All solid waste originating in commer-
cial establishments.
4. Composting. A process for biological decomposition of or-
ganic waste in a nuisance-free manner through controlled environment either
aerobic or anaerobic, producing a stable residue which may be used as a soil
conditioner.
5. Construction and Demolition Wastes. Waste building ma-
terials and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, and
demolition operations on houses, commercial buildings, pavements and other
structures.
6. Disposal Area. A site, location, tract of land, area, build-
ing, structures, or premises used or intended to be used for partial and/or
total refuse disposal.
7. Domestic Waste. All types of refuse which normally origi-
nate in the residential household or apartment house.
8' Dump, Open . The consolidation of waste from one or more
sources at a central out-of-doors disposal area, which has little or no manage-
ment and which does not conform to the requirements of a landfill or sanitary
landfill.
9- Dump, Open Burning. An open dump where burning is permit-
ted in an uncontrolled manner.
10- Dump, Controlled Open Burning. An open dump where burn-
ing is controlled by some responsible person. Burning is not confined to an in-
cinerator but is practiced in the open on the ground.
11 • Dump, Controlled. See Landfill.
1-2
-------
12. Garbage. Garbage is the solid or semi-solid animal and
vegetable waste resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and ser-
ving of foods, including cans, bottles and cartons in which it was received
and wrappings in which it may be placed for disposal. Garbage does not in-
clude commercial and industrial waste from meat packing plants, food proces-
sing plants such as canneries and crop wastes from farms, nor market wastes
which originate in wholesale and retail stores or markets engaged in the stor-
age, processing and selling of food products.
13. Incineration. The controlled process of burning solid,
semi-solid, liquid or gaseous combustible wastes in an enclosed device,
producing an inoffensive gas and a sterile residue containing little or no com-
bustible material. The process is used to reduce the volume or weight of
waste material or to change the characteristics of hazardous wastes to a safer
form.
14. Industrial Waste. All solid waste originating in industrial
establishments.
15. Landfill. Same as a sanitary landfill, except, cover material
is applied from time to time as required, instead of daily or more frequently.
To be acceptable, landfills must be restricted to inert, non-combustible, non-
putrescible solid waste materials.
16. On-Site Disposal. The disposal or partial disposal of solid
wastes on the premises where it was originated, including incineration or
burial.
17. Pollution. The contamination of any air, water or land
so as to create a nuisance or render such air, water or land unclean or
noxious, or impure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental
or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare, to domestic, commercial, in-
dustrial or recreational use, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other
aquatic life or to plant life.
18. Refuse. Solid waste.
19. Residue. Solid material remaining after burning, including
ash, metal, glass, ceramics, plastics, and unburned combustibles.
20. Rubbish. Non-putrescible wastes, such as cardboard, paper,
tin cans, wood, glass, bedding, crockery or litter of any kind.
21. Salvage, Auto. A commercial enterprise engaged in the pur-
chase of obsolete or damaged motor vehicles for the removal and resale of usable
parts and the reclaiming of valuable metals.
1-3
-------
22, Salvage, Metal. A commercial enterprise engaged in the
purchase of salvaged metals for resale, or processing and resale of these
metals to metal consuming industry.
23, Salvaging. The controlled removal of reusable materials.
Not to be confused with scavenging.
24. Sanitary Landfill. A controlled method of disposing of
refuse on land without creating air, land or water pollution or nuisances or
hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering
to confine the refuse to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it with a
layer of earth at the conclusion of eacy day's operation, or at such more fre-
quent intervals as may be necessary.
25. Scavenging. The uncontrolled picking of materials. Not
to be confused with salvaging.
26. Street Refuse. Material picked up by manual and mechani-
cal sweeping of streets and sidewalks, litter from public receptacles, and
dirt removed from catch basins.
27. Special Wastes. Hazardous wastes by reason of their path-
ological, explosive, radioactive, or toxic nature; or wastes which require
special treatment prior to disposal in ordinary disposal facilities, or special
facilities.
28. Solid Waste. Waste is unwanted or discarded materials re-
sulting from commercial, industrial and agricultural operations and normal
community activities. Wastes include solids, liquids and gases. Wastes which
are solid or semi-solid containing insufficient liquid to be free-flowing are
classed as solid waste.
Solid waste is refuse and includes in part the following: garbage; rubbish;
ashes and other residue after burning; street refuse; dead animals; animal
waste; abandoned vehicles; agricultural, commercial and industrial waste;
construction and demolition waste; sewage treatment residue.
29< Yard Rubbish. Prumings, grass clippings, weeds, leaves,
and general yard and garden wastes.
1-4
-------
C. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
1. General. The Study Area as established for purposes of
this report includes all of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which
includes the counties of Douglas and Sarpy in Nebraska and the County of
Pottawattamie in Iowa. Basically, the Study Area comprises approximately
1, 530 square miles encompassing the Major Metropolitan Areas of Omaha,
Bellevue, and Council Bluffs as shown in Figure 1-1. Specifically, the Study
Area includes the following Governmental Jurisdiction or Political Units:
Douglas County:
Bennington, Boys Town, Elk City, Elkhorn, Irvington, Millard,
Omaha, Ralston, Valley, Waterloo.
.Sarpy County:
BeUevue, Chalco, Gretna, LaPlatte, La Vista, Meadow, Melia,
Offutt, Papillion, Springfield.
Pottawattamie County:
Avoca, Bentley, Carson, Carter Lake, Council Bluffs, Crescent,
Dumfries, Hancock, Honey Creek, Loveland, Macedonia, McClelland,
Minden, Neola, Oakland, Quick, Treynor, Underwood, Walnut,
Weston.
Omaha, the principal city in the Study Area and largest city in the State of
Nebraska, is predominantly a trade, service and processing center for the
surrounding agricultural region. In general, the Study Area is served by Inter-
state Highways 1-29 and 1-80, numerous other State and Federal Highways, and
major air line and rail transportation systems which provide over-night access
to Chicago, Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Kansas City.
The Study Area economy has been expanded and strengthened in recent years
as a result of several developments including the expansion of headquarters
office operations in the insurance and utility fields, the expansion of govern-
mental activities - particularly the Strategic Air Command and recent acqui-
sition of new industries.
The Study Area is located near the geographic center of the United States and has
grown and prospered as a result of this advantageous location. Additional impe-
tus to the growing communities within the Study Area were furnished by the
rapid mechanization of agriculture and the rise of the cattle industry. This
agricultural base created the stockyards, grain markets, and food processing
industries which are an important segment of the Study Area economy.
1-5
-------
3
NEBRASKA
METROPOLITAN
SOLID WASTE STUDY AREA
1-6
Fl GU RE i _ ,
-------
This area does not depend solely on agricultural production, but enjoys broad
diversification of its economic base; with other activities such as manufactur-
ing, transportation, communication, services, wholesale trade and insurance
facilities being of almost equal importance. Basic employment therefore is
diversified among the various economic activities with no single unit over-
balancing the others, giving a sound basis for all economic activities.
Judging from the population studies, the basic employment studies and the dis-
tribution of employment among the industries, it appears inevitable that there
will be marked growth in the manufacturing field. The trend toward steady, con-
stant growth rather than periodic spurts of growth should produce a consistent
overall development in all phases of the economic base.
The geographic location should continue to be a tremendous advantage, provi-
ded the communities in the Study Area continue to capitalize on the trans-
continental interstate highway program and the federal airways and air terminal
programs.
The climate of the Study Area is marked by seasonal variations in temperature
and precipitation. The average annual temperature is a comfortable 51. 1 de-
grees. Mid-summer average daytime temperatures range _from 85 to 87 de-
grees. Daytime winter temperatures average from 31 to 32 degrees, with night-
time winter temperatures averaging from 15 to 19 degrees. Humidity ranges
from 55 to 60 percent from noon to midnight, and 75 percent to 80 percent from
midnight to noon. The average normal precipitation is 28. 83 inches, 75 per-
cent of which falls between April and September. The average normal snowfall
is 28. 50 inches. Northwest winds predominate during the winter months
whereas, the summer winds prevail from the south and southeast.
The Standard Metropolitan Area utilities followed the national pattern of steady
growth since I960. Electric sales were up 59% over I960; gas usage increased
by 34% and telephones in use and water pumped showed similar increase.
2. Population. An analysis of the past, present and future pop-
ulation trends of a community are a necessary prerequisite to planning future
solid waste facilities. The quantity, type and volume of solid waste that is gen-
erated, and for which provisions for disposal must be made, are related to the
population and the associated commerce and industry, which support the popula-
tion.
The population projections for the Study Area from I960 to 1995 were developed
by the Omaha-Council Bluffs MAPA and furnished for use in this study. These
figures show a steady increase from 458, 000 in I960 to 766, 600 in 1995, which
is equal to an average annual increase of 8,807 persons or 1. 9% per year, based
on I960. See Figure 1-2 for Population Trends.
1-7
-------
700,000
460,000
1965 1968 1970
1975 1980
YEAR
1985
1990
1995
I-i
POPULATION TRENDS
FIGURE X - 2
-------
3. Land Use. Table 1-1 indicates present land use (by acres)
for the Study Area. It should be emphasized that the land uses as shown are
general in nature and are intended to represent major generators of solid
waste, for which collection and disposal programs must be provided. De-
tailed present and future land use studies were conducted by the Omaha-
Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency and furnished for use in
this report. The base map used in Figure III-3 indicates the generalized land
use projections for the Study Area by 1995. The land use patterns shown rep-
resent the major concentrations of residential, commerce and industry de-
velopment which are expected to have a measurable effect on the size and lo-
cation of future solid waste disposal facilities.
D.
EXISTING SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
1. Name and Location. Twenty-one major and minor disposal
facilities in the Study Area were located and surveyed. These facilities were
selected because they received material from one or more of the following
sources:
a_. Public collectors of solid waste.
b_. Private collectors of solid waste.
c^. General public, including the domestic, commercial
and industrial segments.
Not included were strictly private disposal facilities operated for the exclusive
use of one or more industries or commercial establishments. These private
facilities were included in other surveys described in Part II.
The name and location of the facilities surveyed are listed below and shown in
Figure 1-3.
Douglas County
Name
Omaha Municipal Incinerator
Douglas County Sanitary Landfill
Douglas County Tree Disposal
Omaha City Landfill
Mi Hard Dump
Location
601 Seward Street
108 and Maple Street
140 and Fort Street
34th and Wood Avenue
North of 156th and Harrison Street
1-9
-------
I
I—'
o
0
c
yj
m
H
I
W
« -* 1
IOWA
NEBRASKA
N
-------
TABLE 1-1 - EXISTING LAND USE (Acres)
Public fc Parks and Total
Residential Commercial Industrial Semi-Public Recreation Development
Vacant Total
Douglas County
Omaha 2 1 ,
Ralston
Millard
Boys Town
Bennington
Elkhorn
Valley
Waterloo
Total Cities 22,
Rural 20,
Total Land 43,
Total Water
Total
Sarpy County
Bellevue 1 ,
Pa pillion
La Vista
Gretna
Springfield
Offutt AFB
Capehart
Total Cities 2,
Rural
Total Land 3,
Total Water
Total Land & Water
Pottawattamie County
Council Bluffs 5,
Avoca
Carson
Carter Lake
Crescent
Hancock
Macedonia
McClelland
Minden
Neola
Oakland
Treynor
Underwood
Walnut
Rural Non-Farm
C.B. Planning Area 2,
Total Land 9,
Total Water
Total Land & Water
939
306
372
7
64
64
152
66
970
097
067
443
398
287
127
70
-
367
692
782
474
088
227
117
420
68
43
54
41
48
98
205
70
57
129
350
524
539
3, 930
15
69
--
7
7
20
8
4, 056
118
4, 174
153
17
6
11
13
_-
-_
200
28
228
745
46
4
30
7
12
6
6
10
12
20
13
9
16
137
653
1,726
4, 948
15
116
19
10
83
4
5, 195
980
6, 175
65
' 8
25
8
15
_-
--
121
1,770
1,891
1,245
6
7
87
--
14
4
7
2
13
18
3
2
5
287
804
2,503
6,878
102
321
678
41
97
38
29
8, 184
1,063
9,247
214
53
211
3
7
1,907
--
2,395
1,677
4, 072
636
20
8
152
7
4
7
1
10
8
19
6
10
4
4, 544
1, 110
6,545
2, 730
26
26
--
1
2
7
1
2, 793
933
3, 726
72
26
19
-_
--
--
--
117
1,455
1,572
169
29
11
--
6
129
3
2
--
3
39
78
1
--
2,012
125
2,607
40, 425
464
904
685
132
180
300
108
43, 198
23, 191
66,389
1,947
502
548
149
105
1, 907
367
5, 525
5,712
11,237
7,883
328
147
689
88
202
74
57
70
134
301
170
79
154
7,330
5,216
22,920
4,375
410
2, 901
1, 354
116
66
316
40
9,578
138,241
147,819
567
107
41
65
65
--
--
845
140,622
141,467
4,230
678
103
687
534
218
55
65
91
188
499
52
200
263
566,398
19,267
593, 528
44,800
874
3,805
2,039
248
246
616
148
52, 776
161,432
214, 208
4, 032
218, 240
2, 514
609
589
214
170
1, 907
367
6, 370
146,334
152,704
6,016
158, 720
12, 113
1, 006
250
1, 376
622
420
129
122
161
322
800
222
279
417
573,728
24,481
616,448
3,712
620, 160
1-11
-------
Sarpy County
Name
Location
Sarpy County Sanitary Landfill
Bellevue Landfill
S & L Landfill
Papillion Dump
Cretna Dump
Springfield Dump
1 Mile West of 36th and Capehart Road
10th and Warren Street
2 Miles West of LaPlatte & Highway #73
1 Mile West of 6th and Washington Street
3 Miles Southwest of Gretna on Highway #6
1/2 Mile Northeast of Springfield
Pottawattamie County
Meese Sanitary Landfill
Council Bluffs Landfill
Council Bluffs City Dump
Avoca Dump
Carson Dump
Hancock Dump
Macedonia Dump
Oakland Dump
Treynor Dump
Walnut Dump
1 Mile East of Mormon Bridge on Highway
#36
3200 South 16th Avenue
1 Mile North of Council Bluffs on North
15th Street
2 Blocks Siutheast of Chestnut and
Ellsworth Street
1/4 Mile West of Carson on Highway #92
2 Miles South of Hancock
1 Mile South of Macedonia on County M-21
2 Blocks South of Brown Street and
Highway #59
1/2 Mile North of Treynor on County L-55
3 Blocks Southeast of Walnut
2. Survey of Existing Facilities. Detailed information pertaining
to each of the existing solid waste disposal facilities, with the exception of the
Omaha Municipal Incinerator, was compiled using Land Disposal Site Investigation
Report forms developed by the U.S. Public Health Service. A sample of this form
is included in the Appendix as Exhibit 1-1. The Omaha Municipal Incinerator,
which was once a major facility, -ceased operations during the study and was con-
verted into a transfer station.
A recap of the survey data for each of the disposal facilities is shown in Table
I- 2, Pages 1 and 2.
The Solid Waste Training Section, Training Program, National Center for Ur-
ban and Industrial Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, has developed a tentative rating
method for sanitary landfill operations. (During the period this study and re-
port were conducted and after the existing facilities were surveyed, the rating
method was slightly changed in a few items. The rating method used in this re-
port is that which was current at the time of the survey. ) This rating method
contains the essential elements to indicate the quality of sanitation which landfills
must maintain in order to operate in three principle types of areas. In many situ-
ations, sanitary landfills may attain a rating appropriate for the area in which
they are located, through modifications to acquire adequate scores on specific «
items.
1-12
-------
TABLE
Page I
NO. 1-2
STUDY AREA
MAJOR* a MINOR PUBLIC DISPOSAL FACILITIES
DESCRI PTION
SITE OPERATED BY
SITE OWNED BY
REGUUTED BY HEALTH AUTHORITY
LEV a OF HEALTH AUTHORITY
GENERAL CHARACTER OF SITE
YEAR SITE PLACED IN OPERATION
ANTICIPATED LIFE REMAINING (Y8S.)
TOTAL AREA OF SITE (ACRES)
ACRES TO BE USED FOR LAND DISPOSAL
ZONING
LAND USE
PLANNED USE OF COMPLETED SITE
WILL PUBLIC AGENCY COHTROL SITE USE
MATERIAL USED FOR COVER
FREQUENCY OF COVER
SPREAD AND COMPACT REFUSE - 2' LAYER!
DAYS/YEAR SITE CLOSED (WEATHER)
APPEARANCE
BLOW 1 NO PIPER CONTROLLED
BLOWING PAPER A NUISANCE
ROUT 1 HE BURN INS
SURFACE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
LEACHING PROBLEMS
RODENT CONTROL HEEDED
RODENT CONTROL PROVIDED
FLY CONTROL HEEDED
FLY COHTROL PROVIDED
BIRD CONTROL NEEDED
BIRD CONTROL PROVIDED
DUST COHTROL NEEDED
DUST COHTROL PROVIDED
ODOR COHTROL HEEDED
ODOR CONTROL PROVIDED
LOWEST PART OF FILL IN WATER TABLE
FIRE PROTECTION
FIRES EXTINGUISHED ON SITE
SALVAGING PERMITTED
SALVAGIHG PRACTICED
QUANTITATIVE RECORDS KEPT
ITEM NO.
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
19
20
21
22
23
211
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
*
DOUGLAS CO.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
PRIV. AGEH.
PUBL. AGEN.
YES
COUNTY
HILLSIDE
1967
3
67
S3
AG.
AG.
YES
YES
DIRT
DAILY
YES
C
SIGHTLY
YES
YES
HO
HO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
no
NO
FIREBREAK
0
HO
NO
YES
*
OMAHA
CITY
DUMP
UBL. AGEH
PRIV. AGEN
YES
COMMUNITY
LEVEL
I96B
i
3
2
INDUST.
1 NDUST.
KO
YES
DIRT
DAILY
YES
0
SIGHTLY
YES
HO
NO
YES
HO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
HO
NO
FIREBREAK
0
NO
HO
HO
DOUGLAS CO.
TREE
DISPOSAL
PRIV. AGEK.
PRIV. AGED.
YES
COUNTY
GULLY
1962
5
30
25
AG.
AG.
NO
HO
ASHES
OTHER
NO
0
UNSIGHTLY
YES
HO
P I L
NO
HO
YES
HO
YES
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
NO
KO
KOHE
0
HO
HO
HO
MILLARD
DUMP
RIV. AGEN.
RIV. AGEN.
YES
COUNTY
HILLSIDE
1962
1
2
2
AG.
AG.
YES
YES
DIRT
OTHER
NO
20
UNSIGHTLY
HO
YES
UHCON.
HO
HO
YES
HO
YES
HO
NO
HO
KO
HG
KO
KO
NO
KOKE
0
HO
YES
NO
*
SARPY CO.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
PUBL. AGE)
PRIV. AGE)
YES
STATE
GULLY
1966
1
10
B
AG.
AG.
YES
YES
DIRT
DAILY
YES
1
SIGHTLY
YES
NO
NO
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
NO
HO
HO
YES
HO
YES
KO
HO
FIREBREAK
0
HO
KO
YES
BELLEVUE
LANDFILL
PUBL. AGEH
PRIV. AGEN
YES
COUHTY
GULLY
1946
30
90
10
AG.
AG.
YES
NO
DIRT
DAILY
YES
0
UNSIGHTLY
YES
YES
P I L
HO
HO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
HO
YES
NO
YES
HO
HO
NONE
0
YES
YES
HO
SSL
LANDFILL
PRIV. AGEK
PRIV. AGEK
YES
COUNTY
GULLY
1961
15
61
13
RES.
AG.
NO
NO
DIRT
DAILY
YES
7
SIGHTLY
YES
YES
P & L
KO
HO
YES
NO
YES
KO
HO
HO
YES
HC
YES
HO
NO
FIREBREAK
1
YES
YES
HO
6RETNA
DUMP
PRIV. AGEH.
PRIV. AGEH
YES
COMMUNITY
HILLSIDE
1958
15
3
2
AG.
AG.
NO
NO
DIRT
OTHER
NO
50
UNSIGHTLY
YES
YES
P 1 L
KO
HO
YES
KO
YES
HO
HO
NO
KO
NO
NC
HO
NOHE
0
HO
HO
PAPILLION
DUMP
PRIV. AGEN
PRIV. AGEH.
YES
COUNTY
FLOOD PLAII
1957
10
8
e
COMM'L.
COMM'L.
HO
NO
OUT
OTHER
NO
0
UHSIGHTLY
YES
KO
P I L
NO
HO
YES
NO
YES
NO
HO
HO
NO
HC
HO
NO
HONE
C
NO
NO
SPRINGFIELD
DUMP
PRIV. AGEN.
PRIV. AGEH.
YES
STATE
FLOOD PLAII
1965
2
2
2
RES.
AG.
YES
HO
DIRT
OTHER
HO
0
UKSIGHTLY
YES
HO
P 1 L
YES
HO
YES
HO
YES
KO
HC
KO
HO
HO
NO
NO
HONE
0
NO
KO
*
MEESE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
PRIV. AGEH.
PRIV. AGEH.
YES
STATE
FLOOD PLAI 1
1966
3
781
375
IKOUST.
AG.
YES
NO
DIRT
DAILY
YES
0
SIGHTLY
YES
YES
HO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
KO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
FIREBREAK
C
HO
HO
*
COUNCIL
BLUFFS
LANDFILL
PUBL. AGEN
PUBL. AGEN
YES
COMMUN ITY
FLOOD PLAIh
1913
10
3B
37
IHDUST.
IHDUST.
NO
NO
DIRT
OTHER
YES
0
UNSIGHTLY
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
KO
YES
KO
HO
NO
YES
HO
YES
NO
YES
W HE
1
HO
KO
NO
*
COUNCIL
BLUFFS
CITY DUMP
PRIV. AGEN
POBL. AGEH
YES
COMMUNITY
FLOOD PLAII
1963
15
56
'15
KOHE
AG.
YES
YES
DIRT
OTHER
HO
0
UNSIGHTLY
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
KO
NO
HONE
0
YES
YES
NO
TREYNOR
DUMP
PUBL. AGEH.
PRIV. AGEN.
YES
STATE
GULLY
1930
15
5
3
AG.
AG.
YES
KO
DIRT
OTHER
HO
25
UNSIGHTLY
NO
YES
NC
HO
YES
YES
KC
KO
HO
NO
NO
HO
NO
KC
NCHE
0
YES
NO
KO
WALNUT
DUMP
PUBL. AGEH
PUBL. AGEK
YES
STATE
OTHER
196V
l|
1
1
AG.
AG.
NO
YES
DIRT
OTHER
HO
0
UHSIGHTLY
YES
YES
no
NO
YES
YES
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NC
NO
NO
NCKE
1
KO
HC
HO
AVOCA
DUMP
PUBL. AGEH
PRIV. AGEK
YES
STATE
:LOOD PLAIH
1963
5
5
11
NONE
AG.
YES
NO
DIRT
OTHEB
NO
5
UHSIGHTLY
NO
YES
YES
HC
YES
YES
YES
HO
KO
HO
NO
KO
HO
NO
HOKE
0
HO
YES
HO
CARSON
DUMP
PUBL. AGEH.
PUBL. AGEN.
YES
STATE
FLOOD PLAII
1930
10
6
3
NOHE
AG.
NO
YES
NONE
NONE
NO
0
UHSIGHTLY
HO
YES
YES
HO
HO
YES
HO
KO
KO
KO
HO
NO
NO
NO
HONE
1
HC
YES
NO
HANCOCK
DUMP
'UBL. AGEH
>UBL. AGEH
YES
STATE
GULLY
1925
15
3
2
HONE
AG.
KO
YES
DIRT
OTHER
HO
15
UHSIGHTLY
HO
YES
UK OH.
NO
KO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
KO
HO
HO
HD
KOHE
0
HO
YES
NO
MACEDONIA
DUMP
PUBL. AGEN
PUBL. AGEN
YES
STATE
FLOOD PLAI)
1952
15
B
6
AG.
AG.
KO
YES
HONE
KOKE
HO
15
UHSIGHTH
HO
YES
P ! L
HO
BO
YES
HO
YES
HO
NO
NO
KO
NO
NO
KO
NO
NONE
1
NO
YES
NO
OAKLAND
DUMP
PUBL. AGEK
PUBL. AGEH.
YES
STATE
LEVEL
1954
2
6
5
COHM'L.
COWL.
NO
NO
DIRT
OTHER
NO
14
UHSIGHTLY
YES
YES
UHCOH.
YES
KO
YES
YES
YES
HO
NC
HO
NO
HO
NO
NO
KO
NONE
0
HO
YES
HO
ABBREVIATES: PRIV-PRIVATE, PUBL-PUBLIC, AGEK-AGEHCY, UKCON-UHCOHTROLLED, P I L-PLAHHED AND LIMITED, AG-AGRICULTURE, IHOUST-IKDUSTRIAL, RES-RESIDENTIAL, COMM'L-COMMERCIAL
-------
TABLE
Page 2
STUDY AREA
MAJOR* a MINOR PUBLIC DISPOSAL FACILITIES
HH
1
1 — 1
DESCRIPTION
TONS WEIGHED (ANNUALLY)
TONS ESTIMATED (AHHUALLY)
ESTIMATED LOADS DEPOSITED DAILY
FROM PUBLIC VEHICLES
FROM PRIVATE VEHICLES
FROM OTHER VEHICLES
SOLID WASTE ACCEPTED AT SITE
HOUSEHOLD
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
AGRICULTURAL
INSTITUTIONAL
INCIHERATOR RESIDUE ONLY
SOLID WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SITE
ALL PUTRESCIBLES
ALL NON-COMBUSTIBLES
ALL COMBUSTIBLES
GARBAGE
DEAD ANIMALS
WASTE OIL
SEWAGE SOLIDS
JVHKED AUTOMOBI LES
LARGE APPLIANCES
DEMOLITION WASTES
CONSTRUCTIOH DEBRIS
STREET, SWEEPINGS
TIRES
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OTHER
EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE
DRAGLINE OR EXCAVATOR
SCRAPER (SELF PROPELLED)
TRACTORS (TRACK OR RUBBER TIRE)
TRUCKS
EMPLOYEES ON SITE (AVE. DAILY)
NUMBER OF HOURS OPERATB>/DAY
NUKBER OF DAYS OPERATEO/«E£«
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
SANITARY LANDFILL
ITEM NO. 1
*
35
33
33
33
33
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
*
DOUGLAS CO
SANITARY
LANDFILL
143^500
0
4
56
96
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
HO
HD
NO
ND
HO
RO
HD
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
0
1
2
0
4
9
SIX
80,000
YES
*
OMAHA
CITY
DUMP
0
86,000
43
0
0
HO
HO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
HO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
HD
YES
YES
NO
0
1
1
0
1
9
FIVE
18,000
NO
DOUGLAS CO.
TREE
DISPOSAL
0
5,000
5
10
4
NO
YES
NO
HD
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
HO
0
0
1
0
1
9
Sit
5,000
. HO
MILLARD
DUMP
0
7,000
1
4
0
YES
YES
NO
HO
HD
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ND
NO
YES
HO
0
0
0
0
0
9
FIVE
1,700
NO
*
SARPY CO.
SANITARV
LANDFILL
24,400
0
6
12
17
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HD
HO
NO
YES
HO
HO
NO
HO
NO
HO
HO
0
1
2
0
1
9
SEVEN
31,000
YES
BELLEVUE
LANDFILL
0
10.600
1
2
6
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
HD
HO
NO
NO
NO
YES
HO
YES
YES
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
NO
0
1
• 1
0
2
9
SIX
25,000
NO
SSL
LANDFILL
0
4.600
0
10
4
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
HO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
YE5
NO
0
1
1
0
2
9
SEVEN
8,000
NO
GRETNA
DUMP
0
400
1
1
0
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HO
HO
HO
YES
YES
YES
HO
HO
HO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
0
0
0
0
0
4
SEVEN
3,000
NO
PAPILLION
DUMP
0
1.300
0
5
0
YES
YES
HO
YES
NO
HD
HO
HO
NO
HO
YES
HO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
HO
YES
NO
0
0
0
0
0
8
FIVE
1,300
NO
SPRINGFIELD
DUMP
0
300
0
1
0
YES
YES
NO
YES
ND
NO
NO
HO
HO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES-
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
0
0
0
0
0
f
TWO
1,000
ND
*
MEESE
SANITARY
LANDFILL
'90,000
0
13
82
47
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
YES
ND
NO
NO
NO
HD
NO
NO
2
1
2
1
H
II
SEVEN
150,000
YES
*
COUNCIL
BLUFFS
ANDFILL
0
46,600
21
1
12
YES
YES
NO
HO
HD
HO
HO
YES
HO
HD
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
1
0
1
9
FIVE
12,000
NO
*
OUNC1L
BLUFFS
TV DUMP
0
85 ,000
84
60
12D
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
ND
NO
NO
HD
NO
YES
NO
0
0
1
'
2
10
SEVEN
15,000
ND
REYNOR
DUMP
0
130
0
0
20
YES
YES
NO
NO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
HO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
HO
C
0
0
0
1
II
TW
I.20C
NO
WALNUT
DUMP
0
370
0
4
0
YES
YES
NO
HO
ND
ND
NO
HO
NO
HO
YES
HO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
0
0
1
3
THREE
I.5DC
NO
VOCA
DUMP
0
760
0
3
15
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
HO
YES
YES
NO
HO
NO
HO
HO
YES
YES
0
0
1
1
1
24
SEVE
SOO
HO
CARSON
DUMP
0
290
0
2
5
YES
YES
HO
HO
NO
NO
HO
HO
NO
HO
YES
HO
YES
YES
NO
HD
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
C
0
0
0
0
24
SEVEN
600
NO
UNCOCK
DUMP
0
130
0
0
6
YES
YES
NO
HO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
HO
HO
HO
HO
YES
HO
NO
NO
HO
HO
YES
NO
0
0
0
0
0
29
SEVE
300
NO
ACEDONIA
DUMP
0
140
1
0
8
YES
YES
HO
YES
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
HO
YES
HO
HO
YES
HO
HO
NO
HO
NO
YES
YES
0
0
0
0
0
24
SEVEN
1.500
HO
KLAND
DUMP
0
EBO
0
2
18
YES
YES
HO
HO
NO
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
HD
YES
YES
HO
HO
HO
HO
NO
YES
NO
0
0
0
0
0
24
SEVEN
1,600
NO
-------
In a sanitary landfill, the sanitary condition of the fill should be maintained
at all times; therefore, a high score must be attained and maintained on cer-
tain "must" items in order to assure the proper degree of health protection.
A sample of the tentative rating system is reproduced in the Appendix of this
report as Exhibit 1-2. A summation of the points awarded for each of the twenty
seven items yields a possible score of up to 100. The method used for evalu-
ating the numerical ratings is as follows:
A-Rated. Sanitary Landfill Suitable for well developed areas
such as residential and commercial zonings. The total rating
must equal 85 or more points.
B-Rated. Sanitary Landfill - Suitable for areas of industrial
zonings. The total rating must equal 70 or more points.
C-Rated. Sanitary Landfill - Suitable for remote or rural areas.
The total rating must equal 55 or more points.
The following items of the tentative rating form must score as indicated in or-
der to qualify for any of the three ratings listed. These items are referred -
to as "must" items.
Must Items A-Rated B-Rated C-Rated
Item 9 Blowing Litter 422
Item 12 Daily Cover 15 10 10
Item 13 Intermediate Cover 311
Item 14 Final Cover 333
Item 18 Burning 331
Item 22 Placement of Ground Water 533
Item 23 Drainage of Surface Water 6
Of the twenty (20) major and minor disposal facilities investigated throughout
the Study Area, only six (6) had the potential of being called sanitary landfills.
Most of the remaining fourteen (14) disposal facilities are entirely inadequate
and can be described as open, uncontrolled, burning dumps, since they do not
comply with sanitary landfill standards, nor can they qualify for the minimum
C-rating of 55 points or more.
The "must" items with which a sanitary landfill must comply have been listed
and rated for each landfill operating in the Study Area and are shown in Table
I- 3 of this report. Of the six landfills listed, three were rated as sanitary
landfills; Douglas County SLF, Sarpy County SLF and Meese SLF.
1-15
-------
A brief summary of the existing landfills listed in Table 1-3 is included in the
following paragraphs.
The Douglas County Sanitary Landfill received a total of 79 points for all
items listed on the sanitary landfill rating form and qualified for a B-rating,
suitable for an area of industrial zoning. Improvement in "must" Item #9,
"Blowing Litter", along with improvements in several minor items listed on
the sanitary landfill form (access road, etc. ) would qualify this site for an
"A-rated" sanitary landfill.
The Sarpy County Sanitary Landfill received a total of 79 points for all items
listed on the rating form and qualified for a B-rating, suitable for an area of
industrial zoning. (Since the time the ratings were made this site has begun
a program of controlled burning of tree waste. Under the new rating system,
any deliberate burning, regardless of the degree of control, would disqualify
a site from receiving any "sanitary" rating. ) Improvement in "must" Item
#9, "Blowing Litter", along with other minor improvements would qualify this
site for an "A-rated" sanitary landfill.
The Meese Sanitary Landfill received a total of 87 points for all items listed
on the sanitary landfill rating form which is more than enough for an "A"
rating; however, due to "must" Items #9 "Blowing Litter" and #22 "Placement
i.n Ground Water" which were rated "B", this site must be given a "B" rating,
suitable for an industrial zoning.
The Be.ll.evue and S & L Landfills each received 53 total points for all items
listed on the sanitary landfill rating form but could not be rated as sanitary
landfills since both sites deviate materially from "must" Items #9 "Blowing
Litter" and #18 "Burning". Improvements such as fencing to control blowing
litter and prohibiting open burning are needed, along with other minor site
improvements in order to upgrade these sites into C-rated sanitary landfills
suitable for rural areas.
The Council Bluffs Landfill received 46 total points for all items listed on
the sanitary landfill rating form and could not be rated as a sanitary landfill since
this site lacks adequate points and deviates materially from "must" Items #9
"Blowing Litter, " and #1?. "Daily Cover", and #13 "Intermediate Cover" to
qualify for the minimum C-rating of 55 points or more. This landfill is entirely
inadequate since sufficient cover material is not available to cover refuse and
intermittent contact occurs between refuse and groundwater table. This site
does not comply with the essential "must" items to indicate the quality of sani-
tation which sanitary landfills must maintain.
1-16
-------
SANITARV LANDFILL "MUST" ITEMS AND RATINGS
ITEM
9 BLOWING LITTER
a CONTROLLED
b. PARTIALLY CONTROLLED
c. UNCONTROLLED
12. DAILY COVER
o. WORKABLE SOIL > 6"
b. OTHER SOIL > 6"
c. RESIDUE > 6"
d. IMPROPERLY COVERED
13 INTERMEDIATE COVER
a. WORKABLE SOIL > 12"
b. OTHER SOIL > 12"
c. RESIDUE > 12"
d. IMPROPERLY COVERED
14. FINAL COVER
a. WORKABLE SOIL > 24"
b. OTHER SOIL > 24"
CvHMPROPERLY COVERED
18. BURNING
a NO BURNING
b. CONTROLLED & LIMITED
c. UNCONTROLLED
22 PLACEMENT IN GROUND WATER
o.NO CONTACT
^INTERMITTENT CONTACT
c. UNCONTROLLED CONTACT
23. DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER
a NO PONDING
b. OCCASIONAL PONDING
C. UNCONTROLLED
ALL ITEMS (1-27)
TOTAL POINTS
R AT 1 N G
POINTS
POSSIBLE
4,A
2B.C
O
20
ISA
IOB.C
0
4
3A
IB.C
O
4
3 A,B,C
0
3 A,B
1 C
0
5A
3B.C
0
6 A
3B,C
OB,C
DOUGLAS CO.
SANITARY
LANDFILL
2 (B)
15 (A)
3(A)
3(A)
3(A)
5(A)
6(A)
79
B
SARPY CO.
SAN ITARY
LANDFILL
2(8)
15 (A)
3(A)
3(A)
1 (C)
5(A)
6(A)
79
B
BELLEVUE
LAN DPI LL
0
I5(A)
3(A)
3(A)
0
5(A)
3(8)
53
NONE
s a L
LANDFILL
0
I5(A)
3(A)
3(A)
0
5(A)
3(B)
53
NONE
MEESE
SANITARY
LAND FILL
2(B)
20(A)
4(A)
4(A)
3(A)
3(B)
6(A)
87
B
COUNCIL
BLUFFS
LAND FILL
0
0
0
3(A)
3(A)
3(B)
3(B)
46
NONE
-------
The ratings which were assigned could vary from day to day and from week
to week. Generally, the ratings assigned were those observed during the
site survey except where there were reasons to believe the conditions at that
time were unusual. In which case, other observations were made at other
times These ratings are not official in any way and are included in this re-
port solely for the purpose of indicating the general condition of disposal facili-
ties in the Study Area.
To insure that the appropriate standards, regulations, and laws for the proper
operation of a sanitary landfill are complied with, a sanitary landfill site and
operation should be inspected at least once a month by the Health Officer, or
other public official charged with this responsibility, in whose jurisdiction of
the facility is located.
Although the U. S P H. S recognizes the Types B imd C sanitary landfill, we
have recommended in later parts of this report that all sanitary landfills in
the Study Area be constructed, equipped and operated in accordance with the
highest type standards. (A rated)
Although the site might be physically located in an area that could be considered
rural or industrial at this time, the entire Study Area is part of a growing
Metropolitan Area and sanitary land fill sites must be developed with this in mind.
The difference between the several rating types is not significant from a cost
standpoint The major difference is operational and managerial. A sanitary
landfill as proposed in this report and given proper professional management
should have no difficulty passing the highest type rating systems. Recommended
standards are included in Part IV of this report
E NEED FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. Within the past few years,
the federal government has made great efforts to organize an attack on solid
waste problems. Research and development grants and demonstration grants
have been awarded to many organizations and communities to upgrade the general
knowledge in this field. Many communities and state governments have passed
solid waste control acts to stop the wholesale pollution of water, air and land
caused by improper storage collection, transportation and disposal of solid
wastes.
The basic issue in solid waste management lies in the apathy of the general pub-
lic, and the unglamorous nature of solid waste problems. Until recently, few
people ever heard of solid waste and fewer had any interest in the matter. Most
people thought garbage was the principle substance representing the largest quanti-
ty of solid waste; when the "garbage men" took it away the story ended. People
are beginning to suspect there is more to the problem. Water and air pollution
control are common household words, and improper solid waste management
means not only water and air pollution but also land pollution.
1-18
-------
Because garbage collection is an unpopular subject, many governmental units
give this area little attention. The sanitation departments of many municipali-
ties are operated by senior garbage collectors who have come up through the
ranks; although they understand how the garbage cans are to be emptied and trucks
are driven, they lack even the fundamental managerial skills necessary to proper-
ly spend a large portion of the municipal tax dollar. They are unacquainted with
fiscal and personnel management procedures and modern engineering techniques.
When compared to other services and utilities, the cost of collection and dis-
posal of solid waste is not high. Figure 1-4 shows the approximate annual cost
per dwelling unit of several common services and utilities. Although the cost
per dwelling unit is not great, it still represents a major item in a municipal
budget, usually ranking fourth after schools, streets and police and fire protect-
ion.
Unfortunately, even when spending too much for benefits received, the level of
service and operating techniques are frequently inadequate, antiquated and un-
sanitary. Improved management can usually improve service and reduce cost.
Civic leaders, both professional and lay, are often uninformed about solid
waste management. If the level of knowledge can be raised in government con-
cerning these matters, tax dollars can be saved, services expanded, and sani-
tary conditions improved. The tax savings and expanded services are important
and desirable, bat the improvement in sanitary conditions is mandatory if the
public safety and welfare are to be preserved.
Improving sanitary conditions through proper solid waste management should be
approached in two ways. First, there must be laws which establish minimum
standards of practice plus effective enforcement; and secondly, there must be a
program of public information showing how solid waste management can be econ-
omically pursued.
Solid waste storage, collection, transportation and disposal must be managed as
a vital link in the control of water, air and land pollution.
1-19
-------
z
D
0
z
J
J
U
0
ir
Id
o.
or
ui
Q.
0
0
<
1 150-
$ 140-
|I30-
< 120-
I 110-
»IOO-
4 90-
I 80-
50
40
30
20
10
B
A. COLLECTION 3 DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES
B. SEWER SERVICE (WASTE WATER TREATMENT)
C. WATER
D. GAS
E. ELECTRICAL POWER
F. TELEPHONE
G. TELEPHONE EXTENSION
COMPARING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
& DISPOSAL COST WITH
OTHER SERVICES a UTILITIES
1-20
F I C3U RE
-------
JT. PRESENT TECHNOLOGY
1. General. The technology to collect, transport and dispose
of solid waste is available for immediate use. New techniques are under in-
vestigation and much research and development is being done. Hopefully,
some of this work will produce better methods, lower costs and refinements to
existing methods. We can also hope that, eventually, processes will be devel-
oped which can economically convert our present wastes into useful products
to be recycled in the economy.
For the present, the monumental task that must be accomplished is the improve-
ment of many of our existing systems, from their present antiquated status through
the use of modern technology which is currently available.
2. Collection Systems. Solid waste collection is a responsibility
of the public, along with water supply, sewage disposal, streets, fire and police
protection. These services are usually provided by local government, and paid
for through taxation or a service charge. It is recognized that a government can
provide these necessary services for the public more efficiently and economically
than the individual can provide them for himself. Further and specifically in the
case of collecting solid waste, if the local governmental unit does not provide for
collection services, many citizens do not adequately provide for their own waste
disposal. As a result, the entire community suffers.
There are three basic types of collection service, ie. Municipal, Contract and
Private.
a_. Municipal and Contract Systems. The municipal and con-
tract systems are similar. Both are under the control of the municipality. They
operate on established routes serving the entire residential areas on a scheduled
basis. Under these systems the community receives regular collection of its
domestic waste. The system is planned, organized and supervised by the muni-
cipal government. The results are an efficient collection service at a reasonable
cost to the community.
The basic difference between the two systems is that the municipal system operates
the service using its own manpower, equipment and facilities, whereas the contract
system uses the manpower, equipment and facilities of a private contractor to op-
erate the system under an agreement between the contractor and the municipality.
The municipality capable of operating its own system efficiently, usually has a
lower unJt collection cost than the community contracting with private haulers.
The municipality can operate the system without a required profit whereas the
private contractor cannot. There are other cost factors in favor of a system
owned and operated by a municipal government. Tax savings in the purchase of
equipment and supplies and in the operational cost of equipment lower collection
coats. A municipally controlled collection system, properly planned and
1-21
-------
supervised, will provide satisfactory service to the public., whether the system
is municipally owned or contracted with a private hauler. The cost to the public
is the principal consideration.
b. Private System. With a private system the municipality
has a minimum involvement with the collection of waste, usually limited to con-
trolling ordinances and the licensing or franchising of collectors. Some commu-
nities do not require any of these items. Private collectors contract directly
with the property owner for an agreed fee.
When collections are left entirely to an agreement between the property owner
and the private hauler, the service is generally not as efficient as the other sys-
tems. The private system places the responsibility for the collection of waste
with the individual property owner who may, or may not have a conscientious
concern for the problem. Usually several private haulers will compete within a
community to provide service. This competition will tend to keep the charges
uniform; however, it will prevent any one private collector from establishing
an efficient route where he can collect from ail property owners in a given area.
As a result, the cost to the individual is usually higher than either the municipal
or the contract system.
For small communities, the operation of a municipal system may not be econ-
omical if only the one community is involved, but several communities may
find it economically feasible to join together to operate a municipal type system
as a cooperative venture under the existing authority and as proposed in
recommended legislation;
Collection systems may collect only domestic waste or may, if desirable, collect
domestic, commercial and industrial wastes, or a combination of the several.
Frequently municipalities include many commercial establishments in their col-
lection systems, particularly where the waste from these establishments are not
large in volume or difficult to handle. This is done as a convenience and may
result in a savings to the establishment. Many industrial and some commercial
waste producers require special service which a municipality may be unwilling
to provide. For this reason most industrial and many commercial establishments
either provide their own removal service or engage the services of a private sys-
tem. There is no technical or financial reason why this service could not also be
provided by a municipal system. Each case should be considered on its own
merits Table 1-4 shows the type of collection system currently being used
in the various communities in the Study Area.
A variety of specialized equipment is available for collection of waste. The most
common item is the packer truck, which also comes in a variety of sizes and
arrangements. Ba.sically, this is a totally enclosed and watertight body mounted
on a truck chassis. It has a device which compacts the loose solid waste into a
1-22
-------
smaller volume, enabling the truck to carry more material than it could if
placed in the body in a loose condition. Many packer trucks can carry three or
more limes as much material as a non-packer truck of the same size, The
advantages of such a truck are particularly significant when long hauls to a disposal
site are required. In addition to the economy, the truck is totally enclosed and
watertight, providing a significant reduction in litter.
Containers of various types are also available. Some are designed to be left at
a customer's premises and when filled are exchanged for an empty container.
The filled container is removed to a disposal facility where it is emptied and avail-
able for reuse. Some containers are designed to be left at a customer's premises
and when filled are simply emptied into a type of packer truck. After emptying
several or many containers, the truck is driven to a disposal site for emptying.
The train system is available. This system employs a series.of relatively small
trailer units pulled by a light-weight truck, along a collection route. From time
to time a packer truck fitted with a lifting device, is dispatched to meet the train
system. The packer truck lifts each trailer and contents, one at a time, and
dumps the contents into the truck. The train then continues collection and the pack-
er truck may either proceed to other train crews or when filled, proceed to the
disposal site.
Packer trucks, containers, trains and other systems or devices are available in
a variety of sizes, shapes and functional arrangements. The best system, size,
shape or arrangement depend on many local factors andmust be determined after
a careful study. This equipment is available from many manufacturers. The
proper application of the proper equipment, together with a carefully planned
and operated system, can be very beneficial to a community. A first rate sys-
tem frequently is less expensive to a community, when the total cost to a community
is considered, than a poor system or no system at all.
3. Transportation Systems. Solid waste, when collected, must
be transported to a place of final disposal. This is usually accomplished in
the vehicle in which it was collected but it may be transferred to a special haul-
ing vehicle suitable for this purpose.
Direct hauling in a collection vehicle presents no special problems and is the most
straight forward way of accomplishing the task. There are, however, many fac-
tors which must be considered, including in part: the haul distance, in both
time and miles; the lost time for crew members, who are not productive when
their collection vehicle is hauling; and the size of the pay load for hauling pur-
poses vs. the desirable size of the vehicle while on route. These factors must
be weighed against the alternative of transferring the collected load to a special
hauling vehicle.
1-23
-------
TABLE 1-4 -INVENTORY OF COLLECTION PRACTICED
_Douj*las County
City
Bennington
Boys Town
Elk City
Elkhorn
Irving ton
System
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
City
Millard
Omaha
Ralston
Valley
Waterloo
System
Private
Muni-Contr.
Muni-Contr.
Private
Private
Sarpy County
Bellevue
Chalco
Gretna
LaPlatte
La Vista
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Meadow
Melia
Offutt
Papillion
Springfield
Private
Private
Contract
Private
Private
Pottawattamie County
Avoca Private
Bentley Private
Carson Private
Carter Lake Private
Council Bluffs Municipal
Crescent Private
Dumfries Private
Hancock Private
Honey Creek Private
Loveland Private
Macedonia
McClelland
Minden
Neola
Oakland
Quick
Treynor
Underwood
Walnut
Weston
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
The most common form of special hauling is the Transfer Station. A transfer
station is a facility, usually centrally located, which is equipped to efficiently
receive various loads of waste from collection vehicles or other vehicles and
place them in large semi-trailers for hauling to a place of disposal. To be
economical, it is necessary that the cost of transfer and haul must be less than
the cost of direct haul. Only a careful study of the exact local conditions can
determine when a transfer station should be provided.
1-24
-------
The knowledge of how to design and operate transfer stations, and all of the
neceasary equipment is available.
Other forms of transfer or transportation are available or are under study.
Some communities use barges while others are using or are planning to use
railroad facilities. Studies are under way to investigate the transportation of
solid waste in slurry form in pipe lines and in dry form in vacuum pipes. All
of these systems are special conditions which may be considered on their own
merit.
4. Disposal Systems. Solid waste disposal can be accomplished
using any of several methods. The selection of the most appropriate method
depends on the particular circumstances that prevail at the time and in the loca-
tion where the disposal is needed.
The old town dump, where refuse was burned from time to time was once ac-
ceptable when there were fewer people, less intense land development and lit-
tle knowledge of air and land pollution. Today this practice is inappropriate.
In some seacoast communities combustible refuse is burned on barges far out to
sea and the residue dumped into the water. This practice is now condemned as
a source of air and water pollution.
In the large metropolitan regions such as the New York City area, land, labor
and transportation costs present a different set of circumstances than prevail in
the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area. Each community or region must
consider methods which are based on local conditions.
In the following paragraphs, three basic processes for disposal are discussed:
Incineration and landfilling, composting and landfilling, and sanitary landfilling.
au Incineration and Landfilling. This process consists of
two parts; ie. the reduction of volume of combustible materials through the use
of an incinerator; and the landfilling of incombustible waste and incinerator resi-
due. Much of the total waste of a community is incombustible and is normally
disposed of in a sanitary landfill or some other land disposal process. The com-
bustible waste can be significantly reduced in volume in an incinerator. The
residue or ash which remains after incineration can be disposed of in sanitary
landfills. The incineration process consists of reducing combustible solid waste
to an inert residue by burning, within an enclosure, under high temperatures and
controlled conditions. When accomplished in a large facility for a community
with waste transported to the facility from several sources it is referred to as
Central Incineration. When accomplished by individuals or commercial, industrial
or institutional concerns for their own locally generated waste is referred to as
On Site Incineration.
1-25
-------
Central and On Site Incinerators are used for two purposes; to reduce large
volumes of waste to a small volume of residue and to change the form ol a
material which may be dangerous or a nuisance to one which is safe or nuisanc
free.
Municipal incineration plants are familiar to the general public. Unfortunately
many poor examples are in existence today. They should not be considered as
typical of what a modern plant can be. The modern plant with proper air pollu-
tion control devices, burning at high temperatures and equipped with proper
controls and site facilities can be operated in any area zoned for industrial use
without creating a nuisance.
There are some incinerators in the United States which are fine examples of in-
dustrial architecture. Much of the public would be unaware of the function of the
facility if it were not for signs on the building or at the gates.
A major advantage of the central incinerator is the relatively small land require-
ment and the ability to locate the plant in an industrial area within a city. The cen-
tral location reduces the hauling cost not only for the city collection crews, but
also for the industrial and commercial users of the facility. This advantage is par
ticularly important in large metropolitan areas where there is a high cost in
hauling materials from the place where the waste is generated, to landfill sites
in rural areas. It is not as important in any location where rural land is available
within a few minutes driving time from the center of the City.
It was found that in this metropolitan area under the present circumstances, in-
cineration is not practical due to reasonably close potential landfill sites.
The major disadvantage is the cost of initial construction and the cost of main-
tenance and operation. These costs usually range upward from $7- 00 per ton of
waste delivered.
Modern incinerators generate considerable amounts of waste heat. In some new
plants heat is now being put to economical use as steam which is either used for
generation of electricity or used directly as steam or hot water in a variety of
processes. The steam or electricity thus produced is sold to offset part of the
cost of operation. The first cost is higher but frequentlyit is a worthwhile in-
vestment.
Formerly excess air was introduced into incinerators to reduce the temperature
of the stack gases. With increasing air pollution requirements the cost of scrub-
bing these excess air quantities is greatly increased. The recovery of excess
heat in the form of steamnot only produces a valuable by-product, but also re-
duces the required quantity of excess air which in turn reduces the cost of scrub-
bing the stack gases.
1-26
-------
Certain industries, commercial establishments and institutions may wish
to operate on-site incinerators as a matter of convenience. If they are
properly designed and operated they should be permitted. The design, how-
ever, must include all of the necessary controls and devices to insure pro-
per burning and safety and air pollution controls.
Some on-site incinerators may be necessary. For example, the safe disposal
of infectious or otherwise contaminated materials from hospitals or drug man-
ufacturers requires incineration. Also highly volatile and inflarrrmable liquids
from other industries cannot be safely buried in a landfill. In these cases, in-
cineration is necessary and an acceptable method of disposal; however, they
should be licensed and controlled.
In the event a community or industry would find it to their advantage to construct
and operate an incineration facility, the technology and equipment is available
to accomplish the task without pollution to the water, air and land of the com-
munity.
b. Composting and Landfilling. This process consists of
two points; ie. the conversion of the organic portion of solid waste to compost
referred to as "composting"; and the landfilling of the non-compostable material.
Composting is the conversion of the organic portion of the solid waste through
aerobic digestion, to a stable and harmless material, which may be used for a
soil conditioner.
Micro-organisms which are present in garbage and other organic material will
cause the waste to decompose. The composting plant provides the proper en-
vironment for these organisms. The plant receives only those loads of solid waste
which can be composted. Loads not suitable for composting are diverted to sani-
tary landfills. The waste which is accepted is picked to remove additional non-
compostable materials. Some of these materials have a value and are salvaged.
After picking, the remaining material is pulverized and moisturized with vari-
ous processing equipment. The material is then subjected to a composting period
varying from one to two weeks during which time the temperature, moisture and
air content is carefully controlled, and the material is periodically mixed. At
the end of the composting period, the waste has been converted to compost, a
humus like material having some value as a soil conditioner.
Composting has been practiced for many years with little success. In recent
years, several research and development projects have been undertaken which
have improved the process. The modern plant of today is a highly mechanized
facility utilizing quality equipment designed or specifically adapted for this process.
Several well known national companies and equipment manufacturers have built
and are or were operating compositing plants in Texas, Arizona, Florida and
elsewhere.
1-27
-------
Unfortunately, some of these modern plants have had serious difficulty with
odor problems. It is assumed that these problems can be overcome and with-
in a few years It will be possible to process compost in a nuisance free man-
ner.
The cost of compositing is considerably greater than the cost of landfilling.
One recent plant constructed by a national company in cooperation with a major
Florida City was placed into operation and received 100 tons of compostable
refuse per day. The City pays a fee of approximately $3. 25 per ton to the op-
erator to take the material. This fee is more than 2 times the cost of landfill-
ing and in addition the non-compostable material must be landfilled.
Whether the compost material can be sold is a debatable question. Attempts
to sell soil conditioners in large quantity have not been successful. In the event
the material cannot be sold, it must also be landfilled.
It is possible that the composting processes may be practical some years in the
future. Today, in the Study Area, it is not recommended as a satisfactory
method of solid waste disposal.
c_. Sanitary Landfilling is a process in which solid waste
materials are spread on the ground, crushed and compacted into a dense mass and
covered with earth in a carefully controlled sanitary manner. This method is a
proven system which when carefully planned and operated is economical, nuisance
free, and does not pollute the water, air or land.
The filling can be on land ranging from level land to gullies or ravines. In many
instances, rough and low value land has been improved by filling.
The term sanitary landfill has frequently been confused with open dumps or burn-
ing grounds. This is incorrect. A sanitary landfill is a specific process requiring
careful design and management, proper equipment and operating techniques to
assure that sanitary conditions are maintained at all times. The compacted waste
is completely covered with earth on a daily schedule. Each day's waste is there-
fore enclosed in an earth cell. These cells preclude rodents and insects, odors,
litter, air and water pollution and fires. Emphasis is placed on proper location,
equipment, compaction and cover, sight screening, landscaping and other sani-
tary and aesthetic requirements.
The major disadvantage is that relatively large quantities of land are required.
In certain parts of the country this requirement can be disqualifying. In the
Study Area, adequate land is available at locations within economic hauling dis-
tances.
1-28
-------
Another potential disadvantage is the frequent lack of public acceptance of
sanitary landfilling. This is due to the bad reputation of dumps and the pub-
lic confusion of dumps and sanitary landfills. A good public relation program
and a demonstration of proper sanitary landfill operations can reduce the pub-
lic resistance.
Ext:opt for very small or unusual operations, most sanitary landfills can be
owned and operated for approximately $1. 40 per ton. When compared to the
cost of incineration arid composting this method is usually the least expensive.
Several variations of the sanitary landfill method are frequently used.
Certain materials such as broken concrete, demolition waste, ashes, etc.
can be used to fill gullies, worked out quarries or low land without requiring
full sanitary landfill methods. Filling a dry area with such material is re-
ferred to as dry landfilling. Filling areas which could be wet from ground
water or surface overflow with suitable material is referred to as wet land-
filling.
The sanitary landfill method is recommended for the Study Area for the
following reasons:
(1) Land is available.
(2) The method has been proven satisfactory where properly
operated.
(3) The method can meet all health, sanitation and pollution
requirements, and be aesthetically pleasing.
(4) The method is adaptable to varying quantities and peak or
slack rates.
(5) The method is the most economical.
The technology and equipment for sanitary landfilling and variations of the
system are now available. The process is reasonably simple and economical,
but it is not sufficiently simple that it can be designed and managed without
attention by knowledgeable people and it cannot be done without adequate funds.
.Landfilling should be designed by engineers and managed by competent
authority. It must also receive the necessary funds to be operated properly.
1-29
-------
PART TWO - SURVEY OF SOLID WASTE
_A_. GENERAL . This part of the report contains an analysis of the
present and future quantities and characteristics of the solid wastes generated
within the Study Area.
The survey of solid waste materials was made in two parts. The first part
was concerned with those materials which were being disposed of at major
public disposal facilities. Extensive site surveillances were conducted at
seven major public disposal facilities and are described in Section E.
The second part was concerned with those materials which were being dis-
posed of at other than public disposal sites, referred to as "On Site" disposal.
The on-site disposal includes those materials which can be expected at public
disposal sites in the future and those materials which will continue to be dis-
posed of and/or accumulated on site. The on-site materials were compiled
from commercial and industrial surveys described in Section B and through
special studies which were conducted to evaluate the wastes from scrapped
automobiles, diseased trees, packinghouses and commercial feedlots. These
studies are described in Section D.
J3. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SURVEYS
1. Surveys . A survey was conducted to determine the nature
and magnitude of wastes from various commercial and industrial firms in
the Study Area. The purpose of this survey was to determine if there were
individual companies or types of companies with wastes that could have a
significant effect on disposal practice. In addition, the survey provided data
which could be used to supplement waste quantity information obtained from
the landfill study such as present and future material which can be expected
at a public disposal after air pollution control and stricter landfilling regula-
tions have been put into effect. The firms surveyed were selected from a
complete listing of industrial and commercial firms in the Study Area.
A personal visit or telephone call was used to secure detailed information
from 95 firms, representing construction; manufacturing; transportation
and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance and real
estate; and services. Information pertaining to the nature and quantity of
waste, and information concerning those wastes which are considered
hazardous, contaminated or otherwise requiring special handling in trans-
fer and disposal operations was gathered. Liquid wastes such as oils, sol-
vents, paints and inks which cannot be discharged to the sewer system are
included in this category.
All of the firms interviewed were evaluated as to type of process or product,
nature of the waste, general magnitude of waste and method of disposal.
II-1
-------
2. Waste Quantity. The firms contacted were categorized as
to type of business activity and divided into general type of product or process
for evaluating the quantities of waste generated. The categories of waste are
listed in Table II-1
Quantities of waste were estimated in most cases by plant superintendents or
office managers. Most of the estimates were in terms of daily or weekly
volumes with some weight information to assist in determining bulk densi-
ties for the various categories. The reliability of the estimates varied con-
siderably due to the fact that the smaller establishments generally estimated
in terms of number and size of storage containers, while in larger firms,
particularly manufacturers, the magnitude of the waste disposal operation,
and production accounting procedures necessitated more specific knowledge
of quantities involved.
In order to establish a basis for relating the data obtained from the survey
to the total waste generated in the Study Area, waste quantities were evalu-
ated in terms of the number of employees in the individual firms contacted.
Table II-1 lists each of the individual categories in the commercial and in-
dustrial survey and shows the maximum, minimum and average waste quan-
tity generated per employee per day. Quantity figures in terms of average
daily pounds per employee are based on a full 7-day week. Suitable adjust-
ments were made to reflect actual quantities when the work week was less
than 7 days.
3. Total Industrial - Commercial Waste. The present indus-
trial and commercial wastes were projected using the data obtained from the
survey. The employment statistics used were from the 1967 County business
patterns. Projections were made for each of the categories listed in the
preceding paragraph. Table II-2 shows the estimated present quantities of
waste in both cubic yards per day and tons per day, and gives the percentage
surveyed of the total employment in each category. Approximately 25% of
the total employment of the manufacturing group was surveyed, and approxi-
mately 21% of all groups of the total non-agricultural employment in the
Metropolitan area were included in the survey. The quantity data is summa-
rized in Table II-3.
In order to establish the amount of present and revised public site disposal
and on-site disposal, tie quantities in Table II-2 have been tabulated as
follows:
1. Present quantities of waste material currently
being sent to public disposal facilities.
2. Present quantities of waste material currently
being disposed of on-site or accumulated on-site.
II-2
-------
TABLE II-1. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SURVEY
MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER EMPLOYER
NO. OF
FIRMS
CATEGORY SURVEYED
I.
it.
m.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Construction
A. Demolition
B. General Contracting
Manufacturing
A. Food and Meat Products
B. Grain Mill Products
C. Apparel and Related
Products
D. Lumber and Wood
Products
E. Paper and Allied Products
and Printing and
Publishing
F. Chemicals and Allied
Products
G. Stone, Clay and Glass
Products
H. Primary Metal Industries
I. Fabricated Metal Products
J. Machinery
Transportation and Other
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
A. Motor Vehicles and
Automotive Equipment
B. Drugs, Chemicals, and
Allied Products
C. Groceries and Related
Products
D. Electrical, Machinery and
Hardware Goods
E. Miscellaneous Wholesales
Retail Trade
A. Building Materials and
Farm Equipment
B. General Merchandise
C. Food
D. Automotive Dealers
E. Apparel and Accessories
F. Furniture and Home
Furnishings
G. Miscellaneous Retail Stores
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate
Services
A. Amusements
B. Miscellaneous Repair
4
14
7
3
2
3
3
3
8
2
2
3
6
8
3
2
5
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
3
3
5
RANGE
LB/EMP/DAY
MIN/MAX
2000/14,800
3.0/111.0
2.2/13.8
15. 1/35. 0
1. 1/4,4
10.7/35.0
2.4/40. 0
1. 1/83. 1
5. 7/266. 7
5.9/127.3
2. 7/7.0
4.8/17. 1
0.2/111.3
12/360
4. 7/10.0
3.4/6.5
0. 5/5. 6
0. 7/120. 0
2. 1/7. 1
1.2/1.5
21. 1/44. 0
2.0/43. 1
1. 0/10. 0
15. 5/263. 6
6.7/11. 1
0.9/6.9
7.4/17. 1
0.9/2.9
AVG
LB/EMP/DAY
4000
5.0
13.8
17.3
3.7
26. 1
4. 1
37. 1
143.0
68.8
6.8
5. 1
73. 0
186
6.2
4.9
2. 7
17
4.6
1.3
37.2
27.2
2. 1
68.3
8. 7
1. 1
11. 5
1.4
Services
C. Hospitals and Medical
Services
1.7/3.4
2.
II-3
-------
TABLE II-Z. COMMERCIAL J, INDUSTRIAL SURVEY - MATERIAL QUANTITIES
I
u.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII,
CONSTRUCTION
A. Demolition
B. General Contracting
Total
MANUFACTURING
A. Food b Meat Processing
B. Grain Mill Products
u. Lumber b Wood Products
E. Paper b Allied Products
F. Chemicals b Allied Products
G. Stone, Clay, & Glass Products
j . Machinery
Total
TRANSPORTATION b PUBLIC UTILITIES
Total
WHOLESALE TRADE
A. Motor Vehicles & Equipment
B. Drugs, Chemicals b Allied Proc.
C. Groceries b Related
E. Machny, Equip, b Miac. Whsle.
Total
RETAIL TRADE
A. Building Material
B. General Mdse.
C. Food
D. Automotive Serv. Dealers b Sta.
t . Furniture b Home Furnishings
ij. Misc. Retail Stores
Total
FINANCE. INSURANCE b REAL ESTATE
Total
SERVICES
A. Amusements
a. Misc. Repair fc Auto Rental
U. Hospitals
Total .
Percent
Group
Surveyed
50. 0
4.1
15.6
37
69 3
22.4 •
26.4
12.4
60.7
21, 0
29. 5
48.6
50, 0
. 63
3. 4
40
7. 1
5. 3
28. 2
2.4
2, 0
12. 9
17.4
12.7
10.9
6.9
27.4
Estimated
1968 Em-
ployment
1, 129
10, 159
11,288
13,777
1,375
965
375
3, 720
1,218
611
2, 021
2,835
29,031
16, 364
1,587
676
1,563
3,984
12, 597
i, 077
6, 638
4,596
4,323
1,229
3.299
23,511
15,217
1,407
1,392
15,004
17,803
Prei
Matei
Pub. Di
CY/D
2.0
114.6
116.6
777. 6
116.2
7.8
31.3
65. 5
161.3
"
97. i
78 6
79.6
1415.0
53. 6
682.5
17.6
40.3
260.6
10S2, 8
30. 2
45.4
250.0-
105. 0
433.9
171.4
1060.4
80. 3
64.4
10.1
96.0
170.3
sent
•ial to
sposal
Tons/D
.Z
12.9
13. 1
94.2
11,9
1. 7
4.9
7.6
22.6
"
69. 5
7. 3
7. 3
227. 0
147.6
t.. 1
3.8
33.8
193. 7
22. v
60. 5
39.7
14, J
146. 7
8.0
7.3
1.0
13. 1
21.4
Present Revit
Material to Materi
On-Site Disp. Pub.Dii
CY/D Tons/D CY/D
1683.2 2058.0 2.0
46.3 3.0 161.0
1729.5 2061.0 163.0
12.2 1.3 789.8
116.2
2.2 .14 10.0
.08 .001 31.4
65.5
161.3
34.1 43.7
78.6
79.6
48.6 45.1 1429.4
682.5
17.6
40.3
gl g
260.6
658.3 62,a 908.3
21.8 s.3 455.7
680.1 64.8 1740.5
80.3
8.3 ./ 72.5
10.1
74.8 6.9 96.0
83.1 7.6 178.6
>ed
al to
tposal
Tons/D
.2
15.8
16.0
95. 5
11.9
1.8
4.9
7.6
22.6
7. 3
7.3
228.4
147.6
2.1
3. 8
6 4
33.8
85.4
42.0
211.5
8.0
8. 1
1.0 '
13. 1
22.2
Revi«ed Additional to
Material to Public
On-Site Disp. Disposal
CY/D Tons/D CY/D Tons/D
1683.2 2058.0
46.3 3.0
1683.2 2058.0 46.3 3.0
12 2 13
2.2 . 14
.08 .001
"
-
34.1 43. i
34.1 43.7 14.5 1.4
—
"
658.3 62.5
21.8 2.3
680.1 64.8
--
8.3 .7
—
74.8 6.9
74.8 6.9 8.3 .7
VIII. C tt I SURVEY DAILY
TOTAL
IX. C t I SURVEY ANNUAL
TOTAL
NOTE; Cubic yarda are loose volui
125,811
red on premioefl.
3"9 "3 3801 2773 4728 683 3052 2703 749 70
1,452,335 223,745 1,387,365 1,012,145 1,725,720 249,295 1,113,980 986,595 273,385 25,550
-------
3. Revised quantities of waste material to public
disposal facilities. (This is based on current
quantities but reflects the intention of the firm
if stricter disposal laws were enacted and enforced)
4. Revised quantities of waste materials to be disposed
of on-site or accumulated on-site. (These quanti-
ties are also based on current rates but are adjusted
to reflect the change in disposal method mentioned
in 3 above.)
5. Additional material to public disposal. (Based on
current rate of disposal but reflects changes con-
templated in 3. and 4. above.
TABLE II- 3. SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL ANNUAL WASTE QUANTITIES
Present (1968) Revised (1968) Change
Tons C . Y . * Tons C . Y . * Tons C . Y .
On Site 1,012,145 1,387;365 986,5951,113,980-25,500-273,385
Public 223, 745 1,452, 335 249,295 1, 725, 720 +25,500 +273, 385
Total 1,235,890 2,839,700 1,235,890 2,839,700
On-Site 81 9% 48.9% 79.8% 39-2% - 2.52% -19.7%
Public 18.1% 51.1% 20.2% 60.8% +11.3% +18.8%
* C.Y. are not compacted (These C.Y. were very loose and
should not be compared to other C. Y. , loose or compacted).
The present total commercial and industrial wastes being disposed of at public
sites, as developed in the commercial and industrial survey, is 223, 745 tons
per year as shown in Table II- 3. This quantity is greater than the 197, 000
annual tons developed during the landfill surveys described in Section E and
shown in Table 11-24. The landfill survey is considered a more reliable
estimate since it is based on a actual measurement, of waste volumes over
a week's operation at each of the major public landfills. The higher values
determined from the commercial- industrial survey may be due to a number
of factors, including a tendency for the firms to over-estimate their quantity
of waste, a relatively large base from which to project quantities in some
categories, and possible inaccuracies in projecting waste quantities based on
employment for categories such as the meatpacking and demolition industries
which process their wastes by other internal disposal processes.
II-5
-------
Although a close correlation could not be made between the two surveys,
the commercial-industrial survey did .meet a primary objective of estab-
lishing an estimate of what portion of the present commercial and industrial
waste currently being disposed of on-site would be diverted to public facili-
ties if stricter landfill regulations and air pollution controls were established
and enforced.
Table II-3 shows that 81.9% of the tonnage and 48. 9% of the cubic yards of
the total commercial and industrial waste was disposed of in on-site facili-
ties, whereas 18. 1% of the tonnage and 5i. 1% of the cubic yards were sent
to public facilities for disposal. The commercial and industrial firms inter-
viewed indicated that if stronger landfill regulations and air pollution controls
were in effect during 1968, the waste disposal practice would be slightly
different. Under these new conditions referred to as "revised" in Table II-2
and Table II-3, the on-site disposal would have been 79- 8% of tonnage and
39. 2% of the volume. The public facilities would receive 20. 2% and 60. 8%
respectively The difference between the present and future practice amounts
to approximately 25, 500 tons and 273, 385 cubic yards increase in public dis-
posal and an equal decrease in on-site disposal. This potential increase in
materials sent to public sites is equal to 11, 3% of the tonnage and 18. 8% of
the volume currently being sent to public sites. These two percentages were
used to adjust the quantities of commercial and industrial materials as
measured during the landfill surveillances described in Section B.
The quantities of commercial and industrial waste being disposed of on-site
in private facilities is very large and on a tonnage basis is approximately
equal to the total of all waste disposed of at public facilities. Some of the
private landfills are reasonably well run and some are entirely inadequate .
Suggested standards and controls are recommended in Part IV. These faci-
lities should be permitted and encouraged but should be regulated to the extent
that they do not become a nuisance or source of pollution.
_C RESIDENTIAL SURVEY. Residential solid waste management con-
sists of removing the waste from the premises for disposal at some central
disposal facility or disposal on-site or some combination of removal and
on-site disposal. In the larger communities of Bellevue, Council Bluffs,
Offutt AFB, Omaha and Ralston the governing body provides a regular collec-
tion service for residential waste for its citizens. The other municipalities
in the Study Area do not offer this service. A summary of collection practice
is shown in Table 1-4 found in Part I.
In Bellevue, Offutt AFB, Omaha and Ralston the collection service provided
includes all residential waste, whereas in Council Bluffs the service is re-
stricted to kitchen waste.
With the sole exception of Offutt AFB, all communities permit residences to
burn combustible wastes on their premises, either thru the lack of no-burning
regulations or the ineffective enforcement of existing regulations.
*
II-6
-------
In those communities where municipal collection service is not provided by
the governing body, the residents may employ private collectors or may haul
their own waste to the municipal dump which is frequently provided by the
smaller communities.
Where on-site disposal is practiced, and this must include all communities
to some extent with the exception of Offutt, the usual practice is to burn
combustible waste in some informal and inefficient incinerator such as a 55
gallon drum locally referred to as a burning barrel. Many municipal officials
and residents condone the practice of burning clean dry combustibles in burn-
ing barrels. Observation will reveal that burning barrels are used to burn
not only paper and other clean dry combustibles but garbage and other odor
and smoke producing wastes. This not only produces air pollution, smoke
and odor nuisances, residue for rats, and unsightly conditions; but also re-
presents a major source of fires requiring fire department assistance.
Residential waste collection is a responsibility of the community and this
service should be provided either thru the use of municipal forces and equip-
ment or thru a municipal contract. On-site burning of this waste would be un-
necessary if proper organized collection service is provided to all residences
in the community. In Part IV of this report, recommended ordinances are
presented which provide for collection of residential solid waste and forbid
the burning of waste in other than licensed incinerators.
Residential solid waste delivered to the major disposal facilities was
measured during the landfill surveys described in Section E. Also measured
was the residue from waste material burned on-site. The portion which was
not measured was that part burned on-site.
A study was conducted to determine the effect of backyard incineration on
domestic wastes based on quantities collected from routes where incineration
of combustibles is extensively practiced as compared to routes where there
is little or no incineration practiced.
While the quantity of ordinary domestic waste which will be produced by a
specific community depends-upon the geographic location, season of the year,
economic and social level, and other special community characteristics; the
major reasons for variation in domestic waste production are community
regulations and their enforcement, and refuse disposal services provided.
Because of variation from community to community, exact data determined
by measurements are desirable in order to provide a sound basis for deter-
mining a comparison.
Under similar conditions the amount of ordinary domestic waste produced
in a community will be in proportion to the population. Refuse quantities are
usually expressed in pounds per capita per year and/or per calendar day.
II-7
-------
Two residential communities with small and medium sized lots and with single
and multiple family dwelling units were selected to determine this comparison.
The two communities were Capehart Housing and Council Bluffs. Capehart
Housing, located at Offutt Air Force Base, has a population of approximately
6600 people, consists of 1803 family dwelling units, offers complete collec-
tion service, and permits no on- site incineration. Council Bluffs, on the other
hand, offers partial collection service and allows on- site incineration. A por
tion of Council Bluffs consisting of residential areas only, was selected to ex-
clude any influence of commercial waste. It was anticipated that the additional
per capita production of domestic waste collected from Capehart Housing
would represent the amount of per capita domestic waste disposed of on- site
by incineration in Council Bluffs. However, the opposite results were obtained
from this survey. Council Bluffs produced approximately one- half pound more
per capita daily domestic waste than did Capehart Housing.
When the selection of these two communities was being considered it was
recognized that Capehart was a special community populated exclusively
by military families, but there was an excellent cross section of senior and
junior officers and enlisted men, living in dwellings varying from four-bedroom
single family units to two- bedroom multiple family units. There were no
transients and no barracks included in this study. Factors which may have
influenced the results from Capehart are that all dwelling units are equipped
with garbage grinders and the community is relatively new, which would reduce the
amount of tree wastes. Whatever the reasons may have been, the results were
unuseable.
The Study Area was extensively examined in an attempt to find suitable areas
which could be used in lieu of Capehart. None could be found which were large
enough for comparative purposes, and which were not special for one reason
or another. As a suggestion to future investigators in this field, it will probably
be necessary to measure a community's solid waste products under conditions
which allow burning and then remeasure the community after all burning has
been effectively stopped.
It was concluded an estimate of the quantity of waste being burned would be
satisfactory, since residential or domestic waste represents only a small
portion of a community's total solid waste. It was assumed that approximately
50% of the dwelling units in the Study Area have some burning capabilities and
that 50% of the domestic waste is readily combustible. It was also assumed
that the burning facilities had a 25% use factor. A factor of 6% (. 5 x . 5 x . 25 =
. 0625) was calculated and added to the quantity of domestic solid waste measured
during the landfill surveys to compensate for on- site burning of this waste.
JL SPECIAL STUDIES
1- General . During the organization of this study, it was recog-
nized that there were several special waste problems which could influence
present and future planning. These special wastes, though common to communi-
ties, can present unusual collection and disposal problems. Individual studies *
were conducted and analyzed to determine the influence they would have on the
II- 8
-------
solid waste program for the area. These special wastes discussed in the
following paragraphs include automotive vehicles and the related salvage
industries, special tree waste caused by Dutch Elm disease, meat packing
industry wastes, and commercial feedlot industry wastes.
2. Automobiles and Scrap Metal
_a. General . Abandoned automobiles, auto salvaging and
scrap metal operations were studied to determine the extent of the solid waste
involved. It was found that they do not present a solid waste problem of any
significant magnitude, although, they do present many other serious community
problems. It was also found that the auto salvaging and scrap metal industries
are not understood by the general public. In the following paragraphs, data is
presented to explain the function of these industries, the problems they create,
what can be done about the problems and why they do not create solid waste in
any large quantity.
b. The Auto Salvage Industry . The motor vehicle is a
vital part of our society affecting the general economic structure and life of
the community. The motor vehicle has a definite life cycle. Based on national
averages, the motor vehicle survival rate is as follows:
Years after Original Percent of Vehicles
Registration Surviving
6 95
8 81
10 56
12 33
14 18
During its life cycle the motor vehicle will pass from a transportation unit
to a valuable source of materials providing spare parts for other units still
operable. Eventually it becomes a natural resource of scrap metals to be used
by the metal making industries.
Information from automobile.manufacturers and the salvage industry reveals
the average total weight for an automobile is about 3, 300 pounds, of which 600
pounds, or 18% is not salvable metal, such as upholstery, rubber mats, tires,
hoses, insulation, undercoating, glass and plastics. The balance of the weight
is composed of various kinds of ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals, such
as copper, zinc, aluminum, lead, brass, bronze and others.
The auto salvage industry has been historically identified as the "junk yard, "
which it is not. It deals in the salvaging of reusable parts for the automotive
industry. With the tremendous and continuing increase of automobile produc-
tion over the years, the auto salvage industry provides a needed service to the
community. The 1985 predicted motor vehicle population of the United States
is estimated at 115 million. A damaged automobile, economically unrepairable,
II-9
-------
can provide many valuable and serviceable spare parts, including partial body
sections, for the repair of other less damaged vehicles. Unsalvable or
obsolete parts are sold to the scrap mettl industry.
'['his industry has a well deserved, bad reputation for aesthetic conditions.
Recent Federal Legislation in the form of the Highway Beautification Acts,
provides certain regulations concerning "Auto Wreckers" near or adjacent
to Federally Funded Highways, and has brought much attention to the industry.
These regulations require certain fencing and screening of the operations
under prescribed conditions. They do not apply to many auto salvage opera-
tions in urban areas which must be controlled by other zoning laws or ordinances
The auto salvager usually operates in an industrial zone, but may operate in
other zonings through the legality of zoning variances.
The salvager normally maintains a large and unsightly stockpile of auto hulks,
all potential items of solid waste. When the auto has been stripped of all
possible spare parts, it is ready for the conversion to scrap metal. Most
scrap metal processors of auto hulks insist they be burned to rid them of all
non-metallic material before they will be accepted as scrap metal. This re-
quirement is more of an accepted practice than an absolute necessity. It
makes the metal processor's job easier and reduces his costs but the open
burning of auto hulks is a nuisance to the community, a source of air pollution
and a fire hazard. Passage and strict enforcement of anti-burning laws are
necessary to curb this practice. Auto hulks can be processed for metal
salvage without burning and are processed this way in many communities.
Elimination of burning will create some additional costs to the industry;
however, this is a problem for the industry to overcome as a part of doing
business.
The problem of large inventories of auto hulks is a problem the salvage industry
has, and will continue to have as long as scrap metal prices remain at the
present low level. New metal making methods have lessened the demand for
scrap metal and consequently the price has been substantially reduced. Many
salvagers stockpile auto hulks hoping for future price increases, and move
out hulks only to make room for newer models.
The survey included 55 salvage yards in the Study Area and revealed an esti-
mated 39, 500 hulks on hand.
The problem confronting all scrap processors in the Study Area has both
technological and economic roots. It begins with the fact that steel mills have
reduced their reliance on scrap as a raw material. This is due to the installa-
tion of new types of steel making furnaces and the reluctance of some large
integrated mills to accept automobile scrap in large tonnages.
Whenever demand for scrap drops, auto scrap is most affected. It is probably
the most difficult and expensive type of scrap to prepare. Besides the ton pf
usable ferrous scrap, a car contains copper, lead, plastics, glass and other
11-10
-------
non-metallic materials. All of these can be poison to a batch of steel. They
should be removed by the processor to produce acceptable steel scrap.
To meet this demand, many scrap processors have installed large and expen-
sive shredding devices such as the one in Council Bluffs, Iowa, which tear and
shred an anto hulk into small pieces, including the steel hulk, the glass,
rubber, dirt, and plastic. The steel is removed from the non-magnetic mate-
rial by magnetic separation. The remaining material is sometimes picked over
for copper or other metals but it is mostly waste to be disposed of at a landfill.
The magnetically separated steel is high grade scrap, relatively free of the
chief contaminant, copper. This high grade scrap is worth from $13 to $36 a
gross ton delivered, depending on the area. From this price the processor
must deduct transportation costs, production costs, the cost of daily operation,
and his return on his investment. Only then can he figure what he can pay for
his raw material, the old car itself. Ten dollars to $12 for a car can often be
considered to be a fairly good price.
Operators estimated that approximately 40% of all vehicles on hand would be
disposed of with an appreciable increase in the price of scrap metal. The
yards surveyed occupied approximately 212 total acres, with an average of
about 188 vehicles per acre.
In general, the housekeeping practices of the auto salvage industry are poor,
contributing to the public demands that something be done to clean up this
industry. Part of the problems are inherent in the nature of the work. Sal-
vage yards are difficult to maintain in an acceptable and nuisance-free condi-
tion, but it can be done. A few of the operators have made attempts to screen
their yards and present a decent appearance. They would do more if the in-
dustry was required to conform to currently existing ordinances and zoning
regulations.
Although many hulks are retained in hopes of improved scrap prices, many
accumulate simply because it costs more to load and haul the hulks to the
metal salvager than they are worth. The stripped hulk at this stage is an
industrial waste to the auto salvager. By allowing the hulks to accumulate,
the operator is postponing the expense of disposal. If he were required to
site screen his yard and control the weeds and insect breeding conditions
around these old hulks, more of them would be promptly removed to the
scrap metal dealer.
The auto salvage industry in the Study Area has a potential solid waste problem
in the large inventory of auto hulks. This potential will not become a problem
of disposal to the community while there is a market for the scrap metal. Even
though it may cost the salvager more to haul a hulk to the scrap dealer than
he is paid for the hulk, it is more economical than hauling the hulk to a muni-
cipal disposal site and receiving nothing or being charged to dispose of it.
Strict enforcement of ordinances in the Study Area pertaining to operating
conditions in and around salvage establishments is necessary to improve
11-11
-------
aesthetic conditions and reduce the health and fire hazards for the community.
Enforcement of theae regulations may cause a temporary surge of auto hulks
onto the local scrap market, but we believe this would be a minimal problem.
Sorm- minor costs to the salvager will result, but this must be considered as
a cost of doing business.
The auto salvage industry plays an important role in the community. However,
they must be required to conduct their business in a manner that it will not
interfere with the welfare of others.
_c. Scrap Metal Industry. The scrap metal industry is
responsible for the final phase in the life cycle of the automobile and the
source of other salvaged metals before they are reclaimed in new metal making
processes. This industry has provided over 40 million tons per year of scrap
metal for metal making industries and foreign exports. Over 40% of the nation's
copper and more than 1/2 million tons of lead is recovered annually by the
scrap metal industry. The automobile hulk accounts for about 5 million tons of metal
per year.
This industry experiences many of the same problems outlined for the auto
salvagers. Large stockpiles of processed scrap are often on hand due to the
lack of demand for the product. Large and expensive machinery is required
to process the metals and auto hulks and the operation is seldom confined
within buildings.
The price being paid for processed scrap today is not high enough in many areas
to allow the processor to go out extensively for automotive hulks as a source of
materials. It is not high enough to encourage many graveyard operators and
others to ship cars to processors at their own expense.
There is absolutely no question that the scrap industry could process every car
in the Study Area available for scrap with its existing production capacity. The
scrap processor in Council Bluffs can process 400 to 500 auto hulks in a single
normal working day, and is a good example of the capability of present techno-
logy.
.d. ^Abandoned Automobiles. The present problem of aban-
doned automobiles in the Study Area does not appear to be large. Most old and
unserviceable vehicles find their way to the scrap metal dealers.
Unserviceable or abandoned automobiles on private property are considered
the problem of the property owner. If abandoned on a public street or property,
the City will haul it away, impound it, and attempt to locate the last registered
owner. If located, the last registered owner is usually responsible for any cost
incurred during impoundment. Periodically the impounded vehicles are auc-
tioned to the highest bidder. Impound costs are deducted from the bid price and
the balance, if any, is sent to the last registered owner, if he has responded to
thu previous notice. Where no owner can be found, auction proceeds are retained
by the City.
11-12
-------
The present handling of abandoned vehicles in the Study Area is generally
adequate considering the number of vehicles involved. Abandonment may
increase if salvagers become reluctant to receive vehicles too old for parts
or salvage value, if new operating regulations are enforced. No serious
problem is anticipated. Improved vehicle identification methods, strong
enforcement, and proper penalties for abandonment of vehicles, should
control any increase.
j;. Automobile Disposal by Municipalities. With the in-
creasing cost of processing of auto hulks, and the passage of air pollution
regulations, it is possible that salvagers will be reluctant to receive or pay
for hulks for scrap purposes.
If this were to happen, it is possible to dispose of auto hulks in landfills.
During a previous solid waste study an experiment was conducted at a muni-
cipal disposal site to determine what volume would be required for an average
hulk. A 1957, medium priced station wagon, including upholstery, frame and
heavy undermetal, but excluding the engine block, bumpers, wheels and tires;
a typical abandoned auto type, was placed right side up on level ground. A
landfill bulldozer was used to crush the hulk. The operation took approxi-
mately five minutes, reducing it in volume from about 432 cubic feet to less
than 108 cubic feet, or 4 cubic yards.
The compacted hulk was easily included with other waste and covered with
earth. This is a poor ending for a proven natural resource, but indicates
disposal by landfilling is practical.
Many landfill operators do not wish to be bothered with crushing and burying
auto hulks. They are a bother but it can be done economically and is a
satisfactory way to dispose of hulks that become a burden to the community.
f_. Laws and Regulations. The auto salvage and scrap
metal operation, and the abandoned vehicle are technically not a solid waste
problem. They are; however, a community problem requiring proper con-
trol insofar as they affect the health, safety and well being of the community.
Existing ordinances and regulations are not adequate for several reasons.
In some instances, they are unrealistic and consider auto salvaging, the
scrap metal industry, junk yards and pawn brokers as being the same. Each
are different and should be treated separately. Some requirements are not
practical and if enforced would require unwarranted expense not only to the
industry but to the municipalities. In other cases, there are inadequate re-
quirements to protect the public. As a result, there is little effective en-
forcement of existing laws and regulations.
Laws of the various communities should be reviewed and amended to be
realistic and effective. Of particular importance are zoning regulations;
provisions to outlaw all open burning; requirement for fencing and that opera-
tions be conducted within fenced areas and not in the public right-of-way; and
rodent, weed and insect control. All communities should consider an ordi-
nance which would class all inoperative motor vehicles on private property
in residential zones, and not properly garaged, as "litter" and require removal
or proper storage.
11-13
-------
The City of Council Bluffs is a prime example of what can be accomplished
by proper enforcement of this ordinance. The offender is served a removal
notice and allowed a reasonable amount of time, generally from 5 to 30 days,
to clean up the nuisance. If the offender does not comply with the notice
within the allotted time, the offender must appear in court and is generally
fined. Approximately 2000 non-licensed or junked cars located in backyards,
in and around the city, have been removed since February 1966 by enforcing
this litter ordinance.
Auto Salvaging Industry Statistics
Sampling Group:
Auto salvage operations observed and interviewed within Study Area: 55
Estimated total wrecked vehicle inventory on hand: 39, 500
Estimated total acres occupied by Salvagers, Study Area; 212
Estimated wrecked vehicles per acre, on hand: 188
Estimated hulks immediately available from current inventories, with
improved market conditions; 15,800 (40.0%)
Study Area ;
Estimated current monthly scrapping rate: 1,075 vehicles.
Estimated 1968 vehicle registration: 214,300
Estimated yearly scrapping rate, Study Area; 6% of registration
Estimated yearly scrapping rate, Nation; 7% of registration
Estimated average net increase in yearly registration, Study Area: 4%
Estimated average net increase in yearly registration, Nation: 3%
Estimated rate of vehicle registration and scrapping, Study Area;
Registration Scrapping @ 6%
1968 214,300 12,900
1969 222,700 13,400
1970 231,100 13,900
1975 273,100 16,400
1980 315,100 18,900
1985 357.100 21,400
1990 399,100 23,900
1995 441,100 26,500
Estimated Total Scrapped Vehicles,
1968-1995 550,700
3. Special Tree Waste .
_a. General. In a large community or metropolitan area
the influence of any single industrial or commercial firm or groups of allied
firms usually has little influence on the total solid wastes of the community
They could double their waste or eliminate it completely, and still have little
*
11-14
-------
immediate effect on the magnitude of the community's solid waste facilities.
Over a long period of time their influence might eventually be felt but there
would be ample time to anticipate the changes necessary.
Changes in population trends and in per capita waste contributions are suffi-
ciently gradual that they too can be anticipated by solid waste managers in
time to make any necessary changes.
Problems that can become serious in the management of solid waste disposal
must involve at least two elements; (1) large quantity changes either increases
or decreases; and (2) a short time during which the change takes place. Wastes
resulting from the removal of large quantities of diseased American Elm
trees in a short period of time meets these two items of criteria and could
be a problem if not anticipated.
American Elm trees are being killed by the Dutch Elm Tree Disease in great
number in recent years. The disease is caused by a fungus named
Ceratocystis Ulmi which is carried by the European Elm Bark Beetle. Fungus
spores are spread from diseased trees to healthy trees by the beetle and enters
the healthy trees through openings in the bark of twigs caused by feeding in-
sects. The disease was first found on the east coast about 1930 and since that
time has spread throughout the east, north to Canada and into the south. At
the present time it has worked as far west as Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and
Missouri.
Dutch Elm disease was first found in the Study Area in I960. By 1963 there
were 22 known cases of infected trees and 80 suspected cases.
It is estimated that, since the discovery of the Dutch Elm disease in the Study
Area, 35% of the 613, 355 original elm trees have been removed or are presently
diseased and must be removed. By the end of 1968 approximately 214, 674 diseased
trees had been removed, most of which have been disposed of by open burning
at public sites. Few volume or weight records have been maintained; therefore,
future volumes and weights are based on known properties of elm wood, existing
estimates, and information developed in cooperation with city, state and federal
foresters, and county agents.
At the present rate of loss, it is estimated that most of the American Elm trees
in the Study Area will be diseased by 1973. The greatest quantity of these
trees for which solid waste disposal facilities must be provided are located
in the cities of Omaha, Bellevue, Council Bluffs and the immediate area. This
amount of special tree waste is estimated to be 306,984 elm trees, or 595,550
tons. The amount of special tree waste in remote or rural areas which pro-
bably will not be removed or will not be brought to solid waste disposal facili-
ties is estimated to be 91,697 elm trees or 177,892 tons. This latter amount
of special tree waste is not included in the quantity for which disposal must be
provided. See Appendix Exhibit II-1 for Elm Tree Statistical Information.
During the landfill surveys discussed in Section E of this Part II the quantities
of waste from diseased elm trees were recorded separate from the other
11-15
-------
wastes. To the above quantities which were measured, additional estimated
quantities were added to reflect those quantities which were disposed of
on-site. The sum of the measured quantities and on-site quantities repre-
sent the total diseased elm tree wastes. These are shown as Special Tree
Wastes in Table 11-24.
Since the Special Tree Wastes represent approximately 17% 01 the total
waste, it is an important segment of the total. Only approximately 1/6 of
this material was measured at public disposal facilities. The remaining
5/6 were disposed of elsewhere. If proposed regulations and controls con-
cerning landfills and air pollution are adopted and enforced these 5/6 will
appear at public disposal facilities and must be anticipated. There must be
adequate landfill capacity and equipment to handle these significant quanti-
ties. Once the capacity to handle the predicted quantities is available, the
reduction in quantity expected in 1973 must also be anticipated, because the
s.chedule of fees to finance the operation is based on expected quantities.
The fee structure and its relationship to expected quantities and fixed and
variable costs are discussed in Part III.
_b. Disposal. Elms killed by Dutch Elm disease can be used
for fireplace wood, provided the wood is burned before spring. If only a
portion of the cut wood is used, beetles emerging in the spring from the
remaining logs will carry the fungus to healthy elms. To prevent this from
occurring, the wood should be stripped of bark or thoroughly sprayed with
a suitable chemical which will kill the beetles. The fungus is not spread
by the ashes or smoke from infected elms.
Investigation indicates that elm wood has few commercial or industrial uses
and then only if the user is close to the source of material to reduce shipping
costs. Elm wood is used for making pallets, dunnage, furniture and veneer,
although the demand is very small. The physical properties of elm wood pre-
clude its use as structural material. It tends to split and twist when drying.
The largest consumers of elm wood are the pulp mills making fiberboard,
corrugated boxing and particle board and similar material. There are no
pulp mills located in the immediate area currently processing elm wood and
the more distant mills expressed little or no interest because of excessive
shipping costs; therefore, this outlet was not considered further.
Many mills refuse to accept city elm trees for chipping because of operating
problems resulting from the presence of tramp iron. Marketing elm wood
for pulp purposes is not recommended.
Elm wood as a fuel for power plants was considered. It would again have to
b« chipped. After chipping, the elm fuel would cost more per useful Btu
than coal. This outlet was not considered further.
Elms killed by Dutch Elm disease can be disposed of by incineration or open
burning. It is estimated that incineration of mixed solid waste costs
several times as much as disposal by sanitary landfill methods under present
II-16
-------
conditions in the Study Area. In the preceding paragraph it was stated that
the chipped elm wood cost more per useful Btu than coal. It is apparent that
incinerators which would burn the elm wood are not feasible even when con-
sidering waste heat recovery. No further consideration was given to incinera-
tion of elm tree wastes.
It is possible to burn the elm trees in open fires. Although logs are difficult
to burn, a proper arrangement could be made which would reduce most of
the wood to ash. It would be possible to control such a burning operation
from becoming a fire hazard although a considerable amount of land prepara-
tion and labor would be required. This method is not recommended because
of the air pollution problem that would be created and the expense involved.
Diseased elm tree waste can be properly disposed of in sanitary landfill sites,
separately or with other solid waste of the community. When filled separately,
many sites would be available that might not be available for mixed operations.
This is the only advantage. When filled alone, considerably more earth is
required. Logs are particularly difficult when handled alone. They pile up
one upon another and make a very difficult surface upon which to work land-
fill equipment. The limbs are not adequate to solve this problem. Large
quantities of earth are required to fill around logs to make a stable mass.
When filled with other solid waste from the community, the other material
packs around the logs making a satisfactory working surface. Only cover
dirt is required. With the other material adding to the total volume, the
unit operating cost of the operation is reduced. It is less expensive to bury
the elrn tree waste with other solid waste than to bury it in a site separately.
The cost of operating a sanitary landfill in the Study Area has been estimated
to be $1.40 per ton. This is the most economically acceptable way to dispose
of the diseased elm tree wastes.
4. Meatpacking Industry Waste. Included in this category are
solid wastes from slaughter plants and their holding pens, and the pens of
the central stock yards. None of this material was measured at any of the
landfill surveys described in Section E; therefore none is included in that
quantity of waste which was disposed of at public disposal facilities. Currently
these materials are being disposed of through public sewers, piled on the pre-
mises of packing plants, hauled to farm land or dumped at a railroad siding.
These materials were studied and are included in the Commercial and Indus-
trial Surveys described in preceding Section B. The solid waste from the
Omaha slaughter houses will continue to be flushed to public sewers for
treatment. These quantities were given no further consideration in this re-
port.
It has been assumed that packing plants will not be permitted to continuously
pile solid waste on their premises; that haul to farm land disposal will be
uneconomical; and that dumping of pen waste without adequate sanitary land-
fill facilities will not be permitted. Experience in other cities has shown that
11-17
-------
in recent years packing industries have been required to dispose of this mate-
rial in a sanitary manner in order to eliminate the odors caused by the de-
composition of the organics and the problem of rat and insect control.
Paunch manure can be treated or disposed of using a variety of methods.
It can be incinerated, dried or otherwise processed for feed, or placed in
sanitary landfills. Incineration is considerably more expensive than sani-
tary landfilling and is not considered further in this study. Feeding of paunch
manure has been tried and abandoned over a period of years. Currently
there are new attempts being made to feed paunch manure. For purposes
of this report it is assumed that paunch manure is a waste product for which
disposal is necessary.
The industry has found that the most economical acceptable way to dispose
of paunch manure and pen sweepings in an area like this Study Area, is to
use a sanitary landfill. Capacity to accommodate the expected quantities
of meat packing industry solid waste has been included in the estimates for
public sanitary landfills to be provided for present and future needs of the
Study Area.
In addition to the existing meat packing industry, which changes from time
to time in quantity of kill and waste produced, a new major facility is being
constructed in Council Bluffs. This new industry will be completed in 1970
and is expected to kill approximately 2000 cattle per day or 572, 000 head
per year. This industry and public officials of Council Bluffs are planning
to dispose of the paunch manure, peck manure, and pen sweepings in public
sanitary landfill facilities. Estimates of these wastes are also included in
estimates of required public sanitary landfill facilities.
The annual quantities of paunch manure, peck manure , and pen sweepings
expected from the meat packing industry in the Study Area for disposal in a
sanitary landfill are estimated to be 16,900 tons or 19,469 cubic yards
(compacted). Since these quantities are estimated for the current year,
no seasonal adjustment is necessary.
These quantities are based upon-calculations shown in Table II-4 and were
used as part of the total present quantities of commercial and industrial
wastes summarized in Section H.
11-18
-------
TABLE II-4. MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY WASTE QUANTITIES
Beef Kill:
a. Council Bluffs (J970)
2000 head per day, 5.5 days, 52 weeks
b. Omaha Packing Industry
4895 head per day, 5.5 days, 52 weeks
Paunch Manure Waste:
a. Council Bluffs (1970)
Weight @ 48 pounds per head
Volume @ .77 cf per head
b. Omaha Packing Industry
Weight @ 48 pounds per head
Volume @ . 77 cf per head
Pen Sweeping Waste:
a. Council Bluffs (1970)
Weight @ 10% of paunch manure
Volume @ 20% of paunch manure
b. Omaha Packing Industry
Weight @ 10% of paunch manure
Volume @ 20% of paunch manure
Disposal of Packinghouse Waste;
a. Council Bluffs (1970)
Paunch and peck manure, pen sweepings
b. Omaha Packing Industry
Paunch and peck manure
Pen sweepings
Packinghouse Waste to Sanitary Landfill:
Annual Quantity
573,000 head
1,400, 000 head
13, 728 Tons
16,296 CY
33, 600 Tons
39,886 CY
1, 372 Tons
2, 745 CY
3, 360 Tons
7,977 CY
Method
Council Bluffs (Future)
Paunch and peck manure
Pen sweepings
Omaha Packing Industry
Pen sweepings
Total
Tons/year
13,728
1, 372
3,360
18 ,460
Sanitary Landfill
Internal Process
Sanitary Landfill
CY/year
16,296
2, 745
7.977
27,018
Compaction Factor Adjustment:
The following compaction factors were assigned to each material
which adjusts the "as received" volumes to the volumes which the
materials would occupy when mixed with other materials and com-
pacted into a sanitary landfill.
11-19
-------
TABLE II-4. MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY WASTE QUANTITIES (Cont'd)
7. Typejaf Waste:
Paunch and peck manure (Council Bluffs) @ .8 x 16,296 = 13,036
Pen sweepings (Council Bluffs) @ . 6 x 2, 745 = 1, 647
Pen sweepings (Omaha) @ . 6 x 7,977 = 4,786
Total 19,469 CY/year
8. A total volume of 19,469 cubic yards per year, (compacted in place)
represents the expected meat packing industry waste from the
Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Study Area. This material
increase has been projected at the same annual rate as other
commercial and industrial wastes
5. Disposal of Feedlot Wastes.
_a. General . The livestock feeding business has emerged
from small individual farm operations to large-scale enterprises in which many
thousands of animals are fed in confinement. Until the early 1950's, small-
volume farmer-feeders accounted for nearly all the Study Area's livestock
production. These feeders still produce more than half the livestock, but
commercial lots have grown rapidly. Nationally, the number of livestock
fed in large commercial lots has increased about 40% in the last four years
which is approximately six times as fast as the number fed by farmer-feeders.
The shift in agriculture, and animal feeding in particular, from family-sized
operations to large commercial enterprises is following the same pattern
as other industry; larger operations are necessary to take advantage of
mechanization, which requires specialization, management, and huge sums
of capital.
Jb. Survey. A survey was conducted to determine the dis-
posal methods of animal solid wastes from the various commercial feedlots
in the Study Area. For purposes of this study, commercial feeding of cattle,
swine, sheep and poultry is defined as those operations which feed 1, 000
animals or birds at one time. The survey was limited to commercial feeders..
The purposes of the survey were to determine the current disposal methods
being employed; whether the individual feed lot operators had plans for signi-
ficant changes in disposal methods in the foreseeable future; and whether
changes in methods might be necessary in the public interest.
There were 49 commercial feed lots in the Study Area feeding 1, 000 or more
head of cattle at one time. The size and number per county were as follows:
n-zo
-------
Number of Feed Lots
Douglas County:
1000 to 2499 6
2500 or more 10
Sarpy County:
1000 to 2499 9
2500 or more 10
Pottawattamie County:
1000 to 2499 12
2500 or more 2
Total Three Counties:
1000 to 2499 27
2500 or more 22
49
There were no commercial feed lots in the Study Area feeding 1000 or
more head of swine at one time.
Data was obtained concerning sheep and poultry feeding operations. The
quantity of solid waste is insignificant to the total area quantities but is
included in the quantity summaries which follow.
_c. Quantities. The daily production of manure from farm
animals, as determined by a number of investigators in animal waste manage-
ment, is approximately as shown in Table II-5.
TABLE II-5. AVERAGE DAILY MANURE PRODUCTION AND COMPOSITION
jtem Unit Swine Poultry Sheep Turkeys Cattle
Wet Manure
Total Solids
Volatile solids
Nitrogen
PZ05
K2O
Lb/d
%
%
% db
% db
% db
7.0
16.0
85
4.5
2. 7
4.3
0.25
29.0
76
5.6
4.3
2.0
3.0
34.0
66.0
1. 1
.3
.9
0.75
26.0
78
5.2
2.8
1.9
64.0
16.0
80
3.7
1. 1
3.0
The estimated annual production of manure from feedlot animals in the Study
Area is given in Table II-6. The annual production of feedlot manure was
determined by multiplying the numbers and types of feedlot animals obtained
in the feedlot survey by the average daily manure production given in Table
II-5.
11-21
-------
TABLE
TT-6
. ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL FEED ,
Livestock
Cattle
Swine
Sheep
Poultry
No.
of Animals Fed
Seasonal Continual
12
4
30
,400 243,000
0 0
,000 11,000
,000 37,000
per Yr.
Total
255,700
0
15,000
67,000
MANURE
LOTS IN S
PRODUCTION -
TUDY AREA
Animal Waste - Tons per
Seasonal
59,520
0
900
562
Continual
1,420,872 1
0
3,012
1,688
Yr.
Total
,480, 392
0
3,912
2,250
Seasonal - refers to 1 - crop of animals fed for a period of 5 months or 150 days,
Continual- refers to2 - crops of animals fed for a period of 1 year or 365 days.
d. Fertilizer Value . Until the development of the fertilizer
industry, green plants and animal manure were the main source of supplemental
plant nutrients. Today, in light of the plentiful supply of commercial fertilizers,
the question has been raised if it pays to collect and use animal manure as
fertilizers. An analysis of the manure and a look at the feedlot disposal
methods indicate that the application of manure on soils is well justified and
desired. It is justified because animal manure contains plant nutrients which
have agricultural and commercial value even though, in some parts of the
country the commercial value of manure cannot compete with mineral ferti-
lizers.
If sufficient land is available, field spreading of the manure should be encour-
aged because it provides an adequate treatment and final disposal of the wastes
at the same time.
£.• Method of Animal Waste Disposal. By far the predomi-
nant method of handling feedlot manure in the Study Area is by accumulation
of a manure pack, followed by field spreading. In most of the Study Area,
the manure cannot be placed on the fields daily because of climatic factors,
cropping practices, labor, or other reasons. Some storage is usually required,
and, in many instances, this is accomplished by permitting manure to accumu-
late in the buildings or on feedlots.
If manure is not removed from the buildings or feedlots, bedding or litter must
be used to absorb and conserve the liquid portion of the manure and to prevent
the animals from getting dirty. Use of bedding or litter requires that it be
handled and stored, and, in many areas, bedding material is both scarce and
expensive. Consequently, there is a trend toward.producing livestock without
the use of bedding.
In the Study Area, manure is handled primarily with mechanical equipment.
The removal and spreading of feedlot wastes is normally accomplished using
tractors and manure spreaders. Equipment normally used in other farming
operations is adaptable to handle feed lot waste.
*
11-22
-------
.Stockpiling of animal feedlot wastes followed by field spreading will continue
to be, the predominant method of handling and disposal for the average feedlot
operator in the Study Area. All feedlot operators plan to dispose of the
animal wastes by spreading the material on their own crop land, or on
adjacent farm land, and to use the animal wastes as a soil conditioner or
supplemental fertilizer. None of the feedlot operators propose changes in
their method of animal waste disposal or expressed intent to dispose of this
material in a sanitary landfill.
The present method of animal feedlot waste disposal is considered adequate
for the Study Area providing that the manure stockpiles are not allowed to
remain on the premises indefinitely and that field spreading is followed by
discing, or plowing, in such a manner that the animal waste is thoroughly
incorporated into the soil and disposed of in a nuisance free manner.
When determining the capacity of public sanitary landfills which are recom-
mended in Parts III and IV no provision has been made to include any signi-
ficant quantities of solid waste from the animal feeding industry.
The disposal of animal solid waste on land in an acceptable method but if
not handled properly can result in serious water pollution problems. Water
pollution caused by runoff from feedlots can be as detrimental to a receiving
body of water as that resulting from the wastes from other industries and
from cities. Many of the feedlols in the Study Area have grown with little
planning and concern for the nuisance and pollutional characteristics of the
feedlot; and have been established in areas where the capacity of streams to
dilute and assimilate feedlot runoff is severely limited.
The water pollution problem associated with feedlot wastes is basically a
drainage problem. As a minimum, dikes should be erected around a feed-
lot to protect the receiving stream from feedlot runoff. Also, rain falling
outside the feedlot area should be diverted around a feedlot and kept separated
from feedlot drainage. Feedlot runoff has been found to produce a slug load
effect upon the receiving stream, to be high in ammonia, and to contain high
bacterial counts -- all of which are detrimental to fish and animal life.
Feedlot wastes should not be discharged into public waterways unless they
are pretreated sufficiently to meet the legal requirements established by the
local and state public health authorities.
E. LANDFILL SURVEYS
1. General. A seven-day surveillance was established at each
of seven major public disposal facilities in the Study Area. These disposal
facilities were continuously manned by one or more technicians except when
officially closed and secured in a manner to preclude deliveries of waste.
The Omaha Incinerator and Council Bluffs Landfill which have little traffic
were manned by their own employees who filled out the field data forms.
11-23
-------
The Omaha City Dump Site and the Council Bluffs Landfill were open for
5 days per week. The remaining facilities were open 7 days per week.
The sites and the dates of the survey are given in Table II-7.
TABLE II-7. DAYS AND DATES FOR LANDFILL SURVEYS
Locations & Dates 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
Sarpy Co. San, Landfill T W T F S S M
9/10 to 9/15 & 9/23/68
Omaha Incinerator F S S M T W T
9/13 to 9/20/68
Council Bluffs Landfill W T F M T
9/18 to 9/24/68
Douglas Co. San. L'fill T W T F S S M
9/24 to 9/30/68
Mease's San. Landfill W T F S S M T
10/2 to 10/8/68
Council Bluffs Dump W T F S S M T
10/9 to 10/15/68
Omaha City Dump M T W T F
10/21 to 10/25/68
The purpose of the site surveys was to determine the quantity and charac-
teristics of solid waste being delivered to places of disposal, plus other
valuable data which could be acquired at the same time. Most of the solid
waste being generated in the community must be removed from the source
at regular intervals. Thus if a continuous surveillance is maintained during
the course of an entire week the information acquired will be representative
of the waste being generated. The data acquired must be 'adjusted and supple-
mented with other data. This data is the major source of information con-
cerning the solid waste of the community.
Solid waste as received at a place of disposal is an extremely heterogeneous
material. The usual way to determine the characteristics of the material is
to analyze representative samples as received. A different approach was,
taken during the landfill surveys. Each load as it arrived at the disposal site
was viewed and the type of material in the load recorded. Where there was
a mixture of materials, an estimate of the percentage of each material was
made. Certain anticipated mixtures were considered as material classifica-
tions in themselves. An explanation of the development of the unit weights
for the various material classifications is included in the Appendix as
Exhibit II-2.
•»
H-24
-------
This approach would have been impractical without the use of computers
which are able to process the large quantity of information (more than 4400
loads were received and recorded). By knowing the characteristics of the
materials and the total quantity of each, it is possible to make reasonably
accurate estimates of the solid waste of the entire Study Area.
While the quantity and types of materials were being recorded, other infor-
mation was also obtained. The nature of this information and how it was
processed and used is described in the following paragraphs concerning
major computer programs, and in various other sections of the report.
The data was recorded on the "Disposal Surveillance Questionnaire" which
is shown in Figure II-1.
The questionnaire form and the explanation of each item is as follows:
ITEM NO. 1. BOOK NUMBER The book number was
an internal processing control number and is of no
importance to the data.
ITEM NO. 2. MONTH AND DAY The month of the year
was recorded in spaces 4 and 5. For example, September
was recorded as 09 and October as 10. Similarly, the day
of the month was recorded in spaces 6 and 7. For example,
the 15th day of September was recorded as 15. The year
was not recorded on the forms.
ITEM NO. 3. TIME The time was recorded on a 24-hour
basis in spaces 8, 9, 10 & 11; i.e. 0800 indicated 8:00 A.M.
and 1310 indicated 1:10 P.M. This was the time at which
the vehicle arrived at the disposal facility.
ITEM NO. 4. LICENSE .CODE The state in which the
vehicle was licensed was recorded in space 1Z. Code 1 was
used for Iowa, 2 for Nebraska, and 3 for any other Stat<= or
for Federal vehicles.
The number designating the Iowa or Nebraska Counties in
which the vehicle was licensed was recorded in spaces 13 and
14. If this was not appropriate or if the vehicle was not
licensed in Iowa or Nebraska, Code 00 was used.
ITEM NO. 5. TYPE OF VEHICLE The type of vehicle was re-
corded in spaces 15 and 16. If the vehicle type was not one
of the nine listed, then a description of the vehicle was written
in the space provided in Type 10 "Other".
Note: Vehicle type 4, or light trailer was one that could be
pulled behind an automobile. For heavier trailers
vehicle type 5 was used.
n-25
-------
FIGURE H-l DISPOSAL SURVEILLANCE QUESTIONNAIRE— OMA-CB MAPA SOLID WASTE STUDY
1
BOCK
NO.
2
3
MO.
4
5
DAY
6
7
TIME
8
9
K>
II
LIC
S.
12
ENSE
00.
13
14
VEH.
TYPE
\ /
A
15
16
HAULER CLASSIFICATION
NO.
17
18
•?
19
2O
NO.
21
22
1
23
24
1*1.
25
26
%
27
28
MAT'L
COND.
\ /
A
29
H1KY
\ /
A
30
VOLIME
31
32
33
34
WEICJIT
X 10
35
36
37
38
ADDRESS OF SOURCE
LICENSE
STATE: 1. IOWA, 2. NEBR. , 3. OTHER
VEHICLE TYPE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
PACKER
DUMP
VAN
LT. TRAILER
HEAVY TRA. OR SEMI
FLAT BED OR STAKE
PICK UP
AUTO OR STA.
TRANSFER TRAILER
OTHER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
HAULER CLASSIFICATION
CONTRACTOR, GENERAL
CONTRACTOR, WRECKING
ELM TREE REMOVAL
COM'L. HAULER, ROUTE, DOM
COM'L. HAULER, ROUTE, COM'L.
COM'L. HAULER, ROUTE, IND._
COMMERCIAL, ONE SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL, ONE SOURCE
PUBLIC, DOMESTIC %
PUBLIC, COM'L %
PUBLIC, IND %
OTHER PUBLIC VEHICLE
PRIVATE CITIZEN, DOMESTIC
TYPE OF MATERIAL
MAT'L.
39
40
%
41
42
MAT'L.
43
44
%
45
46
MAT'L.
47
48
%
49
5O
MAT' L.
51
52
C*
53
54
COORDINATE
SOUTH
55
56
57
WIST
58
59
6O
00V.
.SUB'UV
61
62
63
GFD.
64
65
66
VOLUME
CY
% FULL .
L
W
H
CONDITION
OF MAT'L.
1.
2.
VERY DENSE
VERY LOOSE
1. DEMOLITION-MIXED, NON-COMBUST.
2. DEMOLITION-MIXED. COMBUST.
3. DIRT. SAND OR GRAVEL
4. ROCK
5. BROKEN PAVEMENT OR SIDE WALK
6. CONSTRUCTION MIXED
7. STREET SWEEPINGS
8 CATCH BASIN CLEANINGS
9. WOOD
10. LOGS & STUMPS 10% DIA. & GREATER
11. LOGS it STUMPS LESS THAN 10" DIA.
12. LIMBS & LEAVES CHIPPED
13. LIMBS & LEAVES NOT CHIPPED
18. BRUSH
19. GRASS & GARDEN TRIMMINGS
20. PAUNCH MANURE
21. PEN SWEEPINGS
22. OTHER MEAT PACKING WASTES
23. POULTRY PROCESSING WASTES
24. DEAD ANIMALS
26.
27.
28.
14. ELM LOGS & STUMPS. 10" D & GREATER 30.
15. ELM LpGS & STUMPS. LESS THAN 10" 31.
16. ELM LIMBS & LEAVES. CHIPPED 32.
17. ELM LIMBS & LEAVES. NOT CHIPPED 33.
TIRES & RUBBER PRODUCTS
PLASTIC
OILS, TARS & ASPHALTS (LIQUIDS)
BEANS OR GRAIN HASTES
POTATO PROCESSING WASTES
OTHER FOOD PROCESSING WASTE
FRUITS & VEGT1BLES
35. ASHES AND CINDERS
36. FLY ASH
37. CEMENT INDUSTRY WASTE
38. OTHER FINE PARTICLES
40. GARBAGE & KITCHEN WASTE. DOMESTIC
41. GARBAGE & KITCHEN WASTE. COM' L
42. MIXED TRASH & REFUSE (INCL. GARB.)
43. MIXED TRASH & REFUSE (NO GARBAGE)
44. INCINERATOR RESIDUE DOMESTIC
45. INCINERATOR RESIDUE. COM'L & IND.
46. INCINERATOR RESIDUE. MUNICIPAL
50. PAPER & CARDBOARD
51. CANS
52. FURNITURE COMBUST.
53. FURNITURE
54. MAJOR APPLIANCES
55. HEAVY METAL SCRAP
56. LIGHT METAL SCRAP
57. WOOD CRATES
58. GLASS AND BOTTLES
59. BATTERY CASE & AUTOMOTIVE
60. AUTOMOBILE BODIES
61. WIRE
62. CHEMICAL WASTE, DRY
63. CHEM. WASTE, Lift. OR WET
70. SEWAGE SLUDGE SOLIDS
71. SEWAGE GRIT
72. SEWAGE SCREENINGS
73. SEWAGE GREASE SKIMMINGS
80. AGRICULTURAL WASTE
-------
ITEM NO. 6. TYPE OF HAULER The type of hauler
delivering material to the disposal facility was recorded
in spaces 17 and 18 if entirely of one hauler classification,
and 21 and 22, and possibly 25 and 26, if the hauler was
a combination of hauler classifications. If the hauler was
entirely of one classification no percent was recorded in
blank marked %. The computer automatically listed 100%.
If the hauler was a contractor delivering general construc-
tion wastes to the disposal facility, hauler classification 1
in space 18 was used. Similarly, if the contractor was de-
livering wrecking or demolition wastes, hauler classifica-
tion 2 in space 18 was used. Any hauler regardless of his
type, hauling elm tree removal material to the disposal
facility was coded using hauler classification 3 in space 18.
If the hauler was a commercial hauler, operating a route,
hauler classification 4 or 5 or 6 or a combination of these
numbers, or all of these numbers was used as appropriate.
For example, if the load was all domestic material, hauler
classification 4 in space 18 was used. Similarly, hauler
classification 5 or 6 was used if. the material was all com-
mercial or all industrial. Whenever the commercial hauler
delivered a combination of domestic, commercial, and/or
industrial wastes, both the numbers indicating hauler
classifications and the percentages of each was used,
using the spaces marked %. If the waste was entirely
of one hauler classification, the computer printed out
100%; therefore, no percentage was recorded in spaces
marked %.
If the hauler was delivering commercial waste of one source,
hauler classification 7 or 8 was used as appropriate in
space 18.
If the haulers were public vehicles or contractor's vehicles
which were hired by a municipality for collection and disposal
of solid wastes, hauler-classification 9 or 10 or 11 or a com-
bination of these numbers, or all of these numbers was used
as appropriate. For example, if the load was all domestic
material, hauler classification 9 in space 18 was used.
Similarly, if the material was all commercial or all in-
dustrial, hauler classification 10 or 11 in spaces 17 and
18 was used. Whenever the hauler delivered a combina-
tion of domestic, commercial, and/or industrial wastes
both the numbers indicating hauler classifications and the
percentages of each was recorded using the spaces marked
%. If the waste was entirely of one hauler classification,
the computer printed out 100%; therefore, no percentage
recorded in spaces marked % was required.
11-27
-------
If the hauler was any other public vehicle, hauler classification
12 in spaces 17 and 18 was used.
If the hauler was a private citizen delivering domestic
waste from his own dwelling, hauler classification 13 in spaces 17
and 18 was used. Dwellings included living units and asso-
ciated yards. If a private citizen delivered other than domes-
tic waste, it was necessary to select one of the other code
numbers as appropriate hauler classification.
ITEM NO. 7. CONDITION OF MATERIAL The unusual
condition of waste delivered to the disposal facility was
recorded in space 29. For example, in most wrecking jobs
the refuse is usually piled in dump trucks with a clam shell
or front end loader. The engineer who evaluated the survey
sheets took this into account; however, if a truck load of
waste from a wrecking job was hand loaded allowing much
more than the usual amount to be loaded in the truck, a very
dense condition was indicated by placing a "1" in space 29.
Similarly, if a load of large cardboard boxes was loose and
not in any way crushed or packed, a very loose condition was
indicated by placing a "2" in space 29. Normally, no numbers
appear in space 29- It was used only for the _unu_sual_ condi-
tion.
ITEM NO. 8. BULKY Bulky material was indicated by
recording the number "1" in space 30. Material not bulky
was indicated by leaving space 30 blank. Bulky material in-
cludes items larger than or as large as a desk or refrigera-
tor, and pieces greater than 12' long other than a simple
2 x 4 or easily broken items. In general, a bulky item was
one that could not easily be crushed or broken with a small
farm tractor.
ITEM NO. 9. SIZE OF LOAD The size of load or volume
was recorded in one of three ways.
The first way was to indicate the size of load by recording
the size of vehicle cargo space in cubic yards and percent
to which it was filled. For example, a dump truck with
a 5 CY capacity box filled half full of tin cans was recorded
as 5 CY x 50% full. The same truck with tree limbs piled
higher than the side of the 5 CY box was recorded as 5 CY x
120% full.
The second way was to indicate the size of load by recording
the length, width, and height of the vehicle box or cargo
space, in feet and percent to which the vehicle was filled.
For example, a pick-up truck with a box 8' long x 4' wide
x 4' high filled one-half full of tin cans was recorded as
8 long x 4' wide x 4' high x 50% full. CY was left blank.
11-28
-------
The third way was to indicate the size of load by measuring the
length, width, and height of the actual cargo in feet. For ex-
ample, a flat bed truck might have a load of scrap concrete blocks
piled an average of 8' long x 4' wide x 2" high; or an automobile
with a basket of grass clippings in the trunk was described as a
pile 2' long x 2' wide x 1' high. Since this method indicated size
of cargo and not size of vehicle, the % full was left blank.
ITEM NO. 10. WEIGHT The weight of the load was recorded in
spaces 35, 36, 37 and 38, when provision was made for weighing
of the vehicle. The weight was written in multiples of 10. For ex-
ample, a load weighing 10, 000 Ibs. was recorded as 1, 000.
ITEM NO. 11. ADDRESS OF SOURCE The address from which
the source of waste originated was recorded in the blanks provided.
For example, if a contractor were wrecking a hotel building in the
3900 block on Farnam Street, "39th and Farnam, Omaha" was re-
corded. For city refuse vehicles, the approximate center of the
route was indicated.
ITEM NO. 12. TYPE OF MATERIAL The type of material being
delivered was indicated by recording one or more of the types of
material listed in one or more of the material spaces provided. If
a load was mixed and had a high percentage of some materials and
a low percentage of others, a rough approximation of the percent-
ages was recorded. For example, a load of bricks from a wrecking
job with some wood would have been recorded as follows:
TYPE OF MATERIAL,
Mat
39
1.
2.
'1
40
1
(
41
9
7c
42
0
Demolition
Demolition
Mat'l
43 44
2
- Mixed,
Mixed,
0
/
45
1
46
0
Mat'l % Mat'l
47 48 49 50 51 52
%
53 54
Non- Combust.
Combust.
In the case of a typical load from a City Refuse Packer Truck, "40.
Garbage and Kitchen Waste, Domestic", or "42. Mixed Trash and
Refuse Including Garbage" was indicated, but no attempt was made to
evaluate the percentage of any of the materials in the load. "6. Con-
struction Mixed" indicated any scrap materials or other materials
derived from the construction industry which did not fall into other
specific categories listed. "Ashes and Cinders" designated the normal
residue and clinkers from burning of coal and other combustibles as
opposed to "Fly Ash" which designated very fine, light material.
11-29
-------
ITEM NO. 13. COORDINATE. GOVERNMENT SUBDIVISION. AND
GEOGRAPHIC AREA The coordinate of the source of waste, the
government subdivision and geographic area were determined in
the office by the person processing the survey sheets. No entries
were made in spaces 55 through 66 by surveillance field personnel.
A map of the Study Area was divided into 1, 000 foot grids number-
ing south from a zero grid line (which ran east and west) at Latitude
42°00'00". Each grid line south of this zero grid represented a
1, 000' distance. West Dodge Road in the vicinity of Boys Town is
approximately 296, 000 ft. south of the zero grid and is referred to
as S296.
The other direction in the grid system was numbered west of a zero
grid line (which ran north and south) at Longitude 94000'00". Each
grid line west of this zero grid represents a 1, 000' distance. Seventy-
Second Street in Omaha is approximately 556, 000 feet west of the zero
grid and is referred to as W556.
The address of the source of a load which is explained above in Item
No. 11 was found on a grid map of the Study Area. This address was
converted to grid coordinates and listed in spaces 55 through 60
using the closest grid lines both south and west.
At the same time the address was coded for coordinates, the political
subdivision was recorded in spaces 6l through 63. A listing of the
political subdivisions which appeared during the survey is shown in
Figure 11-11.
The Study Area was also divided into geographic areas which were
land masses representing areas 15, 000 feet square in the urban areas
and 25, 000 ft. square in the rural areas. A further discussion per-
taining to geographic areas is found in Part III.
The landfill surveys were scheduled to avoid unusual conditions. Weeks con-
taining holidays were avoided. Whenever a holiday fell on or near a weekend
the surveys were delayed beyond the weekend to avoid recording accumulations
due to the holiday. Similarly, weather conditions were considered. Where
rain and wet weather became a possible factor, the survey in progress was
abandoned and restarted after the weather and site conditions had improved.
Each site survey covered a typical work week free of disruptive conditions.
2. Computer Programs
a.
__ General. In all of the programs certain terminology
is used which must be understood. The reader is cautioned to be certain the
nght data is selected and the right conditions and units are used. The termi-
nology is not difficult or profound; it is tedious. Reference will be made to
11-30
-------
computer programs by program designations A, B, C, D, E, F, etc.
For example: Program D, "As Received Quantities of Refuse by Type of
Vehicle and by Geographic Area" was produced in eight variations by sort-
ing the data into eight different groups or combinations. There was one
sort for each of the seven sites representing one week at each site and one
additional sort which produced the total for all sites. When sorted by the
entire week, the totals are per week. The week may be seasonally adjust-
ed to convert the raw data to a typical week, but in each case it is labeled
to reflect the true conditions. There are certain special cases where this
procedure is changed; but in each case the data is properly marked to re-
flect the true conditions.
Before any programs were run, all of the data was tested in specific test
programs to find potential errors. In total there were eight sorts for Pro-
gram A through N; one for each survey site and one for the total of all sites
for a final total of 112 sorts. All of the data is not reproduced in this re-
port because of the volume of material. Certain portions have been repro-
duced where appropriate. In general, the data reproduced is that showing
the total for all facilities for each program. The entire data is available
for interested persons.
Not all of the data in all of the sorts was used in the analysis of the problems
peculiar to this Study Area. In some cases the data was produced for the
benefit of researchers who may have use for the data not previously avail-
able. The various combinations of data in some cases were the result of
simply leaving a computer sub-program in a main program, and acquiring
basic data as a byproduct while obtaining certain required information.
We have tried to describe the data, how and under what conditions it was
gathered, and how it was adjusted, to make this information as useful as
possible to others with similar problems. We have attempted to produce
data and report exactly the source and conditions both for our use and for
the use of others as it may apply.
The basic surveillance data for Programs A through N was processed on an
IBM 360 Model 65 Computer with a 256K core storage locations memory.
The data was established on cards and then converted to magnetic tape for
processing.
The terms which are common to several programs are explained as follows:
(1) Cubic Yards as Received. These are the
cubic yards of material appearing in Columns 31-34 of the survey form. They
are not adjusted for seasonal or compaction factors. They are adjusted for
Condition of Material as indicated in Column 29 of the survey form.
11-31
-------
(2) Packer Truck Factor. When material is
delivered in a packer truck, the material is precompacted to the extent that
the material would have a greater unit weight and greater compaction than it
delivered loose The unit weights and compaction factors for each material
were assigned on the basis of loose material. When material is delivered
in a packer truck.the unit weight and the compaction factor are multiplied by
two. The weight is therefore, doubled to reflect the true weight in the truck
contents. In those programs where volumes are adjusted for compaction, the
volume in a packer truck is doubled.
(3) Pounds as Received. The same as
"Cubic Yards as Received" except the volume of each material on each
load was multiplied by the appropriate unit weight for that particular ma-
terial to convert from cubic yards to pounds. The unit weights used are
shown in Table II-8.
(4) Vehicles or Vehicles this Hour. This is
simply a count of the vehicles for the appropriate unit of time or type of
vehicle.
(5) Seasonal Factor Adjustment. A factor
was assigned to each material which would adjust the amount of material
received during the day or week to the average daily or 7-day rate which
would be experienced over the entire year. The factors are shown in Table
11-23.
(6) Compaction Factor Adjustment. A factor
was assigned to each material which would adjust the material received dur-
ing the day or week to reduce its volume "as received" to the volume which
it would occupy when mixed with other materials and was compacted into a
landfill. Cover dirt is not included. See Table 11-23.
(7) Condition of Material. The unusual con-
dition of waste delivered to the disposal facility was recorded in apace 29.
For example, in most wrecking jobs the refuse is usually piled in dump
trucks with a clam shell or front end loader. The Engineer evaluating these
survey sheets has taken this into account when assigning unit weights; a truck
load of waste from a wrecking job was hand loaded allowing much more than
the usual amount to be loaded in the truck, a very dense condition was indi-
cated by placing a "1" in space 29. Similarly, if a load of large cardboard
boxes were, loose and not in any way crushed or packed, a very loose condi-
tion was indicated by placing a "2" in space 29. Normally, no numbers ap-
pear in space 29. It was used only for the unusual condition.
11-32
-------
TABLE II-8. MATERIALS, SEASONAL FACTORS, COMPACTION
FACTORS AND UNIT WEIGHTS
Material
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
70
71
72
73
80
Seasonal
Factor
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
1. 0
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0. 1
0.6
1. 0
1. 5
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
0.8
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
0.8
2.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.3
Comp.
Factor
0.8
0. 7
0.8
0.6
0. 7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0. 5
0. 5
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0. 5
0.9
1. 0
1. 0
0. 9
0.3
0.3
0. 2
0.2
0. 7
0. 7
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0. 5
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
0. 1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0. 6
Unit Weight
(Loose)
2,400
600
2,430
2,430
2,560
1,620
2,300
2,430
810
675
675
320
270
675
675
320
270
54
218
1, 730
1, 090
1, 730
1,730
600
4, 644
400
60
1, 620
1,300
1, 130
540
950
1,220
2, 160
2,400
1,620
313
313
308
232
810
810
810
185
160
80
80
300
4, 050
1, 350
182
700
1, 200
216
540
1, 080
1, 620
1, 750
2, 200
1, 600
1, 600
950
Material
Demo-Mixed Non-Combustible
Demo -Mixed Combustible
Dirt, Sand or Gravel
Rock
Broken Pavement or Sidewalk
Construction Mixed
Street Sweepings
Catch Basin Cleanings
Wood
Logs 10 inch diameter and greater
Logs and stumps less than 10 inch.
Limbs and leaves chipped
Limbs and leaves not chipped
Elm logs 10-inch diameter and greater
Elm logs less than 10-inch
Elm limbs and leaves chipped
Elm limbs and leaves, not chipped
Brush
Grass and garden trimmings
Paunch manure
Pen sweepings
Other meat packing wastes
Poultry processing wastes
Dead animals
Slag
Tires and rubber products
Plastic
Oils, tars and asphalts liquid
Beans or grain wastes
Potato processing wastes
Other food processing waste
Fruits and vegetables
Ashes and cinders
Fly ash
Cement industry waste
Other fine particles
Garbage and kitchen waste Domestic
Garbage and kitchen waste Commercial
Mixed trash & refuse incl. garbage
Mixed trash & refuse No garbage
Incinerator residue Domestic
Incinerator residue, comm. 8c industrial
Incinerator residue, municipal
Paper and cardboard
Cans
Furniture combustible
Furniture
Major appliances
Heavy metal scrap
Light metal scrap
Wood Crates
Glass and bottles
Battery case and automotive
Automobile bodies
Wire
Chemical Waste, dry
Chemical waste, liquid or wet
Sewage Sludge Solids
Sewage grit
Sewage screenings
Sewage grease skimmings
Agricultural waste
H-33
-------
(8) Bulky. Bulky material was indicated
by recording the number "1" in space 30. Material not bulky was indica-
ted by leaving space 30 blank. Bulky material includes items as large as
or larger than a desk or refrigerator, and pieces greater than 12' long
other than a simple 2 x 4 or easily broken items. In general, items that
could not easily be crushed or broken with a small farm tractor are con-
sidered as bulky.
(9) All pounds as listed in Programs A
through N and shown in Tables II-9 through 22 are 100 pounds. Multiply
all pounds as listed by 100.
(10) Other terms are explained in the program
description where they are used.
b_. Computer Program A. "Quantity of Refuse by Disposal
Process and by Material Classification. " In this program materials were
sorted by material classification and by potential disposal process. Five
potential disposal processes were considered. Each load was examined by
the computer and compared to a set of instructions which determined if that
load could be accepted by the process. If it could, the load was recorded for
the process. If it could not, the load was recorded in the space next to that
process marked "To Landfill" or "Not for " as appropriate. For
example, a load of broken pavement would be accepted at a sanitary landfill
and so recorded. When considered for incineration, it would be rejected
and sent to "To Landfill". When considered for composting, it would be re-
jected and sent to "To Landfill. " As soon as one potential process was com-
pleted, the next process was considered. The load is included in all five
processes.
The Sanitary Landfill Process would accept all materials and is the same "As
Received CY'T and "As Received Pounds" except the cubic yards have been ad-
justed for compaction and seasonal variation, and the pounds have been adjust-
ed for seasonal variation only.
The Incineration Process All loads and each material content of a load were
checked to determine if the load could be accepted at an incinerator or should
be diverted to a sanitary landfill. Loads consisting of materials 2, 9, 11, 12,
13, 15 through 33; 40 through 44; 50, 52, 57, 59, 62, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 80,
would be accepted. Other loads containing less than 25% of the materials not
listed above would be accepted. All other loads would be diverted from the in-
cinerator to a sanitary landfill. On this basis, two sets of data were determined;
ie. , "To Incineration" and "To Landfill. " In each of these two main classifications
the material is shown in cubic yards and pounds. They are adjusted for seasonal
factor and for compaction factor, where appropriate.
11-34
-------
The Dry Landfill - All loads and each material content of a load were checked
to determine if the load could be dumped in a dry landfill site. This site
would be similar to a sanitary landfill but would be one which would not re-
quire the same degree of care in handling and covering to protect the communi-
ty from rats, odors, gases, unsightly refuse and insects. It could be a gulley
or low area in town where filling was desired. Material which could not be
dumped in a dry landfill would be diverted to a sanitary landfill site for disposal.
Loads consisting of materials 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 through 17 and 35, 36 and
37 would be accepted. All other loads would be diverted to a sanitary landfill.
On this basis, two sets of data were determined; i.e. "To Dry Landfill" and
"Not to Dry Landfill. " This latter set would be to Sanitary Landfill. In each
of these two main classifications, the material is shown in cubic yards and
pounds. They are adjusted for seasonal factor and for compaction factor, where
appropriate.
The Wet. Landfill - All loads and each material content of a load were checked
to determine if the load could be dumped in a wet landfill site. This site would
be similar to a worked out quarry where there was standing water or any other
site subject to ground water saturation where contamination of ground water
through leaching could occur. Material which could not be dumped into such a
wet landfill would be diverted to a sanitary landfill for disposal. Loads con-
sisting of Materials 1,3,4 and 5 would be accepted. All other loads would
be diverted to a sanitary landfill. On this basis, two sets of data were deter-
mined; i.e. , "To Wet Landfill" and "Not to Wet Landfill. " In each of these
two main classifications, the material is shown in cubic yards and pounds.
They are adjusted for seasonal factors and compaction factors where appro-
priate.
Program A was run for the totals for each facility; and the totals for all fa-
cilities. The totals for all facilities are shown in Table II-9.
c_. Computer Program B. "As Received" quantities of refuse
by vehicle and by hours of the day. In this program the "As Received" quanti-
fies are sorted by type of vehicle and by hours of the day. The program is
self-explanatory except to note that the quantities in both cubic yards and pounds
and the number of vehicles are not adjusted for seasonal or compaction factors.
This is true for all programs A through N, except for A, I, J and K which are
properly noted as being adjusted.
Program B was run for each facility and a total of all facilities. The run con-
taining all facilities is shown in Table 11-10.
H-35
-------
TABLE XE-9 COMPUTER PROGRAM A.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
QUANTITY OF REFUSE BY DISPOSAL PROCESS AND BY MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION, FOR ALL DAYS
HH
OJ
OV
-
COD
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9~
10
11
12
13
~ir
16
"17
IB
19
20
21
22
"24
25
26
?T
28
30
32
33
35
38
40
41
"42
43
44
45
46
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
SI
58
59
60
MATERIAL I
t DESCRIPTION
DEMD-MIXEO TON COMBUST
DIRT SAND OR GRAVEL
ROCK
CONSTRUCTION MIXED
STREET SHEEP INGS
CATCH BASIN CLEANINGS
HOOD
LOGS 10 INCH OIA & GREATER
" LOGS S STUMPS LESS THAN 10 IN
LIMBS S- LEAVES CHIPPED
LIMBS C LEAVES NOT CHIPPED
ELM LOGS LESS THAN 10 INCH
ELM LIMBS C LEAVES CHIPPED
"ELM LIMBS & LEAVES. NOT CHIP
BRUSH
GRASS C GARDEN TRIMMINGS
PAUNCH MANURE
PEN SHEEPINGS
OTHER HEAT PACKING HASTES
DEAD ANIMALS
TIRES I RUBBER PRODUCTS
OILS. TARS t ASPHALTS-LIQUID-
BEANS OR GRAIN HASTES
OTHER FOOD PROCESSING HASTE
FRUITS C VEGTABLES
ASHES S CINDERS
OTHER FINE PARTICLES
GARBAGE I KITCHEN HASTE -00(1-
CARBAGE C KITCHEN HASTE -CONL-
HIXED TRASH £ REFUSE- INCL GARB
MIXED TRASH t REFUSE -NO GARB-
' INCINERATOR RESIDUE -DOB-
INCINERATOR RESIDUE, CONL E IND
INCINERATOR RESIDUE, MUNICIPAL
PAPER t CARDBOARD
FURNITURE COMBUST.
"FURNITURE
MAJOR APPLIANCES
kEAVI METAL SCRAP
LIGHT METAL SCRAP
"WOO CRATES
GLASS C BOTTLES
BATTERY CASE ( AUTOMOTIVE
AUTOMOBILE BODIES
62 CHEMICAL HASTE. DRV
" 63 "CHEMICAL HASTE. LIO, OR HET
TO 5EHAGE SLUDGE SOLIDS
71 SEHAGE GRIT
72 SEMGE SCREENINGS
10 AGRICULTURAL HASTE
TOTALS
* ADJUSTFD FOP SEASONAL FACTORS
SANITARY LAND FILL
CU YDS** POUNDS*
93. 2800.
555.
20.
511.
147;
81.
148.
39.
11.
m.
104.
83.
8.
' ' 78."
48.
5O6.
2.
28.
32!
9.
36.
13-8.
25.
6.
393.
87.
135?I
4.
3.
1922.
I3IT —
32.
TKT~
46.
126.
145.
9ll
94.
11.
16.
33.
~ 197
17.
13.
13319.
16862.
806.
11826.
3747. "
2177.
2396.
767.
'527.
84.
1556.
14O3.
667.
- 25'29;
42.
840.
1048.
9187.
52.
64.
2559.
""11067"
190.
1433.
578.
1242.
479.
115.
4097.
912.
~46264r
15747.
" 96V
•48.
38.
17783.
~ TO'SO; -
128.
5651.
6514.
- 275i ;
706.
1260.
77.
430.
393.
~ 43f9; *
1090.
— 462 —
298.
213.
203727.
I
TO INCH
CU YDS*
6.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
284.
0.
78.
26.
571.
199.
208.
841.
75.
373.
41.
426.
3.
11.
0.
232.
294.
88.
44.
115.
3O.
0.
672.
153.
8336;
5096.
6.-
0.
O.
7654.
- —-96.
149.
'30V
13.
32.
"- 1363.
2.
104.
0.
53.
31.
0.
62.
'21.
15.
15.
29081.
INCINERATION
ERATQR TO LAND
POUNDS* CU YDS**
136. 89.
19.
0.
30.
0.
0.
2297.
0.
527.
84.
1541.
1340.
667.
2325.
41.
835.
1048.
91B7.
52.
6"*.
"Ib43.~~ "
190.
1433.
578.
1242.
418.
0.
4097.
912.
" 46232.
15421.
"' 0.
0.
0.
16997.
- 2T6.
-- •*£•
36.
516.
2667.
12.
1245.
0.
3931
— . " oV"
1090.
462.
242.
213.
118662.
20.
147.
81.
0.
0.
2.
5.
0.
23.
0.
I.
0.
0.
0.'
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
3.
6.
0.
2.
28.
"8.
4.
3.
85.
97.
2.
70.
44.
133.
23.
89.
1.
11.
"""3"",
0.
27.
0.
0.
3.
0.
3628.
FILL
POUNDS
806.
3747.
2177.
100.
0.
0.
15.
63.
0.
205.
1.
14.
0.
0.
0.
0.
64.
0.
0.
0.
61.
115.
0.
33.
326.
96.
48.
786.
" 774.
8.
282.
660.
5998.
85.
694.
15.
77.
" "144V
0.
4319.
0.
0*
56.
0.
85069.
I COMPOSTING I DRY LAND FILL 1 MET LAN
TO COMPOSING TO. LAND FILL HATl FOR DRV FILL NATL NOT FOR DRY LF HATL FOR WET FILL
CU YDS* POUNDS* CU YDS** POUNDS* CU YDS** POUNDS* CU YDS** POUNDS* CU YDS** POUNDS*
0.
0.
0.
257.
78.
6.
5 9.
1 1.
2 8.
8 5.
73.
362.
"41.
426.
3.
11.
0.
0.
C.
2.
35.
4.
0.
153.
8248.
4947.
0.
0.
7323.
0.
" 148.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1285.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
62.
is!
_2«92.
0.
0.
0.
2084.
527.
84.
1510.
6.
1292.
667.
2226.
40.
810.
1O46.
9187.
52.
64.
0.
0.
0.
34.
373.
41.
0.
4097.
912.
45782.
15050.
0.
0.
0.
16143.
0.
119.
0.
2.
0.
15.
2467.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1090.
462.
242.
213.
106551.
20.
147.
81.
19.
0.
C.
- 5...
6.
0.
34.
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
26.
55.
32.
9.
33.
97.
23.
6.
O.
0.
31.
60.
e.
4.
3.
177.
131.
2.
76.
'-" 46.
126.
144.
76.
91.
94.
n_
16.
33.
27.
0.
0.
3.
0.
4326.
806.
3747.
2177.
312.
0.
C.
46.
I"- „
0.
302.
39!
0.
0.
c.
0.
2559.
1106.
190.
1433.
544;"
869.
436.
115.
0.
~ 0.
483.
696. ~
S6.
48.
36.
•164C.
1049.
306.
696.
5651.
6499.
285.
706.
1260.
77.
430.
393i~
4319.
0.
0.
56.
C.
95202.
32.
0.
163.
87.
0.
77.
23-
527.
207.
206.
901.
0.
0.
0.
0.
oY —
0.
0.
0.
o; —
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
°."_
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
_0_I _
0.
6. -
0.
0.
. 0.
.„ 460.3,
7S2.
0.
3747.
2117.
0.
517.
72.
1423.
1397.
667."
2486.
6.
0.
0.
0.
" 0.
0.
-— 0~
0.
0.
0.
— _._
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
oV"
0.
0.
0.
— "bV~
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
55464.
6.
1.
9.
511.
0.
2.
146.
0.
1.
2.
15.
0.
0.
5.
8.
78.
4B.
506.
" " 2.
8.
"28.
55.
32.
_ 9.
138.
25." "
6.
393,
3004.
1358V
6.
4.
3.
1923. "
77.
46.
126.
145. -
756.
- - -9U
94.
11.
16,
27.
56"; ~~
19.
17.
1.0443.
24l 32
1182 . 0
163
6 . 87
239 . 0
1 . 0
1 . 0
13 . 0
0
4 . 0
4 ". 0
846. 0
1048. 0
9187. 0
52. ' 0
64. 0
—2559. - - -- Q
1106. 0
190. 0
1433. 0
578. "0
1242. 0
" 479. "0
TTT. o"
4097. 0
"912*.
46266.
96.
48.
36.
17784. "
1050.
128.- "
306.
69V.
5651.
" 6514."
2751.
706. "
1260.
77.
430.
393.
4319.
4621
298.
213.
146287. __231«
16643,
7b2.
0.
3747.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0."
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6V
0.
0.
0.
""o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
BY
0.
0.
6.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
" 0.
0.
-Q.
0.
0.
0.
45092.
D FILL I
HATL HOT FOR UET LF
CU YDS** POUNDS*
1C. 285.
235. 2012.
7. 220,
1. 24.
511.
C.
2.
148.
57.
39.
11.
173.
104.
83.
281.
8.
78.
48.
506.
2.
8.
28. '
55.
. 32.
9.
36.
138.
25".'
r. —
393.
" " 87.
3004.
~" 1358.
8.
4.
3.
1923.
131.
" 32T
77.
46.
126.
756!
91.
94.
11.
16.
33. '
27.
56.
19.
17.
13.
11387.
11826.
0.
60.
2396.
767.
527.
84.
1556.
1403.
667.
2529.
42.
848.
•1O48.
9187.
52.
64.
2559.
1106.
190.
1433.
" -578.
1242. .
479.
115.
4097.
"912.
46266.
15747.'
96.
4a.
38.
17784.
1050.
"128.
306.
697.
5651.
' 6514.
2751.
'706.
1260.
77.
430.
393.
4319.
1090.
462.
298.
213.
158659.
** ADJUSTED FOR SEASONAL AND COMPACTION FACTORS
-------
TABLE H -IO COMPUTER PROGRAM B.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY TYPE OF VEHICLE,AND BY HOURS OF THE DAY, FOR ALL DAYS
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
HOI*
C
IOC
200
30C
400
ISA
6CC
7CO
600
9CO
10CO
1100
1200
1300
1400
I SCO
1600
1708
1800
1900
2CCO
2100
2200
y TOTALS
I AVERAGE
OJ PER
-J VEHICLE
TIME
0
100
200
300
400
600
700
800
900
1000
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
HOP
laoo
1900
2000
2100
2200
3300
I
CU.YDS
0.
Q,
16.
~68l"
26.
44.
~" 586.
710.
1198.
1513.
1943.
111S,.
1405.
883.
475.
158.
16.
16.
16.
16.
12602.
J6,_
. _CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
319.
741.
704.
831.
._ 753.
798.
803.
866.
896.
657.
431.
97.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PACKER
POUNDS
0.
0.
59.
295.
121.
232.
... 1581^
3494.
. .. 4431,
7449.
9553.
11464.
. 10484.
8220.
4927*
3980.
1469.
_4.3JU
74.
7?,.
108.
99.
78572.
IOU
FLAT BED
POUNDS
0.
C.
C.
0.
c.
c..
0.
1206.
451C.
3351.
5005.
.4877,.
3857.
4383.
5402.
4312.
3343.
165.9...
253.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. .
I DUMP
f VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS
0.
0.
1.
2.
5.
3.
. - 19,
35.
44.
76.
91.
122.
104.
88.
.... 8.6,
56.
29.
10.
4.
1.
i...
1.
1.
781.
0.
J XEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
49.
41.
56.
~52!""
51.
52.
57.
47.
__ . 26.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. . 0...
0. 0.
46. 101.
50. 115.
92. 207.
53. 230.
55_. 244..
dO. 685.
78. 335.
472. 5877.
541. 7204.
638. 10551.
676. 11731.
453. 5162.
571. 7766.
651. 7304.
. 598, 7312.
2 US. 4607.
164. 1695.
16. 430.
3. 7.
10. 77.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
I
f VEHICLES CU YDS
0.
5.
8.
11.
9.
. . 9.
10.
10.
58.
70.
71.
83.
55.
65.
82.
74,
32.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
5578. 71747. 674.
o. 106. 0.
PICK UP I
CU YDS POUNDS » VEHICLES
C. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
C. 0.
25. 107.
204. 734.
478. 2072.
668. 2946.
9«3. «SS.
6*2. 2794.
612. 2421.
693. 2873.
844. 3512.
693. 3268.
105. 238.
7. 16.
9. 22.
C. 0.
0. 0.
7. 115.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
c.
3.
42.
108.
139.
201..
128.
139.
144.
180.
143.
19.
2.
2.
0.
7.
1.
C.
0.
C.
0.
c.
JL.
7.
72.
300.
3!2.
606.
sal.
281.
309.
545.
572.
469.
.24.
5.
21.
6.
19.
C.
0.
4019.
14.
CU YDS
C.
0.
0.
C.
C.
C.
0.
0.
4.
19.
37.
49.
46.
64.
47.
60,
47.
32.
2.
0.
1.
Ill
C.
VAN
POUNDS 1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0. .
16.
133.
643.
745.
1612.
. 1181.
613.
594.
1428.
1395.
1950.
129.
48.
15.
36.
0.
_ ._ ... a.
10601.
35.
AUTO
POUNDS . f
0.
. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I.
13.
43.
108.
128.
178.
116*^
132^
94.
14.
U_
2.
~2.
1.
VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.. .
2.
5.
17.
27.
49.
38.
21.
19.
36.
40.
35.
5.
1.
1.
1.
2.
0.
299.
0.
VEHICLES
0.
Q.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
10.
37.
56.
78.
69.
92.
78.
98.
80.
54.
8.
2,
2.
2.
1.
1.
I L16HT TRAILER I HEAVY TRAILER 1
CU YDS POUKOi » VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS f VEHICLES
C.
C.
C.
0.
c.
c.
0.
5.
t.
42.
24.
45...
69.
B3._
40.
15.
0.
0. .
0.
. 0. ._.
0.
o.
0.
. .0.
19.
. 13.
228.
118.
142.
_Z3S»_
191.
.277.
3. 6.
c. . _ n.
C. 0.
C. Oj
C. 0.
C. 0.
362.
I
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
44.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
_ .0,
1.
0.
1476.
0.
.a.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
0. ..
3.
. 3..
9.
10.
9.
14.
18.
._ .24. .
13.
6-
2.
. _ 0.
0.
Jit
0.
0.
111.
13. 0.
TRANSFER VEHICLE
. POUNDS 1 VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
- .0,
0.
. . .a.
0.
0, . .
0.
o.
0.
182.
_ 1.41.-
131.
187.
9.
146.
263.
143.
71.
83.
12.
0.
0.
... 0.. _
0.
1390.
29.
I
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
29.
16.
. . .0,.
10.
24.
0.
21.
0.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0... .
0.
0.
0.
0. .
0.
o.
0.
39.
231.
70S.
257.
463.
20.
279.
883.
280.
179.
159.
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(J.
3526.
73.
OTHER
POUNDS 1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. .. 0. .
0.
0.
324.
462.
259.
0,
154.
319.
0.
345.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. 0*.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
..... -0.. .
0.
1.
3.
4.
3.
5.
1.
5.
9.
6.
6.
4.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0... ..
48.
0.
I
VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
OJL
0.
0.
1.
3.
1.
0.
1.
3.
0.
1.
0.
... 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TOTALS
AUCBACC
6431. 26846.
1339.
-------
d. Computer Program C - "As Received" quantities of refuse
by type of vehicle and by political subdivision. This program is the same as
Program B except that the political subdivision is substituted for hours of the
day. The political (governmental) subdivision is found in Columns 61, 62 and
63 of the survey form. The run containing all facilities is shown in Table
II - 11.
•e. Computer Program D "As Received" quantities of refuse
by type of vehicle and by geographic area. This program is the same as the
previous Program C except that the geographic area is substituted for the Po-
litical Subdivision. The geographic area was calculated by the computer from
coordinates inserted into the computer program.
The run containing the total for all facilities is shown in Table 11-12.
f. Computer Program E - "As Received" quantities of refuse
by type of hauler and by hours of the day. This program determines the cubic
yards, pounds and number of vehicles for each individual hauler that comes
into a site by the hours of the day. The run containing the total for all sites is
shown in Table 11-13.
j*. Computer Program F - "As Received" quantities of refuse by
type of hauler and by type of vehicle. This program is the same as Program E
except that type of vehicle is substituted for hours of the day. In this program
the "As Received" quantities are sorted by type of hauler and by type of vehicle.
The totals are the same as Program E. The run containing the total for all
sites is shown in Table 11-14.
h. Computer Program G - "As Received" quantities by type of
hauler and by political subdivision. This program is the same as Program F
except that political subdivision is substituted for the type of vehicle. This
program determines the "As Received" quantities by type of hauler and by po-
litical (governmental) subdivision found in Columns 6l, 62 and 63 of the survey
form.
The totals are the same as the programs E and F. The run containing the total
for all facilities is shown in Table 11-15.
!_• Computer Program H - "As Received" quantities of refuse
by type of hauler and by geographic area. This program is the same as Pro-
gram G except that the geographic area is substituted for political subdivisions.
This program determines the "As Received" quantities by the type of hauler and
by geographic area found in Columns 64, 65 and 66. The run containing the
total for all facilities is shown in Table II-16.
11-38
-------
TABL-E n-ll COMPUTER PROGRAM C.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY TYPE OF VEHICLE, AND BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, FOR ALL DAYS
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
DESCRIPTION
I PACKER I DUMP I I VAN I LIGHT TRAILER I HEAVY TRAILER I
CU YDS POUNDS f VEHICLES CD YDS POUNDS I VEHICLES CD YDS POUNDS t VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS t VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS I VEHICLES
H
I
00
1 OMAHA
2 RALSTON
3 1RVINGTON
4 BENNINGTON
8 WATERLOO
9 ELKHORN
11 HILLARD
12 COUNCIL BLUFFS
13 CARTER LAKE
15 CRESENT
IB LAKE KANAKA
19 MINOEN
27 MACEDONIA
33 BELVIEW
34 SAC
35 PAPILLION
37 LAVISTA
41 GRETNA
44
50 DOUGLAS COUNTY
51 SARPY COUNTY
52 POTTAHATTAMIE COUNTY
TOTALS
AVERAGE
PER
VEHICLE
"CODE
1
2
3
4
8
9
11
12
13
15
19
27
33
34
35
41
«A
50
"52
9291.
126.
~ 20.
0.
0.
186.
1570.
52.
0.
32.
0.
0.
12.
1.24.
0.
32.
0.
. ..0.
1107.
34.
16.
12602.
CU YDS
5521.
18.
35.
0.
5.
0.
105.
641.
167.
0.
1.
1.
38.
255.
118.
0.
0.
1.
703.
239.
~ 19.
58551.
690.
0.
123.
0.
0.
1140.
8826.
320.
0.
206.
0.
0.
56.
755.
0.
173.
0.
0.
7444.
190.
99.
78572.
101.
FLAT BED
POUNDS 1
26555.
41.
379.
0.
11.
0.
396.
3867.
433.
0.
0.
C.
0.
70.
2139.
1138.
0.
0.
0.
6096.
952.
10.
570.
8.
0.
2.
0.
0.
12.
94.
3.
0.
2.
0.
0.
1.
12.
0.
2.
0.
0.
71.
3.
1.
781.
0.
I
VEHICLES
344.
1.
2.
0.
1.
0.
6.
51.
B.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
16.
12.
0.
0.
0.
49.
14.
1.
3601.
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1569.
12.
0.
0.
0.
0.
19.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
344.
0.
0.
5558.
8.
I
CU YDS
2841.
34.
11.
11.
0.
0.
40.
2950.
11.
3.
13.
0.
0.
67.
0.
24.
J6..
0.
0.
258.
116.
35.
43506.
0.
15.
0.
0.
0.
0.
21883.
22.
0.
0.
0.
0.
230.
0.
0.
13.
b.
0.
6025.
0.
0.
71693.
107.
PICK UP
POUNDS 1
11822.
105.
32.
24.
0.
0.
434.
11321.
21.
84.
21.
0.
0.
264.
0.
160.
72.
1.
0.
1604.
760.
112.
451.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
170.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
46.
0.
0.
672.
0.
VEHICLES
553.
6.
1.
2.
C.
0.
9.
641.
2.
1.
3.
0.
C.
15.
0.
7.
3.
1.
0.
61.
25.
9.
2229.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
571.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
26.
14.
2.
0.
0.
157.
66.
1.
4069.
14.
I
CU YDS
S3.
0.
0.
0.
_ _. o.
1.
2.
253.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
i.
0.
6.
0.
0.
42.
3.
5.
7441.
24.
0.
0.
0.
0.
11.
2295.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
80.
46.
7.
0.
C.
493.
191.
1.
10601.
35.
AUTO
POUNDS
240.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
.. 5,
742.
0.
0.
0.
0.
" ••- -^—
1.
17.
2.
0.
0.
193.
7.
16.
222.
2.
C.
C.
C.
0.
2.
47.
1.
C.
C.
c.
c.
0.
3.
2.
1.
C.
C.
12.
6.
1.
2SS.
0.
1 VEHICLES
166.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
_ 3.
393.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
1.
16.
1.
0.
0.
69.
9.
a.
82.
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
243. "
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
i.
i.
0.
0.
13.
0.
6.
362.
3.
282.
0.*
14.
"0."
0.
0.
0.
" 994.
13.
0.
0.
0.
0.
96.
0.
1.
10.
0.
0.
52.
0.
14.
1476.
13.
24.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
75.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
5.
0.
1. "
111.
0.
I TRANSFER VEHICLE
CU YDS POUNDS * VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
- .. 0.
0.
0.
44.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
80.
0.
0.
0.
c.
c.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
c.
0.
e.
c.
1.
c.
c.
922.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
347.
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
91.
0.
0.
1390.
29.
I
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
o, .
0.
0.
21.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
u.
98.
0.
0.
2754.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
531.
74.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
"0. '
0.
168.
0.
0.
3526.
73.
OTHER
POUND S I
0.
U.
0.
u.
0.
c.
0.
270.
0.
0.
u.
0.
c.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
159^.
0.
0.
40.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
1.
0.
0.
~ c". '
c.
c.
0.
0.
0.
o".
0.
3.
0.
0.
c.
1
VEHICLES
0.
0.
u.
0.
0.
u.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
B.
0.
0.
-------
SEOtBAPHIC. AREA
TABUE 31-12 COMPUTER PROGRAM D.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY TYPE OF VEHICLE, AND BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA, FOR ALL DAYS
I PACKER I DUMP I _ VAN I_ LIGHT-TRAILER I HEAVY.-TRAILER _ I
~ cu YDS 'POUNDS * VEHICLES cu YDS POUNDS * VEHICLES cu YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES cu YDS POUNDS i" VEHICLES cu YDS POUNDS (VEHICLES
2 0.
3 20.
6 0.
7 0.
B 388.
9 32.
10 0-
12 0.
13 _ . _ Q.
14 0.
15 310.
16 1237.
17 1096.
18 120.
19 2620.
20 1353.
21 614.
22 158.
24 0.
25 632.
26 446.
27 678.
28 1075.
29 12.
30 13.
31 27.
36 0.
38 10.
35 124.
40 0.
41 ... 0_. _
118 0.
136 0.
137 32.
138 384.
139 1154.
142 32.
143 16.
TOTALS 12602.
AVERAGE
PER 1*.
VEHICLE
0.
123.
0.
0.
2322.
173.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1821.
7351.
6401.
688.
12716.
928.
0.
4502.
2826.
3706.
7105.
56.
60.
142.
0.
0.
0.
62.
755.
0.
0.
0.
0.
200.
2357.
6269.
0.
206.
99.
78573.
101.
0.
2.
0.
0.
24,_.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
21.
78.
68.
8.
_ .162-
79.
39.
11.
0.
40.
28.
40.
65.
1.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
1.
12.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
24.
68.
0.
2.
1.
781.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
27.
0.
a.
0.
0.
33.
186.
1330.
245.
1232.
105.
115.
204.
0.
100.
31.
0.
346.
14.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.
5.
0.
0.
0.
o..
57.
728.
759.
0.
27.
0.
5558.
8.
. 0..
0.
0.
0.
234.
0.
15.
0.
0.
0.
382.
3474.
18240.
569.
13950.
924.
1471.
4247.
0.
1208.
549.
0.
4283.
227.
0.
0.
13.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
891.
8844.
11896.
0.
275.
0.
71694.
107.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
a.
0.
5.
29.
149.
32.
149.
14.
17.
24.
0.
15.
4.
0.
55.
1.
Q-...
0.
i.
0.
. o._:
0.
.. i. .
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
74.
89.
0.
2.
0.
672.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
5.
0.
a.
__ o- .
0.
57.
70.
773.
4.
1648.
352.
110.
15.
0.
59.
125.
87.
85.
0.
49.
2.
14.
0.
0.
0.
26.
0.
8.
0.
0.
27.
215.
329.
1.
0.
25.
4089.
14.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1C.
0.
0.
0.
0.
160.
123.
1671.
10.
3373.
1252.
231.
137.
c.
153.
365.
256.
216.
0.
147.
7.
0.
0.
0.
8C.
C.
15.
0.
C.
82.
1120.
1C93.
1.
0.
46.
1C601.
35.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
9.
33.
1.
117.
23.
13.
4.
0.
5.
9.
13.
0.
4.
1.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
1.
0.
0.
2.
22.
23.
1.
0.
1.
299.
0.
a.
0.
0.
c.
e.
2.
5.
0.
C.
c.
3.
15".
10.
4.
25.
6.
5.
15.
0.
0.
3.
4.
G.
6.
0.
1.
1.
0.
c.
0.
0.
2.
0.
c.
6.
1C.
123.
109.
0.
6. "
0.
362.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
17.
4.
14.
0.
0.
0.
8.
42.
26.
13.
135.
10. "
13.
57.
0.
0.
7.
14.
0.
89.
0.
10.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
14.
70.
558.
366.
0.
0.
0.
1476.
13.
0.
0.
0.
6.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
3.
3.
1.
6.
3.
3.
0.
0.
3.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
4.
36.
35.
0.
0.
0.
111.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
89.
"o."
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
18.
246.
24.
454.
36.
22.
o!
0.
85.
12.
57.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
347.
0.
o;
0.
1390.
29.
0.
0.
0.
0.
164.
_ -flv .....
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
44;
1407.
57.
900.
50.
' "o. •--
0.
0.
155.
30.
123.
o;
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
" «.•--•
0.
0.
531.
0.
0.
0.
3526.
73.
0.
o. -
0.
0.
1.
b.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
9.
2.
19.
" 2.
3.
0.
0.
0.
2.
1.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
o. '-
0.
" " 0.
0.
" 0".
0.
4.
0.
0.
0.
46.
0.
-------
TAB
FLAT BED I
CCOSRAMUC AftEA CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YDS
2 0. 0. 0.
3 0.
6 0.
7 25.
B 244.
9 12.
10 35.
12 5.
JLJ_ °. .
14 14.
15 82.
16 397.
17 1003.
18 175.
19 2399.
20 " 539.
-21- -_**2.
H 22 174.
25 172.
i 24 . «V _
27 154.
28 626.
29 0.
30 241.
31 15.
32 55.
36 0.
37 63.
38 0*
39 244.
40 12-
41 0.
118 0.
136 0'
137 W"
138 279.
139 209.
149 .„;•
142 BO-
143 °-
TOTALS
7899.
AVERA6E
PER
VEHICLE 16.
0.
0.
" 405.
866.
33.
379.
11.
0.
230.
982.
1930.
3690.
453.
11889.
3091.
2327.
1917.
0.
1250.
713.
3099.
0.
882.
88.
220.
0.
917.
0.
1947.
191.
0.
0.
0.
431.
1829.
1214.
0.
"259. "-
0.
42157.
83.
0.
0.
1.
15.
1.
2.
1.
0.
I.
8.
29.
60.
9.
138.
38.
35.
'13.
0.
7.
"11.
34.
"0.
12.
2.
5.
0.
7.
0.
15.
1.
0.
0.
0.
7.
24.
17.
0.
3.
0.
SOB.
0.
5.
11.
7.
5.
68.
10.
11.
0.
5.
2.
1C5.
352.
664.
43.
634.
355.
177.
63.
8.
1OO.
68.3.
120.
377.
36.
75.
41.
23.
0.
4.
6.
0.
32.
0.
3.
3.
177.
1341.
1413.
Oj.
42.
25.
6429.
5.
L.E XI -12 COMPUTER PROGRAM
PAGE 2
PICK UP I AUTO - I
POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
1C.
24.
16.
10.
35Q». . ..
22.
32.
0.
25.
5.
606.
1473.
2564.
154.
2375.
1859.
476.
720.
29.
985.
351.
435.
1523.
96.
494.
266.
186.
1.
9.
17.
169.
0.
84.
10.
653.
5059.
5515.
0.
172.
26847.
20.
1.
2.
~~1.
15- ...
2.
1.
0.
3.
2.
29.
72.
125.
6.
..120.
68.
32.
14.
2.
24.
15.
24.
75. _
6.
15.
8.
7.
1.
1.
2.
1.
9.
0.
1.
1.
45.
304.
288.
0.
9.
7.
1339.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0.
0. 0..
C. 0.
2. 6.
5. 49.
1. 1.
0.
1.
2.
24.
4.
1.
2l!
16.
0.
a.
7.
5.
2.
1.
2.
2.
4,.
C.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
67.
90.
97.
2.
1.
1.
409.
1.
0.
2.
5.
51.
63.
11.
1.
3l"'
54.
88.
0.
23.
18.
12.
5.
2.
5.
4.
0.
4.
0.
1.
3.
0.
1.
1.
144.
320.
282.
9.
1.
1.
1231.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
a.
2.
0.
1.
3.
40.
42.
11.
3.
20.
16.
32.
23.
0.
12.
11.
7.
1.
6.
5.
12.
O.
2.
0.
1.
2-.
0.
1.
1.
102.
145.
146.
4.
1.
1.
671.
0.
O.
TRANSFER VEHICLE I
CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
44.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
44.
44.
0.
o o o o o c
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ao.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
80.
80.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
b.
0.
98.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
p.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
21.
0.
0.
0.
119.
12.
OTHER I
POUNDS * VEHICLES
0. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1592.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
270.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1863.
186.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O O O O O CD
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
" 0. "
2.
0.
0.
0.
o>.
10.
0.
-------
TABLE XL-13 COMPUTER PROGRAM E.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY TYPE OF HAULER.AND BY HOURS OF THE DAY, FOR ALL DAYS
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
GENERAL CONTMCTOK I URECKING CONTRACTOR I ELM THEE REMOVAL I
cu YDS POUND; « VEHICLES cu vos POUNDS t VEHICLES cu YDS POUNDS i VEHICLES
COM. HAULER - DOHESIIC I
CU YDS POUNDS I VEHICLES
Com. HAULER - COMMERCIAL I COM. HAULER - INDUSTRIAL I
CU YDS POUNDS * VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
*••
tN)
0
ICC
2GO
301:
400
5jQO
6CO
7CC . . .. . . _ .
900
loco
1100
1200
1400
16CO
1700
1800
.1900 _.
20CO
21CC
22CO
2300
TOTALS
AVERAGE
PER
VEHICLE
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0, 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
JO, . 123. 1.
2C8. 3386. 20.
178. .2824. 21.
277. 5209. 29.
ISO. 2652. 22.
.. ... 20.3.,. _ .3053. . . 22.
264. 3079. 24.
195. 2809. 28.
84. 1122. 8.
23. 559. 2.
0. 0. 0.
o. 6. o.
0. 0. 0.
1. 1. 0.
0. 0. 0.
2158, _ .32117. _ 232,
q- ~ i"38> ' 0-
I COMMERCIAL I INDUSTRIAL
_JIHE_SIL TBS POUNDS UttHJCLE.S.___CU JfflS__PWHlS. « VEHICLES
0 0. 0.
log. 8. . 19...
2OO 4. 9.
200 a. 20.
400 4. 7.
600 19. 252.
_JOJJ L85*. 889. _ _
BOO 523. 1060.
9.00. JS65,_ _255.L.
1000 727. 3279.
1100 793. 3268.
1200 367. 1339.
_1300 52.L. 2»St«
1400 729. 2947.
1500 Sifti 391S.
1600 403. 21C6.
1700 153. 1530.
1SOO 43. 145.
1900 21. 48.
2000 0. 0.
2100 10. 19.
2200 0. 0.
23OO a. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0, 0,
1. 0. 0. 0.
i. o, q. p.
1. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
4. 5. 81. 1.
8. 4. 65. 1.
31. 401. 1670. 20.
46, 186. 1117.. _15.
64. 435. 2284. 30.
61. 418. 1635. 25.
34. 136. 903. 11.
34» _272-. 10J39J 12-_
47. 202. 986. 15.
J8,^_ 2M- 16.79. J6._
30. 98. 364. 5.
14. 3- 6. 1.
5. 18. 32. 1.
0. 0. 0. 0.
1. 0. 0. 0.
D. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0.
0. O. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. O. 0.
0. 0. .
0. 0.
35. 553.
53. 718.
53. 794. 1 .
45. 845.
49. 1004. .
16. 208.
44. 663. .
. 5. ._... 76. ... _ .
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. .
0. 0. .
0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
410. 6491. 60.
0.
.o._
0.
_Q._
0.
0.
0.
.._»•
88.
114.
194.
332.
441.
230.
102.
0.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
2149.
7. 108. 0.
I PUBLIC - DOMESTIC
CU YDS POUNDS i VEHICLES
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0." '0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
80. 474 5.
104. 671 8.
199. 1374 13.
104. 629 8.
142. 1091 10.
144. 880 9.
167. 1003 13.
._.. *l, *« 3-
0. 0 0.
4. 7 1.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0. 0 0.
0.
c,
0.
- .. 0-
c.
c.
c.
. .. '.
30t.
575.
693.
1353.
1645.
812.
454.
0.
0.
77.
0.
0.
0.
8744.
0.
_. - 0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
11
14
21
"14
7
0
0
" 1
0
0
0
148
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
188.
332.
1202.
1800.
1264.
925;
lie.
32.
0.
0.
6.
0.
9948.
IS. 59. 0. 12.
I PUBLIC - CONHE8CIAL I
CU YDS POUNDS < VEHICLES CU
-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
18.
80.
0.
13.
39.
37.
0.
47.
9.
-0.
P-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6.
0.
0.
0.
430.
345.
0.
186.
319.
437.
0.
619.
19.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
5.
0.
2.
3.
4.
0.
6.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 36. 82. 4. 0 0. 0.
""0. 0. 62. 165. 6. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 116. 325. 12. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 117. 517. 13. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 81. 365. 11. 0 0. 0.
6. 0. 107. 600. 10. 0 O. 0.
685. 9. 364. 1459. 28. 0 0. 0.
1551. 35. 735. 3313. 62. 108 472. 3.
6584. 104. 638. 2457. 55. 22 614. 2.
9691. 133. 645. 2366. 54. 38 196. 3.
6224. 108. 701. 3123. 60. 0 0.0.
4783." 92^ 646. 2384. 49. 12 191." 1.
197. Z. 38. 247. 4. 0 0. 0.
C. 0. 22. 89. 2. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 25. 96* 2. 0 0. 0.
' "0. " TV" — 29. 109. 1. 0 0. 0.
0. 0. 16. 99. 1. 0 0. D.
51336. 847. 7562. 32540. 621. 293. 2798. 19.
61. D. 12. 52. 0. 15. 147. 6.
PUBLIC .- INDUSTRIAL I OTHER PUBLIC VEHICLE .1 PRIVATE CITIZEN - DOMESTIC. I
YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS f VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
0. C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
o. o. 6. o. d. o. o. "o; o.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 55. 182. 5.
0. 0. 0. 240. 3624. 32. 104. ~ 3O51 29.
0. C. C. 252. 4002. 31. 301. 1156. 99.
1. 1. 1. 345. 6203. 40. 428. 1786. 142.
11. 20. 1. 329. 7117. 40. 742. 3101. 218.
0. 0. 0. 177. 2237. 19. 462. 2052. 149.
0. G. 0. 260. 4196. 33. 474. 1546. 188.
0. 0. 0. 383. 5095. 47. 447. 1601. 165.
9. 24. 1. 335. 4753. 46. 556. 1850. 213.
0. 0. 0. 118. 2564. " "13; "467. "1872." 170".
0. 0. 0. 9. 165. 2. 351. 1232. 115.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 73. 185. 20.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. i. 11. 3.
0. 0. C. 0. 0. 0. 10. 24. 4.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 2.
0. C. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7. 116. 2.
5749. 263C1.
303."
-------
TABLE 31-14 COMPUTER PROGRAM
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
F.
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE
BY TYPE OF HAULER AND
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
BY TYPE OF VEHICLE, FOR ALL DAYS
VEHICLE TYPE
CPPf DESCRIPTION
1 PACKER
2 DUMP
3 VAN
4 LIGHT TRAILER
5 HEAVY TRAILER OR SEHI
6 FLAT BED OR STAKE _
T PICKUP
1 AUTO OR STATION VAGON
9 TRANSFER VEHICLE
10 OTHER
TOTALS
- HH AVERAGE
' . M PER
' VEHICLE
W
I CMNERCIAL
CDOC CU »S POUNDS 1
1 704 7597
2 393 3720
3 1906 39(6
17 76
434 939
1543 6724
636 2188
2 7
44 60
10 59 961
5739. 26276.
I
_. - ._
-
VEHICLES
41
55
109
4
11
90
2
1
5
435.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR I HRECKING CONTRACTOR I ELK TREE REMOVAL I
CU YDS . POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YOS POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS 1 VEHICLES
*•
36.
794.
6
18
1010
263
0
0
0
2158.
9.
CU YDS
434.
S*6.
7.
363.
317.
0.
0.
41.
2467.
234.
15276.
89.
287.
12239.
3524.
0.
0.
0.
32117.
2.
85
6
1
1
80
57
0
0
0
232.
138. 0.
INDUSTRIAL ' i
POUNDS « VEHICLES CU
3011
1772
100
1144
1634
0
0
_5?>
11630.
47
24
1
7
20
0
o
3
153.
25. *
148.
0.
0
0
157
79
0
0
0
410.
2646.
0.
0
0
2792
* " 871 ~
0
0
0
6491.
2 25.
23 301.
0 252.
0 3.
0 0.
20 1464.
15 104: -
° 0.
0 0.
0 0.
60. 2149.
7. 108. 0.
15.
PUBLIC - DOMESTIC I PUBLIC
YDS POUNDS f VEHICLES CU YOS
19.
0.
0.
0.
29.
0.
0.
0.
967.
393
0
0
0
362
0
0
0
6546.
3. 67.
0. 0.
0. 8.
0. 0.
2. 16.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
70. 243.
135.
1446.
780.
o!
6002.
362.
1.
0.
0.
6744.
59.
- COMNEI
POUNDS
1599.
0.
17.
— "o.
41.
igr
0.
0.
0.
2355.
1
28
14
1
0
85
18
1
0.
0.
148. ,
0.
tCIAL I
t VEHICLES
9.
0.
1.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
23.
COW. HAULER - DOMESTIC I COML HAULER - COMMERCIAL I CONL HAULER - INDUSTRIAL I
CU YDS POUNDS. _ f VEHICLES . CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS f VEHICLES
6558. 40033.
98. 260._
•111" ~ "25l"~ ~
1342. 4833.
1625. 5168.
2- 2. .
0. 0.
o. _o.___
9948. 51336.
12. . 61.
405. 34S4.
10. 1124.
1. 427.
81. 1280.
327. 470.
I- ._ _ Q.
0. 0.
p. J).
647. 7552.
.0. 12.
20019.
3613.
_ 7.
896.
4763.
1460.
0.
0.
32509.
52.
226
139
2
23
77 .. _
79
0
0
0
_6?0 .
0.
44.
41.
56.
0.
89.
30.
12.
0.
0.
19.
15.
PUBLIC - INDUSTRIAL I OTHER PUBLIC VEHICLE I PRIVATE
CU YQS POUNDS I VEHICLES CU. YDS __J"9MND5 f JEHICLES, __CU YDS.
0
0
. 0
0
* 24
1 . 20
. 1
0
0. 0
2_q. . 45.
0. 0.
0. 2060.
0. 55.
0. 0.
0. 0.
1. - 2*1*
1. 53.
1. 0.
C. 0.
0. 0.
3,_ 2449.
0.
93.
0.
0.
686.
411.
0.
" b.
39975.
0
262
3
0
14
24
0
0
0
303.
0
57
175
315
29
441
3066
403
0
0
4486.
917. 3.
702. 4.
106. 2.
0. 0.
164. 1.
17. 3.
0. 0.
0. 0.
308. 2.
147. 0.
CITIZEN - DOMESTIC
POUNDS^ * VEHICLES
0 0.
243 7.
637 4 .
1162 9 .
70
MT* 3 •
12216 67 .
1220 66 .
0
17021. 1526.
-------
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF
TABLE 3X-I5 COMPUTER PROGRAM G.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
REFUSE BY TYPE OF HAULER AND BY POLITICAL
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
SUBDIVISION, FOR ALL DAYS
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION CENERAL- CONTRACTOR I MECKINC CONTRACTOR I
DESCRIPTION CD TOS POUNDS t VEHICLES CU TDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
ELN TREE REMOVAL 1 COM. HAULER - DOMESTIC I
CO YDS .POUNDS I VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS 1 VEHICLES
COW. HAULER - COMMERCIAL I COML HAULER - INDUSTRIAL I
CU YDS POUNDS I VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS I VEHICLES
1 OMAHA ' 910. 102U). V>y. 2Jb
Z RALSTON 0. 0. 0. 0
3 IRVINGTDN 21. 335. 1. 0
4 BENNINGTON 0. 0. 0. 0
8 WATERLOO 0. 0. 0. 0
9 ELKHORN 0. 0. 0. 0
11 MILLARD 59. 5l8. 6. 5
12 COUNCIL BLUFFS 596. 12022. 65. 18
' 13 CARTER LAKE "0. 0. 0. 0
15 CRESENT 0. 0. 0. 0
33 BELVIEW 27. 414. 4. 0
34 SAC Tb. «6/. 4. U
35 PAP ILL ION 70. 1032. B. 5
" 37 LAVISTA "2. 36, 1. 0
41 GRETNA 0. 0. 0. 0
51 SARPV COUNTY 34. 293. . 4. 0
52 POttAlUTTAHIE CdUNTY 0. O. 0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
106. 1
0. 0
0. 0
76. 1
0. 0
0. 0
1379.
0
0
0
0
0
0
469
12
0
0
0
182
____12
d
0
83
0
5285
0
0
0
0
0
0
1974
32
0
0
0
1015
38
C
0
367
0
64
0
o
0
0
0
0
43
1
0
0
12
1
0
0
1
6
0
7264. 40198. 477. 5970
100. 522. 6. 44
14. 44. 1. 0
20. 123. 2. 5
0. 0. 0. 5
C. 0. 0. 0
43. 163. 2. 124
1412. 5218. 281. 440
131. 525. 7. 63
0. 0. 0. 0
1. 3. 1. 0
5. 14. 1. 50
119. 733. 11. 9
0. 0. 0. 0
34. 180. 3. 9
0. 0. 0. 0
249. 674. 19. 0
33. 138. 5. 27
25185. 473. 113. 946. 7.
209. 3. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. ' 0.
11. 1. 0. 0. 0.
li. i. o. o. o.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
692. 9. 0. 0. 0.
1777. 65. 111. 382. 5.
"1Z9. 3. 0, 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
" o. o. o. o. - • o.
126. 2. 0. 0. 0.
33. 2. 12. 191. 1.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
27. 1. 7. 13. 1.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
56. 3. 0. 0. 0.
TOTALS —
3"
CODE
1
2
• 4
8
9
11
12
13
15
33
34~~
35
~37
41
50
51
52
2158.
32117.
232.
AVERAGE
VEHICLE
I CO
CU YDS
4258.
27.
" "i.
0.
d.
0.
67.
598.
' "38.
d.
0.
0.
8.
0.
17™
0.
"68T7~
22.
d.
5739.
NNERCIAL
POUNDS « VEHICLES
18220
9C
0
0
0
406
3009
90
C
0
0
134
0
10
c
171
0
4.
1.
0.
0.
0.
6.
59.
d!
d.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
4T.
3.
0.
26278. 435.
9. 13H. O.
I INDUSTRIAC
CU YDS POUNDS i VEHICLE!
0.
0.
c.
0.
c.
1505.
0.
C.
0.
0.
c.
0.
- ff.
0.
0.
5.
2467.
0.
o'.
0."
0.
d.
7900.
d.
0.
""~ ~ 0.
0.
0.
0.
"o;-
0.
'333,
0.
9.
11830.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
101.
d.
0.
ov
d.
d.
d.
o!
27-
0.
1.
153.
410. 6491.
7. 108.
I PUBLIC. - DOMESTIC
CU YDS POUNDS * VEH
0.
0.
" d.
0.
o.
862.
0.
0.
16.
d.
d.
* d."
d.
31.
4.
0.
987.
0.
d.
0.
0.
-T/. • •
5564.
0.
0.
106.
0.
0.
0.
0.
193.
7.
6546.
d.
I
ICLES
0.
0.
d.
0.
56.
0.
0.
1.
d.
— o". -
0.
0.
0.
2.
1. .
"0.
70.
2149.
PUBLIC
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
u.
128.
0.
0.
16.
0.
0.
" 0.
0.
0.
0.
243.
8744.
148.
- COMMERCIAL
POUNDS f VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
579.
0.
0.
100.
0.
o.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
D.
2355.
0.
0.
0".
0.
8.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
23.
9948. 51336. 847.
I PUBLIC - INDUSTRIAL
CU YDS POUNDS « VEHICLES
19.
0.
0.
0~^
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
d.
0.
0.
0.
20.
44.
0.
0.
d.
c.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
d.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c.
c.
0.
45.
0.
d.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
d.
0.
0.
0.
0.
d.
d.
d.
3.
7552.
I OTHER
CU. YDS
d.
C.
0.
0.
0.
25.
403.
0.
0.
0.
5.
0.
0.
• 0.
d.
d.
0.
2449.
32509.
PUBLIC VEHIC
POUNDS i VE
0.
0.
0.
d.
d.
67.
5812.
0.
0.
0.
3.
d.
d.
0.
1.
1490.
2.
d.
39975.
620.
LE
MICLES
d.
d.
d.
0.
0.
1.
62.
0.
0.
1.
0.
d.
d.
1.
a.
i.
d.
303.
293.
2798.
19.
I PRIVATE CITIZEN - DOMESTIC t
CU. YDS POUNDS 1 VEHICLES
17.
15.
6.
0.
1.
17.
1622.
37.
3.
12.
59.
0.
77.
5.
0.
217.
66.
16.
4485.
40.
13.
2.
37.
6385.
TXt.
84.
' ' 28.-
163.
0.
215.
d.
lode.
385.
47.
17021.
4.
2.
1.
d.
1.
6.
73d.
5.
1.
2.
16.
0.
2B.
2.
d.
Y16.
23.
12.
1526.
'OT'
-------
TABLE 31-16 COMPUTER PROGRAM H.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY TYPE OF HAULER, AND BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA, FOR ALL DAYS
GEOGRAPHIC *REA
GENERAL. CONTRACTOR I WRECKING CONTRACTOR 1 ELM -waff REMOVAL I
CU VDS POUNDS i VEHICLES CU YDS FOUNDS f VEHICLES pj ,DS POUNDS i VEHICLES
COM. HAULER.- DOMESTIC _ I
CU YDS POUNDS i VEHICLES
COM. HAULER - COMMERCIAL I COW. HAULER.- INDUSTRIAL I
CU YDS POUNDS < VEHICLES CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
_.
12
13
14
15
16
18"
11
20
143
TOTALS
AVERAGE
PER
VEHICLE
0
0
0
25
0
0
21
0
0
14
53
88
118
0
352
128
11
15
1
3(
6
7
45
158
394
0
0
0
2158
0.
_
0.
405.
0.
0.
335.
0.
0.
230.
823.
1011.
1507.
0.
4178.
1844.
1514.
3031.
0.
1670.
125.
98.
683.
316.
236.
57.
151.
0.
917.
0.
86B.
98.
0.
0.
0.
843.
3227.
7951.
0.
0.
(J.
32117.
»- O 0 M 0 O O
0
0
1
7
11
13
0
35
15
13
20
0
16
2
3
8
2
2
1
2
0
7
0
5
2
0
0
0
4
13
48
0
C
0
232
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
u
0
25
/
23
U
49
30
2
0
3
2
i
B
U
U
5
0
G
C
0
0
u
u
0
7
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
377
113
336
0
425
684
1146
1104
0
715
856
90
458
0
0
76
0
0
0
0
C
0
-------
TABLE Xt-16 COMPUTER PROGRAM H.
INDUSI-IM.
a
3
7
9
IZ
13
14
15
16
18
20
21
H "
C 24
1 25
°S 28
29
30
81
36
40
41
. 118
136
137
138
139
140
142
143
CU YDS POUNDS • V
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
20. 76.
5. 15.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. C.
37. 121.
194. 1294.
872. 2547.
32. 72.
314. 849.
36. 469.
0. 0.
288. 2124.
347. 1460.
117. 325.
182. 660.
~Q. 0.
14. 156.
1. 10.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0."
a. 134.
o. o.
8. 15.
0. 0.
0. C.
-21."" 47.
212. 1212.
333. 1500.
0. 0.
34. 263.
25. 46.
5739. 26278.
EH1CLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
2.
Q.
0.
0.
6.
22.
62.
5.
132.
33. "
29.
4.
0.
23.
16.
8.
19.
2.
1.
0.
C.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
-3.
26.
28.
0.
3.
1.
435.
CU YDS
0.
C.
C.
0.
133.
0.
0.
0.
c.
c.
c.
0.
499.
C.
164.
61.
0.
._„.
0.
34.
5.
0.
60.
0.
0.
C.
c.
c.
c._
cl
c.
c.
" o.
0.
0.
413.
1092.
0.
5.
0.
2467.
POUNDS
0.
0.
G.
C.
595.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(1.
1705.
0.
7.21..
384.
0.
0.
0.
350.
9.
0.
155.
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
c*_
G.
0.
0.
" 0."
0.
2612.
5267.
Q.
ol
11830.
* VEHICLES
0.
0.
0.
0.
5.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o. "
24.
0.
9-_
0.
"6. "
0.
2.
1.
0.
6.
o!
0.
0.
0.
0.
_____
0.
0.
0.
- - a;—
0.
36 1
65.
0*
ol
153.
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
"" 6.
10.
23.""
12.
0.
0.
o!
0.
0.
21.
0.
0.
29.
4.
a.
0.
0.
p.
0.
0.
0.
0."
0.
34.
368.
451.
0.
" 25. "
0.
967.
POUNDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
62.
" " 271.
23.
0.
16.
0.
0.
0.
131.
0.
366.
7.
0.
0.
" 0".
0.
0,"
0.
0.
0.
0.
206.
2271.
2869.
0.
" " 325.
0.
6546.
• VEHICLES
0.
- 6V"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I.
3.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
o.
4.
1.
0.
• 6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
23.
24.
0.
2.
0.
70.
CU YDS
0.
0.
0.
0.
17.
0.
0.
"" -Q; —
0.
6.
0.
58.
0.
0.
9.
15.
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
16.
112.
0.
16.
0.
243.
POUNDS * VC
0.
0.
0.
0.
36.
0.
0.
o. -
0.
0.
0.
1382.
0.
0.
216.
40.
0.
0.
0.
- -• o. •"
0.
0.
o.
o; ~
0.
0.
0.
0. "
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
86.
" 493.
0.
100.
0.
2355.
•HICLES
0.
o!
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8.
0.
1.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0~.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
- o. -
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
23.
I. OTHER PUBLIC VEHICLE
CU YDS POUNDS • VEHICLES
I PRIVATE CITIZEN. - DOMESTIC
CU YDS POUNDS » VEHICLE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0-
0.
0.
Q,
0.
9.
0.
0.
o-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
0.
~~ 0. "
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
o_.
20.
7.
0.
0.
e*
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
c.
24.
0.
0." "
0.
0.
c.
c.
Q.
0.
0.
0.
C.
0.
G.
"""o.
0.
C.
o.
0.
1.
0.
c.
45.
15.
a.
0.
0.
0.
a.
o.
0.
"b.
.0.. .
0.
1.
0.
0. ~
0.
0.
0.
0.
Q.
0.
0.
Q.
0.
a.
._ _..
Q.
0.
o*
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Q.
C.
Q.
0.
^___
19.
71.
1066.
0.
61~.
14.
48.
0.
25.
PJL -
0.
271.
0.
0.
0.
e*
0.
~~6l"~"
5.
0.
"o.
0.
61.
205.
136.
0.
0.
3.
2449.
8.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
'" 2."
3.07. _
866.
16343.
0.
_.10655._.
485.
328.
1182.
0.
67.
0.
0.
3J997.
0.
0.
0.
_, .„ p_,_
1.
2.
3.
0.
~0.
0.
219.
3553.
2046.
0.
0.
17.
39975.
132.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ll"~
— ___
107.
0.
_____
2.
4.
0.
1.
Q*_
0.
. .-**.
0.
0.
0.
_fl*
1.
Oj_
1.
1.
0.
ol
5.
38.
IS.
0.
0.
1.
303.
0.
5.
6.
7.
5.
80.
18.
16.
0.
---- -
75-
322.
693.
70.
""" ""238.""
119.
65.
8.
64.
76.
99.
36.
IB.
41.
72,
0.
„„
0.
23.
0....
4.
10.
IBS.
829.
608.
3.
13.
1.
4485.
3.
10.
13.
16.
10.
238.
B3.
47.
0.
1*. .
8.
290.
1076.
2308.
252.
939~T
248.
509.
29.
311.
394.
400.
7 SB,
97.
142.
222.
200.
0.
13..
14.
0.
66.
_0.
25.
629.
3425.
2335.
10.
29.
6.
17021.
11.
1.
1.
1.
1.
18.
11.
4.
0.
2.
4.
61.
101.
110.
11.
99.
65.
56.
36.
2.
26.
26.
28.
50.
7.
12.
12.
23.
0.
3.
1.
0.
9.
.. _. - 0»
3!
134.
325.
271.
5.
3.
2.
1526.
0.
-------
j_. Computer Program I - Quantities of refuse and adjustment
[actors by material classification. In this program all loads were examined
and each material in a load was sorted by material classification. The quan-
tity of material in each classification was adjusted for seasonal and compaction
factors for each material, one at a time.
The several columns of data produced are explained as follows:
(1) Material Received. The cubic yards and pounds
are as received but added is the percent of each material to the total.
(2) Bulky as Received. Includes items as large as, or
larger than, a desk or refrigerator, and pieces greater than 12' long other
than a simple 2 x 4 or easily broken items. In general, it included items that
could not easily be crushed or broken with a small farm tractor.
(3) Compaction Factor. The factors used to adjust "as
received" loose quantities to "compacted in place" quantities.
(4) Compacted C.Y. These are the "as received" cubic
yards multiplied by the compaction factor expressed as C. Y. and as % of total.
(5) Seasonal Adjustments. The factor used to adjust the
quantities measured during the survey week to make these quantities repre-
sentative of the entire year. COMP CY is the cubic yards as received and ad-
justed for compaction factor multiplied by the seasonal factor. The % CY which
follows CY is the percentage of this material to the total after adjustment for
compacting and seasonal factor. The POUNDS and % POUNDS are "as received"
quantities adjusted for seasonal factor only. (Pounds cannot be compacted).
CUBIC YARDS are the "as received" cubic yards adjusted for seasonal factor
only. They are not compacted.
Program I was run for the totals for each facility and for the totals for all fa-
cilities. The program containing the total for all facilities is shown in Table
11-17.
k. Computer Program J. Quantity of Refuse and Adjustments
by Political Subdivision. This program is the same as Program I except that
the political subdivision is. substituted in place of material classification (and
the factors were not reproduced). In this program each individual group that
was listed in Program I was added for the political subdivision, found in Col-
umns 61, 62 and 63 of the survey form, and the percent of the total of each
group was listed for each political subdivision.
The totals for Programs I and J are the same. The program containing the total
for all facilities is shown in Table 11-18.
n-47
-------
L. Computer Program K^ Quantity of Refuse and Ad-
justments by Geographic Area. This program is the same as Program J
except that geographic areas were substituted for Political Subdivisions.
The totals for Program K are the same as the totals for Programs I and J.
The program containing the total for all sites as shown in Table 11-19.
rn. Computer Program L - Centroids of Refuse by
Material Classification. "This program is primarily for the purpose of
determining the centroids of materials which will be explained below; how-
ever, a summation of volumes and weights was included for convenience.
This summation is the volume and weight of material normally stated in
cubic yards and pounds per week, but in this case, the volumes and weights
have been converted to annual quantities. The volume is acre feet per year
adjusted for seasonal and compaction factors. The weight is tons per year
adjusted for seasonal factor only.
Centroids were computed for both south and west coordinates. They were
computed by dividing the sum of all of the products of coordinates x the load,
by the sum of the load, where the load was expressed in both seasonally ad-
jxisted cubic yards and seasonally adjusted pounds.
(Coordinate X CY) n V (Coordinate X Pounds,'
also *• :
~ CY t Pounds
The coordinates are those recorded in columns 55 through 60 of the survey
form. The cubic ya'rds and pounds are "as received. "
The centroids represent the single theoretical location of all of the material
within a sort. This may be the centroid of a material, a site, or the entire
Study Area, as appropriate.
In the typeout, the columns which are marked SUM are the summation of CY X
Coordinate or TONS X Coordinate as appropriate. The columns marked CORD
are the coordinates of a point on a map. They represent the distance south
or west of base lines expressed in feet x 1000.
The program containing the total of all sites is shown in Table 11-20.
n- Computer Program M - "As Received" Quantities
of Refuse by Day of the Week and by Type of Vehicle. In this program the
"As Received" quantities are by days of the week and by type of vehicle. The
program is completely self-explanatory. The total is for the total number of
vehicles, cubic yards and pounds per day, and the total number of vehicles,
cubic yards and pounds for all days. The program containing the total for
all facilities is shown in Table 11-21.
11-48
-------
TABLE H-17 COMPUTER PROGRAM I.
TOTAL F0« ALL FACILITIES
QUANTITY OF REFUSE AND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
BY MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION, FOR ALL DAYS
TABLE IE-IS COMPUTER PROGRAM J.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
QUANTITY OF REFUSE AND ADJUSTMENTS
BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, FOR ALL DAYS
MTIKUL I
J
-' 1- ---
5
6
•
9
' 10
11
a
1+
If-'
-&-
20
21
" • 22
u'S"
1 2T .
*- r;
vO y
38
-40
41 "
-42
-43
45
46
50""
51
52
54
95
36
57
58
61
62
63
7o
71
72
80
NATL DECEIVED 1
CU TO I CT POUNDS \ Us
554. 1.4
1157. 3.0
" ' 55- " 0.1
539. 1.4
1217. 3.1
— fit: — 0.3
296. 0.8
126. 0.3
67. 0.2
44. 0. 1
540. 1.4
260. 0.
260. 0.
1146. 2.
772. 2.
— -4T.--0-.
284. 0.
3. 0.
11. 0.
55. 0.
248. 0.
294.
111. .3
44. .1
115. .3
45. .1
77 ' .0
746. .9
1 . .4
92 . 2 .B
58 . 1 .9
".0
. .c
79 . 20.
4.1.
1.0.
"2 . 0.
1 . 0.
4 . 1.
14 . 3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2 . C.
0.
2 . 0.
. 0.
Q.
3354. l.V
2 104. 11.8
343. 0.6
1 BOO. 5.8
1 709. 8.3
109. T7T
396. 1.0
852. 0.4
585. 0.2
141. 6,1
648. 1.5
1754. 0.7
834. ~674"
3162. 1.3
421. 0.2
1048. 0.4
6125. 2.6
52. 0.0
64. 0.0
2559. 1.1
1106. 0.5
190. 0.1
1792. 0.8
578V '0.2
599. 0.3
115. 0.0
1013. 0.4
51403. 21.6
17496. 7.3
96. 0.0
48. 0.0
38. 0.0
17783. 7.5
1050. 0.4
128. 0.1
697. 0.3
5651. 2.4
6514. 2.7
2751. 1.2
706. 0.3
77. 0.0
430. 0.2
393. 0.2
4319. 1.8
1090. 0.5
462. 0.2
298. 0.1
711. 0.3
BULKY
CU YD
18.
§r
g.
0.
0.
oT
0.
oT
0.
29.
0.
OT
0.
0.
6T
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.~
0.
0.
" 6~.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.
AS DEC I COMPACTION 1
POUNDS' "FACTOR cu YD * CT FACTOR
0 O.B
106
C
__ c
0
0
0
— -Q
I
0
196
a
t>
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
o
.-__ __
(
(
0
0.7
O.B
0.6
0.7
~6.7~
0.9
0.9
0.5
" 0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
"O.T
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
— 6-.B-
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.3-
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
"0.2
0.2
"0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
~"5.T
0.5
~ 0.9-
0.3
0.2
0.9
O.I
0.9
0.9
. 0.9
. 0.6
—
156. 1.0 0.6
391. 2.6 0.6
925. 6.2 0.6
~ 33.""~072"~0.~6
377* 2.5 0.6
" 852. ' 5.7 0.6"
209. 1. 0.7
115. 0. 0.7
148. 1. 1.0
"63. "0. 0.9
43. 0. 0.9
"" 18." 0. 0.6
288. 1. 0.6
270. 1. O.B
130. 0. 0.8
f&4. o. o.s
351. 2.4 0.8
" t&7~ 0.5" o.i
130. 0.9 0.6
48. 0.3 1.0
337. 2.3 1.5
B. 0.1 1.0
26. 0.2 1.0
55. 0.4 1.0
11. 0.1 0.8
~ 36. 0.2 1.0
138. 0.9 1.
32. 0.2 0.
447. 3.0 2.
6. 0.0 1.
436. 2.9' 0.
97~. " 0.7 0.
3336.' 22.4' 0.
TStfB;" 10.1' "0.
8. 0.1 1.0
4. 0.0 1.0
3. 0.0 1.0
"19"22.~ "12.9"" r-D
131. 0.9 1.0
32." "0.2 1.0
77. 0.5 1.0
46. 6.3 1.0
126. O.B 1.0
145. 1.0 1.0
756. 5.1 1.0
91. 0.6 1-0
94. 0.6 1.
11. 0.1 1.
" 33. 0.2 1.
27. 0.2 i.
56. 0.4 1.
19. 0.1 l.O
17. 0.1 1.0
45. 0.3 0.3
SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS
COUP CT I CT POUNDS X LB
93. 0.7
235. 1.8
555. 4.2
20. 0.1
226. 1.7
511. tt
147. 1.
8i. a.
146. 1.
7. "0V
9. 0.
1. 0.
1 3. 1.
2 6. 1.
104. o.e
2 2.1
0.6
0.4
S 3.8
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
1 . 1.0
0,2
8 6.7
6.0
3.2.
0.
30 . 22.
13 . 10.
0.
0.
19 . 14.
1-1.
a.
0.
0.
1.0.
1 . 1.
7 . 5.
0.
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
O.Z
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
2800. 1.4
2012. 1.0
16862. 6.3
606. 0.4
8260. 4.1
1~1826. 5.3
37*7. 1. 6
2177. 1.1
2396. 1.2
767. 0.4
527. 0.3
" " 84. 0. 0
1596. O.S
2916. 1.4
1403. 0.7
" ~ 6«. 0.3
25Z9. 1.2
848. O.4
1048. 0.5
9137. 4.5
64. 0.0
1106. 0.5
1433. 0.7
578. 0.3
1242. 0.6
12125. 6.0
115. 0.1
4097. 2.0
912. 0.~4
46264. 22.7
15747. 7.7
96. 0. 0
38. 0.0
J.77B3. B.7
1050. 0.5
128. 0.1
306. 0.2
5651. .8
6514. .2
2751. .4
706. .3
1260. .6
430. 0*2
393. 0.2
4319. 2.J.
1090. 0.3
462. 0.2
296. 0.1
213. 0.1
]
CU TO CODE
. . 1.
117. 3
694. 8
33. 9
323. 11
73"0~. 12
163. 13
90. 15
296. 18
114. 33
76. 34
26. 35"
576. 37
432. 41
20B. 50
917. 52
360.
426.
11.
248.
38.
44.
115.
36.
994.
7.
672.
153.
8340.
5229.
12.
5.
7966.
480.
160.
363.
132.
47t>.
1404.
J2.
105.
J6.
no,
n.
,:o9.
62.
21.
19.
15.
344oJ.
POLITICAL SUBDIV
DESCRIPTION
OMAHA
RALSTON
JRVINGTON
WATERLOO
ELKHORN~
MILLARD
COUNCIL BLUFFS —
CARTER LAKE
CRESENT -
LAKE HANANA-
flELVIEW
SAC
PAP ILL ION
LAV1STA
GRETNA
DOUGLAS COUNTY
SARPY COUNTY
JMTTJAUATTAMIE COUNTY
TOTALS
SEOJHL*miC A
"3
6
7
a
9
10
12
13
15
"16
17
16
19
20
21
22~~
24
25
26
28
29
30
" 31
32
36
37
38
11-
41
IB
36
17
38
39
40
143
I SI ON I MATERIAL AS RECEIVED I COMPACTED I SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS I
CU YDS * CY POUNDS * LB ~ CU YD X CY COUP CV X CV POUNDS X LB CUBIC VOS
25579. 65. 151148. 63.5 9652. 64. fl 8909 66.9 134344. 65>9 23945.4
leaJ 0. 860. 0".4 66; 0.4 " 5 0.4 761, 6.4 165.2
55. 0. 440. 0.2 21. 0.1 1 0.1 300. 0.1 45.0
. 0. 11. 0.0 1. 0.0 0.0 10. 0.0 4.2
0. ~ '2. 0.0 " 0. 0,0 " "6.0 2. 0.0 67?
33 . 0. 1987. 0.8 161. 1.1 13 1.0 1637. 0.8 295.8
816~". 21. 5072F; 2173 ~" 315~8.~2l72" ~24B~ " 2671 4QT£Z~2l£I 70O4T9~
28 . 0. 694. 0.4 86. 0.6 7 0.6 801. 0.4 255.0
. 0. 84. 0.0 2. 0.0 0.0 51. 0.0 2*0
45. 0. 237. 0.1 19. 0.1 1 0.1 217. 0.1 41.3
146. b"."~ ~~ 720; 0.3" ~ 45." 0.3 3 ~"673 5~$67"~o7T 11976"
406. 1. 2975. 1.2 200. 1.3 15 1.1 2213. 1.1 317.2
164. o; 1361V 6.6 — 7T7"6.5 4 o7,4 85T7~o74 ~" ili.T
56. 0. 276. 0.1 22. 0.1 1 0.1 237. 0.1 53.0
2 £57. 7.3 23749. 10.0 1209. 8.1 1004 7.5 18819. 9.2 2496.7
460." "1.2 20997" 0".9 ~146 ." T.6 1T7 BT? 15757 "6.8" 384.3
81. 0.2 252. 0.1 20. 0.1 17 0.1 221. 0.1 SB.S
38SOO. 0.0 238036. 0.0 14901. 0.0 13321. 0.0 203752. 0.0 35362.4
TABUE H-19 COMPUTER PROGRAM K.
TABLE 1 1- /^COMPUTER PROGRAM K.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
QUANTITY OF REFUSE AND ADJUSTMENTS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA, FOR ALL DAYS
At A L MATERIAL AS RECEIVED I COMPACTED I SEASONAL ADJUSTMENTS I
~ " CU YDS X CT >OU»S I LB ~CU YD "i~CV GOTtff V CT BOUNDS I LB CUBIC TO*
5. 0.0 10. 0.0 1. 0.0 1. 0.0 6. 0.0 2.B
7. 0.0 16. 0. 1. 0.0 1. 0.0 IS. 0.0 6.4
3C. 0.1 415. 0. 19. 0.1 11. 0.1 252. 0.1 14.7
846. 2.2 3962. 1. 262. 1.8 234. 1.8 3522. 1.7 747.4
66. 0.2 291. 0. 21. 6.1 IB. 0.1 247. 0*1 5S7i
56. 0.1 441. 0. 2 . 0.1 15. 0.1 301. 0*1 45.3
5. 0.0 11. C~.0 -• , 0.0 "1. 0.0 10. •
-------
TABLE 3I-2O COMPUTER PROGRAM I-.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
CENTROIDS OF REFUSE BY MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION, FOR ALL DAYS
ANNUAL
I SEASONALLY
ADJUSTED
COMPACTED
MATERIAL ACRE
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
30
32
33
35
38
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
50
51
52
53
54
55
56"
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
70
71
72
_ao_
DESCRIPTION
DEMO-MIXED NUN COMBUST
DEMO-MIXED COMBUSTABLE
DIRT SAND OR GRAVEL
ROCK
BROKEN PAVEMENT OR SIDE WALK
CONSTRUCTION MIXED
STREET SWEEPINGS
CATCh BASIN CLEANINGS
WOOD
LOGS 10 INCH DIA £ GREATER
LOGS £ STUMPS LESS THAN 10 IN
LIMBS £ LEAVES CHIPPED
LIMBS £ LEAVES NOT CHIPPED
ELM LOGS 10 INCH DIA £ GREATER
ELM LOGS LESS THAN 10 INCH
ELM LIMBS £ LEAVES CHIPPED
ELM LIMBS £ LEAVES, NOT CHIP
BRUSH
GRASS £ GARDEN TRIMMINGS
PAUNCH MANURE
PEN SWEEPINGS
OTHER MEAT PACKING WASTES
CEAD ANIMALS
SLAG
TIRES £ RUBBER PRODUCTS
PLASTIC
OILS, TARS £ ASPHALTS-LIQUID-
BEANS OR GRAIN WASTES
OTHER FOOD PROCESSING WASTE
FRUITS £ VESTABLES
ASHES £ CINDERS
CTHER FINE PARTICLES
GARBAGE £ KITCHEN WASTE -DOM-
GARBAGE £ KITCHEN WASTE -COML-
MIXED TRASH £ REFUSE-INCL GARB
MIXED TRASH £ REFUSE -NO GARB--
INCINERATOR RESIDUE -DOM-
INCINERATOR RESIDUE, COHL £ IND
INCINERATOR RESIDUE, MUNICIPAL
PAPER S CARDBOARD
CANS
FURNITURE COMBUST.
FURNITURE
MAJOR APPLIANCES
HEAVY METAL SCRAP
LIGHT METAL SCRAP
WOOD CRATES
GLASS £ BOTTLES
BATTERY CASE £ AUTOMOTIVE
AUTOMOBILE BODIES
WIRE
CHEMICAL WASTE, DRY
CHEMICAL WASTE, LIQ OR WET
SEWAGE SLUDGE SOLIDS
SEWAGE GRIT
SEWAGE SCREENINGS
.AGRICULTURAL WASTE
FEET
32.02
7.57
17.89
0.64
7.30
16.47
4.73
2.60
4.77
1.83
1.26
0.34
5.57
6.97
3.35
2.69
9.06
"6. "25
2.51
1.56
16.30
0.08
0.27
0.89
1.78
"1.02"
C.29
1.15
4.45
0.81
28.83
0.21
12.66
2.82
96.83
43.75
0.27
0.13"
0.11
61.96
4.23
1.03
2.47
1.50
4.05
4.67
24.36
2.93"
3.05
0.34
0.51
1.05
0.86
1.81
0.61
0.54
0.43
TONS
7279.23
5231.52
43841.47
2095.74
21528.27
307"46^74
9741.19
5659.14
6229.89
1994.50
1369.74
219.65
4045.45
7587.64
3647.93
1733.89
6576.18
"10"9.54
2206.00
2725.79
23886.16
134.94
165.36
" 6652.98
2876.31
493.35
3726.76
1504.08
3229.19
1245.37
31524.17
299.05
10651.09
2371.56
120282:81
40941.73
248.51
•""""124725
100.03
46235.75
2728.77
332.07
795.99
1813.26
14691.95
16936.85
7153.13
1836.19"
3275.98
199.79
1117.58
1020.71
11229.16
2834.65
1201.20
773.76
554.27
I " SOUTH COORDINATES
CUBIC YARDS
SUM
32047.
92012.
185019.
8994.
87063.
201892.
45108.
24425.
80052.
30993.
21429.
"7475.
156892.
"120496.
58116.
58011.
247988.
20774.
102346.
11546.
116731.
861.
2951.
14932.
66860.
79344.
23435.
12193.
31493.
9744.
263903.
~ "" 1782."
180659.
43440 .
2264245.
1412561.
3115.
1693.
1302.
2153943.
130954.
"•43142.
103031.
60868.
35453.
128785.
380943.
220257
28400.
10049.
22022.
8554.
59592.
17425.
5817.
5123.
4138.
COORD SUN
275.
274.
267.
271.
269.
277.
277.
273.
271.
273.
275.
283.
272.
279.
280.
278.
271.
269.
270.
284.
274.
287.
278.
"271.
270.
" 270."
265.
274.
274.
271.
266.
251.
269.
284.
271.
270.
264.
287.
274.
270.
273.
270.
269.
267."
270.
270.
271.
269.
270.
282.
277.
273.
286.
280.
277._
275.
277,
38457.
27604.
224795.
10928.
111441.
163533.
51875.
"29676.
32421.
10460.
7232.
1196.
21180.
40667.
19614.
9282.
34164.
567.
11442.
14728.
126016.
745.
885.
"34672.'
14957.
2565.
18983.
7925.
17006.
6496.
160979.
" "1443.
55122.
12991.
627225.
213204.
1262.
686.
527.
241099.
14309.
1726.
4121.
9310.
76425.
88136.
37345.
"9490.
17040.
1085.
5946.
5391.
61706.
15247.
6399.
4099.
2942.
I
TONS
COORD
275.
274.
267.
271.
269.
" 277.
277.
273.
271.
273.
275.
283.
272.
279.
280.
278.
270.
269.
270.
281.
274.
287.
278.
2717"
270.
270."
265.
" 274; "
274.
271.
266.
251.
269.
285.
271.
~271.
264.
287.
274.
"271. -
273,
270.
269.
267.
270.
271.
271.
269.
270.
282.
277.
275.
2B6.
280.
277.
275.
276.
WE
CUBIC
SUM
64468.
181131.
369581.
17649.
173185.
401271.
87556.
46798.
152014.
60203.
41365.
13694.
305969.
230211.
110726.
109678.
489788.
41008.
204138.
22166.
236246.
1623.
55iO.
29093i
132733.
"""151332.'
46955.
22917.
59612.
18546.
524 5 82.
3820.
344805.
=ST COORDINATE:
YARDS
ciJoRb" TOT
553. 77362.
540. 54339.
533. 449041.
532.
535.
550.
537.
522.'
514.
530.
530.
519.
531.
532.
533.
526.
534.
531.
538.
546.
555.
541.
524.
528.
536.
515.
531.
515.
518.
515.
528.
538.
513.
86000. 563.
4547006. 545.
2805028. 536.
6357. 539.
3115. 528.
2446. 515.
4"268879.
249445.
86785.
202681.
119953.
69465.
25106-2.
758277.
44468.
55469.
19828.
41384.
17517.
120217.
32697."
10983.
9619.
8150.
536.
519.
544.
530.
526.
528.
527.
540.
543.
528.
557.
520.
559.
576.
525."
523.
517.
546.
^1444.
221677.
"325029.
100689.
56860.
61567.
20318.
13961.
2191.
41306.
77696.
37370.
17548.
67553.
1119.
22833.
28792.
254965.
1404.
1665.
67553.
29485.
4883.
38033.
14896.
32190.
12284.
319994.
3094.
105069.
TONS
COORD
553.
540.
533.
532.
535.
550.
537.
522.
514.
530.-
530.
519.
531.
532.
533.
"~52"67~
534.
"531.
538.
""549.
555.
541.
524.
528.
533.
""515.
531.
515.
518.
513.
528.
538.
513.
25655"; 563".
1260975. 545.
423989. 539.
2575. 539.
1262. 528.
991. 515.
47T6~eo7~53T.
27088. 516.
3471. 544.
8115. 530.
16343. 526.
149285. 524.
~ 171907."
74278.
19368.
33282.
2141.
11174.
11017.
124438.
28610.
12081.
7696.
_5jJS2_,.
"528.
540.
548.
526.
557.
520.
561.
576.
525.
523.
517.
.,54,9,
TOTALS
***** 529746.94 ?3A4127._2X1.__2766705, 272,_ 18517152. 537. .5465408. 538.
11-50
-------
TABLE 1T-2I COMPUTER PROGRAM M.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY DAY OF THE WEEK AND
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
BY TYPE OF VEHICLE
u
(Jl
H-i
C
CODI
1
2
>
3
6
7__
9
10
TYPE VEHICLE I MNDAV
DESCRIPTION 1 VEH CU YDS POUNDS
Pt ,.R 151. 2405. 14372
DUHf 128 949. 10612
VAN 49 704. 1376
HEAVY TRAILER OR SEMI 6 212. 530
PICKUP 185 862. 3209
AUTO OR STATION WAGON 61 38. 76
TRANSFER VEHICLE 0 0. 0
OTHER 1 10. 154
I TUESDAY I WEDNESDAY 1 THURSDAY I FRIDAY I SATURDAY I SUNDAY 1 TOTAL
TWEH 01 YDS PO~UNDS if VEH CU YDS 'POUNDS f VEH CU YDS POUNDS * VEH CU YDS POUNDS • VEH CU YDS POUNDS f VEH CU YDS POUNDS * VEH CU YDS POUW
144 2298 14881. 153. 2445. 15869. 144. 2327. 13222. 134. 2200. 13995. 51. 65. 5876 3. 46. 259. 780. 12586, 78474
55 789 2023 32. 376 1365. 54. 902. 2053. 51. 788. 2043. 41. 91. 1258 17. 138. 491. 299. 4089. 10601
7 337 963 12. 256 775. . 69. 252. 12. 365. 700. 8. 52. 307 0. 0. 0. 48. 1390. 3526
•171 829 3357 142. 802 3700. 12 . 639. 2893. 166. 728. 3534. 363. 1787. 7305 184. 784. 2848. 1339. 6431. 26846
~~ 68 33 lit 42." " 23 90. 4 . 24. 81. 58. 26. 78, 278. 184. 535 122. 81. 254. 671. 409. 1231
0 0 00. 0. 0. . 0. 0. 1. 44. 80. 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0. 1. 44. 80
5. "ill 75B. 1. ~ 10. 154. . 19. 308. 2. 30. 478. 1. 5. 11 0. 0. 0. 10. 119. 1863
_ TotATs 675: 6414: 3605*; ***: 7009: 44532.~T94. 6171. 43487. 558. 5870. 39030, 63B, 6465. 42844. 923. 5525. 26793. 367. 1413. 5207. 4439. 38884. 23794fl.
TABLE 31-22 COMPUTE R PROGRAM ISI.
TOTAL FOR ALL FACILITIES
AS RECEIVED QUANTITIES OF REFUSE BY DAY OF THE WEEK AND BY TYPE OF HAULER
TOTALS AS RECEIVED
TYPE HAULER 1 MONDAY I TUESDAY I WEDNESDAY I TMttSDAV 1 FMDAV I SATIIkDAV I SUMOAV 1 TCTVAI
OM
DESCRIPTION 1 VEH CU YDS POUNDS
• VEH CU YDS POUNDS I VEH CU YDS POUNDS * VEH CU YDS POUNDS f VEH CU YDS POUNDS • VEH CU YDS POUNDS * VEH CU YDS POUNDS I VEH CU YDS POUND
1 CONTRACTOR. GENERAL 42. 387. 5935
3 ELM TREE REMOVAL 25. 312. 1339
4 Cnm HAULER. CQHHERCIAL ROUTE 1O4. 1192. 562B
7 COMMERCIAL. SINGLE SOURCE 71. 917. 2846
9 PUBLIC, DOMESTIC 11. 176. 1098
10 PUBLIC* COMHERICAL 3. 39. 330
11 PUBLIC. INDUSTRIAL 0. 0. 0
35, 587
117. 1404
S. 60
57. 867
10. 165
6. 72
1. 1
13ft. 383
__ 2573. .16.
5496. 120
1453. 4
. 4186. 63
649. 1
1. 0
1271. 13_3
_..255
1393
48
893
16
0
.529
4317
1149
71B1
310
4619
59
0
2437
32. 279. 4840. 33. 270. 4402. 33. 322. 4351
24. 325. 1200. 27. 415. 1574. IB. 213. 793
95. 1134. 4741. 86. 1161. 4299. 81. 1091. 4467
4. 44. 206. 3. 103. 490. 1. 12. 191
66. 825. 2950. 95. 1159. 6658. 76. 1004. 4B70
4. 44. 353. 7. 65. 944. 2. 8. IS
1. 9. 24. 0. 0. 0. 1. 11. 20
3. 43
17. 177
1. 9
7. 75
__ o- _o
0. 0
0. 0
2". 8
115. 148. 2149. 8744.
697. 620. 7552. 32510.
73. 19. 293. 2798.
150. 435. 5739. 26278.
0. 70. 987. 6546.
0. 23. 243. 2355.
0. 3. 20. 45.
-------
o. Computer Program N - "As Received quantities of
refuse by day of the week and by type of hauler. This program is the same
aw Program M except that the type of hauler is substituted for type of ve-
hicle. The totals are the same as Program M. The Program containing the
tolal for all facilities is shown in Table 11-22.
JF. VOLUME, WEIGHT AND VEHICLE ANALYSIS
1. General. Computer Programs A, B, E and I are the prin-
cipal source of information concerning volumes and weights of waste material.
They indicate when and by whom the materials were delivered, other infor-
mation concerning vehicle types and the relative amount of material disposed
of at the several landfill sites surveyed. This information will be of value in
making detailed plans for operation of new sanitary landfill sites or transfer
stations.
The following explanations, of a general nature, contain items of significance
concerning the development of disposal facilities for the Study Area. From the
lar^e store of basic data, the detailed facts may be obtained for proper plan-
ning and design.
2. Comparing the Several Sites for Waste Quantities and Ve-
hicular Traffic. Figure II-2 shows the percentage by volume and weight of
material, and vehicular traffic at each of the six major landfill sites and one in-
cinerator.
This figure graphically illustrates that Meese's Sanitary Landfill receives a
higher tonnage and cubic yard input than any of the other sites. This is ex-
plained by the fact that this site receives practically all of the municipally col-
lected domestic waste from Omaha and is strategically located in a position
to receive much of Omaha's commercial and industrial solid waste.
The Council Bluffs Dump site has a higher vehicle count due to a large number
of pick-up trucks that use this site. It has the third and fourth highest per-
centage of cubic yards and tons received, respectively.
Reasons for any unusual pattern can be found by examining the detailed com-
puter programs.
3. Comparing the Several Vehicle Types for Waste Quantities
and Vehicular Traffic. Figure II-3 shows the percentage by volume and weight
of materials, and vehicular traffic for the ten different types of vehicles. It
might be expected that most of the material going to a landfill site would be
brought in packer trucks hauling waste from the residential dwellings and com-
mercial establishments in the community. This is correct. Such waste is a
major category and a major contributor as shown in the fiture. The largest
volume is brought in packer trucks with the flat bed trucks bringing in the second
largest volume. The flatbed trucks are used extensively to haul diseased elm logs
and limbs. *
11-52
-------
CUBIC YARDS
TONS
VEHICLES
DISPOSAL SITES
A SARPY COUNTY LANDFILL
B DOUGLAS COUNTY LANDFILL
C MEECE'S SANITARY LANDFILL
D OMAHA INCINERATOR
E COUNCIL BLUFFS LANDFILL
F COUNCIL BLUFFS DUMP
G OMAHA CITY DUMP
OPEN
7 Days/Week
6Days/Week
6 Days/Week
Sunday
7 Days/Week
5 Days/Week
7 Days/Week
5 Days/Week
thru
HOURS
08OO-I7OO
O80O- I7OO
07OO - I BOO
O800 -1200
OOOO-23OO
0800-1700
O730 -1800
07OO - I60O
for individual sites
For quantities and weights #ee EXHIBITS
and for the total.
One hundred per cent equals 38,884 CY/WK; 11,900 TONS/WK; 4439
VEH./WK; as received.
COMPARING THE SEVERAL. SITES
FOR
WASTE QUANTITIES 81 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
Fl GU RE H- 2
11-53
-------
40-
TONS
VEHICLES
VEHICLE TYPES
A PACKER TRUCK
B DUMP TRUCK
C VAN TRUCK
D LIGHT TRAILER
E HEAVY TRAILER OR SEMI TRAILER
F FLAT BED TRUCK OR STAKE TRUCK
G PICKUP TRUCK
H AUTO OR STATION WAGON
I TRANSFER TRAILER
J OTHER
COMPARING THE VEHICLE TYPES
FOR
WASTE QUANTITIES a VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
11-54
FIGURE n-3
-------
The highest tonnage was brought in packer trucks. These trucks delivered
approximately 33% of the total. Packer trucks were also the second high-
est in number of vehicles.
Thc> dump truck is the second highest in tonnage delivered, fourth in cubic
yards and third in the number of vehicles.
The largest traffic is in pick-up trucks. These vehicles deliver approxi-
mately 11% of the tonnage, approximately 16% of the volume, and represent
approximately 30% of the traffic. This volume is "As Received" and usually
is very loose.
The automobile accounts for approximately 15% of the vehicle traffic but
only for 1% of the volume and 0. 5% of the tonnage received. The automo-
bile adds to the traffic but deposits only a small amount of material. In an-
other part of the report, it is recommended that automobiles be excluded
from the main fill areas, but be allowed to dispose of their refuse in a special
area without being charged for doing so, since they contribute very little to
the volume and tonnage.
4. Comparing the Several Hauler Types for Waste Quantities
and Vehicular Traffic. Figure II-4 shows the percentage by volume and weight
of materials and vehicular traffic for the thirteen different types of haulers.
In this figure the largest volume and tonnage appears to be the Commercial
Hauler, Domestic Route Type D. The figure accurately shows what the com-
puter program reported, however, there is an error in this particular data.
The survey technicians sometimes used Type D when Public Domestic Type I
should have been used. Specifically, the Contractor collecting Omaha's
domestic refuse was classed as Type D in lieu of Type I. He is a commer-
cial collector in one sense of the term, but in this case, he was working in
lieu of the municipality's own forces and as such should have been classed
as Type I. It is possible and proper to combine the results of Types D and I.
To use this data, consider the sum of Types D and I as the total domestic ref-
use which was collected by Public and Commercial Domestic haulers.
In this figure, the Private Citizen Domestic, Type M appears as the high traf-
fic and relatively low quantity category. This can be accounted for in the large
number of automobiles which bring small quantities of •waste and an even lar-
ger number of pick-ups bringing relatively small loads, many of which are
privately owned.
The reason for the extremely low quantity of waste from the general contractor
and wrecking contractor in both volume and tonnage is that the majority of the
contractors have their own disposal sites, as explained in Section B of this
Part II.
n-55
-------
40-
C U SI C YA RDS
TO N S
VEH I CUES
HAULER TYPE
A CONTRACTOR, GENERAL (General construction wastes)
B CONTRACTOR, WRECKING (General demolition wastes)
C ELM TREE REMOVAL (Diseased elm trees removed)
D COMMERCIAL HAULER, DOMESTIC ROUTE (Commercial route system, residential portion)
E COMMERCIAL HAULER, COMMERCIAL ROUTE (Commercial route system, commercial portion)
F COMMERCIAL HAULER, INDUSTRIAL ROUTE (Commercial route system, industrial portion)
Q COMMERCIAL SINGLE SOURCE (Private single source, commercial establishments)
H INDUSTRIAL SINGLE SOURCE(Private single source, industrial establishments)
I PUBLIC DOMESTIC (Public source, domestic waste)
J PUBLIC COMMERCIAL (Public source, commercial waste)
K PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL (Public source, industrial waste)
L OTHER PUBLIC VEHICLE (Any other Government Vehicle)
IVI PRIVATE CITIZEN DOMESTIC (Private citizen, domestic waste)
COMPARING THE HAULER TYPES
FOR
WASTE QUANTITIES a VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
f\ GURE n-4
n-56
-------
^. Comparing the Seven Days of the Week for Waste Quantities
and Vehicular Traffic. Figure II-5 shows that the quantities and traffic are
reasonably uniform from Monday through Friday with Tuesday being slightly
greater- Saturday shows a reduced volume and tonnage but increased vehicu-
lar count. This can be explained by the reduced commercial, industrial and
municipal activity and an increase in personal hauling. Reference to the de-
tailed data shows that a high percentage of the Saturday and Sunday traffic is
pickups and automobiles. This is particularly true at the Council Bluffs dump
site which is open all day Saturday and Sunday.
The recommended new sites are planned for a 6-day week, Monday through
Saturday. It is contemplated that special facilities will be provided for auto-
mobiles which will be available 24-hours per day, seven days per week.
6. Comparing the Hours of the Day for Waste Quantities and
Vehicular Traffic. Figure II-6 shows that the peak hour for volume, tonnage
and vehicle count is 1100 hours (11:00 A. M. ). The second highest peak is
1500 hours (3:00 P.M. ).
The quantity and traffic are low prior to 0700 and after 1800 hours. Some of
the sites are not open before 0800 and close before 1800 hours; however, this
chart indicates no large demand for service during these early and late hours.
Notice there is no large backlog waiting at 0800. If there was such a back-
log, there probably would be a dropback between 0800 and 0900. Instead,
there is a continuing increase until 1100. The rate slacks at the peak of 1100
and drops down at 1200 hours and increases again to the second highest peak
at 1500 hours. Then the rate slackens continuously to 1800 hours.
Our recommended hours for landfill sites are from 0800 to 1800 hours. Spe-
cial arrangements can be made for haulers inconvenienced by this schedule.
7. Comparing the Hours of the Day and the Vehicular Count
for the Several Types of Vehicles. Figure II- 7 shows the traffic pattern
throughout the day by vehicle type.
This figure can be very useful in the design of landfill facilities and in making
policy decisions. When providing scale capacity and other functions, it is neces-
sary to know the magnitude and timing of peak operations and the type of hauler
and vehicle involved. For example, it can be seen that automobiles, with 15%
of the traffic, have a peak rate of arrival at 1500 hours. This peak coincides
with a total traffic peak shown in Figure II-6. Anything which reduces the
number of automobiles at this time, significantly reduces the peak traffic. We
have recommended automobiles be provided special facilities which will eli-
minate them from the traffic using the scales and other critical facilities. They
would also have a significant effect on the 1 100 hour peak.
11-57
-------
25-
CUBIC YARDS
M MONDAY
T TUESDAY
W WEDNESDAY
T THURSDAY
F FRIDAY
S SATURDAY
S SUNDAY
TO NS
DAILY TRAFFIC
VEHICLES
COMPARING THE SEVEN DAVS OF THE WEEK
FOR
WASTE QUANTITIES a VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
11-58
FIGURE H-S
-------
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(0000 MRS TO 2300 MRS)
CUBIC YARDS
024 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(OOOOHRS TO 2300HRS)
TONS
0246 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(OOOOHRS TO 2300HRS)
VEHICLES
HOURLY TRAFFIC
COMPARING THE HOURS OF THE DAY
FOR
WASTE QUANTITIES a VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
11-59
FIGURE n -6
-------
VEHICLE HOURS
TOTAL S 8 TYPES 0:00 03:00 05:00 O7:oo os:oo 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00
781 "
PACKER TRUCKS 10
17.6% 5
0
15
674 10
DUMP TRUCKS
15.2% 5
0
20
299 '5
VAN TRUCKS '°
6.8% 5
0
(020
LIGHT TRAILERS * »
2.5% J 5
20
48 -"
HEAVY TRAILERS 0 10
1.1% 5
1- o
Z 20
508 5 '5
FLATBED TRUCKS »
11.5% o; 5
LJ o
n.20
1339 l5
PICKUP TRUCKS '°
30.2% 5
0
20
671 l5
AUTOMOBILES ">
15% 5
0
RANSFER VEHICLE
tv% Of 5
.02 %
ess than 1% not shown) o
ir\ 20
10
OTHER is
.23% I0
ess than 1% not shown)
5
0
— '
/
/
X
j
/
r
x
^"'*
+>+
X
_
^
„__
~7
/
x
A
/
'
"->
^
^—
^
^X
••••
h^^
*s
X
^^
X
X
x
V
X
V
\
\
•~^
X
•— »•
^
— -
•— .
X
/
/
9^^
^*
/
X
—*.
X
/
/
X
/
^^H
• LI
i^««
— '
X
s,
\
— •
•^^M
«v
X
*a<
s
^
\
^
\
\
^••B
*^i
•*«^
S,
s
"»>
V
\
\ —
s
N,
^^
S
s
^
s
V
>
J
\
s
19:00
5=B
^^^
21:00
,
•••
00:00 02:00 04!oo 06:00 OB:OO 10:00 12:00 14:00 is:oo m:oo 'zooo
TOTAL FOR ALL VEHICLES 4439 HOURS
E=
23:00
=»
22:00
COMPARING THE
HOURS OF THE DAY & VEHICULAR COUNT
FOR
THE TYPES OF VEHICLES
11-60 FIGURE n-7 ,
-------
In the case of pick-up trucks, representing 30% of the traffic, a peak at 1100
and again at 1500 hours also coincides with the total traffic peaks. In fact,
the automobiles and pick-up are largely responsible for these two peaks. It
would be possible to establish a flat rate fee for pick-up trucks or pick-up
(rucks without side boards. If this were done, these trucks would not have to
be weighed, thus reducing scale congestion. Of course, enough pick-ups
should be weighed during non-peak periods to establish a typical weight for
record purposes.
Packer trucks show a peak at noon. Since these vehicles represent 17. 6%
of the traffic and carry the largest single portion of the total volume and ton-
nage, their arrival should be planned and facilities provided to prevent a traf-
fic back-up. They should be given special consideration for two other reasons
as well. These are self-unloading vehicles which can be dumped rapidly, thus
avoiding a prolonged stay in the congested area at the active fill face. Non-
self-unloading vehicles, by contract, must be unloaded by hand and remain at
the active fill face for a considerably longer time. Packer trucks also usually
carry a rmiltiple man crew. It is particularly important to the packer truck
operator to move into the landfill and out again as soon as possible to reduce
unproductive time of idle crew members.
G.
ORIGIN OF LANDFILL WASTES
1. Centroids. Computer Program L determined the centroid
of waste for each material classification for the sum of all days for each site
and for all days at all sites. The centroid is the theoretical point from which
the material originated. The centroid of waste for each site surveyed is as
follows:
Origin of Wastes
Site
Sarpy County Sanitary Landfill
Douglas County Sanitary Landfill
Meese's Sanitary Landfill
Omaha Municipal Incinerator
Council Bluffs Landfill
Council Bluffs Dump
Omaha City Dump
Centroid
35th & Edna, Sarpy County
76th & Pacific, Omaha
38th & California, Omaha
20th & Harney, Omaha
7th St. & 8th Avenue, Council Bluffs
7th St. & 2nd Avenue, Council Bluffs
18th &c Cumin g, Omaha
The centroid for the sum of all days and all sites, which includes all material
brought to the seven sites surveyed, was found to be located near the intersec-
tion of 29th &c Harney Streets, Omaha.
11-61
-------
2. Geographic Area as Origins of Waste. The entire Study
Area was divided into many geographic areas as described in Section E.
The material quantities originating in each of the geographic areas is shown
in Figure III-l. This information is used in site simulations described in
Par I III of this report.
3. Political Subdivisions as Origins of Waste. Computer
Programs C, G and J shown in Table 11-11, 15 and 18. respectively lists the
waste material from each of the political subdivisions which contributed
waste to any of the seven major disposal facilities surveyed. These materials
are further broken down into: Types of Vehicles; Types of Haulers; and As
Received and Adjusted Quantities.
Table 11-23 is an excerpt from Table 11-18 showing the "As Received" quanti-
ties and the percentage of these quantities received from each political sub-
division. Wastes originating within the City of Omaha were approximately
equal to two-thirds of the total. The sum of those originating within Omaha,
Council Bluffs and the unincorporated part of Douglas County were approxi-
mately equal to 94 percent.
TABLE 11-23
Comparison of Wastes as Received from Political Sub-Divisions
Computer Program J
Political.
Sub -Division
1.
2.
3.
4.
8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
15.
18.
33.
34.
35.
37.
50.
51.
52.
Omaha
Ralston
Irvington
Bennington
Waterloo
.Elkhorn
Millard.
Council Bluffs
Carter Lake
Crescent
Lake Manawa
Bellevue
SAC
Papillion
La Vista
Douglas County
Sarpy Co.
Pottawattamie County
Cubic
Yards
25,579
188
55
31
5
1
339
8, 165
281
3
45
146
406
164
58
2,857
460
81
% of
Total
65.8
0. 5
0. 1
0. 1
0.0
0.0
0.9
21.0
0.7
0.0
0. 1
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.2
7.3
1.2
0. 2
Tons
7,
2,
1,
557
43
22
7. 3
0. 5
0. 1
99
536
45
4.2
12
36
149
68
14
187
105
13
% of
Total
63.5
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0. 0
0. 0
0.8
21.3
0.4
0. 0
0. 1
0.3
1.2
0.6
0. 1
10. 0
0. 9
0. 1
Totals
38,900
100%
11,891
100%
11-62
-------
H_. PRESENT QUANTITIES
1. Measured Area. The total waste measured at the major
disposal facilities, during landfill surveys described in Section E, are shown
in Table 11-24, Line a.. , Columns 11 and 14. These were taken directly from
the computer programs and are referred to as this 1968 measured quantity.
In Line b_. , Columns 1 1 and 14, are shown the estimated additional quantities
of waste which were disposed of on-site, that would have been delivered to
these facilities during 1968, if more strict regulations and controls concerning
sanitary landfills and air pollution had been in effect and enforced. These lat-
ter quantities are referred to as on-site or b_. Quantities. The sum of Lines
a. and])., the measured quantities and on-site quantities, are the 1968 annual
rate of disposal of solid waste in the "Measured Area" which contributed waste
to the major disposal facilities surveyed. These totals which appear in Line
1968 of Table 11-24 are equal to 919, 000 cubic yards and 681, 000 tons.
The line b. quantities were developed in the Commercial and Industrial Survey
and other studies described in Sections B, C and D. They also contain an ad-
justment for materials disposed of at the Bellevue Landfill. The Bellevue pop-
ulation was included in the Measured Area population but disposed of material
at. their own landfill. By adding Bellevue quantities into the on-site quantities
hi Line b^. , their waste and population were included in the measured area.
The measured area can be described as the urban part of the Study Area and in-
cludes: Bellevue, Bennington, Boys Town, Carter Lake, Council Bluffs, Cres-
cent, Elkhorn, Irvington, La Vista, Millard, Offutt, Omaha, Papillion, Ralston,
Waterloo and eastern Douglas County. It contains a population of 499, 200 rep-
resenting 94.4% of the total population of the Study Area.
The 1968 waste quantities in the measured area shown in Table 11-24 have
been divided into four categories: Municipal Wastes, Domestic Wastes, Com-
mercial and Industrial Wastes, and Special Tree Wastes. This was done to
facilitate future projection which is discussed in Section J.
a. Municipal Wastes. The wastes included in this cate-
gory are those which vary directly with the size of the city and the number of
people, and are not likely to have a per capita increase. People dispose of
certain materials at an increasing rate per person; however, the materials
which are included in this category are likely to increase at a straight line rate
in direct proportion to the population. Included in the Municipal Waste cate-
gory are the materials shown in Table 11-25. This municipal portion of the total
waste measured during the landfill surveys is shown in Table 11-24, Line a_. The
line b. quantities shown are those representing Bellevue's Municipal waste. The
total estimated Municipal Waste for the measured area, to be disposed of at
public sites in 1968, was 121,400 C. Y. compacted and seasonally adjusted and
144, 300 tons seasonally adjusted.
11-63
-------
TABLE H - 24
ANNUAL QUANTITIES a ACCUMULATIONS OF REFUSE FOR MEASURED AREA0
YEAR
POPULATION
MUNICIPAL WASTES
VOLUME
C.Y.
WEIGHT
TONS
DOMESTIC WASTES
VOLUME
C.Y.
WEIGHT
TONS
COMM/ INDUS WASTES
VOLUME
C.Y.
WEIGHT
TONS
SPECIAL TREE WASTES
VOLUME
C.Y.
WEIGHT
TONS
TOTAL WASTES
VOLUME
C.Y. x 1000
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
ACCUMULATED
ACRE FEET
WEIGHT
TONS x 1000
ACCUMULATED
TONS x 1000
YEAR
a
b
1966
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
J978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
19 84
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
499,200
507 ',500
515,800
524, 100
532,100
540,800
549,000
557, TO
565 ',700
571,000
58 2, 300
590,600
598,900
607,300
615,600
623,900
632,200
610 , 500
648,800
657,100
665,400
673,800
682, 100
690,400
698 , 700
707,000
715,300
723, EOO
116,500
4,900
121,400
123,400
125,400
127,500
129,500
131,500
133,600
135,600
137,600
139,600
141,700
113,700
145,70!
117,800
149,800
151,800
153,800
155,900
157,900
159,900
161,900
164,000
166,000
168,000
170,000
172,100
174,100
176, IOC
138,600
5,700
1 14, 300
116,700
119,100
151,500
153,900
156,100
158,800
161,200
163,600
166,000
168,100
170,800
173,200
175,600
178,000
180,400
182,900
185,300
187,700
190,100
192,500
' 194,900
197,300
199,700
202, ICO
204,600
207,000
209,400
360,500
36,700
397,200
411,800
426,400
440,900
455,500
470,100
181,700
199,200
513,800
528,400
543,000
557.BOC
572,100
586,700
601,300
615,900
630,400
645,000
659,600
674, 2CC
688,700
703,300
717,900
732,500
717,000
76I.6CC
776,200
790,800
175,000
17,800
192,800
199,900
207,000
211,000
221,100
228,200
235,300
242,300
219,100
256,500
263,600
270,600
277,700
218,000
291,900
298,900
306,000
313,100
320,200
327,200
331,300
341,400
348,500
355,500
362, 600
369.700
376,800
383,900
180,100
59,900
240,000
252,000
261,000
276,000
288,000
300,000
312,000
321,000
336,000
348,000
360,000
372,000
384,000
396,000
ii oe.oco
420,000
432,000
444,000
456,000
468,000
480, OCO
492,000
504,000
516,000
528.CCC
540,000
552,000
564,000
(97,000
28,200
225,200
236,500
247,800
259, 100
270, "00
281,700
293,000
304,300
315,600
326,900
338,200
349,500
360,800
372,100
383,400
394,700
406,000
417,300
428,600
139,900
451,200
162,500
473,800
185, 100
186,100
507,700
519,000
b30,3G5
35,600
124,000
159,600
159,600
159,600
1 59, 600
159,600
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
19,600
99,500
119,100
119, 100
iig.ioo
119,100
119, IOC
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
—
...
693
226
919
947
975
1,004
1,033
902
930
959
987
1,0 If,
1,045
1,073
1,102
1,130
1,159
1,188
1,216
1,215
1,273
1,302
1,331
1,359
1,388
1.416
1,445
1.474
1,502
1,531
570
587
604
622
640
559
577
594
612
630
648
665
683
700
7 l'8
736
754
772
789
807
825
842
860
878
896
914
931
949-
670
1157
1761
2383
3023
3582
4159
4753
5365
5995
6643
7308
7991
8691
9409
10,145
10,899
1 1,671
12,460
13,267
14,092
I4,93»
15,794
16,672
17,568
is.iwz
19,415
20,362
530
151
681
702
723
744
765
666
687
708
729
750
770
791
812
832
853
874
895
916
937
957
978
999
1020
1040
1061
innl
1103
1124
681
1383
2106
2850
3615
4281
4968
5676
6405
7155
7925
8716
9528
10,360
1 1,213
12,087
12,982
13,898
14,835
15,792
16,770
17,769
18,789
19,829
20,890
1 079
23,075
24, 199
a
b
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
a AS MEASURED AT PUBLIC DISPOSAL FACILITIES,
b. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM PRESENT - ON-SITE
c. MEASURED AREA REPRESENTS 9A.4% OF THE TCT
1968
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS,
AL AREA POPULATION
NOTE = ALL
ALL
SEE
VOLUMES ARE ADJUSTED
WEIGHTS ARE ADJUSTED
TABLE H - 26 FOR TO1
FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS AND COMPACTION.
FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS.
•AL AREA.
-------
t>. Domestic Wastes. The -wastes in this category in-
cludes those types of wastes which normally originate in the dwelling units
in ihe Study Area and include garbage, rubbish and yard waste. The quanti-
ties shown in Table 11-25 are those of the three hauler classification which
include domestic waste. The domestic portion of the total waste measured
during the landfill survey is shown in Table 11-24, Line a.. The additional
material now being disposed of on-site by burning was estimated in Section C,
and is (>"/<• of the measured quantities. The additional material is included in
Ihe total materials to be expected at a sanitary landfill facility and is shown in
Line b_. The total estimated domestic wastes for the measured area for 1968
is 397,200 cubic yards and 192,800 tons.
c_. Special Tree Wastes. This category of wastes in-
cludes the quantities of waste wood which are the result of the Dutch Elm
Disease, as discussed in Section D. 3, and includes those material classifi-
cations shown in Table 11-25. The special tree waste portion of the total waste
quantities measured during the surveillance are shown in Table 11-24, Line ji.
The additional material presently disposed of on-site, which can be expected at
a public disposal facility in the future is shown in Line b. The total estimated
special tree waste for the measured area for 1968 is 159, 600 cubic yards and
119, 100 tons.
d« Commercial and Industrial Waste. This category of
waste includes all waste not included in the three previous categories of:
Municipal, Domestic and Special Tree Waste. The quantities measured during
the surveillance is shown in Table 11-25. The C &: I portion of the total waste
measured during the landfill survey is shown in Table 11-24, Line a.. In the
C >k I surveys described in Section B, it was estimated that the 1968 on-site dis
ponal which can be expected to be sent to public disposal facilities was equal
to 18. 8% of the volume and 11. 3% of the weight of the present measured quan-
tities and shown in Table 11-24, Line b. The total estimated Commercial and
Industrial wastes for the measured area for 1968 is 240, 000 cubic yards and
225,200 tons.
11-65
-------
TABLE 11-25. MAJOR CATEGORIES OF WASTE
Material
Class
Per Week
Per Year
Municipal Waste
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
70
71
72
73
Hauler
Class
Domestic Waste
4
9
13
Material
Class
Special Tree Waste
14
15
16
17
C.Y.**
93
235
555
20
226
511
147
81
57
39
11
173
56
19
17
--
2,240
4,470
444
2,019
6,933
216
104
83
281
684
Pounds*
380, 000
201,200
1,686,200
80,600
828, 000
1, 182,600
374, 700
217,700
76,700
52,700
8,400
155,600
109,000
46,200
29,800
--
5,329,400
46, 113
5,891
15,319
67,323
291,800
140,300
66, 700
252,900
751,700
Commercial and Industrial Waste
C.Y.
per Yr. **
Tons
per Yr.*
Total Measured Waste
Municipal Waste
Domestic Waste
Special Tree Waste
Sub -Total
116,500
360,500
35,600
138,600
175, 000
19, 600
Commercial and Industrial Waste
C.Y.**
Lb. *
116,500
277, 128, 000
(138,600 Tons)
360,500
350,079,000
(175,000 Tons)
35, 600
C.Y.
per Yr. **
692,700
-512,600
39,088,000
(19,600 Tons)
Tons
per Yr.*
180,100
529,700
-333,200
196,500
*Adjusted for Seasonal Variation
**Adjusted for Seasonal Variation and Compaction
11-66
-------
2. The Total Study Area. The total Study Area has a popu-
lation of 528, 800 as compared to 499, 200 which is the population of the
measured area discussed in preceding paragraph 1. To obtain present
quantities of the total area, those quantities for the measured area were
increased by the ratio of 528, 800 to 499, 200 and are shown in Table 11-26.
The 19^8 rate of disposal for public disposal facilities for the total Study
Area is equal to a volume of 973, 000 cubic yards, compacted in-place and
seasonally adjusted and a weight of 721, 000 tons seasonally adjusted.
I. FUTURE QUANTITIES
1. General. Future quantities are estimated based on annual
increased in the present quantities. The major categories of present waste
and the annual estimated increase are as follows:
Municipal Wastes 1. 92%
Domestic Wastes 4%
Commercial and Industrial 5%
Special Tree Waste Fixed Quantity
The annual quantities and accumulated quantities of refuse for 1968 through
1995 for the Measured Area are shown in Table 11-24.
2. Municipal Wastes. The wastes in this category are those
which vary directly as the size of the community, which is estimated to vary
directly with the population. Therefore, the increase in this category is
estimated to be 1 . 92% per year which is the same as the annual increase in
population. The 1. 92°/c is a straight line average between the years I960
and 1995.
3. Domestic Waste. Domestic wastes will increase directly
as the population increases plus an annual increase in the per capita rate of
waste. There are various estimates which predict the rate of increase in
per capita waste will increase 50% from I960 to 1985. This is approximately
equal to 2% per year.
Long-term data are difficult to find and when found are difficult to use. The
conditions under which the data were collected and the type of data included
is usually unknown. Two percent per year increase appears reasonable;
therefore, we have used a rate approximately equal to this amount.
The total increase in annual quantities for Domestic waste is approximately
2% for population increase and approximately 2% for the per capita rate in-
crease for a total of 4% per year.
n-67
-------
TABLE H-26
ANNUAL. QUANTITIES AND ACCUMULATION OF REFUSE FOR TOTAL. STUDY AREA
1— 1
1— 1
a*
CO
MEASURED AREA
YEAR
POPULATION
VOLUME
C.Yx 1000
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
ACCUM.
ACRE FEET
WEIGHT
TONS 1 1000
(1) 12) (3) 14) 151 (6)
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
19711
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
995
499,200
507,500
515,800
524,100
532,400
540,800
549,000
557,400
565,700
57»",000
582,300
590,600
598,900
607,300
.615,600
623,900
632,200
640,500
648,800
657,100
665,400
673,800
682,100
690,400
698,700
707,000
715.300
723,600
919
947
975
1,004
1,033
902
930
9S9
987
1016
101(5
1073
1102
130
1159
1188
1216
1245
1273
1302
1331
1359
'388
1416
1145
1474
1502
1531
570
587
604
622
640
559
577
594
612
630
648
665
683
700
718
736
754
772
789
807
825
" 842
860
878
896
914
931
949
570
1157
1761 •
2383
302-1
3582
HI 59
4757
5365
5995 .
6643
7308 .
7991 .
969 (
9409
10,145
10,899 -;
i 1,671 ,
12,460
13,267
14,092
14,934
15,794
16,672 -
17,568
18,482
19,415
20,362
681
702
723
744
765
660
687
' 708
729
750
770 „
791
812
- 832
- 853
874
895
916,
937
957
978
999
1020
1040
1061
' 1082
.1103
1 124
ACCUM.
TONS x 1000
(7>
681
1383
2106
2850
3615
4281
4968
5676
6405
7155
7925
8716
9528
10,360
11,213
12,087
12,982
13,898
14,835
15,792
16,770
17,769
18,789
19,829
20,890
21,972
23,075
24, 199
ADDITIONAL (OUTLYING) AREA
POPULATION
18)
29,600
30,100
30,600
31,100
3.1,600
32,000
32,600
33,000
, 33,600
34,100
34,600
35,100
35,600
36,000
36,500
37,000
37,500
38,200
38,500
39,000
39,500
39,900
40,400
41,000
41,500
42.0CO
. 42,500
43,000
VOLUME
C.Y. X 1000
(9)
54
56
58
59
61
53
55
57
58
60
62
63
65
67
68
70
72
73
75
77
79
80
82
84
85
87
89
90
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
110)
34
35
36
37
38
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 -
1(4
46 -
47
48
W
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
ACCUM.
ACRE FEET
III)
34
69
IBS
142
ISO
213
247
282
318
355
393
432
472
513
555
598
642
688
735
783
832
882 ,
933
985
1038
1092
Ii47
I2B3
WEIGHT
TONSxIOOO
ACCUM.
TONSxIOOO
TOTAL STUDY AREA
POPULATION
VOLUME
C.Yx 1000
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
ACCUM.
ACRE FEET
WEIGHT
TONSxIOOO
ACCUM.
TONSxIOOO
/EAR
II!) (13) (14) (IS) 116) (17) (IS) 119) 120)
40
41
43
44
45
39
41 ,
42
43
44
45
47
48 ,
.49
50
52
53
54
55
56
58
59 -
60
6.1'
63
64
65
66
40
81
191
168
213
252
293
335
378
422
467
514
562
61 i
661
713
766 '
820
875
931
989
1048
1108
1169
1232
1296
1361
1427
528,800
537,600
546,400
565,200
564,000
572,800
58 1 , 600
590,400
599,300
608,100
616,900
625, 700
634,500
643,300
652,100
660,900
669,700
678,500 .
687,300
696, 100
704,900
713,700
722,500
731,400
740,200
749,000
757,800
766,600
973
1,003
1,033
1,063
i,094
955
986
1,016
i,045
1,076
i,U87
1 , 136
i, l'67
1,197
i,227
i,258
1,288
1,318
1,348
1,379
1,410
1,439
1,470
1,500
1,530.
1,561
1,591
1,621
604
622
640
669
678
592
611
629
648
667
686
704
723
741
760
779
798
818
836
855
874
892
911
930
949
968
986
1005
604
1,226
1,866
2,525
2,303 .
3,795
4,406
5,039
5,683
6,350
7,036
7,740
8,463
9,204
9,964
10,743
11,541
12.359
13. 195
14,0 61:
14,924
15,816
16,727
17,657
18,606
19,574
20,562
21,565
721
743
766
788
809
699
728
750
772
794
815
838
860
881
903
926
948
970
992
1013
1036
1058
11180
1101
1124
1146
1168
1,190
721
i,461(
2,230
3.018
3,827
4,626
5,246
5,996
6,768
7,562
8.377
9,215
10,075
10,956
11,859
12,785
13,733
14,703
I5,69R
16,708
17,744
18,802
19,882
20,98o
22,107
23,253
24,421
25,611
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
1975
976
1977
1978
1979
1980
I98J
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1991
1995
NOTE ALL VOLUMES ARE ADJUSTED ' FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS AND COMPACTED.
ALt WEIGHTS ARE ADJUSTED 'FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS.
SEE TABLE H - 24 FOR MEASURED AREA.
-------
4. Commercial and Industrial Waste. We have estimated
these wastes will increase at a rate which is equal to 5% per year.
5. Special Tree Waste. In the special study of diseased tree
waste discussed in Section D, it was estimated that 306, 984 elm trees would
be removed in the five years after 1968. These trees contained 595, 549 tons
or 798, 158 CY of waste. We have arbitrarily estimated that the annual rate
of removal would be equal to 20% of the total each year for 5 years. On that
basis for each year from 1968 through 1972, we have included 159,600 cubic
yards and 119, 100 tons.
6. Total Future Waste Quantities. The total future waste
quantities for the Measured Area and Total Study Area, from the year 1968
to 1995, are shown in Table 11-24 and Table 11-26 respectively.
By 1995 it is estimated that the annual rate of disposal of wastes at public
sanitary landfill facilities will be 1, 621, 000 cubic yards per year, seasonally
adjusted and compacted in place; and 1, 190, 000 tons, seasonally adjusted.
The accumulation from 1968 to 1995 is equal to 21, 565 acre feet, and
25,611, 000 tons.
11-69
-------
PART THREE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
A. GENERAL . The disposal of solid waste, as discussed in this
part of the report is based on the regional approach. Under this concept
the several communities in the Study Area jointly provide solid waste
disposal facilities for their mutual use and benefit. The recommended
organizational structure and procedures are presented in Part IV of this
report. Two of the important principles which support this joint approach
are: First, one or more large disposal facilities, regardless of the type,
can be operated at a unit cost which is less than that resulting from many
small facilities; and second, large facilities and operations can attract
and can afford the necessary full time professional management required
to operate the disposal facilities properly.
Solid waste disposal can be accomplished using any of several methods,
or combination of methods. These are discussed in Section F. 4. of
Part I of this report. The selection of the most appropriate method or me-
thods depends on the particular circumstances that prevail at the time and
in the location where the disposal is needed. For the reasons explained
in I. F. 4. we have recommended that several Public Sanitary Landfill
facilities be provided to dispose of most of the solid waste generated in
the Study Area.
In addition to material currently being disposed of at public sanitary land-
fills, many private commercial and industrial establishments currently
dispose of their own wastes through the use of a variety of disposal methods.
Where these private facilities are properly operated and do not constitute
a hazard to public health, a nuisance or result in pollution, they should
be permitted to continue.
The Commercial and Industrial Surveys described in Part II, Section B
show that more than three-fourths of the tonnage and approximately one
half of the total volume of commercial and industrial waste produced was
disposed of at private facilities. Some of this material is expected to be
diverted to public facilities if more strict requirements are placed on all
disposal facilities. Allowance has been made for this diverted material
when determining the required size of the public disposal facilities.
Much of the commercial and industrial waste which is currently being dis-
posed of in private facilities consists of inert materials such as slag, dirt,
sand and rock, broken concrete, and other inert demolition wastes. The
proper disposal of materials of this type does not require the careful
handling and expensive covering necessary at a sanitary landfill site.
This material can often be used as a fill material to reclaim or improve
low land or simply deposited in an inexpensive landfill.
Some commercial and industrial waste is hazardous or difficult to handle
at public sanitary landfill sites and must be disposed of by the producer
III-l
-------
at private facilities. Included in part, in this type of waste are materials
such as: contaminated or infectious materials from hospitals; drug, in-
secticide and herbicide waste; paint manufacturing wastes; highly inflam-
mable or explosive materials; fine powders and others. The producers
of these wastes recognize the hazardous nature of their materials and
either pretreat them to render them harmless or dispose of them in their
own facilities.
Provisions have been made for the licensing and control of private disposal
facilities in the recommendations discussed in Part IV of this report.
In the following sections of this Part III,Public Disposal Facilities are
analyzed and discussed and recommendations are developed concerning
the public disposal facilities needed to handle the current solid wastes
and future solid wastes to the year 1995.
B. RECOMMENDED METHOD OF DISPOSAL. The sanitary landfill
method is recommended for the following reasons:
1. Land is available.
2. The method has been proven satisfactory where
properly operated.
3. The method can meet all health and sanitation
requirements, and be aesthetically pleasing.
4. The method is adaptable to varying quantities
and peak or slack rates.
5. The method is the most economical.
C. SELECTING GENERAL AREAS FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES.
1. General. Eight general areas were considered for potential
disposal facilities as shown in Figure III-1. One site could be located in
each general area.
The general areas were selected using the following criteria:
a. Minimum driving time and distance to site area.
b. Present land use compatible with sanitary land-
filling.
c. Accessibility to major highways or arterial
streets.
d. Economical land cost.
e. General topography, including terrain, ground cover,
drainage, ground water and major subsurface conditions.
_f. Suitable earth cover available.
2. Driving Time and Distance. The total cost of solid waste
disposal is the sum of the cost to haul the material from the point of *
origin to the point of disposal, referred to as haul cost, and the cost of
III-2
-------
nrll
The Base Mop for this figure was furnished
by the OMAHA / COUNCIL BLUFFS METROPOLfTAN
AREA PLANNING AGENCY.
RAILROAD ———
STATE HIGHWAYS
FEDENAL. HIGHWAYS —O-
INTEMSTJtTE HIGHWAYS -=Q-
WTO^OSEO MTEIISTATE MWHWATS =a=C*:
SCALE IN MtLES*
LEGEND
EXISTING FACILITY SURVEYED
EXISTING FACILITY INVESTIGATED
POTENTIAL FACILITY.GENERAL AREA
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
(Nominally 3mi. or 5mi. on a side)
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITE LOCATIONS
AND
QUANTITIES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
FIGURE 3IC - I
in-3
-------
owning and operating the disposal facility, referred to as disposal
fee.
To minimize haul cost, driving time and distance from the origin of
the solid waste to the disposal facility must be restricted to minimum
values compatible with other selection criteria.
The eight general areas selected for this study are conveniently located
and provide short driving distances and times for the haulers in the areas
they would serve.
3. Land Use. Sanitary landfilling is not in itself objectionable
but it must be considered as an industrial activity, and as such, its location
should be based upon this concept. The eight sites considered in this study
are located in undeveloped agricultural areas, or in industrially zoned areas.
4. Accessibility. An area accessible from highways and major
arterial streets is necessary for three primary reasons:
a_. The haulers of solid waste material need heavy duty
roads to transport the loads without damaging the road structures.
ID. Major streets reduce driving time and haul cost.
c_. The additional vehicular traffic generated by a landfill
facility is of no consequence to the normal flow of traffic on major streets
which carry thousands of vehicles per day, but it would be a nuisance if
routed over local streets which carry only a few hundred vehicles per day.
The areas considered in this study with one exception (Site 6) are adjacent
to either highway or major arterials and the four sites recommended for
the metropolitan area are now or will be readily accessible from the Interstate
Highway System.
5. Land Cost. Land costs should not influence the overall
selection process to the extent that other selection criteria are sacrificed.
The most economical piece of property that satisfies all selection criteria
should be selected. Fortunately, costs of land in the areas considered for
this study were not prohibitive, and when amortized over twenty years, re-
present only about 10% of the total annual cost.
6. General Topography. The topography of a landfill area should
be such that it is not detrimental to landfilling operations, nor should the
landfill create water pollution problems. Terrain, ground cover, surface
drainage, ground water, and subsurface conditions should be analyzed to
make certain the site can be developed and used for filling without undue
expense and without potential water pollution. Waste material should not
be placed in ground which could be flooded from surface drainage or saturated
by ahigh groundwater table. Further, the site should be compatible with
heavy earth moving operations since landfilling is much like major earth
moving jobs.
Ill-5
-------
The desirable topographic features mentioned for landfill areas do not
apply to transfer stations such as the one considered in this study at Site 4.
A transfer station is a building structure which must be aesthetically pleas-
ing and compatible with its surroundings as discussed in Section D. 1.
The eight locations considered in this study have no known features which
would be detrimental or incompatible with solid waste disposal operations.
7. Earth for Cover Material. After solid waste material is
deposited at a sanitary landfill site, it is spread, compacted, and covered
with a layer of earth. Usually, several layers of waste are placed one on
top of another until the land is brought up to the desired elevation. Finally,
a layer of earth several feet thick, is placed over the entire filled
area.
A large portion of the cost of a sanitary landfill operation is the movement
and placement of earth cover. This cover material must be suitable in
quality and adequate in quantity for a proper and economical site operation.
Except for Site 6, the landfill areas considered in this study have abundant
quantities of earth suitable for cover material. Cover material is not re-
quired at a transfer station.
D. SELECTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES.
1. Transfer Stations . The primary function of a solid waste
transfer station is to provide for the economical transfer of solid waste
from some central location convenient for waste haulers to a relatively re-
mote sanitary landfill site. The transfer of the solid waste is effected by
packing the refuse of many individual haulers into a large transfer trailer
which is then pulled to the landfill site, emptied, and returned to the transfer
station.
Following is a discussion of the location, design, capacity, cost, and
economics of transfer stations in relation to solid waste handling requirements
for the Metropolitan portion of this Study Area. It becomes apparent that
most haulers would find it more economical to haul directly to a sanitary
landfill site than to pay the additional fee which would be charged for trans-
fer service.
a:. Location of Transfer Stations . Transfer stations
must be located so as to satisfy the two general criteria of convenience
and economy for haulers and compatibility with adjacent land use.
(1) Convenience and economy as applied to transfer
stations are interdependent and in many ways synonomous. If it is more
economical for a hauler to use a transfer station rather than a sanitary land-
fill site, then the transfer station is conveniently located.
Ill-6
-------
The most economical location for a transfer station from the hauler's
viewpoint would be at the centroid of solid waste generation, provided that
location is readily accessible from major streets. Haul distances would
be short but haul time js also a cost consideration. If short hauls re-
quire relatively long haul times, then a location may not be economical
because of its adverse accessibility. For a transfer station to be economi-
cal to haulers, it must be less expensive for a hauler to transfer waste to
the transfer station and pay a transfer fee plus a disposal fee, then to haul
directly to a sanitary landfill site and pay only a disposal fee.
A transfer station could also be inconvenient and uneconomical if a hauler
incurred delay and expense, within the confines of the station, due to
inadequate facilities or improper design of the facilities.
Two locations were considered in this study for transfer stations. One
station site at 108th and Maple, the present location of the Douglas County
Sanitary Landfill site, was selected because of its strategic location in
West Omaha with good access to the Interstate Highway and because there was
an existing solid waste disposal facility operating. It was assumed that the
transfer station would go into operation when the present sanitary landfill
site was filled and closed. The second station site was at 6th and Seward
Streets in Omaha, the location of the Municipal Incinerator which has now
been converted to a city-operated transfer station. This site was selected
because of its location in an industrially zoned area where large quantities
of waste are generated.
Both transfer site locations were considered with a variety of combinations
of other facilities using economic simulations which are described in
Paragraphs 1.£. and 2 of this Section D. They were found to be uneconomical.
Subsequent investigations showed that no location would be economical when
there were sanitary landfill sites proposed within a reasonable direct hauling
distance.
(2) Activities at a solid waste transfer station are
industrial in nature. As such, these activities should be conducted in an
area where they are compatible with those in the surrounding area, and the
transfer station buildings and grounds should be aesthetically pleasing in
order to be acceptable to the public. A transfer site should be located in an
area where the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic patterns generated by
a transfer station will not place a burden upon streets meant for light duty
use.
_b_. Design of Transfer Stations. The preliminary design
of a transfer station includes site planning, building arrangement, and transfer
capacity. A preliminary site plan and building arrangement is shown in Figure
HI-2.
(1) The site planning consists of determining land
requirements, landscaping, set-backs and site screening requirements,
and determining pavement geometry and grades to serve the 2-level transfer
structure.
HI-7
-------
PHASE m:
SECOND
RANGTER PACKER
OUT HEAD
'SITE PLAN
FLOOR PLAN'
cig???l
\
'ELEVATION
TRANSFER STATION
FIGURE m-2
ni-8
-------
(2) The building arrangement is made to provide
for the efficient flow of traffic within the building and transfer of solid
waste from incoming vehicles to the transfer trailer.
(3) The capacity of a transfer station involves the two
elements of vehicle capacity and refuse transfer capacity.
Vehicle capacity refers to the ability of the station to handle the number of
vehicles arriving and leaving during the station's peak time of use. This
capacity is provided by proper design of traffic patterns; by providing for
an adequate number of unloading stalls, and by providing for a vehicle
weighing system which will perform its function efficiently and without
delays. Traffic flow would be improved by eliminating from that flow the
relatively large number of automobiles that would use a transfer station.
This is accomplished by providing special facilities for automobiles as seen
in Figure III-2. The required number of unloading stalls within the transfer
structure and the adequacy of a particular weighing system are determined by
computation utilizing the survey quantity and vehicular data shown in Figures
II-9 through 11-22, and the computer printout for the economic site simula-
tions.
The transfer capacity of a transfer station is determined by the capacity
of its least efficient element. Assuming that the vehicle capacity of the
station is adequate, then the transfer capacity may be limited by the storage
capacity, the stationary packer system, the labor force, or the number of
transfer vehicles available. These elements must all be examined separately
and in total in order to provide capacities compatible with the projected use
of the facility.
c. Cost of Transfer. If a transfer station is to be self-
supporting, a transfer fee must be established that will provide enough
revenue to cover the total annual cost of the station. The cost shown in
Table III-l and the following paragraph _d. is for the Phase I construction
and operation of a transfer station at Site No. 4, which was the most
economical station considered. In this example refuse is transferred to
Site No 5, which is the nearest and most economical site for transfer
from Site No. 4.
d. Annual Cost. It has been assumed in the cost estimate
that the transfer station will operate 6 days per week. It is further assumed
that the station will transfer 420 tons of refuse per day or 131, 000 tons per
year. To determine a transfer fee it is necessary to convert all costs to dollars
per ton. These costs include the annual costs of the station operation, annual
costs of rolling equipment, running costs of rolling equipment, and truck
driver costs.
1. Annual Costs - Transfer Station Operation
a. Construction costs, amortized over 20 years @ 6%
.0872x141,000= $12,300
b. Stationary equipment costs amortized over 10 years @ 6%
. 1358 x 77,000 = $10, 400
III-9
-------
c. The interest on land @ 6%
.06 x 22,000 = $ 1, 300
d. Labor costs assumed constant $31,650
e. Miscellaneous costs and utility costs $10, OOP
f. Annual Costs, Transfer Station
Operation $65, 650
2. Annual Costs - Rolling Equipment
Amortization + Interest $16, 800
3, The running costs of the rolling equipment have been
determined in the estimate to be 24£ per mile. The
round trip distance from the transfer station at Site 4
to Site 5 is 12 miles.
4. Truck drivers are assumed to receive
$3. 40 per hour and will transfer refuse at the rate of
20 tons per trip with each trip requiring 45 minutes.
5. The transfer fee is determined as follows:
a. Station Operation
$65,650/Yr. -s- 131, 000 Ton/Yr. = 50.2^/Ton
b. Rolling Equipment
$l6,800/Yr. -:- 131, 000 Ton/Yr. = l2.8£/Ton
c. Running Costs
24£/Mi x 12 Mi/Trip -:- 20 Tons/Trip = 14. 4^/Ton
d. Driver Costs
$3.40/Hr. x-7—Hr/Trip -:- 20 Ton/Trip^ 1 2. 8^/Ton
e. Overhead andContingencies @ 20% = 17. 8^/Ton
f. Total Transfer Cost = $1.08/Toii
es. Transfer Station Economics. The transfer fee of $1. 08
per ton was used in the site simulations to determine if the transfer station
would receive the refuse needed to produce the revenue required to make the
station self-supporting. Site simulations are further explained and discussed
in the following Paragraph D. 2.
The simulations were done by computer program. Briefly, computer inputs
were unit costs, haul times and distances. The computer print-out showed
total costs and site use.
Ill-10
-------
TABLE III-l. TRANSFER STATION - BASIC DATA FOR COST ESTIMATE
A.
n.
c.
D.
K.
PHASE I STRUCTURE & SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Main Structure
2. Lower Structure
3. Overhead Doors
4. Mechanical &r Electrical
5. Excavation & Backfill
Sub -Total Construction
6. Initial Site Development
a_. Utilities
b. Fencing
c. Grading
d. Landscaping
e. Paving
f . Area Lighting
$39, 000
27, 200
4,800
12, 000
2, 000
5, 000
5, 000
2, 000
3, 000
15, 300
2, 000
Sub-Total Site Development
7. Overhead fk Contingencies
8. Total Cost Construction & Site Development
STATIONARY EQUIPMENT COSTS
1. Packer System
2. Scale System
3. O. H. & Contingencies
4. Total Cost Stationary Equipment
LAND COSTS
1. 4. 6 Ac ( $4, 000/Ac.
2. O.H. &c Contingencies
3. Total Cost Land
TRANSFER STATION LABOR COSTS
1. 3 Men (40 Hr. Wk. )@$6, 000/Yr.
2. Fringe Benefits + 17% +
3. Subtotal
4. 60 Hr. Wk. , Increase 50% +
Total Labor Costs
ROLLING EQUIPMENT COSTS
1. Tractors
a. 2 Tractors w/o Tires
b. 20 Tires
c. Subtotal
d. Salvage (6 Yrs. )
e. Subtotal
f. Amortization, 6 yr. @ 6% (.203) =
g. Interest on Salvage 6%
Annual Amortization + Interest
$30, 000
34, 000
13, 000
$18, 400
3, 600
$18, 000
3, 100
21, 100
10, 550
$28, 000
2, 400
30, 400
6, 100
24, 300
4, 940
360'
$85, 000
$32, 300
23, 700
$141, 000
$77, 000
$22, 000
$31,650
$ 5, 300
III-11
-------
TABLE III-l.
TRANSFER STATION - BASIC DATA FOR COST ESTIMATE
(Cont'd)
1C.
ROLLING EQUIPMENT COSTS (Cont'd)
2. Transfer Trailers
a. 3 Trailers w/o Tires
b. 24 Tires
c. Subtotal
d. Salvage (6 yr. )
e. Subtotal
f. Amortization, 6 yr. @ 6% (. 203)
g. Interest on Salvage
Annual Amortization + Interest
3. Total Annual Amortization + Interest,
Rolling Equipment
RUNNING COSTS - ROLLING EQUIPMENT
1. Tires
a. Tractors $2,400 -:- 30,000 Mi.
b. Trailers $2, 880 -j- 60, 000 Mi.
2. Fuel
$0. 15 /Gal. @ 5 mpg =
3. Maintenance and Repair
a. Tractor
b. Trailer
4. Total Running Costs
a. Tractor
Tires
Fuel
b.
c.
Trailer
Tires
M&R
Tire Hazard
G.
TRUCK DRIVER COST
1.
2.
3.
Time per round trip
Tons per round trip
Rate per hour
$63, 000
2,880
$65,880
13, 180
$52, 700
10,700
800
$11.500
$16,800
0. 08/Mi.
0. 05/Mi.
0. 03/Mi.
0. 03/Mi.
0. 02/Mi.
0. 08/Mi.
0. 03/Mi.
0. 03/Mi.
0. 05/Mi.
0. 02/Mi.
0. 03/Mi.
$0. 24/Mi.
45 Min.
20 Tons
$3.40
in-12
-------
The 6 simulations which included the transfer station at Site 4 are repro-
duced in Table III-2. Included in the disposal fee in the first five simula-
tions is the transfer fee of$l. 08 per ton. The quantity of refuse received
at the transfer station in these 5 simulations varies from 655 tons/week to
786 tons/week. For a 6-day work week this represents from 109 to 131
Ions per day which is well below the 420 tons per day necessary to make
the station self supporting.
In the 6th simulation, the transfer fee was eliminated to determine what
quantities the station would receive if it were free. In that situation, refuse
at the rate of 6130 tons/week or 1020 tons/day would arrive at the transfer
station. The subsidy required to transfer this refuse is approximately $1. 08
x 6130 = $6, 620 per week. This cost was included in the "Disposal Cost"
and "Total Community Cost" in the Table in order to determine actual costs
and properly rank the simulation.
It was apparent that the transfer station was not economically feasible even
under what were considered to be minimum design standards and operating
conditions. A higher fee would further reduce the refuse and revenue re-
ceived, and a fee set low enough to make the transfer station economically
attractive to its users would require subsidy. A station designed to lower
standards is not recommended.
The primary cause of the adverse economics of transfer stations in this
Metropolitan Area is the short direct haul to relatively
close sanitary landfill facilities.
2. Economic Simulations of Potential Sanitary Landfill Sites.
a_. General. The purpose of the economic site simulations
was to aid in the selection of one or more sanitary landfill sites from the 7
potential sites considered in the Metropolitan area. The simulations were
accomplished with the aid of a computer program which used waste quan-
tities, site location, and cost data input to compare the economics of various
combinations of the 7 potential sites.
The 7 potential site locations shown in Figure III-l are described as to their
general location and numbered for simulation purposes as follows:
Site 1 Vicinity of 1-80 & Hwy. 50, Sarpy Co.
Site 2 Existing landfill east of the Mormon Bridge
Pottawattamie Co.
Site 3 Vicinity of 120th & Fort Streets, Douglas Co.
Site 4 Omaha incinerator/transfer station
Site 5 West of Lake Manawa, Pottawattamie Co.
Site 6 Vicinity of 60th & Harrison, Douglas Co.
Site 7 North of Dodge Park, Douglas Co.
in-13
-------
TABLE ILT - 2
Excerpt of Table HI - 3
ECONOMIC SITE SIMULATIONS
(RANKED IN ASCENDING ORDER
OF "TOTAL COMMUNITY COST")
SITE LOCATION (SEE FIGURE TH-2)
I- 1-80 & HWY. 50, SARPY CO., NEBR.
2. E OF MORMON BRIDGE, POTTAWATTAMIE CO., IOWA
3. I20TH i MAPLE, DOUGLAS CO., NEBR.
4. OMAHA CITY TRANSFER STATION, DOUGLAS CO., NEBR.
5. W OF LAKE MANAWA, POTTAWATTAMIE CO., IOWA
6. 60TH t HARRISON, DOUGLAS CO., NEBR.
7. N OF DODGE PARK, DOUGLAS CO., NEBR.
*WEEKLY QUANTITIES ADJUSTED
FOR COMPACTION AND/OR
SEASONAL VARIATIONS
RANK
1.
M 2.
E
i
»— '
*^
3.
4.
6.
18.
SIMULATION
NUMBER
61
100
99
97
60
US
SITES
2
3
4
5
1
3
4
5
7
3
4
5
7
3
V
5
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
DISPOSAL
FEE
$/TON
i.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
i.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
C.Y.*
2576
3743
1143
5856
815
2956
1306
5960
2283
3765
1307
5965
2283
815
5220
1325
5960
6029
1326
5965
Bib
385
2916
61 3C
3074
% C.Y.
\9. 31$
28. 1051
(8.581)
52.56$
6.i2$
22. 19*
(9.8051)
54.547,
17.14$^
28.27$
(9.81$)
54. 59$
1 7. 1 4$
6.12$
39.19$
(9.95$)
54.69$
45.26$
(9.95$)
54.73$
1
6.12$
2.89$
21 .89$
(46.02$)
69. 10$
TONS*
J949
3061
655
4523
702
2380
769
4608
1729
3078
770
4611
1729
702
4092
786
4608
4791
786
4611
702
302
2360
4557
2267
$ TONS
(9. J3$
30.05$
(6.43$)
50.82$
6.89$
23.36$
(7.55$)
52.78$
16.97$
30.21$
7.56$
52.82$
16.97$
6.89$
40.17$
(7.71$)
52.94$
47.02$
(7.72$)
52.98$
6.89$
2.97$
23.16$
(44.73$)
66.98$
HAUL
COST
2423.-
3440.-
1451.-
6503.-
13817.-
766.-
2523.-
2091.-
6786.-
1700.-
13866.-
3491.-
2112.-
6801.-
1700.-
14104.-
766.-
4504.-
2165.-
6786.-
14221.-
5472.-
2186.-
6801.-
I4H59.-
766.-
748.-
2462.-
3797.-
3739.-
11512.-
DISPOSAL
COST
2439.-
3842.-
1491.-
5665.-
13437.-
882.-
2988.-
1743.-
5779.-
2164.-
13556.-
3862.-
1745.-
5784.-
2164.-
13555.-
882.-
5129.-
1782.-
5779.-
13572.-
6004.-
1784.-
5784.-
13572.-
882.-
380.-
.2964.-
10638.-
2843.-
17707.-
TOTAL COMMUNITY
COST
$27,254.-
$27.422.-
$27,659.-
$27,793.-
$28,03J.-
$29.219.-
-------
General site locations were selected and examined if they appeared to be
convenient for large numbers of people now and in the future. If it was found
that a location satisfied the selection criteria of convenience, accessibility,
zoning, economy, general topography, and cover dirt availability , it was
used in the site sumulations.
It is not practical for even a large computer to develop all the possibilities
inherent to this type of simulation and for this reason certain assumptions
were made and limitations set. The simulations •were purely economic. It
was assumed that each hauler prefers to dispose of his refuse in the least
costly manner by taking the quickest route to the landfill, that he, in fact,
knows the quickest route, and that he intends to make a direct round trip for
the sole purpose of disposing of the refuse. It was judged that fewer than
two landfill sites would not satisfy community needs and that more than five
sites would not be feasible. Also, it was obvious by inspection of the map
(Figure III-l) showing the potential site locations, that certain site combina-
tions were not reasonable. These practical considerations eliminated most
of the several hundred theoretical site combinations resulting from the seven
potential sites and made the simulation process a manageable and very useful
tool.
b_. Computer Input. Quantity input data were obtained from
the landfill surveys described in Part II. The particular program used in the
site simulation process was Program D, shown in Table 11-12, which gives
total quantities for all facilities in terms of type of vehicle by geographic
area. Specifically, the program supplied waste quantities in tons and cubic
yards, types and numbers ol vehicles hauling these quantities, and the geo-
graphic areas from which the waste •was hauled. This program supplied otheruse-
ful information but was primarily designed to supply the data required for the
site simulation process.
Computer input for each site location was the haul time and distance from the
center of each geographic area, to each potential landfill site. Distances •were
determined from maps and times were computed on the basis of 4 minutes per
mile (15 mph) for local streets, 2. 4 minutes per mile (25 mph) for arterial
streets, and 1. 2 minutes per mile (50 mph) for highways. Where there was a
choice of routes by either, the shortest time or shortest distance, the shortest
time was selected.
Cost data input included disposal fees, transfer fees, toll bridge fees, and
unit haul costs. With prior knowledge of landfill costs in this and other areas,
disposal fees were set at $1. 25 per ton for publicly operated sites and at $1.80
per ton for privately operated sites. These fees were assumed to provide for
the cost of all labor, equipment, management, and site development incidental
to a properly operated sanitary landfill. In addition to the set disposal fee, a
minimum fee of $1. 00 was established for all vehicles except automobiles and
station wagons which would be permitted to use the facilities free of charge.
HI-15
-------
When transfer stations were considered in the simulations the transfer fee
was added to and considered part of the disposal fee. Transfer fees were
determined by computation and were discussed in the portion of this report
pertaining to Transfer Stations. Round trip toll fees were included for those
vehicles using the Mormon Bridge and varied from $0. 70 for automobiles to
$2. 00 for heavy trailers. Unit haul costs consisted of vehicle running cost
per mile and vehicle operating cost per minute. Running cost per mile inclu-
ded fuel, oil, tires, and maintenance. This cost varied from 6£ per mile for
automobiles to 24$ per mile for transfer vehicles. Operating cost per minute
included wages, amortization, interest, and insurance. This cost varied from
(•>. 5$ per minute for automobiles to 14. 7£ per minute for transfer vehicles. The
simulation program multiplied these unit haul costs for each vehicle by the dis-
tance and time from the geometric center of each geographic area to each site,
and then determined minimum total cost of hauling and disposing of waste for
each vehicle.
In sumulations which included Site 4, it was always considered to be a Trans-
fer Station. Sites 2 and 6 were the only sites considered for both public or
private operation. Site 2 is now a privately operated sanitary landfill and Site
6 is presently being considered for operation by private interests. The other
5 sites were considered for public operation only.
It was assumed for simulation purposes that any number of sites could be op-
erated for the fees used in the simulations. This, of course, is not true and
adjustments were made after the simulations indicated which combinations of
sites should be considered for further comparison and after the cost estimates
were developed.
c_. Computer Output. Approximately one hundred simulated
site combinations were processed. Table III-3 shows the results of 28 key
simulations ranked in ascending order of "Total Community Cost" per week.
All quantities and costs are for an average week; that is, the measured quanti-
ties of solid waste were seasonally adjusted to reflect average weekly quanti-
ties. The cost of hauling the solid waste generated during an average week
and the cost of disposing of that waste by sanitary landfilling make up the
"Total Community Cost. "
In most of the simulations, haul cost and disposal cost are approximately
equal in magnitude - making each a significant part of the total cost. Adverse
haul conditions and/or a higher disposal fee would necessarily make a parti-
cular simulation rank higher than otherwise. For example, when only 2 fa-
cilities are simulated, many haulers must travel long distances and haul costs
increase significantly as seen in Simulation No. 92, Rank No. 17. Also com-
pare the simulations ranked 5 and 10 which contain the same four sites. Simulation
No. 52, Rank No. 5, has Sites 1, 2, 3 and 5 with equal disposal fees of $1. 25 per
III-16
-------
TABLE: m-3
ECONOMIC SITE SIMULATIONS
(ItttEB III UCDTClie OIDEH
OF "TUTU. OHM I TV COST*)
E OF HDHH K)[>GE, nniUTTAMIE CO., IOWA
120™ i MAFLE, oouai« co. NEBI.
OMAHA CITY TUMFM STATION, DOfGLAS CO. HEM.
V OF LAKE MUMM, HTTArtTTAMIE CO. IOWA
BOTH I HA1RISM, OOUmjU CO. lEBR.
H OF OODflE rm, DOUGLAS CO. KEU.
" 1CFJU.Y OUAIT1TIES ADJUSTED
FOR CMTAeTION AM / II
SEASOI1L TAHITI CIS
Mil
2.
3.
4
G.
7.
8.
9
10.
,,.
,,
13.
14.
Ib.
16.
17.
...
,,.
20.
21.
„.
,,
24.
21.
JO.
27,
M-
1IMJLATI01I
IIMIEI
100
n
97
52
60
18
S3
98
62
89
90
87
63
65
91
92
-
B5
95
57
86
46
64
93
96
.,
IE
SITES
4
S
3
4
5
7
3
4
S
7
1
j
S
2
3
5
3
5
3
G
6
7
2
3
G
3
S
7
1
2
3
G
3
G
6
7
3
5
3
G
7
2
3
5
1
3
G
3
G
6
3
S
2
3
4
5
S
6
7
3
6
7
2
S
5
6
7
1
2
3
2
S
6
1
B
7
6
7
2
B
DISPOSAL
FEE
t/TON
1.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
1.25
2.33
1.25
1.25
1,25
2.33
(.25
1.25
I.2S
1.25
2.33
I.2S
1.25
1.25
1.25
I.2S
I.2G
2.33
1.25
1.25
I.2S
1.25
1.25
I.ZG
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.80
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
I.BO
1.25
1.25
I.2S
I.2E
1.26
1.25
I.2S
I.BO
1.25
I.2G
I.2S
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.80
1.25
I.2S
1.25
I.2S
1.25
1.25
1.25
(.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.80
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
I.BO
I.2S
K2S
1.25
1.25
I.BO
LIE
I.BO
1.25
1.80
1.80
C.Y.*
2576
3743
1143
G86B
iS
1306
5910
2283
376S
1307
S96S
2283
815
5220
1325
5960
8IG
2580
2934
B99I
6029
1326
5965
2104
1SSB
4219
2439
2580
3744
699B
BIS
29 SB
7110
2439
BIS
45B
5001
7048
393
704?
246
2439
2349
4558
6413
3766
7115
2439
156
5811
7053
BIS
5395
7110
7043
249
62B5
7115
815
365
29IB
6130
3074
4558
SS4S
3217
2104
8GS9
2557
3531
9789
8633
1308
3374
1282
6332
5706
1574
11746
9985
3335
5214
3927
4179
7874
5446
5001
B3I9
III
% C.T.
19.34$
28. IQt
62.56$
6.12$
72.191
(9.501)
54.54$
17. 14$
28.27$
54.' 59$
17. 14*
6.12$
39.191
6.12$
19.37$
22.03$
52.48?
4S. 26$
(9.95))
54.73$
IS.80$
34.22$
31.67$
18.31$
19.37$
28.11$
52.52$
6.12$
22.19$
53.38$
18.31$
6.12$
3.42$
37. 55$
52.91$
26.91$
52.83$
I.8S$
18.311
17.64$
34.22$
4B.IS$
28.27$
53. 421
18.31$
3.42$
43.63$
52.95$
6.12$
40.50$
53.38$
45.26$
52.88$
I.B7$
46.58$
G3.42$
6.12$
2.89$
21.89$
(48.021)
69.101
34.22$
41.63$
24.15$
IS. 80$
66.0 IT.
19.20$
26.51$
73.49$
64.85*
9.B2$
25.34$
9.62$
47.54$
42.84$
11.8.8
88.18$
74.96$
25.04;
39.14$
59.11$
40.89$
17, SSI
62.451
TO»S'
1949
3061
655
4523
702
2380
769
wot
1729
3078
770
46M
1729
702
4092
786
4608
702
1951
2363
5172
4791
766
4611
1787
3654
2907
taw
I9GI
3062
5175
702
2380
5267
1840
702
335
3926
S22S
989
5219
140
1840
1979
3654
4556
3076
5270
1840
335
4B2G
522B
702
4219
52B7
4827
5219
142
4918
6270
702
302
2360
4S57
2267
1654
4074
2460
1787
6467
1934
2722
7466
66 SB
937
2593
10(5
4656
4518
1157
9031
7633
25SS
4499
2614
3075
6008
4180
1727
64CI
$ TOIS
(6.* 43$)
50.821
6.191
(7-'S5$)
El. 71$
16.97$
30.11$
7.66$
52.82$
16.97$
6.BB1
40. 17$
(7.71$)
S2.94!.'
6.19$
19.15$
23. 191
50.771
47.02$
(7.72$)
52.981
17.54$
35.86$
2B.S4$
18.06^.
19. 15$
30. 05-',
60.80$
6.89$
23.36$
SI. 70$
18.08'i
6.89$
3.29$
38.54$
51.28$
21.341
51.23$
1.37$
18. OS*
18.42$
35.86$
44.72$
30.22$
51.73$
18.06$
1.29$
45.401
61.32$
6.891
41.41$
51.70$
47.38$
SI. 231
1.39$
4B.27$
51.73$
6.89$
1.97$
23.16$
(44.73$)
66.98f
35. 86$
39.99$
24. 15$
17. 5t$
61.47$
18.99$
26.72$
73.28$
66.36$
9.20$
2G. 4S(
9.96$
45. 70$
44.34$
11.35$
88.651
74.92$
25.08$
44.16$
58.97$
».S8$
63.42$
HAUL
COST
2423.-
3440.-
1451-
13817-
7S6—
2G23-
2031 —
6716-
3491 —
211?-
6801-
1700.^
14104-
766-
4504-
2165-
6786 —
14221.-
766 —
2474.-
2473-
5472-
2186.-
,6601.-
14159-
1979.-
7358-
3822-
2474.-
3455.-
766-
2523.-
10143-
_21BI-
IG6I3--
768-
1071
4148-
9197-
15482-
3118-
9B77-
405-
2181-
15581.-
2415.-
7359 r-
^935-
15709-
3606-
10185.-
2181.-
15852—
1071-
5131-
9SI6 —
766-
5103-
10 1 43-
16012—
5647-
9877-
1 6979 . -
6Q8S-
16250-
766-
748—
2462-
3797-
7369.-
62G5—
1979-
12441 —
2986-
17391-
4162-
13840-
18 102—
II42S-
2512—
M10-
17150—
1495..-
9751-
7124-
TT37ST-
2807-
14879-
4377-
19256-
5298-
6651.-
6228-
II 177-
1 1052—
igssoi-
6758-
COST
1439-
3841.-
1491 —
M65-
13437.-
S82-
SB8-
1743.-
5779-
13556-
3662.-
1745.-
6784-
811.-
5129-
1782-
J779-
13572:.
182.-
2443-
2961-
12786-
6004..
1784-
-Mb-
2246-
4G94-
3643-
2443-
3B44—
812.-
2988-
6613—
I278S-
882-
591-
4927-
65ffi-
12954-
3749.-
6551-
253—
?303.-
12156-
2487—
4594-
S70B-
12716.-
3863.-
6620-
2303-
12786-
GOI —
5798—
881-
5211-
604B-
1551-
12855.'-
6166-
12786-
882.-
380-
2964-
10631 —
2B43-
17707-
4594-
5101-
3083-
12761 —
2246 —
8117.-
3414-
9372-
12786 —
8350.-
1677—
3Z49-
1 3276. -
1275-
5846-
5665-
ISTII— "
2066-
11129 —
13395-
9582.-
-rife-
5636—
U68-
10767-
\Mt~-~
6679-
TOUL cowutirr
CBJT
1 27.2S4.-
* 27,422-
1 27.BG9.-
» 27,793-
1 27,912-
t 28.031-
1 28,116-
t 2B,ISO.-
» 21,399.-
1 28,431-
t 28,437-
t 28.495-
t 2B.63B-
t 28,675-
t 28,791-
1 18.834-
t 29.036—
t 29,219-
t 29.992-
1 30,177-
| 30,888-
t 31,12*.-
t 31,154-
1 11,949 —
I 32,042.-
t 32.130
1 35,552—
1 35,778-
-17
-------
ton, while in Simulation No. 62, Rank No. 10, the fee at Site 2 has been in-
cn-ascd to $1.80 per ton. This causes approximately a $500 increase in
total community cost per week and reduces the tonnage of waste that would
appt-ai- at Site 2 from about 19% of the total to about 3%. This precludes an
economical landfilling operation at Site 2 and shows Simulation No. 92 to
be an impractical combination of sites under these conditions.
The Transfer Station at Site No. 4 appears in a number of the simulations.
It had been previously determined that the solid waste received at Site No.
4 could be transferred to Site No. 5 at a lower cost than to any other site.
The- percentages of total waste received at Site No. 4, appear in parenthe-
sis in Table III-2 and have been included in the percentages for Site No. 5.
With one exception, the transfer fee was added to the disposal fee and be-
came part of the disposal cost. The exception was Simulation No. 48, Rank
18. This simulation and the unattractive economics of transfer stations for
use in the Metropolitan area were discussed in the preceding Section Dl. e_.
of this Part III.
The amount of use a site would attract is highly sensitive to the fee charged.
In Simulations 57 and 54, Ranks 21 and 24, the same two sites are used.
Where the disposal fee is the same as in Rank 21, Site 2 receives 26.72%
of the tonnage and Site 5 receives the remaining 73.26%. Where there is
a differential in fee and Site 2 is 55 cents per ton more expensive, the per-
centage of tons received changes to 11.35% and 88.65%. Under a differen-
tial of this nature Site 2 tonnage would be cut by more than half.
A similar comparison can be made in Simulations 52 and 62, Ranks 5 and 10.
If a 55-cent change was made in the price per ton at Site 2, the expected
tonnage would drop from 19. 15% to 3. 29%.
Simulation No. 98 is reproduced in Table III-4 for reference and explana-
tion. Other simulations appear in Exhibits III-l, 2 and 3.
The computer printout is in terms of vehicle types, totals for all vehicles
and all sites, and vehicle distribution by disposal site. The print-out in terms
of vehicle type will be useful in predicting the patterns to be expected and
provided for when actual sites are designed and developed. The "Totals for
all Vehicles" are in terms of cubic yards per site which, in conjunction with
the topography of the site, determine the amount of land required; tons per
site aid in landfill equipment selection; vehicles per site determine scale
and "working face" requirements; haul cost and disposal cost together give
total community cost; and percent cubic yards and percent tons were used
to calculate future land requirements at each site.
The printout "Vehicle Distribution by Disposal Sites" which is Page 2,
Table III-4, in effect draws the boundary line that appears in Figure No.
III-.3. This line divides the area into parts, each of which contain the disposal
site where the sum of haul cost and disposal cost will be the least. In the case
of Site 8, which did not appear in the simulations, the boundary line was drawn
as discussed in Section D3.jd. of this Part HI. *
III- 18
-------
TABLE
Page I
ECONOMIC SIMULATION NO. 98 (TYPICAL)
SIMULATION NUMBER 98
SITE 1 DISPOSAL FEE 1.25/TON
TBtMSFFB FFF 0.OP/TON
MINIMUM FEE 1.00
SITE 3 DISPOSAL FEE 1.25/TON
ff n.nn/Tnu
MINIMUM FEE 1.00
SITE 5 DISPOSAL FEE 1.25/TON
fff n nn/Tnu
MINIMUM FEE 1.00
SITE 7 DISPOSAL FEE 1.25/TON
FFF
MINIMUM FEE 1.00
1
SITE
1
2
4
5
6
7
PACKER TRUCK
CU YDS
44H
0
1B02
0
0
54?
VAN
TONS
350
0
1367
0
1650
0
393
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
5
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
_SITF
1
3
3
5
7
9
SITE
J
2
5
6
7
SO 27
0 0
131
0
574
0
169
HEAVY TRAILER
CU YDS
41
0
25
0
216
0
117
PICK IIP TRUCK
CU-YDS
63
n
238
0
999
0
173
TRANSFER VEHIt
CU YDS
Zi. .
0
0
0
0
0
81
0
306
0
80
TONS
H
0
7
0
ao
0
55
TONS
50
190
0
719
g
127
:LE
TONS
4
0
0
0
0
0
VEHICLES
h9
0
232
0
388
0
9?
16
0
54
0
194
0
35
VEHICLES
0
7
0
29
0
10
VEHICLES
52
0
227
0
918
0
142
VEHICLES
I
0
0
0
0
0
HAUL COST
4.35
0.00
4.33
0.00
5.46
0.00
5.62
2.96
0.00
2.53
0.00
DISPOSAL COST
6.35
0.00
7.37
0.00
5.32
0.00
5.34
DISPOSAL COST
2. OB
0.00
1.92
0,00
3.37 1.98
0.00 0.00
3.78
HAUL COST
6.25
0.00
4.20
0.00
5.49
0.00
6.15
HAUL COST
2.3S
0.00
2.13
0.00
3.07
O.QO
3.19
HAUL COST
9, BO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
DISPOSAL COST
4.84
0.00
1.37
0.00
3.47
0.00
6.92
DISPOSAL COST
1.28
0.00
1.13
0.00
1.03
0,_0.0
1.12
DISPOSAL COST
5,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
! DUMP
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
) LIGHT
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6 FLAT
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 AUTO
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 OTHER
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TRUCK
CU YDS
51
0
254
0
1306
0
1122
TRAILER
CU YDS
0
0
9
0
62
0
3
BED OR STAKE
CU YDS
125
0
480
0
1290
0
312
OR STATION WON
CU YDS
3
0
17
0
51
0
1
VEHICLES
CU YDS
10
0
0
0
2
0
0
TONS
59
0
331
0
1529
0
981
TONS
0
6
0
54
0
2
TONS
121
0
384
0
882
0
200
TONS
2
0
" "13"
0
36
0
*
TONS
80
6
0
0
11
0
0
VEHICLES
20
0
90
6
409
0
153
VEHICLES
4
0
16
0
87
0
4
VEHICLES
31
0
128
0
273
0
76
VEHICLES
37
0
0
452
0
• 15
VEHICLES
8
_..
0
- " "o
2
0
0
HAUL COST
2.75
0.00
2.70
O.oO
4.02
0.00
4.60
HAUL COST
-372-4-"
0.00
2.12
0.00
0.00
3. "57~
HAUL COST
3.06
0.00
2.41
0.00
3.23
0.00
3.38
.J1»«L_COST.
2.50
0.00
r.~rr '
0.00
3.42
0.00
- J-.95
HAUL COST
2.24
TT.W"
0.00
— "oVoo"
4.66
8TiSO~
0.00
DISPOSAL COST
3.72
4.60
0.00
4.67
0.00
8.02
DISPOSAL COST
v;oTi
0.00
1.00
0.00
oioo
WoiS
4.87
O.oO
3.75
0.00
4.04
0.00
3.29
DISPOSAL COST
~6Vo~o"
0.00
' "fl.SB"
0.00
0.00
0.00
- - C;T/H
DISPOSAL COST
12.44
irroTJ
0.00
0.06
6.78
0.00
TOTALS FOR ALL VEHICLES
SITE
2
4
6
1
CU YDS
_ BIS.
0
2356.. ._
0
0
.-_ -2A39.
13320
TONS
. .7.0.2- .
0
. 21BO.__
0
0
10188
VEHICLES
-..-2»-Q .
0
. 9.2.1 .
0
2752
0
.... -S27__
4440
HAUL COST DISPOSAL COST PCT Y
-Z65J.53. .8.8.1 ...ST.- -6...1.?
0.00 0.00 0.00
.2523^.23- 2987.75 22,19
0.00
10143.46
0.00
.2180.66.
15612.94
0.00 0.00
_.6-6_L3JJ7 5_3_,J_8
0.00 0.00
2302,69 18.31
12785.69
PCT T
6.89
o.oo"
23.36
0.00.
51.70
0.00
— -
III-19
-------
TABLE
Page 2
HZ -
ECONOMIC SIMULATION NO. 9S (TYPICAL.)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION BY DISPOSAL SITES
VEHICLE OFO NO. OF CUB1£
_IONS......Ay_EMOE.
FEES
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION B1 DISPOSAL SITES
VEHICLE CEO NO. OF CUBIC
TYPE" AREA VEHICLES VAKDS
AVEHAGE
FEE!.
25
38
p
25
32
25
32
26
5
6
26
32
37
7
26
32
38
25
32
9
76
10
75
3
9
15
16
20
22
7
10
15
16
70
21
?2
3
9
15
16
20
22
4
9
in
15
16
20
21
22
5
16
21
6
9
in
12
14
15
16
20
22
7
2
6
10
11
15
16
70
21
72
B
9
10
11
14
16
?n
21
5 1
18
19
27
29
in
31
19
137
Mff
139
142
143
40
28
1
15
5
Z
3
7
5
7
2
24
15
7
1
2
12
12
1
a
2
2
21
78
79
39
11
1
5
29
14
17
24
1
4
9
23
13
4
1
I
1
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
6
29
38
35
13
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
29
72
68
32
14
8
2
1
3
40
42
16
32
23
Lfe2 .
40
65
1
1
2
12
2
_2>
68
2
1
275
169
4
35
12
4'
11
35
4
0
43
52
35
11
27
3
35
17
0
6
1
1
Z
0
0
22
10
7
12
112
447
900
267
57
1
9
86
31
42
85
1
11
12
78
4
0
1
0
2
1
1
4
3
18
4
3
11
1
6
30
_JJJP _
168
103
58
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
23
80
77
29
21
1
0
JL
0
3
4
2
3
4
43
_. JW1 .
250
423
4
5
10
4.5.
IT
599
15
6
217
130
3
42
17
7
16
2
•
8
32
54
7
28
1
30
12
6
*
0
*
4
60
6
8
82
331
736
161
42
12
111
31
46
130
«,
7
s
53
11
„
2
*
2
2
3
2
1
12
7
32
76
111
83
61
^
«
2
23
55
65
19
22
2
0
*
2
3
2
3
31
_648__
169
332
3
3
6
.3-4
9
H>7
295
9
4
9.84
11.93
10.84
5.75
9.68
4.60
3.60
6. OS
4.09
4.40
3.75
11.09
5.17
13.22
4.68
9.73
.26
.17
.17
.50
.62
.16
.87
1.59
3.15
2.53
4.16
14.80
14.68
11.39
9.27
6.24
9.69
17.31
8.50
7.76
3.64
4.09
7. 82
6.67
5.73
8.99
3.63
3.10
3.53
6.14
2.97
3.16
3.50
3.02
1.78
3.37
4. OB
2.82
2.70
5.53
7.59
4.27
4.32
9.66
5.45
9.65
5.76
5.81
6.95
4.90
7.62
6.77
5.14
3.80
3.30
3.B6
3.05 SITf
1.B9
3.22
4.08
2.70
•3.55
2.30
1.86
2.05
.89
.71
2.22
1.70
1.57
12.30
. _U_t.OS_
10.59
B.BB
10.93
7.97
11.22
13.62 •
12.27
11.63
8.55 TT
6.45 ^
3
4
5
6
7
10
2
4
_g
6
7
1-20
18
19
28
. ..2?.. .
39
137
138
H9_.
142
18
19
27
7fl
30
11
39
41
137
LIB
139
143
18
14
27
34
31
136
1 17
138
IB
19
77
26
114
IB
19
27
28
30
31
39
40
138
1T9
142
16
19
27
7fl
29
10
31
19
40
37
Tft
39
42
43
18
19
27
28
29
30
31
J.S
40
137
llfl
139
142
B
17
B
B
17
8
J.2
a
17
6
17
118
e
118
32
149
55
1
1
6
74
89
2
1
117
5
4
1
3
1
2
22
23
1
1
1
£.
1
1
1
1
1
4
36
2
19
1
3
4
9
138
_1JL
34
12
2
15
1
24
17
3
6
120
24
75
6
a
1
9
1
45
304
288
9
7
3
20
7
7
1
6
5
1
2
102
145
146
1
24
4
149
2
3
1
3.
15
6_Q
_L
IS
1
3
11
1
50
445
131
6
16
330
318
10
1
360
20
22
9
o
7
2
8
66
74
0
5
1
9...
1
0
0
1
2
24
22 .
5
125
2
11
73
40
659
1B1
59
4
95
5
24
84
84
B
12
139
26
86
7
22
10
_. 0
7
1
40
307
324
U .
7
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
18
0
140
9
1113
0
1
2
20
97
45
25J
18
1B3
1
0
0
26
583
7
27
341
.. 384
9
158
12
10
6
3
it
3
52
57
2
.6.
4
3
e
«
4
24
3
44
1
6
27
20
43B
- .. 28 _ ...
130
36
3
68
6
17,
73
54
9
8
17
61
4
19
10
8
29
236
8
3
1
*
„
ft
6
14
13
105
- 8
973
1
8
39
IS
3
•
*
6.09
8.93
13.70
11.46
9.89
5.28
5.14
5.93
7.43
4.56
5.25
4.58
5.09
6.84
6_t83
6.78
5.17
3.41
s.oo
3.84
7.44
5.01
--1.7JJ .
5.77
_a*sa_
4.60
8.79
8.53
6.80
4. 64
14.70
7.10
7.42
,.6_tJ_8.__.
6.23
6.37
6.22
8.97
10.09
7.72
7.63
7.65
5.20
5.44
4.05
3.67
2.27
4.90
3*8.1
5.31
3,90
3.59
5.40
5.15
4<;23
1.46
3.76
3.04
T.~6V '
3.90
2.31
3.72 "
2.90
"2~;s4" —
4.15
3.38
3.21
1.38
7.62
4.. 01
12.85
2.23
4.68
12.53
4.56
2.42
6.09
1.13
2.90
"
-------
SHELBY COUNTY
The Base Map for this figure was furnished by
the OMAHA / COUNCIL BLUFFS METROPOLITAN
AREA PLANNING AGENCY.
//JfAJNDERWOOD
POITTAWAT1TA M I
D OUGLA
EASTERN
FOTTAWATTAMIE OOUNTV
S A R P Y
LEGEND
RECOMMENDED
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES & DESIGNATED
SITE NUMBER
CONTRIBUTING AREA BOUNDARY
RECOMMENDED
SANITARY LANDFILLS
FIGURE mr - 3
in-21
-------
3. Domestic Solid Waste Collection and Disposal in Eastern
Pottawattamic County.
.a. General. The rural communities of Pottawattamie
County, like most rural communities throughout the country, are not served
by an organized solid waste collection system, and generally the waste is not
disposed of in a sanitary manner.
Rural communities present special problems in solid waste handling because
of their relative remoteness from each other and from Metropolitan solid
waste handling systems, but with adequate cooperation between communities
and with the proper organization it is feasible and economical for many rural
areas to have organized solid waste handling systems. Eastern Pottawattamie
County is one of these rural areas where an organized system is feasible and
economical and the establishment of a solid waste handling system is recom-
mended.
_b. Collection Systems. The contract for this study and
report specifically excludes the analyses of and recommendations for solid
waste collection systems. But, because the disposal recommendations
includes a single sanitary landfill site to serve all of this rural area in lieu
of a small facility serving each community, we have included a preliminary
analysis of a collection system for this area. It is important to note that the
analysis which is discussed in the following paragraphs is only preliminary
and that detailed work is necessary before the initiation of a collection
system .
(1) Existing Collection Methods. Present collection
and/or disposal of solid waste in rural Pottawattamie County is typical of
rural communities. Part of the owners or occupants of dwellings and commercial
establishments have private service on a regular schedule from private haulers
and part haul their own waste to the local dump on a regular schedule. There
is also a substantial part which burn the combustible waste and haul the resi-
due and incombustibles to the dump on an infrequent basis.
(2) Recommended Collection System. It is recom-
mended that the rural communities in Eastern Pottawattamie County organize
a joint solid waste collection system to serve all of the communities in the
area. This joint system could be organized under provisions of the "Joint
Exercise of Governmental Powers" found in Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa;
or could be provided by the Public Agency recommended in Part IV of this
report.
c. Scope of Collection Service
(1) General. The scope of collection service concerns:
The customers to be served
The nature of materials to be collected
111-23
-------
The frequency of collection;
The point of collection;
(2) Customers to be Served. It is recommended
that service be provided to all single family and small multiple family
dwellings in McClelland, Iowa, and the 10 additional municipalities lying
east of a line through McClelland.
Commercial and industrial waste generally require special collection
service. This waste varies considerably in quantity and characteristics.
Private haulers have satisfactorily provided this service in the past and are
equipped to do so in the future. However, in the future, when a system has
been established and has acquired the necessary operating skills and manage-
ment techniques, the municipalities may wish to consider this service. For
the immediate future, it is recommended that private contractors continue
to provide commercial and industrial service.
(3) Material to be Collected. It is recommended
that all domestic solid waste which can be placed in approved containers
be collected regardless of quantity.
(4) Frequency of Collection Service. It is recom-
mended that the frequency of the collection service be at least one collec-
tion each week on a five day week schedule. This system will provide the
communities with regular collections with approximately 20% of the area
collected each day on a Monday through Friday schedule utilizing the 8 hour
work day. This type of schedule is presently employed by most collection
services. There are substantial arguments for twice per week service, and
such a frequency should be considered. The analysis presented in Section D3
is based on a frequency of one collection per week.
(5) Point of Collection. It is recommended that the
waste be collected at its point of storage near the customer's dwelling.
Collectors convey the waste from the storage area to the vehicle by means
of a large capacity, lightweight tote container. This method usually requires
only a single trip onto the dwelling premises, and often more than one dwell-
ing can. be collected before returning to the vehicle.
_d. Preliminary Layout of the Collection Route
(1) General. To layout a collection route it is
necessary to know or assume a number of things. They include; the service
area population and number dwelling units, the quantity of waste to be col-
lected, the location of the disposal site, the road system, and the manpower
and equipment necessary and their capabilities.
111-24
-------
(2) Service Area. It has been assumed for purposes
of this study that the service area is that portion of Pottawattamie County
east of a line through McClelland, Iowa. That portion of the county contains
11 municipalities to be served by a collection system. The populations of
these municipalities as determined by statistics of the U. S. Census Bureau
and the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan area Planning Agency are shown
in the following list. The numbers of dwelling units were determined by
using the statistical figure of 3. 3 people per dwelling unit.
Town 1970 Population Dwelling
Avoca 1,513 459
Carson 569 173
Hancock 250 76
Macedonia 273 83
McClelland 143 44
Minden 381 116
Ncola 884 268
Oakland 1,351 410
Treynor 274 83
Underwood 399 121
Walnut 725 220
Totals 6,762 2,053
(3) Waste Quantity for Collection. It is assumed
that domestic solid waste generation on a per capita basis is equal to that
quantity measured in the Metropolitan Area. As shown in Table 11-24, the
domestic waste generation per capita in 1970 is:
207,000 Tons i- 515,800 People = 0.4 Ton/Person/Year.
The statistical dwelling unit contains 3. 3 people, therefore the average
weekly generation of domestic waste is 51 pounds per dwelling unit per week.
(4) Disposal Site Location. Ideally a solid waste
disposal site would be located-at the centroid of all solid waste generated
and disposed of in a particular area. Sometimes this location is impractical
or inconvenient. The centroid of solid waste (and population) for eastern
Pottawattamie County is 4 miles west of Hancock, Iowa. It would be more
convenient to locate the disposal site nearer to Hancock and nearer to U. S.
Highway No. 59 which is the major north-south highway in that part of the
county. It is recommended elsewhere in this report that a sanitary landfill
facility be established in the vicinity of Hancock, Iowa.
(5) Road System. The preliminary layout of the
collection route was made using a 1968 general highway and transportation
HI-25
-------
map of Pottawattamie County prepared by the Iowa State Highway Commission,
Only paved roads were considered for the collection route.
(6) Collection Manpower and Equipment. The major
pot-Lion of the cost of a collection system is represented by the wages of its
labor force. Consequently this is the area where careful planning can realize
the greatest cost savings. This planning should minimize cost by laying out
the optimum collection route to be worked by the optimum size crew with
equipment that is compatible with the type and quantity of work to be accom-
plished.
Detailed collection system studies have shown that 2-man and 3-man collec-
tion crews bbth have their applications depending upon the type of route being
served. In the case of eastern Pottawattamie County a 2-,man crew was
selected.
The collection vehicle used in the preliminary route layout is a packer-type
truck with a 22 cubic yard capacity. A more detailed study and future exper-
ience may show that a 20 C. Y. truck would be adequate or that a 24 C. Y.
truck is required. The difference in cost when amortized over 5 years if not
great. It is important that the vehicle have adequate capacity in order to
avoid making extra trips. At an average in-truck density of 581 pounds per
C. Y. , a 22 C. Y. packer truck could haul the solid waste from 250 dwelling
units in each load.
Previous studies have shown that a 2-man crew will collect on the average
1. 5 dwelling units per minute including driving time between dwellings.
Highway driving time has been computed on the basis of 50 m. p. h. which is
equivalent to 1. 2 minutes per mile, (1. 2 M/mi).
It is assumed that the crew will work a 5-day week and devote 8 hours or
480 minutes per day (including 30-minutes break time) on the collection
route.
Table III-5 shows the preliminary daily work schedule for the collection
route. It is assumed that the sanitary landfill disposal facility is near
Hancock, Iowa, and that the collection crew will work out of Hancock.
Ill-2 6
-------
TABLE III-5.
EASTERN POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY
DOMESTIC REFUSE COLLECTION ROUTE
AND PRELIMINARY DAILY WORK SCHEDULE
MONDAY
1. Hancock to Treynor
2. Treynor 83 DU
3. Treynor to Carson
4. Carson 173 DU
5. Carson to S. L. F.
6. Unload
7. S.L.F. to Macedonia
8. Macedonia 83 DU
9. Macedonia to Oakland
10. Oakland 167 DU
11. Oakland to S. L. F.
12. Unload
13. Breaks
14. Totals 506 D. U.
23 mi.@ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
10.2 mi@ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
12.8 mi@ 1.2 M/mi
15.8 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
9.4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
6.4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
MINUTES
28
56
13
116
16
5
19
56
12
112
8
5
30
77.6 mi
476
TUESDAY
1. S.L.F. to Oakland
2. Oakland 243 DU
3. Oakland to S. L.F.
4. Unload
5 S. L.F. to Walnut
6. Walnut 220 DU
7. Walnut to S. L.F.
8. Unload
9. Breaks
10. Totals 463 D.U.
6.4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
6.4 mi. @ 1.2 M/mi
13.4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
13.4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
8
162
8
5
17
147
17
5
30
39. 6 mi
400
WEDNESDAY
1. S. L.F. to Avoca
2. Avoca 250 DU
3. Avoca to S. L.F.
4. Unload
5. S. L. F. to Avoca
6. Avoca 209 DU
7. Avoca to S. L. F.
8. Unload
9. Breaks
10. S.L.F. to Hancock
11. Hancock 76 DU
12. Hancock to S. L.F.
13. Unload
14. Totals 535 D.U.
7.2 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
1.5 DU/M
7.2 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
7.2 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
7.2 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@1.5 DU/M
30.8 mi
III-2 7
9
167
9
5
9
140
9
5
30
4
51
4
5_
447
-------
Table III-5 (cont'd)
THURSDAY
1. S. L.F. to Neola
2. Ncola 250 DU
3. Neola to S.L.F.
4. Unload
5. S. L.F. to Neola
6. Neola 18 DU
7. Neola to Minden
8. Minden 116 DU
9. Minden to S. L.F.
10. Unload
1.1. Breaks
12. Totals 384 DU
18.0 mi @ 1.2. M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
18.0 mi@ 1.2 M/mi
18.0 @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1. 5 DU/M
4. 0 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
@ 1.5 DU/M
14.0 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
MINUTES
22
167
22
5
22
12
5
78
17
5
30
72 mi
385
FRIDAY
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
S. L.F. to McClelland Z3 mi @ 1. 2 M/mi
McClelland 44 DU @ 1.5 DU/M
McClelland to Underwood 4 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
Underwood 121 DU
Underwood to S. L.F.
Unload
Breaks
Totals 165 DU
@ 1.5 DU/M
21 mi @ 1.2 M/mi
48 mi
28
30
5
81
26
5
15
190
WEEKLY TOTALS
2053 Dwelling Units Collected
268 Miles, Highway Driving
1375 Minutes = 22.9 Hours Actual Collection Time
1898 Minutes = 31.6 Hours Total Route Time
in-28
-------
£. Collection System Cost Estimate
(1) General. The cost estimate for the collection
system based on current prices and wages, appears in Table III-6. The
following paragraphs discuss each major item considered.
(2) Basic Cost Data. The basic cost data are the
items used to develop total annual cost of operation. They include: the
initial purchase of the collection vehicle; the cost of a small building to be
built at the landfill site to provide facilities for the operating personnel;
the cost of maintaining, operating, and amortizing the operating equipment
plus a rental fee for a spare truck if required; and miscellaneous costs,
overhead, and contingencies.
(3) Annual Costs. The annual costs include the
expense of repaying the initial debt and the recurring annual expense of
operating personnel and equipment.
The debt expense provides for a 6% - 5 year amortization to purchase the
original packer truck, and a 6% - 20 year amortization to pay for the
personnel facilities and garage.
Annual operating expenses include salaries, equipment costs, miscellaneous
costs and contingencies.
The sum of debt expense plus operating expense gives the total annual cost
of $31, 700. This figure is used to compute the annual fee to be charged
each dwelling unit.
(4) Collection Fee Computation. The collection fee
or cost per dwelling unit is the sum of collection cost plus debt service reserve
plus disposal cost.
The collection fee was developed from the estimate of annual cost for providing
collection service to 2053 customers.
The cost of debt service reserve is not an actual cost but is a revenue that
must be provided and set aside for protection of the bond buyers if the capital
funds are raised through the sale of bonds. It is taken as 40% of the annual
debt expense of $3300.
The disposal cost is based upon an annual domestic waste quantity of 1. 32
tons per dwelling unit and a disposal fee of $1. 40 per ton as recommended in
Part 1II-E-7 of this report.
in-2 9
-------
TABLE III-6. COST ESTIMATE. DOMESTIC WASTE COLLECTION
EASTERN POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY
A. BASIC COST DATA
1. Initial Purchase of Equipment
(one time purchase only)
1 packer truck @$11,000 $11,000
2. Personnel Facilities & Garage
800 s.f. @ 10, 00/s. f. 8, 000
3. Operating Personnel
Salaries $17,150
Fringe Benefits and Salary
Expense + 17% 2.950 20,100
4. Operating Equipment, Maintenance, Operation and
Amortization
1 truck @ $3,900
1 rental @__JLOJL 4,400
5. Misc. Expense, Overhead & Contingency 3,900
B. ANNUAL COSTS
1. Debt Expense
a. Initial Purchase of $ 11,000
Equipment
5 yrs. @ 6% = 0. 23740
. 2374 x 11,000 = $2,600
b. Personnel Facilities and $ 8,000
Garage
20 yrs. @ 6% = . 08718
.08718 x 8,000 700
c. Total Debt Expense $ 3,300
2. Operating Expense
a. Operating Personnel 20,100
b. Operating Equipment 4,400
c. Misc. & Contingency 3.9QQ
d. Total Operating Expense 28.400
3. Total Annual Cost $31,700
C. COLLECTION FEE COMPUTATION
1. Annual Cost $31,700
2 Subscribers 2, 053 Dwelling Units
3. Cost Per Dwelling Unit
a. Collection
31, 700 •- 2053 DU= $ 15.48
b. Debt Service Reserve
40% (3300. ) •-- $1, 320
1, 320 !-2, 053 DU= 0. 64 »
c. Disposal
1. 32 tons per Dwelling Unit @ $1. 40
d. Annual Cost Per Dwelling Unit
HI-30
-------
f. Summary. The economics of an organized rural
community effort for the collection and disposal of domestic solid waste
compare favorably with those of large metropolitan systems.
The annual fee of approximately $18. 00 per year per dwelling unit for the
communities in eastern Pottawattamie County provides for once-a-week
collection and disposal of all domestic solid waste of residential subscribers.
Presently, subscribers to the City operated collection system in Council
Bluffs pay $15. 00 annually for a service which collects kitchen waste only.
The City of Omaha system, operated under a contract, provides for collec-
tion and disposal of all domestic and some commercial waste. The cost of
the domestic portion is approximately $12. 00 per dwelling unit. A recent
study in Des Moines, Iowa, recommended an annual fee of $10. 80 per
dwelling unit for once-a-week collection and disposal of domestic waste.
The present costs to the residents in the communities in eastern Pottawattamie
County for hauling and disposing of domestic solid waste are not known, although
private service rates of $24. 00 to $36. 00 per year are common. It is reason-
able to assume that one system serving the aggregate community is considerably
less expensive than that of each household hauling and disposing of its solid
waste or contracting privately for that service. In addition, the nuisance of
several open burning dumps would be eliminated by the sanitary landfilling
of the waste at one disposal site.
Open burning dumps have been declared unlawful after April 1, 1970, in the
State of Iowa by its Government. An organized system for the sanitary collec-
tion and disposal of solid waste in eastern Pottawattamie County is suggested
to be a feasible and economical answer to this recent legislation.
4. Sanitary Landfill Cost Estimates
a. General. The cost estimates for five combinations of
landfill sites are summarized in Table III-7. The itemized cost estimate for
the combined operation of Sites 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 is presented in Table III-8.
In the following paragraphs each major cost item is considered and discussed.
Detailed estimates for other combinations of landfill sites are found in the
Appendix, Exhibits III- 4 through 7. The estimates are based upon current
prices and wages. It will be necessary to adjust these costs prior to implem-
entation of the landfill operations, when the final designs are made and final
conditions are known.
The estimate in Table III-8 for the 5-site operation is based upon operating
the 2 smaller sites, Sites 1 and 8 for eight'hours per day, 5 days per week,
and sites 3, 5 and 7 for 12 hours per day, 6 days per week. It is probable
that sites 3, 5 and 7 would be open to the public eleven hours per day with
in-31
-------
our hour per day allotted at the end of the day to permit all refuse to be
covered and incidental clean-up to be accomplished. Additional details of
individual site operations are found in Paragraph j_, and Table III-9.
j>. Basic Cost Data (Refer to Table III-8)
(1) Land Costs. Land costs were developed from
the estimated land requirements as seen in the table and further discussed
in Part III-E of this report. An informal investigation of land prices for the
selected general areas provided the estimated land cost per acre.
(2) Initial Site Development. These costs were
developed by analyzing the required physical developments necessary for
placing the landfill sites in readiness for operation.
(3) Annual Site Maintenance and Development. These
costs are for the expected general maintenance and annual expansion required
for site upkeep and cdntinued operation.
(4) Equipment Purchase. This estimated cost is for
the equipment recommended for operation of the 5 sites. The distribution of
the equipment is itemized in Table III-9. This cost is a one-time expenditure
for the initial procurement of the equipment. Funds for replacement of
equipment are provided for in the operating costs as discussed in the following
paragraph. There are many types of heavy equipment suitable for sanitary
landfilling operations. The preliminary equipment selection made for estim-
ating purposes in this report is based upon anticipated conditions at the
landfill sites. Final equipment selection can be made only after the actual
sites are designed and more extensive soil analyses have been made. The
equipment selections should minimize total equipment costs which include
initial cost, maintenance and operating costs, and replacement costs.
(5) Equipment Maintenance, Operation and Amortization.
These estimated costs are for the maintenance, operation (excluding labor) and
amortization of the required equipment for the 5 sites. The costs are based
upon operating the primary equipment 8 or. 12 hours per day, 5 or 6 days per
week.
Support equipment such as the grader, tractor-mower, and water trucks
would be shared by the 4 sites in the Metropolitan area and rented at Site 8 in
eastern Pottawattamie County. Equipment operation hours are itemized in
Table III-9. Included in the equipment hourly rate is the estimated amortiza-
tion of each piece of equipment. This .amortization will prepay the cost of
replacement by establishing an equipment escrow fund to be used with trade-in
equipment for necessary replacements. The spare equipment would be avail-
able to any of the sites when needed.
in-3 2
-------
(6) Labor. These are the estimated costs for the
personnel required to operate the required equipment and facilities of the 5
sites, exclusive of tho management categories in the Agency operation. Wage
ralf^s include fringe benefits. For additional details of labor distribution see
Table III-9 and the discussion thereof.
(7) Agency Headquarters and Maintenance Building.
This estimated cost is to provide for the facilities and equipment necessary
to the Agency operation. This facility would be located at one of the landfill
sites and would be in addition to-the personnel facility provided for the labor
force at that site. Extensive maintenance of landfill equipment would be
handled at the Headquarters Maintenance facility while day to day preventive
maintenance would be accomplished at the individual sites.
(8) Agency Operation. This is the estimated cost
for the wages of management personnel and for the operating overhead of the
Agency.
(9) Miscellaneous Expense and Contingencies. This
is the estimated cost of the miscellaneous expenses and contingencies which
normally could be expected during the course of Agency operations.
£. Annual Costs. The following annual cost computations
are based upon the itemized requirements presented in Table III-8, in which
some expenditures are one-time initial expenses and the remaining are annual
reoccurring expenses. The one-time expenses are assumed to be financed
through the sale of revenue bonds, repayable at 6% interest over a ZO-year
period.
ANNUAL COST DATA
1. One-Time Expenses (20 yrs. @ 6% = 0. 08718)
Land Cost $ 996,000
Initial Site Development 482,000
Equipment Purchase 509, 000
Hdqtrs. Bldg. 130,000
08718 x $2,117,000= $184,600
2. Reoccurring Annual Expense
Site Ma int. & Development $ 81,500
Equip. M. O. & A. 241,500
Labor 238,100
Agency Operation 67, 600
Misc & Contingencies 62, OOP
$690,700
3. Total Annual Cost $875,300
III-3 3
-------
d. Fixed and Variable Annual Coats. Following is a
summary of fixed and variable annual costs for the 5 sites. It is assumed
that the fixed costs will be necessary expenditures which will occur each year
and will not change as the quantities of waste change throughout the years,
while the variable costs will be dependent upon the quantity of solid waste
received each year. The following costs are used in the development of Unit
and Total Operation Costs:
Fixed Costs Variable Costs
One-Time Expense $184,600
Annual Development $ 81,500
Equip. MO&A 17,000* 224,500
Labor 139,600 98,500
Agency Operation 67, 600
Misc. & Contingencies . 62, OOP
$408,800 + $466,500= $875,300
* Pickup Trucks & Miscellaneous Equipment
£. Quantities for Unit and Total Costs. The following quan-
tities were established from the information given in Table 11-26.
Ac. Ft.; Tons
1st Year 1970 628 751,200
4th Year 1973 580 691,000
Average Year 1982 744 884,300
Final Year 1995 978 1,158,400
These quantities are used to establish unit and Total Operation Costs for the
5 sites. . '' '
_f. Unit and Total Costs of Operation. The following compu-
tations establish Unit and Total Costs of operation for the 5 sites.
Part of the cost of operation of the disposal facilities are fixed costs which do
not vary with the amount of solid waste disposed of. The remainder of the costs
are directly proportional to the amount of, solid waste and because of this,, the
unit cost of operation will vary each year.
(1) 1st Year 1970 - 628 Ac-Ft. or 751,200 Tons
Fixed Costs $408,800 -j- 628 Ac-Ft. = $650/Ac-Ft.
Var. Costs $466.500 -:- 628 Ac-Ft. • •- _$740/Ac-Ft.
Total $875,300 $1, 390/Ac-Ft.
$875, 300 -:- 751,200 Tons $l.l6/Ton
(2) 4th Year 1973 580 Ac-Ft. or 691, 000 Tons
Fixed Cost $408,800 *
Variable Cost 580 Ac. Ft. x $740/Ac-Ft. 429,200
$838,000
III-34
-------
838,000-:- 691, 000 Tons = $1. 21/Ton
838,000-- 580 Ac-Ft. = $1, 445/Ac-Ft.
(3) Average Yr. 1982 - 744 Ac-Ft. or 884, 300 Tons
Fixed Cost $408,800
Variable Cost 744 Ac-Ft. x $740/Ac. Ft. 550,600
$959,400
$959,400 -:- 884, 300 Tons = $1. 09/Ton
$959,400 -:- 744 Ac-Ft. = $1, 290/Ac-Ft.
(4) Final Year 1995 - 978 Ac-Ft. or 1, 158, 400 Tons
Fixed Cost $408,800
Variable Cost 978 Ac-Ft. x $740/Ac-Ft. $723, 700
$1,132,500
$1, 132, 500 -:- 1, 158,400 Tons = $0. 98/Ton
$1,132,500-.- 978 Ac-Ft. = 1,160/Ac-Ft.
£. Bond Debt Service Reserve. Bond buyers-insist that the
revenue be higher than the theoretical amount required to meet debt service
payments. This extra revenue is known as debt service reserve or premium.
In this estimate it is based upon 40% of the debt service and is equal to 0. 4
($184,600) or $73,800 per annum. It is not actually a cost but must be included
in revenue computations. The debt service reserve will be a fixed amount, but
the unit cost of this reserve varies with the total tonnage as follows:
Istyr. 1970 $73, 800 -:- 751, 200 Tons = $0. 10/Ton
4th yr. 1973 $73, 800 -:- 691, 000 Tons = $0. ll/ Ton
Avg. yr. 1982 $73, 800-:- 884, 300 Tons $0. 09/Ton
Final yr. 1995 $73,800 -:- 1, 158, 400 Tons $0. 07/Ton
h. Summary of Unit Costs
Operation Cost Debt Service Total
Year $/Ton Reserve Cost Unit Cost
$/Ton $/Ton
1970 $1. 16 $0. 10 $1. 26
1973 $1.21 $0.11 $1.32
1982 $1. 10 $0. 09 $1. 19
1995 $0.99 $0.07 $1.06
i. Individual Site Data. The data in Table III-9 is a breakdown
of the basic site data which supports the cost estimate in Table II-8 for Sites 1,
3, 5, 7 and 8.
(1) Refuse Accumulation and Land Requirements. The
accumulation of solid waste from 1970 through 1995 determined by the summation
III-35
-------
of annun.1- projections wag divided by the anticipated average depth of landfilled
refuse to determine the necessary land area required to contain that refuse.
Thar acreage was multiplied by 1. 2 to provide 20% additional area for roads,
setbacks, site screening bcrms and other non-fillable areas. It was assumed
that land would be purchased in multiples of 40 acres.
(2) The daily quantities of refuse were obtained by
dividing annual projections by the number of days per year each site is expected
to be open to the public. Sites 1 and 8 were assumed to be open and operating
5 days per week or 260 days per year while the remaining 3 sites would be open
and operating 6 days per week or 312 days per year. These daily quantities
are indicative of the level of activity at the individual sanitary landfill facilities
and were used to make the tentative selection of the landfill equipment and the
labor force requirements.
(3) The initial site development and cost thereof is
itemized for each individual site in this section of the table.
(4) The cost and distribution of the landfill equipment
is itemized in this part of the table. Each site has what might be termed primary
equipment to be used exclusively at an individual site. In addition the sites will
share other equipment such as the grader, mower, trucks, and spare equipment.
(5) The solid waste that each site would receive will
require a certain number of hours of landfill equipment operation. The estimate
of the required hours of operation appears in this part of the table. These hours
will vary depending upon the level of activity at each site, the length of the
working day, and the number of days per week the site is in operation.
The hours of operation for equipment which is shared by the landfill sites is
prorated to those sites on the basis of tons per day of refuse received and/or
land area.
It is assumed that a grader and mower will be rented when required at Site 8
in eastern Pottawattamie County.
Spare equipment will generally replace equipment that is "down" for repairs
or maintenance but it may be used during peak hour of operation, if necessary.
For the latter reason, a few hours of operation have been assigned to the spare
equipment to provide for this possibility and for other contingencies.
(6) Equipment operator hours are determined by-
summing equipment operations hours exclusive of the hours shown for spare
equipment and exclusive of the hours shown for the scrapers which are not
self-propelled.
Ill-36
-------
At Site 8 it has been assumed that the loader will operate 6 hours per day 5 days
a week or 1560 hours per year, but the operator will work 8 hours per day - 5
days n week or 2080 hours per year. Rental equipment is assumed to require
300 additional operator hours per year. Therefore, the total operator hour
requirement is 2080 hours f 300 hours = 2380 hours.
(7) Labor hours per site are itemized in this portion
of the table. In addition to the equipment operator hours discussed in the
previous paragraph, the hours for laborers, foremen and gatekeepers are
shown. It is assumed that laborers will work forty-hour week. Sites 1 and 8
because of their relative low level of activity have no laborers. Sites 3 and 7
have 2 laborers each, and Site 5 has 4 laborers. Neither Sites 1 and 8 have
foremen as such. Sites 3, 5 and 7 are assigned foremen hours at the rate of
8 hours per day, 6 days per week. Gatekeeper hours are based upon 8 or 12
hours per day and 5 or 6 days per week, depending on the site.
Site 8 in eastern Pottawattamie County is essentially a one-man operation
with the equipment operator handling equipment operation in addition to acting
as gatekeeper and taking care of any incidental chores.
HI-37
-------
TABLE LEI- 7 RECAP - COST ESTIMATES
SITE
COMBINATION
ITEM
1. Land Cost
2. Initial Site Development
3. Annual Mntce. & Site Dvlpmt,
4. Equipment Purchase
5. Equipment M. O. & A.
6. Labor
7. Hdqtrs. & Mntce. Bldg.
8. System Operation
9. Misc. & Contingencies
10. Debt Expense
11. Operating Expense
12. Total Annual Cost
13. Bond Debt Srv. Reserve
14. Total Required Revenue
15. Fixed Cost
16. Variable Cost
17. 1970 Tonnage
18. 1970 Cost/Ton
3, 5
$1,000,000
380,000
60,000
443,000
242,000
182,800
130,000
65,000
60,000
170, 300
609,800
$ 780, 100
68, 100
$ 848,200
348,400
431, 700
723, 000
$1. 18
3, 5, 7
$928,000
404, 000
70,000
462,000
235,000
219,900
130,000
65,000
60,000
167,700
649,900
$817,600
67, 100
$884, 700
371,200
446,400
723,000
$1.22
1, 3, 5
$960,000
362,500
65,000
494, 000
266,800
192,600
130,000
65,000
60,000
169,700
649,400
$819, 100
67,900
$887,000
353,000
466, 100
723, 000
$1.23
i
1, 3, 5, 7
$976,000
453,000
80,000
475,000
227, 300
228,000
130,000
65,000
60,000
177,300
660,300
$837, 600
71, 000
$908, 600
400, 100
437,500
723,000
$1.26
Recommended
1, 3, 5, 7. 8
$996,000
482,000
81, 500
509,000
241,500
238, 100
130,000
67, 600
62,000
184,600
690,700
$875,300
73,800
$949, 100
408,800
466,500
751,200
$1.26
-------
TABLEIII-8 BASIC COST DATA FOR SITES 1. 3, 5, 7 and 8
1, Land Cost
Site Acres Cost/Ac.
No. 1 South West 80 $1200
No. 3 North West 200 1200
No. 5 South East 480 1000
No. 7 North East 160 1000
No. 8 E. Pott. Co. 40 500
Total 960
2. Initial Site Development
Site 1 South West
Site 3 North West
Site 5 South East
Site 7 North East
Site 8 E. Pott. Co.
Total Initial Development Cost
3. Annual Maintenance and Site Development
Site 1 South West
Site 3 North West
Site 5 South East
Site 7 North East
Site 8 E. Pott. Co.
Total Annual Maintenance and Development
4. Equipment Purchase
Cost
$ 96, 000
240, 000
480, 000
160,000
20, 000
$996, 000
66,500
112,000
162,500
112,000
29,000
$482,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
20,000
1,500
$ 81, 500
$509,000
ni-39
-------
Table III-8 Continued
Item
Track Loader, 170 FWHP
Track Loader, 275 FWHP
Track Loader, 115 FWHP
Dozers, 125 FWHP
Scrapers (
Compactor, 400 FWHP
Grader, 125 FWHP
Water Trucks
Tractor Mower
Trailer
Dump Truck
Pickup Trucks
Misc. Rental
Grader
Tractor Mower
Dozer, Spare, 125 FWHP
Hrs. /Yr.
2,080
2,496
1,560
7,488
2,496)*
2,496
2,496
2,496
1,248
( 100)
( 200)
200
100
( 200)
Wheel Loader, Spare, 130FWHP( 200)
Total
Labor
Equipment Operators
Laborers
Foremen
Gatekeepers
Total
Headquarters and Maintenance
25,856
23, 180
16,640
7,488
13,312
Building
Rate/Hr.
$10. 00
15. 00
7. 00
9. 00
3. 00
19.00
5. 50
4. 00
2. 00
3. 00
5. 00
5. 50
2. 00
9. 00
7. 00
4. 25
3. 25
4. 75
3. 75
Cost/Yr.
$ 20,800
37,400
10,900
67,400
7,500
47,400
14,800
10,000
2,500
300
1,000
5,000
12,000
1, 100
200
1,800
1,400
$241, 500
$ 98,500
54,100
35,600
49,900
$238,100
Office and Maintenance Building $ 80, 000
Office and Maintenance Equipment 50, OOP
$130,000
8. Agency Operation
Salaries $ 51, 000
Overhead 16,600
$ 67,600
9. Miscellaneous Expense and Contingencies $ 62, 000
*
*NOTE; Equipment hours in parentheses are not included in equipment operator
hours for labor costs
III-40
-------
TABLE III - 9 BASIC SITE DATA FOR SITES 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8
Site 1
Site 3 Site 5
Site 7
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
Waste Accumulation and Land Requirement
b Fill depth in feet
c Fill area required in acres
x 1. 2 for site area required
d. Purchase - acres (960 total)
•^Compacted and seasonally adjusted
Tons of Waste per Day
a. Operation, days per week
b. Tons per day 1970**
c. Tons per day 1995**
**Seasonally adjusted
Initial Site Development and Cost
a. Buildings, Scale House 8t Pers. Fac.
b. Scales
c. Scale Equipment
d. Watermain
e. Perim. Fence
f, Entr. Fence
g. Gravel Surfacing
h. Grading
i. Landscaping
j. Area Lighting
k. Apron Pavement
1. Miscellaneous
Totals
Equipment Costs and Distribution
a. 3 Track Loader
b, 2 Dozers
d. 1 Compactor
e. 1 Grader
f. 2 Water Trucks
g. 1 Tractor Mower
h 5 Pickup Trucks
i, 1 Lowboy Trailer
j. 1 Dump Truck
k. Miscellaneous
1. 1 Dozer (Spare)
m, 1 Wheel Loader (Spare)
Totals (Total equipment $509, 000)
Equipment - Hours per Year
a. Track Loader, 170 FWHP
b. Track Loader, 275 FWHP
c. Track Loader, 115 FWHP
d. Dozer
e. Scraper
f, Compactor
g. Grader
h. Water Truck
i. Tractor Mower
j. Grader (Rental)
k. Tractor Mower (Rental)
1. Trailer
m. Dump Truck
n. Dozer (Spare)
o. Wheel Loader (Spare)
Total
1 800
30
60
72
80
5
220
480
20,000
10,000
3,500
2,000
2,000
8,000
6,000
2,000
10,000
3, OOP
$66, 500
46,000
2, 500
200
4, 000
1,400
2,400
1,600
7,000
8,400
$ 73,500
2, 080
248
124
(20)
(40)
(40)
(40)
2,592
4350
30
145
174
200
6
510
850
30,000
9,000
10,000
10, 000
6,500
2., 000
4,000
15,000
8,000
3,500
10,000
4,000
$112,000
35, 000
25 000
5, 000
4, 000
400
4, 000
1,400
2,400
2,200
7,000
8,400
$ 94,800
....
3,744
(1.248)
500
624
250
(20)
(40)
(40)
(40)
6,506
9770
24
407
489
48-0
6
1210
1750
30,000
18, 000
10,000
15,000
10, 000
2, 000
10,000
30,000
12,500
•5,000
10,000
10,000
$162,500
70,000
74,000
12,500
8, 000
1,000
4,000
1,400
2,400
4,000
7, 000
8,400
$192,700
2,496
2,496
1,248
1,248
624
(20)
(40)
(40)
(40)
8,252
3290
24
137
165
160
6
410
580
30,000
9,000
10, 000
10,000
6,500
2,000
4,000
15,000
8,000
3,500
10,000
4,000
$112,000
35,000
25 000
5,000
4,000
400
4,000
1,400
2,400
2,200
7,000
8,400
$94,800
3.744
(1,248)
500
624
250
(20)
(40)
'(40)
(40)
6,506
665
24
28
33
40
5
110
130
10,000
5,000
2, 300
1,600
900
3,000
2, 000
1, 000
2, 000
1, 200
$29,000
28, 000
4, 000
1,400
2,400
2, 000
7,000
8,400
$53,200
1,560
NOTE: 1. 40Hr. /Wk. x 52 Wk/Yr = 2080 Hr. /Yr.
48 Hr. /Wk. x 52 Wk/Yr = 2496 Hr. /Yr.
72 Hr. /Wk x 52 Wk. /Yr = 3744 Hr /Yr.
2 Equipment hours in parentheses are not included in equipment operator hours for labor costs
Annual Equipment Operator Hours
Labor Hours per Year
a. Equip. Operators (Total 23, 180)
b. Laborers (Total 16, 640)
c. Foremen (Total 7,488)
d. Gatekeeper (Total 13, 312)
2,452
2,452
2,080
5, 118
5, 118
4, 160
2,496
3,744
8, 112
8, 112
8, 320
2,496
3,744
5, 118
5, 118
4,160
2,496
3.744
2, 380
2, 380
in-4i
-------
5. Summary - Resulting Site Combinations . The 28 economic
site simulations shown in Table III-3 were reduced to four for final considera-
tion. All simulations containing Sites 2, 4, or 6, were deleted when Sites
2, 4 and 6 were eliminated for reasons discussed in Part III.D. 6.
The four remaining simulations provided four combinations of sites shown in
Table III-10. A fifth combination resulted by adding Site 8 to the Sites 1, 3,
5, 7 combination.
Site No. 8 did not appear in the economic simulations because it was imprac-
tical to include as part of this study the detailed measurement of waste quan-
tities at the numerous small disposal facilities in eastern Pottawattamie
County. The site combination containing Site No. 8 could not be simulated
and the figures in Table III-10 for that combination were arrived at by compu-
tation and/or proportion.
The five site combinations were further analyzed and compared by developing
the cost estimates summarized in Table III-7 and by developing the community
costs which appear in Table III-10 which are discussed in the following para-
graphs:
To develop the 1970 community costs for a particular site combination, the
calculated initial disposal fee and the projected 1970 solid waste quantities
and population were used.
The "Calculated Initial Disposal Fee" was determined by cost estimate after
the economic simulations (or in the case of Site No. 8, the computations) pro-
vided the necessary information for determination of land, equipment, and
labor requirements at the sites.
The "1970 Haul Cost/Week" was determined by multiplying the simulation haul
cost by the ratio of 1970 tons of waste to the simulation tons of waste. In the
combination containing Site No. 8 the Haul Cost/Week was assumed to be in
direct proportion to population served. The haul cost was determined by
multiplying the haul cost for the Sites 1, 3, 5, 7 combination by the population
ratio of 535,940/515,800. The assumption made, implies that unit haul costs
in rural Pottawattamie County are equal to unit haul costs in the Metropolitan
area. The average haul distance in the rural area will be greater but the
round trip time will be less because of less restrictive speed limits.
The "1970 Disposal Cost/Week" was determined by multiplying the simulation
disposal cost by the ratio of 1970 tons to the simulation tons and then by the
ratio of initial fee to simulation fee. The simulation fee in these combina-
tions was uniformly $1.25 per ton. The 1970 Disposal Cost/Week for the
Sites 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 combination was obtained by multiplying the 1970 tons per
week by the disposal fee of $1.40 per ton.
The "1970 Community Cost/Week" is the sum of haul cost and disposal cost.
*
III-42
-------
TABLE III. 10 COMPARATIVE FIGURES - FIVE SITE COMBINATIONS
Site Combination
1970 Population
1970 Solid Waste, Tons
Calculated Initial Disposal Fee,$/Ton
1970 Haul Cost/Week
1970 Disposal Cost/Week
1970 Community Cost/Year
1970-1995 Tons Per Day
Site 1 (5 days/week)
Site 3 (6 days/week)
Site 5 (6 days/week)
Site 7 (6 days/week)
Site 8 (5 days/week)
Land Area Required, Acres Per Site
Site 1
Site 3
Site 5
Site 7
Site 8
Sites
3, 5
515,800
723,000
1.22
22, 170
17,444
2,059,928
1100-18'40
1220-1760
-
-
400
520
-
-
Sites
3, 5, 7
515,800
723,000
1.28
21,627
17,863
2,053,480
700-1360
1210-1750
410-590
-
240
480
160
~
Sites
1, 3, 5
515,800
723, 000
1.29
21,857
18,002
2,072,668
220-480
920-144©
1210-1760
-
-
80
320
480
-
-
Sites
1, 3, 5, 7
515,800
723,000
1.32
21,301
18,421.
2, 065,544
220-480
510-850
1210-1750
410-580
-
80
200
480
160
-
Sites
1, 3, 5, 7, 3
535,940
751,200
1. 32
22, 132
19,069
2, 142,452
220-480
510-850
1210-1750
410-580
110-130
80
200
480
160
40
These fees are based upon the reduction of solid waste quantities expected in the fourth year
of operation (1973) and are used for purposes of direct comparison of the 5 potential site combinations.
-------
The "1970 Community Cost/Year" is 52 times the weekly cost.
It should be noted that the 1970 Community Cost/Year will be less than present ,
day coflts. Haul costs will be reduced because of the reduced haul times and
distances provided by multiple disposal sites.
Disposal costs will be reduced because the fee of $1.40 per ton recommended
in this report for the operation of Sites 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 is 20£ less than the
present fee at the Douglas County Sanitary Landfill. The present contract
between the City of Omaha and the privately operated sanitary landfill east
of the Mormon Bridge provides for the disposal 6f 100, 000 tons of waste per
year at a cost of $180, 000 or $1.80 per ton.
Of the five combinations of sites shown in Table III-10, four are developed
and analyzed for the intended use by the Metropolitan area and the adjacent
rural areas of the three counties.
Although the two-site combination of Sites 3 and 5 is the most economical,
this combination does not provide the convenience to the community,, nor
would it serve the future expanded Metropolitan area nearly as well as lihe
Sites 1, 3, 5, and 7 combination.
Either of the combinations containing three sites is an improvement over
the two-site combination, but neither is the optimum combination.required
to satisfy the present and future needs of the community. The addition of
a third facility at Site 7 is quite economical and it would receive the quanti-
ties of solid waste now and in the future to make it self-sustaining but it
does nothing for Sarpy County and southwestern Douglas County. The addition
of a third facility at Site 1 is also reasonably economical and even though its
immediate use is somewhat marginal, its projected use recommends its
establishment, and its location satisfies both the present and future require-
ments of western Sarpy County and southwestern Douglas County. Both Sites 1
and 7 have points in their favor, but neither when individually in combination
with Sites 3 and 5 present a satisfactory solution to the 3-county area solid
waste disposal problem. '
The combination of sites which does meet the present and future needs of the
Metropolitan area is the combination of Sites 1, 3, 5 and 7. The added con-
venience provided the community and the locations which provide for the ex-
pansion of the community far outweigh the additional cost of less than 1/2 of
1% required to add Sites 1 and 7 to the basic 2-site combination of Sites 3 and 5.
To further illustrate the advantages of the multiple site combination of 1, 3,
5 and 7 in the Metropolitan area, the savings that the City of Omaha could
realize on its present 10-year solid waste collection contract were investigated.
It was found that during the survey week of October 2-8, 1968, 1708. 88 tons of waste
were collected and hauled away by the City's contractor at a cost of $20,637,53
or an average cost of $12. 08 per ton. If at that time, the City had had the option
of directing its contract hauler to any of the 4 sites instead of only being ablfe
to utilize existing Site 2, the average cost would have been $11. 69 per ton. The
IE-44
-------
savings for that week would have been $665. 65, and over a year's time this
amounts to approximately $34,000. The savings result solely from the
shorter haul distances provided by the multiple disposal site system. The
City of Omaha could realize the savings through the Overhaul provision in
the collection contract. The collection contract will be in effect through 1978
and cost adjustments will be made each year dependent upon the Consumer
Price Index of the previous year.
The recommendation of Site 8 near Hancock, Iowa is independent of, and in
addition to, any combination of sites considered for the Metropolitan area.
Facilities for the 3-county area would be incomplete without a sanitary
landfill in eastern Pottawattamie County. Site 8 adds 28,200 tons of solid
waste, and 20, 140 people to the corresponding figures in Table III-10 for
operation of any combination of sites for the Metropolitan area.
6. Recommended Disposal Facilities. Five solid waste disposal
facilities are recommended for the three county study area. Their general
locations and service areas are shown in Figure III-3. The following is a
general description of the area in which the site should be located and the
area which the site will serve.
Site Number 1, a sanitary landfill in the vicinity of the inters.ection of Interstate
80 and U. S. Highway 50, to serve central and western Sarpy County, south-
west Douglas County, and southwest Omaha.
Site Number 3, a sanitary landfill in the vicinity of 120th and Fort Streets
in Douglas County to serve west Omaha and northwestern Douglas County.
Site Number 5j a sanitary landfill west of Lake Manawa in Pottawattamie County
to serve Council Bluffs and southwestern Pottawattamie County, Bellevue and
eastern Sarpy County and Omaha.
Site Number 7,. a sanitary landfill north of Dodge Park in the northeast corner
of Douglas County to serve north Omaha, northeast Douglas County, and
northwest Pottawattamie County.
jjite Number 8, a sanitary landfill near Hancock, Iowa to serve eastern
Pottawattamie County.
The three potential facilities under consideration which were not selected
were eliminated for the following reasons;
Site 2 . Site 2 is the existing sanitary landfill immediately east
of the Mormon Bridge in Pottawattamie County. Site 2, rather
than Site 7, would have been selected if it were not for its
future questionable accessibility and the problems which might
be encountered in conversion from private to public operation.
ni-45
-------
This selection would have been made even though most
of the vehicles using the facility would be required to pay
toll bridge fees in addition to disposal fees.
It is expected that the access to Site No. 2 will be appreciably
changed by the completion of Interstate 680 and cause the site to
become uneconomical because of extended haul distances and
times. This-site is privately operated and as such, fees are
necessarily higher than those of a non-profit, tax exempt or-
ganization.
If the accessibility of Site 2 were to remain unchanged and
if it could be operated by a public agency with the resulting
fee reduction, then the site should be selected in lieu of Site
No. 7. Comparison of simulations No. 52 containing Site No.
2 and No. 98 containing Site No. 7, which rank 5th and 9th
respectively in Table III-3, shows that the savings to the
community would be approximately 1. 7%.
Site 4. The City of Omaha recently converted its incinerator
facilities at Site No. 4 to a transfer station. Transfer stations
have been discussed previously and were shown to be unecono-
mical under the minimum design standards assumed and
therefore have not been recommended as part of this system
of solid waste disposal facilities.
The existing transfer station at Site No. 4 is presently
equipped to handle approximately 100 - 120 tons of refuse
per day and remains open 7 days a week. Referring to
Simulation No. 100 ranked No. 2 in Table III-3, it is seen
that with a transfer fee of $1. 08 per ton($2. 33-$ 1. 25 Disp. =
$,1. 08 trnsf) which is based on a minimum of 420 tons per day,
the transfer station would receive 769 tons per week or an
average of 110 tons per day, a quantity less than that neces-
sary to make the station self supporting. Examination of
Simulation No. 100 reveals that less than 8% of the tons of
waste would appear at Site No. 4. The area1 served by the
transfer station is nearly fully developed and waste genera-
tion is expected to increase only slightly so that it becomes
apparent that Site No. 4 would never become self-supporting
and would require a continued subsidy.. A more complete dis-
cussion of transfer stations is presented in Part III. D. 1.
Site 6 . This site was recommended by people interested in
this solid waste disposal study. It was subsequently tested by
site selection criteria and by the simulation process and
found to be unsatisfactory. Access to the site is through
residential areas which would create traffic problems, in these
areas. The most logical combination of facilities which would
include Site No. 6 would be Sites Nos. 3, 6 and 7. This com-
bination does not adequately serve western Sarpy County or
HI-46
-------
western Pottawattamie County and with this combination of
sites, Site: No. 6 would receive 65% of the totai waste
quantity. The land available for filling at Site No. 6 is
approximately 90 acres out of a total of 120 acres, and
with the site receiving 65% of the waste it would last only
3 to 5 years. Simulation No. 95 containing Sites Nos. 3,
6 and 7 ranks 20th in "Total Community Cost" in Table
III-3.
An important part of the site selection process was to determine if a site or
a combination of sites would be properly located and of adequate size to
serve the future requirements of a growing population in the expanding
communities. The map showing present and future land use (Figure III-3),
and the solid waste quantity distribution made by the computer in the econo-
mic simulations were used to determine if there was a reasonable relation
between the land area served by a site and the measured quantity of waste
a site would receive. The developed land areas served in 4 different site
combinations for the year 1968 were determined by planimeter. The indivi-
dual areas for each combination were converted to a percentage of the total
area and compared to the percentages of solid waste received at the sites
in the economic simulations. In all cases in the four combinations of sites
used, the pe-rcentage figures agreed within 2%. This close agreement es-
tablished the basis for predicting future annual site use and aided in the
determination of total land required at individual sites for the particular
combination of sites being considered.
Annual site use for each year of the design period 1970 - 1995 was deter-
mined by multiplying the annual increase in the quantities shown in Table
II-E4 by the predicted percentage of solid waste received at a site during
that year, and then adding that result to the previous years quantities with
1968 as the base year. The predicted percentage of facility use each year
was assumed to vary uniformly from 1968 to 1995. The percentage of use
in 1968 was taken from the economic simulations. The percentage of use
in 1995 was determined by planimeter from the map (Fig. Ill-3) showing
future land use.
m-47
-------
7. Recommended Disposal Fees. Solid waste disposal fees should be
set to provide the revenue required to make the system of facilities completely
self supporting. In Section D. 4. f. of this Part III, the costs of operation are
shown. Four critical years are analyzed; the first year; the fourth year, when
the volume is reduced due to the expected reduction
in Special Tree waste;the average year and the final year. The fourth year is
critical. When these fourth year operating costs are added to the Debt Service
Reserve for that year, as shown in Section D. 4. h. , the total required revenue is
equal to $1. 32/ton. This is 8£ per ton higher than the first year. We recommend
the initial fee be based on the fourth year requirement and that the fee be rounded
off to an even $1. 40. The actual fee to be charged will be based on a new estimate
which must be prepared after the actual final conditions are known. For purposes
of this report a fee of $1. 40 per ton is used. Under the estimated condition,
this fee would bring in a surplus during the first few years. This surplus could
be placed into a reserve to be used as costs of operation increase due to inflation.
After the fourth year, the unit costs are reduced due to the increased tonnage.
It is entirely possible that a fee based on the fourth year cost may be adequate
for several years after that time.
We recommend the following schedule:
Recommended Fee Schedule
Basic fee $1. 40/ton
Minimum fee $1. 00
Private autos and station wagons No charge
Automobiles, if not adequately provided for, create problems at a sanitary
landfill. They are definitely a nuisance and danger if permitted to unload at
the "working face" of the landfill where trucks and heavy equipment are operating.
Fatal accidents involving people inexperienced in landfill operations have occurred
in the working area of a landfill. Automobile drivers and juvenile occupants would
substantially increase the possibility of such accidents. In addition, autos often
interrupt landfill activities because of their inability to negotiate soft, wet ground
and their susceptibility to tire failures. The amount of material delivered in
automobiles is very minor. In Part II, it was shown that automobiles delivered
only 1% of the volume and only 0. 5% of the tonnage whereas they represented
15% of the traffic. For these reasons and because automobiles will often appear
at a sanitary landfill when it is closed, special facilities should be made available
to them.
These special facilities should include large containers exterior to the landfill
proper, and access by hard surface roads. The elimination of any charge for
these facilities eliminates the need of a fee collector and the facilities permit
normal landfill operations to proceed without the problems caused by automobiles.
111-48
-------
The additional revenue produced through the minimum fee is almost exactly equal
to that lost through the free service offered to private automobiles.
Of the 5 recommended sanitary landfill facilities, Sites 1 and 8 would initially
operate without scales. At these 2 sites, a different fee schedule equivalent to
a disposal fee of $1. 40 per ton should be established. We recommend the
following:
Foe Schedule Sites 1 and 8 Only
Minimum fee $1. 00
Pickup trucks (without sideboards) Minimum charge
Light trailers Minimum charge
Packer trucks $. 55 per CY of rated capacity
Private automobiles and station wagons No charge
All other vehicles $. 35 per CY of waste
III-4 9
-------
E. SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. Development of a Flat Site
a_. General. Flat land is generally suitable for development
using multiple layers of waste. The cover material can be taken from the land
in a cut and cover type operation. Site 5 will be used as an example in this
discussion.
b. Amount of Land Required. The amount of land required
depends on the amount of waste and the depth of fill, plus additional land for roads,
setbacks, sight screening and landscaping and operational spaces. It is assumed
that the land acquisitions will require purchasing full parcels of land which would
be not less than 40 acre increments. Therefore, it may be necessary to make
adjustments in order to take an even parcel.
The amount of cover dirt available within a flat site is generally dependent upon
the depth of the water table. The water table at Site 5 is normally 10' to 15'
below the ground surface. Excavation of the site to a depth of 7. 3' will provide
the necessary cover dirt for 3-8' layers of waste, a final cover of 3 feet, the
site screening berms around the site, and road grading.
It is estimated that 20% additional land will be required for roads, setbacks, sight
acreening, etc. The total land purchase is estimated as follows:
(1) Land for filling
9,770ac. ft.-;- 24 ft. = 407 acres
(2) Roads, etc.
407 acres x 20% f 82
Subtotal 489
(3) Less land for even parcel
purchases
Total Land to be Purchased
Based on a purchase of 480 acres, it was assumed the land would consist of
3 quarter-sections.
£• Initial Development of the Site. Before any operations
can commence, the site must be designed and developed. It is recommended
that the initial development be done by a Contractor following plans and specifica-
tions prepared by an Engineer. The initial development would consist of the
following items:
*
III-50
-------
(1) Scale house, gate house and scale equipment.
(2) Equipment and personnel facilities.
(3) Agency headquarters.
(4) Water supply and mains.
(5) Fencing.
(6) Roads and drainage .
(7) Grading and landscaping.
(8) Yard and street lighting.
In the cost estimate, the initial site development at Site 5 is estimated to cost
approximately $162,500. Some of the initial site development is shown in
Figure III-4 which illustrates the development of a flat site into a sanitary landfill.
The items listed above are self-explanatory except for the grading and landscaping.
One major grading item would be the construction of a sight screening berm
around that part of the site which will be filled first. As filling progresses, the
berm will be extended. The purpose of the berm is to completely screen the
site operations from view from the road. It will also act as a windbreak to aid
in litter control. The berm should be planted to grass or other suitable ground
cover. The berm and the area between the berm and the property line should be
landscaped with trees and shrubs. The construction of the berm and the land-
scaping are necessary parts of the entire operation and add substantially to
public acceptance. The expense of these items are minimal when compared to
the operational cost.
d. Operation of the Site. The amount of earth needed for
daily cover, final cover, berms and roads is approximately 5 1/2 million cubic
yards over a period of 26 years. Taking this earth from the fillable area requires
a cut of approximately 7. 31.
Starting at Elevation - 7. 3 ft. and adding 8 ft. of waste and 8 inches of cover for
each lift, the approximate levels for the fills would be as follows:
Lift Bottom Fill Top
First -7.3 +8.7 = + 1; 4
Second +1.4 ' +8. 7 = + 10. 1
Third +10. 1 +8. 7 = + 18. 8
Final Cover +18.1 +2.3 = +21.1
HI-51
-------
The landfilling can start at Elevation - 7. 3 in the area where the initial devel-
opment earth was excavated. As this space is being filled, the cover dirt
required is excavated from the immediately adjacent space, thus creating
additional area with a bottom elevation of -7. 3.
Tho filling should be from the bottom of the lift with trucks dumping at the foot
of the active face and the dozer compacting and pushing the waste up from the
bottom. Bottom dumping has advantages over dumping at the top and pushing the
waste down the slope.
The active face should be between 150 and 200 feet wide depending on the traffic.
As the first lift is filled over an area approximately 200' wide x 1,000' long, the
top surface of the first lift becomes available for the second lift. When this
first 200' x 1,000' pass of the first lift is complete, the second lift should start.
The second lift can be filled to an elevation of 10. 1'. It starts at the same point
the first lift started and can cover the same 200' x 1, 000 except for maneuvering
room needed around the edges. By the time the second lift is complete, to the
extent it has covered as much of the first lift as possible, the filling can return
to the -7. 3' elevation in the space excavated while the first and second lifts were
being filled. This second pass on the level of the first lift will widen the top
surface of the first lift to the extent that additional area is available for the
second pass of the second lift. Once this second pass of the second lift is com-
pleted, the third lift can be started on top of the second lift.
The process of building lift upon lift and then returning to the bottom to widen
the base is necessary to build up to the top of the third lift as soon as possible.
It is at this (+18. 8') level that the final earth cover is placed. This cover material
amounts to approximately 1/3 of the total earth moved. Therefore, it is desirable
to reach the top as soon as possible so excavated material from the -7. 3" level can
be brought directly to the +18, 8 level without rehandling.
In Figure III-4, the site operation is shown. The first view shows the site after
the first few months of operation. The first pass of the first lift has been com-
pleted. The first pass of the second lift is in progress while additional cut is
being made on the -7. 3' level.
The second view shows the site after approximately one year. The +18. 8' level
has been reached. The operation from this stage until the completion of this
area consists of widening the base and adding additional lifts on top until the
area has all been filled to elevation +18. 8'.
The third view shows this area filled and the operation moved to the adjacent
area on the opposite side of the fill road.
The fill road leading from the scale and entrance area to the fill area would be
built in the initial development to an elevation of +10. 1. As the third lift is
placed, the road would be raised in the fill area, to. reach the top of the third,
lift at elevation +18. 8' for access to this level.
IH-52
-------
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT &
3 MONTHS OF OPERATION1
AFTER 1 YEAR
OF OPERATION'
AFTER 3 YEARS
FIRST ARE A IS FILLED
TYPICAL FLAT
SITE OPERATION
III-5 3
FIGURE m-4
-------
2. Development of a Hilly Site
a_. General. Site 3 is used as an example in this discussion.
The land in this area is hilly containing one large gully which could be developed
using typical gully filling methods. Cover material can be taken from the gully
bottom and sides in a combination cut and cover and borrow type operation.
t>. Amount of Land Required. The amount of land required
depends on the depth of fill plus additional land for roads, setback, drainage,
sight screening and landscaping and operational space. Since the gully is irregular
in shape it will be necessary to purchase the parcels of land which surround and
contain the gully. The depth of fill varies from point to point within the gully.
The volume that can be filled is determined by laying out the final top surface
contours and computing the volume between the original ground and the final
cover.
The site illustrated in Figure III-5 shows the necessary land which is approximately
200 acres. The principle gully on the site is shown filled to a top elevation of 1200
ft. (MSL), and can contain 4350 acre feet.
£. Initial Development of the Site. Before any operation can
commence, the site must be designed and developed. The procedure and items
of work would be similar to that described for a flat site, except the details of
the design will be completely different. The major site screening can be accomp-
lished by landscaping. During the initial years while the landscaping was maturing,
the operation would be hidden from view deep in the gully. An initial berm would
be constructed across the lower end of the site and landscaped, but this berm would
be limited in length and height.
Although the berm construction would be less than that shown for the flat site, the
temporary road construction would be more extensive. Roads would be required
for access from the permanent perimeter road to the active face of the fill.
Details of the site development were not worked out to the extent shown for the
flat site. The costs for initial development were estimated to be $112,000.
d. Operation of the Site. The earth for cover can be taken
from the bottom and side walls of the gully as the work progresses. The amount
of cut must be calculated to cover the many lifts which will be made plus the final
cover on top of the completed fill. The calculation must be based on the final
design which will vary depending on which specific site is selected.
The great depth of fill in this type of site has a distinct advantage over a site
filled to a 10 to 15 foot depth which is commonly used, due to a reduced volume
required final cover material. The final cover is recommended to be approxim-
ately 3 feet thick compared to a daily cover of approximately 8 inches thick. If
a single lift were used it would require a final cover. If two lifts were used the
final cover requirement per lift would be cut in half. Similarly, each additional
lift reduces the percentage of final cover per unit volume filled. This is also true
for the three lift flat site proposed for the northeast area.
Ill-55
-------
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED
CONTOUR "s°~ "»
FENCE
PROPERTY LINE
ROAD
RESIDENCE
TREES
DRAINAGE DITCH
m -•• • //•/// )
. -^ ^— „ ! I /I/" /SEC./LINE /
,-^-. .. ^-T_T*T«,£ . _-. -I . _'. -l—f- -/- •- ' 7- - '7
f / /
——' \ \\ \ \ i v
' \ v \ i
j INITIAL DEVELOPMENT
III-5 6
-------
I FINAL DEVELOPMENT
III_57
TYPICAL HILLY SITE
FIGURE m - s
-------
Filling should start near the upper end of the gully and be worked down some
convenient distance. The second lift should be filled on the top of the first, and
the third on top of the second in a manner similar to the filling of the flat site.
Filling from the upper end of the gully allows surface water in the form of rain
or snow to drain away from the fill. This is a very important feature which must
be followed in this type of an operation. When necessary, the filling can resume
at the first level and be continued for another distance to give working and
maneuvering room on the second and higher lifts. The process of extending the
lowest lifts and then extending each higher lift should be repeated until the final
contour or top of the completed fill is reached.
F. FINAL USE AND INTERIM USE OF SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
Once completely filled, sanitary landfill sites can be used for a variety of purposes
It is necessary to understand the nature of a fill site when planning its use. The
sites will settle over a period of time; therefore, improvements built upon solid
waste fills must be either compatible with the settlement or the foundations
must penetrate the fill into firm ground below the fill. Many structures have
been successfully built on fills using light buildings and floating foundations, and
many heavy structures have been built on piles penetrating through the fill.
The landfills will produce some gasses, normally methane, due to the biological
decomposition of the organic material in the fill. These gasses under certain
conditions are toxic and explosive. Normal landfill conditions permit harmless
concentrations of these gasses to escape to the atmosphere. Many structures
and other improvements have been successfully constructed on sanitary landfill
sites where the problem of gasses has been properly provided for.
Generally, completed landfills have been used for open space purposes such as
parks, golf courses, and recreation areas.
Normal improvements associated with these uses such as pavements, shelter
houses, etc. , can be designed for landfills. Landfill sites can and have been
used for agricultural purposes after completion.
A well-planned arboretum could be a pleasing and interesting addition to a
community, especially in the future after many forrested areas may possibly
disappear. A landfill site, if properly handled, could be well suited to this use.
The interim use of sanitary landfill sites could be anything of a temporary
nature compatible with the landfilling and with activities and land use in the
surrounding area. A large site such as the one recommended in the area of
Lake Manawa would have approximately half of its area or 240 acres available
for other uses for about 10 years.
Planners in the community are cautioned to take special notice of the rate of
completion of finished filled land. When a landfill is conducted using only one
or two lifts, the rate of completion of filled land is greater than the landfills
contemplated in this report, where more lifts are contemplated. They may
wish to concentrate efforts on the land not being filled for the first 10 years, and
then devote their efforts toward use of completed portions.
Ill-58
-------
PART FOUR - ORGANIZATION FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
A. GENERAL. The recommended organizational structure for the
disposal of solid waste is a single, non-profit, public agency. This agency
would be formed for the purpose of operating and/or managing all public
solid waste disposal facilities in the three county MAPA area, as one coordi-
nated activity, in accordance with a master plan for area-wide solid waste
disposal. It would operate for and on behalf of all of the member municipali-
ties for their mutual benefit.
Each member would agree to the master plan and pass any ordinances or
regulations necessary to implement the plan and to grant to the agency
exclusive operating authority within their jurisdiction.
Fees would be charged at all agency facilities, for disposal services. These
fees would be uniform at all facilities, non-discriminating, and adequate in
amount to produce the necessary revenue to make the entire disposal opera-
tions self-supporting.
The purchase of land, capital improvements to the land and initial comple-
ment of equipment would be paid for with the proceeds of revenue bond issues.
The user fees would pay for the bond debt service, debt service reserve, opera-
tion and maintenance, equipment replacement, site improvements, miscellane-
ous and incidental expenses, management and overhead.
^ COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE . In following paragraphs of this
Part of the Report, the legal status of the agency is described and a suggested
form of agreement to create the agency is presented. This agreement in-
cludes the necessary authority for the agency to enter the field of solid waste
disposal. It also includes authority to provide solid waste collection services.
The collection services contemplated at this time are minor in nature and are
restricted to the rural communities in eastern Pottawattamie County, where
some form of formal collection service will be desirable to make a single re-
mote sanitary landfill site economical. This was discussed in Part III of this
report.
The scope of this report is limited to disposal problems and specifically ex-
cludes collection matters; however some discussion of collection of rural com-
munities waste was necessary and therefore included. The Agency probably
will wish to study collection problems in the future and it is likely they will
find that great savings can be made by organizing an area wide collection
service. For this reason the Intergovernmental Agreement (Document IV-1)
creating the recommended Agency includes the power to collect and dispose
of solid waste, should the Board wish to include collection service.
JC. LEGAL STATUS OF THE AGENCY. The Agency may be formed under
provisions of Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa entitled "Joint Exercise of
Governmental Powers" and provisions of Chapter 23, Article 22 of the Statutes
of Nebraska entitled "Interlocal Cooperation Act. "
IV-1
-------
DOCUMENT IV- 1, Page 1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE OMAHA-COUNCIL BLUFFSMETROPOLITAN
AREA SOLID WASTE AGENCY
By virtue of this agreement made and entered into by the undersigned, there is hereby formed the
Omaha - Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency, hereinafter called the Agency,
consisting of the elected representatives of the. governing bodies of certain cities, towns, villages
and counties in the Omaha - Council Bluffs Metropolitan area of Iowa and Nebraska. The cities,
towns, villages and unorganized portion of the counties are hereinafter called Municipalities.
WITNESSETH:
AUTHORITY
The Municipalities enter into this agreement under and by virtue of the power to do so granted by
Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa, 1966; and by Sections 23-2201 thru 23-2207, Revised Statutes of
Nebraska 1965.
II
PURPOSES
The purposes of the Agency are as follows:
1. To provide for the economic and sanitary collection and/or disposal of solid wastes produced
or generated within each member municipality.
2. To cooperate with local, State and Federal public health agencies in preventing the contam-
ination and pollution of the land, water and air resources of the area, through the control,
collection and disposal of solid waste.
3. To engage such employees and provide offices, equipment, machinery, buildings and grounds
as are necessary to adequately perform the functions of the Agency.
4. To contract with member cities, towns, villages and counties and with public or private
persons, firms or corporations for the collection and/or disposal of solid waste, and collect
payment for such services, and to receive and expend State, Federal and private grants and
other monies which may be made available, to the extent permissible under applicable State
and Federal laws, and under the rules hereinafter set forth.
ORGANIZATION
1. Membership in the Agency shall consist of a representative from each participating municipality,
or his designated substitute, which substitute shall be approved by the body he represents.
The representative shall be an elected official of the municipality he represents. Each partici-
pating municipality shall have one vote for each 50,000 population or fraction thereof, residing
in the governmental jurisdiction he represents. Such population shall be ascertained from the
most recent Federal Census for that jurisdiction.
2. The governing body shall be designated the Agency Board, hereinafter called the "Board",
consisting of the member representative from each city with a population of 20,000 or
greater; the member representative of each county; and one additional member representative
from each county who shall represent all of the incorporated cities, towns, or villages in that
county not individually represented on the Board.
3. Each.member of the Board shall have one vote for each 50,000 population or fraction thereof,
residing in the government jurisdiction he represents. Such population shall be ascertained
from the most recent Federal Census for that jurisdiction.
IV-2
-------
Document IV-1, Page 2
4. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the entire Board membership, regardless of the number
of votes held by each member present.
5. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board shall be elected by majority of Board
membership and shall serve for a term of one year or until their respective successors
in office are chosen. The incumbent in each said office may succeed himself.
6. The Board shall hold at least one meeting during each quarter of the year on dates and at
places which shall be determined by the Board. Special meetings may be held at the call of
the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or majority of the membership of the Board.
7. The Board shall hire a Director and such other supervisory, clerical, and other personnel as
are necessary to carry out the functions of the Agency. The Board shall fix their compensation
and benefits, and shall approve all personnel rules and regulations pertaining thereto.
8. The Director shall be the Secretary and Treasurer of the Agency and shall have the authority,
duties and obligations normally associated with these offices, including but not limited to
the receipt and disbursement of funds and the preparation and submission of quarterly and
annual financial reports to the Board.
9. The Board may employ legal counsel, who may be a paid employee of one of the members,
and who may receive compensation set by the Board for the performance of his duties.
10. A meeting of the entire Agency membership shall be held annually at a time and place
determined by the Board and at such other times as the Board may direct or when there is a
call for a meeting by a majority of the membership.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board shall be the Chairman and Vice Chairman of
all Agency membership meetings.
11. The Board shall prepare and present to the Membership for approval the "By Laws of the
Agency". A 3/4 vote shall be required for approval. The Board or the membership may,
present, at any meeting, amendments to the By-laws. A 3/4 vote of the membership shall
be required for approval of changes to the By-Laws.
IV
DURATION
1 . It is the intention of this agreement that the Agency be a permanent organization. Additional
municipalities may be added to the membership of the Agency upon n three-fourths vote of
all of the members of the Board.
2. In the event an additional municipality shall apply for membership in the Agency and said
application is considered and approved by the then existing Board, then said municipality may
be added to the membership, provided that said additional municipality as a condition of
membership agrees to abide by the terms of this agreement as set out herein and possess legal
power and authority to do so.
V
POWERS
The Municipalities delegate the following powers to the Agency and Board:
1. To provide solid waste disposal facilities and service for all member municipalities and the
public within the general geographic area of the member Municipalities.
2. To provide solid waste collection and disposal service to those member municipalities requesting
such service, within the limits authorized by law.
IV-3
-------
Document IV-1, Page 3
3. To receive funds from member Municipalities as payment for providing collection and disposal
service. However, in lieu of receiving such funds from member municipalities, it shall have
the power to bill individuals directly for payment for collection and disposal services and to
receive such payments, for and on behalf of the municipalities where such direct charging of
fees is authorized by law, and where the member requests such billing.
4. To contract with all levels of government, other public agencies, private agencies and private
individuals, toward the accomplishment of the stated purposes of the Agency, within the limits
authorized by law.
5. To establish a schedule of fees to be collected from all users of the Agency's disposal facilities,
provided however the schedule of fees shall be uniform to all users.
6. To hire employees, fix their compensation, benefits, personnel rules and regulations, and
terminate their employment.
7. To purchase, lease, receive as gjfts or donations, or otherwise acquire all land, buildings,
equipment and supplies as necessary to carry out the functions of the Agency, and to dispose
of the same.
8. To make or cause to be made studies and surveys necessary to carry out the functions of the
Agency.
9. To contract with and compensate consultants for professional services including but not limited
to architects, engineers, planners, lawyers, accountants, rate specialists, and all others found
necessary to the stated purposes of the Agency.
10. To issue revenue bonds for the purchase of land and equipment and erection of buildings and
other improvements, and to provide for their retirement, within the limits authorized by law.
11. To prepare and recommend to member Municipalities local ordinances governing refuse storage,
collection, transportation and disposal, regulation of private collection haulers, land use
regulations, sanitation, burning of private or public wastes, incineration standards and such
other regulations as may from time to time be required.
12. To exercise any and all powers relative to the efficient collection and disposal of solid waste
available under then existing laws to each member Municipality.
13. To prepare by-laws, rules and regulations, fee schedules, and entrance and termination forms
and procedures for membership in the Agency.
14. To provide for a system of budgeting, accounting, auditing and reporting of all Agency funds
and transactions, for a depository, and for the bonding of employees.
15. To consult with representatives of Federal, State and local agencies, departments and their
officers and employees and to contract with such agencies and departments.
16. To accept gifts, grants, or loans of money or other property from the United States, the states
or any person, corporation or other entity for Agency purposes, and to enter into any agreement
required in connection therewith, and to hold, use, and dispose of such money or property in
accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto.
17. To exercise any and all other powers consistent with the stated purposes of the Agency available
under then existing law to each member Municipality.
IV-4
-------
Document IV-1, Page 4
VI.
TECHNICAL COOPERATION FROM MUNICIPALITIES
The Municipalities agree to respond to reasonable requests to make local records available to the
Agency staff and its consultants or employees for the purposes of this agreement, and to assure that
engineers, architects and consultants hired by the Municipalities release materials, data and other
pertinent items paid for by public funds, to the Agency staff to aid in the efficient and effective
accomplishment of such purposes.
VII.
FINANCING
1. The Board shall prepare a budget based on calendar years for the operation of the Agency to
be adopted in June of the year preceding the budget year.
2. The Board shall request each Municipality to provide in its budget for its share of the Agency
budget.
3. The Board shall annually adopt a percentage formula, based on population, as shown in the
last completed Federal census, for the purpose of allocating the portion of the Agency budget
each Municipality will provide.
4. The share of each budget from each Municipality shall be due and payable to the Treasurer
of the Agency in quarterly payments to be made within 30 days after the beginning of the
quarter of the Agency's budget year.
5. Special appropriations shall be made by the parties hereto for funding the operation of the
Agency prior to the establishment of the budget cycle.
6. Any special or budgetary appropriation adopted by the Agency shall be a membership
requirement of each and every Municipality and shall upon the Municipality's contracting
with the Agency therefore constitute a legal liability on the part of such Municipality.
The failure of a Municipality to pay over to the Agency the allotted share of an Agency
budget may be considered a momentary withdrawal of that Municipality and a default of
this Agreement.
VIM.
SUSPENSION OF VOTING RIGHTS AND SERVICES
During a period of delinquency by a Municipality in the payment to the Agency of its share of a
budget and before such delinquency is determined a voluntary withdrawal, such Municipality shall
not be entitled to the services of the Agency, nor shall the Municipality be entitled to vote on
matters coming before the Board, unless such delinquency shall be waived for voting purposes by a
three-quarters vote of the remaining members of the Board.
IX
DISSOLUTION
In the event of the withdrawal of any Municipality from the Agency such withdrawing
Municipality shall be entitled to a pro-rata share of the value of the real and personal
property of the Agency. Such share shall be calculated as the percentage of the then value
of said property based on the ratio of the funds the withdrawing Municipality has provided to
the Agency during the period of this agreement to the sum of all funds provided by all Munici-
palities. Funds for the payment of the pro-rata share of such property value shall be provided
for in the next succeeding Agency budget cycle and shall be payable within six months of the
beginning of the budget year in which the item appears. A withdrawing Municipality may
waive its pro-rata share of any real or personal property in the possession of the Agency.
IV-5
-------
Document IV-1, Page 5
2. The Agency shall be completely dissolved and this agreement terminated only upon the
affirmative three-quarters majority vote of the Board.
3. In the event of complete dissolution of the Agency, any real or personal property shall be
sold and the proceeds prorated among the Municipalities at the time of dissolution on the
basis of the sum of the portions of the budget for the Agency provided by them for and during
the period of this agreement. The current budget year shall be used as one of the years in
the calculation if all Municipalities have made their proper contribution. If all members
have not made their proper contribution, the balance remaining of funds collected during
the current year shall be refunded to the contributors before determining the value of the
assets of the Agency at dissolution, and said year shall not be used in calculating the shares.
4. In the event the Agency has acquired a debt thru the issuance of bonds or loans or otherwise,
and such debt is still outstanding, and unpaid, no member may withdraw or in any way terminate,
amend, or modify this agreement in any manner to the detriment of the bond holders or holders
of notes or other instruments of debt.
X.
MANNER OF ACQUIRING AND HOLDING PROPERTY
1. The Board may lease, purchase, or acquire by any other means, from members or from any
other source, such real and personal property as is required for the operation of the Agency
and the carrying out of the purposes of this agreement. The Board shall maintain title to all
such property in the name of the Agency and shall require the Secretary to maintain an
inventory. Property, materials and services shall be acquired or disposed of only upon a
majority vote of a quorum attending a duly called Board meeting, provided however, that
by the same vote, the Board may authorize the Director to expend such funds as the Board
may direct for other authorized purposes of the Agency.
IV-6
-------
These two state provisions are similar to the typical Joint Powers Act found
in many state codes. They provide, in part, that any governmental subdivision
may cooperate or contract with another subdivision, or jointly perform any
service or exercise any power which they individually have the power to do;
or they may form a separate agency for this purpose. These same two
legislative provisions are the legal basis upon which the Omaha-Council
Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency was formed.
A proposed form of an intergovernmental agreement to create and operate
the agency is included in this Part IV of the report as Document IV-1.
This agreement is applicable to cities, towns and counties in Iowa and cities,
villages and counties in Nebraska. Hereinafter cities, towns, villages and
counties are referred to as "Municipalities".
JD; MEMBERSHIP. It is essential to the plan, as proposed, that the poli-
tical jurisdictions in which sanitary landfill sites are located be members of
the agency. This includes Council Bluffs, Omaha, and the counties of
Pottawattamie, Douglas and Sarpy. It would be desirable if all of the muni-
cipalities in the Study Area executed the agreement.
_£_. FORMATION OF THE AGENCY . It is recommended that the Agency
be established as an independent entity, whose membership would be comprised
of one representative from each participating municipality. The representative
would be one of the elected officials of the municipality. The Agency would be
governed by a Board of Directors comprised of the representative of the major
cities; the counties; and 3 additional representatives, each of which would re-
present the smaller cities, towns or villages in each of the three counties. In
voting matters concerning the entire Agency and/or the Board, each represen-
tative shall have one vote for each 50,000 population or fraction thereof resid-
ing in the jurisdiction he represents.
With the membership consisting of elected representatives, direct lines of
communication between the Agency and the municipalities is established and
the following benefits realized:
1. The Agency would function with real authority since individual
members would be an elected official who would represent and speak directly
for his respective city, town and village councils, and county boards.
2. Feedback to the member jurisdictions would be accomplished
by having direct representation on the Board.
3. Limiting the Board membership in the manner described would
prevent the membership of the Board from becoming too large to function
effectively as a policy making body.
4. Weighing the vote of each member on a population basis would
provide a fair method of recognizing the population differences between the
member jurisdictions.
IV-7
-------
The length of the term of membership on the Board should be determined when
the By-Laws for the Board are initially drawn up. Provisions should be made
to assure continuity on the Board, taking into account the variations in the
ordinances of the member jurisdictions regarding length of office of elected
officials.
The broad purposes of the Agency as outlined in the proposed Agreement are
as follows:
1. To provide for the efficient and economical, collection and
disposal of solid waste produced or generated within the Study Area.
2. To promote through good practice, effective means for re-
ducing or preventing the contamination and pollution of the land, water and
air resources of the Study Area.
3. To provide for a self-supporting, independent organization,
equipped with sufficient manpower and facilities to adequately perform the
purpose of the Agency.
A proposed organizational chart for the Agency is shown on Figure IV-1. This
chart indicates the flow of authority from the elected municipal and county
officials, to the Agency Board and the Director.
The director would be responsible for the administration and operation of
the Agency, under policies adopted by the Board. This is a top
level position requiring experience in public works management, personnel
management, engineering and public financing.
The assistant director should have qualifications similar to that of the director,
Professional staff services such as legal, engineering, planning and research
could be provided by full time employees or by consultants. This determina-
tion should be made by the Board and the director in the development of the
work program for the Agency. The Agency may be able to utilize personnel
employed by member communities for these specialized services.
It is believed that the majority of jobs in the collection and disposal divisions
can be filled by absorbing qualified personnel from existing municipal refuse
agencies. Provisions should be made to guarantee that transferring employees
retain their basic job benefits, including seniority, vacation accruals and re-
tirement credits.
In-service training programs should be established, particularly in the refuse
disposal division, to adequately train personnel at the several landfill sites
in the methods and procedures recommended in Part III of this report.
JL OPERATION OF THE AGENCY. It is proposed that the Agency be
operated in a manner similar to a public utility, responsible to the Agency,
Board rather than any one municipality or county. It should have authority
IV-8
-------
PROPOSED OR6ANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE AGENCY-1969
0
c
3)
m
SITE NO.I
EQUIP OPERATOR
ATTENDENT
CITIES, TOWNS, VILLAGES & COUNTIES
SITE N0.3
AGENCY BOARD
DIRECTOR
ASS'T DIRECTOR
FORM AN
EQUIP OPERATORS
LABORERS
ATTENDENTS
SITE N0.5
FORMAN
EQUIP OPERATORS
LABORERS
ATTENDENTS
SITE N0.7
FORMAN
EQUIP OPERATORS
LABORERS
ATTENDENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
CLERK
STENO
SITE N0.8
ONE MAN
VEHICLE and EQUIPMENT
FORMAN
MECHANICS
LABORERS
-------
to operate independently of city limits, county or state lines provided the city,
county or state is an Agency member.
The Agency will be able to function most efficiently and economically if all
jurisdictions in the Study Area are participating members. However, this
is not an absolute necessity. It is possible, economically and politically, to
form the Agency, as it is contemplated in these recommendations, if only
Omaha, Council Bluffs, and the three counties of Pottawattamie, Sarpy and
Douglas join. These are the major jurisdictions and the jurisdictions in
which sanitary landfill sites are located.
Basically, the Agency will provide two types of service for the area; refuse
disposal and refuse collection, as follows;
1. Refuse disposal - Five Agency owned or leased, managed and
operated landfill sites will be open to anyone wishing to dispose of solid waste.
The description and location and operation of the landfill sites have previously
been discussed in Part III. All vehicles other than automobiles will be charged
a disposal fee, based upon the amount of refuse delivered. It is recommended
that private individuals using automobiles be allowed to use the landfill sites
without charge. A proposed disposal ordinance has been prepared and is
included in this part of the report as Document IV-2.
2. Refuse Collection - In rural Pottawattamie County, one central
sanitary landfill is recommended. To be economical some form of cooperative
collection service should be organized. See Part III for discussion of this
service.
In the event the Agency wishes to provide limited collection service at this
time and expanded service sometime in the future, the Agency may contract.
with each member jurisdiction requesting this service, to provide refuse collec-
tion service. The contract would include the method of determining the actual
cost, the type of service, frequency of service and other related items. It is
recommended that each member jurisdiction adopt a refuse collection ordinance,
consistent with collection requirements of the Agency. A proposed collection
ordinance has been prepared and is included in this part of the report as Docu-
ment IV-3.
Initially, a problem would exist in providing collection service in the unincor-
porated areas of the counties. Statutory authority for county refuse collection
is presently not available. It is recommended that county officials request
such legislation during the next session of the legislature. Until such legisla-
tion is available, it is believed that collection service can be provided to most
unincorporated areas on a voluntary basis.
G. FINANCING.
1. Disposal Service.
*
_a. Revenue Bonds . Initial capital investments and annual
operating revenue will be required for disposal service. It is recommended
that the initial capital investments be financed through revenue bonds. The
IV-10
-------
DOCUMENT IV-2, fage 1
PROPOSED REFUSE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE FOR CITIES CONTRACTING WITH THE OMAHA-
COUNCIL BLUFFS METROPOLITAN AREA SOLID WASTE AGENCY
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE; DEFIN-
ING TERMS; PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREFOR; REGULATING THE PRIVATE
DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE; PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION
OF PRIVATE LANDFILL OPERATORS AND DISPOSAL SITES; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLA-
TION THEREOF; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES
AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF :
SECTION 1 . For the purpose of this Ordinance the following definitions shall apply;
1 .1 "Agency" shall mean the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency.
1 .2 "Construction Demolition Waste" shall mean waste building materials and rubble resulting
from the demolition of building structures, pavements and other physical facilities.
1 .3 "Garbage" shall mean the solid or semi-solid animal and vegetable waste resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking and serving of foods, including cans, bottles and cartons in which
it was received and wrappings in which it may be placed for disposal.
1.4 "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, association, syndicate, co-partnership, corporation,
trust, other legal entity having proprietary interest in a premise, or other legal entity having re-
sponsibility for an act.
1 .5 "Health Officer'1 shall mean (each City, Town, Village and County should indicate who shall
be the Health Officer who shall have responsibility for administering and enforcing this ordinance).
1 .6 "Sanitary Landfill" shall mean a controlled method of disposing of refuse on land without
creating air, land or water pollution or nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing
the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the smallest practical volume, and to cover it
with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation, or at more frequent intervals as
may be necessary.
1 .7 "Refuse" shall mean unwanted or discarded material resulting from commercial, industrial and
agricultural operations and from normal community activities. Waste refuse includes in part the
following: garbage; rubbish; ashes and other residue after burning; street refuse; dead animals;
animal waste; abandoned vehicles; agricultural, commercial and industrial waste; construction and
demolition waste and sewage treatment residue.
SECTION 2. By virtue of an agreement dated between the City and the Agency, the
Agency has agreed to provide and operate sanitary landfill facilities for and on behalf of the City,
for the disposal of refuse originating within the jurisdiction of the City-
The sanitary landfill facilities operated by the Agency are hereby designated as the official "Public
Sanitary Landfill" for the disposal of solid waste originating within the jurisdiction of the City.
No other Public Sanitary Landfills are authorized; provided however, any publicly operated facili-
ties or privately operated facilities open to the public, which are in existence and operating at the
time of the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate until one year after the effec-
tive date of this ordinance.
The Agency is authorized to establish such rules and regulations as may be reasonable and necessary
for the proper operation of the facilities and to modify or amend or extend such rules and regulations
as may be required from time to time.
IV-11
-------
Document IV-2, Page 2
The Agency is authorized to establish a schedule of fees to be paid by the users of the facilities,
to cover the cost of owning and operating such facilities and other expense directly related to
said facilities; provided however, said schedule of fees shall be nondiscriminating and shall apply
equally to all users.
SECTION 3. All sanitary landfills within the jurisdiction of the City shall be operated in a sani-
tary, safe and nuisance free manner, and shall comply with all local, state and federal laws and
regulations. In addition to other laws or regulations which may be required the following standards
shall apply:
SANITARY LANDFILL STANDARDS
3.1 Zoning. Sanitary landfills shall be located only in areas zoned to permit such land use.
•3.2 Flooding. Sanitary landfills shall be located in places not subject to overflow of streams,
rivers, or water courses; or shall be suitably protected by levees or other control devices to prevent
overflow. The 50 year flood shall be used for design purposes in Urban Areas and the 20 year flood
in Rural Areas.
3.3 Sight Screening. The site operations shall be suitably screened by fences, earthen berms,
natural barriers or landscaping, from view from any ground level point outside the site area that
is within 1320 feet of the filling operation .
3.4 On-Site Access Roads. Access roads shall be provided on the premises of the site which are
readily negotiable by heavy and light vehicles during wet weather.
3.5 Off-Site Access Roads. Access roads leading to the site shall be all weather roads adequate
to carry the expected traffic.
3.6 Personnel Shelter. Suitable shelter and sanitary facilities shall be provided for personnel.
3.7 Quantity Measurements. Sites designed for disposal of refuse, at the rate of 100,000 tons
per year or greater, shall be equipped with motor truck scales and a record of tonnage of waste
disposed of shall be kept. However, the operator may at his option exclude automobiles and/or
pickup trucks and other small vehicles from weighing requirements, provided some alternate and
suitable form or record of waste delivered in these vehicles is maintained.
Sites designed for disposal of refuse at the rate of less than 100,000 tons per year shall determine
the amount of refuse disposed of by weighing of loads or some other suitable method.
All sites shall determine the volume of material filled by physical survey at time increments not
to exceed each 6 months.
3.8 Controlled Access. Access to the fill areas shall be limited to those times when an attendant
is on duty. Positive means shall be provided to limit the access thru the use of fence, gates,
natural barriers or other suitable means.
3.9 Burning Prohibited. No open burning of any kind shall be permitted at a sanitary landfill
site at any time.
3.10 Fire Prevention. Suitable measures shall be taken to prevent accidental fires at site including
but not limited to no smoking regulations and regulations prohibiting loads which may be a fire
hazard. Regulations shall be posted and enforced.
3.11 Control of Fires. Suitable provision shall be made to control and extinguish fires accidentally
started.
A stockpile of cover dirt shall be maintained near the active face to be used to smother fires when
necessary. Also water from mains, tanks or ponds, or suitable water wagon shall be available.
Buildings and equipment shall be equipped with adequate fire extinguishers.
3.12 Unloading. The unloading of refuse shall be under the general direction of an attendant who
shall control the place of deposit.
IV-12
-------
Document IV-2, Page 3
3.13 Working Face. The working face of the sanitary landfill shall be confined enough to be
easily maintained with available equipment.
3.14 Litter. Blowing litter shall be controlled by providing fencing near the working area, and
in addition by other fencing, berms, windbreaks, natural barriers or other methods as required to
prevent wind blown litter from leaving the working area and the general site area. Unloading
shall be coordinated with wind direction to reduce wind blown litter. The entire site shall be
kept free of accumulated litter by a combination of prevention and policing.
3.15 Spreading and Compacting. Refuse shall be spread and compacted in shallow layers, not
exceeding a depth of two feet of compacted material. Additional layers shall be placed one upon
another until the depth of fill has reached a predetermined height for that particular daily lift.
3.16 Daily and Intermediate Cover. A uniform compacted layer of at least 6" of suitable cover
material shall be placed on all exposed refuse by the end of each working day. Where a com-
pleted lift is to be left for more than 6 months before the application of another lift, the depth of
cover requirement shall be increased to a minimum of 12" compacted thickness.
3.17 Final Cover. A layer of suitable cover material compacted to a minimum depth of three
feet shall be placed over the entire surface of each portion of the final lift not later than 3 months
following the placement of final lift. This final cover shall be fine graded to the grades established
for the ultimate use of the site. The graded final cover shall be planted to grass or other suitable
ground cover at the earliest reasonable time and watered and maintained to establish an adequate
ground cover.
3.18 Maintenance of Equipment. Provisions shall be made for the routine operational maintenance
of equipment at the landfill site and for prompt repair or replacement of landfill equipment.
3.19 Special Materials. Special provisions shall be made to handle sewage solids, meat packing
industry waste, bulky wastes or other special or hazardous waste, when such wastes are accepted
at a sanitary landfill . Provisions shall include established standard operating procedures which
shall be known to attendants and posted for public information.
3.20 Vector Control. Conditions unfavorable for the production of insects and rodents shall be
maintained at all times. Supplemental vector control measures shall be instituted when necessary.
3.21 Dust Control. Suitable control measures shall be taken to prevent a nuisance from dust.
3.22 Ground Water. Refuse shall not be placed in locations or at elevations where contact with
ground water is likely and such contact would result in pollution of ground water supplies or other
pollution or nuisance.
3.23 Drainage of Surface Water. The entire site, including the fill surface, shall be graded and/or
provided with drainage facilities to minimize run-off into and onto the fill, prevent erosion or
washing of the fill, drain off rain or other precipitation falling on the fill, and to prevent the
.collection of standing water. The final surface of the fill shall be graded to slope at least 1%,
but no slope shall be so steep as to cause erosion of the cover.
3.24 Animal Feeding. All animals shall be excluded from the site.
3.25 Salvage. No salvaging or scavenging shall be permitted at the site.
3.26 Safety. Site personnel shall be instructed in the principals of first aid and safety and in the
specific operational procedures necessary to prevent accidents. Accident precautionary measures
shall be employed at the site. An adequate stock of first aid supplies shall be maintained at the
site.
3.27 Communications. Telephone or radio communication shall be provided at or near the sanitary
landfill site.
3.28 Initial Development of Site. Prior to filling any waste, the initial development of the site
must have been completed. Initial development shall include the following: roads, grading, •
IV-13
-------
Document IV-2, Page 4
drainage, utilities, structures, fencing, berms, sight screening and litter control fencing. During
the first planting season initial landscaping and ground cover shall be established.
3.29 Operational Han. Prior to filling any waste, an operational plan must be prepared. This
plan shall show the intended filling of the site and shall include layout and elevation of lifts,
sequences, sources and quantities of cover material, drainage, temporary roads and final develop-
ment of the site.
3.30 Operational Records and Plan Execution. A daily log shall be maintained showing location,
type and quantity of material being placed in the fill. A copy of the plan, specifications, instruc-
tions and other documents showing how the filling is to be carried out shall be maintained at the
site. Lines, grades, and other control devices shall be placed in the fill area prior to filling and
shall be maintained as required to provide a visual reference for equipment operators.
SECTION 4. Any person may establish and operate a private sanitary landfill for the disposal of
his own solid wastes provided he shall have first applied for and received a permit from the city
designating his site a "Licensed Private Sanitary Landfill" and may continue to do so as long as the
permit shall remain in force and the site is operated in accordance with the provisions of this ordi-
nance.
Licensed Private Sanitary Landfill sites shall be used for the exclusive purpose of disposing of the
site operator's own waste and shall not be open to any segment of the general public nor to any
other private source of waste.
It shall be unlawful for any person to receive payment of any kind, or request payment of any kind,
for the disposal of any garbage or refuse at a private licensed sanitary landfill site. The charging
of a fee for the collection and disposal of any garbage or refuse from a customer by a private refuse
collector shall not be construed as a violation of this Section since the disposal is considered to be
incidental to the total collection and disposal service, provided however, such collection and
disposal shall be conducted entirely by forces and with equipment owned or operated by the private
refuse collector.
The issue of this permit shall be in the manner prescribed by the City and subject to all other appli-
cable Ordinances of the City. Application permits shall include all necessary data to show that
the landfill will be operated in accordance with the Sanitary Landfill Standards included in Sec-
tion 3. Included in part must be: n topographic map of the existing land; preliminary plans of the
initial development; preliminary operation plans; sources of cover material; equipment proposed
for use and other data as may be required. Also included shall be.an agreement by the applicant
to maintain his landfill site and the vicinity in a safe and sanitary manner, to allow no public
nuisance, and to provide a responsible person who will be in constant attendance during the hours
of active operation; agreement to operate his landfill in accordance with all local, county, state
and federal regulations and to permit access to the landfill site by any health officer or govern-
mental representative or agent who may have jurisdiction for the purposes of inspection.
An annual license fee of $300.00 per year shall be paid to the City for each location at which a
landfill is conducted.
If any private landfill operation is found to be conducted in a way detrimental to the health and
welfare of the public, or contrary to provisions of this ordinance, the Health Officer shall notify
the operator in writing of the objectionable conditions and give him a reasonable time to correct
said conditions. After proper notice, the City is authorized to enter upon the premises and use
any of the City's forces and equipment, or those of the landfill operator, or hire forces and equip-
ment to correct the objectionable conditions. The same shall be considered of benefit to the Owner
of the land and the cost of such corrective action shall be chargeable to the Owner, and if not paid,
shall constitute a lien upon the premises and shall be collected in the same manner as taxes as pro-
vided by law.
SECTION 5. Any person may establish and operate a private landfill for the disposal of "Construc-
tion Demolition Waste" originating from the operator's own demolition work, provided he shall
have first applied for and received a permit from the City designating his site a "Licensed Private
Landfill," and may do so as long as the permit shall remain in force and the site is operated in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
IV-14
-------
Document IV-2, Page 5
Licensed Private Landfill sites shall be used for the exclusive purpose of disposing of the site
operator's own waste and shall not be open to any segment of the general public nor to any other
private source of waste.
It shall be unlawful for any person to receive payment of any kind or request payment of any kind
for the disposal of any construction demolition waste at a Private Landfill site. The charging of
a fee for demolition and disposal of n structure or pavement or other physical facility shall not be
considered as a violation of this section since the disposal is considered to be incidental to such
demolition and disposal service provided demolition and disposal shall be conducted entirely by
forces and with equipment owned or operated by the site operator.
The issuance of this permit shall be in a manner prescribed by the City and subject to all other
applicable Ordinances of the City.
Applications for permits shall include all necessary data to show that the landfill will be operated
in accordance with the Sanitary Landfill Standandards included in Section 3 except the provision
for On-Site Roads, Quantity Measurements, Unloading, Daily & Intermediate Cover, Special
Materials, Animal Feeding, and Operation Records and Han Execution shall not be required.
In lieu of the daily and Intermediate Cover requirements as written, the operator shall be required
to comply with this standard only for that part of the material which is combustible or which is
subject to being scattered by the wind causing wind blown litter.
Included in part must be: a topographic map of the existing land; preliminary plan for the initial
development; preliminary operation plans; sources of cover material; equipment proposed for use
and other data as may be required. Also included shall be an agreement by the applicant to main-
tain his landfill site and the vicinity in a safe and sanitary manner, to allow no public nuisance, and
to provide a responsible person who will be in constant attendance during the hours of active opera-
tion; agreement to operate his landfill in accordance with all local, county, state and federal regu-
lations and to permit access to the landfill site by any health officer or governmental representative
or agent who may have jurisdiction for the purposes of inspection.
An annual license fee of $300.00 per year shall be paid to the City for each location at which a
landfill is conducted.
If any private landfill operation is found to be conducted in a way detrimental to the health and
welfare of the public, or contrary to provisions of this ordinance, the Health Officer shall notify
the operator in writing of the objectionable conditions and give him a reasonable time to correct
said conditions. After proper notice, the City is authorized to enter upon the premises and use
any of the City's forces and equipment, or those of the landfill operator, or hire forces and equip-
ment, to correct the objectionable conditions. The same shall be considered of benefit to the Owner
of the land and the cost of such corrective action shall be chargeable to the Owner, and if not paid,
shall constitute a lien upon the premises and shall be collected in the same manner as taxes as pro-
vided by law.
SECTION 6. No person shall dispose of garbage or refuse of any kind upon any land within the
jurisdiction of the City, except as provided in Section 5, unless such land has been designated
by the City as a "Licensed Private Sanitary Landfill" or a "Public Sanitary Landfill " and then only
in compliance with posted or published instructions or at the direction of an attendant in charge.
SECTION 7. Nothing in this ordinance shall apply to the filling, leveling or grading of land with
earth, sand, ashes, cinders, slag, gravel, rock, or similar inert wastes, provided these materials
are not contaminated or mixed with other waste materials; nor to the disposal of animal and agri-
cultural wastes on farm land.
SECTION 8. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell or offer for sale, or to
install or offer to install, any device intended for use as a garbage or refuse burner or incinerator;
except when the intended user of such a device has secured a license to operate such a device from
the City, or when the device will be operated by or for the City.
SECTION 9. It shall be unlawful for any person to burn or incinerate or permit the burning or in-
cineration ot any garbage or refuse within the jurisdiction of the City. This section shall apply to
IV-15
-------
Document IV-2, Rage 6
all garbage and refuse as defined, and shall specifically include all waste paper, boxes, market
waste, garden wastes, trees, tree limbs, leaves and any and all materials other than materials used
as a fuel in a furnace or boiler.
This section shall not apply to any incinerator operated under a license granted by the City or any
incinerator operated by or for the City, or any burning conducted under the direction of the Fire.
Department of the City.
SECTION 10. It shall be the duty of the Health Officer and all police officers of the City to en-
force the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 11 . Ordinance No. and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this
ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 12. If any section, subsection, sentence or part of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-
tions of this ordinance.
SECTION 13. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall upon conviction
be subject to a fine of not more than $100.00 or to imprisonment for not more than 30 days.
SECTION 14. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as provided by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 19
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
IV-16
-------
DOCUMENT IV-3, Fbge ]
PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION ORDINANCE FOR CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES CONTRACT-
ING WITH THE OMAHA-COUNCIL BLUFFS METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE AGENCY
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR MUNICIPAL COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE;
DEFINING TERMS: PRESCRIBING RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREFOR; REGULATING THE
PRIVATE COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE; PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING AND
REGULATION OF PRIVATE GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTORS; PRESCRIBING RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR HAULING GARBAGE, REFUSE AND OTHER WASTE MATERIALS WITHIN OR
THROUGH THE CITY; PROHIBITING THE DEPOSIT OF LITTER WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO.
AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SECTION 1: For the purpose of this Ordinance the following definitions shall apply:
1.1 "Agency" shall mean the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency.
1.2 "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, associati'on, syndicate, co-partnership, corporation,
trust, other legal entity having proprietary interest in a premise, or other legal entity having
responsibility for an act.
1.3 "Garbage" shall mean the solid or semi-solid animal and vegetable waste resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooling and serving of foods, including cans, bottles and cartons in which
it was received and wrappings in which it may be placed for disposal.
1.4 "Refuse" shall mean all solid waste from residential, commercial or industrial premises. It
shall include semi-liquid or wet wastes with insufficient moisture and other liquid contents to be
free flowing. It shall not include any construction materials except minor amounts incidental
to other wastes.
1.5 "Health Office" shall mean (each city. Town, Village and County should indicate who shall
be the Health Officer, who shall have responsibility for administering and enforcing this ordinance.)
SECTION 2: By virtue of an agreement dated ^_^_ between the City and the Agency,
the Agency has agreed to provide garbage and refuse collection and disposal service for and on
behalf of the City, to remove all garbage and refuse from (specify who is to receive service;
i.e., dwellings, commercial, etc.) located within the City, subject to the following conditions:
2.1 Collections shall be made not less than (specify number of times per week) a week, at such
time and in such areas of the City as shall be set out in schedules agreed upon by the City and the
Agency.
2.2 The City and the Agency are authorized and empowered, jointly, to change or amend such
schedules from time to time as they, in their discretion, shall deem necessary.
2.3 Collections may be made either from streets or alleys, where existing, at the discretion of
the Agency personnel.
2.4 Containers shall be placed out-of-doors at some easily accessible place.
2.5 (Specify other conditions as necessary.)
SECTION 3. Refuse containers and garbage containers shall not be more than 30 gallons nor less
than 10 gallons in nominal capacity; except where only one container is used, in which case this
containers may be less than 10 gallons in capacity. Containers shall be waterproof, rat proof,
and fitted with a tight lid. The containers shall have handles, bails or other suitable lifting devices
IV-17
-------
Document IV-3, Page 2
or features. The containers shall be of a type originally manufactured for refuse or garbage, with
tapered sides for easy emptying. They shall be of light weight and sturdy construction. The
weight of any individual container and contents shall not exceed 65 pounds. Galvanized iron and
similar metal containers, rubber or fiberglass containers, and plastic containers which do not become
brittle in cold weather may be used. Disposable bags manufactured for garbage and refuse disposal
in suitable frames or containers shall be acceptable. Oil or grease drums, -paint cans, and similar
salvaged containers shall not be acceptable.
3.1 All refuse and garbage shall be placed in suitable containers; except, it shall not be necessary
to place books, boxes, magazines, or newspapers in containers provided they are securely tied in
bundles or completely contained in disposable boxes not larger than 24 x 24 x 36 inches. Also
tree limbs and brush may be securely tied in bundles not larger than 48 inches long and 18 inches
in diameter.
3.2 Baskets, boxes and non-complying refuse or garbage cans or containers shall be considered
disposable refuse and shall be removed by the Agency collection crews if they are the proper size
and otherwise acceptable for collection; or shall be left uncollected if they are larger than the
allowable size or unacceptable for collection.
3.3 Large bulky items such as furniture, large tree limbs and appliances that cannot be reduced
to fit approved containers, will not be collected. (City to specify alternate collection if
desired.)
SECTION 4. Within the corporate limits of the City, all garbage or refuse, consisting of waste
animal and vegetable matter, which may attract flies, dogs or rodents, shall be drained of all
excess liquid, wrapped in paper or disposable containers, and placed or stored, until collected,
in covered suitable containers as described in Section 3.
SECTION 5. It shall be unlawful for any person to permit to accumulate on any premises, improved
or vacant, or on any public place in the City, such quantities of garbage or refuse, either in
containers or not, that shall, in the opinion of the Health Officer, constitute a health.or sanitation
hazard.
SECTION 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to permit to accumulate quantities of refuse,
papers, trash, ashes, or other waste materials, within or close to any building in the City, unless
the same is stored in containers in such a manner as not to create a health or fire hazard.
SECTION 7. No person shall engage in the business of removing or hauling garbage or refuse from
the premises of others unless such person shall have first applied for and received a permit to do so
from the City. Application for such permit shall specify the equipment or vehicles to be used,
general information concerning the route to be traveled and the places to be served, and the name
and address of the applicant. Such person shall pay an annual license fee of Fifty Dollars (50.00)
per year for each vehicle engaged in such business to be paid at the office of the City Clerk.
Such permit fee shall be payable commencing on the day of ,
19 , and shall be renewable each year thereafter"All vehicles licensed under this section shall
prominently display the license'number on the left and right sides of the vehicle in letters not less
than 3" high.
SECTION 8. Any person authorized and licensed by the Agency to remove or haul, garbage or
refuse, shall be considered to have met the provisions of Section 7, and no further permit or license
shall be required by the City.
SECTION 9. No person shall haul any garbage or refuse upon the streets, alleys or public places
of the City, unless the same shall be in approved containers, securely fastened to prevent spillage,
or in a totally enclosed water tight vehicle. If, however, the material is a dry type material, it
may be hauled in a totally enclosed vehicle, or open vehicle which is covered with a suitable
tight fitting canvas tarpaulin or similar cover to prevent spillage. Licensed collectors who collect
and haul garbage and/or refuse shall haul these materials only in totally enclosed vehicles with
water tight containers. All vehicles used for the collection and removal of garbage and refuse
shall be kept in a clean, inoffensive and sanitary condition. All garbage and refuse shall be
handled in such a way as to prevent the scattering, spilling or leakage of same.
IV-18
-------
Document IV-3, Page 3
SECTION 10. No person shall haul or cause to be hauled any garbage, refuse or other waste
material^of any kind, to any dumping place or site or area, within or without the corporate limits
of the City, unless such place, site or area is first licensed by the City, or is an Agency operated
sanitary landfill site; in addition to complying with all applicable health and zoning ordinances of
the City.
SECTION 11. No person shall deposit in a garbage or refuse container or otherwise offer for
Agency collection any hazardous garbage, refuse, or waste. Hazardous materials shall be trans-
ported by the owner, responsible person or his agent, to a place of safe deposit or disposal as
prescribed by the Health Officer or his authorized representative. Hazardous materials shall
include: Explosive materials; rags or other waste soaked in volatile and inflammable materials;
drugs; poisons; radio active materials, highly combustible materials; soiled dressings, clothing,
bedding and/or other wastes, contaminated by infection or contagious disease, and other materials
which may present a special hazard to collection or disposal personnel or equipment or to the public,
SECTION 12. No person shall throw, rake, deposit, dump, drop or spill litter, waste material
or foreign material upon the streets, sidewalks, or other public rights-of-way within the City.
However, the Mayor may at his discretion proclaim a period when leaves may be placed in street
right-of-ways for collection.
SECTION 13. It shall be the duty of the Health Officer and all police officers of the City to
enforce the provision of this ordinance.
SECTION 14. Ordinance No. __^ and all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 15. If any section, subsection, sentence or part of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance.
SECTION 16. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance
shall upon conviction be subject to a fine of not more than $100.00 or to imprisonment for not more
than 30 days.
SECTION 17. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication as provided by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 19 .
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
IV-19
-------
re-quired annual operating revenue and debt service on the bonds can be raised
from fees charged by the Agency for disposal services rendered to the member
communities.
The details of the financing should be worked out by financial consultants at
tlie proper time. In this section, the revenue requirements and the fees
necessary to meet these requirements are summarized.
Bond authorities informally doubt that the Agency, created under the provisions
of Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa and provisions of Chapter 23, Article 22 of the
Statutes of Nebraska would have the specific authority to issue bonds of any
kind. Apparently this matter has not been necessary to date nor tested in any
court. It would be beneficial if this authority were added to the provisions of
the two state laws. Without such specific .authority, potential bond buyers
would be reluctant to purchase the bonds. As an alternative it has been
suggested that a declaratory judgment be requested from appropriate courts,
stating that the authority to issue bonds is implied in the language of the laws
and that an Agency so organized has such authority. The decision on this
matter should be made by competent legal counsel. In any case, specific
legislation should be requested granting this authority to the Agency.
In the event the Agency cannot issue revenue bonds in the name of the Agency,
it is recommended that one of the member municipalities issue the bonds under
its own authority. The capital investments made with the bond proceeds would
be held in the name of the municipality, at least until the bonds were paid.
Meanwhile, land, improvements and equipment purchased with the bond pro-
ceeds would be leased to the Agency. The lease agreement and a pledge of
the required funds from fees would be used as security to back the revenue
b ond s.
Revenue bonds do not affect the general bonding power of the municipality.
They are not included in statutory debt limits nor are they an obligation of the
municipality. Revenue bonds are secured only by the revenue produced by the
activity for which they were issued.
We suggest that the City of Omaha should be the municipality to issue the
revenue bonds for the needed capital associated with the four sites in the urban
area. Sites 3 and 7 are within Omaha's political jurisdiction. Sites 1 and 5
are within the political jurisdiction of Sarpy County and Council Bluffs res-
pectively. Omaha should enter into specific contractual agreements with
these two jurisdictions to maintain proper access to these sites and assure
their continued use. Omaha has need for these four sites and has the authority
to issue revenue bonds. It is also in the interest of Omaha to provide facilities
in excess of their own needs, to obtain a larger operation, and thus a more
economical operation, resulting in a lower unit cost. The sites recommended
are placed in such a position to be used economically by waste producers other
than Omaha.
IV-20
-------
We suggest one of the cities in eastern Pottawattamie County issue the
necessary revenue bonds to finance Site No. 8.
_b. Operating Revenue. Operating revenue and debt service
for bonds can be obtained from fees charged to the users of the sites. Initial
operating funds may be obtained from assessments to the member municipalities
and from the pre-sale of disposal fee coupons or tickets.
c^. Revenue Required. The amount of revenue required for
annual operating expense and debt service is summarized in Table IV-1. The
cost estimates from which this table was prepared are explained in Part III.
D.4. of this report.
The bond issue requirements for the anticipated one time capital investment
are as follows:
Urban Sites 1, 3, 5 & 7 $2,034,000
Rural Site 8 83, OOP
Total $ 2, 117,000
The total revenue requirement, including debt service, debt service reserve
and annual expenses is estimated to be $949> 100 per year for the first year
(1970).
TABLE IV-1
REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND INCOME FOR
AGENCY DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE
A. REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
1 . First Year, 1970
a.. Fixed Cost $ 408,800
_b. Variable Cost 466,500
£. Debt Service Reserve 73, 800
Total Revenue Required $ 949, 100
2. Fourth Year, 1973
a.. Fixed Cost $408,800
_b. Variable Cost 429,200
_c. Debt Service Reserve 73,800
Total Revenue Required $ 911,800
B. INCOME
1. First Year, 1970
751,200 Tons @ $1.40/Ton = $1, 051, 700
2. Fourth Year, 1973
691,000 Tons @ $1.40/Ton = $ 967,400
IV-21
-------
d. Income . It will be necessary to provide income which
is equal to the required revenue shown in Table IV-1. This income will be
provided from fees charged to the users of the facilities. The expected in-
come is shown in Table IV-1.
e. Disposal Fees . The disposal operation should be
completely self-supporting by charging fees from the users of the facilities.
Several systems for charging of fees are possible and are explained in the
Appendix in Exhibit IV-1. The recommended system is based on the weight
of material brought to the site in each vehicle. This requires scales .and
scale operators which are included in the estimates for Sites 3, 5 and 7. In
the case of the Rural Site No. 8, such a small operation could not justify the
expense of the use of truck scales. Therefore we recommend a fee based on
volume of refuse be used which would be equivalent to the fee per ton charged
at the other sites. Also, in the early years of operation of Urban Site No. 1,
there would be insufficient waste to justify scales. We recommend a volu-
metric fee system for this site for the first several years. .
The proposed fees are developed and explained in Part III.D. 7. of this report.
2. Collection System. The scope of this report does not include
collection of solid waste; however we have briefly discussed in Part III of
this report, the collection of certain solid wastes in the rural communities
of eastern Pottawattamie County. We have also included collection of solid
waste in the purpose and powers of the Agency. If the Agency would elect
to provide collection service at this time the capital cost and operating ex-
pense could be billed to those communities being served.
We recommend that collection service and disposal service be treated as two
separate and distinct operations and that separate accounting be provided for
the necessary funds.
IV-22
-------
jl INTERIM ACTIVITIES. While the Agency is being formed an interim
director should be appointed to guide the formation of the Agency, the prelim-
inary work on financing and legislative problems, and the selection and hiring
of a qualified permanent director. It would be desirable if the permanent
director could be hired and the Agency brought into being within a few months.
The Agency has many activities which must be accomplished prior to starting
collection or disposal of solid waste. Once the director is hired the following
items should be accomplished:
1. Review the report recommendations and prepare a detailed
statement of policy. There are several recommendations which the member
municipalities may wish to modify and several which are stated in general
terms, which must be defined in light of the particular needs of the members.
2. Review the report and make adjustments where necessary
after it has been determined which municipalities have agreed to join the
Agency
3. With the aid of fiscal and legal consultants prepare the financ-
ing and legislative procedures, and pursue these matters at the proper time.
4. Conduct sanitary landfill site investigations and select the
specific parcels of land to purchase.
5. Design the initial development of the sites which have been
selected.
6. Assist the member municipalities in the interim improvements
to their disposal facilities and the necessary arrangements to close the sites
which are not to be continued.
7. Determine the total equipment needs of the Agency as formed.
Those needs will include leased equipment from those members with surplus
equipment and new equipment. Prepare cost estimates for the purchase of
equipment not being leased and cost estimates and schedules for initial purchase
of equipment as leased equipment is replaced with Agency owned equipment.
8. Plan for the staffing of the Agency with regard for the employees
now working in collection and disposal divisions in the member communities,
and the recruitment and hiring of new personnel.
9. Prepare standard operating procedures, job descriptions,
operating instructions and policies of the Agency which are pertinent to the
operation of the collection and disposal services.
10 Plan the new collection routes which may be required to meet
the needs of requested collection service, if the Agency decides to provide such
service.
IV-23
-------
11. Determine the new revenue requirements and projected income
based on actual conditions which will prevail at the time of operation.
1Z. Prepare all of the details for the orderly commencement of
operation.
13. Assist in the sale of revenue bonds to produce the necessary
initial capital.
14 Purchase the land and equipment, construct the necessary
improvements, acquire the personnel. ,
15. Place the Agency into operation.
Part of the interim activities will require the assistance of specialists and
consultants. Where there are member municipalities which have the required
specialists on their staff and their duties will permit, these staff members may
be used to advantage. It will probably be necessary to hire bond consultants
in connection with the issuance of revenue bonds and engineering consultants
to assist in the details of site selection and initial site development.
To finance the interim activities, it is recommended that an initial budget
based upon per capita membership be paid to the Agency by the joining members.
This budget should include funds for the support of the director and his staff,
required consultants and the initial operating funds for disposal facilities.
L STATE LEGISLATION
1. Financing and Eminent Domain. The State Legislation upon
which the recommended Agency would be formed is described in Section C of
this Part IV of the report. There are two areas in which the existing legislation
is inadequate, i. e. ; there is no specific provision for the Agency to issue the
required revenue bonds for the long-term capital financing and there is no
specific provision for the agency to exercise the right of eminent domain.
To overcome the first deficiency, we have recommended in Section G, Part IV
that the necessary revenue bonds be issued by a member municipality. To
overcome the second defiency, the exercise of eminent domain, if condemnation
became necessary, could be accomplished by the member municipality in
whose jurisdiction the site was located.
It would be helpful if revenue financing and eminent domain authority were
specifically provided in the laws of both Nebraska and Iowa.
In a solid waste report prepared for the metropolitan area of Des Moines in
1968, we recommended a similar agency be created under the provisions of
Chapter Z8E of the Iowa Code. We also recommended that the new agency
*
IV-24
-------
pursue the problems of revenue bond financing and eminent domain with the
Stale legislature. At the time of the final writing of this report, the Iowa
Legislature has passed the required legislation. The language of the act can
be found in Senate File 482. We recommend legislation be passed in the State
of Nebraska which would have the same effect as that found in the language of
the Iowa bill.
2. Authority of the Various Subdivisions of the State. In various
places in the statutes of Iowa and Nebraska, authority has been given to cities
of the several classes, towns, villages and counties, to provide for the collec-
tion or disposal of solid waste or both. In some cases this was accomplished by
adding solid waste or words meaning solid waste to a list of other subjects
covered; and in others, authority was specifically designated for solid waste
matters. Some provisions specifically state "removal or disposal of garbage"
whereas in other cases "disposal" is stated and it is presumed that "removal"
is implied. In some cases there are controls on taxes and requirements for
referendums and in others there are not.
As a practical matter, most communities can probably find adequate authority
either expressed or implied to provide some form of collection and disposal
of solid waste. It would be helpful, however, if adequate state laws concerning
solid waste matters were available that granted broad specific powers to all
cities, towns, villages and counties. This is particularly true when several
political subdivisions of various classes join together to solve solid waste
problems through an area wide agency approach such as is contemplated in
this report because the Agency cannot do anything for a. member municipality
which the member does not have the authority to do for itself.
We have prepared a Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Act in the form of a bill
which brings together under one title the authority for all cities, towns,
villages and counties to handle solid waste problems. This proposed bill is
enclosed in this Part IV of the report as Document IV-4. This bill contains
provisions that we believe to be necessary and desirable from a viewpoint
of public works, sanitation and solid waste management. It should be
reviewed by competent legal counsel for matters of law and individual state
constitution requirements.
As an alternate to this proposed act, we would recommend the various statutes
of Iowa and Nebraska concerning solid waste matters be compared to the
provisions in this act and the existing statutes be revised where necessary
and desirable.
As a further alternate and as a minimum, we would recommend the following
specific revisions:
a. Collection of Garbage and Refuse in Iowa Cities and
Towns In Section 368. 24 - Garbage and Refuse Disposal of the Iowa Code,
the power to establish a schedule of fees for garbage collection and certain
IV-2 5
-------
DOCUMENT IV-4, Page 1 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL POWERS AND DUTIES, FINANCING THEREFOR:
FIXING RATES AND CHARGES, COLLECTION THEREOF; CONTRACTING WITH PRIVATE
PARTIES; SETTING MINIMUM STANDARDS, VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES THEREFOR.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF (IOWA) (NEBRASKA):
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. As used in Section 1 to 15, the terms defined in
this section have the meaning given them, except as otherwise provided or indicated by the context.
Subd. 2. "Solid Waste." "Waste" is unwanted or discarded material resulting from commercial,
industrial and agricultural operations and normal community activities. Waste include solids,
liquids and gases. Wastes which are solid or semi-solid containing insufficient liquid to be free
flowing are classed as solid waste. Solid Waste is refuse and includes in part the following:
garbage; rubbish; ashes and other residue after burning; street refuse; dead animals, animal waste;
abandoned vehicles; agricultural, commercial and industrial waste; construction and demolition
waste; and sewage treatment residue.
Subd. 3. "Solid Waste Disposal" means the storage, removal and collection of solid waste from
public and private property, and its transportation to disposal facilities and its ultimate disposal
by landfill, sanitary landfill, composting, incineration or other authorized and approved methods.
Subd. 4. "Facilities" means all or any vehicles, mechanical apparatus, equipment, machinery,
incinerators, plants, buildings, structures, shop or office space, furniture and equipment, public
or private grounds, purchased, leased, erected, constructed, or otherwise permanently or
temporarily acquired, for the storage removal, collection, transportation and disposal of solid
wastes.
Subd. 5. "Sanitary Landfill" is a controlled method of disposing of refuse on land without creating
air, land or water pollution or nuisances or hazards to public health, welfare or safety, by
utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse 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.
Subd. 6. "Landfill" is the same as a sanitary landfill, except cover material is applied from time
to time as required, instead of daily or more frequently. To be acceptable, landfills must be
restricted to inert, non-combustible, non-putrescible solid waste mate'rials.
Subd. 7. "Incineration" is the controlled process of burning solid, semi-solid, liquid or gaseous
combustible wastes in an enclosed device, producing an inoffensive gas and a sterile residue
containing little or no combustible material. The process is used to reduce the volume
of waste material or to change the characteristics of hazardous wastes to a safer form.
Subd. 8. "Pollution" is the contamination of any air, water, or land so as to create a nuisance
or render such air, water or land unclean or noxious, or impure so as to be actually or potentially
harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, to domestic, commercial,
industrial or recreational use, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life
or to plant life.
Subd. 9. "Municipality" for the purpose of sections 1 to 15 means a city of any class, town,
village, or a county representing its unorganized territory, town or other governmental subdivision,
however organized.
Subd. 10. "Governing Body" means the board, council, trustees, commission, or other body of the
municipality charged with the general control of its financial affairs; provided, that where the
charter or law under which a municipality is organized confers bond issuing power or contracting
authority on a particular board or body, such board or body is the governing body under the
provisions of sections 1 to 15.
IV-26
-------
Document IV-4, Page 2
SECTION 2. DISPOSAL FACILITIES; AUTHORITY. Any municipality is hereby authorized and
empowered to collect and remove solid waste from public and private property, and to transport
and dispose of solid waste, and for these purposes is authorized and empowered (1) to acquire
by gift, lease, purchase, or condemnation as provided by law, any land or interest in land, within
or outside of the municipality, on which the governing body deems suitable to establish or operate
facilities for the collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes; (2) to purchase, lease,
establish, erect, or construct facilities on such site or sites; (3) to enlarge, improve, repair,
supervise, control, maintain and operate such facilities for disposal of solid waste; (4) to purchase
or lease materials, equipment and machinery necessary in connection with the operation and
maintenance of facilities for removal, collection, transportation and disposal of solid wastes;
(5) to employ such personnel as may be necessary for the care, maintenance and operation of such'
facilities.
SECTION 3. BONDS AND TAXATION.
Subd. 1 . The governing body of a municipality, however organized, is hereby authorized and
empowered for the purpose designated in Section 2 of this Act, or for refunding bonds, to issue,
from time to time as needed, the negotiable bonds of the municipality to the amount authorized
by the governing body.
Subd. 2. The bonds shall be issued, negotiated, and sold in the manner and subject to the conditions
prescribed by the (list the appropriate statute provision or recite new provision as required)-
, as heretofore or hereafter amended, so far as applicable to the municipality issuing bonds,
except as herein otherwise expressly provided, and may levy all taxes necessary therefore. Such
bonds and interest thereon and the expense of issuance thereof may be paid out of the proceeds of
tax levies or out. of revenue from fees or other sources, or both, and the governing body may pledge
any such proceeds or revenues thereto.
Subd. 3.
(1) Nothing herein contained shall preclude a municipality from issuing revenue bonds for the pur-
poses set forth under Section 2 of this Act, or to refund bonds. Such revenue bonds shall not impose
any general liability upon the municipality but shall be secured only out of revenues derived from
the charges as provided in Section 4. Such 'charges for solid waste disposal service shall be suf-
ficient, at all times, to pay the cost of operation and mai ntenance thereof and to pay the principal
of and the interest upon all revenue bonds issued, and to carry out all covenants that may be provided
in the ordinance authorizing the issuance of any such bonds.
(2) Revenue bonds shall be issued, negotiated and sold in the manner and subject to the conditions
prescribed by the (list the appropriate statute provisions or recite new provisions as
required)— , as heretofore or hereafter amended, so far as applicable to the municipality issuing
the bonds, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.
Subd. 4.
(1) The governing body of any municipality may levy taxes for any solid waste disposal purpose on
all property taxable within the municipality. Any taxes, levied or to be levied, and any bonds or
other evidences of indebtedness issued or to be issued for the purposes designated in Section 2 of
this act, or any part thereof, shall not be subject to any limitation of a charter or state law and shall
be excluded in computing amounts subject to any limitation on tax levies, bonded indebtedness or
other indebtedness and the governing or managing body and the proper officers of the municipality
concerned shall have the power and it shall be their duty to levy such taxes and issue such bonds
and take such other lawful actions as may be appropriate and necessary to provide funds to meet the
cost of accomplishing such purposes, notwithstanding any such limit and without any election or
referendum therefor.
(2) A recital in any bond, or tax levy, that the same is issued or made for the purposes of a solid
waste disposal facility or facilities, or any part thereof, is not subject to any provisions of law pre-
scribing limits or requiring an election or referendum therefore, and shall be prima facie evidence
thereof and that all requirements of law relating thereto have been complied with. In any suit,
action, or proceedings involving the validity or enforceability of any bonds of a municipality or the
security therefor, any such bond reciting in substance that it has been issued by the municipality to
aid in financing a solid waste disposal facility or facilities, or any part thereof, shall be conclusively
deemed to have been issued for such purpose, and in compliance with all requirements of the law
relating thereto.
IV-27
-------
Document IV-4, Page 3
(3) For any solid waste disposal purpose, a municipality may levy taxes in anticipation of need and
the provisions of this subdivision shall be applicable so far as appropriate to any such anticipatory
levy. If such a tax is levied in anticipation of need, the purpose must be specified in the resolution
of the governing body directing the levy, and proceeds of the tax must be used only for that purpose,
•and until used the proceeds shall be retained in a separate fund, or invested, as surplus in a sinking
fund may be invested under - — (list appropriate statute provisions or recite new provisions as
required) •
Subd. 5. In exercising power and authority under Sections 1 to 15, the action of the governing
body of any municipality shall not be subject to approval of a board of estimate and taxation, nor
subject to the provisions of n charter prescribing a particular method of authorizing issuance of bonds.
SECTION 4. EQUITABLE CHARGES FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES . Any municipality
which has established and is operating, or which is proceeding to establish, or which may hereafter
establish facilities for, or contracts for removal, collection, transporation or disposal of solid waste,
in addition to all other powers granted to it, shall have authority, by an ordinance duly adopted by
the governing body thereof, to charge just and reasonable rates or charges for such services, and to
obligate the owners, lessees, or occupants of all property served to pay the cost of solid waste disposal
service to their respective properties. These rates or charges shall take into account the character,
kind, and quality of the service and of the solid waste, method of disposition, number of people
served at each place of collection, and all other factors that enter into cost of service, including
interest on principal, investments, amortization of principal, depreciation, and other overhead
charges upon facilities owned and operated by the municipality or later acquired for such use. Such
rates or charges when fixed may be billed in such manner as the governing body may determine, or
added to and collected with water bills or bills for sewage disposal rendered to owners, lessees or
occupants of property.
SECTION 5. FIXING RATES; PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE. Before any rates or charges for
solid waste disposal service are fixed under the authority of Section 4, the ordinance establishing
such rates or charges shall be published or posted as by law provided, and shall set forth the rates or
charges for each type of service, and shall contain a notice to all persons or parties interested that
the same will be considered at a public hearing not less than three weeks from the publication or
posting of said ordinance as required by law, upon which date a public hearing shall be conducted
by the governing body at which any person affected by any rate or charge shall be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard as to the rate or charge he will be called upon to pay. The proposed ordinance
may be amended by the governing body before enactment in any manner not inconsistent with the
terms of the notice of hearing thereon. Said ordinance and the rates or charges established therein
as proposed or as amended, shall take effect upon publication or posting of the ordinance as required
by law, or at such later date as shall be fixed by such ordinance. Like procedure shall be followed
before the establishment of any change in such rates or charges. Every ordinance upon enactment
shall be signed, attested, filed, published or posted, and recorded as provided by law for enactment
of ordinances.
SECTION 6. CHARGES; TAX LIEN ON LAND; COLLECTION. The rates, or charges for solid waste
disposal service shall be a charge against the premises from which solid waste is collected, and the
owner, lessee, or occupant of the premises, or against any or all of them; and any such claim for
unpaid rates, or charges which have been properly billed to the occupant of the premises may be
collected in a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction, or, in the discretion of the govern-
ing body of the municipality, may be certified to the county auditor where the premises are located
with the taxes against such property served and shall be collected as other taxes are collected. Pay-
ments of deliquent charges shall be credited to the fund as are current funds for that purpose, deduct-
ing therefrom any cost of collection accruing to the municipality.
SECTION 7_^ CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE BY OTHERS AUTHORIZED
(1) A municipality may provide solid waste disposal services by the use of its own forces and facili-
ties or may contract for such services to be furnished to the municipality upon such terms and conditions
as the governing body may determine in the public interest with any person, firm or corporation,
private or public, or with any other municipality, and by ordinance may obligate the owners, lessees
or occupants, of all property served to pay the cost of such services to their respective properties as
provided under Section 4.
(2) The obligation incurred by any municipality in the making of any such contracts shall not be
considered as a part of its indebtedness under the provisions of its charter, or by any law of this state
IV-2 8
-------
Document IV-4, Page 4
fixing the limit of amount of its indebtedness; nor shall it be required, at any time before making,
or during the life of such contracts, to have specifically provided for the same by previous tax
estimates or levy, or to provide for or have on hand in its treasury more money applicable to
such contracts than the amount to be paid thereon during a single year.
SECTION 8. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FUND. The moneys received from the rates and charges
as authorized by Section 4 shall be deposited in a fund separate and distinct from any and all
other municipal funds, to be designated "Solid Waste Disposal Fund," which shall be a continuing
fund to which shall be credited all receipts, and to which shall be charged all costs incident
to such activity. Moneys may be temporarily advanced to said fund from any available
unencumbered and unappropriated balance in any other fund or funds, and as receipts permit,
reimbursement of moneys advanced from other funds shall be made.
SECTION 9. AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF LAND. The governing body of a municipality after
public hearing upon notice given by publication or posting as by law provided may, upon
determining that any tract of land or interest therein acquired under or subject to the provisions
of Sections 1 to 15 is no longer needed for the purposes thereof, sell, lease, or otherwise
dispose of such tract or interest upon such terms as it deems best in the public interest, or may
provide for the use thereof for other purposes, so far as not inconsistent with any lawful
restrictions on the use or disposal of such tracts or interest therein.
SECTION 10. EMINENT DOMAIN. A municipality is hereby authorized and empowered to
exercise the power of eminent domain for carrying out the provisions of Sections 1 to 15. Such
proceedings shall be in accordance with (list appropriate statute provisions or recite new
provisions as required) as now in force or hereafter amended.
SECTION 11. GIFTS, GRANTS OR LOANS. A municipality may, in its name and behalf accept
gifts, grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the state, or any other
source for any purpose under Sections 1 to 15 may enter into any agreement for repayment or
otherwise required in connection therewith, and may hold, use and dispose of such money or
property for said purposes in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan, or agreement
relating thereto.
SECTION 12. RULES AND REGULATIONS, METHODS, AND MINIMUM STANDARDS. (1) A
municipality may by ordinance establish rules, regulations, and minimum standards applicable
to solid waste and land pollution which rules, regulations and standards shall meet at least the
minimum requirements established by the (list appropriate state-regulatory agency having
responsibility).
(2) The governing body in providing for solid waste disposal may by ordinance, or any amendment
thereto, provide in what districts or along which streets collection shall be made, and volume of
solid waste to be collected, leaving certain amounts or types of solid waste to private disposal,
but shall continue to have the authority to regulate the time and manner of private disposal, varied
according to the nature of the solid waste accumulated and disposed of. Such regulation may
provide for immediate abatement of any condition which is a menace to public health and safety.
In such cases notice may be given to the owner or occupant of premises for the summary disposal
of solid waste or unhealthy or unsafe condition by posting upon the premises notice of what is
required. If the notice be not obeyed within the time fixed in said notice, the municipality shall
have the right to remove such solid waste or such unhealthy or unsafe condition, charging such
rates or charges as are prescribed, or the cost thereof, and shall have the right to collect the
same as rates and charges are herein authorized to be charged, made and collected. In lieu of
such method, the municipality may for adequate compensation by contract with the owner of any
premises, perform any service upon public or private property in the removal of solid waste,
covering with proper filling material any foul, unhealthy or unsafe material, including low grounds,
which are or may become foul, unhealthy or unsafe.
(3) The governing body shall have the authority to direct the method of handling and storage of
solid waste on public or private premises, to require the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises
to place the same at the most convenient place upon the premises, and if convenience in the
collection thereof requires containers on premises for the handling thereof, the governing body may
require the same.
IV-29
-------
Document IV-4, Page 5
(4) The governing body may adopt and amend ordinances regulating the use of disposal facilities.
Such ordinances may also establish standards which upon adoption shall govern the operation of
solid waste disposal facilities throughout the municipality, including those operated by the
municipality, other public agencies or by private operators. Such regulations may apply to the
location of solid waste disposal facilities, requirements relative to the sanitary operation thereof,
requirements regarding the equipment necessary relative to the amount of material being received
at the facility, requirements in relation to the control of salvage operations, rodent control,
water or air or land pollution control, and such other subjects as may be required for the public
health, welfare, and safety relative to the operation of such facilities. The municipality may
issue permits or licenses for commercial private solid waste disposal facilities and may require
that all solid waste disposal facilities be registered with the appropriate municipal office.
Before acting on an ordinance regulating the operation or location of solid waste disposal facilities,
the governing body shall hold a public hearing upon the proposal therefor upon at least three
weeks notice given by publication or posting as required by law, stating briefly the subject matter
and the general purposes of the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance may be amended by
the governing body before enactment in any manner not inconsistent with the terms of the notice
of hearing thereon. Said ordinance, as proposed or as amended, shall take effect upon publication
or posting of the ordinance as required by law. Every ordinance upon enactment shall be signed,
attested, filed, published or posted, and recorded, as provided by law, for enactment of
ordinances.
SECTION 13. VIOLATIONS, PENALTIES. Any municipality is hereby authorized by ordinance
to impose penalties and provide for punishment for violation of any ordinance or regulation
relative to the accumulation of solid waste, its collection or disposition.
SECTION 14. JOINT COOPERATION.
(1) A municipality may be a party to a joint cooperative project, undertaking, or enterprise with
any one or more other governmental subdivisions or other public agencies for any purpose under
Section 2 upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the governing bodies or authorities
concerned. Without limiting the effect of the foregoing provision or any other provisions of
Sections 1 to 15, a municipality, with respect to any of said purposes, may act under and be subject
to the provisions of (Iowa Chapter 28E; or Nebraska Chapter 23, Article 22) ,
as now in force or hereafter amended, pr any other appropriate law now in force or hereafter
enacted providing for joint or cooperative action between governmental subdivisions or other
public agencies.
(2) A municipality may, upon such terms as may be agreed upon with the respective governing
bodies or authorities concerned, authorize the use by any other governmental subdivision or other
public agency of any facilities of the municipality constructed or used for any purpose under Section
2 so far as the capacity thereof is sufficient beyond the needs of the municipality. A municipality
may expand any such facilities and permit the use thereof by persons, firms, corporations, private
or public, municipalities or other public bodies, outside the municipality, so far as the capacity
thereof is sufficient beyond the needs of the municipality upon such terms as the governing body
may prescribe.
SECTION 15. POWERS ADDITIONAL
(1) It is hereby found and determined that solid waste disposal is a matter of statewide concern and
that the provisions of Sections 1 to 15 shall be independent of and in addition to any other provision
of the laws of the State of (Iowa) (Nebr.) with reference to the matters covered hereby and shall be
considered as a complete and independent act and not as amendatory of or limited by any other
provision of the laws of the State of (Iowa) (Nebr.) The purpose of these sections is to permit any
municipality to engage in the activities hereinbefore authorized, and to promote the public health,
safety, welfare, convenience and prosperity of the municipality. The activity herein authorized
shall be considered a public utility and such activity may be merged and operated with any other
municipally operated utility, if deemed necessary and economical. Accounting for the activity
herein authorized shall be separate as hereinbefore directed.
(2) If any provision of sections 1 to 15 is held unconstitutional or invalid, it shall not affect the
other provisions.
IV-30
-------
other functions is limited to cities of twenty thousand or more population.
Wo recommend this limit be removed for cities and towns in Iowa where the
city or town is a member of an agency such as the one proposed here, and
that agency has a total membership in excess of twenty thousand population,
and the Agency is prepared to provide the services contemplated in 368.24.
b. Collection of Garbage and Refuse in Iowa and Nebraska
Counties . There is no provision for the counties in Iowa or Nebraska to
provide for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse in the unor-
ganized parts of the county. We recommend that permissive state legisla-
tion be passed in both states which allows counties to provide such collec-
tion and disposal service in such portions of the county as the Board of
Supervisors or Board of Commissioners determine is needed and to provide
that a schedule of fees may be established to pay for such services.
Until such legislation is provided, it is possible that part of the unorganized
portion of the counties may be served on a voluntary basis.
_c. County Disposal of Refuse in Nebraska, Chapter 23
of the Statutes recognizes the need for counties to provide refuse disposal
facilities and grants authority necessary to provide the facilities. These
provisions were added in 1967, when the current general solid waste revi-
sions were passed.
In Iowa, Sections 332. 31 thru . 34, the Statutes recognized the counties role
in refuse disposal but they are not as broad as in Nebraska and further, they
work through the township which could become cumbersome with an Agency
operated system. We recommend the Iowa statutes be broadened in a manner
similar to the Nebraska Statutes covering county refuse disposal and that the
county be authorized to act as a county, eliminating the provisions or re-
quirement to work through the township.
3. State Regulatory Agency. The primary responsibility for
maintaining the public health standards for the disposal of solid waste must
be borne by the local political jurisdiction in which the facility is located;
whether it be a city, town, village or county. This is an inescapable respon-
sibility which is proper, traditional and practical. In addition to public health
matters which are matters of statewide concern, they should also be concerned
with local matters such as economy, adequacy, future capacity, zoning,
aesthetic considerations, traffic, rate schedules or fees, hours and days of
operation, and others.
The State has two areas of responsibility in solid waste disposal. First, they
should assume a position of leadership and assist the local jurisdictions in
developing a competence in those aspects of local concern where this assistance
IV-31
-------
is needed and requested. Second, they should assume responsibility for estab-
lishing minimum technical provisions for solid waste disposal that may be
necessary to protect the public health, as a matter of statewide concern. The
matters of local concern listed above are not suitable subjects for the state to
regulate. Fees and zoning and other similar matters are the affairs of the
local community. The state can be helpful in these areas but should not be
given any regulatory authority. However, the state has a definite responsi-
bility to safeguard public health, in matters of statewide concern, and solid
waste disposal certainly must be considered as falling within this category.
To maintain a separation between statewide and local matters, the state should
limit their regulatory authority to establishing and enforcing the minimum
technical standards required to insure sanitary disposal of solid waste.
In 1967, the State of Nebraska placed the responsibility for proper solid waste
disposal in the State Health Department, and provided in Chapter 71, Article 41,
the; authority for the Director of Health to regulate this practice, to set
standards, and to license disposal sites. A very modest staff was provided
to implement the provisions of the Article 41. It is expected that this law
will be highly effective in improving solid waste disposal conditions in the
State.
There is no similar law in Iowa, where the State Health Department does not
have specific authority in the field of solid waste disposal. Some progress
can be made under Iowa's general health laws and in specific cases where
water pollution laws can be invoked against improper solid waste disposal
practice which is causing water pollution. New air pollution laws will soon
be available to apply to solid waste disposal facilities where open burning is
practiced.
We recommend Iowa add specific provisions to their statutes granting the
Department of Health specific authority to license, set minimum technical
standards, and regulate solid waste disposal in Iowa.
In addition to specific authority for the Iowa Health Department, both the Iowa
and Nebraska Health Departments will need to adequately staff their organi-
zation to implement the provisions of the law. The scope of this report does
not include a study of the staffing requirements of the state agency, but to
assure proper management of solid waste disposal in this Study Area, the
periodic inspection by the state regulatory agency would be desirable.
We recommend a state inspector visit each disposal facility at least once
each quarter for the purpose of inspection for minimum technical standards,
and to assist the facility's managers and operators in solving disposal
problems.
We further recommend that both departments require all disposal facilities be
licensed by the state. As a condition for licensing, each applicant should be
required to submit detailed plans, prepared by a professional engineer regis-
tered in that state. The plans should include an area topographic plan, subsurface
IV-32
-------
investigation, initial development of the site, an operational plan, and what-
ever other data the department may require.
J. LOCAL LEGISLATION
1. Disposal Ordinance. The recommended public sanitary
landfill sites will be located in places under municipal jurisdiction. Even
though these sites may be operated by a non-profit governmental agency for
and on behalf of the counties and other municipalities, it is important that
these public sites and any private disposal activities come under the health
regulation of the jurisdiction in which the sites are located. As an extra pre-
caution to assure that proper health conditions are maintained at all times,
each city, town, village, or county should pass reasonable but adequate regu-
lations for all disposal activities conducted within their jurisdiction.
Because each municipality has a slightly different format for regulation, and
has different provisions for licensing, fees and inspection procedures; we
have prepared a typical Disposal Ordinance, patterned after a typical City
format. This ordinance, which contains what we believe to be the essential
elements for such an ordinance, is enclosed in this Part IV of the report
as Document IV-2.
Each municipality should modify the recommended Disposal Ordinance to
conform to their local format and procedures, and add to this ordinance any
local provisions necessary to suit their form of government and any special
requirements which they deem necessary. They should also add specific
language designating who in their local governmental unit shall act as the
"Health Officer" who shall be responsible for the required administration
and enforcement.
2. Collection Ordinance. A typical collection ordinance has
also been prepared, patterned after a typical city format. This ordinance,
which contains what we believe to be the essential elements for such an ordi-
nance, is enclosed in this Part IV of the report as Document IV-3.
If the Agency and certain municipalities wish to provide a collection service,
the ordinance can be used as a guide for the required ordinances. If the
Agency does not offer such a service, the ordinance may still be of some value to
the municipalities, as a guide in the preparation of an ordinance for their own
collection service.
Each municipality should modify this collection ordinance in a manner simi-
lar to the modifications described in the preceding paragraphs concerning
the Disposal Ordinance.
3. Junked Automobiles. In Part II, Section D, of this report,
Hie problems associated with junked motor vehicles are discussed and local
IV-33
-------
legislation is recommended. We have found that several communities in the
Study Area now have adequate local legislation to cope with the objectionable
aspects of this problem. In general, these laws are not fully enforced.
Zoning and licensing laws should be enforced to assure that commercial auto
salvaging and scrap metal dealers operate their businesses in places zoned
for this activity and in accordance with licensing regulations. This would
eliminate a substantial portion of the problems associated with this industry.
Where junked auto hulks or inoperative vehicles are stored on private property
and these vehicles are a nuisance, they can be controlled through an ordinance
which declares them to be litter. Omaha Ordinance Section 25. 85. 050 states
"It shall be unlawful for a person to place, cause to be placed or allow to
remain on this property, a motor vehicle or part thereof which is in wrecked,
junked, partially dismantled, inoperative or abandoned condition; provided,
however, that this Section shall not apply to any motor vehicle which is kept
in the operation of a business pursuant to any municipal ordinance or kept
a garage. " Section 25. 85. 060 provides for the removal of such vehicles.
Council Bluffs has a similar ordinance and has used it effectively from time to
tim e .
K SANITARY LANDFILL. STANDARDS
In the preceding Section J, we recommended that each municipality in which
a sanitary landfill is located adopt an ordinance controlling the disposal
of solid waste. In the recommended Ordinance, Document IV-2,
standards ior Sanitary landfills are set forth in Section 3. These standards con-
tain the essential elements for a first class type operation which if enforced
would insure that such a disposal facility would be compatible with other land
use and urban living.
Some authorities have produced standards with lesser requirements for sites
not in an urban area. In fact, we have recommended from time to time in
other reports that different standards be applied to Urban, Isolated and Remote
areas. In the Omaha- Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area, the four recommended
urban sites should certainly be constructed and operated to the highest standards.
In the case of the one rural site in eastern Pottawattamie, it is possible that
some requirements could be relaxed such as sight screening of the site; how- •
ever, the requirements which could be relaxed are not significant in the over-
all cost of the facility. We recommend that all of the facilities be constructed
and operated in a way to meet or exceed the standards listed above.
_L_: _ ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES
1. Organizational Structures. There are many organizational
structures which could be used for the frame work necessary for the safe and
sanitary disposal of solid waste in addition to the bi- state public agency which
is recommended. Included in the possibilities are the following:
IV-34
-------
Individual Community Effort
1. Each community provide facilities for own use
either through own operation of facilities or agreement to use
neighbor's facilities.
2. Some communities may provide for joint use
of miscellaneous facilities through inter-local cooperation
Act of Nebraska and joint exercise of Government Powers
of Iowa.
3. Some communities may use private enterprise
disposal facilities open to public for fee or community contract.
4. Any combination of 1, 2 and 3 above.
Individual County Effort
1. Each county provide facilities for use of county
residents and communities.
2. One county provide for self and neighboring county
through agreement.
3. Some combination of counties providing joint use
of miscellaneous facilities through Joint Powers Acts of Iowa
and Nebraska.
4. Private enterprise.
5. Any combination of 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
Regional Effort
1. Form a Nebraska area regional organization to
provide facilities for Nebraska and an Iowa area regional organi-
zation to provide facilities for Iowa.
2. One'state regional organization provide for self and
other state regional organization through agreement.
3. Form a regional organization to provide for joint use
of facilities for entire two state Study Area through Joint Powers Acts
of Iowa and Nebraska. (This is the recommended plan).
4. Form a regional organization to prepare a regional
area solid waste plan. Each county or each community or
combination of counties and communities carry out own disposal
in accordance with plan.
5. Private enterprise.
IV-35
-------
6. Any combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above.
In general the individual efforts of the cities and to some extent the counties,
to provide facilities for their own use, would result in duplication of facili-
ties, equipment and management. In most cases the facilities would be too
.small to be economical and too small to attract and afford professional manage-
ment. The single exception to this fact would be the City of Omaha. This
city is large enough to operate large sites, without prohibitively high costs,
although the costs would exceed the costs contemplated in the joint agency
approach.
Joint facilities to be shared by various municipalities or contract arrange-
ments would be an improvement over strictly individual efforts but the same
disadvantages would prevail except to a leaser extent. Again the exception
would be the City of Omaha. If this city would provide facilities for them-
selves and neighboring communities the efficiency could approach that of
the recommended agency. The principal disadvantage to this arrangement
would be the political and jurisdictional problems which usually appear when
a giant city attempts to provide services to smaller neighboring communities.
This would be particularly true in the location of sanitary landfill sites outside
the political jurisdiction of the large city.
Private enterprise could provide the required facilities, however, there are
several serious flows in this concept. As explained in detail in Part III the
total cost of solid waste disposal is made up of two basic items, i. e. , the
cost of hauling the waste to a disposal facility and the cost of operation of
that facility. The proper location of the proposed facilities, to produce the
lowest total cost, is very important. Private enterprise without the ability
to exercise the right of eminent domain could experience serious problems
acquiring the necessary property in the right general areas.
Facilities provided by private enterprise must pay taxes and are intended to
operate for a profit. It can be argued and indeed it is often true that private
enterprise is more efficient than public agencies and can make a profit
charging the same fees. This is not necessarily true when a public agency
is provided with adequate resources and is professionally managed. The re-
commended agency should be able to operate in the same way as private
enterprise but will enjoy the very significant advantage of eminent domain,
no taxes and no need to produce a profit.
2. Operation of Agency Facilities. The recommendation in this
report contemplates that all of the solid waste disposal facilities be owned
and operated by the agency using the agency's own forces and equipment.
As an alternate to this, the agency could award contracts to private operators
to operate the facilities for the agency. It would be necessary to prepare de-
tailed specifications setting forth exactly what the Contractor would be required
to do and what the agency would be required to do. It would also be necessary
to prepare a new cost estimate to include taxes and profit for the Contractor.
IV-36
-------
Jf the agency would desire to contract for the operation we would recommend
the agency furnish the land and capital improvements to the land, including
the initial development. These improvements should be permanent and amor-
tized over a long period.
M.__ FEDERAL PARTICIPATION. The preparation of this study and report
was financed partially with local funds from the MAPA, and partially through
a Federal Grant from the Office of Solid Waste, USPHS, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. This grant was authorized under the provision of the
"Solid Waste Disposal Act" which became law during the 89th Congress.
(PL89-272)
In the current session of the 91st Congress, there are bills in both the House
of Representatives and the Senate which offer amendments to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. Some of the bills are similar or identical to bills which died
in committee at the end of the 90th Congress. Of particular interest to the
MAPA and the Agency are provisions of "Grants for Construction". Not only
are grants included but there are provisions for larger grants to organization
serving more than one community as contemplated in this report.
Under these bills it would be possible for the Agency to receive up to 75% of
the cost of construction of solid waste facilities, including completion and im-
provement of existing facilities.
Progress of these amendments should be carefully watched by the Agency Board
and the Director. A sizeable grant toward constructing and equiping the land-
fill sites could considerably reduce the size of the revenue bond issue required
for the Agency's initial operation. This would, in turn, also reduce the dis-
posal fees that would be required.
It is not suggested that any of the improvements or recommendations made in
this report be delayed pending the possibility of additional Federal Funds. It
has been demonstrated that these improvements can be made and service im-
proved at a reasonable cost to the community. However, any additional method
of reducing these costs should not be overlooked as they might become available.
IV-37
-------
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUILIC HEALTH SERVICE
Form Approved
Budget Bureau No.
6B-S-68019
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE PRACTICES
LAND DISPOSAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. iTATB
2. COUNTY
4 S 8
3. SITE LOCATION (Political Jurisdiction}
7 B 9 10
4. NAME OP IITE
11 12 13
B. ADDRESS OF SITE
8. DATE OF SURVEY
DAY MONTH YEAR
_J IB la 17 la IP 20
1, NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM
». ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS
10. POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS SERVED BY LAND DISPOSAL SITE
NAME OF
POLITICAL JURISDICTION
21 22 23 24
30 39 40
4C 4M 47 48
ESTIMATED
PERCENTAGE OF
JURISDICTION
SERVED BY SITE
aa 34
AVERAGE DISTANCE
OF SITE FROM
CENTER OF SOURCE
AREA (Mile,)
3» 88
HI B2
FOR ADDITIONAL ENTRIES, CHECK HERB I I (03) AND MAKE ENTRIES DV ITEM *45
11. SITEOPERATED BY
| | PUBLIC AGENCY
03) PRIVATE AGENCY
D
12. SITE OWNED BY
031 PUBLIC AGENCY
| | PRIVATE AGENCY
II. 19 OPERATION
REGULATED BY A
HEALTH AUTHORITY!
IF YES. INDICATE LEVEL
OF PRINCIPAL AUTHORITY
(Chock ana t*ily)
I [COMMUNITY
I|COUNTY
03] STATE
||OTHER.
(Smelly)
14, OKNERAL. CHARACTER OF SITE (Check one only)
03] QUARRY OR BORROW PIT 031 HILLSIDE
[""I GULLY-CANYON I 1 MARSH, TIDELAND
rnr — OR FLOOD PLAIN
03] LEVEL AREAS
(Specify) Do .
not J
u.o 8 j
IB. YEAR SITE PLACED IN OPERATION 19
18. ANTICIPATED LIFE REMAINING (Years)
17. TOTAL AREA OF SITE (Acre*)
'•• AREA TO BE USED FOR LAND
DISPOSAL (Acne)
B4
61
8B
59
82
86
80
63
67
IB. ZONING/ LAND USE SURROUNDING FACILITY (Check predominant type only)
ZONING LAND USE
031 NONE 03] INDUSTRIAL OD RESIDENTIAL 03] AGRICULTURAL
03] RESIDENTIAL Q AGRICULTURAL OH COMMERCIAL | — | OTHER
1 1 COMUFBC-IAI I loTMFR
(Specify)
1^1 INDUSTRIAL
(Specify)
72 73
».,.„« OF TlVES
COMPLETED
BITE PLANNED? [~ ] NO
IF YE3. CHECK
PREDOMINANT
USE ONLY
«CR« ^TIONAL
PARKING LOT j—j
1 CONSTRUCTION
HEAVY
CONSTRUCTION
] AGRICULTURE | |
1 OTHER .
(Specify)
•'• WILL PUBLIC AGENCY CONTROL
COMPLETED SITE USE?
ZS. FREQUENCY 03] NONE
OF COVER
(Check an. only) [3] D A 1 L Y ^^
FOR COVER
CD N0 (Check one only)
| | DAILY (Except face) 24.
( day) (Specify)
[ I EARTH
IS SPREADING AND COMPACTION
OF REFUSE HANDUED IN APPROX-
|
«<« 7. 7.
03] YES
nur»
N° 77 78
«». NUMBER OF DAYS DISPOSAL SITE COULD NOT BE USED BECAUSE OF WEATHER CONNECTED CONDITIONS (Enter nrfrafe P
per year) \
"• OENEHAL CHARACTER OF OPERATION (Judgment evaluation -check appropriate categorize)
APPEARANCE
(3j SIGHTLY
T.JUNSIGHT
IB
-Y
IS BLOWING PAPER
CONTROLLED?
L31YES
031 NO
10
is BLOWING PAPER
CONSIDERED TO BE
A NUI3ANCET
03] YES
.031 NO
17
ROUTINE BURNING
031 NONE
| | UNCONTROLLED
1 1 PLANNED AND
1 — 1 LIMITED
18
ARE THERE SUR-
FACE- DRAINAGE
PROBLEMS?
031 YES
03] NO
ia
ARE THHRE
UEACH1NG
PROBU EMS?
[3JYF.S
DN°
•".Hi- ue-^ ((. INI
Exhibit 1-1 Page 1
-------
LAND DISPOSAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT (Page 2)
27. CONTROL PROGRAMS
RODENT CONTROL
PROGRAM
FLY CONTROL
PROGRAM
BIRO CONTROL
PROGRAM
DUST CONTROL
PROGRAM
ODOR CONTROL
PROGRAM
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
NEEDED
PROVIDED
34. ARE". QU AN Tl T ATI VE RECORDS , | yES
KEP r IN ANY FORMT
YES NO
n n «
a a *
n n *
n a *
n a !
a n >
LI a »
a a =
a n =
C] a s
Do
|~~1 NO not
uaa
Do
not
UBO
1
z
3
4
S
0
7
A
fl
0
47
3S. QUAMTM IES OF SOLID WASTES RECEIVED ANNUALLY
TONS WEIGHED
TONS ESTIMATED
CUBIC YARDS
48 40 BO
50 50 87
81 52 89
1
B8 68
84
60 61
ACCEPTED AT DISPOSAL S TE (Check (/lose accepted)
("'[HOUSEHOLD L~~) TRIALS ^INSTITUTIONAL
70 72 74
|~]COMMERCIAL I"!™!!^1""" nINCINERATOR
l7-y' I-JTURAL ^ RESIDUE ONLY
(Ayota&e utilized dally)
DRAGLINE OR SHOVEL-TYPE EXCAVATORS
SCRAPERS (Self-propelled)
TRACTORS (Track or Rubber Tin)
(Bulldozer or Utah Lilt Loader)
TRUCKS
Do
(Specify) u«e 43
Do
OTHER not
(Specify.) u.e 46
NUMBER
?5
37
"~3"»
44
36
36
40
45
-37 "' 4B
2B. IS LOWEST PART OF FILL IN WATER TABLE? [^] YES
20. FIRE Q]NONE | [WATER
PROTECTION r- ,r|(,EB Eft|, [— |oTUr»
LT— ' ' ' (Specify
30. NUMBER OF TIMES FIRE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
QNO
)
34 38
IS SALVAGING PERMITTED? 1ZI1YES d) No
' IS SALVAGING PRACTICED? CD YES 1 1 NO
33. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF LOADS DEPOSITED DAILY (Average)
FROM OTHER VEHICLES
FROM PUBLIC FROM PRIVATE
fm I crTi/-,N COLLECTION
VEHICLES VEHICLES (Specify)
(enter (Enter number)
number) number.)
3B 39 40 41 42 43 44
45 46
37. CHECK ANY ITEMS LISTED BELOW WHICH ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE
1 |ALL 1 ISEWAGE | IT1RES
L— 1 PUTRESCIBLES LJ SOLIDS 1 ITIRE:>
15 21 27
L-J NON-COMBUSTIBLES LJ AUTOMOBILES L- ^MATERIALS
18 22 2B
^COMBUSTIBLES D APPLIANCES [3]OTHERfSpe
l~l GARBAGE r—, DEMOLITION
S
clly)
18 24*"t:"t:> | [OTHER (Specify)
| 1 DEAD | ! CONSTRUCTION 31
L— J ANIMALS LJ DEBRIS
n WASTE , .STREET . .
OIL H3 SWEEPINGS QOTHER fSpecify;
ZO 28 33
3°' TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON SITE (.Average dally)
49 BO
40. HOURS OF DAILY
OPERATION BEGIN END
(On a 34-hour clock) 8 1 62 53
"' NUMBER OF DAYS OPERATED PER WEEK
55
42. ANNUAL OPERATING COST j
(Including supervision ana*
n
43. IS THIS A SANITARY LANDFILL?
54
YES
NO
44. IF SOURCES OTHER THAN REPORTER DESIGNATED IN ITEM 7 WERE UTILIZED IN COMPLETING THIS FORM, INDICATE BELOW
THE SOURCES USED AND ITEM NUMBERS
NAME OF PERSON
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
ITEM NUMBER(S)
D
D
NCUI • I 28-? (CIN) (4-68)
Exhibit 1-1 Page 2
-------
LAND DISPOSAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT (Page 3)
46. CONTINUATION ITEMS
ITEM NO.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
REMARKS (Attach additional sheet It necoaaary)
"CU|. 128-2 (CIN)i4-68)
Exhibit 1-1 Page 3
-------
TENTATIVE RATING METHOD FOR SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATIONS
1
ITEM 1: Access Road. Access roads shall
be designed and constructed so that traffic
will flow smoothly and will not be interrupted
by ordinary inclement weather.
Reason. In order to avoid needless expense,
it is of the utmost importance that collection
vehicles are not delayed at the disposal site
and that all refuse is unloaded only at the fill
area. Since the refuse hauling operation is
unproductive time for the refuse collectors,
any unnecessary delays arc costly and can
result in unfinished collection routes.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If an all-weather access road, negotiable
by loaded collection vehicles, has been
provided to the entrance of the landfill.
3 points
If the access road provided is negotiable
under most conditions and an alternate
site is located so as to provide for the
sanitary disposal of refuse during incle-
ment weather.
2 points
If the road is negotiable in good weather
only and no alternate site is provided.
0 points
ITEM 2: Employee Facilities. Suitable
shelter and sanitary facilities shall be
provided for personnel.
Reason. Shelter is a desirable protection
of the landfill employees during inclement
weather. Toilet and handwashing facilities
are desirable for good personal hygiene for
landfill employees and collection personnel.
Better working conditions contribute to
employee morale and retention.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If permanent or temporary shelter of
adequate size is provided, along with
safe drinking water, sanitary handwashing
and toilet facilities, suitable heating
facilities, screens, and electricity (if
needed).
3 points
If temporary shelter is provided with
suitable heating facilities, screens, and
an approved portable toilet.
2 points
If no shelter and toilet facility is
furnished.
0 points
ITEM 3: Measuring Facilities. Provision
shall be made for weighing or adequately
measuring all refuse delivered to and dis-
posed in the sanitary landfill.
Reason. A suitable method of measuring
incoming and/or deposited refuse is desir-
able to provide a reliable quantity of data, to
determine trends and to estimate future
needs. Estimates of volumes based on
truckloads rather than weights are mislead-
ing. Weighing provides the best basis for
establishing fees requiring scales as an
integral part of the sanitary landfill operation.
Weighing discourages trips to the site with
half-filled trucks. Determination of the volume
increments in deposited refuse may be done
by periodic volumetric surveys, permitting
evaluation of the use-rate and remaining
capacity of the site.
This item shall be rated as followsi
If suitable fixed or portable scales have
been installed at the sanitary landfill and
are used continuously or if the landfill is
Not for General Distribution
Subject to Revision
*Solid Waste Branch, Training Institute, EGA
SW. SL. rm. 3R. 2. 66
Exhibit 1-2 Page 1
-------
Tentative Rating Mothpd_ for Sanitary Landfill Operations
routinely "cross-sectioned"- to determine
volumes in place (routine - each 30 days
minimum).
2 points
If a scale is located on the way to the site
(such as transfer stations) and is in con-
tinuous use.
1 point
If no weighing is accomplished and routine
measurements of volume in place are not
taken (each 30 days minimum).
0 points
ITEM 4: Communications; Telephone or
radio communications shall be provided at
or near the sanitary landfill site.
Reason. Communications are desirable at
the generally remote sanitary landfill sites,
in case of emergency. If the sanitary land-
fill is part of a combined collection and dis-
posal system, good communications will
result in better performance throughout the
system.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If reliable telephone or radio communi-
cations arc installed at the site.
2 points
If communications are located within three
miles and a suitable vehicle is available
at the site at all times.
1 point
If communications are greater than three
miles distant.
0 points
ITEM 5: Fire Protection. Suitable measures
shall be taken to prevent and control fires.
Open burning shall be prohibited.
Reason. Fires endanger life and property.
Smoke and odors create nuisances to surround-
ing property owners, endanger disposal
*An Engineering Survey procedure to deter-
mine volume increments, in place, in the
filled portion of the landfill. Convenient
bench marks should be established.
personnel, and interfere with landfilling
operations. Fires on sanitary landfills
cause them to revert to a status equivalent
to open dumps.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If an adequate supply of water under
suitable pressure is available with neces-
sary hose, etc,; a stockpile of earth
is maintained reasonably close to the
working face of the fill for smothering
fires; a suitable fire extinguisher is
maintained on all equipment and in all
buildingfe; and open burning is prohibited.
3 points
If the site has a stockpile of earth reason-
ably close to the working face of the fill
and open burning is prohibited.
2 points
If fire protection is not present or open
burning is allowed. 0 points
ITEM 6: Limited Access. Access to a
sanitary landfill shall be limited to those
times when an attendant-is on duty and only
to those authorized to use the site for dis-
posal of refuse.
Reason. If public use of a sanitary landfill
is allowed when no attendant is on duty,
scavenging, burning and indiscriminate
dumping commonly occur. Men and equip-
ment must then be diverted from operations
to restore sanitary conditions. When access
to the site during operating hours is limited
to those authorized, traffic and other
accident hazards are minimized.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If access by unauthorized vehicles or
pedestrians is prohibited.
3 points
If access is prohibited except during
working hours.
2 points
If access is uncontrolled.
0 points
2
Exhibit 1-2 Page 2
-------
Tentative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
ITEM 7: Unloading. Unloading of refuse
shall be restricted and controlled.
Reason. For proper operation, systematic
placement of refuse, restricted to a small
unloading area and coordinated with spreading
and compacting is required. Controlled un-
loading reduces work, conserves landfill
volume, permits better compaction, mini-
mizes scattering of refuse and expedites
unloading of collection vehicles.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If unloading is controlled and the unloading
area is restricted to a minimum.
2 points
If adequate unloading directions are
clearly set forth by legible signs, if an
unloading supervisor is on hand most of
the time and unloading is performed in
a satisfactory manner.
1 point
If unloading is uncontrolled or if the un-
loading area is too large for adequate
compaction and daily cover.
0 points
IT KM 8: Size of Working Face. The working
face of a sanitary landfill shall be confined
enough to be easily maintained with available
equipment.
Reason. A large working face increases the
area to be compacted and covered with con-
current high cost, delay and difficulty in
controlling fires.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If the 'size of the working face is small
but is adequate for the collection vehicles
to unload promptly.
2 points
If the working face 'is larger than the
estimated minimum area required.
1 point
If the working face is much larger than
necessary and/or the dumping is
uncontrolled.
0 points
ITEM 9: Blowing Litter. Blowing litter
shall be controlled by providing fencing
near the working area or by use of
earth banks or natural barriers. The entire
landfill site shall be policed regularly arid un-
loading shall be performed so as to minimize
scattering of refuse.
Reason. The purpose of the sanitary landfill
is to dispose of the refuse in a sanitary
nuisance-free manner. If papers and other
light materials are scattered and the area is
not policed, fire hazards, nuisances, and
unsightliness result.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If fences, artificial or natural obstruc-
tions, control blowing litter and the land-
fill and surrounding areas are routinely
policed to minimize litter at all times.
4 points
If some control of blowing litter is
exercised and all litter -at the landfill
and/or immediate area is policed at a
minimum interval of once each twenty-four
hours. 2 points
No control of blowing litter is exercised
and the site or the immediate area is
commonly littered.
0 points
ITEM 10: Spreading and Compacting of
Refuse. Refuse shall be spread and com-
pacted in shallow layers, not exceeding a
depth of two feet of compacted material.
Reason. Successful operation of a sanitary
landfill depends upon adequate compaction
of the refuse. Settlement will be excessive
and uneven when the refuse is not well com-
pacted. Such settlement permits the ingress
and egress of insects and rodents and
severely limits the usefulness of the finished
area.
Compaction is best initiated by spreading
the refuse evenly in shallow layers rather
than placing the material in a single deep
lift. Further compaction is provided by the
repeated travel of landfill equipment over the
layers and, if necessary, by the use of
special compacting equipment. Additional
compaction also can be achieved by routing
collection trucks so that they travel
Exhibit 1-2 Page 3
-------
Tent:UivoJlaUi}j^Metliod for Sanitary Landfill Operations
repeatedly over the covered portion of the
fill. These procedures result in the greatest
compaction and the least ultimate settlement,
providing the most useful finished fill and
best utilizing the capacity of the site.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If refuse additions are spread evenly by
repeated passages of landfill equipment,
each layer being compacted thoroughly
i.o a depth not to exceed two feet.
5 points
If the refuse is spread but not adequately
compacted into a solid mass.
2 points
If the refuse is neither spread nor
compacted.
0 points
IT KM 11: Depths of Cells in Fill. Individual
cells in sanitary landfills shall be no greater
than eight feet in thickness.
Reason^ The total depth of a landfill is
governed by the characteristics of the site,
I he desired elevation of the completed fill,
and good engineering practice. Construction
of a fill in well-compacted cells of not more
than eight feet each in thickness minimizes
settlement, surface cracking, odor release,
and offers increased fire protection. Fills
using cells thinner than eight feet do not
generally make maximum use of available
land, but provide for earlier reuse of the
site.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If fill is constructed of properly spread
and compacted cells to a total thickness
of eight feet or less.
5 points
If fill is constructed of properly spread
and compacted cells to a total thickness
more than eight feet but less than 12 feet.
2 points
If fill is constructed without compaction
or in cells exceeding 12 feet in thickness.
0 points
ITEM 12: Daily Cover. A uniform compacted
layer of at least six inches of suitable cover
material shall be placed on all exposed
refuse by the end of each working day.
Reason. Daily covering of the refuse is
necessary to prevent fly and rodent attrac-
tion, blowing litter, production of odors,
fire hazards, and an unsightly appearance.
Fly emergence generally is prevented by six
inches of compacted soil. Daily covering
divides the fill into "cells" that limit the
spread of fires within the fill.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If the cover material has the working
properties of "sandy loam" as classified
by the U. S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and is compacted in an unbroken,
uniform layer no less than six inches in
dePth" 20 points
If the cover material is a soil having
working properties less than the sandy
loam specified and is well-maintained as
above. ... .
15 points
If the cover material is inert incinerator
residue and is thoroughly compacted to
a uniform depth of no less than six inches
and there a-re no rodent, insect, or odor
problems resulting.
10 points
If no daily cover is performed (any ex-
posure of refuse after the working day),
or if daily cover is improperly applied
(not compacted; unsuitable material;
nonuniform depth or depth less than six
inches; voids in cover; or insect or rodent
ingress or egress).
0 points
ITEM 13: Intermediate Cover. In all but
the final lift of a landfill, a layer of suitable
cover material, compacted to a minimum
uniform depth of one foot shall be placed
daily on all surfaces of the fill except those
where operation will continue on the following
working day.
Exhibit 1-2 Page 4
-------
Tentative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
jReason. More than one foot of soil cover
might be wasteful in a landfill in which there
is a clear intention to provide at least one
additional lift within one year. Under such
circumstances, a one-foot layer of properly
compacted and maintained cover will prevent
health hazards or nuisances until the next
lift is placed.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If the intermediate cover material has the
working properties of sandy loam as de-
fined by USDA and is compacted to a
minimum uniform depth of one foot.
4 points
If the intermediate cover material is a
soil having working properties less than
the sandy loam specified and is compacted
to a minimum uniform depth of one foot.
3 points
If the intermediate cover material is inert
incinerator residue compacted to a mini-
mum uniform depth of one foot.
1 point
If no intermediate cover is applied or if
it is improperly constructed causing odor
and vector problems.
0 points
ITEM 14: Final Cover. A uniform layer of
suitable cover material compacted to a mini-
mum depth of two feet shall be placed over
the entire surface of each portion of the final
lift, not later than one week following the
placement of refuse within that portion.
Reason. A minimum final cover of two feet of
compacted suitable cover material will pre-
vent emergence of insects from the compacted
refuse, minimize escape of odors and gases,
and prevent rodent burrowing. This cover
also provides an adequate bearing surface
for vehicles, and sufficient thickness for
cover integrity in the event of settling or
erosion.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If the final cover material has the working
properties of sandy loam as classified by
the USDA and is compacted in a uniform
unbroken layer with a minimum depth of
two feet. 4
If the final cover material is a soil having
working properties less than the sandy
loam classification, compacted in uniform
unbroken layer with a minimum depth of
two feet.
3 points
If the final cover is incinerator residue;
if no cover is provided or if the cover
provided is improperly constructed,
resulting in odor, rodent and insect
vector problems.
0 points
ITEM 15: Equipment Maintenance Facilities.
Provisions shall be made for the routine
operational maintenance of equipment at the
landfill site and for the prompt repair or
replacement of landfill equipment.
Reason. Equipment breakdowns of a day or
more result in the accumulation of uncovered
refuse (as in an open dump) with all the
attendant health hazards or nuisances.
Systematic, routine maintenance of equip-
ment reduces repair costs, increases life
expectancy, and helps to prevent breakdowns
that interrupt landfill operations. In the
event of breakdown, prompt repair of equip-
ment, or immediate procurement of stand-
by equipment will materially reduce down
time. Prompt repair of equipment and
availability of standby equipment insures
continuity of operations.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If complete maintenance facilities and
personnel are provided at the disposal
site or if standby equipment of suitable
capacity and capability is available at all
times.
2 points
If facilities for routine maintenance are
available on-site and if adequate provisions
for major maintenance and repair have
been made.
1 point
Exhibit 1-2 Page 5
-------
.(.'i}}i,il for Sanitary landfill_pperatipn_s
If maintenance facilities and repair pro-
visions are not provided or are inadequate;
if equipment is inoperable or of limited
capability because of poor maintenance.
0 points
IT KM 16: Sewage Solids or Liquids and Other
Hazardous Materials Sewage solids or
liquids (septic tank or cesspool pumpings
and sewage sludge and grit), and other
hazardous materials shall be disposed of in
a sanitary landfill only if special provisions
are made for such disposal.
Reajjoru Sewage solids Or liquids are in-
fectious and create health hazards if not
properly handled. Other materials, including
oil sludges, waste chemicals, magnesium
shavings, and empty insecticide containers;
may also present special hazards. Unless
properly handled, these wastes can be danger-
ous to landfill employees. When the design
of sanitary landfill includes special provisions
for disposal of hazardous materials, they can
be disposed of safely and need not be excluded.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If suitable procedures are established and
followed for disposal of hazardous
materials.
2 points
If all hazardous materials are excluded
from the fill.
1 point
If hazardous materials are accepted
without provision for suitable disposal.
0 points
ITEM 17: Large or Bulky Items. Special
provisions shall be made for the disposal of
large, heavy, or bulky items at small land-
fills or at landfills operated with light
equipment.
Reason. Some special method may be neces-
sary for the disposal of such large items as
car bodies; refrigerators; water heaters;
large tires; some demolition wastes; and
large tree stumps, trunks, and branches.
Some of these items are noncombustible,
and it may not be advisable or permissible
to burn some of the combustible materials.
At landfills with heavy equipment, such items
generally can be handled routinely with other
refuse; however, special provisions are
necessary to incorporate large or bulky
items into the fill at small landfills or at
landfills operated with light equipment.
This item shall be rated as follows;
i
If approved special techniques are em-
ployed to dispose of bulky items and all
disposal is done in an orderly and neat
manner or if adequate disposal of bulky
items can be obtained in the routine
filling operation.
3 points
If bulky items cannot be handled or are
handled improperly.
0 points
ITEM 18: Burning. No garbage or refuse
containing garbage shall be burned at the
sanitary landfill. Burning of select materials
shall be severely restricted, and shall be
conducted only with the permission of the
appropriate authorities.
Reason. Garbage cannot be burned without
nuisance except in high-temperature inciner-
ators. Any other method of combustion
creates odors, air pollution, and fire and
safety hazards. Such burning adversely
affects public acceptance of the operation
and proper location of future sanitary land-
fill sites. Controlled burning of certain
combustible materials not readily incor-
porated in the fill, such as lumber, brush,
and tree stumps, may provide a satisfactory
means of disposal of these materials at
some isolated sites.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If no burning is allowed at any time.
3 points
Exhibit 1-2 Page 6
-------
Tentative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
If burning of refuse is uncontrolled or is
performed without knowledge of, or per-
mission by the local authority.
0 points
ITEM 19: Salvage. When salvaging is per-
mitted, it shall be so organized that it will
not interfere with prompt sanitary disposal
of refuse nor create unsightliness or health
hazards. Scavenging shall not be permitted.
jeason. Nothing can be tolerated that
interferes with prompt sanitary disposal of
rtfuse. When improperly conducted, salvag-
ing delays landfilling operations and creates
insanitary conditions. The accumulation of
salvage at the disposal site often results in
vector problems and unsightliness, which
are deterimental to public acceptance of the
operation. Scavenging is an unhealthy,
aesthetically-objectionable practice that in-
terferes with the orderly and efficient opera-
tion of a landfill.
This item shall be rated as follows:
This item shall be rated as follows:
If vector control is not needed.
If no salvaging is allowed.
3 points
If salvaging is controlled and all salvage
is removed from the site at the end of
each working day.
1 point
If scavenging is allowed or if salvage is
allowed to accumulate beyond the end of
the working day.
0 points
ITEM 20: Vector Control. Conditions un-
favorable for the production of insects and
rodents shall be maintained by carrying out
routine landfill operations promptly in a
systematic manner. Supplemental vector
control measures shall be instituted when-
ever necessary.
Reasoru While operation of a sanitary land-
fill according to these standards will reduce
insect and rodent problems to a minimum,
any lapse in proper operating procedures
may result in attraction and rapid production
of insects and rodents. Supplemental vector
control measures may occasionally be neces-
sary to prevent health hazards or nuisances.
2 points
If vector control is promptly supplied
when conditions warrant such control.
1 point
If vector control is needed or is not
promptly furnished.
0 points
ITEM 21: Dust Control. Suitable control
measures fehall be taken wherever dust is
a problem.
Reason. Excessive dust slows operation,
creates accident hazards and aesthetic
problems, and may cause eye irritation or
other injury to landfill personnel.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If dust control is not required or if suit-
able control measures are applied as
needed.
2 points
If dust control is applied as needed but
is not effective.
1 point
If dust control is necessary and is not
applied.
0. points
ITEM 22: Placement in Ground Water. The
depositing of refuse in locations where con-
tinuous or intermittent contact occurs be-
tween refuse and the ground water table
shall be avoided.
Reason. Gross contamination of underground
water supplies can occur in areas where
refuse is in intimate contact with the water
table.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If the refuse is placed where the ground
water table will not come in
contact with the refuse, as determined
by competent engineering authority.
5 points
Exhibit 1-2 Page 7
-------
Tentative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
If intermittent contact with the ground
water table may occur but adequate pro-
visions have been made to monitor the
adjacent ground water quality and make
appropriate operational changes, if
indicated.
3 points
If refuse is deposited in water or where
ground water may come in intermittent
contact with the refuse and no provisions
for monitoring have been made.
0 points
ITEM 23; Drainage of Surface Water. The
entire site, including the fill surface, shall
be graded and/or provided with drainage
facilities to minimize run-off into and onto
the fill, prevent erosion or washing of the
fill, drain off rain water falling on the fill,
and prevent the collection of standing
water. The final surface of the fill shall be
graded to a slope of at least one percent,
but no surface slope shall be so steep as to
cause erosion of the cover.
Reason. Run-off from lands adjacent to the
fill and rain falling on the fill may, unless
diverted, percolate into the fill and pollute
tlie ground or surface water with the leachate.
The cover may be removed by erosion of the
fill and standing water may permit mosquito
breeding or may interfere with access, un-
loading, compacting or placement of cover.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If surface waters are diverted from the
fill and no permanent ponding occurs.
6 points
If only occasional scouring or ponding
of surface water occurs.
4 points
If surface drainage is not controlled or
is inadequately controlled.
0 points
ITEM 24: Final Grading^ The completed
fill shall be graded to serve the purpose
Tor which the fill is ultimately planned. The
surface drainage shall be consistent with
the surrounding area. The finished construc-
tion shall not in any way cause interference
with proper drainage on adjacent lands nor
shall the finished fill concentrate run-off
waters into adjacent areas. Seeding of
finished portions with appropriate grasses to
promote stabilization of the cover shall be
performed.
Reason. To promote sanitary landfill as an
acceptable refuse disposal practice, and to
enhance the obtainment of appropriate future
sites, it is important that the fill not only
be operated in an acceptable manner, but
also that the completed landfill blend with
its surroundings and, if possible, be utilized
for some purpose.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If completed portions of the landfill
are properly graded and permit proper
drainage.
4 points
If finished portions evidence some pond-
ing uneveness or scouring correctable by
proper maintenance.
2 points
If finished surfaces are not smooth and
are improperly drained.
0 points
ITEM 25: Animal Feeding. All animaLs
shall be excluded from the site.
Reason. Consumption of raw garbage by
hogs is an important factor in the trans-
mission of trichinosis in man, as well as
trichinosis, hog cholera, and vesicular
exanthema in hogs, therefore, hogs should
be excluded from landfills. Domestic or
wild animals will interfere with the land-
fill operation. Appropriate fencing will
exclude animals and prompt covering of
refuse will make the site less attractive
for gulls and other birds.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If no animal feeding is allowed and proper
fencing is installed, if needed.
2 points
If any animal feeding is allowed.
0 points
Exhibit 1-2 Page 8
-------
Tentative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
ITEM 26: ^Accident Prevention and Safety.
Employees shall be instructed in the prin-
ciples of first aid and safety and in the
specific operational procedures necessary to
prevent accidents, including limitation of
access. Accident precautionary measures
shall be employed at the site. An adequate
stock of first-aid supplies shall be maintained
at the site.
Reason. The use of heavy earth-moving
equipment, the maneuvering of collection
trucks and other vehicles, and the infectious,
explosive or flammable items that may be in
• he refuse can create accident hazards at
landfills. The remote location of some land-
fills makes it particularly important that
personnel be oriented to accident hazards,
trained in first-aid, and provided first-aid
supplies. For reasons of safety, access
should be limited to those authorized to use
the site for the disposal of refuse.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If employees are given periodic safety
training; and if an adequate first-aid kit,
and at least one employee trained in first-
aid, is available on the site at all times.
2 points
If employees are given periodic safety
training; and if an adequate first-aid kit
is available at the site and trained first-
aid assistance is available at a location
within 3 miles of the site to which appro-
priate communication is available.
1 point
If employees are not given periodic safety
training; or if neither an on-site first-aid
kit nor trained first-aid assistance (with-
in 3 miles) is available. „ . .
0 points
If no positive accident prevention program
is employed or if unsafe practices ara
carried on at the site. .
Deduct 5 points
IT KM 27: Operational Records and Plan
Execution. A daily log shall be maintained
by the sanitary landfill supervisor to record
operational information, including the type
and quantity of refuse received, the portion
of the landfill used, and any deviations made
from the plans and specifications. A copy
of ihe original plans and specifications, a
copy of the daily log, and a plan of the com-
pleted landfill shall be filed .with the local
governmental agency responsible for main-
taining titles to land.
Reason. Completed landfill sites are ulti-
mately utilized for a variety of purposes.
When i'he ultimate use of the site is known
beforehand, the landfill operation can be
planned so that suitable building sites,
roads, and ,utilities, can be provided. Final
grades can be established and allowances
made for landscaping and adequate drainage.
A record of the construction of the landfill
is necessary for the most efficient utilization
of the completed landfill site and for the
prevention of health hazards or nuisances.
This item shall be rated as follows:
If complete records are maintained as
delineated above.
2 points
If the records kept are considered ade-
quate for the intended use of the fill.
1 point
If there are no records.
0 points
If the sanitary landfill deviates materially
from the approved plan in such a manner
as to produce an 'unsatisfactory sanitary
landfill (during operation or upon com-
pletion) or if a sanitary landfill is con-
structed or operated without planning so
as to elicit valid adverse comment from
the adjacent property owners and/or
governmental officials.
DED.UCT
20 points
Suggested Method of Applying the Point
Ratings.
A summation of the points awarded for each
of the twenty-seven items yields a possible
score of up to 100. The sanitary condition
Exhibit 1-2 Page 9
-------
Tcn'ative Rating Method for Sanitary Landfill Operations
of the fill should be maintained at all times
and for this reason a high score must be
attained on certain items in order to assure
Hie propc.-r degree of health protection.
A suggested method of evaluating the numeri-
cal ratings is as follows:
A-Rated Sanitary Landfill Suitable for well-
developed areas such as residential and
commercial zonings.
The following items must score as follows:
Item 9 (Blowing Litter) 4
Item 12 (Daily Cover)' 15
Item 13 (Intermediate Cover) 3
Item 14 (Final Cover) 3
Item 18 (Burning) 3
Item 22 (Placement in 5
Ground Water)
Item 23 (Drainage of Surface 4
Water)
Total rating must equal 85 or more points.
BjRated Sanitary Landfill Suitable for areas
of industrial zonings.
The following items must score as follows:
Hern 9 (Blowing Litter) 2
Item 12 (Daily Cover) 10
Item 13 (Intermediate Cover) 1
Item 14 (Final Cover) 3
Item 18 (Burning) 3
Item 22 (Placement in Ground 3
Water)
Item 23 (Drainage of Surface 4
Water)
Total rating must equal 70 or more points.
C-Rated Sanitary Landfill - Suitable for re-
mote or" rural areas (to be determined locally -
approximate conditions, less than 500 persons
per square mile).
The following items must rate as follows:
Item 9 (Blowing Litter) 2
Item 12 (Daily Cover) 10
Item 13 (Intermediate Cover) 1
Item 14 (Final Cover) 3
Item 18 (Burning) 3
Item 22 (Placement in Ground 3
Water)
Item 23 (Drainage of Surface 4
Water)
Total rating must equal 55 or more points.
The closer a sanitary landfill is to human
habitation, the more stringently the landfill
must adhere to good practice. In order to
satisfy public demands, the sanitary landfill
ratings have been developed to indicate the
quality of sanitation landfills must maintain
to operate in the three principle types of
areas. In many cases, sanitary landfills may
attain a rating appropriate for the area in
which they are located, through modifications
to achieve adequate scores on certain items.
10
Exhibit 1-2 Page 10
-------
EXHIBIT II -1 ELM TREE STATISTICAL INFORMATION
I. GENERAL
A, Area
1. SMSA
a. Square Miles 1,530
b. Acres 997, 120
B. Mean Tree Measurements (Average of Samples Surveyed)
1. Definitions
a. 100% Density - Total estimated material
with same density as the log or trunk,
b. Wet Weight - Green log or foliage material.
c. Dry Weight - Oven-dried material, 0% moisture.
2. Average Diameter - Inches 23
3. Average Overall Height - Feet 25
4. Log or Bole (Limb Free Trunk) Volumes
a. Length @ 50% of average overall height-feet 12. 5
b. Average diameter - Inches 23.
c. Volume cubic feet (cubic yards) 36 (1.3)
5. Crown (upper foliage and limbs) absolute
volumes (equal to bole)
a. Volume Cubic Feet (Cubic Yards) 36 (1.3)
6. Total Volume
a. Cubic Feet (cubic yards) 72 (2. 6)
7. Weights
a. Pounds per cubic feet, wet 54. 3
b. Pounds per cubic feet, dry 34
c. Bole, wet (54. 3 x 36) -pounds (tons) 1,955 ( .97)
d. Crown, wet (54. 3 x 36) - pounds (tons) 1,955 ( 97)
e. Total tree, wet (54. 3 x 72) -pounds(tons) 3,910 (1.94)
f. Total tree, dry (34 x 72)-pounds(tons) 2,448(1.2)
g. Ash residue (2. 2% of dry wt. )-pounds 54
Exhibit II-1, Page 1
-------
C. Timberland (Acres)
1. Douglas County
a. Private 53,416
b. Public and semi-public 9,247
c. Parks and recreation 3, 726
Total 66, 389
2. Sarpy County
a. Private 5,593
b. Public and semi-public 4, 072
c. Parks and Recreation 1, 572
Total 11,237
3. Pottawattamie County
a. Private 13, 768
b. Public and semi-public 6, 545
c. Parks and recreation 2, 607
Total 2Z.920
4. Total SMSA Timberland Acres 100,546
D. Average Acre Density (Estimated)
1. Private - Per acre 2. 5
2. Public and semi-public - per acre 5. 8
3. Parks and recreation - per acre 40. 0
II. NUMBER OF ELM TREES (estimated)
A. Metropolitan Area
1, Douglas County
a. Private 133,540
b. Public and semi-public 53,633
c. Parks and recreation 149, 040
Total 336,213
2. Sarpy County
a. Private 13,983
b. Public and semi-public 23, 618
c. Parks and recreation 62,880
Total 100,481
Exhibit II-1, Page 2
-------
3. Pottawattamie County
a. Private 34,420
b. Public and Semi-public 37,961
c. Parks and recreation 104,280
Total 176,661
4. Metropolitan Area Disposal Problem Trees
a. Original Total elm, 100% 613,355
b. Down and disposed, 1964-1968, 35% 214,674
c Remaining standing, 1968, 65% 398,681
5. Total Metropolitan Area Disposal Problem
Trees 398,681
6. Number of Immediate" and Rural Area
Disposal Problem Trees.
a. Total Metropolitan Area Disposal
Problem trees 398,681
b. Estimated continued on-site disposal
of rural or remote areas, 23% of total - 91,697
c. Total immediate area disposal problem
trees - 306,984
7. Total Metropolitan Area Elm Tree Weight
a. Immediate area (1. 94 Tons x 306,984
trees) - tons 595,549
b. Rural or remote area (1. 94 tons x91,697
trees) - tons 177,892
c. Total - Tons 773,441
Exhibit II-1, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT II-2 - DEVELOPMENT OF UNIT WEIGHTS
A^ GENERAL. Unit weights are intended to be typical of materials
"As Delivered" to the disposal site, but often loads are mixed, with two or
more materials in each load. Seldom is there only one material on a load,
except in the case of certain material classes which are intended to include
a variety of materials peculiar to the origin or type of waste.
It was often impractical to define all components of a load. For instance,
a load of glass from a bottling company also contained quantities of paper,
cardboard, wood, tin cans, etc. Therefore, loads were estimated as to the
percentage of major components, on a volumetric basis.
Weighing of waste as delivered to the site was done in order to obtain unit
weight data on materials for which there was no other information and to sub-
stantiate data available from other sources. An attempt was made to select
loads for weighing which were typical for that class of material, although
some weighing of mixed loads was required. Mixed loads were analyzed on the
basis of component parts to check the total weight of the load against known
or assumed average weights of two or more components.
Many material densities were assigned based upon specific knowledge of the
materials involved, while others are a matter of general knowledge. Past
experience has provided knowledge of such items as paunch manure, sewage
solids, street sweepings, rubber manufacturing wastes, cinders, fly ash
and cement manufacturing wastes. The bulk density of various materials are
general knowledge, including dirt, gravel rock, oils, grain, fruits and vege-
tables, furniture and appliances.
E. WEIGHING PROGRAM. Three approaches to weighing of refuse ma-
terials were taken. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.
1. City Collected Wastes All domestic kitchen waste disposed
of at the Council Bluffs Landfill was collected by the City of Council Bluffs in
packer trucks. As a part of the refuse collection study, a record was made of
the volume of refuse collected by the City of Council Bluffs packer trucks for at
least one week on each of the 6 routes. From this date, unit weights were de-
termined by weighing a number of loads and averaged to determine a unit weight
for material Class 40, "Garbage and Kitchen Wastes, Domestic. " The average
density was 626 Ib/c.y. , with a maximum of 750 Ib/c.y. and a minimum of
500 Ib/c.y. A value of 626 Ib/c.y. packed or 313 Ib/c.y. loose was assigned to
material Class 40. This value was also assigned to material Class 41, "Gar-
bage and Kitchen Wastes, Commercial. "
2. Weighing of Private Haulers - Private refuse haulers cooper-
ated in obtaining unit weight data for several classes of material, particularly
the "paper and cardboard" and "mixed trash and refuse" classes. There is
considerable variation in the unit weight of these wastes depending upon whether
Exhibit II-2, Page 1
-------
they are collected in packer trucks, open body trucks, trailers, or pickups.
Numerous loads of both packer and non-packer type trucks were weighed and
recorded the corresponding volumes.
For material Class 42, "Mixed Trash, and Refuse (including Garbage), " weigh-
ing of packer and open body trucks produced the following results:
No. of Loads Volume Weight Ave.Unit Weight
Open Truck 35 241 CY 74, 310 Ibs. 3081b/c.y.
Packer Truck 357 5.9HCY 3, 650, 310 Ibs. 6l71b/c,y.
The unit weight assigned to material Class 42 "Mixed Trash and Refuse (inclu-
ding Garbage)" was 308 Ib/c.y. for open body trucks and 616 Ib/c.y. for packer
trucks.
For material Class 43, ''Mixed Trash and Refuse (No Garbage), " weighing of
packer and open body trucks produced the following results:
No. of Loads Volume Weight Ave. Unit Weight
Open Truck 84 716 CY 166, 710 Ibs. 231 Ib/c.y.
Packer Truck 75 1,200CY 564, 000 Ibs. 470 Ib/c.y.
The unit weight assigned to material Class 43, "Mixed Trash and Refuse (No
Garbage)" was 232 Ib/c.y. for open body trucks and 464 Ib/c.y. for packer
trucks.
For Material Class 50, "Paper and Cardboard, " weighing of packer and open
body trucks produced the following results:
No. of Loads Volume Weight Ave. Unit Weight
Open Truck 91 965 CY 178,160 Ibs. 183 Ib/c.y.
Packer Truck 24 384 CY 138, 240 Ibs. 360 Ib/c.y.
The unit weight assigned to material Class 50, "Paper and Cardboard, " was
J85 Ib/c.y. for open body trucks and 370 Ib/c.y. for packer trucks.
The 2 to 1 compaction ratio of packer trucks to,open trucks established in ma-
terial classes 40, 41, 42, 43 and 50 is believed to hold true for each of these ma-
terial classes. On that basis, open truck unit weights of 313 Ib/c.y. were as-
signed to material Classes 40 and 41, 308 Ib/c.y. for material class 42, 232 lb/
c.y. for material Class 43, and 185 Ib/c.y. for material Class 50.
Exhibit II-2, Page 2
-------
_3. Packer Truck Density - For the five material Classes 40,
41, 42, 43 and 50, the 2 to 1 compaction ratio of packer to open truck density
was incorporated into the computer program for determining the weight of
material delivered to the disposal site. Unit -weights listed in the table giving
seasonal and compaction factors and unit weights are fdr open trucks. When
these material classes were delivered in packer trucks, both the unit weight
and the compaction factor were automatically doubled. This eliminated the
need for anticipating the ratio of packer trucks to open trucks in each material
class and permitted the use of two unit weights for these materials rather than
a single weighted average based on an anticipated ratio of truck type.
_4. Random Weighing. The third approach to load weighing was
random weighing of typical loads observed at the landfill sites. This was used
exclusively for the demolition and tree waste categories, and also for other
materials.
/
C. COMPACTION FACTORS. Compaction factors were determined,
based upon the anticipated density of the material in the fill as compared to
the density as delivered to the disposal site. For instance, paper, cardboard,
and general mixed rubbish should compact in the fill to approximately 600 lb/
C. Y. If paper and cardboard are delivered to the disposal site in an open body
truck at 185 Ib/C. Y. , the compaction factor is determined to be 185-=-600 = 0. 3.
If the same material is delivered in a packer truck at 370 Ib/C. Y. , the com-
paction factor is 370-f600 - 0. 6. Some materials will have a greater density
delivered to the site than the compacted density of paper and other rubbish. In
t.he case of liquids and semi-solids, little or no increase in the fill volume may
be required, therefore a small compaction factor is used. Heavy granular and
bulky wastes were evaluated in terms of the anticipated volume reduction due to
spreading, compacting and mixing with other materials in the landfill for assign
ing compaction compaction factors.
Exhibit. 11-2, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT Hr - I
Page I
SITE SIMULATION NO. 65
SIMULATION
SITE 1 0'
s NUMrtFR ft5
tspnsAL FFE i .^S/FON
TRANSFER FEE 0.00
MINIMUM FEr 1 .00
SITF T n:
(MIMU
/TON
AL FF>-- l.^S/TON
M FEF i.oo
/TON
STTF 5 DISPOSAL FFE l.rfS/TON
y
INIMU
EO FEE O.On
M FEF l.nu
/row
PAPKl
SITE CU
I
•?
3
5
:p Tf)
YHS
44H
0
0
0
UfK
TONS
3?;;
17M,
G
VEHICLES
fl
0
f)
HAUL COST
0.00
0.00
0.00
DISPOSAL COS!
6.31)
0.00
0.00
0.00
DUMP
SITE
a
6
TRUCK
CU YDS
0
0
0
TONS
0
0
0
VEHICLES
0
0
0
HAUL COST
0.00
0.00
0.00
DISPOSAL
0.00
0.00
0.00
COST
VA 1 L J bH 1 1 KAlLtK
SITF CU
1
1
5
7
i
3
it
ft
PT ,K
SITF CU
1
S
7
SITf CU
I
s
ft
TOTALS ~OE
STTF CU
P
ft
7
YHS
100
574
0
0
1 4?
0
n
"^ '
YDS
41 1
0
Yn<;
0
0
n
0
0
' ALL
vns
H15
0
o
71 10
o
?v
1M
mi ft
s
_
ii
n
Mfl
u
HUCK
719
ft
TUNS
0
0
0
VEHICLES
TONS
70/*
n
<*?!•*
0
f)
0
1^
M9
l4
0
0
'J
o
0
Vf nICLtS
1
n
0
0
0
0
VEHICLES_
^40
0
2752
n
0
?.9h
Sllft
3.37
0.00
£725
0.00
(1.00
0.00
HAUL COSI
0.00
HAUL COST
0.00
o.Oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
HAUL COST
765.59
0.00
510?. 83
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.08
2.31
?:2fl
0.00
4.A4
0.00
O.nfl
o.on
1.12
1.03
0.00
DISPOSAL COST
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
DISPOSAL COST PCT Y
8S1.H7 6.12
0.00 0.00
5290.44 40.50
0.00 0.00
6613.37 51.38
0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1
3
5
7
FLAT
SITE
'"' 1
2
3
4
6
«U1U
1
3
5
7
OTHER
SITE
2
J
4
6
7
PCT T
6.89
0.00
41.41
0.00
51.70
0.00
0.00
0
12
62
0
RED OH STAKE
CU YDS
0
0,
0
"
3
18
51
0
VEHICLES
CU YDS
0
0
D
0
0
*
fl
54
0
TONS
••""• 121
0
fl
0
2
14
36
0
TONS
0
0
M
0
0
4
20
S7
0
VEHICLES
31
0
n
0
37
1H2
4S2
0
VEHICLES
0
u
0
0
0
3.24
2.51
3.57
0.00
HAUL COST
~" J.Ob
O.Ofl
O.Ofl
0.00
2.50
1.H9
3.42
0.00
HAUL COST
0.00
0.00
4.ft6
0.00
O.Ofl
1.00
1.00
1.04
0.00
DISPOSAL
4.R7
0.00
0..00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DISPOSAL
O.Ofl
0.00"
' 0.00
6.7H
0.00
0.00
COST
COST
....
Exhibit III-l, Page 1
-------
EXHIBIT m. - |
Poge 2
VEHICLE OISTRI«UTION RY
TYPE 4RPA
75
38
25
32
25
26
?!,
5
h
26
24
"
36
32
3?
25
2b
3?
3/
9
10
2
5I7F 3 1
3
V
16
20
p
17
21
3
9
15
16
17
?0
21
„
in
15
16
17
70
21
5
16
I/
71
7
^
in
i?
14
] <:
17
70
21
2
7
1 3
14
17
?\
11 H
DISPOSAL ST
VEHICLES
40
28
1
15
1
S
9
3
1
2
12
7
5
7
?
15
1
7
1
12
12
2
2
7
78
79
11
4
5
149
17
1
4
9
33
23
13
4
I
I
1
1
3
}
3
4
1
Q
7
1
1
1
2
1
1
H
60
33
35
n
1
— 1
;>9
125
32
14
1
SITE SIMULATION NO. 65
TES ururrr F riTCTpTRUTTO" PY DISPOSAL SITES
CUBIC
YARDS
275
165
35
I!
I*
11
35
4
0
"
43
52
35
11
27
3
35
17
0
6
1
1
2
0
10
7
12
447
900
57
9
9
1113
42
1
12
71
4
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
t*
20
3
97
Ifl
it
10-
45
.1
11
1
30
"' Ion
257
1 6>1
103
5H
- 1
2
1
1
1
1
0
23
BO
153
21
1
TONS A
217
130
3
A2
17
7
2
„
9
35
54
2B
1
30
12
6
.
»
80
6
B
331
73fl
42
B
12
973
46
«
5
RO
53
11
4
0
I
2
1
2
H
47
3
2
12
1
17
32
149
1 1 1
83
»
.
•
23
109
W
3
VEfcjfSE '
9.84
11. «
10.84
S.75
9.6B '
4.60
3.60
6. Ob
4.09
4.40
3./b SITE 5
11. OM
5.17
13.22
4.6B
9.73
4.26
4.17
l.bO
3.62
4.87
1.59
?.S3
it .00
1 1 .39
9.27
9.69
17.31
7.76
R.49
4.09
13.05
5.73
3.63
1.10
3.53
7.09
6.14
2.97
3.16
5.77
3.02
l./B
3.37.
4.08
7.70
1R.81
13.43
7.59
4.27
70. OS
4.32
9.66
5.45
5.76
7.17
4.90
*
5.14
S.75
3.30
3.05
1.71
4.66
7.70
R.71
VEHICLE PF
q
y
10
13
IS
16
17
72
UK
1
1H
] 9
?7
28
30
31
39
39
42
43
y
19
?9
137
13H
39"
147
1H
J?
10
.31
39
41
17
3H
39
u 1
1 H
77
31
U/
s
7 -I
6
u
7M
.Vl
40
li?
13&
1 14
7
1 4
«
.TJ
^0
17
»3
1H
77
30
31
-n
137
IT.
42
0 NO. OF
fl VFrilCLES
1
S
1
3 '
zm
n
3?
23
1
R
40
I
\
™
6^
1
1P>
144
5S
1
1
h
74
1
1
"s
1 1
I
3
1
23
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
JS
1
3
4
13H
11
•;
i
7
74
1 7
J
„
'ft
IS
q
«
7
3
7
1
S
7
102
!<.«.
1
CUR 1C
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
2
5
(1
43
993
250
423
1
4
1
59
1
bO
445
131
6
0
16
330
10
1
20
9
0
7
B
74
5
1
0
24
"
12^
1 1
n
ft59
I bU
9s
84
8**
h
12
26
H6
7
27
10
7
40
324
7
0
0
0
0
11
IK
0
TONS
ft
0
0
d
3
1
2
3
"
31
64 H
169
3
3
6
34
9
10?
9
4
76
""5H3
152
7
0
37
341
9
tt
15B
12
10
6
3
3
57
2
^t
J
«
74
1 Ib
44
1
6
"
43ft
^H
130
Jb
1
6B
6
"^~ IT
73
9
H
17
6l
19
10
H
29
736
3
.
D
'
a
6
13
-
4.46
1 .86
**l
7*2
l.b
7.8
1.70
1.57
i.-a*
17.30
11.0ft
10.59
10.93
11 .22
9.17
11.62
11 .63
fl.55
fS.45
6.09
A. 93
5. 6
13.70
5.04
11.46
10.31
7.49
5.28
5^93
4.56
4.BH
5.H9 ' '
6.B4
ft. 7fl
llil
5.00
4.J/
3.84
5.01
J./J
5.77
4.60
'*•'"
fl ,7V ' '
«.53
4.84
14.70 '"
7.42
6. IB
6.23
6. J/
6.22
10.09
7.7?
7.63
7.65
5.20
5.44
3.67
i.90
3.91
5.31
1.59
5.40
5.15
1 .46
1.7A
7.67
3.90
3.72
7.54
*.1S
3.21
1 .3H
10
Exhibit III- 1, Page 2
-------
EXHIBIT
Page 1
STMULAIIQN NliHH
SITF 3 nispnsn
nr 2
-c, 07
SITE SIMULATION
J NO. 87
L FF? 1.?
-------
EXHIBIT HE - 2
SITE SIMULATION NO. 87
^/EHICLF OjlaiiT|oN qy DISPOSAL SITFS
VEHICLE- STD NO. UF CUBIC nnrc
3276
9 2 12 H
15 21 112 fl2
1C 7>* 447 331
20 79 9(10 73f*
21 19 267 ]6l
?f 11 57 ft2
2S ftrt ?75 ?!'/
?6 2-1 169 130
lu 1 1 *
IS 5 9 12
1 ft 29 H6 111
20 4 31 31
21 17 42 46
2^ ^4 Kb 130
32 1 ft *
9 1 1 «
1 ft 9 12 5
21 11 25 11
?2 ft ft ft
25 5 11 7
3V 2 <• 2
9 1 0 »
15 1 0 -
16 1 2 2
?0 ? 1
21 1 1 °
22 ft ft 2
26 ,} U °
32 1 -0 »
16 2 1 ?
21 ,1 ft 2
ft
10 2 11 12
1ft 1 6 7
1 ft 29 1 Ofl 76
21 35 103 «3
? 1? 52 32
3 5 11 7
7
2 2 -
?. \ »
1 1 ? 2
3 1 *
1 ?* 23 23
?() *« 77 ftS
? 32 29 19
?? 1 21 22
?ft 3 1
?5 2 35 30
?6 1 17 12
32 66
37 1 «
9 1 2
10 00
n o »
ft 0 *
15 ft 32
6 ft ft 3
20 1* <* '
«• >5 ft a
S 1? 2 •
6 11 1
2 1? 0 *
- -JT " 2" (1
1 0
-pTT- A 10 Mil
Sit? 5" 1
1H H ft3 31
?7 <*0 P50 169
29 1 ft 3
30 i b J
11 ? 10 6
3h ft 3
-iq 12 ft^3 3ft
1* 2ft ?00 107
ftf1 2 IS 9
1H 32 bO 2b
14 Ift9 ft^5 5«3
2V I *• 7
137 ft 16 27
139 H9 MB 36ft
. — n? u iu s
AVEHACE V*HTaE f^rr1'11
11.39 3
^lai
17.31
8.50
7.76
11.57
1.6ft
?;°2
5)73 ft
7.03
""Slsh
1.63
3.53 1
^.97 i
ft. 63
5.67
3.50 I
) .7H
ft. OB
2.70
5I25
5.53 )
ft. 27 ]
7
9.66
9.65
5. HI
ft. 90
6.20
'ft!26
S.lft
1.30 4
1.05
1.71
1.22
ft. Ofl
1.55
ft.ftS
ft. 07 1
•^.00
ft. 00 '
1 .H6
.89 1
.71
2.?2 SITF 7 i
1 .70
2.50
1.91 3
12.10
in. 59
10.93
11 .22
9. 17
1?.27 S
«.55 1
R.93
13.70
Il.ft6
9.89
'**"* Exhibit III- Z
H
V 1 I
7
p 1
]
4
7
0
1
"
^
1
fl
^
^
7
^
H
^ I J
0 1
* 1
7
4 1
^
n 7
(• 1
6
D
I)
6
* 30
4 i-n
1
•J 2
^
i
-
/ 1 1
h i<»
0
'
7 6
h
1 1
4
7
7
7 6
7
7 12e
7 1
Page
i
1M)
22
q
J,
rt
7ft
0
5
1
9
1
0
fl
J
22
^
2
11
7.)
40
ft/
IH]
-• 59
' 9b
7 . 2i;
7 Kft
1 M
S 12
1 1 31*
T «h
-> 22
•i 1 ')
0
0
1
* 30 /
> 1 t
1 0
1
1 1)
1 1)
i 0
0
0
IJ
3 1 1
i 19
t 0
0
0
2
ftO?
q
169
1
97
10
257
1
153
1
z
15B
12
10
£
3
3
57
'
h
3
„
ft
1ft
3
1
27
20
*?fl
130
"16
64
17
5ft
y
97
ii
19
o
0
714
H
J
1
;
«
*
6
1ft
13
«•
0
1 1
105
„
AO
«
ft7
12
Iftq
»
109
»
FFf S
S.lft
?'ft3
ft. 56
VS
6.1*1
A. 78
3.ftl
5.00
ft.lZ
7.ftft
1. 73
5.59
4.6(1
ft.ft7
H.79
ftlSo
1ft. 70
7. 10
7.ft2
6.1H
6.?3
6.37
»!97
'7!°^
7.65
S.^IJ
5.ftft
2.27
1.91
^. 31
7.17
1^0
ft!3H
?!bft
I .46
1.0ft
1 .26
?.31
'l./f*
7.40
P.bft
1.3H
1.21
1.6ft
.ftfa
1 1 .ftft
ft. 01
6.95
2.?3
11.13
l^.ftft
7.03
2.2B
ft. 54
3.45
-------
EXHIBIT HE- 3 SITE SIMULATION NO. 92
Page I
MlNl^U^ FEE" 1 .no
./TUN
PACKED TRUCK
SITF
1
3
5
ft
7
V
SITE
1
*
4
6
7
CU YOS TONS
0 U
n o
0 D
fl I)
n it
CU YD1; TONS
0 I)
0 0
0 0
S74 306
0 II
0 J
Cu vns TONS
ft rl
o n
f 0
0 U
0 0
FOW ALL VEHICLES
CU YDS TfT-iS
n ii
') 'i
ft?n5 ' 4«IH
0 0
7115 c.PT)
0 0
0 0
131?l) 1011H
n
41H
0?l
0
0
0
n
n
0
VHICLFS
0
0
o
"'£
0
o.oo
2.77
3. OH
0.00
U.IJU
0.00
0.00
u.on
«. un
u.oo
u.ou
60«S.l /
0.00
lillbS.05
0.00
o.nu
16240.21
0.00
Ulb
1 .03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 1) U
0 .00
u.no
0.00
0.00
M63.H7
0.00
S619.H1
0.00
0.00
1?7H5.69
1 0
3 21
5 51
7 n
OTHER VEHICLES
1 U
2 0
4 0
6 0
0.00 O.UO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
S3. 42 SI. 73
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0
Ifr
36
0
TONS
0
0
11
0
0
219
45?
0
VEHICLES
D '
0
0
e.
0
if
0.00
2.14
3|42
0.00
HAUL COST
0.00
0.00
o!oo
0.00
" 0.00
o!oo
0.00
DISPOSAL COST
tmm
o.oo
o.no
b./H
o.oo
0 VO'O
Exhibit III-3, Page 1
-------
EXHIBIT nt 3
Page 2
TYPE .^r.
1
4
?n
?6
A
1 7
?b
3?
M
IS
1 6
17
?1
"
3?
H
Ml
)S
?u
?,
3?
'
1
J
*,
to
1 4
1"
IV
?i
Jl
7
7
1
1
1
1
17
?n
??
?s
__..
3 '
1 1"
M
in
^
16
1
^1
?"
17
'MVTJF C
'"•"-MCI FS r
^
^4
/•I*
M
7-y
1 1
*q
4
I
S
17
IS
4
1
?
4
:n
13
s
?
i
i
i
i
i
i
-t
i
IS
i
1
?3
60
IS
11
7
5
7
1
1
IS
I
^
7P
hH
14
is
7
1
1
-,
?
1
1
Ji
^ i
1 1
'7
SITE SIMULATION NO. 92
FS VFHm F nrsTPTHUTTOvi RY nrspnsai STTFS
,
140
hi
9011
'l(
169
,
1
SI
at,
ill.)
»?
'f
c
1
1 1
1*9
3S
11
34
1
1
1
4
!!
i»
'4
4!
1 1
6
"JO
] 00
?57
IftH
1 0 J
Sh
35
1 1
1
1
1
IrJ
1
0
23
HO
77
31
3
JS
I/
1
1
0
1
n
0
c.
<.
I
U
TONS
ft
IIS
H
a?~
71»
mi
<•?
130
„
12
173
46
no
'I
.
7
b
an
n
7
!?
u
«
2
»
2
»
B
47
2
12
7
76
144
11)
61
54
7
u
«
IS
„
5S
109
?2
1
30
1?
f.
3
»
n
0
3
1
3
o
•
FFl-S TYPE
11.39 ID
!S:"
*-.?4 S1TF 5 1
9.69
17.31
7.76
11. b/
1.49
4.09
/.H.J
13.05
5.73 I
7.03
10. IH
6.09
1. 10
7.09 i
^.97
4.63
5.67
S.77
1.0?
1. 17
4. OH 4
?.70
I'M
1ft. HI
11.43
4.^7
"'"* b
4. Jff
9.66
v'.ll "*
S.ftl
6.9S
7.62
n'.b?
6.?6
10. 6H
- 6.77 7
?;iS
5)75
1.30
1.86
1. 89
1.22
4.66
4. OP
i!s5
4.45
4.07
5.00 H
ft. 71
4.46
1 ,H6
.(19
?!a2
?.H7
1.57
li^
S.tiO
jjpe-fi VFHJCLF5 YftDD^
P^ " II
t.1
-y ] i> 9v 1
r ^s 4c?j
4 1 4
(, 1 S
1 -> in
I |i 4S
^ p^ 4ft
? P IS
1 1 6
1 t44 445
? ^s ni
? i fa
1 1 0
1 616
11 74 130
114 «9 11*
|W ^ Id
) I
'"•' 1 '* eV
31 1 0
4| 1 ^
17 ? H
1H V? 66
40 1 0
43 1 b
19 * 9
?4 1 2
3 1 'J
ftf. 1 ii
n* i 1
117 4 ->
liw J5 ?P
1 ? S
? 1 ^
11 4 73
t W 40
? I 1 47
J» • J4 1H1
1 l^1 54
3 IS 9b
137 T ?4
134 17 rt4
14^ .1 -1
•j )/*n i 14
?^ 75 (-6
^9 6 /
U l1^ ^^
f- 1 f»
•< ? 1
o I >)
13-> 1 1
1» -JD4 11)7
i^ J 11
41 7 7
IN ^0 ?
?•* I 0
% i
T.. 1 i>
tin '
IT- IH-, M
u., ' ^
14J 1 «
11» ? ?
To^r flvr^iOF
•40 l*.9b
11 l?.l"
?A^ I'll ^9
3 10.43
J /.«J/
6 1 1 .^?
3 M.OJ
14 4.17
107 17. ?7
y44 '«!sb
4 *>.4t>
5 « ,1 * . 9 !
\hS 5.16
7 11.70
0 ^.04
? i 11 .46
14 1 Irt.J]
IHti 9.M9
4 7.4V
ISM S.I4
10 ^.43
« S.Pt.
* S.09
5? *..H3
» 5.17
<; i.ti
6 4.37
3 7.44
* "U73
4 S-.59
6 6.£f7
3 fl.79
1 ft.ftO
?7 14.70
?0 7.10
^H f-.lH
1 II 6.^J
ftH ^.97
17 7.7^
^4 7^b
9 s./;ii
97 4.05
M ?.?7
19 1.91
7.1 7
1.40
S.40
,14 4[lH
1 T.14
1.^
o ?. 31
e P.-JII
0 1. . t. f I
14 1.JK
L64
0 .4.6
It 11 ,4<*
— 1 1 o ' " " •"-
Exhibit m-3, Page 2
-------
EXHIBIT III - 4
COST ESTIMATE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES 3, 5, and 7
BASIC COST DATA
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Land Cost
N.W. Site (3) 240 Acres @ $1200
S.E. Site (5) 480 Acres© $1000
N.E. Site (7) 160 Acres® $1000
Initial Site Development
N.W. Site (3)
S.E. Site (5)
N.E. Site (7)
Annual Maintenance & Site Development
N.W. Site (3)
S.E. Site (5)
N.E. Site (7)
Equipment Purchase
Cost of New Equipment, One Time
/A = $288, 000
/A = 480,000
/A= 160,000
$129,500
162,500
112,000
$ 25,000
30,000
15,000
Purchase Only
Equipment Maintenance, Operation, and Amortization
Item Hrs/Yr.
Track Loader 2496
Track Loader 3744
Track Loader 2496
Compacter 2496
Dozer 2496
Dozer 2496
Grader 2080
Water Trucks 2496
Tractor/Mower 1040
Lowboy Trailer (100)
Dump Truck (100)
Pickup Trucks
Miscellaneous
Dozer (Spare) (200)
Wheel Loader (Spare) (200)
Total 22,440
Labor Hrs/Yr.
Equip. Operators 21,840
Laborers 15, 184
Foremen 7,488
Gatekeepers 11,232
Headquarters & Maintenance Building
Office and Maintenance Building
Office and Maintenance Equipment
Agency Operation
Salaries
Overhead
Rate/Hr.
$10.00
15.00
7.00
19.00
11.00
9.00
5.50
4.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
9.00
7.00
Rate/Hr.
$ 4.25
3.25
4.75
3.75
$80,000
50,000
$51,000
14,000
Cost/Yr.
$25,000
56,200
17,500
47,400
27,500
22,500
11,400
10,000
2,100
300
500
3,000
8,400
1,800
1,400
Cost/Yr.
$92,800
49,400
35,600
42,100
$928,000
$404,000
$ 70,000
$462,000
Miscellaneous Expense & Contingencies
$235,000
$219,900
$130,000
$ 65,000
$ 60,000
Exhibit 111-4, Page 1
-------
ANNUAL COST
One-Time Expense
(erf- 6%- 20 Yr. =0.08718)
Land Cost
Initial Site Development
Equipment Purchase
Hdqtrs. Building
Reoccurring Annual Expense
Sire Maintenance & Development
Equip, M.O. & A.
Labor
Agency Operation
Misc. & Contingency
3. Total Annual Cost
FIXED 4 VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
QUANTITIES FOR UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
I. IstYr. 1970 604Ac.-Ft. 723,OOOTons
Fixed Cost $371,200 T 604 Ac. Ft. -
Variable $446,400 T 604 Ac. Ft. -
Total $817,600
$817,600 T 723,000 Tons = $1.13A°n
2. 4th Yr. 1973 559 Ac-Ft. 666,000 Tons
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost 559 Ac-Ft. x 740/Ac-Ft.
$784,900 r 559 Ac-Ft. - $l,405/Ac-Ft.
5784,900-666,000 Tons = $1.18/Ton
BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
0.4(167,700) =$67,100
1. IstYr. 1970567,1004 723,000 Tons =
2. 4th Yr. 1973 $67,100 r 666,000 Tons =
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS
Year
Operation
T97CT ST7T3
1973 $1.18
5 928,000
404,000
462,000
130,000
1,924,000
$ 70,000
235,000
219,900
65,000
60,000
Debt Expense
Annual Development
Equip. M. O. 8, A.
Labor
Agency Operation
Misc. & Contingency
Fixed Costs
$ 167,700
-
11,400
127,100
65,000
-
$371,200
Variable Costs
-
$ 70,000
223,600
92,800
-
60,000
$446,400
UNIT
1st Yr.,
4th Yr.,
1970
1973
Ac-Ft.
-604-
559
Tons
723,
666,
000
000
AND TOTAL COST OF OPERATION
$0.10
$615/Ac-Ft.
$740/Ac-Ft.
$371,200
413,700
{784,900
$ 0.09Aon
$ 0.10/Ton
Total
Unit Cost
$A°n
JT53
$1.28
5167,700
5649,900
5817,600
Exhibit 111-4, Page 2
-------
INDIVIDUAL SITE DATA
I. Refuse Accumulation and Land Requirements
1970 - 1st Year of Operation
Ac-Ft.' Fill Depth Fill Area xl .2
Site 3 6170 301 206 24T~
Site 5 9730 24' 405 487
Site 7 3300 24' 138 165
* Compacted and Seasonally Adjusted
2. Tons of Refuse Per Day, 1970/1995
Operation, Djys/Week
Site 3 6
Site 5 6
Site 7 6
** Seasonally Adjusted
3. Initial Site Development and Costs
Scale House, Equip. Bldg.
& Pers. Facilities (3)
Scales (5)
Scale Equipment (3)
Warermain 7000'
Perimeter Fence 48,000'
Entr. Fence 3,000'
Gravel Surf.
Grading
Landscaping
Yard Lighting
Apron Pum't
Miscellaneous
Total
4. Equipment Cost and Distribution
Item
3 Track Loaders
1 Compactor
2 Dozers
1 Grader
2 Water Trucks
1 Tractor/Mower
3 Pickup Trucks
1 Lowboy Trailer
1 Dump Truck
Miscellaneous
1 Dozer (Spare)
1 Wheel Loader (Spare)
Total Equipment Cost
5. Equipment Hours Per Year
Item
Track Loader, 170 FWHP
Track Loader, 275 FWHP
Track Loader, 115 FWHP
Compacter, 400 FWHP
Dozer, 180 FWHP
Dozer, 125 FWHP
Grader, 125 FWHP
Water Trucks
Tractor/Mower
Lowboy Trailer
Dump Truck
Spare Equipment
Dozer, 125 FWHP
Wheel Loader, 130 FWHP
6. Annual Equipment Operator Hours
Labor Hours Per Year
Purchase Area
240A
480A
160 A
1200/1750
410/590
Site3
$30,000
18,000
10,000
10,000
7,500
2,000
5,000
18,000
9,000
4,000
10,000
A,OOO
$129,500
Site3
$46,000
-
$50,000
7,500
4,000
600
4,000
2,000
3,500
2,500
10,000
12,000
$142,100
$462
Site3
2,496
-
2,496
-
640
748
320
(30)
(30)
(60)
(60)
67880
Site 5
$30,000
18,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
30,000
12,500
5,000
10,000
10,000
$162,500
SiteS
$70,000
74,000
-
12,500
8,000
1,000
4,000
3,500
6,000
4,000
18,000
21,000
$222,000
,000
SiteS
-
3,744
-
2,496
_
1,040
1,248
520
(50)
(50)
(100)
(100)
97345
Site 7
$30,000
9,000
10,000
10,000
6,500
2,000
4,000
15,000
8,000
3,500
10,000
4,000
$112,000
Site 7
$28,000
35,000
5,000
4,000
400
4,000
1,500
2,500
1,500
7,000
9,000
$97,900
Site 7
-
-
2,496
_
'-
2,496
400
500
200
(20)
(20)
(40)
(40)
6,212
6,700
9,048
6,092
Type
Equip, Operator
Laborers
Foremtn
Gatekeepers
Site 3
6,700
4,160
2,496
3,744
SiteS
9,048
8,320
2,496
3,744
Site 7
6,092
2,704
2,496
3,744
jotal
2T840
15,184
7,488
11,232
Exhibit 111-4, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT III - 5
COST ESTIMATE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES 3 ond 5
BASIC COST DATA
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
t.
7.
8.
9.
Land Costs
N.W. Site (3) 400A 'S. 1200/A = $480,000
S.E. Site (5) 520A "§) 1000/A = 520,000
920 Acres
Initial Site Development (2 sites)
Scale House 2^30,000= $60,000
Scales 4 & 9,000= 36,000
Scale Equipment 2 <3> 10,000 = 20,000
Equipment Bldg.
& Pers. Facilities 2^30,000= 60,000
Watermain 8" X 6000' 30,000
Perim. Fence 35,000' 18,000
Entr. Fence 2,000' 4,000
Gravel Surfacing 30,000
Grading 60,000
Landscaping 25,000
Yard Lighting 10,000
Apron Pavement
Miscellaneous
10
17
Annual Maintenance & Site Developmer
Equipment Purchase
Cost of New Equipment,
Equipment Maintenance
2 - Track Loaders,
275FWHP
2 - Compactors,
400FWHP
1 - Grader, 125FWHP
2 - Water Trucks
1 - Tractor Mower
2 - Pickup Trucks
1 - Lowboy Trailer
1 - Dump Truck
Miscellaneous
1 - Dozer,
125 FWHP (Spare)
I - Wheel Loader,
130FWHP Spare)
Labfe.
Equipment Operators
Laborer 4/jite
Foreman, I/Site
Gatekeepei
,000
,000
it (a: $30, 000 each
One Time Purchase Only
, Operation, an
Hrs.A'-
7488
4992
2080
2496
1040
—
(100)
(100)
--
(200)
(200)
187696"
Hrs./Yr-
18,096
16,640
4,992
7,488
d Amortization
Rate/Hr.
$15.00
19.00
5.50
4.00
2.00
—
3.00
5.00
—
9.00
7.00
Rate/Hr.
$ 4.25
3.25
4.75
3.75
Cost/Yr .
$112,300
95,000
11,400
10,000
2,100
2,000
300
500
5,200
1,800
1,400
Cost/Yr .
$76,900
54,100
23,700
28,100
$1,000,001
$ 380,000
$ 60,000
$ 443,000
$ 242,000
$ 182,800
Headquarteis & Maintenance Building
Office and Muintenance
Office and Maintenance
Agency Operation'
Salaries
Overhead
Bldg.
Equip.
$80,000
50,000
$51,000
14,000
Agency Misc . Expense & Contingencies
$ 130,000
$ 65,000
$ 60,000
Exhibit 111-5, Poge I
-------
ANNUAL COSTS
1. One-Time Expense (CRF-6%-20Yr. = 0.08718)
Land Cost
Initial Site Development
Equipment Purchase
Hdqts. Bldg.
.08718 x 1,953,000 = $ 170,000
2. Reoccurring Annual Expense
Site Maintenance & Development $ 60,000
Equipment M.O. & A. 242,000
Labor 182,800
Agency Operation 65,000
Misc. & Contingency 60,000 $ 609,800
3. Total Annual Costs $ 780,100
FIXED & VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
Debt Expense
Annual Development
Equipment M.O.& A.
Labor
Agency Operation
Misc. & Contingency
Fixed Costs
$170,000
—
7,200
105,900
65,000
—
$348,400
Variable Costs
--
$60,000
234,800
76,900
—
60,000
$431,700
QUANTITIES FOR UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
1st Yr. 1970
4th Yr. 1973
Avg. Yr. 1982
Final Yr. 1995
Ac. Ft.
604
559
718
949
Tons
723,000
666,000
853,000
1,124,000
UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS OF OPERATION
1. 1st Yr. 1970 604 Ac. Ft. 723,000 Tons
Fixed Cost $348,400 c 604 Ac/Ft.- $575/Ac-Ft.
Variable Cost $431,700 -. 604 Ac/Ft. - 715/Ac-Ft.
$780,1000 $l,290/Ac-Ft.
$780,100 f 723,000 Tons = $1,08Aon
2. 4th Yr. 1973 559 Ac. Ft. 666,000 Tons
Fixed Cost $348,400
Variable Cost
559.Ac-Ft. x $715/Ac-Ft. 399,700
$748,100
$748,100 r 559 Ac. Ft. = $l,340/Ac. Ft.
$748,100 r 666,000 Tons = $1.12/Ton
3. Avg. Yr. 1982 718 Ac. Ft. 853,OOOTons
Fixed Cost $348,400
Variable Cost
718 Ac-Ft. x $7I5/Ac-Ft. 513,400
$861,800
$861,800 ^ 718 Ac-Ft. = $1,200 Ac-Ft.
$861,800 r 853,000 Tons = $1 .OlAon
4. Final Year 1995 949 Ac. Ft. 1,124,000 Tons
Fixed Cost $348,400
Variable Cost
949 Ac-Ft x $715/Ac-Ft. 678,500
$1,026,900
$1,026,900 r 949 Ac-Ft. = $l,080/Ac. Ft.
$l,026,900r 1,124,000 = $0.92/Ton
BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
0.4 (170,300) = $68,100
1. 1st Yr. 1970 $68,100- 723,OOOTons $0.10Aon
2. 4th Yr. 1973 68,100- 666,OOOTons $0,10/Ton
3. Avg. Yr. 1982 68,100 r 853,000 Tons $0.08Aon
4. Final Yr. 1995 68,100 r 1,124,000 Tons $0.06Aon
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS
Total
Unit Cost
$Aon
Year
1970
1973
1982
1995
Operation Cost
$A°n
$1.08
$1.12
$1.01
$0.92
Debt Service
Reserve Cost
$/ton
$0.10
$0.08
$0.06
$1.22
$1.09
$0.98
Exhibit 111-5, Page 2
-------
INDIVIDUAL SITE DATA
I . Refuse Accumulation & Land Requirements
1970 1st Year of Operation
Ac-Ft.* Fill Depth Fill Arec
5ite3 9380 301313 Ac
Site 5 9830 24' 410 Ac
Totals 13,210
*Compacted and Seasonal!/ Adjusted
2. Tons of Refuse Per Day, 1970/1995
xl.2
37o~Ac
492 Ac
Purchase Area
400 Ac
520 Ac
Site Operation, Days/Week
3 6
5 6
** Seasonally Adjusted
Equipment Cost and Distribution
Item
Orack Loaders, 275 FWHP
2 Compactors, 400 FWHP
1 Grader, 125 FWHP
2 Water Trucks
1 Tractor/Mower
2 Pickup Trucks
1 Lowboy Trailer
1 Dump Truck
Miscellaneous
1 Dozer, 125FWHP (Spare)
1 Wheel Loader, 130FWHP (Spare)
Total Equipment Cost
Equipment Hours Per Year
Item
Track Loader, 275FWHP
Compactor, 400FWHP
Grader, 125FWHP
Water Truck
Tractor/Mower
Trailer
Dump Truck
Dozer, 125FWHP (Spare)
Wheel Loader, 130FWHP (Spare)
Annual Equipment Operator Hours
9048 Hours Each Site
Labor Hours Per Year
Type
Equip. Operators
Laborers, 4/Site
Foreman
Gatekeeper
Tons ftsr Da
1100/1840
1220/1760
Site 3
$707000
74,000
12,500
8,000
1,000
4,000
3,500
6,000
4,000
17,500
21,000
$221,500
Site 3
3744
2496
1040
1248
520
( 50)
( 50)
( 100)
( 100)
9348
Site 3
9,098
8,320
2,496
3,744
Site5
$707000
74,000
12,500
8,000
1,000
4,000
3,500
6,000
4,000
17,500
21,000
$221,500
$443,000
Site 5
mr
2496
1040
1248
520
( 50)
( 50)
( 100)
( 100)
9338"
SiteS
97098
8,320
2,496
3,744
Total
18,196
16,640
4,992
7,488
Exhibit 111-5, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT III-6
COST ESTIMATE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES 3, 5, and 7
BASIC COST DATA
Land Cost
S.W. Site (1) 80A@1,200.00/A =
N.W. Site (3) 320 A@ 1,200.00/A =
S.E. Site (5) 480A@1,000.00/A =
880 Ac.
Initial Site Development
S.W. Site (1)
N.W. Site (3)
S.E. Site (5)
Annual Maintenance & Site Development
S.W. Site (1)
N.W. Site (3)
S.E. Site (5)
Equipment Purchase
Cost of New Equipment, One Time Purchase Only.
Equipment Maintenance, Operation, and Amortization
Item HnyVr. ' Rate/Hr.
TracFToader 2,080 $10.00
Track Loaders 7,488 15.00
Compactors 4,992 19.00
Grader 2,080 5.50
Water Trucks 2,496 4.00
Tractor/Mower 1,040 2.00
Lowboy Trailer (100) 3.00
Dump Truck (100) 5.00
Pickup Trucks
Miscellaneous
Dozer (Spare) (200) 9.00
Wheel Loader (Spare) (200) 7.00
20,776
Labor
Hrs/Yr.
Item Totol Rate/Hr.
Equip. Operators 20, 176 PT55
Laborers 14,560 3.25
Foremen 4,992 4.75
Gatekeepers 9,568 3.75
System Hdqtrs. & Maintenance Bldg.
Office & Maint. Bldg. $80,000
Office & Maint. Equip. 50,000
Agency Operation
Salaries $51,000
Overhead 14,000
$ 96,000
384,000
480,000
$ 66,500
133,500
162,500
$ 10,000
25,000
30,000
Cost/Yr.
$ 20,800
112,300
94,800
11,400
10,000
2,100
300
500
3,000
8,400
1,800
1,400
Cost/Vr.
85,700
47,300
23,700
35,900
$960,000
$362,500
$ 65,000
$494,000
$266,800
9. Miscellaneous Expense & Contingency
$192,600
$130,000
$ 65,000
$ 60,000
Exhibit 111-6, Page 1
-------
ANNUAL COST DATA
1 One-Time Expense (crf-6% - 20 Yr. = 0.08718)
Land Cost $960,000
Initial Site Development 362,500
Equipment Purchase 494,000
Hdqtrs. Bldg. 130,000
08718 x $1,946,500
2. Operating Expense
Site Moint & Development $ 65,000
Equip. M.O. & A 266,800
Labor 192,600
Agency Operation 65,000
Misc. & Contingency 60,000
3. Total Annual Cost
FIXED AND VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
Debt Expense
Annual Development
Equip. M. O. & A.
Labor
Agency Operation
Misc. & Contingency
Fixed Costs
$169,700
-
11,400
106,900
65,000
-
$353,000
Variable Costs
-
$ 65,000
255,400
85,700
-
60,000
$466,164
QUANTITIES FOR UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
1st Yr., 1970
4th Yr., 1973
UNIT AND TOTAL COST OF OPERATION
1
Ac. -Ft.
604
559
Tons
7537000
666,000
1st Yr. 1970 604 Ac. Ft. 723,000 Tons
Fixed Cost $353,000 f 604 Ac. Ft. =
Variable Cost 466,100 604 Ac. Ft. -
$819,100
$819,100- 723,000 Tons = $1.13Aon
4th Yr., 1973 559 Ac. Ft. 666,000 Tons
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost 559 Ac. Ft. x $770/Ac. Ft.
$585/Ac. Ft.
$770/Ac. Ft.
$l73557Ac. Ft.
$163,700
$649,400
$819,100
$783,400 - 559 Ac. Ft. $l,400/Ac. Ft.
$783,400-666,000 Tons = $1.18/Ton
BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
0.4 (169,700)
1. IslYr., 1970 $67,900 - 723,000 Tons =
2. 4th Yr., 1973 $67,900 - 666,000 Tons =
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS
Year Operation Cost
T975
1973
$1.13
$1.18
$0.11
SO.lO/Ton
$0.11 Aon
Total
Unit Cost
$A°"
$7753
$1.29
Exhibit 111-6, Page 2
-------
INDIVIDUAL SITE DATA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Refuse Accumulation nnd Land Requirements
1970 - 1st Year of Operation
Ac. -Ft. Fill Depth
Site 1 1800 30'
Site 3 7630 30'
Site 5 9780 24'
Totals 19,210
Tons of Refuse per Day, 1970/1995
Operation, Days/Week
Site 1 5
Site 3 6
Site 5 6
Initial Site Development and Costs
Scale Mouse, Equip. Bldg.
& Pers. Facilities
Scales
Scale Equip.
Watermain 7000'
Perim. Fence 42,000'
Entr. Fence 3,000'
Gravel
Grading
Landscaping
Yard Lighting
Apron Pavement
Miscellaneous
Equipment Cost and Distribution
Item
3 Track Loaders
2 Compacters
1 Grader
2 Water Trucks
1 Tractor/Mower
3 Pickup Trucks
1 Lowboy Trailer
1 Dump Truck
Miscellaneous
1 Dozer (Spare)
1 Wheel Loader (Spare)
Total Equipment Cost
Equipment Hours per Year
Item
Track Loader, 170FWHP
Track Loader, 275FWHP
Trock Loader, 275FWHP
Compocters, 400FWHP
Grader, 120FWHP
Water Trucks
Tractor/Mower
Lowboy Trailer
Dump Truck
Dozer, 125 FWHF (Spare)
Wheel Loader, 130FWHF (Spare)
Annual Operator Hours
Labor Hours per Year
Equip. Operator
Laborers
Foremen
Gatekeepers
Fill Area
60 Ac.
254 Ac.
407 Ac.
Tons Per D.
220/480
920/1440
1210/1760
Site 1
$20,000
—
—
10,000
3,500
2,000
2,000
8,000
6,000
2,000
10,000
3,000
S66,500
Site 1
$46,000
—
2,500
1,500
200
4,000
1,000
1,000
800
3,400
5,000
$65,400
xl.2
~72~Ac.
305 Ac.
489 Ac.
$.
Site 3
$30,000
18,000
10,000
10,000
7,500
2,000
6,000
20,000
10,000
4,000
10,000
6,000
$133,500
Site 3
$707000
74,000
10,000
6,500
800
4,000
2,500
5,000
3,200
14,600
16,000
$206,600
Purchase
80 Ac.
320 Ac.
480 Ac.
880 Ac.
SiteS
530,000
18,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
30,000
12,500
5,000
.10,000
10,000
$162,500
Site 5
$70,000
74,000
12,500
8,000
1,000
4,000
3,500
6,000
4,000
18,000
21,000
$222,000
Area
$494,000
Site 1
2,080
—
—
—
240
248
120
(10)
(10)
(20)
(20)
2,748
2,688
Site 1
27688
—
—
2,080
Site 3
—
3,744
—
2,496
800
1,000
400
(40)
(40)
(80)
(80)
8,680
8,440
Site 3
8,440
6,240
2,406
3,744
Site 5
—
—
3,744
2,496
1,040
1,248
520
(50)
(50)
(100)
(100)
9,348
9,048
Site 5
97048
8,320
2,406
3,744
20,776
20,176
Total
20,176
14,560
4,992
9,568
Exhibit 111-6, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT III - 7
COST ESTIMATE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SANITARY LANDFILL SITES 1, 3, 5, ond 7
8ASIC COST DATA
Land Costs
S.W. Site (1) 80 Ac. $1200/Ac. - $96,000
N.W. Site (3) 200 Ac.@ 1200/Ac.- 240,000
S.E.Site(5) 480 Ac. IS? 1000/Ac.- 480,000
N.E. Site (7) 160 Ac. (§• 1000/Ac.- 160,000
920 Ac.
Initial Site Development
S.W. Site(l) $ 66,500
N.W. Site (3) 122,000
S.E. Site (5) 162,000
N.E. Site (7) 112,000
Annual Maintenance ond Site Development
S.W. Site (I) $ 10,000
N.W. Site (3) 20,000
S.E. Site (5) 30,000
N.E. Site (7) 20,000
4. Equipment Purchose, One-Time Purchase Onjy^
5.^ Ea^uigrnent MQintenance, Operation & Amortization
Item
Track Loader
Track Loader
Dozers
Scrapers
Compactor
Grader
Water Trucks
Tractor Mower
Trailer
Dump Truck
Pickup Trucks
Miscellaneous
Dozer (Spare
Wheel Loader (Spare)
2,080
2,456
7,488
(2,496)
2,496
2,496
2,406
1,248
000)
(200)
—
—
(200)
(200)
20,800
9.00
7.00
CostAr.
$20,000
37,400
67,400
7,500
47,400
14,800
10,000
2,500
300
1,000
4,000
11,000
1,800
1,400
$976,000
$453,000
$ 80,000
$475,000
$227,300
Type
Equip. Operators
Laborers
Foremen
Gatekeepers
HrsAr.
20,800
16,640
7,488
13,312
Cost/Yr.
$88,400
54,100
35,600
49,900
$228,000
Headquarters ond Maintenance Bldg .
Office & Maintenance Building $80,000
Office & Maintenance Equipment 50,000
$130,000
8. Agency Operation
Salaries $51,000
Overhead 14.000
9. Miscellaneous Expense ond Contingencies
$ 65,000
$ 60,000
Exhibit 111-7, Poge 1
-------
ANNUAL COST DATA
1 One-Time Expense
(crf-6%-20 Yr. =0.98718)
Land Cost
Initial Site Development
Equipment Purchase
Headquarters Bldg.
Reoccurring Annual Expense
SiteMaint. & Development
Equip. M.O. & A.
Labor
Agency Operation
Misc. & Contingency
3. Total Annual Cost
FIXED AND VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
.08718
QUANTITIES FOR UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
IstYr., 1970
4th Yr., 1973
Ac.-Ft.
60?
559
$976,000
453,000
475,000
130,000
$2,034,000.
$ 80,000
277,300
228,000
65 i 000
60,000
Debt Expense
Annual Development
Equip. M.O. & A.
Labor
System Operation
Misc. & Contingency
Fixed Costs
$177,300
—
18,200
139,600
65,000
—
Variable Cost's
--.
S 80',000
209,100
88,400
—
60,000
$437,500
Tons
723,000
666,000
$177,300
$660,300
$837,600
UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
IstYr.,1970 604 Ac.Ft. 723,000 Tons
Fixed Cost $400,100 r 604 Ac.Ft. =
Variable Cost 437,500 r 604 Ac. Ft.
$837,600
4th Yr., 1973
Fixed Cost
Variable Cost
559 Ac. Ft. 666,000 Tons
559 Ac. Ft. x $725/Ac.Ft.
$805,400
'5805,400
559 Ac. Ft. =
666,000 Tons =
$l,440/Ao.Ft.
$1.21/Ton
BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
$400,100
405,300
$805,400
0.40 ($177,300)
IstYr., 1970 $71,000 - 723,, 000 Tons -
4th Yr., 1973 $71,000 r 666,000 Tons -
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS
$0.10Aon
$0.1 I/Ton
Year
T970
1973
Operation Cost
$/Ton
$1.16
1.21
Exhibit 111-7, Page 2
-------
INDIVIDUAL SITE DATA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Refuse Accumulation and Land Requirements
1970 - 1st Yr. of Operation
Ac. -Ft.* Fill Depth Fill Area xl
Site 1 TSBCT 301 60 Ac. 7:
Site 3 4350 30' 145 Ac. 17
SiteS 9770 24' 407 Ac. 48
Site 7 3290 24' 137 Ac. 16.
Totals 19,210
*Compacted and Seasonally Adjusted
Tons of Refuse Per Day, 1970/1995
Operation, Days/Week Tons Per Day**
Site 1 5
Site 3 6
Site 5 6
Site 7 6
"Seasonally Adjusted
.2 Purchase Area
2 Ac. 80 Ac.
4 Ac. 200 Ac.
9 Ac. 480 Ac.
5 Ac. 160 Ac.
920 Ac.
220/480
510/850
1210/1750
410/580
Initial Site Development and Costs
Item
Scale House, Equip. Bldg.
& Pers. Facilities
Scales
Scale Equip.
Watermoin
Perim. Fence
Entr. Fence
Gravel Surfacing
Grading
Landscaping
Area Lighting
Apron Pavement
Miscellaneous
Equipment! Cost and Distribution
Item
2 Track Loaders
2 Dozers
2 Scrapers
1 Compacter
1 Grader
2 Water Trucks
1 Tractor Mower
4 Pickup Trucks
1 Lowboy Trailer
1 Dump Truck
Miscellaneous
1 Dozer (Spare)
1 Wheel Loader (Spare)
Total Equipment Cost
Equipment Hours per Year
Item
Track Loader, 170FWHP
Track Loader, 275FWHP
Dozer, 125FWHP
Scraper, 18/26 C.Y.
Compacter, 400FWHP
Grader, 125FWHP
Water Truck
Tractor Mower
Trailer
Dump Truck
Dozer, 125FWHP (Spare)
Wheel Loader, 130FWHP (Spare)
Annual Equipment Operator Hours
Labor Hours Per Year
Type Site 1
Equip. Operators 2,452
Laborers
Foremen
Gatekeeper 2,080
Site 1
$20,000
—
10,000
3,500
2,000
2,000
8,000
6,000
2,000
10,000
3,000
$66,500
Site 1
$46,000
—
—
—
2,500
—
200
4,000
1,750
3,000
1,600
8,750
10,500
$78,300
$475,
Site 1
2,080
—
—
—
—
248
—
124
(25)
(50)
(50)
(50)
2,627
2,452
Site 3
5,118
4,160
2,496
3,744
Site3
$30,000
9,000
10,000
10,000
6,500
2,000
4,000
15,000
' 8,000
3,500
10,000
4,000
$112,000
Site 3
$35,000
25,000
—
5,000
4,000
400
4,000
1,750
3,000
2,200
8,750
10,500
$99,600
000
Site3
—
—
3,744
(1,248)
—
500
624
250
(25)
(50)
(50)
(50)
6,541
5,118
SiteS
57TT2
8,320
2,496
3,744
SiteS
$30,000
18,000
10,000
15,000
10,000
2,000
10,000
30,000
12,500
5,000
10,000'
10,000
$162,500
Site 5
$767300
—
—
74,000
12,500
8,000
1,000
4,000
1,750
3,000
4,000
8,750
10,500
$197,500
SiteS
—
2,496
—
—
2,496
1,248
1,248
624
(25)
(50)
(50)
(50)
8,287
8,112
Site 7
sTTTs
4,160
2,496
3,744
Site 7
$30,000
9,000
10,000
10,000
6,500
2,000
4,000
15,000
8,000
3,500
10,000
4,000
$112,000
Site 7
$35,000
25,000
—
5,000
4,000
400
4,000
1,750
3,000
2,200
8,750
10,500
$99,600
Site 7
—
—
3,744
(1,248)
—
500
624
250
(25)
(50)
(50)
(50)
6,541
5,118
Total
20,800
16,640
7,488
13,312
Exhibit 111-7, Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT III -8
COST ESTIMATE - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
E. POTTAWATTAMIE CO. LANDFILL SITE NO. 8
BASIC COST DATA
1. Land Cost
E. Pottawattamie Co. Site (8) 40 Ac. @> $500/Ac. $20,000
Initial Site Development
3.
4.
Equip. Bldg. &
Pers. Facilities
Watermain 1000'
Perim. Fence 4500'
Entr. Fence 800'
Gravel/Surfacing
Grading
Landscaping
Yard Lighting
Apron Pavement
Miscellaneous
Annual Site Mainten
Equipment Purchase
1 Track Loader
1 Pickup Truck
Miscellaneous
$10,000
5,000
2,300
1,600
900
3,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
1,200
ance & Development
$28,000
4,000
1,000
$29,000
$ 1,500
$33,000
5. Equipment Maintenance, Operation and Amortizofion
Item
Loader, 115FWHP
Grader, 125FWHP
Mower
Pickup Truck
Miscellaneous
Hrs/Yr.
1,560
200
100
Rate/Hr.
$7.00
5.50
2.00
Cost/Yr.
$10,900
l,10d
200
1,000
200
$13,400
Labor
Full Time 2,080 Hr. @ 4.25 $8,800
Part Time 300 Hr. @4.25 = 1,300 $10,100
7, Agency Hdqtrs. & Mo int. Bldg.
(130,000 x .08718 11,350)
oo tnn
; 11,350 400 $ 400
Agency Operations
28'2°° (65,000) ^ $ 2,600
>us & Contingency J 2,000
Exhibit 111-8, Page i
-------
ANNUAL COSTS
One-Time Expense
(crf-6%-20 Yr.) - .C
Land Cost
Initial Site Development
Equip. Purchase
2. Reoccurring Annual Expense
Site Maintenance & Development
Equip. M.O. 8, A.
Labor
Hdqtrs. Bldg.
Agency Operation
Miscellaneous & Contingency
3. Total Annual Costs
FIXED & VARIABLE ANNUAL COSTS
.08718
$20,000
29,000
33,000
82,000
$ 1,500
13,400
10,100
400
2,600
2,000
One-Time Expense
Annual Development
Equip. M.O. & A.
Labor
Hdqts. Bldg.
Agency Operation
Miscellaneous 5, Contingency
Fixed Costs
$7,200
—
2,500
1,300
400
2,600
$14,000
Variable Costs
—
$ 1,500
10,900
8,800
—
—
2,000
$23,200
QUANTITIES FOR UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
IstYr., 1970
4th Yr., 1973
UNIT AND TOTAL COSTS
1. IstYr., 1970 23.5 Ac. Ft.
Fixed Cost $ 14, 000 r- 23
Variable Cost 23,200 r 23.
$37,200
$38, 200 ^ 28, 200 Ton
2. 4th Yr., 1973 21 Ac. Ft.
Fixed Cost
Ac. -Ft.
2O
21.0
28,200 Tons
.5 Ac. Ft. =
5 Ac. Ft.
$1.36/Ton
25,000 Tons
Variable Cost 21 Ac. Ft. X $990/Ac. Ft.
$34,800 * 21 Ac. Ft.
34, 000 * 25, 000 Ton =
BOND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
0.4 (7200) = $1800
IstYr. 1, 800 f 28, 200 Ton
4th Yr. 1,8004. 25, 000 Ton
SUMMARY OF UNIT COSTS
Operation Cost
Year $/Ton
T770 $1.36
1973 1.39
$l,660/Ac. Ft.
$1.39/Ton
$0.07Aon
$0.08/Ton
Debt Service
Reserve Cost
$/ton
$0.07
0.08
Tons
28,200
25,000
$595/Ac. Ft.
990/Ac. Ft.
$l,58l7Ac. Ft.
$14,000
20,800
$34,800
Total
Unit Cost
$A°n
TT43"
1.47
$ 7,200
$30,000
$37,200
Exhibit 111-8, Page 2
-------
EXHIBIT IV -1 METHODS OF DETERMINING A FEE FOR REFUSE DISPOSAL
There are four methods, in common usage, that are used to determine the fees
collected for the use of disposal sites. Each method is basically an approach to
measuring the quantity of waste as delivered to the landfill site, so that a fee
schedule may be adopted which will produce sufficient revenue to support the dis-
posal operation. The four methods include:
1. Fees based on tonnage of actual waste;
2. Fees based on the gross vehicle weight;
3. Fees based on the gross volume of the hauling vehicle;
4. Fees based on the volume of actual waste.
All of these methods have advantages and disadvantages. The tonnage basis is
recommended as being the fairest, most accurate and most practical to operate.
This method has the greatest initial cost because a scale house and scales must
be installed. This cost has been estimated and is included in the landfill site
development costs presented in Part Three.
Each vehicle is weighed upon entering the. site and the gross weight of the vehicle
and load is automatically recorded on the scale mechanism and on a weight ticket.
Upon exiting the site, the empty or tare weight of the vehicle is recorded, on the
weigh ticket, the net weight of the refuse and the fee is determined and recorded
on the ticket automatically. The driver then pays the fee with a credit card, or uses
prepaid coupons or may pay in cash.
This method is accurate and convenient, and removes any individual judgment
determination by employees or drivers. In addition, an efficient method of record
keeping and billing is built into the system. The fee based on,tonnage of actual waste
is also reasonably fair. Where there is a inequity in the fee b.ased on tonnage,
either for the waste producer or the disposal facility operator, a special fee may
be determined for the class of material involved. The rate setting authority should
be empowered to adjust rates as required.
Determining the fee by gross vehicle weight or by gross volume of vehicle are
both similar in procedure and method. They have the advantage of not requiring
any initial investment. The inequities in these methods are great. As often as
not, the weight or capacity of the vehicle has no bearing on the actual amount of
r efuse hauled in the vehicle. Customers carrying small or pa.rtial loads are
penalized while those who overload their vehicles receive a premium. In order
to keep customer dissatisfaction to a minimum, a great deal of individual spot
adjustments and determinations must be made by the landfill attendant. This leads
to a general breakdown of cost and scheduling procedures. These methods are
considered satisfactory on an interim or short time basis, where it would not be
practical or economical to install scales.
Exhibit IV- 1, Page 1
-------
The method of determining fees by actual volume of the waste is
essentially a fair method, similar to the tonnage system, but it
too has possibilities of inequities. The volume occupied by a
given quantity of waste will vary with the type of material and how
it is precpmpacted or loaded. This method has the advantage of
not requiring scales and would be suitable at a location too small
to afford the expense of scales or for a temporary fee system.
43 9
Exhibit IV-1, Page 2
i! V. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : O - 424-632
-------
|